The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 7 · Chapter 3
CHAP. 3. That the Paſtors of the Church cannot blot out ſins before God. And cannot by pardoning ſins exempt ſinners from Gods judgement. And that unto God alone, as the only Judge of ſouls and conſciences, it belongeth to forgive ſins. And that the abſolution of the Prieſts of the Roman Church is void and of no vertue.
IN this queſtion we take remiſſion of ſins not for the remiſſion of Eccleſiaſtical cenſures and penances, but in the ſenſe that remiſſion of ſins is taken in the Creed, and in the ſenſe that it is commonly taken in the Goſpel, which(a)Iſa. 43.25. Jer. 31.34. Mal. 3.17. Mic. 7.18. promiſeth remiſſion of ſins to them that believe in Chriſt, ſo that God holds them for acquitted, there being no condemnation for them that are in Chriſt Jeſus. In that ſenſe we affirm and maintain, that none but God alone can forgive our ſins with judicial authority. I ſay not only that he is the only Soveraign Judge, but abſolutely that he is the only Judge, and that to forgive ſins by authority of a Judge, there is no Judge neither with him nor under him, and that the Paſtors of the Church are not inferiour Judges ſubordinated unto God to pardon ſins by a judicial abſolution. In a word, that the judgement concerning remiſſion of ſins whereby we are abſolved in Gods judicial ſeat, doth not belong to them in any reſpect. And we reject the doctrine of the Roman Church,(b)Bell. l. 3. de poenit. cap. 2. Chriſtus inſtituit Sacerdotes judices ſuper terram cum ea poteſtate ut ſine ipſorum ſententia nemo poſt Baptiſmum lapſus poſſit reconciliari. that God doth not forgive ſins committed after Baptiſm, unleſs the Prieſt forgive them,(c)Et eodem capite. Nemo cui coelum ob culpam ſit clauſum, in illud ingredi poterit, niſi Sacerdotum miniſterio aperiatur. and that they to whom heaven is ſhut up by reaſon of their ſin, cannot enter into it, unleſs the Prieſt open heaven unto them:(d)Et paulo poſt. Negatur remiſſio illis, quibus noluerint Sacerdotes remittere. And that God forgiveth not thoſe whom the Prieſt will not forgive.
I. The Phariſees not believing that the Lord Jeſus was God, were offended becauſe he forgave ſins, (e)Mark 2.7. Luke 7.21. Pſalm 51.6.ſaying, Why doth this man thus ſpeak blaſphemies? Who can forgive ſins but God only? Whereupon Chriſt doth not find fault with them for believing that it belonged to God alone to forgive ſins, but preſently by an excellent miracle he ſets forth his divine vertue before them, that they might acknowledge that by the ſame vertue he could alſo forgive ſins.
II. To God alone God commanded us to ſay, Pardon us our treſpaſſes. To God David ſaid, Againſt thee, thee only have I ſinned, acknowledging that to God alone he ought to addreſs himſelf to obtain pardon. It belongs to the offended party to pardon, not to him againſt whom the offence was not done. Of him ſpeaks Micah, chap. 7.18. Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and paſſeth by tranſgreſſion? God himſelf ſpeaks thus by Iſaiah, ch. 43.25. I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy tranſgreſſions for mine own ſake, and will not remember thy ſins. He is that heavenly and mercifull Father, who exalted Jeſus by his right hand to be a Prince, and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Iſrael, and forgiveneſs of ſins, Acts 5.31. Which Son of God hath the key of David, he openeth and no man ſhutteth, he ſhutteth and no man openeth, Rev. 3.7. that none may take upon himſelf to open with him, or without him the door of the kingdom of heaven.
