it enclosed the world. Yet with what difficulty were the first Christians persuaded of this! When Peter returned from his mission to Cornelius, the whole church seemed moved by one feeling of suspicion, that the Apostle had done wrong by going to men uncircumcised, and eating with them. He had to call them together, and narrate the whole history, from its supernatural commencement to its triumphant spiritual results. How strong the feeling was which led to this contention, (Acts xi. 2,) appears from the earnest appeal of Peter, at the close of his narrative: "What was I, that I could withstand God?" (Verse 17.) Not till then did they yield. For the time they were calmed: they acquiesced, (verse 18,) and said, "Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." Peter himself had so much of the Jewish leaven remaining, that it was only by miraculous interference that he was induced to go to Cornelius; and his subsequent conduct shows that his writings only became a part of the pure and unerring standard of truth, by his being made one of those holy men who wrote not by their own will, but as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. The sole supremacy of Scripture comes from its sole perfection; and this, not from the favouring outward circumstances of the writers, but from the inspiration of God. And though the truth itself, as contained in Scripture, is pure and perfect, yet, when it comes into the human mind, and becomes a portion of its own thinking life, it is modified, as such, both by the customary movements of the receiving mind, and by what already dwells there. So soon as the sacred stream begins to flow in a human channel, it is affected, though in various degrees, by what it finds in it. One design of the inspiration of the Holy Ghost was, not merely to impart truth, but to prevent its mixture with error, and consequent modification by it. Mere proximity in point of time was not sufficient for this, however important this may be in its place. By itself, it could not supersede the law of our nature, which affects, in various manners and degrees, all that is received into the human mind, and becomes indwelling there. Some truths may be so commanding in their nature, or in their evidence, that in their first reception, even by a merely human capacity, they shall assert, and for some time maintain, their own distinctness and supremacy; but even then, what is less powerful will feel the new law at once, and even the greater truths will gradually be influenced by it, first, perhaps, by modes of explanation, and at a later period by modifications of addition or curtailment.

It is this which constitutes the true difference between the Scriptures and all merely human compositions. It is not that they stand as at the head, written by eye- and ear-witnesses, and that other writings, receding from this point, exhibit evidences of deterioration,-the nearer to the beginning, the fewer marks of deterioration. Between the Scriptures and the human compositions nearest to them in point of time, the difference is not of degree, but of kind. The writings of St. John came, not by the will of the man, but as he was moved by the Holy Ghost. Those of Ignatius and Polycarp, for instance, however excellent, came by the will of men, and marks of their human origin may be found in them, even when speaking of the truth of God. It is this which at once and for ever sets aside the authority of tradition. With any human composition before him, ancient or modern, the reader has to ask two questions: first, as to actual meaning; secondly, as to conformity to Scripture. When the latter exists, and so far as it exists, there may be said to be authority; but even here, not that of the writer, but that of inspired truth: submission is here only one form of the general submission due to revelation, and to revelation only. Undoubtedly, for the

reason already assigned, as there is a certain class of truths delivered by the Apostles, which could not be mistaken by the hearers, and which every act of Christian obedience implies, the testimony of the most ancient writers is a strong confirmation of the rightness of our own apprehension of the truth. But testimony is not supreme authority: properly speaking, it is no authority at all. We are thankful for it; but, having the Scriptures, we could do without it. In the early church, when heretics produced their dogmas, the defenders of the truth might well say, "This is all novelty." Properly used, we have no objection to the often-quoted rule of Vincentius Lirinensis. In his days, when some new doctrine was proposed, as entering into the Christian scheme, it was a good answer to say, that it was a novelty, and had not been held "everywhere, always, and by all." The evidence of tradition might then be thus used in arguing with innovators. But even they who then thus used it, in building up and guiding believers, always referred to the sole and supreme authority of the divine word. In the sense in which Romanists and Tractarians were traditionists, the Fathers were not traditionists. They referred to Scripture as the only source of authoritative teaching, however they might in controversy employ secondary and subordinate arguments. And in stating the truth they had two circumstances (and this is always the case) influencing them: first, the methods employed by heretics to introduce and support their false doctrines. They who quibbled in Scripture interpretation would quibble with the forms employed by the body of Christian teachers, and thus made explanations and additional statements necessary for the preservation of ancient truth. Truth was unchanged, for it is unchangeable; but the mode of statement would vary with the variations of error, occasioned by the boldness or subtlety of heretics. It was once sufficient to say, "I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord." The whole truth respecting Christ is stated here. But heretics came, and gave their own meaning to these more simple terms; so that it became necessary to state in what sense it was believed that the Scriptures taught, and the church had always held, that Christ was the Son of God. But these statements, in themselves, had no binding authority. The authority is found in the teaching of Scripture. The Church of England receives the "three Creeds," as they are usually termed: but she first declares that "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, that it should be believed as an article of faith," &c. And the reason asserted why these Creeds should be believed, is not said to be their antiquity, or their promulgation by the church. Not a word of the sort. The reason, the sole reason, assigned, is, "For they may be proved by most certain warrants of holy Scripture." It is true, that the Anglican Reformers often referred to the Fathers in their controversy with the Papists. But why? The Papists said, they taught novelties. They did not reply, "Whatsoever the Fathers taught, we teach.” That would, assuredly, have proved them to be traditionists. But whenever the Fathers departed from Scripture, the Reformers refused to follow them. Instances of this are known to all who read their writings. What they did say was neither more nor less than this :-" We can prove that all that we teach was taught by the Fathers." This is as far as possible different from saying, "All that the Fathers taught, we teach." They contended that they taught no novelties; and this they fully demonstrated: but when they sought to establish the absolute truth of their teaching, they laid the Fathers on one side, and went to their Bibles.

