GORHAM CONTROVERSY. The Gorham controversy arose out of the refusal of Henry Philpott, bishop of Exeter, to institute the Rev.. Cornelius Gorham, formerly fellow of Queen's college, Cambridge, and then vicar of St. Just-in-Penrith, to the vicarage of Brampford Speke, on his presentation thereto by the lord chancellor. The alleged ground of this refusal was, that after examination the bish4 found Mr. Gor ham to be of unsound doctrine as to the efficacy of the sacrament of baptisM, inasmuch BA he held that spiritual regeneration is not given or conferred hi that sacrament, and in particular, that infants are not made therein `. members of Christ and the children of God," as the catechism and formularies of the church declare them to be. The case was brought before the Arches court of Canterbury, which decided (1849) that baptismal regeneration is the doctrine of the church of England, and that Mr. Gorham maintained doctrines on the point opposed to those of the church, and that consequently the bishop had shown sufficieut cause for his refusal to institute, and that the appeal must be dis missed with costs. From this decision, Mr. Gorham appettled to the judicial committee of privy council. The committee complained that the bishop's questions were intricate and entangling, and that the answers were not given plainly and directly. Their deci sion was in substauce as follows; and it must be noted what points they undertook to decide, and what not. The court declared that it had no jurisdiction to settle matters
of faith, or to determine what ought, in any particular, to be the doctrine of the church of England, its duty being only to consider what is by law established to be her doctrine upon the legal construction of her articles and formularies. It appeared that very different opinions as to the sacrament of baptism were held by the promoters of the reformation; that differencs of opinion on various points left open were always thought consistent with subscription to the articles; and also, that opinions in no important par ticular to be distinguished frOm Mr. Gorham's had been maintained without censure by many eminent prelates and divines. Without expressing any opinion as to the theo logical accuracy of Mr. Gorham's opinions, the court decided that the judgment of the Arches court should be reversed. Mr. Gorham was accordingly instituted to Brampford Speke. During the two years that the suit was pending, the theological question was discussed with all degrees of ability and acrimony in sermons and pamphlets; and it was expected that if the judgment had gone the other way, a large body of the evangelical clergy, who for the most part hold views more or less in accordance with those of Mr. Gorham, would have seceded from the church.