The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 7 · Chapter 4
CHAP. 4. Proof of our doctrine by the Antient Fathers; And even by the Roman Church.
VPonUpon this point the Fathers of the firſt age are of one mind, for they ſay all, that there is none but God alone that can forgive ſins, and that it is for God only to blot out ſins before God, and that it belongs not to Paſtors to be Judges in the remiſſion of ſins.
Irenaeus ſpeaking of the miraculous healing of the man to whom Chriſt forgave his ſins, ſaith that(a)Iren 5. l. cap. 7. Peccata remittens hominem quidem curavit ſemetipſum autem manifeſtè oſtendit quis eſſet. Si enim nemo poteſt remittere peccata, niſi ſolus Deus, remittebat haec autem Dominus & curabat homines, manifeſtum eſt, quoniam ipſe erat Verbum Dei Filius hominis factus, &c. The Lord forgiving ſins healed a man indeed, but he manifeſtly ſhewed what he was. For if no man can forgive ſins but God alone, the Lord together forgave them, and healed the men, it is then evident that he was the word of God, &c.
Tertullian ſpeaks the ſame language,(b)Tertul. lib. 4. contra Marcion. Judaei ſolummodo hominem ejus intuentes nec dum eſſe Deum certi— merito retractarent non poſſe hominem delicta remittere ſed Deum ſolum, &c. The Jews conſidering Chriſt as a man only, and not certain yet that he was God, and not conſidering him neither as ſon of God, did with good reaſon repreſent to him, that a man cannot remit ſins, but God alone.
Again,(c)Ut oſtenderet eum & hominem qui delicta dimitteret illum ſcilicet filium hominis apud Danielis prophetiam conſecutum judicandi poteſtatem ac per eam utique & remittendi peccata. That only Son of Man of whom it is ſpoken in Daniels prophecy, who obtained the power of judging, and by conſequent of remitting ſins.
And Novatian, (d)Novatianus cap. 13. lib. de Trinitate, Si cum nullius ſit niſi Dei cordis noſſe ſecreta, Chriſtus ſecreta conſpicit cordis: Quod ſi cum nullius ſit niſi Dei peccata dimittere idem peccata dimittit, &c. merito Deus eſt Chriſtus.Seeing that it belongeth to none but God to know the ſecrets of the hearts; if Chriſt ſeeth the ſecrets of the hearts, and ſeeing that it belongs to none but God alone to forgive ſins; If Chriſt forgiveth ſins, &c. Chriſt is with good reaſon [called] God.
And Cyprian, (e)Cypri. lib. de Lapſis. Nemo ſe ſallat, nemo decipiat, ſolus Dominus miſereri poteſt. Veniam peccatis, quae in ipſum commiſſa ſunt, ſolus poteſt ille largiri, qui peccata noſtra portavit, &c. Homo eſſe Deo non poteſt major, nec remittere aut donare indulgentia ſua ſervus poteſt quod in Dominum delicto graviore commiſſum eſt. Ne adhuc lapſo & hoc accedat ad crimen, ſi neſciat eſſe praedictum, maledictus homo qui ſpem habet in homine.Let none cozen himſelf; Let none deceive himſelf; there is none but God that can ſhew mercy. He alone can forgive ſins committed againſt him, who hath carried our ſins, who hath felt ſorrows for us, whom God delivered for our ſins. A man cannot be greater then God, and the ſervant cannot by his indulgence remit or pardon that which was committed againſt the Maſter by a greater ſin, leſt that this alſo be added unto the man faln, beſides his crime, Curſed be the man that puts his hope in man.
And Hilary (f)Hilar. Can. 8. in Matth. Nemo poteſt dimittere peccata, niſt ſolus Deus, ergo qui dimittit, Deus eſt, quia nemo remittit niſi Deus. Deus in homine manens curationem homini praeſtabat.ſpeaking of Chriſt, None can remit ſins but God alone: Wherefore he that remitteh ſins is God. God dwelling in man, beſtowed healing upon that man.
And Clemens Alexandrinus, (g)Clem. Alex. l. 1. de paedagogo c. 8. foreign.That man alone can forgive ſins, who is conſtituted our inſtructour by the Father of all things.
