given instrumentally, by and at the moment of the act of baptism,
or in consequence of an act of prevenient grace rendering the
receiver worthy--that 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 parties--that 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.