III. Our Adverſaries(f)Bellarm. l. 1. de poenit. cap. 11. Non fuit in Teſtamento Veteri poſtetas remittendi peccata. acknowledge that under the old Teſtament, and for the ſpace of four thouſand years before Chriſts coming, the power of forgiving ſins was not in the Church, yet the godly without that were ſaved. Whence it follows that this judicial remiſſion by the Prieſt was not neceſſary, and that by the doctrine of the Roman Church the condition of the Church of the New Teſtament is grown worſe, ſince in thoſe dayes God did immediately forgive, but now the remiſſion of ſins muſt paſs through the hands of the Prieſts, and they are made Judges between God and man. Of theſe Judges the judgements many times are unjuſt, as our Adverſaries acknowledge. Shall we ſay that remiſſion of ſins is now better, becauſe it depends no more from God alone?
IV. This practice is ſo evidently unjuſt, that even in the Roman Church, where the people is uſed to go to the Prieſts and ask them Abſolution, if they that ſpeak ſo, ſpake in right French or Engliſh terms, and ſaid to them, Father forgive me my ſins, that would be odious, and intolerable.
V. Who knows not, that it belongs to the only ſoveraign Judge, to forgive crimes? and that the Higheſt Courts of Juſtice (though they judge without appeal) give no letters of grace or abolition to a fellon, becauſe it belongs only to the Royal power? How comes it to paſs then, that the Prieſts, who are infinitely more under God then the Higheſt Courts are under the King, make bold to attribute to themſelves the power of forgiving ſins, and give abſolution to traitors againſt God? and to grant pardons which cannot be given but by the Judge of ſouls, which is the Soveraign Judge?
VI. Neither is it for ſubjects to pardon ſins committed againſt the Soveraign. It belongs not to a domeſtick ſervant to forgive his fellow ſervant, the offences againſt their common Maſter.
VII. Much leſs yet ought a traitor in the Gaol to pardon the offences of his fellow-traitor againſt the King. How can then a ſinner, who ſtands in need of pardon, yea, who often is a greater ſinner then the man to whom he giveth abſolution, forgive the ſins committed againſt the eternal God?
VIII. And whereas Gods decrees are eternal, and Gods Counſel-order for the remitting of ſuch a mans ſins, as well as the Decree about his election, is before the foundation of the world, can a Prieſt retaining a mans ſins and denying to give him abſolution, alter the order of Gods Counſel? Or if he give him abſolution, to what purpoſe doth he give a judicial ſentence upon a caſe decided before all ages? And how doth the Prieſt know whether his judgement be conformable unto Gods decree? and whether he abſolveth a man whom God hath reprobated? Eſpecially ſeeing that the Prieſt himſelf doubteth of his own ſalvation? Why doth the Prieſt require of the penitent firmly to believe that he hath pardoned him his ſins, whereas himſelf knows not whether God hath forgiven him?
IX. Above all things it is conſiderable, that pardoning ſins like a Judge, cannot belong but to him that is Judge of conſciences, and knoweth the ſecrets of thoughts, intentions, and private affections, and the nature and grievouſneſs of the fact. For to give right judgement of a crime, the Judge ought to know the nature and the greatneſs of the ſame. Now the things that aggravate o… diminiſh ſin are the thoughts, and intentions, and ſecret deſires. The principal part of the ſin is in the will and thought. Yea, very often the whole ſin is in the thought, and in the evil deſire, as when want of ſtrength and confidence keeps the intention from coming forth into action. Since then the Prieſt ſeeth nothing in all theſe, and knoweth not the hearts, it is plain that he is incapable of judging of ſins, or to know the grievouſneſs or the nature of ſin. And it is certain, that if God had eſtabliſht ſome Judge on earth to forgive ſins, he would alſo have given him the knowledge of the hearts of thoſe that ask pardon. For God who decreeth the end, gives alſo juſt and neceſſary means to attain it.
X. It is neceſſary alſo that he that hath authority to forgive ſins be Judge of ſouls, and have them in his power, and be able to puniſh ſouls, which are ſpiritual and immottal, with puniſhments conformable unto their nature, that is, with ſpiritual and eternal pains, and to give graces and abſolutions accordingly. That being not in the Prieſts or the Popes power, it is evident that they cannot pronounce a ſentence either for or againſt ſouls, by pardoning or retaining their ſins. Which appeareth by the nature of the pains which they impoſe, as pilgrimages, faſts, whipping, and pecuniary mulcts. By theſe pains do they not confeſs that they have ſouls in their power? for all theſe are corporal pains. Why then in matter of grace and remiſſion do they pretend to give ſpiritual graces?Note. Why doth their power of looſing extend further then their power of binding? ſeeing that thoſe two things muſt be equal, and have the ſame limits, as St. Ambroſe told us before.
