Wi^i 
 
 ■S "fete' ?^,,; ^i.:.^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ''-^:^ ^^ ■'■ ■at C" 
 
 r< .^< c<^< r^ >y; 
 
 
 ai < c^'C 
 
 ccccc 
 
 c «Ce
 
 L I B RAR.Y 
 
 OF THE 
 
 U N I VERS ITY 
 
 Of ILLl N015
 
 GoRHAM, Clerk, against the Bishop of Exeter. 
 
 THE JUDGMENT 
 
 SIR HERBERT JENNER FUST Kt.
 
 GoRHAM, Clerk, against the Bishop of Exeter. 
 
 THE JUDGMENT 
 
 SIR HERBERT JENNER FUST, Kx., 
 
 DELIVERED 
 
 IN THE ARCHES COURT OF CANTERBURY, ON 
 THE 2nd day of august, 1849, 
 
 AS TAKEN IN SHOKT-HAN J>. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 SEELEYS, FLEET STREET, AND HANOVER STREET, 
 HANOVER SQUARE. 
 
 1849.
 
 London : Printfil by Wim.iam Ci.owks and Sows, Slnmroid Street. \
 
 CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS. 
 
 Page 9, line 2. for Introduction read the Introduction. 
 
 Page 28, line 9, /or the read these. 
 
 Page 30, line 23, for doth minister ; 7-ead doth minister, 
 
 Page 32, line 2 in the notes, for Bishop Conybeare's j-ead See Bishop 
 Conybeare's Treatise, in the. 
 
 Page (if), line 12,yo/- where read since. 
 
 Page 70, line 1 of notes, for Author read Editor. 
 
 Page 71, line 1 of notes, /or published read Preface to the published. 
 
 Page 81, line 35, to the words "he" (the Bishop of London, that is Ban- 
 croft), add this note % '• — 
 I Sir Herbert Jenner Fust seems to have mistaken the application of the 
 word " he," which unquestionably refers to " the Doctor," /. e. Doctor 
 Reinolds, (compare pp. 178, 185,) who moved the insertion of the Lambetli 
 Articles of 1595 "into that Book of Articles" whicli was "concluded 
 1562." Bishop Bancroft is not reported as having made any allusion to the 
 Lambeth Articles; though he spoke on the XVIlth of our XXXIX. 
 Articles (see p. 180). The same misapprehension is repeated in the next 
 jKiragraph of this Judgment, p. 82, line 25.
 
 London : Printuil by VVim.iam CloWks anil Sows, Stnmford Street.
 
 JUDGMENT, &c. 
 
 IN THE CASK 
 
 GoRHAM, Clerk, against the Bishop of Exeter. 
 
 August 2, 1849. 
 The Case which the Court has now to decide, was most 
 ably and elaborately argued in the earlier part of the 
 present year. The nature of the Question to be decided, 
 the vast body of learning which has been imported into the 
 discussion, and the important bearing which the decision 
 may possibly have upon the interests of the Church and of 
 religion, have created a more than ordinary interest in the 
 mind of the Court, and — as can be well imagined — a cor- 
 responding anxiety and sense of responsibility. 
 
 Greatly is it to be lamented when any difference of 
 religious opinion arises between members of the same body ; 
 and, still more, when the parties litigant before the Court 
 stand in the relation, as in the present case, of a beneficed 
 clergyman and his diocesan : the parties being the Reverend 
 George Cornelius Gorham, Vicar of St. Just-in-Penwith, in 
 the county of Cornwall, and Diocese of Exeter, and the 
 Lord Bishop of that Diocese. But it is useless to indulge 
 in observations of this kind ; it is now too late to derive any 
 advantage from them ; for the cause has arrived at such a 
 stage as absolutely to call for the decision of the Court. 
 
 The circumstances, then, out of which the present pro- 
 ceedings originated are these : — Mr. Gorham, an ordained 
 Priest of the Church of England and Ireland, a Bachelor of 
 Divinity, and therefore of considerable standing in the 
 
 B
 
 ( 2 ) 
 
 Church, was presented to the Vicarage of St. Just, in the 
 County of Cornwall, and Diocese of Exeter, in the month 
 of January, 1846, by the then Lord Chancellor, who 
 exercised the right of the Crown, to whose patronage the 
 living belonged. On that occasion Mr. Gorham, on pre- 
 senting himself for Institution to the Bishop, produced such 
 Testimonials as to his learning, ability, moral conduct, 
 and sound religious principles, that the Bishop of Exeter 
 did not think it necessary at that time to subject him 
 to any personal Examination with a view of ascertaining 
 for himself the correctness of the Testimonials with which 
 he had been funiished. Mr. Gorham accordingly entered 
 upon the duties of that benefice, which he still continues to 
 possess. But, circumstances having occurred which made it 
 desirable for him to exchange that living for another, he 
 was presented by the present Lord Chancellor to the Vicar- 
 age of Brampford Speke, in the County of Devon, and the 
 same Diocese of Exeter, also in the right of the Crown, in 
 whom the patronage is vested. That presentation bears 
 date the 2nd of November, in the year 1847. On the 
 6th of that month Mr. Gorham wrote to the Bishop of 
 Exeter, requesting his Lordship to appoint an early day for 
 his admission to that benefice ; and suggesting that, as he 
 was not removing into another Diocese, neither a Testi- 
 monial, nor the exhibition of his Letters of Orders, was 
 requisite ; but at the same time stating that he should 
 cheerfully comply with his Lordship's wishes as far as 
 practicable in those matters. The Presentation was ten- 
 dered at the Bishop's Registry, on the 8th of the same 
 month. An interchange of letters hereupon took place be- 
 tween Mr. Gorham and the Bishop's Secretary, Mr. Barnes, 
 to which it is not necessary for the Court at present further 
 to refer than for the purpose of stating, that the Bishop 
 declined to institute Mr. Gorham to the living of Brampford 
 Speke, until he had had an opportunity of satisfying him- 
 self as to Mr. Gorham's qualifications and fitness for that 
 charge.
 
 ( 3 ) 
 
 This determination on the part of the Bishop appears to 
 have originated from certain expressions which were made 
 use of by Mr. Gorham in the course of a correspondence 
 with his Lordship ; from which the Bishop, whether rightly 
 or wrongly, conceived that some doubts existed as to the 
 soundness of Mr. Gorham's religious principles ; and more 
 particularly with respect to Baptism, which was stated to be, 
 in his Lordship's opinion, the foundation of all Christian 
 doctrine. Whether the suspicions of the Bishop had any 
 sufficient foundation or not, is immaterial to the present 
 question : the fact being that the Examination of Mr. 
 Gorham did take place ; and the result of that Examination 
 forms the subject of the present inquiry before the Court. 
 
 It may be proper, however, here to state, that the Lord 
 Chancellor, in exercising that part of the patronage of the 
 Crown which is vested in him by virtue of his high office, 
 very properly requires that the intended presentee to a 
 benefice in his gift should produce a Testimonial from three 
 beneficed clergymen of the Diocese in which he resides, 
 and that such Testimonial should be countersigned by the 
 Bishop. Mr. Gorham having obtained that Testimonial, as 
 required, forwarded it to the Bishop for his counter-signa- 
 ture ; but his Lordship did not think it right to comply with 
 that request, without apprising the Lord Chancellor of his 
 doubts as to the soundness of Mr. Gorham's religious views 
 on certain points of doctrine ; and accordingly, upon the 
 margin of that Testimonial the Bishop wrote certain ob- 
 servations expressive of his impressions on that point. That 
 Testimonial is to this effect : — 
 
 '• We whose names are hereunto written, testify and make known 
 that George Cornelius Gorham* Clerk, Bachelor in Divinity, late 
 Fellow of Queen's College, Cambridge, now Vicar of St. Just-in- 
 Penwith, in the County of Cornwall, and Diocese of Exeter, about to 
 be presented by your Lordship to the Vicarage of Brani])ford Speke, 
 in the County of Devon, and said Diocese of Exeter, hath been per- 
 sonally known to us from June, 1846, to the date of these presents ; 
 that we have had opportunities of observing his conduct ; that during 
 the whole of that time we verily believe that he lived piously, soberly, 
 
 b2
 
 ( 4 ) 
 
 an'l honestly ; nor have we, at any time, heard anything to the eontrary 
 thereof; nor hath he, at any time, as far as we know or believe, held, 
 written, or taught, anything contrary to the Doctrine or Discipline of 
 the United Church of England and Ireland ; and, moreover, we believe 
 him in our consciences to be, as to his moral conduct, a person worthy 
 to be presented to the said benefice. In witness whereof, we have 
 hereunto set our hands, this 12th day of August, in the year of our 
 Lord 1847." 
 
 That is signed by the three Clergymen whose names appear 
 at the bottom of the instrument. Now the Bishop, when 
 the Testimonial was forwarded to him for his counter- 
 signature, wrote in the margin of it to this effect : — 
 
 " The Clergymen who have subscribed this Testimonial are highly 
 respectable ; but, as I consider the Bishop's counter-signature of such 
 a document, if it be unaccompanied by any remark, as implying his own 
 belief, that the party to whom it relates ' has not held, written, or 
 ' taught anything contrary to the doctrine or discipline of the United 
 ' Church of England and Ireland ;' and as my own experience un- 
 fortunately attests, that the Reverend George Cornelius Gorham did, in 
 the course of the last year, in correspondence with myself, hold, 
 write, and maintain, what is contrary to the discipline of the said 
 Church ; and as what he further wrote, makes me apprehend that he 
 holds also what is contrary to its doctrine, I cannot conscientiously 
 countersign this Testimonial." 
 
 The Bishop, therefore, in the exercise of that discretion 
 and duty which are imposed on him by the law of the 
 Ohurch, thought it right to advise the Lord Chancellor that, 
 in his apprehension, Mr. Gorham holds what is contrary to 
 its doctrine as well as to its discipline ; and he thought it 
 right that he should not suffer this Testimonial to go to the 
 Lord Chancellor, without expressing his opinion as to the 
 fitness of Mr. Gorham for the benefice to which he was 
 presented. 
 
 Now this Testimonial was returned by the Bishop to Mr. 
 Gorham, and some correspondence on the subject seems to 
 have taken place between him and the Bishop ; the Bishop, 
 however, declined to take any other course than that which 
 he had already adopted ; and Mr. Gorham, after some time, 
 communicated the circumstances to the Lord Chancellor,
 
 ( 5 ) 
 
 by a letter which bears date the 11th September, 1847, and 
 also in an additional letter dated the 21st of the same 
 month. Now the Lord Chancellor (having considered the 
 statement in the two letters, together with the Testimonial, 
 and the observations written in the margin by the Bishop) 
 informed Mr. Gorham, on the 11th of October, 1847, that 
 he " proposed to sign the Fiat for his Presentation, notwith- 
 standing the observation added to the Bishop's signature to 
 the Testimonial ; declining," for his part, " to enter into the 
 question which had arisen between the Bishop and Mr. 
 Gorham." The Lord Chancellor on the same day wrote to 
 the Bishop, and informed him that he had " thought it 
 right to sign the Fiat for the Presentation," adding, that 
 having " been furnished with the most satisfactory Testimo- 
 nials from various quarters in favour of Mr. Gorham," his 
 Lordship did " not think that it became him to assume the 
 office of deciding between conflicting opinions." As to the 
 propriety of the decision of the Lord Chancellor, there can- 
 not be two opinions. As the representative of the Crown, 
 he deemed it right to satisfy himself, by the best means in 
 his power, of the due qualifications of the person intended 
 to be presented to this benefice ; and, having received " most 
 satisfactory Testimonials from various quarters," in addition 
 to the usual Testimonials from the Diocese of Exeter (al- 
 though unaccompanied by the unqualified counter-signature 
 of the Bishop), his Lordship wisely and rightly, if I may 
 so speak, signed the Fiat for the Presentation ; considering 
 *' that whatever power the law may give to the Bishop, upon 
 the ground of life or doctrine, over the Presentee, must fol- 
 low, and cannot precede, the presentation," As I have 
 already stated, the presentation was made out, and tendered 
 to the Bishop, who declined to proceed to institute Mr. 
 Gorham until he had been subjected to Examination. 
 
 Whether the Bishop exceeded the bounds of discretion, or 
 exercised that discretion with which he is entrusted wisely, 
 by adding to his counter-signature the representation of his 
 impressions with respect to Mr. Gorham ; whetlier it ought
 
 ( ) 
 
 to have been considered simply as a record of the respecta- 
 bility of these three clergymen whose signatures were 
 attached to the Testimonial, or whether he was right in 
 concluding that something more was due from him to the 
 Lord Chancellor who had required the Testimonial, — is not 
 for the Court to decide. All that can be said is, — it may 
 possibly admit of some doubt whether the Bishop was not 
 justified in considering his counter-signature to a Testimo- 
 nial of this kind as attesting more than the mere respecta- 
 bility of the clergymen whose signatures it bore. 
 
 But, be that as it may, the Bishop determined to proceed 
 to the Examination of Mr. Gorham, and that Examination 
 commenced upon the 17th December, 1847. It proceeded 
 upon the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd of the same month ; 
 and, after an interruption of some duration, it was renewed 
 on the 8th March, 1848, and proceeded on the 9th, and 
 finally terminated on the 10th of that month. On the 11th 
 Mr. Gorham was informed that the Bishop would decline to 
 institute him to the living of Brampford Speke, and on the 
 20th March formal notice to that effect was given to Mr. 
 Gorham, the Bishop assigning, as the reason for refusal, 
 " unsound doctrine," without entering into the particulars of 
 that unsoundness. 
 
 Now there the matter rested until the month of June, 
 1848, when a Monition was extracted from the registry of 
 this Court, on the behalf of Mr. Gorham, in which it was 
 stated that he had been presented to the living of Brampford 
 Speke (I quote — not all the formal words of the Monition — 
 but the effect of them) — that he had offered himself to the 
 Lord Bishop of Exeter for Institution — that he was " pre- 
 pared to subscribe the three Articles as required by the 
 36th Canon, and to make the Declaration required by the 
 Act of Uniformity, and to take all necessary Oaths as by 
 law required ; " and although Mr. Gorham " was, and still 
 is, capable and duly qualified, as well by his private charac- 
 ter, age, and learning, as also by the purity, probity, and
 
 ( 7 ) 
 
 integrity of his life, to be instituted into, invested in, and 
 admitted into the said Church, with all its ;*ights, members, 
 and pertinents . . . nevertheless the Right Reverend Father 
 in God Henry Lord Bishop of Exeter, who was well 
 acquainted with all and each of the premises, and who 
 ought therefore in virtue of the premises to have admitted 
 the aforesaid Reverend George Cornelius Gorham, Clerk, 
 into the Vicarage and parish Church aforesaid, declined and 
 refused to do right and justice in that behalf," or, in the 
 formal words of the Monition, " unjustly and unrighteously 
 (saving always all due reverence and honour) has delayed 
 and still delays so to do." The tenor of the Monition was 
 to call upon the Bishop to institute (within the time therein 
 specified) Mr. Gorham to this Vicarage of Brampford 
 Speke, in the county of Devon, and diocese of Exeter, or 
 to show cause why Mr. Gorham should not be instituted to 
 it : and it intimated that if the Lord Bishop did not appear, 
 or if appearing he did not set forth a lawful cause to the 
 contrary, the Court would proceed to admit and institute 
 Mr. Gorham to the Vicarage and parish Church aforesaid, 
 in the absence of the Bishop, in pain of his contumacy. 
 
 This was the tenor of the Monition which was served 
 upon the Bishop of Exeter. The Bishop appeared to that 
 Monition by his Proctor, the Proctor praying to be heard 
 on his Petition, the object being to state the grounds upon 
 which his Lordship sought to justify his refusal to institute 
 Mr. Gorham to this living. To that Act on Petition Mr. 
 Gorham made a Reply by his Proctor : and a Rejoinder 
 having been made on behalf of the Bishop, the Act was con- 
 cluded. The Question came on for hearing before the Court, 
 and it is now standing for its decision. 
 
 Now, before entering on the merits of the Case, the Court 
 must observe on the manner in which the Question has been 
 brought before it. On a former occasion I took the oppor- 
 tunity of stating, that the mode of proceeding by Act on Peti- 
 tion was neither convenient nor consistent with practice : and
 
 ( 8 ) 
 
 I have not been satisfied, by any thing which has since oc- 
 curred, that the opinion I then threw out was erroneous. 
 On the contrary, I am more strongly convinced that a formal 
 proceeding by Plea and Proof was not only the most proper 
 mode, but the best, if not the only mode calculated to bring 
 the real Question immediately before the Court. In the Peti- 
 tion the Pleading is, as usual in such cases, vague and loose, 
 and the Answer to it is also vague and loose ; but if the 
 mode of proceeding by Plea and Proof had been adopted, the 
 Court would then have had all the case brought specifically 
 to its notice ; the doctrines of the Church of England, upon 
 which it was meant to rely on behalf of the Bishop, would 
 have been specifically and precisely stated ; and the points 
 in which it was said that Mr. Gorham had impugned the 
 doctrines of the Church of England, would also have been 
 precisely laid before the Court. But, as the Case at present 
 stands, it was not improperly, nor without foundation, stated, 
 in the course of the argument, that it was impossible, from 
 the manner in which the Examination had been conducted, 
 to discover what were the real opinions of Mr. Gorham on 
 the subject of Baptismal Regeneration — the Question which 
 is brought before the Court, as will appear by the Act on 
 Petition, to which I will presently refer ; for I think it is ex- 
 tremely difiicult, from the way in which the Case has been 
 brought before the Court, exactly to define the Question 
 which the Court is called upon to decide. 
 
 The evidence which has been produced before the Court, 
 if evidence it may be called, is most unsatisfactory ; and the 
 mode in which that evidence has been produced is still more 
 unsatisfactory : for, it consists merely of two short Affidavits 
 from Mr. Gorham ; of no Affidavit on the part of the Bishop 
 at all ; but of a Book,* annexed to his Act on Petition, con- 
 
 * The title of the Book, filed in the Registry of the Court by tlie Bishop, 
 is : — Examination before Admission to a Benefice by the Bishop of Exeter, 
 followed bji refusal to institute, on the alleyation of unsound doctrine respect- 
 ing the efficacy of Baptism. Edited by the Clerk examined, George Corne- 
 Lirs Gorham, B.D., Vicar of St. Just-in- Penwith, Cornwall ; presented
 
 ( 9 ) 
 
 talning no fewer than between 200 and 300 pages (including 
 Introduction and Correspondence), and of 149 Questions 
 addressed to Mr. Gorhara, and the Answers to those Ques- 
 tions, upon which the whole Case before the Court turns. 
 Now this itself cannot be considered in the nature of evi- 
 dence strictly speaking ; but, without any single explanation 
 being offered to the Court, the Book was brought by the 
 Bishop's Proctor into the Registry, and was laid before the 
 Court when the Case came on for hearing for the first time : 
 so that the Court is to find its way, as well as it can, to the 
 allegation of the doctrine of the Church of England, and 
 the points on which Mr. Gorham is stated to have expressed 
 and entertained opinions contrary to that doctrine. I say 
 this is not a convenient mode of proceeding ; nor is it the 
 correct modcj according to the practice of the Court. When 
 the Case came on, on a preliminary* objection, it appeared 
 that the proceeding ought to have been by Plea and Proof, 
 by Answers, and by the Examination of Witnesses ; or, if that 
 was not sufficient, by pleading parts of the Book on which it 
 was contended that Mr. Gorham's opinions might be shown 
 to be contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England. 
 The law, as I have said, would have been pleaded speci- 
 fically — the law of the Church — the doctrine of the Church 
 of England ; the Answer of Mr. Gorham would have been 
 taken to the allegation ; Mr. Gorham would have been en- 
 titled, if no witnesses had been examined, or if they had 
 been examined, to plead in Answer to the allegation ; and to 
 have shown, in reference to the Book produced by the 
 Bishop, as evidence of the facts contained in his allegation, 
 that his doctrine was consistent with, and not in opposition 
 to, that of the Church of England. 
 
 Now the Court is well aware of the difficulty in which 
 
 Vicar of Brampford Speke, Devon ; and formerly {for eighteen years) Fellow 
 of Queen's College, Cambridge. 1848. (pp. xlvii and 230.) 
 
 * The learned Judge refers to the objection, that the Bisliop ought to 
 have concluded his Examination within 28 days from the Presentation 
 having been tendered, according to the provisions of the 95th Canon.
 
 ( 10 ) 
 
 (from the want of fonner precedents in cases of this de- 
 scription) the parties may have been placed ; but still some 
 directions may be found in our books of practice, to which 
 we are in the habit of almost daily resorting even at this 
 time — in Clarke and Oughton particularly ; and it may be 
 collected from those wTitcrs on ecclesiastical law to whom 
 we are in the habit of looking — namely, from Watson, 
 Godolphin, Bum, and others — that the proceedings should 
 be, as I have already stated, by Plea and Proof, by Answers, 
 by the Examination of witnesses, by Counter-plea, and by the 
 Examination of witnesses on the other side. The form of 
 proceeding is distinctly set forth by Oughton in page 157, 
 and several following titles, under the head ' De Causis 
 Beneficialihus ;' but it is not necessary — it would be a waste 
 of time — to refer more particularly to the sections of 
 Oughton, to which I have already adverted, because both 
 parties have adopted another mode of proceeding. The 
 Bishop gives in an Act on Petition ; he annexes a Book 
 which is said to contain the whole of what passed at the 
 Examination, both as to Questions and Answers, both as to 
 Protests and Remonstrances ; and everything connected with 
 the Examination is contained in that Book which is pro- 
 duced before the Court, and which is, in fact, the only 
 evidence before it. Both parties, therefore, are in error ; 
 an(^ the Court had no opportunity of correcting .the practice 
 till the Cause was ready for hearing, because it saw 
 nothing of the proceedings. All it knew was, that the 
 Bishop appeared by Act on Petition in answer to the Moni- 
 tion extracted by Mr. Gorham ; and it was concluded before 
 the Court had an opportunity of seeing it : therefore it could 
 give no opinion as to the propriety of the proceedings or the 
 facts stated. 
 
