The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity

CHAP. 2. What is that pardon of sin which the Pastors of the Church grant, and how far their power to forgive sin extends. And of the power of the Keys.

OUR Savior Jesus having given to his Disciples the power to forgive sins, who so teacheth that this grace is dead with the Apostles, thereby deprives the Church of the following ages (as far as in him lieth) of a great comfort, and enervates altogether the Ministry of the Gospel. God indeed gave to his Apostles the gift of Miracles, and an universal power not restrained to a particular Church, in which power they had no successors. But as for the graces which serve to give peace unto the Conscience, and to reconcile sinners with God, and to maintain the Church in good order, they ought to be perpetual, and the Apostles did not receive them but to transmit them unto posterity. For God intends no less in this time, then in the Apostles time, the salvation and conversion of his Elect: And God put not the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven in the hands of the Pastors of his Church, to take them out of their hands soon after. The miracles made by the Apostles in the birth of the Church, serve us yet to this day, and are so many confirmations of the doctrine of the Gospel; Therefore it is not necessary that the Apostles should have successors in that virtue. But as for the power of forgiving sins, if the Apostles alone had had that power, the Church of the following ages should thereby receive no benefit, because the pardon of sins is a personal grace, which every private person hath need to apply unto himself, and which comes not by succession: It being certain, that by the remission of sins which the Apostles granted to men of their time, the sins of men of our time are not pardoned.

But as we ought to be careful keepers and good husbands of the graces of God, which he would have to be perpetual unto his Church, so ought we to take heed that they be not abused in our keeping, and that this power be not changed into tyranny, or into an occasion of pride and dishonest gain. Lest then we fall into that contrary extremity, it is necessary to know what the power of Pastors is to forgive sins, and what limits God hath set to it in his Word.

Christ said unto Peter, and in his person to all the Apostles, Matth. 16.19. I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Of which promise expressed in the future-tense, the fulfilling is found in the fore-alleged Text, John 20.23. where Christ gives to his Disciples the power of remitting and retaining sins. In which power the use of the Keys, about which we now dispute, consisteth. What those Keys are, and what their nature is, the Word of God teacheth us.

Scripture speaks of two sorts of Keys, the one the Key of knowledge, the other the Key of Authority or Government. Of the Key of Knowledge, Christ speeaketh, Luke 11.52. saying, Woe unto you Lawyers, for ye have taken away the Key of Knowledge; meaning that they had taken away that Key of Knowledge from the people, challenging to themselves the office of opening the intelligence of Scriptures, and to bring others into it. Of the Key of Authority, God speaks, Isa. 22.22. where God promiseth to Eliakim to lay the Key of the house of David upon his shoulder, that is, to charge him with the Government of the Kings house. Which is applied to Christ, Rev. 3.17. where himself saith, that he hath the Key of David, and it is he that openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth and no man openeth; because he hath in his hand the Government of the Church of God.

According to these two significations of the word Key, Christ hath given to his Apostles two sorts of Keys, the Key of Knowledge to open the entry of Scriptures, and bring the people into the true knowledge of God: And the Key of Authority to govern the Church, which in the New Testament is commonly called the Kingdom of God, and the Kingdom of heaven; for it were unreasonable thereby to understand the heavenly Paradise, whose government belongs not to the Pastors of the Church, although the last Council of Lateran in the X. Session, say by the mouth of an Archbishop, that the Pope hath all power over all the powers of heaven and earth; and that Bernard said very well, speaking to Pope Eugenius, All power is given thee in heaven and in earth: For (saith he) he that saith all, excludeth nothing.

It doth not belong to the Pastors of the Church to bring souls into Paradise, or to exclude them from it. This belongs to God only, who before we were born, yea before the Creation of the world, defined in his counsel who are those whom he will save by pardoning their sins, and who are those whom he will not pardon. They shall be judged in the last day, as they shall be found written in the Book of life, not according to the sentences and judgments of Absolution that have been pronounced by the Priest. He that will bring those sentences for his Apology in God's judgment, saying, I have indeed committed such and such sins, but my Parson hath absolved me, and although I be none of thine elect, I must be saved nevertheless, for my Parson hath given me Absolution; such a man, I say, shall find himself ill grounded. And the Parson himself who hath forgiven another, giving Absolution in quality of a Judge, shall have enough to do to get Absolution for himself in God's judgment.

These words then, whereby Christ promiseth to his Apostles the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven, are as much as if he said to them, I will give you the Government of my Church. Which government Pastors exercise two ways; By the preaching of the Gospel, the Scepter of that Spiritual Kingdom, which is the Church of God; and by Ecclesiastical discipline.

These two ways they remit and retain sins. For, as for the preaching of the Word, they announce unto the penitent sinners the remission of their sins, and to the unbelievers and impenitent, condemnation; not as a private person should do, but as persons purposely sent by Christ to announce the good news of God's reconciliation with authority, as Heralds of Grace, and as Ambassadors for Christ, to whose word Christ himself giveth efficacy, using them to touch the hearts with repentance, and powerfully to print in their soul the sense of their reconciliation, and the certainty of the remission of their sins. In that sense they do not pronounce sentences in authority of Judges, but are Heralds of peace, and Ministers of reconciliation. Wherefore also their charge is called by the Apostle the ministry of reconciliation. 2 Cor. 5.18. All things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself in Christ, and hath given unto us the Ministry of reconciliation. In that respect then their charge is a Ministry, not a Judicature to judge the causes depending between God and men, in authority of Judges. Their Office is a Ministry of reconciliation, not a Judicature of absolution. Wherefore the next verse, their word is called, a word of reconciliation; and the bearers of that word are called, not Judges in Christ's cause, but Ambassadors for Christ, that exhort and beseech men to receive the reconciliation with God by Jesus Christ. We are (saith the Apostle) Ambassadors for Christ, as if God did beseech you by us, we beseech you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

But that Embassy is addrest as well to the Infidels and not baptized persons, as to the faithful, seeing that unto all alike the Apostles propound the remission of their sins, that remission cannot be a Sacrament of Penitence, which the Roman Church conferreth only upon baptized persons, nor an act of Judicature, but is a Ministry of reconciliation. Yet as the Word of God saith, that faithful Ministers save souls, (as we have proved) because God makes use of their Ministry to save them, so they pardon sins, in as much as God employeth them, and makes use of them to announce and confer pardon upon sinners. Make no doubt but that when a faithful Pastor having heard the confession of a repenting sinner, or comforted a sick person, saith to him, I announce thee the remission of thy sins by Jesus Christ; or, I declare unto thee that thy sins are forgiven thee; these words are very effectual towards a repenting sinner, and are powerful to strengthen his faith in the assurance of the remission of his sins, although these words be no sentence of absolution.

