tfHE
WRITTEN TRADITION;
OR THIS
ONLY DIVINE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE,
vindicated against the
TRACTARIANS. A SERMON
PREACHED IN THE PARISH CHURCH, CHELTENHAM,
November 5th, 1842, '
BY THE REV. F. CLOSE, A.M.
HI
WITH CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS.

LONDON :
hatchard and son, Piccadilly; Hamilton, adams, and co.
Price 4d. or £1. per 100.

PREFACE.

The following Sermon is given to the public in a cheap form, principally with a view
to give wider circulation to doctrines which the Author still hopes only require to
be fully known in order to be generally repudiated. He cannot believe that Chris
tians in this land are as yet prepared to adopt tenets so anti-scriptural : — so dero
gatory not to inspiration merely but to the character of God Himself : — Who, if
these opinions can be established, (with reverence be it spoken) is charged with
causing a book to be written, professedly for the guidance of fallen man, — " a lamp
to his feet, and a light unto his paths" — which man is unable to understand or
decypher without the previous possession of qualifications with which no individual
is gifted, but which can be found only in the " Collective Church !"
The author is the more anxious that these fundamental principles, taught by the
leaders of this School — and forming the actual base on which all their errors are
built, should be widely known and appreciated, in order that persons unacquainted
with the controversy may be put on their guard.
These offensive principles may be ingeniously concealed, " covertly" introduced
by " hints and notices," decorated with the lively embellishments of fancy and
fiction — or they may be boldly and flatly denied, and the very opposite opinions
stated in words, afterwards to be attenuated, and refined away — but the readers of
all the multifarious publications of the Tractarian School may discover if they will
that the unsound and fearful tenets of the Leaders of this Crusade against Pro
testantism — which are here laid bare, form the very pith and marrow of the whole —
from the voluminous Oxford Tracts, down to the nursery tales, and novels, with
which other classes of readers are caught and bewildered.
The Author believing that these publications are most dangerous, as they are
most widely and industriously circulated, cannot but endeavour to expose their
noxious tendency : — and he can only now pray that it will please God to unveil
his truth to his people — to discover to them the sophistries of error aud superstition,
and to preserve to this land the precious legacy of Protestantism which our Fathers
purchased for us with their blood !
It should be added, that this Sermon not being taken down verbatim by a re
porter, the Author cannot affirm that it is exactly what he said in the pulpit — indeed
the matter has been considerably increased.

SERMON.

Mark via. 15.
" Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which
ye have delivered : and many such like things do ye."
The' services of the Church in which we have this day engaged, have
sufficiently pointed out the nature of the awful occurrence which we are
met to celebrate, and the devout feelings of gratitude which should rise
in our bosoms for the deliverance of our Church and State, our Monarchy,
and our Religion from the desperate ruin designed for them by wicked
men. The task which now naturally devolves on the Preacher is to ex
amine the principles whieh could' so pervert men's minds as to lead them
to contemplate such comprehensive destruction. What was it that occa
sioned this eonspiraey against our King, our Government, and our Rehgion ?
Every Protestant is ready with the answer — it was Popery I But this is
a comprehensive word, and denotes a combination of principles: it is- a
wideband turbid stream, rolling its foul waters along, and we must ascend
its banks, and trace it to the fountain whence it flows. We are then,
perhaps, directed to the middle ages — but still we find the stream of
superstition broad and deep. We must ascend still higher — we must
come now to the celebrated Nicene Age, to the third and fourth centuries,
and there I think we find the hidden fountain of all subsequent evils. It
was this — the corruption of the divine infallible rule of faith and practice —
{he substitution of Patristical tradition for the written tradition of God —
the Oral fetr the written word. Here is the germ of all subsequent error
— here is the very foundation of the whole superstructure of the super
stitions of the middle and subsequent ages — arid here alas is an awful
heresy even now revived1 in the bosom of our Enghsh Church.
This then, is our subject to-day — yielding in importance to none — ¦
What is the divine rule of faith and practice ? What am I to believe as
the will of Gfo<D, and where am I to find it ? In dependance' on the aid
of the Holy Spirit, I shall proceed to shew,
1, That Holy Sc^iPTiJKE is the only divine infallible
guide in ^aith and practice to us : — and then I shall
proceed to the painful but necessary task of proving,
' 2.' That this great Protestant truth has been treacher
ously AND- IMPIOUSLY INVADED BY CERTAIN MODERN
teachers in our own Church.
1. The divine rule of faith, or God's revelation of himself has varied
in different ages of the world. In the Patriarchal age, the Fathers walked

with God — they were taught by an oral law — God spake to them by
angelic visitants, or in dreams and visions — no written records of his will
existed. Under this dispensation the knowledge of God was nearly lost
upon earth. God therefore 'called Abraham <ra Syrian ready to perish,"
and deposited truth in him and in his seed — still orally — and by oral
tradition from Father to Son. Again the knowledge of God was
nearly extinguished upon earth,— for when God called Moses, the
Children of Abraham had forgotten even the very Name of Jehovah, and had
sunk deeply into the, abominable Idplatr^ies of Egypt. When delivered
out of that captivity, and gathered around the sacred mountain in the
desert, a new era occurred in the history of revelation. God himself,
amidst the most solemn and awful tokens, inscribed his will with his own
finger upon the miraculous tables of stone— and thus arose the first
Written Revelation. •.,'..
,From that moment to the -days of Ezra, the divine, the infallible-
rule of faith; was to the Israelite of a mixed nature: — there was the
written tradition gradually accumulating — first the five books of ;Mpses,
then, the subsequent histories, ps,alms-, prophecies— until the . canon was
closed by Ezra, . Bjit,* all . along this period there was comcidently an
Oral Law I A casual communipation of God's will by prophets and
holy men . -who. spoke, and ,- their, speech, was as holy, as authoritative and
Divine as their writings were. God's word spoken was as much His
word, as God's word written: ;but with this remarkable . difference^that
the, ope was traditionary, and the other, was -mt so. The, living, spoken
word was for, the men who, heard it — 'the. written word > was, for, succeeding
generations :< — we utterly deny. that then , or since,' or mow. there was any
unwritten, .divine tradition: ,,: tradition, which .simply means something
handed down, was always, a written tradition. No 'other was, ever recog
nized by God nor received a divine sanction. , ,
. This , then, was the rule of faith from Moses to Ezra— that holy and
inspired mail arranged the sacred books, and closed them, with his own.
And then another era in the history of revelation commenced. From that
time for four hundred years, until the, coming of Christ, the Old Testa
ment Scriptures were to the Jews the only, divine, infallible rule of faith
and practice. It is true, a school of traditionists, and Rabbinical talmudists,
exactly] the prototypes of the schoolmen of Rome,, and also of some in our
own Church, then arose; who. taught that, along with the written law,
God had communicated to the fathers an oral law, which they called
tradition — because they believed that it was handed down by unbroken
succession from father to father, and Rabbi to Rabbi, and that having
been originally spoken by God, it was of equal authority with his written
Word. This school was very prevalent in the time of our Lord. And
need I stop to prove how indignantly he rejected them and their glosses ?
Need I do more than point you to the text and context to' show you that
Our Master utterly repudiated the Jewish traditions as a divine Rule of
Faith and Practice.

