on to enforce ecclesiastical censures with civil penalties, without fear of being baffled in their proceedings.’[702] In the later meetings of Convocation this subject of the enforcement of Church discipline was constantly suggested for discussion; but, as questions which were, or were supposed to be, of more immediate interest claimed precedence, no practical result ensued.[703] The matter, however, was not suffered to fall altogether into abeyance.  In 1741 Bishop Secker gives the same advice to the clergy of the diocese of Oxford as Archbishop Sharp had given nearly forty years before to those of the diocese of York, but he seems still more doubtful as to whether it could be effectually carried out.  ‘Persons,’ he writes, ’who profess not to be of our Church, if persuasions will not avail, must be let alone.  But other absentees must, after due patience, be told that, unwilling as you are, it will be your duty to present them, unless they reform; and if, when this warning hath been repeated and full time allowed for it to work, they still persist in their obstinacy, I beg you to do it.  For this will tend much to prevent the contagion from spreading, of which there is else great danger.’  In 1753 he repeats his injunctions, but in a still more desponding tone.  ‘Offences,’ he says, ’against religion and morals churchwardens are bound by oath to present; and incumbents or curates are empowered and charged by the 113th and following canons to join with them in presenting, if need be, or to present alone if they refuse.  This implies what the 26th canon expresses, that the minister is to urge churchwardens to perform that part of their office.  Try first by public and private rebukes to amend them; but if these are ineffectual, get them corrected by authority.  I am perfectly sensible that immorality and irreligion are grown almost beyond the reach of ecclesiastical power, which, having in former times been very unwarrantably extended, hath since been very unjustly and imprudently cramped and weakened many ways.’  After having given directions about excommunications and penance, he urges them, as a last resort, ’to remind the people that, however the censures of the Church may be relaxed or evaded, yet God’s judgment cannot.’  Yet even so late as 1766 he explains to candidates for orders the text addressed to them at their ordination, ’Whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained,’ as conferring ’a right of inflicting ecclesiastical censures for a shorter or longer time, and of taking them off, which is, in regard to external communion, retaining or forgiving offences.’  ‘Our acts,’ he adds, ’as those of temporal judges, are to be respected as done by competent authority.  Nor will other proofs of repentance be sufficient if submission to the discipline of the Church of Christ, when it hath been offended and requires due satisfaction, be obstinately refused.’[704] This is not the place to discuss the possibility or the advisability under altered circumstances of enforcing ecclesiastical discipline, but in common fairness to the clergy, who were accused of doing little or nothing to oppose the general depravity, it should be borne in mind that they were practically debarred from using a formidable weapon which in earlier times had been wielded with great effect.[705]