havealreadyshown，andthattheprinciplelaiddownbyEscobarleadsussafelyontothepractice，Ihavetotellyouthatyouhaveauthorswhohavepermitteditinsomanywords，andamongothersFatherHereauinhispubliclectures，ontheconclusionofwhichthekingputhimunderarrestinyourhouse，forhavingtaught，amongothererrors，thatwhenapersonwhohasslanderedusinthepresenceofmenofhonour，continuestodosoafterbeingwarnedtodesist，itisallowabletokillhim，notpublicly，indeed，forfearofscandal，butinaprivateway—sedclam。IhavehadoccasionalreadytomentionFatherLamy，andyoudonotneedtobeinformedthathisdoctrineonthissubjectwascensuredin1649bytheUniversityofLouvain。AndyettwomonthshavenotelapsedsinceyourFatherDesBoismaintainedthisverycensureddoctrineofFatherLamyandtaughtthat"itwasallowableforamonktodefendthehonourwhichheacquiredbyhisvirtue，evenbykillingthepersonwhoassailshisreputation—etiamcummorteinvasoris"；whichhasraisedsuchascandalinthattownthatthewholeofthecuresunitedtoimposesilenceonhim，andtoobligehim，byacanonicalprocess，toretracthisdoctrine。ThecaseisnowpendingintheEpiscopalcourt。Whatsayyounow，fathers？Whyattempt，afterthat，tomaintainthat"noJesuiteverheldthatitwaslawfultokillforslander？"
　　Isanythingmorenecessarytoconvinceyouofthisthantheveryopinionsofyourfatherswhichyouquote，sincetheydonotcondemnmurderinspeculation，butonlyinpractice，andthat，too，"onaccountoftheinjurythatmighttherebyaccruetotheState"？AndhereIwouldjustbegtoaskwhetherthewholematterindisputebetweenusisnotsimplyandsolelytoascertainifyouhaveorhavenotsubvertedthelawofGodwhichcondemnsmurder？
　　Thepointinquestionis，notwhetheryouhaveinjuredthecommonwealth，butwhetheryouhaveinjuredreligion。Whatpurpose，then，canitserve，inadisputeofthiskind，toshowthatyouhavesparedtheState，whenyoumakeitapparent，atthesametime，thatyouhavedestroyedthefaith？
　　IsthisnotevidentfromyoursayingthatthemeaningofReginald，onthequestionofkillingforslanders，is，"thataprivateindividualhasarighttoemploythatmodeofdefence，viewingitsimplyinitself"？Idesirenothingbeyondthisconcessiontoconfuteyou。"Aprivateindividual，"
　　yousay，"hasarighttoemploythatmodeofdefence"（thatis，killingforslanders），"viewingthethinginitself’；and，consequently，fathers，thelawofGod，whichforbidsustokill，isnullifiedbythatdecision。
　　Itservesnopurposetoadd，asyouhavedone，"thatsuchamodeisunlawfulandcriminal，evenaccordingtothelawofGod，onaccountofthemurdersanddisorderswhichwouldfollowinsociety，becausethelawofGodobligesustohaveregardtothegoodofsociety。"Thisistoevadethequestion：
　　fortherearetwolawstobeobserved—oneforbiddingustokill，andanotherforbiddingustoharmsociety。Reginaldhasnot，perhaps，brokenthelawwhichforbidsustodoharmtosociety；buthehasmostcertainlyviolatedthatwhichforbidsustokill。Nowthisistheonlypointwithwhichwehavetodo。Imighthaveshown，besides，thatyourotherwriters，whohavepermittedthesemurdersinpractice，havesubvertedtheonelawaswellastheother。But，toproceed，wehaveseenthatyousometimesforbiddoingharmtotheState；andyouallegethatyourdesigninthatistofulfilthelawofGod，whichobligesustoconsulttheinterestsofsociety。Thatmaybetrue，thoughitisfarfrombeingcertain，asyoumightdothesamethingpurelyfromfearofthecivilmagistrate。Withyourpermission，then，weshallscrutinizetherealsecretofthismovement。Isitnotcertain，fathers，thatifyouhadreallyanyregardtoGod，andiftheobservanceofhislawhadbeentheprimeandprincipalobjectinyourthoughts，thisrespectwouldhaveinvariablypredominatedinallyourleadingdecisionsandwouldhaveengagedyouatalltimesonthesideofreligion？