Skip to main content

Full text of "Anselm's theory of the atonement"

See other formats


8 


-.   •< 


X  GOLLCQE, 


READERS  ARE  REQUESTED 

NOT  TO  MARK  THE  TEXT 
IN  ANY  WAY 


TURN  DOWN   PAGE-CORNERS 
WRITE  ON  BLANK   END-SHEETS 


PROMPT  RETURN  APPRECIATED 


ANSELM'S   THEORY 

OF 

THE    ATONEMENT 


ANSELM'S  THEORY 

OF 

THE  ATONEMENT 

€fje  25oi)len  3lecture£,  1908 

BY  GEORGE  CADWALADER  FOLEY,  D.D. 

Profettor  of  Komiletics  and  Pastoral  Care  in  the  Divinity  School 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  Philadelphia 

"  ,  T.AA^;V 
X^OKOOLUQE, 


Non  quia  reeoneiliavit  amavit,  sed  quia  amavit  reconciliavit 

Hoea  OF  ST.  VICTOK 


LONGMANS,   GREEN,   AND   CO. 

91  AND  93  FIFTH   AVENUE,  NEW   YORK 
LONDON,  BOMBAY,  AND  CALCUTTA 

1909 


*^  i  w 


COPYRIGHT,  1908 
BY  LONGMANS,  GREEN,  AND  Co. 


THE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS,  CAMBRIDGE,  U.S.A. 


To  MY  MOTHER 


THE 
JOHN  BOHLEN  LECTURESHIP 

JOHN  BOHLEN,  who  died  in  this  city  on  the  twenty- 
sixth  day  of  April,  1874,  bequeathed  to  trustees 
a  fund  of  one  hundred  thousand  dollars,  to  be 
distributed  to  religious  and  charitable  objects  in 
accordance  with  the  well-known  wishes  of  the 
testator. 

By  a  deed  of  trust,  executed  June  2,  1875,  the 
trustees  under  the  will  of  Mr.  Bohlen  transferred 
and  paid  over  to  "The  Rector,  Church  Wardens, 
and  Vestrymen  of  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Trinity, 
Philadelphia,"  in  trust,  a  sum  of  money  for  certain 
designated  purposes,  out  of  which  fund  the  sum  of 
ten  thousand  dollars  was  set  apart  for  the  endow 
ment  of  THE  JOHN  BOHLEN  LECTURESHIP,  upon  the 
following  terms  and  conditions :  — 

The  money  shall  be  invested  in  good  substantial  and  safe 
securities,  and  held  in  trust  for  a  fund  to  be  called  The  John 
Bohlen  Lectureship,  and  the  income  shall  be  applied  annually 
to  the  payment  of  a  qualified  person,  whether  clergyman  or 
layman,  for  the  delivery  and  publication  of  at  least  one  hun 
dred  copies  of  two  or  more  lecture  sermons.  These  Lectures 
shall  be  delivered  at  such  time  and  place,  in  the  city  of  Phila 
delphia,  as  the  persons  nominated  to  appoint  the  lecturer  shall 
from  time  to  time  determine,  giving  at  least  six  months  notice 
to  the  person  appointed  to  deliver  the  same,  when  the  same 


THE  JOHN  BOHLEN  LECTURESHIP 

may  conveniently  be  done,  and  in  no  case  selecting  the  same 
person  as  lecturer  a  second  time  within  a  period  of  five  years. 
The  payment  shall  be  made  to  said  lecturer,  after  the  lectures 
have  been  printed  and  received  by  the  trustees,  of  all  the 
income  for  the  year  derived  from  said  fund,  after  defraying 
the  expense  of  printing  the  lectures  and  the  other  incidental 
expenses  attending  the  same. 

The  subject  of  such  lectures  shall  be  such  as  is  within  the 
terms  set  forth  in  the  will  of  the  Rev.  John  Bampton,  for  the 
delivery  of  what  are  known  as  the  "  Bampton  Lectures,"  at 
Oxford,  or  any  other  subject  distinctively  connected  with  or 
relating  to  the  Christian  Religion. 

The  lecturer  shall  be  appointed  annually  in  the  month  of 
May,  or  as  soon  thereafter  as  can  conveniently  be  done,  by  the 
persons  who,  for  the  time  being,  shall  hold  the  offices  of  Bishop 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  the  Diocese  in  which  is 
the  Church  of  the  Holy  Trinity ;  the  Rector  of  said  Church ; 
the  Professor  of  Biblical  Learning,  the  Professor  of  Sys 
tematic  Divinity,  and  the  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History, 
in  the  Divinity  School  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in 
Philadelphia. 

In  case  either  of  said  offices  are  vacant  the  others  may  nom 
inate  the  lecturer. 

Under  this  trust  the  Reverend  GEORGE  C.  FOLEY, 
D.  D.,  Professor  of  Homiletics  and  Pastoral  Care  in 
the  Divinity  School  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  Philadelphia,  was  appointed  to  deliver  the 
lectures  for  the  year  1908. 


PREFACE 

FOR  a  full  discussion  of  the  subject  under  review, 
it  was  thought  best  to  cast  it  in  the  form  of  a  treatise, 
from  which  selections  were  made  for  the  lectures 
required  by  the  terms  of  the  Bohlen  foundation. 
The  work  is  not  a  constructive  statement  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Atonement ;  it  is  a  critical  and 
historical  study  of  the  claim  that  the  Reformation 
dogma  is  the  Catholic  doctrine.  As  this  has  long 
been  regarded  as  the  test  of  orthodoxy,  and  has  been 
in  a  multitude  of  instances  a  painful  obstacle  to 
faith,  the  evidence  that  it  is  absent  from  the  ancient 
and  patristic  teaching  is  offered  as  a  useful  apologetic, 
which  may  clear  the  way  for  a  simpler,  more  rational, 
and  more  Scriptural  expression  of  the  redemptive 
work  of  Christ.  The  general  facts  here  presented 
are  familiar  to  the  students  of  the  history  of  dogma 
and  to  the  readers  of  modern  books  on  the  Atone 
ment.  But  the  effort  has  been  made  to  bring  them 
together  in  the  convenient  form  of  an  argument  more 
complete  than  any  with  which  the  writer  is  acquainted. 
The  average  Christian  may  thereby  understand  how 
valid  are  the  revulsion  from  long  dominant  theories, 


x  PREFACE 

and  the  attempt  in  our  day  to  restate  the  truth  of 
Atonement  in  ethical  and  spiritual  terms. 

The  traditional  statement  of  the  doctrine  has 
undoubtedly  developed  much  devout  and  consecrated 
life ;  but  its  religious  power  has  not  lain  in  its  crude 
form,  but  in  its  emotional  witness  to  the  fundamental 
reality  of  Incarnate  love  and  sacrifice.  It  is  demon- 
strably  not  the  faith  of  the  universal  Church,  or  the 
continuous  and  unvarying  formula  of  Christian 
thinkers.  To  insist  upon  it  as  essential  to  Christianity 
is  to  insist  upon  being  "  wiser  than  the  universal 
Church  of  Christ."  As  Dr.  Dale  has  said:  "The 
Fathers  attempted  to  explain  why  it  is  that  through 
the  death  of  Christ  we  escape  from  the  penalties  of 
sin,  and  their  explanations  were  rejected  by  the 
Schoolmen.  The  Schoolmen  attempted  to  explain  it, 
and  their  explanations  were  rejected  or  modified  by 
the  Reformers.  The  Reformers  attempted  to  explain 
it,  and  within  a  century  Grotius  and  his  successors 
were  attempting  to  explain  it  again."  The  very 
diversity  of  the  explanations  proves  that  none  of 
them  is  necessary,  as  Christian  life  seems  to  have  been 
as  well  sustained  under  one  as  another ;  and  there  is 
quite  as  much  reason  and  Christian  propriety  in 
rejecting  that  which  began  with  the  Reformation  as 
in  disclaiming  any  which  preceded  it.  Its  rejection 
is  not  to  be  discredited  as  the  desire  for  a  "  new 
theology,"  since  it  is  due  to  the  recovery  of  earlier 


PREFACE  xi 

and  juster  views  which  prevailed  in  Alexandria  and 
Antioch.  The  upholders  of  the  Latin  theology  in 
general,  and  of  the  Anselmic,  Reformation,  or  Grotian 
theories  of  Atonement  in  particular,  are  the  real 
neologians. 

The  primary  purpose  of  this  study  therefore  is 
negative,  to  exhibit  the  lack  of  authority  for  the 
theory  framed  by  the  Reformation  divines.  It  will 
be  a  genuine  relief  to  many  troubled  minds  to  be 
made  fully  aware  of  this ;  they  will  then  be  able  to 
appreciate  the  best  Greek  thought  which  is  so  much 
nearer  the  teaching  of  St.  Paul.  The  whole  effect 
however  is  intended  to  be  positive  and  constructive 
by  showing  the  identity  of  the  great  Christian  fact 
through  all  the  mutually  contradictory  explanations. 
The  divergence  of  the  theories  is  no  indication  of  the 
"  discontinuity  of  Christian  thought " ;  for  the  con 
tinuity  of  belief  in  the  fact  of  Chrises  redemption  is 
more  essential  than  the  persistence  of  any  ideas  about 
it  whatsoever.  Moreover,  the  theories  themselves, 
however  inadequate  and  open  to  criticism,  when  traced 
from  Origen  to  Moberly,  are  seen  to  illustrate  what 
Dr.  George  Harris  calls  "  a  progressive  moral  evolu 
tion.""  In  a  wide  circle  they  have  returned  very 
nearly  to  the  simplicity  and  vitality  of  the  Scriptural 
conceptions. 

The  writer  is  under  great  obligations  to  the  Rev. 
Alex.  R.  DeWitt,  LL.  M.,  of  Muncy,  Pa.,  for  many 


xii  PREFACE 

scholarly  and  fruitful  suggestions.  Grateful  acknowl 
edgment  is  also  made  for  a  number  of  helpful  refer 
ences  to  authorities  furnished  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  J. 
Cullen  Ayer,  Jr.,  and  the  Rev.  Dr.  Andrew  D.  Heffern, 
of  the  Faculty  of  the  Divinity  School.  The  Rev. 
Edgar  Campbell,  of  Philadelphia,  has  given  valued 
assistance  in  the  reading  of  the  proofs. 

THE  DIVINITY  SCHOOL,  PHILADELPHIA,  PA. 

August,  1908. 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

I.    INTRODUCTION ] 

II.  THE  PATRISTIC  TEACHING l3 

1.  GENERAL  CHARACTERISTICS 15 

C2.  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS 19 

3.  THE  POST-APOSTOLIC  FATHERS 25 

a.  Justin  Martyr 26 

L~—b.  Irenaeus 29 

c.  Clement  of  Alexandria 37 

d.  Origen 39 

4.  NlCENE    AND    PoST-NlCENE    FATHERS        ....  46 

a.  Eusebius  of  Caesarea 47 

b.  Athanasius 48 

c.  Later  Greek  Fathers 60 

Gregory  of  Nyssa 60 

Gregory  of  Nazianzus 63 

Chrysostom 66 

Cyril  of  Alexandria 68 

5.  THE  LATIN  FATHERS 75 

a.  Tertullian 77 

b.  Cyprian 82 

c.  Augustin 86 


xiv  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

III.  THE  ANSELMIC  THEORY 101 

1.  PATRISTIC  AND  MEDLEVAL  ANTECEDENTS       .     .  103 

a.  Antecedents   affecting   the   substance   of 

the  theory 103 

(1)  A  racial  characteristic       .     .     .     .  103 

(2)  Ecclesiastical  ideas  and  discipline  .  105 

(3)  German  criminal  law 109 

(4)  Feudalism 113 

b.  Antecedents  affecting   the   form   of  the 

theory 115 

2.  "CuR  DEUS  HOMO?" 120 

a.   Preliminary  to  the  argument       .     .     .     .  121 

6.  The  argument 124 

c.  Some  valuable  features  of  the  theory  .     .  132 

d.  Defects  of  the  theory 143 

Three  general  defects 143 

Criticism  in  detail 14-7 

(1)  The  idea  of  Honour      ....  147 

(2)  The  idea  of  Satisfaction     .     .     .  154 

(3)  The  forensic  form  of  the  theory  l6'7 

(4)  The  latent  Dualism 173 

(5)  The  Nestorian  element      ...  179 

(6)  Satisfaction   considered  as   Sub 

stitution  181 

(7)  .The  purpose  of  the^  Incarnation  187 

(8)  The  purely  objective  character  of 

the  theory 190 

(9)  A  pernicious  effect  of  the  theory  193 


CONTENTS  xv 

PAGE 

3.  ANSELM'S  CONTEMPORARIES  AND  SUCCESSORS  .     .  19* 

a.  His  adherents 195 

Hugh  of  St.  Victor 195 

Alexander  of  Hales 196 

Bonaveiitura 196 

Thomas  Aquinas 197 

b.  His  opponents 201 

Abelard 201 

Bernard 206 

Peter  Lombard 207 

Duns  Scotus 209 

4.  ANSELM'S  RELATION  TO  REFORMATION  THEOLOGY  212 

a.  Basis  of  Protestant  Soteriology    .     .     .     .  212 

6.  Antithesis  of  Protestant  Soteriology     .     .  216 

(1)  Passive  satisfaction 216 

(2)  Penal  satisfaction 219 

(3)  Endurance   equivalent   to    eternal 

death 223 

(4)  Imputation 226 

c.  The  modern  development  and  reaction     .  231 

IV.   ESTIMATE    OF    THE    VALUE    OF    THE 

TREATISE 251 


APPENDIX 263 

INDEX  321 


I 

INTRODUCTION 


ANSELM'S 

THEORY   OF   THE   ATONEMENT 


INTRODUCTION 

DAVID  FRIEDRICH  STRAUSS  said :  "  The  true  criti 
cism  of  a  dogma  is  its  history."  The  unlearned  are 
apt  to  think  of  the  dogmatic  formulas  with  which 
they  have  been  acquainted  as  fixed  and  immutable ; 
but  the  history  of  doctrine  shows  that  they  have 
most  of  them  changed  their  form  from  age  to  age, 
and  of  none  is  this  more  true  than  of  the  doctrine  of 
redemption.  The  history  of  change  in  these  intellec 
tual  forms  is  a  legitimate  and  necessary  occasion  of 
criticism.  We  can  tell  the  very  time  when  a  par 
ticular  mode  of  thought  first  arose,  and  we  are 
obliged  to  consider  whether  it  is  a  normal  develop 
ment  of  the  conceptions  of  the  New  Testament.  We 
can  see  when  the  main  stream  was  joined  a  long  way 
from  its  source  by  a  tributary  ;  and  when  we  perceive 
the  distinctly  new  colour  given  to  the  stream  by  the 
outpouring  into  it  of  the  washings  of  an  apparently 
diverse  soil,  we  are  able  to  estimate  whether  this 

3 


4       ANSELM    ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

muddy  current  can  fairly  be  called  the  same  as  the 
original  pure  brook  whence  it  flowed. 

Not  all  the  varying  formulations  of  theology 
can  claim  to  express  the  essential  and  ultimate  truth, 
and  we  are  forced  to  separate  these  historical  varia 
tions  from  the  truth  itself.  In  different  ages,  differ 
ent  aspects  and  understandings  of  truth  come  to  be 
emphasised  and  made  prominent,  owing  sometimes 
to  their  denial  and  the  subsequent  controversy,  and 
sometimes  to  the  prevalence  of  ideas  which  inhere  in 
the  intellectual  conditions  of  the  age.  When  we 
discern  the  contemporary  causes  for  a  particular  state 
ment,  we  are  led  to  inquire  whether  it  be  a  natural 
and  inevitable  inference  from  truths  hitherto  awaiting 
coordination  ;  as,  for  example,  in  the  Nicene  defini 
tions  concerning  the  deity  of  our  Lord.  At  other 
times,  however,  we  are  compelled  to  discriminate  be 
tween  the  original  and  permanent  essence  of  a  truth 
and  the  temporary  and  imperfect  interpretation  of 
it.  The  mere  systematic  statement  of  a  doctrine, 
therefore,  is  of  little  value  until  the  formula  has  been 
subjected  to  the  criticism  based  upon  the  history  of 
its  successive  stages.  The  scholastic  spirit  is  the 
exact  opposite  of  the  critical  and  historical  spirit ; 
but  the  latter  is  the  spirit  of  our  time,  and  its  method 
is  our  accepted  method  of  arriving  at  the  truth. 

It  is  generally  admitted  to-day  that  a  thinker  can 
be  judged  only  by  means  of  the  ruling  ideas  of  the 


INTRODUCTION  5 

age  in  which  he  lived,  by  the  intellectual  antecedents 
which  insensibly  but  inevitably  have  moulded  his 
thoughts.  Even  the  Apostles  used  rabbinic  thought- 
forms  which  were  convenient  vehicles  for  the  new 
revelation  that  had  come  to  them,  but  by  no  means 
all  of  which  are  to  be  regarded  as  permanently  valid. 
What  Sabatier  says  of  all  dogma  is  especially  true  of 
the  doctrine  of  salvation  :  "  It  is  ever  a  product  of  a 
blending  of  Christian  feeling  with  conceptions  and 
phrases  borrowed  from  the  atmosphere  of  contem 
porary  culture." 1  The  whole  environment  has  to  be 
taken  into  account  as  affecting  the  angle  of  observa 
tion  from  which  the  idea  is  conceived  and  the  phrase 
ology  in  which  it  is  presented.  The  cast  of  theological 
thought  developed  in  the  Western  Church  has  certain 
well-defined  characteristics,  which  strikingly  differen 
tiate  it  from  that  of  the  Greek  Fathers,  notwith 
standing  their  common  possession  of  fundamental 
Christian  truths.  It  moves  to  a  large  extent  in  a 
different  realm  of  ideas,  which  are  attributable  to  the 
racial  and  personal  conditions  of  its  authors.  Our 
Soteriology  has  been  almost  exclusively  Latin,  and 
has  grievously  suffered  from  the  defects  which  mark 
the  Latin  type  of  mind,  as  well  as  the  habit  of  mind 
belonging  to  a  particular  profession.  The  limitations 
attending  this  derivation  of  our  thoughts  of  redemp 
tion  are  no  discredit  in  themselves  ;  but  they  need  to 
1  A.  Sabatier,  The  Doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  p.  199. 


6        ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

be  remembered  and  to  qualify  our  estimate  of  the 
final  product  of  the  Latin  influence.  They  must 
themselves  be  tested  before  we  can  determine  whether 
the  theories  of  Thomas  Aquinas  or  of  the  disciples  of 
the  Reformers  are  Catholic  and  Scriptural.  When 
we  note  that,  under  that  influence,  the  later  thought 
got  farther  and  farther  away  from  the  figures  and 
analogies  of  Scripture,  and  became  more  and  more 
juristic  and  speculative  and  abstract  and  transcen 
dental,  our  suspicions  are  awakened  that  the  theology 
of  Latin  Christianity  is  not  to  be  trusted  as  having 
developed  along  lines  which  make  practicable  a 
satisfactory  explanation  of  the  Atonement. 

The  principles  applied  so  well  by  Canon  Mozley  to 
the  understanding  of  Old  Testament  characters  must 
be  combined  with  the  canon  of  Dr.  Strauss,  in  order 
to  form  a  true  judgment  of  the  Cur  Deus  Homo  and 
its  place  and  value  in  the  development  of  the  doctrine 
concerning  the  work  of  Christ.  This  treatise  is 
selected  for  special  study,  first,  because,  having  been 
published  in  1098,  it  stands  midway  in  the  history  of 
thought  upon  this  subject,  which  began  early  in  the 
third  century ;  and  secondly,  because  it  is  central  to 
the  historical  inquiry.  It  is  contrasted  with  the 
patristic  teaching  from  which  it  is  not  derived,  and 
with  the  Reformation  theory  to  which  it  contributed 
the  leading  idea.  It  marks  the  turning-point  at 
which  the  legal  and  external  and  purely  logical  and 


INTRODUCTION  7 

objective  conception  of  God's  relation  to  us  displaced 
the  personal  and  organic  and  biological,  after  which 
the  theology  of  the  Atonement  takes  an  entirely 
novel  direction.  While  it  has  had  little  force  or 
acceptance  in  itself  as  a  consistent  theory,  it  has 
largely  moulded  Western  thought  through  its  most 
significant  word.  Its  influence  cannot  be  underes 
timated  even  by  those  who  have  departed  most  widely 
from  its  thought ;  while  those  who  still  hold  to  its 
root-idea  naturally  esteem  it  of  capital  import.  The 
Catholic  Encyclopaedia  says  :  "  It  may  be  said,  indeed, 
that  this  book  marks  an  epoch  in  theological  literature 
and  doctrinal  development."" -1  And  it  is  thus  appre 
ciated  by  an  earnest  advocate  of  the  common  Protes 
tant  position  :  "  The  Cur  Deus  Homo  is  the  truest 
and  greatest  book  on  the  Atonement  that  has  ever 
been  written."  2 

In  order  to  make  the  ensuing  study  intelligible,  it 
is  necessary  to  indicate  in  the  briefest  way  the  three 
great  stages  in  the  movement  of  speculation.  In  the 


1  Art.  "Atonement,"  II.  56. 

2  Dr.  James  Denney,  The  Atonement  and  the  Modern  Mind, 
p.  116.     Abbe  Riviere  gives  far  more  space  to  Anselm  than  to 
any  other  author,  thus  indicating  his  sense  of  the  importance  of 
the  treatise  (Le  Dogme  de  la  Redemption,  pp.  291-324).     On  the 
other  hand,  Canon  Moberly,  while  admitting  its  "importance 
as  the  first  formal  attempt  to  philosophise  the  whole  subject," 
regards  it  as  a  conspicuous  failure :    •*  nothing  could  be  more 
simply  arithmetical,  or  more  essentially  unreal "  (Atonement  and 
Personality,  pp.  367,  370,  371). 