And Ambroſe (h)Donaturus peccatum ſolus remanet Jeſus, &c. Solus remanet quia non poteſt hoc cuiquam hominum cum Chriſto eſſe commune ut peccata condonet, ſolius hoc munus eſt Chriſti qui tulit peccatum mundi. Ambroſ. Ep. 76. ad ſtudium.None remaineth but Jeſus that forgiveth ſins, &c. He remains alone, becauſe this cannot be common unto Chriſt with any man. This is the charge of Chriſt alone, who hath born the ſins of the world.
The ſame in another place,(i)Id. l. 3. de Sp. S. cap. 29. Peccata nemo condonat niſi unus Deus, quia aequè ſcriptum eſt, Quis po…eſt peccata condonare niſi unus Deus? None is without ſin but God alone. So none forgiveth ſins but God alone: For it is equally written, Who can forgive ſins but God only?
Theodoret ſpeaks thus of the Hereticks Audiani, (k)foreign. Theodoret. lib. 4. de fabulis haereticorum in Haereſi Audianorum.By a raſh enterpriſe they give remiſsion of ſins. In the ſame place,(l)Ibid. foreign. They give abſolution to them that have confeſſed themſelves; preſcribing not a term for penitence, as the Laws of the Church enjoyn, but giving pardon with authority.
Chryſoſtom (m)foreign.Hom. 6. upon the ſecond Epiſtle to the Corinthians, None can forgive ſins but God alone. And Hom. 54. upon John, (n)foreign.It belongs to none elſe to forgive ſins. And Hom. 40. upon the firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians, (o)foreign.It is a thing poſsible to God alone to forgive ſins.
Optatus in the fifth Book againſt Parmenian, (p)Sordes & maculas mentis lavare non poteſt, niſi qui ejuſdem fabricator eſt mentis.He alone that formed the spirit, can waſh the filth and ſpots of the ſpirit.
And in the ſame place,(q)Si Deus hoc promiſit, quare vos vultis reddere quod vobis nec promittere licet, nec reddere, nec habere? Ecce in Eſaia promiſit Deus inalbare peccatis affectos, non per hominem. If God promiſed that, why will ye do that which is not lawful for you to promiſe, or to give, or to have? Behold God promiſed in Iſaiah, to whiten thoſe that are ſtained with ſin, not to do that by others.
Cyrillus Alexandrinus in the twelfth book upon John, chap. 56.(r)Et certè ſolius veri Dei eſt ut poſſit à peccatis ſolvere. Cui enim alii praevaricatores Legis liberare à peccato licet niſi Legis ipſius Authori? And truly it belongeth to none but the true God to have the power to looſe men from their ſins. For to whom elſe is it lawful to deliver the prevaricators of the Law, but to the author of the Law? And in conſequence he ſheweth how the Apoſtles forgave ſins, namely, that it was the Holy-Ghoſt abiding in them that forgave ſins.
Auſtin in the twenty third Sermon of the fifty, ſpeaks thus to them that take upon them to forgive ſins to others,(ſ)Nam quid es homo, niſi aeger ſanandus? Vis mihi eſſe Medicus? Mecum quaere Medicum. What art thou O man, but a ſick man that muſt be healed? Wilt thou be my Phyſitian? Seek rather a Phyſitian with me.
And as for that we were ſaying, that Paſtors are ſaid to do that which God doth by them, and that they adminiſter the graces of God, not as Judges, but as Miniſters and Proclaimers of Gods grace; this is alſo the language of Fathers. Chryſoſtom in the 86. Hom. upon John, (t)foreign.What ſay I, the Prieſts? No, not an Angel, nor an Archangel, can do any thing in the things that are given us of God, but Father, Son, and Holy-Ghoſt diſpenſeth all. As for the Prieſt, he lends his tongue unto God, and giveth him his hand. And in the ſecond Homily upon the ſecond Epiſtle to Timothy, (u)foreign.All comes from the grace of God. To him (that is to the Miniſter) it belongs only to open his mouth. But it is God that doth all. This doth no more but fulfill the ſigns.
