H

rih

ELUCIDATIONS

or

DR. HAMPDEN'S

THEOLOGICAL STATEMENTS.

OXFORD,
I'RINTED BY W. nAXTER.
SOLI) BY J. H. PARKER; AND BY MESSRS. KIVINGTON,
LONDON. 1836.

ELUCIDATIONS,

It may be fairly asked of any resident of this place,
who at this time directs attention to Dr. Hampden's
works, why he has not done so in the considerable
interval which has elapsed since their publication.
The present writer's plain answer to this demand
would be, that he had hoped to have been spared the
necessity of an invidious task which pertained more
to others than to himself; to those who were less
connected by College ties with the Author in question.
He felt that he had no call of office or station that
way, and that he could not put himself forward with
out an apology for so doing. Even now he cannot
persuade himself to put his name in the title-page,
though he makes no secret of it to those who choose
to enquire.
At the present juncture, many persons are asking
each other, and trying to determine for themselves,
what the theological views of Dr. Hampden precisely
are. It is much to be regretted they did not turn
their thoughts to this matter sooner, especially con
sidering the call made on them last Spring to do so.
a 2

The omission, however, must be attributed, in addition
to other causes, to the particular form and character
of his Lectures, and the condensed and abstract style
which their extent of subject may have rendered
necessary. The consideration of these peculiarities has given
rise to the following pages, in which it is not attempted
to contravene any of Dr. Hampden's positions, but to
exhibit them, as far as he has stated them, and that with
as much fairness as may be attainable by one who has
his own opinion about them. This attempt may per
chance assist the judgments of those who are in doubt
as to his doctrines, and may explain the earnestness of
those who condemn them.

1 . Concerning Doctrinal Truths.
Here first it is necessary to explain Dr. H.'s views
concerning Theological Statements.
He considers that the only belief necessary for a
Christian, as such, is belief that the Scripture is the
word of God; that no statement whatever, even though
correctly deduced from the text of Scripture, is part of
the revelation ; that no right conclusions about theo
logical truth can be drawn from Scripture ; that Scrip
ture itself is a mere record of historical facts ; that
it contains no dogmatic statements, such as those about
the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, Justification, &c. ;
that theological statements, though natural and un
avoidable, are in all cases but human opinions ; that
even the juxtaposition of the actual sentences of Scrip
ture, is a human deduction ; that an individual is not
abstractedly the worse for being a Unitarian ; that it
does not follow that another is worse because I should
be worse for being so ; that, though a deduction be
correct, logical, and true, yet a denial of it must not
be pronounced to be more than an error of judgment ;
that infinite theories may be formed about the text of
Scripture, but that they ought not to be made of pub
lic importance to Christian communities, badges of
fellowship, reasons for separation, and the like ; that
the Articles of the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds are
merely human opinions, scholastic, allowing of change,

unwarrantable when imposed, and, in fact, the pro
duce of a mistaken philosophy ; and that the Apo
stles' Creed is defensible only when considered as a
record of historical facts.
" L Whilst we agree in the canon of Scripture, in the very
words for the most part from which we learn what are the
objects of faith, we suffer disunion to spread among us,
through the various interpretations suggested by our own
reasonings on the admitted facts of Scripture. We introduce
theories of the Divine Being and attributes, theories of human
nature and of the universe, principles drawn from the various
branches of human philosophy, into the body itself of revealed
wisdom." — Observ. p. 7.
" In religion, properly so called, few Christians, if any —
I speak of course of pious minds — really differ. All acknow
ledge with nearly unanimous assent, I believe, the great
original facts of the Bible. . . When I look at the reception by
the Unitarians both of the Old and New Testament, 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." — Observ. p. 19.
"No conclusions of human reasoning, however correctly
deduced, however logically sound, are properly religious
truths, or such as strictly and necessarily belong to human
salvation through Christ." — Observ. p. 8.
" Pious opinions, it must be observed, are not parts of
revelation." — Observ. p. 14.
" 2. The whole revelation contained in them [our Scrip
tures], so far as it is revelation, consists of matter of fact "-
Observ. p. 13. •' J
•' I do not mean that no right conclusions whatever result
rom the truths of S ipture ; ^ j ^ ^ t
ntellectua, or speculative, or theological truth, as distinct
from mol•al.,"— Observ. p. 12. aistinct

" I shall only briefly touch here on a fundamental charac
teristic of the Christian Scriptures, which totally precludes all
deduction of speculative conclusions concerning religious
truth."— Observ. p. 13.
" 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  If any
part of Scripture contains doctrinal statements, it will at any
rate be supposed to be the epistolary. But even this part,
if accurately considered, will not be found an exception 
Let the inveterate idea that the Epistles are the doctrinal por
tion of Scripture, be for awhile banished from the mind ; . . .
formypart, I cannotdoubt but that the decision will be in favour
of the practical character of them. The speculating theo
logian will perhaps answer by adducing text after text from
an Epistle, in which be will contend that some dogmatic
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 entreating, and persuading. And
I ask, whether it is likely that an Apostle would have
adopted the form of an epistolary communication for im
parting 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 f'
whether in preaching Christ he would have used a method
of communicating truth, which implies some scientific appli
cation of language, an analysis at least of propositions into
their terms, in order to its being rightly understood ?"
B. L. p. 374.
" Pious opinions, indeed, we may form; it is hardly possible
practically to avoid exercising the mind in reasoning and specu
lating on the given truths of Scripture. Such indeed are the
doctrinal statements of our Articles. I may wish there were

less of dogmatism in them. Still I cannot but approve them
for the piety that pervades them."— Observ. p. 14.
" There can be no rational doubt that man is in a degraded
disadvantageous condition, that Jesus Christ came into the
world in the mercy of God to produce a restoration of man,
that He brought life and immortality to light by His coming,
that He died on the cross for our sins, and rose again for our
justification, that the Holy Ghost came by his promise to
abide with His Church, miraculously assisting the Apostles
in the first institution of it, and ever since that period inter
ceding with the hearts of believers. These and other truths
connected with them are not collected merely from texts or
sentences of Scripture, they are parts of its records. Infinite
theories" [that is, it would appear, such as the doctrines of tbe
Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, &c] " may be raised upon
them ; but these theories, whether true or false, leave the facts
where they were." — B. L. p. 390.
3. " Dogmas of Theology then, as such, are human
authorities. But do I mean to say by this, that they are
unimportant to 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."— B. L. p. 375.
4. « The collection itself of scriptural expressions into one
body of statement amounts to a human exposition of the
doctrine. An artificial construction is given to them, which
they have not in the Scripture itself," &c— Observ. p. 10.
5. » Other communions are not necessarily in error or
heresy, because we hold them to be so; but viewing their
opm.ons as erroneous, we must guard against them, ashling
that we should ourselves be heret.cal and profane, if we should
change and adopt such opinions. For example, as believers
in a real Atonement for sin, &c. Thus again to a Trini
tanan, hc.»~Vide infra. Observ. p. 26.

