,transcribed from the #ahej ,joseph ,masters edition by ,david ,price1 email ccx#jgdpglaf4org ,picture3 ,public domain book cover ,a ,,letter ,,to ,,the ,,bishop ,,of ,,exeter4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,by ,a ,,layman4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,for ,,private ,,circulation ,,only4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,london2 ,,printed ,,for ,,the ,,author ,,by ,,joseph ,,masters1 ,,aldersgate ,,street4 ,,mdcccl4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,printed ,,by ,,joseph ,,masters1 ,,aldersgate ,,street4 99 99 99 99 99 ,a ,,letter4 7,,copy47 ,,my ,,dear ,,lord1 ,,in the course of our conversation yesterday you did me the honour of saying that ,i had presented the decision of the ,judicial ,committee of the ,privy ,council in a somewhat new point of view to you1 and you wished that ,i would put the same down in writing for your more mature consideration4 ,i do so now--not without the hope that my view1 if it be correct1 may tend to quiet the fears of some of our more anxious friends by showing them what the effect of that ,judgment really is1 and how little when properly understood it affects the future prospects of the ,church4 ,but first ,i would wish to point out that a decision is not properly to be treated as a law4 ,it differs in this most material circumstance2 that a law governs all future decisions1 whether the ,judges appointed to decide agree with the law or not4 ,but a decision is questionable by them1 and only binds them if they agree with it4 ,i grant that a long course of uniform decisions constantly made1 and often recurring1 would probably be so nearly equivalent as to be treated practically as a law4 ,but we are speaking of one decision and the effect of it4 ,we have now a practical illustration of that in a case in which you are interested4 ,the ,queen's ,bench have refused you a rule for a prohibition1 and you are questioning that1 by renewing the same application to the ,common ,pleas4 ,if they agree with the ,queen's ,bench on the merits of the argument1 they will decide as the ,queen's ,bench have done4 ,if they do not agree they will without scruple act contrary to that decision4 ,if the decision of the ,queen's ,bench were a law they could not do this4 ,it may be said no doubt that these are courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction1 and that the ,judicial ,committee is the ,court of ultimate appeal4 ,but this really makes no difference4 ,it is clear that any future ,judicial ,committee could overrule this decision2 and so might even any inferior court subject however to the consequences of an ultimate appeal against their decision1 to which appeal the ,judicial ,committee itself is not liable4 ,in truth1 where the ,house of ,lords makes in a civil suit1 a decision contrary to the rules of law1 the courts of law very soon1 although they do not expressly overrule it1 make it practically inoperative by distinguishing every case which comes before them from it1 however minute such distinctions may be2 whilst if the decision be right and well-founded1 they carry it into effect fully and with all its reasonable consequences as corollaries from it4 ,to those therefore1 and there are many1 who think that this decision of the ,judicial ,committee is wrong1 ,i should say1 8lay before the public the grounds of your difference of opinion openly1 in the shape of well-considered arguments2 and in the next case of a similar nature which arises go with confidence in those arguments to the next ,judicial ,committee1 and you will probably succeed1 even if the same ,judges sit there1 and more certainly if their successors do so1 in overruling this erroneous decision4 ,in the mean while you will say1 there is the evil of a clerk of heretical opinions admitted into the ,church2 ,i admit the evil2 but suppose it was one who had been acquitted1 improperly perhaps in your opinion1 of any other offence by competent authority1 would it be fair to say1 because the tribunal had mistakenly acquitted him1 that it was decided that the ,church might properly be served by a criminal1 and therefore that you must leave it8 certainly not4 ,this clerk is in a similar category4 ,in your opinion he is a heretic4 ,but it has been adjudged otherwise by a competent tribunal1 and you must acquiesce in this instance1 in that judgment which you deem erroneous40 ,this1 my dear ,lord1 is the advice ,i should venture to give under these circumstances1 and ,i hope that in so doing1 ,i should have your concurrence4 ,but there is another point of view also1 and ,i think a very material one in which ,i wish to present the decision to you4 ,and it was this of which we were speaking yesterday4 ,supposing the decision to be of greater weight in governing future cases than for the above reasons ,i think it is1 what is the decision itself8 ,now it seems to me quite clear that the governing part of every decision as to future cases is the rule of law laid down therein4 ,if the ,judges who decide make a blunder as to the facts of the particular case1 and upon that erroneous view decide it1 laying down the law correctly supposing those facts to be true1 the decision may be a wrong one in the individual case1 but the law laid down will be right and may well govern in future4 ,to illustrate my proposition let me suppose that the ,judicial ,committee in stating what they1 from the facts before them1 considered to be ,mr4 ,gorham's opinions1 had stated that they considered him as holding 8that all children duly baptized in the mode prescribed by our ,liturgy were thereby regenerate0--and had proceeded to lay down as a rule that a ,clergyman holding that opinion could not justly be