the Pentateuch as parts of one continuous work, the arrangement no less than the authorship of which he assigns to Moses. In that case, he remarks, the hymn contained in the first chapter of Genesis forms a fitting poetic prologue to the whole work, and the thirty-second chapter of Deuteronomy is its poetic epilogue. There is force in this remark, and I certainly think that the learned professor is right in claiming for the hymn a more intimate connection with the rest of Genesis than I had ascribed to it in my essay. It is a composition complete in itself, and was probably written and in use before the history was begun, but it was prefixed to the history by the author himself, as a fitting prologue to the work of which it henceforward formed an integral portion.

A critic has expressed astonishment that any Catholic should call in question the fact of the first chapter of Genesis forming an integral portion of that book, in opposition to what he considers to be the express declaration of the Council of Trent. But if he had carefully attended to the words of the Council, he would have seen that his astonishment was not well grounded. The Council declares that the five books of Moses, with all their parts, as they are contained in the ancient Latin Vulgate edition, are to be accepted as sacred and canonical: and so they are accepted by every Catholic. But it does not declare that every portion of those books, as they now stand in the Latin Vulgate, formed part of the same books as they originally came forth from the hand of the author. It is not an article of Catholic faith that Moses wrote the account of his own death and burial. The thirty-fourth chapter of Deuteronomy, in which these facts are recorded, is acknowledged to have been added to the original book of Moses by a later hand. But, whoever was the writer and whatever the date at which the addition was made, Catholics accept that chapter as sacred and canonical, because it forms part of the book of Deuteronomy as contained in the old Latin Vulgate, every portion of which the Sacred Council has declared to be sacred and canonical. In like manner, the first chapter of Genesis, as contained in the Vulgate, is undoubtedly sacred and canonical. But whether Moses originally wrote it as a portion of that book, or as an independent composition, which was afterwards prefixed to the book, is a question which may be mooted salva fide.

I think I have said enough regarding the proof brought forward in support of my first two propositions, from which I have drawn the conclusion that the interpretation given by me does no violence to the words of Moses, and therefore may possibly be the true one. As for the large body of evidence which I have brought forward in the essay to show that the proposed interpretation harmonizes in a perfect way with all that we

know of Moses, his office, his mission, his learning, the times in which he lived, and the people with whom he dealt, it has been simply ignored by those who have assailed the essay. Yet it is on this evidence the value of the proposed interpretation mainly depends. For, if it be granted that a given interpretation may be true, what stronger proof can be adduced that it is the actual meaning intended by the author than to show the perfect harmony of such an interpretation with all the author's surroundings? Such proof is indirect in its nature, but it gains force from that very circumstance, provided the harmony be established on a sufficiently wide scale. Assuredly the proofs set forth in the essay to show the harmony between the proposed interpretation and the surroundings of the author are such as cannot be adduced in favour of any other interpretation.

There are some subordinate statements in the essay (writes the correspondent "M.") that require confirmation; one is the following: "A day means the space of twenty-four hours in this as in other portions of the writings of the same author." The Bishop's argument requires that the premiss shall be accepted as a universal affirmative; but this is simply irreconcileable with such a text, for instance, as Genesis ii. 4:-" In the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth," &c.

The words in the essay are not used as a premiss to an argument, but occur in the summing up at the close of the essay. All that they are intended to imply is that, when Moses speaks of the six days, he is speaking of days of twenty-four hours, in the ordinary sense of the word, and not of indefinite periods of time, as the advocates of the "period" theory maintain. There is no intention to deny either that the word "day" in Genesis ii. 4, is taken in the wider sense of time (as when we speak of the "day of sorrow" and the "day of joy"); or that in Genesis i. 5, it is taken in the more restricted sense of that portion of the day which is illumed by the light of the sun. There was no reason why I should enter into these details in the summing up of the essay. These are uses of a word which are readily understood; but they give no support to the "period" theory, which assumes that throughout the first chapter of Genesis the definite statements of Moses concerning the six days may be understood in the same indefinite sense as in chap. ii. 5. For questions of this kind we must be guided by the usages of mankind.

If I speak of" the day when the wild Northman ravaged the coasts of England," everybody understands what I mean; nor would anybody suppose me to imply that the period of devastation was limited to twenty-four hours any more than that the havoc

was done by a single Northman. But if I were to state that four days elapsed between the landing of Julius Cæsar on the coast of Britain and the landing of William the Conqueror; that the Romans held Britain one day; that on their departure the Saxons got possession and held it from morning to evening of the second day; that from morning till evening of the third day it was held by the Danes; that on the fourth day the Saxons again got possession, till, finally, on the fifth day the Normans conquered the country and held it—such language would be judged to be contrary to all established usage; nor could it be justified on the ground that the word "day," as everybody admits, may sometimes be used in the indefinite sense of a period of time.

