to private utility a monk may leave his solitude with permission of Superiors, to minister to the general good by teaching as well as by writing.
We see from this fact that history repeats itself, and that the modern attacks on the educational labors of religious communities are by no means new. The tactics of the enemies of the religious change, the pretexts of attacks on them will vary, but the nature of the warfare is ever the same. It is conscious or unconscious opposition to the principles of Christianity. Therefore, we find that those who have the interest of religion at heart, are not among the opponents of "clerical" education.
Even Protestants frankly admit that the union of the clerical office with that of the teacher offers great advantages. Sir Joshua Fitch, the distinguished English educator, thinks that the "parents in parting with the moral supervision of their sons are not unreasonably disposed to place increased confidence in a headmaster who combines the scholarship and the skill of teaching with the dignity and the weight of the clergyman's office."[1] And Professor Paulsen, certainly not theologically biased, says that it was not without disadvantages that the theologians were replaced in the Gymnasia by philologians and mathematicians, a change which for a long time was wished, undoubtedly not without good reasons. The theologian, owing to his whole training, had an inclination towards the care of the souls; the interest in the whole man was the centre of his calling.[2]