refused institution by your lordship4 ,who could have differed from them as to the rule--however much we might have been surprised as to their opinion on the facts8 ,the rule would be that which would govern future cases4 ,it would have been determined that ,clergymen holding the specified opinions must be instituted--and no injury could arise to the ,church from such a decision4 ,our complaint would be that ,mr4 ,gorham did not hold these opinions in fact4 ,this wrong would only apply to his individual case4 ,let me now call your attention to what the ,judicial ,committee have done4 ,they begin by stating1 as ,i have suggested1 ,mr4 ,gorham's opinions as they collect them from the documents laid before them4 ,they are these4 #a4 ,that ,baptism is a ,sacrament generally necessary to salvation2 but that the grace of regeneration does not so necessarily accompany the act of ,baptism that regeneration invariably takes place in ,baptism4 #b4 ,that the grace may be granted before1 in1 or after ,baptism4 #c4 ,that ,baptism is an effectual sign of grace by which ,,god works invisibly in us1 but only in such as worthily receive it3 in them alone it has a wholesome effect3 and that without reference to the qualification of the recipient it is not in itself an effectual sign of grace4 #d4 ,that infants baptized and dying before actual sin1 are certainly saved4 #e4 ,but that in no case is regeneration in ,baptism unconditional4 ,upon these opinions1 and these alone1 the ,court proceeds to give judgment1--and they hold that your ,lordship was not justified in refusing institution to a ,clerk holding these opinions4 ,even if the decision was in the nature of a law1 which it is not1 it is at the most a law framed in these specific terms4 ,now taking this to be so1 ,i am somewhat at a loss to perceive which of these five propositions taken to the letter necessarily and clearly militates against any known rule or doctrine of the ,church of ,england4 ,does the first8 ,for ,i have divided the statement into parts for greater convenience4 ,i apprehend not4 ,for that adults being baptized and not sincerely believing what they profess to believe are not regenerate in ,baptism1 is a proposition1 ,i believe not disputed by many4 ,if this be true1 regeneration does not so necessarily accompany the act of ,baptism1 that regeneration invariably 7that is to say in all cases7 takes place in ,baptism4 ,as expressed therefore1 the first proposition is not necessarily inconsistent with true doctrine4 ,its real fault is its ambiguity4 ,it is open1 as lawyers would say1 to a special demurrer1 and if ,mr4 ,gorham really so expressed himself1 ,i should think that in him an adroit special pleader had been lost to the law4 ,i proceed to the second clause4 ,that the grace may be granted before1 in1 or after ,baptism4 ,i doubt whether this be open to exception4 ,i speak with diffidence1 but ,i think there are passages of ,holy ,writ in which it at least seems probable that the grace was granted before1 perhaps being confirmed in1 ,baptism4 ,st4 ,paul is one instance of it4 ,the assembly at the house of ,cornelius another4 ,and who shall say that a converted and believing heathen man1 a sincere candidate for ,baptism1 may not have grace before ,baptism8 ,grace in ,baptism does not seem disputable4 ,grace after ,baptism is surely possible4 ,suppose the case of an adult duly baptized with water1 and in the ,name of the ,,father1 and the ,,son1 and the ,,holy ,,spirit1 who being not completely a believer1 becomes a complete and sincere ,christian believer afterwards4 ,it is at least doubtful1 and that would be enough1 whether a new ,baptism would be lawful in such a case4 ,but ,i conceive it is1 as to this1 sufficient to say that the ,church in her ,articles and ,liturgy has not clearly pronounced such a belief to be erroneous4 ,the third clause which confines the grace of regeneration in ,baptism to those who worthily receive it and to them alone is1 ,i conceive1 true as far as it goes4 ,it is defective in not adding that our ,church holds that all infants are worthy recipients4 ,but1 as it stands1 it is not inconsistent with such an opinion4 ,the fourth clause is in the very words of the ,liturgy4 ,the fifth1 you will observe1 is very carefully worded4 ,it merely asserts1 8that in no case is regeneration in ,baptism unconditional40 ,nor does the ,church1 as ,i believe1 say otherwise4 ,there is always the condition of being a worthy recipient4 ,if ,mr4 ,gorham thinks all infants are so1 and he nowhere in this statement of his opinions says the contrary1 ,i do not think the ,church will disagree with him1 for it may well be holden that a condition of worthiness is both required and fulfilled in infant ,baptism4 ,and in adult ,baptism the ,church does hold that this condition is not only required1 but that it may or may not be fulfilled at the time of ,baptism4 ,it may also be that this paragraph means that the condition of using the element of water and the words of our ,,lord is required4 ,and if so1 ,i conceive we do not differ with him in that respect4 ,i have now gone through the whole4 ,i hope ,i may satisfy you as ,i have satisfied myself1 that if this statement of ,mr4 ,gorham's opinions be a true1 full1 and complete statement of them1 and he holds nothing more adverse to the ,church than these exact words necessarily import1 you cannot with justice impeach or complain of the decision in his favour4 ,if such an opinion had come before you as ,bishop1 in his examination1 ,i do not for a moment suppose that you would have been satisfied with it4 ,what in it is ambiguous you would have required to be made more precise4 ,what in it is defective you would have caused to be supplied4 ,but