Fuller:

The reader, in applying this supposed case to the mediation of Christ, will do me the justice to remember, that I do not pretend to have perfectly represented it. Probably there is no similitude fully adequate to the purpose. The distinction between the Father and the Son, is not the same as that which subsists between a father and a son among men : the latter are two separate beings; but to assert this of the former, would be inconsistent with the divine unity. Nor can any thing be found analogous to the doctrine of divine influence, by which the redemption of Christ is carried into effect. And with respect to the innocent voluntarily suffering for the guilty, in a few extraordinary instances this principle may be adopted; but the management and application of it generally require more wisdom and more power than mortals possess. We day by the help of a machine, collect a few sparks of the electrical fluid, and produce an effect somewhat resembling that of lightning : but we cannot cause it to blaze like the Almighty, nor thunder with a voice like Him.

Imperfect, however, as the foregoing similitude may appear in some respects, it is sufficient to show the fallacy of Mr. Paine’s reasoning. “The doctrine of Redemption,” says this writer, has for its basis an idea of pecuniary justice, and not that of moral justice. If I owe a person money, and cannot pay him, and he threatens to put me in prison, another person can take the debt upon himself, and pay it for me: but if I have committed a crime, every circumstance of the case is changed. Moral justice cannot take the innocent for the guilty, even if the innocent would offer itself. To suppose justice to do this, is to destroy the principle of its existence, which is the thing itself. It is then no longer Justice: but is indiscriminate revenge.” This objection, which is the same for substance as has been frequently urged by Socinians as well as Deists, is founded in misrepresentation.

It is not true that redemption has for its basis the idea of pecuniary justice, and not that of moral justice. That sin is called a debt, and the death of Christ a price, a ransom, &c., is true; but it is no unusual thing for moral obligations and deliverances, to be expressed in language borrowed from pecuniary transactions. The obligations of a son to a father, are commonly expressed by such terms as owing and paying: he owes a debt of obedience, and in yielding it he pays a debt of gratitude. The same may be said of an obligation to punishment. A murderer owes his life to the justice of his country; and when he suffers, he is said to pay the awful debt. So also if a great character by suffering death, could deliver his country, such deliverance would be spoken of as obtained by the price of blood. No one mistakes these things by understanding them of pecuniary transactions. In such connections, every one perceives that the terms are used not literally, but metaphorically; and it is thus that they are to be understood with reference to the death of Christ. As sin is not a pecuniary, but a moral debt; so the atonement for it is not a pecuniary, but a moral ransom.

There is doubtless a sufficient analogy between pecuniary and moral proceedings, to justify the use of such language, both in scripture and in common life; and it is easy to perceive the advantages which which arise from it; as besides conveying much important truth, it renders it peculiarly impressive to the mind. But it is not always safe to reason from the former to the latter; much less is it just to affirm, that the latter has for its basis every principle which pertains to the former. The deliverance effected by the prince, in the case before stated, might, with propriety, be called a redemption; and the recollection of it, under this idea, would be very impressive to the minds of those who were delivered. They would scarcely be able to see or think of their Commander in Chief, even though it might be years after the event, without being reminded of the price at which their pardon was obtained, and dropping a tear of ingenuous grief over their unworthy conduct on this account. Yet it would not be just to say, that this redemption had for its basis an idea of pecuniary justice, and not that of moral justice.

It was moral justice which in this case was satisfied: not, however, in its ordinary form, but as exercised on an extraordinary occasion; not the letter, but the spirit of it.

Andrew Fuller, “The Gospel its Own Witness,” in The Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller (New Haven: W. Collier, 1824), 3:153-155.

Credit to Tony.

