forester

MhoSfe F71

A FEW WORDS

THE HAMPDEN CONTROVERSY.

PRICE ONU SHILLING.

A FEW WORDS

THE HAMPDEN CONTROVERSY.

BY THE

HON. AND REV. ORLANDO FORESTER, M.A.,
RUBAL DEAN, RECTOR OF BROSELEY, AND A PREBENDARY IN THE
CATHEDRAL CHURCH OF HEREFORD.

SECOND EDITION.

SEELEYS, HANOVER-STREET, IIAXOVER-SQUARE,
AND 54, FLEET-STREET, LONDON.
MDCCCXLVH.

AI.EX. MACINTOSH,
PRINTER,
GKEAT NEW STRRRT, LONDON

A FEW WORDS

THE HAMPDEN CONTROVERSY.

It would be presumptuous in one unlearned and
unknown like me to seem to be stepping forward
and undertaking the part of champion for Dr.
Hampden, and not rather waiting to see others,
more able and better fitted for such a duty, engage
in it. And it is because I feel all this, that I am
anxious to disclaim any intention directly to defend,
by any words of my own, one who has been from
time to time, through a series of years, so followed
up by persecutions ; otherwise than such defence
may result from simply putting forth, for the benefit
of every-day and common-place persons like myself,
a representation of the case as it is, as a set-off
against the misrepresentation of it.
By the majority of persons unconnected with
Oxford, and the Oxford controversies of the day,
when this controversy was at its height, all that is
known and understood of the matter in agitation, is,
that Dr. Hampden is about to be made the Bishop

of Hereford, and that he has been condemned in
Oxford for writing a book, in which was something
very like Socinianism, as Dr. Pusey was condemned
for writing a sermon in which was something very
like B,omanism.* By some part, who are too
much occupied with what they shall eat, and what
they shall drink, and wherewithal they shall be
clothed, to read anything upon the subject, this is
gathered from general rumour; and by others
from reading letters in large type in, and so appa
rently sanctioned by, the leading journal of the
country, containing very copious extracts from Dr.
Hampden's writings, the object of which extracts
is to prove this point.
Now my design, in the publication of these few
pages, is not a laboured defence of the person
accused, but just to supply ordinary persons like
myself with an opportunity, as I have before
stated, of seeing that which has been most unfairly
garbled, as Dr. Hampden wrote it; — garbled, as it
would appear, with no other view than increasing
any prejudice which may already exist in men's
minds, or creating it where it does not exist, against
the recent appointment to the see of Hereford.
* Remark, however, that the manner of proceeding in the two
cases was widely different. In Dr. Hampden's case, a tumultu
ous vote, in the midst of much excitement, was come to, got up
by a party in the University. In the case of Dr. Pusey, every
thing was done in due form, after a close examination into the
matter objected to, by a regularly appointed Board of Heresy.

The conclusion, that the Bible teaches Atheism,
would be as legitimately drawn from the first verse
of the Fifty-third Psalm, quoted thus,—" There
is no God," — omitting what precedes and follows
those words, as Dr. Hampden's heterodoxy may be
inferred from the mis-quotations given on the right-
hand side of the column below.
Let us compare the following extracts from the
work itself as they are written, with the same pas
sages as they are quoted in the " Times" of Nov. 27.
I give but the two first extracts as specimens : —
Extract I. On the Unity. — Lect. III., pp. 146, 7.
dr. hampden's text. the "times" text.
" The truth itself of the Trinitarian
doctrine emerges from these mists of
human speculation, like the bold naked
land, on which an atmosphere of fog
has for a while rested, and then been
dispersed. No one can be more con
vinced than I am, that there is a real
mystery of God revealed in the Chris
tian dispensation ; and that no scheme of
Unitarianism can solve the whole of the
phenomena which the Scripture records.
But I am also as fully sensible, that
there is a mystery attached to the sub
ject which is not a mystery of God.
" Take, for instance, the notion of the
Divine unity. We are apt to conceive
that the unity must be understood nu
merically, that we may reason from the
notions of unity to the properties of the

" No one can be
more convinced than
I am, that there is a
real mystery of God
revealed in the Chris
tian dispensation. .
But I am also as fully
sensible, that there is
a mystery attached to
the subject which is
not a mystery of God.
"We are apt to con
ceive that the unity
must be understood
numerically. . . .

8

Divine Being. But is this a just
notion of the unity of God ? Is it not
rather a bare fact, a limit of specula
tion, instead of a point of outset ? For
was it revealed in that system, in which
it was the great leading article of Divine
instruction ? When Moses called, upon
the people, ' Hear, O Israel, the Lord
our God is one Lord,' was it not a
declaration, that Jehovah is not that
host of heaven, that multiplicity of the
objects of Divine worship, which Hea-.
then idolatry has enshrined, but the God
in heaven, in the earth, and in the sea ;
not the Teraphim of domestic worship,
but the universal Governor, overshadow
ing all things with the ubiquarian tute
lage of his providence ? Surely the
revelation of the Divine unity was not
meant to convey to Israel any specula
tive notion of the oneness of the Deity,
but practically to influence their minds
in regard to the superstitions from which
they had been brought out. It was no
other than the command, ' Thou shalt
have no other gods but me.'
" Now, were this view of the reve
lation of the Divine unity strictly main
tained, would it not greatly abate the
repugnance often felt at the admission
of a Trinity in unity ? We should pro
fess that we only knew God as the
exclusive object of Divine worship,
and should acknowledge that it was
quite irrelevant to our scheme of reli-

But is this a just
notion ? 

