Images de page

Thomas MORTONUS, episcopus Dunelmensis : Non est igitur quod in hác causá, lector, hallucineris : neque enim te fugit nos primò antiquitatem novitati, secundò devotionem sanctam et divinam cæcæ et fanaticæ superstitioni, tertid anime consolationem spiritualem rigide stupiditati, quartò infantiæ prudentiam, quintò torpori consensum, sexto fictis et ementitis periculis commoda penè infinita, septimò sacrosanctam denique Spiritus Sancti sapientiam humanæ stultitiæ ac temeritati, anteponere. (Apol. Cathol. pars ii. lib. i. cap. 31, de vernac. Precibus, p. 108.).

“ There is, therefore, reader, no room for a mistake in this cause : for thou canst not but know that the Protestants prefer, 1. Antiquity, before novelty; 2. Holy and divine devotion, before blind and” (properly so called) “fanatic superstition; 3. The spiritual comfort of the soul, before rigid stupidity; 4. Prudence, before childishness; 5. Consent, before carelessness ; 6. Almost infinite advantages, before feigned and imaginary dangers; 7. The holy wisdom of the Spirit of God, before the folly and rashness of men.”






For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Hebrews x. 14.

The apostle gives the reason why Christ hath now no more offering to make, no more suffering to endure : For—That is, Because. By one offeringThat is, one in specie, [“ in kind,"] in opposition to the four kinds of legal oblations before mentioned ; and one in numero, [“ in number,"] in opposition to the repeating of them every year. As if he had said, “By Christ's once offering of himself.” He hath perfected— That is, all things are consummate, there remains nothing to be done, for the satisfying [of] Divine Justice and our reconciliation with God. Christ hath once satisfied ; and that for ever- That is, to the end of the world, and that which shall be of value to eternity. Plainly : « Christ by his death bath completely done the work once for all.” For them that are sanctifiedThat is, either those that are separated from the world in God's purpose and decree; plainly, the elect : o them that are sanctified,” that is, those that are renewed by grace, and consecrated to be vessels of honour unto God. In short : Christ hath not so purchased remission of sins, as to leave some satisfaction to be made by themselves or others. No; he hath perfectly satisfied for them, and perfectly


expiated all their sins. Which if so, then from this, as well as from other scriptures, fairly results this


PROPOSITION. That Papal indulgences are the worst of cheats, and abominably injurious to Christ and Christians.

My work here is to rake in the very sink of Papal filthiness. There is no head of divinity that is not mischievously hurt by this putrid plaster. It was not without God's singular providence that the detecting [of] the pageantry of that flesh-pleasing religion began here ; for herein their seeming tender mercies are real cruelties.

To evidence what I assert, I shall in my poor manner endeavour,
1. To show you what the indulgences are which we justly condemn;
II. The unsound hypotheses upon which they stand;
III. Demolish the main thesis ; and,
IV. Raise some profitable instructions above exception.

I. Let us begin with the name and definition of indulgences.Which (to pass-by more than thirty different opinions among themselves *) I shall give you in Bellarmine’s own words. After he hath, like a wary champion, attempted to reconcile or excuse his own dissenting party, in the close of his eighth chapter, he gives us this entire definition ; namely, “Indulgence is a judicial absolution from the guilt of punishment, owing to God, in the penitentiary court ; given over and above the sacrament, by the application of the satisfactions which are contained in the treasure of the church.”+ He had before told us, I that the church and the Schools call indulgences “the remissions of punishment,” which often remain to be endured after the remission of faults, and reconciliation obtained in the sacrament of penance; which pardons the popes use to grant, at certain times, and not without some just and reasonable cause, out of their fatherly gentleness and condescension toward their children, pitying their infirmity. This is his, and I will at present wave any interfering, description. Let us then examine the hypotheses of this profitable structure.

II. The unsound hypotheses, or suppositions," upon which they build this profitable structure, are such as these. I will name four of them :

1. That when the fault is pardoned, the punishment is not pardoned ; but there remains an obligation to punishment, (which is changed from eternal to temporal,) for which God must be satisfied, either by patiently bearing his strokes ; or by undergoing the penance enjoined by the priest ; or by laborious works freely undertaken, such as prayers, fasting, and alms; or by indulgences.

Now the quagmire-foundation of this distinction may thus appear,both by testimony, by reason, and (which is more than both these) by scripture. I need but touch upon each, it being done more largely by a better hand : and therefore I will produce but one testimony; and that is of the archbishop of Spalato: “In pardon, to distinguish between fault and punishment, so as to separate them, is a most vain thing, and not to be admitted, especially in respect of God.” § • Voetui Seleclæ Disputationes, pars ii. sect. 2, p. 287.

