Hampierv

Mh(>56

|«38

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN
THE REV. DR. HAMPDEN,
REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY
IN the university of oxford,
AND
THE MOST REV- DR. HOWLEY,
LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.

LONDON :
B. FELLOWES, LUDGATE STREET.
1838.

CORRESPONDENCE.

No.- 1.
»
FROM THE REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY TO
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.
My Lord Archbishop,
Having seen, for the first time, in the pub
lic papers of yesterday, a Memorial to His Majesty
from certain members of the University of Oxford,
sent to your-Grace, I beg leave most respectfully to
address myself to your Grace on the subject.
I trust I shall be fully believed when I affirm, as
I do in the most solemn manner, that I have had
no thought, in anything that I have said or written
on theological subjects, but to uphold, to the best
of my ability, the doctrines and established formu
laries of the Church of England.
My Bampton Lectures are simply a history of
the technical terms of Theology ; nor have they the
slightest tendency, in my view and intention, to
impugn the vital truths of Christianity. My pam
phlet, entitled "Observations on Religious Dissent,"
had no other design but to induce a charitable con
struction of the views of those who differ from us.
Nothing could have been more painfully shocking
to my feelings, than the connection of my name
with opinions which I detest. I may be indulged
on this occasion with saying, that a belief in the
B

great revealed truths of the Trinity and the Incar
nation has been my stay through life ; and I utterly
disclaim the imputation of inculcating any doctrines
at variance with these great foundations of Chris
tian hope.
I do not pretend, my Lord, always to have stated
my views with the precision and clearness that I
could have wished ; nor do I venture to assert, that
I have avoided all mistakes in what I have said, or
that I have always taken the best method of teach
ing the truth.
What I wish to impress on your Grace is, that I
have studied to declare it ; and in doing so, to
maintain the Articles of the Church. As some evi
dence of this, I would refer to my volume of Paro
chial Sermons, which has never been attacked.
I have written, therefore, humbly to request that
your Grace will give me a hearing, if there be any
thing alleged against me which appears to demand
an explanation on my part.
May I be allowed also to say, that in undertaking
the responsible office of Regius Professor of Divinity,
my heartfelt desire is, to acquit myself faithfully
of my duty, as a member of the Church of Christ,
to whom a high trust has been committed ; and to
take peculiar care, never to do or say what may in
jure the sacred cause to which I have devoted my
self. I would further earnestly embrace this oppor
tunity of stating, that I am most ready, as in duty
bound, to receive any admonition from your Grace,
as to the most effectual mode of discharging the
office. I feel confident that the Bishop of Llandaff, who

has long known me, will bear testimony to the sin
cerity with which I express these sentiments.
I have the honour to remain, my Lord, with the
greatest respect,
Your Grace's faithful humble Servant,
R. D. HAMPDEN.
St. Mary Hall, Oxford, Feb. 21, 1836.
P.S. I have written this letter from London; but
I have dated it from my residence, as I shall return
to Oxford to-morrow, and there await the favour of
an answer from your Grace.

No. II.
FROM THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY TO
THE REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY.
Lambeth, March 1, 1836.
Reverend Sir,
I have to acknowledge your letter of the
27th of last month, and feeling that it would be no
less painful than useless to enter on a discussion of
the subject to which it relates, I shall touch on those
points only to which you more particularly call my
attention. You express your " trust that you shall be fully
believed when you affirm, as you do in the most
solemn manner, that you have had no thought in
anything that you have ever said or written on
theological subjects, but to uphold, to the best of
b2

your ability, the doctrines and established formu
laries of the Church of England; that — your Bamp-
ton Lectures are simply a history of the technical
terms of theology, nor have they the slightest ten
dency, in your view and intention, to impugn the
vital truths of Christianity."
To this affirmation I cannot refuse credit : but
the question turns, according to my apprehension,
not on your views and intentions, of which you are
the proper judge, but on the impression which cer
tain parts of your writings are calculated to make,
and have actually made, on the minds of common
readers, as well as of persons well versed in theo
logy. You proceed to " request that I would give you
a hearing, if there be anything alleged against you
which appears to demand explanation on your
part." In respect to this, it is evident that expla
nations, if necessary, should be given to the Univer
sity rather than to me, as I have not authority to
pronounce judicially, and my private opinion would
have little weight in a matter, on which any ordi
nary divine is qualified to judge for himself.
You further " state your readiness to receive any
adnonition from me as to the most effectual mode
of discharging the office." This I conceive is un
necessary : you doubtless fully understand the na
ture of the instruction required from a Professor of
Divinity in our Church ; and the system of teaching
adopted by your immediate predecessor, the late
Bishop of Oxford, and Dr. Burton, has received the
general approbation of the Church and the Uni
versity.

In the assurance that you will not suspect me of
any unkind feeling, or want of personal respect,
towards you, I remain, Reverend Sir,
Your humble and obedient Servant,
(Signed) W. CANTUAR.
Rev. Dr. Hampden. No. III.
FROM THE REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY TO
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.
Christ Church, Oxford, Jan. 23, 1838.
My Lord Archbishop,
I am called upon in justice to myself, to
notice the observations in reference to me, reported
to haye been made by your Grace in the House of
Lords, on Thursday the 21st of December last*.
I make no apology for troubling you with this
Letter, since I write to put forward a claim of jus
tice, which I cannot doubt you will admit, is only
proper and necessary for me to lay before you, and
for you to hear.
I write at the same time with feelings of great
respect for your station and authority, and not for
getful, I trust, of the spirit of a Christian, and es
pecially of one in the prominent post to which I
have been called.
It appears, then, that your Grace has now pub-
» See Report of the Debate in the House of Lords in the Morning
Chronicle of Dec. 22, 1837.

