The Express.
London, England, 1848-01-03 00:00:00

BISHOPRIC OF HEREFORD.

The following is Lord John Russell's reply to an address
to hint from the clergy of Bedford:—
Wuituas ABBEY, DEC. 30, 1847.—Rev. Sirs,—l have re-
ceived with great satisfaction the expression of your opinion
on the elevation of Dr. Hampden to the episcopal bench. I
rtjoice to learn that you " have no share in those feelings of
alarm attributed to the clergy, through the activity of a por-
tion of them," on the subject of that appointment. Two
grounds have been taken to justify the alarm and account
for the activity of which you speak. The one is the vote of
want of confidence pasted by the convocation of tho Univer-
sity of Oxford is 1836: the other, the suspicion of unsound-
ness in the faith.

_ ._ ..._ ._.._.
With respect to the first ground, the Bishops of Durham
and Norwich, and many other eminent persons, have pointed
out the fallacy of piecing reliance on a hasty vote of convo-
cation, passed in a period of party excitement, without due
examination, and void of ecclesiastical authority. Mr.
Weodgate has gone further • he has said, speaking of a simi-
lar vote, " the proper appeal is net to the passions of a
mixed multitude, like convocations, where, besides having
no lawful jurisdiction in the case, there is no exposition of
the law, no reference to precedent, no hearing of evidence,
and where the same persons arc at once prosecutors, judges,
and jurymen."' But let us grant that the convocation was
justified in its distrust. Let us concede that the university
properly decreed that Dr. Hampden should be deprived of
certain functions and privileges belonging to his office, " be-
cause in his writings he had so treated theological
subjects that in this respect the university had
no confidence in him." Have we had no experience
since 1836? Is it not possible that Dr. Hamp-
den may have used expressions, obscure or careless, which
might induce the university to distrust his teaching of theo-
logy, but that the evidence of eleven years of sound and
blameless conduct as professor of divinity may have removed
the just causes of suspicion ? Such I should imagine to be
the opinion of the heads of the university itself; for in 1842
they placed Dr. Hampden in the chair of a board of theolo-
gical examiners. Such I should imagine to be the conclusion
of the great majority of our bishops; for they have required
I from the Oxford candidates for orders certificates that they
had received instruction in theology from Dr. Hampden.
They were clearly under no obligation to de so. The Bishop
of Exeter and a few other prelates have declined to receive
Dr. Hampden's certificates, and have proceeded to ordain
upon other testimony more satisfactory to them. So that,
with the exception of five or six, our bishops must have
freely, voluntarily, and deliberately required the proof of
attendance on Dr. Hampden's instructions in divinity as a
necessary preliminary to ordination.
Can there bo stronger proofs of the confidence reposed in
Dr. Hampden, first by the resident heads of the University
of Oxford, and secondly, by the great majority of the bishop.?
How few men have been elevated to the episcopal bench
with a greater weight of authority in their favour ! The
head of a theological board of examiners, the teacher of
candidates for the priesthood---can those who recognised and
confided in him in these characters have believed that be
held himself unsound opinions in theology 1 He who was to
examine others ? He whose training of young men was to
11%1'14 them to receive the solemn rite of ordination?
barely, this were to malign the University of Oxford and
the great body of our prelates. But further. I have else-
where alluded to the fact, ihat sometime before I recom-
mended Dr. Hampden to the Queen, I communicated my in-
tention to our venerable primate, and received from him no
discouragement. It is true that the archbishop did not
appear to think Dr. Hampden well qualified for the
diocese of Manchester, neither on reflection did I think proper
to recommend him to the crown for that see, in the peculiar
circumstances of its population and Dr. Ilampden's studious
career. But no one who has that veneration which I enter-
tain for the candour, piety, attachment to the church and
state, and friendly kindness of our primate, will believe the
calumny, that he thought the appointment might not hap-
pen during his natural or my official life, and therefore con-
cealed his opinion, that it would be an act of reckless insult
and injury to the church! I feel no doubt that the arch-
bishop, whatever objections he might have felt to Dr. Hamp-
den in 1836, had become reconciled to his promotion by the
orthodox and Christian character of his subsequent writings.
It was therefore, on due consideration of the proceedings of
