IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 / 
 
 o 
 
 
 >\%^ 
 
 :/u 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 •^' 1^ ill 2.2 
 
 1^ lig III" 
 ? "^ IIIM 
 
 1.6 
 
 1.4 
 
 Wa 
 
 & 
 
 /a 
 
 ^/. 
 
 OM 
 
 e 
 
 ^1 
 
 S'Ma 
 
 
 ''a» 
 
 
 O 
 
 7 
 
 /A 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 n WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, NY. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproduutions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 D 
 
 □ 
 
 D 
 
 □ 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 □ Covers damaged/ 
 Couverture endommagee 
 
 □ Cov 
 Cou 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 verture restaurie et/ou pelliculie 
 
 □ Cover title missing/ 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 □ Coloured maps/ 
 Cartes g^ographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 ere de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Plane 
 
 iches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli6 avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge intdrieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas it6 film^es. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppldmentaires; 
 
 L'lnstitut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage 
 sont indiqu^s ci-dessous. 
 
 I I Coloured pages/ 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagdes 
 
 Pages restored and/oi 
 
 Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul^es 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxei 
 Pages d6color6es, tacheties ou piqu^es 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages d^tachdes 
 
 Showthroughy 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of prir 
 
 Quality indgale de I'impression 
 
 I I Pages damaged/ 
 
 I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 
 I I Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 
 I I Pages detached/ 
 
 I I Showthrough/ 
 
 I I Quality of print varies/ 
 
 Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend du materiel supplementaire 
 
 □ Only < 
 Seule 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Edition disponible 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont 6t6 film^es d nouveau de faqon i 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est film^ au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 14X 18X 22X 
 
 Y 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 26X 
 
 30X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 U 
 
 32X 
 
Tho copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 National Library of Canada 
 
 L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grSce A la 
 g6n6ro8it6 de: 
 
 Bibliothdque nationale du Canada 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetd de l'exemplaire film6, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 Les enemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprim6e sont filmds en commenpant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont filmds en commenpant par la 
 premidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernidre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall r'mtain the symbol — ^ (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END "), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaltra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbole — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbole V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre 
 filmds d des taux de reduction diff6rents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul clich6, il est filmd d partir 
 de Tangle sup^rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la m^thode. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 

 CANADA 
 
 NATIONAL LIBRARY 
 
 BIBLIOTHEQUE NATIONALE 
 
 1 
 
 
fnb.M 
 
 i 
 
 S 
 
 CONTROVERSY 
 
 ON THE 
 
 lonstiiutions of the lesuiis 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 AND 
 
 FR. DRXXnUMEOND. 
 
 15 CENTS. 
 
 WINNIPEG: 
 
 MANITOHA KUHK PlilCSS PRINT. 
 1880. 
 
 0i 
 
 
 m 
 
 .'•rf» 
 
 ^tn<u. 
 
 •J .'. ■■.;■.]. iiUl- 
 
 :<fttfif»n1-illiriffii.ii'Wiaf^ 
 
mamm 
 
 / 
 
 m'.m.Md^'.ifx'^Jt l.2H^^k^^d^i;.-i^»itk 
 
>n I" 
 
 Dr. Littledale and the Jesuit Constitutions. 
 
 A short time ai^'o a Icttii' <»!i '■ 'I'lic Jesuits jiiiil their niorality," 
 written hy Dr. Littledale. the autlitir (if the artirle on tin; 
 -iesuits ill tin; /■Jini/rloiii'il ill H r'fidi h Icd , \\!\s [.ulilisheij in the 
 Ottawa Jnnrii'tl l>y Dr. •!. J5eaui'>>it lluillnit, who has re- 
 cently at'Cepteil the {•hal!eii.,M' i-.siied hy Kathcf Wiiejan t'.n" 
 priiof that the maxim "the end justities the iin'nns" is vir- 
 tually emhoilied in tlie teachiii;.;-s of the Je.miit order. This 
 article, it will h;' retnemltered. was ret'erre 1 ('• hv I'^itlier Di'uni- 
 mond in the lecture on the Jesuits he delivered in St. Mary's 
 chnrch, \Vinni|ii'£f, on Whitsunday last. In his lecture Father 
 Dnnnmond chare-ed that, in order to prox'e his point that 
 "the end justilicMi the means" was incorporated in the .le>uit 
 Constitutions, J)r. Littled.ije had V)een n-uilty oi" deli'ierate 
 mistranslation and lalsitieatii>n ot" the Latin text. A memoran- 
 dum ot" that ]iart of Father Di iniinioiid's discourse relatin;;^ to 
 Dr. Littledale's artich' was forwai(led to the latter <.fei,tleiiian ly 
 some of his W'imiipeif frieiiils. and a r<'ply from him to Father 
 Diumnioiid's strietiu'es has hitely lieeii received, to which a iv- 
 joinder has heon just made hy Fatlier Drummond. In \iew 
 of the attention iit present licinLf manifested in tlie Dominion 
 re;;'aidinL; till' Je^nit (juestion and the loi-al intiu'est coneerninif 
 the ji'int in di'^jnite excited l)y P'alher Drumniond's lecture, es- 
 [)ecially amo;l^• classical .scholars, the cf)ntrovcrsy is here 
 puhlished. 
 
 DR. LITTLEDALE'S CHARGE. 
 (Extract from Ottawa /-Jri'n i nn Joii rndl, May ISth, 1880.) 
 
 One chare'e wdiich has heeii steadily advanced against the 
 Jesuit- for more th.nn two centuries, an<l which they rojiel with 
 ailmirahly simulated indij^oirdion. is that ot" teaching that "the 
 end Justities the means," that e\il may he done with a good oh- 
 Ject, and they steadfastly deny the .authenticity of (piotation.s to 
 this effect from Je^^uit writers. 
 
 An<l yt't tlu^ ])lain tact is. not merely that indixidnal Jesuits 
 have gi\-en cuireiiey to this nnxiiu in tlieir writings, all of 
 which .'D'e su'iijected ton censorshiji of the press far stricter than 
 even that jnvvalent for other l\onian Catholic authors of theo- 
 lo'jical works, hut that the maxim itself is virtuallv (mihodied in 
 a salient paragraph of the charter of the Society, the constitu- 
 tions themselves. True, it is not expri'ssed in the precise form 
 just mentioned, hut it shall now he citc<] textually. first in the 
 original Latin from a volume entitled " Constitutiones Societatis 
 
 u 
 
1P"P^ 
 
 Jfsu,'" <latc(l Roiiif, ir)70, ami pi-inted " cum facilitate Suj)(>rioi- 
 uiii." It is the Ht'tli chapter of tlic sixtli part of tlie Constitu- 
 tions, and runs thus : 
 
 "Quoil Coiistitutioncspcccati oMiifationein u )n inducunt, C'lp. 
 \'. ('uni rxoplv't Socirtas univcrsas suas ('oiistitutioncs, \)r- 
 clai'ationcs, ae vivcndi ordincni onmino juxta nostrum IiistiLu- 
 tum, niliil ulhi in re declinando, observari ; oportet etiam 
 iiihihimiiuis suos omnes securos esse, vel certe adjuvari, ne in 
 hupieum uUius peccati, (juod ex vi Constitutioiuim hujusmodi, 
 aut ordinationum [)roveniat, iiicidant : Visum est noltis iu 
 Domino praeter expressum \ otum, (juo Societas Sumnio Ponti- 
 lici pro tempore ( xi^tenti tiMietur, ac tria aha esseniialia Pauper- 
 tatis, Castitatis. ei ()l)(.'dientiat', nuUas (Jonstitutiones, J^eclai'a- 
 tiones, vcd oidinem ullum vivendi posse obligationem ad pecca- 
 tuni movtale vel veniale inducere ; nisi SiijM'vior rd in 710111 iiic 
 iJinnliii iiosfri Jcsii, Cliristi, vel Id rirfvfc sdnrfuf oltrd lent itic 
 Jiihcrct; quod in rchns/vel person i,s iUis, in quihns jiul ic((bil ar, 
 quod ad jxirticvldvcm miiuscnj usque, vel ad universale honum 
 iiiidftivi coiiveviet, fieri poterit ; ef loco t'lDioris off'ensae suc- 
 redat (inior omnis perfect io iris ef desidi riuin : ut major 
 l/loria et la as Chrisfi Creator is uc Doinini nostri conse- 
 quatar." 
 
 The translation of this passage is as follows : 
 
 ' That the Constitutions involve no obligation to commit sin. 
 Although tlie Society desires all its Constitutions, ])i'clai"a- 
 tions, and order of life to be ol)served according to our insti- 
 tute, in no wise deviating in any matter; it is nevertheh-ss 
 fitting that all its members shiaild be secured, or at least aid- 
 ed, against falling into the snare of any sin, which ma}' 
 ai'ise from the foree of its Constitutions or injunctions : It 
 seems good to us in the Lord that, exeeptiiiLi; the express 
 Vow whereby the Society is bound to the SuprcMiu; Pontiti' 
 for the time beino', and the three other essential vows of 
 Poverty, Chastity and Obedience, no Coiistitutions, Declara- 
 tions or any order of living can inv(jlve obligation to sin, 
 moi'tal or venial: unless the Su,perlor eoniinund thent in tlie 
 name of our Lord Jesus Christ, or lit rirlne of hohj 
 ohedienee ; wliirh shall he done in those cases or persons, 
 wJterein it s]i(dl l>e jv,d(ied tJad it ina.ff he done in order to 
 cuntribvie (/retdly to the partieidar f/ood of eiu-h sine/ly, or 
 that of idl ; and instead of the far of offence, let the love 
 and desire (f <dl perfection succeed ; thid tlie (jreater glory 
 and praise of Christ ovr Creator and Lord }na 1/ folloa:." 
 
