LETTER ON THE DEFINITION OF FAITH

CHARLESTON, S. C., Mar. 31, 1825.

To the Right Reverend Dr. David, Bishop of Mauricastro, Coadjutor to the Bishop of Bardstown, and so forth.

Right Reverend and Dear Sir:-The letter written by you to the editors of the Miscellany, dated 11th of February, 1825, Bardstown, has been given to me by the publishers of that work, after they had taken from it those directions which regarded themselves. The following passage arrested my attention:-"I shall, however, take the liberty to remark, that the definition of faith, in No. 6, page 90, Vol. iii. [Sup. 355.] 'Faith is the sincere disposition to believe all that God has taught,' does not appear to me theologically accurate. For it seems to me that this disposition can be in one who as yet knows nothing of the revealed truths, and who consequently has no faith. The definition of St. Paul, Heb. xi., implies the knowledge of the things we hope for, and the conviction of the things that are not seen."

This passage, sir, was written by me, and I find, upon reading your letter, that it is at least liable to misconception. 1 Perhaps, strictly speaking, it is theologically inaccurate. Nothing can be of greater importance; nothing more clearly your duty and mine, than in the language of doctrine to preserve the strictest accuracy. Allow me then to thank you for your remark, and to subscribe to the truth of your observation.

In the essay in which the passage is found, my object was to examine the moral criminality or innocence of a person, who was invincibly ignorant of the truth; and the inaccuracy of my expression arose from my not clearly expressing the distinction between the disposition to believe and the actual belief. Actual faith is posi

The word "Faith" is often used indiscriminately. In its use for religious discussion the necessity of distinguishing must be kept closely in view. The Vatican Council teaches that divine Faith which is the beginning of man's salvation, is a supernatural virtue, whereby, inspired and assisted by the grace of God, we believe that the things which He has revealed are true; not because of the intrinsic truth of the things, viewed by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, and Who can neither be deceived, nor deceive."

-ED.

tive belief upon the testimony of God. It is not by faith we believe what reason exhibits to us as true: if reason exhibits truth, any farther evidence would be superfluous. We pay no homage to God by assenting to what is manifest to ourselves. The homage of faith consists in the recognition of God's superior knowledge, and of our obligation to believe what he knows and teaches, but which surpasses our comprehension; and this belief is founded upon our certainty that God cannot deceive us, that he cannot say that which is not the fact. When, therefore, I know that God has revealed any doctrine, I never attempt to test its truth or its falsehood by the criterion of my reason, for this would be to examine whether what God has revealed is true: this would be making my reason, and not the divine word, the criterion of truth. He, therefore, who knows that the Lord has revealed a doctrine which is above man's comprehension, and believes it upon the authority of God, has faith, provided he is disposed to believe in like manner every doctrine so revealed. But if, amongst such doctrines he should make selections, and receive some because he. thinks them more rational than others, and reject those which he conceives to be not so rational, then he places his reason upon a tribunal to decide regarding the truth or falsehood, or rather the probability or improbability of those doctrines which have been revealed. His opinions are founded upon the decisions of his judge, to which he has subImitted the doctrines. This is not faith: for although some of the revealed doctrines might have been received, others are rejected; and belief is founded upon the authority of him who revealed, but upon the opinion of the judge who made the selection.

Suppose even, by accident, that this man's reason should decide [that] all these doctrines are certainly true, or, he finds their truth to be extremely probable, and upon this ground he receives them; this is not faith, for the foundation of faith is the authority of God-but here the foundation is the authority of human opinion. Thus, the actual belief of all the doctrines might not be faith. Faith must be belief founded upon the divine authority, not upon human opinion. The disposition to believe all that God has taught, is not actual faith, but it is the preparation for faith. When the fact is then adduced, that God revealed certain doctrines, the mind examines evidence for the truth of the fact, to decide the question. "Did God reveal this doctrine?" If the evidence is sufficient to establish the fact that he did make the revelation, the person who has the sincere disposition will immediately believe without previously submitting the doctrine itself to the tribunal of reason; being perfectly satisfied that if God revealed

it, it must be true, and knowing that human reason might err, but God cannot deceive.

