By this further development of the doctrine of the power of the keys the form of absolution also was nec- essarily considerably altered. Alexander of Hales says that in his day the deprecative formula preceded and was followed by the indicative; and this he justifies from his stand-point by the sentence, " Et deprecatio gra- tiam impetrat et absolutio gratiara supponit" (comp. pt. iv, (iu.21,membr. 1). The indicative form of absolution, however, must have been an innovation, for the un- named opponent of Thomas alluded to in his opuscidum xxiii (others xxii) actually asserts that to within thirty j-ears the absolution formula usedb}'' all priests was Ab- solutionem et remissioneni tibi trihuat Dcus. Thomas de- fends with special emphasis the formula Ego te absolvo, etc., because it has in its favor the analogy of other sac- raments, and because it precisely expresses the effect of the sacrament of penance, namely, the removal of sin, as an exercise of the power of the keys. He interprets its contents in the following words : " Ego impendo tibi sac- rament um absolutionis." But he also advises that the indicative form be preceded by the deprecative, lest on the part of the penitent the sacramental effects may be prevented (comp. Daniel, Cod. Liturg. i, 297).
The doctrine of Thomas had in its essentials already been dogmatically defined by Eugenius IV in 1439 at the Council of Florence (Mansi, xxxi, 1057), and in its different rules more minutely at the Council of Trent, at its fourteenth session, Nov. 25, 1551. The Council of Trent, in its decree and the canons appended, had sim- ply pronounced autlioritatively the exclusive right of the priest to absolve, and it explained the spirit of the latter to be not merely an announcement of forgiveness, but a judicial and sacramental act. The Koman cate- chism enters far more into detail on this particular point: as the i)riest in all sacraments performs Christ's office, the penitent has to honor in him the person of Christ. Absolution announced by him does not simply mean, but actually jirocures forgiveness of sin (pt. ii. cap. v, qu. 17 and 11), for it causes the blood of Christ to flow unto us, and washes away sins committed after baptism (tpi. 10). If, in contrition, confession, and satisfaction, the personal activity of the penitent (the opus operans) is pre-emi- nent, on the other hand, in absolution (by which, as the forma sacranwnti, those acts of 'penance firsfreally as- sume a sacramental character, and become partes sacra- r.ienti), he must become perfectly passive (for it operates altogether ex opere operato). From this stand-point the
objection frequently raised on the Eoman Catholic side against Protestant polemics seems in some sort reasona- ble, namely, that absolution is neither hypothetical nor absolute, and that it is a sacramental act to which this distinction cannot actuaUj' be apjjlied; and it must be conceded on our part that, with the conditions under- stood to be concurrent, it furnishes such a degree of cer- tainty that its effects cannot fail to be manifest in every one who does not intentionally frustrate it.
This, however, is only one side, in which the priest stands as intercessor between God and the penitent, no longer (as formerly regarded) as a deprecant simply, but as dispenser of mercies. The Eoman Catholic concep- tion of absolution furnishes for consideration still anoth- er side, according to which the priest is essentially ^m;///?, not simply inj'oro ecclesice, but also, at the same time, in foro Dei, i. e. judge in God's stead. As such, he inves- tigates sin to determine a corresponding punishment, and examines the spiritual condition of the confidant in order to know whether to bind or to loose. lie is there- fore not simply executor of the opus opera turn, but also judge of the opus operans. Now, as such, he gives a judgment, and this must be either hypothetical or ab- solute. If we look at the form of the sacramental prac- tice, "Ego to absolvo," and compare with it the assur- ances of the Iioman catechism that the voice of the ab- solving priest is to be looked upon as if he heard the words of Christ to the leper, "Thy sins be forgiven thee'' {l. f. qu. 10), we cannot do otherwise than regard the priestly decision as absolute, both by its form and con- tents, as an infallible divine decision. But if, on the other hand, we consider that the jiricst — and this is con- ceded on the part of the Roman Catholics — may also be fallible ; that the confessor is, after all, a very imperfect surrogate on account of his want of omnipotence ; yea, that but very rarely he can attain to an accurate knowl- edge of the spiritual condition of the confidant, his judgment must necessarily become conditioned; the whole sacrament becomes equally hypothetical, as upon this rests its basis. Thus the Eoman Catholic doctrine fluctuates between two opposite poles of assurance and contingency. This, indeed, is the necessary consequence of its development as we have followed it in historj', in which two separate originally distinct views as to the position of the priest in absolution had been combined, without, however, really agreeing with each other.
IV. Doctrine of the Reformation and Protestantism. — A very new development was given to the doctrine of the power of the keys by the Eeformers. Especially noteworthy is,