lectually to one trained up in the public school, that he is three and a half times as likely to become a pauper, and three and a quarter times as likely to get into jail, as the child trained in the free public school." And how does our brave reviewer meet this fact proved by official figures? Does he deny it? Does he admit it like an honest man? Neither; but like a true Jesuit he blusteringly exclaims, "If Mr. Hawkins had his deserts he would be more than three and a half times as likely to be in jail as the child trained in a parochial school!" What a colossal intellectual effort it must have cost him to have collected the materials and have shaped them into this wonderfully logical and crushing reply. We have heard from New York since the issue of the April "Catholic World," and to our surprise Mr. Hawkins is still alive, and is expected to recover from this staggering blow.

But leaving this babble about words and phrases, if the critic is in downright earnest why does he not grapple with the actual facts? Take Italy for example; for centuries it has been under Roman Catholic rule, and priests and their schools (?) have had the entire educational training of the people and what are the results? Dr. Dorchester, the prince of statistics, tells us in the Boston Advertiser, Sept. 11, 1877, that "In 1864 the population of Italy was 21,700000, and of these 17,000,000 could not read nor write!" And this is not only the legitimate fruit of Catholic training, but it is in accordance with the philosophy of the church regarding the masses, as stated by those in authority. Cardinal Antonelli, in an interview with Mr. Hawkins, boldly declared that he thought it better "that the children should grow up iu ignorance than to be educated in such a system of schools as the State of Massachusetts supported; that the essential part of the education of the people was the catechism; and while arithmetic, and geography, reading and writing, and other similar studies, might be useful, they were not essential!" There is no need that we should go far, in the face of these things, to find reasons for the prevalence of pauperism, corruption and crime in Italy. Men do not gather grapes of thorns.

Look at Spain in 1876. Out of a population of 16,000,000, there were 12,000,000 who "could not read nor write," says Dr. Dorchester. And this is confirmed by a statement of Stoddard's "Red-Letter Days," p. 18, that in one portion of territory "out of a population of 360,000, in this nineteenth century, more than 300,000 cannot read nor write." And yet our Jesuit reviewer wishes us to believe that his church or sect are warm friends of education. He even goes so

far as to say of Ireland, that "Since 1831, now more than fifty years, the National government schools have been established, and, in spite of grinding poverty and of having something to pay though not much the illiteracy of Ireland has almost disappeared!" Is it possible that any man, even a Jesuit, can have the hardihood to make such a statement as this! Let us put the following from Mr. Hawkins' pamphlet by the side of it:

"While visiting Ireland a few years ago I was gratified to see the island dotted over with national school-houses, neatly built of brick or stone by the British Government, in order to try to elevate the Irish race from the slough of ignorance, idleness, mendicity, and bigotry, into which centuries of priestly instruction had brought them. But while driving across the country one day I found, standing by the roadside, near one of these school-houses, a Catholic priest, with a switch in his hand, with which he scourged home the Catholic children as they approached the national school-house! On conversing with this priest, I found he appeared sincerely to believe he was doing God's work in preventing the children from attending the free public school."

And has not something like this been done in Massachusetts? and does not Priest Walker say, "I would as soon administer the sacraments to a dog as to Catholics who send their children to the public schools"? And does this not hold good respecting the national schools in Ireland as well as the public schools of our own country? What then shall we think of this writer who would persuade us to believe that, so eagerly have the Catholics of Ireland seized upon the opportunities offered by the Government schools, that "illiteracy has almost disappeared?" And this he says, not only in the face of facts, but probably after having read the pious exclamation of the Freeman's Journal: "Let the public school-system go to where it came from - the Devil!"—and the declaration of the New York Tablet, that education is "a function of the Church, not of the State; we do not accept the State as educator."

But we must bring this to a close. The reader of our article in the QUARTERLY, will remember that "illiteracy" as the result of Catholic rule and training of the masses, was only one of three facts brought to view the other two, the more important by far in some respects, our critic has prudently left unchallenged. The first concerns the Jesuit text-book used in seminaries for training young priests for their work, respecting which it was charged, that it "justified the crimes of perjury, robbery, adultery, and the falsification of documents." The charge was made by a deputy of the Prussian Diet;

and also by M. Bert, "Minister of Public Instruction" during the Gambetta ministry in France. In both cases the Catholics were foolish enough to deny the charge, and demand the proof; and in both cases it was furnished "line upon line and precept upon precept" from the text-book itself, the original being given side by side with the translation.

And what does the reverend defender of Catholic teaching and morality say to this? Not one word! He does not even make an allusion to this abominable wickedness; but, Jesuit like, blusters about words, figures and ratios, knowing that with most of his readers, who will never see our article, this will pass as a sufficient reply to all its statements.

