The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 8 · Chapter 8
CHAP. 8. Reaſons of the Adverſaries for humane Satisfactions. Of the application of the merit of Chriſt. And of humane merits.
AGainſt the light of ſuch an evident truth our Adverſaries cover themſelves with darkneſs. Their cuſtom is to alleadge texts out of the queſtion, and prove things which we deny not. They maintain againſt us that we muſt do works of repentance. That we muſt ſuffer with Chriſt, and be conformable to him. That we muſt mortifie our fleſh. That faſting and prayer are acceptable unto God. Things which we willingly grant, and he muſt be altogether prophane that doubts of theſe things. But theſe are not the points in queſtion between us. The queſtion about which we differ is, whether our ſufferings be ſatisfactory to Gods juſtice, and whether beſides Chriſts ſatisfaction we need another ſatisfaction? They finding themſelves preſt with our reaſons, inſtead of anſwering, propound their opinion, as if their bare ſaying was a proof. And when they find themſelves gravelled and ſhort of reaſon, they fall to invectives, taxing us to be enemies of ſatisfactions, to reject prayers, faſting, and alms, and to ſhake off all yoke of diſcipline.
I. The moſt ordinary defenſe, and principal refuge of our Adverſaries, is, to ſay that Chriſts ſatisfaction is ſufficient, but that it hath need to be applyed unto us. As if one ſaid that although a medicine be ſufficient, yet one muſt drink it. And although a plaiſter be ſufficient to heal a wound, yet it muſt be applyed: Which is true, but nothing to the purpoſe, as we ſhall ſee.
The queſtion then is, to know how this application is done, and by what means Chriſts merit muſt be applyed or appropriated unto us?
1. The holy Writt which ſets forth Chriſts merit, teacheth us alſo the means of applying the ſame unto us, and we cannot learn it from any other. The firſt means is the Spirit of God, which ſealeth and printeth the promiſes of God through Chriſt in our hearts. That ſeal is nothing elſe but a ſtrong impreſſion and firm application of the promiſe of God, whereby the faithful Chriſtian applyeth and appropriates unto himſelf the grace of God in Jeſus Chriſt. Alſo holy Scripture ſaith that Chriſt dwelleth in our hearts by faith▪ Epheſ. 3.17. for faith apprehendeth Chriſt, and makes the faithful Chriſtian to repoſe his conſcience upon Chriſts death. The ſame I ſay of the preaching of the Goſpel, in which Chriſt is announced unto us, that we may have fellowſhip with him, 1 John 1.3. Baptiſm alſo is a means to apply Chriſt unto us, Gal. 3.27. As many of you as have been baptized into Chriſt, have put on Chriſt, where that term of putting on, implyeth an application. And ſo of the Lords Supper St. Paul ſaith, 1 Cor. 10.15. The bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Chriſt? Theſe are the ways to apply or appropriate the ſatisfaction of Chriſt unto us, and to make us feel the vertue of the ſame. No other wayes do we find in the word of God.
2. But our Adverſaries have deviſed another way, of which the word of God ſaith nothing, and that way is our own ſatisfactions, of which the chief and the hardeſt is the fire of Purgatory. Scripture indeed exhorts us to ſuffer with Chriſt and for Chriſt, but ſaith not that theſe ſufferings are payments and ſatisfactions to Gods juſtice, or that Chriſts merit is applyed unto us by a burning fire. Beſides, the exhortations to ſuffer for Chriſt, and to ſubdue our luſts by abſtinence, are of no uſe but in this life, not after. God exhorts us to amend, not to be burnt. If God exhorted us to be burnt; ſuch an exhortation would rather be a condemnation.
3. Note alſo that here the queſtion is of the payment which Chriſt hath laid down for us. That payment cannot be applyed by making us pay. If any bring to a priſoner his ranſome, enough to make full ſatisfaction, there needs no other application, but to receive it, and take it. Chriſt is he that hath fully ſatisfied for us by his death; And that ranſom is preſented unto us by the Goſpel, and we take hold of it by faith; not by whipping our ſelves, or by giving money to the Church, or by a torment of ſome thouſands of years in a fire.
4. It is evident, that as a plaiſter is not applyed by another plaiſter, nor a medicine by a medicine, likewiſe a payment is not applyed by another payment, nor Chriſts ſatisfaction by another ſatisfaction. Is it not in deriſion that they will have the torments which Chriſt hath ſuffered to be applyed to us by our torments in a fire, ſeeing that he ſuffered thoſe torments for that very end, that we might not be tormented? Muſt the pain which he ſuffered to be applyed to us by puniſhing us, ſeeing that for that very end he bore a ſatisfactory pain for us; to exempt us from ſatisfying for our ſelves?
