Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"

Dr. Samuel Horsley, late bishop of St. Asaph, in his sermon on this text.* I say also unto thee, that thou art ·Peter, and upon this rock, &c. &c." laments that the sense of this text was "brought under doubt and obscurity, by a variety of forced and discordant expositions;" and offers to shew, that it has not yet been understood neither by Catholics nor Protestants. "The writers in the Roman communion," says he, "have endeavoured to find in this passage a foundation for the vain pretensions of the Roman pontiff." p. 306. What he supposed those pretensions to be, the doctor does not say. Catholics, as such, support no other pretensions of the Roman Pontiffs, but what I have proved to be claimed by them, and sanctioned by the universal church, in the primitive ages, that is, the rights of spiritual supremacy, which undoubtedly have their foundation in the words of Christ, and were exercised by St. Peter, even before those words were committed to writing. "Protestants, on the other hand, (adds Dr. Horsley,) have been more solicitous to give it a sense, which might elude those consequences, than attentive to its true and interesting meaning," This I readily grant. But what then is that true and interesting meaning, which none but the bishop of St. Asaph has been yet able to discover? Before he comes to this part of . 16 his sermon, he refutes, at length, the were opinion of the Protestant divines who, rebin opposition to the church of Rome, o Pmaintain, that whatever the privitholeges may be, which are described in yas the text, as the custody of the keys of vain the kingdom of heaven, and the authority to bind and loose on earth. St. Peter is no otherwise interested in them than as an equal sharer with the rest of the Apostolic band." p. 38. But, "let the manner of our Lord's reply to St. Peter be remarked," says the doctor; "I would ask in what way

[ocr errors]

Pe

* Sermon XIII. before the Society of the Propagation of the Gospel, preached Anno 1795, published after the author's death, Anno 1810.

any one person of a numerous company can be more pointedly addressed; in what way can a discourse be more expressly confined and limited to one, in exclusion of the rest, than by calling that one person by his proper name, adding to his proper name his patronymic, and subjoining to that distinct compellation these express words, I say unto thee; clearly, therefore, Peter individually was upon this occasion, blessed by our Lord." p. 311, 312. "But there is yet another argument, that St. Peter, upon this occasion, spake singly for himself; the force of which, however, it hath passed unnoticed, is nothing short of demonstration. It is to be drawn from those words of our Lord, I say unto thee, thou art Feter. Proper names, in the Hebrew language, were titles rather than names; words expressive of some peculiar adjunct of the persons, by whom they were first borne. This was more particularly the case when a persons name is changed. The new name was always significant; and, for the most part, when given by divine authority, predictive of some peculiarity in the character, the life, the achievements, or the destiny of the person on whom it was imposed. When Simon, son of Jonas, first became a follower of our Lord, our Lord gave him the name of Cephas, or the rock, which passed into the equivalent word Petros. Our Lord, upon this occasion of his confession of his faith, says to him, Thou art Peter; the like form of words, though the similarity appears not in our English bibles." p. 314. "Standing upon this firm ground of argument, we may now venture to assume a confident tone, nor scruple to assert, that St. Peter, on this occasion, answered for himself; that the blessing he ob tained was for him singly, the reward of his being foremost in the faith which he confessed; that, to be the carrier of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to loose and bind on earth, in a sense which the expressions may bear in this passage were personal distinctions of the venerable primate of the Apostolic

college, appropriated to him, in posi- | formerly the Jewish church was tha

tive and absolute exclusion of all other persons, in exclusion of the apostles." P. 316.

kingdom. The true church is repre
sented in this text, as in many passage
of holy writ, under the image of a wall
ed city, to be entered only at the gates
Under the Mosaic economy, thes
gates were shut, and particular per
sons only could obtain admittance
Israelites, by birth, or by legal incor
poration. The locks of the gates
were the rites of the Mosaic-law
which obstructed the entrance of aliens.
But, after our Saviour's ascension, and
the descent of the Holy Ghost, the
keys of the city were given to St.
Peter, by that vision which taught
him, and authorised him to teach
others, that all distinctions of one na-
tion from another were at an end.—
By virtue of this special commission, the
great apostle applied the key, pushed
back the bolt of the lock, and threw the
gates of the city open for the admis-
sion of the whole Gentile world, in
the instance of Cornelius and his fa
mily. To this, and to this only, our
Lord prophetically alludes, when he
promised to St. Peter the custody of
"The
the keys." p. 317. Again,
great apostle fulfilled his commission
in his life time. He applied the keys;
he turned back the lock; he loosed
and he bound. The gates of the

