andafterproducingthereasonsgivenfortheaffirmative，adds，"Sedhocnonvideturmihisatiscertum—Butthisdoesnotappeartomymindsufficientlycertain。"Sincethattime，however，yourfather，EradeBille，professorofcasesofconscienceatCaen，hasdecidedthatthereisnosinatallinthecasesupposed；forprobableopinions，youknow，arealwaysinthewayofadvancingtomaturity。Thisopinionhemaintainsinhiswritingsof1644，againstwhichM。Dupre，doctorandprofessoratCaen，deliveredthatexcellentoration，sinceprintedandwellknown。ForthoughthisEradeBilleconfessesthatValentia’sdoctrine，adoptedbyFatherMilhardandcondemnedbytheSorbonne，"iscontrarytothecommonopinion，suspectedofsimony，andpunishableatlawwhendiscoveredinpractice，"hedoesnotscrupletosaythatitisaprobableopinion，andconsequentlysureinpointofconscience，andthatthereisneithersimonynorsininit。
　　"Itisaprobableopinion，hesays，"taughtbymanyCatholicdoctors，thatthereisneitheranysimonynoranysiningivingmoney，oranyothertemporalthing，forabenefice，eitherinthewayofacknowledgement，orasamotive，withoutwhichitwouldnotbegiven，provideditisnotgivenasapriceequaltothebenefice。"Thisisallthatcouldpossiblybedesired。Infact，accordingtothesemaximsofyours，simonywouldbesoexceedinglyrarethatwemightexemptfromthissinevenSimonMagushimself，whodesiredtopurchasetheHolySpiritandistheemblemofthosesimoniststhatbuyspiritualthings；andGehazi，whotookmoneyforamiracleandmayberegardedastheprototypeofthesimoniststhatsellthem。TherecanbenodoubtthatwhenSimon，aswereadintheActs，"offeredtheapostlesmoney，saying，Givemealsothispower"；hesaidnothingaboutbuyingorselling，orfixingtheprice；hedidnomorethanofferthemoneyasamotivetoinducethemtogivehimthatspiritualgift；whichbeing，accordingtoyou，nosimonyatall，hemight，hadbebutbeeninstructedinyourmaxims，haveescapedtheanathemaofSt。Peter。ThesameunhappyignorancewasagreatlosstoGehazi，whenhewasstruckwithleprosybyElisha；for，asheacceptedthemoneyfromtheprincewhohadbeenmiraculouslycured，simplyasanacknowledgement，andnotasapriceequivalenttothedivinevirtuewhichhadeffectedthemiracle，hemighthaveinsistedontheprophethealinghimagainonpainofmortalsin；seeing，onthissupposition，hewouldhaveactedaccordingtotheadviceofyourgravedoctors，who，insuchcases，obligeconfessorstoabsolvetheirpenitentsandtowashthemfromthatspiritualleprosyofwhichthebodilydiseaseisthetype。Seriously，fathers，itwouldbeextremelyeasytoholdyouuptoridiculeinthismatter，andIamatalosstoknowwhyyouexposeyourselvestosuchtreatment。
　　Toproducethiseffect，IhavenothingmoretodothansimplytoquoteEscobar，inhisPracticeofSimonyaccordingtotheSocietyofJesus；"IsitsimonywhentwoChurchmenbecomemutuallypledgedthus：GivemeyourvoteformyelectionasProvincial，andIshallgiveyoumineforyourelectionasprior？Bynomeans。"Ortakeanother："Itisnotsimonytogetpossessionofabeneficebypromisingasumofmoney，whenonehasnointentionofactuallypayingthemoney；forthisismerelymakingashowofsimony，andisasfarfrombeingrealsimonyascounterfeitgoldisfromthegenuine。"Bythisquirkofconscience，hehascontrivedmeans，inthewayofaddingswindlingtosimony，forobtainingbeneficeswithoutsimonyandwithoutmoney。ButIhavenotimetodwelllongeronthesubject，forImustsayawordortwoinreplytoyourthirdaccusation，whichreferstothesubjectofbankrupts。Nothingcanbemoregrossthanthemannerinwhichyouhavemanagedthischarge。