The Reverend Paul

F.

Genovese,

S.S.

THE THOMISTIC CONCEPT OF THE
VICARIOUS MODE OF SATISFACTION

DISSERTATIO
AD LAUREAM
IN FACULTATE S. THEOLOGIAE
APUD PONTIFICIUM INSTITUTUM “ANGELICUM”
DE URBE

Baltimore, Mo.
1950

/
'--Λ Λ..

.

:

Vidimus et approbavimus,
Romae, apud Pont. Institutum “Angelicum”,
die 23 mense Maii, anno 1950

Nihil Obstat :
Rev. Michael P. Browne, O.P.
Rev. Mark P. Egan, O.P.
Nihil Obstat:
Rev. Edward A. Cerny, S.S., S.T.D.
Censor Librorum
Imprimatur:
Most Reverend Francis P. Keough, D.D.
Archbishop of Baltimore, Md.

CONTENTS
Introduction ___________________________ _______________
1. Various aspects of the dogma of the Redemption.
2. The systematic analysis of St. Thomas Aquinas.
3. Mode of procedure.

vii

CHAPTER ONE
Preliminary Notions of Mediator and Redeemer___________
1. Definitions and applications to Christ.
2. Christ, as Mediator, redeemed mankind by His meriting
and satisfying.

1

CHAPTER TWO
The Notion of Satisfaction ______________________________
8
1. Definition and classification.
2. The moral satisfaction of Christ.
a. the elements involved in sin—constitutive elements of
reatus culpae et poenae, justice of God and moral order,
relation to satisfaction given by Christ.
b. the values or perfection of Christ’s satisfaction—per­
fect relative to its matter and form, of infinite value
and superabundant ab intrinseco, conditions for satis­
faction in rigore justitiae fulfilled.
c. the necessity of satisfaction—satisfaction considered
in itself, considered relative to the Incarnation, con­
sidered relative to the Passion and Death of Christ.
CHAPTER THREE

The Mode of Christ’s Satisfaction_______________________
1. Status Quaestionis.
2. Demonstration :
a. doctrine of the Church and Scriptural basis.
b. the arguments from Tradition.
c. analysis of the Thomistic concept—the Headship of
Christ and solidarity, the motive of love, the motive of
obedience.
v

31

CHAPTER FOUR
Objections _____________________________________
67
1. As posed by St. Thomas in the Summa, III, q. 48, a. 2.
2. Objections that have their source in the erroneous con­
ception of the nature of Christ’s satisfaction.
3. Objections based upon the apparent contradiction between
God’s infinite mercy and justice.

CHAPTER FIVE
Evaluation
-- -------------------------------------------- ------------ ... 81
1. Recapitulation and the relative importance of the moral
and penal aspects of satisfaction.
2. The position of St. Thomas.
89

Conclusion .. -----

Bibliography
Index

______________

90
92

INTRODUCTION
The dogma of the Redemption may well be termed the dogma of
mysteries. Whether it be considered only in its most general sense,
as the complement to the antecedent truths of creation, original sin,
and the Incarnation, or, in its limited and immediate application, as
the atonement for sin and the cause of man’s salvation wrought by
the Passion and Death of Christ, the fact remains that the various
aspects or elements involved in the theological concept of Redemp­
tion are many and complex.
In any work or treatise on the Redemption, therefore, the im­
mediate problem at hand seems to resolve itself into one of procedure
and plan. This difficulty is particularly realized in the present work
which has for its subject-matter the Redemption of Christ considered
as a vicarious satisfaction for the sins of mankind. It will be of
advantage, therefore, to incorporate here a brief summary of the
Redemption in all its aspects, as a means of obtaining perspective,
and of securing a more accurate placement of the thesis itself.
The doctrines which serve as prerequisites for the mystery of the
Redemption are those of original sin, its consequences, and the Incar­
nation. It is through the Incarnation that Christ, as the God-Man,
is constituted a Mediator between man and his Creator. Christ exer­
cised this divine office of Mediator as Teacher and King, but pre­
eminently as Redeemer.
The dogma of the Redemption itself may be conveniently divided
into three divisions: the revelation of Redemption, the Catholic con­
cept, the Protestant concept. Briefly, the revelation of the Redemp­
tion will include all the notions of sin, sacrifices for sin, and the
Messianic hope of Judaism; the testimony of the Scriptures of the
New Testament, the historical development as found in Tradition,
and the teachings of the infallible magisterium of the Church.
The Catholic concept will embrace the presupposed truths already
mentioned, and all the various aspects or elements contained in the
mystery itself. Of the latter, the two considered of primary impor­
tance are : a) the material aspect of Redemption, or the price to be
paid (penal expiation) ; b) the moral aspect, or the offense to be
repaired (satisfaction properly so-called).
Finally, a study of the Redemption today demands a consideration
of the erroneous concepts of the Protestant Reformation, rationalism,
and modern liberalism.
In presenting the Catholic concept alone, whether in whole or in
vii

viii

Introduction

part, there is still greater need for order and systematic procedure,
for, in the words of Prat:
Redemption is essentially the destruction of sin. There are as many aspects
of Redemption as there are of sin; if sin is a fall, redemption will be an up­
lifting; if sin is an infirmity, redemption will be a remedy; if sin is a debt,
redemption will be its payment; if sin is a fault, redemption will be an expia­
tion ; if sin is a bondage, redemption will be a deliverance ; if sin is an offense,
redempton will be a satisfaction as regards man, a propitiation as regards God,
and a mutual reconciliation between God and man.1

The Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, has both systematized
and analysed these various aspects according to the following schema :
III Sent., d. 20, q. 1, a. 1 : It is fitting that human nature be repaired.

Summa, III, q. 1, a. 2: The Incarnation is the means whereby this is to be
accomplished. It is to be considered necessary only in the hypothesis that a
condign satisfaction was demanded. The reason for sueh a necessity is found
in the fact that sin, in virtue of the infinity of the injured Divine Majesty,
has a quamdam infinitatem.

Summa, III, q. 46, a. 1-3: The Passion itself cannot be stated as absolutely
necessary, since God could have dispensed from satisfaction without injury to
His justice.
Summa, III, q. 46, a. 5-8: The psychology of the Passion.

Summa, III, q. 48, a. 1-5: The Passion causes salvation in various ways or
modes.
Summa, III, q. 49, a. 1-6: Catalogue of its effects.12

It is in the various modes, referred to above, whereby the Passion
is said to cause salvation, that St. Thomas has formulated what may
be termed the essence of the Redemption. In themselves they give
a theological expression to the great work of Redemption. The Pas­
sion and Death are seen to be the cause of man’s salvation insofar
as Christ offered to God a meritorious satisfaction which was in
itself a sacrifice liberating man from the guilt of sin and its punish­
ment. The following is a summary of these four modes as given in
the Summa, III, q. 48, a. 1-4 :
a. 1: Manifestum est quod quicumque in gratia constitutus propter justitiam
patitur ex hoc ipso meretur. . . . Secundum quod eam (passionem) aliquis
voluntarie sustinet, sic habet principium ab interiori et hoc modo est meritoria.
a. 2: Ille proprie satisfacit pro offensa qui exhibet offenso id quod aeque vel
magis diligit quam oderit offensam. Christus autem, ex caritate et obedientia
patiendo, majus aliquid Deo exhibuit. . . .
a. 3 : Sacricium proprie dicitur aliquid factum in honorem proprie Deo debitum
ad eum placandum. . . . Christus autem seipsum obtulit in passione pro nobis
et hoc ipsum quod voluntarie passionem sustinuit Deo maxime acceptum fuit. . . *

1 Prat, The Theology of St. Paul, II, p. 190.
2 Rivère, “Rédemption”, D.T.C., T. XIII, P. II, e. 1949-50.

Introduction

ix

a. 4: . . . ejus passio fuit quasi quoddam pretium per quod liberati sumus ab
utraque obligatione. Nam ipsa satisfactio qua quis satisfacit sive pro se sive pro
alio pretium quoddam dicitur.3

It is evident, then, that the Passion and Death of Christ was at
once a work of merit, satisfaction, sacrifice, and redemption. Of these
four modes or aspects, that of satisfaction alone is to be developed
in the present thesis.
Inasmuch as the Thomistie concept of satisfaction is not found
in its entirety in one question of the Summa, the controlling purpose
or aim of this work will be to present a synthesis of the elements
involved in vicarious satisfaction, its demonstration, and finally an
analysis of the concept itself: the Headship of Christ, the solidarity
between Christ and men, the motives of love and obedience in the
Saviour’s Passion and Death.
The thesis is non-argumentative in procedure. References to op­
posing views, opinions, or systems are made wholly for the purpose
of securing a greater clarity and more accurate appreciation of the
Thomistie concept itself.
The bibliography does not pretend to be exhaustive, but it is
representative. Considering that the w’orks on satisfaction are almost
co-extensive with those treating the complete dogma of the Redemp­
tion, limitation of research became a necessity. In addition to the
works of St. Thomas Aquinas and his principal commentators, other
sources consulted for both pertinent subject-matter and bibliographi­
cal references include the works of R. Garrigou-Lagrange, I. M.
Vosté, E. Hugon, J. Rivière, and Ad. Tanquerey.
8 Cf. Rivère, Étude Théologique, pp. 298-301.

I

Chapter One

PRELIMINARY NOTIONS OF MEDIATOR AND
REDEEMER
I. Definitions.
The work of the Redemption, and in particular, its vicarious mode
of satisfaction, is basically a work of mediation. It is upon the
notion of divine mediation as that process whereby Christ restored a
lost harmony between God and man, that the entire doctrine of Re­
demption rests. To say that Christ redeemed mankind, exclusive of
the actual manner or modes by which it was accomplished, is to
presuppose that Christ was first of all a Mediator. This chapter,
therefore, will, by definition of the terms mediator and redeemer, and
by their specific application to Christ, the Son of God, provide a
twofold demonstration for the following important and necessary
conclusions: first, that Christ, and He alone, fulfilled most perfectly
all the conditions required for a reconciliation between God and man,
by virtue of His being a Mediator par excellence; and secondly,
that He exercised the functions proper to the office of a Mediator
most particularly by His redemption of fallen man. The considera­
tion of the satisfaction offered to God by Christ as Redeemer will
then follow logically as the subject-matter for the next chapter.
Stated simply, a mediator is a go-between. He is looked upon as
one responsible for the restoration of harmony between two persons
or groups who are for the present at variance with each other. The
mediator maintains a neutral position, and this in such a way that
he is able to stand between them as the equal friend of each and, by
restoring them to their former state, whatever its nature may have
been, thereby effects a reconciliation or union.
Dicendum quod ad mediatoris officium proprie pertinet coniungere et unire
eos inter quos est mediator: nam extrema uniuntur in medio.1

St- Thomas here uses the name mediator in its proper sense, namely,
as one who intercedes between two persons with the end in view of
conjoining or reconciling them, or in other words, of effecting an
agreement or pact between them.
From the above definitions, then, it is evident that there are two1
1 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III pars, q. 26, a. 1. Note : For
the sake of convenience, future references to the Summa Theologiae of St.
Thomas will be given in the following abbreviated form—Summa, III, q. 26,
a. 1. References to works other than the Summa of St. Thomas will be stated
as such.

1

2

The Thomistic Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

essential conditions or qualities necessary for the attainment of medi­
ation properly so-called: first, that the person who is to act as media­
tor must be distinct from the parties at variance; secondly, that he
must at the same time have something in common with both.
In the application of these notions to the redemptive work of
Christ upon earth, both the true meaning of mediation and its essen­
tial conditions are fullly realized. The offense given God by original
sin, which resulted in the loss of union or harmony between Creator
and creature, provided the proper setting for the conciliatory in­
tervention of a mediator. Such was the precise motive for the
Incarnation of the Son of God. The Second Person of the Holy
Trinity assumed a human nature to conjoin or re-unite fallen hu­
manity to the offended God. The Council of Trent has stated the
doctrine briefly:
. . . per meritum unius Mediatoris Domini Nostri Jesu Christi.2*

In the words of St. Thomas :
Unire autem homines Deo perfective quidem convenit Christo, per quem
homines sunt reconciliati Deo, secundum illud 2 ad Corinth. 5, 19: “Deus erat
in Christo, mundum reconcilians sibi.” Et ideo solus Christus est perfectus
Dei et hominum mediator, in quantum per suam mortem humanum genus Deo
reconciliavit. Unde cum Apostolus dixisset: “Mediator Dei et hominum homo
Christus Jesus, subjunxit : Qui dedit semetipsum redemptionem pro omnibus. ’ ’s

Christ, therefore, not only fulfills the conditions required for true
mediation, but He fulfills them in a manner at once perfect and
unique. He is distinct from God the Father by virtue of His in­
dividual personality and His human nature; He is also distinct from
men by virtue of the hypostatic union from which flows what men do
not possess, namely, the plentitude of grace, truth, and divine life.
Likewise does Christ, the God-Man, have something in common with
both, God and man: relative to God He has the one, same divine
nature ; relative to man, He is also man by virtue of His complete and
integral human nature, body and soul.
The union of the divine and human nature in one Person constitutes a mediator
between God and man. As one in the midst of two extremes, his is the office
of uniting both and yet remaining distant from each. ... At one and the same
time Christ, by virtue of His humanity, is apart from God, and by His eminent
dignity of grace and glory, also apart from men.4

Given the fact that the human and divine nature are hypostatically
united in Jesus Christ, it may then be said that in the Incarnation
He has conjoined God and man physically, while in the work of
Redemption and its effects, Christ is said to have united God and
2 Council of Trent, V Sess., can. 3, D.B., 672.
8 Summa, III, q. 26, a. 1.
4 Hugon, Le mystère de la Sédemption, p. 164.

Preliminary Notions of Mediator and Redeemer

3

man morally.5 The latter He has specifically accomplished by bring­
ing to men, as the Ambassador of God, divine precepts and gifts ; and
•in turn, as the Representative of men, giving to God an adequate
satisfaction for sin as well as His own intercession on their behalf.®
The special office of Mediator being to serve as a bond of union between
two parties, in order to reconcile them if they are in conflict, and to strengthen
the bonds between them, if they are at peace, the God-man was eminently
fitted to fill this role; since, by His two natures, He identifies Himself with the
two extremes, and since, by His theandric nature, He associates them in an in­
dissoluble union.7

Nor less impressive is the cogent reasoning and expression given
this truth by St. Augustine:
He (i.e. Christ) is the mediator between God and man, because He is God
with the Father and a man with men. A mere man could not be a mediator
between God and man; nor could a mere God. Behold the Mediator: Divinity
without humanity cannot act as mediator; nor can humanity without Divinity;
but the human Divinity and the Divine Humanity of Christ is the sole Mediator
between Divinity and humanity.8

It is not to be understood, however, that Christ is a Mediator
according to both the divine and human nature, in the sense that
each is a distinct, formal principle by which the work of mediation
is accomplished. Both the human and divine nature are hypostatically united in the Person of the Mediator, and both are equally neces­
sary. This necessity, on the other hand, does not permit Christ to
be called a Mediator secundum quod Deus, for Christ is in all things
equal to the Father and the Holy Spirit, both in nature and power
of dominion. But He is, in the fullest meaning of the term, a Media­
tor secundum quod homo, and this for the reasons already cited. To
the objection that the removal of sin, the final cause of the mediation
of Christ, would seem to pertain to Christ not scundum quod homo,
but rather insofar as He is God, the following reply is given by St.
Thomas :
Licet auctoritative peccatum auferre conveniat Christo, secundum quod est
Deus, tamen satisfacere pro peccato humani generis convenit ei secandum quod
est homo. Ft secundum hoc dicitur Dei et hominum mediator.9

Granted that in Christ all the aforementioned conditions for both
the personal title of Mediator and the work of mediation itself are
fulfilled most perfectly, is it not possible for others to lay a similar
claim to the same title and office? Nothing prevents others from
being called mediators between God and men, provided they are
«Tanquerey, Synopsis Theologicae Dogmaticae, II, p. 722.
eCf. Janssens, De Deo-Homine, I, p. 829.
7 Prat, Theology of St. Paul, II, p. 166.
8 Journal, Enchiridion Patristicum, 1500.
* Summa, III, q. 26, a. 2, ad 3um.

4

The Thomistie Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

understood to be such only in a manner secundarie, not principaliter.
The reason given for this distinction is that men, apart from Christ,
can and do participate in the work of uniting men with God but
only by way of disposing them, or of acting on their behalf as minis­
ters of the one, true Mediator. It is in this sense that the prophets
and priests of the Old Testament are said to be mediators, namely,
as those who foretold and prefigured the perfect Mediator yet to
come; the same is true for priests of the New Law, insofar as they
are looked upon as the lawful ministers of Jesus Christ. The term
thus understood has a special application to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
She, as the Mother of the Redeemer, has merited the title of Mediatrix
ad Mediatorem, and of Co-redemptrix,
Sed est realiter causa secundaria, Christo subordinata, et dispositiva redemp­
tionis nostrae.1011

Christ is, therefore, as man subsisting in the Person of the Word,
the unique and eternal, universal and supreme Mediator; in Him
alone is the full and perfect meaning of mediation, as outlined above,
capable of being completely realized.
2. Christ as Mediator redeemed mankind.
The Gospels give frequent and clear indications that Christ executed
the functions proper to His office as Mediator in the following ways :
as Teacher, King, and Redeemer. Christ as Teacher expounded to
men the truths necessary for the attainment of their end; He ex­
purgated, embellished, and perfected the Old Law. As one to whom
had been communicated all the powers on heaven and earth, He was
also a King, and thereby entitled to all the honors bestowed upon
those who enjoy the privileges of royalty. Finally, by His death
upon the Cross He offered to His heavenly Father, on behalf of men,
the most perfect sacrifice possible. He, as Redeemer and Priest,
gave Himself as the Victim.11
The most eminent of all Christ’s titles as Mediator, therefore, is
that of Redeemer, for the principal mode of His mediation is found
properly in the Redemption. It was Christ the Redeemer who freed
men from sin and restored to them their rights to grace and glory,
and who, in the sacrifice of the Cross, offered to God a most perfect
satisfaction and atonement of the offense given Him by man, and
who, as a result, merited for all mankind eternal salvation. In the
words of Rivière :
Jesus is the legate of the Father among men . . . the Mediator between God
and us, that is to say, He is the instrument of His revelations, the herald of

10 Garrigou-Lagrange, De Christo Salvatore, p. 514; cf. Summa, III, q. 26, a. 1.
11 Cf. Summa, III, q. 22; Tanqucrey, op. cit., p. 723ff.

Preliminary Notions of Mediator and Redeemer

5

Hie wishes, and reciprocally, in what concerns us . . . He is the one source of
salvation, the only means we have of reaching God.12

Redemption, in the natural or physical order, is defined etymo­
logically as a re-buying. In its fuller meaning, it is an act by which
one, in the offering of an adequate payment, acquires anew what
was once possessed and lost. The three elements involved in any
redemption, therefore, are : a loss, a recovery, and the payment of a
price. In the supernatural order, and more explicitly in the Re­
demption of Christ, these same conditions prevail ; for in His Passion
and Death upon the Cross, Christ offered His own blood as the
price for recovering fallen man from the servitude of sin and restor­
ing him to that friendship he once enjoyed with God.
The servitude of sin (or captivity of the devil) was the direct
result of the offense given tn God by original sin, whereby man was
deprived of the privileges of the supernatural state, namely, the life
of grace and the liberties of divine sonship. The price for the release
or liberation of man from this state of sin to that of grace Christ
paid by the shedding of His blood; wherefore He is said to be a
Redeemer.13
While it is true that Christ could have saved men through a
singular act of love, in itself infinitely meritorious and satisfactory,
nevertheless, without the payment of price, the true and full notion
of Redeemer does not obtain. In the actual plan of God, therefore,
Christ becomes the Saviour in suffering death, and in His offering
of it as the price of man’s salvation, He is properly called the
Redeemer.1415
The Angelic Doctor has expressed the doctrine as follows:
Dicendum quod ad hoc quod aliquis redimat, duo requiruntur, scilicet actus solu­
tionis, et pretium solutum. Si enim aliquis solvat pro redemptione alicujus rei
pretium, quod non est suum, sed alterius, ipse non dicitur redimere principaliter,
sed magis ille cujus est pretium. Pretium autem redemptionis nostrae est sanguis
Christi, vel vita ejus corporalis, quae ‘‘est in sanguine,” quam ipse Christus
exsolvit.18

Consequently, according to the commentary of Cajetan, even though
the work of Redemption itself is attributed to the Holy Trinity as its
prime cause, the Redemption pertains personally only to Christ be­
cause He alone paid the price.16*
12‘‘Jésus est l’envoyé du Père auprès es hommes . . . l’intermediaire de Dieu à
nous, c’est-à-dire l’organe de ses révélations, le porte-parole de ses volontés, et
réciproquement, de notre côté ... la source unique du salut, le seul moyen que
nous ayons d’aller à Dieu?” Bivière, Étude Théoloffique, p. 186.
13Voste, Commentarius in Summ. Theol., p. 368.
14 Hugon, op. cit., p. 239.
15 Summa, III, q. 48, a. 5.
16 Ibid., note 4 (ed. Marietti). Cajetan also gives here a three fold explanatio»
of the following words used by St. Thomas in reference to the sufferings of

6

The Thomistic Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

Likewise, in the Scriptures of the New Testament, the word Redemption is used to indicate the “Messianic deliverance of men ob­
tained by the blood of Christ offered as a ransom . . . the deliverance
of men obtained by paying either the ransom or the price due. This
price, as the Synoptics, in full accord with Paul, teach us, is the
blood of Christ. ”17
“Even as the Son of Man has not come to be served but to serve, and to give
His life as a ransom for many.” (Matt., 20:28)

. . . Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us that He might redeem us from all
iniquity . . . (Titus, 2:14)

It should be evident, therefore, that the price given by Christ does
not involve the idea of a pecuniary transaction, nor does it mean that
the price was given to the devil into whose captivity man had fallen.18
The price and its payment have reference to the moral order only, as
mentioned above, not to the material or physical order in the accepted
sense of these terms.
Thus far it has been demonstrated that Christ, as the unique and
principal Mediator between God and mankind, through His death
upon the Cross, redeemed man by liberating him from the servitude
of sin and the devil, and by returning him to that supernatural state
of grace from which, through sin, he had fallen. Redemption, there­
fore, may be referred to as that entire supernatural economy by which
Christus, nostrum caput, sese nobis substituendo, offert Deo reparationem of­
fensae adaequatam simulque sacrificium perfectum; nosque a captivitate liberat
et in bona supernaturalia per lapsum amissa redintegrat et restaurat.19

According to the analysis of St. Thomas, already given in the Intro­
duction, the aspect of liberation or deliverance (per modum redemp­
tionis), and that of restoration presuppose the meritorious aspect of
Redemption (per modum meriti} ; as such they are referred to as the
effective elements of Redemption. The constitutive elements, on the
other hand, comprise the death of Christ considered exclusively not
as a mere shedding of blood, but as an appeasement given to God
(per modum sacrificii} ; and secondly, as an adequate reparation for
Christ and those of the saints: 1. Passiones: “Siam. passiones Christi absolute
redimunt Ecclesiam: passiones autem Sanctorum non abolute, ut hic dicitur, sed
superflue tantum satisfaciunt pro nobis ...
2. Hedemptionis.· “Quoniam
passio Christi redimit simpliciter, quia a servitute culpae et poenae: passiones
vero sanctorum non nisi secundum quid redimunt, scilicet a poena quadam, scilicet
temporali pro actuali peccato debita. ’ ’ 3. Proficiunt : ‘ ‘ Quia passio Christi prodest
Ecclesiae per modum redemptionis, etiam si nulla clavis Ecclesiae intercedat: sed
passiones sanctorum non pro me satisfaciunt nisi clavium auctoritate mihi appli­
centur. ’ ’ Summa, III, q. 47, a. 5, ad 3um.
17 Prat, op. cit., I, p. 432.
18 The section on tradition in Chapter Three will include a further discussion
concerning the price of redemption as being paid to the devil.
18 Hugon, Tractatus Dogmatici, II, p. 670.

Preliminary Notions of Mediator and Redeemer

1

the offense given Him through sin {per modum satisfactionis) ;20 In
the words of the Council of Trent :
Sua sanctissima passione in ligno crucis nobis justificationem meruit et pro
nobis Deo Patri satisfecit.21

In its very essence, then, Redemption is the blood of Christ offered
to God in compensation for an offense—and this is called satisfaction.
Hence it follows that satisfaction is the primary and fundamental
concept of the dogma of the Redemption.
20 Cf. Hugon, Le Mystère de la Rédemption, p. 212; Tanquerey, op. oit., p. 729.
21 Council of Trent, VI Sess., cap. 7, D.B., 799.

Chapter Two

THE NOTION OF SATISFACTION
1. Definition and classification.
The theological concept of satisfaction is admittedly involved and
complex. The chief source of difficulty is to be found in the fact that
even in sacred theology the term itself has more than one meaning or
usage. Restitution, for example, may at times be referred to as a
kind of satisfaction, but it is not the same as that offered by Christ in
the wonk of the Redemption ; nor does the vicarious satisfaction of the
Passion have the same meaning as the satisfaction referred to in the
Sacrament of Penance. Further, when analyzed exclusively in terms
of the Redemption, the exact and complete meaning of satisfaction
demands an inquiry into at least the constitutive elements involved
in sin, and its relation to the justice of God and the moral order. Of
no less importance are the kindred questions of the perfection or
values of Christ’s satisfaction and of its necessity.
This chapter, therefore, will have as its primary purpose the pres­
entation of whatever pertains to the nature of satisfaction in general,
and to the moral satisfaction of Christ in particular—exclusive of its
precise mode as applied to the Redemption itself, namely, as a repara­
tion given out of love and obedience on behalf of mankind. It will in­
clude, therefore, the various definitions of satisfaction and their prop­
er classification or division; secondly, an exposition of the basic ele­
ments of the reatus poenae and reatus culpae of sin whereby an ade­
quate satisfaction was due to God in reparation for the offense given
Him. Finally, there will follow a brief commentary on the perfection
or values attached to Christ’s satisfaction, and the qualifications that
are to be made in regard to its necessity.
While the questions concerning the perfection and necessity of the
satisfaction given by Christ do not pertain directly to the subject­
matter of the present treatise, their incorporation, nevertheless, is
deemed necessary in order to insure a complete and no less accurate
presentation of the redemptive work of satisfaction according to the
mind of St. Thomas. This procedure will likewise make possible the
final demonstration and analysis of vicarious satisfaction as a more or
less integral unit in itself.
The term satisfaction etymologically defined signifies that process or
action whereby something is said to be made sufficient or equal (satis­
facere ). The term in itself likewise implies an idea of measure or of a
certain equality between whatever is given and that which is due or
owed.
8

The- Notion of Satisfaction

9

Satisfactio in aequalitate rei ad rem consistit, hoe est, in adaequatione rei quae
solvitur ad id quod debetur.1

The debt, or that which is said to be due, is always presupposed in
any work or action that is intended to make one thing equal to an­
ther, or in any action performed expressly for the purpose of satisfy­
ing.
Praesupponit namque satisfactio debitum, pro quo satisfaciendum est, et debito
praesupposito, tune satisfit, quando aliquid exhibetur aequivalens debito, vel ex­
cedens illud.1
2

Satisfaction, then, in its most general sense, is an integral payment
of whatever may be due another; it is a compensation or making up
for what is owed, either by payment of the debt itself, or by making a
return of a sufficient equivalent in place of what is due; it concerns
the right of another that, has in some way been violated, and conse­
quently the good that is to be restored to him.
The element of debt involved in the term thus far defined may be
either material or moral.3
He is said to truly and properly satisfy who gives a price equivalent to the thing
taken or injury inflicted, through which the debt is extinguished.4

Given this two-fold possibility, it becomes immediately evident that
the notion of satisfaction is capable of being applied to both, matters
material and moral.
When referred to matters merely material, the term’s significance,
now definitely specified, is readily recognized. A common example for
this type of material satisfaction would be the pecuniary transaction
involved in the payment of a debt incurred as a result of a physical or
a material wrong, such as the wilful damaging of another’s property,
or deliberate theft. In this ease, however, the compensation given is
more properly referred to as restitution and not satisfaction. Resti­
tution, it is true, is a compensation, but one that is always obliga­
tory, and one that is given usually, although not exclusively, as a re­
sult of a material damage inflicted, or of some material object taken
unjustly.5
When, on the other hand, the term satisfactwn is applied to the
moral order, it likewise is said to signify the adequate payment of a
debt, but a debt that is not material in the accepted sense of the
1 Medina, Expositio in Illam Partem D. Thomae, q. 48, a. 2.
2 Comm. Cajetani, Summa, III, q. 48, a. 2.
3 “ Satisfactione alicui satis fit, aut propter merum debitum, aut propter offen­
sam.” Voste, op. cit., p. 357.
4 Billuart, De Incarnatione, diss. 19, a. 4.
6 It should be noted, however, that the term restitution is also used in reference
to the obligation of compensating for the harm done to the spiritual goods of an­
other, e.g., the restitution due for defamation and dishonor. Cf. Summa, II-II, q.
62, a. 1, and footnote 1 (ed. Marietti).

10

The Thomistic Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

word as described above. On the contrary, satisfaction in the moral
order is given, not as an exclusively material compensation, but rather
as a voluntary reparation for a personal injury or offense according
to an equality demanded by justice. It is in this latter application
that the term satisfaction receives its proper and strict significance.
However, before giving a further analysis of satisfaction in refer­
ence to sin and the moral order, it may be stated here that both resti­
tution, considered more properly as a compensation in the material
order, and satisfaction as a reparation in the moral order, are based
fundamentally upon the exigencies of justice. On the other hand,
while restitution is always obligatory, satisfaction remains essentially
voluntary ; restitution likewise does not necessarily presuppose an in­
jury or offense, while satisfaction does ; and whereas restitution prop­
erly is not made to God, satisfaction is.®
Finally, moral satisfaction as defined above, is not to be confused
with sacramental or extra-sacramental satisfaction both of which in
themselves are likewise proper to the moral order. Sacramental satis­
faction is that act of reparation enjoined upon the penitent particu­
larly for the removal of the temporal punishment due to his sins.
Those works performed of one’s own free will, such as alms-giving,
fasting, and prayer, are referred to as extra-sacramental satisfaction.7
Thus classified, it will be seen that the three elements involved in
moral satisfaction properly so-called will be as follows: the right or
honor of another that has been wilfully violated, i.e., the offense or
injury inflicted; secondly, the good that is to be restored to the in­
jured person, i.e., the reparation or compensation offered by the one
guilty of the offense as payment for what is due ; thirdly, the volun­
tary suffering of the penalty attached to the offense as the adequate
means of offering a just or equivalent reparation.
Dicitur quod satisfactio est illatae injuriae recompensatio secundum justitiae
aequalitatem.8

Of these three elements or aspects, those of the offense and the rep­
aration due will be referred to later when applied specifically to sin
and the reparation given by Christ in His Passion and Death. A fur­
ther clarification of the third aspect, however, namely that satisfac­
tion must be just and voluntary, will be given here, since these prop­
erties serve to further indicate the precise and necessary manner in
which any reparation, exclusive of that demanded by original sin, is
to be made for an injury or offense.
* Ibid., a. 1, note 1 (ed. Marietti). St. Thomas also refers to restitution as the
praeambulum to satisfaction, but not to be considered a part of it, Cf. IV Sent.,
d. 15, q. 1, a. 4, ad 5um.
T Of. Summa, III Supplement, q. 12, note 1 (ed. Marietti).
8 Summa, III Supp., q. 12, a. 3. Note: Since this section of the Summa is con­
cerned with the Sacraments, and with Penance directly, the references made here
have been limited to the concept of satisfaction quoad quidditatem.

