Romanism Discussed, Treatise · Article 5 · Section 8
SECT. VIII.
The objections of Proteſtants againſt the Churches infallibility from Fathers and Councils are vindicated from the anſwers of H. T.
He ſaith. Objections from Fathers and Councils reſolved. Ob. The Council of Fanckford condemned the ſecond Nicene Council for giving ſoveraign honour to images, as you may ſee in the Preface to the Carolin books. Anſw. The ſecond Nicene Council allows no ſuch honour to images, but onelyonly a ſalutation or honorary worſhip, not true Latria (or ſoveraign honour) which it defines to be due to God onelyonly, Act. 1. 7. The Carolin books are of no authority, they ſay that Council was not approved by the Pope, which is falſe, and that it was held at Conſtantinople in Bythinia, whereas Conſtantinople is in Thracia.
I Reply, That honour to Images, which Papiſts will not have to be termed Latria or ſoveraign honour proper to God; the Scripture makes ſoveraign honour to be given to God onelyonly in a religious reſpect; to wit, bowing down the body to them, kiſſing, burning incenſe, offering gifts, holding up the hands, lifting up the eyes, praying to them, which the Scripture appropriates to God, and denies to images, Matth. 4. 10. Revel. 19. 10. 1 Kings 19. 18. Exod. 20. 4, 5. Nor doth the Scripture make ſuch diſtinction of Latria and Dulia, but that it forbids ſuch worſhip to be given to any image of an inviſible being, which ſhews ſubjection to them, or dependence on them; for ſuch worſhip is religious, and is an acknowledgement of a Deity in them. The Scripture doth no where appropriate Latriam or the ſoveraign honour or worſhip due to God onelyonly to offering of ſacrifice, but that it alſo condemns as idolatrous the other acts named, if they be not given to Magiſtrates or ſuperiors out of civil reſpects, but to Images, Angels, or Saints alive or deceaſed in a religious reſpect as ſuperiors to us to whom we are ſubject and on whom we depend for help and ſuccour. And therefore this plaiſter of H. T. is too narrow to cover the foul ulcer that came from the falſe Synod called the ſecond Nicene. For what is that ſalutation or honorary worſhip, H. T. ſaith the ſecond council of Nice allows to Images? Is it not bowing down to them, which Papiſts themſelves call adoration, and difference from veneration, which conſiſts onelyonly in a decent uſage without defiling, defacing, or ſuch uſage as ſhews hatred and contempt of the thing or perſon repreſented, ſuch as is done to monuments or treaſure laid up to be kept, but not as things ſet up higher then our ſelves to be worſhipped, for that is plain Idolatry, and the very ſame with the Gentiles adoration of their Idols? now this did the ſecond Nicene Council require to be given to Images, ut erigerentur & adorarentur, &c. yea if Bellarm. lib. 2. de Imagin, Sanct. c. 21. ſay true, that Council would have them adored not only by accident, that is becauſe joyned with the thing adored, but alſo of themſelves as that, in which is the reaſon of veneration, nor onelyonly improperly that is in the place of another, ſo as that the proper term of the adoration ſhould not be the Image, but Chriſt himſelf, but properly ſo as that the Image be honoured ratione ſui ipſius in reſpect of it ſelf, as he explains his diſtinctions, ch. 20. And this adoration it was conceived by Charles the Great, and the Synod of Francfurt that Nicene Council intended to give to Images, and was refuted by the four books ſet forth by Charles the Greats authority yet to be ſeen, and condemned by the authority of the Synod of Francfurt, Anno 794. at which were preſent the Popes legats and did approve of the Synods determination, or diſſembled the Popes opinion. I finde not that the Carolin books ſay, that the ſecond Nicene Council was not approved by the Pope; if they did, and that they were deprived, it makes the more againſt the infallibility of Councils approved by the Pope, which thoſe three hundred Fathers acknowledged not, who met at Francfurt. The miſtake of the Country wherein Nice was, is not ſuch, as Bellarmin or Baronius conceive derogates from the truth of the thing, teſtified by ſo many authors of credit, all the ancient hiſtorians neareſt that time, beſides Hin…marus Agobardus, and after ſome Engliſh writers as Hoveden &c. Bellarmin himſelf, l. 2. de concil. auth. c. 7. confeſſeth it condemned the ſeventh Synod: and Platina in the life of Hadrian the firſt ſaith, that two worthy Biſhops Theophylact and Stephan held a Synod in the name of Hadrian of German and French Biſhops in which the Synod, which the Greeks call the ſeventh, was abrogated.
