or fuller testimony to be presented. But there is no court of appeal of higher authority than the ecclesiastical court referred to, since each Diocese is independent in the management of its own affairs.

Every sentence, after the decision of such ecclesiastical court, is pronounced by a Bishop, whether it be against a Deacon, or a Presbyter, or a Bishop.*

2. THE LAITY.-The occasions and the mode of discipline, in the case of the laity, are both expressed in the first two Rubrics, prefatory to the Order for the Administration of the Lord's Supper, as follows:

"If among those who come to be partakers of the Holy Communion, the Minister shall know any to be an open and notorious evil liver, or to have done any wrong to his neighbors by word or deed, so that the Congregation be thereby offended; he shall advertise him, that he presume not to come to the Lord's Table until he have openly declared himself to have truly repented and amended his former evil life, that the Congregation may thereby be satisfied; and that he hath recompensed the parties to whom he hath done wrong, or at least declare himself to be in full purpose so to do as soon as he conveniently may."

In these Rubrics it will be seen that a very solemn responsibility is laid upon the soul of the minister himself who is watching for the souls of his people, and one which he cannot shirk from himself or upon any other, and which he cannot divide with any other. If discipline in a needful case is ever exercised, he must initiate it.

"The same order shall the Minister use with those

* Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church, Art. 6.

betwixt whom he perceiveth malice and hatred to reign, not suffering them to be partakers of the Lord's Table until he know them to be reconciled. And if one of the parties, so at variance, be content to forgive from the bottom of his heart all that the other hath trespassed against him, and to make amends for that wherein he himself hath offended; and the other party will not be persuaded to a godly unity, but remain still in his frowardness and malice; the Minister in that case ought to admit the penitent person to the Holy Communion, and not him that is obstinate. Provided, that every Minister so repelling any, as is herein specified, shall be obliged to give an account of the same to the Ordinary, as soon as conveniently may be."

These Rubrics are condensed in Title II., Canon 12, Section 2, as follows: "If any persons within this Church offend their brethren by any wickedness of life, such persons shall be repelled from the Holy Communion agreeably to the Rubric."

Every layman, subjected to discipline as above, has a right of appeal to the Bishop. And if the Bishop think not best to reverse, that is, if he should approve, the action of the clergyman, the person has a right to demand a trial by such ecclesiastical court as is provided for by the canons of the Diocese to which he belongs. And the decision of such court is definitive.

Any clergyman who should exercise discipline arbitrarily and without sufficient and canonical cause, would himself be liable to a prosecution (both civil and ecclesiastical) by the layman or others, for a violation of the canons of the Church.

If any Bishop, in his action on the report of a cler

gyman in reference to his suspension of a communicant, or upon the appeal of any person repelled, should deal unjustly or arbitrarily, such Bishop may be proceeded against on a charge of violating his ordination vow to "execute discipline," etc., provided the wrong should be so flagrant and clear that "five male communicants of this Church in good standing, belonging to the Diocese of the accused, of whom two at least must be Presbyters," or "seven male communicants of this Church in good standing, of whom two at least shall be Presbyters, and three of which seven shall belong to the Diocese of the accused" (Title II., Canon 9), shall be willing to present charges in writing, with a view to the presentment of the Bishop for trial by his peers. This contingency is mentioned simply because we wish to illustrate the whole subject. It is one which never has occurred to our knowledge, and probably never will

occur.

Thus the clergyman and the layman are each protected, the former in the fulfilment of his duty, the latter against the tyranny of an arbitrary clergyman.

It is perceived from the foregoing statements, that the clergyman has the sole right of exercising discipline in the case of a layman; while it is also perceived that the layman has a right of appeal and of self-protection, if he be innocent, and, indeed, a right of punishing the arbitrary and tyrannical clergyman.

It may be supposed by some that, under these circumstances, a clergyman will be tempted to relax discipline and to deal too leniently with even very unworthy members of the Church. If it were so, it would be better that the error should be on the side of mercy than

of severity, upon the acknowledged principle: "Better that ten guilty should escape than that one innocent should suffer." But to disprove the supposition, let it be remembered that, if the clergyman feels more the temptation to remissness as an individual, he also, as an individual, feels more of responsibility in fulfilling the personal and special trust committed to him. Besides, while he is faithful in discharging his duty, he will in most cases be tender toward the offending. And again, he will have the most powerful and constraining motives to use all possible means of private and pastoral exhortation and remonstrance to reclaim the offending, in order to save himself the necessity of exercising discipline. It is frankly admitted that no system of discipline is free from the defects which come from the weakness and frailty of men. In those communions where discipline is exercised by the members in Church assemblies, or by a few specially deputed, the influences of partisan feelings, or of family connections, or of wealth, or of social or civil position, have been proverbially, in frequent cases, the occasion of scandals, and have seriously interfered with just decisions. So there may be defects in the method here exhibited; but we regard it as less open to objections, and better provided with safeguards, than any other. Finally, under the regulations here detailed, besides the peculiar benefits just referred to, there are all the benefits supposed to be incident to discipline by the congregation or Church directly; for all the individuals who, under other regulations, would themselves administer the discipline in their congregational or Church capacity, may now compel the clergyman, if he be manifestly too remiss, to

perform his duty, under the pain of being brought by them to ecclesiastical trial for neglect of duty and violation of his ordination vows and of the canons of the Church.

It is to be expected that the experience of the Church, and the occurrence of new facts, will suggest (as has been already done continually) many improvements in the details of the whole system of ecclesiastical discipline. There will be a continual approximation toward a perfect system, even if such be never actually attained. Still it is thought that the principles in the present system are both liberal, and just, and efficient; and while they secure all the members of the Church against the tyranny of the ministers or of the brethren, they at the same time provide ample and effective instrumentalities for promoting the peace and honor of the Church, and for advancing the Christian holiness of its members.

We believe that the principles of ecclesiastical discipline in the Protestant Episcopal Church are proper for an extensive, all-embracing Church.

Public worship in the Protestant Episcopal Church by Precomposed Formularies-shall not discuss their propriety-the substance of them generally approved and admired-reference to an answer to some objections generally used by dissenters in England-not in this country-but preferred by many of the pious and intelligent non-Episcopal clergy, and by many of their laity, in our country-the Festivals and