The Express.
London, England, 1849-08-03 00:00:00

differed from the church doctrine, and wrote on the
*engin, "that the clergymen who had signed Mr.
Gorhani's testimonials were very respectable men, but that
Mr G .than in his correepondeuce had shown, that his (Mr.
G.'s) doctruies were opposed to those of the church, he could
tut therefore count reign the docuteent"—but the bishop
informed the Lord Chancellor, that Mr. Gorham's opinions
were opposed to the doctrine of the church, he therefore
them/hi those testimonials signed by him should not go
before the Lord Chancellor, who bad given Mr. ()erten the
appointment. The Lord Chennller afterwards, upon the
strength of Mr. Gorham's testimonials, though not counter-
signed by the bishop, thouebt they were suffhient to justify
him (the Lord Chancellor) in Yonne; the "fiat,' under-
standing the difference between Mr. Gorham and the bishop
was of such a character that he could not decide between
them. As the representative of the crown, his lordship sans-
tied himself of the favourable nature of those testimonials,
and he signed the flat which was presented to the bishop.
There was no doubt but the Lord Chancellor had the right
no satisfy himself of tie necessary qualification of the gentle-
man to whom be bad presented the living, Whether the
bishop exercised due discretion, and exercised it wisely in
refusing to countersign the testimonial, it was not for the
court to decide. The bishop no doubt thought it was neces-
sary to have something more than the testimonials of the
clergymen who mimed it, and therefore proceeded to examine
Mr. Gorham, which examination commenced on the 17th
of Deoemher, 1847, and proceeded for some days ; a lapse of
time pawed end the examination wee not renewed until
Much 1848. On the 20th of that month a formal notice
was given to Mr. Gorham that he was of unsound
doctrine. Here the matter remained until Jane, when
a monition was issued out, and ether proceedings were
taken. Mr. Gorham stated in those proceedmes that he
was ready to take the necessary o:.ths, and that he was in
every other way duly qualified to take upon himself the
duties of the office, but that the Bishop had declined to
institute him, and he now came be:ore the court to ask it to
institute him is his living. These proceedings were served
upon the Bishop of Exeter, who appeared, by his proctor, to
be heard, and to state the grounds why he refused to insti-
tute Mr. Gorham. The case came on for hearing before the
court, and now stands for its judgment. Before entering into
the merits of the case, he (the judge) must consider the man-
ner in which it was brought be:ore the court. He considered it
was not brought forward in a manner consistent with the
practice of the court. He (Mr. 0.) should have appeared'
by plea and proof, which was not only the proper mode, but
would have brought the real merits of the case before it. If
plea end proof bad been adopted, the whole Nets of the ease
would have appeared before it, and the doctrine of Kr.
Gorham would have been made clear to the court, bat as k
now stood, it was impossible to discover what were the real
opinions of Mr. Gorbiun, as to Baptism and Rexenerationwe
the evidence before the court was most ussatistactory, and
the mode in which it was produced still more unsatisfactory.
The acts of petition consisted of no lots than 209 peek, with
49 questions and answers which were put to Mr. ,
Gorham. Strictly speaking, this was not evidence,
but the court was left t• find it out as well
as it could. It woe not a convenient mode of
proceeding according to the former practice of the
c dirt. It it had been by plea and proof, the court might
have been able to have found out it Mr. Gorham wee of the
doctrine of the church of England, for he might then have
been examined to ascertain whether his doctrine was con-
sistent with, and not in opposition to, the doctrines of the
church. Iu the books of practice in this court, by Clarke
tool others who have written on ecclesiastical law, such es
Welker, Godolphin, ate., they all lay it down that It should
he by plea and proof, so that the party appearing before the
court might be himself examined in this court. It was not
eimeasery to say more on this point, as both
parties had adopted it, therefore both parties wets:
in error, end the tour: had no opportunity to
alter the proceedings which had taken place. The acts of
petition and averments were very loose and vague, and a
question was raised as to whom the onus probandi laid upon,
whether the bishop or Mr. Gorham; but he thought this
was of very little importance. Mr. Gorham bed made out a
prime fame case ; he had offered himself to the biehnp, who
hurretused to admit him, though he (Mr. Gorham) says he
is well qualified to be admitted. On behalf of the bishop It
is said, that upon Mr. Gorham being presented to the
living of Brampten Speke, he (the bishop) examined him,
to know if he was fit to fill the living, when it was toned
Mr. Gorham was of unsound doctrine with respect to
a fundamental point of the religion of the church
of 'inland. He (Mr. Gorham) said that in the sacrament
of baptism regeneration did not take place in children,
that they were not snide the children of God, and there-
fore he was of unsound doctrine, as it was set down thus in
the common prayer, and iu other parts cf the church
liturgy. Tois (it was argued) was a sufficient cause for him
(the bishop) to refuse to induct Mr. Gorham into the living
of Brampton Spoke, but it was not clearly stated to the
wort white were the doctrines of the church. It was set
forth by Mr. Gorham in his book that he had been eighteen
years a fellow of the uoitrmity, that in 1812 he was ordained
a priest of the church, and was appointed to a living, tee. ;
that he had discharged those offices in six different diocese..
The judge said it was not netessery for Mr. Gorham to
set forth this, as there was no dissatisfaction ex-
pressed epithet him until this case arose. The Lord
Bishop of Exeter hod iiiseituted him without exeminaikn
or even expression dissatisfaction. Mr. Gorham denied that
the bishop had the right to examine him, but that question
had already been decided by the court, and it would not
dwell further upon the point. Mr. Gorham says he can sub-
scribe to the Thirty-nine Articles, and take the necessary
oaths. Now,if the ewe had preceeded by plea and proof,
the doctrines of the church would have been before tee
court, and not merely the doctrine: held .by. Mr. G•dharn.
