Since I first posted this last night, I have added Melanchthon's letter to Cardinal Campeggio and related remarks of biographer James William Richard, about bishops (near the beginning); also another citation from Philip Schaff about tears concerning Protestant division (near the end).
It's amazing that what was becoming so clear then is so easily denied now.
Yes, it is good that Melancthon and others lamented the divisions and disunity and the wars and fights and struggles of "church vs. state". All thinking and feeling Protestants weep over that tragedy. I do too. We don't coldly say, "dis-unity and fighting and schism is in itself a good thing !"
But Melancthon did have a condition for submitting to the old episcopal systems -- "on the condition that the gospel would be allowed to be freely proclaimed". This is repeated several times in your quotes. That is the key. And that is what the RCC blocked and would not agree to or allow. They actually disagreed with the gospel itself.
And even though we weep over the pain and history and schism, it was necessary to restore the gospel of grace.
A heretical version of the Gospel is "no" gospel.
It is like saying we submit to the authority of the Church but only if it doesnt disagree with us.
Some Protestants are disturbed about sectarianism, yes, yet they refuse to look at the underlying causes in the formal principles of Protestantism, and they are forced to justify the status quo or else they would be questioning their first principles, and very few folks want to do that because it might require them to make major changes, and we don't usually like changes.
I believe these requirements for Protestants make it almost impossible to have a true dialogue on these topics. We're hitting too close to home. Protestants MUST justify their existence over against Catholicism, by definition; by their very name . . . and the best they can come up with is the ancient Donatist and Montanist answer: "y'all are corrupt sinners, and so we must separate."
Or they go Ken's route and falsely claim that we denied the gospel, which is absurd.
Ken
Read this.
Council of Ephesus
Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’
I know Mr Temple is familiar with this quote and I am sure he will come up with many twits and turns in order to explain it "away" because that is all he can do.
"I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so."
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.
Ken,
The Calvinist 'gospel of grace' is merely your interpretation (as primarily instituted by John Calvin).
I know you are familiar with the Catholic teaching on our good deeds coming from God's grace, so will not go into that.
I just want you to think about something for a moment: In you system, we did not commit the original sin, so it was out of our hands. Then, in this same system, God pushes only some of us (with no input of our own will) to salvation by mere legalistic measures.
Why?
Your gospel of grace is illogical, not what Paul was teaching and is a legal fiction.
Think about it...why would God bother to redeem man by overriding their minds, then merely create automotans and then call them 'the elect?
At some point (with God's grace) man has to decide to choose for God, or not.
What is the point of the rest of the scriptures where we are implored to follow God, but that if we do not, we will go to hell?
These hundreds of New Testament passages make no sense under your illogical and unbiblical (only biblical, if you take about a dozen passages under your interpretation) system?
And even though we weep over the pain and history and schism, it was necessary to restore the gospel of grace.
Not only was the sin of schism not necessary to restore the Gospel, it is in fact impossible to institute any religious reform through the sin of schism. Sin is never necessary. You're basically saying, "Well, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet." Or as St. Paul phrased it, "Let us do evil that good may come of it."
Your statement is not even remotely Christian, Ken.
Think about it...why would God bother to redeem man by overriding their minds, then merely create automotans and then call them 'the elect?
That is a common caricature and misunderstanding of effectual grace. God regenerates the soul so that it itself is willing and soft and actually wants God. The will that is then regenerated and freed is "willing" and chooses God. That is what Ezekiel 36:26-27 teaches; along with Acts 16:14 -- the Lord opened Lydia's heart (first) in order to respond to the things that Paul was preaching. Ezekiel 36:26-27 God takes away the hard, stoney heart, and gives a new heart, that is soft and moldable (a heart of flesh), "and I will cause you to walk in My statutes"
No Calvinist or Reformed person believes we are robots or automotrons (?); and God does not override the mind (while we are still resisting, kicking and screaming); rather the heart and will and mind are changed by grace and sweetness so that the new person actually wills and wants and seeks God and is soft and pliable and humble and wants God. John 15:16 "You did not choose Me, but I chose you . . . " We make a real choice for God by the renewed will, but it is only because God first chose us and drew us by grace (John 6:44) and changed us. "For it is God who is in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure". Philippians 2:12-13
the point of conversion is God working by grace; after that we must cooperate.
Sin is never necessary. You're basically saying, "Well, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet." Or as St. Paul phrased it, "Let us do evil that good may come of it."