 Now, I have already stated that in the Act on Petition 
 the averments are loose and vague. The Bishop, being 
 called upon to make an Answer to this Monition, appears 
 by his Proctor ; and this Act on Petition is intended to 
 contain the grounds upon which the Bishop justifies his
 
 ( H ) 
 
 refusal to institute Mr. Gorham to the living of Brampford 
 Speke. 
 
 A question was made in the course of the proceedings, and 
 some observations were addressed to the Court, as to who 
 was to be considered as the party proceeding in this case^ 
 upon whom the onus prohandi lay. The Court thought it 
 perfectly immaterial whether the Bishop was to be consi- 
 dered as the Defendant ( — as nominally clearly he was, in the 
 course of proceeding ; the Monition having been taken out 
 on behalf of Mr. Gorham — ), and the Court still thinks it 
 perfectly immaterial in which character he appears, or upon 
 which "party the onus probandi lies. But I think Mr. Gor- 
 ham has made out a prima facie case in his Affidavit, to 
 lead the Monition, served on the Bishop, entitling him to be 
 instituted to the Vicarage, unless cause shall be shown to the 
 contrary. He asserts that his Presentation, which is not 
 denied, was offered to the Bishop ; that the Bishop delayed 
 to institute him, notwithstanding he was qualified by age, 
 by ordination, by standing in the Church, by Presentation, 
 and by an offer to do all that he was required by law to do 
 before he was instituted. Mr. Gorham had, therefore, made 
 a prima facie case, which called for an Answer on the part 
 of the Bishop, to justify his refusal to institute him under 
 these circumstances. Therefore, I hold that the onus pro- 
 handi lies on the Bishop. Mr. Gorham is not, in the first 
 instance, called upon to state more than he has done in 
 the Monition, which constitutes a prima facie title to In- 
 stitution. 
 
 On behalf of the Bishop, then, it was represented that Mr. 
 Gorham, having been " presented by the Crown to the Vicar- 
 age of Brampford Speke, in the county of Devon, and 
 diocese of Exeter, soon after applied to the Lord Bishop of 
 Exeter for Institution ;" that his Lordship " proceeded to ex- 
 amine Mr. Gorham, in order first to ascertain his sufficiency 
 and fitness to hold the said Vicarage, as he was both of right 
 entitled, and in duty bound to do, as well by tlie Statutes of 
 the Realm as by the Constitutions and Canons of the Church."
 
 ( 12 ) 
 
 ( — There were some observations addressed to the Court as 
 to the right of the Bishop to examine Mr. Gorham ; and 
 though the right of the Bishop was not positively denied, 
 yet it was stated to be an unprecedented act, under the 
 circumstances, that he should have proceeded to examine him 
 as to his sufficiency to hold the Vicarage. — ) It was, then, 
 further alleged on behalf of the Bishop, " that it appeared to 
 him, in the course of his said Examination, that Mr. Gorham 
 was of unsound doctrine respecting that great and funda- 
 mental point — the efficacy of the Sacrament of Baptism ; — in- 
 asmuch as he held and persisted in holding that Spiritual 
 Regeneration is not given or conferred in that Holy Sacra- 
 ment ; in particular, that Infants are not made therein 
 members of Christ and the children of God." Here is the 
 averment, then, of the points in which Mr. Gorham is of 
 unsound doctrine ; and the Bishop goes on to state that this is 
 " contrary to the plain teaching of the Church of England 
 in her Articles and Liturgy, and especially contrary to the 
 divers Offices of Baptism, the Office of Confirmation, and the 
 Catechism, severally contained in the Book of Common 
 Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and other 
 rites and ceremonies of the Church ;" and, " on that account, 
 the Bishop refused to institute Mr. Gorham to this Vicarage." 
 He further alleged and submitted, " that the holding of 
 sudh unsound doctrine concerning the said Sacrament by 
 Mr. Gorham, was and is a good and sufficient cause of the 
 Bishop's refusal to institute him to the Vicarage." Then it 
 annexes this Book, which is stated to contain " the whole " of 
 the Examination of Mr. Gorham before the Bishop, the Ques- 
 tions addressed to him by the Bishop, and the Answers given 
 to those Questions by Mr. Gorham. 
 
 Now this was the Case which was originally set up on 
 behalf of the Bishop, in justification of his refusal to institute 
 Mr. Gorham. Here, I say, it is not clearly and distinctly 
 pointed out to the Court what the doctrine of the Church of 
 England is ; hence the Court is forced to travel through the 
 whole of the proceedings — through the whole of the Book — •
 
 ( 13 ) 
 
 through the various Questions, and the Answers given to 
 them — and through other particulars contained in that 
 Book — in order to ascertain for itself, as well as it can, the 
 doctrine alleged to be that of the Church of England, 
 as well as that in which Mr. Gorham is said to hold 
 opinions contrary to it. 
 
 Now the Reply, on the behalf of Mr. Gorham, to this 
 statement of the Lord Bishop, is to this effect. First of 
 all, there is an admission that the Book brought in by the 
 Bishop's Proctor contains a " true and accurate " account 
 of what passed. The Reply further describes Mr. Gorham 
 as being " a Bachelor in Divinity of the University of 
 Cambridge, and for nearly 18 years a Fellow of Queen's 
 College in that University ;" stating, that " he was made 
 a Deacon in the United Church of England and Ireland 
 on the 10th of March, 1811 ; and that, on the 23rd of 
 February, 1812, he was ordained a Priest of the said 
 Church." So here is a qualification by age, and by ordina- 
 tion, for holding a benefice in any Diocese to which he may 
 be presented. It then goes on to allege that Mr. Gorham 
 " discharged the sacred duties devolving upon him as such 
 Minister, in six several Dioceses, as a licensed Curate, for 
 a period of 35 years ; and that on no single occasion 
 during such time did he ever incur the reprehension of 
 any Bishop in whose Diocese he officiated." I do not 
 mean to find fault with this statement, by the Proctor for 
 Mr. Gorham, to show that there was no real ground for 
 imputation from previous conduct ; that he had not held 
 unsound doctrine ; but it does not follow that the Bishop was 
 not justified in refusing him Institution, because no imputa- 
 tion of that kind had beeix cast upon him till the present 
 proceeding ; for the Bishop himself had been satisfied in the 
 former instance with the Testimonial produced as to good 
 conduct, as to moral character, as to fitness and qualification 
 by religious principle, to hold the living of St. Just-in- 
 Penwith, in the Diocese of Exeter. It then goes on to 
 allege that Mr. Gorham "was presented in January, 1846,
 
 ( 14 ) 
 
 to the Vicarage of St. Just, by the Lord Chancellor on 
 behalf of the Crown," and that the Bishop instituted him 
 " without previous Examination ;" that " he continues to 
 hold the said Vicarage, and that no attempt whatsoever has 
 been made to deprive him thereof by reason of his holding 
 any alleged unsound doctrine ; and that in the month of 
 June, 1847, [the Vicarage of Brampford Spcke, in the same 
 diocese, was offered to him by the Lord Chancellor." Then 
 he refers to the Testimonial signed by three beneficed 
 Clergymen (to which the Court has already adverted), and 
 states the addition made to that Testimonial by the Bishop 
 of the Diocese, of " certain remarks reflecting on his conduct, 
 and expressing apprehensions of his doctrinal soundness." 
 He says, that " various ineffectual attempts having been 
 made to induce the Bishop to withdraw the same, the 
 Testimonial was forwarded to the Lord Chancellor with 
 the remarks thereon." That " Mr. Gorham received the 
 Presentation on the 2nd of November, 1847, and that on 
 the 8th of that month he presented himself at the Bishop's 
 Registry, and tendered his Presentation." Various appoint- 
 ments were made, not for the Examination of the party 
 (because Mr. Gorham did not prefer any request to the 
 Bishop to appoint a time for Examination), but simply 
 " for Listitution " to the Vicarage. It goes on to state the 
 coWespondence which passed between Mr. Gorham and the 
 Secretary of the Bishop ; and affirms, that the Bishop was 
 " repeatedly urged," if he meant to proceed to an Exa- 
 mination, to " commence it immediately," but that he did 
 not do so until the 17th of December, 1847. It then goes 
 on to detail the days on which the Examination took place ; 
 and the length of time occupied on each of those days ; and 
 the number of Questions (which amounted to 149) which 
 were proposed to Mr. Gorham ; and says that " each 
 Question proposed, and each Answer given thereto, were 
 reduced into writing both by the Chaplain of the Bishop and 
 by Mr. Gorham." Then it goes on to mention that " the 
 copy of each Question and Answer so made was retained
 
 { 15 ) 
 
 and is in possession of the Bishop." It also states that 
 several conversations took place between his Lordship and 
 Mr. Gorham, to which the Court will not particularly 
 advert. It goes on to allege more expressly, that, " in 
 the Book, brought in by the Bishop's Proctor, is a full, true, 
 and accurate account of all the Questions and Answers, 
 and also of the Conversations between the Bishop and 
 Mr. Gorham ; and also a true copy of the Testimonial, 
 with the remarks of the Bishop appended thereto." Then 
 the letters between the Bishop and Mr. Gorham (also in 
 this Book) are alleged to be true and faithful copies of the 
 originals, which are in the possession of the respective 
 parties, those in his possession " being in readiness to be 
 produced if required ;" but no requirement has been made. 
 It then refers to the Protest which was made against the 
 Bishop's mode of Examination, and to the Remonstrance as 
 to its being continued. Then it goes on — " Wherefore by 
 reason of the premises, and referring to the contents of the 
 said Book so brought in, ... he denied that the Bishop of 
 Exeter was of right entitled either by the Statutes of the 
 Realm or by the Constitutions and Canons of the Church 
 to proceed to examine Mr. Gorham at the time when such 
 Examination began." Then he goes on to state when it was 
 that the time allowed for Examination by the Canon had 
 elapsed. That Question has been made the subject of a 
 preliminary discussion before the Court, and the Court was 
 of opinion that the Lord Bishop was justified in the course he 
 had pursued ; that he was not deprived by lapse of time of the 
 exercise of that discretion with which he was entrusted by 
 law, or that duty which he had to perform, of proceeding 
 to the Examination of Mr. Gorham, even though the 28 
 days allowed by the 95th Canon had expired. Therefore it 
 is unnecessary for the Court further to go into the particulars 
 of that part of the Case : the Court being of opinion at that 
 time, and still being of opinion, that the Bishop was justified 
 in commencing the Examination of Mr. Gorham at that time, 
 and in continuing it as he did.
 
 ( 1^^ ) 
 
 Now the llo])ly goes on to state on behalf of Mr. Gorham, 
 that he, the Proctor, " distinctly and emphatically denies that 
 Mr. Gorham in his Examination, as recorded in the said Book, 
 did maintain, or has at any time maintained, unsound doc- 
 trine respecting the efficacy of the Sacrament of Baptism ; or 
 that he has held, or persisted in holding, any opinions thereon 
 at variance with the plain teaching of the Church of England 
 in her Articles and Liturgy, as wrongfully laid to his charge 
 on the part and behalf of the Bishop." So that here the 
 parties are at issue ;— the Bishop avowing that Mr. Gorham 
 did, in the course of the Examination, uphold and maintain 
 such doctrine ; — and Mr. Gorham expressly and emphati- 
 cally denying that he did hold any unsound doctrine respect- 
 ing the Sacrament of Baptism, or any opinions at variance 
 with the plain teaching of the Church of England in her 
 Articles and Liturgy. But he goes on also to " deny expli- 
 citly and expressly, that Mr. Gorham either held, or per- 
 sisted in holding, that infants are not made, in Baptism, 
 members of Christ and the children of God, as untruly 
 charged on the part of the Lord Bishop of Exeter ; and 
 that he did not maintain any views w^hatsoever contrary to 
 the true doctrine of the Church of England, as dogmatically 
 determined in her Articles, familiarly taught in her Cate- 
 chism, and devotionally expressed in her Services ; it having 
 bebn his desire and endeavour, throughout that Examination, 
 to explain the language both of her Articles and Liturgy (in 
 compliance with the express directions of the Church her- 
 self) by such ' just and favourable construction'* as would 
 secure an entire agreement, not only of each with the others, 
 but of all alike with the plain tenor of the Ploly Scrip- 
 tures, declared by the said Articles f to be of paramount and 
 absolute authority." Then it alleges that Mr. Gorham " pre- 
 sented himself to the Bishop for Institution, and was on all 
 occasions ready and prepared to subscribe the three Articles 
 as required by the 36th Canon in that behalf, and to make the 
 
 * See Preface to the Book of Common Prayer. + Article VI.
 
 ( 17 ) 
 
 Declaration required by the Act of Uniformity, in the words 
 prescribed by that Act, and to take all the necessary Oaths 
 as by law required ; and that there is not contained in the 
 said Examination, nor is there to be fairly inferred there- 
 fi'om, any just or legal grounds for the refusal of the Bishop 
 to institute Mr. Gorhaui to the Vicarage aforesaid." 
 
 Here, I say again, the Answer to the Act is vague ; it is 
 a mere denial of holding doctrine contrary to the doctrine of 
 the Church of England, in her Articles and Liturgy, with 
 respect to the efficacy of Baptism ; but, if this had been a 
 proceeding by Plea and Proof, both in the one case and in 
 the other the doctrine of the Church would have been speci- 
 fically pointed out in the Articles ; and the words of the 
 Book, to which I have already referred, in which that doc- 
 trine is contravened, would have been distinctly set forth : 
 and, consequently, in the Answer of Mr. Gorham, he must 
 have stated precisely what he did say, did hold, and did 
 maintain ; instead of the Court being referred to the con- 
 tents of the Book for the doctrine he held, leaving it to 
 decide for itself whether it was or was not consistent with 
 the doctrine of the Church of England. 
 
 Now the Bishop's Rejoinder to that Reply is a repetition in 
 fact of what he had before stated :— that Mr. Gorhara did 
 maintain, and persist in maintaining, unsound doctrine ; did 
 hold, and persist in holding, divers opinions on Baptism con- 
 trary to the Articles and Liturgy. This is the course which 
 this Case has taken, and by which it has been brought to its 
 present stage. 
 
 Now I think the Court is the party who has the greatest 
 right to complain of the manner in which the Case has pro- 
 ceeded : for it is left — as I before said at the outset, and 
 must repeat over and over again — to find its way, as well as 
 it can, through from 200 to oOO pages,* comprehending 
 149 Questions, and as many Answers: moreover, those J4ii 
 
 * The whole Book contains 230 pages; but the Examination ocCtjpies 
 only 157 pages— namely, from p. 63 to p. 219 inclusive. 
 
 C
 
 ( 18 ) 
 
 Questions are divided and sub-divided, so as to leave the 
 Court in considerable difficulty in determining, from the 
 Answer to any one of those Questions, what is the real 
 opinion of Mr. Gorham, or what is the real doctrine of the 
 Church of England as maintained by the Bishop of Exeter 
 in opposition to that which is maintained by Mr. Gorham. 
 
 Now the arguments of Counsel have undoubtedly thrown 
 considerable light upon these points. The arguments were 
 most clearly and most ably supported by a vast body of 
 learning which was made to bear on the Question at issue 
 between the parties. I think the discussion of the Case 
 occupied 33 or 34 hours (during 6 days), 15 of which fell to 
 the lot of one Counsel, the leading Advocate* for Mr. Gor- 
 ham, of which the Court by no means complains, on the 
 contrary it is extremely obliged to the learned Counsel for 
 the light he threw on the Case, for the able argument, the 
 great learning and diligence which he bestowed on its con- 
 sideration, and which he imparted in the most clear and 
 lucid manner to the Court. 
 
 But the difficulties of the Court are greatly increased by 
 the argument of the learned Counsel for the Bishop of 
 Exeter in the first instance, and in his subsequent reply. 
 
 The Court must, therefore, now proceed to the considera- 
 tion of the Case, divesting it of much extraneous matter, 
 wliich very properly w^as dwelt upon by the Counsel on each 
 side, but which can form no part of the decision of the 
 Court, nor have any w'eight when it comes to consider the 
 real Question which it is called upon to decide. 
 
 Now a good deal was said upon the conduct of the Bishop 
 in requiring Mr. Gorham to undergo any Examination at 
 all ; he having been a beneficed Incumbent in his Diocese, of 
 whose conduct the Bishop had had sufficient opportunities of 
 forming an opinion. The Bishop's right w^as not, certainly, 
 denied, but it was stated to be an unprecedented exercise of 
 
 * Dr. Bayford, whose Argument has been published in a volume consist- 
 ing of 2.32 pages.
 
 ( 19 ) 
 
 it ; and I presume it is not a very common course to pursue 
 — where a clergyman of long standing has been in possession 
 of a benefice within a certain diocese — that, when he is pre- 
 ferred to another benefice in that same diocese, an Examina- 
 tion should take place ; for it is generally supposed, and must 
 be presumed, that the Bishop has been satisfied as to the 
 character, learning, ability, and sound doctrine of the person 
 so to be instituted. But circumstances maij occur, and toill 
 occur, — and we have experience in these Courts to show that 
 circumstances have occurred, — in which it has become neces- 
 sary to inquire into the soundness of the principles and of ■ 
 the doctrine of clergymen who have been instituted, and who 
 have been in possession for years of preferment in the different 
 dioceses of the country, and whose opinions have unfor- 
 tunately, since the time when they were first instituted, 
 undergone a change. The experience of this Court has 
 taught us that the Subscription in the first instance to the 
 Articles of Religion, which is required by the Canon, and 
 the making of the Declaration according to the Act of Uni- 
 formity, are not altogether to be depended upon as proof of 
 the soundness of religious principles in the present day. 
 
 The Court has already decided, and Mr. Gorham has 
 submitted to that decree of the Court by his Counsel, that 
 the Bishop had a right to proceed to the Examination, if he 
 thought proper so to do, even after the twenty-eight days, 
 named in the 95th Canon, had expired. 
 
 But it is further urged that the Bishop pushed the Exami- 
 nation beyond that limit which, both in point of matter and of 
 time, the nature of the case required. It is not, however, 
 for the Court to determine as to the course of Examination 
 which the Bishop should ])ursue : he is the judge of what 
 may be necessary on the occasion, and the length of the 
 Examination ; and the purport and tenor of the Examination 
 may very much depend upon the Answers which he obtained 
 to the Questions which he, in the first instance, addressed 
 to Mr. Gorham. 
 
 Neither is it for the Court to determine, or to give any 
 
 c 2
 
 ( 20 ) 
 
 opinion, whether there was or was not a greater or less 
 degree of courtesy observed, or respect sliown, on one side 
 or the other. Therefore the Court lays out of its considera- 
 tion all those observations which were not improperly made 
 by the learned Counsel, in the opening of the Case, upon the 
 circumstances which led the Bishop to suppose that Mr. 
 Gorham held any unsound views upon any point of doctrine 
 or discipline. It gives no opinion on the questions, whether 
 the Bishop was proceeding without sufficient authority, upon 
 bare suspicion, without any information but that which he re- 
 ceived in the course of these letters ; whether it was because 
 Mr. Gorham had described the Church as a " National Esta- 
 blishment ;" or had advertised for a Curate free from all ten- 
 dency to " Tractarian Error T All that is matter which it may 
 be proper for Counsel to insist upon in argument, but which 
 it would be extremely improper for the Court to pay atten- 
 tion to in giving a decision upon the weighty matter which is 
 the subject of inquiry. Again : the Court is not called upon 
 in any manner to notice what the Bishop may have said in any 
 of his Episcopal Charges, referred to in the argument, or 
 in any letters addressed to a Clerk — even to Mr. Gorham 
 himself. It is not to consider whether it is an offence in the 
 Diocese of Exeter to allude to the Church as a " National 
 Estahlishmcnt ;^ or to refer to the prevalence of " Tractarian 
 Error'''' as that by which the Curate, whom an Incumbent 
 nominates, is not to be infected. These are all matters ex- 
 tremely well suited for declamation ; they are all well cal- 
 culated to raise in the minds of some persons a prejudice 
 against the Bishop — to show that he was actuated by im- 
 proper motives : but" they can have no weight in the mind of 
 the Court in forming the decision which it is called upon to 
 pronounce upon the more weighty matter which is the sub- 
 ject of consideration. 
 
 Dismissing, then, all these topics from my mind — What 
 is the Question which the Court is called upon to decide ? 
 I have read what is stated in the Act on Petition, and I
 
 ( 21 ) 
 
 have heard what has been said both on the one side and on 
 the other ; and I concur in what the learned Counsel * 
 stated, who argued for Mr. Gorham, that the Question at 
 issue between the parties is — " Infant Regeneration uncon- 
 ditionally,^^ in and hy Baptism. It does not involve, as 
 seems to be considered by Mr. Gorham, the unconditional 
 efficacy of Baptism in the case of Adults as well as Infants ; 
 but is solely confined to Baptismal Regeneration in the case 
 of Infants. Therefore I throw out of consideration all cir- 
 cumstances which relate to the unconditional efficacy of Bap- 
 tism generally ; and I confine myself simply to the case of 
 Infants, it being admitted, on the part of the Bishop, that, 
 in the case of Adults, Faith and Repentance are pre-requi- 
 sites, and. that the efficacy of Baptism depends, in their 
 cases, upon the sincerity of their professions and promises. 
 
 But although the Question is admitted at present to be 
 confined to this single point, — the doctrines of Infant and 
 Adult Baptismal Regeneration are so mixed up in the 
 Examination and discussion, that it is almost impossible to 
 separate the two, so as to say what part of the argument 
 applies to the one and what to the other ; and, indeed, Mr. 
 Gorham t says, that the Baptism of Adults depends upon the 
 same considerations and " the same principles" as those which 
 are to be applied to Children, and that the two questions 
 cannot be dissevered. The Court, therefore, notwithstand- 
 ing the single point which is to be considered — namely, 
 " Infant Regeneration unconditionally " — is still left to find 
 its way through the cloud of Questions and Answers con- 
 tained in this Book, to decide the doctrine of the Church 
 which Mr. Gorham is said to impugn. 
 