BELLARMINI Disput. tom. iii. de Indulgentiis, lib. i. cap. viji. p. 24, Lugd. 1599.

Idem, cap. i. p. 9. $ MARCUS ANTONIUS DE DOMiNis De Rep. Eccles. lib. v. cap. viii. n. 1.

[ocr errors]

For reasons : “It is against the nature of the thing, that there should be punishment where there is no fault : take away the cause, and the effect must cease. What Bellarmine saith, that the house will stand when the carpenter that built it is dead,'—doth not infringe what we affirm ; for we speak here of a meritorious and moral, not of an efficient and physical, cause. Whereas it is further said, “A king may pardon a malefactor, and yet enjoin him to make satisfaction ;' I answer, The king and the party offended are different persons; the king may not give away another's right: we must not confound the court of heaven and the court of earth. I might add, It is against the ordinary manner of speech, to say (that) a judge pardoneth a malefactor whom he punisheth. It is against the justice of God to punish one sin twice. It is against the mercy of God, to be reconciled to a sinner, and to torment him. But beyond all this, it is against the practice of Christ : what temporal punishment did Christ lay upon Mary Magdalene, (Luke vii. 48,) upon the paralytic, (Matt. ix. 2,) the great debtor ? (Matt. xviii. 24.)”

2. A second false hypothesis is this :-One righteous man may satisfy for another; and there are some that need no satisfaction for themselves, and therefore theirs may go for others' : for example: if Peter fast for Paul, then Paul need not fast; but God pardons him the punishment which he should have satisfied-for by fasting, &c.† The groundlessness of this hypothesis may be thus evidenced :

Jesus Christ hath perfectly satisfied for our sins ; and therefore men are not bound to satisfy in part for themselves. Christ is “the propitiation,” (1 John ii. 2) our “redemption." (1 Cor. i. 30.) in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them.” (2 Cor. v. 19.) I need name no other text than that (which] I am discoursing of: “By one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” (Heb. x. 14.) To say, “ Christ satisfied, that our satisfaction might be accepted; and ours depends upon his ; ” this is to illude scripture ; as if it had been said, “ Christ once satisfied, that we might always satisfy; Christ perfectly satisfied for us, that he might imperfectly satisfy in us ; Christ hath satisfied for eternal punishments, but doth satisfy for temporal when believers themselves satisfy." I O excellent way of answering! Again : if men must in part satisfy for their sins, then they are not freely pardoned. But how easy is it to multiply express scriptures ! Take notice but of one epistle : “Justified freely by his grace.” (Rom. ii. 24.) “ To him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.” (Rom. iv. 4.) “ If by grace, then it is no more of works,” &c. (Rom. xi. 6.) Now if none can satisfy for themselves, then they cannot satisfy for others : “ If thou be wise, thou shalt be wise for thyself : but if thou scornest, thou alone shalt bear it.” (Prov. ix. 12.) But, should we suppose what can no way be granted, how can they speak of the communication of men's good works, while they explode the imputation of Christ's righteousness, and scornfully call it “a putatitious justification ?” But more of this in the next.

3. A third absurd hypothesis is this that the superfluous satisfac• FRANCISCUS TURRETINUs De Satisfac. Christi Perfec. n. 24, p. 330, et seqq.

+ VoETTUS, ibid. p. 289. 1 ANTONIUS Sadeel De ver. Peccat. Remiss. p. (mihi) 97, &c.

« God was

[ocr errors]


tions of Christ and eminent saints are laid up in a treasury, to be laid out for those that want.

The absurdity of this is manifest more ways than I have time to mention. Beside the absurdity of parcelling out the death of Christ, to apply one part of it to one use, and another part to another use ; whereas all and every part of it is offered and applied to every believer : it is further absurd to divide that which is sufficient from that which is superfluous, when what is infinite is indivisible ; and to say that one drop of the blood of Christ is sufficient for the saving of a thousand worlds, and to reckon all the rest superfluous, and not so much as one person saved by it that would not have been saved without it, what can be more absurd and blasphemous ? I would further inquire, whether under the Old Testament believers were bound to satisfy God for temporal punishments. If they were, let them prove it: if they were not, then God dealt more mercifully with them under the Old Testament than with believers under the New, and the satisfaction of Christ not exhibited is more efficacious than since his exhibition. Once more: if the satisfaction of Christ be more than enough, what need the addition of human satisfactions ? They say, " Lest they should be in vain.” So, then, it is no matter though Christ's satisfaction be in vain : saints must not lose their glory ; it is no matter with them though Christ lose his. In their account, Christ and saints must share the work of redemption between them. Saints must be our priests, our sureties; we must believe in them, and place our hope in their satisfactions. But before we do so, it is advisable to solve this doubt :-whether the treasury of saints' superfluous satisfactions be infinite or finite. If infinite, then they are sufficient to redeem the world; which, I think, none hath impudence to affirm : if finite, what security may we have, ere we part with our money, that the treasury is not exhausted, upon the large grants already made? But they will tell them, “ The bank is inexhaustible.” In the next place, therefore, let us consult the treasurer.