5. We muſt take heed above all things, that the means of applying the grace of God unto us, be not contrary to that grace. For that would be the overthrowing of the nature of things, to ſeek to apply the Suns light unto us by putting out our eyes, or to apply a medicine unto us by poyſon. Yet it is the doctrine of theſe Doctors, who will have our pardon in Chriſt to be applyed to us by puniſhing us, and his grace by burning us, and Gods mercy by the execution of his juſtice. As if God ſpake thus to his faithful ones, whom to redeem he hath delivered his own ſon to the death of the Croſs. Come, my dear children, I will apply my grace unto you by burning you ſo many ages, and applying the pardon unto you by puniſhing you in a burning fire; not to mend you, but to content my ſelf, and to fetch a recompence and ſatisfaction from you, although I have received at Chriſts hands, a moſt entire and full ſatisfaction for you. This doctrine is prodigious; This application is an implication of contradictions, whereby God is manifeſtly mocked.
6. The example which our Adverſaries bring to give ſome colour to that doctrine, is clearly againſt them, and helpeth to ſet forth the truth. They bring the example of Kings, who when they will ſhew grace to a felon, will change the pain of death into fines, and pecuniary pains. For can one deny that theſe pecuniary pains are a diminution of the Royal pardon? and that the Kings grace would have been far greater, if he had exempted the felon from fines, and paid with his own money all that might be due by the felon, as Chriſt did, who paid all our debt, having ſatisfied both for the fault and the pain? If upon that they bring reaſons why it is uſeful and honourable to a man to be burnt, and to ſatisfie in his own perſon by his torment, they do no more thereby, but to ſhew why it was expedient that Chriſts ſatisfaction ſhould be applyed unto us by means contrary to the perfection of that ſatisfaction.
7. One thing ſeems to me very conſiderable. That of the other means of applying to us Chriſts ſatisfaction, the Pope gives no diſpenſation by his Indulgences. With ſatisfactory pains only he diſpenſeth. Scripture teacheth us the wayes whereby Chriſt is applyed unto us: Which are the holy Ghoſt, the Preaching of the Word, Faith, &c. From theſe means the Pope exempteth not, and his Indulgences go not ſo far: For this were ſaying to a man, I exempt thee from having the holy Ghoſt: I diſpenſe thee from believing in Chriſt. The Pope and his Clergy would be aſhamed to ſpeak ſo. But as for the ſatisfactions, and the torment of Purgatory, the Pope exempteth whom he will by his Indulgences. Whence cometh that difference? Is it not becauſe he acknowledgeth theſe means contained in Gods Word to be neceſſary, but the Penitential ſatisfactions to be unneceſſary, and that one may be without them? Why do theſe ſubtile Doctors go about to eſtabliſh their ſatisfactions by the Word of God, to diſpenſe with them afterwards, and pull down what they have built up? The cauſe is not hard to know. It is becauſe to diſpenſe men from having the holy Ghoſt, and believing in Chriſt, would yield little profit to the Pope and the Clergy, and but few men would buy ſuch Indulgences. But as for exempting the ſouls from ſatisfying in Purgatory, the people are crowding to get a ſhare of that grace. To obtain it, many run a great way after pardons, many ſtrip their children to enrich Fryars.
8. Note, that towards the ſouls of Purgatory, the Pope hath left the power of binding, and retained only the power of looſing and delivering from torment, becauſe no body would give money to be bound. Thus he looſeth thoſe whom he cannot bind, and for the dead he hath cut off one half of his Keyes.
II. That application being thus examined, let us ſee by what reaſons the Doctors of the Roman Church defend humane ſatisfactions. Bellarmine alleadgeth the firſt Chapter of Iſaiah, where God promiſeth the remiſſion of ſins to them, that make themſelves clean, that ceaſe to do evil, and give themſelves to works of mercy. Whereby they juſtifie what I ſaid before, that they labour to prove that which we deny not. We know that God forgiveth none but thoſe that repent, and ceaſing to do evil, by a ſerious converſion apply themſelves to the ſtudy of good works. But the queſtion is, Whether that converſion be ſatisfactory before God? That is, Whether God will receive it for a recompence and payment to his juſtice, for the puniſhment of ſins after the fault is remitted. The Text alleadged toucheth that queſtion, neither far nor near. And although they had proved, that by ſuch an abſtinence from evil, the merit of Chriſt is applyed unto us, yet they ſhould not prove thereby that it is ſatisfactory.