And Ambroſe in the fifth book upon Luke, upon the fifth Chapter.(*)Quis enim peccata poteſt dimittere niſi ſotus Deus? qui per eos quoque dimittit, quibus dimittendi tribuit poteſtatem. Who is he that can forgive ſins but God alone? Who alſo forgiveth them, by thoſe to whom he hath given power to forgive. And as for the means whereby he forgiveth, Hierom makes an enumeration of them in the ſixth book upon Iſaiah, chap. 4.(x)Funibus peccatorum ſuorum unuſquiſque conſtringitur. Quos funes & vincula ſolvere poſſint & Apoſtoli imitantes Magiſtrum ſuum, qui eis dixit, Quaecunque ſolveritis, &c. Solvunt autem eos Apoſtoli ſermone Domini & teſtimoniis ſcripturarum, & exhortatione virtutum. Every one is kept bound with the cords of his ſins: Which cords and bonds the Apoſtles alſo can looſe, imitating their Maſter who told them, Whatſoever you ſhall looſe on earth, ſhall be looſed in heaven. Now the Apoſtles looſe by the word of God, and by the teſtimonies of Scriptures, and by exhorting to vertue. In all this, neither he nor the other Fathers ſpeak of Sacramental abſolution, nor of the authority of Prieſts to forgive ſins with authority of Judges. And whenſoever in their Sermons (by oratory amplifications, which are familiar to Chryſoſtom) they exalt the power given to the Paſtors of the Church, they ſpeak either of their power to impoſe, or to releaſe Eccleſiaſtical cenſures, and to exclude the ſinner from the Church, or to reconcile him; or of their power to exhort the Nations to the grace and remiſſion of ſins which is propounded in the Goſpel.
The antient Church having no other abſolution, but that which was done in publick after that the penitence was fulfilled, the cuſtom was, when the Penitent was reconciled unto the Church, and received to the Communion with the impoſition of hands of the Biſhop, that the whole Church joyned in prayers and humiliation to obtain the grace of God, and the remiſſion of ſins for the penitent, as Tertullian (y)Presbyteriis advolvi, caris Dei adgeniculari, omnibus fratribus legationes deprecationis ſuae injungere.teacheth in the book of Penitence, in the ninth chapter. And Sozomenus (z)foreign.in the ſeventh book, chap. 16. where he relates with how many tears and prayers, the Biſhop and the people, with the Penitent, humbled themſelves before God to obtain pardon from his mercy. An evident proof that the Biſhop did not pronounce any judgement about the remiſſion of ſins before God, but did the office of a ſuitour and ſuppliant before God, not that of a Judge, but only as for the meaſure of Eccleſiaſtical pains, which were regulated by the Eccleſiaſtical Canons. Of which nevertheleſs, the ſhortening was in the Biſhops power, and that ſhortning was called Indulgence. (*)Note the old ſignification of the word Indulgence.A word which in our dayes is taken by a notorious abuſe, for a ſhortening of the pains of Purgatory by the Popes grant, employing for that the ſuperabounding ſatisfactions of Chriſt and his Saints, and of the Fryars, which he boaſteth to have in his keeping in the Churches treaſury, whereof he carryeth the Keyes.
Beſides that publick cuſtom, we can bring many examples, to ſhew that for blotting out ſins before God, and reconciling the ſinner unto God, the Biſhops behaved themſelves as ſuppliants, not as Judges. In Baſils life, fathered upon Amphilochius, (a)Tomo 2. Vitae Sanct. ab Aloiſio Lipomanno edit. Venet. an. 1553. fol. 298. Vita Patrum ab Her. Roſweido Edit. Antwerp. an. 1615. p. 160.a woman preſents her ſelf unto Baſil to obtain the remiſſion of her ſins. To which Baſil ſpeaks thus, Didſt thou hear, O woman, that none can forgive ſins but God? To which that woman anſwereth, Father I have learned it ſo, and therefore I made my requeſt to you, that you would intercede unto God for me. And Auſtin towards the end of the 58. Treatiſe upon Saint Johns Goſpel, ſpeaking of the pardon of offences which we obtain of men.(b)Noſtrum eſt, donante ipſo, miniſterium charitatis & humilitatis adhibere. Illius eſt, exaudire ac nos ab omni peccatorum co… taminatione mundare per Chriſtum & in Chriſto, ut quod aliis etiam dimittimus, hoc eſt, in terra ſolvimus, ſolvatur & in coelo. It is our part, by his gift, to imploy the Miniſtry of humility and charity. And it is his part, to hear our prayers, and to cleanſe us by Chriſt, and in Chriſt, from all pollution of ſin, that what we releaſe unto others, that is, what we looſe on earth, may alſo be looſed in heaven.
