The Apology of the Augsburg Confession

Article XIIb (VI) Confession and Satisfaction

[1/98] Good people can easily conclude that it is very important that the true doctrine be preserved about the above-mentioned parts: contrition and faith. Therefore, we have always been busier with making these topics clear and have argued nothing as yet about confession and satisfaction. [2/99] We also keep Confession, especially because of the Absolution. Absolution is God’s Word which, by divine authority, the Power of the Keys pronounces upon individuals. [3/100] Therefore, it would be wicked to remove private Absolution from the Church. [4/101] If anyone despises private Absolution, he does not understand what the forgiveness of sins or the Power of the Keys is. [5/102] Regarding the complete listing of offenses in Confession, we have said above that we hold that it is not necessary by divine right. [6/103] Some object to this, saying that a judge should investigate a case before he rules on it, which has nothing to do with this subject. The ministry of Absolution is favor or grace; it is not a legal process or law. [7/104] Ministers in the Church have the command to forgive sin. They do not have the command to investigate secret sins. [8/105] Indeed, they absolve us from those sins that we do not remember. For that reason Absolution, which is the voice of the Gospel forgiving sins and comforting consciences, does not require judicial examination.

[9/106] It is ridiculous to apply to this discussion the saying of Solomon, “Know well the condition of your flocks” (Proverbs 27:23). For Solomon says nothing about Confession. He gives to the father of a family a domestic precept, that he should use what is his own and refrain from what is another’s. Solomon commands the father to take good care of his own property. Yet he should do so in such a way that, with his mind occupied with the increase of his resources, he should not cast away the fear of God or faith or care in God’s Word. But our adversaries, by a wonderful change, transform Scripture passages to whatever meaning they please. Here to “know” means to them hearing confessions, “the condition,” not the outward life, but the secrets of conscience. And “your flocks” mean people. The interpretation is truly neat and is worthy of these haters of pursuing eloquence. If anyone desires to transfer by analogy a precept from a father of a family to a pastor of a Church, he should certainly interpret “the condition” as applying to the outward life. This comparison will be more consistent.

[10/107] Let us skip such matters as these. Confession is mentioned at different times in the Psalms. “‘I will confess my transgressions to the LORD,’ and You forgave the iniquity of my sin” (32:5). Such confession of sin, which is made to God, is contrition itself. When confession is made to God, it must be made with the heart, not only with the voice, like actors on the stage. Confession is contrition in which, feeling God’s anger, we confess that God is justly angry and that He cannot be reconciled by our works. Yet, we seek for mercy because of God’s promise. [11/108] Such is the following confession, “Against You, You only, have I sinned … so that You may be justified in Your words and blameless in Your judgment” (Psalm 51:4). This means, “I confess that I am a sinner and have merited eternal wrath. Nor can I set my righteousnesses, my merits, against Your wrath. So I declare that You are just when You condemn and punish us. I declare that You are clear when hypocrites judge You to be unjust in punishing them or in condemning the well-deserving. Yes, our merits cannot satisfy Your judgment. But we will be justified in this way, namely, if You justify us, if through Your mercy You count us righteous.” [12/109] Perhaps someone may also cite James 5:16, “Confess your sins to one another.” But here the reference is not to confession made to priests, but is the reconciliation of brothers to each other. Confession should be mutual.

[13/110] Our adversaries will condemn many well-respected teachers if they will agree that in Confession a listing of offenses is necessary according to divine Law. We approve of Confession, and conclude that some examination is helpful, so that people may be instructed better. Yet, Confession must be done in such a way that consciences are not entrapped. They never will be quieted if they think that they cannot receive the forgiveness of sins unless this precise listing is made. [14/111] What the adversaries have expressed in the Confutation is certainly most false: A full confession is necessary for salvation. This is impossible. What traps they lay for the conscience when they require a full confession! When will a conscience be sure that the confession is complete? [15/112] Church writers mention Confession. However, they do not speak about this listing of secret offenses, but about the rite of public repentance. The fallen or notorious sinners were not received [into fellowship] without fixed satisfactions. They confessed to the presbyters, so that satisfactions might be prescribed to them according to the degree of their guilt. This type of confession has nothing similar to the listing about which we are arguing. This kind of confession was made, not because the forgiveness of sins before God could not happen without it, but because satisfactions could not be prescribed unless the kinds of offense were first known. Different offenses had different rules.