XI. As granting letters of grace to a fellon guilty of death, is giving him his life, likewiſe pardoning a man his ſins, for which he deſerveth to be damned, is giving him ſalvation. If then the Prieſt give abſolution to a man, and the pardon of all his ſins, he gives him life and ſalvation, eſpecially when he gives him abſolution on his death bed. And Bellarmin makes bold to ſay, that(g)Bell. 2. l. de Indulg. c. 11. §. Quinta. Pontifex remittit culpam & poenam aeternam. the Pope remitteth both the fault and the eternal pain. Now is it not manifeſt impiety to think that a Prieſt can give ſalvation, and pronounce a judgement whereby a man may be exempted from going into Hell? And how can one give ſalvation to another, being not certain of his own? Why do we not rather give glory to God, ſaying, that the Paſtor announceth unto the dying ſinner the remiſſion of his ſins by Jeſus Chriſt? and that if the repenting ſinner believeth that, God will forgive him for Chriſts ſake? and that there is no need that the Prieſt pronounce a judgement, and by a judicial power give a ſentence of abſolution, to free the ſinner from Gods judgement? It being certain that God can forgive without the Prieſt, and that the Prieſt cannot forgive without God, who is not bound to follow the Prieſts ſentence, and make his own ſentence void.
XII. I know that Prieſts giving abſolution, pretend to uſe the authority which they affirm they have from God. But every man knoweth how eaſily one may incroach upon Gods authority under that colour. They that uſurp the Kings rights uſe to ſhelter themſelves under the Kings authority, and doing things contrary to the Kings intereſt, and diſpleaſing to him, ſay nevertheleſs that all they do is for his ſervice. Muſt we abſolutely believe the Prieſts without enquiring further, ſeeing that the pardon of ſins, is ſo lucrative unto them, and raiſeth their authority ſo high?
XIII. Wherefore alſo it ſhall not be found that any Apoſtle, or any Paſtor of the Church in the time of the Apoſtles ever uſed that power, or that ever they ſaid to a ſinner not ſuſpended or excommunicated, I pardon thee thy ſins. It is a new abuſe and a corruption of which no example is found in all Antiquity. For as for the ſuſpended and excommunicated ſinners, the Paſtors forgive them in quality of Judges, only as for the remiſſion of Eccleſiaſtical pain, as Saint Paul, and the Corinthians did to the inceſtuous excommunicated man.
XIV. To this add that the power of Paſtors extends only unto their flock, and by conſequent both the graces and pardons which they grant, and the pains which they impoſe upon ſinners, can laſt no longer then the ſaid ſinners belong unto their flock. Now the Prieſt giving abſolution to a dying man pretends to give him a grace, not for this life, but for the future, for it as if he pronounced a ſentence that ſuch a man be happy after his death. And indeed the Pope pardons ſins after death, forgiving the ſouls that are in Purgatory, yea reconciling excommunicated perſons after their death, as we ſhall ſee hereafter. By this means he exerciſeth the power of the keyes over thoſe whom God hath not committed to his keeping, and that are not of his flock. He looſeth thoſe whom he cannot bind.
