Satisfaction satisfactio; the action of satisfying, that is to say, making amends for any injury or paying a debt.

The term satisfaction in its natural meaning brings with itself one or the other of these ideas. A man has incurred a debt, he repays it; it is said that he has satisfied his creditor. A person offends or insults another, be it by words or actions; he then make amends for this offense, either by apologizing to the person harmed or by other means; it is equally said that he has satisfied the person he has insulted.

Two forms of satisfaction are distinguishable; one rigorous and properly defined, the other non-rigorous and less strictly defined. The first is defined as a redress proportional to the insult one has made or the payment of a sum equal to what was borrowed: by non-rigorous and less-strictly defined satisfaction is meant a redress disproportionate to the offense one has committed but nevertheless by which the wronged party contents himself out of pure goodness and mercy; or the payment of a sum unequal to what was borrowed and by which the creditor is contented to erase the debt of his debtor.

The question of Jesus Christ’s satisfaction for human salvation is one the most controversial matters between the Catholics and the Socinians. The latter agree that Jesus Christ has satisfied God for us; but they understand that he has only improperly and metaphorically satisfied Him by fulfilling all the conditions that he had taken on himself to bring about our salvation, and obtaining from God a free release from the debts we had incurred against Him through sin; either because Jesus Christ imposed on himself penalties to show us what we ought to suffer to obtain pardon for our crimes; or because he showed us by his example, his guidance, and his preachings the path to which we must hold in order to enter heaven; or finally because he made it known to us by his sacrifice that it was necessary to accept death with perfect resignation to the will of God in punishment for our sins.

The Socinians admit further that Jesus Christ is the savior of the world; but only through his teachings, his guidance, and his examples, and not by the merit and efficacy of his death; and if they are forced to say that Jesus Christ died for us, they understand it to be for our benefit and our use, and not that he suffered death in the place of guilty mankind.

In order to destroy these false or insufficient interpretations, Catholics say firstly that Jesus Christ satisfied God properly and rigorously by paying to his father a price, not only equivalent, but even overabundant for the sins of man, the infinite price of his blood: secondly, that he is their savior not only through his teachings, his guidance, and his examples, but by the merit and efficacy of his death: thirdly, that he did not simply die for our benefit, but instead of us, in our place, and by true substitution in the place of guilty mankind.

Sin, being simultaneously a debt by which we are obliged to divine justice, an intimacy between God and man, a crime that renders us guilty and worthy of eternal damnation, it follows that in all these regards God is, in relation to us, like a creditor to whom we owe, like the offended party that we must appease, like a judge who must punish us. Rigorous satisfaction therefore likewise requires 3 things: first, the payment of debt: secondly, a means of appeasing divine justice: thirdly, atonement for the crime; from which it is easy to conclude that being ourselves unable to fulfill these conditions, we needed a guarantor, close to God, who could take on our debt and who could pay it for us: second, a mediator who would reconcile us with God: third, a priest and a victim who would take our place and who would atone for our sins by the penalties to which he was subjugating himself. Now, this is what Jesus Christ fully accomplished, as catholic theologians demonstrate it, in works to which we direct the reader.

For, without going into detail here that would take us off track, and moreover is not a concern of this Work; it suffices to remark, in order to make understood the insufficiencies the of Socinian interpretation that we have referred to above: first, that if Jesus Christ had only died to confirm his doctrine, he would have done nothing more than plenty of other martyrs and saints, of which it is never said that they have died or have been crucified for us, nor that they have provided satisfaction for our sins: secondly, that if he only died for our benefit, one must not attribute our redemption more to his death than to his miracles and his actions, which had for their aim the benefit of Christians. Now, it has never been said that the miracles and the life of Jesus Christ were the efficient and immediate cause of our redemption. Thirdly, that in the scriptures the atonement for our sins and our reconciliation with God are constantly attributed to the death of Jesus Christ, as efficient cause, and never as exemplary cause of the death that we ourselves should have suffered as punishment for these sins. It is clearly marked in the Holy Books that death is the penalty and the wages of sin, stipendium peccati mors [the wages of sin are death]; but it is nowhere stated that it must bring about forgiveness or our reconciliation with God.

There is considerable difficulty on this matter. That is, knowing whether the satisfaction of Jesus Christ, considered in relation to himself, was made to a third party, or whether as the theologians say, it was accomplished ad alterum [to another]; that is to say, if Jesus Christ himself satisfied himself. Some authors claim that he only satisfied the Eternal Father and the Holy Spirit, and as for what concerned him, he freely gave to men what they owed to him. However, as the Scripture says that Jesus Christ satisfied God, and thus, all of the very Holy Trinity, and that furthermore it doesn’t speak of the pardon accorded solely by Jesus Christ, most theologians affirm that Jesus Christ was himself satisfied in a manner that his satisfaction was really ad alterum [to another]. For this, it suffices, they say, to conceive of in Jesus Christ different aspects of his person. According to some of these respects, he satisfied himself, considered in respects, as if the Premier Magistrate of a republic was taking a sum of money from the public treasury, and distributing it to each private individual, taking for a himself a portion on the condition of returning it within a certain time; When he returns it, he would as a private individual satisfy himself, considered as the head of the republic. Since Jesus Christ is of two natures, two wills, and two types of workings, one can thus say that according to the other set, he has himself satisfied himself, considered in other respects, not that it be in him God who has satisfied man but the man-God that has satisfied God. See Wuistasse, Trait. de l'incarnat . part. II. quoest. x. article 1. sect. 1. and article 11. sect. 111.