4. The fourth tottering hypothesis is this :—that the pope hath the chief power of dispensing this treasury to those members that need it.

Though I might turn off this with that trite maxim, “ That which hath no being, hath no accidents ;” if there be no such treasury, there need be no controversy about the dispensing of it: and though I might bespeak them to agree among themselves, whether hath greater power,the pope or a council, before they quarrel with us about what themselves are not agreed upon] : and though I may well suppose, that the pope's supremacy is already confuted in this Exercise : but, to let pass all this, what a fair dividend do they make of the satisfaction of Christ, while they allow every priest to dispose of it for the pardon of faults and of eternal punishments, but reserve the disposal of that part of it to the pope whereby to pardon temporal punishments !+ How egregiously also do they trifle, while they distinguish between satisfaction and the payment of satisfaction ! “Satisfaction,” they say, “was made by Christ and saints ; but the payment of it is by the pope: that was done long since; this is still in doing : as if the satisfaction of Christ were like a sum of money laid up in a chest, to be laid out upon occasion ; whereas

(PLACÆI) Theses Salmurienses, pars ii. p. 72, et seqq. † Idem, ibid. p. 81, &c.

we know no other gospel-treasury but what is dispensed by the Spirit of God, by the word and sacraments. It is “the gospel” that “is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth ;” and “therein is the righteousness of God revealed.” (Rom. i. 16, 17.) But I shail speak more to this in my next attempt,

III. To overturn their main thesis.—Which is this :

THE PAPISTS' THESIS. That the pope, through the fulness of apostolical power, may grant a most full pardon by indulgences.

This is expressed most fully by Clement VI., who speaketh thus : Of that infinite treasure that is obtained for the church militant, God would not have it to be laid up in a napkin or hid in a field ; but hath committed it to Peter, that bears the keys of heaven, and to his successor-vicars on earth, to be wholesomely dispensed upon fit and reasonable causes, sometimes for the total, sometimes for the partial, remission of temporal punishments, both generally and specially due for sins; to be mercifully applied to the truly penitent and confessed."*

In the anatomy of this thesis, I shall endeavour to discover these things ; namely, i. The falseness of it ; 2. The novelty of it; 3. The contradictions in it ; 4. The cheats of it; 5. Its injuriousness to Christ ; 6. Its mischief to Christians.

1. To convince you of the falseness of this position, I shall first give you plain scripture-proof that there is no pardon of sin but by the mercy of God, through the blood of Christ, received by faith. " In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace.” (Eph. i. 7.) “Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Rom. v. 1.) “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth ? It is Christ that died,” &c. (Rom. viii. 33, 34.) Many more texts might be alleged ; but I had rather say only what is enough, than (say] all.

But our adversaries pretend also to scripture-warrant : though Durand confesseth, that concerning indulgences there can but little be said upon certainty, because the scripture doth not speak expressly of them ; for that which is said to Peter, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt bind,” &c., (Matt. xvi. 19,) is to be understood of the power given unto him in the court of penance, and it is not clear that it ought to be understood of the granting indulgences.t But Bellarmine saith, “Although indulgences be not warranted by particular scripture, yet they are in general by the power of the keys; and they may be warranted by divine authority, known by tradition of the apostles.”I (By the way, let me observe, I do not remember that ever I read any thing in their authors about the pope's power in any kind : but this text is pressed into the service of their design, though ordinarily to as little purpose as any text in the Bible.) But scriptures they bring ; let us examine them a little.


Decret. GRATIANI, tom. ii. Extrav. Com. lib. v. cap. 2, p. 352.

+ DURANDES, lib. iv. dist. xx. quæst. 3, p. 791. 1 De Indulgentiis, lib. ii. cap. 10, p. 46.

« PrécédentContinuer »