" Howbeit in vain do theyworship me, teaching for doctrines the
commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God,
ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups : and many
other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject
the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition."
He then charged -them with subverting the fourth- commandment,
and added in the words of the) text — " Ye make the word of God of none
effect through your tradition,- which ye have delivered : and many tsuchi like
things do ye." ' • •, ; -¦,:',-,'',
But. the force of our Lord's teaching, .throughout his personal
ministry, proves more than the mere rejection of Jewish tradition — At
proves the Sole '.divine* authority of the then Scriptures. Who was He?
He was God manifest in the flesh ! He was Immanuel — God' with us.
He had all power,, wisdom, knowledge, and the fulness of the Spirit in
himself; andhe came to establish, a new .dispensation:4 — he might; if he
had so willed, have exploded the' written, as he did the Oral: tradition.
He needed no helper ^-no testimony, .but his own miracles and teaohing.
But did he do so? Far otherwise — he rested the proof of his-Messiahship,
his divine mission, his mysterious nature, and all the doctrines which he
taught, upon the authority of the written. Word of God : — " Search the
scriptures," said he "for they are they which testify of me.'!, TO them
he sent all cavillers, all opposers. " What is written, how deadest thou ?¦"
This was his uniform language- — even when he contended hand to hand
with- Satan himself, Orainipotence clothed itself rih the written word of
God, and said— *-"it is written again, it is written again!'!" Thus he
honoured the only Standard of Truth, God's written Word.*
; The divinely commissioned Apostles followed in the same track.
Aimed though they were with miraculous powers — gifted with tongues, able
to give 'hfe to the dead, or to take life away; they too grounded every
appeal to- their hearers, whether Jews or Gentiles, upon the written' word
of God — they claimed only to be fulfillers and expounders of that word—
they -never- condescended- to notice Jewish traditionsTT-but bowed : toi the
Scriptures of Gob as infallible ; truth-^highly praising those who fSeatrohed
them.-): It is even more wonderful to reflect that when the Lord the
Spirit' himself descended copiously on the Church on the day of Pentecost,
this great event was vindicated, and justified by reference to the Prophetic
Scriptures. J The Holy Ghost was 'guided by his own divinely created
rules and prophecies. Such then- was the state of things at the Opening
of the Gospel dispensation — with all its new powers, ordinances, revela-

* See the following passages : Mark xi. 17. with John ii. 17. Luke xviii. 31.
Luke x. 26. Luke xxii. 37. John xv. 25. Math. ii. 5. and xi. 10. and xxvi. 24.
Markix. 12. &c. &c.
t See among innumerable other instances the following: Acts i. 16. iii. 22-24.
iv. 25-28. vii. 52. viii. 53. x. 43. xiii 23. and 32. 33. xv. 16-18. xvii. II. &c. &c.
t Acts ii. 1. and Joel ii. 28. Isaiah xliv. 3. Ezekiel xi. 19. Zachariah xii. 10. ,

s
tions ; abolishing oral tradition — it based its claim upon the! only divine
tradition, the written Word .of God.
But again a new era breaks upon the Church. The Apostles of
Christ claim to be inspired teachers and infallible guides. The rule of
faith again becomes to the men of that generation, of a complex character,
as under the former part of the Mosaic economy: — -there was God's word
spoken, and God's mord written — the oral and the written -word : — the
living, inspired interpreter, and the Old Testament, together making up
the divine rule of faith to them ! Let it be fully admitted that the
Apostles were as much inspired in what .they spoke, as in what they wrote
— it was alike the word of God. And, doubtless, they said and taught
much which has not come down to us, much that we should have been
delighted' to hear* -This was to them )OrM i tradition — that is, truth
•divine, delivered by word of mouth. But we shall affirm that that -paxt of
truth has not come down to us. For now we come to the important fact
that these divinely inspired and infallible teachers began themselves to
write — -and certainly within ten years from the death of Christ, the Gospel
of St. Matthew was written — not to reveal new truths, but to give per- ,
manency to those already known and orally delivered. And most impor
tant it is for us to remember in this battle with traditionists, that at least
three-fourths of the entire New Testament were written, and were in
general circulation among the Churches during the life-time of the writers
— no dispute could then arise as to the inspiration of those books — no*
could it be necessary for any church to test them by tradition — or by that
ecclesiastical figment — " the regula fldei," oral rules of faith supposed to
have been committed to each church by the Apostles, — because they had
but to ascertain what was then as easy to know, as whether any book of
a living author of the present day was written by him or not — -they had
but to discover that the writings -weie genuine and authentic, .for then their
Inspiration followed of necessity, because they were written by inspired
men. This was the test recognized in the Church even in subsequent
times ; as appears from Tertullian's controversy ^against Marokm-^-if he
could show that his Gospel was written by the Apostles, or under the
sanction of an Apostle, as St. Luke's Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles
were— then the Church would receive it as divine. So that the mode of
estabhshing the canonicity of Scripture contended for by our adversaries
is aJttogeliher fabulous. Most of the books were received first by itiie
"Churches to which they Were addressed, then by other Churches, and rso

