required from me, I deem it my duty not only to be satisfied with the assurance I possess of your future revision of the work, and to withdraw therefore the letters of request, but also, with whatever force my previous desire of explanation, and my position as Bishop of this diocese may give to my words, to entreat those who have given utterance to their natural alarm at your appointment to weigh well the expression of my deliberate opinion, that you have given such explanations of what you personally believe on the points of suspicion, and what you intended as your meaning, as may well suffice to quiet all just alarm at your consecration to the office of a Bishop.

To the Rev. R. D. Hampden.'

'I am, my dear Sir,

Very faithfully yours,

'S. OXON.'

How much disappointment this letter caused to those who had hoped to see the question of Dr. Hampden's orthodoxy or heresy at length tested by a legal trial, we need hardly say. It would avail nothing to repeat the violent censures, and heavy imputations, which it called forth upon the writer. Perhaps, however, it produced more real sorrow in those who, fully and sincerely convinced of the purity of his motives, and his conscientious adherence to his own sense of right, could not doubt that his judgment had been misled by the subtlety of those with whom he had to do; for those who lightly imputed to him low and personal motives, could hardly have felt sufficient respect for him to suffer much by disappointment. Accordingly it was from the newspapers which supported Dr. Hampden, that the most violent assaults against the character of the Bishop proceeded.

Leaving these for the present, let it be observed, that the effect of the Bishop's step in withdrawing the letters of request, was to put a stop to all legal inquiry into Dr. Hampden's writings. For the Clergy Discipline Act, by a very unadvisable provision, makes it impossible for any one except his own diocesan to call in question the statements of a clergyman, be they how pestilent soever, and although every other Bishop, Clergyman, and layman, in England, should be convinced of their evil tendency. In this state of things Dr. Hampden and his friends very gladly acquiesced, and things remained in statu quo until after the confirmation of the election,' when the adroit Doctor thought himself secure from any steps upon the part of the Bishop of Oxford. Then, and not till then, the following letter appeared. It is addressed by Dr. Hampden to Mr. Faulkner of Havering-atte-Bower, the non-resident incumbent of S. Sepulchre, Cambridge; who, in that capacity, made a noise in the Stone Altar case,' while in the parish which he serves, he (as well as Dr. Hampden at Ewelme) suffers without annoyance to his Christian conscientiousness' that same 'Popish abomination.'

'Christ Church, Oxford, Jan. 7. 1848.

Dear Sir,-Your warm expression of congratulation on my promotion to the see of Hereford demands my sincere thanks. The sympathy of one who has himself stood his ground so firmly against a violent Tractarian assault is most welcome to me. You did essential service by your resistance to that outrageous attempt of the Camden Society to intrude on your rights in your parish, and overbear your Christian conscientiousness. I am much obliged to you for the report you have sent me of the proceedings in that case. I shall have much satisfaction in going through it when I have leisure from the engagements which press on me at this moment.

'I have had abundant matter of vexatious doings the last few weeks. But I feel more than compensated for any personal annoyance by the good which I am sure will eventually come out of the present disturbance. The strength and designs of the Tractarian party (the real movers throughout, whatever may be said to the contrary) will have been disclosed, and the necessity of rallying the true Protestant spirit of our Church will have beer demonstrated. I am deeply thankful to a good Providence for the course which events have taken.

'I am, dear Sir, yours faithfully,

R. D. HEREFORD (Elect).'

'P. S.-The Bishop of Oxford would insinuate, in his letter to the Times, that I have made concessions to him. I shall be obliged to you most positively to contradict any such statement, should you hear it alleged-it

is not true.

'The Rev. R. R. Faulkner.'

As Dr. Hampden now denied that he had made any concessions, the Bishop of Oxford became impatient to know whether he now abjured the benefit of the Statute of Limitations;' and would venture to make himself at the present moment responsible for the legal consequences of his past publications: for in this case the Bishop's reasons for dropping the suit against him were at an end. It will be seen that not even then (when we should have imagined the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Oxford over him was at an end), did Dr. Hampden venture to divest himself of his legal impunity, and that he returned an evasive answer. It is probable that he knew himself to be safe from any proceedings on the part of the Bishop: but that he felt, if he parted with his 'Statute of Limitations,' he might yet be deprived in another way, of his darling grievance, and be brought to trial in the court of the Archbishop. He wrote accordingly :

any circulation of the "Observations on Religious Dissent," the only work which, in my judgment, could have subjected you to ecclesiastical penalties for uttering false doctrine. I must, therefore, beg you to inform me whether the words to which I have called your attention are intended to deny the truth of that assurance, which was conveyed to me in the following words as your own:

"It is with no sanction of mine, and, indeed, against my wish, that any copies of the first edition of my Observations on Religious Dissent' are now sold and circulated; in fact, I have not put forth any copies even of the second edition, since the time of its publication, and this is out of print, so far as my knowledge goes. Some one, therefore, must have been giving, I conceive, a fresh publication of that also, without my leave."-I am, my Lord Bishop (Elect), most faithfully yours,

'The Lord Bishop of Hereford (Elect).'

'S. ΟΧΟΝ.'

'Hyde-park-gate, Kensington, January 26.

My Lord, I did not authorize Mr. Faulkner to publish my letter to him, nor the Provost of Oriel to communicate to your lordship the note to him from which you have extracted the passage contained in your letter of the 24th inst.

'Each was intended only for the person to whom it was addressed. I regret that either has gone further.

'The statements contained in my note to the Provost, and extracted from it by your lordship, are of course perfectly true; I never denied or wished to deny them, but I never desired or even contemplated their communication to your lordship. I have the honour to be, my lord, your lordship's faithful servant, R. D. HEREFORD.'

The Lord Bishop of Oxford.'

