“’2nd.  He wants me to think as he himself does, since he quotes me as saying ‘The Bible and the Holy Gospel.’  It may be well that he, as all fanatics, should believe that these are one and the same thing.  But I, having studied the original Hebraic Bible, know, that it does not contain the Gospel.  That the Jewish Bible, being a history of creation, treasure and patrimony of Jewish people, the Jews, who do not accept the Gospel, should be authority.  That as the Latin translation is incorrect, the Catholics could not lay down the Law, notwithstanding their habit of appropriating everything to themselves, and of misconstruing to their advantage the translation of the original text.  Besides, the Gospels, with the exception of that written by Saint Mathew, were written in Greek later than the Bible, and conflict in every respect with the Law of Moses, as proved by the enemity between Jews and Christians.  How, then, could I, knowing all this, express myself as a fanatic, or as an ignorant monk?  I do not exact from any monk the speech of a free-thinker and therefore, they should not exact that I express myself as a monk would.  Why do they want me to consolidate under one name two distinct things, which, to a certain extent contradict each other?  Let the Christians do so, but I must not, and cannot.  If I call them separately, it is in accordance with the thought inspiring two works, two legislations, two religions, on which they want to found the Catholic Religion.  Your son, moreover, reasons finely, when he says:  ’I did not know that the Gospels were different from the Bible, and not a principal part of it.’  Tell him, Holy Father, that in every country a part, no matter how principal may it be, is always different from the whole, for instance:  The principal thing in Friar Rodriguez is his habit:  but his habit is different from Friar Rodriguez, as otherwise there would be one dirty Friar Rodriguez, another shining, another creased, another wide, short, long, greasy, etc.  On the other hand, the habit is different from the monk, because a piece of cloth, no matter how dirty, could never be presumptuous, despotic, ignorant or obscurantistic.

“’3d.  To prove the existence of a Purgatory, he quotes:  ’Saint Mathew says in Chapter twelfth, thirty-sixth verse——.’  But he quotes wrongly, as from that verse cannot be derived the existence of a Purgatory, nor anything of its kind.  The Hebrew text says:  ’Wa ’ebif ’omar lakam kij ’al kal abar reg ashar idabbru ’abaschim yittbu heschboun biom hammischphat’; the Greek text, ’Lego de hynun hote pan rema argon, ho ean lalesosin hoi anthropoi, apodosousi peri auton logon en hemera kriseos.’  All these translated into Latin say:  ’Dicto autem vobis, quoniam omne verbum otiosum quod locuti fucrint homines, reddent rationem de co in die judicii,’ which, translated into English means, ’And I say to you, that on the Day of Judgment, men shall have to account for every idle word.’  From all these texts, you can see, Holy Doctor, that the only thing to be derived is that on the Day of Judgment, Friar Rodriguez will have to give such an account of himself, that very likely it will take him two days to account for all the nonsense he has said.