Elucidation

-i-ss:

Plhg56 1&36 E*8

AN

ELUCIDATION

MR. WOODGATE'S PAMPHLET,

LETTER TO A FRIEND.

"HpZctvTO Peit'wC tri-^fiv cai dimaTOfiaril^iiv. Luke xi. 53.

LONDON:
B. FELLOWES, LUDGATE STREET.
M DfCC XXXVI.

R. CLAY, PRINTER, BKEAD-STREET-HILL,
DOCTORS' COMMONS.

AN ELUCIDATION,
SfC. cjc.

My Dear Friend,

May 26, 1836.

I have read, at your recommendation,
Mr. Woodgate's pamphlet. It is certainly, as you
state, a very clever performance ; and I will not
allow you now to recall your opinion of it, even
though you should be vexed at discovering that
it has completely taken you in. Nay, do not look
fierce at me ; it is not / that have played off the
joke against you, — I am merely laughing at its
complete success.
But how, in the name of wonder, is it that
you have been entrapped into viewing this as a
serious performance ? You must certainly have
read it when you were still under the influence
of an after-dinner nap ; for though the irony is
so fine as to make it certain that it will deceive
many, yet in your ordinary mood you undoubtedly
would have perceived it to be throughout what
a 2

the French call a " mystification ;" — that he has
assumed the garb of one of Dr. Hampden's per
secutors in order to expose, by well-directed irony,
the half-disguised malignity, the hypocritical cant,
the unfairness and inconsistency, and the fallacious
juggles, of which so many specimens are before
the public. This garb of arrogant flippancy and
unfair sophistry has been, indeed, assumed by him
so dexterously that perhaps the objection to this
jeu d'esprit is, so to speak, that it is too well done,
i. e. that it goes so little, if at all, beyond what
has been said in sober sadness by some of the
pamphleteers, as to be very likely to be, by the
ol ttoXXoI, taken seriously, and understood to convey
the writer's real sentiments. The commencement
is admirable, though perhaps open to the objection
just mentioned ; viz. that the irony is so fine as to
be liable to be taken for earnest. The professions
of unwillingness to keep up the excitement " so
much to be deplored by every true friend of the
University and the Church," and the tenderness
expressed for Dr. Hampden throughout, while he
is loaded with every slander and contumely, are a
most exact and unexaggerated portrait of the
inquisitor-like spirit with which he has been
assailed by his persecutors. The members of this
new " Holy Office " deliver him over to the secular
arm with deep reluctance, with an earnest recom
mendation to mercy, which they know will be
understood to mean an " Act of Faith " the most
fiery that the present times will sanction,
I must quote a passage to you at length, because

it is as fine a specimen of sarcastic bitterness
against the malignants as can well be imagined.
" Hard expressions, not warranted by the circum-
" stances of the case, or the high character of
" the principals on either side, have been allowed
" to escape ; and as your lordship (Lord Mel-
" bourne) must feel that such reflections are un-
" deserved by yourself, and that you cannot
" recognise in your own share of the transaction,
" any motive to entitle you to such imputations,
" so, I presume, you will be disposed to judge
" of others, without reference to external clamour,
" and to give them credit for like honesty of
" purpose." This has manifestly a double meaning.
His lordship, fully conscious that he has not de
served the imputations cast on him for his appoint
ment to the Professorship, will naturally suspect
that the censures on Dr. Hampden have been as
little deserved, and the same consciousness will
help him also into a due estimate of the " honesty
of purpose "' which has actuated the calumniators.
I dare say his lordship is as fully convinced of
their honesty as Mr. Woodgate himself is.
Very good again is the sly hint conveyed in
page 5, that ministers were not only justified in
their selection of Dr. Hampden, but entitled to the
especial thanks both of the University and of the
public, for fixing on one not recommended to them
either by political or personal considerations, but
by his high academical character, and the offices
and honours conferred on him at Oxford; in short,
by the implied recommendation of the University

itself. And then the force of this admission is
asserted to be done away in the next page, in
a passage, in which, with infinite humour, and
an air of flippant presumption, such as we have
lately seen so much of, he proceeds to assume that,
because Bishop Copleston has ventured to express
an opinion at variance with the writers', his lordship
must be " presumed " to have given his advice
without having ever read Dr. Hampden's works !
Do but look at this passage, and surely you will
at once see the covert satire with which he says
that — "justice requires us to presume this." Can
you doubt that in this admirable delineation of
"justice" he is alluding to the kind of new-
invented patent justice displayed by the multitudes
who flocked to Oxford to vote against Dr. H.,
notoriously and confederately, without having read
his works, and avowedly judging from the repre
sentations of his accusers? Never, certainly, was
there a better specimen of the system attributed
to the Irish magistrate, who found that he could
decide very well when he heard only one side, but
that it bothered him to hear both : and never was
the unblushing iniquity of such men more cuttingly
exposed than by coming forward in the person of
one of them, and " presuming," as a matter of
course, that Bishop Copleston proceeds on a similar
plan. The grave tone of solemn coxcombry in
which Lord Melbourne is rebuked for presuming
to pay less than due deference to the memorial
sent from the Corpus College conspirators, from
men who (as Mr. W. afterwards takes care to