 Now I w(mld here state — and I am particularly anxious 
 
 * Dr. Bayford : see his Argument, pp. 27, 28. " I must call the attention 
 
 of the Court to the real Question before it The Bishop chose the 
 
 ground, and made Infant Begeneralion nncondifionalli/ the single point . . . 
 to which the whole Examination tended." 
 
 t See Examination, &c., Introduction, p. xxiv.
 
 ( 22 ) 
 
 to have it understood — that I guard myself against hoing 
 supposed to offer any opinion as to the disputed point of 
 Theology between the parties. I am not going to ])ronounce 
 an opinion as to whether unconditional Regeneration in 
 the case of Infants is or is not a doctrine deducible from 
 the Scriptures. It is no part of the duty of the Court, nor 
 is it within its province, to institute any such inquiry as 
 that. All that the Court is called upon to do — and all that 
 it can properly do, as coming within the limits of its au- 
 thority — is to endeavour to ascertain whether the Church 
 has determined anything upon this subject ; and, having so 
 ascertained, to pronounce accordingly. The authoritative 
 declaration of the Church constitutes the law of this Court, 
 to which it is bound to conform, and which it is incumbent 
 upon it implicitly to follow ; without indulging any specula- 
 tive opinion of its own as to whether that declaration is 
 founded in error or in truth. The Court is to administer 
 that law as it finds it laid down, and is not to give any 
 opinion as to what the law ought to be. Therefore, I 
 desire to be distinctly understood, in the observations I am 
 about to make, as confining my attention and directing my 
 observations to the doctrine of the Church solely, so far as 
 I am able to ascertain it ; without any allusion to those 
 passages of Holy Writ which are, or are supposed to be, 
 applicable to the effects of Baptism on those to whom it is 
 administered. 
 
 Now, the first Question which is raised and presents 
 itself to the Court is. Whether the Church has pronounced 
 any opinion, and if so. What opinion, on the subject under 
 consideration ? That gives rise to another Question, — 
 From what source is the Court to derive information as to 
 the doctrine of the Church of England ? 
 
 The Bishop of Exeter imputes to Mr. Gorham that he 
 holds and avows opinions on the subject of the efficacy 
 of Baptism which are oj)posed to the doctrines of the Church 
 as set forth in her Articles and her Formularies. Mr.
 
 ( 23 ) 
 
 Gorham denies this, and contends that his opinions are in 
 exact conformity with those of the Church ; that he agrees 
 with the Articles, and accepts the true meaning and in- 
 tention of the Formularies when construed, as he qualifies 
 it, in connexion with the dogmatical exposition of doctrine 
 in the Thirty-nine Articles. 
 
 Now a great deal of learning and of ingenious argument 
 was applied to the discussion of this part of the Case ; which 
 might naturally be expected from the bearing it may have 
 on the ultimate decision of the Question. 
 
 I have said that Mr. Gorham founds himself upon the 
 Articles. There, he says, he takes his stand. He declares 
 that he will not be driven from that position ; that he will 
 go as far as the Church has expressed her opinion, and 
 where the Church is silent he will not speak. 
 
 Now the next point to be considered is the nature of the 
 Questions originally addressed to Mr. Gorham by the 
 Bishop. It may not be improper to state here what was 
 the course of Examination pursued by the Bishop, and of 
 the Answers which he received to the Questions which he 
 addressed to Mr. Gorham. I think the very first Question 
 throws some light upon the cause of the protracted length of 
 the Examination, and of the very particular and precise 
 manner in which the Bishop is afterwards obliged to frame 
 his Questions in order to obtain from Mr. Gorham direct 
 and specific Answers to them. Now the first Question 
 which appears, at page 63 of this Book, is to this effect : — 
 
 " Question I. — Prove from Scripture, that Baptism, and the Supper 
 of the Lord, are severally necessary to salvation. 1st. of Baptism; 
 2ndly, of the Lord's Supper." 
 
 Here it clearly appears that the Bishop has not put the 
 Question in that form which would draw out a specific 
 Answer on the doctrine of the Church, as to the necessity 
 of the Sacrament of Baptism and of the Lord's Supper. 
 Whether they are '''■ sever alhf necessary is the form in 
 which the Bishop puts the Question, Mr. Gorham is per- 
 fectly well aware of the lapse in the statement which the
 
 ( 24 ) 
 
 Bishop made, and the learned Counsel have taken advantage 
 of tliat slip so made by the Bishop, by showing that his 
 Lordship was wrong in the mode in which he addressed the 
 Question to Mr. Gorham ; and not only so, but that he was 
 forced to correct the error by a second Question addressed 
 to him. Now with regard to Question I., Mr. Gorham 
 answers, and truly answers : — 
 
 "Answer 1. — I do not find in Scripture that the necessity of 
 Baptism to salvation, is declared in terms so absolute as this proposition." 
 
 I cannot, says Mr. Gorham, prove from Scripture that 
 Baptism and the Lord's Supper are " severally'^ necessary 
 to salvation ; I do not find that laid down in any way. He 
 goes on then, in a long discourse, on the question of 
 Baptism : in which we have a reference to the words of 
 Scripture, " Except a man be born of water and of the 
 Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God ;" with 
 regard to which he proceeds to state, 
 
 " If the allusion be to Baptism (which, however, had not then been 
 instituted), it undoubtedly affirms the necessity of complying with that 
 solemn Institution, where no unavoidable impediment intervenes. 
 Having been ordained of Christ, it cannot be slighted without the 
 awful consequences of disobedience to his express conimand." 
 
 Then he goes on to state the conclusion which he draws 
 •w\i\ respect to the first point — Baptism — that it is not in- 
 dispensably necessary, that it is " only generally necessary, 
 a condition to be dutifully performed." He adds, — 
 
 " Precisely the same conclusion must be drawn from the terms used 
 by our Lord, in his express institution of Baptism : ' He that believeth 
 and is baptized shall be saved.' (Mark xvi. 16.) The j/e«e;-oZ con- 
 nexion between the sign which he has ordained for admission into his 
 Church, and the Jaitli which that sign certifies, is here distinctly 
 affirmed. But our Lord adds, ' He that believeth not shall be damned.' 
 Here exclusion from everlasting salvation is grounded, not on the omis- 
 sion of Baptism, but on the withholding belief m the Son of God." 
 
 Then he goes on, in his Answer on the second point, to 
 say that — 
 
 " The participation of the Supper of the Lord is stated in Scripture
 
 ( 25 ) 
 
 in the same manner, as generally necessary, not essentially requisite, to 
 salvation." 
 
 Now the manner in which the Question is answered 
 evidently suggested to the Bishop that he must be precise 
 in putting the Question to which he expected an Answer. 
 Accordingly, we find the second Question is framed in this 
 form : — • 
 
 " Question II. — Does our Church hold, and do you hold, that Bap- 
 tism and the Supper of" the Lord arc generally necessary to salvation, in 
 terms as absolute as this proposition ?" 
 
 The word ^^ sever ally '^ was originally introduced; here the 
 word '"'' generally'''' is substituted; and to this Mr. Gorham 
 gives an explicit Answer : — 
 
 " Answer 2. — Our Church does hold this doctrine, and I hold it of 
 course." 
 
 That is, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord are ''^generally 
 necessary to salvation." 
 
 The third Question is : — 
 
 "Question III. — Does our Church hold, and do you hold, that by 
 the express words of our Lord in the text, John iii. 5, ' Except a man 
 be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
 God,' we 'may perceive the great necessity of the Sacrament of Bap- 
 tism, where it may be had ? ' " 
 
 The Answ^er is : — 
 
 "Answer 3. — The Church states this in her Service for Adult 
 Baptism; and the statement ' containeth in it nothing contrary to the 
 word of God.' " 
 
 Reference is then made to the S6th Canon, in which the De- 
 claration of conformity to the Liturgy is enjoined ; and he 
 adds : — 
 
 " Your Lordship has already had my subscription to this acknow- 
 ledgment on my Institution to St. Just ; for my assent to the whole Book 
 of Common Prayer includes my assent to this part of it." 
 
 There is therefore a direct and positive Answer to this 
 Question.
 
 ( 26 ) 
 
 The fourth Question is: — 
 
 " Question IV. — In the Homily of Common Prayer and the Sacra- 
 ments, it is said, that, — ' According to the exact signification of a sacra- 
 ' ment, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord, are visible Signs, expressly 
 ' commanded in the New Testament, whereunto is annexed the j)romise 
 ' of free forgiveness of our sins, and of our holiness and joining in Christ :' 
 Do you hold this to be godly and wholesome doctrine ?" 
 
 Then the Bishop intimates to Mr. Gorham, 
 
 " This Question is proposed in words of the liomily ; not thereby to 
 intimate that you are bound to assent to it, without reserve, because of 
 the authority of the Homilies." 
 
 To this Mr. Gorham answers : — 
 
 " Answkb 4. — My subscription to the Articles, and among them 
 to the XXXVth, appears to me to involve a sufficient reply to this 
 Question. I prefer, and I claim the privilege of giving my assent to 
 the two books of Homilies, generally, as containing ' a godly and ichole- 
 some doctrine, and necessary for these times ' " — 
 
 that is, the times in which they were published — 
 
 " to my basing any particular doctrine upon any detached sentence taken 
 out of those Books. 
 
 " In claiming this privilege, I by no means intend to intimate that I 
 ' assent with reserve' to this passage. On the contrary, I consider it as ex- 
 pressing a wholesome truth, when fairly construed; but as it has been 
 often adduced, in controversies on the efficacy of the Sacraments, in a sense 
 in \\hich I do not believe the compiler of that excellent Homily to 
 have written it, my consent could not be given to it by a naked affirma- 
 tive without explanatory matter. Consecutive Questions, framed with a 
 bearing on a particular controversy, replied to without many collateral 
 explanations, might elicit apparent, and only apparent, admissions, which 
 would not correctly represent the doctrine of the Church." 
 
 " To prevent the possibility of misapprehension as to my reply to 
 this passage, or others tow-hich I may have to return a similar Answer — 
 I add, that I fully assent to the wholesome truth contained in this quota- 
 tion, when jaxiiy hronyht into connexion icith the Articles of our 
 Chdech, on the nature and efficacy of the Sacraments^ 
 
 That is the way in which Mr. Gorham qualifies his Answer 
 to the fourth Question, projioscd to him on the Homily of 
 Common Prayer ; to which he takes no objection. The 
 Bishop liad intimated that he was not bound to assent to it.
 
 ( 27 ) 
 
 He says : — I do assent to it, that it is good and wholesome 
 truth, " xvlien fciirly brought into connexion with the 
 Articles of our Church, on the nature and efficacy 
 of the Sacraments.''^ These words are printed in capital 
 letters, " The Articles of our Church " — as showing 
 that Mr. Gorham here again bases himself on the teaching 
 of the Articles, as the standard hy which he is to be 
 governed. 
 
 Then follow the three Questions which will raise the point 
 under the consideration of the Court. Questions V., VL, 
 and VII. are put by the Bishop in this manner : — 
 
 " Question V. — Does our Church hold, and do you hold, that every 
 infant baptized by a lawful Minister, with water, in the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is made by God, in 
 such Baptism, a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor 
 of the kingdom of heaven ? " 
 
 taking, therefore, the words of Baptism used in the Church 
 Service. 
 
 " Question VI. — Does our Church hold, and do you hold, that such 
 children, by the laver of regeneration in Baptism, are received into the 
 number of the children of God, and heirs of everlasting life '?" 
 
 " Question VII. — Does our Church hold, and do you hold, that all 
 infants, so baptized, are born again of water and of the Holy Ghost ? " 
 
 Now these Questions were proposed, I presume, separately 
 to Mr. Gorham ; he answers them all together. He 
 says : — 
 
 " Answers 5. 6. 7. — As these three Questions all inii)ly the same 
 description of Answer, I will discuss them together :" — 
 
 then, in the first instance, by way of general, introduction to 
 his Answer, he says : 
 
 "And, generally, I reply, that these propositions, being stated in 
 the precise words of the Ritual Services, or of the Catechism, un- 
 doubtedly must be held, by every honest member of the Church, to 
 ' contain in them nothing contrary to the Word of God, or to sound 
 ' doctrine, or which a godly man may not with a good conscience use 
 ' and submit unto, or which is xwi fairly defensible ' " 
 
 — the following words are in italics, and distinguished by
 
 ( '-^s ) 
 
 inverted commas,* as showing they are extracted from the 
 
 Book of Common Prayer — 
 
 ' ' ^fairhj defensible if it shall be allowed sucli jtist and fa- 
 
 * vourable const) uction as in common equity ought to be allowed to all 
 'Human Writings, especially such as are set forth by authority.' — 
 [Preface to the Book of Common Prayer.] "' 
 
 Now here it is observed that Mr. Gorham docs not give 
 a precise Answer to the Question proposed to him. He 
 
 answers : " the propositions ' contain in them 
 
 ' nothing contrary to the word of God, or to sound doctrine, 
 ' or which a godly man may not with a good conscience use 
 
 * and submit unto, or which is not fairli/ (/cj'eiisil)/e' " — but 
 here he qualifies it — " ' (f it s/ta/I be allourd such just and 
 ^favourable co)istruction as in common equifi/ ought to be al- 
 ' lowed to all Human Writings, especially such as are set forth 
 ' hg aiithoritg.' '" 
 
 Then he goes on to state : 
 
 " Now the ^just and favourable construction' of passages like tJiese 
 (occurring in services intended for popular use), which, talieti in their 
 naked verbality. might appear to contradict the clearest statements of 
 Scripture, and of the Church herself, must be sought, — chiefly, I., by 
 bringing them into juxtaposition with the precise and dogmatical 
 teaching of the Church in her kxpi.icit standard of Doctrine, the 
 Thirty-nine Artu'i.es : — in the next place, II., by comi«iring the 
 vaiVous parts of her Formularies with each other;— and, collaterallj', 
 III., by ascertaining the views of those by whom her Services 
 
 W^ERK reformed, AND HER ARTICLES SANCTIONED." 
 
 These ai'e the modes in wliich, Mr. Gorham says, the 
 words made use of are to be explained : 1st, by referring to 
 THE TiiiuTY-xixE ARTICLES : 2ndly, by comparing various 
 parts of the Formularies with each other ; and 3rdly, by 
 ascertainincf the views of those by whom her Services 
 were reformed, and her Articles sanctioned. 
 
 Now this gives rise to a very important question, w hich was 
 made the subject of able discussion in the com-se of theargu- 
 
 * The u-hole quotation, from tlie word ' contain,' is distinguished by 
 inverted commas, in tlio Book from wliioh the Judge was reading — namely, 
 the printed Examination liloJ in the Court
 
 ( 29 ) 
 
 ment ; namely, Whether the opinions and " views of those 
 by whom the Services were reformed and the Articles sanc- 
 tioned " can be taken to give a construction to words which, 
 by their import and by their general acceptation, bear a 
 different construction ? — Whether the opinion of the indivi- 
 dual Reformers can be taken in opposition to those plain and 
 precise declarations which are made in the Formularies? 
 This formed a great part of the discussion of the Case on 
 behalf of Mr. Gorham ; and a great deal of the learning 
 which was imported into the Case was for the purpose of 
 showing what were the opinions of the Reformers of the 
 Church, by which, as it was contended, the Formularies 
 must be construed. 
 
 I may here as well state what appears to me to have been 
 the conclusion which that learning was intended to support ; 
 namely, that the Reformers were Calvinists ; that they en- 
 tertained Calvinistic or Calvinian opinions, as they are some- 
 times called ; that, in so far as the Articles and Formularies 
 were framed by the same persons, they must be construed 
 with relation to Calvinistic principles, which were the prin- 
 ciples of the Reformers ; and that, being Calvinists, they 
 must be supposed to have governed themselves by such 
 opinions in forming the Ritual Services of the Church ; so 
 that, whatever may be the expressions made use of, they 
 must be taken in a Calvinistic sense, and not in the sense 
 which the plain signification to a common understanding 
 would import. Now this, I say, gives rise to a very serious 
 question, but to wh?ch at the present moment I shall not 
 direct my attention (having stated what I believe to have 
 been the meaning of Mr. Gorham's Counsel) — Whether one 
 mode of ascertainmg the con:>truction of the Formularies 
 of the Church, is, by " the views of those by whom 
 HER Services were reformed and her Articles sanc- 
 tioned." 
 
 Now Mr. Gorham went on under these three heads, or 
 divisions, at very great length to explain what were his views 
 with respect to the points contained in these three Questions ;
 
 ( 30 ) 
 
 viz. v., VI., Vn. : but it is not necessary for the Court to 
 follow him through his statements. The purpose for which 
 the Court principally adverts to them now, is, to see what the 
 Question was which the Bishop proposed to raise. The Coun- 
 sel understood him to confine the Question to Infant Bap- 
 tism, and not to extend it to that of the Baptism of Adults. 
 
 Looking, then, at the mode in which the opinion of the 
 Church is to be ascertained, no one, I think, can doul)t, that 
 it was rightly stated by the learned Counsel for Mr. Gorham, 
 that THE Thirty-nine Articles are those which are to be 
 first consulted. If there is nothing left t^hort ; if the Articles 
 are not silent on any particular point ; if the words made use 
 of are definite ; if there is doctrine dogmatically laid down 
 as the doctrine of the Church in these Articles ; — there can 
 be no occasion to search further. I think that what the 
 learned Advocate maintained was perfectly correct ; and it 
 is made out by a reference to Rogers, who was stated to be 
 Chaplain to Archbishop Bancroft. That learned author 
 says * — 
 
 " The purpose of our Church is best known by the doctrine which she 
 doth profess ; the doctrine by the Thirty-nine Articles established by 
 Act of Parliament ; the Articles by the words, whereby they are ex- 
 pressed ; and other purpose than the public doctrine doth minister ; and 
 other doctrine than in the said Articles is contained, our Church neither 
 hatri nor holdcth ; and other sense they cannot yield, than their words 
 do impart. The words be the same, and none other, than erst and 
 first they were. And therefore the sense the same ; the Articles the 
 same ; the doctrine the same ; and the purpose, and intention of our 
 Church still one, and the same." 
 
 Now no one can doubt of the propriety of these observa- 
 tions : — that the doctrine of the Church is best known by 
 her Thirty-nine Articles established by Act of Parliament ; 
 the Articles by the w^ords whereby they are expressed — to be 
 construed by the sense which the words made use of import. 
 
 To the same effbct are the passages cited by the learned 
 
 * Rogers on the Articles, Preface, paragraph numbered .^5 : edit, London, 
 4to., 1G29.
 
 ( 31 ) 
 
 Counsel from other Writers and Divines : from Bishop Hall* 
 and Archbishop Whitgift.f The latter says — 
 
 " Those points of doctrine which the Church of England at this day 
 doth hold and maintain ... be at large set out in sundry English books, 
 and especially in the ' Apology of the Church of England,' and the 
 ' Defence ' of the same ;" — 
 
 — alluding to Bishop Jewell's Apology for the Church of 
 England, and his own Defence of the Apology — 
 
 " summarily also collected together in the ' Book of Articles agreed 
 upon in the Convocation at London, anno 1562.' " 
 
 To the same effect were quotations from Bishops Pri- 
 deaux X and Stillingfleet.§ The latter observes — 
 
 "This we all say, That the doctrine of the Church of England is 
 contained therein [i. e. in the Thirty-nine Articles] ; and whatever the 
 opinions of private persons may be, this is the Standard by which the 
 sense of our Church is to be taken." 
 
 There are other passages quoted from different Writers 
 by the learned Counsel ; but they all go to the same effect : 
 prima facie, the Thirty-nine Articles are the Standard of doc- 
 trine. They were framed for the express purpose of "avoiding 
 of diversities of opinions ;" they certainly are, in the first 
 instance, the dogmatical teaching of the Church, and, as 
 such, are to be considered and appealed to in order to as- 
 certain the doctrine of the Church. But, if they fall short 
 of that, and are silent on any particular point, — to what, 
 then, are we to resort ? Are we to resort to the opinions 
 of those by whom the Articles may have been framed and 
 the Formularies compiled ? or are we to appeal to other 
 declarations of the Church ? We have it, I think, most 
 clearly and distinctly stated by high authority, that of Bishop 
 
 * Bp. Hall's Olde Religion, Epistle Dedicat., p. \-2, edit. Ifi.SO. 
 
 t Abp. Whitgift's Defence of The Answer to the Admonition, pp. 179, 
 .523, 621, 738, edit. 1.'374. 
 
 I lip. Prideaux's Fasciculus Controv. Theol., p. fi, edit. 1649. 
 
 § Bp. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation, Part II. Sec. i., 
 p. 513, edit. 1709.
 
 ( 32 ) 
 
 Burnet, in his ' Pastoml Care,'* (quoted by the Counsel for 
 the Bishop of Plxeter,) that — 
 
 " The truest indication of" the sense of" a Church is to be taken from 
 her language in her public offices : This is that which she speaks tfie 
 most frequently and the most i)ublicly ; even the Articles of doctrine 
 are not so much read, or so often heard of, as her Liturgies are ; and as 
 this way of reasoning has of late been made use of with great advan- 
 tage against the Church of' Home, to make her accountable for all her 
 public offices in their plain and literal meaning, so I will make use of it 
 on this occasion. It is stronger in our case, whose offices being in a 
 tongue understood by the people, the argument from them does more 
 evidently conclude her." 
 
 Plere Bishop Burnet states that the doctrines of the Church 
 are best understood by her Formularies, adapted for the 
 particular occasions to which they apply. 
 
 The same observations are made by Dr. Waterland, 
 whose authority has never been called in question — whose 
 learning, whose ability, and whose piety have never been 
 doubted — he speaks in these words : — 
 
 " The Church's public acts are open and common, and he is the 
 best Church of England man that best understands the principles there 
 laid down, and argues closest from them. The rest are but assertions, 
 fancies, or practices of private men, and are not binding on us." 
 
