The Sun.
London, England, 1847-12-14 00:00:00

consecrating them might be delayed till time were E riven
to examine particulars ; and the Bishop Lloyd tol, Ime
that Sancroft promised to him not to consecrate titer a till
he had examined the truth of the articles, which were
too scandalous to be repeated. Yet, when Sancroft saw
what danger he might incur if he. ewe sued in pry rmu-
nire, he consented to consecrate them.
[An accident happened in the action titstruck him
much. When he was
going to give the ch.a,:-c e u i the
sacrament, he stumbled on one of the steps of the s dtar,
and dashed out all the consecrated wine thM IN 55_ t
which was much taken notice of, and gave hieis!lfa t ouch
r.
trouble, since he was frightened by so mean a e,.4..
Burnet, History of his own Times, Oxford, 1523, ro,
p. 136-8.
Such, my Lord, is the first—precedent shall I :ay ?
n
eamnd.
or warning ? It is for your Lordship to decide '
in forming your decision you will, I doubt not, rei r
ber that Sancroft is not now in the see of Cantert,
nor James 11. on the throne of Englak2d- ,
f hick 1 I
The other case is that of Bishop lloan';', °- w it
am more apprehensive that your Lordship mnlY
worthy of being followed. I
think
Against this prelate, a notorious Latitudinarian, " u.nk
something more," the Lower House of Convocation in
1717 prepared a representation to be presented to the
Archbishops and Bishops sitting in the Upper House,
" that with much grief of heart they had observed that
the Right Rev, the Lord Bishop of Bangor hath given
great and grievous offence by certain doctrines and po-
sitions by him lately published," the tendency of which
they proceeded to set forth in the form of articles.
Before this representation could be brought into the
Upper House the Convocation was prorogued by a spe-
cial order from the King, and was not permitted to sit
again. The accused prelate was not lung afterwards
translated to Hereford (what a complete and happy pre-
cedent 1), and subsequently, in due succession, to Salis-
bury and to Winchester.

itv Lord, if the conduct of the Minister of George I.
on that scandalous occasion be not adopted by you as a
precedent, show that you repudiate it. Take that step
which is due to justice, to the rights of the Church, and
to the conscience of every Churchman. Withdraw the
recommendation which you have so inconsiderately
made ; or, if you persist in it, refer the writings of
Dr. Hampden to the judgment of the Church in con-
vocation.
If there are objections to that course, devise some
other. Let those writings be judged by a provincial
council of the bishops, assisted by such divines as her
Majesty shall be graciously pleased to name ; or devise
some other tribunal of any kind, provided it be fair and
competent ; but do not, as you value your own good
name, or the honour of your Sovereign, or the welfare of
the Church, and, it may be, it must be, of the State also;
for the welfare of the State, rightly understood, is, and
ever will be, bound up indissolubly with that of the
Church—do not persist in your unhappy career—make
not what is as yet only an indiscretion—and revocable as
such—make it not a crime, aye, and I dare not forbear
adding—a sin.
But I return to your Lordship's letter.
You proceed to say to us, " Should I withdraw my
recommendation of Dr. Hampden, I should virtually
assent to the doctrine, that a decree of the University
of Oxford is a perpetual ban of exclusion against a
clergyman of eminent learning and irreproachable life."
My Lord, I doubt not the learning nor the excellent
moral character of Dr. Hampden. Bat these qualifica-
tions have no connexion whatever with the merits of
this case? Is Dr. Hampden unworthy of confidence as
an exponent of Christian truth? The University of
Oxford, judging from his published writings, has so-
lemnly decreed that he is; and because he is, that Uni-
versity has deprived him of certain functions hitherto
attached to his dice of Professor of Divinity. Is it of
less moment that there be confidence in the soundness
of the doctrine of a bishop than of a professor? Is
heterodoxy less mischievous in a judge, than in a
teacher, of theology? My Lord, it cannot be necessary
to remind you that a bishop, as such, and by the essen-
tial, indefeasible right and duty of his office, is em-
powered, and is bound, to judge of the doctrine preached
and taught by every clergyman under his charge.
The judgment of the University, therefore, ought to
be a " ban of exclusion" (from the office of a bishop at
least) against Dr. Hampden, so long as it remains in
force—in other words, until it shall be either repealed,
or washed away, or proved to be unfounded.
The first of these three modes has been tried, but the
attempt signally failed. The University, six years after
the decree passed, was moved to repeal it, and that, too,
under circumstances peculiarly favourable to the success
of the motion—when, from causes too notorious to need
to be recited, a strong reaction had arisen, and prejudice
had taken a course more favourable to Dr. Hampden.
Yet, even then, the motion of repeal was sternly rejected
by a majority, much smaller, indeed, than that which
had originally enacted the decree (474 to 94), but largo
enough to evince abundantly the unaltered and unalter-
able jadment of the Uniuersity—it was 330 to 219.
Your Lordship says, however, " it must not be for-
gotten, that many of the most prominent among the
original majority have since joined the communion of
the Church of Rome."
My LoO, if by " the most prominent" ought to be
understood the committee, who openly sat for the pur-
pose of devising measures for vindicating the University
fronalthe evils which might be expected to result from
such a selection of the King's Professor of Theology—
and who, as being " the most prominent" in the contest,
received the formal thanks of bodies of clergy through-
out England, too numerous to be recounted—of these,
one, indeed, has fallen, to the consternation and grief of
all who knew, or had heard of, his high faculties. The
others, thank God, still stand rooted and grounded in

