O'Leary. You astonish me more and more, your honour. But pray proceed.

Melancthon. Nor is it enough, O'Leary, that they oppose the Bible and each other, but they also directly contradict the Fathers. Take for example the following instances. Clemens, a very ancient Father, says, "We do not believe the assertions of men; they must not only say, but prove, and that too from the Scriptures: but Tannerus says, "The people are bound to be so subject to their Pastors, that if their Pastors should err, the people are bound to err with them." Austin says, "I have learned to give this honour and reverence to the books of Scripture, to believe there is no error in them; but as for others, how learned or godly soever they be, I so read them that I do not believe any thing to be true, because they thought so, but because they proved it to be so, from the Scriptures:" whereas Canus says, "In the exposition of holy Scripture, you are bound to believe your ancestors, though they give you no reason for it, and to defend whatsoever opinions you receive from them, of the law of faith and religion."

O'Leary. I begin to fear that I must also surrender the citadel of unity to your honour; and more than to suspect that the Priests have wickedly practised upon my credulity.

Melancthon. Your suspicion, O'Leary, is too well founded. When they boast of the unity of their Church, they know they are uttering a falsehood; but they calculate upon your inability to detect it. Such is their Jesuitism, that, to deceive, they, according to the doctrine of their famous University of Doway, never hesitate to have recourse to a "devised fiction." With them, O'Leary,

""Tis only day-light that makes sin."

O'Leary. You have convinced me that the Catholics are against Christ and his Apostles; that they are against each other; and that they are against the Fathers; but can you produce any evidence of their being against the Fathers and Bishops when assembled in a General Council?

Melancthon. Yes, O'Leary, abundance of evidence: but as our conversation cannot be continued much longer, I shall furnish you with only two proofs. The Council of Basil decreed that, "if once that pernicious error were admitted, that General Councils may err, the whole Catholic faith would totter: " but Cameracensis says, "A General Council may err in the faith." The Jesuits say, that "infallibility resides not in a General Council, but in the Pope:" whereas the Councils of Basil and Constance affirm, that infallibility resides in a

Council, and not in the Pope. But it would be endless to produce all the instances of discord

and direct opposition in united Church abounds. being but of one faith,

which this pretendedly Instead of the holy city and speaking only one

language, she is split into a diversity of jarring creeds, and is a perfect Babel of confusion. She teaches that there is a purgatory, and that there is no purgatory; that Transubstantiation was believed from Apostolic times, and that it never was an article of faith till the Council of Trent; that image worship is idolatrous, and that it promotes the instruction and edification of the faithful; that private confession to Priests is as old as Christianity, and that it was not practised in the primitive Church; that the Pope is, and is not, the supreme head of the universal Church; that the Virgin Mary was, and was not, born in sin; that the doctrine of predestination is, and is not, true. Such, O'Leary, is the boasted unity of the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, as Popery is arrogantly and most impudently called by Papists. I could also produce many instances of Council opposing Council, and Pope opposing Pope; but having already proved that instead of this Church being united, she is notoriously disunited, and being weary of the din of war, which resounds in every street of this papistically holy city, and having also promised to hold some conversation with

you on the INFALLIBILITY of the Church, I shall omit these facts for the present.

O'Leary. It is not necessary that your honour should say one word more on the unity of the Church. I am convinced that though they do not renounce visible communion with each other, yet among them, as among Protestants, there are diverse and contrary opinions. But I shall be glad to hear your opinion of the infallibility of the Church.

Melancthon. What do you mean by infallibility, O'Leary?

O'Leary. I mean that the Church of Rome is infallible in all her decisions.

Melancthon. Do you mean that every individual member of the Church is infallible? of that all the Priests are infallible? or that the Bishops are infallible? or that Bishops assembled in Council are infallible? or that the Pope is infallible?

O'Leary. I feel at some loss how to answer your question. I cannot think that all the members are infallible, for many of them are profoundly ignorant, and very wicked; neither can I believe that all the Priests are infallible, for both intellectually and morally they are at a great distance from perfection; neither can I, for the same reasons, admit the Bishops, in their individual character, to be infallible. I suppose infallibility exists either in a General

Council, or in the Pope, or in both conjointly.

Melancthon. Suppose, O'Leary, that three hundred men were individually to say, "I don't know whether the moon is inhabited or not, for I am not in possession of evidence sufficient to enable me to decide on this subject with anything like infallible certainty: "-suppose, I say, that they were all equally uncertain upon this point when individually considered, would the mere circumstance of their being brought together, give certainty to their decision?

O'Leary. Most assuredly not.
Melancthon. Why?

O'Leary. Because it is quite impossible that three hundred uncertainties can ever make one certainty. It would not be more absurd to say that three hundred negatives make a positive, or that three hundred cyphers make a pound.

Melancthon. You are right, O'Leary. Well, now apply this to your Bishops assembled in Council. Individually, they are all fallible; but collectively, you seem to think them infallible. Is not this equal to saying that three hundred fallibles make one infallible? And is this less absurd than saying, that three hundred uncertainties make a certainty?

O'Leary. To be candid, I confess it is precisely the same. I wonder I never thought of this before. But then, your honour, if the