CH. XIII HAMPDEN'S BAMPTON LECTURES 253 of the Bible. Article XIX., if it pronounces at all on Church authority, gives that authority to the congregation, not to the clergy alone, and says that churches are fallible both as regards ceremonies and doctrine. The same is ruled of General Councils by Article XXI., and the reason is given, that 'they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God.' Thus, according to the rule of doctrine to which clergymen of the Church of England are bound by subscription, there is no infallible authority but that of Holy Scripture; and interpretations of Scripture made by fallible men have an inferior authority to the word of Scripture itself. Dr. Hampden argued that the Church from age to age spoke in the terms of contemporaneous philosophy; that therefore what was true to one age was not true to Dr. Hampanother, if expressed in the same terms; and that in den's view of authority. fact the Church of Rome had adopted the methods and in some cases the conclusions of the rationalists whom she denounced, as Peter Lombard, Albertus Magnus, and Thomas Aquinas himself. Hampden, in this line of argument, was taking a line resembling that of Döllinger, namely that Church authority is not consistent, and therefore cannot be infallible. In Protestantism is involved the negation of an infallible church, and Protestant churches do not claim to be infallible, though they may claim obedience to their dogmas and proscribe heresy even under pain of death. The dogmatic principle was too firmly established in Christendom to allow Protestants to see how untenable in argument their position was. The Bible, said Hampden, reveals facts, not doctrines. Doctrines are built upon revealed facts by uninspired men. They are therefore subject to revision, since the form they take is imposed upon them by the necessity of combating, in the theological language of the time, erroneous doctrine expressed in the same language. As thinkers can only express their thought in a language intelligible to themselves, theological language is necessarily coloured by philosophical language; and as new systems of philosophy arose, so did new definitions of dogma. The Manichæan and Gnostic systems, the various schools of Alexandrian philosophy, all the heresies which arose and were combated, have left their mark upon theology. According to the Roman view, this was ordained as the providential order by which a harmonious scheme of doctrine was unfolded. Scholasticism pressed Aristotle into the service of the Church, and quoted him as a Father of the Church, and almost an inspired prophet. In a legal age everything takes a forensic form; logic, as formerly rhetoric, invaded theology. The false conception of natural philosophy as deductive science corrupted mental and moral philosophy, and the Schoolmen were chiefly employed in constructing syllogisms which referred facts to principles, according to Aristotelian methods. Hampden's object in his diffuse and cumbrous work appears to be to show that church authority is a collection of the opinions of fallible men putting forward different views and using different methods at different times; not a consistent school of doctrine preserved from error by divine providence. The conclusion to be drawn from the work was that church authority was a consensus of private judgment, to be respected, but not to be looked upon as a co-ordinate authority with Scripture; that it was subject to change, and therefore not to be regarded as final. It may be remarked in passing that Hampden was believed by some who professed to know to have been indebted for some of his learning to Blanco White, formerly a Roman priest in Spain, a man of scholastic study and brilliant but unstable intellect, who left Oriel and Oxford about this time, and whose lapse into heresy and unbelief was already suspected. These remarks will serve to introduce Dr. Hampden, whose notoriety as a controversialist is out of proportion to his importance as a thinker or a leader. We pass Proposal to admit Dis- on to the year 1834, when, it will be remembered, University, the proposal to admit Dissenters to the universities senters to 1834. by abolishing subscription to the Articles became the battle-ground of the opposing parties, when Hampden came forward as the Dissenters' apologist, and when the bill for relief, as was stated above, was thrown out by the House of Lords, and both parties were considering from opposite points of view the probable results of concession and the practical steps to be taken. The assertion of a principle XIII HAMPDEN'S 'OBSERVATIONS' 255 carries results with it; the results cannot be foreseen, and the concession of the principle does not take away the power of guiding, delaying, or averting them. Some results which were anticipated came about in course of time, such as the granting of degrees and fellowships to men who made no religious profession; but prophecies of destruction were not fulfilled, and after seventy years the universities are not unchristianised, the college chapels are still frequented, the Vice-Chancellor still goes to Sermon accompanied by the Doctors and Heads of Houses in their scarlet, and Oxford is still the nurse of thought, which, though it is less dogmatic than of old, has not ceased to be religious. Hampden's 1834. Hampden's pamphlet, Observations on Religious Dissent, came out in 1834, more than a year after his Bamptons, and came with more authority than those. The doctrine was the same: the unimportance of dogma as com- Observations, pared with religion, the admixture of scholasticism in the formularies of our Church, the advantage of toleration as compared with exclusion, the difference between religion and theology, one being a bond of union, the other a cause of discord. 