Marsilius Patavinus ( Defensor pacis , part 2, ch. 6):
Arguments for establishing the Papist confession: First, John 20[:23]: “Whosesoever sins you forgive,” etc.
§ 111. In De poenit., bk. 3, chs. 2ff., he tries to show from the Scriptures that the confession of all mortal sins is necessary according to divine Law. (1) He seeks the greatest strength for his case in Matthew 16 and 18 and in John 20, in which the power to release and bind, to retain and forgive sins is given to the apostles and their successors. He says: “Christ established priests as judges upon the earth with the power such that, without their sentence, no one who has fallen after Baptism can be reconciled. But priests cannot pass correct judgment unless they know the sins. Therefore by divine Law those who have fallen after Baptism are bound to disclose their sins to the priests.”
We respond. (1) Canonists and some of the Scholastics deny that this is the necessary conclusion of this argument. Biel (Sent., 4, dist. 17, q. 1) says, “The apostles are given the power to judge, but the necessity of confessing is not imposed on sinners.” If Richard says no one is my judge in a matter in which I am not bound to act, except to the extent that I am willing, then Biel responds: “This solution does not exclude a reply, since an arbitrating judge is frequently appointed for parties, and yet the necessity of submitting themselves is not imposed on the parties.”
(2) Scotus, who deduces the necessity of confession from divine Law, uses another category of proof. He says, “It does not seem right that the church as a pious mother would impose so onerous and difficult a command on all Christians unless it were a divine command.” But does God have less mercy than the church?
(3) The words of Christ (John 20[:23]) are immediately preceded with: “As the Father has sent Me, even so send I you” [v. 21]. But where has Christ demanded a specific confession12 of all sins?
(4) Where is it read that the apostles demanded this? Christ’s words are best interpreted by their actions. Read the Acts of the Apostles. It will become quite clear how Peter, Paul, and the rest of the apostles used the Keys.
(5) The passages he cited do not pertain to this question, for they speak of absolution, but the question here concerns confession. If you say that confession is a prerequisite for absolution, we respond that this logical sequence is invalid: from a general confession, which can in some way be deduced from these texts, to a specific enumeration of all sins; also, from a specific confession of some sins, which is devout and free, to the Papist confession.
(6) In order that the entire subject may become clearer, there must be a discussion in some detail of the power to forgive and retain sins which was given to the apostles and their successors. We are in no wise unwilling to concede that the power given to the apostles to forgive the sins of people was not verbal but real, not imaginary and fictitious but true. But the question is, what sort of power is this, and within what limits is it enclosed? To this we respond from Scripture: ministers reconcile the fallen to God not by exercising a judicial power on the basis of their own authority but by sharing the benefit of Christ, which is not their own, namely, by “preaching the forgiveness of sins to all nations and by testifying of Christ” (Luke 24:47–48), by “dispensing the mysteries of God” (1 Cor. 4:1), by “performing the ministry of reconciliation and of being ambassadors for Christ” (2 Cor. 5:18[, 20]). Hence
** what the Lord said, “Whom you forgive,” etc., so the apostle said to the people of Antioch: “I announce to you the forgiveness of sins through Christ” (Acts 13:38). “We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us. We beseech you in Christ’s name, be reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20). **
And again, what Christ says—“Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive,” etc. [John 20:22–23]—can be compared in the best manner with what Mark says, “Preach the Gospel to every creature” [16:15]. That is, take up the ministry of the Holy Spirit, which is the office of preaching the Gospel in all the world, for this is the Office of the Keys of the kingdom of heaven. “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” [Mark 16:16]. This is having the gates of heaven unlocked and opened. “He who does not believe will be damned” [Mark 16:16]. This is having the gates of heaven closed. (See the Apol. Confess. Wirteb., p. 524.)
(7) Therefore the forgiveness of sins is twofold: authentic and ministerial, αὐτοκρατορική and διακονική. The former belongs to God alone, against whom alone is sin committed (Ps. 51:[4]); thus “only He can forgive sins” in this way (Mark 2:7). But the latter has been granted to ministers of the church. Irenaeus (bk. 4, ch. 57, p. 290): “How could Christ forgive us our sins, which we owe to our Creator and God, if He is not the Lord?” “How have sins been forgiven rightly unless the one against whom we have sinned should Himself give the forgiveness?” (bk. 5, ch. 15, p. 338).