Ambroſe is expreſs upon this, in the nineteenth chapter of the third book of the Holy Ghoſt,(c)Iſti rogant, Divinitas donat: Humanum eſt obſequium, ſed munificentia ſupernae eſt potentiae. They (meaning the Paſtors) are praying, but the God-head is giving. Ʋnto man it belongs to obey, but liberality belongs to the heavenly power.
Leo the I. about the year of the Lord 450. ſpeaking of the Confeſſion which the Penitent make unto the Prieſts, ſaith that(d)Leo in fine Epiſt. 80. ad Epiſc. Campaniae. Confeſſio Deo offertur tum etiam Sacerdoti, qui prodelictis poenitentium precator accedit. the Confeſsion is ſufficient which is firſt preſented unto God, and then to the Prieſt, who preſents himſelf as a Petitioner for the ſins of Penitents.
And whoſo ſhall look with a judicious eye, into all that is ſtill done in the Roman Church, ſhall find many traces whereby he may diſcover, that the cuſtom of ſaying, I abſolve thee, in form of a ſentence, is new, and that it is not long ſince Abſolution was given in form of a Petition. For in the extream Unction (which from a miraculous cure for the health of the body, is turned into a Sacrament for the health of the ſoul) the Prieſt giveth not abſolution otherwiſe then by praying, and ſpeaking thus unto the ſick,(e)Abſolutionem & remiſſionem peccatorum tuorum tribuat tibi omnipotens pius & miſe…icors Deus. The Almighty, gracious, and merciful God, give thee the remiſsion and abſolution of all thy ſins. If at any time there is need of an abſolution in ſtrong terms, and of a judicial ſentence of pardon, it is eſpecially upon the point of death: Yet when the Prieſt contents himſelf to beſeech God that he would forgive the ſinner, as acknowledging that it belongs not to him to forgive. Thus when it is queſtioned, to reconcile an Heretick excommunicated, and to take off the excommunication, The Biſhop (after that by exorciſm, and by the ſign of the Croſs upon the Hereticks fore-head, he hath conjured the Devil that poſſeſſed that poor Heretick) ſaith many prayers, whereby he prayeth to God to receive the wandring ſheep, and to give abſolution to the miſerable ſtrayed ſinner, as it is exactly ſet down in the Roman Pontifical,(f)Pontiſicale Rom. Pariſiis apud Rollinum Thierri, An. 1615. in the chapter of the reconciliation of an Apoſtate Schiſmatick or Heretick. And in the ſame book, in the chapter of the Solemn Office after the Maſs of the dead, there are many prayers whereby the Prieſt prayeth that God abſolve the ſoul of the deceaſed perſon, and blot out his ſins. Which prayers in the ſame place are called(g)Pag. 39…. Abſolutiones iſtas non ſemper in omnibus exequiis fieri. abſolutions; Which is an evident trace of the cuſtom of calling prayers abſolutions, before the Prieſts had taken upon them the authority of Judges, pronouncing abſolution with a judicial power.
In vain ſhall one reply, that theſe examples are taken from the abſolutions that are done out of the celebration of Sacraments: For the extream Unction is put by the Roman Church among the Sacraments. And as for the reconciliation which they make of a ſinner after excommunication, ſince it is made by vertue of the Keyes, the Prelates might ſpeak with the like authority as in the Sacrament of Penitence. Yea they may and ought to ſpeak with more authority in excommunications, relaxations, and cenſures, then in the Sacraments, becauſe in the Sacraments they are meer adminiſtrators. But as for the Eccleſiaſtical diſcipline, they may pretend that God hath conſtituted them Judges and Diſpenſers with power of binding and looſing.
