ed in point of difcipline as you are. By this I can now discover, Fathers, how many impostures I am to give my answers to; and fincer the fourth, at which we ftopped, is upon the fubject of homicide, it will be very proper that at the fame time I answer that, I should alfo answer the eleventh, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, fixteenth, seventeenth, and eigh teenth, which are all upon the fame subject too. I fhall then, in this letter, justify the ftrict regard I have had to truth in my quotations, which you have mifrepresented, and imputed to me as fo many falfhoods. But because you have had the amazing affurance in what you published to affert, "That the "fentiments of your authors upon murder are conformable to the decifions of the

Popes and ecclefiaftical laws," you lay me under the neceffity of refuting, in my following letter, a propofition fo very rash in itself, and fo unjustifiably injurious to the Church. It is a matter of great confequence to make it appear that she is untainted by, and free from your corruptions, for otherwise the Heretics may make their own ufe of your abandoned errors, and draw confequences from them to her high difhonour. For this reafon, in order to discover what ought to be avoid

ed,

ed, and what to be followed, we muft, on the one fide, take a view of your pernicious maxims, and, on the other, of the canons of the Church which have at all times condemned them.

Your fourth impofture is employed about a maxim relating to murder, which you pretend I have falfely afcribed to LESSIUS. It "He who has received a box on the ear may pursue his enemy upon the spot, "and even ftrike him with the fword, not

is this,

out of revenge, but as a reparation of his "honour." Now you say that this is the cafuift VICTORIA's opinion. But this is not the fubject in difpute. For there is no inconfiftency in faying, that it is the fame opinion both of VICTORIA and of LESSIUS, fince LESSIUS himself says, it is the fame with that of NAVARRE's, and your own father HENRIQUEZ's who affirm, "That he who has "received a box on the ear may pursue his man upon the spot, and give him as many strokes as he should judge neceffary, for "the reparation of his honour.". The queftion then is only to know if LESSIUS joins in the fame fentiments with these authors, as well as his comrade VICTORIA does: and for this reafon you add, "That LESSIUS only

only mentions this opinion that he may re"fute it, but that I afcribe a fentiment to " him which he only alledges on purpose to "oppose it, fo that I have committed the "most shameful, and basest action a writer

can poffibly be guilty of." Now I will maintain it, Fathers, that he only mentions it with a design to follow and approve of it.

This is a queftion of fact which it will be very eafy to decide. Now let us see how you prove what you affert, and you fhall afterwards fee how I prove what I affert. You fay, to fhew that LESS IUS is not of that opinion, that he condemns the practice of it, and to prove this, you cite a paffage out of him, 1. 2. c. 9. n. 82. where he has these words, "I condemn the practice of it." I agree that if those words are looked for in LESSIUS at number 82, the place you cite them from, they will there be found. But what must we fay, Fathers, when we find at the fame time that he difcuffes a queftion in that very place quite different from that we are talking of, and the opinion, the practice of which he condemns in that place, is in no refpect the fame with that we are now upon, but as remote from it as can poffibly be imagined? However to clear up this point, let us turn

to

to that part of the book where the very paffage is which you refer to; for there we shall find all the thread of the discourse to this

pur

pose. He puts the question," Whether we

may murder for having received a box on "the ear," at n. 79, and he concludes it at number 80. without mentioning all this while one fyllable of condemnation. Having finished this question he begins a new one, article 81." Whether one may murder for " opprobrious flander?" And it is upon this queftion that he mentions, at n. 82. the very words you have quoted from him, viz. "I "condemn the practice of it."

Ought you not then to blush, Fathers, at fo shameful a behaviour, in daring to introduce thofe very words, in hopes of making mankind believe, that LESSIUS Condemns the opinion of killing any one for a box on the ear? Ought you not to be in confufion, as you have brought no other fingle fort of proof than that just mentioned, to triumph as you do in the following words?" Many diftinguished

perfons of undoubted character at Paris, "have already discovered this flagrant falfity by their reading LESSIUS, and from hence are taught what sort of credit ought to be given to this flanderer."

How,

How, Fathers, is it thus you abuse the confidence placed in you, by perfons of fuch diftinction? To let them be convinced that LESSIUS does not fupport fuch a particular opinion, you open the book for them in a part of it where he condemns an opinion of another nature; and as these perfons do not in the least suspect your veracity, or, have it in their thoughts to examine whether that place has any relation to the question in debate, you make use of the opportunity to abuse their credulity. I am perfuaded, Fathers, that to ward off fo fcandalous an untruth, you have recourfe to your doctrine of equivocals, and that as you read this paffage ouT ALOUD, you fay SOFTLY this opinion belongs to another fubject. But I do not know if this reafon, though it may be a fufficient one for fatisfying your confciences, will be a fufficient one for fatisfying the just complaints these perfons of diftinction have against you, when they come to find you have been playing your tricks, and grofly impofing upon them.

Make use of your utmost endeavours, Fathers, to prevent their feeing my letters, because it is the only way you have left to * maintain your credit with them a little while longer. I make a quite different use of

your

letters.