The Express.
London, England, 1849-02-28 00:00:00

iLatu InttUtatnce.

COURT OF ITCHRQUER—Tarrinumy.
Na Pasts.—Nsixs Pelosk, C. 8., sad Landes Spend Juries.
BMX s. Tuz Grirsaaa. Snam Ittectorrtox COMPLNY.—

Bw•wroro ► B►YON UN TN-11 THAN►I

This action, which was part heard on Monday, was brought
to mover 7 ,as compensation kr loran sustained by reason
(tithe plaintiff's barge having been swamped by the Soho
etromer, of which the defendants were propriston.
It appeared that on the 16th of May last the barge was
being loaded with coals from a vessel celled the Lord Al
thorp, ',Aug at *eh .r on the Thames, near the basin of the
Regent's canal, when the Soho c.me up the river at the rate
of tea knots an hour. The barge, which was capable of air-
** 42 toes, had only 3.5 tons of cool, and had 14 inches of
*are board. The swell caused by the rapidity with which
the steamer was g.ing swamped the barge, although they
were 40 yards 'maiden., and ake immediately sank. By a
rule of the corporation, mule in pursuance of the 57th and
106th clauses of tie 7 & 8 Geo. IV. chap. 7, vessel
above two bundled tons were prohibited from gulag
faster than Mx miles an. hour upon the Thanes, with the
tide, or four miles au hour ausiost it. Nine witnesses called
for the Vaintiff considered 10 knot+ an hour a moat den.
prone sin ed on the Thames, and attributed the accident en-
Willy to the swell caused by the Soho, which came up
abroad of the barge at that rate. They stated that if she
had' been at the speed directed far a vessel of ber tonnage
(292 owe) by the by-laws, the aced& nt would not have da-
mned. Foe the defendants there we re four • itneeses called,
who stated that the stammer stopped within 100 or 150 yards
of the Lord Althorp, and slackened bar speed until she
passed the barge. They had been going at VU rate of nine
miles an hour until they reached Durant 's Point, and after-
wards hey slackened the steamer to half speed. The barge
was tied to the Lord Althorp, and, if she had been loosed in
time, she would not have been sunk. The de-
fendants' witnesses attributed the accident to the
swell canoed by two other deviants, the Ruby and
the Royal William, which proceeded in en *prow,
direction jest about that time. The defendants' eonerd cos-
ended their liability to be bound by use by-law a/thee:m*ol%oos
but denied that there was any intention to vielate it. They
submitted that the swell by which the accident woe caused
had been produced by the two other steanten, and rrhepe
by the Soho proceeding in an opposite direction, bat that
every precaution bad been taken by the defendants' servants,
and they should not therefore be made responsible be an un-
avoidable oecurrenee.—The Jury returned a verdict for the
Bopintiff, with 761. diakonal.
MISTO v. FLIIIIING AND ANOTHRIA—LBIL.—UOVIsan-

MEN? COPITIACTS.

