The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 7 · Chapter 1
CHAP. 1. How negligently M. du Perron treats of Sacramental Abſolution. A ſummary anſwer to that he ſaith of that ſubject. Many falſifications are obſerved.
OF all the Articles of Chriſtian faith, that of remiſſion of our ſins by Jeſus Chriſt is the moſt neceſſary, and the moſt comfortable. In the chain of Gods Graces that Article is the firſt ring, from which depends Juſtification, Sanctification and Eternal Life. That happineſs which conſcience ſeeks before all things, is to have peace with God. No wonder then that Satan hath uſed all his ſtrength and policy to corrupt by the depravation of that one Article, the whole Chriſtian Religion.
Wherefore it is much to be wondered at, why the Cardinal, who in his book makes ſo many long digreſſions, ſo far as to employ (in chap. 48. of his firſt book) forty one pages to diſpute againſt Baronius about a thing of no uſe, paſſeth ſo ſlightly over the moſt important point of Chriſtian Religion, as being afraid to meddle with it, contenting himſelf to beſtow upon it little above half a page.
They that have converſed with this Prelate or peruſed his books, may have obſerved that he did carefully abſtain from ſome Controverſies, and avoided them as dangerous ſhelves. He was willing enough to diſpute of prayer for the dead, by the Fathers, but he fled from the diſpute of Purgatory and Indulgences. He would be large upon the real preſence of Chriſts body, but medled as little as he could with the tranſubſtantiation of the bread, and with the denying of the cup in the Communion unto the people, and with Maſſes without communicants. He would diſcourſe of the images of Saints, but never of the images of God and the Trinity. He ſpake of the repreſentation of Saints by images, but forbare ſpeaking of the adoration of thoſe images. He would heap up many teſtimonies of Fathers of the firſt age, about the interceſſion of Saints, but paſt lightly over the invocation of Saints. He extended himſelf much upon the Popes primacy over the Biſhops of the Roman Empire, but medled not with the divine inſtitution, whereby the Pope pretends to be Peters ſucceſſor in the quality of Apoſtle or Head of the Univerſal Church. Neither did he ever take the pains to bring any example or any action whereby it appeared that the Pope governed the Churches without the Roman Empire. In the ſame rank I put the Sacramental Abſolution whereby Prieſts give the abſolution of ſins, which the penitents have confeſſed. Of which he would have ſaid never a word, had not the words of his Majeſty of Great Britain extorted from him ſome few words about it by the way.
The King had ſaid, that to the confeſſion followed with the abſolution, the Roman Church attributed a vertue well nigh equal unto that of Chriſts blood, and that men were ſubjected to it upon unavoidable neceſſity.
To that the Cardinal gives an anſwer, which may be reduced to very few words. He ſaith, that as to the iron of the cautere, the ſame effect is attributed as to the fire; and to the water where the drug was infuſed, the ſame vertue as to the drug; and that as Scripture aſcribeth the ſame vertue to Baptiſm, as to the blood of Chriſt, ſaying that Chriſt hath(a)Epheſ. 5.26. cleanſed his Church by the waſhing of water by the word, and that Baptiſm(b)Tit. 3.5. is the waſhing of regeneration; by the ſame reaſon one may attribute the remiſſion of ſins to penitential abſolution: Of which the ſame that waſheth our ſins in his blood ſaid, Receive the Holy Ghoſt, whoſe ſins ſoever you remit, they are remitted. And that(c)Ambroſ. l. 1. de poenit. cap. 7. Ambroſe and Hierom diſputing againſt the Novatians (who believed not that men could remit ſins) ſay that both in Baptiſm and in Penitence Prieſts forgive ſins. He denyeth alſo that the Roman Church holds the Sacrament of penitence to be of abſolute neceſſity, that being proper to the Baptiſm of children.
