With reference to your letter of the 13th, forwarded to me from Ramsgate, I think it due to myself to inform you that I had nothing whatever to do with any portion of the note in question, except the passage extending to the end of the Latin quotation, which is exactly what I told you in my last letter I intended to insert. The remainder was added through a very great mistake on the part of —, but it was not in the copy which I transmitted to the press, and I was as much surprised as you were when I saw it in the published lecture. Should you publish my correspondence, you will of course take care to acquaint your readers with its private character, and to inform them that the letters, having been written without the least idea of publication, do not contain any attempt at a complete discussion of the subject, but are merely the expression of my varying thoughts during the process of careful investigation. I remain, dear Sir, Very faithfully yours, EDWARD HOARE. H. Waller, Esq. FOOTNOTES. {3} Const., part vi, chap. i. {4} “Since the delivery of the lecture, a Roman Catholic gentleman has complained of the use then made of this Constitution, and stated that it means “that the Constitutions do not bind under pain of mortal or venial sin, unless,” &c. I cannot undertake to decide what may have been the _intentions_ of the author, but I can fearlessly appeal to the opinion of any Latin scholar as to the grammatical accuracy of the translation given above. The original is as follows:—‘Cum exoptet Societas universas suas Constitutiones, declarationes, ac vivendi ordinem, omnino juxta nostrum Institutum, nihil ulla in re declinando, observari; optet etiam nihilominus suos omnes securos esse, vel certè adjuvari, ne in laqueum ullius peccati, quod ex vi Constitutionum hujusmodi, aut ordinationum proveniat, incidant: Visum est nobis in Domino præter expressum votum, quo Societas Summo Pontifici, pro tempore existenti, tenetur, ac tria alia essentialia paupertatis, castitatis, et obedientiæ, nullas Constitutiones, Declarationes, vel ordinem ullum vivendi, posse obligationem ad peccatum mortale vel veniale inducere; nisi Superior ea in nomine Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, vel in virtute obedientiæ juberet: quod in rebus, vel personis illis, in quibus judicabitur, quod ad particulare uniuscujusque, vel ad universale bonum multum conveniet, fieri poterit: [et loco timoris offensæ, succedat amor et desiderium omnis perfectionis; et ut major gloria et laus Christi Creatoris ac Domini Nostri consequatur].’ With the single additional remark, that the version thus excepted against is by no means an exclusively Protestant one, but has been adopted by most competent Roman Catholic authorities, I would earnestly recommend to my readers, of either communion, the perusal