of Hebrew we could not have had, and even in handling the delicate questions raised by the Higher Criticism he displayed much wealth of knowledge, and a generous acquaintance with the writings of his opponents, Wellhausen, Kuenen, &c., and much argumentative power. The subject marked on the programme was an introduction to the canon of Scripture; it was based upon the work of M. Loisy, and ran upon the traditional lines. But he quickly exhausted that subject and hastened to his favourite topic, the discussion, against Wellhausen, of the origin of the Jewish festivals. Of erudition he gave abundant proof and not a little ingenuity in the research and grouping of arguments, but it was obvious that few of the students had any large view of the general issues at stake. All scribbled furiously as the professor spoke (for we had no manual) and endeavoured to gather as much detailed information as would suffice for examination purposes.
In private intercourse I found him extremely kind and courteous, and he frequently spoke to me of the difficulty of his position as professor of Biblical criticism, when the Church left us without any clearly defined doctrine about the nature and extent of inspiration in face of modern rationalism; he did not appreciate the liberty of thought which the Church wisely grants until secular science has reached its high-water mark and it knows what it can decide with security. The Pope’s encyclical had not yet
