BT
79.
THE
•B8%
1
DOCTRINE
OF '
Remiffion of Sins,
AND THE
POWER OF ABSOLUTION,
As fet forth in a late Sermon,
Explain'd and Vindicated:
IN
REMARKS
ON
Dr. Cannon's Account of his two
Motions in the Lower Houfe of
Convocation.
By THON BRETT, L.L. D. Rector of
Beitefhanger in Kent.
LONDON: Printed for Jo HN WYAT, at
the Rofe in St. Paul's Church Yard. 1712.
BT
795
.B84
7-19-32AWG
442
gift
Tappan Presh, Cles.
J-23-1932
1
3
2
THE
DOCTRINE
O.F
Remiffion of Sins, &c.·
Explain'd and Vindicated, .
W
HEN the Letter, pretended to be
written to me, about a Motion in Con-
vocation, was firſt Publiſh'd,I bought
it, and read it carefully over, defigning, if
I fhould find any thing in it that look'd like a
folid, ferious Anfwer, to my Sermon on Re-
miffion of Sins, to make fome Sort of Reply to
it, and either to acknowledge my felf mifta-
ken (which I fhould readily do, if I found
that I was fo) or juſtify and defend the Do
arine I had Preach'd. But when I had pe-
rus'd it, I thought it ſo trifling and imperti-
nent, as not to deferve my Notice, nor have I
yet met with any Body, that has read it, who
feems to be of another Opinion. I was foon
inform'd that it was full of Mif-reprefentati
ons, and that the Author had not given a
fair Account of what was faid in the Houfe.
And Dr. Cannon has now thought convenient
to fatisfy me and the World, that what I had
A 2
heard
4 The Doctrine of Remiffion of Sins, &c.
heard was no more than the Truth For he
Pag. 8. fays, it would tire the Reader, if he should fet right
all the Mif-reprefentations of the Letter-Writer:
Though it ſeems he is perfuaded, he had no ill
Intention in the writing of it. However, fince
the Doctor himſelf has now been pleas'd to
give us a true Account of both the Motions he
thought fit to make in the Convocation, concer-
ning the Power of Remitting Sins, I think it be-
hoves me to fay fomething on this Occafion,
not only to vindicate the Doctrine I Preach'd,
. but to juftify the Lower House of Convocation, for
not examining and cenfuring it, at the Do-
ctor's Requeft. This I fhall do, by confide-
ring the Arguments he made Ufe of, and
fhewing their Weakneſs and Invalidity.
Pag. 9.
He fays that he obferv'd, that in the very Be-
ginning of my Difcourfe on the 1ft. Head, I took
care to explain what was meant by the Power, left
with the Apoftles, to remit or retain Sins: That
it was to parden or forgive Sins, or else to bind them
more clofely, fo as the Sinner fhould not be releas'd
from his Sin, or pardoned by God, till they had re-
leas'd him alfo. And that foon after I thus explain our
Lord's Words to the Apostles, Joh. xx. 21. As my
Father hath fent me, fo fend I you; The fame
Ser. p. 12. Power which my Father has committed to me, the
fame do I now confer upon you. But he leaves out
the latter part of the Sentence, whom I appoint
to act in my Name, as my Vicars-general or
Subſtitutes. Which laft Words clearly explain
my Meaning, and fhew that I did not intend
to have it thought, that the Apoftles were
hereby made equal in Power with Christ,
but only that he conftituted them his commif-
fion'd Officers to act under him, and in his
Name. He was ftill their Mafter, and they
but
Explain'd and Vindicated.
5
but his Servants: And though he gave them
a great Power, yet it was but fubordinate to
his own: They were accountable to him for
all their Acts; and if they ſhould do any thing
which was not warranted by their Commiffi-
on, it was of no Force or Validity. There
fore how thocking foever this Paffage may
appear, as the Doctor has put it down, yet
take the whole Period together, and I believe
Nobody will think it fo. But if a Man will
take the Liberty to cite half Periods, he may
make any thing appear fhocking.
As to the former Paffage, which the Do-
cor again repeats, at p. 15. and fays, it could
not but be very ſhocking to him, how agreeable
foever it might be to other's: I hope if it be agree
able to the Scriptures, and to the Doctrine of
the Primitive Church, and our own, it may
pafs uncenfur'd, notwithstanding he is fhock'd
at it. Now that it is agreeable to the Scrip-
tures, I prov'd in my Sermon, pag. 21. where
I fhew'd, from 2 Cor. xi. 10. that; when S. Paul
had bound the inceftuous Perfon by his Cen-
fure, neither the Perfon offending, nor the Corin-
thians, expected Forgiveness for him in Heaven, till
he had St. Paul's pardon alfo. That this was like-
wife the Doctrine of the Primitive Church is
undeniable. It was a Maxim with the Primi-
tive Fathers, that out of the Church there is no Sal
vation, for as St. Cyprian fays, (Epiſt. 52. ad Cor-
nelium) Quomodo poteft effe cum Chrifto, qui cum
Sponfa Chrifti & in ejus Ecclefiâ non eft? And
thoſe who were bound by the Cenfure of Ex-
communication, were always look'd upon to be
out of the Church, and fuch were not to be
receiv'd again to Communion, but by the Ab-
folutionof the Biſhop and Clergy; fo fays the
fame Holy Father (Epift. 17, ad Fratres in plebe)
BEG
6 The Doctrine of Remiffion of Sins, &c.
nec ad communicationem venire quis poffit, nifi prius
illi ab Epifcopo & Clero manus fuerit impofita. It
is alfo plainly the Opinion of our Church,
fince the forbids Chriftian Burial to Perfons that
dye excommunicate. If thefe Citations from
St. Cyprian do not fatisfy the Doctor, that it
was the general Opinion of the Primitive
Church in his Days, that he who was bound by
the Bishop and Clergy must be alfo loofed by them
again, or he could not be fav'd, I have many
more fuch Paffages at his Service, when he
pleaſes to demand them. And therefore I can-
not but wonder, that what is fo agreeable to
the Scriptures, to the Doctrine of the Primi-
tive Church, and of our own, fhould be To
fhocking to a Dignitary of this Church, who,
one would think, fhould be better acquainted
with the Scriptures, and Fathers, and the Ru-
bricks of our Liturgy, than to be fo much
furpriz'd at what may be clearly juftified from
them.
In the next Place he obferves, that I have
rightly explain'd the Words, ver. 22. He breath'd
on them, and faith unto them, Receive ye
the Holy Ghoſt. Whereby, I fay, be furnished
them with Ability or Capacity, to execute that Power
and Authority he had given them. Here, he fays,
be took Notice in how few Words I dispatch'd this
great Point in the first part of my Sermon. All that
this Obfervation amounts to, is, that I was
not fo large upon this Topick as the Doctor
thinks I ought to have been. However,
fince I was right in what I did fay, I hope I
do not deſerve to be cenfur'd becauſe I was fo
fhort. But now it feems comes the finiſhing
Stroke, that when I come to enlarge on the other
Heads, and labour to fhew, That the Biſhops and
their Presbyters have now the fame Power the
Apoftles
A
#
Explain'd and Vindicated.
Ápoſtles had; and the Uſefulneſs of that fame
Power, I fay not one Word of the Clergy, having now
also the fame Ability of Capacity to execute that
Power: Whereas the Doctor thinks the fame
Power requir'd the fame Capacity, and that it
must be fuppofed they are convey'd together, or that
neither of them is convey'd at all. But why muft
the fame Power neceffarily require the fame Ca-
pacity? Can no Man have the fame Power
which another has, unleſs he have the fame
Capacity? Have not all Presbyters (for In-
ftance) the fame Power to preach the Word,
and minifter the Sacraments? Yet I conceive
the Doctor will not ſay they have all the fame
Capacity. If the fame Power could not be con-
ferr'd but upon Men of the fame Capacity, it
would perhaps be impoffible to confer the fame
Power on any two Men in the World. And
therefore, tho' it were admitted, that Biſhops
and their Presbyters had not the fame Capacity,
which was conferr'd on the Apostles, when Chrift
breathed on them, and ſaid unto them, Receive ye the
Holy Ghoft, yet it would not therefore follow
that they were uncapable of the fame Power.
Neither is it neceffary that the Capacity fhould
be conferr'd, together with the Power. The
Capacity may precede the Power, and generally
fpeaking, ought to do fo: And the Capacity
maybe much improved after the Receipt of the
Power, and yet the Power is ftill the fame. Our
Power as Presbyters is the fame the Day we are
Ordained, that it will be twenty Years after,.
but if we do not improve, as to our Capacity
in that time, we fhall deferve to be very much
blamed. However, that we may be fatisfied,
whether Biſhops and their Presbyters have
not, or cannot have that Ability or Capaci-
ty, which Chrift conferr'd on his Apoftles,
}
A 4
when
8 The Doctrine of Remiffion of Sins, &c.
1
when he faid, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, I will
enquire what this Ability and Capacity was,
which he then conferr'd upon them.
ว
Now by the Holy Ghost in this Place, we
muſt underſtand the ordinary or extraordinary
Gifts, or Affiftances of that bleffed Spirit. By
the ordinary Gifts or Affritances of the Holy
Ghost, we underſtand thoſe Gifts and Graces
which are neceffary for all Times and all Pla-
ces; and for all Chriftians, according to their
feveral Degrees and Stations in the Church,
viz. That the Holy Ghost fhould co-operate
with them, affift, guide and direct them in the
Diſcharge of their proper Duties and Functions;
Enlighten their Underftandings, enlarge their
Capacities, and lead them into all Truth, tho'
not with an infallible Direction, yet with
fuch fufficient Affiftance as fhall, if not wil-
fully and obftinately refifted, preferve them
from any dangerous Error. And according as
a Man's Station is in the Church, fo he may
hope for greater and larger Affiftances of the
Spirit, if he be not wanting to himſelf in the
right and due Ufe of them. The extraordi-
nary Gifts of the Spirit, are the Gift of Lan-
guages by Inspiration, Prophefy, the Power to work
Miracles, &c. Which are I think allowed on
all Hands not to be always neceffary, but were
moſt highly expedient in the firſt Ages of the
Church, both for the Confirmation and Pro-
pagation of the Chriftian Faith.
That they were not the extraordinary, but only
the ordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghoft, which Chriſt
conferr'd on his Apoftles, when he breathed
on them upon this occafion, is I think mani-
feſt, becauſe the extraordinary Gifts were not
conferr'd upon them till the Day of Pentecost,
Act. xi. 1. &c. We cannot doubt, but they re-
ceived the Holy Ghost at the very Time our Sa-
viour
1
9
Explain'd and Vindicated.
viour breathed on them, and faid, Receive ye the
Holy Ghost: For he did not fay, Ye fhall re-
ceive the Spirit hereafter, but receive him now
at this very Time. And fhall we think that
his Words were without Effect? That he
fhould fay, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, and at the
fame time ſhould not give the Holy Ghost?
Yet it is evident that he did not then give
them the extraordinary Gifts, fuch as fhould
qualify or fit them to perform fuch wonderful
Works in Christ's Name, as might, as it were,
compel thoſe that faw them to embrace the
Goſpel, and draw Strangers to the Faith ;
This miraculous Power was afterwards con-
ferr'd. But he enlightned their Underftand-
ings, and enlarged the Faculties of their Minds,
that they might know the Scriptures, and be
enabled to expound them rightly, and apply
them properly, as St. Peter afterwards did in
the Cafe of choofing another Apoſtle in the
Room of Judas, Act. 1. 15. &c. before the mi-
raculous Deſcent of the Holy Ghost. Which
ordinary Affiftance or Gift of the Bleffed Spi-
rit muft continue in the Church, and co-ope-
rate with the Minifters of it, or elfe Christ
does not fulfil his Promife, John xiv. 16. That
this Comforter ſhould abide with us for ever.
In the next Place, it is evident, that the
Power given to the Apostles to remit Sins,
was not founded on the extraordinary Gifts
of the Holy Ghoft, which they were after-
wards to receive, becauſe it does not ap-
pear that they always acted by Virtue of
thofe extraordinary Gifts, in the execution of
this Power. The Anonymous Author of the
Defence of the Doctrine of the Church of England,
&c. p. 61. tells us, That Arch-bishop Tillotson
fays, As he believed that the Text of remitting
Sins, contain'd more than a meer declaratory
$
Power,
10 The Doctrine of Remiſſion of Sins, &c.
Power, fo that it was a Power peculiar to the
Apostles, who by the Gift of difcerning Spirits,
were peculiarly qualified for the Discharge of it. It
feems this great Man did not think thofe Words,
Whoſe foever Sins ye remit, &c. ftood for nothing;
and Doctor Canon himſelf does not, as I appre
hend him, ſeem to believe that the Apoſtles had
not a Power given them by thofe Words, but
that it was peculiar to them, by Reafon of
fome extraordinary Gift of the Holy Ghoft con-
ferr'd upon them, together with the Power.
But how does this appear from the Scriptures?
Where is there the leaft Intimation in the New
Teftament, that the Apoftles forgave Sins, by
Virtue of their Gift to difcern Spirits, or of any
other extraordinary Capacity that attended
them, to make them infallible in their Deter-
minations? Is there one Word mention'd of
any fuch Gift, either in the Text, or in the
Context? Chrift did indeed fay, Receive ye the
Holy Ghost, and thereby I doubt not open'd
their Underſtandings, and enlighten'd their
Minds with greater Knowledge, and larger
Capacities; not that he gave them all Know-
ledge at once, but made them more fufcep-
tible of it, that by the Affiftance of the Holy
Ghoſt, which they then receiv'd, they might
make better and greater Improvements in true
Spiritual Wiſdom, than they could before.
That it was only this Gift of the Spirit which
was then conferred upon them, is plain, be-
cauſe in the exercife of their Power to remit
Sins, there is not any thing tending to fhew
that they difcerned the Spirits of thoſe whoſe
Sins they remitted; or that they proceeded
by any infallible Direction in that Matter.
