Chapter XXXIX: Act 46: , Parl. 3, Act 106, Parl. 7, Act 24, Parl. 11, King James VI., do (15)

IMAGE WORSHIP. All the points of doctrine or practice in which the Church of Rome differs from the Church of England are novelties, introduced gradually in the middle ages: of these the worship of images is the earliest practice, which received the sanction of what the Papists call a general council, though the second Council of Nice, A. D. 787, was in fact _no_ general council. As this is the earliest authority for any of the Roman peculiarities, and as the Church of England at that early period was remarkably concerned in resisting the novelty, it may not be out of place to mention the circumstances as they are concisely stated by Perceval. The emperor Charlemagne, who was very much offended at the decrees of this council in favour of images, sent a copy of them into England. Alcuin, a most learned member of the Church of England, attacked them, and having produced Scriptural authority against them, transmitted the same to Charlemagne in the name of the bishops of the Church of England. Roger Hoveden, Simon of Durham, and Matthew of Westminster, mention the fact, and speak of the worship of images as being execrated by the whole Church. Charlemagne, pursuing his hostility to the Nicene Council, drew up four books against it, and transmitted them to Pope Adrian; who replied to them in an epistle “concerning images, against those who impugn the Nicene Synod,” as the title is given, together with the epistle itself, in the seventh volume of Labbe and Cossart’s Councils. The genuineness of these books is admitted by all the chief Roman writers. For the purpose of considering the subject more fully, Charlemagne assembled a great council of _British_, Gallican, German, and Italian bishops at Frankfort, at which two legates from the bishop of Rome were present; where, after mature deliberation, the decrees of the soi-disant general Council of Nice, notwithstanding Pope Adrian’s countenance, were “_rejected_,” “_despised_,” and “_condemned_.” The synod at Frankfort remains a monument of a noble stand in defence of the ancient religion, in which the Church of England had an honourable share, occupying, a thousand years ago, the self-same ground we now maintain, of protesting against Roman corruptions of the Catholic faith.

IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. (See _Conception, Immaculate_.)

IMMERSION. A mode of administering the sacrament of baptism, by which first the right side, then the left, then the face, are dipped in the font. Immersion is the mode of baptizing first prescribed in our office of public baptism; but it is permitted to pour water upon the child, if the godfathers and godmothers certify that the child is weak. (See _Affusion_.)

IMMOVEABLE FEASTS. (See _Moveable Feasts_.)

IMPANATION. A term (like transubstantiation and consubstantiation) used to designate a false notion of the manner of the presence of the body and blood of our blessed LORD in the holy eucharist.

This word is formed from the Latin _panis_ (bread), as the word incarnation is formed from the Latin _caro_, _carnis_ (flesh): and as _incarnation_ signifies the eternal Word’s becoming flesh, or taking our nature for the purpose of our redemption; so does _impanation_ signify the Divine person JESUS CHRIST, GOD and man, becoming _bread_ [_and wine_], or taking the nature of bread, for the purposes of the holy eucharist: so that, as in the one Divine person JESUS CHRIST there were two perfect natures, GOD and man; so in the eucharistic elements, according to the doctrine expressed by the word _impanation_, there are two perfect natures—one of the DIVINE SON of the Blessed Virgin, and another of the eucharistic elements; the two natures being one, not in a figurative, but in a real and literal sense, by a kind of hypostatical union.

It does not occur to us that there is any sect which holds this false notion; but there are some individuals to whom it seems the true method of reconciling those apparent oppositions, (which are of the very essence of a mystery,) which occur in the Catholic statement of the doctrine of the holy eucharist. The nearest approach to the doctrine of _impanation_ avowed by any sect, is that of the Lutherans. (See _Consubstantiation._)

IMPLICIT FAITH. The faith which is given without reserve or examination, such as the Church of Rome requires of her members. The reliance we have on the Church of England is grounded on the fact, that she undertakes to prove that all her doctrines are Scriptural, but the Church of Rome requires credence on her own authority. The Church of England places the Bible as an authority above the Church, the Church of Rome makes the authority of the Church co-ordinate with that of the Bible. The Romish divines teach that we are to observe, not how the Church proves anything, but what she says: that the will of GOD is, that we should believe and confide in his ministers in the same manner as himself. Cardinal Toletus, in his instructions for priests, asserts, “that if a rustic believes his bishop proposing an heretical tenet for an article of faith, such belief is meritorious.” Cardinal Cusanus tells us, “That irrational obedience is the most consummate and perfect obedience, when we obey without attending to reason, as a beast obeys his driver.” In an epistle to the Bohemians he has these words: “I assert that there are no precepts of CHRIST but those which are received as such by the Church (meaning the Church of Rome). When the Church changes her judgment, GOD changes his judgment likewise.”

IMPOSITION, or LAYING ON OF HANDS. St. Paul (Heb. vi. 2) speaks of the doctrine of laying on of hands as one of the fundamentals of Christianity: it is an ecclesiastical action, by which a blessing is conveyed from GOD through his minister to a person prepared by repentance and faith to receive it. It is one of the most ancient forms in the world, sanctioned by the practice of Jacob, Moses, the apostles, and our blessed LORD himself. It is the form by which the bishop conveys his blessing in confirmation.

