c

OK

Mhg5G 1847 1%

THE PROPOSITI ONS

ATTRIBUTED BY THE

"PRESBYTER" OF THE "TIMES"
TO THE REV. DR. HAMPDEN,
REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD.
CONCERNING THE TRINITY AND ATONEMENT,
COMPARED WITH THE TEXT OF THE BAMPTON LECTURES.

REV. W. HAYWARD COX, B.D.,
VICE-PRINCIPAL OF ST. MARY HALL, OXFORD.

OXFORD:
PUBLISHED BY J. VINCENT.
LONDON : B. FELLOWES.
1847.
Price Sixpence.

PREFACE.

The " Presbyter " of the Times, in a letter which appears in that
newspaper of the date of the 27th ult., addressed to his Grace the Arch
bishop of Canterbury, has given a series of passages, purporting to be
faithful selections from Dr. Hampden's " Bampton Lectures," and pro
fessing to illustrate " the doctrinal erroneousness of Dr. Hampden's Sys
tem." They appeared to involve such startling statements, that I was
induced to take my copy of the Bampton Lectures, and place in parallel
columns the corresponding passages concerning the Trinity and the
Atonement, with their context, unmutilated, not distorted as to their mean
ing by the suppression of Dr. Hampden's Italics, or the introduction of
new ones by " Presbyter," and unobscured by any inversion in the order
of the sentences. " Presbyter " would demur to my assuming that his
extracts are unfair, simply because extracts can be made unfairly, but
admits that " As soon as any objector advances beyond the mere general
" assertion that they are so, and takes us to Dr. Hampden's actual writings,
" he has adopted a legitimate line of argument." This, therefore, I have
done. It should, perhaps, be added, for the better understanding of the parts of
the Bampton Lectures which 1 have transcribed, that their design is thus
stated by their author : —
" As the present is not a work on Evidences, but a particular view of the
connexion of human philosophy with the given truths of the Scriptures, the
agency of man here forms the leading idea." — Preface to the First Edition
of the Bampton Lectures, p. vii. 1836.
" Let me premise, that the enquiry pursued in the Bampton Lectures,
leaves the matter of Christian Doctrine untouched. It is one thing to en
quire into the mode of statement, supposing the substance of the statement
to be true ; and another thing to enquire into the matter or substance of
the Truth stated." — Introduction to the Second Edition of the Bampton
Lectures, p. xxi. 1837.
It is to be regretted, that the " Presbyter " of the Times considered it
not "unfair" to omit these passages, which Dr. Hampden himself deemed
essential for his readers to bear in mind.
St. Mary Hall, Oxford, Dec. 11, 1847.

PRESBYTER.

BAMPTON LECTURES.

-The Unity of the Godhead. —
" No one can be more convinced
than I am that there is a real mys
tery of God revealed in the Chris
tian dispensation. . . . But I am
also as fully sensible that there is
a mystery attached to the subject
which is not a mystery of God. . . .
We are apt to conceive that the
Unity must be understood numeri
cally ; . . . But is this a just no
tion ? . . . Surely the revelation
of the Divine Unity was not meant
to convey to Israel any speculative
notion of the oneness of the Deity,
but practically (sic) to influence
their minds in regard to superstitions
from which they had been brought
out. . . . Now, were this view of
the revelation of the Divine Unity
strictly maintained, . . . we should
profess that we only knew God as
the exclusive object of Divine wor
ship, and should acknowledge that it
was quite irrelevant to our scheme
of religion, either to demonstrate or
refute any conclusion from the na
ture of Unity concerning any fur
ther revelation of the Divine Being."
— Bampton Led., p. 146, 7.

