parently falfe. 3. That his demonftration is confuted by clear and undeniable instances to the contrary.

SECT. III. The first answer to his demonftration.

§ 1. IF the grounds of it were true, they would conclude too much, and prove that to be impoffible, which common experience evinceth, and himfelf mult grant to have been. For if these two principles be true, "That the greatest hopes and fears are ftrongly applied to "the minds of all Christians," and, "That those hopes "and fears strongly applied, are the cause of actual will 66 to adhere conftantly to Christ's doctrine," then from hence it follows, that none that entertain this doctrine, can ever fall from it; because falling from it is inconfiftent with an actual will of adhering conftantly to it. For fuppofing (as he doth) certain and conftant causes of actual will to adhere to this doctrine, thofe who entertain it, must actually will to adhere to it; because " a "caufe put actually caufing, produceth its effect; which is, conftant adherence to it. And if this were true, these two things would be impoffible: 1. That any Christian fhould turn apoftate or heretick; 2. That any Chriftian fhould live wickedly: both which not only frequent and undoubted experience doth evince, but himfelf muft grant de facto to have been.

§2. First, It would be impoffible that any Christian fhould turn apoftate or heretick. Herefy, according to him, is nothing else but the renouncing of tradition. Now he tells us, p. 60. that "the first renouncers of "tradition must have been true believers, or holders of "it, ere they renounced it ;" and I fuppofe there is the fame reason for apoftates. But if all Chriftians or true believers (as he calls them) have these arguments of hope and fear ftrongly applied, and hope and fear ftrongly applied be the caufes of actual will to adhere to this doarine; it is necessary all Christians should adhere to it, and impoffible there fhould be either apoftates or hereticks. For if thefe caufes be put in "all the faithful "actually caufing," (as the grounds of his demonstra→ tion fuppofe), and "indefectiblenefs be the proper and "neceffary effect of thefe caufes," as he alfo faith, p.75.

then

then it is impoffible, that where these causes are put, there fhould be any defection: for a proper and neceffary effect cannot but be where the caufes of fuch an effect are put, especially if they be put actually caufing; and confequently it is impoffible that any fingle Chriftian fhould ever either totally apoftatize, or fall into herefy; that is, renounce tradition.

§3. And that this is a genuine confequence from thefe principles, (though he will not acknowledge it here, becaufe he faw it would ruin his demonftration), is liberally acknowledged by him in other parts of his discourse. For he tells us, p. 54. 78. 89. that "it exceeds all the 66 power of nature, (abftracting from the caufes of mad"nefs, and violent difeafe), to blot the knowledge of "this doctrine out of the foul of one fingle believer; and that "fince no man can hold contrary to his know"ledge, nor doubt of what he holds, nor change and "innovate without knowing he doth fo, it is a manifest 66 impoffibility a whole age should fall into an abfurdity "fo inconfiftent with the nature of one fingle man ; and that "it is perhaps impoffible for one fingle man to 66 attempt to deceive pofterity by renouncing tradition." Which paffages laid together, amount to thus much, that it is impoffible that tradition fhould fail in any one fingle perfon. And though in the paffage laft cited he fpeaks faintly, and with a perhaps, as if he apprehended. fome danger in fpeaking, too peremptorily; yet any one would easily fee the last to be as impoffible as any of the reft. And he himself elsewhere, being in the full career of his bombaft rhetorick, delivers it roundly without fear or wit, p. 54. "Sooner may the finews of entire nature by "overftraining crack, and fhe lofe all her activity and 66 motion, that is, herfelf, than one fingle part of that "innumerable multitude, which integrate that vaft tefti"fication which we call tradition, can poffibly be vio"lated."

$4. But it may be we deal too hardly with him, and prefs his demonftration too far, because he tells us he only intends by it to prove, that the generality of Chriftians will always adhere to tradition. But if he intended to prove no more but this, he fhould then have brought a demonstration that would have concluded no

more;

66

دو

more; but this concludes of all as well as of the generality of Chriftians. A clear evidence that it is no demonftration, because it concludes that which is evidently falfe, that there can be no apoftates or hereticks. Befides, fuppofing his demonftration to conclude only, that the generality of Chriftians would always adhere to tradition, this is as plainly confuted by experience, if there be any credit to be given to hiftory. St. Hierom tells us, (Chron. ad annum Chrift. 352), that "Liberius, Bi"fhop of Rome, (for all his particular title to infallibility built upon tradition, as Mr. S. fpeaks, corol. 28.), "turned Arian ;" and that "Arianifm was established "by the fynod of Ariminum; which was a council more general than that of Trent, (ibid. ad an. 363); and that "almost all the churches in the whole world, "under the names of peace and of the Emperor, were "polluted by communion with the Arians," (ibid. ad an. 364). Again, that "under the Emperor Conftan"tius (Eufebius and Hippatius being Confuls) infidelity was fubfcribed under the names of unity and faith," (ibid. adverf. Lucifer.); and "that the whole world groned, and wondered to fee itself turned Arian," (ibid.) And he ufes this as an argument to the Luciferians, to receive into the church those who had been defiled with the herefy of Arius, Because the number of those who had kept themselves orthodox was exceeding fmall: "For (fays he, ibid.) the fynod of Nice, which "confifted of above three hundred Bifhops, received