Hence it is clear that between persons who hold our principle of faith, there can be no division, particularly in those circumstances which exist in our church, where there is a perpetual and manifest tribunal to testify the fact, that God did reveal certain doctrines, that he did not reveal other doctrines. It is also very clear that unity cannot be expected amongst even the best informed persons who make the approbation of their private reason a prerequisite to the belief of any doctrine, because their opinions differ as much as countenances do, and are perpetually changing in a greater or less degree in even the same individual, so that from the declarations this day, you cannot with certainty tell what will be their belief twelve months hence. This is not unchanging faith: it is fluctuating opinion. It would exhibit God revealing as many systems of doctrine as there are individuals, and contradicting his own declarations as frequently as you would find those individuals contradicting each other. It would ultimately lead to the conclusion, that in religion we can have no certainty of truth, it would make divine faith, nothing more than human opinion, and inevitably produce perfect indifference as to [the] truth or falsehood of revealed doctrines. Revelation in this case becomes altogether useless, and faith no longer would be found, for men always abandon belief when they can find no certainty.

Allow me to thank you again for drawing my attention to that distinction which I overlooked, and to amend my definition by taking in its stead, that which has the sanction of at least eighteen centuries. Faith is the belief upon God's authority, of those doctrines which he has revealed. All those doctrines might not be known to the believer, but it is sufficient for him to believe those which are exhibited to him, provided he has the sincere disposition of believing every other doctrine which God has revealed, as soon as it shall be also exhibited to him. The person who is invincibly ignorant of the truth might have this disposition, and where the disposition exists, the moral crime of infidelity is not.

But I fear, Right Reverend Sir, that this disposition is not so general, as charity would desire. However, we cannot inspect the minds of our fellow-mortals. It would be rash and presumptuous for us to pronounce upon the state of individuals. To God they stand or fall he will decide their fate and ours. Let us then hope for more than our fears would suggest. The general principle is undoubtedly true. Without faith, it is impossible to please God. May that God, in

whose hands are the hearts of men, mould them into faith, and fill them with charity, is a prayer in which I know, Right Reverend Sir, you sincerely join with,

Your brother in Christ,

JOHN, Bishop of Charleston.

LETTERS ON POLITICAL MEASURES ABOUT IRELAND

Addressed to Daniel O'Connell

[The ensuing series of letters was addressed to Mr. O'Connell by Bishop England, to expostulate with him on his yielding his support to certain measures proposed in connexion with the Act of Catholic Emancipation; one of which was the disfranchisement of the forty shilling freeholders of Ireland; the other, the pensioning of the Catholic priesthood by the crown. The letters were published in the United States Catholic Miscellany, for 1825.]

LETTER I

To Daniel O'Connell, Esq.

CHARLESTON, S. C., July 8, 1825.

My Dear Friend:-I have waited until the account of the failure of your hopes reached me. Having now ascertained that the British House of Lords has rejected the Emancipation Bill, I address myself to you. To you who know so well my convictions and sentiments, upon the great question of your rights, it will be subject of little wonder to learn, that I have been more gratified at the failure of this bill, than I would have been at its success. I believe you differ with me in the conclusion, although I have no doubt we agree in principle. My object in thus publicly addressing you, is to show to those who may read what I publish, in what we differ, and where I conceive you have greatly mistaken, or where I am very much in error. As regards me, placed where I now am my views, my opinions, and my acts regarding my native country are matter of no moment, yet still I will not yield to you in love of Ireland. Not so with you; every thought, opinion, or act of yours, is important, has great influence, and in a certain crisis, might determine the fate of Erin. When I address you then, I have in view to rouse you, by our former ties and still subsisting friendship, to examine carefully which of us is wrong; when I call upon you thus publicly it is to induce some of our former fellowlabourers, from whose memory my name is perhaps not yet obliterated, to guard their judgments against the influence of your name, which they would be ungrateful if they did not revere. But though you are my friend and their benefactor, your judgment is not infallible. And