exacting their dues; to the kindness which they universally showed to all their parishioners; to the respect in which they were held, even by those who did not profit by their professional assistance: and I can say with truth, that the result of the examination exhibited a body of Clergy most attentive to their spiritual duties; expending, in many instances, affluent incomes in relieving the necessities of the large population around them, without any regard to religious distinctions. Such was their character while they were in prosperity; and had they not been ministers of the gospel-had they been merely private gentlemen living in the midst of the country, dispensing their bounties to the poor, keeping the peace among all their neighbours, and endeavouring to do all the good in their power-I should have said, that to reduce the means of such a body of men was a real misfortune to Ireland. But when I regard them as ministers of the gospel, professing the pure Protestant faith, and at the same time exhibiting to the professors of a different religion an example of truly christian charity-I cannot but consider the oppression to which they have been subjected as one of the greatest calamities that could have befallen that country.

But now we are presented with a different picture. We behold them deprived of their property-assailed in their persons-and some of them cruelly murdered. Their conduct under these circumstances has given them additional claims upon our approbation and respect. Wherever it was possible, they have remained at their posts, in the efficient performance of their religious duties, though often with very inadequate means of subsistence, and with great risk to their personal safety. It must also be observed, to their praise, that they have borne their afflictious in silence; for up to this very time there has been hardly such a thing known as an application from an individual Clergyman for private charity. They have dismissed their establishments-they have laid aside every thing that was not actually necessary-and have submitted to wrongs and privations, with a patience I believe unexampled by any body of sufferers. Such was their conduct before their distress, and such has been their conduct since-consistent in every part with their duties as christian ministers, and with the character which the professors of the pure religion of Christ ought always to maintain.-Report of Meeting, pp. 5, 6.

It may be right to add that not one penny of the fund is applied in legal recoveries: the only object is the relief of present distress. But we must still assert that enabling the Clergy to recover their rights is the most dignified and effectual relief; and the firmness of the Court of Exchequer has rendered this practicable, wherever the law expenses can be defrayed.

ART. IV.-1. Statements of Christian Doctrine, extracted from the Published Writings of R. D. Hampden, D.D. Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford. London B. Fellowes. 1836. Pp. 36.

8vo.

2. Inaugural Lecture, read before the University of Oxford, in the Divinity School, on Thursday, March 17, 1836. By R. D. HAMPDEN, D.D. Regius Professor of Divinity. Fourth Edition. London: B. Fellowes. Oxford: D. A. Talboys. 1836. Pp. 34. 8vo.

THESE publications may be taken as Dr. Hampden's defence against the important charges brought against him. At least, they are the

VOL. XVIII. NO. V.

00

serious part of his defence; for we are informed that there are others in a very different vein, not quite so becoming a Regius Professor of Divinity. But the Doctor is surely much mistaken if he supposes either his opinions or his conduct are to be joked away. In dealing with the insulted members of the University, there is only one course open to him which can possibly give satisfaction; an explanation of those statements in his Bampton and Moral Lectures which have been produced against him; and an ample apology for the insolent conduct of himself and others under his influence towards the learned and venerable body of which he is a member. It is remarkable that no explanation of the statements in question has been attempted either by Dr. Hampden or his friends; at least we have heard of none. If Dr. Hampden had been misconceived on some vital points by one or two persons, and those of inferior talents and erudition, he might have been justified in falling back upon his more explicit statements on the same points, without any explanation of the passages objected to. But when so large and so deeply learned a body as the University of Oxford take up the question almost as one man, and equally misconceive (if they do misconceive) his meaning; surely it is due to himself as well as to them, to show that the passages in question are misunderstood. But this, so far as we know, has never been done. Dr. Hampden's mode of defence is extraordinary. He "appeals from Hampden philosophizing to Hampden preaching, entreating, persuading;" he leaves all consideration of the Bampton Lectures, and the passages cited in the "Elucidations," and, in an "Inaugural Lecture," declares his views most explicitly and scripturally on the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, Sacraments, Articles of the Church, &c. &c. If there is any meaning in words, the author of the Inaugural Lecture is as orthodox a professor as can be desired; but if there is any meaning in words, the author of the Bampton Lectures is as unsettled a latitudinarian as can be deprecated. In an advertisement prefixed to "The Statements of Christian Doctrine," Dr. H. himself informs us that these statements contain his "present views;" so that we must either conclude that his present views differ from his past, or, if identical, they are expressed in language so contradictory, that where his meaning is contained, or whether it be contained in this or other publications, is quite impossible to disWe are quite willing to hope the best of Dr. Hampden. His Parochial Sermons we reviewed with approval, and certainly we consider them both orthodox and clear. His Inaugural Lecture is equally so. But had he written always thus, we apprehend he would never have filled the divinity chair under the Melbourne administration. His elevation he owes solely to those views which, if misconceived, have been misconceived both by patrons and opponents. And this misconception is of itself sufficient to evince Dr, Hampden's incapacity for the

cover.

office he occupies. His divinity lectures will scarcely be more lucid than those which he prepared for the pulpit of St. Mary's. No doubt the latter were written with every attention to matter and to style. Here, if any where, we cannot question, was the "limæ labor et mora." And if these elaborate productions are so open to misconception that the learned auditory of St. Mary's, no less than every quiet unprejudiced reader, has mistaken their sound and orthodox author for a latitudinarian of the most absurd description, can we hope that his divinity lectures will be more luminous, or that undergraduates will comprehend, where doctors and tutors misunderstood? And however correct his opinions, and however perspicuous his style, the whole tenour of his conduct in this affair is so revolting, that this alone would be good argument to the University to show that they will not be insulted through him, wielded although he be by a minister of the crown.

