not supported by the voice of universal tradition, but have been opposed by several members of the church at all times without any condemnation of their doctrine by the church generally. Such doctrines are matters of opinion, and they may be received, or not received, according to the judgment of individuals or particular churches, without heresy; because there is no certainty that they were revealed by Christ. As St. Augustine says: "Some points there are, in which even the most learned and best defenders of the catholic rule disagree, yet the union of faith is preserved "." This distinction is admitted by all parties. Calvin observes, that "there are some things which may be controverted amongst churches, yet do not destroy the unity of faith. For what churches ought to separate merely for this cause, if one should suppose without any contentiousness or positive assertion, that souls departing from the body ascend to heaven, and the other should not dare to determine the place, yet hold that they are alive to God?" In the same manner the Romish divines distinguish between theological opinions and doctrines de fide. Amongst the former they include the points disputed between the Thomists and Scotists, the Jesuits and Dominicans, the Ultramontane and the Cisalpine parties, the doctrine of the imma

a" Alia sunt in quibus inter se aliquando etiam doctissimi atque optimi regulæ Catholicæ defensores, salva fidei compage non consonant."-Contr. Jul. i. 22. p. 510. tom. x.

b Calvin. Institut. lib. iv. c. i. s. 12. The Lutherans admitted the same in their Apology, where, in reference to the universal church, it is said, "Hæc ecclesia proprie est columna veritatis.

Retinet enim purum evangelium, et ut Paulus inquit, fundamentum, hoc est veram Christi cognitionem et fidem, etsi sunt in his etiam multi imbecilles, qui supra fundamentum ædificant stipulas perituras, hoc est quasdem inutiles opiniones, quæ tamen, quia non evertunt fundamentum, tunc condonantur illis, tum etiam emendantur."-Apol. Conf. August. iv.

It is certain,

culate conception of the Virgin, &c. therefore, that there are doctrines which may be disputed without heresy.

2. When a doctrine in controversy appears to be taught by Scripture and tradition, and the universal church has not pronounced any judgment against it; particular churches are not guilty of heresy in maintaining this doctrine, even though it may be an error, and may have been denounced by some other particular churches. An instance of this is afforded by the controversy between St. Cyprian and Stephen of Rome, in the question of the validity of heretical baptism. No one, even of those who dispute his doctrine, supposes that St. Cyprian and those who judged with him were guilty of heresy. They were indeed condemned by the Roman church, but the rest of the church did not approve this measure. This is admitted by all the Romish theologians, and they do not themselves pretend that it is heretical to maintain a doctrine apparently supported by Scripture and tradition, against any authority inferior to that of the universal church. Thus they exempt the Gallican church in the time of Charlemagne and afterwards from heresy, though it rejected the worship of images decreed in the Synod of Nice, A.D. 787, but which it did not acknowledge to be oecumenical ©. Even Transubstantiation and Purgatory, according to them, were not matters of faith, till the Councils of Lateran and Florence had defined those doctrines.

3. If even a doctrine has been declared de fide by the legitimate judgment of the universal church, still if through an error of fact it is supposed by some churches

not to have been so declared, they do not incur heresy in retaining a different doctrine. This is admitted by Romanists, and it is a principle of considerable importance. They excuse from heresy those churches which did not receive the condemnation of the "three chapters" by the fifth oecumenical synod, on the ground that these churches were uncertain whether it was oecumenical d. For the same reason they excuse the Western bishops who rejected the Synod of Nice (called the Seventh Synod). The Gallicans excuse for the same reason the Ultramontanes, for not receiving the decrees of the Councils of Constance and Basil, concerning the superiority of a general synod to the Pope. In like manner the cardinal of Lorraine and the Gallicans generally, did not receive the Synod of Florence as œcumenical, nor its decree on the papal supremacy, and yet were free from heresy ". It appears, therefore, that those who on strong grounds deny that the church has actually judged in a particular controversy, are free from heresy, even though they hold a doctrine which has been condemned. And the reason of this is, that there is still a legitimate doubt whether the contrary doctrine was revealed by Christ.

