The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 8 · Chapter 7
CHAP. 7. Cauſes why we eſpecially reject the Satisfactions of the pretended Sacrament of Penitence.
THe Sacramental ſatisfactions, impoſed by Prieſts, require a chapter by themſelves.
I. Here we demand of the Prieſts Confeſſors, who hath given them that authority to impoſe corporal or pecuniary puniſhments upon ſinners, for thereby they take upon themſelves a dominion over the bodies and goods of perſons? Their anſwer is that Chriſt gave them that power when he ſaid to his Diſciples, Whatſoever you ſhall bind on earth, ſhall be bound in heaven, and whatſoever you ſhall looſe on earth, ſhall be looſed in heaven. As the Pope thereby pretends to have the power of diſſolving contracts, marriages and obligations of vowes and oaths, and to looſe ſubjects from the bonds of allegiance due to their Soveraign Prince, and children from their ſubjection to their parents, and to deliver ſouls out of Purgatory; So the Prieſts extend the power of binding ſo far as to impoſe corporal and pecuniary pains, which is indeed a bold interpretation, very advantageous and lucrative for them. Now the interpretations of Scripture muſt be taken from Scripture it ſelf, not from the Gloſſes of them that interpret Scripture for their profit, and aſſign to it a ſenſe which is lucrative unto the interpreters.
II. I ſay then that our Adverſaries acknowledge with us that the power of binding and looſing given to the Apoſtles, Matth. 18.18. is the ſame as that of remitting and retaining ſinnes, given them, John. 20.23. Thus we expound Scripture by Scripture, when by binding and looſing we underſtand retaining or remitting ſins, not impoſing corporal or pecuniary pains to ſatisfie Gods juſtice; For of that power Scripture ſpeaks not at all. Nothing of that is found in the Old Teſtament, for our Adverſaries ſay that then the power of forgiving ſins was not in the Church. Nothing of that is found in the New Teſtament, where we find that Chriſt ſending back the woman taken in adultery told her only, Go and ſin no more, without impoſing any ſatisfactory pain upon her. And Chriſt in the 5 of John ſpeaks thus to the ſick man whom he had healed, Behold thou haſt been made whole, ſin no more leſt a worſe thing come unto thee. Of corporal pain, pecuniary fine, reading of the ſeven Pſalms, ſelf-whipping, or pilgrimage, he ſpeaks never a word to him. And St. Paul, 2 Cor. 2.7, 10. adviſeth the Church of Corinth to forgive the inceſtuous man, and himſelf forgives him for his part, that is, he will have him releaſed from the Eccleſiaſtical Cenſures and pains. But he impoſeth no penance or ſatisfactory pains upon the man, which he ought to perform after the pardon and reconciliation to the Church.
III. It is true that in the fifth ch. of the firſt Epiſtle he delivereth that inceſtuous man unto Satan to afflict his body, but that was done before the pardon; not as the Roman Church doth, in which ſatisfactions are fulfilled after the abſolution. Beſides they are deceived if they think that the inceſtuous man bore that pain to ſatisfie Gods juſtice after the remiſſion of the fault, or that he paid any recompence unto God for his ſin. For that puniſhment ſerved to amend him, to heal him of that vice, and to give example unto others. The ſame Apoſtle teacheth us this doctrine, 1 Tim. 1.20. where he brings the example of Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom (ſaith he) I have delivered unto Satan that they may learn not to blaſpheme: It was a chaſtiſement not a ſatifaction. A chaſtiſement which ſerved to make them hate blaſphemy, not to pay unto God any recompence or ſatisfaction.
IV. The antient Church did the ſame. Then the Paſtors impoſed auſtere penances of many years upon ſinners. But theſe penances were fulfilled before the abſolution. And as theſe penitences were publick, ſo the reconciliation of the ſinner was done in publick. And theſe penitences were neither pilgrimages, nor whipping, nor making another to faſt for the ſinner, nor any pecuniary fine. All the pain conſiſted in being kept from the communion, in faſting, and in publick ſhame. All that, not to ſatisfie Gods juſtice, or to pay him any recompence or expiation: but to humble the ſinner, and mend him, and make his penitence an example to others. Alſo to ſhew to them that were none of the Church, that vices were not approved or tolerated in the Church of God. And the pardon and abſolution of the ſinner was only as for Eccleſiaſtical pains, for the Paſtors took not upon them to abſolve in Gods judiciall ſeat.
V. When the Prieſt impoſeth ſatisfactions upon ſinners, as faſting whipping and pilgrimages, we would fain know how he is ſure that God will accept of that payment, and hold himſelf ſatisfied with that kind of ſatisfaction. Do they know the counſel of God about that? Do they know how much ſatisfaction he requireth for every ſin? Who hath given them the power to diſpoſe of Gods right? Who told them that God would ſubmit himſelf unto their laws, and do even as they preſcribe? Is it not a raſh preſumption to impoſe ſuch pains as they liſt, and perſwade themſelves that God will be content with that ſatisfaction? For as for the exerciſe of abſtinence and other exerciſes, which are uſed only to mortifie the fleſh, and humble the ſinner, there is no need of equality between thoſe exerciſes of humiliation, and the greatneſs of the ſin, becauſe they are not intended as payments to Gods Juſtice. But whoſo either of his own motion, or by the Prieſts injunction undertakes to ſatisfie Gods juſtice by penal works, muſt exactly know what number and meaſure of them is requiſite to ſatisfie Gods juſtice, and how far, and with what, and how great payment he will be paid.