Were they not fubject to Error in the exercife
of the Keys? Did they admit none intothe
Church
+
}
Explain'd and Vindicated.
کو
Church but fincere Converts? How came
they then to baptize Ananias, and Sapphira, and
Simon Magus, for the Remiffion of their Sins,
who appear'd afterwards to be no other than
meer Hypocrites and Deceivers? It is plain,
they proceeded no otherwife than their Suc-
ceffors (if the Doctor will allow that they
have any Succeffors) may do in the like Cafe,
and accepted their open Profeffion of Faith
and Repentance, which they ſuppoſed to be
fincere, till their after-Acts difcovered the
contrary. So that it is evident, the Apoftles,
or those whom they Commiffioned to remit
Sins by Baptifm, had not the Gift of difcern-
ing Spirits, in the Miniftration of this Sacra-
ment. And yet it is certain from Acts xi. 38.
that Remiffion of Sins was one great End or Pur-
poſe, for which they miniftred that Sacra-
ment. And no doubt Sins were remitted by
it, when it was miniftred to thoſe who were
duly qualified for it. Sins are alſo remitted
now by Baptiſm, as they were then, or elſe
that Sacrament muft have loft its Primitive
Nature: And to ſay that Sins are not now re-
mitted by Baptiſm, is to renounce an Article
of our Creed, where we profefs to acknowledge
one Baptifm for the remiffion of Sins. If therefore
a Prieſt may now remit Sins, by the Miniftra-
tion of the Sacrament of Baptiſm, as the
Apoſtles did, though they have not the Gift
of difcerning Spirits, or any other infallible Di-
rection to judge of the Sincerity of the Faith
and Repentance of the Perfon to be baptiz'd,
how can the Gift of difcerning Spirits, or any
other infallible Direction of the Spirit be a
Qualification neceffary to the Exercife of a
Commiffion to forgive Sins?
I fup-
12 The Doctrine of Remiſſion of Sins, &c.
I fuppofe I may alfo fay, that Sins are re-
mitted by the other Sacrament, where the tru-
ly devout Communicant (under the Symbols
of Bread and Wine) receives the Body of Chrift
which was broken, and his Blood which was
fhed for the Remiffion of Sins: Where, as our
Church teaches, we fpiritually eat the Flesh of
Chriſt, and drink his Blcöd; we dwell in Chrift and
Christ in us; we are one with Chrift and Chrift with
s. And can we partake of all thefe great Be-
nefits, and yet our Sins remain unpardoned?
I have in my Sermon chiefly infifted on the
Prieft's Power to Remit Sins by the Miniftra-
tion of theſe Sacraments: Which neither
Dr. Cannon, nor my Anonymous Friend have
offer'd to deny; but only infift in general,
That the Prieft has no Power to Remit Sins,
becauſe he has not the Capacity of the Apoftles
fays one, becauſe he has not the Gift of dif
cerning Spirits, fays the other. But will either
of them fay, that Sins are not remitted by the
Sacraments, when rightly and duly admini-
ftred by a Prieft, and receiv'd by a Perfon du-
ly qualified for them? Or that the Prieft has
no Power, no Authority to minifter the Sa-
craments for the Remiffion of Sins? And is
there a greater Capacity requir'd, a greater
Gift of diſcerning Spirits neceffary for the decla-
ring and pronouncing to the Penitent, the Ab-
folution and Remiffion of his Sins, than to
remit his Sins by the Miniftration of one of
the Sacraments? It is certain, that the Apo-
ftles and their Contemporaries, though they
had extraordinary miraculous Gifts and Quali-
fications to be exerted at fome Times, and on
fome Occafions, yet had not, or at leaft did
not, ordinarily exercife thofe Gifts in the Mi-
niftration of the Sacraments for Remiffion of
Sins. I have fhew'd it already, with Rela-
tion
•
/
Explain'd and Vindicated.
13
tion to the Miniftration of Baptiſm, and it ap-
pears to have been the fame with Regard to the
Lord's Supper: For the Priefts at Corinth gave
that Sacrament to many unworthy Perfons
who eat and drank Damnation to themſelves, and
God puniſhed thofe unworthy Receivers with
Sickneſs and Death, 1 Cor. xi. 29, 30. But St, Paul
blamed not the Priefts of that Church, nor
told them they had no Authority to miniſter
that Sacrament, which was appointed for the
Remiffion of Sins, as well as all other Benefits
of Christ's Death, becauſe they either had not
or did not exerciſe the Gift of difcerning Spi-
rits, or any other miraculous Power in that
Adminiftration.
And is there a greater Capacity requir'd,
a greater Gift of diſcerning Spirits, neceffary
for the declaring and pronouncing to a Perfon, be-
ing Penitent, the Abfolution and Remiſſion of his
Sins, than there is for the Remiffion of his Sins
by the Miniftration of either of the Sacraments.
If the Perfon be duly qualified by Faith and
Repentance, a Sacrament duly adminiftred
fhall ſign and ſeal his Pardon: But if he wants
thofe Qualifications, the Sacrament will be fo
far from giving him Remiffion, that it will
add exceedingly to the Weight of his Sins.
And I conceive it is the fame in what we call
Abfolution. For altho' Abſolution hath the Pro-
mife of forgiveness of Sins, as our Church teaches Prayer &
us, yet, I conceive, if Faith and Repentance Sacr.
in the Perſon who receives it, do not ac-
company that Act, it will not only procure
him no remiffion in Heaven, but fhall alfo
encreaſe the Burther of his Sins. If then the
effect of miniftring the Sacraments, and pro-
nouncing Abfolution to the Penitent, be the
fame, with regard to remiffion of Sins, and
Hom. of
Common
the
14 The Doctrine of Remiffion of Sins, &c.
1
the Sacraments be in other Refpects of a more
noble and fanctifying Nature, as they not on-
ly convey the Pardon of Sin, but alſo Strength
and Grace, and an Affurance of Eternal Life,
why ſhould we imagine that larger Capaci-
ties, and more extraordinary Endowments,
and a Gift of difcerning Spirits fhould be re-
quired, to give a Prieft Authority to pronounce
Abfòlution, than to Miniſter the Sacraments?
Sure he that has Capacity for the greater Mi-
niſtration, has Capacity alfo for the leſs.
It appears alfo from the Scriptures, that as
the Apoſtles and their Contemporaries did not
adminifter the Sacraments, by Virtue of their
Capacities, or their Gift of difcerning Spirits,
or any other extraordinary Qualification which
they had, but meerly by Authority of their
Commiffion, fo alfo they pronounced Abfo-
lution to the Penitent, without the ufe of any
miraculous Gifts. Thus in the Instance I
made uſe of in my Sermon, for an Example of
the Apoſtles remitting Sins, by a Form of Ab-
folution: If we confider St. Paul's whole Pro-
ceeding on this Occafion, it will appear that
he did not act in this Matter, by Virtue of his
Gift of difcerning Spirits, and that he pro-
ceeded no otherwife than any of his Succef
fors may do at this Day, by examining the
Matter, and pronouncing Judgment accord-
ing to the Evidence he receiv'd. The whole
Proceſs is excellently defcrib'd by the Author
of Lay-Baptifm Invalid, in his Treatife of Sacer-
dotal Powers, pag. 22. and I cannot give a fuller
and clearer Account of it than in his Words.
"St. Paul being at Philippi, a City of Mace-
donia, heard a common Report, that the
"Chriftians of Corinth were guilty of the Sin
"of
of Fornication, Cor. v. r and particular-
cc
+
fly
Explain'd and Vindicated.
15
?
CC
"ly that one of them incestuouſly took his
"Father's Wife ; — Upon which he wrote
to them, and commanded them to excom-
"municate this incestuous Perfon, v. 3, 4, 5
" & 13. which they accordingly did.
66
(c
cr
"In his fecond Epiftle, he tells them the
"Reaſon of his Writing, and commanding
"them fo to cenfure that notorious Sinner,
"That be might know the Proof of them, whether
"they were obedient in all things, 2 Cor. xi. 9.
"He did not by Virtue of the miraculous
"Gift of diſcerning Spirits, know their Obe-
"dience at that Diſtance; He wanted a
"Proof thereof, which they accordingly gave
sc him, by the Infliction of that Puniſhment
on the Offender, which he had command-
"ed; and which Titus, upon his Return from
"Corinth, acquainted St. Paul with, as is plain
"from 2 Cor. vii 6. 12. &c. The Apoftle
being thus inform'd of the Obedience of the
"Corinthians, and alfo of the Sorrow and Re-
pentance of the incestuous Perfon, writes to
"them to forgive him, 2 Cor. xi. 6, 7, 8. And
to encourage them thereto, pronounces his
"Abfolution himſelf, though at that Diſtance
"from them, upon the Credit which he
gave
"to Titus's Relation of that Affair; for, fays
he, To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive alfo
"in the person of Chrift, 2 Cor. xi. 10. or by the
Authority which I have receiv'd from Jefus
"Christ:
And one Reaſon why he would
"have the inceftuous Perfon abfolv'd, was,
[as in ver. 7] left perhaps fuch a one should
be swallowed up with overmuch forrow; This
putting it upon a (perhaps] does no ways
comport with any infallible Knowledge that
the Apoſtle could have of the Penitent's Sor-
row: For if he had by a miraculous Gift of
་
EC
Co
<c
cc
Cl
Dif-
16 The Doctrine of Remiſſion of Sins, &c.
CC
cc
cc
CC
>>
"Difcerning, known the true Nature and
"certain Effects thereof, he would never have
"us'd fo doubtful an Argument but rather have
"affirm'd politively, without any perhaps,
"that the incestuous Perfon would certainly
"be swallowed up with overmuch Sorrow:
"And fince he was not thus pofitive, it is plain,
"that he had only a moral Affurance of the
"Man's Sorrow and Repentance, given him
66 by the Report of others, whom he efteem'd
worthy of Credit; and therefore the Abfo-
"lution he pronounc'd, was not founded upon
c any infallible Knowledge that he had of
that notorious Sinner's. Repentance, com-
municated to him by Vertue of the miracu-
lous Gift of Diſcerning Spirits. This in-
genious Gentleman profecutes the Argument
further, but I fhall tranſcribe no more of
it, but refer the Reader to the Book it felf:
What is tranfcribed, being fufficient for my
Purpoſe, which was to fhew that the ordinary
Gifts of the Spirit, qualified the Apoſtles for
the exerciſe of this Power, and that their Suc
ceffors are alfo qualified in the fame manner,
and have the fame Capacity or Ability, though
perhaps not in the fame Degree, which Chrift
conferred on the Apoftles when he gave them
a Commiffion to remit Sins. For I hope Bi-
fhops and their Presbyters are capable of en-
quiring into the Repentance of a Sinner by
moral Evidence, and pronouncing Pardon
on fuppofition of his Sincerity, and St. Paul
himſelf did no more. And if they ſhould be
miſtaken in their Judgment, it is but what
the Apoſtle himſelf might have been, fince it
is fo plain that he proceeded not by an infal-
lible Direction; for if he had, he would not
have put a perhaps into the 'Reaſon for his
giving
Explain'd and Vindicated.
17
giving fo fpeedy an Abfolution. And I would
defire the Anonymous Gentleman to produce
"fome Evidence from Scripture, as well as the
bare Affertion of a great Man, to prove that
this Commiffion, which he owns the Apoſtles
had to remit Sins, was founded on the Gift they
had of difcerning Spirits, fince it is fo evident,
that one of them executed this Commiffion in
a Cafe, wherein it appears that he was not
guided or directed by that Gift, but proceeded
by fuch Humane Means, as any Man, who
has the Commiffion (though he has not that
Gift) might make uſe of. And if either the
Doctor, or that Gentleman had read the Trea-
tife of Sacerdotal Powers beforemention'd, par-
ticularly from p. 15. to p. 27. they would have
found thefe Objections fo well anſwer'd there,
that they would have feen no occaſion to have
repeated them.
ve
es
cc
56
(C
In the next Place the Doctor fays, he read
from p. 16. the following Words. That his
Church might not fuffer in his Abfence,
" for want of Paftors and Governours to take
CC care of it, he committed all his Power and
Authority, as Head of the Church, to his
Apoftles. This the Text exprefly fhews, As
my Father fent me, fays Chrift, fo fend I you.
"As if he had faid, with the fame Power and
Authority that my Father fent me into the
"World to conftitute and govern my Church,
"I
I fend you and your Succeffors, &c." I
&c.”
fuppofe he read this as a fhocking Paffage, which
he cannot allow of. But did not Christ com-
mit or delegate his Power to the Apoſtles? Will
the Doctor himſelf ſay that they were not his
Stewards or Deputies, to act in his Name? Were
they not Commiffion'd by him to publiſh his
Laws, and declare his Will? To execute his
Autho-
s
B
*
}
18 The Doctrine of Remiffion of Sins, &c.
30.
Authority, by receiving into the Church, and
cafting out of it? To tranfact and treat with
People in the Name of God, and to reconcile
Men to God, by the Miniftration of the Word
and Sacraments? Were they not to fit on Thrones,
Luk.xxii. judging the twelve Tribes of Ifrael, that is, the
whole Church of God? May not this be cal-
led committing all his Power and Authority,
as Head of the Church to the Apoftles? What
Authority did he exercife, which, they did not
exèrcife under him, by Virtue of his Com-
miffion? But with this Diftinction, he execu
ted this Authority as the Head of the Church
in his own Name, they in his Name as his
Stewards or Commiffioners, and às fuch were
accountable to him for what they ſhould do,
and if they exceeded their Commiffion, their
Acts were invalid, and themſelves liable to be
puniſhed for fuch Prefumption. Thus as the
Father fent him, fo did he fend them with
the fame Power in Kind, that is, with a Power
to conſtitute and govern the Church, though
not the fame in Degree, that is, not Supreme
and Soveraign as his was, but given them by
Commiffion, committed to them as unto Stew-
ards, or chief Minifters of him the fupreme
Head.