licly avowed your Own hostility to my appointment
to the Regius Professorship of Divinity, and your
approval of the conduct of those members of the
University who communicated with you on the
subject. I was unwilling to infer this from your
Letter to rae of March 1st, 1836; though your
Grace in that Letter certainly surprized me by di
recting me to satisfy, not yourself, but a number of
persons who were constantly declaring that nothing
from me would satisfy them. It was indeed ru
moured in the University, that the individuals who
met at Corpus Christi College, had the sanction of
the Archbishop of Canterbury ; and, if I am not
mistaken, use was made of your name for extend
ing their influence. But it was not publicly known
as a fact, that the memorialists against me had
your favourable opinion on their side, until your
avowal of the 21st of last December. Your Grace
has, further, not omitted to point out, that the case
of my appointment was a call of urgent necessity,
obliging you to depart from your usual reserve on
similar occasions.
Now, my Lord, may I be permitted, first, re
spectfully to ask, why the communication of one
party, conveying imputations against me, was at
tended to; and my communication, on the other
side, solemnly disclaiming such imputations, and
requesting to be heard, was not attended to ? — why
you interfered in consequence of the former, but
took no notice of the latter? In your Letter to
me, you disown the power and the intention of
acting on my appeal; and yet, as now appears
from your Speech, you took a very decided part

ih furthering the complaint of my accusers. I do
not presume to dispute your Grace's right of pre
senting any memorial or address. I only express
my own difficulty on a review of your Grace's con
duct towards me ; and I sincerely hope in a man
ner not to give offence.
But I must proceed to the more immediate pur
port of this Letter.
When the Archbishop of Canterbury (as is re
ported) publicly declares himself opposed to a mi
nister of the Church, — when he speaks of him, as
one who for good reasons should not have been
appointed to an high office in the Church, — when
he designates his opinions as objectionable to the
best divines of the day, and characterizes his ap
pointment as injudicious and unfortunate, — such
words, from such an authority, cannot be suffered
to fall to the ground, as if they had no important
bearing on the individual to whom they refer. I
may pass over, as I have passed over, the attacks
of inferior men. But when the Archbishop of
Canterbury publicly alludes to me in a slighting,
disparaging manner, I cannot remain silent. Your
Grace's censures, certainly, were conveyed indirectly.
They were framed in the language of caution and
reserve. They were not so much an attack on
me, as an apology for others. Still, I think, you
must see, that the mode in which you referred to
me, is calculated to make the most adverse impres
sion on the public mind. The very indefiniteness
of the charge against me, implied as it was, rather
than expressed by your words, is, in truth, an ag
gravation of it. For it is open to any construction

8
whatever ; and may therefore be taken in the most
.calumnious sense. The courteousness of phrase,
and abstinence from direct censure, are in effect
the most vituperative and injurious.
Think, my Lord, how your words, as coming
from one in high authority in the Church, may
affect the character of one under that authority.
Let me entreat you therefore to speak out, and
say what is the full meaning and extent of your
charge. I ask for specific allegations, if there be
such,— specific evidence of them. Out of respect to
myself, out of respect to my office, out of respect
tc your office, I strongly feel, and urgently require,
that I should no longer be the subject of mere
vague imputations, but that the question, whatever
it may be, between my adversaries and myself,
should be fairly put to the issue, and, once for all,
decided by the proper authority.
At present, the only thing ostensibly and ac
tually alleged by your Grace, is, that a number of
persons objected to my appointment, and commu
nicated with you in order to prevent it. Hence
you conclude, that it ought not to have taken
place ; whatever may have been the opinion of the
Government in my favour, and however strong the
testimonials by which that opinion was supported.
In fact, the appointment was, in your Grace's view,
injudicious and unfortunate, because an active and
powerful cabal was formed against it.
Now my Lord, is it not evident, that, on the
same grounds, the preferment of any one might be
as easily objected to and obstructed 1
For example, what would you have thought, if

some of the citizens of Canterbury had formed a
cabal to exclude you from the See ? And might
they not have met together and chosen a com
mittee, and set themselves up as judges of your or
thodoxy and fitness for the office, and published
their manifestos, and sent forth their libels against
you by every post ? Might they not too have in
dulged their mockery of all ecclesiastical authority
so far, as to denounce you to your Sovereign as an
heretic and a dangerous person, — and then, on
your vindicating yourself, have had the effrontery
to support their petition, on the ground, not that
you were guilty, but that you came forward to vin
dicate your character, — it being, forsooth, essential
that an Archbishop of Canterbury should need no
vindication ? What would your Grace have said to
all this in your own case ? Would you have con
ceded any authority whatever to such a tribunal, to
take cognizance of your imputed heresy ? Would
you not rather have said? ' I deny your competence
to pronounce an opinion on me in a question of
heresy, or, put me on my trial. I disdain your self-
appointed committee. I appeal to the regular Ec
clesiastical Authorities. I demand to be heard by the
Church, not by a tumultuous assemblage of persons
calling themselves the Church, and rashly usurping
its authority.'
In truth, my Lord, if the Government of the
Church is to be a reality, and not a mere name, —
nay, if the Church is to subsist as a Society on
earth, such combinations as those which the con
spirators against my appointment exhibited, ought
to be put down, not encouraged. The destructive

10
tendency of such license as that assumed by them,
is, to my mind, so very clear, that I cannot forbear
bringing the case before you in the light in which
it appears to me. Evidently it has not struck your
Grace in the same point of view ; or, I am sure,
you would not have countenanced the Oxford pro
ceedings in 1836, by attending to objections urged
by the parties engaged in those proceedings, and
covering them with the shield of your dignity.
You would have felt, that to give a colour Of Ec
clesiastical propriety to such proceedings, was un
dermining the very authority which your Grace is
-especially bound to protect, — that it was for those
very hands to sow and water the seeds of schism,
which should be the most diligent in uprooting
them. Let me, then, call your attention to the schismati-
cal character of those proceedings. It is no ques
tion of the* respectability of the individuals con
cerned in them. Let it be granted that they are
the best of men, the best of divines, and that their
language has been the most gentlemanlike, and
courteous, and temperate. They are still schisma-
tical, in so combining themselves and acting to
gether, as they have done. Let it be granted even
that the person suffering at their hands deserved
to suffer. They, at any rate, have no right to in
flict the suffering ; nor ought it to be inflicted in
that way, any more than a criminal should suffer
justice at the hands of an enraged mob. The
offence of another is no justification of their offence
in assuming a power which the constitution of the
Church has not given them, or of their mischievous

