Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

doctors of the church, and the master of the Sentences". All these circumstances render it highly probable that several opinions may have grown up during the middle ages in the Latin churches, and obtained more or less prevalence, which the church might reject afterwards, when scripture and the testimony of the fathers were more attentively examined.

OBJECTIONS.

I. The faith of the church cannot fail. The church being the body of Christ, must be moved and governed by its head if, therefore, the church erred, its error must be referred to Christ. (Canus.)

Answer. (1.) Admitting that the church's faith cannot fail, I deny that there would be any failure in faith, if an opinion was commonly held, which was an error not contrary to faith. (2.) I admit that the church is governed and moved by Christ, in what concerns the preservation of the faith; but maintain that it is not exempted from the temporary prevalence of some erroneous opinions not contrary to faith.

II. If any thing false was maintained by the church, as a dogma of the catholic faith, the Spirit of Christ would not always remain with the faithful, and teach them all truth according to his promise.

Answer. I do not suppose that the catholic church, defining formally and collectively, could do so at any time it has never yet done so but the Spirit of Truth was given for the preservation of the truth revealed by Jesus Christ, which is the meaning of the expression "all truth," here used; and, therefore, if the majority of the church received for a time some error not contrary to faith, and if some in the church held

b Fleury, Hist. Eccl. lib. 133. sect. 91.

that error as a matter of faith, the promise of Christ would still be fulfilled.

III. The church is "the pillar and ground of the truth;" therefore she cannot propose a false dogma, even through ignorance.

Answer. The catholic church cannot do so by a formal judgment, because all men would be bound to believe her; but particular synods, and many members of the church dispersed, may do so, because the doctrine may still be examined by the light of scripture and catholic tradition.

IV. If the majority of the church might err on some point, it may have erred in receiving the Gospels as canonical.

Answer. We do not receive the Gospels merely on the testimony of the church at this time existing; but on that of the church in all ages from the beginning.

V. If every doctrine generally received by the members of the existing church be not infallibly true, we may doubt all doctrines which have been taught us.

Answer. Though it be abstractedly possible that some prevalent opinion may be incorrect, yet we should not hesitate to believe generally what is received in the visible church; because the promises of Christ assure us, that the church, on the whole, teaches the truth revealed by him; and the authority which teaches us christian doctrine is so probable in itself, that we can never be justified in doubting it on any point, unless there be clear evidence that scripture and catholic tradition do not support, but are rather repugnant to it in that point.

VI. If individuals may generally hold an erroneous opinion, they may perhaps be in error in holding the doctrine of the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, &c.

Answer. These doctrines have been amply discussed long ago, and approved by formal judgments of the church; and it is as notorious that they have been so approved, and always received in the church as matters of faith, as it is that they are so received at this moment. But doctrines which the universal church has not defined, or matters held by many individuals without discussion and judgment, are not equally certain.

VII. If individuals may at a particular time commonly hold an erroneous opinion, and through that opinion maintain an error in doctrine, then there can be no binding authority in the tradition of the church, which may have been corrupted at some time.

Answer. Divine Providence would not have permitted any error, even one which is founded on ignorance or on a mistaken opinion, to prevail always in the church; because it would, in this case, have worn so strongly the appearance of truth, that it could never have been relinquished. It is also impossible, from the nature of things, that any error could always have prevailed generally in the church; because the apostles taught nothing but truth, and error could not have been immediately received universally without opposition. But, notwithstanding this, an erroneous opinion might be received commonly at a particular time, considerably after the apostolic age, because it would be always liable to be relinquished when enquiry and discussion Therefore, while I deny that the mere present opinion and doctrine of individuals generally is absolutely infallible, but affords only a probable reason, which may be relinquished when enquiry discerns evidently that a received opinion is only modern; I maintain, that universal apostolical tradition is of irrefragable authority, as I have elsewhere said.

arose.

CHAPTER VII.

ON THE NATURE AND AUTHORITY OF ECUMENICAL

SYNODS.

ECUMENICAL, or universal synods, are those assemblies of bishops which are supposed to represent, in some way, the church universal. They may be divided into two classes: those which have been approved and termed œcumenical by the universal church, and which alone are properly accounted cecumenical councils; and those which the universal church does not so approve and designate. Of the former, there have been only six; the latter are more numerous: and though some of them are received as oecumenical by different parts of the church, their authority is much inferior to that of the former.

Theologians endeavour to lay down several rules for determining whether a council be cecumenical or not. Some contend that all the bishops of the universal church must be summoned by the Roman patriarch; that he alone presides, by himself or his legates; that the decrees of the council need his confirmation. Others dispute the necessity of these conditions, and require the previous consent of the Eastern patriarchs, or of

b

temporal princes". These various opinions, as to the conditions essential to constitute an oecumenical council, are discussed by Launoius, doctor of the Sorbonne ; and those Romanists who affirm, as a matter of certainty, that the œcumenical synods are neither more nor less than eighteen, would do well to consult his epistle, in which it is shown that some writers of the Roman obedience only admit nine or ten synods, while others admit various larger numbers. In fact, it is now generally affirmed, by Roman theologians of respectability, after Bossuet, that the only final proof of the œcumenicity of a council, is its acceptance by the universal church as oecumenical; and that this acceptance confers on it such an authority, that no defects in its mode of celebration can be adduced afterwards to throw doubt on its judgments.

The final authority of proper œcumenical synods does not arise merely from the number of bishops assembled in them, but from the approbation of the catholic church throughout the world; which, having received their decrees, examines them with the respect due to so considerable an authority, compares them with scripture and catholic tradition, and by an universal approbation and execution of those decrees, pronounces a final and irrefragable sentence in their favour.

Romanists, however, still most commonly contend

a For the various questions concerning general councils, and for a refutation of the papal claims, see Field, of the Church, book v. c. 48-53; Barrow on the Pope's Supremacy; Crakanthorp, De loc. arg. ab author. Logicæ, c. 16; Bossuet, Def. Cler. Gallic. lib. vii; De Barral, Defens. des Libertés de l'Eglise

Gallicane, part iii. c. 2; De Hontheim, Febronius, c. vi; Launoii Epistolæ, pars vi. viii; Tournely, De Ecclesia, t. i. p. 380, &c. b Launoii Epistolæ, pars viii. ep. 11.

Bossuet, Def. Decl. Cler. Gall. lib. viii. c. ix. ad fin.; Reponse à plusieurs lettres de Leibnitz, let. xxii.

« AnteriorContinuar »