ncfc

L3

6

INQUIRY INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCES
attendant upon the
CONDEMNATION OF DR. HAMPDEN
IN 183G,
IN SIX LETTERS,
ORIGINALLY ADDRESSED TO THE EDITOR OF THE
" OXFORD UNIVERSITY HERALD,"
AND NOW RErRINTKD,
WITH SOME PREFATORY REMARKS
ON THE
" REPROOF OF IGNORANCE AND CALUMNY;'
PUT FOBTH IN DEFENCE OF
THE CORPUS COMMITTEE.

I1V THE
REV. ROBERT FRENCH LAURENCE, M.A.
VICAR OF CHALGROVE, OXFORDSHIRE, AND LATE
STUDENT OF CHHIST CHURCH.

OXFORD :
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY J. VINCENT.
A.M) B. FELLOWKS. LONDON.

1848.

CONTENTS.

PREFACE.
LETTER 1. — The Censure, of 1836, not irreversible ; and therefor" not
necessarily to be regarded as a Precedent . p. 3
LETTER II. — Special reasons for looking upon the Censure nf 1836 as
a nullity, arising out of irregularities upon the part of
the accusers of Dr. Hampden, before, and at the time of
the enactment of the Statute of May 5. . p. 10
LETTER III. — Special reasons for looking upon the Censure of 1836 as
a nullity, arising out of tlie conduct of the accusers of
Dr. Hampden, subsequently to the enactment of the
Statute of May 5. . . . p. 21
LETTER IV. — Continuation of the argument commenced in the last
Letter. . . . . p. 29
LETTER V. — Conclusion of tlie argument taken up in the last two Let
ters. Strange oversight in Mr. Vaughan Thomas's
Preface to tlie Collection of " Tracts upon Conse
quences." . ¦ • • p. 38
LETTER VI. — Real origin of the Statute of May 5. — Conclusion, p. 48
APPENDIX.

PREFACE.

The letters, which are now offered in a connected form to the
perusal of the Public, were originally addressed to the " Ox
ford University Herald," and were called forth by the attempt
of Mr. Perceval to incite the Town Council of Oxford, and
perhaps similar bodies throughout the country, to enter upon
a sort of politico-theological crusade against the elevation of
Dr. Hampden to the Bishopric of Hereford, upon the plea that
that distinguished individual was labouring under the censure
of the University of Oxford, acting under the authority of the
Crown, and therefore entirely unfit to be elevated to that
dignity. The honourable and reverend gentleman had, undoubtedly,
a right to oppose the promotion of Dr. Hampden, if he thought
that any mischief would arise from his elevation to the Epis
copate ; and was at perfect liberty to take any course that
was likely to forward his object, so long as it did not violate
those principles of justice, which it is the pride of Englishmen
to promote. And certainly, if he had not attempted to
strengthen his hands in the extraordinary manner he did, I

VI PREFACE.
should not have been disposed to have found fault with him ;
for although I am satisfied that there is no true ground for an
unfavourable view of Dr. Hampden's theology, and that there
never has been any, I am not one of those who would censure
others for the expression of adverse opinions, so long as they
confine themselves within the limits of justice and moderation.
Until the time shall come when differences of opinion shall no
longer exist, we must expect that contentions will arise, and
can hardly blame those that enter upon them with the simple
desire of upholding the truth ; but we cannot allow unfair means
to be adopted, with a view to the attainment of pre-eminence,
without entering a protest against that course, unless we would
become participators in the crime. It is the duty, as well as
the interest of every member of society, to expose injustice,
wherever he finds it ; and, in the present instance, I have but
endeavoured to shew that I am not unmindful of that truth.
For the attempt of Mr. Perceval was to deprive Dr. Hamp
den of the right of being heard, by the allegation of a pre
tended previous judgment, and to found upon it pains and
penalties of the most serious nature ; and this without so
much as the production of one single argument to shew that
the judgment was either properly obtained, or if it were so,
was necessarily irreversible.3
The two letters, which will be now given, will shew the
exact nature of the attempt to which I allude. The first is
from the Honourable and Reverend A. P. Perceval, one of her
Majesty's Chaplains in Ordinary, to the Mayor of Oxford ;
the second is from the Right Worshipful the Mayor to him :
and I am sorry, for the credit of the Church, that I am obliged
* It does not appear that Mr. Perceval could do anything more than put
forth the censure of 1836, as he has subsequently avowed that the opinions he
has expressed are totally irrespective of the merits of the case, and confined
solely to the fact that Dr. Hampden has been censured. His words are,
"And all this is said, wholly irrespective of the consideration whether the
harges of heterodoxy advanced against Dr. Hampden are incorrect or made
ood, of which I know nothing, having never to my knowledge read a line of his
writing." Note to Letter to ehe Primates of Britain, on Mr. Newman's re
ported mission from Rome to Britain, published in " John Bull, -"Jan uary 8 1 848.

PREFACE. yj'
to add, that the few lines ofthe latter shew much more sense
than the many of the former, notwithstanding the many ad
vantages possessed by Mr. Perceval :
To the Mayor of Oxford.
St. James's Place, Nov. 27, 1847.
Sia, — I request you to strengthen my hands, who am endeavouring to relieve
the Queen and Her Ministers from embarrassment, by presenting from your
body a memorial to the Queen, embracing the whole or such portions of the
matter set forth in the accompanying paper, or of the nature of the same, as
shall seem to your judgment most expedient. I request the courtesy of an
answer to this application.
I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient Servant,
Arthur Pekceval.
To the Mayor of Oxford.
On (he Recommendation of Dr. Hampden to be elevated lo the Episcopate.
It is respectfully submitted to the consideration of all her Majesty's faithful
subjects in Church and State : —
1. That for the advisers of the Crown to commend for special favour and ap.
pointment to Offices of Trust, persons under censure, unrevoked from any con
stituted body within the Queen's dominions, acting under authority from the
Crown, is a course highly unconstitutional and dangerous, injurious alike to the
Majesty of the Crown and the well-being of the people, as tending directly to
the encouragement of evil-doers, and to the weakening and subversion of legi
timate and constituted authority.
2. That, seeing that Dr. R. D. Hampden is at the present time under censure
unrevoked from the University of Oxford, acting under authority from tho
Crown, the recommendation of the said Dr. R. D. Hampden, by the Queen's
advisers, for appointment to the Episcopate, would fall under the just censure
above set forth.
It is, therefore, submitted further, to all the Queen's subjects, that they will
render faithful service to the Crown and Constitution of the Realm, both in
Church and State, if they will unite in sending up memorials to the Throne,
imploring the Queen, that iu the event of her present advisers presuming to
tender such advice to her Majesty, she will decline to accede to the same.
Or, in the event of her Royal promise having been obtained before her eyes
were awakened to the reality of the case, that she would be graciously pleased
to signify to the Dean and Chapter of the Cathedral Church to whom the conge
d'elire shall issue, and to the Archbishops and Bishops of the Province in which
such Cathedral Church may be situated, that they are free to discharge their
own conscientious responsibility in the matters of Election, Confirmation, and
Consecration, without fear of any penalties being put in force against them by
a,ny ancient statute originally framed for the exclusion of Popery, but at the
same time in danger of being perverted into an instrument for the compulsory
intrusion of heterodoxy

Vlll PREFACE.
So will her Majesty strengthen the hearts and hands of all her faithful and
loyal subjects in the quiet aud conscientious discharge of the duties of their
several callings, without fear lest the very discharge of these should exclude
them from the Royal favour, while they should see that favour conferred upon
others, who, by sentence of legitimate authority, stand convicted of a dereliction
of duty. Arthur P. Perceval, B.C.L.
Chaplain in Ordinary.
St. James's Place, Nov. 26, 1847-

The Mayor of Oxford to Mr. Perceval of All Souls CoUege.
Reverend Sir, — I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter
of the 27th ult., addressed to me in my capacity of Mayor of Oxford, and to in
form you in reply, that I must decline complying with your appeal, considering
that a Town Council is not the body best adapted to arbitrate in theological
matters. I must, however, add that Dr. Hampden's manner of life and teaching in
this place, has been such as to secure for him general respect and affection, and
that it is very improbable that the Town Council of Oxford, if appealed to, would
comply with your suggestion. I have the honour to remain, Reverend Sir,
Your obedient humble Servant, R. C. Godfrey,
Dec. 2, 1847. Mayor of Oxford,
To the Rev. A. P. Perceval, &c, &c, &c.
It may be thought that it was entirely unnecessary to
notice the argument of Mr. Perceval, when the petition he
had forwarded to the Mayor had been rejected : that it was
only to slay the slain ; but the same argument was used by
others, as well as Mr. Perceval, in the University, City, and
County of Oxford, and indeed throughout the whole land ;
and there is good reason to believe that it was used, not from
any attachment to the learned body whose judgment was
paraded before the Public, but from the simple idea that it
would preclude discussion, and best secure the attainment of
the end at which the agitators aimed. I myself, but a short
time previously, had been present at a meeting of clergy, in
which the question of the fitness of the appointment was
mooted, and the only argument put forward against it was
the censure of 1836 ; and when I urged upon the gentleman
who introduced the subject, that I was satisfied that Dr.

PREFACE. IX
Hampden's writings had, to say the least, been grievously
misapprehended at that time, I was reminded that the deci
sion had already been made, and that it was too late to go
into that subject. The Rural Dean, however, suggested that
the conversation had better be dropped, and no more was
said, the meeting separating without coming to any resolu
tion upon the matter. I afterwards found that the particular
argument, relied on upon this occasion, was very generally
put forth, and when it got into the public prints, I thought
it was high time that it should be answered. The " Univer
sity Herald" had published Mr. Perceval's application to the
Mayor, and the use of its columns was placed at my disposal ;
and I thereupon wrote the letters, which will be placed before
the reader in the following pages.0
I am well aware that there are some, who will think that
I should have done more service than I have to the cause I
had in hand, if I had proved that there was no evil in the
publications of Dr. Hampden, instead of confining myself to
the line of argument I have taken ; especially as there is
something of the appearance of invidiousness in attacking
men, who have professed all along unbounded respect to the
person and character of Dr. Hampden, although, upon public
grounds, they have assailed his writings. But it must be
remembered that these very persons had put such a course
altogether out of my power. If I had gone into any one of
the many subjects upon which he is said to have expressed
himself in an objectionable manner, I should have been
again stopped by the production of the statute of May 5,
and told that those were subjects into which it was indecent to
enter ; that it was due to the character of a University which
has been rightly spoken of as " one of the most eminent and
venerated bodies, not only in England, but in Europe,"" that
b These letters wore published under the head of " Jlr. Perceval and the
Town Council," and appeared ou tho 11th, 18th, and 24th of December, 1847,
and on the 1st, 15th, and 22d of January, 1848. Mr. Perceval's letter ap
peared on the 4th of December.
c The Bishop of Exeter's Letter to Lord John Russell.

X PREFACE.
it should be presumed to have come to its decision in the case!
of Dr. Hampden upon proper grounds, and that, whatever
might be my opinion, and however sound the arguments I
might adduce, the opinion of such a body must have the
preference, unless I had any thing to allege against the cor
rectness of its proceedings. I should have been stopped at
the threshold: I should not have been allowed to pass on. I
betook myself therefore to the only line of argument that was
open to me, and which has always been considered legitimate
in analogous cases, and addressed myself to the proof of the
irregularity of the proceedings of the accusers of Dr.
Hampden, and to the examination of the circumstances
attendant upon his condemnation.
It was open to a person in my situation to examine
the evidence and see how far the decision of the case was
compatible with it, or to inquire into the conduct of the
case by the accusers of the Regius Professor, and through
that inquiry to arrive at a solution of the question of the cre
dibility or incredibility of that case. I could not, however, go
into the evidence which may be supposed to have been brought
forward in Convocation, and examine its bearing upon the
decision ; for no evidence was heard, or even offered to the
House. I could, alone, argue, from facts that are within
the knowledge of all, as to the righteousness or unrighteous
ness of the proceedings : and that is what I determined to do
in answer to the opponents of Dr. Hampden. And I can
only add, that, in any case in which I might have been con
cerned, if eleven years afterwards I could not defend the
part I had taken better than the gentlemen, of whom I
have presumed to speak, I should have preferred that my
former proceedings should be buried in oblivion rather than
ostentatiously put forth, as the ground, and the only ground,
for withholding rights from another.
It has been urged, indeed, that those who like myself have
ventured to denounce the proceedings of 1836, and are or
have been members of the University, are wanting in respect
to that venerable body with which they are or have been

PREFACE. XI
connected ;d and I almost fancy that I can hear the clapping
of hands that must have followed a reproof of our contumacy
so very cheering to the drooping spirits of the faction who
have opposed Dr. Hampden. But, not only may I remark,
that no decision is worth maintaining which is not founded in
truth, and that there is no disrespect to the University in
desiring that it should be celebrated for justice as well as for
learning, but I must be allowed to add that it is rather too
late in the day for Mr. Cameron and his friends to resort to
arguments of such a nature, as we have, for four years and
upwards, been accustomed to hear of the injustice of Univer
sity Courts, from their own mouths. Ever since the condem
nation of Dr. Pusey in 1843, we have been indulged with no
very measured invective, and that not merely against the
" mixed multitude" of our Convocation, but against the
d The following is from a letter by the Rev. C. R. Cameron, published in the
" Oxford Herald" of December 24 : —
" A vote of Convocation is the legal, authorised, and customary expression
of the opinions of the University, and must be regarded as the solemn and
authoritative declaration of its judgment and will, and, as such, binding upon
all its members — just as a law enacted by a majority of votes in Parliament
is binding upon the whole realm. And individual Members of Convocation are
bound by honour and duty, not indeed to change their opinions, but to submit
their own will and judgment to that of the University ; or to seek a change in
that, if they think it ought to be changed, by legitimate methods. But what
do we now see ? — Members of the University under the influence of party-
spirit, uniting to cry down its authority — proclaiming its most solemn acts to
be a solemn mockery — labouring to render some of its highest powers a mere
nullity and to prove that its praise and its censure are both utterly value
less, vox el prater ca nihil. If her own children show so little reverence, so
little regard for the honour of their venerable Alma Mater, what if Ministers
of State treat her with utter contempt, and dare to designate the legitimate
exercise of one of her most important prerogatives as " unworthy proceed
ings," "originating in misapprehension, and fomented by prejudice ?" Has
the University yet to learn, that " a house divided against itself cannot
stand?" Will she blindly rush forwards in the fatal course on which she
has entered, and by the unseemly, unmanly, suicidal quarrels into which she
is now plunging, sacrifice some of her most important privileges, dispel the
magic of hor once illustrious name, ronder herself a laughing-stock to her
enemies, and paralyze what was once regarded as the right hand of our now
bcleaguored and defenceless Church ?"

Xii PREFACE.
Vice-Chancellor of that day, and those who sat with him in
judgment upon Dr. Pusey's sermon, though every one of them
was known, and therefore could be pointed at, if he did
wrong ; every one had a station in the University which it
was important he should not disgrace, and therefore was likely
to be cautious ; every one was, in point of age, character,
and learning, just what a judge should be, to be respected.
But farther, I will say, that it is no fault of ours that we have
spoken out upon the present occasion, although we have very
commonly talked of the nullity of the censure, and some of
us have said something more, perhaps, of an unpleasant
nature. For we acted only on the defensive in doing so : we
committed no aggression whatever. It was the earnest zeal,
if men like to call it so, the malignity or the spleen of our
opponents, which first brought up the vote of 1836 : we did
but comment on their subject. If we hunted the game, they
started it ; and if the meet was larger, and the field fuller,
than they expected, and their fences suffered in consequence,
they should not have hallooed us on so lustily. At all events,
let me entreat them not to begin to throw stones, until they
have barricaded their windows, or they may possibly have
something else to complain of than the gaps in their hedges.
But it is said that the proceedings of 1836 are not un
worthy of the character that, down to that time, had been
enjoyed by the University of Oxford, and that this is to be
proved by the encomiums passed upon the conduct of the
committee, who had been employed in getting up the move
ment, "and who," it is said, "as being the most prominent in
the contest, received the formal thanks of bodies of clergy
throughout England, too numerous to mention ;"° a poor tes
timonial under common circumstances, and worse than poor
in the present instance. For it will be seen in the letters ap
pended, that about three hundred non-resident members of
convocation came up in the month of March, when the cen
sure was first proposed, and, upon being disappointed in their
8 The Bishop of Exeter's Letter to Lord John Russell,

PREFACE. Xlll
object, tied themselves down to forward the agitation ; and it
was hardly to be thought that they would be altogether inac
tive on their return ; and besides this, we all know, how liable
men are to praise themselves : many addresses were, there
fore, to be expected. If they had been more in number than
they really were, their testimony would have amounted to
nothing. But even our adversaries will not allow us to be deceived
upon this point : they are, by accident, honest. To refute the
charge that has been brought against them, they have actu
ally published the addresses.f And how many does the reader
think he will find of them ? Just seven. I suppose that we
are to look upon this number as the type of perfection, as in
the time of the Jews ; but whether or not this be meant,
there are no more — they are seven only. They come from the
following quarters: — The clergy of the Deanery of Furness,
in the Diocese of Chester, — The Dean of Ripon and the clergy
of the neighbourhood, — Archdeacon Croft in behalf of the
Diocese of Canterbury, — the clergy of the Diocese of Roches
ter, and of the Peculiars Therein, — the Archdeacon and the
clergy of the Archdeaconry of Exeter, — the clergy of the
Deanery of Stockton-upon-Tees, in the Diocese of Durham, —
and the Clergy resident in the Deanery of the Isle of Wight,
and Diocese of Winchester. We are not favoured with the
number of the signatures, or allowed to form any calculation
of the refusals to sign : perhaps it was not desired, that it
should be thought, that the inferior clergy had any right to
be independent ; and we know, that a high authority5 upon
such matters has said, that " he must be a bold man, or a well-
informed one, that would venture to refuse or withhold his
name upon application :" but let it be supposed that all the
' " The Reproof of Ignorance and Calumny, being a re-print of the Addresses
of large bodies of the clergy, to those Members of Convocation who met in the
Common Room of Corpus Christi College during the controversy of 1836, with
the answers to tho same." Oxford: John Henry Parker; and 317, Strand,
London. 1848. is The Bishop of London.