remind us,) had allowed Dr. Hampden's Bampton
Lectures, containing his alleged heresies, to be
preached and published years before, without calling
him to account before the regular tribunal ; and
who had seen him, without resistance or remon
strance on their part, appointed Public Examiner,
Principal of St. Mary's Hall, and Professor of
Moral Philosophy. The dilemma in which they
are thus placed, and which is represented (p. 23)
with infinite humour, as a dilemma in which Lord
Melbourne is placed, is noticed, in the preceding
page, with great skill. The allegation is described
as almost too puerile to deserve "notice," — just the
sort of answer which the sophists whom Mr. W-
delights to ridicule are accustomed to give to any
argument which they cannot gainsay. It is just
the ready-made answer which will do for any thing,
and for one argument as well as for another.
There is a sly hint very well introduced in this
passage of the impertinence of the present inter
ference. Speaking of the headship of St. Mary's
Hall, and the professorship of Moral Philosophy,
he observes — " with the appointment of these the
University have no more to do than your lordship."
This is not, indeed, strictly true ; because the pro
fessorship is in the appointment of certain members,
not only of the University, but of the board which
exercises most important functions in the Uni
versity, and among whom are to be found the most
active of Dr. H.'s persecutors ; but still there is
enough truth in the remark to suggest to any
thoughtful reader the reflection, that, since this was

8
a good reason for the University's offering no
opposition to these appointments, that to the Regius
Professorship ought, by the same rule, to have been
left free from interference. I can imagine how a
man of Mr. Woodgate's evident turn of mind must
have laughed at the clumsy sophistry which en
tangles its authors in its own meshes. " Why did
you not," one might ask, " remonstrate with the
Chancellor for appointing Dr. H. to the headship ?
and with the electors to the Moral Philosophy pro
fessorship, against nominating sb unfit a man V
" Oh, the University is not responsible for those
appointments ; they do not belong to the Uni
versity." Well, still less does the King's nomi
nation to the Regius Professorship : why do you
interfere with that ? — " Because we have tender
consciences." Then where were your consciences
four years ago, or three, or two, in short, at any
time previous to Dr. H.'s pamphlet on dissent ?
Mr. W., accordingly, finds it necessary to put a
confession of error and an apology into the mouth
of the character he is personating. And he does it
with most comic effect. After assuring the world
that the argument drawn from the inconsistency of
Dr. H.'s opponents is almost too puerile to deserve
notice, he condescends so far to notice it as to
acknowledge in it " culpable error," and promise to
retrieve it as well as is now possible. The " error "
or " dereliction of duty " was, as we all know, that
those who after an interval of four years are so
loudly proclaiming the heresies of Dr. H.'s Bampton
Lectures, did not only never remonstrate against his

appointment to the Headship or to the Professor
ship, but did not, while these lectures were being
preached and published, call him to account before
the regular tribunal expressly appointed to try such
accusations, and have never summoned him to any
trial at all ; but having more hopes from a vote
than a verdict, apply at once to Convocation, to pass
a sort of act of attainder, at a time when a great
political excitement prevails among the members of
the University, many of whom, they know, will muster
in crowds to give their votes, without having read a
page of the writings they censure. This is a most
effectual appeal from Philip sober to Philip drunk.
Mr. W. gives an admirable picture of the shuffling
and dodging backwards and forwards by which the
conspirators evade the reproaches due to their incon
sistency. Every thing which affords any apparent
vindication of one part of their conduct, condemns
another part of it ; so that they are forced to
shift backwards and forwards in a manner which
is most humorously depicted. Observe, for instance,
how he plays fast and loose with anonymous pam
phlets. The assailant is represented as pleading
that Dr. H.'s heresies promulgated in 1832, and
condemned in 1836, did not incur censure at the
time: " neither is it true " (p. 22) " that they were
" not noticed till now. Very soon after they appeared
" in print they were noticed severely both in reviews
" and pamphlets, and public attention was forcibly
" called to their Socinian tendency." So, then, these
pamphlets and reviews imputing Socinianism are to
be understood as representing and conveying the