But，ifitturnsout，onthecontrary，thatyouviolate，ininnumerableinstances，themostsacredcommandsthatGodhaslaiduponmen，andthat，asintheinstancesbeforeus，youannihilatethelawofGod，whichforbidstheseactionsascriminalinthemselves，andthatyouonlyscrupletoapproveoftheminpractice，frombodilyfearofthecivilmagistrate，doyounotaffordusgroundtoconcludethatyouhavenorespecttoGodinyourapprehensions，andthatifyouyieldanapparentobediencetohislaw，insofarasregardstheobligationtodonoharmtotheState，thisisnotdoneoutofanyregardtothelawitself，buttocompassyourownends，ashaseverbeenthewaywithpoliticiansofnoreligion？What，fathers！willyoutellusthat，lookingsimplytothelawofGod，whichsays，"Thoushaltnotkill，"
　　wehavearighttokillforslanders？AndafterhavingthustrampledontheeternallawofGod，doyouimaginethatyouatoneforthescandalyouhavecaused，andcanpersuadeusofyourreverenceforHim，byaddingthatyouprohibitthepracticeforStatereasonsandfromdreadofthecivilarm？Isnotthis，onthecontrary，toraiseafreshscandal？Imeannotbytherespectwhichyoutestifyforthemagistrate；thatisnotmychargeagainstyou，anditisridiculousinyoutobanter，asyouhavedone，onthismatter。Iblameyou，notforfearingthemagistrate，butforfearingnonebutthemagistrate。AndIblameyouforthis，becauseitismakingGodlesstheenemyofvicethanman。Hadyousaidthattokillforslanderwasallowableaccordingtomen，butnotaccordingtoGod，thatmighthavebeensomethingmoreendurable；butwhenyoumaintainthatwhatistoocriminaltobetoleratedamongmenmayyetbeinnocentandrightintheeyesofthatBeingwhoisrighteousnessitself，whatisthisbuttodeclarebeforethewholeworld，byasubversionofprincipleasshockinginitselfasitisalientothespiritofthesaints，thatwhileyoucanbebraggartsbeforeGod，youarecowardsbeforemen？Hadyoureallybeenanxioustocondemnthesehomicides，youwouldhaveallowedthecommandmentofGodwhichforbidsthemtoremainintact；andhadyoudaredatoncetopermitthem，youwouldhavepermittedthemopenly，inspiteofthelawsofGodandmen。But，yourobjectbeingtopermitthemimperceptibly，andtocheatthemagistrate，whowatchesoverthepublicsafety，youhavegonecraftilytowork。Youseparateyourmaximsintotwoportions。Ontheoneside，youholdout"thatitislawfulinspeculationtokillamanforslander"；
　　andnobodythinksofhinderingyoufromtakingaspeculativeviewofmatters。
　　Ontheotherside，youcomeoutwiththisdetachedaxiom，"thatwhatispermittedinspeculationisalsopermissibleinpractice"；andwhatconcerndoessocietyseemtohaveinthisgeneralandmetaphysical—lookingproposition？
　　Andthusthesetwoprinciples，solittlesuspected，beingembracedintheirseparateform，thevigilanceofthemagistrateiseluded；whileitisonlynecessarytocombinethetwotogethertodrawfromthemtheconclusionwhichyouaimat—namely，thatitislawfulinpracticetoputamantodeathforasimpleslander。Itis，indeed，fathers，oneofthemostsubtletricksofyourpolicytoscatterthroughyourpublicationsthemaximswhichyouclubtogetherinyourdecisions。Itispartlyinthiswaythatyouestablishyourdoctrineofprobabilities，whichIhavefrequentlyhadoccasiontoexplain。Thatgeneralprincipleonceestablished，youadvancepropositionsharmlessenoughwhenviewedapart，butwhich，whentakeninconnectionwiththatperniciousdogma，becomepositivelyhorrible。Anexampleofthis，whichdemandsananswer，maybefoundinthe11thpageofyourImpostures，whereyouallegethat"severalfamoustheologianshavedecidedthatitislawfultokillamanforaboxontheear。"Now，itiscertainthat，ifthathadbeensaidbyapersonwhodidnotholdprobabilism，therewouldbenothingtofindfaultwithinit；itwouldinthiscaseamounttonomorethanaharmlessstatement，andnothingcouldbeelicitedfromit。