Xiv PREFACE.
signatures were there that could, by the very broadest con
struction that can be put upon the titles of the respective
addresses, be expected to be ; and we shall have no very great
proportion of the Church of England, and but a miserable
minority indeed of the Church universal, though we are told
in the Rochester address, and Mr. Vaughan Thomas's reply
to it, that the cause, in which he and the Committee were
engaged, was " the cause of the whole Christian Church."
Let us confine ourselves to the clergy of England, Wales,
and the Isle of Man. Allowing, then, Archdeacon Croft to be
the Diocese of Canterbury, and the fullest construction to be
put upon the addresses from the other quarters, we have,
within the limits that have been mentioned, two whole
dioceses, including two Archdeacons and two Deans, — one
Archdeacon, out of four in the Diocese of Exeter, and the
clergy of his Archdeaconry, — one more Dean, and the clergy of
his neighbourhood, — and the clergy of three rural deaneries, not
included in any of the other divisions. But what proportion
do these bodies and dignitaries bear to the aggregate number
of each within the limits prescribed ? are they such as to pro
duce the desired effect or not ! Let us see. We have two
dioceses out of twenty-seven ; three Deans out of thirty-four,
including the Deans of seven collegiate churches ; three
Archdeacons out of sixty-one, not including St. Asaph, the
Archdeaconry of which was then annexed to the Bishopric of
that See, and that of Llandaff, which was held by the Bishop
or the Dean (I am not sure which) ; and three rural deaneries
out of the three hundred and sixty-eight which remain, after we
have taken out those already accounted for ; a body of clergy,
which can hardly be said to represent the Church, but in the
most infinitesimal degree.
Then there are other circumstances upon which to remark,
besides the poverty of the numbers connected with these
addresses, even when construed in the most liberal way. The
address from the Deanery of Furness is the only one which
was drawn up previously to the submission of the statute to
Convocation on the 22d of March. It bears date March 10.

PREFACE. XV
The next two were written, when the three hundred non-resi
dents had returned home disappointed. They bear date
March 30, and April 22. The next two were written just
when they had gained their end. They were dated May 10,
and 13; and the remaining two were not written until June 8.
That which was written before the 22d of March, and the two
that were written, when some little interval had transpired
after the consummation of the plot, may be supposed to have
proceeded from an impression that there was something to
condemn : the others can hardly be looked upon as worthy of
any attention. For my own part, had I been on the com
mittee, instead of amongst its opponents, I would rather have
had none of these addresses at all; or, if I had been obliged
to receive any, I should have rejoiced in the absence of tliose,
that appear to be connected with the mere hopes and fears of
men, who had pledged themselves to condemn Dr. Hampden,
without giving him the opportunity of defence. But let the
Co hmittee have the benefit of them all : if they can derive
any assistance from them, I would not, by any means, deprive
them of it : they want it bad enough, we all know. But what
assistance can they derive from documents like these ? what
good will they do them ? Panegyric is all very well, when we
can connect it with our exertions ; but worse than useless, if
we can not. Bugeaud's defeats in Algeria were not less
defeats because the despatches spoke of them as victories ;
and Mr. Vaughan Thomas and his associates, in the campaign
of persecution at Oxford, have no right to take credit for what
they have never achieved. The encomiums of the Addresses
may do very well for the " marines :" they will have no effect
upon old soldiers.
I have no doubt this will be set down as so much " igno
rance and calumny," by the august body to which I am
alluding ; but we will run over the contents of these docu
ments, and see, whether there be any foundation for such a
disposal of my assertion. Seven addresses can take no long
time to examine ; and, therefore, to their examination I invite
the reader.

XVI PREFACE.
We begin with the address from the Deanery of Furness.
It confines itself to general expressions, and is, therefore,
perhaps, the only one that can be tortured into connexion
with the services of the Resident Members of Convocation.
It conveys the "respectful gratitude and admiration" of the
writers "to those Resident Members of Convocation who have,
at such an important crisis, and under circumstances of such
painful but urgent necessity, so nobly stood forward, with
such exemplary courage and perseverance, to rescue the
character of the University, and of the Church of England,
from the imputation of countenancing heretical and sceptical
opinions, calculated to unhinge the Faith of our people, and to
destroy the influence of Divine Truth on the minds of men."
The Address from Ripon speaks of the same parties as "having
powerfully stood forth in defence of those blessed Truths, on
which the very existence of Christianity depends;" and then
goes on to express its wishes for the future in the following
words: — "We earnestly hope, that the temporary check which
has been given to their exertions, will only be the occasion of
redoubled activity and perseverance in this sacred cause, and
shall be anxious to co-operate in any measure which may here
after be adopted, to secure the sound and orthodox instruc
tion of those who may be solemnly entrusted with the Ministry
of Christ's holy Word, and who thereby may contribute to
preserve that efficiency, which the Church of Ehgland, as an
instrument in the hand of God, has hitherto maintained in
Christendom by the purity of its Faith and the integrity of
its Practice." The Address from Canterbury talks of the
sympathy of the writers in that godly jealousy with which
the Resident Members of Convocation are said to have strug
gled, to preserve the channels of Theology pure and untainted,
and concludes with the following words: — "We owe to vou
to ourselves, and to the Church of which we are Ministers, a
public profession, that we are not insensible to the magnitude
of the interests involved in the points at issue, nor to the debt
of gratitude due to you, for the noble stand you have made in
defence of sound doctrine." The Address from Rochester

PREFACE. XVII
after saying that the Resident Members of the University had
advocated the common cause of the whole Christian Church,
and commenting upon the appointment of Dr. Hampden, is
summed up thus: — "We admire the temper, as well as the
firmness, which their conduct has exhibited. And we intreat
them to persevere (and such by the help of God we profess to
be our own determination) in maintaining the purity of that
Apostolic system which we have inherited from our fathers."
The Address from the Archdeaconry of Exeter uses the fol
lowing language: — "We are desirous to express to you our
deep sympathy in the jealous earnestness with which you have
contended to maintain all sound doctrine in the education of
the Clergy, and to prevent any principles detrimental to the
Christian Faith from circulating uncondemned under the
sanction of the University. In performing a task, involving
very painful discussion, you exposed yourselves to many mis
apprehensions and much obloquy. We feel ourselves bound,
therefore, by a sense of duty to the nation, and to the Church
of which we are Ministers, to declare the debt of gratitude
we owe to you for the noble stand you have made in the
defence of Christian Truth; and we fervently trust, that the
decision which you have successfully obtained, will secure
sound doctrine to the students placed under your care, and
maintain inviolate the fundamental safeguards of the Church."
The Address from the Deanery of Stockton upon Tees, after
saying that the Members of Convocation, who assembled in
Corpus Christi Common Room, had "laudably and strenuously
laboured to sustain the pure doctrines of the Church of Christ,"
winds up its panegyric thus: — "We cannot but admire the
truly Christian spirit and uncompromising firmness which have
characterised the conduct of tliose Members of Convocation,
whose exertions, on a late occasion, have contributed, under
God, to vindicate and maintain the stability of our invaluable
Church." And the Address from the Isle of Wight, the last
of the lot, conveys its approval to the same gentlemen in the
following terms: — " We. ...desire to express.... our high sense of
the zeal, temperance, and firmness with which you have acted

Xviii PREFACE.
in your late painful but necessary proceedings; and we thank
you for thus coming forward to withstand the spread of doc
trines fatally at variance with the orthodox faith of our Apos
tolical communion; and so we very heartily bid you God
speed." From the observations made in these addresses, the least
we can suppose to have been secured by the Corpus Com
mittee, and the gentlemen they represented is, that resolutions
should be carried, declaratory of the Fundamental Truths
of the Christian Religion; that upon these resolutions others
should be founded binding the University (so far as it could
be bound) in its corporate capacity, and each society within
the limits of the University, and each individual in such soci
eties, generally to banish strange doctrine, to the utmost of
their power, not only for the then present moment, but there
after, and determining not to allow, on any account whatever,
any one who might not be supposed to be sound in the faith
to give Theological instruction to the youth of the University;
and that statutory enactments should be established upon
these resolutions, as a sort of first fruits of them, to exclude
Dr. Hampden from preaching and teaching, and to place the
duty of instruction upon other shoulders. But nothing of the
sort was done. There is a total absence of all allusion to the
Fundamental Doctrines of Christianity in the statute of the
fifth of May;b there is a total absence also of the charge
of heretical teaching. Dr. Hampden is not so much as
pointed at as unfit to teach — he certainly was not excluded
from teaching. From the very day he entered upon his
professorship until now, he has discharged the duties of
his office, and that not more to his own honour than to
h The following is the Statute enacted upon that occasion : 
"Quum ab Universitate commissum fuerit S. Theologiaj Professori Regio,
ut unus sit ex eorum numero, a quibus designantur seleeti Concionatores,
secundum Tit XVI § 8 (Addend, p. 150.) neenon ut ejus consiUum adliibeatur
si quis concionator coram Viee-eancellario in quasstionem vocetur, secundum
Tit XVI § 11 (Addend, p. 154.) quum vero qui nunc Professor est, scriptis
uis publiei juris factis ita res theologicas tractaverit, ut in hae parte nullam
ejus fiduciam habeat Universitas; Statutum est, quod munerum preedictorum

PREFACE. XIX
the advantage of the University. The Committee, indeed,
did carry some points, but they were entirely of minor impor
tance. They excluded Dr. Hampden from the election of Select
Preachers, and, with a foresight not altogether inconvenient
to themselves, from the examination of such sermons, as might
thereafter be preached before the University, and be supposed
to be of an heretical tendency; but they did not exclude him
from preaching, or in any way interfere with any strictly Pro
fessorial duties. There was will enough to do every thing
that was mentioned in the Addresses, and power to do it, if
there had been any ground; but there was none, and it was
not done: and therefore the Addresses are inappropriate. If
the Committee have a right to assume to themselves praise
for what they have never done, they may rejoice in these
Addresses, indeed; but not otherwise. They are rather con
demnatory of them than of their accusers; inasmuch as they
shew the omissions of the Committee in a glaring light: they
are certainly no answer to the charge of "unworthy pro
ceeding," which they have been brought forward to refute.
If the Committee would get rid of the stigma under which
they have fallen, they must adduce other evidence than these
addresses, evidence such as I cannot suppose that they can
find. They have been, as will be seen in the following letters,
so totally negligent of that which was required of men in their
situation, whether before or after the procurement of the con
demnation of their victim, that they will find it a hard matter
to escape from the very appropriate denunciation that has
been levelled against them by Lord John Russell.
The letters in the following pages are given almost word
for word as they appeared in the "Herald." They are
accompanied by notes in explanation of their statements, and
expers sit S. Theologiae Professor Regius, donee aliter Universitati placuerit. Ne
vero quid detrimenti capiat interea Universitas, Professoris ejusdem vicibus
fungantur alii ; scilicet, in Concionatores selectos designando Senior inter Vice-
cancellarii Deputatos, vel eo absente, aut ipsius Vice-cancellarii locum tenente,
proximus ex ordine Deputatus (proviso semper, quod sacros ordines suseeperit),
et in consilio de concionibus habendo Proelector Domimfi Margaretee Comitisste
Riclunondise.''

XX PREFACE.
are farther illustrated in the Appendix. The averments of
the last of the series are very fully borne out, in that portion
of the work, by extracts from the writings of Mr. Perceval and
Mr. Palmer. I ask for my observations a calm reading ; and
if I can but obtain that, I shall have no fear of censure. I
will only add, that the elements of the case I have to submit
to the Public are drawn from the papers of my adversaries,
and are therefore unimpeachable ; and remind those who
would endeavour to get rid of the argument I have founded
upon them, that they must shew that my inferences are erro
neous, or that I have overlooked points that ought not to have
been disregarded, when I selected my premises. If they can
do neither of these things, they must admit that Dr. Hampden
has been unjustly condemned, notwithstanding the loudness of
their denunciation, or if they will not do that, betake them
selves to some other course than they have hitherto pursued,
to promote their most unprincipled agitation.

AN INQUIRY,

LETTER I.

The censure, of 1 836, not irreversible ; and, therefore,
not necessarily to be regarded as a Precedent.

Sir, The correspondent, whose letter, under the sig
nature of "A Lover of Fair Play," appeared in your
impression of Saturday last, deserves the thanks of the
Church, and of the country, for exposing the very
unmanly conduct of Mr. Perceval, and the despicable
shifts resorted to by the enemies of Dr. Hampden, to
interfere with his promotion. I think, however, that
he would have done more service to the cause he has
taken in hand, had he not confined himself to the
mere communication of the copy of the cowardly
document, which appears in your columns, as, in my
opinion, the solicitation of the interference of the
Town Council is very far indeed from the whole of the
unfairness, winch" is shewn by Mr. Perceval's conduct.
b2

Perhaps you will permit me, as one who has always
supportea Dr. Hampden, and that not without the
most careful perusal of his works, to fill up the void
left by your correspondent ; and I am the more
anxious to obtain this permission, as arguments
similar to those put forth by Mr. Perceval have been
brought into play in my own neighbourhood, with
the hope of damaging the case ofthe Regius Professor,
and I have reason to believe they have been success
fully applied elsewhere.
Mr. Perceval argues that it is unconstitutional for
the advisers of the Crown to recommend to Her Ma
jesty any one, to be promoted to an office of trust,
who may be labouring under the censure of any
constituted body, acting under the authority of the
Crown ; " that Dr. Hampden is at the present time
under censure unrevoked from the University of Ox
ford, acting under authority from the Crown," and,
therefore, such an one as ought not to have been re
commended to the Queen ; and that it is, in conse
quence of this, desirable that measures should be
taken to frustrate the completion of the promotion
that has been announced. A grosser instance of un
fairness is not to be found, even in these days of bad
logic and special pleading, than that which is pre
sented to us in this recommendation.
A man has been condemned, I will not stop to say
by whose procurement, though some of his accusers
are far from worthy of the confidence of the Univer
sity, the Church, or the Public, and he is not to be
promoted, because the University to which he belongs
has not removed the censure they have procured ; as

if the University were the Church and the People, and
there were no reversal of its decree to be thought of
elsewhere, and its authority were supreme. I do not
know whether Mr. Perceval was one of those who
questioned the right of the University to censure Mr.
Ward, or that of a duly constituted court within the
University, to suspend Dr Pusey for unsound teach
ing :a I can not, therefore, take upon me to say,
- Mr. Maurice, in his excellent letter " on the attempt to defeat the nomina
tion of Dr. Hampden" (London: Pickering, 1847), says, with reference to the
peculiar ground taken up by the opposition, " If it shall be alleged that this is
not a case of condemning opinions upon private judgment, that the verdict of
the University has gone forth against Dr. Hampden, then I solemnly protest
that the Church is not bound by the decree of so utterly incompetent and un
righteous a tribunal as the Convocation of Oxford. And I am certain that the
chief opponents of Dr. Hampden must join in this protest, unless they are pre
pared to retract very deliberate sentiments which they expressed at the time of
Mr. Ward's degradation." (pp. 4-5.)
Mr. Woodgate, also, with reference to the same case, in hia " Earnest Appeal
to members of the Oxford Convocation on the proposed assumption of Ecclesi
astical Powers by the University" (London: Burns. 1845), thus expresses
himself : —
" Allowing to the full that it is the duty of the University to vindicate her
authority, and to guard the sacred trusts committed to her keeping, by proceed
ing summarily against those who have violated the condition of their member
ship or degrees, yet to affirm, on her own sole authority, the resolutions contained in
the first of the propositions in question, is what the University has no moral right
to do (for 1 will not stop to discuss the question whether she has the legal right
to pass abstract resolutions) ; and to do so is more or less to assert the principle
involved in the proposition now withdrawn—./, that is, the University herself is
to be the judge of the truth of the facts asserted in that resolution. For the ques
tion, after all, turns on this; and the almost unanimous voice of Convocation
has virtually so affirmed, in the strong and indignant protest put forth on every
side a-minst the withdrawn proposition. The principle which that proposition
Bought to overturn is the or'y true and legitimate one, viz., that the Church >s
the only authorized interpreter of her own articles and formularies. It .s solely
an ecclesiastical matter, in which the University has no voice. She adopts the
articles and prayer-book as a test, only in virtue of her connexion with the
Ch urch She receives them only as coming from the Church, and held by her.
Whenever spoken of or adverted to, they are spoken of as the articles of 'the
Church Practice also confirms it. For those who are matriculated are told by