I paſs by his compariſons, for ſimiles prove nothing. The texts which he alleadgeth out of St. Pauls Epiſtles are falſe in ſome part, and are even contrary to him. For there St. Paul ſaith not that the waſhing of water cleanſeth the Church, but that Chriſt purgeth his Church by the waſhing of water, by the word. Would to God that the Doctors of the Roman Church would tye themſelves to ſpeak ſo, and would ſay only that Chriſt forgiveth ſins by the Paſtors of the Church, that is, by their Miniſtery. Beſides, he takes it for granted that by the waſhing of water, St. Paul underſtands Baptiſm, not knowing that Scripture calls ſo remiſſion of ſins and regeneration, even before Baptiſm was inſtituted. As Pſalm 51.4. David ſaith, Waſh me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanſe me from my ſin. And Iſa. 1.16. Waſh ye, make ye clean, put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes. And Zechariah chap. 13.1. prophecieth of a fountain that ſhould be opened to the houſe of David, and to the inhabitants of Jeruſalem, for ſin and for uncleanneſs, meaning the ſaving grace by Chriſt. Yea, in the new Teſtament, as 1 Cor. 6.11. after a long enumeration of vices, the Apoſtle addeth, But you are waſhed, but you are ſanctified in the name of the Lord Jeſus, and by the Spirit of your God. And Rev. 1.5. Ʋnto him that loved us, and waſhed us from our ſins in his own blood. In which places it is not at all ſpoken of the Sacrament of Baptiſm. Whereas when the text meaneth that grace of God figured and conferred by Baptiſm, the Apoſtle Peter in chap. 3. of the ſecond Epiſtle, ver. 21. ſaith expreſly, that theſe graces are not conferred upon us by the bodily Baptiſm, for having ſpoken of Noahs flood, he ſaith, The like figure whereunto even Baptiſm doth alſo now ſave us, not the putting away of the filth of the fleſh, but the anſwer of a good conſcience towards God, by the reſurrection of Jeſus Chriſt.
Hereby the fraud committed by the Cardinal is diſcovered in the allegation of his ſecond text. He makes St. Paul to ſay, Tit. 5.5.(d)Not by works of righteouſneſs which we have done, but according to his mercy he ſaved us by the waſhing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghoſt. that Baptiſm is the waſhing of regeneration; But in that text there is never a word of Baptiſm. The whole contexture of the place ſpeaks of other things, and that word waſhing ſignifieth only cleanſing, according to the ſtyle of Scripture, as we have juſtified it by many texts. It is certain that the Apoſtle ſpeaks there of a waſhing neceſſary to ſalvation; Now our Adverſaries confeſs that without the Baptiſm of water many are ſaved.
Neither is the text of John 20.23. any more to his purpoſe to prove the ſacramental abſolution. Chriſt after his reſurrection ſaid to his Apoſtles, Receive ye the Holy Ghoſt, Whoſeſoever ſins ye remit, they are remitted, and whoſeſoever ſins ye retain, they are retained. That text gives indeed to his Apoſtles, and to his ſucceſſors, all faithfull Paſtors of the Church, power to pardon ſins, we have no controverſie about that. Retaining ſins is exempting ſinners from puniſhment. Whence it followeth, that as much as the Paſtors can puniſh, ſo much can they pardon. For, as(e)Ambroſ. de poenit. l. 1. cap. 2. Dominus par jus & folvendi eſſe voluit & ligandi, qui utrumque pari conditione permiſit. Ergo qui ſolvendi jus non habet, nec ligandi habet, &c. Quomodo poteſt alterum licere alterum non licere? Ambroſe ſaith, the power of binding, and the power of looſing are of equal extent. The Paſtors then can remit thoſe puniſhments of ſins which they can lay upon the ſinner. Now they can puniſh