Point 6: Of Satisfaction
Our consent.
Conclusion 1. First, we acknowledge and hold civil or political satisfaction: that is, a recompense for injuries, and damages offered any way to our neighbors. This Zacchaeus practiced, when at his conversion he restored fourfold, things gotten by forged cavilation. Again by civil satisfaction I understand, the imposition of fines, penalties, and punishments upon offenders, and the inflicting of death upon malefactors. For all these are satisfactions to the law, and societies of men when they are wronged. All these we maintain as necessary, for neither Church, nor commonwealth can well be without them: considering they are notable means to uphold civil peace; and sometimes they are fruits of true faith, as the satisfaction of Zacchaeus was.
Conclusion 2. We acknowledge canonical or ecclesiastical satisfaction: and that is, when any having given offense to the church of God or any part thereof, do make an open public testimony of their repentance. Miriam for murmuring against Moses, was stricken with leprosy, and afterward by his prayer she was cleansed, and yet for all that she must go seven days out of the tent and congregation, that she might make a kind of satisfaction to the people for her trespass. And in the old testament, sackcloth and ashes were signs of their satisfaction.
Conclusion 3. We hold that no man can be saved, unless, he make a perfect satisfaction to the justice of God for all his sins: because God is infinite in justice, and therefore will either exact an everlasting punishment, or satisfaction for the same.
The dissent or difference.
The points of our difference and dissent are these. The Church of Rome teaches and believes, that Christ by his death has made a satisfaction for all the sins of men, and for the eternal punishment of them all: yet so, as they themselves must satisfy the justice of God for the temporal punishment of their offenses, either on earth or in purgatory. We teach and believe, that Christ by his death and passion has made a perfect and all-sufficient satisfaction to the justice of God for all the sins of men, and for the whole punishment thereof both eternal and temporal. Thus we differ, and herein we for our parts must forever stand at difference with them so as if there were no more points of variance but this one, it should be sufficient to keep us always from uniting our religions, and cause us to obey the voice of Christ, Come out of her my people. For as in the former points, so in this also, the Papists err, not in circumstance, but in the very foundation and life of religion.
Our reasons.
Reason 1. A satisfaction that is made imperfect either directly or by consequence, is indeed no satisfaction at all. But the Papists make Christ's satisfaction imperfect, in that they do add a supply by human satisfactions: and thus much a learned schoolman, Biel in plain words confessed. Although (says he) the passion of Christ be the principal merit, for which grace is conferred, the opening of the kingdom and glory: yet it is never the alone and total meritorious cause: it is manifest, because always with the merit of Christ, there concurs some work, as the merit of congruity or condignity of him that receives grace or glory, if he be of years and have the use of reason: or of some other for him, if he lacks reason. For that which admits a supply by another, is imperfect in itself. Therefore human satisfactions cannot stand. Learned Papists make answer, that Christ's satisfaction and man's may stand well together. For (say they) Christ's satisfaction is sufficient in itself to answer the justice of God for all sin and punishment: but it is not sufficient to this or that man till it be applied: and it must be applied by our satisfaction made to God for the temporal punishment of our sins. But I say again, that man's satisfaction can be no means to apply the satisfaction of Christ: and I prove it thus. The means of applying God's blessings and graces to man are twofold: some respect God himself, and some respect man. Those which respect God, are such whereby God on his part does offer and convey his mercies in Christ to man: of this sort are the preaching of the word, baptism, and the Lord's supper, and these are as it were the hand of God whereby he reaches down and gives to us Christ with all his benefits. The other means of applying on man's part, are those whereby the said benefits are received. Of this sort there is only one, namely faith, whereby we believe that Christ with all his benefits belong to us. And this is the hand of man whereby he receives Christ as he is offered, or exhibited by God in the word and sacraments. As for other means beside these, in Scripture we find none. Foolish therefore is the answer of the Papist, that make men's satisfactions means to apply the satisfaction of Christ to us: for by human satisfactions, Christ's is neither offered on God's part, nor yet