Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

power, that, without their sentence, no sinner fallen after Baptism can be reconciled:

MINOR. But the Priests of his church cannot form a right judg. ment, unless they know the sins:

CONCLUSION. Therefore all who have fallen after Baptism are bound by the divine law to reveal their sins to the Priests of his church :And hence the confession of sins is a necessary means to effect the reconciliation of those who have fallen after Baptism.

[ocr errors]

The Major proposition alone in the above syllogism is to be proved, viz: that Christ has instituted the Apostles and their lawful successors the Priests of his church, to be judges upon earth, that, without their sentence no sinner fallen after Baptism can be reconciled; for the Minor is so evident in itself, that no one, I believe, will ever pretend to deny it: for, without a cognizance of the cause, it is impossible for any judgment to be formed, even in thought. Let it be supposed for example, that a private individual should present himself before a civil court, requesting a decision of his case and desiring to be informed of the penalty, if any, attached to his transgression. What answer think you, would the judge naturally make him? He would tell him: "My good friend, I should be glad to know first what your case is; what law have you infringed? What has been your transgression? How often, &c. Otherwise how shall I be able to determine any thing about you?”—The whole difficulty therefore rests in the major proposition, which having proved from the Gospel, viz. that the Apostles and their Jawful successors, the Priests of the church, have been constituted judges by Jesus Christ in the causes of Penitents, I shall at once have proved, that the confession of sins made according to their respective species to a Priest, is indispensably necessary by the divine law.

[ocr errors]

There are three principal passages in the gospel from which this judicial power is most clearly demonstrated.

I. First, where Christ thus addresses St. Peter, Math. 16. 18. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.........and I will give to thee the Keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

II. Secondly, where he makes the same promise and in the same terms afterwards to his other Apostles, Math. 18. 18. Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you skall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

III. Thirdly, where he finally accomplishes his promise and explains to them in the clearest manner, the sense of his former promise, and the nature of the power he had promised, John 20. 21.

As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them: and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose you shall retain, they are retained.

The first passage cited above contains a promise made to Peter alone: But neither Catholics nor Protestants doubt of St. Peter's having received the keys, not only to use them himself, but also to communicate the same to other Priests.

The second passage contains a promise made to all the Apostles or a certain prediction of that power which the Apostles and their lawful successors were afterwards to receive. And as the eternal truth cannot deceive, nor utter a falsehood, although we should not read any where this promise realized, we could never entertain the least doubt of their having received this power.

The third passage contains the final accomplishment of the promise, the very concession of the power itself, and the complete establishment of the whole sacrament.

But as the adversaries of the Catholic Church do not deny this power of loosing and of binding; or of forgiving and retaining sin, to have been indeed promised and given to the church in these passages; but attempt to interpret this power as applying only to the ministry of preaching and announcing to penitents the remission of their sins, and to impenitents the anger of God and eternal damnation, it is incumbent on us to shew that the true power of absolving and of retaining sin with authority, is derived most evidently from these texts, and that by virtue of this power, are in reality constituted judges in the causes of sinners, in the room of Christ.

I. This is first manifest from the very metaphor of the keys, of which mention is made in the above text: I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, &c. For in the first place, it is not customary for keys to be given to signify merely, that, the door is shut or open; but to open and to shut it in reality.-Again, do we not see, even among men, keys given to magistrates as a mark of their power? and in the ordination of the porter or door-keeper, one of the minor orders of the clergy, the keys of the material church are given him, not that the door-keeper should declare whether the door of the church be

shut or open, but to shut and to open it in reality. Lastly, when it is said in the Apocalypse, (chap. 3.) of Christ: Who hath the key of David: he that openeth, and no man shutteth; shutleth and no man openeth; all agree that the word key implies a true and real power, by which Christ can both absolve and bind with judicial authority, and not merely intimate and declare who is bound and who loosed.

Wherefore, when Christ gave the keys to his apostles and their lawful successors, he imparted to them a true power, to bind and to loose, with judicial authority. And as no one can enter a house when shut, unless he who is charged with the keys open the door, so also neither can any one enter heaven, shut against him by reason of his crimes, unless it be opened through the ministry of the priests, the lawful successors of the apostles, who alone have the keys. For if there should be any other way to it, the apostles would have received the keys, evidently, to no purpose. For what necessity would there be for keys, when, without keys, and even in spite of the doorkeeper, access could be had? Let no one say, says St. Austin in his 49th Homily, I do penance privately with God who knows my sins: for then in vain was it said: whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them. Were then the keys given in vain to the church of God? We frustrate the gospel, we frustrate the words of Christ.