No, I did not mean that at all. The point is, if people in history (Huss, Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin) sincerely looked at Galatians, Romans, John, and the emphasis of the NT, and tried to say, "this doesn't seem right; this is what seems right", etc. They could not control the reactions and sins of others. So, it is not approving of the sin of schism; because if the visible Roman Catholic Church was wrong on justification, etc.; then it cannot be truly schism to break away from it; which was the result of them being ex-communicated. Yes, there was lots of mixture of other things, sins (anger, foul language, violence among the peasants); and I do not approve of those things. I merely acknowledge that they are history, they happened; and God Himself allowed those things to happen; but He does not approve of them. So, I reject the charge of "let us sin that good may come."
What is the point of the rest of the scriptures where we are implored to follow God, but that if we do not, we will go to hell?
We believe in all those also, God works His grace and perseverance through the means of struggle and exhortation and warnings, they are part of the gospel and sanctification process also. "I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth." I Cor. 3:6-9
The quote from the Council of Ephesus -- Is it somewhere on line with large context that I may look at it?
As far as I know, if that is true, then it is one of those things that people began to believe, "that Peter speaks in his successors to bind and loose", etc. It does not mean that that belief is right or biblical. If historically true, (that that was written as one of the points of the counsel of Ephesus in 431 AD - like a corrupting tare that later grows) then that is one of the seeds (a seed planting in history outside of the written Scripture- 431 AD) that eventually took until 1870 to declare dogma and infallible. (there are many examples of that in the RCC, but again, they were not part of the original apostolic deposit.) Matthew 16 and 18 do not mean that that authority is infallible in every and all successors to the apostles or Peter. It is not a blank check to say, "Whatever we say, goes". (Which is what the RCC has done on those issues that Protestantism has questioned, Orthodoxy has also questioned them on a few issues.)
Not every point made at the Ecumenical councils was or is infallible, but only those that are actually taught in Scripture, ie. the Deity of Christ, the Deity of the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, the 2 natures of Christ, etc.
"As far as I know, if that is true, then it is one of those things that people began to believe, "that Peter speaks in his successors to bind and loose", etc. It does not mean that that belief is right or biblical.
At a minimum, it illustrates the antiquity of this teaching, especially in light of the fact that a new teaching did not simply "appear" at ecumenical councils out of thin air, but had to first become profound and wide-spread enough that the Church would consider it as affecting the very fabric of Christianity. In other words: it was already old and fairly well established throughout most, if not all of the Church by then.
If historically true, (that that was written as one of the points of the counsel of Ephesus in 431 AD...
No, Ken, every Catholic simply lies to you, asserting made-up history because that's what he wants history to be.... Oh wait. I confused "Catholic" with "Calvinist." Never mind
... - like a corrupting tare that later grows) then that is one of the seeds (a seed planting in history outside of the written Scripture- 431 AD) that eventually took until 1870 to declare dogma and infallible"
Read my first comment above. Instead of simply saying "oh the calamity it took so long! how this proves it is wrong!" or whatever knee-jerk denial reaction you muster, realize that what this means is that the Church has been deliberating this teaching for well over one and a half millennia! It is easily one of the most considered dogmatic declarations ever made. Do you think for one minute that every council member who debated it over the many hundreds of human lifetimes was ignorant of scripture and did not weigh the witness of Holy Scripture as well as Holy Tradition in that process? Seriously, grow up. You paint the mental image of some idiot running in and saying, "hey, they just made this up and I caught them at it," and expecting to be taken seriously.
Your sort of nonsense passes as "scholarship" at Calvinist blog feeder troughs, but to anyone who has even the slightest grasp of actual history, it is pure nonsense, and I (for one) choose to treat it as it merits.
The will that is then regenerated and freed is "willing" and chooses God
There is that word again,choose. It is not choice unless there are options from which to freely choose. Love is not authentic unless it is free to choose. From my vantage point, God’s grace comes as fake, pathetic, magic if it takes away your choice to love Him or your neighbour. It is no different from a “love” potion that one could get at the local witch’s shop. If Christ was not free to say no to the cross, then what would be so heroic about what he did at Calvary? He showed His love for us by freely choosing to lay down His life. He also commands us to love one another as He loves us. How can we love like Him if we are not free, like He is, to love.
God regenerates the soul so that it itself is willing and soft and actually wants God.
My understanding of the Catholic stance is, that given the above statement, the soul is now able to choose God, but it is still free not to choose Him, and actually might not choose Him. Before such grace is given, however, the soul is not able to choose God.