received on man's part: let them prove it if they can. Others, not content with this their former answer, say; that our satisfactions do nothing derogate from the satisfaction of Christ: because our works have their dignity and merit from Christ's satisfaction: he meriting that our works should satisfy God's justice for temporal punishments. But this is also absurd and false, as the former was. For if Christ did satisfy that man might satisfy, then Christ does make every believer to be a Christ, a Jesus, a Redeemer, and a Priest in the same order with his own self. But to make sinful man his own redeemer, though it be but from temporal punishments, is a doctrine of devils. For the Holy Ghost teaches that the priesthood of Christ is incommunicable, and cannot pass from him to any other. Now to make satisfaction for sin or any part of the punishment thereof, is a duty, or a part of Christ his priesthood, and therefore to make satisfaction is a work that cannot pass from his person to the person of any man. Again, if Christ by his satisfaction gives power to man to satisfy, then man does satisfy by Christ, and Christ beside his own satisfaction upon the cross, must daily satisfy in man, to the end of the world: but this cannot be, for Christ upon the cross, when death was upon him, said, It is finished, that is, I have fully satisfied for all the sins of mankind, both in respect of the fault and punishment. As for Christ's burial and resurrection which followed his death, they served not to satisfy but to confirm and ratify the same. Again Paul says (2 Corinthians 5:21): He that knew no sin was made sin for us, that is, the punishment of sin for us; but if the Church of Rome says true, that Christ does daily satisfy, then Paul spoke too short, and should have said further, that Christ was made sin for us, and in us too: and that God was not only in Christ but also in us reconciling the world to himself. But Paul never knew this learning: and therefore let them turn themselves which way they will, by putting a supplement to Christ's satisfaction, they do indeed annihilate the same.
Reason 2. In sundry places of Scripture, especially in the Epistles of Paul: we are said to be redeemed, justified, and saved freely: which word freely, does import that we are justified and saved without anything done on our part or by ourselves in the matter of our salvation: and if this be so, then can we do nothing at all that may satisfy the justice of God for the least punishment of our sins. If we satisfy in our own persons we are not saved freely: and if we be saved freely, we make no satisfaction at all.
Reason 3. We pray daily, forgive us our sins: now to plead pardon, and to satisfy for our sins be contrary: and for all things, for which we can make satisfaction, we need not crave a pardon; but we are taught in the aforesaid petition wholly and only to use the plea of pardon for our sins, and therefore we acknowledge that we cannot make any satisfaction at all.
Reason 4. The judgment of the ancient Church. Tertullian on Baptism: Guiltiness being taken away, the punishment is also taken away. Augustine: Christ, by taking upon him the punishment and not the fault, has done away both the fault and the punishment. And (Volume 10, Homily 5) he says, when we are gone out of this world, there will remain no compunction or satisfaction. Some new editions have foisted in the word 'some' and so have turned the sense on this manner: There will remain no compunction or some satisfaction. But this is flat against Augustine's meaning who says a little before, that when the way is ended there is no compounding of our cause with any. Chrysostom (preface on Isaiah): Say not to me, I have sinned; how shall I be freed from so many sins? You cannot: but your God can. Indeed, and he will so blot out your sins that there shall remain no print of them: which thing befalls not the body, for when it is healed there remains a scar: but God as soon as he exempts you from punishment, he gives you justice. Ambrose says, I read of Peter's tears, but I read not of his satisfaction. Again, Let us adore Christ that he may say to us, fear not your sins of this world, nor the waves of bodily sufferings: I have remission of sins. Jerome says on Psalm 31: The sin that is covered is not seen, the sin that is not seen is not imputed: that which is not imputed, is not punished. Chrysostom on Matthew, Homily 44: Among all men, some endure punishment in this life and the life to come: others in this life alone: others alone in the life to come: others neither in this life nor the life to come. There alone, as Dives, who was not lord so much as of one drop of water. Here alone, as the incestuous man among the Corinthians. Neither here nor there, as the Apostles and Prophets, as also Job and the rest of this kind: for they endured no sufferings for punishment, but that they might be known to be conquerors in the fight.
