The Sun.
London, England, 1849-12-11 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE
PRIVY COUNCIL—(THIS DAY).
(Before the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop
of York, the Bishop of London, Lords Langdale,
Campbell, Lansdowne, the Vice-Chancellor Knight
Bruce, Mr. Pemberton Leigh, Mr. Baron Parke, and
Dr. Lushington.)
GORHAM V. THE BISHOP OF EXETER.
This was an appeal from a decision of the Court of
Arches, in which judgment was given for the Bishop of
Exeter, the present respondent.
It will be remembered that some time ago the Lord
Chancellor presented the Rev. Mr. Gorham, the present
appellant, to the living of Bamford Speke, in the diocese
of Exeter. Before, however, the Bishop of Exeter
would consent to the Rev. Gentleman's induction to the
living be insisted upon his undergoing an examination
before his Lordship, on certain smatters touching his
religious belief, conceiving that Mr. Gorham, since
his former examination before his Lordship, on being pre-
sented to the living of St. Just, in Cornwall, had held and
inculcated doctrines at variance with some of the car-
dinal articles of the Church of England, particularly
that he held unorthodox views with regard to the effect
and efficacy of baptismal regeneration. The cause
came on for hearing before Sir Herbert Jenner Fust, in
the Arches' Court, in the summer of this year, and, after
an elaborate and very learned argument, which lasted
severed days, the Court pronounced judgment in favour
of the Bishop of Exeter, in August last. From that
judgment the Rev. Mr. Gorham now appealed to this tri-
bunal.
Long before the doors of the court opened a cone
siderable crowd, among whom we noticed several cler-
gymen, had assembled in the lobby adjacent to the en-
trance ; and at half-past ten, when the doors were
thrown open, a tremendous rush for places in the court
took place. Within the bar we noticed several noble-
men and dignitaries of the Church. The Earl of Car-
lisle, Sir Edward Ryan, and the Rev. Dr. Wordsworth
were among the number.
Mr. TURNER, Q C., immediately proceeded to open
the case of the Rev. Appellant. He began by adverting
to the great importance which attached to the question
now before the Court in its relation to the Christian
Church. He then referred to the career at college of
the appellant which reflected the highest credit upon him,
and to his subsequent presentation to the living of St.
Just, in Cornwall, on which occasion he had undergone
an examination before the Bishop of the diocese, who
had given him the usual certificate of the appellant's
fitness to minister in the Church of England. The
Learned Counsel then proceeded to state the circuits'
stances attending upon the appellant's presentation to
the living of:Bamford Spoke, his subsequent examination
before the Bishop and its results, the proceedings in
the Ecclesiastical Court below, and their issue,
which we bave detailed briefly above. He con-
tinned to say that a proceeding on a question
this had not been had in the ecclesiastical court for
many centuries before, until it had been mooted in this
case. The Bishop of Exeter had charged the appellant
with unsound doctrine in regard "to that great and
fundamental doctrine" of the Church is reference to
the rite of infant baptism, in that ho held that infanta
were not regenerated thereby, and made the children of
God, according to the teaching of the Church of Eng'
land. He would state to their Lordships what he con-
ceived to be the doctrine laid down by the Judge of the
Ecclesiastical Court. It was the doctrine of the Church
of England that spiritual regeneration was given to all,
unconditionally, in and by baptism, and that was the
position laid down by the judge in the Arches' Court.