H. T. adds, Ob. The Lateran Council under Pope Leo the tenth Seſſ. 11. defined a Pope to be above a Council, and the Council of Conſtance, Seſſ. 4. defined a Council to be above a Pope. Anſw. Neither part was ever yet owned by the Church for an Oecumenical decree or definition, and if it were, it would be anſwered that the Lateran Council defined onelyonly a Pope to be above a Council taken without a Pope, or not approved; and that the Council of Conſtance onelyonly defined a Council approved by a Pope to be above a Pope without a Council, which definitions are not contradictory, no more than to ſay, one part of any thing is bigger then another, and the whole bigger then both; ſo that from hence it cannot be inferred that either Council erred: nor was either decree approved by the Pope.
I reply, this is impudent outfacing with ſhifts the truth in things manifeſt to all that enquire into them. He cannot deny that theſe contrary definitions were of two Councils which he himſelf, p. 33, 36. terms general Councils, and makes Popes preſident in both, and both he ſets down in his Catalogue made to prove a ſucceſſion in the Church of Rome, and yet here he denies their definitions to be Oecumenical, what is an Oecumenical definition if that an Oecumenical Council be not? How is it an Oecumenical definition when it determins againſt John Hus, or againſt Chriſts own expreſſe command for communion under one kinde, and nor Oecumenical, when it decrees the ſupremacy of the Council above the Pope? This is meer jugling of h…us pocus, which ſhews that when it likes them the Council ſhall be approved, when not, rejected, and thereby take upon them to be above Pope and Council. But if this be the faſhion of their Councils who can tell when one decree is contrary to another if theſe were not? or who can tell when a decree is approved by a Pope if neither of theſe were? where's the agreement? where's the infallibility they ſo vainly arrogate to their Church? Martin the fifth expreſſely confirmed the acts of the Council of Conſtance in the 45. Seſſion, of which one was in the fourth Seſſion, that every one though of Papal dignity was bound to obey a general Council in the things pertaining to faith. That which Bellarm. l. 2. de Concil. aut. c. 19. ſaith that he onelyonly approved ſome things not others, becauſe he ſaid, ſic conciliariter facta is but a ſhift; for that expreſſion is not ſet down by way of limitation and diſtinction, but explication, noting the reaſon of approving all becauſe they were done conciliariter, as the word ſic ſhews, which implies his acknowledgment that they were all ſo done. Beſides he not excepting it expreſſely could not be interpreted to except that from his confirmation more then any thing elſe there acted, it might as well be ſaid he excepted the decree about half communion; yea if he had excepted that decree of the Councils being above the Pope he had meerly deluded the Council, that decree being their principal decree, and for which it was called. Add hereto that the words of his Bull thereupon do more fully manifeſt that he did not except it; and the decree of the Council of Baſil called after by vertue of his Bull ſhews, that they underſtood it to confirm that decree proceeding againſt Pope Eugenius conformably to it. And for the other Council that Pope Leo the tenth did not confirm the decree of the Popes being above a Council is contrary to Bellarmin l. 2. de Concil. aut. c. 18. who recites the decree as a proof, and c. 5. reckons it among the general Councils approved by the Pope, as appears, ſaith he, in that he was preſident in perſon. And for the other anſwer of H. T. it is ridiculous, ſith the Councils words are expreſſe that any perſon though of Papal dignity was to obey the general Council, and the decree was made of purpoſe to juſtifie their fact in putting down a Pope. And there was no queſtion nor need be, who is above other when both joyn, but