* There is a striking reference to this point at the close of St. John's Gospel : where
it is stated respecting the actions pf our blessed Lord "that he did many other signs
which are npt written in this book :" (J,ohn xx. 30. 31.) but no intimation is here given,
nor' in the subsequent parallel passage (xxi. 25.) that either his unrecorded deeds or
sayings should be handed down by any other means! So far from it,' there is the
strongest possible affirmation that the written mord is sufficient for all purposes of faith
and salvation r. f but these are written that ye might believe that Jesup is the Christ the
Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name." If the written
word is sufficient for faith andMfe, for what-do we want an unwritten word 1

on-~and the decrees of the first Councils upon the canon pf Scripture were
not the result of sifting the evidence of the inspiration of fee bopks, but
just deciding the fact of their genuineness and authenticity. , I , am npt
now speaking of the redundant evidence of the divine inspiration of Gods
Holy word, as maintained by Protestant writers — not of its miraqlpsp-rits
fulfilled prophecies, and internal evidences — but I am endeavouring to
show how we learn from ancient History that the New Testament came
gradually to be received as divine in the Church-
, Now it is here — at this period in the history of ; the Christian
revelation, that the desperate and soul-destroying heresy of ,an oral
Tradition crosses our path. There thpn arose men in the Church Who
ta-ught,^-(and there has been an evil succession pf thern ever since,
alas ! unto our own times)^-that there was in addition tp. the written
word an oral, divine, and inspired unwritten word communicated to ,thp
Apostles — that -that wprd, which they term traditipn — or "• Catholff
consent," has been preserved in the Church, and can be appertained byjus
through "the precious relics of antiquity," viz. the Fa^ers-r^or, greeds,
or councils of the Church — that this unwritten tradition is, at leagt.qf
equal authority with the written word; judging froni ¦tyie writings, feefprp
us, I should say, superior,— for if by tradition alone we can knpw what is
Scripture — and by traditipn interpreting, we can alone understand if,
then the test must be greater than the thing tested, and therefore tradition
is greater than Scripture ! These doctrines, which are identical with t/iase
of the Church of Home, have been taught by certain divines in our own
church within these few years— doctrines which I believe to be equally
ppppsed to the word of God and to our Protestant Church, and utterly
subversive of that faith for which our Protestant Martyrs bled and djeif-
I must therefore boldly and utterly denounce them.
2. I shall now proceed in detail to establish these heavy charges
against men who have signed our Thirty-nine Articles ; and in dping so, I
shall: avail myself pf the .admirable condensation of their errors as given in
thattruly learned and faithful work which ought to be on the shelf of every
Protestant's library, " Goods 's Divine Rule of Faith and Practice." And
in doing so, I know enough of the writers of this school to make it
nepessary for me to affirm that I have read the original works and many
cithers 0f the same character, but that in the midst of accumulating
duties it would have been impossible for me to make go able, a digest of
their errors as is here furnished by my excellent friend and brother. I
further premise that my extracts will be from only twp of their leading
writers, and from the unbridled and daring assertions of Tract 85. Let
us then examine their, opinions on the relatiy<8 authority pf itjie lepfflefi
wbrd**-*aji<i the wmritten oral tradition. In. estaWishing thek . Traditional
theory they pursue the same course as their Roman predecessors — and to
show the necessity of Tradition— they attempt tb disparage the Holy
Scriptures. But being members of a Church whose articles were written
to oppose these very theories, it is necessary to appear at least to hokl
the Protestant doctrine of the sufficiency of Holy Scripture, according to

10
the VI. Article. Hence we notice ab initio one" lamentable practice
with these writers — they will lay down a rule or thesis in Protestant
language— and in such terms that an unwary Christian will be at once
led to commit himself to their guidance— and then whole pages will be
devoted to the nullification of the admitted axiom. It is painful to notice
such unworthy tactics, but simple-minded Protestants must be put on
their guard :— if even in the following extracts this charge, is not sub
stantiated, in the judgment of any indifferent by-stander, I shall be happy
to withdraw it; but I honestly believe it to be more than borne out even
by the three witnesses whom I here produce, and amplification would
be easy if my quotations took a wider range.* Thus one who is esteemed
the chief authority in this School of Divines writes as follows on scripture and
tradition, and their mutual position with each other.f He first states
broadly that scripture contains " all things necessary to salvation" — " the
saving faith :" — what need we more, exclaims the honest Protestant ?
Here is the very principle maintained by the Established Church ! But
read on, and, in page 369, we are told that the same book is not " the
only ground of the faith'' -r-nor " the source of all religious truth ivhatever."
(p. 370.) But there is another "ground, of the faith," and that is
" Tradition!" And these two, "the Bible and Catholic tradition," make
up " a joint rule" i. e. of faith ! (page 327.) And then, according to my
judgment, this writer places the evidence of the genuineness, authenticity,
and authority of " Tradition" — (collected as it must be, out of the huge

* In Dr. Hook's Sermon entitled the " Novelties of Romanism," precisely the same
mode of argument is pursued. He first lays down this Protestant, this scriptural canon
at the opening of his discourse. " Let me state, in a few words, what- their" (that is
his own) " principle is. In all questions of doctrine and practice which may arise
in the Christian Church they fully admit that the first and last appeal lies to Holy
Scripture. To the Law and to the Testimony ; if they speak %iot according to this
word, it is because there is no light in them. And where both parties agree in their
interpretation of the words of Scripture, this appeal will bring all controversies to the
most satisfactory determination. The private Christian, looking into this true mirror,
discovers the blemishes and defects in his own conduct ; and the Church puts on her
ornaments, and is sanctified and cleansed by the Word." But from that line forward,
his whole argument goes to show that so far from scripture being a sufficient ground
of appeal even in controversies of faith, if there is ho further appeal questions can never
be decided. " But a little observation will convince us that the controversies which
arise in the Church can seldom be decided by this appeal. The records of past ages
prove this, and daily experience shews it. Each party in a dispute claims Scripture
for its own side, and, as the sense of Scripture, it zealously maintains its own interpre
tation. If there be, then, no further appeal, the question can never be decided.
There is, therefore, another test, which, in the opinion of those I am defending; Scrip
ture itself allows and sanctions, — the testimony of the. Church from the beginning.
And to this test St. Paul, in our text, sets us an example of making an appeal. , Wie
have no such custom, neither the Churches of God.".-T-The Holy Apostle would have
been rather surprised to find his oral instructions thus applied to " Customs" and
" Churches" arising 1700 years after he was dead, and of which he knew nothing !
t Mr. Newman's Lectures on Romanism, and Popular Protestantism. N.B. Neither
the name of this author, nor pf Mr. Keble, was mentioned in the discourse when
preached.

