bare, after all it could come to no more than this, that in whatever degree the efficacy of Excommunication depended on the personal influence of the Clergy over the Laity, in that degree it would at present be unavailing. This is the very most that can be inferred even from the most exaggerated hypothesis,—even from supposing that the Clergy have altogether lost all hold upon the minds of the Laity, and that it is impossible for them to recover it; and whether true or false, can affect only those consequences of Excommunication that depend upon human opinion: whereas we are now supposing that it has other and mysterious consequences, depending only on the truth of the divine oracles, and on the authority of the person pronouncing sentence, which of course must remain as immutable as those oracles themselves, and as the commission which Christ has given to the Apostles and their successors.

Unless, therefore, we are prepared to assume as self-evident, that these consequences of Excommunication are, as compared with its human consequences, unimportant, and little calculated to benefit that society for the sake of which God has promised to enforce them; unless this is taken for granted, it is by no means clear that a systematic refusal to excommunicate may not be an interruption of God's plan for our salvation.

The same thing may be shown of other objections, such as that urged by the late amiable and

lamented Bishop Jebb, who on this subject adopts the opinions of his friend Mr. Knox.

"Mr. Knox," says he, "maintained that the want of discipline in the Church, so much complained of, was one of its happy features. His reason for so regarding it, was, that religion was thus presented to the view and acceptance of men without any obtrusion of human interference; without any offence to the scrupulousness of a hesitating, and bashful mind; without any violation to that sort of nervous delicacy which is peculiar to some constitutions; without interposing any mediator between man and his God. He was glad that in one place Christianity appeared free to all; unfettered by any laws, unfenced with any preliminary examinations or menaces of disciplinary infliction. He thought that any kind of impediment thrown in the way even of profligates coming to the participation of Christian ordinances, would operate as a hindrance and repulse to timid though honest votaries. He mentioned the case of Lord Chancellor Clare; who, toward the close of his life, went to a village Church, where he might not be known, to take the Sacrament1."

Now it is obvious at once, without going into the details of this reasoning, that it supposes us competent to balance the good and evil, which in the present state of Society would result from enforcing Church Discipline. This I say is obvious, for un

Introduction to Burnett's Lives, p. xxxv.

less we are supposed to know the full extent of the good, to what purpose is it to dwell on the evil? In this world nothing, however good, is free from evil, nor do we reckon any thing good, except because on the whole the good attendant on it exceeds the evil. If to mention certain evils as likely to result from enforcing Excommunication, is a sufficient reason for not enforcing it, at that rate any one might quickly be argued out of attempting any thing, for there is no attempt from which evil may not result. But a reasonable man will face the evil when he sees a likelihood of its being outbalanced by good; and before we can pretend to decide that the evils of enforcing Excommunication are such as ought not to be faced, we must know the limits of the good which God contemplated as its counterpoise.

So that whatever ground there is for supposing Excommunication to be a divine ordinance with mysterious consequences, there is that same ground for believing the systematic disuse of it a presumptuous error. Nor can I doubt that if the late Ecclesiastical Commission had taken this view of the subject, they would have given more thought than they appear to have done to devising means for the restoration of Church Discipline.

Now the notion that Excommunication, and its counterpart Absolution, has the divine and mysterious character which was just now attributed to it, is in such strict conformity with the well known words in which Scripture records their institution,

that I am persuaded every one would put this interpretation upon them, unless they supposed it liable to more than ordinary objections.

No one can read the comments of those who have endeavoured to give these texts another meaning, without being sensible that they have written under a bias, and that they never could have so perplexed a plain matter if they had confined themselves to a simple examination of the context. It is quite clear that they have one and all of them set out on this inquiry with a determination to avoid a particular result, and that rather than reconcile themselves to it they had recourse to any absurdities.

What for instance are we to suppose, when we find a man of first-rate abilities, like Bishop Hoadly, betaking himself to such a device as this? "The Apostles," says he, "might possibly understand the Power of remitting and retaining sins, to be the same with that power of laying their hands upon the sick1."

But not to dwell on this and the like delusions, I pass on at once to the more approved notion: viz. that in the famous passages (St. Matt. xvi. 19; xviii. 18; and St. John xx. 23) the commission given by our Lord to the Apostles, extends simply to declaring the Gospel terms of acceptance; that by remitting and retaining sins is meant no more than declaring on what terms God has offered to remit or threatened to retain them: and in the

1 Preservative. Works, vol. i. p. 594.

same way, that binding and loosing is neither more nor less than declaring what things God has commanded and forbidden. On this interpretation the passage in St. John's Gospel will run thus':

"And when He had said this He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive the HOLY GHOST: to whomsoever you truly declare the terms on which God will remit and retain sins, their sins God will remit or retain on those terms."

And again, that in St. Matthew :

"Jesus answered and said unto him,... Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the KEYS of the Kingdom of Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt truly declare on earth to be commanded or forbidden by God, God will in Heaven hold that as commanded or forbidden."

Thus the KEYS of the Kingdom of Heaven are said to be given to St. Peter, inasmuch as what he truly states to be God's commands will be God's commands: and all the Apostles are inspired with the Holy Ghost, that what they truly declare to be the terms of Salvation may be the terms of Salvation. Surely no man, who looked only to making sense of what he commented on, would have recourse to such an interpretation as this.

In fact it is quite obvious, that the reason why these far-fetched notions are substituted for a very plain and intelligible one, is the general and strong

1 vid, above p.