INTRODIICTION. 23 thority in their church to be infallible, or certain, or obliging to assent? How can they admit the pope for authentic judge of controversies or master of Christian doctrine, or in any point credible, who has in so great a matter erred so foully, and seduced the Christianworld, whom they desert in a point of so great consideration and influence on practice,whom they, by virtue of their dissent from him in this opinion, may often be obliged to oppose in his proceedings? How can theydeny that bad doctrinesmight creep in, and obtain sway in the church, by the interest of the pope and his clients? How can they charge novelty or heterodoxy on those who refuse some dictates of popes, of papal councils, of scholastic divines, which stand upon no better grounds than those on which this doctrine stands? Why has no synod, of the many which have been held in all parts of Christendom, clearly disclaimed this opinion; but all have let it slip, or have seemed by silence to approve it? Yea, how can the concord and unity of that church well consist with a dissent from this doctrine? for, No man apprehending it false seems capable with good con- science to hold communion with those who profess it; for, upon sup- position of its falsehood, the pope and his chief adherents are the teachers and abettors of the highest violation of divine commands and most enormous sins, of usurpation, tyranny, imposture, perjury, rebellion, murder, rapine, and all the villanies complicated in the practical influence of this doctrine. It seems clear as the sun, that if this doctrine be an error, it is one of the most pernicious heresies that ever was vented, involving the highest impiety and producing the greatest mischief; for if he that should teach adultery, incest, simony, theft, murder, or the like crimes, to be lawful, would be a heretic, howmuch more would he be such that should recommend perjury, rebellion, regicide (things inducing wars, confusions, slaughters, desolations, all sorts of injustice and mischief), as duties! How, then, can any man safely hold communion with such per- sons? May we not say, with Pope Symmachus, that " to communi- cate with such is to consent with them?" with Pope Gelasius, that " it is worse than ignorance of the truth to communicate with the enemies of truth?" and that " he who communicates with such an heresy is worthily judged to be removed from our society?"' § VII. Yet so loose and slippery are the principles of the party ' An communicare non est consentire cum talibus 7 P. Sym. I., Ep. vii. Quasi non sit deterius, et non ignorasse veritatem, et tarnen communicasse cum veritatis inirnicis. P. Gelas. L, Ep. i. Cuicunquehnresi communicans merito judicatur a nostra socie- tate removendus.Id. ibid. Vide Ep. xiii., p. 642.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=