The truth itself of the Trinitarian doctrine
emerges from these mists of human speculation,
like the bold, naked land, on which an atmosphere
of fog has for a while rested, and then been dis
persed. No one can be more convinced than I
am, that there is a real mystery of God revealed
in the Christian dispensation ; and that no seheme
of Unitarianism can solve the whole of the pheno
mena which Scripture records. But I am also as
fully sensible, that there is a mystery attached to
the subject, which is not a mystery of God.
Take, for instance, the notion of the Divine
Unity. We are apt to conceive that the Unity
must be understood numerically ; that we may
reason from the notion of Unity, to the properties
of the Divine Being. But is this a just notion of
the Unity of God ? Is it not rather a bare fact,
a limit of speculation, instead of a point of outset ?
For how was it revealed in that system, in which
it was the great leading article of divine instruc
tion ? When Moses called upon the people ; —
•' Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord ;"
— was it not a declaration, that Jehovah is not
that host of heaven, — that multiplicity of the objects
of divine worship, which heathen idolatry has en
shrined, but the God in heaven, and in the earth,
and in the sea, — not the Teraphim of domestic
worship, but the Universal Governor, oversha
dowing all things with the ubiquarian tutelage
of his Providence ? Surely the revelation of the
Divine Unity was not meant to convey to Israel
any speculative notion of the oneness of the
Deity ; but, practically, to influence their minds
in regard to the superstitions from which they
had been brought out. It was no other than the
command ; " Thou shalt have no other Gods but

Now, were this view of the Revelation of the
Divine Unity strictly maintained, would it not
greatly abate the repugnance often felt at the ad
mission of a Trinity in Unity ? We should pro
fess, that we only knew God, as the exclusive
object of divine worship ; and should acknowledge,
that it was quite irrelevant to our scheme of Reli
gion, either to demonstrate, or to refute, any con
clusion from the nature of Unity, concerning any
further revelation of the Divine Being. To deny
a Trinity, would then be felt the same, as to
assert, that, because Polytheism is false, therefore
no new manifestation oi God, not resulting from
the negation of Polytheism, can be true. — Bamplftf,
Lecture, pp. 146, 1, 8.

PRESBYTEK,

BAMPTON LECTURES.

The Trinity  " The dialectical
spirit .... laboured to establish
the Divine Unity amidst the Trini
tarian distinctions" . . .  B.L.,P.
128.

" Dialectical Science . . . estab
lished that peculiar phraseology
which we now use in speaking of
the Sacred Trinity, as three Persons
and one God."—B. L , P. 130.

" The trhole discussion was funda
mentally dialectical." — /J. L., p. 104.

"Thus, too, they (the orthodox)
delighted to speak of the whole Tri
nity as consubstantial. " — P. 126.
" One fact is clear, through all
this labyrinth of variation which the
ological creeds have exhibited, — that
there is some extraordinary commu
nication concerning the Divine Being
in those Scriptural notices of God,
which have called forth the curiosity
of thinking men in all ages. To me
it matters little what opinion has been
prior, has been advocated by the
shrewdest wit or deepest learning,
has been most popular, most exten
sive in its reception. All differences
of this kind belong to the history of
the human mind as much as to the
ology."— B. L., P. 149.

The various illustrations of the Trinity from
natural objects, employed in the writings of the
Fathers and the Schoolmen, are instances of the
same dialectical spirit, which laboured to establish
the Divine Unity amidst the Trinitarian distinc
tions.' — Page 128.
The difficulty here was ; to avoid the distinguish
ing the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in such a
way, as to represent them differing, as three an
gels, or three men, differ from each other ; and yet
to preserve the real distinctions. Dialectical Sci
ence furnished the expedients in this difficulty ;
and established that peculiar phraseology, which we
now use, in speaking of the Sacred Trinity, as three
Persons and one God. — P. 130.
The profane familiarity, with which articles of
the Trinitarian question are said to have entered
into the every-day conversation of the times, char
acterizes the general feeling on the subject, at a
period, when the Spiritual Polity formed the great
commonwealth of the Roman world ; and whilst
Philosophy, regarded as identical with Theology,
was essentially dialectical or colloquial  P. 102.
So great indeed were the impediments arisingfrom
the varied use of Terms, where the whole discussion
was fundamentally dialectical, that the measure of
accommodation between those who really agreed
with each other, would probably have failed in any
other hands but those of St. Athanasius. — P. 104.
Thus, too, they delighted to speak of the Son, as
of the substance, or Usia, of the Father, and of
the whole Trinity, as consubstantial, or Jlomoou-
sion.— P". 126.
One fact is clear through all this labyrinth of
variations which theological creeds have exhibited ;
— that there is some extraordinary communication
concerning the Divine Being, in those Scriptural
notices of God which have called forth the curiosity
of thinking men in all ages. To me it matters
little, what opinion on the subject has been prior,
has been advocated by the shrewdest wit or deepest
learning, has been most popular, most extensive in
its reception. All differences of this kind belong
to the history of the human mind, as much as to
theology, and affect not the broad basement of fact
on which the manifold forms of speculation have
taken their rise. The only ancient, only catholic,
truth is the Scriptural fact. Let us hold that fast
in its depth and breadth — in nothing extenuating,
in nothing abridging it — in simplicity and sincerity ;
and we can neither be Sabellians, or Tritheists, or
Socinians  P. 149.
Aquinas philosophises concerning the Trinity
exactly in the way that I have described. Assum
ing the process of the intellect and the will in man,
as the counterpart of the Scriptural truth which he
has undertaken to explain, he demonstrates the
theory of Divine Procession according to it. The
Son, the Logos, the Reason and Word of God, is
the principle of intelligence in the Divine Being, —
the internal word of God, expressing and compre
hending all the principles of created things. The