"Not every point made at the Ecumenical councils was or is infallible, but only those that are actually taught in Scripture..."
As a public service I offer this exclusive Kenspeak (tm) translation of the above:
"Not every point made at the Ecumenical councils was or is infallible, but only those that agree with my intepretation of Scripture--or those that are not actually in Scrupture explicitly, but I just happen to believe-- ie. the Deity of Christ, the Deity of the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, the 2 natures of Christ, the Cannon of Scripture (caveat: as ammended by Martin Luther), etc."
someone wrote:
"What is the point of the rest of the scriptures where we are implored to follow God, but that if we do not, we will go to hell?"
In reply, Ken cut and pasted an unrelated scripture verse that speaks of God's nourishing and sanctification.
"We believe in all those also, God works His grace and perseverance through the means of struggle and exhortation and warnings, they are part of the gospel and sanctification process also. "I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth." I Cor. 3:6-9
Which leads us back to two questions.
The first:
"What is the point of the rest of the scriptures where we are implored to follow God, but that if we do not, we will go to hell"?
The second:
Is Ken actually reading the questions he answers, or does he simply think a non-sequitur is as good as any other response?
Let's try to keep remotely to the subject, folks (Melanchthon's view of bishops and sectarian dissensions) or else move the discussion over to the Open Forum. Thanks.
So, it is not approving of the sin of schism; because if the visible Roman Catholic Church was wrong on justification, etc.; then it cannot be truly schism to break away from it
On the contrary, whatever you think the Bible says about ecclesial infallibility, there is no queston that the Bible explicitly and repeatedly condemns schism as a sin. Even if the Church could teach doctrinal error, Scripture still provides no justificaton for separating and starting another church. "It's not really schism if the persons you're schisming away from are wrong" has no basis anywhere in the New Testament. Really, with your view that some schism isn't really schism, anyone who thinks his fellow Christians have a doctrinal error can justify separating himself and breaking up the one Body of Christ. In effect, you subject the unity of the Church to the fallible judgments and biblical interpretations of individual Christians.
Philipp Melanchthon intuitively understood that your approach to things is unworkable and un-Christian, and he saw the important role of the bishop in maintaining the unity of the Church, even if he did not consistently maintain and apply that belief. You should take a lesson from him, Ken.
“. . . to make peace on the conditions which I have mentioned. . .
whether you have spoken with your Reverend Master about those conditions , and what hope he will hold out. ..
provided they do not abuse their authority
by suppressing sound doctrine. . .
"I, Philip Melanchthon, regard the foregoing articles as right and Christian.
But of the Pope I hold that if he will permit the Gospel, . . .
by Melanchthon, who would have consented to the restoration of the episcopal hierarchy on condition of the freedom of gospel preaching and gospel teaching. .. .
he wished the old bishops back again, and was willing even to submit to the authority of a pope if the pope would allow the freedom of the gospel . . . .
6 times in Dave's article about Melanchton, he or a historian he is quoting gives the big "if", the big condition.
R. C. Sproul said the same thing, I heard, years ago while in debates over the ECT document with Charles Colson; something to the effect, "If the RCC would repent of its anathematizing the gospel and the heart of the gospel in justification by faith alone, then I would submit to Rome." (this is from memory)
So, we are not cavalier about disunity and schism, etc. and we do feel the problem and tragedy of these things, as did Melancthon; but you the cost is too high a price. In our hearts, it is a comprise of truth. As someone said, "Here I stand, I can do no other."
Melanchthon’s letter to Cranmer, pp. 42-44: http://books.google.com/books?id...+your+Thames%
22
I've said it before, I'll say it again. It is no coincidence that Protestants hold to the unbliblical idea of divorce. Inherent in the theology of Protestantism is the idea of "Me" over the idea of the covenant. Catholics hold the covenant (with God) supreme and should my wife sin, my priest sin, my bishop sin, my pope sin - still the covenant stands. Be it the marriage covenant or my baptismal bond with the Church.
Wow, Ben; that was a remarkable piece of research, to find that. Thanks much! Extremely helpful . . .
This particular book allows one to access a plain txt format. Do you know how to cut and paste from these books when that isn't the case, and they look more like photocopies? I haven't figured that out yet. It would save me a lot of typing . . .
I will post the entire letter of Melanchthon's, so certain nitwit nitpickers can't accuse me of (what else!?) quoting out of context. All one has to do is go to the link provided anyway . . .
