Now is there any one who denies that our Blessed Lord thus gave such power to those to whom He then spoke, and on whom He then breathed? I suppose not. It would be wholly to explain away and contradict His word to say so. It would be to prevent any one relying upon the plainest meaning of anything to say so. It would be to make every injunction He ever gave, and every truth He ever uttered, without sense or force, so to read such a passage, as that it gave no commission even to the Apostles. If His Apostles did not receive from that commission a power to bind and loose, to remit and retain sins, it must, I think, be hopeless for any one to imagine any duties can be proved or any doctrines declared in Scripture, or, we might add, by any words anywhere set down. But then it is said, We do not deny the commission as a personal thing to the Apostles, but we say that it extended no further. We say that if any imagine such a power and authority to have been intended to be transmitted further, or to be capable of being thus transmitted, he is in a grievous error and mistake. Now I am not arguing this question, whether mine be the right understanding of the Scripture, but I say, is it not as plain as the sun at noon-day that, right or wrong, it is the understanding of the Church of England? Surely her meaning here can no more be questioned as to those to whom she applies them, than our Blessed Lord’s intention can be questioned as to those to whom He addressed them. What possible explanation is there of her appointing those words to be solemnly used in her Ordinal at the time of, and in the ordaining a man to be a priest, but that she believed the powers of the priesthood, as to absolution, to be then and thereby given to that man according to the will of God and Christ? “I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.” Would it not shew either an ignorance of the force of words which is inconceivable, not merely in eminent theologians, which assuredly many of our Reformers were, but in any one of sane mind, if the words appointed to be so solemnly used, yet mean absolutely nothing? Or, if not this, must it not argue an impiety amounting to blasphemy for the Church of any country to draw up for use a service such as this, and, playing unmeaningly or deceitfully with such holy words, not to suppose any gift of the Holy Ghost, or any power of absolution, to be conveyed to those to whom they are addressed? What could we esteem such a barren equivocation with the holiest of things, if there were such design, but impious mockery towards God and deceit towards man?