Surely the revelation
of the Divine unity
was not meant to con
vey to Israel any spe
culative notion of the
oneness of the Deity,
but practically to influ
ence their minds in
regard to the super
stitions from which
they had been brought
out 
" Now, were this
view of the revelation
of the Divine unity
strictly maintained .
. . we should pro
fess that we only knew
God as the exclusive
object of Divine wor
ship, and should ac-

9

gion either to demonstrate or to refute
any conclusion from the nature of
unity concerning any further revela
tion of the Divine Being. To deny a
Trinity would then be felt the same as
to assert, that because Polytheism is
false, therefore no new manifestation
of God not resulting from the negation
of Polytheism can be true."

knowledge that it was
quite irrelevant to our
scheme of religion,
either to demonstrate
or refute any conclu
sion from the nature
of unity concerning
any further revelation
of the Divine Being."

Extract II. On the Trinity. — Lect. III., p. 128.
dr. hampden's text. the "times'' text.
" Thus it was that the Arian con
nected an unity in thought and will
and action ; interpreting in their way
the saying, ' / and the Father are one'
He urged, again, the text, ' The Father
is greater than I,' as evidence against
the unity of substance ; taking sub
stance in the sense of individual being,
the irpiiTn ovma of the categories. The
orthodox, consequently, had to show
against the Arian, that such an unity as
this was a severing of the Godhead,
that it consisted with so great a dis
tinction, between the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit, as either to establish three
Gods, or otherwise, one supreme God,
and two subordinate Divine Beings.
" The various illustrations of the
Trinity from natural objects, employed
in the writings of the Fathers and
schoolmen, are instances of the same
dialectical spirit which laboured to

" The dialectical
spirit laboured to
establish the Divine

establish the Divine unity amidst the unity amidst the Tri-
Trinitarian distinctions." nitarian distinctions.'1

10

Lecture III., p. 130.
dr. hampden's text. the "times" text.
" The difficulty (i. e., with the dis
putants on the Trinity) was to avoid
distinguishing the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit, in such a way as to repre
sent them differing, as three angels or
three men differ from each other, and " Dialectical sci-
yet to preserve the real distinctions, ence established that
Dialectical science furnished the expe- peculiar phraseology
dients in this difficulty, and established which we now use in
that peculiar phraseology which we speaking of the sacred
now use in speaking of the sacred Trinity, as three Per-
Trinity as three Persons and one God." sons and one God."
The above extracts, without quoting more on
either side, will sufficiently show the unfairness of
the Times correspondent " Presbyter," and whether
Dr. Hampden be more of a Socinian, or this his
accuser more of a breaker of the command
ment which forbids bearing false witness against a
neighbour. Those who are influenced by a greater desire for
victory over, than justice towards, one they are
opposing, are never over-scrupulous as to their
assertions ; they seem to know nothing of that law
of love which consists in kindness partly, and re
joices in the truth; they strive to be first with
their statements in the ear of the public, knowing
that if they can but get these statements believed
for five minutes, they have accomplished as much
as will serve th ' ~™OP

11
It is with the view of showing how great may
be the difference between the meaning of a sen
tence when complete in all its parts, and its mean
ing when incomplete, by having undergone the
process of pruning, being deprived of that which
went before it, and lopped throughout of this and
that qualification, to suit the purpose of one who
would misrepresent it,— it is with this view that
I have printed these extracts side by side, as a
sample of the unfair dealing I complain of; and
I would request any to suspend judgment on the
remaining passages, until he may have read them
as they stand in the work itself, and not as they
are garbled in " Presbyter's " letter.
One point alleged against Dr. Hampden consists
in the application of the words — theory, specula
tions, &c, to such mysteries of godliness as the In
carnation, the Trinity, and the Atonement. I
confess I prefer the word mystery, but I cannot see
how the use of such words as those objected against,
affects the question, more especially, perhaps, in a
case like the present, their use in a Bampton lecture.
But it never can be fair to take isolated words out
of a man's writings, any more than isolated actions
of his life by which to judge him. Let his general
character be understood, and his opinions be
gathered, not from isolated expressions, but from
the general bearing of his writings. In the case
before us, does the general teaching indicate a
mind imbued with heterodox views ? Does it not

12
rather appear, that the whole energies of that mind
are employed in inculcating that which is the very
opposite of Socinianism 1
Dr. Hampden only asks for himself fair and can
did judgment, and that he will receive from all not
influenced by leanings towards that school which
opposed him, or by political feelings,
He says, in his Lecture on the Articles, p. 48 : —
"I earnestly propose a calm consideration of my whole
conduct since my appointment to this chair. I ask them only
to retrace for themselves what I have done, not to take their
estimate of me from the studied representations of those who
are and must be opposed to me. On such I may make the call
to believe me; to read, if it were only the Sermons that I not
long ago delivered before the University and have since pub
lished, and lay their hands on their hearts and say, whether
those are the writings of one who does not sincerely hold the
great doctrines of the Gospel, and who does not conscientiously
labour to enforce them on others. I ask such to cast away all
previous misconceptions ; to make allowance for former excite
ment ; to fix their eye, not on what the invidious and cen
sorious may hold up to them as objectionable, but on what I have
always really intended, and what, I confidently trust, will ever
be my intention ; namely, conscientiously to profess and to
' minister the doctrine and sacraments and discipline of Christ,
as the Lord hath commanded, and this Church and realm hath
ever received the same.'"*
In his Introduction to the Second Edition, he
thus justifies his use of the word Fact, against
which such exception has been taken ; the very
* Ordination Service.

