PREFACE.

THE design of the following parallels was suggested to the compiler, by a passage in a preface to some propositions professedly extracted from Dr. Hampden's publications, in which Dr. Pusey has thus expressed himself.

"I have given a series of propositions, such as occur in the "following extracts, in some cases preserving his actual words, "in others, changing the grammatical construction only, so far as was necessary in order to form them into propositions, or "supplying some words from the context, but keeping as far as "possible his own words, and rigidly attending to the scope of "the whole passage. Their correctness will appear to any one, "who shall examine the context as attentively. The state"ments would have appeared much stronger, had I ventured "to translate them into popular language; but this would have "been to undertake the character of a Commentator more than "I wished, and might have seemed to be addressed to popular feeling. I have, in consequence, upon some important sub"jects, given propositions resembling each other, but each in some degree tending to limit or mark out the meaning of the "other, leaving it to the reader to compare them, instead of "stating in my own words what seemed to me the unavoidable "result."

66

The terms of the above passage, combined with the fact, that these very propositions have been circulated throughout the country, under the authority of the Corpus declarationists, who have thus inadvertently rendered themselves responsible for their fairness, induced the compiler, originally for his own private satisfaction, to place in parallel columns the propositions, and the genuine unmutilated text of the Bampton Lectures. And the result has been to convince him, that, however innocently, Dr. Pusey, while" preserving Dr. Hampden's "actual words," has, almost uniformly, more or less, perverted their meaning, by the neglect of the context; "in changing

"the grammatical construction, in order to convert them into "propositions," has very frequently converted them into propositions, never contemplated by the author; and, however "rigidly attending to the whole scope of the passage," has failed to leave that impression, upon the mind of the reader which a perusal of the original work would have suggested; and finally, where "on some important subjects," he has given propositions closely resembling each other, "but each in some "degree tending to limit and mark out the other, leaving the "reader to compare them," he has, by confounding the order in which they appear in the Bampton Lectures, deprived his readers of the advantage which might have been derived from their being placed consecutively, so as in most instances to render them far worse than unintelligible a. These are the unfeigned convictions of the compiler; and he believes that, when the first heat of controversy shall have passed away, no one will more deeply deplore than Professor Pusey himself the injury he has been inflicting on Dr. Hampden, and through him on our Church, even though he should still retain, unmodified, that peculiar theory displayed in his preface, which so sufficiently accounts for his present estimate of the disqualifications of the Regius Professor, independently of what is not imputed, or even insinuated, the existence of personal feeling. Meanwhile, in compliance with the wishes of several friends, the compiler is tempted to place within the reach of Members of Convocation generally, that portion of his labours which affects the Bampton Lectures, not without a hope, that in the event of their substantiating the positions above laid down, they may be the means of inducing many conscientious persons to revise the judgment, which, under a jealous regard for purity of doctrine, they have, on the faith of partial statements, passed on Dr. Hampden; and of directing their attention to a work to which extracts even in defence must do partial injustice.

a

OXFORD,

Saturday, April 16th. 1836.

Propositions 6, 10, "On Original Sin," and 8, 14, 23, etc. "Trinitarian Articles," exhibit painful instances of a carelessness and haste in drawing inferences in a matter in which the grave character of the charges involved should have produced the greatest circumspection.

[N. B. The numbers prefixed to the Propositions in the first columns denote the order in which they are arranged in Dr. PUSEY'S Publication.]

TRINITARIAN ARTICLES.

PROPOSITIONS.

BAMPTON LECTURES.

1. It was consistent therefore, that theologians, the disciples of the Scholastic Philosophy, should commence their Books of Sentences, their Sums of Theology, and their Commentaries, with expositions of those First Truths which immediately respect the Divine Being.—p. 99.

Note to p. 99.-"The Fathers of the Church of England, even in shaking off the spiritual bonds of Rome, were [in the arrangement of the Articles i. e.] tacitly influenced by the discipline in which their minds had been trained.”