XV. The worſt is, that by this doctrine men are ſet above God. For ſin is that which puts a diſcord between God and man. In which diſcord the parties are God and man. In that ſuit, Prieſts bear themſelves as Judges, as Cardinal Bellarmin ſaith,(h)Bellar. l. 3. de poenit. c. 2. Peccata omnia cauſae ſunt, quas cum Deo ipſo habemus. Et ideo cum Deus judicium de peccatis Sacerdotibus permiſerit in Eccleſia ſua, non poſſunt qui in Eccleſia ſunt, ſine ſacerdotum judicio cum Deo reconciliari. Sins are ſuits which we have with God, and therefore ſince God hath permitted the judgement of ſins in the Church unto Prieſts, they that are in the Church, if they have ſuch ſuits, cannot be reconciled unto God without the judgement of Prieſts. Theſe men make God their ſuitor in a manner, ſince the Prieſt is a Judge in Gods cauſe, and that God and man are parties in a ſuit, whereof the Prieſt is Judge. Truly whoſo will look near hand into that judicial abſolution, ſhall find it a ſentence deciding how God ought to behave himſelf with the ſinner; As if the Prieſt ſaid to the ſinner, I give order that God forgive thee. For his abſolution cannot otherwiſe be the ſentence of a Judge, nor a Judicial act, as M. du Perron calls it. I wiſh that our Adverſaries would tell us whether the Prieſt giving abſolution giveth a ſentence that God ſhould pardon, or declareth only that God hath forgiven? For if he enjoyneth God to pardon, he is above God, and giveth him Laws. But if he only declareth that God hath pardoned, his abſolution is not an action of a Judge, nor a Judicial ſentence. He that ſaith God forgive thee▪ by theſe words giveth no pardon, or abſolution. And he that declareth to a ſinner that God hath forgiven him, muſt be certain of Gods intention, and of the ſinners repentance, and muſt exactly know the nature of the ſin; Things which the Prieſt knoweth not.
XVI. It muſt not be omitted that God never pardoneth ſin, unleſs the ſinner have a true repentance and contrition of heart, and a true faith in Chriſt. Things which the Prieſts know not, and by conſequent, know not whether their abſolution be valid. And the Prieſt muſt ſpeak thus to the ſinner, if not in word, at leaſt in thought; I abſolve thee as much as it lyeth in me, and if thou be worthy of it, and if thou haſt a true faith, and a ſerious repentance. But becauſe I know not whether theſe vertues be in thee, I know not whether I abſolve thee, and whether my abſolution be valid. So much the(i)Maldon. Tom. 2. de poen. par. 3. theſ. 5. Quantum in me eſt, ego te abſolvo. Jeſuite Maldonat freely acknowledgeth, ſaying that the Prieſt muſt ſay within himſelf, I abſolve thee as much as it lyeth in me, or as(k)Suarez. in Thom. tom. 4. diſput. 19. ſect. 2. n. 20. Suarez ſaith, that the Prieſt pardoneth, unleſs he that receiveth abſolution, put an impediment to it, in which impediment coming out of want of faith and repentance the Prieſt knoweth nothing.
(l)Tolet. l. 3. de inſtruct. ſacerdotum cap. 12. Triplex conditio poteſt apponi abſolutioni, una eſt de praeterito, ut ſi feciſti hoc, ego te abſolvo. Altera eſt de praeſenti, ut ſi ita eſt, ego te abſolvo. Tertia de futuro, ut ego te abſolvo, ſi hoc ſeteris.Cardinal Tolet ſaith, that three conditions may be added to the abſolution. The one is for the time paſt, ſaying, If thou haſt done this, I abſolve thee. The ſecond is for the preſent time, If it be ſo, I abſolve thee. The third is for the time to come, If thou do this, I abſolve thee. He addeth a fourth if, when that depends on a third perſon, I abſolve thee, if the Biſhop conſent to it. If one of theſe ifs fail, the ſinner muſt know that there is no abſolution for him. Reaſon ought to put in another if for God, ſaying, I abſolve thee, if God will have it, and if he know thee to be worthy of abſolution, or if God approve thy repentance. But theſ… Gentlemen preſuppoſe that God will like whatſoever they like, and will acquieſce in their judgement. Is not a judgement thereby made ridiculous, and the judicial power imaginary, if the Judge muſt not know whether his judgement be valid, and if he pardon with an if, and with a condition upon which his judgement is ſuſpended? as if he ſaid, I forgive thee if thou art not an hypocrite, but if thou art an hypocrite, I forgive thee not: But whether thou art an hypocrite or no, I cannot diſcern. This is acknowledged by Hierom, (m)Hier. in c. 4. Danielis. R…m temerariam faciunt qui audacter peccatoribus …ndulgentiam pollicentur.