that he is inconsistent with himself ; but I do know,
that even the decisions of a Lord Chief Justice, whose
authority no one can question, are not held to be ir
reversible by others ; and that, were it otherwise, no
one of the many persons who have been from time to
time injured (unintentionally perhaps, but for all that
injured) by extra-judicial dicta could have been re
lieved ; and why the relief that is given in such cases
the Viee-Chancellor, in reference to the act of subscription (at least it was al
ways the case when I was College-tutor, and had occasion in that capacity to
take young men to be matriculated), that 'by so doing they declared themselves
members of the Church of England.' If any further proof were required, it
would be found in the uniformity of the principal objection urged against the
withdrawn statute, — that it sought to establish a different rule in the interpre
tation of the articles from that adopted by the Church.
" If, therefore, Mr. Ward has been guilty of bad faith in regard to subscribing
to the articles, let him by all means be dealt with accordingly j but let the
Church judge in this matter. No other body or individual has authority to do
so ; no one can assume that authority without great presumption, and usurpation
of the functions of the Church. The course to be pursued is a very simple and
easy one, and far more efficacious than that now proposed, which, besides its
illegality, is calculated, as it has already done, to call forth some of the worst
passions of our nature. There is no difficulty in bringing the alleged offence
before the proper tribunal. Mr. Ward is stated by all who know him to be a
man of honour, and of straightforward honesty ; and he is doubtless willing,
like Dr. Pusey, to abide by the decision of the Church, and to stake his acade
mical preferment on the issue. The challenge was declined, indeed, in Dr.
Pusey 's case, and fortunately for the credit of his academical judges: for it was
evident that no ecclesiastical tribunal, properly constituted, would have ventured
to pronounce his sermon to be contrary to the doctrine of the Church of Eng
land. What the result of such a proceeding would be in Mr. Ward's case, it is
impossible to say ; but if it is to be adjudicated upon at all, let it be through
the legitimate channels. Let the Bishop of London, in whose diocese the alleged
offence has been committed, be requested to issue a commission, under the clergy-
discipline act, to inquire into the truth of the allegations ; in the prosecution of
which let the Vice- Chancellor, the most proper person by virtue of his office, act
as the promoter ; and if the commissioners so appointed should be of opinion that
there is ground for further proceedings, let the case be taken at once, by letters of
request, into the Court of the Archbishop of the Province, and a solemn and
final adjudication be obtained. This is the proper tribunal to which to appeal in
so solemn a matter; not to the passions of a mixed multitude like Convocation

7
is not to be given in the case before us, I think it
would be difficult to say. Will Mr. Perceval enlighten
me upon this subject ? will he show upon what
grounds we are called upon to admit an exception in
Dr. Hampden's instance 1
But not only is there in this respect an endeavour
to deprive Dr. Hampden ofthe chance of relief that is
given to every one who is brought before the higher
where, besides having no lawful jurisdiction in the case, there is no exposition
of the law, no reference to precedent, no hearing of evidence, and where the
same persons are at once prosecutors, judges, and jurymen. If, after judgment
given against him in the proper court, Mr. Ward shall still retain his academical
preferment and privileges, it will then be time for the University to proceed to
punish in the way the law allows them. After an issue has been tried, and a
verdict obtained against the accused, in the courts authorized to entertain the
question, the University will be placed in a very different position in regard to
the matter from that in which it now stands ; though its proceedings will still
be open to objection with some, till vindicated from the charge of partiality by
proceedings with equal vigour against other offenders." (pp. 4-6.)
I have quoted this argument in full, as it appears to me not only to prove the
allegation I have made above, but to bear very forcibly indeed upon the case of
Dr. Hampden. His was, if ever there was one, an ecclesiastical case, but it was
left to the Convocation ; and of that Mr. Woodgate, perhaps, will allow me to
complain. I cannot believe that the proceedings of 1836 were orthodox, and not
those of 1845 ; and I do not imagine that Mr. Woodgate thinks so either. I
must not however, be held responsible for all that I have quoted : there is a
mnuifest petitio principii in the observations upon Dr. Pusey's case ; and in the
undisputed possession of that I must leave Mr. Woodgate. There are also
some points, connected with Mr. Ward's case, to which I can not assent. I am
willing however, to say that he was an honest man, and that he deserved better
treatment at the hands of his party. With regard to the decision of that case,
I will only add, that I voted against him upon both the propositions that were
submitted to Convocation, and that from the belief that I could discharge my
duty in no other way ; but, if I had known at that time as much as I afterwards
found out, 1 certainly would not have voted against— perhaps I might have
voted for him. I have no doubt of the jurisdiction of tho University, nor of the
purity of the motives of the distinguished persons who form the Hebdomadal
Board : no one shall say, that I thought or do think, that in the part they took,
they wished to inflict injury, and not merely to support the character of the
University ; but it was made by the inferior members of Convocation a party-
question, and, therefore, should have been scouted by all who wished to do what

tribunals of the country, but Mr. Perceval most un
fairly attempts to give to the act of Convocation a
greater degree of influence against the case of the
Regius Professor, than it is legitimately entitled to. I
¦was right. Mr. Ward had not a fair hearing from aU his judges, and there
fore ought to have been condemned by none. Some months after the decision
of Mr. Ward's case, I was satisfied that the matter had been much better left
alone ; by reading Mr. Goulburn's reply to Mr. Ward's defence,* (which was
then for the first time put into my hands), and by reflecting that nothing what
ever had been done with regard to it, though it had been then published some
time. Certainly I will say, that, if there was not so "outrageous" a parade of
nonnatural subscription in that work as in Mr. Ward's, there was a very free
use of nonnatural interpretation in support of the opposite extreme and with
that I do not wish to be connected. We may exclude persons of extreme opinions,
or leave them to find their level ; but if we determine upon the more active
course, and condemn any, I do not see how we can justify that total inattention
to the errors of the opposite party, which has called forth these observations.
In the case of Dr. Pusey we know not only that an address was presented by
some of the Resident Members of the University, to the Vice Chancellor,
requesting him to publish the grounds of his sentence upon Dr. Pusey, but that
a protest was also delivered by certain Non- resident Members, in condemnation
of the course taken by the Vice Chancellor, and that no less than two hundred
and thirty-three signatures were attached to it. Its language is not a little
remarkable. It runs as follows:—
To the Rev. the Vice Chancellor of the University of Oxford.
"We the undersigned Non-resident Members of Convocation, beg leave
respectfully to express our serious regret at the course which you have adopted
with reference to Dr. Pusey's Sermon.
We deprecate that construction of the Statute under which Dr. Pusey has
been condemned, which contrary to the general principles of justice, subjects a
person to penalties without affording him the means of explanation or defence ;
and we think that the interests of the Church and of the University require, that
when a sermon is adjudged unsound, the points in which its unsoundness consists
should be distinctly stated, if the condemnation of it is intended to operate
either as a caution to other preachers, or as a check to the reception of doctrines
supposed to be erroneous."
This extraordinary document upon being forwarded to the Vice-Chancellor,
was returned by him, with a seasonable rebuke, through the hands of his Bedel!
And it certainly does not appear that. the party from which it proceeded is
entitled now to talk of respect for authority.
* A Reply to some parts of Mr. Ward's defence, justifying certain parties in recording
their votes against him. By the Re*. E. M. Goulburn, M.A., Fellow and Tuto f
Merton College; Perpetual Curate of Holywell. Oxford: Graham. London- Hatchards

hardly know what he means, when he says, "that Dr.
Hampden is at the present time under censure unre
voked from the University" (probably he holds the
doctrine of intention, and it is not essential to his
maintenance of it, that any one but himself should
know what his intention is) ; but when he adds,
" acting under authority from the Crown," he must
permit me to say he is using gross deception, and that
the moral turpitude, which clings to him while doing
so, is much enhanced by the knowledge he must pos
sess ofthe unlearned character (I use not these words
offensively) of those he is addressing.
I speak in the most unreserved manner of Mr.
Perceval, because I cannot suppose that he is so
ignorant as not to know that, although "the Chan
cellor, Masters, and Scholars of the University of
Oxford" are a body corporate, and that by statute
(13 Eliz. 29), the authority ofthe Crown, in so far as
that is given, does not extend to every act that is
done by that incorporated body. The act of incorpo
ration merely gives to the University the power of
self-government, and certain privileges within its own
walls : it does not imply, that all it may do, in the
use or abuse of those privileges, is to be taken to be
authorized by the Crown; and yet this supposed
delegation of the Royal Authority is an important
element of the case submitted by Mr. Perceval!
Happily, however, the insinuation of that gentleman
may be easily disposed of (as, indeed has his whole
case been by the practical treatment applied by the
Mayor of Oxford) by the simple questions: — Who
appointed Dr. Hampden to the Regius Professorship ?

10
and who maintained him in that appointment, after
the censure was recorded? If the Crown, as we must
admit, both appointed him to, and maintained him in,
the chair of Divinity, what becomes of the alleged
authorization of the censure ?
As it is totally impossible to answer these questions
otherwise than in the affirmative, or to resist the con
clusion that they suggest, that the Crown did not
authorize the censure, as Mr. Perceval insinuates, I
might rest satisfied with this exposure of his unfair
ness ; but I am led, by the conduct of that gentleman,
to crave room for one or two farther observations
before I conclude — observations which may not be
entirely unworthy of his notice, though they come from
one who, upon the subject of Dr. Hampden's promo
tion, differs from him as far as it is possible for one
man to differ from another, and as addressed to the
Public through your columns, must be couched in
terms of a general tendency, rather than in those of
strictly personal communication.
Should Mr. Perceval mean to say that the Crown
had abdicated its powers by the part taken in the act
of incorporation, and therefore had no right to main
tain Dr. Hampden in the Professorship, then he not
only, by implication, denies the Supremacy of the
Crown, and thereby unfits himself to approach the
throne, even through the Oxford Town Council, and
is unfit to discharge the duties of the office he has
been entrusted with, but makes that, which was given
to the University to secure to it privileges not incon
sistent with the welfare of the country, inimical to the
interests of the nation at large, and thereby paves the

11
way for its withdrawal. Certainly, I should say, Mr.
Perceval's misdirected zeal might have been better
employed, than in thus attempting to deceive the
Council, and suggesting doubts as to the Authority of
the Crown and the tenability ofthe University's Statute
of Incorporation.
I do not, by making these observations, desire to
bring down upon Mr. Perceval disagreeable conse
quences (when I step in as amicus curies, I hope it will
not be to suggest the infliction of pains and penalties) :
I would, however, remind him that the principle of
law, "Sic utere, tuo, uti alienum non Icedas," rides
over all statutes of incorporation, and suggest to him
that it would be as well, if it rode over his own con
duct, equally as I hope it ever will over that of,
Sir, &c, &c.

LETTER II.
Special reasons for looking upon the censure of 1836
as a nullity, arising out of irregularities, upon
the part of the accusers of Dr. Hampden, before,
and at the time of, the enactment of the statute of
May 5.

Sir, I trust you will not have cause to regret the
insertion of my observations on Mr. Perceval's late
disgraceful attempt upon the Town Council of Oxford,
although the kindness you shewed me in that instance
emboldens me to ask for the devotion of more space
to the subject of the opposition to the promotion of
Dr. Hampden, and, but for the importance of the
questions I shall have to handle, I might not be able
to justify the request.
In my letter of the 6th instant, I argued that the
censure of 1836 ought not to have any influence
against the promotion of the Regius Professor,

13
although it came from a legally constituted body ;
since the powers given to the University by the Act
of Incorporation, were given only for private pur
poses, and could in no way be permitted to interfere
with the Supremacy of the Crown, or be taken to
convey the authority that belongs to more public
tribunals; and, at the same time, I hinted that, inas
much as in courts of law opportunities are given to
those, who are erroneously condemned, to reverse
unfavourable decisions, it would not follow, even if
the University were not, as it really is, a private
body, that Dr. Hampden should be condemned by
the Crown, the Church, or the Country, because he
has been censured by the Convocation at Oxford. I
may be permitted now, in farther answer to Mr.
Perceval, to state the reasons which appear to me to
make the statute of 1836 a complete nullity. And
though, perhaps, I may not expect to convince that
gentleman that he is wrong, I shall not be entirely
without hope, that my arguments will be admitted by
those who have respect to the precedents furnished
by her Majesty's courts of law, and who, properly
enough, desire that the University may receive the
support of the Country, but, nevertheless, think that
its popularity would be dearly bought, if the sacrifice,
which is to be made for it, should be that of justice.
I allege, then, that the censure of 1836 was pro
cured by unfair means, not obtained through legiti
mate channels ; and I say this, not out of disrespect
to the University, for of it I am a member, and to it I
owe the deepest veneration ; neither from any desire
to blame it for that, which, though it might have

14
foreseen, and ought to have avoided, was entirely
beyond its control when once it entertained the sub
ject, but from the simple wish to do justice to one,
who has been grievously injured by the course taken,
and who has the misfortune to be opposed by some,
who are not over scrupulous about what they do, so
only that they can make his condemnation universal,
and who press the matter on, without stopping to
inquire, how far they are justified in bringing forward,
as a precedent, the censure, upon which they depend.
Some, indeed, of the more sensible of their party,
have discovered, under the pressure of adverse cir
cumstances, what ought to have prevented the sub
mission of the matter to Convocation, that popular
assemblies cannot be safely entrusted with judicial
functions. b But since the Convocation has been
b The reader has already seen (p. 5) what Mr. Woodgate said at the time
Mr. Ward was degraded, as to the point alluded to above. Mr. Norman also
put forth a pamphlet, at the same time, on " The jurisdiction of the House of
Convocation" {Oxford; Vincent, 1845), in which the following observations
occur : —
" The charge against Mr. Ward, that of holding and publishing doctrines
contrary to the articles of the Church of England, (for I will observe, that
unless tbe charge amounts to this, it does not include an offence known to the
law,) is of a peculiar invidious nature. For our own sakes, for the sake of our
posterity, we should fence in the proceedings on such a charge as this with every
possible precaution, in order to secure ourselves from the possibility of the spirit
of party influencing the minds of the judges on a subject on which every one
feels strongly. What will be the result if the proposed sentence be passed upon
Mr. Ward at the approaching meeting of Convocation ? A man charged with
an offence of this nature will be convicted and sentenced to the severest penalty
in the power of the University to inflict, by a, Court, before which he cannot
possibly obtain a fair hearing, and in which his accusers and his advocates, his
enemies and his friends, will sit side by side as his judges. By such a proceed
ing an arena is opened for the combats of hostile factions ; weapons will be left
within their reach which they may one day use with tremendous effect against
one another. It is not enough to urge that Mr. Ward's guilt is evident and
that no mischief can result in this particular case. The members of Convoca
tion are bound to watch over the purity of their court, and net to sanction the

15
called in to decide, and some of those, who have dis
covered the principle to which I have alluded, do not
seem to wish that Dr. Hampden should have the
benefit of the reasoning that would result from it, I
cannot be blamed, if I attempt to derange their tac
tics, by the adduction of special reasons for a non
compliance with their arguments; especially if I
confine myself to facts, as you will find I shall, in
looking for the elements of my case, though I reserve
to myself the right of dilating upon them. I say,
then, that the censure was improperly procured for
the following reasons.
It has been admitted, by many of the four hundred
and seventy-four, who were complimented at the
time, as being " mindful of their sacred engagements
introduction of usages and practices which, though innocent at the time of their
adoption, may hereafter serve as precedents for the most dangerous and mon
strous injustice.
" Secondly, vast numbers of persons of whom this tribunal is to be com
posed, are men wholly unaccustomed to the exercise of judicial functions, and
wholly incapable of weighing with the calm, earnest, and dispassionate spirit
which should actuate a judge, every point making in favour of the accused.
On the meeting of Convocation there will be present men, — and hundreds of
them strongly opposed to the views of Mr. Ward's party, — most strongly con
demning the loose morality, and want of good faith, which characterises the
passages selected by the Hebdomadal Board as the foundation of the charge
against him, who will scarcely be prepared to listen with perfect impartiality to
ii subtle argument as to whether or not the publication of these passages
amounts to an offence cognizable by the law.
" Lastly, even if it appear that by the ancient customs of the University,
Convocation has j urisdiction to try this indictment, if it has the power of admi
nistering oaths and compelling the attendance of witnesses, and is provided
with the other legal machinery necessary to carry on the proceedings of a court
of justice, it is worth consideration, whether, following the example of the
Court of Queen's Bench in issuing writs of mandamus, it ought not to decline
to exercise its authority on the ground that there are other tribunals before
whom tho offence, if any, is properly cognizable." (pp. 12-14.)
Mr. Norman is a special pleader, and his object appears to have been to argue
the case as a lawyer, and not as a partisan

