Phil I pott

X-

' f%5b 1847 V5

A REPLY

LORD JOHN RUSSELL'S LETTER

THE REMONSTRANCE OF THE BISHOPS

AGAINST THE APPOINTMENT OP

Rev. Dr. HAMPDEN to the SEE of HEREFORD.

BY THE RIGHT REVEREND ' .^O V
Pr,iHpo4H
HENRY, LORD BISHOP OF EXETER.

LONDON:
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.
1847.

London :
Printed by W. Clowes imd Sons,
14, Charing Cross.

INTRODUCTION.

Protest of the Bishops.
"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 Government,
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 sound
ness 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 ap
pointment be completed, there is the greatest danger
both of the interruption of the peace of the Church,
and of the disturbance of the confidence which it is
most desirable that the Clergy and laity of the Church
should feel in every exercise of the Royal supremacy,

IV
especially as regards that very delicate 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. WlNTON.
" J. Lincoln.
" Chr. Bangor.
" Hugh Carlisle.
" G. Rochester.
" Rich. Bath and Wells.
" J. H. Glocester and Bristol.
" H. Exeter.
" E. Sarum.
" A. T. Chichester.
" T. Ely.
" Saml. Oxon.
" To the Right Hon. the Lord John Russell,"
Sfc. c}c. Sfc.

" Chesham Place, December 8th, 1847.
"My Lords,
I have had the honour to receive a representa
tion signed by your Lordships, on the' subject of 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 Lo.dship* ref^r 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. The University
of Oxford, and many Bishops, as I am told, have re
quired 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 ap
probation 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 recommendation of Dr. Hamp
den, 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 exclu
sion against a Clergyman of eminent learning and
irreproachable life, and that, in fact, the supremacy
which is now by law vested in the Crown is to be

VI
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 feeling that is said to be com
mon 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 believe to be intended for the
public benefit. " I have, &c.
"J. Russell."
" To the Right Rev. the Bishops of London, Winchester,
Lincoln, Sec"

A REPLY,
Sfc. Sfc.

London, 10th December, 1847.
My Lord,
I had last night the honour of receiving your Lord
ship's letter of the 8th instant, addressed to myself, in
common with the other Bishops, who had presumed to
represent to you their apprehensions of the evil con
sequences which must be expected to result from the
nomination (if persisted in) of Dr. Hampden to the
vacant see of Hereford.
As the remonstrant Bishops have now, for the most
part, returned to their several dioceses, it is not possible
for them, within any reasonable space of time, to meet
together for the purpose of making a common reply
to those parts of your Lordship's letter, which may
seem especially to demand reply. I therefore feel it
due to your Lordship, no less than to myself, that I
should state frankly, and without waiting for commu
nication with others, the reasons which compel me to
withhold my assent from the arguments which you
have addressed to us.
Your Lordship is pleased to remark, first, on our
" not having stated any want of confidence, on our own
part, in the soundness of Dr. Hampden's doctrine."
My Lord, in abstaining from such statement we

took that part which I venture to submit, manifestly,
was most becoming.
We had hardly a right to obtrude upon you, un
asked, our opinion on that point; for such opinion
would have been only that of individuals, whereas the
judgment, on which we rested our representation, was
the judgment of a body eminently qualified to judge,
and accustomed, in the best times, to be listened to on
such subjects with respect and attention by all. But,
my Lord, as our silence on this particular is considered
by your Lordship as an omission which lessens the
force of our representation, I will not myself be silent
any longer. I hesitate not, therefore, to state that I
have no confidence in the soundness of Dr. Hampden's
doctrine. " The decree of the University to which we referred,
passed," as your Lordship truly observes, " eleven years
ago ; and was founded" (in part — doubtless a principal
part) " upon lectures delivered fifteen years ago."
Why was it, your Lordship seems by implication to
ask, that the long interval of four years was suffered to
elapse between the publication of the offensive
doctrines, and the decree which condemned them?
For a reason which, I venture to think, your Lordship
will, on reflection, deem quite sufficient to explain, if
not to justify, the delay.
During, those four years, Dr. Hampden was in no
position specially and immediately connected with
theological teaching ; his errors therefore, however
grave, were not so formidable, as to demand the
unusual interposition of the University, as a body, to
vindicate the sacred truths which he had impugned.