[The Church Fathers on Satisfaction]

[16/113] The word satisfaction has been left from this rite of public repentance. The Holy Fathers were unwilling to welcome back the fallen or the notorious sinners unless, as far as it was possible, their repentance had been first examined and shown publicly. There seem to have been many causes for this. To discipline those who had fallen served as an example, as the gloss upon the decrees reminds us. Also, it was improper to admit notorious people immediately to Communion. These customs have long since grown obsolete. It is not necessary to restore them, because they are not necessary for the forgiveness of sins before God. [17/114] The Fathers did not maintain that people merit the forgiveness of sins through such customs or works. These spectacles ‹outward ceremonies› usually lead astray the ignorant, who thought that they merited the forgiveness of sins before God by these works. If anyone believes this, he has the faith of a Jewish person and a pagan. For even the pagans had certain remedies for offenses through which they imagined they were reconciled to God. [18/115] Now, even though the custom has been cast aside, the word satisfaction still remains. A small part of the custom also remains of prescribing in confession certain satisfactions, which they define as works that are not required. We call them canonical satisfactions. [19/116] Like the complete listing of sins, we hold that canonical satisfactions are not necessary by divine Law for the forgiveness of sins. Neither were those ancient displays of satisfactions in public repentance necessary by divine Law for the forgiveness of sins. The teaching about faith must be kept, that we receive the forgiveness of sins for Christ’s sake through faith, not for the sake of our works that precede or follow. This is why we have discussed especially the question of satisfactions—the righteousness of faith should not be clouded over in submitting to them. Nor should people think that they receive the forgiveness of sins for the sake of these works. [20/117] Many current sayings in the schools aid the error. Among these are those that give the definition of satisfaction, namely, that it is done to reconcile divine displeasure.

[21/118] Nevertheless, the adversaries admit that satisfactions do not help in the pardon of guilt. They imagine that satisfactions help in delivering one from punishment, whether of purgatory or other punishments. They teach that God pardons guilt in the forgiveness of sins. Yet, because divine justice requires sin to be punished, He transfers eternal punishment into temporal punishment. Further, they add that a part of this temporal punishment is pardoned by the Power of the Keys, but that the rest is delivered by means of satisfactions. It cannot be understood which punishments the Power of the Keys partially forgive, unless the adversaries say that a part of the punishments of purgatory is forgiven. That would mean that satisfactions are only punishments delivering from purgatory. They say satisfactions benefit, even though they are presented by those who have fallen again into mortal sin, as though indeed the divine displeasure could be appeased by those who are in mortal sin. [22/119] This entire matter is fake and recently made up without Scriptural authority and the old writers of the Church. Not even Lombard speaks of satisfactions in this way. [23/120] The Scholastics saw that there were satisfactions in the Church. They did not notice that these displays had been set up both for the purpose of example and for testing those who desired to be welcomed back by the Church. In a word, they did not see that it was a discipline and entirely a secular matter. So they superstitiously imagined that these [displays] benefit not for discipline before the Church, but for reconciling God. In other places, they frequently, with great incompetence, have confused spiritual and civil matters. The same happens also regarding satisfactions. [24/121] But at various places the explanation of the canons confirms that these observances were set up for the sake of Church discipline.