The essay in the DUBLIN REVIEW has caused alarm in the minds of some of its critics. They regard it as truckling to "modern theories." So long as Catholic writers, treating on subjects which come within the limits or touch on the boundaries. both of revealed truth and of scientific research, are careful to keep themselves informed of what has been decided in such matters by the authority of the Church, and what has been left open to inquiry by the same divinely appointed guide; so long as they do not advance their opinions on such grave matters rashly and impertinently, but show grave and probable reasons in support of their views; so long as they do not dogmatize or offend against charity; and so long as they unreservedly admit that on these, as on all other questions, it belongs to the Church to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures, the discussion of such questions in a scientific Catholic Review can give no just cause for alarm. There would be far more reason for alarm if Catholic students and Catholic writers showed apathy or contempt of what are in truth among the burning religious questions of the day. Many of the questions which have agitated the Church in former times, and which still remain of deep interest to theologians, attract but little notice from the present generation of mankind. The wonderful discoveries of modern science, on the other hand, possess an immense fascination for all thoughtful minds, both old and young. The conclusions at which scientific men have arrived, concerning the early stages of our globe and of our race, have undoubtedly the appearance, in more instances than one, of being irreconcileable with what we find recorded in Holy Scripture on these same subjects. These apparent contradictions are a real stumbling-block in the path of many believers, as well as of sincere inquirers after religious truth. It is the office of the apologist to strengthen the faith of the former and to aid the researches of the latter. Difficulties are not removed and faith is not strengthened by a few flippant sneers directed against scientific men, or by a few platitudes about the liability

of all men to err. Instead of strengthening the faith of waverers, such treatment disgusts and repels men who have made themselves acquainted in any degree with the conscientious and patient researches on which scientific men ground their facts and' theories. The only way in which the apologists of Revelation' can expect successfully to meet those theories is either by pointing out the fallacies, where fallacies exist, in the arguments of scientific men, or by explaining how it is that the statements of science and of Holy Scripture are not really at variance with each other. It is not to be expected of the Christian Apologist that he should be able to give a full and satisfactory solution of every new difficulty as it arises, any more than that the man of science should be able to assign at once the vera causa of what he does not hesitate to accept as an undoubted fact. Both are often obliged to be content at first with a tentative solution of the difficulty, and it frequently happens that only after many failures the real solution is arrived at. Hence the advantage of putting forward theories such as the one propounded in the late essay in the DUBLIN REVIEW. Each new suggestion, if supported by reasonable arguments, even if ultimately it be found untenable, tends to further the cause of harmony and truth. The novelty of the theory is no argument against its truth. If the explanations hitherto given of the first chapter of Genesis prove to be unsatisfactory (and no one of them has so far met with general acceptance), it stands to reason that the true explanation, whenever it shall be forthcoming, must be to some extent a new one. The writings of the Fathers of the Church can only afford us limited aid in researches of this kind. The objections we have to meet had no existence in their days; for they are founded on discoveries which, for the most part, do not date further back than half a century. The Fathers and the Scholastics met scientific objections with arguments drawn from the science of their days. It would be unreasonable to regard as satisfactory solutions of the problems of to-day answers which were framed to meet problems of an entirely different nature. New objections require new answers. "New wine they put into new bottles" (Matt. ix. 17), and "Every scribe instructd in the Kingdom of Heaven is like to a man that is a householder, who bringeth forth from his treasury new things and old" (Matt. xiii. 52).

WILLIAM CLIFFORD, Bishop of Clifton.

CONSTITUTION OF POPE LEO XIII.

REGARDING THE BISHOPS AND REGULAR MISSIONARIES IN ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND.

R

OMANOS Pontifices Decessores Nostros paterno semper caritatis affectu inclytam Anglorum gentem fovisse, et monumentis suis testatur historia, et felicis recordationis Piux IX., in Litteris Universalis Ecclesia iii kalend. Octobris anno Incarnationis Dominicae MDCCCL. datis, graviter ac diserte demonstravit. Quum autem per eas Litteras episcopalem hierarchiam idem Pontifex inter Anglos restitueret, cumulavit quodammodo, quantum temporum ratio sinebat, ea benefacta quibus Apostolica Sedes nationem illam fuerat prosequuta. Ex dioecesium enim restitutione pars illa dominici gregis ad nuptias Agni caelestis iam vocata, ac mystico Eius corpori sociata, pleniorem veritatis atque ordinis firmitatem per Episcoporum gubernationem et regimen rursus adepta est. Episcopi quippe, inquit S. Irenaeus,* successionem habent ab Apostolis, qui cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum, secundum placitum Patris, acceperunt; atque inde fit, quemadmodum S. Cyprianus monett, ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur, et omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem Praepositos gubernetur..

Huic sane sapienti consilio mirifice respondit eventus; plura nimirum Concilia provincialia celebrata, quae saluberrimis legibus religiosa dioecesium negotia ordinarunt: latius propagata in dies catholica fides, et complures nobilitate generis et doctrina praestantes ad unitatem Ecclesiae revocati: clerus admodum auctus: auctae pariter religiosae domus, non modo ex regularibus ordinibus, sed ex iis etiam recentioribus institutis, quae moderandis adolescentium moribus, vel caritatis operibus exercendis optime de re christiana et civili societate meruerunt: constituta pia laicorum sodalitia: novae missiones novaeque Ecclesiae quamplures erectae, nobili instructu divites, egregio cuitu decorae; permulta etiam item condita orphanis alendis hospitia, seminaria, collegia et scholae, in quibus pueri et adolescentes frequentissimi ad pietatem ac litteras instituuntur.

Cuius quidem rei laus non exigua tribuenda est Britannicae gentis ingenio, quod prout constans et invictum est contra vim adversam, ita veritatis et rationis voce facile flectitur, ut proinde vere de ipsis Epist. 29 ad lapsos.

* Adv. haer. lib. IV., cap. 26, n. 2.