Objections of Papists.
Objection 1. (Leviticus 4) Moses according to God's commandment prescribed several sacrifices for several persons; and they were means of satisfaction for the temporal punishments of their daily sins. Answer: Those sacrifices were only signs and types of Christ's satisfaction to be offered to his Father in his alone sacrifice upon the cross: and whoever offered any sacrifice in the old testament, did thus and no otherwise esteem of it, but as a type and figure of better things. Secondly, the said sacrifices were satisfactions to the Church, whereby men did testify their repentance for their offenses, and likewise their desire to be reconciled to God and men. And such kind of satisfactions, we acknowledge.
Objection 2. Men, whose sins are all pardoned, have afterward sundry crosses and afflictions laid upon them, to the end of their days: therefore in all likelihood they make satisfaction to God for temporal punishments. As for example, the Israelites for murmuring against the Lord in the wilderness were barred all from the land of promise: and the like befell Moses and Aaron for not glorifying God, as they should have done at the waters of strife. Answer: Man must be considered in a twofold estate, as he is under the law, and as he is under grace. In the first estate, all afflictions are curses or legal punishments, be they little or great: but to them that are in the second estate and believe in Christ, though the same afflictions remain, yet do they change their condition, and are the actions of a Father serving to be trials, corrections, preventings, admonitions. (1 Corinthians 11:32): When we are judged, we are nurtured of the Lord and (Hebrews 12:7): If we endure chastisement, God offers himself to you as children. And Chrysostom says (1 Corinthians, Homily 28): When we are corrected of the Lord, it is more for our admonition than damnation: more for a medicine than for a punishment: more for a correction than for a penalty. And whereas God denied the believing Israelites, with Moses and Aaron to enter into the land of Canaan, it cannot be proved that it was a punishment or penalty of the law upon them. The scripture says no more but that it was an admonition to all men in all ages following, to take heed of like offenses, as Paul writes (1 Corinthians 10:11): All these things came to them for examples, and were written for our admonition.
Objection 3. David was punished after his repentance for his adultery, for the child died, and he was plagued in his own kind, in the incest of Absalom: and when he had numbered the people he was yet punished in the death of his people after his own repentance. Answer: I answer as before that the hand of God was upon David after his repentance: but yet the judgments which befell him were not curses to him properly, but corrections for his sins, and trials of his faith, and means to prevent further sin, and to renew both his faith and repentance: as also they served to admonish others in like case; for David was a public person and his sins were offensive, both within the Church of God and without.
Objection 4. The Prophets of God, when the people are threatened with the plague, famine, sword, captivity, etc., exhort them to repent and to humble themselves in sackcloth and ashes; and thereby they turned away the wrath of God that was then coming forth against them. Therefore by temporal humiliation, men may escape the temporal punishments of the Lord. Answer: Famine, sword, banishment, the plague, and other judgments sent on God's people, were not properly punishments of sin but only the corrections of a Father whereby he humbled them that they might repent: or thus, they were punishments tending to correction, not serving for satisfaction. And the punishments of God are turned from them, not because they satisfy the justice of God in their own sufferings, but because by faith they lay hold on the satisfaction of the Messiah, and testify the same by their humiliation and repentance.
Objection 5. (Daniel 4:27) Daniel gives this counsel to Nebuchadnezzar, redeem your sins by justice and your iniquities by alms deeds. Behold (say they) alms deeds are made a means to satisfy for man's iniquities. Answer: The word which they translate to redeem, (as the most learned in the Chaldean tongue with one consent affirm) does properly signify to break off; as if the Prophet should say: O King, you are a mighty Monarch, and to enlarge your kingdom you have used much injustice and cruelty, therefore now repent of your iniquity, and break off these your sins, testify your repentance by doing justice, and give alms to the poor whom you have oppressed. Therefore here is nothing spoken of satisfaction for sin, but only of testification of repentance by the fruits thereof.