[Misuses of Scripture]

[25/122] In the Confutation, the adversaries had the nerve to impose on His Imperial Majesty. Let us see how they prove these fables of theirs. They cite many passages from the Scriptures to impress the inexperienced. They do this as though this subject—unknown even in the time of Lombard—had authority from the Scriptures. They promote such passages as these: “Bear fruit in keeping with repentance” (Matthew 3:8; see also Mark 1:15). “Present your members as slaves to righteousness” (Romans 6:19). Christ preaches repentance, “Repent” (Matthew 4:17). Again, Christ commands the apostles to preach repentance (Luke 24:47), and Peter preaches repentance (Acts 2:38). Afterward, the adversaries quote certain passages of the Fathers and the canons, and conclude that satisfactions in the Church are not to be set aside. This is contrary to the plain Gospel and the decrees of the councils and Fathers. They even claim that those who have been absolved by the priest should finish the repentance that has been directed. They base this on Paul’s declaration, “Who gave Himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession who are zealous for good works” (Titus 2:14).

[26/123] May God confuse these godless philosophers. They wickedly distort God’s Word to their own most empty dreams! What good person is not moved by such insult? “Christ says, ‘Repent,’ the apostles preach repentance; therefore, eternal punishments are relieved by the punishments of purgatory; therefore, the Keys have the power to pardon part of the punishments of purgatory; therefore, satisfactions deliver from the punishments of purgatory!” Who has taught these asses such logic? Yet this is neither logic nor slick thinking, but deceitful trickery. They appeal to the expression “repent” in such a way that, when the inexperienced hear such a passage cited against us, they may come to the opinion that we deny repentance in its entirety. By these moves they try hard to turn away minds and to stir up hatred. They do this so that the inexperienced may cry out against us, that the deadly heretics that disapprove of repentance should be removed from their midst.

[27/124] We hope that these lies may make little headway among good people. We also hope that God will not put up with such rudeness and wickedness much longer. The pope of Rome has not become any more dignified using such patrons, because he has entrusted a very important matter of the greatest importance to the judgment of these philosophers. Since we include almost all of the Christian doctrine in the Confession, judges should have been appointed to declare about important and various matters. Their learning and faith would have been more acceptable than the learning of these philosophers who have written this Confutation. [28/125] It was very fitting of you, O Campegius, according to your wisdom, to have made sure that they should write nothing about important matters that, either now or later, might appear to lower respect for the Roman See. If the Roman See determines that all nations should recognize her as mistress of the faith, she should try very hard to have educated and godly people investigate religious matters. What will the world conclude if at any time the adversaries’ writing is brought to light? What will future generations think about these disgraceful judicial investigations? [29/126] You see, O Campegius, that these are the last days. Christ predicted that the greatest danger to religion would happen in them [Matthew 24:9–28]. You, who should sit on the watchtower [Hosea 9:8] and control religious matters, should in these times also use unusual wisdom and diligence. Unless you heed them, there are many signs that threaten a change to the Roman state. [30/127] And you make a mistake if you think that churches should be kept only by force and arms. The people are asking to be taught about religion. How many do you suppose there are, not only in Germany, but also in England, in Spain, in France, in Italy, and finally even in the city of Rome? Since controversies have come up about subjects of the greatest importance, they are beginning to doubt here and there, to be silently insulted that you refuse to investigate and rightly judge such weighty subjects. They doubt and are insulted that you do not help wavering consciences, that you only ask us to be overthrown and destroyed by arms. [31/128] To many good people this doubt is more bitter than death. You do not think enough about how great a subject religion is, if you think that good people are in anguish for little reason when they doubt any teaching. This doubt can have no other effect than to produce the greatest bitterness of hatred against those who hinder the explanation of the subject when they should heal consciences. [32/129] We are not saying here that you should fear God’s judgment. The religious leaders think that they can easily ensure against this since they hold the Keys. Of course, they can open heaven for themselves whenever they want. We are speaking of the judgments of people and the silent desires of all nations. At this time they require that these matters be investigated and decided so that good minds may be healed and freed from doubt. For, according to your wisdom, you can easily decide what will happen if at any time this hatred should break out against you. By this favor you will be able to bind all nations to yourself. All sane people regard it as the highest and most important matter if you heal doubting consciences. [33/130] We have said these things not because we doubt our Confession. For we know that it is true, godly, and useful to godly consciences. It is likely that there are many in many places who waver about matters of no small importance. Yet they do not hear teachers that are able to heal their consciences.