VI. If then for theft, murther, or ſacriledge a Confeſſor impoſeth on a penitent for a penance to receive two hundred laſhes of a whip, ſinging pſalms melodiouſly; or to ſay a thouſand Ave's interlaced with Pater's, turning his beads; or to ſay ſeventy ſeven times the ſeven Pſalms in a tongue unknown to the Penitent; or to contribute ſo much towards the building of a Monaſtery; or to go in pilgrimage to St. James in Gallicia: all which are humane inventions and rather ſins then ſatisfactions for ſin, muſt the ſinner repoſe his conſcience upon theſe? muſt he without any declaration of Gods word, hold himſelf fully diſcharged before God? But what if of the thouſand Ave's ten be wanting? What if while he is reading the ſeven Pſalms he runs over them ſomewhat too faſt, or skips over a page becauſe he is preſt with buſineſſes? What if of the two hundred laſhes he hath miſt ſome, or if the laſt hit not ſo hard as the firſt, ſhall he loſe his labour, or ſhall God notwithſtanding theſe defects receive that ſatisfaction?(a)Dominicus à Soto In 4 Diſt. 20. qu. 2. Sect. 3. Dominicus à Soto, and after him(b)Greg. de Valent. lib. de Satisf. cap. 5. § Duo tamen. Etiamſi quis injunctam à Confeſſario poenitentiam adimpleat, quandoque tamen contingere, ut pro iiſdem peccatis maneat obnoxius alicui poenae, ſolvendae poſtea in Purgatorio, ſi videlicet ſpectata imbecillitate poenitentis & aliis circumſtantiis oportuit illi leniorem poenitentiam imponere, quam ut per eam tota poena devinctus alioqui pro peccatis illis conſtituta redimi poſſit. Gregorius de Valentia acknowledge the weakneſs and uncertainty of thoſe ſatisfactions, when they ſay that it happens ſometimes that the penitent is obliged to ſatisfie in Purgatory for the ſame ſins for which the Confeſſor hath impoſed ſatisfactions upon him, although he hath fulfilled them.
VII. Herein appeareth beſides the uncertainty of thoſe payments, the raſhneſs of thoſe that impoſe them. For not only a Prieſt after he hath injoyned theſe ſatisfactions, may diminiſh or exchange them, but alſo a ſecond Confeſſor may change that which the firſt hath done, and clip or alter the penances which the firſt hath injoyned, as(c)Eman. Sa. Aphoriſ. in verbo Satisfactio. Secundus Confeſſor ex rationabili cauſa poteſt à priori impoſitam poenitentiam in aliam commutare, etiamſi priora peccata non audiat, & etiamſi prior fuiſſet Epiſcopus aut Papa. Gregor. de Valentia lib. de Satisf. c. 5. §. Alterum quod. the Jeſuits Gregory de Valentia and Emanuel Sa affirm. A ſecond Confeſſor may for a reaſonable cauſe change the penance impoſed by the firſt confeſſor into another, although he heard not the precedent ſins, yea though the firſt Confeſſor were a Biſhop, yea though it were the Pope. Between theſe two divers judgements, whereof the one altereth the other, the penitent muſt gueſs which of the two is the moſt pleaſant unto God. For if the ſecond think himſelf grounded in a reaſonable cauſe, the firſt thought the ſame.
VIII. That which increaſeth the uncertainty is, that(d)Tolet. de inſtruct. Sacerd. l. 3. cap. 11. Quamvis autem, quantum fieri poteſt, ſatisfactio juſta & aequalis imponi debet. Cardinal Tolet ſaith that the Confeſſor muſt, as much as it lyeth in him, impoſe an equal penance, that is, ſuch as may equal the grievouſneſs of the ſin. A thing not only impoſſible to fulfil, for the cauſes repreſented in the precedent chapter, but alſo impoſſible to know. For how could the Prieſt or the ſinner know what and how great the pain muſt be to equal the grievouſneſs of the ſin?
IX. Such conſiderations made Cardinal(e)Eman. Sa, Aphoriſ. in verbo Satisfactio. Cajetanus qu. 2. de Satisfactione dicit, neque ſuſcipere neque ſuſceptam perſolvere teneri penitentem ex precepto. Ibid. Scot. 4. d. 18. Gabr. diſt. 16. q. 2. Navar. c. 26. num. 20. Johan. Medina 41. de poenit. Improbabiliter dicunt penitentem poſſe recuſare poenitentiam, ſi velit in Purgatorii igne ſatisfacere. Cajetan to ſay, that the penitent is not obliged by Gods commandment to receive the penance, or to accompliſh it after he hath received it. And it is like that Scotus, Gabriel Biel, Navarrus, and John de Medina alleadged by the Jeſuit Emanuel Sa, ſlighted penitential ſatisfaction, when they ſaid that the penitent may ſay to the Prieſt, I will have none of thy penance, for I will ſatisfie in Purgatory. Beſides, I find no reaſon why a ſinner, without danger, and without obliging himſelf to go into Purgatory, may not diſpenſe himſelf from fulfilling the penance impoſed upon him by the Prieſt. For he may go to a priviledged Altar, where he may gain a hundred thouſand years of pardon, and eaſily obtain plenary indulgences, whereby he ſhall be exempted from all ſatisfaction. Bellarmin goeth far beyond that, For he told us before that a man to whom God would fully remit the temporal pain, ſuch as is the fire of Purgatory, can ſend back unto God his preſent, and not accept of that liberality; chuſing rather to ſatisfie God with his own Torment.