Lell

e r

is

A LETTER

HIS GRACE

ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY,

EXPLANATORY OF THE

PROCEEDINGS AT OXFORD,

ON THE APPOINTMENT OF

»THE present
REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY.

MEMBER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD.
<  /'; "
" it (christian zeal) plans no intrigues, it
recognises' no parties, it relies on no arm of
flesh :  in a word, christian zeal is not
political." — Newman's Sermons, Vol. II. p. 431.

THIRB EDITION :
WITH A LETTER TO THE CORPUS COMMITTEE,
BY JORTI^REDIVIVUS.
LONDON:
B. FELLOWES, LUDGATE STREET.
1836.

R. CLAY, PRINTER, BREAD-STREET-IIILL.

PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION.

The following Letters reached me when the
third edition of this little pamphlet was on the
eve of publication. I insert them therefore,
though rather out of place, as a sort of preface.
The first of them, the Letter from Dr. Hampden to
the Duke of Wellington, was in fact made public
by the Duke's order, when he enjoined the Vice-
Chancellor to read it to the Heads of Houses :
the Principal of St. Mary Hall must pardon,
therefore, what would otherwise have been an
inexcusable liberty, the publication of a private
letter. The Duke of Wellington's, since it was
really addressed to the Board of Heads, though
nominally to the Principal, is in fact a public
document. a 2

ii PREFACE TO THE
Copy of a Letter to the Duke of Wellington
from the Rev. Dr. Hampden.
" St. Mary Hall, March 9th, 1836.
"My Lord Duke,
" I beg leave most respectfully to
" appeal to your Grace, as Chancellor of the
" University, on the matter of the present pro-
" ceedings in Oxford. Your Grace will probably
" have learned that there has been considerable
" agitation here respecting my appointment to
" the Regius Professorship of Divinity.
" I do not object to the expression of feelings
" on the part of individuals, however unjustifiable
" I may consider them. What I wish to call
" your Grace's attention to is, the circumstance
" of the University having taken upon itself the
" censorship of theological opinions, without
" any authority, as I conceive, for so doing by
" its statutes, or by the law of the land. When
" I say that it has taken upon itself such a censor-
" ship, I mean to state that, in compliance with
" the requisitions of an active party here, the
" University has undertaken to frame a Statute

THIRD EDITION. ill
" in which, under cover of depriving the Regius
" Professor of Divinity of certain rights and
" powers conferred on the office by existing
" statutes, censure shall be passed on my theo-
" logical writings.
" Such a statute is now under contemplation
" at the Board of Heads of Houses. As I
" contend, that this proceeding is altogether
" unstatutable, as well as illegal, — the Univer-
" sity being a lay corporation, and having no
" power of inflicting ecclesiastical censures, —
" I humbly request your Grace's interference ;
" and that you will institute inquiry into the legal
" and statutable propriety of the measure in ques-
" tion, before it be suffered to advance farther.
" There is the greatest endeavour made to
" push the matter- to a precipitate decision. It
" was determined to-day, that another meeting
" of the Board is to be held on Friday, for the
" consideration of the Statute.
" I have therefore felt it necessary to lose no
" time in giving this information to your Grace,
" and earnestly soliciting your immediate atten-
" tion to the subject.
" I do not trouble your Grace on this occasion

IV PREFACE TO THE
" with any defence on my part against the charge
" of erroneous views brought against me by cer-
" tain members of the University, though I feel
" that I am innocent on that ground.
" I have the honour to remain,
" My Lord,
" Your Grace's faithful humble servant,
(Signed) "R. D. HAMPDEN."

Copy of a Letter from the Duke of Wellington.
" Strathfield Saye, March 11, 1836.
" Sir, " I have had the honour of receivinc,
" this morning, your letter of the 9th instant.
' You are a member of the Board of Heads of
" Houses of the University of Oxford, and you
" cannot be ignorant that I, as Chancellor of the
' University, at a distance from Oxford, have no
" voice at that Board.
" I refer your Letter to the Vice-Chancellor,

third edition. V
" and request him to lay it before the Board,
" with this answer. " I have the honour to be,
" Sir, your most obedient humble Servant,
" (Signed) " WELLINGTON.
" The Rev. Dr. Hampden,
" Principal of St. Mary Hall,
" Oxford."

Such is the Reply of the Chancellor of the
University of Oxford, when called upon by a
Head of a House to institute inquiries into pro
ceedings suspected of being unstatutable. No
very unfitting request was made by the Principal
of St. Mary Hall to one who had sworn to
preserve the statutes and privileges of the Univer
sity inviolate, — to one whose duty, therefore, it
was to take care that they were not unwarrant
ably stretched and strained, lest, in the recoil,
they should sustain damage, — to one who was,
in virtue of his office, the guardian, not only of
the rights of the University, but of the privileges
also of every one of her members. To whom,

vi PREFACE TO THE
let me ask, is a member of the University, injured
in his university privileges, to apply, except to
the Head and Conservator of these rights ? But,
forsooth, the Chancellor has no voice at the
Board of Heads of Houses, except he be present
at their discussions. Every Undergraduate knows
as much ; and the Chancellor was not canvassed
for a vote on the statute in question, which while
in Hampshire he did not possess ; nor was he
asked to come to Oxford in order to acquire a
vote, which would then have belonged to his
office ; he was called on to order inquiries to be
made into the legality of certain proceedings in
which he is, or ought to be, deeply interested.
This reply of the Chancellor is certainly
corroborative of the opinion already pretty
widely entertained, that the opposition to Dr.
Hampden's appointment, arises not so much
from any feeling entertained against his theology,
as against his appointers, his Majesty's Ministers.
And so little careful are the opponents of the
Cabinet to conceal this feeling, that on the day of
Convocation, Thursday, 22d of March, Lord
Kenyon, with all his Orange honours fresh upon
him, and the Hon. A. Trevor, M.P. for Durham,

THIRD edition. VII
appeared to show the purity of their theological
zeal, and the depth of their theological learning.
Lord Kenyon even took the Chair of a Meeting-
held in Brasennose Hall, after the Convocation
had broken up ; and Mr. Trevor, in a speech
equally learned, eloquent, charitable, and instruc
tive, proposed some resolution or other, as wise
and enlightened as the speech by which it was
introduced.