The antient Roman order ſhews the ſame: For there the Prieſt giveth abſolution in the form of a Prayer. And we find in the 21. Opuſcul. of Thomas, that a Doctor of the Roman Church in the time of Thomas maintained, that abſolution was not to be given in abſolute terms, and in the form of a judicial ſentence, with an Indicative certitude, ſaying, I abſolve thee▪ But that they ought to ſay, God give thee abſolution and remiſsion of thy ſins; as it is ſaid in the extream Unction. He added that the cuſtom of ſaying, Abſolvote, &c. was new, and but of thirty years ſtanding, and that no example of that practice was found in all Antiquity. He alleadged for himſelf, Gulielmus Altiſsiodorenſis, and Gulielmus Pariſienſis, and Hugo Cardinalis. Which opinion, Thomas confuteth ſo, that he rather confirms it. For he flyeth alwayes to that ſentence, Whoſeſoever ſins ye forgive, &c. Preſuppoſing without proof, that Chriſt ſpeaketh there of the Sacramental abſolution, and of a judicial abſolution, not of the power of binding and looſing, which is exerciſed out of the Sacraments by the Eccleſiaſtical diſcipline, and by the preaching of the Goſpel: Perceiving not that the ſaid power is gven to the Apoſtles, not only over thoſe that are of the Church, but alſo over Infidels and not baptized perſons, as many as ſhall be converted by the Goſpel, to whom our Adverſaries acknowledge that this Sacramental abſolution cannot be given. And ſtill he takes the pardon whereby a publick Penitent is reconciled unto the Church for the pardon whereby the ſinner is abſolved in Gods judgement. He ſaith indeed, that the Prieſt abſolveth in Chriſts perſon. But if it be ſo, the Prieſt ought to produce the peculiar Commiſſion which …he hath from Chriſt to forgive ſuch a man. For that general Commiſſion, Whoſeſoever ſins ye forgive, &c. is not enough, becauſe we know that God will not pardon hypocrites who have neither faith nor contrition; which are things that the Prieſt knoweth not. Chriſt did not authorize him to forgive in the quality of a Judge, without a true information of thoſe things, without the knowledge whereof a judgement cannot be juſt. So I believe not, that the Prieſts of the Roman Church will grant him that, by ſaying, I abſolve thee, they ſpeak in the perſon of Chriſt. They ſay indeed, that they forgive in the authority of Chriſt, but not that they ſpeak or pardon in the perſon of Chriſt: As if a ſubject repreſenting the King, ſpake in his perſon, ſaying to a Felon, I am your King, and I give you your grace. If it be ſo underſtood, the Prieſt hath no power to abſolve, for then theſe words, I abſolve thee, muſt be ſo underſtood. It is Chriſt, not I, that abſolveth thee. And in the ſame place he ſaith, that the power of the Keyes abſolveth from the ſin, not as the principal efficient cauſe, but as an inſtrument; in the ſame manner (ſaith he) as the water of Baptiſm by touching the body waſheth the heart, as Auſtin ſaith. Hereby Thomas doth powerfully confirm the truth: For the water of Baptiſm waſheth not the heart, and cleanſeth not ſins: That praiſe is due to the blood of Chriſt, and to the merit of his death, and to the efficacy of the Spirit of ſanctification. And if Auſtin hath in ſome place ſpoken in ſuch Metaphorical terms, (as the connexion of the diſcourſe going before and after, may ſhew it) thoſe Metaphorical terms have no force to eſtabliſh a new doctrine in the Church.
That the Doctor againſt whom Thomas writeth, ſpake true when he ſaid, that the power which the Prieſts challenge of pardoning with authority of Judges, and really to abſolve the ſinner with a judicial ſentence, was but new, it appeareth by that which Lombard, the maſter of Thomas, and his ſenior by few years, writes of that matter in the fourth book of ſentences, Diſt. 4. Litera D. (h)Filius irae eſſe deſiit, ex quo diligere & poenitere coepit. Exhinc ergo ſolutus eſt ab ira, quae non manet ſuper illum qui credit in Chriſtum, ſed ſuper illum qui non credit. Non ergo poſtmodum per ſacerdotem, cui confitetur, ab aeterna ira liberatur, à qua jam liberatus eſt per Dominum, ex quo dixit Confitebor, &c. Item Ambroſius, Verbum Domini peccata dimittit, Sacerdos eſt judex, Sacerdos quidem officium exhibet, ſed nullius poteſtatis jura exercet. Idem ille ſolus peccata dimittit, qui ſolus pro peccatis noſtris mortuus eſt.Theſe are his words, He left to be a child of wrath, ever ſince he began to have love and to repent. From that time then he is free from wrath, which abideth not upon him that believeth in Chriſt, but upon him that believeth not. After that then, he is not delivered from the eternal wrath by the Prieſt to whom he confeſſeth, being already delivered from it by the Lord, when he ſaid, I will confeſs. For none but God can cleanſe man within from the ſpot of ſin. None delivereth him from the debt of eternal death, but he that ſaid by the Prophet, I alone blot out the iniquities and the ſins of the people: And ſo Ambroſe, The Word of God remitteth ſins, the Prieſt is Judge. The Prieſt indeed doth his Office, but he doth not exerciſe the right of any power. And the ſame, He alone forgiveth ſins, who alone is dead for our ſins. And Auſtin, None takes away ſins but the only God, who is the Lamb that takes away the ſins of the world.