86

46

eight Arian Bishops, whom they might have cast out "without any great lofs to the church. I wonder, "then, how fome, and thofe the followers of the Nicene faith, can think, that three confeffors (viz. A

66

thanafius, Hilarius, Eufebius) ought not to do that, "in cafe of neceffity, for the good and fafety of the "whole world, which fo many and fo excellent perfons "did voluntarily." It feems Arianifm had prevailed very far, when St. Hierom could not name above three eminent perfons in the church who had preferved them felves untainted with it. Again, "Arius in Alexandria

was at first but one fpark; but, because it was not "presently extinguished, it broke out into a flame which "devoured the whole world," (In epift. ad Galat. 1.3.).

Gregory

Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. 20. & 21.) likewife tells us to the fame purpose, that "the Arian herefy feized "upon the greatelt part of the church." And, to fhew that he knew nothing of Mr. S.'s demonstration of the indefectibility of the generality of Chriftians, he afks, (Orat 25.), "Where are thofe that define the church

by multitude, and defpife the little flock? &c." And this herefy was of a long continuance; for from its rife, which happened in the 20th year of Conftantine, it continued, as Joh. Abbas (Chron. ad annum octavum Maurii.) hath calculated it, 266 years. And the Pelagian herefy, if we may believe Bradwardine, one of the great champions of the church against it, did in a manner prevail as much as Arianifm; as the faid author complains, in his preface to his book, Caufa Dei, that "al

moft the whole world was run after Pelagius into "error." Will Mr. S. now fay, that, in the height of thefe hercfies," the generality of Chriftians did firmly "adhere to tradition?" If he fay they did, let him anfwer the exprefs teftimonies produced to the contrary: but if they did not, then his demonstration also fails as to the generality of Chriftians. And if the greater part of Chriftians may fall off from tradition, what demonftration can make it impoffible for the leffer to do fo? Who will fay it is in reafon impoffible, that a thousand perfons should relinquish tradition, though nine hundred of them have already done it, and though the remainder be no otherwife fecured from doing fo, than those were who have actually relinquifhed it? Now, is not this a clear evidence, that this which he calls a demonftration à priori is no fuch thing? because every demonftration à priori must be from caufes which are neceffary; whereas his demonstration is from voluntary causes. So that unlefs he can prove, that voluntary causes are neceffary, he shall never demonftrate, that it is impoffible for the generality of any company of men to err, who have every one of them free will, and are every one of them liable to paffion and mistake.

§ 5. From all this it appears, that his whole difcourfe about the original and progress of herefy, and the multitudes of hereticks in feveral ages, is as clear a confutation of his own demonstration as can be defired. The

only

only thing that he offers in that difcourfe to prevent this objection which he forefaw it liable to, is this: "It "is not (fays he, p. 65.) to be expected, but that fome

contingencies fhould have place, where a whole fpe"cies in a manner is to be wrought upon. It fufficeth, "that the causes to preferve faith indeficiently entire,

are as efficacious as those which are laid for the pre"fervation of mankind; the virtue of faith not being to "continue longer than mankind, its only subject, does. "And they will eafily appear as efficacious as the o"ther, if we confider the ftrength of those causes be"fore explicated, and reflect, that they are effectively powerful to make multitudes daily debar themfelves "of thofe pleasures which are the causes of mankind's propagation and, if we look into history for expe"rience of what hath paffed in the world fince the propagating of Christianity, we fhall find more particu"culars failing in propagating their kind than their "faith." To which I anfwer,

66

66

1, That it may reasonably be expected there fhould be no contingencies in any particulars where caufes of actual will are fuppofed to be put in all; "because (as he

66

fays truly) a caufe put actually caufing, cannot but pro"duce its effect." Suppofe, then, constant caufes laid in all mankind of an actual will to speak truth, to the best of their knowledge, were it not reasonable to expect, that there would be no fuch contingency to the world's end, as that any man should tell a lie? Nay, it were madness for any man to think any fuch contingency fhould be, fuppofing caufes actually caufing men always to speak truth.

"effe

2dly, It is far from truth, "that the caufes to preserve "faith indeficiently entire, are as efficacious as thofe "which are laid for the propagation of mankind." And whereas he would prove the ftrength of thofe caufes which are laid to preferve faith, because they are "ctively powerful to make multitudes daily debar them"felves of thofe pleafures which are the caufes of man"kind's propagation;" I hope no body that hath read the innumerable complaints which occur in their own hiftorians, and others of the best and most credible of their own writers, of more than one age, concerning

the