A LETTER,

My Lord Archbishop,
If your Grace should be disposed to complain
of the manner in which your name has been
mixed up in the recent extraordinary proceedings
at Oxford, I feel satisfied that your present cor
respondent will receive, from yourself, no share
of that blame.
The personal enemies of Dr. Hampden have
placed your Grace in an invidious situation.
They have called on you to adopt their repre
sentations of Dr. Hampden's unfitness for the
Regius Professorship of Divinity, and to con
demn, on ex parte evidence, a most able and
learned man, whose character, in all the rela
tions of life, defies censure, and even suspi
cion. The calumniators of Dr. Hampden have
required your Grace to condemn, as detrimental
a 2

to the best interests of the Church, his Majesty's
conduct in signing the appointment ; and they
have required your Grace to express a condem
nation of your own conduct, if, being aware of
his being a Socinian, you omitted to protest
against Dr. Hampden's nomination ; or of your
own judgment, if (as I understand is the case)
you declared that you knew of no objection
whatever to him as a Theologian.
The knowledge of several facts seems requisite
to account for these extraordinary demands, on
the part of certain Members of the University
of Oxford, upon your Grace.
I shall pass over all the charges of " Soci
nianism, Heterodoxy, Heresy, and dangerous
Doctrines," upon which the changes have been so
repeatedly rung, supported as the accusers of Dr.
Hampden have attempted to support them, by
extracts from his works. Those works have been
for years before the public, and no individual
whatever has attempted to fasten any such
charges upon their author, before the present
very seasonable moment. I consider then that
any discussion, by me, at this time, of Dr.
Hampden's writings, would be an impertinence,
especially as to his Bampton Lectures, since
they particularly have received the tacit assent
of the right reverend body, over which your

Grace presides, and more than the tacit appro
bation of that learned body, before whom they
were delivered.
A course of Bampton Lectures, preached before
the University of Oxford, by the appointment of
the Heads of Colleges, and published, as it were,
under their sanction, cannot be regarded as an
obscure or insignificant work ; and if a volume of
heretical or dangerous Divinity were to appear
from the universities, with the implied appro
bation of one or other of those bodies, we may
be convinced that some member of the Episcopal
Bench would be found to discover its errors and
denounce its dangers. That no such step has
been taken with the book in question is a
proof that none such was called for ; and that
the Bench of Bishops coincided with the Uni
versity of Oxford, in their estimation of Dr.
Hampden's Bampton Lectures. It cannot be
alleged that these Lectures escaped observation ;
they attracted the notice of the late Lord Grenville,
who, as Chancellor of the University, promoted
Dr. Hampden to the Headship of St. Mary Hall ;
they were reviewed in the leading literary periodi
cal publications, and in some at great length;
but no where was there any insinuation of the
author's dangerous, much more of his heretical
opinions.

Within the walls of Oxford something more
than acquiescence in Dr. H.'s views has been ex
pressed. I could quote the favourable remarks
during the delivery of the Bampton Lectures, and
even, after their publication, of individuals whose
names now appear amongst the number of Dr.
Hampden's enemies; — but it is enough to look to
the conduct of Oxford.
When Dr. Hampden was about to be elevated
to a share in the government of the University, to
be placed over one of the houses of education at
Oxford, and that too, on the well-understood
grounds of the services he had rendered, not to
the University alone, but also to the Church ; was
even a whisper heard to question the justice of
his promotion ? When recently he was appointed
Moral Philosophy Professor, by some of the
Heads of Houses who now have enrolled them
selves amongst his persecutors, did a murmur of
disapprobation or distrust impugn their decision?
When he was a candidate for the degree of
doctor in divinity, or, in the language of the
statutes of the University, sanctce theologice pro
fessor, was there any intimation of his unfit
ness ? Was not that degree, itself a professorship
of divinity, unanimously conferred on him ? Does
the emolument of his present station make the
difference ? Is it the opinion of the masters and

doctors of Oxford that a man may be perfectly
fit to be an unpaid Professor of Theology, but
that if the same person is appointed to an en
dowed chair, the church, the state, even the whole
Protestant cause is in danger ?
If Dr. Hampden's religious opinions are So
cinian, or otherwise unsound, could a more dan
gerous step be taken than that of making him
Professor of Moral Philosophy? of placing him
in a situation, where he might safely, because
indirectly, and in an oblique manner, as it were,
insinuate into the unprepared, and therefore unsus
pecting minds of his youthful auditors, his heretical
opinions ? But I must urge my questions a little
further. — If Dr. Hampden had proved himself a
traitor to his duty as Bampton lecturer, were the
members of the University justified in trusting
him again with any office whatever, even though
the duties of that office were necessarily wholly
distinct from his erroneous opinions ? Ought they
to have shown any countenance ; — is it probable
they would have extended any honourable dis
tinction to an individual who had already deceived
and betrayed them ?
Cambridge was not so indifferent to the faith
of her Professors, when, some few years back,
she refused to receive the late amiable and excel
lent Sir James Smith as her Botanical Professor,

