¹ John Chrysostom, On Repentance and Almsgiving, trans. by Gus George Christo (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1998), p. 112.

² Damasus Winzen, ‘Metanoia: Penance, Virtue and Sacrament’, Orate Fratres, 25 (1951), p. 145.

³ Winzen, ‘Metanoia’, p. 145.

⁴ Eleonore Stump, Atonement (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), p. 31.

⁵ Alexis Torrance, Repentance in Late Antiquity: Eastern Asceticism and the Framing of the Christian Life c. 400-650 CE (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), p. 27.

⁶ Torrance, Repentance, pp. 9–10.

⁷ Mark J. Boda, ‘Return to Me’: A Biblical Theology of Repentance, (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2015), p. 146.

⁸ Torrance, Repentance, p. 2.

⁹ Ibid., p. 32.

¹⁰ For example, see Gus George Christo, ‘Introduction’, in John Chrysostom, On Repentance and Almsgiving, pp. xi–xviii.

¹¹ Ibid., p. xiv.

¹² Boda, ‘Return to Me’, pp. 31, 164–65.

¹³ It should be noted that this framework (penance as sacrament and virtue) is not unique to Thomas. Thomas was certainly working from Augustine, Peter Lombard, Albert the Great, and others. For historical context and Aquinas’ development of Penance, see Eric Luijten, Sacramental Forgiveness as a Gift of God: Thomas Aquinas on the Sacrament of Penance (Leuven: Peeters, 2003) and Maria C. Morrow, ‘Reconnecting Sacrament and Virtue: Penance in Thomas’s Summa Theologiae’, New Blackfriars, 91 (2010), pp. 304–20.

¹⁴ Luijten, Sacramental Forgiveness, pp. 48–52.

¹⁵ Ibid., pp. 21–23.

¹⁶ Regarding the inadequacy of the word ‘penance’, Winzen reflects this sentiment, ‘Our word “penance” comes from the Latin poenitentia, a term which has been formed by the juridicial sense of the Romans. As a derivative of poena (punishment), it emphasizes the sinner’s obligation to suffer the punishment assigned to him by divine justice. It fails to convey the deeper aspect of penance as a meeting of hearts between God and man, which makes penance more than a negative thing: a passing through judgment into peace, a restoration, a resurrection’. See Winzen, ‘Metanoia’, p. 146.

¹⁷ Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis, Fire of Mercy, Heart of the Word: Meditations on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, Vol. 1 (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1996), p. 158.

¹⁸ Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, trans. by Fathers of the English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1911–1925). Hereafter ST, all references in the text are to this work.

¹⁹ I want to kindly thank Anton ten Klooster for reminding me of this point.

²⁰ Anton ten Klooster, ‘“Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand!” (Mt 3:1 and 4:17): Conversion in the Gospel and the Christian Life’, Journal of Moral Theology, 10 (2021), p. 52.

²¹ Morrow, ‘Reconnecting Sacrament and Virtue’, p. 311.

²² Ibid., p. 314.

²³ Ibid., p. 314; ST III.85.6, ‘Nevertheless, in a certain respect, [penance] is the first of the other virtues in the order of time, as regards its act, because this act is the first in the justification of the ungodly […]’.

²⁴ Anthony T. Flood, ‘Aquinas on Contrition and the Love of God’, American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, 95 (2021), p. 235.

²⁵ ten Klooster, ‘“Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand!”’, p. 57.

²⁶ Robert C. Roberts, ‘The Logic and Lyric of Contrition’, Theology Today, 50 (1993), p. 198–200.

²⁷ While not explicitly citing Thomas, Roberts’ definition of contrition seems to be clearly influenced by him and thus, I believe, Roberts provides helpful exposition of Thomas’ thoughts on the matter.

²⁸ For Thomas, contritio’s Latin definition as ‘crushing’ or ‘grinding’ is important in clarifying his understanding of contrition as an act of the will, whose principal effect is ‘crushing sin’. For more on Thomas’ exposition of contritio, see Luijten, Sacramental Forgiveness, pp. 56–58.

²⁹ Thomas makes a similar point in ST III.85.5, ‘Whether penance originates from fear?’.

³⁰ Roberts, ‘The Logic and Lyric of Contrition’, p. 200.

³¹ Ibid., p. 207.

³² Khaled Anatolios, Deification Through the Cross: An Eastern Christian Theology of Salvation (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2020), p. 339: ‘Contrition is the form that the human glorification of God takes in the face of human sin. Inasmuch as sin itself should be considered ultimately a “disglorification” of God, contrition is the disavowal of that disglorification and the repentant “return” (shub) to the true glorification of God. In speaking of Christ’s salvific work as doxological contrition, we are saying that Christ translates his perfect divine glorification of the Father in the Spirit into a human mode and that, in the face of human sin, he performs that glorification in and through the mode of contrition’.

³³ Roberts, ‘The Logic and Lyric of Contrition’, p. 202.

³⁴ I am borrowing language from C.S. Lewis, who devotes a chapter to repentance in Mere Christianity called ‘The Perfect Penitent’.