YourailatmeasalibellerinreferencetoasentimentofLessius，whichIdidnotquotemyself，buttookfromapassageinEscobar；and，therefore，thoughitweretruethatLessiusdoesnotholdtheopinionascribedtohimbyEscobar，whatcanbemoreunfairthantochargemewiththemisrepresentation？WhenIquoteLessiusorothersofyourauthorsmyself，Iamquitepreparedtoanswerforit；but，asEscobarhascollectedtheopinionsoftwenty—fourofyourwriters，IbegtoaskifIamboundtoguaranteeanythingbeyondthecorrectnessofmycitationsfromhisbook？OrifImust，inaddition，answerforthefidelityofallhisquotationsofwhichImayavailmyself？Thiswouldbehardlyreasonable；andyetthisispreciselythecaseinthequestionbeforeus。IproducedinmyletterthefollowingpassagefromEscobar，andyoudonotobjecttothefidelityofmytranslation："Maythebankrupt，withagoodconscience，retainasmuchofhispropertyasisnecessarytoaffordhimanhonourablemaintenance—neindecorevivat？Ianswer，withLessius，thathemay—cumLessioasseroposse。"YoutellmethatLessiusdoesnotholdthatopinion。Butjustconsiderforamomentthepredicamentinwhichyouinvolveyourselves。Ifitturnsoutthathedoesholdthatopinion，youwillbesetdownasimpostorsforhavingassertedthecontrary；
　　andifitisprovedthathedoesnotholdit，Escobarwillbetheimpostor；
　　soitmustnowofnecessityfollowthatoneorotheroftheSocietywillbeconvictedofimposture。Onlythinkwhatascandal！Youcannot，itwouldappear，foreseetheconsequencesofthings。Youseemtoimaginethatyouhavenothingmoretodothantocastaspersionsuponpeople，withoutconsideringonwhomtheymayrecoil。WhydidyounotacquaintEscobarwithyourobjectionbeforeventuringtopublishit？Hemighthavegivenyousatisfaction。ItisnotsoverytroublesometogetwordfromValladolid，whereheislivinginperfecthealth，andcompletinghisgrandworkonMoralTheology，insixvolumes，onthefirstofwhichImeantosayafewwordsby—and—by。
　　Theyhavesenthimthefirsttenletters；youmightaseasilyhavesenthimyourobjection，andIamsurehewouldhavesoonreturnedyouananswer，forhehasdoubtlessseeninLessiusthepassagefromwhichhetooktheneindecorevivat。Readhimyourselves，fathers，andyouwillfinditwordforword，asIhavedone。Hereitis："Thesamethingisapparentfromtheauthoritiescited，particularlyinregardtothatpropertywhichheacquiresafterhisfailure，outofwhicheventhedelinquentdebtormayretainasmuchasisnecessaryforhishonourablemaintenance，accordingtohisstationoflife—utnonindecorevivat。Doyouaskifthisruleappliestogoodswhichhepossessedatthetimeofhisfailure？Suchseemstobethejudgementofthedoctors。"IshallnotstopheretoshowhowLessius，tosanctionhismaxim，pervertsthelawthatallowsbankruptsnothingmorethanamerelivelihood，andthatmakesnoprovisionfor"honourablemaintenance。"ItisenoughtohavevindicatedEscobarfromsuchanaccusation—
　　itismore，indeed，thanwhatIwasindutyboundtodo。Butyou，fathers，havenotdoneyourduty。ItstillremainsforyoutoanswerthepassageofEscobar，whosedecisions，bytheway，havethisadvantage，that，beingentirelyindependentofthecontextandcondensedinlittlearticles，theyarenotliabletoyourdistinctions。Iquotedthewholeofthepassage，inwhich"bankruptsarepermittedtokeeptheirgoods，thoughunjustlyacquired，toprovideanhonourablemaintenancefortheirfamilies"—commentingonwhichinmyletters，Iexclaim："Indeed，father！bywhatstrangekindofcharitywouldyouhavetheill—gottenpropertyofabankruptappropriatedtohisownuse，insteadofthatofhislawfulcreditors？"Thisisthequestionwhichmustbeanswered；butitisonethatinvolvesyouinasaddilemma，andfromwhichyouinvainseektoescapebyalteringthestateofthequestion，andquotingotherpassagesfromLessius，whichhavenoconnectionwiththesubject。Iaskyou，then：MaythismaximofEscobarbefollowedbybankruptswithasafeconscience，orno？Andtakecarewhatyousay。
