We have nothing to do here with Civil Satisfaction; nothing, with Ecclesiastical: whereof Luther not unfitly said *, even in Cassander's own judgment, "Our mother, the Church, out of her good affection, desiring to prevent the hand of God, chastises her children with certain Satisfactions, lest they should fall under the scourges of God." This Canonical Satisfaction, as many call it, hath been too long out of use, on both sides.

Yea, more than this, in all our sermons to our people, we beat importunately upon the necessity of penitence, and all the wholesome exercises thereof, as fruits worthy of repentance: not, as Cassander well interprets it, as if we desired they should offer unto God a ransom worthy and sufficient for the clearing of the score of their sins; but, that we teach them, those offices must be performed by them, which God requires of those sinners on whom he will bestow the satisfaction of his Son †.

Let them call these satisfactions, if they will we give them leave. But, that, after the most absolute passion of Christ, there should be yet behind certain remainders of punishment to be discharged by us, either here or in purgatory, with a purpose thereby to satisfy the divine justice, whether they be imposed by God, or by the priest, or by ourselves, as the Tridentine distinction runs, we neither may, nor can endure.

For, how nicely soever these men distinguish, it cannot be, but this sacrilegious opinion must needs accuse the truly propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, of some imperfection. I know they say, that both satisfactions may well stand together: that, of the Mediator; and this, of man: whereof Bonaventure calls the one, perfect; the other, semi-perfect. But these are words. Let the sophisters tell me: doth not the full vessel contain in itself the half? or what need the one half apart, when we have the whole? and, lastly, can any thing be added to that, which is perfect?

But, some of their heedfuller Divines will neither have these two opposite nor subordinate to each other. For, it is a shame to speak, what Suarez, what Durand, and other grosser Papists have discoursed of this point. Let them rather, if they will, hold (which opinion yet hath been controlled, not by the Cardinal § only, but by three Popes || before him) that men's satisfactions serve only to apply unto us that, which the satisfactions of Christ have promerited for us. Yet even this shift will not serve: for Christ's satisfaction, as they teach, respects eternal punishment, and not temporal: how, then, can it once be imagined, that we, by our satisfaction, should procure, that his suffering, which was destinated to the expiation of an eternal punishment, should serve to the discharge of a temporal? And, why should we do this, rather than Christ himself? Besides, how absurdly doth this sound, that He, whose bounty

* Consult, c. de Satisfact.

+ Satisfactio penitentialis, nihil aliud est, quàm conatus infectum reddendi quod factum est. Alphons, Virvesius adv. Luth.

Cit. Cass. Ibid. § Bellarm. de Indulg. l. i. c. 4.
Pius V. Greg. XIII. Clem. VI.

hath paid our pounds for us, hath yet left us, out of our poor stock, to pay some few farthings for ourselves!

Let me demand, then; Whether could not Christ undertake these temporal punishments for us, or would he not? That he could not, is impious; that he would not, is bold to say, and illiberal to do: for, where is there any restraint? or what are the limits of his mercy?

"The fault is remitted," saith the Conventicle of Trent: "the punishment is not pardoned." The Eastern Church would never have said so, which always stoutly opposed herself to this error. And, indeed, what a shameful reproach is this to the Infinite Mercy of the Forgiver! what a wrong to his justice! Whereto is the punishment due, but to the fault? Did ever God inflict punishments, that were not due? Many a time, hath he forgiven to sinners those plagues, which both they had deserved, and he threatened: but never did he call back for those arrearages, which he had forgiven.

God punishes us, indeed; or chastens us, rather; and that, sometimes, well and sharply; after the remission of our offence: not, that he may give himself satisfaction of us; for how can it be so pleasing to him, that it should be ill with us? but, that he may confirm us to himself; that he may amend us. He lays no stroke upon us with a revenging hand, but with a fatherly.

We suffer, therefore, now; but we satisfy not. This is This is proper only to that Eternal Priest, and to his eternal priesthood; and is no more communicable to saints and angels, than his own person. And, certainly, that, which was his part, he hath performed: he hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law; and part of the Legal punishment is this temporal revenge.

For us, therefore, to give hands to them in this, it were no better, than perfidious and shamefully traitorous. And, if it be more than manifest, that this cannot be done, either by our own torments inflicted, or good works performed (how penal soever), how much less shall it be effected by others! There is none of the saints, which will not justly take up that answer of the wiser virgins, There will not be enough for you and for us; Matt. xxv. 9. But, as Jerome * said well; "There is no need of any great conviction, where the opinion carries blasphemy in the face."

