impression, that what the words seem to say in their plain and literal sense is somehow or other incredible; and that it is inconsistent either with God's attributes as made known to us in natural religion, or with the general plan of Providence as revealed in Scripture; and that rather than adopt it we must make up our minds to any difficulty.

Now I am far from underrating the temptation we are under to take this view. No one can be insensible to the difficulty of believing, that the blessing or curse of another man like himself can really affect his situation in the sight of God, either for the better or worse. But this is a difficulty to imagination only, not to reason; and, however great it may be, reasonable men should strive against it. We know nothing of God to teach us by what laws He dispenses or withholds spiritual privileges; and cannot without great presumption say either that this method or that method of dispensing them is inconsistent with His attributes. The whole subject is a mystery to us: "God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, and He will have compassion on whom He will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth or of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy." Nor is there any thing in the least degree more wonderful or unaccountable in God's admitting one man to the privileges of Christianity, and excluding another, because the rulers of the Church have decreed it should be so, than in His doing the same thing because one man happened to be born

in England and another in China. Let it be as mere a matter of chance whom the Church excommunicates and whom it absolves, as it is a matter of chance who is born in England and who in China, and still it will be just as consistent with God's attributes to exclude excommunicated persons, and admit absolved ones, as it is to exclude born Chinese, and admit born Englishmen.

It

This causes, however, in most men's minds, a confusion on this subject, which greatly interferes with their seeing and receiving the truth. seems to be commonly imagined, that a claim on the part of our Ecclesiastical Rulers to remit and retain sins, in such a sense as to affect our condition in the sight of God, and to have any influence on our prospects hereafter, can amount to nothing short of a claim, absolutely to dispose of us in the next world, consigning us over at their pleasure to endless happiness or misery. Now if such were the claims of those who advocate the primitive view of Ecclesiastical authority, they would well deserve all the opprobrious epithets that have been heaped on them by Bishop Hoadly and others, as blasphemous pretenders to the divine prerogatives, [and the like.] But surely it needs no great consideration, to discover the difference between a claim to some influence over men's prospects hereafter, and an absolute uncontrollable disposal of them. Something and everything are surely words to which in common language we attach very different meanings: nor will a reasonable man assume as self-evident,

that a power to dispense or withhold some kind of blessedness in the next world, is necessarily the same thing as the power to pass the irreversible sentence at the last day.

This one would think is obvious enough to common sense, or, if not, is at least abundantly manifest from Scripture. If men would but read their Bibles instead of speculating, they might easily satisfy themselves that there is such a thing as admission to the kingdom of Heaven and exclusion from it, and that the one is spoken of as a great blessing, the other as a great evil, affecting our condition in the next world. And yet it is also perfectly certain, that this blessing does not amount to salvation, for "the kingdom of Heaven is like unto a net" in which are fish bad and good (S. Matt. xiii. 47, 48.) which shall be separated in the last day. Nor again does this evil amount to damnation, for the Saints of the Old Testament, even to John the Baptist, are not included in the kingdom of Heaven, indeed are less than the least in it. So that it is certain that persons within the kingdom of Heaven may, and that many of them unhappily will, perish everlastingly; and that those who are not within it, may nevertheless "come from the east and from the west, and sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob."

Let it be remembered then, that when a Christian Bishop claims the power to admit authoritatively into the kingdom of Heaven, or to exclude from it, he claims no power either to save or to

damn, but only to confer or deny that blessedness which Scripture assigns to the subjects of that kingdom, be it little or be it great.

Lastly, if, after due weight has been given to these considerations, a doubt should still appear to hang over the remarkable promise of our Saviour to the Church, it should be borne in mind, that on the interpretation of this promise there hangs a practical question of no small importance: whatever difficulty we may experience in deciding, we are not at liberty to remain in indecision: two courses of conduct are before us, one or other of which we must choose, however doubtful may be the evidence that determines us. We have to act either on the hypothesis that we know the nature and consequences of Excommunication and Absolution, or that we do not know them. In the former case, we are at liberty to use or dispense with them according to our notions of expediency; in the latter, we must use them according to the rule which Christ has given us, without exception or partiality. And what we have to make up our minds about is, not whether we can attain to certainty either one way or the other, but which of these two courses appears to be the SAFEST.

In settling this point we may be assisted by a parallel case. Consider, then, the case of a sentinel, who having been stationed at a particular post, began after the departure of his officer to doubt I whether the circumstances had not altered which led to his being placed there; suppose that insulated

as he was, and forming but a point in an extended plan of operations, he conceived himself to be in full possession of the reasons on which his station had been selected, and on this hypothesis was debating with himself, whether, as things stood, he should not be forwarding his commander's views by changing it on his own responsibility. It is scarcely to be doubted what would be his safest course; nor, I should think, much more so what is ours.

For what if God has chosen to give His sentinels no fuller insight into His reasons for assigning them their several stations and duties, than a general usually does to his inferior officers? what if He reserves to Himself His own great plan, and only allows us such imperfect glimpses of it as may enable us to perform our several parts? what if we know as little of His reasons for instituting Excommunication as the sentinel does for the allotment of his post, and yet for the fear of such evils as Mr. Knox and others have pointed out, neglect God's especial commission for enforcing it?

Truly in that case the predicament of the unwise Virgins is preferable to ours.

§ 3. [On shunning heretics and evil-livers1.]

The Church of England does not excommunicate: if she did, there would be no occasion for the

1 [This Section has been published in the British Magazine for July, 1834.]