Leo:

Sins of the world:

1) What hope then do they, who deny the reality of the human person in our Savior’s body, leave for themselves in the efficacy of this mystery? Let them say by what sacrifice they have been reconciled, by what blood-shedding brought back.  Who is He “who gave Himself for us an offering and a victim to God for a sweet smell:” or what sacrifice was ever more hallowed than that which the true High priest placed upon the altar of the cross by the immolation of His own flesh? For although in the sight of the Lord the death of many of His saints has been precious, yet no innocent’s death was the propitiation of the world.  The righteous have received, not given, crowns:  and from the endurance of the faithful have arisen examples of patience, not the gift of justification.  For their deaths affected themselves alone, and no one has paid off another’s debt by his own death: one alone among the sons of men, our Lord Jesus Christ, stands out as One in whom all are crucified, all dead, all buried, all raised again. Of them He Himself said “when I am lifted from the earth, I will draw all (things) unto Me ” True faith also, that justifies the transgressors and makes them just, is drawn to Him who shared their human natures and wins salvation in Him, in whom alone man finds himself not guilty; and thus is free to glory in the power of Him who in the humiliation of our flesh engaged in conflict with the haughty  foe, and shared His victory with those in whose body He had triumphed. Leo the Great, “The Letters and Sermons of  Leo the Great,” in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 12:92-93, Letter 124. [Some spelling modernized; underlining mine.]

Christ died for all:

1) Whilst the height of all virtues, dearly-beloved, and the fullness of all righteousness is born of that love, wherewith God and one’s neighbor is loved, surely in none is this love found more conspicuous and brighter than in the blessed martyrs; who are as near to our Lord Jesus, Who died for all men, in the imitation of His love, as in the likeness of their suffering.  For, although that Love, wherewith the Lord has redeemed us, cannot be equaled by any man’s kindness, because it is one thing that a man who is doomed to die one day should die for a righteous man, and another that One Who is free from the debt of sin should lay down His life for the wicked:  yet the martyrs also have done great service to all men, in that the Lord Who gave them boldness, has used it to show that the penalty of death and the pain of the cross need not be terrible to any of His followers, but might be imitated by many of them.  If therefore no good man is good for himself alone, and no wise man’s wisdom befriends himself only, and the nature of true virtue is such that it leads many away from the dark error on which its light is shed, no model is more useful in teaching God’s people than that of the martyrs.  Eloquence may make intercession easy, reasoning may effectually persuade; but yet examples are stronger than words, and there is more teaching in practice than in precept.   Leo the Great, “The Letters and Sermons of  Leo the Great,” in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 12:197, Sermon 85.  [Some spelling modernized; underlining mine.]

[Note: Leo is important because both Kimdoncius and Bastingius sought to establish a case for continuity between their view of the extent of the expiation and redemption with that of Leo’s. C.f., Kimedoncius, Bastingius and here.]

[To be continued…]

Davies:

1) Further, Let us improve our account of spiritual life, to inform us of a very considerable difference between a mere moral and spiritual life; or evangelical holiness and morality. Spiritual life is of a divine original; evangelical holiness flows from a supernatural principle; but mere morality is natural; it is but the refinement of our natural principles, under the aids of common grace, in the use of proper means; and consequently it is obtainable by unregenerate men. Hence the same act may be differently denominated, according to the principles from which it proceeds; that may be a piece of mere morality in one, who acts from natural principles only, which is an act of holiness in another, who acts from a principle of spiritual life. So an alms, when given from a gracious principle, and for Christ’s sake, is a gracious act; but when given from a principle of natural generosity only, it deserves no higher name than that of mere morality. A mistake in this is a rock we may tremble to look at, and ought anxiously to avoid! for alas! how many have been dashed to pieces upon it! Samuel Davies, “The Divine Life in the Souls of Men Considered” in Sermons on Important Subjects (New York: Robert Carter, 1845), 2:397. [underlining mine.]

2) Here, by the by, I would make a remark to vindicate this dreadful instance of the execution of divine justice, Which is more liable to the cavils of human pride and ignorance than perhaps any other. The remark is, that God may justly inflict privative as well as positive punishment upon obstinate sinners; or, in plainer terms, he may with undoubted justice punish them by taking away the blessings they have abused, or rendering those blessings useless to them, as well as by inflicting positive misery upon them. This is a confessed rule of justice; and it holds good as to spirituals as well as temporals. May not God as justly take away his common grace, and deny future assistance, to an obstinate sinner, who has abused it, as deprive him of health or life? Why may he not as justly leave him destitute of the sanctified use of the means of grace he has neglected and unimproved, in this world, as of the happiness of heaven, in the World to come? This is certainly a righteous punishment: and there is also a propriety and congruity in it: it is proper and congruous that the lovers of darkness should not have the light obtruded upon them; that the despisers of instruction, should receive no benefit from it; that those who improve not what they have, should have no more, but should lose even what they have. Thus their own choice is made their curse, and their sin their punishment Samuel Davies, “The Guilt and Doom of Impenitent Hearers,” in Sermons on Important Subjects (New York: Robert Carter, 1845), 3:464. [underlining mine.]

