any civilized nation ever did it. Who would be clergymen then? The absurdity appears by putting the case, that none were to be statesmen, lawyers, or physicians, but who were to subsist by alms.
Page 222. "These subtle clergymen work their designs, who lately cut out such a tacking job for them, &c." He is mistaken — every body was for the bill almost, though not for the tack. The bishop of Sarum was for it, as appears by his speech against it. But it seems, the tacking is owing to metaphysical speculations. I wonder whether is most perplexed, this author in his style, or the writings of our divines. In the judgment of all people, our divines have carried practical preaching and writing to the greatest perfection it ever arrived to; which shows, that we may affirm in general, our clergy is excellent, although this or that man be faulty. As if an army be constantly victorious, regular, &c. we may say, it is an excellent victorious army: But, Tindal, to disparage it, would say, such a serjeant ran away; such an ensign hid himself in a ditch; nay, one colonel turned his back, therefore it is a corrupt, cowardly army, &c.
Page 224. "They were as apprehensive of the works of Aristotle as some men are of the works of a late philosopher, which, they are afraid, will let too much light into the world." Yet just such another; only a commentator on Aristotle. People are likely to improve their understanding much with Locke: It is not his Human Understanding, but other works, that people dislike, although in that there are some dangerous tenets, as that of no innate ideas.