 To the same effect writes Bishop Conybeare, in his Trea- 
 tise f on Subscription to the Articles, as to the mode in which 
 ambiguities of language are to be solved : — 
 
 " If words singly and separately taken are loose and indeterminate, 
 yet their sense may be fixed by the circumstances of the Article in which 
 they are found, and expressions of themselves doubtful may become 
 certain by considering thoir coherence with other parts of the proposi- 
 tion ; * * * * But if expressions should occur which cannot be determined 
 by passages in other Articles, then will it be proper to inquire whether 
 they may be fixed by our public Liturgy, or by any other monuments 
 which have the sanction of ecclesiastical authority. The propositions 
 set forth, in any of our Articles ought to be understood in such a sense 
 as is consistent with every other determination of the Church ; because 
 the Church cannot be supposed to intend one thing in some of her 
 
 * Bishop Burnet's Pastoral Care, p. 104, edit. 1G92. 
 t Bishop Conybeare's Encliiridion Thcologicuni, vol. ii., pp. C8, 09, and 
 71, edit. 1825.
 
 ( 33 ) 
 
 public acts, and the direct contrary in others: to which we may add, 
 that those who subscribe the Articles of Religion are obliged to admit 
 those other determinations also, and consequently must subscribe them 
 in such a sense as will make them agree and be consistent with each 
 other. * * * * Where the meaning of the Articles is already fixed by 
 some public act of the Church, there no liberty can be allowed of 
 altering the sense of it, and of adjusting it to our own interpretations 
 of Scripture. * * * * He who subscribes one Article equally subscribes 
 the rest, and what is more, equally professes submission to every other 
 determination of the Church." 
 
 These are authorities which I think ( — not only by the 
 weight due to the opinions of such men as those to whom 
 I have referred, but even by common sense, by the soundest 
 sense — ) are completely borne out as setting forth the true 
 criteria by which doubtful expressions in the Articles are to 
 be construed ; and by which we must be guided when the 
 Articles are silent on any particular subject. 
 
 The same doctrine was held by Lord Brougham in de- 
 livering the opinion of the Judicial Committee, in the Case 
 of Escott V. Mastin, where the opinions of learned writers, 
 of Bishops and Archbishops, as in this Case, were cited : — 
 namely, that they are not to govern the declarations of the 
 Church. The Case to which the Court refers was on the 
 validity of lay Baptism, and is reported in the 4th volume 
 of Moore's Reports of the Proceedings before the Judicial 
 Committee, pages 103 and 104. I have the book here, but 
 it is hardly worth referring to it further. There is a legal 
 decision that the Rubrics are those authorities by which the 
 law is to be applied ; and the private opinions of individuals 
 (however eminent for their piety, for their learning, and for 
 other qualities) are not to be considered, but simply the 
 public acts and declarations of the Church. 
 
 Now then, under these circumstances, the Question is — 
 Is there anything doubtful upon this doctrine of the uncon- 
 ditional Regeneration of Infants in Baptism ? The Articles, 
 I think, which were particularly referred to, were the 
 XXVth, and the XXVIth, which relate to the Sacraments 
 generally, the XXVIIth, which relates to Baptism, and the 
 XXVIIIth, which relates to the Lord's Supper. 
 
 D
 
 ( 34 ) 
 
 The XXVth Article is to this effect :— 
 
 " XXV. Of the Sacramknts. — Sacraments ordained of Christ be 
 not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they 
 be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of gi-ace, and God's good- 
 will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and 
 doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in 
 him. 
 
 " There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the 
 Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord." 
 
 I do not go into the question as to the other five Sacra- 
 ments of the Romish Church, because it is not necessary for 
 the present purpose ; but it is added : — 
 
 " The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or 
 to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such 
 only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect or ope- 
 ration : but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves 
 damnation, as Saint Paul saith." 
 
 Now something was suggested, by the learned Counsel 
 for the Bishop, that this simply applied to the Sacrament of 
 the Lord's Supper ; but it seems to me to be perfectly im- 
 material to consider this question. I will take it as applying 
 to both equally ; because the worthy reception, — whatever 
 that worthy reception may be, — is, in my opinion, according 
 to the doctrine of the Church, equally necessary to Baptism, 
 as it is to the Supper of the Lord ; and those persons who 
 receive Baptism unworthily, do not receive it with any bene- 
 ficial efl\3ct, or saving grace ; but they " purchase to them- 
 selves damnation, as St. Paul saith." But here the Article 
 leaves it doubtful what worthy reception is. Faith and Re- 
 pentance, says Mr. Gorham, are necessary, are pre-requisites 
 to the Sacrament of Baptism, as well as to the Lord's 
 Supper. But where does Mr. Gorham find that? He 
 does not find it laid down, in this Article, what is to 
 constitute worthy reception. That is to be sought for else- 
 where. 
 
 Aaain : when he comes to the XXVIIth Article " of 
 Ba])tisni," how is that to be construed in connexion with 
 the XXVth " of the Sacraments?"
 
 ( 35 ) 
 
 " XXVII. Of Baptism. — Baptism is not only a sign of profession, 
 and mark of difterence, whereby Christian men are discerned from 
 others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or 
 new Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism 
 rightly are grafted into the Church ; the promises of forgiveness of sin, 
 and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are 
 visibly signed and sealed ; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by 
 virtue of prayer unto God." 
 
 In this Article, therefore, is described, What is Baptism ; 
 
 and, What are the effects of Baptism. But it goes on to 
 
 state : — 
 
 " The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in 
 the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ." 
 
 Now the first difficulty that suggests itself to one's mind 
 is : if Faith is to be confirmed and Grace increased by 
 virtue of prayer unto God, how is it that young Children 
 are to be baptized ? They can neither have Faith nor 
 Repentance. They cannot have Faith, because they know 
 not the promises which are made in their name ; they cannot 
 have Repentance, because they have not committed actual 
 sin. They may have Faith and Repentance in after life ; 
 but thus early, at the outset, in infancy. Children can have 
 neither Faith nor Repentance : one they cannot have, for the 
 want of understanding ; the other they cannot have, and are 
 not required to have, because they have not been guilty of 
 actual sin. 
 
 I say, comparing these two Articles, there is a doubt 
 raised ; a doubt which is to be solved by reference to some 
 other authority. And what is that authority to be ? Is it 
 to be the authority of private individuals ? I apprehend 
 what I have stated already is quite sufficient to dispose of 
 that question : namely, that .the acts of the Church, the de- 
 clarations of the Church are those which are to be con- 
 sidered as explaining and showing what is meant by 
 " worthy reception ;" what is meant by " Regeneration ;" 
 and what is also meant by the direction given that " The 
 Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in 
 the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ." 
 
 u -2
 
 ( 36 ) 
 
 We must find some means by which Children are to be 
 brought within the description of those who are to be rege- 
 nerated ; to be, " as by an instrument, grafted into the 
 Church ;" and to become persons to whom " the promises of 
 forgiveness of sins," and of their " adoption to be the sons 
 of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed." 
 In some way or other they must be brought within this de- 
 scription. 
 
 Now Mr. Gorham suggests that Children, being " born 
 in sin," cannot, as such, be worthy recipients. For it is 
 contended by Mr. Gorham, and it is insisted upon by his 
 Counsel, that *' worthy reception " is necessary in order to 
 produce beneficial efi^ects from the administration of the rite 
 of Baptism; — that Children being "born in sin," cannot, 
 unconditionally, receive the Sacrament of Baptism with be- 
 neficial effects ; — and he answers — when the XlXth Ques- 
 tion is addressed to him by the Bishop, as to what our 
 Church holds with respect to the regeneration of baptized 
 infants, independently of stipulations — that, "if they die 
 before they commit actual sin, they are undoubtedly saved." 
 But there had been two previous Questions, (the XV'th 
 and the XVIIIth,) which I ought first to notice, on the same 
 point. 
 vThe first of these two Questions was : — 
 
 " Question XV. — Does our Church hold, and do you hold, that the 
 entering of Infants into these stipulations, by their representatives, is 
 necessarj' to their receiving the spiritual grace of Baptism V" 
 
 The Bishop pressed him upon this point, because there 
 had been former Answers given, in which Mr. Gorham 
 had held, that Infants are required by the Church to enter 
 into stipulations for Repentance and Faith, by their repre- 
 sentatives, before the Church will admit them to Baptism. 
 — Now his Answer to this XVth Question is : — 
 
 "Answer 15. — Our Church holds, and I hold, that no spiritual 
 grace is conveyed in Baptism, except to worthy recipients; and as 
 Infants are by nal ure imworthy recipients, 'being born in sin, and the 
 childien of wrath,' they cannot receive any benefit from Baptism, except 
 there shall have been a i)revenient act of grace to make them worthy."
 
 ( 37 ) 
 
 That is the suggestion, that is the hypothesis of Mr. 
 Gorham, to which his Counsel say he is driven by the mode 
 in which the Question is pressed by the Bishop ; — that, in 
 order to bring Children within the description of " worthy 
 recipients," there must be "a prevenient act of grace." 
 He says further, in this 15th Answer, — 
 
 " Baptism is the sign or seal, either of the grace ah-eady given, or of 
 the Repentance and Faith, which are stipulated, and must be hereafter 
 exercised." 
 
 So that Mr. Gorham does not admit that it is by Bap- 
 tism, or through Baptism, that this grace is conferred ; but 
 he holds that there must be " a prevenient act of grace :" — 
 the grace may be conferred, either before, or at, or after 
 Baptism ; but there must be, to render Infants worthy re- 
 cipients, a prevenient act of grace, or Baptism is not adminis- 
 tered with beneficial effect. 
 
 Then the XVIIIth Question comes to the point : — 
 
 " Question XVIII. — Has the Church not declared her mind, that 
 Infants baptized by a lawful Minister, in the name of the Father, and 
 of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, do receive the spiritual grace of 
 Baptism ; even if they have not entered into the stipulations by their 
 representatives ?" 
 
 The Answer is : — 
 
 "Answer 18. — The Church has declared that, to Infants privately 
 baptized, the grace and mercy of Christ is not denied ; — in this case 
 of emergency, I consider, that stipulations, though not formally made 
 by sponsors, are made by implication through those who earnestly 
 desire their Baptism, and by the person who administers it ; which 
 implied stipulations the Church requires to be formally adopted as soon 
 as the circumstances will suffer it. This case of ' present exigence ' 
 cannot, therefore, be fairly urged as an exception to the requirements of 
 the Church." 
 
 And then he goes on to state the ground on which he feels 
 compelled to give that Answer to the Bishop's XVIIIth 
 Question : — 
 
 "In the Catechism, the Church puts the Question, 'Why, then, 
 * are Infants baptized, when by reason of their tender age, they cannot 
 ' perform them ' (the 'promises' made by their sureties)? — without 
 limitation to Infants baptized under any particular circumstances. It is 
 a Question stating a difficulty in its broadest and most general character.
 
 ( 38 ) 
 
 "Now the Answer which the Church gives, brings us, of necessity, 
 to one of three conclusions : — 
 
 " Either, 1st, the Church intended unworthily to evade the principal 
 difficulty; namely, the case of Infants baptized in emergency, without 
 the formal stifjulations, the exaction of which is declared, in the 
 Answer, to solve the difficulty proposed. 
 
 " Or, 2n(Uy, she intended to impose a charitable silence on her 
 members, with regard to so nice and curious a j)oint, shutting up all 
 further search in the promises of God, as generally set forth in Holy 
 Scrij)ture. 
 
 " Or, 3rdly, she intended to embrace that case, in her general 
 Answer, and to consider that the stipulations were implied, under these 
 urgent circumstances (to be hereafter absolutely entered into if more 
 favourable circumstances permitted), though they were not formally 
 given, 
 
 " The 1st of these suppositions, of course, I dismiss peremptorily. 
 
 "The 2nd hypothesis would put an end to all further inquiry into 
 the subject. 
 
 " The 3rd conclusion, therefore, which I adopt, is the only solution 
 which is possible, if I am required to declare my view of the meaning 
 of the Church." 
 
 Then the Bishop follows up that Question by another, 
 the XlXth, to which I have already adverted : — 
 
 "Does the Church hold, and do you hold, that Infants, so baptized, 
 are regenerated, independently of the stipulations made by their repre- 
 sentatives, or by any others for them ?" 
 
 Mr, Gorham says : — 
 
 "Answer 19. — If such Intiints die before they commit 'actual sin,' 
 the Church holds, and I hold, that they arc ' undoubtedly saved ;' — " 
 
 Here is a direct and positive Answer to the Question, Then 
 
 Mr. Gorham proceeds to say : — 
 
 —"and therefore they must have been regenerated" — 
 
 The Question is, Whether Infants are regenerated in Bap- 
 tism or not ? He does tiot state " they must have been 
 regenerated " in Baptism ; but " they must have been 
 regenerated," — 
 
 — "by an act of grace prevcnicnt to their Baptism, in order to make 
 them worthy recipients of that Sacrament. This case is ruled by the 
 Church." 
 
 The concluding words seem to apply to the latter part of the 
 sentence ; but Mr. Gorham explains his meaning in a note :
 
 ( 39 ) 
 
 " I mean, — it is rulocl that they were actually regenerated, and that 
 they are ' undoubtedly saved.' " 
 
 Then he continues — and this is another point raised — 
 
 " But, if the Infant lives to a period in which it can commit 'actual 
 sin,' the declaration of regeneration must be construed according to the 
 hypothetical principle which I have stated in my Replies 5, 6, 7, to 
 Questions V., VI., VII. 
 
 "That part of the Question which relates to sponsorship, in these 
 cases, I have replied to in the Answer to Question XVIII., so far as 
 the mind of the Church can be ascertained.'' 
 
 Here then is the answer which Mr. Gorham gives to this 
 Question, He admits, for he cannot deny it in the face of 
 the declaration of the Church, that baptized Infants, who die 
 before they commit "actual sin," are " undoubtedly saved :" 
 therefore it must be on the ground (otherwise they could not 
 be saved) that they are " worthy recipients " of the Sacra- 
 ment ; since the Sacrament cannot produce a beneficial 
 effect to unworthy persons. He resorts, however, to the 
 hypothesis of " a prevenient act of grace." That there may 
 be " prevenient grace " is not for me to deny. There may 
 be grace imparted at the reception of Baptism, at the very 
 identical moment the rite is administered ; or there may be 
 no grace imparted at that time, but it may be accorded 
 hereafter. Both these are suppositions to which Mr. 
 Gorham resorts, and which the Court is not bound in any 
 manner to deny. There may be a " prevenient act," or 
 there may be an act concurrent with the rite, or there may 
 be an act subsequent to it ; l)ut Mr. Gorhani's position is, 
 that it is not by Baptism, or not through Baptism, that 
 grace is conferred. 
 
 Then we must look a little to see the authorities on which 
 the Court is to rely for this-doctrine. 
 
 The learned Counsel, on both sides, entered into a par- 
 ticular examination of the doctrine of the Church with respect 
 to THE Formularies. 
 
 The first Formulary to which attention must naturally be 
 directed, is, undoubtedly, the Office for "The Ministra-
 
 ( 40 ) 
 
 TioN OF Public Baptism of Infants." Mr, Gorham's 
 position with respect to that Office is, that the language 
 with regard to the Sacrament of Baptism is to be con- 
 sidered as hijjwthetical — conditional upon the fulfilment of 
 certain promises which are to be made for Children in 
 Baptism by their Godfathers and Godmothers — that it is 
 language which requires a ^^just a7id favour able construction" 
 namely, that of charitable hope on the part of the Church, 
 
 Now, in entering upon this inquiry, the first thing that 
 suggests itself to the mind is, the Exhortation which is given 
 to the parents of the Child to be baptized ; which assumes the 
 great importance attached to this Sacrament and to the early 
 administration of it. The Church maintains that it is 
 necessary — at all events it is highly important — that it should 
 be administered at the earliest time. The Church directs, 
 in the Rubric prefixed to this Ofiice, that 
 
 "The people are to be admonished, that it is most convenient that 
 Baptism should not be administered but upon Sundays, and other Holy- 
 days, when the most number of people come together ; as well for that 
 the Congregation there present may testify the receiving of them that 
 be newly baptized into the number of Christ's Church ; as also because 
 in the Baptism of Infants every man present may be put in remembrance 
 of his own profession made to God in his Baptism. For which cause 
 also it is expedient that Baptism be ministered in the vulgar tongue." 
 
 It ^hen goes on to order, — 
 
 " That there shall be for every Male Child to be baptized two God- 
 fathers and one Godmother ; and for every Female, one Godfather and 
 two Godmothers." 
 
 Then notice is to be given when they are to be baptized : — 
 
 " And then the Godfathers and Godmothers, and the people with 
 the Children, must be ready at the Font, either immediately after the 
 last Lesson at Morning Prayer, or else immediately after the last Lesson 
 at Evening Prayer." 
 
 (The people are to be admonished, by the Rubric prefixed 
 to the Office for "the Ministration of Private Baptism," 
 not to defer the Baptism of their Children except for 
 a short time after their bii-th. This shows, therefore, the 
 necessity of the administration of the rite at as early a pe-
 
 ( 4\ ) 
 
 riod as may be.) Then in " the Office for the Ministration 
 of Public Baptism," tlie minister formally proceeds to put 
 the question whether the Child has been already baptized 
 or not. Then there is an Exhortation to those who are 
 assembled for the purpose of celebrating Baptism to this 
 effect : — 
 
 " Dearly beloved, forasmuch as all men are conceived and born in 
 sin ; and that our Saviour Christ sailh, None can enter into the kingdom 
 of God, except he be regenerate and born anew of Water and of the 
 Holy Ghost ; I beseech you to call upon God the Father, through our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, that of his bounteous mercy he will grant to this 
 Child that thing which by nature he cannot have ; that he may be bap- 
 tized with Water and the Holy Ghost, and received into Christ's Holy 
 Church, and be made a lively member of the same." 
 
 This is the Exhortation and the Instruction to the con- 
 gregation assembled for what they shall pray. The CMld 
 is born in sin ; he must be released from that sin before he 
 can be received into Christ's Holy Church ; and the mode 
 of delivery from that sin is to pray God " that he may be 
 baptized with Water and the Holy Ghost" (not simply with 
 Water, but with Water and the Holy Ghost) ; " and re- 
 ceived into Christ's Holy Church, and be made a hvely 
 member of the same." Now then follows the prayer upon 
 this Exhortation ; and that prayer is — 
 
 " Almighty and everlasting God, who of thy great mercy didst save 
 Noah and his family in the ark from perishing by water ; and also didst 
 safely lead the children of Israel thy people through the Red Sea, 
 figuring thereby thy holy Baptism ; and by the Baptism of thy well- 
 beloved Son Jesus Christ, in the river Jordan, didst sanctify Water to 
 the mystical washing away of sin ; We beseech thee, lor thine infinite 
 mercies, that thou wilt mercifully look upon this Child ; wash him and 
 sanctify him with the Holy Ghost ; that he, being delivered from thy 
 wrath, may be received into the ark of Christ's Church; and being 
 stedfast in faith, joyful through Hope, and rooted in charity, may so pass 
 the waves of this troublesome world, that finally he may come to the 
 land of everlasting life, there to reign with thee world without end ; 
 through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen." 
 
 That is the first prayer which is made for the Child ; then 
 follows the next : — 
 
 " Almighty and immortal God, the aid of all that need, the helper
 
 ( 42 ) 
 
 of all that f\co to thee for succour, the life of them that believe, and the 
 resurrection of the dead ; We call upon thee for this Infant, that he, 
 coming to thy holy Baptism," — 
 
 may do what ? — 
 
 — " may receive remission of his sins by Spiritual Regeneration." 
 
 That Is, — not mere Baptism, — not Sacramental Regenera- 
 tion ; — but that he may receive " the remission of his sins by 
 Spiritual Regeneration." 
 
 " Receive him, O Lord, as thou hast promised by thy well-beloved 
 Son, saying, Ask, and ye shall have ; seek, and ye shall find; knock, 
 and it shall be opened unto you : So give now unto us that ask ; let us 
 that seek find ; open the gate unto us that knock ; that this Infant may 
 enjoy the everlasting benediction of thy heavenly washing, and may 
 come to the eternal kingdom which thou hast promised by Christ our 
 Lord. Amen.." 
 
 The thing they pray for is " Spirihial Regeneration," not 
 Regeneration simplij, but " Spiritual Regeneration." 
 
 The Collect and Gospel are well known. Then the next 
 thing stated is the good will which our Saviour has towards 
 Children, as evinced by laying his hands on them. The 
 minister says : — 
 
 " Doubt ye not therefore, but earnestly believe, that he will like- 
 wise favourably receive this present Infant ; that he will embrace him 
 with the arms of his mercy ; that he will give unto him the blessing of 
 eteitaal life, and make him partaker of his everlasting kingdom. Where- 
 fore we being thus persuaded of the good will of our heavenly Father 
 towards this Infant, declared by his Son Jesus Christ ; and nothing 
 doubting but that he favourably alloweth this charitable work of ours in 
 bringing this Infant to his holy Baptism ; let us faithfully and devoutly 
 give thanks unto him, and say. Almighty and everlasting God, hea- 
 venly Father, we give thee humble thanks, for that thou hast vouchsafed 
 to call us to the knowledge of thy grace, and faith in thee : Increase this 
 knowledge, and confirm this faith in us evermore. Give thy Holy Spirit 
 to this Infant, that he may be born again, and made an heir of ever- 
 lasting salvation ; through our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and 
 reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, now and for ever. Amen." 
 
 Now this is addressed to the congregation ; thanking God 
 for having called them to " the knowledge of his grace and 
 faith ;" praying for an increase and confirmation of those
 
 ( 43 ) 
 
 blessings ; and that the Holy Spirit may be given to the 
 Infant, " that he may be born again and made an heir of 
 everlasting salvation." 
 
 Then comes the Exhortation addressed to the Godfathers 
 and Godmothers as to what they have already prayed for ; 
 and, after referring to the promise of Christ, it says — 
 
 " Wherefore, after this promise made by Christ, this Infant must 
 also faithfully, for his part, promise by you that are his sureties, (until 
 he come of age to take it upon himself,) that he will renounce the devil 
 and all his works, and constantly believe God's holy Word, and obe- 
 diently keep his commandments." 
 
 Then questions are addressed to the Godfathers and God- 
 mothers in the name of the Child, and the Answers of the 
 Godfathers and Godmothers are received. Then comes the 
 prayer : — • 
 
 " O merciful God, grant that the old Adam in this Child may be so 
 buried, that the new man may be raised up in him. Amen." 
 