This was an action to recover compensation in damages
(laid in the decimation at 10.00 W ) for en alleged libel con-
tained in • letter written by the &tandems to the Hon. Mr.
Dundee, More-keeper general to the Admiralty Board.—
It appeared the plaintiff; who had been In partnership with
one &WU, as timber meekest§ in the ally of London,
entered into a contract to supply the Adulealty with a large
gusto, of Ilmidur-s mahogany. In Danembeff, 1846, the
plaintiff purchased of Mr. John Carmielmel el Liverpool,
through the agency of Meters. Flessiog smell Meaner, tim-
ber brokers, also of that town, a cams of mahogany, then on
its passage on board the Pension, from Honduras The
term agreed upon were that 7501. should he paid down,
and that the remainder should be paid on the arrival of the
timber by the plaintiff's orders on the Admiralty. The
stipulated sum was paid ; but, after the delira,t Pem-
broke Dockyard of • large portion of the as say, the
plaintiff declined to give the defendants the p mien.
They then, upon the 22nd of February, 1847, wrote
the letter complained of, soliciting the inter-
ference of the Admiralty, stating also that the
plaintiff had been but recently ot4 to compound
with his creditors—that he had procured the delivery of the
Argo by collusion with the captain of the Pandore, and as
he bad attempted to violate his egrenaserg with the defen-
dents, they would have vary little chasm of getting $ far.
thing of the balance due to them for the winheggsay, amount-
ing to 3,5001., if the Admiralty would aot intepese. They
further requested that no part of that sum shcald be paid
over to Mr. Roberts until he settled the matter with them.
It was alleged this letter had dome the ~mnekelemage,
and that he had ever dose urabb Npi eentritil
with the Admiralty. The original letter anal
the defendants' handwriting proved.
The
farthing. jury found a verdict for the plaint& Damages am
The Doi Chief Baron refused to certify. The guidon of
malice, he said, had been left to the jury, and they had
found the extent to which the plaintiff had suffered dung,.
The effect of his lordship's ruling will be that each party will
have to pay his own ants.

ARCHES' COURT.—YreraiDAT.
Before SIT Harbert Jowl Ti.o
Commit v. Tii BISMOP 07 BIRTII.—Tas Vtc►a 07
ST. Jl:ll7.—RzarizzATzox HT BAPTISM.

The ugusa etstila thissiTie sloe. span apetiticWpreent ted
to the court, by the Rev. George Cornelius Gorham, 8.D.,
Vicar of St. Itar-la-reueritb, Corawallocktag it Minding
kin is the Vicarage of Brampford Speke, is the county of
Devon, to which be had been appointed by the Lord Chat.
came, as the lord bishop of the diocese had refused to do so,
amidering the rev gentleman was sot of sound doctrine
ha dosylag the efficacy of beptim sad subtilising "that
the infant eras not regenerated and mad* the child of God
by the userament at the fent ;" and. further, that the litho,
had forfeited hi. right to examine him, it net having less
done wit' in twenty-eight days of the appdatmeat assindhig
to the 95th mon. _ _ _ __ _

—The ;14;6A relative to the right of the bishop to examine
a clerk after the expiration of 28 days, was argued in the
early part of Hilary Term. Dr. Addam and Dr. Robinson
were baud kg the Bishop of Exeter ; and Da- DaYford and
Dean for the Rev. Mr. Gorham. On Saturday, the 17th
Feb , Sir H. J. Fust gave an elaborate judgment upon the
steam, and which appeared in our journal of the Monday
foDowlag. It was in favour dale bishop's tight
Imxamediately afterwards the second question—the sound-
ness of the Rev. Mr. Gorham's doctrines, so as to justify the
bishop in the course he had pursued, in refusing to institute
the rev:gentleman in this living—case on for 'mamma.
Dr. Addams, in opening the argument, said, he wished
to call the attention of tie court to the feet that the bishop
was not the plaintiff in this ease, but the defendant. The
book s ha had been published by Mr. Gorham (gated that
the bishop had so right to examine Ilia He (Dr. Addams)
would contra] that the bishop had the sight, although Mr.
Outs= had bun instituted by the hiaLogii to a former
Barg, and why was this done ? bums the bishop did not
then suspect that Mr. Gorham had ethathined doetriaes of
an unsound character. It was stated by Burnet, in
18.58, and also by Archbishop Seeker a sea Jibe last-rate
'sinews both as a theologian sad seislsr, thee a club
being presented to
ordinatio a living he mad pith ea mina-
nation—that after n also be may be esemied—that
reexamination is a somata Wag. The imam of emit-
amble bedew bees aided, ass the Mien bed thud that'
Mr. Gorham was em of sound &oafs*, wad therefore, not
fit to lamb in the church. In his book Mr. Gorham
chug. the bishop with being had of controversy,
whereas it was very clear that it was Mr. Gorham
who was the man most fond of controversy. It was not in
the power of Mr. Gorham to say he was Ignorant of the point
upon which he was to be examined; it was a question epos
which two parties were now fighting for mastery, the ques-
tion of "Regeneration by baptism or non-regeneration. In
the fittb, sixth, and seventh vandals, the bishop mks Mr.
Gorham if be held " that every lean. baptised 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, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven?

