andsuchotheropinionsofyourmostgraveandreverenddoctors？Isthereanythingmorenecessary，fathers，formyvindication？And，asTertulliansays，"cananythingbemorejustlyduetothevanityandweaknessoftheseopinionsthanlaughter？"But，fathers，thecorruptionofmanners，towhichyourmaximslead，deservesanothersortofconsideration；anditbecomesustoask，withthesameancientwriter："Whetheroughtwetolaughattheirfolly，ordeploretheirblindness？—Rideamvanitatem，anexprobremcaecitatem？"Myhumbleopinionisthatonemayeitherlaughatthemorweepoverthem，asoneisinthehumour。"Haectolerabiliusvelridentur，velflentur，"asSt。Augustinesays。TheScripturetellsusthat"thereisatimetolaugh，andatimetoweep"；andmyhopeis，fathers，thatImaynotfindverified，inyourcase，thesewordsintheProverbs："Ifawisemancontendethwithafoolishman，whetherherageorlaugh，thereisnorest。"P。S。—Onfinishingthisletter，therewasputinmyhandsoneofyourpublications，inwhichyouaccusemeoffalsification，inthecaseofsixofyourmaximsquotedbyme，andalsowithbeingincorrespondencewithheretics。Youwillshortlyreceive，Itrust，asuitablereply；afterwhich，fathers，Iratherthinkyouwillnotfeelveryanxioustocontinuethisspeciesofwarfare。LETTERXII
　　TOTHEREVERENDFATHERS，THEJESUITSSeptember9，1656REVERENDFATHERS，Iwaspreparedtowriteyouonthesubjectoftheabusewithwhichyouhaveforsometimepastbeenassailingmeinyourpublications，inwhichyousalutemewithsuchepithetsas"reprobate，""buffoon，""blockhead，""merry—Andrew，""impostor，"
　　"slanderer，""cheat，""heretic，""Calvinistindisguise，""discipleofDuMoulin，""possessedwithalegionofdevils，"andeverythingelseyoucanthinkof。AsIshouldbesorrytohaveallthisbelievedofme，Iwasanxioustoshowthepublicwhyyoutreatedmeinthismanner；andIhadresolvedtocomplainofyourcalumniesandfalsifications，whenImetwithyourAnswers，inwhichyoubringthesesamechargesagainstmyself。Thiswillcompelmetoaltermyplan；thoughitwillnotpreventmefromprosecutingitinsomesort，forIhope，whiledefendingmyself，toconvictyouofimposturesmoregenuinethantheimaginaryoneswhichyouhaveascribedtome。Indeed，fathers，thesuspicionoffoulplayismuchmoresuretorestonyouthanonme。Itisnotverylikely，standingasIdo，alone，withoutpoweroranyhumandefenceagainstsuchalargebody，andhavingnosupportbuttruthandintegrity，thatIwouldexposemyselftoloseeverythingbylayingmyselfopentobeconvictedofimposture。Itistooeasytodiscoverfalsificationsinmattersoffactsuchasthepresent。
　　Insuchacasetherewouldhavebeennowantofpersonstoaccuseme，norwouldjusticehavebeendeniedthem。Withyou，fathers，thecaseisverydifferent；youmaysayasmuchasyoupleaseagainstme，whileImaylookinvainforanytocomplainto。Withsuchawidedifferencebetweenourpositions，thoughtherehadbeennootherconsiderationtorestrainme，itbecamemetostudynolittlecaution。Bytreatingme，however，asacommonslanderer，youcompelmetoassumethedefensive，andyoumustbeawarethatthiscannotbedonewithoutenteringintoafreshexpositionandevenintoafullerdisclosureofthepointsofyourmorality。Inprovokingthisdiscussion，Ifearyouarenotactingasgoodpoliticians。Thewarmustbewagedwithinyourowncampandatyourownexpense；and，althoughyouimaginethat，byembroilingthequestionswithscholasticterms，theanswerswillbesotedious，thorny，andobscure，thatpeoplewillloseallrelishforthecontroversy，thismaynot，perhaps，turnouttobeexactlythecase；Ishallusemybestendeavourstotaxyourpatienceaslittleaspossiblewiththatsortofwriting。Yourmaximshavesomethingdivertingaboutthem，whichkeepsupthegoodhumourofpeopletothelast。Atallevents，rememberthatitisyouthatobligemetoenteruponthiseclaircissement，andletusseewhichofuscomesoffbestinself—defence。ThefirstofyourImpostures，asyoucallthem，isontheopinionofVasquezuponalms—giving。