$
&C
Upon my fecond Head the Doctor fays, be
read the Words following. "If Bifhops and their
"Presbyters, the Succeffors of the Apoftles,
"have a Right to pardon Sins, by the Mini-
ftration of the Word and Sacraments; they muft
"have a Right to pardon them by Abfolution,
and to retain them alfo by Excommunication,
and other Spiritual Cenfures, as the Apo-
"ftles had; and their Cenfures are alfo rati-
fied in Heaven, as thofe of the Apoſtles
were, ſo that no Power on Earth can re-
EC
દ
66
ས
L
"leafe
Explain'd and Vindicated.
19
"leaſe them, but only he that bound them."
When the Doctor fhall be pleafed to fay, who
has Authority to releafe a pure Spiritual Cen-
fure, except he that inflicted it in any other
manner than I have fhew'd in my Sermon,
pag. 23. as I have explain'd it in my Adver-
tifement before my Sermon of the Honour of
the Priesthood, I will endeavour to give him a
fatisfactory Anſwer.
CC
CC
CC
cc
65
}
1
Then he ſays, he alſo obſerved, That having
given the Detail of the Story of Ambrofe and Theo-
dofius the Great, the one an Archbishop, and the
other an Emperor, I conclude, “That this Act
was agreeable to the prefent Doctrine of
Cour Church, and confequently, that our
"Biſhops have the Authority which St. Am-
brofe exercifed, and by the Law of God may
execute fit, when there is juft Occafion,
even upon the greateft; there being no
"Perfon on Earth fo great as to be exempted
cr from this Power." But why did he here
omit the Teftimony of our Book of Homilies,
which I brought to fhew that this was agree-
able to the Doctrine of our Church? Was
this fair dealing in the Doctor, to take part of
a Period, and omit my Teftimony from the
Eſtabliſh'd Doctrine of our Church? I fhew'd
in my Sermon, pag. 25. that this Act of St. Am-
brofe was mention'd and approved by our Church,
in the fecond Part of the Homily of the right Ufe of
the Keys, and in this very Place, in the fame
Period, from which he has taken his Citation,
I fay, thofe Homilies being confirmed by our Arti-
cles, are a Teftimony that this Act was agreeable to
the prefent Doctrine of our Church. I think it hap-
py for me, that I do not live within the Ju-
rifdiction of the Doctor's Archdeaconry, fince
if he was to judge me for my Doctrine, it
B 2
would
*
20
The Doctrine of Remiffion of Sins, &c.
would be impoffible for me to efcape: And I
fhould be condemned for Words contained in
part of a Period,when if the whole Period was
to be read, it would appear that I was in the
Right, and had faid no more than the decla-
red Doctrine of the Church.
However, if he did not do me Justice here,
he did me Justice afterwards, and read what Í
quoted from the Dzdination Service, and the Vi-
fitation of the Sick, that my Doctrine was no Po-
pifh Doctrine: Yet he is refolved, that Autho-
rity fhall do me no good, and rather than ac-
quit me, will infinuate, as if the Church itſelf
was Popish in this particular, in retaining an
indicative Form of Abfolution, which, he can prove
from the Authority of two of the ablest Popith
Writers, on the Sacrament of Penance, began to be
in ufe no earlier than the 13th Century. But
notwithſtanding what thefe two able Popish
Writers have ſaid, to prove the indicative Form
of Abfolution, to be but of a late Date, and the
Dr. by divers Citations from them and others,
and from fome late pure Popish Councils, has
proved, as he thinks to be perfectly modern,
yet it ſeems I have taken occafion, p. 20. to flide
in this notable Affertion, "When Men fell into
"Sin after Baptifm, they [the Apoftles] then
authoritatively pronounced the Remiſſion of
Sins, to fuch as they found Penitent, fay-
c I forgive, or abfolve thee from thy Sins in the
Perfon of Chrift; or to that effect." Tis not hard
to guess, fays he, with what particular view he
made this Affertion, nor what Texts of Scripture he
must produce to support it, tho' he refers to none, and
bad rather, I fancy, not be called on to fhew any.
65
CC
Now would not any one that reads this Paf-
fage in the Doctor, believe that I had cited no
Text of Scripture for this Affertion, fince he
fo
Explain'd and Vindicated.
21
1
fo pofitively affirms, that Fhave produc'd none ?
It is true indeed, I do not cite any Text in the
Page he refers to, nor do I think there was
any Occafion for me to do ſo, becauſe I had
produc'd a Text in the foregoing Page, [viz.
p. 19. and what follows, p. 20. being only
a Comment upon that Citation, though I re-
peated the Words again, there could be no
Occafion to repeat Chapter and Verfe a fecond-
time, fince I had done it but juſt before. But
becauſe the Doctor was pleas'd to overlook the
Text I produc'd in my Sermon, notwithftan-
ding he took fo much Pains about it, and
made fuch nice Remarks upon it, I will here
récitethe whole Verfe, 2 Cor. ii. 10. To whom ye
forgive any thing, forgive allot For ifI forgave
any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your fakes for-
gave I it in the Perfon of Christ. Does not the
Apoftle here exprefly fay, that he forgave or
abfolv'd in the Perfon of Chrift? He does not fay
that he pray'd for Forgiveness for the offending
Perfon, but that he actually had forgiven him:
not in his own Name, or by his own Authori-
to, but in the Perfon of Christ, or as he was the
- Reprefentative of Christ. And fure, when he
acted as the Reprefentative of Christ, when he
forgave in his Perfon, he acted authoritatively :
And the very Word forgave being Indicative,
fhews that he did it Indicatively allo, and the
Apoftte exprefly fays he forgave. If therefore
St. Paul himſelf fays, that he forgave or abfol-
ved in the Perſon of Chriſt, did not I affert what
was agreeable to St. Paul's Words, and plainly
deducible from them, when I faid that the A-
postles authoritatively pronounc'd the Remiffion
of Sins to fuch as they found penitent, faying, Ifor-
give, or abfolve thee from thy Sins in the Per-
fon of Chrift, or to that Effect? For does it
B 3
not
22 The Doctrine of Remiſſion of Sins, &c.
not appear from St. Paul's Words, that the Ab-
folution which he fent in this Epiftle to the in-
ceftuous Corinthian was to that Effect? Whom
are we to believe in this Cafe, the Apoſtle or
Dr. Cannon? The Apoftle, fays, he forgave in
the Perfon of Christ, but the Dr. from his, Popiſh
Writers affures us, there was no fuch Method
of Forgiving, 'till the 13th Century. Indeed
I must acknowledge, that I never confulted
thoſe Popish Writers on this Occafion, to know
when the Indicative Form of Abfolution was intro-
duc'd, nor did I think there was any Reaſon,
which might make it neceffary, fince I had
both the Authority of St. Paul, and of our
own Church for it, However, it feems, this
would not fatisfy the Doctor; becauſe fome
Popifh Authors he had met with, told him this
Indicative Form began not 'till the 13th Centu-
ry: And as the Doctor has cited them, they
give fome plaufible Reaſons for this Afferti-
on, which being only negative Proofs, are
eafily overthrown by one pofitive Proof on the
other Side. I cannot fay that I have met with
any Form of Abfolution, either Precatory (which
the Doctor allows of) or Indicative; and per-
haps it may be difficult to find one in the true
Primitive Church, though we there find fre-
quent Mention of giving Abfolution: How-
ever, I can produce a Form of Indicative Abfo-
lution, given Four Hundred Years earlier than
the Time affign'd by the Doctor and his Po-
pish Friends, that is in the Ninth Century. I
cannot indeed do this from the Original, be-
cauſe I have it not; but I conceive the Au-
thor I cite it from, may be depended on, as
much as Morinus or Martene. It is in the English
Tranſlation of Du Pin, Cent. 9. pag. 52. where
he tells us, that Hinemarus, Archbishop of
Rheims
Explain'd and Vindicated.
23
<
C
C
C
C
C
C
રે
f
Rheims, Hath a Letter written to Hildebold,
Biſhop of Soiffons, who, being Sick, had fent
him a general Confeffion of his Sins in Wild
ting, praying him to give him his Letters of
Abfolution. He writes to him again, That
by the Apoftolick Authority be Abfole'd bim from
all bis Sins, and prayed God to forgive them to
him, by the Grace of his Holy Spirit, to deliver
him from all Evil, to keep him in perpetual Peace
and Safety, and guide him to Eternal Life.' Thefe
are the Terms in which he gave him Abfolu-
tion: To which he alfo added, "That being
C not able to come to him, and pronounce it
himfelf, he hop'd his Minifters and Prieſts
would do it.' Here the Indicative and Precatory
Forms are both joyn'd, as with us; So that both
Morinus and Marlene have certainly led the Do-
ator into a Miftake in this Matter; fince it is
fo evident, that this double Form is fo much
elder than they pretend. Therefore, fince I
find fuch Ground for the Indicative Form in
the Scriptures, and am fo well affur'd, from
this Inftance in Hincmarus, that Morinus and
Martene are fo entirely mistaken, in affirming
this Indicative Form, to have been introduc'd in
the thirteenth Century, though, in my little
Reading, I have not met with a more Anci
ent Form of Abfolution; yet I fhall (till I am
informed from better Authority) believe, that
the Indicative Form is truly Primitive. But it
may be ask'd, What End could Morinus and
Martene have to fervé, by maintaining fuch a
Pofition? I anſwer, That I cannot poſitive-
ly fay, besaufe I have not their Books, and
therefore know not on what Account they
pretended to make this Enquiry into the Anti-
quity of their prefent Form of Abfolution.
But it appears to me, that their Intent was to
В 4
fhew,
A
+
24 The Doctrine of Remiſſion of Sins, &c.
fhew, That the Church has Authority to
change the Effentials of the Sacraments, as
particularly, in their refusing the Cup to the
Laity in the Lord's Supper. Now Penance and
Abfolution are a Sacrament in the Opinion of
the Romanifts: Therefore, if they could in-
duce People to believe that the Church could
make, and had upon good Grounds made, a
New Form of Abfolution, effential to the Sacra-
ment (as they call it) of Penance, they might
then more eaſily prevail with them to think it
might have the fame Authority with Regard
to any other Sacrament,particularly the Lord's
Supper; that as it had added an effential Form
to one; fo it might take away an effential Part
from the other. For Morinus, himſelf, as the
Doctor has cited him, plainly fhews, that he
efteems the Indicative Form to be now effential to
Abfolution. Quo factum, fays he, omnes ordinarijs.
precibus formulam adderent Indicativam, ne faltem
Sacramentum dubium conferrent, quod ante Annum
Chriſti 1'300, non obtinuit. Inveterafcente autem if
ta confuetudine, Doctores celebres & multi definierunt
Abfolutionem deprecativo more datam non valere;
Mea quidem fententiâ rectè. From thefe Words
it is plain, that Morinus himſelf judg'd no other
Form but the Indicative to be of any Effect or
Validity in this Sacrament, as he calls it, not-
withſtanding he takes fuch Pains to fhew, that
it was not, introduc'd till the 13th Century.
So that the main Deſign of his taking this
Pains, feems to be to magnify the Authority
of the Pope and his Church, and to perfuade
the World, they have Authority to change the
very Effentials of the Sacraments. For Mori-
nus (as Dr. Cave reprefents him, in his Dif
courfe of Ancient Church-Government, p. 114.) was
a young and daring Champion in the Popish Caufe:
1
And
Explain'd and Vindicated."\\" 25
P
*
And fo might Martene and Goar be for ought I
know. But if I could give no Reaſon why
Papiſts ſhould maintain, that what they pra-
ctice themſelves was fo lately introduc'd, yet
fince their Affertions are fo apparently falfe,
what they ſay in this Cafe is of no Weight.
Co
6c
c
4
The laft Paffage in my Sermon, which the
Doctor fays he read, was this, from p. 39.
cc And if, upon Examination of your Confci-
ences, you find your felves guilty of parti-
"cular Sins, which may need a particular
Repentance, you ought then to go to the
ic Prieft in private, and make a particular
Confeffion, and defire a particular Abfoluti-
c on." He alfo read with it my Reference to
the Exhortation to the Holy Communion, and ob-
ferv'd to the House, that I had publish'd an Adver-
tifement before another of my Sermons, Of the Mo-
nour of the Chriftian Priesthood: To fet it in
the true Light." By which Words, I fay, I
"underſtand fome Perfons think I would în-
“troduce Auricular Confeffion, which I am fure
c was ever very far from my Thoughts For
"I meant no more by particular Sins, which
might need a particular Repentance, than
"fuch Sins as ought to burden a Man's Con-
ſcience to that Degree, that he cannot quiet
"it without farther Comfort or Counfel, as
"it is exprefs'd in the Exhortation to the Holy
"Communion, to which I there refer the Rea-
der. And I ſhould have printed that Paffage
" in the very Words of that Exhortation, had I
not been oblig'd to Print it as I Preach'd it."
And here, Dr. Cannon fays, he could not but ob-
Serve a Want of Ingenuity, in drawing in the Reader
to conclude, that at least in the Advertisement, I had
exprest my felf according to the Senfe of the Church in
its Exhortation, wherein the People are not mov'd
6.
CC
簧
​CC
to
26 The Doctrine of Remiffion of Sins, &c.
oh
?
to apply to the Prieft, on account of the Heinoufness of
their Sins (for even Blafphemy and Adultery, being
confefs'd to God, and repented of, are there fuppofed
to be pardoned by God) but folely, in Cafe any one
cannot quiet his Confcience; whereas the Do-
&tor, fays he, fuppofes fome Sins ought fo to bur-
den a Man's Confaience, &c. And fo indeed I
do: But not for the Reafon Dr. Cannon fup
pofes, becauſe fome Sins are greater than o-
thers, for perhaps a Man may have lefs Occa-
fion to feek further Comfort or Counſel, after
the Commiffion of a great Sin, than of a leſs.
