Let this then suffice and render it needless to recur to similar
discussions. If any think themselves bound to interpret this and all
the other facts in these narratives in their most literal sense; if
they hold that the mere mention of such things by unknown writers in
unknown time--possibly centuries afterwards, when the event may have
become magnified by the refraction of tradition--is sufficient to
substantiate them, let them hold their own opinion as long as it can
satisfy them. But _proof_ of such an opinion they neither have nor
can have; and let them beware of priding themselves on the vaunt of
their "faith," when such "faith" may haply prove to be no more than a
distortion of the truer faith which proves all things and only holds
fast that which will stand the test. A belief based on some _a priori_
opinion about "verbal dictation" is not necessarily meritorious. It
may be quite the reverse. Such a dogma has never been laid down by the
Church in general. It has very rarely been insisted upon by any branch
of the Church in any age. A belief which prides itself on ignorance
of the vast horizon opened to us by the study of many forms of
literature, by the advance of criticism, by the science of comparative
religion--so far from being religious or spiritual may only be a sign
of ignorance, or of a defective love of truth. A dogmatism which heaps
upon intelligent faith burdens at once needless and intolerable may
spring from sources which should tend to self-humiliation rather than
to spiritual pride.[623] _Abundet quisque in sensu suo._ But such
beliefs have not the smallest connexion with true faith or sincere
Christianity. God is a God of truth, and he who tries to force himself
into a view which history and literature, no less than the faithful
following of the Divine light within him, convince him to be untenable,
does not rise into faith, but sins and does mischief by feebleness and
_lack_ of faith.[624]