　　Toavoidallambiguity，then，allowmetogiveasimpleexplanationofthematterindispute。Itiswellknown，fathers，that，accordingtothemindoftheChurch，therearetwopreceptstouchingalms：1st，"Togiveoutofoursuperfluityinthecaseoftheordinarynecessitiesofthepoor"；
　　and2nd，"Togiveevenoutofournecessaries，accordingtoourcircumstances，incasesofextremenecessity。"ThussaysCajetan，afterSt。Thomas；sothat，togetatthemindofVasquezonthissubject，wemustconsidertheruleshelaysdown，bothinregardtonecessariesandsuperfluities。Withregardtosuperfluity，whichisthemostcommonsourceofrelieftothepoor，itisentirelysetasidebythatsinglemaximwhichIhavequotedinmyLetters："Thatwhatthemenoftheworldkeepwiththeviewofimprovingtheirowncondition，andthatoftheirrelatives，isnotproperlysuperfluity；
　　sothatsuchathingassuperfluityisrarelytobemetwithamongmenoftheworld，notevenexceptingkings。"Itisveryeasytosee，fathers，that，accordingtothisdefinition，nonecanhavesuperfluity，providedtheyhaveambition；andthus，sofarasthegreaterpartoftheworldisconcerned，alms—givingisannihilated。Buteventhoughamanshouldhappentohavesuperfluity，hewouldbeundernoobligation，accordingtoVasquez，togiveitawayinthecaseofordinarynecessity；forheprotestsagainstthosewhowouldthusbindtherich。Herearehisownwords："Corduba，"
　　sayshe，"teachesthatwhenwehaveasuperfluityweareboundtogiveoutofitincasesofordinarynecessity；butthisdoesnotpleaseme—
　　sedhocnonplacet—forwehavedemonstratedthecontraryagainstCajetanandNavarre。"So，fathers，theobligationtothiskindofalmsiswhollysetaside，accordingtothegoodpleasureofVasquez。Withregardtonecessaries，outofwhichweareboundtogiveincasesofextremeandurgentnecessity，itmustbeobvious，fromtheconditionsbywhichhehaslimitedtheobligation，therichestmaninallParismaynotcomewithinitsreachoneinalifetime。
　　Ishallonlyrefertotwoofthese。Thefirstis：That"wemustknowthatthepoormancannotberelievedfromanyotherquarter—haecintelligoetcaeteraomnia，quandoSCIOnullumaliumopemlaturum。"Whatsayyoutothis，fathers？IsitlikelytohappenfrequentlyinParis，wheretherearesomanycharitablepeople，thatImustknowthatthereisnotanothersoulbutmyselftorelievethepoorwretchwhobegsanalmsfromme？Andyet，accordingtoVasquez，ifIhavenotascertainedthatfact，Imaysendhimawaywithnothing。Thesecondconditionis：Thatthepoormanbereducedtosuchstraits"thatheismenacedwithsomefatalaccident，ortheruinofhischaracter"—noneofthemverycommonoccurrences。Butwhatmarksstillmoretherarityofthecasesinwhichoneisboundtogivecharity，ishisremark，inanotherpassage，thatthepoormanmustbesoilloff，"thathemayconscientiouslyrobtherichman！"Thismustsurelybeaveryextraordinarycase，unlesshewillinsistthatamanmaybeordinarilyallowedtocommitrobbery。Andso，afterhavingcancelledtheobligationtogivealmsoutofoursuperfluities，heobligestherichtorelievethepooronlyinthosecaseswhenhewouldallowthepoortorifletherich！
　　SuchisthedoctrineofVasquez，towhomyoureferyourreadersfortheiredification！InowcometoyourpretendedImpostures。Youbeginbyenlargingontheobligationtoalms—givingwhichVasquezimposesonecclesiastics。
　　ButonthispointIhavesaidnothing；andIampreparedtotakeitupwheneveryouchoose。This，then，hasnothingtodowiththepresentquestion。
　　Asforlaymen，whoaretheonlypersonswithwhomwehavenowtodo，youareapparentlyanxioustohaveitunderstoodthat，inthepassagewhichIquoted，Vasquezisgivingnothisownjudgement，butthatofCajetan。