9
If it be asked, why the lesser and ordinary tribunal,
the Vice-Chancellor's Board, was not resorted to ? I
frankly answer, that I do not know. It may have
proceeded, and probably did proceed, from the natural,
perhaps culpable, reluctance of men in authority to ex
ercise that authority, penally, against one of their
own number; and from the unwillingness of men not
in authority, to place themselves, without very special
call, in the invidious and painful position of public
accusers. At the end of those four years, however, the state
of things was greatly altered. Dr. Hampden had
ceased to be in the comparatively private station
which he had before occupied. He had been ap
pointed to the highest chair of Divinity in Oxford. His
influence, therefore, on its theological teaching, and on
the future character and usefulness of the University,
could not but be dreaded and deprecated ; and the
duty of resistance to that influence had become most
manifestly, most imperatively, urgent.
Accordingly, the heads of the University are un
derstood to have presented in the highest quarter,
through His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury,
their strong objections to the appointment ; and our
then most gracious Sovereign, King William IV., was
generally believed to have expressed his desire, that
the appointment should not be completed. But, even
the expression of the royal wish having been found to
be in vain, the University was compelled to have
recourse to its own unquestioned powers of judging in
such a cause, and to take those steps, which might not
only lessen the power of mischief in the new Professor's

10
teaching, but should also vindicate its own character
before the world.
Such, my Lord, is, I believe, a brief history of the
decree to which the remonstrant Bishops referred your
Lordship. But you add, that " since the date of that
decree Dr. Hampden has acted as Regius Professor
of Divinity — the University of Oxford and many
Bishops, as I am told, have required certificates of
attendance on his lectures ' from candidates for Holy
Orders,' who had received their education at Oxford."
My Lord, that " the University of Oxford has ever
required certificates from any persons under its autho
rity of attendance on Dr. Hampden's lectures," I have
never before heard ; nor, till I had the honour of re
ceiving your Lordship's letter, have I had the slightest
reason to believe.
With regard to the course taken by Bishops in this
respect, I may be allowed to say, that it had been the
universal rule of every diocese in England, to require
the certificate of attendance on the Regius Professor's
lectures, for a very long period before that chair was
filled by Dr. Hampden. If any Bishops abstained from
revoking that rule, although a Professor was appointed
whom they might greatly disapprove, it would not
much surprise me; nor should I think, that they
thereby precluded themselves from the right of testi
fying their adverse judgment of him, on any grave
occasion, as the present must pre-eminently be held
to be.
Be this as it may, if any of the remonstrant
Bishops are justly open to this remark, (I know not
that any of them are,) I am not in the number. Im-

11
mediately after the passing of the Academic Statute
in question, I deemed it right to inform Dr. Hampden,
as doubtless, if he has made any communication to you
on this head, he has informed your Lordship — that I
could not regard him as a safe guide to students in
theology, and could not therefore require certificates of
attendance on his lectures from candidates for Holy
Orders. I made this communication in terms as little
offensive to Dr. Hampden's feelings as I could devise ;
and I had the satisfaction of receiving from him, if
my memory does not deceive me, an acknowledgment
to that effect.
That " Dr. Hampden has likewise preached sermons
for which he has been honoured with the approbation
of several Prelates of our Church," I most unhesita
tingly believe on the authority of your Lordship ; but
the relevancy of such a fact to the matter now in
question, in any but an infinitesimal degree, I must
profess my inability to perceive.
Your Lordship proceeds to say, " Several months
before I named Dr. Hampden to the Queen for the see
of Hereford, I signified my intention" (not, I am con
fident, of naming him to the see of Hereford, for that
see was not then vacant nor likely to be vacant ; nor
to the next see which might be open ; for another has
been since open, to which Dr. Hampden was not named,
and more than one eminent person is known to have
had the offer of it from your Lordship ; but it may
have been, that you signified your intention of naming
Dr. Hampden to some see at some time or other,)
" to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and did not receive
from him any discouragement."

