attempt to defend without daring to prove. Indeed at the bottom of all we prove lie those facts which reason can neither refute nor establish. The demonstratio ad absurdum must ever remain the one argument against such as would overthrow the order of faith by agnosticism or of reason by scepticism. The instinctive intuitions of an objective world and the consciousness of our subjective feelings can only be accepted. They cannot be demonstrated. Yet it must be borne in mind that here as elsewhere it is the truths we approve, rather than the truths we prove, that matter most. Whilst conceding this much to Mr. Mallock, we are quite unable to follow him in holding that the final analysis of science lands us in contradictions. On the contrary, it is the denial of that final analysis which implies a contradiction and lays the denier open to powerful reductio ad absurdum. Mr. Mallock, following Mr. Balfour and many other apologists, draws a parallel between the fundamental truths of science, and it would be hard to say that he always makes the comparison with St. Thomas has in many places made the same comparison, but with greater philosophical accuracy. He says that reason can prove neither the first principles of science nor the first principles of faith, i.e., the mysteries of faith. Yet whilst reason cannot prove that these first principles of reason and faith are true, she can prove that they need not be false, since they are not impossible. The words of St. Thomas are often quoted: "The reasons brought forward by holy men to prove the things of faith are not demonstrative. They are persuasiones which show that what faith proposes is not impossible." (2a 2a, Qu. 1, Art. 5, ad 2). This is far removed in its cautiousness from Mr. Mallock's headlong condemnation of science and faith as self-contradictory.

Again, Mr. Mallock assures us that science, or, as we should say, reason, cannot prove the immortality of the soul, the freedom of the will, the existence of God. We may pass over the question of the immortality of the soul; though at the very least reason can show that immortality is not impossible. We may even concede provisionally that free-will is not susceptible of proof

since it is an object of intuition rather than of inference. But in the matter of God's existence, we Roman Catholics are bound in faith to hold that reason can prove the existence of God. By a curious turn of events, even as the Council of Trent had to vindicate the Bible against Protestantism, so also had the Vatican Council to uphold reason against Rationalism in simple words: "The same Holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the beginning and end of all things, may be known with certainty from created things by the natural light of man's reason. No apology for Christianity which denies to man's reason the power of finding God can be accepted by Catholic readers. Mr. Mallock is too extreme in his concessions, or it may be that he is merely writing from impressions that have not yet condensed from haze to light. It has struck us again and again in reading his work that he would have ruled out many of his pages if he had thought over the classical principle of St. Thomas, who teaches that a Divine revelation absolutely necessary for Divine mysteries was practically necessary for some, if not all, of the mysterious facts of nature-such as the immortality of the soul, the existence of God, the goodness of nature: since these truths, though lying within the purview of reason, could be known only by a few thinkers and after prolonged thought and then only with many errors.

Mr. Mallock, and perhaps we may say Mr. Balfour, belongs to a class of philosophers who are smitten with Bishop Butler's famous argument from analogy, without being gifted with the master's supreme accuracy of mind. Butler, as it seems to us, was strongly conscious of the principle laid down by St. Thomas, that in the things of revelation reason's only office is to show that they are not absurd because not impossible. When the Deists of his day urged objections against the scheme of revealed religion, Butler was too clear a thinker to lay himself open to a charge of seeking to grasp what was beyond his grasp by attempting to prove mysteries. His aim was more practical. He dealt with men rather than with arguments.

* Cons. Dogm. de Fide. Cap. II.

His wrestling was with flesh and blood rather than with syllogisms. His aim was to capture rather than overthrow, and to disarm or disable previous to the act of capture. When, therefore, the Deists set up a battery of arguments all carefully directed against the scheme of revealed religion, Butler urbanely remarked, "A very efficient battery, indeed, gentlemen, and well calculated to destroy revelation; but allow me to point out one slight defect in the pointing of your artillery. Your arguments are most ingeniously drawn up to overthrow us; but if you open fire you will equally destroy yourselves. Every argument is as fatal to you as to us. With the exception of this slight disadvantage, your attack is admirable-but suicidal." It was left to other writers to account for the fact that revelation and natural religion laboured under similar and even the same difficulties, for the reason that revealed and natural religion were continuous. Newman's "Development of Doctrine," with its masterly conception of an orthodox evolution, has immensely strengthened the argument for faith by insisting on the fact that the supernatural order is not merely placed in juxtaposition with the natural order, but in continuity with it. It is curious to remark how even in these theological matters the question is one of causality. We must ask ourselves chiefly, "Is it mere succession? Or is it continuity and influx?"

