A Letter to the Bishop of Exeter

by Sir Edward Hall Alderson

Does the first? For I have divided the statement into parts for greater convenience. I apprehend not. For that adults being baptized and not sincerely believing what they profess to believe are not regenerate in Baptism, is a proposition, I believe not disputed by many. If this be true, regeneration does not so necessarily accompany the act of Baptism, that regeneration invariably (that is to say in all cases) takes place in Baptism. As expressed therefore, the first proposition is not necessarily inconsistent with true doctrine. Its real fault is its ambiguity. It is open, as lawyers would say, to a special demurrer, and if Mr. Gorham really so expressed himself, I should think that in him an adroit special pleader had been lost to the law.

I proceed to the second clause. That the grace may be granted before, in, or after Baptism. I doubt whether this be open to exception. I speak with diffidence, but I think there are passages of Holy Writ in which it at least seems probable that the grace was granted before, perhaps being confirmed in, Baptism. St. Paul is one instance of it. The assembly at the house of Cornelius another. And who shall say that a converted and believing heathen man, a sincere candidate for Baptism, may not have grace before Baptism? Grace in Baptism does not seem disputable. Grace after Baptism is surely possible. Suppose the case of an adult duly baptized with water, and in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who being not completely a believer, becomes a complete and sincere Christian believer afterwards. It is at least doubtful, and that would be enough, whether a new Baptism would be lawful in such a case. But I conceive it is, as to this, sufficient to say that the Church in her Articles and Liturgy has not clearly pronounced such a belief to be erroneous.

The third clause which confines the grace of regeneration in Baptism to those who worthily receive it and to them alone is, I conceive, true as far as it goes. It is defective in not adding that our Church holds that all infants are worthy recipients. But, as it stands, it is not inconsistent with such an opinion.

The fourth clause is in the very words of the Liturgy.

The fifth, you will observe, is very carefully worded. It merely asserts, “that in no case is regeneration in Baptism unconditional.” Nor does the Church, as I believe, say otherwise. There is always the condition of being a worthy recipient. If Mr. Gorham thinks all infants are so, and he nowhere in this statement of his opinions says the contrary, I do not think the Church will disagree with him, for it may well be holden that a condition of worthiness is both required and fulfilled in infant Baptism. And in adult Baptism the Church does hold that this condition is not only required, but that it may or may not be fulfilled at the time of Baptism. It may also be that this paragraph means that the condition of using the element of water and the words of our Lord is required. And if so, I conceive we do not differ with him in that respect.

I have now gone through the whole. I hope I may satisfy you as I have satisfied myself, that if this statement of Mr. Gorham’s opinions be a true, full, and complete statement of them, and he holds nothing more adverse to the Church than these exact words necessarily import, you cannot with justice impeach or complain of the decision in his favour. If such an opinion had come before you as Bishop, in his examination, I do not for a moment suppose that you would have been satisfied with it. What in it is ambiguous you would have required to be made more precise. What in it is defective you would have caused to be supplied. But this the Court could not do. They are limited by the actual examination and the opinions to be extracted from it. And they cannot refuse Mr. Gorham’s prayer of institution if the case be not made out affirmatively against him.

The law, then, laid down by the Judicial Committee is, that a Clerk holding these specified opinions, and no more, must be instituted, if in other respects unobjectionable. This law, if it be a law, is that which affects future cases. If, therefore, a Clerk were avowedly to hold now, totidem verbis, that all Infants are not worthy recipients of Baptism, and are not regenerate by Baptism, he will find it impossible, in the letter of this decision, to obtain protection for that opinion. For it is not mentioned in the terms of the decision at all.

Do I then say that I think the decision in this case is right? Far from it. I own that to my mind it is altogether erroneous. But the error consists in this, that the Judges in their supposed abstract of Mr. Gorham’s opinions, have not stated the facts correctly. It seems to me that he holds other opinions not stated in this abstract, which ought to have produced an opposite decision. But this is like the case of a Jury mistaking, or falsely finding the facts of a case. That makes no rule for the government of future cases—though it does a particular and irremediable injustice in the case in which it happens.

I conclude, therefore, 1st. That this is but a decision and no law. That it governs future cases only if the Judges who shall be called to determine them, agree with the reasons given in this case. That if on argument and full consideration these reasons are insufficient, this decision may—ought to be—and will be—overruled. Therefore, it does not govern or affect the Church, as a law made in Convocation would do.

2nd. I conclude that even if it were a law, it must be taken in the exact terms used by the Court; and that those terms construed literally, are not necessarily inconsistent with sound doctrine.