11
example of contempt of the regular forms of the
Church. Their conduct is still schismatical.
If we refer to the Scriptures, the Articles and
Canons of the Church, and the Ordination Services,
we find them uniformly condemning such proceed
ings on the part of members of the Church. Has
not St. Paul, expressly directed, to " mark them
which cause divisions." Has he not reprobated as
" carnal," those among whom are " envying, and
strife, and divisions," — one saying, " I am of Paul,''
another saying, I am "of Apollos," — men sitting in
judgment on one another, being " puffed up for one
against another," — " brother going to law with
brother, and that before the unbelievers," instead of
submitting their grievances to the judgment of the
Church ? Has he not expostulated with those who
listened to testimonies or complaints against himself
from improper quarters, namely, from persons who
took on themselves to examine and judge him and
trespass on his Christian liberty ? Has he not un
ceasingly exhorted to quietness and gentleness, and
patience, — censuring " busy-bodies," persons " walk
ing disorderly," who neglect their own proper
calling, while they intrude themselves into the con
cerns of others ? —
Looking to the Articles and Canons of the
Church, there we find the same language. When
a Minister is condemned, the 26th Article supposes
a prescribed form to have been followed ; that
" enquiry" has been made, — that there have been
"accusers" having "knowledge" of the offence, —
proofs of " guilt," — "just judgment." By the fifty-
third Canon, "public opposition between preachers"

12
is expressly guarded against ; not only as carried on
in the pulpit, but any opposition "purposely" set
on foot by the Clergy, of their own motion ; and it
is directed, that all such matters of offence are to
be, in the first instance, laid before the Bishop, and
that nothing is, in any case, to be done without his
order first had on the subject.
Looking, lastly, to the Ordination Services, there
we meet with the like care for the preservation of
the order and unity of the Church. Every word in
these, is a prohibition of the meddling, factious spi
rit. The Minister indeed is exhorted to activity in
defence of the truth ; he must " banish and drive
away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary
to God's word." But the sphere of his exertion is
also pointed out ; and his attention is called to his
own " cure," — to " those committed to his charge."
The adoption of this form of admonition in our
Service, instead of that of the Roman Pontifical,
which enjoins to " pronounce an anathema against
every heresy which lifts itself against the holy
Catholic Church," shews, further, what sort of zeal
against error the framers of our Service inculcate.
Clearly, they enjoin on the Minister no other
method, but the gentle one of argument and per
suasion, — or the use of " public and private moni
tions and exhortations within his cure." They
give no warrant to that discursive activity, which
goes out of its way to fight with error, nor heeds
how peace and love may be violated so that its
zeal may spend itself.
So strongly opposed to Scripture and to the
sober spirit of our Church* is the character of the

13
late movement at Oxford. One would really think,
that the authors of it had read, " Agitate, Agitate,"
in every page of their instructions, instead of ex
hortations to quietness and peace and love ; and
that the Apostle had no where said, that " the ser
vant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle
unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness
instructing those that oppose themselves ;" and,
again, " Rebuke not an elder, but entreat him as a
father." Your Grace, probably, knows of that movement
only in the result, by the communication made to
you by certain Members of the University. You
qannot, I conceive, be aware of the meetings that
were held, the printed papers that were issued, the
tone of oracular self-confidence, and spiritual im
portance, in which the leaders of the movement
decried and denounced a brother Clergyman. Had
all this come under your notice, you could not but
have seen the schismatical character of the pro
ceedings fully developed. As it is, your Grace
appears to me, only to have heard the gentle foot
steps, and subdued tone, with which they ushered
themselves into your presence.
Is your Grace fearful that the intoxication of
this party, if restrained, will turn to madness ? — To
conciliate men who have been engaged in such a
course, — to soften matters, when they have reached
such a crisis, — will hardly produce even temporary
quiet, much less consult for the permanent peace of
the Church. In the natural progress"of things, in-
deed,areaction will take place,and schism will rise up
to put down schism. But, would it not be far safer,

14
and better in every way, that the Authorities of the
Church should interpose to stay the plague.
But your Grace may still urge, that the question
does not, in your apprehension, turn on the point
whether I am right in my " views and intentions,"
and my opponents wrong in their conduct, but "on
the impression which certain parts of my writings
are calculated to make, and have actually made, on
the minds of common readers, as well as of persons
well versed in theology."
I would' most especially request your Grace to
state, whether you have read my writings, and
whether they made on your mind, the impression
to which you refer. If so, I should be glad to have
the passages to which you may object, pointed out
to me ; as I should be most happy to enter into a
discussion of them, and endeavour to make my
views better understood and more justly appre
ciated ; feeling confident, as I do, that they really
tend, at once, to the upholding of the truths of the
Gospel, and of the scriptural teaching of our own
Church. As for the representations of my views, which
have been given to the world, or carried to your
Grace's ear, by persons studiously opposed to me,
^—representations most unfair and uncandid,— I
cannot suffer my writings to be interpreted by
them, — I cannot discuss them as any real ob
jections. It seems that your Grace estimates the amount
of objection to my writings as very great ; and
therefore sufficient to obstruct my appointment. I
contend on the contrary, that my writings have not