11
folios of patristic" discussion) on the same level with those of Holy
Scripture itself, for he' says^ '
" We have as little warrant for rejecting ' antient consent' (that is ' tradition' — ¦
'the unwritten word,' Sec.) as for rejecting Scripture.' itself.'" (p. 325.) ,
Can this divine seriously think so? Is he as sure that he' can
collect "Antient Consent,''1 from the ponderous and incoherent materials
whence it must be culled, as that he possesses God's holy word when he
holds the Bible in his hand ? Here is the first step towards overthrowing
the evidence that the Bible is the word of God — for if his position be true
and "catholic ^consent" has as sure a claim upon us as' the holy scriptures have
— and as in the judgment, 1 hope of the majority of Protestants, " catholic
consent" is based upon most frail and doubtful evidence — then the
Scriptures have no better foundation to ibe received as the word of God !
But this author proceeds further to define the nature of his " Catholic
Consent" and the weight to be attached to it.
"Catholic tradition" Is "a divine informant in religious matters," (p:229.)
" The unwritten word," (p. 355.) This unwritten word is " antient consent," (p. 325)
often spoken of under the name of " antiquity." " We agree'" says the writer, " with
the Romanist in appealing to antiquity as our "great teacher," (p. 47.)
" Both Romanists and ourselves maintain as follows : — that whatever doctrine the
primitive ages unanimously attest, whether by consent of Fathers, or by councils, or. by
controversies, or in whatever way, —whatever maiy fairly and reaspnably be considered
to be the universal belief of those ages, is to be received as coming from the apostles."
(p. 62,- see also pp. 297-9.) ,
Will Protestants so easily agree with the Romanists and Tractarians
on this point ? We believe the holy writings of the Apostles are the only
certain traditions which can. be. traced to them.
But in order to establish the Canon of an unwritten word this author
proceeds, still in company with his Roman confederates, to make all the
evidence of the inspiration of Scripture itself to rest upon tradition ; ,
" How do we know that Scripture comes from God? It cannot be denied" (but
we deny it in toto) "that we of this age receive upon general tradition both the bible
itself, and the doctrine that it is divinely inspired." (p. 42.) " The sacred volume itself
as well as the doctrine of its inspiration comes to us by traditional conveyance,"
(p. 44-5!)
.If by tradition these writers' meant only the historical facts handed down
•to. us by the- Church in successive ages, even then, this could be admitted
only as one portion and hot a large one of the evidence in favour of
scripture:. — but it must ever. be. remembered that they mean by tradition
an oral communication from the Apostles themselves-4— and ' therefore
inspired — and preserved without loss5 to its inspired character some how,
or somewhere in the Church or by the Church. The very existence of
such a tradition we repudiate— and consequently deny that Scripture rests
on so baseless a foundation.
But still pursuing, the downward course of Roman Controversialists—
this divine of the Anglican Church proceeds to establish the Authority of
his Tradition not ohly as the chief witness to the canon of scripture — but

f f

12
as the Interpreter by which alone we pan understand it ! And this he
attempts to do by raising the old popish libels of the obscurity and insufficiency
of Gob's Holy Word.
" The need of tradition arises only from the obscurity pf Scripture, and is
terminated with the interpretation pf it." (p. 384.) " Scripture dees npt interpret
itself, or answer objections to misrepresentation. We must betake purselves to the
early church and see how they understood it." " "ScRiF-TyRE was never intended
TO TEACH DOCTRINE TO THE MANY."
Hear this, Protestant Britain ! Withdraw the Bible from the poor,
the illiterate, the people, the many — it was never intended to teach
doctrine to them! Ayhen there was only the Old Testament, in the
dark age of St. Paul, " All scripture was profitable for doctrine" —
" that the man of God" — whether poor or rich — learned or unlearned— ,-
"might be thoroughly furnished unto all good works;" but now, the
greater " obscurities" of the New Testament have been added to it,
forsooth it has lost its power— and without the traditions of the antients,
and the comments of the learned, it cannot teach doctrine to the many !
Would to God it had taught better doctrine than this to some of the
learned schoolmen— and then none among them could have penned, the
following fearful confession ! —
" I would not deny as an abstract proposition that a christian may gain the whole
truth from the Scriptures, but would maintain the chances are very seriously
against a given individual I would not deny, but rather maintain, that a
religious, wise, and intellectually gifted man will succeed : but who answers to this
description but the collective ch,ubch ?" (pp. 189-90.)
¦ Here is a sample of that kind of reasoning with which I hare
solemnly charged these sophistical writers . Here the author seems first to
admit that "A Christian" may gain the whole truth from scripture — but
the chances are against him ! ! The only possible chance in his favour would
be that he was previously — " a religious — wise — and intellectually gifted
man" — ;so we are not to come to the word of God to get our religion, our
wisdom, and our gifts there — but if we are first religious, wise, and talented
' then there is a chance in our favour ! No ! there is not, says the writer —
even then — there is not ! and why ? because no such person was ever found
— no one answers to it but " the Collective Church !" so after first
admitting his "abstract proposition" — he completely denies it-^-utterty
denies that any individual in the world [can make out truth from Scripture!
It is only the " Collective Church" who can do it— -merge your individuality
in the Church— -and then you will become wise unto Salvation-! -
If this is not the very essential doctrine of Romanism, I do not know
what is ! We dp not wonder after this thatour author affirms, although it
is absolutely destitute' of proof—" that acute men among the ultra Pro
testants have discovered that the very elementary principle which they have
adopted of the Bible without note or comment, being the Sole authorita
tive Judge in controversies of faith, is a self-destructive principle !"
(p. 35.) This is as much a figment as Tradition: and until I learn who
these acute Protestants are who have surrendered the great Protestant