The like cannot be said of the second point, wherein the power of the Keys consisteth, which is the government of the Church by Ecclesiastical discipline, whereby they punish sins in quality of Judges, by censures, suspensions, and excommunications, and remit sins by releasing those pains, and reconciling the sinner unto the Church, and receiving him to the Communion. It is easy to comprehend how far that Judicature extends. For every Judge pronounceth judgments, imposeth punishments, granteth graces, according to the nature of his charge. A Judge that sits upon life and death, judgeth not causes that are merely civil. A secular Judge judgeth not of spiritual causes, nor of the decisions of faith. A Judge merely spiritual, ought not to judge of pecuniary or criminal causes. In a word, every Judge, unless he be Sovereign, hath certain limits which his Judicature must not exceed. Now the Office of Pastors is to govern the Church in this world. Whence it follows, that the judgments which they pronounce, and the punishments which they impose upon the sinner in quality of Judges, are punishments which go not beyond the present life; and reach not so far as to give order that he be either in Paradise or in Hell after this life. They cannot give sentence that men's sins be pardoned in the day of Judgment. That would be giving Laws to God. It is true that God punisheth, even after this life, such as despise the judgment of the Pastors of the Church, and shake off the yoke of Discipline: But that punishment after this life, is done, not by the judgment or sentence of Pastors, but by the Judgment of God avenging the contempt of the order which he constituted in his Church.

Besides, a Judge cannot remit any pains, but such as he can impose. For the saying of Ambrose in the first book of Penitence is most true, that the power of binding and the power of loosing are equal, and extend the one as far as the other. God would have the right of loosing and that of binding to be equal. He permitted both upon the like condition. That man then who hath not the right of loosing hath not the right of binding, &c. Since then Pastors cannot impose the pain of damnation upon any man, but only pains of Ecclesiastical censures, it appears also, that the pardon of sins which they may grant as Judges, exceeds not the release or remission of pains, and Ecclesiastical censures. It is so that Pastors as far as in them lieth, and as much as sins and sinners are in their jurisdiction, pardon sins. For pardoning sins, is nothing else then not to punish them, when he that pardoneth hath the power to punish. The Judge cannot exempt the guilty from any punishment, but that which he may inflict by virtue of his Office. It is in that sense that Saint Paul adviseth the Corinthians to forgive the incestuous man whom they had cut off from the Communion of the Church, and himself joining with them, forgiveth him also, 2 Cor. 2.7. & 10. Which he doth not to absolve him before God's judicial seat, but presupposing that God had accepted his repentance, and had pardoned him, he voteth that the Church also forgive him the Ecclesiastical punishment, receiving him to the Communion. Yea private persons will forgive offenses one to another, not meaning thereby to prejudicate the judgment of God, but only remitting the revenge, and declaring that they will not return any punishment for it. Such remissions of sins done by the Pastors, and the opposite retentions when they are just, are approved of God, and ratified in his Counsel; Which is Christ's meaning when he saith, that, Whatsoever shall be bound in earth by the Pastors of the Church, shall be bound in heaven; that is, the suspensions and excommunications wherewith Pastors shall justly bind sinners, shall be ratified in heaven, and such men shall be held justly bound with Ecclesiastical bonds and censures. And though the Ecclesiastical censure were unjust, and not hurtful at all to the excommunicated person as for the conscience, yet the Lord will have him to undergo that Ecclesiastical punishment, rather then to run into contumacy, and to thrust himself by force or tumult to the holy Communion.

The summary of this discourse is, that as for the announcing of grace by the Gospel, either propounded in public, or applied to some particularly, Pastors do not forgive sins as Judges, and exercise no Judicature, but pardon, in as much as God announceth and conferreth remission of sins by their means, and printeth in their hearts the certainty of pardon through their word. But as for the Ecclesiastical censures, whereby they remit or retain sins, they are truly Judges, and truly pardon sins, with a pardon which extends but as far as the punishments do which they can impose. They pardon sins as Judges, as for the Ecclesiastical pains: For God alone is the Judge of Consciences, and no man can by judicial absolution exempt a soul from answering at the Bar of God's judgment, or by virtue of his judicial absolution, blot out his sins before God. Which will yet more clearly appear by the following proofs.

CHAP. 3. That the Pastors of the Church cannot blot out sins before God. And cannot by pardoning sins exempt sinners from God's judgment. 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 virtue.

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 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 Sovereign 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 inferior Judges subordinated unto God to pardon sins by a judicial absolution. In a word, that the judgment concerning remission of sins whereby we are absolved in God's judicial seat, doth not belong to them in any respect. And we reject the doctrine of the Roman Church, that God doth not forgive sins committed after Baptism, unless the Priest forgive them, 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: 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, 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 virtue before them, that they might acknowledge that by the same virtue 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 offense 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 merciful Father, who exalted Jesus by his right hand to be a Prince, and a Savior, 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 acknowledge that under the Old Testament, and for the space of four thousand years before Christ's 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 days 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 judgments 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 sovereign 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 Sovereign Judge?

VI. Neither is it for subjects to pardon sins committed against the Sovereign. It belongs not to a domestic servant to forgive his fellow servant, the offenses against their common Master.

VII. Much less yet ought a traitor in the Gaol to pardon the offenses 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 God's decrees are eternal, and God's Counsel-order for the remitting of such a man's sins, as well as the Decree about his election, is before the foundation of the world, can a Priest retaining a man's sins and denying to give him absolution, alter the order of God's 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 judgment be conformable unto God's 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 judgment 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 established 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? 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 Bellarmine makes bold to say, that 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 judgment 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 Christ's sake? and that there is no need that the Priest pronounce a judgment, and by a judicial power give a sentence of absolution, to free the sinner from God's judgment? 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 encroach upon God's authority under that color. 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 keys 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 Bellarmine saith, Sins are suits which we have with God, and therefore since God hath permitted the judgment 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 judgment of Priests. These men make God their suitor in a manner, since the Priest is a Judge in God's 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 enjoineth 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 God's 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 lieth 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 virtues be in thee, I know not whether I absolve thee, and whether my absolution be valid. So much the Jesuit Maldonado freely acknowledgeth, saying that the Priest must say within himself, I absolve thee as much as it lieth in me, or as 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.

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 judgment. Is not a judgment thereby made ridiculous, and the judicial power imaginary, if the Judge must not know whether his judgment be valid, and if he pardon with an if, and with a condition upon which his judgment 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 Jerome, saying, It is rashly done of them that boldly promise pardon unto sinners. And by Basil, The power of forgiving is not given absolutely. And by Cyprian, If any deceive us by a false show of repentance, let God who cannot be mocked, 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 public 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 days, 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. He that being put to an extreme 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 faithful 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 days, speak quite another language; If in a man's sickness a Priest being called, heareth the sick man's confession, and giveth him absolution of all his sins, giving him the host to eat: It is presumed that such a man's sins are truly pardoned, and that he is going, not into Hell, but to Purgatory, or to Paradise.

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 alleged 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 judgment in a suit already judged. Hereby Cardinal Bellarmins error 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 quickeneth sinners, before they be loosed by the Pastors from the bonds of Ecclesiastical censures.

