The writer may advert here to a consideration which was overlooked in the course of the correspondence by both Mr. Hoare and himself. From first to last Mr. Hoare has considered the question simply with reference to the rules of scholarship; it is believed, however, that the ordinary principles of scholarship, _i.e._, of classical scholarship, have hardly any place in the discussion at all, and this for the following reason:—Christianity having introduced its new and complex subject-matter, there followed, in matter of fact, what we should beforehand expect to find, viz., a corresponding modification of the language which became its organ. Expression had to be found for the mind of the Church in a medium to which almost all her ideas were foreign and strange; she had to adapt it to her purpose in her own way; new ideas provided for themselves new forms of language; words were added, existing words acquired new meanings and were used in new combinations; and by this natural process there was brought about in the course of years, almost as great a difference, as regards idiom, between the Latin of the Church and the classical Latin, as is observable in the case of any two modern languages having a common origin. The writer is not a theological student, and is not saying this from his own knowledge; but he understands from those who are qualified to speak on the subject, and in whom he places implicit confidence, that the fact is as he has stated. So then, possibly “obligatio ad peccatum,” meaning “an obligation binding under pain of sin,” may displease the classical Latinist, but it is a term of Theology, and beyond his province. The question is not how _he_ would express that meaning in Latin, but how he should construe a particular phrase which he finds Theologians have adopted. It is used by Catholic {7} and Protestant writers alike, and must be understood as they understand it. Its use by St. Alphonso was but very lately brought into prominent view: a writer in the _Dublin Review_ for October last, had occasion to animadvert on a Protestant author’s having translated these words of St. Alphonso, “nullo jure obligante ad mortale,” thus—“by no law that is obligatory,” and so having omitted to render the important words “ad mortale.” It appears from a reply by the Protestant author, that “the misprint,” as he calls it, was corrected in a second edition of his work; but that the phrase meant “obligatory under pain of mortal sin,” was admitted on all hands; and this was in a most adverse quarter. It will be seen that for so much of the note extracted above as follows the Latin quotation, Mr. Hoare is not responsible; it was added, through mistake, by another gentleman. The circumstance will account for a contrariety of statement to be observed with reference to Const., part iv, chap, i, but which does not call for more particular notice.