Hull

H8a

REMARKS
INTENDED TO SHOW HOW FAR
DR. HAMPDEN

MAY HAVE BEEN

MISUNDERSTOOD AND MISREPRESENTED

DURING THE PRESENT

CONTROVERSY AT OXFORD.

REMARKS
INTENDED TO SHEW HOW FAR
DR. HAMPDEN

MAY HAVE been

MISUNDERSTOOD AND MISREPRESENTED

DURINQ THE PRESENT

CONTROVERSY AT OXFORD.

BY WILLIAM WINSTANLEY HULL, M.A.
OF LINCOLN'S INN, BARRISTER-AT-LAW,
LATE FELLOW OF BRASENOSE COLLEGE.

v>- ' <•¦

dXridevovree kv dydirrj. '¦ . iw.: , 'J;V.'
1 "v.v
SECOND EDITION, CORRECTED.

LONDON:
B. FELLOWES, LUDGATE STREET;
i. If. PARKER, OXFORD ; AND J. & J. DEIGHTON, CAMBRIDGE.
MUCCCXXXVI.

ADVERTISEMENT TO THE SECOND EDITION.

It will be known to all who have carefully read Dr. Hampden's books,
that they perfectly agree with the fact, which the best authority now enables
me to state for the sake of those who have not read his works. Dr.
Hampden has not ever thought or written otherwise than that the sacrifice
of our Saviour on the cross has been a real oblation and satisfaction for
the sins of the world ; and that we are justified, therefore, by IT, inde
pendently of ITS effects on our hearts through the Spirit, though not without
those effects on all to whom it IS revealed. The reality of the great truth
is antecedent to, and in no way affected by our views of it; but we who
know it feel the comfort of it, and are apt to designate it under that point
of view in which it peculiarly commends itself to our feelings.
Those adversaries of Dr. Hampden, who charged him with carrying
Scripture authority too high above the authority of our formularies, can
hardly be the same with those who now charge him with Rationalism.
The simple fact that Dr. Hampden is accused of Rationalism ought to be
conclusive; for it proclaims that the accusers have not understood his
books. Two further facts are observable in this accusation, which the
circular, dated 27th April, renders it expedient to notice. The accuser's
have not rightly defined Rationalism in itself, and they have left out its
worst feature : if they had put in that worst feature, any considerate
reader would have seen that Dr. Hampden could not be a Rationalist.
(See postea, p. 62.) The circular of the Corpus Committee does not justify
their public conduct; they have been attacking a phantom of their own
fears, but their blows unhappily fall upon Dr. Hampden.

LONDON :
PRINTER, EREAD-STREET-HILL,
DOCTORS' COMMONS.

REMARKS
OCCASIONED BY SOME RECENT PUBLICATIONS AGAINST THE
REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY,
OXFORD.

The reader is supposed to have in his hands the
pamphlets against Dr. Hampden which have been
thrown into such extensive circulation, and stitched
up gratis with Reviews : the pamphleteers allege
their object was to state, as fairly as they could, the
positions of Dr. Hampden : the present remarks are
intended to show some instances in such pamphlets,
that seem to justify the general charge of unfairness.
The pamphleteers praise the forbearance of one another
as against so serious an offender : the present remarks
are intended to show, that the bitterest invectives and
plainest charges would have been preferable to the
skilful cruelty and unavoidable insinuations, which
leave the writer the means of escaping from his own
position when it is challenged, and double its effect by
a seeming charity when it is not challenged.
Several adversaries of Dr. Hampden still keep back
their names, and no doubt feel how unpleasant it is
for any man to see his name abused in newspapers
and magazines day after day. They ought further to
b2

feel that such an exhibition of a clergyman's name
risks his usefulness, while it destroys his comfort. Let
them, while they so consult their own peace of mind
and their influence, consider well how they are treating
Dr. Hampden. They impeach his orthodoxy, they
insinuate his perjury ; and any clerical friend who
may come forward in his support, must be expecting
to suffer the same persecution.
The pamphlets on which these remarks are chiefly
made are four in number, and cited by their number : —
1. The Foundation of the Faith assailed in Oxford;
being a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
By a Clerical Member of Convocation. 1835.
2. Elucidations of Dr. Hampden's Theological State
ments. By one " who makes no secret of his
name to those who choose to inquire."
3. Dr. Hampden's Theological Statements and the
Thirty-Nine Articles compared. By a Resident
Member of Convocation. With a Preface of
thirty-six pages, signed by Dr. Pusey.
4. Dr. Hampden's Past and Present Statements
compared : revised and enlarged. Signed by
Dr. Pusey.
Cited in these four pamphlets, are, an Essay on the
Philosophical Evidence of Christianity. 1S27- Paro
chial Sermons. T2mo. 1828. The Bampton Lectures ;
preached in 1832; published in 1833. Observations
on Religious Dissent, 1834 ; together with a Post
script thereto, 1835 : and a course of Lectures intro
ductory to the Study of Moral Philosophy, delivered at
Oxford in Lent Term, 1835. These books seem to
have met with general commendation until the Ob
servations were published, whatever individuals may
have felt, or now think they felt theretofore : the

second edition of the Observations has been quoted
by his adversaries, and is now referred to.
I have read all these books, and do not tind any
statement in any of them that, in its proper place and
meaning, betrays any variance from our creeds and
articles and liturgy. They who misunderstand and
misrepresent his works, of course make out something
like a case against him. Short extracts can be made
to bear almost any meaning, even to most careful and
accurate minds ; so the very best eyes can hardly tell
whether a short line be straight or curved, or if it
be curved, of what curve it may be a part ; but pro
duce the line both ways, and common faculties, with
common honesty, will acknowledge its true character.
Some long extracts and annotations upon them are now
laid before the members of Convocation, with an earnest
entreaty that they will read them without prejudice,
and will bear in mind, as they read them, how dreadful
are the charges advanced against Dr. Hampden, by
the noisy followers of these pamphleteers, in reviews
and newspapers. He has been judged by the extracts
taken from these pamphlets, and upon the strength of
them has been publicly called a scorner of the creeds
of the Church, heretical, and perjured. His appointment
has been termed an outrageous insult to the orthodoxy
of the land ; a reckless attempt to poison the christian
faith of the Establishment at its fountain head. Writers
who will publish such charges upon the strength of
any mere extracts, must, for the time, have forgotten
their profession of Christianity. But how are the
makers of these extracts to absolve themselves from
the consequences of their extracts ? They have circu
lated calumnies against an individual which will reach
where the correction of them cannot reach. They

have brought an open scandal upon the Church,
without any reason. Would they not shrink from the
imputation of adhering to a Church, and denying the
positive statements of its accredited formularies ? What
then must Dr. Hampden feel ?
It is my duty to premise that I consider the will of
God the only source of authority in Church and State.
As a true churchman and a true Tory, I believe
governors should have the government, and use it for
the good of the governed, according to the word of God.
The strongest terms in the English language would
not do more than express my thorough and deliberate
disapproval of the conduct and character of the present
cabinet. Their public measures, except in matters of
mere routine, seem to me devoid of religion, and devoid
of earthly wisdom. For instance, they are about to
legislate upon the second report of the Church Com
missioners. The principles which are adopted in that
report seem to me fatal to our constitution in Church
and State : and if ever they are followed up to their
legitimate consequences, there is an end of all govern
ment, a destruction of all property. But it does
not follow that every thing they do should seem wrong
to me: and it is matter of rejoicing that the present
ministers have made several good appointments.
It is impracticable to go through the detail of these
pamphlets. The object is to show some such instances
of unfair quotation as will illustrate the general tone of
the quotations where the unfairness may not be so
obvious, and some such instances of misunderstanding
as will show the probability of error in the whole
charge against Dr. Hampden.
It must be constantly borne in mind, that Dr.
Hampden avows his object to be limited to consi-

dering the force of theory in its relation to the divine
truths of our religion, that he is directing his atten
tion to the effect of the scholastic philosophy, and
endeavouring to trace its modifications of our theo
logical language. Strictly speaking, therefore, every
objection to the Bampton Lectures in the four pam
phlets now under consideration is foreign to the matter
in hand, and totally inapplicable ; for we cannot know
how Dr. Hampden would have written upon subjects
which he has expressly put aside. And yet all these
objections are based upon the assumption that he has
been writing upon such very subjects.— (See p. 12, postea.
FIRST INSTANCE,
From the 1st Pamphlet.
In the course of his Observations, Dr. Hampden
stated (p. 39), that if authority was to determine the
principle of church communion, we must go back to
the divinely inspired teachers of Christianity, and could
not stop short of them : our own articles originated in
resistance to the authority of Rome. On page 33,
he says, the admission of dissenters, as dissenters, into
Oxford, is not required by his principle, and he says
expressly that " as honest men," (p. 34), the teachers
there must uphold the terms of their own communion,
and teach their own theological views, because they are
not like mathematics, without moral influence. These
teachers must do their best to prevent any evil " either
" from unsettled opinion generally, or from any particu-
" lar opinion they have reason to think wrong." But
when dissenters do not come as dissenters to Oxford,
and are willing to conform to our discipline, and receive
instruction from tutors whom they know to be members
of the Church, and sincere teachers of its theological
system, Dr. Hampden does not see any objection to

their admission into the University because they are
dissenters.* In Oxford they must be regular at chapel,
and at the Lord's table, and he does not think it neces
sary to go out of Oxford to raise up charges against
them. Dr. Hampden is strongly opposed to the re
moval of all subscription on the. part of the clergy, and
would zealously contend against Arian or Socinian
doctrines, {Postscript, p. 13,) and charges Unitarians
with retrenching or explaining away the Scriptures
{Observations, p. 20.)
The clerical member of convocation has so written his
pamphlet, that men collect, Dr. Hampden has denied
the proper use of authority, supported the free admission
of dissenters, as dissenters, into Oxford, and thought our
clergy might omit to press our doctrines upon their
pupils. He does not accuse Dr. Hampden or his sup
porters of any unequivocal assertion of doctrines directly
Socinian, but asserts his own fear that Dr. Hampden
will be found, upon reference to history, to go far be
yond the errors of Socinus and Crellius, and is certainly
paving the way for others to formal Socinianism, how
ever he may himself escape it, p. 15.

In the passages quoted by Dr. Hampden's adver
saries, some variations are in themselves trifling; but
trifles, often occurring, do much evil in the world : take
for an instance, the quotation in p. 1 6 —
" I do not scruple  to avow myself
" favourable to a removal of all tests, so far as they are
" employed as securities of orthodoxy among our mem-
* It would avoid a dangerous precedent and a very questionable
practice, if students were matriculated without signing the Articles
but signed them when they put down their names to be examined
first degree.

" bers at large. Tests are no part of religious edu-
" cation ; if they were I should think we were justified
" in retaining them. They are merely boundaries of
" exclusion."— P. 35.
The four dots mark an omission ; could any reader
have thought that the omission is of the word " there
fore" in the first edition, (p. 39), and the word " ac
cordingly" in the second, (p. 35.) It is a strange
economy ; and if the word had been put in, a reader of
the pamphlet might have turned to Dr. Hampden's
pages, and there found the reasons for and meaning
of what now appears as a bare assumption. Again, in
both editions Dr. Hampden prints education in Italics,
obviously to point his meaning and save explanation.
The Italics are omitted by his adversary for " educa
tion": yet this adversary knows Italics are of import
ance (note, p. 22,) and puts them in where they are
not used by Dr. Hampden.