The Notion of Satisfaction

11

That satisfaction as defined is an act of justice follows logically
from the very term itself, i.e., to make sufficient or equal. Its mean­
ing alone definitely designates that equality of proportion upon which
justice is based. Satisfaction therefore will always presuppose some
inequality of actions resulting in the offense or injury given to an­
other, and the reparation consequently must be so given as to balance
or equalize the offense. This is more readily realized when the true
nature of an atoning act is considered in its entirety, namely, not as
a mere cessation of an offense, but its equally important aspect of pro­
viding the recompense due.8 Consequently, when the removal of the
inequality created by the offense has been effected, satisfaction is cor­
rectly said to be an act of justice.
Et quia satisfactio aequalitatem in ipso faciente exprimit, dicit actum justitiae
quae est sui ad alterum, proprie loquendo.10

Justice, simply defined, is that virtue whereby one gives to another
what lawfully belongs to him. General or legal justice concerns the
common good, while particular justice is subdivided into distributive
and commutative. Distributive justice is that by which a lawful
superior gives to subjects what is due them in proportion to their mer­
its or their needs; commutative is that by which one renders to an­
other what is due him not according to some proportion, but rather
according to a strict equality of both the debt and the price, and
under which St. Thomas includes vindictive justice :
Dicendum quod vindicta quae fit auctoritate publicae potestatis secundum sen­
tentiam judicis, pertinet ad justitiam commutativam.11

Wherefore, since satisfaction of its very nature involves the repara­
tion of an offense (debt and price), it may be referred to as a species
of commutative or vindictive justice, but with the following qualifi­
cations: in vindictive justice the recompense is given or made in ac­
cord with the decision or pronouncement of the one acting as judge;
in satisfaction the recompense is given according to the free will of the
one responsible for the injury, and in accordance with the will of the
party offended. Likewise, vindictive justice is concerned only with
the renewal of an equality demanded by justice ; satisfaction, over and
above the element of equality, is concerned rather with the renewal of
a friendship which is made possible when the offender voluntarily re­
pairs according to the external wûll of the one injured.12 As St.
Thomas states :
» Cf. Summa, III, q. 85, a. 3.
10 Summa, III Supp., q. 12, a. 2. Cf. IV Sent., d. 15, q. 1, a. 3.
11 Summa, II-II, q. 80, a. un., ad lum.
12 Summa, III, q. 90, a. 2. Cf. also ibid., q. 85, a. 3, ad 3um, and III Supp., q.
12, a. 2, note 1 (ed. Marietti). For the consideration of satisfaction as a virtue
cf. Ill Supp., q. 12, a. 1.

12

The Thomistic Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

Unde sicut injuria illata immediate ad inaequalitatem justitiae pertingebat, et
per consequens ad inaequalitatem amicitiae oppositam; ita et satisfactio directe
ad aequalitatem justitiae perdueit, et ad aequalitatem amicitiae ex consequenti.1·’’

Without the equality or equivalence demanded by justice, the rep­
aration becomes a mere condonation on the part of the person injured
who chooses to accept the compensation such as it is. Unless the
reparation be equal or greater than the offense committed, a condo­
nation to some extent is always necessary, but condonation cannot
legitimately be termed satisfaction.13
14
Finally, it must also be noted here that, since the debt concerned
is not of the material order, the reparation to be given according to
the equality demanded by justice, will consist in the giving not of
external or material res as such, but rather will it comprise the ac­
tions of the person himself who so desires to offer an adequate atone­
ment.
Et quia usus rerum exteriorum est dare, ideo actum justitiae secundum quod
aequalitatem in rebus exterioribus constituit, proprie dicit hoc quod est ‘ ‘ red
dere”; sed “satisfacere” manifeste sequalitatem in actionibus demonstrat,
quamvis quandoque unum pro alio ponatur.15

This follows logically from the fact that the term moral is applied
to satisfaction in the strict sense as pertaining to the human, respon­
sible actions of persons, which in turn depend upon and flow from the
will and mental faculties.
Whatever be the form of these personal actions, determined accord­
ing to the mode of reparation demanded, the essential condition neces­
sary to their becoming acts of satisfaction is that they be wholly vol­
untary. The most important element in satisfaction is not the mere
suffering of the penalty involved as willed by the one offended, but
rather is it the act of the will intending the suffering as an adequate
payment for the debt contracted. It stands to reason that the party
offended by the voluntary refusal or violation of honor which is due
him, can be satisfied only by a voluntary return of the honor that was
refused. In the material order justice can be repaired by a mere
return of the material element. In the moral order, however, where
honor has been voluntarily taken away, honor must be given back,
with the intention of making reparation by the return of that honor.
Only in this way can a personal, moral injury be repaired. It is for
this reason that the suffering of those in hell e.g., can never have a
satisfactory value. If one suffers a penalty therefore without the will
to repair, it becomes an exaction, but not satisfaction.16
13 Summa, III Supp., q. 12, a, 2, ad lum.
14 Cf. Herve, De Verbo Incarnato, II, p. 464 ; Tanquerey, op. cit., p. 750.
15 Summa, III Supp., q. 12, a. 2.
16 Reference may be made here to the distinction given by St. Thomas be
tween satisfaction elicitive a justitia, and imperative a caritate. Ill Supp., q. 12,
a. 2, ad lum.

The, Nution of Satisfaction

13

On the contrary, given the will to repair in strict accordance with
the wishes of the one offended, or in voluntary obedience to his com­
mand, then not only does satisfaction obtain, but there is imparted to
it a meritorious value as well.17 The voluntary element is given par­
ticular emphasis in the definition of Medina :
Satisfactio est actio voluntaria, vel passio voluniarie tolerata, qua operans sua
sponte tantum faeit, quantum justitiae sat est, aut solvens creditori, quod illi
debuit, aut voluntarie assumens humiliationis disciplinam, quam peccatum com­
meruit.1*

2. The moral satisfaction of Christ—the (tements of sin.
In the application of the Thomistic concept of satisfaction to the
atonement offered by Christ in the work of the Redemption, it will be
readily seen that all the conditions anti essential elements involved in
moral satisfaction are certainly and clearly fulfilled. By His Passion
and Death on the Cross Christ voluntarily offered to God His own
life’s blood as an adequate reparation for the injury given Him by
the sin of man. Whence St. Thomas completes his definition of satis­
faction, already cited, by referring it immediately to the offense given
God by sin :
Dicitur quod satisfactio est illatae injuriae recompensatio secundum justitiae
.aequalitatem. Et in idem videtur redire definitio Anselmi, qui dicit quod satis­
facere est "honorem debitum Deo impendere’’, ut consideretur debitum rations
culpae commissae·10

The Passion and Death of Christ restores to God therefore the
honor that the sin of man had taken from Him. Christ performs this
act of reparation by a voluntary suffering of the penalty attached to
sin and willed by God.
Itaque nomine satisfactionis Christi intelligenda est: reparatio injuriae Deo per
peccata hominum irrogatae et solutio poenae debitae.20

Given sin as the specified element of injury contained in the notion
of satisfaction in its application to the redemptive work of Christ,
there will be given here a brief analysis of sin as a means of further
clarifying the exact nature of Christ’s satisfaction, exclusive of the
!T Cf. Paquet, De Incarnatione, p. 446.
18 Medina, op. cit., q. 48, «a. 2.
The element of voluntariness is referred to by Cajetan as follow's: "Becompensatio enim justitiae attenditur secundum aequalitatem exteriorem, sive sponte
sive invite fiat recompensatio: ut patet tam in solutione pecuniae. . . . Becompensatio autem justitiae et amicitiae, nisi sponte fiat a reo, nihil valet: quoniam
non est reconciliativa. ’ ’ Summa, III, q. 90, a. 2.
Ferrariensis gives this commentary' : * ‘ Unde talis poena, inquantum est aliquo
modo involuntaria, habet aliquid de ratione poenae ; inquantum vero est voluntaria,
habet rationem satisfaetoriae poenae. ’ ’ Cont. Gent., III, c. 158.
19Summa, III Supp., q. 12, a. 3; cf. ibid., note 1 (ed. Marietti).
20 Paquet, op. «t., p. 447.

14

The Thomistic Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

vicarious concept itself. The reasons for this analysis are.- 1) that
satisfaction is of its very nature correlated to sin in such a wav that
sin may be considered here as the cause of Christ’s satisfaction; and
so too may the mission of Christ the Redeemer be looked upon as the
counterpart of the sin of Adam; 2) that the two elements involved
in sin, the reatus culpae et poenae, i.e., the malice of sin and the
punishment due to it , furnish the basis for the ideas involved in the
scholastic term of satisfaction, as well as in the so-called theories of
penal expiation and of moral reparation to be discussed in the fol­
lowing chapter.
Sin, whether it be considered in reference to the original offense
of Adam and Eve, or in relation to the sins of mankind committed
since, is a voluntary offense, or morally evil act, against God. The
offense may be considered as a merely subjective state of guilt which,
on the part of the one committing it, results in an inequality that is
contrary to divine justice. Considered objectively, on the part of the
one offended, the sin has for its effect the just indignation of God
against the sinner which is in turn opposed to the love He has for
all creatures.21
As defined by St. Thomas, sin is properly an inordinate act as
opposed to an act of virtue, and more explicitly, in his explanation
of St. Augustine, sin is that thought, word, or act which is opposed
to the eternal law.
Et ideo Augustinus in definitione peccati posuit duo: unum quod pertinet ad
substantiam actus humani, quod est quasi materiale in peccato, cum dixit, dictum
vel factum vel concupitum; aliud autem quod pertinet ad rationem mali, quod
est quasi formale in peccato, eum dixit, contra legam aeternam.22

The eternal law, however, is the divine reason itself or will of God
which in turn commands that the natural order as established by Him
be strictly maintained, and forbids any violation thereof.
Consequently, when the free will of man, wholly responsible for
his voluntary acts, is exercised in such a way so that he departs, in
any given action, from the laws established by God to regulate and
govern his moral being, he is said to act contrary to the eternal law,
or more explicitly, to the will of God. This is called sin, and the
offense given God by it implies a two-fold violation: 1) a violation
of the honor that is due God as the sovereign Creator and Lord
of the universe ; 2) a violation of the moral law as established and
upheld by God, and through which He exercises His supreme au­
thority.
In any offense against God therefore, there is a voluntary aversion,
or turning away from Him on the part of the sinner; it is a free
21 Of. Summa, I II, q. 87, a. 1, note 1 (ed. Marietti). Here also will be
found the distinction drawn between peccatum, macula, culpa,offenea.
22 Ibid q. 71, a. <3. For sin considered in its opposition to virtue, ef. totd., a. 1.

The Notion of Satisfaction

15

denial of His supreme excellence and dominion over creatures. Sin
is, in other words, a voluntary abuse of God’s right to the free, loving,
and obedient subjection of rational creatures to His divine and
omnipotent will, and as such results in a deliberate injury, i.e., a
violation of the right of God to the honor of men. It is for this
reason that man, by sin, is said to offend Him personally, that is
God as God, for it implies in a certain sense a diminution of the
Divine Majesty. Man thereby incurs the guilt consequent upon the
offense {reatus culpae), and the corresponding obligation to repair
God’s injured honor.23
This state of aversion from God is an inordinate disposition by
virtue of which the will is not directed towards God as its final end.
As long as there is no retraction or reparation of the offense conse­
quent upon the will’s turning from God, the sinner is thereby said
to be guilty of the offense. In the words of St. Thomas:
Utroque autem modo actua nostri boni vel mali habent rationem meriti vel
demeriti apud Deum. Ratione quidem ipsius, inquantuin est ultimus hominis
finis: est autem debitum ut ad finem ultimum omnes actus referantur. . . . Unde
qui facit actum malum non referibilem in Deum, non servat honorem Dei, qui
ultimo fini debetur.24

Similarly, since sin also involves a violation of the moral law, of
which God is the Supreme Ruler, He must, in accordance with His
divine justice, punish those guilty of its violation ; hence, sin is said
to involve also an exterior disorder which entails the suffering of a
punishment, and the sinner thereby incurs a second debt to God,
namely, the obligation to undergo the punishment, or to suffer the
penalty (reatus poenae) 25
This punishment is a necessary effect of sin insofar as it trans­
gresses God’s moral order in which man, as a creature of God, par­
ticipates. God can and does forgive an offense, but as the Supreme
23 Cf. Franzelin, De Verbo Incarnato, p. 477; Rivière, Étude Théologique, p.
227; Galtier, De Incarnatione ac Sedemptione, p. 384.
St. Anselm gives this definition: “Hunc honorem debitum qui non Deo reddit,
aufert Deo quod suum est, et Deum exhonorat; et hoc est peccare.” P. L., Cur
Deus Como, CLVIII, e. 376.
24 Summa, I-II, q. 21, a. 4. St. Thomas also states that when
. aliquis
eligit id quod repugnat divinae caritati, convincitur praeferre illud caritati
divinae, et per consequens plus amare ipsum quam Deum.” Ibid., q. 88, a. 2,
ad lum.
25 The punishment or penalty involved may be eternal or temporal. If eternal,
such as that due to mortal sin, man cannot de condigno satisfy (see following
section on “necessity of Christ’s satisfaction”). If temporal, man can and
does satisfy, particularly in sacramental satisfaction, or in any act of penance.
The eternal punishment alone is considered here. The satisfaction of Christ,
however, is not by any means to be considered a work of penance. ‘ ‘ Meritum
primario pertinet ad caritatem, sacrificium ad religionem, satisfactio ad justitiam
(in nobis ad poenitentiam, quae non est in Christo impeccabili) et martyrium
ad fortitudinem. ’ ’ Garrigou-Lagrange, op. cit., p. 391, footnote 4.

16

The Thomistic Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

Legislator of the moral order, His justice demands that the offense
be punished. This follows from the fact that the order established
by him, be it moral or otherwise, reflects the wisdom of the governing
God. Consequently, since sin is in absolute opposition to, and a
violation of the moral order such as God has established it, it is
essential to the manifestation of His divine goodness and glory that
sin be punished. Insubordination on the part of man is not sufficiently
repaired through restoring a subordination to God that is already
due Him as the Creator. It is a greater indignity in other words,
for God to be despised by a creature than it is a token of honor for
the creature to be subjected to Him.
Peccatum ex hoc inducit reatum poenae, quod pervertit aliquem ordinem. . . .
Et ideo si per peccatum corrumpatur principium ordinis quo voluntas homini?
subditur Deo, erit inordinatio. ... Et ideo quaecumque peccata avertunt a Deo
caritatem auferentia, quantum est de se, inducunt reatum aeternae poenae.20

This two-fold debt which is compensated by a true satisfaction, if
also referred to as a double servitude under w’hich man had fallen
as a consequence of sin. Insofar as man had been overpowered by
the temptation of Satan inducing him to commit sin, he is said to be
under the captivity of the devil, and acquires thereby that stain in
the soul {macula} which renders him a slave of sin. The second
servitude followed as a result of the punishment attached to sin
whereby man was now obliged to undergo a chastisement proportion­
ate to the offense, and, since suffering is contrary to the will of man,
this is also considered a cruel captivity.26
27*As expressed by St. Thomas :
Per peccatum dupliciter homo obligatus erat: primo quidem servitute peccati,
quia, “qui facit peccatum, servais est peccati,” (Joann. 8:34). . . · Quia igitur
diabolus hominem superaverat inducendo eum ad peccatum, homo servituti diaboli
addictus erat. -—Secundo, quantum ad reatum poenae, quo homo erat obligatus
secundum Dei justitiam. Et haec est servitus quaedam: ad servitutem enim
pertinet quod aliquis patiatur quod non vult, cum liberi hominis sit uti soipso
ut vult.28

In a further analysis of the same idea, he states :
Dicendum quod homo peccando obligatus erat et Deo et diabolo. Quantum
enim ad eulpam, Deum offenderat, et diabolo se subdiderat, ei consentiens. Unde
ratione culpae non erat factus servus Dei; sed potius, a Dei servitute recedens,
diaboli servitutem incurrerat, Deo juste hoc permittente propter offensam in se
commissam. Sed quantum ad poenam, principaliter homo erat Deo obligatus, sicut
summo judici, diabolo autem tamquam tortori. ... Et ideo per respectum ad

26 Summa, I II, q. 87, a. 3. Cf. also Cont. Gent., Ill, c. 158.
As expressed by Prat: “Adam’s disobedience brought death upon the human
race, the enmity of God, and a share of misfortunes . . . , it is sin which banished
him from his earthly paradise and caused the fatal sentence of death to be passed
upon him and his race.” Theology of St. Paul, p. 58, vol. II.
27 Cf. Hugon, Le Mystère de la Redemption, p. 10.
2S Summa. III. q. 48, a. 4.

The Notion of Satisfaction

Deum justitia exigebat quod homo redimeretur: non autem per respectum, ad
diabolum.29

By virtue of this two-fold obligation man was not only responsible
for the offense given God, but in accordance with divine justice, was
also strictly bound to repair the injury and to suffer the penalty
incurred. It is true that in man’s relations with God there cannot
be a strict justice secundum aequalitatem. Nevertheless, while there
is no commutative justice in God as such, a form of commutative
justice is preserved in divine retribution, namely, by His rewarding
good and punishing evil. Likewise, when something is due God from
divine justice, He Himself can do nothing to dismiss it as such. The
reason for this is that God can do nothing that is not in accord with
His wisdom and goodness, and consequently whatever is done by Him
is done according to a proper order and proportion wherein is found
the basis for justice.30
Unde sicut dicitur Deus bonus, inquantum suam bonitatem communicat, ita
dicitur justus, inquantum in suis effectibus ordinem servat, et unius ad alterum
et omnium ad seipsum.31

Although God cannot be said to be a debtor to another, He is in a
certain way, nevertheless, a debtor to Himself, so that He does what
becomes Himself as God. Hence He is just, for He is in Himself
Justice. And justice, over and above God’s goodness, provides a
certain order of equality relative to good and to evil.
Actus enim peccati facit hominem reum poenae, inquantum transgreditur ordi
nem divinae justitiae; ad quem non redit nisi per quamdam recompensationem
poenae, quae ad aequalitatem justitiae reducit; ut scilicet qui plus voluntati
suae induisit quam debuit, contra mandatum Dei agens, secundum ordinem di­
vinae justitiae, aliquid contra illud quod, vellet, spontaneus vel invitus patiatur. . . .
Unde macula peccati ab homine tolli non potest nisi voluntas nominis ordinem
justitiae divinae acceptet, ut scilicet vel ipse poenam sibi spontaneus assumat in
recompensationem culpae praeteritae, vel etiam a Deo illatam patienter sustineat;
utroque enim modo poena rationem satisfactionis habet. . . .

Dicendum est ergo quod, remota macula culpae, potest quidem remanere reatus
non poenae simpliciter, sed satisfactoriae.32

In this satisfactory punishment, defined by the Angelic Doctor
above, a certain equality of justice is maintained insofar as the
one who satisfies subjects himself to the will of God by His
voluntary acceptance and offering of the punishment due sin as an
29 Ibid., ad 2um.
30 Cf. Summa, I, q. 21, a. 1, and a. 4.
Further, this justice is not contradictory of God’s mercy; “Misericordia non
tollit justitiam, sed est quaedam justitiae plentitudo.” Summa, I, q. 21, a. 3,
ad 2um. A work of divine justice therefore always presupposes a work of
mercy and is founded thereupon. Cf. ibid., a. 1, ad 2um.
31IV. Sent., d. 46, q. 1, a. 1. Cf. ibid., d. 15, a. 3.
32 Summa, TIT, q. 87, a. 6.

18

The Thomislic Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction.

adequate reparation for the offense given the Divine Majesty. In
other words, given the wilful violation of God’s moral law, the lack
of obedience, love, and honor that rightfully belongs to Him as Lord
of the Universe,—in a word, sin,—then it follows that there is to be
given in return a more solemn and sincere affirmation of His supreme
authority, as well as proof of a new compensating love and obedience.33
Sin, preceding in a certain way the punishment it merits, is in its
essence a disorder between human and divine wills, a disruption in
the moral order of things as constituted by God, through the free will
of the creature. In order to have the reparation for this offense
made worthily and perfectly, God Himself, without being in any
way held, forced, or necessitated, so willed that it should be accom­
plished through Jesus Christ, the God-Man. And herein lies the
raison d'etre of both the Incarnation and the Passion.34
Inquantum vero Deum nobis placavit, dicitur nos redemisse, sicut pretium
solvens satisfactionis pro nobis, ut a poena et a peccato liberaremur.83
85
84

Christ in His satisfaction, therefore, made possible men’s liberation
from the obligations attendant upon sin and its punishment. For
this reason was the penalty or price considered as the cause for
Christ’s death, in the sense that death had been ordained by God as
the penalty to be suffered. In His suffering the penalty, that which
was taken from God by sin is given back in a wholly voluntary repa­
ration; the honor that was violated is now repaired, the love and
obedience that was withheld is returned, the divine justice is com­
pensated.
Licet diabolus injuste invaserit hominem, tamen homo propter peccatum juste
erat sub servitute diaboli derelictus a Deo. Et ideo conveniens fuit ut per
justitiam homo a servitute diaboli liberaretur, Christo satisfaciente pro ipso
per suam passionem.8687

Quam quidem poenam si propria voluntate a se exegerit, per hoc Deo ‘‘satis­
facere” dicitur: inquantum eum labore et poena ordinem divinitus institutum
consequitur, pro peccato se puniendo. . . .37
83 Even as the judge of temporal affairs is obliged, for the good of the com­
munity, to exact satisfaction for a violation, so too should the Supreme Judge
proclaim and enforce His eternal right that He, as God, be loved above all things.
‘‘Ex amore increato bonitatis divinae procedit misericordia inquantum bonum
est euiipsius diffusivum, et procedit justitia in quam Bonum Supremum habet
jus ut diligatur super omnia. ’ ’ GarrigouLagrange, op. cit., p. 394. Of ibid,
p. 420.
84 Cf. Rivière, Étude Historique, p. 496.
88 St. Thomas, 111 Sent., d. 19, a. 4.
Christ freed men from both the reatum culpae et poenae because the price He
paid was in itself sufficient to remove both, i.e., His satisfaction was of an
infinite value. De facto, the punishment due to the sins of aea
rarpoved
unless they apply to themselves the satisfaction of Christ through the Sacra­
ments, etc. (See the section following on the “qualities of Christ*s satisfaction )
88 Summa, III, q. a. 3, ad 3um.
87 Cont. Gent., Ill, c. 158.

The Notion of Satisfaction

19

However, since the sin committed has its origin and responsibility
in man and not Christ, it is a foregone conclusion that the reparation
due should likewise come from man. Some positive action, or at
least an intimate sharing in the reparatory act, is quite necessary
on the part of man as the actual offender. So too must the form
or mode of this reparation to be given by man (either directly or
through one in w’hose actions he really participates) comprise the
elements of expiating the punishment incurred, and of repairing the
offense given ; hence an act that will be both expiatory and reparatory.
As already indicated, the former concerns the material aspect, the
punishment demanded by the justice of God; the latter concerns the
moral aspect, the offense given to God’s honor.
Further, since the essential element of sin is to be found in the
disruption it causes in the moral order, to expiate alone is not proper­
ly to repair or to satisfy in the real sense of the term as already
explained. It is precisely this moral element involved so essentially
in sin that not only permits, but demands a moral act in order that
true reparation be effected. The mode this reparation assumes is
called satisfaction properly, and consequently differs from mere ex­
piation which can be termed satispassio.™
And herein are to be found the two aspects embraced in the Thomistic concept of vicarious satisfaction, namely, man’s participation in
the Saviour’s death, and His offering of it as a supreme act of love
and obedience. The explicit application of satisfaction to the Passion
and Death of Christ is given by the Angelic Doctor in question 48,
article 2, of the third part of the Summa. Although St. Thomas
understands and interprets the satisfaction of Christ as analogical,
its strict and proper sense is nevertheless retained, so that it is to be
understood in the same way as man attributes to God the terms of
being, love, freedom, and life. Wherefore, in the words of St. Thomas :
Dicendum quod ille proprie satisfacit pro offensa qui exhibet offenso id quod
aeque vel magis diligit quam oderit offensam. Christus autem, ex caritate et
obediantia patiendo, maius aliquid Deo exhibuit quam exigeret recompensatio
totius offensae humani generis. Primo quidem, propter magnitudinem caritatis
ex qua patiebatur. Secundo, propter diginitatem vitae suae, quam pro satisfactione
ponebat, quae erat vita Dei et hominis. Tertio, propter generalitatem passionis
et magnitudinem doloris assumpti. ... Et ideo passio Christi, non solum suffi­
ciens, sed etiam superabundans satisfactio fuit pro peccatis humani generis. . .

That this was actually accomplished in the death of Christ upon
the Cross, an action in which all humanity satisfied by virtue of a
mystical, but real solidarity, provides the subject-matter for another
38 Cf. Rivière, Étude Thcologique, pp. 169-181.
Summa, III, q. 48, a. 2.
Cf. Garrigou Lagrange, op. cit., p. 391.
‘‘Sic Sociniani dixerunt: Christus pro nobis satisfecit improprie tantum et
metaphorice. . . . unde negant satisfactionem vicariam proprie dictam. ’ ’ Garrigou­
Lagrange, ibid., p. 415,

20

The Thomistic Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

chapter. However, mention must be made here of two other aspects
which are usually considered in conjunction with the satisfaction
of Christ, but which are exclusive of the act in itself, its motives,
and its vicarious nature. The first concerns the quality or perfection
of Christ’s satisfaction, referred to in the conclusion of the above
article as non solum sufficiens sed superabundans. The second aspect
involves the complex question of the necessity of satisfaction, con­
sidered: 1) in itself, i.e., whether or not it was necessary for the
removal of sin and in w'hat way; 2) in its relation to the God-Man,
i.e., whether or not it was necessary for a Divine Person to assume
human nature in order to satisfy; 3) whether or not it was necessary
for Christ to suffer the death of the Cross in order to atone for sin.
The latter questions concerning necessity do not as such pertain
to the vicarious mode of Christ’s satisfaction; indeed, their peculiar
difficulties and problems are in themselves sufficient to warrant au
entirely separate commentary. The same may be said for the per­
fection and superabundance of Christ’s satisfaction, for these may be
looked upon as pertaining to the inherent characteristics of His work
of reparation, which in turn may be considered apart from its vicari­
ous nature, and its motives of obedience and love relative to God and
man.
The limited scope of this treatise therefore does not warrant, nor
does it permit, a detailed expose of the perfection and necessity of
the Saviour’s satisfaction as embodied in the theology of St. Thomas.
A brief commentary, however, will be of advantage towards the
attainment of a unified and complete presentation of the Thomistic
concept in itself. The following sections of this chapter then are
presented rather as explanatory statements than analytical demon­
strations.
The values or perfection of Christ’s satisfaction.
The equality of justice implied in satisfaction is a formal or moral
equality measured according to the value of the price paid in repara­
tion for the offense. The value of the price given by Christ was,
according to St. Thomas, not only sufficient, but superabundant, i.e.,
the satisfaction of Christ was of a perfect and infinite value.
. . . aliqua satisfactio potest dici dupliciter sufficiens. Uno modo, perfecte:
quia est condigna per quandam adaequationem ad recompensationem commissae
culpae. Et sic hominis puri satisfactio sufficiens esse non potuit: quia tota
natura humana erat per peccatum corrupta. . . . Tum etiam quia peccatum contra
Deum commissum quandam infinitatem habet ex infinitate divinae majestatis :
tanto enim offensa est gravior, quanto major est ille in quem delinquitur.

Alio modo potest diei satisfactio sufficiens imperfecte: scilicet secundum
acceptationem ejus qui est ea contentus, quamvis non sit condigna. Et hoc modo
satisfactio puri hominis est sufficiens.40
40 Sumina, ITI, q. 1, a. 2, ad 2um.

The Notion of Satisfaction·

21

Satisfaction then is said to be perfectly sufficient when it is perfect
in respect to the matter concerned (condigna) so that the recompense
given is equal (adaequatio) to the offense committed. Likewise, when
the conditions listed below prevail, the satisfaction is said to be a
rigorous satisfaction, since it is perfectly sufficient in respect to the
form or manner in which it is made, and accordingly, strict justice
is thereby fulfilled. The conditions required are :
a. ) The satisfaction must be given to another—ad alterum.
b. ) It must proceed from the proper and personal actions of the
one satisfying—cz bonis ■propriis.
e.) It cannot be claimed by another title on the part of the per­
son to whom it is given—ex bonis alio titulo non debitis.
d. ) It must not be such so that it will fall under the proper
dominion of him to whom it is given—ex bonis sub dominio creditoris
non contentis.
e. ) The one to whom it is given must be obliged to accept—cum
obligatione acceptandi.
Finally, satisfaction is said to be imperfectly sufficient (congrua)
wrhen, in respect to the matter, it is sufficient only insofar as the re­
ceiver has decided to accept it such as it is.
According to the Thomist, since the moral value in a satisfactory
work is to be considered in relation to the dignity of the person satis­
fying as well as to the dignity or worth of what is offered, it follows
that from the infinite dignity of Christ, or by virtue of the hypo­
static union, there results the infinite value of His work of satisfaction/·
In other words, the value of satisfactory actions is to be measured
not only according to the use of the natural and supernatural powers
of the one satisfying, but also according to the dignity of his person.
In Christ the personal principle which perfects the work of Redemp­
tion through human nature is the Infinite Son of God. Consequently,
the reparation given by Him is perfect, or of infinite value; it is so
proportioned to the offense that as much or more of the honor is
restored to God as was taken away by sin.41
The arguments proposed by the Thomists are based fundamentally
upon the certain infinity of sin, so that if a condign satisfaction is
to obtain, the infinite efficacy of the satisfaction demanded can and
must come from Jesus Christ, because He alone, existing as God
and Man, is capable of offering a condign reparation.
. . . peccatum contra Deuni commissum quandam infinitatem habet ex infinitate
divinae majestatis; tanto enim offensa est gravior, quanto major est ille in quem
delinquitur. Unde oportuit, ad condignam satisfactionem, ut actus satisfacientis
haberet efficaciam infinitam, ut puta Dei et hominis existens.42
*1 Cf. Diekamp, De Redemptore, II, p. 361.
42Summa, III, q. 1, a. 2, ad 2um.