　　Ifyouanswer，"No，"whatbecomesofyourdoctor，andyourdoctrineofprobability？Ifyousay，"Yes，"IdelateyoutotheParliament。InthispredicamentImustnowleaveyou，fathers；formylimitswillnotpermitmetoovertakeyournextaccusation，whichrespectshomicide。Thiswillserveformynextletter，andtherestwillfollow。Inthemeanwhile，I
　　shallmakenoremarksontheadvertisementswhichyouhavetaggedtotheendofeachofyourcharges，filledastheyarewithscandalousfalsehoods。
　　Imeantoansweralltheseinaseparateletter，inwhichIhopetoshowtheweightduetoyourcalumnies。Iamsorry，fathers，thatyoushouldhaverecoursetosuchdesperateresources。Theabusivetermswhichyouheaponmewillnotclearupourdisputes，norwillyourmanifoldthreatshindermefromdefendingmyselfYouthinkyouhavepowerandimpunityonyourside；andIthinkIhavetruthandinnocenceonmine。Itisastrangeandtediouswarwhenviolenceattemptstovanquishtruth。Alltheeffortsofviolencecannotweakentruth，andonlyservetogiveitfreshvigour。
　　Allthelightsoftruthcannotarrestviolence，andonlyservetoexasperateit。Whenforcemeetsforce，theweakermustsuccumbtothestronger；whenargumentisopposedtoargument，thesolidandtheconvincingtriumphsovertheemptyandthefalse；butviolenceandveritycanmakenoimpressiononeachother。Letnonesuppose，however，thatthetwoare，therefore，equaltoeachother；forthereisthisvastdifferencebetweenthem，thatviolencehasonlyacertaincoursetorun，limitedbytheappointmentofHeaven，whichoverrulesitseffectstothegloryofthetruthwhichitassails；whereasverityenduresforeverandeventuallytriumphsoveritsenemies，beingeternalandalmightyasGodhimself。LETTERXIII
　　TOTHEREVERENDFATHERSOFTHESOCIETYOFJESUSSeptember30，1656REVERENDFATHERS，Ihavejustseenyourlastproduction，inwhichyouhavecontinuedyourlistofImposturesuptothetwentiethandintimatethatyoumeantoconcludewiththisthefirstpartofyouraccusationsagainstme，andtoproceedtothesecond，inwhichyouaretoadoptanewmodeofdefence，byshowingthatthereareothercasuistsbesidesthoseofyourSocietywhoareaslaxasyourselves。I
　　nowseetheprecisenumberofchargestowhichIhavetoreply；andasthefourth，towhichwehavenowcome，relatestohomicide，itmaybeproper，inansweringit，toincludethe11th，13th，14th，15th，16th，17th，and18th，whichrefertothesamesubject。Inthepresentletter，therefore，myobjectshallbetovindicatethecorrectnessofmyquotationsfromthechargesoffalsitywhichyoubringagainstme。Butasyouhaveventured，inyourpamphlets，toassertthat"thesentimentsofyourauthorsonmurderareagreeabletothedecisionsofpopesandecclesiasticallaws，"youwillcompelme，inmynextletter，toconfuteastatementatoncesounfoundedandsoinjurioustotheChurch。Itisofsomeimportancetoshowthatsheisinnocentofyourcorruptions，inorderthathereticsmaybepreventedfromtakingadvantageofyouraberrations，todrawconclusionstendingtoherdishonour。Andthus，viewingontheonehandyourperniciousmaxims，andontheotherthecanonsoftheChurchwhichhaveuniformlycondemnedthem，peoplewillsee，atoneglance，whattheyshouldshunandwhattheyshouldfollow。Yourfourthchargeturnsonamaximrelatingtomurder，whichyousayIhavefalselyascribedtoLessius。Itisasfollows："Thatifamanhasreceivedabuffet，hemayimmediatelypursuehisenemy，andevenreturntheblowwiththesword，nottoavengehimself，buttoretrievehishonour。"This，yousay，istheopinionofthecasuistVictoria。Butthisisnothingtothepoint。