SECOND INSTANCE,
From the \st Pamphlet.
" For if all opinion as such is involuntary in its
" nature," (printed in Italics, though not so printed in
Dr. Hampden's page 5,) " it is only a fallacy to invest
" dissent in religion with the awe of the objects about
" which it is conversant." Then follows the insinuation
now complained of: for, by the help of a note, we are
directed to compare that passage with an alleged decla
ration of Lord Brougham, that it is now an established
truth, that man shall no more render account to man
for his belief, over which he has himself no control.
Now without entering into the general drift of the
argument, the words " as such" prove that Dr. Hamp
den assumes the very fact which Lord Brougham is

10
alleged to deny. Opinion is a word used by a common
mistake as synonymous with principle, and Dr. Hamp
den wished to avoid this mistake. They are not opinions
by which a man chooses to remain under certain
temptations, or burden himself with certain difficulties,
or neglects to provide himself with proper helps. In
such cases a man is responsible for his belief. The
first page of the Bampton Lectures sets this matter at
rest, and will serve further to show how very unjust
many of the charges made against the Bampton Lec
tures are, by showing what truths Dr. Hampden has
laid out of his consideration, and what he has distinctly
brought under his consideration. It cannot with any
fairness be said, as it is said, that the absence of those
truths which he specially admits, assumes and lays aside,
is proof that he does not hold them. The system of
extract making must always leave great room for
unfairness, where the general qualification and condi
tions of the whole work are left out ; and the danger
is greatest and worst when men will not read the whole
work. There is every reason to fear that very few of
Dr. Hampden's adversaries have read all his works :
yet they are clearly bound to have read them all before
they can justify a vote against him for publishing those
works. " Christianity had its beginnings amidst obstructions
" of a twofold character ; the self-righteousness of the
" human heart, and the presumption of the human
" understanding. It had to war with the pride of man,
" entrenched within these double fortifications. Not
" only were those principles of our nature, on which
" it was to exercise its sanctifying influence, armed in
" hostility against it ; but those on which it had to
" rely as the interpreters of its overtures of peace and

11
" pardon, misconstrued and misrepresented its heavenly
" message. " The history of infidelity and of heresy affords
" abundant instances of this twofold counteraction to
" the truths of the Gospel. It is not of the action of
" the heart on the understanding, and of the under-
" standing on the heart, that I now speak. That this
" mutual action and reaction take place in all our
" decisions on moral questions is undoubtedly true,
" and a highly interesting fact it is both to the theo-
" logian and the moral philosopher. The point, how-
" ever, on which I now insist, is the separate influence
" of the two great classes of principles which our
" nature exhibits on the reception of divine truth.
" There is a resistance simply moral, and another
" simply intellectual — the force of vice and the force
" of theory — both of which have played a considerable
" part in the drama of religion. Each demands
" accordingly a distinct consideration from those who
" would fully solve that great problem, which the
" existence of a complex system of facts and doctrines,
" under the name of Christianity, presents to the
" thoughtful mind.
'' My purpose in the following Lectures is, to
" examine into the influence of one of these classes
" of principles — those of the understanding; and to
" endeavour to present to your notice the force of
" theory in its relation to the divine truths of our
" religion. It is that portion of the inquiry which
" has attracted the least investigation in itself. For
" though ecclesiastical histories purpose to give a view
" of theological opinion, there is none that I am
" acquainted with which has given an account of
" the effect of opinion as such on the doctrines of

12
" Christianity. They give rather a view of human pas-
" sions in their relation to the divine, or of human nature
" in general in its reception of the Gospel. They do
" not show how the intellect of man has insinuated
" its own conclusions into the body of the revelation
" in the course of its transmission, and modified the
" expressions by which the truth is conveyed.
" I do not indeed purpose to enter into the whole
" of so large an inquiry, nor can I pretend, in the
" compass of the present Lectures, to exhaust even a
" part of it. I must content myself with laying
" before you that portion of it which has forcibly
" struck my own mind, and which I hope may also
" prove both interesting in itself, and important to
" the result of the whole inquiry into the theoretic
" modifications of our theological language.
" It is then to the effect of the scholastic philosophy
" that I have directed my attention, and endeavoured
"to trace the modifications of our theological
" language as illustrated in that vast theoretic
" system." — Bampton Led. p. 1.

THIRD INSTANCE,
From the 1st Pamphlet.
On page 32 the following assertion and quotation
occur. " Lastly, we have from Dr. Hampden himself
" the following explicit denial (for so it must, I conceive
" be called) of the doctrine of the atonement. ' The
" Scripture revelation has said, we have no hope in
" ourselves ; that looking to ourselves we cannot
" expect happiness ; and, at the same time, has fixed

13
" our attention on a Holy One who did no sin ; whose
" perfect righteousness it has connected with our un-
" righteousness, and whose strength it has brought to
" the aid of our weakness. Thus Christ is emphati-
" cally 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.' "
There is here a serious instance of unfairness, and
the best answer would be a careful study of the fifth
Bampton Lecture, from which this passage is taken,
and applied by Italics in the wrong way ; whereas its
only Italics are, " we may know," and show its real
application. At present a shorter abridgment of what
Dr. Hampden seems to mean may be the more ex
pedient. It will be clear this adversary has not read
and understood all Dr. Hampden's books. The quota
tion that is here to be made will serve to show a
further unfairness in the writer of the second pamphlet.
From page 248 to 258, Dr. Hampden is explaining
the mode in which the theology of the schools has
fashioned the doctrine of repentance, and affected the
statements of our Articles. Because the doctrine of
repentance has been classed and considered under the
head of penal justice, many unscriptural notions and
unholy practices grew up in the Church, viz. penance,
purgatory, and masses, and the fond impiety of super
erogation. Repentance was not classed with faith,
and considered as a doctrine of the Gospel by the
schoolmen, but perverted into a penal code, demanding
the ministration of a priest. An energetic, practical
amendment was needed, and our Church accordingly

14
declared in its Articles against the abuses which had
perverted the doctrine of repentance, instead of ad
dressing itself to the decision of the speculative nature
of repentance considered as a doctrine of the Gospel.
It was then under the knowledge that this philo
sophy of expiation led to these errors that our Articles
condemned the errors, purgatory, pardons, masses, &c.
There was a great evil in this philosophy, for it gave
the priests a power that never can be theirs. Before,
however, that consideration is taken up, it is remarked
how strongly the inefficacy of repentance, by itself,
mere, bare, repentance, without satisfaction of some
kind or other, to wipe away guilt, and restore the guilty
to their lost state, has impressed all thinking men ;
and here Dr. Hampden's own words must be used to
silence his adversaries effectually.
P. 251. — He goes on : — " It is of little purpose to
" urge the natural placability of the Divine Being, his
" mercy, his willingness to receive the penitent. God,
" no doubt, is abundantly placable, merciful, and for-
" giving. 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 conscience — are no fallacious things.
" He is sensible of them, even whilst the Gospel tells
" him, ' Thy sins be forgiven thee' — ' Go, and sin
" no more.' The heart seeks for reparation and satis-
" faction ; its longings are, that its sin may be no more
" remembered, that the characters in which it is written
" may be blotted out. Hence the congeniality to its
" feelings of the notion of atonement, fjlt is no
" speculative thought which
" suggests the theory; specu- All these words between the
" lation rather prompts to the brackets are not cited, but

15
" rejection of it; speculation omitted, without notice, in No.
" furnishes abstract reasons, 2> P- 24> (as explained after-
" from the Divine attributes, nards- P- 35') »*"* ?ori °/
" for discarding it as a chi- ^e passage is cited.
" mera of our fears. But]
" the fact is, that we cannot be at peace without some
" consciousness of atonement made. The word atone-
" ment, in its true, practical sense, expresses this
" indisputable fact. [Objec-
" tions may hold against the
" explanations of the term.
"Turn over the records of Omitted, with notice, inNo. 2,
" human crime; and, whether P- 2i- See postea, p. 35.
" under the forms of super- Dr- Hampden has built upon
" stition or the enactments 0f the very foundation which he is
,, . ., ,, /. , accused of denyinq, a swper-
" civil government, the fact J 3 • ,
structure which could not
" itself constantly emerges to . , tl , ,
J ° stand upon any other founda-
" the view. All concur in ,.„,_ The knowledge of the
" showing, that, whilst God Atonement admits the fact, and
" is gracious and merciful, further sets at rest the hearts
" repenting him of evil, the of those, and only of those,
" human heart is inexorable m,>° ^»"w how they are ac-
" against itself. It may hope counted righteous before God.
" — tremblingly hope that God
" may forgive it, but it cannot
" forgive itself.]
" This material and invincible difficulty of the case,
" the Scripture revelation has met with a parallel fact.
" It has said, we have no hope in ourselves; that,
"looking to ourselves, we cannot expect happiness;
" and at the same time, has fixed our attention on a
" Holy One who did no sin ; whose perfect righteous-
" ness it has connected with our unrighteousness, and
" whose strength it has brought to the evil of our

16
" 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.
" [' If our heart condemn us
" not/ then may we ' have
" peace with God ;' but, with-
" out the thought of Christ, 0mitted> with nolice< No- 2-
" the heart that has any real p" "
" sense of its condition must
l' sink under its own condem-
" nation.] " 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.
" rjlt was no invigoration of
" the mind, no cheering of the
., , i- .• Omitted, without notice, No.
" heart, to masculine exertion,
' . . 2, p. 25. Let the reader con-
" in working out the great ., ,
° ° sider the different effect pro-
" work of salvation, by exag- dwed whm the geneml Mfl
" gerated, yet noble, views of ofthe writer and all Us words
" what man could accomplish. are mder consideration : and
" But it checked the aspirings when the lines brought out to
" both of the heart and ofthe the full page are alone under
" intellect, by fixing them at a consideration, and that without
" standard that had only the anV notice °ftwo serious omis-
" mockery of Divine strength, siom- Dr- Hampden's re-
«and not the reality. lt^^ necessarily presuppose
, . two objective facts, the atone-
" broup-ht men to acquiesce , , ./
o ~>- ment and its acceptance by
" in a confession of impo- Almighty God.
" tence, without carrying them
" at once to the throne of

17
" grace.] The ecclesiastical power stood between
" the heart and heaven. Atonement was converted
" into a theory of commutation,"
[Here the quotation stops with an 8fc. as quoted in No. 2, p. 25 ;
but Dr. Hampden goes on — ]
" 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 goodness,
" men looked no further : their proper power was
" exchanged for a servile dependence on the ministra-
" tions of the priest — the presumed all-sufficiency 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 refinements 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 iniquities to the
" third and fourth generation, and yet showing 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 ofthe world !" — Bampton Led. p. 254.

