Boultbee on Article XXII: Of Purgatory

The following equivalents may be noticed. Romish doc- trine, Latin, Doctrina Romanensium, Pardons, Latin, Indul- genticB, In Chaucer the seller of indulgences is called the Pardoner. Worshipping, Latin, veneratio. A fond thing, Latin, res fatilis. Fond in the sense of foolish is familiar to every reader of Shakspeare. Vainly invented, Latin, inaniter conficta.

The Article of 1552 read * the doctrine of school authors ’ instead of * the Romish doctrine,’ which was substituted in 1562. The latter phrase is more popularly intelligible.

Observations on Article XXII.

As the Bomish doctrine is here specifically condemned, it becomes necessary to obtain distinct statements of that doc- trine ; and this the more, because the celebrated Tract XC.

played upon this distinction. It urged, first, that doctrine on these subjects which might be shown to be not simply Romish j but also prevalent for many ages through the greater part of Christendom, and irom early times, could not be styled dis- tinctly ’ Bomish,’ and might therefore be held ; and, secondly, that doctrines which might differ some shades from, the re- ceived Romish view were not inconsistent with this Article.

That Tract also argUed that by ’ the Romish doctrine ’ is not meant the Tridentine statement, because this Article was drawn up before the decree of the Council of Trent. This is true to the letter, whatever it may be in the spirit, for the date of the decree on these subjects in the Council of Trent is December 4, 1563, whilst the word Romanensium was placed in this Article in the previous January. The TYact then quotes some of the mythical stories of Purgatory which were rife in the middle ages, and intimates that these, with the abuses connected with them, constitute the ^Romish doctrine^ of pur- gatory condemned in this Article, and that the Tridentine doctrine is left imtouched by it.

It is very important that the theological student should understand the ground taken by the active and conspicuous party in our Church, whose mode of dealing with our formu- laries has been for some years guided by the principles just described. Nothing but a court of law can decide whether special pleading of this sort might avail on a strictly legal interpretation of the words. But there can be no difficulty in ascertaining whether our Church has or has not wholly cast out, not this or that notion of Purgatory, but the very idea of Purgatory in every shape, jfrom her formularies and her system.

In dealing further with the phrase ’ Romish doctrine ’ in this Article, we shall now assume that we shall find it most fully represented in its binding ibrm in the decrees of the Council of Trent, on these grounds. It is true that the parti- cular decree on the matters contained in this Article was passed nearly a year after the word ^Romanensium^ was inserted in it, and that, therefore, the ipsissima verba of that decree were not before the writers of our Article.

But it is notorious that if there ever was a Goimcil under Roman influence, and reflecting, as far as was possible, in the then state of parties, Roman views, as distinguished from French, Spanish, or German, the Council of Trent is that one. It was recognised at the time — ^it has been recognised ever since — as distinctly and truly Romish.

Such writers as Field and others, in our Church, have always written of the Council of Trent as the great agent in severing the Papal Communion formally and specifically from that which was Catholic, and stamping it as Papal and Roman. It cannot be seriously argued that such a Council which had been sitting at intervals for seventeen years when our present Article was revised, and had already enacted the larger part of its decrees, was not in the mind of the revisers of such an Article when they altered the word * Scholasticorum * to […] Nor can it be reasonably doubted that when, a year later, the decree of the Council of Trent on the subjects now under consideration did appear, its statement was recog- nised as an enunciation of the doctrine already called ^Romtsh* in this Article. Further, we must remember that the Thirty- nine Articles have subsequently obtained parliamentary sane- tion in 1571, and again in 1662, when there can be no question whether or no the word * Romish * would be fully imderstood as implying Tridentine. For these reasons we shall not hesitate in alleging the definitions of Trent as properly describing the * Romish doctrines ’ stigmatised in the Article now before us.

Our task, therefore, will be a simple one. We have merely to cite the portions of the Tridentine decrees bearing on the matters indicated in this Article. We shall then have before us what is unquestionable Romish doctrine^ and what no one acquainted, even moderately, with the writings of our Reformers, can doubt was meant by them in this place.