6. " Opinions on religious matters are regarded as identical
with the objects of faith ; and the zeal which belongs to
dissentients in the latter, is transferred to the guiltless differ
ences of fallible judgments." — Observ. p. 7.
7. " In truth, I say, it [theological opinion] ought not to
exist. Theological opinion, as necessarily mixed up with
speculative knowledge, ought not to be the bond of union of
any Christian society, or a mark of discrimination between
Christian and Christian." — Observ. p. 21.
" If I can establish this point [that no conclusions of human
reasoning, however correctly deduced, are properly religious
truths, &c. vid. supra'], it will be seen in great measure how
far a conscientious and zealous earnestness for " the faith
once delivered to the saints'" justifies our sectarian animosities
and our party exclusions." — Observ. p. 18.
8. " If it be admitted that the notions on which their [the
Nicene and Athanasian Creeds'] 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 philosophy,
theories current in the schools at the time when they were
written, to exclude others more obviously (sic) injurious to
the simplicity of the Faith." — B. L. p. 378.
" I do not presume to sav that alteration is actually
required. I am merely addressing myself to the general
question, as to the capacity of improvement in Church
Creeds and Articles, with the view of suggesting a right
theory of the subject. To deny the essential variableness
of such documents, is to admit an human authority to a
parity with the authority of Inspiration." — B. L. p. 381.
" The Apostles' Creed states nothing but facts. The
transition is immense from this to the scholastic speculations
involved in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. Both these
last, indeed, are logical definitions of the high subject of

10
which they treat, differing from each other only in point of
comprehensiveness and exactness." — B. L. p. 544.
" We then proceed to contend for these unrevealed repre
sentations of the wisdom of God, as if it were that very
wisdom as it stands forth confessed in His own living oracles.
'The wisdom that is from above' is at once 'pure' and
'gentle.' Surely it has no resemblance to that dogmatical
and sententious wisdom which theological controversy has
created."— Observ. p. 8.
Remarks on the above.
Article VI. " Holy Scripture containeth all things
necessary to salvation ; so that whatsoever is not
read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be
required of any man,4hat it should be believed as an
article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary
to salvation." On the other hand, Dr. H. says, " No
conclusions of human reasoning, however correctlv
deduced, .... are properly religious truths, or such
as strictly and necessarily belong to human salvation
through Christ"
On this Dr. H. observes, that « it by no means
follows, that what can be proved out of Scripture must
therefore be truth of revelation."
He accounts for the clause in the Article, by
allegmg the intention of our Reformers thereby to
Z^^ ^ °f *»**» « «* ^n
" aHetruthnofrSoS-TinSt *""* ** ^'^ that
than inlf 7^ CMU10t be Stated otherwise
than in the form of a conclusion from Scripture » HP
rePheS,thatthough it be e^^^pj^^

11
it is still a human exposition of the doctrine, and that he
thinks the employing technical terms preferable to
employing terms of Scripture. Vid. Observ. p. 8 — 10.
So far Dr. H. brings forward and disposes of ob
jections to his doctrine. But there is still a deside
ratum in his statement. Language such as he has
used, is frequent in the mouths of Socinians and
others. These religionists urge, after his manner,
that all doctrine is matter of opinion, varying accord
ing to the character of individual minds. We wait
for him then to complete bis view, and to draw the line
between himself and them, lest Churchmen perchance
who hsten to him, turn Socinians before he is aware of
their danger. He says, that it is a matter of opinion,
whether a man believe in the Divinity of Christ or
not. Now, supposing hearers of his were to take up
with Socinianism, would he be earnest in reclaiming
themornot ? If he was earnest, which one should expect,
would not this imply that he did think it a difference
whether or not a man were a Socinian ; and would he
not, in the present imperfect development of his
views, expose himself to the retort, " Trinitarianism,
belief in the Atonement, &c, are necessary for you,
but not for us : do not judge us, we can be humble-
minded without them, we believe the facts of Scrip
ture/' &c? This is not here urged as an objection to his
views, which are not sufficiently brought out to enable
us formally to judge of them on this point, but by way
of comparing them with those of others " whose theo
logy he strongly dislikes," and showing our claim on
him for an explanation. A particular theory is common

12
to him and certain Socinians ; where and how does he
part company with them ?
With a view of illustrating this point, it may be
well to quote the words of one who, starting from the
very theory maintained by Dr. Hampden, has recently
become a convert to Socinianism. Had the writer of
these pages that author's works at hand, he might
quote still more apposite passages.
" You must frequently have observed the hopelessness of
the attempts which are constantly made to establish various
points of Christian doctrine by logical arguments, founded on
detached texts of Scripture. You must have seen regular
collections of passages, selected with the utmost patience, and
arranged into classes with the greatest ingenuity. Most
works on controversial divinity are attempts of this kind to
draw some abstract proposition as the unquestionable result
of the various expressions of Scripture upon the given subject.
You cannot but have observed, moreover, how short all such
attempts fall of the intended object," &c. — Mr. Blanco White
on Heresy.
" As we cannot approach the objective truth of such
convictions [i. e. of things beyond the reach of our senses]
beyond or out of our intellect, all our moral duties to truth,
(where moral duties are concerned, as is the case with
religious truths,) are due to the only truth we can reach,
i. e. the conviction of our own minds. But it is here that the
fatal mistake takes place. The pride of the religious enthu
siast takes up his subjective truth as the divine objective
truth itself. On other subjects, if contradiction made him
angry and impatient, he would be more or less ashamed
of showing it. Not so in the present case. He indulges his
most violent passions under the character of zeal for God and
His truth ; his natural desire of ruling over others appears in

13
the shape of a vehement concern in the preservation of the
assent of the mass of the people to the orthodox, i. e. his
own opinions. Because he is sure he is right, he positively
denies that those who contradict him can be sure they are
right, &c." — Mr. Blanco White, Law of Libel.
Or take again the parallel words of Hoadley, who
died indeed in the communion, nay, in the high places,
of our Church, yet on the present Bishop of London's
authority", must be considered a Socinian.
" Though many persons may mistake in their different ap
prehensions concerning the sense of these words," [those in
which the faith was once delivered,] " yet we may be sure,
whilst we retain these words, that we retain what God himself
has seen fit should be delivered and transmitted to us as the
best conveyance, all things considered, of the faith required
of us. This I mean particularly with regard to those articles
of belief which are properly Christian. . . .By contending
for the faith as it was once delivered to the saints in the New
Testament, we shall only press upon men the receiving what
it has phased God to deliver, but shall avoid a great evil
of enforcing upon them the consequences which we ourselves
see, or think we see, to follow from the doctrines first
delivered  The just consequences from any truth are
certainly equally true with that truth from which they
follow ; and it is as certain that to him who sees them to
follow, or thinks he sees them, they are as truths, and may
justly be maintained as such. But they are not so to others
who see them not in the same light. Nor can they be made
necessary to be believed by others, till those others themselves
discover their relation to the primitive truths of Religion." —
Sermon on Contending for the Faith, vol. iii. p.' 714.
d Answer to Butler, p. 31.