16
to the Church and University," when they " upheld
the eternal distinctions between true and false in
doctrine by their solemn judgment and decree in
Convocation," that they never read the works upon
which the censure was ostensibly based;" that, while
c Mr. Perceval will at least sympathise with the friends of Dr. Hampden
upon this point, as he and his friends have suffered from the injustice com
plained of. In his " collection of papers connected with the theological move
ment of 1833," (London: Rivingtons, 1842,) we find the following very perti
nent remarks : —
" With respect to the memorials against the Tracts and kindred publications,
which have been presented to the metropolitan and other Bishops, I would offer
one remark, namely, that there appears no reason for believing, that any indi
vidual who signed them, had read the works against which the memorials were
addressed. And if it seem preposterous to any simple-minded man, to suppose
that men would take so unreasonable, presumptuous, and uncharitable a step, I
could easily refer him to many private cases where such things have been
avowed. A case lately came under my knowledge, where one who, Sunday after
Sunday, had been harassing the minds of his congregation by tirades against
the Tracts, their doctrines, and their authors ; and during the week days had
gone from house to house on the same mission, denouncing them as papists,
was requested to read a publication of one of those whom he was reviling,
which had been found in several cases very instrumental in defeating the popish
emissaries ; his ingenuous reply was, that it was against his conscience to read
any of the works proceeding from any of the writers in question, as his doing
so would be to run himself unnecessarily into the way of temptation. But this
is a private instance ; let me name a published one. One, whom I do not wish
to name, in holding up to reproach the conduct of his brother clergymen, bases
his accusation, in part, on a work of which he openly declares, ' I have not
seen, nor do I wish to see it.' (See the Churchman for January, 1842, p. 43.)
" I have no wish to dwell upon such a subject, nor to say a word which shall
be unnecessarily painful to the feelings of those who so conduct themselves ; we
have, I hope, learned a better lesson. All I would say to them is,  Remember
that, whether you wish it or not, we are your brethren, partakers in your
baptism, partakers in your Eucharist, partakers in your orders. Do only so
much justice, so much charity to those who worship, feed, and minister at the
same altars with yourselves, as to read our writings before you hold us up to
reproach, either from the chair, the pulpit, or the press ; or in the words of the
son of Sirach, ' Blame not before thou hast examined the truth ; understand
first and then rebuke.' " (pp. 4-5. )
These are excellent observations ; and they were made not before they were
wanted. May we hope that one who could reason so well in 1842, will not in
1848, repudiate the arguments brought under the notice of the reader?

17
many of them took it upon trust, that what was
alleged by their seniors, men who up to that time had
been highly esteemed in the University, was fairly al
leged against Dr. Hampden, others voted sheerly from
political motives, thinking if their vote would not be
injurious to the Ministers of the Crown, it would at
least shew their dislike of them ; and, therefore, not
upon any consideration of the eternal distinctions al
luded to. The statements that were put forth by the
accusers of Dr. Hampden, were not legitimate ad
dresses to the members of Convocation : they con
sisted of garbled extracts, as was proved at the time,
by pamphlets put forward in behalf of the Regius
Professor, and especially by two which were thus
designated, viz. : " The Propositions attributed to Dr.
Hampden by Professor Pusey, compared with the text
of the Bampton Lectures," and " Remarks, intended
to shew how far Dr. Hampden may have been misun
derstood and misrepresented, &c, — by W. W. Hull,
M.A." Eighty-one resident members of Convocation
were committed, before the proceedings commenced ;
and, as if this were not sufficient, after the first at
tempt to pass the statute had been frustrated by the
intervention of the Proctors of that day, about three
hundred more of the " mindful " four hundred and
seventy-four, bound themselves down by a solemn
pledge, to compass by every means in their power the
object for which they had assembled, though as yet
they had not had an opportunity of hearing Dr.
Hampden in defence, and actually put the pledge in
force afterwards, without waiting for Dr. Hampden's
statement. The following document was signed on
c

IS
the 22nd of March, 1836 (the day on which the first
bill of indictment against Dr. Hampden was ignored),
by the great body of his opponents, assembled in the
hall of Brasenose College : —
" We, the undersigned non-resident Members of
Convocation, who have come to this place for the
purpose of taking part in the deliberation on the pro
posed Statute respecting Dr. Hampden, desire also to
express our feelings of admiration and gratitude to
wards the great body of resident Members, and es
pecially towards the Members of the Committee which
has prepared the several documents, circulated at this
crisis, for the wisdom and energy, the Christian zeal
and Christian charity, with which they have laboured
in this painful but sacred cause. And we do hereby
pledge ourselves to promote, here and elsewhere, ac
cording to our means, the efficiency of the protest
which the University is now called on to enter against
a false and dangerous system of theology ; as also to
render that protest, if possible, only the more solemn,
complete, and decisive for any temporary obstruction
which may occur, through an advantage taken of the
forms of our academical constitution."
I could enlarge upon topics, if not of a similar
nature to these, of at least an equal tendency towards
the exposure of the movement now renewed, did I
think it at all necessary : but, as it is most probable
that you have already a copy of Lord John Russell's
reply to the protesting Bishops, it would be a mere
waste of time to do so.d These points, however,
seemed to me to be too important not to be given in
u The documents relating to thia point will be found in the Appendix. Note A.

19
full ; and I certainly think that, such as they are,
they would, in a court of justice, invalidate any ver
dict with which they might have been connected. I
do not think that the Lord Chief Justice of the
Queen's Bench would for a moment sustain a verdict
previously given, could it be shewn that the jury had
not sifted the evidence ; nay, so far as regards some,
had not attended to it at all ; that they were guided
in their decision by respect to the opinions of others,
and not by their own judgment ; or that they had
yielded themselves up to political bias : much less do
I believe that he would allow the case to pass off
without the severest censure, if it were shewn, as it
has been in the matter before us, that eight, at least,
out of the twelve jurymen, were previously pledged to
give a verdict against the defendant, and merely acted
a hypocritical part in court. A rule for a new trial
could not fail of being made absolute in such a case ;
and the statute before us ought to be treated equally
as a nullity, unless the University is (through the
misconduct of those who regarded not, at the moment
of conflict, I cannot say trial, the character it should
have maintained) to be hurried into the commission of
injustice, or its nature as a private body (recognised
though it be by the State) is to admit of the infliction
of injuries upon others, that would be indignantly
scouted in our national courts.
I abstain, at present, from farther remarks, although
I have other arguments to adduce in connexion with
this subject. These, however, will suffice to shew,
upon special grounds, that the statute of 1 836 ought
not to be used as a precedent. I say upon special
c2

20
grounds, for I promised to bring forth special reasons
for treating the censure as a nullity ; but I do not in
tend, by doing so, to recognize the authority that has
been claimed for the University by Mr. Perceval. I
object to such a claim, in limine, from the conviction
that the University holds no authority either in
Church or State, though to remove the possibility of
contention as to what I said in my last letter, I have
in this taken up ground that I was not called upon to
occupy, if I had not chosen. Believe me to remain, Sir, &c, &c.

LETTER III.

Special reasons for looking upon the censure of '1836
as a nullity, arising out of the conduct of the
accusers of Dr. Hampden, subsequently to the
enactment ofthe Statute of May 5.
Sir, 1 have already stated that I cannot assent to the
arguments which would impose upon other bodies
than the University the necessity to regard its decision,
in the matter of Dr. Hampden, as an authoritative
condemnation, and adduced arguments, from the
practice of the public tribunals of the country, against
the erection of the course adopted upon that occasion
into a precedent by such, at least, as are anxious not
to overlook justice in what they do; but the extra
ordinary conduct of Mr. Perceval and those with him
who have resuscitated this controversy, and the
promise I have made, that I would bring forward
other arguments in connexion with this subject, will

22
not allow me to withdraw from its consideration until
I have more fully remarked upon the circumstance of
this most extraordinary case.
I would, then, now turn from the acts into which
the accusers of Dr. Hampden allowed themselves to
be betrayed antecedently to the vote of Convocation
in 1836, to the omissions of which they have been
guilty throughout the whole controversy; and if the
former may fairly be said to shew a want of perception
of the requirements of justice, the latter no less plainly
evince a forgetfulness of the regard that is due to
truth from persons in their situation. For in matters
of this nature it is not enough that the originators of
the movement should succeed ; they must shew that
they deserved to succeed, by proving that they not
only pursued the object they had in view through
legitimate means, but that they were actuated by no
other motives, than those which were assigned, at the
time, as the incentives of their proceedings : in short,
they must shew that they have not, for the mere pur
pose of the moment, sought a triumph over the man
against whom they were arrayed; but that they had
a cause of paramount importance to uphold ; and that
the cause, which they did uphold, was neither more
nor less than what they said it was, when they came
forward to ask for the censure : and this is rather
more than I imagine can be made out by the oppo
nents of Dr. Hampden.
The declaration which was submitted, on the 10th
March, 1836/ to the resident members of Convocation
by the committee that had been previously appointed
« The declaration will be found in full, in the appendix, Note B.

23
by the originators of the movement against Dr. Hamp
den, spoke of his publications as abounding with
contradictions to the doctrinal truths which he was
pledged to maintain, and with assertions of principles
which necessarily tend to subvert not only the
authority of the Church, but the whole fabric and
reality of Christian truth; it denounced the positive
language, the systematic reasonings, and the depreci
ating tone, with which, in Dr. Hampden's works, the
Articles of our Church were alleged to be described as
mere human speculations — the relics of a false and
exploded philosophy, full at once of error and mis
chief; and although it abstained from imputing to him
a personal disbelief of those doctrines which were said
to be so seriously endangered by his statements, they
were spoken of as far too dangerous and unguarded,
to allow of his succeeding to the office he had obtained
from the Crown ; and after protesting against his sup
posed principles, as impugning and injuring the word
of God as a revealed Rule of Faith and Practice, in its
sense and use, its power and perfection, and as tending
to destroy the authority of the Church as a Witness
and Keeper of Holy Writ, it closed by declaring the
steadfast resolution of those who signed it, to oppose,
under the blessing of Almighty God, the spread of
that false philosophy to which they thought those
principles could be traced, and the more so, as it had
in other countries poisoned the very fountains of re
ligious truth, for a long time reduced Protestantism,
in its original seat, almost to an empty name, and
changed the Religion of the Cross into the Theology
of Deism.

24
This emphatic declaration was signed by eighty-
one gentlemen, if not more, (eighty-one names were
appended to it in the printed circular, which was
forwarded to the non-residents, as I have strong pre
sumptive evidence to shew, by Dr. Pusey;) and in
that number were many who must be admitted to be
men of considerable talent, some who are alleged by
their supporters to be of unapproachable intellect, and
several who are practised writers ; and yet, for all this,
we do not find that anything has been done, from that
time until this, in redemption of the pledge I have
been quoting; nothing to ward off the danger from
the Church ; nothing to lay bare the false philosophy
of which these gentlemen had been complaining'
Loudly though it was bewailed, and solemnly as they
vowed they would exert themselves to check its spread,
there is absolutely nothing to which they can point
but the censure of the man ; in that only did they live
and move ; in that only had they any being.
Bishop Van Mildert, in his Bampton Lectures, while
treating of the injunction laid by St. Paul upon the
ministers of Christ to " exhort and convince the gain-
sayers," points out, in the most forcible terms, how
much we are indebted to the elaborate works which
have appeared, at different times, from the pens of
those who have thought it their duty to enter into
controversy ; and of the eighty-one to whom I have
alluded, it may well shame those who are treated as
lights shining in the midst of an almost "Cimmerian
darkness," that they have not allowed us to dwell with
delight on the treatises they permitted us to expect, —
that, content with the mere sophistry of censure, they

25 i
have omitted to oppose to the alleged neologies of Dr.
Hampden the unanswerable conclusions of Eternal
Truth. " No great research is requisite," says that eminent
prelate, " to shew the necessity of this admonition,
or to prove how large a portion of good has, under
Divine Providence, resulted from the apparent evil
which renders it necessary. Every day's experience
testifies, that the truth is more and more illustrated
by that investigation which the perverseness of its
opponents continually calls forth. This benefit the
Christian Church has abundant reason to acknow
ledge. What Article of the Faith has not received
some additional confirmation ? — nay, what support
has not the Faith itself, in general, received, from the
profound and elaborate disquisitions which its adver
saries have provoked ? So ample, indeed, have been
the contributions thus made to the stores of theolo
gical knowledge, that, on many of its weightiest sub
jects, more information perhaps is now to be obtained
from polemical than from merely didactic treatises. Of
this description were the greater part of the writings
of the early Fathers of the Church ; occasioned by
the efforts, either of infidels to subvert the whole
fabric of Christianity, or of heretics, to despoil it of
its essential doctrines. Nay, the writings of the
Apostles themselves (excepting their historical narra
tives), appear to have been, for the most part, contro
versial ; written, not so much for the purpose of ele
mentary instruction, as for the refutation of errors
which had already crept into the Church. And who

26
does not know, that in these latter times, the most
successful promoters of religious truth are to be found
among those who have been challenged to its de
fence, by bold oppugners of the faith, or by abettors
of specious heresy 1"
Had, indeed, that portion of the eighty-one gentle
men, which I have alluded to as consisting of writers
of undoubted ability, forgotten only the indispensible
necessity of following the injunction of St. Paul, or
the precedent furnished to them by the greatest and
best of the champions of the Christian Church, when
they were placed in circumstances analogous to those
in which the accusers of the Regius Professor declare
that they found themselves, no apology whatever
would have been admissible, if they had neglected to
meet the case in the way Bishop Van Mildert's re
marks suggest ; but when they are not only guilty of
disregarding the injunction of the Apostle, and the
example of those who have gone before them, but
shew themselves to be grossly unmindful of their own
most solemnly recorded resolutions, to use every ex
ertion in their power to prevent the extension of the
obnoxious tenets they fancied they had detected, it is
hardly possible to find words to express the very
heavy opprobrium they incur by their neglect. For
it is no longer want of perception which is to be
charged upon them, but want of candour and truth,
and that in the face of the most solemn imprecation
of the Almighty's blessing.
Nay, so utterly astounding does this conduct ap
pear, that it will hardly be believed, though it is

27
indisputably a fact, that, unless we except one publi
cation (which in my opinion is scarcely entitled to be
considered an exception), not one work will be found
to have been put forth by any one of the gentlemen,
to rescue the Church from the danger, to which it
was alleged to be exposed by the awfully heterodox
works of the Regius Professor.
Pass and re-pass, as often as you may, the mys
terious avenues which connect Paternoster-row and
Newgate-street, and form the media via between the
book and butter shops,
(" Hie locus est partes ubi se via findit in ambas.
Dextera, quae Ditis magni sub moenia tendit :
Hie iter Elysium nobis : at Iseva malorum
Exercet pcenas, et ad impia Tartara mittit :")
and you will not find, with the exception I have
already noticed, one solitary page, good, bad, or in
different, to redeem the pledges of the gentlemen
I allude to, and to rescue the Church from woe. They
were so exhausted by the contest in 1836, that they
have not since found strength for this very necessary
work, and eleven years have, therefore, been suffered
to transpire without bringing it to completion.
But had we a right to expect that such would be
the result ? Certainly not. There is evidence enough
to shew that, themselves being our guides, a very
different conclusion should have been witnessed.
Time, however, will not allow me to prove this now,
or to carry this argument to its legitimate conclusion.
But it may be sufficient to remind you, that if
the pledge given by the accusers of Dr. Hampden,

28
was sincere, it should have been redeemed ; and to
ask you, whether, when it was not redeemed, we have
not a right to conclude, that it was, because there
was no truth in the charges upon which it was
founded ? Allow me to subscribe myself, Sir, &c, &c.

LETTER IV.

Continuation of the Argument commenced in the last
Letter.