A second modifying influence, as to their methods of stating truth, is found in their own habits of thinking, as fixed from age to age by habits of study, and the movements of mental and physical science. Had philosophy been understood as it is now, when transubstantiation was invented and defined, it had never obtained existence. It is the offspring of a philosophy relating to substance and accidents that is now universally exploded. Truth in the mind can only be expressed by language, and language is governed by the prevailing habits of knowledge and thought. That truth might exist in an unchanging form, uninfluenced by the state of the receiving mind, the great miracle of inspiration was wrought; and the history of the church from the beginning proves the wisdom and goodness of God in doing this. We have in the Scripture truth unmixed, unmodified; truth for the instruction of all ages, and ultimately of the whole world. One advantage of this is, that, amidst all the changing forms in the human statements of truth, we are enabled to disentangle the truth itself, and to see how wonderfully, on essential points, one scheme of truth has been always and invariably held, though proposed in forms that in different times have changed and varied.

We have entered as fully into this subject as our space will allow, to prepare for the notices which Dr. Hampden's "Lectures" require. It is to this subject, in one of its most important branches, that they are devoted. At one period in the history of the church, what is called the scholastic philosophy extensively prevailed. Perhaps it may be said to have been at the very summit of its authority in the time of Thomas Aquinas, who flourished about the middle of the thirteenth century; but for several centuries previously it had been dominant in the Latin Church. It was severely logical, and all its great theological teachers sought to reduce religious truth to formal systems, according to the rules of the Aristotelian dialectics. Dr. Hampden, of course, begins much earlier; and, according to the title prefixed to his Lectures, inquires into the relations which this philosophy bears to the stream of Christian theology during its course through this particular region. He especially marks its influence on the formal statements of religious truth presented to the church in the writings of its teachers. As we have said before, so we now repeat, that his object, evident throughout the Lectures, is not to inquire into Christian truth as given in the inspired volume, but into the particular methods of stating this truth by those who were, while believers in it, members of a certain class of teachers. It is obvious, therefore, that he may speak of variations of statement, without implying any variations of the original doctrine; that he may say that certain forms of statement, for instance, have their source in scholastic dialectics, without saying or meaning that the doctrines themselves have such a source. In all inquiries into his Lectures, justice to the Lecturer requires, that this, his repeatedly and guardedly expressed object, should be kept in view; and had this been kept in view, many of the objections so warmly urged against him would never have existed. Whether such an inquiry on his part were necessary or needless, wise or unwise, likely to do good or harm, such questions do not now concern us. Here are the Lectures. Such is the course of argument clearly proposed at the beginning, and carefully maintained throughout; and our only present question is,-Has Dr. Hampden, while examining the manner in which certain writers have stated certain doctrines, exhibited any marks of his own disbelief of the doctrines themselves? We saw nothing of the kind when first we read the Lectures some years ago; and now that he has 2 H

VOL. IV.-FOURTHI SERIES.

been distinctly charged with heresy, and that we have read them with direct reference to the charge, we are bound to say, that, with indictment and evidence both before us, having no motive to defend Dr. Hampden if he be wrong, having every motive to maintain that sound doctrine, without which we see not how any one can obtain Christian salvation upon Christian principles; (we express ourselves guardedly; we refer not to any supposed exempt cases; these are withdrawn from human jurisdiction; "the Judge of all the earth will do right;")-we say, that, with indictment and evidence before us, we are bound in justice to give the verdict, decidedly and explicitly,-Not guilty!

