Notabilia III–IV: infinite value; against Socinians and Abelard
3. The value of this satisfaction is sufficient and in some respect infinite. That is proved: 1. from the person of the offerer, who was God; 2. from the dignity and excellence of the thing offered — for He offered Himself, God and man; 3. from the mode of offering, to which a certain divine perfection belongs from the hypostatic union. For just as the dignity of the offended person increases the gravity of the injury, so the value of satisfaction is intensified by the dignity of the one who satisfies, because here is seen the exhibition of honor that depends on the dignity of the exhibiting person.
4. The substantial dignity that was in Christ contributes more properly to the dignity of the work than accidental dignity, such as is in certain humans above others — namely princes, the wise, parents. Finally, whoever desires a fuller explanation of the description of satisfaction should see the Synopsis of Purer Theology of the Leiden theologians, disputation 29; Wolfgang Musculus's Common Places; and what we discussed for the Augsburg Confession to D. Mentzer on this argument.
Today especially the Photinians and Socinus On Christ the Savior dissent, with Smalcius, György Enyedi, Sommer, and Ostovod, following Peter Abelard, who around A.D. 1140 attacked satisfaction — to whom Arnold of Brescia and Albert bishop of the Poitevins and the Spaniard Servetus agreed, Judaizing in this.
CHAPTER SIX follows, On the grace of heavenly and holy calling.
Latin
3. Satisfactionis huius valor est sufficiens & aliqua ratione infinitus. Id probatur 1. a persona offerentis, qui fuit Deus; 2. a dignitate & praestantia rei oblatae. Obtulit enim semetipsum Deum & hominem; 3. a modo offerendi, cui divina quaedam perfectio inest ex hypostatica unione. Quemadmodum enim gravitatem iniuriae auget dignitas personae offensae: ita valor satisfactionis intenditur a dignitate satisfacientis, quia hic cernitur exhibitio honoris, qui pendet e dignitate personae exhibentis. 4. Substantialis dignitas, quae in Christo fuit, magis proprie confert ad dignitatem operis, quam accidentalis, qualis est in hominibus quibusdam prae aliis, principibus nimirum, sapientibus, parentibus. Ad extremum, qui descriptionem satisfactionis plenius explicatam desiderat, is videat synopsin purioris Theologiae Theol. Leidensium disp. 29, Locos communes Wolfg. Musculi & quae pro Augustana confessione ad D. Mentzerum de hoc argumento disseruimus. Dissentiunt hodie cumprimis Photiniani & Socinus de Christo servatore, Smalcius, Georgius Enjedinus, Sommerus, Ostovod, secuti Petrum Abaelardum, qui circa ann. 1140 a nato Christo satisfactionem oppugnavit, cui suffragati sunt Arnoldus de Brixia & Albertus Pictaviensium episcopus atque Servetus Hispanus in hoc Judaizantes. CAPUT SEXTUM sequitur, De gratia supernae & sanctae vocationis.