infringing and injuring the Word of God as a revealed rule of faith and practice, in its sense and use, power and perfection. On this, Julius Hare wrote, 'Verily this does bespeak no ordinary effrontery to bring forward an accusation of this kind, against a divine, the object of whose writings is to assert the exclusive honour of the Scriptures as the sole infallible depository of eternal truth.'

Whately said there had been persecutions as unjust and as cruel, but for impudence he never knew the like. Samuel Wilberforce at first joined the protesters, but after a careful study of the Lectures, he found no heresy in them and declared Newman's extracts most false. Gladstone too, had protested, but thirty years later he wrote to Hampden a penitential letter, saying that though he had studied the Lectures for a whole generation, he had never understood them, but regretted that he had condemned merely on the information of others.

Dr Hampden was made a Bishop. His heresies were forgotten, or became a thing of the past. He was reckoned a moderate High Churchman,1 and he lived to level a Charge at Bishop Colenso.

Hampden belonged to a group of men most of whom were connected with Oriel College and were known as the Noetics. The name indicated their characteristic which was force of intellect. They were not Mystics nor Pietists, but hard reasoners, and might be regarded in some respects as the successors of the Cambridge men represented by Paley and Watson. The chief of the Noetics was Richard Whately, afterwards Archbishop of Dublin. In 1818, he wrote a pamphlet called 'Historic Doubts concerning Napoleon Buonaparte,' which was intended to show how far scepticism might go in a mind disposed to be sceptical. Though no one ever doubted that there was such a person as Napoleon, it would be hard to prove that he ever existed. His existence is one of the things taken for granted, but these are often the

1 See Life, by his Daughter.

2 The famous men of Oriel were Copleston, Davison, Whately. These were followed by Keble, Hampden, Hawkins, these by Arnold, Pusey, Newman, and Marriott.

legitimate. The different sects confused theological and moral truth with religion. They agree as to the facts, but differ as to their reasonings on the facts.

The question is raised if no conclusions are to be drawn from Scripture by human reason. The answer is that such conclusions are not properly religious truths or necessary to salvation. Scripture alone is necessary, not tradition nor any human authority. The question is carried further; the truths of Scripture must be expressed in the form of conclusions from Scripture. Christ's divinity, for instance, is it to be expressed only in Scripture words? To this the answer is that any collection of Scripture expressions into one body of statement amounts to a human exposition. The technical terms in theology, though inadequate for the expression of truth, have yet an important use. We must not put our conclusions from Scripture on a level with the truth which Scripture itself declares. Christianity is revealed to babes. It is not theological opinion. Unitarians, for instance, take their dogmas for religion. They prefer them to the broad outlines of Scripture and dissent because other people do not agree with them in their conclusions. Unitarians are Christians, but their theology is wrong. Love to Christ makes a Christian, not theological opinions.

It is admitted that theological opinion and its expression are necessities. We cannot escape them. We cannot sweep away the accumulation of ages, but we can obviate its evil effects. It exists, but it ought not to be the bond of union of any Christian society. Articles of Religion represent an accidental state of public opinion. Dogmas take their complexion from the controversies of the times in which they are formed. The real unity of the Church is invisible. It is the union of Christians with the Holy Spirit. Theological odium is proverbial, but there is no such thing as religious odium. We should avoid the dogmatic spirit. Dissenters should not be excluded from the Universities because they are Dissenters. Tests should be abolished and the Articles themselves might be profitably revised.

Another clerical protest followed Hampden's appointment to the See of Hereford.' His principles were described as

infringing and injuring the Word of God as a revealed rule of faith and practice, in its sense and use, power and perfection. On this, Julius Hare wrote, 'Verily this does bespeak no ordinary effrontery to bring forward an accusation of this kind, against a divine, the object of whose writings is to assert the exclusive honour of the Scriptures as the sole infallible depository of eternal truth.'

Whately said there had been persecutions as unjust and as cruel, but for impudence he never knew the like. Samuel Wilberforce at first joined the protesters, but after a careful study of the Lectures, he found no heresy in them and declared Newman's extracts most false. Gladstone too, had protested, but thirty years later he wrote to Hampden a penitential letter, saying that though he had studied the Lectures for a whole generation, he had never understood them, but regretted that he had condemned merely on the information of others.

Dr Hampden was made a Bishop. His heresies were forgotten, or became a thing of the past. He was reckoned a moderate High Churchman,1 and he lived to level a Charge at Bishop Colenso.

