much nearer to the truth."

In other words, what is nearest to Dr.

Hampden is nearest to the truth.

7. That transubstantiation is not contrary to reason.

If on these subjects we speak somewhat ironically, we speak no less sadly; we have said nothing above but what is contained in Dr. Hampden's speculations, when forced to their legitimate conclusions; and, in some cases, no more than what he has himself said in terms. The vehicle which the Doctor has chosen for the conveyance of most of them is certainly a circumstance not calculated to abate alarm; they are promulgated in Lectures instituted "to confirm and establish the christian faith, and to confute all heretics and schismatics, upon the divine authority of the holy Scriptures-upon the authority of the writings of the primitive fathers as to the faith and practice of the primitive church-upon the Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus. Christ-upon the Divinity of the Holy Gospel-upon the Articles of the christain faith, as comprehended in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds." A writer who could pervert such an occasion to loosen the foundations and evaporate the substance of "the christian faith"-to represent "heretics" as Christians-who could confine "the divine authority of the holy Scriptures" to a mere detail of facts-who could affirm that "the authority of the writings of the primitive fathers" was the less for their being primitive—who could confute the opponents of the Nicene Creed, by affirming that it is founded on notions unphilosophical and unscriptural, WHICH THERE IS NO NECESSITY FOR BELIEVING: such a writer, we say, as this, is manifestly capable of perverting his most responsible office into a medium for unteaching every thing which that office requires him to confirm and extend. And if it be said, as we have heard Dr. Hampden's friends say, that his views are misinterpreted, and that he does not mean half that has been made out of them, still we ask, is it fit that a man should occupy the chair of the teacher, who is incapable of conveying his own ideas without being universally misunderstood? His Lectures are obscure enough, we grant; and this might result, not from absence of clearness in the writer, but from obtuseness in our mental vision; but if our optics be defective, not surely those of a large majority in the University of Oxford, who, if Dr. Hampden's advocates represent him rightly, can reflect no credit on the liberal and logical education they have enjoyed.

• Bampton Lectures, Lect. VIII. p. 357. +Terms of Canon Bampton's Will.

"This is the view which I take, not only of our Articles at large, but in particular, of the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, as they stand in our Ritual, or are adopted into our Articles. If it be admitted that the notions on which their several expressions are founded, are both unphilosophical and unscriptural; it must be remembered that they do not impress those notions on the Faith of the Christian, as matters of affirmative belief" !!! -Bampton Lectures, p. 378.

We proceed to illustration. The author of the Elucidations has done much for us in this way. From him, and from the Bampton Lectures, we select the following passages, which we arrange under the heads of the propositions above:

1 & 2. It is evident, I think, from the inquiry which I have been pursuing, on the whole, as well as more immediately from the preceding observations, that the doctrinal statements of religious truth, have their origin in the principles of the HUMAN intellect (!!!) Strictly to speak, in the Scripture itself there are no doctrines. What we read there is matter of fact: either fact nakedly set forth as it occurred; or fact explained and elucidated by the light of inspiration cast upon it. It will be thought, perhaps, that the Apostolic Epistles are an exception to this observation. If any part of Scripture contains doctrinal 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. No one perhaps will maintain, that there is any new truth of Christianity set forth in the Epistles; any truth, I mean, which does not presuppose the whole truth of human salvation by Jesus Christ, as already determined and complete. The Epistles clearly imply that the work of salvation is done. They repeat and insist on its most striking parts; urging chiefly on man, what remains for him to do, now that Christ has done all that God purposed in behalf of man before the foundation of the world. Let the experiment be fairly tried : let the inveterate idea, that the Epistles are the doctrinal portion of Scripture, be for a while banished from the mind: and let them be read simply as the works of our fathers in the faith-of men who are commending us rather to the love of Christ, than opening our understanding to the mysteries of Divine knowledge (!!!) and, after such an experiment, let each decide for himself, whether the practical, or the theoretic view of the Epistles is the correct one. For my part, I cannot doubt but that the decision will be in favour of the practical character of them. The speculating theologian will perhaps answer, by adducing text after text from an Epistle, in which he will contend that some dogmatic truth, some theory, or system, or peculiar view of divine truth, is asserted. But "what is the CHAFF to the wheat?" I APPEAL FROM THE LOGICAL CRITICISM OF THE Apostle's words, to THEIR APOSTOLICAL SPIRIT FROM PAUL PHILOSOPHISING 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 imparting mysterious propositions to disciples, with whom he enjoyed the opportunity of personal intercourse, and to whom he had already "declared the whole counsel of God;" whether in preaching Christ he would have used a method of communicating truth, which implies some scientific application of language,—an analysis, at least, of propositions into their terms,-in order to its being rightly understood? And I further request it may be considered, whether it was not by such a mode of inference from the Scripture-language as would convert the Epistles into textual authorities on points of controversy, that the very system of the SCHOLASTIC THEOLOGY was erected.-Bampton Lectures, pp.

373-375.

3. "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.Elucidations, p. 6.

4. "In religion, properly so called, few CHRISTIANS, if any-I speak of course of pious minds-really differ. All acknowledge, 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.*—Elucidations, p. 6.

"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.t—Ibid. p. 9.