because he was a Unitarian. His qualifications
for the office none could question, and his hetero
doxy in religion was not aggravated or blackened
by interested concealment or deceitful professions.
One of the most active, and I lament to add, most
uncandid, enemies of Dr. Hampden, conscious of
the equivocal appearance his long silence must
exhibit, attempts to defend his neglect of the
alleged Socinianism of the quondam Bampton
Lecturer. If his defence be successful, his ac
quittal must involve the condemnation of others
not circumstanced like himself. I extract his
reasons from the Preface to the " Elucidations of
Dr. Hampden's Theological Opinions," and I
subjoin them ungarbled, and without comment*
My readers must decide whether they are satis
factory, and if so, whether they are not just as
* "It may be fairly asked of any resident of this place, who
at this time directs attention to Dr. Hampden's works, why
he has not done so in the considerable interval which has
elapsed since their publication. The present writer's plain
answer to this demand would be, that he had hoped to have
been spared the necessity of an invidious task, which per
tained more to others than to himself ; to those who were less
connected by College ties with the author in question. He
felt that he had no call of office or station that way, and that
he could not put himself forward without an apology for so
doing. Even now he cannot persuade himself to put his
name to the title-page, though he makes no secret of it to
those who choose to inquire."- — Elucidations, fyc. Preface.

cogent now as they ever were. I do not, there
fore, feel myself called on to abate one iota of my
assertion, that Dr. Hampden's " Bampton Lec
tures" have received more than tacit sanction
from the University of Oxford ; that they were not
objected to, at the time when, if they are censur
able, they ought to have been objected to, only
because they contained nothing objectionable.
After having considered the avowed reasons for
Dr. Hampden's persecution, I will shortly retrace
the course of events since the time when the
report of his intended preferment first reached
Oxford. The first step taken then was, to call a private
meeting (a hole-and-corner cabal) of certain mem
bers of the University at Corpus College. This
assembly selected what they called objectionable
passages from Dr. Hampden's writings, and with
these in their hands, requested that your Grace's
influence might be exerted to crush Dr. Hamp
den's prospects. It can excite no surprise that,
by the well-known arts of culling a passage here
and there, disconnecting it with its context,
garbling a sturdy proposition, or misquoting and
misapplying an opinion,* — a colourable case in
* " Religion sums up all its practical energy in the one
quality of resignation. It takes by the hand those feelings of
the heart which look heavenward. Its divine ambition is to

10
the judgment of these secret inquisitors was
established against Dr. Hampden. The results of
loosen the ties which bind us to the present narrow scene of
earthly duties, and to fix our thoughts and desires on the
invisible spiritual world. ... It is essentially abnegation of self,
of present endearments, of the world around us, of our own
power. ... It works on the heart by faith, hope, love, patience ;
means which in themselves divert us from confidence in our
own activity, and so far check that activity. That Religion,
in itself alone (sic,) tends to this extreme, is evidenced in the
lives of devotees, who have sought an entire abstractedness
from society, and endeavoured to realize its sublime influence
in their hearts, by stilling every thought into passiveness and
repose. We are not to blame such persons for being too
religious, for perverting and misrepresenting religion by ex
cess. Their fault is, that they suffer their minds to imbibe
it too exclusively (sic) ; that they leave no room for their own
nature to develop itself ; converting what was given for their
comfort and encouragement in a sublime luxury and holy
pastime. The religious instincts of the heart were surely
never meant to absorb the whole man, according to the designs
of Him, who implanted also both private and social affections
in our own nature. . . . Thus Religion and Morality are two
forces, sustaining the equilibrium of our nature. If either
existed without the other, we should be carried away into
a devious course." — B. L. pp. 96 — 98.
Thus stands the passage in the " Elucidations," &c. ; but
upon referring to Dr. Hampden's Lectures we find the follow
ing important omission.
"It is essentially abnegation of self, of present endearments,
of the world around us, of our own power. It is, as I have
said (using the thought and expression of Bishop Butler),
resignation — a surrender of ourselves to interests and in
fluences out of our own dominion and control. It works on
the heart," &c.

11
these fair and candid labours are believed to
exist in the pages of the " Elucidations," a work
which, though it appears to the public as the
industry of one man, is really the mighty effort
of the first meeting held at Corpus. But these
Doctors and Masters of Arts were doomed to
discover, early in their course of political intrigue
and private warfare, how different a thing it is
to frame an indictment in secret and to sustain it
in public. We are told the address to your
Grace was carried unanimously. But when, in
an evil hour, a measure similar to this was
attempted to be forced on the meeting of the
Heads of Houses, the official, authorized and
responsible Board for the government of the Uni
versity, the attempt failed, though the toils had
been skilfully pitched, and detraction and intrigue
had done their worst, to induce this meeting to
declare that the Principal of St. Mary Hall's
writings contained " dangerous opinions." An
expression wide and cautious enough, one would
Then follow these Notes : —
1. "Resignation to the will of God is the whole of piety,"
&c. — Butler's Sermon upon the love of God, p. 224. Ed. 1820.
" Religion consists in submission and resignation to the Divine
will." — Sermon upon the Ignorance of Man, p. 268.
The whole of this important parenthesis, together with the
notes, have been omitted by the Author of the " Elucidations."
Is this fair quoting ?