this the ,court could not do4 ,they are limited by the actual examination and the opinions to be extracted from it4 ,and they cannot refuse ,mr4 ,gorham's prayer of institution if the case be not made out affirmatively against him4 ,the law1 then1 laid down by the ,judicial ,committee is1 that a ,clerk holding these specified opinions1 and no more1 must be instituted1 if in other respects unobjectionable4 ,this law1 if it be a law1 is that which affects future cases4 ,if1 therefore1 a ,clerk were avowedly to hold now1 totidem verbis1 that all ,infants are not worthy recipients of ,baptism1 and are not regenerate by ,baptism1 he will find it impossible1 in the letter of this decision1 to obtain protection for that opinion4 ,for it is not mentioned in the terms of the decision at all4 ,do ,i then say that ,i think the decision in this case is right8 ,far from it4 ,i own that to my mind it is altogether erroneous4 ,but the error consists in this1 that the ,judges in their supposed abstract of ,mr4 ,gorham's opinions1 have not stated the facts correctly4 ,it seems to me that he holds other opinions not stated in this abstract1 which ought to have produced an opposite decision4 ,but this is like the case of a ,jury mistaking1 or falsely finding the facts of a case4 ,that makes no rule for the government of future cases--though it does a particular and irremediable injustice in the case in which it happens4 ,i conclude1 therefore1 #ast4 ,that this is but a decision and no law4 ,that it governs future cases only if the ,judges who shall be called to determine them1 agree with the reasons given in this case4 ,that if on argument and full consideration these reasons are insufficient1 this decision may--ought to be--and will be--overruled4 ,therefore1 it does not govern or affect the ,church1 as a law made in ,convocation would do4 #bnd4 ,i conclude that even if it were a law1 it must be taken in the exact terms used by the ,court2 and that those terms construed literally1 are not necessarily inconsistent with sound doctrine4 #crd4 ,that the real error in this case is one of fact1 viz41 that the ,judges have misstated ,mr4 ,gorham's opinions1 or1 which is the same thing1 have not fully stated all the erroneous opinions which1 from the documents submitted to them1 he really holds2 and that this error1 lamentable as it is1 does not go beyond a wrong decision in the individual case1 and cannot be cited as a precedent1 except for the purpose of avoiding such mistakes in future4 ,now if this be so1 why should this decision so much disturb the minds of zealous and sincere men1 who in all other respects1 and up to this time1 have remained in our ,communion amongst the most valued of its members8 ,after turning this matter much and often in my thoughts1 ,i must deliberately say1 that in my humble judgment it should have no such effect4 ,it may be that the prevalence of erroneous views1 brought now under our notice1 should cause a greater care to set forth often and more emphatically the truth in this matter4 ,in all probability this will succeed4 ,for the truth needs only to be shown to be successful4 ,or it may be that your ,lordship and your brethren will do well to assist the inferior ,clergy1 and us1 the laity of your flocks1 with some assurance and advice on this important subject in dispute1 and to declare authoritatively that our ,church does not hold doubtful opinions on either of the two great ,sacraments1 for surely if she did1 she would not be a true branch of the ,catholic ,church at all4 ,i trust we shall not look in vain to our ,bishops for an answer to this question4 ,but in any event1 ,i see no ground for leaving the ,church in such an emergency4 ,we ought rather1 ,i think1 to cling more closely to her in this struggle against error and latitudinarian opinions4 ,with many apologies for giving you the trouble of reading this long letter1 and with the request that you will favour me with your opinion as to the subject of it4 ,believe me1 ,my dear ,lord1 ,very faithfully yours4 ,the ,lord ,bishop of ,exeter4 99 99 99 99 99 ,p4,s4--,i am aware that it is a received1 and probably a correct opinion1 that ,baptism1 if rightly administered1 is to all persons effectual regeneration1 either for good or for ill4 ,perhaps it was for this reason that the very same declaration1 8,seeing now that these persons are regenerate10 is retained in the service for adults1 as is found in that for infants1 although the regeneration for good is in adults confined to the worthy receivers of the rite4 ,and there is a further confirmation of it in the peculiar wording of the ,article of ,baptism1 which speaks of them who rightly receive it2 whereas1 the article as to the ,eucharist speaks of those who 7not only7 rightly 7but7 worthily and with faith receive it4 ,if this be so1 it would seem to exclude worthiness1 and with faith1 from being necessary ingredients in the effectual regeneration of baptism1 though necessary in the effectual regeneration to eternal life4 ,but this really would not vary the above argument1 and therefore ,i only advert to it here1 that ,i may not seem to have undesignedly omitted it4 ,for it is quite obvious that both your ,lordship in your examination--,mr4 ,gorham in his answers1 and the ,judicial ,committee in their ,judgment1 refer only to ,regeneration to ,eternal ,life--using it always in the good sense as distinguished from the effectual regeneration above referred to4 ,and therefore granting the above to be the true and correct view of the doctrine1 it will leave the present argument precisely of the same1 if of any1 value as before4 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 ,,london3 ,j4 ,,masters1 ,,printer1 ,,aldersgate ,,street4