15
produced an injurious impression on many minds.
The mock elucidations of them given by others,
may have done so, and very naturally, but not the
writings themselves. The boasted number of ob
jectors, may be clearly traced to a very few origi
nators and promoters of the disturbance. The'
clamour of the many, was but the senseless echo of
a few loud and importunate voices. When letters
were written to all quarters from the centre of the
movement in Oxford, pressing every one into the
service, — when the spirit of the Crusader and the
Covenanter was once more evoked, — and men were
challenged, on their faith, and their devotion to the
Church, to give in their adhesion to the cause, — is
it strange, that an impression was produced exten
sively against me, not only at Oxford, but else
where — not only among persons "well-versed in
theology," but among "common readers," or rather,
no-readers of my works ? What wonder, if, when
the trumpet was sounded, and the alarm-bell was
rung, the panic was spread far and wide ! — What
wonder, if the opportunity was eagerly seized by
the zealous, the fierce, and the timid, of having a
hand in destroying a proclaimed enemy of the
Church — of giving a blow to one already doomed —
of standing over the fallen, and shouting the paean
of triumph !
Let me separate however the deluded and misled,
for whom I make great allowance, and many of
whom actuated, no doubt, at the moment of
frenzy by good motives, have by this time, I trust,
been undeceived. Let me inquire, who those di
vines are, who are entitled to be leaders of opinion

16
in the Church, — whose good report is so necessary
to be obtained, — whose favour must be propitiated.
Until their names, and their merits, are known, I
cannot consider their abstract weight as any thing
in the scale against me. For my part, I know of
none whose opinion is entitled to such extreme
deference, — certainly none amongst those who
headed and brought up the array against me. Some
of them, indeed, are absolutely nameless in the theo
logical world ; and there are also some, whose
judgment must be set aside on your own principle ;
— their opinions being well-known, and strongly
objected to, both in Oxford and elsewhere.
But, my Lord, I dispute altogether the propriety
of testing an author by the " impression" attributed
to his writings. I regard the principle as essen
tially wrong. It is judging an author by the ca
pacity, or the disposition, of his readers and inter
preters, and not by his own spirit. It is saying,
that because an author does not teach us what we
approve, therefore he is incapable of teaching
others aright, — that, because he is misunderstood or
misapplied by some, therefore, he must be mis
understood and misapplied by every one else, or
by the generality. Still more striking is the im
propriety of thus judging an author, when the
" impression" referred to, is an impression made on
the minds of opponents, — of persons of a different
school, — of men indisposed to like any thing that
proceeds from him, — when his judges look askance
at him from his writings, and regard him with sus
picion, as patronized by a party in the state which
they hold in abhorrence. T would ask, whether

17
Romanists admit the Church of Rome to be cor
rupt, because Protestants assert it — whether Pro
testants admit themselves to be heretics, because
Romanists assert it — whether Calvinists admit Cal
vinism to be immoral in its tendency, because
some anti-Calvinists assert it — whether the Bible
must be confessed to be Socinian, because So-
cinians draw Socinian doctrines from it — lastly,
whether St. Paul must be censured, because his
Epistles contain some things hard to be understood,
which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as
they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own
destruction. How many excellent Divines of our Church
might be censured, if their orthodoxy, and useful
ness as Christian teachers, were estimated by such
a test. Who, however, values Bishop Burnet's
Exposition of the Articles, at all the less, because it
was censured by the Lower House of Convocation.
Your Grace will remember the case of Bishop Bull ;
how this champion of the Nicene Faith pleads for
himself, against the iniquity of imputing to him the
objections of adversaries. So industriously, and
with such " tragic" declamation, had he been com
plained of as a teacher of " new and most pernicious
doctrines," that he was " almost every where," as
he says, " accounted a Socinian." In a remark
able passage of his Apologia pro Harmonia, (p. 10.
ed. 1703) he thus expresses himself: " In abster-
genda hac de Socinismo calumnia eo diutius mora-
tus sum, qu6d et per se gravis ilia sit, atque a
multis resciverim, istam de me famam inimicorum c

18
meorum artibus et industria turn late sparsam esse,
ut jam pene ubique pro Socinista habear. Sane
expertus loquor insignem calumniam non modo
cessisse in familise meae detrimentum, sed etiam
successui laborum meorum in Sacro Ministerio
(quod me angit maxime) gravi impedimehto fuisse.
Deus Opt. Max. ex effusissima ipsius misericordia
gratiam illis largiatur, qua de tam atroci in fratrem
suum injuria seriam et tempestivam agant poeni-
tentiam, ut tremendum illud judicium, quod in
futuro sseculo calumniatores manet, effugiant. In
terim me solabor benedictione Dei, Domini, ac
Servatoris mei Jesu Christi, qui dixerit : Beati eri-
tis, quum vos convitiis affecerint et mentientes dixe-
rint quidvis mali adversus vos propter me. Gaudete
et exultate, quoniam merces vestra multa est in
ccelis, etc. Matt. v. 11, 12. b
In my own case, I consider such a mode of
treatment peculiarly hard. When it is remembered,
b " I have dwelt the longer in wiping off this calumny of Socinian-
ism, both because of its being grievous in itself, and of my having
learned from many, that that character of me has, by the arts and in
dustry of my enemies, been so widely spread, that I am now almost
every where accounted a Socinian. In truth, I speak from experience
when I say, that the notable calumny has not only turned to the de
triment of my family, but also, (which most afflicts me,) has been a
grievous impediment to the success of my labours in the sacred ministry.
May the infinitely good and great God, of his most abundant mercy,
bestow on them the grace of a serious and timely repentance of so
atrocious a wrong against their brother, that they may escape that
tremendous judgment which awaits calumniators in the world to come.
Meanwhile, I shall console myself with the benediction of God, my
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who has said, Blessed are ye, when men
shall revile you, and perseeute you, and shall say all manner of evil against
you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad : for great is
your reward in heaven, SfC Matt. v. 11, 12."