XX. In vain it is replied 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 glorify God, and edify his neighbors, although he be fully persuaded 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 judgment 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 man's limbs. Many hold that a gelded man is not irregular if he carry about him the parts that are wanting to him, dried 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 Sodomy, as Navarrus a famous Doctor teacheth at large; The reason is, that be the vice never so detestable, yet the heresy 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 Council declareth that such a Priest hath nevertheless the power of remitting sins, by the virtue 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 easy belief. The one that Bishops in the ordination of Priests confer upon them the Holy Ghost; The other that this virtue of the Holy Ghost remains still in Priests how vicious soever they be, and that by the same virtue 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 swaddling clothes, and children of Princes have fat Bishoprics 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 men's power to dispose of it. Hardly will any believe that a Bishop visiting his Diocese 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 Diocese. 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 ancient Church never practiced, and of that indelible character of Priesthood, which remains even in hell, printed by the Bishop in the ordination, by virtue 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 enjoined, 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 God's 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 sovereign power of forgiving sins to subsist, and who hath limited 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 the Pope when he is near his death, calls for his Confessor, and begs of him a full indulgence; and giveth (as Bellarmine 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, from whom depend the keys, and the power of absolving, so that Bishops and Priests have no power of absolving, but by a dependence 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 offenses of the one to the other, but the offenses 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 rely 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. 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 Christ's merit, by the merits and satisfactions of men, by the sacrifice of the Mass, and by the Invocation of Saints, and overthrown the human nature of Christ by the doctrine of transubstantiation. For the keys 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?

CHAP. 4. Proof of our doctrine by the Antient Fathers; And even by the Roman Church.

VPon 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 The Lord forgiving sins healed a man indeed, but he manifestly shown 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, 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, That only Son of Man of whom it is spoken in Daniel's prophecy, who obtained the power of judging, and by consequent of remitting sins.

And Novatian, 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, Let none cozen himself; Let none deceive himself; there is none but God that can show 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 fallen, besides his crime, Cursed be the man that puts his hope in man.

And Hilary 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, That man alone can forgive sins, who is constituted our instructour by the Father of all things.

And Ambrose 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, 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 Heretics Audiani, By a rash enterprise they give remission of sins. In the same place, They give absolution to them that have confessed themselves; prescribing not a term for penitence, as the Laws of the Church enjoin, but giving pardon with authority.

Chrysostom Hom. 6. upon the second Epistle to the Corinthians, None can forgive sins but God alone. And Hom. 54. upon John, It belongs to none else to forgive sins. And Hom. 40. upon the first Epistle to the Corinthians, It is a thing possible to God alone to forgive sins.

Optatus in the fifth Book against Parmenian, He alone that formed the spirit, can wash the filth and spots of the spirit.

And in the same place, 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. 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 showeth 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, What art thou O man, but a sick man that must be healed? Wilt thou be my Physician? Seek rather a Physician 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 God's grace; this is also the language of Fathers. Chrysostom in the 86. Hom. upon John, What say I, the Priests? No, not an Angel, nor an Archangel, can do anything 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, 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. 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, Jerome makes an enumeration of them in the sixth book upon Isaiah, chap. 4. Everyone 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 virtue. 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 ancient Church having no other absolution, but that which was done in public 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 joined in prayers and humiliation to obtain the grace of God, and the remission of sins for the penitent, as Tertullian teacheth in the book of Penitence, in the ninth chapter. And Sozomenus 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 judgment 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 shortening was called Indulgence. A word which in our days 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 Friars, which he boasteth to have in his keeping in the Churches treasury, whereof he carrieth the Keys.

Besides that public custom, we can bring many examples, to show 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 woman presents herself 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 offenses which we obtain of men. It is our part, by his gift, to employ 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, They (meaning the Pastors) are praying, but the God-head is giving. Unto 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 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 extreme 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, 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 Heretic excommunicated, and to take off the excommunication, The Bishop (after that by exorcism, and by the sign of the Cross upon the Heretics fore-head, he hath conjured the Devil that possessed that poor Heretic) saith many prayers, whereby he prayeth to God to receive the wandering sheep, and to give absolution to the miserable strayed sinner, as it is exactly set down in the Roman Pontifical, in the chapter of the reconciliation of an Apostate Schismatic or Heretic. 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 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 extreme 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 virtue of the Keys, 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 mere 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 ancient Roman order shows 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 extreme 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 alleged for himself, Gulielmus Altissiodorensis, and Gulielmus Parisiensis, and Hugo Cardinalis. Which opinion, Thomas confuteth so, that he rather confirms it. For he flieth always 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 public Penitent is reconciled unto the Church for the pardon whereby the sinner is absolved in God's judgment. He saith indeed, that the Priest absolveth in Christ's 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 judgment 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 Keys 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 connection of the discourse going before and after, may show 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. 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, 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 show 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 judgment he might be declared clean. Likewise also, having already quickened 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 judgment of the Priest. He speaks with good reason, for after reconciliation with God, the excommunicated sinner must satisfy 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 Jerome's testimony upon Matth. 16. Whatsoever thou bindest on earth, &c. Bishops and Priests (saith Jerome) 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 show 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 always the judgment of the Church, which often judgeth by subreption or ignorance. But God judgeth always 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 show 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, 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, 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 Keys 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, There is a great difficulty among the Doctors, whether the Keys 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 show 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 Jerome, handling this text, Matth. 16. Whatsoever thou shalt bind, &c.

Also the irrefragable Doctor, in part 4. question 8. The power of the Priest (saith he) extends itself 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 Keys 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 showing 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 Keys 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 man's 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 Lord's feet with her tears, and wipe them with her hair, that she might obtain the pardon of her sins. Whereupon Austin speaks thus;

Take this for a maxim, 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, Some men were to come that should say, I forgive sins, I justify, I sanctify, I heal all whom I Baptize, &c. 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 Heretics. The Jews said, Who is this that forgiveth sins? Dare a man usurp that [authority?] But what saith the Heretic against that? I forgive sins, I cleanse, I sanctify, &c. The Heretics 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 Physician? Seek a Physician 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 showeth 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 Christ's sake. It belongs not unto me to absolve thee in God's judgment: 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 public repentance, and so be received to the Churches Communion. For God hath given to the Pastors of his Church the Keys 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 judgments God promiseth to ratify in heaven; so that he that is bound on earth by the judgment of Pastors, is judged in God's counsel to be tied 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 ancient Church (but only in the length, and the divers degrees of public 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.

CHAP. 5. Of the Abuse of the Keys, and of Absolution, both that which is called Sacramental, and that which is given without the Sacrament.

IN the building of Popery, there is scarce any place where Satan hath more powerfully labored, and more disfigured the Doctrine of the Gospel, then in the use of the Keys, and in the remission of sins, and in the absolutions which the Priests and the Pope confer.

It is already a great abuse, as we have proved, and a bold undertaking, that sinful men take upon them to pardon sins with authority of Judges, bearing themselves as Judges in God's cause, and usurping a power which the Apostles never practiced, and of which no example is found in the Word of God. But how many more abuses are joined with that?

