every bishop; the other is confined to the Pope. Others declare that indulgences (as now explained) are the abuses of corrupt times. Neither can this excuse be admitted. They were published in bulls and received by the whole Church; and the practice was approved by the council of Trent. If infallibility therefore be lodged with the Pope, with the Church diffusive, or with a General Council, the doctrine of indulgences cannot be rejected by Roman Catholics.

I. The Article asserts, that the doctrine is contrary to Scripture,

This is evident from the following considerations 1. It is founded on the distinction between the eternal and temporal punishment of sin, which has been proved to be false. 2. It is intended to secure men from purgatory, a state which has been proved to have no existence. 3. The silence of Scripture as to this doctrine, connected with so important a point as the pardon of sin, proves it to be false. 4. It is calculated to relax not only public discipline, but private repentance, by affording the sinner an easier mode of escape.

II. The Article asserts, that it is contrary to the sense of antiquity.

In the early ages, the only indulgences granted consisted in abatements of the severity of the Penitentiary Canons. The indulgences of

a The word Indulgence seems first to have been used in consequence of the power given to all bishops by the council of Nice, to

years

have been shewn to be of a quite dif

later
ferent nature.

3rd. The Article condemns the worshipping of images.

a

On this point our homilies charge the Church of Rome with idolatry, and it has been urged, that we must either renounce this charge, or deny the possibility of salvation in their communion. But two distinctions should here be made. Idolatry is a general word, comprehending several ranks of sins under it. Thus, lying is capable of many degrees, from an officious lie, to swearing falsely against the life of an innocent man in judgment. Yet it would be unreasonable to infer, that the inferior degrees necessarily involved the guilt of the highest. Again, we should distinguish between the signification which actions have by the public constitutions, or by those who authorize them, and the same actions, as they may be privately intended by particular persons. In deciding on any question, the Church is only to consider what actions signify in themselves, and by public authority, but we must leave the secret intentions of individuals to the judgment of a merciful God.

I. This doctrine is contrary to Scripture.

relax the severity of the penitentiary canons.-See Beveridgii Pand. Conc. Nic. can. 12.

See Homily against the Peril of Idolatry.

Among the heathen, there were images of different kinds. Some of their deities had been men, and the images of these were supposed to be real resemblances of them. Other images had a divine virtue affixed to them, perhaps from the stars, the influences of whose aspects and positions were believed to be connected with them. Lastly, they had other images, which were considered to be mere representations of their deities, and which served only to present them to their thoughts. All these were worshipped, though in different degrees. They knelt before them, prayed to them, and made oblations to them; they burned incense before them, set them in their houses, and had many processions to their honour. And whatever prejudices the vulgar may have had, it is certain that the philosophers believed that the Deity was not in the image, but was only represented by it, and that the honour paid to the latter belonged really to the former. The heathen, therefore, had two false opinions: the one concerning the Deities themselves, and the other concerning the way of worshipping them. For if idolatry had consisted merely in acknowledging a false God, then this should have been objected against them as their only fault, but the worshipping images should not have been an additional error. The latter,

a

b Several extracts in proof of this assertion from the writings of the wiser heathens are given in Stillingfleet's Works, v. 5. p. 25.

however, is strictly guarded against in Scripture 1. In Exod. xx. 4. God not only forbids the worship of false gods, but the "making

a

any graven image, or the likeness of any thing "that is in heaven, in earth, or under the earth.” The meaning of this text is evident, (1.) from the reason on which it is grounded. In Deut. iv. 12. Moses insists that "the Jews saw no manner of similitude," when God spoke to them, "lest they should corrupt themselves and make

66

a graven image." (v. 16.) And therefore he charges them" to take heed, lest they should forget the covenant of the Lord their God, and "make a graven image." (v. 15.) Again, a special law is given, that " they should not rear up

66

a standing image, nor set up any image of stone in the land, to bow down to it ;" (Lev. xxvi. 1); and the reason assigned is, " for I am the Lord your God." (2.) This kind of idolatry is distinguished from that of worshipping false deities. In Deut. iv. 16-19, many likenesses

a It is objected, that the word (D) translated "graven image," properly means an idol or representation of a false God, and that it is so rendered in the Septuagint. Now, 1. Granting the justness of the remark, the words " any likeness of any thing," must surely include images or pictures of the true God. 2. The word Pesel is rendered forty times by the Septuagint, yλvπtov, and only three times, towλov; and though, in Exod. xx. 4, the latter term is used, yet in Deut. v. 8. the Alexandrine MSS. translates it by YλVπTOV. See Stillingfleet's Works, v. 5. p. 24.

are enumerated which they were to avoid; and after them is mentioned another species of idolatry, "the worshipping the host of heaven." (3.) The Egyptians had symbolical figures, which were not meant to be true representations of their deities, but were a combination of different symbols, intended to present at once to the thoughts of the worshipper many of the perfections of God. As the Jews had lately seen these practices, the particularity of the second commandment seems specially to regard them.

2. The Prophets charged the Jews with idolatry on two grounds; on their having false gods, and on having carved and molten images. And that by these images they intended to represent the true God is evident from this, that the reason given against images is," to whom will ye liken me?” and frequently we find, that when the Prophets set forth the folly of praying and trusting to images, they oppose the glory and greatness of the living God to them. Now, it is absurd to suppose that the Jews could have believed the image they had made was really God; it is more probable that they fell into the corrupt notions of the heathen, and thought they honoured God by serving him in such an image.

Thus Mercury was worshipped under the image of a man with the head of a dog, by which combination the Egyptians intended to represent care, watchfulness, and wisdom.-See Plutarch de Isid et Osir. p. 355.