The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 8 · Chapter 5
CHAP. 5. Proofs of our Adverſaries, whereby they pretend to prove that God, after all the fault is forgiven, inflicteth the ſatisfactory pain.
AGainſt that truth ſo evident, our Adverſaries bring ſome ſmall reaſons; and whereas they pretend to make a great building, they bring ſtraws to it inſtead of timber and ſtone.
I. They ſay that God having forgiven Davids ſin, yet puniſhed it, and ſent affliction on his family, 2 Sam. 12.13.
I anſwer, that the queſtion being of ſatisfactory pains, they bring us examples of caſtigatory and exemplary pains, which ſerved only to correct and amend David, and make him an example; not to ſatisfie Gods juſtice, or to pay any recompence to him. Of that David himſelf is a good example, thus ſpeaking of himſelf, Pſalm 119.71. It is good for me that I have been afflicted, that I might learn thy ſtatutes. And the Apoſtle, Heb. 12.10. God chaſteneth us for our profit, that we might be partakers of his Holineſs. The chaſtening of a Father, and the puniſhment of a Judge are different things. There is great difference between bearing the corrections of our God, and ſatisfying his juſtice. Medicines are not ſatisfactions or payments. They that ſtrike a man in a fit of falling ſickneſs, do it not to be avenged of him, or to draw ſatisfactions from him, but for the eaſe of the patient. David never intended by the afflictions which he ſuffered to ſatisfie Gods Juſtice; that would have been an intolerable burden, but he comforted himſelf in that confidence, that God chaſtened him as a father his ſon. Chryſoſtom in the Homily of Penitence and Confeſſion, ſaith that God impoſeth pains upon us, not to puniſh us for ſins paſt, but to mend us for the time to come. And Auſtin in the ſecond Book of the merit of ſins, and of remiſſion, chap. 34. Pains before the remiſsion of the fault are puniſhments of ſin, but after the remiſsion they are combates and exerciſes of the righteous. And ſo Ambroſe in the firſt Book of Penitence, chap. 4. ſpeaking of the chaſtenings wherewith God viſiteth his children, His indignation is not an execution of revenge, but rather an effect of pardon. And as for Davids caſe, Auſtin in the fore-alleadged place ſaith, that he was puniſhed after the pardon, Ʋt pietas hominis in illa humilitate exerceretur & probaretur; that the piety of that man might be exerciſed and tried in that humiliation. It was not then out of revenge, or to draw ſatisfaction from him to the juſtice of God. The caſtigatory pains of Gods children, which ſerve to mend them, are very unreaſonably alleadged to eſtabliſh the torment of Purgatory, where ſouls are burning without mending, and where they hold that God tormenteth the ſouls of his children to content himſelf, and ſatisfie his juſtice, not to mend them: As if, becauſe a father makes his ſon to take Phyſick to heal him, one would inferr that he will hang him to content himſelf.
II. To this Bellarmine oppoſeth the words of God himſelf, 2 Sam. 12.14. Becauſe by this deed thou haſt given great occaſion to the enemies of the Lord to blaſpheme, the child alſo that is born unto thee ſhall ſurely die. Whence he gathers, that God ſent him that puniſhment for his ſins paſt. But this Cardinal labours in vain to prove that which we grant. We know that David was puniſhed for his ſins paſt, and that his murther, and adultery, were the meritorious cauſes of that puniſhment; but the queſtion between us is about the final cauſe, and the end which God purpoſed when he chaſtened him; whether God puniſhed Davids ſins to ſatisfie his juſtice, and to draw from him recompence and ſatisfaction, as our Adverſaries will have it; or, whether he chaſtiſed him to amend him, and make him wiſer for the future, as we affirm, and as David himſelf doth acknowledge. For ſince God had fully pardoned him, the pains that followed muſt be compatible with that firſt pardon: Now they are things compatible and very well agreeing together, that a father forgive his ſon, and yet keep him to a Phyſical diet or abſtinence. He may forgive him an exceſs committed by drunkenneſs, and yet forbid him the uſe of wine for a time. But the Doctors of the Roman Church teach, that God tormenteth ſouls after he hath fully forgiven them.
IV. Hereby alſo their example is confuted of the damned, whoſe father God is, as he is their Creator, and yet he maketh them ſatisfie his juſtice in Hell. For God doth not puniſh the damned, after he hath fully pardoned them. But here the queſtion is of the pain which God inflicteth upon his children after remiſſion, not of that which he makes his enemies to ſuffer whom he never pardoned.
V. The tears, the faſt, and the humiliation of David, were not to ſatisfie Gods juſtice, nor to pay him any recompence, as Bellarmine imagineth, but they were effects of his ſorrow, ſigns and helps of his repentance, and a leſſon to others to teach them how much they ought to hate ſin. It would have been an aggravation of ſin in David, if he had been ſenſleſs at Gods rods, and had not bowed under his mighty hand, or had given himſelf to mirth, when Gods judgements or threatnings invited him to repentance.
VI. Bellarmine ſaith, that God, after he had pardoned Davids fault about the numbring of the people; did nevertheleſs puniſh him.2 Sam. 24. But of that pardon after the puniſhment, the ſacred hiſtory ſaith nothing. And the puniſhment that followed, was not laid upon David eſpecially, but upon the people, who for other reaſons had deſerved that puniſhment: But God took occaſion of Davids fault in numbring the people, to puniſh the people which he was numbring. Yet nothing happened to David, that may not be taken rather for a chaſtiſement then a ſatisfaction. Now the wholeſom chaſtiſements whereby God exerciſeth and inſtructeth his children, agree very well with their pardon.
VII. They alleadge to us alſo the example of David, forgiving Shimei who had curſed and reviled him to his face, and yet Shimei was ſince put to death for the ſame crime that was forgiven him. In which paſſage they find, to their thinking, that David forgave him the fault, but not the pain. So that, by their reckoning, when Shimei was put to death, it was not becauſe of the fault which he had committed ſince it was forgiven him. They ſhould have told us then for what fault he was put to death. Theſe men put out their own eyes, and ſtudy to ſpeak abſurd things. Read the hiſtory, and you ſhall find that David had not forgiven Shimei; but that when Abiſhai required that he ſhould be put to death, David anſwered, Shall there any man be put to death this day in Iſrael?2 Sam. 19.22. for do I not know that I am this day King over Iſrael? David ſeeing himſelf that day reſtored to the Kingdom, would not trouble the publick joy, by ſpilling the blood of any man, wherefore he ſaid to Shimei, Thou ſhalt not die; but he did not tell him whether that promiſe was for ever, or for that time only, reſerving to himſelf the intelligence of that which might be diverſly underſtood. Beſides it is evident by the ſecond Chapter of the firſt Book of the Kings, that Shimei was put to death, not for his curſes, but becauſe he was gone out of Jeruſalem againſt the expreſs prohibition of Solomon. The remembrance of the firſt fault,1 King. 2.16. and the following verſes. made him to be puniſhed for the ſecond. Truly, if a King having fully pardoned a mans crime, ſhould afterwards put him to death for the ſame crime, he ſhould caſt a great blur upon his reputation, and hardly would any man truſt his word after that, although he ſhould uſe the diſtinction of the Roman Church, that he hath pardoned the fault, not the pain.
VIII. Bellarmine brings the example of thoſe that were ſlain by Gods commandment for worſhipping the golden calf, and ſaith that God had forgiven them: But he ſaith that without proof. For Scripture ſaith not that God had forgiven them. And though he had, the puniſhment which happened ſince the pardon, ought to be conſidered, not as inflicted to give ſatisfaction to juſtice after the remiſſion of the fault, but to give example unto others.
IX. The ſame I ſay of Moſes and Aaron, who were puniſhed for not glorifying God in the waters of Meriba. For it was an example to all the people to truſt in the Word of God. And the ſame of the Corinthians puniſhed with death and ſickneſs, for the prophanation of the holy Communion. In all theſe God took no ſatisfaction after the fault remitted, but did chaſtiſe ſins by an exemplary puniſhment.
X. To the ſame purpoſe they object, Numb. 14.20. where God ſaith that he hath pardoned the people, yet two verſes after, God denounceth to the moſt part of that people, that they ſhould never ſee the Countrey which God had promiſed them.
I anſwer, Firſt that it is a great licentiouſneſs to bring examples of the pardon granted to a great people, when the queſtion is about the pardon of ſins, which God granteth to every particular perſon. For among a great multitude, there being ſome good ſome evil, it is not poſſible that the pardon granted to a Nation, be underſtood to be alike effectual to all the particulars. Neither ought we to believe that in a Nation, the impenitent have the ſame benefit of a pardon as the penitent, that become new men.
Secondly, They are miſtaken, if they believe that God pardoned the ſin of that Nation, with the pardon whereby ſalvation is obtained. For of that very people the Apoſtle to the Hebrews ſaith,Heb. 3.11. Heb. 4.5, 6, 7. that God ſware in his wrath that they ſhould not enter into his reſt; by which reſt, the ſame Apoſtle declareth a little after, that the heavenly reſt muſt be underſtood. The ſenſe of that text, Numb. 14.20. is clear. In the twelfth verſe God had ſpoken as if he would have extermined that people in an inſtant, and made Moſes to grow to a great Nation, but at the requeſt of Moſes he executes not that threatning. Yet the fault of that people was not blotted out, as for the eternal ſalvation, as the Apoſtle teacheth us.
XI. They think they have ſome reaſon to alleadge unto us the example of Adam, whom God pardoned, and yet puniſhed. I anſwer, that if Adam was ſaved, as we preſume, the pains which he ſuffered in his life were not ſatisfactory, nor laid on him to ſatisfie Gods juſtice, but were chaſtenings and profitable exerciſes for his ſalvation and amendment.
XII. They ſay alſo, that the godly whoſe fault God hath fully pardoned, die nevertheleſs: And that little children, to whom God hath forgiven original ſin, yet bear the pain of that original ſin, which is death, and that death is not a caſtigatory pain that may ſerve to amend a ſinner, or to inſtruct and warn him for the time to come: And by conſequent (ſay they) it is a ſatisfactory pain to content the Juſtice of God.
This argument is very injurious againſt the death of Gods children, putting it among the Judgements of God, and the ſatisfactory pains to ſatisfie his juſtice. Our Adverſaries call with good reaſon, the death of Martyrs a triumph and a crown, becauſe for them death, which by nature is evil, changeth nature, becometh honourable, and is put among Gods bleſſings, as having a conformity with the Croſs of Chriſt. Why ſhall we not ſay the ſame of the death of the godly, that yield their ſouls unto God with joy, and by that death are exempted from ſin, and put in poſſeſſion of life? And that becauſe Chriſt by his death hath taken away the curſe of ours, and made death which by nature is the gate of hell, to become the gate of heaven, bringing to us under the hideous face of death, the gift of everlaſting life. Is it material, whether we yield our ſoul unto God by the mouth, or by the wound? By a burning fire, or by a burning Fever? by a commotion of humours, or by a popular commotion, ſince both the wayes we go to God alike? and that many without Martyrdom die, having the zeal and the vertue of Martyrs? Was it to ſatisfie Gods juſtice by torments, that Lazarus dying, yielded his ſoul unto God, which was carried into Abrahams boſom? Was it to ſatisfie by puniſhment,Gen. 49.18. that Jacob departing in peace was ſaying, I have waited for thy ſalvation O Lord? Certainly they that put death among ſatisfactory pains, make the death of the Saints very bitter. It is a cold comfort to a godly perſon dying, to tell him, that he muſt take his death as a puniſhment from God: that he muſt bear it to content his juſtice; and that God having forgiven the fault, yet will be paid and ſatisfied for the pain.
The ſame I ſay of the death of little children, whoſe ſin is blotted out by the blood of Chriſt, being ſealed with the ſeal of Gods Covenant by Baptiſm. To theſe God grants a great priviledge to haſten their reſt, and to bring them betimes out of the combat, to exempt them from temptations, and give them the reward of workmen, before the heat of the day. If they feel pain in death, it is becauſe the paſſage is troubleſom, but a ſtrait and troubleſom paſſage is not a payment nor a ſatisfaction. Do our Adverſaries believe that the Virgin Mary dyed without pain? And yet they would not ſay that her death was a ſatisfaction or a puniſhment of her ſin.
Beſides, it is without reaſon that the evils that are general unto all mankind, are here alleadged, ſeeing here the queſtion is of thoſe evils only, which are proper unto Gods children, to whom the fault is altogether remitted. Sickneſſes and death happen to Gods children, not as they are Gods children, but as they are men; but God makes thoſe evils to change their nature; he makes evils to become remedies, ſickneſſes medicines, and death an entry into life.
XIII. Our Adverſaries finding no help in Scripture, try the help of Reaſon, to no better purpoſe: They ſay that we acknowledge as well as they, that the regeneration of the godly is done by degrees, not in an inſtant: Whence they inferr, that we ought not to find it ſtrange, if by the ſame reaſon the remiſſion of ſins is not done all at once, but by degrees and progreſſes, God forgiving firſt the ſault, and then the pain. This reaſoning will help to clear the Truth; For regeneration and the amendment of the godly is done by degrees, and by little and little. We advance in it by labour, by the exerciſe of good works, and by continuing inſtant in prayers: And that becauſe it is an habit which is contracted, and a quality which is formed in us. But the remiſſion of ſins is a decree of Gods Counſel, which changeth not, and advanceth not by encreaſe or addition. Thus the King giveth pardon to a felon in an inſtant, not by degrees. Beſides in the progreſs of regeneration and amendment of life, the laſt degrees are not repugnant unto the firſt. But here they will have God to forgive the whole fault, without forgiving the whole pain, which are things repugnant. For he that remits not the whole pain, ſhews thereby that he hath not forgiven the whole fault, elſe it would be a pain without fault, and a puniſhment for a ſin fully pardoned.
XIV. They alleadge, that after the King hath granted to a guilty man his life, yet he layeth heavy Fines upon him. I ſaid in another place, that in that caſe the pardon which the King granted was not a full pardon, but a diminution of pain: but that God doth not give half pardons. He doth wholly forgive his children for whom Chriſt is dead, for he is infinitely merciful, and Chriſt hath fully ſatisfied for them. The blood of Jeſus Chriſt the Son of God cleanſeth us from all ſin, 1 John 1.7.
XV. Others ſay, that(e)This Rule belongs to the Civil Law, and to the municipal Laws of France. after that the King hath given to a felon his grace, he muſt ſatisfie his Adverſary; whence they inferr, that after that the King hath pardoned the whole fault, he muſt yet ſatisfie, and bear the pain. This is a reaſon without reaſon. For the King cannot juſtly exempt a man from paying his debts, nor give leave to a Robber to with-hold his neighbours goods. But God may without injuſtice remit the whole pain, as well as the fault, as our Adverſaries acknowledge. Here it is eſpecially to be noted, that a felon after he hath obtained the Kings grace, yet is obliged to ſatisfie the offended party, becauſe the King and the adverſe party are two, and that the right of the offended party is not in the Kings power: But here God who is the King, is alſo the offended party; who when he hath remitted all his intereſt, there remains no more party to be ſatiſfied. So theſe Doctors, by that example of the King condemn themſelves. For ſhould not that felon be mad, who having obtained the Kings grace, would come and ask his Majeſty, Sir, You have forgiven me the fault only, do you mean to forgive me the pain alſo? Theſe men ſtudy to paint Gods Temple with Chimera's, and thoſe conceits which in all other things would be ridiculous, they find reaſonable in matter of Religion.
XVI. No more reaſon have they to ſay, that in all Gods actions mercy and juſtice muſt ſhine together. Now Gods mercy (ſay they) ſhines by pardoning us the whole fault, and his juſtice by making us bear the ſatisfactory pain. By thus reaſoning they condemn the Popes plenary indulgences, whereby the ſinner after the remiſſion of the fault, is exempted alſo from all the pain, whereby they think to ſatisfie Gods juſtice. Thereby alſo they condemn the abſolutions which are given without expecting any ſatisfaction. And their maxime is falſe, for towards Devils, God uſeth Soveraign juſtice without mercy. The Apoſtle James Jam. 2.13.tells us, That he ſhall have judgement without mercy, that hath ſhewed no mercy. So we muſt not find it ſtrange, if God uſeth mercy to ſome without execution of his juſtice, according to that ſentence,Rom. 8.1. that there is no condemnation for them that are in Chriſt Jeſus. Yet towards the ſins of the godly, God hath uſed his whole juſtice by puniſhing them in Chriſt wholly and fully; and receiving from his ſon a perfect ſatisfaction to his own juſtice: But together, he hath ſet forth his mercy, imputing unto them that ſatisfaction. As for the means of applying that ſatisfaction, we ſhall ſpeak of them afterwards. If any being moved with compaſſion towards the Devil and the damned ſouls, will affirm that God uſeth ſome mercy towards them, he ſpeaks without any authority of Gods Word, and tells us news of that Countrey, as having intelligences there, or as newly returned from thence.
We have ſhewed why the remiſſion of the fault excludes not caſtigatory pains, but excludeth ſatisfactory puniſhments. If remiſſion of ſins exempted us from chaſtening, it would ſerve to corrupt us, and ſo remiſſion of ſins would be a kind of puniſhment. In this life there is no worſe pain then impunity, for thereby a man becomes inſolent and abandoned to all evil. It would be an ill priviledge of a father to one of his children, to exempt him from taking Phyſick when he is ſick. The like cannot be ſaid of ſatisfactory pains, as they make the pain of Purgatory, which ſerveth not to amend the ſinner, for there they hold that ſouls ſin no more. Our Adverſaries will not deny, that to be exempted from that torment, would be a great benefit.