Caw\t von

Mhg56 t*3G>

DOES
DR. HAMPDEN'S
INAUGURAL LECTURE
IMPLY ANY CHANGE

THEOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES ?

A LETTER

FROM THE

REV. C R. CAMERON, M.A.
OF CHRIST CHURCH,
TO
A RESIDENT MEMBER OF CONVOCATION.

OXFORD,
PHINTED nY W. BAXTEU:
SOLD BY J. H. PARKER ; AND BY MESSRS. RIVINQTON,
LONDON. 1886.

The individual, to whom the following Letter is addressed,
has thought it right to use the permission therein given, to
make it public, as believing the Letter to furnish new elements
for consideration in the present momentous question. The
assumed soundness of Dr. Hampden's Parochial Sermons
namely, has been the chief argument of his supporters ; and
although individuals have examined them, and declared their
conviction of their unsoundness, still it has generally been
thought a conciser answer to say, that their soundness or
unsoundness does not at all affect the question ; — that a man's
popular religious teaching might be sound, while his theologi
cal teaching was much otherwise. For instance, even an
Arian, unless through wantonness, need not, in popular reli
gious teaching, discover his unsoundness except negatively.
This waving of the question, however, has been taken as a
concession ; and the Edinburgh Review, for instance, taunts
{though untruly) those who object to Dr. HSs appointment
with " taking good care not to notice the Parochial Sermons.'1''
These persons may see another answer in this Letter. But
the light which it throws on the Inaugural Lecture appeared
of most moment ; in that it shews how to an individual
aloof from controversy, and (as all will allow) dispassionately
seeking after truth, the Inaugural Lecture, and the Parochial
Sermons, evidence the same theological system as the Bampton
Lectures, differing in form only. It furnishes also a vmrning
much needed in this day, with regard to certain foreign pub
lications, not to be over-hasty in concluding a work to be
sound, because sound language is occasionally used in it.

Snedshill, Shiffnal, April 29, 1836.
MY DEAR SIR,
Having discovered, even while in Oxford, and still
more since my return into the country, that Dr.
Hampden's Inaugural Lecture had made a consider
able impression on the minds of many, and, to use a
favourite modern phrase, had produced a reaction in
his favour, some having gone so far as to assert, with
himself, that he is a persecuted man ; I set myself
seriously to consider — are there just and solid grounds
for such a change of opinions, and for these favourable
sentiments ? For if. there be, in the name of Peace
and Charity, let the contest cease ; let all lurking
fears and suspicions be at once cast aside, and Dr. H.
be received with open arms by the University and
the Church. It is indeed impossible not to feel,
1 that the necessity laid upon the Members of the Uni
versity, to engage in hostilities against one, who, in
private life, is reported to be so amiable as Dr. H. and
apparently so much under the influence of practical re
ligious principle, is most painful. The contest, however,
is far too important in itself, and involves conse
quences far too momentous, to be hastily abandoned
on the first plausible professions. Let it be admitted,
that Dr. H.'s Inaugural Lecture is written in a pleas
ing, popular style ; that it is apparently sound, ortho
dox, and even, as I have heard it called, evangelical,
agreeing both with Scripture, and the scriptural state
ments of the Church of England. Still the question
naturally occurs, does the Inaugural Lecture contain
Dr. H.'s second thoughts — his last views — his recon
sidered judgment — his final conclusions — upon the im
portant topics to which he adverts ? And may the
University safely rest in that Lecture, as decisive
authority for the course of instruction to be pursued
by Dr. H. as Divinity Professor? Two or three con
siderations will furnish us with the true answer to

these questions ; and, for various reasons, I submit
these considerations to you, to make what use you
please of them.
I. Is there any evidence to be derived from Dr.
H.'s former writings, which may throw light upon
this question? Dr. H. published in 1828 " Parochial
Sermons"." I have anxiously examined these, and I
find in them the same popular, Church of England,
Scriptural language, as appears in the Inaugural Lec
ture. But in what sense is it used ? The Sermons
are a systematic and laboured attempt to reconcile the
common language of Christians, whether learned or
unlearned, with Dr. H.'s own peculiar views and
opinions, as detailed at large in his Bampton Lectures,
i. e. to explain away the meaning usually attached to
that language by the Christian world at large. Thus,
while using the ordinary terms of Theology relating
to these subjects, Dr. H. explains away the reality of
the sacrifice and atonement of Christ ; the doctrine
of justification by faith ; the regenerating and sancti
fying influence of the Holy Spirit, as producing any
actual internal change of heart and nature. And if 1
may hazard any positive inferences from such obscure
and ambiguous statements, I should say his doctrine
is, that by the " redemption which is in Christ" we
are negatively justified, merely placed in a condition of
"working out our own salvation;" that justification
and sanctification are the same thing ; and that they are
effected by a simple knowledge and belief (which is all
he means by faith) of the facts which the Scriptures
communicate, operating through the ordinary and
natural principles of the human mind. "Ex pede Her-
culem !" The conclusion to be drawn from these facts
is, that the statements of the Inaugural Lecture are
not the reconsidered views, the final judgment, of
Dr. H. on the important truths in question, but

a I cannot quote at length ; but must reftr generally to the
Parochial Sermons.