2. Doctrine of the Trinity.
As to the doctrine of the Trinity, Dr. H. holds that
Scripture contains certain phenomena concerning the
dealings of the Supreme Being with man, which, when
compared together, are remarkable and startling, and
irresistibly force upon the mind that there is some
mystery in the divine nature ; but what that mystery
is, or that it is the very mystery which the catholic
doctrine of the Trinity expresses, is, he considers, not
revealed. The catholic doctrine is one out of the
infinite theories which may be raised upon the facts of
Scripture, and the Athanasian Creed is in its origin the
view of a party in the church. Again: it is not scrip
tural or necessary to insist upon the numerical or real
unity of the Supreme Being ; since He is not revealed
as one in Himself, but as one contrasted with the gods
of polytheism. On the whole, that it is an abuse of
Scripture to attempt thus to deduce a theology at
all, i. e. a knowledge of God in respect of His nature,
attributes, &c.
1 . " One fact is clear through all this labyrinth of variations
which theological creeds have exhibited ; that there is some
extraordinary communication concerning the Divine Being,
in those Scriptural notices of God, which have called forth
the curiosity of thinking men in all ages. To me it matters
little what opinion on the subject has been prior, has been
advocated by the shrewdest wit or deepest learning, has been
most popular, most extensive in its reception. All differences

15
of this kind belong to the history of the human mind, a?
much as to theology, and affect not the broad basement of
fact on which the manifold forms of speculation have taken
their rise. The only ancient, only catholic truth is the
scriptural fact. Let us hold that fast in its depth and
breadth . . . and we can neither be Sabellians, or Tritheists,
or Socinians." — B. L. p. 149.
" Historically regarded, they [Dr. H.'s discussions] evi
dence the reality of those sacred facts of Divine Providence,
which we comprehensively denote by the doctrine of a Trinity
in Unity. But let us not identify this reality with the theories
couched under a logical phraseology. I firmly and devoutly
believe that word, which has declared the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. But who can pretend
to that exactness of thought on the subject, on which our
technical language is based ?" — B. L. p. 150.
2. " When I look at the reception by the Unitarians both of
the Old and New Testament, 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." — Observ.
p. 20. ,
" Thus, again, to the Trinitarian, the consequences of
rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity must consistently be
regarded as dangerous. But he has no right to extend his
anathema beyond himself to one who has unhappily not
embraced the same view of Scripture truth." — Observ. p. 27.
3. " It appears to me that the silence respecting the in
dividual author" [of the Athanasian Creed] " 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 .... is an evidence of the triumph of a party in
the Church, thus declaring their authoritative judgment under
the sanction of a name, which expressed in itself every
thing hostile to Arianism." — B. L. p. 105.
4. " No one can be more convinced than I am, that there is a

16
real mystery of God revealed in the Christian dispensation ;
and that no scheme of Unitarianism can solve the whole of
the phenomena which Scripture records. But I am also as
fully sensible, that there is a mystery attached to the subject,
which is not a mystery of God. Take, for instance, the
notion of the Divine Unity. We are apt to conceive that the
Unity must be understood numerically ; that we may reason
from the notion of Unity to the properties of the Divine
Being. But is this a just notion of the Unity of God ? . . . .
Surely the revelation of the Divine Unity was not meant to
convey to Israel any speculative notion of the oneness of the
Deity, but practically to influence their minds in regard to
the superstitions from which they had been brought out 
Now were this view of the revelation of the Divine Unity
strictly maintained, would it not greatly abate the repugnance
often felt at the admission of a Trinity in Unity? .... To deny
a Trinity would then be felt the same as to assert that, because
polytheism was false, therefore no new manifestation of God,
not resulting from the negation of polytheism, can be true." —
B. L. p. 146.
5. " To the Christian speculator, under such a method" [the
scholastic], " these principles would of course be sought no
where else but in the Divine Being himself. . . His nature and
attributes, so far as they were explained by the light of reason
or revealed by the illumination of Scripture, would alone pre
sent to the inquirer that immobility and eternity, and absolute
priority of truth, of which he was in quest." — B. L. p. 78.
" Its [the scholastic system's] principles . . . were to be drawn
from the nature of the Divine Being, as the only sure ground
on which a divine and universal philosophy could fix its first
steps."— B. L. p. 79.
" If now we regard the Scriptures in the way of the
Schoolmen, as having God for their proper subject, instead of
reading them as a divine history of man, we naturally neglect
the analogies of time and circumstances. The immutability

17
of the Divine Being, in the contemplation of whom we are
then exclusively engaged, is the prevailing object of our
inquiry. Our business is to collect into one theory every
scattered intimation of the Divine Being and attributes. If,
on the contrary, we take the nature and condition of man
under Divine Providence as the great subject of our sacred
books, we are as naturally led to study the facts recorded in
the Scripture in their real historical place," &c. — B. L.
p. 89.
" Eager to erect their theology into a philosophy of the
Divine Being, they were comparatively indifferent to the
humbler truths which lay in the walk of man's every-day life."
— B. L. p. 93.
" The scholastic philosophy had for its basis a theoretic
knowledge of the Divine Being ; a knowledge of God as the
highest cause of all things, the primary being in the order of
the universe.*' [It is added in a note,] " Thus, too, not only
in the decrees of the Council of Trent, but in our own
Articles, the doctrines on this head occupy the first place . . .
The Fathers of the Church of England, even in shaking off
the spiritual bonds of Rome, were tacitly influenced by the
discipline in which their minds had been trained." — B. L.
p. 99. Remarks on the above.
It will be seen from the foregoing passages that
Dr. H. considers the doctrine of the Trinity, as held
by himself, to be but one out of the infinite theories
which might be formed from the facts of the Scrip
ture revelation. Now it is not here denied that men
of subtle minds may be able to combine this scepticism
of the intellect with devotion of the heart to the Ever-
Blessed Trinity ; but will men of common understand-

18
ings, if provided with no explanation or limitation of
this view, be able to say in faith, " O Holy, Blessed,
and Glorious Trinity, three Persons, one God, have
mercy, &c?" or "To whom [Christ] with the Father
and the Holy Ghost, be &c?" or " Whosoever will be
saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the
Catholic Faith ; which faith, except every one do
keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall
perish everlastingly : and the Catholic Faith is this,
that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in
Unity ?" Here then we demand some explanation for
the sake of Dr. H.'s hearers and readers.
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. H.'s state
ments. It is not at all hereby insinuated that he him
self 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. H., 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 confidence in Dr. H., find them
selves precipitated into the depths of that heresy
which Antiquity calls " a god-denying apostasy."
The author already quoted, in a work published
before he discovered his own Socinianism, introduces
a pattern character speaking thus on his death-bed.
" I believe in God the Creator of this world as my
Father. I believe his moral character (for in regard to

19
his relations to man 1 cannot find a better expression)
to be that which Jesus Christ his Son in the sublimest
sense, has revealed to the world. I also believe in his
' Spirit' which helpeth our infirmities ; for ' it is
God who worketh in us both to will and to do of his
good pleasure ;' not to save us from working, but to
aid us in working out our salvation with fear and
trembling." Second Travels of Irish Gentleman, vol. ii.
p. 206.
This author has since confessed, that at the time of
writing this he was really a Unitarian or Socinian,
though he had not yet brought home the fact to
himself. Now, on recurring to the extract above
quoted, p. 8, beginning, " There can be no rational
doubt," &c, is it not plain that we have a right to
demand from Dr. H. some line of separation between
him and the above-cited author*? The quotations from
Dr. Hampden, under the following head, give ad
ditional reason for this demand.
1 The clause " died on the cross for our sins,'' &c. will be noticed
presently.