Objection 6. Matthew 3:2: Do penance, and bring forth fruits worthy of penance, which (say they) are works of satisfaction enjoined by the priest. Answer: This text is absurd — for the word signifies this much: change your minds from sin to God, and testify it by good works, that is, by doing the duties of the moral law. These must be done not because they are means to satisfy God's justice for man's sin, but because they are fruits of that faith and repentance which lies in the heart.
Objection 7. 2 Corinthians 7:10: Paul sets down sundry fruits of repentance, whereof the last is revenge, whereby repentant persons punish themselves, thereby to satisfy God's justice for the temporal punishment of their sins. Answer: A repentant sinner must take revenge of himself, and that is only to use all means which serve to subdue the corruption of his nature, to bridle carnal affections, and to mortify sin. These kinds of actions are restraints properly, and not punishments, and are directed against the sin and not against the person.
Lastly, they make three works of satisfaction: prayer, fasting, and almsdeeds. For the first, it is mere foolishness to think that man by prayer can satisfy for his sins. It is all one as if they had said that a beggar by asking alms should deserve his alms, or that a debtor by requesting his creditor to pardon his debt should thereby pay his debt. Secondly, fasting is a thing indifferent, of the same nature with eating and drinking, and of itself contributes nothing to the obtaining of the kingdom of heaven, no more than eating and drinking does. Thirdly and lastly, almsdeeds cannot be works of satisfaction for sins. For when we give them as we ought, we do but our duty, whereunto we are bound. We may as well say that a man by paying one debt may discharge another, as to say that by doing his duty he may satisfy God's justice for the punishment of his sins. These we confess are fruits of faith, but yet they are no works of satisfaction. The only and all-sufficient satisfaction made to God's justice for our sins is to be found in the person of Christ, procured by the merit of his death and his obedience. Thus our doctrine touching satisfaction is cleared, and it is to be learned carefully by our common people, because the opinion of human satisfaction is natural and sticks fast in the heart of natural men. When any have sinned and feel a touch of conscience, their manner is then to perform some outward humiliation and repentance, thinking thereby to stop the mouth of conscience, and by doing some ceremonial duties to appease the wrath of God for their sins. Many think to satisfy God's justice by repeating the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments — so foolish are they in this kind.
Our consent.
Conclusion 1. First, we acknowledge and uphold civil or political satisfaction — that is, making amends for injuries and damages done to neighbors in any form. Zacchaeus practiced this when, at his conversion, he restored fourfold what he had taken through fraudulent schemes. By civil satisfaction I also mean the imposition of fines, penalties, and punishments on offenders, and the infliction of death on criminals. All of these are forms of satisfaction to the law and to human communities when they are wronged. We consider all of these necessary — neither the church nor the state can function well without them, since they are significant means of preserving civil peace. Sometimes they are also fruits of true faith, as Zacchaeus's restitution was.
Conclusion 2. We acknowledge canonical or ecclesiastical satisfaction — that is, when someone who has given offense to the church of God, or to any part of it, makes an open public declaration of their repentance. Miriam, for speaking against Moses, was struck with leprosy; and though she was afterward cleansed through his prayer, she still had to go outside the camp for seven days, making a form of satisfaction to the people for her offense. In the Old Testament, sackcloth and ashes were signs of this kind of satisfaction.
Conclusion 3. We hold that no one can be saved unless a perfect satisfaction is made to the justice of God for all his sins — because God is infinite in His justice and will therefore require either everlasting punishment or full satisfaction.
The dissent or difference.
Our differences are as follows. The Church of Rome teaches that Christ by His death made satisfaction for all the sins of people and for the eternal punishment of them all — but that people must themselves satisfy God's justice for the temporal punishment of their offenses, either in this life or in purgatory. We teach that Christ by His death and suffering made a perfect and all-sufficient satisfaction to God's justice for all human sins and for the entire punishment of them — both eternal and temporal. This is where we differ. On this point we must remain at permanent disagreement with them. Even if there were no other differences between us, this one alone would be enough to keep us from ever uniting our religions, and to cause us to obey Christ's call: 'Come out of her, my people.' For here, as in the earlier points, the papists err not in some peripheral matter but in the very foundation and heart of religion.