(5.) Upon this conceit of satisfactions, depend those other fables of Purgatory and Indulgences; pleasant ones both, and not unworthy of a satire: whereof so oft as I think, I cannot but rememher the scornful frump of Luther, alluding to that of the Prophet, Domine, non possum vesci stercore humano.

Yet, if they had only doubtfully and problematically commended their purgatory to the Church, we might easily have favoured them with a connivance: although you cannot say, whether it would have been more worthy to set the spleen on work for laughter, or the bowels for commiseration. But now, when Bellarmin teaches

*Hier. adver. Ctesiphon. Non necesse habet convinci, quod suâ statim professione blasphemum est.

us that it pertains to the Catholic Faith, and our Fisher of Rochester will have it altogether necessary to be known and believed; we cannot entertain this presumptuous folly, without indignation.

How miserably the Scriptures are wrested to this purpose, if any schoolboy could not easily see, he were worthy of whipping. As Jerome said of the heretics of his time, "They frame some unfitting testimonies to their own sense:" as if it were a worthy, and not rather an abominable kind of teaching, to deprave sentences, and to drag the Scriptures perforce to their own bent.

Neither are the ancient Fathers better used in their citation of which, Origen, Ambrose, Hilary, Lactantius, Nissen, Jerome, gave intimation of a quite other purgatory, from the Romish. Augustin speaks of it, at peradventure, waveringly, uncertainly. The rest never dreamed of any at all.

But, yet, I mistake it. Now I remember, St. Plato † is cited by Austin and Eusebius §, for the patron of this opinion: and, who knows not, that St. Homer and St. Virgil are flat for it.

Yet this fire never began to burn out, but in Gregory's time; and, since that, the authority of the Alcoran hath not a little mended it.

This is it, that their Rochester ingenuously confessed of old, That this purgatory flame came but lately to the knowledge of the Church: but, for us, that of St. Paul shall never be wrung from our hands, av y ¿xiyeios If, or when, this earthly house shall be dissolved, we have a building, not made with hands, eternal, in the heavens; 2 Cor. v. 1. And, when is this St. Paul's av? St. John shall interpret it: odvrnoVTES dwaeri: Those, that die, à modo, from henceforth; Apoc. xiv. 13. And when is this à modo? To day, thou shali be with me, saith Christ; even instantly, upon the egress of the soul. Let them commend their souls to God, saith St. Peter.

But what of that? that, which doth utterly quench out this fabulous fire, the counterfeit Solomon (though true to the Papists) adds, "The souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no torment shall touch them;" Wisd. iii. 1. Behold, then, either the souls without a purgatory, or a purgatory without pain.

But what stick we at this? Let the Popish Doctors together agree among themselves, of the fire of their purgatory, of the torments of the subject, of the duration, of the executioners, of the condition of the souls there detained; and then, afterwards, let them look for our assent.

In the mean time, why is it not as free for us as for Suarez |, not to believe the walking ghosts of the dead, but metaphorically? or, why may not we as well deny the ordinary common purgatory,

*Hier. Paulin.

Plato in Phædone. Itaque, quicunque in vitâ quodammodo medium tenuisse ita comperiuntur, ad Acherontem profecti vehiculis, quæ unicuique adsunt, in paludem perveniunt Acherusiam; ibique habitant; purganturque, pænas danles injuriarum: et cùm purificati, &c.

Aug. de Civit. Dei. 1, xxi. c. 13. qui et Virgil. ibid citat.

Euseb. de Præpar. Evang. 1. i. c. ult.

Tom. 4. in Th. d. 46.

as Bellarmin

the first?

may devise a new one, more noble and easeful than

(6.) Purgatory is guilty of Indulgences, as their Rochester confesses. Both of them were bred by superstition, and nursed by covetousness. I touch these with a light hand only.

It is long, since all ingenuous clients of Rome were ashamed of this holy fraud.