He may heartily deteft and abhor a great Sin
as foon as he has committed it and may re-
folve, by the Grace of God, to do ho more fo
wickedly, and moft earnestly and devoutly
beg Pardon for it. But he may hug and che-
rifh a lefs Sin, and think it no more than a
venial Fault, which he may perfuade himſelf,
God will wink at and take no Notice of. Now
the leaft Sin ought to burthen a Man's Confci-
ence as well as the greateſt: And though he
may have fome Scruples about fuch a Sin, yet
Men in thefe Cafes are too apt to ftifle and
fupprefs thofe Checks of Confcience, and to
go on prefumptuónfly in the Commiffion of
fuch Sins, 'till at laft they perfuade themfelves
that they are no Sins. And here I conceive
Men may have Occaſion for further Counſel,
howfoever they may be apt to think they need
nonę. And therefore I fay fome Sins ought to
burthen their Confciences, though perhaps
they do not: And I put in the Word ought,
that Men might confider, whether they had
really quieted their Conſciences, or only ſtiff'd
and fupprefs'd the Checks of Confcience, that
fo, upon a Re-examination, they might dif
cover, if they did nor need farther Comfort or
2
Counſel,
་
Explain'd and Vindicated.
27
r
J
Counfel, together with the Benefit of Abfolu-
tion, for the real quieting their Confciences,
which they had hitherto but ftiffed. And Í
leave the World to judge, if this be not agree
able to the Exhortation before the Commu-
nion.
Thefe, I think, are all the Paffages in my
Sermon, which Dr. Cannon has thought fit to
acquaint the World, that he thinks to be very
fhocking: Some others he had mark'd in his
own private Book, but for Reafons beft known
to himſelf, did not, fee Occafion to take
any further Notice of them.. And whether the
Paffages he has produc'd are fo fhocking as he
would reprefent them, I muft leave others to
judge: For my own part, till I fee better Rea-
fons than the Doctor has yet produced to the
contrary, I think they contain true Doctrine,
agreeable to the Scriptures, and the Liturgy
and Homilies of our Church. As to his Quo-
tations from Marinus and Martene, I have al-
ready conſider'd and anſwer'd them. What he
meant by fo many Citations from the Coun-
cils of Lataran, Trent, &c. I know not, un-
lefs it was to fatisfy the World that he had ſeen
thofe Councils. Therefore I conceive I have
nothing more to do, to give a full Anfwer
to the Doctor, than to fhew that our firſt
Reformers did not leave the authoritative Form
of Abfolution in the Liturgy, for the Rea-
fon aflign'd by him: But that they were
of Opinion that Sins were remitted, by Abfo
lution.
着
​{
The Doctor tells us, p. 14. That he appre-
hends the only Reason, why our first Reformers left
the authoritative Form of Abfolution in the Li-
turgy, was, the Hope of bringing many Superftitions
Perfons to conform, who would have adhered to the
difcarded
1
t
8 The Doctrine of Remiſſion of Sins, &c.
difcarded Popish Priests, if those of the established
Church had been deftitute of Power fo to Abfolve.
And he adds, that That this was the most he could
Jay, in excufe of what our first Reformers did in
this Matter. So that it feems our firft Reformers
are not to be juftified, for leaving this Abfolu-
tion in the Liturgy, but only excuſed for com-
plying with the Times, and confidering ra-
ther, according to the modern Phrafe, what
was feafonable, than what was moft agreeable to
the Doctrine of the Gofpel. But what ſhall
we fay to excufe thoſe, who have let it ftand
in the Liturgy all this Time; when they have
not wanted Opportunities to expunge it in fo
many Alterations of theLiturgy? What ſhall we
fay to defend thofe, who have given their Aſ-
fent and Confent to it, fo'long after this Rea-
fon for the leaving it in the Liturgy, has cea-
fed? What fhall we fay to excufe Dr. Cannon
himſelf? Did he make an Exception to this
form of Abfolution, when he fubfcrib'd to the Book
of Common-Prayer, as containing in it nothing con-
trary to the Word of God? But
I will now fhew that our firft Reformers had
another Notion of Abfolution than the Doctor
will allow. They conceived that Sins were
forgiven by it. This is exprefly afferted in
the Homily of Common-Prayer and Sacraments.
Where to prove that Abfolution is no Sacra-
ment, there are thefe Words, Although Abſolu-
tion hath the Promife of forgiveness of Sins, yet by
the exprefs Word of the New Teftament, it hath not
this Promise annexed to the visible Sign, which is
impolition of hands; For this vilible Sign
(I mean laying on of Hands) is not expressly com-
manded in the New Testament to be uſed in Abla-
lution. Here is a pofitive Affertion of the
Church, and Dr. Cannon himſelf has fubfcrib'd
to
?
Explain'd and Vindicated.
29
to it, that Abfolution has the promise of forgivenes
of Sins. Confequently, that the Church did
not retain the authoritative Form of Abfolution,
to comply with the Humours of fome fuper-
ftitious People, ut fi populus velit decipi, decipia-
tur, according to the Doctor's Notion, but
becauſe the judged it an Ordinance of God,
and by Virtue of his Inftitution available to
the Remiffion of Sins.
•
Further, to fatisfy the World that our firft
Reformers were not of Dr. Cannon's Opinion,
and did not leave the authoritative Form of Ab-
folution in the Liturgy, for fear fome ſuperſti-
tious Perfons might otherwiſe adhere to the
diſcarded Popiſh Priefts, but that they put it
there, becauſe they look'd upon it to be ap-
pointed by Christ himſelf (though not as a
Sacrament, becauſe he did not annex thereto
any outward vifible Sign) yet as an Ordinance
inftituted for the Remiffion of Sins, I will
fhew what Archbiſhop Cranmer has faid upon
this Subject, becauſe he had not only the grea-
teft Hand in compiling the Liturgy, but was
indeed the main Corrector and Supervifor of
the whole Book, and nothing paft without
his Approbation. The Words I fhall tran-
ſcribe from him, are in his Sermon of the Autho-
rity of the Kayes. This excellent Sermon is in
fol. p. ccxxxvi. of his Book, intitled CATE-
CHISMUS, That is to ſay, a fhort Inſtruction
into Chriftian Religion, &c. by the most Reverend
Father in God, Thomas Archbishop of Canterbu-
ry, Primate of all England, and Metropolitane.
Gualterus Lynne Excudebat 1548. This was in
the fame Year wherein the Liturgy was first
reviſed and publiſhed. And though it was re-
vifed again about two Years after, yet the Re-
formers were then fo far from thinking, that
the y
1
30 The Doctrine of Remiſſion of Sins, &c.
they ought to abolish the Abfolution, that
they added a new Abſolution to be uſed after
Confeffion every Day, that fo People might
never come to Church, without receiving the
Benefit of it: And the former more feemingly
authoritative Abfolution was alfo continued as
before. So that Archbishop Cranmer, and our
other Réformers, fhewed themſelves to have
plainly the fame Opinion of Abfolution, when
they compiled the fecond Liturgy, which they
had when they compoſed the firſt. And what
that was, I fhall now fhew in the Archbishop's
own Words, as I tranfcribed them from his
Sermon, lately re-publiſhed by the Reverend
Dr. Hickes, in his excellent Preface to a Book,
intitled, The Divine Right of Epifcopacy afferted.
Printed for Richard Sare at Gray's Inn Gate in
Holbourn, 1708. pag. xxxv.
C
C
'Now when a Man after Baptifme hath
grevouſly fynned, and doubteth in his Con-
fcience whether he be in the favour of God
or no (as oftentimes it happeneth) then it
C is hard for him to truft to his awn bare Ima-
ginations, thinking on this faſhion. I know
that I have fynned, but yet I am in this Opi-
1
nion, that God is not fo cruel a Revenger.
"But that he hath forgyven me. For fuch an
Opinion, without Goddes Word is not a trew
Faith, nor is able to ftand in the daungerous
Skirmyfhes of Temptation. But trew Faith
muft ever be ſtayed upon the certen Worde
and Wourke of God. Now God dothe not
ſpeak to us, with a Voyce foundynge out of
Heaven. But he hath given the Kayes of
"the Kingdom of Heaven, and the Authority
to forgyve Synne to the Miniſters of the
'Churche. Wherefore let him that is a Synner
go to one of theim, let him knowlege and
C
C
،
6
con-
Explain'd and Vindicated.
31
C
C
'confeffe his Synne, and praye him, that ac-
cordyng to God's Commaundemente, he wyll
gyve him Abfolution, and comforte him
with the Worde of Grace, and Forgyveness of
his Synnes.
C
C
C
?
And when the Minifter dothe fo, then I
ought ftedfaftly to beleve, that my Synnes
are truly forgyven me in Heaven. And fuch
a faythe is able to ftande ftronge, in all
Skyrmiſhes, and Affautes of our mortal Ene-
my the Devel; forafimuch as it is buylded upon
a fure Rocke, that is to fay, upon the certen
'Word and Worke of God. For he that is ab-
'folved, knoweth affuredly alfo, that the
Minifter hath Authority from God himself fo
to do. And thirdely, he knoweth, that God
hath made this Promiſe to his Minifters,
and fayed to them, To whom ye forgyve
< Synnes upon Earth, to hym alſo they fhall
be forgyven in Heaven. Wherefore, good
'Children, gyve good Eare to this Doctrine,
and when your Synnes do make you affray'd
and fadde, then feke and defyer Abfolution
and Forgyvenefs of your Sins of the Miniſters,
which have receiv'd a Commiffion and Com-
s maundement from Chrift hymfelf, to for-
gyve Men their Synnes, and then youre
Confciences shall have Peace, Tranqui-
lity, and Quietnefs. But he that dothe
not obey this Counfel, but beyng ether blynd
or proude, doth difpyfe the fame, he fhall
not fynde Forgyvenefs of his Synnes, neither
in hys awne good Wourkes, nor yet in paine-
ful Chaftyfements of his Bodye, or any o-
ther thynge, whereto God hath not promy-
fed Remiffion of Synnes. Wherefore dif
"pyfe not Abfolution, for it is the Commaun-
demente and Ordinance of God, and the ho-
C
C
ly
32 The Doctrine of Remiſſion of Sins, &c.
C
،
❝ly Spirit of God is prefent, and cauſeth theſe
thinges to take Effect in us, and to worke
C our Salvation. And this is the Meaning and
playne Underſtandynge of theſe Wordes of
'Chrifte, which you hearde heretofore reher-
< ſed, whiche are writen to thentent, that we
'fhoulde beleve, that whatſoever Goddes Mi-
"nifters do to us by Gods Commaundement,
C are as much availeable as yf God hymfelf
ſhoulde do the fame. For whether the Mi-
nyfters do excommunicate open Malefactors
and unrepentant Perfons, or do gyve Abfo-
lution to thofe, which be truly repentant for
their Synnes, and amende their Lyves, theſe
Actes of the Minifters, have as great Power
and Authoritie, and be confirmed and rati-
'fied in Heaven, as thoughe oure Lorde Jefus
'Chrifte himſelf had done the fame. Where-
fore good Children, learn theſe thynges
dilygentlye. And when you be asked, How
underſtande you the Wordes before reherſed?
ye fhall answer, I do believe that whatfo-
ever the Miniſters of Chrift do to us by God's
Commaundement, either in excommunica-
tinge open and unrepentante Synners, or in
abfolving repentant Perfons, all theſe their
actes be of as great Authoritie, and as furely
confirm'd in Heaven, as yf Chriſt ſhoulde
⚫ ſpeak the Wordes out of Heaven.
<
C
C
'
<
с
C
C
So ye have good Children, the Begyn-
ning and Foundation, of the Minifters of
'Gods Worde, and of the Authoritie of the
Kayes, as our Lord Jefus Chrift did firft or-
C
C
C
deyne and inftitute the fame. The which our
'Saviour Chrift did inftitute and appointe for
this Purpoſe, That our Confciences myghte
thereby be comforted, and affured of the For-
gyveneſs of Synnes, and to have the inefti-
'mable.
Explain'd and Vindicated.
33
mable Trefures of the Gofpel, as often as we
have need thereof. That we, thereby being
made ftronge in our Faith, might fo conti-
6 nue to thende of our Life.
C
Now if Archbishop Cranmer, who was the
principal Compiler of the Liturgy, had judg'd
(as Dr. Cannon fancies he did) that Abfolution
was of no Ufe or Effect, but only might be
preferv'd in the Church, to pleafe the Hu-
mours of fome fuperftitious Perfons, he would
nöt himſelf have taken ſo much Pains to per-
fuade People, that Abfolution was fuch a Sacred,
Divine Ordinance, fo very neceffary and be-
neficial, as he fets it forth to be in his Sermon.
Which Sermon,, if the Doctor will be pleas'd
to read over, I doubt not, but befides what É
have here tranfcrib'd, he will find at leaft as
fhocking Paffages (I mean fhocking to him
and his Notions) as any he has collected out
of mine.
But to fatisfy him that the Doctrine t
Preach'd, was not only the Doctrine of our
firft Reformers, but of the Church, from that
time downwards to our own Times, I will
add to what I have already cited from the Book
of Homilies and Archbishop Cranmer, fome
Teſtimonies of the fucceeding Fathers of our
Church.
6
Bishop Andrew's, in his Sermon on this Text,
Job. xx. 23. fpeaks thus, The Remiffion of
Sins, as it is from God only; fo it is by the
$ Death and Blood-fhedding of Chriſt alone :
but, for the lapplying of this unto us, there
are divers means eftabliſh'd-r. In the In-
ftitution of Baptiſme there is a Power to that
End. Be Baptiz'd every one of you for the Remiif
fion of Sin (faith St. Peter to the three thoufand
at once). Acts xi. 38. Arise and be baptiz'd
C
(faith
·34 The Doctrine of Remiffion of Sins, &c.
{
<
కొ
C
• (faith Ananias to St Paul) and wash away thy
"Sins. And, to be fhort: I believe one Baptifm
" for the Remiffion of Sins (faith the Nicene Creed.)
