Page:Delineation of Roman Catholicism.djvu/155

 And hence some argue, that as the Council of Constantinople did not eceive the confrmation of the pope, its decrees are not infallible. This, however, is a comparatively modern opinion among Roman Ca- thoUcs. But before it can be of weight, it ought to be shown that the pope lawfully possesses, by Scripture authority, this power of passing a 9e./o on, or confirming, the decrees of counc/ls. 1. That infallibility resides in a council confirmed by the pope can sever be supported. According to this system the council of itself is fslljble; so also is the pope. But how these two fa!libles united together can constitute an infallible body, and emit infallible decisions, is wholly inexplicable. ' 2. The decree of the Councils of Constance al Basil declare the supremacy and infallibility to be in general councils; that these are: above popes, and that they are heretics who deny this doc .tine. On the other hand, Pope Leo and the Lateran counc/1 assert that it is necessary to salvation that all Christ's faithful people should be subject to the bishop of Rome, and that the pope hs8 uthority over councils. Cs, IV.] LLlstLrr'... . 147 flint Council of m-,, decreed that the bishop.of Constan- tinople should possess equal privileges with the bishop of Rome. Every one knows how th/8 has been since contrad/cted, by beth councils and VI. Some Roman Catholics, as'we hqve een, are of opinion that a council is not infallible unless its decrees are approved by the Pope. Here, then, is a palpable contradiction. 3. The Scripture informs us that "nan/age is honourable s ALL, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge," Heb. xi_ii, 4. And this holds good as well to clergymen s to hymen, I Tim. 'fii, 2, 4, 11, 12; iv, 3. Yet the second Lateran coun- cil, held in 1139, being the tenth gendral council, strictly forbids the mars/age of ecclesiastics, down to the rank of the subdeacon inclusive, and forbids the laity to hear mass from any priest who violates th/s commandment. The foilow/ng is the canon: "When they ought both to be and to be called tl temple of God, the vessels of the Lord, the shrines of the Holy Ghest, it is unworthy that they should become the slaves of chainbering and uncleanness."' It is not enough to say that this is merely a Point of discipline, and therefore mutable, and a matter of expediency, because it is considered as an immoral act to violate this injunction. Now if Scripture be infallible, the council cer- tainly cannot claim the same prerogative, inasnmch as it decides contrary to Scripture. 4. Nothing is clearer in Scripture than that oaths are to be solemnly k.e.t. Num: xxx, 2; Lev. xix, 12; Dqpt xxiii, 23; Psa. xv, 4; Zech. vm, 17; Rev. xxi, 8. But the third Council of Lateran, which also decreed the persecution of heretics, and was held in 1179, makes way for breaking all kinds of oaths that may not be favourable to the C]urch e Rome. This council decrees: "For they are uot to be called oaths, lt rather perjuries, which are contrary to eccleaiastical utility and the