　　Butyou，fathers，andallwhoholdthatdangeroustenet，"thatwhateverhasbeenapprovedbycelebratedauthorsisprobableandsafeinconscience，"
　　whenyouaddtothis"thatseveralcelebratedauthorsareofopinionthatitislawfultokillamanforaboxontheear，"whatisthisbuttoputadaggerintothehandofallChristians，forthepurposeofplungingitintotheheartofthefirstpersonthatinsultsthem，andtoassurethemthat，havingthejudgementofsomanygraveauthorsontheirside，theymaydosowithaperfectlysafeconscience？Whatmonstrousspeciesoflanguageisthis，which，inannouncingthatcertainauthorsholdadetestableopinion，isatthesametimegivingadecisioninfavourofthatopinion—whichsolemnlyteacheswhateveritsimplytells！Wehavelearnt，fathers，tounderstandthispeculiardialectoftheJesuiticalschool；anditisastonishingthatyouhavethehardihoodtospeakitoutsofreely，foritbetraysyoursentimentssomewhattoobroadly。Itconvictsyouofpermittingmurderforabuffet，asoftenasyourepeatthatmanycelebratedauthorshavemaintainedthatopinion。Thischarge，fathers，youwillneverbeabletorepel；norwillyoubemuchhelpedoutbythosepassagesfromVasquezandSuarezthatyouadduceagainstme，inwhichtheycondemnthemurderswhichtheirassociateshaveapproved。Thesetestimonies，disjoinedfromtherestofyourdoctrine，mayhoodwinkthosewhoknowlittleaboutit；butwe，whoknowbetter，putyourprinciplesandmaximstogether。Yousay，then，thatVasquezcondemnsmurders；butwhatsayyouontheothersideofthequestion，myreverendfathers？Why，"thattheprobabilityofonesentimentdoesnothindertheprobabilityoftheoppositesentiment；andthatitiswarrantabletofollowthelessprobableandlesssafeopinion，givingupthemoreprobableandmoresafeone。"Whatfollowsfromallthistakeninconnection，butthatwehaveperfectfreedomofconsciencetoadoptanyoneoftheseconflictingjudgementswhichpleasesusbest？Andwhatbecomesofalltheeffectwhichyoufondlyanticipatefromyourquotations？Itevaporatesinsmoke，forwehavenomoretodothantoconjoinforyourcondemnationthemaximswhichyouhavedisjoinedforyourexculpation。Why，then，producethosepassagesofyourauthorswhichIhavenotquoted，toqualifythosewhichIhavequoted，asiftheonecouldexcusetheother？Whatrightdoesthatgiveyoutocallmean"impostor"？HaveIsaidthatallyourfathersareimplicatedinthesamecorruptions？HaveInot，onthecontrary，beenatpainstoshowthatyourinterestlayinhavingthemofalldifferentminds，inordertosuitallyourpurposes？Doyouwishtokillyourman？—hereisLessiusforyou。Areyouinclinedtosparehim？—hereisVasquez。Nobodyneedgoawayinillhumour—nobodywithouttheauthorityofagravedoctor。
　　LessiuswilltalktoyoulikeaHeathenonhomicide，andlikeaChristian，itmaybe，oncharity。Vasquez，again，willdescantlikeaHeathenoncharity，andlikeaChristianonhomicide。Butbymeansofprobabilism，whichisheldbothbyVasquezandLessius，andwhichrendersallyouropinionscommonproperty，theywilllendtheiropinionstooneanother，andeachwillbeheldboundtoabsolvethosewhohaveactedaccordingtoopinionswhicheachofthemhascondemned。Itisthisveryvariety，then，thatconfoundsyou。Uniformity，eveninevil，wouldbebetterthanthis。NothingismorecontrarytotheordersofSt。IgnatiusandthefirstgeneralsofyourSocietythanthisconfusedmedleyofallsortsofopinions，goodandbad。Imay，perhaps，enteronthistopicatsomefutureperiod；anditwillastonishmanytoseehowfaryouhavedegeneratedfromtheoriginalspiritofyourinstitution，andthatyourowngeneralshaveforeseenthatthecorruptionofyourdoctrineonmoralsmightprovefatal，notonlytoyourSociety，buttotheChurchuniversal。Meanwhile，IrepeatthatyoucanderivenoadvantagefromthedoctrineofVasquez。Itwouldbestrange，indeed，if，outofallthethathavewrittenonmorals，oneortwocouldnotbefoundwhomayhavehituponatruthwhichhasbeenconfessedbyallChristians。
