Scotus Academicus, Tomus septimus: De Incarnatione Verbi Divini

Three things above all come to be determined in the present Question: First, whether the satisfaction of Christ was offered from the virtue of justice properly so called. Second, whether it was of itself sufficient, and worthy, for expiating the sins of all men. Third, whether it had the conditions for a rigorous justice: which points, that they may appear more evidently,

Note 1. From Aristotle, book 3 of the Ethics, chapter 1, moral virtue is divided generically into that which is exercised about oneself, and that which is chiefly concerned with another: the former moderates the passions, the latter operations. To the first head belong Fortitude, which concerns the passions of the irascible appetite; Temperance, which concerns the passions of the concupiscible; and Prudence, which chiefly moderates the rational affections of the appetite. But Justice is wholly occupied with regulating the actions of man in order to another, so that man render to another what is owed. Now since debt is twofold, one moral, whose obligation arises from right reason, which dictates that it be right and equitable that this or that be rendered to another; the other legal, proceeding from some law, whether natural, or divine positive, or human, obliging one to render an equal for an equal: hence justice is established as twofold; one indeed common, which is found in all the virtues ordered to one's neighbor, or to God; thus it is just to obey the commands of superiors from obedience, to pay God due worship from religion, to come to the aid of parents from piety, etc. The other however is special, which consists in this, that it directly regards debt to be rendered to someone by the prescription and obligation of law. —

Now it is certain that Christ the Lord underwent his Passion, and offered satisfaction, from common justice, for he offered it from the motive of Charity: since he loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood. Apoc. 1. Likewise of Obedience, according to that saying: As the Father gave me commandment, so I do. John 14. Of Religion, as John 17 testifies: For them I sanctify myself, that is, I offer sacrifice, that by its power they may be sanctified, according to that saying to the Hebrews 10: By one oblation he has perfected forever them that are sanctified. But it is disputed among Theologians whether Christ also offered satisfaction from the motive of strict justice.

Note 2. That just as there is a twofold right in the thing, or operation, through which satisfaction can be made, or reward received, so there is in it a twofold value, and dignity: the first right is in order to the thing; the second in order to the person. The right in order to the thing is the title which the meritorious action of the worker acquires in order to the reward; hence he who labored more deserves to receive a greater wage; and this right takes its origin, and is founded, upon the equality of thing to thing. But the right in order to the person is the title which the worker acquires by reason of the meritorious work in order to the one rewarding, which right indeed, although it supposes an equality of the work with the reward received, yet does not arise from it, but depends precisely upon the will of the one rewarding, ordaining, or accepting this merit in order to that reward; for since the thing which is to be the reward is under the dominion and in the power of the one rewarding, until he shall have granted it, its donation and alienation depend upon his consent; whence the worker cannot have a right to it unless he also have a right and title to the person of the one rewarding, arising from that one's own will, namely from free promise and agreement. As is evident from the parable of the laborers who, sent into the vineyard, having made an agreement about the daily denarius, though hired at different hours, some labored longer than others: nevertheless all equally received the same wage: whence although those who had come at the first hour murmured against the householder, saying, Matt. 20: These last have worked one hour, and you have made them equal to us, that have borne the burden of the day and the heats; deservedly the Householder said to one of them: Friend, I do you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what is yours, and go; but I will also give to this last even as to you. Or is it not lawful for me to do what I will? From which it appears that although the greater and longer labor of the workers in the vineyard had a right to ampler wages by reason of the work: nevertheless he ought not to have obtained it, because he did not have the same ground of right in order to the one rewarding, inasmuch as no prior agreement and promise had been made on the part of the one rewarding.