faith and love.
But, my Lord, supposing that those of the majority
who have lapsed may be truly stated to be many "(I
know not in any sense that they are), will your Lord-
ship, or will any honourable man venture to say that,
abstracting their names from the list even of the smaller
majority, the result would not be to leave that majority
still large—still more than sufficient amply to stamp the
decree with the impress of the general judgment of the
University ?
But I have intimated that the stain of the judgment
may be washed away. My Lerd, I wish this had been
done long ago by the only person who is able to do it—
by Dr. Hampden himself. The judgment may be washed
away by his retracting the errors against which it was
directed. But this is a course which Dr. Hampden has
refused to take. In a published letter of his to the
Archbishop of Canterbury, dated January 23, 1838, he
thus writes :—" I retract nothing that I have written ;
I disclaim nothing."
My Lord, I honour Dr. Hampden for thus writing—
so long as his opinions are unchanged, he cannot re-
tract; but so long as ho doss not retract, he cannot
reasonably expect the position from which those
opinions exclude him. If in his teaching, during
eleven years as Regius Professor, or in any of the
valuable sermons of which your Lordship writes, he
had either expressly or virtually -withdrawn what was
justly censurable in his earlier writings, I, for one,
should not have been found in the list of remonstrants.
Yet, I frankly own, that I should, even in that case,
still bear in mind (and with hearty assent) a saying
of King George 111., which was strongly marked by his
characteristie practical good sense. When hi; Minister
recommended to him for a vacant bishopric some divine
who had set forth certain unsound doctrines, which,
however, he afterwards retracted—" I will have for my
new Bishop," said the good King, " some man who has
nothing to retract."
But a third course may, I have said, be taken, to re-
move from Dr. Hampden the ban of exclusion of which
your Lordship writes. Let the censure of the Univer-
sity, which has created it, be proved to be unfounded.
Let this be done before any competent tribunal, and
Dr. Hampden will then enter on the office to which
your Lordship has designated him with powers of useful-
ness which he will otherwise, if he ever enter upon it at
all, be utterly unable to carry with him. My Lord, a
higher authority than any congE dare, or letter mis-
sive, has said " a bishop must be blameless," not ex-
empt, I need not say, from human infirmity, not free
from every breath of calumny and envy, but pure from
all which can be justly called " blame," pure from the
censure of all who are entitled to pronounce judicially
upon him.
Your Lordship is pleased to add, what (I must con-
fess) no lighter testimony than that of your own hand
could make me think it possible that you could write,
" that this would be, in fact, to say that the supre-
macy which is now by law vested in the Crown is to be
transferred to a majority of the members of one of our
Universities."

My Lord, if instead of a decree having been passed
against Dr. Hampden for unsound teaching by the Uni-
versity of Oxford, a judgment of the Court of Queen's
Bench had been pronounced against him for some
flagitious crime, and if this judgment were urged as a
reason why he should not be promoted to a bishopric—
would this be to transfer the royal supremacy from the
Queen to Lord Denman ? If it would not, why should
it be said to follow from Dr. Hampden's being disquali-
fied for a bishopric, so long as he is under the censure
of the Oxford decree, that this is to transfer the
supremacy of the Crown to the Convocation of
Oxford ?
My Lord, I own I am mortified at finding myself
obliged to answer such transparent pphiistob, as this.
not ry
doubt Tour Lordship " deeply regrets" —I j
sin-
cerely—" the feeling that is saidio_ubetp you add,mmon among
" I
the clergy on this subject." B
cannot sacrifice the reputationlobfeliDevre. Itoiabmep
rights of the Crown, and what dthene'trtuhee
interests of the Church, to ae:se
jeolli3r:g which I believe
and fomented by
to be founded on misappreh
prejudice."
My Lord, if this feeling be indeed " founded on
misapprehension," lot it,,lse proved to be so; if it be
fomented by prejudice," do not give to that prejudice
the increased momentum of a deep and bitter feeling of
persecution.
To your assurance of 'your belief, that " the true in-
terests of the Church" are bound up with the appoint-
ment of Dr. Hampden, I have neither a right, nor any
inclination, to withhold the fullest credit. I thank your
Lordship for your regard for those interests, however
mistaken I may deem your way of testifying it.
Your unwillingness to " sacrifice the reputation of
Dr. Hampden" does you honour. Shall I be deemed
officious if I suggest to you the only expedient by which
yog can preserve it ? For Dr. Hampden's sake—for
your own sake —for the sake of his reputation, and of
your own—let his theological writings be subjected to a
fitting and adequate tribunal. If the result be a sentence
of exculpation, then, indeed, Dr. Ilampden's reputation
will be upheld and vindicated—then, indeed, it will
" not be sacrificed"—which else it must be, if he be
forced, or if it be attempted to force him, on the reluc-
tant and reclamant Church, by rousing into life and ac-
tivity the hitherto dormant powers of the most hateful
and most tyrannical law which is permitted to pollute
our statute-book.
But your Lordship is further resolved " not
,to sacri-
fice" what you call " the rights of the Crown.' founded
upon that statute.