13
same may be said on the use of the other words
objected to : —
" There is so little understanding, except among persons
who have devoted themselves to scientific pursuits, of the
method of inductive philosophy, that it is not perhaps to be
wondered at, that some have erred so strangely in their
estimate of my application to religious truths of a term drawn
from that philosophy. So much misconception is there upon
the subject, that it may even estrange some still more from a
just view of the period I am now endeavouring to establish,
to lie told I am employing a term of philosophy. Some, I
fear, have taken up the notion, that whatever belongs to
philosophy has nothing to do with religion ; or they have been
tnuglit, that to speak as a philosopher is to be something very
impious and very odious, — nothing short of being a Kationalist.
Or they construe St. Paul's denunciation of the philosophy and
vain deceit of his day into a censure of every connexion of
philosophy with religion." (p. 28.)
Another charge brought against him, consists in
his liberalism towards those who are not of the
same creed with ourselves, of which the following
is cited as a specimen : —
" When I look at the reception by the Unitarians, both of
the Old and New Testaments, I cannot, for my part, strongly as
I dislike their theology, deny to those who acknowledge this
basis of Divine facts the name of Christians, — who, indeed, is
justified in denying to any one that title, who professes to love
Christ in sincerity ? Putting him, however, (the Unitarian) on
the same footing precisely, of earnest religious zeal and love for
the Lord Jesus Christ, on which I should place any other
Christian, I propose to him impartially to weigh with himself,
wlietlier it is not theological dogmatism, and not religious belief
properly so called, which constitutes the principle of his dissent."

14
I presume, a reference to the objections raised
against this, is to be found in the same Lecture on
the Thirty-nine Articles, page 45 : —
" I have certainly indulged charitable sentiments towards
those who differ from us, however widely. I have not con
strued the Scripture so as to justify me in hating those who
hold a different creed, as if they were necessarily haters of
God. But I have not been liberal out of that which is not
mine to give away. I have not confounded the notion of
sincerity in the individual with the attainment of truth. And
in conceding, accordingly, the merit of integrity of motive to
those who profess to have conscientiously sought the truth and
yet missed it, I have not conceded the truth itself. I have
held fast, and have encouraged others to hold fast, the one faith
delivered to the saints, the one truth consigned to the Scrip
tures. I have in no sense been the advocate of indifferentism,
or lost sight of the oneness of truth."
Having quoted his own defence of himself on
these points, I would next ask, in regard to the
effects of his teaching, whether any have been led
to embrace the heterodox views he is said to hold,
and under the influence of them to leave the Church
of England.
To quote again from the same work : —
" I have formed no party round me. I have not studied to
proselytize any. I have stood alone, except so far as my
teaching might associate me with other members of our
common faith and common Church. Look to those by whom
I am opposed. There you see a compact body, understanding
each other, ready to act with each other, to join their names
and their hands at the first signal from their leaders. Look
to my case, on the other hand. — I make no boast of it ; for I

15
have only acted in a way which my feelings, as well as my
duty, have led me. I have quietly gone about the functions of
my office. Some may say I have been comparatively silent in
it ; but I have not been silent in my place ; nor have I shrunk
from the labour and responsibility of publishing what I thought
proper from time to time. But I have formed no party. I have
given no name to any followers. Then, I pray you, test me
by this criterion, and test my adversaries too, and you will
then readily discern who are the disturbers of the peace of the
Church, — who are the innovators, — who are the persons to be
suspected and feared."
There can be no doubt on these points ; for whilst
we hear of none led to the Socinianism Dr. Hamp
den was and is supposed to teach, nor to any thing
bordering on it, we can put our finger upon seceder
after seceder drawn from our ranks to Rome, who
have declared that their first bias that way was
derived from the teaching of Tractarianism.
What are we to conclude, then, but that the
censure of the University passed against Dr.
Hampden in 1836, originated in a misunderstand
ing of Dr. Hampden's writings, produced, we fear,
by a false representation of their contents on the
part of some capable of understanding him as he
intended to be understood, but not caring to do so.
Now, however, that men have become calm, and
have been led to judge for themselves, why is it
that the censure has not been removed 1 The
history of Oxford during the last ten or eleven
years, and Dr. Hampden's unflinching and able
opposition during that time, to the prevailing

