The lenient influence of time did not abate the dislike and contempt which Poggio entertained for those ecclesiastics who adopted the religious habit as a convenient cloak for the concealment of indolence or luxury; and who, by the mere appearance of extraordinary sanctity, endeavoured to attain those worldly honours which they affected to despise. When he was declined into the vale of years, he attacked those pests of society in a dialogue on Hypocrisy, a composition which abounds in the keen sarcasms of polished wit, and in acute observations on the human character. It is no doubt on account of the boldness with which he inveighs against the evil practices of pretenders to uncommon strictness in the observance of religious duties, that the editors of his works have suppressed this dialogue, which has been preserved and circulated by the industrious zeal of protestantism.[167] The freedom with which he therein speaks of the vices, not merely of individuals, but of whole classes of religious hypocrites, is truly astonishing. The following remonstrance against the folly and wickedness of the monastic life savours more of the eighteenth, than of the fifteenth century, and is drawn up in the spirit of a Gallic _œconomiste_, rather than in the style of a secretary to the sovereign pontiff. “I do not wish to scrutinize into the secret life of these cœnobites, which is known only to God. I will not inquire whether they are sober or otherwise; whether they are chaste or unchaste; whether they employ their time in study, or waste it in idleness; whether they are the prey of envy; and whether they are continually hunting after preferment. It is not sufficient that they keep within doors, oppressed with a load of garments, and do no public and open mischief. Let me ask, of what utility are they to the faith, and what advantage do they confer on the public? I cannot find that they do any thing but sing like grasshoppers, and I cannot help thinking they are too liberally paid for the mere exercise of their lungs. But they extol their labours as a kind of Herculean task, because they rise in the night to chant the praises of God. This is no doubt an extraordinary proof of merit, that they sit up to exercise themselves in psalmody. What would they say if they rose to go to the plough, like farmers, exposed to the wind and rain, with bare feet, and with their bodies thinly clad? In such a case no doubt the Deity could not possibly requite them for their toil and sufferings. But it may be said, there are many worthy men amongst them. I acknowledge it. It would be a lamentable thing indeed, should there be no good men in so vast a multitude. But the majority of them are idle, hypocritical, and destitute of virtue. How many do you think enter upon the religious life through a desire to amend their morals? You can recount very few who do not assume the habit on account of some extraneous cause. They dedicate,