all the queſtion is and ſo the definition muſt be conſtrued, when they are ſevered. Yea it would be trifling to ſay the Pope ſhould obey the Council, when the Pope concurred, for it's all one as to ſay be ſhould obey himſelf: and to ſay the Council is above the Pope when the Council and Pope are one is frivolous, for in all ſuch compariſons the words expreſſe what each is ſeverally as they ſtand in competition according to their ſeveral authorities, and therefore the ſimilitude of H. T. is frivolous as being not to the purpoſe. Laſtly, with what face can this man ſay that neither Council err'd, when Bellarmin ſaith c. 7. that in the Florentin and laſt Lateran the Council of Conſtance was rejected in reſpect of the firſt Seſſions, wherein it defined a Council to be above a Pope? ſo that all the wit of man is not able to avoid this objection, but that according to the ſuppoſitions of Popiſh Doctors either a general Council approved by a Pope may erre in a point of faith, or elſe there is no error in a main point of their faith, when one general Council approved by a Pope contradicts a former general Council approved by a former Pope of greater freedome and celebrity by reaſon of the Emperours preſence and for other cauſes, which was ſeconded by another Council not long after, as appears by the next objection, which is thus ſet down by H. T.
Ob. The Council of Baſil defined, that a Council was above a Pope. Anſw. The decree was not approved, nor any other of that Council, but onelyonly ſuch as concerned Church benefices. See Eugenius with Terrecremata l. 2. c. 100.
I reply, I finde no ſuch diſtinction in Pope Nicolas the fifth his Bull, but that it is confirmed altogether. But it ſeems when it pleaſeth theſe men the Council ſhall be approved, when not rejected. So that it is not either the calling of a Council by a Pope, or the univerſality of the Fathers, or the approbation of the Pope can confirm it, if another Pope reject it, which they will do when it's againſt their power and profit. And hereby is proved that Popes are vertiginous, that Popery is as mutable as the weathercock, that there is ſo little ſhew of agreement, unity and infallibility in Popes and Councils approved by him, that ſcarce any ſtates are more full of changes in matters civil then they are in matters Eccleſiaſtical and of faith, nor in any part of the world more diſagreement then among Papiſts.
Further ſaith H. T. Ob. The Council of Ariminum defined Arianiſm. Anſw. It did not, and that equivocal decree that was there made was never approved by the Pope; and the Fathers themſelves (who were deluded by the Arians with words that bare a double ſenſe when they perceived the fraud) lamented and renounced the fact.
I reply, H. T. his own words confirm the objection. For, 1. If the Fathers were deluded by the Arians then they were not infallible; and ſo a general Council approved by the Pope may erre in a main point of faith. 2. If that Council did not define Arianiſm, how were they deluded? wherein was the fraud but in that the words being of double ſenſe, yet indeed decreed Arian doctrine? what need they lament or renounce the fact if it were not ſo? why doth Auſtin l. 3. contra Maximinum c. 14. oppoſe that council to that of Nice, and Maximinus allege it for himſelf if it did not decree Arianiſm? why did Ruffinus, Socrates, Baſil cited by Bellarm, l. 1. de concil. c. 6. reject it, and Bellarmin reckon it among the reprobate councils, if it were not Arian? and that Pope Liberius did ſubſcribe to, it is related by Hierom in his catalogue of writers in Fortunatianus, in his Chronicle, by Hillary ſundry times and others.
Yet ſaith H. T. Ob. The council of Trent erred by adding to the Canon of Scripture. Anſw. It did not: the third council of Carthage approved all the ſame books by name excepting Baruch whom they compared with the Prophet Hieremy, whoſe Secretary he was, and this twelve hundred years ago.