22

The Thomistie Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

Or, as stated again in reference to Christ’s human nature:
Dicendum quod Christus voluit genus humanum a peccatis liberare, non sola
potestate, sed etiam justitia. Et ideo non solum attendit quantam virtutem
dolor ejus haberet ex divinitate unita; sed etiam quantum dolor ejus sufficeret
secundum humanam naturam, ad tantam satisfactionem.43

Finally, in reference again to the human nature and the divine Per­
son, the Angelic Doctor states:
Dicendum quod dignitas carnis Christi non est aestimanda solum secundum
carnis naturam, sed secundum personam assumentem, inquantum erat caro Dei:
ex quo habebat dignatatem infinitam.44

The argumentation is somewhat delicate, but its cogency is readily
recognized when the argument is couched in the form of syllogistic
reasoning :
A mortal sin has a certain infinity as an offense against God.
And condign satisfaction must be an adequate reparation; therefore a condign
satisfaction must have an infinite efficacy, as such an act would have when per­
formed by the God-Man, Jesus Christ.

The proof for the major rests upon the fact that the gravity of an
offense is measured according to the dignity of the person offended ;
while the value of the reparatory action is likewise measured accord­
ing to the dignity of the one repairing.
The minor is proved by reverting to the definition for condign
satisfaction which, according to St. Thomas, is one that pleases the
offended equally as much, or more, than the offense shall have dis­
pleased him. This prevails most certainly in the satisfaction given by
Christ in which He offered to the Father the suffering and death of
the Cross out of divine love and obedience.
The infinite value of Christ’s satisfaction therefore proceeds from
the fact that He, as the Word of God made flesh, is divine and in­
finite. And the value of any satisfaction is to be looked for in the
person as the subject of the act of reparation ; hence the axiom :
honor est in honorante. The worthier the person, the greater is the
value of the satisfaction. Therefore, the obedience and love offered
God by the Word Incarnate, since they are the theandric acts45 of a
43 Ibid., q. 46, a. 6, ad 6um.
44 Ibid., q. 48, a. 2, ad 3um.
45 The meaning of a “ theandric act ’ ’ is given by St. Thomas as follows :
“Dionysius ponit in Christo operationem theandricam, id est divinam-virilem, vel
divinam-humanam, non per aliquam confusionem operationum seu virtutum utriusque naturae, sed per hoc quod divina operatio eius utitur humana eius opera­
tione, et humana operatio participat virtutem divinae operationis.” Summa,
III, q. 19, a. 1, ad lum.
However, the commentary of Garrigou-Lagrange, from which the greater part
of this material has been taken, includes the. following observation: “Tunc
sunt duae operationes subordinatae : tactus qui potest esse sine miraculo, et

The Notion of Satisfaction

23

Divine Person, are of infinite value, and the satisfaction given is
condign, or perfect.
The reasons given by St, Thomas for the superabundant value of
Christ’s satisfaction are contained in question 48, article 2, already
cited in full, namely, the greatness of His theandric love, the dignity
of the life He gave in reparation, and the magnitude of His Passion.
From these reasons it follows that the infinity of Christ’s satisfaction
must be of a higher, more excellent, and of a more perfect order
than the infinity of the offense inflicted by sin. Sin remains in the
moral order and only insofar as it gives offense morally relative to
the dignity of the person offended, can it be said to be infinite. But
Christ’s satisfaction is infinite by virtue of the hypostatic union
itself. It is not possible therefore for such a unique union not to
effect a far more excellent jnode of infinity than the moral infinity
of sin. Consequently, the satisfaction of Christ was not only perfect,
but superabundant. 40
Contrary to the opinions of some theologians, the Thomists main­
tain further that the satisfaction of Christ is superabundant and of
activa sanatio miraculosa, procedens a Deo ut a causa principali et ab humanitate
Christi, ut a causa instrumental!.
“Addendum tamen est quod solet etiam ipsa sola actio voluntatis humanae
Christi vocari alio sensu theandrica, propter valorem infinitum quem haurit a sup­
posito divino agente ut quod. 8ic dicitur quod actus meritorii et satisfactorii
Christi erant actus theandrici, in hoc sensu quod procedebant simul ab ejus
voluntate humana et ab ejus personalitate divina. Et haec est essentia ipsius
mysterii Redemptionis: valor infinitus horum actuum theandricorum Christi, qui
dicuntur theandrici ratione suppositi seu personae divinae Verbi incarnati, quae
operatur per sanctissimam Christi animam.” De Christo Salvatore, p. 347.
Again, in reference to the infinite value of Christ’s satisfaction, GarrigouLagrange states clearly: “Notandum est insuper quod in operationibus theandricis Christi est ordo realis et intrinsecus ad objectum a quo specificantur et
ad principium a quo eliciuntur. Principium quod elicit hos actus est, in Christo,
suppositum divinum seu Persona Divina Verbi, et principium quo eliciuntur hi
actus est ipsa natura humana, per facultates et habitus seu virtutes et dona,
‘ * Haec principia quo sunt physice finita et sic, in operibus Christi hominis, nulla
est infinitas physica. Sed quoad valorem moralem hic valor moralis potest sumi
aut ex objecto plus minusve nobili (sic dolorosa passio Christi est magis meri­
toria objective quam aliae ejus operationes), aut ex subjecto eliciente, et hune
valorem dicimus esse moraliter infinitum ab intrinseco, scii, ratione suppositi,
licet hae operationes Christi attingant suum objectum modo finito. Sic dis­
tinguitur valor personalis omnium actuum caritatis Christi, a valore eorum ob­
jective plus minusve elevato.” Ibid., p. 422.
Wherefore the act of Christ’s love in offering Himself upon the cross is an
act of morally infinite value, precisely because it is theandric. Even as the
habitual grace of Christ can be said to be infinite, so too is His love: “. . . gratia
haec habitualis Christi ratione conjunctionis ad Cerbum est principium quo
operationis meritoriae et satisfactoriae valoris intrinsece et simpliciter infiniti.
Haec infinitas licet sit a persona divina ut a principio quod, refunditur tamen
moraliter et secundum aestimationem in ipsam gratiam habitualem quae est
principium quo hujus actionis meritoriae valoris stricte et intrinsece infiniti.”
Ibid., p. 213. Cf. Summa, III, q. 7, a. 11.
46 Tanquerey, op. cit., p. 766.

24

The Thomistic Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

infinite value simpliciter ab intrinseco, and exclusive therefore of a
gratuitous acceptance on the part of God. This is a further analysis
of the precise mode in which the satisfaction of Christ is said to be
of infinite value. In a word, its infinite value is made possible not
in virtue of a gratuitous acceptance on the part of God, but in
virtue of the divine suppositum or the divine Person of the Word.
The principles involved in the demonstration of this tenet are
those which concern the person as the possessor or source of actions
(principium quod), and the nature from which these actions flow
(principium quo). In Christ, however, the principium quod is the
Divine Person of the Word, while the principium quo through which
these acts are elicited is His human nature. It is admitted that in
the works of Christ as man there can be no physical infinity, but
the same cannot be said in regard to their moral value. This moral
value is taken from the subject Himself who is responsible for, and
alone elicits them. In this case it follows that the moral value of
these actions is morally infinite ab intrinseco, namely, by reason of
the divine suppositum, even though those operations attain their
object in a finite way. The value of actions then must be considered
relative to the principium quo, but especially to the dignity of the
Person responsible for the actions. Given the infinite dignity of the
Person of Christ, it follows that His operations, despite their finite
mode of attaining their object, have an infinite moral value, for
moral actions are always from the person by virtue of their intrinsic
relation to the person who freely elicits them.47
Whether or not the five conditions cited above for a rigorus satis­
faction (in rigore justitiae) are perfectly fulfilled in regard to the
satisfaction of Christ is controverted. According to the school of the
Thomists, the satisfaction given by Christ was perfect not only in
matter, but in its form, i.e., in rigore justitiae. A brief summary of
the aforementioned conditions as applied to the reparation of Christ
follows :
Christ is able to give satisfaction ad, alterum because of the dis­
tinction of natures. The unique Person of Christ insofar as it ter­
minates His human nature can make satisfaction, and conversely,
given the divine nature, it can also receive satisfaction.
Christ is able to satisfy ex bonis propriis alio titulo non debitis et
sub dominio creditoris non contentis because the moral value of His
actions proceeded from the Person of the Word subsisting in human
nature, according to the axiom : actiones sunt suppositorum. Human
nature, it is true, receives all the goods it possesses from God Himself,
and human actions, both physical and moral, belong to God. Moral
acts however, presuppose freedom, and insofar as the human, satis­
47 Garrigou-Lagrange, op. cit., pp. 421-422. Among others, Durandus and
Scotus admit the infinite value of Christ’s satisfaction only db extrinseco.

I

The Notion of Satisfaction

25

factory actions of Christ were given freely, they are properly under
the dominion of Christ.
Haec satisfactio facta est ex bonis propriis (scil. personae divinae in natura
humana), alio titulo non debitis (non alio titulo debitum est dolorosum holo­
caustum) et sub dominio creditoris non contentis quia opera humana meritoria et
satisfactoria Christi non erant sub dominio proprio Dei creditoris, sed sub dominio
proprio Christi hominis, quatenus erant libera; et non erant nisi sub dominio
generali Dei.48

Finally, the condition that the receiver of this satisfaction must be
held to accept it is also fulfilled. Christ was by divine ordination
constituted the Redeemer of mankind. To refuse acceptance of the
satisfaction God Himself inspired would be an act of contradiction
and consequently impossible. In this sense the necessity is not ab­
solute on the part of God, but hypothetical.49
The satisfaction given by Christ was, therefore, not only sufficient
but superabundant, at once perfect and of infinite value in both
matter and form. These qualities may be summarized briefly accord­
ing to the following schema :
Summa, III, q. 48, a. 2 : Ille proprie satisfacit pro offensa qui ex­
hibet offenso id quod aeque vel magis
diliget, quam oderit offensam.
48 Garrigou-Lagrange, op. cit., p. 428.
Diekamp states clearly: “At ille, qui humanam naturam possidet, est ipse
Filius Dei, cujus propria ab aeterno sunt ac semper manent omnia bona, quae
tali naturae sunt communicata. Omnia igitur, quae ut homo satisfactione vicaria
vice nostra praestat atque divinitati, proinde etiam sibi ipsi ut Deo offert, proprie
et vere ex bonis propriis praestat et offert. Erant bona propria, quorum oblatione
Christus ex rigore justitiae Patri satisfecit.
“Bona illa, quae offerendo Christus satisfecit, scilicet sanguis ac vita ejus,
erant bona infiniti valoris sub dominio ejus posita. Cui non contrariatur abso­
lutum Dei dominium super omnes res actionesque creatas. Etenim actiones
humanae Christi, inquantum a suo principio quo procedentes actiones creatae
sunt, dominio quidem divino subsunt. At inquantum a suo principio quod,
scilicet a persona Filii Dei procedunt, tali dominio non subjiciuntur; et voluntas
humana, qua Christus satisfacit, humanum dominium in actus satisfaetorios non
exercet nisi sub influxu principii quod, quod est infinitum. Est ergo ipsa persona
divina, quae humana voluntate dominium in actus satisfaetorios humanos exercet.
Qui actus, inquantuin a persona divina procedentes actiones ipsius Dei sunt,
quodcumque dominium superius excludunt.” Diekamp, Theologiae Dogmaticae
Manuale, II, p. 363.
49 Opposed to this view among others are the opinions of Vasquez, Molina,
and Billot.
The satisfaction of Christ was made in rigore justitiae communtativae : “Ad
actum justitiae commutativae requiruntur et sufficiunt duo, scii, stricta obligatio
ad solvendum debitum et perfecta aequalitas pretii cum debito. Atqui ita fuit
quia satisfactio Christi fuit non solum aequalis, sed superabundans, et Christus
tenebatur ad eam quia constitutus erat ut fidejussor et Bedemptor hominum.
Ergo in hac satisfactione eminenter invenitur quidquid ad justitiam commutativam requiritur.” Garrigou-Lagrange, op cit., p. 429.

26

The Thomistic Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

aeque

sufficiens (Summa, III,
perfect in matter
(condign)
perfect in form
(rigorous)
magis

q. 1, a. 2, ad 2um)
Ί
I
of infinite value
Γ
ab intrinseco
J

superabundans (Summa, III, q. 48, a. 2)
by reason of the love, dignity, and
passion of Christ

The necessity of satisfaction.
The final aspect to be considered in regard to the satisfaction of
Christ concerns the not less involved question of its necessity. Was
satisfaction absolutely necessary despite the gravity of sin ? Was it
not possible for one other than Christ to satisfy? Even granted the
necessity of the Incarnation, was it necessary that the God-Man suffer
the death of the Cross? These questions, in the order given, will
provide the three-fold division to be followed in giving the statements
of St. Thomas, namely :
1. ) Was satisfaction in itself necessary!
2. ) Was it necessary that a Divine Person incarnate satisfy?
3. ) Was the Passion and Death necessary?

Given the fact that God willed man’s liberation from sin, satis­
faction in itself was not absolutely necessary, nor would God have
impaired His justice had He willed not to exact it. It was, however,
greatly fitting (necessity secundum quid) that human nature should
be repaired through a satisfactory work of reparation.50
... si voluisset absque omni satisfactione hominem a peccato liberare, contra
justitiam non fecisset. Ille enim judex non potest, salva justitia, culpam sive
poenam dimittere, qui habet punire culpam in alium commissam, puta vel in
alium hominem, vel in totam rempublicam, sive in superiorem principem. Sed
Deus non habet aliquem superiorem, sed ipse est supremum et commune bonum
totius universi. Et ideo, si dimittat peccatum, quod habet rationem culpae ex
eo quod contra ipsum committitur, nulli facit injuriam: sicut quicumque homo
remittit offensam in se commissam absque satisfactione, misericorditer, et non
injuste agit.51

Apart from satisfaction, therefore, God, by virtue of His omnipo­
tence and since He Himself was the offended, remained entirely
50Necessity is distinguished as follows: simpliciter necessity implies that the
end cannot be obtained otherwise; a secundum quid necessity implies what is
required in order that the end be attained in a more congruous and fitting
manner.
51 Summa, III, q. 46, a. 2, ad 3um.
“Deus enim per suam omnipotentem virtutem poterat humanam naturam
multis aliis modis reparare.’’ Ibid., q. 1* a· 2.

The Notion of Satisfaction

free to condone sin. He could, if He so willed, have dismissed it
according to any one of the numerous modes of liberation at His
command, and thereby grant a full pardon to the guilty without a
satisfactory reparation. Nor can it be said that God, had He chosen
not to exact satisfaction, would be involved in the contradiction of
preventing or refusing that which His divine justice demands. A
strict satisfaction, or the suffering of a punishment, is not always
necessary in order to insure justice, if the offended person wills other­
wise. God, as the Supreme Lawmaker and King can, in any particular
case, show clemency and waive the punishment due, particularly when
signs of true repentenee are indicated on the part of the offender.
When and if He so acts, He is said to act with infinite mercy, His
justice meanwhile remaining unimpaired.
Although satisfaction in itself was not strictly necessary, it was
assuredly more fitting that it be given in reparation for sin. The
reasons for this fitness are stated by St. Thomas as follows:
Congrum etiam fuit quod natura humana per satisfactionem repararetur.
Primo, ex parte Dei, quia in hoc divina justitia manifestatur quod culpa per
poenam diluitur. Secundo, ex parte hominis, qui satisfaciens perfectius inte­
gratur. . . . Tertio, etiam ex parte universi, ut scilicet culpa per poenam satis­
factionis ordinetur et sic nihil inordinatum in universo remaneat."2

In addition to the conclusion that satisfaction is not simpliciter
necessary, St. Thomas also maintains that, given the divine ordination
to exact satisfaction, the Incarnation of the Son of God was not
absolutely necessary in order to make this satisfaction possible, but
again extremely fitting. The Incarnation can be said to be necessary
only in the hypothesis that God willed to exact an integral or con­
dign satisfaction which man as a finite creature could never give.
Primo modo (sine quo aliquid esse non potest), Deum incarnari non fuit
necessarium ad reparationem humanae naturae; Deus enim per suam omnipotentem
virtutem poterat humanam naturam aliis modis reparare. Secundo autem modo
(per quod melius et convenientius pervenitur ad finem) necessarium fuit Deum
incarnari ad humanae naturae reparationem.53

That there were at God’s command numerous modes of liberation
from sin, exclusive of the Incarnation, cannot be denied. Equally
true is it that, even though the Incarnation and the consequent
reparation of the human race would increase the accidental and ex­
ternal glory of God, He remains, nevertheless, most sufficient unto
Himself and requires no such accidental glorification.
Proceeding from the singular fact that God willed man’s libera­
tion from sin, the Incarnation, according to St. Thomas, is said to
be secundum quid necessary, as a better and more fitting means to
attain that end. The reasons given are :
a2III Sent., d. 20, q. 1, a. 1.
53 Summa, III, q. 1, a. 2.

28

The Thomistic Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

1. ) The Incarnation provides man with a greater incentive to good—
Primo quidem, quantum ad finem, quae magis certifieatur ex hoc quod ipsi
Deo loquenti credit. . . . Secundo, quantum ad spent, quae per hoc maxime
erigitur. Tertio, quantum ad caritatem, quae maxime per hoc excitatur. . . .
Quarto, quantum ad rectam operationem, in qua nobis exemplum se praebuit.
. . . Quinto, quantum ad plenam participationem divinitatis, quae vere est
hominis beatitude, et finis humanae vitae.

2. ) The Incarnation helps man to avoid evil—
Primo enim per hoc homo instruitur ne sibi diabolum praeferat. . . .Secundo,
quia per hoc instruimur quanta sit dignitas humanae naturae. . . . Tertio,
quia, ad praesumptionem hominis tollendam. . . . Quarto, quia superbia hominis
. . . redargui potest atque sanari. . . . Quinto, ad liberandum hominum a
servitute.34

But, given the divine will to exact a perfect satisfaction for the
offense given by sin, then the Incarnation was strictly necessary
for the reasons here given by St. Thomas:
Et sic hominis puri satisfactio sufficiens esse non potuit: quia tota natura
humana erat per peccatum corrupta. . . . Tum etiam quia peccatum contra Deum
commissam quandam infinitatem habet ex infinitate divinae majestatis; tanto
enim offensa est gravior, quanto major est ille in quem delinquitur. Unde
oportuit, ad condignam satisfactionem, ut actio satisfacientis haberet efficaciam
infinitam, ut puta Dei et hominis existons.55

Then near the end of the article he states :
Homo autem purus satisfacere non poterat pro toto humano genere; Deus autem
satisfacere non debebat: unde oportebat Deum et hominem esse Jesum Chris­
tum.56

That man, designated as homo purus (without reference to the
virtue of chastity) by the Angelic Doctor, was wholly incapable of
returning a condign satisfaction follows from the fact that, through
Adam’s sin, the entire and complete human nature is so corrupt that
of itself it cannot rise. While it is true that his natural powers re­
main intact, man is nevertheless incapable of acting supernaturally in
the sense that his nature now lacks the proportion necessary bètween
his actions and the life of grace and eternal salvation; wherefore
he could not be a cause of grace. Likewise does the certain infinity
of mortal sin make it impossible for a creature of God to offer an
adequate satisfaction in recompense. Sin, inasmuch as it is an act of
a creature, is finite, but relative to God whose honor the act violates,
it is infinite.δΤ
54 Ibid.·, cf. also Garrigou-Lagrange, op. cit., pp. 36-43.
55 Summa, III, q. 1, a. 2, ad 2um.
56Ibid., a. 2. In reference to the equality demanded by perfect satisfaction:
“Medium justitiae est aequalitas quae constituitur inter illos inter quos est
justitia. In quibusdam autem non potest perfecta aequalitas constitui, propter
alterius excellentiam: sicut inter filium et patrem, inter hominem et Deum."
Summa, III, q. 85, a. 3, ad 2um.
5T Cf. Diekamp, De Redemptore, II, p. 194. Cf. also St. Thomas, Comp. Theol.,
c. 200 ; Garrigou-Lagrange, op. cit., pp. 43-48.

_____ JU

The Notion of Satisfaction

29

Nullus autem homo purus tantus esse poterat, qui posset satisfacere sufficienter
Deo, poenam voluntariam aliquam assumendo, etiam pro peccato proprio, nedum
pro peccato universorum. . . . Oportuit igitur ut esset aliquis homo infinitae dig­
nitatis, qui poenam subiret pro omnibus.58*

Redemption through a divine Person therefore is hypothetically
necessary, given original sin, and granted that God freely willed
(as de facto He did) to exact an adequate reparation while at the
same time capable of condoning, or of accepting an inadequate satis­
faction.
Finally, was it then necessary that Christ satisfy through the
Passion and Death of the Cross ? The Angelic Doctor states the
doctrine of the Church in maintaining that such a mode of satisfac­
tion was not absolutely necessary, and this for the evident reason
that any least suffering or act of Christ would in itself have been
perfectly sufficient. However, given the preknowledge and preordi­
nation of God concerning the Passion, then it was not possible for
man to be freed from sin in any other way. As Prat puts it, “Christ
was delivered by God on account of our sins, which His death alone,
in the present providential order, could expiate. ”5S)
In the words of St. Thomas:
Dicendum quod, secundum sufficientiam, una minima passio Christi suffecit ad
redimendum genus humanum ab omnibus peccatis.60

Simpliciter igitur et absolute loquendo, possibile fuit Deo alio modo hominem
liberare quam per passionem Christi. . . . Sed ex aliqua suppositione facta fuit
impossibile . . . supposita praescientia et praeordinatione Dei de passione Christi,
non erat sumul possible Christum non pati, et hominem alio modo quam per ejus
passionem liberari.61

St. Thomas reaches the conclusion, however, that Redemption
through the suffering and death of Christ is also the more fitting
means of liberating man from sin than through the will of God
alone—and this for several reasons : the greatness of God’s love for
man incites in him a love in return ; Christ gives mankind the great
example of obedience, humility, and justice ; Christ not only freed
men from sin, but merited for them the grace of justification ,· man
recognized more readily the necessity of avoiding sin; men, in the
death of Christ, were enabled to conquer the devil and to overcome
death itself.62
St. Thomas enumerates still other reasons for the fitness of Christ’s
death by crucifixion: Christ gave the example of virtue; the tree of
58 St. Thomas, Opusc., Ill, c. 7.
08 Prat, Theology of St. Paul, II, p. 209.
Note: The necessity of the Passion and Death relative to Christ’s freedom
in His obedience to the Father will be considered in the next chapter.
60 Summa, III, q. 46, a. 5, ad 3um.
«1 Ibid., a. 2.
*2 Ibid., a. 3.

30

I
'

;

■
!·
;

i

The Thomistic Concept- of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

the forbidden fruit as the means used by Satan for his temptation
to sin becomes the Cross of salvation ; His death upon the elevated
Cross prepared the way for man’s ascent into Heaven; His out­
stretched arms signified the universality of redemption ; death upon
the Cross signified the many figures found in the Old Testament.63
The reparation offered to God by Christ the Redeemer was therefore a real work of satisfaction, for it repaired the offense given God.
satisfied His divine justice, and restored the moral order violated
by sin. It was, further, a satisfaction at once infinitely perfect and
superabundant; it was in this satisfaction that there was made manifest the infinite wisdom of God
. who found the means of recon­
ciling all the exigencies of His justice with all the inclinations of
His mercy; for the Redemption is at once a mystery of justice and
of love.”64
03 Ibid., a. 4.
64 Hugon, Le Mystère de la Rédemption, pp. 54-55.

Chapter Three

THE MODE OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST
1. Status Quaestionis.
Thus far the theological notion of satisfaction has been defined,
analysed, and applied to the Passion and Death of Christ, together
with a brief commentary on the perfection and necessity of Christ’s
satisfaction. It will be the purpose of this chapter to complete the
Thomistic concept of vicarious satisfaction by demonstrating the fact
of Christ’s satisfaction as found in Sacred Scripture and Tradition,
and of analyzing the precise mode or manner in which Christ accom­
plished His redemptive work of satisfaction, that is, its vicarious
nature, and the motives of love and obedience that characterized
the death of Christ.
It should be restated here that the vicarious satisfaction of Christ
is but one aspect of the dogma of the Redemption. Mention has al­
ready been made of the other three principal aspects incorporated in
the Summa, namely, those of merit, sacrifice, and redemption or liber­
ation. The four aspects are not, therefore, to be considered as indi­
vidually exclusive of each other, but on the contrary, as convenient
and scientific expressions mutually inclusive, of the one, same reality.1
Question 48 of part three of the Summa contains the essence of the
Thomistic doctrine of the Redemption.2 Despite the charges of some
that there is a lack of order and unity in the treatment of St. Thomas
concerning the various aspects of the Redemption, an objective in­
quiry and impartial examination cannot but furnish the reader with
convictive evidence that, to the contrary, there is contained in the
analysis of St. Thomas a definitely progressive and unified procedure.
In his analysis of the Redemption, the Angelic Doctor, in accord­
ance with the testimony of Sacred Scripture and Tradition, proceeds
from the primary, essential, and fundamental truth that the work of
Redemption is, above all things else, a work of infinite, divine love.
Since the distinctive characteristic of any work of love or charity is
1 Reference may be made here to the synthesis given by Janssens : the offense
given God by original sin results in a state of enmity between God and man, and
renders man guilty of the offense and its punishment. In the attainment of man’s
salvation, therefore, the offense must be repaired, God is to be placated, and man
thereby liberated. All these are accomplished by the Passion and Death of Christ
per modum satisfactionis, sacrificii, et redemptionis. Cf. Janssens, De Deo-Homine,
II, p. 763.
2 “Sensus D. Thomae in titulo questionis est, agendum esse de modo quo passio
Christi suum effectum operata est. Itaque non hic agitur de modo passionis secundum se, sed de modo quo influit in effectum. Ex hae occasione, tractat hic D.
Thomas de merito et satisfactione Christi, et de redemptione nostra.” Summa,
III, q. 48, Introd., note 1 (ed. Marietti).

31

·

μ
[j
H
ij

f

32

I’

The Thomistic Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

that of its meritorious value, St. Thomas begins quite logically by
analyzing the Redemption as the cause of man’s salvation per modum
meriti. À work that is meritorious, however, will also become satis­
factory if it is difficult or laborious in nature, and if it is willingly of­
fered as the reparation for an offense. The consideration of°merit
prior to that of satisfaction is the logical and theologically accural o
procedure for the reason that, while any act of real satisfaction is
meritorious, not every meritorious action is satisfactory.
Further, a meritorious and satisfactory act is not always a sacrifice,
in the proper sense of the word, but, given a true sacrifice (a holocaust
for example), then it follows most certainly that the same sacrificial
action will be likewise satisfactory and meritorious. The terra re­
demptio as used by St. Thomas to indicate another aspect of the Re­
demption is to be understood in the restricted sense of liberation from
the servitude of sin and the devil, while a final mode, that of efficiency,
considers the application of the merits and satisfactions gained by
Christ. These last two embrace rather the effective aspects of the Re­
demption, while those of merit, satisfaction, and sacrifice comprise its
constitutive elements.
In the second article of question 48 St. Thomas gives a simple and
yet vivid theological expression to the very assence of the mystery it­
self, when he analyzes the cause of man’s salvation per modum satis­
factionis:—Jesus Christ, in His Passion and Death upon the Cross
offered to God a true satisfaction for the sins of mankind, in a vicari­
ous manner, and from the motives of love and obedience.
Ille proprie satisfacit pro offensa qui exhibet offenso id quod aeque vel magis
diligit quam oderit offensam. Christus autem, ex caritate et obcdientia patiendo,
maius aliquid Deo exhibuit quam exigeret recompensatio totius offensae humani
generis. Primo quidem, propter magnitudinem caritatis, ex qua patiebatur. Se­
cundo, propter dignitatem vitae suae, quam pro satisfactione ponebat, quae erat
vita Dei et hominis. Tertio, propter generalitatem passionis et magnitudinem
doloris assumpti. . . .3
& Summa, III, q. 48, a. 2. In reference to this article Cajetan states: "Titulus
clarus ex ipsa satisfactionis ratione, facere siquidem satis, est facere aequale, seu
sufficiens debito. Praesupponit namque satisfactio debitum, pro quo satisfacien­
dum est, et debito praesupposito, tunc satisfit, quando aliquid exhibetur aequi va­
lens debito, vel excedens illud. In proposito, quia ex debito humani generis con­
stat (quoniam et offendit Deum, et obnoxium erat poenae aeternae), quaeritur an
passio Christi salvaverit nos per modum satisfactionis, hoc est per modum recompensantis aequale ad minus debito humani generis.”
Cajetan, in this same article, further explains that satisfaction can be made in
one of two ways: "Adverte hic quod aliquod exhibitum offenso dupliciter potest
satisfacere. Primo, ex gratia effensi acceptantis illud exhibitum pro sufficienti,
quamvis illud in se non esset sufficiens pro satisfactione: sicut si rex pro injuria
sibi facta acceptet solani petitionem veniae. Alio modo, ex sufficientia ipsius rei
exhibitae ; quia scilicet illud exhibitum est secundum se tantae bonitatis, amabili­
tatis, dignitatis et excellentiae, ut adaequet offensam vel excedat; sicut si pro
offensa deberetur libra argenti, et daretur libra auri. In proposito, est sermo de
satisfactione secundo modo, hoc est, secundum se.”