the ſinner with Eccleſiaſtical pains, cenſures, ſuſpenſions and excommunications, of which pains they may releaſe the repenting ſinner, reſtoring him to the communion of the Church. It may be ſaid alſo, that they forgive ſins, even as for the eternal pain, in the ſame manner that Scripture ſaith, that they ſave ſouls, as James 5.20. He which converteth the ſinner from the error of his way, ſhall ſave a ſoul from death, and ſhall hide a multitude of ſins. And 1 Cor. 9.22. I am made all things to all men, that by all means I might ſave ſome. And 1 Tim. 4.16. In doing this thou ſhalt both ſave thy ſelf, and them that hear thee. Not that to ſpeak properly, the Paſtors be able to ſave ſouls, or ought to be called Saviours, but becauſe God conferreth remiſſion of ſins unto penitent ſinners by their miniſtery. It is a metonymie, a tropical expreſſion, whereby that which is proper unto the efficient cauſe is attributed unto the inſtrument. As if a rich man having ſent a ſumm of money by another to redeem a priſoner, we ſaid that the bearer of that money hath delivered the priſoner. Thus although to ſpeak properly, it be meat that hath the feeding vertue, yet we ſay that our hands feed our body. Our Adverſaries do not underſtand it ſo, but their ſenſe is, that Prieſts pardon a ſinner, not only by remitting unto him the Eccleſiaſtical cenſures, but alſo by abſolving him by authority of Judges in Gods judicial ſeat; pardoning (as they ſpeak) not only at the outward bar, but at the bar of conſcience, ſo far as to ſay, that for ſins committed after Baptiſm none can be reconciled unto God, but by the judgement and abſolution of Prieſts, as Bellarmin ſaith,(f)Bellarm. de poenit. l. 3. cap. 7. §. Propoſitio. Chriſtus conſtituit ſacerdotes judices ſuper terram cum ea poteſtate ut ſine ipſorum ſententia poſt Baptiſmum lapſus reconciliari non poſſit. Et Sect. Qu…re. Nemo cui coelum ob culpam ſit clauſum, in illud ingredi poterit, niſi Sacerdotum Miniſterio aperiatur. Chriſt hath conſtituted the Prieſts to be Judges upon earth, with that power, that none that hath ſinned after Baptiſm can be reconciled without their ſentence. And that none to whom heaven is ſhut for his ſin can enter into heaven, unleſs it be opened unto him by the Miniſtery of Prieſts. Wherefore alſo M. du Perron calleth Sacramentall Abſolution, a judicial act; as the Council of Trent ſaith Seſſ. 14. cap. 6. That the abſolution by the Prieſt is as a judicial act whereby ſentence is pronounced by the Prieſt as by a Judge. And(g)Bellar. l. 3. de poenit. c. 2. Sect. Sed haec: Pec…a omnia cauſae ſunt quas cum Deo ipſo habemus, & ideo cum Deus judicium de peccatis Sacerdotibus permiſerit in Eccleſia ſua, non poſſunt qui in Eccleſia ſunt, ſi ejusmodi cauſas habeant, ſine Sacerdotum judicio cum Deo reconciliari. Cardinal Bellarmin makes no difficulty to ſay, that there being a ſuit depending, or a difference between God and man who hath ſinned, the Prieſt is Judge in the cauſe of God. Whence it follows, that the Prieſt in that regard is above God, becauſe the Prieſt is Judge, and God is a party. The iſſue of the ſuit is, that God is condemned to forgive man. But it is pity that the Prieſt who pronounceth that judgement is himſelf a ſinner and guilty, and he muſt plead his own cauſe before ſome other Prieſt, who many times is more guilty then he: And all muſt in the end appear together before God to be judged about all their words, actions, and thoughts; yea, for that very Abſolution eſpecially they muſt give account; whereby (as our Adverſaries acknowledge) they judge many times againſt Right and Juſtice, and bind themſelves while they are binding others.