 Here, then, is the piinciple explicitly laid down, that when 
 the Superioi- is of" opinion that a sinful act may prove advan- 
 
 1 
 
y 
 
 3 
 
 t}i<,'e()ii.s, tlicn tlic Jesuit wlio is coiniiian<li'il to finiiniit it iiuist do 
 so. But those who are uiiac(|Ufiintt>(l with tlx" Jesuit system 
 may MJitui'ully ask: "Has lie not the ojitioJi of rei'usal i*" To 
 that i|iies(ioii the Constitutions tliemselves supply Ji, eoiiijilete 
 answer. Fii^t, eauilidates who do not n[)|)ear likely to he olie- 
 dient, who do not suhject their own opinions and judgment, are 
 to he dismissed, in accordance with Part II, chapter '1 of the 
 ( 'onstitutions. Next th(> twenty-tliird and twenty-tV)Mrth ruh's 
 for the trainiu:;' of jirohatnners run tluis : 
 
 " It is especially con(hici\'e to impiovement, and very'neccs- 
 sai-y, that all shotdd yield themselves up to perfect oheilience, 
 leeoLiiusiny the Sujiefior (whoever he may he) as in the place of 
 Christ our Lord, and re;>arilinLj him with inward reverence and 
 affection, noi- merely oltevino- him in the outward e.xecution of 
 his ijiiunctions fullv, promi)tlv. viooi'ouslv and with HttiuLT 
 humility, without excuses ami murmurinifs, though he may com- 
 mand things difficult and lepu^najit to their feelings; hut shall 
 also strive to have inwardly resignation of their own will ami 
 judu'inent |n''(' second cnm jxt raHrc iiiltlc, p. .'■'*, for jkisxikji' oinif- 
 tcd hcrc\ and they are to accustom themselves not to consider who 
 it is wliomthey ohe}', hut rather Him for Whom and to Whom 
 tliey ohey in all things, which is Christ the Lord." — ( 'oust. II F. 1. 
 
 Thirdly, the explanation of the scope and foi-ce of the vow of 
 obedience contains the followin«;' clause, in perfect accordance 
 with tlie whole context: 
 
 'And let each he persuaded that they wlio live inider ohe- 
 dienco ought to suffer themsidves to he moved and gui<led hy 
 Divine Providence through their Superioi-s as if they wej'e a 
 dead hody, which allows itself to be moved anywhithei- md 
 handled anyhow ; or as the staff of an old man, which sei-ves 
 him who hold.s it in his hand, wherever and for whatever 
 purpose he choos(\s to employ it." (Jonst. VI. 1. 
 
 And as a process most skilfully contrived for breaking down 
 and subjugating the will is brought unremittingly to bear upon 
 the probationer during his protracted noviciate, it may be I'eadily 
 understood that thei'e is no probability of disobedience to any 
 connnand of a Superior, whatever be its moral charactei-. 
 
 FATHER DRUMMOND'S ANSWER. 
 
 Memorandum of reply made Ijy R"v. " r Drummond, S. J., to a ])or- 
 tioii of Dr. Litlledale's article on "The J< nils and their Morality" in a 
 sermon preached at St. jNIary's Church, Winnipej^, on .Sunday, June 11, LSfSi*. 
 
 Father Drunnnond .said tlie charges against the Jesuits' mora- 
 lity had l)ecn fre(|uently refuted, and he referred specially to 
 " Dishonest Criticism," a book written by Father Jones, of 
 
St. liiMino's Collofje, North Willi's, wliicli sIidws that umik! of i\\v 
 texts tViiiii thill" tln'()lii;;'it'al uiili rs whieh nif <|U(tti(l iiLiniiist 
 tlieiii in this coniK'ctioii liiai' thi' iiKaiiinn jthiecd ujkui (hem liy 
 thi'ir opponents. 
 
 With ri'^-ar<l t(t the contentitm of \)y Litlleihile that the 
 maxim " The end jnstilies tiie means'" is viitually enibcMlied in 
 the constitutions of the societw Father ])rumnion(l cliaririMl 
 tliat Dr. I.iittle(h\h" is iL;nihy oi' a delil erate mist ranshu ion in oi- 
 (h'V to estahli'-h tliis point. A|ipeiMK'(l is l^iither ninmniond's 
 ti'anshition, in which are pointed out th" enors in ])ocf()i- Litth'- 
 dale's. Instead of "(^)uo(l constitntioiies peccati oltli^ationem 
 non imUu'unt ' nieaninL;" "'I'liat tlie constitutions inxoive lut 
 oMi^ntion to connnlt sin,' it means that they do not "hind under 
 ])enalty of sin." Dr. Littiichrh', .--aid I'^ather J)rumni(aid, has 
 made the mistake of supposing' that the yi nitive jiossesses no 
 more than one nuaninii, tiiat i.--. sinipU 'of," wliereas it some- 
 times means (piite the opp<»siti . As an instance h(^ (pioted tlie 
 phrase " Amor Dei ' which nuans either 'the love oi" (Jod f(ji' 
 me " or " my love for CJod." Compare '• N'ietoria (Jei'manorum," 
 which means loth a victirv ovrr tlie (leinmns and a victoi'y iron 
 hv the (leinians. 
 
 Further on, the Consul iit i((!is .•^tate that, excepting the express 
 vow whei'ebv tin- societv is liound to the Supreme PontiH'and the 
 three other essential nows o\' poverty. cha.'-tit\' and oliedience. 
 " nullas constitmioiK s. declai'.,t'on< s. \('l ovdinem nllum \ivendi 
 pos.se ohlii;ationeMi ad peecatuni iimrtaie \fl \eniale inducore, " 
 unless the superior commands tliem in the name of Our TiOid 
 Jesus Christ or in virtue oi' holy ilKMlience. Tiie words in Latin 
 Dr. Littledale tianslates " no constitutions, declarations or any 
 order of livini; can in\ ol\ e ohliuation /" ,y///, moi-tal (n* venial." 
 Father Diunnnond state<l this should he " involve ol>lii;ation ex- 
 tendiuLT "N /('/• ''N (or under pain Mf) sin." 'i'he etPect of these 
 ditfeienei's is that, while Di. Littleilale would have that the con- 
 stitutions jHM'uiit the commission of sin, when ordered by the 
 sui)erior, Father Diumniond eonteixls the interpietation is that, 
 alth(.>ui;h the constitutions ami rules of the society ai"e to be kept 
 carefully by t'ach menil ei-, failure to observe them, except th(! 
 vows lespectin^- the Pope and | overly, chastity and obe(lience, is 
 not a sin, unless a special coniniMn<l for the })articulai'ol)servance 
 of any one shall have 1 ecu made by the superior in the name of 
 Jesus Christ oi' of holy obetlit nee. Such a .special conimand 
 has, said I'^ithei- Drumniond, never been is.sued to him, — althoueh 
 he has been more than twenty-one yeais in the order in Canada, 
 the United States, En<;land, Jielaiid and France, — and he knows 
 of but two instances where it has been issued, duiing those 
 
T 
 
 twnitv-oiK' vears. in tin- case of ollicis. I''atlicr Diiiimiioinl 
 pitiiiti'd out that tlit; same proNisioii \)i: Littlcilalc takes cxcc})- 
 tidii to is ill the (;niistitu(i(tMs of every order founded .sinei,' (lie 
 .Irsuit So(;i('ty was origan i/ed, and in those of some founded he- 
 foiv it, and h«; tjuoted from tlie constitutions of the Ohlati' 
 Fathers in siij)[)()i't of tiii<. Not only is tlieri' no license tocom- 
 niit sin when soeommanded, hut it is ])rovided in sev( ral jilaces 
 in tlie ('(institutions that, if a memlnris sure anythini;- lends to 
 sin, he must not <U) it. Dr. T/itthdale, in traiis!atiii<;' from the 
 twenty-third and twenty-fourth rules lor thr ti-junini,' of j)roha- 
 tioners — Const. III., 1, leaves out {'i'S words from the end of the 
 tjuotation), witliout even a coninia to show that thci'e is an 
 omis ,ion, ajiassaj^e of !)0 Latin wonls, amongst which are the i'ol- 
 lowini;: " conforminy; wholly their will and jud^inont with that 
 which the superior wills and iudL,^'s in all thing's icln'rc sin is 
 iiol (I ^tiHU'iiil (or discei'nil'le) — uhi ]peccatum ncjn cerm-retur " 
 (See p. 25.) Mon^over Fr. Di-nmniond, in jiroof of tlie Society's 
 liorrorfor sin, mentioned the fact that a distinguished niemlier r»f 
 the order was wired out of tlie Society hy the ( J"nei'al thei-eof foi- 
 tellinj^ a lie in a matter of importance. In \\w excnt ol any 
 one heing connnanded to do wronj^", there would he no need of 
 any aj-peal, for all hi,s follow Jesuits wonld stand by him in his 
 I'elusal to ohey. lUit such a case has nt^er come within Kfither 
 J)rumnioiid's jiiu view either in histoiy or trailition. 
 
 As for tlie (juotation from Const, ^'l., 1, l''atlier l»runimond 
 remarke<l that the sinnleof allow ing one's self to be moved liki- a 
 dead body (»r handled as the stall in the hand of an old man is 
 a very well known one: nnd it is not, after ;dl, .so terrible, ft 
 is merely the same kind of passive obedience a soldier juis to 
 yield his superior oiH(!er, which no one regards as conducive to 
 lax morality; indeed tlie prom[)t r.nd cheeiful obedience of sol- 
 diers to their ofiicers is a subject of commendation rather than 
 cen.sure. 
 
 i'^rther Drummond did not refer to any of Dr. Littledaies 
 (jUotations from Jesuit theologians, becau.se, said he, de-tailed 
 controversy did not enter into the .sco]je ol" Ids lecture, and I e- 
 cause the proof that Dr. Little<lale was ignoiant or dishonest 
 or both at the very bi'ginning of his plea must nullily tlie eU'cct 
 ol' all till' rest in the eyes of men wdio \alue knowdedge and 
 sincerity above everything' else in a w riter from vvlujin (piota- 
 tions must be taken on trust. 
 