 This is all that is important, except the prayer for the 
 sanctification of the Water, which is in these words : — 
 
 "Almighty, ever-living God, whose most dearly beloved Son Jesus 
 Christ, for the forgiveness of our sins, didst shed out of his most pre- 
 cious side both water and blood ; and gave commandment to his dis- 
 ciples, that they should go teach all nations, and baptize them in the 
 name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ; Regard, we beseech 
 thee, the supplications of thy congregation ; sanctify this Water to the 
 mystical washing away of sin ;" — 
 
 — The Court had its attention particularly directed to the 
 word " mystical.,'^ as explaining what was previously prayed 
 for : that it was not an actual washing away of sin, but a 
 '"'' mystical^'' or, as it was afterwards expressed, a Sacra- 
 mental washing away of sin.; that the purifying of the Child 
 was sacramentally and not spiritually. I do not, I confess, 
 exactly feel the force of this reasoning : some mystery, 
 something beyond that which exactly meets the eye, is to be 
 the '•'■ mysticaV^ washing away of sin through the sanctifica- 
 tion of the Water — 
 — "and grant that this Child, now to be baptized therein, may receive
 
 ( 44 ) 
 
 the fulness of thy grace, and ever remain in the number of thy faithful 
 and elect children ; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen." 
 
 This all passes before the Child is baptized. Here the 
 Exhortation is to the congregation to pray for the Child 
 that it may be regenerated by the Holy Spirit ; here all 
 these things are prayed for, before the administration of the 
 Sacrament ; and after the Sacrament is administered, when 
 the Child is baptized in the name of the Father, and the 
 Son, and the Holy Ghost, we find what the Church puts 
 into the mouth of the minister who administered the Sacra- 
 ment. The Child is received into the congregation with the 
 sign of the cross, and then the minister addresses the con- 
 gregation in this way : — 
 
 " Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this Child is regenerate, 
 and grafted into the body of Christ's Church," — 
 
 — the act having been just done, he now proceeds to thank 
 God that this Child " is regenerate," and " is grafted into 
 the body of Christ's Church — " 
 
 — " let us give thanks unto Almighty God for these benefits ; and with 
 one accord make our prayers unto him, that this Child may lead the rest 
 of his life according to this beginning." 
 
 Then the Lord's Prayer is said ; after which there follows 
 thii^ — 
 
 " We yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath 
 pleased thee to regenerate this Infant with thy Holy Spirit," — 
 
 — "That it hath pleased thee" to do so. We have prayed that 
 thou icouldst regenerate him with thy Holy Spirit, and we 
 now return thanks that thou hast been pleased to regenerate 
 him with thy Holy Spirit ; that thou hast granted that thing 
 we prayed for — 
 
 — " to receive him for thine own Child by adoption, and to incorporate 
 him into thy holy Church." 
 
 We have prayed that this might take place ; we prayed that 
 he might be " regenerated by the Holy Spirit ;" might be
 
 ( 45 ) 
 
 received by incorporation into the Holy Church ; and now 
 we thank God that he has been so received. 
 
 " And humbly we beseech thee to grant, that he, being dead unto 
 sin, and living unto righteousness, and being buried with Christ in his 
 death, may crucify the old man, and utterly abolish the whole body of 
 sin ; and that, as he is made partaker of the death of thy Son, he may 
 also be partaker of his resun-ection ; so that finally, with the residue of 
 thy holy Church, he may be an inheritor of thine everlasting kingdom ; 
 through Christ our Lord. Amen." 
 
 Now it is said all this is upon the hypothesis that the 
 Child loill do all that is promised for him by his Sponsors ; 
 that he loill renounce the world, the flesh, and the devil ; 
 and so forth. But I confess it does not appear to me that 
 that is the true construction of this language. The true 
 construction, as it appears to me, is this — the positive de- 
 claration that it is so. It is the Child we are speaking of 
 now, confining ourselves to the Baptism of Infants, and not 
 referring to Adults ; because it is admitted on all hands — 
 the Bishop admits. Counsel admit, we must all admit — that 
 in the case of Adults the declarations are all on tJie hyyo- 
 thesis that Adults are sincere in their profession of Faith 
 and Repentance, that they do intend to perform all they 
 have promised to perform, and that they will eventually 
 do that which by themselves they have engaged to dis- 
 charge. But the declaration in this Public Baptism of 
 Infants is clear, precise, and distinct ; there is a positive 
 prayer for "Regeneration by the Holy Spirit," and an 
 absolute declaration by the Church that the Child " is 
 regenerate," and thanks are returned to God for that 
 blessing. 
 
 Then instructions are given to the Godfathers and God- 
 mothers as to their duty : — 
 
 " Ye are to take care that this Child be brought to the Bishop to be 
 confirmed by him, so soon as he can say the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, 
 and the Ten Conmiandments, in the vulgar tongue, and be further 
 instructed in the Church Catechism set forth for that purpose." 
 
 But it is suggested that all this is upon the supposition
 
 ( 46 ) 
 
 that the child toill hereafter perform all that his Godfathers 
 and Godmothers have promised for him. It is argued that 
 the reason our Church gives for admitting Children to Bap- 
 tism is this; namely, — that, although Infants cannot have 
 Faith and Repentance, although they cannot perform those 
 requisites for Baptism, yet they are baptized on the presump- 
 tion that they loill perform them in after life ; when they 
 come to years of discretion ; when they arc of capacity to 
 understand what has been promised for them — when they 
 can comprehend the blessing of forgiveness of sin through 
 Jesus Christ, and the principles of religion in the Church 
 into which they have been grafted. 
 
 It was contended that, in " the Ministration of Pri- 
 vate Baptism of Children," being only in cases of 
 " exigence," (though the omission of Godfathers and God- 
 mothers takes place,) there is ^^ implied" a promise on the 
 behalf of those baptized. Such being cases of emergency, 
 it was said that nothing with respect to the efficacy of 
 Baptism, without stipulations, can fairly be drawn from 
 that Formulary. 
 
 Now I confess I differ in opinion from the learned Coun- 
 sel. If it be a case of exigence, is it not a case in which 
 the Church intended to declare that the Child so baptized 
 wa^ entitled to all the benefits to which an infant baptized 
 in full health, and with the performance of the full service, 
 would be entitled ? Otherwise, why should the Church 
 direct this, namely, that "as many collects as the time and 
 present exigence will suffer " are to be made use of ? If 
 the Child is baptized ,in the name of the Father, and of the 
 Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; if thanks are given to God 
 that " it hath pleased him to regenerate the Infant by his 
 Holy Spirit, to receive him for his own Child by adoption, 
 and to incorporate him into his holy Church ;" then hei'e is 
 the full effect of Baptism given to the Infant Child so bap- 
 tized, without the usually attendant promises of Godfathers 
 and Godmothers. Here is the Baptism complete in itself.
 
 ( 47 ) 
 
 Here is the same declaration made of the effect of Baptism 
 as in the case of Public Baptism ; and though it may not 
 have been absolutely prayed for, yet here is the effect given 
 to it. It was the intention of the Church that the Child 
 should receive the same benefit as if the full service had 
 been performed, otherwise the Church would not have gone 
 on to declare — 
 
 " And let them not doubt, but that the Child so baptized is lawfully 
 and sufficiently baptized, and ought not to be baptized again." 
 
 The whole administration of the Sacrament is complete 
 when the Child is baptized with Water " in the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." I think 
 there is something in the observation made by the Counsel 
 for the Bishop of Exeter here : — " If this were not so, 
 surely the Child ought to be baptized again, because it cannot 
 otherwise receive these benefits." Suppose the Child should 
 recover from the illness under which Baptism is privately 
 administered, and this were held not to be a suflScient Bap- 
 tism : the Child ought to be baptized again. What is done 
 afterwards has nothing to do with the Baptism ; the Bap- 
 tismal rite is completed when the Child is baptized " In the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost ;" the Child is sufficiently baptized, and must not be 
 baptized again. 
 
 But it is said that the Church puts public Baptism and 
 private Baptism on the same footing ; for it is required that 
 the Child should be brought into the Church (if it should 
 live) for certain purposes. The direction of the Rubric 
 is : — 
 
 " Yet nevertheless, if the Child, which is after this sort baptized, do 
 afterwards live, it is expedient that it be brought into the Church, to 
 the intent that, if the Minister of the same Parish did himself baptize 
 that Child, the Congregation may be certified of the true Form of 
 Baptism by him privately before used." 
 
 It sets out the form : — 
 
 " I certify you, that according to the due and prescribed Oi-der of
 
 ( 48 ) 
 
 the Church, at such a time, and at such a place, before divers witnesses 
 I baptized this Child." 
 
 But if the Child was baptized by any other lawful minis- 
 ter, certain questions are to be addressed to those present, 
 in order to ascertain that the due form and order of the 
 Church has been followed in the Baptism : — 
 
 " By whom was this Child baptized ? 
 
 " Who was present when this Child was baptized ? 
 
 " Because some things essential to this Sacrament may happen to be 
 omitted through fear or haste, in such times of extremity ; therefore I 
 demand further of you — 
 
 " With what matter was this Child baptized ? 
 
 " With what words was this Child baptized ?" 
 
 Therefore the Matter, and the AYords, are the essential 
 parts of the Baptism : consequently, the Rubric directs : — 
 
 " If the Minister shall find by the answers of such as bring the 
 Child, that all things were done as they ought to be ; then shall he not 
 cliristen the Child again." 
 
 Then the Minister is to certify, — (and this is not the 
 certificate of the Minister, but the certificate of the Church 
 founded upon the Answers given as to what has been done,) — 
 
 " I certify you, that in this case all is well done, and according unto 
 due order, concerning the baptizing of this Child ; who being born in 
 original sin, and in the wrath of God, is now, by the laver of Regenera- 
 tion^ in Baptism, received into the number of the children of God, and 
 heirs of everlasting life :" — 
 
 — Here is a declaration, positive and precise : there are no 
 Sponsors, no promises — (though Mr. Gorham says stipu- 
 lations are implied) — but here is a declaration that this 
 Child so baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son 
 and of the Holy Ghost, with Water, " is now, by the laver 
 of Regeneration in Baptism, received into the number of 
 the Children of God, and heirs of everlasting life :" — 
 
 — " for our Lord Jesus Christ doth not deny his grace and mercy 
 unto such Infants." 
 
 I say, the form of private Baptism shows that what is re- 
 quired in the other is a matter of order, of decency, of sub-
 
 ( 49 ) 
 
 mission to the will of God, and of earnest prayer to obtain 
 for the Infant that which is sought ; but it is not an essen- 
 tial part of Baptism ; for this Rubric states that the Water 
 and the Words are the essential, and only essential, parts. 
 \\Tiat room is there for stating that this is merely condi- 
 tional ; and that the Office of public Baptism of Infants is 
 also conditional, and founded upon an hypothesis ? True it 
 is, if the Child should fall into sin, should live so as to 
 " commit actual sin," so as to be capable of understanding 
 the promises of God, so as to be able to repent, and to 
 require repentance ; then that Child may pass from the 
 benefits given in Baptism, and, having been washed from 
 those sins which naturally belong to him, he may fall into 
 other sins. He may, under these circumstances, and ne- 
 cessarily must, require Faith and Repentance in order — not 
 to regenerate him, for that has already been done, accord- 
 ing to the declaration of the Church, in Baptism, but — that 
 he may be renewed and brought back into that state in 
 which he was placed by the Sacrament of Baptism, and 
 from which he has departed. 
 
 But, to put this beyond all doubt, we have a positive de- 
 claration on the part of the Church, and not a mere hypo- 
 thesis or charitable hope only : — there is this express 
 Rubric : — 
 
 " It is certain by God's Word, that Children which are baptized, 
 dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved." 
 
 It is not a merely suppositive declaration of the Church, 
 According to her interpretation of Scripture, the Church 
 declares, "It is certain by God's Word, that Children which 
 are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are 
 undoubtedly saved ;" and Mr. Gorham himself admits* 
 that the Church has ruled that Children are regenerated, 
 and are undoubtedly saved, who have been baptized, and 
 die before they commit actual sin. I cannot understand how 
 anything like a charitable hope can be engrafted on such a 
 
 * Examination, &c., p. 85, nole.
 
 ( 50 ) 
 
 passage ; because the Church places it on God's Word. 
 I cannot understand upon any principle how this is to be 
 understood as a merely charitable hope : because the suppo- 
 sition is, that the Child dies without committing " actual 
 sin ;" and the declaration in Baptism is, that the Child 
 " is regenerated by the Holy Spirit," that he is " the Child 
 of God," that he is " engrafted into the Cliurch ;" and how 
 it is possible to suppose this to be hypothetical, a merely 
 charitable hope on the part of the Church, is, I confess, ex- 
 tremely difficult to conceive : it is a positive declaration of 
 what the Church believes as being the sense of the Holy 
 Scriptures. 
 
 But there is another Service ; the Office for " the Minis- 
 tration OF Baptism to such as are of riper years, 
 
 AND able to answer FOR THEMSELVES." This, it is 
 
 argued, is constructed precisely on the .same footing as that 
 for Infants, and yet must of necessity be understood hypo- 
 thetically and conditionally. 
 
 This Formulary was not a part of the original Offices for 
 Baptism ; but it became necessary, at the time of the Re- 
 storation, in consequence of " the growth of Anabaptism," 
 and for the use of " natives in the Plantations, and others 
 converted to the Faith," as stated in the Preface to the 
 Prayer Book. But it is said this is put on the same footing, 
 and is of the same character, as the other Offices ; and it is 
 asked, — If one Office, out of the three Forms, is hypothetical, 
 why are not the other two to be construed hypothetically ? 
 But it appears to me that there is this marked and deep 
 distinction between them. In the case of the public Bap- 
 tism of those of Riper Years, the persons coming for Baptism 
 have not only " committed actual sin," and have therefore 
 need of Repentance ; but they are persons who also know it, 
 because they are to be " instructed in the principles of 
 religion '* before they are permitted to partake of that holy 
 Sacrament. They are therefore persons who come in their 
 * Rubric prefixed to the OflSc:' for Adult Bapt'sm.
 
 ( 51 ) 
 
 own right ; who enter into the promises in their own per- 
 sons ; and who must be supposed to promise with a sincere 
 intention to perform all they engage to do. Here is a 
 marked distinction. Infants, who promise by their sureties, 
 are admitted to partake of Baptism ; and if they die before 
 they " commit actual sin," they are "saved," according to the 
 declaration of the Church. But those persons of Riper 
 Years, who have been " instructed in the principles of reli- 
 gion," who know what they have to perform and do, and 
 who make the promises in their own persons, are necessarily 
 considered as entitled to the benefits of Baptism only upon 
 the supposition that they are sincere in their promises of 
 Faith and Repentance. If they offer themselves for Bap- 
 tism, and the benefits of that rite, they must do it either 
 hypocritically or sincerely. But the Church cannot know* 
 except by the outward conduct of the persons, whether they 
 are sincere or not. There is, therefore, this marked dis- 
 tinction between the two : — that the Church knows, in the 
 case of the Infant, that it cannot have committed " actual sin " 
 before Baptism ; and that, in the case of the Adult, it can 
 only rely upon the outward profession of Faith and Re- 
 pentance in those persons. 
 
 Now it does appear to me, that there is no argument to 
 be drawn from the hypothetical sense or charitable judg- 
 ment with respect to Adults, to justify such a construction 
 as applied to Infants ; for there is a positive declaration that 
 the latter are saved if they have been baptized, and die 
 before they commit actual sin. As I said before, the 
 Church bases herself upon what is declared in the Word 
 of God, — that (as the Church pronounces positively) the 
 Child is placed by Baptism 'in a state of eternal salvation. 
 For there are only two terms to be complied with, — namely, 
 the Child being " baptized," and its "dying before it commits 
 actual sin," — in order to entitle it to the benefit which the 
 Church declares to be " certain by God's Word." I say, no 
 argument can be drawn from the hypothetical sense, for the 
 application of the one Service to the other. In the case 
 
 E 2
 
 ( 52 ) 
 
 of Adults, the Church can only act on the charitable sup- 
 position that the parties are sincere. Nobody can contend 
 for a moment, the Bishop never contended, that persons who 
 come hypocritically, and not with the intention of forsaking 
 sin, nor faithfully believing the promises made to them, 
 can receive any benefit from this Sacrament. I say, the 
 Services are most materially distinguished from each other ; 
 not merely as regards the difi'erence arising from the one 
 Office being for an Adult, and the other for an Infant ; but 
 as regards their essential and substantial difference, on sepa- 
 rate and distinct grounds. 
 
 What is the next thing to be done? When these 
 Children have been baptized, when they are in a situation to 
 learn the principles of their religion, they are to be instructed 
 — in what? — in the Church Catechism, comprehending 
 the Ten Commandments, and other short Questions and 
 Answers. And what is the first Question addressed to them 
 there ? 
 
 " Question. What is your name ? 
 
 " Question. Who gave you this name ? " 
 
 The Answer to that is : 
 
 " Answer. My Godfathers and Godmothers in my Baptism ; wherein 
 I was made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of 
 the^ingdom of heaven." 
 
 All in conformity with the declaration made at the time of 
 Baptism. They were made " the sons of God " by " adop- 
 tion " in Baptism. This is the teaching of the Church : 
 " In my Baptism ; wherein I was made a member of Christ, 
 the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of 
 heaven." Then comes the next Question : — 
 
 " Question. What did your Godfathers and Godmothers then for 
 you? 
 
 " Answer. They did promise and vow three things in my name. 
 First, that I should renounce the devil and ail his works, the pomps 
 and vanity of this wicked world, and all the sinful lusts of the flesh." — 
 
 — (Which is the same with the renunciation of " the carnal 
 desires of the flesh " in the Baptismal Service —
 
 ( 53 ) 
 
 " Secondly, that I should believe all the Articles of the Christian 
 Faith. And thirdly, that I should keep God's holy will and coniinand- 
 ments, and walk in the same all the days of my life. 
 
 " Question. Dost thou not think that thou art bound to believe, 
 and to do, as they have promised for thee ? 
 
 " Answer. Yes verily ; and by God's help so I will. And I 
 heartily thank our heavenly Father, that he hath called me to this state 
 of salvation " — 
 
 — that is, the state of salvation in which I am placed by 
 Baptism : I am placed in a new situation ; I am no longer, 
 according to the declaration of the Catechism, a child of 
 wrath, but a child of grace ; I was born in sin, now I am 
 free — 
 
 " through Jesus Christ our Saviour. And I j)ray unto God to give 
 me his grace, that I may continue in the same unto my life's end." 
 
 Here it is " continue :" — there is no doubt, no hypothesis, 
 that he is in any other situation than that in which he has 
 been placed by Baptism. He prays for grace that he may 
 " continue ;" that he may not fall away ; that he may not, 
 by sin, lose that grace, whatever it be, that has been con- 
 ferred in his Baptism. 
 
 The Child is then desired to say the Articles of his 
 Belief, the Commandments, and so forth. Then, after 
 rehearsing the Lord's Prayer, the Catechism goes on to the 
 Questions which were added at the time of the Restoration : 
 
 " Question. How many Sacraments hath Christ ordained in his 
 Church ? 
 
 " Answer. Two only, as generally necessary to salvation, that is to 
 say. Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. 
 
 " Question. What meanest thou by this word Sacrament? 
 
 " Answer. 1 mean an outward and visible sign of an inward and 
 spiritual grace given unto us, ordained by Christ himself, as a means 
 whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof.'' 
 
 There is the same language — it is "an outward and visible 
 sign of an inward and spiritual grace ;" it is a Sacrament 
 " ordained by Christ as a means whereby we receive the 
 same " — that is " the grace given to us ;" and " a pledge 
 to assure us thereof." 1 cannot understand how a doubt 
 can be raised on these words.
 
 ( 54 ) 
 
 " Question. How many parts are there in a Sacrament? 
 
 " Answer. Two: the outward visible sign, and the inward spiritual 
 grace. 
 
 " Question. What is the outward visible sign or form in Baptism ? 
 
 " Answer. Water ; wherein the person is baptized In the name of 
 the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 " Question. What is the inward and spiritual grace '? — 
 
 — " Spiritual Grace " — this is the grace which was conferred 
 — Regeneration by the Holy Ghost, for the remission of 
 sins. — 
 
 *' Answer. A death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness : 
 for being by nature born in sin, and the children of wrath, we are 
 hereby made the children of grace. 
 
 «' Question. What is required of persons to be baptized ? 
 
 " Answer. Repentance, whereby they for!?ake sin ; and Faith, where- 
 by they stedfastly believe the promises of God made to them in that 
 sacrament," 
 
 Then follows this, 
 
 " Question. Why then are Infants baptized, when by reason of their 
 tender age they cannot perform them ? 
 
 "Answer. Because they promise them both by their Sureties: 
 jvhich promise, when they come to age, themselves are bound to per- 
 form." 
 
 The Church admits them, then, to partake of the Sacra- 
 ment of Baptism, upon the supposition that, if they should 
 liv8, and if they should come to years of discretion, they will 
 take upon themselves the performance of that vow which has 
 been made by their Sureties in Baptism. But what is the 
 state of those Children who die " before they commit 
 actual sin?" Precisely that declared at the end of the 
 Baptismal Service, namely : — 
 
 " It is certain by God's Word, that children which are baptized, 
 dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved." 
 
 They must be " baptized," — they must die " before they 
 commit actual sin," — to bring them within that declaration, 
 of their being undoubtedly saved. " Prevenient grace " is 
 not the mode ; the Church says nothing about that ; but if 
 they live to an age at which they arc capable of committing 
 
 i
 
 ( 55 ) 
 
 actual sin, the Church says they are " bound to perform " 
 these "promises of Repentance and Faith made by their 
 Sureties ;" and therefore she receives them by anticipation. 
 
 This is the doctrine which runs through all the Catechisms 
 which have been referred to in the course of the argument. 
 I do not apprehend that Dean Nowell,* in his Catechism, 
 puts it on any other ground. I take it from the ' Enchi- 
 ridion Theologicum,' published by Bishop Randolph. 
 