Gualther:

Now remains the last part of Ananias’ oration, where he exhorts him [Paul] to be baptize, that he should openly profess the name of Christ, an be grafted into his Church, according to Christ’s commandment. And this he urges with great gravity & weight: “Why lingerest thou,” (says he) not for that Paul meant to defer or shift off the matter, but to prick him forward the more earnestly, being dismayed with fear and trembling in conscience. Where he adds this saying: “Arise and be baptized, and wash away the sins in calling on the name of the Lord.” Here we have to observe his manner of speaking of the Sacrament, which declares the reason and dignity of baptism. For Ananias meaning was not, that he thought sins were washed away by water, which the Scripture every because that washing which is made by the blood of Christ, is outwardly shadowed and expressed by Baptism, it comes to pass, that by reason of such phrase of Scripture sins are said to be washed away by baptism. And because Paul should not think it a strange or hard kind of saying, he adds, thereto, “by calling on the name of the Lord.” For by these words he is ent unto Christ, which being taken hold of, and called upon by faith, bestows such gifts of salvation upon us, as the sacraments us to figure and shadow unto us. And as we must in using of the Sacraments have a respect unto Christ, if we will have them to profit us: so again we are taught, that they must not b e contemned nor thought superfluous by any means. For God has ordained nothing without great consideration, whose intent is not to have his church overcharged or clogged by any means. Therefore Philip baptized the Eunuch also after he had confessed his faith. And Peter thought it good to baptize Cornelius’ household, when they had received the Holy Ghost. Yea Paul, whom the Holy Ghost secretly commends, is here earnestly moved to receive baptism. These examples reprove the despisers of Sacraments, which while they seem too spiritual, do wickedly set light the ordinances of God.

Radulphe Gualthere, An Hundred, threescore and fifteen Sermons, uppon the Acts of the Apostles, trans., by Iohn Bridges, (London: no publ, 1572), 791.

Dabney:

Satisfaction not Commercial.

The Reformed divines are also accustomed to make a distinction between penal and moral satisfaction, on the one hand, and pecuniary payment, on the other. In a mere pecuniary debt, the claim is on the money owed, not on the person owing. The amount is numerically estimated. Hence, the surety, in making vicarious payment, must pay the exact number of coins due. And when he has done that, he has, ipso facto, satisfied the debt. His offer of such payment in full is a legal tender which leaves the creditor no discretion of assent or refusal. If he refuses, his claim is canceled for once and all. But the legal claim on us for obedience and penalty is personal. It regards not only the quid solvatur, but the quis solvat. The satisfaction of Christ is not idem facere; to do the identical thing required of the sinner, but satis facere; to do enough to be a just moral equivalent for what is due from the sinner. Hence, two consequences. Christ’s satisfaction cannot be forced on the divine Creditor as a legal tender; it does not free us ipso facto. And God, the Creditor, has an optional discretion to decline the proffer, if He chooses (before He is bound by His own covenant), or to accept it. Hence, the extent to which, and the terms on which Christ’s vicarious actions shall actually satisfy the law, depend simply on the stipulations made between Father and Son, in the covenant of redemption.

Yet Not per acceptilationem.

Yet, we shall by no means agree with the Scotists, and the early Remonstrants, that Christ did not make a real, and equivalent satisfaction for sinners debts. They say, that His sacrifice was not such, because He did not suffer really what sinners owed. He did not feel remorse, nor absolute despair, He did not suffer eternally; only His humanity suffered. But they suppose that the inadequate sufferings were taken as a ransom price, per account by a gracious waiver of God’s real claims of right. And they hold that any sacrifice, which God may please thus to receive, would be thereby made adequate. The difference between their view and the Reformed may be roughly, but fairly defined, by an illustration drawn from pecuniary obligations. A mechanic is justly indebted to a land owner in the sum of one hundred pounds and has no money wherewith to pay. Now, should a rich brother offer the landlord the full hundred pounds, in coin of the realm, this would be a legal tender. It would, ipso facto cancel the debt, even though the creditor captiously rejected it. Christ’s satisfaction is not ipso facto in this commercial sense. There is a second supposition, that the kind brother is not rich, but is himself an able mechanic, and seeing that the landlord is engaged in building, he proposes that he will work as a builder for him two hundred days, at ten shillings per diem (which is a fair price), to cancel his poor brother’s debt. This proposal, on the one hand, is not a “legal tender,” and does not compel the creditor. He may say that he has already enough mechanics, who are paid in advance, so that he cannot take the proposal. But, if he judges it convenient to accept it, although he does not get the coin, he gets an actual equivalent for his claim, and a fair one. This is satisfact . The debtor may thus get a valid release on the terms freely covenanted between the surety and creditor. But there is a third plan. The kind brother has some “script” of the capital stock of some company, which, “by its face” amounts nominally to one hundred pounds, but all know that it is worth but little. Yet he goes to the creditor saying, “My brother and I have a pride about bearing the name of full payment of our debt. We propose that you take this “script” as one hundred pounds (which is its nominal amount), and give us a discharge, which shall state that you have payment in full.” Now, if the creditor assents, this is payment per acceptilationem . Does Christ’s satisfaction amount to no more than this? We answer emphatically, it does amount to more. This disparaging conception is refuted by many scriptures, such as Isa. 13:21; 53:6. It is dishonorable to God, representing Him as conniving at a “legal fiction,” and surrendering all standard of truth and justice to confusion. On this low scheme, it is impossible to see how any real necessity for satisfaction could exist.