12
have expected, to carry almost any proposition
through; yet this totally failed; the Heads of
Houses rejected the resolution.
The next step was an attempt to excite the
Undergraduates to declare heretical that which
the Heads of the University could not discover to
be even dangerous ; and on that declaration,
to found a petition to some quarter or other, I
know not what, against his appointment. Here
another failure met them. The junior members
of the University, those yet " in statu pupillari,"
reproved their reverend and senior advisers, by
refusing to become parties to the condemnation of
a writer on subjects for which, as yet, their know
ledge and judgment could not be ripe to decide.
These discomfitures would, it might have been
expected, have repressed all but fanatic or per
sonal rancour. These seventy-six Tutors and
Fellows of Colleges, as they describe themselves,
might, it would have been reasonable to expect,
have retired, when they saw that Dr. Hampden's
appointment had actually taken place. His ab
sence, however, from Oxford was too tempting
an opportunity to be lost. On the 24th February,
another meeting was called at Corpus, to sign a
requisition to the Vice-Chancellor, requiring him
to propose to the Heads of Houses, an Address
requesting " the Archbishops and Bishops of

13
the United Church to substitute the certificate
of attendance on the Margaret Professor of Divi
nity for that of the Regius, from their Candidates
for Ordination." Even this did not satisfy the
zeal of these soi-disant champions of orthodoxy
and safe opinions ; on the following day, 25th
February, another assembly was held at Corpus,
to request the Vice- Chancellor to summon a
meeting of the Heads of Houses for " taking into
consideration the means of giving Convocation
an opportunity of disavowing and condemning
the evil principles and doctrines contained in
Dr. Hampden's Bampton Lectures and other
writings." These " other writings" had been
published for some years before Dr. Hampden
was made Bampton Lecturer, and were appealed
to as testimonies of his fitness, by those who
recommended him to that office. These self-
appointed censors therefore modestly called on
the Heads of Houses to pronounce their own cen
sure ; and who, let us ask, are the leaders of this
learned conclave — of this faction ?
First in the field appears a member of Trinity
College, Dublin, who, without literary distinction
in his own University, undertakes to transplant
to Oxford the Irish arts of agitation ; next come
some individuals, diligent and respectable, per
haps, in the discharge of their various College

14
duties, but whose names are, and are likely
to continue, unknown beyond the limits of the
University. I shall, perhaps, be reminded that
the individual whose name stands first on one — it
may be more of the petitions or requisitions, has
a much more extended fame than I have here
allowed. I admit it ; but on the very equivocal
support he has given to these proceedings, I shall
have hereafter to remark.
From such parties, then, as I have described,
have arisen the unprecedented proceedings which,
for the last three weeks or a month, have agitated
the University of Oxford. Your Grace must,
I imagine, have already discovered evidences of
the combined operation, which indicates the exist
ence of a party. Acts of aggression from mere
personal hostility may reflect deeper disgrace on
those who give the reins to such feelings ; but
party spirit is more really noxious to the public.
We certainly need, at the present moment, no new
divisions in the Church : and by no one will the
prospect of such be more deplored than by your
Grace. Yet already the signs of such a spirit
appear : already has the tocsin been sounded,
and the angry passions, allying themselves with
whatever of political frenzy or private enmity
can be enlisted in their service, have rushed to
the conflict.

15
Daily have the religious feelings of real Chris
tians been shocked at the disgusting familiarity
and political ribaldry with which religious topics
have been defiled in the columns of the coarsest
and most unchristian of the party journals.*
Daily and weekly has every serious mind been
outraged by the unchristian spirit which has
inspired articles in some of the most notoriously
infamous of the London newspapers, articles
(with shame be it said) which there is but too
much reason to suspect, have come from Oxford.
Since I have begun this Letter, a number of the
" British Magazine," intended especially for cir
culation amongst the parochial clergy, has fallen
into my hands, containing a copy of the " Elu
cidations" stitched up with it ; and in this manner
is this party and partial pamphlet launched into
the world, under the fostering care of a monthly
magazine. But the efforts of the party are not
confined to such attempts ; the magazine itself is
drugged with a shorter and lighter article against
Dr. Hampden, in order that no tastes, no descrip
tions of readers, may want a nostrum suited to
their strength of literary digestions.
In the spirit of party misrepresentation, the
opposition to Dr. Hampden's appointment has
* See the Standard, St. James's Chronicle, and John Bull,
especially.

16
been proclaimed as the opposition of the Uni
versity. These representations I boldly declare
to be a libel on Oxford. The opposition is that
of an interested minority, swelled doubtless by
signatures industriously hunted up, to the number
of seventy-six (such at least is the amount, as we
are told, of those who signed one of the Petitions.)
I am not, however, aware that the signatures
have ever been printed. Now, admitting that,
after all the canvassing which the University
underwent, seventy - six names were actually
placed at the foot of any one Petition, this
number forms but a minority of the Univer
sity. I believe I am stating the number very
low, when I say that, on an average, about two-
hundred resident members of Convocation are
to be found in Oxford during term time. But
we will inquire, with your Grace's permission,
into the description of those who stand most
prominent in the late affair. The Colleges which
have taken the lead are Oriel, Corpus, and Christ
Church. The heads of the two first Colleges are
strongly opposed to the whole of these proceed
ings. Indeed, every one who is at all acquainted
with the character of the Provost of Oriel must
have anticipated the manly and energetic part
which he has taken throughout the whole busi
ness. The president of Corpus, as every one

