THE REV. G. C. GORHAM v. THE BISHOP OF EXETER.

New Zealander, Volume 5, Issue 398, 6 February 1850, Page 3

THE REV. G. C. GORHAM v. THE BISHOP OF EXETER.

In a reference to this case in one of our recent summaries of English intelligence, we expressed an intention of laying its facts before our readers more fully than the space — or, indeed, the materials— then at our command would permit. We now proceed to do so ; of course, not, with a view of entering upon any controversial discussion on the merits of the theological^questions involved in it, which, important though those questions confessedly are, would not be suited to our columns ; but in order to make the public here acquainted, as matttr of desirable information, with the general grounds and bearing of a decision which is undoubtedly one of the most vital to the Church of England ever pronounced by the Court of Arches.* We condense the following statement of the

* The " Court of Arches" is (•» many of our reader! are aware) the lupreme eccleti&st'cal court of appeal in the Archbuhopric of Canterbury. Itderivtt iti name from the church of St. Mury-le-bow fde Arcubusj the top of which is raised of itonn pillar* built arch-u>ite, where the court wai anciently held, until (about 1567) it was removed to the Common Hall of Doctor's Commons. The Aiches>Court has a general appellate jurisdiction in eccleiiaitical causes ariiing within tbc limits of the Province of Canterbury. The Judge is the Deputy of the Archbishop, who, in legal consideration, i» bimielf the Judge of tbc Court,

leading facts of the case principally from the narrative embodied in the long and elaborate Judgment delivered by Sir Herbert Jenner Fust in the Arches Court on the 2nd of August, — this being, obviously, so far as it goes, the most authentic and unexceptionable source ! of information on which we could draw. Mr. Goriiam, an ordained minister of considerable standing in the Church, and a Bachelor of Divinity, was, in January 1846, presented to the vicarage of St. Just, in the diocese of Exeter. On that occasion the Bishop was so satisfied with his testimonials of learning, moral conduct, and sound doctrine that he instituted him to the benefice without subjecting him to any personal examination. But, in February 1847, Mr. Gorham wishing to exchange that living for another, was presented by the present Lord Chancellor to the vicarage of Bampford Speke, in the county of Devon. This being also in the diocese of Exeter, he naturally expected that the Bishop would, as a matter of course, proceed to institute him ; his Lordship, however, declined to do so, until he had satisfied himself as to the soundness of his religious principles, especially on the subject of Baptism, which, Sir H. J. Fust says, " in his Lordship's opinion was the foundation of all Christian doctrine." The Lord Chancellor, on learning the circumstances, expressed his intention still to sign the fiat of presentment, without entering into this question ; but the Bishop was resolute, and accordingly commenced an examination of Mr. Gorham which he continued during five days in December 1847, and resumed for three days in the March following. On the 20th of that month, a formal notice was delivered to that gentleman declaring that the Bishop would decline to institute him to Bampford Speke, and assigning as the reason of his refusal that Mr. Gorham held unsound doctrine. Mr. Gorham then brought the case into the Ecclesiastical Court, where, after various delays <d law, it was heard at great length, the argument occupying six days, and Mr. Gorham's leading counsel alone speaking for fifteen hours. The principal evidence was a book annexed to the Bishop's Petition, which extended to between 200 and 300 pages, and contained 149 questions addressed by his Lordship to Mr. Goriiam, with the answers thereto. The Bishop alleged that " it appeared in the course of his examination that Mr. Gorham was of unsound doctrine respecting that great and fundamental pomt — the efficacy of the Sacrament of Baptism, inasmuch as he held and persisted in holding, that spiritual regeneration was not I given or conferred in that holy sacrament ; in particular, that infants were not made therein members of Christ and children of God, 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." Mr. Gorham, in his reply, alleged " that he did not maintain any views whatever contrary to the true doctrine of the Church of England as dogmatically determined in her Articles, familiarly taught in her Catechism, and devotionaily expressed in her Services, it having been his desire and endeavour throughout the examination to explain the language both of her Articles and Liturgy in compliance with the express direction of the Church herself, 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 Holy Scriptures, declared by the said Articles to be of paramount and absolute authority." The question then on which the Court was galled to determine was — not what is the truth, as taught in the Scriptures, on the subject of Baptism, — but, what is the doctrine of the Church of England respecting it. On this point, Sir H. J. Fust took care to guard himself fully. "He was not," he said, " going to pronounce an opinion as to whether unconditional regeneration in the case of infants was or was not a true scriptural doctrine ; all that came within the limits of the authority of the Court was to ascertain whether the Church had determined any thing upon the subject, and, if so, then to pronounce accordingly." It is well, we may remark, that this was Sir H. J. Fust's " limited service," for the theological views which he occasionally expresses in the course of the elaborate Judgment before us seem as crude and inconsistent, as the enunciation of ecclesiastical law is clear and connected. The conclusion at which the learned Judge arrived, he thus stated :- " The point to be determined was, Did or did not the Church of England hold the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration ? Undoubtedly it did. Did Mr. Goriiam deny the truth of that doctrine? It was clear from the whole tenor of his examination that such was the case. The Bishop, therefore, had sufficient cause for not instituting Mr. Goriiam to Barapford Speke ; and he must consequently, be dismissed with his costs." From these statements, the real character — and the real magnitude — of this case will appear. It is not a mere personal question as to whether Mr. Gorham shall or shall not get his living, which, however interesting to himself, could have little interest for the public ;— nor