16
opinions there, may fully explain why he is still
under that censure.
Yet who that values the doctrines established
amongst us at the Reformation, on turning to the
published sermons of the Regius Professor of Di
vinity, but must be most thankful that it has
pleased God to appoint one over us, apparently so
entirely free from the prevailing heresy of the
times, and so faithful in his exposition of the truth
of God 1
I would now close these remarks by some quo
tations from his valuable sermon on Jer. xxiii. 5, 6,
in November 1839, to give some idea of what are
the real views taught, and intended to be taught,
by him, and I would pray that these truths may
long be taught amongst us.
The sermon opens as follows : —
" On this particular Sunday, we hear the voice of the Church
calling us to turn our faces towards the city of David, and to
look with the eye of expectant faith to the coming of the Lord
in the flesh. That event, indeed, is already past to us. We
have seen that day, which prophets and saints of old desired to
see, and fo^ which they patiently waited."
" We only follow the general consent of interpreters, when
we understand this passage in the sense in which it is evidently
received by our Church, from its introduction in the Epistle of
this day, as speaking of the Shepherd of shepherds, the King
of kings, and Lord of lords, the blessed and only Potentate,
the Lord Jesus Christ. It characterizes the future restorer
of Israel, in terms which refuse any other interpretation short
of that which applies them to the person and office of the

17
Redeemer. For who else could be the righteous Branch of the
house of David, but he who was at once the Son of David, and
David's Lord, — 'the Holy One and the Just' alone of that
chosen line ? And who else could be the king who should
reign and prosper, and should execute justice and judgment
in the earth, but He to whom all power is given in heaven and
in earth, — who triumphed over principalities and powers, —
a king, as he owned himself, and as the glad hosannas of his
people hailed him on his triumphant entry into Jerusalem,
though his kingdom was not of this world ? In whose days,
again, could Judah be said to be saved) and Israel to dwell
safely, but in his, who ' assembled the outcasts of Israel, and
gathered together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners
of the earth,' — by whom the wall of partition between Jew
and Gentile was broken down, and all the families of the earth
were called to dwell together in peace, as the true Israel of
God, the children of Abraham's faith, without respect of
persons ? And lastly, who could be the Lord our Righteous
ness, but the Word made flesh, and dwelling among us, the
only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth — He who
knew no sin made sin for us, that we might be made the
righteousness of God in Him ?"
He then proceeds to rescue the verse from such
interpretation of it as robs it of its beauty, by
applying it away from Christ, and to show from
the parallel text of chap, xxxiii. how the prophet
is contrasting the good Shepherd, or the Lord Jesus
Christ, with false shepherds who cause people to
err. " This righteous branch," he goes on to say,
" is one truly sent by God, in a sense which no other person
ever was. He to whom they are to look is ' God, and not man.'
He is the Lord our Righteousness. Naturally, therefore, are
we led, by the tenor of the passage, to contrast person with
B

18
person, — personal character and office with personal character
and office, — and thus to understand the words of the text as
simply and strictly denoting the one good Shepherd of the
sheep, the Blessed One who came in the name of the Lord, even
the Lord Jesus Christ."
He continues to show this by reference to several
passages from the New Testament, in which our
Lord is spoken of as a shepherd, among which he
quotes John x. 14 — 16, Mark vi. 34, and 1 Peter
ii. 23.
" Refer also to St. Paul's emphatic setting forth of the
Righteousness of God, as that which is brought down to man by
the incarnation and death of Christ ; and more particularly to
that passage of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, where he
speaks of Christ, as ' of God made unto us wisdom and righte
ousness and sanctification and redemption ; ' and where the
Apostle seems almost to lay his finger on the text of Jeremiah
now before us. With these divine commentaries to illustrate
the meaning of the prophet, (not to cite others bearing on the
point,) we may well disclaim those minute criticisms, which
would pervert this text from its high evangelical import ; and
may without doubt read in it the mind of the Spirit revealing
to us, in one short mysterious phrase, the perfect Divinity of
our Lord, and the effectual grace of His Atonement. Well,
indeed, may we hold, with the multitudes whom he fed, that
He who thus cares for the sheep is ' of a truth that prophet
that should come into the world,' — the Emmanuel, of Isaiah, —
the Lord our Righteousness, of Jeremiah, — ' gathering the rem
nant of his flock out of all countries/ and 'bringing them again to
their folds,' and ' feeding them,' that they should ' fear no more,
neither be dismayed, neither be lacking.'
" But perhaps I am dwelling too long on the interpretation
of our text ; I would pass on to draw out of it that instruction

19
in the faith of Christ which it involves, and apply it to our own
spiritual benefit.
" The words of the prophet are but a summary of the great
truth which the Gospel expands to us in its full proportions ; —
that the work of man's salvation is wholly divine ; divine in its
first cause ; divine in the means by which it is wrought ; divine
in its end. What the prophet intimates is, that salvation is 01'
the Lord, from first to last. The righteousness by which man
stands before God, as a sinful being saved by God's mercy in
Christ, the righteousness of the Gospel, is not the righteousness
of man, but of the Lord Himself, who has mercy on us. The
stupendous miracle of the Divine Goodness displayed in the
redemption of a fallen world, is not, that man can now obtain
the utmost perfection, and utmost felicity, of his own nature.
The Gospel scheme of mercy is infinitely more than this. The
ground of our pardon, the title of our acceptance, is in the
nature of God Himself. As sin has abounded unto the con
demnation of man, so grace has much more abounded unto his
justification ; inasmuch as now, in the merits of Christ, we are
blessed with a blessedness belonging to Him; for the Lord
himself, Jehovah himself, is become our Righteousness.
" It is then to lower the character of the Gospel scheme of
mercy, to regard the attainment of Gospel righteousness as
consisting in any thing of ourselves. We must never forget in
all that we think and do as Christians, that we are ' accepted '
only 'in the Beloved.' We must stand fast in the grace in
which we have been called. We must constantly look unto
Jesus, as, at once, both ' the Author and Finisher of our salva
tion.' The moment that we abandon this ground, — in whatever
way we suffer anything less holy to enter into the sanctuary of
that Divine Righteousness, which, by the charter of the Gospel,
is made over to us, — we impair the perfection of our standard
of Gospel religion and Gospel virtue ; we substitute a righteous
ness of another kind for the one perfect righteousness of the
Lord the Saviour.
B 2