1836, and of subsequent years ; of Dr. Hampden's labours at
Oxford ; of the many instances in which his predecessors had
been raised to the bench ; of the policy of giving rewards to
learning ; and lastly, of the zeal for our protestant reforma-
tion displayed by Dr. Hampden, that I named him to the
Queen as successor to the Bishop of Hereford.
I come now to the second ground of objection. After I
had taken the Queen's please, and her Majesty had graci-
ously approved of the appointment, I received privately
from the archbishop, publicly from 13 of the bishops, a
warning that the elevation of Dr. Hampden would be dis-
approved by the majority of the clergy. Had this iobjection
been founded oar any just accusation against the life and
morals of Dr. Hampden, it was not too late to confess my
error and withdraw my recommendation. But founded as
it was upon a charge of teaching unsound doctrine, it be-
hoved me not to desert • clergyman whom the Queen had been
pleased to nominate for a bishopric, without some authority
or substantial proof. No such authority appeared. The
conduct of the archbishop and bishops gave a strong pre-
sumption the other way. No such proof was given; you
say, very justly, " None such have we found) no proof or
evidence of any strange doctrine contrary to God's word, as
held or favoured by Dr. Hampden." Ou the other hand,
a strong testimony of the baseless nature of the
charges against Dr. Hampden is to be found in
the extracts made by his enemies from his writ-
ings ; " such extracts," as you truly say, "by their
garbled form in some instances, by. false connexions in
ethers, quite reversing the true meaning of the
The gross dishonesty of these quotations has t'eaelrgifity
shown in an admirable letter by Archdeacon Hare. He ob-
serves, very justly, that by leaving out the first words of one
passage, and the last words of another, we might extract
from Scripture the dogma, " There is no God," and the pre-
I an celie"lGearno anecl sin."
author of this letter did not ori-
i molly—indeed—clappiroy valeof.trafinpointiretn.
to ruin the reputation of Dr. Hampden, he must, in can-
dour, allow that if such means are to deprive a clergyman et
those distinctions which our church boasts of maintaining as
the rewards of learning and piety, a fatal blow is struck at
• all profound inquiry, at all enlightened pursuit of truth, at
all( lcrical independence.
Let us not mistake our position. The church is not in
that easy security of the last century which gave birth to b 0
, much negligence, to so much abuse of her wealth, to such a
I perilous apathy. The church of Rome on the one aide, with
/ abundant knowledge, with imposing authority, seduces
many to her communion. The right of private judgment is
by many avoided as a dangerous snare ; the duty of private
judgment is thrown off by many more as too heavy a burden.
, On the other side the protestant dissenter assails the church
establishment as an engine for fettering the conscience and
I . taxing the property of the subject. Novelties have their
L I charm ; the high churchman and the independent speak
• alike with complacency of separating church and state. 1
, I know no better security against such a danger than an able
I and Darned episcopal
_ bench; a zealous and God-fearing pa-
, rochial clergy. Thus may the reformation be depended ;
thus may the establishment be maintained ; otherwise, neither
I parliament nor premunire can beat off the assailants of our
i church constitution.
But it i. said I have disturbed the peace of the church.
There is no use in crying " peace, when them is no peace."
i The appointment of Dr. Tillotson to the primacy provoked a
• party whose- unrelenting fury pursued him to the day of his
, death. They denounced him as a Socinian and an atheist,
; yet our Great Deliverer never made a wiser or more judicious
t appointment. In our own day we have seen the learned
i. Dr. Lloyd, once Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford,
i pursued with bitter invective, when on the Roman Catholic
i Relief Bill he gave expression to the loftiest feelings of Chris-
• tian charity.
.t You have spoken with praise of the sermons of Dr. Hemp-
den, and your testimony is in this respect peculiarly vale-

• Earwig Appeal to the /umbers of Gn•ocation, by 11. A. Wood.
gate, 8.A., &c.,

I able. Yea consider his appointment at " a circumstance
favourable to the health of the church." It is in that view
that, unconnected with and personally unknown to Dr.
Hampden, I have recommended him to the favour of my
sovereign. I earnestly and devoutly hope that your antici-
pations and mine may, by the blessing of God, be amply ful-
have the honour to be, with great respect, your
most obedient servant, J. R1.7688LL.
Rev. A. J. Crispin, vicar of Renhisld, fte.