The Mode of the Satisfaction of Christ

33

It is the morally infinite value of the love which Christ expressed
in His death by crucifixion that procures the satisfaction due to God.
This pleases God more, as St. Thomas states, than all the sins and
crimes of both men and demons combined displease Him. The love of
Christ is such that it surpasses necessarily the magnitude of the mal­
ice of any and every offense committed against God.
Secondly, the satisfaction of Christ was a vicarious satisfaction, or
one given by Christ as the divinely-appointed Representative of all
mankind, on their behalf :
Dicendum quod caput et membra sunt quasi una persona mystica. Et ideo
satisfactio Christi ad omnes fideles pertinet sicut ad sua membra. Inquantum
etiam duo homines sunt unum in caritate, unus pro alio satisfacere potest. . , ,4*

The final responses of the article are restatements of the dignity
of the Person of Christ and of the consequent infinite greatness of His
acts—and among these none was greater than the act of charity
whereby Christ offered Himself to God the Father on behalf of man­
kind.
Dicendum quod maior fuit caritas Christi patientis quam malitia crucifigentium.
Et ideo plus potuit Christus satisfacere sua passione quam crucifixores offendere
occidendo; intantum quo passio Christi sufficiens fuit, et superabundans, ad
satisfaciendum pro peccatis crucifigentium ipsum.3
Dicendum quod dignitas carnis Christi non est aestimanda solum secundum
carnis naturam, sed secundum personam assumentem, inquantum scilicet erat caro
Dei: ex quo habebat dignitatem infinitam.6

The complete and proper interpretation of the concept of vicarious
satisfaction as proposed in the doctrine of St. Thomas therefore, is
that Christ, as the Head of the whole human race, took upon Him­
self the obligation of satisfying for the sins of that race; secondly,
that on behalf of men, out of love and obedience, He willingly sus­
tained the sufferings and punishment due to their sins.7
4 Summa, III, q. 48, a. 2, ad lum.
Thia statement is given in response to the objection that the actual sinner
himself is held to satisfy in the same sense that one is unable to confess for
another. In his reply to the objection St. Thomas furnishes evidence for the
vicarious nature of the satisfaction of Christ. Other pertinent references will be
given later in this chapter when the notion of “ vicarious ’ ’ is analyzed.
The reasons whereby one is able to satisfy for another are given by St. Thomas
in 11'1 Suppl., q. 13, a. 2. The article itself will be included in the analysis of
vicarious satisfaction.
3 Summa, III, q. 48, a. 2, ad 2um.
6 Ibid., ad 3um.
7 As will be mentioned again later, tho vicarious nature of Christ’s satisfaction
does not imply, much less indicate directly, that Christ accepted the sins of
men fortnaliler and in sc, so that He becomes Himself a sinner; nor does it mean
that Christ was punished, if by punishment is understood the evil indicted in
vindication of an offense.

34

The Thomistic Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

That which offends God in sin is the conscious and free rebellion of the
creature; only an equivalent homage of submission and love can effectively
repair this disorder. This Christ has done in our name; and (He so repaired)
in all the actions of His life, but especially in His acceptance of the sorrowful
sacrifice which was imposed upon Him by the Providential course of His mission.8

The procedure adopted for the analytical demonstration to be pre­
sented in this chapter will be as follows : the statements and defini­
tions of the Ecclesiastical Magisterium ; the testimony of Sacred Scrip­
ture and Tradition; the analysis of the elements involved in the
concept itself, namely, the Headship of Christ, and His motives of love
and obedience.

2. Demonstration—doctrine of the Church and Scriptural basis.
The Redemption, although a divinely revealed dogma of faith, has
not as yet been precisely and ex professo solemnly defined by the
extraordinary magisterium of the Church. The doctrine of vicarious
satisfaction as formulated by St. Thomas cannot therefore be defi­
nitively termed de fide. However, that it does pertain to faith,
and that it is contained equivalently in the symbols and councils
of the Church is evident from the following citations.9
The Nicene-Constantinople Creed formulated at the Council of
Constantinople states :
Qui propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem descendit de coelis. ... et
homo factus est. Et crucifixus est pro nobis sub Pontio Pilato, passus et sepultus
est. (D.B. 86)

The Council of Ephesus gives the following in Canon 10 :
(Christus) obtulit autem semetipsum pro nobis in odorem suavitatis Deo et
Patri. (D.B. 122)

The fuller idea of satisfaction and its vicarious nature are likewise
mentioned in the following :
The Council of Toledo—Et tamen passionem ipsam, salva divinitate sua, pro
delictis nostris sustinuit. . . . (D.B. 286)
The condemnation of the heresy of Abelard—Quod Christus non asumpsit
carnem, ut nos a jugo diaboli liberaret. (D.B. 371)

The Council of Lyons— ... in humanitate pro nobis et salute nostra passuni
vera carnis passione. . . . (D.B. 462)

The acceptance and incorporation of the scholastic terminology
8 Riviere, Etude Theologique, p. 313.
9 For convenience, the references to the Enchiridion Symbolorum of DenzingerBannwart are given directly within the text. (Future references to the Enchiri­
dion will be given under the abbreviation: D.B.)

The Mode of the Satisfaction of Christ

35

itself is found in the decree on justification formulated at the Council
of Trent:
. . . Dominus noster Jesus Christus, qui "eum essemus inimici propter nimiam
caritatem, qua dilexit nos,” sua sanctissima passione in ligno crucis nobis justi­
ficationem meruit, et pro nobis Deo Patri satisfecit. (D.B. 799)
Cum enim ille ipse Christus Jesus tamquam “caput in membra” et tamquam
“vitis in palmites” in ipsos justificatos jugiter virtutem influat . . . nihil justi­
ficatis amplius deesse credendum est, quominus plene illis quidem operibus, quae in
Deo sunt facta, divinae legi pro hujus vitae statu satisfecisse. . . . (D.B. 809)

Not to be omitted is the condemnation of the Socinians who denied
that Jesus Christ
. . . subiisse acerbissimam crucis mortem, ut nos a peccatis et ab aeterna morte
redimeret et Patri ad vitam aeternam reconciliaret. (D.B. 993)

Finally, the doctrine itself had been formulated by the Vatican
Council in two canons as stated below :
Si quis affirmare praesumpserit satisfactionem vicariam, unius scilicet media­
toris pro cunctis hominibus, justitiae divinae repugnare, A.S. Si quis non con­
fiteatur ipsum Deum Verbum, in assumpta carne patiendo et moriendo, pro
peccatis nostris Deo potuisse satisfacere, vel vere et proprie satisfecisse, A.S.1011

Unfortunately, however, these two canons were not formally pro­
mulgated, but they are, nevertheless, valuable indications of the
mind of the Church, and whatever be their official value, they pro­
vide at least a more precise formulation of the concept of vicarious
satisfaction which has already been equivalently expressed and taught
by the ordinary magisterium of the church.11
Theology, or rather the Catholic faith, teaches that Jesus Christ offers to God,
in our place, a true satisfaction for our sins. ... If there is not as yet a formal
and explicit definition, the dogma is equivalently affirmed in the symbols of faith
and the allusions found in the Councils.12

Given the authority enjoyed by the ordinary magisterium of the
Church, coupled with the testimony of Sacred Scripture and Tradi­
10 Cf. Rivière, Étude Théologique, p. 120.
11 Cf. ibid., pp. 116-123.
“. . . l’Église n’a formulé aucune definition proprement dogmatique; mais dans
son language elle a reçu d’abord les expressions scripturaires de rançon et de
sacrifice, plus tard le terme scolastique de satisfaction.” Ibid., p. 121.
Note: The citations quoted from the Councils of the Church, while sufficient
for the purpose at hand, are by no means exhaustive. Additional references
to the Rnchird. Symb. given by Garrigou-Lagrange are: D.B. 319, 323, 429,
552, 711, 720, 796, 820, 1019, 1096, 1294, 1409. Cf. Garrigou-Lagrange, op. cit.,
pp. 392-393, 416-417.
12 “La théologie ou plutôt, la foi catholique, enseigne que Jésus-Christ a offert à
Dieu, à notre place, une véritable satisfaction pour tous nos péchés. . . .
“ S’il n ’y a pas à ce sujet de definition explicite et formelle, le dogme est
équivalemment affirmé dans les symboles de foi et les allusions des conciles.”
Hugon, Le Mystère de la Rédemption, pp. 61-62.

36

The Thomistic Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

tion to be given presently, the concept of vicarious satisfaction is to
be considered proxima fidei.
Christus proprie et vere satisfecit pro nobis apud Deum.—Haec conclusio ad
fidem pertinet.13

The term satisfaction does not appear in the Sacred Scriptures.
The concept of vicarious satisfaction as proposed by St. Thomas is
nevertheless equivalently contained therein, for the Scriptures pro­
vide many and precise references to the shedding of Christ’s blood
as the payment of a price, given freely by Him for the liberation
and redemption of all mankind, and as an act of love whereby Christ
compensated for the sins of the world. Of the various ways in which
the numerous texts of Sacred Scripture may be presented, the pro­
cedure to be followed here will include a selection of texts from the
Gospels and Epistles, together with a brief commentary on their ap­
plication to the theological concept itself.
The progressive revelation given by Christ of His own Passion and
Death as recorded by the Synoptics may be summarized briefly in
this manner: Christ came to save men, and frequently testified to
His future death as the fulfillment of the prophecies, and as the
means of man’s liberation from sin.
“The Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.’’ {Luke 19:10)
From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to
Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and Scribes and chief priests,
and be put to death, and on the third day rise again. {Matt. 16:21)

“Fot the Son of Man also has not come to be served, but to serve, and to
give His life as a ransom for many.” {Mark 10:45)
“Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed
to the chief priests and the Scribes; and they will condemn him to death, and
will deliver him to the Gentiles to be mocked and scourged and crucified; and
on the third day he will rise gaain.” {Matt. 20:18-19)

“All of you diink this; for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is
being shed for many unto the forgiveness of sins.” {Matt. 26:28)

That the propitiatory sacrifice ( reparator y compensation) whereby
the Saviour purified men in His blood, was given by Christ out of love
and obedience is particularly evident in the Gospel of St. John :
“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.
Greater love than this no one has, that one lay down his life for his friends.”
{John 15:12-14)
J3Lottini, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, II, p. 258.
As expressed by Rivière: “Dans l’Êglise catholique, à defaut du magistère
extraordinaire quf u’a pas été jusqu’à present saisi de la question, le magistère
ordinaire a consacré la doctrine de la ‘satisfactio vicaria’.’’ Étude Thêologitpie,
pp. 121-122.

The Mode of the Satisfaction of Christ

37

“lam the good shepherd . . . and I lay down my life for my sheep. . . . For
this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down my life that I may take
it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have
the power to lay it down, and I have the power to take it up again. Such is
the command I have received from my Father.” {John 10:14-18)
“I will no longer speak much with you, for the prince of the world is coming,
and in me he has nothing. But he comes that the world may know that I love
the Fattier, and that I do as the Father has commanded me.” (John 14:30-31)

The testimony of the Synoptics therefore gives sufficiently clear
proof that, as Christ Himself foretold, the price of man’s salvation was
paid in the Saviour’s own blood “shed for many unto the forgiveness
of sins.” But He who gives the price or His life “as a ransom for
many,” by that very fact truly satisfies for those whom the price
liberates.14
The further development and analysis of the doctrine of the Re­
demption is to be found principally in the Epistles of St. Paul who is
looked upon as the first theologian. Since a complete and detailed
exegetical presentation of the Pauline doctrine of Redemption be­
longs properly to the province of positive theology, the following
selected texts and commentary, although limited, will nevertheless
provide whatever evidence may be required for a valid Scriptural
demonstration of the concept of vicarious satisfaction.
Dominant among the ideas expressed in the Pauline Epistles con­
cerning the Redemption is that of the reconciliation of humanity with
God effected through the Cross of Jesus Christ. While St. Paul does
not, of course, present a theory properly so-called, he has in his
writings, in place of scientific formulae, those principal ideas and
forms of the doctrine which provide the basis for the development of
the scholastic concept of Redemption: Christ, the new Adam, is the
cause of man’s liberation from sin, the means whereby the sinner is
again reconciled to God, the expiatory Victim in the shedding of
His blood as the price of the redemption of all mankind.
... as Christ also loved us and delivered Himself up for us an offering and
a sacrifice to God to ascend in fragrant odor. (Ephes. 5:2)

Again, he is the head of his body, the Church. . . . For it has pleased God
the Father that in him all his fullness should dwell, and that through him he
should reconcile to himself all things, whether on the earth or in the heavens,
making peace through the blood of his cross. (Coloss. 1:18-20)15

J4 Pius X has condemned the following proposition of the Modernists: Doctrina
de morte piaculari Christi non est evangelica, sed tantum paulina.” D.B., 2038.
15 Likewise in the First Epistle of St. Peter : “. . . who himself bore our
sins in his body upon the tree, that we, having died to siu, might live to justice.”
(2:24) ;
“You however, are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a pur­
chased people............. ”
(2:29);
“'You know that you were redeemed . . . not with perishable things, with
silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ. . . .” (1:18-19).

38

The Thomistic Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

For you have been bought at a great price.

(1 Cor. 6:20)

Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures. ... (1 Cor. 15:3)

The punishment due to the sins of men was suffered voluntarily by
Christ as an adequate and indeed superabundant reparation to God,
out of love and obedience.
. . . (Christ Jesus) who though he was by nature God, did not consider being
equal to God a thing to be clung to, but emptied Himself, taking the nature
of a slave and being made like unto men. And appearing in the form of man, he
humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even to death on a cross. (Philipp.
2:6-9)

But where the offense has abounded, grace has abounded yet more. (Rom. 5:20)
. . . who gave Himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from the wicked­
ness of this present world according to the will of our God and Father. (Gal. 1:4)

... as Christ also loved the church and delivered himself up for her. . . .
(Ephes. 5:25-26)
But God, who is rich in mercy, by reason of his very great love, wherewith
he has loved us even when we were dead by reason of our sins, brought us to
life together with Christ. . . . (Ephes. 2:4-6)

The blood of Christ is offered to God on behalf of all men as the
price of their ransom and as the means of propitiation for the offense
of sin ; Christ was ordained by God the Representative of all humanity,
and as a consequence all men are contained in Him and share inti­
mately in His actions. In His impressive Epistle to the Romans,
pregnant with the first theological concepts and reasoning relative
to the great truth of the Redemption, St. Paul gives an inspired ex­
pression to the vicarious mode of the salvation wrought through the
Cross of the Saviour. Christ, being without sin Himself, substitutes
Himself for all mankind, and is Himself made sin for them in order
that they, dying with Him and in Him, may receive in Him the
justice of God. In other words, even as the sin of Adam made men
sinners, so does the obedience of Christ make them justified—for He
took upon Himself the debt of their sins, and made satisfaction for
them to God. According to Rivière :
According to the basic tenet of the Christian faith, he does not rest satisfied
with establishing a relationship between our salvation and the Cross: he strives
to explain its supernatural efficacy and to this end he introduces in turn the
notions of ransom, of sacrifice, of reconciliation, of vicarious satisfaction.10

In the First Epistle of St. John: “And he is a propitiation for our sins,
not for ours only but also for those of the whole world.’’ (2:2);
“In this is the love, not that we have loved God, but that He has first loved
us, and sent His Son a propitiation for our sins.’’ (4:10).
16 “ Il ne se contente pas, suivant la donnée fondamentale de la foi chrétienne,
de rattacher notre salut à la croix: il s’éfforee d’en expliquer la surnaturelle
efficacité et pour cela il introduit successivement les idees de rançon, de sacrifice,
de réconciliation, d’expiation substitutive.’’ Rivière, Étude Historique, p. 54.

The Mode of the Satisfaction of Christ

39

They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption which is in
Christ Jesus, whom God has set forth as a propitiation by his blood through
faith, to manifest his justice, God in his patience remitting former sins. . . .
(Rom. 3:24-26)17
For we know that our old self has been crucified with him, in order that the
body of sin may be destroyed, that we may no longer be slaves to sin. (Rom.
6:6-7)

Therefore as through one man sin entered into the world and through sin
death . . . yet death reigned from Adam until Moses even over those who did
not sin after the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him
who was to come. But not like the offense is the gift. . . . Therefore as from the
offense of the one man the result was unto condemnation to all men, so from the
justice of the one the result is unto justification of life to all men. For just
as by the disobedience of the one man the many were constituted sinners, so
also by the obedience of the one the many will be constituted just.
(Rom.
5:12-20)18

In the latter passage St. Paul institutes a striking parallel between
Christ and Adam, each of whom were established by God as the head
of humanity ; whereas men were born in the first man whose sin re­
sulted in death for all, so too were men contained in Christ whose
justice returned them to life.
According to Prat, the basis of the parallel and contrast between
Adam and Christ “is to be sought, on the one hand, in the represen­
tative character common to both, and, on the other, in the fact that
Christ represents humanity better and more efficaciously than
Adam.”19
Finally, it is to be noted that St, Paul, while ever the ardent preach­
er of Christ crucified, also places a particular emphasis upon the
obedience out of which Christ suffered His death by crucifixion in
reparation for the disobedience of men. In the words of Riviere, and
which will also serve as a fitting conclusion :
For, if Jesus Christ, by a voluntary substitution, put Himself in the place
of the guilty, He did so not merely to pay the penalty for us, but above all,

17 In the Old Testament the word redemption (λύτρωσις) signifies the theo­
cratic deliverance promised to the faithful by Jehovah; in the New Testament
it is the Messianic deliverance obtained by the blood of Christ offered as a
ransom. Although redemption may signify simply deliverance, its etymological
value indicates the deliverance of men obtaind either by paying the ransom
(λύτρσν) or the price due (τιμή) which is given in the blood of Christ. Cf.
Prat, Theology of St. Paul, I, p. 432.
18 Parallel passages from St. Paul’s other Epistles:
“For our sakes He made him to be sin who knew nothing of sin, so that in
him we might become the justice of God.” (2 Cor. 5:21)
“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, becoming a curse for us. . . .”
(Gal. 3:13)
“And all things he made subject under his feet, and him he gave as head
over all the church, which indeed is his body. ...” (Ephes. 1:22-23).
19 Prat, op. cit., I, p. 439.

40

The Thomistic Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

to make reparation for our rebellion by His own submission, thus reestablishing
in order, in God's sight, the human race of which He is the Head. It remains
forever a mystery, but a mystery in w'hich the Apostle leaves us to find love and
to discover wisdom.20

The arguments from Tradition.
An historical or critical analysis of the Redemption as found in the
Fathers is again the proper province of positive theology. Over and
above the history of the dogma, an evaluation of the Patristic theology
of the Redemption is in itself a vast and complicated task. The diffi­
culties inherent in any historical treatise are augmented considerably
here by reason of the rhetorical and sometimes dramatic language
and metaphorical terms of expression employed by the Fathers.
Further, while they are unanimous in their writings concerning the
existence and effects of the Redemption, differences of opinion do pre­
vail, but usually by way of emphasis, particularly concerning the
sanctifying power of the Redemption in its relation to the Incarnation.
A similar difficulty lies in the fact that in the works of the early
Fathers the dominant idea seemed to be that of supplying an answer
to the question: “Why had a God become man?” Thus it was that
some writers, Origen for example, endeavored to make the mystery
of the Incarnation more intelligible by proving the expediency of the
Redemption without perhaps delving too deeply into the profound
meaning of the Redemption itself.21
It will be of advantage, therefore, both by way of maintaining a
unified procedure and of securing greater clarity, to incorporate here
a brief summary of the various so-called Patristic theories of Re­
demption and their relation to the concept of St. Thomas. The classi­
fication usually adopted by historians and theologians, and as given
by Riviere, may be stated briefly as follows :
1. The Mystical or Physical Theory: The redemption of man is effected
through the sanctification of human nature. The liberation of man from sin
is attributed primarily to the Person of the Incarnate Word, insofar as human
nature, once stained by sin, was sanctified by its intimate contact with the
Word, the source of sanctity. The Incarnation then becomes not only the cause,
but the Type and actual realization of man’s salvation.
20 ‘ ‘ Car, si Jésus-Christ s’est mis par une substitution volontarie à la place des
coupables, ce n’est pas seulement pour acquitter notre peine, c’est surtout pour
réparer notre rebellion par son obéissance, rétablissant ainsi dans l’ordre, aux
yeux de Dieu, l’humanité dont il est le chef. C’est toujours le mystère, mais ou
l’Apôtre nous fait trouver l’amour et deviner la sagesse.” Rivière, Étude His­
torique, p. 54.
For additional Scriptural references cf. Tanquerey, op. cit., pp. 733-737;
Garrigou-Lagrange, op. cit., pp. 416, 395-398; Hugon, Le Mystère de la Redemp­
tion, pp. 63-69; Rivière, Étude Théologique, pp. 46-71, and Étude Historique
pp. 29-100.
’
21 Cf. Prat, op. cit., II, p. 200.

The Mode of the Satisfaction of Christ

41

Proponents of this theory are to be found particularly among the
Greek Fathers.22
The relation of the Incarnation to the Redemption as expressed
by St. Thomas has already been given in the preceding chapter.
According to the Angelic Doctor, the Incarnation is admittedly neces­
sary for a condign satisfaction; the infinite value of the work of the
Redemption proceeds most certainly from the hypostatic union : and
finally, given the preordination of the Divine Will, man’s salvation
could be wrought only through the Passion and Death of Christ.
2. The Theory of the Rights of the Devil: According to Riviere, this theory
was conceived by the Fathers in one of three forms:
a. ) Juridicial Form (theory of ransom)—whereby it is asserted or insinuated
by some of the Fathers that the devil had direct claim over men as. a result of
sin, that compensation rvas due him, and that Christ in His blood paid a ransom
to him for the liberation of his captives.

b. ) Political Form (theory of the abuse of power)—whereby the devil is con­
sidered as one who has received from God the power to put men to death on
account of their sins. in attacking the innocent Christ, however, the devil
overstepped his constitutional rights, and in consequence it was perfectly just
that God, for this abuse of power, should deprive him of his captives. The
devil no longer receives a ransom, but the just punishment of his crime.
c. ) Poetical Form (rhetorical discourses and metaphorical expressions)—as
the title well indicates, this form of the “devil’s rights theory” would include
those writings of the Fathers that were intended not as dogmatic expressions, but
primarily as vivid picturizations and dramatic interpretations of the victorious
conquest of Christ over sin and the devil.23

Whatever the form of the Devil’s Bights Theory as found ex­
pressed among the Fathers, the position of St. Thomas indicates
clearly that, while sin may be considered a captivity, man does not
become the property of his captor, for the evident reason that Satan
can never become the master of humanity. Consequently, in the re­
purchase or redemption effected by Christ, there was no actual payment
or price offered to the prince of sin. Man, despite his offense against
God, had never ceased to be under the dominion of God, his Creator,
nor was he handed over to Satan as to a lawful owner, but rather as to
an executor of divine justice. The price Christ paid was given evi­
dently to Him who had been offended, not to the devil under whose
captivity man had fallen.
Igitur, quia passio Christi fuit sufficiens et superabundans satisfactio pro
peccato et reatu generis humani, eius passio fuit quasi quoddam pretium, per
quod liberati sumus ab utraque obligatione. . . . Christus autem satisfecit, non
quidem pecuniam dando aut aliquid hujusmodi, sed dando id quod fuit maximum,
seipsum, pro nobis. Et ideo passio Christi dicitur esse nostra redemptio.24
22
23

Cf. Riviere, Etude Historique, p.
Cf. ihid., pp. 373-445. Cf. also Prat, op. cit., II, pp. 442-447.
III, q. 48, a. 4.

42

The Thomistic Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

Dicendum quod, quia redemptio requirebatur ad hominis liberationem per
respectum ad Deum, non autem per respectum ad diabolum ; non erat pretium
solvendum diabolo, sed Deo. Ei ideo Christus sanguinem suum, (pii est pretium
nostrae redemptionis, non dicitur obtulisse diabolo, sed Deo.25

Exclusive of the theories themselves and whatever the difficulties
involved, of singular and immediate importance here is the demon­
stration of the Patristic foundation for the theological concept of
vicarious satisfaction as embodied in the works of St. Thomas. How­
ever, given the relatively late origin of the scholastic concept and its
terminology, the primary purpose to be achieved, as in Sacred Scrip­
ture, will be not to furnish evidence from the Fathers in defense of the
Redemption per modum satisfactionis as such, but rather to demon­
strate conclusively that the idea or rem ipsam is contained in the
very least, equivalently, in the writings of the Fathers. The citations
given below, while not by any means exhaustive, will nevertheless
provide sufficient evidence for the Patristic basis and validity of
the Thomistic concept of vicarious satisfaction.26
Among the Apostolic Fathers, St. Clement of Rome refers explicitly
to the motive of love out of which Christ suffered and died in accord­
ance with the divine will. He gave on behalf of the human race His
own blood, flesh and soul :
In caritate nos Dominus sibi assumpsit; propter caritatem quam erga nos
habuit, Dominus noster Jesus Christus voluntate divina sanguinem suum pro
nobis tradidit, et carnem pro carne nostra et animam pro animabus nostris.
(Journel, 26)

That Christ died on behalf of mankind, i.e., in a vicarious manner, is
referred to by St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp as follows :
St. Ignatius: Cum enim episeopo subjecti sitis ut Jesu Christo videmini mihi
non secundum hominem, sed secundum Jesum Christum vivere, qui propter nos
mortuus est, ut credentes in mortem ipsius mortem effugiatis. (Ibid., 48)
St. Polycarp: . . . Jesus Christus, “qui peccata nostra in corpore nostro super
lignum pertulit’’ . . . propter nos, ut in ipso vivamus, omnia sustinuit. (Ibid., 75)

St. Irenaeus refers to the parallel between Adam and Christ, indi­
cating the motive of obedience in the death suffered by the Saviour :
(Deum) in primo quidem Adam offendimus, non facientes ejus praeceptum;
in secundo autem Adam reconciliati sumus, obedientes usque ad mortem facti.
(Ibid., 255)

25 Ibid., ad 3um.
26 The citations are taken from Journel, Enchiridion Patristicum; cf. ibid.,
Index Theologicus, n. 416-421.
For additional references ef. Riviere, Etude Historique, “La Redemption
chez les Peres Grecs,’’ pp. 101-211, “Chez les Peres Latins,’’ pp. 211-279; also
D.T.C., “Redemption,” c. 1915-1921 (doctrine of the Church from Patristic to
Modern Eras), c. 1932-1942 (Patristic doctrine of Redemption).
Cf. also Galtier, De Incarnatione ac Redemptione, pp. 374-381 ; Tanquerey, op.
cit., pp. 738-746; Garrigou-Lagrange, op. eit., pp. 398ff., 416.

The Mode of the Satisfaction of Christ

43

In the following citation from Origen, reference is made to the in­
nocence of Christ even though He “bore” (i.e., in place of, or on
behalf of) the sins of mankind :
Pro populo autem moritur hic homo omnibus animantibus purior, qui peccata
nostra tulit et infirmitates, utpote potens universum totius mundi peccatum in
se receptum solvere et consumere et delere, quoniam “peccatum non fecit neque
inventus est in ore ejus dolus/’ neque agnovit peccatum. {Ibid., 482)

St. Cyprian employs the term portavit which is also used by St.
Thomas in reference to the satisfaction given by one on behalf of
another :
. . . peccata nostra portavit, qui pro nobis doluit, quem Deus tradidit pro
peccatis nostris. (Ibid., 552; cf. also 503)

Eusebius also refers to the vicarious aspect of Christ’s death as the
great sacrifice offered to God on behalf of all humanity :
. . . ut nostras abstergeret maculas peccatorum, qui pro nobis sacrificatus et
exsecratio factus sit . . . ut tamquam Dei victimam atque ingens sacrificium
ipsi supremo Deo offerretur pro universo mundo. (Ibid., 669)

St. Athanasius refers explicitly to the death of Christ as the pay­
ment of the debt of mankind : Christ has given Himself as a Victim
for others:
Hine corpus quod sibi ipse accepit velut hostiam et victimam omni puram
macula morti offerendo, mortem statim ab omnibus similibus, suo pro aliis oblato,
propulsavit ... id quod debebatur in morte solvit. . . . (Ibid., 751)

The element of voluntariness in the suffering and death of Christ,
necessary for the attainment of a true reparation, is given particular
emphasis by both St. Hilary and St. Ambrose :
St. Hilary: Passus ergo est Deus, quia se subjicit voluntarius passioni . . .
hostiam se ipse Deo Patri voluntarie offerendo. . . . (Ibid., 889)

St. Ambrose: Potuit enim Christus non mori, si voluisset; sed neque refugien­
dam mortem quasi ignavam putavit, neque melius nos quam moriendo servasset.
Itaque mors ejus vita est omnium. (Ibid., 1275)

St. Gregory of Nyssa speaks of the reconciliation of the world through
Christ who redeemed mankind in his own blood:
. . . nam in illo, qui pro nobis mortuus est et resurrexit, mundum sibi ipsi
reconciliavit unigenitus Deus, nos omnes . . . tamquam captivos quosdam redi­
mens per suum sanguinem, qui ejusdem naturae est ac noster. (Ibid., 1052)

Saint Augustine gives vivid expression to the innocence of Christ
shedding His blood, to the absolute voluntariness of His sufferings and
death, to the complete atonement for the sins of mankind, to His
obedience in accepting the mandate of the Father.
Sic quippe in remissionem peccatorum nostrorum innocens sanguis ille effuses
est . - · sed si noluisset, etiam hoc non pati potuisset, quia et Deus erat. ... In

44

The Thomistia Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

hae redemptione tamquam pretium pro nobis datus est sanguis Christi. . . ,
(Ibid., 1675)

Morte sua quippe uno verissimo sacrificio pro nobis oblato, quidquid culparum
erat unde nos principatus et potestates ad luenda supplicia jure detinebant,
purgavit, abolevit, exstinxit. (Ibid., 1655)

Habebat ut moreretur mandatum Patris, tamquam ille de quo praedictum erat :
“Quae non rapui, tunc exsolvebam,’’ mortuus sine debito soluturus, et nos a
morte redempturus. Rapuerat autem Adae peccatum. . . . (M.P.L., 35, 18381839)27

Finally, reference is again made by St. Gregory the Great to Christ,
the Victim, who, without sin, gives Himself for sinners :
Fecit pro nobis sacrificium, corpus suum exhibuit pro peccatoribus victimam
sine peccato, quae et humanitate mori et justitia mundare potuisset. (Journel,
2311)28

The doctrine contained in the foregoing excerpts provides ample
evidence for the fact that, whatever may have been the mode of ex­
pression or emphasis prevalent in the writings of the Fathers, the basic
elements essential to the concept of vicarious satisfaction are indeed
present and to some extent accurately analyzed. Considering the
various texts as a unit, it would not be an overstatement to conclude
that, according to the theological interpretation of the Fathers, Christ
the Head of mankind, took the burden of the sins of the human raceupon Himself, suffered and died upon the Cross willingly out of love
and obedience, offering Himself as the reparatory Victim.
!