　　Thereisnogloryinmaintainingthetruth，accordingtotheGospel，thatitisunlawfultokillamanforsmitingusontheface；butitisfoulshametodenyit。Sofar，indeed，fromjustifyingyou，nothingtellsmorefatallyagainstyouthanthefactthat，havingdoctorsamongyouwhohavetoldyouthetruth，youabidenotinthetruth，butlovethedarknessratherthanthelight。YouhavebeentaughtbyVasquezthatitisaHeathen，andnotaChristian，opiniontoholdthatwemayknockdownamanforablowonthecheek；andthatitissubversivebothoftheGospelandoftheDecaloguetosaythatwemaykillforsuchamatter。Themostprofligateofmenwillacknowledgeasmuch。AndyetyouhaveallowedLessius，Escobar，andothers，todecide，inthefaceofthesewell—knowntruths，andinspiteofallthelawsofGodagainstmanslaughter，thatitisquiteallowabletokillamanforabuffet！Whatpurpose，then，canitservetosetthispassageofVasquezoveragainstthesentimentofLessius，unlessyoumeantoshowthat，intheopinionofVasquez，Lessiusisa"Heathen"anda"profligate"？
　　andthat，fathers，ismorethanIdursthavesaidmyself。WhatelsecanbededucedfromitthanthatLessius"subvertsboththeGospelandtheDecalogue"；that，atthelastday，VasquezwillcondemnLessiusonthispoint，asLessiuswillcondemnVasquezonanother；andthatallyourfatherswillriseupinjudgementoneagainstanother，mutuallycondemningeachotherfortheirsadoutragesonthelawofJesusChrist？Tothisconclusion，then，reverendfathers，mustwecomeatlength，that，asyourprobabilismrendersthegoodopinionsofsomeofyourauthorsuselesstotheChurch，andusefulonlytoyourpolicy，theymerelyservetobetray，bytheircontrariety，theduplicityofyourhearts。Thisyouhavecompletelyunfolded，bytellingus，ontheonehand，thatVasquezandSuarezareagainsthomicide，andontheotherhand，thatmanycelebratedauthorsareforhomicide；thuspresentingtworoadstoourchoiceanddestroyingthesimplicityoftheSpiritofGod，whodenounceshisanathemaonthedeceitfulandthedouble—hearted：
　　"Voeduplicicorde，etingredientiduabusviis！—Woebetothedoublehearts，andthesinnerthatgoethtwoways！"TheProvincialLettersofBlaisePascalLETTERXIIITOTHEREVERENDFATHERS，THEJESUITSLETTERXIV：TOTHEREVERENDFATHERS，THEJESUITSOctober23，1656
　　REVERENDFATHERS，IfIhadmerelytoreplytothethreeremainingchargesonthesubjectofhomicide，therewouldbenoneedforalongdiscourse，andyouwillseethemrefutedpresentlyinafewwords；butasIthinkitofmuchmoreimportancetoinspirethepublicwithahorroratyouropinionsonthissubjectthantojustifythefidelityofmyquotations，Ishallbeobligedtodevotethegreaterpartofthislettertotherefutationofyourmaxims，toshowyouhowfaryouhavedepartedfromthesentimentsoftheChurchandevenofnatureitself。Thepermissionsofmurder，whichyouhavegrantedinsuchavarietyofcases，renderitveryapparent，thatyouhavesofarforgottenthelawofGod，andquenchedthelightofnature，astorequiretoberemandedtothesimplestprinciplesofreligionandofcommonsense。
　　Whatcanbeaplainerdictateofnaturethanthat"noprivateindividualhasarighttotakeawaythelifeofanother"？"Sowellarewetaughtthisofourselves，"saysSt。Chrysostom，"thatGod，ingivingthecommandmentnottokill，didnotaddasareasonthathomicidewasanevil；because，"saysthatfather，"thelawsupposesthatnaturehastaughtusthattruthalready。"Accordingly，thiscommandmenthasbeenbindingonmeninallages。TheGospelhasconfirmedtherequirementofthelaw；andtheDecalogueonlyrenewedthecommandwhichmanhadreceivedfromGodbeforethelaw，inthepersonofNoah，fromwhomallmenaredescended。Onthatrenovationoftheworld，Godsaidtothepatriarch："Atthehandofman，andatthehandofeveryman’sbrother，willIrequirethelifeofman。Whososheddethman’sblood，bymanshallhisbloodbeshed；formanismadeintheimageofGod。"（Gen。ix。5，6。）Thisgeneralprohibitiondeprivesmanofallpoweroverthelifeofman。AndsoexclusivelyhastheAlmightyreservedthisprerogativeinHisownhandthat，inaccordancewithChristianity，whichisatuttervariancewiththefalsemaximsofPaganism，manhasnopowerevenoverhisownlife。