20
" The history of man has shown how little he is disposed sin
cerely to cast all his care upon God, and to rest in simple un
wavering confidence on the righteousness of God for acceptance.
Nothing seems easier to us at the first view, than thus to go to
God, renouncing ourselves, and wanting no other assurance but
that of His goodness. Practically, however, this is not the case.
We hear, indeed, sometimes Christians professing to hope, that
God will be merciful to them in spite of their continuance in
sin, and so far taking comfort to themselves from a confidence in
the infinite goodness of God. But is this profession and this
comfort anything more than a flattering of their own souls — a
treacherous dealing with their own hearts — a palliation of the
pain of sin — an encouragement to themselves in a course of sin
to which they are committed ? Surely, if such persons truly
relied on the goodness of God, they would see His goodness,
not in that false light in which it appears indulgent to sin, but
in its real awfulness as it recoils from everything unholy, and in
its proper endearment, as it engages and leads men to repent
ance. Let not such persons, then, be brought forward as
instances of the disposition of the corrupt- heart to rely on the
righteousness and mercy of God. They are instances, rather,
of — what the doctrine of Gospel righteousness implies — the
hopelessness of sin — the necessary distrust of the sinner in any
efforts of his own to emancipate himself from the tyranny and
misery of sin — and of the recklessness of one who feels that the
ground is sinking under his feet, and catches at any apparent
stay which offers itself, though he knows it cannot support him.
On the contrary, that there is a tendency in the heart of man
to seek out a mode by which he shall come before God not
empty-handed, or, as the Apostle expresses it, to go about to
establish his own righteousness, is abundantly evident, in various
ways : — from the rites of superstition, from the voluntary
humility and will-worship which some have practised, — from
the punctiliousness of formal observances which some have
been found to prescribe for themselves — from instances again of

21
persons claiming a merit for their exemption from particular
errors and sins, thanking God, like the Pharisee in the parable,
that they are not as other men are, or compensating, in their
own view, their demerits in one way by their supposed merits
in another. These, and many other forms of the same indispo
sition to rely on the alone righteousness of God, sufficiently
indicate, that the Gospel method of salvation, whilst it is an
open and free one, stretching out the hand of God to all, is yet
not an easy one in that way in which the world reckons easiness.
" External indeed is the principle of that righteousness. It
arises not from anything in ourselves. Wehave only to lay
hold of it and cling to it, and thus make it our own. For
though it is the Lord Jesus Christ who is made unto us Right
eousness, we must for our part own Him as our Righteousness.
We must have, that is, no thought of ourselves apart from Him,
in seeking to justify ourselves before God. We must come for
acquittal, and ask for mercy, as being dead unto sin with Christ,
and raised again with Him, — as vitally incorporated with Him,
and made one with Him, in the mystical body of His Church.
" It is not that we must plead His righteousness as a supple
ment to our imperfect endeavours, — (in such a plea lies the very
leaven of human self-righteousness.) It is not, that we must
substitute His righteousness for our oun unrighteousness, so as to
think that we are justified through Him, in the midst of our sins,
— whilst we continue in our sins, — and without repenting of
them, and forsaking of them. Were these the modes of pre
ferring the righteousness of Christ in our behalf before the
throne of God, then indeed might the free salvation of the
Gospel be regarded as an easy method. Neither of these
modes present us before God as claiming an entire inseparable
interest in the merits of the Saviour. We must be His
throughout,— conformed to His holy life and death to the
utmost, — living in communion with Him; and so have confi
dence before God to speak of Hiin as the Lord our Righteous-