2. The difficulty which the orthodox felt was, to avoid the distinguishing the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in such a way, as to represent them differing, as three angels, or three men, differ from each other; and yet to preserve the real distinctions. Dialectical Science furnished the expedients in this difficulty; and established that peculiar phraseology, etc. etc. -p. 130.

3. The profane familiarity, with which articles of the Trinitarian question are said to have entered into the every-day conversation of the times, characterizes the general feeling on the subject, at a period, when the Spiritual Polity formed the great commonwealth of the Roman world; and whilst Philosophy, regarded as identical with Theology, was essentially dialectical or colloquial. So great indeed were the impediments arising from the use of Terms, where the whole discussion was fundamentally dialectical, that the measure of accommodation between those who really agreed with each other, would probably have failed in any other hands than those of St. Athanasius. p. 102, 104.

B

5. The reality of those sacred facts of Divine Providence, which we comprehensively denote by the doctrine of a Trinity in Unity, is not to be identified with the theories couched under a logical phraseology [received in the Church.]-p. 150.

4. No one can pretend to that exactness of thought on the subject, on which our technical language is based. -p. 150.

1

5. 4. Let us hold fast the Scriptural fact in the depth and breadth-in nothing extenuating, in nothing abridging it-in simplicity and sincerity; and we can neither be Sabellians, or Tritheists, or Socinians. Attempt to explain and to reconcile difficulties, and however we may disclaim the heterodoxy which lurks in our path, we incur, at least, scandal at the hands of others, whose piety, or prejudice, or acuteness, are offended by our words. I should hope the discussions in which we have now been engaged, will leave this impression on the mind. Historically regarded, they evidence 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 hath 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? I would say with St. Augustine, looking to the simple truth of Scripture, "Hæc scio. Distinguere autem inter illam Generationem et hanc Processionem, nescio, non valeo, non sufficio.-Verius enim cogitatur Deus, quam dicitur; et verius est, quam cogitatur-p. 150.

8. Let it then be remarked, that all the theories proposed on the subject are Trinitarian in principle. If the opinions of Praxeas, and Artemon, and Theodotus, of Paul of Samosata, Sabellius, and others, amounted to Unitarianism, it was in the way of consequence, or inference. They set out with a Trinitarian hypothesis, and explained it away themselves by their speculations. . . . Take the reverse of the case, and you will judge, what a difference would have been in the language of these theorists. We should have had no attempts to explain the Divine Unity consistently with Trinitarian distinctions.-p. 148.

11. 10. 9. To me it matters little, what opinion on the subject has been advocated by the shrewdest wit or deepest learning, has been most popular, or most extensive in its reception. All differences of this kind [not surely differences of opinion] relate to the history of the human mind as much as to theology.

matters

10. It little, which opinion has been prior, has been advocated with the shrewdest wit, or deepest learning, has been most popular, most extensively received.Ib.

9. All the differences [of opinion] which have ever prevailed upon the doctrine of the Trinity, relate to the history of the human mind as much as to theology: and do not affect the Catholic faith.-Ib.

14. The Revelation of the Divine Unity was not meant to convey to Israel any speculative notion of the oneness of the Deity. p. 147.

15. It was merely a denial of polytheism, but no revelation of Almighty God as numerically one. p. 146,

7.

The only Catholic truth is the Scriptural fact. Let us hold fast the Scriptural fact in its depth and breadth-in nothing extenuating, in nothing abridging it and we can neither be Sabellians, nor Tritheists, nor Socinians.-p. 149.

14. 15. Take, for instance, the notion of the Divine Unity. We are apt to concieve 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? Is not the Unity of God rather a limit of speculation, than a point of outset? For how was it revealed in that system, in which it was the great leading article of divine instruction? When Moses called upon the people, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord," was it not a declaration that Jehovah is not that host of heaven, which heathen idolatry had enshrined, but the God in heaven, in earth, in the seanot the Teraphim of domestic worship, but the Universal Governor. 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. It was no other than the command ; "Thou shalt have no other Gods but me."

Now, were this view of the Revelation of the Divine Unity strictly maintained, would it not greatly abate the repuguance often felt at the admission of a Trinity in Unity?-p. 146, 7.