10
sentiments of the University (i. e. of the junta who
call themselves the University), and thus the con
sistency of the said University is vindicated from the
charge of condemning as heretical at one time, what
it had passed by as harmless at another ! But the
aforesaid pamphlets and reviews do not represent the
University, — have nothing to do with the University
except when it suits our purpose to own them. " It
" may sound very well for anonymous writers (p. 9)
" to deal in terms of Socinianism and like charges^
" We as little bring such charges, as regard them
" when brought by others. I need scarcely add, they
" are quite unauthorised by those who are chiefly
" concerned in the opposition to the appointment."
How admirably set forth is the use made of these
anonymous light-troops of pamphlets and reviews ;
— these marauders without commission or uniform !
They serve to annoy and harass an enemy, without
involving any one in more responsibility than is
convenient. They are owned or disowned at
pleasure. " The anonymous writers of articles in-
" serted in public journals are not to be taken as
" representing the opinions and feelings of the chief
" parties concerned ; with these therefore we have
" now no concern." — Pp. 8, 9.
The affected tenderness towards the person and
towards the individual religious character of Dr. H.
by his implacable calumniators, — the praises they
bestow on each other's mildness, — and the hints
they throw out, that though they do not impeach his
individual orthodoxy, they fairly might, — are ad
mirably imitated, and not at all caricatured in this

11
ingenious pamphlet. " There has been," says
Mr. W. " and still is, every wish to waive all
" objection on the score of his personal belief in the
" doctrines in question, however the obscurity and
" contradiction which exist in his written publications
" might seem to many to warrant doubts of his own
"orthodoxy." (P. 10.) I think he must have re
minded himself while writing this passage, and
some others like it, of some of the assistant ministers
of the holy office, when engaged in inquiries into
the religious errors of some unfortunate heretic : who
having ventured to promulgate his errors, deserved,
in their view and Mr. Newman's, " no mercy ;" but
yet received an undeserved tenderness of treatment.
While some of the inquisitors were broiling his bare
feet before a fierce fire, others were assiduously occu
pied in anointing them with oil for fear they should
burn. Mr. W.'s picture is by no means overdrawn.
The British Critic passes equally high eulogiums on
the tender anointing of Dr. H.'s censurers, and pro
ceeds to assure him that he is the very last person who
has any thing to complain of, for that, in fact, he is the
aggressor, and has attacked the University and the
Church. They are acting completely on the de
fensive, being as much aggrieved as the wolf in the
fable was by the lamb.
One of the complaints against Dr. H. and his
friends is particularly well ridiculed by Mr. W. —
" Dr. H. and his friends will lose sight of the real
" question, and make it a personal matter, to be
" decided by personal qualities and personal belief,
" and leave the consideration of the tendency of his

12
" opinions on the nature and importance of doctrinal
" points, for his own belief in the same." (P. 9.)
The unblushing effrontery of falsehood with which
the " malignants" are distinguished, no less than by
their intolerance and cruelty, is here very justly set
forth. Dr. H^and his friends have not merely proved
that he has taught doctrines contrary to those im
puted to him — have not merely vindicated his own
belief, but have denied and disproved all the infe
rences his enemies have drawn ; they have, in more
than one publication, exposed such garbling, such
fraudulent misrepresentation, and sophistical perver
sion of his expressions, in the Elucidations, and other
tracts (from which alone most of his assailants derive
their notions of his works), as have not, perhaps, for
centuries, insulted the understanding, and disgusted
the feelings of all right-minded persons : they have
appealed to the virtual, not acquittal, but approval of
Dr. H.'s works, by all who left uncensured his'
preached and printed sermons, and who promoted
or acquiesced in his appointment as Public Examiner,
as Head of a House, as Professor of Moral Philosophy ;
and yet his opponents will " lose sight" of all this,
and will persist in saying that no defence is offered
of the tendency * of Dr. H.'s writings, " but merely
of his personal belief." (P. 12.) " Dr. H. must be
logician enough to know that such a defence is a
complete ignoratio elenchi." No doubt he is, and
will not fail to perceive the fallacy of that character
with which Mr. W. proceeds to entertain his readers ;
* Elucidation compared with parallel passages, and Hull's
pamphlet. r

13
though many of these, probably, are not logicians
enough to detect it, or even to perceive that Mr. W.
is not in earnest. He cites a passage from Arch
bishop Whately, containing the obvious remark, that
" when a writer is at variance with himself, it is
" usual to judge from the nature of the subject, and
" the circumstances of the case, which is likely to be
" his real persuasion, and which the one he may
" think it politically expedient or decorous to profess,"
(pp. 12, 13) ; keeping out of sight the real point to
be proved, which is, whether Dr. H. is really at
variance with himself; and quietly assuming that
he is so, and that the only defence that has been
offered is that of adducing passages from his works
which do not contain any thing heretical. " It reminds
" me of the well-known story of the trial of a negro
" in the West Indies for stealing a spade, where two
" witnesses for the prosecution having deposed that
" they saw him take it, the prisoner, with an air of
" great triumph, and of confidence of acquittal from
" superior evidence in his favour, called six witnesses
" to swear that they did not see him take it." The
sort of case which must have been really in Mr. W.'s
.mind, and which he must have meant to suggest to
that of the intelligent reader, as really parallel to the
one in hand, is such as this — two witnesses swear
that they saw the man steal a spade ; other witnesses
come forward to attest, not only that they never
knew of his committing any theft, but that, being
on the spot at the time when the offence was said to
be committed, they saw that no such thing took place ;
and, moreover, that the witnesses for the prosecution