22
" And here is the task of difficulty. The task is no other
than that of a true and lively evangelical faith. To do all that
we can do in working out our own salvation, through the grace
of God giving us the will and working with us, — forsaking
known sins, — resisting and avoiding temptations, — adorning the
doctrine of God our Saviour in all things, by prayer, by
religious observances, by faithfulness and diligence and con-
tentedness in our daily callings, and thus continually perfecting
holiness in the fear of the Lord ; and yet to remember that all
this is nothing in order to our justification in the sight of God, —
to feel an unspeakable comfort in the revelation of the Lord as
our Righteousness; this is the high prerogative of a Gospel
faith. He that is satisfied with being partially holy, or who
adopts a standard of holiness after the measure of man, or who
wilfully continues in sin with the righteousness of Christ set
before him as the means of salvation, may indeed take up the
words, and profess to own the Lord as his Righteousness. But
he cannot have a right appreciation of that Righteousness. Its
value is felt only by him, who loves and cherishes every element
of holiness which the Spirit has implanted in him, — who deeply
feels and grieves over his fall from original righteousness, and
longs to be restored to the Divine Image, and yet finds in
himself impediments to holiness which he cannot overcome, — a
principle of inertness and resistance to good, which holds him
back in his course. Such an one, as St. Paul describes him in
that striking passage of his Epistle to the Romans, is almost
ready to faint under his burthen. ' 0 wretched man that I
am ! ' he confesses, under his struggles, ' who shall deliver me
from the body of this death ? ' And yet he it is in whose
mouth the evangelical thanksgiving is put ; ' I thank my God
through Jesus Christ our Lord.'
" True it is that Jesus Christ came not to call the righteous,
but sinners to repentance. True it is, that the virtue of his
sacrifice is effectual to the quickening of the dead in trespasses
and sins ; and that there is no unrighteousness of man which it

cannot put away. Some of the earliest saints of the Gospel
had, in their unconverted state, been grievous sinners, but had
obtained the grace of repentance and remission of sins through
Christ, and were become faithful disciples of the Lord their
Righteousness. ' Such were some of you,' says St. Paul, after
enumerating several classes of grievous sinners, in writing to
the Corinthians j ' but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified ;
but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the
Spirit of our God.' These instances show indeed that none are
excluded from the grace of the Gospel. In every particular
case of a sinner brought to a Gospel repentance, as in the
general gift of a Saviour to our fallen race, it is, we know, God's
first motion which brings about the happy change. He takes
away the heart of stone, and gives the heart of flesh to the
sinner of every degree and complexion of sin, who is brought
to bow himself before the cross of Christ.
" Let us not be thought, then, presumptuously to limit his
mercy, in saying that the saving truth of the righteousness of
Christ is only duly there received, where there is the earnest
desire, and the longing after holiness. The holiest of men are
still among those sinners for whom Christ died. Nor in them
can wc dare to analyze all the motions of their hearts, or
attempt to account for that faith which first leads them to the
cross, and lays hold for them of the Lord their Righteousness,
otherwise than by the free grace of God calling them, and holding
them in the way of salvation. Only we contend, that the doc
trine of man's salvation through the Lord his Righteousness, —
by a righteousness that is essentially divine and external to man,
— is not a doctrine of licentiousness, or of indolence and ease.
It is a truth for every sinner — every fallen son of Adam (for all
are by nature dead in trespasses and sins); but it is a truth,
which comes home only to the quickening of those who, having
received it, love it in their hearts, and cherish it as their own.
" And the trial, it should be observed, is greatest to those who
thus receive it. They know best the labour of self-denial in

24
its true Christian sense, as a denial of all intrinsic worth in
human works, as an entire renunciation of self in their plea
before God, — who are most actively and intensely purifying
themselves from the pollutions of the flesh and the world. They,
I say, best know the preciousness of a gifted righteousness ; for
they have sought after a personal righteousness, and have not
attained to it : they are especially tempted to trust in their own
strength, to ' count ' themselves ' to have apprehended,' to
rest with satisfaction in what they have accomplished (for Satan
is busy still in persuading man that he 'shall not surely die ');
but through grace, they still feel themselves sinners, and cry
out each from the bottom of his heart, ' God be merciful ' — God
be propitiated — ° ©for IXdo-dnTt ' — to me a sinner ! '
" The greatest difficulty, however, which attends the Chris
tian in his reception of the Lord as his righteousness, appears
to lie in this point; that he is tempted to join with this one
simple ground of his justification, other principles of his re
ligion ; principles equally true, equally necessary in their way,
equally good in their kind, and yet all infinitely below the one
meritorious cause of justification, the righteousness of the Lord
the Saviour, in spiritual efficacy and dignity. The sincere and
humble Christian is comparatively secure against those dangers
to the simplicity of his faith in Christ which arise from wrong
principles. He will not regard himself as exempt from the
obligations of the Divine commandments, because the righteous
ness which saves his soul is derived from a source without him
self. Nor will he debase and corrupt his faith with super
stitious additions. But he will not be so much on his guard
against the intrusion of what is good, as he will be against that
which is positively evil. I will proceed to give some instances
of this." Here follow the instances: —
" The Church, for example, is holy. It is the body of Christ.
Who then shall despise the Church, — who shall think lightly

25
of its teaching, its discipline, its ordinances, its ministers ?
Undoubtedly, then, the Christian has an indispensable religious
duty towards the Church. But, for that very reason, he must
watch, lest, in his excess of reverence towards the Church, he
should remove from its place the great corner-stone of his
faith, and build in fact on the Church, and not on Christ."
He then refers severally in the same way to the
sacraments, repentance, and good works, and the
sanctification of the Spirit ; the latter point he thus
treats: —
" Lastly, consider another form still in which the Christian
may, unawares, through his very piety — through his earnest
desire to work out his salvation — slide into an erroneous notion
of his justification. What is more needful to the Christian
than the Divine Grace, the continued and increasing influence
of the Holy Spirit, that he may think and do anything in order
to his salvation ? For this he prays unceasingly ; on this he
lives as the daily food of his soul ; on this he depends for help
and comfort in all trials ; by it he trusts that he shall finally be
perfected, — desiring that he may grow in grace, until he ' come
unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the
fulness of Christ.' But shall he therefore derogate from the
work of Christ ? Shall he think, that anything is wanting to
complete that righteousness which justifies him before God ?
Not so indeed. He will remember that that work is accom
plished, — that that righteousness is perfect, that our Lord him
self declared the work 'finished] when He hung on the cross ;
and that He afterwards, on His ascension to the Father, sent
down the Holy Ghost, not to fulfil anything wanting in it, but
to strengthen and enlighten and comfort those for whose sake it
had been wrought. The humble Christian will, therefore, de
voutly lean on the promised aid of the Spirit. He will not
dare to hope for the grace of justification, without the indis
pensable grace of sanctification. He must, however, watch

