{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_58105/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_58105","id":"gutenberg_58105","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/58105","summary":null,"tags":["Baptism -- Church of England -- History of doctrines -- 19th century","Baptism -- Law and legislation -- England -- History -- 19th century","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - British","Category: Law & Criminology","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Gorham, George Cornelius -- Trials, litigation, etc.","Great Britain. Privy Council. Judicial Committee","Phillpotts, Henry, 1778-1869 -- Trials, litigation, etc."],"text":"Transcribed from the 1850 Joseph Masters edition by David Price, email\nccx074@pglaf.org\n\n                   [Picture: Public domain book cover]\n\n\n\n\n\n                                 A LETTER\n                                    TO\n                          THE BISHOP OF EXETER.\n\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                               BY A LAYMAN.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                      FOR PRIVATE CIRCULATION ONLY.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                 LONDON;\n                        PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR BY\n                    JOSEPH MASTERS, ALDERSGATE STREET.\n                                 MDCCCL.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                        PRINTED BY JOSEPH MASTERS,\n                            ALDERSGATE STREET.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nA LETTER.\n\n\n                                 (COPY.)\n\nMY DEAR LORD,\n\nIN the course of our conversation yesterday you did me the honour of\nsaying that I had presented the decision of the Judicial Committee of the\nPrivy Council in a somewhat new point of view to you, and you wished that\nI would put the same down in writing for your more mature consideration.\nI do so now\u2014not without the hope that my view, if it be correct, may tend\nto quiet the fears of some of our more anxious friends by showing them\nwhat the effect of that Judgment really is, and how little when properly\nunderstood it affects the future prospects of the Church.  But first I\nwould wish to point out that a decision is not properly to be treated as\na law.  It differs in this most material circumstance; that a law governs\nall future decisions, whether the Judges appointed to decide agree with\nthe law or not.  But a decision is questionable by them, and only binds\nthem if they agree with it.  I grant that a long course of uniform\ndecisions constantly made, and often recurring, would probably be so\nnearly equivalent as to be treated practically as a law.  But we are\nspeaking of one decision and the effect of it.  We have now a practical\nillustration of that in a case in which you are interested.  The Queen\u2019s\nBench have refused you a rule for a prohibition, and you are questioning\nthat, by renewing the same application to the Common Pleas.  If they\nagree with the Queen\u2019s Bench on the merits of the argument, they will\ndecide as the Queen\u2019s Bench have done.  If they do not agree they will\nwithout scruple act contrary to that decision.  If the decision of the\nQueen\u2019s Bench were a law they could not do this.  It may be said no doubt\nthat these are courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, and that the Judicial\nCommittee is the Court of ultimate appeal.  But this really makes no\ndifference.  It is clear that any future Judicial Committee could\noverrule this decision; and so might even any inferior court subject\nhowever to the consequences of an ultimate appeal against their decision,\nto which appeal the Judicial Committee itself is not liable.  In truth,\nwhere the House of Lords makes in a civil suit, a decision contrary to\nthe rules of law, the courts of law very soon, although they do not\nexpressly overrule it, make it practically inoperative by distinguishing\nevery case which comes before them from it, however minute such\ndistinctions may be; whilst if the decision be right and well-founded,\nthey carry it into effect fully and with all its reasonable consequences\nas corollaries from it.  To those therefore, and there are many, who\nthink that this decision of the Judicial Committee is wrong, I should\nsay, \u201clay before the public the grounds of your difference of opinion\nopenly, in the shape of well-considered arguments; and in the next case\nof a similar nature which arises go with confidence in those arguments to\nthe next Judicial Committee, and you will probably succeed, even if the\nsame Judges sit there, and more certainly if their successors do so, in\noverruling this erroneous decision.  