Are they received into the number of the children of God,
and litho of everlasting life ? Do you hold that all Infants
so Menlo& are bwe again of the water an 1 of the Holy
Ghost Y' To this question Mr. Gorham replied, " The nil
point in this illumine &eft vs not merely to infants bet to
adults, and thn question cannot be fairly dissevered from the
efficacy of the other sacrament, that of the Lord's
Supper, and that none have • beneficial commu-
nion of the body and blood of Christ but such as
rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same"—" such
is the doctrine of the church on the efficacy of both earn-
meats, sad, therefore, of baptism—where there is no worthy
receptoe there is nor bratownamit of grace—that it the pro.
muses made at the baptism be not fulfilled, the blessing
is not cont. reed, lie." It woe thew queeti x s which Mr.
Gotham' said wire the platform of the controversy. The
question before the court is, whether, aLe r this exasairta-
ti2O. Mr. Gorham is of sound or of unsound doctrine ? If
he be proved of miscued doctrine the court must dismiss
him, and with him the cost.. The point in cl ispute between
Mr. Gorham and the bishop is, that Mr. Gotham main-
tains the insufficiency of regeneration by ben i.m, and
the conditional efficacy of the aseramenu. The tishop
limited these questioos to tie baptism of infants, and
held it to be unconditional; end referred to what
the Saviour said " Suffer little children to come
into me, de." He the re promises them et- real
The learned advents then referred to the 3rd chapter of St.
John, also to St Peter, where he calls upon them to repent
and be baptised, that they shall then receive the remission of
their sins, and the Holy Ghost would be bestowed upon
them" It was here an admitted fact that this call upon
them to repent before they would receive a rernimion of their
sins referred to adults. Mr. Gorham contend, " that this
sacrament is delusive, that it has a lamentable tendency to
enslave if not destroy the soul ;" and yet be asks to be insti-
tuted a sinister of that church where it will be his duty to
catechise the children weekly, while in the catechism the
doctrines he denies are upheld. T e learned advocate then
quoted Jackson, who, in his time, was said to be the
ornament Oeford, and who sap, " children are
regenerated by baptism;" also the articles of the
church, supposed to ha.e been drawn op by Crammer,
in the time of Edward VI., in the years 1549, 1652, and
1662, which confirm each other in the same doctrine. The
first articles of the church were sum a .d to have been drawn
up by Creamer, in the year 1636. In all three articles it is
set forth " that by baptisms children are made the children
of God," to. He contended that the very basis of the
reformation was upon the religions views of the ancient
fathers; it was formed teem the antiquity of the (Id Greek
and Latin When, all of whom advents the I fficicy of bap.
tiro. The Bishop of Llandaff in hie works held the same
doctrine as to " the efiemy of baptism to regimen's i Ail." It
is asserted by these authorities that all their deetrines are
founded upon scriptural authority, end upon this wee based
our reformation. The doctrines laid down by our pri-
mitive church were the most simple and unatab4u-
cue, but Mr. Gorham holds it to be the reverse,
" that there are many hyperbolical expressions in our
church." Watermen, when writing on the Eucharist, reins
to Temullim, who contended that the llcly Spirit did not
descend upon things inanimate ; therefore, not on the water,
but on the person baptised. In anus er to the 15th qui mins
put to him by the bishop, whether he held " that the enter.
mg of infanta into these stipulations, repentance and faith,'
by their representatives, is necessary to their receiving the
spiritual grace of baptism," Mr. Gorham says, "I held that
no spiritual grace is conveyed in baptism, except to worthy
recipients; and as infanta are by nature unworthy recipients,
' being born in sin and the children of wrath,' they cannot
receive any benefit from baptism, except there shall have
been a prevenient act of grace to make them worthy." The
learned advocate proceeded in a clear sod powerful strain of