20

3. Doctrine of the Incarnation.
Dr. Hampden conceives, that the orthodox doctrine
on this subject is grounded on a confused philosophy ;
that a chief excellence of that particular theory lies in
its consistency ; on the other hand, that the Unitarian
is as dogmatic as the orthodox believer ; that in this
lies his essential fault ; that, as such, he is morally
wrong, not in that he holds Christ to be a mere man, but
because he makes any opinion at all on the subject a
reason of separation.
" The discussions on the Incarnation were, in like manner,
partly physical, partly logical. It was attempted to be
explained, in what way the Son might be said to be generated
of the Father ; whether out of the substance of God, or out
of a common divinity, of which each participates, or by
division of the Paternal substance, as a portion severed from
the Father; whether further, He is the Son of God by
nature, or necessity, or will, or predestination, or adoption.
The confusion of principles of different sciences in these
promiscuous inquiries is sufficiently apparent. But it was
by such a philosophy that the orthodox language was settled,
declaring the Son begotten, before all worlds, of one sub
stance (sic) with the Father." — B. L. p. 137.
" The excellence of the orthodox theory, we may observe,
consisted in its excluding from that definition all ideas im
ported from the physical speculations, and reducing it to
perfect consistency with the original theory of the Divine
Procession. It brought the inquirer back to the point from
which he set out, to acknowledge the simple divine personality

21
of the Saviour, that he was the Word made flesh." — B. L.
p. 139.
" In the theory of the Incarnation, certain distinctions in
Christ were the data ; and the problem was to find a com
mon idea in which they should agree." — B. L. p. 479-
" I would take the extreme case of the Unitarians : I
would say to them ; Why do you take so much pains to
convince the world, that you do not agree with the mass of
professing Christians in believing in the same sense, " one
Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God, and Father of all ?
Is it not, that you identify your religion with your dogmas, that
you transfer the natural partiality of your own minds for certain
principles to the broad outlines of Scripture truth, and dissent
from your brethren in the faith, because they will not assent to
your metaphysical conclusions ? For when I look at the recep
tion by the Unitarians, both of the Old and New Testament,
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. I allude to the case of the Unitarian
more particularly, because in the ordinary view, he is regarded
as more liberal, as less exclusive in his creed, than members of
other Christian communions. And I wish it to be considered
whether he is not, on the other hand, as dogmatic as any
other religionist ; perhaps the most so of all, so far as he
insists, beyond all others, on applying a positive sense to
passages and expressions, which revelation leaves in the dark
ness of the clouds surrounding the Divine Presence. Putting
him, however, on the same footing precisely of earnest reli
gious 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, whether it is not theological dogmatism,
and not religious belief properly so called, which constitutes
the principle of his dissent. But I am not intending to
condemn him more than other Christians, on this ground ; I
select his case, by way of illustration, as an extreme one.

22
The principle itself is the common fault of us all. In all
communions it works its mischief; and without accusing
individuals, I propose only to accuse the principle itself, the
confusion of theological conclusions and opinions with religion,
with a view to its correction by us all." — Observ. p. 19.

23

4. Doctrine of the Atonement.
Dr. Hampden considers that the term Atonement, in
its true practical sense, expresses a certain phenomenon
in human nature, viz. that it cannot be at peace with
out the consciousness of Atonement made for its sins;
that to this phenomenon of our nature's remorse
at its own sin, Scripture opposes a parallel fact,
the perfect righteousness of Christ, which it connects
with our unrighteousness, and hence Christ is em
phatically called our Atonement ; that Atonement in
a wider sense expresses the general law of Divine
Providence under which this instance of God send
ing His Son falls, which is also called Mediation ; but
that in Scripture it means nothing but the simple
history of Christ's mercy, and we must not theorize
upon it ; that it does not imply any changing of
God's purpose towards man in consequence; that it
was converted by Scholasticism into the philosophy
of expiation, which depressed the mind, or into a
theory of commutation ; that it is a real Atonement ;
that we must not suppose that another may not be
humbleminded who disbelieves it, merely because such
would be our case. — Perhaps it is impossible to do
justice to Dr. Hampden's meaning under this head in
any words but his own.
" In collecting the truth from observations on the natural
world, our business is to search and hunt out what is the
fact, (sic) .... but in learning the truth of God from

24
Scripture, we have the facts laid before us ; they are
entirely out of the reach of our investigation, and are at once
by the word of the Spirit mercifully stated to us, in forms
of expression calculated to impress them on our hearts, and
enforce them on our belief and conduct. For instance, the
great fact that God sent his Son Jesus Christ into the world
that the world by him should be saved, what powers of inves
tigation, however clearsighted or however lofty, could ever
have discovered ? Reason may surmise the truth, so far as it
is included in a general lav/ of Divine Providence, expressed
under the term mediation or atonement, of which it is a tran
scendent instance. But this is not to reach the fact itself.
The necessity, then, of the case clearly requires, that the facts
of which our scriptural information consists shall be fully
made known to us, so far as it is necessary for us to know
them, by the page itself of Scripture. This evidently is that
blessing of Christianity to the poor. It appeals to no philo
sophical powers for the estimate of its simple facts," &c. —
Observ. p. 17.
" It is to be remarked, however, how strongly the inefficacy
of repentance to wipe away guilt, and restore the sinner to his
lost state, has impressed the minds of those who have thought
on human nature with any depth of philosophy. It is of
little purpose to urge the natural placability of the Divine
Being, his mercy, his willingness to receive the penitent.
God no doubt is abundantly placable, merciful, and forgiving;
still the fact remains. The heart seeks for reparation and
satisfaction ; its longings are that its sins 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. The fact is, that we cannot be at peace
without some consciousness of atonement made. The word
atonement, in its true practical sense, expresses this indis
putable fact  This material and invincible difficulty of the
case, the Scripture revelation has met with a parallel fact.

