The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1847-12-14 00:00:00

DR. HA3I PD EN.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.
The enemy are meeting with successful opposition in
many places. The line of argument they generally take
It is an insult to the University," " A man under
University censure should not be consecrated to a
bishopric." The reply then, the line of defence, must
be relative. The University condemned Dr. Hampden
without a hearing, in 1836, (and in a time of strong po-
litical excitement, the charges were readily sanctioned)—
the majority was 474 to 94, or about sto 1. In 1842, an
attempt was made to reverse the censure, but you know
how difficult it is to get men to reverse their condemnation ;
besides the Tractarians had grown in power and numbers
—nevertheless, the majority was diminished from 5 to 1
to 3 to 2, the numbers being 330 to 219, and this without
any organization on Dr. Hampden's part ; this can hardly
be called, except conventionally, a confirmation of the
University censure. Besides, in the interval, a Theo-
logical Board had been established, of which Dr. Hamp-
den became ex officio chairman, without remonstrance.
It was thus seen that men who were unwilling to retract
charges felt there was no mischief to be apprehended from
Dr. llampden's teaching. It should also be borne in
mind that the responsible part of the University (in 1842)
were with Dr. Hampden by a majority of 12 to 2 or 12 to
3. The heads of houses in favour of Dr. Hampden being,
for, Oriel, *Christ Church, *Alban Hall, *New Inn Hall,
All Soule, Trinity, Pembroke, Wadham, Merton, Lin-
coln, New College, *University; against, Exeter, Jesus
[now (1847) favourable], and possibly Balliol, but he is
now favourable. I think lie was neutral. The names of
those to which I have fixed an asterisk were against
Hampden in 1836.

Then of bishops, there were, in 1842, for Dr. Hemp-
; den. Llandaff (Copleston), Sodor and Man (Short;
against, Exeter (Philpotts).
The only professors who voted against Dr. Hampden
in 1842, were Dr. Pusey and Mr. Reay, both ultra-
Tractarians. There may have been one more. While
Dr. Faussett, against him in 1836, was for him in 1842
and Mr. Hill, of Edmund Hall, who was on the com-
mittee, against him in 1836, voted for him in 1842; and
when it is recollected that the numerical majority against
him in 18-12 (I deny that the moral majority was) in-
cluded the names of Newman, Macmullen, Faber, St.
John, J. Morris, Christie, Ryder, Oakeley, Ward, Capes,
Turner, Formby, Meyrick, Northcote, Penny, Collyns,
Coffin, Watts Russell, Lewis, and some twenty other
seceders, and all that they could influence, the University
censure may be considered as virtually repealed.
So much as to the censure, Now, about Dr. Hamp-
den's never having explained or qualified. It is not true.
Though the " Presbyter" of the Times, a well-known
Tractarian, reprints charges, and takes (in his first letter,
'at least,) no notice of any reply. Now, Dr. Hampden
has complained, in his letter to the Archbishop of Canter-
bury, published in 1837, of the extracts being garbled.
In 1837, also, he published an introduction to the second
edition of the Bampton Lectures (published separately,
price ls., at Fellowes', Ludgate-hill,)in which he replied
to some of these charges, and explains what he meant.
His sermons and lectures, since written and delivered,
have been highly approved by those heads of the Uni-
versity who have heard and read them ; and they contain
positive statements on all the points of doctrine in which
he was accused of being unsound. These sermons are all
published by Fellowes, and are principally, "A Lecture
on Tradition," " ...n Inaugural Lecture," " The One
Sacrifice' for Sin," "The Lord our Righteousness,"
" Christ Sanctifying his Church." These are. all sup-
pressed by the opponents of Dr. Hampden ; but they
prove that he is not unwilling to set himself right where
he was misinterpreted.
I may add that the bishops generally, with three or four
exceptions, have for twelve years required his testimonials
as a condition of ordination. Surely there can be no in-
sult to the Church involved or intended, in elevating to a
bishopric one who has stood in such a relation to, it as this
implies, during the whole period of his professorship.
Yours truly, •
Wednesday evening. A CHURCHMAN.
P.S.—ln 1842, Dr. Hampden was waited upon by a
deputation, consisting of the Rev. E. Litton, Fellow of
Oriel, and the Rev. Piers Claughton, Fellow of Univer-
sity, to ask for explanations. They were conceded, and
the deputation voted for Dr. Hampden in consequence.
So much forthe falsehoods which have been stated on this
subject. The writer was present at the conference, and
speaks from personal knowledge. It is not true that the
Archbishop of Canterbury has remonstrated with the
Premier against Dr. Hampden's appointment. It has
een contradicted on the highest authority.