An answer to a challenge madeAn ansvver to a challenge made
An answer to a challenge made by a Jesuit in Ireland Wherein the judgement of antiquity in the points questioned is truly delivered, and the novelty of the now romish doctrine plainly discovered. By James Usher Bishop of Meath.An ansvver to a challenge made by a Iesuite in Ireland Wherein the iudgement of antiquity in the points questioned is truely delivered, and the noveltie of the now romish doctrine plainly discovered. By Iames Vssher Bishop of Meath.
James Ussher 1581–1656Dublin: printed by the Society of Stationers and Eliot's Court Press, 1624Dublin: printed by the Societie of Stationers and Eliot's Court Press, 1624
[24], 527, [9] p. · 153k words · STC 24542 · ESTC S118933
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
And, that we may see how variable mens judgements were touching the matter of Confession in the ages following: Bede would have us nconfess our daily & light sins one unto another, but open the uncleanness of the greater leprosy to the Priest. Alcuinus, not long after him, would have us oconfess all the sins that we can remember. Others were of another mind. For some (as it appeareth by the writings of the same pAlcuinus and of qHaymo) would not confess their sins to the Priest; but rsaid, it was sufficient for them that they did confess their sins to God alone, provided always that they ceased from those sins for the time to come. Others confessed their sins unto the Priests, but not fullys: as may be seen in the Council of Cavailon, held in the days of Charles the great where, though the Fathers think that this had need to be amended: yet they freely acknowledge, that it remained still a question, whether men should only confess to God, or to the Priests also; and they themselves put this difference betwixt both those confessions, that the one did properly serve for the cure, the other for direction in what sort the repentance (and so the cure) should be performed. Their words are these. tSome ⟨p. 102⟩say, that they ought to confess their sins only unto God, and some think that they are to be confessed unto the Priests: both of which, not without great fruit, is practised within the holy Church. namely thus, that we both confess our sins unto God, who is the forgiver of sins (saying with David: I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess against my self my transgressions unto the Lord: and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin.) and according to the institution of the Apostle, confess our sins one unto another, and pray one for another, that we may be healed. The Confession therefore which is made unto God, purgeth sins: but that which is made unto the Priest, teacheth in what sort those sins should be purged. For God the author and bestower of salvation and health, giveth the same sometime by the invisible administration of his power, sometime by the operation of Physicians.
And, that wee may see how variable mens judgements were touching the matter of Confession in the ages following: Bede would have us nconfesse our daily & light sinnes one unto another, but open the uncleanenesse of the greater leprosie to the Priest. Alcuinus, not long after him, would have us oconfesse all the sinnes that we can remember. Others were of another minde. For some (as it appeareth by the writings of the same pAlcuinus and of qHaymo) would not confesse their sinnes to the Priest; but rsaid, it was sufficient for them that they did confesse their sinnes to God alone, provided alwayes that they ceased from those sinnes for the time to come. Others confessed their sinnes unto the Priests, but not fullys: as may be seene in the Councell of Cauailon, held in the dayes of Charles the great where, though the Fathers thinke that this had need to be amended: yet they freely acknowledge, that it remained still a question, whether men should only confesse to God, or to the Priests also; and they themselves put this difference betwixt both those confessions, that the one did properly serve for the cure, the other for direction in what sort the repentance (and so the cure) should be performed. Their words are these. tSome ⟨p. 102⟩say, that they ought to confesse their sinnes onely unto God, and some thinke that they are to be confessed unto the Priests: both of which, not without great fruit, is practised within the holy Church. namely thus, that wee both confesse our sinnes unto God, who is the forgiver of sinnes (saying with David: I acknowledged my sinne unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confesse against my selfe my transgressions vnto the Lord: and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sinne.) and according to the institution of the Apostle, confesse our sinnes one unto another, and pray one for another, that we may be healed. The Confession therfore which is made unto God, purgeth sins: but that which is made unto the Priest, teacheth in what sort those sinnes should be purged. For God the author and bestower of salvation and health, giveth the same sometime by the invisible administration of his power, sometime by the operation of Physicians.
nIn hâc sententiâ illa debet esse discretio; ut quotidiana leviá que pecca•a alteru•um coaequalibus confiteamur, corumque quotidianâ credamus oratione salvari. Porrò gravioris leprae immunditiā juxta legem sacerdoti pandamus, atque ad ejus arbitrium qualiter & quanto tempore jusserit, purificari curemus. Bed. in Jacob. 5.In hâc sententiâ illa debet esse discretio; ut quotidiana leviá que pecca•a alteru•um coaequalibus confiteamur, corumque quotidianâ credamus oratione salvari. Porrò gravioris leprae immūditiā juxta legem sacerdoti pandamus, atque ad ejus arbitrium qualiter & quanto tempore jusserit, purificari curemus. Bed. in Iacob. 5.
oVolens dimittere omnia his qui in se peccaverunt, confiteatur omnia peccata sua, quae recordari potest. Alcuin. de divin. offi•. cap 13 in capite Jejunii.Volens dimittere omnia his qui in se peccaverunt, confiteatur omnia peccata sua, quae recordari potest. Alcuin. de divin. offi•. cap 13 in capite Iejunii.
pId. epist. 26.
qHaymo in Evangel. Dominic. 15. post Pentecost. Ite ostendite vos Sacerdotib.Haymo in Evangel. Dominic. 15. post Pentecost. Ite ostēdite vos Sacerdotib.
rDicentes, sibi sussicere, ut soli Deo peccata sua confiteantur; si tantùm ab ipsis peccatis in reliquo cessent. Haymo, ut supra.Dicentes, sibi sussicere, ut soli Deo peccata sua confiteātur; si tantùm ab ipsis peccatis in reliquo cessent. Haymo, ut supra.
sSed & hoc emendatione egere perspeximus, quòd quidā dun confitentur peccata sua sacerdotibus, non plené id faciunt. Concil. C. bilo•. II. cap. 32.Sed & hoc emendatione egere perspeximus, quòd quidā dū cōfitentur peccata sua sacerdotibus, non plené id faciūt. Concil. C. bilo•. II. cap. 32.
tQuidā solummodò Deo confiteri debere dicunt peccata, quidā veró Sacerdotibus confitenda esse percensent: quod utrunque non sine magno fructu intra sanctam fit Ecclesiā ita duntaxat, ut & Deo, qui remissor est peccatorū, confiteamur peccata nostra, (& cum David dicamus: Delictū meū cognitū tibi feci, & injustitiā meam non abscondi, Dixi, Confitebor adversùm me injustitias meas Domino, & tu remisisti impietatē peccati mei.) et secundùm institutionē Apostoli, confiteamur alterutrū peccata nostra, & oremus pro invicem ut salvemur. Confessio itaque quae Deo fit, purgat peccata: ea veró quae Sacerdoti fit, docet qualiter ipsa purgentur peccata. Deus namque salutis & sanitatis author & largitor, plerunque hanc praebet suae potentiae invisibili administration, plerunque Medicorū operation. Ibid. cap. 33Quidā solūmodò Deo cōfiteri debere dicūt peccata, quidā veró Sacerdotibus confitēda esse percensent: quod utrūque non sine magno fructu intra sanctam fit Ecclesiā ita duntaxat, ut & Deo, qui remissor est peccatorū, confiteamur peccata nostra, (& cum David dicamus: Delictū meū cognitū tibi feci, & injustitiā meam non abscōdi, Dixi, Cōfitebor adversùm me injustitias meas Domino, & tu remisisti impietatē peccati mei.) et secundùm institutionē Apostoli, cōfiteamur alterutrū peccata nostra, & oremus pro invicem ut salvemur. Confessio itaque quae Deo fit, purgat peccata: ea veró quae Sacerdoti fit, docet qualiter ipsa purgētur peccata. Deus namque salutis & sanitatis author & largitor, plerūque hāc praebet suae potētiae invisibili administratione, plerūque Medicorū operatione. Ibid. cap. 33
This Canon is cited by uGratian out of the Penitential of Theodorus Archbishop of Canterbury: but clogged with some unnecessary additions. as when in the beginning thereof it is made the xopinion of the Grecians, that sins should be confessed only unto God; and of the rest of the Church, that they should be confessed to Priests. where those words, ut Graeci, in Gratian seem unto Cardinal Bellarmine, yto have crept out of the margin into the text; and to have been a marginal annotation of some unskilful man, who gathered by the fact of Nectarius, that Sacramental Confession was wholly taken away among the Grecians. For otherwise ⟨p. 103⟩(saith he) in the Capitular it self of Theodorus, whence that Canon was transcribed, those two words [ut Graeci] are not to be had; nor are they also to be had in the second Council of Cavaillon, c. 33. whence Theodorus seemeth to have taken that chapter: neither yet doth the Master of the Sentences, in his 4. book and 17. distinction bringing in the same sentence, add those words [ut Graeci.] But the Cardinals conjecture of the translating of these words out of the margin into the text of Gratian, is of little worth: seeing we find them expressly laid down in the elder collections of the Decrees, made by zBurchardus and aIvo; from whence it is evident that Gratian borrowed this whole chapter, as he hath done many a one beside. For as for the Capitular it self of Theodorus, whence the Cardinal too too boldly affirmeth that Canon was transcribed; as if he had looked into the book himself: we are to know, that no such Capitular of Theodorus is to be found: only Burchardus and Ivo, (in whom, as we said, those controverted words are extant) setteth down this whole chapter as taken out of Theodore's Penitential, & so misguided Gratian. for indeed in Theodorus his Penitential (which I did lately transcribe out of a most ancient copy kept in Sir Robert Cottons Treasury) no part of that chapter can be seen: nor yet any thing else tending to the matter now in hand, this short sentence only excepted. Confessionem suam Deo soli, si necesse est, licebit agere. It is lawful, that Confession be made unto God alone, if need require. And to suppose as the Cardinal doth that Theodorus should take this chapter out of the second Council of Cavaillon:
This Canon is cyted by uGratian out of the Penitentiall of Theodorus Archbishop of Canterbury: but clogged with some unnecessarie additions. as when in the beginning thereof it is made the xopinion of the Grecians, that sinnes should be confessed onely unto God; and of the rest of the Church, that they should be confessed to Priests. where those words, ut Graeci, in Gratian seeme unto Cardinall Bellarmine, yto have crept out of the margent into the text; and to have beene a marginall annotation of some unskilfull man, who gathered by the fact of Nectarius, that Sacramentall Confession was wholly taken away among the Grecians. For otherwise ⟨p. 103⟩(saith hee) in the Capitular it selfe of Theodorus, whence that Canon was transcribed, those two words [ut Graeci] are not to be had; nor are they also to be had in the second Councell of Cauaillon, c. 33. whence Theodorus seemeth to have taken that chapter: neyther yet doth the Master of the Sentences, in his 4. booke and 17. distinction bringing in the same sentence, adde those words [ut Graeci.] But the Cardinalls conjecture of the translating of these words out of the margent into the text of Gratian, is of little worth: seeing wee finde them expressely laid downe in the elder collections of the Decrees, made by zBurchardus and aIvo; from whence it is evident that Gratian borrowed this whole chapter, as he hath done manie a one beside. For as for the Capitular it selfe of Theodorus, whence the Cardinall too too boldly affirmeth that Canon was transcribed; as if hee had looked into the booke himselfe: we are to know, that no such Capitular of Theodorus is to be found: onely Burchardus and Ivo, (in whom, as we said, those controverted words are extant) setteth downe this whole chapter as taken out of Theodors Penitentiall, & so misguided Gratian. for indeed in Theodorus his Penitentiall (which I did lately transcribe out of a most ancient copie kept in Sir Robert Cottons Threasurie) no part of that chapter can be seene: nor yet any thing else tending to the matter now in hand, this short sentence onely excepted. Confessionem suam Deo soli, si necesse est, licebit agere. It is lawfull, that Confession be made unto God alone, if need require. And to suppose as the Cardinall doth that Theodorus should take this chapter out of the second Councell of Cauaillon:
uGrat. de Poenit. distinct. 1. cap. ult. Quidā Deo.Grat. de Poenit. distinct. 1. cap. ult. Quidā Deo.
xQuidā Deo solummodò confiteri debere peccata dicunt, ut Graeci: qui dam veró Sacerdotibus cō fitenda esse percensent, ut tota feré sancta Ecclesia. Ibid.Quidā Deo solummodò cōfiteri debere peccata dicūt, ut Graeci: qui dam veró Sacerdotibus cō fitenda esse percensent, ut tota feré sancta Ecclesia. Ibid.
yVidetur irrepsisse in textum ex margine: & marginalem annotationem imperiti alicujus fuisse, qui ex facto Nectarii collegit sublatam omnino Confessionem Sacramentalem apud Graecos. Nam alioqui in ipso capitulari Theodori, unde canon ille descriptus est, non habentur duae illae voces [ut Graeci,] neque etiam habentur in Concilio II. Cabilonensi, c. 33. unde Theodorus Capitulum illud accepisse videtur: sed nec Magister Sentent. in 4. lib. dist. 17. eandem sententiam adducens, addidit illud, [ut Graeci.] Bellarmin. de Poenitent. lib. 3. cap. 5.
were an idle imagination▪ seeing it is well known that Theodore died Archbishop of Canterbury in the year of ⟨p. 104⟩our Lord 690: and the Council of Cavaillon was held in the year 813. that is, 123. years after the others death. The truth is; he who made the additions to the Capitularia of Charles the great and Ludovicus Pius, (gathered by Ansegisus and Benedict) translated this Canon out of that Council into his bCollection: which Bellarmine, as it seemeth, having someway heard of, knew not to distinguish between those Capitularia, and Theodore's Penitential. being herein as negligent, as in his allegation of the fourth book of the Sentences: where the Master doth not bring in this sentence at all, but having among other questions propounded this also for one, cWhether it be sufficient that a man confess his sins to God alone, or whether he must confess to a Priest; doth thereupon set down the diversity of mens opinions touching that matter, and saith, that unto some it seemed to suffice, if confession were made to God only without the judgement of the Priest or the confession of the Church. because David said; I said, I will confess unto the Lord: he saith not, Unto the Priest; and yet he showeth that his sin was forgiven him. For in these points, as the same author had before noted,d even the learned were found to hold diversly: because the Doctors seemed to deliver diverse and almost contrary judgement• therein.
were an idle imagination▪ seeing it is well knowne that Theodore died Archbishop of Canterbury in the yeare of ⟨p. 104⟩our Lord 690: and the Councell of Cauaillon was held in the yeare 813. that is, 123. yeares after the others death. The truth is; hee who made the additions to the Capitularia of Charles the great and Ludovicus Pius, (gathered by Ansegisus and Benedict) translated this Canon out of that Councell into his bCollection: which Bellarmine, as it seemeth, having someway heard of, knew not to distinguish between those Capitularia, and Theodors Penitentiall. being herein as negligent, as in his allegation of the fourth book of the Sentences: where the Master doth not bring in this sentence at all, but having among other questions propounded this also for one, cWhether it be sufficient that a man confesse his sinnes to God alone, or whether hee must confesse to a Priest; doth thereupon set down the diversitie of mens opinions touching that matter, and saith, that unto some it seemed to suffice, if confession vvere made to God onely without the judgement of the Priest or the confession of the Church. because David said; I said, I will confesse unto the Lord: he saith not, Vnto the Priest; and yet he sheweth that his sinne was forgiven him. For in these points, as the same author had before noted,d even the learned were found to hold diversly: because the Doctors seemed to deliver diverse and almost contrarie judgement• therein.
cUtrum sufficiat peccata confiteri soli Deo, an op•rteat confiteri Sacerdoti Quibusdam visum est sufficere, si soli Deo fiat confessio sine judicio Sacerdotali & confessione ecclesiae. quia David dixit; Dixi Confitebor Domino, &c. non ait, Sacerdoti: & tamen remissum sibi peccatum dicit. Petr. Lombard. lib. 4. Senten• dist. 17.Vtrum sufficiat peccata confiteri soli Deo, an op•rteat confiteri Sacerdoti Quibusdam visum est sufficere, si soli Deo fiat confessio sine judicio Sacerdotali & confessione ecclesiae. quia David dixit; Dixi Confitebor Domino, &c. non ait, Sacerdoti: & tamen remissum sibi peccatum dicit. Petr. Lombard. lib. 4. Senten• dist. 17.
dIn his enim etiam docti diversa s•ntire inveniuntur: quia super his varia ac pené adversa tradidisse videntur doctores. Ibid.
The diverse sentences of the Doctors touching this question, whether external confession were necessary or not, are at large laid down by Gratian: who in the end, leaveth the matter in suspense, and concludeth in this manner. eUpon what authorities, or upon what ⟨p. 105⟩strength of reasons both these opinions are grounded, I have briefly laid open. But to whether of them we should rather cleave to, is reserved to the judgement of the reader. For both of them have for their favourers both wise and religious men. And so the matter rested undetermined 1150. years after Christ: howsoever the Roman Correctors of Gratian do tell us, that now the case is altered, and that fit is most certain, and must be held for most certain, that the sacramental confession of mortal sins is necessary, used in that manner, and at such time, as in the Council of Trent after other Councils it is appointed. But the first Council, wherein we find any thing determined touching this necessity, is that of Lateran under Innocent the III. wherein we heard that Transubstantiation was established▪ for there it was ordayned, that gOmnis utriusque sexus sidelis, every faithful one of either sex, being come to years of discretion, should by himself alone, once in the year at least, faithfully confess his sins unto his own Priest; and endeavour according to his strength to fulfil the penance enjoined unto him, receiving reverently at least at Easter the sacrament of the Eucharist: otherwise, that both being alive he should be kept from entering into the Church, and being dead should want Christian burial. Since which determination, Thomas Aquinas (in his exposition of the text of the fourth book of the Sentences, distinct. 17.) holdeth hthe denial of the necessity of Confession unto salvation to be heresy: which before that time (saith Bonaventure, in his disputations upon the same fourth book) was not heretical, forasmuch as many ⟨p. 106⟩Catholic Doctors did hold contrary opinions therein, as appeareth by Gratian.