yet is it merely a question respecting right of patronage between the Crown which presents and the Bishop who refuses to induct to the living, although in this view it may include the germ of great future embarrassments. The real force and importance of the Judgment, as it must be regarded by the whole body of the Evangelical Clergy, cannot be better stated than in the words of their own organ, the (London) Record :—: — «• The decision, if submitted to, would establish two points, both equally fatal :— 1. That the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, as held by the Bishop of Exeter and questioned by Mr. Goriiam, is the doctrine of the Church of England, and that no man could properly be instituted to a living, or licensed to a cur icy, who did not hold indiscriminate and universal Baptismal Regeneration, in the fulleit and most revolting form. 2. That the novel course adopted by the Bishop of Exeter, but hitherto unheard of in the Church was the right one. That is, that any Bishop might justly place any clergyman, even of mature years and un« blemished character, on his trial, and, after a questioning of two or three days, refuse him admission to a living or a curacy, on an alleged defect in his dootrine, although the examinee willingly assented both to the Articles and the Prayer Book. If tlie»e two novelties can be established in the Church, it require* little prescience to foretell that she will very soon be rent in pieces. Let the clergy and laity arise as ono man, and support Mr. Goruam in this arduous and all-important struggle." How far they will do so remains to be seen ; but we have ourselves heard clergymen of eminence and long experience at home express their belief that such a decision as this would issue in an extensive secession from the Church, shutting up, as it would, all ministers in her communion to an employment of a Service ! which had been authoritatively declared to convey a meaning and inculcate a doctrine which the Evangelical clergy not only disavow, but, for the most part, condemn as unscriptural and dangerous. Now, as Sir H. J. Fust put it, " If a person assents and consents to make use of the formulary, he acknowledges the truth of what it contains." The ultimate decision of the matter is no doubt still technically pending, as the case is to be heard on appeal before the Privy Council ; but a reversal of the judgment by the Council — although, of course, possible — is certainly far from probable. It is inferred indeed, — from the significant circumstance that the Archbishop of Canterbury has appointed to a valuable and influential benefice in the Metropolis, the Rev. W. Goode, who is an able and uncompromising champion of evangelical views on this and other subjects, and also from the distinct repudiation of Baptismal Regeneration, as held by the Tractarian Sect, which was made prominent in a portion of the new Archbishop of York's Charge, (quoted in a farmer number of the New Zealander,) — that the Privy Council may be influenced by the known (or, at all events, confidently assumed) opinions of both the Archbishops, to determine contrary to Sir H. J. Fust's decision. But should this unlikely event take place, it will unsettle in some ways as much as it can settle in others, and will leave the politico 'ecclesiastical questions which are more or less involved in the sub ject — in a confusion worse confounded than ever. Incidentally to the subject, Sir H. J. Fust pronounced another opinion which may he found pregnant with important issues, heing in effect a declaration that, in his apprehension, the peculiarities of the Calvinistic theology, are not the doctrines of the Church of England. It had been argued that the Reformers themselves were Calvinistic in their views, and that therefore the ritual Service which they framed must be interpreted in a sense consistent with such views. The argument was set aside on ' the ground that various parties living at the J time held various opinions, and the Court could only rely on what had been actually embodied in the Articles and Services. Sir H. J. Fust, however took occasion to express views on the collateral point thus urged, which we give in his own words :—: — " Could the Reformers have received the principle that none but the elect were to have the power of faith and repentance gi anted to them ? That was not only in opposition to the Baptismal Service, but it went to the very root of all religion. If predestination, election, and repiobation were to be the faith of the Church, then where was ihe necessity for prayer at all ? What encouragement was there for a person to inform himself as to the will of God, if he was assured that before his birth his fate was determined for eternal happiness or eternal misery? The whole structure of the prayers contained in the Book of Common Prayer wis based upon the principle that when a man turned away from his wickedness and repented of his sin, he received forgiveness. The Reformers individually might have adopted the doctrines of Calvin 5 but had they embodied them in the Services* and Articles of the Church of England ? Ho apprehended clearly and decidedly NOT." Does not this mean that the Bishop of Exeter or any other Prelate in the Established Church may, if he so will, refuse to institute, or license, or even ordain, a candidate holding the Calvinistic interpretation of the 17th Article ; and that the Arches-Court would support him in snch lefusal ? Taking in the whole case, every man acquainted with the position of Church affairs at home, must see that this judgment is full of ominous bearing on the peace of the Church of England. '