A FOURTH LETTER, &c. SIR, IN In my last Letter little more was done than to state your doctrine of Satisfaction, and to point out a few of its consequences. I am persuaded that a candid examination of those consequences, and of the contrasts (also noticed) between the Gospel and your doctrines on this subject, ought to suffice for the satisfaction of any reasonable mind; but in order to prevent any possibility of escape, it may be advisable to examine in detail the various arguments which yourself and other Romish controversialists have advanced, in support of your view of Satisfactions, and to establish the Catholic doctrine opposed to yours by the authority of Scripture and of Catholic Tradition. Let me then again state your doctrine of Satisfaction. According to the Catechism of Trent, "Satisfaction is compensation for the injury done "to another "," and more particularly "that com a Ita satisfactio nihil aliud est quam injuriæ alteri illatæ compensatio. Pars ii. c. 85. pensation, when man pays somewhat to God for "the sins which he has committed." Tournely says, that Satisfaction is "the payment of a debt "which was contracted by sin or by offending "God." You yourself and other Roman theologians always employ the term as equivalent to the payment of a debt due to Divine Justice. With reference to the particular debt which is to be discharged by Satisfaction, you speak thus: "We believe that upon this forgiveness of sins, [in "the Sacrament of Penance,] that is, after the "remission of that eternal debt, which God in his 'justice awards to transgressions against his law, "he has been pleased to reserve a certain degree "of inferior or temporary punishment, appropriate "to the guilt which had been incurred; and it is "on this part of the punishment alone, that, ac"cording to the Catholic doctrine, satisfaction can "be made to God." (Lectures ii. 41.) What are your arguments in support of this doctrine? I. You appeal to our "natural feelings" in proof that calamities and sufferings in this world are intended as punishments for our sins pardoned. (p. 42.) That appeal I have already answered, and have proved, that this attempt to connect suffering Cùm homo pro peccatis commissis Deo aliquid persolvit. Ibid. • Solutio est debiti quod contractum est ex delicto seu offensâ Dei. De Pœnit. t. ii. p. 2. with the sin of him who commits it, leads to the inference that our Lord himself was sinful, which is a damnable heresy. I have also shewn, that it is an article of faith that calamities and sufferings are sent to the justified, in order to purify their hearts, and to procure for them a higher degree of glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ. II. Your next appeal is to the holy Scripture. "The very first principles of moral conduct, "whether in the Old or the New Law, seem "connected with the necessity of purifications and works, painful or disagreeable, or with sufferings sent by Divine Providence, as inflictions justly deserved. Thus, we remark constantly "in the Old Law visible demonstrations of repentance and sorrow, after sin has been forgiven." (Lectures ii. 43.) In proof of this, we are referred (p. 43.) to the case of David's punishment for his conduct to Uriah (2 Kings xii. 14.); to the chastisement inflicted for numbering the people (2 Kings xxiv. 11.); and to the penalty suffered by Moses and Aaron for their sin, (Numb. xx. 12, 24. Deut. xxxiv. 4.) These passages have been examined in my Second Letter, in which it has been shewn, that God's mode of dealing with mankind in those ages required the infliction of such punishments, but that under the Gospel they are no longer requisite. In the second case mentioned, the |