But then if we do that we get absurdly accused of not learning Latin and German and Sanskrit and (for Calvin) French and Hieroglyphics (sp?) and going to the original dusty primary source at some library in Leipzig or Berlin, and instead pathetically relying on these wretched 19th-century Protestant English language historians . . . LOL
All the while these same lamebrain lightweights do scarcely any differently, and with far less accurate results. It's all double standards.
Martin,
God hates Divorce. Malachi 2:16
The prevalence of divorce today is indeed a tragedy and a big sin, expecially when the reasons they give are such things as "incompatability" and "irreconcilable differences", "we outgrew each other', "we are moving on".
God is going to shake things up if there is not repentance and cleansing and revival and restoration of at least the most conservative positions.
But even God gave Israel a certificate of divorce because of her unfaithfulness to the covenant (Isaiah 50:1; Jeremiah 3:8; cf. Matthew 21:43-45)
What about the RCC "annulment" ?
Isn't that a clever way to get around the realities of the sin and falleness and deception and problems with modern marriage, etc.?
What do you with "except for immorality" (pornea = sexual immorality) Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 ?
What about I Cor. 7:15 ? If the unbeliever leaves, let them leave, . . . not under bondage in such cases, God has called us to peace."
What about the RCC "annulment" ? Isn't that a clever way to get around the realities of the sin and falleness and deception and problems with modern marriage, etc.?
No:
Biblical Evidence for Annulments
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...annulments.html
If the annulment process is abused by those handling it, then that is "clever" (insofar as sin can be called "clever" at all). But that would not be acc. to Catholic teaching when it is abused.
What do you with "except for immorality" (pornea = sexual immorality) Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 ?
You do what older Protestant commentators did with it:
Biblical Evidence for the Prohibition of Divorce (+ Discussion)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...ibition-
of.html
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...0797644/
#140766
And what the early Church did with it:
Divorce: Early Church Teaching
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...h-
teaching.html
What about I Cor. 7:15 ? If the unbeliever leaves, let them leave, . . . not under bondage in such cases, God has called us to peace."
Sometimes that would indeed qualify as an annulment. Other times, the person would not be at liberty to remarry.
"If the RCC would repent of its anathematizing the gospel and the heart of the gospel in justification by faith alone, then I would submit to Rome."
And if R.C. Sproul would repent of his belief in the unscriptural doctrine of justification by faith alone, then it would be a lot easier for him to submit to Rome.
That's a nice little bargain, though: "If you submit to my understanding of Scripture, then I will submit to you."
You don't offer bargains and deals to the Body of Christ -- you either accept your Mother's teaching or you reject it. No conditions, no escape clauses -- just faith alone. 
I have expanded the paper again, as of early morning, 11-29-07, adding a lengthier excerpt of Melanchthon's letter to Cranmer of April Fool's Day 1548; another from May Day 1548, and a letter from Calvin to John Knox in 1561: all near the end.
Dave,
Do you know how to cut and paste from these books when that isn't the case, and they look more like photocopies?
I do now!
It seems the best and easiest way to copy text from protected pages is to use one of the various ‘screen OCR’ (Optical Character Recognition) programs that are readily available. They run about thirty bucks and usually offer a 30 day FREE TRIAL. Although I myself haven’t as yet tried any of them (having only just discovered them myself while preparing a response to your query), I do use the OCR function on my brother’s printer/scanner (which function I only began experimenting with about a month ago!). Let me tell you I’ve been absolutely amazed and delighted at how well it works! Just slap a book or magazine or whatever on top of the scanner and hit “scan document,” and in moments a preview of the text appears on my monitor, which I then “adjust” before saving it as a “Word” document or searchable PDF file. And usually I get – with clean text - somewhere between 90-98% accuracy! And then with a little proofing, I’m at 100%, and my poor arthritic fingers are saved a ton of typing! 
Pretty neat, huh?
Now to the resources I found.
Search results for various OCR screen software. http://www.google.com/search?
hl=...G=Google+Search
Snagit: Excellent program! I did the 30 trial a couple months back, but haven’t decided if I really need it at the moment. Also, I didn’t check to see if it does OCR for screenshots. http://www.techsmith.com/screen-
...=KgoogleStmhome
And all this reference stuff from Wikipedia (even though I’m sure you’re probably well familiar with most of them).
Optical character recognition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Opt...ter_recognition
Print screen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pri...ki/
Print_screen
Screenshot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screenshot
Microsoft Paint http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pai..._%28software%
29 (been experimenting with this recently. Btw, my brother, who is anything but religious and who hates Microsoft with a passion (he’s a big Linux user) thinks that if there is such a thing as an anti-Christ, Bill Gates must certainly be it! 