The learned judge said he fill the court was the party who
had the greatest cause to complain, from the
manner in which the cause had been brought before it. There
were 149 questions and answers ; these, again, were divided
and subdivided, and yet there was no clear view of the doc
trines of the church of England set forth. The arguments
of the counsel had thrown coasiderable light on the ques-
tion • they were most learned and most able, and the Memos
stun loccupted sixty hours; fifteen were exhausted by one
counsel (Dr. Belford), and the court felt he was entitled to
its thanks for the able manner in which he get forth the case
bet. re it. The Jud re said he ovoid now proceed with the
cese, divesting it of all extraueous matter. It was not a
comma thing to examine • clergyman who had once
been invituted in a; living; and the; bishop must
have been satisfied whit Mr. U rbam's charge er
and conduct when he instituted him in his first
living ; but • clergymen might cave been in the church
many yearn, but afterwords his opinions might change, and
his views be opposed to the act of uniformity, therefore that
alone would not be a sufficient teat of the unsoundness of a
cler,reman's dectrines. It was said the bishop pushed his
examination 'aloud tin, necessity of the case, but it was not
for the court to say in what manner the bishop should pro-
ceed, neither was it for the court to say, if there was a lesser
or greater degree of courteey exercised by the parties towards
each other in these nruccedii.co, therefore the court must
leave them out altogether. It was said that the set of ud-
torn/Aug for a curate, who shouid not be uf tractarian prin-
ciple, to assist him (Mr. 0 'them) was one mune that
excited the vigilance of the bishop; this the coin soul
not notice, neither whet the bishep might nay in his
charge to the clergy ; these were matters of no interest to the
enurt, and could have no weight with it in coming to its de-
cisioe. Ile would at unca dismiss all them points from his
mind, and go to the goes ion that was to be decided, which
was as to the efficacy of beetle= on infants. He (the judge)
would confine himself to this, as Mr. Gorham admitted it in
adults that by faith and repeutenca they might be regent
rated. '1 he exams-saute 4. so mixed up with these taro
points that he could not se,arets them. Tee doctrii.e of
regeneration was no &mot a cue teriptural doctrine. The
duty of the court was to ascertain what was tte
law of the church, and pronounce Ls decision
without indulging in any speculative opinion of
its owe. Two court must administer the law as it is laid
down, not as to what the law ought to be; it would, there-
fore, confine itself solely to the doctrines of the church in
reference to scriptural pewg-e. Hew the church pronounced
any opinion upon its doctrine 1 Mr. Gorham says the 39
Articles lay down the opinion and law of the church. The
bishop says they do not. Mr. Gorham says he will go as
far as the church permits ham, but where it is silent he will
not my one word. Hera the learned judge went through
the various questions and answers put by the bishop, and
answered by Mr. Gorham, and published by him. The
fifth, sixth, and seventh questions were the most important
ones for the court to enter upon. The bishop says
" Does our church bold, and do you hold, that every
infant baptited, by a lawful minister, with water, in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,
is made by God, in such baptism, a member of Christ, the
child of God, awl an inherit: of ;he kingdom of Heaven ?"
" Does our chard" hold, and do you hold, that such chil-
dren, by the layer of regeneration in baptism, are received
into the number of the children of God, and heirs of ever•
lasting life I"
" Does oar church hold, and do you hold, that all infants,
so baptised, are burn again of water cad of the Hdy
Ghat ?"
To these questiens Mr. Gorham did net- give a direct
answer, hut reels to the 39 articles, and it was urged in
argument that this was sufficient with the service performed.
Mr. Gorham says:
" I reply to them propositions, that being stated in the
precise words of the ritual services, or of the catechism, they
undoubtedly mac be held by ever) honest member of the
church, to 'contain In to on nothing contrary to the word of
God, or to sound doctrine, or whim a godly man may not
with a good conecience use and submit unto, or which is not
fairly defensible, if it shall be allowed zuch just and favour-
able construction as in common equity ought to be allowed
to all human whinge, especiaily such as are set forth by
authority.' "
Here the learned Judge went over a variety of authori-
ties which had been cited during the ingumeuts, and com-
mented upon them as he proceeded. but they were so fully
reported in the pieaninen during the diecuesions that we feel
it unnecessary to repeat them. He considered the doctrine
of the church was founded on the views taken or them by
ea et bishop: that Mr. Gorham was in error when he asserted
chili:etsn were nor protectrnipi. ma; ;hat y were born in
sin, and ;mold not be regenerated by baptism, as that came
by faith mad retienteeee. He will not admit of a prevenient
net or grace, which our church does. lair. Gorham calk it
hypothetical,
ea
cnids...arnsi.theTthisa cishanrotiteholenwenianstbruyetthieonbuishpoupt.
could not admit Mr. Gorham.
inert ithi ebrey fore he
The word mystic.' had bren dwelt up in in the I
the washing away of sin by the mystical sancti-
innen tegument, ..z, Were offered up during this
sanctification, both before 'sa'd after the ceremony, for the
infant at the foot, and then veft ere told it is hypothetical.
But he (the judge) considered the tionstrudiun, according to
the tree dwarfs* of the church, was whether a child is re-
generated the some as are adults ; anti whether the child
was entitled to all its benefits, • yen if the"; baptism was pri-
vate, and it had neither goilfielor :••• g...,:caother, in cases
(Amami* A child might aitarwards fall into sin, and, by