14
attest the same thing by their silence, since they
never went before a magistrate, or before their
master, to try an information for the pretended theft,
though in the course of three years ensuing they saw
this culprit entrusted with the most confidential employ
ments ; but when he was appointed to a particular
office, which one of them would rather have had for
himself, these upright witnesses (who, by their own
showing, when they saw a thief, consented unto
him), felt themselves bound in conscience to come
forward and denounce him. Not, however, that they
even then wished him to be tried, only to be flogged
without trial, dismissed from his office, and declared
incapable of any confidential employment in future ;
otherwise the said witnesses declared that they would
never cease to persecute and molest him. Such is the
real parallel to the present case, as Mr. W. afterwards
hints, (p. 23) ; expressing, in his assumed character
of one of the false witnesses, " a wish consistently
" with our principle of submission to the prerogative
" of the crown, that Dr. Hampden be not placed in
" any situation where his office is to superintend the
" clergy, or to direct their theological education.
" And surely he would be only too glad to resign a
" post, where he must now be convinced he ought
" never to have been, his continuance in which will
" only subject him to a series of mortifications, alike
" deplored by himself and his opponents, and in
" which his exertions must be effectually checked and
" neutralized." How admirably the character of the malignants is
touched off here ! Mr. Woodgate is perfectly certain

15
from his knowledge of the men, that they will con
tinue to subject Dr. Hampden to a " series of morti
fications." He is perfectly certain that they will not
examine how the duties of the Professorship may be
performed ; whether the lectures delivered shall be
found to be orthodox or heterodox, valuable or ob
jectionable. Nothing of this will be inquired into,
but they will exert themselves to tease and annoy
with the petty malice of little minds, even though
the " annoyance" may be wholly " fruitless" as far
as the duties of the office are concerned. Every
measure will be resorted to, even though, like the
last, it may be, as Mr. Woodgate states, " in itself
unimportant." You may imagine how Mr. Woodgate
laughed when he was writing, that these men would
" deplore the series of mortifications" which he fore
saw they would hold in store for the Professor. They
would adopt them, not because they were of any use to
others, but would be a sort of penance for themselves.
But how rich it is to represent that Lord Mel
bourne is " placed in a dilemma !" His lordship, it
seems, must look out for some place in the Church
fit for a heterodox divine. If he does not transfer
the Professor to some other quarter, he must put up
with the eternal displeasure of the junta. And if he
does transfer him, he will be proclaiming that
orthodoxy is not necessary for this particular office
which is conferred on him. Then there will be, as
you may well imagine, an outcry of the very same
assailants. By the very transfer, Lord Melbourne
will have admitted the heterodoxy of the Professor ;
and by his investing him with this office in the

16
Church, whatever it may be, he will be maintaining
that dissenters of any kind may be very fitly pro
moted to that same office hereafter, inasmuch as
rectitude of opinion — conformity to the Church, will
have been already notoriously dispensed with. Poor
Lord Melbourne ! But the party feel he is the less
to be pitied because he would not have been placed
in this dilemma had he listened to their remonstrance
at an earlier stage. It is almost cruel of Mr.
Woodgate to compel the party continually to remind
the public that Lord Melbourne had listened to the
earliest representations of the University, to its un
broken representations of Dr. Hampden up to the
very moment of his nomination. " When the office
" of Regius Professor became vacant, of those who
" in public esteem were supposed to have pre-
" tensions to such an office, Dr. Hampden was de
cidedly one." (P. 5.) And what made him thus
prominent in public esteem ? Observe how cuttingly
Mr. Woodgate represents the case. It was not
merely the personal qualifications Dr. Hampden
confessedly possessed, but " the more than ordinary
share of academical distinction." Now what sud
denly changed their opinion ? Oh, they have not
changed their opinion : they always thought of
him as they do now. But because they even for a
series of years were parties to the sin of winking at
his heterodoxy, and thus allowing him to appear as
one whom the youth of the University should look
up to, and the king or his ministers should promote,
still this was no reason why they should not repent.
O no, it would be moral cowardice to screen their