Christ Suffered the Very Penalty.

The Reformed assert then, that Christ made penal satisfaction by suffering the very penalty demanded by the law of sinners. In this sense, we say even idem fecit . The identity we assert is, of course, not a numerical one, but a generic one. If we are asked, how this could be, when Christ was not holder forever of death, and experienced none of the remorse, wicked despair, and subjective pollution, attending a lost sinner’s second death? We reply, the same penalty, when poured out on Him, could not work all the detailed results, because of His divine nature and immutable holiness. A stick of wood, and an ingot of gold are subjected to the same fire. The wood is permanently consumed, the gold is only melted, because it is a precious metal, incapable of natural oxidation, and it is gathered, undiminished, from the ashes of the furnace. But the fire was the same! And then, the infinite dignity of Christ’s person gives to His temporal sufferings a moral value equal to the weight of all the guilt of the world.

Dabney, Lectures, 503-505.

Ambrose:

Christ Suffered for the Church:

1) 47. But he was not so eager as to lay aside caution. He called the bishop to him, and esteeming that there can be no true thankfulness except it spring from true faith, he enquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church? And possibly at that place the Church of the district was in schism. For at that time Lucifer had withdrawn from our communion, and although he had been an exile for the faith, and had left inheritors of his own faith, yet my brother did not think that there could be true faith in schism. For though schismatics kept the faith towards God, yet they kept it not towards the Church of God, certain of whose limbs they suffered as it were to be divided, and her members to be torn. For since Christ suffered for the Church, and the Church is the body of Christ, it does not seem that faith in Christ is shown by those by whom His Passion is made of none effect, and His body divided.  Ambrose, “Select Works and Letters,” The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 10:168-169.

Christ Suffered for all:

1) “A certain creditor,” it says, “had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty” [St. Luke 7:41]. 24. Who are those two debtors if not the two peoples, the one from the Jews, the other from the Gentiles, beholden to the Creditor of the heavenly treasure? It says, “The one owed five hundred pence, the other fifty” [St. Luke 7:41]. Extraordinary is that penny on which the King’s image is written, which bears the imprint of the Emperor [cf. St. Mark 12:15-16]. To this Creditor we owe not material wealth, but assays of merits, accounts of virtues, the worth of which is measured by the weight of seriousness, the likeness of righteousness, the sound of confession. Woe is me if I do not have what I have received, truly, because only with difficulty can anyone pay off the whole debt to this Creditor; woe is me if I do not ask, “Remit my debt.” For the Lord would not have taught us so to pray that we ask for our sins to be forgiven [cf. St. Matthew 6:12] if He had not known that some would only with difficulty be worthy debtors [cf. St. Luke 11:4]. 25. But which is the people which owes more if not we by whom more is believed? God’s words were believed by them [cf. Romans 3:2], but His Virgin Birth by us. Ye have the talent [cf. St. Matthew 25:15], the Virgin Birth; ye have the hundredfold fruit of faith [cf. St. Matthew 13:8]. Emmanuel was believed, God with us [cf. St. Matthew 1:23]; the Cross, the Death, the Resurrection of the Lord were believed. Although Christ suffered for all, yet He suffered for us particularly, because He suffered for the Church. Therefore, there is no doubt that he who has received more, owes more [cf. St. Luke 12:48]. And according to me, perhaps he who owed more offended more, but through the Lord’s mercy, the case is changed, so that he who owed more loves more, if he nevertheless attains Grace. For he who gives it back possesses Grace, and he who possesses it repays, insofar as he possesses, for the possession consists in the repayment and the repayment in the possession. 26. And, therefore, since there is nothing which we can worthily repay to God–for what may we repay for the harm to the Flesh He assumed, what for the blows, what for the Cross, the Death, and the Burial? Woe is me if I have not loved! I dare to say that Peter did not repay and thereby loved the more; Paul did not repay–he, indeed, repaid death for death, but did not repay other debts, because he owed much. I hear himself saying, because he did not repay, “Who hath given to Him first, that he might be recompensed again?” [Romans 11:35]. Even if we were to repay cross for Cross, death for Death, do we repay that we possess all things from Him, and by Him, and in Him [cf. Romans 11:36]? Therefore, let us repay love for our debt, charity for the gift, grace for wealth; for he to whom more is given loves more [cf. St. Luke 7:42-43].”  Saint Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Holy Gospel According to Saint Luke, trans. Theodosia Tomkinson (Etna: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1998), 201-202.