 Father Drummond's translation of the passage in dispute is 
 as follows :— 
 
 "Chap. V. That the constitutions do not involve a bindin*; 
 
 UNDER PENALTY OF SIN. 
 
" Whkhkas tlio Society cariK'Ntli/ desires all its eonstitiitioiis, 
 (loc'lanitions, ami order of life to l>eol»served »^//(<7<7//<'r areordiiii; 
 to our Institute, in ni» wise de\iatiiin in any niattei- ; wiikkkas 
 nevcitlieless. it Al.so DT.siltl'.s that mU its nirnil»ers should \n-siifi 
 or at least aided, against fallinj; into tlie snare of any sin, wliicli 
 nmy arise from t\u' force of siicji constitutions or onlinances ; it 
 lids sri'iiii'ih^ond to us intlieLonl" [in Canon Littledale's tiansla- 
 tiontliis apodosis of the s( ntcnee has no connection with the two 
 )ti'(('i'di!n,f elausrs of the [)rotasis, wliich in reality contain the 
 doulile motive of the conclusion, viz. : that no rules shall l)in<l 
 undei- |>ain of sin unless tlie Su|)ei"ior < pressly foiinulate his 
 order "in the name of ( >ur Loi'd," etc.] iiat, excepting,' the ex- 
 press vow whereliy the Society is hoinid to the Su))reme Pontitf 
 f'.ilsl i ui/ til l/ir linic, and the three other essential vows of jiover- 
 ty, chastity, and oliedience, no constituti(^ns, deelaiations, iinr 
 any order of livini;' can involve an oltliifation KXTKXDlNc; as fak 
 AS (or iTXDKli PKNAl/rv OF) mortal or venial sin" (i. e. in case the 
 constitution, declaration or order lu; not cai'iied out) [" under 
 penalty of" is tin; ti'anslntion into idiomatic Kn^lish, '' extending; 
 as far as" is the literal renderini^ of the ohllt/iilin ml, which 
 llH^dlt he rendered still moiv litt'i-ally " lldhill.h/ lo the (jn'dl of." 
 An easy way of showing the al>surdity of Canon L.'s translation 
 is to apply it to the parallel clause " excepting the express vow . . 
 and the three other, .vows": since these vows are excepted, they 
 do, on Canon L.'s the()r3% involve an obligation to commit sin; 
 therefore perfect chastity is sinful, [visum teneatis, amici ! ] ; 
 " unless the Sn]ierior counnand them in the name of Our Lord 
 Jesus Chiist, or in virtue of [the word lioln is not in the Latin 
 textj obedience ; wdiich may be done in those cases or persons 
 wluirein it shall be judged that it will contribute greatly to the 
 particular good of each singly, oi" lo that of all ; and let the love 
 and desire of all perfection lake flic phuc oy' the dread of oileml- 
 ing : that the greater glory and praise of Christ our Creator and 
 Lord may follow." 
 
 N.15. — I have kept Canon L.s words as far as po.ssible ; his 
 minor slips are printed in italics; his huge blimders and the 
 wilful interpolation of oportct for oplci are ))rinted in capitals. 
 
 L. DlUMMOXD. 
 
 June, LS.SS). 
 
^^ 
 
 DR. LITTLEDALE'S REJOINDER. 
 
 .Inly '2-2, issit. 
 
 Dkah Sih, — W'licn your Utter rcaelii-'il me a I'tw <lay>> ai^o, J 
 was at onci' t<)(» unwell fin<l too much pi-('(>c'cuj»i(.'(l to reply at 
 once. ])Ut I now proceed to reply u|)on the ([iiestions you have 
 laid liel'orc me. 
 
 1 adhere to the correctness of my translation of the clause 
 in the ('onstitution^' of the Jesuits, on which I partly u'l'ound 
 the as.s(Mtion that the maxim " The end justiHes the means'' is a 
 tenet of .lesuit morality. 
 
 1 fully recotjuise the in^ciniity, and e\fn the plausilality, of 
 i'^ither l^runmiond's (ixplanation, hut I cannot reconcile it with 
 the whole scope and context of the cha])ter in disjiute, thoueh it 
 mii^lit eonceivalily stand if applied to one isolated elause alone. 
 Aecortlingly, I proceed to cite it entirely: 
 
 " Quud Constitutione.s peccati ohligationem non inducunt. 
 
 Cap. V. 
 
 "Cuni exoptet Societas univer.sas ,snas Constitutiones, De- 
 clarationes, ac vivendi oivjinem, onniino juxta nosti'um Institu- 
 tum, nihil ulla in re declinando, ohservari ; opoitet etiam nihil- 
 omiiuis suos onnies securos esse, vel eerte adjuvari,ne in huiueum 
 uUius peccati, quod ex vi Constitutionum hujusmodi, aut (jrdina- 
 tionum ])roveniat, inci<lant: \'isinM est noliis in Domino praetei- 
 ex[)ressuni Votuni, <juo Societas Sunnno I'ontilici pro tempore 
 existent! tenetur, ac tria alia essentialia i'au])ei'tatis, ' 'astitatis 
 et Oliedientiae, mdlas Constitutiones, ]>jclaratione.s, vel or<linem 
 ullum vivendi, j)osse ohlinati')noni a<l piM-catum mortale vel 
 veiiiale inducere ; Nisi Superior ea in Xonune J^omini nostii 
 -lesu Ciiristi, \'el in virtute sanctae ohedientiae juheret ; (piod in 
 relius, vel personis illis, in (piilais judicahitur. tpiod ad |)articn- 
 lai'em f.s/cy uniu.scujus([Ue, \v\ ad universale boninii multum con- 
 veniet, fieri [)oterit ; et loco timoris olfensae succedat anioi- 
 • tmius perfectionis et desiderium : ut niajor eloi-ia et laus Christi 
 Creatoris ac hoiinni n(»s):ri conse(pnitur. 
 
 This extract is |)art of the concluding' .section of the Sixth 
 divi.sion (»f the Constitutions, and must he collateil with the Hi-st 
 chapter of the same divisii>n, which is concernctl with defining 
 those thin^^s wliich lieloni;,' to obedience. A citation thence is 
 accordingly added here: 
 
 " (Jtsanctaohedientiatuni in execntione, tuin in voluntate, turn 
 in intellectu, sit in nobis semper onuii ex parte perfecta ; cum 
 magna cidei'itate, spiritual! gaudio, et pei-si'verantia, ([uiccpiid 
 nobis inJunctiMu fuerit, obeumlo: inaitid jnxfd esse, iitiU'is pt't-i^nn- 
 i/endo ; omneui sententiam ac Judicium n(wtrum contraiium 
 
caccca (|ua(lain obodieiitia abnonandi), ot id (|ui(lcin in oiiinibns quae 
 a Superiore disjjonun.iir, iiUi dcliniri noii possit ((H'eiuadmoduiii 
 dictum est) iili(iui)d peecati ^enus iutci-cedere. kt sibi qui.S(juo 
 persiuidcat, qund ((ui sub ObcdicMitia vivunt, S(; frm ac regi a 
 (liviiia Pruvidcutia perSuperioivs suos siiicre dcbciit, porinde ac si 
 cadaver essent,(]Uod (pittquovi'i'sus I'ei'ri, et quaeunque ratione ttac- 
 tai'i se sinit ; vel similiter atque seiiis l)aculus, qui ubieun(|ue ot 
 quacuiKpie in re velit eo uti, ei inservit. ISic cnim obediens rem 
 (piamcuiKjue, cui cum Superior ad auxiliiun tdtius corporis Con- 
 gregatioiiis velit iuipendere, cum animi liilai'itate debet (>xe(p;i, ac 
 omnino oxistimare, (piod ea I'atione pt^tius (|uam re alia quavis, 
 (piam pi'aestart. possit propiijim voluntatem ac judicium diver- 
 sum sectando, divinae voluntati respondebit."' 
 
 I have iirst to say that these two quotations are accurately 
 covfurmahle with tlie text of tlu> edition of the " Constitu- 
 tiones Societatis Jcsu'" printed at Rome in 1570, and that my 
 own copy has a MS inscription on the title-|)age thus: ''Col- 
 legii Soeiot. Jesu Coloniae, 1022." 
 
 I now proceed to translate the two passages as literally as 1 
 can : 
 
 " Although the Society desires all its Constitutions, De'cla- 
 rations and order of life to be observed in every respect ac- 
 cording to (jur Institute, with no deviation in any matter; it 
 is nevertheless fitting that all its mciuljers should be secure, 
 or at the least aided, lest they sliuuld fall into the snare of 
 any sin whic'li may originate from the force of its Constituti )ns 
 or directions. It has seemed good to us in the Lord that, ex- 
 cepting the express vow by which tlie Society is bomid to !;h(> 
 Supreme Pontitf for the time being, and the three other e^^sential 
 vows of Povei'ty, Chastity and Obedience, no Constitutions, 
 Declarations or any order of livinij can involve oltlii-ation to 
 sin mortal or venial ; unless the Superior conunand them in 
 the name of Our Lord Jesus (Jhrist, oi' in virtue of holy 
 obedience ; which ma,y be <lone in those cases or persons 
 whei'ein it shall be judged that it will gr(!atly conduce to the 
 ])ai'ti('nlai' good of each, or the general advantage ; and in- 
 stead of the fear of offence, let the lov(! and desire of all 
 perfection succeed, that the greater glory and praise of Christ 
 our Ci'eator and Lord may ensui?." 
 