Dickson on Psalm 8:3-4:

3. When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained.4. What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

From his admiration in God’s respect, and love to man above all other creatures, learn, 1. The weakness and unworthiness of man, considered both in himself, and compared with his glorious creatures made for his use, commend the bounty of God to man, and make it a matter of great admiration. For when the prophet considers the glorious heavens, &c. he asks what is man, &c. 2. Man of all the creatures is most esteemed and taken care of by God; for he is mindful of man, and daily visits him.

David Dickson, A Commentary on the Psalms (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth, 1985), 1:33. [Some spelling modernized; underlining mine.]

Polhill:

4. Grace is in a very eminent manner lifted up in the gospel. Grace gives Christ, and faith to believe in him. Grace justifies and sanctifies. Grace saves, and crowns with a blessed immortality. Everywhere in the gospel sounds forth, grace, grace! but if God might not justly have stood upon the old terns, the giving of new ones to man was not grace, but debt; not mercy, but justice. Those novatores who say, that it would have been unjust for God to have condemned Adam’s posterity for the first sin, do thereby overturn the grace of the gospel. The apostle, who is much rather to be believed, says expressly, “That by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation,” (Rom. v. 18;) that is, according to the terms of the old covenant; but if the old terms might not have been stood upon, the new ones must be necessary and due to mankind, and so no grace at all. They who deny the justice of the old covenant, overturn the grace of the new.

God, as we see, might have stood upon the old terms, even to the utter ruin of fallen mankind. But oh! immense love! He would not; he would do so with angels, but he would not with men; an abasement was made to them, not afforded to those nobler creatures, once inmates of heaven. In the case of Sodom, God came down lower and lower, from fifty righteous persons to forty-live; and so at last to ten: “I will not do it for ten’s sake.” (Gen. xviii. 32.) But in the case of fallen man, when all had sinned, when there was none righteous, no, not one, God comes down from !the first terms made with man, to such lower ones as might comply with his frailty. Under the law there were sacrifices called by the Jewish doctors, gnoleh vajored, ascending and descending. The rich man offered a lamb; the poor, whose hand could not reach so far offered two turtle doves. While man was rich in holy powers and excellencies, God called for pure, perfect, sinless obedience; but after the fall, he being poor in spirituals, altogether unable to pay such a sum, God stoops and accommodates himself to human weakness; a faithful conatus a sincere though imperfect obedience, will serve the turn in order to man’s happiness. This is the first step which infinite mercy takes in raising up man out of the ruins of the fall; the old terms were not stood upon.

But now, that new terms might be made find established, that the second covenant might have an happier issue than the first, mercy goes on to give the Son of God for us: “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John iii. 16.) This (so) is unutterable, this love immeasurable, diffusing itself, not to Jews only, but to a world, and that overwhelmed in sin; giving, and that freely, without any merit of ours, a Son, and an only begotten Son, that we through faith in him might have life eternal, and there enjoy him who is love itself, forever. Here is a mine of love too deep and rich for any creature to fathom, or count the value of it. But before I open it, I shall first remove the il use which the Socinians make of this love, to overturn Christ’s satisfaction. If God, say they,¹ so loved us, as to give his Son for us, then he was not angry with us; and if not angry, then there was no need at all of a satisfaction to be made for us. Unto which I answer, anger and love are not inconsistencies; in Scripture hath are attributed unto God: He gave his Son for us: was not. that love, immense love? He wounded and bruised him for our iniquities: he made him to be sin and a curse for us: was not there wrath, great wrath? We have both together in one text: “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” (1 John iv. 10,) The high emphasis of his love, was in giving his Son to be a propitiation for us: unless there had been a just anger, a propitiation would have been needless: unless there had been immense love, his Son should not have been made one of us. We have a plain instance in Job’s friends; God’s wrath was kindled against them, and yet in love he directs them to atone him by a sacrifice. (Job xlii. 7. 8.) God could not but be angry at the sin of the world, and yet in love he gave his Son to be an expiatory sacrifice.

Edward Polhill, “A View of Some Divine Truths,” in The Works of Edward Polhill (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1998), 19-20. [Some spelling modernized; and underlining mine.]

______________________

¹Soc. de Ser,” i,l, c, 7, Sclicting, cantr, Mein.