NOTE 3. It is certain that Christ the Lord was truly the redeemer and liberator of the human race, whatever Peter Abailard most wickedly asserted with heretical mind against this Catholic truth, saying that man after the sin of Adam is not held captive under the power of the devil as under the power of a Prince, but only as under a prison keeper: and consequently that the Incarnation of Christ profited us nothing toward redemption, but only toward doctrine and example, as is evident from St. Bernard, Epist. 190, where he thus assails the shamelessness of Abailard: What in these words is more intolerable, the judgment, the blasphemy, or the arrogance? What more damnable, the rashness, or the impiety? Would it not be more just that a mouth speaking such things be beaten with rods, when it is refuted by arguments? etc. For it is evident from Scripture that we were truly reduced through sin into captivity under the devil. Thus 1. to Timothy 2: That they may recover themselves from the snares of the devil, by whom they are held captive at his will. You hear "at his will," says St. Bernard, and do you deny the power? Hence Christ, John 14: The prince of this world came, and in me he has nothing: that is, he does not have power over me in that manner in which he has it over men; wherefore the Council of Trent, session 6, chapter 1, teaches that men in the transgression of Adam not only lost innocence, but also were made slaves of sin and under the power of the devil and of death. But from this captivity Christ redeemed us, as sacred Scripture teaches in very many places. Thus to the Galatians 2: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law: to Timothy 2: Who gave redemption for himself for all; 1. Peter 2: You were not redeemed with corruptible gold and silver, but with the precious blood of Christ. But the difficulty is, whether that redemption was made: first, from justice; second, unto equality; third, from the rigor of justice, which indeed must be determined in the following Conclusions.

First Conclusion. — CHRIST THE LORD SATISFIED TO GOD FOR THE SINS OF THE HUMAN RACE FROM A SPECIAL MOTIVE OF LEGAL JUSTICE.

It is proved first, from sacred Scripture affirming that the divine justice appeared in the satisfaction of Christ. Thus to the Romans 3: Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to show forth his justice for the remission of former sins: and to the Corinthians 1: He is made unto us wisdom from God, and justice, and sanctification, and redemption: and to the Colossians 2: Blotting out the handwriting of the decree that was against us, etc.; by which similitude he signifies that Christ from justice paid our debt; for when a debt is paid, e.g., of money, from special justice, straightway the juridical handwriting whereby the debtor was previously bound toward the creditor is torn and broken. — And St. Peter, epistle 1, chapter 2, verse 24: who bore our sins in his own body upon the tree; in which words the Apostle, writing to the Jews, speaks in the Jewish manner, and alludes to the Jewish victims, by whose slaughter the Jews thought themselves delivered from their sins. And as the Jews immolated victims for their sins, and transferred those victims burdened with this weight of sins upon the altar and the wood of the altar; so our Lord

Jesus is represented by the Apostle as a victim laden with our sins, and that he transferred and laid down that detestable weight, near as it was and most heavy, upon the altar of the cross and that wood with most courageous spirit. The Apostle perhaps also alludes to the scapegoat which on the day of expiation was laden with the sins of the whole people, and was sent away far into the desert, as is evident from these words of Leviticus, chapter 16, verses 21 and 22: and laying both hands upon the head of the goat, let him confess all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their offenses and sins, as if cursing them upon its head, and he shall send him away by a man ready into the desert. Whichever way the goat shall have borne all their iniquities into an uninhabited land, and shall have been let go into the desert, etc. Therefore the high priest in public sacrifices and those of the whole people, when he represented the people, was accustomed to impose hands upon the victims for sin, with confession of his own sins and those of the whole people, in these words: I beseech thee, O Lord, I have sinned, I have offended, I have rebelled in thy sight, I and my house and the sons of Aaron, thy holy people; I beseech thee, O Lord, forgive now the sins, offenses, and rebellions in which I have sinned, offended, and rebelled in thy sight, I and my house and the sons of Aaron, thy holy people, as it is written in the law of Moses thy servant, where it is said, on this day there shall be expiation and cleansing for you from all your sins. See the codex Ioma in the Misna, and Maimonides in Iom Haecipurim. From these things it appears how truly St. John the Baptist spoke to the Jews, who flowed to him in most numerous throngs, when he saw Christ the Lord hastening to him with others about the time of expiation: Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Which words were uttered by him precisely that he might recall the minds and eyes of the Jews from the goat of expiation, in which they wished to place the hope of their expiation, and turn them to Christ the lamb, even the most excellent. Inasmuch as he would take away sin not ceremonial but moral; bear punishment, not typical and temporal, but the whole punishment, congruous to the merits of sins, and upon which had been imposed not only the sins of one Jewish nation, but the sins of the whole world. The divine Apostle confirms this, epistle to the Colossians, chapter 2, verse 14, where he says that Christ granted us forgiveness of all sins, because, he says, he blotted out the handwriting of the decree that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, fastening it to the cross. For sin is like an obligation whereby we were liable by the judgment of God; whence since obligations secured by handwritings are rendered null when they are erased, settled, and cancelled; so Christ blotted out upon the cross and utterly removed the obligations contracted by us from our sins; so much so that before God they no longer stand and appear as accusers and witnesses demanding his vengeance and judgments against us; he transfixed them with the nail of the beam of the cross, he cancelled them, he exposed them torn, void, vain, he crucified them, exhibited them as dead and lifeless, and rendered them no less powerless than the crucified one who, with blood poured out through all his wounds, truly died and breathed forth his soul.