 " That holy obedience may be perfect in us, always in 
 (ivery particiilar, alike in execution, in will, and in under- 
 slanding, doing with great celei'ity, spiritual joy and peise- 
 \-er;nice whatsoever is enjoine(l on us ; jU'i'.-ntadi nff on rschus 
 Uia( Ihcji air. all jii,.sl ; rejecting every conti'ai'y thought and 
 judgment of oiu' own with a cei tain blind obedience ; and that 
 
n 
 
 moreover in all things which arc appointed by the Superior, 
 wherein it cannot he detined (as is said) that any kind of 
 sin comes in. And let eacli persuade himself that they who 
 live under olicdicnce ought to sutler themselves to bi' mov^ed 
 aiid directed by Divin" Providenei! thrt/UG;h their Superiors, as 
 if they were a cor]ise, which allows itself to bo uiovcmI and 
 handled in any lashion ; or as the staft' of an old man, which 
 serves him wherever and for whatever purpose lu' who holds 
 it in his hand wishes to use it. Foi- so he that obeys ou^ht 
 to execute with cheerfulness of mind anything on which the 
 Superioi- wills to employ him for the assistance of tlu^ whole 
 body of the (Jongregation, and to be entiridy of opinion 
 that he will answer the l)i\ine will better in that way, than 
 in any other way by following his own will and contrary 
 judgment." 
 
 Tha first comment I have to make is that the translation 
 tcmdered by Father Drunnnond of the words " obligationem 
 ad peccatum mortale vel s'eniale inducere," as though they 
 meant that neglect to oliey the Constitutions, &c., is not to 
 be held to amount to mortal or even venial siu, will not stand for 
 a moment, simply because the formal ami accreilited ])hrns(! 
 where such is the meaning has invariably the ])i-ei)osition 
 "sub," and not "ad," employe"!, thus: "Non obligat sub moi-- 
 tali." The apparent I'cfutation supplied by the argument that 
 my translation — which alone squares with the Latin idiom- 
 involves the absurdity that it would make the ( ^institutions 
 allege that observance of the vow of chastity might be con- 
 C(iivably sinful, breaks down not only when it is noted that 
 the obvious purjiose of the clause as to the four vows is 
 meant to put then* entirely out of the debateablc area, and 
 io rule that no excej)tions or relaxations of them can bo 
 anyhow taken into account, but also when it is remembei'ed 
 that there are conceivable situations when the observance of 
 some of these rules might cojiHict with other precepts. Put 
 the case of the sovereiun of a kinodoni who was also the 
 last heir of line, and where a failure in the succes.sion W(ju1i1 in- 
 volve a change of dynasty, or even allegiance, highly dangerous 
 to the country: it is plain that the king who decided to hold liy 
 a vow of celibacy might be sinning very gravely against his 
 public duties, which nuide him incompetent to pledge himself in 
 such a fashion; and thus a vow of chastity might l)e sinful. 
 
 ^rhose who will be at the pains to compare the two extracts I 
 have brouiiht toocther will see that the later of the two in oi-- 
 (ler in the Constitutions (though the earlier as given above) is 
 plainly intended to meet the dilHculty of objections being raised 
 
10 
 
 liy scrupulous menibors of the Society against executing an or- 
 der given them by a Superior, and is the complement of the in- 
 junction that they must assume every order so given to be law- 
 ful and right, an(l nuist reject every conHicting opinion of their 
 own on the matter. 
 
 The hopeless untenability of Father ])rnnnnond's gloss will 
 appear when it is noticed that, if it be alhiwed to stand, it is not 
 e\en a venial sin for any member of the Jesuit body to violate 
 its Coustitiilions, unless the particular Constitution concerned be 
 specifically brought before him, and enjoined upon him by a 
 special act of his Superior. That is sheer non-sense, and I need 
 not waste my tinn' over it. 
 
 I (juite allow that if there were evidence in the writings and 
 acts of members of the Jesuit body that the meaning I put 
 n])()n these clauses in the Constitutions, as proving that the eud 
 justifies the means, has not been adopted by the Society, nor 
 supported by its ticcrtMlited authors, nor yet admitted into its 
 practice, my case fails. But I allege that the maxim is definitely 
 to be found in th(» writing.^ of sucli well-kn(nvn Jesuit authors as 
 Busembaum, Wagemarui and Gury ; and that it has been so jier- 
 sistently acted on by the Societ^^ as to earn their ''xpulsion from 
 several States of Europe, as dangerous to society. And I say 
 this, having myself had Jesuit friends whom I would have trust- 
 ed confidently in any relation of life where their specific obliga- 
 tions did not inteivene. 
 
 Richard V. Litti.edale. 
 
 Father Dnimmond's Reply to Dr. Littledale's Rejoinder. 
 
 Dr. Littledale is, iis usual, calmly ingenious and skilfully dis- 
 inuenuous. Of inu'eiiuity the insertion of afresh extract froiu 
 the Constitutions and the introduction of a far-fetched case 
 about celibacy are striking examples. Of disingeiuiousness I 
 proceed to note several instances. 
 
 INDIRECT REFUTATION. 
 
 1. He has made a new translation of the controverted pass- 
 atre. In so doina* he has altered his former veision, in accordance 
 with suggestions nuule in my translation, but wtl/iouJ <ui;j 
 ackn(ywl('(l(/iiie))f. I remarked that the clause in Dr. Litth;- 
 dale's translation which began, after a colon, with the \\ords, 
 "it has seemetl" (or "it seems") "good tons," had no connection 
 with the two precetling clauses. Accordingly, i)i his fresh trans- 
 lation, Dr. Littledale i)uts a full stop before "It has seemed," 
 thus, indeed, cutting off a part of my objection, but also flying 
 
 fi 
 
II 
 
 I 1 
 
 11 
 
 in the teeth of the Latin text, even as lie give.s it, and destroy- 
 inif the unity of the entire passune, M'hich is one single sentence 
 from beginning to end. The effect is simply to stultify "the 
 whole scope and context of the cha()ter in disi)ute." 
 
 By underlining the word nian towards the end of my trans- 
 lation I hinted that Dr. Littledale liad no right to translate 
 "ticri poterit " by "shall be done." Aecoi'dingly — tiiough reluc- 
 tantly, as the pen correction " may" of th( ahvady type-written 
 "shall" shows (in the original) — he now .says with me, "may be 
 done." 
 
 2. Though 1 took care to cajntalize the blunder, he persists in 
 substituting, as the twenty-hrst word in the body of "Cap. V." 
 (tpurtet for oplct, and he says nothing to justify this pe»sistent 
 divergence froju the text I have l)efore me. ^hdy, in general, 
 at the end of his two (piotations, he says they "are hcch raJrhj 
 conforntablc with the text of the edition of the ' (Jonstitutionea 
 Societatis Je.su,' printetl at Rome in 1570." Unf >rtunately for 
 the value of this assertion, I have by me at this moment two of 
 the most recent editions of our Con.stitutions. one printed at 
 Avignon in 1827 and another printed at Rome in 186!); both 
 these editions give iqilcf. With the.se two editions in hand, I 
 should be justified in waiving the 1570 version, and in taking my 
 stand upon the Society's Constitutions as they are : i'^r, as late 
 as 151)4, 1 find the representatives of the Society as.send)led in 
 General t*ongi'egation (which is the supi'eme legislative body in 
 our Order) rec ;mnieuding that the Latin edition of the Consti- 
 tutions be corrected according to the Spanish original, a recom- 
 mendation which had been re})eatedly made in previous Con- 
 gregations, anil which points to the 1570, or second, edition as 
 being decidedly inaccurate. (See Ivxtitotaiu Soi-iefafis Jcsn, 
 Rome 18G!)-70'', Vol. I, pages 208, 230, 235, 239, 204-). But 
 though 1 have not the advantage, which l)i\ FjittU^dale has, of 
 posse.ssing the 1570 version, 1 have no doul)t tint the woi'd in 
 that version is optvl and iwt oporft'L Of this attirmation 1 have 
 strong negative proof in the fact that Dr. Littledab, having be- 
 fore his eyes my dindtl}- underlined version, "wiiKUK.vs, neverthe 
 less, it ALSO l)K.siiii':s," says not a word, as a scholar of his stand- 
 ing would naturally be expected to say, in astonishment at my 
 translating his oportet by desircf^. Nor does he say anything 
 of the final nott. in which I lefer to this substitution as a 
 " wilful interpohiti(m." Evidently he has nothing to .say, 
 and so he ignores my correction, hoping that his general 
 assurance of conformity with the text of 1570 will outweigh, 
 in the mimls of those for whom ])r. LiitlednJe is still a truth- 
 teller, that correction. Happily, eounter-alHrmation is not my 
 
12 
 
 only lesouroc ; the intrinsic evidence of tlie text, as given l»y 
 Dr. Littlcdale, also supports nie. In Dr. Littledale's Latin text 
 1 read : "oj)ortet <'^it///(- nihiloiiiiiuis;" which he translates thus : 
 " it is nevertheless fitting." Why does he not translate the word 
 etlam ^ Because the plain English word alsi) would too readily 
 betray the garbling- of the Latin text. "Although the Society 
 
 desires ; it is nevertheless fitting uLst" would sound too 
 
 ridiculous. Also cannot be used to qualify the ]irincipal verb of 
 a second clause, unless there be some expression in the first 
 clause reseinliling another expression in the second. In my 
 
 text there is a similar verb : " cum CMrptet o'ptct etiam ;" 
 
 and therefore also is c[uite in order. But between cxoptet and 
 oportcf there is no similarity of meaning, and therefore cfium is 
 ridiculously out of place. Dr. Littledale ai)parently trusted 
 that inaccuiate scholarship would overlook this absurdity, and 
 counted on escaping detection l»y not translating the tell-tale 
 etimn. 
 
 One result of this perversion of the Latin text is, that 
 Dr. Littledale's translation becomes exceedingly lame. I have 
 already pointed out h \, by beginning a new sentence at the 
 weds, " It has seemed," he destroys the necessary connection 
 between this princii)al clause and those that go before it. I 
 would now add that the absence of any inferential or adver- 
 sative conjunction in the beginning of the Latin principal 
 clause, "visum est nobis in l)omino etc.," shows clearly that 
 the Civra, which begins "Cap. V," means, not altlioagh, as J^r. 
 Littledale translates it, but ivhcreu-s, as I translated it. For, 
 if cam meant althoiujit, it would call for some cori'ective af- 
 ter " \'isum est," such as tamen or uikilonilnus. No corrective 
 appears. Therefore cnvt ii\troduces not an objection, uut a 
 motive for observing the Constitutions through " the love and 
 desire of all perfection" rather than through " the fear of 
 offending." 
 