　　Butasnothingcouldbemorefalsethanthis，andasyouhavenotsaiditinsomanyterms，Iamwillingtobelieve，forthesakeofyourcharacter，thatyoudidnotintendtosayit。Younextloudlycomplainthat，afterquotingthatmaximofVasquez，"Suchathingassuperfluityisrarelyifevertobemetwithamongmenoftheworld，notexceptingkings，"Ihaveinferredfromit，"thatthericharerarely，ifever，boundtogivealmsoutoftheirsuperfluity。"Butwhatdoyoumeantosay，fathers？Ifitbetruethattherichhavealmostneversuperfluity，isitnotobviousthattheywillalmostneverbeboundtogivealmsoutoftheirsuperfluity？
　　Imighthaveputitintotheformofasyllogismforyou，ifDiana，whohassuchanesteemforVasquezthathecallshim"thephoenixofgenius，"
　　hadnotdrawnthesameconclusionfromthesamepremisses；for，afterquotingthemaximofVasquez，heconcludes，"that，withregardtothequestion，whethertherichareobligedtogivealmsoutoftheirsuperfluity，thoughtheaffirmationweretrue，itwouldseldom，oralmostnever，happentobeobligatoryinpractice。"Ihavefollowedthislanguagewordforword。
　　What，then，arewetomakeofthis，fathers？WhenDianaquoteswithapprobationthesentimentsofVasquez，whenhefindsthemprobable，and"veryconvenientforrichpeople，"ashesaysinthesameplace，heisnoslanderer，nofalsifier，andwehearnocomplaintsofmisrepresentinghisauthor；whereas，whenIcitethesamesentimentsofVasquez，thoughwithoutholdinghimupasaphoenix，Iamaslanderer，afabricator，acorrupterofhismaxims。
　　Truly，fathers，youhavesomereasontobeapprehensive，lestyourverydifferenttreatmentofthosewhoagreeintheirrepresentation，anddifferonlyintheirestimateofyourdoctrine，discovertherealsecretofyourheartsandprovoketheconclusionthatthemainobjectyouhaveinviewistomaintainthecreditandgloryofyourCompany。Itappearsthat，providedyouraccommodatingtheologyistreatedasjudiciouscomplaisance，youneverdisavowthosethatpublishit，butlaudthemascontributingtoyourdesign；
　　butletitbeheldforthasperniciouslaxity，andthesameinterestofyourSocietypromptsyoutodisclaimthemaximswhichwouldinjureyouinpublicestimation。Andthusyourecognizeorrenouncethem，notaccordingtothetruth，whichneverchanges，butaccordingtotheshiftingexigenciesofthetimes，actingonthatmottoofoneoftheancients，"Omniaprotempore，nihilproveritate—Anythingforthetimes，nothingforthetruth。"Bewareofthis，fathers；andthatyoumayneverhaveitinyourpoweragaintosaythatIdrewfromtheprincipleofVasquezaconclusionwhichhehaddisavowed，Ibegtoinformyouthathehasdrawnithimself："AccordingtotheopinionofCajetan，andaccordingtomyown—etsecundumnostram—
　　（hesays，chap。i。，no。27），oneishardlyobligedtogivealmsatallwhenoneisonlyobligedtogivethemoutofone’ssuperfluity。"Confessthen，fathers，onthetestimonyofVasquezhimself，thatIhaveexactlycopiedhissentiment；andthinkhowyoucouldhavetheconsciencetosaythat"thereader，onconsultingtheoriginal，wouldseetohisastonishmentthathethereteachestheveryreverse！"Infine，youinsist，aboveall，thatifVasquezdoesnotbindtherichtogivealmsoutoftheirsuperfluity，heobligesthemtoatoneforthisbygivingoutofthenecessariesoflife。
　　Butyouhaveforgottentomentionthelistofconditionswhichhedeclarestobeessentialtoconstitutethatobligation，whichIhavequoted，andwhichrestrictitinsuchawayasalmostentirelytoannihilateit。Inplaceofgivingthishoneststatementofhisdoctrine，youtellus，ingeneralterms，thatheobligestherichtogiveevenwhatisnecessarytotheircondition。Thisisprovingtoomuch，fathers；theruleoftheGospeldoesnotgosofar；anditwouldbeanerror，intowhichVasquezisveryfar，indeed，fromhavingfallen。Tocoverhislaxity，youattributetohimanexcessofseveritywhichwouldbereprehensible；andthusyouloseallcreditasfaithfulreportersofhissentiments。