I cannot but commend Cassander, which writes* thus modestly and truly: "The abatement or relaxation of canonical punishments, was of old called Indulgence: which, at this day, is drawn to all private satisfactions; and the full right of bestowing them withdrawn from all other Bishops, to the Bishop of Rome alone. About the use and practice whereof, all good men have desired a correction and moderation; as of things, which, being hitherto ill handled, have given the chief occasion of this breach in the Church. Here, therefore, it were to be wished, that the Popes would yield something to the public peace." Thus far Cassander. With whom agrees Polydore Virgil: both of them more worthy of a black coal, than their honest Rochester, whom Gregory of Valence hath so foully branded. Neither hath there wanted some of their own, as Bellarmin witnesseth †, which have called both the treasure of the Church and pardons into question. Neither have there wanted those, which have boldly and flatly denied them, either to be of use, or to be at all.

And, indeed, who, that is not too much intoxicate with the potions of that harlot, can endure, that, whilst the imputation of Christ's merits to the justifying of a sinner applied by God to us, is every where a common scoffing-stock to these men; yet, that the merits and sufferings of holy men, out of a certain common treasure, should by a man be imputed to men, for the deliverance of their souls from torment?

Who can abide, that any mortal man should over-satisfy God for his sins?

Who can abide the prodigal grants, and shameful marts, of their pardons ?

Who can endure to hear, that to the careless mumbling over of some short prayers (for if we believe their Casuists, there is no great need of any intention of mind, of any special devotion) there should be granted by John xxiind. a pardon for no less than a million of years ?

Who can endure, since by their own confession this fire must last but till the conflagration of the world, that yet, in one little book, there should be tendered unto credulous poor souls, pardons of but eleven thousand thousand of years? What should we make many words of this? There is now lying by me a wormeaten manuscript, with fair rubrics, in which, beside other absurd and blasphemous promises, there is power given to one little prayer to

Cap. de Indulg.

§ Stations of Rome.

↑ De Indulg. 1. iv. c. 4.

Horæ. B. Virg.

li Rithmic. Horæ B. Mar. Virg. ad usum sacrum.

change the pains of hell, due perhaps to him that says it, into purgatory; and, after that again, the pains of purgatory into the joys of heaven. Bellarmin had wisely respected his own credit, if he had given his voice according to that, which he confesseth to have been the judgment of some others *; That these like bulls were not given by the Popes, but, lewdly devised by some of his base questuaries, for an advantage. But that, which he should excuse, he defends. What ingenuity or shame is to be expected of Jesuits? and how clean hath an old parrot, as he said of old, forgotten the wand!

Who may abide this unjust and inhuman acceptation of persons? that the wealthier sort may, by their purses, redeem this holy treasure of the Church; and, by money, deliver the souls of themselves and their friends from this horrible prison: while the needy soul must be still frying in that flame, without all hope of pardon, or mature relaxation, until the very last Judgment Day?

Lastly, who can endure, that, while it is in the power of Christ's Vicar to call miserable souls out of this tormenting fire, which hell itself is said to exceed only in the continuance; yet, that he should suffer them to lie howling there, and most cruelly broiling still, and not mercifully bestow on them all the heaps of his treasure, as the spiritual ransom of so many distressed spirits? A wretched man is he, as Ambrose said † of the rich man, which hath the power to deliver so many souls from death, and wants the will. Why hath God given him this faculty of Indulgences, if he would not have it beneficial to mankind? and, where the owner of the house will be bountiful, it is not for the steward to be niggardly . Let that Circe of Rome keep these husks for her hogs.

(7.) Pardons do both imply and presuppose that known distinction of Mortal and Venial Sin, which neither hath God ever allowed; neither, while he gainsays it, will ever the Prótestants.

That there are certain degrees of evil, we both acknowledge and teach so as we may here justly tax the dishonesty and shamelessness of Campion, Dureus, Coccius, and the Monks of Bourdeaux, who have upbraided us with the opinion of a certain Stoical and Jovinianish parity of sins: yea, Bellarmin himself hath already done this kind office for us.

Some offences are more heinous than other; yet all, in the malignity of their nature, deadly: as, of poisons, some kill more gently and lingeringly, others more violently and speedily; yet both kill.

Moreover, if we have respect unto the infinite mercy of God; and, to the object of this mercy, the penitent and faithful heart; there is no sin, which, to borrow the word of Prudentius, is not venial: but, in respect of the anomy or disorder, there is no sin, which is not worthy of eternal death.

Every sin is a viper. There is no viper, if we regard the nature of the beast, but kills whom she bites: but, if one of them shall

* Lib. de Indulg.

† Amb. de Naboth.

Auth. operis imperfect.