18
It is necessary, in common justice, to remember what
Dr. Hampden's object is, and what it is not. It is his
object to explain why our Articles declare in their pre
sent phraseology against some of the errors of Popery.
It is not his object to state the doctrine of the
atonement. That doctrine may be considered in two
ways, with reference to God, and with reference to
man. The death of the Son of Man might have
wrought out the salvation of our race, without any
revelation of the doctrine of the Atonement to us.
Whatever change of purpose may have been wrought
in Almighty God by the death of Christ ; whatever,
the most reverential, language may be used to convey
some notion to sinners of that change in Him with whom
is no variableness nor shadow of turning ; that change
and that language are not here the subject of Dr.
Hampden's consideration. He is looking towards the
reasons why the doctrine of the Atonement is revealed.
He does not declare what those reasons may be ; but
looking that way, he asserts a truth, which has not
ever been contested in our Church. The peculiar force
of the word atonement, the reason above all others why
we call Christ our atonement, is that view of the sacri
fice of the death of the Christ which sets us at one with
God. Of course Dr. Hampden must be aware of what
is substantially the same truth, in another aspect : he
declares over and over again, and presses upon his
parishioners most carefully, that Christ is also the pro
pitiation for our sins. That seems to me the view of
the sacrifice of the death of Christ, which more directlj
points to what may be considered the effect of the
atonement upon the Almighty Father. Dr. Hampden
is not answerable for my construction of his words or
for my addition to them ; but his adversaries, when

19
implying his denial of the atonement, have not shown
any mode of construing his words which will bear out
the implication.
It is remarkable too that our thankful feelings
would be more likely to lead us to dwell upon the
effects of the sacrifice of the death of Christ upon
our ownselves ; and that in fact, we do talk more of
the atonement than of the propitiation for our sins.
Yet so entirely necessary is the other view, that
in order to take it in, without losing the expres
sion in which our very hearts must rejoice, our
language has changed, and the secondary meaning of
atonement, as something propitiatory, has actually
superseded the primary notion of the restoration of
peace. This cannot be from following our authorized
formularies, for the word atonement does not occur
in our creeds or articles, and only once in our New
Testament. This quotation shows the Clerical Member has not
understood Dr. Hampden's drift ; and has charged him
with Socinianism. It is further unfair that the last
sentence in the paragraph {ante, p. 16) was left out.
More will be said on this quotation hereafter,
page 35. But nothing more will be cited from the
1st pamphlet.

The author of the Elucidations has misquoted Dr.
Hampden ; and when his quotations are correct has
not construed them aright. He must have read in the
preface to his Prayer Book a truth which he has
outrao-ed in practice ; for he has not allowed to Dr.
Hampden's pages such just and favourable construc
tion as in common equity ought to be allowed to all
c2

20
human writings, and even to the very best translation
of the holy Scripture itself.
The first charge here brought against Dr. Hampden
is, (p, 5,) in substance, that he denies to tradition and
the soundest human reasoning the authority of God ; but
he assigns to the Bible itself the same authority as if
it were now spoken from heaven, by Almighty God
himself, among the thunders of some greater Sinai.
Long may this form, as it now does, the belief of the
United Church of England and Ireland. Long may we
be delivered from Popery, and the spirit that would
make the Church a party and its adherents partisans,
that would set our neighbour's soul upon our convic
tions of abstract truth, and measure his fate by our
responsibilities. They who try to raise uninspired expressions of
God's truth to the level of that truth, should remember
how such an attempt ended ages ago. God's truth
was sunk to the level, and afterwards below the level,
of uninspired dogmas, and then the Bible was to be
struck out of men's hands, lest they should discover
the fraud that had been practised. Then all manner
of wickedness was breaking in upon the world like a
flood. It seems that the Elucidator thinks the Sixth
Article, when it is destroying an appeal to tradition,
and says, against a prevailing sin of Rome, You shall
not hold necessary for salvation what cannot be proved
by Holy Scripture, does not say that only, but further
implies that all which can be proved by Holy Scrip
ture is necessary for salvation. The first sentence of
this Article might well be aimed against this very
implication, for Scripture does not contain what is
to be deduced from it; but the Twentieth Article is
conclusive : for a deduction from holy writ, however

21
legitimate and imperative upon sound reasoners, is
undoubtedly something besides holy writ : and the
Latin article uses a preposition which more pointedly
forbids all deductions as something over and above,
more than or beyond the words of holy writ.
FOURTH INSTANCE,
From the 2d Pamphlet.
The first division here "concerning doctrinal truths"
is altogether unfair, and may serve as a specimen of
the rest. The pamphleteer has made many charges
which will be completely stripped of their power
to work evil when just attention is paid to Dr.
Hampden himself. Dr. Hampden has not said, in
any passage I can find, that " it is matter of opinion
whether a man believe in the divinity of Christ or not;"
nor can the Elucidator of his opinions justify the
statement that Socinians " urge after Hampden's
" manner that all doctrine is matter of opinion," and
the insinuation conveyed in the statement, that
" Mr. White maintained the very theory of Dr. Hamp
den, and became a Socinian." P. 12.
Dr. Hampden has not said, in any passage I can find,
that an individual is not abstractedly the worse for being
an Unitarian ; that no right conclusions about theologi
cal truth can be drawn from Scripture. In his observa
tions on page 11, Dr. Hampden states his principle, that
conclusions from Scripture are not to be placed on a
level with truths which Scripture itself simply declares.
He does not object to moral and historical inferences.
" It is then the intellectual, or speculative, or theo-
" logical conclusions, by whichever of these names
" the class may be best signified, to which my objection

22
" applies. It is these which
" have been the fruitful source
" of controversy and error and
" heresy in the progress of
« /~il • \- •. j • * Quoted by Dr. Pusey, No. 4.
" Christianity, and against / "
„ , . , ".. . * , p. 19. postea, p. 44.
which, accordingly, the zeal
" of every lover of the simple
" faith as it is in Christ Jesus
" ought tobedirected."— P.13.
Right conclusions may be drawn from Scripture,
but cannot have the authority of Scripture. Dr.
Hampden says also, that we cannot do without
articles of communion, {postea, pp. 28, 9 ;) that we must
retain them; and that the Apostles' Creed does not
contain any of these speculative truths. — Postscript,
p. 7.
I cannot find where Dr. Hampden has said that
Scripture contains no dogmatic statements, " such as
those about the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, Jus
tification, &c," nor does he appear to me to have made
any of the statements with which he is charged under
this first head, so as to justify the inferences which it
must be supposed the writer intended his readers
should make. The whole offence which is here said
to be given by Dr. Hampden is in fact the result of
the mode in which an adversary has taken and puts
Dr. Hampden's words. They do not give any offence
or contain any error against our doctrines, when taken
as Dr. Hampden meant them and put them ; but when
deprived of the truths to which they were subordi
nated, stripped of their context, and explained by
inuendoes, serve undoubtedly the purpose of raising
suspicions against Dr. Hampden ; and while the words
of Dr. Hampden on one side of the argument are thus

23
distorted, those which he says on the other are sys
tematically left out. So that the very qualification
which might be intended to bring his statements to tha
middle position, which is the home of truth, is left
out, and the extreme of one side is given unexplained.
By taking the other extreme it would be easy to prove
him much this adversary should wish to prove him ;
for Dr. Hampden maintains that the Athanasian Creed
is perfectly true, and not only that, but further, should
also be used in our churches, {postea, pp. 39, 40,) and
wishes to establish the importance and proper truth of
dogmas of theology. — Bampton Lectures, p. 375, 6,
postea, p. 26.
FIFTH INSTANCE,
From the 2d Pamphlet.
It is much easier to make charges against a book
than to disprove them, because it is much less tedious.
I cannot imagine how any man could lead his readers
to suppose Dr. Hampden spoke contemptuously of the
Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, (pp. 9, 10,) and cite as
evidence of that fact the first three sentences of note F.
to the eighth Bampton Lecture, when the whole note,
which should have been given in common fairness, is
actually an eulogy upon the two creeds, and part of
it a commendation of the term consubstantial, which
Dr. Pusey, (No. 4, p. 6,) alleges Dr. Hampden studi
ously avoids, and insinuates a motive for so avoid
ing it. — Postea, p. 34.
SIXTH INSTANCE,
From the 2d Pamphlet.
Another unfairness of the same kind is the result of
quoting, p. 9, some lines from p. 378, B. Lee. [bracketed]
{postea, p. 28 ;) but the intention of Dr. Hampden is fully

24
expressed when the whole lecture is read, And may be
collected from the following consecutive paragraphs.
They will also serve to show the unfairness of other
quotations, also, by and by : the capitals are mine.
" The previous discussion has, I trust, prepared the
" way for the conclusions, which I wish now to
" submit to your consideration, as to the nature and
" use of dogmatic theology.
"It is evident, I think, from the inquiry which
" I have been pursuing, on the whole, as well as more
" immediately from the preceding observations, that
" the doctrinal statements of religious truth have
" their origin in the principles of the human intellect.
" Strictly to speak, in the Scripture itself there are
" no doctrines. What we read there is matter of fact ;
" either fact nakedly set forth as it occurred, or fact
" explained and elucidated by the light of inspiration
" cast upon it. It will be thought, perhaps, that the
" Apostolic Epistles are an exception to this observation.
" If any part of Scripture contains doctrinal state-
'* ments, it will at any rate be supposed to be the
" epistolary. But even this part, if accurately con-
" sidered, will not be found an exception. No one
" perhaps will maintain that there is any new truth of
" Christianity set forth in the Epistles ; any truth,
" I mean, which does not pre-suppose the whole truth
" of human salvation by Jesus Christ as already deter-
" mined and complete. The Epistles clearly imply
" that the work of salvation is done ; they repeat and
" insist on its most striking parts, urging chiefly on
" man what remains for him to do, now that Christ
" has done all that God purposed in behalf of man
" before the foundation of the world. Let the experi-
*' ment be fairly tried ; let the inveterate idea that the

25
Epistles are the doctrinal portion of Scripture, be
for a while banished from the mind, and let them be
read simply as the works of our fathers in the faith
— of men who are commending us rather to the love
of Christ than opening our understanding to the
mysteries of divine knowledge ; and, after such an
experiment, let each decide for himself, whether the
practical, or the theoretic view of the Epistles, is
the correct one. For my part, I cannot doubt but
that the decision will be in favour of the practical
character of them. The speculating theologian will
perhaps answer by adducing text after text from an
epistle, in which he will contend that some dogmatic
truth, some theory, or system, or peculiar view of
divine truth, is asserted. But ' what is the chaff to
the wheat?' I appeal from the logical criticism of
the apostle's words to their apostolical spirit — from
Paul philosophizing to Paul preaching, and entreat
ing, and persuading ; and I ask whether it is likely
that an apostle would have adopted the form of an
epistolary communication for imparting mysterious
propositions to disciples with whom he enjoyed the
opportunity of personal intercourse, and to whom
he had already ' declared the whole counsel of God '
— whether, in preaching Christ, he would have used
a method of communicating truth which implies
some scientific application of language, an analysis,
at least, of propositions into their terms, in order to
its being rightly understood ? And I further request
it may be considered whether it was not by such a
mode of inference from the Scripture language as
would convert the Epistles into textual authorities on
points of controversy that the very system of the
scholastic theology was erected.

