eminent victorians-第12章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



agony　to　those　old　writings　which　had　provided　Newman　with　so

much　instruction　and　assistance；　perhaps　the　Fathers　would　do

something　for　him　as　well。　He　ransacked　the　pages　of　St。　Cyprian

and　St。　Cyril；　he　went　through　the　complete　works　of　St。　Optatus

and　St。　Leo；　he　explored　the　vast　treatises　of　Tertullian　and

Justin　Martyr。　He　had　a　lamp　put　into　his　phaeton；　so　that　he

might　lose　no　time　during　his　long　winter　drives。　There　he　sat；

searching　St。　Chrysostom　for　some　mitigation　of　his　anguish；

while　he　sped　along　between　the　hedges　to　distant　sufferers；　to

whom　he　duly　administered　the　sacraments　according　to　the　rites

of　the　English　Church。　He　hurried　back　to　commit　to　his　Diary　the

analysis　of　his　reflections；　and　to　describe；　under　the　mystic

formula　of　secrecy；　the　intricate　workings　of　his　conscience　to

Robert　Wilberforce。　But；　alas！　he　was　no　Newman；　and　even　the

fourteen　folios　of　St。　Augustine　himself；　strange　to　say；　gave

him　very　little　help。



The　final　propulsion　was　to　come　from　an　entirely　different

quarter。　In　November；　1847；　the　Reverend　Mr。　Gorham　was　presented

by　the　Lord　Chancellor　to　the　living　of　Bramford　Speke　in　the

diocese　of　Exeter。　The　Bishop；　Dr。　Phillpotts；　was　a　High

Churchman；　and　he　had　reason　to　believe　that　Mr。　Gorham　held

evangelical　opinions；　he　therefore　subjected　him　to　an

examination　on　doctrine；　which　took　the　form　partly　of　a　verbal

interrogatory；　lasting　thirty…eight　hours；　and　partly　of　a　series

of　one　hundred　and　forty…nine　written　questions。　At　the　end　of

the　examination　he　came　to　the　conclusion　that　Mr。　Gorham　held

heretical　views　on　the　subject　of　Baptismal　Regeneration；　and　he

therefore　refused　to　institute。　　Mr。　Gorham；　thereupon；　took

proceedings　against　the　Bishop　in　the　Court　of　Arches。　He　lost

his　case；　and　he　then　appealed　to　the　judicial　Committee　of　the

Privy　Council。



The　questions　at　issue　were　taken　very　seriously　by　a　large

number　of　persons。　In　the　first　place；　there　was　the　question　of

Baptismal　Regeneration　itself。　This　is　by　no　means　an　easy　one　to

disentangle；　but　it　may　be　noted　that　the　doctrine　of　Baptism

includes：　（1）　God's　intention；　that　is　to　say；　His　purpose　in

electing　certain　persons　to　eternal　lifean　abstruse　and　greatly

controverted　subject；　upon　which　the　Church　of　England　abstains

from　strict　definition；　（2）　God's　action；　whether　by　means　of

sacraments　or　otherwiseconcerning　which　the　Church　of　England

maintains　the　efficacy　of　sacraments；'　but　does　not　formally　deny

that　grace　may　be　given　by　other　means；　repentance　and　faith

being　present；　and　（3）　the　question　whether　sacramental　grace　is

given　instrumentally；　by　and　at　the　moment　of　the　act　of　baptism；

or　in　consequence　of　an　act　of　prevenient　grace　rendering　the

receiver　worthythat　is　to　say；　whether　sacramental　grace　in

baptism　is　given　absolutely　or　conditionally。



It　was　over　this　last　question　that　the　dispute　raged　hottest　in

the　Gorham　Case。　The　High　Church　party；　represented　by　Dr。

Phillpotts；　asserted　that　the　mere　act　of　baptism　conferred

regeneration　upon　the　recipient　and　washed　away　his　original　sin。

To　this　the　Evangelicals；　headed　by　Mr。　Gorham；　replied　that；

according　to　the　Articles；　regeneration　would　not　follow　unless

baptism　was　RIGHTLY　received。　What；　then；　was　the　meaning　of

'rightly'？　Clearly　it　implied　not　merely　lawful　administration；

but　worthy　reception；　worthiness；　therefore；　is　the　essence　of

the　sacrament；　and　worthiness　means　faith　and　repentance。　Now；

two　propositions　were　accepted　by　both　partiesthat　all　infants

are　born　in　original　sin；　and　that　original　sin　could　be　washed　

away　by　baptism。　But　how　could　both　these　propositions　be　true；

argued　Mr。　Gorham；　if　it　was　also　true　that　faith　and　repentance

were　necessary　before　baptism　could　come　into　operation　at　all？

How　could　an　infant　in　arms　be　said　to　be　in　a　state　of　faith　and

repentance？　How；　therefore；　could　its　original　sin　be　washed　away

