to wholesome doctrine. For the rest, sectarian prejudice is a strange thing. I have seen people embrace with ardour an opinion for the sole reason that it is received in their order, or even solely because it is contrary to that of a man of a religion or of a nation which they do not like, although the question had almost no connection with the religion or the interests of the people. They did not know perhaps what was in reality the source of their zeal; but I knew that, upon the first news that such an one had written this or that thing, they would ransack the libraries and puzzle their brains to find something to refute it. This it is which is practised so often by those who maintain theses in the universities and who seek to distinguish themselves against their adversaries. But what shall we say of the doctrines prescribed in the Symbolic books of the sect, even among' the Protestants, which we are often obliged to embrace with an oath? which some think signifies with us only the obligation to profess what these books or formularies contain of Holy Scripture; in which they are contradicted by others. And in the religious orders of the Roman party, without contenting themselves with the doctrines established in their church, they prescribe narrower limits to those who teach them; witness the propositions the teaching of which in their schools the General of the Jesuits, Claudio Aequaviva (if I am not mistaken), defends. It would be well (to mention it in passing) to make a systematic collection of the propositions determined and censured by councils, popes, bishops, superiors, faculties, which would be of use in ecclesiastical history. We may distinguish between teaching and embracing an opinion. There is no oath in the world nor prohibition which can force a man to abide in the same opinion, for opinions are involuntary in themselves: but he may and should abstain from teaching a doctrine which is regarded as dangerous, unless he finds himself compelled thereto by his conscience. In this case he must declare himself sincerely and leave his post when he has been charged with teaching; supposing, however, that he can do so without exposing himself to an extreme danger which might force him to leave without fame. We see but little other means of reconciling the rights of the public and of the individual: the one being under obligation to prevent what it judges bad, and the other not being able to dispense with the duties demanded by his conscience. . Ph. This opposition between the public and the individual and even between the public opinions of different sects is an inevitable evil. But