The same thing the holy Fathers teach, affirming that God did not wish to fight with the devil, nor assail him with power, but with justice in the redemption of men. Thus St. Augustine, book 13 De Trinitate, c. 13: If therefore, he says, the commission of sins, through the just anger of God, subjected man to the devil, certainly the remission of sins, through the benign reconciliation of God, drew man out of the devil's hands. But the devil was not to be overcome by the power of God, but by justice. What then is that justice by which the devil was conquered? What, if not the justice of Jesus Christ? And how was he conquered? Why, when he found in him nothing worthy of death, he nevertheless killed him. And assuredly it is just, that the debtors whom he held should be set free, believing in him whom he killed without any debt. To him subscribe the other holy Fathers praised by us above, Question 1, while we were proving that the Incarnation was fitting for manifesting the divine justice.

It is proved also by reason: Then does one satisfy from legal justice properly so called, when per se he intends to establish an equality, as owed by some law: but Christ offered his merits to God with the intention of rendering to him an equal for the debt contracted by men. Which indeed is proved, both because Christ was our surety, and constituted himself as pledge for us in his Incarnation: therefore he ought to offer his merits to God with the intention of satisfying him for us; and because his merits were sufficient, indeed even superabundant, for paying our debt, as the following Conclusion will make plain: therefore he ought to offer them to God from the motive of justice, and with the intention of satisfying unto equality; finally because he was moved to it by divine decree, whereby God had determined to grant us the pardon of all our offenses if he himself should lay down his life for us, according to that saying of Isaiah, chapter 53: If he shall lay down his life for sin, he shall see a long-lived seed, and the will of God shall be directed in his hand: for his labor his soul shall be glad and be filled: therefore since Christ offered his merits for us to the Father, he did this with the intention of rendering to God the debt unto equality according to the agreement and divine law, and consequently performed an act of proper and special justice. — Further, servants and true slaves are bound to render observance and obedience to their lord from a proper debt of special justice: and where they offend against such a debt, they are bound to repair it not only by virtue of obedience, but also by virtue of justice: but we are true slaves with respect to God, who is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, whose is the earth and the fullness thereof, and all they that dwell therein: therefore by virtue of justice we are bound not only to render him obedience; but also to repair what has not been rendered from the motive of the same justice: now Christ the Lord satisfied for all the debts contracted through our sins; therefore he ought to satisfy not only for the debt of punishments which were to be retributed for our sins, but he also ought to render such obedience and an equal debt to God, to compensate for the defect of the exercise of the virtues which we were bound to exercise for the glory and worship of God. — Finally, when one is bound by special and proper justice to render the reward, then the merit of the worker is considered to exact that reward from justice: but God, supposing his promise and law, is bound to render to Christ as the reward of his merits the remission of our debt, seeing that he was heard for his reverence: therefore the satisfaction and merit of Christ was bestowed from the virtue of justice.