ThereisnoinconsistencyinsayingthatitisatoncetheopinionofVictoriaandofLessius；forLessiushimselfsaysthatitisalsoheldbyNavarreandHenriquez，whoteachidenticallythesamedoctrine。Theonlyquestion，then，isifLessiusholdsthisviewaswellashisbrothercasuists。Youmaintain"thatLessiusquotesthisopinionsolelyforthepurposeofrefutingit，andthatI，therefore，attributetohimasentimentwhichheproducesonlytooverthrow—thebasestandmostdisgracefulactofwhichawritercanbeguilty。"NowImaintain，fathers，thathequotestheopinionsolelyforthepurposeofsupportingit。Hereisaquestionoffact，whichitwillbeveryeasytosettle。Letussee，then，howyouproveyourallegation，andyouwillseeafterwardshowIprovemine。ToshowthatLessiusisnotofthatopinion，youtellusthathecondemnsthepracticeofit；andinproofofthis，youquoteonepassageofhis（l。2，c。9，n。92），inwhichhesays，insomanywords，"Icondemnthepracticeofit。"Igrantthat，onlookingforthesewords，atnumber92，towhichyourefer，theywillbefoundthere。Butwhatwillpeoplesay，fathers，whentheydiscover，atthesametime，thatheistreatinginthatplaceofaquestiontotallydifferentfromthatofwhichwearespeaking，andthattheopinionofwhichhetheresaysthathecondemnsthepracticehasnoconnectionwiththatnowindispute，butisquitedistinct？
　　Andyettobeconvincedthatthisisthefact，wehaveonlytoopenthebooktowhichyourefer，andtherewefindthewholesubjectinitsconnectionasfollows：Atnumber79hetreatsthequestion，"Ifitislawfultokillforabuffet？"andatnumber80hefinishesthismatterwithoutasinglewordofcondemnation。Havingdisposedofthisquestion，heopensanewoneat81，namely，"Ifitislawfultokillforslanders？"anditiswhenspeakingofthisquestionthatheemploysthewordsyouhavequoted："I
　　condemnthepracticeofit。"Isitnotshameful，fathers，thatyoushouldventuretoproducethesewordstomakeitbebelievedthatLessiuscondemnstheopinionthatitislawfultokillforabuffet？andthat，onthegroundofthissingleproof，youshouldchuckleoverit，asyouhavedone，bysaying："ManypersonsofhonourinParishavealreadydiscoveredthisnotoriousfalsehoodbyconsultingLessius，andhavethusascertainedthedegreeofcreditduetothatslanderer？"Indeed！andisitthusthatyouabusetheconfidencewhichthosepersonsofhonourreposeinyou？ToshowthemthatLessiusdoesnotholdacertainopinion，youopenthebooktothemataplacewhereheiscondemninganotheropinion；andthesepersons，nothavingbeguntomistrustyourgoodfaithandneverthinkingofexaminingwhethertheauthorspeaksinthatplaceofthesubjectindispute，youimposeontheircredulity。Imakenodoubt，fathers，that，toshelteryourselvesfromtheguiltofsuchascandalouslie，youhadrecoursetoyourdoctrineofequivocations；andthat，havingreadthepassageinaloudvoice，youwouldsay，inalowerkey，thattheauthorwasspeakingthereofsomethingelse。ButIamnotsosurewhetherthissavingclause，whichisquiteenoughtosatisfyyourconsciences，willbeaverysatisfactoryanswertothejustcomplaintofthose"honourablepersons，"whentheyshalldiscoverthatyouhavehoodwinkedtheminthisstyle。Takecare，then，fathers，topreventthembyallmeansfromseeingmyletters；forthisistheonlymethodnowlefttoyoutopreserveyourcreditforashorttimelonger。