Tertullian (De bapt., p. 707): “No one forgives sin, nor pardons a spirit, except God alone.”
Cyprian (De lapsis, sermon 5, p. 153): “God alone can have mercy; He alone can bestow pardon on sins committed against Him: the one who bore our sins, who grieved for us, whom God gave up for our sins.”
Cyril (on John, bk. 12, ch. 56): “Surely it is within the power of God alone to be able to free people from their sins. To what other person is given the right to free breakers of the Law from their sins except the Creator of that very Law?”
Gregory of Nyssa (De orat., p. 19): “Forgiving sins belongs to God alone.”
(8) Therefore if “judgment” or “judicial power” is used for “ministerial” and also for the accurate discretion which ministers should observe, lest they bind those who should be released and release those who should be bound, then we concede such judgment to them. But if it is used to mean the judiciary trial which consists of an evaluation of the quantity and quality of sins and imposes certain satisfactions and financial penalties in proportion to the quantity of sins, then we deny such a power to ministers. In fact, it can in no way be proven that this was granted to them by Christ. A statement of Ambrose is cited about this matter in canon law: “The Word of God forgives sins; the priest exhibits the office, and he exercises the rights of no power, for he is the minister, not the lord, of another’s promise and benefit.” [Ambrose again:] “Since the Lord Himself said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven’ [John 20:22–23], behold, their sins are forgiven through the Holy Spirit. People reveal their own ministry13 in the forgiveness of sins. They are not exercising the right of a power, for sins are forgiven not in their own name but in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. They ask for it, but the Divinity gives it. The seeking is human, but the generosity is a matter of heavenly power” (De Spiritu s., bk. 3, ch. 19).
Jerome (on Matthew 16): “The evangelical priests have this as part of their right and duty, which the legal priests once had under the Law in cleansing lepers.” Again:
Bishops and presbyters who do not understand this passage assume for themselves something of the arrogance of the Pharisees, with the result that they either condemn the innocent, or they think they are releasing the harmful, since it is not the sentence of the priests but the life of the guilty which is being sought before God. We read in Leviticus 13–14 about lepers: that they are ordered to show themselves to the priests, and if they had leprosy, the priests declared them unclean, etc. Just as a priest there made a leper clean or unclean, so also here the bishop or presbyter binds or releases not those who are guilty or harmful, but on behalf of his office, when he has heard a variety of sinners, he knows whom he must bind and whom he must release.
Again: “Everyone is bound by the cords of sin, and these cords and chains can be released by the apostles, imitating their Master, who had told them: ‘Whatever you release on earth will be released in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]. Let the apostles release them by the Word of God, by the testimonies of Scripture, and by an exhortation of virtues” (on Isaiah 14).
Chrysostom (De poenit., homily 9): “This is a passage of medicine, not of judgment; repentance bestows not punishment but forgiveness of sins.”
Marsilius Patavinus (Defensor pacis, part 2, ch. 6):
God looses or binds in one way; the church—that is, the priests—in another. For only God Himself forgives sin of Himself, because He cleanses the soul of an inner stain and releases it from the debt of eternal death. But He did not grant this to priests; yet to them He does attribute the power to bind and release, that is, to show people that they are released or bound. Thus the Lord first of Himself restored the leper to health, and then sent him to the priests, in whose judgment he was revealed to have been cleansed. In the same way He also offered the now revived Lazarus to His disciples to be released, since though someone may have been forgiven before God, he is not considered as forgiven before the church except through the judgment of the priest. Therefore in releasing or retaining faults the evangelical priest works and judges in the same way as the legal priest once worked in the case of those who were contaminated with leprosy, which signifies sin.
Those are the words of Marsilius from Lombard (Sent., 4, dist. 18, letters E and F).
** His words read as follows: “Then the statement of the priest is approved by the judgment of God when it comes in such a way that it does not contradict the merits of those” (whom he absolves or excommunicates). Petrus Asilus (De tyrann. pontificum, ch. 5, p. 107) cites the statement of Wessel: “The key of power accomplishes nothing without the key of piety.” **