8       ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

patristic  period,  the  death  of  Christ  was  conceived 
as  a  ransom  paid  to  the  devil,  as  with  Origen,  or  as 
a  fulfilment  of  the  law  of  holiness,  as  with  Athanasius, 
with  his  rich,  sympathetic  insight  into  the  mysticism 
of  St.  Paul.  With  Anselm,  it  was  a  satisfaction 
rendered  to  the  honour  and  the  justice  of  God.  With 
the  Reformers,  it  was  also  a  satisfaction,  but  passive, 
penal,  substitutionary,  and  in  this  form  it  has  re 
mained  the  dogma  of  traditional  orthodoxy  to  the 
present  time.  It  is  found  in  its  least  objectionable 
expression  in  the  chief  Anglican  authors,  and  Bishop 
Pearson  may  be  quoted  as  an  example  :  "  We  all  had 
sinned,  and  so  offended  the  justice  of  God,  and  by  an 
act  of  that  justice  the  sentence  of  death  passed  upon 
us ;  it  was  necessary  therefore  that  Christ  our  surety 
should  die,  to  satisfy  the  justice  of  God,  both  for  that 
iniquity,  as  the  propitiation  for  our  sins,  and  for  that 
penalty,  as  He  which  was  to  bear  our  griefs.  God 
was  offended  with  us,  and  He  must  die  who  was  to 
reconcile  Him  to  us."1 

To  those  who  have  never  known  any  other  mode 
of  describing  the  work  of  Christ,  it  will  seem  un 
settling  and  perilous  to  challenge  it.  But  it  may  be 
historically  demonstrated  that  it  is  not  Catholic 
doctrine,  and  that  it  is  only  "imagined  orthodoxy," 

1  Exposition  of  the  Creed,  Art.  iv. ;  see  also  Hooker,  Laws  of 
Ecclesiastical  Polity,  bk.  iv.  c.  v.  ;  Butler,  Analogy  of  Religion, 
pt.  ii.  c.  v. 


INTRODUCTION  9 

a  mere  "provincialism  in  Christian  theology.1'1  Its 
late  rise  is  felt  bv  the  modern  thinker  to  be  proof 
positive  that  it  cannot  be  inherent  in  the  Christian 
revelation,  since  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  unlikely 
that  the  Church  should  have  to  wait  a  full  millennium 
before  its  first  utterance.  A  recent  writer  says : 
"  But  when  a  dogma  is  presented  as  a  first  principle 
of  Christianity,  and  is  affirmed  to  be  a  plain  and 
explicit  doctrine  of  Scripture,  if  not  an  absolutely 
self-evident  truth,  the  fact  that  it  was  first  articulated 
by  a  Schoolman  of  the  twelfth  century  is  at  least 
a  presumptive  argument  against  its  claims.'1* 2  Simi 
larly,  one  of  the  pioneers  in  the  critical  reaction 
against  the  Reformation  theory  said  in  1860 :  "  I 
may  appeal  to  this  fact  of  its  being  modern  as  an 
argument  that,  even  if  true,  it  cannot  be  essential; 
and  that  they  to  whom  it  presents  insuperable  diffi 
culties,  they  who  fail  to  find  it  in  Scripture,  and  they 
who  feel  too  uncertain  about  it  to  adopt  it,  are  not, 
therefore,  to  be  pronounced  heretical,  or  regarded  as 
strangers  to  that  vital  and  central  truth  of  redemption 
by  the  blood  of  Christ  which  may  be  dearer  to  them 
than  their  lives."  3 

The   dogma,  which   seems   so  harmless  and  even 
comforting   to  those  who  have   not  thought  about 

1  Dr.  George  B.  Stevens,  The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Salvation, 
p.  252. 

2  T.  Vincent  Tymms,  The  Christian  Idea  of  Atonement,  p.  38. 
8  Francis  Garden,  in  Tracts  for  Priests  and  People,  I.  129  sq. 


10      ANSELM   ON  THE   ATONEMENT 

what  it  involves,  has  been  a  serious  obstacle  to  the 
faith  of  many.  In  its  crudest  form,  as  preached  by 
the  Salvation  Army,  it  revolts  the  conscience ;  the 
highest  consciousness  of  our  time  finds  it  morally 
impossible.  Yet  to  most  Christians  it  has  been  pre 
sented  as  the  very  marrow  of  the  Gospel ;  and  even 
when  modified  and  refined,  it  has  come  to  seem  too 
unreal  and  paradoxical  for  acceptance,  and  many  of 
them  are  forced  into  an  apparent  rejection  of  Divine 
revelation.  The  harm  that  has  been  wrought  by  the 
hard,  remorseless  processes  of  cold  and  passionless  in 
tellect  is  incalculable.  It  is  believed  therefore  to  be 
a  useful  apologetic  to  recover  the  truth  of  Atonement 
from  conceptions  that  are  misleading  and  dishonouring 
and  inhibitive  to  faith.  It  may  at  least  clear  the  way 
for  a  simpler  and  more  Scriptural  expression  of  the 
redemptive  work  of  Christ. 

We  must  discover,  then,  the  connection  of  Anselnrfs 
theory  with  the  Soteriology  of  the  Fathers,  whether 
by  affinity  or  by  contrast ;  we  must  seek  in  the 
patristic  ideas  for  any  possible  antecedents  and  anti 
cipations  of  it.  We  must  trace  its  genesis  from  the 
principles  and  practices  of  the  centuries  iipthfljliately 
preceding  its  composition.  We  must  indiXte  its 
effect  upon  subsequent  thought,  especially  during  the 
Reformation,  and  finally  the  reaction  against  it  in 
our  own  day.  This  reaction  will  be  seen  to  have 
made  its  way  through  painful  experiences  of  dis- 


INTRODUCTION  11 

illusionment  to  comparative  peace,  to  readiness  for  a 
new  construction  of  thought  by  means  of  the  modern 
understanding  of  ethics  and  personality ;  which  will 
probably,  after  all,  be  found  to  be  a  return  to  primi 
tive  Greek  conceptions  of  Christ  as  the  express 
image  of  the  Father  and  the  mystical  Sponsor  and 
Representative  of  men. 


II 

THE    PATRISTIC  TEACHING 


II 

THE  PATRISTIC  TEACHING 
1.   GENERAL  CHARACTERISTICS 

THERE  is  no  necessity  for  a  complete  statement 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  Fathers.  It  will  suffice  to  point 
out  those  details  in  which  their  point  of  view  is  differ 
ent  from  Anselm's,  and  those  in  which  they  have 
been  supposed  to  anticipate  him.  Mr.  J.  J.  Lias 
divides  the  writers  in  the  early  Church  concerning 
our  Lord's  redemptive  work  into  two  classes:  those 
who  explained  it  wrongly,  and  those  who  did  not 
explain  it  at  all.1  The  first  is  represented  by  those 
who  interpreted  it  as  a  ransom  paid  to  the  devil; 
the  second  by  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  and  others  in 
the  patristic  period  who  did  not  discuss  the  meaning 
and  reason  of  the  death  of  Christ. 

It  is  universally  confessed  that  the  Fathers  gener 
ally  were  not  concerned  with  what  we  should  now 
call  the  philosophy  of  the  Atonement.  Many  of 
them  never  in  any  form  raised  the  question,  How 
did  Christ  redeem  us  ?  They  accepted  the  fact,  but 
evidently  had  no  clear,  coherent  theory  of  the  process, 

1  The  Atonement,  p.  66. 


16      ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

and  no  notion  that  any  such  theory  was  in  any  wise 
necessary.  Its  absence  from  the  creeds,  except  in 
the  simple  expressions,  "who  for  us  men  and  for  our 
salvation  came  down  from  heaven,  and  was  incarnate 
by  the  Holy  Ghost  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  was  made 
man,  and  was  crucified  also  for  us  under  Pontius 
Pilate;  He  suffered  and  was  buried,  and  the  third 
day  He  rose  again,"  proves  that  they  could  not  have 
regarded  any  explanation  of  it  as  essential  to  ortho 
doxy,  or  as  the  corner-stone  of  the  Christian  faith. 
Its  omission  by  the  Apologists,  and  the  fact  that  no 
council  formulated  any  statement  of  Atonement,  also 
indicate  that  the  Church  of  the  first  seven  centuries 
believed  the  question  of  the  modus  of  Redemption 
to  be  infinitely  less  vital  than  it  has  been  regarded  by 
the  churches  of  the  Reformation. 

The  patristic  controversies  were  Christological  and 
anthropological;  nevertheless,  Soteriology  occupied 
the  minds  of  the  best  of  the  Fathers,  so  distinctly  and 
intelligently,  that  their  common  mode  of  explanation 
must  be  considered  to  unite  them  in  a  class  addi 
tional  to  those  mentioned  by  Mr.  Lias.  They  ex 
plained  the  Redemption  by  the  Incarnation,  in  direct 
antithesis  to  theologians  of  more  recent  times;  that 
is,  they  made  the  Incarnation  primary  and  the  Re 
demption  secondary.1  Their  theology  dealt  with  the 

1  Dr.  Littledale  in  The  Atonement:  A  Clerical  Symposium, 
pp.  7,  8. 


THE  PATRISTIC   TEACHING          17 

Nature  of  God  and  the  Person  of  Christ.  Dr.  George 
P.  Fisher  says  that  they  gave  themselves  so  intently 
to  the  questions  relating  to  the  Divinity  of  Christ, 
because  the  significance  of  His  saving  work  was 
inseparably  involved  in  them.1  But  they  did  not 
separate  the  Person  from  the  work,  as  was  afterwards 
done;  on  the  contrary,  some  of  them  made  the  two 
practically  identical.  "The  quite  subordinate  place 
allotted  to  the  Atonement,"  which  Dr.  Fisher  re 
marks  as  such  a  striking  phenomenon,  is  really  due 
to  their  definite  conviction  that,  in  essence,  the  Incar 
nation  was  itself  the  Atonement. 

Some  spoke  as  though  the  very  assumption  of 
human  nature  rescued  man  from  corruption.  But, 
as  a  rule,  the  death  of  Christ  was  included,  as  bound 
up  with  the  idea  and  purpose  of  the  Incarnation. 
The  death  was  not  expressed  as  the  end  for  which 
"the  Word  was  made  flesh."  The  Incarnation  was 
not  reduced  to  a  mere  means  to  that  end;  for 
it  was  sometimes  intimated  that  God  would  have 
become  incarnate,  even  if  there  had  been  no  sin. 
The  death,  however,  was  looked  upon  as  the  neces 
sary  and  effective  means  of  our  rescue  from  the 
bondage  of  corruption,  and  the  resurrection  as  the 
condition  of  our  participation  in  the  divine  life. 
Sometimes,  salvation  through  the  historic  Christ 
was  made  equivalent  to  a  divine  revelation,  ac- 
1  History  of  Christian  Doctrine,  p.  161. 


18      ANSELM   ON  THE  ATONEMENT 

cessible  to  all.  Again,  the  Incarnation  was  treated 
as  the  predestined  mode  of  perfecting  our  nature 
and  bringing  us  into  full  communion  with  God. 
Further,  it  was  held  that  Christ  renewed  us  by 
mystical  union  with  Himself,  and  that  the  "deifica 
tion"  of  humanity  was  consequent  upon  the  Incar 
nation  of  Deity. 

So  that,  although  the  period  of  the  Fathers  was 
not  an  age  of  dogma  upon  this  particular  subject,  it 
is  manifest  that  there  was  an  attempt  to  explain  the 
Atonement  by  the  Incarnation.  Dr.  Shedd  laments 
the  absence  of  exact  and  logical  formulation  of  this 
doctrine  by  the  Fathers:  that  they  present  "no 
scientific  construction"  of  it,  that  they  "attempted 
no  rationale  of  the  dogma" ;  that  they  made  no  refer 
ence  to  "the  judicial  reasons  and  grounds  of  the 
death"  of  our  Lord.1  This  simply  means  that  he 
does  not  find  the  scholastic  theory  in  the  Fathers  — 
which  is  quite  true;  but  it  also  indicates  the  happy 
distinction  between  their  theology  and  that  introduced 
by  Anselm  and  continued  by  the  Reformers.  We 
shall  find  in  them  nothing  of  satisfaction,  active  or 
passive,  nothing  of  real  appeasement  of  the  Father's 
wrath  (except  in  the  Latins),  nothing  of  substitu- 
tionary  suffering,  nothing  of  the  imputation  of  our 
sins  or  of  Christ's  merits,  nothing  of  justice  as  the 
characteristic  attribute  of  God's  nature,  nothing 
1  History  of  Christian  Doctrine,  II.  204,  207,  211.  « 


THE    PATRISTIC   TEACHING          19 

legal  or  metaphysical  or  artificial  in  the  description 
of  Christ's  work.1 


2.   THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS 

The  immediate  successors  of  the  Apostles  confine 
themselves  to  the  language  of  Scripture,  without 
exegesis  or  theorising.  Some  apply  passages  of  the 
Old  Testament  to  the  death  of  Christ ;  as  the  scarlet 
thread  of  Rahab,  Psalm  xxii.,  and  Isaiah  liii.  Some 
make  large  use  of  sacrificial  language,  finding  in 
Christ  the  fulfilment  of  the  types  in  the  Jewish  ritual.2 
Others  again  use  analogies  of  a  rhetorical  or  pictorial 
kind,  to  describe  the  effect  of  the  Saviour's  work 
upon  us.  Their  frequent  references  to  the  cross  have 
been  interpreted  as  indicating  the  ground  of  our  for-^  j 
giveness ;  but  they  seem  rather  to  express  the  means,  y 

The  Didache  has  no  mention  of  a  saving  work  of 
Christ,  more  than  of  "the  knowledge  and  faith  and 
immortality  made  known"  through  Him  (10).  Her- 
mas  alludes  to  it  only  in  connection  with  His  whole 

1  H.  N.  Oxenham,  The  Catholic  Doctrine  of  Atonement,  pp. 
128,  129. 

2  It  cannot  be  assumed  that  these  sacrifices  connote  expia 
tion.    Says  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge  (Schaff-Herzog,  Art.  "Atonement") : 
"It  is  certain  that,  more  or  less  clearly,  they  always  held  the 
doctrine  of   expiation  and   satisfaction  subsequently  held  by  the 
whole  church."    His  references  show  merely  that  they  employed 
Scriptural  phrases,  and  nothing  can  be  less  certain  than  Dr.  Hodge's 
st^ement. 


20      ANSELM    ON    THE    ATONEMENT 

activity.1  Clement  of  Rome  says  that  "the  blood  of 
Christ  .  .  .  having  been  shed  for  our  salvation,  has 
conferred  upon  the  whole  world  the  grace  of  repent 
ance."  2  He  says  again:  "On  account  of  the  love 
He  bore  us,  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  has  given  His 
blood  for  us  by  the  will  of  God ;  His  flesh  for  [vtrep] 
our  flesh,  and  His  soul  for  [virep]  our  souls  "  (xlix). 
But  his  main  thought  is  ethical,  chapter  xvi.  being  a 
description  of  Christ  as  an  example  of  humility,  the 
whole  of  Isaiah  liii.  and  parts  of  Psalm  xxii.  being 
quoted  in  illustration.  He  has  no  doctrinal  explana 
tion  of  the  death  of  Christ,  referring  to  it  simply  as 
"the  constraining  motive  to  gratitude,  reverence,  and 
self-sacrifice."  3 

Barnabas  regards  the  death  of  Christ  as  the  fulfil 
ment  of  prophecy:  "The  prophets  prophesied  con- 
cerning  Him.  ...  It  was  necessary  that  He  should 
suffer  on  the  tree  "  (Ep.  v).  He  also  says:  "The 
Son  of  God  could  not  have  suffered  except  for  our 
sakes  "  (vii) ;  but  he  dwells  especially  on  the  analogy 
of  the  Levitical  sacrifices,  applying  the  figures  of 

1  Pastor,  iii.  Simil.  v. 

2  /    ad    Cor.,    vii.     Lightfoot    reads   "  vwr/veyKev,    ' offered. " 
The  alternative   reading,   iirjveyicev,   has  the  meaning   given   in 
the  text;   although  Canon  Moberly  prefers  "won"  or  "rescued" 
for  either  reading   (Atonement  and  Personality,   p.  326).     The 
translation  in  T.  and  T.  Clark's  Ante-Nicene  Christian  Library 
evidently    agrees    with    Lightfoot,    rendering,    "has    set    before' 
(I.  12). 

8  J.  S.  Lidgett,  The  Spiritual  Principle  of  the  Atonement,  p.  4§1. 


THE   PATRISTIC  TEACHING          21 

the  scape-goat  and  the  red  heifer  as  types.  There 
is  no  attempt  beyond  this  to  enter  into  the  reasons 
for  Christ's  sacrifice. 

Ignatius  frequently  speaks  of  the  sufferings  and 
death  of  Christ  "for  our  sakes,"  1  but  connects  them 
specifically  with  forgiveness  in  but  one  passage  in  the 
traditional  formula:  "the  flesh  of  our  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ,  which  suffered  for  our  sins."  2  He  dwells 
upon  the  manifestation  of  love  in  Christ's  Passion, 
which  has  the  life-giving  power  of  making  us  like 
Him :  "be  ye  renewed  ...  in  love,  that  is,  the  blood 
of  Jesus  Christ."  3  But,  above  all,  he  thinks  of  the 
personality  of  Christ  as  the  nourishment  of  the  soul : 
"I  desire  the  bread  of  God,  the  heavenly  bread,  the 
bread  of  life,  which  is  the  flesh  of  Jesus  Christ,  .  .  . 
and  I  desire  the  drink  of  God,  namely  His  blood, 
which  is  incorruptible  love  and  eternal  life."  4  The 
symbol  and  means  of  this  nourishment  are  the 
Eucharist,  which  he  declares  to  be  "the  flesh  of  our 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ."  5 

The  beautiful  Epistle  to  Diognetus,  which  Dr. 
Fisher  calls  "the  pearl  of  the  Apologetic  literature," 
is  much  more  explicit  in  its  reference  to  the  Atone 
ment  than  other  writings  of  this  period.  It  contains 

Ad  Smyrn.,  ii ;  ad  Polyc.,  iii ;  ad  Magn.,  ix ;  ad  Troll.,  ii. 
Ad  Smyrn.,  vii. 
Ad  Troll.,  viii. 
Ad  Rom.,  vii. 
Ad  Smyrn.,  vii. 


22      ANSELM   ON    THE    ATONEMENT 

some  striking  and  unusual  expressions,  which  have 
been  interpreted  as  conveying  the  later  idea  of  sub 
stitution.  The  author  speaks  of  "punishment  im 
pending,"  of  Christ  as  a  "ransom  for  us,"  of  His 
taking  the  burden  of  our  iniquities,  of  His  covering 
our  sins  by  His  righteousness;  and  exclaims:  "O 
sweet  exchange !  O  benefits  surpassing  all  expecta 
tion  !  that  the  wickedness  of  many  should  be  covered 
by  the  One  righteous,  and  the  righteousness  of  the 
One  should  justify  many  unrighteous!"  (ix).  Dr. 
Stevens  asserts  that  this  means  "a  transfer  of  our 
iniquities  to  Christ  and  of  His  righteousness  to  us." 
If  so,  it  is  certainly  astonishing  that  it  should  have 
found  so  little  response  in  the  subsequent  discussion, 
or  indeed  for  many  centuries  thereafter.  But  it 
seems  extremely  unlikely  that  it  means  anything  of 
the  sort,  however  familiar  the  language  may  sound. 
The  allusions  to  "punishment  and  death"  as  the 
"reward"  of  our  wickedness,  and  to  the  covering  of 
our  sins,  are  Scriptural  enough ;  the  latter  being  the 
Hebraism  rendered  in  our  version  of  the  Old  Testa 
ment  by  "make  atonement  for."  The  whole  con 
nection  shows  that  it  is  a  reminiscence  of  St.  Paul  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans:  "For  what  else  could 
cover  (or,  make  atonement  for)  our  sins  but  His 
righteousness  ?  In  whom  could  we  wicked  and  un 
godly  men  be  justified,  save  in  the  Son  of  God  alone  ?" 
1  Op.  cit.,  p.  137.  • 


THE   PATRISTIC    TEACHING         23 

The  expressions,  \vrpov  virep  and  dvra\\ayri,  cannot 
be  made  to  do  service  for  the  idea  of  substitution .  The 
Biblical  words  must  stand  or  fall  with  their  Biblical 
use;  VTrep  means  only  "in  behalf  of,"  and  \vrpov  is 
constantly  used  for  "the  condition  upon  which  a 
thing  is  granted."  The  "exchange,"  in  a  Calvinistic 
statement  of  the  Atonement,  would  have  meant  an 
exchange  of  place,  a  transfer  of  merit  and  demerit. 
But  here  it  manifestly  means  the  exchange  of  right 
eousness  for  wickedness,  of  justification  for  condem 
nation,  an  exchange  of  situation  in  the  sinner  him 
self  brought  about  by  the  love  of  the  Father  who  gave 
His  own  Son  for  us  and  by  the  righteousness  of  the 
Son  who  willingly  offered  Himself.  The  entire 
chapter  is  very  eloquent,  and  is  clearly  rhetorical  and 
devotional  rather  than  dogmatic.1 

The  Epistle  bases  redemption,  not  upon  God's 
need  of  reconciliation,  but  upon  His  clemency  and 
kindness.  "As  a  king  sends  his  son,  who  is  also  a 
king,  so  sent  He  Him ;  as  God  He  sent  Him ;  as  to 
men  He  sent  Him;  as  a  Saviour  He  sent  Him;  as 

1  Archdeacon  Norris  understands  the  "exchange"  to  be  the 
inspiring  fact  that  God  became  man  in  order  that  we  might  become 
the  children  of  God  (Rudiments  of  Theology,  p.  273).  Abbe  J. 
Riviere  interprets  the  Epistle  as  saying  that  the  holiness  of  Christ 
is  the  "compensation  necessaire  et  efficace  de  nos  fautes,"  and 
calls  this  "  le  grand  pr.ncipe  paulinien  de  la  substitution  du  Christ 
a  1'humanite  coupablc"  (Le  Dogrnc  de  la  Redemption,  p.  111).  But 
these  ideas  belong  to  later  ages,  and  may  not  be  attributed  to  this 
author. 