In the mean while you will say,\nthere is the evil of a clerk of heretical opinions admitted into the\nChurch; I admit the evil; but suppose it was one who had been acquitted,\nimproperly perhaps in your opinion, of any other offence by competent\nauthority, would it be fair to say, because the tribunal had mistakenly\nacquitted him, that it was decided that the Church might properly be\nserved by a criminal, and therefore that you must leave it? certainly\nnot.  This clerk is in a similar category.  In your opinion he is a\nheretic.  But it has been adjudged otherwise by a competent tribunal, and\nyou must acquiesce in this instance, in that judgment which you deem\nerroneous.\u201d  This, my dear Lord, is the advice I should venture to give\nunder these circumstances, and I hope that in so doing, I should have\nyour concurrence.\n\nBut there is another point of view also, and I think a very material one\nin which I wish to present the decision to you.  And it was this of which\nwe were speaking yesterday.  Supposing the decision to be of greater\nweight in governing future cases than for the above reasons I think it\nis, what is the decision itself?  Now it seems to me quite clear that the\ngoverning part of every decision as to future cases is the rule of law\nlaid down therein.  If the Judges who decide make a blunder as to the\nfacts of the particular case, and upon that erroneous view decide it,\nlaying down the law correctly supposing those facts to be true, the\ndecision may be a wrong one in the individual case, but the law laid down\nwill be right and may well govern in future.\n\nTo illustrate my proposition let me suppose that the Judicial Committee\nin stating what they, from the facts before them, considered to be Mr.\nGorham\u2019s opinions, had stated that they considered him as holding \u201cthat\nall children duly baptized in the mode prescribed by our Liturgy were\nthereby regenerate\u201d\u2014and had proceeded to lay down as a rule that a\nClergyman holding that opinion could not justly be refused institution by\nyour lordship.  Who could have differed from them as to the rule\u2014however\nmuch we might have been surprised as to their opinion on the facts?  The\nrule would be that which would govern future cases.  It would have been\ndetermined that Clergymen holding _the specified opinions_ must be\ninstituted\u2014and no injury could arise to the Church from such a decision.\nOur complaint would be that Mr. Gorham did not hold these opinions in\nfact.  This wrong would only apply to his individual case.\n\nLet me now call your attention to what the Judicial Committee have done.\nThey begin by stating, as I have suggested, Mr. Gorham\u2019s opinions as they\ncollect them from the documents laid before them.  They are these.\n\n1.  That Baptism is a Sacrament generally necessary to salvation; but\nthat the grace of regeneration does not so necessarily accompany the act\nof Baptism that regeneration _invariably_ takes place in Baptism.\n\n2.  That the grace may be granted before, in, or after Baptism.\n\n3.  That Baptism is an effectual sign of grace by which GOD works\ninvisibly in us, but only in such as _worthily_ receive it: in them\n_alone_ it has a wholesome effect: and that without reference to the\nqualification of the recipient it is not in itself an effectual sign of\ngrace.\n\n4.  That infants baptized and dying before actual sin, are certainly\nsaved.\n\n5.  But that in _no case_ is regeneration in Baptism unconditional.\n\nUpon these opinions, and these alone, the Court proceeds to give\njudgment,\u2014and they hold that your Lordship was not justified in refusing\ninstitution to a Clerk holding these opinions.  Even if the decision was\nin the nature of a law, which it is not, it is at the most a law framed\nin these specific terms.  Now taking this to be so, I am somewhat at a\nloss to perceive which of these five propositions taken to the letter\nnecessarily and clearly militates against any known rule or doctrine of\nthe Church of England.\n\nDoes the first?  For I have divided the statement into parts for greater\nconvenience.  I apprehend not.  For that adults being baptized and not\nsincerely believing what they profess to believe are not regenerate in\nBaptism, is a proposition, I believe not disputed by many.  If this be\ntrue, regeneration does not so necessarily accompany the act of Baptism,\nthat regeneration _invariably_ (that is to say in all cases) takes place\nin Baptism.  As expressed therefore, the first proposition is not\nnecessarily inconsistent with true doctrine.  