I thank you very much for your full communication, and I fear that you will think me very much prejudiced when I state that whatever were the intention of the writer, I still think that the version which I have given is most in accordance with the Latin. With reference to your criticisms, I have read the constitutions carefully, and I cannot agree with you that the expressions “obligatio ad peccatum”—“peccati”—and “sub pœnâ peccati”—are used indifferently in any other portion of the book, unless it be the extract quoted by you from the 9th part. This appears to me a very important extract, and is the only thing which has at all shaken my opinion. I am, however, exceedingly doubtful whether the translator has given its true meaning, while at the same time I fully admit that his having so translated it is a strong and valid argument in favour of your interpretation. With reference to your two other points, I certainly think that the words “obligatio peccati” might include either sense; so that the utmost that can be gathered from the heading is that as far as it is concerned the section may bear the harmless sense, but whether it does or not must be decided by the contents. I had noticed the “ea” before you mentioned it, and you will perhaps be surprised at hearing that it failed to carry conviction to my mind. It does not agree with peccatum, but what does it agree with unless it be with “Constitutiones, &c.”; and if it does, the meaning is not at all altered, as it is the “vis constitutionum” by which the Jesuit is to be drawn “in Iaqueum peccati.” Then again, if this be the meaning of the passage, it appears to me very strange that it should be placed just after the chapter on obedience, in the middle of the Constitutions, and not at the commencement or close of the book. It certainly is a very extraordinary place for it, if it really describes the obligatory force of the whole code. On the whole, therefore, I confess myself very much at a loss upon the subject, and am inclined to think that very possibly it may be understood by members of the Society in the sense in which you apply it, while on the other hand I am thoroughly convinced that the majority of Latin scholars would translate it as I did in my lecture. I cannot therefore withdraw it, because I am not prepared to acknowledge any inaccuracy in my version; but I will subjoin the Latin, and add the reference from the 9th Part, so that the matter may be fairly presented to the reader. Once more thanking you for your communication, and deeply regretting our difference of opinion on the great questions affecting Christian truth, I remain, dear Sir, Very faithfully yours, EDWARD HOARE. H. Waller, Esq. * * * * *