III. Bellarmine alleadgeth alſo Dan. 4.27. where Daniel ſpeaks thus unto King Nebucadnezzar, Break off thy ſins by righteouſneſs, and thine iniquities by ſhewing mercy unto the poor, if it may be a lengthening of thy proſperity. And Prov. 16.6. By mercy and truth iniquity is purged, and by the fear of the Lord men depart from evil; or according to the vulgar verſion, By mercy and truth ſin is redeemed. That Jeſuite brings theſe texts to prove what he had ſaid, that a man is the Redeemer and Saviour of his own ſelf.
But I wonder how Bellarmine did not perceive, that this example of Nebuchadnezzar a Pagan King, is contrary to the doctrine of the Roman Church, which maintains only the ſatisfactions of the faithful for the temporal pain, and after the remiſſion of the fault. The Roman Church holds that one muſt be in the ſtate of grace to ſatisfie, and believes not that the Pagans and they that are out of the Church can ſatisfie at all, becauſe their fault is not remitted. In vain ſhould they ſatisfie for the temporal pain, ſeeing that they are obliged to the eternal. For it is as if one that is doomed to go to Hell, ſhould trouble himſelf to ſatisfie for the pain of Purgatory. That King then being out of the Church, in vain Daniel had exhorted him to redeem the temporal pain, inſtead of exhorting him to avoid the eternal puniſhment, by coming into the fold of the Church. Beſides the Roman Church believeth that we cannot ſatisfie for ſins, but only for the pain of ſins. Now Daniel ſaith, Redeem thy ſins; not, Redeem the pain of thy ſins.
Had this Cardinal known in what ſenſe the word redeeming is commonly taken in Scripture, he might have diſcerned that this Text is not to his purpoſe. That word redeeming in Scripture, doth not ſignifie alwayes paying, nor ſatisfying, nor giving a ranſom. As when God ſaith ſo often, That God hath redeemed his people out of Egypt, he underſtands not that he hath paid a ranſom to deliver them, but only he underſtands that he hath delivered them out of Egypt. And when he ſaith, Iſa. 52.3. Ye have ſold your ſelves for nought, and you ſhall be redeemed without money. There the word redeeming ſignifieth not paying any price, ſeeing that the Text ſaith expreſly, that nothing ſhall be paid for their redemption. Thus Epheſ. 5.16. Redeem the time, becauſe the dayes are evil; where the word redeeming ſignifyeth, better employing. And ſo in many places of Scripture, this word redeming ſignifieth only delivering from evil, either a mans ſelf or another, and putting things in better order. Daniel then adviſeth that King to redeem his ſins, that is, to get out of them, and deliver himſelf from them. To that the word peruk, the word of the Text, is proper, for it ſignifieth alſo breaking and correcting; and this ſerveth to underſtand the fore-alleadged text of Prov. 16.
The prudent Reader will conſider, that ſince the way to ſatisfie Gods juſtice is far more evidently delivered in the New Teſtament then in the Old, our Adverſaries ought to have taken their expreſſions in that matter out of the New, not out of the words ſpoken under the Old Teſtament to a Pagan King. And whereas that King was out of the Church, our Adverſaries muſt preſuppoſe, that he had nevertheleſs true faith and repentance, and that the culpa or fault of his ſins, and together eternal pains were remitted to him, if they will have that text to be of any force: For they hold that without that, a man is incapable of making any ſatisfaction. I might ſay alſo, that Alms are neither pains nor penal ſatisfactions, but pleaſant works. Unto a wealthy King eſpecially, Alms cannot be a puniſhment, nor a penal work ſerving for redemption.