　　ThisisnotthewayinwhichIdealwithyourwritings：Isendthemtoallmyfriends；Iwisheverybodytoseethem。AndIverilybelievethatbothofusareintherightforourowninterests；for，afterhavingpublishedwithsuchparadethisfourthImposture，wereitoncediscoveredthatyouhavemadeitupbyfoistinginonepassageforanother，youwouldbeinstantlydenounced。ItwillbeeasilyseenthatifyoucouldhavefoundwhatyouwantedinthepassagewhereLessiustreatedofthismatter，youwouldnothavesearchedforitelsewhere，andthatyouhadrecoursetosuchatrickonlybecauseyoucouldfindnothinginthatpassagefavourabletoyourpurpose。YouwouldhaveusbelievethatwemayfindinLessiuswhatyouassert，"thathedoesnotallowthatthisopinion（thatamanmaybelawfullykilledforabuffet）isprobableintheory"；whereasLessiusdistinctlydeclares，atnumber80："Thisopinion，thatamanmaykillforabuffet，isprobableintheory。"Isnotthis，wordforword，thereverseofyourassertion？Andcanwesufficientlyadmirethehardihoodwithwhichyouhaveadvanced，insetphrase，theveryreverseofamatteroffact！Toyourconclusion，fromafabricatedpassage，thatLessiuswasnotofthatopinion，wehaveonlytoplaceLessiushimself，who，inthegenuinepassage，declaresthatheisofthatopinion。Again，youwouldhaveLessiustosay"thathecondemnsthepracticeofit"；and，asIhavejustobserved，thereisnotintheoriginalasinglewordofcondemnation；allthathesaysis："Itappearsthatitoughtnottobeeasilypermittedinpractice—Inpraxinonvideturfacilepermittenda。"Isthat，fathers，thelanguageofamanwhocondemnsamaxim？Wouldyousaythatadulteryandincestoughtnottobeeasilypermittedinpractice？Mustwenot，onthecontrary，concludethatasLessiussaysnomorethanthatthepracticeoughtnottobeeasilypermitted，hisopinionisthatitmaybepermittedsometimes，thoughrarely？
　　And，asifhehadbeenanxioustoappriseeverybodywhenitmightbepermitted，andtorelievethosewhohavereceivedaffrontsfrombeingtroubledwithunreasonablescruplesfromnotknowingonwhatoccasionstheymightlawfullykillinpractice，hehasbeenatpainstoinformthemwhattheyoughttoavoidinordertopractisethedoctrinewithasafeconscience。Markhiswords："Itseems，"sayshe，"thatitoughtnottobeeasilypermitted，becauseofthedangerthatpersonsmayactinthismatteroutofhatredorrevenge，orwithexcess，orthatthismayoccasiontoomanymurders。"
　　FromthisitappearsthatmurderisfreelypermittedbyLessius，ifoneavoidstheinconveniencesreferredto—inotherwords，ifonecanactwithouthatredorrevengeandincircumstancesthatmaynotopenthedoortoagreatmanymurders。Toillustratethematter，Imaygiveyouanexampleofrecentoccurrence—thecaseofthebuffetofCompiegne。Youwillgrantthatthepersonwhoreceivedtheblowonthatoccasionhasshown，bythewayinwhichhehasacted，thathewassufficientlymasterofthepassionsofhatredandrevenge。Itonlyremainedforhim，therefore，toseethathedidnotgiveoccasiontotoomanymurders；andyouneedhardlybetold，fathers，itissuchararespectacletofindJesuitsbestowingbuffetsontheofficersoftheroyalhouseholdthathehadnogreatreasontofearthatamurdercommittedonthisoccasionwouldbelikelytodrawmanyothersinitstrain。Youcannot，accordingly，denythattheJesuitwhofiguredonthatoccasionwaskillablewithasafeconscience，andthattheoffendedpartymighthaveconvertedhimintoapracticalillustrationofthedoctrineofLessius。Andverylikely，fathers，thismighthavebeentheresulthadhebeeneducatedinyourschool，andlearntfromEscobarthatthemanwhohasreceivedabuffetisheldtobedisgraceduntilhehastakenthelifeofhimwhoinsultedhim。Butthereisgroundtobelievethattheverydifferentinstructionswhichhereceivedfromacurate，whoisnogreatfavouriteofyours，havecontributednotalittleinthiscasetosavethelifeofaJesuit。Tellusnomore，then，ofinconvenienceswhichmay，inmanyinstances，besoeasilygotover，andintheabsenceofwhich，accordingtoLessius，murderispermissibleeveninpractice。Thisisfranklyavowedbyyourauthors，asquotedbyEscobar，inhisPracticeofHomicide，accordingtoyourSociety。"Isitallowable，"asksthiscasuist，"tokillhimwhohasgivenmeabuffet？Lessiussaysitispermissibleinspeculation，thoughnottobefollowedinpractice—nonconsulenduminpraxi—onaccountoftheriskofhatred，orofmurdersprejudicialtotheState。Others，however，havejudgedthat，byavoidingtheseinconveniences，thisispermissibleandsafeinpractice—inpraxiprobabilemettutamjudicaruntHenriquez，"