Truly, on what ſide ſoever you turn that Text of John 20.23. you ſhall find no trace in it of the inſtitution of that pretended Sacrament, and no mention of Auricular Confeſſion, or of Satisfaction, or of remiſſion of ſins which exempteth a man from Gods judgement; but only of that remiſſion of ſins which may be adminiſtred by a man, of which we ſpake before. Whoſo will conſider the text and context of Matth. 18.18. where Chriſt giveth the binding and looſing power unto his Apoſtles, will eaſily acknowledge that he ſpeaks of Eccleſiaſtical cenſures, and of the power of binding the refractories to the Church, and looſing thoſe that return to their duty. And why ſhall we not take the power of forgiving and retaining ſins given to the Apoſtles, John 20.23. in the ſame ſenſe?
If we underſtand it, as Cyrillus upon John 20. that Chriſt gives there a power to his Diſciples, which they were to uſe both towards thoſe of the houſhold of faith, and towards the infidels and not baptized, whenſoever they ſhould be converted to God, this Sacrament of Penitence vaniſheth away. For our Adverſaries hold that this Sacrament of Penitence cannot be adminiſtred, but unto baptized perſons, not to thoſe that turn Chriſtians, being out of the Church before.
The teſtimonies of Ambroſe and Hierom are ſuch, that the Cardinal could not have pickt any more expreſs to condemn himſelf. Hierom ſaith(h)Hier. adv. Pelagium, lib. 2. That which is written, that the blood of Chriſt cleanſeth us from all ſin, muſt be underſtood both in the Confeſſion of Baptiſm, and in the clemency of Penitence. And Ambroſe, (i)Ambroſ. lib. 1. de poenit. c. 7.Why do you baptize, if men have not the power to forgive ſins? For in Baptiſm the remiſſion of ſins is. Is it any whit material, Whether Prieſts challenge that power given to them, either by Baptiſm or by Penitence? For in both it is the ſame Miniſtery. Theſe Fathers put the remiſſion of ſins both in Baptiſm and in Penitence, and make the power given to Paſtors of forgiving ſins, to conſiſt in that they baptize and reconcile ſinners after Penitence. As then in Baptiſm, Paſtors forgive not as Judges, and do no judiciary act whereby ſins be blotted out before God, but that Grace is conferred by God through Baptiſm; likewiſe when after Penitence is done, Paſtors receive ſinners to the Communion and forgive ſins, they abſolve not the ſinner in Gods judicial ſeat, but God makes uſe of their Miniſtry to aſſure the ſinners conſcience that his ſins are forgiven him. Wherefore Ambroſe ſaith, that in both (that is, in Baptiſm and in Penitence) it is the ſame Miniſtry. He ſpeaks of a Miniſtry or Service, not of a judicial power.
The worſt legerdemain of the Cardinal in this allegation, is that he would make the world believe, that both Hierom and Ambroſe when they ſpeak of Penitence, mean that pretended Sacrament of Penitence of the Roman Church, whereby the Prieſt after a ſecret and punctual Confeſſion, giveth Abſolution, and impoſeth ſatisfactions. For that Penitence of which thoſe Fathers ſpeak, is publick Penitence, whereby the ſinner after he hath paſt through all the degrees of Penitence, was reconciled unto the Church publikely, and received to the Communion. Of Abſolution given in ſecret to a ſinner after Confeſſion, the Fathers of the firſt ages make no mention. In thoſe dayes, if a ſinner had confeſſed his ſin privately to his Paſtor, the Paſtor, if he judged it expedient, diſpoſed him to ſatisfie by publick Penitence. But of ſecret abſolution, after a ſecret confeſſion, no mention or trace is found in Antiquity. The cuſtom was to fulfill the Satisfaction before Abſolution: For the ſinner was to ſatisfie the Church by Penitence, before he could be reconciled to the Church. But in the Roman Church of this age, the Prieſt giving abſolution, impoſeth ſatisfactory pains, which are fulfilled after abſolution. He looſeth the Penitent by abſolution, and at the