Thus，fathers，itisunquestionablethatyourauthorshavegivenpermissiontokillindefenceofpropertyandhonour，thoughlifeshouldbeperfectlyfreefromdanger。Anditisuponthesameprinciplethattheyauthorizeduelling，asIhaveshownbyagreatvarietyofpassagesfromtheirwritings，towhichyouhavemadenoreply。YouhaveanimadvertedinyourwritingsonlyonasinglepassagetakenfromFatherLayman，whosanctionstheabovepractice，\"whenotherwiseapersonwouldbeindangerofsacrificinghisfortuneorhishonour\"；andhereyouaccusemewithhavingsuppressedwhatheadds，\"thatsuchacasehappensveryrarely。\"Youastonishme，fathers：thesearereallycuriousimposturesyouchargemewithal。Youtalkasifthequestionwerewhetherthatisararecase？whentherealquestionisif，insuchacase，duellingislawful？Thesearetwoverydifferentquestions。Layman，inthequalityofacasuist，oughttojudgewhetherduellingislawfulinthecasesupposed；andhedeclaresthatitis。Wecanjudgewithouthisassistancewhetherthecasebearareone；andwecantellhimthatitisaveryordinaryone。Or，ifyoupreferthetestimonyofyourgoodfriendDiana，hewilltellyouthat\"thecaseisexceedinglycommon。\"But，beitrareornot，andletitbegrantedthatLaymanfollowsinthistheexampleofNavarre，acircumstanceonwhichyoulaysomuchstress，isitnotshamefulthatheshouldconsenttosuchanopinionasthat，topreserveafalsehonour，itislawfulinconsciencetoacceptofachallenge，inthefaceoftheedictsofallChristianstates，andofallthecanonsoftheChurch，whileinsupportofthesediabolicalmaximsyoucanproduceneitherlaws，norcanons，norauthoritiesfromScripture，orfromthefathers，northeexampleofasinglesaint，nor，inshort，anythingbutthefollowingimpioussynogism：
\"Honourismorethanlife；itisallowabletokillindefenceoflife；
thereforeitisallowabletokillindefenceofhonour！\"What，fathers！becausethedepravityofmendisposesthemtopreferthatfactitioushonourbeforethelifewhichGodhathgiventhemtobedevotedtohisservice，musttheybepermittedtomurderoneanotherforitspreservation？Tolovethathonourmorethanlifeisinitselfaheinousevil；andyetthisviciouspassion，which，whenproposedastheendofourconduct，isenoughtotarnishtheholiestofactions，isconsideredbyyoucapableofsanctifyingthemostcriminalofthem！
Whatasubversionofallprincipleishere，fathers！Andwhodoesnotseetowhatatrociousexcessesitmaylead？Itisobvious，indeed，thatitwillultimatelyleadtothecommissionofmurderforthemosttriflingthingsimaginable，whenone’shonourisconsideredtobestakedfortheirpreservation—murder，Iventuretosay，evenforanapple！Youmightcomplainofme，fathers，fordrawingsanguinaryinferencesfromyourdoctrinewithamaliciousintent，wereInotfortunatelysupportedbytheauthorityofthegraveLessius，whomakesthefollowingobservation，innumber68：\"Itisnotallowabletotakelifeforanarticleofsmallvalue，suchasforacrownorforanapple—autpropomo—unlessitwouldbedeemeddishonourabletoloseit。Inthiscase，onemayrecoverthearticle，andeven，ifnecessary，killtheaggressor，forthisisnotsomuchdefendingone’spropertyasretrievingone’shonour。\"Thisisplainspeaking，fathers；and，justtocrownyourdoctrinewithamaximwhichincludesalltherest，allowmetoquotethefollowingfromFatherHereau，whohastakenitfromLessius：\"Therightofself—defenceextendstowhateverisnecessarytoprotectourselvesfromallinjury。\"
Whatstrangeconsequencesdoesthisinhumanprincipleinvolve！andhowimperativeistheobligationlaiduponall，andespeciallyuponthoseinpublicstations，tosettheirfaceagainstit！Notthegeneralgoodalone，buttheirownpersonalinterestshouldengagethemtoseewelltoit；forthecasuistsofyourschoolwhomIhavecitedinmylettersextendtheirpermissionstokillfarenoughtoreacheventhem。Factiousmen，whodreadthepunishmentoftheiroutrages，whichneverappeartotheminacriminallight，easilypersuadethemselvesthattheyarethevictimsofviolentoppression，andwillbeledtobelieveatthesametime，\"thattherightofself—defenceextendstowhateverisnecessarytoprotectthemselvesfromallinjury。\"Andthus，relievedfromcontendingagainstthechecksofconscience，whichstiflethegreaternumberofcrimesattheirbirth，theironlyanxietywillbetosurmountexternalobstacles。