The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-22 00:00:00

their report and recommendation was notoriously and
expressly founded on a certain statement of the doc-
trines held by the satd George Gornelius Gorham, as it
appeared to them, the said Judicial Committee, which
statement was in the terms following :
" That baptism is a sacrament generally necessary to
salvation, but that the grace of regeneration does not
so necessarily accompany the act of baptism that rege-
neration invariably takes place in baptism; that the grace
may be granted before, in, or after baptism; that baptism
is an effectual sign of grace, by which God works in-
visibly in us, but only in such as worthily receive it—
in them alone it has a wholesome effect; and that with-
out reference to the qualification of the recipient, it is
not itself an effectual sign of grace; that infants bap-
tized, and dying before actual sin, are certainly saved,
but that in no case is regeneration in baptism uncon-
ditional.'
" And whereas the above-recited statement, on which
the said Judicial Committee did so expressly found their
said report and recommendation to her Majesty, was set
forth by them as a just and true and sufficient state-
ment of the doctrine held by the said George Corne-
lilt's Gorham, notwithstanding he had declared (A.
15) that as infants 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,' and had solemnly re-affirmed the same
(A. 70) when his attention was by us specially called
thereto, in order that he might correct it if he thought fit;
and notwithstanding that he, the said George Cornelius
Gorham, had further declared (A. 19) of baptized in-
fants, who, dying before they commit actual sin,
are. undoubtedly saved,' that ' therefore they must have
been regenerated by an act of grace prevenient to their
baptism, in order to make them worthy recipients of that
sacrament.' Again (A. 27) the new nature must have
been possessed by those who receive baptism rightly; and
therefore possessed before the seal was affixed'—mean-
leg thereby before baptism was given. Again (A. 60)
' that filial state,' (meaning thereby adoption to be
the sons of God'), though (clearly to be ascribed to
God, was given to the worthy recipient before baptism,
and not in baptism,' manifestly contradicting thereby
the said Articles of Religion, and the doctrine of the said
Book of Common Prayer, as set forth in its offices of
public and private baptism of infants and of confirmation,
and especially in the catechism, or instruction to be
learned of every person, before he be brought to be con-
firmed by the bishop.' Notwithstanding, too, that the Lord
Bishop of London, who was summoned by command of
her Majesty to attend the hearing of the said appeal,
and who did attend the same accordingly, having been
requested by the said Judicial Committee to read and.
consider the said report and recommendation before it
was laid More her Majesty, did thereupon read and
consider the same, and, after such reading and consi-
deration thereof, did ray and advise the said Ju-
dicial Committee to this effect, that he could
not consent to the said report and recommendation, be-
cause the said George Cornelius Gorham holds that remis-
sion of sins, adoption into the family of God, and re-
generation, must all take place in the case of infants,
not in baptism, nor by means of baptism, but before
Baptism —an opinion which the said Lord Bishop
declared to the said Judicial Committee appeared to
him to be in direct opposition to the plain teaching of
the Churoh, and utterly to destroy the sacramental
character of baptism ; inasmuch as it separates
the grace of that sacrament from the sacrament
itself ; which said heretical opinions so held by
the said George Cornelius Gorham, and thus by the
said Lord Bishop of London expressly brought to the
notice of the said Judicial Committee, and the manifest
contradiction of the said opinions to the teaching of the
Church plainly pointed out, were nevertheless wholly
omitted by the said Judicial Committee in the statement
of the doctrine which appeared to them to be held by the
said George Cornelius Gorham, on which statement they
professed to found their report and recommendation to
ber Majesty as aforesaid.
_ _

" Now we, the said Henry, Bishop of Exeter, taking
the premises into our serious and anxious consideration,
and furthermore, considering that the judgment of
her Most Gracious Majesty in Council on the said
appeal was pronounced selely in reliance on the
statement made in the report and recommenda-
tion of the said Judicial Committee, as being
a just, true, and sufficient statement, do, by
virtue of the authority given to us by God, as
a bishop in the church of Christ, and in the apostolic
branch of it planted by God's providence within this
land, and established therein by the laws and constitu-
tion of this realm, hereby solemnly repudiate the said
judgment, and declare it to be null and utterly without
effect in foro conscientia, and do appeal therefrom in all
that concerns the Catholic faith to the Sacred Synod of
this nation when it shall be in the name of Christ assail-
bled as the true church of England by representation.'
"And further, we do solemnly protest and declare,
that whereas the said George Cornelius Gorham did
manifestly and notoriously hold the aforesaid heretical
doctrines, and hath not since retracted or disclaimed
the same, any archbishop or bishop, or any official
of any archbishop or bishop, who shall institute
the said George Cornelius Gorham to the cure
and government of the souls of the parishioners
of the said parish of Bamford Speke, within
our diocese aforesaid, will thereby incur the sin of sup-
porting and favouring the said heretical doctrines, and
wo do hereby renounce and repudiate all communion
with any olie, be he whom he may, who shall so institute
the said Ceorge Cornelius Gorham as aforesaid.
‘• Given under our hand and episcopal seal this 20th
day of July, in the year of our Lord 1850.