ſame time binds him, obliging him to ſatisfactory pains, either corporal or pecuniary, which were altogether unknown among the antients. In a word, all the antient practice is overthrown and contradicted in the Roman Church. Of that publike penance all thoſe teſtimonies ſpeak, which the Cardinal brings in the following Chapter(k)Chap. 2. pag. 651.. Such is that of(l)Lactant. de vera Sapient. l. 4. c. 30. Lactantius, Becauſe the Congregations of Hereticks hold themſelves all of them to be principally Chriſtian, and think their Church to be the Catholick Church, we muſt know that the true Church is that where there is Confeſsion and Penitence, &c. And the ſecond Canon of the Council of Laodicea, which the Cardinal calls an Oracle. To thoſe that are run into divers ſins, and give themſelves to prayer, ſhewing a perfect converſion from their faults, a time muſt be preſcribed according to the quality of the ſin. Such is alſo the teſtimony which he alleadgeth in the ſame place out of Cyprian, (m)Cypr. Ep. 4. l. 4. according to the Cardinals allegation, p. 651.For the leaſt ſins that are committed, yea ſuch as are not againſt the Lord, Penitence is done by a ſet time, and the confeſsion whereby the life of him that doth the Penitence is diſcovered: And they cannot come to the Communion, unleſs hands be laid upon them by the Prieſt or the Clergy.
In this place of Cyprian, it is evident that Cyprian ſpeaks of publick Confeſſion, whereby the life of the Penitent is diſcovered, and that he ſpeaks not of the Sacramental abſolution which is given in the Roman Church, but of the reconciliation of the ſinner excluded from the Communion of the Church, which reconciliation was done in publick, with the laying on of hands of the Biſhop and of the Clergy there preſent. Which that the Reader might not perceive, the Cardinal hath falſified that place, putting by the Prieſt or the Clergy, inſtead of by the Biſhop and the Clergy.
With the like fraud, he alleadgeth in the ſame place a teſtimony of Ambroſe. That Father ſpeaks thus,(n)Ambroſ. l. 1. de poenit. c. 16. Si quis occulta crimina habens, propter Chriſtum tamen ſtudiesè poenitentiam egerit, quomodo iſtic recipit, ſi ei communio non rependitur? Volo veniam reus speret, petat eam lachrymis, petat gomitibus, petat populi totius fletibus, &c. If any having ſecret crimes, yet doth Penitence carefully for Chriſt his ſake, how ſhall he receive here [an hundred-fold] if the Communion be not reſtored unto him? There the Cardinal ſtops, and ſuppreſſeth the reſt, which ſhews that Ambroſe ſpeaks of publick Penitence and Confeſſion, and of receiving the ſinner again to the Communion, which alſo was publikely done. Ambroſe then addeth, I will have the guilty to hope for pardon, let him ask it with tears and groanings, and with the tears of all the people, &c. He adds alſo, that he hath ſeen ſome who in their Penance cauſed themſelves to be trodden under the peoples feet. So this hath nothing common with Auricular Confeſſion, or with Sacramental Abſolution which is done in ſecret; & the Cardinal is found guilty of forgery, corrupting the Fathers with a Licenſe almoſt beyond all examples.
Of the ſame kind is another allegation of his out of Ambroſe in the Treatiſe of exhortation to Penitence. For that place ſpeaks only of publike Penitence, which the Roman Church holds not to be a Sacrament. Beſides that Treatiſe(o)Poſſevinus in recenſione operum Ambroſii. Exhortatio ad poenitentiam agendam extat …omo primo Editionis Romanae, & rejicitur inter opuſcula Ambroſio aſcripta quae non ſunt ejus. is not of Ambroſe. To which if two places be added out of Baſil, and one out of Leo, alleadged by the Cardinal in the ſame place, and falſified, as we ſhewed before; eight teſtimonies of Fathers will be found in one page of his, all wreſted and taken in a contrary ſenſe, and five of them falſified in the words, or pared and clipt with notorious fraud.