26
himself, lest he confound the grace of sanctification with the
grace of justification ; — the grace which is implanted in him,
and given him ' to profit withal,' that he may increase and
bring forth fruits of righteousness, — with the grace which is
external to himself, and which admits no increase or diminu
tion. Whilst he prays daily, 'Lord, increase my faith !' he
prays for that which is most needful for himself ; for if he
believes not with his whole heart that Christ has died to save
him from his sins, he cannot hope to be saved. But, as I have
said before, with regard to other matters of indispensable
Christian obligation, he must, for this very reason, guard against
a practical substitution of the principle of faith, as it exists in his
own soul, for the principle which is its object, — the principle
of faith for that of the righteousness of Christ the Lord."
The conclusion of the sermon is too good to be
omitted, in which he shows that the warnings are
not of imaginary dangers, by instancing the case
of Rome, which whilst she denies not the founda
tion of Christian hope, yet virtually and practically
superadds to it by her doctrines on the sacraments,
inherent righteousness, &c.
He concludes thus : —
" Be it our anxious endeavour then, brethren, to ' keep the
good deposit committed to our trust by the Holy Ghost which
dwelleth in us.' What is it that the apostles themselves, the
first receivers of the truth as it is in Jesus, are found ever
labouring to teach and enforce ? It is the doctrine of the cross
— the righteousness of God in Christ. Looking ever unto
Jesus as the Author and Finisher of Salvation, they proclaim
His exceeding love to the world in dying for us to save us
from our sins, as the burden of their preaching and their com
fort under their trials. Hear, especially, St. Paul putting aside
all other ground of confidence but this, and exclaiming, ' But

27
what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
Yea, doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excel
lency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I
have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but
dung, that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having
mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is
through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of
God by faith.' — Following in their steps, the Reformers of
our Church only revived the preaching of the apostles, when
they disentangled the doctrine of the Cross from the intricate
mazes in which it had been involved, and called upon men to
renounce all other claims to justification before God, but the
self-denying one of faith in the merits of their Saviour. Shall
we, then, be ' ashamed of the testimony of Christ ? ' Shall
we dread the reproach of fanaticism, or of a rash and irreve
rent zeal, in boldly, and loudly, and unceasingly publishing to
the world, in its original simplicity, a truth, which has filled
the hearts of apostles and saints with joy, — which apostles and
saints have ever had on their tongue, — in the scandal of which
apostles and saints have ever gloried, — which, though regarded
by the world as a stumbling-block, and as foolishness, —
apostles and saints have ever held forth as the power and
the wisdom of God unto salvation ? Or shall we, under the
name of preaching the cross of Christ, and the righteousness
of Christ, preach our own cross, our own righteousness, turning
our glad tidings into a message of despondency to frail sinful
man, — giving ashes for the bread of life, — the sackcloth of
human holiness for the white garment of the righteousness of
God ? — Woe is unto us, who are ministers of the Lord, the
inheritors of the apostolic commission to preach the Gospel, if
we thus preach the Gospel, unsaying the word which the Lord
has put into our mouths to speak ! Woe is unto us rather, if,
so preaching it, we preach not the Gospel ! Woe is unto us,
if we preach any other righteousness but that of the Lord our
God and Saviour, — any other holiness but His, who ' only is

28

holy,' — any other life but that which is hid with Christ in God.
Woe is unto us, if, whether as pastors, or as sheep of the Lord's
flock, we follow any other shepherd but Him, the good Shep
herd, who laid down his life for the sheep.
" Him, indeed, we must follow, wheresoever he leads us. If
we be truly His, we shall know Him, and hear His voice. The
faithful dependence on his merits alone, — the patient waiting of
hope for the righteousness of God in Him, — is not without his
Spirit guiding us in all his counsel. He is our King, there
fore we obey his law ; he is our Prophet, therefore we
receive His teaching ; He is our great High Priest, the
Lord our Righteousness, needing no purification for Him
self, mighty to make intercession for others, and therefore
coming to Him, and casting ourselves on Him, we obtain,
through Him, the grace which sanctifies us, — which makes us
righteous even amidst our unrighteousness. Having Him for
the Lord our Righteousness, we are assured, that we have One
who knows our infirmities, and will accept us, according to
what we have, not according to what we have not ; — that,
as ' Hezekiah prayed to the Lord, saying, The good
Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek
God, the Lord God of his fathers, though he be not
cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary : and
the Lord hearkened to -Hezekiah, and healed the people ;' — so,
of those who have not fulfilled the requirements of the moral
law, who are not cleansed according to the purification of the
Gospel, — the Lord God will accept the preparation of the
heart, and heal them ; — not weighing their merits, but par
doning their offences, through Jesus Christ our Lord."
All that I have sought in these pages is, to
give the case an opportunity of speaking for itself.
Dr. Hampden must not be judged of by the asser
tions of others, but by his own opinions.

