CORRESPONDENCE.

[We propose to devote a short space in our pages for any letters with which we may be favoured, of general interest; but, in printing such, we do not in any way hold ourselves responsible for the sentiments of our correspondents.]

THE CONTROVERSIAL SPIRIT.

SIR,-The violence and unscrupulousness of religious controversialists has often provoked the smile of the indifferent, the sneer of the infidel, and the sorrow of those who have at heart, not the triumph of party, but the elaboration of truth. That vehemence and intemperate language have, on the whole, been a distinguishing mark of religious disputants, must, I fear, be acknowledged, for a survey of the history of the Christian religion shows but too clearly, that, of those engaged in theological strife, but few have treated opponents with the large-hearted generosity of an Athanasius, the winning gentleness of a Ken or a Fénelon, the Christian courtesy and justice of a Baxter, or the scrupulous fairness of a Newman. Still there is an infinite distance between the fanatical incapacity to weigh arguments which arises from an unselfish but one-sided devotion to a great cause, and the petty artifices, tricks, quibbles, and Old-Bailey dialectics of a certain school of modern controversialists. There is, after all, something grand in the iron spirit of a Torquemada, or a Mucklewrath, but it is hard to see a single redeeming point in writers who seek by false statement, innuendo, and abuse, to injure the great and good.

An instance of this controversial recklessness will readily occur to every one in Mr. Kingsley's first unwarrantable attack upon Dr. Newman, while in his pamphlet entitled, “What, then, does Dr. Newman mean ?" they will recognize another old practice of the class, who, when forced to give up the point at issue, generally do so not without contriving in substance to repeat their charge, and to fling as much dirt at their opponent as they can. The Record has lately given us a similar example of how utterly the common notions of justice between man and man can be ignored, when ignorant fanaticism is at war with one who does not happen, in the language of evangelical cant, to take a "truly pious" view of things. That journal, on a late occasion, was pleased to make a statement about the income of the distinguished and amiable, but somewhat unevangelical, Professor of Greek at Oxford, which happened not to be true. A friend of his instantly

wrote to correct the assertion. The Record inserted the letter, but repeated in another form what it had said before, implying equivocation in its correspondent. A second and conclusive letter from the same writer was not suffered to appear, and only after its publication in the Spectator did the Low Church organ make a kind of ungracious withdrawal of what it had advanced.

The conduct of the Record has just been imitated, with almost amusing fidelity, among ourselves. The Weekly Register, a newspaper which, as it tells us, has been "long and favourably known to the Catholic World" (what visions this calls up of Catholics at the Antipodes hanging on the dull inspiration of its columns !), brought a charge, coupled with several grave insinuations, against the character of an eminent Catholic divine, based on the authority of the "Catholic sentiment," whatever that may mean. A friend of the person attacked, who had every opportunity of knowing the facts, wrote to correct this unfounded statement. His letter was inserted, but a long note was appended implicitly repeating the charge. On being again brought to book in detail by their correspondent, they "hesitate," out of a somewhat unintelligible regard for the imaginary feelings of "distinguished Catholics," to insert the letter, but do not “hesitate" to exhibit their consideration for the writer, by substituting for a letter," which appears written (sic) in haste and under the influence of feeling," an elaborate misstatement of its contents, including two adroit misquotations for the purposes of their argument. On receiving a third letter-which they only notice at the time by an ingenious alteration of its title to inform them that the correspondence will have to be published elsewhere, their hesitation, after a fortnight, so far yields that the letters are inserted, but a leading article is added, where the disproved charge is at last tacitly withdrawn in a fresh haze of words, and whole quantities of pointless and random imputations are shot off, like Parthian arrows, at the person attacked, his defender, several others not directly named, who have the misfortune to differ from the Weekly Register, and finally, at all who commit the unpardonable offence of appealing against libel to the protection of the law-a point to which that journal alludes with a bitterness which suggests that it must be founded on experience.

It

Conduct such as this bears with it its own condemnation. is just conceivable that Dr. Cumming may be sincere in his triennially revised edition of the date of the battle of Armageddon; it is possible that the preacher of Christian charity, who, in 1851, informed his congregation that every Catholic priest who took a confession ought to be hung, may have brought himself to believe what he said; but nothing can be urged in extenuation of a meanness which lacks the wild grandeur of fanaticism, and is even without the poor excuse of an honest delusion.

Such circumstances deserve a passing notice in a journal like yours, since it was this same ignoble spirit, working on a wider

field, which was the main cause of the original split between the Eastern and Western Church, without which the schism of the 16th century might never have become an accomplished fact, and which perhaps has done more than seemingly weightier causes to keep open for centuries the bleeding wounds of Christendom. I am, Sir,

Your obedient servant,

ROWLAND BLENNERHASSETT.

COMPULSORY

CELIBACY.

SIR,-If f you will not think it too late to refer now to a very interesting letter from a Roman Catholic priest, which appeared, under the signature of "Presbyter Catholicus," in your number for January, there is one of the points to which he calls attention as requiring to be "settled by our authorities here," before anything like a national Re-union of England with the rest of Christendom can be expected, on which I should be glad to suggest one or two considerations to the notice especially of your Roman Catholic readers. I mean what your correspondent calls "the question of the compulsory celibacy of the clergy." Without expressing any opinion of my own on the abstract question, I think no one really acquainted with English society and modes of thought will question my correctness, when I utter my profound conviction that this one institution presents far more insuperable obstacles to Re-union, and has far more to do with the national antipathy to Rome than any of the doctrines of Trent, or all of them put together; and that for several reasons.