arpument to prove that the bishop was ful'y justified, by the
bighoffice he hold, and the importance of thequestien to the
interest of the church of ti.ia cast empire, in adopting the
cosine be hid by refusing to institute Mr. G. rham to the
living of Brunpford Speke, as the bishop held Mr. Gorham
to be of unsound doctrine
in his views of the sacrament of
beldam. '1 he learned civilian, in support of his argument,
made copious quotations from the writings of Cranmer,
Paley's " Life of Land," B shops Lauda, Tomlin, Beve-
ridge, Welahm..n, Archbishop Yardley, Drs. Nicholls,
Bennett, Hampden " The Filth Beok of Hooker," Tay-
lor's " Life of Christ," various homilies, and numerous other
ecclesiastical authorities, in support tithe view taken by the
Bishop j Exe*er, and which u tilled him in refuting to in-
stitute Mr. 0 ohein to the presents ion ; citing likewsse the
fallowing anecdote :—At the period of the Hampton confer-
ence., a Scotch clergyman, swing with King Junes, asked
him if be thought • child baptised out of the co,greparion
would be damned ? To which James replied, ono. " Bu","
continued his Majesty, "if a child out of the con-
gregation is et.upht to be baptised, and you refuse
to attend h'm, I think you will to damned." This might be
the position of some oth-rs at the present moment. In the
time of James I , at the Hampton Court con'erer.c., the
presSjtcrists would n t admit of baptism out of the mope-
gation, and that • 'Moister of the church could alone be per-
mitted to administer this sacrament. Mr. Cartwright, who
was at the head of this party, objected to many posterns of
the church litur.y, and women were not allowed to offer up
prayers; and in the time of Cheeks the Common Prayer
was not allowed in private families. Mr. Macaulay, in his
history, states that such was the objection to it in those times
that children were not allowed to hold privets. In the
Appendix to Nape work, he states that priests alone were
allowed to administer the baptismal sacrament, and not pri-
vate panne; that by this alone were the children made the
children of God, and received into the beam of the church,
and until then they are not made the children of Gad. It
was not until the Restoration this prayer was used again, and
which was in 1658, in the time of Charles the First ;
this took place at the Savoy conference. The doctrine of
regeneration by baptism is supported, not only by the
articles of the church, but also by the church liturgy. Now,
if the doctrines of the church are to be founded upon the
opinion of Mr. Gorham, they are very different to than
that have hitherto been received by our church, and many
have seceded from this very church, because they could not
subscribe to those doctrine.. In Carter's book, page
us, be s'atee that there was an address to Tannin
Whore of that day, who reviewed the book of cos-
mos prayer. They then met at the Savoy, when
the Puritans, who were represented by Baxter, made en ex-
emption to this book ; their exception was first made is
general terms ; it was aftetwords objected to on particular
prayers, Loth in the morning and evening mein. In page
323, he states, they made a particular objection to the sacra-
ment of baptism, which they contended should be public, as
when the children were bsptised in the flood of Jordan, the,
Puritans held the child was regenerated, received a wear
Mon of its sins, and was made the child of God by baptism ;
they did not say it was by faith, and therefore
they wished that portion, in reference to private
baptism, to be altered ; they were then visibly admitted into
the church of Christ, ite., and that without it confirmation
was a gross abuse. We will now see what was the answer
to the bishop on this exception. lie says these were only
the private opinions of private piteous ; that our church is a
charitable church, and therefore receives the children into
it, which the dissenters did aot. The learned advocate then
dwelt upon part of the Acts of the Apostles, also 31 chap. of
St. John, where it is distinctly laid down that by this very
act of baptism the child is regenerated and be-
comes the child of God. He (Dr. Addams) felt
that Mr. Gorham, by his views and opinions,