12
My Lord, your Lordship will, I am confident, pardon
my inquiry — (for the question is manifestly most im
portant to the fair understanding of the merits of the
case) — Did you ask his Grace, whether he thought
Dr Hampden a fit person to be recommended to a
Bishopric ? If you did not ask his opinion, few per
sons will be at all surprised that he abstained from
giving it.
Your Lordship better knows than I can presume to
guess, what are the relations between his Grace and
yourself; what your habits of consultation with him
on this and kindred questions. But thus much I must
say, that unless these relations be most intimate, these
habits most unreserved, it would seem to be almost a
matter of course, that our aged Primate, one always
distinguished by his delicacy and reluctance to obtrude,
without absolute necessity, the expression of any opinion
adverse to the interests of another — it would seem to
me, I repeat, a matter of course, that his Grace should
forbear to tell your Lordship, that your intention of
recommending Dr. Hampden at some period, which
might never arrive during the continuance of your
Lordship's power of recommending, or during his own
valuable life, would involve you in the difficulty of
having named a person, whose appointment would be
regarded by the Church, at large, as an act either of
wanton insult, or of official recklessness beyond all
precedent. After all, it is satisfactory to see, on the authority of
your Lordship's own words, to how small dimensions
the swelling statement at first made of this matter has
at length dwindled. The story, which was put forth in

13
a tone only not official, and circulated by those who
spoke as on the authority of your Lordship, that the
Archbishop had given " his cordial assent" to Dr.
Hampden's appointment to the now vacant see of
Hereford, turns out to be nothing more, than that the
Archbishop gave " no discouragement," when, several
months before the see of Hereford was vacant, you
signified to his Grace your intention of naming Dr
Hampden, at some time, or other, to some Bishopric or
other. And the importance even of this intimation of the
Archbishop's supposed " assent" to Dr. Hampden's ap
pointment, small as it is, sinks into absolute insigni
ficance — or, rather, is converted into something much
more nearly resembling "dissent" — when it is stated, on
authority too respectable to admit of question, that
your Lordship actually received a letter from the Arch
bishop, some days before that of the Bishops, in which
his Grace apprised you of the ferment which the an
nouncement of Dr. Hampden's promotion was exciting
in the Church, and of the certainty of legal steps being
taken in order to defeat it.
My Lord, I have said that the appointment of Dr,
Hampden is an act " beyond all precedent." And this,
I believe, is strictly true. Never before was any per
son recommended by the Crown to a Bishopric, against
whom there stood a formal legal judgment affirming the
unsoundness of his doctrine. This is the real, the special
distinction of his case. Short of this, indeed, one or
two instances, not dissimilar, occur to me while I am
writing. The first is the case of two persons nominated by

14
King James IL in the year 1686 to fill the sees of
Chester and Oxford : and I would rather give the case
in the words of Burnet than in my own: —
" Cartwright was promoted to Chester. The see of
Oxford was given to Dr. Parker. These two persons
were pitched on as the fittest instruments that could be
found among the Clergy, to betray and ruin the Church."
My Lord, I most unfeignedly disclaim the slightest
intention to insinuate that such is your - object in
naming Dr. Hampden, or that he would be a fit in
strument for such a purpose. I .believe you both to be
utterly incapable of anything so dishonourable. But
the preceding inapposite words are necessary to intro
duce what is, I submit, really apposite : —
"Some ofthe Bishops brought to Archbishop Sancroft
Articles against them, which they desired he would offer
to the King in Council, and pray that the mandate for
consecrating them might be. delayed till time were
given to examine particulars. And Bishop Lloyd told
me, that Sancroft promised to him not to consecrate
them till he had examined the truth of the Articles,
which were too scandalous to be repeated. Yet when
Sancroft saw what danger he might incur, if he were
sued in praemunire, he consented to consecrate them.
[" An accident happened in the action, that struck
him much : when he was going to give the chalice in
the Sacrament, he stumbled on one of the steps of1
the altar, and dashed out all the consecrated wine
that was in it ; which was much taken notice of, and
gave himself much trouble, since he was frightened by
so mean a fear."] — Burnet, History of His Own Times,
Oxford, 1823, vol. iii., p. 136-8.