by　baptism？　And　yet；　as　every　one　agreed；　washed　away　it　was。



The　only　solution　of　the　difficulty　lay　in　the　doctrine　of

prevenient　grace；　and　Mr。　Gorham　maintained　that　unless　God

performed　an　act　of　prevenient　grace　by　which　the　infant　was

endowed　with　faith　and　repentance；　no　act　of　baptism　could　be

effectual；　though　to　whom；　and　under　what　conditions；　prevenient

grace　was　given；　Mr。　Gorham　confessed　himself　unable　to　decide。

The　light　thrown　by　the　Bible　upon　the　whole　matter　seemed

somewhat　dubious；　for　whereas　the　baptism　of　St。　Peter's

disciples　at　Jerusalem　and　St。　Philip's　at　Samaria　was　followed

by　the　gift　of　the　Spirit；　in　the　case　of　Cornelius　the　sacrament

succeeded　the　gift。　St。　Paul　also　was　baptised；　and　as　for　the

language　of　St。　John　iii　5；　Rom。　vi　3；　4；　I　Peter　iii　21；　it

admits　of　more　than　one　interpretation。　There　could；　however；　be

no　doubt　that　the　Church　of　England　assented　to　Dr。　Phillpotts'

opinion；　the　question　was　whether　or　not　she　excluded　Mr。

Gorham's。　If　it　was　decided　that　she　did；　it　was　clear　that

henceforward；　there　would　be　very　little　peace　for　Evangelicals

within　her　fold。



But　there　was　another　issue；　even　more　fundamental　than　that　of

Baptismal　Regeneration　itself；　involved　in　the　Gorham　trial。　An

Act　passed　in　1833　had　constituted　the　Judicial　Committee　of　the

Privy　Council　the　supreme　court　of　appeal　for　such　cases；　and

this　Committee　was　a　body　composed　entirely　of　laymen。　It　was

thus　obvious　that　the　Royal　Supremacy　was　still　a　fact；　and　that

a　collection　of　lawyers　appointed　by　the　Crown　had　the　legal

right　to　formulate　the　religious　doctrine　of　the　Church　of

England。　In　1850　their　judgment　was　delivered；　they　reversed　the

decision　of　the　Court　of　Arches；　and　upheld　the　position　of　Mr。

Gorham。　Whether　his　views　were　theologically　correct　or　not；　they

said；　was　not　their　business；　it　was　their　business　to　decide

whether　the　opinions　under　consideration　were　contrary　or

repugnant　to　the　doctrine　of　the　Church　of　England　as　enjoined

upon　the　clergy　by　its　Articles；　Formularies；　and　Rubrics；　and

they　had　come　to　the　conclusion　that　they　were　not。　The　judgement

still　holds　good；　and　to　this　day；　a　clergyman　of　the　Church　of

England　is　quite　at　liberty　to　believe　that　Regeneration　does　not

invariably　take　place　when　an　infant　is　baptised。



The　blow　fell　upon　no　one　with　greater　violence　than　upon

Manning。　Not　only　was　the　supreme　efficacy　of　the　sign　of　the

cross　upon　a　baby's　forehead　one　of　his　favourite　doctrines；　but

up　to　that　moment　he　had　been　convinced　that　the　Royal　Supremacy

was　a　mere　accidenta　temporary　usurpation　which　left　the

spiritual　dominion　of　the　Church　essentially　untouched。　But　now

the　horrid　reality　rose　up　before　him；　crowned　and　triumphant；　it

was　all　too　clear　that　an　Act　of　Parliament；　passed　by　Jews；

Roman　Catholics；　and　Dissenters；　was　the　ultimate　authority　which

decided　upon　the　momentous　niceties　of　the　Anglican　faith。　Mr。

Gladstone　also；　was　deeply　perturbed。　It　was　absolutely

necessary；　he　wrote；　to　'rescue　and　defend　the　conscience　of　the

Church　from　the　present　hideous　system'。　An　agitation　was　set　on

foot；　and　several　influential　Anglicans；　with　Manning　at　their

head；　drew　up　and　signed　a　formal　protest　against　the　Gorham

judgment。　Mr。　Gladstone　however；　proposed　another　method　of

procedure：　precipitate　action；　he　declared；　must　be　avoided　at

all　costs；　and　he　elaborated　a　scheme　for　securing

procrastination；　by　which　a　covenant　was　to　bind　all　those　who

believed　that　an　article　of　the　creed　had　been　abolished　by　Act

of　Parliament　to　take　no　steps　in　any　direction；　nor　to　announce

their　intention　of　doing　so；　until　a　given　space　of　time　had

elapsed。　Mr。　Gladstone　was　hopeful　that　some　good　might　come　of

thisthough　indeed　he　could　not　be　sure。　'Among　others；'　he

wrote　to　Manning；　'I　have　consulted　Robert　Wilberforce　and　Wegg…

Prosser；　and　they　seemed　inclined　to　favour　my　proposal。　It

might；　perhaps；　have