Redeeming the Gorham Judgment?

I have to protest, and I do hereby solemnly protest, before the Church of England, before the Holy Catholic Church, before Him who is its Divine Head, against your giving mission to exercise cure of souls, within my diocese, to a clergyman who proclaims himself to hold the heresies which Mr. Gorham holds - from a Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury from the Bishop of Exeter, 1850.

The then Bishop of Exeter's words exemplified the High Church tradition's response of shock and outrage to the Gorham Judgment.  The Judgment was, Exeter declared, a "false, destructive declaration".

From the perspective of early 21st century Anglicanism, however, I wonder if those of us in the High Church tradition might now reflect differently on the Gorham Judgement.  Two recent experiences have led to me to consider this.

The first was attending a baptism in a Church of Ireland parish in which the incumbent would identify as a conservative evangelical.  The contemporary language baptismal rite in the Cof I's BCP 2004 has considerable provision for those of 'tender consciences', including making optional the post-baptismal prayer of thanksgiving for the gift of regeneration.  Even this, however, would not suffice in the parish in question.  The introduction to baptism, the prayer over the water, and the post-baptismal prayers were all replaced by extemporary prayer, having no meaningful reference at all to the sacrament.

The second experience was reading this on the website of an evangelical CofE parish:

Leave aside, for today, the fact that this claim regarding the Anglican tradition is utterly false.  Neither of these experiences are unusual in evangelical Anglican parishes in England and Ireland.  The authorised liturgy for the administration of the sacraments and the practice of infant baptism - "as most agreeable with the institution of Christ" - are set aside in favour of unauthorised liturgies and the promotion of services of dedication/thanksgiving.

Which brings us back to the Gorham Judgment.  Whatever its flaws, whatever the misgivings about the Privy Council passing judgement on the matter, the Gorham Judgement was a reaffirmation of a central High Church conviction - that uniformity is a gift for the flourishing of the ecclesia Anglicana.  Uniformity in terms of authorised liturgy and uniformity in terms of sacramental practice gives expression to and safeguards the Church's common life and communion.  As Cranmer stated in 'Concerning Ceremonies':

the wilful and contemptuous transgression and breaking of a common order and discipline is no small offence before God, 'Let all things be done among you,' saith Saint Paul, 'in a seemly and due order': The appointment of the which order pertaineth not to private men.

The Gorham Judgment was a defence of the authorised liturgy for baptism - including its references to regeneration - and the sacramental and pastoral practice of the routine, common baptism of infants. In its definition of the role of the Book of Common Prayer, the Judgment emphasises the principle of uniformity:

of establishing (to use the expression of the statute of Elizabeth) an uniform order of Common Prayer, and of the administration of Sacraments, rites, and ceremonies of the Church of England.

What is more, the entire case presupposed the traditional Anglican pastoral approach to administering the Sacrament of Baptism. Hence the Judgment compares the practice of the administration of the Sacrament of Holy Baptism with that of the Burial of the Dead.  The Burial Office - including the prayers assuming the departed's salvation - were read over all for whom the Church of England had pastoral responsibility:

So far as our knowledge or powers of conception extend, there are, and must be, at least some persons not excommunicated from the Church, who, having lived in sin, die impenitent nay, some who perish and die in the actual commission of flagrant crimes.

The assumption of the Judgment is clear.  The context for the same "charitable interpretation" of the Burial rite applies to Holy Baptism: both are administered to all those for whom the Church has pastoral responsibility.  The Baptism of infants should be as routine and common in parish life as burying the dead.

This, perhaps, is the redemption of the Gorham Judgment.  It is a defence of uniformity in liturgy and sacramental, pastoral practice.  By the very act of recognising that clergy have "liberty" to interpret the BCP rite of Baptism as did Gorham - that while Baptism is an effectual sign of grace, regenerating grace does not necessarily accompany it - the Judgment was reaffirming such uniformity.

This is precisely how the Gorham Judgment functioned in the disestablished Church of Ireland.  Despite evangelical attempts to re-write the baptismal rite when the Irish BCP was revised in 1878, the Preface to that revision invokes Gorham as a bulwark against such changes:

In the Formularies relating to Baptism we have made no substantial change, though some have desired to alter or omit certain expressions touching which diversities of opinion have prevailed among faithful members of our Church.  At the same time, we desire fully to recognise the liberty of expounding these Formularies hiterto allowed by the general practice of the Church.

Alongside this, the revised Irish Canons maintained the duty of clergy to baptise without delay.  In other words, the Gorham Judgment - and the very liberty it gave in interpretation of the Formularies - was used to defend uniformity of liturgy and practice.

When it was delivered, the Gorham Judgment was hailed as a victory for evangelicals within the United Church of England and Ireland, and a defeat for the High Church tradition.  Not quite two centuries later, the Gorham Judgment can be read quite differently.  In a contemporary context in which some evangelical Anglicans have abandoned the authorised liturgy of Baptism and are undermining the practice of infant Baptism by promoting a service of dedication/thanksgiving as a supposed alternative to the Sacrament, the Judgment calls us back to the uniformity which the High Church tradition has understood to be a safeguard and expression of the Church's common life, prayer, and witness.

It is ironic that the Gorham Judgment can now be understood as recalling Anglicanism to this uniformity prized by the High Church tradition.  It is even more ironic that today's opponents of the Judgment, those who have rejected the very order presupposed by and defended by it, are evangelicals: evangelicals against the Gorham Judgment.