But when we have shown that the problems of faith lie open to the same difficulties as the problems of reason, and even when we have proved this fellowship of difficulty to spring from inward kinship of economy, we have not proved the supernatural, though we have begun the proof. There shall remain the arguments from miracles and prophecy so greatly decried in certain quarters, where so-called apologetics are supposed to flourish. Of these sources of proof the Vatican Council has said: "Miracles and prophecies are most certain signs of Divine revelation, and are suited to the understanding of all."*

* Cons. Dog. de Fide. C. III.

There is a sense in which Mr. Mallock's book has been instructive. Hitherto Mr. Mallock has been as perplexing to his friends as to his opponents. He has remained outside a body of doctrines which no one has defended with more zeal than he. He has stood midway between what he seemed to hold and what he seemed to prove. His life has been the paradox of convictions divorced. from arguments. Whilst remaining where he remained he gave argument upon argument to prove that he ought to move forward. No man seemed more enigmatical in the dogmatic fervour of his writings and the practical agnosticism of his convictions. His latest book will set at rest most of the mystery that has surrounded him. It is the Apologia pro Vita Sua, the unconscious autobiography of his mind. The paradox of his life is seen to rest on the paradox of his thought. He would have faith through a process of reason. Or perhaps it would be truer to say, he would approve faith and science alike because both are alikeunreasonable. With a mind resting on such a quagmire, no wonder that the building above trembles when it seems most secure. It is painful to think that such a wonderful superstructure should be reared on such worthless foundations. The book he has just written will do little harm and less good. But it may be that Mr. Mallock, having at last published the philosophy of his belief, will see himself as he is. It was in an ill hour that he chose the title of his book. A title should give the heart of the argument: it should prepare readers for what is to come. Mr. Mallock

would have conveyed more accurate information to his readers had he entitle his work: "Religion, a credible contradiction." If the publication of his work convinces him of the truth of our criticism, the time he has spent in elaborating his polished fallacy will not have been entirely wasted. His best friends are those who hope that the fallacy of his philosophy having been laid bare by his own logical mind, he may turn his thoughts to the older apologetics so long associated with the Church of Christ, the official apologist and guardian of revealed religion.

VINCENT MCNABB, O. P.

ART. VI. THE GOSPEL READ TO ST.

ST.

FRANCIS IN TRANSITU.

T. FRANCIS of Assisi died at the Porziuncola, near Assisi, on Saturday, the 4th (our 3rd) of October, 1226, at about seven in the evening. On the day of his death he caused a certain portion of the Gospel according to St. John to be read to him in commendationem animae. What chapters or what verses of St. John's Gospel was this reading made up of?

To obtain an answer to such a question we must naturally go to the sources of the life of St. Francis. The oldest, the most reliable, the only unimpugned source is the Vita Prima of Thomas of Celano, which was completed by the end of 1228, and was certainly presented to Pope Gregory IX. in February, 1229. On the subject of the Gospel Celano writes: "He then desired that a book of the Gospels (codicem Evangeliorum) should be brought, and asked that the Gospel according to St. John should be read to him from the place where it begins: 'Before the Feast of the Pasch, Jesus, knowing that His hour was come that He should pass out of this world to the Father.'* It was this very Gospel that the Ministert had intended to read before he was asked to do so, and this was the very place he lighted upon when he first opened the book, although it was a full and complete Bible (bibliotheca) from which he was to read the Gospel."+

* John xiii., 1.

+ It is impossible here to discuss the meaning of the word "minister," or who this particular "minister" was.

I. Cel., 2., viii., in Amoni's edition. Rome, 1880, or A.SS., Tom. ii.,Octobris, sec. 110, p. 713. "Jussit denique codicem Evangeliorum portari, et evangelium secundum Joannem sibi legi poposcit ab eo loco, ubi incipit: Ante diem festum Paschae sciens Jesus quia venit hora ejus, ut transeat ex hoc mundo ad Patrem. Hoc etiam Evangelium legere proposuerat sibi minister, priusquam ei praeciperetur, hoc etiam in prima libri aperitione occurrit, cum tota, et plena bibliotheca esset, in qua hoc evangelium legi debebat."