17
acquainted with the kindness and uprightness
of his heart, will readily believe, has taken no
part against Dr. Hampden. Some one else,
therefore, was to be looked out to preside over
the meeting convened in the Common-room of
his College, though without his sanction. That
person was a rival candidate, disappointed of the
headship of St. Mary Hall by the success of
Dr. Hampden ! At the meeting, or meetings,
held in Corpus, which fell far short in numbers,
however, of seventy-six, Christ Church was
represented by Mr. Pusey (I beg his pardon,
I ought to have said Dr. Pusey, for he had
become a Doctor in Divinity, in the absence
of Dr. Hampden, whose duty as Regius Pro
fessor it would have been to have presented the
Hebrew Professor for his degree), and he ad
dressed the meeting. I shall not state the effects
of that address in my own words, but in those
of one well acquainted with the facts he speaks
to. " Upon Dr. Pusey's speaking, sixteen or
seventeen of the party assembled left the meeting
with a declaration, that it was a dirty, personal
affair, and they would have nothing more to do
with it." .
Having spoken of the leaders, we will now
proceed to notice some of the herd. One of the
petitioners, a graduate in divinity, a senior
B

18
fellow of a College, on being requested to add
his name, declared, avith an oath, that though
he knew nothing of the business, he would
nevertheless sign the petition, because it was
against the Ministers. I withhold the name
of the individual, because I do not think it fair
to pick out a name here and there, when I am
unable to give an accurate list of the seventy-six.
I certainly could mention several ; and I may
be forced to give my list to the public in its
imperfect state, for I certainly shall not select
for publication only one, two, or three of the
signatures. Another signer expressed his determination to
petition, because such a step would indulge the
University (the Church, he might have said) with
the " fun of a row." It may be replied, perhaps,
that the originator of a petition has not a right to
refuse a signature when tendered. It may be so.
But what excuse is to be made for those
who canvass, — who invite persons clearly dis
qualified, by their habits and talents, from
giving a sober or a trustworthy judgment on
the subject matter of such a petition, — who so
licit undergraduates, nay boys fresh from school,
to decide on the controversial merits of questions
which tax the mature reflection of those who
have completed their course of education, — who

19
force from his retirement an individual for years
altogether withdrawn from public life, and one
who already had, in conversation, declared his
approbation, if not of Dr. Hampden's " Bampton
Lectures," at least of his appointment to the Moral
Philosophy Chair.
Before, however, closing this Letter, I must
inquire a little into points, very important in
establishing a charge of false doctrine against
any man. Are those with whom such accusations
originate themselves free from all taint of heresy
or errors? Censure from some men may, in reality,
be praise. More than whispers have passed ;
even in print it has been hinted, that the author of
the " Elucidations " * has published something
very like papistical doctrines ; and I must con
fess that a strong suspicion has crossed my own
mind, that, not many years back, passages in
the acknowledged works of him to whom the
pamphlet in question has been attributed,
would have rendered the writer liable to eccle
siastical censures. It has also been said,
in reference to this gentleman's acknowledged
volumes, I fear with too much truth, that the
doctrine of religious persecution is not confined
* " A Few Observations on Religion and Education in
Ireland," by the Rev. Edward Stanley, A.M. Rector of
Alderley.

20

to " Dens' Theology," or indeed to any other
Roman Catholic divine.
For the orthodoxy of another of Dr. Hampden's
persecutors, I shall do no more than refer to the
Rev. Hugh Rose. And with respect to another,
and perhaps the most remarkable from his age
and his learning, many persons still resident in
Oxford can recollect the length of time, the
number of years during which his ordination as a
priest was delayed, on the alleged ground that
scruples existed in his mind on some of the
tenets of the Church; as to the time or manner
of their removal, I shall say nothing.
Having now, my Lord, completed my painful
task, I ask your Grace to look on the composition
of that factious minority by which your Grace has
been called upon to join in what can only be
described, as the persecution of a scholar, a divine
of first-rate talents, acquirements, and virtues ; by
which you have been called on not only to offer an
affront to his Majesty's accredited and responsi
ble advisers, but to insult his Majesty himself, by
withholding your confidence from one who had
received an appointment under the handwriting
of the Sovereign of these realms, and of the Head
of this Church.
These extraordinary demands on your Grace,
united to a desire to warn the public against the

21
misrepresentations, interested views, and distorted
statements to which a most excellent individual
was to be sacrificed, have alone induced me to
come forward in a manner no less repugnant to
my feelings than to my habits. I have no private
ends to advance, no private enmity to gratify.
With this declaration I will conclude, by sub
scribing myself,
With every sentiment of respect,
Your Grace's Obedient humble Servant,
A Member of the University of Oxford.

POSTSCRIPT TO THE FIRST EDITION.
While these pages were in the press, the follow
ing extraordinary paper reached me. It contains
an addition proposed to be made to the statutes
of the University, by which Privilegium the pre
sent Regius Professor of Divinity is to be excluded
from the Boards, in whom the appointment and
control of select preachers is vested, on the ground
that the University has no confidence in him.
" Quum ab Universitate commissum fuerit S. Theologiae
Professori Regio, ut unus sit ex eorum numero, a quibus
designantur selecti Concionatores, secundum Tit. XVI. § 8,
necnon ut ejus consilium adhibeatur, si quis Concionator
coram Vice-Cancellario in quaestionem vocetur, secundum
Tit. XVI. §11, quum vero qui nunc Professor est, scriptis

22
suis publici juris factis ita res theologicas tractaverit, ut
in hac parte nullam ejus fiduciam habeat Universitas ;
" Statutum est, quod munerum prasdictorum expers sit
S. Theologiae Professor Regius, donee aliter Universitati
placuerit. Ne vero quid detrimenti capiat interea Uni
versitas, 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 or-
dine Deputatus (proviso semper, quod sacros ordines
susceperit), et in concilium de Concionibus adhibendo
Praslector Dominse Margaretae Comitissae Richmondiae."
The University, it seems, a Lay Corporation,
is to consider theological questions, to decide
that it has no confidence in the person appointed
by the Supreme Head of the Church Professor
of Theology, to censure him for doctrines pub
lished long before his appointment, and to sus
pend him from functions which by statute are
annexed to his office. I do not believe that so
monstrous a proposition can pass the Convoca
tion, even though swelled, as that body will be,
by all the country clergy, who will rush to Oxford,
in order to wound, through Dr. Hampden's sides,
a reforming Ministry. But at all events, I trust
that the law officers of the Crown will consider
how far the conduct of those who propose it is
legal ; and that all those Masters of Arts who
have any respect for the character of the Uni
versity, any value for the privileges of private