　　&；c。Seehowyouropinionsmountup，bylittleandlittle，totheclimaxofprobabilism！Thepresentoneyouhaveatlastelevatedtothisposition，bypermittingmurderwithoutanydistinctionbetweenspeculationandpractice，inthefollowingterms："Itislawful，whenonehasreceivedabuffet，toreturntheblowimmediatelywiththesword，nottoavengeone’sself，buttopreserveone’shonour。"SuchisthedecisionofyourfathersofCaenin1644，embodiedintheirpublicationsproducedbytheuniversitybeforeparliament，whentheypresentedtheirthirdremonstranceagainstyourdoctrineofhomicide，asshowninthebookthenemittedbythem，onpage339。Mark，then，fathers，thatyourownauthorshavethemselvesdemolishedthisabsurddistinctionbetweenspeculativeandpracticalmurder—adistinctionwhichtheuniversitytreatedwithridicule，andtheinventionofwhichisasecretofyourpolicy，whichitmaynowbeworthwhiletoexplain。
　　Theknowledgeofit，besidesbeingnecessarytotherightunderstandingofyour15th，16th，17th，and18thcharges，iswellcalculated，ingeneral，toopenup，bylittleandlittle，theprinciplesofthatmysteriouspolicy。
　　Inattempting，asyouhavedone，todecidecasesofconscienceinthemostagreeableandaccommodatingmanner，whileyoumetwithsomequestionsinwhichreligionalonewasconcerned—suchasthoseofcontrition，penance，lovetoGod，andothersonlyaffectingtheinnercourtofconscience—youencounteredanotherclassofcasesinwhichcivilsocietywasinterestedaswellasreligion—suchasthoserelatingtousury，bankruptcy，homicide，andthelike。AnditistrulydistressingtoallthatlovetheChurchtoobservethat，inavastnumberofinstances，inwhichyouhadonlyReligiontocontendwith，youhaveviolatedherlawswithoutreservation，withoutdistinction，andwithoutcompunction；becauseyouknewthatitisnotherethatGodvisiblyadministershisjustice。ButinthosecasesinwhichtheStateisinterestedaswellasReligion，yourapprehensionofman’sjusticehasinducedyoutodivideyourdecisionsintotwoshares。Tothefirstoftheseyougivethenameofspeculation；underwhichcategorycrimes，consideredinthemselves，withoutregardtosociety，butmerelytothelawofGod，youhavepermitted，withouttheleastscruple，andinthewayoftramplingonthedivinelawwhichcondemnsthem。Thesecondyourankunderthedenominationofpractice，andhere，consideringtheinjurywhichmaybedonetosociety，andthepresenceofmagistrateswholookafterthepublicpeace，youtakecare，inordertokeepyourselvesonthesafesideofthelaw，nottoapprovealwaysinpracticethemurdersandothercrimeswhichyouhavesanctionedinspeculation。Thus，forexample，onthequestion，"Ifitbelawfultokillforslanders？"yourauthors，Filiutius，Reginald，andothers，reply："Thisispermittedinspeculation—exprobabileopinionelicet；butisnottobeapprovedinpractice，onaccountofthegreatnumberofmurderswhichmightensue，andwhichmightinjuretheState，ifallslanderersweretobekilled，andalsobecauseonemightbepunishedinacourtofjusticeforhavingkilledanotherforthatmatter。"Suchisthestyleinwhichyouropinionsbegintodevelopthemselves，undertheshelterofthisdistinction，invirtueofwhich，withoutdoinganysensibleinjurytosociety，youonlyruinreligion。Inactingthus，youconsideryourselvesquitesafe。