2. Again there is alſo another Power for the
Remiffion of Sins, in the Inftitution of the ho-
ly Eucharift; the Words are exceeding plain,
Mat. xxvi. 28. This is my Blood of the New Tefta-
ment, for the Remiffion of Sins. 3. Befides, in
← the Word it felf, there is a like Power or-
dain'd. Now are you clean, faith Chrift (no
"Doubt from their Sins) propter fermonem hunc,
Job. xv. 3. And the very Name giveth as
much, that is intitled, the Word of Reconcilia-
tion, 2 Cor. v. 19. 4. Further, there is to the
'fame effect a Power in Prayer, and that in
6 the Priests Prayer; call for the Priests (faith the
Apoſtle) and let them pray for the Sick Perfon,
and if he have committed Sin, it shall be forgiven
• him. All and every of theſe are Acts for the
• Remiſſion of Sins; and in all and every of thefe, is
• the Perfon of the Miniſter required, and they cannot
•be dispatched without him. But the Ceremonies
&
6
and Circumftances that here I find uſed, pre-
'vail with me to think, that there is fomewhat
' here imparted to them, that was not before.
For it carrieth no Likelyhood, that our Savi-
our beſtowing on them nothing here, but
that which before he had, would ufe fo much
Solemnity, fo diverfe and new Circumftan-
ces, no new or diverfe Grace being here
communicated: 1. Now for Baptifm,it appea
reth plainly, Job. iv. 2. that the Apostles bap-
tiz'd in a Manner from the Beginning; which
'I make no Queſtion they did not without a
€ Commiffion. 2. And for the Power of ad-
miniftring the Holy Sacrament, it was granted
exprefly to them by Hoc facite, Luc. xxii. 19.
before his Paffion. 3. The like may we fay
&
'
6
་་
of
Explaind and Vindicated.
3'5
of the Power of Preaching, which was given
long before, even when He fent them, and
"commanded them to preach the Kingdom of Go D,
C
C
C
،
C
C
Mat. x. 7. Luke ix. 2. which was done be-
"fore this Power was promifed, which is here
beſtowed; as will evidently appear, the one
being given, Mat. x. the other promifed,
Mat. xvi. 4. Neither can it be meant of
Prayer. There is no Partition in Prayer.
Prayers and Supplications are to be made for all
Men, 1 Tim. ii. 2. But here is a plain Parti-
on. There is a Quorum, whofe 'Sins are re-
mitted, and another Quorum whofe Sins are
retained. Seeing then this new Ceremony,
and folemn manner of proceeding in this,
are able to perfuade any, it was fome new
Power that here was conferred, and not thoſe
C which before had been (though there be that
apply this, others to fome one, others to all
of them :) I take it to be a Power diftin&t
، from the former,and(not to hold you long)to
"be the Accompliſhment of the Promife made,
C
6
C
f
Mat. xvi. 19. of the Power of the Keys, which
' here in this Cafe and in thefeWordsis fulfil'd;
' and have therein for me the joint Confent
" of the Fathers, which being a different Power
in it felf, is that which we call the Act or
Benefit of Abſolution; in which (as in the reft)
"there is in due Time and Place of it an Ufe
for the Remiſſion of Sins. Whereunto our Sa-
viour Chrift, by his fending them, doth infti-
tute them, and give them the Key of Authori-
ty: And by breathing on them and infpiring
them, doth enable them and give them the
Key of Knowledge, to do it well; and having
bestowed both theſe upon them as the Stew-
ards of his Houfe, doth laft of all deliver them
C 2
,
C
C
their
1
36 The Doctrine of Remiſſion of Sins, &c.
their Commiffion to do it, having fo ena-
S bled them, and authorized them as before
5
6
<
6
6
And in the Conclufion of this Sermon he
fays, And here I fhould fpeak fomething of
the applying or Ufe of it: [viz. of the Power
of Abfolution] And to that End, even for Com-
fort, I will only point at four Things in the
enditing of it, all expreffing the Efficacy of it
in more than common manner. I. The Or-
der, in this; that Remiferitis ftandeth firft,
and Remittuntur fecond. It is St. Chryfoftome's
*Note, that it beginneth on Earth, and Hea-
ven followeth after. So that whereas in Prayer
and in other Parts of Religion, it is, ficut in
cœlo, fic in terrâ ; here it is, ficut in terrâ fic in
• cœlo. A terrâ judicandi principalem authoritatem
fumit calum. Nam judex fedet interra: Dominus
fequitur fervum, & quicquid bic in inferioribus ju-
dicârit, boc ille in fupernis comprobat, faith he.
2. The Time: In this, that it is Remittuntur
6 in the Prefent Tenfe; there is no Delay be-
tween, no deferring or holding in Sufpence;
but the Abfolution pronounced upon Earth,Re-
mittuntur, preſently they are remitted; that
'he faith not, hereafter they ſhall be, but they
are already remitted. 3. The Manner in fet-
ting down the two Words: For, it is fo de-
"livered by Chrift, as if he were content it
'fhould be accounted their Act, and that the
Apostles were the Agents in it, and himfelf but
the Patient, and fuffer'd it to be done. For
*the Apostles Part is delivered in the Active,
* (Remiferitis) and his own in the Paffive (Re-
mittuntur). 4. The Certainty: which is in the
Identity of the Word, in not changing the
Word, but keeping the felf fame in both
Parts. For Christ hath not thus endited it,
• whofe Sins ye wifh, or ye pray for, or whofe
• Sins
6
"
Į
Explain'd and Vindicated.
37
Sins
ye declare to be remitted; but whofe Sins
ye remit; ufing no other Word in the Apostle's
Part than he uſeth in his own. And to all
theſe in St. Matthew, (Mat. xviii. 18.) He ad-
deth his folemn Proteftation of verily, verily,
or Amen, Amen, that ſo it is, and fhall be.
' And all to certify us, that he fully meaneth,
with Effect to ratify in Heaven that is done
on Earth, to the fure and ftedfaft Comfort
of them that fhall partake it.'
$
<
C
Biſhop Hall in his third Volume, contain-
ing Cafes of Confcience, p. 838. has theſe
Words. If Man or Angel fhall challenge to
himſelf this abfolute Power to forgive Sins, let
him be accurfed, yet withal it muſt be yield-
ed, that the bleffed Son of God fpake not
thofe Words of his laft Commiſſion in vain,
Whose foever Sins ye remit, they are remitted unto
them: And whofe foever Sins ye retain, they are
retained, Joh. xx. 23. Neither were they
ſpoken to the prefent Apoftles only, but in
them to all their faithful Succeffors, to the
. end of the World. It cannot then but be
granted, that there is fome kind of Power
left in the Hand of Christ's Minifters, both
to remit and retain Sin: Neither is this
'Power given only to the Governors of the
"Church, in refpect to the Cenfures to be in-
'flicted or relaxed by them, but to all God's
faithful Minifters, in relation to the Sins of
'Men: A Power not foveraign and abfolute,
' but limited and minifterial, for either quiet-
ing the Confcience of the Penitent, or fur-
'ther aggravating the Confcience of Sin, or
Terror of Judgment to the Qbftinate and
Rebellious. Neither is this only by way of
'bare verbal Declaration (which might pro
! geed from any other Lips) but in the way of
<
C 3
an
1
1
38 The Doctrine of Remiſſion of Sins, &c.
C
<
C
"
1
àn operative and effectual Application, by
'Virtue of that delegate or commiffionary Au-
thority, which is by Chrift intrufted with
them. For certainly our Saviour meant in
thefe Words, to confer ſomewhat upon his
Minifters, more than the reft of the World
'fhould be capable to receive' or perform:
C The Abfolution therefore of an authorized
'Perfon, muſt needs be of greater Force and
Efficacy, than of any private Man, how
learned or holy foever, fince it is grounded
upon the Inftitution and Commiffion of the
of the Son of God, from which all Power
⚫ and Virtue is derived to all his Ordinances.
And we may well fay, That whatſoever is
in this Cafe done by God's Minifter, (the
'Key not erring) is ratified in Heaven: It
'cannot therefore but be a great Comfort and
'Cordial Affurance to the penitent Soul, to
hear the Meffenger of God (after a careful
'Inquifition into his Spiritual State, and true
fight of his Repentance) in the Name of the
Lord Jefus, pronouncing to him the full Re-
'miffion of all his Sins: And if either the Blef
fing or Curfe of a Father go deeper with us,
than of any other whatſoever, although pro-
ceeding from his own private Affection,
'without any warrant from above; how for-
cibly ſhould we eſteem the (not fo much pre-
catory as declaratory) Benediction of our Spi-
ritual Fathers, fent to us out of Heaven.
C
"
เ
I might and fhould here alſo add a large
Quotation from Bishop Baily's Practice of Piety,
in the Place where he fhews, how the fick Per-
fon ought to fend for fome godly and religious Paftor,
but it is a Book fo well known, and almoſt in
every Family, that I fhall only defire the 'Rea-
der to confult the Book it felf in that Place,
Thefe
Explain'd and Vindicated.
39
Theſe three, Archbishop Cranmer, Bhhop An-
drews, and Bifhop Baily, I referred to in the
Preface to my Sermon: And if Doctor Cannon
had confulted them, before he made his Mo-
tions on this occafion, he would have found
that all the ſhocking Paffages, as he calls them,
which he read out of my Sermon, are to be
met with in thefe Venerable Authors. How-
ever, to fhew that the Bishops of this Church,
continu'd the fame Opinion, with relation to
Abſolution, even to our own Times; I will pro-
duce one Citation more, which ſhall be from
Biſhop Sparrow, who died not till the Year
1685. but a few Years before the Revolution,
In his Sermon on Confeffion of Sins, and the
Power of Abfolution. Reprinted by Sam. Keble at
the Turk's Head in Fleetftreet, 1704 pag. 14.
after having fhewed the abfolute neceffity of
Confeffion to God, he has theſe Words.
7
C
C
C
C
C
<
C
с
C But there is another Confeffor that would
not be neglected. Qui confiteri vult, ut inve-
niat gratiam, quarat facerdotem, fcientem folvere
ligare, faith St. Auguftine: He that would
be fure of Pardon, let him feek out a Prieft,
and make his humble Confeffion to him; for
God, who alone hath the prime and origi-
nal Right of forgiving Sins, hath delegated
the Priests his Judges here on Earth, and gi-
ven them the Power of Abfolution, fo that
they can in his Name forgive the Sins of thofe
C that humbly confefs unto them. But is not
this Blafphemy, faid the Scribes once? Is it
not Popery fay fome with us now? Take the
"Counfel that is given in Job, cap. viii. ver. 8.
Enquire of the former Generations, ask the Fathers,
and they shall tell thee. Ask then Sa Chryfoftome,
" and hear what he faith in his fifth Homily,
upon thefe Words of Ifaiah, I faw the Lord
fitting
<
C
<
6
C 4
३
i
40 The Doctrine of Remiſſion of $ins, &c,
6
C
C
C
C
fitting upon a Throne. What is comparable
$ (faith he) to the Power of the Prieft, to
whom Chrift hath faid, Whatſoever ye shall
bind on Earth, ſhall be bound in Heaven, and
whatſoever ye shall loofe on Earth fhall be loofed in
Heaven ? από γης αρχήν κρίσεως λαμβάνει ὁ
* ἐρανὸς, ἐπειδὰν ὁ κριτὴς ἐν τῇ γῇ κάθη), ὁ δεσπότης έπει
κατω δολῷ, και είπερ ἄν ἔτος κάτω κρίνει, ταῦτα ὁ μύρια άνω
xvegi. Heaven waits and expects the Prieft's
Sentence here on Earth, the Lord follows
the Servant, and what the Servant binds or
loofes on Earth, clave non errante, that the
'Lord confirms in Heaven: Words fo clear
for the judiciary formal Abfolution of the
Prieft; as nothing can be faid more plain.
Pleaſe you next to enquire of St. Jerome, who
is faid to be the Patron of that Opinion, that
holds the Prieft's Power barely declarative,
' and fo indeed none at all: Yet he ſpeaks
C home, in his Epiftle, ad Heliodorum de vitâ fo-
litaria. God forbid, faith he, that I ſhould
fpeak a Word amifs against the Priests, Qui
facro ore Corpus Chrifti conficiunt, that is in the
holy Eucharift; per quos nos Chriftiani fumus,
that is in Baptifm: Qui claves Regni calorum
babentes, quodammodo ante diem judicij judicant ;
that is by remitting or retaining Sins. He
that can conftrue judicant, and underſtand
what it fignifies, needs no Comment upon
the Words. Hear next what St. Gregory the
Great fays, in his 26th Homily upon the Go-
fpels, Apoftoli principatum fupremi judicij ſortiun-
tur, ut vice Dei quibufdam peccata retineant, qui-
B bufdam relaxent; The Apoftles, and in them
all Priefts were made God's Vicegerents here
on Earth, in his Name to retain and forgive
Sins, not declaratively only, but judicially :
§ 4pimorum judices fiunt, as he goes on, they
•are
C
C
6
C
C
1
47
Explain'd and Vindicated.
are made the Judges of the Souls of Men,
cafting the Obftinate down to the Gates of
Hell, by the fearful Power of Excommuni-
cation, and lifting the Penitent into Hea-
ven, by the bleffed Power of Abſolution.
