“You believe in mortal sin, you papists,” he continued absently. “A gloomy doctrine, I think.”

“Less so than your predestination. I believe God can forgive anything, even mortal sin, if he chooses. You say men gain or lose their immortal souls before they are even born and God cannot change it. What sort of poor thing is that for a God?”

He grunted yet again at this, and seem disinclined to engage any further, which struck me as odd considering that he had begun the dispute in the first place.

“Do you have a desire to become a Catholic, perhaps?” I asked, wondering if his sally had been prompted by something other than awkwardness and unfamiliarity with decent conversation. “Is this why you ask? I think you will have to find someone more learned than myself for that. I am a poor churchman.”

Wood laughed, and I sensed that I had finally chiseled him out of his morbid introspection—a fine triumph, I think, for there is nothing more persistent than a Protestant in a state of melancholy. “You are indeed, sir. Did I not see you going into a heretic church with Mr. Lower only last Sunday?”

“I went to a service with him at St. Mary’s, that is true. But I did not take communion. Although I must say I would have had no trouble doing so.”

“You astonish me. How can that be?”

“The Corinthians saw no harm in eating meat offered in sacrifice to pagan idols, as they knew the gods not to exist,” I said. “And however mistaken they were on other questions, I am in agreement with them on that. The act is harmless, it is willful false belief which is heresy.”

“If we are presented with the truth, and refuse to accept the evidence of our eyes and ears?”

“Obviously a sin, surely?”

“Even if it goes against all accepted opinion?”

“Believing in Christ went against all accepted opinion once. Discerning the truth, however, is not so easy. Which is why we must not be too hasty to reject beliefs hallowed by tradition, even though we may criticize in private.”

Wood grunted. “That sounds Jesuitical to me. You would have no objection to my attending a service in one of your churches?”

“I would welcome you. Not that I have any right either to welcome or exclude.”

“You are very easygoing, I must say. But how do you know that the Anglican church is heretical?”

“For the reasons I give. And because it has been condemned as such by the pope.”

“Oh, I see. So if a proposition was plainly heretical, but had not been condemned? Would I—or you—have liberty to countenance it?”

“I suppose it would depend on the proposition,” I said, desperately seeking some way out of the conversation, which had suddenly swung back to despondency again. But he was a tenacious man, and did so obviously want company, poor soul, that I could not be cruel. “If you like, I will give you an example. Several years ago, I came across a history of heretical movements in the early church. You know, of course, of the Phrygian Montanus, and his assertion that new prophets in every generation would add to the words of Our Lord.”

“Condemned by Hippolytus.”

“But supported by Tertullian, and commented on favorably by Epiphanius. And not my point, for this history I mentioned talked of a woman follower of Montanus called Prisca, and her sayings have never been condemned, as far as I am aware, as almost no one knows of them.”

“And what did she say?”

“That redemption is a perpetual process, and in each generation the Messiah would be reborn, would be betrayed, would die, and be resurrected, until mankind turns away from evil, and sins no more. And, I may say, very much more of the same sort of thing.”

“A doctrine which has passed from the sight of man, you say,” Wood replied, strangely more interested in my example than in anything else I had said since I handed him my food. “Not surprisingly. It is surely just an unsubtle version of Origen, who held that Christ is crucified again each time we sin. It is a metaphor taken literally.”

“My point is, that despite the fact that no formal condemnation has ever been made, there can be no doubt that Catholics are obliged to reject it, as they are obliged to reject any heathen religion. Doctrine and liturgy are laid down quite clearly, and we must assume that what is not permitted is by definition excluded.”

Wood grunted. “You never rebel against what you are told to believe?”

“Frequently,” I said cheerfully. “But not on doctrine. There is no need to do so, since it is plainly correct in all particulars. Your Mr. Boyle believes that when science and religion are in conflict, then there is a mistake in the science. That is little different from saying that when the individual mind and the church are at odds, it is the duty of the individual to learn wherein lies his error.”

I could see that Wood was getting far more interested in this conversation than I was, and that he was on the brink of suggesting that we go somewhere to drink and continue our most fascinating discourse. I could think of nothing I wanted less, and so before I was put in the position of having to rebuff him, I stood up hastily.

“You must forgive me, Mr. Wood, but I have a appointment with Lower. I am late already.”

His face fell with disappointment, and I felt sorry for the fellow. It is hard to mean so well, and try so hard, and be kept at arm’s length nonetheless. I would have been more congenial had I the time, despite my distaste for his scholarly earnestness and blockish discourse. But, fortunately, I did not have to lie to avoid him—more important matters really did await. I left him sitting there finishing my dinner, all alone, and the only silent person in a room full of merriment and good company.

This man Peter Stahl whom lower wished to consult was a German, and known to be something of a magician, having a fine knowledge of alchemy. When in drink he could talk fascinatingly about the philosopher’s stone, eternal life and how to turn base elements into gold. For myself, I always think that talk is very fine, but not as good as demonstration, and Stahl, for all his claims and obscure phrases, never conferred eternal life on even a spider. As he was not noticeably rich, I assume that he never succeeded in turning anything into gold either. However, as he once said, the simple fact that something has not been done, is no proof that it cannot be; he would accept that such things were impossible only when convinced that matter was immutably imprinted with unique form. All the evidence so far, he said, suggested that it was possible to change base materials into primary elements. If you could change acqua fortis into salt—a simple enough proposition—by what reason did someone like myself scoff at the proposition that, given the right method, it was possible to turn stone into gold? Similarly, all medicine aimed at fending off illness and age and decay; some medicines even worked. Could I then swear—and give reasons for my belief—that there was no ultimate potion which might fend off illness forever? After all, the best minds of antiquity believed it, and there was even Biblical testimony. Did not Adam live for 930 years and Seth 912 years and Methuselah 969 years, as Genesis said?

Lower had warned me that he was a difficult character and that only Boyle could keep him under control. His abilities were matched by equal vices, as he was a sodomite of the most flagrant variety, who delighted in disgusting those who conversed with him. He was in his forties at this period, and showed the signs of decrepitude that vice brings in its train, with heavy lines around a tight mouth full of foully decayed teeth, and a hunched-over deportment indicating the suspicion and distaste in which he held all the world. He was one of those who considered everybody to be his inferior, no matter what their station, attainments or quality. No monarch was as adept as he at ruling kingdoms, no bishop as well versed in theology, no lawyer as subtle at preparing a case. Oddly, the one area where his arrogance did not rule was the one where it might have been justifiable, which was in his skill at chemical experimentation.