24      ANSELM    ON  THE   ATONEMENT 

persuading,  not  as  forcing ;  for  mere  force  belongeth 
not  to  God.  He  sent  Him  as  calling,  not  persecuting ; 
as  loving  us,  not  as  judging  us"  (vii).  The  whole 
atmosphere  is  vitally  different  from  that  of  the  legal 
theory  of  retributive  justice  and  vicarious  satisfaction. 
Dr.  Shedd  claims,  however,  that  the  latter  idea 
"is  distinctly  enunciated  by  the  Apostolic  Fathers." 
But  again  He  says:  they  "  merely  repeated  the  Scrip 
ture  phraseology  which  contained  the  truth,  .  .  . 
but  did  not  enunciate  it  in  the  exact  and  guarded 
statements  of  a  scientific  formula."  *  "Taken  as  a 
whole,  the  body  of  patristic  theology  exhibits  but  an 
imperfect  theoretic  comprehension  of  the  most  fun 
damental  truth  in  the  Christian  system."  2  Now,  no 
inference  can  be  built  upon  the  connection  of  forgive 
ness  with  Christ's  death  in  the  very  language  of  the 
Scriptures;  for  that  simply  remands  the  inquiry  to 
what  the  Scriptures  themselves  mean,  and  it  is  a  too 
common  tendency  to  read  later  theories  into  the  New 
Testament  writers.  The  abundant  references  to  the 
sufferings  and  death  of  Christ  are  quite  indeterminate. 
These  earliest  writers  stop  with  attributing  the  fa 
miliar  valuation  to  them,  but  they  attempt  to  give 
no  reason  for  their  saving  efficacy.  The  slight  similar 
ity  of  a  few  expressions  to  later  formulations  cannot 
be  regarded  as  in  any  way  characteristic  in  an  age  of 

1  Op.  tit.,  II.  265,  211,  264. 
8  Ibid.,  p.  212. 


THE    PATRISTIC   TEACHING          25 

"simple  affirmations."  Neander  says  of  this  period : 
"Of  a  satisfaction  paid  by  the  sufferings  of  Christ  to 
the  Divine  justice  not  the  slightest  mention  is  as  yet 
to  be  found."  l  A  French  author  quoted  by  Riviere 
speaks  of  "the  power  of  platitude  or  dullness  suited 
to  the  epoch  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers."  2  All  these 
candid  admissions  by  very  conservative  writers  are  a 
sufficient  answer  to  the  assertion  that  any  theory  of 
satisfaction,  Anselmic  or  Reformation,  can  be  found 
in  the  Apostolic  Fathers. 

3.   THE  POST- APOSTOLIC  FATHERS 

The  conception  of  redemption  during  the  second 
and  third  centuries  was  partly  ethical,  as  the  obedi 
ence  of  the  new  law  and  the  entrance  by  faith  into 
eternal  life  through  a  true  knowledge  of  God ;  it  was 
partly  idealistic  and  mystical,  as  the  change  wrought 
in  human  nature  by  the  Incarnation.  The  Fathers 
of  this  period  made  little  of  the  guilt  of  sin,  but  much 
of  its  spiritual  effects.  The  absence  from  them  of 
fear  of  the  Divine  displeasure  and  of  the  need  of  its 
placation  is  remarkable,  considering  how  universal 
these  ideas  were  among  the  pagans.  In  direct  an 
tithesis  to  Anselm  and  the  moderns,  they  do  not  deal 
with  the  objective  effect  of  Christ's  work  upon  God. 

1  Church  History,  II.  385. 
3  Op.  tit.,  p.  105. 


26      ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 


a.   Justin  Martyr  (ob.  164?). 

Dr.  Fisher  says:  "It  is  the  Incarnation  rather 
than  the  Atonement  that  interests  him."  This  is 
true,  but  he  saw  a  redeeming  and  reconciling  ef 
ficacy  in  the  Incarnation,  in  and  of  itself.  E.  g. : 
"Corruption  then  becoming  inherent  in  nature,  it  was 
necessary  that  He  who  wished  to  save  should  be  one 
who  destroyed  the  efficient  cause  of  corruption.  And 
this  could  not  otherwise  be  done  than  by  the  life 
which  is  according  to  nature  being  united  to  that 
which  had  received  the  corruption,  and  so  destroying 
the  corruption,  while  preserving  as  immortal  for  the 
future  that  which  had  received  it.  It  was  therefore 
necessary  that  the  Word  should  become  possessed  of 
a  body,  that  He  might  deliver  us  from  the  death  of 
natural  corruption." 2  He  sometimes  speaks  as 
though  we  were  saved  by  the  teaching  of  Christ. 
"Becoming  man  according  to  His  will,  He  taught  us 
these  things  for  the  conversion  and  restoration  of 
the  human  race."  3  In  the  Dialogue  with  Trypho, 
he  describes  his  studies  in  philosophy  with  the 
Peripatetics,  the  Stoics,  the  Pythagoreans,  the  Pla- 

1  Op.  cit.,  p.  66. 

3  Fragment  in  Vol.  II.,  Ante-Nicene  Library,  T.  and  T.  Clark, 
p.  358. 

3  ApoL,  I.  xxiii.  "It  is  the  teaching  of  Christ  which  holds  the 
central  place  in  Justin's  thoughts"  (Fisher,  op.  cit.,  p.  62). 


THE   PATRISTIC   TEACHING          27 

tonists,  and  then  narrates  his  conversion  to  Christ, 
by  means  of  which  he  learned  things  which  Plato  and 
the  others  never  knew.  Hence,  Christianity  was  to 
him  the  divinely  revealed  philosophy:  "I  found 
this  philosophy  alone  to  be  safe  and  profitable.  Thus, 
and  for  this  reason,  I  am  a  philosopher"  (viii). 
Redemption,  to  him,  therefore,  was  the  result  of 
perfect  revelation.  Irenseus  quotes  him  as  saying 
in  his  lost  work  against  Marcion:  "summing  up  His 
own  handiwork  in  Himself."  1  This  is  the  recapitu- 
latio,  which  was  so  radical  in  Irenseus's  own  exposi 
tion  of  the  Atonement,  and  which  represents  Justin's 
special  emphasis  upon  the  Incarnation. 

Yet  he  also  speaks  of  "the  bloody  passion  of 
Christ  on  the  cross."  2  He  refers  many  times  in  the 
Apologies  and  the  Dialogue  to  the  death  as  the 
necessary  preliminary  to  the  resurrection  (as  in 
Apol.y  I.  Ixiii) ;  but  Professor  Harnack  says  that  he 
"nowhere  gives  any  indication  of  seeing  in  the  death  - 
of  Christ  more  than  the  mystery  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment,  and  the  confirmation  of  its  trustworthiness." 
This  is  evident  when  any  attempt  is  made  to  draw 
modern  inferences  from  his  language.  He  says :  "The 
Father  of  all  wished  His  Christ  for  the  whole  human 
family  to  take  upon  Him  the  curses  of  all"  (Dial., 

1  Adv.  Haer.,  iv.  6,  2. 

8  Ante-Nicene  Library,  II.  357. 

3  History  of  Dogma,  I.  220. 


28      ANSELM   ON  THE   ATONEMENT 

xcv).  But  he  specifically  denies  that  any  "curse  lies 
on  the  Christ  of  God"  (xciv);  he  speaks  of  "the 
seeming  curse"  (xc),  and,  "as  if  He  were  accursed" 
(xcv).  He  even  says:  "Our  suffering  and  crucified 
Christ  was  not  under  the  curse  of  the  law"  (cxi),  and 
holds  with  Tertullian  that  the  curse  was  laid  on  Him 
by  men  (xcv).  The  "curses  of  all"  which  Christ 
took  upon  Him,  then,  must  refer  to  the  evils  incident 
to  man's  sinful  condition,  and  means  no  more  than 
the  equivalent  expression  which  Justin  uses  in  the 
following  sentence:  "He  suffered  these  things  in 
behalf  of  the  human  family."  The  redemption  was 
by  means  of  Christ's  identification  with  the  sufferings 
of  the  race  on  account  of  sin. 

Neander  says:  "In  Justin  Martyr  may  be  recog 
nised  the  idea  of  a  satisfaction  rendered  by  Christ 
through  suffering  —  at  least  lying  at  the  bottom,  if 
it  is  not  clearly  unfolded  and  held  fast  in  the  form  of 
conscious  thought."  1  This  is  one  of  those  instances 
of  reading  into  an  author  ideas  which  belong  to  a 
much  later  age,  from  the  assumption  that  what  is  now 
regarded  as  orthodox  must  have  been  held  by  the 
primitive  writers.  We  look  in  vain  for  any  trace  of 
satisfaction,  or  even  expiation,  which  must  have 

1  Church  History,  I.  642.  Similarly  Riviere:  "Nous  avons 
la  deja  1'idee  de  substitution,  qui  sera  si  feconde  dans  la  tradition 
posterieure"  (Le  Dogme,  etc.,  p.  115).  But  Riviere  admits  that  we 
are  cursed  for  our  sins;  Justin  regarded  the  curse  on  Christ  as 
having  been  laid  on  Him  by  men. 


THE  PATRISTIC  TEACHING          29 

been  found  in  the  Dialogue  if  he  had  accepted  it  as 
Christian  doctrine.1 


b.   IrencBus  (ob.  202). 

Dr.  Lindsay  says,  in  his  article  on  Irenseus  in  the 
Encyclopaedia  Britannica:  "It  is  difficult  to  state 
with  any  precision  what  Irenseus  holds  about  the 
nature  of  the  effect  of  Christ's  work  of  reconciliation 
upon  man.  He  makes  great  use  of  metaphor,  and 
evidently  had  not  learned  to  express  himself  other 
wise.  The  doctrine  is  still  in  its  pictorial  state  in  his 
mind.  Still,  traces  appear  of  that  tendency  after 
wards  common  in  the  Greek  Church  to  make  the 
Incarnation  rather  than  the  crucifixion  and  ascension 
of  our  Lord  the  most  important  part  of  His  work, 
and  to  look  upon  the  effect  of  that  work  as  a  trans 
fusion  of  the  Incarnation  through  redeemed  human 
ity"  (XIII.  274).  It  may  be  said,  however,  that 
amid  the  variety  of  his  figures  may  be  discerned  a 
consistent  adherence  to  this  root-thought  which  he 
derived  from  Justin. 

Occasionally,  he  seems  to  fall  to  a  lower  level. 
"Propitiating  God  for  men,  .  .  .  that  exiled  man 
might  go  forth  from  condemnation."2  "Propitiating 

1  Riviere  admits  of  Justin,  as  of  his  predecessors:    "Pour  en 
expliquer  la  vertu,  il  n'y  a  pas  encore  de  theorie  propriement  dite" 
(p.  115). 

2  Adv.  Haer.,  iv.  8,  2. 


30      ANSELM    ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

for  us  the  Father  against  whom  we  had  sinned, 
and  cancelling  [consolatus]  our  disobedience  by  His 
own  obedience;  conferring  also  upon  us  the  gift  of 
communion  with,  and  subjection  to,  our  Maker."  * 
Yet,  as  Dr.  Fisher  admits,  this  is  not  dwelt  upon  or 
definitely  worked  out  (p.  86);  and  in  any  case  he 
makes  the  central  and  reparative  element  in  the 
work  of  Christ  to  consist  in  His  obedience,  which  he 
illustrates  by  the  temptation  (v.  21,  2).  On  the  other 
hand,  in  answer  to  the  question,  "Why  did  the 
Saviour  descend  into  the  world  ?"  he  says  that  it  was 
to  give  the  knowledge  of  the  truth;  that  is,  He  is 
Redeemer  as  Teacher,  which  we  have  already  found 
in  Clement  and  Justin  (ii.  14,  7). 

He  views  the  saving  work  as  completed  in  the 
passion  and  death.2  But  elsewhere  he  makes  Christ's 
body  and  blood  the  means  of  our  redemption,  be 
cause  they  were  the  means  of  communion  between 
God  and  man.  "If  the  Lord  became  incarnate  for 
any  other  order  of  things,  and  took  flesh  of  any  other 
substance,  He  has  not  then  summed  up  human 
nature  in  His  own  person,  nor  in  that  case  can  He  be 
termed  flesh.  ...  He  had  Himself,  therefore,  flesh 
and  blood,  recapitulating  in  Himself  not  a  certain 
other,  but  that  original  handiwork  of  the  Father, 

1  Adv.  Haer.t  v.  17,  1.    See  also  iii.  18;  xvii.  1. 

2  Ibid.,  ii.  20,  3;  iii.  16,  9:  "who  did  by  suffering  reconcile  us 
to  God." 


THE   PATRISTIC   TEACHING          31 

seeking  out  that  thing  which  had  perished.  And  for 
this  cause  the  apostle,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians, 
says,  ...  'Ye  have  been  reconciled  in  the  body  of 
His  flesh,'  because  the  righteous  flesh  has  reconciled 
that  flesh  which  was  being  kept  under  bondage  in  sin, 
and  brought  it  into  friendship  with  God.  .  .  .  For 
that  thing  is  reconciled  which  had  formerly  been  in 
enmity.  Now,  if  the  Lord  had  taken  flesh  from 
another  substance,  He  would  not,  by  so  doing,  have 
reconciled  that  one  to  God  which  had  been  inimical 
through  transgression.  But  now,  by  means  of  com 
munion  with  Himself,  the  Lord  has  reconciled  man  to 
God  the  Father,  in  reconciling  us  to  Himself  by  the 
body  of  His  own  flesh,  and  redeeming  us  by  His  own 
blood.  .  .  .  And  in  every  epistle  the  apostle  plainly 
testifies,  that  through  the  flesh  of  our  Lord,  and 
through  His  blood,  we  have  been  saved  "  (v.  14,  2,  3). 
Thus,  he  distinctly  lays  stress  upon  the  Incarnation 
itself  as  the  Atonement,  by  its  manifestation  of  God 
and  man  actually  at  one  in  Christ,  and  by  its  resto 
ration  of  communion  between  man  and  God.  In  this 
connection,  we  have  the  first  expression  of  the  idea, 
so  often  repeated  in  the  Greek  Fathers:  "Our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  became  what  we  are,  that  He  might 
bring  us  to  be  even  what  He  is  Himself."  This  may 
be  regarded  as  a  fundamental  Greek  thought,  more 

1  Adv.  Haer.,  v,  preface ;   also,  iv.  6,2:    "  He  was  made  that 
which  we  are,  that  He  might  make  us  completely  what  He  is." 


32      ANSELM   ON   THE  ATONEMENT 

fully  developed  than  any  other;  so  that  to  most  of 
those  Fathers  the  essence  of  the  Atonement  lay  in 
the  Incarnation  itself.  With  Irenseus,  this  is  not  a 
mere  inference;  it  is  expressed  in  so  many  words: 
"the  Lord  has  restored  us  into  friendship  through 
His  Incarnation,  having  become  the  Mediator  be 
tween  God  and  men"  (that  is,  the  medium  of  com 
munication).1 

It  may  be  said  that  Irenseus's  characteristic  word 
is  the  one  he  borrowed  from  Justin,  "recapitulatio, 
am/<:e(/)aA,a/ft)cri?,"  which  he  also  calls  "the  adoption."2 
It  was  to  him  thoroughly  realistic,  and  seemed  to  be 
warranted  by  St.  Paul:  "that  He  might  sum  up  in 
one  all  things  in  Christ"  (Eph.  i.  10).  Sin  was  sep 
aration  from  God  (v.  27,  2) ;  what  was  lost  in  Adam 
was  the  image  and  likeness  of  God  (iii.  18,  1) ;  so 
that  Riviere  is  right  in  making  the  word  include 
both  "resume"  and  " restauration "  (p.  120).  Christ 
saved  men  by  identification  with  them;  "attaching 

1  Adv.  Haer.,  \.  17,  1.    See  iii.  18,  7:  "For  it  was  incumbent 
upon  the  Mediator  between  God  and  men,  by  His  relationship  to 
both,  to  bring  both  to  friendship  and  concord,  and  present  man 
to  God,  while  He  revealed  God  to  man." 

2  Ibid.,  iii.  16,  3  and  6;  18,  1  and  7;  21,  10;  23,  1 ;  iv.  38,  1 ; 
v.  14,  2;    16,  2;    18,  3;    19,  1;   20,  2;    21,  1,  2.  See  also  Hilary 
(De  Trin.,  ii.  24):    "He  did  it  that  by  His  incarnation  he  might 
take  to  Himself  from  the  Virgin  the  fleshly   nature,   and  that 
through  this  commingling  there  might  come  into  being  a  hallowed 
Body  of  all  humanity,  that  so  through  that  Body  which  He  was 
pleased  to  assume  all  mankind  might  be  hid  in  Him,  and  He  in 
return,  through  His  unseen  existence,  be  reproduced  in  all." 


THE   PATRISTIC   TEACHING          33 

man  to  God  by  His  own  Incarnation"  (ii.  20,  3). 
"By  His  birth  as  man"  He  reunites  things  unnatu 
rally  separated,  and  "first  and  alone  realises  the 
hitherto  unaccomplished  destination  of  humanity." 
Dr.  Dorner  says  that  "the  idea  of  substitution  is  com 
mon  to  all  the  Fathers,"  and  then  quotes  Irenseus 
on  recapitulation  to  prove  it.2  But  that  is  the  very 
antipodes  of  substitution,  which  is  equivalent  to 
putting  Christ  in  the  place  of  others,  whereas  Irenseus 
thought  of  His  solidarity  with  them  by  His  mystical 
reception  of  them  into  His  Divine  Person.3 

Irenaeus  also  says  that  Christ  gave  Himself  as  a 
redemptio  or  ransom : 4  although  he  never  represents 
this  as  paid  to  the  devil.5  He  says  further:  "There 
fore  by  His  own  blood  the  Lord  redeemed  us,  giving 
His  soul  for  [vTrep]  our  souls,  and  His  flesh  for  [avr'i\ 
our  flesh"  (v.  1,  I).6  It  has  been  frequently  asserted 
that,  while  he  may  not  have  explicitly  stated  that  the 
ransom  was  paid  to  the  devil,  "the  early  hints  of  this 
theory  are  to  be  found  in  his  writings."  7  There  can 

1  Harnack,  op.  cit.,  II.  238-242. 

2  System  of  Christian  Doctrine,  IV.  8 ;  italics  his. 

3  "Nous  sommes  solidaires  du  second  Adam  comme  nous 
1'etions  du  premier — solidaires  jusqu'  a  1' id entite"( Riviere, p.  123). 
"In  the  second  Adam  we  were  reconciled,  we  being  made  obedient 
even  unto  death"  (Adv.  Haer.,  v.  16,  3). 

4  Probably  \vrpov  in  the  lost  original. 

6  Contra  Harnack,  II.  290. 

0  'AVTI  is  probably  the  preposition  of  price, 

7  A.  V.  G.  Allen,  Christian  Institutions,  p.  358. 

3 


34      ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

be  no  doubt  that  Satan  was  from  this  time  very  con 
spicuous  in  patristic  thought,  and  that  deliverance 
from  the  fear  of  him  was  the  practical  import  of  the 
ensuing  doctrine.  But  it  was  Origen  who  first  for 
mulated  this  unfortunate  theory.1  Irenseus  held  that 
men  were  God's  debtors,  unjustly  kept  in  captivity 
by  Satan,  although  their  having  yielded  themselves 
to  him  made  it  unfair  for  them  to  be  rescued  by  the 
mere  exercise  of  Divine  power.  This  is  vitally  dif 
ferent  from  Origen 's  recognition  of  the  devil's  right 
ful  claim.  Moreover,  the  only  two  passages  referred 
to  in  proof  of  the  derivation  from  Irenseus  are  Adv. 
Hacr.,  v.  1,  1  and  v.  21,  3;  and  neither  of  them  will 
bear  out  the  contention. 

The  crucial  passage  is  the  former,  especially  in 
the  sentence:  "The  Word  of  God  .  .  .  dealt  justly 
even  with  the  apostasy  itself,  redeeming  from  it  His 
own  property,  not  by  violent  means,  .  .  .  but  by 
means  of  persuasion,  as  became  a  God  persuading 
and  not  using  violence  to  obtain  what  lie  desires."  2 
The  question  is,  to  whom  does  "persuasion"  (sua- 
dela)  refer,  to  the  devil  or  man  ?  Many  apply  it  to 
the  devil,  as  though  God  recognised  certain  rights 

1  Harnack,  III.  307;   Norris,  Rudiments  of  Theology,  p.  279. 

2  "Non    cum    vi,  .  .  .    sed    secundum    suadelam,    quemad- 
modum  decebat  Deum  suadentem,  et  non  vim  inferentem,  accipere 
quae  vellet."    Translated :  "  as  became  a  God  of  counsel,  who  does 
not  use  violent  means  to  obtain"  (Ante-Nicene  Library,  IX.  56); 
and:    "as  became  God,  by  persuasion  rather  than  by  violence 
regaining  what  He  sought"  (Norris,  op.  cit.,  p.  276). 


THE   PATRISTIC   TEACHING         35 

of  the  "apostasy,"  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  it 
had  originally  gained  its  mastery  over  us  by  violence 
and  "tyrannised  over  us  unjustly";  among  these 
are  Baur  and  Neander.1  F.  Huidekoper  contrasts 
the  injustice  of  the  apostate  in  acquiring  his  mastery 
over  us  with  the  just  behaviour  of  "the  Word"  even 
to  the  apostate,  in  redeeming  His  own,  "not  by  force, 
but  by  persuasion  and  as  became  a  Divine  Being, 
persuading  him  without  violence  to  accept  what  he 
wished."2  Mr.  Oxenham  understands  by  "persua 
sion,"  "a  method  which  convinced  Satan  his  rights 
were  at  an  end  " ;  and  translates :  "as  it  became  God 
to  receive  what  He  willed  by  persuasion  and  not  by 
force"  (p.  132).3 

The  language,  however,  is  susceptible  of  a  different 
rendering.  Dr.  Shedd  gives  the  substance  thus: 
"Mankind  did  not  apostatise  through  compulsion, 
but  by  persuasion  (suadendo) ;  consequently  their 
redemption  must  take  the  same  course."  4  Arch 
deacon  Norris  also  applies  it  to  man,  and  says  its 
meaning  is  "that  Christ  obliged  the  tyrant  to  surren- 
der  his  captives  not  by  violence,  but  by  inducing 
those  captives  to  forsake  him."  6  Dr.  Tymms  inter- 

1  F.  C.  Baur,  Die  Christliche  Lehre  von  der  Versohnung,  p.  28; 
A.  Neander,  History  of  Christian  Dogmas,  I.  212. 