Hampden belonged to a group of men most of whom were connected with Oriel College and were known as the Noetics.2 The name indicated their characteristic which was force of intellect. They were not Mystics nor Pietists, but hard reasoners, and might be regarded in some respects as the successors of the Cambridge men represented by Paley and Watson. The chief of the Noetics was Richard Whately, afterwards Archbishop of Dublin. In 1818, he wrote a pamphlet called 'Historic Doubts concerning Napoleon Buonaparte,' which was intended to show how far scepticism might go in a mind disposed to be sceptical. Though no one ever doubted that there was such a person as Napoleon, it would be hard to prove that he ever existed. His existence is one of the things taken for granted, but these are often the

1 See Life, by his Daughter.

2 The famous men of Oriel were Copleston, Davison, Whately. These were followed by Keble, Hampden, Hawkins, these by Arnold, Pusey, Newman, and Marriott.

very things which are not true. Charles II puzzled the Royal Society by asking why a vessel of water does not increase in weight by having a live fish put into it, while it does increase if the fish be dead. After many experiments it was found that the assumption at the base of the question was a mistake. It was objected to Copernicus that if the earth turned on its axis, a stone falling from the summit of a tower would not fall at the foot, but at some distance in the same way as a stone dropped from the mast head of a ship. Some centuries had passed after the death of Copernicus before the assumption about the stone from the ship mast was found to be false. The existence of Napoleon is taken for granted but not proved. The accounts of him are very diverse, and if we only believe what is well authenticated, we may doubt that he ever existed. It may be argued that there are people in England who have seen Napoleon, but this may only be that some persons went to Plymouth and saw a man with a cocked hat. The feats ascribed to him are barely probable, and it is a well-known fact that the more marvellous anything is the less likely is it to be true. The exploits of Napoleon are so improbable that they would not have been believed had they been found written in some old book. They would have given rise to such speculations as we have about the gospels. The acts of Napoleon would have been ascribed to many different heroes, just as are those recorded by the Evangelists. This would have been confirmed by the name Buonaparte, or good part. The deeds ascribed to him would be the deeds of the good part of the French army. We believe in the existence of Napoleon, though we cannot prove it, and the same kind of evidence should suffice in other cases.

A volume of University sermons, preached about the year 1820, gives an early indication of the kind of theology from which Whately never departed.' The first was on a future state. It was not provable by reason. It was not believed by Pagans. It was not known in the Mosaic dispensation, but Jesus Christ brought life and immortality to light. He revealed the life to come. It was the great subject of apostolic preaching. The heathen had conjectures about the

immortality of the soul, but the gospel teaches the resurrection of the body. The Pagan idea of immortality was that the soul returned to the bosom of the universal spirit, and so personality was gone. No metaphysical arguments could prove the improbability of a future life, nor could they prove its certainty. In the Old Testament there are a few scattered but doubtful texts. If Moses had intended to teach such a doctrine to such a people as the Jews, and under their circumstances, he would have stated it clearly, and dwelt upon it in every page.

Another sermon or essay was on the Declaration of God in His Son. We are so surrounded with natural objects, and so occupied in worldly occupations that it is hard to lift up our thoughts to God. Of a being whose nature is so incomprehensible we can only have a negative knowledge. We do not know what He is, but rather what He is not. We say God is a spirit, but we have only a faint notion of spirit except the negative one that it is not a body. God is eternal, but we are bewildered with the very idea of eternity. The sentiments of Archbishop King on the unknowableness of God are endorsed, but though we cannot know God, His only-begotten Son hath declared Him.' The religion of philosophers was cold and rarely rose to worship. The multitude of people on the other hand worshipped angels, demi-gods and saintssomething conceivable by the mind. Jesus Christ as God Incarnate was an object of affection for the philosopher, and those who craved a god in finite form could worship Him without idolatry.

In 1822 Whately was Bampton Lecturer. His subject was 'The use and abuse of Party Spirit in matters of Religion.' Party feeling is defined as the spirit of attachment to a party. This is a feeling inherent in our nature. It is not in itself evil, but it is subject to abuse. It was the source of union and also of division. The persons who separate are not always the persons guilty of schism. The conduct of orthodox Churchmen has often been the fruitful cause of division. There may be different modes of viewing the same thing Division is only caused by evil. All that is necessary to the Christian life is plainly revealed. There may be things be