The reader will be enabled to form his own opinion of the justice of our conclusion, if we first place before him Dr. Hampden's general objects and plan, and then examine his reasoning on its application to the fundamental truths of Christian doctrine. To the charge of Socinianism, indeed, others, on some subordinate questions, have been added by his opponents. Both in some of these, as well as in some others, on which no accusations have been founded,-we may instance in that of justification,-we have seen what, according to our own standard, are mistakes and deficiencies. But these he only shares with his accusers. Where he is wrong, he is wrong by the adoption of their principles; and however we may regret what we must consider as his unevangelical views on some points, they, at all events, have no right to censure him. In one or two cases, the charge amounts to this, that he does not go so far as the Tractarians on questions connected with the church and the sacraments. Our complaint would be that he went too far. But these are topics on which we shall not dwell. The grand question relates to his orthodoxy, not to his evangelism. We may be sorry, we are sorry, that he does not think with us on the latter subject; but we are not for that reason to do him the injustice of leaving him under the charge of fatal error. If defective evangelism is to keep him back from promotion to the episcopal bench, many who sit there, we fear, ought to be excluded from it. We shall limit our attention, therefore, to the charge of Socinianism.

The Lectures are opened by the statement, that Christianity, at its beginning, had to struggle with two classes of obstructions; "the self-righteousness of the human heart, and the presumption of the understanding." The Lecturer, with a just discrimination, observes,-" Not only were those principles of our nature, on which it was to exercise its sanctifying influence, armed in hostility against it, but those on which it had to rely as the interpreters of its overtures of peace and pardon, misconstrued and misrepresented its heavenly message." From these arise, first, disobedience in all its stages, becoming, in its complete form, a positive and rejecting infidelity; and, secondly, misconception and error, issuing in corruption and heresy. The history of the former has often been traced; the latter, in this particular view, has not yet been sufficiently examined. Truth, as it is in itself, is one thing; as existing in the human mind, may be something very different, either through misconception, curtailment, or addition. Even when received in the love of it, it may be variously affected both by weakness, ignorance, and prejudice. One reason for the existence of the ministry of the word, as a perpetual institution of divine appointment, is, such a gradual improvement in the mind of the recipient, that eventually truth in the church shall be pure and lofty as truth in the Bible. The language of St. Paul to the Ephesians evidently refers not merely to the growth of the individual believer, in his own allotted period of human

existence, but also, and very strikingly, to the progressive advancement of the church collectively, throughout all ages, even to the end; always growing "up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ;" and this, "till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ."

"My purpose in the following Lectures," says Dr. Hampden, “is, to examine into the influence of one of these classes of principles,-those of the understanding; and to endeavour to present to your notice the force of theory in its relation to the divine truths of our religion. It is that portion of the inquiry which has attracted the least investigation in itself. For though ecclesiastical histories purpose to give a view of theological opinion, there is none that I am acquainted with which has given an account of the effect of opinion as such on the doctrines of Christianity. They give rather a view of human passions in their relation to the divine truth, or of human nature in general, in its reception of the Gospel. They do not show how the intellect of man has insinuated its own conclusions into the body of the revelation in the course of its transmission, and modified the expressions by which the truth is conveyed." (Bampton Lectures, 2d edition, p. 6.)

And here, we may in passing observe, the real cause of the whole opposition may be discovered. That there might be a delivery to man of the truth as God would have it to be made known to him, free from those "conclusions of the human intellect" which it would "insinuate into the body of the revelation in the course of its transmission," and that "the expressions by which the truth is conveyed" might not be "modified by it," the holy men who wrote the Scriptures did not write them by their own will, but as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Hence the great Protestant principle of the perfection and supremacy of Scripture, and the constant appeal to it, as the ultimate standard by all true Protestants. Papists and Tractarians speak otherwise. According to them, the church is the teacher, holding the truth by a divine tradition. But if "the conclusion of their own intellect" may be mixed with the truth, and may likewise "modify the expressions by which it is conveyed," there is an end of this ecclesiastical figment. The Ministers of the church will teach. It is their duty to do so. And it is their duty, also, to see to it that they teach the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. But if Dr. Hampden is right, their teaching is to be received neither on their own authority, nor on any supposed authority of the church; but so far as it agrees with Scripture, and no further than it does so. The truly nobleminded, while they receive, from their desire of knowing the truth, all teaching bearing the evident marks of honesty, with "readiness of mind," will likewise "search the Scriptures," to see whether what is set before them is true, 66 as the truth is in Jesus;" believing it for the Scriptures' sake if it do, rejecting it for the Scriptures' sake if it do not. But this, the conscientious search prompted by the conviction of personal responsibility, is just what Papists and Tractarians condemn, as the proud boldness of "private judgment." We must "hear the church!" But who will hazard their souls on this, if Dr. Hampden's view be correct? The proper exercise of this private judgment becomes, not merely a right, but an imperative duty, a necessary branch of loyal obedience to divinely-revealed truth; and they who neglect it may, because they receive not the truth in the love of it, in this its precise character as divinely revealed, incur the