3  Christ's  Mission  to  the  Underworld,  p.  90. 

1  Also,  apparently,  Simon,  The  Redemption  of  Man,  p.  11. 

4  Hist.  Christ.  Doctrine,  II.  222. 
8  Op.  cit.,  pp.  274-279. 


36       ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

prets  that  Satan  had  no  rights  over  us,  but  a  forcible 
snatching  of  man  from  his  grasp  would  not  be  a  real 
redemption.  Our  rescue,  therefore,  is  by  the  per 
suasive  power  of  Christ's  death,  whereby  we  are  in 
duced  to  forsake  voluntarily  the  service  of  the  Evil 
One,  so  reversing  the  process  by  which  we  came  into 
bondage.1 

It  has  been  happily  suggested  that  Irenaeus  was 
simply  repeating  the  familiar  expression  of  the  Epistle 
to  Diognetus :  "o>?  aw^wv  eTrefjnfrev,  co?  nreiOwv^  ov  j3ia- 
foyLteyo?."  2  The  twenty-first  chapter  of  this  same  fifth 
book,  "Against  Heresies,"  seems  to  render  the  above 
conclusion  certain.  "The  apostate  angel  of  God 
is  ...  vanquished  by  the  Son  of  man  keeping  the  com 
mandment  of  God"  (v.  21,3);  and  Section  2  applies 
this,  not  to  the  passion,  but  to  the  temptation,  wherein 
Satan  tried  to  persuade  our  Lord  as  he  had  previously 
enticed  man.  Neither  in  the  temptation  nor  in  any 
other  relation  did  Christ  try  to  persuade  the  devil. 
On  the  contrary,  "the  Word  bound  him  securely  as 
a  runaway  slave,  and  made  spoil  of  his  goods.  .  .  . 
And  justly  is  he  led  captive"  (Ibid.).  Our  Lord's 


1  T.  Vincent  Tymms,  op.  cit.,  p.  24.    A  similar  view  is  taken 
by  Dorner,  Gieseler,  and  Hagenbach  (see  I.  83) ;    Young,   The 
Life  and  Light  of  Men,  p.  438 ;  Fisher,  Hist.  Christ.  Doct.,  p.  17 ; 
Harnack  (cf.  II.  290  and  III.  307) ;   Allen  (Christ.  Instil.,  p.  357, 
note) ;   Lidgett,  The  Spiritual  Principle  of  the  Atonement,  p.  431 ; 
Stevens,  The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Salvation,  p.  139. 

2  In  fact,  Dorner  uses  this  very  passage  to  refute  Bnur. 


THE   PATRISTIC   TEACHING         37 

relation  to  the  devil  was  one  of  conquest ;  the  moral 
suasion  was  addressed  to  man.  The  influence  of 
His  death  was  on  mankind,  not  on  the  devil ;  so  that 
the  idea  to  that  extent  is  one  of  moral  influence.  The 
concession  of  the  devil's  claim  was  in  reality  a  Gnostic 
heresy;  and  Baur  applies  "suadela"  to  Satan,  be 
cause  he  supposes  that  Irenseus  had  substituted  the 
devil  for  the  Demiurge.  But  few  will  believe  that  the 
opponent  of  the  Gnostics  should  have  differed  from 
them  only  nominally  on  this  point.1 

c.  Clement  of  Alexandria  (ob.  circa  216) 

This  Father  alludes  to  several  New  Testament 
figures,  but  lays  no  emphasis  upon  them  by  working 
them  out.  He  also  quotes  without  explanation :  "He 
is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins,  as  St.  John  says." 
Some  of  his  expressions  suggest  the  traditional 
language  of  later  times.  Thus  he  makes  Jesus  say 
to  the  Christian  soul,  "I  have  fully  paid  for  thy  death 
which  thou  didst  owe  for  thy  sins" ;  and  he  recounts 

1  The  proofs  adduced  for  the  hints  of  Origen's  theory  in 
Irenseus  are  wholly  inadequate,  and  are  obtained  by  separating 
the  first  chapter  of  the  Fifth  Book  from  all  the  rest  of  the  argument. 
In  any  case,  a  method  a1- "persuasion"  is  radically  different  from 
one  of  literal  "  ransom,"  whether  actual  or  deceptive ;  the  only 
point  of  contact  would  be  the  recognition  of  Satan's  rights  over 
man.  As  the  theory  had  undoubted  recognition  for  over  eight 
hund"ed  years,  it  is  only  a  question  of  criticism  whether  Ireneeus 
should  be  freed  from  any  sympathy  with  it. 

3  Paed.,  iii.  12. 


38      ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

the  legend  of  St.  John  saying  to  the  chief  of  the 
brigands:  "I  will  render  account  to  Christ  for  thee; 
if  need  be,  I  will  voluntarily  suffer  thy  death,  as 
Christ  suffered  death  for  us;  I  will  give  my  life  in 
exchange  for  thine."  1  This  no  doubt  speaks  of  a 
proposed  substitutionary  endurance  of  penalty;  but 
it  refers  to  following  the  spirit  of  Christ,  not  to  a 
precise  similarity  of  the  two  acts,  and  is  so  purely 
incidental  that  it  cannot  be  quoted  as  evidence 
of  a  definite  anticipation  of  the  later  vicarious 
satisfaction. 

He  devotes  the  eighth  chapter  of  the  First  Book  of 
The  Pedagogue  or  Instructor  to  the  truth,  so  often 
forgotten  afterward,  and  particularly  by  Anselm,  that 
justice  and  love  are  identical.  His  essential  thought 
was  the  indwelling  God,  and  the  natural  alliance  of 
humanity  with  God.  Hence,  the  readjustment, 
made  necessary  by  sin,  is  brought  about  by  the 
knowledge  of  the  truth  concerning  God.  The  whole 
treatise  shows  that  he  looked  upon  forgiveness,  not 
as  the  remission  of  penalty,  but  as  the  cure  of  igno 
rance  which  is  the  cause  of  sin.2  The  very  title  ex 
hibits  Christ  as  the  incarnation  of  truth,  and  Chris 
tianity  as  the  revealed  philosophy,  following  Justin ; 

1  Quis  dives  salvetur,  23,  49;  P.  G.,  IX.  col.  628,  649.  When 
a  translation  is  inaccessible,  references  are  given  to  Migne's 
Patrologia. 

"It  is  for  him  a  revelation  rather  than  a  restoration"  (Crutt- 
well,  The  Literary  History  of  Early  Christianity,  II.  455). 


THE   PATRISTIC   TEACHING         39 

and  in  a  fragment  on  the  First  Epistle  of  St.  John  he 
makes  the  blood  of  Christ  equivalent  to  His  doctrine.1 
Christ's  death  was  an  example  of  beneficial  martyr 
dom,  "  in  imitation  of  whom  the  apostles  .  .  .  suf 
fered  for  the  churches  which  they  founded."  2  He 
went  a  step  farther  than  Irenseus,  and  said  that 
Christ  "became  man  in  order  that  thou  mayest  learn 
from  Man,  how  man  becomes  God."  3  His  point  of 
view  is  therefore  as  distant  as  possible  from  that  of 
the  theory  of  Anselm. 

d.    Origen  (ob.  253) 

As  the  first  great  dogmatist,  Origen  was  naturally 
"the  first  to  attempt  a  philosophy  of  the  Atonement."4 
He  sympathised  with  Clement's  conception  of  Christ's 
work  as  an  illumination,  and  with  other  phases  of 
his  thought.5  He  spoke  of  Christ's  suffering  on  our 
account  in  this  wise :  "Who  bore  our  sins  and  infirm 
ities,  because  He  was  able  to  pay  for  (or  loose,  \vaaC) 

1  P.  G.,  IX.  col.  735. 
8  Stromateis,  iv.  cap.  ix. 

3  Protrep.,  i.  8.    The  idea  of  the  deification  of  our  nature  by 
the  Incarnation  is  frequently  found  in  the  writers  of  this  period. 
C/.  Hippolytus:  "ytyovas  yap  6efc  .   .   .  8ri  efleoTrou^s,  ddditaros 
yei>vr)6eis"  (Pkilosoph.,  x.  33,  34;  P.  G.,  XVI.  col.  34,30-34.54  ter). 

4  C.  Bigg,  The  Christian  Platonists  of  Alexandria,  p.  210. 

8  "If  we  inquire  for  the  work  of  Christ,  we  find  the  dominant 
thought  to  be,  that  Christ  was  physician,  teacher,  lawgiver,  and 
example"  (Reinhold  Seeberg,  Text-Book  of  the  History  of  Doctrines, 
I.  153). 


40      ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

the  sin  of  the  whole  world  received  into  Himself,  and 
to  consume  and  destroy  it."1  Again  he  says:  "It 
is  clear  that  he  actually  suffered  punishment";  but 
this  is  only  to  prove  that  the  sufferings  were  actually 
"painful  and  distressing."  2  Dr.  Harnack  says  that 
he  "propounded  views  as  to  the  value  of  salvation 
and  as  to  the  significance  of  Christ's  death  on  the 
cross,  with  a  variety  and  detail  rivalled  by  no  theo 
logian  before  him."  3  But  his  real  originality  lay  in 
his  combination  of  propitiation  and  literal  ransom, 
of  the  expiatory  sacrifice  with  the  Marcionite  notion 
of  a  payment  to  the  devil.  The  introduction  of  these 
two  elements  into  Christian  theology  has  been  rightly 
characterised  as  "of  epoch-making  importance."4 
Not  only  are  they  mutually  exclusive  as  parts  of  a 
theory,  but  Origen  is  not  consistent  in  his  doctrine 
of  sacrifice.  A  death  that  is  offered  to  the  devil  in 
payment  of  his  claim  cannot  be  at  the  same  time  an 
offering  to  God  of  a  piacular  sacrifice.  Then,  Dr. 
Bigg  emphasises  the  fact  that  Origen  "held  the  sac 
rifice  of  Christ  to  have  consisted  not  of  His  Body  but 
of  His  Soul,"  5  and  He  could  not  have  offered  His 
Soul  to  the  devil ;  although  Origen  escapes  this  dif 
ficulty  by  making  the  offer  insincere  and  fraudulent. 

1  In  Johann.,  xxviii.  14;  P.  G.,  XIV.  col.  720. 

2  Contra  Cels.,  ii.  23. 
8  II.  367,  note. 

4  Ibid.,  III.  308. 

5  Op.  cit.,  p.  222 ;  see  P.  G.,  XIII.  col.  1397 ;  Harnack,  III.  307. 


THE   PATRISTIC   TEACHING          41 

Moreover,  he  taught  that  the  value  of  the  sacrifice 
lay  in  its  purity  and  voluntariness.  And  yet,  com 
menting  upon  Rom.  iii.  25,  he  approximates  the 
heathen  modes  of  thought  so  notably  absent  from 
St.  Paul,  when  he  says  that  the  Apostle  "adds  some 
thing  more  sublime,  and  declares  that  God  set  Him 
forth  a  propitiation,  by  which,  indeed,  He  would 
make  God  propitious  to  men  by  the  offering  of  His 
own  Body";  and  again:  "The  true  High  Priest, 
He  hath  made  God  propitious  to  thee  by  His  Blood."  1 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  feature  of  the  Atone 
ment  was  in  his  mind  with  several  others,  but  un 
digested  and  inharmonious. 

The  Christian  idea  of  sacrifice  is  a  transfigura 
tion  of  the  lower  idea  contained  in  Judaism ;  but  the 
pagan  connotations  were  wonderfully  absent  even 
from  the  Septuagint  translation  of  the  Old  Testa 
ment.  In  Origen,  however,  we  find  the  pagan  thought 
of  expiation  still  surviving,  just  as  we  find  Gnosti 
cism  intruding  into  his  interpretation  of  ransom.  Dr. 
Harnack  thinks  that  he  also  regarded  sacrifice  as,  in 
the  strict  sense,  vicarious;  but  the  two  passages 
which  he  cites  from  Contra  Celsum  can  by  no  means 
be  accepted  as  proof-texts  (II.  367).  The  only  sen 
tence  that  is  pertinent  in  vii.  17  has  nothing  whatever 

1  In  Rom.,  iii.  8;  P.  G.,  XIV.  col.  946.  Horn,  in  Lev.,  ix.  10; 
P.  G.,  XII.  col.  523;  see  also  col.  755.  See  Charles  Hodge,  Syst. 
Theol,  II.  566;  Bigg,  211;  Hagenbach,  I.  186;  Riviere,  p.  138. 


42      ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

to  do  with  what  we  understand  by  substitution. 
"There  is  nothing  absurd  in  a  man  having  died,  and 
in  his  death  being  not  only  an  example  of  death 
endured  for  the  sake  of  piety,  but  also  the  first  blow  in 
the  conflict  which  is  to  overthrow  the  power  of  that 
evil  spirit  the  devil."  And  in  i.  31,  his  saying  that 
"this  is  analogous  to  the  case  of  those  who  have  died 
for  their  country  in  order  to  remove  pestilence,  or 
barrenness,  or  tempests,"  suggests  the  modern  dis 
tinction  between  vicarious  and  substitutionary  —  the 
one  describing  a  fact  of  common  experience,  the 
other  a  figment  of  theological  metaphysics.1  Too 
much  importance  may  therefore  be  attached  to  single 
expressions  of  this  unsystematic  author.  Riviere  says 
of  this:  "If  we  demand  the  final  reason  of  this 
mysterious  and  indispensable  substitution  ( ?),  Origen 
does  not  give  it  to  us ;  he  does  not  dream  of  disclos 
ing  to  us  the  indefeasible  exigencies  of  the  Divine 
justice.  We  see  that  the  bottom  of  the  mystery  is 
not  reached,  and  that  Origen,  on  the  whole,  perceives 
only  the  exterior  face  of  it.  ...  Origen  often  speaks 
of  sacrifice  and  of  victim ;  he  fails  to  investigate  the 
moral  realities  which  these  words  conceal "  (pp.  138, 
141).  Dr.  Shedd  recognises  that  his  fundamental 
principles  are  so  "incompatible  with  the  doctrine  of 


1  See  also  his  explanation  of  Is.  liii.  3  by  I  Cor.  iv  13,  making 
our  Lord's  suffering  of  the  same  kind,  but  of  a  higher  degree 
(Hagenbach,  History  of  Doctrines,  I.  185). 


THE   PATRISTIC   TEACHING          43 

a  satisfaction  of  Divine  justice,"  or  "of  Christ's 
expiation,"  "that  we  are  compelled  to  give  these 
passages  a  modified  meaning."  l 

His  theory  of  Christ  as  our  Ransom  is  a  misinter 
pretation  of  a  metaphor.  It  was  natural  that  the 
figure  should  be  liberalised  into  rigid  fact,  owing  to 
the  familiar  custom  of  ransoming  captives  taken  by 
brigands  or  in  war.2  As  soon  as  the  question  was 
asked,  to  whom  was  the  payment  made  ?  the  only 
possible  answers  were  Origen's  and  Anselm's.3  The 
theory  that  the  ransom  was  paid  to  the  devil  was,  of 
course,  not  invented  by  him,  but  borrowed  from 
Marcion.  He  was  the  first,  however,  to  give  status 
and  currency  to  the  idea  that  the  devil  had  a  rightful 
claim  upon  us,  which  could  not  justly  be  overlooked. 
He  says :  "If  therefore  we  were  bought  with  a  price, 
...  we  were  bought  doubtless  from  some  one  whose 
slaves  we  were,  and  who  demanded  such  a  price  as 
he  pleased  for  the  release  of  those  whom  he  held.  It 
was  the  devil,  however,  who  held  us,  to  whom  we 
had  been  allotted  (or  into  whose  power  we  had  been 

1  Op.  cit.,  II.  236  sq. 

*  "Here  all  that  is  metaphor  and  illustration  in  St.  Paul  seems 
to  be  regarded  as  hard  scientific  statement"  (J.  H.  Wilson,  The 
Gospel  of  the  Atonement,  p.  67). 

3  It  is  remarkable  that  the  Biblical  conception  of  a  redemption 
by  war  and  victory  should  have  been  so  completely  lost.  See 
especially  the  uses  of  Xvrpovv  in  LXX.  Here  also  is  the  first  in 
trusion  of  the  commercial  idea,  and  also  of  the  weakness  of  a 
Redeemer  who  was  compelled  to  pay,  and  could  not  conquer. 


44      ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

dragged)  by  our  sins.  He  therefore  demanded  as 
our  price  the  blood  of  Christ."  l  He  also  adopted 
from  the  Basilidians  the  disgraceful  addition  of  God's 
intentional  deception  of  the  devil.  Nothing  could 
show  better  than  this  the  low  moral  ideals  of  the  age 
in  which  the  theory  was  framed.  He  says:  "To 
whom  did  [Christ]  give  His  soul  as  a  ransom  for 
many  ?  Not,  of  course,  to  God.  Was  it  then  to  the 
Evil  One?  [Certainly,]  for  he  held  us  in  his  power 
until  the  soul  of  Jesus  should  be  given  him  as  our 
ransom,  he  being  deceived  by  the  supposition  that  he 
could  hold  it  in  subjection,  and  not  perceiving  that 
it  must  be  retained  at  the  cost  of  torture  which  he 
could  not  endure."  2  It  may  be  noted  that  avra\- 
\a<y/jLa,  has  no  meaning  if  the  price  was  not  really 
paid ;  which  makes  this  ransom  very  different  from 
the  substitution  taught  by  the  Reformers. 

The  Divine  bargain  and  deception  are  alike 
mythological  and  dualistic.  This  thought  was  not 
made  so  prominent  as  afterwards  in  Gregory  of 
Nyssa.  But  the  general  theory  prevailed,  with  but 

1  In  Rom.,  lib.  ii.  13,  opp.  4;  quoted  in  F.  Huidekoper,  Christ's 
Mission  to  the  Underworld,  p.  88.    He  also  quotes  the  following 
description  of  the  price:  "The  soul  of  the  Son  of  man  was  given  as 
our  ransom ;  but  not  His  spirit,  for  He  had  already  committed  that 
to  His  Father,  saying,  'Father,  into  Thy  hands  I  commend  my 
spirit';    nor  yet  His  body,  for  we  nowhere  find  any  such  thing 
written  of  Him."    Cf.  Bigg,  op.  tit.,  p.  222 :  Oxenham,  Cath.  Doct. 
of  At.,  pp.  136,  137. 

2  Op.  cit.,  p.  91 ;  P.  G.,  XIII.  col.  1397. 


THE   PATRISTIC   TEACHING          45 

few  protests,  until  it  was  overthrown  by  Anselm.1 
The  significance  of  this  fact  must  be  remarked, 
because  the  payment  of  Satan's  claim  is  wholly  in 
consistent  with  a  payment  to  justice  or  a  satisfaction 
of  the  demands  of  God. 

While  the  period  of  the  Post-Apostolic  Fathers 
gave  rise  to  a  theory  of  ransom,  which  was  more  or  less 
prevalent  for  a  thousand  years,  it  cannot  be  said  to 
have  contained  any  distinct  germs  of  the  later  dog 
matic  teaching.  The  problem  of  redemption  was 
studied  with  little  attention  by  the  writers  preceding 
Athanasius,  probably  because  the  questions  involved 
had  not  yet  become  the  subject  of  controversy.2 
Their  emphasis  was  upon  the  Incarnation.3  "The 
Incarnation  itself,  the  union  of  the  Divine  and  human 
natures,  was  the  great  saving  act.  Christ  redeems 
us  by  what  He  is,  not  by  what  He  does."  This, 
which  is  Dr.  Hodge's  description  of  the  mystical 
theory  of  the  Middle  Ages,  is  involved  in  Justin's 

1  See  references  in  Sabatier,  The  Atonement,  pp.  66,  145. 

3  "Le  probleme  de  la  Redemption  est  partiellement  louche  a 
propos  d'autres  questions;  il  n'est  pas  encore  aborde  pour  lui- 
meme"  (Riviere,  p.  142).  "En  un  mot,  les  historiens  les  plus 
catholiques  n'hesitent  pas  a  le  reconnaitre,  les  Peres  se  sont 
souvent  contentes  sur  la  Redemption  de  vucs  fragmentaires  et, 
pour  tout  dire,  superficielles :  ils  n'ont  jamais  fait  de  cette  doctrine 
1'objet  special  de  leurs  recherches"  (Ibid.,  p.  101). 

3  "  To  them  it  was  not  the  Atonement,  but  the  Incarnation, 
which  was  the  centre  of  Christian  faith  as  of  Christian  life" 
(Oxenham,  p.  166). 


46      ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

and  Irenseus's  idea  of  Christ's  recapitulation  of  the 
race  in  Himself,  and  is  more  than  once  asserted  in  so 
many  words  by  the  latter.1  The  point  of  view  is  so 
distant  from  the  idea  of  a  satisfaction  of  justice  that 
Dr.  Shedd  expresses  the  contrast  thus  strongly,  as 
an  adherent  of  the  satisfaction  theory :  "Only  a  very 
defective  and  erroneous  conception  of  this  cardinal 
truth  of  Christianity  is  to  be  found  in  the  Alexandrian 
Soteriology."  2 

4.    NlCENE   AND   PoST-NlCENE    FATHERS 

The  Greek  Fathers  of  this  period  generally  con 
ceived  of  sin  as  a  disease  or  corruption  of  human 
nature,  which  was  cured  by  Christ's  incorporation 
of  mankind  in  Himself.  This  was  a  continuation  of 
the  thought  of  the  preceding  century.  They  are 
especially  distinguished  by  their  different  views  of 
the  meaning  of  "ransom."  Some  laid  stress  on  the 
indemnification  of  the  rights  of  the  devil,  while 
Athanasius  most  nearly  approached  the  Scriptural 
conception  of  ransom  as  a  condition  of  our  redemp- 
v/  tion,  which  he  considered  to  be  the  fulfilment  of  the 
'  requirement  of  the  Divine  consistency.  The  ruling 
idea  of  the  Atonement  was  the  restoration  of  human- 

1  Chas.  Hodge,  Systematic  Theology,  II.  585.    Among  modern 
authors,  Archdeacon  Wilson  frankly  accepts  this  interpretation 
of  the  Atonement  (Gospel  of  the  Atonement,  p.  88). 