Our reasons.
Reason 1. A satisfaction that is made imperfect — either directly or by implication — is no true satisfaction at all. The papists make Christ's satisfaction imperfect by supplementing it with human satisfactions. A learned scholastic, Biel, admitted this plainly. He says: 'Although the passion of Christ is the principal merit for which grace is given, the kingdom opened, and glory granted, yet it is never the sole and total meritorious cause. This is obvious because, alongside Christ's merit, there always concurs some work — either the merit of fittingness or worthiness on the part of the person receiving grace or glory, if he has reached the age of reason; or on the part of someone else for him, if he lacks reason.' Whatever admits of being supplemented by another is imperfect in itself. Therefore human satisfactions cannot stand. Learned papists reply that Christ's satisfaction and a person's own can coexist. Christ's satisfaction, they say, is in itself sufficient to answer God's justice for all sin and punishment — but it is not sufficient for any particular person until it is applied, and it must be applied through the person's own satisfaction for the temporal punishment of his sins. But I maintain that a person's satisfaction can be no means of applying Christ's satisfaction — and I prove it as follows. The means of applying God's blessings and graces to a person are of two kinds: those on God's side, and those on the person's side. On God's side are the means by which God offers and conveys His mercies in Christ to people — such as the preaching of the word, baptism, and the Lord's Supper. These are, as it were, God's hand reaching down to give us Christ with all His benefits. On the person's side, there is only one means of receiving these benefits: faith — by which we believe that Christ and all His benefits belong to us. This is the human hand by which we receive Christ as He is offered and presented by God in the word and sacraments. Beyond these two, Scripture knows no other means of applying Christ's benefits. It is therefore foolish for the papists to make human satisfactions a means of applying Christ's satisfaction to us — for by human satisfactions, Christ's satisfaction is neither offered on God's side nor received on the person's side. Let them prove it if they can. Others, not satisfied with this answer, say that human satisfactions do not diminish Christ's satisfaction in any way — because our works receive their worth and merit from Christ's satisfaction, He having merited that our works should satisfy God's justice for temporal punishments. But this too is absurd and false. If Christ satisfied so that people might satisfy, then Christ makes every believer a Christ, a Jesus, a Redeemer, and a Priest on the same level as Himself. But to make a sinful person his own redeemer — even if only from temporal punishments — is a doctrine of demons. The Holy Spirit teaches that Christ's priesthood cannot be transferred to or shared with anyone else. To make satisfaction for sin, or for any portion of its punishment, is a duty that belongs to Christ's priesthood — and therefore it is a work that cannot pass from His person to any other. Furthermore, if Christ by His satisfaction gives people the power to satisfy, then people satisfy through Christ — which means Christ must not only have satisfied once on the cross but must continue to satisfy daily in people until the end of the world. But this cannot be, for when Christ was on the cross in the moment of death, He said, 'It is finished' — meaning: I have fully satisfied for all the sins of humanity, both the fault and the punishment. The burial and resurrection that followed His death served not to make further satisfaction but to confirm and ratify what was already accomplished. Paul also says in 2 Corinthians 5:21: 'He who knew no sin was made sin for us' — that is, made to bear the punishment of sin for us. But if the Church of Rome is right that Christ satisfies daily, then Paul spoke too briefly, and should have added that Christ was made sin for us and also in us, and that God was reconciling the world to Himself not only in Christ but also in us. Paul knew nothing of this teaching. However they turn themselves, by adding a supplement to Christ's satisfaction the papists in fact annihilate it.
Reason 2. In many places of Scripture, especially in Paul's letters, we are said to be redeemed, justified, and saved freely. The word 'freely' means we are justified and saved without anything done on our part in the matter of our salvation. If that is so, then we can do nothing at all that would satisfy God's justice for even the least punishment of our sins. If we satisfy in our own persons, we are not saved freely; and if we are saved freely, we make no satisfaction at all.
