to be as fhameful a circle as that wherewith Dr Holden upbraids the generality of his brethren.

§3. I proceed to his authorities from fathers and councils; all which, not one of them excepted, he hath taken out of Mr White's Tabule fuffragiales, without the leaft acknowledgement from whom he had them. And that it might be evident that he had not confulted the books themselves for them, he hath taken them with all their faults, and with the very fame errors of cita tion which Mr White had been guilty of before him. So that, though he is pleased to fay of himself, p. 239. that he is a bad transcriber," yet I must do him that right, to affure the reader that he does it very punctually and exactly.

§4. He begins with councils; of which, he tells us, "he will only mention three in feveral ages.'

The firft is the firft fynod of Lateran. One might have expected, after he had told us he would mention three in feveral ages, he fhould have produced them according to the order of time, and have begun with the council of Sardica, which was near 300 years before the Lateran. But there was a good reafon why the Lateran should be first produced, viz. because it is mentioned before the other in Mr White's book.. Well but what fays this fynod? We all confefs unanimously, and

:

The

confequently with one heart and mouth, the tenets "and fayings of the holy fathers; adding nothing, fubtracting nothing, of thofe things which are delivered us by them and we believe as the fathers have be lieved; we preach fo as they have taught," force of which teftimony Mr S. lays upon the word delivered, as if that word, where ever it is met with in councils or fathers, muft needs be understood of oral delivery whereas it is a general word,, indifferently used for conveyance, either by writing, or word of mouth. In this place it plainly refers to the writings of particular fathers, out of whom a long catalogue of teftimonies a gainst the herefy of the Monothelites had been read just before this declaration of the fynod. Now, what fignifies this to oral tradition's being the rule of faith, that this fynod declares her faith, in oppofition to the heresy of the Monothelites, to be confonant in all things to

:

thofe

those testimonies which had been produced out of the fathers?

The next is the council of Sardica; out of an epiftle of which council he cites thefe words: "We have re"ceived this doctrine; we have been taught fo; we "hold this Catholic tradition, faith, and confeflion." Which are general words, and indifferently applicable to oral tradition, or writing, or both. But be they what they will, Mr S. ought not to have been ignorant, that this council was rejected by St Austin, and other orthodox fathers; as Binius acknowledges, (Concil. tom. 1.); and, which is more, that the latter part of this epistle, out of which part Mr S. cites thefe words, which contains a confeffion of faith, is, by Baronius, anno 347, and, after him, by Binius, proved to have been furreptitiously added. For though it be found in Theodoret, and mentioned by Sozomen; yet Baronius thinks, that it was the Arian confeffion, composed by the falfe fynod of Sardica which fat at the fame time; and that Sozo men lighting upon it, perhaps mistook it for the confeffion of the orthodox fynod of the fame name. However that be, he proves out of Athanafius, and from the te ftimony both of the Eaftern and Western bishops, that the council of Sardica " did not fo much as add one "word or tittle, no nor fo much as explain any thing in "the Nicene faith." But Mr White fays nothing of this; and therefore Mr S. could not, who is no fpeculator in these matters, but only, as a testifier, delivers down these authorities to us as he received them by hand from Mr White; and if the word tradition be but in them, they are demonstrative.

As for his teftimonies from the fecond council of Nice, (which he calls the feventh general council), who pretended their doctrine of image-worship to have defcended to them by an uninterrupted tradition, and proved it moft doughtily by texts of fcripture ridiculously wrested, by impertinent fayings out of obfcure and counterfeit authors, and by fond and immodeft ftories (as is acknowledged by Pope Adrian VI. Quodlibet 6. cited by Efpencaus in 2. epift. ad Tim. c. 4.) of apparitions and womens dreams, &c. for which I refer the reader to the council itfelf: which is fuch a mefs of fopperies, that if

a general council of Atheists had met together with a defign to abuse religion, by talking ridiculously concerning it, they could not have done it more effectually: E fay, as for his teftimonies from this council, I fhall re fer Mr S. to that Western council under Charles the Great, which a little after at Francfort condemned, and alfo fully confuted the decifions of this council, calling their pretended tradition of image worship putidissimam traditionem, "a moft ftinking tradition."

Thefe are his authorities from councils : "Where (fays he) we fee general councils relying on the teach ing of the fathers or foregoing church, and on the "church's tradition as their rule," &c. Where does he fee any fuch matter? or where does he fee general councils? Was the council of Lateran a general one? Or was the council of Sardica? If it was, let him fhew how the fecond of Nice could be the feventh general council. Mr White muft write more explicitly, and fay which are general councils, which not; otherwife he will lead his friends into dangerous mistakes.

