The Sun.
London, England, 1849-12-17 00:00:00

GOAHAM V. THE BISHOP OF EXETER.

The argument in this case was resumed at ten
o'c►ock this moning„ on the re assembling of the

Privy Council.
There was an obvious falling off in the attendance
of auditors today, compared with the preceding
ones, though, as the day advanced, there was a con-
siderable accession of visitors, including several

The great body of clergymen in particular, who had
attended from day to day were not to be seen. Die
public curiosity and interest in the case seem to have
flagged, at least so far as respects the argument ; and
the decision of the Council, fraught as it must be with
a very important bearing upon the position of clergy-
men in the Church of England, and a deep interest to
all Christendom, is the only matter that now appears
to be looked to with any great degree of interest.
Dr. ADDAMS continued his address immediately
on the assembling of the Council. He proceeded to
contend that the Articles of the Church of England
were not Calvinistic; and even if they were Calvi-
nistic they were not incompatible with the doctrine
of baptismal regeneration. In support of that
assertion he read extracts from a work written by
Dr. Thorne, the " Bampton Lectures" of Dr.
Laurence, and " Cardwell's Conferences." He then
said that the Long Parliament had, on the 3d
January, 1645, changed the ordinances of the Church
of England, and introduced a Directory instead of
the Book of Common Prayer, and on the 231 of
August, in the same year, they passed another
ordinance, which went much further, inasmuch as it
prohibited, under very severe penalties, the use of
the Book of Common Prayer. The very form of
baptism which was used by Calvin himself was in-
troduced into the Directory ordained by the Long
Parliament. The terms used in the baptismal
office in the Directory, namely, that baptism
was the seal of life and grace, the remission of sins,
and that children by baptism were received into the
body of the church, were similar to those employed
in the Book of Common Prayer. In the first of King
Edward Vl.'s service books there was a prayer for
the consecration of the water used in baptism ; but
that prayer was omitted in the second service book.
promulgated in that King's reign, at the instance of
Bucer, he having an objection to it; and in that way
the service remained in all the succeeding reigns down
to the Savoy Conference, by whom the prayer for the
consecration of the water, which had been omitted
in the second service book of King Edward VI., to
please Bucer, was again inserted with some modifica-
tion in point of form. The Savoy Conference also
altered the rubric as to the salvation of baptised in-
fants. Before that conference there was no rubric on
that subject before the office for the public baptism
of infants. The rubric was before the order of con-
firmation, and it was to the effect that children were
undoubtedly saved by baptism. That was objected
to by the Savoy Conference as being a doubtful
matter, and one which they desired to change in
some way. They therefore inserted a rubric in sub-
stance that " Children being baptised, if they
depart out of this life in their infancy, are
undoubtedly saved." Now, Mr. Gorham professed
his knowledge of that being the rule of doctrine of
the Church of England, and that he being a dutiful
son of the Church of England, entirely subscribed to
that rule. How a person could deny the spiritual
regeneration of infants at baptism, and at the same
time subscribe to the
-rubric just quoted, and which
was part and parcel of the Act of Uniformity, was
what he (Dr. Addams) could not understand. Mr.
Gorham had said that children that were baptized
were undoubtedly saved if they died whilst they were
infants, but he explained that by stating
that he understood that the children so un-
doubtedly saved to be those of godly parents.
Upon what authority Mr. Gorham so qualified the
rubric in that respect he (Dr. Addams) did not
know. Again, it was a matter of notoriety, that in
consequence of the Act of Uniformity the declaration
as to assent and consent to the Book of Common
Prayer was only required of persons who had been
instituted to benefices. It was not required of
curates, nor of persons who came to be ordained. No-
thing could be more sweeping than the assent and
consent which were there declared ; those who were
instituted to benefices were required to declare their
unfeigned assent and consent to all and everything
contained in the Book of Common Prayer,
but those who were candidates for ordination were
only required to declare that they did not believe
anything contrary to the word of God. He (Dr.
Addams) did not understand the quibble which was
implied in that distinction.