I. Let us set in the front the unlimited and Sovereign power usurped by the Pope to forgive sins: Upon which, all the power that Bishops and Priests have to forgive sins, is made to depend. That power is thus described by Thomas the Angelic Doctor whom the Pope hath Sainted. Seeing that the High Priest is the Head in the mystical body of all the faithful [members] of Christ, and seeing that in a true body, all the motion and sense proceeds from the head, so it is in the thing now in hand. Wherefore we must say, that in the High Priest there is fullness of all graces, because he alone conferreth a full indulgence of all sins. So that to him is convenient, that which we say of the first Prince who is the Lord, that of his fullness we have all received, John 1.16. Which Papal power he stretcheth even over the temporal of Kingdoms. And hereupon he accuseth Christ of importunity, saying, that in the Gospel according to Saint John, the Lord makes a troublesome interrogation, asking of his successor Saint Peter, that if he love him he would feed his sheep. If we must believe this Doctor, Christ ought to have abstained from that importunity, and given more respect to his successor. The Pope then having (according to Thomas ) fullness of grace and power to give full pardon of all sins, so that of his fullness we all receive; no wonder that in the distribution of that fullness of graces he keeps some for himself. So far, that he is judge in his own cause, and dispensing himself from the vows which he made unto God, as the Jesuit Immanuel Sa teacheth, in his Aphorisms. Yea, as Bellarmine saith against Barcklay, He can in good sense make sin to be no sin, and no sin to be sin. Having (as the last Council of Lateran saith) all power both in heaven and earth.

II. Having then reserved unto himself the power of remitting sins without any reservation or exception, he hath limited the power of Bishops and Priests to certain cases, which they cannot overpass, but upon the point of the penitents death. Murder, perjury, sacrilege, blasphemy, witchcraft, invocation of Devils, and eating flesh on the week before Easter, are cases reserved to the Bishop or his Penitentiary, and are above the power of Priests. Yet the Pope hath granted so many privileges to some Confessors, to the Jesuits especially, that the Bishops have almost nothing reserved to themselves. And the Doctors are not agreed about these cases. It is not yet decided, Whether playing at Dice over ones own fathers grave, or cutting a Priests purse while he is lifting up the Host, or pissing in the Holy-water, or cutting the staff of Saint Francis into a game of nine-pins, be cases reserved to the Bishop.

III. But besides the sins of which Priests and Bishops can absolve, there are crimes of an higher nature reserved unto the Pope alone, and passing the power of the Bishops. These cases are numbered in the Bull de Coena Domini, where we find the form of Excommunication, that the Pope thundereth out every year upon the Thursday before Easter, which he ratifieth by casting down a burning candle. There all, that are guilty of the cases reserved unto the Pope, are excommunicated. Among others, they that appeal from the Pope to the future Council. The Pirates that rob the Sea-coasts of the Popes territories from mount Argentario to Terracina. The forgers of Apostolical Letters. They that carry arms to Heretics. They that stop the Victualers bringing provision to the Popes Court. They that kill a Prelate. They that raise tenths upon the Clergy, or usurp the rights of the Church, as Kings and their Chancellors, and their Courts of Parliament, for they are specified by these names in the Bull. They that oppose the reception of the Council of Trent. They that stay or molest the Romipets, that is, the Pilgrims, going to Rome to get pardons. These are the horrible crimes, the absolution whereof is reserved unto his Holiness. For of the less crimes, as Murder, Sodomy, Incest, Witchcraft, Bishops give Absolution. Priests will commonly give the absolution of fornication and theft, but not of eating flesh in the holy Week, which yet is the Week in which Christ ate a Lamb with his Disciples.

IV. Here words are wanting to describe the grievousness of the disease. Suppose that the Pope is Peters successor, in the quality of Apostle, and Head of the Church, as if we presupposed that a circle hath angles: Yet it is not found that Peter reserved certain cases unto himself, of which the other Apostles could not absolve: Nor that he reserved to the Apostles certain cases, of which ordinary Pastors could not give absolution. For Peter knew that Christ had spoken to all the Apostles alike, when he said, Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, Matth. 18.18. And whose soever sins you forgive, they shall be forgiven, Joh. 20.23. And if the power of the Apostles had no limitation in this point, why should their successors have a limited power: Why must the charge which Christ gave them without exception, be restrained in their respect. Why shall the Bishop of Rome be successor of Peters illimited power, and the successors of other Apostles, shall not be successors of the power which the Apostles had without limitation, and without cases reserved unto Saint Peter?

V. Hence also it is made evident, that the power given unto the Apostles to forgive sins, depended not on that of Saint Peter; and that Saint James and Saint Paul did not forgive sins by Saint Peters concession, or by dependence on his authority, since Christ gave to them all immediately the like authority to forgive: as Paul calls himself an Apostle not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, Gal. 1.1.

VI. It is true that the Fathers of the Council of Trent in the fourteenth Session, chap. 7. ground that reservation of certain cases upon a text of Rom. 13. where they make the Apostle say, Quae à Deo sunt, ordinata sunt: The things that are of God, are ordered or set in order; Whence they infer, that the higher powers must reserve to themselves something above the inferior powers. But that text is falsely alleged, and corrupted both in words and sense. In the words, for there is according to the Greek, The powers that are in being, are established or ordained by God. And so the French Bible of the Doctors of Lovain translates it. In the sense, for in this place Paul speaks of Princes, and of the civil or secular power which beareth the sword; and speaks not of order or rank among Princes or highers powers, but saith only, that God hath established and ordained them. And though the text said that among higher powers there must be order or dependence the one on the other, it would not thence follow that the power of forgiving sins in the Sacrament of penitence must be greater in some then in others; For the Sacraments change not nature according to the quality of persons, no more then the preaching of the Gospel, as it is seen in Baptism.

VII. The Pope was not contented with that. For of the satisfactions which Priests impose before or after absolution, he may release what he pleaseth, and dispense from them by Indulgence. The Priest will impose to a penitent for a satisfactory pain, to say so many prayers, to fast so many days, to go to such a place on pilgrimage, to give so much alms to Monks. If these penances are ill, the Priest ought not to have enjoined them; if they be good, the Pope ought not to dispense with them. It belongs not to him to exempt the sinner from doing penance, since our Adversaries ground the necessity of those penances upon God's command. Bellarmine fears not to say, that, Indulgences make, that as for the pains which are remitted to us by the Indulgences, we are not obliged to obey that commandment of God, • o do fruits worthy of repentance. By the same indulgence the sinner ceaseth to be obliged to fulfill the rule that saith, Verily I say unto thee, thou shalt not come out thence, until thou hast paid the utmost farthing. For our Adversaries understand that text of the satisfactory pain in Purgatory.

VIII. The terms used by the Priests in absolution, are considerable. The Jesuit Immanuel Sa in the word Absolutio sets down all the solemn words, and the whole form, saying that the wise speak thus when they give absolution. Our Lord Jesus Christ absolve thee, and I in his authority absolve thee, first from the sentence of excommunication, as far as I can, and thou needest. Next I absolve thee from thy sins, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen. The passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the merits of the Blessed Mary, and of all the Saints, and all the good that thou shalt do, and all the evil which thou shalt patiently suffer, be unto thee for remission of sins, and augmentation of grace, and for the reward of eternal life, Amen. The same words are related by Cardinal Tolet in the third book of the Instruction of Priests chap. 11. This way of absolution is but new, and the Gospel saith nothing of it. The Gospel speaks of the remission of our sins by Jesus Christ; saying that, Whosoever believeth on him shall receive remission of sins through his name; And that God hath quickened us together with Christ, having freely forgiven given us all our offenses. But that our sins are forgiven us by the merit of the Saints, the Word of God saith not. Neither doth that Holy Word speak of attaining to the reward of eternal life by the merits of Saints, or by our own. That absolution cannot be done in faith, since it is not grounded on the word of God. If the passion of Christ be sufficient to purchase for me the remission of my sins; What need I to add unto it the merit of men, who stood in need that their sins should be forgiven them by Jesus Christ?