17
admitted neglect or dereliction of duty by a con
tinuance in the same transgression. This is the
defence which Mr. Woodgate apparently makes,
but with great skilfulness he takes care to leave the
just interpretation of the matter upon the mind of his
readers. Dr. Hampden " advocated the admission
of dissenters" — not indeed in any manner " calcu
lated to display any particular political bias," but
still he did advocate such a measure ; and of
course his lectures and opinions were ruled not to be
orthodox. They were examined into by minds
which would have been disappointed if they could
not have discovered in them some iniquity to be
rejoiced in, — something which, by separation from
the contest, might be made to wear the air of
deviation from orthodoxy.
But Mr. Woodgate's satire is particularly poignant
when he is representing the ground upon which
Lord Melbourne should now conclude that he had
been entrapped by the former approval of the
University into thinking that Dr. Hampden was
orthodox, and that consequently his lordship should
now repent with the repentant junta. The grounds
are these : — " I trust I may at least claim from your
" lordship's candour some deference to our argu-
" ments, on the ground of the adage, Cuilibet
" credendum in sua arte." Mr. Woodgate evidently
designed that his readers should expand this into
its full meaning.— No. ' Dr. Hampden is heterodox,
because the orthodox, i. e. we, the junta, say so ; and
you must take our word for it, on the ground that
*' every one is to be trusted in matters pertaining to
B

18
his own art, or province, or professional study ;"
now we, being clergymen, and the only orthodox
clergymen, must be the sole judges of heterodoxy ;
you can know nothing about the matter, because you
are a layman ; those clergymen who differ from us
are worse judges still, because they are heretics ;
and our opinion is the standard of faith.' Q. E. D.
Nor has he given here any exaggerated imitation
of the style of Dr. Hampden's assailants. That there
exist certain passages in his writings which, picked
out from the context, and properly dressed up and
arranged, may be represented as at variance with the
doctrines of the Established Church, is very true ;
and the same is notoriously true of the Scriptures,
from which passages have been selected which the
adversaries of our Church professed to think were at
variance with her doctrines. But Dr. Hampden's
assailants insist that the interpretation they give
must be the right, because they and they alone are
worthy of credit : " cuilibet credendum," &c. Their
assertion evidently is (though they talk of appealing
to Scripture), that the " Bible is one great parable,"
that the Church is to fix the sense of Scripture, and
that they are to decide what is the sense of the
Church, and pronounce on each writer's agreement
or disagreement. In short, "They are the men, and
wisdom must die with them, except so far as pos
terity may approve their sayings."
Well, Lord Melbourne will reply, at least let us
have no more petitions on political matters, for
these are our province ; and on your own principle
you should entrust them unhesitatingly to our

19
management, cuilibet credendum est. And his lord
ship may add, that he has a right to expect this
from them, for he has himself obeyed the principle-
He did not judge for himself of Dr. Hampden's
orthodoxy ; 1st. Inasmuch as his attention had been
necessarily attracted to him by the highest acade
mical distinctions which the University had conferred
on him, and especially by its having appointed him
Bampton Lecturer ; and 2dly, inasmuch as he had
inquired his character from clergymen of the highest
attainments, who had answered these inquiries by
the strongest assurances of his fitness. O, but
these clergymen were not themselves orthodox.
What, not Bishop Copleston ! Why, yes ; we cannot
gainsay that, but then he could not have read
Dr. Hampden's writings, or he would not have
made such a statement. Well, I must either believe
that he was careless and dishonest, or that you are
not the best judges possible of orthodoxy. And
I rather suspect this latter must be the case ; for not
to allude to the approbation of your writings, which
the pope has lately expressed, I think I saw an
admission in the British Critic, that some of you had
been somewhat imprudent in your acknowledgment
of papistical principles. Suppose we have this
matter examined into by a committee of divines,
or by the tribunal which the University has con
stituted for the discharge of this very function.
This is the fair course of proceeding —
" Cum in amicorum vitiis tarn cernis acutum,
 . tibi contra
Evenit, inquirant vitia ut tua rursus et illi."
B 2

20
Why Lord Melbourne, or the public generally,
should trust their representations concerning the
orthodoxy of any one, till their own orthodoxy has
been thus determined, it would be difficult to say.
His lordship is doubtless awrare that the cry of hete
rodoxy has not been unfrequently raised on occasion
when there was nothing but ignorance and impu
dence to support it. Have any of the Pharisees
believed ? But this people, who know not the law,
are cursed. We now know that those who raised
this cry were not only heterodox themselves, but
palpably and intentionally dishonest. But I am not
proving what you and all reasonable men must admit
to be true ; my only object is to decipher for you
.the meaning of Mr. Woodgate's pamphlet ; and
what I wish you to remark is, that he manifestly de
signed to raise this train of thought in the mind of
the public. By making the junta say exactly what
was said by the Roman Catholic priesthood, at the
period of the Reformation (namely, laymen must
adopt the opinions of the Church — our opinions — for,
cuilibet, &c.) he would plainly caution his readers
not to give implicit credence to such statements. He
would remind them, that the Romish priests also
denounced all tendency to reason on the claims of
the Church as " the fatal spirit of rationalism."
But Mr. Woodgate has not been satisfied with
merely insinuating the irrationality of the junta, by
leading his readers to remember how similar their
language and proceedings are to those of the
Judaisers and Romanists of former times ; — he has
stated their principles perspicuously; he has so