25
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 righteousness it has connected with our unrighteous
ness, and whose strength it has brought to the evil of our
weakness. Thus Christ is emphatically said to be our atone
ment; not that we may attribute to God any change of
purpose towards man by what Christ has done, but that
we may know (sic) that we have passed from the death of sin
to the life of righteousness by Him, and that our own hearts
may not condemn us." — B. L. p. 251.
" 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. The ecclesiastical
power stood between the heart and heaven ; atonement was
converted into a theory of commutation," &c. — B. L. p. 253.
" Other communions are not necessarily in error or heresy,
because we hold them to be so ; but viewing their opinions as
erroneous, we must guard against them, as feeling that we
should ourselves be heretical and profane, if we should change
and adopt such opinions. For example, as believers in a real
Atonement for sin, we may justly feel shocked at the thought
which imputes any merit to man, and regard, as a sinful
pride in ourselves, the absence of that self-abasement in the
sight of God, which is peculiarly impressed on us by this
holy truth. But we must not conclude of another, who shuts
out of his creed this cardinal doctrine, that he must therefore
be proud and self-righteous ; for, with all his heterodoxy of
language, he may be more humble in spirit than many who
are more dogmatically correct in their enunciation of the doc
trine." — Observ. p. 26.
Remarks on the above.
Article II. says, that Christ " truly suffered, was
crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to

26
ms; and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt,
but also for the actual sins of men." But Dr. H. says,
" 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." His view of Christ's
sacrifice is, that, since we have by nature a keen sense
of guilt, and will not believe that God loves us till we
see some token of His love, He sent His Son into the
world as such a token, to live and die as a man for our
sakes; and this is a proofandpledgetousofHislove,but
nothing more. In no sense is His death revealed as an
expiation made towards God the Father, an appeasing
of His wrath, &c. Now, if this is Dr. H.'s meaning,
I ask, in what sense does he understand the words of
the Article above quoted ? If according to their natural
construction, then I ask, in what sense does he under
stand his own words which follow them? Dr. H.'s
readers have a claim on him for an explanation.
But this is not all ; for here again, by a great
infelicity, Dr. H. has expressed himself after the man-,
ner of Socinus and his school. The extracts which
follow from their writings are made, not for an instant
with a view of implying that Dr. H. himself agrees
with them, but to show that any one who did not know
of his published assurances to the contrary, would
have a right to consider that Dr. H. did agree with
those misbelievers in a capital article of their mis
belief.

•27
Let us first turn to F. Socinus's Disputation De
Jesu Christo Servatore, part i. ch. viii.
" We are then reconciled to God through Christ ; God
exhorting us, through him and his representatives the
Apostles, to be willing to be reconciled to him, and offering
us freely pardon of our sins : but not Christ making Him
propitious towards us, and paying to Him our debts 1."
Vide also Crellius in answer to Grotius de Satis-
factione Christi, cap. vii.b
The following passage is from Slichtingius's com
ment on the Romans.
" We are reconciled to God ; viz. by God Himself, who
has reconciled us unto Himself, that is, has converted to
Himself us who were in mind and works without any cause,
nay, after the experience of numberless benefits, averse to
Him ; has altogether extinguished in our minds the hatred of
Him ; and instead has Kindled a most fervent love for Him,
by the death of His Son, viz. in the act of giving Him up to
death for our sins, &c  We see in this passage, [2 Cor.
v. 19 — 21.] that Christ died not while God was angry and at
enmity with the world, but the world with God ; therefore
the death of Christ did not effect the reconciliation of God to
the world, but that of the world to Godc."

a " Reconciliati igitur suinus Deo per Christum, Deo per ipsum, et per
ejus vicarios Apostolos hortante, ut sibi reconciliari velimus, delictorumque
veniam nobis ultro offerente : non autem Christo ilium nobis placante, et
illi debita nostra persolvente." Biblioth. Fratr. Polon. vol. ii. p. 138.
b Ibid. vol. v. p. 146.
c " Reconciliati sumus Deo. Nempe ab ipso Deo, qui nos sibi reconciliavit,
id est animo et factis sine ulla causa a se aversos, imo innumeris beneficiis
affectos, ad se convertit, odium sui in animis nostris penitus extinxit,
amorem vero sui ardentissimum accendit per mortem Filii sui, dum scilicet
ilium in mortem pro peccatis nostris tradit, &i;  Videmus hie non

26
What makes this coincidence the more unfortunate
is, that it is Dr. H.'s practice in writing, too frequently
to omit any clear allusion to the death of Christ as
our Redeemer even in such formal statements of
doctrine as ought to contain it. E. g.
<; [Scripture] has fixed our attention on a Holy One,
who did no sin, whose perfect righteousness it has connected
with our unrighteousness, and whose strength it has brought
to the evil of our weakness." — B. L. p. 252.
Again :
" 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." — B L. p. 254.
Here is doubtless a much stronger wording than in
the former extract, still it is a very guarded and
reserved statement of the doctrine of the Atonement,
as must be admitted. He uses many phrases, but
the notion of Christ's cross, passion, death, or the
like, does not occur. What can be the meaning of
this ? Is it done on purpose ? Dr. H. is not here
accused of this, but hearers and readers who do not
know him, will be sure so to interpret his silence.
What will be the effect of this upon others ? Is it not

Deum mundo, sed mundum Deo fuisse infensum et inimicum cum
Christus moreretur, proinde per mortem Christi non id esse actum, ut
Deus mundo, sed ut mundus Deo reconciliaretur." Ibid. vol. vi. p. 201.

29
by such suppression on the part of teachers, that
unbelief or half-belief is mainly propagated ? Is not
Locke claimed as a Socinian upon less grounds?
Again :
" There can be no rational doubt that man is in a
degraded disadvantageous condition, that Jesus Christ came
into the world in the mercy of God, to produce a restoration
of man, that He brought life and immortality to light by His
coming, that He died on the cross for our sins, and rose
again for our justification, SfC." — B. L. p. 390.
Here is every thing we can desire, that is, in our
sense of the words, for they are from Scripture ; but
let it be observed, it is nothing more than what a
Socinian would say, as admitting the canonical autho
rity of St. Paul's Epistles. It will be asked, " What
can one desire more ?" Just thus much more ; proof
which we may show to the whole world, not for our
own satisfaction, that Dr. H. says something more
than a Socinian ; proof that he attaches some definite
sense to Scripture, and that that is the Church's sense.
People at a distance cannot be the better for our private
knowledge of him in Oxford.
Once more :
" The great fact, that God sent his Son Jesus Christ into
the world, that the world by Him should be saved, what
powers of investigation, however clear sighted, or however
lofty, could ever have discovered ? Reason may surmise the
truth, so far as it is included in a general law of Divine
Providence, expressed under the term Mediation or Atone
ment, of which it is a transcendent instance." — Observ. p. 18.

30
This extract admits of several remarks. First, let
it be observed, that the Atonement is called a law
of Divine Providence, under which Christ's coming
falls. Next, it is synonymous with Mediation. And
further it is interpreted to be " God's sending His
Son into the world, that the world by Him should be
saved." Vague all of it, and in Scripture language.
It is the kindest thing to say of such a passage, that
it is very loosely and inaccurately worded. An unfair
person, or a stranger, would not doubt of its accuracy,
but impute a worse defect.