merely the course and colouring which his thoughts
and expressions naturally and almost unavoidably as
sume, when speaking or writing in a loose, general,
and popular way, but are really and uniformly under
stood and used by him (and so to be understood by
us) in his own peculiar sense. How the apparent
inconsistencies came originally to exist in his mind,
has been explained by yourself in the Preface to " Dr.
H.'s Theological Statements and the Thirty-nine Arti
cles compared b ;" that he has found out a way of recon
ciling these inconsistencies to himself, a mere inspec
tion of the Parochial Sermons shews.
II. Does Dr. H. profess, in his Inaugural Lecture,
to give any explanation of his former obnoxious state
ments ? Does he retract or withdraw any one single
expression he had before used ? or make any attempt
to shew that there is no inconsistency between the
views developed in the Bampton Lectures, and his
present statements ? Quite the reverse. He refers
(p. 9, &c.)to his former thoughts and writings on "theo
logical subjects" — his " speculative discussions ;" but
instead of retractation, there is a distinct and explicit
reavowal of his former statements ; he merely inti
mates that he may be liable to " misinterpretation,
misconception," and " misunderstanding ;" and more
than intimates, that the inconsistencies imputed to him
are to be ascribed to " the perverse sense which has
been drawn from" his words, and that the objectors, not
the writer, are to blame. He complains also of " the
vague nature" of the charges brought against him, and
of insinuations of" heterodoxy, latitudinarianism," and
" scepticism ;" but he makes no attempt to expose the
sophistry of his opponents, or rebut the charges ad
vanced by them, unless an attack on their prejudices
and the density of their understandings, is to be taken

k To this work, and " Dr. Hampden's Past and Present State
ments compared," the reader is referred lor a fuller exposition of the
facts and arguments of the case.

as a reply. As he himself, however, deals only in
vague generalities and mere suppositions, his reply
may be retorted on himself. In truth, his whole
vindication of himself is an argumentum ad miseri-
cordiam ; and without calling in question the good
intentions to which he appeals, it is obvious to ask,
Is the language of his Inaugural Lecture, the language
of a man convinced that he has been in error, desirous
of repairing any mischief he may be supposed to have
done by " the recondite track of observation pursued"
by him, or anxious to convince objectors that he will
for the future abstain from pursuing this obnoxious
and dangerous track? If these questions must be
answered in the negative, then is Dr. H.'s position
no-wise bettered by the publication of his Inaugural
Lecture ; and he has proved himself unfit for the due
discharge of the most important duties of the Divinity
Chair in Oxford.
III. One other question remains to be asked. In
what sense are we to understand the statements of
Scriptural truth — the words and expressions made use
of in the Inaugural Lecture? Are we to understand
them in their usual acceptation, in the sense which
Christians in general attach to them ? Is this the
sense in which Dr. H. himself understands them ?
He himself tells us no. He disclaims none of his
former statements, nor gives the slightest intimation
that he there uses his words in a sense different from
his former usage. What, indeed, is one grand object
of his Bampton Lectures? It is to shew, that those
terms of our Religion which an established usage has now
made the unchangeable records of religious belief, are to be
traced in the Aristotelic Theories of Scholasticism ; that
they have spread an atmosphere of mist over the whole
system of Christian doctrine; that the Christianity which
survives among us at this day is speculative logical
Christianity, consisting of mere phantoms — of signs
converted into things, and forming altogether a vast
system of Realism ; accordingly Dr. H. substitutes for

the received notions, his own definitions of the chief
fundamental doctrines of Christianity- In what sense
then are we to understand the language of the In
augural Lecture ? In the sense to which Dr. H.
uniformly objects, or in his own sense ? We must
answer, in his own sense ; and if in his own sense,
then not in the common acceptation of the terms as
understood by the Church of England, and the Chris
tian world in general, but in that novel speculative
sense to which such strong objections have so justly
been made. How then has the publication of the
Inaugural Lecture altered the real state of the case ?
If Dr. H.'s former statements and opinions rendered
him unfit for the proper duties of the Divinity Chair ;
he has now proved himself still more unfit, by proving
that he abides by all his former statements despite of
the grave objections advanced against them, and will
not let them go ; " non demptus per vim mentis gratis-
simus error." If indeed, according to his own showing,
Dr. H.'s arguments and opinions are so unintelligible,
so open to misconstruction, and are so easily and
naturally understood in an erroneous and dangerous
sense, is he fitted to be a teacher and guide in Theo
logy to the future ministers of our Church ? And
have we any security, or even the shadow of a pre
sumption, that the Theology of the Bampton Lec
tures will not, as far as Dr. H.'s teaching is concerned,
become the standard Theology of the University and
the Church ? Let it also be ever borne in mind, that
his opinions do not affect mere isolated points of
doctrine, but the whole system of our religious faith ; —
the whole interpretation of Scripture, and the modes
of expression, acquiesced in and adopted by the univer
sal Church from the beginning. One word more ;
Dr. II. comforts himself with the declaration of our
Saviour, " Blessed are ye when men shall say all
manner of evil against you falsely for my sake."
Is Dr. II. then indeed persecuted for Christ's sake?
Is not the charge against him of the very opposite

character? Is it not grounded upon the persuasion,
that his opinions and statements are calculated to
degrade (not to exalt too highly) the Nature and dig
nity of the Redeemer ; and to disparage and destroy
the reality and efficacy of His Sacrifice and Atonement?
And yet he would have it believed, that he is suffering
for the honour of Him whom he is accused of dis
honouring 1 I will not trust myself to characterize, as
I feel, presumption such as this. May the fearful
conflict which must be carried on in Dr. H.'s own
mind, between " the philosophical system admitted
into the intellect" and the practical principles of the
heart, terminate in the triumph of truth, and faith,
and piety ! But let others be preserved, as far as is
possible, from the risks of so perilous a struggle, and
from the tremendous consequences which, as members
of the Church of England and as Christians, we must
believe are suspended on the issue !
Believe me, my dear Sir,
Your's very truly,
C. R. CAMERON.

BAXTEII, PHINXEB, OXFORD.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08561 6531