2  Hist.  Doct.,  n.  237. 


THE   PATRISTIC   TEACHING  47 

ity  to  a  Divine  life.  There  was  an  increasing  use  of 
expressions  which  have  become  familiar  to  us  in  the 
later  theology ;  but  it  will  appear  that  they  are  usu 
ally  charged  with  a  quite  different  significance. 

a.  Eusebius  of  Ccesarea  (ob.  340) 

Some  of  the  phrases  of  this  writer  were  unusual. 
In  the  Demonstratio  Evangelica  (lib.  x),  he  speaks  of 
the  Lamb  of  God  as  punished  for  us,  and  as  paying 
a  penalty; l  also,  of  "attributing  to  Him  the  sins  of 
us  all" ; 2  and  he  constantly  uses  such  common 
words  as  avrtyvxpv  and  avrfavrpov,  which  are 
interpreted  together  with  the  others  referred  to  as 
clearly  substitutionary.3 

All  such  single  words,  however,  must  be  condi 
tioned  by  the  author's  fuller  exposition  of  his  thought. 
Taken  by  themselves,  they  might  seem  to  suggest 
penal  substitution.  But  they  must  be  taken  in  con 
nection  with  the  universal  Greek  idea  of  Christ's 
identification  with  our  humanity.  Eusebius  attrib 
utes  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  not  to  the  Father,  but 

1  KO\CL(rdeis  Kal  Tipupiav  VTTOVXUV;    P.  G.,  XXII.  col.  724.     He 
also  says :  "  /cat  /J.OVQS  avrbv  TCHS  irciffLv  evfj,evrj  «u  tXewf  irap£xwv  (Ibid., 
col.  280).    "Rendering  the  Father  propitious,"  is  an  intrusion  of 
a  heathen  notion. 

2  tiriy papas',  Ibid.,  col.  89. 

8  Similar  language  is  quoted  by  Riviere  from  Theodore  of 
Heraclea  (p.  165).  It  undoubtedly  contributed  to  the  support  of 
literal  substitution,  when  that  thought  was  finally  entertained. 


48      ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

to  "those  wicked  men  and  powers  of  darkness"; 
and  he  thus  expounds  Christ's  relation  to  us:  "The 
Lamb  of  God  who  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world 
hath  become  a  curse  for  us ;  whom,  though  He  knew 
not  sin,  God  made  sin  on  our  behalf,  giving  Him  for 
all  of  us,  His  life  for  our  life"  (avrl^v^ov).  Mani 
festly  we  have  here  no  theory  of  substitution  or  impu 
tation,  but  St.  Paul's  conception  of  mystical  union ;  for 
he  goes  on  to  say :  "  But  how  does  He  appropriate  our 
sins,  and  how  is  He  said  to  bear  our  iniquities,  unless 
it  be  by  virtue  of  our  being  called  His  Body  —  even 
as  the  Apostle  says,  'Ye  are  His  Body,  and  members 
in  particular'?  And,  as,  when  one  member  suffers, 
all  the  members  suffer  with  it,  so  when  the  many 
members  suffer  and  sin,  He,  too,  Himself  suffers,  ac 
cording  to  the  relations  of  sympathy  in  which  He 
stands  to  us.  Since  He  was  pleased,  being  the  Word 
of  God,  to  take  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  join  Him 
self  to  us  by  tabernacling  in  our  common  nature, 
He  gathers  up  into  Himself  the  sorrows  of  the  suffer 
ing  members,  and  makes  His  own  our  sicknesses, 
and  suffers  pain  and  sorrow  for  us  all,  according  to 
the  laws  of  His  lovingkindness  to  man." 

b.  Athanasius  (ob.  373) 

The  treatise  De  Incarnatione  has  been  called  "the 
first  attempt  that  had  been  made  to  present  Chris- 
1  P.  G.,  XXII.  col.  724. 


THE   PATRISTIC   TEACHING  49 

tianity  under  a  scientific  aspect."  1  This  indicates 
its  importance  in  connection  with  the  doctrine  of  the 
Person  of  Christ;  but,  with  reference  to  the  Atone 
ment,  it  is  not  the  first  theoretic  statement,  and  it  oc 
cupies  a  far  nobler  point  of  view  than  that  of  Origen. 
"The  relation  of  the  work  of  Christ  to  Satan  retires 
into  the  background."  2  The  author  is  definitely  en 
gaged  with  Anselm's  inquiry,  Why  did  Christ  be 
come  man  ?  but  he  answers  it  in  a  very  different  way. 
The  indwelling  Logos  is  the  natural  representative 
of  humanity,  because  He  reveals  a  vital  kinship  or 
relation  between  God  and  man.  His  mere  presence 
in  a  human  body  was  "the  essential  factor  in  our 
restoration."  The  Incarnation  itself  restored  to 
humanity  the  Divine  image.  "He,  the  incorruptible 
Son  of  God,  being  conjoined  with  all  by  a  like  nature, 
naturally  clothed  all  with  incorruption,  by  the  prom 
ise  of  the  resurrection."  3  "For  the  coming  [pres 
ence]  of  the  Saviour  in  the  flesh  has  been  the  ransom 
and  salvation  of  all  creation."  *  "For  the  union  was 
of  this  kind,  that  He  might  unite  what  is  man  by 
nature  to  Him  who  is  in  the  nature  of  the  Godhead, 
and  his  salvation  and  deification  might  be  sure."  5 

Dictionary  of  Christian  Biography,  I.  181. 
Fisher,  Hist.  Christ.  Doct.,  p.  162. 
De  Inc.,  9.  2,  3. 
Ep.  ad  Adelph.,  6. 

Contra  Ar.,  ii.  70.    See  Hilary,  De  Trin.,  ii.  24.  On  these  say 
ings  Riviere  remarks  from  the  traditional  standpoint :    "  On  n'est 

4 


50      ANSELM    ON   THE  ATONEMENT 

Athanasius  seems  to  make  the  Incarnation  depend 
ent  on  man's  sin:  "For  the  need  of  man  preceded 
His  becoming  man,  apart  from  which  He  had  not  */ 
put  on  flesh."  *  He  repeats  the  well-known  patristic 
audacity,  by  which  again  he  makes  the  Incarnation 
itself  the  Atonement,  and  the  work  of  salvation  to 
consist  in  our  deification:  "He  was  made  man  that 
we  might  be  made  God."  2 

He  presents  also  the  Pauline  conception  of  union 
with  the  Head,  by  which  a  new  principle  of  life  is 
imparted,  thus  making  the  relationship  between 
Redeemer  and  redeemed  vital  and  organic;  which 
is  equivalent  to  the  recapitulation  of  the  whole  race 
in  Himself.3  The  cross  was  not  central  with  Him, 
except  as  the  means  of  death,  by  which  Christ  entered 

pas  eloigne  de  croire  que  la  condition  arrive  a  se  confondre  avec 
la  cause  efficiente"  (p.  148). 

1  Contra  Ar.,  ii.  54 ;   iii.  34. 

a  6eoTTOL-r]9Q/^ev,  De  Inc.,  54;  and  many  times  in  the  Let 
ters  and  Discourses  against  the  Arians,  especially  in  this  peculiar 
form:  "the  flesh  being  no  longer  earthly,  but  being  henceforth 
made  Word,  by  reason  of  God's  Word  who  for  our  sake  became 
flesh"  (iii.  33).  See  Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers,  Vol.  IV.  p. 
386,  note  1.  Cf.  also  Gregory  Nazianzen:  "until  He  made  me 
God  by  the  power  of  His  Incarnation"  (Oral.,  xxx.  14 ;  also,  xl.  45 ; 
but  see  xlii.  17) ;  Gregory  Nyssen:  "He  was  transfused  through 
out  our  nature,  in  order  that  our  nature  might  by  this  transfusion 
of  the  Divine  become  itself  divine"  (Catech.  Magn.,  xxv) :  Basil 
(P.  G.,  XXX.  col.  834) ;  Chrysostom  (Horn,  in  I  Tim.  xi) :  John 
Damasc.  (De  Fide  Orth.,  iii.  17) ;  Hippolytus  (P.  G.,  XVI.  ter  in 
col.  3450-3454) ;  Augustin  (De  Trin.,  iv.  1  and  2;  Serm.,  cxix.  5; 
cxxi.  5 ;  cxcii.  1 ;  cxciv.  3) . 

3  Contra  Ar.,  ii.  21,  69.    See  also  Justin  and  Irenseus. 


THE   PATRISTIC  TEACHING          51 

completely  into  the  human  condition.  God  could 
have  undone  the  curse  by  the  word  of  pardon;  "but 
we  must  consider  what  was  expedient  for  mankind."  * 
That  is,  the  difficulty  was  not  on  the  side  of  God,  but 
of  man ;  which  is  the  direct  contrary  of  the  principle 
of  the  penal  theory. 

Dr.  Harnack  intimates  that  Athanasius,  together 
with  Origen,  "approximates  to  the  idea  of  a  vicari 
ous  suffering  of  punishment"  (III.  308).  This  is 
indeed  clear  enough,  if  we  keep  in  mind  the  difference 
between  his  idea  and  the  substitutionary  penalty 
which  is  generally  understood  by  those  words.  He 
says  that  Christ  died  avrl  Trdvrwv  (instead  of  all, 
or  as  a  price  for  all;  Inc.,  8.  4;  9.  1) ;  that  He 
offered  His  Body  for  the  life  of  all,  or  as  a  ransom 
for  all  (avTi'fyvxov,  9.  2);  that  "He  put  away  death 
by  the  offering  of  an  equivalent"  (Trpocrfyopa  rov 
Kara\\r'}\ov,  9.  1).  But  the  whole  argument, 
which  will  presently  be  summarised,  shows  that 
this  is  intended  to  express  sacramental  union, 
not  substitution;  that  is,  the  precise  opposite  of 
what  a  modern  writer  would  mean  by  those  terms. 
Athanasius  does  not  hold  that  Christ  died  in  our 
place,  but  that  the  law  of  corruption  was  repealed 
because  we  all  died  in  Him  (Inc.,  8).  He  asserts 
also  that  Christ  died  with  us,  and  so  rescued  us  from 

1  Confra  Ar.,  ii.  21,  67,  68;  De  Inc.,  7;  see  also  Gregory 
Nazianzen,  Orat.,  9;  Augustin,  De  Trin.,  xiii.  10. 


52      ANSELM   ON  THE   ATONEMENT 

the  continuance  of  death  ;  the  modern  would  mean 
that  Christ  suffered  instead  of  us  that  we  may  not 
suffer.  Christ's  death  was  not  substituted  for  ours, 
since  His  redeemed  all  die,  and  hence  He  did  not  die 
physically  and  literally  in  our  stead.1  Nor  did  He 
suffer  any  other  penalty  than  other  men  suffer  in 
dying;  since  the  only  other  penalty  referred  to  by 
Athanasius  is  the  abiding  for  ever  in  corruption,  and, 
even  in  our  stead,  such  an  experience  would  have 
been  impossible  to  Him. 

On  the  other  hand,  His  death  was  vicarious,  in 
our  stead,  in  the  sense  that,  if  He  had  not  died,  we 
should  have  been  held  under  the  sentence  of  corrup 
tion.  That  is,  man  was  sentenced  to  die,  and  he 
must  and  does  die,  and  Christ  does  not  save  him 
from  that;  but  He  does  save  him  from  the  continu 
ance  of  the  law  of  corruption,  in  life  and  after  death, 
by  incorporating  humanity  with  Himself,  by  our 
participation  in  His  immortality.  He  illustrates  by 
a  king  dwelling  in  one  of  the  houses  of  a  large  city, 
and  thus  giving  to  the  whole  city  high  honour,  so 
that  no  enemy  may  descend  upon  it  and  subject  it. 

1  Athanasius  represents  Christ's  sufferings  as  confined  to 
temporal  death ;  the  penalty  for  sin  extending  far  beyond  physical 
death  is  removed  by  the  power  of  Christ's  resurrection.  The  very 
essence  of  the  later  statement  is  wanting  in  him;  he  nowhere 
speaks  as  though  our  Lord  sustained  the  Father's  wrath  or  under 
went  the  worst  part  of  the  penalty  of  sin  —  the  perdition  of  the 
spiritual  nature. 


THE   PATRISTIC   TEACHING          53 

"So  has  it  been  with  the  Monarch  of  all.  For  now 
that  He  has  .  .  .  taken  up  His  abode  in  one  body 
among  His  peers,  henceforth  the  whole  conspiracy  of 
the  enemy  against  mankind  is  checked,  and  the  cor 
ruption  of  death  which  before  was  prevailing  against 
them  is  done  away.  For  the  race  of  men  had  gone  to 
ruin,  had  not  the  Lord  and  Saviour  of  all,  the  Son  of 
God,  come  among  us  to  put  an  end  to  death." 1 

But  Dr.  Hagenbach  says  that  we  find  in  Atha- 
nasius  the  premises  of  the  later  theory  of  Anselm 
(I.  348).  And  Dean  Stanley  avers  that  he  introduced 
the  idea  of  satisfaction,  though  incidentally  and  sub- 
ordinately.2  Moreover,  there  are  single  words  and 
expressions  which,  taken  out  of  their  connection, 
would  appear  to  indorse  this  judgment.  He  speaks 
of  "fulfilling  the  obligation  in  His  death"  (eVX^pou  TO 
o$>eC\,ofji(-vov,  9.  2) ;  using  the  Scriptural  figure  of  debt 
in  a  sense  different  from  that  of  Anselm.  The  word 
is  frequently  repeated :  "For  there  was  need  of  death, 
and  death  must  needs  be  suffered  on  behalf  of  all, 
that  the  debt  owing  from  all  might  be  paid."  3  He 

1  De  Inc.,  9.  4.    For  the  justification  of  the  above  statements, 
see  the  ensuing  analysis  of  the  argument  of  Athanasius.    See  also 
Contra  Ar.,  i.  41,  47-49;  ii.  60-70;  iv.  6,  7. 

2  Eastern  Church,  p.  350. 

8  De  Inc.,  20.  2,. 5.  See  also  Contra  Ar.,  ii.  66:  "paying  the 
debt  in  our  stead"  (av9'  i)/j.u>v,  which  makes  us  doubt  whether 
o.vrL  could  have  had  the  rigid  significance  of  "instead  of"). 
Riviere  says:  "Ces  deux  aspects  de  la  question  [le  desordre  meta- 
physique  du  p£ch£  and  les  consequences  pratiques}  ne  laissent  pas 


54      ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

speaks  of  God's  consistency ; l  and  Oxenham  quotes 
the  following  from  the  doubtful  treatise,  In  Passione 
et  Cruce  Domini:  "Seeing  the  impossibility  of  our 
paying  an  equivalent  penalty,  He  took  it  on  Him 
self"  (p.  145). 

Let  us,  however,  consider  what  Athanasius  really 
says.  This  is  the  substance  of  his  argument  in  sec 
tions  3-10.  —  The  love  of  God  is  the  source  of  our 
redemption  (3.  1-3).  He  graciously  warned  man  of 
the  result  of  transgression,  and  death  came  as  the 
penalty  of  disobedience  (3.  4).  "But  by  'dying  ye 
shall  die/  what  else  could  be  meant  but  not  dying 
merely,  but  also  abiding  ever  in  the  corruption  of 
death"  (3.  5).  As  God  created  man  for  incorruption, 
the  same  Word  by  whom  man  was  created  became 
Incarnate  in  order  to  fulfil  that  purpose,  notwith 
standing  sin  and  its  penalty  (Sections  4  and  5).  All 
sinners  then  are  subject  to  death,  according  to  the 
law.  "Death  having  gained  upon  men,  and  corrup 
tion  abiding  upon  them,  the  race  of  man  was  perish 
ing.  .  .  .  For  death,  as  I  said  above,  gained  from 
that  time  forth  a  legal  hold  upon  us,  and  it  was  im 
possible  to  evade  the  law"  (6.  1,  2).  Here  arises  a 

que   d'introduire   quelque   flotteraent  —  pour   ne   pas   dire   ur 
reelle  incoherence  —  dans  son  systeme"  ;  and  calls  his  explanations 
"rapides  et  superficielles "  (p.  151).    This  is  an  acknowledgment 
that  the  later  ideas  are  not  really  found  in  Athanasius. 

1  TO  Trpos  rbv  debv  eti\oyov,  7.  1,  3;  translated,  "the  just  claim 
of  God"  in  Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers,  Vol.  IV. 


THE   PATRISTIC   TEACHING  55 

dilemma  between  God's  veracity  and  His  goodness : 
it  were  monstrous  and  unseemly  that  either  should 
fail.  It  would  be  monstrous  for  Him  to  threaten 
and  not  to  punish :  that  would  prove  Him  false  and 
be  a  relaxation  of  His  law,  and  His  holy  law  must  be 
fulfilled  and  the  penalty  paid.  But  it  would  be  un 
seemly  that  His  children  "should  go  to  ruin,  and  turn 
again  toward  non-existence  by  the  way  of  corruption. 
For  it  were  not  worthy  of  God's  goodness  that  the 
things  He  had  made  should  waste  away,  because  of 
the  deceit  practised  on  men  by  the  devil.  ...  It 
was  then  out  of  the  question  to  leave  men  to  the  cur 
rent  of  corruption"  (6.  3-10). 

He  cannot  let  things  take  their  course;  His  love 
demands  the  rescue  of  the  sinner.  But  how  shall 
that  be  made  compatible  with  "what  is  reasonable 
with  respect  to  God"  ?  *  "What  possible  course  was 
God  to  take?"  To  demand  repentance  "fails  to 
guard  God's  consistency,"  since  He  would  be  "none 
the  more  true,  if  men  did  not  remain  in  the  grasp  of 
death";  and,  secondly,  it  would  not  rescue  them 
from  corruption,  for  "it  merely  stays  them  from  acts 
of  sin"  (7.  1-3).  Only  the  Word  can  recall  men  to 
the  image  of  God,  Who  originally  created  them  in 
it.  "His  it  was  to  bring  back  the  corruptible  to  in- 
corruption,  and  to  maintain  intact  the  consistency 
of  the  Father  [i.  e.,  with  respect  to  His  laws]  in  behalf 
1  See  Dr.  Robertson's  translation  in  preceding  note. 


56      ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

of  all."  He  alone  was  "able  to  recreate  everything, 
and  worthy  to  suffer  on  behalf  of  all,  and  to  be  the 
ambassador  for  all  with  the  Father"  (7.  4,  5). 

But  why  should  He  become  Incarnate  ?    In  order 
that,  as  man,  He  might  undergo  man's  sentence  of 
death,  and  so  fulfil  the  law  and  sustain  its  constancy 
(8).1     Since  "no  otherwise  could  the  corruption  of 
men  be  undone  save  by  death  as  a  necessary  condi 
tion,"  the  Word  "to  this  end  takes  to  Himself  a  body 
capable  of  death,  that  it,  by  partaking  of  the  Word 
Who  is  above  all,  might  be  worthy  to  die  in  the  stead 
of  all,  and  might,  because  of  the  Word  which  was 
come  to  dwell  in  it,  remain  incorruptible,  and  that 
thenceforth  corruption  might  be  stayed  from  all  by  the 
grace  of  the  resurrection.2     Whence,  by  offering  unto 
death  the  body  He  Himself  had  taken,  as  an  off ei ing 
and  sacrifice  free  from  any  stain,  straightway  He  put 
away  death  from  all  His  peers  by  the  offering  of  an 
equivalent,"  and  "fulfilled  the  obligation"  of  the 
law  (or,  "paid  the  debt,"  eVXifcou  TO  o^aXo^ezvoz;). 
"Conjoined  with  all  by  a  like  nature,"  He  "naturally 
clothed  all  with  incorruption,  by  the  promise  of  the 
resurrection.    For  the  actual  corruption  in  death  has 
no  longer  holding-ground  against  men,  by  reason  of 
the  Word,  which  by  His  one  body  has  come  to  dwell 

1  See  also,  25.  2. 

2  Note  that  the  resurrection  is  the  proof  that  corruption  had 
lost  its  sway,  because  His  body  was  incorruptible,  and  He  was  one 
with  man. 


THE   PATRISTIC   TEACHING          57 

among  them"  (see  also  10.  5).  Then  follows  the 
illustration  of  the  king  (Section  9). 

His  conclusion  is :  Death  must  still  be  endured, 
but  it  has  wholly  changed  its  aspect.  "Now  that  the 
common  Saviour  of  all  has  died  on  our  behalf,  we  no 
longer  die  the  death  as  before,  agreeably  to  the  warn 
ing  of  the  law;  for  this  condemnation  has  ceased; 
but,  corruption  ceasing  and  being  put  away  by  the 
grace  of  the  resurrection,  henceforth  we  are  only  dis 
solved,  agreeably  to  our  bodies'  mortal  nature,  at 
the  time  God  has  fixed  for  each,  that  we  may  be  able 
to  gain  a  better  resurrection.  For  like  the  seeds 
which  are  cast  into  the  earth,  we  do  not  perish  by 
dissolution,  but  sown  in  the  earth,  shall  rise  again, 
death  having  been  brought  to  nought  by  the  grace  of 
the  Saviour"  (21.  1,  2).1 

Now,  does  this  statement  contain  the  premises  of 
any  theory  of  satisfaction  ?  The  debt  spoken  of  by 
Athanasius  is  an  obligation  resting  upon  humanity 
as  a  whole,  on  account  of  sin,  and  hence  every  man 
must  pay  it,  and  Christ  pays  it  with  us,  in  order  that 
corruption  may  not  issue  in  permanent  death.2 
Nothing  more  than  this  can  be  meant  by  Athanasius 

1  The  summary  has  been  made  full,  because  it  is  such  a  beauti 
ful  and  wholesome  exposition  of  this  doctrine,  as  compared  with 
many  theories  of  later  ages. 

3  Here  it  must  be  noted  that  sin  is  treated  chiefly  under  the 
category  of  disease,  and  not  only  as  debt;  the  objective  was  the 
recreation  of  man  by  Him  who  had  created  him. 


58      ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

—  however  different  it  would  sound  in  Luther  or 
Calvin  —  in  Contra  Ar.,  ii.  66  :  <(di>0'  i^vv  rrjv  o^et- 
\r)i,  ttTToStSou?."  The  translator  of  Athanasius,  Dr. 
Robertson,  frankly  admits  that  "of  the  forensic  view 
he  is  indeed  almost  clear.  His  reference  to  the  'debt' 
(/near.,  20;  Oral.,  ii.  66)  which  had  to  be  paid  is 
connected  not  so  much  with  the  Anselmic  idea  of  a 
satisfaction  due,  as  with  the  fact  that  death  was  by 
the  divine  word  (Gen.  iii)  attached  to  sin  as  its 
penalty"  (Prolegom.,  p.  Ixx).  The  only  satisfaction 
he  thought  of  was  a  fulfilment  of  the  law  of  holiness. 
The  coincidence  with  Anselm  is  verbal,  not  substan 
tial.  With  Anselm,  the  debt  was  owed  to  God's 
justice;  it  was  wholly  cancelled  by  the  obedience  of 
Christ,  the  equivalence  or  superabundance  of  whose 
merit  arose  from  the  voluntariness  of  His  death. 
With  Athanasius,  the  debt  was  the  just  claim  of  God's 
law ;  it  was  the  necessity  of  death,  but  not  the  neces 
sity  of  abiding  in  death  for  ever ;  it  was  paid  so  far 
as  to  sustain  God's  law,  but  not  so  as  to  relieve  man 
of  its  rigorous  exaction  just  as  before  Christ's  death. 
But  His  death,  completing  His  eWcrt?  with  humanity 
enabled  Him  to  triumph  over  death  as  a  continuing 
power,  by  permitting  men  to  share  His  immortality ; 
and  His  ability  to  do  this  arose  from  His  being  the 
Incarnate  Word  of  God.1 

1  See  an  admirable  treatment  of  the  whole  subject  in  Norris, 
Rudiments  of  Theology,  pp.  282-293;  and  Moberly,  Atonement 
and  Personality,  pp.  349-365. 


