Po VM eW

1836

REMARKS ON A LETTER

FROM THE

REV. H. A. WOODGATE

TO VISCOUNT MELBOURNE,

RELATIVE TO THE

APPOINTMENT OF DR. HAMPDEN.

BY THE
REV. BADEN POWELL, M.A. F.RTS.
OF ORIEL COLLEGE; SAVILIAN PROFESSOR OF GEOMETRY
IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD.

OXFORD; D. A. TALBOYS :
LONDON: B. FELLOWES, LUDGATE-STREET.
MDCCCXXXVI.

REMARKS, ETC.
The violent spirit of opposition to Dr. Hamp
den's appointment to the Regius Professorship of
Divinity^ which has manifested itself in Oxford,
originated entirely among the adherents of a
peculiar theological school. But it has acquired
accession of strength from persons of various
shades of religious and political opinion. This
school has its phrases and watchwords : but
many of these are of such a nature as to call
forth a ready response in the opinions and asso
ciations of numbers who have never examined
its more recondite principles. The maintenance
of the Church,— the denunciation of Socinian
ism,— the support of the orthodox faith, — create
rallying points for numberless partisans, who
neither adopt nor even at all apprehend the ex
treme principles of their leaders ; while motives
of a different kind operate upon others ; — and
thus the ranks of the opponents of Dr. Hampden
and the present ministry ; — of neologism and
whiggery ; — of heresy and reform, — are swelled
by innumerable recruits of a strange variety of
classes and complexions.
But as to any sohd grounds of objection, as

to any substantial argument, or even intelligible
statement of opinions, to show the impropriety
of the appointment, nothing whatever of the
kind has been put forth, but what is wholly
mixed up with the peculiar theology alluded to.
And this is of so peculiar a kind, that, unless to
those who have made themselves familiar with
it, the vehement appeals and fearful denuncia
tions in which its votaries indulge, must appear
more iike the reveries of visionaries and the
hallucinations of fanatics than the sober deliber
ations of academical divines. When indeed the
system is carefully studied, we find all this but
too consistent with itself: it presents matter of
more serious reflexion ; and we cannot but feel
that it is nothing less than a revival of the
most deplorable principles of spiritual tyranny
ever enforced by the Church of Rome ; a re
newal of the spirit and practice of the Inquisition
itself; and which, were the party but armed
with power, must of necessity manifest itself in
the actual perpetration of all the horrors of per
secution against the enemies of the truth. Nay,
as far as they can, they are actually putting in
execution measures which are in fact nothing
less : — for where is the difference in principle
between the infliction of bodily suffering, and of
temporal disabilities ; between robbing a man of
life, or of rights and privileges ; between attack
ing his person or his reputation.
The discharge of a religious duty, (perhaps a

painful one,) has always been the plea of perse
cutors % who in their love of God forget the love
of man : and it is precisely the apology which
prefaces all the least violent of those attacks
which have of late swarmed forth against the
Regius Professor of Divinity.
But from the extent to which the ranks of the
opponents had swelled, it might have been hoped
that among them all some writer might be found
to take up the subject in a more moderate tone,
and to state dispassionately some reasonable
topics of objection, in a way which would be in
telligible to the uninitiated, and refer to principles
capable of being more generally appreciated.
When I heard the announcement of a pamphlet
by Mr. Woodgate, I therefore looked forward
with no ordinary expectations for a clear and
rational exposition of the grounds of objection,
divested of the illiberal rancour and bigoted
animosity which characterized most of his pre
cursors. And on persuing it I was not disap
pointed as far as the tone and manner are con
cerned''. The author stands honourably dis
tinguished in disclaiming the spirit of bitterness,
and making large professions of personal respect
towards Dr. Hampden. He also avoids, and
even exposes, the irrelevant character of much
" John, xvi. 2.
•i I am sorry to notice one exception ; this, however, does not refer to
Dr. Hampden, but to the Bishop of Llandaff, upon whom (p. 6.) an im
putation is cast which appears to me (to use the mildest term) utterly un-
justifiable.

