to sin, mortal or venial.’ Thus far all is well; what more can be required? But now mark the next passage. ‘_Unless the Superior may command them in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ_, _or in virtue of the vow of obedience_; _and this he may do whenever_, _and to whomsoever_, _he may judge it conducive either to individual good or to the universal well-being of the Society_. And in the place of the fear of offence, let the love and desire of all perfection succeed; that the greater glory and praise of Christ our Creator and Lord may follow.’ So that the poor Jesuit may be compelled to commit what he knows to be a mortal sin at the bidding of his Superior. He may clearly see it to be utterly opposed to every principle of Scripture; his own conscience may turn from it with horror; his moral sense may utterly condemn it; he may see clearly that he is flying in the face of the most High God; but on he must go, because his Superior bids him; and in order to obtain an object, which the Superior considers conducive to the interests of the Society, he must freely consent to have his deepest convictions wholly disregarded, and his principles of moral rectitude for ever crushed within his soul.” {4} The present writer is the person alluded to in the note as having complained of this shocking statement, and stated what is the true meaning of the Constitution of which it is such an utter perversion. What he said on the subject forms his portion of the following correspondence. The publication of the entire correspondence that passed on the occasion, will, it is hoped, afford Mr. Hoare’s readers the readiest means of determining for themselves whether the accusation he has brought is sustainable or not.