IV. The ſame Doctor proveth the neceſſity of ſatisfactions, by theſe words of John the Baptiſt, Luke 3.8. Bring forth fruits worthy of repentance; foreign.who alſo ſaid, Matth. 3.2. Repent ye, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand. But theſe words of John the Baptiſt are exhortations to converſion, and to the exerciſe of good works, not to ſatisfie Gods juſtice with penal works. I wonder how the Papiſts can hope to defend Sacramental ſatisfactions with that Text, ſeeing that they hold that the Sacrament of Penitence was not yet inſtituted at that time. The Greek word foreign, ſignifieth recalling of ones mind, or a turning of ones ſpirit, not a ſatisfaction. John the Baptiſt ſaid not, Whip your ſelves: Make Pilgrimages: Lye upon the hard ground: Eat nothing but fiſh for ſome dayes, that you may ſatisfie Gods juſtice by the payment of the pain, after the fault remitted. But he exhorts us to repentance and amendment of life. Bellarmine replyeth, that he that doth penitence, muſt make reſtitution of that he hath taken from others, and brings ſome Doctors that ſay, that for abſtaining more eaſily from unlawful things, it is expedient to abſtain ſometimes from the lawful. All that is true, but is nothing to the purpoſe. For to render to every one that which belongs to him, and to uſe abſtinence, are things conducing to amendment of life, but are not ſatisfactions unto God, nor ſatisfactory pains to pay any recompence to him, or to content his juſtice, which hath received in Chriſts death a full ſatisfaction. It is ill apprehending the nature of true repentance, to think that reſtoring ſtoln goods is a ſatisfactory pain, and to put works of righteouſnes among ſatisfactory pains. Rather he that ſeriouſly repents will take a great delight in that reſtitution. He will put ill gotten goods out of his houſe, as if he turned the plague out of it, or p…uckt out a ſmarting thorn from his conſcience. He will be ſo far from putting that reſtitution among pains, that he would take it as an heavy puniſhment, if he were kept from it. This is then the ſame thing that we ſaid, and which our Adverſaries return to alwayes, that they make medicines to be payments, amendment of life a puniſhment, and the ſtudy of vertues a kind of penalty and ſatisfaction.
V. The ſame Cardinal alleadgeth, that the ſacrifices of beaſts under the Law, were propitiatory, or ſatisfactory for the guilt of the temporal pain, and that this was the cauſe why they offered ſacrifices of greater or leſſer price, according to the greatneſs of the ſin. I anſwer, that it is for one that underſtands little in Religion, to think that the death of a beaſt can be a propitiation for ſins, or for the pain due to ſins, whether temporal or eternal. The Apoſtle, Heb. 10.4. ſaith expreſly, that it is not poſſible that the blood of Bulls and of Goats ſhould take away ſins. (a)Non bove mactato coeleſtia numina gaudent.The very Pagans acknowledged ſo much. But theſe ſacrifices were called propitiatory, in a figurate ſpeech uſual in Scripture, where ſigns and Sacraments commonly take the name of things ſignified. Thus the Ark is called the Lord, Pſalm 24.7, 8. And circumciſion is called Gods Covenant, Gen. 17.10. And the ſtone that yielded water in the Wilderneſs is called Chriſt, 1 Cor. 10.4. And Chriſt himſelf calls bread his body, Luke 22.19. And the cup his Covenant, in the ſame place. For the ſame reaſon the ſacrifices of beaſts are called propitiations for ſins, becauſe they were figures of the ſacrifice which the Redeemer was to offer on the Croſs. In that ſenſe ſacrifices were not only propitiatory for the temporal pain, as Bellarmine ſaith, but alſo for the fault and for the eternal pain. And it is a beaſtly imagination of his, that ſacrifices of great beaſts were more propitiatory then ſacrifices of ſmall beaſts, and that to expiate great ſins, an Ox had more vertue then a Lamb. In ſuch offerings the Law regardeth more the ability of the perſon, then the greatneſs of the ſin.
VI. He concludeth all the proofs by this argument,(b)Opera juſtorum eam vim habent, ut vere ac proprie mereantur. That ſince good works truly and properly deſerve eternal life, it cannot be denyed that they are effectual to ſatisfie for the guilt of temporal pain. For (ſaith he) eternal life is greater then the remiſſion of the temporal pain.
Diſputing ſo, is proving one etrour by another, building a doubt upon an uncertainty, or rather defending an errour with an impiety. For we reject merits as well as ſatisfactions, and they are much of the ſame kind; for ſatisfactions are a kind of merits, if by them we merit that the pain be remitted to us. And both merits and ſatisfactions derogate from the perfection of Chriſts merit, which ſerveth alike to purchaſe ſalvation for us, and to ſatisfie for the pain which we have deſerved: And no need of contributing our merits, and paying another price of that ſaisfaction unto God. Since then we are ſaved by grace, it is no more by works, ſaith the Apoſtle, Rom. 11.6. For by grace are we ſaved through faith, and that not of your ſelves, it is the gift of God: Not of works, leſt any man ſhould boaſt. The like we have, Rom. 6.23. The gift of God is eternal life. If it be the gift of God, it is not a Purchaſe made by our merits. Gods election being free, as Saint Paul teacheth, the ſalvation alſo is free to which God hath predeſtinated us by his election, as Saint Paul teacheth us.(c)Rom. 9.15, 16. Rom. 11.5. How ſhould we merit before God, ſeeing that though we ſhould do all that we are commanded, yet we ſhould be but unprofitable ſervants? Luke 17.20. Neither can we do any good, but by his Grace, being uncapable of our ſelves ſo much as to think any thing that is good, 2 Cor. 3.5. Our good works bring no profit to God. Our goodneſs extendeth not unto him, Pſalm 16.2. In our beſt works there is alwayes defect, infirmity, and matter to ask pardon. And though it were otherwiſe, yet between our beſt works and the Kingdom of heaven, there is neither equality nor proportion. Such a great good is not bought ſo cheap. The ſufferings of this preſent time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which ſhall be revealed in us, Rom. 8.18. And though our works ſhould be merits of condignity, as our Adverſaries ſpeak, and an equipollent payment for eternal life, yet in vain ſhould we go about to pay the price of a purchaſe ready made, the right price thereof being ſufficiently paid by Jeſus Chriſt our Lord.