19
that I was no unknown person, but that I had been
living for a considerable time at Oxford in the
public view, filling successively several offices of
trust in the University, and among these that of
Public Examiner for nearly four years — (the chief
responsibility of which office lies in the examina
tions in divinity ;) — that, subsequently to the de
livery of my Bampton Lectures, I obtained in 1833
the honourable notice of our late learned and most
distinguished Chancellor, in my appointment to
the headship of St. Mary Hall ; — that I was elected
in 1834 by the Vicechancellor and Proctors, the
Heads of Christ Church, Magdalen, and St. John's,
White's Lecturer in Moral Philosophy, for which
the founder especially requires one " recommended
by his soundness of religion," religionis sinceritate
commendatus; — that I had published writings several
years ago — one of which (a little tract containing
Sermons addressed to Children) received your ap
proval, and the other (an Essay on the Argument
of Butler's Analogy) was sent to you with a letter
from myself on the subject ; — when all this is re
membered, I do think it was peculiarly hard, that
no weight was given by your Grace to previous
character and means of judging of me, but that a
number of signatures, a memorial, and an outcry,
should have been held by you as decisive of the
propriety of excluding me from a post, to which
nothing but previous character and means of
judging of me, had recommended me.
It was not decided in such a way, my Lord,
when those more than forty Jews banded them
selves together against St. Paul. The Roman go-
c 2

20
vernor required that the accused should have the
accusers face to face, and have licence to answer for
himself concerning the crime laid against him. And
when suspicion existed against the Apostle, and
the disciples were all afraid of him, and believed
not that he was a disciple, their suspicion was over
ruled by the testimony given of his work in the
Gospel. Had his case been decided at once by
the evidence of the Jews against him, or by that
of the disciples in their state of suspicion, how
easily might even this chosen servant of 4iis Lord
have been condemned !
In my case, however, neither previous character,
nor subsequent experience of me in the office it
self, appears to have relieved your mind of the
load of objection. At this time, — at the interval of
two years, — your Grace is found asserting the exist
ence of " good reasons" against my appointment,
as if there had been, and were now, no reasons at
all on the other side in favour of it — as if I had
never said or done any thing in justification of it ;
and as if there stood only on one side of the ques
tion an insuperable mass of objection and com
plaint. Let the objections of which your Grace speaks
be put in the most repulsive form. Let it be said
that certain parts of my writings had not only been
objected to, but had given offence to many per
sons. — Is nothing then to be written that may give
offence to certain persons ? Is nothing to be
preached but what coincides with the views and
feelings of the hearers ? Doubtless it is better, if it
be possible, to avoid giving offence. I would not,

21
if I could help it, give offence to any one. Still it
must happen sometimes, that things must be
spoken which will to many be unpalatable, and on
account of which he who gives utterance to them
will incur, dislike and obloquy. If such offence
and dislike are to be construed into condemnation,
what will become of the cause of truth ? — I question
whether the Gospel itself would not be condemned
by such an argument ; for we know that at one
time it was every where spoken against.
Consider, my Lord, what the effect is likely to
be on the rising generation of theologians, if it go
forth to the world that the Archbishop of Canter
bury sanctions in any way the Oxford proceedings
in 1836. Will honesty and intrepidity of enquiry,
the qualities most essential to the investigation and
acknowledgment of truth, be promoted by such a
state of things as will follow ? Will they not rather
be intensely discouraged ? No one, surely, will
readily venture to state his opinions on any point,
when he knows that there is a dominant party in
the Church, and in the University, ready to sit in-
quisitorially on them, — to pronounce an anathema
upon them, and condemn their author by an arbi
trary court, without a lawful judge — without a jury
— without an accuser — without witnesses — without
appeal — without mercy.
What servility ! what hypocrisy ! what irreligion,
must not the establishment of such a system lead
to! What else is it but all the horror of the In
quisition, under the most subtle form ! Already I
fear the evil is in some degree felt at Oxford. It
may be called, by some effeminate moralists, a state

TI
of docility, and humble-mindedness ; but it is not, I
I am sure, that docility and humble-mindedness
which the Gospel contemplates ; for that is no
crouching, abject spirit, but a spirit of devotion to
the Word of God, prompting to the searching of
the Scriptures, and ascertaining the truth by the
conviction that God has spoken it.
Consider again, my Lo\-d, what evil must result
from allowing, not to say the University, but a
combination of individuals — a cabal — a schismatical
body — to exercise a control over the Ecclesiastical
appointments of the Crown. Would you place
the patronage of the Crown, or any patronage, at
the mercy of a party which happens to be in
ascendancy in the University, or elsewhere. Is
that patronage, then, to fluctuate with the Euripus
of academical, or popular feeling ? And is the ob
ject of it to be merely the representative of the
theology of the day ? I need not point out the ob
vious mischief portended by such a course to reli
gion. It is evident also that the introduction of so
great a license must threaten the dissolution of the
union now subsisting between the Church and the
State, and tend to merge the power of the State in
that of the Church, — a result which some seem
anxiously labouring to accomplish at this very time.
It is, in fact, bringing in a democratic force as a
check on the royal prerogative, in the most ob
jectionable form ; because it is a force, not regu
lated by any fixed principle, but moulded and im
pelled at the moment by the prevailing opinions,
feelings, and humours of the Clergy — a force, the
more formidable from the awe of religion which

23
surrounds it, and capable of the more disorder from
the very associations of order which naturally be
long to it. He cannot have read History, who
does not see that the tendency of this power is to
put every other power under its feet ; and that it
requires therefore to be strictly watched, and kept
within the limits of the Constitution.
Finally, my Lord, I once more throw myself on
your justice. I ask you, as a steward of Christ, to
whom much has been given for the good of the
household of Christ, no longer to allow yourself to
appear as the advocate of a majority, but to stand
as an impartial judge between that majority and
the other side, though there be on that other side
only a minority of one. In a cause of truth and
right, let numbers be put out of the question. Your
own conscientious opinion, drawn from your own
examination of my merits or demerits, can alone
answer for you the question, whether I am fit, or
not fit, for the office of Regius Professor of Di
vinity. Once more, I disclaim the calumnious im
putations, whatever they may be, with which I
have been assailed. I disclaim them for myself;
I disclaim them for my writings. I retract nothing
that I have written ; I disown nothing. I fearlessly
assert myself to have ever been, as I am now, a
true member of the Church of England, and a
faithful teacher of its doctrines. I challenge my
enemies to prove the contrary. In other circum
stances, it would be vainglorying in me to speak of
myself as I now do. Now, however, I am obliged
to give expression to the full conviction of my own
heart, and say without scruple, that I am not the

