unmistakeable, and "brings down faith clad in fuch "plain matters of fact, that the most stupid man living "(much lefs the Greeks, that were the flower of mankind) could not poffibly be ignorant of it," p. 53. 54.; nay, "it exceeds all the power of nature, to blot knowledge, thus fixed, out of the foul of one fingle believer, ibid. [much more out of so vaft a church]. And "fince no man can hold contrary to his knowledge, or "doubt of what he holds, nor change and innovate with

out knowing he did fo, it is a manifeft impoffibility a "whole church fhould in any age fall into an abfurdity "fo inconfiftent with the nature of one fingle man,' p. 78. And fince "it is natural for every man to speak truth, and grace is to perfect nature in whatever is good in it, it follows, that one truly Christian heart €6 is far more fixed to veracity, than others not imbued "with those heavenly tenets; and confequently that a "multitude of fuch muft incomparably exceed, in point "of teftifying, the fame number of others unfortified by

- 66

Chrift's doctrine," p. 86. And fince "fuch a thought "cannot enter into the most depraved nature, as to "harm another without any good to himself; and yet "this must be, if we put Christian fathers mifteaching "their children unreceived doctrines for received, [and "I hope, for the fame reafon, received doctrines for un"received], contrary to their knowledge. For fuppofing fanctity in the [Greek] church, [and why may 46 not we as well as in the Latin?], that is, that multi"tudes in it make heaven their first love, and look on

ઃઃ

fpiritual goods as their main concern, &c. it follows,

that had the fathers [of that church], in any age, "confented to mislead their posterity from what them"felves [not only] conceited [but knew] to be true, "they should do the most extreme harm imaginable to "others, without any the leaft good to themselves "which is perhaps impoffible in one fingle man, more in few, but infinitely in a multitude, efpecially of good men," p. 89.

$5. Thus I might apply the rest of his ranting rhetoric (but that I am weary of tranfcribing it), concerning "the natural love of parents to their children," p. 90. 91. (unless we fuppofe the Greek church deftitute of it),

which must needs engage them to ufe the proper means to bring them to heaven, and fave them from hell: as alfo concerning "the natural care men have of not lo

fing their credit, by telling pernicious lies." And, not to omit the best part of his demonstrations, p. 93. (which was therefore prudently referved to the last place), I muft likewife fhew, how the principles of each science, arithmetic, geometry, logic, nature, morality, historical prudence, politics, metaphyfics, divinity, and, last of all, the new science of controverfy, (as he calls it), or the bleffed art of eternal wrangling and difputing, the firft principle whereof he tells us, is, "That tradition is cer

tain," do all contribute to fhew the certainty of tradition; that is, the impoffibility that any part of Chrift's doctrine fhould fail in the Greek church, any more than in the Latin. And furely arithmetic, geometry, logic, natural philofophy, metaphyfics, &c. will all ftand up for the Greek church in this quarrel; for confidering that Greece was the place where the arts and fciences were born and bred, it is not to be imagined, that they fhould be fo difingenuous and unnatural, as not to contribute their best affistance to the fervice of their country.

$6. But it may be the Greeks cannot fo juftly pretend to oral tradition as the Latins. What if St Peter, the head of the apoftles, thought fit to fhare fcripture and tradition between thefe two churches, and laying his lefthand on the Greek church, and his right on the Latin, was pleafed to confer the great bleffing of oral tradition upon the Latin church? which being to be the feat of infallibility, it was but fitting that the fhould be furnished with this infallible way of conveying the Chriftian doctrine. And therefore it may be, that as the fcriptures of the New Testament were left in Greek, so oral tradition was delivered down only in Latin. This, I confefs, is not altogether without fome thew of reafon. Mr S. may do well to take the matter into his deeper confideration; he hath in his time improved as weak probabilities as these into lufty demonstrations. And if he could

but demonstrate this, it would very much weaken the force of this inftance of the Greek church: Otherwife (for ought I fee) this inftance will hold good against him:

and

and whatever he can fay for the impoffibility of tradi tion's failing in the Latin church, may all be said of the Greek church; if he will but grant that the Apostles preached the fame doctrine to them both; that the arguments of hope and fear which this doctrine contains in it, were applied as strongly to the Greeks as to the Latins. And yet, notwithstanding all this, tradition hath plainly failed in the Greek church. Let him now affign the age wherein so vaft a number of men confpired to leave out the article of the proceffion of the Holy Ghost, and shew, how it was poffible a whole age could confpire together to damn their pofterity, or how the faith of immediate forefathers might be altered, without any fuch confpiracy; and we are ready to fatisfy him how the doctrine of the Latin church might be corrupted and altered, and to tell him punctually in what age it was done. And until he do this, I would intreat him to trouble us no more with those canting questions, (wherein yet the whole force of his demonstration lies), How is it poffible a whole age fhould confpire to change the doctrine of their forefathers? and, In what age was this done? For if it be reasonable to demand of us, in order to the overthrowing of his demonftration, to affign the particular age wherein the Latin church confpired to change the ancient doctrine; with the fame reason we require of him, in order to the maintaining of his demonstration, to name the particular age wherein the Greek church confpired to alter the doctrine of Chrift, (which was undoubtedly in the first age truly delivered to them by the Apostles); and alfo to fhew, from the rational force and ftrength of tradition, how it is more impoflible for the whole church to have failed in tranfmitting the doctrine of Chrift down to us, or to have confpired to the altering of it, than for fuch a multitude of Chriftians as is the vaft body of the Greek church. If Mr S. or Mr White fhew this, they do fomething; otherwise I must tell them, that unless they can manage thefe pretty things they call demonflrations better, they must shortly either quit their reason, or their religion, or elfe return to the honeft old Mumpfimus, of the infallibility of the church from an extraordinary and immediate affiftance of the Holy Ghoft: or (to make the bufinefs fhort, and stop all gaps with one buth) come VOL. III.

G g

over

over to the Jefuits, and acknowledge the Pope's infalli-; bility both in matters of faith and fact; by which means they may reconcile themselves to him, and prevent that direful ftroke which threatens them from Rome, and is ready to cut them off from the body of the traditionary church. And thus I have done with his first demonstration; and I take it for a good fign that the Popifh caufe is at a very low ebb, when fuch stuff as this must be called demonftration.

SECT. VI. Mr S.'s demonftration à pofteriori.

I Come now to his demonftration à pofteriori:

which although it falls of itfelf if the demonstration à priori fail, yet because it hath fome peculiar abfurdities of its own, I fhall confider it by itself, as well as with relation to the other.

§2. Before he comes to lay it down, with the grounds of it, according to his ufual fashion, he premiseth fomething as yielded by Proteftants, which, in his fenfe, no Proteftant ever granted. Juft fo he dealt with us before concerning the fcriptures, faying, that by them the Protestants" muft mean unfenfed letters and characters." But let us fee what it is, p. 76. That" this demonftra"tion à pofteriori feems a needlefs endeavour against the "Proteftants, who yield, that thofe points in which we 65 agree, as the Trinity, incarnation, &c. came down "by this way of tradition; and this (he faith) no Pro"teftant ever denied." And then he asks, "Whether "the fame virtue of tradition would not have been as "powerful to bring down other points in which we do

not agree, had any fuch been?" Now, if he speak any thing to his own purpofe, he muft fuppofe Proteftants to yield, that all thofe points wherein we are agreed were conveyed down to us folely by oral tradition without writing: but this all Proteftants deny. So that that only which would avail his cause against us, is, to fhew, that thofe points wherein we differ, have not on-› ly come down to us by oral teaching, but that they are likewife contained in fcripture, without which, we say, we can have no fufficient certainty and affurance at this

diftance,

distance, that they were the doctrine of Christ, and that they were not either totally innovated, or else corrupted in the conveyance, from what they were at first. And if he can fhew this concerning any point in difference, I promise to yield it to him.

3. I come to his demonftration, which I fhall fet down in his own words, with the principles upon which it relies, p. 77. 78. "The effect then we will pitch up

66

on, and avow to be the proper one of fuch a cause, is, "the prefent perfuafion of traditionary Chriftians, (or Catholics), that their faith hath descended from Christ "and his Apostles uninterruptedly, which we find most firmly rooted in their heart: and the exiflence of this perfuafion we affirm to be impoffible, without the "existence of tradition's ever indeficiency to beget it. "To prove this, I lay this first principle, That age "which holds her faith thus delivered from the Apostles, "neither can itfelf have changed any thing in it, nor "know or doubt that any age fince the Apoftles had

changed or innovated therein. The second principle "fhall be this, No age could innovate any thing, and "withal deliver that very thing to pofterity as received " from Christ by continual fucceffion." The fum of which is this, That because a prefent multitude of Chriftians (viz. the Roman church) are perfuaded, that Chrift's doctrine hath defcended to them folely by an uninterrupted oral tradition; therefore this perfuafion is an effect which cannot be attributed to any other caufe, but the indeficiency of oral tradition. For if neither the prefent age, nor any age before, could make any change or innovation, then the perfuafion of the prefent age is a plain demonftration, that this doctrine was always the fame, and confequently that tradition cannot fail.

§ 4. In anfwer to this, I shall endeavour to make good thefe four things.

1. That thefe principles wholly rely upon the truth. of the grounds of his demonftration à priori.

him.

That these principles are not fufficiently proved by

3. That doctrines and practices, which must be acknowledged to have been innovated, have made the fame pretence to uninterrupted tradition.

Gg 2

4. That