26
" Dogmas of theology, then, as such, are human
" authorities. But do I mean to say by this that they
" are unimportant in religion, or that they are essentially
" wrong, foreign to true religion, and inconsistent
" with it ? I wish rather to establish their importance
" and proper truth, as distinct from the honour and
" verity of the simple divine word. We have seen
" how doctrines gradually assume their form by the
" successive impressions of controversy. The facts of
" Scripture remain the same through all ages, under
" all variations of opinions among men. Not so the
" theories raised upon them ; they have floated on the
" stream of speculation. One heresiarch after another
" has proposed his modifications : the doctrine so
" stated has obtained more or less currency, according
" to its coincidence with received notions on other
" subjects — according to the influence possessed by
" its patrons, or their obstinacy against persecution.
" Nearly the whole of Christendom was, at one time,
" Arian in profession. At one time Pelagianism
" seemed to be the ascendant creed of the Church.
" In such a state of things it was impossible for the
" scriptural theologian, even if not himself susceptible
" of the seductive force of a logical philosophy, to
" refrain from mingling in the conflict of argument.
" Orthodoxy was forced
" to speak the divine truth in
" the terms of heretical spe-
" culation, if it were only to Cited by Dr. Pusey, postea,
" guard against the novelties p. 44.
" which the heretic had in-
" troduced. It was the ne-
" cessity of the case that
" compelled the orthodox, as

27
" themselves freely admit, to
" EMPLOY A PHRASEOLOGY
" by which, as experience
" proves, the naked truth of
" God has been overborne
" and obscured.
" Such being the origin of a dogmatic theology, it
" follows that its proper truth consists in its being
" a collection of negations ; of negations I mean of all
" ideas imported into religion, beyond the express
" sanction of revelation. Supposing that there had
" been no theories proposed on the truths of Chris-
" tianity ; were the Bible, or rather the divine facts
" which it reveals, at once ushered into our notice,
" without our knowing that various wild notions,
" both concerning God and human nature, had
" been raised upon the sacred truths ; no one, I con-
" ceive, would wish to see those facts reduced to
" the precision and number of articles, any more than
" he now thinks of reducing any other history to such
" a form. We should rather resist any such attempt
" as futile, if not as profane ; or, however judiciously
" such a selection might be made we should un-
" doubtedly prefer the living records of the Divine
" Agency, to the dry and uninteresting abstracts of
" human compilers and expositors. But when theo-
" retic views are known to have been held and pro-
" pagated, when the world has been familiarized to
" the language of these speculations ; and the truth of
" God is liable to corruption from them ; then it is
" that forms of exclusion become necessary, and
" theory must be retorted by theory. This very oc-
" casion, however, of the introduction of theory into
" religion suggests the limitation of it. It must be

28
" strictly confined to the exclusion and rejection of all
" extraneous notions from the subjects of the sacred
" volumes. Theory thus regulated constitutes a true
" and valuable philosophy, not of Christianity pro-
" perly so called, but of human Christianity — of
" Christianity in the world, as it has been acted on
" by the force ofthe human intellect.
" This is the view which I take, not only of our
" Articles at large, but in particular of the Nicene and
" Athanasian Creeds, as they stand in our Ritual, or
" are adopted into our Articles. [_If it be admitted that
" the notions on which their several expressions are
" founded are both unphilosophical and unscriptural,
" it must be remembered that they do not impress
" those notions on the faith of the Christian, as matters
" of affirmative belief: they only use the terms of
" ancient theories of philosophers, — theories current in
" the schools at the time when they were written, — to
" exclude others more obviously injurious to the sim-
" plicity of the faith.] The speculative language of
" these creeds, it should be observed, was admitted
" into the Church of England, as established by the
" Reformers, before the period, when the genius of
" Bacon exposed the emptiness of the system, which
" the schools had palmed upon the world as the only
" instrument for the discovery of all truth. At such a
" time, accordingly, the theories opposed in the original
" formularies of the orthodox would be powerfully
" felt as real obstacles to a sound belief in christian
" truths; and the terms, declaring the orthodox doc-
" trine, would be readily interpreted by the existing
" physical and logical notions. The minds of men
" would be fully preoccupied with the notions of
" matter, and form, and substance, and accident ; and

29
" when such notions had produced misconception of
" the sacred truth, it would be a necessary expedient
" to correct that misconception by a less exceptionable
" employment of them.
" If this account ofthe origin and nature of dogmatic
" theology be correct, surely those entirely pervert its
" nature who reason on the terms of doctrines, as if
" they were the proper ideas belonging to religion ; or
" who insist on interpretations of expressions, whe-
" ther as employed by our reformers or the primitive be-
" lievers, in a positive sense ; without taking into their
" view the existing state of theology and philosophy
" at the different periods of Christianity. Creeds and
" articles, without such previous study, are as if they
" were written in a strange language. The words,
" indeed, are signs of ideas to us, but not of those
" ideas which were presented to the minds of men,
" when the formularies were written, or when they
" were adopted by the Church.
" But here the question may be asked, how far on
" these grounds creeds and articles may be retained,
" when the original occasion for them has ceased?
" The answer of Hooker will readily occur to many,
" that the occasion having ceased, it by no means fol-
" lows that the statements themselves should no longer
" be of use ; a fact that may be illustrated by several
" analogies. But the case of articles is a peculiar one
" in this respect ; that the result itself is conceived to
" be an evil, or at least an alternative to avoid an evil,
'* it being admitted to be better, except by way of
" antidote against heretical doctrine, that there should
" be no other articles but the word of God itself. It
" appears to me, then, that the occasion for articles
" will probably never cease. Were the realism of

30
" the human mind a transient phenomenon peculiar to
" one age, or one species of philosophy, and not, as is
" the fact, an instinctive propensity of our intellectual
" nature ; then it might be supposed that the un-
" soundness of a metaphysical and logical theology
" being once fully admitted, the cumbrous machinery
" might be removed, and the sacred truth allowed to
" stand forth to view in its own attractive simplicity.
" But such a result seems rather to be wished and
" prayed for by a sanguine piety, than reckoned upon
" in the humbling calculations of human experience.
" In the mean time, it were well to retain, amidst all
" its confessed imperfections, a system of technical
" theology, by which we are guarded, in some measure,
" from the exorbitance of theoretic enthusiasm. It
" would be a rashness of pious feeling that should at
" once so confide in itself as to throw down the walls
" and embankments which the more vigilant fears of
" our predecessors have reared up around the city of
" God. In the present state of things, such a zeal for
" the faith would look more like the ostentatiousness
" of Spartan courage, than the modest discipline of
" the soldiers of Christ, trusting in his arm for success,
" and yet availing themselves of all natural means of
" strength which their reason points out.
" The force, indeed, of history must always act on a
" literary age, and an influence is exercised by former
" speculators on the opinions and conduct of their
" successors. We cannot therefore conclude, that
" because the original occasion of creeds and articles
" has ceased, there are actually no existing prejudices
" of a like kind kept alive by the tradition of former
" opinions, to be obviated by the like theoretic state-
" ments." — Bampton Lectures, p. 381.

31
The unfairness is, that a reader would collect from
the extract that Dr. Hampden was objecting to our
creeds and articles. In fact, he is praising them;
because, even if admitted to contain expressions founded
on unscriptural and unphilosophical notions, they do
not make those notions matters of affirmative belief :
if the terms used be objectionable, clearly they were
the least objectionable that could be brought into use.
SEVENTH INSTANCE,
From the 2d Pamphlet.
From some unaccountable mistake, the Elucidator
states, on p. 14, that Dr. Hampden holds " that the
" Catholic doctrine of the Trinity is one out of the
" infinite theories which may be raised upon the facts
" of Scripture," and that the " Athanasian Creed is in
" its origin the view of a; party in the Church ;" and
in support of this statement he cites, on the opposite
page (15,) Dr. Hampden's own words :— These my
discussions, " historically regarded, evidence the reality
" of those sacred facts of divine Providence, which are
" comprehensively denoted by the doctrine of a Trinity
" in Unity. But let us not," what is it we are not
to do ? actually, " let us not identify this reality with
" the theories couched under a logical phraseology."
And why has the Elucidator left out the concluding
sentence of this lecture, which immediately follows
the word " based." The name of Augustine, here left
out, like the name of Butler, left out on p. 40, would
have taken some force from the charge against Dr.
Hampden, who goes on thus :— " Looking to the
" simple truth of Scripture, I would say, in the lan-
" guage of Augustine, ' These things I know, but I

32
" know not how, I am not able, I am not sufficient
" to distinguish between that generation and this pro-
" cession. There is more of truth in our reflections
" about God than in our words ; and the full truth of
<( his existence is far above our reflections." This
was said before the invention of Popery.
Secondly, the whole passage in Dr. Hampden shall
be given, and the part actually quoted by the eluci
dator thrown into Italics. " P. 104. But though
" Athanasius was the great author of that theoretic
" agreement, which established the orthodox doctrine
" of the Trinity ; the maintenance and diffusion of it
" were owing principally to the active zeal of the
" Latin clergy. Nothing can declare this more
" strongly than the fact, that the original of the
" Athanasian Creed is a Latin composition. It is suf-
" ficiently remarkable that ecclesiastical history has
" not been able positively to assign the authorship or
" date of the Creed as a composition. It appears to
" me that the silence respecting the individual author
" was designed, or at least his name was forgotten,
" in the wish to give a higher authority to the document;
" and that its reception by us, in its present form, as the
" ' symbol ' or ' faith ' of Athanasius, is an evidence of
" the triumph of a party in the Church, thus declaring
%c their authoritative judgment, under the sanction of a
" name, which expressed in itself every thing hostile to
" Arianism." Instead of the words "as the symbol or faith of
Athanasius," which point the statement, we have four
colons to mark an omission.
It is observable that these passages, as quoted by the
elucidator, do not bear out his assertion. It is further
observable that neither of these two passages is fairly

33

quoted ; yet the Elucidator repeats these assertions on
p. 17, and follows them up on p. 18 with the following
paragraph : —
" Let it not be thought invidious, if recourse is again
" had to the writings of professed Socinians, by way
" of illustrating the unguarded nature of Dr. Hampden's
" statements. It is not at all hereby insinuated that he
" himself agrees with them, in their peculiar errors ;
" but it is necessary that a christian university should
" have some safeguard against Socinians sheltering
" themselves behind, and using the authority of Dr.
" Hampden, which in the present state of his published
" teaching they might well do, were they inclined ; a
" safeguard, on the other hand, lest unlearned hearers
" unintentionally, and from the fulness of their con-
" fidence in Dr. Hampden, find themselves precipi-
" tated into the depths of that heresy which antiquity
" calls a God-denying apostasy."
The insinuation expressly disclaimed in this instance,
makes the absence of such a disclaimer elsewhere still
more pointed : and a second insinuation of Socinianism
fills up the same page (18), and half of p. 19.

EIGHTH INSTANCE,
From the 2d Pamphlet.
On p. 20, Dr. Hampden is asserted to conceive that
the orthodox doctrine on the subject of the incarnation
is grounded on a confused philosophy, and passages
are quoted which disprove the assertion : from them it
is obvious Dr. Hampden says, the orthodox language,
(not doctrine,) was settled by a philosophy which
had confused the principles of different sciences,

34
physics and logic. He goes on to explain, through four
useful pages, which part ofthe language was grounded
on physical speculations, and which on logical, and
winds up with showing the truth and accuracy of our
article. "Thus we find the language of our article
" affirming in Christ two whole and perfect natures
" never to be divided." — P. 141. Pusey, No. 4, p. 9.
First, the Elucidator does not quote fairly here.
Secondly, he should not have omitted this conclu
sion. Thirdly, instead of printing this conclusion,
it is not fair he should talk about Unitarianism, and
quote from Dr. Hampden's Observations a long passage
written in a different year, on a different subject, with
a different view, which does not say any thing about
the incarnation, and then tack on remarks calculated
to make people believe Dr. Hampden adopts the error
of Socinians.
The Elucidator is right when he states Dr. Hampden
conceives the Unitarians are as dogmatic as the
orthodox believers, and are morally wrong by reason of
that dogmatism ; but he is wrong, and does not pro
duce any authority for it, when he states that Dr.
Hampden conceives the essential fault of the Unita
rians lies in their dogmatism ; that the Unitarians are
not morally wrong for holding Christ to be a mere
man. Recourse must be had to the long extracts from
Dr. Hampden, to show what his opinions are ; and
further to show that his words have been unfairly
quoted, and also misunderstood. Passages, to which his
adversaries have attached great importance, are found
in their proper position by the length of the extract :
but after all, the only proper way to learn what Dr.
Hampden's opinions are, is to read his books. For
those who cannot read them, these remarks may show

