The Sun.
London, England, 1849-12-14 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE; OF TILE
PRIVY COUNCIL—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the Archbishop of Cant( rbury, the Archbishop of
York, the Bishop of London, the Marquis of Lans-
&wee, Lord Langdale, Lord Campbell, Mr. Berea,
Parke, the Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce, Dr. Lush-
ington, and Mr. Pemberton Leigh.)
GORIIAM V. TIRE BISHOP OF EXETER.
The argument in this case was resumed on the re-
assembling of the Council this morning at ten o'clock.
Dr. ADDAMS proceeded with his address which had
been interrupted by the rising of the Court on
Wednesday evening. He said there was no doubt
from the appellant's expressed opinions that he denied
baptismal regeneration altogether, and to substantiate
that ['reposition the Learned Civilian proceeded to refer
to the answers given by Mr. Gorham to the Bishop
numbered 9, 14, and 15.
Dr. LUSHINGTON (interrupting) said he wanted to
know wleat was the meaning of the word prevenient?
Dr. ADDAMS replied that it was antecedent; at least,
that was the sense he toe k it in.
Dr. LUSUINGTON—In the sense of going before?
Dr. ADDAMS replied exactly so.
Mr. TURNER raid, he also understood the word to
mean in the sense of going before.
Dr. ADDAMS continued to say that there coull be no
doubt that the sentiments held by the rev. appellant
were entirely opposed to the doctrines of the Church of
England. The Learned Civilian then adverted to the
examination of Mr. Gorham by the Bishop, and con-
tended that the Bishop had that right of examination un-
doubtedly-, according to the statute of 9 Edward 111., c.
43, published as far back as 1315, which was declaratory
of the common law by which it was held that the
examination b.longed to a spiritual judge. The
Articles of the Church of England originally were only
ten in numb, r, but between the years 1552 and 1562,
certain additions were made, and eventually the number
was increased to thirty-nine. These Articles were
adopted by Parliament in 1571, and constituted what
Mr. Turner was pleased to call the code of faith of the
Church of England. The Learned Civilian proceeded
to contend that, according to the general construction of
those Articles, as put upon them by eminent commenta-
tors, in the case of adult baptism the regeneration did
not depend on the due administration of the rite, but
upon the worthy reception of it; but that it was
otherwise with respect to infant baptism. In that case
there could be no worthy reception, inasmuch as infants
were necessarily incapacited for such worthy reception,
and the regeneration, as it respected them, depended on
the due administration of the baptism; and the question
was whether any prevenient grace was necessary to
make infants worthy recipients. Bishop Burnett held
that the virtue of baptism, according to the doctrine of
the opus operatum, was conveyed to the souls of the reci-
pients unless they themselves put a bar to its reception
by some mortal sin. The doctrine of the opus operatum
was that, provided there was no bar to stand
in the way of it by some mortal sin,
the sacrament of baptism was beneficial, ex opere
operation to the parties receiving it, whether
it was rightly administered or not. And in the ease of
the mass this doctrine was, as to adults, that its benefits
depended on the right administration of it, quite irre-
spective of the conduct of the party receiving the sacra-
ment; he might be amusing himself, or be otherwise
improperly occupied, yet by his very presence at the
sacrament, and by his being the subject of the litanies
and prayers offered up thereat, ho received the benefits
of the mess. In the case of infants it was not in the
power of the infants to place any bar to the benefits
conveyed at baptism, and therefore the benefit did not
depend on the worthy reception of it by them, and that
was not upon the principle that they did not put say
obstacle in the way of the reception of the benefit, but
that they could not put any obstacle in its way. Then
he (Dr. Addams) contended, that according to Bishop
Burnett's exposition of the Articles of the Church of
England relating to baptism, the doctrine could not be
maintained that had been contended for by Mr. Gorham.
That must have been the doctrine of the Church of Eng
land, undoubtedly, as expounded by Bishop Bur-
nett; and if their Lordships departed in this
instance from the doctrine of the Church of Eng-
land it would be the only instance that had
occurred since the Reformation. No whisper of doubt had
arisen that baptism was regeneration, and that regene-
ration was baptism. So far back as St. John it was said
that infants were regenerated by baptism, and from that
time till the commencement of the Reformation the doe-
trine had never been doubted. There was an eminent
bishop of the Church of England, whom he would not
name, who bad said "It may sa"ely be pronounced of
any expression of the Articles which cannot be reconciled
with the plain language of the offices of the public Liturgy
that it is not the doctrine of the Church. The opinion
which denies baptismal regeneration may possibly,
though not without difficulty, be reconciled with the
language of the 27th Article ; but upon no stretch of
human ingenuity, and no latitude of interpretation, can
it be brought to agree with the plain and unqualified
language of the office of baptism and confirmation.
. . . . That regeneration does actually take place
at baptism, is most undoubtedly the doctrine of the
Church of E gland." Now he (Dr. Addams)
contended that unless that was the doctrine
of the Church of England, the Church of England bad
departed from the principle on which she proceeded in
every other instance, and upon which she conducted her
Reformation. There was once a conference between
Archbishop Laud and Fisher, the Jesuit, in which Laud
maintained that, according to Scripture, infants should
be baptized, and that theycould not creep into the
communion of the Church in any other ordained way,
and that was the doctrine held by all the primitive
Christians. Could any one pretend to say that the
Catholic fathers did not collect out of the Scriptures the
doctrine of baptismal regeneration? Could any one
dispute that fact for a single moment? But all that
their Lordships had heard from the Counsel for the ap-
pellant was, whether that was the case until the assembly
of the Council of Trent. The Learned Civilian then
adverted to a series of Bampton Lectures of Bishop
Lawrence, delivered and published in 1604, with the
view to show that Archbishop Cranmer had always held
the doctrine that baptismal regeneration was necessary
to salvation. Though that work had been impugned, he
(I)r. Addams) had the opinion of many eminent con-
temporary sad subsequent writers that it was an un-
doubted authority. It was well known that Cranmer
was first a Catholic, then a Lutheran, and then a Sacra-
mentalist; but it,was an incontestable fact that be was
always consistent in his opinion on the doctrine of bap-
tism. Upon that subject ho never altered his opinion.
He (Dr. Addams) would rust the whole matter now at
issue upon the assertion that Cranmer never altered his
opinion on the matter of baptismal regeneration.
(The case was proceeding when our report left.)

COSIAION PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
The Court was occupied during the day in trying the
case of Hallcoat v. Archbishops of Canterbury and York,
which was brought to recover compensation for Ln in-
terArerce by a railway compny of a proprietary church,
and wchurchyard and rehool, in the diocese of Chester.
The plzinliff was the rector us well as the owner of the
church, and the real defendants were the railway com-
pany; but as the only question had reference to the dis•
puted value of the property interfered with, the case
was only of interest to the parties immediately concerned