 " M. De Baptismo ergo primum die quid censeas. 
 
 " A. Quuni natura filii irao, id est, alieni ab Ecclesia, quae Dei familia 
 est, simus, Baptismus veluti aditus quidam nobis est, per quem in cam 
 admittimur :" — 
 
 admitted to Christ's Church by means of Baptism — 
 
 " unde et testimonium etiam amplissimum accipimus, in numero 
 domesticorum, adeoque filiorum Dei, nos jam esse: imo in Christi 
 corpus quasi cooptari atque inseri, ejusque membra fieri, et in unum cum 
 ipso corpus coalescere." — 
 
 taken into and inserted in Christ's body, and made mem- 
 bers of Christ, and engrafted as into one body with him. 
 Then he goes on to inquire — 
 
 " M. Sacramentum antea dicebas duabus constare partibus, signo 
 externo, et arcana gratia. Quod est in Baptismo signum externum ? 
 
 " A. Aqua, in quam baptizatus intingitur, vel ea aspergitur, In no- 
 mine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. 
 
 * The passages cited are here printed from Jacobson's very accurate 
 edition of the ' Catechismus,' pp. 159-162, Oxon., 1844. The Editor sub- 
 joins the cotemporary English version of Norton, printed by John Day, 
 London, 1570; which, as Norton says, " uu7/ be profitable to such as do 
 understand English only." 
 
 " M. Then tell me first what thou thinkest of Baptism ? 
 
 " S. Whereas by nature we are the children of wrath, that is, strangers 
 from the Church, which is God's household, Baptism is, as it were, a certain 
 entry, by which we are received into the Church, whereof we also receive 
 a most substantial testimony, that we ai'e now in the number of the house- 
 hold, and also of the children of God : yea, and that we are joined and 
 grafted into the body of Christ, and become his members, and do grow 
 into one body with him. 
 
 " M. Thou saidest before that a Sacrament consisteth of two parts, the 
 outward sign and inward grace. What is the outward sign in Baptism ? 
 
 " S. Water ; wherein the person baptized is dipped or sprinkled with it 
 in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
 
 ( 56 ) 
 
 " M. Quae est arcana ct spiritualis gratia? 
 
 " A. Ea duplex est : remissio videlicet peccatorum, et Regencratio, 
 quae utraque in externo illo signo solidam et expressam effigiem suam 
 tenant. 
 
 " M, Quomodo ? 
 
 " A. Primum, qucmadmodum sordes corporis aqua, ita animae ma- 
 culae per remissionem peccatorum eluuntur : deinde Regenerationis 
 initium, id est, naturae nostrae mortificatio, vel immersione in aquam, 
 vol ejus aspersione exprimitur. Postremo vero, quum ab aqua, quam ad 
 momentum subimus, statini emergimus, nova vita, quae est Regenerationis 
 nostrae pars altera atque finis, repraesentatur." 
 
 In accordance •with all the Baptismal Services, and with the 
 Catechism of the Church. 
 
 " M. Videris aquam effigiem tantum quandam rerum Divinarum 
 eflBcere. 
 
 " A. Effigies quidem est, sed minime inanis, aut tullax, ut cui rerum 
 ipsarum Veritas adjuncta sit atque annexa." — 
 
 — It is not an empty sign, or deceitful sign — 
 
 — " Nam sicuti Deus peccatorum condonationem, et vitae novitatem nobis 
 vere in Baptismo ofFert, ita a nobis certo recipiuntur. Absit enim ut 
 Deum vanis nos imaginibus ludere atque frustrari putemus." 
 
 They are not mere signs, but are beneficial signs, " effectual 
 sigms of grace." 
 
 " M. What is the secret and spiritual grace ? 
 
 " S. It is of two sorts ; that is, forgiveness of sins, and Regeneration ; 
 both which in the same outward sign have their full and express resem- 
 blance. 
 
 •• M. How so ? 
 
 " S. First, as the uncleannesses of the body are washed away with water, 
 so the spots of the soul are washed away by forgiveness of sins. Secondly, 
 the beginning of Regeneration, that is, the mortifying of our nature, is 
 expressed by dipping in the water, or by sprinkling of it. Finally, when 
 we by and by rise up again out of the water, under which we be for a short 
 time, the new life, which is the other part, and the end of our Regeneration, 
 is thereby represented. 
 
 " M. Thou seemest to make the water but a certain figure of divine 
 things. 
 
 " S. It is a figure indeed, but not empty or deceitful, but such as hath the 
 truth of the things themselves joined and knit unto it For as in Baptism 
 God truly delivereth us forgiveness of sins and newness of life, so do we 
 certainly receive them. For God forbid that we should think that God 
 mocketh and dec*iveth us with vain figures.
 
 ( 57 ) 
 
 " M. Non ergo remissionem peccatorum externa aquae lavatione aut 
 aspersione consequimur ? 
 
 " A. Minime. Nam solus Christus sanguine suo animarum nostra- 
 rum maculas luit atque eluit. Hunc ergo honorem externo elemento 
 tribuere nefas est." — 
 
 As was expressed in one of the quotations by the learned 
 Counsel for the Bishop, which attributes this benefit to water 
 merely. 
 
 — " Verum Spiritus Sanctus conscientias nostras sacro lUo sanguine quasi 
 aspergens, abstersis omnibus peccati sordibus, puros nos coram Deo red- 
 dit. Hujus vero peccatorum nostrorum expiationis obsignationem atque 
 pignus in Sacramento habemus. 
 
 " M. Regenerationem vero unde habemus? 
 
 " A. Non aliunde quam a morte et resurrectione Christi ; nam per 
 mortis suae vim vetus homo noster quodammodo crucifigitur et mortifica- 
 tur, et naturae nostrae vitiositas quasi sepelitur, ne amplius in nobis vivat 
 et vigeat; resurrectionis vero suae beneficio nobis largitur, ut in novam 
 vitam ad obediendum Dui justitiae retbrmemur." 
 
 Now then he goes on : — 
 
 " M. An gratiam banc omnes communiter et promiscue conse- 
 quuntur ? 
 
 " A. Soli fideles hunc fructum pcrcipiunt ; increduli vero oblatas illic 
 a Deo promissiones respuendo, aditum sibi praecludentes, inanes abeunt, 
 non tamen ideo efficiunt, ut suam Sacramenta vim et naturam amittant." 
 
 " M. Do we not, then, obtain forgiveness of sins by the outward washing 
 or sprinkling of water ? 
 
 " S. No. For only Christ hath with his blood washed and clean washed 
 away the spots of our souls. This honour therefore it is not lawful to give 
 to the outward element. But the Holy Ghost, as it were, sprinkling our 
 consciences with that holy blood, wiping away all the spots of sin, niaketh 
 us clean before God. Of this cleansing of our sins we have a seal and 
 pledge in the Sacrament. 
 
 " M. But whence have we Regeneration ? 
 
 " S. None other ways but from the death and resurrection of Christ. 
 For by the force of Christ's death our old man is, after a certain manner, 
 crucified and mortified, and the corruptness of our nature is, as it were, 
 buried, that it no more live and be strong in us. And by the beneficial 
 mean of his resurrection, he giveth us grace to be newly formed unto a new 
 life, to obey the righteousness of God. 
 
 " M. Do all, generally, and without difference, receive this grace ? 
 
 " S. The only faithful receive this fruit : but the unbelieving, in refusing 
 the promises offered them by God, sliut up the entry against themselves, 
 and go away empty. Yet do they not thereby make that the Sacraments 
 lose their force and nature.
 
 ( 58 ) 
 
 So that those who have received Faith, receive the beneficial 
 effects of Baptism ; but those who are unfaithful receive 
 no benefit or advantage from it. So we also say, that, in 
 Adult Baptism, those who are not sincere in their Faith and 
 Repentance receive no benefit from the Sacrament; the be- 
 nefit being hypothetical. 
 
 " M. Rectus ergo Baptismi usus .quibus in rebus sit situs, brcviter 
 edissere. 
 
 " A. In Fide et Poenitentia." — 
 
 In Faith and Repentance : that is the doctrine of our 
 Church ; " Repentance whereby we forsake sin, and Faith 
 whereby we steadfastly believe the promises of God made 
 to us in that Sacrament." 
 
 — " Primum enim Christi nos sanguine a cunctis purgatos sordibus Deo 
 gratos esse, Spiritumque ejus in nobis habitare certa fiducia cum animis 
 nostris statutum habere oportet. Deinde in came nostra mortificanda, 
 obediendoque justitiae Divinae, assidue omni ope et opera est enitendum, 
 et pia vita apud onines declarandum nos in Baptismo Christum ipsum 
 quasi induisse, et ejus Spiritu donates esse." 
 
 Then comes the Question as to the reason why Infants 
 are permitted to be baptized ; and it is all, as it appears to 
 me, in perfect conformity with the words of our own Cate- 
 chism. 
 
 " ]NI. Quum Infantes haec, quae commemoras, hactenus per aetatem 
 praagtare non possint, qui fit ut illi baptizentur ? 
 
 " A. Ut Fides et Poenitentia Baptismum praecedant, tantum in 
 Adultis, qui per aetatem sunt utriusque capaces, exigitur ; Infantibus vero 
 promissio Ecclesiae facta per Christum, in cujus Fide baptizantur, in 
 
 " M. Tell me then, briefly, in what things the use of Baptism cousisteth? 
 
 '• S. In Faith and Eepentance. For first, we must with assured con- 
 fidence hold it detL'rmined in our hearts, that we are cleansed by the blood 
 of Christ from all filthiness of sin, and so be acceptable to God, and that his 
 Spirit dwelleth within us. And then we must continually, with all our 
 power and endeavour, travail in mortifying our flesh, and obeying the 
 righteousness of God, and must by godly life declare to all nien that we 
 have in Baptism, as it were, put ou Christ, and have his Spirit given us. 
 
 «' M. Since infants cannot by age perform those things that thou speakest 
 of, why are they baptized ? 
 
 " S. That Faith and Repentance go before Haptism is required only in 
 persons so grown in years, that by age they are capable of both. But to 
 Infants the promise made to the Church by Christ, in whose Faith they
 
 ( 59 ) 
 
 praesens satis erit : deinde postquam adoleverint, Baptismi sui veritatem 
 ipsos agnoscere, ejusque vim in animis eoriim vigere, atque ipsorum vita 
 ct moribus repraesentari omnino oportet." 
 
 These are the words of Dean Nowell, on which so much 
 stress was laid by the learned Counsel for Mr. Gorham, and 
 for the not having quoted which he twitted the learned 
 Counsel for the Bishop of Exeter, Dean Nowell appears to 
 me to put the case on precisely the same footing as our 
 own Catechism does : namely, that in the case of Adults, 
 Faith and Repentance must precede Baptism ; but that, in 
 the case of Infants, the promises made by the Sureties are 
 accepted, though, if they come to age, they themselves must 
 perform them. , 
 
 But when the Child is so instructed in the principles of 
 religion, and of the necessity of taking upon himself the 
 promises made in Baptism, then he is brought to be con- 
 firmed by the Bishop. Now the Exhortation states the 
 reason why this " order of confirmation " was framed : 
 
 " To the end, that Children, being now come to the years of dis- 
 cretion, and having learned what their Godfathers and Godmothers 
 promised for them in Baptism, they may themselves, with their own 
 mouth and consent, openly before the Church, ratify and confirm the 
 same ; and also promise, that, by the grace of God they will evermore 
 endeavour themselves faithfully to observe such things, as they, by 
 their own confession, have assented unto." 
 
 Then the question is put by the Bishop — 
 
 " Do ye here, in the presence of God, and of this congregation, 
 renew the solemn promise and vow that was made in your name at your 
 Baptism ; ratifying and confirming the same in your own persons, and 
 acknowledging yourselves bound to believe, and to do, all those things, 
 which your Godfathers and Godmothers then undertook for you?" 
 
 The question being answered — what is declared in the 
 
 Prayer which immediately follows ? 
 
 " Almighty and everliving God, who hast vouchsafed to regenerate 
 
 are baptized, shall for the present time be sufficient; and then after- 
 ward, when they are grown to years, tliey must needs themselves acknow- 
 ledge the truth of their Haptism, and have the force thereof to be lively in 
 their souls, and to be represented in their life and behaviour."
 
 ( <>o ) 
 
 these thy servants by Water and the Holy Ghost, and hast given unto 
 them forgiveness of all their sins : Strengthen them, we beseech thee, 
 O Lord, with the Holy Ghost the Comforter, and daily increase in 
 them thy manifold gifts of grace ; the spirit of wisdom and under- 
 standing ; the spirit of counsel and ghostly strength ; the spirit of 
 knowledge and true godliness ; and fill them, O Lord, with the spirit 
 of thy holy fear, now and for ever. Amen." 
 
 Here, then, it is declared that the Children are " rege- 
 nerate by Water and the Holy Ghost," and that their sins 
 have been forgiven ; directly following up what had been 
 before declared in the Baptismal Service, and in the Ca- 
 techism ; all showing that it was by Baptism, and through 
 Baptism, that they had become " regenerate by Water and 
 the Holy Ghost," and that they had received " forgiveness 
 of all their sins." 
 
 These are the Services upon which great stress was laid 
 by the learned Counsel for Mr. Gorham ; but in which it ap- 
 pears to me that the whole doctrine of the Church is not 
 hypothetical. It is not charitable hope; but it is a positive 
 declaration that these things are so. Therefore it appears 
 to me that the doctrine of unconditional Regeneration in the 
 Baptism of Infants, is (supposing the words of the Office to 
 be taken in their natural and literal sense) sufficiently esta- 
 blished. 
 
 But then the difficulty is this— to ascertain what is meant 
 by the word " Regeneration." Is Regeneration that which 
 implies an absolute change of nature, and character, and 
 feelings, and so forth ? Or is it that which implies only a 
 change of state, and "of relation ? — that is, a change from 
 being "a child of wrath" to being "a child of grace;" 
 admitted to new privileges, to bring it within the promise 
 made to it ? Now it does appear to me that the meaning of 
 this word is sufficiently apparent from the terms made use 
 of — Regeneration " by Water and the Holy Ghost :" for 
 the remission of sins is given by means of the administration 
 of Water, and of the Holy Ghost accompanying it. It is
 
 ( 61 ) 
 
 nothing to say that there may be cases in which the sign is 
 received without the thing signified. That may be so in the 
 case of Adults, and is so very often, and necessarily must be 
 so ; and the Church can only express a charitable hope that 
 it is not so, but that they are sincere in the promises of 
 Faith and Repentance. If they are sincere in these pro- 
 mises, then the Church declares that they are members of 
 Christ's Church, that their sins are forgiven, and that they 
 receive the benefits of Baptism. That is the charitable hope 
 — that they are sincere ; and, being sincere, they are " re- 
 generate by Water and the Holy Ghost." 
 
 But light may be thrown on the subject by ascertaining 
 what is the meaning of the term Regeneration, — in the sense 
 of the Church, as expressed in the Baptismal service, — not 
 as expressed by those who advocate Calvinistic principles. 
 It seems to me, from all the consideration I have given the 
 subject, and from reference to the primitive Church, that 
 Regeneration does not mean such a total change of cha- 
 racter as would amount almost to justification, and from 
 which the persons so regenerated could never fall, or finally 
 fall : but that Regeneration means a change of station, of 
 character, and of relation ; putting the party therefore in a 
 new situation,' — converted from a child of wrath to a child 
 of grace, and made a member of Christ and an inheritor of 
 the kingdom of God. I find this laid down by a living and 
 learned prelate of the Church. He says :* — 
 
 " No reasonable doubt can be entertained that it [the word ' Rege- 
 neration '] was appropriated to that grace, whatever may be its nature, 
 which is bestowed on us in the Sacrament of Baptism, (including per- 
 haps occasionally, by a common figure of speech, its proper and legiti- 
 mate effects, considered in conjunction with it;) from the beginning of 
 Christianity to no very distant era of Ecclesiastical History." — 
 
 ( — that is, that it was so appropriated from the beginning of 
 
 Christianity to no very distant era — ) 
 
 " In those few passages of the ancient Christian writers where it 
 
 * View of Regeneration in Baptism, by Dr. Bethell, Bisliop of Bangor, 
 pp. G-10. 4th edit. 184.5.
 
 ( 62 ) 
 
 bears another signification, it is used apparently in a figurative manner, 
 to express such a change as seemed to bear some analogy in magnitude 
 and importance to the change eft'ected in Baptism. At the time of the 
 Reformation, the word was commonly used in a more loose and popular 
 way, to signify sometimes justification, sometimes conversion, or the 
 turning from sinful courses, sometimes repentance, or that gradual change 
 of heart and life, which is likewise styled renovation. Hence, in 
 popular language, it came to signify a great and general reformation of 
 habits and character, and the words ' regenerate and unregenerate ' were 
 substituted for the words converted and unconverted, renewed and un- 
 renewed, righteous and wicked." 
 
 In modern times we have been taught that Regeneratio'^ 
 is a thing quite unconnected with Baptism. That is Mr. 
 Gorham's position : that Regeneration may be conferred at 
 the time Baptism is conferred, but that Baptism is not the 
 means by which it is conveyed. " It may indeed take place 
 in that Sacrament," is the expression of a modern writer,* 
 " as well as at any other time ; but to suppose it in any 
 proper sense dependent on it, is an unreasonable and un- 
 scriptural opinion . ' ' 
 
 The same view as that on which I have just been insisting 
 is maintained by Dr. Waterland, who says of Regeneration 
 that it is distinguished from Renovation, which is a renewal 
 of heart and mind. 
 
 " Having said what I conceived sufficient upon the first Article 
 respecting regeneration, I now proceed to the second, which is renova- 
 tion, and which I understand of a renewal of heart or mind. Indeed 
 regeneration is itself a kind of renewal; but then it is of the spiritual state 
 considered at large: whereas renovation, the other Article in the text, 
 seems to mean a more particular kind of renewal, namely, of the inward 
 frame or disposition of the man, which is rather a capacity or qualifica- 
 tion (in adults) for salutary rccreneration than the regeneration itself. 
 Regeneration may be granted and received (as in infants) where that 
 renovation has no place at all lor the time being, and therefore most 
 
 certainly the notions are very distinct Renovation may be 
 
 and should be, with respect to adults, before, and in, and after Bap- 
 tism." t 
 
 * The Editor does not know from what modern writer the learned Judge 
 cited these words. 
 
 t Waterland's Works, vol. vi. p. 352 et seq., Oxford edit. 8vo., 1823.
 
 ( 63 ) 
 
 Dr. Waterland then goes on to the same effect ; and con- 
 cludes that Adults need Repentance, which Infants do not 
 — it must come afterwards : — 
 
 "1. Regeneration and Renovation differ in respect to the effective 
 cause or agency : for one is the work of the Spirit in the use of water ; 
 that is of the Spirit singhj, since water really does nothing . . . but 
 
 the other is the work of the Spirit and the man together 
 
 2. Regeneration ordinarily is in or through Baptism, only a transient 
 thing which comes but once ; whereas Renovation is before, and in, 
 and after Baptism, and may be often repeated, continuing and increas- 
 ing from the first preparations to Christianity through the whole pro- 
 gress of the Christian life 3. Regeneration once given 
 
 can never be totally lost, any more than Baptism, and so can never 
 want to be repeated in the whole thing ; whereas Renovation may be 
 often repeated, or may be totally lost A person once regene- 
 rated in Baptism can never want to be regenerated again in this life, 
 any more than he can want to be re-baptized." .... 
 
 " ]. G/Oiwt persons, called Adults, coming to Baptism, fitly prepared 
 
 by Faith and Repentance were — [' in the earliest days 
 
 of" Christianity '] — to be admitted to Baptism in order to be effectually 
 ' born of water and of the Spirit.' . . . Faith and Repentance 
 alone, though both of them were antecedently gifts of the Spirit, were 
 not supposed ordinarily to make them regenerate, or to entitle them to 
 
 salvation, without Baptism And now that Renovation, 
 
 which in some degree was previous to Regeneration, becomes, in greater 
 degrees, & fruit and complement of it ; and it grows more and more by 
 the indwelling of that same Spirit whose remote addresses and distant 
 overtures first brought the man to that Faitli and Repentance which 
 prepared him for salutary Baptism, and for true and complete sonship, 
 or Cln-istian adoption." . . . 2. " In the case of /?j/a/i?s, their innocence 
 and incapacity are to them instead of Repentance, which they do not 
 need, and of actual Faith, which they cannot have. They are capable 
 of being savingly born of water and the Spirit, and being adopted into 
 sonship .... because they bring no obstacle, or impediment. They 
 stipulate .... and the Holy S])irit translates them out of their 
 state of nature, (to which a curse belongs,) to a state of grace, favour, 
 and Wessj?z<jr: this is their Rcgener.ation." . . . . The " Divine Spirit 
 regenerates them," and his " temple from thenceforth they are, till they 
 defile themselves with ac^?/aZ and (/r/eroiw sin. In this case , . . Re- 
 generation j9?ecerfes, and Renovation can oii\y follow after."* 
 
 * Waterland's Works, vol. vi. pp. 354-358. The Judge cited only a running 
 abstract of these pages ; but the Editor believes that his actual quotations 
 (which it was difficult to follow) are correctly exhibited above.
 
 ( 64 ) 
 
 But there is another high authority, that of Bishop Van 
 Mildert, in his Bampton Lectures, the sixth volume :* — 
 
 " Regeneration, in the Scriptural usage of it, means only our initiation 
 or entrance by Baptisn) into that covenant which gives us new privileges, 
 new hopes, and a new principle of spiritual life ; placing us in a totally 
 different state from that to which by nature only we could ever attain. 
 The expression therefore cannot, without a direct violation of the verbal 
 analogy of Scripture, be applied to any operation that takes place sub- 
 sequent to that baptismal change, with which alone it perfectly cor- 
 responds. " 
 
 This is the opinion of Bishop Van Mildert with respect to 
 Regeneration ; it places the party in a new state, totally 
 different from that of nature — a view which corresponds with 
 the form of expression in the Baptismal Service, " Grant to 
 this Child that thing which by nature he cannot have." 
 