PRESBYTER.

BAMPTON LECTURES.

The Divine Sonship. — "But why
is the Word called the Son ? . . .
It is the resemblance of the thought
to the mind from which it proceeds
that gives the appropriateness of the
term generation. ... In this
speculation there is certainly a great
deal of the language of Platonism.
... But . . the applica
tion of the tlieory is Aristotelic, &c."
Page 1 16, 7. (Vid. sup. on Art. I.,
note f.)

" Even in what was considered the
orthodox theory of the Divine Pro
ceeding, . . . materialism in
truded itself in the attempt to trace
the order of derivation of the Son .
. . from the Father." — B.C.,
p. 123.

Holy Spirit is the Love of God towards his crea
tion, regarded as it subsists in his own nature ; as
it centres in the Divine Word, or Reason, or prin
ciple of intelligence ; being the nexus, or bond of
union between the Father and the Word. But
why, it may be asked, is the one process called
Generation; the other simply Procession? — why
is the Word called the Son, and the Love of God
called the Spirit ? It is the resemblance of the
thought to the mind from which it proceeds, that
gives the appropriateness of the term Generation
in its highest sense, — that of like producing like, —
to the Procession of the Word or Reason of God ;
and therefore, the relation of the Word is repre
sented, as that between a Father and a Son ; and
the Word is called the Son. But in the process
of the will, there is no resemblance between the
object on which it is exerted, and the will itself.
Hence, there is no appropriate name for the pro
ceeding of the Divine Love, but the general one of
Procession ; and this relation in the Divine Being
can only be expressed by the name of Spirit, founded
on the analogy of spiration, or breathing, by which
his derivation from the Father and the Son is de
scribed in Scripture.
In this speculation there is certainly a great deal
of the language of Platonism. In the Timceus, we
find, the term ttovoyzv^s, the unigenitus of the La
tin Fathers, more than once applied to the Universe,
the secondary Divine Being of the Platonic system ;
and the description of a third Being, as a bond
between God and the Universe — Se<rp.bv 4v ixetrcji
a/j.QoTv tyvayuybv. But though there is a Platonic
under-current of thought in the scholastic tlieory, the
application of the theory is Aristotelic  p. 115-17.
Notions of materialism, we may perceive, were
mixed up with these several theories of Causation.
The materialism of -the Gnostic systems was more
open and avowed : it stands forth confessed, parti
cularly, in the irpo$o\)i, or prolation, of the Valen-
tinians. But though in the progress of the Trini
tarian speculations, the original materialism of the
Church-philosophy is partly disguised under meta
physics and logic ; it may still be detected, as a
fundamental prejudice in the mind of the later spe-
culatist. Though he may be engaged in stating
only the modes of apprehending the subject ex
plained, — in shewing those just conceptions, which
the mind ought to form, of the primary principles
of the Divine Being, he is continually perplexing
the subject with notions drawn from material
things ; — appearing, at one moment, to take a word
in its strictly logical sense, as descriptive only of a
process in the mind ; at the next moment, reason
ing from it, as if it described a process in nature.
Thus even in what was considered the orthodox
view of the Divine Proceeding, — avowedly a theory
of the Deity as the great First Cause, — materialism
intruded itself, in the attempt to trace the order of
derivation of the Son and Holy Spirit from the
Father  B.L., p. 122-123.
The discussions on the Incarnation were, in like

PRESBYTER.