[34/131] Let us return to the main point. The Scriptures cited by the adversaries do not speak of canonical satisfactions and of the opinions of the Scholastics, since it is clear that the latter were born only recently. Therefore, it is pure slander when they distort Scripture to their own opinions. We say that good fruit, good works in every kind of life, should follow repentance, that is, conversion or regeneration. Neither can there be true conversion or true contrition where the putting to death of the flesh and bearing good fruit do not follow. True terrors, true griefs of mind, do not allow the body to satisfy itself in sensual pleasures, and true faith is not ungrateful to God. Neither does true faith hate God’s commandments. In a word, there is no inner repentance unless it also produces the outward putting to death of the flesh. [35/132] We say that this is John’s meaning when he says, “Bear fruit in keeping with repentance” (Matthew 3:8). Likewise of Paul when he says, “Present your members as slaves to righteousness” (Romans 6:19); just as he likewise says elsewhere, “Present your bodies as a living sacrifice” (Romans 12:1), and so forth. When Christ says, “Repent” (Matthew 4:17), He certainly speaks of repentance in its entirety, of the entire newness of life and its fruit. He does not speak of those hypocritical satisfactions that the Scholastics imagine benefit by delivering from the punishment of purgatory or other punishments when they are made by those in mortal sin.

[36/133] Many arguments, likewise, can be brought together to show that these Scripture passages have nothing to do with scholastic satisfactions. [First,] these men imagine that satisfactions are works that are not due. However, Scripture, in these passages, requires works that are due. For this word of Christ, “Repent,” is the word of a commandment. [37/134] Likewise, the adversaries write that if anyone who goes to Confession should refuse to undertake satisfactions, he does not sin, but will pay these penalties in purgatory. Now the following passages are, without controversy, rules having to do with this life: “repent,” “bear fruit in keeping with repentance,” “present your members as slaves to righteousness.” Therefore, they cannot be twisted to the satisfactions that are permitted to be refused. Refusing God’s commandments is not permitted. [38/135] Third, indulgences pardon these satisfactions, as is taught in the article “Repentance” (beginning Quum ex eo), and so on. But indulgences do not free us from these commandments: “repent,” “bear fruit in keeping with repentance.” Clearly these Scripture passages have been wickedly twisted to apply to canonical satisfactions. See further what follows. [39/136] If the punishments of purgatory are satisfactions, or “satispassions,” or if satisfactions are a pardoning of the punishments of purgatory, do the passages also command that souls be punished in purgatory? Since this must follow from the opinions of the adversaries, these passages should be interpreted in a new way: “bear fruit in keeping with repentance,” “repent,” that is, suffer the punishments of purgatory after this life. [40/137] But we do not care to respond any further to the silly points of the adversaries. Clearly, Scripture speaks of works that are required, of the entire newness of life, and not of these observances of works that are not required, of which the adversaries speak. Yet, by these fables they defend orders of monks, the sale of Masses, and endless observances, calling them works that, if they do not make satisfaction for guilt, can still make satisfaction for punishment.

[41/138] The Scripture passages cited do not say that eternal punishments are to be paid by works that are not required. So the adversaries are rash to assert that these satisfactions are paid by canonical satisfactions. The Keys do not have the command to transfer some punishments and, likewise, to pardon a part of the punishments. For where are such things read in the Scriptures? Christ speaks of the forgiveness of sins when He says, “Whatever you loose …” (Matthew 18:18). He means sin being forgiven, eternal death taken away, and eternal life bestowed. “Whatever you bind” does not speak of requiring punishments, but of retaining the sins of those who are not converted. [42/139] Furthermore, the declaration of Lombard about pardoning a part of the punishments has been taken from the canonical punishments; the pastors forgave a part of these. We hold that repentance should produce good fruit for the sake of God’s glory and command. Good fruit, true fastings, true prayers, true alms, and so forth, have God’s commands. Yet in the Holy Scriptures we find nowhere that eternal punishments are only pardoned because of the punishment of purgatory or canonical satisfactions, that is, because of certain works not required, or that the Power of the Keys has the command to transfer their punishments or to forgive a portion. The adversaries were going to prove these things.

