Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Summary of the argument on excommunication.

405

DISSERT. IV.

tics, who have no true priests, can lay no claim to it." And HUGHES after a few words: "Consider also this, that he who receives the Holy Ghost, receives power both of loosing and binding sin for thus it is written, 'Receive ye the Holy Ghost,' &c. Therefore he that cannot loose sin, has not the Holy Ghost. The office of the priest is the gift of the Holy Ghost; and the property of the Holy Ghost is to loose and bind sins."

Nothing could be expected more clear and evident for our purpose than this, and you will find almost the same in the sixth chapter of this book. Both St. Ambrose and St. Pacianus do most plainly attest, that the primitive Church always looked upon this power of binding and excommunicating as committed to her from God. But to sum up the whole argument in a few words.

It is manifest from the nature of society, that the right of excommunication belongs to the Christian Church and since the Church of Christ was founded by God Himself, it is also manifest that this right of excommunication belongs to the Church by divine right. The power of binding and of loosing is committed by our Saviour Jesus Christ to St. Peter in most express words, and in him to the whole Church. That this power of binding and loosing consisted in reconciling penitents, was always the opinion of the Catholic Church, even in the purest ages. The Christian Church has always exercised this power, from the very times of the Apostles; and has exercised it as a power committed to her by Jesus Christ Himself. This is abundantly evident, both from the clearest testimonies of the holy fathers, and from those penitential canons which have in every age been established in all Churches. All persons whatsoever that have attempted either to take away or to diminish this sacred authority have been ever accounted heretics by the Church, and she has always banished them from her communion. And now after all this, let such as are impartial judges determine what is to be thought concerning the power of excommunication in the Christian Church. Does it imply any contradiction? Is a spiritual government distinct from the civil to be ac

tem Spiritus Sancti in solvendis ligandisque criminibus est.-[S. Ambros, de Pœnit., lib. i. c. 2. § 6-8. Op., tom. ii.

col. 391, E. 392, D.]

[Id., ibid., c. vii. § 33. col. 399, C. ed. Ben.]

NO. VIII.

406 The proper effect of absolution to the truly penitent.

APPENDIX. counted monstrous or ridiculous? Ought it to be looked upon as severe and cruel to shut out even the most wicked persons from the holy Eucharist? For my part I am thoroughly persuaded that this most wholesome discipline was not invented by the bishops, but instituted by Jesus Christ Himself, for the comfort and salvation of our souls. And indeed I clearly perceive that the Christian religion can never shine with her own native brightness, till by the pious severity of her clergy this sacred discipline be revived. I cannot conclude better than in the words of St. Gregory Nyssen: "Do not think," says he, "that excommunication is owing to the arrogance of bishops; it is a law of our fathers, an ancient canon of the Church, which had its rise from the law, and its confirmation from the gospel."

But here I cannot forbear adding something concerning the proper effect of sacerdotal absolution; a thing which has a very great relation to the question before us. For there are a great many very good men to be found, and those not unlearned, who reject all absolution from the priest, at least as a thing indifferent, because they are not able to conceive in their mind what is the effect of such kind of absolution. They argue with themselves after this manner: the truly penitent and contrite sinner is in the court of conscience immediately absolved of God and justified. What therefore does the priest add to this divine absolution? Does God, the searcher of hearts, wait for the sentence of the priest? We cannot think that. In order to answer this objection I shall clearly and distinctly set down, what was the opinion of the ancients concerning the effect of absolution.

It is most certain that the primitive Church never accounted a sinner to be justified, however humble and contrite, till he had obtained sacerdotal absolution. Nor indeed does this seem to me in the least wonderful. All men allow the same thing in the Sacrament of Baptism. No person is worthy to come to Baptism, unless he be of a pure and clean heart; one that from his soul abominates all kind of sin, and is most stedfastly resolved to conform his life to the law

* μὴ ἐπισκοπικῆς αὐθαδείας εἶναι νομίσῃς τὸν ἀφορισμόν πατρῶος ὁ νόμος, παλαιὸς τῆς ἐκκλησίας κανὼν, ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου ἀρξάμενος, καὶ κραταιωθεὶς τῇ χά

PITI. [S. Greg. Nyss. adv. eos qui castigationes ægre ferunt. Op., tom. iii. p. 315, B.]

The necessity of absolution parallel to that of baptism. 407

of the gospel. And yet even all this does not justify him in the sight of God. Baptism is still wanting, without which remission of sins cannot be obtained in the ordinary way. If such a person should die before he had put off the old man by washing in this sacred water, he would by the principles of the gospel have no right to the kingdom of heaven. It is another question what the God of mercies would determine in his regard, through the meritorious blood of Jesus Christ, which was plentifully shed for the whole race of mankind. And why may we not judge the same concerning repentance? Hence it is that the ancient fathers were wont to call repentance a second baptism. But I shall give you the opinion of the most holy fathers upon this subject in the words of Morinus, a very learned man, to whom I most willingly acknowledge myself indebted in many things.

