Page:SermonsFromTheLatins.djvu/284

 "But," says  our  rationalist,  "  reason  could  master, at  least,  some  of  these  truths,  such  as  the existence  of  God,  the  necessity  of  divine  worship, the  fact  of  an  hereafter,"  etc.  Still,  we  say,  it  was necessary for  God  to  reveal  even  these,  else  see  what would happen. Every child  on  attaining  the  use  of reason  would  be  bound,  under  pain  of  mortal  sin,  to begin  the  independent  study  of  these  extremely  difficult truths;  and  whether  mentally  qualified  or  not, whether his  parents  could  afford  the  expense  or  not, he would  be  obliged  to  study  and  study  for  years  and years until  he  had  thoroughly  mastered  them. Is such a life  consistent  with  youthful  levity? Where would be the  time  for  secular  education? Would not  God be a  tyrant  to  command  such  impossibilities? Again, even supposing  all  could  afford  to  spend  the  best years of  their  lives  in  acquiring  the  knowledge  of God  and  of  natural  religion,  with  what  certainty would they  cling  to  the  knowledge  acquired;  with what zeal  reduce  it  to  practice? If reason  errs,  as  it does,  in  simple  matters,  how  much  more  liable  is  it  to err  in  these  loftier  truths! And because  these  truths are hard,  therefore,  does  reason  sometimes  lead  me to  one  conclusion  and  my  neighbor  to  another  directly opposite. Now I  am  bound  to  accept  the  conclusions of  reason — but  which,  my  own  or  my  neighbor's? Here,  then,  we  would  be,  after  all  our  years of study,  as  much  in  darkness  and  doubt  as  at  the  beginning. Nor is  this  all  mere  fiction — it  is  fact. Take, for  example,  the  Roman  Empire  of  long  ago. The Romans  had  no  revelation,  and  see  where  reason