Butthetruthis，Vasquezisquitefreefromanysuchsuspicion；forhehasmaintained，asIhaveshown，thatthericharenotbound，eitherinjusticeorincharity，togiveoftheirsuperfluities，andstilllessoftheirnecessaries，torelievetheordinarywantsofthepoor；andthattheyarenotobligedtogiveofthenecessaries，exceptincasessorarethattheyalmostneverhappen。Havingdisposedofyourobjectionsagainstmeonthishead，itonlyremainstoshowthefalsehoodofyourassertionthatVasquezismoreseverethanCajetan。Thiswillbyveryeasilydone。Thatcardinalteaches"thatweareboundinjusticetogivealmsoutofoursuperfluity，evenintheordinarywantsofthepoor；because，accordingtotheholyfathers，thericharemerelythedispensersoftheirsuperfluity，whichtheyaretogivetowhomtheyplease，amongthosewhohaveneedofit。"Andaccordingly，unlikeDiana，whosaysofthemaximsofVasquezthattheywillbe"veryconvenientandagreeabletotherichandtheirconfessors，"thecardinal，whohasnosuchconsolationtoaffordthem，declaresthathehasnothingtosaytotherichbutthesewordsofJesusChrist："Itiseasierforacameltogothroughtheeyeofaneedle，thanforarichmantoenterintoheaven"；andtotheirconfessors："Iftheblindleadtheblind，bothshallfallintotheditch。"Soindispensabledidhedeemthisobligation！This，too，iswhatthefathersandallthesaintshavelaiddownasacertaintruth。"Therearetwocases，"saysSt。Thomas，"inwhichweareboundtogivealmsasamatterofjustice—exdebitolegali：one，whenthepoorareindanger；theother，whenwepossesssuperfluousproperty。"Andagain：
　　"Thethree—tenthswhichtheJewswereboundtoeatwiththepoor，havebeenaugmentedunderthenewlaw；forJesusChristwillsthatwegivetothepoor，notthetenthonly，butthewholeofoursuperfluity。"AndyetitdoesnotseemgoodtoVasquezthatweshouldbeobligedtogiveevenafragmentofoursuperfluity；suchishiscomplaisancetotherich，suchhishardnesstothepoor，suchhisoppositiontothosefeelingsofcharitywhichteachustorelishthetruthcontainedinthefollowingwordsofSt。Gregory，harshasitmaysoundtotherichofthisworld："Whenwegivethepoorwhatisnecessarytothem，wearenotsomuchbestowingonthemwhatisourpropertyasrenderingtothemwhatistheirown；anditmaybesaidtobeanactofjusticeratherthanaworkofmercy。"Itisthusthatthesaintsrecommendtherichtosharewiththepoorthegoodthingsofthisearth，iftheywouldexpecttopossesswiththemthegoodthingsofheaven。Whileyoumakeityourbusinesstofosterinthebreastsofmenthatambitionwhichleavesnosuperfluitytodisposeof，andthatavaricewhichrefusestopartwithit，thesaintshavelabouredtoinducetherichtogiveuptheirsuperfluity，andtoconvincethemthattheywouldhaveabundanceofit，providedtheymeasuredit，notbythestandardofcovetousness，whichknowsnoboundstoitscravings，butbythatofpiety，whichisingeniousinretrenchments，soastohavewherewithtodiffuseitselfintheexerciseofcharity。"Wewillhaveagreatdealofsuperfluity，"
　　saysSt。Augustine，"ifwekeeponlywhatisnecessary：butifweseekaftervanities，wewillneverhaveenough。Seek，brethren，whatissufficientfortheworkofGod"—thatis，fornature—"andnotforwhatissufficientforyourcovetousness，"whichistheworkofthedevil："andrememberthatthesuperfluitiesofthericharethenecessariesofthepoor。"Iwouldfondlytrust，fathers，thatwhatIhavenowsaidtoyoumayserve，notonlyformyvindication—thatwereasmallmatter—butalsotomakeyoufeelanddetestwhatiscorruptinthemaximsofyourcasuists，andthusuniteussincerelyunderthesacredrulesoftheGospel，accordingtowhichwemustallbejudged。Astothesecondpoint，whichregardssimony，beforeproceedingtoanswerthechargesyouhaveadvancedagainstme，Ishallbeginbyillustratingyourdoctrineonthissubject。