3rd. That the real error in this case is one of fact, viz., that the Judges have misstated Mr. Gorham’s opinions, or, which is the same thing, have not fully stated all the erroneous opinions which, from the documents submitted to them, he really holds; and that this error, lamentable as it is, does not go beyond a wrong decision in the individual case, and cannot be cited as a precedent, except for the purpose of avoiding such mistakes in future.
Now if this be so, why should this decision so much disturb the minds of zealous and sincere men, who in all other respects, and up to this time, have remained in our Communion amongst the most valued of its members? After turning this matter much and often in my thoughts, I must deliberately say, that in my humble judgment it should have no such effect. It may be that the prevalence of erroneous views, brought now under our notice, should cause a greater care to set forth often and more emphatically the truth in this matter. In all probability this will succeed. For the truth needs only to be shown to be successful. Or it may be that your Lordship and your brethren will do well to assist the inferior Clergy, and us, the laity of your flocks, with some assurance and advice on this important subject in dispute, and to declare authoritatively that our Church does not hold doubtful opinions on either of the two great Sacraments, for surely if she did, she would not be a true branch of the Catholic Church at all. I trust we shall not look in vain to our Bishops for an answer to this question.
But in any event, I see no ground for leaving the Church in such an emergency. We ought rather, I think, to cling more closely to her in this struggle against error and latitudinarian opinions.
With many apologies for giving you the trouble of reading this long letter, and with the request that you will favour me with your opinion as to the subject of it.
Believe me,
My dear Lord,
Very faithfully yours.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter.
P.S.—I am aware that it is a received, and probably a correct opinion, that Baptism, if rightly administered, is to all persons effectual regeneration, either for good or for ill. Perhaps it was for this reason that the very same declaration, “Seeing now that these persons are regenerate,” is retained in the service for adults, as is found in that for infants, although the regeneration for good is in adults confined to the worthy receivers of the rite. And there is a further confirmation of it in the peculiar wording of the Article of Baptism, which speaks of them who rightly receive it; whereas, the article as to the Eucharist speaks of those who (not only) rightly (but) worthily and with faith receive it. If this be so, it would seem to exclude worthiness, and with faith, from being necessary ingredients in the effectual regeneration of baptism, though necessary in the effectual regeneration to eternal life.
But this really would not vary the above argument, and therefore I only advert to it here, that I may not seem to have undesignedly omitted it. For it is quite obvious that both your Lordship in your examination—Mr. Gorham in his answers, and the Judicial Committee in their Judgment, refer only to Regeneration to Eternal Life—using it always in the good sense as distinguished from the effectual regeneration above referred to. And therefore granting the above to be the true and correct view of the doctrine, it will leave the present argument precisely of the same, if of any, value as before.
LONDON: J. MASTERS, PRINTER, ALDERSGATE STREET.