Satisfactio enim, sensu suo obvio et generali, consistit in hoc quod pro aliquo
debito vel damno aliquid offertur, ex cujus acceptatione creditor vel damnificatus
habeat debitorem ex parte vel ex toto onere suo liberatum. . . . jure Christus
dicitur moriendo debitum nostrum solvisse eoque sensu pro nobis Deo satisfecisse.2'·1

Finally, in regard to the great principle of solidarity, the sine qua
non of the vicarious nature of Christ’s satisfaction, Prat states:
This illuminating principle was not only perceived but clearly formulated by
the Fathers of the Church. All of them say in about the same words that Jesus
Christ had to become what we are, in order to make us become what he is . . .,
that Christ, as Redeemer, comprises and summarizes all humanity.30

With the advent of the scholastic centuries, not only were the
occasionally exaggerated notions of the Fathers refuted, but in a
27 It should be noted here that the same Scriptural text is quoted by St.
Thomas as follows:
“Sed contra est quod ex persona ejus dicitur in Psalmo (68:5): ‘Quae non
rapui, tunc exsolvebam’. Non autem exsolvit qui perfecte non satisfecit. Ergo
videtur quod Christus patiendo satisfecerit perfecte pro peccatis nostris.” Summa,
III, q. 48, a. 2.
28 For additional texts and commentaries, cf Hugon, Le Mystère de la Rédemp­
tion, pp. 17-18, 69-73.
29Galitier, op. oit., pp. 381-382.
•30 Prat, op. cit., II, p. 201.

The Mode of the Satisfaction of Christ

45

positive manner, their traditional formulas, whether expressed in.
theological or dramatic terms, were corrected and synthesized into
the present theory of vicarious satisfaction as demonstrated by St.
Thomas.
The formulation of a unified doctrinal synthesis from the materials
provided by the Fathers was first realized in the Cur Deus Homo of
St. Anselm. Apart from the use of the term by Raoul Ardent,31 to
St. Anselm must be given the honor of being the first to adopt the
term satisfactio as a proper theological expression of the work of the
Redemption wrought by Christ.32 In so doing, he further proved that
the idea of satisfaction, far from being something new, was but the
expression, both valid and scientific, of very old notions.
In conclusion, while the controlling purpose of this treatise does
not warrant the presentation of a comparative analysis of the doc­
trine of St. Anselm and that of St. Thomas, a brief summary of the
Cur Deus Homo and the amendments given it by the Angelic Doctor
is considered necessary as a means of further clarifying his personal
formulation of the theological concept of vicarious satisfaction.
According to St. Anselm, God was made man in order to satisfy for
sins. All rational creatures are subject to God’s will; if they do not
render Him the honor due, they thereby take honor from Him and
contract a debt towards divine justice. This debt can be compensated
only by satisfaction which returns at least as much honor as was
taken away.
Satisfaction or punishment must follow sin, and according to the
measure of sin. Man, however, cannot return an adequate satisfaction
because any penitential acts he may elicit are already due to God,
and secondly, because the offense given God is infinite. Satisfaction,
therefore, apart from the God-Man, is impossible.
St. Anselm states further that Christ redeemed men by His death
upon the Cross. Christ could not, however, satisfy by acts of love
and obedience which He performed throughout His whole life, for
the reason that both obedience and love were due to God as acts of
creatures. But by His death which He was not compelled to suffer
because of His innocence, He satisfied abundantly, since it was an
offering of Himself at once voluntary and of infinite value.
Finally, this act was meritorious. Since Christ from the beginning
had received all things from the Father, He could not merit for Him­
self, and consequently He merited for us as His brothers.33
31 Cf. Riviere, Etude Historique, p. 289.
32 Cf, Hid., p. 291; also Hugon, De Verbo Incarnato, p. 671.
»3 Cf'. Tanquerey, op. cit., p. 744.
The integral text of the Cur Dens Homo is in Migne, P. L·., CLVIII, c. 361-430.
Cf. also Bainvel, D.T.C., ‘ ‘Anselme, ’ ’ c. 1338-1339; Riviere, D.T.C., “Redemp­
tion,” c. 1942-1944, and Etude Historique, pp. 291-323.
St. Anselm defines satisfaction: “Nee sufficit solummodo reddere quod ablatum

46

The Thomistie Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

The principal amendments to the Anselmian doctrine made by St,
Thomas are: 1.) In place of the absolute necessity of the Redemption
(and hence of the Incarnation), St, Thomas presents the arguments
only for its extreme fitness, the while safeguarding the divine will;
he likewise allows for divine condonation of sin apart from satisfaction
as well as the acceptance of an imperfect satisfaction.34 2.) Instead
of having the redemptive work appear as a solitary act, St. Thomas
places great emphasis upon the fact that, by virtue of Christ being the
divinely-appointed Head of the human race, all mankind is asso­
ciated in both His actions and in the value of those actions through
the medium of a supernatural solidarity.35

Analysis—The Headship of Christ and solidarity.
The two arguments embodied in the Thomistie concept of vicarious
satisfaction, as presented in the Status Quaestionis, are as follows ; 1.)
Christ, as Head of the entire human race, voluntarily took upon Him­
self the obligation of satisfying for the sins of that race, that is, lie
satisfied in a vicarious manner. The argument may be stated in
syllogistic form thus :
Christ as the Head, and all mankind as the members, constitute one mystical
person.
But the actions of the person are predicated of the Head as its source and in
which it participates.
Therefore the human race shares or participates in the satisfactory actions of
Christ.

2.) Christ satisfied by showing or giving to the Father what was in
itself of such great goodness, dignity, and excellence that it not only
equaled but surpassed the offense given by sin, namely, His suffering
death out of love and obedience. The syllogistic form for this argu­
ment of St. Thomas may be phrased:
True satisfaction obtains when there is given to the one offended a reparation
equal to the offense.
But what Christ gave is equal and greater than what the compensation of
humanity’s offense required.
Therefore Christ satisfied and superabundantly.38

The theological demonstration of these two arguments will be given
est, sed pro contumelia illata plus debet reddere quam abstulit. . . . Sic ergo debet
omnis qui peccat honorem quem rapuit Deo solvere; et haec est satisfactio.’’
P. L., CLVIII, c. 376-377.
34 Cf. preceding chapter.
35 Cf. Riviere, Etude Theologique, p. 103.
Not to be omitted are the further development and clarification given the
doctrine of St. Anselm by Hugo a S. Victoire, Peter Lombard, Alexander of
Hales, and St. Bonaventure. For a detailed analysis cf. Riviere, Etude Historique
pp. 279-373, and D.T.C., “Redemption,” c. 1942-1947.
'
36 Cf. Hugon, PeVerbo Incarnato, p. 671.

The Mode of the Satisfaction of Christ

47

analytically. The analysis of the element of vicariousness in the
Thomistie concept will include a definition of the term itself, the
consideration of the possibility of a vicarious satisfaction, the analysis
of the principle of solidarity upon which the vicarious satisfaction of
Christ is based. The analysis of the elements of love and obedience
will include the reasons given by St. Thomas demonstrating the fact
that the greatness of the love of Christ and His voluntary obedience
which proceeded from it, were such that God loved this more than
He detested the offense, and as a result of which Christ procured an
adequate satisfaction.
The term vicarious, the adjectival form of the noun vicar, is derived
etymologically from the Latin vids meaning a change or interchange ;
when the Latin term is used in an adverbial sense, it signifies in place
of. The term vicar, consequently, refers to the person who has law­
fully and wdllingly interchanged places with another, or assumed the
office or functions of another, and hence is considered a substitute or
vicegerent. When the vicar or representative performs an action in
this official capacity, he is said to act not personally, but on behalf of
the person or persons whom he represents; the results of his actions
are likewise such that thy will accrue to the benefit or advantage of
the person or group so represented. The action thereby performed
by the official representative is said to be a vicarious action, or one
performed on behalf of another.
Given this definition, the question will then follow : Is it possible
for one to so satisfy for another ? In other words, is it possible for
a duly appointed representative to accept or undergo the punishment
attached to an offense in order to make reparation for it, particularly
in view of the fact that he himself has not committed the offense?
The argument given by St. Thomas in demonstrating the possibility
of a vicarious satisfaction, for which the Ecclesiastical, Scriptural,
and Patristic basis has already been stated, rests firmly upon the real
meaning of satisfaction and the essential elements involved.
According to the Angelic Doctor, the reparatory (and hence satis­
factory) value of any punishment proceeds primarily from the in­
tention to suffer the penalty willingly, to sustain the punishment from
the motive of charity; in a word, to have the act adequately repair
the offense inflicted. When, however, this same reparatory action is
performed by one other than the actual offender, the elements of
voluntariness* and charity essential to true satisfaction remain un­
changed. Indeed, the motive of charity involved is greatly intensified
insofar as the representative, or person satisfying vicariously, is
entirely innocent of the crime itself.
The nature of satisfaction therefore is such that nothing would pre­
vent another from voluntarily offering to perform any act or undergo
any punishment that may be deemed necessary in order to repair an
offense committed by one other than himself. Given the union and

48

The Thomistic Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

sameness of will and heart (intention) between the actual offender
and the person who will satisfy in his stead, and the acceptance of the
latter by the one offended, vicarious satisfaction is not only possible,
but valid.37 As expressed by St. Thomas :
1
!

Quantum ad solutionem debiti, unus potest pro alio satisfacere : dummodo sit in
caritate, ut opera ejus satisfactoria esse possint. Nec oportet quod major poena
imponatur ei qui pro altero satisfacit quam principali imponeretur: ut quidam
dicunt, hac ratione moti, quia poena propria magis satisfacit quam aliena. Quia
poena habet vim satisfaciendi maxime ratione caritatis, qua homo ipsam sustinet.
Et quia major caritas apparet in hoc quod aliquis pro altero satisfacit quam si
ipse satisfaceret, ideo minor poena requiritur in eo qui pro alio satisfacit quam in
principali requireretur. Unde dicitur in “Vitis Patrum” quod propter caritatem
unius qui, alterius fratris caritate ductus, poenitentiam fecit pro peccato quod non
commiserat, alteri peccatum quod commiserat, dimissum est.38

1
I
i

i■
i
'

ί

. ;Γ

U I
'I
H ,
I I;
i:
ίI
:

p
i i|

lj|
j;

•p
i 1
• ; !
'
j
i
;

ψ

i
I

ili

|j !
I J I

(

I . I
I I

P

I
'j!

i

!I
I I 1I j !
1

I

! I

1

i
1 I I
p
i ί -i|
I .I1

!II I pp H

It must be understood, however, that the person who satisfies in a
vicarious manner is not thereby being punished, if and when the term
punishment is meant to signify that evil inflicted upon one for an
offense committed. The evident reason for this lies in the fact that
only the person guilty of the offense can justly receive and sustain
the punishment due as such. The Thomistic interpretation of satisfaction, however, as already indicated, relegates the material or penal
element involved to a position of secondary importance, while the intention of the offender to suffer the punishment precisely as a moral
reparation remains the real sine qua non of a true satisfaction. That
such be the intention and will of the person satisfying vicariously is
sufficient in order to procure satisfaction, or reparation for the offense. In other words, if the voluntary suffering of a penalty on behalf of another is prompted by the formal intention of obtaining the
release of the person or persons so represented from the offense he or
they themselves are guilty of, true satisfaction is thereby procured.
Consequently, if and when a penalty or punishment is sustained by
the personal offender, exclusively as a penal expiation, then the iniquity of the person so punished is to be considered. In satisfaction,
however, when someone, in order to placate him whom the injury has
offended, voluntarily assumes the punishment, that is, takes it upon
himself on behalf of the offender, it is that person’s charity and benevolence that is to be considered. Finally, and of similar impor37 As stated by Paquet, the conditions required whereby one can satisfy for
another are: the existence of a debt, a work of itself capable of satisfying, and
the acceptance of that substitution on the part of the one offended. Cf. Paquet,
De Incarnatione, p. 448.
38 Summa, III Suppl., q. 13, a. 2. Cf. also ibid,, III, q. 48, a, 2, ad lum. In
reply to the objection that satisfaction should be performed by the person guilty
of the offense even as he is held to personal confession and contrition, St. Thomas
replies: “Non autein est similis ratio de confessione et contritione: quia eatisfactio consistit in actu exteriori, ad quem assumi possunt instrumenta; inter quae
computantur etiam amici.’’ Summa, III, q. 48, a. 2, ad lum. Cf. final section of
this chapter for the discussion of objections.

The Mode of the Satisfaction of Christ

49

tance, is the fact that satisfaction is concerned primarily with the per­
son offended, and with the end in view of giving him an adequate
reparation, whether it be provided by the personal offender (and this
is to be preferred when possible) or in a vicarious manner.
Et quamvis in puniendo peccata oporteat illum puniri qui peccavit . . . tamen in
satisfaciendo unus potest alterius poenam ferre. Quia dum poena ρτο peccato
infligito, pensatur ejus qui punitur iniquitas: in satisfactione vero, dum quis, ad
placandum eum quem offendit, voluntarie poenam assumit, satisfacientis caritas
et benevolentia aestimatur, quae maxime apparet cum quis pro alio poenam as­
sumit. Et ideo Deus satisfactionem unius pro alio acceptat. . . .39

The Angelic Doctor further demonstrates the possibility of a vicari­
ous satisfaction by emphasizing the union effected between persons by
the bond of charity, so that what is done through a friend, is done
through one’s self :
Quod vero per amicos facium, per nos ipsos facere videmur, quia amicitia ex
duobus facit unum per affectum, et praecipue dilectio caritatis; et ideo sicut per
seipsum, ita et per alium potest aliquis satisfacere Deo, praecipue cum necessitas
fuerit: nam ct poenam quam amicus propter ipsum patitur reputat aliquis ac si
ipse pateretur. . . . Et iterum affectio caritatis in eo pro amico patitur facit magis
satisfactionem Deo acceptam quam si pro se pateretur. . . .40

It is evident therefore that, while the ordinary manner of making
satisfaction is for the person who committed the offense to take upon
himself the penalty thereby incurred, there still remains the possi­
bility of a vicarious mode of satisfaction; and this will obtain when
one who is himself innocent of the offense, and who is accepted by the
person offended, freely undertakes the obligation to repair the injury
in place of, or in behalf of the actual offender. Such was the satis­
faction given to God by Christ on behalf of all mankind.41
■Christ the Redeemer, from the motives of love and obedience, of­
fered His own life in a vicarious satisfaction for the sins of all men.
Wholly innocent of the offense given God by sin, He voluntarily suf­
fered the punishment due, but as one who did not merit it; He paid
the debt as one who had not contracted it; He compensated for an
offense as one who had not inflicted it.42 Tn the words of the Angelic
Doctor :
Contingit autem unum pro alio satisfacere . . . ita tamen quod poenam pro pec­
cato alteri debitam ipse, sibi non debitam, voluntarie assumat. Poena autem
consequens humani generis peccatum est mors et aliae passibilitates vitae prae­
sentis . . . unde Apostolus dicit, ad Rom. (c. 5:12): *‘Per unum hominem pecca­
tum in hunc mundum intravit, et per peccatum mors.”43

39 Cont. Gent., IV, c. 55, ad 20.
Ibid., Ill, c. 158, ad 4.
41 Galtier defines vicarious satisfaction as the Voluntaria perpessio alieujus
mali, ex intentione impetrandi alteri alieujus debiti condonationem.” De Incar­
natione. ac Redemptione, p. 387.
42 Cf. ibid., p. 387.
43 Cont. Gent., IV, e. 55, ad 11.

50

The Thomistic Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

. . . oportuit Christum mortem pati, non solum ut exemplum praeberet mortem
contemnendi propter veritatis amorem, sed ut etiam aliorum peccata purgaret.
Quod quidem factum est dum ipse, qui absque peccato erat, mortem peccato debi­
tam pati voluit, ut in se poenam aliis debitam, pro aliis satisfaciendo, susciperet.44

The essential elements involved in the notion of the vicarious satis­
faction of Christ are accurately expressed by Hugon as follows :
Jesus Christ, remaining always innocent, always pleasing to His Father, has
gratuitously paid for us the ransom due to the Divine Justice by reason of our
sins, like a generous benefactor who pays for his subjects the debt which he him­
self has never contracted. In other words, the Redeemer has taken upon Himself
the penalty of our faults, without ever having incurred, nor accepted the guilt or
the stain of sin, and he has offered a reparation that is equal and even superior
to the offense given God by all the crimes of the human race.45

The conditions mentioned above whereby the person offended must
accept the voluntary substitution46 of the one who so desires to make
reparation for the offense of another, and the moral union or oneness
in charity that must exist between them, are fulfilled most perfectly
in the satisfaction made by Christ. That Christ, the Son of God,
should atone for the sins of mankind, that He should become their
official Representative or Vicar in providing the satisfaction due God,
was a unique substitution made possible by the very fact of the Incar­
nation itself. It was by divine ordination, therefore, that Jesus
Christ, the God-Man, was constituted the Representative of the entire
human race, and in such a manner that all the membrs of that race
share and participate most intimately in the actions of their vicar by
virtue of a mystical, but real solidarity. The vicarial character of the
Saviour’s satisfaction is a direct consequence of this solidarity be­
tween Christ and man which is in itself a moral but real union realized
in the Incarnation. Together, Christ as Head and all mankind as
members constitute one, mystical person or body.47
44 Ibid., ad 19.
45 ‘ ‘ Jésus-Christ restant toujours innocent, toujours agréable à Son Père, a
soldé pour nous et gratuitement la rançon dûe a la justice divine à cause de nos
péchés, semblable a un bienfaiteur liberal, payant pour ses sujets le debte qu’il
n’a jamais contractée lui-même. En d’autres termes, le Rédempteur a pris sur
lui la peine de nos fautes, sans en avoir jamais encouru ni accepté la couple ou la
souillure, et il a offert une réparation égale, supérieure même, a l’offense faite à
Dieu par tous les crimes du genre humain.” Hugon, Le Mystère de la Rédemp­
tion, p. 62.
Billuart uses the phrase: “vadem (surety) et sponsorem (guarantee) nos­
trum.” De Incarnatione, diss. 19, a. 4.
46 This term substitution is to be interpreted and used according to the princi­
ple of solidarity which will be explained presently. Substitution without solidarity
is mere exchange—the transfer of an innocent person for a guilty one. This is
not vicarious satisfaction.
47 Although the terms solidarity and Mystical Body may, in a certain sense, be
used interchangeably, the chief purpose here is to define and explain the term
solidarity only in its relation to the vicarious satisfaction of Christ. For the doc­
trine of the Mystical Body itself ef. Summa, III, q. 8, in toto, and III Sent., d.

The Mode of the Satisfaction of Christ

51

As the Head of this mystical person, Christ becomes the vital influx
or principle of life that quickens its members. All mankind is incor­
porated into Christ and in such a way that they come under His influ­
ence, share in His life, and participate in all His actions.48
Dicendum quod, sicut tota Ecclesia dicitur unum corpus mysticum per simili­
tudinem ad naturale corpus hominis, quod secundum diversa membra habet diver­
sos actus, ut Apostolus docet, Bom. 12(4-5) et 1 Cor. 12 (12ff.) ; ita Christus
dicitur caput Ecclesiae secundum similitudinem humani capitis.49
Unde tota Christi humanitas, secundum scilicet animam et corpus, influit in
homines quantum ad animam et quantum ad corpus : sed principaliter quantum
ad animam; secundario quantum ad corpus.50

Primo enim et principaliter est caput eorum qui actu uniuntur sibi per gloriam.
Secundo, eorum qui actu uniuntur sibi per caritatem. Tertio, eorum qui actu
uniuntur sibi per iidem.51

That Christ, by assuming a human nature, should become the Head
and all mankind members of this mystical body was decreed by God
so that Christ would be in the order of salvation what Adam was in
the order of nature. This divine ordination is likewise the origin of
the grace in Christ as Head. Whatever merit is acquired by Him is,
therefore, by virtue of the grace of Headship, also applied to human­
ity.52 Given this divine and eternal ordination for the Headship of
the Saviour, He is thereby enabled to both merit and satisfy for those
who share in this body as its members and who become with Him one
mystical person. It is in virtue of this solidarity, this intimate union
of wills between Christ and men, that the Saviour as the one loving
so wills to satisfy on behalf of those loved.
Quia contingit eos, qui differunt in reatu poenae, esse unum secundum volunta­
tem unione amoris, inde est quod interdum aliquis qui non peccavit poenam volun­
tarius pro alio portat; sicut etiam, in rebus humanis, videmus quod aliquis in se
transfert alterius debitum.53

Dicendum quod, si loquamur de poena satisfaetoria, quae voluntarie assumi­
tur, contingit quod unus portet poenam alterius, inquantum sunt quoddamodo
unum.54

13, q. 2, a. 2; Prat, op, cit., pp. 300-309; the Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi,
Pius XII, 29 June, 1943.
48 Cf. Tanquerey, The Spiritual Life, p. 77.
Concerning the conditions for membership of Christ’s Mystical Body, cf. the
Encyclical of Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 29 June, 1943.
49 Summa, III, q. 8, a. 1.
50 Ibid., a. 2.
54 Ibid., a. 3. The doctrine of the Mystical Body is de fide divina: “Cum enim
ille ipse Jesus tamquam caput in membra, et tamquam vitis in palmites, in ipsos
justificatos jugiter virtutem influat. ...” Council of Trent, sess. 6, chap. 16,
D.B., 809.
52 Cf. Jannsens, De Deo-Homine, II, p. 758.
53 Summa, I-II, q. 87, a. 7.
54 Ibid., a. 8.

52

The Thomistic Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

So close and intimate is the unity which results from this solidarity
that in some mysterious manner His actions as Head of the Mystical
Body become the actions of mankind as its members, His merits be­
come their merits, His satisfaction their satisfaction.
It is logical therefore that the members (of the Mystical Body) follow the initiative of the Head, and that all men ratify, through their own. personal adherence, the -work of their representative.53

negaBy way of further clarification it may be stated here from a —
o
tive viewpoint that the solidarity between Christ and all mankind,
while not the same physical solidarity which prevails between Adam
and the human race, is not, nevertheless, a mere substitution in the
accepted sense of that term ; it does not mean that the human race as
represented by Christ has no actual participation or share in the
satisfaction made by their Vicar on their behalf—rather does it sig­
nify an integral union of interests, intentions, and actions. Further,
the solidarity does not indicate that Christ, by His voluntary accept­
ance of the penalty due sin in order to repair, must thereby Himself
become a sinner, and hence suffer an actual punishment: nor does it
involve the punishment of the innocent for the guilty.50
Jesus Christ, as the Head of the human race, whose cause He represents and
whose interests He includes, personifies sin; he is made sin for us, not in our place,
but for our advantage. . . Jesus is neither a sinner nor sin, personally, but as a
member of a sinful family, with which He identifies Himself.57

When Christ is referred to, therefore, as having died for our sins,
the particle for signifies final cause, and the meaning intended is that
Christ died in order to expiate our sins. When, on the other hand, He
is said to have died for us, the particle for then indicates that Christ
was substituted (according to the principle of solidarity) in our place,
that He paid the price of redemption for us, and that He truly satis­
fied for us.5S*57
Over and above the references already given, the great principle of
solidarity and its effects are referred to frequently in the works of St.
55 “Il est logique, en effet, que les membres suivent l’impulsion de la tête, que
chacun des hommes vienne ratifier par son adhésion personnelle l’oeuvre de son
réprésentant.” Rivière, Étude Théologique, p, 187.
In this same section Riviere refers to Christ as the “Chef Moral de l’human­
ité.” Ibid., p. 187.
Of interest here is the following observation of Prat; “The theory of the
Mystical Body is not the product of the growth of years. ... It would be in­
comprehensible if we saw in it merely an abstraction, a purely mental creation.
It is a. reality, of the moral order indeed, but a genuine reality.” Theology of
St. Paul, I, p. 300.
66 These erroneous notions and objections will be treated in Chapter Four.
57 Prat, op. cil., II, pp. 204-205.
68 This delicate distinction which serves to further clarify the exact meaning of
the phrases pro nobis and pro peccatis is made by Billuart, De Incarnatione, diss.
19, a. 4.

The Mode of the Satisfaction of Christ

53

Thomas, and always to be found is the one, same, principal note :
Christ, by divine ordination, became man that men might in Him
atone for their offense against God :
Oportuit igitur ut carnem passibilem et mortalem Deus assumeret absque pec­
cato, ut sic, patiendo et moriendo, pro nobis satisfaceret et peccatum auferret.
Et hoc est quod Apostolus dicit, ad Rom. (c. 8:3) quod “Deus misit Filium suum
in similitudinem carnis peccati ’ id est, habentem carnem similem peccatoribus,
scilicet passibilem et mortalem; et subdit, “ut de peccato damnaret peccatum in
carne,” id est, ut per poenam quam in carne pro peccato mostro sustinuit, pecca­
tum a nobis aufferet.59

Or again,
Effectus igitur peccati primi parentis pervenit ad unumquemque per carnis
originem: effectus autem mortis Christi pertingit ad unumquemque per spiritu­
alem regenerationem, per quam homo Christo quodammodo conjungitur et incor­
poratur.60

While the Angelie Doctor’s entire doctrine of the Redemption rests
upon the meritorious value of Christ’s sufferings, it does so most emi­
nently insofar as He is the Head of humanity, so that His actions be­
come those of all the members united to Him.01 Accordingly, in the
words of St. Thomas :
... in Christo non solum fruit gratia sicut in quodam nomine singulari, sed
sicut in capite totius Ecclesiae, cui omnes uniuntur sicut capiti membra, ex quibus
constituitur mystice una persona. Et exinde est quod meritum Christi se extendit
ad alois, inquantum sunt membra eius; sicut etiam in uno homine actio capitis
aliqualiter pertinet ad omnia membra, eius, quia non solum sibi sentit, sed omni­
bus membris.62
Sed peccatum Adae, qui constitutus est a Deo principium totius naturae, ad
alios per carnis propagationem derivatur. Et similiter meritum Christi, qui est a
Deo constitutus caput omnium hominum quantum ad gratiam, se extendit ad omnia
eius membra.63

The singular meriting of salvation is referred to as follows :
. . . Christo data est gratia non solum sicut singulari personae, sed inquantum
est caput Ecclesiae, ut scilicet ab ipso redundaret ad membra. . . Manifestum est
autem quod quicumque in gratia constitutus propter justitiam patitur, ex hoc ipso
meretur sibi salutem. . . . Unde Christus non solum per suam passionem sibi, sed
etiam omnibus suis membris meriut salutem.64

Consequently, if Christ, not only as an individual, but as the Head
of others, merited salvation through His voluntary Passion, it likewise69
69 Cont. Gent., IV, c. 55, ad 11.
60 Ibid., ad 26. To be noted here is the following remark of Prat: “The ma­
jority of modern authors adopt the principle of solidarity, already clearly stated
by St. Thomas.’' Op. cit., II, p. 446.
61 Cf. Hugon, De Verbo Incarnato, p. 669.
62 Summa, III, q. 19, a. 4.
63 Ibid., ad lum.
64 Ibid., q. 48, a. 1.

54

The Thomistic Concept of the Vicarious Mod.e of Satisfaction

follows that He so satisfied, namely, in a vicarious manner, as the
divinely-appointed Representative of the human race. All humanity,
in turn, by virtue of the solidarity existing between them and Christ,
likewise participate most effectively in both the Saviour’s satisfaction
and its fruits.6566
By the grace of His Headship, Christ has communicated to man­
kind all that He has received and accomplished :
Satisfactio Christi habet effectum in nobis inquantum incorporamur ei ut mem­
bra capiti. . . . Membra autem oportet capiti esse conformia. Et ideo, sicut
Christus primo quidem habuit gratiam in anima cum passibilitate corporis, et per
passionem ad gloriam immortalitatis pervenit; ita et nos, qui sumus membra
ejus, per passionem ipsius liberamur quidem a reatu eujuslibet poenae. . . .Go
Quia enim ipse est caput nostrum, per passionem suam, quam ex caritate et
obedientia sustinuit, liberavit nos, tamquam membra sua, a peccatis. . . . Sicut
enim naturale corpus est unum, ex memborum diversitate consistens, ita tota Ec­
clesia, quae est mysticum corpus Christi, computatur quasi una persona cum suo
capite, quod est Christus.67

The doctrine of the Mystical Body, therefore, is in itself the basis of
the mysterious but real solidarity between the Saviour and humanity,
whereby the vicarious satisfaction of the innocent Christ was not only
possible, but highly acceptable before God the Father.
The Mystery par excellence is the design conceived by God from all eternity,
but revealed only in the Gospel, to save all men without distinction of race, iden­
tifying them with His well beloved Son in the unity of the Mystical Body.68

The motive of love.
As already stated in the Status Quaestionis, the analytical demon­
stration for the argument proposed by St. Thomas whereby the suffer­
ing of death by Christ out of love and obedience is said to procure a
superabundant satisfaction, will be based upon the reasons given in
question 48, article 2, part III of the Summa. Although the motive of
Christ’s voluntary obedience in itself proceeds from, and presupposes
love, an integral analysis of the Thomistic concept demands at least an
inquiry into the nature of this obedience and its absolute voluntari­
ness on the part of Christ who gave it. The great importance and
value of the voluntariness of Christ’s obedience is readily recognized
when it is recalled that one of the essential elements necessary to any
act of real satisfaction is the voluntariness, or free election, on the
65 Of. Billuart, De Mysteriis Christi, diss. 10, a. 2.
Note: Charity, the sine qua non of merit, is the motive of Christ’s satisfaction;
consequently, His satisfaction is also meritorious. Whatever is said therefore rela­
tive to the, merits of Christ likewise applies to His vicarious satisfaction.
Cf. also Voste, op. cit., p. 354ff.
66 Summa, III, q. 49, a. 3, ad 3um.
67 Ibid., a. 1.
68 Prat, op. cit., 1, p. 308.