2) 13. Let these triumphant victims be brought to the place where Christ is the victim. But He upon the altar, Who suffered for all; they beneath the altar, who were redeemed by His Passion. I had destined this place for myself, for it is fitting that the priest should rest there where he has been wont to offer, but I yield the right hand portion to the sacred victims; that place was due to the martyrs. Let us, then, deposit the sacred relics, and lay them up in a worthy resting-place, and let us celebrate the whole day with faithful devotion. Ambrose, “Select Works and Letters,” The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 10:438.

3) (9.41) What is more agreeable than the example of holy Joseph? He freed us from the reproach by the mystery of the Lord’s cross. For just as Christ became a curse to destroy the curse of the law¹ and became sin² to take away the sin of the world,³ so He became a reproach to remove the reproach of paganism, but that reproach that is Christ was considered more precious than the treasures of Egypt. Accordingly, Moses left the court of the king Pharao⁴ and chose the reproach of faith, and before that reproach the seas divided.⁵ Nephthali himself is a vine spread through the whole world, to dispense to all peoples the richness of a spiritual drink. He is increased, that is, having the name which is above every name,⁶ who offered Himself to death on behalf of all men, and therefore He hears from the Father, "Return to me." Jacob spoke, and God was heard. Jacob gave a blessing and the Lord reechoed it, saying to His Son, "Return to me," that is, "Return after the passion. Return to your dwelling, return with the trophy,⁷ return to me, so that the dead may follow you in your resurrection and may rise in like manner by your power and example, that you may become the firstborn from the dead,⁸ that you may sit at the right hand of the Father." On this account the Son also said, "Hereafter you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power."⁹ Ambrose, “Jacob and the Happy Life,” in Seven Exegetical Works, trans. Michael P. McHugh (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1972), 172. [Underlining mine; footnote values modified; footnote content original.]

¹Cf. Gal. 3.1 3.
²Cf. 2 Cor. 5.21.
³Cf. John 1.29.
⁴Cf. Exod. 2.15
⁵Cf. Exod. 14.21.
⁶Cf. Phil. 2.9.
⁷The trophy is probably the body of Christ. See C. Mohrmann, "A propos de deux mots controverses: tropaeum–nomen," Vigiliae Christianae 8 (1954) 154-73, especially 157-58.
⁸Cf. Col. 1.18; Apoc. 1.5; 1 Cor. 15.20; Ps. 88 (89).28.
⁹Matt. 26.64.