BAMPTON LECTURES.

" It was attempted to be explained
in what way the Son might be said
to be generated of the Father, whe
ther out of the substance of God .
. . . whether He is the Son of
God by nature, .... or will,
. . . . or adoption. The confu
sion of principles of different sciences
in these promiscuous inquiries is suf
ficiently apparent. But it was by
such a philosophy that the orthodox
language was settled, declaring the
Son, ' begotten before all worlds, of
one substance with the Father. — B.L.,
p. 137.

" The account of the Incarnation
itself was more peculiarly logical
. . . The orthodox maintained,
that the notion of sameness here con
sisted in the Personal individuality
of Christ .... whereas the
diversity was in the two Natures,
the divine and the human, united in
his Person  And the
excellence of the orthodox theory
consisted in (its reducing it, &c." 
B.L. p. 137.

manner, partly physical, partly logical. It was
attempted to be explamed, in what way the Son
might be said to be generated of the Father ; whe-
out of the substance of God, or out of a common
Divinity, of which each participates ; or by division
of the Paternal substance as a portion severed from
the Father : whether further, He is the Son of God
by nature, or necessity, or will, or predestination,
or adoption. The confusion of principles of differ
ent sciences in these promiscuous inquiries, is suf
ficiently apparent. But it was by such a philosophy
that the orthodox language was settled, declaring
the Son " begotten before all worlds ; of one sub
stance with the Father." The account of the In
carnation itself was more peculiarly logical ; still
there was a mixture of physical speculation respect
ing the principle of life in man  B.L., p. 137.
"The account of the Incarnation itself was more
peculiarly logical; still there was a mixture of
physical speculation respecting the principle of life
in man. The notion entertained, both by Fathers
and by Schoolmen, was, that the animating prin
ciple was infused into the body ; and thus, the inert
matter of the flesh became the living substantial
form of man. That all souls were consubstantial
with the Deity, was an ancient Pythagorean notion,
that survived in the Church. Thus Tertullian
speaks of man as animated out of the substance of
God. The observation of this fact accounts for
the opinion attributed to Apollinarius, that the
Divinity was the animating principle of Christ.
He was fearful of introducing a Quaternity into
the Notion of the Divine Being, if it were con
ceived that our Lord possessed the Substance of
human nature, a sentient and intelligent human
principle, as well as the Substance of the Divinity ;
and was thus led to the denial of the perfect hu
manity of Christ.
" The peculiarly logical part of the inquiry ap
pears, in the points of controversy between the or
thodox and the Nestorians and Eutychians. These
were, in respect to the Incarnation, analogous to
the disputes between the orthodox and the Sabel-
lians and Arians, on the general question of the
Trinity. The points of sameness and diversity were
here also to be exactly determined. The orthodox
maintained, that the notion of sameness here
consisted, in the Personal individuality of Christ,
regarded as a Member of the Trinity; whereas
the diversity was in the two Natures, the divine
and the human, united in His Person. But the
Nestorian offended against the theories of the logi
cal philosophy, in stating two different hypostases,
as the support of those common properties which
belonged to Christ, and destroyed also the per
sonal individuality. The Eutychian maintained
the personal individuality, but destroyed the sub
stantial differences. Theories of the composition
and mixture of bodies, entered largely into these
discussions: but they were still metaphysical in
principle, resulting only in settling the connexion
and relation of ideas concerning the Incarnation.

PRESBYTER.

BAMPTON LECTURES.

" In the theory of the Incarnation,
our Lord is described as assuming to
his Divinity, net any human being
in particular, but manhood, human
nature, itself. He was made ' man
of the substance of his mother,' yet
without sin, — without the corruption
derived to all other sons of Adam,
not conceived, as he was, by the im
mediate operation of the Holy
Spirit. Much subtile disquisition
was employed to shew how the
nature which He inherited from
Adam was not corrupted." — B. L.,
p. 231.