IX. To make the abuse more gross, the Priest giving the absolution, imposeth penances or satisfactory pains which the Council of Trent calls revenges. So the Priest doth wholly forgive the sin, and yet at the same instant he imposeth punishments of the same sin. He takes revenge of sins forgiven: As if he said, I forgive thee, but thou shalt be punished, for I have forgiven thee thy sin, but not the pain of sin. By this means Priests loose the sinner by the absolution, and send him back bound by the obligation to a satisfactory pain; which pain if the penitent bears not, and subjects not himself to it, he eludeth (as much as in him lieth) the sentence of the Priest, and being more crafty then his Confessor, makes use of the absolution, and rejects the conditions under which he received it. All that without authority of God's word, who gives not that power to Pastors to lay corporal or pecuniary pains upon the sinner. And against the Lord's example, who sending back the woman taken in adultery, said to her only, Go and sin no more. John 8.11. without imposing any penance upon her. And against the example of the Apostle St. Paul who receiving the incestuous man to the peace of the Church of Corinth, 2 Cor. 2.7. & 10. layeth no corporal or pecuniary penance upon him: And against the example of all the ancient Church, which had no other absolution but the public, and made with good reason the fulfilling of the satisfaction to the Church to march before the absolution and reconciliation with the Church, But in our days the Confessors give the absolution before the sinner hath fulfilled the enjoined penances, because they are paid presently after the absolution; for if the sinner were to fulfill the penances before the absolution, that would keep back the payment. If this were in fashion, I make no doubt but that Confessors would impose short satisfactions, that they might be quickly paid.

X. Here is worse yet; For sometimes Priests will give absolution before they know whether the penitent will accept of the satisfactory pain that shall be imposed upon him. As Cardinal Tolet saith in the third book of the instruction of Priests chap. 12. Observe that the absolution must not be given but after the penance imposed and accepted. Yet when the Confessor probably knows that the penitent shall accept the satisfaction, there is no inconvenience to make the absolution go before.

Here it were good to know whether the absolution be valid, when the penitent having received absolution, and coming afterwards to consider the nature of the satisfaction imposed on him, declareth to the Priest, that he cannot accept of it, and will not fulfill those penances, nor subject himself to them in any wise.

XI. Sometimes also Priests give absolution without enjoining any satsfaction, as Bellarmine saith. Which is another abuse, For so the Sacrament of Penitence is administered without penitence, and a reconciliation is made without satisfaction, which satisfaction according to natural order, and the ancient custom, ought to go before absolution. For even among men satisfaction must be made to the offended party before he can obtain pardon. But these Gentlemen will persuade themselves that God will approve of a pardon without penitence, and without satisfaction. Or that he shall like, that sins be pardoned to a sinner before he hath satisfied.

XII. There is no less abuse in that doctrine of theirs, that the absolution which the penitent hath received from the Priest is void, if the Priest that conferred it had no intention to confer it. A doctrine which makes of absolution an illusion, and fills the penitents mind with uncertainty, since it depends on a conjectural condition, upon which the repenting soul can fix no assurance.

But that doctrine is directly opposite to the doctrine of the Gospel. For it makes the benefit of Christ's merit and the remission of sins purchased by his death to depend upon a Priests intention. For this maxim of the Gospel is true of any man that hath true repentance and seeks salvation in Christ, that believing in Christ he hath remission of sins and eternal life. Shall the want of intention in a Priest make the grace of Christ to the sinner of none effect? Or shall the hypocrisy of a confessor who believeth not what he does, and hath a profane intention to deride Religion, make the promise of the Gospel void? Christ knew the hypocrisy of Judas, yet he sent him to announce remission of sins by the Gospel; Which Christ would not have done, had he known that the hypocrisy of Judas would have made the Sacraments which he administered of no use. Truly the Word of God, and the promise of absolution of sins are effectual, not according to the intention of the man that propounds it, but according to the disposition of the person that receiveth it. The Word of God saith, that the man that believeth is saved, not he that is absolved by one that believeth, or by one that hath an intention to effect what he saith. Yea I dare say, that if Satan being changed into an Angel of light, should preach the truth of the Gospel, and administer the Sacraments, the condition of a man that should believe in Christ by his word, should be better then of him that out of unbelief should reject the word of an Apostle.

XIII. To make the abuse worse, they separate the power of giving Absolution from the preaching of the Gospel. For the true Office of Priests is to preach the Gospel, and administer the Sacraments. But in the Roman Church, a Priest cannot absolve, unless he have an especial privilege, and some Priests give absolution that preach not: Bishops that preach not, and the Pope among others, give absolution. For they hold that the power of absolving, is a point of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which depends not on the order of Priesthood, nor on the nature of Episcopacy, but on the Popes power, who imparteth to such as he pleaseth, such part of that power as he thinks good. Hence it is, that even a Lay-man, yea a woman can bolt out excommunications by the Popes Commission.

XIV. Likewise there is a great abuse in this assertion of their Doctors, that by virtue of the Keys, attrition becomes contrition. They call attrition a sorrow for sin, proceeding only from the fear of punishment, but contrition, a sorrow for sin, proceeding from the love of God. The one is a servile grief, the other is a filial sorrow. Is it credible, that the Keys have the virtue to make vices to become virtues? For the grief for sinning, moved only by the apprehension of the punishment that attends it, is evil, and proceeds not from the Spirit of adoption. A man must repent for such a repentance. It is a forced, not a willing obedience. God is merciful to such a Penitent, if he forgive his penitence, and punish him not for his obedience.

XV. The abuse also is evident, in that absolutions are given by others, and by subdelegate persons, as if sins could be forgiven by Attorney. As the Jesuit Immanuel Sa saith, the Bishop can absolve, either by himself, or by others, them that are subject unto him by right, &c.

Bishops do for the Sacrament of Penitence, what they do for preaching the Gospel. For every Bishop is obliged to preach, either by himself or by another. Some Bishops being incapable to preach, because they are yet children, or because they are without learning, they preach by others. It is well for them if in the day of Judgment they may be admitted to give account by others, and to appear by Attorney. How should they like it, if they were condemned to dine by others, and to fast in their own person? But why could not a Priest giving absolution by the Bishops Commission, give it of himself, and in his name, without borrowing another man's name?