 3. The next piece of disingenuousness in Dr. Littledale's letter 
 is so full of ingenuity that it may be taken as a palmary instance 
 of the fusion of these two characteiistics. He is charged with 
 deliberately omitting a whole passage wdiich distinctly excludes 
 sinful things from the sphere of ol »edience. (See page 5, line 0.) 
 To this charge he replies 'not (me tvord. But, perhaps in order 
 indivi.'ctly to meet it, he (juotes another passage where sin is 
 again excluded. So as to find an excuse for this new quota- 
 tation, he affirms tluit the extract, "Quod Constitutiones, etc.,'' 
 is "part of the concluding section ot the Sixth division of the 
 Constitutions." Now it is not a pK.rt, but the whole of that 
 concluding section. With the exception of the word oportet and 
 
 
13 
 
 tlio yihranes 'prdcter exprcssmn vofv.m. aiul Irin (ilia efiscvlitilia, 
 
 wliich oiiglit to be (yplvt cM-cpfo cxprcHso voio frihtis 
 
 <dius essentvdihiijK, Dr. Littlfdale <|iiotes the cnfirc liftli c1ia[itt'r 
 or coiic'linling section. He I'orgets that he ha.s liiniself oalled at- 
 tention, a few line.s liiolier uj), to tlie cnfifcfi/ (jf hi.s (|uotatiiiii, 
 hi.s word.s then bein^^: "Accordingly I ])i-ocecd to cite it (tlie 
 chapter in dispute) entirely.'' 
 
 Tlien again, ho begins liis ({notation not at tlie lieginning, 
 but towards the en<l of a long sentence, after a connua, without 
 a hint of the nuitilation. In the 18()9 edition the whole si'U- 
 tence Covers 37 line.s ; Dr. Littledale (pu)tes oidy 12 line.s. Of 
 cour.se the omitted portion contains the very niai'row of the 
 Catholic doctrine of obedience, "that we uuist have bcfoie our 
 eyes God our Creator and Lord, for Whose sake olx'divjuce is 
 rendered to uum," and "that we should be most ready at the call 
 of obedience, just as if the voice issued from Christ the Lord." 
 For Dr. Littledale's i)urpose these and other beautiful thoughts 
 must be omitted ; but what he was mo.st carefid to omit was the 
 phrase which most distinctly points to the exclusion of .sin, and 
 which, standing us it does at the beginning of the practical pro- 
 visions of this first chapter of the Sixth Part, modifies and con- 
 trols all that follow.s. The ])hrase is, "onniibus in rebus, ad quas 
 potest cum charitate se obedientia extendere," which means " in 
 all things to which obedience may extend within the sphere' of 
 charity (or .sanctifying grace)." As in many other })assages of 
 our Constitutions, .so here in pa)"ti(mlar there is a marginal capi- 
 tal letter B referring to an explanatory note which (\\})Iains the 
 " ouuiibus in rebus" thus: " Hujusmodi sunt iUae omnes, in 
 ({uibus nullum manifestum est peccatum," i. e., "Of this nature 
 are all those things in which no sin is apparent." A note of this 
 kind is far more striking than a mere restrictive clause. It once 
 more categorically puts sin out of court as an object of obe- 
 dience. Dr. Littledale could not well ignore such a note, lude.ss 
 he ignored the tctxt : therefore, he deliberately .ski[)s the piemi- 
 ses and lands us without any warning in the middle of the 
 conclusion. 
 
 DIRECT 1{EFUTAT10N. 
 
 Fortunately, even in what he chooses to cite he furnishes me 
 with powerful weapons of defence. Hefoiv exhibiting their 
 temper, I nuist, however, notice the phrase he undei'lines, " om- 
 nia Justa es.se Jiobis per.suadendo." His translation, " persua- 
 ding ourselves that they are all just," is not grannnaticiilly co]-- 
 rect : the word fhetj connotes a plural noun for which it stands, 
 whereas there is no such plural noun in the preceding part of 
 
 
14 
 
 the sentence. To bo sure, the idea to wliich ilu-y refers is con- 
 tiiiticd in tlie phrase "\vliatsoev(!r is [the Latin ii (juires " sliall 
 have been"] enjoined on us ;" but the correct rent'ering is, " per- 
 suading ourselves tliatall things are just." The underlining of 
 this phrase by Dr. Littledale is intended to lay stress on what he 
 afterwards describes as " tlie injunction tliat they niU!-t assume 
 every order so given to be lawful and right." But, surely', l)i'. 
 Littledale has himself quoted other words which qualify this in- 
 junction most materially. The eleventh word after the un ler- 
 lined ))hrase begins a very inq)ortant modification : "etid .juidem 
 in onniibus, quae a Superiore disponuntur, uui definiii non possit 
 ([/*](luemadmodum dictum est) aliquod peccati geiuis intercedere." 
 Let me first translate this correctly, before criticizing Dr. Little- 
 dale's version. A correct version is most imisortant here, because 
 this final clause modifies and limits the provisions of the entire 
 sentence. Here, then, is a full rendering: "and that, indeed, 
 [shall be done] in all things which are arranged by the Superior, 
 wherever it cannot be defined (as Aa.s hcen naid <ihove) that any 
 kind of sin comes in." Compare this with Dr. Littledale's ver- 
 sion, and you will observe that he translates quidein by more- 
 over, a i-estrictive particle by one which extends, instead of re- 
 stricting, the meaning ! You will observe also that he translates 
 " quemadmodum dictum est" by the meaningless and incorrect 
 phrase, "as is said." It is incorrect : since dicitur, not dictwia 
 est, is the Latin for "is said." It is meaningless: for, as it stands 
 in the Englisli, to what in the world can it refer i Peiliaps to 
 " it cannot be defined." If so. if Dr. Littledale meant to call at- 
 tention to a peculiar use of th word "defined," then the paren- 
 thesis is worse than meaningless, it is misleading. The original 
 text is perfectly clear. Just before the word "quemadmodum " 
 the small italic letter/ refers back to the note or " Declaratio 
 B," which I have already translated, and which .says that obe- 
 dience embraces those things only "in which no sin is apparent." 
 Conse([uently, to render fully the gist of the parenthesis, J deem 
 it necessary to add the word (d>ure: "as has been said above." 
 The result of Dr. Littledale's tinkering is to make the English 
 version in this j)lace unintelligible. We are at a loss to know if 
 that in "and that moi-eover, etc., " is a pronoun or a conjunction. 
 If the reader takes it as a conjunction, he of course looks in vain 
 for a final verb : but Dr. Littledale was (juite willing he should 
 suppose St. Ignatius wrote unfinished sentences, provided only 
 that restrictive clause about excluding sin were properly 
 muddled: and thus were sure to attract little or no attention. 
 
 And yet it is precisely that restiictive or modifying clause 
 which takes the sting out of the phrase underlined by Dr. Little- 
 
 I 
 
onld 
 only 
 
 orly 
 
 lUSC 
 
 ttle- 
 
 15 
 
 dale. We are toM to "persiiadc ourselves that all thinc^s are 
 just," provided there be question (jf "all those thin<j^s \n which 
 no sin is apparent." This clearly implies that, whi'U sin is appa- 
 rent, we ,ir(.' not to j)ersuii<lv' our.M-lvt's that evciythiu!:,' is riii,ht. 
 Nay more, as I have already shown when conuuenting- on the 
 e.X[)lanatory note or " Declaratio B," this note positively excludes 
 sin from the territory t)t* obedience. It says e(|nivalently : yon 
 are not at all called upon to ol)ey a command to enmmit sin; sin 
 cannot ever he the object of obedience. This is so elementary a 
 principle with Catholics that I fi>el ashamed to have to insist 
 tipon it with such ])ainful iteration. P)Ut 1 am forced to be tire- 
 somely e.Kplicit in order to pi-ove how unwarraiitaiile is the con- 
 clusion which Dr. Littledale, who can be so clear and incis've 
 when he chooses, has entang'led in the following mazy senten< e : 
 " Those who will be at the pains to compare the two extracts I 
 have In'ought together will see that the later ot" the two in order 
 in the Constitutions (though the earlier as given above) is 
 plainly intended to meet the ditHiuIty of objections being raised 
 by scrupulous membeis of the Society against ex(>(niting an order 
 given them by a Superior, an<l is the complement of tin; injunc- 
 tion that they must assume every order so given to be lawful 
 and right, and must reject every conflicting oj^inion of their own 
 on the matter." On the conti'ary, the hfth chapter, which J)r. 
 Littledale ((uoted tirst, is not intended to meet objections of scru- 
 pulous Jesuits bv telling them that they must, under certain cir- 
 cumstances, conunit sin with an easy conscience. The plain 
 intention ol" that chapter is to ease the conscience of all mem- 
 bers by telling them plainly that, except certain vows and cer- 
 tain specially formulated orders, no rules bind them under penal- 
 ty of any sin. and, thcu'efore, that they should act haliitunlly 
 through a spirit of k)ve for the the glory of (Jo i and not through 
 mere dread of sin. There is no question, in this fifth eluiptfu-, of 
 meeting such oVyections as Dr. Littledale mentions : these have 
 l)een fully met, as T have just pi'oved, in two emphatic clauses of 
 the tirst chapter. Xor is the fifth chapter, in any sense, a com- 
 plement of the injunction to which Littledale refers. Not a 
 single hint does it contain about " assuming every order to be 
 lawful and right" oi' about " ivjecting every conflicting opinion 
 of their own." I'^inally, the corrective, not the eonq)len)ent. of 
 that injunction,, is given in those clauses of the first chapter 
 which exclude sin. Thus, the inference Dr. Littledale would 
 have the reader draw from these two extracts is in manifest op- 
 ]»osition to the premisses contained in the extracts themselves. 
 Its only possible i)urpo!-e is to divert attention from the main 
 i8.sue of the present controversy. 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
10 
 
