up systems of fancy on the little they knew, and invented an art, by the help of Aristotle, not of enlarging, but of puzzling, knowledge with technical terms, with definitions, distinctions, and syllogisms merely verbal.  They taught what they could not explain, evaded what they could not answer, and he who had the most skill in this art might put to silence, when it came into general use, the man who was consciously certain that he had truth and reason on his side.

The authority of the schools lasted till the resurrection of letters.  But as soon as real knowledge was enlarged, and the conduct of the understanding better understood, it fell into contempt.  The advocates of artificial theology have had since that time a very hard task.  They have been obliged to defend in the light what was imposed in the dark, and to acquire knowledge to justify ignorance.  They were drawn to it with reluctance.  But learning, that grew up among the laity, and controversies with one another, made this unavoidable, which was not eligible on the principles of ecclesiastical policy.  They have done with these new arms all that great parts, great pains, and great zeal could do under such disadvantages, and we may apply to this order, on this occasion, “si Pergama dextra,” etc.  But their Troy cannot be defended; irreparable breaches have been made in it.  They have improved in learning and knowledge, but this improvement has been general, and as remarkable at least among the laity as among the clergy.  Besides which it must be owned that the former have had in this respect a sort of indirect obligation to the latter; for whilst these men have searched into antiquity, have improved criticism, and almost exhausted subtilty, they have furnished so many arms the more to such of the others as do not submit implicitly to them, but examine and judge for themselves.  By refuting one another, when they differ, they have made it no hard matter to refute them all when they agree.  And I believe there are few books written to propagate or defend the received notions of artificial theology which may not be refuted by the books themselves.  I conclude, on the whole, that laymen have, or need to have, no want of the clergy in examining and analysing the religion they profess.

But I said that they are in one important respect more fit to go through this examination without the help of divines than with it.  A layman who seeks the truth may fall into error; but as he can have no interest to deceive himself, so he has none of profession to bias his private judgment, any more than to engage him to deceive others.  Now, the clergyman lies strongly under this influence in every communion.  How, indeed, should it be otherwise?  Theology is become one of those sciences which Seneca calls “scientiae in lucrum exeuntes;” and sciences, like arts whose object is gain, are, in good English, trades.  Such theology is, and men who could make no fortune, except the lowest, in any other, make