Obſerve that he calls the Prieſt a Judge, but he adds, that the ſaid Judge hath no right or power to Judge; that is, that in effect he is no Judge.
The ſame Doctor in the letters E and F, (i)Hoc ſanè dicere & ſenti…e poſſumus, quod ſolus De…s dimittit peccata & retinet, & tamen Eccleſiae contulit poteſtatem ligandi & ſolvendi, ſed aliter ipſe ſolvit & ligat, aliter Eccleſia. Ipſe enim per ſe tantùm dimittit peccatum, qui & animam mundat ab interiori macula, & à debito aeternae mortis ſolvit. Non autem hoc ſacerdotibus conceſſit, quibus tamen tribuit poteſtatem ſolvendi & ligandi, id eſt, oſtendendi homines ligatos vel ſolutos. Unde Dominus leproſum ſanitati priùs per ſe reſtituit, deinde ad ſacerdotes miſit, quorum judicio oſtenderetur muadatus. Ita etiam Lazarum jam vivificatum obtulit diſcipulis ſolvendum. Quia et ſi aliquis apud Deum ſit ſolutus, non tamen in facie Eccleſiae ſolutus habetur, niſi per judicium ſacerdotis.Truly we can ſay and believe that God alone forgiveth and retaineth ſins, and yet he hath given power of binding and looſing unto the Church. But he and the Church do not bind in the ſame manner. For he alone remitteth ſins by himſelf, who both cleanſeth the ſoul from the inward ſtain, and freeth it from the debt of eternal death. Now he gave not that power to the Prieſts, to whom nevertheleſs he gave the power of binding and looſing, that is, to ſhew that men are bound or looſed. Wherefore the Lord firſt by himſelf reſtored health unto the Leper, and after that ſent him to the Prieſts, that by their judgement he might be declared clean. Likewiſe alſo, having already quickned Lazarus, he preſented him to his Diſciples to be looſed. Becauſe although a man be looſed before God, yet he is not accounted to be leoſed in the face of the Church, unleſs he be looſed by the judgement of the Prieſt. He ſpeaks with good reaſon, for after reconciliation with God, the excommunicated ſinner muſt ſatisfie the Church, that he may be looſed from the bonds of Eccleſiaſtical diſcipline. The effect of his diſcourſe is, that the contrite ſinner is already abſolved, before the Prieſt abſolve him: And that the Prieſt looſeth the ſinner, that is, he declareth that God hath looſed him. And that he proveth by Hieroms teſtimony upon Matth. 16. Whatſoever thou bindeſt on earth, &c. Biſhops and Prieſts (ſaith Hierom) not underſtanding this text, take upon them I know not what of the Phariſees pride, thinking that they can condemn the innocent and looſe the guilty: Whereas with God, the Prieſts ſentence is not requiſite, but the life of the guilty. And in Leviticus a Commandment is made to the Lepers, to ſhew themſelves unto the Prieſts, which Prieſts do not make them to be either clean or Lepers, but only they diſcern thoſe that are clean and thoſe that are unclean. Whereby it is made evident, that God follows not alwayes the judgement of the Church, which often judgeth by ſubreption or ignorance. But God judgeth alwayes according unto truth. And in matter of pardoning or retaining ſins, the Prieſts of the Goſpel have the ſame right and office, as the Prieſts of the Law had in old time under the Law, as for the cure of Lepers. And by conſequent they forgive ſins, in as much as they judge and ſhew that God hath forgiven or retained ſins. Lombard addeth, that beſides this way of looſing (which is nothing elſe but declaring that ſuch an one hath given ſuch teſtimonies of his repentance, that there is reaſon to believe that God hath looſed him, and forgiven him) there is another way of looſing, namely by reconciling the ſinner unto the Church, and reſtoring him to the Communion,(k)Hier. in Matth. 16. prout citatur à Lombardo. Vide & Hier. in Levit. 14. Et Can. Omnis & Can. Convenimus Diſt. 1. de Poenitentia. after he hath ſatisfied the Church by penitence. But he holds that if he be truly penitent before that reconciliation to the Church, he was already reconciled with God.
