will
inflict upon himself."

Or, if this will not do, let us try it in another case (which I
instanced before) and in his own terms. Suppose he had thought it
necessary (and I think it was as much so as the other) to shew us what
is contained in the idea of a mousetrap, he must have proceeded in these
terms. "It would be in vain for an intelligent being, to set rules for
hindering a mouse from eating his cheese, unless he can inflict upon
that mouse some punishment, which, is not the natural consequence of
eating the cheese. For, to tell her, it may lie heavy on her stomach;
that she will grow too big to get back into her hole, and the like, can
be no more than advice: therefore, we must find out some way of
punishing her, which hath more inconveniences than she will ever suffer
by the mere eating of cheese." After this, who is so slow of
understanding, as not to have in his mind a full and complete idea of a
mouse-trap? Well.--The Free thinkers may talk what they please of
pedantry, and cant, and jargon of schoolmen, and insignificant terms in
the writings of the clergy, if ever the most perplexed and perplexing
follower of Aristotle from Scotus to Suarez[11] could be a match for
this author.

[Footnote 11: Duns Scotus flourished in the thirteenth century. He
studied at Oxford and Paris, and his learning and acumen in reasoning
earned for him the title _The Subtle Doctor_. He died at Cologne in
1308. He was a strong upholder of the doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception. His works are published in twelve volumes folio.

Francis Suarez (1548-1617) was a Spanish Jesuit who wrote a work by
command of the Pope against the English Reformation. He published some
very able religio-philosophical treatises, from the Roman Catholic point
of view; but, indeed, his writings altogether were enormous, so far as
their number are concerned. [T. S.]]

But the strength of his arguments is equal to the clearness of his
definitions. For, having most ignorantly divided government into three
parts, whereof the first contains the other two; he attempteth to prove
that the clergy possess none of these by a divine right. And he argueth
thus, p. vii. "As to a legislative power, if that belongs to the clergy
by a divine right, it must be when they are assembled in convocation:
but the 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19 is a bar to any such divine right, because
that act makes it no less than a _praemunire_ for them, so much so as to
meet without the king's