felt sure that Mr Lunn
would not risk himself in arbitration on the question whether he or I have described more accurately the progress of our debate in A Critic and a Convert. Your numerous
readers who have asked me for copies, and have been able to follow my frequent page-references, will understand why.
He again makes an important misstatement of fact, writing " he accuses me of ' garbling ' his words," and thus. by his inverted pommas, quoting the word " garbling " as mine. What I actually wrote was very different ; " As I see it, the whole story rests upon his own historical ignorance and his misunderstanding of the words apart from their context," His present letter does nothing real to meet this; for the fourand-a-half lines which he quotes from me would need at least a page of context to make them fully intelligible. I repeat that, if the Bellarmine Society will risk themselves in public support of Mr Lunn's thesis, in this joint book which
they have now agreed to write, I shall be glad to discuss the incriminated lines fully with those competent antagonists. But I will not debate the subject of Infallibility with Arnold Lunn, except under a quite explicit guarantee. Let any bishop in England, or Fr. D'Arcy, of Campion Hall, allow me to print upon the title-page that explicit assurance to the public which I suggested to Mr Lunn four-and-a-half years ago : "I believe that Mr Lunn's presentation of the case for Papal Infallibility will be found to represent, approximately, the views of the Roman Catholic Church on this most important subject " (C. and C., 229). Failing that, I cannot waste time upon a. disputant whom I publicly judged as incompetent in these difficult technical matters, even when I thought he was an ally and wrote to him as a friend. Let all religious controversy be as responsible as we can make it.
G. G. COULTON.
St. John's College, Cambridge.