35
the conduct of his adversaries. They are not charged
with wilful misrepresentation, but with a zeal far
beyond knowledge, and with the consequences which
their actual misrepresentations of Dr. Hampden's
works, and their entire mistakes of his meaning, have
produced and are producing. The mode of quoting
on p. 40, the Mor. Phil. Lect. pp. 96, 8, would make
any book seem wrong. NINTH INSTANCE,
From the 2d Pamphlet.
This is the last quotation to be adduced from this
pamphlet, and amounts to a very serious charge.
The reader will please to turn back to p. 14, where the
whole passage is given at length in its proper context.
The Elucidator, on p. 24, quotes the passage out of
the Bampton Lecture, p. 251, beginning, " It is of
little purpose," but he stops at " notion of atonement."
The printers no doubt are in fault for not marking
the omission here, but it is not marked. He then goes
on, " the fact is," &c. to " indisputable fact," and then
four colons duly mark that there is some omission.
What is here omitted, if put in, would have told for
Dr. Hampden. The Elucidator then begins " This mate
rial," and goes on to the words " condemn us." Then the
omission of one sentence is marked, and that one sentence
so omitted expresses a practical necessity for the atone
ment. The Elucidator takes up the next sentence, and
stops at the end of it, making an omission of three
sentences, and the printers have again left out the
colons, that are commonly used by the Elucidator, to
mark where omissions are made. These three sentences
tend to show that Dr. Hampden is aiming his remarks
at the popish expiation. The Elucidator then goes on,
d2

36
" The ecclesiastical power, (clearly by the three omitted
" sentences, the popish ecclesiastical power), stood be-
" tween the heart and heaven : atonement was converted
" into atheory of commutation," and stops with a comma,
and an &c. The rest of that sentence if given would
have shown the popish theory was spoken of. The
next page, if given, would have shown the true applica
tion of the atonement. This is not fair ; and instances
enough have now been given to justify the charge of
misquotation and misunderstanding.
The effect of the quotations thus unfairly made,
and the passages thus misunderstood, is left untouched
by the conclusion which the Elucidator has himself
drawn from his own premises. It is to little purpose
that the Elucidator afterwards admits that Dr. Hampden
states himself to be a believer in the doctrines of the
Trinity and Incarnation, and considers them influential
on conduct ; and it is almost an insult to put in a
parenthesis, as he does, that we (meaning himself
and his friends, we) might be sure beforehand such
statement of Dr. Hampden's was correct ; but it is
worse than mere insult to add the reasons for so being
sure. The sentence runs thus : — (p. 41,) " Dr.
" Hampden is a believer in the doctrines of the Trinity
' and Incarnation, (as we might be sure beforehand
" from his position in the University, and the sub-
" scriptions it involves,) and considers them influential
" on conduct, though he does not believe them as
" revealed truths, but as unrevealed opinions and pious
" deductions, which he has no right to impose upon
" others." I am not able to find any passage in which
Dr. Hampden states the doctrines of the Trinity and
Incarnation to be unrevealed opinions : I am able to
find many passages in which he shows that he holds

37
them to be revealed truths. In. Lect. pp. 8, 10, 11.
Bampton Lectures, p. 146. Antea, p. 31 ; postea, p. 39.
Dr. Pusey states, on his first page, that " the mild
" author of the Elucidations has selected passages from
" Dr. Hampden with great judgment and care, which
" carry with them a far more decided condemnation than
" he has allowed himself to pass ; " in other words, he
has insinuated what he has not ventured to assert, and
that by means of selections, some of which have been
proved very unfair in material points.
In order to explain how the personal faith of Dr.
Hampden yet survives, (p. 2), Dr. Pusey brings in an
earlier set of principles which govern his heart and
conduct, and which his intellect disbelieves, all the
time that Dr. Hampden thinks he believes them.
On p. vii., Dr. Pusey misunderstands, or misrepre
sents Dr. Hampden. It is there insinuated, rather
than asserted, that he has said concerning the doctrine
ofthe Trinity what he has said concerning the expres
sions of that doctrine. The confusion of this charge is
such as may give some notion of the difficulty which
Dr. Hampden will have to encounter, in case the
station of Dr. Pusey, and the personal character of
himself and his friends, should call forth a defence of
the Bampton Lectures. It will further serve the pre
sent purpose, and show what unfair charges are made,
what mistaken notions have been published against
Dr. Hampden.
The system of Dr. Hampden, as Dr. Pusey alleges,
p. 7, is, then, among other things, " That the doctrine
" of the Holy Trinity, which, in the Nicene Creed,
" received the sanction of the whole Christian Church,
" is not to be regarded as an expression of the form of
" sound words delivered by the apostles (2 Tim. i. 13),

38
" but as the invention of men : that every state-
" ment not involved in Scripture words, whether
" Athanasian, Arian, Socinian, or Pelagian, is alike
" an addition to the naked truth of the gospel : the
" one perhaps wandering yet further from the truth
" than the other, or, in Dr. Hampden's own words, one
" more obviously injurious {sic) than the other to the
"simplicity of the faith, but all alike speculative:
" neither admitting of being maintained against the
" other, neither capable of truth or falsehood."
This short quotation seems to me enough to show
that the reader must not trust Dr. Pusey's statement or
Dr. Pusey's opinions. " Neither," in the last sentence,
appears to signify, " not one of them." It is probable
that Dr. Pusey means that the Apostles had a specific
creed, and spoke of that creed under the name of " a
" form of sound words" — both assumptions, but wil
lingly conceded at present. Then it is implied, the
Nicene Creed ought to be regarded as an expression
of this earlier creed, which had not, as theretofore
expressed, been found enough to meet the heresies
then prevalent. Let this also be granted. Then Dr.
Pusey asserts, that Dr. Hampden maintains two pro
positions, which will be the
TENTH INSTANCE OF UNFAIRNESS.
First, That the doctrine of the Trinity, sanctioned
by the Nicene Creed, is not to be regarded as
the Apostolic doctrine.
Secondly, That the doctrine of the Trinity, sanc
tioned by the Nicene Creed, is to be regarded
as the invention of men.
Dr. Pusey gives no proof of either proposition

39
being maintained by Dr. Hampden. Take the follow
ing extract, as proof that Dr. Hampden has published
the contradictory truths. The Athanasian Creed is,
perhaps, a still stronger case than the Nicene Creed :
the sermon has been dwelling upon the knowledge of
God through Christ : the capitals are mine :
" It may be worth while to state, that it is upon
" this view of the doctrine of the Trinity that the
" formulary of the Athanasian Creed is grounded. If
" that creed were an expression of abstract opinions,
" formed by human reason on an incomprehensible sub-
" ject, then it would be both rash and profane in any
" church to exact a general conformity of declaration
" on a matter so precarious in its foundation. But that
" creed, on the contrary, presupposes that the doctrine
" of the Trinity in Unity is a certain fact of Scripture :
" it simply notes and records what Scripture re-
" veals, and it delivers no opinionwhatever concerning
" the matters revealed and there specified. As a brief
" statement, it brings together points which are scat-
" tered throughout Scripture, collecting in one the
" rays that diverge from the various facts of the diffe-
" rent dispensations of God. This gives it the appear-
" ance of being a declaration of opinions, which
" appearance is increased from its including a denial
" of some opinions introduced by heretical innovators
" upon the faith of Scripture. But we greatly mis-
" conceive its nature, if we imagine that it speaks the
" language of speculative theology. Such is not
" the spirit in which it has been adopted by our Church.
" Our Church, humbly following Scripture, wishes all
" her members to make a true confession of what they
" learn from Scripture ; and, therefore, as I conceive,
" appoints the doctrine of the Trinity as the most

40
" comprehensive declaration of Scripture truths, as the
" doctrine in which all other doctrines ultimately
" centre, to be confessed by her members with peculiar
" emphasis and distinctness on certain occasions. It
" is in this spirit that, as it seems to me (whatever may
" have been the design of the composer of the Athana-
" sian Creed, or in whatever way it may be received by
" the Church of Rome), our Church at least has made
" it one of her standing formularies. If, accordingly,
" the providences of God, related in the Bible, lead us
" to a belief in the triune being of God, as a certain
" fact, shall we not admit the sound wisdom and pro-
" prietyof our declaring this fact in the boldest and most
" solemn manner, stating it with precision where
" heretics have defaced and obscured it, and showing
" that we hold it as a truth of divine Revelation
" (nothing in which can have been given in vain), by
" adding our profession of its unspeakable importance?
" If we must admit all this, we admit, at the same
" time, the excellence and the use of the Athanasian
" Creed, for it has done nothing more than this. I
" trust, my christian brethren, that, with this view of
" our case, we shall be allowed to confess that 'he that
" will be saved must thus think of the Trinity,'* with-
" out having either a want of charity, or a vain dog-
" matism, imputed to us." — Serm. II. p. 35 — 38.
* The right statement of the Incarnation added in the Creed, is
essential to the right statement of the Trinity.

Dr. Pusey makes many charges on pages 11 & 12,
which I cannot find in the pages referred to ; and so
conclude there are some misprints. His representa
tions of Dr. Hampden seem to be mistaken and unfair;
but it now appears that Dr. Hampden is intending to

41
publish in defence of his own views. From that publi
cation, Dr. Pusey may perhaps learn that some of his
own assumptions in this preface are erroneous, and that
Dr. Hampden has not said, and does not think, many
things there imputed to him ; for instance, I cannot
find in his Essay (pp. 26—28), that Dr. Hampden
declares, that " because man is furnished with active
" principles, therefore his whole life consists in out-
" ward action."— (P. 16.) His declaration is very
different. Dr. Pusey infers, on page 21, that it is more than
probable Dr. Hampden is trying to avoid saying he
believes in God the Father who created, God the Son
who redeemed, God the Holy Ghost who sanctifieth
us, because Dr. Hampden says we adduce the doctrine
of a Trinity in Unity, " only in confirmation of a truth
" which results from the whole tenor of Scripture,
" from taking a collective survey of the successive
" dispensations therein recorded, from viewing God,
" not only as the creator and governor of the world, but
" as our Saviour, in the person of Jesus Christ, and our
" comforter and sanctifier, in the person of the Holy
" Ghost." — Par. Serm. p. 29. See contra In. Led. p. 7.
This feverish susceptibility must be allayed, this
uncharitable suspicion be abated, before any individual
or the whole University can come to a right judg
ment; if it be not, the words of the statute lately pro
posed will censure the convocation rather than the
Regius Professor of Divinity ; and imply, that the
want of confidence derived from his mode of treating
theological subjects in his published books is not
attributable to those books, but to the temper in which
they have been read, and the extracts that have saved
manv i irtizans the trouble of read ins: them.