³⁵ Athanasius, On the Incarnation, trans. by John Behr (Yonkers, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2011), p. 56.

³⁶ Anatolios, Deification, p. 172.

³⁷ Winzen, ‘Metanoia’, p. 147.

³⁸ Ibid., p. 149.

³⁹ John McLeod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement and Its Relation to Remission of Sins and Eternal Life (London: Macmillan, 1869), p. 137; Chapter VI, ‘Retrospective Aspect of the Atonement’, is the primary chapter that develops vicarious repentance, pp. 129–50.

⁴⁰ While I recognize there are a variety of forms that ‘penal substitution’ might take, I see Edwards’ penal punishment view as the standard understanding of the term. For an excellent assessment of ‘penal substitution’ as a model for the atonement, see Anatolios, Deification, pp. 411–21.

⁴¹ Christian D. Kettler, ‘The Vicarious Repentance of Christ in the Theology of John McLeod Campbell and R. C. Moberly’, Scottish Journal of Theology, 38 (1985), p. 531.

⁴² Campbell, Nature of the Atonement, p. 137.

⁴³ Ibid., p. 138.

⁴⁴ Ibid., p. 137.

⁴⁵ Ibid., pp. 135–37.

⁴⁶ For two recent examples, see Ian A. McFarland, ‘Response or Remedy? A Reflection on the Role of Contrition in the Economy of Salvation’, International Journal of Systematic Theology, 25 (2023), 22–38 and Maximos Constas, ‘Did Christ Repent? The Greek Fathers and the Vicarious Repentance of Christ’, last modified 21 December 2021, <https://www.pappaspatristicinstitute.com/post/did-christ-repent-the-greek-fathers-and-the-vicarious-repentance-of-christ> [accessed 2 February 2023].

⁴⁷ While I do not underscore the importance of the will in this paper, there are interesting parallels between this idea of the ‘perfectly contrite will’ and St. Maximos the Confessor’s understanding of the ‘deified will’. For more on this idea, see Ian A. McFarland, ‘“Willing Is Not Choosing”: Some Anthropological Implications of Dyothelite Christology’, International Journal of Systematic Theology, 9 (2007), pp. 1–23 and Anatolios, Deification, pp. 345–46.

⁴⁸ Anatolios, Deification Through the Cross, p. 196.

⁴⁹ There are many intriguing areas of overlap between Campbell, Thomas, and Anatolios. One I regretfully had to exclude was Campbell’s reflection on the man of joy and sorrow (p. 131), which echoes the famous term ‘joy-bearing grief’ that Anatolios expounds (p. 337, 368). For more reflection on this idea specifically, see Alexis Torrance, ‘Witnesses of His Sufferings, Partakers of His Glory: Exploring the Doxological Contrition of the Saints’, International Journal of Systematic Theology, 25 (2023), pp. 60–72.

⁵⁰ Contrary to some criticisms, Campbell does clearly maintain that satisfaction for sin is necessary. Campbell is opposed to the view that God can forgive arbitrarily. For more on this topic, see Trevor A. Hart, ‘Anselm of Canterbury and John McLeod Campbell: Where Opposites Meet?’, Evangelical Quarterly, 62 (1990), pp. 311–33.

⁵¹ Thomas, in his commentary on Matthew, also states that penance provides satisfaction for sins. See ten Klooster, ‘“Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand!”’, pp. 60–63 for further insight: ‘Aquinas argues that John and Jesus do not merely call on those who listen to stop sinning but ask that they indeed satisfy for their sins’.

⁵² Anatolios, Deification, pp. 332–33.

⁵³ Ibid., p. 332.

⁵⁴ Campbell, Nature of the Atonement, pp. 144–45.

⁵⁵ Ibid., p. 144.

⁵⁶ Anatolios, Deification, p. 334.

⁵⁷ Campbell, Nature of the Atonement, pp. 145–46; See ST 46.6.4 for similar language from Thomas.

⁵⁸ Campbell, Nature of the Atonement, pp. 139, 148–49.

⁵⁹ Thomas also points to ST III.85.3.3 in his discussion of these differences.

⁶⁰ Campbell, Nature of the Atonement, p. 146.

⁶¹ Kettler, ‘The Vicarious Repentance’, pp. 531–32.

⁶² For an interesting analysis of this idea and J.M. Campbell’s argument, see Oliver Crisp, ‘Non-Penal Substitution’, International Journal of Systematic Theology, 9 (2007), pp. 415–33.

⁶³ Campbell, Nature of the Atonement, p. 147.

⁶⁴ Winzen, ‘Metanoia’, p. 148.

⁶⁵ Campbell, Nature of the Atonement, p. 146.

⁶⁶ Ibid.

⁶⁷ ‘God also sacrifices Godself—the Word made flesh, […] to us. […] Although God, as naturally impeccable, cannot confess sin, God can do something analogous to acknowledging Divine responsibility for creating us in world like this’. See Marilyn McCord Adams, Christ and Horrors: The Coherence of Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 275–76.

