Houses condemned Dr. Hampden without specifying his errors.' So much for the narrative of our proceedings ' and its disclaimer of personal censure!

A work, entitled 'Elucidations of Dr. Hampden's Theological Statements,' was thrown into the shade by Dr. Pusey's pamphlet, 'The Propositions, &c. of Dr. Hampden and his Opinions, drawn from his Bampton Lectures.' The statement of these 'Propositions' was well and strongly met (by Mr. Hayward Cox, I believe) by placing them, in their studied brevity, parallel with longer extracts, i. e. with the context, from which they had been torn. Allowing,' it was here said, for the important fact that the subject of Dr. Hampden's Lectures was The Influence of Scholastic Philosophy upon the Phraseology in which Christian Doctrines were expressed," no charitable mind had a right (or would wish to have a right) to pick and choose parts of sentences and give them a colouring not belonging to them in their relative connection.' Take one example, out of many of these Propositions :'

DR. PUSEY'S PROPOSITION. 'The whole discussion (on the Blessed Trinity) was fundamentally dialectic.'-Bampt. Lect. p. 104.

66

BAMPTON LECTURE, pp. 102-104.

"The profane familiarity with which articles of the Trinitarian question are said to have entered into the every-day conversation of the times, characterises the general feeling on the subject, at a period when the spiritual polity formed the great commonwealth of the Roman world; and whilst Philosophy, regarded as identical with Theology, was essentially dialectical or colloquial..... So great indeed were the impediments arising from the use of terms, where

AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM.

269

the whole discussion was fundamentally dialectical, that the measure of accommodation between those who really agreed with each other, would probably have failed in any other hands than those of Athanasius.'

It would now (in 1861) be probably allowed that the above, and most of the other 'Propositions' then brought forward against Dr. Hampden, will not stand the test of this parallelism.

But, audi alteram partem, the attacks upon Dr. Hampden's opinions were very naturally met by the publication of Statements' of his doctrine and teaching, taken from his published writings. Of these one may suffice, and that taken from his very Bampton Lectures:

LECTURE VII.-' Trinity in Unity.'

'The only ancient, only catholic truth is the Scriptural fact. Let us hold that fast in its depth and breadth, in nothing extenuating, in nothing abridging it,-in simplicity and sincerity;—and we can neither be Sabellians, or Tritheists, or Socinians.'-Bampt. Lect. III. p. 289.

Dr. Hampden's 'Inaugural Lecture' as Professor was an earnest appeal to unprejudiced minds: of course it failed to move his determined opponents. Nothing could be fuller or more explicit than his declared support of all and each of the great doctrines of the Christian faith; nothing more touching and ingenuous than his confession, 'I will not pretend always to have stated my conviction in the fullest, clearest manner, so as to have avoided all possibility of misinterpretation,' &c. Notwithstanding all this, he was twitted with the question, 'Why don't you own your errors? Why don't you recant?' The only answer given, and that

in the meekest manner, was, 'You have misunderstood me and misinterpreted what I have said.'

Bitter feelings, with bitter expressions of them in print, for some time marked these sad times. One anonymous pamphlet called the meeting at C.C.C. a hole-and-corner cabal,' and states that sixteen or seventeen of the persons originally there assembled seceded from the meeting with a declaration that it was a dirty, personal affair. This was answered by another pamphlet in equally coarse terms, such as 'pure fiction,' 'mere invention,' nay, 'mendacity' and 'lying '!

May 5, 1836. The proposed measure against Dr. Hampden, which had been averted on the 22nd of March by the joint veto of the Proctors, was reproduced in Convocation, and (a change of Proctors having taken place) was carried by an immense majority. In an assembly of 568 (for voters came up from great distances) there were for the condemnatory decree 474, and against it only 941.

The following are a few of the many publications which followed this decision:

1. A Letter, by the Rev. E. Churton, to the Writer (in the Edinburgh Review) of an Article headed 'The Oxford Malignants and Dr. Hampden.'

2. A Letter to Viscount Melbourne on Dr. Hampden's Appointment, by Rev. H. A. Woodgate.

1 A great majority, certainly; but it was but the natural result of the then widely-spread Tractarian writings and of the Tractarian organization which (as we learn from Mr. Palmer's 'Narrative') had preceded this Hampden movement. After all, what were the 380 votes of the majority when weighed against the 3,000 members of Convocation who kept aloof (coldly, certainly, but still expressively) from such a proceeding? According to an opinion of Lord Campbell, Dr. Lushington, and Mr. W. W. Hull, the passing of this vote was illegal, as contrary to the Charter of 1636.

PAMPHLETS PRO AND CON.

271

3. Remarks on the above Letter, by the Rev. Baden Powell.

4. Dr. Hampden's Introduction (75 pp.) to the Second Edition of his Bampton Lectures.

5. Strictures, by Mr. Lancaster of Queen's College.

6. By the same, An Earnest and Resolute Protestation against Dr. Hampden's Method of Theologizing.

This last work is accompanied with a correspondence (of 75 pp.) with some of the Oxford authorities, in connection with, and expressive of, poor Mr. Lancaster's trouble and indignation at losing his preaching-turns from Queen's College, in consequence of coarse invectives (e. g. 'that atrocious Professor') hurled by him from St. Mary's pulpit at Dr. Hampden!

P.S. 1868. It grieves me that his death has anticipated this vindication of Dr. (late Bishop) Hampden. He has indeed been a quiet (nay, an inactive) Bishop, but his spirit was broken at the commencement of his episcopate by this Oxford persecution, and never seems to have rallied.

CHAPTER XV.

'If an historical sketch of the Tractarian movement be a desirable contribution to our literature, the free use of names is to be excused on the ground of necessity.'-Oakley's Preface to bis Tractarian Movement.'

The Tractarian Movement.

As early as 1833 (as mentioned above) the Rev. Peter Maurice had sounded the alarm respecting 'Popery in Oxford.' In 1836 he 'opened the war' in a lengthy pamphlet, in which he informs Oxford that, while slumbering at its post, notwithstanding his warning voice, his 'pastorale signum,' the enemy, whose approach he had marked three years before, had been steadily, if not stealthily, advancing their approaches; and that the 'Tract Association' had ever since then been in constantly increasing action. 'I come for

ward,' he says, 'not as the man, but because no one else better fitted will.' Dr. Maurice rather damages his claim to consistency by now admiring Dr. Hampden as an opponent to Tractarianism, whose elevation to the Divinity Chair he had so recently opposed and condemned. The pamphlet provoked no direct reply.

It was not, however, that Oxford residents or seriousminded men elsewhere were unobservant of, much less indifferent to, the movement-far, very far, from it. In truth,