31

5. The Sacraments.
Dr. Hampden does not deny that a blessing is con
nected with the reception of the Sacraments, (whether
as a condition, or an act of obedience, he does not
explain ;) but he denies that they are channels and
instruments of Divine grace. What he chiefly op
poses is, what is commonly called their mystical
influence, i. e. a virtue parallel to physical efficiency
in visible things, but belonging to an order of things,
and directed by laws, about which we know nothing.
He denies that the baptismal water is the medium in
God's hand of cleansing the soul, considering the
notion to have arisen from the belief in magic, pre
valent in the first ages of the Church. He holds the
same of the Holy Eucharist, and states the received
doctrine to have been derived from the same source as
that of the remaining five Sacraments adopted by the
Church of Rome.
" The theory of the Sacraments, on which I now enter, '
proceeds on the same view of human salvation. It is an
account of the application of the Passion of Christ to the
healing of the soul, a collection of remedial measures by
which its languors and infirmities may be relieved and
strengthened. The Incarnation of Christ is regarded as
the primary efficient cause of health to the soul : dispensed
by the several Sacraments as the instrumental and secondary
causes. As the Incarnation itself was an union of the Divine
Word with human nature, so the Sacraments, according to
the theoretic view of the Scholastic philosophy, were mystical

32
unions of words with sensible things, by which the real pre
sence of Christ was both signified and applied to the soul of
man, the visible channels through which virtue was conveyed
from Christ himself to his mystical body, the Church. . . .
Theologians have not been content to rest on the simple fact
of the Divine Ordinance, appointing certain external rites as
essential parts of Divine Service on the part of man, available
to the blessing of the receiver; but they have treated the
Sacraments as effusions of the virtue of Christ, physically
quickening and strengthening the soul, in a manner analogous
to the invigoration of the body by salutary medicine." — B. L,
p. 311." The general belief in magic, in the early ages of the
Church, may sufficiently account for the ready reception of
such a theory of sacramental influence. The maxim of
Augustine, " Accedit verbum ad elementum, et fit sacra-
mentum," appears to be in fact an adaptation of the popular
belief respecting the power of incantations and charms to the
subject of religion. The miracles themselves, indeed, of our
Saviour were supposed to act in this manner, even by those
who did not impute them to the agency of evil. His word or
His touch was sought for by persons acknowledging in faith the
reality of his mission  Our Saviour, whose condescension
was shown even to the prejudices of his faithful followers,
often accompanied the working of his miracles with significant
actions. In the instance of the woman, indeed, .... He is
described as having perceived that some one had touched
Him, by the fact that virtue had gone out of Him ; a mode
of speaking, characteristic of the prevalent idea concerning
the operation of Divine Influence, as of something passing
from one body to another." — B. L. p. 315.
"The definition, indeed, given in the Catechism of the
Church of England, is exactly what the Scholastic theory
suggests; so far, at least, as the language of it character
izes the nature of a sacrament. It is in the subsequent

33
application of this definition, that the Church of England has
modified and improved on the fundamental idea of the Scho
lastic doctrine, whilst the idea itself is preserved, as being
part of the very texture of technical theology." — B. L. p. 313.
" It is a real and true presence which he [Ratramm]
asserts ; the virtue of Christ acting in the way of efficacious
assistance to the receiver of the Sacrament. The Church of
England doctrine of the Sacrament, it is well known, is
founded on the views given by this author." — B. L. p. 320.
Remarks on the above.
This head may be dismissed with the following quo
tations from our formularies.
Article XXV. — " Sacraments ordained of Christ be not
only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather
they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and
God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work in
visibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen
and confirm our faith in him."
" In such only as worthily receive the same, they have a
wholesome effect or operation."
Article XXVIII.—" The body of Christ is given, taken,
and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual
manner." Baptismal Service. — " Ye have brought this child here
to be baptized. Ye have prayed that our Lord Jesus Christ
would vouchsafe to receive him, to release him of his sins, to
sanctify him with the Holy Ghost, to give him the kingdom of
heaven and everlasting life," &c.
"Almighty, everliving God, whose most dearly beloved
Son Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of our sins, did shed out
of his most precious side both water and blood .... sanctify
this water to the mystical washing away of sin."

34
Catechism. — " What are the benefits whereof we are par
takers thereby [by the Lord's Supper] ? The strengthening
and refreshing of our souls by the body and blood of Christ,
as our bodies are by the bread and wine.""
Communion Service. — " Grant us, therefore, gracious
Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to
drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by
his body, and our souls washed through his most precious
blood."

35

6. Doctrine of Original Sin.
The following is Dr. H.'s comment upon the 9th
Article, the Latin text of which is here subjoined : —
" Peccatum originis non est (ut fabulantur Pelagiani)
in imitatione Adami situm, sed est vitium, et depra
vatio naturae, cujuslibet hominis ex Adamo naturaliter
propagati : qua fit, ut ab originali justitia quam lon-
gissime distet ; ad malum sua natur& propendeat, et
caro semper adversus spiritum concupiscat, unde in
unoquoque nascentium iram Dei atque damnationem
meretur." " Original Sin, accordingly, is always defined by the
Schoolmen in negative terms, as a want of original justice,
" carentia justitise originalis ;" or an inordinateness of the
desires ; or, as in our 9th Article, a fault and depravation of
nature, " vitiura ac depravatio naturae." The last indeed is
the most truly technical description of it; expressing, ac
curately, the peculiarity of the theory, on which the doctrinal
statement of original sin has been founded."
" This theory of the evil of the world involved also other
theories of the same logical philosophy  This occasioned
the introduction of the term propagation into the account of
the origin of evil. And the theory, as thus stated, would be
the logical correspondent to the doctrine of grace  The
Pelagians, however, were not satisfied with this account of
the matter. Admitting that evil existed in the world, and that
the transgression of Adam had been injurious to his posterity,
they still denied its transmission in the way of an hereditary
c2

36
taint  He [Pelagius] contended . . . that the first sin
was hurtful to the human race not by propagation, but by
example. . . ¦ Though the language of the Pelagians did not
adequately express the inveteracy of that sinfulness of human
nature, which Scripture and the world declare with one
voice ; we must allow, I think, that their grounds were
right, so far as they attempted to give a moral account of the
fact ; and that their oppone?its were wrong, so far as they
attempted to give a physical or material account of iff — B. L.
p. 221.
" It is probable then that Pelagius and Celestius intended
only to oppose this material theory ; and to explain the fact
of human sinfulness, as I have said, on moral grounds. In
the fact itself, as appears, they did not differ from the ortho
dox : so far that they were acquitted of heresy both at
Rome and at Jerusalem. But the acute logic of the African
divines traced their explanations to the consequences ; and
their influence was interposed to maintain the uniformity of
doctrine in the Church."— B. L. p. 230.
7. Doctrine concerning the Soul.
" This notion of the separate existence of the soul has so
incorporated itself with Christian Theology, that we are apt
at this day to regard a belief in it as esseutial to orthodox
doctrine. Even in maintaining that such a behef is not
essential to Christianity, I may incur the appearance of
impugning a vital truth of religion. I cannot however help
vieicing this popular belief as a remnant of scholasticism. I
feel assured that the truth of the Resurrection does not
depend on such an assumption ; that the life and immortality
of man, as resting on Christ raised from the dead, is a certain
fact in the course of Divine Providence ; whatever may be
the theories of the soul, and of its connexion with the
body."— B. L. p. 310.