42
ELEVENTH INSTANCE.
The nature of this preface prevents any thing further
than a protest against it under existing circumstances ;
but how far Dr. Pusey may be fair in the propositions,
which he says Dr. Hampden lays down (p. 35). will
be evident, from No. 13, p. 37, which is this : " Unita-
" rians, in that they acknowledge the great fundamen-
" tal facts of the Bible, do not really differ in religion
"from other Christians." — Obs. pp. 20, 21. What is
meant by religion " properly so called," see the pre
vious page 19.
The book which Dr. Pusey prefaces is a mass of
broken sentences from Dr. Hampden, set by the side
of extracts from the Articles, and to which no fair reader
can think of trusting. The extreme minuteness of
some extracts makes it advisable to carry an illustra
tion already adopted one step further, and to remind
the readers, that at the first spring from the word of
God truths may be undistinguishable from heresies :
so, under certain points of consideration, a curve, its
tangent, and its chord, may have to one another the
ratio of equality : the heresy is not in the words, posi
tive and indestructible, but in the use to which they
are put : and so, as Dr. Hampden has well shown, the
positive statements of our creeds might be heretical,
if they were not corrected by the positive statement of
the truths which are wanted to obviate the heretical
perversion ; our formularies are even obliged to qualify
what is by what is not, so as to seem a contradiction to
those who do not understand the origin and perversion
of the language of theology.
At this late period of the controversy, when the*
name of Dr. Hampden has been tarnished, and his
peace injured, now, when suspicion has done its evil

work, within a very few days, Dr. Pusey has printed
the fourth pamphlet, in which (p. 4) he declares, " No
" theologian ever cast any imputation on the direct
" personal faith of Dr. Hampden." In the self-same
pamphlet, (pp. 9 and 10,) Dr. Pusey himself casts im
putations on the direct personal faith of Dr. Hampden,
and rests those imputations on the passage, antea, p. 16.
He insinuates that Dr. Hampden uses the words of our
formularies without meaning what he knows they are
understood to mean. He tells Dr. Hampden that he
does not believe his explanation, and in page 11,
implies no explanation was given.
If it had been Dr. Hampden's object to state the
whole doctrine of the atonement, he would have
found it very difficult to escape the censure of his
adversaries. They refuse to admit the very words of
the Bible in his mouth ; perhaps they do not see that
by this refusal they establish the truth and wisdom of
the great point for which Dr. Hampden is himself
contending : though common honesty, to say nothing
of christian charity, would require them to construe
any remarks of Dr. Hampden which might be ambi
guous according to the meaning of those creeds and
articles which, he says, he believes, and of that Church
in which he is consecrated to the immediate service of
his Redeemer, they will not so construe the plainest
remarks he makes, the most solemn texts he adduces.
The law shows them a plain course if they think
him heretical ; why then do they not follow that
course ? The law has appointed a proper tribunal
for the trial of heresy ; why have they chosen a tri
bunal which can inflict a sentence safer as to them
selves and surer as to Dr. Hampden ? His books
require grave consideration ; why have they brought

44
him before that tribunal in such a breathless hurry ?
The proctors are officially present at the Convocation,
and must vote as honest men, according to their view
of truth, or, they find themselves clothed with a power
which they must exercise, or leave unexercised at their
own peril, according to their own conscience. Why
are they denied the privilege, which they who deny
it to them have so boastfully exerted against Dr.
Hampden ?
This fourth pamphlet reiterates the old charges upon
the strength of the old quotations. On page 1 9 is the
TWELFTH INSTANCE OF UNFAIRNESS.
Dr. Pusey's words are, as he prints them, p. 19 : —
" The following propositions, out of a number
formed from his works might suffice : —
" It is these ' speculative or theological conclu-
" sions,' such as we find in ' all articles of religious
" communion,' which have ' been the fruitful source
" of controversy and error and heresy in the progress
" of Christianity, and against which accordingly the
" zeal of every lover of the simple faith as it is in
" Christ Jesus ought to be directed.' Observ. p. 13."
" ' Experience proves,' that ' the naked truth of
" God has been overborne and obscured by the phrase-
" ology which the orthodox were forced to employ.'
¦ — Bampton Lectures, p. 377."
" ' The notions on which the several expressions
" of the Articles at large, and in particular of the
" Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, are founded, are
" both unphilosophical and unscriptural ;' their terms
" belong to ' ancient theories of philosophy, to exclude
" others more obviously {sic) injurious to the simplicity
"ofthe Faith.'— P. 378."

45
What these three passages really are will be seen
m the previous pages of this pamphlet.— Pp. 22,
26, 28.
By the first of them Dr. Pusey leads his readers to
conclude Dr. Hampden holds our Articles of reli
gious communion to have been the source of controversy,
and error, and heresy, and so the object of every plain
Christian's indignation.— See ante, pp. 22, 39, contra.
By the second of them Dr. Pusey converts what is
a defence of the orthodox when mischief was done by
others into a declaration that the mischief was done by
them. — Ante, p. 26.
By the third of them Dr. Pusey turns admissions
into assertions, and makes a defence of the expressions
of our formularies into a declaration that they are in
jurious to the simplicity of the faith. Granting, says Dr.
Hampden, {ante, p. 28) that the notions on which their
several expressions are founded are not warranted by
sound philosophy, and are not found in Scripture, it
may be granted, without any censure on the creeds
or the authors of the creeds. They did their best, and
what is more, that was the best that could be done.
Heretics used this unsound philosophy, heretics used
these unscriptural words against the truth. The
orthodox then also used them ; not affirmatively, to
declare what they considered the truth, but only nega
tively, and to condemn error, and check its growth. It
is evident that the heretic could not understand his
own defeat unless expressed in his own phraseology.
The terms used against him were not what the
orthodox had any thing to do with choosing absolutely
and in the first instance. He had chosen them him
self, but the orthodox, although they could not choose
absolutely, yet did choose in one sense. Whenever

46
there were two expressions on the lips of the heretic or
philosopher that would serve their purpose, they chose
that which would be least injurious to the simplicity
of the faith. The orthodox had a further merit also.
They bore in mind their object, and stamped it on their
work ; so their formularies now point at the conviction
of error, and not at the declaration of truth.
It has been my duty to read all the other attacks
upon Dr. Hampden which have been published to my
knowledge, and generally they adopt the same line,
and are guilty of the same unfairness. What Dr.
Hampden says of intellect they apply to heart;
what he says of expressions they apply to doc
trines ; what he lays before them in one point of view
they take up in another ; what he considers as privi
leges they will make him be considering as duties. A
few instances must suffice. One letter-writer thinks
Dr. Hampden irreverent, not to say profane, for draw
ing a distinction between St. Paul philosophizing and
St. Paul preaching. Dr. Hampden also objects to this
distinction, and says it is wrong to convert, as others
have converted, St. Paul's earnest appeals to the
heart into dry technicalities which he never contem
plated ; to build upon his words systems of theology,
when those words were intended for their own moral
edification. — Ante, p. 25.
Mr. Lancaster writes in a tone and spirit which should
set his readers against him ; witness his first page,
and the charges of ignorance on page 5. On the same
page he attempts to put down Dr. Hampden's state
ment, " If the alleged point cannot be proved out of
" Scripture, it is no truth of revelation. It by no
" means, however, follows that what can be proved
" out of Scripture must therefore be truth of reve-

47
" lation." There is a long note to explain Mr. Lan
caster's objection to this passage, which does not alter
the objection taken in his text, which is this, verbatim :
" It appears plain to us, that the writer of this
" passage must have confounded in his own mind the
" two very distinct ideas of proof and argument. To
" admit as scriptural truth all that may be argued from
" Scripture : this indeed would be to open the door to
" licentious exposition. But it is the very nature of
" proof that the thing proved must be true ; and that
" it cannot be proved unless it is true. That which is
" proved from Scripture must therefore be as true as
" Scripture itself is."
The reader will judge which may be the " dark
lucubration," on which side " the unhappy confusion
of ideas " may be most prevalent. Should the repeated
implications of Socinianism produce their common
effect upon him, let him further read the Lectures on
Moral Philosophy, pp. 63, 64 ; and the Essay on the
Philosophical Evidence of Christianity, pp. 124, 217,
and 295 ; Parochial Sermons, pp. 106, 159, 218, 274,
411 ; and the fourth as one entire Sermon.
Mr. Woodgate states that he and the other objectors
to the appointment of Dr. Hampden have not autho
rized the charges of Socinianism and the like against
Dr. Hampden : and on the same page 10 quotes, in
proof of his statement, " The Official Declaration,"
" We abstain from imputing to the author a personal
" disbelief of those doctrines which have been so
" seriously endangered by his publications." In other
words, we could impute, but we will not. If these
gentlemen really mean to assert the expressions of our
Articles, as contradistinguished from the doctrines they
so accurately convey, are more than human specu-

48
lations, they will do well to show the grounds of suc!i
an assertion. They have declared that Dr. Hampden
says of the Articles what he has carefully confined to
the wording; of the Articles. The main force of this
pamphlet consists in illustrating what Dr. Hampden
has said of abstract theological statements by apply
ing it to moral conduct. It is insinuated (p. 15) that
Dr. Hampden wishes " to remove or relax the barriers
of christian truth," that " he does not see their necessity
and value." See contra ante, pp. 29, 30. Mr. Woodgate
thinks, (p. 18,) Dr. Hampden gives the doctrines of our
Church no higher pretension to acceptance than as
deductions of human reason. See postea, page 62. It is
clear Mr. Woodgate has not understood Dr. Hampden.
Mr. Miller has published what he terms " A Con
spectus of the Hampden Case;" and there is one
position in his book to which general assent should
be given — politics ought not to be excluded
from our consideration : they ought to have their
proper influence, and no more. He says plainly,
" our adversaries have already gained a certain
practical advantage in delay,'' (p. 4 ;) and so admits the
policy which the Proctors have defeated, and considers
that Dr. Hampden and his friends are persecuting
him and his friends, whom he terms the University,
(p. 4.) Mr. Miller read Dr. Hampden's Bampton
Lectures and cannot describe his disappointment :
p. 7 : " There were, indeed, to be detected here and
" there some gratifying provisos, but only of a kind to
" make the matter worse rather than better, seeing they
" amounted, at the least, to virtual, if not to positive
" contradictions. There was almost an universal
" obscurity also to throw a still more comprehensive
" covering over the apparent positions : nevertheless,

49
' the broad general impression kept its ground, and
" led me to a distinct determination to"—
To what? and what impression was this? The
impression was, " that the preacher's statements
" appeared at once to level all inclosures and partitions
" of the Church which separated it from omnifarious
" heresy, and to throw open its well-fenced ' green
" pastures by the side of quiet streams' into one
" dreary, trackless common field of self-opinion." —
Ante, pp. 28—30.
The determination was " never again from that day
" forward to purchase any book, or take the least
" account of any speculations, which should proclaim
" upon their title page the name of Dr. Hampden."
Why did he read the Inaug. Lect. postea, p. 50 \
The " feelings" of Mr. Miller at the " monstrous-
ness" of Dr. Hampden's " scandalous" appointment are
quite independent of politics. — P. 8.
Mr. Miller says (p. 12), " Happily I am spared a
" labour here to which I should have felt myself but
" little adequate, had duty called for the encountering
" of it ; namely, the entering at large, and in detail,
" into the theological character of Dr. Hampden's
" writings. Although it will be necessary presently,
" for a particular end, to which the tenderness and
" scrupulous delicacy of the compilers of the three first
" pamphlets recommended on the subject would not
" allow them to advert, to gather up afresh some few
" particulars of their extravagance, it would be both
" presumptuous and unnecessary to add to the conclu-
" sive evidence of their pernicious tendency, already
"so abundantly and carefully supplied. It will be
" better to declare my conscientious belief (not-
" withstanding Dr. Hampden's not very generous
E

50
" insinuations to the contrary) of the prevailing fairness
" with which the extracts from the Professor's writings
" have been made."
Mr. Miller then comes to the publication of the
Inaugural Lecture.
" I come to this part of the subject with unfeigned
" sorrow : but it is not my purpose to speak smooth
" things in place of true ; and therefore will say at
" once that, to myself, this same Inaugural Lecture
" appears, in every reasonable point of view, a most
" distressing aggravation of offence. I dare not record
" in writing all that presents itself to thought on this
" topic. Suffice it to declare a conscientious opinion,
" that it combines almost every possible fault. While
" essentially irreconcileable, in places, with Dr. Hamp-
" den's former writings, it yet retains abundant root of
" doctrinal unsoundness ; professing to be meek and
" humble, it is unjust and highly self-righteous ; and
" whereas Dr. Hampden's previous writings, bad as
" most of them were, only compelled disapprobation
" of the theologian, this most unhappy palinode extends
" that disapproval to the man.
" Sentiments so strong, I am aware, require to be
" substantiated on the instant, and without trouble
" of reference, by some sort of evidence ; wherefore I
" subjoin, as touching the first charge, the following
" examples. The seeming contradictions shall be given
" in the form of parallels ; and let it be remembered j
" they are only some (perhaps by no means the worst)
" among many others." — Pp. 18, 19.
Eight passages from the Inaugural Lecture are then
printed in half pages, by the side of the passages
alleged to be contradictory, but the contradiction is not
any where proved. The first, (page 19,) is as follows :

