estant stand-point, the influence of the confessional, and the principles of what he calls 'Jesuitical' morality. These topics, and especially when handled in a partisan spirit, are more appropriate to a theological and controversial, than to an educational journal. The past as well as the present organization of the schools of the Jesuits, the course of instruction, the methods of teaching and discipline, are worthy of profound study by teachers and educators, who would profit by the experience of wise and learned men." (American Journal of Education, vol. V, p. 215.) However, even in the statements which Barnard accepted from Raurner, there are not a few that are incorrect. Owing to protests of Raumer, Barnard, in the VI. volume of his journal, added the passages which he had omitted in the previous translation. The misrepresentations which Raumer had borrowed from Pascal and others, need not be dwelt on here.
Nor is the estimate of the Jesuit system correct which is found in the History of Modern Education, by Samuel H. Williams, Professor of the Science and Art of Teaching, in Cornell University. The author evidently endeavored at times to be impartial, but he was not fortunate in the choice of his sources. They were evidently not the original documents. Otherwise he would not have been betrayed into such absurd statements as this: "The teachers were mostly novices of the Order, with a much smaller number of the fully professed brothers." Now, as the chapter on the "Training of the Jesuit Teacher" proves, novices are not employed in teaching, and the Jesuit is not engaged in teaching until after a training of five or six years succeeding the completion of the novitiate. The
