PREFACE TO THE REPLY CONSIDERED. 197
see apostolic; others love not to talk at this haughty rate: neither do I know what is your judgment in this matter. This, as I said before, I am sure of, you cannot be of all these various contradictory judgments at once. Not to ti-ouble you with instances that might 1)0 multiplied of the like differences amongst you; if, notwithstand- ing your adherence unto one part of the contradiction in them, you judge yourself a competent advocate for your church in general, and do busily employ yourself to win over proselytes unto her commu- nion, have the patience to think that one who in some few things differs from some other Protestants, is not wholly incapacitated thereby to repel an unjust charge against Protestancy in general.
I have done with the two general heads of your prefatory discourse, and shall now only mark one or two incident particulars that belong not unto them, and then proceed to see if we can meet with any thing of more importance than what you have been pleased as yet to communicate unto us.
Page 5. Upon occasion of a passage in my discourse, wherein, upon misinformation, I expressed some trouble that any young men should be entangled with the rhetoric and sophistry of your " Fiat Lux," you fall into an harangue, not inferior unto some others in your epistle for that candour and ingenuity you give yourself unto.
First, you make a plea for " gentlemen" (not once named in my discourse), " that they must be allowed a sense of religion as well as ministers; that they have the body though not the cloak of religion, and are masters of their own reason." But do you consider with yourself who it is that speaks these words, and to whom you speak them ? Do you indeed desire that " gentlemen" should have such a sense of religion, and make use of their reason in the choice of that which therein they adhere unto, as you pretend? Is this jiretence consistent with your plea in your " Fiat Lux," wherein you labour to reduce them to a naked fanatical " credo ?" or is it your interest to court them with fine words, though your intention be far otherwise ? But we in England like not such proceedings: —
'E^^pas yap fioi xsTvo; c^io; a'ldao •jruXnTiv^
"O; ^ iTipov f^iv x-iCht In (ppitriv, ilXXo Vi jia.^ii.
Nothing dislikes us more than dissimulation. And to whom do you speak ? Did I, doth any Protestant, deny that gentlemen may have, — do we not say they ought to have? — their sense in religion, and their senses exercised therein? Do we deny they ouglit to improve their reason, in being conversant about it? Are these the principles of the church of Borne or of that of England? Do we not press them unto these things, as their principal duty in this world? Do we disallow or forbid them any means that may tend to their furtherance in the
198 A VINDICATION OF THE ANIMADVERSIONS ON FIAT LUX.
knowledge and profession of religion? Where is it that, if they do but look upon a Biljle, —
" Furiai-um maxima juxta
Acciiliat, et mauibus prohibet contingere mensas ;" Virg. ^n. vi. 605.
— the inquisitor lays hold upon them, and bids them be contented with a rosary, or our Lady's psalter ? Do we hinder or dissuade them from any studies, or the use of books that may increase their know- ledge and improve their reason? And hath not the Papacy felt the fruits and effects of these principles in the writings of kings, princes, noblemen, and gentlemen, of all sorts? And do not you yourself know all this to be true? And is it ingenuous to insist on contrary insinuations? or do you think that truly generous spirits will stoop to so poor a lure? But you proceed: " This is one difference between Catholic countries and ours, — that there the clergyman is only re- garded for his virtue and the power he hath received, or is at least believed to have received, from God, in the great ministry of our re- conciliation; and if he have any addition of learning besides, it is looked upon as a good accidental ornament, but not as any essential conaplement of his profession: so that it often happens, without any wonderment at all, that the gentleman-patron is the learned man, and the priest, his chaplain, of little or no science in comparison. But here in England, our gentlemen are disparaged by their own ' black-coats,' and not suffered to use their judgment in any kind of learning, without a gibe from them. The gentleman is reasonless, and the scribbling cassock is the only scholar ; he alone must speak all, know all, and only understand." Sir, if your clergy were re- spected only for their virtue, they would not be overburdened with their honour, unless they have much mended their manners since all the world publicly complained of their lewdness ; and which in many places the most would do so still, did they not judge the evil reme- diless. And if the state of things be, in your Catholic countries, be- tween the gentry and clergy, as you inform us, I fear it is not from the learning of the one, but the ignorance of the other. And this you seem to intimate, by rejecting learning from being any essential complement of their profession: wherein you do wisely, and what you are necessitated to do ; for those who are acquainted with them tell us that if it were, you would have a very thin clergy left you, very many of them not understanding the very mass-book, which they daily chant; and therefore almost every word in your " Missale Romanum" is accented, that they may know how aright to loronounce them; which yet will not deliver them from that mistake of him who, in- stead of " Introibo ad altare Dei," read constantly, " Introibo ad tartara Dei." Herein we envy not the condition of your Catholic countries; and though we desire our gentry were more learned than