To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

Every feeling of expediency and decency impels me to answer briefly the anonymous letter in Monday's CRIMSON a propos of the manners of one or two of the theologues in a certain fascinating course, since this letter is a mass of impudent misstatement from one end to the other.

It is hard to see how I can be at one and the same time a "priest baiter" as my opponent calls me, and a candidate for the anthropoid circles of Dayton, Tennessee. I am not a priest baiter but have the most profound respect for almost all forms of Christianity, or even, of "Religion," though I do not find it necessary to capitalize the last word at every turn like your anonymous correspondent, the inference being that his religion is true and holy, and all the others the sheerest bunk and rubbish. My doxy is all right, and your doxy is a bad 'un, as Carlyle was wont to remark.

I am not a "youth" as your correspondent suggests though the "juvenility of my mind" is, of course, arguable. I will venture to point out to him that I was a member of Harvard University at a time when, he in all reasonable possibility, was a denizen of Sank Center.

In my original letter, I did not mention by name either the course, or the instructors involved. This was later obligingly furnished for tout le monde by another well meaning scribe, and my anonymous friend supplements the information, with the result of holding me up to the ill will of the professors involved. This again is a first rate example of the honorable tactics of many holy men.

When your correspondent mentions "the hallowed anachronisms of early Christian institutions" and "the absurd circumlocutions of early Church Fathers," he is, incidentally, insulting the faith and intelligence of every Roman Catholic in college. Cuthbert Wright Occ.