24
man to hold an office in hypocrisy, or for the
mammon and tinsel attached to it.
It is time, indeed, that an end were put to the
vexatious warfare, with which I have been so seri
ously annoyed and interrupted in my duties. It is
easy for those who estimate suffering by worldly
privation and bodily pain, to say there has been no
persecution in my case. It is easy for those who
have acted against me, to say, they have had no
personal object, and have intended no disrespect
to me, and have done me no wrong. But I must
best know what I have suffered. I must best
know the pain of being reviled— the still greater
pain of being mocked with protestations of kind
ness and respect amidst indignities. If it were
only the unmerited disesteem effected in the minds
of good men, who have been misled in their judg
ments of me, I have had enough to make me feel
acutely. Let those who have ever felt. the pain of
the evil eye, and the evil tongue, directed against
them, — speak to the case. Nor is it any slight
thing, to encounter opposition in the discharge of
one's duties, to have one's means of doing good
thwarted to the utmost that disappointed rage can
effect. This very occasion of defending myself,
from the slight thrown on me by the Archbishop
of Canterbury in the House of Lords, is to me
most painful. Those who know me, and my habits
of life, will judge how very painful it must be to
me. — Providentially, I have been sustained under
my trial, and, I trust, by the same Divine assistance,
I shall still be sustained. Indeed, I have not been
without my consolation in the midst of it. It has

25
been no little relief to find, that not all who first
joined against me, were actuated by a persecuting
spirit. Happily, several have had the courage and
the kindness to own their error, and have washed
their hands of the pollution. I have had the ele
vating sympathy of pious, and zealous, and learned
men, undoubted friends of the Church. And if
testimonials are to be estimated not by number
but by weight, I have judgments in my favour, that
might counterbalance a host of declamatory ob
jectors ; such as that of the late Mr. Davison, the
highly-gifted and excellent author of the " Dis
courses on Prophecy," who both read and expressly
approved my Bampton Lectures, as well as my
" Essay on the Philosophical Evidence of Chris
tianity." Public opinion, too, has given me its
support, in spite of all that has been done to cor
rupt its verdict. Another satisfaction has been
derived to me from the kind feeling, which, greatly
to their honour, the junior members of the Uni
versity attending my Lectures, have evinced to
wards me. Above all, I am humbly persuaded,
that my prayer for strength has been answered, in
the calm which I feel in my mind, and the firm
resolve with which I am nerved to perseverance in
my course.
Still I feel myself the victim of a cruel perse
cution. A faction has been allowed to riot with
impunity on the public stage of the University, and
in the face of the Authorities of the Church, and to
bear me down, if I could have been borne down, by
clamour and insult. Shall, then, such a state of
things continue unnoticed and unredressed, and the

26
injured person not indignantly complain of the
wrong ? I implore your Grace, therefore, effectu
ally to put an end to this unnatural warfare. I ask,
as I have said, for specific charges, if such exist.
I ask to be called to account before a legal Ecclesi
astical tribunal, if there be real matter of accusation
against me.
Your Grace desires me to satisfy the University ;
that is, in reality, a party opposed to me in the
University. I declare to you, that I cannot satisfy
them. It would be wrong, in the first place, that
I should succumb to the requisitions of a body of
men acting schismatically, as these have acted.
They must rather first be reduced to a state of di
scipline. I cannot treat with a disorderly faction,
assuming a power not given them by the Scriptures,
or the rules of the Church. But, in the next
place, it it a task of impossibility which you impose
upon me. The person himself must be an anomaly
who would meet the views of such an anomalous
association. Which of its various sections am I to
fake as my standard of orthodoxy ? — In satisfying
one, can I expect to satisfy another ? — How again
am I to satisfy those of the number, who, not
having any very distinctive marks of religious pro
fession, dissented from my views through ignorance
of the matters on which they pronounced an
opinion, — some of them deficient in the requisite
erudition and skill for examining the points dis
cussed, and some unhappily also under the irritation
of unpleasant feelings ? — It is also well known, that
among the prime movers of the disturbance were
the leaders and disciples of a new theological

27
school, which is now attracting notice by its extra
ordinary publications, and exciting considerable
alarm in the Church. Am I to satisfy this party ?
Am I to purchase exemption from censure, by
folding my arms, and suffering myself to be led
away captive by a band, whom I regard as making
inroads on the constitution of the Church of Eng
land ? You would not, my Lord, have me consent
to such terms of peace. There may be persons
disposed to look with indulgence at the excesses of
this party, — who think they are useful as checks to
ultraism on the opposite side, — who estimate them
on the principle that excess is better than defect, —
who would cherish their heat that it may stimulate
thelukewarmness of others, — who hope that their ex
travagance may bring up others to the due measure
of zeal. For my part, I cannot accede to such views;
for they are not borne out by experience of the
effects of ultraism. Nor can I flatter, or encourage
in any way, what I conceive to be wrong in principle.
If, indeed, the price of quiet is to be a surrender of
the name and principles of Protestantism, — if I am
to admit the authority of Tradition on a parity with
Scripture, — if the profession of Justification by
Faith only, is no longer to be the sign of a standing
Church, but a doctrine of Episcopal grace and
Sacramental Justification is to overlay God's free
pardon through Christ to sinful man, — if private
judgment is to be restrained, not by appeal to
Scripture and argument, but by intimidation, — if
self-constituted associations and the names of men
are to rule questions of theology, — if dissent is to
be called sin, — and taking of oaths, piety, — and

28
mysticism, religion, — and superstition, faith, — and
Antichrist, Christ, — then is there no alternative but
that I must be objected against, by those who hold
what, if I read the Gospel aright, are most serious
perversions of its truth and its spirit ; — then must I
freely confess, that after the way which they call
heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing
all things which are written in the Law and the
Prophets.
I have the honour to remain,
My Lord Archbishop,
Your Grace's most obedient humble Servant,
R. D. HAMPDEN,
Regius Professor of Divinity.
The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.