"God therefore," says he, "is the author of reconciliation, and the priest is the minister of it. What does the priest effect? That which God, by the assistance of His Holy Spirit, had begun in the penitent before reconciliation, the priest does by absolution ministerially finish, according to that ministerial power committed to him in those words, (Whatsoever ye shall bind,' &c. :) and such as are worthy of divine absolution he does actually and visibly absolve." Thus Morinus. And that this was the opinion of the primitive Church is most abundantly manifest from Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Pacianus, and St. Ambrose.

HUGHES DISSERT. IV.

DISSERTATION V.

THE LAITY NEVER RECEIVED THE HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE LORD'S
SUPPER WITHOUT HAVING IT FIRST CONSECRATED BY PRIESTS.

Now I am treating about the authority and dignity of the
Christian clergy, I think it will not be foreign to my purpose

Reconciliationis igitur primus autor Deus, minister sacerdos. Quid operatur sacerdos? Quod Deus in pœnitente, per auxilia Spiritus Sancti, ante reconciliationem inchoaverat, sacerdos per absolutionem ministerialiter perficit, juxta potestatem ministerialem ei

concessam: Quæcunque ligaveritis,'
&c., dignosque divina absolutione re-
apse et visibiliter absolvit.-[Is. Mo-
rinus de Administratione Sacramenti
Pænitentiæ, lib. viii. c. 5. § 5. p. 520.
Par. 1651.]

NO. VIII.

408 The distinction of clergy and laity shewn from Scripture.

APPENDIX. to say something here in short concerning that signal difference between the clergy and the laity. Rigaltius, a man indeed of indefatigable pains, and a very great critic, but not very accurate, and wonderfully fond of new observations, whatever they are, has in his remarks upon the second Epistle of St. Cyprian, out of his innate fondness of producing something new and unheard of, asserted that in the apostolic times there was no such distinction, but that by the word clergy, λpos, the whole Christian Church was always denoted. Indeed he owns that in the age of Tertullian and St. Cyprian this word was wholly appropriated to ecclesiastical persons; but, good man, he is pleased to ascribe that to the pride and ambition of the priests. And in this he has been closely followed by all such as are no friends either to our sacred order or to the Christian religion. Hence it is that this objection against us which has been so often made and answered, is now with the greatest triumph revived by this most impudent scoffer, who has thrown upon us with great vehemence all the calumnies both of the atheists and Socinians: but there will be no difficulty in confuting the unlearned rashness of the great man from whom he copies. For,

1st. It is manifest that Jesus Christ appointed twelve Apostles to preach the gospel, to found and govern the Church, and to administer the Sacraments. It is also most evident from a thousand places of holy Scripture, and particularly from St. Paul's Epistles to Titus and Timothy, that these Apostles chose others, conspicuous for their faith, doctrine, and piety; and by imposition of hands consecrated them to perform the same offices, to declare salvation to all men through the blood of Christ, to gather Churches, to receive, and feed, and confirm them with the Sacraments; and (what is most worthy of our observation in this controversy) with the same ceremony, viz., imposition of hands, to ordain and consecrate others, as the necessity of the Church should require. What, I beseech you, can be more clear and evident than this? And therefore since the thing itself appears so plainly and fully from sacred writ, why should we cavil

[See Annot. in S. Cypr., Epist. ii. ed. N. Rigalt. pp. 7, 8, Par. 1666. et

ap. Annot. in eand. Epist. (viii. ed. Oxon.) p. 15. Oxon. 1682.]

Words of St. Clem. Rom. on the same subject, examined. 409

DISSERT. V.

about words and syllables? Grant that neither the word HUGHES clergy nor laity can be found, either in the holy Scriptures, or in the most ancient monuments of the Church: what then? What can be argued from thence? Nothing at all. The word is wanting, but the thing for which we contend occurs very frequently.

2ndly. Let us proceed to the monuments of the primitive Church, and see whether no footsteps of this distinction are to be found among the most ancient writers.

The first I will produce shall be St. Clemens Romanus, a man truly apostolic, and mentioned with very great honour by St. Paul himself'. In this father's most excellent Epistle to the Corinthians we have these words: "For to the highpriest are given proper functions, and a proper place is appointed for the priests, and proper ministries are incumbent upon the Levites. The layman is bound by lay precepts." In this passage laymen are most clearly distinguished from clergymen or ecclesiastical persons. But I know very well that there are great controversies made concerning the true and genuine sense of this passage. The advocates for episcopacy cite these words of St. Clement in proof of the three orders, and object them to our adversaries. Nor indeed is this opinion without foundation. But they who maintain a parity of orders, do strenuously contend that these words do by no means belong to the Christian Church, but that this writer had regard only to the Church of Jerusalem: nor indeed are they destitute of weighty reasons with which to support this opinion of theirs. To determine this controversy does not belong either to this place or to my present purpose. Whatever was St. Clement's meaning I shall easily shew what I wish'. Let us therefore suppose that in this passage the father speaks of the Jewish Church; it must of necessity be granted me that the similitude of which he makes use appertains to the Church of Christ: so that the same distinction which had been made between the Jewish clergy and laity, did also obtain between the clergy and laity among the Christians. Otherwise the reasoning of this apostolic writer would be lame

[blocks in formation]

1

[what is 3;

mine, ed.

quid velim, Orig.]

« AnteriorContinuar »