In the Word of God we are called children and heirs, not buyers or purchaſers by our merits. Whoſo pretends to get Paradiſe by his merits, falls into three inconveniencies: For he ſeeks to defraud God of his glory, and to get by the merit of his vertue, that which God giveth of his free liberality. He renounceth the title of ſon and heir of God, to become a buyer and purchaſer: And caſteth his conſcience into doubts and inſoluble perplexities. For when ſhall he know that he hath merited enough? Doth he know what value is put upon each of his works in Gods counſel? Beſides he will often preſent unto God under the notion of merits, things whereby he is offended. And God will ſooner bear with ſins followed with repentance, then with righteouſneſſes preſented with pride and opinion of merit. Wherefore alſo theſe Preachers of merits make profeſſion to doubt of their ſalvation; and die uncertain whether they be children of God or of the Devil. A juſt payment for their pride, and for truſting in their merits.
Was there no way to make good works neceſſary, but to raiſe their price ſo high, as to make them cauſes of ſalvation, and the price of the purchaſe of the Kingdom of heaven? Are they not neceſſary enough, when they are ſet forth as wayes to ſalvation, means to ſtrengthen our faith, to glorifie God, and to edifie our neighbours, and when we are taught that without them it is impoſſible to be ſaved.
It is true that in the Parable of the labourers, Matth. 20.8. The Lord of the Vineyard ſaid to his Steward, Call the labourers and give them their hire. And Saint Paul ſaith, 2 Tim. 4.8. Henceforth there is laid up for me a Crown of righteouſneſs, which the Lord the righteous Judge ſhall give me at that day. Suppoſe that in the Parable of the labourers, by the hire eternal life muſt be underſtood: Yet that reward is a free, not a deſerved reward, given in conſideration of the perſon, not gotten by the merit of the work. As Ambroſe ſaith,(d)Ambroſ. Epiſt. 1. l. 1. Alia eſt merces liberalitatis & gratiae, alia virtutis ſtipendium, laboris remuneratio. The reward which is given by grace and liberality is one thing, and that reward which is given as a ſtipend of vertue, and a reward of labour is another thing. And Auſtin, (e)Auguſt. de Civit. Dei, lib. 21. cap. 27. Imputans mercedem ſecundum gratiam, non ſecundum debitum.God imputeth the reward as a grace, not as a debt. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt, ſaith the Apoſtle, Rom. 4.4. It is ſo, that a loving father rewards his childs labour, giving him a fine garment for learning a ſentence by heart, or for writing a line with a trembling hand. He would not do the like to another child that is none of his, for he regards the perſon, not the merit of the work. Wherefore in the ſame parable of the labourers, they that had wrought but an hour receive as great a reward, as they that had born the burden of the day. They receive then an undeſerved reward. And Hoſ. 10.12. God ſaith, Sow to your ſelves in righteouſneſs, reap in mercy; ſhewing that to a juſt labour, God giveth a free, not a deſerved reward.
Now that reward is juſt, and called by the Apoſtle, the crown of righteouſneſs, becauſe it is juſt with God to give what he hath promiſed, and to give life unto the Believer for whom Chriſt dyed.
For theſe reaſons, when it is queſtioned of the purchaſe of ſalvation, we reject that arrogant term of merits, which a Prince would not ſuffer in a ſubject, though his ſervices be never ſo great. Why ſhould we fear to give too much praiſe unto God, or to attribute too much unto his grace, or to humble our ſelves too much before him? Why ſhould we make man to divide praiſe with God, attributing part of Gods praiſe unto mans merit? True Religion is that which giveth the whole praiſe unto God, and to man the whole benefit; humbling man that God may be glorified; emptying man of all truſt in his own vertue, that he may rely altogether upon Gods promiſe. Planting in mans heart an humble truſt, not a trembling pride. For as pride is growing, diffidence groweth together. And whoſoever will ſeek in his own vertue a reſting place for his conſcience before God, ſhall find but confuſion in the end of his race.