No. IV.
FROM THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY TO THE
REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY.
Lambeth, Feb. 1st, 1838.
Reverend Sir,
At the same time that I acknowledge your letter
of the 23rd of last month, I must be excused from
entering into any discussion on the several matters
contained in it, with most of which I have no con
cern. With respect to the point, on which your
remonstrance is^ grounded, I am sorry that any
thing, which I am reported to have said, should
have given you pain ; but on the words, which you

29
have stated as mine, you have put a construction
which they will not bear. I conceive that any dis
passionate man would understand them as a simple
avowal of my disapproval of the appointment at the
time it took place, and, if he were acquainted with
the circumstances, would know that my objections
were founded on certain publications, a reference
to which would enable him to judge whether I was
right or wrong. The designation of the appoint
ment as unfortunate, might reasonably be supposed
to refer to its consequences in the interruption of
that harmony, which, it is much to be wished,
should always prevail in the University. This ob
vious interpretation would have done bare justice
to my intention, which was to say as little as pos
sible that would be unpleasant to any one, in rela
tion to a matter, on which I had resolved to be
silent, but was obliged to come forward by some
thing which was stated in the debate.
The truth is, that those who felt it due to the
highly responsible stations which they held in the
Church, to go to the Minister, and state their ob
jections to your appointment, having discharged
that painful duty, were so far from taking any
further steps, that they were anxious to hope and
believe that all might go on well. And they are in
no way accountable for the discussion which has
wounded your feelings, and which was deliberately
brought on by your own friends.
You have complained in your letter of my
hostility towards you ; I entirely disclaim any feel
ing of the kind, for the past, the present, and the
future. But I should not be justified, if, out of

30
consideration for feelings, which I shall always be
inclined to respect, I were to give up the right of
delivering my sentiments freely in regard to all
matters, on which it may be my duty to advise or
speak. I remain, Reverend Sir,
Your humble and obedient Servant,
(Signed) W. CANTUAR.
Rev. Dr. Hampden, &c. &c. &c. No. V.
FROM THE REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY TO
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.
Ch. Ch., Feb. 6th, 1838.
My Lord Archbishop,
I regret to have occasion to say, that the answer
with which you have favoured me by no means
meets the point, to which I called your attention.
I asked, that the objections you had stated as
existing against my appointment, should be thrown
into some definite form, — that I might know dis
tinctly what I had to reply to, and that the ques
tion as to the validity of such objections, might be
fairly put to the issue.
In your Grace's last letter I find the same in-
definiteness of allegation, of which I before com
plained.

31
Though your Grace now limits your disapproval
to " the time when the appointment took place,"
you still altogether pass over the actual matter of
objection, and leave it to be collected from "certain
publications, a reference to which," you observe,
" would enable any dispassionate man, acquainted
with the circumstances, to judge whether you were
right or wrong."
I have still, therefore, to ask, what these "certain
publications" are, — what the objectionable passages
in them, on which your judgment has been founded.
It is of the utmost importance to the question, that
it should be distinctly known, whether your Grace
had read my publications yourself before you took
a step to prevent my appointment, or whether you
acted on the representations of others. The ex
pressions you have employed leave this matter
quite ambiguous.
Surely, my Lord, it is due to your dignity, as
well as to my character and the cause of truth,
that objections of so grave a bearing should not re
main under this shade. I earnestly ask again, that
they may be brought to light, — that the fullest
publicity may be given to them. I desire no
secresy, no reserve. I only want to know what
are the points I have to answer, — on what authority
your objections rest. I cannot think you will re
fuse me this justice. To leave the case as it now
stands, is like uttering calumnies against a person,
and supposing oneself justified by saying, that
they are grounded on certain parts of his conduct,
which any one may refer to, who knows the cir-

32
cumstances ; without adducing any particulars
whatever in support of them.
It is further important for clearing up this whole
matter, that the names of those who, "holding highly
responsible stations in the Church," interfered to
prevent my appointment, and yet abstained from
further steps, should be known. I refuse their
disparaging leniency. If they owed it to the
Church to express their objections to the Head of
the Government, why does their duty stop at this
point, — why do they not come forward with a
manly Christian dignity, and bring their objections
into discussion ? — At present, there has been no
question of Truth instituted. There has been no
proper controversy.
Your Grace has misunderstood me, in supposing
that I have imputed to you a feeling of hostility
towards me. I speak only of your hostility to
my appointment. Indeed, it could not be supposed
that you had any personal feeling on the occa
sion ; as, independently of your character for gen
tleness, I had myself never given you cause of
offence. I would further observe, that, so far from com
plaining of your Grace's advising or speaking as you
may think proper, I am quite aware it is only your
duty to do so. I am very thankful to the noble Lords
who invited the discussion in Parliament, for the
opinion, on which they evidently acted, that I could
have no objection to discussion. And the ground
of my address to your Grace, has been, and is,
not that you have spoken in the matter, but that

33
you have not spoken more explicitly and dis
tinctly. I have the honour to be,
My Lord Archbishop,
Your Grace's most obedient humble Servant,
R. D. HAMPDEN,
Regius Professor of Divinity.
The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.

No. VI.
FROM THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY TO THE
REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY.
Reverend Sir,
Considering the explanations I gave in my former
letter as fully sufficient, I see nothing in your last
communication, which requires particular notice,
except the observation that I now limit my objec
tion to the time when the appointment took place.
It was evidently so limited by the subject on which
I was speaking. An opinion delivered two years
ago could not possibly have reference to any thing
which has happened since. I presumed, when I
used the words which you have noticed, that you
would have understood them as involving an
answer to a question which you put to me in your
letter. With respect to the whole matter, the case
is briefly this : Objections were entertained by me,
and by others, to certain passages in your writings.

