Talk:Charles James Blomfield

Critic
The missionary Bernard Jean Bettelheim criticised Blomfield in his journal (entry Apr.30, 1853)in the following words: "How much gratitude do Christian ministers owe to the law of England which defeated the late scheme of Charles James London [Blomfield] to bring them under the bench of bishops instead of continuing under the Queen's Bench."

from http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc11/htm/old/0505=483.htm I read "In Dec., 1847, the prime minister, Lord Russell, appointed Hampden to the diocese of Hereford. He was accused by his old opponents of holding unsound doctrines, was opposed by them and thirteen bishops, and rejected by the dean and the chapter, but was triumphantly sustained by the Court of Queen's Bench. The Gorham Case (q.v.), which, in contradiction of the Thirty-nine Articles, involved the denial of spiritual regeneration in connection with baptism, despite the remonstrance of Bishops Philpotts and Blomfield and of more than 1,500 distinguished clergy and laymen, representing the Tractarian trend, resulted in the assertion of the final authority of the crown (the lay instance of the privy council) in matters purely ecclesiastical. [Gorham and his Evangelical supporters maintained that his denial of baptismal regeneration was in accord with the letter and the spirit of the Thirtynine Articles, and in this contention they were sustained by the courts."

Any certain identification of this matter would be most a most welcome addition to this discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.12.191.134 (talk • contribs) 17 November 2006