They terminated in the decision of the place which
the terms — Substance, Nature, Person, — should
hold in the definition of the whole nature of Christ.
And the excellence of the orthodox theory, we
may observe, consisted in its excluding from that
definition, all ideas imported from the physical
speculations, and reducing it to perfect consistency
with the original theory of the Divine Procession.
It brought the inquirer back to the point from
which he set out, to acknowledge the simple Divine
Personality of the Saviour, — that He was the
Word made flesh. "_P. 137—9.
" To form a right conception of the doctrine of
Original Sin, we should view it together with the
doctrine of the Incarnation, which is its exact
counterpart. In the theory of the Incarnation,
our Lord is described as assuming to his Divinity,
not any human being in particular, but manhood,
human nature itself. He was made ' man of the
substance of his mother ;' yet without sin, — with
out the corruption derived to all other sons of
Adam, not conceived, as He was, by the imme
diate operation of the Holy Spirit. Much subtile
disquisition was employed to shew, how the nature,
which he inherited from Adam, was not corrupted ;
but such as it existed before the transgression of
Adam. The will therefore, it was argued — the
principle of motion — in him was perfectly just and
good. It was in his power, accordingly, to gene
rate others like himself ; as it was, in the corrupt
will of Adam, to generate others in the likeness of
his corruption. To this purport were interpreted
the words, being ' born in Christ,'' being ' born of
God.' In each case accordingly, both in the bene
fits of the Incarnation and the Evils of the Fall,
all men were collectively regarded as one man ;
and the blessing and the curse descended, by vital
communication, with the heads of the race ; real
ism representing each Christian as having a proper
physical identity, in the unregenerate state, with
Adam ; in the regenerate, with Christ. Such un
doubtedly was the Scholastic notion fundamentally,
both of the effects of the Fall, and of the Incar
nation."— P. 231—2.
" Hence too would arise the notion, that self-
mortification would recommend us to the favour of
God : in fact, that, the more voluntarily such chas
tisement of ourselves was undertaken, the more ef
fectual would be the compensation for offence.
" Hence also the fond impiety of Supereroga
tion. The compensation might be supposed to ex
ceed the weight of the offence, where the depth of
the sorrow for personal Sin might produce an ex
cess of personal infliction. And it might be con
cluded that this excess, beyond the requisitions of
justice, would redound to the remission of the of
fences of others.
" The Reformation opposed a practical check to
these refinements of Christian Truth. It was an
energetic practical amendment that was here
needed. And our Church, accordingly, has here
declared against the abuses which had perverted

10

PRESBYTER.

BAMPTON LECTURES.

The Atonement. — " It is of little
purpose to urge the natural placa
bility of the Divine Being. . . .
God, no doubt, is abundantly pla
cable. . . . But the fact is, that
we cannot he at peace without some
consciousness of atonement made.
. . . Turn over the records of
human crime. . . All concur
in showing that, whilst God is gra
cious and merciful, . . . the
human heart is inexorable against it
self. . . . It cannot forgive it
self. . . . This material and in
vincible difficulty of the case the
Scripture Revelation has met by a
parallel fact. It has said .
that, looking to ourselves, we can
not expect happiness : and, at the
same time, has fixed our attention
on a Holy One who did no sin ; whose
perfect righteousness it has connected
with our unrighteousness, and whose
strength it has brought to the evil of
our weakness. Thus Christ is em
phatically said to be our Atone
ment, not that we may attribute to
God any change of purpose towards
man by ivhat Christ has done, but
that we may know (sic) that we have
passed from the death of sin to the
life of righteousness by Him, and
that our own hearts (sic) may not
condemn us." — B. L,, p. 251.