Theſe then are Cardinal Bellarmines proofs in the eighth ch. of the firſt book of Penitence. In other places he brings other proofs which deſerve not to be repreſented, and are common to all our Adverſaries.
VII. They ſay that God having threatned the Ninivites, withheld his judgements becauſe they ſatisfied by penitence. They ſhould have ſaid what the Ninivites ſatisfied with. For they hold that to ſatisfie, a man muſt be in the ſtate of grace, and that ſatisfactions ſerve only to ſatisfie for the pain after the remiſſion of the fault. Now we find not that before their penitence God had declared to them that their fault was remitted, or that they were in the ſtate of grace. That which ſtaid Gods judgement was the amendment of their life, not the merit of any ſatisfactory pain; Faſting and mourning with ſackcloth and aſhes, both in them, and in David and others that have afflicted their ſoul with a penitent ſorrow, were not ſatisfactions but effects of their grief, and helps to repentance.
VIII. The Council of Trent to prove ſatisfactions, ſaith that(f)Conc. Trid. Seſſ. 14. c. 8. Dum fatisfaciendo patimur pro peccatis, Chriſto Jeſu qui pro peccatis noſtris ſatisfecit, ex quo omnis noſtra ſufficientia eſt, conformes efficimur. we muſt be conformable unto Chriſt. Whence they infer that as Chriſt ſatisfied for us, ſo we muſt ſatisfie for our ſelves. To make the conformity with Chriſt compleat, theſe Fathers ſhould have ſaid that as Chriſt ſatisfied for us, we muſt alſo ſatisfie for Chriſt. But the truth is, that it is impious to affect to be conformable unto Chriſt in all things. He is God, he is the Wiſdom of the Father, he is the Redeemer of the world; In theſe things we cannot be conformable unto him. Only we muſt endeavour to make our ſelves conformable unto his ſufferings, by ſuffering for his cauſe, and imitating his righteouſneſs and holineſs to our power. But our ſufferings may be conformities with Chriſt, though they be not ſatisfactory and employed to make our ſelves to be our Redeemers, and to ſatisfie Gods juſtice. We are made conformable unto Chriſt by ſufferings, when we ſuffer for righteouſneſs, and for the cauſe of Chriſt, and God makes us paſs through ſhame to bring us to glory. As St. Paul ſaid Rom. 8.17. We ſuffer with him that me may be alſo glorified together. We deny not but that the death and interceſſion of Chriſt makes our ſufferings to be of ſome value, and that for his ſake the death of the godly is of great price before God. But hence it followeth not that God makes them worth ſo much as to be payments and recompences and ſatisfactions unto Gods juſtice. That would be on the one ſide adding unto Chriſts ſatisfaction another ſatisfaction, and on the other ſide infinitely aggravating the afflictions of Gods children, and making them intolerable, if they muſt believe that their ſufferings are puniſhments whereby they ſatisfie Gods juſtice, and that God uſeth them as a Judge uſeth felons, not as a father his children.
IX. The ſame Council reaſoneth thus.(g)Concil. Trid. Seſſ. 14. c. 8. Sane & divine juſtitiae ratio exigere videtur, ut aliter ab eo in gratiam recipiantur, qui ante Baptiſmum per ignorantiam deliquerint, aliter vero qui ſemel à peccati & daemonis ſervitute liberati, & accepto Spiritus ſancti dono, ſcientes Templum Dei violare, & Spiritum ſanctum contriſtare preſumunt. The reaſon of divine juſtice ſeems to require that they that have ſinned out of ignorance before Baptiſme be otherwiſe received into grace, then they that once having been delivered from the ſervitude of ſin and the Devil, that is, who having been baptized, had no fear to violate the temple of God. Theſe Fathers hold it convenient unto Gods juſtice to uſe thoſe more gently that have ſinned out of ignorance before Baptiſm, then thoſe who purpoſely, and by a profane Spirit have ſinned ſince Baptiſme. And they ſay only that it ſeems to them, not daring to define any thing about it. By ſpeaking thus they ſay nothing againſt us, who acknowledge that the profanation of Baptiſm aggravates the ſin very much, and that ſins of ignorance are far leſs then thoſe that are knowingly, and wilfully committed. But what doth that to eſtabliſh that general rule, That we muſt ſatisfie for ſins committed after Baptiſm, not for thoſe that were committed before? For how many ſins are committed out of ignorance after Baptiſme? and how many ſins have been committed out of malice and profaneſs before Baptiſm?
