not a matter for spinning phrases, for shifty tricks and shuffling, if there are no explicit citations in the Bible, there are errors. Will the learned theologian accept this second alternative?" And the critics claim the right to take into their hands the delicate and momentous task of determining, except in any case where the Church herself may have settled the question, when implicit citations are present: "These questions belong less to the theologian and the exegete than to the critics. and the philosophers, for they concern the rules of literary form and the general laws of discourse. When the critics and the philosophers will have pronounced their verdict, there will be nothing for the theologians to do but acquiesce in the decision, unless they mean to deny the assertion of Leo XIII. that the Scriptures address men in a human language." +

When discussing the legendary character of some parts of the Pentateuch, Father Lagrange, as I told you, states that the history of the fall is to be distinguished from the other histories and considered on a different plane. I need hardly tell you the reason of this discrimination. When the critic turns to this subject, he is in presence of a dogma of the Church. Such topics as Lot's wife and the Dead Sea marvels do not directly involve any dogmatic doctrine. Provided that the critic safeguards the doctrine of inspiration, he may, shod in his historical and linguistic learning, run over the whole of this field, inoffenso pede, in full liberty. But when he approaches the fall, from the burning bush comes the supernal voice bidding him put off the shoes from his feet, for the ground on which he treads is holy. Faithful to his duty and his professions, Father Lagrange remembers that where dogma is concerned the critic and the exegete must, before everything else, consult the Church's teaching and be guided by it. This is the specific difference, the fixed, ineradicable characteristic, which profoundly differentiates Catholic from rationalistic criticism, however frequently a careless or defective eye may fail to perceive it. So, Father Lagrange declares that he places by itself the history of original sin. "Not," he adds, * Ib., p. 56.

An able article in the Catholic University Bulletin, for January, from the pen of Professor Poels, a member of the Biblical Commission, advocating the views of Father Lagrange's school, concludes with the following words: "To weight Christianity with a view of biblical history which, when confronted with the facts, is at once seen to be refuted by them, is a responsibility which no Catholic would take upon himself if he realized it."

La Methode Historique, p. 217.

"that I desire to affirm that all the circumstances of the account are historic." For his opinion on this point he refers his reader to his article in the Revue Biblique (1897, p. 341). As he had, in the course of his exposition, shown purely oral tradition to have very limited powers for preserving, without distortion, through a long period of time, the memory of a fact, he warns his readers not therefore rashly to conclude that, in the present matter, he denies the power of tradition to have preserved the essential fact, for he believes it quite possible that tradition may have preserved the memory of a fall for thousands of years. "But," he proceeds,* "if we suppose, for argument's sake, dato, non concesso, that such a transmission was impossible, we have then to see whether original sin, which eludes any proof by history, is, or is not, part of revelation. It is part of revelation; this is certain. We must therefore conclude that it has been revealed." And he explicitly formulates his position: "I believe, then, in original sin, because of the declaration of the Church, I believe in it, according to the sense in which she understands it; but, this dogmatic point placed on one side and established. established on the immovable rock of revelation, there is no difficulty in the way. of assigning to primitive history its proper character, although this was not understood by the ancients."

Thus, while ready to appreciate the fruits of sound criticism, where criticism has a legitimate field, and looking to the infallible Church for direction in all that appertains to the unity of faith, our critics use the liberty which the Church accords, and, through the mouth of Leo XIII., exhorts them to exercise. They exercise it not in a spirit of wantonness, but with a sobriety befitting the sacred interests engaged, which they believe are to be best protected, to-day, by the withdrawal from circulation of a quantity of opinions that, after having long been accepted as legal tender, are now seriously depreciated. Who doubts that the process will but enhance the Church's own sterling gold, and place her credit beyond suspicion? If drafts drawn upon her have been dishonored, it can be shown that she never endorsed them.

I have dwelt on this matter in order to show you how misleading is the charge made by your friend, Professor M——, who, indeed, only repeats the words of countless others, "that the Church, from Galileo's time, has committed herself, all along

* lb., pp. 218, 219.

the line, to the veracity of the Bible as science and history." No infallible authority was compromised, we maintain, when the Inquisition declared that the theory of the earth's diurnal motion was heretical. No infallible voice ever confirmed the views of theologians, scripturists, prelates, or congregations, who taught that the Bible, from Genesis to Machabees is strictly historical, wherever it wears the appearance of history. To the instructed Catholic nowhere is there clearer evidence of the divine providence that watches over the Church than in the history of theology and biblical interpretation. When we observe that the entire world for hundreds of years accepted without a suspicion of the truth the ancient notions about the universe, and that they were woven, at a thousand points, into the network of theology; that, more than once, powerful interests strove for dogmatic confirmation of opinions that are now undermined; that councils and popes, in circumstances where the infallible prerogative was not in play, lent their names to views that have not stood the test of time; and yet, after all this age-long "clash of Yea and Nay," occurring often in an atmosphere charged with the fiercest domestic odium theologicum, the Church can still, with serene confidence, say to scientist and historian and critic: Which of you can convict me of error? When we remember all this we see the fulfilment of the unfailing promise.