Nor does it in the least weaken the force of the above argument to say, that in baptism even they who have not the keys can open to man a way into heaven, as in the case of infants baptized by laymen in a case of necessity, and who die shortly after. For the power of the keys is a judicial power, and therefore is properly exercised towards those only, who are already in the church by baptism. For what have I to do to judge them that are without, says St. Paul in his first epistle to the Corinthians, 5th chap. Therefore, by baptism men are admitted into the church, and are subject to the power and judgment of the priests: but, if afterwards they fall into mortal sin, they can in no manner be reconciled (the case of impossibility, as mentioned above in a note, being excepted) without the benefit of the keys.

II. It is proved in the second place from the metaphor of binding and of loosing: for to bind and to loose, certainly does not signify to announce or to declare, but actually to confine with bonds and to liberate from them, and especially in the above texts of St. Matthew, chap. 16 and 18, otherwise our divine Saviour would not have said: whatsoever thou shalt loose, shall be loosed, or, whatsoever уси shali

loose, shall be loosed; but rather, whatsoever thou shalt loose, was loosed, and whatsoever you shall loose, was loosed.

But some may say, this is true: priests have the power to bind and to loose, but it does not follow, that it is necessary to appear before their tribunal: for Jesus Christ does not say and whatsoever you shall not loose, shall not be loosed. Wherefore, they have indeed the power to loose, should any one be inclined to make use of their ministry but a sinner can be also reconciled in another manner independently of their ministry. As in the case where public judges are constituted with judicial authority; they are empowered, it is true, to judge all who shall recur to them; yet those who have cause are not compelled to appear before them, they may choose their own arbitrators, or may even settle their differences by themselves.

:

But this objection is easily answered. For although private individuals are able to adjust the differences they may have among themselves, without the decision and interference of public judges constituted for that purpose, it does not follow, however, that they are able to adjust those which they may have, for example, with a king or the first magistrate of a country as such, unless they present themselves before him whom the king or first magistrate shall have delegated as judge in his place. Now, all sins are causes which we have with God himself, and consequently as God has entrusted the judgment of sin to the priests of his church, those who are members of the church cannot, if they have such causes, obtain a reconciliation with God without the judgment of the priests. Wherefore, although this negation: Whatsoever you shall not loose, shall not be loosed, be not expressed in this passage of the gospel, yet it manifestly flows as well from the above affirmation, Whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed, by which priests are constituted the future judges in all causes against God, as also from that: whatsoever you shall bind, shall be bound ; for, to bind is not only to add a new bond, as for instance, that of excommunication, but also, is to confirm and retain the bonds of sin, as is explained in another passage of the gospel, and in short to be unwilling to loose. Because, should the guilty be able to obtain the absolution of their sins, without the sentence of the priests, the promise of Christ, whatsoever you shall bind shall be bound, &c. would certainly

not be true.

III. The third and principal passage upon which the belief of the Catholic church respecting the divine institution and absolute necessity of confession is grounded, is found in the 20th chapter of St.

John, where Christ after his resurrection thus addresses his disciples, v. 21, 22. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them, and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose you shall retain, they are retained. By which remarkable action and not less expressive words, says the Council of Trent, in the 1st chap. 14th session, the holy fathers have always unanimously understood, that the power of remitting and of retaining sin was imparted to the apostles and their lawful successors for the reconciliation of the faithful, fallen after baptism. And indeed, either, the words of Christ just quoted mean nothing at all; (which, it would be impious even to think,) or, they manifestly mean, that Christ did grant thereby to his apostles and their lawful successors, the power not only to forgive; but also to retain sins. This being once supposed, which cannot be denied, the Catholic divine in support of the necessity and divine institution of confession, forms this unanswerable argument: Christ in the above passage has constituted the apostles and their lawful successors judges between God and the sinner, and accordingly has invested them with the power not only to forgive, but also to retain sins: but unless confession be of divine institution and of abso lute necessity for the sinner's reconciliation, the use and exercise of this power would be altogether nugatory and useless, nay, even utterly impossible, which cannot be asserted without blasphemy: therefore, confession is of divine institution and of absolute necessity for the sinuer's reconciliation. The major proposition being made up of the words of Christ wants neither explanation nor proof. The minor is equally certain; for it is not less clear than evident, that if confession be not of divine institution and of absolute necessity for the reconciliation of the sinner, that is, if there be other ordinary means to obtain the remission of sins committed after baptism, different from confession, the use and exercise of the power of forgiving and retaining sins would be rendered thereby wholly useless and nugatory. For who is there, if he knew of any easier mode of reconciliation than that of confession, that would not prefer it? Who is there that would be so fascinated by the charms of humiliation and self-denial, as to submit, in opposition to his most darling passions of pride and selflove, to the mortifying law of auricular confession? For the correctness of this reasoning, I appeal to the reader's own good sense. But supposing even that some sinners should be found penetrated with so vehement a sorrow and contrition as to recur to the Priests for their

« PredošláPokračovať »