34
In your inaugural Lecture, you declared of these,
in common with the whole of your books, that you
meant nothing but what was orthodox in them. In
a private letter to me you asserted in substance the
same thing. For this I then gave, and still give
you credit, as a man of veracity and integrity : and
consequently if every passage objected to were
specified, you would gain nothing which you have
not already. But the main objection still remains; —
that if, on the great topics on which he is to in
struct students in divinity, a man can so write that
both common and learned readers mistake him, he
is not a safe teacher. And this is sufficient ground
for those who believe your declaration, not to with
draw their disapprobation of the appointment,
though they may not, urge their objections farther.
As the continuance of our correspondence on
this painful subject cannot lead to any useful re
sult, I trust you will excuse me for expressing a
hope that it may end here.
I remain, Reverend Sir,
Your obedient and humble Servant,
(Signed) W. CANTUAR.
Rev. Dr. Hampden.

35

No. VII.
FROM THE REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY TO
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.
Ch. Ch., Oxford, March 23rd, 1838.
Mr Lord Archbishop,
Peculiar circumstances have prevented my re
plying to your last letter as soon as I could have
wished. Your Grace still persists in declaring, without
any proof of the assertion, that " both common and
learned readers" of my publications have "mis
taken" me. Now it does not even appear that you
haVe yourself done so. For you have not ventured
to state, in reply to the question which I put to you
on the point, whether your objections were drawn
from your own unbiassed reading of the works them
selves, or from the representations of them by others.
I cannot but conclude, indeed, from your Grace's re
serve on the subject, that your attention had not
been directed to the matters discussed in my Bamp-
ton Lectures before you took part against me. But
though the case were as your Grace states, — though
I had written on the "great topics" to which you
refer, so as to have been " mistaken both by com
mon and learned readers," — it would by no means
follow, that I should be disqualified for giving ele
mentary instruction to junior students in Theology.
Fallacious as such reasoning is in itself, it has been
amply refuted by experience. Let any of those

36
who have attended my Lectures, private or public,
before or since my appointment to the Divinity-
Chair, — or who have heard my public examinations
in divinity, — be called and asked how and what I
have taught. I wonder that your Grace should
put forward an a priori objection, where a positive
experience exists to be appealed to — an objection,
too, so palpably open to refutation by that test,
and respecting which you may have satisfied your
self by questioning those who have presented them
selves before you for ordination from this Uni
versity. But, my Lord, is it come to this, that all the
roughness with which I have been treated, is to be
slurred over with one smooth phrase 1 Is it indeed
then " the main objection", that, having been "mis
taken," as you state, I am not in your opinion " a
safe teacher ?" — Weak must be the cause, which, in
such a case, can resort to such a plea. Contrast
this plea with the intense exertions made against
me, — only, in fact, contemplate yourself going on a
formal mission to the Minister of the Crown with
such a plea in your mouth ; — and how dispropor
tionate to the occasion, — how ridiculous, might it
not be said, but for the solemn injury enacted
against a brother Christian in the name of religion
— does all that effort appear ! The University and
the Church, forsooth, were to be agitated, because
an individual, — sound in his own faith, and irre
proachable in his life, on the shewing of his adver
saries themselves, — had been misconstrued in some
passages of his writings, and was therefore not " a
safe teacher." Certainly the plea looks more like

37
an after-thought, and a retreat from higher ground
of attack which could not be carried : and it may
so far serve the cause for which it is advanced, as,
unlike any specific charge, it admits no direct an
swer. As for "withdrawing disapprobation," I did hope,
that your Grace might be open to conviction of
your having been in error in regard to me. I re
flect, at the same time, how hard it is for those
who have taken a harsh step against another, to
own themselves in the wrong, or pardon the indi
vidual whom they have wronged, — especially for
men in responsible stations, whose example has in
fluenced others, and paved the way to outrages be
yond their power to control.
Your Grace speaks of "objections entertained by
yourself and by others to certain passages in my
writings," and you observe, that, " in my Inaugural
Lecture I declare of these, in common with the
whole of my books, that I meant nothing but what
was Orthodox in them ;" also, that I " asserted the
same thing in substance in a private letter to your
self." Now I am not aware of having stated any
thing of the kind, either in my Inaugural Lecture
or elsewhere. For I have never seen any passages,
or particular objections whatever alleged by your
Grace ; nor can I therefore have stated what you
observe respecting such passages. The fact is,
that I have asked your Grace to bring specific ob
jections, and you have constantly declined doing
so. Happily, my Lord, I do not depend for my cha
racter for " veracity and integrity " on the opinion

38
of any individual. I endeavour* to act in a straight
forward manner, looking, I trust, to His approval,
who has bade us fear Him, and not man. I must
avow, therefore, that in writing to you, I have not
sought to obtain your commendation, or any " use
ful result," beyond the vindication of right and
truth. I am, and I think with the best reason,
anxious to clear up a matter, in which I feel myself
deeply aggrieved, on account of, not only the in
sults which Ihave received, but the serious obstruc
tions thrown across my path in doing those duties
to which God has called me. I verily, but humbly,
believe, that God has called me especially to the
duties of my office^ — -unworthy instrument as I am
in His hand, — unworthy, indeed, to be trusted with
so great a dignity, as from Him. And I assure
you, therefore, that, with His, help, I will not cease
my exertions against the opposition to me, from
whatever quarter it may come.
In prosecution of this view, I beg to inform your
Grace, that it is my intention to lay this whole
correspondence before the public.
I have the honour to remain,
My Lord Archbishop,
Your Grace's most obedient, humble Servant,
R. D. HAMPDEN,
Regius Professor of Divinity,
The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.

OXFORD : FRIKTED-BV D. A. TALBOY*.