37

8. Doctrine of Morals.
To enter into Dr. Hampden's view of Moral Philo
sophy would be beside the purpose of these pages,
were it not that he introduces the subject into his
Bampton Lectures. It may then be briefly observed,
that he considers the science of morals to be in
itself as independent of religion as physics; that it is
conversant with certain laws of the human mind ; that
these rest ultimately upon fact ; that a man may fulfil
the moral law without religion ; that religion has refer
ence only to one part of our functions as men ; that,
if cultivated by itself, it will injuriously engross the
whole man ; that it is a comfort and enjoyment, but
must not be made every thing ; that it induces re
signation, abstraction, indolence, and requires moral
philosophy as its counterpoise.
" It will, I think, appear, that Theology and Ethics are
entirely distinct in their nature ; in the principles, I mean, on
which they are based." — B. L. p. 264.
" The term obligation is a religious one ; introduced into
morality by that peculiar connexion, which the speculative
Theology of the Schools established, between religion and
morality."— B. L. p. 297.
" Morality then, it should be observed, is the science of
our own internal nature. It ascertains all those principles by
which we are actuated in our sentiments and conduct, and
establishes the general law in which they all agree. Its
office is throughout one of discovery." — B. L. p. 299.

36
" So independent is the science of Ethics, of the support
and the ennobling which it receives from religion, that it
would be nothing strange or objectionable in a Revelation,
were we to find embodied in its language much of the false
Ethical Philosophy, which systems may have established." —
B. L. p. 302.
" Holiness, separation from the world, devotion, stillness
of the thoughts and the affections, are the means of Religion :
Ethics are all activity, all business. Neither will answer the
purpose of the other : both are indispensable to the perfection
and happiness of human nature." — B. L. p. 302.
" We find Moral Philosophy among ourselves consigned
rather to the pulpit than to the chair of the Professor. ....
It may be enough to refer to the Moral and Metaphysical
discussions of Samuel Clarke, as contained in his Sermons at
the Boyle Lecture, and to the Moral Philosophy of Butler,
as delivered in his Sermons at the Rolls' Chapel. It appears
indeed, that Paley's views of Moral Science were originally
developed in the same form. A circumstance which has
strengthened the prejudice against an independent Moral
Philosophy is the fact that the great deistical writers of our
country, as Shaftesbury and Bolingbroke, set themselves to
the proof of the independence of Ethics on Religion'; whilst
Cud worth and Clarke, and others have vindicated the inti
mate connexion between theological and ethical principles. . . .
Both Shaftesbury and Bolingbroke have shown, and I think
unanswerably, that the principles of morality are founded in
our nature, independently of any system of religious belief,
and are in fact obligatory even on the atheist." — M. L. p.
15—18.
" I intend, in asserting the independence of moral obli
gation on any religious sanction, to refer, in evidence of this
position, to the indisputable instances which have appeared of
an upright tenor of life, of the duties belonging to the various
relations of life, correctly performed by those, who have

39
wanted the higher inducements to right conduct, resulting
from the profession of a better creed  Many Christians
are ... . virtuous on principles of mere morality, and not
through Christian love and faith ; for even the Atheist, ex
treme as his case is, may feel himself under some obligations
of virtue, so far as he may perceive that virtue is his interest
in the present world." — M. L. pp. 20—22.
" This opinion of the dependence of moral theory on
religious truth is, in fact, a remnant of the philosophy of the
Middle Ages."— M. L. p. 23.
" Some of the early Fathers of the Church have charac
terized Christianity in contrast with heathen systems as a
' philosophy of life.' .... They might have seen that Christi
anity interferes not with the principles of human conduct,
that its burthen and theme are salvation (sic), and not the
mere art of happy living." — M. L. pp. 23 — 25.
" Another circumstance which has operated against the
independent study of Moral Philosophy is the fact  that
Christian writers have not only thrown into the shade all
mere moral excellence, by placing it in disadvantageous
comparison with the principle of Christian Faith, but also
by exaggeration of the misery of the present life, have
argued the weakness and insufficiency of human philosophy
for the guidance of life  They have been prone to over
state the argument for the future state of retribution held
forth by Christianity  They have not been content with
the positive fact that virtue is rewarded to a certain extent in
the present state  Probably their tone of thought on
moral subjects was drawn originally from Stoicism, .... but
so far as Stoicism was received as a moral guide, it would
suggest stern and melancholy views of the present condition
of things. It loved to pourtray its wise men indifferent to
the course of the world. . . . The good which Moral Philo
sophy promises is, under the fairest representation of it,
remote and contingent. It demands a series of actions, a

40
continued cultivation of our moral sensibilities. It pre
supposes, no less than religion, a disposition to believe its
promises, and to look patiently for its good." — M. L.
p. 29—31.
" Religion sums up all its practical energy in the one
quality of Resignation. It takes by the hand those feelings
of the heart which look heavenward. Its divine ambition
is to loosen the ties which bind us to the present narrow
scene of earthly duties, and to fix our thoughts and desires
on the invisible spiritual world  It is essentially abne
gation of self, of present endearments, of the world around
us, of our own power. ... It works on the heart by faith,
hope, love, patience ; means which in themselves divert us
from confidence in our own activity, and so far check that
activity. That Religion, in itself alone (sic), tends to this
extreme, is evidenced in the lives of devotees, who have
sought an entire abstractedness from society, and endea
voured to realize its sublime influence in their hearts, by
stilling every thought into passiveness and repose. We are
not to blame such persons for being too religious, for pervert
ing and misrepresenting Religion by excess. Their fault is,
that they suffer their minds to imbibe it exclusively (sic) ;
that they leave no room for their own nature to develop
itself; converting what was given for their comfort and
encouragement into a sublime luxury and a holy pastime.
The religious instincts of the heart were surely never meant
to absorb the whole man, according to the designs of Him,
who implanted also both private and social affections in our
nature  Thus Religion and Morality are as two forces,
sustaining the equilibrium of our nature. If either existed
without the other, we should be carried away into a devious
course."— M. L. p. 96—98.