I reply, if the council of Trent did not erre, Pope Gregory the great did, who expreſſely denied the books of Maccabees to be canonical, l. 19. Moral. c. 17. As for the third Synod of Carthage it was not an Oecumenical Synod, and it is over ballanced by the Synod of Laodicea before it, who omitted them. And if the ancients termed the Apocryphal books canonical or divine, they are to be underſtood according to Ruffinus his explication in his Expoſition on the Creed, and others, that they were canonical in a ſort as being read in the Churches by reaſon of ſome hiſtories or moral ſentences, but not ſo as that they were brought to confirm the authority of faith by them.
H. T. further ſaith. Ob. The Fathers err'd ſome in one thing ſome in another. Anſw. A part I grant, all together (ſpeaking of any one age) I deny, and they all ſubmitted to the Church and ſo do likewiſe our Schoolmen, who differ onelyonly in opinion concerning School points undefined, not in faith.
I reply. 1. That the Fathers of ſome ages did generally hold errors is apparent in many particulars. Auguſtine held it an Apoſtolical tradition that the Sacrament of the Euchariſt was neceſſary for infants, as appears l. 1. de pec. merito & remiſſ. c. 24. and elſewhere, and Maldonat on John 6. v. 53. ſaith that it was the opinion of Auguſtin and Pope Innocent the firſt, and that it prevailed. in the Church for ſix hundred years, and yet the council of Trent, ſeſſ. 21. c. 4. can. 4. ſaith, If any ſay the communion of the Euchariſt to be neceſſary for little ones afore they come to years of diſcretion, let him be Anathema. The like might be ſaid of ſundry other points, as that of the Millenary opinion, the ſouls not ſeeing God till the day of judgement, &c. 2. That all the Fathers did not ſubmit to the Church of Rome, is manifeſt by the Aſian Biſhops oppoſition to Victor about Eaſter, to Stephen about rebaptization by Cyprian and others, to Boniface, Zozimus and Celeſtin about appeals from Africa to Rome by Aurelius Auguſtinus and a whole council. 3. That the Schoolmen differ in points of faith defined is manifeſt in Peter Lumbard l. 1. ſent. diſt. 17. who held the holy Ghoſt to be the charity whereby we love God, and the diſſent from him in that point, the differences about the Popes authority above a council, power to abſolve ſubjects from the oath of allegiance, certainty of faith concerning a mans own juſtification, Gods predetermination of mans will, and many more yet controverted between Dominicans and Jeſuits, Janſeniſts and Moliniſts. 4. All ſubmit not to the Pope, but ſome appeal from him to a council, others by withſtanding in diſputes and otherwiſe decline his ſentence in their cauſe, of which the oppoſition againſt Pope Paul the fifth his interdict by the republick of Venice about their power over Eccleſiaſticks is a famous inſtance, evidently ſhewing that all that live in communion with the See of Rome acknowledge not ſuch a ſupremacy and infallibility to it as the modern Jeſuits aſcribe to it.
Yet again, ſaith H. T. Ob. St. Auguſtin tells St. Hierom that he eſteems none but the writers of the Canonical books to have been infallible in all they write, and not to erre in any thing. Anſw. Neither do we, we eſteem not the writers of councils infallible in all they write, nor yet councils themſelves, but only in the Oecumenical decrees or definitions of faith.
I reply, Auguſtin Epiſt. 19. to Hierom doth not onelyonly ſay thus, I confeſs to thy charity, that I have learned to give this reverence and honour onelyonly to thoſe books of Scriptures, which are now called canonical, that I do moſt firmly believe no author of them to have erred any thing in writing; but he adds alſo, But I ſo read others, that how much ſoever they excel in holineſs and doctrine, I do not think it true becauſe they have ſo thought, but becauſe they could perſwade me either by thoſe Canonical authors or by probable reaſon that it abhors not from that which is true. Which plainly ſhews. 1. That he counted only the writers of Canonical Scriptures and thoſe books infallible. 2. That the ſentence of others however excellent in ſanctity and doctrine, is not to be believed becauſe they ſo thought. 3. That their ſentence prevailed with him ſo far as it's proof did perſwade. 4. That this proof muſt be by the Canonical Scriptures or probable reaſon.