XVI. What shall we say of the dishonest gain, which the Clergy sets up under color of confessions and absolutions? It is one of the prime revenues of ordinary Parsons. As if they said, Pay me, for I have forgiven thee thy sins. Is it not a reasonable demand? But all that the Priests do, is nothing compared to that the Pope doth, and to the gain which he reapeth from the remission of sins. As his hands are longer, he sweeps far more, and his rapines are answerable to his greatness. Would one insist upon that matter, he might make a great book of it. The Book of the Apostolic Chancery showeth so much. That book made by a Dotary, Receiver of the casual revenues of the Pope, hath made a great discovery of the mystery of iniquity. Among other Articles, there is the Chapter of Absolutions, where these words are found, The Absolution for him that hath known a woman in the Church, and committed other evils, costs six groats. The absolution for him that hath carnally known his mother, his sister, or another kinswoman of his, five groats. The absolution for him that hath deflowered a Virgin, six groats. The absolution for a perjury, six groats. The absolution for him that hath revealed the Confession of another, seven groats. The absolution for him that hath falsified Apostolical letters, seventeen or eighteen groats. The absolution for a man and a woman who during the time of the Interdict, have carried away some dead bodies to bury them, nine groats. And in the 38. leaf, The absolution for him that hath killed his father or his mother, &c. costs five or seven groats. Those groats are worth four pence, like our English groats. But in the end of the Book the taxes are raised, and groats are turned into Ducates. In the 32. leaf mention is made of a kind of letters called Confessional, whereby the Pope grants leave to a man to choose in the hour of death a Confessor, that gives full pardon of all sins. But the Author saith that this is granted but to Princes, and with great difficulty. Everyone knoweth that in Spain, none can have absolution at Easter without buying the Papal Bull, which costs two Realls for every man. Many example, I could bring to the same purpose. But the example of Pope Boniface the IX. whose life is written by his Secretary Theodoricus a Niem will serve for all. In the first Book of schism, chap. 68. he saith that the said Boniface sent Collectors to several Kingdoms, who fold the Indulgences, taking from the buyers as much money, as they should have spent to fetch them at Rome. And he saith that the same Collectors remitted all sins to all that confessed themselves without penitence; and dispensed with some irregularities for money, saying, that for that they had the same power of binding and loosing on earth, as Christ had given to Peter. This Pope is the Inventor of Annates; Th • same Pope (as the same Theodorick his Secretary relateth) being at the point of death, and being demanded how he did, answered, I should be well if I had money.

Antonine Archbishop of Florence, whom the Pope hath Sainted, in the third part of his Chronicles 22. Title, upon the year 1388. speaks thus of that Pope, In his time the Roman Court was very infamous for Simony. Benefices were conferred, not so much according to merits, as according to the greater sums of money that were offered. He filled the world with plenary Indulgences. So that small Churches in their feasts obtained them for little money. That Pope died in the year 1404.

About four and fifty years after him, Aeneas Sylvius of Siena was chosen Pope, and was called Pius the II. That Pope in the 66. Epistle to John Peregal speaks thus, The Roman Court giveth nothing without money, even the laying on of hands and the gifts of the Holy Ghost are sold, and the remission of sins is not imparted but to them that have money. If this witness may not be believed, I know not who may. And truly to make of a Bishop who at the first had no revenue at all, a Prince that hath above thirty thousand Ducates a day to spend, there was need of ravening lustily, of making great prizes with Saint Peters net, and using the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven to open many chests. For this the Cardinal and Jesuit Tollet gives a gallant excuse. In the fifth Book of the Instruction of Priests, in chap. 89. he speaks thus of the gain which the Pope gathers from absolutions and dispensations, I say, that we must not murmur against the Pope, who exacteth money for these things, not in form of price of salary; for these things are given for his entertainment: Of which such a great dignity in the Church hath great need. Indeed, he that raiseth armies, who hath guards of Swiss, and of Troops of horse, is obliged to make a great expense, which among other profits, is maintained by the remission of sins. See Navarrus, in the title of Penitence and Remission, in the 18. Council, where he maintains that the Pope hath well done to grant the remission of all sins, even of reserved cases, for one Giulio, which is the tenth part of a Ducate. His reason is, because the Pope holds the place on earth, not of a man simply, but of the true God, and that none can say to him, Why dost thou that? He should have said, What will become of the poor that is not worth a Giulio? Shall he have that punishment of his poverty (as if it were a crime) to be deprived of that Spiritual grace?

XVII. That power of absolving extends even to the dead: Whereof we have an instance in the letters of homage and subjection of John King of England, which we shall hereafter produce: whereby, to obtain of Innocent the III. the remission of sins both for himself and his deceased friends, he subjecteth his Kingdom unto him, and promiseth to pay a thousand marks of silver to his Holiness. The Book of the Apostolic Chancery showeth the same. The title of the Chapter is, De absolutionibus mortuorum. Of the absolutions of the dead. In the forty one leaf these words are found, For a dead man excommunicated, for whom his friends are petitioning, the letter of absolution is sold for one Ducate nine pence. For a woman that hath hanged herself, or for a man, that they may be committed to Church burial, one Ducate nine pence. And Cardinal Tolet affirmeth, that a man may be absolved after his death of an excommunication which he incurred in his life time. And how many Indulgences are given after death? How many privileged Altars, upon which whosoever saith a Mass, draws a soul out of Purgatory at his own choice? By the Book of Roman Indulgences, it appears that there are few Churches at Rome without such privileges. Navarrus in the Commentary about the Jubilee and Indulgences in the 22. Observation, hath these words, I say that all with one consent ought, in my opinion, hold this truth, that no man inferior to the Pope, can extend Indulgences unto the dead of Purgatory, both because we see not that ever it was done hitherto, and because no small doubt was made, whether the Pope can do it.

XVIII. It is true that some Doctors begin of late to doubt, whether the Pope giveth pardons to the dead with authority of a Judge, or whether he give them only by way of suffrage or intercession; for, say they, the dead are none of his flock. He hath no charge to feed them. It was said unto Peter, Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, not under the earth. And since the Pope hath no more the power to bind the dead, why doth he keep the power to absolve them? But these men speak without warrant, and the Pope gave them no charge to speak so. And truly they speak against reason and against experience; for this expression of pardoning, or giving pardons by way of intercession, hath no sense. Praying for one, is not forgiving him. Now when the Pope giveth letters of absolution for the dead, he speaks as a Judge. If he prayed for them only, that power ought not to be reserved to him alone, for everyone can make the same prayer. This appears evidently, in that the Pope giveth Indulgences by Letters Patents in Parchment sealed with Lead, as Bellarmine acknowledgeth in the second Book of Indulgences, chap. 5. For such pardons are given in the form of a sentence: The world never heard of prayers and intercessions to God, sealed and signed in an authentical form, nor or supplications to God in the form of Ordinances. Wherefore also Bellarmine in the same place saith, that the Pope by these Letters thus sealed, declareth his will, and the power which he received of God. And to assign to an Altar eighteen thousand years of pardon, and so many forties of days, and the deliverance of a soul out of Purgatory, is not praying, but decreeing and speaking, as having exactly calculated with God. But which way soever the Pope give Indulgences to the dead, he will have us to believe that these souls come out of Purgatory by that pardon. So that it is the same power under another title. And we should have the declaration of some Pope of the last ages, whereby he should declare, that he pretends no jurisdiction over the dead, and that the power of his Keys extends not to them.