And he is no better than a Novatian, that
denies it, fays St. Ambrofe. I could name
more Fathers, as St. Augustine, St. Cyprian,
and others, but I fpare. Theſe I have
named, are enough to give Teftimony of
the former Generation, Men too pious to be
thought to ſpeak Blafphemy, and too ancient
to be fufpected of Popery. But to put all out
of doubt, let's fearch the Scriptures; look
into St. John xx. v. 23. Whofe foever Sins ye re-
mit, they are remitted unto them, and whofe foever
Sins ye retain, they are retained: Here is a plain
Power of remitting Sins granted to the
Prieft, by our bleffed Saviour. Nor can it
be understood of remitting Sins by preaching,
as fome expound it, nor by baptizing, as others
guefs. For both thefe, preach and baptize, they
could do long before: But this Power of re-
mitting they received not till now, that is, af-
ter his Refurrection. As appears firft
by the Ceremony of Breathing, by that figni-
fying that then he infuſed that Power into
< them, which he bid them receive. And
Secondly, by the Word Receive, which he
$ could not properly ufe, if they had been in-
€ dued with it before. So then it is not the
Power of preaching and baptizing, which
is here given the Apoftles, but as the Fa-
thers'interpret the Place, a peculiar Power of
pronouncing, as God's deputed Judges, Par-
don and Remiffion to the Penitent, a Power
f of abfolving from Sins, in the Name of God,
C
C
·
all
1
42 The Doctrine of Remiffion of Sins, &c.
C
C
C
all fuch as penitently confefs unto them:
'A Form of which Abfolution our Holy Mo-
ther the Church, hath preſcribed in the Vi-
'fitation of the Sick. He then that affents to
❝ the Church of England, or believes the Scrip-
tures, or gives Credit to the ancient Fathers,
cannot deny the Priefts the Power of remit-
'ting Sins. Pænitentiam igitur agite qualis
agitur in Ecclefiâ, confefs as the Church di-
rects us, confefs to God, confefs alfo to the
Prieft, if not in private, in the Ear, fince
' that is out of uſe, yet however confefs as the
'Church appoints, publickly before the Con-
gregation, that fo we may at leaſt by this
reap the great Benefit of Abfolution. And
if we flight this, hear what St. Auguftine ſays,
Tom. 10. Hom. 49. Nemo fibi dicat, occultè
ago, quia apud Deum ago, &e. Let no Man
flatter himſelf, and fay, I confefs in private to
God, and God that knows my Heart will
pardon me, tho' I never at all confefs unto
the Prieft, Ergo fine caufa dictum effet, quæ fol-
veritis in terrâ, &c? Hath God in vain faid,
Whofe Sins ye remit, they are remitted? Hath
"God in vain given the Prieft the Power of
the Keys? Fruftramus ergo verbum Dei? Shall
we by our wilful Neglect, go about to make
void the Promiſe of Chrift? God forbid !
6
C
€
C
C
$
I fhall not burthen the Reader with more
Quotations of this Kind, I hope theſe may be
fufficient to fatisfy him, that our firft Refor-
mers did not retain the authoritative Form of
Abfolution in the Liturgy, in hopes of bringing
many fuperftitious Perfons to conform nor did any
of thefe great Men think as he does, that this
was the most could be faid in excufe for it. They
were fo far from thinking that it needed an
Excufe, that they preached up authoritative Ab-
Lolution
}
Explain'd and Vindicated.
43
Solution, with Zeal and Earneftneſs, as a Do-
Arine of Jefus Christ, which was always re-
ceived and retained in the Church.
But notwithſtanding our Reformers have fo
pofitively declared in the Homily above cited,
that Abfolution has the Promife of forgiveness of
Sins; and Dr. Cannon himfelf has fubfcrib'd to
this as a Doctrine agreeable to the Scriptures;
notwithſtanding Archbishop Cranmer, the chief
of our Reformers, and who was the main Di-
rector and Supervifor of the Liturgy, when it
was compiled, and afterwards when it was re-
viſed, fays, That when the Minister, according
to God's Commandment, gives me Abfolution, then
I ought stedfastly to believe, that my Sins are truly
forgiven me in Heaven: And that fuch Faith is
able to ftand strong, in all Skirmishes and Affaults of
our mortal Enemy the Devil, forafmuch as it is built
upon a fure Rock, that is to fay, upon the fure Word
and Work of God, yet Dr. Cannon has the Confi-
dence to tell us, that they fufficiently declared it
to be their Opinion, That the Abfolution of the
Priest is of no availtoward the Pardon of Sin. Would
it not have become a Man of the Doctor's Sta-
tion and Character, to have made fome bet-
ter Enquiry into the Opinions of our firſt Re-
formers in this Point, before he had ſo pe-
remptorily made this Affertion? Would not a
Man of common Prudence and Honeſty have
enquir'd into the Doctrines, himſelf had fub-
fcrib'd to before he had printed fuch a Pofiti-
on? But it ſeems he fubfcrib'd he knew not
what. And after fo many Subſcriptions as he
has made to the Book of Homilies, declaring,
That it doth contain a godly and wholeſome Doctrine,
and neceffary for thefe Times, he has publifh'd,
what is directly contrary to the exprefs Doctrine
contained in that Book. For whereas the
Book
44 The Doctrine of Remiſſion of Sins,&c.
Book fays, That Abfolution has the Promife of
forgiveness of Sins, and by the Words follow
ing, where it fpeaks of impofition of Hands,
plainly fhews, that it means the Abfolution of
the Priest; yet the Doctor afferts, and afferts it as
the Doctrine of our Church, That the Abfolution
of the Priest is of no avail toward the pardon of Sin,
But let us fee the Grounds on which the
Doctor founds this Affertion; and fee if he
had not at leaſt ſome plaufible Reafons for it.
Having therefore tranfcrib'd the Exhortation
to the Holy Communion, as he fays, it ftands in
in the firft Book of K. Edw. VI. The Conclu-
fion of which (except what he fays, follows for
the fatisfaction of fcrupulous Minds, which he
therefore puts in the Poftfcript to his Book,
and makes no Inferences from) is this. That
if we be impenitent, Neither the Abfolution of
the Priest doth any thing avail us, nor the receiving
this Holy Sacrament, doth any thing but increaſe our
Damnation. Upon which he obſerves, we have
now seen all the Ways and Means of becoming worthy
Receivers of this Holy Sacrament, whereby we are
afcertained that we have obtained remiffion of
our Sins; And neither the Abſolution of a Prieſt,
nor Confeffion of Sins to a Prieft, us to be found a-
mong them. Therefore our first Reformers thought nei-
ther of them of any avail toward the pardon of Sins.
He might as well have obferved, that the receiving
the Holy Sacrament was not amongst the Ways and
Means prefcribed for the obtaining remiffion of Sins;
and therefore that our first Reformers though
not that the Holy Sacrament was of any avail for
the remiſſion of Sins. The Exhortation was in-
tended to fhew them how they were to fit
and qualify themſelves to receive the Holy Sa-
crament, and the Abfolution of the Priest, which
then as well as now always preceded it. If
this was not the Intent in this Exhortation,
there
Explain'd and Vindicated.
45
there was no occaſion to have mention'd the
Abfolution of the Priest, together, with the Holy
Sacrament, in the conclufion of the Exhortati-
on. And to what End was it faid, that neither
the Abfolution of the Priest can avail us any thing,
if we be impenitent, unless they had fuppofed
it to avail fomething to the Penitent? The
very faying that it did not avail in one cafe, is
a ftrong Proof that they conceived it to avail in
the other. So that the very Argument Dr. Can-
non brings to maintain his Affertion, is indeed
a forcible Argument againſt it.
But he fays further, In the Rubrick, before the
Abfolution, in the Vifitation of the Sick, it is or-
der'd, That the fame Form ſhould be uſed in all pri-
vate Confeffions; but that Order was left out th
the fecond Book. And ſo were all thofe Paffages in
the Exhortation before the Holy Communion, which
mention any confeffing of Sins to a Priest, or in-
deed fuppofe any facerdotal Abfolution: So that
throughout the whole Book, there is no mention.
any where of confeffing Sins to a Prieſt; nor of
the Prieft's abfolving, except once in the Vifitation
of the Sick. As to what relates to confeffing Sins
to a Prieft, I fhall have occafion to fpeak of it
in a little time, and to fhew what I conceive
to be the Opinion of our Church in that Mat-
ter. But at prefent I fhall keep to the Point
of Abfolution. Now in this 2d Book of Edw. VI.
there was a Form of Abfolution (as well as
Confeffion) drawn up to be uſed every Day
at the beginning of Morning and Evening
Service. And when there was another Form
of Abfolution appointed, it might not be
thought fo convenient to tie the Minifter up
to the old Form, in the cafe of all private Con
feffions, as before the new Form was establish'd.
And by leaving out that Order in the fecond
Book, it ſeems plainly to be intended, that
the
46 The Doctrine of Remiffion of Sins, &c.
¿
the Minifter in Cafe of private Abfolution, de-
fired by a Perſon in his Health, and in no pre-
fent danger of Death, might abfolve him in
any of the preſcribed Forms he fhould think
convenient. For indeed, there is no material
Difference in the three Forms of Abfolution,
and though that in the Office for vifiting the Sick,
feems more authoritative than either of the
other two, yet indeed it is not. Where is the
Difference between faying, by the Authority
which Jefus Chrift has committed to me, I abfolve
thee, as in the Vifitation of the Sick; and Almigh-
ty God, who has given me his Minifter Power and
Commandment, to declare and pronounce to the Peni-
tent the Abſolution and Remiffion of Sins, he par-
doneth and abſolveth, as in the daily Office? Do
we not in both theſe Abfolutions declare, that
the Pardon is God's Pardon, and that we act
only as God's Minifters, commiffion'd by him
to pronounce it? In one we acquaint the Pe-
nitent, that God pardons him by our Mini-
ftry, and in the other, that we abfolve him in
God's Name, and by his Authority, meerly as
Minifters commiffion'd by him for that Pur-
pofe: That although we pronounce the
Words, we do it but as Servants acting in our
Maſter's Name. Neither is the other Abfolu-
tion in the Communion Service lefs authoritative
than the other two. It is, I know, common-
ly call'd a Precatory Form, and is faid by fome
to be meerly Optative, and no more than a
bare Prayer for Pardon and Forgiveneſs. But
it is plainly more than fo, and ought to be
call'd a Benedictory Form, Precatory indeed, with
Refpect to God, but Authoritative with Re-
ſpect to the People. A Prayer it is, but not
in the Name of the People, but offered by the
Prieft alone for the People. A Prayer to God,
and
Explain❜d and Vindicated,
47
and a Benedictory Abfolution to them. For
God will pardon thoſe who are truly Penitent,
and humbly receive this Pardon from thoſe
whom he has appointed to pronounce and de-
clare it, it matters not in what Form they
pronounce it, whether Precatory, Declarative, or
Indicative; becauſe the Pardon depends not
on the Form, fince Christ himſelf has preſcrib'd
none, but on the Authority vefted in the Priest
by his Commiſſion. And the Priest plainly fhews
his Authority in the Ufe of this very 'Form, by
offering it in his own Name, and not in the
Name of the Congregation, as all other Prayers
are made, and doing this alſo,ſtanding as God's
Ambaffador, and pronouncing it to them knee-
ling, who receive it as the bleffing of Pardon
and ftrengthing Grace. Since then both the
Authority and Effect of Abfolution, as it con-
cerns the Agent, depends upon the Commiffion,
and not on any Form of Words, the Church in
private Cafes might very well leave the Prieft
at liberty, to ufe which of the Forms he ſhould
think fit, mutatis mutandis, with regard to a
private Perfon and a Congregation. There-
fore the Church by not tying up the Priest to
uſe in all private Abfolutions the Form pre-
ſcribed in the Office for vifiting the Sick, gave
no manner of Reaſon to perfuade us that our
Reformers chang'd their Opinions, and upon
the Edition of the ſecond Book, judg’d Abſolu-
tion to be of no Avail for the remiſſion of Sins ; but
on the contrary, the making a new Form to
be uſed in the daily Service of the Church,
was an Argument that they thought Abfolution
(if not abfolutely neceflary, yet) moft highly
expedient for remiffion of Sins, fince thereby
they took care that no Perfon truly penitent,
fhould ever want the Benefit of it. And it is
now
48 The Doctrine of Remiffion of Sins, &c.
now given to all the Penitent immediately,
upon the humble Confeffion of their Sins.
Since therefore every Man who frequents our
Church with that Penitence, Devotion and
Humility, which he ought to do, does at all
thofe Times receive the Benefit of Abfolution,
the Church had no occafion to exhort Men,
otherwiſe than upon Scruples for their more
particular Satisfaction, to defire or feek for
particular Abfolution, fince if they are truly Pe-
nitent, they may receive it daily, or at leaft
weekly in the Congregation. But becauſe in
time of Sickneſs, Men are apt to be more
fcrupulous and fearful than in their Health,
and many Men may have reafon to fear, that
though they have frequented the Church, they
have not there received the Benefit of the daily
Abfolution, for want of that true Penitence,
which fhould qualify them for that Benefit ;
therefore the Church has provided a more par-
ticular Abfolution (not really, though feemingly
more Authoritative than the other) to be pro-
nounc'd at that time, if humbly and heartily
defir'd. And the Church has here left the
Sick Perſon to his own Diſcretion, whether he
will defire it, not becaufe fhe conceives the
Abfolution of the Priest of no Avail for Pardon of
Sins; but becauſe the conceives there is no
Perfon living within her Communion, who
does not frequent the Daily Service, and has
not there duly receiv'd the Abfolution appoin-
ted in that Service: And who has not alfo du-
ly receiv'd the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper,
and been there alfo Abfolv'd, as is appointed
likewiſe in that Office. And if the Sick Per-
ſon receives that Holy Sacrament, he alſo will
receive the Abfolution appointed to be given
with it. Since therefore the Church has ta
ken
Explain'd and Vindicated.
49
ken fuch Care, that no one fhould either live
or dye without the Abfolution of the Priest, the
might well leave Perfons to their own Difcre-
tion, whether they would defire to be Abfolv'd
in a more particular manner.
Forafmuch therefore as the Church has ta-
ken fuch particular Care, that none who are
truly penitent may want the Abfolution of the
Prieft, it is ftrange that a Dignitary of this
Church ſhould declare it to be her Opinion,
that the Abfolution of the Priest is of no Avail for
the Pardon of Sin, becauſe fhe has not now pre-
fcrib'd one particular Form for all private Ca-
fes, but left the Miniſter to his Difcretion, to
ufe which of her Forms he thinks convenient.