THE   PATRISTIC   TEACHING  59 

Dr.  Shedd  says  of  the  position  of  Athanasius: 
"This  is  the  strongest  possible  statement  of  the  doc 
trine  of  penal  satisfaction";  l  but  this  seems  to  be  a 
complete  misunderstanding.  The  figures,  which  are 
supposed  to  contain  the  premises  of  the  later  theory, 
are  quite  incidental,  and  are  not  urged  as  though  the 
death  of  Christ  were  an  equivalent  of  value  that  could 
be  separated  from  humanity  and  substituted  for  it. 
The  sharing  of  the  penalty  of  sin  with  mankind  is 
really  the  opposite  of  penal  substitution;  it  is  the 
Pauline  and  general  patristic  truth  of  God's  self- 
identification  with  mankind,  the  vital  renewal  of 
humanity  by  the  presence  in  it  of  the  God-man  and  4- 
His  oneness  with  it.  It  is  not  an  act  of  one  member 
of  the  race  for  the  rest,  not  an  act  external  to  human 
ity,  tyit  the  act  of  One  in  whom  humanity  is  "sum 
med  up";  so  that  the  dying  and  exaltation  of  Christ 
were  corporate  and  inclusive,  were  ideally  and  po 
tentially  ours.  Here  is  the  point  of  this  Father's 
emphasis,  and  not  upon  the  idea  of  a  substituted 
punishment  whose  infinite  value  satisfied  the  Divine 
claims  upon  us.2 

1  Op.  cit.,  II.  243.  It  needs  to  be  said  that  both  Shedd  and 
Riviere  are  much  given  to  inserting  misleading  words  and  ideas 
that  are  foreign  to  the  patristic  authors  whom  they  purport  to 
translate. 

3  Riviere  makes  out  as  good  a  case  as  possible  for  finding 
traces  of  the  traditional  view  in  Athanasius ;  yet  fairness  compels 
him  to  say:  "Mais  quand  il  s'agit  d'expliquer  pourquoi  ce  decret 
inflexible  .  .  .  saint  Athanase  ne  s'eleve  pas  jusqu'  aux  saintes 


60     ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 


c.  Later  Greek  Fathers 

Gregory  of  Nyssa  held  the  Athanasian  theory  that 
our  human  nature  is  deified  by  its  union  with  the 
Logos,  and  this  deification  is  completed  in  the  resur 
rection.1  He  also  accepted  the  theory  of  Origen, 
which  was  ignored  by  Athanasius.  He  not  only  states 
it  clearly,  but  gives  the  explanation  which  Origen 
omitted,  and  justifies  it.  "It  was  by  means  of  a 
certain  amount  of  deceit,"  he  says,  "that  God  car 
ried  out  this  scheme  on  our  behalf.  For  that  not  by 
pure  Deity  alone,  but  by  Deity  veiled  in  human 
nature,  God,  without  the  knowledge  of  His  enemy, 
got  within  the  lines  of  him  who  had  man  in  his  power, 
is  in  some  manner  a  fraud  and  a  surprise.  . 
Whereas  he,  the  enemy,  effected  his  deception  for  the 
ruin  of  our  nature,  He  who  is  at  once  the  just,  and 
good,  and  wise  one,  used  His  device  of  deception  for 

exigences  de  la  justice  ( ?),  il  s'arrete  au  point  de  vue  tout  exterieur 
de  la  veracite  divine.  .  .  .  Athanase  ne  se  preoccupe  pas  de 
justifier  autrement  ce  point  d'honneur  obstine:  c'est  dire  qu'il 
effleure  a  peine  le  probleme  et  qu'il  n'en  donne  qu'une  solution 
insuffisante,  si  seulement  on  peut  dire  que  e'en  est  une."  Of  the 
"synthese  speculative"  of  Athanasius  and  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  he 
says:  "C'est  dire  que  leur  synthese  etait  prematuree  et  sans  doute 
mal  construite,  puisqu'elle  n'embrasse  pas  tous  les  elements 
traditionnels.  Mais  il  faut  bien  avouer  aussi  que  Fidee  de  la 
Redemption  par  la  croix  ne  domine  pas  plus  leur  esprit  que  leur 
systeme  et  que,  s'ils  ne  Font  pas  ignoree,  le  principal  de  leur 
attention  etait  ailleurs"  (pp.  151,  159). 
1  Catech.  Magna,  xxv,  xxxii. 


THE   PATRISTIC   TEACHING  61 

the  salvation  of  him  who  had  perished,  and  thus  not 
only  conferred  benefit  on  the  lost  one,  but  on  him, 
too,  who  had  wrought  our  ruin."  *  This  coarse  and 
repulsive  notion  is  supposed  to  have  been  a  misin 
terpretation  of  I  Cor.  ii.  8:  "which  none  of  the 
princes  of  this  world  knew;  for  had  they  known  it, 
they  would  not  have  crucified  the  Lord  of  glory." 
The  conception  of  the  righteousness  of  God  must 
have  suffered  a  serious  degeneration  before  such  an 
idea  as  this  could  have  had  vogue.  The  method  of 
the  deceit  was  the  veiling  of  the  Godhead  in  humanity 
so  that  the  devil  was  surprised  into  exacting  a  penalty 
from  One  who  had  not  deserved  to  incur  it.2  But 
this  entirely  destroys  the  reality  of  the  ransom,  or 
compensation  to  the  devil.  If  he  was  himself  de 
frauded  at  the  moment  of  his  "unjust  overcharge'* 
(Leo,  Serm.,  xxii.  4),  the  price  was  not  paid.  Yet  Ori- 
gen's  word,  avrd\\ay/jLa,  was  insisted  upon  as  a  true 
description  of  Christ's  ransom.  There  was  no  sensi 
tiveness  to  the  imputation  upon  the  Divine  character 
involved  in  such  a  transaction,  or  to  the  essential 
dualism  involved  in  the  justice  of  Satan's  claim  upon 
man.  The  theory,  therefore,  is  logically  incoherent, 
and  "beset  with  difficulties,  both  intellectual  and 
moral,  of  the  gravest  kind."  3  It  involves  something 

1  Catech.  Magna,  xxvi. 

2  J.  J.  Lias,  The  Atonement,  p.  47. 
8  Oxenham,  p.  154. 


62     ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

of  the  idea  of  an  equivalent,  but  nothing  in  the  way 
of  a  satisfaction. 

In  this  form,  it  lasted  until  the  century  after 
Anselm,  and  was  accepted  by  most  of  the  succeeding 
Latin  Fathers.  Ambrose  referred  to  the  incident  as 
a  "pious  fraud."  1  Leo  I.  said  that  the  Incarnation 
deceived  the  devil  by  hiding  the  power  under  the 
veil  of  weakness.  Augustin  called  the  cross  a  "mouse 
trap,"  2  in  which  he  was  followed  by  Peter  Lombard.3 
"Isidore  of  Seville  adopted  the  image  of  a  bird  caught 
in  a  net."  *  Rufinus  and  Gregory  the  Great  spoke  of 
Christ's  human  nature  as  a  "bait,"  and  of  the  devil 
as  captured  on  the  hook  of  the  Incarnation,  as  grasp 
ing  after  the  bait  of  the  body  and  transfixed  by  the 
sharp  hook  of  the  Divinity.5  John  of  Damascus  also 
speaks  of  Christ's  Body  as  a  bait  transfixed  on  the 
hook  of  Divinity,  but  with  reference  to  death,  not  to 
the  devil.8  Even  Luther  seems  to  have  been  fasci 
nated  by  the  homiletical  advantages  of  the  idea,  as  he 

1  Harnack,  III.  307;  Oxenham,  p.  147.  Also,  "Fefellit  ergo 
pro  nobis,  fefellit  ut  vinceret";  "Oportuit  igitur  hanc  fraudem 
diabolo  fieri"  (P.  L.  XV.  col.  1553,  1616). 

3  "Ad  pretium  nostrum  tetendit  muscipulam  crucem  suam"; 
"muscipula  diaboli"  (P.  L.,  XXXVIII.  col.  726,  1210). 

3  "Tetendit  ei  muscipulam  crucem  suam;    posuit  ibi,  quasi 
escam,  sanguinem  suum"  (P.  L.,  CXC1I.  col.  796). 

4  Simon,  Redemption  of  Man,  p.  406. 

8  "In  hamo  ergo  ejus  Incarnationis  captus  est,  quia,  dum  in 
illo  appetit  escam  corporis,  transfixus  est  aculeo  divmitatis" 
(P.  L.,  LXXVI.  col.  680;  Hagenbach,  I.  346). 

8  De  Fide  Orthod.,  iii.  27. 


THE   PATRISTIC   TEACHING          63 

quotes  this  language  of  Gregory  with  apparent  ap 
proval  ;  although  his  use  of  the  figure  was  probably 
rhetorical,  while  the  patristic  use  corresponded  to  a 
real  conception,  at  once  immoral  and  grotesque.1 

There  is  one  striking  difference  between  Gregory 
Nyssen  and  Athanasius.  The  latter  figured  the  pres 
ence  of  God  among  men  as  similar  to  the  residence 
of  a  king  in  a  city.  Gregory  made  humanity  j^vine 
by  Christ's  intermixture  with  it,  not  with  a  human 
individual,  but  with  human  nature  (Catech.  Magna, 
25). 

Gregory  of  Nazianzus  indignantly  repudiates  the 
theory  that  the  devil  had  any  claim  upon  us,  or  that 
the  precious  Blood  was  offered  to  him  as  a  ransom.2 
Nevertheless,  he  admits  the  self-deceit  of  the  Evil 
One,  which  implies  something  of  the  nature  of  an 
artifice  on  the  part  of  Christ:  "Since  the  deceiver 
thought  that  he  was  unconquerable  in  his  malice, 
after  he  had  cheated  us  with  the  hope  of  becoming 
gods,  he  was  himself  cheated  by  God's  assumption 
of  our  nature;  so  that  in  attacking  Adam  as  he 
thought,  he  should  really  meet  with  God"  (xxxix.  13). 

He  suggests,  as  an  alternative  theory,  that  the 
ransom  was  paid  to  God,  although  he  puts  it  tenta- 

1  D.  W.  Simon,  op.  cit.,  p.  406. 

8  "I  ask,  to  whom  was  this  ransom  offered,  and  for  what  cause  ? 
If  to  the  Evil  One,  fie  upon  the  shameful  thought !"  (Oral.,  xlv. 

22). 


64      ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

lively  and  without  entire  conviction,  and  indicates  it 
as  fitting  rather  than  necessary.1  "But  if  it  was  paid 
to  the  Father,  I  ask  first,  how?  For  it  was  not  by 
Him  that  we  were  being  held  captive.  And  next,  on 
what  principle  did  the  Blood  of  His  only-begotten 
Son  please  the  Father,  who  would  not  receive  even 
Isaac,  when  he  was  being  offered  by  his  father,  but 
changed  the  victim,  putting  a  ram  in  the  place  of  the 
human  sacrifice?  Is  it  not  evident  that  the  Father 
accepts  it,  having  neither  asked  for  it  nor  needed  it, 
but  on  account  of  the  dispensation  (or  economy  of 
salvation),  and  because  it  was  befitting  that  humanity 
should  be  sanctified  by  the  humanity  of  God  (or  the 
human  element  in  God),  that  He  might  deliver  us 
Himself,  having  overcome  the  tyrant,  and  draw  us 
to  Himself  through  the  mediation  of  His  Son,  who 
also  arranged  this  (ot'/coi'o/^Vai/To?)  to  the  honour  of 
the  Father,  whom  it  is  manifest  that  He  obeys  in  all 
things  ?"  2  Accordingly,  he  did  not  regard  this  mode 

1  This  representation,  under  the  terms  of  sacrifice  instead  of 
ransom,  is  familiar  in  many  of  the  Fathers. 

2  OiKovo/j.ia  is  variously  translated ;  as,  "  1'economie  du  salut," 
by  Riviere  and  Sabatier;    "the  government  of   the  universe," 
by  Shedd;   "that  the  Scriptures  might  be  fulfilled,"  by  Harnack; 
"on  account  of  the  Incarnation,"  by  the  translators  of  Gregory,  in 
the  Post-Nicene  Fathers,  vol.  VII.    Professor  Gwatkin  says  that 
oiKovo/jLia  was  distinguished  from  6eo\oyia,  the  doctrine  of  God 
being  divided  in  two  parts  —  God  in  Himself,  and  God  in  relation 
to  men  (The  Knowledge  of  God,  II.  280).    On  "the  humanity  of 
God"  ("du  Sauveur,"  in  Riviere,  p.  178):    "Have  we  not  here 
the  germ  of  the  idea,  afterwards  known  as  the  Scotist,  that  the 


THE   PATRISTIC   TEACHING  65 

of  redemption  as  an  absolute  necessity:  as  God 
had  made  all  things  by  His  word,  He  might  have 
saved  us  by  His  will.1  As  to  the  effect  of  the  suffer 
ings  of  Christ,  he  says  that  by  them  "we  were  all 
without  exception  created  anew,  who  partake  of 
the  same  Adam,  and  were  led  astray  by  the  serpent 
and  slain  by  sin,  and  are  saved  by  the  heavenly 
Adam  and  brought  back  by  the  tree  of  shame  to 
the  tree  of  life  from  whence  we  had  fallen"  (Oral., 
xxxiii.  9). 

He  affords  a  good  illustration  of  the  common  mis 
take  of  attributing  substitution  to  the  Greek  Fathers. 
He  says  in  the  Fourth  Theological  Oration:  "He 
makes  my  disobedience  His  own  as  Head  of  the  whole 
body  .  .  .  He  was  in  His  own  person  representing 
us  ...  That  He  may  be  as  a  leaven  to  the  whole 
lump,  and  by  uniting  to  Himselj  that  which  was  ' 
condemned  may  release  it  from  all  condemnation. 
.  .  .  Until  He  make  me  God  by  the  power  of  His  • 
Incarnation"  (xxx.  5,  21,  14).  Although  he  shrinks 
from  fully  interpreting  the  ransom,  because  the  work 
of  Christ  is  transcendent  and  ineffable,  yet  he  thinks 
one  may  make  mistakes  about  it  with  impunity: 

Incarnation  was  the  purpose  of  God  independently  of  the  Fall, 
for  the  perfecting  of  humanity;  but  that  the  Passion  and  death 
of  the  Incarnate  God  were  the  direct  result  of  the  sin  of  man?" 
(Note  by  the  translators,  ad  loc.) 

1  Oral.,  ix.    This  was  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the  Fathers 
of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries  (Oxenham,  p.  149). 

5 


66      ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

"Philosophise  about  the  world  or  worlds,  about 
matter  or  soul,  .  .  .  about  resurrection,  retribution, 
or  the  sufferings  of  Christ;  for  in  these  subjects  to 
hit  the  mark  is  not  useless,  and  to  miss  it  is  free  from 
peril'*  (Orat.,  xxvii.  9).  He  was  no  doubt  referring 
to  speculations  on  these  subjects;  but,  as  all  the 
theories  are  matters  of  speculation,  he  regards  them 
as  open  to  discussion,  distinguishing  between  theory 
and  fact.1 

The  other  Greek  Fathers  contain  very  little  that 
is  additional  to  what  we  have  already  considered. 
Chrysostom  used  the  expression,  "How  wrilt  thou  be 

1  It  has  been  claimed  that  John  of  Damascus  accepted  the 
theory  of  Gregory  Nyssen,  in  the  words:  "Since  the  enemy  snares 
man  by  the  hope  of  Godhead,  he  himself  is  snared  in  turn  by  the 
screen  of  flesh,  and  so  are  shown  at  once  the  goodness  and  wisdom, 
the  justice  and  might  of  God.  .  .  .  The  tyrant  would  have  had  a 
ground  of  complaint,  if,  after  he  had  overcome  man,  God  should 
have  used  force  against  him"  (De  Fide  Orthod.,  in.  1,  18).  But  in 
chapter  27  he  says:  "He  makes  Himself  an  offering  to  the  Father 
for  our  sakes.  For  we  had  sinned  against  Him,  and  it  was  meet 
that  He  should  receive  the  ransom  for  us,  and  that  we  should  thus 
be  delivered  from  the  condemnation.  God  forbid  that  the  blood 
of  the  Lord  should  be  offered  to  the  tyrant";  which  certainly  is 
much  more  like  Gregory  Nazianzen.  He  evidently  means  that 
God  did  not  "rescue  man  out  of  the  hands  of  the  tyrant"  by  His 
.  omnipotence ;  but  that  "  He  became  man  in  order  that  that  which 
was  overcome  might  overcome."  "He  wished  to  reveal  fallen  man 
himself  as  conqueror,  and  became  man  to  restore  like  with  like." 
Chapter  27  contains  his  real  thought.  See  Shedd,  I.  252 ;  Hagen- 
bach,  II.  41,  42;  Oxenham,  p.  144;  Dale,  The  Atonement,  p.  274; 
Harnack,  III.  308:  "John  of  Damascus  felt  scruples  about 
admitting  God  and  the  devil  to  have  been  partners  in  a  legal 
transaction." 


THE   PATRISTIC   TEACHING          67 

able  to  render  God  propitious  to  thee  ? "  l  which 
Hooker  takes  to  mean  "the  very  same  with  the  Latin 
Fathers,  when  they  speak  of  satisfying  God."  2  But 
Chrysostom  knew  nothing  of  this  Latin  use  of  the 
word,  which,  with  perhaps  a  single  exception,  was 
long  subsequent  to  him.3  Dr.  Harnack  finds  in  him 
an  obscure  trace  of  substitution  (III.  309),  and  refers 
to  Homily  x.  on  Rom.  v.  17.  In  that  place,  he  is 
illustrating  what  St.  Paul  calls  a  "superabundance 
of  grace,"  and  he  says :  "As  then  if  any  were  to  cast 
a  person  who  owed  ten  mites  into  prison,  and  not 
the  man  himself  only,  but  wife  and  children  and  ser 
vants  for  his  sake;  and  another  were  to  come  and 
not  to  pay  down  the  ten  mites  only,  but  to  give  also 
ten  thousand  talents  of  gold,  and  to  lead  the  prisoner 
into  the  king's  courts,  and  to  the  throne  of  the  high 
est  power,  and  were  to  make  him  partaker  of  the 
highest  honour  and  every  kind  of  magnificence,  the 
creditor  would  not  be  able  to  remember  the  ten  mites ; 
so  hath  our  case  been.  For  Christ  hath  paid  down 
far  more  than  we  owe,  yea  as  much  more  as  the  illimit 
able  ocean  is  than  a  little  drop."  But  Harnack  ad 
mits  that  "the  idea  is  emotional,  and  not  the  starting- 
point  of  a  philosophical  theory.  It  is  different  with 

1  Horn.  viii.  on  I  Cor. 

8  EccL  PoL,  bk.  vi.  c.  v. 

*  He  uses  the  unscriptural  phrases,  Kara\\a.y^  Ae<r7r6Tou,  and 
oCros  KaraXXirydj  0eoD  Trpbs  avBp&irovs  orodjcraTj  (P.  G.,  XLIX. 
col.  407,  408). 


68      ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

the  Westerns."  l  Apart  from  being  a  rhetorical 
analogy  of  the  abundance  of  grace  beyond  the  evil 
of  sin,  it  is  apparently  a  reference  to  the  Athanasian 
thought  of  Christ's  death  as  paying  the  debt  due  to 
the  law,  and  not  part  of  a  defined  theory  of  a  literal 
payment  of  debt.  It  is  similar  to  the  statement  in 
Horn.  v.  on  Eph.  ii.  16:  "Might  reconcile  them  both 
in  one  body,  and  that  His  own,  unto  God.  How  is 
this  effected  ?  By  Himself,  he  means,  suffering  the 
due  penalty."  He  also  refers  to  the  curse  endured 
by  Christ,  as  the  substitution  of  one  kind  of  curse  for 
another.  "As  then  both  he  who  hanged  on  a  tree, 
and  he  who  transgresses  the  law,  are  cursed,  and  as 
it  was  necessary  for  him  who  is  about  to  relieve  from 
a  curse  himself  to  be  free  from  it,  but  to  receive 
another  instead  of  it,  therefore  Christ  took  upon  Him 
such  another,  and  therefore  relieved  us  from  the 
curse.  It  was  like  an  innocent  man's  undertaking 
to  die  for  another  sentenced  to  death,  and  so  rescuing 
him  from  punishment.  For  Christ  took  upon  Him 
not  the  curse  of  transgression,  but  the  other  curse,  in 
order  to  remove  that  of  others."  2 

Cyril  of  Alexandria  made  a  similar  statement,  not 
affirming  that  Christ  became  a  curse,  but  that  He 
endured  what  one  burdened  with  a  curse  must  suffer. 
Dr.  Harnack  says  that  he  "shows  most  clearly  the 

1  Loc.  cit.,  note. 

a  In  Gal.  iii.  13.    See  also  Horn.  xi.  on  II  Cor.  v.  21. 