13
principle, I, shall only conceive that this is the author's way of stating his
own opinion- The rule is certainly destructive of his traditions. Well
may such a Waiter add "Scripture is but the document of appeal,"
"Catholic Tradition is the Acksomtatiye teacher of ChritatiansF'
(p. 343.) then neither am I a Christian, nor are thousands ; of gppd
Prote.stants, Christians, — for we deny such an authoritative . teacher, with
indignation! But what shall we say to the still more fearful assertion that *¦' the
Catholic doctrines of the Trinity, Incarnation, and others similar
to them, are the true interpretations of the notices contained in scripture
pf those doctrines respectively." (p. 153.) What1, is there only a
notice of "the Incarnation'' of ^hrist in Holy Scripture, requiring
the interpretation of tradition for. us to make it out of this obscure book ?
Christians may well tremble when such frightful positions' as these ' a"re
taken by one Of the teachers of our church. But no wonder, for this author
adds—-" the Bfble does not carry with it its own interpretation." " Tradition is
partly the interpretation, and partly the supplement of scripture.',' Those
who understand the meaning of the word supplement will fee! that the
¦writer here falls under the charge of '* adding to God's word." May the
consequences of so idoing be averted from him ! He furnishes us with a
supplementary Gospel— that is Tradition — and this because . Christ's
Gospel is obscure, and not intended "to teach doctrine"—" to the many"
— or, as we have proved,— " to any mdividuai''--Thut only to the Church
Catholic !
Let it be rernemhered, that, all these are the positions not of an
erratic disciple, or young enthusiast of this school, but of one of the most
cautiOus, acute, and ingenious leaders of this class of divines. We shall
find that others have proceeded much further;
But, if we turn to another distinguished writer of this school, we
shall find an agreement with the former.* He declares those persons to
be in error " who reject the notion of a rule of faith made up of seripture
and tradition together." (p. '82.) He denies that scripture contains the
whole " orthodox faith"— but rather " the whole orthodox faith includes
the written word," and consists of " the whole creed of the Apostolic
Church as guaranteed to Us by Holy Scripture, and by consent of pure
antiquity." ' Let PrPtestants mark that — the Bible does not contain ¦*' the
orthodox faith," — but the Bible is itself contained by it! '.'The 'less
contains the greater! The Apostle's Creed and '.tradition are the, stan
dards, andyou are fortunate if you find the Bible a part of yojai ereed ! —
But tire author continues— -
" Tradition" lis the record pf that,/' oral teaching" which the "Holy Ghost
inspired." '(p. 24.)
" Precious apostolical relics." (p. 42.) • .
" Not a few fragrnefnts yet remain, very precious! and sacred fragments, of the
-unwritten deacMngvf ^theyftrat a,ge of the Church." ,(p. 82.)
Church tradition is " practically infallible." (v. 142.)
1 ' ;' * Mr. Keble.

1-4
The former author denies this : he says " the Church is not infallible"—
but he affirms that "she can make no mistake!" What wretched sophisms
— and distinctions without a difference ! How unlike plain, honest,
Protestant truth ! Tradition is further exalted by this writer to a level
with Scripture itself! ¦
"If we will be impartial we cannot hide it from ourselves, that God's unwritten
word, if it can be any how authenticated must necessarily demand the same reverence
from us, and for exactly the same reason, because it is his word." (p. 26.)
But this is just the point at issue between us : if we could be sure
that there was such a thing as "Gop's unwritten word" — and.it could be
" authenticated" " any how," we should humbly receive it : but in the
absence of anything like proof of this, we deny that'tradition is God's
unwritten word. Meanwhile let it be observed that this author does look
upon Tradition in this light, and therefore that he reverences tradition
equally with, the written word.
But he next affirms that this Oral tradition was the authoritative test
by which, the inspired writings of the Apostles were tested.
" As long as the canon of the New Testament was incomplete, the unwritten
system served as a test even for the Apostles' own writings" " Appstolical tradition was
divinely appointed in the Church as the touchstone of canonical Scripture itself."
(pp. 26, 27.)
" Tlie very writings of the Apostles were to be first tried by it before they could be
incorporated into the canon." (p. 28.)
"What groundless assertions , are these ! Where, how, and when was
"Apostolical tradition divinely, appointed in the Church," for such a
purpose ? And why should the genuineness even of the later epistles be
tried by this uncertain touchstone— a perbal tradition— rather than by the
entire Old Testament, and the already received portions of the new ? The
object is to exact the oral and to degrade the written tradition ! The
balance between them in the eyes of this divine is very equal; for he says
that "between the traditional and written relics of the Apostles" there is
this difference, "that in the former the things only, in the latter. the very
words. are holy /" ;
Like the, fprmer author he contends for the obscurities of Scripture,
and seems in the following passage to .state that they were purposely so
ordered, by God himself: —
" If so it had pleased Almighty God the Scriptures might halve been all clear
of themselves; ........ Men may gp on imagining the advantages pf such a
dispensatien until they have persuaded themselves that things are really so
ordered." (p. 88.)
To suppose that the scriptures are all clear of themselves,, is therefore an
imagination — and to affirm that " the Bible can be understood without
traditional aid" is an " objectionable statement." (p. 88.)
But Scripture is not only obscure, but deficient — and there must be a
supplement as the former author taught !
" Tradition" reveals truths " not contained in Scripture."