23
judgment and mental independence, or any sym
pathy with an individual of genius, learning,
and virtue, struggling against the oppressions
of a half-Popish, half-Methodistic faction, will
appear on Tuesday next, the 22d of this month,
in Convocation, and rescue that body from the
disgrace of conduct unworthy of the darkest ages.
Particularly, I trust that all liberal Conservatives
will do so, in order to destroy the suspicion that
their party is implicated in these proceedings; — a
suspicion which will do them, and ought to do
them, much more permanent injury than the
Whigs have suffered from their supposed con
nexion with Mr. O'Connell.

POSTSCRIPT TO THE SECOND EDITION.

While a Second Edition of these pages is
passing through the press, new subjects of regret
and indignation force themselves on my attention.
One of the most striking of them consists of the
following " Declaration, left for signature at Corpus Christi
College, Oxford," March 10, 1836.
" We, the undersigned, engaged or interested
" in the religious instruction of this place, feel

24
"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 the University
" entrusted to one whose publications abound
" with 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 explanations of insu-
" lated 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, and full at once of error
" and mischief.
" We abstain from imputing to the Author a
''personal disbelief of those doctrines which
" have been so seriously endangered by his pub-
" lications; 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 aca-

25
" demical studies in Divinity, and consequently of
" guiding the religious instruction of one half of
" the country.
" Having refrained from any expression of
" our opinions upon the nature and tendency
" of Dr. Hampden's publications till the last
" moment that forbearance 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 faith and practice in its sense and use,
" its power and perfection, and which destroy
" the authority of the Church as a witness and
" keeper of Holy Writ. We hereby declare our
" stedfast resolution to oppose, under the bless-
" ing 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 Pro-
" testantism in its original seats almost to an
" empty name, and changed the religion of the
" Cross into the theology of Deism."
[Here follow the Signatures.]

These persons, designating themselves as " en
gaged or interested in the religious instruction of

26
Oxford," assert that Dr. Hampden's " publica
tions abound with contradictions to the doctrinal
truths, which he is pledged to maintain, and with
assertions of principles which tend to subvert,
not only the authority of the Church, but the
whole fabric and reality of christian truth ; " — but
from the abundance of such contradictions they
cite not one ; they do not even expound wherein
the contradiction to doctrinal truth consists, or
what is the doctrinal truth controverted. Yet
the charge against Dr. Hampden is little less than
perjury, in contradicting Articles which he has
subscribed — contumacy, in impugning the autho
rity of a Church to which he belongs, — and
impiety, in attempting to subvert Christianity
itself ! These are heavy charges and denun
ciations, and they are pronounced in a strain
of dogmatical authority that resembles the
thunder of the Vatican itself, though it proceeds,
in all likelihood, from Divines who have often,
ere this, bawled out, " No Popery ! " lustily
enough. Why not specify the contradictions
to doctrinal truths of which they complain ? Why
not prove the denial of, or the resistance to, any
legal authority of the Church ? Why not select
some one or more of the principles which are said
to abound in his writings, and to tend to subvert
the fabric (a strange phrase) of Christian truth ?

27
After disdaining to substantiate their charges
by any proof, it is, perhaps, reasonable and con
sistent in these accusers to deprecate the pro
duction of any passages, or particular words, in
defence of the object of their persecution. The
culprit is not to have the benefit of his own
phraseology to elucidate his meaning ; — he is to
be condemned for language pronounced to be
positive, without being stated ; for reasoning
reproached for being systematic, without being
explained or exposed ; and for a tone styled
depreciating, without any definite account of the
object so depreciated !
The language, reasoning, and tone of Dr.
Hampden so respectively positive, systematic,
and depreciating, are denounced in this lumi
nous indictment as the instruments by which
he describes the Articles of the Church as
human speculations, — the relics of a false and
exploded philosophy, — and full at once of
error and of mischief. Are then the Articles
of the Church any thing more than human
comments and expositions of the word of
God ? Do they profess to be more ? If so, why
brand the assumed authority of the Church of
Rome with the name of Popery? Where in
that case is the vaunted Protestant principle of
the right of private judgment in expounding the

28
Scriptures ? For if one exposition be more than
human, all others not accordant with that one
must be false. Dr. Hampden has subscribed the
Articles, and complied, consequently, with the
test required by the Church and the Law.
The injunctions of the Crown prefixed to the
Thirty -nine Articles, and the doctrines and practice
of the most eminent Prelates of the Church,
inculcate the wisdom and prudence of accepting
such subscription as sufficient ; of not being over-
curious in exacting a nice definition of the sense
annexed to each expression ; and of not being
peremptory and quarrelsome about those points
which are acknowledged to be above our com
prehension.* It is little less thana libellous inuendo
* Such, or nearly such, are the words of Dr. Stillingfleet
himself, in the Preface to a " Vindication of the Doctrine of
the Trinity ;" and such is stated to be the invariable rule of
the Church, by Archbishop Wake, in Letters to the Pastors
and Professors of Geneva, and to Professor Turretin. In one
to the latter, dated December 1, 1718, he writes: — " Hoc
apud nos, turn ex mandatis regiis," (alluding, no doubt, to
the declaration of James the First, prefixed to the Thirty-
nine Articles,) " turn ex olim servata, et utinam semper
servanda, consuetudine fixum est atque stabilitum, neque a
quoquam exquirere quid de his rebus sentiat, modo articuUs
religionis publicd auctoritate constitutis subscribat, neque in
concionibus aut etiam disputationibus theologicis aliquid
amplius de iis determinare quam quod illi arciculi expresse
statuant, et ab omnibus ad ministerii munus admittendis