THE   PATRISTIC   TEACHING          69 

vicarious  idea  of  the  passion  and  death  of  the  God- 
man  in  connection  with  the  whole  Christological 
conception":  "Because  all  human  nature  was  puri 
fied  and  transfigured  really  and  physically  in  Christ, 
He  could,  regarded  as  an  individual,  be  conceived  as 
substitute  or  avrikurpov ;  see  Cyril  on  John  i.  29  and 
Gal.  iii.  13  (III.  309,  note)."  He  would  probably 
refer  also  to  Cyril's  repetition  of  such  a  phrase  as 
el?  vTrep  Trdvrwv.  There  is  a  great  difference  between 
the  Pauline  idea  of  identity  or  mystical  union  and  the 
Reformation  idea  of  substitution.  The  Greeks  are 
full  of  the  former  idea ;  but  we  see  how  the  necessity 
of  exhibiting  the  deification  of  Christ's  human  na 
ture  in  the  Christological  controversy  led  more  and 
more  to  language  appropriate  to  a  real  substitution 
of  one  person  for  others  who  were  separate  from  Him, 
not  in  union  with  Him.  Riviere  calls  attention  to  this 
expression  of  penal  substitution :  "We  in  the  person  of 
Christ  have  fully  paid  (efCTerifcorcov)  the  penalties  due 
to  our  sins"  (p.  197).  It  certainly  contains  the  penal 
idea,  but  the  wide  interval  between  the  Greek  and 
the  Reformers  is  shown  by  the  phrase  of  mystical 
identification,  "  we  in  the  person  of  Christ  have 
paid."  He  constantly  uses  the  adjective  avrd%io<$  for 
the  equivalence  of  Christ's  offering,  but  it  is  with 
reference  to  the  exaltation  of  His  Person,  and  not 
particularly  to  a  theoretic  statement  upon  the  Atone 
ment.  "Christ  would  not  have  been  equivalent 


70      ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

[as  a  sacrifice]  for  the  whole  creation,  nor  would 
He  have  sufficed  to  redeem  the  world,  nor  have  laid 
down  His  life  by  way  of  a  price  for  it,  and  poured 
out  for  us  His  precious  Blood,  if  He  be  not  really 
the  Son,  and  God  of  God,  but  a  creature."  J  Cyril 
may  be  regarded  as  evidencing  the  deterioration  in 
thought  and  language  of  the  Greek  Fathers  of  the 
fifth  century. 

The  tendency  to  modes  of  statement  unfamiliar 
to  the  Scriptures  is  observable  in  the  preceding  cen 
tury,  as  we  have  already  seen.  Basil  speaks  of  our 
Lord  offering  to  God  an  expiation  (ef faao-^a)  for  us 
all.2  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  adds  that  it  was  more  than 
equivalent:  "The  transgression  of  sinners  was  not 
so  great  as  the  righteousness  of  Him  who  died  for 
them ;  the  sin  which  we  committed  was  not  so  great 
as  the  righteousness  which  He  wrought  who  laid 
down  His  life  for  us."  3  These  ideas  of  equivalence, 
however,  were  not  the  same  as  those  to  be  found  in 
the  Latin  Fathers,  and  were  not  worked  up  as  parts 
of  a  theory  of  Atonement  as  they  would  have  been 
in  later  times.  They  rather  belong  to  a  Christology, 

1  Quoted  in  Liddon,  The  Divinity  of  our  Lord,  p.  485. 

3  P.  G.,  XXIX.  col.  440. 

3  Catechetical  Lectures,  xiii.  13.  "C'est,  avec  les  termes  tech 
niques  en  moins ;  la  premiere  affirmation  theologique  de  1'infinie 
surabondance  des  satisfactions  de  1'Homme-Dieu"  (Riviere,  p. 
169).  It  will  be  observed  that  the  technical  term,  satisfaction,  is 
absent,  and  it  may  not  be  assumed  that  Cyril  meant  what  was 
afterwards  described  by  it. 


THE   PATRISTIC  TEACHING          71 

which  was  chiefly  concerned  to  exalt  the  supreme 
worth  of  the  Person  of  Christ.1 

The  deterioration  among  the  later  Greek  Fathers 
is  manifest.  By  the  fifth  century,  the  figure  of  a  debt 
was  becoming  literalised,  the  quantitative  measure-*' 
ment  of  guilt  was  becoming  familiar,  together  with 
the  necessity  for  compensation  for  man's  obligations, 
and  the  consequent  treatment  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ 
as  equivalent  to  the  debt  contracted  by  man,  and  as 
the  endurance  of  the  very  penalty  merited  by  man. 
The  phraseology  grows  more  open  to  objection, 
although  it  may  still  be  interpreted  in  partial  agree 
ment  with  the  earlier  conception  of  a  penalty  shared 
with  man  and  not  borne  in  his  stead.  The  lowering 
of  the  ethical  tone  in  such  definitions  is  very  clear, 
when  they  are  compared  with  the  noble  thought  of 
the  restoration  and  deification  of  our  nature  by 
Christ's  presence  in  it.  The  historians  of  dogma 
seem  to  think  that  they  are  not  so  real  and  precise  as 
similar  representations  among  the  Latins.  It  may 
even  be  that  by  that  time  the  Latins  were  beginning 
to  have  some  influence  upon  the  ideas  of  the  Greeks, 
although  their  forms  of  thought  were  strikingly  dif 
ferent,  and  they  were  far  beyond  the  latter  in  the 
employment  of  legal  categories.  Some  of  the  minor 
elements  of  Anselm's  speculation  are  seen  to  have 

1  The  Oriental  liturgies  are  devoid  of  the  idea  of  equivalence 
(Dr.  Neale,  in  Allen,  Christ.  Inst.,  p.  10). 


72     ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

been  derived  from  this  debasement  of  the  original 
high  thinking  upon  the  work  of  redemption.  Among 
these  are  the  penalty  of  sin  considered  as  a  debt 
which  did  not  have  to  be  paid  by  the  debtor  (contrary 
to  Athanasius),  but  from  which  he  could  be  relieved 
by  another's  payment ;  the  requirement  of  compensa 
tion  by  the  sinner  or  some  one  better  able  to  render 
it ;  the  arithmetical  rather  than  qualitative  computa 
tion  of  both  debt  and  payment,  and  the  transcendent 
value  of  what  Christ  offered  in  lieu  of  the  claim  upon 
the  sinner.  Anselm  was  not  directly  influenced  by 
these  Greek  theologians,  and  he  parted  from  them 
absolutely  in  his  omission  of  the  idea  of  appeasement,* 
and  of  any  penal  character  in  the  satisfaction  made 
by  our  Lord.  Yet  these  conceptions,  which  were 
well-known  to  him  through  the  later  Latin  use  of 
them,  formed  the  atmosphere  in  which  grew  up  his 
unique  and  original  interpretation. 

When  we  compare  the  earlier  and  more  significant 
Greek  theology,  we  discover  an  almost  complete 
absence  of  those  forms  of  thought  which  are  funda 
mental  to  the  satisfaction  theory,  whether  of  Anselm 
or  the  Reformers.  It  furnishes  no  elements  for  the 
construction  of  that  theory,  in  the  way  of  premises 
or  antecedents.  The  apparent  points  of  contact  are 
in  no  instance  essential ;  even  the  notion  of  equiva 
lence  referring  rather  to  the  adequacy  of  Christ  to 
His  work  of  redemption  than  to  the  mere  equation 


THE   PATRISTIC   TEACHING          73 

of  debt  and  payment.     In  all  vital  particulars,  the 
point  of  view  is  antithetic.    A  sacrifice  is  offered  to 
God ;  but,  when  these  Fathers  rigidly  apply  the  other 
Scriptural  figure  of  ransom,  they  represent  it  as  paid 
to  the  devil.     They  recognise  death  as  the  punish 
ment  of  sin,  a  debt  which  man  owes  to  the  law  of 
God ;  and  they  conceive  Christ  to  have  voluntarily 
shared  that  punishment,  and  to  have  paid  that  debt. 
But  they  agree  neither  with  Anselm  who  made  the 
satisfaction  of  death  a  substitute  for  punishment, 
nor  with  the  Reformers  who  regarded  the  sufferings 
and  death  as  a  literal  penalty  visited  upon  Christ. 
Nor  do  they  imagine  Him  to  have  paid  the  debt  in 
our  stead;   on  the  contrary,  they  admit  that  every 
one  of  us  has  to  pay  it,  and  He  simply  shared  our 
lot  and  paid  it  with  us  —  the  continuance  in  death 
not  being  a  necessary  part  of  the  obligation.    So  far 
from  considering  the  Redeemer  as  One  who  per 
formed  a  work  as  a  substitute  for  ourselves,  they 
dwell  upon  His  mystical  recapitulation  and  incor 
poration  of  all  humanity  in  Himself,  so  that  He  was 
not  other  than  man,  but  all  mankind  was  one  with 
Him.     We  must  therefore  look  elsewhere  for  the 
origin  of  the  theory  propounded  in  the  Cur  Deus 
Homo. 

It  may  be  well  to  supplement  these  conclusions 
with  some  admissions  by  competent  critics,  as  to  the 
incidental  character  of  many  patristic  expressions,  and 


74     ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

their  consequent  failure  to  confirm  the  continuous  and 
Catholic  authority  of  the  idea  of  satisfaction.    Arch 
bishop  Thomson  says  that  "none  of  these  writers 
worked  out  into  a  system  the  doctrine  of  the  substitu- 
tive  sacrifice  of  Christ."  1    On  the  failure  to  formu 
late  any  coherent  theory,  Professor  Harnack  says: 
"The  inability  of  theologians  to  recognise,  expose 
and  dispute  the  differences  in  their  divergent  con- 
w    ceptions  is  the  strongest  proof  that  they  were  not 
clearly  aware  of  the  bearing  and  weight  of  their  own 
propositions"  (III.  310).     Riviere  says  even  of  the 
eighth  century:    "In  this  resume  [of  John  of  Da 
mascus]  one  remarks  first  and  foremost  that  redemp 
tion  does  not  occupy  a  distinct  place,  which  proves 
/    that  the  Greek  Church  did  not  discover  on  this  point 
any  definite  theory,  or,  in  other  words,  that  the  the 
ology  of  the  dogma  was  not  yet  developed"  (p.  206). 
Similarly,  Dr.  Shedd:    "The  judicial  reasons  and 
grounds  of  this  death  of  the  most  exalted  of  persona- 
ages  were  left  to  be  investigated  and  exhibited  in 
later  ages  and  by  other  generations  of  theologians" 
(II.  212).    Abbe  Riviere  is  confident  that  the  idea  of 
satisfaction  is  to  be  found  in  the  patristic  writers; 
but  he  refuses  to  "torture  grammar  and  good  sense 
to  ascribe  to  the  Fathers  of  the  Church  a  word  which 
they  did  not  employ,  solely  to  obtain  for  our  dogma 
an  illusory  identity  of  formulas"   (p.   105).     Until 
1  Aids  to  Faith,  p.  346. 


THE   PATRISTIC   TEACHING          75 

the  time  of  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  the  Greek  theology 
"groped  and  fumbled"  in  dealing  with  this  question 
(p.  201);  which,  of  course,  he  asserts  from  the 
point  of  view  of  traditional  ecclesiastical  and  Roman 
orthodoxy. 

5.   THE  LATIN  FATHERS 

In  coming  to  the  Latin  Fathers,  we  find  ourselves 
in  an  entirely  different  atmosphere.  Many  of  the 
Greek  ideas  were  of  course  part  of  the  common  stock 
of  Eastern  and  Western  Christianity.  The  West, 
however,  never  quite  appreciated  the  theological 
spirit  of  the  East.  Oriental  questions  never  acquired 
the  same  interest  for  the  Western  mind.  To  the 
Cappadocians  and  Alexandrians,  the  Incarnation 
was  a  splendid  end  in  itself;  to  the  Latin  thinkers,  it 
became  more  and  more  a  means  to  an  end.  To  the 
Nicene  theologian,  Christ  was  supremely  significant; 
to  the  Carthaginians,  He  was  not  of  cosmic  import, 
because  man  could  make  satisfaction  for  his  own 
sins,  and  humanity  as  a  whole  was  not  redeemed. 
The  God-man  was  not  a  bond  uniting  God  and  man, 
manifesting  their  essential  likeness  and  kinship,  but 
a  witness  of  their  disunity  and  a  means  of  creating 
union.  "The  empire  of  evil  weighed  on  the  spirits 
of  those  men  as  a  dread  reality,"  1  so  that  redemption 
was  not  the  full  and  inspiring  reality  that  it  was  to 
1  Lidgett,  op.  cit.,  p.  430. 


76      ANSELM   ON  THE   ATONEMENT 

the  Greeks.  They  laid  great  stress  on  the  sufferings 
and  death  of  Christ,  and  were  particularly  full  in 
their  comments  on  Gal.  iii.  13.  But  they  treated  the 
subject  under  such  limitations,  with  their  ideas  of 
personal  merit  and  the  efficacy  of  sacraments,  espe 
cially  the  two  earliest  of  them,  that  their  phraseology 
eventually  gave  rise  to  a  theory  of  the  Atonement 
which  would  have  been  quite  congenial  to  them,  but 
which,  strangely  enough,  never  entered  their  minds. 
The  Latins,  equally  with  the  Greeks,  made  the 
person  and  work  of  Christ  central,  describing  the 
results  chiefly  in  the  language  of  Scripture,  but  mak 
ing  no  systematic  attempt  to  define  the  process.1 
The  contemporary  development  of  the  Eucharist 
into  an  expiatory  sacrifice  makes  the  absence  of  any 
detailed  definition  of  the  Atonement  all  the  more 
striking.  The  three  famous  Carthaginians  did  so 
much  to  give  theology  a  fatal  twist,  that  it  is  fortunate 
that  their  attention  was  not  particularly  directed  to 
this  theme;  although  it  must  be  admitted  that  Au- 
gustin  was  far  more  ethical  and  evangelical  in  his 
references  than  his  predecessors.  Tertullian  and 


1  "En  somme,  ni  les  Peres  latins  ni  les  Peres  grecs  n'ont  traite 
directement  le  probleme  de  la  Redemption ;  ils  y  ont  seulement 
touche  en  passant,  a  propos  des  textes  scripturaires  ou  des  verites 
dogmatiques  connexes.  ...  Ils  ont  beaucoup  parle  de  substitu 
tion  ( ?)  et  de  sacrifice,  ils  en  ont  affirme  le  fait  ou  decrit  les  effets ; 
ils  n'en  ont  pas  cherche  la  nature  intime  ou  la  cause  derniere. 
Ce  progres  etait  reserve  au  Moyen  Age"  (Riviere,  pp.  277,  278). 


THE   PATRISTIC   TEACHING          77 

Cyprian  were  the  contemporaries  of  Irenseus  and 
Origen,  although  their  thought  moved  generally  on 
a  very  different  plane:  it  would  have  been  most 
unhappy  if  their  logic  had  been  more  rigid,  and  they 
had  explicitly  applied  their  penitential  theories  to  the 
sacrifice  of  Christ.  The  North  African  environment 
was  so  totally  different  from  the  Egyptian  and  East 
ern,  that  it  had  the  most  radical  effect  upon  the  Latin 
theology.  Yet  it  is  important  to  realise  that  its 
Soteriology  had  no  vital  relation  to  Anselm's,  which 
was  indeed  partly  derived  from  their  speculations  on 
quite  another  subject,  but  which  was  conceived  under 
notably  different  categories.  After  rehearsing  the 
special  views  of  the  most  prominent  Western  Fathers 
upon  Christ's  redeeming  work,  we  shall  be  still  further 
prepared  to  appreciate  the  absolute  novelty  of  An 
selm's  theory. 

a.    Tertullian  (ob.  c.  220) 

In  the  treatise  Against  Marcion,  the  transcendent 
value  of  the  death  of  Christ  is  asserted.  "Christ's 
death,  wherein  lies  the  whole  weight  and  fruit  of  the 
Christian  name,  is  denied,  although  the  apostle  as 
serts  it  so  strongly  as  undoubtedly  real,  making  it  the 
very  foundation  of  the  Gospel,  of  our  salvation,  and 
of  his  own  preaching"  (iii.  8).  The  same  importance 
is  attached  to  the  death  in  the  tract,  De  Patientia,  3 : 
"For  this  was  the  end  for  which  He  had  come."  In 


78      ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

his  Answer  to  the  Jews,  he  makes  much  of  the  Old 
Testament  types  of  the  cross,  as  the  means  of  restor 
ing  the  lost  image  of  God,  particularly  all  the  refer 
ences  to  "wood"  or  "the  tree."  Thus,  the  bestowal 
of  new  life  is  taught  from  the  loss  of  the  axe-head 
while  the  sons  of  the  prophets  were  cutting  "wood," 
and  its  recovery  through  Elisha's  casting  "wood" 
upon  the  surface  of  the  water  :  "What  is  more  mani 
fest  than  the  mystery  [sacramento]  of  this  wood  .  .  . 
that  what  had  formerly  perished  through  *  the  tree ' 
in  Adam  should  be  restored  through  *  the  tree '  in 
Christ?  "  (xiii).1  But  again,  after  the  unsystematic 
manner  of  the  Fathers,  the  redemption  is  virtually 
made  the  result  of  Christ's  teaching.2  There  is  there 
fore  nothing  upon  this  subject  additional  to  what 
we  have  already  found  in  the  Greek  Fathers  of  the 
same  period  of  the  third  century. 

It  is,  however,  the  word,  "satisfaction,"  which  he 
was  the  first  to  employ,  that  has  made  him  appear  to 
anticipate  the  Cur  Deus  Homo.3  The  word  is  purely 
a  Latin  conception,  having  no  equivalent  in  Greek; 
and  was  borrowed  from  the  legal  language  of  Rome. 

1  A  similar  argument  is  found  in  Cur  Deus  Homo,  lib.  1,  c.  iii., 
sub  fine.  It  may  be  noted  that  Tertullian's  exposition  of  Gal.  iii. 
13  altogether  excludes  the  idea  of  Christ's  vicarious  satisfaction 
(Adv.  Praxean,  xxix). 

8  Adv.  Marc.,  ii.  27;  see  Harnack,  II.  294. 

8  Dr.  Fisher  says  that  he  was  "the  first  to  make  the  Latin 
language  the  vehicle  for  theology"  (op.  cii.,  p.  38).  We  owe  to 
him  also  Trinitas,  Persona,  sacramentum,  and  vitium  originis. 


THE   PATRISTIC   TEACHING          79 

He  applies  the  expression,  "satisfacere  deo,"  solely 
to  men's  repentances,  prayers,  confessions,  and  good 
works  generally.  On  which  it  may  be  remarked, 
first,  that  satisfaction  by  man  is  the  converse  of 
Anselm's  satisfaction  by  Christ,  and,  secondly,  that 
it  is  significant  that  the  idea  was  first  applied  to  the 
wholly  unscriptural  and  immoral  idea  of  penance. 
He  says:  "Thus  he  who,  through  repentance  for 
sins,  had  begun  to  make  satisfaction  to  the  Lord, 
will,  through  another  repentance  of  his  repentance, 
make  satisfaction  to  the  devil."  *  "At  fasts,  more 
over,  and  Stations,  no  prayer  should  be  made  without 
kneeling,  and  the  remaining  customary  marks  of 
humility;  for  [then]  we  are  not  only  praying  but 
deprecating  [wrath],  and  making  satisfaction  to  God 
our  Lord."  2  "Confession  is  the  method  of  satisfac 
tion";  and:  "By  confession  satisfaction  is  settled; 
of  confession  repentance  is  born ;  by  repentance  God 
is  appeased."  3  He  believed  that  good  works  had  a 
legal  claim  upon  God's  favour,  and  "that  what  a 
man's  merits  entitled  him  to  from  God  had  a  fixed 
and  regulated  value."*  "All  this  exomologesis 
(utter  confession)  [does],  that  it  may  enhance  re- 

1  De  poen.,  5 ;  also,  7,  8,  9,  10. 

8  Deorat.,  23;  see  also  de  bapt .,  20 ;  depudic.,Q. 

•  De  poen.,  8,  9.  This  use  of  "placare"  exhibits  the  wide 
chasm  between  the  Carthaginian  and  the  best  of  the  Greeks,  in 
their  understanding  of  the  character  of  God. 

«  Harnack,  III.  311. 


80      ANSELM   ON  THE   ATONEMENT 

pentance;  may  honour  God  by  its  fear  of  the  [in 
curred]  danger;  may,  by  itself  pronouncing  against 
the  sinner,  stand  in  the  stead  of  God's  indignation, 
and  by  temporal  mortification  (I  will  not  say  frus 
trate,  but)  discharge  eternal  punishments."  1  He 
uses  the  very  words,  merit  and  desert,  thus  determin 
ing  an  unethical  quality  in  the  moral  theology  of  the 
Latin  Church,  and  in  the  Soteriology  which  was 
founded  upon  the  idea  of  satisfaction.  "Or  how  will 
there  be  many  mansions  in  our  Father's  house,  if 
not  to  accord  with  a  variety  of  deserts?"  2  Yet  he 
once  uses  the  cautious  phrase,  "so  far  as  we  can 
merit"  (De  poen.,  6).  Undoubtedly,  these  concep 
tions  were  the  first  contribution  to  the  idea  of  a 
"treasury  of  merit,"  which  was  to  prove  so  profit 
able  to  the  Church  of  the  Middle  Ages. 

As  a  lawyer  and  a  Latin,  he  was  led  to  contem 
plate  all  moral  relations  from  the  legal  standpoint, 
and  it  would  have  been  natural  for  him  to  describe 
the  relation  of  Christ  to  our  salvation  in  juridical 
terms.  He  introduced  the  forensic  conceptions  which 
afterwards  governed  Western  theology,  and  thus 


1  De  poen.,  9. 

2  Scorp.,  6.    See  also,  "meritum  fidei"  (De  oral.,  2);  "merita 
cujusque"  (Ibid.,  4);   "merita  poenitentiae"  (De  poen.,  2);   also, 
the  verbs,  "merer!"  and  "promereri  deum" ;  as,  "the  catechumen 
covets  to  merit  it,"  i.  e.,  baptism  (De  poen.,  6),  and  the  expressions, 
"I  shall  stand  with  credit,"  "I  shall  deserve"  (Scarp.,  10).    For 
other  illustrations,  see  Harnack,  III.  294;  V.  19,  20. 


