that the verb has two meanings in the N.T., or rather that it has a general meaning of "release " or "removal," applicable to either divine or human remission. In 1 John i. 9 it is clearly used of that absolute forgiveness which is proper to God alone. So the Jews used it in Mark. ii 7.1 On the other hand, in Matt. xviii. 21 f. it is as clearly used of human forgiveness: the brother is to "forgive" the brother his sin against him.

How, then, did our Lord use it in those words of commission which since the twelfth or thirteenth century have had a place in our English Ordinal? And how did our Reformers understand the corresponding formula (introduced into our absolutions at about the same date), "I absolve Thee"? There is no desire expressed to rid themselves of either phrase. Jewel and Whitgift refer to the form used at the ordination of priests with no hint of disapproval. Latimer frankly accepts the "Ego te absolvo" of our Visitation Office, and justifies it." On the other hand,

1 "He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins." "Who can forgive sins but God only?

939

2 "We commit the keys. . . only unto the priest, and to none other: and to him only we say, ' whatsoever thou bindest on earth shall be bound in heaven.' (Jewel, iii. 356.) The quotation is not exact, for those words do not occur in the Ordinal: but the reference to "Whose sins thou dost forgive . from John xx. is evident. Whitgift (i. 489), and even Cartwright, accept without demur the use of these words, and in the main

there is not the slightest doubt as to the sense in which they understood this "Absolution or remission of sins." The complaint made is that their opponents confused the two meanings or applications of the word. Allen does so in his work so vigorously refuted by Fulke: Harding in his controversy with Jewel.1

Becon, Jewel, and Hooker, speak most fully on this point. In his Castle of Comfort, Becon sets himself to prove, first, that God alone forgiveth sin and, secondly, that the priest is but a minister appointed of God, to declare remission to the truly penitent-" to declare, I say, and not to forgive." This he claims to have done by "restoring the Scriptures to their native sense," his opponents having stood on the plain text "whosesoever sins ye forgive."

agree as to the meaning. The latter says, "Neither doth he command that sins should be forgiven, but pronounceth in the behalf of God that they are forgiven." Latimer tells the quaint story, how a man riding a mule heard the preacher at Paul's Cross cry, "Ego absolvo vos," and concluded that his mule was absolved as well as himself. "Now, saith this gentleman, his mule was absolved: the preacher absolved but such as were sorry and did repent. Belike then she did repent her stumbling. His mule was wiser than he." "O what an unhappy chance had this mule, to carry such an ass!" (Lat. i. 140.)

1 See Additional Note, iii.

66

2 The work is dedicated to the Duchess of Richmond, 66 one of the most beautiful women of her time," who died in 1555.

But," says Becon, "if they will work no injury to the other Scriptures... they shall have no cause to lift up their bristles." Becon's view of ȧpínu, as used of human ministry, is then lucidly set forth

“Christ speaketh here after the manner of our speech When we see a man restored to his health

...

...

we use

to say, 'Doctor Turner made this man whole'; and yet it is not the doctor. . . but rather the emplastures and medicines that he ministered yea, rather God, if we will speak truly . . . So doth the Scripture speak. Some time it attributeth our health to the minister of the word, as in John xx., sometime and most commonly to God himself ... and sometime to the Word of God."

In proof of this, Becon appeals to what the first recipients of the commission did, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles.1 When something notable was done, St. Luke tells us that the people ascribed it to the power of the Apostles, but they pointed to the name and virtue of

"Peter

1 In this Tindale and Bullinger agree. (Acts ii.) absolveth the Jews through repentance and faith from their actual sins . . . and enjoined them no penance." (Tind. ii. 155)“ Upon so great a multitude (i.e. on the day of Pentecost) Baptism was at once bestowed, and the remission of sins universally preached unto them all." "The public preaching of the Gospel, as it is instituted by Christ our Lord, doth satisfy a faithful mind": which Bullinger deems "better than private whisperings of privy penitentiaries" though he approves of private dealing "when occasion serveth (Bull. iv. 88 f.).

Jesus. And when they offered forgiveness, "they did never remember and rehearse their own power to forgive sin, but only preached that so many as believed, and were baptized into the remission of sin . . . should be freely forgiven by the name of Jesus Christ." Again, "neither did the Apostles absolve any otherwise than by the preaching of God's word."

While Becon thus lays chief stress on ministerial "forgiveness," as being the proclamation of that forgiveness which is God's prerogative, yet this does not exhaust the meaning of our Lord's words. Sin is mainly an offence against God, and as such, ministers can but declare God's forgiveness. When a prince pardons for treason, and sends his letters of pardon," the prince alone pardoneth; the messenger only declareth his

66

1 Becon refers to John xv. 3. "Now are ye clean for the word's sake that I have spoken unto you": words which he thus paraphrases, " Now are ye delivered from your sins because ye have believed my preaching." Which preaching if I believe, I am so sure to be delivered from all my sins, as though Christ Himself had said unto me, 'I freely absolve thee.' " It is a cardinal point in these writers that a public preaching is in essence quite as effectual as any private and special ministry of reconciliation. Absolution is in their eyes a condensed preaching of the Gospel. See Becon, ii. 556-568. Tindal illustrates this ministerial forgive

66

66

ness by Jeremiah's commission to destroy " and to "build up." He asks, how did the prophet do so? "Verily, by preaching and prophesying," ii. 160.

prince's pleasure to the traitor."

But sin is also an offence against one's neighbour, and against the Church or society to which the sinner belongs. This opens up another view of John xx., which received much support in these times, and especially from such writers as Jewel and Hooker. Before we turn to them, the following passages from Hutchinson are worthy of notice

Forgiveness, he says, belongs to man as well as to God, for man is said to forgive his neighbour, not by pardoning the everlasting punishment . . . which is pardoned neither of thy neighbour, ne yet of priest, but of God alone, but by refraining his anger. . . We have nothing ado with the other life.”

Hutchinson then observes that Peter (Matt. xviii.) is told to forgive his brother "unto seventy times seven," a commandment which "belongeth also unto us.' And thence he argues the nature of this second kind of human absolution: "As every private man forgiveth his brother, so much more the ministers of God's word have power to do the same, for to them belongeth forgiving and retaining of the whole congregation" [i.e. on their behalf]. They proclaim God's promises, and they do it "before the congregation," and "for a witness to the congregation." This is what Jewel and Hooker work out more fully. Just as a man forgives his brother, and thereby in his measure remits

1 Bec. ii. 562.