[43/140] Besides, Christ’s death is a satisfaction not only for guilt, but also for eternal death, according to Hosea 13:14, “O Death, where are your plagues?” It is freakish to say that the satisfaction of Christ redeemed from the guilt, but our punishments redeem from eternal death. The expression “I will be your death” does not get understood about Christ, but about our works and, indeed, not about the works commanded by God, but about some dull observances created by men! These are said to abolish death, even when they are completed in mortal sin. [44/141] It is with incredible grief we recite these foolish points of the adversaries. They only cause one who considers them to be enraged against such demonic teachings. The devil has spread these teachings in the Church to hinder the knowledge of the Law and Gospel, of repentance and being made alive, and of Christ’s benefits. [45/142] For of the Law they speak this way:

Here people imagine that they can keep God’s Law in such a way that they do even more than the Law requires [Romans 3:10–20]. But Scripture shouts everywhere that we are far away from the perfection that the Law requires. Still these people imagine that God’s Law affects only outward and civil righteousness. They do not see that it requires true love for God “with all your heart” [Deuteronomy 6:4] and that it condemns all lustful desires in human nature. Therefore, no one does as much as the Law requires. Their imagination that we can do more is ridiculous. We can perform outward works not commanded by God’s Law. Yet confidence that satisfaction has accomplished God’s Law is empty and wicked. [46/143] True prayers, true alms, and true fastings have God’s command. Where they have God’s command, they cannot be left out without sin. But because these other works have not been commanded by God’s Law, but have a fixed form derived from human rule, they are works of human traditions. Christ says about such works, “In vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:9). Such works include certain fasts appointed not for restraining the flesh, but so that honor may be given to God, as Scotus says, and so that eternal death be made up for. Likewise, such works include a fixed number of prayers, a fixed measure of alms when they are offered in worship by the outward act (ex opere operato), giving honor to God, and making up for eternal death. For they assign satisfaction to these works by the outward act because they teach that they benefit even those who are in mortal sin. [47/144] There are works that depart still farther from God’s commands, such as pilgrimages. There is a great variety of these. One makes a journey ‹to St. Jacob› clothed in metal armor, and another with bare feet. Christ calls these “vain acts of worship.” They do not serve to reconcile God’s displeasure, contrary to what the adversaries say. Yet they decorate these works with magnificent titles. They call them works of supererogation. To these works the honor is assigned of being a price paid instead of eternal death. [48/145] They are preferred over the works of God’s commandments. So God’s Law is clouded over in two ways. One, because satisfaction is thought to be rendered to God’s Law by means of outward and civil works. The other, because human traditions are added, whose works are preferred over the works of the divine Law.

[49/146] In the second place, repentance and grace are clouded over. Eternal death is not atoned for by this payment of works because it is idle and does not taste of death in the present life. Something else must be set up against death when it tests us. For just as God’s anger is overcome through faith in Christ, so death is overcome through faith in Christ. Just as Paul says, “But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Co rinthians 15:57). He does not say, “Who gives us the victory if we set up our satisfactions against death.” [50/147] The adversaries foster needless debates about the pardon of guilt. They do not see how, in the pardon of guilt, the heart is freed through faith in Christ from God’s anger and eternal death. Christ’s death is a satisfaction for eternal death. The adversaries themselves confess that these works of satisfactions are works that are not required, but are works of human traditions, of which Christ says that they are vain acts of worship (Matthew 15:9). Therefore, we can safely affirm that canonical satisfactions are not necessary by divine Law for the pardon of guilt or eternal punishment or the punishment of purgatory.