The diverse sentences of the Doctors touching this question, whether externall confession were necessarie or not, are at large layd downe by Gratian: who in the end, leaveth the matter in suspense, and concludeth in this maner. eVpon what authorities, or upon what ⟨p. 105⟩strength of reasons both these opinions are grounded, I have briefly layd open. But to whether of them wee should rather cleave to, is reserved to the judgement of the reader. For both of them have for their favourers both wise and religious men. And so the matter rested undetermined 1150. yeares after Christ: howsoever the Romane Correctors of Gratian doe tell us, that now the case is altered, and that fit is most certaine, and must be held for most certaine, that the sacramentall confession of mortall sinnes is necessary, used in that maner, and at such time, as in the Councell of Trent after other Councels it is appointed. But the first Councell, wherein we finde any thing determined touching this necessitie, is that of Lateran under Innocent the III. wherein wee heard that Transsubstantiation was established▪ for there it was ordayned, that gOmnis utriusque sexus sidelis, every faithfull one of eyther sex, being come to yeares of discretion, should by himselfe alone, once in the yeare at least, faithfully confesse his sinnes unto his owne Priest; and indevour according to his strength to fulfill the penance injoyned unto him, receiving reverently at least at Easter the sacrament of the Eucharist: otherwise, that both being alive hee should be kept from entring into the Church, and being dead should want Christian buriall. Since which determination, Thomas Aquinas (in his exposition of the text of the fourth booke of the Sentences, distinct. 17.) holdeth hthe deniall of the necessitie of Confession unto salvation to be heresie: which before that time (saith Bonaventure, in his disputations upon the same fourth booke) was not hereticall, forasmuch as manie ⟨p. 106⟩Catholick Doctors did hold contrarie opinions therein, as appeareth by Gratian.
eQuibus auctoritatibus, vel quibus rationū firmamentis utraque sententia innitatur, in medium breviter exposuimus. Cui autem harum potiùs adhaerendum sit, lectoris judicio reservatur. Utraque enim fautores habet sapientes, & religiosos viros, De P••ie. dist. 1. cap. 29▪ Quamvis.Quibus auctoritatibus, vel quibus rationū firmamentis utraque sententia innitatur, in medium breviter exposuimus. Cui autem harum potiùs adhaerendum sit, lectoris judicio reservatur. Vtraque enim fautores habet sapientes, & religiosos viros, De P••ie. dist. 1. cap. 29▪ Quamvis.
fCertissimum est. & pro certissimo habendum peccati mortalis necessariam esse cō fessionem sacramentalem eo modo, ac ten pore adhibitā, quo in Concilio Tridentino post alia Concilia est constitutum. Rom. Correct. ibid.Certissimum est. & pro certissimo habendum peccati mortalis necessariam esse cō fessionem sacramentalem eo modo, ac tē pore adhibitā, quo in Concilio Tridentino post alia Concilia est constitutum. Rom. C•rrect. ibid.
gOmnis utriusque sexus fidelis, postquàm ad annos discretionis pervenerit, omnia sua solus peccata confiteatur fideliter saltem semel in anno proprio sacerdoti; & injunctam sibi poenitentiam studeat pro viribus adimplere, suscipiens reverenter ad minùs in Pascha Eucharistiae sacramentum: &c. alioquin & vivens ab ingressu Ecclesiae arceatur, & moriens Christianâ careat sepulturâ. Concil. Lateran. cap 21.
hMagister & Gratianus hoc pro opinione ponunt Sed nunc post determinationem Ecclesiae sub Inn. 111. factam, haeresis reputanda est. Thom.
But Medina will not admit by any means, ithat it should be accounted strictly heresy: but would have it said, that it savours of heresy. and for this decree of Confession to be made once in the year, he saith kthat it doth not declare nor interpret any divine right of the thing, but rather appointeth the time of confessing. Durand thinketh that it may be said, that this statute containeth lan holy and wholesome exhortation of making confession, and then adjoineth a precept of the receiving of the Eucharist backed with a penalty: or if both of them be precepts, that mthe penalty respecteth only the precept of communicating (of the transgression whereof knowledge may be taken) and not the precept of confession, of the transgression whereof the Church can take no certain notice, and therefore can appoint no certain penalty for it. But howsoever; this we are sure of, that the Canonists afterward held no absolute necessity of obedience to be required therein, as unto a Sacramental institution ordained by Christ for obtaining remission of sins; but a Canonical obedience only, as unto an useful constitution of the Church. And therefore where Gratian in his first distinction de Poenitentiâ, had in the 34. chapter and the three next following, propounded the allegations which made for them who held, nthat men might obtain pardon for their sins without any oral confession of them; and then proceeded to the authorities which might ⟨p. 107⟩seem to make for the contrary opinion: Johannes Semeca at the beginning of that part, upon those words of Gratian, Alij é contrario tes•antur, putteth too this Gloss. oFrom this place until the section His auctoritatib. he allegeth for the other part, that sin is not forgiven unto such as are of years, without confession of the mouth which yet is false: saith he. But this free dealing of his did so displease Friar Manrique, who by the command of Pius Quintus, set out a censure upon the Glosses of the Canon law; that he gave direction these words, which yet is false, should be clean blotted out. which direction of his notwithstanding, the Roman Correctors under Gregory the XIII. did not follow: but letting the words still stand, give them a check only with this marginal annotation. pNay it is most true, that without confession, in desire at least, the sin is not forgiven.
But Medina will not admit by anie meanes, ithat it should be accounted strictly heresie: but would have it said, that it savours of heresie. and for this decree of Confession to be made once in the yeare, hee saith kthat it doth not declare nor interpret any divine right of the thing, but rather appointeth the time of confessing. Durand thinketh that it may be said, that this statute contayneth lan holy and wholsome exhortation of making confession, and then adjoyneth a precept of the receiving of the Eucharist backed with a penaltie: or if both of them be precepts, that mthe penaltie respecteth onely the precept of communicating (of the transgression whereof knowledge may be taken) and not the precept of confession, of the transgression whereof the Church can take no certaine notice, and therefore can appoint no certaine penaltie for it. But howsoever; this wee are sure of, that the Canonists afterward held no absolute necessitie of obedience to be required therein, as unto a Sacramentall institution ordayned by Christ for obtayning remission of sinnes; but a Canonicall obedience onely, as unto an usefull constitution of the Church. And therefore where Gratian in his first distinction de Poenitentiâ, had in the 34. chapter and the three next following, propounded the allegations which made for them who held, nthat men might obtaine pardon for their sinnes without anie orall confession of them; and then proceeded to the authorities which might ⟨p. 107⟩seeme to make for the contrarie opinion: Iohannes Semeca at the beginning of that part, upon those words of Gratian, Alij é contrario tes•antur, putteth too this Glosse. oFrom this place untill the section His auctoritatib. he alledgeth for the other part, that sinne is not forgiven unto such as are of yeares, without confession of the mouth which yet is false: saith he. But this free dealing of his did so displease Friar Manrique, who by the command of Pius Quintus, set out a censure upon the Glosses of the Canon law; that hee gave direction these words, which yet is false, should be cleane blotted out. which direction of his notwithstanding, the Romane Correctors under Gregory the XIII. did not follow: but letting the words still stand, give them a check only with this marginall annotation.
iIdeò dicendum, quòd praesata assertio non est stricté haeresis, sed sapit haeresim. Jo. Medina. tractat. 2. de Confessione, quaest. 4.Ideò dicendum, quòd praesata assertio non est stricté haeresis, sed sapit haeresim. Io. Medina. tractat. 2. de Confessione, quaest. 4.
kNam illud, quod illic dicitur de confessione semel in anno, non procedit declarando, nec divinū jus interpretā do, sed potiùs tempus confitendi instituendo. Id. ibid. quaest· 2.Nam illud, quod illic dicitur de confessione semel in anno, non procedit declarando, nec divinū jus interpretā do, sed potiùs tempus confitendi instituendo. Id. ibid. quaest· 2.
lIn quo praemittitur exhortatio sancta & salubris de cō fessione faciendâ, & subjungitur praeceptū de perceptione Eucharistiae vallatum poenâ. Durand. in lib. 4. Sentent. distinct. 17. quaest. 14.In quo praemittitur exhortatio sancta & salubris de cō fessione faciendâ, & subjungitur praeceptū de perceptione Eucharistiae vallatum poenâ. Durand. in lib. 4. Sentent. distinct. 17. quaest. 14.
mEt ob hoc posset rationabiliter videri alicui, quòd praedicta poena illius statuti respicit solum praeceptum de communione de cujus transgressione constare potest, & non praeceptum de confessione. Id. ibid.
nUnde datur intelligi, quòd etiam ore tacente, veniam consequi possumus. De Poenit. dist. 1. cap. 34. Convertimini. Vid. initium eiusd. distinct. & Glossam. ibid. verb. Sunt enim.Vnde datur intelligi, quòd etiam ore tacente, veniam consequi possumus. De Poenit. dist. 1. cap. 34. Convertimini. Vid. initium eiusd. distinct. & Glossam. ibid. verb. Sunt enim.
oAb hoc loco usque ad sect. His auctoritatib. pro aliâ part allegat, quòd scilicèt adulto peccati• non dimittitur sine oris confessione. quod tamen falsum est G•oss.Ab hoc loco usque ad sect. His auctoritatib. pro aliâ parte allegat, quòd scilicèt adulto peccati• non dimittitur sine oris confessione. quod tamen falsum est G•oss.
