sly mean all that he said; and when keener
and more powerful and more theological minds pointed out with relentless
accuracy what he _had said_ he was profuse and overflowing with
explanations, which showed how little he had perceived the drift of his
words. There is not the least reason to doubt the sincerity of these
explanations; but at the same time they showed the unfitness of a man
who had so to explain away his own speculations to be the official guide
and teacher of the clergy. The criticisms on his language, and the
objections to it, were made before these explanations were given; and
though he gave them, he was furious with those who called for them, and
he never for a moment admitted that there was anything seriously wrong
or mistaken in what he had said. To those who pointed out the meaning
and effect of his words and theories, he replied by the assertion of his
personal belief. If words mean anything, he had said that neither
Unitarians nor any one else could get behind the bare letter, and what
he called "facts," of Scripture, which all equally accepted in good
faith; and that therefore there was no reason for excluding Unitarians
as long as they accepted the "facts." But when it was pointed out that
this reasoning reduced all belief in the realities behind the bare
letter to the level of personal and private opinion, he answered by
saying that he valued supremely the Creeds and Articles, and by giving a
statement of the great Christian doctrines which he held, and which the
Church taught. But he never explained what their authority could be with
any one but himself. There might be interpretations and inferences from
Scripture, by the hundred or the thousand, but no one certain and
authoritative one; none that warranted an organised Church, much more a
Catholic and Apostolic Church, founded on the assumption of this
interpretation being the one true faith, the one truth of the Bible. The
point was brought out forcibly in a famous pamphlet written by Mr.
Newman, though without his name, called "Elucidations of Dr. Hampden's
Theological Statements." This pamphlet was a favourite object of attack
on the part of Dr. Hampden's supporters as a flagrant instance of
unfairness and garbled extracts. No one, they said, ever read the
Bampton Lectures, but took their estimate of the work from Mr. Newman's
quotations. Extracts are often open to the charge of unfairness, and
always to suspicion. But in this case there was