Alexander Hales, famous among the School-men, was of the ſame opinion as Lombard. Theſe are his words,(l)Alex. Hales Sum. Par. 4 qu. 21. memb 1. Paris poteſtatis eſt intus baptizare & à culpa mortali abſolvere. Sed Deus non debuit poteſtatem baptizandi interiùs communicare, ne spes poneretur in homine. Ergo pari ratione nec poteſtatem abſolvendi ab actuali. They are things of equal power, to baptize inwardly, and to give abſolution from a mortal ſin. Now God ought not to communicate [unto man] the power of baptizing inwardly, leaſt that [men] ſhould put their confidence in man. Then by the like reaſon he did not [impart unto man] the power of abſolving from actual ſin.
Let us hear what Pope Adrian the VI. ſaith of this. He writ about the year, 1500. being not yet Pope: For Popes ſpend not their time about making Books. And I make no doubt, but that when he was made Pope, he altered his opinion. For a man that brings in queſtion the power of the Keyes to forgive ſins, ſhould not have been ſuffered in the Papal See, and himſelf ſhould have overthrown his See. Theſe are then his words in the fifth Quodlibetical Queſtion,(m)Difficultas magna eſt inter Doctores, an claves ſacerdotii ſe extendant ad culpae remiſsionem, & certè probatiſsimi Theologi ſenſerunt quod non. Magiſter ſent. diſt. 18. in 4. lib. dicit, Sacerdotibus non conceſsit Deus poteſtatem culpam dimittendi ſeu ligandi, ſed oſtendendi homines eſſe ligatos & ſolutos, &c. There is a great difficulty among the Doctors, whether the Keyes of Prieſthood reach as far as the remiſsion of the fault. And truly, the moſt approved Divines have been for the Negative. The Maſter of the Sentences in the eighteenth Diſtinction of the fourth book, ſaith that God hath not granted unto Prieſts the power of forgiving the fault, nor that of binding, but to ſhew that men are bound or looſe. Wherefore the Eccleſiaſtical, Prieſt, for the point of remitting or looſing ſins, doth the ſame thing as the Prieſt of the Law did towards Lepers, and theſe are originally the words of Hierom, handling this text, Matth. 16. Whatſoever thou ſhalt bind, &c.
(n)Item Doctor Irrefragabilis, parte 4. qu. 80. Sacerdotis poteſtas ſe extendit ad culpam delendam per modum deprecantis, ſed per modum impertientis vel imperantis nequaquam. Unde dicit, Sacerdos enim nunquam tentaret abſolvere eum, de quo non praeſumeret quod eſſet abſolutus à Deo. Concludens poteſtatem clavium ad culpam delendam ſe non extendere, &c.Alſo the irrefragable Doctor, in part 4. queſtion 8. The power of the Prieſt (ſaith he) extends it ſelf to blot out the ſin only by way of petitioning, not by way of giving or commanding. Wherefore alſo he ſaith, that the Prieſt would never undertake to abſolve him, whom he did not preſume to be abſolved by God: Concluding, that the power of the Keyes extends not to the blotting out of ſin. And as for the text of John 20. Whoſeſoever ſins ye forgive, &c. he ſaith that it muſt be underſtood as for the true remiſſion, or obligation to the pain, or as for the manifeſtation or ſhewing of the fault. To which the interlineary Gloſs ſeemeth to allude, ſaying in the ſame place, That is, thoſe whom you ſhall judge worthy of remiſſion, namely by the two Keyes of power and diſcretion. Bonaventure ſeems to be of the ſame opinion in the eighteenth Diſtinction of the fourth Book. And truly that ſeems to be probable: For the ſame power was given to the Prieſts, both to retain and to remit ſins. Now it is manifeſt that they cannot retain a true penitents fault. How then could they pardon the ſins of a true Penitent? And how then could they pardon a mans ſins that doth not repent worthily enough? Yet becauſe other Doctors probably maintain the contrary, ſaying that a Sacramental penitence, like a ſecond plank after Shipwrack, confers ſometimes the firſt grace, opere operato, I leave that undecided as a probable queſtion.