Whereas then in the writings of the Antients, the Confeſſion which ſinners made in private is often mentioned, it is no where found, that in that private confeſſion Prieſts gave the judiciary abſolution, ſaying, Abſolvo te, &c. Or that the ſaid action was put among the Sacraments of the Church. Auſtin is expreſs upon that,(p)Auguſt. de dogm. Eccl. c. 53. Nam quem mortalia crimina poſt Baptiſmum commiſſa premunt, hortor priùs publica poenitentia ſatisfacere & ita ſacerdotis judicio reconciliatum communioni ſociari. Thoſe (ſaith he) that are preſſed with mortal crimes, I exhort to ſatisfie before by publike penance, and ſo being reconciled by the Prieſts judgement, to be aſſociated unto the Communion. It is then a great abuſe of the Readers, which all our Adverſaries that write of this matter are guilty of; to bring expreſſions of the Fathers which ſpeak of private confeſsions made to the Prieſt, to inferr from thence, that a private abſolution was given after that private confeſsion; yea a judicial abſolution belonging to the Sacrament of Penitence. For of ſins alſo that were confeſſed in private, a publick penitence was made, as the Biſhop judged it expedient, or as the ſinner was diſpoſed. But of that ſecret abſolution, and of the Sacrament of Penitence, the Fathers ſpeak not. It appears alſo by the alleadged place of Auſtin, that he exhorted thoſe that were guilty of great ſins to publike penance, but did not conſtrain them to it.
It remains that we ſay ſomething of the neceſsity of that Sacramental abſolution, which the Cardinal ſaith to be neceſſary in caſe of neceſsity; that is, he that having opportunity to confeſs himſelf, and to receive abſolution from the Prieſt, doth it not, cannot be ſaved, and ſhall not obtain of God the remiſsion of his ſins. This Bellarmine ſaith in the third book of Penitence, in the ſecond Chapter.(q)Chriſtus inſtituit ſacerdotes judices ſuper terram cum ea poteſtate ut ſine ipſorum ſententia nemo poſt Baptiſmum lapſus reconciliari poſſit: Chriſt inſtituted Prieſts to be Judges upon earth with that power, that without their ſentence none that is faln after Baptiſm can be reconciled. This he ſai…h according to the doctrine of the Council of Trent, which holds the abſolution by the Prieſt to be ſo neceſſary to ſalvation, that(r)Conc. Trid. Seſſ. 14. c. 6. Atque ideo non debet poenitens ad. ŏ ſibi de ſua ipſius fide blandiri, ut etiam ſi multa illi adſit contritio aut ſacerdoti animus ſerio agendi & verè abſolvendi detur, putet tamen ſe propter ſuam fiedm verè & coram Deo eſſe abſolutum. even when a ſinner hath confeſſed himſelf with a ſerious contrition, yet if the Prieſt gave him the abſolution without an intention to give it, the Council forbids that man to believe that his ſins are forgiven him. So neceſſary is (if we muſt believe them) not only the abſolution of the Prieſt, but his very intention to abſolve, to obtain forgiveneſs of ſins before God. And the Catechiſm of the Council of Trent, (ſ)Catech. Trid. c. de Sacram. poenitentiae. Neque veniam peccatorum à Domino impetramus, niſi ea Poenitentiae Sacramentum per confeſſionem deleat.We obtain not of God the Remiſsion of our ſins, unleſs the Sacrament of Penitence blot them out by confeſsion. And Bellarmine in the third book of penitence, chap. 2.