The Mode of the Satisfaction of Christ

55

part of the person who desires to atone for an injury inflicted ; this
is particularly true when such an atonement is vicarious in its nature.
These considerations concerning the obedience of Christ will immedi­
ately follow the analysis of the motive of love.
St. Thomas gives three reasons probative of the fact that the great­
ness of the love of Christ in His suffering the death of the Cross was
such that God loved this act more than He detested the offense, and
as a result of which Christ is said to have satisfied: 1.) the greatness
(magnitudo) of the love out of which He suffered—that is, the act
of Christ’s offering of Himself out of love for God and mankind is of
a morally infinite value. Since the possessor or source of actions
(principium quod) in Christ is the Divine Person of the Word, it fol­
low that His actions or operations will of necessity have an infinite
value; 2.) the dignity of His own life—that is, the life of Jesus Christ,
the God-Man, which was freely given by Him for the Redemption of
the human race. Admittedly the greatest testimony that can be given
in proof of human love is that one should lay down his own life.
“Greater love than this no one has, that one lay down his life for his
friends.” (John, 15:13) ; 3.) the greatness of the sufferings and sor­
rows He assumed—that is, Christ, as it were in addition to His actual
death, further testified to the greatness of His love by sustaining
every suffering possible (according to genus, not species), and to the
greatest extent.
. P\e ProPrie satisfacit pro offensa qui exhibet offenso id quod aeque vel magis
dihgit quam oderit offensam. Christus autem, ex caritate et obedientia patiendo,
maius aliquid Deo exhibuit quam exigeret recompensatio toitus offensae humani
generis.
Primo quidem, propter magnitudinem caritatis ex qua patiebatur. Secundo,
propter dignitatem vitae suae, quam pro satisfactione ponebat, quae erat vita Dei
et hominis. Tertio, propter generalitatem passionis ct magnitudinem doloris as­
sumpti. . .

In this one act of love, and in the above reasons which testify to its
greatness, is to be found the essence of the Thomistic concept of the
vicarious satisfaction of Christ. As will be discussed later, St. Thomas
indicates clearly and cogently that, while Christ suffered death as the
just punishment for the sins of mankind, His death was above all
and most eminently a grand act of love.69
70
69 Summa, III, q. 48, a. 2.
70 The importance of the motive of love (and obedience) relative to the Thomistie concept itself will be given its proper evaluation in Chapter Five. Then it
will be seen that the satisfaction of Christ, according to St. Thomas, is pri­
marily a moral reparation, and secondarily a penal expiation.
Reference may be made here to the definition of charity given by St. Thomas:
<‘
caritas non solum significat amorem Dei, sed etiam amicitiam quamdam ad
ipsum; quae quidem super amorem addit mutuam redamationem cum. quadam
mutua’ communicatione. ...” Summa, III, q. 65, a. 5.
Strictly, therefore, charity adds to love a certain perfection that proceeds from

56

The Thomistic Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

The reasons cited by the Angelic Doctor are quite evidently not ex­
clusive of each other; rather may they be considered as three expres­
sions of the one, same act of love given by Christ. His own death
proves His love, and the mode of His suffering provides still further
evidence of its intensity. In other words, the greatness of Christ’s
love (and hence its power to atone) flows first, from the infinite value
attached to the acts of the Person of the Word; secondly from the
mode or external manifestation of His love, as indicated by the great­
ness of the sufferings and sorrows He assumed.
That the satisfactory actions performed by Jesus Christ were of
infinite value has already been demonstrated in the preceding chap­
ter.71 There it was stated that the value (or greatness) of moral ac­
tions is to be measured according to the use of the natural and super­
natural powers of the person, and according to his own personal dig­
nity. In Christ the personal principle to which is attributed His act
of love manifested in His death by crucifixion is the infinite Son of
God. The value or greatness of this act of love therefore proceeds
from the fact that He, as the Word of God made flesh, is divine and
infinite. Therefore, the love (and obedience) offered God by Christ,
since it is the theandric act of a Divine Person, is of infinite value;
and by virtue of its greatness, it is an act of love that pleases God not
equally, but more than the offense of sin displeased Him. Wherefore
the Angelic Doctor concludes that Christ satisfied—and superabun­
dantly.
Ad satisfaciendum autem pro peccato totius humani generis mors Christi suffi­
ciens fuit. Quia, quamvis secundum humanam naturam solum mortuus fuerit . . .
tamen, ex dignitate personae patientis, quae est persona Filii Dei, mors ejus red­
ditur pretiosa. Quia . . . sicut majoris est criminis alicui personae inferre injuriam
quae majoris dignitatis existit, ita virtousius est, et ex majori caritate procedens,
quod major persona pro aliis se subjiciat voluntariae passioni.72

Christ, in His acceptance and suffering of the punishment due sin.
crowned all the actions of His life with the great, total immolation of
Himself on Calvary. However, it must be noted that He accepted
death not as an end in itself, not as a mere suffering of death for
death’s sake, but rather did He, motivated by love, offer His life
with the intention and will to have it repair the injury inflicted by
a high esteem of the thing loved. Hence all charity (Caritas') is love, but not all
love is charity. In reference to Christ, the term love always expresses charity to
an infinite degree.
Note: The love manifested by Christ is, by virtue of His human nature, a real
human love, i.e., amor considered not exclusively as an act of the will, but as an
actual emotion or passio as well. Of. Summa, III, q. 15, a. 4. It is a human love
to be attributed to Christ in the same way in which reference is made to His joy,
desire, or sadness. However, by virtue of the hypostatic union, this same love is
also divine, and consequently of an infinite value.
71 See section on ‘ * Values or Perfection of Christ’s satisfaction,” footnote 45.
12 Cont. Gent., I V, c. 55, ad 24.

The Mode of the Satisfaction of Christ

57

sin, to return to God the honor that was refused Him. According
to St. Thomas, it is this motive of love that imparts to Christ’s satis­
faction its true reparatory value. The Sacrifice of the Cross was, in
this sense, but the external measure or manifestation of Christ’s in­
terior love and obedience that motivated the act.73 In reference again
to the value of this love, St. Thomas states :
Tantaum bonum fuit quod Christius voluntarie passus est, quod propter hoc
bonum in natura humana inventum, Deus placatus est super omni offensa gen­
eris humani. . . ·74

. . . per passionem Christi est sublata odii causa; tum propter ablutionem
peccati; tum propter recompensationem acceptabiloris boni.75*

In the sorrows and sufferings that accompanied His actual, death,
Christ provided before God and man as it were an additional testi­
mony of the greatness of His love. If it is admitted that the least
suffering of Christ, whether in kind or time, would have more than
sufficed for the redemption of humanity,70 how then can it be denied
that the excruciating agonies of mind, heart, body, and soul, physical
and moral, are to be attributed to the singular greatness of His love—
love of God, love of mankind, and hatred of sin?
In his attempt, therefore, to indicate still further the greatness of
the love of Christ, the Angelic Doctor, in question 46, articles 5 and
6, part III of the Summa, has painted a vivid detailed, and com­
plete picture of the sufferings (passiones et dolores) borne by Christ
in His Passion and death.77
In article 5 St. Thomas demonstrates the fact that Christ endured
73 As will be indicated later, St. Thomas does not exclude the value of the
material element (expiation of punishment due sin) involved in satisfaction.
The penalty of death due to sin is but the material aspect of satisfaction; the
more important formal element is to be found in the motive of Christ’s love
from which proceeds the reparatory value of satisfaction.
7 j Summa, III, q. 49, a. 4.
711 Ibid., ad 2um.
70 “Secundum sufficientiam, una minima passio Christi suffecit ad redimendum
genus humanum ab omnibus peccatis. Sed secundum convenientiam, sufficiens
fuit quod pateretur omnia genera passionum. ...” Summa, III, q. 46, a. 5, ad
3um.
77 St. Thomas speaks here only of the sufferings sustained by Christ and in­
flicted ab extrinseoo, whether simply corporal as scourging, or spiritual as blas­
phemy. These are opposed to corporal sufferings ab intrinseco which in turn
would include bodily ills or sickness (and it was not fitting that Christ suffer
these), and sufferings relative to the needs of the body (hunger), or the afflictions
of the sensitive part of the soul (sadness)—both of which Christ did suffer.
Cf. Cajetan, Summa, III, q. 46, a. 5.
Finally it is to be noted that it was not necessary for Christ to endure every
human suffering according to species; He did, however, suffer all possible accord­
ing to genus. Cf. Eespondo m Sumina, III, q. 46, a. 5
The seven reasons cited by St. Thomas for the fitness of Christ’s death by
crucifixion (Summa, III, q. 46, a. 4) have been given in the preceding chapter in
the section on the necessity of Christ’s satisfaction. Cf. also ibid., arts. 9, 10, 11.

58

The Thomistic Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

every human suffering secundum genus according to the following’
analysis: He suffered—
1. ) at the hands of men in every station of life:
Passus est enim aliquid et a gentilibus et a Judaeis; a masculis et feminis,
ut patet de ancillis accusantibus Petrum. Passus est etiam a principibus, et a
ministris eorum, et popularibus. . . . Passus est etiam a familiaribus et notis:
sicut patet de Juda eum prodente, et Petro ipsum negante.
2. ) in various ways:
Passus est enim Christus in suis amicis eum deserentibus; in fama per blasphemias contra eum dictas; in honore et gloria per irrisiones et contumelias ei
illatas; in rebus per hoc quod etiam vestibus spoliatus est; in anima per tristi­
tiam, taedium et timorem; in corpore per vulnera et flagella.
3. ) in all the members of His body:
Passus est enim Christus in capite pungentium spinarum coronam ; in manibus
et pedibus fixionem clavorum; in facie alapas et sputa; et in toto corpore flagella.
Fuit etiam passus secundum omnem sensum corporeum: secundum tactum quidem,
flagellatus et clavis confixus; secundum gustum, felle et aceto potatus; secundum
olfactum, in loco fetido cadaverum mortuorum . . . secundum auditum, lacessitus
vocibus blasphemantium et irridentium; secundum visum, “videns matrem et
discipulum quem diligebat’’ flentes.78

Then in article 6 of the same question, St. Thomas states that the
sorrow or anguish (dolor), both sensible and interior, was in Christ
the greatest possible among the sorrows of this present life.79 The
reasons are to be found—
1. ) in the causes of His sorrow:
Nam dolor sensibilis cuasa fuit laesio corporalis. Quae acerbitatem habuit,
tum propter generalitatem passionis, tum etiam ex genere passionis. Quia mors
confixorum in cruce est acerbissima. . . .
2. ) in His own susceptibility to sufferings:
Nam et secundum corpus erat optime complexionatus, cum corpus eius fuerit
formatum miraculose operatione Spiritus Sancti. . . . Anima etiam, secundum
vires interiores, efficacissime apprehendit omnes causas tristitiae.
3. ) in His unwillingness to mitigate His sorrows:
Nam in aliis patientibus mitigatur tristitia interior, et etiam dolor exterior, ex
aliqua consideratione rationis, per quandam derivationem seu redundantiam a
superioribus viribus ad inferiores. Quod in Christo patiente non fuit. . . .
4. ) in His will to accept the greatest sorrows in proportion to the greatness
of the fruit to be acquired thereby:
... ex hoc quod passio ilia et dolor a Christo fuerunt assumpta voluntarie,
propter finem liberationis hominum a peccato. Et ideo tantam quantitatem doloris
assumpsit quae esset proportionata magnitudini fructus qui inde sequebatur.sf)

™ Summa, III, q. 46, a. 4. “Adverte quod Auctor summarie pertransit gen­
eralitatem passionum Christi; nam si adamussim dinumerandae essent omnes
conditiones passionum ejus et differentiae earum, humanum ingenium forte de­
ficeret. ’ ’ Cajetan, ibid.
7»“. . . in Christo patiente fuit verus dolor: et sensibilis, qui causatur ex
apprehensione alien jus nocivi, qui tristitia dicitur. Uterque autem dolor in
Christo fuit maximus inter dolores praesentis vitae.” Summa, III, q. 46, a. 6.
80 Summa, III, q. 46, a. 6.
St Thomas also states that ‘ ‘ secundum rei veritatem, tristitia aliqua laudabilis

The Mode of the Satisfaction of Christ

59

According to Garrigou-Lagrange, the three principal reasons ex­
planatory of Christ’s suffering so great a passion are first, in order
that He might give to men the supreme testimony of His love ; second­
ly, in order that He might fulfill in a most perfect manner His glorious
mission as the Saviour of all humanity; thirdly, in order that He
might attain the highest glory of victory, namely, the victory over
sin, the devil, and death.81
As indicated and expressed so often and forcefully by the Angelic
Doctor, the very essence of the Redemption is to be found, above all
things else, in the Saviour’s theandric act of love manifested in His
Passion and Death; this love, of infinite value, is in itself the very
price of Redemption :
Sciendum autem est quod mors Christi virtutem satisfaciendi habuit ex caritate
ipsius, qua voluntarie mortem sustinuit. . . .82

The virtus satisfaciendi referred to above by St. Thomas proceeds
from the infinite value of the love of Christ suffering and dying.
Herein is contained the divine expression of the Saviour’s zeal and
desire to return to God the honor and glory taken from Him by sin,
to make manifest His infinite justice and mercy, to restore men to
the state of friendship and grace with their Creator. The mind, will,
heart, and energies of Christ were so united to God that whatever
He did, He did always for the manifestation of His glory, justice, and
goodness. In this union is the essence of love.83
Jesus Christ delivered Himself up to death; He delivered Himself up in order
to save us; and He delivered Himself up through love: this is the epitome of
His active part in the tragedy of Calvary.84

est . . . quando scilicet procedit ex sancto amore, ut puta cum aliquis tristatur de
peccatis propriis vel alienis. Assumitur etiam ut utilis ad finem satisfactionis
pro peccato. ... Et ideo Christus, ut satisfaceret pro peccatis ominum hominum,
assumpsit tristitiam maximam quantitate absoluta, non tamen excedentem regu­
lam rationis.” Ibid., ad 2um.
In reference to articles 5 and 6, ef. Voste, op. cit., pp. 298-315 ; GarrigouLagrange, op. cit., pp. 403-405, 445-453.
81 Garrigou-Lagrange, op. cit., pp. 446-450.
“Haec motiva sumuntur ex parte nostra, ex parte Christi et ex parte Dei
Patris: Homines hac suprema manifestatione amoris indigebant; Christus debebat
Suam missionem modo perfectissimo adimplere; Deus Pater per hanc viam voluit
ei dare supreman victoriam.” Ibid., p. 452.
82 Cont. Gent., IV, c. 55, ad 22.
83 That which Christ Himself taught, the great commandment of love of God
and neighbor, He fulfilled constantly in His daily life-—but preeminently in His
death offered for the Redemption of mankind. ”In this we have come to know
His love, that He laid down his life for us.” (1 John, 3:16). Cf. Tanquerey,
The. Spiritual Life, pp. 567-590.
84 Prat, op. cit., II, p. 184.
Reference may fittingly be made here to St. Thomas’s exegesis of the Parable
of the Good Shepherd, Comm. Super Joann., c. 10, lect. 3.
St. Anselm in Méditât. XII states: ”Sed conditionis quidem meae et redemp-

60

The Thomistic Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

Whatever the mode of human expression relative to the sufferings,
the Passion and Death of Our Lord, be it scientific or otherwise, the
one, magnificent, and inescapable truth becomes eventually incapable
of expression—for the truth is in itself a mystery, a mystery of divine
love. According to St. Thomas, it is this love of Christ, thcandric
and of infinite value (magnitudo amoris), whereby He, the God-Man
(dignitas vitae), offered His own life’s blood and endured the greatest
sufferings and sorrows (magnitudo doloris) on behalf of mankind,—
it is this love that pleased God more than the sins of the world dis­
pleased Him; in a word, Christ, by suffering and dying out of love
(and obedience) satisfied, and superabundantly.
Nullus enim est actus caritatis perfectior quam quod homo pro amore alicuius
etiam mortem sustineat; secundum quod ipscmet Dominus dicit (Joan. 15:13):
“Majorem caritatem nemo habet quam quod animam suam ponat quis pro amicis
suis. ’ ’S5

The motive of obedience.

Concerning the motive of Christ’s obedience to the will of the
Father in suffering the death of the Cross, it is to be noted that,
according to the mind of St. Thomas, the obedience of the Saviour
is, as it were, but the specified manifestation of His love towards the
Father. In other words, Christ gave the greatest manifestation of
love possible to both God and men; to mankind particularly by the
mode of His Passion and Death, to the Father most especially by His
filial act of loving obedience to His command, namely, that the re­
demption of mankind was to be wrought in the blood of His own
Son. The obedience of Christ, then, proceeds from His love, and in
such a way that neither His obedience nor His love are mutually extionis causa sola fuit dilectio tua. . . . Multum quidem contulisti Creator, sed longo
plus Redemptor. ” Migne, P. L., CLVIII, c. 772.
Peter Lombard refers to the love of Christ as follows:
. et videntes quanta
caritate nos dilexerit, ut pro nobis scilicet moreretur, monemur accendimurque ad
diligendum eum, qui pro nobis tanta fecit, et sic solati a peccato et diabolo justi­
ficamur.” P. L., CXCII, c. 1080 (ZZZ Sent., d. 19).
Cont. Gent·., IV, c. 55, ad 14.
The Council of Trent states: “. . . dilectissimus Unigenitus suus, Dominus
noster Jesus Christus, qui cum essemus inimici, propter nimiam caritatem, qua
dilexit nos, sua sanctissima passione in ligno Crucis nobis justificationem meruit,
et pro nobis Deo Patri satisfecit.” D.B., 799.
A final reference should be made here to the following observation of GarrigouLagrange: “Redemptio, ut de facto volita est a Deo, est quidem per modum
meriti, satisfactionis et sacrificii, sed absolute loquendo concipi potest, ut videtur,
redemptio per actum meritorium theandricum, absque dolore, satisfactione proprie
dicta et sacrificio proprie dicto; quia actus theandricus amoris jam de se plus
placet Deo, quam ei displicent omnia peccata. Sed nos homines non agnoscimus
generosum amorem nisi manifesteur per generosam acceptationem alicujus afflic­
tionis. Sic communiter dicitur quod sacrificium est vera manifestatio seu probatio
veri amoris.” Op. oit., p. 418, footnote 2.

The Mode of the Satisfaction of Christ

61

elusive; rather do they serve as complements one for the other. In
a word, Christ suffered out of love and obedience: out of obedience
He fulfilled the precept of love towards God and men ; out of love
He was obedient in accepting the mandate given Him by the Father.86
To analyse the motive of Christ’s obedience in His Passion there­
fore, is, by virtue of its meritorious nature, but another means of
demonstrating further the magnitude of His infinite love wherein
He atoned for the sins of the world.
On the part of Christ His redeeming death is an act of obedience ; and this
act is meritorious in regard to the humanity which it saves, in regard to the
Father whom it renders propitious, and in regard to the Son who owes His
exaltation to it. We conclude from this, both directly and by analysis, that this
act was free, since without freedom its merit is not conceivable; and that it was
a response to a divine command, since there is no obedience where there is no
command.87

An integral analysis of the motive of obedience in Christ would
of its very nature involve: 1.) the complex, theological exposition
of the freedom of Christ’s will, and the existence of, and conformity
between His human and divine wills; 2.) the relation of Christ’s
freedom to the necessity of His death as the penalty for sin; 3.) the
difficult question of reconciling Christ’s perfect liberty with the com­
mand given Him by the Father. However, these are separate ques­
tions (and are treated as such by St. Thomas) which, by reason of
their length and complexity, cannot be admitted here in their en­
tirety. Further, essential to the concept of vicarious satisfaction is
the one fact alone that Christ, in His death, did offer this obedience
to the Father, and of His own free will, in the manner expressed by
St. Thomas, Summa, III, q. 47, arts. 1-3, while at the same time, the
precept given Him by the Father is to be considered in itself rigorous
and absolute.
) As already noted, the theological concept of vicarious satisfac­
1.
tion of its very nature presupposes absolute voluntariness on the part
of the person atoning. Voluntariness, however, proceeds from free­
dom of will, which, informed by charity, in turn imparts to satis­
faction its meritorious value. This presupposition obtains in much
the same way as the Redemption itself is said to presuppose the In­
carnation and original sin, or as the solidarity between Christ and
men is presupposed by the doctrine of the Mystical Body. It will
be sufficient, therefore, to state here in reference to the will of Christ
8« Cf. Billuart, De Mysteriis Christ, diss. 10, a. 1.
87 Prat, op. cit., II, p. 187.
Here likewise may be mentioned the definitions of obedience given by St.
Thomas: ‘‘Obedientia est specialis virtus: et ejus speciale objectum est praecep­
tum tacitum vel expressum. ’ ’ Summa, II-II, q. 104, a. 2. “ Obedientia reddit
promptam hominis voluntatem ad implendam voluntatem alterius, scilicet praeci­
pientis.’’ Ibid., ad 3mn.

62

The Thomistie Concept of the Vicarioiis Mode of Satisfaction

that, if He possessed a perfect human nature, complete and integral, it
must follow that in all His actions, He likewise exercised perfect
liberty of will. Secondly, there is in Christ no opposition whatsoever
to the divine will, likewise His by virtue of the divine nature; on
the contrary, even though there exist two wills in Christ and con­
sequently two sources of actions, both are said to converge in perfect
harmony in the moral order.
Quidquid fuit in humana natura Christi, movebatur nutu divinae voluntatis:
non tamen sequitur quod in Christo non fuerit motus voluntatis proprius naturae
humanae. . . . Licet enim voluntas non possit interius moveri ab aliqua creatura,
interius tamen movetur a Deo. Et sic etiam Christus secundum voluntatem
humanam sequebatur voluntatem divinam; secundum illud Psalmi 39 (9): “Ut
facerem voluntatem tuam, Deus meus, volui.”88

Et ideo, cum in Christo ponatur voluntas ut ratio, necesse est ibi ponere elec­
tionem: et per consequens liberum arbitrium, cujus actus est electio.89*

Finally, in regard to the conformity of Christ’s human will with the
divine, St. Thomas states:
Voluntas autem Dei erat ut Christus dolores et passiones et mortem pateretur:
non quod ista essent a Deo volita secundum se, sed ex ordine ad finem humanae
salutis. Unde patet quod Christus, secundum voluntatem sensualitatis, et secun­
dum voluntatem rationis quae consideratur per modum naturae, aliud poterat
velle quam Deus. Sed secundum voluntatem quae est per modum rationis, semper
idem volebat quod Deus. Quod patet ex hoc ipso quod dicit: “Non sicut ego
volo, sed sicut tu.” (Jfatt. 26:39)80

The absolute voluntariness of Christ’s actions becomes still more
evident in view of the love out of which He offered His own life. One
cannot profess real love in the suffering of an undeserved penalty,
particularly when that penalty is one of death, unless he does so of
his own free will. In other words, the voluntariness of Christ is
argued from His own external manifestation of love as great as it was.
Without this motive of love, His voluntariness could be questioned;
with it, His voluntariness is of necessity presupposed. Otherwise,
there results a contradiction and an ultimate reductio ad absurdum.91
) The necessity of Christ’s Passion and Death has already been
2.
discussed in the question concerning the necessity of satisfaction in
general. There it was seen that, given the preordination of God, it
88 Summa, III, q. 18, a. 1, ad lum.
In articles 2 and 3 of this same question St. Thomas considers the voluntas
sensualitatis and voluntas rationis (ut natura and ut ratio).
89 Ibid., a. 4.
80 Ibid., a. 5. Cf. also Riviere, Etude Theologique, p. 279fif.
In direct reference to the Passion and Death of Christ, St. Thomas alludes
almost constantly to the full freedom of Christ’s will. Summa, III, q. 46-50.
91 It is to be noted again that the free will informed by charity is the principle
of merit; and since all of Christ’s actions were meritorious, it follows that His
satisfaction, given out of love and obedience, is likewise free. Cf. Ill Sent.,
d. 18, q. un., a. 4.

The Mode of the Satisfaction of Christ

63

was not possible for man to be redeemed in any way other than
through the Passion and Death of Christ.®2 In view of this con­
clusion, was the freedom of Christ thereby vitiated in His suffering
and death? In other words, did Christ die of His own free will or
out of necessity? According to the analysis of St. Thomas, the
necessity of Christ’s Passion and Death in regard to His freedom of
will, was a final necessity, that is, that which is necessary in order to
obtain the end in view. Such a necessity, however, is external and
in no way effects the liberty or voluntariness of the person who acts
to obtain that end. The necessity involved here is of its nature
neither absolute nor coercive ; consequently, the fact remains that
Christ suffered and died voluntarily:
... necessarium multipliciter dicitur. Uno modo, quod secundum sui naturam
impossibile est aliter se habere. Et sic manifestum est quod non fuit necessarium
Christum pati; neque ex parte Dei, neque ex parte hominis.
Alio modo dicitur liquid necessarium ex aliquo exteriori. Quod quidem si sit
causa efficiens vel movens, facit necessitatem coactionis. ... Si vero illud exterius
quod necessitatem inducit, sit finis, dicetur aliquid necessarium ex suppositione
finis: quando scilicet finis aliquis aut nullo modo potest esse, aut non potest esse
convenienter, nisi tali fine praesupposito.

Non fuit ergo necessarium Christum pati necessitate coactionis: neque ex
parte Dei, qui Christum definivit pati: neque ex parte ipsius Christi, qui voluntarie
passus est. Fuit autem necessarium necessitate finis.92
93

) The final question concerning the freedom of Christ’s will in
3.
relation to the command given Him by the Father touches directly
upon the obedience manifested by Christ in His Passion and Death.
Proceeding from the fact that Christ received the rigorous command
to lay down His life and to take it up again, the following questions
remain to be answered: In what manner is Christ said to have obeyed
such a mandate voluntarily? Secondly, how does Christ’s voluntary
92 Cf. Sumina, III, q. 46, arts. 2-4. These have already been cited in the
section on necessity of satisfaction, Chapter Two.
93 Summa, III, q. 46, a. 1. The necessity of end is to be understood in three
ways: “Primo quidem, exparte nostra, qui per ejus passionem liberati sumus.
. . . Secundo, ex parte ipsius Christi, qui per humilitatem passionis meruit gloriam
exaltationis. . . . Tertio, ex parte Dei, cujus definitio est circa passionem Christi
praenuntiatum in Scripturis. ...” Ibid., a. 1.
Cf. also Voste, op. ait., p. 288ff.
The full liberty of will enjoyed by Christ is further clarified by St. Thomas
when he explains that, although Christ voluntarily accepted death, He does
not thereby become the direct physical cause of His death, i.e., He did not will
His death directly, but indirectly in the sense that He was able to prevent His
death, but did not. This follows from the fact that, whatever in Christ was
natural according to His human nature, was subject to His will because of the
power of His divinity ; hence the power in Christ to have His soul remain united
to His body or not. The direct cause of His death, however, must be, and is
attributed to the executors themselves.
Cf. Summa, III, q. 47, a. 1, and note 1 (ed. Mariotti) ; Camp. Theol., c. 230.

64

The Thomistic Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

obedience remain unimparied in view of the Scriptural statement:
“He who has not spared even his own Son but has delivered him
for us all. ...” {Rom. 8:32)?
In regard to the precept given Christ by the Father, namely, that
of laying down His life and of taking it up again,94 St. Thomas
demonstrates both the freedom of Christ’s -will in His obedience to the
precept, and the conformity of His human will to the divine will:
Dicendum quod obedientia, etsi importet necessitatem respectu eius quod prae­
cipitur, tamen importat voluntatem respectu impletionis praecepti. Et talis fuit
obedientia Christi. Nam ipsa passio et mors, secundum se considerata, naturali
voluntati repugnabat: volebat tamen Christus Dei voluntatem circa hoc im­
plere. . . .°5

It is evident, then, that, given the necessity implied in any precept,
one still remains free as to whether or not he will fulfill the precept—
voluntarily or involuntarily. In other words, the necessity involved
in a precept derives from the object morally, not from the subject.
Liberty is found essentially in immunity from subjective necessity,
without excluding the moral necessity of the law imposed. Christ,
therefore, in His obedience to the divine precept, exercised His own
unlimited freedom of will.90
In reference to the traditio, or handing over of Christ by God the
Father, the Angelic Doctor vindicates Christ’s voluntary acceptance,
of death out of obedience by explaining the manner or mode of this
traditio. According to St. Thomas, God did not spare His own Son,
but handed Him over in three ways: 1.) according to the divine
preordination from all eternity that He would hand over Christ to
the Passion and Death for the redemption of mankind; 2) by in­
spiring Christ with the will to suffer; 3.) by not protecting Him
from the Passion and His persecutors.97 Further, that there is no
contrariety between the traditio of the Father and Christ’s own
voluntary offering of His life is demonstrated by St. Thomas as
follows :84
*87
85
84 “For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down my life that I
may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself.
I have the power to lay it down, and I have the power to take it up again. Such
is the command I have received from my Father.” (John, 10:18).
85 Summa, III, q. 47, a. 2, ad 2um.
Cf. also Comment. Super Joann., c. 10, lect. 4.
80 Cf. Voste, op. cit., p. 341, and the reference therein indicated to the De
Incarnatione of Paquet.
As stated by Prat: “. . . it is the victim (Christ) who offers Himself. . .
and the Father intervenes, not only to accept the offering, but to command it.”
Op. cit., II, p. 187.
Finally, it is to be understood that Christ, in His obedience, is subject to the
Father not absolutely, but only according to His human nature which ex sui
conditione is subject to God. Cf. Summa, III, q. 20, a. 1.
87 Summa, III, q. 47, a. 3.

The Mode of the Satisfaction of Christ

65

Dicendum quod Christus, secundum quod Deus tradidit semetipsuni in mortem
eadem voluntate et actione qua et Pater tradidit eum. Sed inquantum homo,
tradidit semetipsum voluntate a Pater inspirata. Unde non est contrarietas in
hoc quod Pater tradidit Christum, et ipse tradidit semetipsum.

