XXII.

ART. scandal of which had occasioned the first beginnings and progress of the Reformation, was upon the matter established; and the correcting the excesses in it was trusted to those who had been the authors of them, and the chief gainers by them. This point of their doctrine is more fully opened than might perhaps seem necessary, if it were not that a great part of the confutation of some doctrines is the exposing of them. For though in ages and places of ignorance these things have been, and still are, practised with great assurance, and to very extravagant excesses; yet in countries and ages of more light, when they come to be questioned, they are disowned with an assurance equal to that with which they are practised elsewhere. Among us some will perhaps say, that these are only exemptions from penance; which cannot be denied to be within the power of the Church; and they argue, that though it is very fit to make severe laws, yet the execution of these must be softened in practice. This is all that they pretend to justify, and they give up any further indulgences as an abuse of corrupt times. Whereas at the same time a very different doctrine is taught among them, where there is no danger, but much profit, in owning it. All this is only a pretence; for the episcopal power, in the inflicting, abating, or commuting of penance, is stated among them as a thing wholly different from the power of indulgences. They are derived from different originals; and designed for ends totally different from one another. The one is for the outward discipline of the Church, and the other is for the inward quiet of consciences, and in order to their future state. The one is in every Bishop, and the other is asserted to be peculiar to the Pope. Nor will they escape by laying this matter upon the ignorance and abuses of former times. It was published in bulls, and received by the whole Church: so that if either the Pope, or the diffusive body of the Church are infallible, there must be such a power in the Pope; and the decree of the Council of Trent, confirming and approving the practice of the Church in that point, must bind them all. For if this doctrine is false, then their infallibility must go with it; for in every hypothesis in which infallibility is said to be lodged, whether in the Pope or in Councils, this doctrine has that seal to it.

As for the doctrine itself, all that has been already said against the distinction of temporal and eternal punishment, and against Purgatory, overthrows it; since the one is the foundation on which it is built, and the other is that which it pretends to secure men from; and therefore this

falls with those. All that was said upon the head of the Sufficiency of the Scriptures comes also in here; for if the Scriptures ought to be our rule in any thing, it must be chiefly in those matters which relate to the pardon of sin, to the quiet of our consciences, and to a future state. Therefore a doctrine and practice that have not so much as colours from Scripture in a matter of such consequence, ought to be rejected by us upon this single account. If from the Scripture we go to the practice and tradition of the Church, we are sure that this was not thought on for above ten centuries; all the indulgences that were then known being only the abatements of the severity of the penitentiary canons: but in the ages in which aspiring and insolent Popes imposed on ignorant and superstitious multitudes, a jumble was made of indulgences formerly granted, of Purgatory, and of the papal authority, that was then very implicitly submitted to; and so out of all that mixture this arose; which was as ill managed as it was ill grounded. The natural tendency of it is not only to relax all public discipline, but also all secret penance, when shorter methods to peace and pardon may be more easily purchased. The vast application to the executing the many trifling performances to which indulgences are granted, has brought in among them such a prostitution of holy things, that either it must be said that those are public cheats, and that they were so from the beginning, or that their virtue is now exhausted, though the bulls that grant them are perpetual: or else a man may on very easy terms preserve himself and redeem his friends out of Purgatory. If the saying a prayer before a privileged altar, or the visiting some churches in the time of jubilee, with those slight devotions that are then enjoined, have such efficacy in them, it is scarce possible for any man to be in danger of Purgatory.

The third head rejected in this Article is the Worshipping of Images. Here those of the Church of Rome complain much of the charge of idolatry, that our Church has laid upon them, so fully and so severely in the Homilies. Some among ourselves have also thought that we must either renounce that charge, or that we must deny the possibility of salvation in that Church, and in consequence to that conclude, that neither the baptism nor the orders of that Church are valid: for since idolaters are excluded from the kingdom of heaven, they argue, that if there can be no salvation where idolatry is committed by the whole body of a Church, then that can be no Church, and in it there is no salvation. But here we

ART.

XXII.

ART. are to consider, before we enter upon the specialities of XXII. this matter, that Idolatry is a general word, which comprehends many several sorts and ranks of sins under it. As lying is capable of many degrees, from an officious lie to the swearing falsely against the life of an innocent man in judgment: the one is the lowest, and the other is the highest act of that kind; but all are lying: and yet it would appear an unreasonable thing to urge every thing that is said of any act in general, and which belongs to the highest acts of it, as if all the inferior degrees did necessarily involve the guilt of the highest. There is another distinction to be made between actions, as they signify either of themselves, or by the public constructions that are put on them, by those who authorise them, and those same actions as they may be privately intended by particular persons. We, in our weighing of things, are only to consider what actions signify of their own nature, or by public authority, and according to that we must form our judgments about them, and in particular in the point of Idolatry: but as for the secret thoughts or intentions of men, we must leave these to the judgment of God, who only knows them, and who being infinitely gracious, slow to anger, and ready to forgive, will, we do not doubt, make all the abatements in the weighing men's actions that there is reason for. But we ought not to enter into that matter; we ought neither to aggravate, nor to mollify things too much: we are to judge of things as they are in themselves, and to leave the case of men's intentions and secret notions to that God who is to judge them. As for the business of Images, we know that the Heathens had them of several sorts. Some they believed were real resemblances of those Deities that they worshipped those Divinities had been men, and the statues made for them resembled them, Other images they believed had, a divine virtue affixed to them, perhaps from the stars, which were believed to be Gods; and it was thought that the influences of their aspects and positions were by secret charms called down, and fastened to some figures. Other images were considered as emblems and representations of their Deities: so that they only gave them occasion to represent them to their thoughts. These images, thus of different sorts, were all worshipped; some more, some less they kneeled before them; they prayed to them, and made many oblations to them; they set lights before them, and burnt incense to them; they set them in their temples, market-places, and highways; and they had them in their houses: they set them off with

