[abiss] hich he cannot long mainta

[Darling <mis...@mc...>]

Is, we have not real trust. But trusting it is irrational "to pick and
choose;" to say this we will accept and that we will reject, according
as it seems antecedently likely or not. Surely this must be also true of
divine testimony. If God, the perfect, the unerring intelligence,
speaks, we are at least to give Him the same respect we should show to a
fellow-man; we are not to say, "this is credible and I accept it; that
is strange, mysterious, and I must reject it." If we knew beforehand
what was true, to what end would God give the revelation? And if we do
thus sit in judgment, we simply show (unless we are dishonest) that we
do not believe that God has spoken. Hence, what is called the submission
of reason, which, in the large sense of the word, it is only rational to
give, if God has indeed given a message to the world. Protestants so
submit to the teachings of the Bible; Catholics do to the teachings of
the Church. If God really speaks in either, it is as rational to do so
as it is to trust Stanley's reports of the lakes and jungles, the weird
forests and strange inhabitants of Central Africa--yes, as much more so
as Stanley is a man, and God is God. Most simply and frankly does Newman
say, in speaking of early converts, "The Church was their teacher; they
did not come to argue, to examine, to pick and choose, but to accept
whatever was put before them." This attitude of arguing, examining,
picking, and choosing in re