was not only deceiving the world, but himself, by
such a doctrine. The sacrament must have its effect, if it
be not abused by being administered in private places. The
Lord said, " Only be baptised by water and the Holy Spirit,"
which the church held to be complete; for anything done in
private is not admitted in pubba. On that comma the
Mabee win baptised and fully baptised, and it was net
necessary to have them confirmed. Children were regenerated
by water and by the Holy Ghost ; it was in consequence of
this view of the question that the liturgy was revised and
adopted by the church, and afterwards by par-
liament. This was the arbitrary decision of the
conmaimaissa sitti at the Savoy and adopted by the
parliament ;it could not therefore be held that the private
opinion of any one or more individuals wee preferable. If
this, therefore, is not a public document, we bays no public
document as an authority, but I say it is a public authority.
When it nes Mr. Gorham, he can cite it as a public autho-
rity, for he refers to it in his mower to the 43 questions, also
in page 168 of his book. He further states that the bishops
were not expounders of the doctrines of the church, but
simply commissioners to suggest matters to the eonvocation
for the consideration and adoption of pavliame'se, and that
the Thirty-nisi Articles were not submitted to them.
He (Dr. Abeam) could not for a moment think this was
the minis* of private individuals seated at that conference,
but was a document presented by the bishops, and he
was tothink any pines mild offer such an opinion
on the deshina of the Savoy conference. He (Dr. Addams)
led Isitherte abstained from quoting individual evil:titles, and
womb elniblie te de so; but the authority he was about to
sir WWI d 010111 emsequince. He would name Archbishop
Lennie, as set forth in his Bamford lectures delivered in
1804, in his eighth Derma, where this dormice was approved
of so ismaded by Luther; and he felt it not ne
M ear any name for so doing. Mr. Gorham, crags
beck page 180, says, in his answer to question 101, in
referees* to Jewel, whom he quotes as an authority, that
"we essentially put on Christ by faith, not by baptism," he
also says that there are persons who say all children an not
regenerated, but only • few. The learned advocate then
quoted from the Augsburg conference, the Archbishop of
Cologne. Ile contended that this quince of regeneration
by baptism originated with the diseenters, and not wish the
churth, or with those who should be dissenters. Such
opinions might emanate from dissenters, but not from a si-
nner of our church. Dr. Philip Doddridge was • dis-
senter, and a wry learned man; he propounded the same
doctrine as Mr. Gorham in his second vol., page 383, of his
works. lie says berism is not sufficiert for spiritual rege-
neration ; but the whole tenor of scripture proves it to
be amain which Dr. Doddridge denies. This might be
well coming from Dr. Doddridge, but not from Mr. Goy-
, ham; and these two gentlemen know nothing of the doc-
trines of the church, for they both assert that regeneration
comes by faith. There was a Mr. Jukes and others who
gave up their livings because they weld not subccribe to this
of the church, as laid down in the Litany. tithe,
had not felt this woe part of the doctrine of the church which
they dissented From, as Mr. Gorham does, they would not
, have given up their living. On one occasion no less than
2,000 acted is the same manner. If these gentlemen had
acted se Mr. Gorham bas done, Bann might have been the
of Coventry. There was a meeting of
the monsames held at Islington, where 100 gentlemen
wen present. Mr. Cunningham and others spoke at that
meeting; IMO of these held that baptism might clangs the
Mate bat not the nature of the child. Mr. Burgess held that
the child did receive a remission of its sins by baptism, and
became a member of divine life and received the Holy
Ghost, but Mr. Jukes differed from all of them. There was
another gentleman of great celebrity, a Mr. Baptist Noel,
who bad dissented from the church. He says regeneration
by baptism is co Many to the authority of %ciphers. But
he (Dr. Addams) was net there to argue the doetrine of the