ſaying, It is raſhly done of them that boldly promiſe pardon unto ſinners. And by Baſil, (n)Baſil. regular. breviorum Interrog. 15. foreign.The power of forgiving is not given abſolutely. And by Cyprian, (o)Cypr. Ep. ad Antonianum Sect. 11. Si vero nos aliquis poenitentiae ſimulatione deluſerit, Deus. qui non deridetur, & qui cor hominis intuetur de his quae nos minus perſpeximus judicet, & ſervorum ſententiam Dominus emendet.If any deceive us by a falſe ſhew of repentance, let God who cannot be mockt, and looks into the heart of man, be pleaſed to judge of thoſe things which we did not perceive, and let the Maſter be pleaſed to correct the ſentence of his ſervants. In theſe places Baſil and Cyprian ſpeak of the reconciliation of ſinners with the Church after publick penitence. For of a Sacrament of Penitence, and of a judicial abſolution given in ſecret unto a ſinner, there was no mention made in thoſe dayes, neither was it known as yet.
Whereupon the words of the Treatiſe of exhortation to penitence in the firſt Tome of Ambroſe, are obſervable. There the Author ſpeaks thus of thoſe that being in a mortal ſickneſs do repent, and are reconciled, that is, admitted to the Communion.(p)Tract. de exhort. ad poen. Tom. 1. operum Amb. Qui poſitus in ultima neceſſitate agritudinis ſuae acceperit poenitentiam, & mox reconciliatus fuerit, & vadit id eſt exit de corpore, fateor vobis non illi negamus quod petit, ſed non praeſumo dicere quia bene hinc exit. Non praeſumo, non polliceor, non vos fallo, non vos decipio, non vobis promitto. Fidelis bene vivens ſecurus hinc exit. He that being put to an extream neceſſity of ſickneſs hath received penitence, and was preſently reconciled, and ſo goeth away, that is, goeth out of this body, I confeſs that we deny him not what he asketh, but together I do not preſume to ſay, that he goeth hence well and happily. I preſume not ſo far, I ſay it not, I will not deceive you or coſen you. I will promiſe you no ſuch thing. The faithfull that liveth well, is he that goeth out of this life with aſſurance. The effect of that diſcourſe is, that he doubts very much whether he that being ſick calls his Paſtor, proteſting of his contrition and confeſſeth his ſins, and upon that is reconciled (his Paſtor announcing to him the remiſſion of his ſins) and is received to the Communion of the holy Sacrament, he doubts (ſaith he) whether ſuch a one is ſaved, and whether his ſins be pardoned: Whence the Author draweth an exhortation to live well betimes, rather then to truſt in ſuch a reconciliation. But the Prieſts of the Roman Church in our dayes, ſpeak quite another language; If in a mans ſickneſs a Prieſt being called, heareth the ſick mans confeſſion, and giveth him abſolution of all his ſins, giving him the hoſt to eat: It is preſumed that ſuch a mans ſins are truly pardoned, and that he is going, not into Hell, but to Purgatory, or to Paradice.
XVII. If the ſinner be truly penitent, God in his word promiſeth to pardon him. But unleſs he repent, God will not pardon him. So then, if the ſinner repent and be converted with all his heart, God will forgive him, though the Prieſt, yea, though the Pope himſelf would obſtinately deny him pardon. But if he have no true repentance, God will not forgive him, though he had received a thouſand abſolutions. Wherefore I ſee not what good that judicial abſolution doth, ſince God forgiveth without it, and puniſheth and damneth with it.