the doctrine of Repentance ; instead of addressing
itself to the decision of the speculative nature of
Repentance considered as a doctrine of the Gospel.
" It is to be remarked, however, how strongly
the ineflicacy of Repentance to wipe away guilt,
and restore the sinner to his lost state, has im
pressed the minds of those, who have thought on
human nature with any depth of philosophy. It is
of little purpose, to urge the natural placability of
the Divine Being, his mercy, his willingness to re
ceive the penitent. God, no doubt, is abundantly
placable, merciful, and forgiving. Still the fact
remains. The offender is guilty : his crime may
be forgiven, but his criminality is upon him. The
remorse which he feels — the wounds of his con
science — are no fallacious things. He is sensible
of them even whilst the Gospel tells him, — c Thy
sins be forgiven thee — go, and sin no more.' The
heart seeks for reparation and satisfaction : its
longings are, that its sins may be no more remem
bered, that the characters in which it is written
may be blotted out. Hence the congeniality to its
feelings of the notion of Atonement. It is no
speculative thought which suggests the theory:
speculation rather prompts to the rejection of it:
speculation furnishes abstract reasons, from the
Divine Attributes, for discarding it as a chimera
of our fears. But the fact is, that we cannot be
at peace without some consciousness of Atonement
made. The word Atonement, in its true, practical
sense, expresses this indisputable fact. Objections
may hold against the explanations of the term ;
they are irrelevant to the thing itself denoted by
the term. Turn over the records of human crime ;
and, whether under the forms of superstition, or
the enactments of civil government, the fact itself
constantly emerges to the view. All concur in
shewing, that, whilst God is gracious and merciful,
repenting Him of evil, the human heart is inex
orable against itself. It may hope — tremblingly
hope — that God may forgive it, but it cannot for
give itself.
" This material and invincible difficulty of the
case, the Scripture Revelation has met with a pa
rallel fact. It has said, we have no hope in our
selves : that looking to ourselves, we cannot ex
pect happiness ; and, at the same time, has fixed
our attention on a Holy One who did no sin ;
whose perfect righteousness it has connected with
our unrighteousness, and whose strength it has
brought to the evil of our weakness. Thus Christ
is emphatically said to be our Atonement ; not that
we may attribute to God any change of purpose
towards man by what Christ has done ; but that
we may know, that we have passed from the death
of sin to the life of righteousness by Him ; and
that our own hearts may not condemn us. c If our
heart condemn us not,' then may we ' have peace
with God ;' but, without the thought of Christ,
the heart, that has any real sense of its condition,
must sink under its own condemnation.

11

PRESBYTER.

BAMPTON LECTURES.

" The bane of this philosophy of
expiation was, not that it exalted
human agency too highly, but that
in reality it depressed the power of
man too low. It was no invigora-
tion of the mind, no cheering of the
heart to masculine exertion, in work
ing out the great work of salvation,
by exaggerated, yet noble views, of
what man could accomplish. But
it checked the aspirations both of
the heart and of the intellect 
On the other hand, the true scrip
tural practical view of Hitman
Agency is to be seen in the great
truth of Atonement, simply believed
and acted on, without the gloss of
commentators, or the refinements of
theorists. . . . Take the truth
simply, and what does it mean but
that God is infinitely just and mer
ciful, visiting iniquities to the third
and fourth generation, and yet show
ing mercy to thousands— that we
cannot please Him by our works, or
our sacrifices, or our prayers, but
yet ice can do all things, by Christ
strengthening us, working for us, of
fering Himself for us, praying for
us ? The doctrine declares to us at
once how much is out of our power,
and yet how much is in our power.
And by combining these two ap
parently contrary facts in our scheme
of human agency, it imparts to us
the true secret of our power against
the temptations and dangers of the
world For let it be considered
whether it is not precisely by such a
combination of strength and weak
ness that ability and success in
worldly conduct are attained 
In every exercise of our minds, in
every action or event, are we not
conscious that much is left in our
own power ? Do we not see the fact
strikingly displayed in the conduct
of men whom we call great ; whose
greatness evidently consists in this,
that, by dint of their intellect and
moral energy, they bring the train
of events into their own power, ex
ercising an arbitrary influence over
the voluntary actions of other men ?
But, again, on the other hand, do
we not find, also, a stint and a
bound put to this our intrinsic

power .'