15
Such, my Lord, is the first precedent, shall I say?
or warning? It is for your Lordship to decide; and in
forming your decision, you will, I doubt not, remember
that Sancroft is not now in the see of Canterbury, nor
James II. on the throne of England.
The other case is that of Bishop Hoadly, of which
I am more apprehensive that your Lordship may think
it worthy of being followed.
Against this Prelate, a notorious latitudinarian, " and
something more," the Lower House of Convocation in
1717, prepared a representation, to be presented to the
Archbishops and Bishops sitting in the Upper House,
" that with much grief of heart they had observed
that the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Bangor
hath given great and grievous offence, by certain doc
trines and positions by him lately published ;" the
tendency of which they proceeded to set forth in the
form of Articles.
Before this representation could be brought into the
Upper House, the Convocation was prorogued by a
special order from the King, and was not permitted to
sit again. The accused Prelate was not long after
wards translated to Hereford, (what a complete and
happy precedent !) and subsequently, in due succession,
to Salisbury, and to Winchester.
My Lord, if the conduct of the Minister of George I.,
on that scandalous occaasion, be not adopted by you as
a precedent, shew that you repudiate it. Take that
step, which is due to justice, to the rights of the
Church, and to the conscience of every Churchman.
Withdraw the recommendation which you have so
inconsiderately made ; or, if you persist in it, refer the

16
writings of Dr. Hampden to the judgment of the'
Church in Convocation.
If there are objections to that course, devise some
other. Let those writings be judged by a Provincial
Council of the Bishops, assisted by such divines as
Her Majesty shall be graciously pleased to name ;
or devise some other tribunal of any kind, provided it
be fair and competent ; but do not, as you value your
own good name, or the honour of your Sovereign, or
the welfare of the Church, — and, it may be, it must be,
of the State also — for, the welfare of the State, rightly
understood, is, and ever will be, bound up indissolubly
with that of the Church — do not persist in your
unhappy career — make not what is, as yet, only an
indiscretion — and revocable as such- — make it not a
crime ; aye, and I dare not forbear adding — a sin.
But I return to your Lordship's letter.
You proceed to say to us, " Should I withdraw my
recommendation of Dr. Hampden, 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 irreproachable
life." My Lord, I doubt not the learning, nor the excellent
moral character, of Dr. Hampden. But these qualifi
cations have no connection whatever with the merits of
this case.
Is Dr. Hampden unworthy of confidence, as an
exponent of Christian Truth ? The University of
Oxford, judging from his published writings, has
solmenly decreed that he is ; and because he is, that
University has deprived him of certain functions