That is a doctrine deduced by the Learned Judge infer-
entially, as he should conteed, not from the articles,
but from the services of the Church of Eng-
land. Ho (Mr. Turner) could not collect what was
the view of the Learned Judge as to what spiritual rags:
neration was from his judgment. In one place he called
it a change of nature; in another part he spoke of it so
a change in condition, and not a change of nature; in
another place ho described it as something almost
amounting to justification. But whatever the Learned
Judge's judgment might be as to the effect of kaptisnit
he therein laid it down that it was the ddctrine of the
Church of Etgland that all unconditionally were
regenerated by the rite of infant baptism. He would
now state the views of Mr. Gorham as to what infant
baptism was. He said spiritual regeneration was °
change of nature, and not of the condition of man; chit
it may be given before, or in, or after baptism, as the
Almighty chooses; that if infants receive baptism
rightly they must receive the grace of God
before or in baptism. But if infants do 11°$
receive baptism lightly, Mr. Gorham said their
baptism had no immediate spiritual effect. He also
maintained those doctrines to be proved by the Church
of England, and by the structure of the service of the
Church of England, requiring as it dues, in adults, foitA
and repentance, and in infants the promise of faith an
repentance. The first question proposed by the Bishop
to Mr. Gorham was, to prove from Scripture that bap'
tism and the Lord's Supper were severally necessary 1
salvation. Mr. Gorham answered, in terms, that he (1,,
not find in Scripture that baptism and salvation were so
absolutely laid down as in the interrogatory. The ei.x;
amination then proceeded to the consideration of 01,
general effect of baptism, apart from its being absolutely
necessary to salvation, and the appellant admitted that
baptism was generally necessary to salvation. The
questions proposed to Mr. Gorham were then taken fr°`,
the services of the Church. The Bishop asked if t";
Church of England had, and if Mr. Gorham held, thl/1
every child to whom baptism was given by a le,. %
minister was regenerated and made a child of God 0°
an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven. Anotlioel,
r
question was whether the appellant held, and whether
the Church held, that children so baptized were born
water and the Holy Spirit. Mr. Gorham replied to these
questions generally, that those propositions undoubteellf.
might be held by many members of the Church with ,
good conscience, if taken with some just and favourable
construction, that construction being founded on a coin'
parison of the formulas with the articles of the Chureb;
The articles, Mr. Gorham said, laid down with great
precision the absolute necessity of both sacraments, 110
that, with respect to baptism, no distinction was v39`ti
in them between adults and infants. The articles sari
there was no bestowment where there was no wort.Pr
reception; but in the formulas there was a distinetWe,
made between adults and infants, faith and repentance
being stated to be the conditions on which regeneratly,‘f
was bestowed in the case of adults, whilst in the case
Leyt
infants no such conditions were laid down. In 01,R,,,
words, the regeneration was stated to be conditional 7,
to adults, but absolute as to infants. The Bishop thfol
pressed Mr. Gorham as to the effect of the spong'r:h.
promises within the meaning of the articles of the Churl's,
Mr. Gorham answered the questions generally in stiles
ner unsatisfactory to the .Bishop. Now, the quesnon
before the Court was, whether spiritual regenersl4,
was a change of nature or of condition; and rev;
ther the doctrine of spiritual regeneration of the
in baptism, as laid down by the Judge 11:I,. of
Court below, was in accordance with the doctrineo,
the Church of England. To determine this guest doctrines
the
the first point to consider would be, to what extent hags of
Church of England declared her views on the efff:%vg.
baptism ? How were the articles of the Church 0
land and her formularies of equal effect to deterrve
this question ? Ile (Mr. Turner) contended that her
articles were her doctrines, and her Prayersb°°• les I
code of devotion. What was the title of the sad
It was " Articles agreed upon by the Archbiehopsio,
13ishops, and the whole Clergy, in the ConOlette of
holden at London, of 1562, for the avoidall,F
Coos
diversities of opinions, andifor the establishment 01,..f the 000,
sent touching true religion." What could be nioreo
elusive to show that those articles were the whole Dell
doctrines of the Church of England ? The liiwelA
Counsel then read portions of the Act of riridea
which followed that convocation, and which pro.viog
(inter fella) that the cause of deprivation of
.04, to
should be the elergymse's holding doctrines cOnallntiec-
the articles of the Church of England. Alid, °bis
tion he was required to rend, r an account ot.
_4, nu
not with reference to the formulas of the Colf,oll,
the articles of the Church of England, thenesneodeoo
agreed to in convocation. He (Mr. Turner)
ea the
that the reasonable inference from the articles wee
Church of England agreed to in that convccor'ef de;
that those articles should be regarded as the c 00___ tb.
votion of the Church of England. WW1:07;11ov
intent of 2d and 3d Edward but to Pr