 That is.'^uo is containod in T)r. Ijittlodalc's paragraph about 
 " the hopeless untenaliility" of* my jjjloss. As I cannot ilecide 
 whether ifjnoraTice or insiiiceritv is tlie cause of the false asser- 
 tion lierciji loftily thrown out, I will not characterize it more 
 specifically than as a huj^e blunder. 1 certainly do hold that "it 
 is not even a venial sin for any member of the Jesuit body to 
 violate its Constitutions," exce|)t those vows which are excepted 
 in Part VI., ch. 5, "unless the part'cular Constitution concerned 
 be .specifically bi-oui^ht before him <'nd enjoined upon him by a 
 special «et of his supirior." All the Jesuit body holds and has 
 ever held the same doctrine Other i-elif,aons orders have the 
 .same provisions in their constitutions. The Catholic Church 
 solemnly approves these provisions. Di-. Littledale's only an- 
 swer is : "That is .sheer nonsen.se, and I need not waste my time 
 over it." J s this .serious argument ? Doubtless, a failure to ob- 
 .serve one's rules is an inperfection, a lack of j)erfection ; but it 
 is not in itself a sin, mortal or venial, unless that rule be enjoine<l 
 in virtue of obedience or in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 In orde ' to .strengthen and coinplete the cumulative proof 
 that this is the only meaning of chapter fifth, I now come to Dr. 
 Littledale's comment on mv translation of the words, " oblioatio- 
 nem ad peccatum mortale vel veniale inducere." This is, of 
 course, the crucial j^oint of the whole di.scussion. I said, as Dr. 
 Littledale for once correctly reports, that these words mean 
 "that neglect to obey +he constitutions," etc., except in specified 
 ca.ses, " is iiot to be hi .1 to amount to mortal or venial sin." 
 This rendering. Dr. Littledale .says, "will not stand for a moment, 
 simply because the foi'mal and accredited phrase, where such is 
 the meaning, has invariably the prepo.sition " sub " and not " ad," 
 employed thus : ' non obligat sub mortali.' " Did Dr. Littledale 
 forget to read over his own letter ^ It would seem so : else, how 
 could he .so fiatly contradict that one of his opening paragraphs 
 in which he had said that my explanation "might conceiva- 
 bly standi ? " Let us re-read this paragraph for him : " I fully 
 recognize the ingenuity and even the plausibility of Fathei- 
 Drummond's explanation, but I cannot reconcile it with the 
 whole scope and context of the chapter in dispute, though it 
 might conceivably stand if applied to one isolated clause alone." 
 If my explanation "might stand" when "applied to one isolated 
 clause alone," then it is not true that "it will not .stand for a mo- 
 ment" when nv)thing but that isolated clau.se is examined. In other 
 words. Dr. L. begins by saying: your translation might po.ssil)ly 
 ])e good, if the clause wei'c taken by itself. He ends by saying: 
 your translation cannot possibly be good, if the clau.se be taken 
 by itself. Why this self-contradiction ? Becau,se hesetout with 
 
 fiabi 
 phrj 
 nioil 
 writ 
 
bout 
 }Ci<le 
 sser- 
 rnore 
 it "it 
 ly to 
 epted 
 erned 
 by a 
 i has 
 
 c tilt' 
 
 ihureb 
 ly an- 
 y time 
 to ob- 
 but it 
 i]oint'(l 
 Clu-ist. 
 proof 
 3 to Dr. 
 ligatio- 
 ns, of 
 as Dr. 
 ^ ii\ean 
 lec'itii'*! 
 al sin." 
 iioment, 
 such is 
 )t " ail," 
 ttU'thilo 
 Ise, how 
 vgraphs 
 onceiva- 
 ' I fully 
 f Father 
 ,vith the 
 ho'igh it 
 alone." 
 isolated 
 lur a nio- 
 1 11 other 
 possiV)ly 
 y saying: 
 be taken 
 ,out with 
 
 17 
 
 great hopes of proving that the context of the chapter would 
 demolish me. Later on, he must have felt those hopes were not 
 realized. Hence ha dropped the context and fe stoned on the 
 clause too intently to reiuember his previous admission. 
 
 As to "the whole .scope and context of the chapter in dis- 
 pute," the arguments I have adduc(Ml so far tend to prove that 
 Dr. LittledaU^ has Vjroken the whole chapter — une sentence in 
 the original — into two independent propositions, has misrepre- 
 sented the scope of the chapter, and has altered the original. I 
 now add one more argument. According to Dr. Little<lale's 
 translation, all that is needed to make a Jesuit counnit mortal 
 or venial sin is an order from his superior uttered " in the name 
 of Our Lord Jesus Christ." But, to use this Sacred Name as an 
 instrument for sin is Svacrilege and bl; sphemy. Theix-fore sacri- 
 lege and l)lasphemy are officially recogniziMl in one of the most 
 important chapters of the Con.stitutions. But these Con.stitu- 
 tions have received the most solemn kind of approval from a 
 .score of Poi)es, and what Popes so solemnly approve is nece.s.sa- 
 rily accepted by the whole Church. Therefore, the entire Roman 
 Catholic Church is, not inadvertently and unwittingly, but logical- 
 ly and wittingly, wedded to sacrilege and blasphtany. 8o ex- 
 treme an inference, having absurdity written on its face, ought 
 to make every hone.st searcher doubtful a.5 to the certainty of 
 the premisses that can lead up to such a conclusion. 
 
 These premi.sses are the two phrases : " peccati obligationem 
 non inducunt " and "obligationem ad peccatum mortale vel veni- 
 ale inducere."' As to the former, Dr. liittledale does not oti'ei- 
 any reply to mj' explanation, viz. : that the meaning of thegt^ni- 
 tive case, being remarkably elastic, depends on the context. Jiut, 
 hij uinitting,in his hccoikI t ran slat ion, ihc entire Jwadliui in ivh ich 
 this phrase occurs, he virtually achiouiedges that I a/ni rir/ltt. 1 
 need not, therefore, insist upon this explanation at great length. 
 Suffice it to observe that, in the mouth of a miscreant, the 
 j)lirase " obligationem peccati "' migiit pos.sibly mean " an obliga- 
 tion to commit sin " ; while on the other hand, when the phrase 
 appears at the head of a grave document full of godly expres- 
 .sions and instinct with the love of perfection, its true meaning 
 must be gathered from " the whole scope and context of the 
 cliapter in dispute," and especially from the meaning of the 
 second phrase. 
 
 As to this second phrase, is Di\ Littledale's contention justi- 
 fiable ? He speaks as one versed in the "formal and accredited" 
 phraseology of tlie Roman Catholic Church. Probably he has 
 more experience of our theologians and canonists than any other 
 writer who has never been a Roman Catholic : but after 
 
 <»mminm 
 
all, liis knowledge cannot compare with that of any of 
 our fairly loai'iied |)iiL'.stH. Ho dips into our hooks only to 
 tind tiaws in them, and that, of eour.se, only by way 
 of occasional controversy. We thumlt these books daily. 
 They are our manuals. More particularly, with re,L,'ard 
 to the text of the Constitutions of the Society of Je.sus, a Jesuit 
 priest, who i.s bound by rule to read them over and over again, 
 and who — be it said in all gratitude — is sweetly allured thereto 
 by the perfume of holiness which they breathe, ought as.suredly 
 to be more familiar with that text than any outsider. Just as 
 lawyers and judges are the best exponents of law texts, .so Catho- 
 lic tli^logians are the safest authority as to the meaning of 
 Catholic texts, and Jesuits a.s to the meaning of Jesuit laws. 
 This l)eing my vantage-ground, I deny that the "formal and ac- 
 ciedited phi'ase," in the .sense I am defending, " has vavaruiblij 
 the preposition 'sul ' and not 'ad.'" What I den}' is the invariable- 
 ness of the formula. I am far from denying that it is the more 
 connnon phrase. But I do maintain that the phrase "obligation- 
 em ad peccatunr " is .sometimes u.sed when the meaning is "a 
 liinding unto sin," i. e., "an obligation extending as far as sin," 
 "an obligation under pain of incuri'ing guilt," "the being render- 
 ed liable to the guilt of sin." 
 
 This contention I su])port by another pas.sage from our Con- 
 stitutions. In Part \\ chap. V., parag. 6, where provi.sicm is made 
 for possible contingencies in which the General of the .Society 
 could rrot atteird to his duties, and in which, conse([uently, the 
 Society, as a l)ody, would have to decide what should l)e done, 
 the following passage occurs : "Si ageretur de dignitate, quam ut 
 plurimum pati non potest Praepositi officium, .si non compulerit 
 talis obedientia Summi Pontilicis, quae (ul peciutlniu ohlirpire 
 posset, res in consul tationerir ne adducatur ; sed id onnrino tam- 
 quam certum tenendum est, nee debere, nee posse ct>nsensunr ad 
 hujusmodi dignitatem admittendam pracstari ;" the English of 
 which is : " If there were (]uestion of a dignity, which is in a 
 general way incompatible with the General's ottice, if compulsion 
 be not brought to bear [upon the Society] by such obedience to 
 the Sovereign Pontiff as might hind unto sin, let not the affair 
 be debated; but this nrust by all means be held as certain that 
 consent to the acceptance of such a dignity neither should nor 
 can be given." The context here plainly indicates the sense of 
 the disputed phi'ase. Suppose the Pope desired to make the 
 General of the Society a bishop or a cardinal, .so long as the 
 Holy Father does not transform his wi.sh into a command bind- 
 ing under ])ain of sin, the Society should not give its con.sent to 
 the accepting of any such dignity. Here there can be no possible 
 
10 
 
 IS 
 
 a 
 
 (luostion of "c(jiniiiittiny" any sin, and yet the v»>ry sanu! pliiaso, 
 'jul ])eccatuni oMij^are," is iinployctl. The only (juestion is 
 wlietlu;!" an ecclesiastical dignity sliall or shall not meet with 
 acceptance. This acceptance cannot be ccn.stiut'<l as siiii'nl. 
 Therefore, the phrase cannot, by any evil-minded translator, br 
 made to mean that the Poj)e can oblio-e one to connnit the sin ot" 
 accepting;;. Cyonsetpientiy, it nmst mean simply that the Pope 
 can bind "undei- [)ain of" sin. 
 
