that fish is poison to them,
just as there are found those who in like manner shrink from wine. If
one who is thus affected with regard to fishes, should be forbidden to
feed on flesh and milk-food, will he not be hardly treated? Is it
possible that any man can desire him to be exposed to the pains of hell,
if for the necessity of his body he should live on flesh? If any
constitution of Popes and Bishops involves liability to the punishment
of hell, the condition of Christians is hard indeed. If some impose the
liability, others not; no one will better declare his intention than the
Pope himself. And it would conduce to the peace of consciences to have
it declared. What if some Pope should decree that priests should go
girt; would it be probable that he declared this with the intention that
if one because of renal suffering should lay aside the girdle, he should
be liable to hell? I think not. St. Gregory laid down, That if any one
had had intercourse with his wife by night, he should abstain the next
day from entering church: in this case, supposing that a man, concealing
the fact of intercourse having taken place, should have gone to church
for no other reason than that he might hear the preaching of the Gospel,
would he be liable to hell? I do not think the holiest man could be so
harsh. If a man with a sick wife should live on meat, because otherwise
she could not be provoked to eat, and her health required food, surely
the Pope would not on that account determine him to be liable to hell!
This matter is simply made a subject of enquiry in the passage referred
to, and no positive statement is made. And certainly before the Imperial
Edict, men were at liberty to enquire concerning these matters.

In point of fact, neither in that place nor elsewhere do I absolutely
condemn the _Indulgences_ of the Popes, although hitherto more than
sufficient indulgence has been shown them. It is simply that a speaker
ridicules his comrade, who, although in other respects the most
frivolous of triflers (for so he is depicted), yet believed that by the
protection of a Bull he would get safely to heaven. So far from thinking
this to be heretical, I should imagine there was no holier duty than to
warn the people not to put their trust in Bulls, unless they study to
change their life and correct their evil desires.

But _Vows_ are ridiculed in that passage. Yes, they are ridiculed, and
those (of whom there is a vast multitude) are admoni