The key to bind, for which Luther found no place in private confession, he assigned particularly to jurisdic- tion ; it found its application, therefore, in the ban. Lu- ther's opinions on this point may be summed up as fol- lows : the ban can be exercised only in cases of public
sin and reproach, and for notorious disinclination to re- pentance ; it is tlie public declaration of the Church that tlie sinner has bound himself, i. e. has deprived himself of aU association of love, and surrendered himself to the devO. It excludes simply from the public association with the Churcli and her sacraments, not from the inner membership of the Cluirch, from which the sinner him- self only can cut loose. It is merely a public punish- ment of the Church, and has no other object than to improve the sinner. For this reason he is simply ex- cluded from the sacrament, not from the sermon, nor even from the intercession of the Church on his behalf. The loosing from the ban is the public declaration of the Church that the person hitherto under ban has been reconciled to and is again accepted by the Church. This loosing is to be granted to any one who seeks it in repentance and faith ; and this absolution of the Church, in virtue of the power of the keys, is God's absolution. A ban unjustly imposed can do tlie person so pmiished no harm, and should be borne patiently ; nor must it be forgotten that external membership in the Church may be coexistent with exclusion from inner membership.
2. MelaiKthon coincided generally with Luther on the doctrine of the power of the keys, but with this dif- ference, that he regarded the keys as an essential attri- bute of the episcopal or ministerial office. Yet we find in ecclesiastical regulations made under his supervision, as early as 1543, some decided deviations from Luther's doctrines. It is there directed to admit no one to com- munion " unless he have previously received private absolution from his pastor or some other competent per- son" (Richter, Kirchenordnunc;, ii, 45). Furthermore, the right is conceded to the absolving minister, under certain conditions, to deny absolution to the confessing. The ban itself, however, in consequence of its abuse, was early taken from the hands of the clergy, and its impo- sition left to the Consistory. Absolution was bestowed in the church at Sunday vesper service by imposition of hands. The formulas of absolution are partly exhib- itory ; not unfrequently both stand side by side for se- lection.
Chemnitz is the first who disputes that absolution can be regarded as a sacrament in the same manner as baptism and communion, and assigns for his reason that it rests simply uiwn the Word of God, and has received no additional external sign. He also regards the exer- cise of absolution as a specific prerogative of the sacred office, although he still holds to the old Protestant prin- ciple that the keys were given to the Church herself. (See Schmidt, Dogmatik, § 53, note 5 ; Heppe, Dogmatik,. iii, 25(); Kliefoth [see below], p. 278.) Moreover, he argues that it must be left to the absolving clergymani to use his judgment and cognition in the refusal or grant of absolution.
Quite differently teach Quenstedt and Hollaz. They explicitly speak of the power to forgive sin as an official prerogative of the serv-ants of the divine Word, and the latter even teaches, in a quite un-Protestant manner, that the servants (ministers) relatively and effectually con- vert, renew, and bless the sinner by the Word of God;, so thev also relatively and effectually forgive sin (Heppe, p. 252).
As a misconstruction of the original Protestant view on this doctrine, we must certainly regard Baler's posi- tion that absolution is a juridical act; and he, in con- sequence, distinguishes tlie potestas ordinis and the ])0- tesfas clavium or jui-isdictionis, and determines the former to be a potestas publicc docendi et sacramehta adminis- traruU, and the latter a potestas remittendi et retinendi peccata (comp. Schmidt, § 50, note 9).
3. The Swiss reformers, from the very commence- ment, interpreted the power of the keys to refer espe- cially to the exercise of ecclesiastical government, and rnore particularly to Church discipline, and in this sense they have formulated in their confessions the rules per- taining to this subject. On the other hand, Calvin re- ferred tlie power of the keys altogether to the preaching
KEYS, POWER OF THE
68
KEYS, POWER OF THE
of the Gospel and the exercise of Church discipline, disre- garding the sacramental idea, lie taught : 1. Absolution is twofold : one part serves faith, the other belongs to Church discipline. 2. Absolution is nothing else than the witness of the forgiveness of sin based upon the forms of the Gospel (Instif. lib. ili, cap. iv, § 23). 3. Absolution is conditional; its conditions are repentance and faith. 4. As to the existence of these conditions men must neces- sarily be uncertain, so that the certainty of binding and loosing does not depend upon the judicial decision of a human court. The servants of the divine Word can therefore absolve only conditionally (§ 1«) : in virtue, viz. of this Word they can promise forgiveness to all who believe on Christ, and threaten damnation to those wlio do not lay hold of Christ (§ 21). 5. In tliis exer- cise of their functions they can, for this reason, not fall into error, for they do not promise more than the Word of God commands them ; while the sinner can seciure for himself certain and complete absolution with perfect assurance whenever he will lay hold upon the mercy of Christ in accordance with the spirit of the Bible prom- ise, "According to thy faith be it unto thee" (§ 22). 6. Tlie other absolution, which forms a constituent of Church disciphne, has nothing to do with secret sins; it extinguishes only any offence which may have been given to the Church (§ 23). In this also the Church follows the infallible rule of the divine Word : in virtue of this word she announces that all adidterers, thieves, murderers, misers, and the unjust shall have no part in the kingdom of God; and in this binding she cannot err. With this same AYord she looses the repenting ones, to whom she brings consolation (§ 21). Accord- ing to these principles, which, with utter disregard of the sacramental idea, designate absolution simply as a s]iecies of sermon, and with it reproduce the doctrine of German Protestantism in an improved form, Calvin could not cast aside private absolution ; yet he declined to recognise in it a general institution of the Church, and made its administration dependent upon the indi- vidual need of those who should demand it. Its value to the end in view he speaks of very much in the strain of the Lutheran Church : '• It happens sometimes that some one hears the promises given to all the faithfid, and nevertheless remains in doubt whether to him also his sins are forgiven. When such a one uncovers his secret wound to his pastor, and hears that voice of the Gospel, ' Be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee' (Matt, ix, 2), addressed to himself, his heart is quieted and freed from all fear. Nevertheless we must take care lest we should dream of a power of the keys not in accordance with the doctrine of the gospels" (§ 1-1). It is true, this does not look exactly like Lutheran private absolution, but it is certainly the only evangelical sense ; and of this alone the Scriptures, the apostolic Church, and the following centuries down to the Middle Ages, know anything.