of the discussions of his predecessors. But the
substance of his observations is, after all, based
on principles identically the same as those of the
school already referred to ; and they are (quite
consistently) pushed to the same length of into
lerance, as in all the previous publications.
In the method of conducting his cause in sup
port of these views, Mr. Woodgate has through
out well sustained his high reputation for logical
skill. For, clearly perceiving the real nature of
the argument, he has with considerable art
avoided all introduction of it. He has contented
himself with assuming instead of proving, or at
tempting to prove, any of the principles on
which his objections turn. But this is so care
fully managed that the reader does not at all
suspect it : and considering that it is addressed
as a letter to a Minister of State, there would
seem an obvious propriety in not troubling his
Lordship with theological discussion, but leaving
the whole to rest upon the credit of those who
Dy profession ought to understand the subject.
The main principles are such as these ; " that
the opinion and practice of the Church in every
age" is to be the rule of true doctrine. That
everything claiming to be received on the ground
of reason is " Neologism and heresy." That the
Reformers appealed not to Scripture, but to the
primitive faith. That the great truths of Chris
tianity " were always held by the Church, how
ever overlaid and neutralized by error." That

Scripture was not appealed to but as an after
proof: that the ground of acceptance for any
doctrine was " That the Church of Christ had
always held it." That there is a " Divine Po
lity " in the Church " which He alone can annul
from whom alone it proceeded."
These points being assumed, (for it would be
heresy to question them,) Dr. Hampden is " ra
dically wrong," and " sadly in error," because
his opinions are not accordant with these views.
And " he is bound by virtue of his office [?] to
uphold and enforce" these principles. Hence
the ground of objection to his appointment on
the part of the University. It is a sacred cause :
" By God's help, and the legitimate use of the
means he has intrusted to us, we must resist this
first instalment to the genius of Rationalism and
Neology ;" " we do feel called upon to withhold
our sanction from the late appointraent." (!)
But more precisely, — After a just and well-de
served panegyric on Dr. Hampden's private cha
racter and personal religion, the author contends
that the objections are not made against him
individually, or his opinions, as such, but only
with reference to this particular office, " for the
right discharge of the duties of which, his opi
nions on the nature and importance of the doc
trines of the Church not only disqualify him,
but are diametrically opposite." (p. 10.)
Again : " It is not Dr. Hampden's personal
creed on which his fitness for his present office

depends, but it is the httle importance he pro
fesses to attach to the necessity of the like creed
in others." — (p. 13). And the case is illustrated
by the supposed instance of a guardian of
morals, who, though individually pure, should
not teach the necessity of purity ; and of a pro
fessor of medicine, who, though he practically
abstained from using deleterious processes, should
yet teach that they might be safely resorted to.
The methods of teaching, and the duties of the
teacher, must in all cases depend on the nature
of the subject to be taught ; and may vary con
siderably in different departments. A classical
teacher, for example, must proceed in a very
different way from a mathematical ; and so the
duties of a Professor of Divinity will doubtless
be dependent on the view adopted of the first
principles on which Divine truth is grounded.
If the appeal be to individual conviction, the
professor will surely state his own deliberate
convictions, and set forth with the conclusions,
the reasons, and proofs of them, in his instruc
tion to others ; in whom he will, of course, by
fair argument, seek to produce the like con
victions. To charge such principles with foster
ing indifference, is a palpable fallacy. On the
contrary, the more we rely on rational convic
tion, the more shall we endeavour to produce
such conviction in others : the more we value
truth, the more we shall follow those methods
by which it is to be distinguished from false-

9
hood. No sensible person will deny that many
means of persuasion may be resorted to besides
direct proof. We may argue ad hominem, or
ad verecundiam, but still this is essentially dif
ferent from authoritative dictation. The illus
trative cases supposed by the author can only
be parallel if heterodoxy were a moral crime,
and also of as definite a nature as the particular
act of moral impurity alluded to, or as a delete
rious drug.
The objections brought against Dr. Hampden
essentially turn upon this ; — That he appeals to
reason and Scripture, and not to the authority
of the Church, — to rational conviction, and not
to a blind acquiescence in the dictation of ortho
doxy. It is not so much any specific tenet
which he propounds that is objected to, as the
entire ground and method of his theology. The
question then is entirely one of first principles.
The school in which the opposition has origi
nated adopt very peculiar views of the claims of
orthodoxy — of the authority of the Church and
of Scripture, and the province of reason. On
these they avowedly ground all practical conse
quences with regard to the duties and qualifica
tions of a Professor of Divinity, and justify their
irreconcileable hostility to Dr. Hampden's ap
pointment. These principles have, within a few years,
been taken up with great zeal by a party in
Oxford : and, with more or less modification.

10
have, especially of late, obtained a considerable
diffusion among the Clergy.
The British Critic also, has honoured me by
coupling my name with that of Dr. Hampden,
in reference to the fearful neologism which,
though in widely different ways, we have each
contributed to promote. I am, therefore, on
several grounds, induced to enter, though it
must be briefly, upon the question of the great
principle of the system.
That the very principle of this system is an
argument in a circle, of course constitutes no
objection in the minds of those who professedly
discard reason. Yet what is it but this 1 The
Church is the fountain of orthodoxy ; and ortho
doxy requires us to admit the authority of the
Church. The appeal is to the Bible ; but the
Church is the interpreter of the Bible, and the
judge of the appeal. The New Testament con
demns as heretics those who shall depart from
its doctrines. But Unitarians and Calvinists,
Rationalists and Literalists, Presbyterians and
Episcopalians, all appeal to the New Testament,
and profess to adopt its doctrines. The Church
denounces them because they appeal to the New
Testament. Orthodoxy is submission to its de
crees. Some of these may have been corrupt,
but the true and orthodox decrees are known
by their agreement with Scripture. Yet it is
heresy to presume to judge of such agreement
or disagreement.

11
A divine apostolic commission is vested in the
Church. But where is the proof of this ? We
are referred to Scripture. We differ as to the
interpretation of the passages cited : the Church
decides — of course in its own favour. It can,
then, authoritatively determine the sense of
Scripture. But a sense put upon a text is some
thing added to the text ; an interpretation of
Scripture is something added to Scripture. If,
then, the sense so added is Divine truth, the
Church which decrees it has an equal authority
with revelation. This is the conclusion in which
these principles must always end, whichever way
we take them. Authority to determine points
of faith must be the same as that from which
these points originate ; it must be precisely equal
to that of revelation. The Church must possess
a standing inspiration. And a divine power and
commission once vested in the Church must re
main unalterable and incorruptible through all
ages. The whole system, from beginning to
end, is one, and indissoluble. The entire body
and mass of doctrines, interpretations, decrees,
and formularies, must be all equally unassailable
— all alike divine. For what private judgment
shall presume to question any part of it ? or if
one part, why not another ?
Yet this apostolic depositary may, notwith
standing, become corrupt ; and in some instances
has become so. It may inculcate superstition

12
and idolatry, and falsely condemn as heretics
those vvho charge it with doing so.
But then it has been only some one branch,
or part, of the Church which has so erred.
Other branches have been preserved pure, and
are therefore authorised to protest against the
corruptions. Yet between such opponents who
is to be found to decide ? But a portion of the
Church has been always orthodox; that is, it
has adjudged itself so. It has protested against
heresy, and, whenever it had the power, has per
secuted and sought to destroy it. Is the appeal
then to the dominant party ? Is the truth to de
pend on the decision of the majority ?
Some advocates of the cause take a lower
tone. The orthodox doctrines, it is said, are
those which have been, in point of fact, held in
all ages of the Church. It will, perhaps, be
prudent not to attempt to penetrate the dark
ness of the middle ages, nor to hear the appeal
of the Romanist to the very same testimony, for
tenets diametrically opposite (not merely over
laid, but distinct and contradictory) ; nor to in
quire too curiously how consistent the Church
has been in its testimony in dififerent parts of the
world ; nor, after all, to ask, who is to receive
and judge of the testimony ? Much stress is laid
upon reading rightly the favourite enigma,
" Semper, ubique, et ab omnibus" as the test of
true doctrine. The uninitiated, indeed, may

13
hardly be able to find a single tenet which fulfils
the conditions. But to the initiated it means,
" by all except heretics, in all except corrupt
ages, in all except benighted regions." And, if
we not unnaturally ask. Who is to decide such
cases 1 or Even then, what makes the rule bind
ing ? These are dangerous questions, and them
selves savour of heresy.
The Reformation is a formidable subject.
The advocates of orthodoxy, and with good rea
son, are always anxious to avoid it. The best
of the reformers acutely felt the difficulties of
their position, but wisely smoothed them over.
They kept up as rigidly as possible the assump
tion of spiritual power °. They adhered as closely
as they could to every part of the ancient forms.
Some bold and heretical spirits had denied the
real presence, denounced purgatory and image
worship, and opened the Scriptures to the peo
ple. And these novelties had taken so firm a
hold on the minds of men, that it became neces
sary to adopt such formularies, as while they
in some degree satisfied the demands which
could no longer be resisted, should effectually
stop the further progress of heresy and neolo
gism. They made a great point of appealing not
only to Scripture, but the faith and practice of
"= It was said, I think of Archbishop Laud, by some contemporary wri
ter, that " he essayed to ride the Pope's horse, but forgot that he had cast
away the bridle."

14
the primitive church. Still, however, there was
an appeal to human judgment. The spell had
been broken, implicit submission to decrees
could no longer be made the plea : men could
not but judge for themselves even of the al
ledged accordance with primitive times. It was
necessary also to define what were the primitive
times : and how long the Church was uncor
rupt. These were delicate questions ; and in
nuraerable others must obviously arise of equally
difficult solution and iraproper tendency. In a
word, — it is always dangerous to admit any in
novations however trifiing ; for one concession
invariably leads to further demands. And the
principle of appeal to reason and Scripture, if
only allowed its full range, of necessity opens
the door to universal heresy, neologism, soci
nianism, rationalism, and atheism. The first
impulse in this direction was given by the early
reformers : to oppose and check it has been the
constant business of their orthodox successors.
Without venturing further into a subject so
abstruse in theory, I raust add a very brief re
mark on its practical application. To those with
in the pale, the benefits of such principles are
too raanifest to require notice *. They oflfer a
consolatory repose of mind ^ ; nothing can be
more acceptable than to be relieved from the
trouble of thinking : nothing more grateful than
^ I say nothing of the Papists, since his Holiness has lately addressed a
pastoral letter to his erring but returning sons in Oxford.

15
to be exonerated from all individual responsibi
lity in seeking the truth. To those without, the
results will be hot less worthy of consideration.
If we only appeal to Scripture and reason, we
of necessity fall into Socinianism. This will
surely be duly appreciated by the Socinians.
The mysterious doctrines, especially the Trinity,
are " not to be found formally stated in Scrip
ture," but are learnt on the authority of the
Church and the Creeds. [Tracts for the Times.
No. XLV. p. 5.] This will doubtless be eminently
satisfactory to the Unitarians. " The whole
Bible is one great parable :'' (Sewell on Subscrip
tion, p. 24.) This really transcends any flight
of German rationalism ! and does away with
both facts and doctrines at once.
If the Church with all its corruptions be as
much inspired as the Bible, the sceptic, may in
terpret it that the Bible is as little inspired as
the Church. If faith require no conviction, this
supersedes the evidences, and dispenses with the
difficulties of the unbeliever respecting miracles.
In truth, the subject appears to me closely
involved with the most vital elements of reli
gious belief, and I feel sometimes almost in
doubt how the advocates of orthodoxy might
answer this question. Is there, or is there not,
such a thing as divine revelation ? Is the Bible
inspired, or is it not ? If there be a divine revela
tion, it must essentially be distinguished by its pe
culiar characteristics from all which is not reve-

16
lation. Every thing huraan, however excellent,
must stand at an immeasurable distance : the
diflference is not in degree of excellence but in
kind. Divine truth must be a thing wholly sui
generis. Dififerent views may have been held as
to the precise nature of inspiration, but this
makes no difference ; frora the very nature of
the case, on any, even the lowest notion of in
spiration, there raust be somewhere a broad well
marked line of distinction between that which is
revelation, and that which is not.
If, then, this be the basis of religious belief,
tradition and Church authority cannot be ad
raitted as holding any sort of divided empire
with it : either they must be identified with reve
lation, be included within the line of deraarca-
tion, and be held absolutely divine and infallible ;
or they raust be wholly and simply human and
fallible. If this distinction be not preserved,
the whole character, and very existence of reve
lation is lost ; to deny or confound the distinc
tion, is to destroy revelation. The real distinc
tion is surely very much one of evidence. But
the testiraony of the Church to the truth of
Scripture, must be essentially that of mere hu
man witnesses, or it involves a petitio principii.
By far the most valuable part of the testimony
is obviously that of those who, by the self-
styled orthodox, were called heretics. And the
authority of the sacred text can depend on no
thing else than historical evidence ehcited by

17
the critical researches of a succession of learned
men. Let any one but carfeully examine the
question of the weight of testimony, and he will
surely not be able to attach much importance to
any thing traditional. The written documents
of the New Testament surely are now the sole
authentic records of whatever the founders of
Christianity deemed essential to faith or prac
tice. And the sense of those recorded doctrines
must differ according to the differences of hu
man apprehension.
In entirely rejecting the trammels of a spiritual
despotism, and upholding perfect freedom of
opinion, I am merely asserting the great plea of
Protestantism. In disowning alike the corrup
tions which, whether in darker or more enlight
ened times, appear to me to have spoiled the
simplicity of the Christian faith, worship, and
practice, — the superstitions equally of Popery
and Puritanism, — the masses of the eleventh
century, and the Sabbaths of the seventeenth, —
I am but adhering to the essential and vital prin
ciple of free appeal to the written record, which
can alone justify the Reformation, whether in an
earlier or in a later stage of its progress. Every
raan, I conceive, must seek conviction accord
ing to the light and information afforded him ;
and this not merely as a right, but a duty, — not
only as a privilege, but as an obligation.
But where we deny a divine authority, we can
surely accord the highest respect to the legiti-

18
mate clairas of that which is merely human. We
may surely avail ourselves of the assistance of
human interpreters, and allow the weight justly
due to the opinions of a body of learned and
gopd men, and the sanction which is conferred
by the stamp of approving ages.
If we fail in perceiving any precise New Tes
tament authority for pretending to draw the line
of exclusiveness round the ministrations of any
particular body of clergy, or the creed of any
particular community, we can yet retain a high
respect for institutions which bear the stamp of
antiquity, and the semblance of apostolic usage ;
and for a ministry whose claims rest on the un
impeachable plea of utility, order, and edifica
tion. Nor will such considerations impugn the right
of churches or religious communities to agree in
the adoption of formularies, though those for
mularies cannot make doctrines true or false.
They may be useful suraraaries to aid instruction
and recollection ; — they may even becorae bonds
of union and peace. With particular reference
to the case of the Church of England, it may be
observed that the design of the Thirty-nine Ar
ticles was clearly that of conciliation and com
prehension ; and they are composed in a tone of
moderation surprising for the age.
That the language in which the doctrines are
expressed is that of the scholastic metaphysics^
was a circumstance hardly to be avoided, when

19
the framers were men who had beeu trained in
those schools. That such was the fact, and that
due attention must be paid to it in interpreting
their language at the present day, is precisely
what has been established and insisted on with
so much learning and judgment in the Bampton
Lectm-es of Dr. Hampden ; and which has, as
was but natm-al, called forth such unlimited vi
tuperation fi-om those who uphold the very let
ter of such dogmatical statements as the rule
and standard of correct doctrine''.
By all reasonable persons, however, it will be
allowed that the language of the Articles is suffi
ciently comprehensive to include parties of very
various shades of opinion. Indeed, in one w^ay,
they have been in some instances the preserva
tives of religious fi-eedom. Thus, had it not
been for the 17th article, Calvinism would as
suredly have been denounced as a most frightful
heresy. And further, the anti-Calvinistic clergy,
who yet sign that article, must feel that they
have no right to object to those who put a like
modified sense on some of the other points.
And as to the general terras and meaning of sub
scription, we have the authority of one of the
* Many of this school seem to treat the doctrines they so seriously pro
fess, as if they were of no olher use than to be bandied about as a sort of
verbal enigma — a kind of theological litmus paper, to test the true acidu-
lation of doctrine — a quibble upon dogmatical terms ; not with a positive,
but merely, as it were, a negative meaning, — a ' ' nay word," like Slen-
der's, [JUfrru Wives of WindsiT, v. -.] and as superfluous to truth.
Surely " the white will decipher her well enough."
c 2

20
most zealous supporters of orthodoxy in Ox
ford, that it " of necessity involves diflferent de
grees of assent, according to persons' diflferent
degrees of religious attainments, knowledge, and
character ^" Nothing, I think, can be more
just, satisfactory, or liberal.
I entirely agree in the opinion that the pre
sent question is not one of mere individual doc
trines, or technical details, but of a great prin
ciple, and that of momentous practical iraportance
to the University, to the Church, and to the
Community. Unless I greatly mistake, it ulti
mately amounts to this, whether the theological
student shall be taught and encouraged to think
for himself; whether behef shall rest upon con
viction ; whether theology shall be propounded
on the basis of rational inquiry ; whether Chris
tianity shall stand on the foundation of Truth.
All this is something so new, and so entirely
at variance with the practice which has hitherto
prevailed in Oxford, that it is not surprising the
very contemplation of it should stir up the most
violent opposition, and give rise to the most
fearful apprehensions. A system of orthodoxy
like that at which we before glanced, has indeed
good reason to dread the introduction of such
novelties. The peculiar school to whose opinions I have
referred, no doubt possesses at the present mo-
f " Questions on the Declaration, &c." p. 6. By a Bachelor of
Divinity.

21
ment a considerable ascendancy ; and it is their
policy to endeavour to represent themselves as
the only real supporters of the truth. They will
not allow that they are a party in the Church,
but set themselves up as the Church. They
contend that Dr. Hampden is opposed to the
doctrine of the Church, because he is opposed to
their view of that doctrine. They are more or
thodox than the Articles. But professing to be
the sole true adherents to the Church, they can
not conform to her moderation and liberahty.
The Church establishment is, however, I be
lieve, large enough to hold as well the votaries
of infallibihty, (if they can but keep it to them
selves,) as those of various shades of more ra
tional opinions. The grand and characteristic
excellence of an establishment as such, appears
to me to be found in the temperate tone of its
statement of doctrines, and the comprehensive
ness of its formularies. It is in this point of
view that it seems to present the best plea for
support by the state. The Protestant Church
of England is subject to lawful human autho
rity, instead of a pretended spiritual supremacy.
This enjoins to all who hold offices in it, sub
scription and conformity to a prescribed formu
lary and hturgy. The enactment of these for
mularies by temporal authority, as terms of
peace and union, which is essential to the nature
of an estabhshment, appears to me in no way to
impair the principle of religious freedom ; and

22
their maintenance as the law of the land will be
justified by their accordance with the state of
knowledge and opinion of the age. The Thirty-
nine Articles were originally framed with the de
sign (impracticable as it has proved) of preclud
ing religious dissension. The establishment was
then intended to comprehend all. But its claira
to national support must at all tiraes depend on
its keeping up a truly national character.
This great object raay be raost materially
promoted by the liberalising and improving in
fluence exercised, directly and indirectly, by
those who are placed in high and responsible
situations in the Church and the Universities.
The appointment to these stations of men pos
sessing alike the essential qualiflcation of enter
taining such views, joined with the ability to
support, and the moral courage to maintain
them, affords the only hope of effecting any im
provement. By such means alone it is that
the real efficiency of these institutions can be
upheld and extended, in accordance with the
exigencies of the times, and in the existing state
of public opinion.
Notwithstanding the advice with which Mr.
Woodgate favours Lord Melbourne as to the
disposal of his patronage, I feel assured that no
inconsiderable body of the best friends to the
Church, and to the free course of Christian
truth, see abundant reason to be well satisfied
with the selection which has been made in the

23
present instance, as well as the entire tendency
in other cases of that influence which the King,
acting by his responsible advisers, thus legiti
mately exerts on the Church, of which he is the
constitutional head.
Mr. Woodgate has, as I observed at first,
wisely abstained from the proofs of his views,
and has contented himself by his " ipse dixit,"
and the adage, " Cuilibet credendum sua in
arte." I will merely add, that whatever benefit
that maxim may afford. Lord Melbourne will, I
suspect, more readily extend it to the Bishop of
Llandaflf, and to the Regius Professor of Divi
nity, than to Mr. Woodgate or his friends.

Thus far my remarks had passed through the
press, before the announcement of the decision
of the Heads of Houses to bring before Convo
cation the raeasure which was stopped last term
by the noble conduct of the Proctors. There
was an expectation entertained of a bare chance
that the division in that board might have been
diflferent from that of last term. In the indul
gence of such a hope, ray observations thus far
were written. But the aspect of aflfairs is now
fixed ; and, even at the risk of adopting a tone
apparently inconsistent with what precedes, I
cannot close my remarks without an expression
of my sentiments on the measure now proposed
to Convocation.

24
If a majority of the University wish to express
a public censure ofthe opinions or conduct of its
functionaries, there can exist no manner of ob
jection to their doing so, in becoming language,
by any kind of address, declaration, or formal
vote. But the particular measure now proposed car
ries too obviously upon its very features the ex
pression of a spiritof mere personal hostility and
vindictive persecution.
Considered simply as a piece of legislation, to
alter a law to meet the case of an individual, is,
under any circumstances, a most unworthy pro
ceeding; though, in my estimation, quite on a
par with several other examples of academical
legislation. The pitiful meanness of depriving the Regius
Professor of Divinity of one vote out of five in
the preliminary noraination of select preachers,
is equalled only by its preposterous absurdity ;
especially when Convocation has still to decide
on the obnoxious heretic, who must of necessity
be — one of themselves. Truly, heresy must be
sadly rife in Oxford.
The other part of the measure involves a more
deep-laid plot. A still existing, but, it was to
be hoped, obsolete statute, organizes a court of
inquisition, of whom the Regius Professor of
Divinity is one, to try the doctrine of preachers.
The proposal is to exclude the present Profes
sor ; this being, of course, preparatory to the

25
revival of that tribunal (in England, and in the
middle of the nineteenth century !) and to his
own condemnation by the court so purged !
I say nothing of the question as to the legal
right of Convocation to legislate at all in this
second measure, as I trust that will be brought
before a higher tribunal.
Those who indulge a hope of mutual concilia
tion — who expect that the clouds of prejudice
and obloquy will disperse — that the violence of
party will in time subside, and the storm blow
over — know nothing of the principles or charac
ter of the master spirits who have raised the
tempest, or the inferior agents who minister to
their bidding. They are devoted to, what they
believe a sacred cause : they are prepared to
inflict, and (I give them due credit) in their turn
to endure, any extremity ; but they will not
cease their assault as long as any weapons or
means of annoyance are left in their hands. No
explanation or vindication on the part of Dr.
Hampden will in the least persuade, convince,
or deter them. Not even a recantation (were
that conceivable) would produce any effect.
These single-minded and high-souled zealots
will never relax their efforts in the cause of an
imagined apostolic authority. No earthly consi
deration — no fear of private injury or pubhc dis
order — can be aUowed a thought in their estima
tion ; and their incessant endeavours are not less

26
ably and fervently seconded by their more nu
merous allies, of a widely diflferent stamp «,
The combined forces of such a party, having
failed (of course) in their modest attempt to
drive the King's constitutional adviser from his
rightful and well-considered disposal of patron
age, in the full sway of exasperated zeal and
envy, are now determined to try every art,
and, as the measure above described shows,
ready to stoop to every degree of meanness, (for
any meanness will be ennobled, any iniquity jus
tified, in so holy a cause,) in venting their sacred
fury upon Lord Melbourne's nominee, and in
stirring up every element of discord, clamour,
and vexation, in the hope of raaking the post of
the Regius Professor of Divinity so annoying,
that he may at length be forced to abandon it.
To those who know Dr. Hampden, it will be
needless to say that his firmness will be com
pletely proof against such assaults. But the
injury which all this inflicts on the University,
both within itself and in public estimation, is as
contemptuously disregarded by the zealots, as it
is wholly unappreciated by their blinded foUow-
15 These are what the Edinburgh Review has so happily named the
school of Hophni and Phineas : the secular clergy properly so called ; —
men who carry " a flesh hook of three teeth," (1 Sam. ii. 13,) to fish up
pluralities. As Mr. Woodgate has entertained his readers with a story
about a negro, I may be allowed to introduce a well-known one, easily
applicable. " Sambo, can you be orthodox?" " What you gib mo,
massa r'