XVIII. It is certain as we have proved it, and as the Council of Trent, and the Catechiſm of the ſame Council heretofore alleadged do acknowledge it, that the man who is truly contrite hath already obtained of God the remiſſion of his ſins, before he receive ſacramental abſolution. So that the Prieſt giving abſolution, forgiveth ſins already pardoned, and giveth judgement in a ſuit already judged. Hereby Cardinal Bellarmins error(q)Bellar. lib. 3. de poenit. cap. 2. is laid open, when he ſaith that the Prieſt giving abſolution, judgeh a ſuit between God and the ſinner, for if God before that ſacramental abſolution, hath already pardoned, and received the ſinner into grace, there is no more difference, and no more ſuit to Judge.
XIX. As then under the Law the leprous being healed and clean, were ſent to the Prieſt to be declared clean, not to be cleanſed: Likewiſe the ſinner already reconciled unto God by faith in Chriſt, and by true contrition, comes not to his Paſtor to receive pardon, nor to be reconciled unto God, but that his reconciliation and repentance may be made known unto the Church, and that he may be confirmed, in confidence that God hath forgiven him. And as Chriſt raiſed Lazarus from the dead before he ſaid, Looſe him and let him go, likewiſe God regenerateth and quickneth ſinners, before they be looſed by the Paſtors from the bonds of Eccleſiaſtical cenſures.
XX. In vain it is replyed that God forgiveth a contrite ſinner before he hath the abſolution of the Prieſt, and that this hinders not but that the contrite ſinner muſt have a vow in his heart to ask the Prieſts abſolution. For he that makes that vow ſhould offend God, if he did it with an intention to receive the pardon of ſins which God hath already forgiven. A man that ſeriouſly repents, and believeth that God hath forgiven him, may and muſt make a vow to obey God, to hear his word, and to be partaker of his Sacraments, but muſt not make a vow to ask of the Prieſt pardon of thoſe ſins which he believeth that God hath already forgiven him. If for his ſins he was excluded from the communion of the Church, he muſt ſeek his reconciliation with the Church, that he may glorifie God, and edifie his neighbours, although he be fully perſwaded that God is reconciled with him. But whoſo believeth that God hath forgiven him all his ſins, and looks beſides for an abſolution from the ſame ſins by the judicial ſentence of a man, brings the grace of God in queſtion, and asketh for a ſentence in a ſuit already judged. He expects of the Prieſt a judgement which is not in the Prieſts power, and attributes unto him a power which he hath not received of God.
XXI. But how ſhall the penitent that receiveth the Prieſts abſolution, be ſure that by this Sacramental abſolution his ſins are forgiven, ſince the Roman Church believeth that the Sacraments are void, and confer no grace, unleſs the Prieſt hath an intention to confer them, and to do that which the Church doth? That intention is probably preſumed, and by a likely conjecture; ſo that it is a preſumptive and conjectural abſolution. It is an abſolution that muſt be gueſt at, an abſolution which is believed, becauſe a man will believe it. Truly here there is great reaſon of doubting, if I underſtand the world, and how we live in an age ſwarming with Atheiſts, there being many Prieſts that believe nothing of that they do, whether they laugh in their ſleeve at all Religion, or whether they know the truth of Religion and the abuſes of Popery, but are kept in it by fear. Such men when they give abſolution have their heart ſomewhere elſe, and deteſt in their ſoul their own actions.