Whoever

duly acknowledges both these prin
ciples as the complex law of actions
under both the spiritual and natural
government of Gpd will at the same

" The bane of this philosophy of expiation was,
not that it exalted human agency too highly, but
that in reality it depreesed the power of man too
low. It was no invigoration of the mind, no cheer
ing of the heart, to masculine exertion, in work
ing out the great work of salvation, by exaggerated,
yet noble, views of what man could accomplish.
But it checked the aspirings, both of the heart and
of the intellect, by fixing them at a standard, that
had only the mockery of Divine strength, and not
the reality. It brought men to acquiesce in a
confession of impotence, without carrying them at
once to the throne of Grace. The ecclesiastical
power stood between the heart and heaven. Atone
ment was converted into a theory of Commutation
degrading to the holiness of God, whilst it spoke
the peace of God in terms of flattering delusion to
the sinner. The value of confessions and rites of
penance was acknowledged ; and, accepting this
vain substitute for that assurance of Atonement,
which alone can satisfy the longing soul with good
ness, men looked no further : their proper power
was exchanged for a servile dependence on the
ministrations of the priest — the presumed all-suffi
ciency of a man like themselves.
"On the other hand, the true scriptural practical
view of Human Agency is to be seen in the great
truth of Atonement, simply believed and acted on,
without the gloss of commentators, or the refine
ments of theorists. These are but attempts to
weigh the ocean in the hollow of the hand. Take
the truth simply, and what does it mean but that
God is infinitely just and merciful, visiting ini
quities to the third and fourth generation, and yet
shewing mercy to thousands — that we cannot
please Him by our works, or our sacrifices, or our
prayers, but yet we can do all things, by Christ
strengthening us, working for us, offering Himself
for us, praying for us . The doctrine declares to
us at once how much is out of our power, and yet
how much is in our power. And, by combining
these two apparently contrary facts in one scheme
of human agency, it imparts to us the true secret
of our power against the temptations and dangers
of the world.
" For, let it be considered, whether it is not pre
cisely by such a combination of strength and weak
ness, that ability and success in worldly conduct
are attained. Every one, who attentively considers
the state of the case, must perceive that Revela
tion has only extended to the spiritual world two
classes of facts evidenced in the natural. In every
exercise of our minds, in every action or event, are
we not conscious that much is left in our own
power ? Do we not see the fact strikingly displayed
in the conduct of men whom we call great ; whose
greatness evidently consists in this, that, by dint of
their intellect and moral energy, they bring the
train of events into their own power, exercising an
arbitrary influence over the voluntary actions of
other men ? But again, on the other hand, do we
not find, also, a stint and a bound put to this our

12

PRESBYTER.

BAMPTON LECTURES.

timejsee, that the truths of human
sinfulness, of repentance, of Atone-
men and Satisfaction made for sin,
are only varied expressions of this
great law ; as being declarations of
the weakness and the strength of the
man ; the union of strength and
teeakness constituting his real power
in the events of time — his justifica
tion in eternity." — B. L. p. 253 etseq.

intrinsic power ? It [is equally apparent, that the
issues of events are not in the hand of the thinker,
or the counsellor, or the agent. There] is some
thing like a chain of causes, in the connexion of
circumstances themselves — something of an in
voluntary process in the association and current of
our own thoughts. So real is all this, — (and this
is the point particularly to be observed in illustra
tion of Human Agency, in connexion with the
Divine,) — that our actual power, in each instance
of exertion, depends in great measure on our as
sumption of this fact — the fact, that things are not
in our power ; and our adaptation, consequently,
of our conduct to it. For thus we see even the
great men of the world have chiefly owed their
failure to the circumstance : that they overlooked
this clear fact ; their former success emboldening
them to an exclusive trust in their own power, and
closing their eyes to the commanding influences
out of their own sphere of action. Thus are energy
and repose, intrepidity and diffidence, magnanimity
and humility, at once, inculcated on us in the
course of nature. We cannot sleep nor stop,
thinking that the controlling Power by which
events are disposed, will work without us: we
cannot lean on our ovvn activity, trusting that we
can work without the power from above. Who
ever duly estimates these things, will readily see
that Scripture enforces on us no strange thing,
when it tells us, that we are ' saved by grace,'
that ' our sufficiency!, is of God ;' and again, he
who ' doeth the will of God, is accepted by him,'
and that every man ' shall receive according to
his works.'
"But whoever'acknowledges both these principles
as the complex Law of Actions under both the
spiritual and natural government of God — will, at
the same time, see that the truths of human sinful
ness, of Repentance, of Atonement and Satisfac
tion made for sin, are only varied expressions of
this great law ; as being declarations of the weak
ness and^the strength of man : — the union of
strength and weakness, constituting his real
power in the events of time — his justification in
eternity."— P. 250—6.

7876