Its real fault is its\nambiguity.  It is open, as lawyers would say, to a special demurrer, and\nif Mr. Gorham really so expressed himself, I should think that in him an\nadroit special pleader had been lost to the law.\n\nI proceed to the second clause.  That the grace may be granted before,\nin, or after Baptism.  I doubt whether this be open to exception.  I\nspeak with diffidence, but I think there are passages of Holy Writ in\nwhich it at least seems probable that the grace was granted before,\nperhaps being confirmed in, Baptism.  St. Paul is one instance of it.\nThe assembly at the house of Cornelius another.  And who shall say that a\nconverted and believing heathen man, a sincere candidate for Baptism, may\nnot have grace before Baptism?  Grace in Baptism does not seem\ndisputable.  Grace after Baptism is surely possible.  Suppose the case of\nan adult duly baptized with water, and in the Name of the FATHER, and the\nSON, and the HOLY SPIRIT, who being not completely a believer, becomes a\ncomplete and sincere Christian believer afterwards.  It is at least\ndoubtful, and that would be enough, whether a new Baptism would be lawful\nin such a case.  But I conceive it is, as to this, sufficient to say that\nthe Church in her Articles and Liturgy has not clearly pronounced such a\nbelief to be erroneous.\n\nThe third clause which confines the grace of regeneration in Baptism to\nthose who _worthily_ receive it and to them _alone_ is, I conceive, true\nas far as it goes.  It is defective in not adding that our Church holds\nthat all infants are worthy recipients.  But, as it stands, it is not\ninconsistent with such an opinion.\n\nThe fourth clause is in the very words of the Liturgy.\n\nThe fifth, you will observe, is very carefully worded.  It merely\nasserts, \u201cthat in no case is regeneration in Baptism unconditional.\u201d  Nor\ndoes the Church, as I believe, say otherwise.  There is always the\ncondition of being a worthy recipient.  If Mr. Gorham thinks all infants\nare so, _and he nowhere in this statement of his opinions says the\ncontrary_, I do not think the Church will disagree with him, for it may\nwell be holden that a condition of worthiness is both required and\nfulfilled in infant Baptism.  And in adult Baptism the Church does hold\nthat this condition is not only required, but that it may or may not be\nfulfilled at the time of Baptism.  It may also be that this paragraph\nmeans that the condition of using the element of water and the words of\nour LORD is required.  And if so, I conceive we do not differ with him in\nthat respect.\n\nI have now gone through the whole.  I hope I may satisfy you as I have\nsatisfied myself, that if this statement of Mr. Gorham\u2019s opinions be a\ntrue, full, and complete statement of them, and he holds nothing more\nadverse to the Church than these exact words necessarily import, you\ncannot with justice impeach or complain of the decision in his favour.\nIf such an opinion had come before you as Bishop, in his examination, I\ndo not for a moment suppose that you would have been satisfied with it.\nWhat in it is ambiguous you would have required to be made more precise.\nWhat in it is defective you would have caused to be supplied.  But this\nthe Court could not do.  They are limited by the actual examination and\nthe opinions to be extracted from it.  And they cannot refuse Mr.\nGorham\u2019s prayer of institution if the case be not made out\n_affirmatively_ against him.\n\nThe law, then, laid down by the Judicial Committee is, that a Clerk\nholding these specified opinions, and no more, must be instituted, if in\nother respects unobjectionable.  This law, if it be a law, is that which\naffects future cases.  If, therefore, a Clerk were avowedly to hold now,\ntotidem verbis, that _all Infants are not worthy recipients of Baptism_,\n_and are not regenerate by Baptism_, he will find it impossible, in the\nletter of this decision, to obtain protection for that opinion.  For it\nis not mentioned in the terms of the decision at all.\n\nDo I then say that I think the decision in this case is right?  Far from\nit.  I own that to my mind it is altogether erroneous.  But the error\nconsists in this, that the Judges in their supposed abstract of Mr.\nGorham\u2019s opinions, have not stated the facts correctly.  It seems to me\nthat he holds other opinions not stated in this abstract, which ought to\nhave produced an opposite decision.  But this is like the case of a Jury\nmistaking, or falsely finding the facts of a case.  That makes no rule\nfor the government of future cases\u2014though it does a particular and\nirremediable injustice in the case in which it happens.