" H. EXETER."

EXHIBITION OF INDUSTRY OF

1851.

The Executive Committee have replied as follows
to a question submitted by the Manchester Committee
on the admission of articles "nut for competition for
prizes" :
" Palace of Westminster, July, 1850.
" Sir,—Your letter of the 2d July, in which the Man-
chester Committee reqest to know whether 'articles
marked not for competition would be admitted to the
exhibition,' has been laid before her Majesty's Commis-
sioners for the Exhibition of 1851, and we are directed
to state to you the views of the Commission on the
subject.

" The Commissioners apprehend that the medals to be
awarded by the juries appointed for this purpose would
lose much of their honorary distinction if permission
were given by which articles of high merit would be
excluded from the reward justly due to them. The
exhibitors who transmitted articles not for competi-
tion,' may be supposed to be those who, having acquired
a reputation for excellence of manufacture, did not
wish to hazard that reputation by a possibly un-
successful competition. There would, therefore, be
a contingency that in certain classes articles only of
inferior manufacture might bo the subjects for re-
ward. The Commissioners perceive that very grave
evils would result from distinctions thus conferred
on articles of inferior merit, by misleading the
public opinion, and withdrawing their attention
from works of greater excellence. It is also probable
that the possessor of such medals, necessarily con-
ferred on inferior works, might so use the award as to
injure the manufacturers of superior merit who declined
to enter into competition with him, and the Commis-
sioners further think that absence from the exhibition of
the articles of the skilled manufacturer of reputation
would act still more prejudicially on his interests than
his presence in a non-competitive department.
" The Commissioners apprehend that some misconcep-
tion has attached to the term competition.' Accord-
ing to their decisions, the money prizes, except in the
cases of workmen, or in spe3ial instances in which it
may obviously be desirable, are not to be given. It is
the intention of the Commissioners to reward excellence
in whatever form it is presented, and not to
give inducements to the disitnctions of a merely
individual competition. Although the Commission-
ers have determined on having three medals of
different sizes and designs, they do not propose to in-
struct the juries to award them as first, second, and third
in degree for the same class of subjects. They do not
wish to trammel the juries by any precise limitation;
but they consider that the juries will rather view the
three kinds of medals as a means of -appreciating
and distinguishing the respective characters of the sub-
jects to be rewarded, and not of making distinctive
marks in the same class of articles exhibited. By this
arrangement individual competition would bo much les-
sened, while a general emulation in industry would be
increased and secured.

" The Commissioners wish it to be fully understood
that they are desirous, as they have already expressed
themselves in the 107th decision, 'to reward all articles
in any department of the exhibition which may appear
to competent judges to possess any decided superiority,
of whatever nature that superiority be, its their own
kind.' They fully recognise that excellence in
production is not only to be looked for in
high-priced goods, in which much cost of la-
bour and skill has been employed, but they encourage
the exhibition of low-priced fabrics, when com-
bining quality with lowness of price or with
novelty of production. They can readily con-
ceive thatjuries will be justified in giving the same
class medal to the cheapest calico print, made for
the Brazilian or other South American market, as
they would to the finest piece of mousseline de soie
or mousseline de laine, if each possessed excellence of
its own kind. The Commissioners being thus anxious to
reward excellence wherever it presents itself, by a ge-
neral emulation, and not by individual competition, and
being at the same time desirous not to injure the
skilled manufacturer by rewarding objects of i▪
n-
ferior merit because they only happen to be in competi-
tion, trust that the Manchester committee will approve
of their opinion that articles should not be received into
the exhibition if marked not for competition.'
" The unanimous and cordial approval given by the
delegates of the manufacturing towns, at the meeting of
the 28th June, to the plan suggested by the Commi▪
s-
sioners for obtaining jurors well skilled in the various
branches of industry comprised in the exhibition, lead
the Commissioners to hope that they succeeded in devis-
ing means by which the most ample security is given
that excellence of production will always be recognised
and appreciated.—We have, &c.
" Thomas Worthington, Esq."

LUCIFER. MATCHES.—A lady, who was a regular
vixen, and lost no opportunity of tormenting her husband
with cold mutton and curtain lectures, in a temporary fit of
good-humour once coolly asked how they made inciter
matches. "Oh !" said he, "itis a very simple process, but
a very silly one —I made one myself once." " Indeed, how
did you do it?"—" Why, by marrying you, my dear."
TOBACCO, CIGARS, AND SNUFF.—It is shown by
some returns to Parliament, which were printed on Saturday,
that in the year ending the sth of January last the quanti-
ties of tobacco, cigars, and snuff entered for home consump-
tion were 27,683,757i1b5., and the duty paid thereon was
4,425,0401. 6s. Bd. In the year 7,6231b5. of British manu-
factured snuff were exported from the United Kingdom.