'In religion, properly so called, few Christians, if any, really differ,' he says; and he does not deny the name of Christians to Unitarians. The tractarian leaders were not inclined to lose so good a quarrel as that which was offered to them by the proposal to abolish religious tests; and they took this opportunity to retrieve an omission made two years before, when Hampden's Bampton Lectures were allowed to pass unassailed. It was not without some reason that Newman, writing to Hampden himself about this pamphlet, spoke of it as 'the first step . . taken towards interrupting that peace and mutual good understanding which has prevailed so long in this place.' Yet he might have remembered that he himself with his friends was occupied with 'defences' and 'tactics' to meet the impending onset of Liberal principles, and that since the passing of the Reform Act and the publication of Hampden's Bampton Lectures in 1832, Keble's Assize Sermon had been preached, the meeting at Hadleigh Rectory had been held, the addresses to the Archbishops presented, the Tracts for the Times begun. It matters little in warfare who is responsible for the actual casus belli, when each side is waiting for its opportunity. The High Church party at Oxford and throughout the country was organised and strengthened, they were aware of their power, and were preparing for war and ready for defence or attack. Shortly before the publication of the Observations Hampden had been made Doctor in Divinity, and appointed White's Lecturer in Moral Philosophy by the Vice-Chancellor, Moral the Proctors, and three Heads of Houses, Dean Philosophy Lectures, Gaisford, Routh President of Magdalen, and Wynter Hampden's 1835. of St. John's, as religionis sinceritate commendatus ; a sufficient testimonial to orthodoxy, it might seem. But his University Lectures, delivered in 1835, were soon objected to. Rose wrote to Newman in January 1836: 'Quousque tandem? how long are such books as Hampden's to come forward from Professors and Heads of Houses? How long are they to come forth unreproved? Hampden's lectures are such an aggravation of the offence of his former book, are in themselves so mischievous and so anti-Christian, that it does seem to me something very like a calamity that they should be allowed to pass with no rebuke more weighty than an anonymous review. For several years the same injurious policy has been pursued-the policy of silence—of trusting that the books would not be much read, and that the poison would not work.' This letter, sent by Pusey to Newman, woke in him the fighting spirit. 'In such a state of things,' he writes (the English Church bound together by the imposition of Articles and the inducement of State protection, not by Oos and a common faith, the authorities of Oxford ignorant or incurious of theology), 'surely it is better for us to have the opportunity of speaking our mind. . . . Is not ours a state of hope? Have we not started the game? Is it not better to fight in light than in darkness ? . . . It is as if Providence were clearing the μeraíxμov, and forcing men to choose their side.' Hampden, impenitent, and now by force of cirHis proposal to relax terms cumstances a leader, supported in 1835 the subof subscrip- stitution of a declaration of general agreement for at Oxford, subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, which had 1835. the approval of Whately and Arnold, but was thrown out in Convocation on May 20 by 459 votes to 57. tion defeated XIII HAMPDEN MADE PROFESSOR 257 Hampden Regius Pro Such proceedings attract the attention of Ministers, and in 1836 Hampden was appointed by Lord Melbourne as Regius Professor of Divinity. His appointment appointed was well understood to have a political meaning, and also to be a counterstroke to the Romanising Divinity, 1836. movement going on at the University. Melbourne did not fix upon Hampden without consideration. His first list of names for the Divinity Professorship, drawn up by Archbishop Howley, included Newman, Keble, and Pusey, not Hampden. Whately, to whom the list was sent, had already been consulted, and had recommended Samuel Hinds (afterwards Bishop of Norwich) and Hampden. Melbourne doubted between Hampden and Arnold; when he had decided upon Hampden, his choice was confirmed by Bishop Copleston, late Provost of Oriel. Melbourne was himself something of a theologian, of the latitudinarian way of thinking, and took interest in ecclesiastical politics. Learned clergymen were scarce, and learning was chiefly to be found among the High Church clergy. But it was not to be expected that Melbourne would appoint any one but a Liberal, still less that he would go out of his way to appoint a Tractarian. The choice was limited; and a Prime Minister is likely to think more of rewarding a political follower than of propitiating university clamour, which, like other clamour, usually subsides when an unpopular appointment is justified by its results; especially as university opinion is not always in agreement with public opinion, the statesman's guide. But further inquiry would have shown Melbourne that the dislike of Hampden was not confined to the High Church party, and that the interest in religious questions raised by the new teachers had infected the rising generation of university men, and was spreading in every direction, especially in London, and likely to increase. If he wanted a champion of Liberal ideas, Arnold, a man of greater capacity and stronger character, would have been a better man to appoint than Hampden. Melbourne had a high opinion of Arnold, but thought him indiscreet, and believed that his promotion would be used as 'a handle against his Government.' The political character of the appointment was emphasised PART I S |