This ceremony has been always esteemed so essential a part of ordination, that any other way of conferring orders without it has been judged invalid. The imposition of hands undoubtedly took its rise from the practice of the Jewish Church, in initiating persons for performing any sacred office, or conferring any employ of dignity or power. Thus Joshua was inaugurated to his high office. (Numb. xxvii. 23.) Hence the Jews derived their custom of ordaining their rabbis by imposition of hands. The same ceremony we find used by the apostles, as often as they admitted any new members into the ministry of the Church. For, when they ordained the first deacons, it is recorded, that after praying “they laid hands on them.” (Acts vi. 6.) At the ordination of Barnabas and Paul it is said, that they “fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them.” (Acts xiii. 3.) When St. Paul bids Timothy have regard to the graces conferred in his ordination, he observes that these were conferred by imposition of hands: “Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.” (1 Tim. iv. 14.) And in his other Epistle he exhorts him to “stir up the gift of GOD which was in him by the putting on of his hands.” (2 Tim. i. 6.) The primitive Christians, following exactly after this copy, never admitted any into orders but with this ceremony: so that the ancient councils seldom use any other word for ordination than “imposition of hands;” and the ancient writers of the Church signify, that the clerical character, and the gifts of the SPIRIT, were conferred by this action.

It must be observed here, that the imposition of the bishop’s hand alone is required in the ordination of a deacon, in conformity to the usage of the ancient Church.—_Dr. Nicholls._

This was always a distinction between the three superior and five inferior orders, that the first were given by imposition of hands, and the second were not.—_Dr. Burn._

IMPROPRIATION. Ecclesiastical property, the profits of which are in the hands of a layman; thus distinguished from _appropriation_, which is when the profits of a benefice are in the hands of a college, &c. Impropriations have arisen from the confiscation of monasteries in the time of Henry VIII., when, instead of restoring the tithes to ecclesiastical uses, they were given to rapacious laymen. Archbishop Laud exerted himself greatly to buy up impropriations.

IMPUTATION. The attributing a character to a person which he does not really possess; thus, when in holy baptism we are justified, the righteousness is imputed as well as imparted to us. The imputation which respects our justification before GOD, is GOD’S gracious reckoning of the righteousness of CHRIST to believers, and his acceptance of these persons as righteous on that account; their sins being imputed to him, and his obedience being imputed to them. Rom. iv. 6, 7; v. 18, 19; 2 Cor. v. 21. (See _Faith_ and _Justification_.)

INCARNATION. The act whereby the SON of GOD assumed the human nature; or the mystery by which the Eternal Word was made man, in order to accomplish the work of our salvation.

The doctrine of the incarnation as laid down in the third General Council, that of Ephesus, (A. D. 431,) is as follows:—“The great and holy synod (of Nice) said, that he ‘who was begotten of the FATHER, as the only-begotten SON by nature; who was true GOD of true GOD, Light of light, by whom the FATHER made all things; that he descended, became incarnate, and was made man, suffered, rose on the third day, and ascended into the heavens.’ These words and doctrines we ought to follow, in considering what is meant by the Word of GOD being ‘incarnate and made man.’

“We do not say that the nature of the Word was converted and became flesh; nor that it was changed into perfect man, consisting of body and soul: but rather, that the Word, uniting to himself _personally_ flesh, animated by a rational soul, became man in an ineffable and incomprehensible manner, and became the SON of man, not merely by will and affection, nor merely by the assumption of one aspect or appearance; but that different natures were joined in a real unity, and that there is one CHRIST and SON, of two natures; the difference of natures not being taken away by their union.... It is said also, that he who was before all ages and begotten of the FATHER, was ‘born according to the flesh, of a woman:’ not as if his Divine nature had taken its beginning from the Holy Virgin ... but because for us, and for our salvation, he united personally to himself the nature of man, and proceeded from a woman; therefore he is said to be ‘born according to the flesh.’... So also we say that he ‘suffered and rose again,’ not as if GOD the Word had suffered in his own nature the stripes, the nails, or the other wounds; for the GODHEAD cannot suffer, as it is incorporeal: but because that which had become his own body suffered, he is said to suffer those things for us. For he who was incapable of suffering was in a suffering body. In like manner we understand his ‘death.’... Because his own body, by the grace of GOD, as Paul saith, tasted death for every man, he is said to suffer death,” &c.

INCENSE. The use of incense in connexion with the eucharist was unknown in the Church until the time of Gregory the Great, in the latter part of the sixth century. It then became prevalent in the Church, but has been long disused by the Church of England.—_Bingham._

INCOMPREHENSIBLE. In the Athanasian Creed it is said, that “the FATHER is incomprehensible, the SON incomprehensible, the HOLY GHOST incomprehensible;” which means that the FATHER is illimitable, the SON illimitable, the HOLY GHOST illimitable. At the time when this creed was translated, the word _incomprehensible_ was not confined to the sense it now bears, of _inconceivable_, or _beyond the reach of our understanding_; but it then meant, _not comprehended within limits_.