XXII. Another ſcruple troubleth the conſciences, and makes ſinners uncertain about the abſolution which they have received. For all the actions of a Prieſt fallen into irregularity are invalid, becauſe by the Laws of the Roman Church they are forbidden to exerciſe their charge. In the Roman Church they call irregularity an inability to receive orders, or to exerciſe them when they have received them. By the Laws of the Roman Church a man becomes irregular for drinking no wine; for looſing one of the fingers which ſerve for handling the Hoſt, and making the ſign of the Croſs: For killing a man, or cutting off a mans limbs. Many hold(r)Tolet. l. 2. Inſtruct. Sacerd. c. 63. Non eſt opus eum cui virilia abſciſſa ſunt ſecum in pulverem redacta aut ſicca portare, ut vulgares putant that a gelded man is not irregular if he carry about him the parts that are wanting to him, dryed or beaten to powder. Alſo a Prieſt falls to irregularity if he marry, not if he keep concubines. He becomes not irregular nor unable for the Prieſthood if he commit Sodomie, as(ſ)Navar. Tom. 2. In caput ad inferendam. 23. qu. 3. De defenſione proximi, Sect. 37. Edit. Col. p. 255. Reſpondendum eſt, ſodomiae crimen non comprehendi, Primo quia ſicut dictum eſt ſupra, irregularitas niſi ob caſus à …ure expreſſos non incurritur, ex quorum numero hic non eſt, &c. Tertio quia parum refert illud crimen eſſe graviſſimum ſpurciſſimum & maxime deteſtabile, cum majus ſit haereſis mentalis …a. 2ae q. 11. Art. 3. Et majus deſperatio, &c. quorum tamen nullum irre— gularitatem inducit. Navarrus a famous Doctor teacheth at large; The reaſon is, that be the vice never ſo deteſtable, yet the hereſie conceived in the mind, and deſpair are more horrible crimes, which nevertheleſs bring no irregularity; Which he proveth by the authority of Thomas. Theſe things being ſo, how ſhall he that receiveth abſolution know, whether the Prieſt that giveth it hath ſome defect in his body, or whether he hath committed any crime that made him irregular? for if it be ſo, the abſolution is void and without effect.
XXIII. The Council of Trent in the fourteenth Seſſion, chap. 6. moveth another difficulty. That it may happen that a Prieſt who by abſolution remiteth the mortal ſins of others, is himſelf in a mortal ſin. Yet that(ſ)Docet quoque etiam Sacerdotes, qui peccato mortali tenentur, per virtutem Spiritus Sancti in ordina—tione collatam tanquam Chriſti Miniſtros functionem remittendi peccata exercere. Council declareth that ſuch a Prieſt hath nevertheleſs the power of remitting ſins, by the vertue of the Holy Ghoſt which was conferred upon him in his ordination. Theſe are two propoſitions, which to receive without doubting, one hath need to be of a very eaſie belief. The one that Biſhops in the ordination of Prieſts confer upon them the Holy Ghoſt; The other that this vertue of the Holy Ghoſt remains ſtill in Prieſts how vicious ſoever they be, and that by the ſame vertue they have power to forgive ſins. Of theſe two propoſitions, the firſt is full of difficulty; For although Chriſt ſaid to his Apoſtles, Receive ye the Holy Ghoſt, yet we find not that he gave that power to the Biſhops that came ſince, to give the Holy Ghoſt in ordination. Seeing that in the Roman Church ſome Biſhops are yet in their ſwadling clothes, and children of Princes have fat Biſhopricks beſtowed upon them in their cradle. Some Biſhops have no learning at all. I have ſeen ſome that could not read. Some Biſhops are altogether profane in their converſation. So that one can hardly believe that God put his Spirit in ſuch mens power to diſpoſe of it. Hardly will any believe that a Biſhop viſiting his Dioceſs in the Rogation weeks to confer Orders, can when he returns from hunting, or comes from his wanton ſports, give the Holy Ghoſt by the laying on of his hands, and ſo ſpread the Holy Ghoſt abroad through the Towns of his Dioceſs. And ſince among the Apoſtles there was one in the Devils poſſeſſion, Is it not poſſible that among the Biſhops ſome are led by the ſame Spirit? When that happens, is it like that a man poſſeſſed by the Devil can confer the Holy Ghoſt? Is there any Prieſt who having received the laying on of hands from a Biſhop, can ſay truly that at the ſame inſtant he feels himſelf filled with the Holy Ghoſt?
But the chief conſideration is, that by the ordination which the Biſhops confer, they pretend to give unto the Prieſts a power to do things which the Holy Ghoſt never commanded or taught. The Biſhop conſtituteth the Prieſts ſacrificers of the body and blood of Chriſt, of which Prieſthood and ſacrifice there is not one word in the word of God, no more then of the power of forgiving ſins with authority of Judges, and of that judicial abſolution which the Apoſtles and the antient Church never practiſed, and of that indelible character of Prieſthood, which remains even in hell, printed by the Biſhop in the ordination, by vertue whereof Prieſts ſacrifice and give abſolution. Now it is not to be believed, that by ſuch an inordination, whereby things contrary to the Holy Ghoſt are injoined, the Holy Ghoſt can be conferred.