You will say 1. From Aristotle, book 5 of the Ethics, chapter 1: Justice must be toward another: but the satisfaction of Christ was toward himself, since he satisfied God, and he himself is God: therefore this justice was not properly so called. — I distinguish the major: justice must be toward another, either physically, or morally. I concede: physically only. I deny. And so, the minor being distinguished, the consequence must be denied. For in order that justice be toward another properly, it is not necessary that it be toward another supposit physically, or metaphysically speaking, but it suffices that it be toward another supposit morally: and it is toward another in this way when one person, metaphysically considered, stands morally as distinct, as twofold, namely by reason of dominion and right: for it can happen that one and the same man, taken physically and metaphysically, appears twofold morally: thus a tutor, by reason of administering the property of his pupil, can be debtor, and by reason of his own right can be creditor. This is also illustrated by the example of a merchant who is a member of two partnerships: for he is morally a twofold person, and to himself, as metaphysically considered, he is frequently both debtor and creditor. The same by the example of a man who, possessing an estate owing to another a certain sum of annual revenue, if he buy another estate which owes rent to the first, becomes morally a twofold person; and can under one respect be simultaneously debtor and creditor. Now Christ the Lord stood thus; for sustaining two natures through the hypostasis of the Word, he was morally a twofold person, and by reason of the two natures assumed had distinct rights and dominions: and he was simultaneously debtor by reason of the assumed human nature, through which he had constituted himself surety for men: and creditor by reason of the divine nature, which had been injured by the sins of men; whence he is also called Mediator of God and men, 1. to Timothy 2. For it no more conflicts that he be debtor by reason of one nature, and creditor by reason of the other, than it conflicts that by reason of one nature he be Mediator, and by reason of the other be him between whom and others he is mediator: now Christ the Lord, by reason of the human nature, is the Mediator of God and men: but by reason of the divine nature, he is the one between whom and men the Mediator stood: therefore also by reason of the two natures he could be simultaneously creditor and debtor.

You will say 2. From the same Aristotle, in the same place, chapter 6, there can be no true obligation of justice between father and son, or lord and servant: but Christ, inasmuch as He is man, is Son and servant of God: therefore from His operations as man there could not intervene an obligation of justice toward God. — I distinguish the major: between son and father, servant and lord, there cannot intervene an obligation of justice, if the son and the servant do not hold domains distinct from the domains of the father and the lord. This I concede: otherwise, I deny it. Christ, however, as man, has a right distinct, and a dominion different from the right and dominion of His Father and God: since He holds dominion over the works of His humanity, by which He made satisfaction to the Father and to God; and accordingly in His satisfaction true justice could intervene.

You will say 3. No one can make satisfaction from justice unless he be a debtor: yet not Christ Himself, but we ourselves were debtors for our sins: therefore Christ did not make satisfaction from justice. — I answer 1. The major can be denied: for someone can pay another's debt from mercy indeed with respect to the debtor, but from justice with respect to the creditor: for instance, if anyone moved by mercy toward some captive, or destitute man, pays for him a certain sum of money which he owed, he makes satisfaction from justice to the creditor, although he is moved by mercy toward the debtor. I answer 2. By denying the minor: for Christ, having constituted Himself surety and pledge for us, and voluntarily undertaken the office of Redeemer, constituted Himself likewise debtor for us toward God: therefore just as a surety is bound from justice to pay the debt when the debtor is unable to pay it; so also Christ the Lord on this account ought to make satisfaction for us from justice.

You will say finally: The same Christ would have to exercise an act in making satisfaction for us which we are bound to elicit while we make satisfaction for our sins: yet we do not make satisfaction by an act of justice, but of penance: therefore Christ also did not make satisfaction from justice. — I answer by denying the minor: for man existing in grace renders to God the satisfaction owed not only through the virtue of penance, but also through the virtue of justice, yet from different motives, because through penance he makes satisfaction from a motive of avenging sin; through justice truly from a motive of rendering to God an equivalent for sin, according to the prescription of divine ordination; and this was especially true in Christ, since He exhibited to God a satisfaction condign and proportioned to equality, as is manifest.

Second Conclusion. — The satisfaction of Christ was not only such as it was, but most sufficient also, and superabundant in order to the reward: it needed nevertheless the divine acceptance, that He might obtain that from the One rewarding it. This Conclusion consists of two parts, of which

The first is proved by that passage to the Romans 5. Not as the offense, so also the gift; for if by the offense of one many died, much more the grace of God, and the gift in the grace of one man Jesus Christ has abounded unto many.... For as by the disobedience of one man many were constituted sinners, so also by the obedience of one many shall be constituted just.... But where sin abounded, grace superabounded. To these agrees the prophecy of Isaiah chapter 10. The consumption of the word shall wash away iniquity. Which St. Paul interprets Romans 9. concerning Christ, to signify that the works of Christ, as it were consummated and abbreviated in the word, which the Lord hath made short upon the earth, poured forth as it were an overflowing fountain of justice, for the expiation of our sins. Hence Luke 9. Christ speaking with Elias and Moses about His passion, they spoke of the excess which He was about to accomplish in Jerusalem, by which it is declared that the passion of Christ exceeded, in the reason of satisfaction, all our offenses.