Hitherto Dr. Horsley has fought our battles, and inforced against the opposers of St. Peter's primacy, arguments which are familiar to Catholic divines; now we shall see him turn his arms against us, and attempt to prove, that the blessing, privileges and powers, conferred by Christ on the venerable primate of the Apostolic college, were personal distinctions appropriated to him," in exclusion," not only. " of the apostles, his contemporaries," but also" of the bishops of Rome, his successors." p. 316. He proceeds thus: "The keys of the kingdom of heaven, here promised to St. Peter, by the principles we have laid down, for the exposition of this text, must be something quite distinct from that with which it hath generally been confounded; the power of the remission and retention of sins, conferred by our Lord, after his resurrection, upon the apostles in general, and transmitted, through them, to the perpetual succession of the priesthood. This is the discretionary power, lodged in the priesthood, of dispensing the sacraments, and of granting to the penitent, and refusing to the obdurate, the bene-kingdom of heaven are thrown open, fit and comfort of absolution. The object of this power is the individuals, upon whom it is exercised, according to the particular circumstances of each man's case. It was exercised by the apostles, in many striking instances: it is exercised now by every priest, when he administers, or withholds the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper, or, upon just grounds, pronounces, or refuses to pronounce, upon an individual the sentence of absolution. St. Peter's custody of the keys was quite another thing. It was a temporary, not a perpetual authority: its object was not individuals, but the whole human The kingdom of heaven upon earth is the true church of God. It is now, therefore, the Christian church;

race.

The ceremonial law is abrogated; the moral law is confirmed, and the suc cessors of St. Peter, in the see of Rome, can give neither furtherance nor ob struction to the business." p. 321. Here, Sir, you have Dr. Horsley's system of St. Peter's supremacy, in his own words. You see that he reduces it to the solitary act of having been the instrument of God's providence, in the conversion of the Gentiles. The inconsistency of this new exposition is palpable in many respects. The doctor allows, that Christ gave to St. Peter, in his quality of primate, the power not only of losing but of binding too, and therefore asserts, that in the exercise of his primacy, "he loosed and he bound;" yet, I cannot see what St. Peter bound on

"

ar

[ocr errors]

this occasion. He threw open the gates of the city, by removing the obstruction of the legal ceremonies,-so the prelate understands it; but he shut the gates against no body: "he pushed back the bolt," but never pushed it in again. But, had he only received power from Christ to loose and bind once in his life, and no more, to loose and bind at Cesarea, where eCornelius lived, and no where else, aicone would naturally suppose, that ofa when Christ said to him, "Whatsoion ever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven," the words whatto soever, and on earth, implied a more extensive power, not confined to a single object and place. But where did the doctor learn that the rites of the Mosaic law obstructed the entrance of the Gentiles into the Christian church? They indeed obstructed their entrance into the Jewish church, into which they could not enter without submitting to those rites; but those rites were an obstruction to the entrance neither of the Jews, nor of the Gentiles into the Christian church; not of the Jews who could enter into it without pushing back that bolt. For all of them continued in the practice of circumcision for after their conversion to Christianity. St. Paul himself circum cised Timothy; several of the christian bishops, successors of St. James, in the see of Jerusalem, were circumcised. The only thing required from the Jewish converts, in this regard, Was, that they should not believe, nor teach, that circumcision was neces iry. As to the Gentiles, since they Could be saved at all times, previous to the publication of the Gospel, by ith in Christ to come, as Job and Melchisedec, without the rites of the law, which were imposed only on the Posterity of Abraham, Isaac, and JaCob, it is not true that those rites were ever a bolt obstructing their enFrance into the kingdom of heaven; ad, as the christian dispensation never imposed that obligation on them, it is false to assert, as Dr. Horsley

[ocr errors]

some years

does, that the exercise of the primacy, entrusted to St. Peter by our Saviour, consisted in turning back the lock of the Mosaic rites, in abrogating the ceremonial law with regard to the Gentiles. When St. Peter converted Cornelius and his friends, he had only to declare that there was no impediment in their way, he could not push back a bolt which did not exist.