Findingyourselvesplacedinanawkwarddilemma，betweenthecanonsoftheChurch，whichimposedreadfulpenaltiesuponsimoniacs，ontheonehand，andtheavariceofmanywhopursuethisinfamoustrafficontheother，youhaverecoursetoyourordinarymethod，whichistoyieldtomenwhattheydesire，andgivetheAlmightyonlywordsandshows。Forwhatelsedoesthesimoniacwantbutmoneyinreturnforhisbenefice？Andyetthisiswhatyouexemptfromthechargeofsimony。Andasthenameofsimonymuststillremainstanding，andasubjecttowhichitmaybeascribed，youhavesubstituted，intheplaceofthis，animaginaryidea，whichneveryetcrossedthebrainofasimoniac，andwouldnotservehimmuchthoughitdid—theidea，namely，thatsimonyliesinestimatingthemoneyconsideredinitselfashighlyasthespiritualgiftorofficeconsideredinitself。Whowouldevertakeitintohisheadtocomparethingssoutterlydisproportionateandheterogeneous？
　　Andyet，providedthismetaphysicalcomparisonbenotdrawn，anyonemay，accordingtoyourauthors，giveawayabenefice，andreceivemoneyinreturnforit，withoutbeingguiltyofsimony。Suchisthewayinwhichyousportwithreligion，inordertogratifytheworstpassionsofmen；andyetonlyseewithwhatgravityyourFatherValentiadelivershisrhapsodiesinthepassagecitedinmyletters。Hesays："Onemaygiveaspiritualforatemporalgoodintwoways—first，inthewayofprizingthetemporalmorethanthespiritual，andthatwouldbesimony；secondly，inthewayoftakingthetemporalasthemotiveandendinducingonetogiveawaythespiritual，butwithoutprizingthetemporalmorethanthespiritual，andthenitisnotsimony。Andthereasonisthatsimonyconsistsinreceivingsomethingtemporalasthejustpriceofwhatisspiritual。If，therefore，thetemporalissought—sipetaturtemporale—notastheprice，butonlyasthemotivedeterminingustopartwiththespiritual，itisbynomeanssimony，evenalthoughthepossessionofthetemporalmaybeprincipallyintendedandexpected—minimeeritsimonia，etiamsitemporaleprincipaliterintendaturetexpectetur。"YourredoubtableSanchezhasbeenfavouredwithasimilarrevelation；Escobarquoteshimthus："Ifonegiveaspiritualforatemporalgood，notastheprice，butasamotivetoinducethecollatortogiveit，orasanacknowledgementifthebeneficehasbeenactuallyreceived，isthatsimony？Sanchezassuresusthatitisnot。"InyourCaenThesesof1644yousay："Itisaprobableopinion，taughtbymanyCatholics，thatitisnotsimonytoexchangeatemporalforaspiritualgood，whentheformerisnotgivenasaprice。"AndastoTanner，hereishisdoctrine，exactlythesamewiththatofValentia；andIquoteitagaintoshowyouhowfarwrongitisinyoutocomplainofmeforsayingthatitdoesnotagreewiththatofSt。Thomas，forheavowsithimselfintheverypassagewhichIquotedinmyletter："Thereisproperlyandtrulynosimony，"sayshe，"unlesswhenatemporalgoodistakenasthepriceofaspiritual；
　　butwhentakenmerelyasthemotiveforgivingthespiritual，orasanacknowledgementforhavingreceivedit，thisisnotsimony，atleastinpointofconscience。"Andagain："Thesamethingmaybesaid，althoughthetemporalshouldberegardedastheprincipalend，andevenpreferredtothespiritual；althoughSt。Thomasandothersappeartoholdthereverse，inasmuchastheymaintainittobedownrightsimonytoexchangeaspiritualforatemporalgood，whenthetemporalistheendofthetransaction。"
　　Such，then，beingyourdoctrineonsimony，astaughtbyyourbestauthors，whofolloweachotherverycloselyinthispoint，itonlyremainsnowtoreplytoyourchargesofmisrepresentation。YouhavetakennonoticeofValentia’sopinion，sothathisdoctrinestandsasitwasbefore。ButyoufixonthatofTanner，maintainingthathehasmerelydecidedittobenosimonybydivineright；andyouwouldhaveittobebelievedthat，inquotingthepassage，Ihavesuppressedthesewords，divineright。This，fathers，isamostunconscionabletrick；forthesewords，divineright，neverexistedinthatpassage。YouaddthatTannerdeclaresittobesimonyaccordingtopositiveright。Butyouaremistaken；hedoesnotsaythatgenerally，butonlyofparticularcases，or，asheexpressesit，incasibusajureexpressis，bywhichhemakesanexceptiontothegeneralrulehehadlaiddowninthatpassage，"thatitisnotsimonyinpointofconscience，"