But what is yet more ftrange is, That the Do-
&tor fhould have the Confidence to affirm that
throughout the whole Book [viz. the Book of com-
mon Prayer] there is no Mention any where of con
feffing Sins to a Prieft; nor of the Priests Abfolving,
except once in the Vifitation of the Sick. As to the
Point of Confeffion, I will treat of it by it
ſelf at the Conclufion of this Paper. But for
a Man to fay there is nothing of the Priests Abfol-
ving, in the whole Book of Common Prayer,
except once in the Vifitation of the Sick, is fuch an
Affertion which no modeft Man would make.
For in the Beginning both of Morning and E-
vening Prayer, immediately after the Confeffion,
follows, The Abſolution or Remiffion of Sins, to
be pronounc'd by the Pieft alone standing; the
People still kneeling. Likewife immediately af-
ter the Confeffion in the Communion Service,
then shall the Priest, (or t Bishop, being pre-
Sent) stand up, and turning himself to the People,
pronounce this Abfolution. And if the Doctor
pretends that he means private Abfolution, I
think he ought to have told us fo: For his
D
Argu-
50 The Doctrine of Remiffion of Sins, &c.
Argument is general, and his Affertion too
equally affects all kind of Abſolution by a Prieft.
And I believe no one will fay, but if the
Prieſt can abſolve the Penitent in Publick, he
may do it in Private alfo However the Church
mentions the Priests abfolving in private, when,
in the Exhortation to the Holy Communion,
it gives this Direction, If there be any of you who
by this means cannot quiet his own Confcience herein,
but requireth further Comfort or Counsel, let him
come to me, or to some other discreet and learned Mi-
nister of God's Word, and open bis Grief, that by the
Ministry of God's Holy Word be may receive the Be-
nefit of Abfolution, together with ghostly Counsel
and Advice, to the quieting of the Confcience, and
avoiding of all Scruple and Doubtfulness. Here the
Perfon is requir'd to apply to fome difcreet
and learned Miniſter of God's Word, not only
for Counſel, but for the Benefit of Abfolution,
he is to receivethe Benefit of Abfolution from him,
and yet the Doctor fays, there is no mention of
the Priests Abfolving in this Cafe. What, is the
Perfon to receive the Benefit of Abſolution from .
the Prieft, and yet is not the Prieft to abfolve
him if it be convenient? But, fays the Doctor,
a difcreet Parish Priest may, by the right Application
of God's Word, adminifter not only Comfort, but the
Benefit of Abfolution alfo, without using any Form
of Abfolving. That is he may give him the
Benefit of Abfolution without giving him any
Abfolution at all? This is fomething extraor
dinary, let us therefore examine how this is
to be done. The Doctor fays, Such a Minifter
may from the Word of God, affure and fatisfy the
Penitent, that be certainly has the Benefit of God's
Abfolution. And that this was the Intention of the
Compilers of this Second Book, I am the more fatis-
fied, by obferving, that in this very Book, they first
prefcribed
?
'Explain' d'and Vindicated.
5K
મે
prefcribed a Way and Form of doing it. For where
as in the first Book the Morning and Evening Pray-
ers began with the Lord's Prayer; In the ſecond, be-
fore that Prayer, first a Sentence of Scripture was
ordered to be read; next an Exhortation to confeffion
of Sins before God, then a general Confeffion. After
which, the Abfolution, as it is call'd, was to
be pronounc'd by the Miniffer alone; which
is to declare to the People from God's Word, that he
defires the Converfion and Eternal Happiness of
Sinner; that as he pardoneth and abfolveth all true
Penitents, who believe his Gospel, fo he has given
Power and Commandment to his Minifters, to de-
clare and pronounce to them the Abfolution and Re-
miffion of their Sins. The Cafe then it ſeems is
this, what the Church calls Abfolution the Do-
&tor will have to be no Abfolution, for he ftiles
it the Abfolution as it is call'd, plainly intima-
ting thereby that it is indeed no Abfolution, but
a meer Form, as he fays, by which a Minifter
may from the Word of God affure and fatisfy the Pe-
mitent, that he has the Benefit of God's Abfolution,
which implies, as if it might be pronounc'd
by any other Man as well as a Priest.
But
which are to be guided by in this Cafe, the
Doctor or the Rubrick? The Rubrick ftilesit
the Abfolution, and the Doctor, as well as my
felf, and the rest of the Clergy, has fubfcrib'd
to the Rubrick: And I cannot think but that
I ought to look upon it to be as the Rubrick
calls it, notwithstanding the Doctor's Judg-
ment: And having laid down my Reafons for
it, fhall leave the Reader to judge.
•
Now by Abſolution, as given by Man, I un-
derftand a Power which God has committed to d
certain Order of Men, whom we call Puefs, to
`declare and pronounce Remiffion of Sins, to the Peni-
*tent in his Ñame, which Declaration and Pronunci-
ation is effectual to the Remiffion of Sins, Chrift ba
D 2
ving
52 The Doctrine of Remiffion of Sins, &c.
ving promifed, that whofefoever Sins they remit, they
are remitted. For fince the Priest acts but by
Commiffion, that is by a delegated Power, in
this Cafe, he cannot pardon in his own Name,
but in God's Name only. The Pardon is
Gods, and the Priests part is to declare and
pronounceit,and what he doesthus declare and
pronounce clave non errante, God has promiſed
to ratify and confirm. Therefore as I faid in
my Sermon, p. 38. It is not the Man that for-
gives, it is not the Man that pardons you, but God
himself does it by the Ministry of his Prieft, who is
the Ambaffador for Chrift, and appointed in
Chriſt's ftead to reconcile you to God, 2 Cor.
v. 20. The Form prefcrib'd in our daily Office,
is exactly agreeable to this, and is therefore
as full and compleat an Abfolution as any we
contend for. Here the Priest firft declares
God's good Will towards Sinners, and his Rea-
dinefs to receive them upon their Repentance
and Amendment, faying, Almighty God, the Fa-
ther of our Lord Jefus Chrift, who defireth not the'
Death of a Sinner, but rather that he may turn from
bis Wickedness and live. Then he fheweth the Au-
thority he has committed to his Priests, and to
affure the Penitent of his Pardon: And bath
given Power and Commandment to his Minifters to
declare, and pronounce to his People being penitent,
the Abfolution and Remiſſion of their Sins. Having
thus declar'd God's good Will, and the Power
committed to him as his Minifter; he then
proceeds by Virtue of this Power and Autho-
rity, to declare and pronounce God's Pardon,
faying, He [that is God] pardoneth and abfolveth
all them that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe his
Holy Gospel. This is the Abfolution; and what-
foever Dr Cannon may think of it, is as full and
as Indicative, as that Form in the Viſitation of
the Sick, which ſo much offends him. There
is
Explain'd and Vindicated.
53
is only this Difference, that this Abfolution be-
ing appointed to be pronounced to a mixed
Congregation, where many Perfons may be
prefent who are not truly penitent, it was ne-
ceffary to word it in fuch manner as all might
underſtand, that the Impenitent and Unfaithful
were not abfolved, nor receiv'd any Benefit
thereby: But that fuch as were truly penitent
and faithful having fincerely and heartily ac-
knowledg'd and bewail'd their Sins in the fore-
going Confeffion, were actually pardoned by
God himſelf, and that he, as God's Deputy,
did pronounce their Pardon. For to what o-
ther purpoſe does the Prieft, before he pro-
nounces the Abfolution, declare and affert his
Authority, as committed to him by Almighty
God for that End? Are thoſe Words, he has
given Power and Commandment to his Miniſters, to
declare and pronounce to his People, being penitent,
the Abfolution and Remiffion of their Sins, put into
the Form for no Intent or Deſign? Undoubt-
edly they are uſed to fhew the People the
Prieft's Power and Authority in this Cafe:
And that God fends them their Pardon by
him, as his particular Meffenger or Ambaffa-
dour, fent to them for that purpoſe; and that
by Vertue of this Commiffion he declares and
pronounces God's Pardon to the Faithful and
Penitent. Accordingly he ufes plain Indicative
Words, and in the prefent Tenfe. He doth not
ſay, God hath promiſed you Pardon upon your Repen-
tance, or God will pardon you, hereafter if you do as
you ought to do, or the like, but he actually pro-
nounces God's prefent Pardon: He pardoneth
and abfolveth, that is, He actually grants his
Pardon at this very Time that it is pronounc'd
by me his Deputy, to all them, that is, to every
one of you that do [now] truly repent, and un-
D 3
·
feign
1
:
54 The Doctrine of Remiſſion of Sips, &c.
feignedly believe his holy Gospel. And if this Abſo-
lution fhould be given to a fingle Perfon (as
Dr. Cannon fuppofes it was intended, it fhould
be, when Application was made to the Prieft
for that Purpoſe) the Form being put into the
Singular Number on that Occafion, muft run
thus: He [that is God] pardoneth and abſolveth
thee who doft [or if thou doft] truly repent, and
unfeignedly believe his holy Gospel. What does the
Prieft do more, or how does he pretend, or
make Shew of greater Authority, when he
fays, by his [viz. Chrift's] Authority committed to
we, I abfolve thee ? In both Forms he fhews,
that the Pardon comes from God, that he only
pronounces it as his Deputy, and by a Com-
miffion derived from him. And in both of
them he declares and afferts the Power by
which he acts, and pronounces the Abfoluti-
on with Authority, standing in the Place of
God, as his Ambaffador, whilft the Penitent
kneels (or, if Sick, lies) in a moft humble Po-
fture to receive his Pardon. If the Church
conceiv'd this Form in the Daily Service, to be
no more than a Declaration of God's good
Will and Readineſs to pardon Sinners, as the
Doctor and fome others feem to expound it,
the People might ftand up or fit down to hear
it read, as at a Sermon, where there is fre-
quently as much faid by way of Declaration as
they feem to allow in this Form. But the
Church, by appointing the Prieft to ftand,
and the People to kneel at the pronouncing
this Form, plainly fhews, that he really e-
fteems it to be, as fhe calls it, and I conceive I
have prov'd it, an Abfolution, by which the
faithful and devout Penitent does receive the
Remiffion of his Sins; that being qualified for
Pardon by his Faith and Repentance, he actu-
"
ally
-
Explain'd and Vindicated.
55
ally receives a Pardon by this Miniſtry of the
Priéft.
But the Doctor is not only offended with
the Form of Abfolution, in the Office for Vifi
ting the Sick, as if it was more Authoritativethan
is agreeable to Chrift's Inftitution, though it be
indeed no more Authoritative than that Form
he ſeems ſo much to approve, becaufe he con-
ceives it to be no Abfolution, notwithstanding
the Rubrick exprefly calls it fo, and I think I
have prov'd it as full and Authoritative as the
other: He is as much difpleas'd with the very
Words of our Ordination. And it is plain, from
the whole Scope of what he has Printed con
cerning his two Motions,that he is as much offen-
ded with the Liturgy it felf as with my Sermon,
and would perfuade us, that our Reformers put
fome Things into the Book of Common Prayer,
which themſelves did not really approve: And
that they required Subfcription from all Mini-
fters to what themfelves thought Popifh, that is,
Corruptions introduc'd by theChurch of Rome,
contrary to the Doctrine of the Scriptures and
of the Primitive Church. So that it is no Won-
der if the Lower House of Convocation did not ap-
prove his Motion, which reflected fo highly
on the Honour of our first Reformers, and of
the Church it felf.
He tells us, p. 30. that the Ufe of the Words,
Receiveye the Holy Ghoft,&c. in the Ordaining
Priefts, took much the fame Course, viz. with the
Form of Abfolution, ftill retain'd in the Office
for visiting the Sick, that is, they were intro-
duc'd by fome Bifhops about the thirteenth
Century, or later; and the Council of Trent.
was the first Council that declared them effential to
the Ordination of a Prieft. Yet, he fays, they
fand in our Book, as if they were thought Effen-
D 4
tial
56 The Doctrine of Remiffion of Sins, &c.
tial Words, being retain'd as before in the Romish
Pontifical So that, according to him, our
Church ftill uſes them as Effential Words, and
yet they are Words never us'd in Ordinations
till the thirteenrh Century (as he pofitively
fays, p. 19.) before which time, all the erroneous Do-
Etrines and Practices which our Church condemns in
the Church of Rome had prevail'd. The Confe-
quence of which is, That our Church here re-
tains an Erroneous Doctrine and Practice which ſhe
her felf condemns. And to fhew that ſhe does
not approve this Form of Ordination, though
fhe retains it, he obferves that in all the foregoing
Parts of the Office, even where the whole Duty of the
Prieft feems to be declared, no mention is made of for-
giving or retaining Sins. But does not the Per-
Ton to be Ordain'd promiſe in the foregoing
Part of the Office, to Minifter the Doctrine and
Sacraments, and the Discipline of Chrift, as the Lord
bath commanded, and this Church and Realm re-
ceiv'd the fame? And is not Remiffion of Sins
by the Priest a Part of this Doctrine? It is the
Doctrine of our Church, receiv'd and eſtabli-
ſhed by the Laws of the Realm, and Dr. Can-
non himſelf has fubfcrib'd to it, that our Lord
Jefus Chrift bath left Power to his Church, to abfolve
all Sinners who truly repent and believe in him; as
in the Office for Vifiting the Sick: That Almigh-
ty God hath given Power and Commandment to his
Minifters, to declare and pronounce to his People be-
ing penitent, the Abfolution and Remiffion of their
Sins; as in the Daily Service: And in the
Homily, as I have already fhewed, it is decla-
red, that Sins are remitted by fuch Abfolution,
This being therefore a Doctrine of the Church,
fo fully declared in the Liturgy, and one of the
Homilies, there was no more Occafion tọ
mention it particularly, in the foregoing Part
of
· Explain'd and Vindicated.