\n\nI conclude, therefore, 1st.  That this is but a decision and no law.\nThat it governs future cases only if the Judges who shall be called to\ndetermine them, agree with the reasons given in this case.  That if on\nargument and full consideration these reasons are insufficient, this\ndecision may\u2014ought to be\u2014and will be\u2014overruled.  Therefore, it does not\ngovern or affect the Church, as a law made in Convocation would do.\n\n2nd.  I conclude that even if it were a law, it must be taken in the\nexact terms used by the Court; and that those terms construed literally,\nare not necessarily inconsistent with sound doctrine.\n\n3rd.  That the real error in this case is one of fact, viz., that the\nJudges have misstated Mr. Gorham\u2019s opinions, or, which is the same thing,\nhave not fully stated all the erroneous opinions which, from the\ndocuments submitted to them, he really holds; and that this error,\nlamentable as it is, does not go beyond a wrong decision in the\nindividual case, and cannot be cited as a precedent, except for the\npurpose of avoiding such mistakes in future.\n\nNow if this be so, why should this decision so much disturb the minds of\nzealous and sincere men, who in all other respects, and up to this time,\nhave remained in our Communion amongst the most valued of its members?\nAfter turning this matter much and often in my thoughts, I must\ndeliberately say, that in my humble judgment it should have no such\neffect.  It may be that the prevalence of erroneous views, brought now\nunder our notice, should cause a greater care to set forth often and more\nemphatically the truth in this matter.  In all probability this will\nsucceed.  For the truth needs only to be shown to be successful.  Or it\nmay be that your Lordship and your brethren will do well to assist the\ninferior Clergy, and us, the laity of your flocks, with some assurance\nand advice on this important subject in dispute, and to declare\nauthoritatively that our Church does not hold doubtful opinions on either\nof the two great Sacraments, for surely if she did, she would not be a\ntrue branch of the Catholic Church at all.  I trust we shall not look in\nvain to our Bishops for an answer to this question.\n\nBut in any event, I see no ground for leaving the Church in such an\nemergency.  We ought rather, I think, to cling more closely to her in\nthis struggle against error and latitudinarian opinions.\n\nWith many apologies for giving you the trouble of reading this long\nletter, and with the request that you will favour me with your opinion as\nto the subject of it.\n\n                               Believe me,\n\n                                                             My dear Lord,\n                                                    Very faithfully yours.\n\nThe Lord Bishop of Exeter.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\nP.S.\u2014I am aware that it is a received, and probably a correct opinion,\nthat Baptism, if rightly administered, is to all persons effectual\nregeneration, either for good or for ill.  Perhaps it was for this reason\nthat the very same declaration, \u201cSeeing now that these persons are\nregenerate,\u201d is retained in the service for adults, as is found in that\nfor infants, although the regeneration for good is in adults confined to\nthe worthy receivers of the rite.  And there is a further confirmation of\nit in the peculiar wording of the Article of Baptism, which speaks of\nthem who _rightly_ receive it; whereas, the article as to the Eucharist\nspeaks of those who (not only) rightly (but) worthily and with faith\nreceive it.  If this be so, it would seem to exclude worthiness, and with\nfaith, from being necessary ingredients in the effectual regeneration of\nbaptism, though necessary in the effectual regeneration to eternal life.\n\nBut this really would not vary the above argument, and therefore I only\nadvert to it here, that I may not seem to have undesignedly omitted it.\nFor it is quite obvious that both your Lordship in your examination\u2014Mr.\nGorham in his answers, and the Judicial Committee in their Judgment,\nrefer only to Regeneration to Eternal Life\u2014using it always in the good\nsense as distinguished from the effectual regeneration above referred to.\nAnd therefore granting the above to be the true and correct view of the\ndoctrine, it will leave the present argument precisely of the same, if of\nany, value as before.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n             LONDON: J. MASTERS, PRINTER, ALDERSGATE STREET.","title":"A Letter to the Bishop of Exeter","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":2976}