27
ers. Yet with those out ofthe immediate turmoil,
who can but look at it with unprejudiced eyes,
it must surely be manifest how serious are the
considerations involved in every way to the well-
being, credit, and eflSciency of the University,
especially in times hke the present.
Can we trust such a man as Dr. Hampden,
say the persecutors, with the theological instruc
tion of the University ? Can we trust such men
as his turbulent and bigoted opponents with the
education of the nation ? may be the reasonable
inquiry of those who are the constituted guar
dians of the nation. Will these disgraceful pro
ceedings be suffered to remain unnoticed by
those in power ? will the state of a national
University be allowed to stand exempted from
national inquiry and legislative interference ? If
they have done so hitherto, it has been in expect
ation that there was a spirit of improvement
within. How vain such an expectation was, I
conceive the most sceptical must now be con
vinced ; and as, in many points, I have long
thought legislative inquiry imperatively called
for, I can only hope that the present state of
things may produce the efifect of hastening such
interference, which, under any circumstances,
can hardly be much longer delayed.

29

ADDENDUM.

I have referred (p. 10) to a passage in the re
cent number of the British Critic, (xxxviii.) It
is as follows : —
" Let us just observe, by way of example, this
very expression "facts." Professor Hampden
argues that there are only facts in the Bible,
and, properly, no doctrines. Professor Powell
tells us that we must look to Scripture for doc
trines only, and not for facts. Professor Powell
reverences the Bible as a collection of moral and
spiritual revelations, but denies its authority as
an historical document, having any bearing upon
the facts which are investigated by science, and
the mutations which have happened to the
globe. And there may be significations or modes
of explanation in which both these theories are
just. But the tendency of the lamguage is this.
Even while the pecuhar distinction of the Bible
is, that it connects a series of facts tvith a syntem
of doctrines, one class of theologians may seek to
do away with the former, and another class may
seek to do away with the latter ; and so ab<s<^>-
lutely nothing will be left." (p. 509.)

30
On this I will observe, that the writer is
quite correct in qualifying what he raakes me
say about " facts " in one sentence, by the li
mitation in the next, " which are investigated
by science, &c." But he appears never to
have read Bishop Butler, when he charges
Dr. Hampden (who follows Bishop Butler in
using the word " fact " in the tolerably intel
ligible sense of " whatever is ") with denying
that there are any doctrines delivered in Scrip
ture. What he has asserted is, that the great
truths in Scripture are propounded simply as
facts or realities.
What, then, are these fearful inroads which
are '^being made into the territory of Scrip
ture from two opposite quarters at once, and
which are so soon to leave no part remain
ing ?
The " one class of Divines " (and it is a
rapidly increasing class, as every one now will
learn geology,) merely take away from the
number, of supposed facts, at most two or
three representations, such as the seven days
in Genesis, and in the Decalogue ; which can
not now be understood as intended for histo
rical statements. " The other class" do away
absolutely nothing, but huraan interpreta
tions. Thus the Bible is being fast done away !
I conceive the Critic might find cases more to
his purpose in some of the speculations of the

31
school above referred to, which indeed " does
away the word of God by its tradition ;"
" teaching for doctrines the commandments of
men." (Mark, vii. 8.)

OXFORD : PRIKTED BY TAtBOYS AND BROWNE.

3 9002 00888 0461

Latel-y published by the same Author.
AN ELEMENTARY TREATISE ON EXPERIMEN
TAL AND MATHEMATICAL OPTICS, designed for the
Use of Students in the University, Svo. cloth boards, 10s. 6d.
Oxford, 1833.
REVELATION AND SCIENCE : a Discourse delivered
before the University. — Oxford, 1833.
A LETTER to the Editor of the British Critic. — Ox
ford, 1834.