1. Purgatory,

Our space wiU not allow us to sketch in any detail the history of this doctrine. It is traced from the finciful inter-

pretations of Origen in the third century, who thought that at the day of judgment there would be ft purgatorial fire by which all should be tested. From his time this idea may be followed in numerous varieties of expreaaion in the subsequent Christian writers. In the dark ages monkish visions and legends laid open the strange and ghastly arrangements of a land of purgatory, from which Dante afterwards derived the horrible pictures of his great poem. The sohoolmen &shioned all this into a system, and defined the position, arrangements, and pains of purgatory.

The Coimcil of Trent passed its decree on the subjeots named in this Article in the hurry of its final session, which the anticipation of the pope^s death brought to a hasty conclusion. The decree on Purgatory * is as follows : — ’ Since the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Spirit out of the sacred writings, and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, hath taught in Holy Councils, and lastly in this (Ecumenical Synod that there is a Purgatory ; and that the souls detained there are aided by the sufirages of the faithiiil, but most of all by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar ; this Holy Synod enjoins all bishops diligently to endeavour that the wholesome doctrine of purgatory, handed down by Holy Fathers and Sacred Coimcils be believed by Christ^s &ithfld, held, taught, and everywhere preached. But let the more difii- cult and subtle questions, and those which do not conduce to edification and from which often there is no increase of piety, be banished from popular discoiurses before the imeducated people. Moreover, they should not permit uncertain matters, or those which have the appearance of fidsity, to be published or handled. But those which tend to curiosity or superstition, or savour of base gain, let them prohibit, as the scandals and offence of the faithful. Let bishops take care that the suf- frages of the living faithful, viz., sacrifices of masses, prayers, alms, and other works of piety which have been customably performed by the faithful, for other faithful persons departed, be piously and religiously performed according to the insti- tutions of the Church; and let them take care that the services which are due on behalf of the departed by the

Session zxv.

186 ABTIGLE XXn.

foundations of testators, or in any other manner, be performed, not in a perfimctory way, but diligently and exactly by the priests and ministers of the Church, and others who are imder obligation to perform this duty.’

It will be observed, that though this decree includes the whole belief yet that it is cautiously worded, and avoids pro- nouncing on matters on which Eomish divines were divided, and on which, when not writing for Protestant readers, they have often written very positively. But it follows &om this that the prohibition of our Church is the more absolute against the whole system and not against some of its details. We may observe that even so acute a controversialist as Bellarmine fol- lows the schoolmen in placing purgatory in the centre of the earth. He describes its four divisions, and appeals to visions and appearances in volcanic eruptions, in proof of his asser- tions.

2. Pardons or Indulgences.

The history of these may be traced in Ecclesiastical history from the relaxations of penitential discipline in the restoration of offenders to Church communion. These indulgences be- came more common as the Church was gradually more and more identified with the world after Constantine’s days. And when the notion of purgatory became developed, and the limits of Church authority transcended the bounds of the visible, the indulgence found further place for its exercise in abridging purgatorial pains.

The satirist might not unfairly say that the realm of purga- tory, which was so absolutely a mediaeval creation, must surely be under the control of its creators. The pains of purgatory, together with Church censures, constitute the temporal, as distinguished from the eternal, ptmishment of sin. Over these temporal penalties the Eoman Church claims full and absolute dispensing power. The results of the audacious sale of indulgences in Switzerland and Germany in the sixteenth century will be jfresh in the reader’s mind. Tetzel and Samp- son had no small share in setting Luther and Zwingle free. Yet the Church of Rome was pledged to the system, and the

Council of Trent touched it with a light hand in the follow- ing decree :

’ Since the power of conferring indulgences hath been granted by Christ to the Church ; and since even from the most ancient times the Church hath used a power of this kind, divinely delivered to her, the Holy Synod teaches and enjoins that the use of indulgences, most salutary to Christian people, and approved by the authority of sacred Councils, shall be retained in the Church ; and it anathematises those who either assert that they are useless, or deny that the Church hath the power of granting them ; yet in granting them the Council desires moderation to be used, in accordance with the old and approved custom in the Church, lest by too great fecility ecclesiastical discipline should be weakened. But the Coimcil desiring the abuses to be corrected, which have crept into them, and by occasion of which this illustrious name of indul- gences is blasphemed by heretics, by this present decree orders in general terms, that all base profits for their purchase, whence very many causes of abuses have spread among Chris- tian people, be altogether abolished. But with regard to the rest of the abuses proceeding from ignorance, superstition, irreverence, or any other cause whatever, since they cannot be severally prohibited on account of the multiplicity of corrup- tions of divers places and provinces, the Council commands each bishop diligently to coHect abuses of this sort existing in his own Church, and refer them to the first provincial Synod, in order that, having been recognised by the opinion of other bishops also, they may forthwith be laid before the Supreme Eoman Pontiff, by whose authority and prudence such regula- tions may be made, as shall be expedient for the universal Church, so that the gifr of sacred indulgences may be dispensed to the faithftd in a pious, holy, and incorrupt manner.’