51
INAUGURAL LECTURE, p. 8. BAMPTON LECTURE, p. 285.
God "has created us again" in The belief that to "counteract
His Son; and sustains our spi- that living death within us" (in
ritual existence by personal com- which we by nature are), " a new
munion with His Holy Spirit. life from God must be imparted,"
is a consequence of the scholastic
notion of original sin.
The whole passage in the Bampton Lectures, p. 234,
is as follows, and destroys this insinuation :
" We may further see the importance of the dis-
" tinction between Nature and Person, in regard to the
" doctrine of Original Sin, in the Scholastic explana-
" tion of the reason, why the First Sin only transmitted
" its effects to the posterity of Adam ; why subsequent
" sins, or even those of a man's immediate Parents, are
" not equally injurious in their consequences. It was
" contended, in answer to such questions, that it was
" only the nature of the species, and not the individual
" peculiarities, that could be transmitted from genera-
" tion to generation. The first sin of Adam deprived
" human nature of its original justice, — altered its
" natural constitution ; — but not so the subsequent sins
" either of Adam or of others : these were merely
" personal ; did not alter the general nature once
" corrupted. " It was a consequence of this notion of Original
" Sin, that the elements ofthe Christian Life should be,
" in the strictest sense, a change, a transformation, a
" renewal. It was necessary that we should be ' born
" again.' To counteract that living death within us
" a new life from God must be imparted. Hence that
" view of Faith, in the scholastic system, as an 'Infused
" principle.' ' As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall
" all be made alive.' All were corrupted in the flesh
" by Adam's transgression ; all must be quickened by
e 3

52
" the righteousness of Christ. If we regard this
" reasoning as a description of conjoined events in
" each case, it is undoubtedly scripturally just. The
" connexion of the universal ruin of man — whatever
" may be the nature of that ruin — with the sin of the
" first transgressor; and the connexion of universal
" salvation — whatever may be the nature of that
"salvation — with the righteousness of Christ; are
" facts, which the word of truth has inseparably bound
" together. The logical deduction, however, of one
" from the other, is what I am now pointing out."
The second is as follows, (p. 19) :
INAUGURAL LECTURE, p. 12. BAMPTON LECTURE, p. 187.
If we believe in the atonement We hear of grace operating and
of a Divine Redeemer, and the cooperating — grace preventing
sanctification by a Divine Com- and following  But how
forter, we cannot but be cor- erroneous is the conception pro-
dially disposed to receive the duced on the mind by these se-
doctrines of ... . preventing veral modes of speaking !
and cooperating grace.
Dr. Hampden has been praising our Reformers
for adopting, in the seventeenth Article, the original
mode in which the truth had been theoretically pro
pounded. " Consistently with this notion of Predestination,
" Grace is set forth by the Scholastic writers as the
" ' Effect of Predestination,' or Predestination as the
" ' Preparation of Grace.' Both indeed are spoken of
" as Divine ' ordinations' to the Life Eternal, and are
" equally characteristic therefore of the Divine Agency,
" as taught in the Scholastic Theology. But, the
" Pelagian controversies have given a more Christian
" emphasis to the term Grace, by its employment as
" the antagonist statement to the anathematized doc-
" trines of Pelagius ; and made it equivalent practically
" to the whole of Gospel-truth. So that, in fact, it

53
' more properly represents the part of God in the
" scheme of human salvation, than any other term of
" Theology. " Amidst the copious matter of inquiry, which a
u term, so pregnant with theological interest, presents
' to our hands, I confine myself to what belongs more
" strictly to the notion of Divine Agency, the point
" particularly selected for illustration in the present
" Lecture. " First then I would call attention to the word
" Grace itself. The sense, which the discussions of
" Pelagianism have impressed on the term, is particu-
" larly to be noticed. The dogmatic manner in which
" we now speak of ' the grace of God,' — placing it in
" contrast with the powers of human nature, or with
" nature in general, — conveys the idea of something
" positive in God, something that admits of explanation
" as to what it is, — of definition, and distribution into
" its various kinds. We hear of grace operating and
" cooperating ; grace preventing and following ; grace
" of congruity, grace of condignity. But how erro-
" neous is the conception produced in the mind, by
" these several modes of speaking ! When we try the
" notion of Grace by a survey of the Scripture-dis-
" pensations, what is it but a general fact, a summary
" designation of the various instances of benevolent,
" pitiful condescension on the part of God, to
" the wants and helplessness of man ? It is thus
" that ' grace and truth" are said to come by Jesus
" Christ. The mission of Christ to the world was the
" strongest instance of the benevolent exertion of God
" for our good. Thus St. Paul speaks ofthe grace of
" God having appeared unto all men, in sending his
" Son into the world, chara terising by the word

51
" grace this act of heavenly interposition. Thus, too,
" we are said to be ' saved by grace;' the Apostle
" alluding evidently, as before, to the act of Christ's
" coming into the world and dying for our sins.
" Again, we are desired to pray for ' grace ;' and grace
" is said to be ' given' to us. These last instances
" convey a dogmatic impression ; but when we con-
" sider them more strictly, they resolve themselves into
" concise modes of speaking, adapted to the purpose
" of giving a distinct and striking view of the fact to
" which reference is made. We pray, that is, that
" God will graciously help us; and, in acknowledging
" the gift of grace, we deny our own sufficiency, and
" declare that what we do good, is of God working in
" us both to will and to do. The word Truth is sub-
"ject to the like erroneous conception; but here we
" are not apt to fall into the realism of supposing
" something in God positively denoted by the term :
" since it has not been equally the occasion of religious
" dispute. " It is then from Scholasticism that we have derived
" this positive sense. Those subdivisions which I have
" referred to, of ' preventing' and ' following ' grace,
" grace ' operating' and ' cooperating,' and others
" which our Church has not adopted ; are expressly
" taken from the Scholastic Theology. Grace is
" treated of in this system, as something ' infused ' into
" the soul, by virtue of which the sinner is justified,
" and the operation of which on the heart it is endea-
" voured to trace through the stages of its process."
The third contradiction alleged by Mr. Miller is,
(p. 20 :)
INAUGURAL LECTURE, pp. 12, 13. MORAL PHILOSOPHY, p. 84.
The application to the heart It is man's high prerogative to
of the true Trinitarian doctrine he in a great degree, a creature

55
entirely cuts off all human preten- of his own making ; he can mo-
sions, and sinks our highest dify and transform himself, as a
merits into demerits  m0ral being, as he pleases ; what
he may become depends almost
solely on what he may will.
Dr. Hampden, (p. 84,) thus prefaces this extract :
' The passions felt, the sentiments formed, the disposi-
" tion, the manners, manifest to each person's con-
" sciousness, that he is truly an dpyfi in himself: they
" evidence both where the sphere of his power lies,
" and how far it extends. In studying these, he finds
" that he has indeed a power given him by the Lord
" of all power and might, of which he could otherwise
" have had no conception ; he perceives that he is
" placed" (the passive voice) " in his own hands : that
" it is his high prerogative," &c, putting may become
and may will in Italics.
Fourth instance :
INAUGURAL LECTURE. BAMPTON LECTURE, pp. 225,219.
Nor do I see how he who holds " A positive deterioration of our
rightly the Incarnation and Atone- carnal nature" is a scholastic
ment of our Lord can look at his notion.
own nature otherwise than in the The adoption of this view (the
language of the Article, as " very philosophers' theory) of human
far gone from original righteous- nature by the schools .... ex-
ness," and " corrupt" in the strict- plains the word corruption, in its
est sense of the term. application to the evil of our
moral condition. It is a term of
ancient philosophy. [Corollary :
And, therefore, by a necessary
inference from page 387, founded
on " notions both unphilosophical
and unscriptural."^
The two passages in the Bampton Lectures are as
follows : — " The positive manner in which Augustine
" declares the transmission of the material element
" corruption from Adam to the whole race of mankind,
" laid the groundwork of the scholastic discussions oh
" the subject. The idea that prevails throughout these

56
" is of a positive deterioration of the carnal nature ;
" that which, according to ancient philosophy, was the
" seat of the ' affections and lusts,' the ' concupiscible
" part ofthe soul."— (P. 225.) Consider Dr. Hampden's
words, " Augustine declares," "according to ancient
" philosophy." " In short, every truth of Scripture
" is cordially received by him who has a faith according
" to knowledge in the atonement of the Son of God."
— Hampden's Fourth Sermon, p. 72, 2d Edit. 1836.
The second passage is :
" The perfect man of the philosophers' theory, be-
" came, in their system, man as originally created in
" his physical and moral integrity of being : when all
" the internal principles were in their due proportions
" to each other, and to the final cause, or End, of the
" whole, the Divine Goodness. Man, as he is seen in
" the world, was man in a state of deficiency, or of
" privation of original righteousness, or justice; of
" that state, namely, in which all the principles were
" in their due subordination to God ; or, to state it
" more in the phraseology of the Schools, rightly
" ordered towards the Supreme Good.
" The adoption of this view of Human Nature by
" the Schools, is the point which immediately calls
" for our notice, as it explains the word Corruption, in
" its application to the evil of our moral condition. It
" is a term of ancient philosophy, denoting the disso-
" lution ofthe internal nature of a thing— the undoing
" of its actual constitution — not the annihilation of a
" nature, as we are apt to suppose. It is opposed to
" Generation, or Production, signifying, that man, as
" he is evil, is not the work of God, but is unmade, as
" it were, in what he had been made by God ; that he
" has lost that proper/orw, in which he had his being

57
" in the intellect and will of God. We could not, for
" instance, apply the word to the noxious disposition
" of a brute animal, since there is no destruction of
" principle in this case. The violence of the brute is
" part of its original constitution, of the form of its
" being. It only applies to the circumstances of a
" creature, in which a different nature has existed, and
"has undergone alteration, or become degenerate?
It will be seen, antea, pp. 28 and 45, that Mr.
Miller abuses that passage of Dr. Hampden's Eighth
Lecture which has been so often abused ; it lends no
authority to Mr. Miller's assertion here.
In the fifth instance, first paragraph, p. 20, Mr.
Miller does not see that Dr. Hampden has been stating
what makes against the Unitarian ; and then goes on,
" putting him, however (the Unitarian) precisely on
" the same footing of earnest religious zeal and love
" for the Lord Jesus Christ, on which I would place
" any other Christian, I propose to him . . . &c.
" Let it be assumed," &c. Here is not any contra
diction. The contradiction alleged in the sixth paragraph is,
that Dr. Hampden cannot deny the name of Christian
to Unitarians, because they receive the Old and New
Testament, strongly as he dislikes their theology, (Obs.
p. 20,) yet is himself convinced " that the Trinitarian
" doctrine professed by our Church is the true one ;
" that it cannot be denied without expunging the
" Scriptures themselves, and unlearning every lesson
" which inspired prophets, and evangelists, and
" preachers have taught us."
Mr. Miller, perhaps, did not know that on this very
p. 20 of his Observations, among the very charges
which introduce this same however, Dr. Hampden