In like manner, where the same Semeca holdeth it to be the better opinion, that Confession was qordained by a certain tradition of the universal Church, rather then by the authority of the new or old Testament, and inferreth thereupon, that it is rnecessary among the Latins, but not among the Greeks, because that tradition did not spread to them: Friar Manrique commandeth all that passage to be blotted out, but the Roman Correctors clap this note upon the margin for an antidote. sNay confession was ordained by our Lord, and by Gods Law is necessary to all that fall into mortal sin after Baptism, as well Greeks as Latins. and for this they quote only the 14. Session of the Council of Trent: ⟨p. 108⟩where that opinion is accursed in us, which was held two or three hundred years ago by the men of their own religion. among whom, tMichael of Bononia (who was Prior general of the order of the Carmelites in the days of Pope Urban the sixth) doth conclude strongly out of their own received grounds; that confession is not necessary for the obtaining of the pardon of our sin: and Panormitan the great Canonist, uprofesseth that the opinion of Semeca doth much please him, which referreth the original of Confession to a general tradition of the Church: because (saith he) there is not any clear authority, which showeth that God or Christ did clearly ordain that Confession should be made unto a Priest. Yea, xall the Canonists, following their first Interpreter, say that Confession was brought in only by the law of the Church, and not by any divine precept: if we will believe Maldonat. who addeth notwithstanding, that ythis opinion is either already sufficiently declared by the Church to be heresy, or that the Church should do well if it did declare it to be heresy.
In like maner, where the same Semeca holdeth it to be the better opinion, that Confession was qordayned by a certaine tradition of the universall Church, rather then by the authoritie of the new or old Testament, and inferreth thereupon, that it is rnecessarie among the Latins, but not among the Greekes, because that tradition did not spread to them: Friar Manrique commandeth all that passage to be blotted out, but the Romane Correctors clap this note upon the margent for an antidote. sNay confession was ordayned by our Lord, and by Gods Law is necessary to all that fall into mortall sinne after Baptisme, as well Greekes as Latins. and for this they quote onely the 14. Session of the Councell of Trent: ⟨p. 108⟩where that opinion is accursed in us, which was held two or three hundred yeares ago by the men of their owne religion. among whom, tMichael of Bononia (who was Prior general of the order of the Carmelites in the dayes of Pope Vrban the sixth) doth conclude strongly out of their owne received grounds; that confession is not necessary for the obtayning of the pardon of our sinne: and Panormitan the great Canonist, uprofesseth that the opinion of Semeca doth much please him, which referreth the originall of Confession to a generall tradition of the Church: because (saith he) there is not anie cleare authority, which sheweth that God or Christ did clearely ordayne that Confession should be made unto a Priest. Yea, xall the Canonists, following their first Interpreter, say that Confession was brought in onely by the law of the Church, and not by anie divine precept: if we will beleeve Maldonat. who addeth notwithstanding, that ythis opinion is eyther alreadie sufficiently declared by the Church to be heresie, or that the Church should doe well if it did declare it to be heresie.
qMeliùs dicitur ea• institutam fuisse à quadam universalis Ecclesiae tradition, potiùs quàm ex novi v•l veteris Testamē ti auctoritate, Gloss. de Poenitent. init. distinct. 5. In poenitentia.Meliùs dicitur ea• institutam fuisse à quadam universalis Ecclesiae traditione, potiùs quàm ex novi v•l veteris Testamē ti auctoritate, Gloss. de Poenitēt. init. distinct. 5. In poenitentia.
rErgo necessaria est confessio in mortalibus apud nos, apud Graecos non: quia non emanavit apud illos traditio talis Ibid.
sImò confessio est instituta à Domino, & est omnibus post Baptismum lapsis in mortale peccatū, tam Graecis quàm Latinis, jure divino necessaria. Rom. Correct. ibid. in marg.Imò confessio est instituta à Domino, & est omnibus post Baptismum lapsis in mortale peccatū, tam Graecis quàm Latinis, jure divino necessaria. Rom. Correct. ibid. in marg.
uMultùm mihi placet illa opinio: quia nō est aliqua authoritas aperta, quae innuat Deū seu Christum aperté instituisse confessionem fiendā Sacerdoti. Panorm. in 5. Decretal. de Poenit. & remiss. cap. 12. Omnis utriusque. sect. 18.Multùm mihi placet illa opinio: quia nō est aliqua authoritas aperta, quae innuat Deū seu Christum aperté instituisse confessionem fiendā Sacerdoti. Panorm. in 5. Decretal. de Poenit. & remiss. cap. 12. Omnis utriusque. sect. 18.
xOmnes juris Pontificii periti, secuti primū suum Interpretem, dicunt Confessionem tantùm esse introductam jure Ecclesiastico. Maldonat. Disp. de Sacrament. Tom. 2. de Confess. orig. cap. 2.Omnes juris Pontificii periti, secuti primū suum Interpretem, dicunt Confessionem tantùm esse introductam jure Ecclesiastico. Maldonat. Disp. de Sacrament. Tom. 2. de Confess. orig. cap. 2.
ySed tamen haec opinio, aut jam declarata est satis tanquā haeresis ab Ecclesiâ; aut faceret Ecclesia operae pretium, si declararet esse haeresim. Id. ibid. de praecepto Confess. cap 3.
And we find indeed, that in the year of our Lord 1479. (which was 34. years after the death of Panormitan) by a special commission directed from Pope Sixtus the fourth unto Alfonsus Carillus Archbishop of Toledo, one Petrus Oxomensis, professor of Divinity in the University of Salamanca, was driven to abjure zthis conclusion, which he had before delivered as agreeable to the common opinion of the Doctors; that confession of sins in particular was grounded upon some statute of the universal Church, and not upon ⟨p. 109⟩divine right. and when learned men for all this would not take warning, but would needs be meddling again with that which the Popish Clergy could not endure should be touched, (as Johannes de Selva, among others, in the end of his treatise de Jurejurando; Erasmus in diverse of his works, and Beatus Rhenanus in his argument upon Tertullians book de Poenitentiâ:) the fathers of Trent within 72. years after that, conspired together to stop all mens mouths with *an anathema, that should deny sacramental confession to be of divine institution or to be necessary unto salvation. And so we are come to an end of that point.
And we finde indeed, that in the yeare of our Lord 1479. (which was 34. yeares after the death of Panormitan) by a speciall commission directed from Pope Sixtus the fourth unto Alfonsus Carillus Archbishop of Toledo, one Petrus Oxomensis, professor of Divinitie in the Vniversitie of Salamanca, was driven to abjure zthis conclusion, which hee had before delivered as agreeable to the common opinion of the Doctors; that confession of sinnes in particular vvas grounded upon some statute of the universall Church, and not upon ⟨p. 109⟩divine right. and when learned men for all this would not take warning, but would needs be medling againe with that which the Popish Clergie could not indure should be touched, (as Iohannes de Selva, among others, in the end of his treatise de Iurejurando; Erasmus in diverse of his workes, and Beatus Rhenanus in his argument upon Tertullians booke de Poenitentiâ:) the fathers of Trent within 72. yeares after that, conspired together to stop all mens mouthes with *an anathema, that should denie sacramentall confession to be of divine institution or to be necessarie unto salvation. And so we are come to an end of that point.
zQuòd confessio de peccatis in specie suerit ex aliquo statuto universalis Ecclesiae, non de jure divino. Congregat. Complutens. sub Alfonso Carillo: apud Ca•ranzam in Summâ Concil. sub Sixto IV.
From Confession we are now to proceed unto Absolution: which it were pity this man should receive, before he made confession of the open wrong he hath here done, in charging us to deny that Priests have power to forgive sins. whereas the very formal words, which our Church requireth to be used in the ordination of a Minister, are these: aWhose sins thou doest forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou doest retain, they are retained. And therefore if this be all the matter, the Fathers and we shall agree well enough: howsoever this make-bate would fain put friends together by the ears, where there is no occasion at all of quarrel. For we acknowledge most willingly, that the principal part of the Priests ministry is exercised in the matter of forgiveness of sins: the question only is of the manner how this part of their function is executed by them, and of the bounds and limits thereof, ⟨p. 110⟩which the Pope and his Clergy for their own advantage have enlarged beyond all measure of truth and reason.
FRom Confession we are now to proceed unto Absolution: which it were pitie this man should receive, before he made confession of the open wrong he hath here done, in charging us to denie that Priests have power to forgive sinnes. whereas the verie formall words, which our Church requireth to be used in the ordination of a Minister, are these: aWhose sinnes thou doest forgive, they are forgiven; and vvhose sinnes thou doest retaine, they are retained. And therefore if this be all the matter, the Fathers and we shal agree well enough: howsoever this make-bate would faine put friends together by the eares, where there is no occasion at all of quarrell. For wee acknowledge most willingly, that the principall part of the Priests ministerie is exercised in the matter of forgivenesse of sinnes: the question only is of the maner how this part of their function is executed by them, and of the bounds and limits thereof, ⟨p. 110⟩which the Pope and his Clergie for their owne advantage have inlarged beyond all measure of truth and reason.
aThe form of ordering of Priests.The forme of ordering of Priests.