 That this is the only lei^itimab.' translation of th(i phrase is 
 made evident by the j)arallel passaj^e in the ."ith jtarai^raph of 
 tiie 4th chapter ot the same 0th E^avt, where the dispntt'<l 
 pinase is rendered by the synonymous one, containiiiL;' the very 
 preposition so peremptorily reipiired by Dr. Littlt.'dale, viz., 'sru 
 poena peccati." I ([Uote the passau;e, and th.'n ti-ansiate it: 
 
 "Si <|uis nrgeret (licet enm won oblij^ando .s7''> imfiiii prcnif',) 
 ut dignitatem ali(|Uam admittcret, in (jua Praepositi ollicium 
 necessario relin(juendum essct. non posset .sine con.sensu Societatis 
 earn admittei'e. Soeietas autem, semper intnenilo ([U:ie ad 
 niajus Dei obsequium et gloriam pt-rtinent, si obedientia Se-- 
 dis Apo-stolicae non compiderit, assensum nnn(|uam ])raestabit." 
 "If anyone were to urge [the General] (thougli not binding 
 him tinder pain of sin) to accept some dignity, which would 
 neces.sarily imply the relin<|uishing of the (tttice of (ieneral, 
 he could not accept it without the consent of the Society. 
 And the Society, always having in view what pertains to tlie 
 greater service and glory of God, if obedience to the Apj.s- 
 tolic See do not compel it, shall never give consent." 
 
 The reader will observe, bv the wav, in these two ex- 
 tracts, that pregnant use of the genitive which I referred to 
 in the phrase "peccati obligationem," "a binding unto (or as 
 far as) sin." Here also we have "obedientia suumii Pontiti- 
 cis" and " obedientia Sedis Apostolicae," when the meaning 
 manifestly is " obedience TO " the Pope, and not " the obe- 
 dience of" the Pope, which would be absurd. 
 
 With the above proofs to overweigh it. Dr. Littledale's 
 whole plea in bar of my translation falls to the ground. 
 However, there remain a few secontlary points to be briefly 
 rectified. 
 
 Dr. Littledale says that his translation " alone sfpiares with 
 the Latin idiom." To this I would reply : 1st. That the 
 blunders I have called attention to in several of his rendiM- 
 ings rather detract from the value of his opinions about Latin 
 idiom, unless, indeed, these blunders be voluntary, and in that 
 case no assertion of his can deserve respect. 2ndly. All com- 
 plete dictionaries of the Latin language give, as one of the 
 
20 
 
 I I 
 
 tn^iinings of oUifjarc, " to render liable through ;^iiilt, to make 
 ^Miilty." Thus Cicero, Pro Domo sua, 8, saj's to Clodins : 
 " (^>nuin jM)j)ulu!n R"uianuni soelerc^ oblioasscs," " after you had 
 made tlie Ilcanan people liable to the <fuilt of [your] criin{\" From 
 this meanin<j^ of the verb wny easily be inferred a coronate nieainng 
 of the derived substantive, "obli<^atio," which, when coupled with 
 "ail ])<'ccatuin" would tlien exjiress "the beinnr rendered liable 
 to the guilt of sin." Ihdlj'. '^Phe Latin idiom we are here 
 concerned with is not classical Latin, but Church Latin. Of 
 this we, Roman Catholic priests, who use nothing but that 
 idiom in our most important studie,', and who handle it in a 
 thousand ways all througli our liv';s as a truly living lan- 
 guage, have a right to claim a thorough knowledge. I have 
 Just given two extracts proving that tlie phrase docs ".square 
 with the Latin idiom" of the Church. 
 
 In my earlier strictures on Dr. Littledale's translation, as 
 it first appeared in the Ottawa Evevivg Journal of May 
 18th last, I pointed out how his version leads directly down 
 to the absurd conclusion that the vow of chastity oltliges 
 tliose who take it to commit sin. Dr. Littledale's reply is 
 
 twofold. He says my "apparent refutation breaks down:" 
 
 first, l>ecau.se "the obvious jturport of the clause as to the four 
 vows is meant to put them entirel}- out of the debateable area, 
 and to rule that no exceptions or relaxations of them can be 
 anyhow taken into account." This is all very fine as a piece of 
 ingenuity calculated to throw dust in people's eyes ; but, as an 
 answer, it is worthless. 
 
 Dr, Littledale interprets the chapter, which is, I must repeat, 
 one long sentence, as meaning that the Jesuit may never be ob- 
 liged to connnit sin except when commanded in a special manner. 
 But there is a previous exception, that of the four vows, and it 
 is precisely parallel to the other exception. What right has he, 
 then, to discriminate between the two ? No ; the vows arc not 
 " entirely out of the debateable area " ; they are exactly on the 
 same plane as the command in virtue of obedience. On his 
 theory, if the latter may lead to sin, so may the former. On 
 my view, which I have proved the only tenable one, both that 
 special command and the vows bind under pain of sin. More- 
 over, Dr. Littledale's small talk about " exceptions or relaxations" 
 is quite beside the mark. The entire chapter may be searched 
 in vain for any hint about " exceptions or relaxations " of the 
 Constitutions or of anything else. It all turns upon the bind- 
 ini; force of the Constitutions. 
 
 The second part of Dr. Littledale's reply I have, at the be- 
 ginning of this paper, acknowledged to be very ingenious. I 
 
21 
 
 in. 
 ut 
 
 ng 
 
 jo make 
 Jlodius : 
 you hml 
 ' From 
 neauing 
 led with 
 h\ liable 
 re here 
 Of 
 that 
 it in a 
 'an- 
 I have 
 " square 
 
 ition, as 
 of May 
 iy down 
 • oldiges 
 reply is 
 i down:" 
 the four 
 ble area, 
 can be 
 piece of 
 it, as an 
 
 repeat, 
 
 be ol)- 
 
 nianner. 
 
 and it 
 
 has he, 
 
 are not 
 
 on the 
 
 On his 
 
 er. On 
 
 til that 
 
 More- 
 
 iations" 
 
 ;earched 
 
 of the 
 
 bind- 
 
 thc be- 
 lious. I 
 
 regret that I cannot return his other compliment to me and add 
 that it is plausible. "There are," he says, "conceivable situa- 
 tions when the observance of some of the I'ules might contlict 
 with other precepts. Put i^'le case of the sovereign of a king- 
 dom who was also the last heir of line, and wheie a failure 
 in the .succession would involve a change of dynasty, or even of 
 allegiance, highly dangerous t»» the country : it is plain that the 
 IvliV who decided to hold bv a vo.v of celibacy mi<ditbe sinnini"' 
 very giavBi / against his public duties, which made him incom- 
 petent to pledge him.self in such a fashion; and thus a vow of 
 cha.stity might be sniful." Was I exaggerating wher I called this 
 a far-fetched instance ? What have the per.sonal ditliculties of 
 Kings to do with the conscientious perplexities of Jesuits ? No 
 man ever was King and Jesuit at the same time. John Cr.simir 
 ha<l been a Jesuit and a Cardinal, though apparently never in 
 holy orders and conse(|uentiy never b(mnd ly a solemn vow of 
 chastity; but he was legitimately dispensed and ceased to be a 
 Jesuit before becomiiig King of Poland and before marrying. 
 If such a complication as Dr. Littledale eomtemplates were ever 
 to occur to a Jesuit, the man would have either to leave the 
 Society or to abdicate the pi offered kingdom. Should the Pope 
 judge, as Dr. Littledale does, that our perplexed Jesuit King is 
 bound to marry, he can give him the re(|uisite dispensation. But 
 Popes are very loath to do so. 
 
 A case so very like Dr. Littledale's that he may have had it 
 in mind and simply transferred it to the Society, actually 
 occurred to a Cardnial Archl li.shop, who was not a Jesuit. Henry, 
 uncle to Seljastian, King of Portugal, who ])erished in Africa, 
 found himself, as Cardinal and Archibishop of Braga and Evora, 
 the last heir of his line. He ascended the throne of Portugal in 
 157S. His having no issue actually <lid involve a change of dy- 
 nasty and even of allegiance: for Philip II, King of Spain, took 
 possession of Portugal after Henry's death. This Henry proba- 
 bly foresaw, and, at the urgent enti'eaties of his advisers, asked 
 the Pope for a dispensation in order that he might marry. Gre- 
 gory XIII gently but tirndy refu.sed, and so effectually won over 
 Henry to his view that tlu; latter ever afterwards resisted the 
 solicitations of his parliament asking liim to renew his re((uest. 
 
 The case is the same as Dr. Littledale's; but the Pope's deci- 
 sion is a direct reversal of Dr. Littledale's. At any rate such 
 cases are not even "conceivable" for one who remains a Jesuit; 
 and the introduction thei'eof in lieu of a reply speaks volumes 
 for the weakness of Dr. Littledale's cause. 
 