21
condensed their absurdities as to render them
evident, even to that large class of readers whose
judgments are blunted by a mass of words. Ob
serve how well this is done in page 19. The
Articles are not " to be regarded as mere de
ductions of human reason," but as truths which
are to be held, first, " because the Church, in
every age, has never ceased to hold them;" and
secondly, because they may be proved by holy
Scripture ; i. e. they are to be proved, but not
deduced — they are to be held, but not by human
reason ; — " because the Church has never ceased to
hold them," and yet not on this ground, because
" the holy Scriptures are the only ultimate standard
and rule of faith." AW this was spread over a wide
surface in the pamphlets of the Oxford papists, and
thus had a chance of escaping detection. But
they have no right to complain of the friendly hand
which has compressed their own sentiments ; — if
they are in opposition to the very Articles of our
Church, he cannot help that, for he has simply and
truly stated what they maintain.
And that they are in opposition to the Articles —
diametrically in opposition — has been fully made
out by Mr. Woodgate. Compare their language
with that, for instance, of the 21st Article, which
states, that because general councils (or the Church)
may err, and sometimes have erred, " therefore
things ordained by them as necessary to salvation
' have neither strength nor authority, unless it may
' be declared that they be taken out of holy Scrip-
' ture." They are to be taken out of holy Scripture,

<<

22
saith the Article; they are not to be regarded as
taken out — as drawn out — as deductions — saith the
party. Will they now specially plead upon any
difference in the meaning of the words " taken out "
and "deductions?" This 21st is in truth a most
perverse article ; it must have been foisted into the
principles of our Church by the "fatal spirit of
rationalism;" for what sober mind, duly worshipping
antiquity, could have been imprudent enough to
admit, that " general councils may err, and have
erred." Though this may be true, what was the use
of saying it ? — for it only serves to caution mankind
against antiquity, and to encourage them into that
most baneful practice of investigating religious truth,
each for himself, instead of quietly reposing on
Church authority. Again, observe how our 8th
Article offends by omission : — " The Creeds are to
be thoroughly received and believed." Why so? —
" Because," saith the party, " the Church has never
ceased to hold them." It was very censurable in
our Reformers, that they should not only have
omitted this reason, but that they should actually
proceed to place the Creeds on a foundation which
may greatly interfere with the Oxford maxim, — they
are to be received, because " they may be proved
by most certain warrants of holy Scripture." By
whom, then, are the Creeds to be received? — by those
plainly, who, like Dr. Hampden, conceive that they
are capable of the proof referred to. But suppose a
man is persuaded, on deliberate examination, that
the Creeds and Articles are not in conformity with
Scripture, is he to believe them ? — O, yes ; " because

23
the Church has never ceased to hold them," and
therefore they must be in conformity with Scripture,
though he is perverse enough not to see it. Why,
then, speak of the Scriptures at all? Why not
plainly say, You must believe what the Church
believes? we are the Church, and therefore you
must believe whatever we believe. Oh ! we do not
say this exactly ; our meaning is, that " though
" nothing is to be believed as an article of faith which
" could not be read in holy Scriptures, or be proved
" thereby ; still we, with our Reformers, make it an
" essential point that its general grounds of preten-
" sion to acceptance is that the Church of Christ
" had always held it." (P. 19.) It is not the par
ticular ground, but it is the general ground. Will
the party ever forgive Mr. Woodgate for this sly
exposure of their nonsense 1 — for making it plain to
all men that they refer to the Scriptures for mere
decency sake ; while they have a general ground in
reserve, which is in reality to supersede them.
Suppose, again, that any one conceives that a
particular Article of the Established Church was not
always held by the Church, and is not capable of
being proved by Scripture, is he to maintain this
Article ? He cannot certainly maintain it, the party
are forced to say ; but it must be declared, in
mercy to his soul, that he will be condemned to
everlasting punishment. This statement, which
nothing but impudence can teach, or folly believe,
has not been implicitly received by Dr. Hampden,
and therefore he is unfit to be a Professor of
Dogmatic Theology. Here is the grand difference

