not meet with universal acceptance. They say, "It is not every one who can build up a Theology for himself." The remark they add is graceful, that a modest genius does not court every kind of liberty, but that which is not divorced from virtue. These principles explain for us the unity of educational matter, as presented to the studious world. The same marshalling and husbanding of force, which effectuates this result, operates another, akin to the former. It is the most definite coördination and subordination of courses, with a mutual understanding between Professors and faculties. Where grades exist, either in their perfect form, as in the five stages of the classical or literary course, or in a shape approximating to that, as in the three stages of the philosophical triennium, such subordination is easily secured. But, also, elsewhere the conditions of perfectly definite outlines are laid down for courses, which have any points of mutual contact. This may be illustrated by some rules of the _Ratio_. The two Professors of Dogmatic Theology are to consider themselves dispensed from commenting on questions proper to Sacred Scripture, from treating philosophical matters, from evolving cases of Moral Theology. The Professor of Moral Theology is to despatch with the briefest definitions the matter which belongs to dogma. The Professor of Holy Scripture is desired not to go at length into points of controverted Theology. The Professor of Ecclesiastical History need not treat canons or dogma. The Professor of Canon Law will not touch Theology or Public Right, any more than his time permits, and the necessary understanding of Canon Law requires. The same reserve is practised between Theology in general, and Philosophy. Thus a Professor of Moral Theology despatches perhaps in ten minutes the definition of Natural Law, upon which he knows two days are spent by the Professor of Moral Philosophy.