Apostles were infallibly assisted in delivering that commission of our Saviour, "Go, preach the Gospel to every creature." (Mark, xvi. 15.) Yet, when other points came under their notice, which were no parts of that commission, they doubtless, as St. Paul, wrote " by permission," as well as at other times, " by commandment." (1 Cor. vii. 6, 12.) Thus, in this case, the Apostles having received no inspiration to direct them, were reminded by St. Peter of God's having sent him by a special vision to preach to the Gentiles, and that God had poured out the Holy Ghost on them, even as on the Jews. Hence they concluded, that what God had done in the particular case of Cornelius, was now to be extended to all the Gentiles; or in other words, that what had "seemed good to the Holy Ghost," in the former case, now "seemed good to them," in the latter. This is the plainest sense of the words, as it is absurd to suppose that the Apostles would have added their authority to that of God.

66

The assertion in the Article, that some general councils have erred," alludes to those which may be so called with more propriety than others which bear the name, as the council of Arimini. With respect to the four first general councils which our Church receives, the only reason of this reception is, that we are persuaded their decisions accord with Scripture.

ARTICLE XXII.

OF PURGATORY.

THE ROMISH DOCTRINE CONCERNING PURGATORY, PARDONS, WORSHIPING AND ADORATION AS WELL OF IMAGES AS OF RELICS, AND ALSO INVOCATION OF SAINTS, IS A FOND THING, VAINLY INVENTED, AND GROUNDED ON NO WARRANT OF SCRIPTURE, BUT RATHER REPUGNANT TO THE WORD OF GOD.

THERE are two small variations in this Article from that published in King Edward's reign; instead of the words, "the Romish doctrine," "the doctrine of schoolmen" was used in the latter. The reason of this change is evident; the errors here condemned were not so fully espoused by the body of the Roman Church, when those Articles were first published, so that they were ascribed to the schoolmen. But before the publication of the present Articles, the decree and canons concerning the Mass had passed at Trent, in which those errors are either affirmed or implied. The second difference is merely the omission of the word "perniciously," before "repugnant."

The Article condemns the Romish doctrine concerning purgatory, pardons, worshiping, and

adoration, as well of images as of relics, and also invocation of saints. This condemnation is grounded on two assertions: I. It is repugnant to the Word of God; and II. It is contrary to the sense of antiquity. It will be necessary, therefore, to consider these two assertions with respect to each of the errors alluded to.

1st. The doctrine of purgatory is repugnant to the Word of God.

The doctrine of the Church of Rome on this point is, that every man is liable both to an eternal and a temporal punishment for his sins,a that God, on account of the death and intercession of Christ, pardons sin as to the former punishment, but the sinner is still liable to the latter, which he must expiate by acts of penance and sorrow in this life, or, if it is not removed by these, there is a state of suffering in the next world, where the soul must bear the temporal punishment of its sin; and in order to the shortening of the duration of this misery, the prayers and supererogations of men on earth, and the intercession of the saints in heaven, but above all, the sacrifice of the mass, are of great

They also make a distinction as to the nature of sins themselves, some being mortal, to which are attached both an eternal and a temporal punishment, and others which are called venial, and are only attended with a temporal infliction.-See Bellar. de Purgat. 1. 1. c. 11, and de Pœnit. 1. 2. c. 11.

efficacy. This doctrine is asserted in the councils of Florence and Trent.a

It may be refuted by observing, (1.) The distinction on which it is founded, between the eternal and temporal punishment of sin, is unsupported by Scripture. God has expressly said, that " he will remember our sins and iniquities no more." (Heb. viii. 12.) Now it seems to be a maxim, not only in the law of nations, but those of nature, that all offers of pardon are to be understood in the full extent of the words, without any secret reserves or limitations, unless they are plainly expressed. An indemnity being of fered by a prince to persuade his subjects to return to their obedience, in the fullest expressions, and without any reserves, it would be looked on as a very perfidious act, if when the subjects, trusting to it, submitted, they should be told, that they were to be secured by it against capital punishments, but that a sto all inferior punishments they were still at mercy. We do not dispute whether God, if he hadt hought fit to do so, might not have made this distinction; nor do we deny that the grace of the Gospel had been infinitely valuable, if it had offered us only the pardon of sin with relation to its eternal punishment, and had left the temporal punishment

See Conc. Trid. sess. 6. can. 30. and sess. 22. can. 3. and Conc. Flor. sess. 25.

to be expiated by ourselves. But we say, this ought to have been expressed; the distinction ought to have been made, and we ought not to have been drawn into covenant with God, by words plainly conveying an entire pardon, which yet were to be understood in a limited sense.

a

In support of this distinction, however, the following arguments are adduced: In Ps. xcix. 8. it is said, "Thou wast a God that forgavest them, "though thou tookest vengeance of their inven"tions." Hence they infer, that God punishes good men for sins which are forgiven them through Christ. But this objection is devoid of force. God has, in his Gospel, excepted the government of this world, and the secret designs of his providence, from the mercy which he has promised. He has warned all Christians to prepare for afflictions in this life, and has made faith and patience in adversities a main condition of the New Covenant. He has declared that these are not the punishments of an angry God, but the chastisements of a kind father, who designs by them to give good men an impression of the odiousness of sin, and to show the world such examples of patience and resignation, that they may by these edify others, as much as by their sins they may have offended them. Hence it is evident, that there is no analogy be

The fallacy consists in arguing from an admitted fact to the conclusion, that the fact is ordered for a particular purpose.