) But I digress.
Clipboard (software) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cli..._%28software%
29
Data buffer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buf...uter_science%
29
Cut, copy, and paste http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cop.../
Copy_and_paste
continuing...
Now I did discover a way to get text from protected pages without special software, but it’s not very accurate or efficient. However, I think with a little experimentation I might eventually get acceptable results. Here’s the technique I used.
Using this page as a test image:
http://books.google.com/books?
id...V2Krc#PPA155,M1
1 Hit “print screen” (“copy screen” is a better name) on the keyboard to get a screenshot of the page (switching to “full screen” in Google books first allows for a bit more text).
2 Paste screenshot into MS Paint.
3 Click the “select” tool in Paint which puts a cross-hairs icon on the screen. place this at the beginning of desired text.
4 Left click and drag to capture text. Copy.
5 Paste into Microsoft “Word.”
6 Print copy. This is crucial part. If the printed copy does not come out well, the OCR software will read it as junk, which is what happened my first time around. However, making a darker copy from the first copy resulted in some improvement.
7Place the darkened copy on scanner and scan normally.
8 Save as text doc, PDF, WORD, etc.
9 Cut and paste as usual!
Results of first try:
G,:rm:H1s. bm HI,:t[ (he S\'i~s, on rJ:w Eu(haristl. ;'~h1dwn: is nothing in
this dnnnm.'m, or aliY OrlH:r Lmlwl";m (onfe~,siCH1;1! S-WH'tm:m., about
~lsc'~'~nd~nh~y t;1t!h ro h~~~:t·".:nO,,f:, ~ht~ ide:l thar only the l'"le(( ft.-·i_'C;-...·c
r:hrJ.>;{ at (CHHi1u.l1tIe·n. UUt't-r's lcu.er ;0 (Tanrn:.:r is n(n: qui~t· ~:1ftiUr
Rdl"mc.t "rJ'emt'nt Oil rht' Fm:harisc hut the thol1ghh in it ;1n:
norn:l~'Hr r~S-;;~)Ci~.'Ht~·d,:~.-'tTb .Ic~hn(:~)h'in~by l1t)'V- ;1 ff1en~j :}nd ;lH~/ of
Huc:.r~"~.C"h~'t~t{)u~;lr"H!ut:i.:r b;1J hern ".Llhblin~ in IH.;]t'"as~~r1thoutt .d. lhlg,
du' Lurhef~1HS .. ;1nd ~.virh unexpt'cred rrsHir~. Soon ~1ffer rh!_,;., Pc(("r
.i·):lrtyr.., the n.·fug.l:e rt~1h~ln rynngeE;:nL ai~l} an all~.· ~}f E;ut:r lri
Str~~
See what I mean? Yuk!
cont...
Second try:
Germans, but not the 5\.15$, ort the Eucharist), itnd there is nothing in
this document, or any other Lutheran confessiona.1 statement, about
ascending b}' faith to heaven, or the idea that only the dect receive
Christ at ('ommunion. Bucer's Jettt'l to C:.t11nmct' is not quitc a fully
Reformed statement on the Eucharist, but the thoughts in it are
normaUyassociared with John Calvin, by now a friend and aUy of
Bueer's.. Obviou$ly,Bucer had been dabbling in new ideas without teHing
the' Lutherans, and with unexpected results. Soon after 'this, Peter
Martyr~ the refugee Italian evangelical, al$o aO aUy of Bucer in
Strasbourg,came to England and met .. ' .. and discussed the
Eucharist· with him and Nicholas Ridley. Before long, ~1artyr,
and Ridley..;. aU previously Lutheran. m()te or less - proceeded to make
rapid strides towards a neo~SwissDosition on the Eucharist. So it Was
Now that’s a little more like it! Still, unless the process can be refined a bit more, I’d say it’s probably best to just go ahead and plunk down the thirty or so bucks for the professional software. But it sure is fun experimenting!
Cont…
This is an example of how well the OCR software on our scanner works. This is from Augustine - Sermon 153, Works, pt III, v. 5, p. 60.
