which, as he well obferves, p. 161. would make his "difcourfe to look with a contingent face."

§ 2. I begin with his three authorities from fcripture ; which when I confider, I fee no reason why he, of all men, fhould find fault with my Lord Bishop of Down's diffuafive, p. 320. for being fo❝ thin and flight in fcri"pture-citations." Nor do I fee how he will answer it to Mr. Rushworth, for tranfgreffing that prudent rule of his, (Dial. 2. § 14.), viz. That the Catholick fhould never undertake to convince his adverfary out of fcri-, 66 pture, &c." For which he gives this substantial reafon, ibid. "Because this were to ftrengthen his opponent "in his own ground and principle, viz. That all is to "be proved out of fcripture; " which he tells us prefently after is no more fit to convince, than a

66

beetle is to cut withal;" meaning it perhaps of texts fo applied as thefe which follow. This shall be to you a direct way, fo that fools cannot err in it, If. xxxv. 8. This is my covenant with them, faith the Lord, My fpirit which is in thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, fhall not depart from thy mouth, and from the mouth of thy feed, and from the mouth of thy feed's feed, from henceforth for ever, If. lix. 21. I will give my law in their bowels, and in their hearts will I write it, Jer. xxxi. 33. From which texts if Mr. S. can prove tradition to be the only rule of faith, any better than the philofophers ftone, or the longitude, may be proved from the first chapter of Genefis, I am content they should pafs for valid teftimonies; though I might require of him, by his own law, before thefe texts can fignify any thing to his purpose, to demonftrate that this is the traditionary fenfe of these texts, and that it hath been univerfally in all ages received by the church under that notion; and then to fhew how it comes to pafs that fo many of the fathers, and of their own commentators, have interpret→ ed them to another fense; and, laftly, to fhew how fcripture, which has no certain fenfe but from tradition, and of the fenfe whereof tradition cannot affure us, unlefs it be the rule of faith; I fay, how fcripture can prove tradition to be the rule of faith, which can prove nothing at all, unless tradition be first proved to be the rule of faith. This I take 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 Tabula fuffragiales, without the least acknowledgment from whom he had them. And that it might be evident that he had not confulted the books themfelves for them, he hath taken them with all their faults, and with the very fame errors of citation which Mr. White had been guilty of before him. So that, though he is pleafed to fay of himself, p. 239. that "he is a bad tranfcriber," 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 first 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 fhould be firft produced, viz. because it is mentioned before the other in Mr. White's book. Well: but what fays this fynod?"We all confefs unanimoufly, and "confequently with one heart and mouth, the tenets "and fayings of the holy fathers; adding nothing, "fubftracting nothing of those things which are deli"vered us by them : and we believe as the fathers have "believed; we preach fo as they have taught." The 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 against 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 herefy of the Monothelites, to be confonant in all things to

thofe

those teftimonies which had been produced out of the fathers?

The next is the council of Sardica; out of an epistle of which council he cites these words: "We have re"ceived this doctrine; we have been taught fo; we "hold this Catholick tradition, faith, and confeffion." 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 epiftle, out of which part Mr. S. cites these words, which contains a confeffion of faith, is, by Baronius, anno 347, and, after him, by Binius, proved to have been furreptiously added. For though it be found in Theodoret, and mentioned by Sozomen; yet Baronius thinks, that it was the Arian confeffion, composed by the false fynod of Sardica which fat at the fame time; and that Sozomen 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 teftimony both of the Eastern and Western Bifhops, that the council of Sardica "did not fo much as add one "word or tittle, no nor so 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 teftifier, 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 wrefted, 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 Efpencæus in 2. epift. ad Tim. c. 4.) of apparitions and womens dreams, &c. for which I refer the reader to the council itself; which is fuch a mefs of fopperies, that if

a

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: I fay, as for his teftimonies from this council, I fhall refer 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 putidiffimam traditionem, 66 a most stinking tradition."

These 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 second 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 fathers had fo much as that from him. Before I fpeak particularly to his teftimonies from the fathers, I fhall mind him of what Mr. Rufhworth fays in general, (Dial. 3. § 13.), viz. that "he who seeks tradition in "the fathers, and to evince it by their teftimony, takes 66 an hard task upon him, &c." Again, ibid. "As in "other points, fo even in this of the refolution of faith,

as doctors feem to differ now-a-days, fo might the "fathers 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 "muft act with a common endeavour to preserve things "believed and retained to this very time by fucceffion "from the Apostles." Binius's other reading [of ♪idayns for Nadoxns] quite fpoils the force of this citation which Mr. S. puts upon the word fucceffion. But

read

read it how he will, why may not the Christian doctrine be faid to come by fucceffion from the Apostles, when it is tranfmitted to us by fcripture, as well as when by oral tradition? I am fure the fame Celestine, 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.

66

Next he cites that known place in Irenæus: "But "what if the Apostles 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 Apoftles have left us the scriptures, 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 becaufe Mr. White had cited lib. 1. c. 3. for the first 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 demonstration from others) concluded, that thefe fayings 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 besides the word tradition, which Irenæus does often apply to scripture 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 lefs ftead: for every one that hath been converfant in the writings of that father, knows what he means by the church's tradition preferved by order of fucceffion, viz. the mystical 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 fervice; if it be not, I affure him he is not for his turn.

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

ply