ΤΟ 66 THE REVEREND PHILIP N. SHUTTLEWORTH, D.D. SIR, THOUGH as" A FRIEND TO UNITY," I wish to speak on a point of difference which unfortunately arose from the error in the former title of your work on Scripture and Tradition, it is not necessary for me as A CHURCHMAN," to do more than express my earnest and deep regret at the statements of doctrine contained in the body of that work, and my surprise that it should, notwithstanding, have received praise from some of the highest authorities of the Church. My concern was only with the logical fault in the Title of your Dissertation, which I have endeavoured to point out, in order to justify the remarks of Dr. Hook; since I would beg leave to remind you, that in proportion to the well-known talents and ability of the Author, would be the probable impression that the oversight was not accidental. I trust, however, that your Note prefixed to the second edition has set the matter in its true light. Now, therefore, I would venture to express the same hope to you respecting the Advertisement to the last edition of " NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE," which I have done to Dr. Hook upon his Note, namely, that on republication, some parts of it may be suppressed*. For instance, in the following; "Dr. Hook complains of " the want of candour, and tone of insult," contained in the writings of those who think differently from himself on the subject of the authority due to tradition, and he refers to the present publication, as it would appear, as a case in point. Now, in the first place, it would seem from his own expression, that he really knows no more of the work which he thus censures, than the advertisement announcing its publication." p. xiii. I think you will perceive from the last clause, that the preceding is untenable and inconsistent; for if Dr. Hook, as you infer from his own expression, really knew no more of the work than the advertisement announcing its publication, he could hardly refer to that publication as a case in point of" the want of candour and tone of insult" which he connected with your work, no farther indeed than as such might have been I think fairly pre The passages referring personally to Dr. Hook at p. xiv. xvi. of the Advertisement to the second edition are particularly alluded to, but are not cited, as they might thus possibly again be brought before the public eye, which is not to be desired. sumed to have been manifested by the Title, on the supposition of no logical inaccuracy. Again, where you say, "It is asserted by Dr. Hook, that the title is evidently assumed to imply, that the advocates of the English Reformation elevate Tradition above the Bible. The Author of this work asks Dr. Hook, what grounds he has for asserting that the title does assume thus much." p. xiv. In reply I would ask, to what persons does the admonitory watch-word (as such a title may be termed) of" NOT TRADITION, BUT REVELATION" apply with any force or meaning at all beyond that of a mere truism, except to those who would elevate Tradition above the Bible? Upon what you add, "The real charge which this tract does make is, that the advocates of tradition consider it as concurrent and of equally Divine authority with the Scriptures." Ibid. I would, in conclusion, observe in your own words, that this is " a nice and much controverted question*." However, in connecting you with the indefatigable Vicar of Leeds, "whose diligence in the performance of his ministerial functions," you so truly add, "will be cheerfully admitted by every candid person"-permit me to trust, that you both will mutually believe, that, unlike the Knights in the See the "Advertisement," p xiii. |