24
between Dr. Hampden and his opponents ; for they
do not question his personal faith ; but they censure
" the opinion he entertains on the subject of doc-
" trines as such; their origin, their nature, their
" object, their relative importance." (P. 15.) He
has no " moral defect or disbelief;" but the main
ground of his unfitness for his office, in which his
duty is to teach and enforce the Articles, is, that he
" does not see their necessity or their value in
others." He will not enforce them, in short, by
declaring his conviction that those who differ from
him will assuredly be damned. " His very errors
arise from a benevolent spirit of charity." Re
membering that our blessed Saviour, when he was
arguing with men under an error which nearly
destroyed religion, contented himself with saying,
" Ye do err ;" so he, conscious of his own fallibility,
would confine his assertions with regard to others
within that which our infallible Master adopted, and
would modestly say of them, " I think ye do err."
This is the sum and substance of their charges
against him, as is well understood and put forward
by Mr. Woodgate. He will not frighten his pupils
into a retention of propositions, by declaring to them
that all who reject them are, in his opinion, damned ;
but he will encourage them to examine for them
selves, to compare the statements of their Church
with the holy Scriptures, and to remain members
of it, or depart from it, according to their conscien
tious convictions. Which shows most confidence
in the truth of the Articles, those who invite all to
compare them with the ultimate standard of faith,

25
or those who would shut up such an inquiry, and
mob down all who would venture on it? Do those
arrogant asserters of their own orthodoxy believe in
religion at all ? If they do, it is not in that religion
which prohibits our calling any man, or set of men,
Rabbi. Have they ever paused to consider what
is involved in everlasting punishment ? I trow not.
Though I have said more than enough to convince
you of the character of Mr. Woodgate's pamphlet,
yet I cannot pass over a part of his pamphlet which
I am sure must have excited his own merriment
while he was writing it. His spirit of fun peeps
forth rather too openly from under the mask of
friendship, when he is pretending to defend the
loyalty of the Malignants. They have really always
shown a delicacy and respect " towards the Crown
and its official advisers," whatever their " enemies
may say" to the contrary. They may object to
them, it is true, that they have not even attempted
to restrain " the clamour of thoughtless youth in
the gallery of the theatre, when that clamour was
directed against the Crown and its official advisers."
It may be added, that the same " thoughtless" youth
have been encouraged and canvassed to join in pro
ceedings of censure against an appointment made
by the Crown. The enemies of the University may
harp on these things ; but the junta have equally
evinced their modesty and loyalty, for they have
" passed no formal act of censure on the exercise of
the royal prerogative," as they might plainly have
done ; they have not withdrawn the royal preroga
tive : the king shall still be allowed to appoint any

26
one whom they approve of. Nor have they " adopted
the pernicious practice of carrying their complaints
to the legislature." No ! they have merely substi
tuted themselves and their own authority for that
of the legislature, and of the tribunal appointed
by the statutes of the University, for the deter
mining of questions of heterodoxy. And whatever
may be thought of their own practice, yet that they
have instructed others properly must be admitted from
the circumstance that " the spirit of their system,
" which inculcates obedience to the majesty of
" the law, has sealed the lips of those numerous
" members in either house, who have imbibed their
" tone of mind and thought, and whose zeal in
" defence of their University is only equalled by their
" discretion and sound constitutional principle in the
" exercise of it,"-*-" Neither from our noble Chan-
" cellor (who escaped their instruction) in the one
" House of Parliament, nor our representatives in
" the other, has one syllable hitherto escaped on the
" subject" This is the cruellest cut of all. If
silence ©f their parliamentary friends has showed
discretion and sound constitutional " principle,"
what has the clamour of the junta evinced ? The
truth is, they dread the mention of the subject in
Parliament ; — they have not urged their friends to
bring it forward ; they would deprecate a grave
discussion of their conduct : and Mr. Woodgate
slyly commends them for their prudence.
Be assured that this pamphlet of Mr. Woodgate's
will be felt more strongly by the party than any
publication which has yet appeared against them, not

27
excepting even the Rev. Mr. Grinfield's, which I
have just seen. They will preserve silence as long
as they have any reason to think that his irony
remains unperceived ; but when his mask has been
seen through, Dr. Pusey will rush forward, and
accuse him, as he has accused the author of the
Pope's Pastoral, of using ridicule on a subject of
religion. I need not say to you that the charge
is groundless in both cases. The ridicule is in
neither pamphlet directed against any religious
opinions, but against persons who maintain popery
while they profess membership with the Church of
England ; against persons who assume, in an espe
cial manner, to represent and support their Univer
sity, while they are doing all that in them lies to
bring it under suspicion and disrespect.
I have mentioned to you that I have read over
Mr. Grinfield's pamphlet. I should have been more
amused by it if I had not been prepared for it
in some degree by having heard him preach. It
seems that he pointed out long since the heterodoxy
of Dr. Hampden, and of the school to which he
thinks that the Professor belongs. But Messrs.
the Corpus Committee would not attend to his
warning; and now he turns round on them, and
tells them he will defend Dr. Hampden, and must
censure them, because they would not formerly join
him when he was ready for the combat. Now
they shall not have his support ; his vote, if not
his verdict, shall be given in favour of the Pro
fessor. Having been deserted by them in his
utmost need, they may now in vain supplicate him

