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. Lushing ton.)
GORHAM v. VIE 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 Spoke, 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•
seated to the living of St. Just, in Cornwall, bad 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, la
the Arches' Court, in the summer of this year, and, after
an elaborate and very learned argument, which lasted
several days, the Court pronounced judgment in favour
of the Bishop of Exeter, in August lase From that
judgment the Rev. Mr. Gorham now appealed to this tii• •
bunal.
Long before the doors of the court opened a .ecn-
siderahle crowd, among whom we noticed several cler-
gy men, bad 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 orCer-
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. Ile began by adverting
to the great importance which attached to the question
now before the Court in its relation to the Christise
Church. He then referred to the career at college of
the appellant which reflected the highest credit upon biter..
and to his subsequent presentation to the living of S 1
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 circuni•
stances attending upon the appellant's presentation 10
the living of:Bamford Spoke, his stelequent exanenation
before the Bishop and its results, the proceedings in
the Ecclesiastical Court below, and their issue,
which we have detailed briefly above. Ile cow.
tinned to say that a proceeding on a question
this had not been had in the ecclesiastical court for
many centuries betore, until it had been mooted in this
case. The Bishop of Exeter had charged the appell but
with unsound doctrine in regard "to that great sod
fundamental doctrine" of the Church is reference to
the rite of infant baptism, in that he held that infants
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'
ceiv. d 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
eutially, as he should contend, not from the articles,
but from the services of the Church of Ent.
laud. Ile (Mr. Turner) could not collect what was
the view of the Learned Judge as to what spiritual reg.'',
neration was from his judgment. In one place ha cello
it a change of nature; in another part he spoke of' it ss
a change in condition, and not a change of nature; to
another place he described it es something aleos„,
amounting to justification. But whatever the Leone'
.Judge's judgment might be as to the effect of Waste+
he therein laid it down that it was the doctrine of the
Church of Erg!and that all unconditionally 'eel
regenerated by the rite of infant baptism. He won
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; the
it may be given before, or in, or after baptism, as the
Almighty chooses; that if infants receive baptio
rightly they must receive the grace of t
before cr in baptism. But if infants too
receive baptism rightly, Mr. Gorham said their
baptism had no immediate spiritual affect. lie ell
maintained those doctrines to be proved by the Chute"
of England, and by the structure of the service of th:
Church of England, requiring as it does, in adults, fat
and repentance, and in infants the promise of faith en"
repentance. The first question proposed by the Bides!)
to Mr. Gorham was, to prove from Scripture that bolao
esm and the Lord's Sutler were severally necessard
salvation. Mr. Gorham answered, in terms, that he °t
not find in Scripture that bapte as and salvation were °o
absolutely laid down as in the interrogatory. The efi;
amination then proceeded to the consideration of
general tffect of baptism, apart from its being absolutei
necessary to salvation, and the appellant admitted „,111,
baptism was generally necessary to salvation. .."17
questions proposed to Mr. Gorham were then taken fro
the services of the Church. The Bishop asked if It;
Church of England held, and if Mr. Gorham held,
every child to whom baptism was given by a lac pa
minister was regenerated and made a child of God ay r
cu inheritor of the kingdom of heaven. Anothe
question was whether the appellant held, and whethefr
he Church held, that children so baptized were born ft,
eater and the Holy Spirit. Mr. Gorham replied to thf,7„
questions generally, that those propositions undoubtedly
eight be held by many members of the Church 1.4118
good conscience, if taken with some just and favoureu ,
construction, that construction being founded on a
parison of the formulas with the articles of the Chore
else articles, Mr. Gorham said, laid down with gnat
the absolute necessity of both sacraments, ego
bat, with respect to baptism, no distinction was 0,5.4
fa them between adults and infants. The articles 01
-here was no bestowment where there was no wortbi
reception; but in the formulas there was a distineti°o
.nade between adults and infants, faith and repenitlo
3,ea
oeing stated to be the conditions on which regenerel—of
was bestowed in the case of adults, whilst in the esieece
infants no such conditions were laid down. In ot.u.•
words, the regeneration was stated to be conditions' 'ln
to adults, but absolute as to infants. The Bishop lbjeol
pressed Mr. Gorham as to the effect of the spens°rce,
promises within the meaning of the articles of the Churir
Mr. Gorham answered the questions generally in e nisios
aer unsatisfactory to the Bishop. Now, the quo ion
before the Court was, whether spiritual regeners'er
was a change of nature or of condition; and IPos
ther the doctrine of spiritual regeneration of in' tee
in baptism, as laid down by the Judge of
Court below, was in accordance with the doctrines
the Church of England. To determine this Clites.it 00
he first point toconsider would be, to what extent bast of
Church of England declared her views on the eff'..;,gs
naptism P how were the articles of the Church of _;00
land and her formularies of equal effect to detenee
,his question ? lie (NI r. Turner) contended 'bat het
articles were her doctrines, and her Prayer- boot.tie,
code of devotion. What was the title of the arts end
It was " Articles agreed upon by the Arehbishoptoo,
Bishops, and the whole - Clergy, in the Convocil of
'olden at London, of 1562, for the avoids'. _nos
diversities of opinions, andior the establishment of
,;r,.
,out touching true religion." What could be re°e `;` f the
elusive to show that those articles were the whole 0 eed
Leery t
doctrines of the Church of England The lope)
Counsel then read portions of the Act of Para_lidsd
which followed that convocation, and which pru,itivg
(inter alia) that the cause of deprivation of fe're 10
should be the clergymen's bolding doctrines coelrlea'ec•
the articles of the Church of England. And 00,.."'f01t!
Lion he was required to render an account of 131%, bat
, not with reference to the formulas of the Chnrc,eteelf,
the articles of the Church of England, then 10;_ecle00
agreed to in convocation. Ho (Mr. Turner) co 1703
ethbantrcthheofr(Easn°grL landbl e
ai ng
rfcereedn cton firno mt
nthe c
narticles
.. _
puo f pre
e;
that those articles should be regarded as the e nes,
votion of the Church of England. What eni!
intent of 2d and 3d Edward VI., but to prestrT