$4. "After ancient councils, (not fo ancient neither), "let us (fays he) give a glance at fathers." Glance is a modeft word,, and yet I doubt whether ever the fa thers had so much as that from him. Before I speak particularly to his teftimonies from the fathers, I thall mind him of what Mr Rufhworth fays in general, (Dial. 3. §13), viz. that he who feeks tradition in the fathers, and to evince it by their teftimony, takes an "hard task upon him," &c. Again, ibid." As in o"ther points, fo even in this of the refolution of faith, 66 as doctors feem to differ now-a-days, fo might the fa "thers alfo." If this be true, Mr S. is not likely by a few teftimonies out of the fathers to prove, that tradition is the fole rule of faith. But let us fee what he has

done towards it

He begins with a faying of Pope Celeftine to the fathers of the Ephefine council, "Now therefore we "must act with a common endeavour to preferve things "believed and retained to this very time by fuccef"fion from the Apoftles." Binius's other reading [of Fidayns for diadays] quite fpoils the force of this citation which Mr S. puts upon the word fucceffion. But read

it how he will, why may not the Chriftian doctrine be faid to come by fucceffion from the Apoftles, when it is tranfmitted to us by fcripture, as well as when by oral tradition? I am fure the fame Celeftine, in an epistle to Cyril, commends him for defending the faith by fcripture: "This (fays he) is a great triumph of our faith, to demonstrate our opinions fo ftrongly, and to over"throw the contrary, by teftimonies from fcripture. And neither in this epiftle, nor the other, does he make any mention of oral tradition.

"

Next he cites that known place in Irenæus: "But "what if the Apoftles had not left us the fcriptures, ought we not to follow the order of tradition "&c. This makes clearly against him; for it implies, that now the Apostles have left us the fcriptures, we ought to follow them. The other paffage he cites out of Irenæus, lib. 1. c. 3. is a clear eviction that he did not confult the book. For he puts two fayings together, which he had met with in Mr White, immediately one after the other; and because Mr White had cited /. 1. c. 3. for the firft faying, and brought in the other immediately upon it with an Et rurfus," Again, &c." therefore Mr S. (who is of a right traditionary temper, which is, to take things eafily upon truft himself, and require demonftration from others, concluded, that these sayings were in the fame place, though in truth they are in feveral books. As for the teftimony itself, there is nothing in it to Mr S.'s purpose befides the word tradition, which Irenæus does often apply to fcripture as well as oral tradition; and there is nothing in this place to determine it to oral tradition.

His teftimonies out of Origen will do him less stead: for every one that hath been converfant in the writings of that father, knows what he means by the church's tradition preserved by order of fucceffion, viz. the myftical interpretations of the fcripture, which (he fays) were delivered by the Apoftles to the governors of the church, and by them down from hand to hand. If this be the tradition Mr S. contends for, Origen is at his service; if it be not, I affure him he is not for his turn.

Next comes Tertullian, concerning whom (as alfo Origin) the Papift upon occafion thinks it enough to re

ply

ply in St Hierom's words (Adverf. Helvid.) "As for "Tertullian, I have nothing to fay of him, but that he "is not a man of the church." Whatever he was, the fe are his words, "If thou beeft but a Chriftian, believe "what is traditum, delivered." And here's nothing again but the word delivered; which (as I have faid) is indifferent to written or oral tradition, if the circumftances do not determine it to one, as here they do (very unlikely for Mr S.) to the fcripture. For he disputes here against Marcion, who denied the flesh of Chrift; and who, to maintain that, denied his nativity, and expunged the whole hiftory of it out of the gofpel*; "But

:

(faith Tertullian) by what authority doelt thou this? "If thou be a prophet, foretell fomething; if an Apostle, "preach publicly if Apoftolical, be of the Apostles "mind; if no more but a Christian, believe what is de"livered." And where delivered, but in thofe inftruments or books of the gofpel, out of which (as Tertullian immediately before tells us) Marcion had made bold to expunge this story?

As for his teftimonies out of Athanafius, the two first of them prove nothing, but that faith comes down from our ancestors, or was by them delivered to us; which no body denies: nor is there a word in either of them concerning oral, in oppofition to written tradition. The third teftimony is out of an epiftle to Epictetus, to whom Athanafius, writing concerning those who held Chrift's body to be consubstantial with his divinity, tells him, this was fo grofs a conceit, that it needed no folicitous confutation; but that it would be a fufficient answer to fay in general, "The orthodox church was not of that "mind; our fathers did not think fo." From whence Mr S. infers, that "tradition is held by him a fole fuf"ficient rule of faith, and the only anfwer to be given "why we reject points from faith," &c. But if he had confulted the book, he would not have inferred, that this was "the only answer to be given," &c. for it immediately follows," But left from our being wholly fi"lent, the inventors of evil things should take occafion to

"be

His opinor confiliis, tot originalia inftrumenta Chrifti delere Marcion aufus eft, ne caro cjus probaretur. Ex qua, oro te, autos ritate, &c.