In old time Emperors and great part of the Chriſtians would defer Baptiſme till they ſaw themſelves neer their end. So did the Emperor Conſtantine and his ſon Conſtantius. No doubt but theſe men committed many wilfull ſins in their life. How many Marrahes and Jews impoſtors cauſe themſelves to be baptized for gain, and to avoid the hand of juſtice? Is it reaſonable that the impudence, the blaſphemies, and the hypocriſie which they have uſed before Baptiſme be remitted to them by baptiſme, and that God exact no ſatisfaction from them, but that if after Baptiſme they become true converts and new men, for the ſins which they ſhall commit out of inadvertence and infirmity, they make ſatisfaction in a fire?
X. But in what text of Scripture have they found, that by Baptiſme the ſins committed before Baptiſme be otherwiſe remitted unto us, then the ſins committed after? Who gave theſe Gentlemen power thus to cut and clip the benefit of Chriſts merit by their own authority? We muſt not doubt but that by Baptiſme the benefit of Chriſts merit by their own authority? We muſt not doubt but that by Baptiſme the benefit of Chriſts merit is offered unto us, ſuch as is offered in the Goſpel,1 John. 1. for Baptiſme is a Sacrament and a ſeal of the doctrine of the Goſpel. Now the Goſpel tells us that the blood of Chriſt cleanſeth us from all ſin. And it is certain that by Baptiſme Chriſt is offered unto us, as he by whom all our ſins are forgiven us. As many of you as have been baptized into Chriſt have put on Chriſt, Gal. 3.27. Where the Apoſtle uſeth the word put on, to ſhew that Baptiſme applyeth Chriſt unto us for the time after our Baptiſme, for garments are made to ſerve in the time to come.
XI. The ſame Council in the ſame place ſaith(h)Conc. Trid. ibid. Et divinam clementiam decet, ne ita nobis absque ulla ſatisfactione peccata dimittantur, ut occaſione accepta peccata leviora putantes, &c. Procul dubio enim magnopere à peccat… revocant. that it becometh well the divine clemency not to forgive our ſins without ſatisfaction. And he adds a reaſon, that if God ſhould forgive us without ſatisfaction, thereby we might take an occaſion to fall into greater ſins, accounting ſins to be but light things. And that ſatisfactions ſerve to turn us away from ſin. Theſe Doctors will teach God, what it becomes him to do, not remembring that the Pope by his Indulgences diſpenſeth with theſe ſatisfactions, and by conſequent that ſuch indulgences are ill becoming divine clemency, and ill agreeing with it. Neither did they conſider that this reaſon will not ſerve to eſtabliſh the ſatisfactions of Purgatory, which are the Principal. For Purgatory doth not ſerve to turn from ſin, thoſe that are tormented in it. Had God exempted thoſe ſouls from that torment and received them into Paradiſe preſently after their death, there had been no reaſon to fear that impunity had made them fall into greater ſins. The Reader may obſerve alſo, that by that reaſon theſe Fathers make the ſatisfactory pains to become caſtigatory, and ſerving to turn men from ſin; They are then remedies, not ſatisfactions. Medicines are no payments. Chaſtenings are warnings for the future, not ſatisfactions for the time paſt, as Chryſoſtom ſaith(i)Chryſoſt. Hom. de Poenitentia & confeſſ. Propter hoc imponit nobis poenam, non de peccatis ſumens ſupplicium, ſed ad futura nos corrigens.. Theſe Fathers of Trent found no other way to defend ſatisfactory pains, but by making them to change nature and become caſtigatory. It is hard to comprehend how it ſuits with Gods clemency, to burn his children for many ages in a fire as hot as that of hell, and that for faults remitted, and for ſins pardoned. This is repugnant to Gods clemency, and more yet to his juſtice.
Among ſatisfactions Cardinal Bellarmine approveth beating and whipping of ones ſelf, and maintains that Paul whipt himſelf, becauſe he ſaid, 1 Cor. 9.27. I keep under my body, and bring it into ſubjection, and according to the vulgar verſion, I chaſtiſe my body. There is in the Greek foreign, which ſignifieth mortifying and bruiſing with blows. (k)Bellarm. l. 4. de Poenit. c. 6. §. de flagellatione.I anſwer that though it ſhould appear that Paul had whipt himſelf, it would not follow that he did it to ſatisfie Gods juſtice. He might have done it to beat down his luſt, and exerciſe himſelf to patience and humility. Which appears by the example of wreſtlers which he brings in the ſame place, who hardened their bodies with pains and abſtinences, not to ſatisfie any offended perſon, but to inure themſelves to labour. And the Greek word ſignifieth not whipping ones ſelf, but giving hard uſage to ones own body,Hieron. ad Euſtoch. de cuſtod. Virgin. nec à pectoris ceſſaſſe verberibus. after the manner of wreſtlers that uſed themſelves to hardneſs, as the ſame Apoſtle ſaith in the 25. verſe.