[Additional False Teachings]

[51/148] The adversaries object that revenge or punishment is necessary for repentance, because Augustine says that “repentance is revenge punishing” and so on. We grant that revenge or punishment is necessary in repentance. Yet it is not necessary as merit or price, as the adversaries imagine that satisfactions are necessary. But revenge is in repentance formally, that is, because rebirth itself happens by a continuous putting to death of the oldness of life. The saying of Scotus may indeed be very beautiful, that penitence (poenitentia) is so called because it is “holding to punishment” (poenae tenentia). But what punishment, what revenge, does Augustine speak about? Certainly true punishment, true revenge, namely, contrition, true terrors. Nor do we exclude here the outward putting to death (mortification) of the body, which follows true grief of mind. [52/149] The adversaries make a great mistake if they imagine that canonical satisfactions are more truly punishments than are true terrors in the heart. It is most foolish to twist the name of punishment to these dull satisfactions, and not to refer people to those horrible terrors of conscience of which David says, “The cords of death encompassed me” (Psalm 18:4; see also 2 Sam uel 22:5). Who would not rather, clad in metal armor and equipped, seek the Church of James, the basilica of Peter, and so on, than bear that violence of grief that is beyond words and exists even in persons of ordinary lives, if there be true repentance?

[53/150] They say that it belongs to God’s justice to punish sin. He certainly punishes it in contrition, when in these terrors He shows His wrath. Just as David shows when he prays, “O Lord, rebuke me not in Your anger” (Psalm 6:1). And Jeremiah, “Correct me, O Lord, but in justice; not in Your anger, lest You bring me to nothing” (10:24). Here, indeed, the most bitter punishments are spoken of. The adversaries admit that contrition can be so great that satisfaction is not required. Contrition is, therefore, more truly a punishment than is satisfaction. [54/151] Besides, saints are subject to death and all general afflictions, as 1 Peter 4:17 says, “For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?” Although these afflictions are for the most part the punishments of sin, yet in the godly they have a better end, namely, to exercise them, that they may learn amid trials to seek God’s aid, to acknowledge the distrust of their own hearts, and so forth. As Paul says of himself, “Indeed, we felt that we had received the sentence of death. But that was to make us rely not on ourselves but on God who raises the dead” (2 Corinthians 1:9). Isaiah says, “They poured out a whispered prayer when Your discipline was upon them” (26:16), that is, afflictions are a discipline by which God exercises the saints. [55/152] Likewise, afflictions are inflicted because of present sin, since in the saints they put to death and extinguish lustful desires, so that they may be renewed by the Spirit, as Paul says, “The body is dead because of sin” (Romans 8:10). The body is put to death (mortified) because of present sin that is still left in the flesh. [56/153] Death itself serves this purpose, namely, to abolish this flesh of sin, that we may rise absolutely new [1 Corinthians 15:42]. Since by faith the believer has overcome death’s terrors, there is no longer in the believer’s death that sting and sense of anger of which Paul says, “The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law” (1 Corinthians 15:56). This strength of sin, this sense of wrath, is truly a punishment as long as it is present. Without this sense of wrath, death is not properly a punishment. [57/154] Furthermore, canonical satisfactions do not belong to these punishments. The adversaries wrongly say that by the Power of the Keys a part of the punishments is forgiven. Likewise, according to these very men, the Keys pardon the satisfactions and the punishments because of which the satisfactions are made. But it is clear that common troubles are not removed by the Power of the Keys. If the adversaries wish to be understood regarding these punishments, why do they add that satisfaction is to be accomplished in purgatory?

[58/155] They object to Adam’s example, and also to David’s, who was punished for his adultery. From these examples they get the universal rule that peculiar temporal punishments in the forgiveness of sins correspond to individual sins. [59/156] It has been said before that saints suffer punishments, which are God’s works. They suffer contrition or terrors; they also suffer other common troubles. So, for example, some suffer punishments of their own that have been applied by God. These punishments have nothing to do with the Keys, because the Keys can neither apply nor pardon them. But God, without the ministry of the Keys, applies and pardons them.

