"fame doctrine to their children which they had recei"ved from their fathers, and did believe it under this 66 very notion and title as received. Nor could any one "[of that church] deliver another doctrine under this "title, but he would be convinced of a lie by the rest: "and if the whole [Greek] church fhould endeavour to "deliver a new doctrine under that title, [and there is "the fame reason if they fhould leave out any article of "the old doctrine], that, whole age would be in their "confciences condemned of perfidioufnefs and parricide. Now, this is as impoffible, as it is that all mankind "fhould confpire to kill themselves." And he afterwards (ibid. §5.) gives the reafon why it is fo impoffible that tradition fhould fail, and it is a very bold and faucy one, that "if the tradition of the Chriftian faith be not more "firm, than the courfe of the fun and moon, and the 66 propagation of mankind, then God hath fhewn him"felf an unfkilful artificer." What is there in all this demonstration which may not be accommodated to the Greek church with as much force and advantage as to the Catholick? unlefs he can fhew, that it is very poffible that all the men in Greece may confpire to kill themselves, but yet abfolutely impoffible that all the men in the world fhould do fo; which I am fure he cannot fhew, unless he can demonftrate, that though it be poffible for a million of as wife men as any are to be found in the world together, to confpire to do a foolish action, yet it is impoffible that a hundred millions, not one jot wifer than the other, fhould agree together to the doing of it.

$4. From all this it appears, that Mr. White's anfwer to this objection doth not fignify any thing to his purpofe. For if the proceffion of the Holy Ghost was part of Chrift's doctrine, then it was delivered by the Apoftles to the Greek church; if fo, they could not fail to deliver it down to the next age, and that to the next, and fo on; but it seems they have failed. Where then is "the force of hopes and fears ftrongly applied?" Where are 66 the certain caufes of actual will to adhere to this doctrine? Why is not the effect produced, "the caufes being put actually causing?" If the Apoles delivered this doctrine, oral tradition is fo clear and

unmistakeable,

66

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 know"ledge, thus fixed, out of the foul of one fingle belie22 ver, ibid. [much more out of so vast a church]. And "fince no man can hold contrary to his knowledge, or ❝doubt of what he holds, nor change and innovate with66 out knowing he did fo, it is a manifeft impoffibility a "whole church should 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

66

truth, and grace is to perfect nature in whatever is 66 good in it, it follows, that one truly Christian heart " 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 "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 himfelf; and yet "this must be, if we put Chriftian fathers mifteaching "their children unreceived doctrines for received, [and I

hope, for the fame reason, received doctrines for un"received], contrary to their knowledge. For fuppo

fing fanctity in the [Greek] church, [and why may 66 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 pofterity 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 least 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.

J

$5. Thus I might apply the rest of his ranting rhetorick (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

muft

muft needs engage them to use the means proper to bring them to heaven, and fave them from hell: as alfo concerning "the natural care men have of not losing their "credit, by telling pernicious lies.' And, not to omit the best part of his demonstration, p. 93. (which was therefore prudently referved to the last place), I might likewife fhew, how the principles of each science, arithmetick, geometry, logick, nature, morality, hiftorical prudence, politicks, metaphyficks, divinity, and, laft of all, the new science of controverfy, (as he calls it), or the bleffed art of eternal wrangling and difputing, (the first principle whereof, he tells us, is, "That tradition is "certain)," 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 arithmetick, geometry, logick, natural philofophy, metaphyficks, &c. will all ftand up for the Greek church in this quarrel; for confidering that Greece was the place where the arts and sciences were born and bred, it is not to be imagined, that they fhould be fo difingenuous and unnatural, as not to contribute their best affiftance 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 Apostles, thought fit to fhare fcripture and tradition between thefe two churches, and laying his left hand on the Greek church, and his right on the Latin, was pleased 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 she should be furnished with this infallible way of conveying the Chriftian do&trine. And therefore it may be, that as the fcriptures of the New Teftament were left in Greek, fo oral tradition was delivered down only in Latin. This, I confess, is not altogether without fome fhew 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 demonftrate 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 tradition's failing in the Latin church, may all be faid 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 ftrongly 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 fo 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 thofe canting questions, (wherein yet the whole force of his demonftration 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 reafon we require of him, in order to the maintaining of his demonftration, 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 impoffible for thewhole 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 vast body of the Greek church. If Mr. S. or Mr. White flew this, they do fomething; otherwise I must tell them, that unless they can manage thefe pretty things they call demonftrations better, they muft fhortly either quit their reafon, or their religion; or else 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 VOL. III.

G g

all

all gaps with one bufh) come over to the Jefuits, and acknowledge the Pope's infallibility both in matters of faith and fact; by which means they may reconcile themfelves to him, and prevent that direful stroke 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 Popish caufe is at a very low ebb, when fuch stuff as this must be called demonftration.

$1.

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

I Come now to his demonstration à pofteriori; which although it fall of itself if the demonftration 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 Proteftants "muft mean unfenfed letters and characters." But let us fee what it is, p. 76. That "this demonstra⚫ "tion à pofteriori feems a needlefs endeavour against the "Proteftants, who yield, that those points in which we 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 fpeak any thing to his own purpose, he must fuppofe Protestants 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 caufe against us, is, to fhew, that thofe points wherein we differ, have not only come down to us by oral teaching, but that they are likewife contained in fcripture, without which, we fay, we can have no fufficient certainty and affurance at this distance,

66