taminis multos retrahit a profectu. This word of The Following of Christ is true also if not mostly of the professors. Still, of late we have many helps in that work. The monographs of Batiffol mentioned before should by all means be in the hands of the professor of dogmatic theology. The Histoire des dogmas of Dr. Tixerout - which by the way is about to be translated into English — ought to be an indispensable manual of the professor of dogma. Fr. Turmel has written several monographs and a Histoire de la theologie positive. Fr. Riviere published last year his masterly work Histoire du Dogme de la Redemption. We have also on the same subject Oxenham The Atonement · a work which

I find admirable, yet which seems to be too little known. Menegoz Sabatier G. Stevens published also recently special works on this same dogma of the Redemption. There is in them much. that is valuable, much more that should be refuted. I would not attempt to give an enumeration, even an incomplete one. I will simply refer to the articles of Dr. Hanna of Rochester in the N. Y. Review on the Human Knowledge of Christ.

Will the teaching of the history of dogma replace the teaching of dogma itself? By no means. I can hardly believe that such a contention would ever have been put forth or thought of; and I am amazed at reading in the Ami du Clergé francais, 15 February 1906, a violent diatribe against those who would give as a text-book to the student the 300 volumes quarto of Mignewith all of Thomassin and Petau!! In that so exaggerated article, from the pen of a man who finds hardly tolerable the expression "life of dogma"- just as if it were a dead thing—and yet does not want to call theology anything but dogmatic theology and dogmatic theology anything but the deductive method of scholastics, Denziger's Enchiridion being the only kind of history of dogma which students should be allowed to peruse, even in that article, I say, we find the admission that the professor of dogmatic theology should know thoroughly the history of dogma in order to vivify his teaching. This is capital, I think, though scarcely sufficient. The students too should know something of that science.

But how and when shall they be taught? Are not our programs too heavy and our Bishops obliged or inclined to abridge the time.

of seminary, training? And again the sempiternal horror difficultatis in many shapes. (Let us examine our conscience!)

First of all to answer those questions I will say experientia duce, the students do like the teaching of dogma in which a great stress is put on its history and development. Instinctively they feel the need of such knowledge and besides it makes the rest, viz., the scholastic synthesis, much more clear and interesting when it is traced through successive developments up to its very beginnings, say to St. Paul's theology. The dogma of Trinity, of Divinity of Christ, Redemption, Original Sin, the Sacrifice of the Mass, etc., exposed in the above manner prove very interesting even to ordinary students.

I say even for the best method to teach the history of dogma might be to reserve the main part of it for special classes composed of the more advanced students. In some seminaries these classes or Seminars are left optional. Elsewhere, in Brighton, v. g., attendance is compulsory, and then a special class is made up of the students who have been most successful in their examinations. The latter system seems to me preferable. Last spring our special class studied the history of the indissolubility of matrimony, and divorce. The result was that every one would have been, at the end, able to answer quite well an attack published against our doctrine, v. g., Dr. Ralph McKim in the New York Sun some months ago. This was a good result, and a pleasant study too it proved to be to refer the students to the original texts (these classes were held in the student's library where all the books of reference were at hand). They all felt, too, that they had a much better grasp of the question than if they had been satisfied with understanding and memorizing the thesis of their text-books on the subject.

Perhaps, too, the professor of Sacred Scripture might give a hand to his confrére of dogmatic theology. For the history of dogma to be decently complete, ought to embrace what is called Biblical theology. For instance in the treatise de Deo there. should be an exposé of the development of the idea of God in the Old Testament. This cannot be done without a certain system being adhered to as to questions of date of composition and the literary character of the documents employed. Is not such a

method a more satisfactory one than that which consists in taking a few texts isolated from their context - from different books of completely different character? Of course prudence, discretion, knowledge and labor are necessary: friction is probable: troubles not impossible; but such a work would give in many cases, a solid basis to theology. Biblical theology is nothing but the first stage of the history of dogma.

Will Patrology be superseded by this invader? Not at all. Patrology will be the second stage- what for instance can we understand about original sin and grace unless we make a serious study of St. Augustine? But the student who had a good course of Patrology is certainly much better prepared to undertake and understand that historical treatment. It is wonderful how students are able to get hazy notions. I actually read in an examination paper that "St. Augustine was correct on matters of grace because he had access to the Acts of the Council of Trent that had condemned Jansenius." This was in the days when there was no class of Patrology!!

