Answer to Book by Romish Priests, Doctrine 14
XIV. That no Man, nor any but God, can forgive, or retain Sins.
Anſwer.
THE ſtrength of theſe Men lies only in their deceit and fraud. They dare not repreſent either their own Doctrine, or ours truly. For this Propoſition, is both true and falſe, in divers regards. It is true, that none but God can abſolutely and ſovereignly forgive Sin: But it is falſe, that no Man can forgive Sins Miniſterially and Conditionally. For by Authority from God, Men appointed thereunto do forgive Sins, as his Miniſters, by Baptiſm, by the Holy Communion, by Preaching, and by Abſolution. The only Quſtion is, Whether their Abſolution be only declarative, or alſo operative? And in this, if we be not all agreed, no more are they of the Roman Church. For P. Lombard did not believe that the Prieſt wrought any Abſolution from Sins; but only declared the Party to be abſolved. And the moſt Ancient Schoolmen follow him; ſuch as Occam, who ſays, according to the Maſter, that Prieſts bind and looſe, becauſe they declare Men to be hound and looſed. In ſhort, the Doctrine of the Church is, that God abſolves by his Miniſters; who cannot ſee into mens hearts; and therefore can only pronounce, that he abſolves them in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, upon ſuppoſal of their unfeigned Repentance. But it is apparent the Church always believed, it is God who properly abſolves and forgives Sins, not the Prieſt. For all the Ancient Rituals ſhow that the Abſolution was given by Prayer to God for the Penitent, there being no other Form of Abſolution in them, but Prayers; which being made in behalf of the Penitent, they believed did obtain from God the pardon of thoſe Sins, which he had with all humility publickly confeſſed. And therefore the preſent form, I abſolve thee, (which was never uſed but in the Latin Church, and not there neither, till the middle of the XIIIth. Century) muſt be underſtood to be only a very ſolemn declaration, That God forgives the perſon, upon his ſincere Contrition and Repentance.
This is the meaning of our Saviour, XX. John 21.XX. John 21. when he made the Apoſtles his Delegates, ſaying, As my Father hath ſent me, even ſo ſend I you. Which ſuppoſes a ſ… perior Power to theirs, in whoſe Name they acted only as Miniſters.
And therefore when he adds in the next words,Ibid. v. 22, 23. v. 22, 23. Receive ye the Holy Ghoſt, whoſe ſins ye remit, they are remitted, &c. Menochius expounds it thus; That though the Holy Ghoſt was not given till the day of Pentceoſt, yet on the firſt day of the Reſurrection, they received the Grace of it, by which they might remit ſins, and baptize, and make children of God, and give the Spirit of Adoption to them that believed, &c. Now let any man tell me, whether it were they that, for inſtance, gave the Spirit of Adoption, or God himſelf; they that healed and wrought Miracles, (as they did after the day of Pentecoſt), or God by their Miniſtry. In like manner, it was not they who conferred Forgiveneſs of Sins, but God properly beſtowed it, as he did the other Bleſſings; they only ſerving as Miniſters, by whom he conveyed it to the Penitent.
In the next place of Scripture he makes bold to add words, which are neither in our Bible, nor theirs, IX. Matth. 8. When the multitude ſaw it, (i. e. the man take up his bed and walk) they marvelled and glorified God, which had given ſuch power unto men, he adds, as to forgive ſins. Whereas the Evangeliſt ſpeaks of the power of healing a ſick man, which they ſaw plainly; and which our Saviour alledges as an Argument that he could forgive ſins; which the multitude could ſee no other way, but in this miraculous demonſtration of it. But ſuppoſe the multitude had admired at his Power to forgive ſins, will it follow that any body elſe hath that Power which Chriſt had? No; Chriſt could as man, forgive ſins, yet not as any ſort of man, (ſaith Menochius *Non ut qualiſcun que homo, ſed ut homo Deus.himſelf), but as God-man; which no Prieſt whatſoever is.
He bids us, after his uſual form, ſee more in ſeveral Texts which he ſets down without the words; and we are very willing to obey him, if there were any thing to be ſeen to this purpoſe: But the two firſt of them are only a promiſe of what our Saviour afterward beſtowed; and we have heard what that was, from XX. John 23. The two next ſpeak not of forgiving ſins, nor merely of retaining them, but of delivering men up to Satan, which no body now can do.
2 Cor. II. 10.The next, 2 Cor. II. 10. proves too much, if it prove any thing to this purpoſe; for it ſpeaks of the whole Church giving Pardon to an Offender, viz. by receiving him again, by the Apoſtles order, into their Communion.V. 19. The next, 2 Cor. V. 19. relates to the Apoſtles reconciling men, by preaching the Word of God, as Menochius expounds it; or if by Word of Reconciliation we underſtand, ſaith he, the thing, that is, Reconciliation it ſelf, then the Apoſtle ſpeaks of the whole Power and Miniſtry of reconciling men to God. The laſt place out of V. Numb. 6. is as impertinent, as the quotations that follow out of the Fathers; which they have a little mended, ſince Biſhop Mountague laſh'd this Author ſeverely for his childiſh and careleſs Tranſcriptions of them out of Father Bellarmine. You may judge of them all, by the laſt ſave one (which was the firſt heretofore) out of Irenaeus, L. V. c. 13. who proving that we have a Specimen of the Reſurrection, in thoſe whom Chriſt raiſed from the dead, inſtances in Lazarus, unto whom he ſaid, come forth, and the dead man came forth bound hand and foot, &c. A Symbol, ſaith he, or Type of that man, who is tyed and bound in ſins; and with reſpect to this, the Lord ſaid, Looſe him, and let him go. But what good would their looſing him have done, if Chriſt had not firſt raiſed him from the dead? unto whoſe power, not theirs, all that followed is to be aſcribed. And to whom did Chriſt ſpeak, when he bad them looſe Lazarus, but to the Jews who were preſent? As Maldonate, one of their own good Writers expounds it, and ſaith, It is the opinion of all good Authors, except Auſtin, Gregory, and Bede; and adds, That to found the Doctrine of Confeſſion or Abſolution upon this place, is no better than to build upon ſand. But if it be ſuppoſed that he here ſpeaks to his Apoſtles, and bids them looſe him, ſtill it can figure no more, but a declaration of Pardon of Sins, granted already by the Mercy of the Almighty. What St. Auſtin therefore ſaith in the place which this man mentions firſt, is to no purpoſe; for it is the very ſame with this of Irenaeus: For having ſaid in the beginning of that Tractate *Tract. XLIX. in John., that the works of our Lord were not only facta, but ſigna, and ſhowed how the three perſons raiſed by him from the dead, ſignifie the raiſing up three degrees of ſinners out of their ſins: When he comes to this paſſage in the ſtory of Lazarus's Reſurrection, Looſe him and let him go; he ſaith, What is looſe him, &c. but what ye looſe on earth, ſhall be looſed in heaven? And let it be ſo, that our Lord's words fitly repreſent this, yet ſtill it was God that properly looſed men from their ſins; the Apoſtles were but Miniſters in this buſineſs, who declared what God had granted: As God raiſed up Lazarus from the dead, they only untied him, after he had really made him alive, and raiſed him out of his Grave.
All the reſt out of the Fathers, is no better than this, and therefore I will not trouble the Reader with it, but paſs to the next: Where he makes us ſay,