Sir, I laboured under some disadvantage, in my letter
of the 20th inst., in being compelled to introduce to
your notice the conclusion at which I was aiming,
while as yet the argument, and the evidence upon
which it depended, were far from complete. I would
make good the omissions now, that, it may not be said
that any part of the case I should have established
has been evaded ; and I trust that it will be no less
satisfactory to you, than it would have been had the
conclusion been less abruptly announced, or the case
itself had been more methodically treated.
I was endeavouring to shew that it was not pro
bable that the charges that had been brought against
Dr. Hampden, and which formed the basis of the
censure that was passed upon him in 1836, could be

30
maintained, as those of his accusers who were men of
talent, and therefore could, if there had been any
truth in those charges, have confuted the arguments
he was supposed to have advanced, had not, though
eleven years have been allowed them to do so, come
forward to do such an office to the Church, although
the injunctions of St. Paul as to the refutation of
error, the practice of the soundest men in analogous
cases, and their own statements of the danger to be
apprehended from the Professor's writings, called
upon them to do so, and the solemn resolutions to
which they had appended their names made it an in-
dispensible duty ; but time and space were not
allowed me to carry this argument to its full extent,
and to shew that, although these gentlemen had
declared that it was their steadfast resolution to
oppose, under the blessing of Almighty God, the
spread of the false philosophy to which they traced
Dr. Hampden's writings, and not merely to condemn
the man, they could be reasonably supposed to know,
either that the peculiar service I have said was
required of them could be expected of them, or that
there was any extensive ground for the exercise of
their talents as I have hinted. Fortunately, however,
I shall not have much trouble to make out the affir
mative of these issues.
The management of the movement in 1836, was
confided to a Committee of six gentlemen, of whom
Mr. Vaughan Therms was the head, and the censure
was hardly announced before he published a collection
of translations and abridgments of Tracts upon
Scripture Consequences, which appeared to him to

31
be serviceable to the cause with which he and his
fellow Committee-men had been entrusted ; and to
this work I need only refer to prove the former of
these positions ; while the latter will be as easily
proved by the document to which I alluded in my
last letter, and which has, by placing in the hands
of the friends of Dr. Hampden a copy of the decla
ration which I have mentioned, extended to them
also the means of more clearly exposing the conduct
of those to whom they are opposed.
Mr. Vaughan Thomas, after remarking upon cer
tain propositions, which he believed to be demonstra
tive of the heterodoxy of Dr. Hampden, winds up
his preface thus : —
" Having considered these positions as the principia
principiata of Dr. Hampden's antiscriptural theory, I
have selected them for special consideration ; and
greatly would it serve the cause of Christian truth,
and promote those great ends of academic education,
which our charters propose to the students' diligence
and the teachers' ambition, if Dr. Hampden's dan
gerous theories were made the subjects of separate
consideration, and each were surveyed scholastically,
that is, exactly in its nature, largely in its relations,
and profoundly in its principles. It was thus that
the divines of the Church of England, upon two
great occasions, and on two fields of controversy
widely separated from each other, manifested at once
the promptitude of their knowledge and the heroism
of their faith. Look to the overwhelmning argu
ments, set in array against the mischiefs and maligni
ties of Popish error, in that noble effort of combined

32
talents and systematic disquisitions, ' the Preservative
against Popery.' Look to the names of the allies in
this sacred confederacy, and to the course and order
and subjects of their treatises : and the admirable
method and management of that controversy will
furnish valuable suggestions upon the present occa
sion. But if these precedents, or rather models, be
not sufficient to determine the judgment upon the
usefulness of dividing and disentangling complicated
errors, and making each the subject of separate dis
cussion, recourse may be had for farther evidence to
the twenty-four treatises which form the three
volumes of what have been called the London cases ;
and as in the former alliance the joint endeavour was
to oppose the inroads of Popery, so was it in this
second alliance the common object separately to con
sider the grounds of Religious Dissent, and to leave
none of those topics unexamined, which the weak or
the wilful of the Dissenting brethren have been wont
to urge against the rites, ceremonies, ministrations,
discipline, and government of our church.
" The licentiousness of rationalism in the present
day demands the like application of combined studies,
the like decomposition of its mischievous ingredients,
and analysis of each particular by individual investi
gation. And justice will not be done to the cause of
truth, nor provision made for the integrity of theolo
gical education, except the portentous allegations of
Dr. Hampden be separately exhibited and examined,
refuted and condemned."
Can it be necessary to remark on language like this,
or to urge that it was not known to those whose

33
inconsistency I am exposing ? Can it be necessary to
add one word to this very forcible address to the op
ponents of the Regius Professor (for to the 474 mind
ful men were the Tracts upon Consequences inscribed),
or to comment upon it for the purpose of shewing the
unaccountable negligence of that compact alliance.
That it was worn out by the effort it had made, and
slept an unnatural sleep, it must at least admit, when
it reflects upon its extraordinary position. When it
looks back upon the declarations it has made and the
supineness it has shewn, it must confess that, at least,
with feelings of shame and sorrow. While, as was
alleged, Dr. Hampden's principles were subverting not
only the whole authority of the Church, but the whole
fabric and reality of Christianity ; while they were,
according to his accusers, impugning and injuring the
word of God, as a revealed rule of faith and practice,
and destroying the authority of the Church as a wit
ness and keeper of Holy Writ ; when the heresy of
the Regius Professor was laying waste the sacred pre
cincts of the Church and " the Garden of the Soul,"1
' Under the title of " The Garden of the Soul, or a Manual of Spiritual Ex«
ercises and Instructions for Christians, who, living in the world, aspire to Hea.
ven," a work has at different times appeared for the use of the communicants of
the Roman Catholic Church. The author of the " Confessional Exposed,"*
speaking of this and other cognate works, says : —
" Of these works it may be observed, that their object is, as stated in the pre
face to Mr. Curr's Familiar Instructions, ' the instruction of children in gene-
rai, and of adults amongst the poor, whose religious education has been neglected
in their earlier years.' Their popularity is proved by the unusually large de.
mand, which, in one case, has called for fourteen editions, and in another for
thirty .' Their character will speak for itself. But it may not be generally
known, that one of them, ' The Garden of the Soul,' having been introduced by
* " The Roman Catholic Confessional Exposed :" in three letters to a late Cabinet Mi
nister. London : GroomMdge. 1837. D

34
then must the confederacy admit it was plunged into
the profundity of sleep, and not merely nodding and
snoring.
" Cum fatalis equus saltu super ardua venit
Pergama, et armatum peditem gravis attulit alvo :
Ilia chorum simulans, Evantes orgia circum
Ducebat Phrygias : flammam media ipsa tenebat
Ingentem, et summa Danaos ex arce vocahat.
Tum me, confectum curis somnoque gravatum,
Infelix habuit thalamus, pressitque jacentem
Dulcis et alta quies, placidseque simillima morti."
Then was the alliance wrapped in a fatal, though
pleasing sleep, unconscious of external woe.g
some Roman Catholic prisoners into the Penitentiary at Mill-bank, soon became
so popular with the most abandoned of its inmates, and was productive of so
much evil, that it was reported by the Chaplain and Governor to the Commis
sioners, and was publicly prohibited (as Bailly had been by Napoleon) as a
book of obscenity and vice. And this is a Roman Catholic book of devotions !
How many editions of this devotional work have been circulated since its first
publication (about the year 1741) I know not ; the copy, which I have, being a
very recent reprint at Liverpool, which does not inform us how many editions
had preceded it." (p. 25.)
In a note to the above observations, the author alludes to a report, that this
work had been revised, and much objectionable matter removed ; and, indeed,
it is to be hoped that it is true. I am not, however, in a position to say that it
is ; neither can I find anything more, in the course of his pamphlet, to clear up
that point. The " Bailly," alluded to in his observations, is the person, whose
work is quoted by Dr. Pusey, in the eleventh page of the preface to his first
sermon on " The entire absolution of the Penitent," as speaking, with sorrow
and indignation, of confession having in some cases actually conveyed know
ledge of evil to the soul, when conducted in a dry technical way. I do not
know, whether Dr. Pusey has ever read Bailly, further than was sufficient for
the defence of the system he appears to advocate : but if he have, and should
be still attached to him, and to the practice of confession laid down by him, I
can only say that he "loves, not wisely, but too well."
8 " Their martyrdoms were distinguished by various kinds of death. For,
having plaited a crown of different colours, and of all kinds of flowers, they of
fered it to the Father. It was needful, it seems, that these noble champions, '
who had endured a varied conflict, and been greatly victorious, should receive
the great and incorruptible crown." Letter of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne,
in the Records of the Chtireh, vol. I. of Tracts for the Times.

35
But, probably, the accusers of Dr. Hampden did not
know that any extensive field was open to them for
the exercise of their talents in controversial theology ?
Such a supposition, alas, can not be admitted with any
regard to truth. To the declaration I have already
quoted from the circular that was sent to myself and
others, papers that were considered to be serviceable
to the cause were appended ; and, though the com
piler did not seem to have satisfied himself as to the
proper nomenclature of the divisions into which the
26 extracts, which were given from Dr. Hampden's
work, were thrown, there were no less than 101 pro
positions submitted to the reader as the propositions
of the Regius Professor, and nine different classes of
subjects with which they were connected. The follow
ing, which were the heads under which these classes
were arranged, will show how vast was the field
afforded, and how multifarious must have been the
topics embraced. I will not be answerable for the
division (that belongs to its learned author), but, such
as it is, these are the classes which it presents to us :
— Trinitarian Articles, Holy Scriptures, Creeds and
Articles, Original Sin, Human Will, Faith, Grace, The
Holy Sacraments, and the Relation of Natural Morality
to Religion. But while there was in any one of these —
much more in all — enough, and more than enough, of
food for all but the most insatiable polemical appetite,
we cannot find one poor treatise to redeem the pledge
which I have so often spoken of, to do justice to the
cause of truth, or to provide for the integrity of theo
logical education !
The amiable and learned gentleman whose work I
d 2

36
have quoted in the present letter, did, indeed, come
forward to do his part, by taking in hand the class
which was conversant with the use of Holy Scripture;
but though I shall not stay now to prove that his ar
gument was not in point, which I believe I shall be
able to do in another letter, I must be permitted to
put it aside for the present, so as to confine myself to
that which is undoubted — the absence of all treatises
from the other classes to which allusion has been made.
" The mysterious verities revealed by redeeming love,
the Trinity in Unity, the Pre-existence and Incarna
tion of our Saviour, the Duality of natures and unity
of Persons in Christ, and all the fundamentals in the
order and economy of the Trinitarian truths, every
one of which has a real bearing on every duty, and is
in nature and quality practical," have, by no one of
Dr. Hampden's accusers, been " surveyed scholasti-
cally, that is, exactly in their nature, largely in their
relations, or profoundly in their principles :" — upon
these subjects all is one dreary waste. The advantage
and use of Creeds and Articles, ahd the accuracy of
those which have been propounded for our reception ;
the Corruption of Mankind, and the enduring infec
tion of nature, even after regeneration by Baptism ;
the Inability of man to turn and prepare himself by
his own natural strength and good works to faith and
calling upon God ; the Justifying Power of Faith, and
the Indispensibility of Grace ; the Necessity and Effi
cacy of the Sacraments, for the Regeneration of man
kind, and the strengthening and refreshing of the soul
in its subsequent course ; and the indissoluble con
nexion of Religion and Morals ; have found in none

37
of these gentlemen ready advocates. Though the
enemy of Israel is at hand, there is no jeoparding of
the life unto the death in the high places of the field ;
men come not " to the help of the Lord, to the help
of the Lord against the mighty." It was not always
so ; nor would it have been so now, but for the rea
sons that have been stated : it could not have been so,
had there been any truth in the charges. "They
fought from heaven, the stars in their courses fought
against Sisera," but a worse than Sisera is here, and
the friends of Eternal Truth put out their candle !h
Really it is too much, while things are in such a
position, to call upon us to follow out the censure of
1836 ; and Mr. Perceval must be mad to think of it.
Believe me to remain, Sir, &c, &c.
h Somewhat different, the conduct of these gentlemen, from that of the prin
cipal actors, in the days of the sorrow of our Church. " Then they brought a
fagot, kindled with fire, and laid the same down at Dr. Ridley's feet. To whom
Master Latimer spake in this manner': — ' Be uf good comfort, Master Ridley,
and play the man ; we shall this day light such a candle, by God's grace, in
England, as, I trust, shall never be put out.' "—Fpx's Book of Martyrs.

LETTER V.

Conclusion of the argument taken up in the last two
Letters. Strange oversight in Mr. Vaughan
Thomas's Preface to the " Collection of Tracts upon
Consequences."
Sir, You will recollect that in my last letter I put
aside for the moment Mr. Vaughan Thomas's " Tracts
upon Scripture Consequences," as wholly irrelevant
to the proof of the dangerous principles which were
attributed to Dr. Hampden by his accusers, although
the Tracts in question were put forth in 1 836 to fur
nish a series of arguments, a priori, against certain
theological statements, and to demolish the principia
principiata of the antiscriptural theory of the Regius
Professor. I may be permitted now to enter upon
the task of explanation I then assigned myself, by en
deavouring to shew that what I have stated is strictly
true, and that, although the amiable Editor of the

39
Tracts stands forth in honourable contrast to those of
the eighty-one gentlemen I have alluded to, who
never attempted to do anything, he cannot plume
himself on the success of his efforts.
I do not mean to say that the Tracts that have been
given to the public by Mr. Vaughan Thomas are not
worth perusal, though, perhaps, every argument in
them is not to be defended ; on the contrary, I would
say, that if the 474 mindful men ever did more than
read the flattering dedication which was prefixed to
them and the editor's preface, they must have been
very much pleased with the attention bestowed by
him upon the compilation, and the entertainment
provided for them by the subsequent publication of
his labours ; but I do mean to say that there is not
one word, from beginning to end, that is relevant to
the proof of the inaccuracy of Dr. Hampden's state
ments upon the subject of the deduction of conse
quences from Scripture, and that, therefore, the ar
guments (clever though they be, and valuable to
theological readers), are, pro tanto, totally worthless.
The Tracts to which I am now alluding do not hand
down to us one uniform doctrine, as they in some
places contradict one another, and in others carry the
principles which are common to them all to different
lengths ; but they agree in this, that we are not to
reject our reason in looking into Scripture, but, on
the contrary, must use it, if we would derive any
benefit from God's word : and the extreme point to
which any one of them goes, is that " the manifest
and necessary consequences of plain scriptural propo
sitions are as much a divine revelation, and so to be

40
regarded, as the principles from which they naturally
and necessarily flow.'"
Now, although Dr. Hampden does talk about the
irrelevance of all deduction of consequences to the es
tablishment of certain points, he does not, in any way,
controvert these positions ; and so it happens that
these tracts are irrelevant to the proof of his error,
and, therefore, inadmissible to the argument of those
who assert that he is to be condemned. I will go into
the proof of my assertion, and, that I may not appear
to do so unfairly to the editor of the " Collection of
Tracts," I will place before you his statement of the
doctrine of Dr. Hampden, as it is given in the preface
to that work, and not go to the original sources to
make a fresh one. The following, then, is the state
ment of Mr. Vaughan Thomas; and upon it I am
content to join issue.
" The principle, ' That whatever is logically de
ducible in the way of consequence from any given
divine truth, is true,' is at some length denied and
controverted in the eighth of the Bampton Lectures.
In the second, p. 54, we find the following obser
vations :— ¦
" ' If it be enquired, then, why a logical theology
should be injurious to the cause of Christian truth, we
must seek an account of the case not in the associa
tion of any particular truths of human reason with
those of all revelation, but in the simple fact of the
irrelevance of all deduction of consequences to the es
tablishment of religious doctrine  and though
this kind of knowledge is abundantly instructive to us
i p. 150, Cumming's Dissertation, cap. 3,

41
in point of sentiment and action (teaches us both
how to feel and to act towards God,)  it is
altogether inadequate in point of science  '
"But these views are more fully developed and more
practically applied in the Observations on Religious
Dissent, p. 12 : —
" ' I do not mean that no right conclusions what
ever result from truths of Scripture ; but I confine
the assertion to intellectual, or speculative, or theolo
gical truth as distinct from moral. Moral arguments
there are in abundance from every page and passage
in Scripture. Every intimation the Holy Spirit con*
veyed by the word of God is, in its strict and proper
application, an appeal to the heart of man, and each
such appeal is an argument and incitement to duty.
Take, for instance, the truth of the resurrection.
Here is at once a truth, from which innumerable pre
cepts of duty relating to the whole of the present life
may be deduced. Nor, again, have I any thought of
excluding mere historical inferences, inferences such as
would be drawn from any other authentic documents
of history. It is, then, the intellectual, speculative,
or theological conclusions (by whichever of these
names the class may be best signified), to which my
objection applies.'
" ' But it will be said, are no conclusions from the
sacred records to be drawn by human reason ? What,
then, becomes of the theological interpretation, that
nothing is to be received as an article of faith but
what may be read in Scripture, or may be proved
thereby ? The latter part of this rule, it will be
urged, is thus rendered a dead letter. If nothing can