INCORRUPTICOLÆ, or _Aphthartodocetæ_, or _Phantasiastæ_. Heretics who had their original at Alexandria, in the time of the emperor Justinian. The beginning of the controversy was among the Eutychians, whether the body of CHRIST was corruptible or incorruptible from his conception: Severus held it corruptible; Julian of Halicarnassus held the contrary, that our LORD’S body was not obnoxious to hunger, thirst, or weariness; and that he did but seemingly suffer such things; from whence they were called _Phantasiastæ_. The emperor Justinian, in the very end of his reign, favoured these heretics, and persecuted the orthodox.

INCUMBENT. He who is in present possession of a benefice.

INDEPENDENTS. Like the Presbyterians, the Independents sprang from Puritanism, and were originally formed in Holland, about the year 1610, but their distinguishing doctrine seems to have been previously maintained in England by the Brownists, who were banished, or emigrated, in 1593.

The Independent idea of the word “Church,” says Adam, from whom this article is abridged, is, that it is never used but in two senses—as including the whole body of the redeemed, whether in heaven or in earth, who are called “the general assembly,” &c. (Heb. xii. 23); and, again, “the whole family in heaven and in earth” (Eph. iii. 15); or, as one single congregation. Hence their distinguishing tenet is grounded upon the notion that the primitive bishops were not overseers of dioceses, but pastors of single independent congregations.

That which unites them, or rather which distinguishes them from other denominations of Christians, is their maintaining that the power of Church government and discipline is lodged neither in the bishop, nor in a presbytery or senate of Church rulers distinct from the people, but in the community of the faithful at large; and their disclaiming, more or less, every form of union between Churches, and assigning to each congregation the exclusive government of itself, as a body corporate, having full power within itself to admit and exclude members; to choose Church officers; and, when the good of the society requires it, to depose them, without being accountable to classes, presbyteries, synods, convocations, councils, or any jurisdiction whatever.

In doctrine they are strictly Calvinistic. But many of the Independents, both at home and abroad, reject the use of “all creeds and confessions drawn up by fallible men;” and merely require of their teachers a declaration of their belief in the truth of the gospel and its leading doctrines, and of their adherence to the Scriptures as the sole standard of faith and practice, and the only test of doctrine, or the only criterion of faith. And in general they require from all persons who wish to be admitted into their communion, an account, either verbal or written, of what is called their _experience_; in which, not only a declaration of their faith in the LORD JESUS, and their purpose, by grace, to devote themselves to him, is expected, but likewise a recital of the steps by which they were led to a knowledge and profession of the gospel.

In regard to Church government and discipline, it may be sufficient to remark here, after what has already been said, that Independents in general agree with the Presbyterians, “in maintaining the identity of presbyters and bishops, and believe that a plurality of presbyters, pastors, or bishops, in one church, is taught in Scripture, rather than the common usage of one bishop over many congregations;” but they conceive their own mode of discipline to be “as much beyond the presbyterian, as presbytery is preferable to prelacy:” and, that one distinguishing feature of their discipline is, their maintaining “the right of the Church, or body of Christians, to determine who shall be admitted into their communion, and also to exclude from their fellowship those who may prove themselves unworthy members.

This their regard to purity of communion, whereby they profess to receive only accredited, or really serious Christians, has been termed the grand Independent principle.

The earliest account of the number of Independent congregations refers to 1812; before that period, Independent and Presbyterian congregations were returned together. In 1812, there seem to have been 1024 Independent churches in England and Wales (799 in England, and 225 in Wales). In 1838, an estimate gives 1840 churches in England and Wales. The present Census makes the number 3244 (2604 in England, and 640 in Wales); with accommodation (after making an allowance for 185 incomplete returns) for 1,063,136 persons. The _attendance_ on the Census-Sunday was as follows—after making an addition for 59 chapels for which the numbers are not given—_Morning_, 524,612; _Afternoon_, 232,285; _Evening_, 457,162.—_Registrar’s Report_, 1851.

INDEXES. (_Prohibitory and Expurgatory._) The books generally bearing the title of Prohibitory and Expurgatory Indexes, are catalogues of authors and works either condemned _in toto_, or censured and corrected chiefly by expunction, issued from the Church of modern Rome, and published by authority of her ruling members and societies so empowered.

The Prohibitory Index specifies and prohibits entire authors or works, whether of known or of unknown authors. This book has been frequently published, with successive enlargements, to the present time, under the express sanction of the reigning pontiff. It may be considered as a kind of periodical publication of the papacy.

The other class of indexes, the Expurgatory, contains a particular examination of the works occurring in it, and specifies the passages condemned to be expunged or altered. Such a work, in proportion to the number of works embraced by it, must be, and in the case of the Spanish indexes of the kind, is, voluminous. For a general history of these indexes the reader is referred to Mendham’s “Literary Policy of the Church of Rome.”

INDUCTION. This may be compared to livery and seisin of a freehold, for it is putting a minister in actual possession of the Church to which he is presented, and of the glebe land and other temporalities thereof; for before induction he hath no freehold in them. The usual method of induction is by virtue of a mandate under the seal of the bishop, to the archdeacon of the place, who either himself, or by his warrant to all clergymen within his archdeaconry, inducts the new incumbent by taking his hand, laying it on the key of the church in the door, and pronouncing these words, “I induct you into the real and actual possession of the rectory or vicarage of H——, with all its profits and appurtenances.” Then he opens the door of the church, and puts the person in possession of it, who enters to offer his devotions, which done he tolls a bell to summon his parishioners.