H. T. adds. Ob. St. Auguſtin Epiſt. 112. ſays we are onelyonly bound to believe the Canonical Scriptures without dubitation, but for other witneſſes we may believe or not believe them according to the weight of their authority. Anſw. He ſpeaks in a particular caſe in which nothing had been defined by the Church, namely whether God could be ſeen with corporal eyes? But the decrees of general councils are of divine authority, as we have proved; and therefore according to St. Auguſtin to be believed without dubitation.
I reply, though he ſpeaks upon occaſion of one particular caſe, yet the ſpeech is univerſal [but for other witneſſes or teſtimonies (beſides the Canonical Scriptures) by which any thing is perſwaded to be believed, it is lawful for thee to believe or not to believe, as thou ſhalt weigh how much moment thoſe things have or not have to beget faith:] There's not a word of exception concerning a thing defined by the Church; yea the opinion of Auguſtin is full and plain in his ſecond book of baptiſm againſt the Donatiſts, ch. 3. to take away infallibility from any Biſhops or councils Oecumenical, which I think fit to tranſlate to ſhew how contrary it is to Austin to make any councils after the Apoſtles infallible. Who knows not, ſaith he, the holy Canonical Scripture as well of the old as of the new Teſtament to be contained in it's certain bounds, and that it is ſo to be preferred before all the later letters of Biſhops that a man may not doubt or diſpute of it at all, whether that which it is manifeſt to be written in it be true or right, but for the letters of Biſhops which have been or are written after the Canon confirmed, it is lawful that they be reprehended, if perhaps in them any thing have deviated (or gone out of the way) from truth, both perhaps by the wiſer ſpeech of any man more skilful in that thing, and by the more grave authority of other Biſhops, and the prudence of the learned, and by councils. And thoſe councils which are held in ſingle Regions or Provinces are to give place without any windings to the authority of more full councils, which are gathered out of the whole Chriſtian world, and oft times thoſe former fuller councils may be mended by later, when by ſome trial of things that is open which was ſhut up and known which did lye hid, without any ſmoke of ſacrilegious pride, without any ſwollen neck of arrogance, without any contention of wan envy, with holy humility, with Catholick peace, with Chriſtian charity.
Yet once more, ſaith H. T. Ob. St. Athanaſius (in his Epiſtle to the Biſhops of Africa) tells the Arians they in vain ran about to ſeek councils, ſince the Scripture is more powerful then all councils. Anſw. He ſays it was vain for them who had rejected the general council of Nice, nor doubt we but the Scripture hath in many reſpects a preheminence above the definitions of general councils, and a higher degree of infallibility, yet theſe alſo are infallible in points of faith.
I reply, the reaſon of Athanaſius ſhews it was in vain for Arians to ſeek to councils, becauſe the Scripture was againſt them, not becauſe the council of Nice was againſt them, as the very words recited by H. T. ſhew, who doth well to acknowledge the Scriptures preheminence, which juſtifies Proteſtants who ſtick to the Scriptures againſt councils, which do often ſwerve from them and ſometimes oppoſe them. As for the degree of infallibility (if there be any degrees of infallibility, which perhaps a Logician will deny, infallibility being a meer negation of liableneſs to error or being deceived) H. T. aſcribes to them, it is ſo uncertain what it is, and ſo weakly proved, that none that loves his ſoul ſhould reſt on it, and not try, what they hold, by the Scriptures confeſſedly more infallible. As for the ſpeech of the council of Baſil there's no reaſon why Proteſtants or others ſhould reſt on it, when Papiſts themſelves, even H. T. p. 79. rejects it, and ſays it was not approved in any decree, but ſuch as concern Church benefices; and yet this man concludes with it's ſpeech about the authority of a general council, as if it were certain. So vertiginous is this Author.