57
of the Office, than to mention the other Do-
arines of the Church: And he might as well
fay, a Prieft is not oblig'd to believe the Creed,
becauſe it is not mentioned in the foregoing
Part of the Office, as to fay he has no Authority
to remit Sins for that Reafon.
However, it is fufficient to fatisfy us of the
Opinion of the Church in this Matter, that
fhe has retained theſe Words, Receive the Holy
Ghost; whofefoever Sins thou doft forgive, they are
forgiven, &c. And I cannot perfuade my felf,
that they were retain'd, becauſe they were
found in the Romish Pontifical, but becauſe they
were found in the Holy Scriptures, according to
which our Reformers took Careto correct the
Pontifical. But Dr. Cannon has found them in
the Pontifical, and ſeems as if he had a Mind
to forget, that they are alſo in the New Teſta-
ment. Whether thefe Words were always us'd
in the Ordination of a Prieſt, is what I have
not Opportunity to enquire, for Want of
Books: And I am of Opinion, that the Do-
&tor may be as much mistaken in this Matter,
as he was in the Authoritative, Indicative Form
of Abfolution, which I have prov'd to be at leaſt
four hundred Years Elder, than the Time he
has affign'd for the Introduction of it: Nay,
that fome fuch Indicative Form was us'd by the
Apoſtles themſelves; fince St. Paul ſo poſitive-
ly fays, that he Forgave (not barely declared,
promifed, or prayed for Forgivenefs) in the
Perfon of Christ. So as to the Form of Ordina-
tion, this was the Form uſed by our Saviour,
when he ſent his Apoftles; and whether the
Apoftles uſed not the fame Form in fending
others, is more than Dr. Cannon can prove;
nor can he ſay, upon fure Ground, about what
Time it was firft brought into the stated Forms
for
58 The Doctrine of Remiffion of Sins, &c.
こ
​for Ordination. But whether this Form of
Words was uſed or not, it is certain Priefts
were always look'd upon to be veſted with thẹ
Authority fuppofed to be convey'd by this Form,
They were conceiv'd to have receiv'd the Holy
Ghost, together with the Power to remit and re-
tain Sins. Therefore St. Ambroſe fays, Specta e-
tiam illud, quoniam qui fpiritum fanctum accipit, &
folvendi peccati poteftatem & ligandi accipit. Sic
enimcriptum eft, Accipite fpiritum fan&tum, quo-
rum remiferitis peccata, remittuntur: & quorum
detinueritis detenta erunt; ergo qui folvere non poteft
peccatum, non babet fpiritum fanctum. Munus Spi-
ritûs fancti eft OFFICIUM SACERDOTIS, jus au-
tem fpiritus fancti in folvendis ligandifque criminibus
eft. Obferve this, because he that receiveth the Ho-
ly Ghost, receiveth the Power of binding and loofing.
For fo it is written, whofe foever Sins ye remit,
they are remitted unto them, and whofe foever
Sins ye retain, they are retained: Therefore be
that cannot looſe Sin has not the Holy Ghost. The
Gift of the Holy Ghost is the Prett's Office, and
the Power of the Holy Ghoft confifts in the loofing and
binding Sins. Ambr. de Penitent. lib. 1. c. 2.
This Holy Father here fpeaks the Senfe of the
Church, in Oppofition to the Novatians, who
did then as Dr. Cannon does now, deny that the
Prieſts had any fuch Power. But our Church
plainly allows the Authority of the Prieft in this
Point, and exprefly confers it in her Form of
Ordination: And has better Grounds for it
than the Roman Pontifical, even the Holy Scrip-
tures, and the Senfe of the Primitive Church,
which acknowledg'd this Power to be veſted
in the Priest by virtue of his Office. But the
Doctor was fo zealous to get my Sermon cen-
fur'd, that he cared not what Reflections he
caft on the Church it felf, fo he could but get
the
Explain'd and Vindicated.
59
j
the Doctrine I had preach'd to be condemn'd
for Popery.
I fhall now confider what the Doctor fays
about Confeffion, and then take Notice of his
Conclufion. He fays, p. 35. The Rubrick in the
Vifitation of the Sick, by making a ſpecial Confef
fion, if he feel his Confcience troubled with
any weighty Matter, feems to require the confef-
fing the particular Sin that troubles; yet even here is
nothing of private or auricular Confeffion. The ge-
neral Confeffions in other Parts of this Book, are cer-
tainly directed to be made only to Almighty God-
And I profefs I cannot difcern Reason enough for
thinking, that this was intended to be made to any
other than Almighty God; or that more was meant
than this: If the Sick was troubled in Mind, on ac-
count of any great Sin or Sins, he ſhould then make a
Special Confeffion to God, &c. Weighty Sins will be
allowed to require a particular Confeffion, and the
Monition to be feaſonable. By this extraordinary
Expofition of the Rubrick, the Doctor, I fup-
pofe fancies he has clearly made out what he
before, p. 33. fo boldly afferts, that in the whole
Book there is no Mention any where of confeſſing Sins
to a Priest. Now I confefs it is at the Sick
Man's Diſcretion, whether this Confeffion of
his fhall be private or not: He may confeſs to
the Prieft alone, or he may call in all his
Friends and Neighbours, to hear what he has
to fay, I know no Body will hinder him. But
I believe moft Men in fuch Cafe will chooſe
to do it in private. But furely the Church,
by this fpecial Confeffion, cannot fuppofe on-
ly an inward mental Confeffion to be known
only to God. The general Confeffions, which
the Doctor fpeaks of, though made only to
God, are made openly, in the Prefence and
Hearing of the Prieft: And if the Penitent be
difpos'd
1
60 The Doctrine of Remiſſion of Sins, &c.
во
difpos'd to direct this fpecial Confeffion to
God, ſo it be in the Hearing of the Prieft, I
have nothing to fay againft it: But certainly
the Church intended, that he ſhould diſcover to
the Prieft the Matter that troubled him: And
whether that be done by directing his Confef-
fion to God, or to the Prieft, is not material.
For if he expects Comfort or Counſel from
the Prieft, it is neceffary that the Priest hear
his Confeffion, and be made acquainted with
the Cauſe of his Trouble, or he cannot help
him. That he is bound to confefs the particu-
lar Sin that occafion'd his Trouble, I fhall not
fay. If he can open his Grief, without difco-
vering the Sin, it may be, more is not need-
ful. He may put feveral Cafes, of which his
own may be one; which Cafes being folved,
may give him juft Grounds for Satisfaction,
yet which of thofe in particular was his own,
remain concealed. But if he cannot in fome
fuch manner conceal his Sin, as to get his Scru-
ples folved, and obtain proper Directions to
diſcover the Nature of his Repentance, whe-
ther it have been, and is in all refpects as it
ought to be; it is certainly better for him to
confefs the particular Sin in a particular man-
ner, than to go out of the World without ha-
ving his Doubts fatisfy'd, and his Faith fettled
upon fure Grounds: And Men ought in ſuch
Cafes, to take great Care that they do not
ftifle the Checks of their Confciences, but feek
quiet and comfort for them, from the Word
and Promiſes of God, and the Methods prefcri-
bed in the Gospel for the procuring Pardon and
Forgiveneſs, not prefuming upon God's Mer-
cy, without confidering by what Means, and
on what Conditions that Mercy is to be ob
tained. Now when a Man is troubled with
Doubis
Explain'd and Vindicated.
61
باط
Doubts and Scruples, whether he has, in ſome
particular Cafes at leaft, done what is proper
to procure the Divine Pardon, Will a bare con-
feffing to God the Sin that troubles him, give
him quiet and Peace of Mind? Suppofe it
fhould be a Sin againft his Neighbour, will
the bare Confeffing the Sin to God, take off
the Trouble that lies upon his Confcience? If
the bare Confeffing our Sins to God, would pro-
cure our Pardon and quiet our Confciences,
that is, give them good Grounds to be quieted
and eafie, we might think what Dr. Cannon fays,
might be the Senſe of the Church: But for-
afmuch as bare Confeffion to God is not, (in
ſome ſpecial Cafes) all that is neceffary to true
Repentance, and without true Repentance, no
Confcience ought to be quieted, it is plain, the
Church meant fomething more by this Special
Confeffion, than a bare private acknowledgment
of the Sin to God: The plain intent for which
this Special Confeffion is requir'd, is to eaſe the
Man's Confcience of the Weighty Matter that
troubles it. And, the Church ſuppoſes the Priest
is the proper Perfon that fhould Direct and
Counſel, and Comfort the Penitent on this
Occafion, and by thefe Words, plainly directs
this Special Confeffion to be made to him, that he
may affift the Penitent in this Caſe, and teach
and inftruct him, whether his Repentance be
as it ought, and what is yet proper to be done
by him: And I believe Dr. Cannon is the firſt
Man, that ever had the Confidence, to expound
this Order of the Church in any other Senſe.
But to fatisfy all Perfons that the Church her-
felf does fuppofe, that special and private Confeffi-
on is to be made to the Priest, hear what ſhe has
oblig'd the Prieft to on this Occafion, in the
113 Canon, A.D. 1603. If any Man confess his fecret
and
A
62 The Doctrine of Remiffion of Sins, &c.
and bidden Sins to the Minister for the unburthening
bus Confcience, and to receive Spiritual Confolation
and Eafe of Mind from him. We ſtraightly charge
and admonifh him, that he do not at any Time reveal
and make known to any Perfon what foever, any Crime
or Offence fo committed to his Traft or Secrecy (except
they be fuch Crimes, as by the Laws of this Realm,
his own Life may be called into Question for Conceal-
ing the fame) under pain of Irregularity. That is
under a Penalty of being incapable to perform
any Ecclefiaftical Functions for the Time to
come. Here the Church plainly fuppofes,
that when a Man's Confcience is troubled with
any Weighty Matter, the Method he is to take
to remove this Weight, or Unburthen his Confcience,
is by Confeffion to the Minister: And yet though
the Church has fo clearly explain'd herfelf in
this Canon, the Doctor cannot think that this
Special Confeffion was intended to be made to any o-
ther than Almighty God. But if the Church had
intended no more, fhe might have very well
fpared the laying this Injunction of Secrecy on
the Priest.
I am now come to the Doctor's Conclufion,
where, after he has call'd for a publick Declara-
tion of the Bishops and Clergy, against the Doctrine
of Confeffion to a Priest, and Abfolution by him, tho'
it be a Doctrine fo plainly warranted by our
Church; he fays, Thas no Christian Priest has
Authority to Abfolve any one from his Sins: That for
a Priest to pretend to fuch Authority, is great Pre-
Sumption: And that to think that fuch Authoritative
Abfolution us of the leaft Efficacy, for Pardon of Sins,
us grofs Superftition: And that he fhall be ready,
when call'd upon, to explain and support thefe Affer-
tions. I therefore defire him to Explain and
Support them, and to reconcile them with
thefe few Paffages in the Scriptures, and the
Efta
Explain'd and Vindicated.
63
Eſtabliſh'd Doctrine of our Church. Whatfo-
ever ye shall bind on Earth fhall be bound in Heaven,
and whatſoever ye shall loofe in Earth, fhall be loofed in
Heaven. Matt.xvi. 19. and xviii. 18. Whofe foe-
ver Sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and
whofe foever Sins ye retain they are retained. Joh. xx.
23. Whofe Sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven,
and whofe Sins thou doft retain, they are retained: As
in the Form of Ordering Priefts. Almighty God
ட் has given Power and Commandment to his Mi-
nifters, to declare and pronounce to bus People being
Penitent, the Abfolution and Remiffion of their Sins :
As in the Preface to the Abfolution in our Morn-
ing and Evening Service. Our Lord Jeſus Chriſt
bath left Power to his Church to Abfolve all Sinners
who truly Repent, and believe in him- And by his
Authority I abfolve thee from all thy Sins: As in the
Viſitation of the Sick. And Abſolution hath the
Promiſe of Forgiveneſs of Sins: As in the Homily
of Common-Prayer and Sacraments. When
the Doctor has reconcil'd his Affertions, with
theſe contrary Affertions of the Holy Scriptures
and our own Church, he may hear farther
from me But I defire him to ſay more to the
purpoſe than he has done in his Account of bis
two Motions, or I fhall not think what he fays,
worth my farther Notice.
As to the Gentleman who has pretended to
write A Defence of the Doctrine of the Church of En-
gland, I conceive what I have here written in
Anſwerto Dr- Cannon, may ſerve as a full An-
fwer to all that he has written on this Subject:
And as to what he has faid about the Validity of
Lay-Baptifm, all his feeming Arguments on that
Head are fo fully Anfwer'd already, in a Book
Entitled, Diffenters, and other Unauthoriz'd Bap-
tifms Nuil and Void, by the Articles, Canons, and
Rubricks
}
64 The Doctrine of Remiſſion of Sins, &c.
Rubricks of the Church of England, in Anſwer to
a Pamphlet called The Judgment of the Church of
England in the Cafe of Lay-Baptifm, and of Diffent-
ers Baptifm, By the Author of Lay Baptifm In-
valid, that I find no occafion to give myſelf any
trouble about that Matter ; for the Arguments
of this Anonymous Gentleman, tho' deliver'd
in other Words, are but the fame with thoſe
in the Pamphlet above-mention'd, call'd the
Judgment of the Church of England, &c. I do not
find myſelf Concern'd in any other parts of his
Pamphlet, thofe that are, I make no Queftion
know how to defend themſelves: For I fee
nothing in the whole Book but what may
eafily be reply'd to.
FINIS.
}
T
ADVERTISEMENT
Lately publifh'd, Three Sermons :
HE Ift. On Remiffion of Sins.
The IId. Of The Honour of the Chriftian
Priesthood.
The IIId. The Extent of Chrift's Commiffion to
Baptize. All by Tho. Brett, L. L. D. And Sold
by John Wyat at the Rofe in St. Paul's Church-
Yard. 1712.