INDULGENCES. One of the evil practices of the Church of Rome, of whose doctrine upon the subject the following outline may be given:—

The conferring of indulgences, which are denominated “the heavenly treasures of the Church,” (_Conc. Tri. Decret. Sess. XX._,) is said to be the “gift of CHRIST to the Church.” (_Sess. XXV._) To understand the nature of indulgences we must observe, that “the temporal punishment due to sin, by the decree of GOD, when its guilt and eternal punishment are remitted, may consist either of evil in this life, or of temporal suffering in the next, which temporal suffering in the next life is called purgatory; that the Church has received power from GOD to remit both of these inflictions, and this remission is called an indulgence.”—_Butler’s Book of the Rom. Cath. Ch._ p. 110. “It is the received doctrine of the Church, that an indulgence, when truly gained, is not barely a relaxation of the canonical penance enjoined by the Church, but also an actual remission by GOD himself, of the whole, or part, of the temporal punishment due to it in his sight.”—_Milner’s End of Controv._ p. 305. Pope Leo X., in his bull _De Indulgentiis_, whose object he states to be “that no one in future may allege ignorance of the doctrine of the Roman Church respecting indulgences, and their efficacy,” declares, “that the Roman pontiff, vicar of CHRIST on earth, can, for reasonable causes, by the powers of the keys, grant to the faithful, whether in this life or in purgatory, indulgences, out of the superabundance of the merits of CHRIST and of the saints (expressly called a treasure); and that those who have truly obtained these indulgences are released from so much of the temporal punishment due for their actual sins to the Divine justice, as is equivalent to the indulgence granted and obtained.”—_Bulla Leon. X. adv. Luther._ Clement VI., in the bull _Unigenitus_, explains this matter more fully:—“As a single drop of CHRIST’S blood would have sufficed for the redemption of the whole human race,” so the rest was not lost, but “was a treasure which he acquired for the militant Church, to be used for the benefit of his sons; which treasure he would not suffer to be hid in a napkin, or buried in the ground, but committed it to be dispensed by St. Peter, and his successors, his own vicars upon earth, for proper and reasonable causes, for the total or partial remission of the temporal punishment due to sin; and for an augmentation of this treasure the merits of the Blessed Mother of GOD, and of all the elect, are known to come in aid.” “We have resolved,” says Pope Leo XII., in his bull of indiction for the universal jubilee, in 1824, “in virtue of the authority given us by heaven, fully to unlock that sacred treasure, composed of the merits, sufferings, and virtues of CHRIST our LORD, and of his Virgin Mother, and of all the saints, which the author of human salvation has intrusted to our dispensation. During this year of the jubilee, we mercifully give and grant, in the LORD, a plenary indulgence, remission, and pardon of all their sins, to all the faithful of CHRIST, truly penitent, and confessing their sins, and receiving the holy communion, who shall visit the churches of blessed Peter and Paul,” &c. “We offer you,” says Ganganelli, in his bull _De Indulgentiis_, “a share of all the riches of Divine mercy, which have been intrusted to us, and chiefly those which have their origin in the blood of CHRIST. We will then open to you all the gates of the rich reservoir of atonement, derived from the merits of the Mother of GOD, the holy apostles, the blood of the martyrs, and the good works of all the saints. We invite you, then, to drink of this overflowing stream of indulgence, to enrich yourselves in the inexhaustible treasures of the Church, according to the custom of our ancestors. Do not, then, let slip the present occasion, this favourable time, these salutary days, employing them to appease the justice of God, and obtain your pardon.”

The _reasonable causes_, on account of which indulgences are given, are, where “the cause be pious, that is, not a work which is merely temporal, or vain, or in no respect pertaining to the Divine glory, but for any work whatsoever, which tends to the honour of GOD, or the service of the Church, an indulgence will be valid. We see, occasionally, the very greatest indulgences given for the very lightest causes; as when a _plenary_ indulgence is granted to all who stand before the gates of St. Peter, whilst the pope gives the solemn blessing to the people on Easter day;” for “indulgences do not depend, for their efficacy, on consideration of the work enjoined, but on the infinite treasure of the merits of CHRIST and the saints, which is a consideration surpassing and transcending everything that is granted by an indulgence.” In some cases “the work enjoined must not only be pious and useful, but bear a certain proportion with the indulgence; that is, the work enjoined must tend to an end more pleasing in the sight of GOD, than the satisfaction remitted,” “although it is not necessary that it be in itself very meritorious, or satisfactory, or difficult, and laborious, (though these things ought to be regarded too,) but that it be a mean apt and useful towards obtaining the end for which the indulgence is granted.” “As the large resort of people,” before the gates of St. Peter, when the pope gives his solemn blessing, “is a mean, apt and useful, to set forth faith, respecting the head of the Church, and to the honour of the apostolic see, which is the end of the indulgence.”—_Bellarmine de Indulgentiis_, lib. i. c. 12. The first General Lateran Council granted “remission of sins to whoever shall go to Jerusalem, and effectually help to oppose the infidels.”—_Can. XI._ The third and fourth Lateran Councils granted the same indulgence to those who set themselves to destroy heretics, or who shall take up arms against them.—See _Labbe_, vol. x. p. 1523. Boniface VIII. granted, not only a full and large, but the most full, pardon of all sins to all that visit Rome the first year in every century. Clement V. decreed, that they who should, at the jubilee, visit such and such churches, should obtain “a most full remission of all their sins;” and he not only granted a “plenary absolution of all sins, to all who died on the road to Rome,” but “also commanded the angels of paradise to carry the soul direct to heaven.”