15
"The paramount authority, for example,, of the successors of trie Apostles in
Church government ; the three-fold order established from the beginning ; , the virtue
pf the blessed Eucharist as a commemorative sacrifice ; infant,baptism ; the catho
lic doctrine of the most holy trinity as contained In "the' Nicene Creed ; all
these, however surely confirmed from Scripture; are yet ascertainable parts of the
primitive unwritten system of which we yet enjoy the benefit." (pp. 3i', 32.)
Upon this bold statement I would only say that if the Doctrine of the
Trinity as taught in the Nicene Creed is not 'found in Scripture, I ani not
bound to believe it, nor do I believe it because it is in a creed, but because
I am satisfied it is in Holy Scripture ! It would clear up the subject very
much if these authors would give us a plain and intelligible description of
" the primitive un-written system," to which they appear to think we are so
deeply indebted.
But a writer of a bolder stamp must be cited— one whp dares tp
draw an illustration of Holy Scripture, for which an itinerant preacher of
infidelity might be brought before the civil power-.— the author of Tract
85 ; — a, tract which I hesitate not to call a blashemous production against
God's Word !
" The Gospel doctrine or message" is but " indirectly and covertly
recorded in Scripture under the surface."
" Scripture is not one book — it is as if you were to seize the papers, or the corres
pondence of leading men in any school of philosophy or science which were never
designed for publication, and bring them out in one volume. You would find probably
in' the collection so resulting, many papers begun, >and nat finished — some papers
systematic and didactic, but the greater part made up of hints or of notices, which
assumed first principles instead pf asserting itlieni— or of discussions on particular
points which happened to require his attention. I say the doctrines, the first princi
ples, the rules; the objects, of the school would be taken for granted alluded toi implied,
not stated. You would have some trouble to get at them; you would have many
repetitions, many hiatuses, many things which looked like contradictions ;, you would
have to work your way through heterogeneous materials, and after ypur best efforts
there would be much hopelessly obscure; or, on the other hand, you might look in
vain in such a casual collection, for some particular opinions which the writers were
known nevertheless to have held, nay, to have insisted on. Stjch, I conceive, with
limitations presently to be noticed, is the structure of the Bible!"
There are "limitations." There is an article of Our Church upon this subject.
We are therefore told that " at least as regards matters of faith. Scripture does
contain all that is necessary for salvation ; it has been over-ruled to do so by Him
who has inspired it." (p. 32.)
" This antecedent improbability" (i. e. of Scripture containing the faith) " tells
even in the case of the doctrines ef faith as far as this, that it reconciles us to the
necessity of gaining them indirectly from Scripture, for it is A near thing (if I may
sp speak) that they are in scrieture at all; the wonder is that they
are ALL there ; humanly judging, they would not be there but fpr Gpd's
interposition; and therefore since they are there by a sort of' accident, it is
not strange they shall be but latent there, and only indirectly producible thence."
(pp. 32-4.)
I should hope such language as this has never been sounded within these
walls since Popery was expelled from them— if then ! Shall such libels
be uttered against the Word of the living God, and shall not the indig
nant voice of Protestant Britain put them down ? Shall this ' miserable
man venture to call the Soriptures a heterogeneous mass of old manuscripts

16
never intended to be published? But I will only say Gorr deliver us
from such wickedness,—" my soul come not into their secret ! "
The identity of Romanism with the tenets thus exemplified, will be'
evident from the following quotation from its distinguished advocate
Bellarmine :-— though his language reads mild, and almost. Protestant
after the former : —
" We assert that there is npt contained in the Scripture in express terms the whole
necessary doctrine, either concerning faith or concerning manners ; and, therefore, that
beyond the -written word of God, there is', the divine and' apostolical traditions."
" Scripture is very often anabigupus and obscure, so that unless it be interpreted
by some one who cannot err, it cannot be understood, therefore it is not sufficient alone.
It is to be pbsei'ved that there axe two things in Scripture, the written words and the
meaning contained in them. Of these two, the first is possessed by all. The second
is not possessed by all, nor can we in many places be certain of the seednd, but by the
addition of traditipn."
Now we meet these Popish and- Tractarian theories by a direct
negative — we utterly deny the existence of any such divine rule of faith
as the unwritten tradition — we affirm that such a rule was unknown to the
most ancient fathers— that the Word was never used by them in the sense
now attributed to it — and that the tradition spoken of by them was the
written tradition — the sacred Scriptures ! This is proved to demonstration
by Mr. Goode, (page 66— 76.) Whence It comes out that " Evangehcal
tradition," means the Gospels, and " the.. Apostolic tradition,", the Epistles !
Various of the Fathers are quoted, tojshow that they so used these terms;
— although Athanasius is quoted by the Tractators, as if he authorized
" Patristic tradition" —or the oral tradition handed down by '• the1 Fathers-
i-- when he actually intended tp refer to the writings of the Apostles, the
Apostolic written tradition ! — The testimony pf Cyprian on this point
appears to be final :
Cyprian says " Whence is that traditipn T Does it. descend from Dominical and
Evangelical authority, or does it come from the commands and epistles of the Apostles?
For God testifies that those things are to be done which are WRITTEN. If, therefore,
either it is commanded in the Gospel, or is contained in the Epistles or Acts of the
Apostles  let that divine and holy tradition be observed  if in
anything the truth has not been steadily maintained, let us return to the Dominical
original and the Evangelical and Apostolical tradition." (Ad originem
Dominicam et Evangelicam et Apostolicam traditionem revertainur.) Epist. 74'. ad.
Pomp. And what is still more conclusive, if possible, we find Jerome, when
translating a passage of Polycrates, translating the words to evanggelion —
the Gospel, (referring . to Scripture,) by " evangelica traditio," the Evan
gehcal tradition., .
It is not a little remarkable, that this rule of Catholic consent, or
unwritten and " all but infallible tradition," fails them upon the most vital
question. If there were any one point on which such consent can be
proved, it would be with respect to the sacred canon of Scripture itself.
How subversive" then of all their plausible and tangled theory is> the fact
that their rule of faith, or Catholic consent, determined, in the fourth
century* that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not inspired /—We may

