VIII.] PBAI&NO u-.--A.B?OLUTIO?. 300 ture. For since God only, under the dispensatious which preceded Christianity, forgave sins, without any such ministry as that claimed by Roman Catholics in their sacrament of penance; and since neither the apostles of Christ nor his first ministers have left us any examples for the practice, or any rules for the management of priestly absolution, we must in/'er that no such power is bestowed on the ?ospel ministry. 4. No human being is or can be qualified for such an act as priestly absolution'claims to be. If we consider the work of pardon, and the proper character of man, we may safely infer that no human being is capable of transacting it. The work or act of' f'orgiveness is so solemn, the parties concerned being an off'ended God and off'ending man, such an undertaking as pardon is utterly' beyond what can be done by man. If we consider the ignorance of man, he is utterly unqualified for this work; for he must know the hearts fuid thoughts of his fellow-creature8 before he can pronounce absolution in their case. This he never can know. Besides, every man needs the pardon of his own sins. He is therefore utterly at a loss to undertake such an act as that of absolving a 8inner? This reasoning will come with more force, when we consi- der that the Church of Rome calls the absolution of the priest a c/? act, and not a ministerial or declarative one. The priest is although he is unqualified to judge, beth from ignorance, and from be/ng a party concerned. But the Church of Rome is not at all scrupulous about even the moral character of the absolver. It is true, they generally ? their clergy to be pious; but then this is not insisted on as an indis- pensable part of the clerical character. The priest may be guilty of mortal sin, and still be a dispenser of pardons to his fellows. The Counc/l of Trent declares in one of her canons, quoted already, that "/f' any one says that priests under mortal sin have no power to bind or loose; let him be accursed." Thus, however wicked a priest may- be, his pardons, pronounced officially, are as valid as those of the most holy man in the world. How great encouragement this gives to the cornminion of sin, beth among the clergy and laity, must be obvious to every person of common understanding. 5. Furthermore, ,M,te c?m .for?'iv? ? ? God ?one, Mark ii, 7; Luke v, 21. Tiffs was the doctrine of the Jews, which our Lord con* firms when he declares that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins. He did not contradict their doctrine, but establish it; but he proved his divinity in forgiving sins. That God alone can and does forgive sins, we have the most ample proofs from Scripture. The following passages will show that this is a prerogative that belongs to God ?or6e, and which can never be exercised by any human being Exod. xxxiv, 7; Psa. cxxx, 4; Dan. ix, 9; Eph. iv, 32; Col. iii, 13; 1 John i, 9. 6. The primitive church of Christ never believed that such power as is claimod by Roman Catholic priests was ever given by Christ to his ministers. They looked to God alone for this, as they thought him alone qualified to bestow it. 7. In the exercise of priestly absolution, there is no proper disrisc. tion m&de betw%en the righteous and the wicked. The main ground ou which auricular confession is maintained is, that the priest, having heard the pafiigulsrs respecting the ponitent'a sins, he may be able to 1
�
