The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 8 · Chapter 4
CHAP. 4. Where this Maxime of the Roman Church is examined, that God having forgiven the whole fault, doth not alwayes forgive the whole pain.
OUR Adverſaries lay this as a ground, that in ſin there are two things, the fault and the pain, that is, the offence and the puniſhment, and that God forgiving the whole fault, doth not alwayes forgive the whole ſatisfactory pain due to the fault.
In this doctrine I find four notable abſurdities, which before all things muſt be laid open.
I. The firſt is, that in ſin there are two things, the fault and the puniſhment: A great abſurdity. For how can they ſay that fault is in ſin, ſeeing that fault and ſin are all one? When the Prieſt ſaith, Mea culpa, he confeſſeth his ſin. See Geneſ. 31.36.(a)Numb. 15.26. Quoniam culpa eſt omnis populi. Numb. 15.26. He that ſaith that the ſickneſs is in the body, preſuppoſeth with good reaſon that the ſickneſs and the body are two things. But theſe men ſay without reaſon, that the fault is in the ſin, as if they were different things.
II. The abſurdity is much alike, in their ſaying, that theſe two things are in ſin, the fault and the pain, whereby they ſay by conſequent, that the pain is in the ſin. Which is not true. For the pain is not in the ſin, and is neither part, nor accident, nor circumſtance of ſin. Sin is truly ſin, though it remain unpuniſhed. There are ſins without pains, and pains without ſin. How ſhould the pain be in the ſin, ſince the pain is of a nature contrary to the ſin? The ſin is unjuſt, but the pain is juſt. The ſin comes from man, but the pain comes from God. The pain is made to correct the ſin, and is by conſequent contrary to the ſin.
III. The third abſurdity is in their ſaying, that God forgiving the ſin, doth not alwayes forgive the pain. They preſuppoſe that God ſometimes forgives the pain, which is falſe. For the pain is never forgiven, there is nothing that can be pardoned but the ſin, or the fault, which is all one. Themſelves would laugh at him that ſhould ſay, that the Prince hath pardoned whipping or the gallows to a malefactour. It is the fault that is pardoned, becauſe it is unjuſt. But pains are juſt, therefore they need no pardon.
IV. This diſcovereth a fourth abſurdity, the groſſeſt of all. For by ſpeaking thus, they make two pardons where there is but one. If a Malefactour receiveth grace from the King, no body hath loſt common ſenſe ſo much as to ſay, that the King hath forgiven him, not his crime only, but alſo the puniſhment. The felon will be contented at all times that his crime be wholly pardoned; Which pardon when he hath once obtained, after that he will never be ſuch an idiot as to petition, that the puniſhment be forgiven him: For he knows that by the abſolute pardon of his crime, the priſon-gates are open unto him, and that he is free from all the puniſhment which he might have feared from the Kings Juſtice. Hence it appears how ridiculous and imaginary the Popes pardons are. For nothing can be forgiven but the fault. Now by theſe pardons, the Roman Church holds that nothing is pardoned but the pain, becauſe it is already wholly remitted by Jeſus Chriſt. According to the imagination of theſe Gentlemen, when a father hath wholly pardoned his ſons fault, his ſon needs to get another pardon, that he may not be whipt. No other way did they find to ſet up their errour, but by overthrowing reaſon. Having forſaken the Word of God, they have by his juſt judgement loſt common ſenſe.
V. Abſurdities might be ſleighted, if impiety did not go along with them. But by this doctrine a high wrong is offered unto God. It is caſting injuſtice upon God, to teach that God forgiveth the fault, and yet burns a poor ſoul for faults wholly pardoned. He that wholly pardoneth, looks for no more vengeance or or ſatisfaction to juſtice. Let them tell us whether theſe ſouls that are burning in Purgatory be guilty or not guilty. If they be guilty ſtill, they affirm untruly that all their fault is remitted and pardoned, for it is the fault that makes a man guilty. If they be not guilty, it is unjuſt to burn and torment ſouls that are not guilty. Where there is no fault, there is no ſin, and by conſequent no ſatisfactory pain for ſin. And would God behave himſelf ſo towards the ſouls of his children, for whom Chriſt dyed? Is there any father ſo unnatural, as to burn his children for offences abſolutely pardoned? Yea to puniſh them with pains, which ſerve not to mend them, but to content himſelf, and to ſatisfie his juſtice?
The cauſe being taken away, which only can make the ſatisfactory pain juſt before God, the pain alſo is taken away. Now the only cauſe that can juſtifie the torment of ſouls burning in a fire, is the fault. Otherwiſe the ſinner frying in that fire, might juſtly complain of God, and ſay to him, Why doſt thou puniſh me with ſatisfactory pains, after thou haſt abſolutely forgiven me my ſin? Why doſt thou uſe me as guilty, when I have no more fault? And whereas thy ſon Jeſus hath paid both for the fault and the pain, and hath ſufficiently ſatisfied to exempt me from this torment of Purgatory? Why doſt thou not receive the ranſom which he paid for me, for ſo much as it is worth? Why doſt thou abate of the price and vertue of my ranſom? If it be for thy glory, thy goodneſs ſhall be much more exalted by pardoning me. If it be to ſatisfie thy juſtice, Chriſt hath entirely ſatisfied for it. Our Adverſaries have not yet bethought themſelves to frame anſwers for God unto this expoſtulation: For they will be burnt for many ages, although God hath given a full pardon to the repenting and believing ſinner.
VII. Sins being debts, the payment whereof is the ſatisfactory pain, he that ſaith that God wholly forgiveth the ſin, and yet exacteth ſatisfactory pains after full pardon, maketh God to ſay, I forgive thee the whole debt, but yet thou ſhalt pay: I do wholly forgive thee, but thou ſhalt be burnt and puniſhed for the ſin which I have forgiven thee. As if one hang'd a man with his Kings Letters of pardon hanging at his neck, in contempt of the Kings authority. So theſe men frame us a God that abuſeth men, and his own Graces, fetching ſatisfaction for debts fully acquitted, puniſhing ſins pardoned with ſatisfactory pains.
VIII. But how did Chriſt bear all our ſins? Was it not by bearing all the ſatisfactory pains due to our ſins? And if Chriſt bare all our pain, it was to acquit us from it. Si tulit abſtulit. No man loads himſelf with another mans debt, but to diſcharge him of it. So ſpeaketh Saint Auſtin, that(b)Auguſt. Serm. 141. de Tempore. Communicando nobiſcum ſine culpa poenam, & culpam ſolvit & poenam. Idem lib. 1. de peccatorum meritis & remiſſione cap. 32. Ʋt eſſet in ſimilitudine carnis peccati poena ſine culpa, unde in carne peccati & culpa ſolveretur & poena. Chriſt by taking part with us of the pain, hath aboliſhed both the fault and the pain. Here the queſtion is not of the means of applying that grace, whereby Chriſt hath born all our pain, of which we ſhall ſpeak hereafter, but only to know whether Chriſt hath born all our pain, and whether he did not bear it to diſcharge us from it. The grace of God is not applyed unto us, by means contrary to that grace, and ſuch are our torments. Our Adverſaries themſelves make theſe means ſuperfluous by the Popes Indulgences, who exempteth ſuch as he will from Purgatory. For thereby they declare that it is not a thing repugnant unto the juſtice of God, or to the Goſpel, that God remit unto men the whole pain, as well as the fault, and exact no ſatisfactory pain from them.
IX. Let them tell us why they will have God, at certain times, and to certain perſons, to remit wholly both the pain and the fault; but at other times, and to other perſons, though leſs ſtained with ſin, to uſe rigour, and puniſh and torment them many ages in a vehement fire? For example, all the faithful that ſhall be alive in the world when Chriſt cometh to judge the quick and the dead, though they have run never ſo far on the ſcore, as for the debt of ſatisfactions, they ſhall have all that ſcore diſcharged, and ſhall not enter into Purgatory. And the Carmelite Fryars have that priviledge, to be no longer in Purgatory then till the next Saturday after their death; ſo that if they die upon Friday night, they are but lightly ſinged, and enter into Purgatory only to come out, and to tell news of it. Whereas there are many perſons, dead many ages ago, held to have been very devout in their lives, for whom nevertheleſs Maſſes are ſaid ſtill, upon a preſuppoſition that they are in Purgatory ſtill. Is it not becauſe they have paid and made large gifts unto the Church? For a man that hath given nothing, ſo many ſervices ſhould not be ſaid. It is lucre that brought in theſe ſatisfactions. By a new Pyrotechny that imaginary fire was kindled, that ſouls might be drawn from it with profit to the Pope and his Clergy.
X. That Commandement of God ſo often iterated, that we forgive thoſe that offend us, as God forgiveth thoſe that offend him, and that prayer which Chriſt hath indited to us, Forgive us our treſpaſſes, as we forgive them that treſpaſs againſt us, gives us here a great light. Saint Paul, Eph. 4.32. gives us the ſame charge, Be ye kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Chriſts ſake hath forgiven you. We ought to know then, how God would have us to forgive thoſe that have offended us. Doth he mean that a private man offended by another private man (for of ſuch the Apoſtle ſpeaketh) ought to forgive the whole offence ſo, that he reſerve to himſelf a reſolution to make him bear the whole pain of it? Doth he mean that we avenge our ſelves after we have forgiven? Would not that be a baſe and treacherous part? Would not the world call it a fraudulent and hypocritical pardon? Since then God will have our forgiving of our neighbours, to be framed after the example of Gods pardon to us, and ſince when we forgive the whole offence, we forgive alſo the whole pain, it follows that God forgives us in the ſame manner, and that by forgiving the whole offence, he forgives alſo the whole ſatisfactory pain. Yea it is far more reaſonable and likely that God ſhould do ſo then man, becauſe God is infinitely more merciful then man.
XI. God ſaith, Ezek. 18.21, 22. If the wicked will turn from all his ſins— All his tranſgreſsions that he hath committed, ſhall not be mentioned unto him. Then he layeth no ſatisfactory pain upon him, ſuch as the fire of Purgatory: For puniſhing a converted ſinner in that manner, would be mentioning his ſins unto him.
XII. According to the doctrine of the Roman Church, he that after a total pardon of an offence, will puniſh him whom he hath forgiven, cannot be juſtly reprehended. For he will ſay, Doth not God do the ſame? Doth he not puniſh thoſe in a fire, to whom he hath given a full pardon? Will ye have me to be more merciful then God? Certainly man is of himſelf but too prone to evil, and given to fraud and revenge, and needs not to be ſeduced to it by Gods example, whom theſe men make Author of vices, and a Teacher of Revenge and Diſloyaltie.
For theſe cauſes Tertullian (c)Tertul. lib. de Bapt. cap. 5. Exempto reatu remittitur & poena.ſpeaking of Baptiſm, ſaith that the guiltineſs being taken away, the pain alſo is remitted. He gives a reaſon why in Baptiſm the pain is remitted unto us, even becauſe the fault is pardoned.(d)Aug. Serm. 141. de Tempore. As Auſtin told us before, that Chriſt taking part with us of the pain without the fault, hath aboliſhed both the fault and the pain.