In what sense remission 'not from,' or 'without, the Church.' 41 OF THIRD of reformation in the Church of Englands." It is very true ACCOUNT what he asserts, 'that the Church hath no power to forgive sins immediately, nor to pardon any person's sin without that disposition of true repentance which qualifieth a man for itt,' without which the act of the Church in loosing sinners is ineffectual; in which sense the saying of Firmilian cited by our author out of Cyprian is true, that penitents 'do not obtain remission of sins from, or by the act of the Church,' but by their own repentance"; but then he asserts on the other hand, 'that God hath appointed the ministry of the Church for the reconcilement of those sins, which come to the knowledge of the Church;' and that the act of the Church is as necessary to readmit public penitents, as at first to admit catechumens, when qualified, to become the disciples of Christ. He also asserts, as the bishop observes, that 'a man's own Christianity may supply the means of forgiveness, where there is no remission by the keys of the Church, as in the case of clave errante',' where the bishop by prejudice or too much severity keeps bound those whom he ought to loose; of which there is a terrible censure, Const. Apost., lib. ii. cap. 21. And here in answer to the bishop I must profess, that I know none of the Church of England who have written of the power of the keys or sacerdotal absolution, without these exceptions, restrictions, and abatements. As for my own justification I must inform his lordship I did it in my Prefatory Answer to the Book of the Rights, as he may find it, [sect. ix.] There he may find from St. Cyprian, that sacerdotal absolution hath no effect, where the penitent deceives the Church and her ministers appointed to loose sinners; and there are several cases more too long to be considered here, as when a priest for filthy lucre absolves a sinner, OF THIRD EDITION. 42 Repentance necessary: case of Zosimus; с ACCOUNT Whom he ought to keep bound. This as odious a case and as scandalous as it is, was the case of Zosimus the presbyter; who as it appears from above thirty epistles of Isidorus Pelusiota to him, was one of the vilest and most scandalous for several vices, but particularly for avarice and luxury, that ever was in the Church of God. This fellow abusing his priestly character and profession, for "filthy lucre's sake"," absolved a perjured person for a dish of fish, without obliging him to make restitution to the innocent person injured by his perjury; for which wickedness Isidore tells him of one who said he was worthy to be put to death; and then telling him how he had perverted and depraved the gospel, he saith that the power of loosing is to be understood of those who are penitent; that he is not loosed who sweetens the priest by gifts, but he who satisfies the injured person to whom he did wrong. And then most excellently setting forth his great abuse of the priestly power, and the place of the gospel upon which it is grounded, in expressions too long to be transcribed, he tells him, that priests were λeTоupyol, où KOLOVOì, only "ministers, not consorts," or parcenorsd (with the Holy Ghost") of the power of absolution; πρéσßeis, où κριταί, 'legates," or deputies, who ought to act within the limits of their commission, and "not (civil) judges," whose mistaken or unjust judgments acquit criminals; peolтai, ov Barineis, "mediators" who absolve penitents by their prayers, and intercessions for them, and "not kings," who can pardon or not pardon, as they please; "for they, as the Apostle speaks, who offer sacrifices for their own sins cannot as by their own arbitrary power forgive sins to impenitents, though they are never so rich," &c. I believe there is not one of those upon whom his lordship Dodwell's statements on the necessity of sacerdotal absolution; 43 reflects for advancing the power of sacerdotal absolution, but who will give their assent to every word of Isidore's letter to that wicked Zosimus, and would write such another to any priest now upon the same occasion. Nay I dare say that "learned and pious" laic, whom he singles out in his reflections, will approve the whole of this epistle to that wicked priest; and therefore I hope his lordship will pardon me for saying, that he hath cited it to no purpose against him. I confess the expressions he cites out of him seem a little unguarded, but the substance of what he writes is true, and may be admitted with a very little candid allowance and abatement from the strict manner in which he expresses his meaning; for the bishop will not, I believe, deny that "sacerdotal absolution is" (ordinarily) "necessary for the remission of sins, even of those who are truly penitent";" nor that "God hath obliged Himself to ratify the absolution of the Church" for the remission of sins to those who are qualified for it by repentance. Neither I suppose will he