XXII.

much pomp, and had many processions to their honour. ART. But in all this, though it is like the vulgar among them might have gross thoughts of those images, yet the philosophers, not only after the Christian religion had obliged them to consider well of that matter, and to express themselves cautiously about it; but even while they were in the peaceable possession of the world, did believe that the Deity was not in the image, but was only represented by it: that the Deity was worshipped in the image, so that the honour done the image did belong to the Deity itself. Here then were two false opinions: the one was concerning those Deities themselves; the other was concerning this way of worshipping them; and both were blamed: not only the worshipping a false God, but the worshipping that God by an image. If Idolatry had only consisted in the acknowledging a false God, and if the worshipping the true God in an image had not been Idolatry, then all the fault of the Heathenish idolaters should have consisted in this, that they worshipped a false God; but their worshipping images should not of itself have been an additional fault. But in opposition to this, what can we think of those full and copious words, in which God did not only forbid the having of false Gods, but the making of a graven image, or the likeness of any thing in heaven, in earth, or under the earth? The bowing down to it, and the worshipping it, are also forbid. Where, besides the copiousness of these words, we are to consider, that Moses, in the rehearsal of that law in Deuteronomy, does over and over again add and insist on this, that they Deut. iv. saw no manner of similitude, when God spoke to them, lest 12, 15, 16. they should corrupt themselves, and make to them a graven image; an enumeration is made of many different likenesses; and after that comes another species of Idolatry, their worshipping the host of heaven; and therefore Moses charges them in that chapter again and again, to take heed, Verse 23. to take good heed to themselves, lest they should forget the Deut. xii. covenant of the Lord their God, and make them a graven Levit. xxvi. image: and he lays the same charge a third time upon 1. them in the same chapter. A special law is also given Deut. xvi. against the most innocent of all the images that could be 22. made: they were required not only not to have idols, nor graven images, but not to rear up a standing image or pillar; nor to set up any image of stone, or any carved stone; such were the Baitulia; the least tempting or ensnaring of all idols: they were not to bow down before it; and the reason given is, For I am the Lord your God. The importance of those laws will appear clearer, if they are compared with

30.

Isaiah xl.

18 to 27.

xliv. 9 to 21.

Jer. x. to

ver. 17.

Hab. ii. 18,

ART. the practice of those times, and particularly in those XXII. symbolical images, which were sacred emblems and hieroglyphics, that were not meant to be a true representation of the Divine Being, but were a combination of many symbols, intended to represent at once to the thoughts of the worshipper many of the perfections of God: these were most particularly practised in Egypt, and to them the copiousness of the Second Commandment seems to have a particular respect, such having been the images which they had lately seen, and which seem the most excusable of all others: when, I say, all this is laid together, with the Commandment itself, and with those other laws that accompany and explain it, nothing seems more evident, than that God intended to forbid all outward representations, that should be set up as the objects of worship. It is also very plain, that the prophets expostulated with the people of Israel for their carved and molten images, as well as for their false Gods: and among the reasons given against images, one is often repeated, To whom will ye liken me? which seems to import, that by these images they represented the living God. And Isaiah often, as also both Jeremiah and Habakkuk, when they set forth the folly of making an image, of praying to it, and trusting in it, bring in the greatness and glory of the living God, in opposition to these images. Now though it is possible enough to apprehend, how that the Jews might make images in imitation of the Heathen, to represent that God whom they served; yet it is no way credible that they could have fallen into such a degree of stupidity, as to fancy that a piece of wood, which they had carved into such a figure, was a real Deity. They might think it a God by representation, as the Heathens thought their idols were; but more than this cannot be easily apprehended. So that it is most reasonable to think, that they knew the God they had thus made, and prayed to, was only a piece of wood; but they might well fall into that corruption of many of the Heathen, of thinking that they honoured God by serving him in such an image. If the sin of the Jews was only their having other Gods; and if the worshipping an image was only evil, because a false Deity was honoured by it, why is image-worship condemned, with reasons that will hold full as strong against the images of the true God, as of false Gods, if it had not been intended to condemn simply all image-worship? Certainly, if the Prophets had intended to have done it, they could not have expressed themselves more clearly and more fully than they did.

19, 20.