of these testimonies, and by the collection of the books so attested, formed the canon, in which it recognised the revelation it had already received, and spread throughout the world, before the canon was collected. The Scripture corresponded with this great Original, as the Tabernacle corresponded afterwards, with the Pattern which was shown to Moses in the Mount. The Church is the sole judge of the intrinsic authenticity, and alone knows the handwriting of the Author of the Sacred Books, and the autograph of the Spirit of God.

The next observation to be made is, that although, by the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the Church both knows, and at all times can declare with divine certainty, the doctrine of faith and morals committed to its charge; and although it can also declare, and has declared with divine certainty, the existence of Holy Scripture, the catalogue or canon of the Sacred Books, the inspiration of the writers-their immunity, and therefore the immunity of their writings, from all falsehood or error,-nevertheless, it has hitherto only declared the Vulgate to be authentic, and that, as I have already shown, with the relative or respective authenticity, which does not exclude the errors of translators or transcribers. It has never as yet declared any text to possess immunity from the errors of translations or transcriptions, nor that transcribers or translators are exempt from the liability to err.

The custody of the faith resides in the sphere of the Divine illumination, which pervades the Church with its active and passive infallibility. The custody of the material documents of Holy Scripture resides in the office of the Church, as a Divine witness to the facts of its own history, and of the Divine gifts committed to its trust. The Scriptures were indeed written by an impulse and assistance of God, and as such, are Divine endowments to the Church; but the material volumes, the manuscripts or parchments, were not a part of the deposit, like the Divine truths revealed to the Apostles, nor like the holy sacraments divinely instituted by Jesus Christ.

It follows from what has been said,

1. That whensoever the text can be undoubtedly established, the supposition of error as to the contents of that text cannot be admitted: but,

2. That wheresoever the text may be uncertain, in those parts error may be present.

But this would be not error in Scripture, but in the transcription or translation of the Scripture, and would be due, not to the inspired writer, but to the translator or transcriber.

That such a supposition may be entertained, is evident from the fact that the variations in the versions are stated by some writers at 30,000, by others at 40,000, by others at 100,000. That variations existed already in S. Augustine's time is evident

from his answer to Faustus the Manichæan, to whom he says, 'If any thing absurd be alleged to be there (i. e. in Holy Scripture), no man may say, The author of this book did not hold the truth. But (he must say), either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator was in error, or you do not understand it." In these words S. Augustine has provided an answer for our days as well as for his own. It would seem that these three suppositions suffice to cover the difficulties alleged against the historical character and intrinsic credibility of Holy Scripture.

1. First, it is evident that Holy Scripture does not contain a revelation of what are called physical sciences; and that when they are spoken of, the language is that of sense, not of science, and of popular, not of technical usage.

2. Secondly, no system of chronology is laid down in the Sacred Books. There are at least three chronologies, probable and admissible, apparently given by Holy Scripture. It cannot be said, therefore, that there are chronological faults in Holy Scripture, forasmuch as no ascertained chronology is there declared.

3. Thirdly, historical narratives may appear incredible and yet be true; and may seem irreconcilable with other history, and yet the difficulty may arise simply from our want of adequate knowledge.

1 S. Aug. Contra Faustum, lib. xi. c. 5, tom. viii. p. 222.

A history may seem improbable, and yet be fact after all.

The most certain and exact sciences have residual difficulties which resist all tests, and refuse all solution. The sciences most within our reach, of the natural order, and capable of demonstration, not only have their limits, but also phenomena which we cannot reconcile. How much more Revelation, which reaches into a world of which eternity and infinity are conditions, and belongs to an order above nature and the reason of man! It is no wonder that in the sphere of supernatural science there should be residual difficulties, such as the origin of evil, the freedom of the will, the eternity of punishment. They lie upon the frontier, beyond which, in this world, we shall never pass. Again, what wonder that the Holy Scriptures should contain difficulties which yield to no criticism, and that not only in the sphere of supernatural truth, but also of the natural order that is, of history, chronology, and the like! To hear some men talk, one would suppose that they were eye-witnesses of the creation, observers of the earth's surface before and after the Flood, companions of the patriarchs, chroniclers of the Jewish race. The history of the world for four thousand years, written in mere outline, with intervals of unmarked duration―genealogies which cannot be verified by any other record, events which are the άñas λɛуóμeva

of history-may well present difficulties, and apparent improbabilities upon the surface, and yet after all be true. The same historical event, viewed from different sides, will present aspects so different, that the records of it may be apparently irreconcilable; and yet some one fact or event not preserved in the record would solve and harmonise all. It may be from 'intellectual obtuseness,' or 'want of the critical faculty,' or 'obstinate adherence to preconceived belief,' but it makes little impression on me to be told that S. Stephen, in Acts vii. 16, fell into an historical error in saying that Jacob was buried in Sichem. I confess that I cannot explain the difficulty, and that the explanations usually given, though possible and even probable, are hardly sufficient. Nevertheless, I am not shaken in the least as to the divine axiom, that Holy Scripture is exempt from all error. Whether it be a fault in the manuscript, or in the translator, or only a want of our understanding, I cannot tell; but an error in Scripture most assuredly it is not, and our inability to solve it, is no proof that it is. There it stands, an undoubted difficulty in the existing text-and not the only one; and yet all together will not shake our faith in the immunity from error which was granted to the sacred writers.

Nor, again, when we read in one place that King Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses, in another 40,000; nor that king Josias began to reign at eight