 It appears to me, most clearly and distinctly, from the 
 Services themselves, and from the character of the persons 
 who receive this Sacrament, that Infants receive the grace of 
 Regeneration in Baptism, and are placed in a state in which 
 they may be made " partakers of the kingdom of heaven." 
 True it is that they may forfeit their title ; they may fall 
 away from the grace imparted to them, commit sin, grow 
 up and persist in it, and may die without Faith and without 
 Repentance : in such cases the grace bestowed in Baptism 
 hasij been lost. But, in the case of those who die immedi- 
 ately after Baptism, they are " regenerate," and they are 
 " undoubtedly saved," because they die " before they have 
 committed actual sin." Upon this part of the case the 
 Court entertains no doubt. The words of the Services 
 themselves show that the Infant is regenerated in and 
 through the means of Baptism. That that is the declaration 
 of' the Church the Court cannot for one moment doubt: it 
 is positive and precise. 
 
 Reference was made to the office for the Burial of the 
 Dead. That was said to be one of the Services founded in 
 
 * Bampton Lectures, by Dr. Vau Mildert, Sermon VI., p. 109, edit. 8vo., 
 1815.
 
 ( 65 ) 
 
 Tiope, on the hypothesis that the deceased person was duly 
 prepared for death ; and, therefore, the hody is committed 
 to the earth in " sure and certain hope of the resurrection to 
 eternal life." I confess it does not appear to me that any 
 strong inference is to be deduced, by analogy, from the 
 Office for Burial. The Church must necessarily assume, 
 with respect to the person who is dead, that God has 
 "taken" him, as it is said, "to himself;" — the meaning of 
 which I apprehend to be, that he has removed him from this 
 world in the state he then was in (whether in a state of 
 repentance or not, of which the Church cannot judge), to a 
 world where there is no possibility of committing actual sin. 
 The latter part of the Service is expressive of hope. We 
 pray that we may rest in Christ " as our hope is this our 
 brother doth." This prayer is founded in hope — founded 
 in the hypothesis that the deceased person, however wicked, 
 may have repented of his sins. The Minister cannot pro- 
 nounce how the person died ; whether he was or was not a 
 repentant sinner ; whether he was forgiven or not ; whether 
 he is to be eventually received into the kingdom of heaven, 
 or whether he is to suffer the punishment of his sins. Yet 
 the hope is, that " this our brother doth " rest in Christ. 
 Therefore I think there is nothing strong in the argument 
 deduced from the hypothetical sense in which the Burial 
 Service is necessarily constructed. 
 
 It is said, however, that the Articles are not to be con- 
 strued by the Formularies ; for it is argued, that though a 
 clergyman is called upon to declare his assent to and appro- 
 bation of the Articles as being ^^ agreeable to the Word of 
 God," yet it is only to the use of the Book of Common Prayer 
 that he is required to assent as containing " nothing con- 
 trary to the Word of God." Now I cannot think that 
 any great point turns upon that. It is said that he assents 
 and consents, not to its doctrines, but merely to " the use " 
 of it. Why, I apprehend, if a person assents and consents 
 to make " use " of the Book, that he assents and consents 
 
 F
 
 ( 66 ) 
 
 that there is nothing in it contrary to the Scriptures, or 
 contrary to the Articles which are stated to be "agreeable" 
 to the Scriptures ; that he acknowledges, in short, the truth 
 of what is in it. He cannot excuse himself by saying, " I 
 consent merely to ' use ' it ;" — because the words are too 
 strong, " I declare my unfeigned assent and consent to the 
 use of the Book of Common Prayer." This appears to 
 me to be a declaration that he believes what is contained 
 therein, because the Articles are " agreeable to the AVord 
 of God," and the Prayer Book contains " nothing contrary 
 to the Word of God."* It seems to me to follow, as a 
 matter indisputable, that, where the Prayer Book contains 
 "nothing contrary" to the Scriptures, the Prayer Book 
 
 * I. By the 13th Elizabeth, cap. VI, (1571,) intituled "An Act for the 
 Ministers of the Church to be of sound Religion," it is enacted — 
 
 Sec. 3. That every person admitted to a benefice, with cure, shall publicly 
 read the Articles, with declaration of his unfeigned assent thereunto. 
 
 Sec. 5. None shall be made ministei-, unless, among other things, he bring 
 to the bishop a testimonial of his professing the doctrine expressed in the 
 " Articles, and be able to render an account of his faith according to the said 
 Articles, and shall subscribe the said Articles. 
 
 II. By the 3fith Canon, (1604,) it is provided that no person shall be in- 
 stituted to any living, unless he shall have first subscribed three articles, of 
 which the 2nd and Srd are as follows : — 
 
 2. That the Book of Common Prayer, and of Ordering of Bishops, Priests, 
 and Deacons, containeth in it nothing contrary to the Word of God, and 
 that st may lawfully so be used ; and that he himself will use the form in 
 the said Book prescribed, in public prayer, and administration of the Sacra- 
 ments, and none other. 
 
 3. That he alloweth the Book of Articles of Religion agreed upon by the 
 Archbishops and Bishops of both provinces, and the whole Clergj', in the 
 Convocation holden at London in the year of our Lord God one thousand 
 five hundred sixty and two ; and that he acknowledgeth all and every the 
 Articles therein contained, being in number nine and thirty, besides the 
 Ratification, to be agreeable to the Word of God. 
 
 III. By the 13th and 14th Car. II., chap. 4, (1662,) which is the Act for 
 Uniformity, of Public Prayers, it is enacted — 
 
 Sec. 6. That every person presented to a benefice, &c., within two months 
 shall, on some Lord's Day, publicly read the morning and evening prayers 
 appointed to be read by and according to the said Book of Common Prayer, 
 at the times thereby appointed ; and, after such reading thereof, shall openly 
 and publicly, before the congregation there assembled, declare his unfeigned 
 assent and consent to the use of all things therein contained and prescribed, 
 according to the form before appointed.
 
 ( 67 ) 
 
 contains nothing which can be construed in opposition to the 
 Articles. 
 
 But then the Question arises, — and a very important 
 Question it is, one which occupied a great portion of the 
 time taken up in argument by the learned Counsel — What 
 were the opinions of the Reformers ? It was said that 
 they embraced the opinions of Calvin ; that, therefore, it 
 could not have been intended by them to declare, in such 
 positive terms as the words import, in the Baptismal Services 
 and other Services of the Church, that every Child is placed 
 by Baptism unconditionally in a state of Regeneration. A 
 large portion of the learned Counsel's very able, elaborate, 
 and ingenious speech has been devoted to that part of the 
 Question. 
 
 Now, in the first instance, advantage was taken of a 
 declaration made, or a sentence uttered, by Dr. Addams, 
 that Cranmer had never changed his opinions with respect 
 to Baptism. I think the learned Counsel has very success- 
 fully argued against that position, by showing that Cranmer 
 did change his views, and that necessarily he must have 
 done so ; therefore I think that Dr. Addams never meant to 
 maintain that proposition in so strong a sense and with so 
 extreme a latitude as his words would seem to imply. It 
 is quite clear that, having been brought up as a Roman 
 Catholic, and having for a great period of his life advocated 
 the principle of the opus opcratum of the Roman Catholic 
 Church ; — in the latter part of his life, during the Reforma- 
 tion, which he assisted in, he must have changed his opinion 
 in that respect ; and undoubtedly he did. 
 
 AVhcther the Reformers embraced the whole of the 
 doctrines of Calvin or not is I think a matter of very grave 
 dispute. Undoubtedly it cannot be denied that the doctrines 
 of Calvin made a certain degree of progress in this country 
 at the time of the earlier Reformers. During the period 
 of Cranmer, and Ridley, and Latimer, many persons (and 
 probably the Reformers themselves) had to a certain degree 
 
 f2
 
 ( 68 ) 
 
 embraced the principles of Calvin. But to what extent? 
 Did they believe in (—were their opinions to that extent — ) 
 predestination, election, final perseverance, reprobation? — 
 because those are all doctrines of Calvin. Yet we are to be 
 told that Cranmer was a Calvinist ; that his principles and 
 opinions are to be gleaned from those with whom he asso- 
 ciated in the work of Reformation ; that he is responsible 
 for Peter Martyr and Martin Bucer, whom he placed in 
 the Divinity chairs of Oxford and Cambridge. How far 
 Peter Martyr and Martin Bucer ( — these theologians being 
 the friends and associates of Calvin and afterwards of 
 Cranmer, by whom they were invited to this country to 
 assist in the Reformation — ) carried the principles of Calvin 
 we do not know ; nor how far Cranmer and the rest of the 
 Reformers embraced those views. 
 
 Now the learned counsel for Mr. Gorham said that, in his 
 opinion, the Seventeenth Article determined this Question. 
 That is the Article " Of Predestination and Elec- 
 tion." It recites that, — 
 
 " XVII. Predestination to Life, is the everlasting purpose of God, 
 whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath 
 constantly decreed, by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and 
 damnation, those whom he hath chosen in CRrist out of mankind, and to 
 bring them by Christ to cverla&ting salvation, as vessels made to honour. 
 Wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be 
 called according to God's purpose by His Spirit working in due season : 
 they tlirough Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they 
 be made sons of God by adoption : they be made like the image of His 
 only begotten Son Jesus Christ : they walk religiously in good works, 
 and at length by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity." 
 
 " As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in 
 Christ, is full of sweet, pletisant, and unsi)eakable comfort to godly per- 
 sons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, 
 mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and draw- 
 ing up their n)inds to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth 
 greatly establish and confirm their I'aith of eternal Salvation to be 
 enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love 
 towards God :" — 
 
 — one might suppose that they would have gone on to
 
 ( 69 ) 
 
 decLare this an Article of Faith ; but, instead of that, what 
 
 do they do ? — 
 
 — " So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to 
 have continually before their eyes the sentence of God"s Predestination, 
 is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them 
 either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, 
 no less perilous than desperation." 
 
 "Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they 
 be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture : and in our doings, that 
 will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto 
 us in the Word of God." 
 
 There is the end ; they determined nothing with respect to 
 Predestination and Election ; they say it is " full of sweet, 
 pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons ;" but, 
 with respect to " carnal persons," for them " to have con- 
 tinually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestina- 
 tion, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth 
 thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of 
 most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation." It 
 is acknowledged by both parties that the question here is 
 left open ; the Reformers declare nothing with respect to 
 it ; they do not impose it on anybody ; it is open to both 
 parties. It is said, further, it was so left open for the very 
 purpose of embracing both parties, allowing as many to 
 come in and sign the Articles as could. But I cannot think 
 that was the inducement to the Reformers to leave this an 
 open question, for every person to believe in the doctrine or 
 not : I cannot adopt the conclusion that it was left open in 
 order that more subscribers to the Articles might be obtained 
 than otherwise would have been the case. I think that if 
 the Reformers had entertained the doctrine of Predestina- 
 tion and Election, they must have expressed themselves in 
 terms which could have left no doubt as to their meaning. 
 They hardly, I think, could be guilty of leading parties 
 into the belief that that was a doctrine of faith to be em- 
 braced which is not taught in the Article, or they would 
 have distinctly declared themselves to that effect. 
 
 I have before asked, — to what extent were these doctrines
 
 ( 70 ) 
 
 of Calvin maintained by the Reformers ? Did they believe 
 them to this extent — which are the words of Bishop Hop- 
 kins ? — 
 
 " God promises pardon and remission of sins to all that believe and 
 repent ; but he promises grace to believe and repent only to those 
 whom by his absolute covenant he has engaged to bring through grace 
 and repentance to salvation." * 
 
 Did Ridley, and Latimer, and Cranmer, go to that extent, 
 as expressed by Bishop Hopkins ? or did they go to the 
 extent of the Synod of Dort, as to the doctrine of Predesti- 
 nation and Election, in their 6th Article ? f — 
 
 " Secundum quod decretum, electorum corda, quantumvis dura, gra- 
 tiose cmollit, et ad credendum inflcctit ; non electos autem justo judicio 
 suae malitiae et duritije relinquit." 
 
 There are certain persons of the elect, this Synod aflfirms, 
 whose hearts are to be "softened and turned to faith," and 
 those who are not among the number of the elect are to be 
 " left to the judgment justly due to their hardness of heart." 
 Is that the doctrine of Cranmer, or of Latimer, or of Ridley ? 
 Again, what is the 7th Article % of the Synod of Dort ? 
 
 " Est electio immutabile Dei proj)ositum, quo, ante jacta mundi 
 fundamenta, ex universe genere humano, ex primseva integritate in 
 peccatum et exitium sua culpa prolapso, secundum liberrimum volun- 
 tatis suae beneplacitum, ex mera gratia, certam quorundam hominum 
 multitudinem, aliis nee meliorum, nee digniorum, sed in communi mi- 
 seria cum aliis jacentium, ad salutem elegit in Christo." 
 
 Are these the doctrines held by the Reformers ? They are 
 the doctrines of Calvin ; they are set forth in his Institutes : 
 
 * The Author has Ixicn unable to verify this quotation. 
 
 t See Sylloge Confessiouam, p. 372, edit. 1804; Articuli Dordrechtani, 
 Cap.- 1., Art. 6. " According to -which decree, he graciously softens the 
 hearts of the Elect, however hard, and bends them to believe ; but by a 
 just judgment he leaves the non-elect to their wickedness and hardness." 
 
 \ Ibid., p. 373. " Election is the unchangeable counsel of God, by which, 
 before the foundations of the world were laid (according to the most free 
 good pleasure of his will, from mere grace), he chose in Christ, to salvation, 
 a determinate number of certain men (neither better nor more worthy than 
 others, but Ijing in common misery with others), out of the universal 
 human race, which, by its own fault, had fallen from primitive integrity 
 into sin and destruction."
 
 ( 71 ) 
 
 but (lid our Reformers go to that extent ? It appears to 
 me that the opinions of the Reformers, be they what they 
 may, have not been expressed by them, in terms with which 
 they must have been sufficiently acquainted, so as to leave 
 no doubt as to what they really meant. Is it possible that 
 Ridley, and Latimer, and Cranmer, in the reign of Ed- 
 ward VI. and of Queen Elizabeth, could have adopted these 
 principles, and yet have expressed themselves as they have 
 done in the Offices to which I have adverted ? — namely, that 
 all children when baptized are regenerated ; or could they 
 have said that infants, who are baptized and who die before 
 committing actual sin, are saved, as is certain by God's 
 Word ? Could they, — embracing the opinion that none but 
 the elect are to have the power of Faith and Repentance 
 granted to them — could they, entertaining such a view to 
 that extent, have expressed themselves in such terms as they 
 have adopted ? 
 
 It will be said by some, and it has been said,* that Mr. 
 Gorham does not come amongst that description of persons : 
 that Mr. Gorham does not say that grace is given only to 
 those children who are elect, not to all children ; that that 
 is not the doctrine of Mr. Gorham. Mr. Gorham says 
 that our Church has determined that those children who 
 are baptized and die before they commit actual sin are 
 undoubtedly saved. But then Mr. Gorham will not allow 
 that benefit to be by Regeneration conferred by Baptism ; 
 he says that it is by " prevenient grace," without which they 
 could not be " worthy recipients ;" and that, if not " worthy 
 
 * The Judge is supposed to allude to the following passage in the pub- 
 lished ' Argument of Dr. Bay ford,' pp. xii. xiii. (Seeley, 18-19) : — " There is 
 no evidence in this Examination from which it can be determined whether 
 Mr. Gorham does or does not adopt the system of theology usually called 
 Calvinistic. He has modestly and wisely abstained from connecting tlic 
 point of doctrine to the discussion of which he was forced, with any other 
 doctrine which the Bishop might have been inclined to dispute. It is an 
 unworthy attempt to raise a prejudice against him by the application of a 
 party name ; a name never applied in the way of disparagement, except by 
 persons who are either ignorant of the system to which they attach a term 
 of reproach, or who use it to cover their retreat when foiled in argument."
 
 ( 72 ) 
 
 recipients,'' they could not receive the sacrament with ad- 
 vantage. That is the doctrine Mr, Gorham holds. But, in 
 order to justify this position, the learned Counsel for Mr. 
 Gorham maintained that the Reformers were Calvinists, and 
 that, consequently, we must construe their declarations in 
 the Services in a Calvinistic sense ; that we must not give 
 the words their literal and general meaning, but must con- 
 sider them with this reservation, that to those only who are 
 the elect the grace of Faith and Repentance will be accorded. 
 This is not only in opposition to the Baptismal Service itself, 
 but to all the Forms of Prayer. It goes to the very root 
 of all religion whatever : for if this doctrine of Predestination, 
 Election, and Reprobation is to be resorted to — if this is to 
 be the faith of the Church — then where is the necessity for 
 prayer at all ? What encouragement is there for a person 
 to inform himself of the will of God, if he is assured that 
 before his birth his fate was determined, and that nothing 
 he could do, or that could be done, could avert it ; but 
 that, by the irreversible decree of God, his future state was 
 fixed either for eternal happiness or eternal misery ? For 
 that must be the extent to which it must be carried, if this 
 is to be the doctrine of the Reformers. But then what 
 becomes of all the declai^ations of the prayers — that God has 
 promised forgiveness of sin to all who repent ? Is that to be 
 limited to those only who are among the elect ? Is not that 
 to mislead persons ? Suppose that to be the doctrine con- 
 tended for : that when we say God " hath promised for- 
 giveness of sins to all them that with hearty repentance and 
 true faith turn unto Ilim" (as in the Communion Service), 
 that is to be limited to those " whose hearts are softened," — 
 " Secundum quod decretum elcctorum corda, quantumvis 
 dura, gratiose emollit, ct ad credendum inflcctit ; non electos 
 autem justo judicio sua; malitiae et duritia; relinquit."* That 
 would be a contradiction, as it appears to me, to the whole 
 structure of our Common Prayers. The doctrine is, that the 
 elect only have Faith and Repentance ; and, therefore, that 
 * See the translation of this Article of the Synod of Dort, above, p. 70.
 
 ( 73 ) 
 
 thoy only have the hope of the forgiveness of sin. What 
 says the Prayer Book ? " AVhen the wicked man turneth 
 away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth 
 that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive." 
 " When he turneth ;" — it does not say he cannot repent 
 of what he has done because he is not among the number 
 of the elect. It is expressed in our Prayer Book — or rather 
 the Prayer Book incorpoi-ates it in the Service in the decla- 
 ration of Absolution — " He pardoneth and absolveth all 
 them that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe his holy 
 Gospel ;" and therefore we beseech Him " to grant us true 
 repentance and his Holy Spirit." This is the form of all 
 the Services, of all the Collects, and of all the promises of 
 the Communion Service, which are of universal application 
 to all who repent ; not confined to those who are among the 
 elect, whose fate is fixed, whose condition is determined, and 
 was so long before they came into existence. 
 
 Now I do not collect, even from the passages which have 
 been cited, that the doctrine of Predestination and Election 
 was the doctrine of Cranmer, or Latimer, or Ridley ; that 
 they believed it as an article of faith to be imposed upon the 
 members of the Church of England. The Reformers indi- 
 vidually may have embraced the doctrine of Calvin ; but 
 have they declared it in their Services ? have they declared 
 it in the Articles ? — have they declared it in the Book of 
 Common Prayer and the Administration of the Sacraments ? 
 I apprehend, clearly and decidedly not. They certainly 
 have not in the XVHth Article ; because that is admitted 
 not to have determined the question. If that was the indi- 
 vidual belief of the Reformers, they have not, as a body, 
 declared it to be a doctrine -of the Church of England. 
 
 The passages cited from their writings are merely the 
 expressions of private individuals — of individuals most emi- 
 nent, undoubtedly, for their learning, piety, and knowledge 
 of the Scriptures. If a new standard of faith were about to 
 be erected, or a new form of instruction for children were to 
 be framed, undoubtedly the opinion of these persons would
 
 ( 74 ) 
 
 weigh most solemnly, and every attention would be paid to 
 what has been said by these persons — the great number of 
 persons — whose writings were cited by the learned Counsel. 
 It is quite impossible, however, for the Court to follow the 
 learned Counsel through all the quotations from the great 
 number of writers of the period of the Reformation to 
 whom he adverted. The numbers were so gi'eat, the 
 volumes so large, and the passages so long, that it is quite 
 impossible — physically impossible — for the Court to follow 
 the learned Counsel through that long list. It is admitted 
 on all hands that there are persons of high weight, authority, 
 learning, and piety cited by the learned Counsel for Mr. 
 Gorham, who differ in opinion from those adverted to by 
 the learned Counsel for the Bishop of Exeter. There is a 
 difference of opinion between them — then, who is to de- 
 termine this Question ? The Court is not to enter into the 
 merits of these individuals personally ; it can judge them 
 only by their public declarations, which have been adopted 
 as the Standard of the Chiu'ch. The Court cannot enter 
 into the Question, whether Dr. Peter Martyr or Dr. Jackson 
 is to be referred to ; it cannot examine all the writings of 
 the indi\'iduals quoted by Mr. Gorham's Counsel in order to 
 determine whether there are not isolated passages in their 
 writings which may not entirely agree with the authorities 
 quoted by the learned Counsel for the Bishop of Exeter : 
 but he did not intentionally keep such passages back ; I am 
 siu-e he did not ; because, in the whole course of his argu- 
 ment, he stated in several instances that there were pas- 
 sages of that character to be found ; and, indeed, everybody 
 must be aware that there are passages to be met with in 
 those early writers which do not entirely accord with other 
 passages in their works. The Court would be placed in 
 the greatest ditficulty in determinmg this Question, if it had 
 to depend on passages selected from these authors in order 
 to estiiblish whether the doctrine of Election and Predesti- 
 nation is or is not the doctrine of the Church. 
 