　　But，asithasseemedgoodtoHisprovidencetotakehumansocietyunderHisprotection，andtopunishtheevil—doersthatgiveitdisturbance，HehasHimselfestablishedlawsfordeprivingcriminalsoflife；andthusthoseexecutionswhich，withoutthissanction，wouldbepunishableoutrages，become，byvirtueofHisauthority，whichistheruleofjustice，praiseworthypenalties。St。Augustinetakesanadmirableviewofthissubject。"God，"hesays，"hashimselfqualifiedthisgeneralprohibitionagainstmanslaughter，bothbythelawswhichHehasinstitutedforthecapitalpunishmentofmalefactors，andbythespecialorderswhichHehassometimesissuedtoputtodeathcertainindividuals。Andwhendeathisinflictedinsuchcases，itisnotmanthatkills，butGod，ofwhommanmaybeconsideredasonlytheinstrument，inthesamewayasaswordinthehandofhimthatwieldsit。But，theseinstancesexcepted，whosoeverkillsincurstheguiltofmurder。"
　　Itappears，then，fathers，thattherightoftakingawaythelifeofmanisthesoleprerogativeofGod，andthat，havingordainedlawsforexecutingdeathoncriminals，Hehasdeputedkingsorcommonwealthsasthedepositariesofthatpower—atruthwhichSt。Paulteachesus，when，speakingoftherightwhichsovereignspossessoverthelivesoftheirsubjects，hededucesitfromHeaveninthesewords："Hebearethnottheswordinvain；forheistheministerofGodtoexecutewrathuponhimthatdoethevil。"（Rom。13。4。）ButasitisGodwhohasputthispowerintotheirhands，soHerequiresthemtoexerciseitinthesamemannerasHedoeshimself；inotherwords，withperfectjustice；accordingtowhatSt。Paulobservesinthesamepassage："Rulersarenotaterrortogoodworks，buttotheevil。Wiltthou，then，notbeafraidofthepower？Dothatwhichisgood：forheistheministerofGodtotheeforgood。"Andthisrestriction，sofarfromloweringtheirprerogative，exaltsit，onthecontrary，morethanever；foritisthusassimilatedtothatofGodwhohasnopowertodoevil，butisall—powerfultodogood；anditisthusdistinguishedfromthatofdevils，whoareimpotentinthatwhichisgood，andpowerfulonlyforevil。ThereisthisdifferenceonlytobeobservedbetwixttheKingofHeavenandearthlysovereigns，thatGod，beingjusticeandwisdomitself，mayinflictdeathinstantaneouslyonwhomsoeverandinwhatsoevermannerHepleases；
　　for，besidesHisbeingthesovereignLordofhumanlife，itcertainthatHenevertakesitawayeitherwithoutcauseorwithoutjudgement，becauseHeisasincapableofinjusticeasHeisoferror。Earthlypotentates，however，arenotatlibertytoactinthismanner；for，thoughtheministersofGod，stilltheyarebutmen，andnotgods。
　　Theymaybemisguidedbyevilcounsels，irritatedbyfalsesuspicions，transportedbypassion，andhencetheyfindthemselvesobligedtohaverecourse，intheirturnalso，tohumanagency，andappointmagistratesintheirdominions，towhomtheydelegatetheirpower，thattheauthoritywhichGodhasbestowedonthemmaybeemployedsolelyforthepurposeforwhichtheyreceivedit。
　　Ihopeyouunderstand，then，fathers，that，toavoidthecrimeofmurder，wemustactatoncebytheauthorityofGod，andaccordingtothejusticeofGod；andthat，whenthesetwoconditionsarenotunited，siniscontracted；whetheritbebytakingawaylifewithhisauthority，butwithouthisjustice；orbytakingitawaywithjustice，butwithouthisauthority。Fromthisindispensableconnectionitfollows，accordingtoSt。Augustine，"thathewho，withoutproperauthority，killsacriminal，becomesacriminalhimself，chieflyforthisreason，thatheusurpsanauthoritywhichGodhasnotgivenhim"；