Neither does their universal rule follow. A peculiar punishment was put upon David [2 Samuel 12:11–14]. Therefore, in addition to common troubles, [they say] there is another punishment of purgatory, in which each degree corresponds to each sin. [60/157] Where does Scripture teach that we cannot be freed from eternal death except by the payment of certain punishments in addition to common troubles? On the other hand, Scripture often teaches that the forgiveness of sins arises freely for Christ’s sake, that Christ is the Victor over sin and death [1 Corinthians 15:57]. The merit of satisfaction is not to be patched over this. Although troubles still remain, Scripture interprets these as the putting to death of present sin, and not as the payments of eternal death or as prices for eternal death.

[61/158] Job is excused though he was not troubled by past evil deeds [Job 2:3–10]. Therefore, troubles are not always punishments or signs of wrath. Indeed, terrified consciences should be taught that there are more important purposes for afflictions [2 Corinthians 12:9], so that they do not think God is re jecting them when they see nothing but God’s punishment and anger in troubles. The other more important purposes are to be considered, that is, that God is doing His strange work so that He may be able to do His own work, as Isaiah 28 teaches in a long speech. [62/159] When the disciples asked about the blind man who sinned, Christ replies that the cause of his blindness is not sin, but that “the works of God might be displayed in him” (John 9:2–3). In Jeremiah it is said, “If those who did not deserve to drink the cup must drink it …” (49:12). So the prophets, John the Baptist, and other saints were killed [Matthew 5:11]. [63/160] Therefore, troubles are not always punishments for certain past deeds, but they are God’s works, intended for our benefit, and that God’s power might be made more apparent in our weakness.

So Paul says God’s strength “is made perfect in weakness” (2 Corinthians 12:9). Because of God’s will, our bodies should be sacrifices, to declare our obedience, and not to pay for eternal death. God has another price for that: the death of His own Son. [64/161] Gregory interprets David’s punishment in this sense, when he says:

[65/162] Nor are common disasters, properly speaking, removed by these works of canonical satisfactions, that is, by these works of human traditions. The adversaries say that these satisfactions benefit by the outward work (ex opere operato) in such a way that, even though they are done in mortal sin, they still deliver from the punishments. [66/163] When the passage of Paul is cited against us, “But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged [by the Lord]” (1 Corinthians 11:31), “to judge” should be understood to include all of repentance and required fruit, not works that are not required. Our adversaries pay the penalty for hating grammar when they understand “to judge” to equal making a pilgrimage dressed in armor to the Church of St. James, or similar works. “To judge” means all of repentance; it means to condemn sins. [67/164] This condemnation truly happens in contrition and the change of life. All of repentance—contrition, faith, and good fruit—receives the reduction of public and private punishments and disasters, as Isaiah 1:16–19 teaches, “Cease to do evil, learn to do good. … Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow. … If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land.” [68/165] Neither should a most important and beneficial meaning be transferred from all of repentance, and from works required or commanded by God, to the satisfactions and works of human traditions. It is beneficial to teach the following: common evils are reduced by our repentance and by the true fruit of repentance, by good works completed from faith, not, as these men imagine, completed in mortal sin. [69/166] Here belongs the example of the Ninevites (Jonah 3:10), who by their repentance (all of repentance) were reconciled to God and received the favor that their city was not destroyed.

[70/167] Furthermore, the mentioning of satisfaction by the Fathers, and the framing of canons by the councils, was a matter of Church discipline set up as an example, as we have said before. Nor did the councils hold that this discipline is necessary for the pardon either of the guilt or of the punishment. If some of them mention purgatory, they interpret it neither as payment for eternal punishment nor as satisfaction, but as purification of imperfect souls. Just as Augustine says that “venial offenses are consumed,” that is, distrust toward God and other similar tendencies are destroyed. [71/168] Now and then the writers transfer the term satisfaction from the rite itself or spectacle, to illustrate true putting to death (mortification). So Augustine says:

[72/169] About repayment, Gregory says that repentance is false “if it does not satisfy those whose property we have taken.” For the person who still steals does not truly grieve that he has stolen or robbed. He is a thief or robber as long as he is the unjust possessor of the property of another. This civil satisfaction is necessary, because it is written, “Let the thief no longer steal” (Ephesians 4:28). [73/170] Likewise, Chrysostom says, “In the heart, contrition; in the mouth, confession; in the work, entire humility.” This amounts to nothing against us. Good works should follow repentance. It should be repentance (not a show), a change of the entire life for the better.