41

9. Positive Statements.
There is so much in Dr. Hampden of a merely
negative nature, from the necessary line of his argu
ment, that it is right, before concluding, to select
some of his positive statements in favour of those
views which are generally received.
He 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 Subscriptions
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. He has
no wish to abolish formularies of doctrine, as such,
considering them accidentally useful pro re natd in
resisting arbitrary theories of Scripture on the other
side ; and though he thinks all doctrinal forms
mutable, and thinks our own formularies more dog
matic than is necessary, and might wish to modify or
improve them, he has no hope of ever dispensing with
them; both because the restlessness of speculation will
never allow of it, and because we are so accustomed
to them that change would lead to serious conse
quences. Moreover, he thinks they are to be main
tained while they exist ; and that neglect of this duty
is latitudinarianism.
1. "By virtue of those very theological opinions, to which
I have declared my assent in admitting the Articles of the
Church of Ensrland, I have signified my denial and exclusion

42
of opinions, which I think injurious to Christian truth, and
derogatory to the character of a true Church of Christ."—
Observ. p. 25.
" I, for one, would contend as zealously against Arian or
Socinian doctrines as the most strenuous alarmist on the
present occasion, though not, perhaps, in the same manner or
with the same weapons ; and 1 should be also strongly opposed
to the removal of all Subscription on the part of the Clergy."—
Postscr. to Observ. p. 13.
" As believers in a real atonement for sin, we may justly
feel shocked at the thought which imputes any merit to man,"
&c. — Observ. p. 26.
" I think every one who has watched the progress of his
mind in theological studies, will confess to this fact in his
own case ; his difficulties in admitting the Articles have
gradually diminished ; he has seen, more and more, the
reasons of them. For my part, I declare such to have been
the result on my own mind, and so far from experiencing
any objection to the Articles from an increased acquaintance
with them by the prosecution of theological study, I have
found my disposition to receive them increase from this very
circumstance, that I see more fully the reasons of the state
ments contained in them." — Postscr. to Observ. p. 9-
" So long as the terms of our communion are what they
are, as honest men, we must uphold them and teach them.
To accommodate them" [i. e. in our teaching] " to different
sects, would be virtually to abandon them  If theological
views could have no influence on conduct, like propositions
in mathematics, the method might be pursued of simply
laying before hearers the different opinions on each point,
without expressing our own judgment. But as this is not the
case, as questions of this kind are of serious practical influence,
we must do our best to prevent any evil, either from un
settled opinion generally, or from any particular opinion that
we have reason to think wrong." — Observ. p. 34.

43
2. " Pious opinions, it must be observed," [such as " the
doctrinal statements of our Articles"] " are not parts of re
velation." — Observ. p. 14.
" Whilst we agree in the canon of Scripture, in the very
words, for the most part, from which we learn what are the
objects of faith, we suffer disunion to spread among us,
through the various interpretations suggested by our own
reasonings on the admitted facts of Scripture." — Observ. p. 7.
" Because I have laid down what I conceive to be the true
theory of all Articles, and have shown that such statements
are essentially variable in their nature, let it not be supposed
immediately, that I have questioned the immutability of
religious truth in itself. My statement applies only to the
dogmas or formal propositions which have been devised to
define and declare that truth. Let the two statements be
kept quite distinct. — Christian truth" [i. e. the facts of
Scripture? or, the unknown objective tiuth?] " is im
mutable ; doctrinal forms are mutable." — Postscr. to Observ.
p. 11. " Wherever speculative truth is involved, there must be
presupposed an opening for improvement." — Observ. p. 22.
3. " Orthodoxy was forced to speak the divine truth in
the terms of heretical speculation, if it were only to guard
against the novelties which the heretic had introduced. It
was the necessity of the case that compelled the orthodox, as
themselves freely admit, to employ a phraseology, by which,
as experience proves, the naked truth of God has been over
borne and obscured." — B. L. p. 376.
" Pious opinions, indeed, we may form  Such, indeed,
are the doctrinal statements of our Articles. I may wish
there were less of dogmatism in them ; still I cannot but
approve them for the piety which pervades them" — Observ.
p. 14. Vid. also p. 22.
" I love and admire the Church of England, because I
conceive it to be constituted on the right basis of religious

44
communion ; neither dogmatic in its spirit, though the word
ing of its formularies may often carry the sound of dogmatism
 nor intolerant and sectarian in its zeal," &c. — Observ.
p. 22. " To exclude theological opinion from religious profession.
to endeavour to sweep away the accumulation of ages, would
be but the vain attempt suddenly to change the face of the
world. Our next best alternative is to modify it, to correct
its improper application, and so to obviate its mischievous
effects. In truth, I say, it ought not to exist, Src." — Observ.
p. 21.
" The theory which I have endeavoured to establish is the
very reverse of that system which would emasculate religion
by reducing it to mere generalities. I would bring men to
think more of the real substance of their religion, and less of
its abstractions. I would have them regard it as it is embodied
in the life and blood of the Gospel itself, not as it appears in
the phantasmagoria of controversial statement." — Postscr. to
Observ. p. 14.
" To expect, therefore, that all sects should formally and
ostensibly pull down their barriers of separation, and combine
in one common mass under the Christian name, seems hope
less, if we are to judge from what is known of human nature.
But may not that gentle, and enlightened, and spiritual
toleration of dissenting opinions, &c  insensibly work a
blessed change in the minds and hearts of those who are now
estranged from us ?" — Observ. p. 29.
" The agreement of a community in certain views of Scrip
ture facts is presupposed. The problem before the dogmatic
theologian is to preserve that agreement entire, to guard it
from a latitudinarianism which would virtually annul it, and
to prevent its dissolution by innovators, either within or with
out the religious society." — B. L. p. 383.
" It appears to me, then, that the occasion for Articles will
probably never cease. Were the realism of the human mind

45
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 unsoundness of a metaphysical and logical theology being
once fully admitted, the cumbrous machinery might be
removed, and tbe 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 expe
rience. In the mean time it were well to retain, amid all
its confessed imperfections, a system of technical theology, by
which we are guarded, in some measure, from the exorbitance
of religious enthusiasm." — B. L. p. 380.

46

Conclusion.
Dr. H.'s views then seem at length to issue in the
following theory: that there is one and one only truth,
that that truth is the record of facts, historical and
moral, contained in the text of Scripture; that what
ever is beyond that text, even to the classifying of its
sentences, is human opinion, and unrevealed ; that,
though a thoughtful person cannot help forming opi
nions and theories upon the Scripture record, and
is bound to act upon and confess those opinions
which he considers to be true, yet he has no right
to identify his own opinion on any point, however
sacred in itself, with the facts of the revealed history,
or to assume that a belief in it is necessary for the
salvation of another, or to impose it as a condition of
union with another ; that, though he considers he can
not be more sure of being right than another, and
does not hold his own opinions to be more pious than
another's, and will not pronounce heretical opinions
(so called) to be dangerous to any being in the world,
except to those who do not hold them, yet he himself
firmly believes the Church's dogmatic statements con
cerning the Trinity, &c. and at a proper season would
contend as zealously against Arian or Socinian doc
trines, as those who think that in the case of others
belief in them is of importance to eternal salvation ;
and this, though he considers those statements, as

47
such, and so far forth as they are distinct from those
Scripture facts, which Arians and Socinians hold as
religiously as himself, to be " a system of technical
theology by which we are guarded" only " in some
measure from the exorbitance of theoretic enthusiasm,"
a system of phrases borrowed from those who differ
from us, and useful only in excluding their use of
them. It may be excused the present writer, in the
wording of these last remarks, to have shown his
own sense of the theology which has occasioned them.
What may be the issue of the present anxious
conflict of opinion in this place, He will order
according to His wisdom, who has promised that all
things shall work together for good for those who
love Him. But should it end in the appointment
of Dr. H. to the Theological Chair, he believes that
ten years hence, those who are in no way protesting
against his appointment now, would, if then alive,
feel they had upon them a responsibility greater than
has been incurred by Members of this University for
many centuries.

THE END.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 01311 8055