17
hitherto attached to his office of Professor of Divinity.
Is it of less moment, that there be confidence in
the soundness of the doctrine of a Bishop, than of a
Professor ? Is heterodoxy less mischievous in a Judge,
than in a Teacher, of Theology ? My Lord, it cannot
be necessary to remind you, that a Bishop, as such,
and by the essential, indefeasible, right and duty of his
office, is empowered, and is bound, to judge of the
doctrine preached and taught by every Clergyman
under his charge.
The judgment of the University, therefore, ought to
be a "ban of exclusion" (from the office of a Bishop, at
least) against Dr. Hampden, so long as it remains in
force — in other words, until it shall be either repealed,
or washed away, or proved to be unfounded.
The first of these three modes has been tried ; but
the attempt signally failed. The University, six years
after the decree passed, was moved to repeal it, and
that, too, under circumstances peculiarly favourable to
the success of the motion ; when, from causes too no
torious to need to be recited, a strong reaction had
arisen, and prejudice had taken a course most favour
able to Dr. Hampden. Yet, even then, the motion
of repeal was sternly rejected — by a majority, much
smaller indeed than that which had originally enacted
the decree (474 to 94), but large enough to evince
abundantly the unaltered and unalterable judgment of
the University — it was 330 to 219.
Your Lordship says, however, " It must not be for
gotten, that many of the most prominent among the
original majority have since joined the communion of
the Church of Rome."

18
My Lord, if by " the most prominent " ought to be
understood the Committee, who openly sate for the
purpose of devising measures for vindicating the Uni
versity from the evils which might be expected to
result from slich a selection of the King's Professor of
Theology, and who, as being " the taost prominent " in
the contest, received the fornial thanks of bodies of
Clergy throughout England, too nuirtefotts to be re
counted,— ;of these, due indeed has fallen, to the Con
sternation and grief of all who knew, or had heard of,
his high faculties. The others, thank God, still stand
rooted and grounded in faith and love.
But, my Lord, supposing that those of the majority
who have lapsed may be truly stated to be " many," (I
know not in amy sense that they are,) will youT Lord
ship, or Will any honourable man, venture to say, that —
abstracting their naimes from the 'list even of the smaller
majority, the result would not be to leave that majority
still large — still more than sufficient amply to stamp
the decree With the impress of the general judgment
ofthe University"?
But I have intimated that ih'e stain of the judgment
may be Washed away. My {Lord, I Wish this had been
done long ago by the only person Who is able to do
it— by Dr. 'Hampden himself. The judgment may be
WEisked away 'by his retracting the errors' against Which
it was 'directed. But this is a course Which Dr. Hamp
den has refused to ta&e. In a piibli^hed Letter of his
to the Archbishop of Canterbury, 'dated- January 28rd,
1838, 'he thus writes— " I retract nothing that I have
written ; I disclaim nothing."
My Lord, 1 honour Dr. Hampdeh'fbrHhtis writing^so

19
long as his opinions are unchanged, he cannot retract ;
but so long as he does not retract, he cannot reasonably
expect the ppsition, from which those opinions exclude
him. If in his teaching during eleven years as Regius
Professor, or in any of the valuable sermons of which
your Lordship writes, he had either expressly or vir
tually withdrawn what was justly censurable in his
earlier writings, I, for one, should npt have been found
in the list of remonstrants. Yet, I frankly own, that I
should, even in that case, still b,ear in mind (and with
hearty assent) a saying of King George III., which was
strongly marked by his characteristic practical good
sense. When his Minister recommended to him for a
vacant Bishopric, some divine who had set forth
certain unsound doctrines, whicl>? however, he after
wards retracted — " I will have for my new Bishop," said
the good King, "some man who has nothing to
retract." But a third course may, I have said, be taken, to
remove from Dr. Hampden the ban of exclusion of
which your Lordship writes. Let the censure of the
University, which has created it, be proved to be un
founded. Let this be done before any competent
tribunal, and Dr. Hampden will then enter on the
office to whjch your Lordship has designated him, with
powers of usefulness which he will otherwise, if he ever
efljfcer upon it at all, be utterly unable to carry with
him. My Lord, a higher authority than any conge
d'elire, or letter missive, has said " a bishop must be
blameless," not exempt, I need not say from human
infirmity, not free from every breath of calumny and
envy, but pure from all which can be justly called