⁶⁸ Crisp, ‘Non-Penal Substitution’, p. 423; Crisp summarizes as, ‘God treats Christ’s act of vicarious penitence as if it were an act offered by fallen human beings, such that Christ’s act may be imputed to fallen human beings who may thereby benefit from Christ’s vicarious action’.

⁶⁹ ‘Baptism opens the gates of the heavenly kingdom to the baptized in so far as it incorporates (incorporat) them in the Passion of Christ, by applying (applicando) its power to man’ (ST III.69.7.2); ‘[…] Christ’s Passion is, so to say, applied (applicatur) to man through the sacraments according to the Apostle (Romans 6:3): “All we who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death”’ (ST III.61.1.3).

⁷⁰ In ST III.68.6 respondeo, Thomas calls baptism ‘the door of all the sacraments’. The biblical language of being ‘in’ or ‘joined to’ Christ is immense. As an example of a Latin synonym, adhaereo stresses this point in the 1 Cor. 6:16-17 (Latin Vulgate). ESV: ‘Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh”. But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him’.

⁷¹ One might also argue, and correctly so, that the Eucharist deserves to be placed here in addition to baptism and penance. However, for my purposes, I am focusing exclusively on the sacraments that represent the new life, or metanoia–transformation, brought about through Christ’s passion. See ST III.69.9.5, ‘Both sacraments, viz. Baptism and the Eucharist, are a representation of our Lord’s death and Passion, but not in the same way. For Baptism is a commemoration of Christ’s death in so far as man dies with Christ, that he may be born again into a new life’. Also see ST III.79.5.1, ‘The sacrament of Baptism is directly ordained for the remission of punishment and guilt: not so the Eucharist, because Baptism is given to man as dying with Christ, whereas the Eucharist is given as by way of nourishing and perfecting him through Christ. Consequently there is no parallel’.

⁷² Matthew 3 and 4; Mark 1; Anatolios sees Jesus’ baptism as clearly indicating vicarious repentance: Anatolios, Deification, pp. 154–58.

⁷³ Emphasizing Jesus as the model for receiving baptism is rooted in the patristics, for example, St. John of Damascus: ‘He, however, was baptized not that He himself stood in any need of purification but that by making my purification His own he might “crush the heads of the dragons in the waters”, wash away the sin and bury all of the old Adam in the water, […] and become for us a model and example for the reception of baptism. And we, too, are baptized with the perfect baptism of the Lord […]’. From The Orthodox Faith Book 4, Chapter 9; John of Damascus, Writings, trans. by Frederic H. Chase, Jr. (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1958), p. 347.

⁷⁴ Anatolios, Deification, p. 158.

⁷⁵ While Thomas cites Augustine in ST III.84.9, this also echoes Chrysostom’s reflection on Psalm 50:5 in Homily 7, ‘You, for the safety of your soul, must always have the sin before your eyes. For the memory of past sins hinders future ones; and he who is bitten by his past sins demonstrates the will to be steadfast about the next ones’. Chrysostom, On Repentance, p. 95.

⁷⁶ Morrow, ‘Reconnecting Sacrament and Virtue’, p. 312.

⁷⁷ Penance is by necessity a virtue, because it involves an act of the will – choice by means of right reason (ST III.85.1).

⁷⁸ It is at this point that the virtue of penance, as discussed, is most clearly understood as ordered toward love; While I am focusing principally on repentance’s relationship to the atonement, charity and love of God must be the proper ends of repentance. For a helpful analysis of the relationship between penance and love, see Anthony T. Flood, ‘Aquinas on Contrition and the Love of God’, American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, 95 (2021), pp. 235–48.

⁷⁹ Chrysostom, On Repentance, p. 40.

⁸⁰ Torrance, Repentance in Late Antiquity, p. 29.

⁸¹ The words of a priest carry the divine power instrumentally and also effectively (ST III.84.3).

⁸² Stump, Atonement, pp. 30–31.

⁸³ Ibid., p. 30.

⁸⁴ There are alternative frameworks that also work well with my development of vicarious repentance. One that is plausible might be Christ’s ‘vicarious humanity’ as developed by Oliver Crisp, where Christ’s vicarious repentance culminates in the necessity of the passion. See Crisp, ‘Non-Penal Substitution’, p. 431. For a more detailed discussion of an account of Christ’s vicarious humanity, see also Oliver Crisp, ‘On the Vicarious Humanity of Christ’, International Journal of Systematic Theology, 21 (2019), pp. 235–50.

⁸⁵ Anatolios, Deification, p. 178.

⁸⁶ Ibid., p. 380.

⁸⁷ Ibid., p. 381.

⁸⁸ This passage, Ez. 18:26–28, is the subject of brief reflection by Anselm in Cur Deus Homo 1.20, where it is left implicit that Christ’s passion enables repentance’s merit.

⁸⁹ While he takes a different approach to integrating vicarious repentance and deification, I see Anatolios’ project as particularly helpful in this respect. He is unwilling to see different models as binary, but rather as complimentary pieces in a larger puzzle of Christ’s salvific work. See Anatolios, Deification, pp. 375–83.