As a modest and honest man, Dr. Hampden had one course, which if he had effectively adopted it, he must have silenced objectors, although he might have made Lord Melbourne reconsider his appointment. He was charged with heresy, or something like it, by a vast majority of the University of Oxford. He ought rather to have concluded that his own statements were obscure and ill-expressed, than that so many eminent divines and scholars had perverted the real meaning of his language. He should have come forward to rebut the accusation immediately :not with "Statements" "extracted from his published writings," which, if they prove any thing, only prove how capable he is of contradicting himself in terms; but with explanations of the passages misunderstood; he should have reconciled these to his "present views," by showing that their meaning was very different from that which had been affixed to them; a meaning which he ought to have rejected and reprobated in the most decided language.

But not so did Dr. Hampden. His line of defence has been acrimonious, insolent, undignified, and unworthy in the highest degree of the high situation to which he has been called. His Inaugural Lecture first found its way to light through the Morning Chronicle! a print notorious for its ribald and rancorous opposition to the Church. It appeared along with a doggrel attack on that church and on the University of Oxford; the same doggrel being a panegyrick on himself! That the Morning Chronicle published by authority there cannot be the smallest reasonable doubt; nor has it, we believe, been disputed. The University, as our readers well know, had various measures in contemplation, to stay the evil. In every practicable stage of these, Dr. Hampden made himself arbiter of his own cause. At length a statute was proposed, transferring, pro tempore, certain trusts from the Divinity Professor to others. The Proctors can, by their solitary vetamus, resist the whole body of the University if they please. Such a prerogative, it

66

But

is scarcely necessary to say, exists for the benefit of the University, and not for the gratification of personal caprice. It is quite conceivable that this power may often be very useful; and it is equally evident that its exercise on this occasion was a most unwarrantable extension of a salutary prerogative. The Convocation met. The statute would have been carried by 480 to 34. The Proctors, however, uttered their non placet," and thus screened Dr. Hampden from the statute. in what does the evil of that statute consist, as regards Dr. Hampden? In the proof that the University distrust him. And how has he weakened that proof? It remains where it would have done if the Proctors had never interposed. But Dr. Hampden remains not there. No-he has to bear all the additional responsibility of concurrence in a measure the most arbitrary and tyrannical that has characterized modern times; not even excepting the coercion of the House of Lords into the enactment of the Reform Bill. Had Dr. Hampden remonstrated, there is no doubt the Proctors would have yielded; or, if not, had Dr. Hampden protested, they would have had to sustain the odium by themselves; but as it is he must be held accountable for this most odious act. And what does he gain by this shortsighted policy? Nothing. No sooner will the Proctors leave office, than the University will right itself. The statute will be carried, and an opinion expressed on the late transaction any thing but gratifying to Dr. Hampden and the Proctors. Dr. Hampden has declared war to the knife against his University, and there can be no question with which party the victory will ultimately abide.

We conclude these observations with a specimen of Dr. Hampden's way of explaining himself.

HAMPDEN PHILOSOPHIZING.

When I look at the reception by the UNITARIANS both of the Old and New Testament, I cannot, for my part, strongly as I dislike their theology, deny to those who acknowledge this basis of divine facts the name of CHRISTIANS.-Observ. p. 10.

HAMPDEN PREACHING.

You are now fully prepared, I should hope, to go along with me in the assertion, that the doctrine of a Trinity in Unity is one, which, no person who has the Bible before him, and who is able to search and see whether these things are so, can hold it a matter of indifference whether he receives or rejects. What I have been endeavouring to impress on you, is, that if the Scriptures exist, this doctrine exists; that it is the very substance of our whole faith; and not a mere article of it: or rather, that either this doctrine is, or Christianity is not; and that in the act of renouncing it, we depart into another system of faith, and quit that which results from the records of Scripture. -Statements, p. 30.

Hoping, and believing, according to Dr. Hampden's solemn protest, that his "present views" are orthodox, we leave the reconciliation of his language to clearer heads. All that we take upon ourselves to say is, that so much self-contradiction and obscurity in language, so much petulance and obstinacy in conduct, as have been exhibited by Dr. Hampden, are not, in our view, preeminent qualifications for a Divinity Professor.

We beg to repeat our urgent entreaties to the Clergy that they will not rest till they obtain the repeal of the 25 Henry VIII. c. 20, and their Convocation. The names of Butler, Shuttleworth and Longley are mere blinds to quiet the Church for the present. The statute is detestable, whoever be the minister; the Convocation is indispensable, whatever be the parliament.

LITERARY REPORT.

A Course of Sermons for the Year. By the Rev. JOHNSON GRANT, M.A. Rector of Binbrook, and Minister of Kentish Town Chapel. Vol. II. containing Discourses from Trinity Sunday to the end of the Year. London: Rivingtons; Hatchard; Stroker; and Drew. 1835. Pp. xii. 533.

THE preceding volume of these Discourses has already been noticed in our pages. There is nothing in this to prevent our giving it the high character which its predecessor so justly merited. These Sermons are well suited to the closet, and are good specimens of composition. From the earnestness of the appeals, and from

the truly christian spirit which pervades the volume, we have the fullest persuasion that the labours of Mr. Grant are "not, and will not be in vain, in the Lord."

The Penny Sunday Reader. Edited by the Rev. J. E. N. MOLESWORTH, Rector of St. Martin with St. Paul, Canterbury. Canterbury: Office of the Kentish Observer. London: Rivington.

A VERY useful little work; instructive, cheap, and interesting, and should be placed in every village library. The second volume terminates with Dec. 1835.