dent of the Church. But it is to be observed, that in this point of view it does not exist as the Bible, that is, as a book of Divine authority. It is regarded merely as a book of credible history. In the latter point of view alone is it a book possessing Divine authority. But then, in this point of view, it is neither antecedent to nor independent of the Church: it is the production of the Church. The Church, in fact, creates the Bible; for not only is the Bible actually written by members of the Church, but whatever Divine authority it possesses it derives from the Church. It is only in virtue of their office in the Church as teachers, and the acceptance of their teaching by the Church, that the writers have Divine authority. Were either of these conditions removed, the writers would have merely human authority. To understand this, we must bear in mind that in the Catholic Theology the Church, and the Church alone, is the interpreter of the supernatural facts on which the Faith is grounded. For this she has a twofold gift-first, the oral instruction of the Lord; and, secondly, the gift of the Spirit, to guide her into all truth. The first gives the objective basis; the second the internal faculty for the attainment of the truth. And it is only as the embodiment of these two helps that the Bible attains its position and significance in the Catholic Theology. It is the voice of the Spirit uttered through the Church, when the oral teaching of her Lord was fresh in her memory.

It is to be remarked that we are here treating the matter, simply, in an apologetic point of view. Were we looking at the Bible in its theological aspect, we should find higher ground on which to rest it. In the doctrine of Charismata, or special gifts imparted to members of the Church, we should arrive at the special gift of Inspiration. But this is not a question for apology; it is one which can only be raised on Theological ground after the Faith has been established. It is, however, to be remarked that this higher view of the Bible only makes it more dependent on the Church for its existence. It is only as members of the Mystical Body that such special gifts can be possessed, and they are only credible when the Church's existence and Divine life have been presupposed.

If we turn now to the Calvinistic Theology, we shall see that this mutual relation of Church and Bible is essentially altered. In truth, the Covenant idea is the destruction of the Church; for religion being simply a promise of eternal life in Christ, and its acceptance on man's part, the office and work of the Church are practically abolished. There is no need of a Divine organization to mediate such a religion. All that is needed is a revelation from God, in which the terms and conditions of the Covenant shall be clearly laid down, and man can, without any

external help, by the simple aid of the Spirit, appropriate the promises. The Bible is conceived as such a revelation: it is believed that, at various times, God has selected individuals from among men, and has made them the instruments whereby His Spirit has dictated the terms of the Covenant. Hence, as the Bible is the only thing needed for the salvation of man, the Visible Church is completely set aside. In truth, the common saying is pointedly and completely verified- The Bible, and the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants.' We do not, indeed, say that in the Calvinistic system there is no Church idea, but only that, in an apologetic point of view, it is the same as nonexistent. Calvinists do conceive a Catholic or Universal Church, but it is thought of as invisible. It is made up of the Elect, the body of true believers gathered from the whole world, and known only to God. Hence it must be obvious that, as a witness to Divine truth parallel with the Bible, it must be entirely inoperative. It has neither speech nor language; it is impalpable to any sense; and, for any testimony it can bring, might as well have no existence. In like manner the Visible Church, as conceived in Calvinism, is useless for apologetic purposes. is a voluntary association, composed of those who profess the Faith, but it is neither prior to nor independent of the Bible. On the contrary, it is dependent entirely on the Bible. It was a fact, no less than a principle, in the Old Theology, that the Church creates the Bible; but in Calvinism this principle is exactly reversed. It is not the Church that creates the Bible, but the Bible creates the Church. There could be no Church till there was first a Bible revealing the terms of the Covenant. Thus in Calvinism, so far as apology is concerned, the Bible stands alone. The consequences of this teaching have been singularly disastrous in our times, and we would earnestly invite attention to them.

It

I. In the first place, the whole basis of apology is altered. In the Catholic Theology, the Bible has nothing whatever to do with apology. It, indeed, enters largely into apologetic treatises, but not as the Bible. In the eyes of the apologist, it is regarded simply as any other book.' It is not distinguished in his eyes from the testimony of the Christian Fathers, or even that of heathen writers. In like manner, the apologist has nothing whatever to do with the question of Inspiration; he relegates that entirely to the theologian, as a question which can only arise when the end of apology has been attained. Catholic apology is based entirely on facts. The first fact to be made out is the supernatural life of our Lord, evidenced in a succession of Miracles, and culminating in the Resurrection. From this we arrive at the stupendous result of the Incarnation. In the language of

S. Paul, Christ is proved to be the Son of God, in power, by the resurrection from the dead.1 And how completely the Primitive Church based her apology upon this is seen from S. Paul's expression- If Christ be not risen, your faith is vain.' Having attained this ground, the next facts to be made out are-the foundation of the Visible Church; the instruction of the Twelve, by the Lord Himself, in its doctrines and mysteries; His consecration of them to be its teachers and rulers; His promise of the Spirit to guide them into all truth, as also His promise of His own Presence with them to the end of the world. If these facts, witnessed to by the Church in all ages, are borne in mind, it is seen that the whole structure of Catholic doctrine is established irrespective of the Inspiration of the Bible. The fact of the Incarnation is guarantee that the doctrine received by the Apostles from the Lord, and taught by them and the Primitive Church, is the truth of God, without supposing any special inspiration to attach to their writings. And this, in fact, was the apologetic ground which the Primitive Church took up.