29
to assert, that a person who has signed the
Articles, and professes to maintain them, holds
nevertheless in his heart, or insinuates by his
writings, that they are false in philosophy, and
full of error and mischief.
They acquit him, indeed, of what they call
" personal disbelief;" but they allege that the
frame of mind which could produce such state
ments is a disqualification for the office of Regius
Professor. It is then the mental machinery, which
the piece produced implies, and not the article it
self, from which mischief is apprehended. The web
actually woven has, it seems, no visible defect in
its texture ; but the framework which could weave
it cannot without danger be admitted among the
instruments employed in fabricating opinions for
Orthodox Clergymen. This is a new and some
what nice inquisitorial faculty, which can detect
a capacity for heresy in works it dare not deem
heretical, and can pronounce that capacity for
evil a disqualification for office.
But if such subtle objections — not to the
creed which a man professes, but to that of
which he is deemed susceptible, — be valid,
who conferred the power of pronouncing
judgment and sentence without any hearing of
profitenduni requirant"— Mosi-ieim, translated by Machine,
vol. vi. p. 133. 8vo. ed. 1792.

30
the cause, on certain persons, " engaged and
interested in the religious instruction of Ox
ford ?" They have, they say, refrained, till
the last moment that forbearance was com
patible with duty, from any expression of their
opinions. True, they have forborne a long
time ; for it was compatible with duty, it seems,
to receive with applause from Lord Grenville, a
head of a house, who asserted principles subversive
not only of the Church, but of Christian truth.
It was compatible with duty to appoint a man
who described the Articles as mere human specu
lations, false philosophy, and error, &c. — first,
Doctor of Divinity, and then Professor of Philo
sophy ; but when authority superior to their own
appoints, on its own responsibility, the same man
to an office over which they have no control, it is,
forsooth, their imperious duty to attempt to wrest
the patronage from the prerogative of the Crown,
to secure for the University a veto on the recom
mendations of his Majesty's official advisers; and
if that should fail, to strip the office of the pri
vileges annexed, and introduce dissension into the
University, and schism into the Church.

The following paper is well known to the
" Faithful," having been franked and trans
mitted by the post to all whom it was supposed

31
that a summons from the Inquisitorial Head
Quarters would influence. It is here reprinted
for the benefit of the poor Londoners, who have
been neglected by the Oxford authorities, in order
to render the subsequent letter intelligible.
Extract from the Report of the Committee appointed
March 5, 1 836, by the Corpus Meeting.
"In submitting the Declaration* which they
were appointed to draw up, your Committee beg
leave to observe, that they cannot close their task
without anxiously calling your attention to one
important fact, which (in all these most painful
discussions, carried on, as they have been, at so
great a sacrifice of private feeling and public
tranquillity,) ought to be kept steadily in view, as
the best justification of the past, and the surest
guide for the future.
"After a most careful and systematic research,
they entreat you to bear in mind, that the present
controversy is not so much concerned with an
individual or a book, or even an ordinary system
of false doctrine, as with a Principle; which
(after corrupting all soundness of Christianity in
other countries) has at length appeared among us,
and, for the first time, been invested with autho
rity within the University of Oxford.
* See p. 23 for the Declaration in question.

32
"This principle is the Philosophy of Rationalism,
or the assumption that uncontrolled human rea
son, in its present degraded form, is the primary
Interpreter of God's Word, without any regard
to those rules and principles of Interpretation,
which have guided the judgments of Christ's
Holy Catholic Church in all ages of its history,
and under every variety of its warfare. It is the
Theory of Rationalism, (as set forth systemati
cally in the Bampton Lectures of 1832, and still
more recently asserted in Lectures addressed to
Students,) which is to be considered the root of
all the errors of Dr. Hampden's system.
" And far as they are from imputing to its
maintainer personally those unchristian doctrines,
with which it is closely connected, or the con
sequences inevitably flowing from it, they cannot
forget, that the poison of unbelief (now working
so deeply in another country) was first dissemi
nated by a man piously educated (Semler), and
who lived to deplore most deeply the effects of
his successful rashness.
" With these appalling facts before their eyes,
and convinced that a struggle must at once be
made against the corruption of God's Holy Word
in this land by similar means, they recommend
to you the adoption of a measure framed on the
same plan as the last great Declaration of the

33
University against a promiscuous confusion of
sects and doctrines in religious education.
" They suggest and submit it to you as a
measure, which, while it removes from us
the charge of supineness or indifference, may
warn the younger part of our Students against
immediate danger, and will solemnly declare to
the world our resolution to hold fast those great
laws of Scripture-Interpretation and Scripture-
Proof, which we inherit from our ancestors in
the faith, and which (by the blessing of God)
if firmly maintained in this place, may yet enable
us to transmit to future generations, unmutilated
and uncorrupted, the treasure of the Holy Gospel
of Christ. (Signed) Vaughan Thomas, Chairman.
Edward Bouverie Pusey.
John Hill.
John Henry Newman.
William Sewell.
Edward Greswell.
Oxford,
March 10, 1836.

SOFTLY, JOHN!"

