temporal be nothing more than the principal motive, and not the price. Which was all was demanded.

In the fecond place I must tell you, and maintain it too, that your anfwer contains an horrible impiety. What, Sir, have you the front to affirm, that were it not for the laws of the Church, there would be no fimony to purchase ecclefiaftical preferments by fuch a vile fetch of the intention? And that before the canons were made against fimony, it was lawful to buy them, if the money was not reckoned as the price? And dare thus tax St. PETER with temerity, for condemning SIMON MAGUS in such a strong authoritative manner, fince it does not appear that the magician offered his money more by way of a price, than of a motive?

To what school will you fend us to learn this doctrine? Not to that of JESUS CHRIST, for he always commanded his disciples,

as

"they had received freely, to give freely;" whereby he excludes, as PETER LE CHANTRE remarks, in Verb. abbr. c. 36. "all

expectation of prefents or fervices, whe"ther by compact or otherwise because "GOD feeth the heart." Neither can you fend us to the school of the Church, for the

any

treats all those that employ money to obtain of her functions, not only as CRIMINALS but HERETICS, and calls this traffic, palliate it how you will, not only a violation of one of her pofitive laws, but an HERESY, "Simoniacam hærefim."

The school then, where these maxims are learned, that it is but a fimony of positive law, or, but a prefumptive one, or none at all, to give money for a living, as the motive and not the price, can be no other than the fchool of GEHAZI and SIMON MAGUS: in which school alone, these two first jobbers in holy things must be deemed innocent, who are execrable all the world over befides: and where cupidity, left to it's own defires and powerful biafs, is taught to elude the laws of GOD by changing of a term, which cannot change the nature of the thing.

But let the difciples of this school attend to what that great Pope INNOCENT the third writes in a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, in the year 1199, where he rolls his thunder against the damnable fubtilties of fuch, "who, being blinded by the defire of gain, pretend to palliate fimony under a fpecious name: Simoniam fub honefto nomine palliant. As if changing the name

"could

"could change the nature of the crime, or "the punishment that is due to it." But, fays he further, "GOD is not to be mocked, and "fhould these followers of SIMON MAGUS, "avoid in this life the chastisement they deserve, they will not be able in the other to

escape that eternal punishment which GOD "has referved in ftore for fuch offenders, "fince the fpeciousness of the name will

never palliate the malignity of the fin, nor will disguifing a name render the thing innocent: Nec vox poterit abolere reatum." Your last point, Sir, is upon bankruptcy. And here again I must admire your affurance. The Jefuits, whofe advocate you are, had very improperly thrown the question of EsCOBAR upon LESSIUS. For the author of the Letters quoted LESSIUS only from EsCOBAR's authority, and charged ESCOBAR alone with the doctrine which the Jesuits make so much noise about, viz. That bankrupts may retain effects enough to live in a genteel way, though these effects were gotten by injustice, and crimes notorious C to all the world."

་

It is likewife on ESCOBAR's account only that he preffes the Jefuits either publicly to difown this maxim, or publicly avow it; if

the latter, he appeals to the parliament. Pray what answer have you to that? Why, you tell me that LESSIUS is not of the fame opinion with ESCOBAR. I have nothing to do with LESSIUS or his opinion; my business is with ESCOBAR's opinion and his only.

SIUS

What! do you think to answer questions by only changing them? Pray, Sir, do not pretend to put me off so. You fhall anfwer me about ESCOBAR, before I come to LESNot that I refufe to do it: for I give you my word and honour to explain LESSIUs's doctrine upon bankruptcy to a tittle, which I am pretty well affured will shock the Parliament as much as it has done the Sorbonne. And this promise, if it please GOD, I will certainly fulfil: but first fhall anfwer the point in debate relating to ESCOBAR. Before you proceed to any fresh question, I will have a fatisfactory precife answer to this. ESCOBAR is first upon roll, and shall have the precedence in spite of all your evafions. And then I give you my word to answer LESSIUS very foon afterwards.

you

L E T

LETTER XIII.

TO THE

Rev. the JESUITS.

Paris, Sept. 30. 1656.

I

Rev. FATHERS,

Have lately feen your last performance, in which you go on with your impostures as far as the twentieth, declaring you there put the finishing hand to that fort of accufation which your first part confifted of, and fo come to the fecond, in which you will make use of a new method for your defence, by fhewing that there are numbers of other cafuifts befides thofe of your fociety, who are as diffolute in their morals, and as relax