That we may therefore give unto the Priest the things that are the Priests, and to God the things that are Gods; & not communicate unto any creature the power that properly belongeth to the Creator, who bwill not give his glory unto another: we must in the first place lay this down for a sure ground, that to forgive sins properly, directly, and absolutely, is a privilege only appertaining unto the most High. I, saith he of himself, even I am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins. (Isaiah. 43.25.) Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity? saith the Prophet, Micah 7.18. which in effect is the same with that of the Scribes: (Mark. 2.7. and Luk. 5.21.) Who can forgive sins, but God alone? And therefore when David saith unto God; Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin: (Psalm. 32.5.) Gregory surnamed the great (the first Bishop of Rome of that name) thought this to be a sound paraphrase of his words. cThou, who alone sparest, who alone forgivest sins. For who can forgive sins but God alone? He did not imagine that he had committed any great error in subscribing thus simply unto that sentence of the Scribes: and little dreamed that any petty Doctors afterwards would arise in Rome or Rhemes, who would tell us a fair tale; that dthe faithless Jews thought, as Heretics now adays, that to forgive sins was so proper to God, that it could not be communicated unto man; and that etrue believers refer this to the increase of Gods honour, which miscreant Jews and Heretics do account blasphemy against God, and injurious to his Majesty. whereas ⟨p. 111⟩in truth the faithlessness of the Jews consisted in the application of this sentence unto our Saviour Christ, whom they did not acknowledge to be God; as the senselessness of these Romanists, in denying of the axiom it self.
That wee may therefore give unto the Priest the things that are the Priests, and to God the things that are Gods; & not cōmunicate unto any creature the power that properly belongeth to the Creator, who bwill not give his glory unto another: we must in the first place lay this downe for a sure ground, that to forgive sinnes properly, directly, and absolutely, is a priviledge onely appertayning unto the most High. I, saith he of himselfe, even I am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine owne sake, and will not remember thy sinnes. (Esai. 43.25.) Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquitie? saith the Prophet, Micah 7.18. which in effect is the same with that of the Scribes: (Mark. 2.7. and Luk. 5.21.) Who can forgive sinnes, but God alone? And therefore when David saith unto God; Thou forgavest the iniquitie of my sinne: (Psalm. 32.5.) Gregory surnamed the great (the first Bishop of Rome of that name) thought this to be a sound paraphrase of his words. cThou, vvho alone sparest, who alone forgivest sinnes. For who can forgive sinnes but God alone? Hee did not imagine that he had committed anie great error in subscribing thus simply unto that sentence of the Scribes: and little dreamed that anie petie Doctors afterwards would arise in Rome or Rhemes, who would tell us a faire tale; that dthe faithlesse Iewes thought, as Hereticks now adayes, that to forgive sinnes was so proper to God, that it could not be communicated unto man; and that etrue beleevers referre this to the increase of Gods honour, which miscreant Iewes and Hereticks doe accompt blasphemie against God, and injurious to his Majestie. whereas ⟨p. 111⟩in truth the faithlesnesse of the Iewes consisted in the application of this sentence unto our Saviour Christ, whom they did not acknowledge to be God; as the senslesness of these Romanists, in denying of the axiom it selfe.
cTu qui solus parcis, qui solus peccata dimittis. Quis enim potest peccata dimittere, nisi solus Deus? Gregor. exposit. 2. Psalmi Penitential.Tu qui solus parcis, qui solus peccata dimittis. Quis enim potest peccata dimittere, nisi solus Deus? Gregor. exposit. 2. Psalmi Poenittential.
eRich. Hopkins, in the Memorial of a Christ. life, pag. 179. edis, an. 1612.Rich. Hopkins, in the Memoriall of a Christ. life, pag. 179. edis, ann. 1612.
But the world is come unto a good pass, when we must be accounted heretics now adays, and consorted with miscreant Jews, for holding the self same thing that the Fathers of the ancient Church delivered as a most certain truth, whensoever they had any occasion to treat of this part of the history of the Gospel. Old Irenaeus telleth us, that our Saviour in this place fforgiving sins, did both cure the man, and manifestly discover who he was. For if none (saith he) can forgive sins but God alone, and our Lord did forgive them, and cured men; it is manifest, that he was the Word of God, made the Son of man: and that as man he is touched with compassion of us, as God he hath mercy on us, and forgiveth us our debts which we do owe unto God our maker. Tertullian saith, that gwhen the Jews beholding only his humanity, and not being yet certain of his Deity, did deservedly reason, that a man could not forgive sins, but God alone: he by answering of them, that the Son of man had authority to forgive sins, would by this remission of sins have them call to mind that he was hthat only son of man, prophesied of in Daniel, who received power of judging, and thereby also of forgiving sins. (Dan. 7.13, 14.) S. Hilary commenting upon the ⟨p. 112⟩ninth of Matthew, writeth thus. iIt moveth the Scribes, that sin should be forgiven by a man. For they beheld a man only in Jesus Christ; and that to be forgiven by him, which the law could not release. For it is faith only that justifieth. Afterward the Lord looketh into their murmuring, and saith that it is an easy thing for the Son of man upon earth to forgive sins. For it is true, none can forgive sins but God alone: therefore he who remitteth is God, because none remitteth but God. God remaining in man, performed this cure upon man. S. Hierom thus: kWe read that God saith in the Prophet; I am he that blotteth out thine iniquities. Consequently therefore the Scribes, because they thought him to be a man, and did not understand the words of God, accuse him of blasphemy. But the Lord seeing their thoughts, showeth himself to be God, who is able to know the secrets of the heart: and holding his peace after a sort speaketh; By the same majesty and power, wherewith I behold your thoughts, I am able also to forgive sins unto men.
But the world is come unto a good passe, when we must be accounted hereticks now adayes, and consorted with miscreant Iewes, for holding the selfe same thing that the Fathers of the ancient Church delivered as a most certain truth, whensoever they had anie occasion to treate of this part of the historie of the Gospel. Old Irenaeus telleth us, that our Saviour in this place fforgiving sinnes, did both cure the man, and manifestly discover who he was. For if none (saith hee) can forgive sinnes but God alone, and our Lord did forgive them, and cured men; it is manifest, that he was the Word of God, made the Sonne of man: and that as man hee is touched with compassion of us, as God he hath mercy on us, and forgiveth us our debts which we doe owe unto God our maker. Tertullian saith, that gwhen the Iewes beholding onely his humanitie, and not being yet certaine of his Deitie, did deservedly reason, that a man could not forgive sinnes, but God alone: he by answering of them, that the Sonne of man had authoritie to forgive sinnes, would by this remission of sinnes have them call to minde that he was hthat onely sonne of man, prophesied of in Daniel, who received power of judging, and thereby also of forgiving sinnes. (Dan. 7.13, 14.) S. Hilary commenting upon the ⟨p. 112⟩ninth of Matthew, writeth thus. iIt moveth the Scribes, that sinne should be forgiven by a man. For they beheld a man onely in Iesus Christ; and that to be forgiven by him, which the law could not release. For it is faith onely that justifieth. Afterward the Lord looketh into their murmuring, and saith that it is an easie thing for the Sonne of man upon earth to forgive sinnes. For it is true, none can forgive sinnes but God alone: therefore hee who remitteth is God, because none remitteth but God. God remayning in man, performed this cure upon man. S. Hierom thus: kWe reade that God saith in the Prophet; I am he that blotteth out thine iniquities. Consequently therefore the Scribes, because they thought him to be a man, and did not understand the words of God, accuse him of blasphemy. But the Lord seeing their thoughts, sheweth himselfe to be God, who is able to know the secrets of the heart: and holding his peace after a sort speaketh; By the same majestie and power, vvherewith I behold your thoughts, I am able also to forgive sinnes unto men.
fPeccata igitur remittens, hominem quidem curavit, semetipsum autem manifesté ostendit quis esset. Si enim nemo potest remittere peccata, nisi solus Deus; remittebat autē haec Dominus, & curabat homines: manifestum est, quoniam ipse erat Verbum Dei, Filius hominis factus, &c., & quomodo homo compassus est nobis, tanquam Deus misereatur nostri, & remittat nobis debita nostra, quae factori nostro debemus Deo. Irenaeus advers. haeres. lib. 5. cap. 17.Peccata igitur remittens, hominem quidem curavit, semetipsum autem manifesté ostendit quis esset. Si enim nemo potest remittere peccata, nisi solus Deus; remittebat autē haec Dominus, & curabat homines: manifestum est, quoniam ipse erat Verbum Dei, Filius hominis factus, &c., & quomodo homo compassus est nobis, tanquam Deus misereatur nostri, & remittat nobis debita nostra, quae factori nostro debemus Deo. Irenaeus advers. haeres. lib. 5. cap. 17.