42
be argued from Scripture, or by argument established
as a truth of revelation, why is anything referred to as
capable of proof from Scripture ?' 
"' I contend that no conclusions of human reason
ing, however correctly deduced, however logically
sound, are properly religious truths, are such as
strictly and necessarily belong to the scheme of
human salvation through Christ.' 
" It (the theological maxim referred to) is no de
cision of the question, whether reasoning is to be em
ployed or not in the establishment of doctrine ; it
merely directs us to go to Scripture for every matter
of religious debate. If the alleged point cannot be
proved out of Scripture, it is no truth of revelation.
It by no means follows, that what can be proved out
of Scripture must, therefore, be truth of revelation.' —
Observations, p. 9.
" These passages, I think, bear out the assertion,
that Dr. Hampden does not reject all Scripture-con
sequences ; he approves of such as are moral and
sentimental ; he decries and declaims against such
only as are used for the proof of what is sound, and
scriptural, and true on a point of doctrine, an article
of faith, an allegation in an ancient creed or a national
confession. These last are to be called dialectical,
logical, theoretic, speculative, scholastic, however just
and true, reasonable and scriptural, they may be
in themselves.""
I am free to confess that Dr. Hampden has received
at the hands of Mr. Vaughan Thomas much greater
fairness than was shewn him by the compiler of the

43
1 0 1 propositions to which I have alluded, and by the
author of the Elucidations of his Theological State
ments ; but I cannot allow that the conclusions that
the Editor of the Tracts has arrived at are by any
means sound, but must state that they are altogether
exceptions to the consequences that should have been
impressed upon his mind by the perusal of, the pas
sages cited. Nay, I will say that, but for an accidental
circumstance (with which Dr. Hampden has nothing
whatever to do, and which I will presently explain),
it is hardly possible that he could have failed to see
that he was mistaken in his inferences. For he had
not excluded, as others had, the consideration of
other expressions of Dr. Hampden's than that which
spoke of the irrelevance of the deduction of conse
quences to the establishment of the points in ques
tion, and had he but carried the principle he thus
admitted (and, as I think, very properly admitted) to
its full extent, he could not have come to the conclu
sion he did as to the tenets of the Regius Professor.
When he admitted other passages than that which
spoke of the irrelevance of the deduction of conse
quences, to limit the meaning of that expression, he
ought not to have disjoined it from the words which
immediately followed, viz., " to the establishment of
religious doctrine," or to have excluded from his con
templation those other expressions in the passages
before us, which have as clear a tendency to limit the
meaning of the phrase objected to, as the remarks
upon the value of moral inferences, and which are
presented us in the following words : — " It is then
the intellectual, speculative, or theological conclusions

44
(by whichever of these names the class may be best
signified), to which my objection applies :" and again,
" I contend that no conclusions of human reasoning,
however correctly deduced, however logically sound,
are properly religious truths, are such as strictly and
necessarily belong to the scheme of human salvation
through Christ."
The very most that can be made out of the pas
sages cited is that Dr. Hampden objects to the intro
duction of speculative conclusions as necessary to the
establishment of religious doctrine (strictly so to speak)
and to the interpolation of any conclusions of human
reason whatever into the scheme of salvation through
Christ, as though they were necessary to its statement.
And these may not improperly be excluded, on the
following account: — The first, because religion, strictly
speaking, is conversant with holiness of life, and not
with mere accuracy of thought; and the last, because
the scheme of human salvation is sufficiently plain
without them. I may, perhaps, be permitted to say,
not only that such arguments are, in no way, opposed
to those maintained by the writers of the Tracts col
lected by Mr. Vaughan Thomas (though it would by
no means follow that they were necessarily unsound,
if they were), but that, if any one should adhere to
the contrary position, he will unavoidably shut the
door of salvation against 999 out of every 1000 who
have nothing but the Word of God to which to go,
and who are excluded from the entertainment of all
subtle discussions.
I have not, in these observations touched upon
some of the positions which appear in the quotations

45
I have placed before you, because the Editor of the
Collection does not appear to have laid any stress
on them ; but if any one should doubt the soundness
of the assertions, that all that may be logically deduced
from Divine truths is not necessarily true, or all that
may be proved out of Scripture is not necessarily
truth of revelation, I think it may be demonstrated
that he is in error. If, however, I have shewn, as I
believe I have, that what was depended upon by Mr.
Vaughan Thomas as the proof of the error of Dr.
Hampden was erroneously inferred, I may well say
that his publication is irrelevant to the point at issue,
and put it aside from our contemplation ; and then,
the very strictest interpretation of my words, as to
the absence of all argument against Dr. Hampden,
will be borne out, in spite of the very solemn decla
ration of the champions of Eternal Truth, when they
denounced the pernicious philosophy of the Regius
Professor !
In the course of the observations that I have made
in this letter, I have insinuated that Mr. Vaughan
Thomas did not carry out the principles he admitted,
so fully as he ought to have done ; and I am anxious
that it should not be inferred from this, that he did
not do so from a desire to give an unfavourable
appearance to Dr. Hampden's statements (I cannot
indeed believe that he would have published the proof
of his error, as he has done, had he been actuated by
improper motives) ; but simply that from some cause
or other he overlooked points which should not have
escaped him. I have said that I would explain this
cause, and I may now say that I believe it has arisen

46
from the circumstance that he did not come with an
unbiassed mind to the consideration of the writings
of Dr. Hampden.
We know that some writers see Romanism in every
thing, and others dissent, according as they fear most
the one or other of those extremes. So, also, there
are speakers, who, according to their peculiar bias,
trace all the evils they meet to Free Trade, or the
Potato Blight. But the aphis vastator in the present
instance is a study of eleven years standing, which
did not seem to relish the invasion of its province.
" I may," says Mr. Vaughan Thomas, " be permitted
to add that, in 1825 and 1826, I discussed this sub
ject in some sermons, delivered consecutively at St.
Mary's in my turns as one of the preachers of those
years. I refer to the fact simply for the purpose of
accounting for the strong language in which I have
uniformly condemned the dogmatism of Dr. Hampden's
distinction between Scripture-consequences, and for
the earliness, I believe I may say the priority, of my
design of controverting it."1 I do not wish to press
to any inconvenient length the observation, that a
man could not have designed to controvert a point
seven years before it was stated ; but I think we may
fairly infer from the words of the Editor of the
Tracts, that his labours of 1836 are not to be taken
for anything more than the boiling over of the pole
mical pot that had been for eleven years simmering
by the side of the fire of his theological indignation.
Whether or not I am right in this, and, indeed, in
the whole argument, it is for others to say ; but even

47
supposing that I am not, which I cannot admit, we
have yet to seek in vain for the other treatises from
the pens of the Friends of Eternal Truth ; which,
considering the solemn vows I have brought under
your notice, can hardly be allowed to be true, without
the admission also of the most strange inferences as
to the origin of the opposition to Dr. Hampden.
I have to beg to address you once more, and then
I will finally subscribe myself,
Sir, your most obedient servant,
&c, &c.

LETTER VI.
Real Origin of the Statute of May 5. — Conclusion.
Sir, I have now argued not only that the University
has no authority beyond its own walls, and therefore
that its acts cannot bind others, but that the circum
stances of the case, which has been brought under
our notice, were not such as to entitle the promoters
of the condemnation of Dr. Hampden to much
respect, whether we look to the irregularities that
preceded the vote of the 5th of May, 1836, or the
extraordinary forgetfulness, which has come over the
Alliance from that time until the present, as to its
previous solemnly expressed determination to oppose
the spread of the baneful philosophy attributed to the
Regius Professor : and- I may now, in conclusion, be
permitted to add, that, even if there had been no
irregularities whatever, and no subsequent negligence
of the nature alluded to, it was hardly possible, that

49
a person, situated as Dr. Hampden was, could have
had, at that peculiar juncture, a fair trial at the hands
of the Convocation at Oxford.
It ought to be recollected that the University has
from time immemorial supported that party in the
State which maintained the ascendancy of the Aris
tocracy, and that, about the time that the question of
the censure was mooted, that party was not merely
excluded from power, but suffering severe punishment
at the hands of its adversaries. " The Reform Bill,''
to use Mr. Palmer's expression, " had made for a
time the democratic principle all-powerful in the
State ;" and though this, in itself, was not a thing to
be patiently borne at Oxford, circumstances, not
strictly to be connected with it, invested the change
that then took place, with an awe which could not
fail of making itself felt in the University. The Test
and Corporation Acts had been repealed, and Roman
Catholic Emancipation had been conceded, when the
Reform Bill was carried, and cries were raised, by
such of the supporters of the Ministry as leaned to
extremes, for more decided aggression upon the
Church, which shortly afterwards resulted in the abo
lition of ten bishoprics in Ireland, and threatened the
worst consequences here ; so that anything which in
any way was, or could be, connected with the
Government, and every one who in any way sup
ported it, was sure to be very unpopular at Oxford.
It was not to be permitted, that any one, who had
in any degree shaken off the trammels of ancient pre
judice, should, after the public expression of his

50
opinions, be promoted to honours within our walls,
by a government that was supposed to be adverse to
the Church, without some effort being made to shew
that the University felt that indignity had been put
upon it, and some method being adopted to convince
the Crown that its advisers were not in the best odour
with the majority of Convocation. Hence Dr.
Hampden was attacked, and hence is it that he has
been since systematically opposed. His Bampton
Lectures had nothing to do with the matter : it was
a political and personal affair ; — nothing more. Had
he never expressed any opinion about Dissent, or in
any way favored the opinions of the day, those Lec
tures would have remained unnoticed as they had
been already for four years — by the great majority
perhaps unread. But when he expressed himself
" favorable to a removal of all tests, as far as they
are employed as securities of orthodoxy among our
members at large," had used language that was
thought too charitable to Dissenters, and was pro
moted by the government of the day, which was
supposed to be driven forward by the malignity of
Dissent; then was it that faults were found which*
could not be discovered during the preceding four
years, or were not deemed to be of sufficient impor
tance to be noticed.
All this is very plain from the evidence of a wit
ness, who, as he was in no way favorable to Dr.
Hampden, cannot be supposed to have shaped his
testimony so as to give him an opportunity of escap
ing. I allude to Mr. Palmer, of Worcester College,

51
who uses the following language in his " Narrative of
Events connected with the publication of the Tracts
of the Times," m which was put forth, when something
of a reaction had taken place, and the more moderate
of the Authors of those Tracts were, in their turn,
experiencing no little unfairness of treatment at the
hands of their adversaries. I quote from the 27th
and 28th pages : —
"It was in 1836, that the discussions consequent
on the appointment of Dr. Hampden to the chair of
Divinity at Oxford took place. This movement has
been generally, but rather erroneously, attributed to
the leaders of the Tract Association : they only took
some share in it. Dr. Hampden had preached the
Bampton Lectures in 1832 ; and an admirable theo
logian, who heard the concluding discourses, agreed
with me, that their tendency was decidedly Rational
istic ; that they went to the extent of representing
our articles of faith, and our creeds, as based on
merely human and uncertain theories. The publica
tion of these Lectures was unusually protracted. In
1834, on occasion of the attempt made to force Dis
senters on the Universities, Dr. Hampden published
his pamphlet on Dissent, in which the boldest latitu-
dinarianism was openly avowed, and Socinians were
placed on a level with all other Christians. If any
doubt could have existed on the tendency ofthe Bamp
ton Lectures, it would have been removed by the clue
to Dr. Hamden's views furnished by this pamphlet.
m " A Narrative of Events connected with the Publication of the Tracts for
tho Times, with Reflections on Existing Tendencies to Romanism, and on the
present Duties and Prospects of the Members of the Church. By the Rev.
William Palmer, M.A., of Worcester CoUege, Oxford." Oxford: Parker, 1843.
E 2

52
So great was the excitement of the time, however,
when the whole University, banded together as one
man, met, confronted, and overthrew the ministerial
attempt to change the character of its institutions,
that this pamphlet attracted comparatively httle notice.
In 1834, soon after the appearance of the pamphlet,
the friend mentioned above, urged on me the necessity
of some protest against Dr. Hampden's doctrines being
made, lest impunity might lead to a repetition of simi
lar attempts against the Articles. It seemed to me,
however, that any such measure might be productive
of harm, in drawing public attention to statements
which, appearing as they did in by no means a popu
lar form, would probably attract but little notice.
"Thus stood matters when, early in 1836, Dr. Bur
ton, Regius Professor of Divinity, died. The Univer
sity was not long in suspense as to his successor. In
a few days we were electrified by the intelligence that
Dr. Hampden was to be appointed to the vacant chair.
This measure seemed a designed insult to the Univer
sity, for its resistance to the ministry in the preceding
years. It was like an attempt to force latitudinarian
principles on the Church. It was to place in the
chair of Divinity, with the power of instructing and
guiding half the rising Clergy of England, one who
would undermine the authority of our Creeds and
Articles. The dangerous principles which, we had
hoped, would have remained unobserved, in writings
of no very popular character, would now be at once
brought into public notice, invested with authority,
and received by all the rising generation. Some
influential friends, therefore, of Church principles,

53
unconnected with the Tracts, visited all parts of the
University, inviting its members to instant exertion,
in the hope of averting the danger by which we were
threatened." It is true, indeed, that in the above quotation the
extraordinary silence which reigned throughout the
University with regard to the publications of Dr.
Hampden, until he was placed in the chair of Divinity
by the Crown, is alleged to have originated in the
thought that his works would not be generally read,
and, therefore, were not likely to be productive of
evil, and that the virulence, which was subsequently
shewn, grew out of the danger which was appre
hended from that appointment : and we all know
that there are cases in which any excuse is better
than none. But other circumstances shew that this
was all pretext, and that the real cause of the perse
cution was the insult that was supposed to have been
put upon the University by the Ministers of the
Crown. The appointment of Dr. Hampden " seemed
a designed insult to the University for its resistance to
the Ministry in the preceding years ;" and it was,
therefore, to be resented ; and resented it was ac
cordingly. The insult, and the effect of that insult, upon the
members of Convocation are plainly admitted ; but is
the allegation in the other part of the quotation any
where disproved ? This is a question which may be
put to me. Of course nothing but presumptive evi
dence can be got upon a point like this ; but such
evidence I think is to be had in abundance. We have
already seen that a great majority of the members of

51
Convocation were tied down to vote against the
Regius Professor, without being allowed to hear his
defence : we now learn from Mr. Palmer, that, from
the very beginning of the agitation, some, whom he
is pleased to speak of as friends of Church Principles,
though unconnected with the Tracts, visited all parts
of the University, inviting its members to instant
exertion, in the hope of averting the danger with
which it was threatened. But it will depend very
much upon the conduct they pursued afterwards,
whether we are to give credence to the allegation of
Mr. Palmer or not. If in all their proceedings we
find evident signs of an anxious desire to maintain the
truth they supposed to be assailed, and nothing more,
we may fairly suppose that the allegation was true ;
but if we find less anxiety bestowed upon that than
the condemnation of the man, and soreness of feeling
be admitted to have been created by the insult that
was supposed to have been put upon the University,
I think we cannot do otherwise than attribute the
result, which ensued upon the agitation, to the ope
ration of that insult upon the feelings of the members
of Convocation."
Now, it is a curious fact, that the very persons who
allege that they saw the danger, and took so much
care to stir up the University to unite to avert it,
turned their backs upon the only method which was
likely to be of any service in the attainment of that
object, and compromised the matter, by accepting of a
mere personal condemnation of Dr. Hampden, and
n The violence of feeling arising out of the circumstances of the times and
the effect of that feeling, at a much later period than that of the condemnation
of Dr. Hampden, will be proved in the Appendix, Note C.