It is proved also from the Supreme Pontiffs; for Pope Gaius, Epistle 1., decretal, expounding the words of St. Paul cited above, says: More resplendent was made the gift of liberty than the debt of servitude. Agapetus, Epistle to Authimus, after saying that no mere man could have been made worthy to make satisfaction for us all, subjoins the cause for which Christ made satisfaction, in these words: The effusion of righteous blood was not vile, and precious, as if the multitude of captives believed in their redeemer, that it would loosen no bond of the devil: since, as the Apostle says, where sin abounded, grace superabounded. And since born under the injury of sin we received the power of ministering injustice, more resplendent was made the gift of liberty than the bond of servitude. These words he took from St. Leo, sermon 12. On the Passion. To these agrees Clement V. in the extravagante Unigenitus, where, to show the abundance of the merits of Christ, which are said to be in the treasury of the Church, that they cannot be exhausted, he says: Not a little drop of blood, which nevertheless on account of its union with the Word would have sufficed for the redemption of the whole human race, but copiously as a kind of outpouring He is known to have shed it.

The holy Fathers concur also: above all St. Chrysostom, sermon 11. on chapter 5. to the Romans, where he writes thus: Christ paid for us; and more things by how much an immense sea exceeds a tiny drop... do not despair therefore, O man, since you see such great riches of goods, etc.

The author On the cardinal works of Christ subscribes: speaking of the Circumcision he says: That one oblation of our Redeemer was of such dignity, that one alone sufficed for taking away the sins of the world: who entered into the holy places with so great authority in His own blood, that thereafter He had need of no alien blood for the petitions of suppliants.

Finally St. Bernard, explaining that passage Psalm 129. Plenteous with him is redemption, says sermon 22. on the Canticles: Truly plenteous, he says, because not a drop, but a wave of blood flowed forth generously through the five parts of the body. And Epistle 190. There was certainly blood, which being shed was so much for forgiving, that it blotted out even that greatest sin by which it came to pass that it should be shed.

To these favors the Council of Tribur chapter 19. where it says that in the consecration of the chalice more wine than water is mixed in, that it may be shown that greater is the power of the blood of Christ than the frailty of the people, which is designated by water.

The same truth Doctor Subtilis teaches and defends Doctor Subtilis in 3. dist. 19. n. 7. where he says the merit of Christ by reason of the divine person had an infinite circumstance, by reason of which it was fitting that it be accepted for infinite things. In that formal reason, he says, which itself had, it could not be accepted in the infinite, and for infinite things, but for finite things. Nevertheless from the circumstance of the supposit, and de congruo by reason of the supposit, it had a certain preeminent reason why God could accept it in the infinite, namely extensively for infinite things. But if that merit had been of another person, then neither by reason of the work nor by reason of the worker would its acceptance for infinite things have been congruous. In which the Doctor plainly teaches that the merits of Christ by reason of the divine person had congruence, that is, value and dignity, so that they might be accepted by God for paying the infinite sins of men: every congruity with the Doctor is the same as value and dignity with the Recentiores: although it is not thus called by him, because there is not integral value where there is not true right against the One rewarding, which the meritorious works of Christ did not have of themselves, but only from the divine acceptance. — The same he has in 1. dist. 15. q. 1. where he says: By the ordinary power God did not dispose to reconcile an enemy to Himself except through an homage more grateful than his offense, as displeasing to Himself, and such an homage of his is the passion of Christ, or his merit. Where it must be weighed that he speaks of the value of the merits which they have before acceptance: for as he said immediately, they can only have a value equal with the debt, since satisfaction for that alone is actually accepted: therefore when he says that the homage of Christ was more grateful, it is understood of the acceptability which that homage had before actual acceptance.