 In his last paragraph he 1 (ccomes still weaker. Instead of stick- 
 ing to the point, which alone I had touched (see page 5, line M), 
 
 I 
 
JnOttHmmiiUMiri^ 
 
 22 
 
 he flics off to general accusations, which have been answered 
 scores of times ; and j'et he admits that, it' those accusations are 
 not true, his case as to the meaning he puts upon that one dis- 
 puted clause fails. This is a very precious avowal. So it 
 amounts to this : it" Jesuits do not hold elsewhere that 
 the "end justifies the means," it cannot be proved that they 
 hold it in their Constitutions. This point is all I argued for. 
 The ■pret<ent controveviy hinges on those Constitutional and 
 on nothing else. I have no time to re-write, for Dr. Little- 
 dale's benefit, Fr. James Jones' admirable answer to him, 
 entitled "Dishonest Criticism " (London : Hodges, 1887), nor the 
 crushing replies about Busembaum, Wagemann and Gury in the 
 early numbers of "The Month" for 1875 (London), which have 
 been reappearing for some weeks past in the Northwest Revietv 
 of Winnipeg ; nor have I time to enlarge upon the obvious re- 
 joinder about those who expelled the Jesuits, that they were 
 either blinded by ignorant prejudice or swayed by immorality 
 and impiety. 
 
 However, for just one little point there is time. " And I say 
 this," quoth Dr. Littledale, "having myself had Jesuit friends 
 whom I would have trusted confidently in any relation of 
 life where their specific obligations did not intervene." Yes, 
 Dr. Littledale, you may " have had " friends amongst us. I 
 [)ass over the sneer with which you hint that they were not to 
 l)e trusted when their specific obligations intervened. It is part 
 of your present stock-in-trade : groundless insinuation. In the 
 past you w^ould have scorned such meanness. I have known all 
 those Jesuits who are likely to have been your friends. They 
 are, under all circumstances, as true a^. steel. It is not they who 
 have changed ; it is you. All of them who have ever spoken of 
 you have echoed the " Quantum mutatus ab illo !" How w^oe- 
 fully altered from that Dr. Littledale who, some twenty years 
 ago, p the eleventh anniversary of the A. P. U. C, preached a 
 sermon on reunion in which he drew a noble picture of the Ro- 
 man Church, saying that "the zeal of her priests, her monks and 
 her nuns, .the faith and holiness of her leaders remain undimin- 
 ished !" As you neared the goal, you swerved and went back. 
 Had you taken the decisive step of personal reunion, you would 
 have become as a little child to enter the kingdom of heaven. 
 You could not have lorded it over well-meaning multitudes as a 
 sort of independent Pope who is neither Catholic nor Protes- 
 tant, who, while celebrating " daily with wafer and chasuble," 
 brings out, under the auspices of the S. P. C. K., successive edi- 
 tions of the "Plain Reasons," which are honeycombed with re- 
 tractations without acknowledgment, with specimens of unfair 
 
I answered 
 isatioiis are 
 lat one dis- 
 al. So it 
 'here that 
 that they 
 argued for. 
 iiont^ and 
 Dr. Little- 
 to him, 
 f7), nor the 
 ury in tlie 
 vhich have 
 est Revieio 
 obvious re- 
 they were 
 immorality 
 
 And I say 
 uit friends 
 relation of 
 fie." Yes, 
 jst us. I 
 ere not t(; 
 
 It is part 
 
 ii. In the 
 
 known all 
 
 ids. They 
 
 they who 
 spoken of 
 How woe- 
 inty years 
 ^reached a 
 i: the Ro- 
 iionks and 
 I undimin- 
 ent back, 
 ^ou would 
 jf heaven, 
 tudes as a 
 3r Protes- 
 chasuble," 
 essivc edi- 
 1 with re- 
 1 of unfair 
 
 23 
 
 controversy, with misquotations, misrepresentations, misstate- 
 ments and mistranslations, all tending to paint the Chureh of 
 Rome as a lyina, idolatrous, cruel and rapacious tyrant. (See 
 Ryder's "Catholic Controversy," Index, article "Littledale :" New 
 \ork, Catholic Publication Society Co.) The glory of thus \m- 
 settHng- honest minds would not, indeed, have ^ been yours, had 
 you remained trustworthy and true ; but, as an everlastin-/ com- 
 pensation, your splendid gifts would have found their proper 
 channel in the loyal service of God, instead of being worse than 
 M^asted, and you could look forward with clean lips'and heart to 
 the j"udgment-seat of Christ. 
 
 Lewis Drummond, S. J. 
 
 St. Boniface, Manitoba, Augu.st 20tli, 1889. 
 
24 
 
 £ 3b 
 
 >, 
 
 y, TT 1- 
 
 
 i.5 
 
 % 
 
 
 7. 
 
 > 
 
 8 
 
 ^ 
 
 y :; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 "5'^ '^ ^ '-■- 
 
 ■j: "rt " ^ •"'n-^tr.II '~' r.ll 
 
 O 
 
 U f ^ 1/, .= 
 
 O C u C rt s I 
 
 o -jO J „,•= -J : 
 
 = ■/: -J 0^ ? C 
 
 ji - J _ ::: >i 
 
 o 
 
 = o u 3 
 
 U 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 I— ( 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 b 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 I— I 
 
 !i 
 
 U> 
 
 I— I 
 
 
 5 ?/• 
 
 A 
 
 "I '',- 
 
 y-3 it. 
 
 O o 
 
 I. J; S /■. 
 
 ^ 5 5 = >^r *" ^' ' - = = " • • =i ■- ^ 
 
 bf.— 
 
 — tot: 
 O o 
 
 :^- ^ ti". iii ^^ o- ^7^; ^ 0-- c r.i; r.-^'Z > ■-> ^. zj. 
 
 '■J •— 
 
 71 > 
 
 
 
 Mc; 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 u 
 
 ■f) 
 
 
 :j 
 
 
 >i 
 
 
 • ' 
 
 
 
 c* 
 
 ^ 
 
 r 
 
 
 ' ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 -*-) 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 i> 
 
 >1 
 
 t— ( 
 
 )_ 
 
 
 'T3 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 1— 1 
 
 br 
 
 ri 
 
 
 u 
 
 t- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 c 
 
 UO 
 
 I I 
 
 It 
 
 
 Ql x fc, 1_ J^— 4-* 
 
 :< c i* " rt 
 V. - V. r: - - 
 
 - '^ — " -3 
 
 
 = c -^ X "-s >,?,■+; u -J 
 
 ~ 11 >T'— :^ ^ -1 • 
 
 i- 5 
 
 ^ T C '^ It •' -^ 
 
 I 
 
 e-M „ c ., ^ t; 
 
 2 ^ c — 's ti - 
 (5 cjo.SE.t: 
 
 
 
 I I 
 
 a 3 ii>- 
 
 
 H 
 
 t: ii 
 
 o2 
 
 as 
 
 7» S 5 ^ 
 
 H *:- =^ S 
 
 ? M -' o Ei. 
 
 ■- CxC'5 
 
 Ca- ^ = 
 S c-5 ' 
 
 O « c.o c 
 
 ■So ;; ^^c 
 ■" S = i "- 
 
 c c C ^ « 
 
 -; 3 rt y C 
 
 3 £ =_, ;; 
 
 ^ y 
 
 P o 
 
 .- X O :j 
 
 4- -Oh 
 
 "a1 
 
 "*, r, > 
 
 •S.i c E = 
 
 ' o ^ : 
 
 feci- a"= c - 
 
 £•?:=.. 5- --H 
 
 -■r ii. U — C 
 
 ;; -'' o £ - s X 
 •— 1 s ■'"• ^ u 
 
 c c 
 ?0 
 
 - iJE 
 
 rt " . ^ 3- 
 =: - ^ 3 '= 
 
 _ i, il = „ 
 
 :-§i-SE| 
 
 c rt X rt i; 
 3 i: ^;~« 
 
 i 
 
 c c So 
 
 3 -S o I, 
 
 u '^ 3 *' 
 c '-' = -^ 
 
 X ._ 
 
 C'3 C 
 
 E --t; 
 
 rt c 
 
 3 i* C. 
 
 .;: c 
 
 3.'i o-c 
 
 .S o d S 
 
 ■/ c S ii 
 
 111 
 
 =.""3 s ;; 
 
 I 
 
 4) ti 
 
 
 ": i u: 
 
 3.1: y 
 
 ,: -u c 
 
 •- c o 
 
 £1 >n 
 
 3'5 i-'= 
 
 -' -' ■- ^ y C ,— 
 
 3"^ E-5 B.3^ 
 
 C C c C o-rt 
 
 bi^ 3 > t- > 
 
 ; U--3 
 
 
 ! 7) 
 
 ■■^i 3.? 
 
 3 - 
 
 e ■" 3^ 3. 
 
 0° 
 fj III 
 
 ■pu--=i;E5'^5'OE- 
 
 cyi::.-_c_»-;5.g,pf:-CG 
 
 «XxOJc«'eS35t^^'- 
 
 3 X ^N 
 C -iJ tn 
 
 -4)0 
 
 E - c 
 
 3- _._ 
 ■C G 3 
 
I 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 E-. 
 
 oi 
 
 2 
 
 » 
 
 a 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 « 
 
 09 
 
 1 
 
 
 V 
 
 a - ^ 
 -go 
 
 hj H 
 
 s "S a 
 
 B . 
 
 a <£ 
 
 a iS 
 .3 *> 
 
 s ® 
 
 c 
 
 S rt 
 
 73 r 
 
 ZO 
 
 ji.--;- ^5 =^ £5: .St. 
 
 - ?i 5 c - c = 
 =^— •-> ' o -J 
 
 - = -J I; 9'^ 
 
 "■;" S "^ f* 
 
 = > C ^ V"^ 
 
 ^ •*» **r Jv > ^ c u. ^ t<; x r; 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ■a :j r'-^'- •.— 
 
 
 tj '^ ^ jr .- 
 
 i, '-^ o ii if 
 
 «j S > S^ 
 
 — 'Sr /• 
 
 it t~ — . ^ 
 
 
 , - S-? Co 
 
 
 c > ft -2 ^ 
 
 
 'O CI,;. ^-^':3 
 
 --ij ' 'C i ' h ^'t'-^ ^- ° 
 
 - • £ ci; t h i £ -r &--r 
 
 gut) 
 
 5-CJ3