Reason 3. We pray daily: 'Forgive us our sins.' But pleading for pardon and making satisfaction are opposites. For whatever we can satisfy, we have no need to plead for pardon. Yet we are taught in this petition to appeal entirely and only to pardon for our sins — which means we acknowledge that we are unable to make any satisfaction at all.
Reason 4. The testimony of the ancient Church. Tertullian, on Baptism: 'When guilt is removed, the punishment is also removed.' Augustine: 'Christ, by taking the punishment upon Himself without the fault, has abolished both the fault and the punishment.' In Volume 10, Homily 5, he also says: 'When we have departed this world, no compunction or satisfaction will remain.' Some later editions have inserted the word 'some,' changing the sense to read: 'no compunction or some satisfaction will remain.' But this is directly against Augustine's meaning, since just before that he says that when the journey is over there is no more settling of accounts with anyone. Chrysostom, in his preface on Isaiah: 'Do not say to me, I have sinned — how shall I be freed from so many sins? You cannot, but your God can. Indeed He will blot out your sins so completely that no trace of them will remain. This does not happen with the body, for when it is healed a scar remains — but God, when He frees you from punishment, at the same moment grants you righteousness.' Ambrose says: 'I read of Peter's tears, but I read nothing of his satisfaction.' And again: 'Let us adore Christ, that He may say to us: do not fear your sins from this world, or the waves of bodily sufferings — I have forgiveness of sins.' Jerome, on Psalm 31: 'The sin that is covered is not seen; the sin that is not seen is not charged; what is not charged is not punished.' Chrysostom, in Homily 44 on Matthew: 'Among all people, some endure punishment in this life and in the life to come; others only in this life; others only in the life to come; others neither in this life nor in the life to come. In the life to come alone — like Dives, who did not have so much as a single drop of water. In this life alone — like the incestuous man among the Corinthians. Neither here nor there — like the apostles, prophets, Job, and others of that kind: for they endured no sufferings as punishment, but to be shown as conquerors in the fight.'
Objections of Papists.
Objection 1. In Leviticus 4, Moses, following God's command, prescribed various sacrifices for various persons — and these were means of satisfaction for the temporal punishments of their daily sins. Answer: Those sacrifices were only signs and types of Christ's satisfaction, to be offered to His Father in His one sacrifice on the cross. Everyone who offered a sacrifice in the Old Testament understood it in no other way than as a type and figure pointing to better things. Second, those sacrifices were satisfactions to the church, by which people testified their repentance for their offenses and their desire to be reconciled to God and to one another. This kind of satisfaction we do acknowledge.
Objection 2. People whose sins are fully pardoned still experience various crosses and afflictions throughout their remaining days — it therefore seems they are making satisfaction to God for temporal punishments. For example, the Israelites, for murmuring against God in the wilderness, were all barred from the promised land; and the same happened to Moses and Aaron for failing to honor God properly at the waters of Meribah. Answer: A person must be understood in two different conditions — under the law, and under grace. In the first condition, all afflictions are curses and legal punishments, whether great or small. But for those in the second condition who believe in Christ, those same afflictions remain yet change in character — they become the actions of a Father, serving as trials, corrections, preventions, and warnings. 1 Corinthians 11:32 says: 'When we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord.' And Hebrews 12:7 says: 'If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons.' Chrysostom says in Homily 28 on 1 Corinthians: 'When we are corrected by the Lord, it is more for our instruction than for condemnation; more like medicine than punishment; more for correction than penalty.' And as for God's denying the believing Israelites, along with Moses and Aaron, entry into Canaan — it cannot be proved that this was a legal punishment upon them. Scripture says nothing more than that it was a warning to all people in all ages following to guard against similar offenses, as Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 10:11: 'These things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our instruction.'