5. Perish the thought that the law may be sin. But I would never have known
about sin, he goes on, except through the law. For I would not know about lust,
unless the law said: You shall not lust (Rom 7:7). Right now I'm going to
question you, Manichee; now I'm questioning you, answer me please. Is the law
bad which says, You shall not lust? Not even the most shameless oflechers will
give me that answer. After all, even the most dissolute rakes blush when they
are rebuked for their behavior; and when they are in the company of clean-living
people, they don't dare to indulge in loose behavior. So if you say that the law
is bad which says, You shall not lust, it means you want to lust with impunity;
you bring a charge against the law, because it lashes out at lustfulness.
My dear brothers and sisters, even if we never heard the apostle saying, That
the law is sin? Perish the thought!, but only heard him reminding us of the words
of the law where it says, You shall not lust; even if he wasn't praising the law,
we would have to praise it ourselves; praise the law, accuse ourselves. Here's
the law, here's the divine clarion call crying out to mankind from above, You
shall not lust. You shall not lust; damn it if you can; if you can't damn it, do it.
You heard, You shall not lust; you daren't damn it, because what it said is good:
You shall not lust. It's bad to lust. The law is blaming something bad, it is
restraining you from your badness. So the law brands lust as bad, it restrains
you from your badness. So do what the law commands, don't do what the law
forbids, don't lust.
You shall not lust
6. But what does the apostle say? I would not know about lust, unless the law
said, You shall not lust. You see, I was following my own lust, and running off
wherever it drew me, and regarding its charming allurements, so enjoyable with
the delights of the flesh, as great happiness. The sinner, you see, is praised, says
the law, in the desires of his soul; and the one who commits wicked deeds is
blessed (Ps 10:3).
You can find a man pursuing his carnal lusts, giving himself over to them
totally as their slave, chasing pleasures in every direction, fornicating, getting
drunk; I won't add any more; fornicating, I say, getting drunk. I've mentioned
things which can be committed legally, but not according to God's laws. I mean,
who was ever taken before a judge, because he went to a whorehouse? Who was
ever charged in open court because he let himself go in dirty little games with
his lyre girls? What married man ever found himself branded a criminal because
he violated his maidservant? But in the law courts, not in heaven; according to
the law of the world, not the law of the world's Creator. On the contrary, the
lewd, licentious man, the lecher, is called happy for h
last scrap...!
On the contrary, the
lewd, licentious man, the lecher, is called happy for having such a good time,
enjoying such pleasures.
And now, if he drowns himself in wine, if he drinks measures without
measure, that he doesn't find himself facing a criminal charge is nothing; he
gets a name for being a tough guy; all the more wicked for being unconquered
I saved this as a pdf file. This is exactly how it came out. I cut and pasted without anyproofing and without any correction! Not too shabby, wouldn’t you say?
G,:rm:H1s. bm HI,:t[ (he S'i~s, on rJ:w Eu(haristl. ;'~h1dwn: is nothing in
this dnnnm.'m, or aliY OrlH:r Lmlwl";m (onfe~,siCH1;1! S-WH'tm:m., about
~lsc'~'~nd~nh~y t;1t!h ro h~~~:t·".:nO,,f:, ~ht~ ide:l thar only the l'"le(( ft.-·i_'C;-...·c
r:hrJ.>;{ at (CHHi1u.l1tIe·n. UUt't-r's lcu.er ;0 (Tanrn:.:r is n(n: qui~t· ~:1ftiUr
Rdl"mc.t "rJ'emt'nt Oil rht' Fm:harisc hut the thol1ghh in it ;1n:
norn:l~'Hr r~S-;;~)Ci~.'Ht~·d,:~.-'tTb .Ic~hn(:~)h'in~by l1t)'V- ;1 ff1en~j :}nd ;lH~/ of
Huc:.r~"~.C"h~'t~t{)u~;lr"H!ut:i.:r b;1J hern ".Llhblin~ in IH.;]t'"as~~r1thoutt .d. lhlg,
du' Lurhef~1HS .. ;1nd ~.virh unexpt'cred rrsHir~. Soon ~1ffer rh!_,;., Pc(("r
.i·):lrtyr.., the n.·fug.l:e rt~1h~ln rynngeE;:nL ai~l} an all~.· ~}f E;ut:r lri
Str~~
Looks like one of James Swan's inane, logic-challenged "arguments" . . .
Unfortunately, I have neither a printer nor a scanner (don't use 'em enough) . . . I'm just happy all these old books are available. I can type the "meat" of what I need and give readers a link to the rest for context. That will satisfy all except ninkempoops like Swan (hello to all his mind-numbed readers!!! How r ya??), who demand that one types an entire book so that nothing will be the dreaded, notorious out of context.
Commenting by HaloScan