55
enacting a mere non-fiducial statute. "Our desire
was," says Mr. Palmer (p. 28, note), " that the spe
cific errors advanced might be censured, in order that
the students of theology might be put on their guard :
we did not ask for the censure of any person. The
statute proposed by the Heads of Houses, as a sort of
compromise, condemned Dr. Hampden personally,
without specifying his errors. We, however, accepted
this measure as the best that could be expected under
the circumstances, being satisfied that it was neither
unjust nor unprecedented." So that, according to
the testimony of Mr. Palmer, the specific errors which
alarmed the alliance so much, and which, on account
of their effect " upon the rising clergy," it desired to
condemn, were left to themselves, and the personal
censure was accepted instead, because more was not
to be hoped for. Men who were in earnest would
not have accepted of such a compromise, as it was,
in effect, to wink at the heresy they complained of;
and such conduct was totally at variance with the
allegation with which I am now concerned.
But is it, strictly speaking, true that the condem
nation of the specific errors imputed to Dr. Hampden
was what was wanted by the majority of the alliance ?
Is there no evidence to produce to the contrary ? We
certainly cannot say that it is true, if we are to believe
others who had as good means of knowing the feel
ings of the alliance as Mr. Palmer. For we find by a
letter from Mr. Vaughan Thomas, which appeared in
your columns on the ISth of June, 1842, that, though
a general application was made for an opportunity of
disavowing and condemning the evil principles and

56
doctrines contained in Dr. Hampden's works, the
peculiar course that should have been adopted, to
censure the specific errors and put students in theo
logy on their guard, was repudiated by the alliance
itself, at a meeting at which no less than seventy out
of the eighty-one residents, who came forward as the
accusers of Dr. Hampden, were present. The meet
ing to which I allude was held at Corpus, on the
25th February, 1836, and with respect to its move
ments, Mr. Vaughan Thomas gives the following
information. " It was resolved '¦to present a respectful
requisition to the Vice-Chancellor, to summon a meet
ing of the Heads of Houses, to take into consideration
the best means of giving Convocation an opportu
nity of disavowing and condemning the evil principles
and doctrines contained in the '¦Bampton Lectures,'
and other works of Dr. Hampden.' Another resolu
tion was submitted, instead of the former, to the same
general effect, but more definite in form and purpose,
which was not adopted ; it was the following : — ' That
a respectful address be presented to the Vice Chan
cellor, that he would be pleased to convene a meeting
of the Heads of Houses, for the purpose of submitting
to their consideration the fitness and propriety of
framing sound antithetical statements against the
false and erroneous positions contained in the 'Bamp
ton Lectures' of 1832, to the intent that the former
might receive the approval, and the latter the con
demnation of Convocation.' "
I do not then think that we must allow much cre
dence to the expression of Mr. Palmer, or suppose
that it was a fair representation of the feelings of the

57
majority of those with whom he acted in 1836. But
even if it were, there remains the compromise to
explain ; and that is entirely inconsistent with the
allegation I am examining. If the alliance acted at
that time purely out of fear of the danger, and to
protect the rising clergy, why did they not insist upon
the specific condemnation spoken of — how came they
to take anything short of it ?
Mr. Palmer tells us (p. 30) that " the condemnation
of Dr. Hampden was not carried by the Tract writers ;
it was carried by the independent body of the Univer
sity." And he adds with unprecedented candour : —
" The fact is, that had those writers taken any leading
part, the measure would have been a total failure ;
for the number of their friends at that time, bore a
very small proportion to the University at large, and
there was a general feeling of distrust in the sound
ness of their views." And in a note to the preceding
page, he says, " We had previously communicated to
Professor Pusey our wish that he should not take any
prominent part in the affair, and our intention of
nominating the Rev. V. Thomas as our chairman — a
communication which was received in the kindest and
most friendly spirit." Again, higher up in the same
page, speaking of the petition which had been for
warded to the Heads of Houses, he says: — "Again
and again was our petition rejected by the majority of
the Board of the Heads of Houses,0 and again did we
0 Upon the great difficulty experienced by the authors of the Tracts for the
Times and their friends, in procuring the assent of the Heads of Houses to
any proceedings, the following valuable testimony ought to be added. It is a
letter from the Dean of Carlisle, Principal of New Inn Hall in 1836.
" Deanery, Carlisle, December 22.
" Mv Dear Dr. Hampden, — When a violent, and, as I firmly believe in your
fai-o, an unjust outcry is attempted to bo raised against an innocent individual.

58
return to the contest with increased numbers and deter
mination. All divisions and jealousies were forgotten
in this noble effort. It was at length successful to a
certain extent, and the Heads of Houses concurred in
bringing forward a censure on Dr. Hampden (a diffe
rent measure, however, from what we had desired),
which was passed in convocation by an overwhelming
majority." There was then no selfishness at all in the
matter: prudence prevailed throughout: divisions and
jealousies were forgotten in the effort that was made ;
and men, who could make such sacrifices for the cause
they had in hand, must, at least, have been deeply
impressed with the sense of the importance of its
success. But we find the condemnation of the specific
it behoves every one with common feelings of justice and charity not merely to
protest against such a proceeding, but, as far as he can, to demonstrate its
injustice. I am convinced that a most unfair use is now being made against
you of the Oxford Statute of 1836 ; and this I affirm more decidedly, because,
having been myself a party to that transaction, and present at every meeting
of the Heads of Houses at that period, I know somewhat more of the scope,
intention, and history of the statute than those' who now so confidently refer to
it as a disqualifying measure, and seek to attach to it a degree of censure which
it never was meant to express. The whole proceeding was novel, and to say the
least of it, at variance with the forms prescribed by the University statutes on
such occasions.
" It sought, in fact, by a circuitous and evasive method, to affix a censure
which would not have been obtained from a more formal and legitimate process.
Notwithstanding, however, the skilful tactics then employed, and the most im
portunate and persevering pressure from a party without, it is well known that
the measure was carried through the Board of Heads of Houses with very great
difficulty. For my part, I shall ever look upon the consent I gave to its being
submitted to Convocation, as the most unsatisfactory vote I ever recorded as a
member of the Hebdomadal Board. But if I had thought that the act in
question was to be lasting and irrevocable, no power on earth should have in
duced me to be a party to it.
" I here, indeed, solemnly assert, without fear of contradiction, that this bill
of pains and penalties was intended only to be a temporary measure. This was
distinctly stated by the principal advocates and framers of the measure ; and it
was well understood by the whole Board, that if the apprehensions and sus
picions entertained respecting your theological views should be allayed by your

59
errors, if any there were, was entirely passed over
by these gentlemen. How then can we believe their
pretended alarm ? How can we place any credence
in the accusations that were brought forward in 1 836
to procure the censure ? And if we cannot believe
the alarm or the accusations, what becomes of Mr.
Palmer's allegation ?
But I have already stated that we can no-where
find the condemnatory treatises, which we had a right
to expect from the solemn declaration that I have
had occasion to allude to in my last three letters.
These were now more imperatively demanded at the
hands of these gentlemen, in proportion to the alleged
conduct in the discharge of your professional duties, it should be proposed to
Convocation to rescind the statute. It was with a clear recollection of this feel
ing and a full reliance on the justice of the Board that, in 1842, I myself pro
posed to the Heads of Houses and Proctors to revoke the measure of 1836. I
had only to appeal to their equitable feelings, and to the testimony which all the
University seemed to bear to the soundness of your teaching and preaching, and
the satisfactory manner in which you have filled the Divinity chair for upwards
of six years, to induce them to accede to my proposition. And had the same
fair and just considerations presented themselves to members of Convocation
generally, it would have been carried even there without opposition. But the
same party which so vehemently pressed the Board to institute proceedings
against you again renewed their hostile agitation, and as they canvassed voters
far and near, whilst the Board did not, I believe, solicit a single individual, they,
as might be expected, successfully resisted the repeal of the statute.
"Every candid mind must, however, on considering the whole course of these
proceedings, now look upon you as completely exonerated from all academical
censure ; and this conviction must again be greatly confirmed by the praise
worthy manner in which you have performed the duties of your office for so
many years. For my part, I shall always be ready unhesitatingly to declare my
belief that you are a sound and orthodox Church of England divine ; and should
it have so happened that her Majesty's gracious commands in your favour had
been addressed to me, and not to the Dean of Hereford, I should certainly have
complied with them, not merely with submission but with cheerful and ready
obedience. 1 beg you will make any use you think proper of this communication,
aid believe mc always yours very faithfully, "J. A. Cramer.
" Rev. Dr. Hampden, Regies Professor of Divinity.'

60
deficiency of the statute; and in their absence it is
absolutely impossible to connect the censure with
anything but the soreness at the insult which has
been admitted. Our opponents could not have neg
lected the course that Mr. Palmer's allegation would
lead us to suppose was pursued, had they been really
alarmed : they were not alarmed because there was
no danger : but danger was said to exist, because the
censure would not otherwise have been procured,
especially in the face of the repeated refusal of the
Heads of Houses to entertain the matter. The con
duct that has been pursued, from 1836 until now, is
consistent with the procurement of a censure upon
personal or political grounds : it is entirely inconsis
tent with the defence of the truth, and that lively
apprehension of danger from the assaults which were
alleged to have been committed upon it by the Regius
Professor. The rising clergy were thrown overboard
as soon as Dr. Hampden was condemned; and no
more was thought of the matter, until he was again
selected by the crown for promotion, when the "fag-
end of monopoly" begins to rub its eyes and to open
its mouth, once more to bawl out, with all its little
might, — "Church in danger."
But I have done. Dr. Hampden has been more
than avenged by the Crown, the Church, and the
People, and, I have no doubt, will grow in their esti
mation daily. I cannot, however, conclude, without
offering you my thanks for the use of your columns,
and expressing a hope, that in what I have taken upon
me to write, I have not abused your confidence. I
have not attacked the University, but only a party

61
in it, and that only in so far as it appeared to me to
have acted unworthily. And, as I can sincerely say,
that I should not have written one word had not its
members come forward, in the unwarrantable manner
they have, to interfere with Dr. Hampden's appoint
ment, if I have done wrong in occupying your space,
upon Mr. Perceval and his over-zealous friends must
you lay the principia principiata of the mischief.
I am, Sir,
Your obedient and obliged servant, &c, &c.

APPENDIX.

NOTE A, p. 5.
The following are the documents alluded to : —
REPRESENTATION OF CERTAIN OF THE BISHOPS TO LORD JOHN RUSSELL.
" My Lord, — We, the undersigned Bishops of the Church of England, feel
it our duty to represent to your Lordship, as head of her Majesty's Govern
ment, the apprehension and alarm which have been excited in the minds of the
clergy, by the rumoured nomination to the See of Hereford of Dr. Hampden,
in the soundness of whose doctrine the University of Oxford has affirmed, by a
solemn decree, its want of confidence.
" We are persuaded that your Lordship does not know how deep and general
a feeling prevails on this subject, and we consider ourselves to be acting only
in the discharge of our bounden duty both to the Crown and to the Church,
when we respectfully but earnestly express to your Lordship our conviction that
if this appointment be completed, there is the greatest danger both of the in
terruption of the peace of the Church, and of the disturbance of the confi
dence which it is most desirable that the clergy and laity of the Church should
feel in the exercise of the Royal supremacy, especially as regards that very deli
cate and important particular, the nomination to vacant Sees.
" We have the honour to be, my Lord, your Lordship's obedient faithful
servants, " C. J. London.
" C. Winton.
" J. Lincoln.
" H. Exeteb.
" Chr. Bangor.
" J. H. Gloucester and Bristol.
" Hugh Carlisle.
" G. Rochester.

64 appendix.
" Rich. Bath and Wklls.
" E. Sarum.
" A. T. Chichester.
"J. Ely.
" Saml. Oxon.
" To the Right Hon. the Lord John Russell, &c."
answer to the above. " Chesham-place, Dec. 8, 1847.
" My Lorus, — I have had the honour to receive a representation signed by
your Lordships, on the subject of the nomination of Dr. Hampden to the See
of Hereford.
" I observe that your Lordships do not state any want of confidence on your
part in the soundness of Dr. Hampden's doctrine. Your Lordships refer me
to a decree of the University of Oxford, passed eleven years ago, and founded
upon lectures delivered fifteen years ago.
" Since the date of that decree Dr. Hampden has acted as Regius Professor
of Divinity in the University of Oxford ; and many Bishops, as I am told, have
required certificates of attendance on his lectures before they proceeded to
ordain candidates who had received their education at Oxford. He has likewise
preached sermons, for which he has been honoured with the approbation of
several prelates of our Church.
" Several months before I named Dr. Hampden to the Queen for the See of
Hereford, I signified my intention to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and did
not receive from him any discouragement.
" In these circumstances it appears to me that should I withdraw my recom
mendation of Dr. Hampden, which has been sanctioned by the Queen, I should
virtually assent to the doctrine that a decree of the University of Oxford is a
perpetual ban of exclusion against a clergyman of eminent learning and irre
proachable Ufe, and that, in fact, the supremacy which is now by law vested in
the Crown, is to be transferred to a majority of the members of one of our
Universities. " Nor should it be forgotten, that many of the most prominent among that
majority have since joined the Communion of the Church of Rome.
" I deeply regret the feeUng that is said to be common among the clergy on
this subject. But I cannot sacrifice the reputation of Dr. Hampden, the rights
of the Crown, and what I believe to be the true interests of the Church, to a
feeling which I believe to be founded on misapprehension and fomented by
prejudice. " At the same time, I thank your Lordships for an interposition which I be
lieve to be intended for the public benefit. " I have, &c.
"J. RUSSELL.
" To the Right Rev. the Bishops of London,
Winchester, Lincoln, &c."

appendix. 65
In a letter from the Bishop of Salisbury to the editor of one of
the public journals, his Lordship remarks thus upon the representa
tion of the Bishops : —
" The experience we had of the manner in which the peace of the Church
was disturbed by the appointment of Dr. Hampden to the Regius Professor
ship, gave reason to apprehend that a similar result would follow from his nomi
nation to the Episcopate ; and we had further reason to know with certainty that
such would be the case. I, therefore, thought it consistent with my duty, to
join with the maj ority of my right rev. brethren in that representation to the
noble lord at the head of her Majesty's Government, which is the occasion of
your remark. I must beg to be allowed to direct your attention to the real
object and purport of that representation.
" It was not intended, as it has been described, as a hostile protest, or as
part of a system of agitation ; but it was expressly designed to be a private
and friendly representation to the Prime Minister, of dangers which we saw
reason to apprehend, and of which we were disposed to believe that he was not
equally aware. We did not assume the justice of the imputations against Dr.
Hampden, for this would have been prejudging what might thereafter be the
subject of judicial inquiry — but we deemed the faet of the existence of such
charges, and the prevalence of the belief in them amongst the members of the
Church, matter fitted to be submitted to the consideration of a minister respon
sible for the exercise of the most delicate of the functions of the Royal prero
gative, with reference to a proposed appointment, known to us only by public
rumour, and with respect to which we hoped that it might still not be too late
either for other arrangements to be made, or for satisfaction to be obtained on
the points which caused uneasiness."
About the time of the presentation of the memorial of the Bishops
to the Premier, a lay address was also presented, which, with the
answer to it, is now given : —
" My Lord,  We, the undersigned lay members of the Church of England,
beg leave to represent to your Lordship the deep concern with which we have
heard the report of your intention to recommend Dr. Hampden to her Majesty
as the future Bishop of Hereford.
" We have seen and heard enough of the strong feeling, both of laymen and
of clergy, on this occasion, to convince us that the appointment, if persisted in,
will stir up feelings of bitterness, which it would be impossible soon to eradicate,
and which would probably lead to consequences which your Lordship would
deprecate as earnestly as ourselves.
" We fervently hope that these or other reasons may induce your Lordship to
reconsider the case, before you finally advise her Majesty to recommend for
election to the vacant bishopric a person who has been solemnly pronounced by
your own University to be unworthy of its confidence as a teacher of Christian
truth. " We are, my Lord, &c, &c.
"To the Right Hon. Lord John Russell, M.P." F

66 appendix.

This address was signed by 485 lay members of the Church of
England, including several Peers, Members of Parliament, &c.

