In his essay on “Superstition”, Francis Bacon wrote the following:
“It was gravely said by some of the prelates in the Council of Trent, where the doctrine of the Schoolmen bare great sway, that the Schoolmen were like astronomers, which did feign eccentrics and epicycles, and such engines of orbs, to save the phenomena; though they knew there were no such things; and in like manner, that the Schoolmen had framed a number of subtle and intricate axioms, and theorems, to save the practice of the church. The causes of superstition are: pleasing and sensual rites and ceremonies; excess of outward and pharisaical holiness; overgreat reverence of traditions, which cannot but load the church; the stratagems of prelates, for their own ambition and lucre; the favoring too much of good intentions, which openeth the gate to conceits and novelties.”
Let’s take a careful look at this criticism to determine whether it is reasonable and just.
First, let’s establish some context. The Council of Trent took place between 1545 and 1563. Francis Bacon was born in 1561, so the Council was a recent event when he was writing. Bacon’s essay on “Superstition” was published in 1612, less than 50 years after the Council. Bacon was around 50 years old when the essay was written. He was living in England almost a century after the start of the Protestant schism and Catholic prelates had been banished from England by the time he was writing. His accusations were not made in a context of open discussion and debate, but in a Protestant bubble.
Second, Bacon begins with a criticism referring to anonymous sources (“some of the prelates”) who were reportedly present at the Council of Trent. He does not identify these sources, nor quote their actual words, but claims that there was division in the Council and these prelates were critical of the Schoolmen (i.e., the Scholastic theologians). Bacon asserts that the Schoolmen “feigned” to believe in what they taught. He accuses the Schoolmen of intentionally deceiving people by presenting false axioms and theorems on which deceiving arguments were constructed. He offers no evidence for any of these accusations.
Third, Bacon asserts that the Schoolmen intentionally deceived the Council to “save the practice of the Church”. The Council of Trent rejected and condemned Protestant innovations that never existed in Church history. The Protestants bore the burden of proof in accusing the Catholic Church of abandoning true Christian doctrine but pretend that it is the Church’s duty to positively prove their own doctrine and practice, which is false. If the Schoolmen’s arguments were effective to “save the practice of the Church” from Protestant attacks, then they were not false arguments. Again, Bacon provides no specifics but makes generalized accusations with no evidence, which is useless.
Fourth, Bacon then asserts (dogmatically) the “causes of superstition”. He first speaks of “pleasing and sensual rites and ceremonies”. There is nothing intrinsically false or evil about rites and ceremonies being “pleasing and sensual”. The sacraments, being the fruits of Christ’s Incarnation, are necessarily “sensual” and graciously “pleasing”. Does it make sense to accuse the Church of enjoying rites and ceremonies that are enjoyable to the people?
Fifth, continuing with his list of the causes of supersition, he adds, “excess of outward and pharisaical holiness”. He accuses the Church of having too much holiness? He complains that the Church’s holiness is “outward” as if outward holiness proves inward corruption. The Lord, however, taught that we should be purified within that the outside may also be purified. True Christians, then, should be outwardly holy. He adds “pharisaical” as if the Church is guilty of the false religion of the enemies of Our Lord, but he accuses the Church which alone enjoys unity with Christ’s chosen Apostles of being Christ’s enemies. How does Bacon imagine that the successors of the Apostles have become the enemies of the same? What justification does he offer to prove that the holiness of the Church is “excessive”? This seems to be a jugdmnet that Bacon has no authority to make, which is an obvious Protestant fault.
Sixth, he accuses the Church of having “overgreat reverence of traditions”. Obviously, reverance for traditions should be found in the true Church, but Bacon judges it to be “overgreat”. Again, Bacon makes a judgment that he is in no position to make.
Seventh, he accuses the Church of being corrupted by “the stratagems of prelates, for their own ambition and lucre”. The argument here seems to be that the power and wealth received by the prelates of the Church was a proof of corruption. This argument might have weight if Francis Bacon belonged to a religious community that lived in poverty and simplicity, but he lived in England where the so-called “head of the Church” was actually a monarchy that seized control of the Church in England and seized all of the Catholic Church’s property in England. So, the “ambition and lucre” argument isn’t a good argument to attack the actual successors of the Apostles with.
Lastly, Bacon argues that the Church was guilty of “favoring too much of good intentions”.