“Sincere repentance,” we are told, “is always enjoined, or implied, in the grant of an indulgence, and is indispensably necessary for every grace.”—_Milner’s End of Controversy_, p. 304. But as the dead are removed from the possibility, so are they from the necessity, of repentance; “as the pope,” says Bellarmine, “applies the satisfactions of CHRIST and the saints to the dead, by means of works enjoined on the living, they are applied, not in the way of judicial absolution, but in the way of payment (_per modum solutionis_). For as when a person gives alms, or fasts, or makes a pilgrimage, on account of the dead, the effect is, not that he obtains absolution for them from their liability to punishment, but he presents to GOD that particular satisfaction for them, in order that GOD, on receiving it, may liberate the dead from the debt of punishment which they had to pay. In like manner, the pope does not absolve the deceased, but offers to GOD, out of the measure of satisfaction, as much as is necessary to free them.”—_Id._ Their object is “to afford succour to such as have departed real penitents in the love of GOD, yet before they had duly satisfied, by fruits worthy of penance, for sins of commission and omission, and are now purifying in the fire of purgatory; that an entrance may be opened for them into that country, where nothing defiled is admitted.”—_Bull. Leo. XII._

“As the power of granting indulgences was given by CHRIST to the Church, and she has exercised it in the most ancient times, this holy synod teaches, and commands, that the use of them, as being greatly salutary to the Christian people, and approved by the authority of councils, shall be retained; and she anathematizes those who say they are useless, or deny to the Church the power of granting them; but in this grant, the synod wishes that moderation, agreeably to the ancient and approved practice of the Church, be exercised; lest, by too great facility, ecclesiastical discipline be weakened.”—_Conc. Trid. Sess. XXV. de Indulg._

“The chief pontiffs, by virtue of the supreme authority given them in the Universal Church, have justly assumed the power of reserving some graver criminal causes to their own peculiar judgment.”—_Conc. Trid. Sess. XIV._ cap. 7. “The more weighty criminal charges against bishops, which deserve deposition and deprivation, may be judged and determined only by the supreme Roman pontiff.”—_Conc. Trid. Sess. XXIV._ cap. 5.

“No testimony,” says Clementius, “can be produced from any father, or any ancient Church, that either this doctrine, or the practice of such indulgences, was known, or used, for 1200 years.”—_Exam. Conc. Trid. de Indulg._ c. 4. Many of these indulgences can only be obtained from the supreme pontiff; for obtaining which an office is opened at Rome, and a table of fees, payable to the chancery of Rome, published by authority. The pardon of a heretic is fixed at £36 9_s._; whilst marrying one wife, after murdering another, may be commuted by the payment of £8 2_s._ 9_d._ A pardon for perjury is charged at 9_s._; simony, 10_s._ 6_d._; robbery, 12_s._; seduction, 9_s._; incest, 7_s._ 6_d._; murder, 7_s._ 6_d._ Now, is not this taxation a virtual encouragement to the commission of the most shocking crimes, when absolution for them is granted and proffered on such easy terms? This seems to be, in fact, the establishing a complete traffic for sins, and must be accounted a great source of corruption and depravity.

“These pardons,” says Silvester de Prierio, “are not known to us by the authority of the Scriptures, but by the authority of the Church of Rome, and the popes; which is greater than the authority of the Scriptures.”—_Con. Luth. pag. Indul._ They were first sanctioned by Urban II., as a reward for those who engaged in a crusade against the Mahometans, for the recovery of Palestine. To these Urban promised the remission of all their sins, and to open to them the gates of heaven.

From these extracts we may learn, that the members of the Church of Rome did formerly, and do now, teach and believe on the subject of indulgences; 1st, That these pardons are to be paid for; 2nd, That they are granted through the merits of the Virgin and of the saints, as well as through the death and sufferings of our blessed Saviour; 3rd, That these pardons are more effectual at Rome than elsewhere, and that they are better at the time of the pope’s jubilee than in other years.

Now in all this, such doctrines do openly and plainly contradict the word of GOD. For in the first place, the prophet Isaiah, instead of calling for money, says, “Ho every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money, come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk, without money and without price.” (lv. 1.) Instead of speaking like Tetzel, St. Paul says, “Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in CHRIST JESUS, whom GOD hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood.” (Rom. iii. 24, 25.) And, unlike the pope, “The spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” (Rev. xxii. 17.)

In the next place, the merits of saints are never said in Scripture to be the cause of their own salvation, or of that of others; for all that are saved are said to be saved through faith in CHRIST; which faith produceth in them good works, as naturally as a tree produceth fruit. St. Peter declares, that “there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved, but only the name of our LORD JESUS CHRIST.” (Acts iv. 12.)