17
confidently ask the disciples of this school therefore, upon what authority
they receive this Epistle as canonical ? Will the determination of the-
Church in a subsequent — and according to them— more corrupt age, set
aside the decree of the earlier Church? Is their rule of faith,, and their
faith itself, so pliant that they can thus humbly follow^ their varying'
mistress in her " all but infallible" decisions ?
It is pleasant to turn from such writers to some of those whom they
claim as sanctioning them, but who thus distinctly decide against them.,
Thus Athanasius, quoted by the Protestant Stillingfleet ; — . ,
Bishop Stillingfleet in his work on " the Grounds 6f Protestant Religion," Says,.
" Wise men though they think it highly improbable that there should be antiquity,.
Universality and consent against the true and genuine Sense Pf Scripture, yet when they
consider this way of Vincentius, with all those restrictions, cautious and limitations
set down by him, (1. 1. c. 39,) *they are apt to think that he hath put
men Tp a wild-goose chase to find out any-thinG according to his
rules ; and that St. Augustine spake a great deal more to the purpose when he spake
concerning all the writers of the Church 'that although they had never so much
learning and sanctity he did not think it true because they thought so, but because
they persuaded him to believe it true either from the authority of Scripture
or some probable reason." (p. 279. ed. 1665.)
We may well conclude this part of our subject by addressing the
Tractarians in the words of Dean Sherlock — intended for the Papists, but
most strictly applicable to our opponents : —
t " We dp not," says Dean Sherlock, " charge them with denying in express-
words the authprity of the Scripture to be a rule, but with saying that which, is
equivalent to it, — That the sense of it is so various and uncertain, that no man can he
sure of the true meaning pf it, in the most necessary and fundamental articles of the
Faith, but by the interpretation and authority of the Church, which does effectually
divest it of the authority pf a rule, for that is my rule which can and must direct me ;.
which, it seems, is not the Scripture considered in itself, but as interpreted by the
authority of the Church which makes the faith and interpretation of the
Church, not the Scripture, my immediate rule."
And now do any yet ask, why are you so anxious upon this subject,
so vehement in your denunciation of a class of writers who have received
mpre gentle treatment at the hands of some excellent and distinguished
Divines ? I answer^si— because I have proved that they dishonour and
impugn the supremacy, the glory and sufficiency of God's holy word : and
I am very zealous for the Lord God of Hosts, and for his eternal word,
which he honours above all his name.
I answer again — that I condemn and denounce these writings not
because they tend to Popery, but because they actually are so ! It is
now matter of sufficient proof that upon the great fundamental doctrine
of .traditional authority, their views are identical with those of Rpme —
they differ from her not at all in their definition of the rule of faith, but
only in its application to some particular tenets. I am a Protestant, and
these writings are papistical, and therefore I cannot but protest against
them according to my ordination vows.

Tlie former part, of this sentence was not quoted in the pulpit.
t (A Papist not misrepresented. See p. 19.)

18
But I thirdly, thus warn, you against them because their doctrine of
tradition once admitted, there is no error, no superstition, ho folly, which
may not be palmed upon us. From this fruitful source the Church of
Rome draws all her pestiferous and soul-destroying errors— she cannot
find them in Holy Scripture — nor can the Tractarians find theirs in that book
— they tacitly admit this for they add a supplementary Gospel. Who then is
to decide if this rule be once admitted, what is Catholic consent, and what is
not : if, as we have seen,, no " individual" is sufficiently wise to understand
God's book without another divine teacher,— who shall -unravel , the
mysteries contained in the Patristic folios,? For instance— ,T Justin Martyr,
Clemens Alexdrinus, Tertullian and others, taught (with reverence we
would even, repeat it) that the sacred person of our Lord was deformed! !
Are we to believe this? Was this ' established by Catholic consent?
How rnany Fathers go .to make up your " all' but infallible rule?" or
must we receive the more Catholic consent of . a subsequent age, which
painted the person of the Saviour as eminently beautiful, carved the image
of his ' body^ and put it on a cross, and bowed down and worshipped' it ?
Was this Catholic tradition ? or which are we to chose ? We say not
these things to depreciate the Fathers— we admit their due importance and
authority — we believe that amidst .much that was the result, of a super-
stitous age there is to be found iii their writings the evangelical- truth—
their testimony on many points- is. iitvaluable; but when meri magnify
their testimony, and make it the channel of an unwritten word, which is
to be rejected on peril of being charged with infidelity, we must1 strip
these Fathers of honours which God . never conferred upon them, and.
shew them to be ., but men— -uninspired men. ...•.,
But I' have yet a, fourth reason— -the most painful of all; why I must
to my latest breath and at all hazards denounce the writers' of this school;
it is this— because they bring us to' (he very brink of Infidelity itself! I
mean not simply that as the Papists, so they, by striking away ,the only
real foundations of faith, and substituting surreptitious ones, and by
adding to the matter of faith things not required of God to be believed
by us, do tend to lead men to scepticism— the step between believing too
much, and believing nothing, being <m easy and natural one — but I mean
that these writers themselves by reasoning which might make an angel
weep, do cast us upon the quicksands of universal doubt ! This shall :be
their own showing also :
"We for our part," says the leading Tractator first quoted, " have been taught to
consider that faith in its degree as well as conduct must be guided by probabilities, and
that doubt is ever our portion in this life. We can bear to confess that, pther systems
have their unanswerable arguments in, matters ef detail, and that we are but striking
a balance between difficulties existing en both sides— that we are fpllowing as the
voice pf God what pn the whple we have reaspn to think such." (p. 129.)
So this is all that the written and unwritten word together can do for us
—the joint rule of faith ! We must strike a balance of probabilities—
and follow, after all. our own " reason"— that way, which on the whole
seems most like the voice of God ! Nay worse than this—