58
expressly says, " I do not forget that passages of Scrip-
" ture have been retrenched or explained away by
" Unitarians.'" The seventh instance, (p. 21,) contrasts what is said
of the use at Oxford, on matriculation, of creeds and
articles as tests, with their use in the Church at large,
as guardians of the faith.
The eighth instance, (p. 21,) is merely Dr. Hamp
den's own explanation of the word fact, when he found
it was misunderstood.
Mr. Miller thus stated these alleged contradictions,
and gives this note, (p. 19,) and so proves his zeal
exceeded his charity.
" To prevent misconstruction, I beg to acknowledge
" here at once, that the few parallels thus taken for im-
" mediate illustration are, either partly or entirely, bor-
" rowed from the printed pamphlets already mentioned,
" or from a half sheet, distributed gratis, entitled,
" ' Brief Observations on Dr. Hampden's Inaugural
" Lecture.' Let me not be held desirous to pass them
" off as an original selection. The parallel form is
" adopted for more direct assistance to the eye."
Some further misrepresentations, some further taunts of
a character too serious to be trifled with here, (p. 31.) and
Mr. Miller " has done with theProfessor ;" (p. 34.) and
does not think any thing can justify " the haughty and
" perverse presumption ofthe proceeding ofthe Proctors
" considered in respect of time for action, as well as of
'" their earlier right or power to act." They are " two
" unreasoning and thoroughly uncourteous partisans"
for taking the course there described. — P. 38.
These are painful subjects to those who, like myself,
love and honour Oxford, as feeling their obligations to
the University where they were educated. We must look

59
to Oxford mainly to restore and maintain the integrity
of Church and State, so wofully impaired by what are
miscalled the reforms of modern legislators. It is to
Oxford we must look for the maintenance of sound
religion and useful learning. Our religion, to be sound
in its establishment, must have learning ; our learning,
to be of any use to its possessors, must have religion.
Dr. Hampden is now proving that what is substance in
our Church formularies is true and her own ; and fur
ther, that what is manner is defensible, however others
may object to it, when rightly understood and fairly
taken, yet not her own. She wisely adopted a settled
phraseology at the time of the Reformation, and would
do well now to take up and carry on the work of our re
formers. It is right, that every voice, however humble,
should deprecate the fierce and unjustifiable per
secution Dr. Hampden is now suffering, because it is
evident he prefers substance to manner ; and is assert
ing, that true learning will clear up true religion. He
sets men's souls upon their due use of the means of
grace, and the evidence of their safety upon their con
duct rather than their creeds. He will not allow the
Bible to be disparaged by putting it on the same plat
form with uninspired teachers and expounders. From
him we may learn that the main business of each day, as
it is passing, is our religion. The Holy Spirit is neces
sary to our spiritual life, like air to our bodily life. In
England, the knowledge of our Bibles is necessary to
our religion, in the same manner as the food for which
we labour is to our bodies. We are to give all glory
to our Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier, and to
labour hard by the revealed methods that each may
place his own soul within the promise of salvation.
Here is the primary duty of life ; consequently every

60

man must have an interest in the defence of a writer
whom he thinks to be contending earnestly for the
faith once delivered to the saints, and ought to have
knowledge of the subject enough to act upon in the
hour of need. Our property may be protected by
lawyers, and our health by physicians, but we must
look to our own souls. No human priest can protect
or preserve them ; and one who has or may have a Bible
in his hands cannot plead the perversions of any priest
hood in excuse for his own doings. Our church is
not popish, though she uses the language of popery :
neither would Dr. Hampden be a heretic, even if he had
used the language of heresy. But popery has once
overspread the truth, and may again, unless such men
as Dr. Hampden will come forward, from time to time,
and show themselves willing to reproduce our faith
from its first principles, and then strong enough in that
faith to front the charge of heresy, and learned enough
to establish the truth. Our people and not our clergy
make our Church; our Bibles and not our formularies
are the basis of our faith. Our formularies have been
misconstrued and misapplied ; they are, therefore,
capable of misconstruction and misapplication. Dr.
Hampden shows how this happens : and is therefore
persecuted by those who are determined to rank our
formularies on a level with our Bibles, and seem almost
anxious that our Church should teach for doctrines the
commandments of men. Dr. Hampden has set forth in
his Postscript the clearest statement of his principles :
they are still misrepresented, and many of his adver
saries are seeking to condemn him unheard, rather
than to hear him.
Dr. Hampden is accused of rendering philosophy
independent of religion and undervaluing revelation.

61
In conclusion, let the readers well consider the two
following extracts : —
" Moral philosophy leans on the aid of religion for
" accomplishing its mission of human reformation. It
" piles up the wood for the sacrifice, and slays the
" victims, and scatters the incense : but it expects the
" fire to descend from heaven, and kindle the offering
" into flames. The system is perfect and beautiful; but
" its working cannot be ensured. The objects which it
" proposes are noble : but it reaches not the disease of
" the soul, and cannot transform us by the renewing
" of the mind to the Divine image." — Lecture on
Moral Philosophy, p. 100.
" Neither, again, let us rest our religious profession
" on the presumptions of our own reason. Degrade
" not ' the wisdom which is from above,' by bringing
" it down to so precarious an authority. There are
" some who have their preconceived notions of divine
" truth, according to which they mould their system of
" religion ; making even the plainest texts of Scripture
" bend in submission to their arbitrary views ; and
" accepting nothing as part of the gospel, which
" does not coincide with their determinations as to what
" ought to be found in the Bible. These persons,
" indeed, have recourse to Scripture. They do not
" take up religious opinions idly and indifferently.
" They are able to give some ' reason of the hope
" that is in them.' But still, they are far from the
" method of acquiring that stedfastness, which cha-
" racterises a right faith. When God gave an express
" revelation to man he signified to human reason,
" ' hitherto shalt thou come but no farther ; and here
" shall thy proud waves be stayed.' He appointed
" that revelation to be accepted by reason, not to be

62
" measured by it. And none, therefore, who apply
" their reason as the measure of divine truth, can reach
" its height. The great Corner-stone of the gospel
" cannot be quarried out with tools of mere earthly
" manufacture. It must be dug and fashioned with
" those which the Holy Ghost has placed in our
" hands, in giving us the Scriptures.
" No stedfast knowledge of the truth as it is in
" Jesus, we conclude, then, can be obtained from such
" modes of inquiry, as either the world or human
" reason may present. Neither of these blind guides
" can bring us to Christ. To ask them the way is not
" to seek Him. To build our faith on their dictates is
" not to build on Him.
" The only right method of coming to Christ is that
" to which I have just adverted : — implicitly to follow
" the guidance of God's holy word. Whilst we explore
" ' the mind of the Spirit,' in the writings indited by
" the Spirit, we shall obtain grace to receive the
" atonement of the gospel, in its characteristic import-
" ance among the truths of Christianity. We shall be
" enabled, in studying this sacred truth in its own
" place, to perceive its universality and ubiquity in the
" dealings of God towards man, to trace it, as a golden
" thread running through the whole texture of Scrip-
" ture, and giving its brilliancy to every information
" and rule contained in the sacred volume. Thus
" directed, we shall firmly embrace the doctrine of
" Christ crucified as the foundation of our Christian
" profession. And though to the carnal mind this
" doctrine may be a stumbling block, as disappointing
" its ambitious views, — though to the proud reasoner
" of this world it may seem foolishness, as not corre-
" spdnding with his self-suggested anticipations, —

63
" still, as knowing that it is written in indelible cha-
" racters in the page of inspiration, we shall hold
" it fast, as a doctrine which is true, as God's word
" is true." — Parochial Sermons, p. 101.
Note. — Dr. Hampden is not in any degree responsible for these
pages : they are printed before he sees them. His opinions are
known to me only by his own five books, and if I have stated any
of them erroneously, it has not been by turning them to the bad
side. We have not met since 1814, when I took my degree,
perhaps not since 1813, when he took his degree. He will at least
consider this pamphlet as intended to support an important general
truth. I hope he will further consider it as a token of good-will,
and a proof that all his lay acquaintances do not condemn his
prayers (Miller, p. 31), or misconstrue his motives, or trifle with
his expressions. Lincoln's Inn,
April 20, 1836. Note to the Second Edition.
A mistake occurred in the first edition, and the Moral Philosophy
Lectures were not mentioned, as they were intended to have been,
among Dr. Hampden's other works on p. 4. The other alterations
in this edition are trifling. A note on p. 15 and two lines on p. 35
have been added.
The Report and Declaration of the Corpus Committee, dated
10th of March, and their Circular, dated 27th of April, assert or
imply that Dr. Hampden has published erroneous opinions, which they
treat as a system, and allege to be all based upon the following prin
ciple, which they call the " Philosophy of Rationalism, and define
as the assumption that uncontrolled human reason, in its present
degraded form, is the primary interpreter of God's word, without
any regard to those rules and principles of interpretation, which
have guided the judgments of Christ's holy Catholic Church in all
ages of its history, and under every variety of its warfare." They
have not shown any reason for charging Dr. Hampden with any
such principle ; — of course, not one of our clergy can admit tradi
tions to overrule the word of God, or any rule or principle of inter
pretation which goes beyond interpretation.
2. The Corpus Committee assert, that Dr. Hampden's publica
tions abound with contradictions to the doctrinal truths which he is

64
pledged to maintain. Their quotations do not show any authority
for asserting any one such contradiction.
3. The Corpus Committee have not proved that Dr. Hampden
asserts any one " principle which necessarily tends to subvert, not
" only the authority of the Church, but the whole fabric and reality of
" christian truth."
4. The Corpus Committee have not proved that Dr. Hampden
maintains any one " principle which impugns and injures the word
" of God as a revealed faith and practice, in its sense and use, its
" power and perfection, or which destroys the authority of the
" Church as a witness and keeper of holy writ."
5. The Corpus Committee have not shown any authority for the
inference that the Bampton Lectures could lead the reader to believe
either that the assertions of our Church on the most solemn truths
of Christianity have no corresponding realities — are words, and
nothing more; or that the notions which we are taught to embody in
them are unscriptural and false. The Bampton Lectures have not
led me to believe either one or the other of these false positions ;
and if Dr. Hampden believe either of them, he has not published
that belief in these five books, and has there published what seems to
me full proof that both these positions are untrue. They who charge
Dr. Hampden with any such belief are bound to prove that charge,
or to retract it, and then it will be forgiven at once, as made in a
feverish hour, while every object they saw took the colouring of their
own minds. This pamphlet imputes no low motives to the adver
saries of Dr. Hampden ; but it must now record a hope that they will
publish one definite charge of error, error in substance, not in ex
pression only, and bring what they consider their proofs of it from
his publications, in a tangible shape. Dr. Hampden has advertised
a defence of his Bampton Lectures, so they will soon have the
opportunity of learning, — and some of them, whom I happen to
know, will rejoice to learn, — that their proofs have shrunk into
arguments ; arguments which seemed indeed to have great weight
and force during a season of agitation and fear for the Church all
her children love, but arguments which will be found inconclusive
and untenable, as the quiet of conscience is gaining upon the delusive
tumults of a bad contest or a worse victory.
May 2, 1836.
THE END.

K. CLAY, PRINTER, BREAD-STREET-HILL.

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
AN INQUIRY
Concerning the Means and Expedience of proposing and making any Changes
in the
CANONS, ARTICLES, AND LITURGY,
OR IN ANT OF THE LAWS AFFECTING THE INTERESTS OF THE
CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
8vo. pp. 252. 7*.
1828.
A STATEMENT
OF SOME REASONS FOR CONTINUING TO
PROTESTANTS THE WHOLE
LEGISLATURE OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND.
8vo. 3s. pp. 100.
1829.
THE DISUSE OF THE ATHANASIAN CREED ADVISABLE
IN THE PRESENT STATE OF THE
UNITED CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND IRELAND.
8vo. pp. 156. 5s.
1831.
THOUGHTS ON CHURCH REFORM.
Price 6d.
1832.