When we remember that there was a very strong party in the Eoman Church demanding considerable reforms, after the recent scandals of Tetzel and his brethren, and when we fur- ther bear in mind that the pope would not suffer any part of his prerogative to be even called in question by the Council, we shall the better understand this vague, ineffectual decree,

188 ABTICLE XXn.

which defines nothing, and enacts indefinite reforms, of which the pope was to be the final judge.

Practically, the question remains as it did in Luther’s day. The open market has been spoiled, but proiuse grants of indulgences for yisits to certain shrines and localities, and in return for other considerations, are still the opprobrium of the Boman Church, and, in the highest degree, of the city of Rome itself.

3. The Veneration of Images and Relics.

If there are germs of these practices traceable within the first three centuries, they are of the most inofiensive character, and connected with the natural affectionate celebrations of martyrs’ anniversaries. But in the fourth century the con- cessions to heathenish customs, recommended by Constantine at the CJouncil of Nice, rapidly bore finiit. There were still vigorous protests even to the end of the fourth century. Epi- phanius, Augustine, and others, raised their voice against such corruptions of the fiiith. But the heathen came in crowds into the Church, and brought their heathenism, scarcely dis- guised, with them. Monasticism, in its most fanatical fbrm, spread within less than a century over the Church. The his- tory of Martin of Tours, written by a contemporary, presents us with the full ideal of a mediaeval saint, within the latter half of the fourth century. Uncleanliness and squalor of per- son and of dress, strange visions and questionable miracles, make the reader hesitate how fairly to apportion the share of responsibility between fenaticism, imposture, and insanity. But, indeed, in our day, what reasonable person, moderately acquainted with human physiology, would expect results of sanity from a brain physically imnourished by proper food, worn out by unnatural vigils, and kept in constant excitement by superstitious notions, and the visits of admiring devotees ?

The history of Paulinus, a wealthy and learned Roman Gaul in the same half-century illustrates the special subject now before us. His own poems show him to be distinctly a saint worshipper. He placed pictures in his church at Nola, and attributed extraordinary power to the relics of Felix, his

patron saint. For fhrther information on the struggle carried on in the Church during this century with regard to the veneration of relics and images, reference may be made to Neander.* * Vigilantius and his Times,’ by the late Dr. Gilly, is an interesting monograph on the same subject.

During the fifth and sixth centuries the practice in ques- tion became almost imiversal. In the seventh there was a reaction, and the iconoclastic controversy distracted the Eastern Empire. In 787 the second Council of Nice made a decree ‘in favour of the use of images. This decree was . re- ceived by Eome, but rejected by 300 bishops jfrom France, Germany, and Italy, at the Council of Frankfort, under Char- lemagne. From that time, however, the use of pictures and images prevailed more and more.

The Council of Trent dealt with this subject in somewhat general terms. It follows that the testimony of our Church against the Romish doctrine becomes more absolutely directed against the whole system, rather than against some supposed Eomish excesses or details. The decree is as follows :

’ Let them also diligently teach the faithful, that the holy bodies of the holy martyrs and of olihers living with Christ, which were living members of Christ, and the temple of the Holy Ghost, and are by Him to be raised to eternal life and glorified, are to be venerated by the faithful, for through them many benefits are bestowed upon men by God. So that they are to be altogether condemned, as the Church has loDg ago condemned, and now condemns them, who affirm that venera- tion and honour are not due to the relics of saints, or that these and other saci ed monuments are unprofitably honoured by the faithful, or that the memorials of the saints are in vain frequented in order to obtain their aid.