5. His [Aristotle's] writings being long lost to the world soon after his death, the more established system of PLATO maintained its ground on this, as on other points of philosophy. This system, which was chiefly an expansion and adjustment of the PYTHAGOREAN speculations, perpetuated that mystical form in which the great master had delighted to invest his theories. According to the Platonic doctrine, morality was based on immutable speculative principles, the abstract species, the real constituents, according to his view, of every thing denominated good. This was to take morality out of the sphere of man's moral nature, and place it in a kind of philosophical pietism. He rejected, accordingly, the notion, that man was the "measure" of moral excellence, and admitted no standard of human perfection below that of the Deity himself. His religion and his morality following the Pythagorean train of thought with little variation, coincided in the maxim, that the business of man was the Imitation of God. Thus was the confusion of ethical and theological truth begun in that method of philosophy, which first obtained the sanction of the Christian Church. The principle of the Imitation of God, so elevating in its conception, and so accordant with the language of Scripture, being found in the volumes of philosophy, a precedent was established for conjoining the two classes of truth in one promiscuous speculation.-Bampton Lectures, pp. 270, 271.

"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 Cudworth and Clarke, and others have vindicated the intimate 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.-Elucidations, p. 38.

6. Let us inquire then, in the first instance, into that principle of the Scholastic Theology-that whatever is originally established as a point of doctrine, is therefore true; whatever has subsequently arisen, is corrupt: and let us see, whether it has not had a considerable influence in producing that confusion of thought, which we find existing on the subject of Dogmatic Theology.

Justly to examine this principle, however, let us take it as it is stated by the great authority on this point, Vincent of Lirins; according to whom the test of orthodoxy is; that a doctrine should have been believed in all places, and in all times, and by all men; and any doctrine accordingly which does not bear these marks of catholicity, must be heretical.-Bampton Lectures, p. 354.

If we go back to the primitive age of Apostles and Evangelists, the acknowledged inspired teachers of our religion, who received their instructions by

• We should like to know where Dr. Hampden met with an Unitarian who received the Old and New Testaments,-that is, the whole of them. We never even heard of the phenomenon in question.

We should have thought that this ought to be the only mark of discrimination.

the hearing of the ear and the seeing of the eye, and the handling of the Word of Life, and to whom God spoke in the thoughts of their hearts; there can be no doubt that the principle holds to the fullest extent. To doubt it then, is to raise a question, whether there has been a case of inspiration, or to what extent inspiration may be regarded as a ground of authority. Assuming, however, that there is a clear case of inspiration established in regard to our sacred Books,that they are a complete volume of inspiration, and that this inspiration extends to all matters pertaining to the kingdom of God, which we are concerned to know,-it follows, that whatever is recorded in those books is indisputably true; and that nothing independent of these books, or not taken from them, can possess the same authority,-not to say in degree only, but even in kind. For this is divine truth; whatever is distinct from it, is human. So that, in the history of doctrines, when we look to their scriptural source, we may affirm, that whatever is first is true, whatever is of a subsequent period is corrupt.

But, the moment that we step out of this sacred inclosure, the maxim proves to us a most fallacious guide. In fact, the reverse of it is much nearer to the truth.-Bampton Lectures, pp. 356, 357.

In no point is the prodigious influence which the Scholastic Philosophy has had on the world more apparent, than in this particular article [Transubstantiation.] Antecedently to experience, we might have regarded it as impossible that a doctrine so abstruse,-so remote from religion when viewed in its source,—not appealing to any sentiment of the heart,-not captivating the judgment by the sublimity of its conception,-should have become a cornerstone of faith to a large proportion of the christian world. I do not speak of its absurdity; for it is clearly not absurd, if, by that expression, we mean its inconsistency with reason. It is, on the contrary, perfectly consistent with reason, if we grant the hypotheses in philosophy on which it is founded. And even in those hypotheses themselves, there is nothing intrinsically absurd.— Ibid. pp. 338, 339.

Such is the character of the instruction which is now to be imparted to the young probationers for the ministry of the Church of England from the Divinity Chair of Oxford. It is, undoubtedly, objectionable enough; but, probably, the evil will not rest here. Our readers may remember that, about seven years since, we reviewed with pleasure an able and orthodox volume of "Parochial Sermons," by this same Dr. Hampden. At the time when that volume was published, Mr. Blanco White was a sound divine of the Church of England. He is now a Socinian. On his road from orthodoxy to that absurd and inconsistent creed, he passed through the identical limbus which Dr. Hampden is now traversing. For the observation of this curious and alarming fact we are indebted to the acuteness of the author of "Elucidations." He quotes from the Bampton Lectures the following:

"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 interceding 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 the 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.-P. 8.

On which it is remarked

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 statements. It is not at all hereby insinuated that he himself agrees with them in their peculiar errors; but it is necessary that a Christian University should have some safeguard against Socinians sheltering themselves behind, and using the authority of Dr. 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 themselves 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 his relations to man I 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 an 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?-Elucidations, pp. 18, 19.

The University has the right to make the demand! How it will be answered remains to be seen. Dr. Hampden's conduct since his appointment has been odious as that of the party to which he owes his elevation. In every instance wherein he has the opportunity, he has made himself judge in his own cause; a circumstance which revolts every feeling of justice, decency, and honour: while it shows his own distrust of its intrinsic merits. No doubt, all that is possible will be done to neutralise the poison. The University have shown their sense of the indignity in every way consistent with respect and loyalty to a monarch whose name and prerogative have been so grossly abused by his unprincipled officials. The Bishops, doubtless, will mark their sense of the appointment by substituting the Lectures of the Margaret Professor as the qualification for orders. But much more must be done. The great, the ONLY danger to the Church is in the supineness of her members. Let them act vigorously, and under Providence, all is safe. They are shaking themselves from their slumber. The Clergy, disgusted and alarmed, are pressing to the throne with petitions against the statute of præmunire, as applied by 25 Hen. VIII. And the time has, as yet, permitted but little to be done, yet does that little afford high encouragement. Can it be thought that, if the Church had remained silent under this indignity, so unobjectionable a man as Dr. Longley would have succeeded to the Bench? We look upon the appointment of Dr. Hampden not only as a deliberate insult to the