10
¦ "According to English4* (we' deny ii^Affmishj(<>piiii6ipl^,fa.iilihiLS all ifcneerls in
knpwihg that God is our Crefitor arid Preserver, arid that he may;- if , it s6 hafpe-ji,'
Have spoken i C . .: Doubt may ever hejsaid, to :be implied 'in-, a Christian's faith;",
(p.ios.) , ..,;. ..-,.. ,.„ ;-. • .,, ¦¦;; , ; ;
It is then a 'eharice whether he has spoken at all! And doubt is an
essential element of a Christian's faith ! Yes, says the latter witness —
'¦•fir Ur ¦ ¦> L)/ .,- ' -•''.;!-. --r.IlT ',.;- , .; . • ,- , <
." ^Yjijence, complete, in all its parts leaves no rpftnl' for faith." (P. 82.) And to
put an end to all douht as to tne doctrine they h'pld on this- subject the former authority
Openly telhnra that, " tottccepli BeVelatiofi at all ! we havebutPROiEABiLiTY to show
AT MOST^NAY,TOfiEMKVE' IBT THE; EXISTENCE PF AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR."
(P. 69.) Oh fe&riul quicksands of uncertainty, and doubt on which tradition
shelves Us ! We have ho surer moral evidence even for the very
existence of ,£, Creator- "than probability at Most !" and one profane
calculator reduces this probability to a fractional nicety and; declares the'
odds in favour: of revelation are as. 3 to ,2! Ecclesiastical gamesters !---,
(Tract 85. page 113.)— they had rather reduce the evidences] of: revealed
religion and even the existence of a God to a " probability at most" than
resign their fictitious standard of Tradition— upon which all • other
religious fictions are suspended!;. , , , , /
And must we not tremble, when such doctrines as these are. tirculated-
with zeal and assiduity worthy of a better cause,?. "This leaven , is fast
leavening the whole lump"— circulated through every channel—in baby
tales for the young— 4n bewitching stories, novels: and. romanoes—tricked
out in fiction— >- vituperated in anonymous Reviews and periodicals-^
mystified in university lectures, the noxious heresy concealed and " covertly
conveyed," " by hints and Notices" — the poison is diffused. in the court, the
camp, the- bar, the social circle and the news-sroom— and .unless some
antidote be apphed where will it be restrained ? Those who think God
himself has communicated his' will toman by bints and notices— in a: book
out of which it is difficult to ¦ -extract: a meaning— will not scjuple tp
circulate their opinions by the same means — and hence it is necessary to
warn men not to be deceived by a strong admixture of truth— by jpjausible
and J cautious statements— -but . to, believe that the awful ..doctrines now
exposed ,areJhid "covertly" in these publications— rand ,that;they are
nothing^ but the ancient leaven of the iScribes and Pharisees-T-tp i whom our
Loeb addressed' the words sof our text:— t': Ye; make the word of God of
none effect by :youri tradition which ye have delivered. And many such
like things' do ye ! " ,, , ;;,,.¦
Brethren beloved4— cleave to the Holy, Scriptures,-— the most holy'
word df God, as the Only . divine . infallible ...rule .of,, faith arjjd practice.
Believe the accumulating evidence of,, their, inspiration,— oiF which the
testimony of the Ancient Church is only a part — lay hold especially of
one evidence of their divine original, which, alas ! I look for almost in vain
in the writings, on which I am anhhadVerting — I mean the internal power of
God's wprd — the secret energy of truth — accompanied by the sufficient
teaching, of the: jHoly: Spirit, We , admit, .that., .there^js ,muGh in Holy

20
Scripture difficult to be understood — that there are depths unfathomable
by mere human reason — we do indeed need some infallible teacher to
help and guide us ! But whom shall we choose? The traditional
figment of the " unwritten word" — or shall we seek God's Holy- Spirit
as David sought it, "Lord open thouinine eyes, that I may see wonder
ful-things out of thy word." ., ¦ } -. .'. '.,'.'.;, _,j :.
Blessed be God, here is the infallible teacher jirornised to all that
seek him — one to whom a High Church writer posits so powerfully, that
I cannot help adducing his testimony — a truly spiritual one— I mean
Archbishop Laud himself, whom the Tractarians profess to follow : —
" The credit of Scripture to be driven, resolves, finally, into that faith which we
have touching God himself, and in the same order. For as that, so this hath three
main grounds te which all others -are reducible. The first is, the tradition of the
Church ; and this leads us to a reverend persuasion pf it. The second is, the light
op nature .... The third is the light op the text itself, in conversing
wherewith we meet with the feplRiT op God, inwardly inclinino our
HEARTS, AND SEALING THE PULL ASBURANCE OP THE SUFFICIENCY OF ALL
THREE UNTO US. And THEN, and NOT BEFORE, WE ARE CERTAIN, THAT THB
Scripture is the Word of God,, both by divine and by infallible
proof." (Reply to Fisher, p. 74.)
A beautiful, a magnificent idea! In. our lonely, individual converse
with Holy Scripture, the Holy Spirit meets us, to teach, to guide, to
comfort, and to lead us to the only certain faith! We "bless God for such
a testimony from such a quarter, and rejoice that, amidst so rauch of an
opposite character in this remarkably man, we find that which, if pursued,
must have led him to spiritual truth"! May the Tractators follow him in
this! I have only One word more to add. ' You are now solicited to
contribute to -the support of an institution of a truly admirable character,
which supphes curates and lay readers, (many of: the former, and few of
the latter,) to assist the over burdened labourers in our ¦ Christian
vineyard; and I have selected this Society— The Church Pastoral Aid
Society — for this occasion simply because it is a truly Protestant Society
—one of its chief designs is to preserve biblical truth in the ministry of
the sanctuary— it will not propagate PopeTy, nor Tractarianism — it has
tests, whieh have been very naturally objected to by those -whom they
would exclude. But, in times like these, beloved, we have need to rally
round that which is Protestant — to uphold all that is not "pure antiquity -,"
but purely scriptural, and to unite our prayers, our efforts, our alms, to
promote the circulation of that truth which alone is primitive, being
bound up in the word of eternal life. May God, inTusmercy, preserve this
to us. and to our children, and enlarge your hearts on this and all similar
occasions to embrace it for yourselves, and to propagate it in the whole
world ! XpilJBs

3. i. Hadley, Printer, Journal Office, Queen'* Buildings, Cheltenham.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 03720 5565