From these things it appears how shamefully the greater part of the More Recent Authors hallucinate, while they affirm that the Doctor holds that the merits of Christ were condign only in order to the reward, solely by reason of divine acceptation; for the abundance of merit is not to be sought from the acceptation of the one rewarding, but from the dignity of the one acting. Therefore, although the Doctor teaches that before acceptation merit does not possess complete condignity in order to the reward — for this cannot be complete unless it also gives a right in order to the one rewarding — nevertheless he contends that those merits were in themselves most sufficient, such as would be accepted by God for paying our debts; so that if God had placed all the sins of men in a balance, and the merits of Christ on the other side, there would be no doubt that the merits of Christ would far preponderate, as St. Bernard excellently teaches in the Homily on the two Disciples going to Emmaus, where he teaches that the punishment which Christ endured for the sins of the human race, weighed in the balance of the cross, was by reason of satisfaction far greater than our sins had merited. Now he says: The cross was made the balance of the body, which is the Church: for when he himself was being crucified, there were weighed with him the sins which we have committed, the calamity which we have incurred: he himself was innocent, unstained, separate from sinners, and his conversation higher than the heavens: for he did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth, and because he who was so great and of such a kind deigned to suffer so unworthy a thing on the cross, he weighed out the taking away of calamity, and the binding up of crimes: yet while he still stood erected on the cross, the balance seemed to waver, nor was it plainly known whither it ought to fall; when with head bowed he gave up the spirit, and the calamity fell by preponderating, and appeared heavier than the sand of the sea, the nations were reckoned as the weight of the balance: for into the balance they fell, because the opposing parts lost the handwriting of our damnation.

To these things also this argument lends its support: That satisfaction is held to be condign in order to the reward, namely the remission of offense, whereby it morally equals the gravity of the injury: but the satisfaction of Christ morally equaled the gravity of the offense inflicted upon God by the sins of men: therefore it was condign in order to the reward. The major is evident. The minor is proved: the gravity of the offense arising from the sins of men is chiefly drawn from this, that it is against God, who, since he is an infinite object, whence a certain supreme and extrinsically infinite indignity redounds upon that offense; but the satisfaction of Christ, since it was exhibited by a divine person, had also by reason of its principle a certain moral and extrinsically infinite dignity equaling the gravity of the offense; because the dignity of the person satisfying is no less powerful unto influencing moral value in the satisfactory act than is the dignity of the person offended unto influencing gravity and moral malice in the offense inflicted upon him: therefore since the satisfaction of Christ is the satisfaction of a divine person, its dignity no less equals the majesty of the injured person than does the offense of men. — It is confirmed: it was fitting, and congruous, that just as the mercy of God shone forth most of all in the reparation of the human race, so also the divine justice should shine forth therein: All the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth: but the justice of God would not shine forth in the redemption of men if the satisfaction of Christ were not of itself condign in order to the reward, because all its value would hang upon the divine acceptation, and thereupon the whole payment would be from the liberality and clemency of God: therefore that both these divine perfections might shine forth equally in our redemption, it was necessary that the merits of Christ, besides the divine acceptation, be of themselves sufficient for paying all our debts.

The second part is also proved, namely that the satisfaction of Christ, that it might be complete on every side, both in order to the reward and in respect of the one rewarding, had need of being accepted by God. It is proved, I say, first both from sacred Scripture and from the holy Fathers signifying that the acceptation and covenant of God are desired for the condignity of the merits of Christ: for to this tends the pact, and covenant, and oath of God, whereby he promised the redemption of Christ to the most holy Patriarchs and Prophets. To this tends also that famous promise made to Christ to come, Isaiah 53. If he shall lay down his life for sin, etc. Hence St. Ambrose, expounding the words of Psalm 118. Uphold me according unto thy word, and so forth: after he had said: We ask that we be received by Christ: he adds: Moreover I should seem to carry presumption were I to say to the Lord: Uphold me; unless I joined his promise: that is, that thou thyself didst make this, that we might dare this: thou hast redeemed thyself by thy handwriting. By which he signifies that our works are meritorious completely insofar as they are accepted by God, nor can we hope to attain the divine reward unless it has been promised.

Reason persuades the same thing: for nothing created can induce an obligation in God to confer anything, unless he himself, from his liberty and clemency, shall have willed to bind himself by promises to grant it. Otherwise he would not be altogether independent: but the satisfactory works of Christ were truly in their entity something created: therefore they could in no way bind God, so that in their reward he would grant the remission of our sins, unless he himself had willed the same by his free ordination and acceptation.