’ Moreover, let them teach that the images of Christ, of the God-bearing Virgin, and of other saints, are to be had and retained especially in Churches; and that due honour and veneration be paid to them ; not that any divinity or power is believed to be in them on account of which they are to be

♦ Ecc. Hiat.* Tol. iii. pp. C8G-398 and 448-461.

worshipped ; or that anjrthing is to be sought from them^ or that coi]£dence i» to be reposed in the images, as formerly was done by the Gentiles, who placed their hope in idols ; but the honour which is shown to them is referred to the persons whom they represent, so that by the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover our heads and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ, and venerate the saints whose similitude they bear. This is that which has been sanctioned by the decrees of Ck)imcils, and in particular by the second S3mod of Nice against those who oppugn images.’ The decree then expatiates on the use of pictures and images for purposes of instruction, for keeping the miracles of the saints in mind, and to incite the faithful to pious deeds. Finally it urges the bishops to guard against abuses, e.g. to teach the unlearned, that when the Deity is represented, they are not to suppose that a likeness of God can be delineated. Base gain and indecent or unseemly pictures of the saints are prohibited, as also licentiooB festivals in their honour. New images and claims of new miracles are to be approved by the bishop, or ultimately by the pope.

Such is the decree of those who would be wiser than God, and attempt to use images for worship, and yet stop short of idolatry. It is obvious to remark that all educated Pagans would give precisely the same account of their use of images, as merely highly honoured symbols of those who, under those memorials, were worshipped. In accordance with the second commandment, the Church of England in this Article pro- hibits the above plausible Romish doctrine, and not merely the popular excesses in the use of images, which are allowed to be flairrant idolatry.

4. The Invocation of Saints.

This practice grew up pari passu with the use of images, and we may at once quote the decree of the Council of Trent on the subject. * The saints who reign with Christ offer their prayers to God for men : it is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to flee to fheir prayers, help and assistance, because of the benefits to be obtained from God through his Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord, who is our only Eedeemer and

KhVOCAtion of saints. 191

Saviour. Those are of impious opinions who deny that the saints enjoying eternal felicity in heaven are to be invoked— or who affirm that they do not pray for men ; or that to invoke them to pray for us individually is idolatry ; or that it is con- trary to the word of God, and opposed to the honour of Jesus Christ, the One Mediator between God and man ; or that it is folly to supplicate verbally or mentally those who reign in heaven.’

Here, again, the Church of England protests not merely against’ such frantic excesses as the votaries of the Virgin Mary commit, but against the whole system of invocation of saints. We may note here the distinction by which the scholastic divines evaded the consequence of idolatry in allowing image worship and invocation of saints. In the second Council of Nice, the Greeks asserted that Xar0£ca was due to none but God himself, whilst ri/iyrc vpotricvyriffic was due to images. Peter Lombard, following this, ascribed Latria to God alone, and asserted that there are two species of Dulia, one of which may be paid to a creature, and the other to the human nature of Christ only. Thomas Aquinas called this latter hyperdulia, and ascribed it to the Virgin Mary also.* If anything further need be added, it is that iJie Church of England has interpreted her own meaning in this Article by the absolute exclusion from her services of every vestige of the practices stigmatised in it. Judicial decisions have further confirmed this, prohibiting so much as a cross upon the com- munion table, while permitting sculpture for the purpose of architectural ornament. The Homily against peril of idol- atry ought to be read. It treats the whole subject copiously both from Scripture and history. The second part contains a very complete abstract of the history of the rise and growth of image worship in the Church. On the Invocation of Saints the second part of the brief Homily concerning prayer may be consulted, and on Purgatory and Prayer for the Dead the third part of the same Homily.

Hagenbach, ‘Hist. Doctrine/ § 188.

192 ABTfCTi: xxn.

[…]

n. The second mode of dealing with these subjects will be to select passages in which the state of the departed, prayer, etc., are spoken of in terms absolutely inconsistent with the Romish doctrines in question.

Ill, With regard to image worship, absolute prohibitions of Scripture are not wanting.

rV*. The true nature of justification, and the completeness of the satisfaction made by Christ for our sins, may be shown to exclude the notion of purgatory, indulgences, and whatever else belongs to that system.

V. The mediatorial relation of Christ to His Church, and the close communion which the believer enjoys with Him, will exclude secondary mediators.

VL The passages chiefly alleged by Romanists as favour- ing their views may be found discussed in Bishop Browne on this Article.

AxncLEs xxm. asd xxxtl

ARTICLES XXTTT, xsd XXXVL