Yousupposethat，ontheonehand，theinfluenceyouhaveintheChurchwilleffectuallyshieldfrompunishmentyourassaultsontruth；andthat，ontheother，theprecautionsyouhavetakenagainsttooeasilyreducingyourpermissionstopracticewillsaveyouonthepartofthecivilpowers，who，notbeingjudgesincasesofconscience，areproperlyconcernedonlywiththeoutwardpractice。Thusanopinionwhichwouldbecondemnedunderthenameofpractice，comesoutquitesafeunderthenameofspeculation。Butthisbasisonceestablished，itisnotdifficulttoerectonittherestofyourmaxims。ThereisaninfinitedistancebetweenGod’sprohibitionofmurderandyourspeculativepermissionofthecrime；butbetweenthatpermissionandthepracticethedistanceisverysmallindeed。Itonlyremainstoshowthatwhatisallowableinspeculationisalsosoinpractice；andtherecanbenowantofreasonsforthis。Youhavecontrivedtofindtheminfarmoredifficultcases。
　　Wouldyouliketosee，fathers，howthismaybemanaged？IreferyoutothereasoningofEscobar，whohasdistinctlydecidedthepointinthefirstsixvolumesofhisgrandMoralTheology，ofwhichIhavealreadyspoken—
　　aworkinwhichheshowsquiteanotherspiritfromthatwhichappearsinhisformercompilationfromyourfour—and—twentyelders。Atthattimehethoughtthattheremightbeopinionsprobableinspeculation，whichmightnotbesafeinpractice；buthehasnowcometoformanoppositejudgment，andhas，inthis，hislatestwork，confirmedit。Suchisthewonderfulgrowthattainedbythedoctrineofprobabilityingeneral，aswellasbyeveryprobableopinioninparticular，inthecourseoftime。Attend，then，towhathesays："Icannotseehowitcanbethatanactionwhichseemsallowableinspeculationshouldnotbesolikewiseinpractice；becausewhatmaybedoneinpracticedependsonwhatisfoundtobelawfulinspeculation，andthethingsdifferfromeachotheronlyascauseandeffect。Speculationisthatwhichdeterminestoaction。Whenceitfollowsthatopinionsprobableinspeculationmaybefollowedwithasafeconscienceinpractice，andthatevenwithmoresafetythanthosewhichhavenotbeensowellexaminedasmattersofspeculation。"Verily，fathers，yourfriendEscobarreasonsuncommonlywellsometimes；and，inpointoffact，thereissuchacloseconnectionbetweenspeculationandpractice，thatwhentheformerhasoncetakenroot，youhavenodifficultyinpermittingthelatter，withoutanydisguise。Agoodillustrationofthiswehaveinthepermission"tokillforabuffet，"which，frombeingapointofsimplespeculation，wasboldlyraisedbyLessiusintoapractice"whichoughtnoteasilytobeallowed"；
　　fromthatpromotedbyEscobartothecharacterof"aneasypractice"；andfromthenceelevatedbyyourfathersofCaen，aswehaveseen，withoutanydistinctionbetweentheoryandpractice，intoafullpermission。Thusyoubringyouropinionstotheirfullgrowthverygradually。Weretheypresentedallatonceintheirfinishedextravagance，theywouldbegethorror；butthisslowimperceptibleprogressgraduallyhabituatesmentothesightofthemandhidestheiroffensiveness。Andinthiswaythepermissiontomurder，initselfsoodiousbothtoChurchandState，creepsfirstintotheChurch，andthenfromtheChurchintotheState。Asimilarsuccesshasattendedtheopinionof"killingforslander，"whichhasnowreachedtheclimaxofapermissionwithoutanydistinction。Ishouldnothavestoppedtoquotemyauthoritiesonthispointfromyourwritings，haditnotbeennecessaryinordertoputdowntheeffronterywithwhichyouhaveasserted，twiceover，inyourfifteenthImposture，"thatthereneverwasaJesuitwhopermittedkillingforslander。"Beforemakingthisstatement，fathers，youshouldhavetakencaretopreventitfromcomingundermynotice，seeingthatitissoeasyformetoanswerit。For，nottomentionthatyourfathersReginald，Filiutius，andothers，havepermitteditinspeculation，asI