　　andontheotherhand，magistrates，thoughtheypossessthisauthority，areneverthelesschargeablewithmurder，if，contrarytothelawswhichtheyareboundtofollow，theyinflictdeathonaninnocentman。
　　Sucharetheprinciplesofpublicsafetyandtranquillitywhichhavebeenadmittedatalltimesandinallplaces，andonthebasisofwhichalllegislators，sacredandprofane，fromthebeginningoftheworld，havefoundedtheirlaws。EvenHeathenshaveneverventuredtomakeanexceptiontothisrule，unlessincaseswheretherewasnootherwayofescapingthelossofchastityorlife，whentheyconceived，asCicerotellsus，"thatthelawitselfseemedtoputitsweaponsintothehandsofthosewhowereplacedinsuchanemergency。"
　　Butwiththissingleexception，whichhasnothingtodowithmypresentpurpose，thatsuchalawwaseverenacted，authorizingortolerating，asyouhavedone，thepracticeofputtingamantodeath，toatoneforaninsult，ortoavoidthelossofhonourorproperty，wherelifeisnotindangeratthesametime；that，fathers，iswhatIdenywaseverdone，evenbyinfidels。Theyhave，onthecontrary，mostexpresslyforbiddenthepractice。ThelawoftheTwelveTablesofRomebore，"thatitisunlawfultokillarobberinthedaytime，whenhedoesnotdefendhimselfwitharms"；which，indeed，hadbeenprohibitedlongbeforeinthe22dchapterofExodus。AndthelawFurem，intheLexCornelia，whichisborrowedfromUlpian，forbidsthekillingofrobbersevenbynight，iftheydonotputusindangerofourlives。
　　Tellusnow，fathers，whatauthorityyouhavetopermitwhatalllaws，humanaswellasdivine，haveforbidden；andwhogaveLessiusarighttousethefollowinglanguage？"ThebookofExodusforbidsthekillingofthievesbyday，whentheydonotemployarmsintheirdefence；andinacourtofjustice，punishmentisinflictedonthosewhokillunderthesecircumstances。Inconscience，however，noblamecanbeattachedtothispractice，whenapersonisnotsureofbeingableotherwisetorecoverhisstolengoods，orentertainsadoubtonthesubject，asSotusexpressesit；forheisnotobligedtoruntheriskoflosinganypartofhispropertymerelytosavethelifeofarobber。Thesameprivilegeextendseventoclergymen。"Suchextraordinaryassurance！ThelawofMosespunishesthosewhokillathiefwhenhedoesnotthreatenourlives，andthelawoftheGospel，accordingtoyou，willabsolvethem！What，fathers！hasJesusChristcometodestroythelaw，andnottofulfilit？"Theciviljudge，"saysLessius，"wouldinflictpunishmentonthosewhoshouldkillundersuchcircumstances；butnoblamecanbeattachedtothedeedinconscience。"Mustweconclude，then，thatthemoralityofJesusChristismoresanguinary，andlesstheenemyofmurder，thanthatofPagans，fromwhomourjudgeshaveborrowedtheircivillawswhichcondemnthatcrime？DoChristiansmakemoreaccountofthegoodthingsofthisearth，andlessaccountofhumanlife，thaninfidelsandidolaters？Onwhatprincipledoyouproceed，fathers？
　　AssuredlynotuponanylawthateverwasenactedeitherbyGodorman—
　　onnothing，indeed，butthisextraordinaryreasoning："Thelaws，"
　　sayyou，"permitustodefendourselvesagainstrobbers，andtorepelforcebyforce；self—defence，therefore，beingpermitted，itfollowsthatmurder，withoutwhichself—defenceisoftenimpracticable，maybeconsideredaspermittedalso。"
　　Itisfalse，fathers，that，becauseself—defenceisallowed，murdermaybeallowedalso。Thisbarbarousmethodofself—vindicationliesattherootofallyourerrors，andhasbeenjustlystigmatizedbytheFacultyofLouvain，intheircensureofthedoctrineofyourfriendFatherLamy，as"amurderousdefence—
　　defensiooccisiva。"Imaintainthatthelawsrecognizesuchawidedifferencebetweenmurderandself—defencethat，inthoseverycasesinwhichthelatterissanctioned，theyhavemadeaprovisionagainstmurder，whenthepersonisinnodangerofhislife。Readthewords，fathers，astheyruninthesamepassageofCujas："Itislawfultorepulsethepersonwhocomestoinvadeourproperty；butwearenotpermittedtokillhim。"Andagain："Ifanyshouldthreatentostrikeus，andnottodepriveusoflife，itisquiteallowabletorepulsehim；butitisagainstalllawtoputhimtodeath。"
