_Utinam inedia pereant, qui liberos homines adigunt ac jejunandi
necessitatem_. ("Would they might starve to death, who force the
necessity of fasting on free men.") Or this: _Digni sunt ut fumo pereant
qui nobis Dispensationum ad Indulgentiarum fumos tam care vendunt_.
("They deserve to be stifled to death who sell us the smokes (pretences)
of dispensations and indulgences at so dear a rate.") Or this: _Utinam
vere castrentur, qui nolentes arcent à matrimonio_. ("Would they might
indeed be made eunuchs of, who keep people from marrying, against their
will")--I ask, whether he should be forced to defend himself, for having
taught how to turn a sentence, though of bad meaning, into good Latin
words? I think there is no one so unjust, as to deem this just.

Thirdly, I had in the first instance to take care what sort of person it
should be to whom I ascribe the speech in the dialogue. For I do not
there represent a divine preaching, but good fellows having a gossip
together. Now if any one is so unfair as to refuse to concede me the
quality of the person represented, he ought, by the same reasoning, to
lay it to my charge, that there one Augustine (I think) disparages the
Stoics' principle of the _honestum_, and prefers the sect of the
Epicureans, who placed the highest good in pleasure. He may also bring
it against me, that in that passage a soldier, amongst many things which
he speaks about in true soldier-fashion, says that he will look for a
priest to confess to, who shall have as little of good as possible about
him. The same objector would, I imagine, bring it up against me, were I
to ascribe to Arius in a dialogue a discourse at variance with the
Church. If such charges against me would be absurd, why in other matters
should not regard be had to the quality of the person speaking? Unless
perchance, were I to represent a Turk speaking, they should decide to
lay at my door whatever he might say.