Rep. It is a controversy amongst the learnedst Expounders, how much that of John 20. was proper to the Apostles, and such others as were then to have the Spirit in an extraordinary manner, who did remit sins effectually by remitting the punishment of it, by casting out Devils, healing the sick, &c. according to that of Jam. 5. 14, 15. Is any sick among you, let him call for the Elders of the Church, and let them pray for him, and anoint h•m with Oil in the Name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up, and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. If besides this remitting them effectually, the rest be no other then a Ministerial pronouncing them so given by God according to his Covenant in the Gospel, then you cannot plead the phrase of a Text, which respecteth another way of remission then we pretend to but must phrase it according to the nature of the thing, and the sense of other Scriptures also that fuller open it: There are three ways of pardoning; 1. By grant or gift (whether by a general act of pardon, or a particular.) 2 By sentence. 3. By execution, that is, preventing, or taking off the penalty. The first of these is done already by God in the Gospel. The second God doth principally, and his Ministers instrumentally, as his Messengers. The third, (the taking off the penalty) they can do no otherwise in the case before us, then by praying that God will take it off, and using his ordinary means. So that it is most evident, that this Absolution that Ministers are to perform, can be no other then to pronounce the penitent Believer to be absolved by God according to his Covenants: And if there be no other should we not speak as intelligibly as we can? Indeed there is more in absolving the Excommunicate, for then the Church both judiciously▪ and executively remitteth the penalty of Excommunication, (to which also the Text, John 20. may have much respect) but the penalty of damnation can be no otherwise remitted by us, than as is expressed; and indeed, the thing is of such exceeding weight, that it behoveth us to deal as intelligibly and openly in it, as we can. And therefore we admire that you should say, The condition needs not be expressed, being always necessarily understood; Necessarily! do you mean, Necessitate n•turali, & irresistibili?
Rep. It is a controversie amongst the learnedst Expositers, how much that of John 20. was proper to the Apostles, and such others as were then to have the Spirit in an extraordinary manner, who did remit sins effectually by remitting the punishment of it, by casting out Devils, healing the sick, &c. according to that of Jam. 5. 14, 15. Is any sick among you, let him call for the Elders of the Church, and let them pray for him, and annoint h•m with Oyl in the Name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up, and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. If besides this remitting them effectually, the rest be no other then a Ministerial pronouncing them so given by God according to his Covenant in the Gospel, then you cannot plead the phrase of a Text, which respecteth another way of remission then we pretend to but must phrase it according to the nature of the thing, and the sence of other Scriptures also that fullier open it: There are three wayes of pardoning; 1. By grant or gift (whether by a general act of pardon, or a particular.) 2 By sentence. 3. By execution, that is, preventing, or taking off the penalty. The first of these is done already by God in the Gospel. The second God doth principally, and his Ministers instrumentally, as his Messengers. The third, (the taking off the penalty) they can do no otherwise in the case before us, then by praying that God will take it off, and using his ordinary means. So that it is most evidens, that this Absolution that Ministers are to perform, can be no other then to pronounce the penitent Believer to be absolved by God according to his Covenants: And if there be no other should we not speak as intelligibly as we can? Indeed there is more in absolving the Excommunicate, for then the Church both judiciously▪ and executively remitteth the penalty of Excommunication, (to which also the Text, John 20. may have much respect) but the penalty of damnation can be no otherwise remitted by us, than as is expressed; and indeed, the thing is of such exceeding weight, that it behoveth us to deal as intelligibly and openly in it, as we can. And therefore we admire that you should say, The condition needs not be expressed, being always necessarily understood; Necessarily! do you mean, Necessitate n•turali, & irresistibili?
