Oechtering, pastor of St. Joseph's Church of La Porte, is concerned with occasional remarks made about the morals of Father Hill, by an author unknown to him. In addition, he has been astonished to note that the excellent Freeman's Journal has published two statements which are unqualified and open expressions of the condemned error of traditionalism. The Vatican Council has defined that human reason, without the aid of revelation, can acquire the knowledge of God, but this dogma regards only the theory of anthropology. Oetchering claims that McMaster holds that God taught Adam and Adam handed this as tradition over to his posterity in the natural manner of language. This is not the natural light, but is the supernatural light of reason. The well meaning writer has confounded the terms 'natural' and 'supernatural'. Revelation remains supernatural, even if transmitted by a heathen. To say that the tradition of revealed truth, although handed down by the natural means of language, is the natural light of human reason, is to reproduce the condemned traditionalism of Bonetty, Bautain, and poor Lamennais. Oetchering gives a detailed argument to support his thesis. Oetchering believes that McMaster's writer should perceive that St. Paul condemned the Romans and Greeks because they had not adored God and because they had depended on tradition alone as the basis of human reason, while ignoring the other natural light, the visible works of God. It is very well for Father Thebaud, benefitted by the heavenly light of full Christianity, to find scattered remnants of the original revelation among the rubbish of paganism, but to establish this tradition as being the only natural light of the inellect, would have made St. Paul smile. The writer of the article has degraded human reason to nothing but pure memory and learning by heart. Oetchering agrees that God spoke supernatural truths to Adam but disagrees with the conclusion of the writer that God taught Adam. The language was created with Adam because Holy Scripture does not say that God taught Adam to speak; on the contrary, God spoke to Adam and Adam readily understood and answered. Adam could not have understood even God's first word unless God had created him in full possession of a given language and faculty of language. The writer is very inaccurate in making language a divine revelation because this statement is a contradiction, since revelation of language could not come before language itself. Language was created with human nature and has been passed down from our first parents in the same way as human nature itself—by tradition. The writer is also inconsistent in holding metaphysical philosophy in contempt while he upholds moral philosophy in the same breath. The remarks on St. Thomas are shallow. If St. Thomas were alive he would write the world's best book on metaphysics. The writer, as do all of us, wishes education to be more Christian, but this cannot be done by shutting up education in the Catechism. Instead, the light of holy revelation should be shed upon all sciences from history or tradition up to the highest after theology, which is philosophy. Neo-scholastic philosophy in fighting the attacks of an apostate philosophy on its own ground. Men will continue to err in philosophy just as in theology, but it is their own fault if they place their intellect above God's. Oetchering believes McMaster will take steps to qualify these statements which appeared in his paper through an unknown writer, but does not wish to have his own name or letter published since he is not courting a newspaper fight. He has been prompted to write only because he loves God's truth and fears that some readers may be deluded by the heretical opinions of Lamennais. He considers McMaster a noble warrior in the cause of truth and so has written personally to him as a friend. He would appreciate receiving an answer. :: I-2-c A.L.S. 8pp. 12 mo.