The ſecond propoſition is little more probable; That God approveth that an Atheiſt, or an inceſtuous man, or a blaſphemer, have the power to forgive Gods children with an authority of a Judge; for to ſuch men St. Peters ſentence may be applied, 2 Pet. 2.19. While they promiſe liberty to others, they themſelves are the ſervants of corruption.
XXIV. Of the weakneſs of that power to abſolve ſins with authority of Judges, we have an example in the Pope himſelf, in whom they make the ſoveraign power of forgiving ſins to ſubſiſt, and who hath limitted unto Prieſts and Biſhops the caſes in which they may forgive ſins, reſerving to himſelf an unlimited power, without exception of any caſe. Yet we ſee in the firſt book of the ſacred Ceremonies, chap. 2. of the fifteenth Section, that(t)Pontifex petat à Confeſſore plenariam indulgentiam. the Pope when he is near his death, calls for his Confeſſor, and begs of him a full indulgence; and giveth (as Bellarmin (u)Bellar. lib. 1. de Indulg. c. 6. Sect. Poſtrema. Papa poteſt Co feſſario ſuo dare poteſtatem ut ſe à peccatis abſolvat.ſaith) power to his Confeſſor to forgive him all his ſins. As if he ſaid to him, I command thee to forgive me my ſins. He that pardoneth ſins unto all the Church,(x)Thom. Opuſc. de regimine principum lib. 3. cap. 10. num. 20. Oportet dicere in ſummo Pontifice eſſe plenitudinem omnium gratiarum, quia ipſe ſolus confert plenam indulgentiam omnium peccatorum. Ʋt competat ſibi quod de primo Principe Domino dicimus, quia de plenitudine ejus nos omnes accepimus. from whom depend the keyes, and the power of abſolving, ſo that Biſhops and Prieſts have no power of abſolving, but by a dependance on the Pope. He that giveth pardons for millions of years, and fetcheth ſouls out of Purgatory, yet asketh pardon of him to whom he hath given power to pardon. That Confeſſor who hath his part in the Popes pardons and Indulgences, forgiveth the Pope who hath forgiven him: So they forgive one another, not the offences of the one to the other, but the offences which both have committed againſt God. By this means they are toſſing remiſſion of ſins between them like a tennis ball, and the world muſt believe that God approveth that, and ratifieth it in his Counſel. Certainly theſe men play a pageant among themſelves, even till death.
How far the Pope may relye upon that abſolution, and that plenary indulgence which he received from his Confeſſor in the point of death, it appeareth by all the Maſſes which are ſung at Rome for the Popes ſoul immediately after he hath given up the Ghoſt.(y)Lib. 1. Cerem. Sacr. Sect. 15. In prima die exequiarum leguntur ducentae Miſſae. On the firſt day of his obſequies two hundred Maſſes are ſung, and on the ninth day as many. And all the prayers ſaid in thoſe Obſequies, pray for a ſoul that trembleth for fear of Hell, and eternal damnation.
Now although all theſe proofs were as weak as they are ſtrong and evident, and though God had given indeed power to the Paſtors of the Church to forgive ſins as Judges, yet the Roman Church had loſt that right long ago, having altered the doctrine of the Goſpel, and perverted or clipt the benefit of Chriſts merit, by the merits and ſatisfactions of men, by the ſacrifice of the Maſs, and by the Invocation of Saints, and overthrown the humane nature of Chriſt by the doctrine of tranſubſtantiation. For the keyes given to the Paſtors depend upon the Goſpel, and cannot be ſeparated from it. To what purpoſe theſe keys, if Satan hath altered the locks? To what end that remiſſion of ſins, ſince thereby another kind of grace is offered unto us, then that which is contained in the Goſpel?