XIX. Of that power of giving Indulgences and Absolutions to the dead, there is not one word neither in Scripture nor in all Antiquity. We have produced before the testimony of Cardinal Cajetan, and that of Gabriel Biel, who say, that in all the writings of the Fathers, there is no mention of Indulgences, nor of the treasure of the Church made up of the overplus of the satisfactions of Christ, and of the Saints, of which the Pope takes upon himself the distribution. And Bellarmine in the second book of Indulgences, chap. 10. acknowledgeth that Durand, Roffensis, Antoninus, and Sylvester, say that Scripture makes no express mention of Indulgences. To which I will add the testimony of Navarrus the most famous Doctor of the Canonists of the Roman Church; as also the title of his works giveth him that commendation, and one that was the Popes Penitentiary. These are his words, What the cause is, that among the Ancients so little mention is made of Indulgences, but among the late Authors the mention of them is so frequent: That most holy man John of Rochester, reverend by his dignity of Bishop and Cardinal, hath taught it: Of whose discourse about that point, this is the summary. That it is not certain by whom Indulgences were first given, and that some use of them, as they say, is very ancient among the Romans. That many things of the Gospels and Scriptures are now more eminently printed, and more clearly understood, then they were in old time. That now no Orthodox man doubts whether there be a Purgatory, of which among the Ancients no mention was made, or very infrequent. That the explicit belief, both of Purgatory and Indulgences, was not so necessary in the Primitive Church, as it is now. And soon after: While men cared not for Purgatory, men cared not for Indulgences, because all the price of Indulgences depends on that. Sure the strength of truth must needs be very great, since it fetcheth such confessions from the strongest of our Adversaries. And I wonder how that language could be suffered in such a famous man, one of the Roman Penitentiaries under Cardinal Borromeo, Great Penitentiary. And in the same Treatise he speaks thus of the Concession of Indulgences. The Questors (so he calls the Collectors of the money that is got by pardons) seek not to gain souls, but to gain money. He adds that by that concession of Indulgences, the Penitential satisfaction, which is so useful to us is much weakened, &c. That he that grants Indulgences, payeth one man's debts with the estate of another, and that to practice that too largely is unbecoming. It is (as the barbarous proverb saith) cutting large thongs out of another man's leather. He saith, that because the Pope employeth the superabounding satisfactions of Saints which he hath in his treasure for the payment of others, it is credible that the Pope takes some also for himself, as the Jesuit Immanuel Sa saith, Indulgentia utitur etiam qui eam concessit. He that granted the Indulgence, makes use of it for himself also: So that he forgiveth his own self. He should have added, that they that have no money to pay the two Reals or the Giulio, to which the Indulgence or the Bull of Absolution is taxed, have not the remission of sins. And that he that wants money, or good legs, or a horse to go to Rome to the Jubilee, or to the places where the Pope hath transported the Jubilee, hath no share in that spiritual grace.

XX. Out of the same abuse of the Keys, and the power of absolving, came that intolerable Tyrannie, and depravation of Christ's words, Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, &c. whereby the Pope maketh himself judge of all things, and Lord either direct or indirect, of all the estates of the world. If we ask by what power the Pope looseth the obligation of Oaths made unto God, and the bond of allegiance of subjects to their Prince, and upon what ground he takes the authority of loosing and dissolving marriages lawfully contracted, and dispensing children from their obedience to their parents, as likewise of exempting those that have made vows, from the obligation of keeping them, and of giving and taking away Kingdoms; and by what power he puts an Interdict upon Cities and upon whole Countries, exposing them for a prey to the next Conqueror, and delivereth souls from the power of Purgatory: They give us this answer, that Christ said unto Peter, Whatsoever thou loosest on earth, &c. Let us suppose that the Pope is successor of Peters Apostleship: Let us suppose that this was said to Peter alone, although Matth. 18.18. this was said to all the Apostles. What profanation is this of the Word of God, that the power of loosing the bonds of sin by Church-discipline, and by the preaching of the Gospel, be transported to the loosing of vows, of marriages, of the fidelity of subjects, of the obedience of children to their parents, yea of souls after death? Where is one word of that, I say not in the Gospel (which they allege to abuse it) but in all Antiquity? A prodigious thing, that in the light of the Gospel, after so many ruins and bloody wars, which that doctrine hath brought, these things are said, yea and believed! And that in places where the Inquisition reigneth, to make but a show of doubting of these things, is a crime punishable with fire, and a case of Inquisition!

XXI. Would one search all the abuses of these absolutions, both the Penitential, and those that are without the pretended Sacrament of Penitence, one might make a great volume of them. I will put here, some out of the rules of Immanuel Sa, and Cardinal Tolet, both Jesuits.

Every Priest can absolve from venial sins, and from mortal sins also, of which the Penitent was absolved already before. This rule giveth power to a Priest to do that which is already done, and to loose a man that is not bound. By this means a man payeth twice for the absolution of the same sin. Besides, when the Priest giveth absolution of mortal sins, he showeth thereby that they are venial, that is, pardonable.

A dying man that speaks not, but giveth signs of contrition, and a man out of his wits, who hath before given signs of contrition, may be absolved.

That man may be absolved, who for a reasonable and just cause, will not lose the occasion of sinning, so that he have a steadfast purpose not to sin anymore, although he be often relapsed. I cannot conceive what occasion of sinning can be so just, but that one must lose it.

A man may be absolved, that will not confess, or that denieth a sin, which the Confessor hath learned by the Confession of another, that he hath committed.

He that hath the ordinary power of absolving in the inward bar, can absolve without confession.

Absolution may be given to a man, not only without sorrow [for his sin] but also against his will, and may be absolved of one excommunication, another remaining. Of which we have a notable example in the sixth book of the Epistles of Cardinal d'Ossat, Epist. 221. to the King, pag. 485. This is a strange way of absolution, to say to a man, Thou wilt not be absolved from thy sins, but thou shalt be, in spite of thy heart. And thou art excommunicated with two excommunications; I absolve thee from one of them, and receive thee into the Church, but thou art excommunicated with another excommunication, and so thou remainest out of the Church. By these rules an impenitent man may be absolved with a valid absolution, and one that is truly penitent and contrite, with an invalid absolution, namely, when the Confessor hath no intention to absolve.

He that is plainly absolved, but upon security that he will satisfy, if after that he do not satisfy, he falls not again into excommunication. Note, that here it is questioned of satisfying God for the punishment of sins. When there is reason to instruct one who hath promised to satisfy, he is required to give security. God (belike) will have sufficient security, and if the Priest accept of the security, God will accept of it also. And if God cannot get satisfaction from the party, he will sue the security. Is not all that contrived with singular prudence, and with mature consideration? And how meek is that dealing, that a man who after he hath received absolution, scorns to make satisfaction, should nevertheless, be suffered to enjoy the benefit of his absolution? Why? the man hath outwitted God, and hath given him the slip, and now if God will be paid, he must strain upon the security.