And, in the last place, as to the idea, that it is better to worship GOD in one city or country than in another, our LORD has plainly said, No, in his conversation with the woman of Samaria. She said, “Our fathers worshipped in this mountain, and ye say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. JESUS saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the FATHER.... But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the FATHER in spirit and in truth, for the FATHER seeketh such to worship him.” (John iv. 20–23.)

In saluting the Corinthian Church, St. Paul joins with them “all that in every place call upon the name of JESUS CHRIST our LORD, both theirs and ours.” (1 Cor. i. 2.) The Scripture does not tell us of any particular times, in which prayer is more acceptable to GOD than at others; but they exhort us to “seek the LORD while he may be found, and to call upon him while he is near.” (Isa. i. 6.) “To-day, if you will hear his voice, harden not your heart.” (Ps. xcv. 7, 8.) “Boast not thyself of to-morrow, for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth.” (Prov. xxvii. 1.) “Now is the accepted time, now is the day of salvation.” (2 Cor. vi. 2.) So that while GOD thus offers in the Bible, forgiveness through CHRIST, to all who shall repent and believe the gospel; the Church of Rome presumes to tell her people, that it will be better for them, while they profess to repent and believe, to pay their money; and safer for them to come to Rome on jubilee years, or to some other place in a jubilee month, to receive the benefits of their absolution. Surely the people who believe all this, rather than their Bible, are like the Jews whom Jeremiah, in GOD’S name, thus describes:—“My people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.” (Jer. ii. 13.) Or, rather, it is to be feared, that the whole body, teachers and people, are like those of whom our LORD said, “They be blind leaders of the blind; and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” (Matt. xv. 14.)—_O’Donoghue._

INDULTS, in the Church of Rome, is a power of presenting to benefices, granted to certain persons by the pope. Of this kind is the Indult of kings, and sovereign princes, in the Romish communion, and that of the parliament of Paris. By the Concordat for the abolition of the Pragmatic Sanction, made between Francis I. and Leo X. in 1516, the king has the power of nominating to bishoprics, and other consistorial benefices in his realm. At the same time, by a particular bull, the pope granted to the king the privilege of nominating to the churches of Bretagne and Provence. The bishoprics of Metz, Toul, and Verdun, being yielded to the French king by the treaty of Munster, in 1648, Pope Alexander VIII. in 1664, and Clement IX. in 1668, granted the king an Indult for these three bishoprics; and in 1668 the same Pope Clement IX. granted the king an Indult of the same purport, for the benefices in the counties of Rousillon, Artois, and the Low Countries.

In the year 1424, Pope Martin V. granted to the parliament of Paris this right of presentation to benefices, which they declined to accept. Eugenius IV. granted them the like privilege, which did not take effect by reason of a decree of the Council of Basil, which took away all expectative graces. Lastly, at the interview between the emperor Charles V. and King Francis I. at Nice, in 1538, Pope Paul III., who was present as a mediator, gave an Indult to the parliament of Paris, reviving that formerly granted by Eugenius IV.

The cardinals, likewise, have an Indult granted them by agreement between Pope Paul IV. and the sacred college, in 1555, which is always confirmed by the popes at the time of their election. By this treaty or agreement the cardinals have the free disposal of all the benefices depending on them, without being interrupted by any prior collations from the Pope. By this Indult the cardinals are empowered, likewise, to bestow a benefice _in commendam_.

INFALLIBILITY. In one sense the universal Church is infallible. It has an infallible guide in the Holy Scriptures. Holy Scripture contains all religious truth. And the Church having the Scriptures is so far infallibly guided. But there is no infallible guide to the interpretation of Scripture. If it were so, then there would be an authority above the Scriptures. Hence the wisdom of our twentieth Article: “The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to GOD’S word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy writ, yet as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation.”

Here the authority of the Church in subordination to Scripture is clearly laid down. To the same effect is our twenty-first Article. “General councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the spirit and word of GOD,) they may err, and sometime have erred, even in things pertaining unto GOD. Wherefore things ordained by them, as necessary to salvation, have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture.”—_Beveridge._

But although we can have no infallible guide beyond the Scriptures, yet there may be a proper _certainty_ in matters of faith, doctrine, and discipline, without infallibility. This, in his “Importance of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity,” that great divine, Dr. Waterland, shows from the words of Chillingworth. “Though we pretend not to certain means of not erring in interpreting all Scripture, particularly such places as are obscure and ambiguous, yet this, methinks, should be no impediment; but that we may have certain means of not erring in and about the sense of those places which are so plain and clear that they need no interpreters; and in such we say our faith is contained. If you ask me, how I can be sure that I know the true meaning of these places? I ask you again, can you be sure that you understand what I or any man else says? GOD be thanked that we have sufficient means to be certain enough of the truth of our faith; but the privilege of not being in possibility of erring, that we challenge not, because we have as little reason as you to do so, and you have none at all. If you ask, seeing we may possibly err, how can we be assured we do not? I ask you again, seeing your eyesight may deceive you, how can you be sure you see the sun when you do see it? A pretty sophism! That whosoever possibly may err, cannot be certain that he doth not err. A judge may possibly err in judgment; can he, therefore, never have assurance that he hath judged right? A traveller may possibly mistake his way; must I, therefore, be doubtful whether I am in the right way from my hall to my chamber? Or can our London carrier have no certainty, in the middle of the day, when he is sober and in his wits, that he is in the way to London? These, you see, are right worthy consequences, and yet they are as like to your own, as an egg to an egg, or milk to milk.