[74/171] Likewise, the Fathers wrote that it is enough if once in life this public or ceremonial penitence happens, for which the canons about satisfactions have been made. Clearly, they held that these canons are not necessary for the forgiveness of sins. In addition to this ceremonial penitence, they frequently want penitence to be done another way, in which canons of satisfactions were not required.

[75/172] The composers of the Confutation write that the setting aside of satisfactions (which are contrary to the plain Gospel), is not to be tolerated. So far we have shown that these canonical satisfactions, that is, unrequired works performed to pay for punishment, do not have the command of the Gospel. [76/173] The subject itself shows this. If works of satisfaction are works that are not required, why do they cite the plain Gospel? For if the Gospel would command that punishments be paid for by such works, the works would already be required. But they speak in this way in order to burden the inexperienced, and they cite testimonies that speak of required works, although they themselves in their own satisfactions prescribe works that are not required. Indeed, in their schools they themselves admit that satisfactions can be refused without sin. Therefore, they write here falsely that we are compelled by the plain Gospel to undertake these canonical satisfactions.

[True Repentance Produces Good Works]

[77/174] We have already frequently testified that repentance should produce good fruit. These good fruit are what the commandments teach: prayer, thanksgiving, the confession of the Gospel, teaching the Gospel, obeying parents and rulers, and being faithful to one’s calling. We should not kill, not hold on to hatred, but we should be forgiving and give to the needy, so far as we can according to our means. We should not commit sexual sins or adultery, but should hold in check, bridle, and chastise the flesh, not for a repayment of eternal punishment, but so as not to obey the devil or offend the Holy Spirit. Likewise, we should speak the truth. These fruit have God’s command and should be produced for the sake of God’s glory and command. They have their rewards also. But Scripture does not teach that eternal punishments are only pardoned through the payment offered by certain traditions or by purgatory. [78/175] Indulgences used to be pardon for these public observances, so that people should not be burdened excessively. But if, by human authority, satisfactions and punishments can be pardoned, this payment is not necessary by divine Law. A divine Law is not set aside by human authority. Further, since the custom is no longer used and the bishops ignore it in silence, these pardons are not necessary. Yet the word indulgences remained. Satisfactions were understood not referring to outward discipline, but referring to the payment of punishment. So indulgences were incorrectly understood to free souls from purgatory. [79/176] But the Keys have the power of binding and loosing only upon earth [not in purgatory], according to Matthew 16:19, “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” As we have said before, the Keys do not have the power to impose penalties or to institute rites of worship, but only the command to forgive sins [John 20:23] to those who are converted and to convict and excommunicate [1 Corinthians 5] those who are unwilling to be converted. For just as to loose means to forgive sins, so to bind means not to forgive sins. Christ speaks of a spiritual kingdom, and God’s command is that ministers of the Gospel should absolve those who are converted, according to 2 Corinthians 10:8, “our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up.” [80/177] Therefore, the reservation of cases is a secular affair. It is a reservation of canonical punishment. It is not a reservation of guilt before God in those who are truly converted. The adversaries judge rightly when they confess that in the matter of death the reservation of cases should not hinder Absolution.

[81/178] We have presented all of our doctrine about repentance. We certainly know it is godly and beneficial to good minds. If good people will compare our doctrine with the very confused discussions of our adversaries, they will see that the adversaries have left out the doctrine about faith justifying and comforting godly hearts. They will also see that the adversaries invent many things about the merits of attrition, about the endless listing of offenses, and about satisfactions. They say things that agree neither with human law nor divine Law, and which not even they themselves can explain clearly enough.