Lord LANGDALE asked Dr. Addams if he had un-
derstood him to say that the conflict of opinion was
that the doctrine of the Church of England was, that
baptism and spiritual regeneration were contempora-
neous, and were convertible terms ; whereas, according
to Mr. Gorham, the spiritual regeneration might be
conferred either at, or before, or subsequent to the:act
of baptism ?
Dr. ADDAms replied that the conflict of opinion
was, that the Church of England taught
that the regeneration of infants was inva-
riable ; that it was given in and by baptism,
and not by any prevenient act of grace ; and that
in the case of adults it was the same, except,
in their case, that faith and repentance were necessary ;
whereas the doctrine of Mr. Gorham was, that the
grace and the sacrament of baptism had no necessary
connexion at all. The Learned Civilian concluded his
protracted address by contending that Mr. Gorham
had departed from the Articles and doctrine of the
Church of England in the particulars of baptismal
regeneration, and that being so, that the Council
ought to affirm the judgment pronounced in the
Court below.
Mr. BADELEY followed on the same side. He said
he had the honour to appear before their Lordships
in support of the judgment pronounced in the Court
of Arches. The importance of the question before
their Lordships could not be overrated, inasmuch as
it involved the teaching of the Church of England on
one of its fundamental doctrines. The question
before their Lordships was whether the judgment
pronounced by the Court of Arches was right or
wrong ; and in order to prove that it was wrong his
Learned Friends on the other side were bound to
prove one of two things, either that the
principles on which that judgment was grounded
were erroneous, or, although correct, that they had
been wrongly applied to Mr. Gorham's case. He
believed that in both respects that judgment was
correct. He proposed, therefore, in order to put the
matter as clearly as he could before their Lordships,
to consider the principles on which that judgment was
fc unded, and then to see how those principles applied
to Mr. Gorham's doctrines. In examining that
judgment, he must say that the very first thing that
struck him es as, that if ever there was a judgment
of an able, learned, end careful j udge, fully considered
and carefully arranged, this was that judgment. The
main principles on which that judgment was founded
were three :—First, If the Church of England had
declared herself on the question in dispute—that of
baptismal regeneration—that declaration must bind
the parties, and that no private interpretation put
upon the language of Scripture was to be allowed ;.
secondly, that such declaration of the Church of
England was' to be sought for in the Articles and
formularies of the Church, and if either of those
was explicit, the decision must be according
to what was thereby laid down, and that '
the opinions of the Reformers, and of persons
employed in drawing up those Articles and formularies
could not explain them away ; thirdly, that the
Articles and formularies of the Church of England
do explicitly state, and fully and sufficiently state,
the doctrine or the baptismal regeneration of infants,
and that on the due administration of this sacrament
the infant is at once baptized and regenerated. The
fourth deduction which the Learned Judge had made
was that the doctrine of Mr. Gorham was inconsistent
with the declaration of the Church of England so
expressed, and that the Bishop was correct in
refusing him institution. As to the first
point, that was, if the Church of England
had declared herself on a question of dispute that
declaration must bind the parties, and that no private
interpretation of Scripture was allowable, lie (Mr.
Badeley) must contend that the clergy were estopped
from doubting that to be the declaration of Scripture
if the Church of England had so declared it. With
respect to the second question, that the declaration of
the Church of England was to be sought for in the
Articles and formularies of the Church, and if either
of these was explicit the opinions of Reformers
and others were not to explain them away,
that brought him to the consideration of a point
which had been raised and strongly insisted in on the
other side, as to the comparative value of the de-
clarations of doctrine in the Articles and the formu-
lsries of the Church. He (Mr. Badeley) said that
the Articles and formularies were of equal force and
of equal validity, and that they were equally to
be resorted to, in order to ascertain the doctrine
of the Church of England, and therefore to ascertain
the law by which the question was to he resolved.
(The case was proceeding when our report left.)