" Chesham-place, Dec. 10.
" My LoRns and Gentlemen, — I have had the honour to receive your repre
sentation on the subject of my recommendation of Dr. Hampden to the Queen
for the See of Hereford.
" I am aware that there exists a strong feeling on the part of some laymen
and clergymen against Dr. Hampden ; but that the appointment should excite
feelings of bitterness is, I hope, an error, as it would shew y, sad want of
Christian charity on the part of those who would indulge such feelings.
" The consequences with which I am threatened I am prepared to encounter,
as I believe the appointment will tend to strengthen the Protestant character
of our Church, seriously threatened of late by many defections to the Church
of Rome. Among the chief of these defections are to be found the leading
promoters of the movement against Dr. Hampden, eleven years ago, in the
University of Oxford.
" I had hoped the conduct of Dr. Hampden, as Regius Professor of Divinity,
and head of a Theological Board at Oxford, had effaced the memory of that
unworthy proceeding.
" I have the honour to be, my Lords and Gentlemen, your obedient servant,
"J. RUSSELL.
"To certain Lay Members ofthe Church of England."
NOTE B, p. 14.
(copy.)
Oxford, March 10, 1836.
DECLARATION
Of Resident Members of Convocation, upon the nature and tendency ofthe Publi
cations of the Rev. Dr. Hampden, the recently appointed Regius Professor of
Divinity in this University.
" We, the undersigned, engaged or interested in the Religious Instruction
of this place, feel it our bounden duty at the present crisis to make this public
declaration. " We have seen with alarm the office of the King's Professor of Divinity in
this University entrusted to one, whose publications abound witli contradictions
to the doctrinal truths which he is pledged to maintain, and with assertions of
principles which necessarily tend to subvert not only the authority of the Church,
but the whole fabric and reality of Christian truth.
" We cannot allow any explanation of insulated passages or particular words
to be valid in excuse against the positive language, the systematic reasonings,
and the depreciating tone, with which, in Dr. Hampden's works, the articles of
our Church are described as mere human speculations, the relics of a false and
exploded philosophy, full at once of error and mischief.

appendix. 67
We abstain from imputing to the author a personal disbelief of those doc
trines which have been so seriously endangered by his publications ; but we
hold, that the frame of mind which could produce and send forth statements so
dangerous and so unguarded, is in itself a complete disqualification for the grave
and responsible office of presiding over our academical studies in Divinity, and
consequently of guiding the religious instruction of one half of the country.
" Having refrained from any public expression of our opinion upon the nature
and tendency of Dr. Hampden's publications, till the last moment that forbear
ance was compatible with our duty to the Church and the University, we now
solemnly protest against principles, which impugn and injure the Word of God
as a revealed Rule of Faith and Practice, in its sense and use, its power and
perfection, and which tend to destroy the authority of the Church as a Witness
and a Keeper of Holy Writ.
"And we hereby declare our stedfast resolution to oppose, under the
blessing of Almighty God, the spread of that false philosophy to which those
principles may be traced ; a philosophy which in other countries has poisoned
the very fountains of Religious Truth, which for a long time reduced Protestan
tism, in its original seat, almost to an empty name, and changed the Religion of
the Cross into the Theology of Deism."
Here follow the signatures of 81 gentlemen.
NOTE C, p. 16.
The great excitement I have alluded to, and its connexion with
the political movements of the day, may be easily gathered from the
following extracts from Mr. Palmer's " narrative :" —
" At the beginning of the Summer of 1833, the Church in England and Ire
land seemed destined to immediate desolation and ruin. We had seen, in 1828,
the Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts cutting away from the Church of
England one of its ancient bulwarks, and evidencing a disposition to make con
cession to the clamour of its enemies. In the next year — the fatal year 1829 —
we had seen this principle' fully carried out, by the concession of what is called
" Roman Catholic Emancipation ;" a measure which scattered to the winds
public principle, public morality , public confidence, and dispersed a party, which,
had it possessed courage to adhere to its old and popular principles, and to act
on them with manly energy, would have stemmed the torrent of revolution, and
averted the awful crisis which was at hand.
" Deep as was the consternation, and almost despair of the friends of order
and religion at this time, when we beheld our rulers sacrifice (avowedly under
the influence of intimidation) a constitution, which, in the very moment of its
ruin they admitted to be essential to the security of the Church. Deep as was
then our alarm and indignation at being thus delivered over, bound hand and
foot into the power of a hostile Ascendency ; into the hands of a parliament
" reckless of the high and sacred interests of religion, and now for the first time
numbering by law amongst its members, Romanists and Dissenters ; there were
yet in store for us events of a more fearful nature. The first sound of the tocsin
of revolution at Paris, in 1830, ought to have re-uuited the scattered friends of

68 appendix.
established order in England : it left them engaged in violent dissensions ; and>
with the exception of the " Morning Post," the whole Press of England threw
itself into the cause of the revolutionary party in France. Ere long the tide
began to flow upon our own shores ; and the Tory aristocracy which had for
saken the Church in yielding Emancipation, were now hurled from their political
ascendency ; and the Reform Bill of 1831, a just retribution for their offence,
made for a time the democratic principle all-powerful in the State.
" It was then that we felt ourselves assailed by enemies from without and
from within. Our prelates insulted and threatened by Ministers of State — con
tinual motions made for then: expulsion from the Legislature — demands for the
suppression of Church-rates, on the avowed principle of opening the way for a
total separation of Church and State— clamours, loud and long for the overthrow
of the Church  Dissenters and Romanists triumphing in the prospect of its sub
version, and assailing it with every epithet calculated to stimulate popular hatred.
In Irelaud, some of our clergy assassinated ; the rest deprived of their incomes,
and reduced to the verge of starvation ; while the government looked calmly on,
and seemed to encourage this terrible persecution. In fine, an uninterrupted
series of injuries, dangers, and desertions, was closed by the sacrifice of ten
bishopries in Ireland ; and we were advised to feel thankful that a more sweep
ing measure had not been adopted.* What was next to come ? Was this to
lead to similar measures in England ? Was the same principle of concession
to popular clamour, which had led to the desolation of the Irish Church, to
gratify the Romish democracy there, next to be exemplified in the dismember
ment of the English Church, in the hope of conciliating its antagonists ? Who
could tell ? We had seen even prelates of our own Church make concession
after concession, on this and other points, which should have been defended at
all hazards.
" Nor was this tho worst. The prevailing spirit of innovation had begun
deeply to infect the Church itself. Writers had been at work for some time,
disseminating superficial and fanciful novelties on religious questions ; disdaining
all appeal to authority, and encouraging a, taste for a rationalizing theology.
The publications of the author of "The Natural History of Enthusiasm," which
went directly to the subversion of all existing religious systems, as well amongst
the Dissenters as in the Church, had been unsuspectingly and greedily absorbed
by the public mind. The theory of Church and State had been handled by
adherents of a rationalizing school, which had grown up in Oxford; on various
principles indeed, but in such modes as to generate dissatisfaction with existing
institutions. Elements thus prepared were stimulated into unnatural activity
by political convulsions. We were overwhelmed with pamphlets on Church
Reform. Lord Henley (brother-in-law of Sir Robert Peel), Dr. Burton, Regius
Professor at Oxford, and others of name and influence, led the way ; and nothing
was heard but dissatisfaction with the Church — with her abuses — her corruptions
• " If the report be well founded, as I believe it to be, that the original intention of
the Ministry was to suppress a considerably larger number of Sees, and that they were
dissuaded from this design by a prelate whom they had recently nominated to his high
office, the gratitude of the Church is eminently due to that distinguished prelate. The
recent exertions made in the same quarter to revive the Bishopric of Leighlin, and the
personal sacrifices which were offered on that occasion, are beyond praise."

—her errors ! Each sciolist presented his puny design for reconstructing this
august temple built by no human hands. Sueh was the disorganization of the
public mind, that Dr. Arnold of Rugby ventured to propose, that all sects should
be united by Act of Parliament with the Church of England, on the principle
of retaining all their distinctive errors and absurdities. Reports, apparently
well founded, were prevalent, that some of the prelates, especially the Bishop
of London,* were favourable to alterations in the Liturgy. Pamphlets were in
wide circulation, recommending the abolition of the creeds (at least in public
worship), and especially urging the expulsion of the Athanasian Creed ; the re
moval of all mention of the blessed Trinity ; of the doctrine of baptismal
Regeneration ; of the practice of Absolution. In fact, there was not a single
Stone of the sacred edifice of the Church, which was not examined, shaken,
undermined, by a meddling and ignorant curiosity.
"Such was our condition in the early part of the summer of 1833. We knew
not to what quarter to look for support. A Prelacy threatened, and apparently
intimidated; a Government making its powers subservient to agitators who
avowedly sought the destruction of the Church. The State, so long the guardian
of that Church, now becoming its enemy and its tyrant. Enemies within the
Church seeking the subversion of its essential characteristics. And what was
worst of all — no principle in the public mind to which we could appeal ; an utter
ignorance of all rational grounds of attachment to the Church ; an oblivion of
its spiritual character, as an institution, not of man, but of God ; the grossest
Erastianism most widely prevalent, especially amongst all classes of politicians.
There was in all this enough to appal the stoutest hearts ; and those who can
recal the feelings of those days, will at once remember the deep depression into
which the Church had fallen, and the gloomy forebodings which were universally
prevalent." (Narrative pp. 2-5. )
Then after recounting the steps that were taken, after the meeting
at Hadleigh, to render the Church more popular, and giving copies
of the address to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Lay Decla
ration presented to the same most Reverend Prelate, Mr. Palmer
goes on to say : —
"The circulation of the declaration amongst the laity, however, which took
place under the auspices of the committee, produced far more important and
decisive effects than could have resulted from any assemblage of signatures. It
produced the first awakening from that torpor of despair into which the friends
of order and religion had been plunged by the triumph of hostile principles
under the Reform Bill. The country was still under the formidable domination
of political unions : it was still trembling at the remembrance of insurrection
and devastation at Bristol and Nottingham.-)- It beheld a feeble band of patriots
* " That excellent prelate, on being informed of the report, tool immediate measures
to contradict it."
t " In Oxford we were more than once alarmed by reports, that the Birmingham
Political Union intended to march through Oxford on their way to London, and to sack
and burn the Colleges."

70 appendix.
in tbe House of Commons, strugghng for the remnants of the British Consti
tution against a majority of revolutionists five-fold more numerous than them
selves. The House of Lords, indeed, nobly stemmed wave after wave of
revolution, but we knew not how soon the threats and execrations of the disap
pointed democracy might rise into another storm, and sweep away this last
bulwark of law and order. It was then that the principle of attachment to the
Church of England called forth the first public demonstration of attachment to
all that Englishmen shouhl hold most dear and sacred. The Declaration of the
Laity was sent to all parts, aud meetings of Churchmen were convened in all
the principal towns. So great was the apprehension at this time, that they did
not venture at first to assemble openly, for the purpose of recording their attach
ment to the Established Church ; admission was in general restricted to those
friends who were provided with tickets.
" The result, however, was beyond what the warmest friends of the Church
could have ventured to anticipate. Day after day did the "Standard," then
our steady friend and coadjutor in defence of the Church, teem with accounts of
meetings of her faithful children in all parts of England. Nottingham, York,
Cheltenham, Northampton, Derby, Plymouth, Dorchester, Poole, Liverpool,
Norwich, Newcastle, Hull, Bristol, Bath, Gloucester, and many other places,
vied with each other in heart-stirring declarations of devotion and fidelity to
the Church of their fathers, and resolutions to maintain its rights and its doc
trines. Petitions in support of the Chui ch began rapidly to pour into the House
of Commons. It seemed as if feelingslong pent up had acquired energy from
restraint and compression ; and the Church beheld with astonishment the power
and the substantial popularity of which it was possessed.
"Nor was this the whole amount of benefit derived. The resolute declara
tions of attachment to the Church which thus emanated from the people,
found an echo in the heart of Royalty itself, and his most gracious Majesty,
King William IV., in May, WM, took occasion to address to the Prelates of
England, assembled on the anniversary of his birth-day, his royal declaration of
devoted affection to the Church, and of his firm resolution to maintain its doc
trines, a declaration which was hailed by all the friends of the Church with the
strongest feelings of gratitude and loyal attachment. I may here add, that in
the autumn, shortly after these events, King William availed himself of an
opportunity to call the Conservative party to the head of affairs ; and the impulse
which had been given to loyal and constitutional principles by the Ecclesiastical
movements of the spring and summer, at once displayed itself in the presen
tation of thousands of addresses of thanks and congratulations to the King, on
the dismissal of the ministry, which were succeeded by more solid proofs of
principle, in the return of so great a body of Conservative members of parlia
ment as instantly and permanently arrested the march of revolution, and raised
the Conservative party in parliament nearly to an equality with that of its
opponents. " Here we must pause in this branch of the narrative, having carried on the
series of our efforts and their consequences, to the revival of sound polit'cal
feeling in the nation, and the elevation of the Conservative party. Our move-

APPENDIX. 71
ment, however, had no political object of any kind. We understood indeed
that it was rather disapproved by some Conservative leaders. We were
certainly never aided or encouraged by them in any way." (Narrative
pp. 15-18.;
I am ready to concede, that the movement, which originated at Had
leigh, was not directed, from the beginning, to the promotion of mere
political objects, but every one must have seen, from the extracts
already given, that politics had a great deal to do with the matter,
and will be satisfied, from Mr. Palmer's own narrative, that he is a
little forgetful as to the encouragement spoken of above ; for a letter
is given in the Appendix, p. 101, from " a gentleman," of which the
following is a copy : — " Lichfield Ctose, 26th March, 1834.
" I have the pleasure to send you declarations from the Laity in Lichfield,
Norton, and Courley, and Shenstone, in Staffordshire, and also one from Sir
Robert Peel and several highly respectable gentlemen in this neighbourhood.
Sir Robert has authorised me by letter to add his name" (i. e. to the declara
tion of which Mr. Palmer had been speaking), " which letter I can forward if
necessary." Perhaps it may not be too much to say, that the encouragement
received had a great deal to do with the agitation at Oxford in 1836,
when it was hoped, that, if a demonstration could be got up, the
success of the party, who went about to invite the members of the
University to unite to avert the evil which was pretended to be
apprehended from Dr. Hampden's appointment, would be more com
plete, and it was forgotten, that any such agitation was entirely
inconsistent with that conduct that should have been pursued by men
who were about to try another. Mr. Perceval too, in his '* Collection
of Papers"* relative to the same movement, has much to the same
purpose. Speaking of the meeting at Hadleigh, and in apology for
the language of two sermons which he afterwards presents to us, he
expresses himself thus : —
" The Conference began on a Thursday, and broke up on the Monday follow
ing : a Sunday, therefore, occurred during it. As one of the sermons preached
on that day had reference to the then existing state of things, a copy of it is
subjoined. I have also given that which was preached at the Chapel Royal,
on the Sunday preceding the Conference. They may be of interest to many,
as serving to show, better than any description could do, the spirit and temper
bv which the parties were actuated. Before either of these is comdemned as
* A Collection of Papers connected with the Theological movement of 1843, By the
H and Rev. A. P Perceval, B.C.L., one of Her Majesty's Chaplains. London:
Bivingtons. 184-2.

72 APPENDIX.
extravagant, let the reader call to mind what was then actually the condition
as well as prospect of the Church and Nation -. — An agrarian and civic insur
rection against the Bishops and Clergy, and all who desired to adhere to tha
existing institutions of the country ; — the populace, goaded on openly by the
speeches, covertly (as it was fully believed at the time) by the paid emissaries
of the Ministers of the Crown ; the chief of those Ministers in his place in
Parliament bidding the Bishop3 set their houses in order ; the mob taking
him at his word, and burning to the ground the palace of the Bishop of
Bristol, with the public buildings of that city, while they shouted the Pre.
mier's Dame in triumph over the ruins ; — a measure relating to tho Church
in Ireland having passed the Commons, and then before the Lords, which
was denounced by the Bishops of that Church, ' as deeply injurious to the
spiritual privileges, rights, and interests of the Church, as totally opposed to
their system of ecclesiastical polity ; inconsistent with the spiritual authority of
the Prelates ; calculated to impede the extension of the principles of their
Church among the people ; and highly injurious to the progress of true religion
in that country ; — measures for altering our Liturgy and Rituals ' to meet the
spirit of the age ;' that is, to please Dissenters and Sceptics who were then in
the ascendant, openly proclaimed in both houses of Parliament ; — the King,
who had found by experience that it was easier to let loose the spirit of reform,
than to restrain the spirit of revolution, having to deal outside of his palace
with mobs, who by the most brutal gestures to his face, declared themselves
to be thirsting for his blood, and that of his Royal Consort, and who were
headed by the descendants of the regicides of the seventeenth century, who
stalked forth from their hiding-places, boasted in open day of their (base)
descent, and declared their readiness to repeat the deed of their ancestors •
while, within his palace, he had for his only counsellor, one, who according
to uncontradicted report, had been the only member of the English House
of Commons who refused to appear in mourning on the murder of Louis XVI.,
and who, at the very time of which we are speaking, when the English mob
and the descendants of English regicides were demanding his master's life,
had declared in his place in the House of Lords, that ' in this free country
he did not like to use the term monarchy ;'* — and the House of Lords, mean
while the last earthly prop of the Constitution, through fear, not for them
selves, indeed, of which their great leader was incapable, but for the King's
crown and person, yielding to the storm like a reed that bends. Such was
the state, and such the prospects of our Church and nation, when the Con
ference at Hadleigh was held ; and a few insignificant clergymen determined
to endeavour, by the foolishness of Church principles, to stem the torrent of
ruin before which all other defences had proved powerless. The Bishop of
Chester (Dr. Sumner) seems disposed to ascribe our movement to Satan; the
head master of Rugby (Dr. Arnold) to Antichrist. But when the feebleness of
the instruments employed is contrasted with the effect produced, it seems more .
reasonable to ascribe it to that Great Head of the Church who chooseth the
foolish things of the world to confound the things that are mighty. Certainly,
* " This memorable speech was made on May 7, 1832. I was in the House myself and
heard it."

APPENDIX.

73

as one concerned, I can say this : that belief in His promises to His Church
was the one and only source of our confidence and courage." (Collection qf
Papers, pp. 25-26 )
It is impossible to read these quotations without tracing the move
ment made, from 1833 downwards, to the political changes, which
had taken place between that year and 1828. And when it is re
membered that Mr. Perceval's " Collection of Papers" was not
published until 1842, and Mr. Palmer's " Narrative" until 1843, at
intervals respectively of 9 and 10 years from the latest of the events
alluded to, and the exaggerated language, in which those events are
recorded, is observed, we cannot be astonished, that in 1836, when
three years only had transpired, persons of such a temper should be
greatly excited. But that very excitement made them unfit judges
of others, and militated against the fair trial of Dr. Hampden. The
circumstances of the times may account for their conduct, but cannot
justify it. It was altogether different from what it should have
been.

Also, by the same Author, Price One Shilling,
AN EXAMINATION i
OF THE THEORIES OF
ABSOLUTION AND CONFESSION
LATELY PROPOUNDEn IN THE
UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD.

3 9002 08561 6630