　　whichmustimplythatitisnotsoinpointofpositiveright，unlessyouwouldhaveTannermadesoimpiousastomaintainthatsimony，inpointofpositiveright，isnotsimonyinpointofconscience。Butitiseasytoseeyourdriftinmusteringupsuchtermsas"divineright，positiveright，naturalright，internalandexternaltribunal，expressedcases，outwardpresumption，"andothersequallylittleknown；youmeantoescapeunderthisobscurityoflanguage，andmakeuslosesightofyouraberrations。
　　But，fathers，youshallnotescapebythesevainartifices；forIshallputsomequestionstoyousosimple，thattheywillnotadmitofcomingunderyourdistinguo。Iaskyou，then，withoutspeakingof"positiverights，"
　　of"outwardpresumptions，"or"externaltribunals"—Iaskif，accordingtoyourauthors，abeneficiarywouldbesimoniacal，werehetogiveabeneficeworthfourthousandlivresofyearlyrent，andtoreceivetenthousandfrancsreadymoney，notasthepriceofthebenefice，butmerelyasamotiveinducinghimtogiveit？Answermeplainly，fathers：Whatmustwemakeofsuchacaseasthisaccordingtoyourauthors？WillnotTannertellusdecidedlythat"thisisnotsimonyinpointofconscience，seeingthatthetemporalgoodisnotthepriceofthebenefice，butonlythemotiveinducingtodisposeofit？"WillnotValentia，willnotyourownThesesofCaen，willnotSanchezandEscobar，agreeinthesamedecisionandgivethesamereasonforit？Isanythingmorenecessarytoexculpatethatbeneficiaryfromsimony？And，whatevermightbeyourprivateopinionofthecase，durstyoudealwiththatmanasasimonistinyourconfessionals，whenhewouldbeentitledtostopyourmouthbytellingyouthatheactedaccordingtotheadviceofsomanygravedoctors？Confesscandidly，then，that，accordingtoyourviews，thatmanwouldbenosimonist；and，havingdoneso，defendthedoctrineasyoubestcan。Such，fathers，isthetruemodeoftreatingquestions，inordertounravel，insteadofperplexingthem，eitherbyscholasticterms，or，asyouhavedoneinyourlastchargeagainstmehere，byalteringthestateofthequestion。Tanner，yousay，has，atanyrate，declaredthatsuchanexchangeisagreatsin；andyoublamemeforhavingmaliciouslysuppressedthiscircumstance，which，youmaintain，"completelyjustifieshim。"Butyouarewrongagain，andthatinmorewaysthanone。For，first，thoughwhatyousayhadbeentrue，itwouldbenothingtothepoint，thequestioninthepassagetowhichIreferredbeing，notifitwassin，butifitwassimony。Now，thesearetwoverydifferentquestions。Sin，accordingtoyourmaxims，obligesonlytoconfession—simonyobligestorestitution；
　　andtherearepeopletowhomthesemayappeartwoverydifferentthings。
　　Youhavefoundexpedientsformakingconfessionaveryeasyaffair；butyouhavenotfallenuponwaysandmeanstomakerestitutionanagreeableone。AllowmetoaddthatthecasewhichTannerchargeswithsinisnotsimplythatinwhichaspiritualgoodisexchangedforatemporal，thelatterbeingtheprincipalendinview，butthatinwhichtheparty"prizesthetemporalabovethespiritual，"whichistheimaginarycasealreadyspokenof。Anditmustbeallowedhecouldnotgofarwronginchargingsuchacaseasthatwithsin，sincethatmanmustbeeitherverywickedorverystupidwho，whenpermittedtoexchangetheonethingfortheother，wouldnotavoidthesinofthetransactionbysuchasimpleprocessasthatofabstainingfromcomparingthetwothingstogether。Besides，Valentia，intheplacequoted，whentreatingthequestion—ifitbesinfultogiveaspiritualgoodforatemporal，thelatterbeingthemainconsideration—