 There are names, undoubtedly of the very highest autho-
 
 ( 75 ) 
 
 rity, which do go the length of expressing their opinion that 
 the persons who receive the benefits of Baptism must have 
 Faith and Repentance. Martyr and Bucer may go to that 
 extent. I do not think, however, that Cranmer is to be 
 made responsible for all they may have said : I do think that 
 that would be placing rather too much on the shoulders of 
 the Archbishop. But in their general doctrines they agreed. 
 Cranmer may have called in their assistance — and did call 
 in their assistance — in order to aid him in the compilation of 
 the Book of Prayer of 1549. That first Book of Prayer 
 of 1549 is very nearly the same with that of 1552, the second 
 Litm'gy of Edward VI., and also with that of Queen Eliza- 
 beth. Bucer died before the second Book of Common 
 Prayer (1552) was published; but the first Book (1549) 
 was prepared with the assistance of Bucer and Martyr, and 
 when printed it was submitted to Bucer and Martyr, who (as 
 the learned Counsel for Mr. Gorham showed by several 
 passages) returned it without * any observations being made 
 upon it. How could these persons — Calvin's friends — have 
 done this, if they believed in the doctrines of Election and 
 Reprobation, which are not the doctrines contained in the 
 Book of Common Prayer ? Is it quite clear that in the 
 year 1549, when the first book of Edward VI. was pub- 
 lished, that this was the opinion even of the German re- 
 formers ? Did they adhere to these doctrines ? I appre- 
 hend that is not quite so. I find it stated by Burnet, in his 
 ' History of the Reformation,'! the second volume, page 1 13 
 (speaking of the doctrine of Decrees, which is the doctrine 
 of Calvin, and is said to be the doctrine of the early 
 reformers) : — 
 
 "The Germans soon saw the ill effects of this doctrine. Luther 
 
 * The learned Judge seems to have misunderstood the facts stated by Dr. 
 Bay ford; for it is certain that Bucer drew up, by desire of the Archbishop, a 
 long ' Censura,' or Criticism on the Prayer Book of 1549, which is published 
 in his ' Scripta Auglicana,' folio, 1577, pp. 456 — 503; and it is equally 
 certain that Martyr did report his " observations" on the Prayer Book of 
 1549 to the Archbishop. See Dr. Bayford's Argument, p. 1 12, lines 8 and 17. 
 
 t Burnet's Hist, of Reform., vol. ii. p. 234, edit. 8vo., Oxford, 1829.
 
 ( 76 ) 
 
 changed his mind about it, and Melancthon openly writ against it, and 
 since that time the whole stream of the Lutheran churches has run the 
 other way. But both Calvin and Bucer were still i'or maintaining the 
 doctrine of those Decrees, only they warned the people not to think 
 much of them, since they were secrets which men could not penetrate 
 into ; but they did not so clearly show how these consequences did not 
 flow from such opinions. Hooper, and many other good writers, did 
 often dehort the people from entering into these curiosities, and a 
 Caveat to that same purpose was put ai'terwards into the Article of the 
 Church about Predestination." 
 
 So that the Germans had changed their opinions with respect 
 to the propriety of setting Predestination forth as a dogma 
 of faith. They " soon saw the ill effects of this doctrine," 
 and " Luther changed his mind," and Melancthon and 
 others woidd not encourage it. That is a very good reason 
 why the Reformers did not intend to lay down that as a 
 doctrine of faith for the Church of England. That seems 
 to be the reason (supposing they did embrace the doctrine 
 of Calvin to the extent I have mentioned) why the " Caveat 
 was put into the Article about Predestination." It was not 
 a doctrine of the Church of England, but they left it open 
 for the purpose of obtaining as many subscriptions as they 
 could. That they would not come to a determination, is 
 strong to show, that it is not one of the doctrines of the 
 Church of England. 
 
 As I have already said, it is quite impossible to follow 
 the learned Counsel through all the authorities he cited, 
 namely, — Cranmer, Bucer, Peter Martyr, and the rest of 
 the Reformers. It is equally impossible to travel through 
 the quotations fi-om ' The Zurich Letters.' It was said 
 here that Jewell, writing to Martyr, thus expressed him- 
 self ; that the English Reformers had ^^ pared every tiling 
 aicay to the quick ;" that there was not a difference " in 
 doctrine by a naiVs breadth " between themselves and the 
 Germans. I do not recollect the date of that letter * — 
 whether that was before the retractation, it may almost be 
 
 * Letter from Bishop Jewell to Peter Martyr; the date is, Salisbury, 
 Feb. 7, 1.562. See Zurich Letters, Elizabethan Series, First Portion, p. 100, 
 edit. Parker Soc., 1842.
 
 ( 77 ) 
 
 called, of the doctrine of Predestination ; nor does it appear 
 whether Predestination formed a part of the doctrine in which 
 they agreed with the German Church or not. Whether 
 that was a doctrine which was then embraced and held in 
 Germany, or whether the English Reformers ever went to 
 the extent of Calvin, is not, perhaps, quite ascertained. 
 
 Again, it does not appear that in Edward the Sixth's time 
 there was an universal consent to the doctrine. It is not 
 to be said that Latimer, and Ridley, and Cranmer have 
 expressed opinions privately, contrary to those which they 
 have declared publicly as the doctrines of the Church of 
 England. But, even if they have done so, I again say it is 
 the conjoint declaration of the body of Reformers, not the 
 opinion of individuals (however respectable for their learning 
 and piety), by which the Court must be guided. 
 
 Again, it may be admitted, and strongly admitted, that 
 in the latter part of the reign of Elizabeth the doctrines 
 of Calvin had obtained a very firm hold on the minds of 
 the people of this country ; and there might be those among 
 the persons referred to who did embrace the doctrine of 
 Predestination and Election. But it must be recollected 
 that the Articles of 1562 were the same, with some verbal 
 alterations, as those of 1552. The Articles of 1562 must 
 be construed by those of 1552, so far as they agree to- 
 gether ; if there is any difference in substance, recourse 
 must be had to those of 1552; but in the doctrine of 
 Baptism there is no difference. In the Articles of 1536 
 there was a different statement as to Baptism ; for in one of 
 those Articles was a declaration of the Church with respect 
 to the salvation of infants who were baptized and died 
 without committing actual sin, which in 1549 was transferred 
 to a Rubric prefixed to the Confirmation Service, and which 
 at the last revision in 1662 was transferred to a Rubric at 
 the conclusion of the Office for " The Ministration of Public 
 Baptism of Infants." But what I was more particularly 
 going to advert to is this : at the end of the Article of 1536 
 the words were added, " And else not,'" affirming that if
 
 ( 78 ) 
 
 baptized children died without committing actual sin * they 
 were saved, " else Jiot.^^ But the terminal clause, " else 
 not" was left out in the Rubric of 1549 ;t it is no part of 
 the doctrine of the Church of England that Baptism is abso- 
 lutely necessary ; highly necessary and important it is, 
 " where it can be had ;" that is stated in the present Service. 
 It was further stated by authors to whom Counsel referred, 
 that where it was not to be had, the want of the Sacrament 
 would not deprive persons of the benefit of Baptism ; but 
 the neglect of it, the contempt of it (for where it could be 
 had it ought to be had, and must be had) would incur the 
 penalty of the loss of salvation. 
 
 It was strongly insisted on by the learned Counsel for Mr. 
 Gorham that, the Reformers being Calvinists, the Articles 
 prepared by them must also be considered as Calvinistic. 
 Then you must show me to ivhat extent Cranmer, and 
 Latimer, and Ridley embraced this doctrine, and declared 
 their adherence to it as the doctrine of the Church. Their 
 private opinions cannot enter into the consideration of the 
 Question, because the Court is bound to consider what is 
 the true meaning of the words in these several Articles. 
 It cannot go into this long list ; it cannot travel through 
 this long chain of authorities, in order to see how far each 
 has gone in his acknowledgment of this doctrine. The 
 Question must turn upon the general acts of the Church, 
 publicly declared as the acts of the Body, and not upon the 
 opinion of individuals. 
 
 I have said, that in the latter part of Queen Elizabeth's 
 reign this doctrine had a strong possession of the minds of 
 the people of this country. We know that, in the interval 
 between the reign of Edward VI. and the accession of Eli- 
 
 * The words " loithont committiiuj actual sin" are not in the Article (153G) ; 
 but simply, " dj/ing in their infnnci/." " Insomuch as infants and children 
 dying in their infancy shall undoubtedly be saved thereby, and else not." 
 
 \ The words "else not" were retained in "the Institution," or what is 
 called ' The IJishop's Book,' 1537. They were first omitted in ' The Neces- 
 sary Doctrine,' or ' The King's Book,' 1543; they were also omitted in the 
 Liturgical Rubric, 1549 and 1552.
 
 ( 79 ) 
 
 zabeth, in the reign of Mary, a vast number of clergymen 
 left England, went to Germany, were in communication 
 with the German Reformers, and imbibed much of their 
 principles during their residence abroad. Undoubtedly 
 many of them had a strong impression in favour of the 
 doctrines of Calvin ; but not so all. Those doctrines were 
 not received here as such in the year 1562 ; and though it is 
 true that in the University of Oxford the books which were 
 selected for, and from which a choice was given to, the 
 students, were in their character Calvinistic, in the year 
 1596* (for that, I think, was the time that the order of the 
 University was made) ; although, I say, it is true (as appears 
 from Wood's ' Historia et Antiquitates Universitatis Oxo- 
 niensis ') that the books were, for the lower classes, Calvin's 
 ' Catechism,' besides Noioelts ' Greater Catechism,' ' The 
 Elements of the Christian Religion,' hy Andrew Hyperius, 
 and ' The Heidelburg Catechism f or, for the higher classes, 
 BuUingers ' Catechism for Adults,' Calvin's 'Institutes,' or 
 ' The Apology for the Church of England,' or ' The Ar- 
 ticles of the Church of England ;' yet that was for a par- 
 ticular end to be attained by the learned body of the Uni- 
 versity of Oxford at that time. Nor was Cambridge much 
 behind in that respect ; for we find that about this period of 
 time a very serious question arose regarding these doctrines 
 of Calvin. We have an account in Strype's ' Life of Arch- 
 bishop Whitgift,' t of that dispute. What was the result? 
 A member of the University % was to preach a Concio ad 
 Clerum, in which he not only attacked the doctrines of 
 Bucer and Martyr, but he indulged in personal invectives 
 against them. A complaint was made to Archbishop Whit- 
 gift. The University having called upon the preacher to 
 retract what he had said, he answered that there were no 
 reasons for retractation. The University applied to Arch- 
 
 * The year 1578 is the real date. See Wood's Hist, et Antiq. Univ. 
 Oxon., vol. i. p. 296, folio edit. ; or vol. ii. p. 193, 4to. edit., Gutch. 
 t Strype's Life of Whitgift, vol. ii. cap. 14. 
 X By name Barrett. His Sermon was preached at St. Mary's, in 159.').
 
 ( 80 ) 
 
 bishop Whitgift to interfere. lie did interfere ; the re- 
 tractation was obtained ; but Whitgift did not approve of it. 
 When that question was settled between the University and 
 the Archbishop, the Archbishop framed some Articles for the 
 purpose of confining the disputations in the schools and the 
 Condones ad Clerum within certain bounds. This led to 
 the Lambeth Articles. These Articles were ch-awn up by 
 Archbishop Whitgift, Dr. Whitaker, Regius Professor of 
 Divinity in the University of Cambridge (Dean of Ely at that 
 time), and two bishops, and were sent to Cambridge. What 
 was the consequence ? They went the whole length of the 
 doctrine of Calvin on Predestination, Election, and Repro- 
 bation ; but the Queen insisted upon it that they should be 
 repressed, and Archbishop Whitgift was obliged to submit 
 to her decision. I have the book here, but the passages are 
 much too long for me to read them. There is another case 
 which occurred shortly afterwards — the case of Dr. Baro, 
 who was Margaret Professor of Divinity about the same 
 time. He preached also against the doctrines of Calvin and 
 Bucer, and the result was the same. These Lambeth Ar- 
 ticles were to form the ground on which he was to be 
 impeached ; but, as I have already stated, the Queen was 
 so displeased, either on account of the interference with her 
 prerogative, or because they had been set forth without 
 authority as the doctrines of the Church of England, that 
 Archbishop Whitgift was obliged to consent to their being 
 dismissed. This was done by private individuals. I can 
 only take these Ai'ticlcs as the private opinions of Whitgift, 
 Whitaker, and others ; and the mere declaration of private 
 opinion can have no effect in binding any body, or influ- 
 encing the decision of a Court. After the death of Elizabeth, 
 by whom the Lambeth Articles were suppressed, some 
 notice was taken of them in the conference at Hampton 
 Court. King James said he had not even heard of them, 
 and inquired what they meant. They were explained to 
 him, as relating to the doctrine of Predestination. That is
 
 ( 81 ) 
 
 to be found in ' Cardwell's Conferences ;' * but it is not 
 necessary for the Court at this time to advert further to 
 that matter. 
 
 A good deal was said about Archbishop Bancroft ; or, 
 rather, not so much about him as about Mr. Rogers his 
 Chaplain. But I think there is good reason to doubt whether 
 Archbishop Bancroft's opinions were accurately expressed 
 by his Chaplain Rogers ; for, in Lord Clarendon's History 
 of the Rebellion (I quote from the octavo edition published 
 at Oxford in 1826, at page 156) he gives an account of the 
 death of the Archbishop at Lambeth. The marginal note 
 is, " The King's return and the death of Archbishop Abbott, 
 1633 ; his character." 
 
 *' He had scarce performed any part of the office of Bishop in the 
 Diocese of London when he was snatched from thence and promoted to 
 Canterbury upon the never enough lamented death of Dr. Bancroft, 
 that Metropolitan who understood the Church excellently, and had 
 almost rescued it out of the hands of the Calvinian party," — 
 
 this does not look like the Archbishop embracing the doc- 
 trines of Calvin, — 
 
 "and very much subdued the unruly spirit of the Nonconformists, by 
 and after the conference at Hamj)ton Court ; countenanced men of the 
 greatest parts in learning, and disposed the clergy to a more solid 
 course of study than they had been accustomed to ; and if he had lived 
 would quickly have extinguished all that fire in England which had 
 been kindled at Geneva ; or if he had been succeeded by Bishop 
 Andrews, Bishop Overal, or any man who understood and loved the 
 Church, that infection would easily have been kept out which could not 
 afterwards be so easily expelled." 
 
 In Cardwell's Conferences it appears very much to the same 
 effect as I have quoted. " If he had lived he would very soon 
 have extinguished " the Calvinian party. The passage to 
 which I allude is in the second day's Conferences, respecting 
 the Lambeth Articles, page 185. 
 
 " Here again, he" (the Bishop of London, that is Bancroft) "re- 
 membered the nine orthodoxal assertions concluded at Lambeth. Ilis 
 Majesty utterly disliked that first part of the motion for two rea- 
 sons :" — 
 
 * Cardwell's Conferences, p. 1S5, 2nd edit,, 8vo., Oxford, 1841. 
 
 c.
 
 and so forth ; and it goes on to say, — 
 
 " To the other part for the nine assertions, his Majesty could not sud- 
 denly answer, because he understood not what the Doctor meant by 
 those assertions or jjropositions at Lambeth ; but when it was informed 
 bis Majesty, that by reason of some controversies, arising in Cambridge, 
 about certain points of divinity, my Lord's Grace assembled some 
 divines of especial note, to set down their opinions, which they drew into 
 nine assertions, and so sent them to the University, for the appeasing of 
 those quarrels ; then his Majesty answered ; ' first, that when such ques- 
 tions arise among scholars, the quietest proceeding were, to determine 
 them in the Universities, and not to stuff the book with all conclusions 
 theological. Secondly, the better course would be to punish the broachera 
 of false doctrine, as occasion should be offered : for were the Articles 
 never so many and sound, who can prevent the contrary opinions of 
 
 men till they be heard ?' .In utter dislike of this doctrine his Majesty 
 
 entered into a longer speech of Predestination, and Reprobation, than 
 before, and of the necessary conjoining repentance and holiness of life 
 with true faith : concluding, that it was hypocrisy, and not true justi- 
 fying faith, which was severed from them : for although Predestination 
 and Election depend not upon any qualities, actions, or works of man, 
 which be mutable, but upon God his eternal and immutable decree and 
 purpose ; yet such is the necessity of repentance, after known sins com- 
 mitted, as that, without it, there could not be either reconciliation with 
 God or remission of those sins." 
 
 Archbishop Bancroft, who, at this conference, " remembered 
 the nine orthodoxal assertions conckided at Lambeth," is the 
 same Bishop who is said by Clarendon to have " almost 
 rescued the Church out of the hands of the Calvinian party." 
 Ther^ is something more in Cardwell to which I have lost 
 the reference ; but it is of no consequence after what I have 
 cited from Clarendon's History of the Rebellion. 
 
 On this part of the case, I am of opinion, that the private 
 views of individuals are not matters to which the Court 
 can attend. Their private opinions are nothing more than 
 expressive of what their own sentiments are ; they can have 
 no binding effect ; they can have no effect unless you can 
 say that the words of the Liturgy are incapable of being 
 construed in a literal sense ; they can throw no light on the 
 subject. If the words, indeed, are ambiguous, and cannot 
 be construed by other public acts of the Church, then it 
 would be right and proper to advert to the opinions of these
 
 ( 83 ) 
 
 persons ; but, so long as the Articles and the Services of 
 the Church are reconcilable ; and not only reconcilable, but 
 necessarily to be construed with a literal interpretation ; you 
 are not at liberty, as Bishop Conybeare says, to put an 
 interpretation upon them of a different character. If a 
 doctrine is laid down in the Baptismal Service, and in other 
 Services, and in the Rubrics (all of which were confirmed by 
 Act of Parliament, and adopted by Convocation — adopted 
 both by the Legislature and the Church), then you must 
 take that doctrine, and those expressions, in their literal 
 sense, and not indulge in fancy, explaining them by the 
 opinions expressed by private individuals. 
 
 That would, I think, dispose, so far as the Court would be 
 enabled to dispose, of this part of the Question. For I pro- 
 test against being driven to go through those Authorities 
 which were cited, and very properly cited, by the learned 
 Counsel. I have neither the means of doing it, nor the 
 physical ability for such labour. Therefore I say, again, 
 upon general principles (with regard to the authorities cited 
 by the learned Counsel for the purpose of showing that the 
 Reformers did embrace Calvinistic views), that the Calvin- 
 istic opinions expressed by them, in their private writings, 
 cannot go to the interpretation of the Articles, which require 
 no assistance from the opinions of private individuals. They 
 speak for themselves ; their language is precise and deter- 
 minate ; and it is not to be explained by a reference to 
 those opinions so expressed. 
 
 Now I am not aware that it is necessary for the Court to 
 occupy much more time upon the Question that has arisen 
 here. The point to be ascertained is, — the doctrine of the 
 Church of England ; whether it is that of Baptismal Re- 
 generation, or not. Another point to be determined is, 
 does Mr. Gorham deny that doctrine ? I say, it is clear — 
 from the passages read from his Examination, from the 
 whole tenor of his Examination, and the whole tenor 
 of the learned Counsel's argument upon it, that Mr.
 
 ( 84 ) 
 
 Goi-ham does oppose this doctrine of Baptismal Regenera- 
 tion. He says, the child may receive " an act of gi-ace," 
 and must receive " an act of grace," before it receives the 
 Sacrament of Baptism, to give it beneficial effect : but he 
 maintains that that " act of grace " is not conferred by 
 Baptism, though it may take place before Baptism, in 
 Baptism, or after Baptism. It is said, that the sign is not 
 the thing signified. Undoubtedly it is not ; but the Church 
 has declared that the thing signified is given at the moment ; 
 though such a doctrine may appear to approximate to the 
 Roman Catholic doctrine of the Opus Operatum. There is 
 no obex in the way, when infants are baptized ; therefore, 
 they receive the benefit, whatever it may be : — and it is " Spi- 
 ritual Regeneration," according to the words of the Formulary 
 of the Church ; it is prayed for as " Spiritual Regene- 
 ration." Therefore I say, if this is the doctrine of the 
 Church of England, which undoubtedly it is declared to be, 
 that children baptized are saved or regenerate if they die 
 without committing actual sin, — Mr. Gorham has main- 
 tained, and does maintain, doctrines opposed to those of the 
 Church of England. 
 
 Then what is the consequence ? Has the Bishop shown 
 sufficient cause why he should not institute Mr. Gorham to 
 the Vicarage of Brampford Speke ? If he has shown suf- 
 ficieitt cause, then the Bishop is entitled to be dismissed, and 
 must be dismissed with costs according to the usual course. 
 I am clearly of opinion that Mr, Gorham has held doctrine 
 which is opposed to the doctrine of the Church of England ; 
 and the Bishop therefore has shown sufficient cause why he 
 does not institute Mr. Gorham to the living of Brampford 
 Speke. The consequence, as I before said, is, the Bishop 
 must be dismissed, and must be dismissed with costs. 
 
 London : Printed by W. Ci.owES and Sons, Stamford Street.
 
 
 
 I 
 
 'i 
 
 I 
 
 .-s
 
 5^> 
 
 
 
 >:>>> 
 >>^> 
 
 
 
 
 ">i> J) "J J 
 
 ^'^^M^ 
 
 ^ >^' ai 
 
 > J>>i> "'>■'' 
 
 ^^ '^ 
 
 ► >•> Vk 
 
 
 ^t^ ^ 
 
 » > ■• 
 
 >^?^* 
 
 >,•> 
 
 sr ^. ^. 
 
 
 > >> . 
 
 -i. ^ >•" ..- 
 
 
 
 
 ^^^% 
 
 ^ »^ . 
 
 9 J ^^ ' -. '^ 
 
 »^ 
 
 |^X>> ■■ 
 
 > ~> ' • 
 
 ^^ -^ 
 
 
 
 ^ J 
 
 M^<. ' 
 
 5v^5* 
 
 ^■^I^BF 
 
 BȤ.S. 
 
 yj^ iai 
 
 ,.^^ 
 
 
 \*^^^ J dUR^- 
 
 ^B«L.^^K- ^ 
 
 >>> .^ 
 
 
 
 
 . V-.- ',-> > \*-"»n>T 
 
 -—: ^^?' 
 
 - ■■•>->> 
 * > > 
 
 ► > > 
 
 
 
 
 
 > >» 
 
 
 ^ >» 
 
 
 ^'.<^. ^%^ V ^^^^;<f. ^'iitatii^