Where, however, the Church has guarded silence theologians have often spoken in peremptory tones; only to provide, in the long run, demonstration that if the Church is infallible, men are not, however zealous and learned. The world at large, not having the knowledge necessary to distinguish between the infallible and the non-infallible magisterium, usually takes for granted that whatever is taught in the Church is taught authoritatively by the Church. Strangers learn, from oral exposition, or through books and publications, carrying more or less official approbation, that something or other is supposed to be Catholic doctrine. They may have had occasion to observe that some Catholic, who has ventured to controvert the point, is summarily dealt with by his superior. They understand how thorough is the organization of the Church, how great the vigilance exercised over doctrine; and they assume that the teaching in question carries the full sanction of the highest authority. All the while it may be but an opinion. It finally turns out to be incorrect, and the Church

is made to bear the obloquy. The business of showing that the Church had never sanctioned it is turned over to the next generation of apologists. Meanwhile, however, another telling fact is furnished to counsel for the prosecution in the case of SCIENCE versus CATHOLICISM. I shall show you easily that although sometimes attended by these disadvantages, the conservative spirit of theology, speaking generally, has been, not alone useful, but absolutely necessary. Meanwhile, however, we might with profit compare the past and present of some historically important opinion which exemplifies the process that has supplied our assailants with specious arguments against the Church. Let us take the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, or first five books of the Bible. We shall not go back to the days when criticism was in its cradle, when Bossuet, l'aigle de Meaux, swooped down upon old Richard Simon and tore him to pieces for daring to publish a "mass of impieties," one of which was the opinion that Moses was not the sole and exclusive author of the Pentateuch. By the year 1885 criticism had asserted itself. Through a long series of battles with science, over such questions as the formation of the earth, the age of man, and the universality of the deluge, theologians had learned, again and again, that "to fight involves the risk of being beaten "the expression is from Father Clarke, S.J., In that year, when Gladstone, in the name of orthodox Protestantism, was making a final and ineffectual stand, in England, for the scientific accuracy of Genesis, there appeared in France an elaborate defense of the Bible. The author, a learned member of an order devoted to the education of the clergy, professed to meet the critics of the Bible on their own ground. In the first volume of his work he announced that he would foil rationalism with its own weapons; he would, if the expression is not beneath the dignity of the subject, keep strictly to the rules of the game. "Betaking ourselves," so ran his challenge, "to the field of battle, we shall close with our adversaries, employing the same arms as they use to attack us. They appeal to criticism, to archæology, to history; we do the same. Our rule shall be to follow the most rigorously scientific method. We shall not invoke the authority of the Church, since we have to do with those who deny it. We shall study the text itself with all the resources that are at our Les Livres Saints et la Critique Rationaliste. Par F. Vigouroux. Tome I., p. 57

(Ed. 1890).

disposal, and we shall prove that, in spite of difficulties and obscurities, which are sometimes insoluble, from causes which we have indicated above, there is not a single objection solidly established against the Bible and capable of casting doubt on its divine origin." The work was hailed with joy. The author was thanked for having so victoriously accomplished the task he had undertaken. The bishop who gave the necessary imprimatur declared that it demonstrated how every new discovery but bore fresh testimony to the veracity of everything related by the sacred authors. Furthermore, he affirmed that the work, "sérieuse et harmonique avec les vraies données de la science," reduced the whole vain structure of criticism, English, German, and French, to a heap of ruins. The highest honors had frequently been conferred for apologetic services much less esteemed. But the rules of his congregation-in harmony with his own character-forbade any of its members to accept ecclesiastical dignities. He acquired, however, a prestige and an academic authority which has imposed the necessity of exercising extreme prudence and circumspection on later writers who do not see eye to eye with him in many problems.

Now, the very first thesis that the author undertakes to establish is that, with the exception of the account of the patriarch's own funeral, and a very few other absolutely insignificant trifles, Moses wrote the Pentateuch, "dans sa substance et dans sa totalité." Then the two hundred odd pages which contain the proof are ushered in with the strongest assurance that the question is a capital one: "The Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch is the foundation on which stands the whole biblical edifice, and, consequently, the Jewish and the Christian religion." To give it up, the author says in an amplified way, would be to abandon the entire reasonable basis of our faith at the bidding of rationalism. Christian tradition, so runs the proof, all the Fathers and all the doctors, all Catholic commentators in all ages, the Council of Trent, the Church, and our Lord himself, all testify in unmistakable terms that Moses is the author of the Pentateuch." The work passed as a satisfactory, accurate exposition of Catholic teaching; for nobody rose then to protest that the question of the Mosaic authorship is of no such vital importance to Christianity; a non-Catholic consulting it would assume that in it he had the teaching of the Church; and if he should afterwards find

VOL. LXXXI.-6