　　Who，then，hasgivenyouarighttosay，asMolina，Reginald，Filiutius，Escobar，Lessius，andothersamongyou，havesaid，"thatitislawfultokillthemanwhoofferstostrikeusablow"？or，"thatitislawfultotakethelifeofonewhomeanstoinsultus，bythecommonconsentofallthecasuists，"asLessiussays。Bywhatauthoritydoyou，whoaremereprivateindividuals，conferuponotherprivateindividuals，notexceptingclergymen，thisrightofkillingandslaying？Andhowdareyouusurpthepoweroflifeanddeath，whichbelongsessentiallytononebutGod，andwhichisthemostgloriousmarkofsovereignauthority？Thesearethepointsthatdemandexplanation；andyetyouconceivethatyouhavefurnishedatriumphantreplytothewhole，bysimplyremarking，inyourthirteenthImposture，"thatthevalueforwhichMolinapermitsustokillathief，whoflieswithouthavingdoneusanyviolence，isnotsosmallasIhavesaid，andthatitmustbeamuchlargersumthansixducats！"Howextremelysilly！Pray，fathers，wherewouldyouhavethepricetobefixed？Atfifteenorsixteenducats？Donotsupposethatthiswillproduceanyabatementinmyaccusations。Atallevents，youcannotmakeitexceedthevalueofahorse；forLessiusisclearlyofopinion，"thatwemaylawfullykillthethiefthatrunsoffwithourhorse。"ButImusttellyou，moreover，thatIwasperfectlycorrectwhenIsaidthatMolinaestimatesthevalueofthethief’slifeatsixducats；and，ifyouwillnottakeituponmyword，weshallreferittoanumpiretowhomyoucannotobject。ThepersonwhomIfixuponforthisofficeisyourownFatherReginald，who，inhisexplanationofthesamepassageofMolina（l。28，n。68），declaresthat"Molinatheredeterminesthesumforwhichitisnotallowabletokillatthree，orfour，orfiveducats。"Andthus，fathers，IshallhaveReginald，inadditiontoMolina，tobearmeout。
　　ItwillbeequallyeasyformetorefuteyourfourteenthImposture，touchingMolina’spermissionto"killathiefwhoofferstorobusofacrown。"ThispalpablefactisattestedbyEscobar，whotellsus"thatMolinahasregularlydeterminedthesumforwhichitislawfultotakeawaylife，atonecrown。"AndallyouhavetolaytomychargeinthefourteenthImpostureis，thatIhavesuppressedthelastwordsofthispassage，namely，"thatinthismattereveryoneoughttostudythemoderationofajustself—defence。"WhydoyounotcomplainthatEscobarhasalsoomittedtomentionthesewords？Buthowlittletactyouhaveaboutyou！Youimaginethatnobodyunderstandswhatyoumeanbyself—defence。Don’tweknowthatitistoemploy"amurderousdefence"？YouwouldpersuadeusthatMolinameanttosaythatifaperson，indefendinghiscrown，findshimselfindangerofhislife，heisthenatlibertytokillhisassailant，inself—preservation。Ifthatweretrue，fathers，whyshouldMolinasayinthesameplacethat"inthismatterhewasofacontraryjudgementfromCarrerandBald，"whogivepermissiontokillinself—preservation？Irepeat，therefore，thathisplainmeaningisthat，providedthepersoncansavehiscrownwithoutkillingthethief，heoughtnottokillhim；butthat，ifhecannotsecurehisobjectwithoutsheddingblood，eventhoughheshouldrunnoriskofhisownlife，asinthecaseoftherobberbeingunarmed，heispermittedtotakeuparmsandkilltheman，inordertosavehiscrown；andinsodoing，accordingtohim，thepersondoesnottransgress"themoderationofajustdefence。"ToshowyouthatIamintheright，justallowhimtoexplainhimself："Onedoesnotexceedthemoderationofajustdefence，"sayshe，"whenhetakesuparmsagainstathiefwhohasnone，oremploysweaponswhichgivehimtheadvantageoverhisassailant。Iknowtherearesomewhoareofacontraryjudgement；butIdonotapproveoftheiropinion，evenintheexternaltribunal。"