"The

Yet I believe that St. Peter had the special commission of opening the kingdom of heaven to the Gentiles, and that he had it as " primate of the Apostolic college;" but I maintain that he had performed the same act of supremacy before, in regard of the Jews. Was he not the first who preached the Gospel to them, after our Saviour's ascension, the first who introduced them into the Christian church? Dr. Horsley seems to have felt this difficulty, and was glad to evade it, lest it should spoil his system, by shewing that St. Peter used the keys, as primate, more than once. kingdom of heaven upon earth," says he, " is the true church of God. It is now, therefore the Christian church; formerly the Jewish church was that kingdom..' p. 319. Well, if the Christian church is now the kingdom of heaven upon earth, the Jewish church, therefore, is no longer so. It had ceased to be so, when St. Peter preached the Gospel at Jerusalem, on the day of Pentecost. The Jews, therefore, had then to come in, as well as the Gentiles. But who turned the key? Who opened the gates? it not Peter, who, when asked, with the other apostles, "What shall we do?" alone answered, in the name of all," Repent, and be baptised." Since then, St. Peter, on this occasion, acted as much primate of the church, as Dr. Horsley allows he did, when he opened the kingdom of heaven to the Gentiles, we have, at least, two instances of the exercise of that apostle's supremacy, recorded in the New Testament, which is enough to overthrow the doctor's system. For, if St. Peter exercised the right of supre

Was

macy twice, why not thrice? why not | men, with respect: but pious and dis

as many times as his office of binding andloosing,whatever was to be bound or loosed upon earth, by him personally, required it; as many times as he had to feed the lambs and the sheep, as chief shepherd, appointed by Christ over them. But more on this subject in my next. I remain, &c. N.G.

To the Editor of the Orthodox Journal.

cerning men have lamented that this intercourse has been evidently prejudicial to Catholics; has diminished the fervour of many; has caused several to walk with feeble and tottering step in the way of life, and drawn some entirely away from it. In truth, the Catholic religion, as compared with the Anglican, is a state of restraint, aud labour, and mortification. To the tepid Catholic, how agreeable an ad

viser is he who ridicules the notion, that the Almighty anger can be ex cited by a slice of bacon, or disarmed by an omlette-that a mere human being can forgive sin; who treats, in

SIR, The interesting and important quere proposed in your last number deserves early and serious attention. I wish it may call forth an abler answer than I can give: I promise, how-short, every distinguishing article of ever, to discuss it, according to the request of your correspondent, impartially.

The question respects two descriptions of persons; those who are now Catholics, among whom it is doubted whether the restoration of their political birthright may not occasion a decay of piety; and those who may be induced to declare themselves Catholics on the removal of the penalty of forfeiture of their political birthright at present consequent on such declaration, who, it is feared, may be Catholics in name only, and that both descriptions, restraints being removed and views of ambition being opened to them, may go on, corrupting and corrupted, and affording at length but too serious a ground of regret that the pernicious boon of emancipation should ever have been demanded. Your correspondent does not suppose any insincerity in the new Catholics, but only that, a bar being removed, the list will be lengthened, and that the change of circumstances will have an evil influence on the whole body.

Of late years, and since the repeal of the penal statutes, a much greater intercourse than formerly has taken place between Catholics and Protestants, especially those of the established religion. Of the Protestants, as they are Christians, I wish to speak with charity as they are fellow-country

Catholic faith, discipline, or practice, with overbearing insolence or sneering contempt. To the Catholic, careless of his salvation, how dangerous an example is he, who, professing to believe in Christ, would not be different from what he is, either interiorly or exte riorly, if he were to abjure the Chris tian name.