(t)Bell. l. 3. de Poenit. c. 2. Negatur remiſſio illis, quibus noluerint ſacerdotes remittere. Remiſsion is refuſed to thoſe to whom the Prieſts will not remit. He means that remiſſion is denyed them by God. And in the ſame place,(u)Ʋt flatus extinguit ignem & diſſipat neb…las, &c. As the wind puts out the fire and ſcattereth the miſt, ſo the abſolution of the Prieſt ſcattereth ſins and makes them vaniſh. And he told us before, that none that ſinned after Baptiſm, is reconciled without that, and that heaven is not opened to him without the Prieſts ſentence. In a word, by their reckoning, in caſe of poſſibility, unleſs a man go through the hands of the Prieſt, unleſs he punctually confeſs all his ſins to the Prieſt, unleſs he receive abſolution from the Prieſt, he cannot be ſaved. That yoak was laid upon the Conſciences without any Word of God to make the ſuperſtition of the people tributary to the covetouſneſs of the Clergy, and to raiſe their power. For we find not that the Apoſtles ever ſaid, Ʋnleſs we forgive you your ſins, you cannot be ſaved; but they ſaid,(x)Act 10.43. Whoſoever believeth in him ſhall receive remiſsion of ſins through his name. He then that hath a true faith in Chriſt, before he confeſs his ſins to a Prieſt, hath already remiſsion of ſins. Yea the Council of Trent, compelled by the force of truth, declareth that(y)Conc. Seſſ. 14. c. 4. Et ſi contritionem hanc aliquando charitate perfectam eſſe contingat hominemque Deo reconciliare priuſquam hoc Sacramentum actu ſuſcipiatur. contrition, when it is perfected with Charity, reconcileth a man with God, before he receive the Sacrament of Penitence. Only the Council will have the vow of the Sacrament joyned with that contrition. And the Catechiſm of that Council is yet more expreſs to that purpoſe, Contrition cannot but be acceptable unto God, for (ſaith the Prophet) a broken and a contrite heart, O God thou wilt not deſpiſe. Moreover, theſe words of the ſame Prophet declare, that as ſoon as we have conceived contrition in our ſpirits, the remiſsion of ſins is granted to us of God. I have ſaid, I will confeſs mine iniquity againſt my ſelf, and thou haſt forgiven the iniquity of my ſin. And of that we ſee a figure in the ten leprous men, who being ſent by Chriſt unto the Prieſts, were delivered from the leproſie before they came to them. Whereby one may perceive that the vertue of true contrition is ſuch, that thereby we preſently or immediately receive the remiſsion of all our ſins. So then, when the truly contrite ſinner comes to a Prieſt, his ſins are already forgiven: And if that Prieſt giveth him Abſolution, that Prieſt ſhall do a thing already done, and ſhall give a ſentence in authority of a Judge, about a thing that God hath judged already. And if a man truly contrite, and whom God hath already pardoned, come to confeſs himſelf to a Prieſt that ſaith to him, Abſolvo te, &c. but without an intention of giving abſolution, what will become of the ſentence of the Council of Trent, whereby ſuch a man is forbidden to believe that God hath forgiven him his ſins? For God having already forgiven the ſinner before he confeſt himſelf to the Prieſt, ſhall the impiety and prophane ſpirit of that Prieſt alter the will of God, or make God to revoke the pardon which he had granted before? Shall Gods goodneſs be made ſubject unto the wickedneſs of men? Can his grace already granted to a faithful ſoul, be made void by the perverſneſs of a wicked Confeſſor?
In vain to eſtabliſh the neceſsity of that penitential abſolution, theſe words are alleadged, Whoſe ſoever ſins ye remit, they ſhall be remitted: For hence it follows not, that all the ſins which Prieſts ſhall not forgive, ſhall not be forgiven. If I ſay, that all thoſe whom the King hath condemned to death are dead, doth it follow that none of thoſe whom he did not condemn are dead? Beſides, we have proved, that the pardon of which Chriſt ſpeaks in that text is not the Sacramental abſolution, nor a judicial act or ſentence of a Judge abſolving ſinners before Gods judicial ſeat: That belongeth to none but God, for the reaſons which we will ſhew in the following Chapter.