I feel that some one will say: This of course is all right for a University course, but not adapted to the needs of our seminaries. Distinguo. The University student will have to resume again on larger lines the outlines he has studied at the seminary. But he should have commenced the study already in his seminary days. Will the professor of philosophy wait for a University course, before giving to his students the history of philosophy?

But perhaps that might demand a recasting of our text-books of theology! Perhaps, not necessarily. But, should that become a necessity, who would complain? Cui malo? I must stop, I would be giving hints as to the changes to be introduced in our textbooks of Dogma. This ought to be the subject of a special paper.

I conclude by proposing to adopt the spirit-only the spirit of Lainez, S. J. He said when sent to the Council of Trent that he would not quote any writer whose works he would not have read entirely, so as to be able to grasp completely the thought of that writer. What an excellent example! But if the professor of dogma can hardly do that for every authority he quotes Migne has 300 quarto volumes yet it shows us the thoroughness at which we should aim. No one can be a truly competent professor of dogma who is not thoroughly versed in the history of dogma.

Grand Public Mass Meeting

At Gray's Armory, July 12, 8 P. M.

The meeting was presided over by Rev. Francis T. Moran. On the stage were massed one thousand parochial school children bearing little union flags. After an overture by the orchestra, the meeting was opened with the singing of the "Star Spangled Banner" by the children's chorus, directed by Prof. J. A. Menth, after which the Chairman addressed the audience as follows:

RT. REV. BISHOP, REV. FATHERS OF THE CLERGY, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN This afternoon the Third National Educational Convention closed its sessions, and this evening we hold a conference with the Catholic public of Cleveland.

We have not attacked in this Convention, public schools. We have said that they are not as good as they should be for the American public. They are not as good as they should be for the Catholic public, because we believe that good citizenship cannot be obtained without religion. Religion is the basis of morality, and without morality there is no good citizenship. Because we have not always accepted them as they are, as the best means of educating the future citizens of this republic, we have been told that we are the enemies of education. I submit, my dear friends, that any one who is familiar at all with the subject, knows that the Catholic Church has stood at the portals of knowledge as its sacred guardian; and that if it were not for her there would not even exist at the present time the means of education. So much

do we love education, but in its best form, that we are not satisfied with erecting schools for our own children in which they may be given an education that is right in every respect, but we have contributed to the education of other people's children.

We are here for a great purpose at this time. We are here to profess anew our allegiance to the principles of Catholic education and to hold aloft the banner of the Church that has always

marched in the forefront of civilization.

I will not presume to introduce the first speaker.. I know that you will all welcome with your affectionate regard, the Bishop of this diocese as he addresses you.

Address of Bishop Horstmann.

MY DEAR FAITHFUL PEOPLE- Perhaps you do not know what work has been done here in Cleveland during the last three days. We have here leading Catholic educators of the whole United States. For three days, in three different departments, they have been deliberating on questions of Catholic education, each division in its own department.

When I was a young priest I said to Archbishop Wood: "Archbishop, I would like to endow the Chair of Philosophy in St. Charles' Seminary." He listened to me very quietly, and then he said, "No, I will not accept it. The seminary has been blessed by Almighty God, depending exclusively on the free-will offerings of the faithful. Their charity has never failed. I will have no endowment. I will have no scholarships. Let those who come after us do their work just as the Catholics of today are doing. theirs. I wish to have no funds that would be a temptation to the government to come in and confiscate it at any future time." He was a man with deep thoughts and broad views, and I have often thought of what he said at that time.

You might ask what has that to do with this mass meeting of the Catholics of Cleveland? Look abroad and see what is going on in the Catholic countries of Europe. Look at France. We know what is going on there. See what is going on in England. They have had the support of the government for the denominational schools, and Catholic schools have sprung up all over the country, and yet now in parliament a bill was introduced. taking away all the support and throwing back on the people themselves absolutely the whole support of education for their children. I contrast Italy, France and England now with Germany. You all know of the movement in Germany in the year