2. Whether this Sort of Satisfaction for Guilt is Possible for Man

a. Anselm’s Solution

17. About the second [n.10] it is said [Anselm, Why God Man I ch.23] that it is not possible for man to make satisfaction to God for sin - to God, I say, whom he has offended.

18. First [Anselm, I ch.13], because by sin the honor due to God is taken away; but nothing equivalent to the honor of God can be returned to him by us.

19. Second [Anselm, I ch.21], because mortal sin is an infinite evil; for it is an evil as great as he against whom the sin is committed; nothing but a finite good can be given back to him by us;     therefore , it is not equivalent; therefore etc     . [it does not make satisfaction].

20. Again, from another middle term, namely from what is otherwise due [Augustine, 86 Diverse Questions q.68 n.6, Bernard, On Loving God ch.6 n.16, cited by Richard of Middleton, Sent. IV d.15 princ.1 q.2], argument is made thus, that whatever we can pay out to God of obeisance and honor is all due to him by reason of creation, governance, and redemption; therefore, we cannot pay out to him what is not due to him, even from the innocent, and consequently it is due to him otherwise than for sin.

21. It is said, therefore [Anselm, II chs.18-19], that the sinner can make satisfaction in virtue of the passion of Christ, because that passion is so far accepted by the Triune God that, by virtue of his passion, the satisfaction is accepted that, accepted by itself, would not be satisfaction.

b. What Should be Said of Anselm’s Solution

22. But if this opinion is taking its understanding about God’s absolute power, because God could not accept any act of a penitent as a just satisfaction for sin save insofar as this act is conjoined with the merit of Christ’s passion - here is disproof of it [cf. also Scotus, Lectura III d.20 nn.12-39].

23. First, because it is not impossible for the Son of God not to have been incarnate and, consequently, not to have suffered; and it would have been possible, along with this, for God to have brought the predestined to beatitude, and to have done so justly (without however excluding mercy). Therefore, it would have been possible for the penitent to have made satisfaction for himself - for God cannot beatify the sinner justly without satisfaction.

24. This is confirmed by Augustine, On the Trinity XIII ch.10 n.13, “There was also, indeed, another way possible for our redemption, namely other than by the incarnation and passion; but none was more agreeable to the healing of our misery.” Therefore, our fall could be healed in a way other than through the incarnation and passion of Christ.

25. Again the passion of Christ only destroys our fault as a meritorious cause, and consequently as a second cause, which is not of the essence of the thing; indeed, it is reduced to the genus of efficient cause. But whatever God can do through a second efficient cause he can do immediately; therefore he could, without it, justly and in ordered manner remit guilt.

26. But if it be said to these two arguments [nn.23, 25] that God could, without the mediation of Christ, have destroyed the fault of the wayfarer, and so have led him to beatitude (according to the first argument [n.23]), and have immediately justified him

(according to the second argument [n.25]); yet not by way of satisfaction (because there would not have been anything equivalent then to give back), but now there is a whole equivalent through the passion of Christ (but with this passion being such as to be a satisfaction for it) - On the contrary: satisfaction is a returning of equivalent for equivalent; but the sin turning away from God was as evil as the turning back to God out of charity was good; also, my sin took away as much good (and not more), and as much good can be in my act, as was of a nature to be in my act; so through that amount of good, therefore, can something altogether equivalent be given back.

27. If it be said that my act is not the equivalent in good of the evil in displeasure [sc. caused to God] unless the act be elicited by grace, but the first grace would only be given to a sinner by the passion of Christ - on the contrary, because the first grace can very well, by the absolute power of God, be given without the merit of the passion of Christ.

28. The proof is:

Because the supreme grace given to a creature is given to the soul of Christ, and without any merit; for in no way was his passion either displayed or foreseen in respect of the grace to be conferred on him; rather, it was foreseen that he was going to have grace first before his passion was to be accepted.

Again, the passion of Christ was a finite good, even when taken according to the whole idea of merit in it; because it was not an uncreated good, nor consequently was it accepted by God infinitely on the part of the object, because God was not blessed by willing or loving that passion as he is by loving his essence. If infinity in sin, therefore, would prohibit possible satisfaction, it will also prohibit it after the passion of Christ is in place.

c. Scotus’ own Solution

29. As concerns this article [n.10], it can be said that God could, of his absolute power, have given the sinner after attrition, as through a fitting disposition and merit by congruity, a grace by which the sinner’s movement would become contrition, and thus, by satisfaction, have destroyed sin, because by an act returning to God the equivalent of the good that sin took away.

30. This act could also be otherwise not due, because although (if God wished to obligate us) we be bound to God whatever we are and do, yet he, of his very great mercy, considering our weakness and difficulty in respect of good, did not wish to obligate us by way of rule save to the Decalogue; and he could then have ordained to obligate man only to the Decalogue, without incarnating Christ. Man, therefore, could then do some works of supererogation that would otherwise not be due from him, and then the whole idea of satisfaction would be saved.

31. However God, of his ordained power, has not disposed to give the sinner the first grace save in virtue of the merit of him who was without sin, namely Christ; because, as was touched on above [nn.27-28], he did not dispose to reconcile the enemy to himself save through an obedience more welcome to himself than the offence of his was displeasing to himself; and such obedience of his is the passion of Christ and its merit. And thus did he not dispose to give grace to the sinner without the passion of Christ, without which grace there cannot be satisfaction at all, because not equivalent in any way either simply or in divine acceptation. Therefore, much more of ordained power is it not possible for satisfaction to be made to God save in virtue of the passion of Christ.