20
" blame," pure from the censure of all who are entitled
to pronounce judicially upon him.
Your Lordship is pleased to add, what (I must con
fess) no lighter testimony than that of your own hand
could make me think it possible that you could write,
" that this would be, in fact, to say that 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." My Lord, if instead of a decree having been passed
against Dr. Hampden for unsound teaching by the
University of Oxford, a judgment of the Court of
Queen's Bench had been pronounced against him for
some flagitious crime, and if this judgment were urged
as a reason why he should not be promoted to a Bishop
ric — would this be to transfer the Royal Supremacy
from the Queen to Lord Denman ? If it would not,
why should it be said to follow from Dr. Hampden's
being disqualified for a Bishopric, so long as he is under
the censure of the Oxford decree, that this is to trans
fer the supremacy of the Crown to the Convocation, of
Oxford ?
My Lord, I own I am mortified at finding myself
obliged to answer such transparent sophistry as this.
Your Lordship " deeply regrets" — I doubt not sin
cerely — " the feeling, that is said to be common
among the Clergy on this subject." " But," you add,
" I cannot sacrifice the reputation of Dr. Hampden, the
right? 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 pre
judice."

21
My Lord, if this feeling be indeed " founded on mis
apprehension," let it be proved to be so : — if it be
" fomented by prejudice," do not give to that prejudice
the increased momentum of a deep and bitter feeling of
persecution. To your assurance of your belief, that "the true
interests of the Church" are bound up with the ap
pointment of Dr. Hampden, I have neither a right, nor
any inclination, to withhold the fullest credit. I thank
your Lordship for your regard for those interests, how
ever mistaken I may deem your way of testifying it.
Your unwillingness to " sacrifice the reputation of
Dr. Hampden," does' you honour. Shall I be deemed
officious, if I suggest to you the only expedient by which
you can preserve it ? For Dr. Hampden's sake, for
your own sake — for the sake of his reputation, and of
your own, — let his theological writings be subjected to
a fitting and adequate tribunal. If the result be a
sentence of exculpation, then indeed Dr. Hampden's
reputation will be upheld and vindicated — then indeed
it will " not be sacrificed" — which else it must be, if he
be forced, or if it be attempted to force him, on the
reluctant and reclamant Church, by rousing into life
and activity the hitherto dormant powers of the most
hateful and most tyrannical law which is permitted to
pollute our Statute Book.
But your Lordship is further resolved " not to
sacrifice" what you call " the rights of the Crown,"
founded upon that Statute.
My Lord, the name of Russell ought to be — ever
will be, I am sure, in your reflecting hours— a security
to us against the application by you of a phrase so

22
sacred, as " the rights of tbe Crown," to a matter so
foul, as the provisions of the Statute of which I am
writing. My Lord, the Crown has no right, can have no right
(I trust too, that it will be found to have no power,) to
force a Bishop on the Church, whom the Church has
just right to reject as a " setter forth of erroneous and
strange doctrine, contrary to God's word." True, my
Lord, the Statute 23 Henry VIII., c. 20, (the Magna
Charta of Tyranny,) does give to the Crown a power,
which your Lordship has been pleased to call a " right,"
to condemn to prison, and to penury, any Dean, or any
Chapter, which may refuse compliance with such a
mandate. But no Statute has the power to effect the
execution of the mandate itself; no statute has the
power to make an honest and conscientious Chapter to
elect, or an honest and conscientious Prelate to con
secrate, to the office of Bishop, such a person as I have
described above.
Forbear, my Lord, while you have yet time. Persist
not in your rash experiment. The bands of your
vaunted Statute will snap asunder like Withes, if you
attempt to bind with them the strongest of all strong
men,— the man who is strengthened with inner might
against the assailant of his Church.
My Lord, do not imagine, that I am one of those,
who, if it were within their power, would deprive the
Crown of any portion of its rightful supremacy —
especially, of its just, legitimate, Christian, influence in
the appointment of our Bishops— an influence, which I
firmly believe to be necessary to the peace, and therefore
to the efficiency, of the Church. Let the Crown .eon,-