The divine will, therefore, while it is always efficacious in its decrees,
does not impose necessity on the actions of men because the divine
will itself so wills that these acts be fulfilled freely. Wherefore God
does not destroy, but rather actualizes human liberty; and conse­
quently, the Saviour’s will, inspired by the. Father, freely accepted
death out of love and obedience."
Finally, the Angelic Doctor cites three reasons for the fitness of
Christ’s obedience: it was most fitting that Christ offer His life out
of obedience to the Father’s will—1.) that men, damned as dis­
obedient, would be justified through Christ's obedience: 2.) that there
might be added a greater perfection to the sacrifice made for the
reconciliation of men; 3.) that, out of obedience to God, He would
thereby conquer the devil and merit victory.100
The atonement or satisfaction given by Christ in His Passion and
Death was indeed a work of love, a theandric act of love towards
God and all humanity. His atonement, was also the same in kind as
the offense, for, even as the sin of Adam was one of disobedience and
pride, so was the reparation of the Cross an act of obedience and
humility. His death was an act of obedience to the wull of the
Father that He should give His own life’s blood for the sins of the
world, an obedience above all inspired by love, and so willed by
Christ that, it was at once perfect and fully voluntary.
As expressed by St. Thomas, any precept of God is given by Him
for the exercise of virtues among men. Man in turn will then please
God in proportion to the perfection that accompanies these acts of
virtue, and among these charity alone is the greatest. Wherefore,
since Christ was perfect in liis charily, He was most especially
obedient to God :
Inter alias virtutes praecipua c-aritas est, ad quam omnes aliae reteruntur.
Christus igitur, dum aetum caritatis perfectissime implevit, Deo maxime obediens
fuit. . . . Sie igitur invenitur Christus, mortem sustinens pro salute hominum
et ad gloriam Dei Patris, Deo maxime obediens fuisse, aetum caritatis pertectum
oxequendo.101

Ibid., ad 2um.
Garrigou-Lagrauge, op. cit., p. 407.
iO0,gi(Wma, III, q. 47, a. 2.
Christ’s obedience was given to the Father in a manner so perfect that He
fulfilled in His satisfaction all the moral precepts which are founded upon
charity, all the ceremonial precepts such as were ordained by law for true sacri­
fices and oblations, and all the judicial precepts by which satisfaction for an
injury was to be made. Cf. ibid., ad him.
Cf. also Voste, op. cit., p. 338ff.
101 Cont. Gent., IV, c. 55, ad 14.

66

The Thomistic Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

Eadem ratione Christus passus est ex caritate,, et. obedientia : quia etiam prae­
cepta caritatis nonnisi ex obedientia implevit; et obediens fuit ex dilectione af
Patrem praecipientem.102

102 Summa, III, q. 47, a. 2, ad 3um.
Similarly,
. obedientia habet laudem ex eo quod ex caritate procedit:
dicit enim Gregorius . . . quod 'obedientia non servili metu, sed caritatis affectu
servanda est: non timore poenae, sed amore justitiae.’ ” Summa, ΙΤ-ΙΓ, q.10
10Aa&expressed by Prat: "The offering which He makes of Himself, at the
command of God, has the value of an act of obedience . . . the command intimated
by the Father and the voluntary obedience of the Son are, on the part of both
the Son and the Father, an equal and sovereign manifestation of love.” Op. cit.,
II, p. 186.

Chapter Four

OBJECTIONS
As already indicated, the doctrine of vicarious satisfaction as pre­
sented by St. Thomas, is in itself considered the essence of the mys­
tery of the Redemption. The dogma of the Redemption, however,
embraces other aspects not treated in this analysis, and which com­
bined constitute the integral dogma of the Catholic faith. The errors
and heretical interpretations of the dogma of the Redemption as
such would, therefore, demand an equally comprehensive refutation
that properly docs not pertain to the limited scope of the present
treatise. This becomes all the. more evident when it is realized that
an integral refutation of errors concerning this great truth would
necessitate not only an inquiry into the particular error itself as
such, but would also demand an exposition of the philosophical sys­
tem or school of thought in which the error is said to have its source.
According to the classification given by Riviere, these various systems
date principally from the era of the Protestant Reformation, and in­
clude the schools of Rationalism, Liberalism, and Modernism.1
The objections and responses given below therefore, although they
have their origin in the above mentioned systems and in their er­
roneous doctrines relative to the dogma of the Redemption, are in­
cluded here only with a view towards the further clarification and
1 In reference to the Protestant concept of Redemption, cf. Rivière, litn-de
Théologique, p. 381ff. ; the Rationalist concept, p. 411 if. ; the Inberalist view, p.
458ff. ; the Modern doctrines, p. 498ff.
Cf. also Rivière, Étude Historique, pp. 15-27.
Briefly, the varions errors of these systems a propos of the dogma of the
Redemption may be classified as follows: 1.) Errors of excess: the Protestants,
adhering to Luther and Calvin, attributed too much to the satisfaction of Christ
so that as a result Christ is said to have taken upon Himself the sins of mankind
in such a way that He Himself became odious before God, and sutlers the
punishment of the damned. 2.) Errors of defect: as a reaction against the
grossly exaggerated notions of the Reformation, the Rationalists and Liberal
Protestants went to the opposite extreme and nullified the objective value of
Christ’s Redemptive work of satisfaction. As proposed particularly by the
Soeinians, Christ wrought man’s salvation only insofar as He gave them the
doctrine of salvation through His preaching, and by If is suffering and death
provided an ideal or example to be imitated in much the same way as that
of the martyrs. At most His death is nothing more than a moral impetus to
penitence. In a word, the foregoing demonstration of Christ’s vicarious satis­
faction cannot be admitted. Similarly do the Modernists maintain that such
a dogma can be but the fruit of theological speculation, in the sense that it is
not to be found in the Gospels, and consequently' remains Pauline and merely
personal.
Cf. Garrigou-Lagrange, op. cit., p. 415; Hugon, Te Mystère de la Redemption.
pp. 56-63 ; Billuart, De Incarnatione, diss. 19, a. 4.

67

68

The Tkomistic Concept of the- Vicarious Mode of Satis fad ion

more precise knowledge of the Thomistic concept itself; and. in the
manner characteristic of all solutions to objections concerning a
mystery of faith, are being considered here to demonstrate that the
mystery of Christ’s vicarious satisfaction, while admittedly above
reason, is not- contradictorily opposed to it. Following a statement
of the three objections included by St. Thomas in q. 48, art. 2, part
Hl of the Sumina, the principal difficulties will be considered accord­
ing to the following twofold division: 1.) those objections, however
formulated, that have their source in the erroneous conception of the
nature of Christ’s vicarious satisfaction; 2.) the objections based
upon the apparent contradiction between God’s mercy and Ills
severe exaction of so rigorous a satisfaction.2
1. Objections posed by St. Thomas.

The first objection posed by the Angelic Doctor states that Christ
was not able to make a valid satisfaction inasmuch as Ho Himself
was not a sinner. It is argued, in other words, that the obligation
of satisfying belongs to the person whose sins demand that a satis­
faction be made, in the same manner in which the sinner is held to
confess his own sins and to have the personal contrition or sorrow
necessary for their remission. Since one cannot confess or have sorrow
for sins that are not properly his own, it then likewise follows that
one other than the guilty person himself, cannot properly satisfy.
As formulated by St. Thomas·.
Ejusdem enim videtur esse satisfacere cujus est peccare: sicut patet in aliis
poenitentiae partibus; ejusdem enim est conteri et confiteri cuius est. peccare.
Sed Christus non peccavit: secundum illud I Petr. 2, (22): "Qui peccatum non
fecit.” Ergo ipse non satisfecit propria passione.3

The response of the Angelic Doctor contains first an immediate réf­
érencé to the solidarity between Christ and men by way of indicating
the exact nature of the vicariousness of Christ’s satisfaction as al­
ready analysed : since Christ and men form one mystical person
united by the bond of charity, Christ, Himself innocent, can and
does satisfy on behalf of all mankind who, with Him, form or con­
stitute this one Mystical Body.
Dicendum quod caput et memlira sunt quasi una mystica persona. Et
satisfactio Christi ad omnes fideles pertinet sicut ad sua membra. Inqmmtimi
etiam duo homines sunt unum in caritate, unus pro alio .satisfacere potest. . . ,4

St. Thomas then states:
Non autem est similis ratio de confessione et contritione: quia satisfactio
2 Cf. Galtier ’s presentation of difficulties concerning the satisfaction of Christ

Objections

69

consistit in actu exteriori, ad quem assumi possunt instrumenta; inter quae
computantur etiam amici.4

Satisfaction therefore, insofar as it is considered an exterior or
external act, differs essentially from those internal acts from which
proceed the personal confession of, or sorrow for an offense com­
mitted. It is precisely this external aspect of satisfaction that en­
ables a satisfactory work to be performed or given by one other
than the actual offender who is responsible for the personal sin
which in turn demands satisfaction. As already seen in the analy­
sis of satisfaction, this external aspect follows logically from the fact
that the reparation to be given God for the offense of sin is to be
made secundum justitiae aequalitatem. Insofar as the reparatory
action provides this equality of proportion demanded by justice, to
that extent is it said to be an external act. This equality, however,
although realized in an external manner, does not become a mere
material proportionality, but remains formal or moral according to
the value of the action or penalty sustained (price paid). In other
words, satisfaction, while not an exclusively exterior act, is neverthe­
less given in such a way so that its measure is made in an external
manner, that is, according to the equality necessary for adequately
repairing the offense. It is this external aspect of satisfaction that
enables one to voluntarily satisfy on behalf of another, for in pro­
viding this external equivalence demanded in satisfaction, as the
Angelic Doctor states, external means or instrumenta may be ap­
propriated—-and among these, certainly a friend (i.e., one willing to
accept the obligation of atoning) is by no means excluded.
This external element of satisfaction, however, is not to be found in
the nature of contrition or confession;5 neither of these can obtain
apart, from the direct and personal action of the sinner himself. Con­
trition is intended to remove directly the evil interior disposition of
the sinner alone. In its essence it is sorrow for sin, a sorrow in
which the sinner acknowledges the inordinate acts of his own will,
and expresses the desire to direct those acts once again towards God
as his ultimate end. None of this, however, is possible unless the
sinner himself perform these actions.
5 Even though the exterior aspect of satisfaction is admitted, the counter­
objection that confession is likewise an exterior act is given the following reply
by Cajetan: * ‘Nam actus exterior dupliciter dicitur. Vel ut distinquitur absoluto
contra interiorem : ut videre est actus exterior, imaginari est netus interior.
Et secundum hunc sensum procedit objectio: sic enim confessio est actus exterior.
—Λ lio modo sumitur actus exterior secundum medium. ... Et medium rei (i.e.
non medium rationis tantum) exterius dicitur, quia in aequalitate rei ad rem
consistit. . . . Quia autem satisfactio in aequalitate rei ad rem consistit, oportet
enim ipsam adaequare debitum, ut patet; ideo dicitur hic quod consistit in actu
exteriori secundum medium. Et in hoc differt confessio a satisfactione in
proposito. ’ ’
Summa. ITT, q. 48, a. 2.

70

The Thoniistic Concept of the Vicarions Mode of Satisfartion

The same conclusion must be admitted in regard to confession,
for even as it is not possible for one to have the interior disposition
of contrition for the sins of another, neither can he acknowledge the
guilt or sins of another by confessing in his place. In other words,
by virtue of its interior nature, the contrition of one does not obtain
pardon for the sin of another. Confession, by virtue of its relation
to the Sacrament of Penance, is likewise personal so that one cannot,
in confessing another’s guilt, receive the Sacrament on behalf of
another. Consequently, the conclusion follows that, although one
cannot confess or have sorrow for the sins of another, he can, never­
theless, satisfy in the place of another, or in a vicarious manner. As
expressed again by St. Thomas:
Dicendum quod contritio ordinatur contra culpam, quae ad dispositionem boni­
tatis vel malitiae hominis pertinet. Et ideo per contritionem unius alius a culpa
non liberatur.—Similiter per confessionem homo se sacramentis Ecclesiae subiieit.
Non autem potest unus sacramentum pro alio accipere: quia in sacramento gratia
suscipienti datur, non alii.—Et ideo non est similis ratio de satisfactione, con­
tritione et confessione.6

The response to the remaining two objections posed by St. Thomas
III, q. 48, a. 2) are restatements of what he has already
demonstrated in the body of the article. The first of these may be
formulated as follows :
(Summa,

Satisfaction does not obtain through the commission of a greater crime or of­
fense. But the passion and death of Christ were the greatest of crimes:. there­
fore satisfaction does not obtain through the Passion and Death of Christ.7

In reply, the Angelic Doctor refers again to the magnitude of
Christ’s love and the superabundant value of His satisfaction. He
states simply and conclusively that the love of Christ suffering and
dying was greater even than the malice of those who perpetrated the
crime of His death. Wherefore, despite the heinousness of their deed,
Christ was enabled to offer more in His satisfaction than His execu­
tors could offend by putting Him to death. The satisfaction of Christ,
since it was not only sufficient but superabundant, atoned even for the
sins of those who crucified Him.8
6 Summa, III, Suppl., q. 13, a. 2, ad 2um. Cf. also Billot, De Verbo Incarnato,
thesis 51, ad lum. See Chapter Two of this thesis, section on notion of satisfac­
tion; and Chapter Three, section on solidarity.
It must be noted again that the satisfaction given by Christ does not exempt
uh from personal satisfaction. It remains necessary for sinners to unite them­
selves to Christ through faith, love, detestation of sin, and the offering of per­
sonal satisfaction as well. These acts of satisfaction will in turn receive (heir
real satisfactory value and power by virtue, or under the influence of, the satis­
faction of Christ.
7 Cf. Summa, III, q. 48, a. 2.
6 “Dicendum quod major- fuit caritas Christi patientis quam malitia crucifigen­
tium. Et ideo plus potuit satisfacere Christus sua passione quam crucifixores of­
fendere occidendo ; intantum quod passio Christi sufficiens fuit, et superabundans,

Objections

71

The final objection may be formulated thus ·.
Satisfaction implies a certain equality in proportion to the offense. But in the
satisfaction of Christ this equality is not present—for Christ suffered accordingto the flesh, not according to His divinity which is offended by sin. Therefore
Christ did not properly satisfy.9

Iu his response St. Thomas refers immediately to the infinite dignity
of the Person who assumed the human nature that suffered and died,
and through which the Redemption was wrought. The value of the
flesh according to which Christ suffered and died proceeds from the
union of the divine and human natures in the Person of the Word;
by virtue of this hypostatic union there results the infinite value of
His sufferings, and as such not only equals but surpasses the offense
of sin, and hence satisfaction is said to obtain superabundantly.
Wherefore, as St. Thomas concludes, the dignity of the flesh of Christ
is not to be valued according to the nature of the flesh alone, but ac­
cording to the person who assumed the flesh; and since it is the lies!)
of God, it is of an infinite dignity or value.’*'

2. Objections—the nature of the satisfaction of Christ.
From the erroneous concept of vicarious satisfaction whereby the
idea of substitution is interpreted in its literal sense, without refer­
ence to the all-important and necessary solidarity between Christ and
men, preceed the following two principal objections. From these,
others, not mentioned specifically as such in this treatise, may be said
to have their source; (a) Christ, by substituting Himself for men in
His atonement, Himself becomes a .sinner; (b) Christ thereby expi­
ates an actual punishment, that is, punishment considered as an evil
inflicted for the sin committed.
(a) As already indicated, the nature of Christ’s vicarious satisfac­
tion was such that, even though He atoned most perfectly for the sins
of mankind, He Himself was not thereby compelled to become an
actual sinner, or assume the guilt itself consequent upon the offense
given God by man, and for which he offered an adequate reparation.
Furthermore, that personal sin is capable of being transferred re­
ad satisfaciendum pro peccatis crucifigentium ipsum.” Summa, III, q. 48, a, 2,
ad 2um.
Cf. Chapter Two, section on "values” or perfection of Christ’s satisfaction,
and Chapter Three, section on motive of love.
9 Cf. Garrigou-JLagrange, op. cit., p. 419; Summa, III, q. 48, a. 2.
19 ‘ ‘ Dicendum quod dignitas carnis Christi non est aestimanda solum secundum
carnis naturam, sed secundum personam assumentem, inquantum scilicet erat caro
Dei: ex quo habebat dignitatem infinitam.” Summa, III, q. 48, a. 2, ad 3um. It
may be noted again that the equality demanded in satisfaction is not material
but formal or moral according to the value of what is offered in reparation of the
offense.
Cf. Chapter Two, section on perfection of Christ’s satisfaction.

72

The Thomistic Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

mains an impossibility. Whatever its nature or gravity, sin cannot
be assumed by one other than the actual sinner; this follows from
the fact that culpability is essentially personal and cannot be re­
moved unless through the sinner’s own personal conversion to God.
Nor does this conflict with the doctrine of the transmission of orig­
inal sin. By reason of the vital bond of natural generation (from
which, as far as original sin was concerned, Mary and Christ were
excluded) there results a physical incorporation of the members of the
human race in Adam as the head of that race. Original sin, there­
fore, remains a sin of nature, and as such the human race, while not
participating in a personal manner in what was the personal act bf
Adam, does, nevertheless, receive both the guilt and the penalty
thereby imparted to the human nature which was then in a sinful
state. In other words, mankind, while not personally responsible, was
still culpable—but only by reason of his origin. Wherefore Christ
satisfied most perfectly for the offense of original sin transmitted to
the human race, while He Himself remained free of its culpability.
Again, that the person who gives a satisfaction for the offense of
another remains wholly innocent of the crime itself is evident from
that person’s very motive in so satisfying, that is, his willingness to
suffer another’s penalty is prompted by the formal intention to atone
for a guilt that is definitely not his own. Otherwise, were he to atone
for an offense that was directly personal, his satisfaction could no
longer be considered vicarious. It is precisely due to the innocence of
the person satisfying on behalf of another that the penalty suffered
and reparation given are said to receive a much greater value; for
then the intention of making a real reparation is purer and its motive
of love intensified. Whence the infinite greatness of the satisfaction
of Christ who, Himself innocent and undefiled, offered His life for the
salvation of all mankind. Hugon states :
It is precisely because He is innocent that He can make over to us the value of
His expiatory act, and that our acquittal becomes a matter of justice no less
than of mercy. . . .ll

Given the innocence of Christ in the redemptive work of satisfac­
tion, the question is then posed: Was it not cruel and impious on the
part of God to will, or to hand over the innocent Christ to suffer the
penalty of death for sin whose guilt He Himself did not incur ? Inas­
much as this objection has direct reference to the traditio of the
Father which has already been explained,11
12 it will suffice here to state
that it would indeed be an act of both grave injustice and cruelty to
11 “C’est précisément parce qu’il est innocent qu’il peut nours céder sa valeur
expiatoire et quo notre pardon devient affaire de justice, non moins que de miséri­
corde. ...” Hugon, Le Mystère de la Rédemption, p. 77.
12 Cf. Chapter Three, section on the motive of obedience relative to the traditio
of the Father.

Objections

condemn an innocent person to suffer what he himself does not de­
serve—if the innocent person is not a voluntary sufferer or victim.
Once the innocent sufferer manifests his complete and absolute will­
ingness to sustain an undeserved penalty, even though it be death
itself, the charge of injustice and cruelty on the part of him who
permits or accepts this voluntary suffering of the innocent, cannot be
admitted. On the contrary, to knowingly accept the sufferings and
even death of one innocent of any crime or offense is in itself an
acknowledgement of the innocent’s greatness of love for both God and
neighbor, a love to which he has given the greatest external expres­
sion possible in the voluntary suffering of a penally he himself does
not deserve. Of such a nature was the suffering and death of Christ,
for He freely accepted out of love and obedience, the penalty attached
to the sins of mankind :
Dicendum quod innocentem hominem passioni et morti tradere contra ejus
voluntatem, est impium et crudele. Hic autem Deus Pater Christum non tradidit,
sed inspirando ei voluntatem patiendi pro nobis.'3

God, therefore, whatever the nature of Ilis commands or actions,
does not violate the freedom of man’s will. It was in the direct and
personal exercise of that liberty that Christ, out of love, so willed to
accept the death of the Cross. That God should so will and accept,
the death of the innocent Christ is neither impious, cruel, nor unjust.
In the words of the Angelic Doctor :
Ad quod ergo in contrarium de innocente objicitur, dicendum, quod tradere eum
invitum, peccatum est; sed tradere voluntarium pro salute fratrum opus miseri­
cordiae est.14

Whence he concludes :
Unde patet quod non. fuit impium et crudele, quod Deus Pater Christum inori
▼oluit. . . . Non oiiim coegit invitum, sed complacuit voluntas qua ex cantate
Christus mortem suscepit, .Et hanc etiam caritatem in ejus anima operatus est.15
ia Summa, ΙΓ1, q. 47, a. 3, ad lum. Cf. also ibid., ad Bum where St. Thomas
compares the traditio of the Father to that, of Judas, the Jews, and Pilate.
11 III Sent., d. 20, q. un., a. 4.
15 Cont. Gent., IV, c. 5â, ad 16. Cf. also Summa, I, q. 20, a. 4, ad lum. Here
may be included the objection sometimes raised that it is contradictory or repug­
nant for Christ to both satisfy and receive satisfaction simultaneously. .Although
the saine objection is posed relative, to the ability of Christ to merit, and which
is presupposed in satisfaction, it way nevertheless be stated here that, by reason
of the two-fold nature in Christ, and the fact that His status com prehensor is docs
not exclude that of viator, He is able to perform the meritorious action of satisfy­
ing and at the same lime to receive it without involving contradiction. Of. Summa,
HI, q. I'J, a. 3; q. 48, a. 1.
jVolc: This distinction of the two natures in Christ is likewise to be observed in
reference, to His Passion and Death. The properties of each nature remain inte­
gral and distinct. Death and suffering arc of His humanity, while the divinity re­
mains incapable of either. .'Reference is made to God as having died precisely
because of the unity in the Person—similar to the death of the flesh in man, while

74

The Thoinistic Concept of the F ίο or io us Mode of S'ulisfavt ion

(b) Given the fact that Christ, by satisfying vicariously, does not
thereby become a sinner or assume the guilt of sin, it will also follow
that the penalty suffered by Him remains a penalty, but cannot be
considered a punishment as such. Were Christ to have suffered an
actual punishment, that is, a punishment considered as an evil in­
flicted for the sin committed, then it would be difficult, if not impos­
sible, to reconcile this fact with that of His innocence. This is evi­
dent from what has already been demonstrated in the explanation of
the nature of vicarious satisfaction, namely, that a punishment as
punishment always remains personal, and is inflicted only upon the
one guilty of the offense.10
Further, to interpret the penalty suffered by Christ in terms of an
absolute punishment, would make at least possible the contention that
He suffered the very punishment of the damned.17
Consequently, the objection that Christ sustained an actual pun­
ishment is first, a direct contradiction of His own innocence, and sec­
ondly, implies that a punishment, (as with sin in the previous objec­
tion) can be transferred as such. Punishment, however, of its very
nature is inflicted as such for sin alone; punishment considered in this
propel’ sense will always presuppose personal guilt. An innocent per­
son cannot sustain a punishment properly so-called precisely because
of His lack of guilt for which the punishment is inflicted.
Punishment cannot be transferred from one person to another without chang­
ing its nature. A debt can indeed be paid by an intermediary, but a punishment
cannot be undergone by proxy. Punishment is essentially a personal thing, insep­
arable from the sin; if it falls upon a stranger, it is no longer a punishment.18

The distinction that is to be observed, therefore, is perhaps delicate,
man’s soul remains immortal. Cf. Cont. Gent., IV, c. 55, ad 14; Summa, III, q.
46, a. 12.
16 ‘‘Si loquamur de poena simpliciter, secundum quod habet rationem poenae,
sic semper habet ordinem ad culpam propriam.” Summa, I II, q. 87, a. 7.
‘‘Si loquamur de poena pro peccato inflicta, inquantum habet rationem poenae,
sic solum unusquisque pro peccato suo punitur.” Ibid., a. 8. Cf. also Chapter
Three, section on Headship of Christ and solidarity.
17 As will be mentioned in the evaluation to follow, this is one of the principal
difficulties to be encountered by proponents of the theory of penal expiation.
Note: The objection that Christ, by reason of His having given a perfect
satisfaction, should have thereby suffered the full punishment, namely, eternal
death, proceeds from conceiving satisfaction as merely penal and material. The
satisfaction of Christ, however, remains formal or moral so that its principal
value comes from Christ’s theandric act of love: ‘‘Insuper ipsa voluntaria mors
temporalis Christi erat valoris infiniti, prout per eam offerebat Deo vitam Verbi
Incarnati.” Garrigou-Hagrange, op. cit., p. 419, objection 5.
18 Prat, op. cit., II, p. 196. Cf. also Galtier, op. cit., p. 388.
Ferrariensis makes the following distinction: ‘‘Advertendum . . . quod differt
punitio peccati a satisfactione : quia in punitione quis poenam sustinet contra
suam voluntatem omnino; in satisfactione vero quia sustinet poenam aliquo modo
voluntarie.” Cont, Gent., IV, c. 55, ad 20 (XIII).

Object ions

but quite necessary. To suiter a penalty (or to pay a debt) is not to
sustain a punishment as such; the former does not. of necessity involve
guilt, while the latter always presupposes it.1!* For this reason the
Angelic Doctor, as in the citation below, makes an almost constant use
of the term to carry {partare'] when he speaks of one accepting a
punishment (in the sense explained above) on behalf of another—-so
that the punishment cannot be conceived as being transferred or de­
served by one other than the guilty person for whose offense the pun­
ishment. is being sustained.
Et quia, contingit cos, qui diflerunt in reatu poenae, esse unum secundum volun­
tatem unione amoris, inde est quod interdum aliquis qui non peccavit, poenam
voluntarius pro alio portat. . . .-1’

Christ, therefore. Himself innocent and indeed impeccable, did not
and could not merit, or undergo a punishment; lie did, however, in
His vicarious satisfaction, suffer a penalty, freely and out of love for
all mankind. Both suffering and death were the penalties of sin, and
these Christ took upon Himself, but not the sin, and without sin, one
cannot be said to suffer a punishment as Midi.-1
3. Objections—-God’s mercy and justice.
In the foregoing responses to the principal objections concerning
the nature of Christ’s satisfaction, it was demonstrated that Christ, in
His atonement for the sins of mankind, did not Himself become a sin­
ner or incur the guilt of sin, nor did He undergo a punishment in the
accepted sense of that term. The true nature of a. valid vicarious
satisfaction (as explained in the preceding chapters) does not re­
quire—nor is it possible—that both sin and its punishment, the cause
of Christ’s satisfaction, be transferred or assumed in such a manner
so that they become directly personal.
The final series of objections proceeds from the apparent contra19 In response to the objection that punishment is sometimes inflicted apart
from guilt, St. Thomas states: “Christus nullo modo poenam habuit quae esset
poena hominis inquantum est homo, quia in bonis rationis superabundavit, nec
aliquem defectum passus est. Habuit tamen aliquam, quantum ad naturam com­
munem; et ideo non oportuit quod esset aliqua culpa iu eo; sed quod aliqua culpa
praecessisset in natura humana.’’ II Sent., d. 36, q. un., a. 4, ad 2uin.
20 Summa, L II, q. 87, a. 7.
21 Belated to this series of objections concerning the nature of Christ’s vicarious
satisfaction is the question that, if His satisfaction is properly efficacious, -why do
death and the other penalties of sin stiil remain ? Response: The death of Christ
redeemed mankind from sin and its eternal punishment, i.e., eternal, but not
temporal death. By it He also merited for mankind the grace to bear the other
penalties of sin in a manner deserving of eternal life. The final and complete res­
toration of man ’s nature will bo made in the resurrection yet to come. Cf. Billuart. De Incarnatione, diss. 19, a. 4; Garrigou-Bagrange, op. cit., p. 419.
Note : This objection refers perhaps more directly to the effects, rather than to
the mode, of Bedemption. Cf. Summa, III, q. 69, a. 3, ad 3um.