“Methinks, so subtile a man as you are should easily apprehend a wide difference between authority to do a thing and infallibility in doing it. The former, the doctor, together with the Article of the Church of England, attributeth to the Church, nay, to particular Churches, and I subscribe to his opinion; that is, an authority of determining controversies of faith, according to plain and evident Scripture and universal tradition and infallibility, while they proceed according to this rule. As if there should arise an heretic that should call in question CHRIST’S passion and resurrection, the Church has authority to determine this controversy, and infallible direction how to do it, and to excommunicate this man if he should persist in his errors.

“The ground of your error here is, your not distinguishing between actual certainty and absolute infallibility. Geometricians are not infallible in their own science; yet they are very certain of what they see demonstrated: and carpenters are not infallible, yet certain of the straightness of those things which agree with their rule and square. So though the Church be not infallibly certain that in all her definitions, whereof some are about disputable and ambiguous matters, she shall proceed according to her rule; yet being certain of the infallibility of her rule, and that in this or that thing she doth manifestly proceed according to it, she may be certain of the truth of some particular decrees, and yet not certain that she shall never decree but what is true.

“Though the Church being not infallible, I cannot believe her in everything she says; yet I can and must believe her in everything she proves, either by Scripture, reason, or universal tradition, be it fundamental or not fundamental. Though she may err in some things, yet she does not err in what she proves, though it be not fundamental. Protestants believing Scripture to be the word of GOD, may be certain enough of the truth and certainty of it. For what if they say the Catholic Church, much more themselves, may possibly err in some fundamental points, is it therefore consequent they can be certain of none such? What if a wiser man than I may mistake the sense of some obscure place of Aristotle, may I not, therefore, without any arrogance or inconsequence, conceive myself certain that I understand him in some plain places which carry their sense before them? We pretend not at all to any assurance that we cannot err, but only to a sufficient certainty that we do not err, but rightly understand those things that are plain, whether fundamental or not fundamental. That GOD is, and is a rewarder of them that seek him; that, &c. These we conceive both true, because the Scripture says so, and truths fundamental, because they are necessary parts of the gospel, whereof our SAVIOUR says, _Qui non crediderit, damnabitur_.

“I do heartily acknowledge and believe the articles of our faith to be in themselves truths as certain and infallible as the very common principles of geometry or metaphysics; but that there is required of us a knowledge of them and an adherence to them, as certain as that of sense or science; that such a certainty is required of us under pain of damnation, so that no man can hope to be in a state of salvation but he that finds in himself such a degree of faith, such a strength of adherence; this I have already demonstrated to be a great error, and of dangerous and pernicious consequence.

“Though I deny that it is required of us to be certain in the highest degree, infallibly certain, of the truth of the things which we believe, (for this were to know and not believe, neither is it possible unless our evidence of it, be it natural or supernatural, were of the highest degree,) yet I deny not but we ought to be, and may be, infallibly certain that we are to believe the religion of CHRIST. For, 1. This is most certain, that we are in all things to do according to wisdom and reason, rather than against it. 2. This is as certain, that wisdom and reason require that we should believe those things which are by many degrees more credible and probable than the contrary. 3. This is as certain, that to every man who considers impartially what great things may be said for the truth of Christianity, and what poor things they are which may be said against it, either for any other religion, or for none at all, it cannot but appear by many degrees more credible, that the Christian religion is true, than the contrary. And from all these premises, this conclusion evidently follows, that it is infallibly certain, that we are firmly to believe the truth of the Christian religion. There is an abundance of arguments exceedingly credible, inducing men to believe the truth of Christianity; I say, so credible, that though they cannot make us evidently see what we believe, yet they evidently convince, that in true wisdom and prudence, the articles of it deserve credit, and ought to be accepted as things revealed by GOD.”—_Waterland._ _Chillingworth._

The Roman Church has no authorized doctrine of infallibility, though its existence is practically assumed, and is bound up with the whole catalogue of usurpations. The Council of Trent defined many minute and unimportant matters, yet on that which involved so much, it published no definition at all; neither pronouncing where the gift is lodged, nor under what conditions it is exercised, nor to what subjects it extends; nay, not even asserting that it exists at all. Suarez says that the pope’s infallibility is a question of faith; Bellarmine, that it is not; and Stapleton, that, though the denial of it is scandalous and offensive, it is perhaps not heretical; while Gerson, with a very large and learned school of Roman theologians, rejects the doctrine altogether. And none of these opinions have been censured.

Again, if we ask whether, in point of fact, any pope has ever been a heretic, we shall get nothing but inconsistent and contradictory replies. Coster says, that not one has ever taught heresy, or fallen into error; and he makes this an argument for the doctrine itself. Pighius goes further, and says, that the pope is so confirmed in the faith, that he could not fall into error either publicly or privately, even if he would; while, on the other hand, there is a multitude of Roman writers, who fully admit the heresies of Liberius, Vigilius, Honorius, and the rest; either condemning them absolutely, or extenuating their acts on some special ground. The Council of Pisa, A. D. 1409, in its sentence of deposition against the rivals, pronounces them both heretics. And so previous councils have condemned former popes; yet the question is still in debate.