4. From the preceding principle it follows, that churches which through an error of fact, but on strong

d Tournely, tom. i. p. 401.

Bailly, Tractatus de Eccl. Christi, tom. i. p. 423. Delahogue, de Ecclesia, p. 177.

Bailly, tom. i. p. 425. Bossuet, Defens. declarat. cleri Gallicani.

Fleury, liv. 164. s. 74.-It is acknowledged by Tournely, Hooke, and other Romish theo

logians, that the cecumenicity of the Synod of Florence is doubted by some.-See part iv. (on the Synod of Ferrara or Florence). According to Andradius (de Script. et Trad. Auctor. lib. ii. fol. 251.), France never acknowledged the Synod of Florence as general.

reasons, believe a doctrine to have been defined by the universal church as a matter of faith, which was in reality not so defined, and which is erroneous even in faith, are not guilty of heresy in holding that doctrine. Thus the African and some other Western churches opposed themselves to the judgment of the fifth Ecumenical Synod against the "three chapters," because they believed, through mistake, that the fourth Ecumenical Synod had approved them. And in this, and all similar cases, those who are in error are free from heresy, when they judge (on probable grounds) their opinion supported by a greater scriptural and ecclesiastical authority than that of their opponents.

5. In conclusion it must be observed, that there is a great difference between those who actually apostatize from the evident truth, and those who have been born and educated out of the pale of the church's teaching, and have indeed imbibed from their parents or instructors doctrines contrary to the truth in some points, but who maintain them without obstinacy, and with a willingness to embrace the truth revealed by Christ, whatever it may be. It would be inconsistent with that charity which "hopeth all things," to maintain absolutely that such persons are separated from Christ. St. Augustine teaches this doctrine: "the apostle Paul indeed said, 'A heretic after the first and second admonition reject,' &c.; they however who defend their opinion, though false and perverse, with no pertinacious vehemence, especially if they have not themselves invented it with presumptuous audacity, but received it from parents who had been seduced and fallen into error; and if they are seeking after the truth with cautious solicitude, and ready to be corrected when

they have discerned it, such men are by no means to be accounted among heretics "." This is also the doctrine of Archbishop Laud, who says: "If any man be a leader and a teaching heretic, and will add schism to heresy, and be obstinate in both, he without repentance must needs be lost; while many that succeed him in the error only, without the obstinacy, may be saved. For they which are misled and swayed with the current of the time, hold the same errors with their misleaders, yet not supinely, but with all sober diligence to find out the truth; not pertinaciously, but with all readiness to submit to truth so soon as it shall be found; not uncharitably, but retaining an internal communion with the whole visible church of Christ in the fundamental points of faith, and performance of acts of charity; not factiously, but with an earnest desire and a sincere endeavour (as their place and calling gives them means,) for a perfect union and communion of all Christians in truth as well as peace: I say these, however misled, are neither heretics nor schismatics in the sight of God, and are therefore in a state of salvation i."

This last clause should be received with some caution, and be understood rather to imply a pious and charitable hope and opinion, than any absolute certainty. It is true that the defect of knowledge diminishes or removes the guilt of sin. "If I had not come and spoken unto them they had not had sin" (John xv. 22.). Again: "That servant which knew

n “ Qui sententiam suam quamvis falsam atque perversam nulla pertinaci animositate defendunt, præsertim quam non audacia præsumptionis suæ pepererunt, sed a seductis atque in errorem lapsis parentibus acceperunt, quærunt

autem cauta sollicitudine veritatem, corrigi parati cum invenerint, nequaquam sunt inter hæreticos deputandi."— Aug. Ep. 43. al. 162. Oper. t. 2. p. 88.

iLaud, Controversy with Fisher, s. 36, p. 315.