76

The Thomistic Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

diction between God’s infinite mercy and justice relative to the atone­
ment offered by Christ in Ills Passion and Death. However formu­
lated individually, the various objections that have their source in
the erroneous proposition that would claim a contradiction between
the divine attributes, may be classified as follows: (a) God, by exact­
ing so rigorous a satisfaction, would appear wholly vindictive before
man, concerned principally with the mere payment of a debt ; (b) so
severe a justice is not compatible with His infinite and boundless
mercy, and would further seem to render the gratuity of Redemption
false or at least without meaning. On the contrary, as will be observed
in the following responses, the divine attributes of justice and mercy
are never in opposition: and in perhaps no other work of God is there
manifested a greater evidence for this truth than in the Rédemption
of the human race.
(a) The charge of vindictiveness relative to the satisfaction exacted
by God for the offense of sin implies that He is disposed to revenge or
given over to retaliation. The predication of these attributes con­
sidered directly in terms of the reparation due Him for the sms of
mankind would then signify that God, moved as it were with a spirit
of revenge, primarily and above all socks to inflict upon men the just
punishment they deserve, to exact and accept the punishment due for
the sake of the punishment itself.
That God, even though He so willed to exact satisfaction rather
than to condone the offense apart from an adequate reparation, does
not thereby act from motives of revenge or mere vindictiveness is evi­
dent from the foregoing analysis of sin and its relation to the moral
order and justice of God.22 Briefly, it was there demonstrated that
sin involves a violation of the honor due God {reatus culpae') as well
as a violation of the moral law {reatus poenae) through which He ex­
ercises His supreme authority. The two are inseparable. Since God
is the beginning and end of the moral order, it follows that the moral
order cannot be violated without at the same time inflicting a per­
sonal (i.e. God as God) injury upon God Himself. Reparation of the
offense given to God, therefore, demands a restoration of the violated
moral order. Wherefore, if and when God exacts the suffering of the
penalty incurred in the reparation due Hirn, He is said to act secun­
dum ordinem, that is, lie acts from the motive of justice, but not from
a motive of mere vindictiveness or hatred. In a word, God, in the
execution of His justice, manifests both His upholding’of the moral
order and His hatred not for man, but for the sin committed by him.
As expressed by St. Thomas:
Dicendum quod ira non dicitur in Deo secundum passionem animi: sed secundum
judicium justitiae, prout vult vindictam fecero de peccato.23
22 See Chapter Two, section on "the elements involved in sin.’’
2S Summa, I-II, q. 47, a. 1, ad Juin. Cf. ibid., I, q. 19, a. 11.
Note: The use of the term mere or as such in reference to vindictiveness is in-

Objections

He likewise makes it evident that :
Deug non delectatur in poenis propter ipsas; sed delectatur in ordine suae justi­
tiae, quae haec requirit.24

That God does not, according to the term used by St. Thomas, take
in the physical evil of punishment justly deserved by the sin­
ner becomes still more evident when it is recalled that a mere physical
suffering of punishment (that is, as an evil inflicted for an offense)
does not, and cannot of itself, return to God the honor that was re­
fused Him by the sin of man; it alone cannot repair the injury there­
by inflicted.25 As stated repeatedly, only the voluntary acceptance
°f a punishment motivated by love is capable of imparting to the
punishment a true reparatory value. Wherefore, the only conclusion
possible is that God, in His 'infinite justice, takes delight only in the
moral good that proceeds from the homage given Him in the volun­
tary acceptance and suffering of not a vindictive, but a justly de­
served punishment, in order that the offense given Him might be re­
paired. The punishment thus sustained becomes in itself an ac­
knowledgment of God’s divine excellence, wisdom, and justice. It is
m this sense that the sufferings and death of Christ are said to have
pleased God, for in them Christ gave to the Father, on behalf of man­
kind, the homage of perfect love, obedience, and reverence out or
which His sufferings and death were borne.
dehght

. God is no more the creditor eager for the payment of his debt nor the sovereign
Jealous of avenging his rights at any price; he is the eminently good, holy, just
and wise Father Jho, in hl persistent love for guilty man, takes the initiative in
order to save him and brings into action his omnipotence to carry out a plan
which best conciliates all his Attributes—goodness, holiness, justice and wisdom.-

(b) Granted that the exaction of the punishment willed by God was
an act not of mere vindictiveness, but of divine justice, the question
may then be posed : Was not so severe a justice incompatible with or
at least exclusive of His boundless and infinite mercy? On the con­
tended to distinguish
jX’lÎÆ
from the legistiinate use of^the p ‘J
d bove
Sco Garrigou-Lagrange, God:
indicates the justice
P, 239, where he states: “He (God) has an
His Existence and His
attire . , I
above all things, this being the prinimperative and inalienable right to oe
ciple of avenging justice. ’’
24 Summa, I -II, q. 87, a. 3, m -factionem Deo esse perpessionem mali qua talem,
Hoc enim sUPP“ær gratum esse qua dolor est, ita ut tanta praecise esset
seu dolorem ei valcic
8 O.,tisfaciento toleratum.” Galtier, op. cit., p. 390.
satisfactio quantum malum a sutisracicnvo
Cf.-ifeid., p. 400, :>03.
17·ΟΓ an exce]ieilt and detailed exposition of the
• 2f.Pratj ^aClA·’ «η rHaou-Dagrange, God: His Existence and His Nature, II,
justice ot God, et.j'lir
f tîlis treatise, section on the definition of satisp. 108ff. ; cf. also Chapter i wo u
faction. iut{?gral anil]ysis of the mysterious reconciliation of divine justice and

78

The Thomistic Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

trary, both God’s justice and mercy are identical with divine love.
They are neither in opposition to,' nor exclusive of each other, but
exist in a perfect and sublime, although mysterious, harmony.
The infinite mercy of God is such that it always implies au infinite
justice,· on the other hand, the justice of God not only implies, but is
founded upon His infinite mercy. God’s boundless mercy, far from
being in opposition to His justice, becomes one with it, and indeed sur­
passes it. That the divine mercy is always presupposed in any work
of God’s infinite justice, that His mercy is, as it were, the root or prin­
ciple of all His works is demonstrated by fit. Thomas as follows·.
Opus autem divinae justitiae semper pracsupponit opus misericordiae, et in co
fundatur. Creaturae enim non debetur aliquid, nisi propter aliquid in eo prae­
existens, vel praeconsidcratum : et rursus, si illud creaturae debetur, hoc erit
propter aliquid prius. Et cum non sit procedere iu infinitum, oportet devenire ;id
aliquid quod ex sola bonitate divinae voluntatis dependeat, quae est ulrimus
finis. ... Et sic in quolibet opere Dei apparet misericordia, quantum ad prinmm
radicem eius. ... Et propter hoc etiam ea quae alicui creaturae debentur, Deus,
ex abundantia suae bonitatis, largius dispensat quam eixgat proportio rei. Alinu.enim est quod sufficeret ad conservandum ordinem justitiae, quam quod divimi
bonitas confert, quae omnem proportionem creaturae excedit.-8

Consequently, in all the acts of divine justice whereby God gives to
creatures what is necessary for the attainment of their end, what may
be due them according to their merit, and whatever the punishment to
be exacted for their sin—-in all these the mercy of God, out of the
superabundance of His goodness, by far surpasses the exigencies of
His justice. So great is the power of divine mercy that God always
bestows upon creatures what is due them more bountifully than is
proportionate to their deserts.
Relative to the justice of God in His willing an adequate satisfac­
tion in the sufferings endured by Christ out of love and obedience,
how greatly manifested was His own incomprehensible and infinite
mercy! For God the Father, “in demanding of Jesus Christ, by
reason of His justice, an infinite satisfaction, as the offense was in­
finite, required of Him the most heroic act of love. And in con­
signing Him thus for our salvation to the glorious ignominy of death
on the Cross, He showed His own infinite love, for the sovereign Good,
for Christ, and for us. ”2d
The infinite justice and mercy of God, therefore, were harmoniously
united, reconciled, and given a most perfect expression in the great
mercy pertains directly to the consideration of the nature of God. (See GarrigouLagrange, ibid., pp. 108ff., 239-241, 392-394). Here, however, the divine attri­
butes are discussed only in their relation to the satisfaction given by Christ in
the Redemption.
28 Summa, I, q. 21, a. 4.
28 Garrigou-Lagrange, God: His Existence and His Nature, II, p. 240. Also
quoted here are the words of the Psalmist: "Mercy and truth have met each
other: justice and peace have kissed." (Ps. 84:11).

Objections

79

act of love manifested by Christ in His own sufferings and death,
wherein He offered an infinite satisfaction to His Heavenly Father on
behalf of all mankind. God, despite the infinite offense of sin,
wholly from the depths of His own goodness did not cease to love
mankind, but moved by mercy, gave them a most efficacious means
of repairing the injury without their suffering the punishment de­
manded by His justice. In other words, for God to give a Redeemer
to the human race was by far a greater act of mercy than if He had
forgiven sin without exacting a rigorous satisfaction, which He could
well have done, had He so willed, without injury to His justice.30
The Angelic Doctor, in his explanation of the manner in which God
handed over Chirst to His death, refers to the severitas (justice) and
bonitas (mercy) of God as follows:
In quo ostenditur et Dei severitas, qui peccatum sine poena dimittere noluit,
quod significat Apostolus dicens, “Proprio Filio non pepercit:” et bonitas ejus,
in eo quod, cum homo sufficienter satisfacere non posset per aliquam poenam
quam pateretur, e.i satisfactorum dedit, quod significavit Apostolus dicens, “pro
nobis omnibus tradidit illum.”·31

So too does it follow that, in virtue of the divine mercy and good­
ness which His justice in the exaction of an adequate reparation
presupposed, the Redemption was in itself wholly gratuitous on the
part of God towards mankind. That man could merit his own re­
demption by giving to God an adequate reparation for the offense
inflicted by sin was utterly impossible. The gratis justification of
mankind referred to by the Apostle can and must be attributed only
to the merciful goodness of God who Himself willed the Redemption
of man, not through a mere condonation of sin, or through the ac­
ceptance of an imperfect personal satisfaction, but through the very
Passion and Death of His only-begotten Son. The gratuity of man’s
Redemption then was two-fold: God willed to accept a satisfaction
given by one other than the actual offender,32 and secondly, He gave
30 God, since He is the Supreme Lawmaker, can both withhold the penalty and
forgive the offense, and if He so acts, He is then said to act mercifully, His
justice remaining unimpaired. Cf. Billuart, De Incarnatione, diss. 19, a. 4.
31 Summa, III, q. 47, a. 3, ad him.
32 That the acceptance of Christ’s satisfaction was an act of mercy in regard
to mankind follows from the equality demanded in the reparation of an injury.
This is not a material equality so that given, e.g. the full payment of a tangible
or external debt, the element of gratuity cannot apply. On the contrary, the
equality in reparation is between person and person; consequently, as the injury
affects the person offended, so does the obligation of satisfying belong to, or
affect, the person offending. The one injured, therefore, can justly refuse to
accept a satisfaction offered by one other than the actual offender. Wherefore
it is concluded that men were justified gratis.
Note: The accepted satisfaction of Christ, however, remained on the part of
God an act of strict justice in regard to Christ Himself who satisfied in rigare
justitiae. Cf. Billuart, De. Incarnatione, diss. 19, a. 4.

80

The Thomistic Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

to mankind His Divine Son through whom the atonement would be
effected. Wherefore, in the words of the Angelic Doctor :
Dicendum quod hominem liberari per passionem Christi, conveniens fuit et
misericordiae et justitiae ejus. Justitiae quidem, quia per passionem suam Christus
satisfecit pro peccato humani generis: et ita homo per justitiam Christi liberatus
est. Misericordiae vero, quia, cum homo per se satisfacere non posset pro peccato
totius humanae naturae. . . . Deus et satisfactorem dedit Filium suum: secundum
illud Bom. 3, (24-25): “Justificati gratis per gratiam ipsius, per redemptionem
quae est in Christo Jesu, quem proposuit Deus propitiatorem per fidem ipsius. ”
Et hoc fuit abundantioris misericordiae quam si peccata absque satisfactione
dismisissct.33

In light of the above objections and responses, it should be evident
that there is in the Thomistic concept of vicarious satisfaction nothing
repugnant in itself or contradictorily opposed to reason—even though
above it. The exigencies of vicarious satisfaction do not demand or
imply that God thereby approves and accepts a mere penal sub­
stitution; nor does it indicate that God withholds His infinite mercy
and acts only as a severe vindictive Judge ; nor does it by any means
contradict the dogma of the gratuity of justification. On the con­
trary, God’s mercy in the Redemption is emphasized beyond measure,
for out of love He gave His own Son to do what men could not do, and
His justice, meanwhile, remained unimpaired.
What is the sublimity of the Cross, if not the harmony of perfections seem­
ingly in opposition, the union of the supreme demands of justice and love?34
33 Summa, III, q. 4(5, a. 1, ad 3um.
34 Garrigou-Lagrange, God: His Existence and His Nature, II p. 240.

Chapter Five
FVALî’ATION

1.

Recapitulation and the moral and penal aspects of satisfaction.

Inasmuch as the principal aim of this treatise was to present an
analytical demonstration for but one of the four chief aspects of the
dogma of the Redemption, namely, that of its mode of vicarious
satisfaction as proposed by St. Thomas in q. 48, a. 2, part III of the
Summa, the evaluation to be given herewith will be limited to a
criticism of this one particular mode and the elements involved. In
order to avoid any undue repetition, of what has already been suffi­
ciently demonstrated in the analysis proper, this evaluation will in­
clude a brief recapitulation, a statement of the two divergent views
of theologians concerning the relative importance of the moral and
penal aspects of satisfaction, and finally, an analysis of the position
of St. Thomas in regard to both.
In the analysis of sin considered as the cause for satisfaction, it
was seen that the offense given God by sin implied a two-fold viola­
tion.· a violation of the honor due God as Creator and Lord of the
universe, and a violation of the moral order as established and upheld
by God. As a result of his sin, therefore, man had contracted a two­
fold debt or guilt consequent upon the offense, namely, realus culpac
and reatus poenae; wherefore, he was held to a strict compensation
towards God for both the offense given and the punishment incurred.
In accordance with divine justice, man was now obliged to repair the
injury and to suffer the penalty due to his sin—in a word, he was
held to make satisfaction. The form or mode of this satisfaction
was then seen to comprise the necessary elements of an absolute
voluntariness on the part of the. one. desiring to satisfy, and his suffer­
ing of the penalty imposed: the former element was said to com­
prise the formal or moral aspect of the satisfaction due, while the
latter was to be considered the material aspect. The. act of satisfac­
tion, therefore, was to be both reparatory and moral relative, to the
offense, expiatory and material relative to the punishment.1 Accord­
ing to St. Thomas, Christ, in a vicarious manner, offered such a satis­
faction to God by a voluntary acceptance of death out of the motives
1 “ Voluntarietas est de ratione compensationis offensae. Nam, qui offensus
est seu injuriam passus est ex voluntaria honoris debiti denegatione, is non potest
compensationem accipere nisi per sui honorationein, quae sit voluntaria.
“Poenae perpessio haud minus evidenter est.de ratione compensationis hujus­
modi. Nam reparatio offensae iit, quatenus offenso exhibetur aliquid, non quod ei
etiam non offenso deberetur, sed quo compensatur id quod de honore ei debito
subtractum est.” Galtier, De Incarnatione Ac Redemptione, p. 384.
See also Chapter Two of this treatise, definition of satisfaction.

81

82

The Thomistie Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

of love and obedience. The various elements involved in both the sin
of man and the satisfaction of Christ may be schematized as follows:
[ Reatus
Ί
( Formal - moral ) love and
culpae
reparation
Γ obedience
L SATISFACTION I
Reatus
Material - penal 1. Passion and
[
poenae J
( expiation
J Death
The theory of St. Thomas, however, does not enjoy the universal
approval of theologians. While the greater number of theologians
accept the traditional definition of satisfaction as being essentially
a recompensai io honoris laesi or a reparatio injuriae illatae, not all are
in agreement concerning the precise mode in which this reparation was
effected by Christ in His vicarious satisfaction. While readily ad­
mitting that the satisfaction of Christ does indeed repair the injury
inflicted by sin, and that its value depends upon the person who offer*
the satisfaction, some, nevertheless, have conceived the redemptive
work of satisfaction as an acquittal of punishment and thereby would
have it consist essentially and primarily in the physical sufferings
and death of Christ. Others, on the contrary, would have the moral
element predominate in such a way that satisfaction is conceived
principally as the reparation of a violated honor, and the death of
Christ as a great moral work of submission to the will of God.2
De facto, and apart from the difference in emphasis placed upon
these two aspects of satisfaction, Christ in His Passion and Death
accomplished both, that is, the penalty was suffered, and hence ex­
piation; the injury was compensated, and hence reparation. As ex­
pressed by Janssens :
Redemptionis pretium solvit, cum per caritatem destruxit culpae reatum, et
per mortem et supplicia, dedit ipse poenae peccati.3

The theories proposed by both schools, consequently, are in themselves
but two conceptions of the one, same idea embodied in the reality
of the term: satisfaction. In each system it is the Passion that effects
salvation. The school in favor of penal expiation (not to be confused
with mere penal substitution) would qualify or so express the precise
2 Riviere discusses this question as given above in his Etude Theologique, p.
221ff. As representative of the school favoring the predominance of the penal
aspect, Riviere quotes the following from G. Van Noort: “Proprie dicendum est
Deum a Christo innocente opera poenalia exegisse ut pro peccatoribus satis­
faceret. ” (Tractatus de Deo Redemptore, 1910, p. Ill), Riviere, ibid., p. 222;
for those who conceive satisfaction as primarily a moral reparation, Riviere quotes
from P. B. Prevel: “Satisfactio autem principaliter praestatur per voluntariam
ad Deum submissionem et ipsius valor aestimatur primario ex dignitate personae
satisfacientis.” (Theologiae Dogmaticae, Elementa, 1912, II, p. 117), Riviere
ibid., p. 222. Cf. also ibid., pp. 309ff.
3 Janssens, De Deo Romine, II, p. 766.

Evaluation·

83

mode of the satisfactory value of the Passion and Death of Christ
by adopting the formula: Christ procured salvation BY If is suffering
(satisfecit patiendo') ; the proponents of the theory of moral repara­
tion prefer to express the concept by stating: Christ procured salva­
tion IN His suffering (satisfecit patiens).4
2. The position of St. Thomas.

The question that now remains to be answered is: Of which opinion
is the Angelic Doctor ? Did he, in analysing the theological concept
of satisfaction, conceive the element of moral reparation to be of
the essence of Christ’s satisfaction in such a way that its reparatory
value was to proceed preeminently from the will, intention, and love
of Christ suffering, or primarily from the sufferings and death en­
dured by Him? In light of the preceding analysis of the mode of
Christ’s satisfaction as proposed by St. Thomas, it is indeed evident
that he places the greatest possible emphasis upon the moral element
involved in the redemptive work of satisfaction. Although Christ
suffered the penalty of death for sin, it is the greatness of the love
and obedience out of which He suffered that procures the satisfaction
due God. The position of St. Thomas relative to the two schools of
thought mentioned above is stated completely and accurately in the
following brief analysis of Garrigou-Lagrange.
According to Fr. Lagrange, the theories of the Redemption are
four-fold: 1.) Theory of expiation, or substitution, in which particular
stress is placed upon the penal aspect of Redemption (de reatu poenae
subeundae) ; 2.) Theory of satisfaction, which is presented by St.
Thomas in S. T. Ill, q. 48, a. 2; 3.) Theory of reparation, which em­
phasizes particularly the will of Christ as most pleasing to God; 4.)
Theory of love, in which great stress is placed upon the love of God
who so loved the world as to give His own and only Son, and upon
the love of Christ who loved and was obedient even to the death of
the Cross. Admitting that these are but four aspects of the one
Redemption, Fr. Lagrange then indicates that as presented by St.
Thomas, all of them are included but in a subordinated position, and
as they are given above, in order of ascendancy. This would mean
that the penal aspect was of least relative importance, while the
motive of love (and obedience) would remain predominant and su­
preme.5 In other words, Christ, suffering the death of the Cross,
4 Cf. Rivière, Étude Théologique, p. 315. Cf. also Hid., pp. 227-262 for a
detailed analysis of the theory of penal expiation ; pp. 262-298 for that of moral
reparation.
(The comprehensive and scholarly works of Rivière, a recognized authority
on the history and theology of the dogma of the Redemption, have proved an
invaluable source of information in the composition of the present thesis.)
« Garrigou-Lagrange, op. cit., p. 393. Cited here also are the following refer­
ences to St. Thomas concerning·, the suffering of Christ (Sunwna, III, q. 46, a. 1) ;

84

The Thomistic Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

satisfied by giving to God more than was required to compensate for
the offense of the whole human race—first and above all, because of
the exceeding charity from which He suffered.
The demonstration or proof for this conclusion is to be found in
the foregoing analysis of both the Thomistic concept of satisfaction
in general, and its particular application to the Passion and Death
of the Saviour. The following is a resume of the principal reasons for
the Angelic Doctor’s conception of the satisfaction of Christ as
primarily a work of moral reparation.
it should be recalled, first of all, that in St. Thomas’s analysis of
the term satisfaction the suffering of the penalty is such that, although
it admittedly pertains to the ratio or essence of satisfaction, it cannot
in itself impart to the act that reparatory moral value which con­
stitutes the more important and formal element of satisfaction. To
conceive of a satisfactory work as essentially the suffering of a physi­
cal penalty does not seem to preserve the integrity of the scholastic
concept of a time, moral satisfaction.
Furthermore, since the essential element of sin is to be found in
the disruption it causes in the moral order, to expiate the penalty is
not properly to repair or to satisfy; it is this moral element involved
in sin that demands above all a moral act in order that a valid repa­
ration be effected. The violation of the moral order consequent upon
sin is not repaired if and when the penalty imposed is suffered with­
out the free and fully voluntary acceptance on the part of the person
who suffers the penalty. In other words, the formal and necessary
element of satisfaction does not, and cannot obtain unless the penalty
is suffered of one’s own free will, together with, the express intention
that the punishment itself is being sustained for the purpose of re­
pairing, or atoning for, the injury inflicted. Otherwise, the material
element alone, or the penal expiation of sin, cannot have the proper
moral value necessary in order that the action performed be pleasing
and acceptable to God—in a word, satisfactory.6 Then, and only then,
can it be stated that God exacts satisfaction not as a mere infliction
of punishment, but rather because the punishment to be suffered in
the mode of satisfaction {ibid., q. 48, a. 3); the reparation given (ibid., q. 1, a.
2); the theandric love of Christ (ibid., q. 48, a. 2).
Rivière, in reference to the position of St. Thomas, states: “Un récent com­
mentateur de la Somme estime que, dans la satisfaction du Christ, le Docteur
Angélique tient pour ‘secondaire’ le Côté pénal.
P. Synave, Saint Thomas
D’Aquin:Vie de Jesus, t. Ill, p. 257.” D.T.C., “Rédemption,” e. 1969.
c Cf. Galtier, op. cit., p. 384ff.
“Satisfactio igitur intellegitur solutio aut potius compensatio atrius que illius
debiti. Sed haec solutio, cum fiat in ordine morali et ad resarciendum ordinem
moralem offensa Dei laesum, nequit esse vera et formalis nisi fiat per voluntarium
alicuius poenae susceptionem aut acceptionem ; ita ut perpessionem poenae habeat
tamquam elementum materiale, voluntariam vero illius perpessionis ordinationem
ad solutionem debiti habeat tamquam elementum formale.” Ibid., p. 384.

Evaluation

85

satisfying is accepted voluntarily, and will become thereby a recog­
nition of both His justice and the moral order of which lie is the
Supreme Upholder. Otherwise, it would perhaps appear that sin is
to be considered primarily as a punishment to be sustained, rather
than as an injury to be repaired; but doesn’t the injury inflicted
by sin (and the ensuing reatus culpae) precede the punishment which
flows rather as a consequence of the offense ?
Again, the theory which would give predominance to the penal
element involved in satisfaction runs the risk of becoming dangerously
exaggerated as already noted, so that Christ may be looked upon as
suffering directly and identically the punishment due sin as punish­
ment : death, the divine curse, and even damnation itself. This of
course would be an adulteration, but the fact that the theory has been
so erroneously conceived as a result tends to discredit it.7 Even in
its theologically accurate interpretation the difficulty encountered in
avoiding the above exaggeration remains. In other words, it may be
argued that if Christ suffered primarily to expiate the punishment
due sin, and sin in turn merits hell or the punishment of the damned,
then Christ should suffer this punishment; otherwise, it is concluded
that the expiation is in itself defective or incomplete.8 This problem
is avoided, however, when the penal aspect is not overemphasized, the
while preserving the full value of the Passion and Death itself.
The theory of penal expiation would likewise seem to imply that
satisfaction is to be given chiefly on a material basis, that there should
exist a material proportionality between the sin and its expiation.
Even though Christ suffered and died in payment of the price, He did
this not according to the flesh alone, that is, in a wholly and exclu­
sively material manner. According to St. Thomas, satisfaction does
not consist in a mere exterior act alone, but rather is the measure of it
made in an external manner, and this only according to the equality
necessary for repairing the offense (secundum justitiae aequalitatem).
Christ suffered, therefore, according to the flesh assumed and sacri­
ficed, but by and in the Word through a theandric act of love.9
Finally, when reference is made to the necessity of Christ’s Passion
and Death, it cannot be denied that, considered absolutely (simplici­
ter), and given the fact of God’s omnipotence, Redemption could
have been accomplished in a wray or ways other than that of the ig­
nominious death on the Cross. His passions and crucifixion are con­
tingent circumstances which testify ultimately to the fitness of the
mystery, but not to its absolute exigencies. The idea of expiation,
7 Cf. Prat, op. cit., Il, p. 198.
s Cf. Eiviere, Etude Theolopique, p. 246.
It is to be noted that this reasoning results from an excessive insistence on
the penal aspect of satisfaction to the utter exclusion of the moral. As pro­
posed by Catholic theologians, this is by no means intended.
0 Cf. Garrigou-Lagrange, op. cit., objection 3, p. 419.

88

The Thomistic Concept of the Vicarious Mode of Satisfaction

pensate for the offense of the whole human race. First of all, because of the
exceeding charity from which He suffered; secondly, on account of the dignity
of His life which He laid down in satisfaction, for it was the life of one who
was God and Man; thirdly, on account of the extent of the Passion, and the
greatness of the grief endured. . . -1!*

V* Summa, III, q. 48, a. 2.

CONCLUSION
The doctrine of the vicarious satisfaction of Christ, whether it be
accepted as an expression of but one aspect or mode of the Redemp­
tion as analysed in the present treatise, or whether it be considered as
a concept synonymous with the revealed truth itself, must, at least
for the present, remain but the excellent fruit of speculative theology.
However, despite the absence of a formal ecclesiastical definition, the
Church, nevertheless, has given sufficient indication that it will not
content itself with expressions of so great a mystery that are lackingin accuracy and precision. That the doctrinal synthesis of the Re­
demption as presented by St. Thomas provides both a scientific and
deeply religious expression of a truth which is itself a mystery, is
evident from the preceding analysis of the Kedemption per niodaat
satisfactionis, itself the essence of the mystery.
In his critical exposition of the Angelic Doctor's concept of vicari­
ous satisfaction, Rivière, the recognized historian and theologian of
the Redemption, pays him the following tribute:
St. Thomas saw clearly that the Passion, though it was a penalty, and the
penalty of our sins, iras more particularly a grand act of obedience and love.
Thia was why lie took care not to make satisfaction consist in a mere penal
verdict, but followed Anselm’s lead in making it a. work of a high moral order.
... St. Thomas avoids any exaggeration: he admits the great fitness of the
Passion, though he docs not state it to be necessary; he maintains tho objectivity
and the superabundance of the Atonement, though he does not allow this to
interfere with our own twofold collaboration. Possibly his wise reserve may
be tho reason why certain historians consider his doctrine to lack order and
stability. . . . As for us, our preference is for St. Thomas and for his delicate
sense of shades and distinctions, which after all is merely the art of rendering
aright the complexity of reality.1

1 Riviere, The Doctrine of the Atonement, (Trans: Duigi Cappadelta), II, p.
104-105.
“Firmiter credendum est quod Jesus est Salvator et Redemptor secundum
proprium sensum verborum absque ulla attenuatione, imo realitas divina hujusce
mysterii valde superat conceptiones nostras, id est: Christus adhuc multo pro­
fundius et altius Redemptor est quam putamus dum ei satisfactionem vere ct
proprie dictam tribuimus. Iu hoc, non solum theologia non exagerat, sed non
potest satis exprimere excedentem realitatem hujusee mysterii. Plus est in Deo
et in Christo quam in tota nostra theologia.’’ Garrigou-Lagrange, op. cit..
p. 421.

89

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alexander of Hales: Sumina Theologica (T. IV, Lib. Ill, De Verio In carnatio'),
ad Claras Aquas (Quarrachi), Collegii S. Bonaventurac, 1948.
Anselm, St.: Patrologiae Cursus Completus: P. L., vol. CLVII, Opera S. Jnsiinii..·
Cur Deus Homo (c. 360) Méditai. IX, (c. 748).
Aquinas, St. Thomas: Opera Omnia, Editio Leonina, Romae, 1899; ed. Parmae,
1836; ed. Ma riel ti, 1948.
Billot, L. : De Verbo Incantato, Romae, S.C. Propaganda Fide, ISO·».
Billuart, Car. Ren.: Summa S. Thomae (De 1 ncaniattone, De- Mysteriis ChrVii) ;
Paris, Letouzey et Ane.
Capponi, Seraphiuus a Porrecta: Summa- Theologiae S. Thomas Aquinatis (T. 11,
Pars III), Neapoli, 1766.
Capreolus, J.; Defensiones Theologiae- HI Sent., Touruibus, A. Cattier, 1904.
Diekamp, F. : Theologiae Dogmaticae Manuale (De Itedcmptione), Paris, Rome,
Declee, 1933.
Franzelin, J.; De Verbo Incarnato, Romae, S.C. Propaganda Fide, .1874.
Galtier, Paul: De Incarnatione ac Redemptione, Paris, Beauchesno, 1947.
Garrigou-Lagrange, R.: Do Christo Salvatore, Torino, R. Benuti Co., 1945.
God: His Existence and His Nature, St. Louis, Mo., (London), B. Herder,
1948.
Hervé, J. M.: Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (De Verbo Incarnato), Paris,
Baston-Berche-Pagis, Imprim., 1924.
Hugon, E. : Le Mystère de la Redemption, Paris, Pierre Tcqui, Imprim. 1915.
Tractatus Dogmatici (vol. II) De Verbo Incarnato et Redemptore, Paris,
Lethielleux, 1927.
Janssens, L. : Summa Theologica in Aquinatis Summam (De Dco-Homine, Τ'.
IV-λ7) Friburgi Brisgoviae, Herder, 1901-1902.
Lombard, P.: Patrologiae Cursus Completus: P.L, vol. CXCII, Opera P. Lom­
bardi: Liber Sent. 111.
Lottiui, J.: Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae Specialis (vol. II De Incar­
natione Verbi Dei), Florence, Libreria Florent., 1904.
Medina, Bartholomeus A.; Expositio in Tertlam Partem D. Thomae, Venetiis, 1602.
Paquet, A.: Disputationes Theologicae se-u Comment, in Stivim. Theol. D. Thomae,
(De Incarnatione Verbi), Quebec (Rome, Neo-Eboraci), Fratrum Berners,
1899.
Pègues, T. R. : Commentaire Français Litteral de- la Somme Theologique de S.
Thomas D’Aquin (vol. 15, 16), Ee Redempteur, La Redemption, ToulouseParis, Privat-Tcqui, 1924.
Petavius, D.: Dogmata Theologica (T. VI, De Incarnatione), Paris, Vives, 1867.
Prat, F.: The Theology of St. Paul (Trans. J. L. Stoddard), vol. 1-2, Westminster,
Maryland, U.S.A., Newman Bookshop, 1926.
Rivière, J.: Le Dogme de la Rédemption (Essai d'Étude Historique, Etude
Theologiquc) Paris, Victor Lecoffre, 1905, 1914.
The Doctrine of the Atonement, (Trans. Luigi Cappadelta), London, B.
Herder, 1909.
Suarez, F. : Commentaria ac Disp. in III Partem D. Thomae (T. XIX, De Mys­
teriis Christi), Paris, Vives, 1866.
Tanquerey, Ad.: Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae (vol. II), Paris, Tornaei, Rome,
Desclee et Socii, 1935.
The Spiritual Life, Tournai, Desclee Co., Imprim. 1930.
Vosté, I.-M. : Commentarius in Summ. Theologiam (De Mysteriis Christi), Pars
III, q. 27-59, Romae, Missionaria Dominica, 1940.
Denzinger-Bannwart: Enchiridion Symbolorum, Friburgi Brisgoviae, Herder Co.,
1942.
Journel, Rouet De: Enchiridium Patristicum, Friburgi Brisgoviae, Herder Co.,
1942.

90

Bibliography

91

Mignc, J. P. : Patrologiae Cursus Completus.
Bainvel, J.: "Anselme,” Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, (Paris), 1909.

T. I, P. II, (e. 1338).
Michel, A.: " Jésus-Christ, ” D.T.C., (Paris) 1924, T. VIII, (c. 1345, 1349).
Richard, L.: "La Redemption, Mystère d’Amour,” Recherches de Science Re­
ligieuse, (Paris) May-August, 1923, vol. XII, no. 3-4, pp. 193, 397.
Rivière, J.: "Redemption,” D.T.C., (Paris), 1937, T. XIII, P. II, (c. 1912).
Note: "Igitur questiones istas triginta tres (a q. 27 ad 59) de mysteriis vitae
Christi haud exposuerunt loannes A S. Thoma f.-P,. Gonet, Salmanticenses : ne
illi quidem qui olim vel etiam recentius specialem tractatum de Incarnatione
reliquerunt.” (Vostc, op. cit., p. v).

B V M