29
I have shown in what an unscrupulous manner
a cry is attempted to be raised prejudicial to him,*
* " The University condemned Dr. Hampden without a
hearing, in 1836, (and in a time of strong political excitement,
the charges were readily sanctioned)— the majority was 474 to
94, or about 5 to 1. In 1842, an attempt was made to reverse
the censure, but you know how difficult it is to get men to
reverse their condemnation ; besides, the Tractarians had grown
in power and numbers — nevertheless, the majority was dimi
nished from 5 to 1 to 3 to 2, the numbers being 330 to 219,
and this without any organization on Dr. Hampden's part ; this
can hardly be called, except conventionally, a confirmation of
the University censure. It should also be borne in mind that
the responsible part of the University (in 1842) were with
Dr. Hampden by a majority of 12 to 2 or 12 to 3. The Heads
of Houses in favour of Dr. Hampden being, for, Oriel, *Christ
Church, *Alban Hall, *New Inn Hall, All Souls, Trinity,
Pembroke, Wadham, Merton, Lincoln, New College, *Uni-
versity ; against, Exeter, Jesus, and possibly Balliol, but he is
now favourable. I think he was neutral. The names of those
to which I have fixed an asterisk were against Dr. Hampden
in 1836.
" Then of Bishops, there were, in 1842, for Dr. Hampden,
Llandaff (Copleston), Sodor and Man (Short) ; against, Exeter
(Philpotts). " The only Professors who voted against Dr. Hampden in
1842, were Dr. Pusey and Mr. Reay, both ultra- Tractarians.
There may have been one more. While Dr. Faussett, against
him in 1836, was for him in 1842 ; and Mr. Hill, of Edmund
Hall, who was on the Committee against him in 1836, voted
for him in 1842 ; and when it is recollected that the numerical
majority against him in 1842 (I deny that the moral majority
was) included the names of Newman, Macmullen, Faber,
St. John, J. Morris, Christie, Ryder, Oakeley, Ward, Capes,

30
and how his works have been quoted to suit party
purposes; and I have made other extracts from
subsequent works which may tend to give some
reply to attacks formerly made, similar to these
now got up ; and as an evidence of the soundness
of his doctrinal views, I have taken the liberty to
reprint the greater part of his valuable sermon
from Jeremiah xxiii. 5, 6. And there I leave
the subject, with his own conclusion to his intro
duction to the Second Edition of his " Bampton
Lectures" : —
" For my part, I have found my own convictions of the truth
of the doctrines of the Church of England strengthened by the
inquiry pursued in these Lectures. But I do not look to myself
alone. I trust this work is destined to effect extensive good.
I feel a confidence that it will outlive the tumultuary shouts
with which it has been assailed. And I anxiously desire, that
it should produce the same salutary impression on the minds of
others, which the inquiry itself has produced on mine. If I
believed there were anything in it to shake the faith of the
humble disciple,— to obscure Or lower the great truth of Christ
Crucified, — to lead any one to deny .the Lord that bought him,
or confess his Saviour in any other sense than as ' the Lord
his Righteousness,' his ' Lord and his God,' in sincerity and in
truth, or to apostatize in any degree from the pure scriptural
faith of the Catholic Church of Christ ; — I would be the first
to erase such a passage from my work, and utterly to disown it.

Turner, Formby, Meyrick, Northcote, Penny, Collyns, Coffin,
Watts Russell, Lewis, Ormsby, and some twenty other seceders,
and all that they could influence, the University censure may
he considered as virtually repealed."

31
" The following passage of Augustine expresses the spirit
in which I submit to the reader every particular statement, as
well as the whole argument of my work : —
" 'In truth, whilst in all my writings I desire not only a
' pious reader, but also a free corrector, most especially do I in
* these, where the very magnitude of the question makes me
' wish it could have as many to investigate it, as it numbers
' amongst its impugners. However, as I would not that my
' reader should be devoted to me, so neither would I have my
' corrector devoted to himself. Let not the former love me
' more than the Catholic Faith : let not the latter love himself
' more than the Catholic Truth. While, to the former I say, —
' Treat not my writings with a deference due to the canonical
' Scriptures ; but in the one, unhesitatingly believe what you
' did not believe, on finding it there ; in the other, however,
' retain not firmly what you were not convinced of, unless you
' should be fully convinced of it ; — to the latter I say, Correct
' not my writings out of your own opinion, or out of conten-
' tion ; but from the reading of the Divine Word, or by
' unshaken argument. Should you lay hold of anything in
' them that is true, — in being so it is not mine ; but by the
' understanding and the love of it, let it be both yours and
' mine. Should you, however, detect anything that is false, —
' in the error, it may have been mine ; hut henceforth, by
' guarding against it, let it be neither mine nor yours.' "

Macintosh, Printer, (.rent Nra-strett. London.