by the four cases of--1, the Calvinist; 2, the Newmanite; 3, the Romanist;[Footnote: What, amongst Protestant sects? Ay, even so. It's _Phil.'s_ mistake, not mine. He will endeavor to doctor the case, by pleading that he was speaking universally of Christian error; but the position of the clause forbids this plea. Not only in relation to what immediately precedes, the passage must be supposed to contemplate _Protestant_ error; but the immediate inference from it, viz., that 'the world may well be excused for doubting whether there is, after all, so much to be gained by that liberty of private judgment, which is the essential characteristic of Protestantism; whether it be not, after all, merely a liberty to fall into error,' nails _Phil_. to that construction--argues too strongly that it is an oversight of indolence. _Phil._ was sleeping for the moment, which is excusable enough towards the end of a book, but hardly in section I. P.S.--I have since observed (which _not_ to have observed is excused, perhaps, by the too complex machinery of hooks and eyes between the text and the notes involving a double reference--first, to the section; second, to the particular clause of the section) that _Phil._ has not here committed an inadvertency; or, if he _has,_ is determined to fight himself through his inadvertency, rather than break up his quaternion of cases. 'In speaking of Romanism as arising from a misapplication of Protestant principles; we refer, not to those who were born, but to those who have become members of the Church of Rome.' What is the name of those people? And where do they live? I have heard of many who think (and there _are_ cases in which most of us, that meddle with philosophy, are apt to think) occasional principles of Protestantism available for the defence of certain Roman Catholic mysteries too indiscriminately assaulted by the Protestant zealot; but, with this exception, I am not aware of any parties professing to derive their Popish learnings _from_ Protestantism; it is _in spite of_ Protestantism, as seeming to _them_ not strong enough, or through principles omitted by Protestantism, which therefore seems to _them_ not careful enough or not impartial enough, that Protestants have lapsed to Popery. Protestants have certainly been known to become Papists, not through Popish arguments, but simply through their own Protestant books; yet never, that I heard of, through an _affirmative_ process, as though any Protestant argument involved the rudiments of Popery, but by a _negative_ process, as fancying the Protestant reasons, though lying in the right direction, not going far enough; or, again, though right partially, yet defective as a whole. _Phil._ therefore, seems to me absolutely caught in a sort of _Furcae Caudinae_, unless he has a dodge in reserve to puzzle us all. In a different point, I, that hold myself a _doctor seraphicus_, and also _inexpugnabilis_ upon quillets of logic, justify _Phil._, whilst also I blame him.