deny, that "the administration of the holy Eucharist is the ordinary means of conveying the sacerdotal absolution of sins after baptism," as baptism is the ordinary means of conveying the sacerdotal absolution of sins to the baptized, which they committed before baptism. Nor will he deny, I take it for granted, that "the priest is the judge competent'," to whom the Sacraments shall be administered, and to whom not; whether the penitent sinner after baptism shall be loosed by giving him the Sacrament of the holy Eucharist for the remission of his sins, or by a verbal absolution. Neither can his lordship, I think, deny that 'as priests were made, or instituted for the administration of the Sacraments; so the Sacraments were instituted to be administered by the priests, and that to admi ACCOUNT OF THIRD EDITION. 44 primarily designed for the benefit of the people. ACCOUNT nister them is their proper rightm.' Nor will he, I presume, make EDITION. any difficulty to grant, that 'as God hath given the power of OF THIRD the temporal sword to princes, for the preservation of their authority as well as for the benefit of their people, so He hath given the power of the keys and of administering of the Sacraments to His priests for the preservation and maintenance of their authority, as well as for the benefit of the people".' These certainly are co-ordinate ends of the sacerdotal power; but which of the two was the principal or primary in God's intention may perhaps admit of some dispute, especially if it be considered, that God could have given remission of sins to true believers before baptism, and true penitents after it, without obliging them to depend upon the sacramental or verbal absolution of His priests, for the remission of their sins, as the ordinary condition or means by which it was to be obtained. For this reason, I say, it may admit of some little dispute, which of these two co-ordinate ends is the chief; though I am of the bishop's opinion, that the sacerdotal power and "Sacraments, were primarily designed" by God "for the benefit of the people," especially if his lordship will admit, that 'the securing of their obedience' to their priests by their dependence upon them is, as certainly it is, much for their benefit P. And if he will grant this, as one would think he should, then I think there will be very little, if any, difference betwixt his lordship, and that learned writer of the laity, whom he hath taken so much pains to confute and expose. made for the Sacraments, and not the PRIEST'S RIGHT AND NOT THE COM- The spiritual dignity of the priesthood sunk in the secular. 45 OF THIRD Thus much I thought fit to say by way of animadversion ACCOUNT upon what his lordship has written upon the three prin- EDITION. cipal opinions, and the zealous promoters of them in behalf of the clergy, to advance their honour and dignity.' And here I leave him to consider of all that I have written for his sake, as well as my own, who am one of those more especially pointed at in his charge. Only I beg the liberty of his lordship, at parting, to beseech him to consider, that if we in a just zeal for the priesthood, had carried those three points a little too high, as for my own part I am satisfied I have not, whether it became a bishop to make a whole charge against us, to expose us for so venial a transgression, without any regard to the time when, and the place where we wrote, or the just provocations which moved us to write. I think had his lordship considered these things, an apology for us would have better become him, than a criminal charge to the clergy against us. But besides all these considerations, there is one more particular which induced me to write as I have done, for the honour and dignity of the priesthood of both orders, and that is the Gothic constitution, wherein the secular honours of the clergy have occasioned not only the people, but priests themselves, in a great measure to forget their spiritual dignity, as priests. In the empire it is observable, that the dignified clergy are not only more valued, but also generally value themselves more as princes, palatines, and lords, than as bishops and priests; and in other kingdoms of the Gothic constitution, it may now and then be seen, that as Paulus Samosatenus affected the secular title of ducenariuss before that of bishop, so some prelates are so dazzled with the splendour of their titles, as nobles of the realm, it may be peers; or as in some kingdoms, as dukes and peers, that they think their dignity greater as lords and judges of parliament, and value themselves more as such, than as they are Christ's vicegerents and bishops, and senators of the Church. In kingdoms of such a tempting constitution, especially in kingdoms which are sunk into the dregs thereof, and where priests as priests r Charge, p. 5. [Sic dicebantur Procuratores qui ducenta sestertia annui salarii no mine accipiebant a principe.-Vales. |