gNam cùm Judaei solummodò hominem eius intuentes, needum & Deum certi, quâ Dei quoque filium, meritò retractarent, non posse hominem delicta dimittere, sed Deum solum, &c. Tertullian. lib 4, advers. Marcion. cap. 10.Nam cùm Iudaei solummodò hominem eius intuentes, needum & Deum certi, quâ Dei quoque filium, meritò retractarent, non posse hominem delicta dimittere, sed Deum solum, &c. Tertullian. lib 4, advers. Marcion. cap. 10.
hIllum scilicèt solum filium hominis apud Danielis Prophetiam, consecutum judicandi potestatem, ac per eam utíque & dimittendi delicta. Id. ibid.Illum scilicèt solum filium hominis apud Danielis Prophetiam, consecutum iudicandi potestatem, ac per eam utíque & dimittendi delicta. Id. ibid.
iMovet Scribas remissum ab homine peccatum Hominem enim tantùm in Jesu Christo contuebantur; & remissum ab eo, quod l•x laxare non poterat Fides enim sola justificat. Deinde mu•murationē eorum Dominus introspicit, dicitque facile esse filio hominis in terraâ peccata dimittere. Verum enim, nemo potest dimittere peccata, nisi solus Deus: ergo qui remittit Deus est, quia nemo remittit nisi Deus. Deus in homine manens curationem homini praestabat. Hilar. in Matth. Canon. 8.Movet Scribas remissum ab homine peccatum Hominem enim tantùm in Iesu Christo contuebantur; & remissum ab eo, quod l•x laxare non poterat Fides enim sola justificat. Deinde mu•murationē eorum Dominus introspicit, dicitque facile esse filio hominis in terraâ peccata dimittere. Verum enim, nemo potest dimittere peccata, nisi solus Deus: ergo qui remittit Deus est, quia nemo remittit nisi Deus. Deus in homine manens curationem homini praestabat. Hilar. in Matth. Canon. 8.
or, as Euthymius expresseth it in his commentaries upon the same place: lIn truth, none can forgive sins but one, who beholdeth the thoughts of men. S. Chrysostom likewise in his Sermons upon the same, showeth that Christ here declared himself to be God equal unto the Father: and that mif he had not been equal unto the Father, he would have said; Why do you attribute unto me an unfitting opinion? ⟨p. 113⟩I am far from that power. To the same effect also writeth Christianus Druthmarus, Paschasius Ratbertus, and Walafridus Strabus in the ordinary Gloss upon the same place of S. Matthew. Victor Antiochenus upon the second of Mark; Theophylact and Bede upon the second of Mark, and the fifth of Luke: S. Ambrose upon the fifth of Luke. who in another place also bringeth this sentence of the Scribes, as a ground to prove the deity of the holy Ghost withal: forasmuch as nnone forgiveth sins but one God; because it is written, Who can forgive sins but God alone? as S. Cyril doth to prove the deity of the Sonne. oFor this only, saith he, did the malice of the Jews say truly, that none can forgive sins, but God alone, who is the Lord of the law ▪ and thence he frameth this argument. pIf he alone who is the Lord of all doth free us from our sins, and this agreeeth to no other, and Christ bestoweth this with a power befitting God; how should he not be God?
or, as Euthymius expresseth it in his commentaries upon the same place: lIn truth, none can forgive sinnes but one, who beholdeth the thoughts of men. S. Chrysostome likewise in his Sermons upon the same, sheweth that Christ here declared himselfe to be God equall unto the Father: and that mif he had not beene equall unto the Father, he would have said; Why doe you attribute unto me an unfitting opinion? ⟨p. 113⟩I am farre from that power. To the same effect also writeth Christianus Druthmarus, Paschasius Ratbertus, and Walafridus Strabus in the ordinarie Glosse upon the same place of S. Matthew. Victor Antiochenus upon the second of Mark; Theophylact and Bede upon the second of Mark, and the fifth of Luke: S. Ambrose upon the fifth of Luke. who in another place also bringeth this sentence of the Scribes, as a ground to prove the deitie of the holy Ghost withall: forasmuch as nnone forgiveth sinnes but one God; because it is written, Who can forgive sins but God alone? as S. Cyril doth to prove the deitie of the Sonne. oFor this onely, saith he, did the malice of the Iewes say truely, that none can forgive sinnes, but God alone, who is the Lord of the law ▪ and thence he frameth this argument. pIf he alone who is the Lord of all doth free us from our sins, and this agreeeth to no other, and Christ bestoweth this with a power befitting God; how should he not be God?
lVeré nullus potest remittere peccata, nisi unus, qui intuetur cogitationes hominum. Euthym. cap. 13. in Matth.
m[Greek or Hebrew].Chrysost. in Matth. 9. hom 20. Graec. 30. Latin.〈non-Latin alphabet〉.Chrysost. in Matth. 9. hom 20. Graec. 30. Latin.
nPeccata nemo condonat, nisi unus Deus: quia aequé scriptum est; Quis potest peccata donare nisi solus Deus? Ambros. de Spir. sanct. lib. 3. cap. 19.
oIstud enim solum malicia Judaeorum veré di ebat, quòd nullus potest dimittere peccata, nisi solus Deus, qui legis Dominus est Cyrill. Alexandr. Thesaur. lib. 12. cap. 4.Istud enim solum malicia Iudaeorum veré di ebat, quòd nullus potest dimittere peccata, nisi solus Deus, qui legis Dominus est Cyrill. Alexandr. Thesaur. lib. 12. cap. 4.
p[Greek or Hebrew]; Id. in lib. de rectâ fide ad Reginas.〈non-Latin alphabet〉; Id. in lib. de rectâ fide ad Reginas.
The same argument also is used by Novatianus and Athanasius to the self same purpose. qFor if, when it agreeth unto none but unto God to know the secrets of the heart, Christ doth behold the secrets of the heart; if, when it agreeth unto none but unto God to forgive sins, the same Christ doth forgive sins: then deservedly is Christ to be accounted God, saith Novatianus. So Athanasius demandeth of the Arians: rif the Son were a creature, how was he able to forgive sins? it being written in the Prophets, that this is the work of God. ⟨p. 114⟩For who is a God like unto thee, that taketh away sins and passeth over iniquities? sBut the son (saith he) said unto whom he would; Thy sins are forgiven thee: when the Jews murmuring also he demonstrated this forgiveness in deed, saying to the man that was sick of the palsy; Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. And therefore Bede rightly inferreth, that tthe Arians do err here much more madly then the Jews: who when they dare not deny, being convicted by the words of the Gospel, that Jesus is both the Christ and hath power to forgive sins; yet fear not for all that to deny him to be God. and concludeth himself most soundly: that uif he be God according to the Psalmist, who removeth our iniquities from us as far as the East is from the West, and the son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins; therefore the same is both God and the son of man, that the man Christ by the power of his divinity might forgive sins, and the same Christ God by the frailty of his humanity might dye for sinners. Whereunto we will add another sweet passage of his (borrowed from some ancienter author:) xNo man taketh away sins (which the Law, although holy and just and good, could not take away) but he in whom there is no sin. Now he taketh them away, both by pardoning those that are done, and by assisting us that they may not be done, & by bringing us to the life where they cannot at all be done.
The same argument also is used by Novatianus and Athanasius to the selfe same purpose. qFor if, when it agreeth unto none but unto God to know the secrets of the heart, Christ doth behold the secrets of the heart; if, when it agreeth unto none but unto God to forgive sinnes, the same Christ doth forgive sinnes: then deservedly is Christ to be accounted God, saith Novatianus. So Athanasius demandeth of the Arrians: rif the Sonne were a creature, how was he able to forgive sinnes? it being written in the Prophets, that this is the work of God. ⟨p. 114⟩For who is a God like unto thee, that taketh away sinnes and passeth over iniquities? sBut the sonne (saith hee) said unto whom he would; Thy sinnes are forgiven thee: when the Iewes murmuring also he demonstrated this forgivenesse in deed, saying to the man that was sicke of the palsie; Arise, take up thy bedd, and goe unto thine house. And therefore Bede rightly inferreth, that tthe Arrians doe erre here much more madly then the Iewes: vvho when they dare not denie, being convicted by the words of the Gospell, that Iesus is both the Christ and hath power to forgive sinnes; yet feare not for all that to denie him to be God. and concludeth himselfe most soundly: that uif he be God according to the Psalmist, who removeth our iniquities from us as farr as the East is from the West, and the sonne of man hath power upon earth to forgive sinnes; therefore the same is both God and the sonne of man, that the man Christ by the power of his divinitie might forgive sinnes, and the same Christ God by the frailtie of his humanitie might dye for sinners. Whereunto wee will adde another sweete passage of his (borrowed from some ancienter author:) xNo man taketh away sinnes (which the Law, although holy and just and good, could not take away) but he in whom there is no sinne. Now hee taketh them away, both by pardoning those that are done, and by assisting us that they may not be done, & by bringing us to the life where they cannot at all be done.