23
tinue to nominate them : but let it exercise this right,
which almost all considerate churchmen wish them to
retain — with caution, with discretion, with due regard
to the feelings, and the conscience, of all concerned.
Depend upon it, my Lord, the remonstrant Bishops
spake to you a sound and pregnant truth, when they
told you, that " the nomination to vacant Bishoprics is
a very delicate, as well as a very important, particular
of the Royal Supremacy."
But I will not enlarge on this matter. Again, I implore
you to forbear, while you yet have time. Retrace your
s'tep's— -and be assured every honest and good man, every
prudent and sound adviser, — -above all, your ©wn con
science; though not, -it may be, your present transient
feeling-— will ;applaud your forbearance.
I have the honour to be,
My Lord,
Your Lordship's most
obedient Servant,
H. EXETER.

The Right Honourable
Lord John Russell.

POSTSCRIPT.

27, Conduit Street, December 13th, 1847.
My Lord, I have just seen a copy of your Lordship's
answer to the Address from the Lay Members of the
Church, (very many and very distinguished Members,
as I have heard,) on occasion of Dr. Hampden's ap
pointment. Connected as this Address is with the subject of my
recent Letter, I may be permitted to add a few words
in reference to it, as a Postscript to what I there wrote.
Your Lordship states " your belief that the appoint
ment will tend to strengthen the Protestant character
of our Church, so seriously threatened of late by many
defections to the Church of Rome."
I give your Lordship full credit for the motive to
which you ascribe this appointment; but I must frankly
say, that I should esteem any act a poor, and worse
than worthless, compliment to " the Protestant cha
racter " of our Church, aye, and a real weakening of that
Protestant character, rightly understood, which tends
to make that character less Catholic, and less worthy of
the confidence of the sound portion of the Catholic
Church throughout the world.

25
But I have pleasure in stating to your Lordship, that
not only in my own diocese, but in many others, the
Resolutions, Addresses, and Petitions, on this occasion,
have been subscribed by the Clergy of all shades of
religious opinion, among them by those who are most
strenuous in the cause of Protestantism.
I also feel it my duty to state to your Lordship, that
I have been assured that there was great reason to fear
that if this appointment had taken place without strong
resistance from all who could resist, and without re
monstrance from those who could only remonstrate,
there would have been a fresh and more deplorable,
as well as far more numerous " defection from our
Church," which would then have seemed tacitly to
acquiesce in its own degradation, and so to have almost
unchurched itself.
Your Lordship is pleased to condemn the course
taken by the University of Oxford in 1836, — and con
firmed in 1842, — as "an unworthy proceeding."
Without presuming to question the right of your
Lordship, as an individual, to condemn any public act
of any body of men whatsoever, I yet may take the
liberty of saying, that I cannot recognise the fitness
(I am unwilling to use a stronger word) of the First
Minister of the Crown thus publicly and officially
holding up to indignation a solemn decree of one of
the most eminent and venerated bodies, not only in
England, but in Europe.
I must also venture to suggest a question, whether
this be the happiest mode of testifying that "charity"
which I doubt not your Lordship feels, but of which

26
you deplore "the sad want in others; or of allaying
those " feelings of bitterness " which your Lordship, in
common with all good men, must sincerely deprecate.
I have the honour to be,
My Lord,
Your Lordship's most
obedient Servant,
H. EXETER.
The Right Hon. the Lord John Russell.

The following is the correspondence to which the
Postscript refers : —
" 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

27
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 electa ,u to the vacant Bishopri-8, a person who has
been solemnly pronounced by his 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."

" Chesham Place, December \Qth, 1847.
" My Lords and Gentlemen,
" I have had the honour to receive your re
presentation 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 ex
cite feelings of bitterness, is, I hope an error, as it
would show a 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, so seriously threatened of late by many defec
tions to the Church of Rome. Among the chiefs of

28
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 Theolo
gical Hoard 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 certainLay- Members ofthe
Church of England!'

London: Printed by W. Clowes and Sown, 14, Charing Cross.