As a matter of doctrine, then, we have a long line of the greatest theologians that the Roman Church has ever produced, denying in explicit terms that any gift of infallibility at all was conveyed to the bishops of Rome by the words of CHRIST. And on the question of fact we find the very chief defenders of the pope’s prerogatives, admitting that he may deceive men by his example, and lead them into error; and that he may publish decrees, and insert them in the body of canon law, which yet contradict the tradition of the Church and the truth of the gospel. The claim of infallibility, which advances no Scripture proof, except one perverted text; and which is maintained in the face of all these hesitations and contradictions, these disproofs on the one side, and injurious admissions on the other; can be nothing else but a delusion and a fraud.—_S. Robins._

INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. (See _Church of Rome_, _Popery_.) On this subject we give the following remarks of Bishop Beveridge:—That the Catholic or universal Church is infallible, so as constantly and firmly to maintain and hold every particular truth delivered in the gospel, in one place or other of it, I think cannot well be denied; but that any particular Church, or the Church of Rome in particular, is infallible, we have expressly denied and opposed in the Thirty-nine Articles, it being there expressly asserted, that “the Church of Rome hath erred,” and that “not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but even in matters of faith.”

Now to prove that the Church of Rome hath erred, even in matters of faith, I think the best way is to compare the doctrine maintained by them with the doctrine delivered in these Articles. For whatsoever is contained in these Articles, we have, or shall, by the assistance of GOD, prove to be consonant to Scripture, reason, and Fathers; and, by consequence, to be a real truth. And, therefore, whatsoever is any way contrary to what is here delivered, must needs be an error. And so that besides other errors which the Church of Rome holds, be sure, whereinsoever it differs from the doctrine of the Church of England, therein it errs. Now to prove that the Church of Rome doth hold such doctrines as are contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England, I shall not insist upon any particular, though never so eminent, persons amongst them that have delivered many doctrines contrary to ours. For I know, as it is amongst ourselves, that is not an error of our Church which is the error of some one or many particular persons in it; so also amongst them, everything that Bellarmine, Johannes de Turrecremata, Gregorius de Valentia, Alphonsus de Castro, or any of the grandees of their Church, saith, cannot be accounted as an error of their Church if it be false; nor if it be true, as the truth of the whole Church. A Church may be Catholic though it hath many heretics in it; and a Church may be heretical though it hath many Catholics in it. And therefore I say, to prove the doctrine of their Church to be erroneous, I shall not take any notice of the errors of particular persons, but of the errors deliberately and unanimously concluded upon, and subscribed to, and published as the doctrine of that Church, by the whole Church itself met together in council. For the doctrine delivered by a council cannot be denied to be the doctrine of the whole Church there represented. As the doctrine delivered in these Articles, because it was concluded upon in a council of English divines, is accounted the doctrine of the Church of England; so the doctrine concluded upon in a council of Romish divines, cannot be denied to be the doctrine of the Church of Rome. And of all the councils they have held, that which I shall pitch upon in this case, is the Council of Trent, both because it was the most general council they ever held, and also because it was held about the same time at Trent that our convocation that composed these Articles was held at London. For it was in the year of our LORD 1562, that our convocation, that concluded upon these Articles, was holden at London; and though the Council of Trent was begun in the year of our LORD 1545, yet it was not concluded nor confirmed till the fifth year of Pope Pius IV., A. D. 1563, as appears from Pope Pius III.’s bull for the confirmation of it. So that our convocation was held within the same time that that council was; and so our Church concluded upon truths here, whilst theirs agreed upon errors there. Neither need we go any further to prove that they agreed upon errors, than by showing that many things that they did then subscribe to, were contrary to what our Church, about the same time, concluded upon. For all our Articles are, as we may see, agreeable to Scripture, reason, and Fathers; and they delivering many things quite contrary to the said Articles, so many of them must needs be contrary to Scripture, reason, and Fathers too, and therefore cannot but be errors. And so in showing that the doctrine of the Church of Rome is, in many things, contrary to the Church of England, I shall prove from Scripture, reason, and Fathers, the truth of this proposition, that the Church of Rome hath erred even in matters of faith.

Now, though there be many things wherein the Church of Rome did at that, and so still doth at this, time disagree with ours; yet I shall pick out but some of those propositions that do, in plain terms, contradict these Articles.

As, first, we say, (Art. VI.,) “Scripture is sufficient, &c., and the other books, (viz. commonly called the Apocrypha,) the Church doth not apply them to establish any doctrine.” But the Church of Rome thrusts them into the body of canonical Scriptures, and accounts them as canonical as any of the rest; saying, “But this synod thought good to write down to this decree an index of the holy books, lest any one should doubt which they are that are received by this council. Now they are the under-written. Of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of the Kings, two of the Chronicles, Esdras the first and second, which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Hester, Job, Psalter of one hundred and fifty Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah with Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, twelve Lesser Prophets, that is, Osee, &c., two books of the Maccabees, the first and second. Of the New Testament, the four Gospels, &c. as ours. But if any one doth not receive all these books, with every part of them, as they use to be read in the Catholic (viz. the Roman) Church, and as they are contained in the ancient vulgar Latin edition, for holy and canonical, and shall knowingly contemn the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.”