qQuòd si cùm nullius sit nisi Dei, cordis nosse secreta, Christus secreta conspicit cordis: quòd si, cùm nullius sit nisi Dei, peccata dimittere, idem Christus peccata dimittit: &c. meritò Deus est Christus Novatian de Trinitat. cap. 13.
r[Greek or Hebrew]; Athanas. orat. 3. contra Arian. pag. 239. tom. 1. edit. Graecolat.〈non-Latin alphabet〉; Athanas. orat. 3. contra Arian. pag. 239. tom. 1. edit. Graecolat.
s[Greek or Hebrew]. Id. in epist. de Synodis Arimin. & Seleuc. pag. 712. Vid. etiam Orat. 4. contra Arian. pag. 254. & 281.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Id. in epist. de Synodis Arimin. & Seleuc. pag. 712. Vid. etiam Orat. 4. contra Arrian. pag. 254. & 281.
tSed multo dementiùs errant Arriani, qui cùm Jesum & Christum esse, & peccata posse dimittere, Evangelii verbis devicti negare non audeant; nihilominus Deum negare non timent. Bed. in Marc. lib. 1. cap. 10.Sed multo dementiùs errant Arriani, qui cùm Iesum & Christum esse, & peccata posse dimittere, Evangelii verbis devicti negare non audeant; nihilominus Deum negare non timent. Bed. in Marc. lib. 1. cap. 10.
uSi & Deus est juxta Psalmistam, qui quantum distat oriens ab occasu elongavit á nobis iniquitates nostras, & filius hominis potestatem habet in terrâ dimittendi peccata: ergo idem ipse & Deus, & filius hominis est; ut & homo Christus per divinitatis sure potentiam peccata dimittere possit, & idem Deus Christus per humanitatis suae fragilitatem pro peccatoribus mori. Id. ibid.Si & Deus est iuxta Psalmistam, qui quantum distat oriens ab occasu elongavit á nobis iniquitates nostras, & filius hominis potestatem habet in terrâ dimittendi peccata: ergo idem ipse & Deus, & filius hominis est; ut & homo Christus per divinitatis sure potentiam peccata dimittere possit, & idem Deus Christus per humanitatis suae fragilitatem pro peccatoribus mori. Id. ibid.
xNemo tollit peccata (quae nec Lex, quamvis sancta & justa & bona, potuit auferre) nisi ille in quo peccatum non est. Tollit autem, & dimittendo quae facta sunt, & adiuvando ne fiant, & perducendo ad vitam ubi fieri omnino non possint. Bed. in
yPeter Lombard allegeth this as the saying of S. Augustine: ⟨p. 115⟩the former sentence only being thus changed. zNone taketh away sins, but Christ alone, who is the Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world. agreeable to that, which in the same place he citeth out of S. Ambrose: aHe alone forgiveth sins, who alone dyed for our sins. and to that of Clemens Alexandrinus: bHe alone can remit sins, who is appointed our Master by the father of all, who alone is able to discern disobedience from obedience. to which purpose also, S. Ambrose maketh this observation upon the history of the woman taken in adultery, Joh. 8.9. that cJesus being about to pardon sin, remained alone. For it is not the ambassador (saith he) nor the messenger, but the Lord himself that hath saved his people. He remaineth alone, because it cannot be common to any man with Christ to forgive sins. This is the office of Christ alone, who taketh away the sin of the world. Yea S. Chrysostom himself, who of all the Fathers giveth most in this point unto Gods ambassadors and messengers, is yet careful withal to preserve Gods privilege entire, by often interposing such sentences as these. dNone can forgive sins, but God alone. eTo forgive sins, belongeth to no other. fTo forgive sins, is possible to God only. gGod alone doth this: which also he worketh in the washing of the new birth. Wherein, that the work of cleansing the soul is wholly Gods, and the minister hath no hand at all in effecting any part of it; Optatus proveth at large in his fifth book against the Donatists: showing that ⟨p. 116⟩hnone can wash the filth and sports of the mind, but he who is the framer of the same mind; and convincing the heretics, as by many other testimonies of holy Scriptur•, so by that of Isaiah. 1.18. which he presseth in this manner. iIt belongeth unto God to cleanse, and not unto man: he hath promised by the Prophet Isaiah that he himself would wash, when he saith; If your sins were as scarlet, I will make them as white as snow. I will make them white, he said: he did not say, I will cause them to be made white. If God hath promised this, why will you give that, which is neither lawful for you to promise, nor to give, nor to have? Behold in Isaiah God hath promised that he himself will make white such as are defiled with sins; not by man.
yPeter Lombard alledgeth this as the saying of S. Augustine: ⟨p. 115⟩the former sentence only being thus changed. zNone taketh away sinnes, but Christ alone, vvho is the Lamb that taketh away the sinnes of the world. agreeable to that, which in the same place he citeth out of S. Ambrose: aHe alone forgiveth sinnes, who alone dyed for our sinnes. and to that of Clemens Alexandrinus: bHe alone can remit sinnes, who is appointed our Master by the father of all, who alone is able to discerne disobedience from obedience. to which purpose also, S. Ambrose maketh this observation upon the historie of the woman taken in adulterie, Ioh. 8.9. that cIesus being about to pardon sin, remayned alone. For it is not the ambassador (saith hee) nor the messenger, but the Lord himselfe that hath saved his people. He remaineth alone, because it cannot be common to anie man with Christ to forgive sinnes. This is the office of Christ alone, who taketh away the sinne of the world. Yea S. Chrysostom himselfe, who of all the Fathers giveth most in this point unto Gods ambassadors and messengers, is yet carefull withall to preserve Gods priviledge entire, by often interposing such sentences as these. dNone can forgive sinnes, but God alone. eTo forgive sinnes, belongeth to no other. fTo forgive sinnes, is possible to God onely. gGod alone doth this: which also hee worketh in the washing of the new birth. Wherein, that the work of cleansing the soule is wholly Gods, and the minister hath no hand at all in effecting anie part of it; Optatus proveth at large in his fifth booke against the Donatistes: shewing that ⟨p. 116⟩
yP Lombard. lib. 4. Sentent. distinct. 18 D.
zNemo tollit peccata, nisi solus Christus, qui est agnus •ollens peccata mundi. August.
aIlle solus peccata dimittit, qui solus pro peccatis nostris mortuus est. Ambros.
cDonaturus peccatum, solus remanet Jesus. &c. Non enim legatus neque nuncius, sed ipse Dominus salvum fecit populum suum. Solus remanet, quia non potest hoc cuiquā hominum cum Christo esse commune ut peccata condonet. Solius hoc munus est Christi, qui tulit peccatum mundi. Ambros. epist. 76. ad Studium.Donaturus peccatum, solus remanet Iesus. &c. Non enim legatus neque nuncius, sed ipse Dominus salvum fecit populum suum. Solus remanet, quia non potest hoc cuiquā hominum cum Christo esse commune ut peccata condonet. Solius hoc munus est Christi, qui tulit peccatum mundi. Ambros. epist. 76. ad Studium.
d[Greek or Hebrew]. Chrysost. in 2. Corinth. 3. homil. 6.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Chrysost. in 2. Corinth. 3. homil. 6.
e[Greek or Hebrew]. Id. in Johan 8. homil. 54. edit. Graec. vel 53. Latin.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Id. in Iohan 8. homil. 54. edit. Graec. vel 53. Latin.
Having thus therefore reserved unto God his prerogative royal in cleansing of the soul, we give unto his under-officers their due, when we kaccount of them, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. lnot as Lords, that have power to dispose of spiritual graces as they please: mbut as servants that are tied to follow their Masters prescriptions therein; & in following thereof do but bring their external ministry (n for which it self also they are beholding to Gods mercy & goodness) God conferring the inward blessing of his spirit thereupon, when & where he will. oWho then is Paul, (saith S. Paul himself) and who is Apollo? but Ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? Therefore, saith Optatus, pin all the servants there is no dominion, but a ministry. qCui creditur, ⟨p. 117⟩ipse dat quod creditur, non per quem creditur. It is he who is believed, that giveth the thing which is believed, not he by whom we do believe. Whereas our Saviour then saith unto his Apostles, Joh. 20. Receive the holy Ghost, Whose sins you forgive shall be forgiven: rS. Ambrose, sS. Augustine, tS. Chrysostom, and uS. Cyril, make this observation thereupon; that this is not their work properly, but the work of the holy Ghost, who remitteth by them, and therein performeth the work of the true God. For indeed (saith S. xCyril) it belongeth to the true God alone, to be able to loose men from their sins. for who else can free the transgressors of the law from sin, but he who is the author of law it self? yThe Lord (saith S. Augustine) was to give unto men the holy Ghost, and he would have it to be understood, that by the holy Ghost himself sins should be forgiven to the faithful, and not that by the merits of men sins should be forgiven. For what art thou, ô man, but a sick-man that hast need to be healed? Wilt thou be a physician to me? Seek the physician together with me. So S. Ambrose: zBehold, that by the holy Ghost sins are forgiven. But men to the remission of sins bring their ministry, they exercise not the authority of any power. S. Chrysostom, though he make this to be the exercise of a great power (which also he aelsewhere amplifieth, after his manner, exceeding hyperbolically) yet in the main matter accordeth fully with S. Ambrose; that it lieth in bGod alone to bestow the things wherein the Priests service is employed.