To the Catholic imper fectly instructed, how perplexing must be a controversy with one who, though disgracefully ignorant both of the religion which he professes and of that which he rejects, is never deficient in hardy assertion and calumny; who, though baffled, is never ashamed; though confuted, is never convinced; though convinced, is almost never coll verted.

Would the intercourse above met tioned be more frequent or more inti mate in the event of emancipation? It does not appear to me that common rights and privileges would call toge ther Catholics and Protestants more

than business and society now do; I think that the sense of civil equality would lessen that involuntary defer ence to power and domination which at present in the behaviour of the Ca tholic, approaches to timidity; we should hear no more of conciliating those who will never be conciliated, while a rag of popery is left; of col ceding to those who will be satisfied with no concession short of that of the

PAITH; of surrendering the outworks | anxiety, in entire acquiescence in the to those who aim at the demolition of dispensations of Providence, having the citadel. mainly in view the glory of GoD and the good of souls. At present our religion is degraded, as far as it can be degraded, by the treatment we receive. Lét us try to remove this obstacle; but let us remember, vincit qui patitur, he overcomes who suffers. In this temper it will be lawful for us to endeavour after our civil privileges as a temporal good. "Art thou called, being a slave, care not for it: but if thou canst be made free, use it rather." So said the Apostle to converts in a state of personal bondage. I will conclude my letter by declaring my firm persuasion that the discussion of this topic, although, if rightly managed, it may be useful to regulate our present conduct, is superfluous, to us at least, as far as it concerns the consequences of emancipation. This generation will pass away, before that object is obtained. I am, Sir, your humble servant,

In this age and country of religious freedom, an Englishman cannot embrace the religion of his forefathers, without being punished for the act by the deprivation of his political birthright. Unwillingness to incur this penalty, withholds many from the Catholic communion, by the strong bias of interest operating on their minds. There is no imprudence in this avowal: it is notorious that the adversaries of our emancipation act on the supposition. For the sake of discouraging the growth of popery, possible hypocrisy or indifference are slight evils. When the government shall concede to English subjects the unrestricted right of being of what religion they please, it is probable that there will be many converts to the Catholic faith: the scales will be even, and truth only will be thrown into the balaáce. The sincerity of such conversions ought not to be doubted; for, though popery be no longer discouraged by disqualifications, it will receive no encouragement; it will hold out no inducements of a temporal nature; it will even still be subject to disadvantages. Converts are proverbially zealous; they may have been badly educated; to the interior life of a Christian, to many of the peculiar virtues of our holy religion they may have been strangers: be it so: for this very reason their conversion is a subject of joy. For this reason, bable in the event of emancipation, I namely, because conversions are protrust your pious correspondent will have less dread of the consequences of that event. As we should not do evil that good may come, neither should we refuse good, lest evil should, by possibility, itself, if carried on in a wrong temper thodox Journal, I have never desired Still the pursuit of mind, may be a cause of evil. In that my name should be unknown to however, that the restoration those whom it might concern. Had I birthright may be to us a spiri- signed my name, however, I should tage, it behoves us to seek it without too forward for a private individual. al good, as well as a temporal advan- have seemed to myself to have been ORTHOD. JOUR. VOL. III.

order,

of our

ensue.

AN ENGLISH CATHOLIC. P. S.-I have been highly gratified, and, I hope, edified, by the excellent letter of the Rev. Mr. Peach, recommending temperance in our unhappy disputes. I should be very sorry to be considered by him as one of those who haye rendered his admonitions ne cessary: yet I cannot retract the terms in which I have spoken in my last letter of that clause for subjecting Catholics to the penalties of popish recu

sancy. I expressly restricted my indignation to the man who drew up, and those who approved or now ap

prove,

the clause.

To the Rev. Mr. Martyn.

SIR,-I am duly sensible of the obligation you confer on me by the letter you have addressed to me in the Or

[ocr errors]
« EelmineJätka »