A WORD OF CAUTION TO CALVIN

NOT TO SET UP FOR

POPE IN A PROTESTANT UNIVERSITY.

TO
THE CORPUS COMMITTEE.

Gentlemen, Ix your Report of the 10th instant,* I
meet with the following passages. In speaking
of a principle which has appeared, and for the
first time been invested with authority within the
University, you describe, with strong reprobation,
that principle to be " an assumption that uncon
trolled human Reason is the primary interpreter
of God's Word, without any regard to those rules
and principles of interpretation which have guided
the judgment of Christ's holy Catholic Church
in all ages of its history, and under every variety
of its warfare." And infra, you declare, " a
resolution to hold fast those great laws of Scrip
ture interpretation and Scripture proof, which you
inherit from your ancestors in the faith ; and by
which, if firmly maintained in Oxford, you may
be enabled to transmit to future generations,
unmutilated and uncorrupted, the treasure of the
* See p. 31, for the Report in question.

37
holy Gospel of Christ." I know not how Bishop
Philpotts, Lord Roden, and other sticklers for
scriptural education in Ireland may relish such
sentiments in an English Protestant University,
but I venture to affirm, without fear of contradic
tion, or at least of confutation, that the doctrine
involved in both the above cited passages is
much more manifestly at variance with the cha
racteristic principle of Protestantism, and with
the practice* of the English Established Church,
than any doctrine extracted from Dr. Hampden's
writings either is, or can, to plain understandings
appear to be, with Christian truth or the autho
rity of the Established Church.
The whole phraseology of your Report, in strict
accordance with a certain well known diplomatic
canon of criticism, appears to have been adopted
in order to conceal rather than to convey the
real nature of the objections urged against Dr.
Hampden. The words, without regard, in the
first passage, if they impute to Dr. Hampden a
want of deference for the comments or interpre
tations of Scripture, authorized by the Church,
and contained in her Liturgy, her Homilies, or
her Articles, are little short of a calumnious
falsehood, for Dr. Hampden, as is well known
to the writers of the Report, has signed those
Articles, professes his continued consent and
* See Note, p. 28.

3S
assent to them, and defends ably and warmly the
views of Scripture which they inculcate. But if
by accusing him of disregard of such Articles
under the terms of " rules and principles of inter
pretation," you merely mean to convey that he
does not acknowledge the interpretation of the
Church (even though he may agree with it) as
equal in authority (or to use the Popish word at
once, as equally infallible) with the Gospel itself,
I take a layman's liberty to assert that it is a
charge to which not only Dr. Hampden, but all
zealous and good Protestants will cheerfully plead
guilty. There can, indeed, be no stronger proof
that it is so, than the pains taken by a knot of
semipapal Oxonian Divines to avoid the precise
terms by which the human inventions, assumed
traditions, and pretended infallibility of the
Romish Church, are assailed by Protestant writers,
or defended by her own theologians. If "human
reason" be " not the primary interpreter of God's
word," what right can there be, in private judg
ment, of interpreting Scripture? If the rules and
principles of interpretation in all ages of Church
history are equivalent to, or in any degree similar
in authority, nature, or essence, with the Word
interpreted, — and still more, if the interpretation
and comments, fruits of such rules and principles,
have the same or similar force with Scripture
itself, cadit qucestio, as between the Romanist and

39
the Protestant, — and two conclusions favourable
to the former and fatal to the latter must ensue.
First, — The right of private judgment to inter
pret Scripture is relinquished, and the Protestant
surrenders, in the same sense as the Roman Catho
lic, his own judgment to the interpretation of
past ages, and to that of his ancestors in the faith,
however he may dispute what that interpretation
was. The Scripture, together with the comment
and tradition, and not the Scripture alone, become
the rule of faith with both sects, and the integrity
of the Christian truth is considered as injured
and impaired when the whole Scripture of God
is received, but the subsequent comments and
deductions of men are rejected.
Secondly, — The Roman Catholic doctrine
would, if such admissions were made, have a
manifest advantage over every Protestant Church,
inasmuch as the rules and principles of her inter
pretation, and her interpretation itself, if not more
ancient or more uniform, have unquestionably
been more prevalent during many ages of the
Church, and have been more distinctly inherited
from ancestors in the same faith, than any articles,
expositions, or confessions of faith, adopted by
the Church of England, or recommended by any
Protestant community on earth. I know not to
what conclusions a theory like Dr. Hampden's,
founded on the belief of the Scriptures, and an

-10
entire freedom in interpreting them, might lead a
rash or intrepid disputant, but I am morally cer
tain that the slavish doctrines propounded in the
Corpus Report would compel every consistent
reasoner who adopted it to acknowledge an infal
lible Church. When we once start on the line of
infallibility, it is obvious at what goal we must
arrive — Tendimus in Latium. We may bawl out,
No Popery ! on the road, but we must put up at
the old Lady of Babylon's at last. There may be
some danger to faith in too intrepid an exercise
of Luther's, Calvin's, or Hampden's reason, but
the precautions and inventions of Messrs. Pusey,
Newman, Sf Co. are innovations in Protestantism
that directly and inevitably work the destruction
of the whole system, and place Bishops, Heads of
Houses, or Convocations, in the papal chair. Let
the disbanded Orangemen and Lord Kenyon look
to this ; there is more danger of real Popery from
the Meeting in Brasennose Hall, in Oxford, at
which his Lordship presided, than from May-
nooth and Daniel O'Connell, as affecting the body
of the Clergy of England.
I am, Glntlemen,
With respect, but without submission,
Your Servant,
JORTIN REDIVIVUS.

R. CLAY, PRINTER, BREAD-STREET-HILL.