Having thus therefore reserved unto God his prerogative royall in cleansing of the soule, we give unto his under-officers their due, when we kaccount of them, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. lnot as Lords, that have power to dispose of spiritual graces as they please: mbut as servants that are tyed to follow their Masters prescriptions therin; & in following therof do but bring their external ministerie (n for which it self also they are beholding to Gods mercie & goodnes) God conferring the inward blessing of his spirit thereupon, when & where he will. oWho then is Paul, (saith S. Paul himselfe) and who is Apollo? but Ministers by whom yee beleeved, even as the Lord gave to every man? Therfore, saith Optatus, pin all the servants there is no dominion, but a ministerie. qCui creditur, ⟨p. 117⟩ipse dat quod creditur, non per quem creditur. It is hee who is beleeved, that giveth the thing which is beleeved, not he by whom we doe beleeve. Whereas our Saviour then saith unto his Apostles, Ioh. 20. Receive the holy Ghost, Whose sinnes you forgive shall be forgiven: rS. Ambrose, sS. Augustine, tS. Chrysostome, and uS. Cyrill, make this observation thereupon; that this is not their work properly, but the worke of the holy Ghost, who remitteth by them, and therein performeth the worke of the true God. For indeed (saith S. x
cAnd what speak I of Priests? saith he. Neither Angel nor Archangel can do ought in those things which are given by God: but the Father and the Son and the holy Ghost do dispense all. The Priest lendeth his tongue, and putteth too his hand. dHis part only is to open his mouth: but it is God that worketh all. And the reasons whereby both he,e and Theophylact after him, do prove that the Priests of the law had no power to forgive sins; are of as great force to take the same power from the ministers of the Gospel. first, because fit is Gods part only to forgive sins. secondly, because gthe Priests were servants, yea servants of sin, and therefore had no power to forgive sins unto others: but the Son is the Lord of the house; who hwas manifested to take away our sins, and in him is no sin, saith S. John. upon which saying of his, S. Augustin giveth this good note: iIt is he in whom there is no sin, that came to take away sin. For if there had been sin in him too, it must have been taken away from him, he could not take it away himself.
cAnd what speake I of Priests? saith he. Neyther Angell nor Archangell can doe ought in those things which are given by God: but the Father and the Sonne and the holy Ghost doe dispense all. The Priest lendeth his tongue, and putteth too his hand. dHis part only is to open his mouth: but it is God that worketh all. And the reasons whereby both he,e and Theophylact after him, doe prove that the Priests of the law had no power to forgive sinnes; are of as great force to take the same power from the ministers of the Gospell. first, because fit is Gods part onely to forgive sinnes. secondly, because gthe Priests were servants, yea servants of sinne, and therefore had no power to forgive sinnes unto others: but the Sonne is the Lord of the house; who hwas manifested to take away our sinnes, and in him is no sinne, saith S. Iohn. upon which saying of his, S. Augustin giveth this good note: iIt is he in whom there is no sinne, that came to take away sinne. For if there had beene sinne in him too, it must have beene taken away from him, he could not take it away himselfe.
c[Greek or Hebrew]. Id. ibid.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Id. ibid.
iIn quo non est peccatum, ipse venit auferre peccatū. Nam si esset & in illo peccatum, auferendum esset illi, non ipse auferret, August. tract. 4. in I. Johan 3.In quo non est peccatum, ipse venit auferre peccatū. Nam si esset & in illo peccatum, auferendum esset illi, non ipse auferret, August. tract. 4. in I. Iohan 3.
Nay it is most true, that without confession, in desire at least, the sinne is not forgiven.
Imó verissimum sine confessione in voto non dimitti peccatum. Rom. Correct. ibid. in marg.
Sed tamen haec opinio, aut jam declarata est satis tanquā haeresis ab Ecclesiâ; aut faceret Ecclesia operae pretium, si declararet esse haeresim. Id. ibid. de praecepto Confess. cap 3.
kLegimus in Prophetâ dicentem Deū: Ego sum qui deleo iniquitates tuas. Consequenter ergo Scribae, quia hominem putabant, & verba Dei non intelligebant, arguunt eum blasphemiae. Sed Dominus videns cogitationes eorum, ostendit se Deum, qui possit cordis occulta cognoscere: & quodammodo tacens loquitur; Eâdem majestate & potentiâ, quâ cogitations vestras intueor, possum & hominibus peccata dimittere. Hieronym. lib. 1. Commentar. in Matth. 9.Legimus in Prophetâ dicentem Deū: Ego sum qui deleo iniquitates tuas. Consequenter ergo Scribae, quia hominem putabant, & verba Dei non intelligebant, arguunt eum blasphemiae. Sed Dominus videns cogitationes eorum, ostendit se Deum, qui possit cordis occulta cognoscere: & quodammodo tacens loquitur; Eâdem majestate & potentiâ, quâ cogitationes vestras intueor, possum & hominibus peccata dimittere. Hieronym. lib. 1. Commentar. in Matth. 9.
1. Johan. 3
.
Nemo tollit peccata (quae nec Lex, quamvis sancta & iusta & bona, potuit auferre) nisi ille in quo peccatum non est. Tollit autem, & dimittendo quae facta sunt, & adiuvando ne fiant, & perducendo ad vitam ubi fieri omnino non possint. Bed. in 1. Iohan. 3.
none can wash the filth and sports of the minde, but hee who is the framer of the same minde; and convincing the hereticks, as by manie other testimonies of holy Scriptur•, so by that of Esai. 1.18. which he presseth in this maner.
It belongeth unto God to cleanse, and not unto man: he hath promised by the Prophet Esai that hee himselfe would wash, when he saith; If your sinnes were as scarlet, I will make them as white as snow. I will make them white, he said: he did not say, I will cause them to be made white. If God hath promised this, why will you give that, which is neyther lawfull for you to promise, nor to give, nor to have? Behold in Esai God hath promised that he himselfe will make white such as are defiled with sinnes; not by man.
g[Greek or Hebrew]. Id. ibid.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Id. ibid.
hSordes et maculas mentis lavare non potest, nisi qui ejusdem fabricator est mentis Optat▪ lib. 5.
iDei est mundare, non hominis: ipse per Prophetam Esaiam promisit see loturū, dum ait; Et si •uerint peccata vestra velut coccum, ut nivem inalbabo. Inalbabo dixit; non dixit, faciam inalbari. Si hoc Deus promisit: quare vos vultis reddere, quod vobis nec promittere licet, nec reddere, nec habere? Ecce in Esaiâ fe promisit, Deus inalbare peccatis affectos, non per hominem. Id. ibid.Dei est mundare, non hominis: ipse per Prophetam Esaiam promisit se loturū, dum ait; Et si •uerint peccata vestra velut coccum, ut nivem inalbabo. Inalbabo dixit; non dixit, faciam inalbari. Si hoc Deus promisit: quare vos vultis reddere, quod vobis nec promittere licet, nec reddere, nec habere? Ecce in Esaiâ fe promisit, Deus inalbare peccatis affectos, non per hominem. Id. ibid.
Cyrill) it belongeth to the true God alone, to be able to loose men from their sinns. for who else can free the transgressors of the law from sin, but he who is the author of law it selfe?
The Lord (saith S. Augustine) was to give unto men the holy Ghost, and he would have it to be understood, that by the holy Ghost himselfe sinnes should be forgiven to the faithfull, and not that by the merits of men sins should be forgiven. For what art thou, ô man, but a sick-man that hast need to be healed? Wilt thou be a physician to me? Seek the physician together with mee. So S. Ambrose:
Behold, that by the holy Ghost sinnes are forgiven. But men to the remission of sinnes bring their ministery, they exercise not the authoritie of any power. S. Chrysostom, though he make this to be the exercise of a great power (which also hee
God alone to bestowe the things wherein the Priests service is employed.
Et certé solius veri Dei est, ut possit à peccatis homines solver. Cui enin alii praevaricatores legis liberare à peccato licet, nisi legis ipsius autori? Id. ibid.
Et certé solius veri Dei est, ut possit à peccatis homines solvere. Cui enin alii praevaricatores legis liberare à peccato licet, nisi legis ipsius autori? Id. ibid.
yDaturus erat Dominus hominibus Spiritum sanctum; & ab ipso Spiritu sancto fidelibus suis dimitti peccata, non meritis hominum volebat intelligi dimitti peccata. Nam quid es homo, nis• aeger sanandus? Vis mihi esse medicus? mecum quaere medicum. Augustin. homil. 23. ex. 50.
zEcce quia per Spiritum sanctum peccata donantur. Homines autem in remissionem peccatorum ministerium suum exhibent, non jus alicujus potestatis exercent. Ambros. de Spir. Sanct. lib. 3. cap. 19.
aChrysost. lib. 3. de Sacerdotio.
b[Greek or Hebrew]. Id. in Johan. 20. homil. 86. edit. Graec. v•l 85. Latin.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Id. in Iohan. 20. homil. 86. edit. Graec. v•l 85. Latin.