6

But the thing was not yet over. Next came forward Dr. Hawkins, who published in the 'Times' two letters, declaring that he was the common friend through whom the Doctor had communicated with the Bishop. He craftily congratulates the Bishop on coming over to his side: 'Allow me, however, first 'to say, that I am much gratified by your lordship's frank 'avowal of your change of sentiment in favour of the substantial soundness of Dr. Hampden's "Bampton Lectures." The 'conclusion at which you have arrived, will, I believe, be 'that of all competent and unprejudiced judges when they 'shall have studied them with equal care. The conclusion at which your lordship has arrived;' what was that? Dr. Hawkins says, all competent and unprejudiced judges will come to the same; and it is his evident intention that every reader should suppose this to be the same with his own. Be it remembered then what it was. And here we will refer not merely to the Bishop's letter, which we have laid before our readers, but to the pamphlet signed C. E. K., which is evidently written by an intimate friend of the Bishop, and may fairly be taken as representing his lordship's view of the conduct, not of Dr. Hampden only, but, of Dr. Hawkins.

persuaded that Dr. Hampden not only was not legally liable to a conviction for heresy in regard to the "Bampton Lectures," but that he had honestly and bona fide withdrawn, and that for thirteen years, the book which did contain, in the Bishop's opinion, some really heretical statements.'-P. 9.

Let this be remembered. In the Bishop's opinion, then, the 'Observations' do contain some really heretical statements. Moreover, after alluding to the remonstrance of the thirteen Bishops, he adds,

' It will be seen, indeed, by a reference to the Bishop of Oxford's letter, that his objections, even subsequently to a reperusal of the "Bampton Lectures," were of a far graver cast. Haste, irreverence in dealing with mysteries, and an unwarrantable pushing of peculiar notions, are charged upon the "Bampton Lectures," in that which may be well called the censure as well as the acquittal of Dr. Hampden. The Bishop, and, d, as I shall hereafter show, a considerable number of the signing Bishops, leave these very grave charges at Dr. Hampden's door, believing, at the same time, that there is not that in the Lectures which could legally be proved to be heretical.'-P. 5.

We have therefore Dr. Hawkins' authority for declaring that, in his opinion, any competent and impartial judge, who shall carefully study Dr. Hampden's works, will come to the conclusion that the 'Bampton Lectures' are hasty, irreverent in dealing with mysteries, unwarrantable in pushing peculiar opinions, but not liable to be convicted of heresy in a court of law-that the 'Observations on Dissent' are heretical, but that Dr. Hampden, while he still maintains all that he said there, would avoid the legal consequences of that avowal by pleading the statute of limitations, because more than two years have elapsed since he performed any legal act of publication.

Were this all, Dr. Hampden might say, 'Save me from my friends!' But of course this was not the sense in which Dr. Hawkins intended his words to be understood; and after declaring that the Bishop's opinion agreed with his own, he adds: - Believing that his "Lectures" contain important truth, ' which most of us require to know, and that their real value ' has often not been perceived in consequence of some obscure ' or incautious language, I shall rejoice if he finds leisure and 'opportunity thus to clear and improve them.' It is easy to see that the effect of this is to make every reader believe this opinion as to the value of the 'Bampton Lectures,' notwithstanding their obscurity, to have been the Bishop's: and not that Dr. Hawkins agreed with the Bishop in believing Dr. Hampden to be a heretic, whom, owing to a legal subterfuge, the law would not touch.

To proceed; after Dr. Hampden was supposed to be safe, and not before, Dr. Hawkins, following his example, published a second letter, written Jan. 25, but not published till Feb. 14, to say, what he did not, strange to say, venture to mention in his first letter written before things were secure, that Dr. Hampden had not authorized him to show his letter to the Bishop, adding, 'I am aware that you employed the word "assurance" in the sense of your receiving conviction, not 'Dr. Hampden's conveying any pledge. But having been 'personally concerned in this matter, I have been anxious to 'show that he is free (not that I wish him so to act, but that ' he is not pledged, and is therefore free) to republish his "Ob'servations" at any time, and to reprint his "Bampton Lectures" ' without any alteration.'

Now, here we have one remark to make. We believe no man, of whatever way of thinking, who knows the facts, doubts that the two Doctors tricked the Bishop. Indeed, we doubt not, they had a hearty laugh together at the cleverness and success of their trick. To them there was no risk, for neither of them had any reputation for straightforward plain dealing to risk or lose. Dr. Hampden has ventured to declare, not only that he did not authorize Mr. Faulkner to publish the letter to him, 'nor the Provost of Oriel to communicate to your Lordship the 'note to him;' but also that 'each of them was intended only for 'the person to whom it was addressed. I regret that either has 'gone further.' Now observe the circumstances. For a month Dr. Hampden expresses no such regret, but reserves it until he believes (perhaps justly) that it is no longer in the power of the Bishop to take legal steps against him. Next, he wishes us to believe that having been living with Dr. Hawkins on terms of intimate daily intercourse ever since the 'Observations' were published fourteen years ago, knowing that Dr. Hawkins' views were the same as his own, and that no assurance of the withdrawal of the 'Observations' was needed for his satisfaction; knowing, too, that the Bishop was staying in Dr. Hawkins's house, he chanced just upon that day to write a letter from his own house, a few yards off, to Dr. Hawkins, to assure him, (1,) that he had not done any act which would make him legally responsible for the 'Observations' for many years; and, (2,) that it was against his will that others had done so. This letter he wrote under these circumstances to Dr. Hawkins a few days after the Bishop had informed him by letter that the suit must proceed because he refused to retract the language of the 'Observations;' yet he did not mean or intend that Dr. Hawkins should communicate it to the Bishop. And, moreover, when Dr. Hawkins had communicated it, and the suit had been in con