The apology of Calvinism must proceed on a totally different basis. Its aim must be to establish the Inspiration of the Bible, and it stands or falls according as it attains or does not attain this end. But is it possible on Calvinistic principles to arrive at this result? We believe that it is not; and in proceeding to point out how this happens, we know that we may be blamed by some, who will deem it a thankless work, and one undertaken in the interest of unbelief. But let such persons weigh well the present aspect of the Neologian controversy; let them bear in mind the enormous advantage which unbelievers reap from a patent flaw; let them weigh the effect which this has on individual minds in determining them to doubt and scepticism, and they will see, we should think, the advantage which religion will gain if it can be rescued from an untenable position.

The Calvinistic principle, as we have stated, is the Bible, and the Bible only-the Bible the special and immediate gift of God. The only things conceived as necessary, under this principle, for the salvation of man are--the death of Christ, and a revelation prescribing the terms on which that death is applicable. Accordingly, it conceives of God as sending His Son, and at the same time promulgating a Bible. Now, according to this conception, two things are necessary to the verification of the Bible-first, that there should be distinct and positive evidence that it comes from God; and, secondly, that there should be distinct and positive evidence as to what is and

1 We cannot logically gather the fact of the Incarnation out of the Resurrection; but it establishes the credibility of our Lord's claim to be the Son of God to which the Church witnesses.

what is not the Bible. But neither of these conditions is satisfied on the Calvinistic principle.

Prophecy and Miracle are undoubtedly the two proofs on which both Catholic and Protestant must ultimately rely. It is only by such supernatural working that we can be satisfied of the interposition of God. All the other proofs, important as they are in their place, must fall to the ground if these are not first established. What, therefore, has to be done is to connect these supernatural facts-in the case of the Catholic with the foundation of the Visible Church-in the case of the Calvinist with the writers of the Bible. We have already shown how the Catholic is enabled to accomplish his task. He has the testimony, not only of the writers of the Gospels, but the witness of the Church in all ages, that his Risen Lord founded the Mystical Body, gifted it with His Spirit, and gave it authority to teach all nations. But in what way can the Calvinist connect miracle and prophecy with the writers of the Bible? We have only to run over, in thought, the different Books of the Bible to convince ourselves that it cannot be done.

The nearest approach to it is the Pentateuch, and even here it is not complete. Moses appeals to miraculous works: but it is not in attestation of his books, but of his Divine mission to the Jews; and the two things are perfectly distinct. Moses might have been Divinely commissioned to the Jews, and yet not be inspired to write a book narrating the particulars of that mission. Of the historical books, from the time of Moses downwards, the writers are not known for certain; consequently, we can have no guarantee that they were Divinely inspired. Because they related in many instances miraculous events, it does not follow that God inspired them. The Prophets stand in a higher position. To those of them to whom fulfilled prophecy can be distinctly traced, we may legitimately attribute Divine inspiration. But we cannot accomplish this without presupposing the truth of the Christian theology; for the most signal prophecies have reference to it. But if the Calvinist does this, he argues in a vicious circle: for he establishes the prophecy by the theology, and the theology by the prophecy. It is obvious that, to render the argument valid, the theology must have a distinct and independent basis, as it has in the Catholic system. In effect therefore, as we see, all, or nearly all, of the Old Testament is wanting in proof that it has come from God. If we come to the New Testament, the lack of the common proof is even more signal. The four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles must be set aside; for we can trace neither miracle nor prophecy to any of the writers. That they related miraculous events does not prove that they were inspired, any

more than the writers of the apocryphal gospels. In like manner the Epistles of S. Paul, and all the other Books. Although miraculous works are attributed to S. Paul, yet it may be safely said that, apart from belief in the Church, they could not be credibly ascertained; and so with every other writer of the New Testament Canon.

There is, thus, no distinct and positive evidence, on Calvinistic principles, that the Books of the Bible are inspired by God. But neither is there distinct and positive evidence as to what is, and what is not, the Bible. For, granting that we are satisfied with such evidence as we have of the New Testament Books, on what principle, in the Calvinistic point of view, shall we accept the inspiration of S. Paul and reject that of S. Barnabas ; or that of the Book of Revelation while we deny that of the Shepherd of Hermas? In what respect are Hebrews, S. James, and S. Jude preferable to S. Clement, S. Polycarp, or S. Ignatius, or the Acts of the Apostles to the Martyrdom of S. Polycarp? There is as much external evidence for one as for another; and we shall presently see whether the problem can be solved by internal evidence. The truth is, as we have already pointed out, that none of these Books have an attestation sufficient to satisfy the requirement of the Calvinistic principle. It is required not simply that miracle and prophecy shall be the subject of the Book, but that they shall distinctly and clearly guarantee the inspiration of the writer.

But, it may be said, this is a wrong point of view in which to place the matter. The Books of the Old Testament must be taken as a whole, and when so taken, the numerous prophecies, types, &c.-all pointing to and having their fulfilment in Christ-are a proof which no candid mind can resist that they come from God. In like manner, all the supernatural occurrences connected with the origin and promulgation of Christianity must be taken as a whole, and the result is thus well put by Dean Ellicott :

If we admit the general truth and Divine character of the Christian Dispensation, we can hardly believe that those who were chosen to declare its principles, and to make known its doctrines, were not especially guarded from error in the execution of their weighty commission, and were not Divinely guided, both in the words they uttered and the statements they committed to writing.'-Aids to Faith.

On this we have to remark, that we have here a complete change of ground; and it is of the utmost importance that we should fix our attention on this change, and try to estimate its import. The idea of connecting miracle or prophecy with the writers of the Bible is now given up as hopeless. By the hard logic of facts, the Calvinist is driven to acknowledge that there