You will say 1: The value of the satisfactory works of Christ did not equal the gravity of the offense of all sins: therefore his satisfaction was not condign in respect of the reward. The antecedent is proved: First, because offense is inflicted upon God as God is: but the satisfactory works of Christ proceed not from him inasmuch as he is God, but inasmuch as he is man: for he satisfies not as God, but as man: therefore the satisfactory value of those works did not equal the gravity of the offense of sins. Next, there cannot be a satisfaction bestowed so pleasing and honorable as the offense of men was displeasing and injurious. For sin displeases God as much as his own goodness pleases him, against which sin is opposed: because as much as any thing is loved, so much is its destructive contrary hated and displeasing: but the satisfactory works of Christ cannot please God as much as his own divine goodness pleases him: therefore they do not correspond equally to the offense. Finally, the gravity of the offense inflicted upon God by a creature is infinite, both on the part of the person against whom the sin is committed, and on the part of the offending person, who is infinitely distant from God: but the satisfaction of Christ can be held infinite only on the part of the person satisfying, not truly on the part of him to whom satisfaction is exhibited, because satisfaction does not grow by reason of the person to whom it is paid, nay rather its value is more depressed: for the worthier the person, the more excellent also a satisfaction he requires: and consequently what would suffice in respect of another of lesser dignity cannot be sufficient in respect of a more worthy person: therefore the gravity of sins was far greater than the value of the satisfaction of the works of Christ; and consequently so far are they from having been superabundant, that indeed they could not have possessed condignity.

I deny the antecedent, and to its first proof I say, that Christ did not satisfy only as man, nor only as God; but as God-man, inasmuch as the humanity elicited the satisfactory works, the personality of the Word urging them on, which influenced the satisfactory value into them, and consequently instilled into them a certain infinite dignity, at least extrinsically, namely by reason of the infinite person from which those works proceeded. To the second proof, I deny the antecedent and the argument of its proof; for it is not necessary that God hate sin as much as he loves his own goodness, since sin is not opposed physically to that goodness, but only morally; but the satisfactory works of Christ render as much honor to the divine goodness as injury is inflicted upon it through sin. To the third proof I say, that if sin possesses any infinitude, that infinitude is not intrinsic, but only extrinsic, namely by reason of the infinite person offended: but the satisfaction of Christ has extrinsic infinitude not only from this heading, but also on the part of the person satisfying: for since this is infinite, even its works are worthy to be accepted for infinite things on behalf of men, as we said above with the Doctor.

You will say 2: The personality of the Word does not confer upon the works of Christ an intrinsically infinite value, as the Doctor teaches in dist. 19 of book 3, but only extrinsically; therefore those satisfactory works are of finite value only: but the finite value of a satisfactory work not only does not exceed, nay not even equals, the gravity of the offense of all sins: therefore so far is it that the satisfaction of Christ was superabundant, rather it was not condign and equal. — I distinguish the minor: the finite value of a satisfactory work cannot suffice for the expiation of all sins according to some degrees of its value, I concede: where it involves all whatsoever degrees of value which can be found in any satisfactory work, I deny. And although the works of Christ did not possess an intrinsically infinite value, they nevertheless possessed a supreme value, which could befit created works. Hence it is that, since besides a divine person, on account of his most eminent excellence, illustrated those works in a wonderful manner, he exhibited them also worthy to become most acceptable to God for the paying of our sins.

You will say 3: If the satisfaction of Christ had been exuberant in order to the debts, God could not have refused it: therefore it had no need of divine acceptation for the completion of its perfection. The consequence is evident: for where more is rendered than is owed, the debt is most exactly paid: but the most exact payment of a debt cannot be refused by the creditor: therefore etc. — I distinguish the antecedent: he could not refuse it by reason of the value of the work itself, and of its condignity to the reward, I concede: by reason of the liberty of the one rewarding himself, who cannot be bound by anything external to grant something unless he has spontaneously bound himself thereto by his promises, I deny.

You will say 4: Everyone sins against equity who exacts satisfaction beyond what is owed: but God, by exacting the satisfaction of Christ, could not sin against equity: therefore it was not superabundant, and beyond what was owed. — I distinguish the major: when a satisfaction can be exhibited without that excess, I concede: when it cannot be repaid, I deny. So it is in the present case, for God could not be satisfied to equality according to the statute law except by a divine person; but satisfaction proceeding from a divine person necessarily exceeded human debts, on account of the dignity of the person who exhibited it; not therefore did God act against equity, while he exacted the satisfaction of Christ, although superabundant.