The second fact, respecting which this furious reviewer is wholly and discreetly dumb, is that which relates to the horrible and revolting disclosures of the utter depravity of both teachers and pupils in the school of a Convent in Oudenarde, Belgium, known by the title of "Good Works!" This establishment was a rival of the Government schools. Various rumors led to an official investigation by the "correctional police," which unearthed a state of things indescribable in language suitable to these pages. The authority cited in our article states that "the investigation proved the guilt of about thirty teachers of complicity in indecent outrages on the girls;" and these were "not isolated acts, but a studied and systematic practice of the basest crimes; teachers and pupils alike seeming to indulge in the most obscene orgies." "The revelations made on the witness-stand were simply frightful." And this in one of the first Catholic schools in Belgium - a convent of "Good Works "; the mother-house of a "congregation" or order which has its branch houses even in America, according to the Flandre Liberale.

But to all this our courteous critic, who is so fierce and fast in his comments on our remarks upon the "illiteracy" of his constituency, has not a word to say. The charge that many of his Irish friends cannot read nor write, stirs his wrath to white heat; but this horrible record of depravity in one of his leading educational institutions provokes no denial, no loud talk of "lies first, second, and third," no reply of any sort! And why this profound silence? If the "correctional police" report to the authorities is false, why does he not prove it so? If it is true, would it not be well for him and his fellow-priests to say less about the "godless schools" of the State, and more about the godless schools of their Church.

The Personality of Deity.

THE most difficult thing to approach understandingly is the personality of God. There is no task so laborious for the intellect, as that of forming to itself a clear and well defined conception of the Infinite and Invisible Deity. To believe there is a God, the Creator and Sovereign Ruler of the Universe, is easy enough, much easier than not to believe it. But to grasp the proposition believed, so as to make the personal Deity stand out from vagueness and darkness, distinct, sharply defined, and fully mastered as a subject of thought and reasoning this is not so easy.

-

In spite of all the united efforts of the Intellect and Affections to bring the idea of God into this comprehensible, bounded and personal form, we find it almost impossible to escape in our devotions all sense of vagueness and bewilderment necessarily springing out of the idea of the Infinite and Omnipresent.

But is not the difficulty of forming to ourselves a clear and distinctly defined idea of God's personality increased by our neglect of the helps within our reach? How do we come to form an idea of any being or person whom we have never seen? We do not speak of the bodily form; but how do we get to any knowledge of the mind, character and pursuits of such? for these only are the man. By reading their productions, or what is written concerning them by those who knew them; by examining their works, and considering the character of their deeds. In this way we are able to form, generally, a very correct idea of the person, his powers, mental peculiarities and disposition.

For example: We read the works of Plato, we diligently study his various productions, and follow the developments and labors of his wonderful genius. We ponder in astonishment over the multiplied fruits of his ever active thought; and contemplate with admiration the comprehensiveness and power of his intellect, and the vastness of his accomplishments. In this way we obtain a knowledge of the man, the character of his mind, the nature of his pursuits and studies, and the kind of genius for which he was distinguished; and we form to ourselves an idea of what sort of a person Plato was, and give expression to the idea in the word, Philosopher.

Newton-Astronomy! The two words almost necessitate the one the other, so distinct and bounded is our idea of this wonderful man. We find no difficulty at all in determining the character of his mind,

the nature of his pursuits, and almost his daily thoughts and meditations; so definite and personal a shape do our conceptions of him take the moment his name is heard.

But by what means do we arrive at such a clear idea of the man? Is it not by examining his mathematical and astronomical labors; by summing up the vast additions he has made to science and knowledge by his discoveries? Is it not by considering the definite nature of his studies and investigations, and so judging of the mind and genius of the man by the character of the subjects, or the particular department of knowledge, to which he almost exclusively devoted himself? Certainly; and hence the distinct idea which all men have of Newton, gets utterance in the simple word, Astronomer.

Take as another example our countryman Fulton. Almost as readily we associate with his name the word Steamboat, as with that of Newton the word astronomy. When, standing by the powerful engine of one of our floating palaces, we watch its steady and regular movement, and endeavor to understand the relations of the various parts of the complicate machinery; when we consider what long and patient study and experiment were necessary to this invention, this glorious triumph of art and skill; and when we feel the noble vessel throb and spring forward through the waters, like a thing of life, at every beat of its mighty iron heart—how clearly the mind and pursuits of Fulton stand out in our thought! How definite our idea of the man as a mechanic of the highest order; and with what correct design we draw and paint on the canvas of the mind the picture of his inventive genius! And this bounded and personal conception of the man comes of considering his works, of estimating the results of his study and labor. We judge of him by what he has done. His works show his character.

Once more. How do we form our opinion of the character and disposition of John Howard or John Frederic Oberlin? In the same way we proceed at once to peruse the record of their lives and actions. And when we see Oberlin sacrificing the world's preferment and applause, his means, time and strength for the comfort and elevation of the poor, despised and ignorant, the vicious and criminal; when we behold Howard, leaving home and country, visiting hospitals, prisons and loathsome dungeons to encourage the wretched, heal the diseased, and console the dying, and seeking.in every way to remove abuses, and ameliorate the condition of the outcasts of humanity; and at last giving up health and life itself in his work of mercy - when