The Sun.
London, England, 1847-12-22 00:00:00

(e_
VITIng '7'4,4441UL

LONDON, WEDNESDAY. DECEMBER 22, 1847,

So much has been written against the elevation of
Dr. HAMPDEN to the episcopal see of Hereford, and
so much has been written, moreover, in vindication
of his character and in extenuation of the course
pursued by the Prime Minister in this particular
selection, that it were superfluous to recapitulate the
different conflicting statements which are already fa-
miliar to the ears of the community. Without any cir-
cumlocution, we will at once acknowledge that, at
first sight, it does appear most reasonable that every-
one who is solicitous to secure (if possible) the tran-
quillity of the Church of England, and to allay the
numerous heartburnings arising from polemical con-
troversies, should lament that Lord JOHN RUSSELL
has chosen, of all men in the United Kingdom, as
the successor of Dr. MuscnovE (now his Grace
the Archbishop of York), that man whose
orthodoxy has appeared to be the most du-
bious and enigmatical. We repeat that, at
the first blush, it seeems to us reasonable
that the aspirants after ecclesiastical peace and sacer-
dotal quiescence should regret the elevation of Dr.
HAMPDEN to the bishopric of Hereford, seeing that
his nomination was the most calculated to enkindle
animosities and arouse opposition. For the very
name of the Regius Professor of Divinity breathed
of the ethical strifes of the University of Oxford—it
was a reminiscence of a stormy condemnation—the
memento of a violent and even acrimonious charge of
heresy. Was it wise, therefore, was it judicious,
was it expedient, was it necessary, that out of the
whole army of clerical candidates, Dr. HampnEs
should have been especially selected, that he should
have been invested with the mitre, the apron, the
lawn sleeves, and the crozier, whose creed was con-
sidered to be the most questionable, and whose career
as a teacher of Christianity was blurred by the ad-
verse verdict of an Oxford Convocation? Deliberately
--and we say it, after a mature consideration—we
do consider that the selection of Dr. HastruEN, and
his transference to the see of Hereford was not only
wise and judicious, but expedient and necessary.
the simple facts the case compel every '
dispassionate observer ofarrive at this conclusion,
and at this conclusioto
alone.
f In 1836, Dr. HAMPDEN
incurred the displeasure arnpowerful party in the
University. Either througho misapprehension of his
meaning, or by a wilful distortioanPP
the members of this party
anp7uliar
charged him
language,
with advo-
cating in his Bampton Lectures doctiT
to Socinianism. In consequence of this extraordinary
accusation, the case was brought before the broairr
authorities, and in the midst of considerable anima-
tion tion (sufficient, indeed, to warp the judgment of thos-e
who pronounced the decision), a severe censure Was
enunciated against Dr. HaairDEN, and he stood before
the 'whole country as a man branded as a
he.reti.:, and convicted of promulgating the heterodox
belief of the Socinians. Now it is anything
but d ifflcult to impugn this condemnation as an act of
unut :erable injustice. Without adventuring upon a
theological discussion, it is easy to demonstrate the
losufncicmcy of this Convocation in the first place,
and to pr •ove in the second that Dr. HAMPDEN never
favoured (in any sermon or lecture, at least, that
has been published as his own production) those
heretical doctri *ties which are said to have been in-