XII. In vain they alleadge Hierome, whoſe pictures repreſent him beating his naked breſt with ſtones, for which there is no teſtimony. Hierome ſaid only that he did beat his own breaſt, as men uſe to do when they are in deep ſorrow; Of ſatisfying Gods juſtice he ſpeaks never a word.
XIII. To no better purpoſe the auſtere life of John the Baptiſt is alleadged by Bellarmine (l)Bellar. l. 4. de poenit. c. 6. §. Inſigne.of whom he ſaith that he had little or no need of repentance and newneſs of life,(m)Id. de Indulg. l. 1. c. 5. Johannes plus Deo praeſtitit, quam ſibi ad peccata expianda opus eſſet. and that he gave more to God then he needed to expiate his ſins. So he will have that auſterity to have been ſatisfactory, if not for him, at leaſt for another. This doctrine belongs not to the Goſpel, it is a new Article of faith. John the Baptiſt, and Anna of which St. Luke ſpeaks in the ſecond ch. by their ſobriety and auſtere life, ſatisfied neither for themſelves nor others. That ſatisfaction is ſufficiently found in Chriſt. But they did it out of a contempt of the world which made them neglect the care of their body. A man whoſe ſpirit is altogether bent upon Gods ſervice little cares how he is fed and clad. It is enough for him to live, and he avoids all things that can either tickle his fleſh or divert him from holy imployment. But thereby he doth not preſume to ſatisfie Gods juſtice, or to pay him any recompence either for his ſins, or for the ſins of others.
XIV. They uſe another reaſon.(n)Id. de Indulg. l. 2. c. 3. §. Primo. Deus voluit, ut unusquiſque noſtrum propriis meritis coronam vitae ſibi acquirat, &c. Id. ibid. Deo glorioſius eſt, & nobis utilius, ut ſecundae cauſae non ſint otioſae, ſed cum prima cauſa ad res producendas conveniant. Bellarmine ſpeaks thus. God would have every one of us to get a crown of life unto himſelf by his own merits, And he gives a reaſon why Saints make ſatisfactions, even becauſe it is more honourable unto God, and more profitable for us that the ſecond cauſes be acting, and be not idle, but that they concurr with the firſt cauſe to bring forth effects. This Cardinal will have frying in Purgatory to be profitable for a ſoul, and that it is honourable for us to ſatisfie God, and contribute to our own redemption. By that Doctrine they are moſt honoured that ſtay longeſt in Purgatory. And the Pope doth wrong to thoſe ſouls to fetch them out of that place, and to deprive them of that honour. Yet in my opinion it would have been more honourable for them to go into Paradiſe preſently, then to be tormented two or three thouſand years in a fire(o)Greg. de Valentia lib. de Satisf. c. 1. §. Et quidem. In Purgatorio poenae non differunt à poena ſenſus inferni, ni ſolum quod ad durationem. equal in vehemency to that of hell, where Devils are tormented, and to be for many ages deprived of Gods ſight.
XV. For theſe and the like conſiderations the Jeſuite Gregorius de Valentia, being preſt in his conſcience acknowledgeth, that it is not much neceſſary to labour for theſe ſatisfactions.(p)Idem. c. 5. §. Quod autem. Cum nemo ſciat, quantus poenae temporalis reatus poſt contritionem & alia media, quibus ille minuitur, maneat, non eſt ex praecepto quidem neceſſe admodum anxie incumbere in magnum ſtudium ſatisfactionis. Seeing (ſaith he) that no man knoweth how much obligation remains to the temporal pain after contrition and other means, whereby the ſaid obligation is leſſened, there is no command that neceſſarily obligeth us to labour much about ſatisfactions. And in the ſame place he diſputeth againſt Scotus, Soto, Cajetan, (q)Ibid. §. Quod ſi. Si manifeſte videatur poenitentia eſſe injuſta, extra controverſiam eſt poſſe illam à poenitente repudiari.and others that hold that there is no commandment of God that obligeth us to ſatisfie in this life: although he diſſents little from them in the main matter.
XVI. If the penance impoſed by the Confeſſor ſeem unjuſt unto the penitent, the ſame Jeſuit (g) holds that the penitent may reject it, and exempt himſelf from it. So that this depends from the judgement of the penitent. Whereby, as it appeareth to me, he fills thoſe ſatisfactions with much uncertainty.