Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER III.

ON THE CONDITIONS OF ECCLESIASTICAL JUDGMENTS.

THE judgments of bishops or councils in religious controversies, are of little weight in the church, unless they be given lawfully. If their decisions are not free, but constrained by external force and violence, they are in themselves of no weight, because they do not exhibit the genuine judgment of those who made them. If they manifestly act under the influence of prejudice and passion, or in blind obedience to some leader, their decrees are also devoid of authority in themselves. The church has often rejected the decisions of such synods. Thus the synod held at Ephesus, under Dioscorus, against Flavianus, patriarch of Constantinople, and that of Ariminum, where the Arian party deceived the orthodox, were both justly rejected by the church, in consequence of the force and violence employed to influence their proceedings. The judgments of the synod of Trent, also, have been justly disregarded by several churches, as it was chiefly composed of mere creatures of the Roman patriarch.

But, even if there has been some irregularity in the mode of judgment, the church ultimately judges whether that judgment is in itself correct; and if the whole church, in fact, approves and acts on it, it becomes the judgment of the universal church: nor can any irregu

larity in the original proceedings be pleaded in proof that it is not a lawful judgment of the universal church.

Certain conditions, however, must be found in all real judgments of the church.

I. They must be decreed and published by a sufficient authority, and be known universally. The judgment of a single bishop might be unknown to the greater part of the church: it might be considered of not sufficient weight to call for a counter decision, and circumstances might render it inexpedient to make one. But if a judgment be made by a great assembly of bishops, from various parts of the world, condemning certain doctrines as heretical, and establishing the contrary truth, this decree must necessarily be known throughout the whole church.

II. They must be universally received and acted on. If the church knows of such decrees, and yet does not receive or act on them, they are evidently not generally approved. If the church universal acts on those decrees, she evidently approves of them. If they are only received and acted on in a part of the church, they represent only the judgment of that portion of the church: e. g. the Latin synods were only received in the Latin churches.

III. There must be no proof that they are received everywhere by a mere act of submission to authority, by a blind impulse, without any examination or judgment whatever, or by force. If there be such proof, it reduces such decrees to be judgments of those individual bishops only from whom they emanated. A mere presumption, however, that the church generally has not exercised any judgment on certain decrees, would be insufficient to reduce the authority of those decrees to

that of their framers, if the church has acted on them; because it is not to be supposed, without evident proof, that any great christian community would fail to exercise a conscientious vigilance over the faith.

In speaking of an universal or unanimous reception and approbation of judgments in faith, I do not mean a physical and absolute, but a moral universality. In this sense our Saviour said, "If he will not hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican;" where he speaks of "the church" as united in judging an offender, though that offender is himself a member of the church, and opposed of course to the judgment. Scripture, in teaching us that heresies were to exist, shows that a judgment, absolutely unanimous, could not be expected at any time: but if the judgment be that of so great a majority of the church, that there are only a very small number of opponents, then its unanimity cannot fairly be contested. Where parties approach to anything like an equality in numbers, learning, &c. there is an evident want of unanimity; and, under such circumstances, the judgment of the church universal is not given.

This may be illustrated by examples from the history of the church. The Arians and Macedonians, the Nestorians and Eutychians, the Luciferians and Donatists, had respectively several bishops in their favour; but the infinite majority of the church approved and acted on the judgments by which they were condemned as heretics or schismatics, and thus manifested the moral unanimity of the judgment of christians.

On the other hand, when the church was considerably divided on questions, no one would maintain that the question had been determined by general consent. Thus, in the question of rebaptizing heretics, the oppo

site decrees of the African synod, and of the Roman see, were respectively supported by numerous adherents. So in the case of the second synod at Nice (by some called the seventh oecumenical), those who received, and those who rejected its decrees, were nearly balanced in number and weight; and, therefore, there was no judgment of the church.

What I have observed of the unanimity requisite to prove judgments to have been made by the universal church, applies also to the case of national, provincial, and particular churches. Their judgment is not given in controversies of faith, unless it be morally unanimous.

CHAPTER IV.

ON THE AUTHORITY OF JUDGMENTS OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH.

ASSUMING that in a controversy of faith, the formal and decided judgment of the universal church has been pronounced, it now remains to enquire, what authority this judgment is invested with; that is, whether individual christians, then and in all future time, are, or are not, bound to submit to it. In order to narrow the question, let us suppose that a judgment in a controversy of faith has been made by a great council of bishops, assembled from all parts of the world; that this, their judgment, has been transmitted to all churches, publicly approved by many, received, accepted, and acted on by all: that no opposing voice has been heard; or, if a few indivi

duals have objected, that their very fewness has evinced the sentiment of the vast majority, who also separate them from their communion as heretics: let us suppose that this judgment is not constrained by force and violence, nor given under the influence of any authority which destroys its freedom: the question now is, whether individuals are, after this, justified in opposing the doctrine so defined, on the ground of their own opinion of the sense of scripture, or for any other reason; and whether they are justified in subjecting themselves to the sentence of separation from the communion, and from the ordinances of the universal church.

I. I contend that such a judgment is absolutely binding on all individual christians, from the moment of its full manifestation, for the following reasons:

1. It has been already proved that the universal church is divinely authorized to judge in religious controversies, and to expel from her communion those who teach what is opposed to her faith. But Christ cannot have authorized two contradictory judgments or actions; therefore, when the universal church has manifested her judgment, individuals cannot be authorized to oppose their judgment to her's.

2. It is certain, from the word of God, that the church of Christ was never to fail, or become apostate: but it would be apostate, if it taught, positively, what was false in faith, or contrary to the Gospel of Christ; for the apostle says: "Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that we have preached unto you, let him be anathema"." It would also be sinful and detestable in the sight of God, to teach merely human theories and opinions as

a Gal. i. 8.

« AnteriorContinuar »