An absolution made for an unjust cause yet is valid: So say, Bellarmine, Immanuel Sa, and Tolet.

Neither a woman, nor a Lay-man, nor a common Priest can absolve, but by some privilege. For absolving is a point of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Here observe, that even a woman can excommunicate, and absolve by the Popes permission.

Cardinal Tolet in the first book of the Instruction of Priests, in the fourteenth Chapter, gives many very considerable rules. He saith, that one who hath no orders in the Church, can give absolution in the outward bar. So that a Cobbler having the Popes Commission, may both excommunicate and absolve.

Again, To be absolved at the outward bar, it is not necessary that the excommunicate person have a will to be absolved. As he was excommunicated against his will, he may also be absolved against his will. Also one may be absolved without his knowledge. Tolet saith in the same place, that absolution may be done by Letters, by Attorney, by Commissaries, and by Subdelegacy.

The faculties which the Pope giveth by the Jubilee, or by Bulls unto Confessors to absolve all censures whatsoever they be, concern not the outward Barr, but only that which regards the Barr of Penitence, and the purgation of the conscience. That is, they absolve sinners before God only, not before men; and reconcile sinners unto God, not unto the Church, nor to the Pope. So that the Pope having reconciled a sinner unto God, hath not therefore reconciled that sinner unto the Pope himself. That poor sinner is acquitted towards God, by the pardon which the Pope gave him, but is not therefore acquitted towards the Pope, who by the Jubilee, intended to remit God's interests, not his own. There is need of another absolution again. And the said Cardinal, after he hath alleged many Doctors, saith that it is the style of the Court of Rome. In the same place he saith that the absolution of excommunicated persons must be done with a Psalm, and the Lord's Prayer, and whipping, and other customary things. No wonder if those that have usurped the power of whipping penitents, make bold with their purse. Through that whipping many Kings have passed; of which we will bring examples in the next Controversy.

And in the same Chapter, An unjust absolution is valid. Again, If the Bishop absolveth without imposing any saisfaction before, the absolution holds, and yet the Bishop doth evil, and must be corrected.

That I may not stir that sink of abuse further, Whoso will seriously consider the whole structure of Popery, will easily perceive that the whole bulk of the doctrine tends to give authority to the Clergy, and to persuade the people that God doth not impart unto men either remission of sins, or salvation, or any spiritual grace, but by the Sacraments which Clergy-men administer, and by the intervention of their Ministry: As if God had tied his own hands, to show no grace to his people, unless they pass through their hands before.

Hence is sprung the opinion of the efficacy of Sacraments, by the only and bare action which they call in their canting, ex opere operato. That is, the Sacraments which they administer, confer grace, although they were administered to one that sleeps, or hath his mind somewhere else: And that the attention is not requisite, it being sufficient that he that receives them, resist not purposely the grace, and set not his mind to hinder it. Hence came the doctrine, that the Sacraments are void and without effect, if the Priest that administered them had no intention, so that we must believe that the grace of God conferred by the Sacraments, depends on the Priests intention, though he be never so wicked. Hence also came that doctrine, that God doth not forgive sins, but upon condition of receiving the Priests absolution in case of possibility; That God forgiveth not those sins, which the Priest would not forgive; That Priests are Judges, and pronounce judicial sentences which absolve in God's judgment. Hence also the power which the Bishops challenge to give the Holy Ghost by the laying on of their hands, and by ordination, to print in the soul a Character which remaineth even in Hell. Hence the privilege of Clerks and Kings to be partakers of the cup in the Communion, thereby to make Clerks to become fellows to Kings. Hence that terrible power of Priests, which goeth beyond all Angelical power, to create the Creator, and to make God with words, and holding him locked up, to be able to boast that they have Christ in their power, yea though the Priest were a Sodomist: For we have seen before, that for that crime a Priest falls not into irregularity, no more then for keeping Concubines. Wherefore these Gentlemen boast in their Books, that they have a power equal unto God's. These are the words of Besse a Doctor, and Preacher of the Prince of Condé, in the first book of the Royal Priesthood, chap. 3. Joshua did only make the Sun to stay where he was before, but Priests stay Christ being in heaven, to bring him to an Altar, where he had no abode before. The creature obeyed him, but the Creator obeyeth these. The Sun obeyed him, God obeys these, whensoever they pronounce the sacred words. The remission of sins is of a divine jurisdiction. It is the work of a Sovereign, an effect for the Almighty, a strain beyond human merits and capacities. Yet it is a power imparted unto Priests, Quorum remiseritis, &c. A sign that the Godhead and the Priesthood have I know not what common among them, and that they have almost the same greatness, since they have the same power. How high doth this man raise Priests! There wanted no more but to call them God's. And that he doth in the same strain. For having applied unto Priests, that which God saith of Princes, he addeth, That which God is in heaven, the Priest is upon earth; And a little after, Priesthood marcheth even with the God-head, and all Priests are God's. A goodly doctrine; according to which, when you see a whoring and a drunken Priest, one that can hardly read his Mass (and of such the world is full) you must say, Here is a God; This man marcheth even with the Godhead, and hath the same power. Yea God obeyeth him, as this Doctor saith, and he hath God in his power, when he hath him locked up in his box. And if that Priest dieth impenitent, (which our Adversaries deny not to be possible) here is a God carried away by the Devil. This evil floweth from a higher spring, from the Head of the Papal Hierarchy, who could not raise his Empire, without raising together the props and pillars upon which his Monarchy stands. It is he who the first of Bishops suffered himself to be adored and to be called God, and the Divine Majesty, and the Bridegroom of the Universul Church, and his Holiness exclusively to all others. It is he alone, who hath challenged to himself alone, and of late ages, the Apostles sentence, The spiritual man judgeth all things, but himself is judged of no man; as if all men of the world were carnal in comparison of him. It is he who of late ages and without president, hath attributed unto himself infallibility in the faith, and to have all the right [or Law] within the closet of his breast, and to be able to add to the Symbol, and to change that which God hath commanded in Scripture, and to make new Articles of Faith, and to be a Sovereign Judge above Scripture: Likewise, to dispense from vows and oaths made to God, to promise a degree of glory in Paradise above the ordinary sort, to unthrone Kings, to put down Emperors, to give his feet to kiss to great Monarchs, to dispense subjects from allegiance to their Sovereign, to put such as he will in the number of Saints, commanding that they be prayed to, to give pardons for many thousands of years, to give Indulgences to the dead, and to deliver souls out of Purgatory. It is he, who reserving full power to himself to forgive sins, hath limited the power of Priests and Bishops • o certain cases, granting them such a portion of the Keys as he would. That the world may think, since the authority of Priests goes so far, as to pardon sins with authority of Judges, and to absolve them before God's, judicial seat, what may the power be of him that hath an unlimited authority, and in whom God put fullness of graces, that of his fullness we may all receive, as we heard Thomas saying before; That great man to whom he gave the title of Saint, and of Angelical Doctor.

Eighth Controversy, OF THE SEVENTH BOOK. OF Penitential Satisfaction. Where also it is spoken of Satisfactions in general.