I will ſhut up this Chapter by a place of Auſtin, in the 23. of the fifty Sermons, where that holy man ſpeaks of that woman of ill life, Luke 7. who came to Chriſt when he was at the Table in a Phariſees houſe, and began to water the Lords feet with her tears, and wipe them with her hair, that ſhe might obtain the pardon of her ſins. Whereupon Auſtin ſpeaks thus;
(o)Tenete, quia homo non poteſt peccata dimittere. Illa quae ſibi à Chriſto peccata dimitti credidit, Chriſtum non hominem tantum ſed & Deum credidit.Take this for a maxime, that man cannot forgive ſins. This woman that believed that Chriſt did forgive her ſins, believed that Chriſt was not only man, but God alſo. And a little after,(p)Futuri erant homines, qui dicerent, ego peccata dimitto, ego juſtifico. Some men were to come that ſhould ſay, I forgive ſins, I juſtifie, I ſanctifie, I heal all whom I Baptize, &c.(q)Sed in eo Phariſaeus melior, quia cumputaret hominem Chriſtum, non putabat ab homine poſſe dimitti peccata. Melior ergo Judaeis quam haereticis apparuit intellectus. Judaei dixerunt, Quis eſt hic qui etiam peccata dimittit? Audet ſibi homo hoc uſurpare? Quid contra haereticus? Ego dimitto, ego mundo. But in that the Phariſee was better then they, becauſe that thinking him to be a man, he believed not that a man could remit ſins. The Jews then ſeem to have had more underſtanding [in this point] then the Hereticks. The Jews ſaid, Who is this that forgiveth ſins? Dare a man uſurp that [authority?] But what ſaith the Heretick againſt that? I forgive ſins, I cleanſe, I ſanctifie, &c.(r)Reſpondent & dicunt, Si non dimittunt homines peccata, falſum eſt quod ait Chriſtus, Quae ſolveritis in terra, ſoluta erunt in coelo. Neſcis quare hoc dictum ſit? Quomodo dictum ſit? Daturus erat Dominus hominibus Spiritum Sanctum, &c. The Hereticks anſwer and ſay, If men do not forgive ſins, that which Chriſt ſaid is falſe, All that you looſe on earth, ſhall be looſed in Heaven. To that Auſtin anſwereth, Doſt thou not know why that is ſaid, and how it was ſaid? The Lord would give the Holy Ghoſt unto men, and would have it underſtood that it is by the Holy Ghoſt that ſins are forgiven unto the faithful, not by the merit of men. For who art thou O man, but a ſick man that muſt be healed? Wilt thou be my Phyſitian? Seek a Phyſitian with me, &c. It is the Spirit, not you, that forgiveth. Now the Spirit is God: God then pardoneth, not you.
Behold then the ſubſtance of our belief, and the language of our Paſtors to the confeſſing ſinner, that ſheweth ſigns of true repentance. We ſay not to him, I abſolve thee from all thy ſins; nor, I forgive thee. But ſince thou haſt a true repentance of thy ſins, I declare unto thee that God forgiveth thee thy ſins by Jeſus Chriſt. Believe in Jeſus Chriſt, and thou ſhalt be ſaved; I announce unto thee the remiſſion of thy ſins for Chriſts ſake. It belongs not unto me to abſolve thee in Gods judgement: For Paſtors are only Meſſengers of the Grace of God, and Miniſters of reconciliation. Yea I ſay unto thee, that before thou cameſt to me, to declare unto me the contrition of thy heart, God had already forgiven thee. For, he forgiveth all them that turn to him with a true heart. Yet becauſe thou haſt given ſcandal to the Church, thou muſt be reconciled with the Church, and give her ſatisfaction by publick repentance, and ſo be received to the Churches Communion. For God hath given to the Paſtors of his Church the Keyes of the Kingdom of heaven, that is, the government of his Church, and the power of binding ſinners by Eccleſiaſtical cenſures, and of looſing them, by taking off the ſaid cenſures, and reconciling the ſinner, cut off from the Communion: Which judgements God promiſeth to ratifie in heaven; ſo that he that is bound on earth by the judgement of Paſtors, is judged in Gods counſel to be tyed and bound to that Eccleſiaſtical puniſhment.
For this we receive no money, and take nothing for confeſſions, and neither before nor after the reconciliation, do we impoſe any, either corporal or pecuniary pain: Very glad that God hath made uſe of us to bring the ſinner to the right way again.
The purity and holineſs of that proceeding, grounded upon the holy Scripture, and conformable unto the practice of the antient Church (but only in the length, and the divers degrees of publick penitence) will be much more evident, when we have laid open the ſtrange abuſes wherewith the abſolution and remiſſion of ſins is defiled in the Roman Church.