4) Let no one hold back out of consideration of his poverty, let no one who does not have money be afraid. Christ does not ask money, but faith, which is more valuable than money. Indeed Peter, who did not have money, bought Him. "Silver and gold I do not have," he said, "but what I have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ arise and walk."¹ And the prophet Isaiah says, "All you who are thirsty, come to the water, and you that have no money come, buy, and drink and eat without money and without the price of the wine."² For He who paid the price of His blood for us did not ask a price from us, because He redeemed us not with gold or silver but with His precious blood.³ Therefore you owe that price with which you have been bought. Even though He does not always demand it, you still owe it. Buy Christ for yourself, then, not with what few men possess, but with what all men possess by nature but few offer on account of fear. What Christ claims from you is His own. He gave His life for all men, He offered His death for all men. Pay on behalf of your Creator what you are going to pay by law. He is not bargained for at a slight price, and not all men see Him readily. Indeed, those virgins in the Gospel whom the bridegroom kept out upon his coming, were left out of doors exactly because they did not buy the oil that was for sale.⁴ On this account it is said to them, "Go rather to those who sell it and buy some for yourselves."⁵ Likewise that merchant deserves praise who sold all his goods and bought the pearl.⁶ Ambrose, “Joseph,” in Seven Exegetical Works, trans. Michael P. McHugh (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1972), 217. [Underlining mine; footnote values modified; footnote content original.]

¹Acts 3.6.
²Isa. 55.1.
³Cf. 1 Peter 1.18-19. References to man as purchased by Christ occur elsewhere in the New Testament; cf. 1 Cor. 6.19-20, 7.23, and Acts 20.28 (of the Church).
⁴Cf. Matt. 25.1-13.
⁵Matt. 25.9.
⁶Cf. Matt. 13.45-46.

Christ delivered up for all men with reference to Romans 8:32:

1) (6.25) But are you afraid of the uncertain twists of life and the plots of the adversary? You have the help of God, you have His great liberality, so great that He did not spare His own Son on your behalf.¹ Scripture made use of a beautiful expression to proclaim the holy purpose toward you of God the Father, who offered His Son to death. The Son could not feel death’s bitterness, because He was in the Father; for Himself He gave up nothing, on your behalf He offered everything. In the fullness of His divinity² He lost nothing, while He redeemed you. Think upon the Father’s love. It is a matter of His goodness that He accepted the danger, so to speak, to His Son, who was going to die, and in a manner drained the sorrowful cup of bereavement, so that the advantage of redemption would not be lost to you. The Lord had such mighty zeal for your salvation that He came close to endangering what was His, while He was gaining you. On account of you He took on our losses, to introduce you to things divine, to consecrate you to the things of heaven. Scripture said, too, in a marvelous fashion, "He has delivered him for us all,"³ to show that God so loves all men that He delivered His most beloved Son for each one. For men, therefore, He has given the gift that is above all gifts; is it possible that He has not given all things in that gift? God, who has given the Author of all things,⁴ has held back nothing.

(6.26) Therefore, let us not be afraid that anything can be denied us. We ought not have any distrust whatever over the continuance of God’s generosity. So long and continuous has it been, and so abundant, that God first predestined us and then called us. Those whom He called, He also justified; those whom He justified, He also glorified.⁵ Can He abandon those whom He has honored with His mighty benefits even to the point of their reward? Amid so many benefits from God, ought we to be afraid of certain plots of our accuser? But who would dare to accuse those who, as he sees, have been chosen by the judgment of God? God the Father Himself, who has bestowed His gifts-can He make them void? Can He exile from His paternal love and favor those whom He took up by way of adoption? But fear exists that the judge may be too harsh-think upon Him that you have as your judge. For the Father has given every judgment to Christ.⁶ Can Christ then condemn you, when He redeemed you from death and offered Himself on your behalf, and when He knows that your life is what was gained by His death? ‘Will He not say, " ‘What profit is there in my blood,’⁷ if I condemn the man whom I myself have saved?" Moreover, you are thinking of Him as a judge; you are not thinking of Him as an advocate. But can He give a sentence that is very harsh when He prays continually that the grace of reconciliation with the Father be granted us? Ambrose, “Jacob and the Happy Life,” in Seven Exegetical Works, trans. Michael P. McHugh (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1972), 135-136. [Underlining mine; footnote values modified; footnote content original.]

¹Cf. Rom. 8.32.
²Cf. Col. 2.9.
³Rom. 8.32.
⁴Cf. Ibid.
⁵Cf. Rom. 8.30.
⁶Cf. John 5.22.
⁷Ps. 29 (30).10.

Read the rest of this entry »