Objection 3. David was punished after his repentance for his adultery — the child died, and he was struck in kind through the incest of Absalom. And when he numbered the people, he was also punished in the death of his people even after his own repentance. Answer: I answer as before. God's hand was upon David after his repentance — but the judgments that came upon him were not curses in the proper sense. They were corrections for his sins, trials of his faith, and means to prevent further sin and to renew both his faith and repentance. They also served to warn others in similar situations, for David was a public figure and his sins had caused offense both within and beyond the church of God.
Objection 4. The prophets, when the people were threatened with plague, famine, sword, and captivity, urged them to repent and humble themselves in sackcloth and ashes — and by doing so, they turned away the wrath of God that was coming against them. Therefore, through temporal humiliation, people may escape God's temporal punishments. Answer: Famine, sword, exile, plague, and other judgments sent on God's people were not properly punishments of sin but only a Father's corrections by which He humbled them so they might repent. They were punishments aimed at correction, not at extracting satisfaction. God's punishments are turned away not because people satisfy His justice through their own sufferings, but because by faith they lay hold of the satisfaction of the Messiah and testify to that faith through their humiliation and repentance.
Objection 5. Daniel 4:27 has Daniel counsel Nebuchadnezzar: 'Redeem your sins by practicing righteousness and your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor.' The papists say: see — almsgiving is presented as a means of making satisfaction for a person's iniquities. Answer: The word they translate as 'redeem' — as the most learned scholars in the Chaldean language uniformly agree — properly means 'to break off.' The prophet was saying: O King, you are a great monarch who has used much injustice and cruelty to expand your kingdom. Now repent of your iniquity — break off these sins, demonstrate your repentance by practicing justice, and give alms to the poor you have oppressed. Therefore this passage says nothing about satisfaction for sin — only about demonstrating repentance through its fruits.
Objection 6. Matthew 3:2 says: 'Repent and bring forth fruits worthy of repentance' — which they say refers to works of satisfaction assigned by the priest. Answer: The text cannot bear this meaning — the word means: turn your minds from sin to God, and demonstrate it by good works — that is, by doing the duties of the moral law. These good works are to be done not because they are means of satisfying God's justice for sin, but because they are fruits of the faith and repentance that lie in the heart.
Objection 7. In 2 Corinthians 7:10, Paul lists various fruits of repentance, the last of which is 'self-punishment' — by which, they say, repentant persons punish themselves in order to satisfy God's justice for the temporal punishment of their sins. Answer: A repentant sinner must take action against himself — but this consists only in using all means that serve to subdue the corruption of his nature, restrain sinful desires, and put sin to death. These actions are properly forms of restraint, not punishments. They are directed against the sin, not against the person.
Finally, they designate three works of satisfaction: prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. Regarding the first: it is sheer folly to think that a person can satisfy for his sins through prayer. It is the same as saying that a beggar earns his alms by asking for them, or that a debtor pays his debt by asking his creditor to forgive it. Regarding the second: fasting is a morally neutral act, no different in nature from eating and drinking. By itself it contributes nothing toward obtaining the kingdom of heaven — no more than eating and drinking does. Regarding the third: almsgiving cannot be a work of satisfaction for sins. When we give alms as we ought, we are only doing our duty — what we are already obligated to do. Saying that by doing our duty we can satisfy God's justice for the punishment of our sins is like saying a person can pay one debt by paying another. These three things are fruits of faith, but they are not works of satisfaction. The only and all-sufficient satisfaction made to God's justice for our sins is found in the person of Christ, obtained through the merit of His death and obedience. This completes our treatment of satisfaction, and it is important for ordinary believers to learn this doctrine carefully — because the idea of human satisfaction comes naturally and clings stubbornly to the hearts of unregenerate people. When people have sinned and feel the prick of conscience, their instinct is to perform some outward act of humiliation and repentance, thinking this will silence their conscience and that by performing some religious duty they can appease God's wrath for their sins. Many even think they can satisfy God's justice by reciting the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments — so deeply confused are people on this point.