In the first place, it cannot be denied that there is a strong feeling, not wholly without justification in history, that the moral character of a celibate priesthood as a body is not above suspicion. That the present Roman Catholic clergy in this country stand well in general estimation is quite true; but then people say they are but recently escaped from the action of oppressive laws, they are a small body, and conspicuously exposed to the gaze of an unfriendly, or at least unsympathizing public: if they became, as of course they must, if theirs was the national religion, a numerous and powerful corporation, with means of influence and resources of their own, the case might be different. In the next place, there are some indirect, but almost inevitable, consequences of celibacy as a compulsory law which Englishmen are very sensitive about. I will mention these. They think a clergy cut off from the ties and sympathies of domestic life-on which no nation in the world sets so high a value as we do-will not have enough genuine community of sentiment and interest with the laity-that they will act too much as a caste, and be likely, even with the

best intentions, to identify the cause of religion with the advancement of their own order. Men will not easily forget the moral phenomena of Santiago. Another result ascribed to the esprit de corps which the law of celibacy tends to create is the merging of the individual in the body and the comparative loss of independence of thought and action; and this, while it may promote sacerdotal aggrandisement, diminishes the confidence felt in each individual clergyman, and therefore circumscribes his influence and means of usefulness. It tends to make the clergy too much the mere instruments of superior authority, and this all the more where, as in France since the Revolution, they have no ascertained right and settled endowments of their own. A married clergy, it is felt, would have too many collateral ties and interests to sink into the condition of subserviency. Lastly, Englishmen have an instinctive horror of anything like a secret society, and they think the esprit de corps of a celibate clergy leads them into habits of secrecy, whether from having faults which it is prudent to conceal, or from having objects innocent and even laudable in themselves, but which may be promoted by a little diplomatic manœuvring. There are few things, I need hardly observe, which rouse the distrust of Englishmen so keenly as this, often in a degree quite disproportionate to the particular point at issue.

How far this estimate is the true one, I need not stay to inquire now. That it is the view taken by nine-tenths of Englishmen, and going very deep into the roots of the national character, there can be no sort of doubt. The wide popularity of such publications as Le Maudit in France show that it is not unshared elsewhere. My aim has been to state it in the simplest and fewest words, as well worthy the attention of those who have influence in the Church of Rome, and who are really anxious for a restoration of this country to her Communion. That result is, humanly speaking, impossible while the law of compulsory celibacy remains, for it comes into collision, directly or indirectly, with the deepest elements of our national character. The multiplication of Roman Catholic Churches and schools and convents during the last few years has not brought it any nearer, and does not prove that the heart of England has been touched at all. They arise partly from the numbers of Irish scattered over the country, especially in the large towns; partly from the zeal of Anglican converts. Not one of those converts of any mark was converted by the agency of Rome. He became convinced of their claims and accepted them, but he learnt his convictions from other teachers and other studies than hers. Let earnest and fair-minded men, like "Presbyter Catholicus," weigh these things, and consider how they may best promote that great cause of which you, Sir, have made yourself the advocate, and in sympathy with which I beg to subscribe myself,

A WARM FRIEND OF RE-UNION.

"EXPERIENCES OF A 'VERT."

SIR, I am not all surprised to learn from various quarters that the article in your last number, "The Experiences of a 'Vert," has excited considerable attention as well among Anglicans as Catholics. It was only natural, from the character of the paper, and the sacredness and importance of the interests involved, that it should be so. But your readers will probably have been tempted to ask, whether experiences founded on so much that is common to all who are in the writer's position are likely to be altogether peculiar to himself. There are, of course, many concurrent reasons which, in such a case, may make men disinclined to speak. There is the dislike of putting one's self forward; the fear of offending the convictions, or hurting the feelings of those whom one is bound to respect; the dread of "giving scandal," to which many good men attach a very disproportionate weight; the partial humiliation involved in admitting that in some points one has been disappointed or mistaken; and the shrinking, which is by no means always a selfish one, from practical inconveniences involved in speaking out. For while there are times when it is cowardice to keep silence, there are also occasions when the usefulness, perhaps of a lifetime, may be seriously prejudiced by saying what is true, but not absolutely necessary to be said. This ought not to be so, but it is so. And it would be an affectation to deny that there is a party very powerful just now among English Catholics which (little as I can like or respect it as a party) I do not wish to call by any hard names, since many excellent men are unfortunately to be found in its ranks, but which indubitably exercises, and does its best to exercise, over laymen, and still more over priests, a kind of terrorism very unfavourable to the free development and the expression of thought.

All this was no doubt well weighed by your contributor, whoever he may be, before he decided on putting his experiences into print. Nor can it have escaped the notice of so thoughtful and conscientious a writer, that his act entailed a certain responsibility on others besides himself. For it is obviously not quite the same thing for those who in heart agree with him to keep silence after he has spoken, as it was to keep silence before. He has made, as it were, a public profession of faith, which almost challenges protest or assent. This, at least, is my own feeling about it. And, therefore, while I might have hesitated to take the initiative in speaking from any or all of the motives enumerated above, I think it would be hardly right to withold my humble testimony to what has been thus publicly asserted by another. There is very little in the experiences of the writer, allowing, of course, for what is necessarily personal, which does not represent my own, and very little in his expressions of opinion to which I cannot heartily subscribe. I am sure that he has only uttered the thoughts of many hearts. There are persons whom I love and respect, who will