5.  It seems, according to what I have just said, that there is often some confusion in the expressions of those who set at variance philosophy and theology, or faith and reason:  they confuse the terms ‘explain’, ‘comprehend’, ‘prove’, ‘uphold’.  And I find that M. Bayle, shrewd as he is, is not always free from this confusion.  Mysteries may be explained sufficiently to justify belief in them; but one cannot comprehend them, nor give understanding of how they come to pass.  Thus even in natural philosophy we explain up to a certain point sundry perceptible qualities, but in an imperfect manner, for we do not comprehend them.  Nor is it possible for us, either, to prove Mysteries by reason; for all that which can be proved a priori, or by pure reason, can be comprehended.  All that remains for us then, after having believed in the Mysteries by reason of the proofs of the truth of religion (which are called ’motives of credibility’) is to be able to uphold them against objections.  Without that our belief in them would have no firm foundation; for all that which can be refuted in a sound and conclusive manner cannot but be false.  And such proofs of the truth of religion as can give only a moral certainty would be balanced and even outweighed by such objections as would give an absolute certainty, provided they were convincing and altogether conclusive.  This little might suffice me to remove the difficulties concerning the use of reason and philosophy in relation to religion if one had not to deal all too often with prejudiced persons.  But as the subject is important and it has fallen into a state of confusion, it will be well to take it in greater detail.

6.  The question of the conformity of faith with reason has always been a great problem.  In the primitive Church the ablest Christian authors adapted themselves to the ideas of the Platonists, which were the most acceptable to them, and were at that time most generally in favour.  Little by little Aristotle took the place of Plato, when the taste for systems began to prevail, and when theology itself became more systematic, owing to the decisions of the General Councils, which provided precise and positive formularies.  St. Augustine, Boethius and Cassiodorus in the West, and [77] St. John of Damascus in the East contributed most towards reducing theology to scientific form, not to mention Bede, Alcuin, St. Anselm and some other theologians versed in philosophy.  Finally came the Schoolmen.  The leisure of the cloisters giving full scope for speculation, which was assisted by Aristotle’s philosophy translated from the Arabic, there was formed at last a compound of theology and philosophy wherein most of the questions arose from the trouble that was taken to reconcile faith with reason.  But this had not met with the full success hoped for, because theology had been much corrupted by the unhappiness of the times, by ignorance and obstinacy.  Moreover,