28
to be fed by his bounty ; not that he loves Dr.
Hampden or his friends more, but that he loves
them less. His hand shall be now against every
man, for every man's hand has been against him.
He warned them against the Oriel school, more
especially against Bishop Copleston and Arch
bishop Whately ; they were heedless of his warning,
and they are now reaping the fruits of their own
heedlessness. Thus he has made it evident (this, indeed, is
the chief merit of his publication,) that one secret
motive, both in the attacks against Dr. Hampden,
and in some of the defences, is a jealousy of what
he terms the Oriel school. I have heard something
of this before, but I cannot well understand it.
Oriel has sent forward many eminent men, it
is true, but they seem to me to agree in little
beyond the fact that they were members of Oriel
College. Some of the Malignants are members
of it also ; but the reputation of that College will
be supported, notwithstanding, during the lifetime,
at least, of Bishop Copleston and Archbishop
Whately. I can imagine how deeply both these
prelates feel, on the present occasion, for the honour
of their University. Bishop Copleston, however,
may rest assured that the public will trust to his
judgment and honesty when he recommended Dr.
Hampden, more than to the judgment and honesty
of those who have formed a conspiracy to censure
his recommendation ; and Archbishop Whately, if
I mistake not the character of his mind, will con
tinue to pursue the paths of truth, without deviating

29
from them for the sake of obtaining applause, or
of avoiding obloquy. Mr. Grinfield may write
against him, but he will have always to remind
the public of this, as he has done in his late
pamphlet, for otherwise the fact will have been
forgotten. It is not unamusing to observe Mr.
Grinfield seizing the present opportunity of adver
tising the public, that he once wrote and published
some pages against this distinguished writer. It
would have been indeed some ground of fame if
he could have stated also that the Archbishop had
thought his observations worthy of a reply ; but as
far as I know, the Archbishop has been provokingly
silent, and I am sure his writings have continued
to be provokingly influential. It were much to be
wished that he should, in his own luminous and
impartial manner, come forward on the present
occasion and assist the public in forming a just
opinion, of the controversy and clamour which has
been raised against Dr. Hampden. Mr. Woodgate,
however, has done good service in the cause. If
he has not written the article in the Edinburgh
Review (which I believe, however, he has not
disclaimed), the writer of that article must hide his
diminished head, and admit that Mr. Woodgate
has beaten him hollow in sarcastic severity.
I am, &c.

LATELY PUBLISHED,
BY B. FELLOWES, LUDGATE STREET.

I.
A LETTER to his Grace the ARCHBISHOP of CANTER
BURY, explanatory of the Proceedings at Oxford, &c.
Third Edition, with a Letter to the Corpus Committee, by
JORTON REDIVIVUS. 1*. II.
STATEMENTS OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, extracted
from the published writings of R. D. Hampden, D.D. Regius
Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford. Third
Edition. Is. III.
INAUGURAL LECTURE, read before the University of
Oxford, in the Divinity School, by R. D. Hampden, D.D.
Regius Professor of Divinity. Third Edition. Is.
IV.
SPECIMENS OF THE THEOLOGICAL TEACHING
of Certain Members of the Corpus Committee at Oxford. 1*.
V.
PASTORAL EPISTLE, from his Holiness the Pope, to
some Members of the University of Oxford. Third
Edition. 1*. VI.
REMARKS intended to show how far Dr. Hampden may
have been misunderstood and misrepresented during
the present Controversy at Oxford. By William
Winstanley Hull, M.A. of Lincoln's-Inn, Barrister-at-
law, late Fellow of Brasenose College. Is.

Lately published, by B. Fellowes, Ludgate Street.
VII.
The PROPOSITIONS ATTRIBUTED to DR. HAMP
DEN, by PROFESSOR PUSEY, compared with the Text
of the Bampton Lectures, in a Series of Parallels. By
a Resident Member of Convocation. Is.
VIII. ,;
REMARKS on a LETTER from the Rev. H. A. WOOD-
GATE to VISCOUNT MELBOURNE, relative to the AP
POINTMENT of DR. HAMPDEN. By the Rev. Baden
Powell,M.A. F.R.S. of Oriel College, Savilian Professor of
Geometry in the University of Oxford. Is.
IX.
REMARKS on the HAMPDEN CONTROVERSY,
addressed principally to Members of Convocation, by Robert
French Laurence, M.A. Vicar of Charlgrove. Is.
X.
REFLECTIONS after a VISIT to the UNIVERSITY of
OXFORD, on occasion of the late Proceedings against the
Regius Professor of Divinity. By E. W. Grinfield,
M.A. 6d. XI.
The OXFORD PERSECUTION of 1836. Extracts from
the Public Journals in Defence of the present Regius Professor
of Divinity, and his appointment to that Chair ; and in condem
nation of the Proceedings at Oxford, subsequent to that
appointment.

H. CLAY, PRINTER, BREAD-STREET- HI LL.

/