THE   PATRISTIC   TEACHING          81 

prepared  the  way  for  the  mediaeval  theory  of  Atone 
ment.  It  is  remarkable,  however,  that  he  never  re 
ferred  to  the  work  of  Christ  as  a  satisfaction.  That 
he  did  not  is  the  strongest  possible  witness  that  he 
did  not  reflect  upon  the  objective  character  of  the 
redemption,  and  that  any  theory  of  Christ's  satis 
faction  was  unknown  to  the  Church  of  the  third 
century.1  It  is  evident  indeed  that  he  could  not  have 
made  this  application  of  merits  and  satisfaction  to 
Christ,  because  he  infers  from  our  Lord's  parable 
that  sin  is  a  debt  which  must  be  either  paid  or  re 
mitted —  and  it  is  remitted.2  Moreover,  he  makes 
repentance  "the  price  of  pardon,"  release  from 
penalty  being  the  "compensatory  exchange  of  re 
pentance."  3 

Manifestly,  his  idea  of  satisfaction  is  not  only 
different  from  the  later  theory,  but  it  is  incompatible 
with  it.4  Nevertheless,  his  use  of  satisfaction  is  a 
mischievous  superstition,  which  had  most  disastrous 
results.  The  unethical  and  legal  categories  which  he 

1  Riviere  says  positively:    "Tertullien  n'a  pas  applique  cette 
idee  a  la  mediation  de  Jesus-Christ"  (p.  215).    Vide  Harnack,  V. 
16.     The  apparent  contradiction  in  the  translation  of  Harnack 
(cf.  II.  294,  note,  and  III.  310,  where  he  first  seems  to  deny,  and 
then  to  assert,  that  Tertullian  spoke  of  Christ  as  satisfying  God) 
is  due  to  a  misunderstanding  of  "  der  Christ."    The  sentence  on  the 
latter  page,  beginning,  "Christ  required  to  be  obedient,"  should 
read:  "The  Christian,"  etc. 

2  De  orat.,  7 ;  de  pudicit.,  2. 
8  De  poen.,  6. 

4  Hagenbach,  I.  180;  Lidgett,  op.  cit.,  p.  428. 
6 


82      ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

introduced  afterwards  dominated  Western  thought. 
The  repellent  extreme  of  their  use  in  the  Middle  Ages 
and  since  the  Reformation  may  be  traced  back  to 
the  fact  that  the  first  great  Latin  Father  was  a  lawyer.1 
His  influence  was  directly  felt  upon  Cyprian,  who 
always  spoke  of  him  as  "Master." 

b.    Cyprian  (ob.  258) 

This  student  of  Tertullian  also  is  said  by  Dr. 
Norris  to  have  been  a  lawyer,  though  he  is  generally 
referred  to  as  a  teacher  of  rhetoric.2  At  any  rate, 
he  held  the  same  juristic  ideas  as  his  predecessor, 
and  developed  them  much  further.  The  expressions, 
"satisfacere  deo,"  and  the  still  more  gross,  "placare 
deum,"  occur  very  frequently.  He  speaks  of  "the 
satisfaction  and  deprecation  of  God's  anger." 
"The  Lord  must  be  appeased  by  our  atonement"; 
"we  believe  that  the  merits  of  martyrs  and  the  works 
of  the  righteous  are  of  great  avail  with  the  Judge." 
"The  remedies  for  propitiating  God  are  given  in  the 
words  of  God  Himself;  the  divine  instructions  have 

1  See  Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers,  Vol.  IV,  Prolegom., 

*'  '  Rudiments  of  Theology,  p.  861.  Probably  there  was  no 
distinction.  See  W.  E.  Ball,  St.  Paul  and  the  Roman  Law,  pp.  58, 
71  sq. 

*  Ep.,  xi.  2. 

4  De  laps.,  17. 


THE   PATRISTIC   TEACHING          83 

taught  what  sinners  ought  to  do,  that  by  works  of 
righteousness  God  is  satisfied  (placari),  that  with  the 
deserts  of  mercy  sins  are  cleansed."  1  As  the  effect 
of  baptism  was  retroactive,  satisfaction  for  sins  after 
baptism  must  be  made  by  means  of  meritorious 
deeds.  Martyrdom  was  an  especial  means  of  grace, 
and  among  good  works  almsgiving  held  a  chief 
place.2  "  Be  earnest  in  righteous  works,  whereby  sins 
may  be  purged;  frequently  apply  yourself  to  alms 
giving,  whereby  souls  are  freed  from  death."  8  "As 
in  the  laver  of  saving  water  the  fire  of  Gehenna  is 
extinguished,  so  by  almsgiving  and  works  of  right 
eousness  the  flame  of  sins  is  subdued."  4 

There  is  also  a  more  frequent  use  of  "meritum" 
and  "promereri  deum."  "There  is  need  of  righteous 
ness  that  one  may  deserve  well  of  God  the  Judge; 
we  must  obey  His  precepts  and  warnings,  that  our 
merits  may  receive  their  reward."  5  " If  he  incline  the 
Lord  to  pardon  of  his  sin  by  righteous  and  continual 
works,  He  who  expressed  His  mercy  in  these  words 
may  pity  such  men  (Is.  xxx.  51)  ";  "Or  if  any  one 
move  Him  still  more  by  his  own  atonement,  if  he 

1  Deop.et  eleemos.y  5 

a  Ep.t  li.  22. 

8  De  laps.,  35. 

*  De  op.  et  eleemos.,  2;  also  1,  5,  6,  9,  18.  The  satisfactions 
were  often  church  penances. 

6  De  unit,  eccles.,  15.  See  Harnack,  II.  134  for  many  other 
references. 


84      ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

appease  His  anger,  if  he  appease  the  wrath  of  an 
indignant  God  by  righteous  entreaty,  He  gives  arms 
again  whereby  the  vanquished  may  be  armed'*;  "he 
who  has  thus  made  atonement  to  God,  .  .  .  shall 
now  deserve  of  the  Lord  not  only  pardon,  but  a 
crown."  1  The  word,  "indulgence,"  also  occurs, 
though  this  may  not  be  in  quite  the  sense  of  succeed 
ing  ages.  "Man  cannot  be  greater  than  God,  nor 
can  a  servant  remit  or  forego  by  his  indulgence  what 
has  been  committed  by  a  greater  crime  against  the 
Lord."  2  It  is  probable,  however,  that  the  term  was 
already  applied  to  the  ecclesiastical  custom,  and  the 
connection  shows  that  Cyprian  was  referring  to  the 
action  of  the  Church. 

Dr.  Harnack  says  that  he  described  Christ's  work 
as  a  satisfaction  to  God,  but  I  have  been  unable  to 
find  any  passage  in  which  he  did  so.3  It  is  amazing 
that  he  did  not,  as  he  had  all  the  elements  of  the 
theory  —  appeasement,  ascetic  practices,  merits  and 
their  transfer  to  sinners  from  saints  and  martyrs,  and 
the  church  system  of  penance.4  But  it  must  be  ob- 

1  De  laps.,  36. 

3  De  laps.,  17.    Similarly,  Tertullian  in  De  poen.,  7. 

»  Hist.  Dogm.,  II.  294  note;  III.  312.  Per  contra,  Riviere, 
p.  218.  Dr.  George  P.  Fisher  assures  me  that  Harnack  is  un 
doubtedly  wrong  here. 

4  Ambrose  does  once  employ  the  word  "satisfaction"  with 
reference  to  the  death  of  the  Saviour:   "Suscepit  enim  et  mortem 
ut  impleretur  sententia,  satisfieret  judicato :    Maledictum  carnis 
peccatricis  usque  ad  mortem"  (P.  L.,  XIV.  col.  618).  But  Riviere 


THE  PATRISTIC   TEACHING          85 

served  that  his  mind  was  occupied  with  practical 
questions  of  administration,  and  apparently  not  at 
all  with  the  doctrine  of  Atonement.  His  references  to 
it  are  quite  commonplace,  and  betray  no  attempt  to 
theorise.  In  his  Testimonies  against  the  Jews,  he 
quotes  texts  to  prove  "that  in  the  passion  and  the 
sign  of  the  cross  is  all  virtue  and  power"  (ii.  21). 
And  he  says  that  "it  behooved  Him  to  suffer,  not 
that  He  might  feel  death,  but  that  He  might  conquer 
death."  x  It  is  true  that  he,  together  with  Tertullian, 
provided  much  of  the  material  for  Anselm's  specula 
tions,  but  he  failed  to  make  the  application  to  the 
work  of  Christ,  which  would  have  been  so  obvious 
and  inevitable  if  there  had  been  a  trace  of  the  later 
theory  in  his  theology.  This  significant  omission 
exhibits  in  the  most  conclusive  way  the  novelty  of  the 
medioeval  dogma  and  its  consequent  unimportance 
to  Catholic  orthodoxy.2 

admits  that  he  is  not  dealing  here  with  a  satisfaction  in  the  actual 
sense,  "mais  d'une  satisfaction  donnee  a  la  loi  de  mort  divinement 
portee  contre  le  pecheur.  C'est  une  idee  voisine  du  systeme 
d'Athanase"  (p.  234). 

1  De  van.  idol.,  14. 

8  It  is  needless  to  multiply  proofs  of  the  prevalence  of  the  ideas 
of  appease  tnent  and  satisfaction  among  the  Western  Fathers.  The 
following  quotations  may  suffice.  "For  it  is  possible  for  him  to  be 
brought  back,  and  to  be  set  free,  if  he  repents  of  his  actions,  and, 
turning  to  better  things,  makes  satisfaction  to  God";  and  again: 
"Why  should  we  despair  that  the  mercy  of  God  our  Father  may 
again  be  appeased  by  repentance?"  (Lactantius,  Inst.,  vi.  24). 
"This  suffering  .  .  .  was  freely  undertaken,  and  was  intended  to 


86      ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 


c.    Augustin  (ob.  430) 

The  greatest  of  the  Latin  Fathers  makes  less  of 
merit  and  satisfaction  than  his  predecessors;  but  he 
shows  traces  of  their  influence  in  such  statements  as 
this  from  the  Enchiridion:  "Almsgiving  must  be 
used  to  propitiate  God  for  past  sins,  not  to  purchase 
impunity  for  the  commission  of  such  sins  in  the 
future.  For  He  has  given  no  man  license  to  sin, 
although  in  His  mercy  He  may  blot  out  sins  that  are 
already  committed,  if  we  do  not  neglect  to  make 
proper  satisfaction"  (70).  He  is  very  fine  on  recon 
ciliation,  contesting  the  statements  that  God  is  rec 
onciled  to  us,  or  that  Pie  was  appeased  by  Christ's 
death,  because  that  would  involve  an  antagonism 
between  the  Father  and  the  Son.  It  could  be  wished 
that  the  many  who  have  resorted  to  Augustin  in  sup 
port  of  very  different  dogmatic  and  ecclesiastical 
views  had  learned  this  truth  from  him.  He  says: 
"God  did  not  begin  to  love  us  when  we  were  recon 
ciled  to  Him  by  the  blood  of  His  Son ;  but  He  loved 
us  before  the  creation  of  the  world,  that  we  might 
be  His  children,  together  with  His  only-begotten  Son, 

fulfil  a  penal  function  without,  however,  inflicting  the  pain  of 
penalty  upon  the  sufferer"  (Hilary,  Psalm  liii.  12).  This  sentence 
leads  Ritschl  to  call  Hilary  the  initiator  of  the  Latin  theology. 
"  Fornication  must  incur  punishment,  unless  its  guilt  is  purged 
away  by  a  satisfaction"  (Sulpitius  Severus,  Did.,  ii.  10). 


THE  PATRISTIC  TEACHING          87 

even  before  we  had  any  existence.  Therefore  our 
reconciliation  by  the  death  of  Christ  must  not  be 
understood  as  if  He  reconciled  us  to  God,  that  God 
might  begin  to  love  those  whom  He  had  before  hated : 
but  we  are  reconciled  to  Him  who  already  loved  us 
and  with  whom  we  were  at  enmity  on  account  of  sin." 3 
And  again:  "What  is  meant  by  'justified  in  His 
blood'?  .  .  .  What  is  meant  by  'being  reconciled 
by  the  death  of  His  Son '  ?  Was  it  indeed  so  that, 
when  God  the  Father  was  wroth  with  us,  He  saw 
the  death  of  His  Son  for  us,  and  was  appeased 
towards  us?  Was  then  His  Son  already  so  far  ap 
peased  towards  us,  that  He  even  deigned  to  die  for 
us ;  while  the  Father  was  still  so  far  wroth,  that  ex 
cept  His  Son  died  for  us,  He  would  not  be  appeased  ? 
.  .  .  Pray,  unless  the  Father  had  been  already 
appeased,  would  He  have  delivered  up  His  own  Son, 
not  sparing  Him  for  us  ?  ...  Therefore  together 
both  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  the  Spirit  of  both, 
work  all  things  equally  and  harmoniously." 

He  also  started  the  inquiry  whether  the  mode  of 
reconciliation  presented  in  the  Gospel  was  a  neces 
sity,  and  concluded  it  was  not;  because  God  could 
have  saved  man  in  some  other  way,  though  none 

1  Quoted  in  Calvin,  Institutes,  Book  ii,  ch.  xi. 

3  De  Trin.,  xiii.  11.  Still  in  Psalm  xlviii.  9  (P.  L.,  XXXVI.  col. 
549)  he  defines  propitiation  by  "placatio."  Also  in  Enchirid.,  33, 
he  says  of  Christ,  "  qui  hanc  iram  .  .  .  placaret."  But  he  at  once 
explains  that  this  wrath  is  not  a  feeling,  but  an  attitude  toward  sin.  ir 


88      ANSELM   ON   THE    ATONEMENT 

was  so  well  adapted  to  man's  needs.1    This  rejects 
the  requirement  of  a  sacrifice  on  account  of  guilt, 
and  of  any  form  of  a  satisfaction  to  justice.    He  gives 
an  interesting  interpretation  of  II  Cor.  v.  20, 21 :  "On 
account  of  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh  in  which  He 
came,  He  was  said  to  be  Himself  sin,  that  He  might 
be  sacrificed  (or  meaning  that  He  was  to  be  a  sacri 
fice)  to  wash  away  sin.    For,  under  the  Old  Cove 
nant,  sacrifices  for  sins  were  called  sins.2  .  .  .  He  does 
not  say,   .   .   .  'He  who  knew  no  sin  did  sin  for  us/ 
as  if  Christ  had  Himself  sinned  for  our  sakes:   but 
he  says,  'Him  who  knew  no  sin'  God  'hath  made  to 
be  sin  for  us,'  that  is,  hath  made  Him  a  sacrifice  fo 
our  sins.  ...  He  being  made  sin,  not  His  own,  but 
ours,  not  in  Himself,  but  in  us,  showed,  by  the  like 
ness  of  sinful  flesh  in  which  He  was  crucified,  that 
though  sin  was  not  in  Him,  yet  that  in  a  certain 
sense  He  died  to  sin,  by  dying  in  the  flesh  which  was 
the  likeness  of  sin."  3     This  is  in  the  spirit  of  Atha- 
nasius :  Christ  bore  the  curse  of  our  sin  by  the  likeness 
of  His  nature  to  ours,  and  so  we  become  one  with 
His  righteousness  by  our  union  with  Him.     The 
absence  of  imputation,  in  the  later  sense,  will  be 
noticed.     It  was  this  thought,  when  applied  to  the 
Pelagian  controversy,  that  made  the  Reformers  com- 

1  De  Trin.,  xiii.  10,  IS.    See  also  De  Agone  Ch.t  10. 

2  See  also  De  gratia  Christi  st  pecc.  wig.,  ii.  36. 
8  Enchirid.,  41. 


THE   PATRISTIC   TEACHING          89 

plain  that  he  did  not  distinguish  between  Justifica 
tion  and  Sanctification.  He  did  not  identify  them, 
but  regarded  them  as  practically  inseparable  in 
Christian  experience.  He  made  Justification  real  by 
making  it  necessarily  issue  in  the  process  of  Sanctifi 
cation  ;  they  confused  the  relation  between  them  by 
making  the  former  chiefly  forensic. 

Like  Athanasius,  he  regarded  death  as  "the  pun 
ishment  of  sin":  "He  bore  for  our  sakes  sin  in  the 
sense  of  death  as  brought  on  human  nature  by  sin. 
This  is  what  hung  on  the  tree;  this  is  what  was 
cursed  by  Moses."  l  He  also  spoke  of  Christ  as 
"cursed,  not  in  His  Divine  majesty,  but  in  the  con 
dition  of  our  punishment  in  which  He  hung  on  the 
tree"  (chap.  7);  which  Harnack  regards  as  more 
real  than  the  Eastern  statement  of  the  same  idea.2 
Again,  in  chapter  4  of  the  same  treatise:  "Christ, 
though  guiltless,  took  our  punishment,  that  He  might 
cancel  our  guilt,  and  do  away  with  our  punishment." 

1  Contra  Faust.  Manich.,  xiv.  3. 

2  Op.  cit.,  III.  314.    The  words  are:    "ex  conditione  poenae 
nostrae  ex  qua  in  ligno  suspensus  est";  which  are  rendered:   "as 
hanging  on  the  tree  as  our  substitute,  bearing  our  punishment," 
in  Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers,  IV.  209.    This,  however,  is 
not  translation,  but  dogmatic  interpretation  of  the  kind  so  common 
in  dealing  with  the  Fathers.     Augustin  explains  "cursed"  by 
"meaning  that  He  really  died" ;  and  he  was  simply  repeating  the 
Athanasian  thought  of  Christ's  identification  with  our  human 
condition,  to  the  extent  of  sharing  our  death  which  is  to  us  the 
penalty  of  sin.    The  expression,  "poenam  peccati  nostri  suscepit," 
became  fixed  after  the  time  of  Augustin. 


90     ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

On  the  other  hand,  in  emphasising  the  voluntary 
submission  to  death  of  which  Anselm  made  so  much, 
he  rejects  any  literal  significance  of  the  penal  idea : 
"While  our  death  was  the  penalty  of  sin,  His  death 
was  made  a  sacrifice  for  sin."  "The  spirit  of  the 
Mediator  showed  how  it  was  through  no  punishment 
of  sin  that  He  came  to  the  death  of  the  flesh,  be 
cause  He  did  not  leave  it  against  His  will,  but 
because  He  willed,  when  He  willed,  as  He  willed. 
.  .  .  Which  death,  though  not  due,  the  Lord  there 
fore  rendered  for  us,  that  the  death  which  was 
due  might  work  us  no  hurt. "  *  Still  more  explicitly : 
"Death  is  the  penalty  of  sins;  in  the  Lord  was  the 
gift  of  pity,  not  the  punishment  of  sin."  2  Professor 
Harnack  says  Ambrose  treated  the  relationship  of 
the  death  of  Christ  to  sin  as  guilt  (V.  54),  and 
that  "whatever  occurs  in  Ambrose  is  to  be  found 
also  in  Augustin  "  (III.  313).  But  the  latter  thought 
of  sin  more  especially  as  infirmity.3 

Augustin's  language  which  seems  to  suggest  sub- 

1  De  Trin.,  iv.  12,  13. 

3  De  Johann.  Evang.,  c.  1,  Tractate  iii.  13;  P.  L.,  XXXV.  col. 
1401. 

3  In  contrast  with  the  above  concessions  of  Augustin,  Dr. 
Shedd  refers  to  the  definite  language  of  Gregory  the  Great :  "  Guilt 
can  be  extinguished  only  by  a  penal  offering  to  justice"  (II.  263). 
This  is  a  conspicuous  illustration  of  the  way  in  which  the  teaching 
of  the  Fathers  has  been  misrepresented.  Gregory's  words  are: 
"delenda  ergo  erat  talis  culpa,  sed  nisi  per  sacrificium  deleri  non 
poterat"  (Moral-id,  xvii.  46;  P.  L.,  LXXVI.  col.  32). 


THE   PATRISTIC   TEACHING          91 

stitution  is  seen  to  have  a  very  different  meaning 
from  the  same  words  in  a  modern  writer.  "He  made 
our  offences  His  own  offences,  that  He  might  make 
His  own  righteousness  our  righteousness." *  Al 
though  he  uses  the  legal  word,  "delictum,"  and 
phraseology  of  this  sort  was  less  mystical  with  the 
Latins  than  with  the  Greeks,  still  it  cannot  be  pressed 
in  the  interest  of  literal  substitution.  As  the  second 
clause  cannot  be  interpreted  substitutively,  since  His 
righteousness  becomes  ours  not  by  substitution  but 
by  participation  in  it  and  oneness  with  it,  so  the  first 
clause  represents  not  the  vicarious  endurance  of 
penalty,  but  the  oneness  with  our  sinful  condition 
that  made  Him  a  participator  in  the  sufferings  con 
sequent  upon  human  sin. 

The  Greek  theory  of  the  payment  to  the  devil 
recurs  once  more  in  Augustin  (De  Trin.,  xiii.  14). 
He  says  that  God  would  have  been  unjust  to  him  if 
an  equivalent  had  not  been  paid  (De  lib.  arbitrio,  iii. 
10).  The  devil's  claim  was  fully  admitted,  it  was 
grounded  jure  aequissimo; 2  but  he  forfeited  his 
dominion  by  inflicting  death  on  One  who  was  sinless. 
"The  debt  of  death"  is  owed,  not  to  the  law  of  God, 
as  in  Athanasius,  but  to  the  devil  "  who  holds  us  as 
debtors."  The  redemption  is  regarded  as  a  quasi- 

1  Delicta    nostra    sua    delicta,    ut   justitiam    suam    nostram 
justitiam  faceret  (Psal.  xxi.  2,  Enarr.  ii;  P.  L.,  XXXVI.  col.  172). 
3  Baur,  Die  Christ.  Lehre,  p.  68. 


92     ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

payment,  but  a  real  conquest.    "He  proceeds  to  His 
passion,  that  He  might  pay  for  us  debtors  that  which 
He  Himself  did  not  owe";   "the  blood  of  Christ  was 
given,  as  it  were  (tanquam),  as  a  price  for  us,  by  ac 
cepting  which  the  devil  was  not  enriched,  but  bound." 
For  "the  devil  is  conquered  by  righteousness,  not 
by  power";   or  rather,  "He  conquered  him  first  by 
righteousness,  and  afterwards  by  power ;  namely,  by 
righteousness  because  He  had  no  sin,  and  was  slain 
by  him  most  unjustly ;  but  by  power,  because  having 
been  dead  He  lived  again,  never  afterwards  to  die" 
(De  Trin.,  xiii.  13,  14,  15).    This  is  certainly  more 
coherent  than  the  previous  attempt  to  combine  the 
sacrifice   to   God   with  the   fraudulent  payment  to 
Satan;    but  Augustin  undoubtedly  retains  the  relics 
of  Origen's  theory,  which  is  another  evidence,  in 
addition  to  the  many  in  the  Anti-Pelagian  treatises, 
that  he  never  quite  rid  himself   of  the  Manichsean 
heresy. 

Theologians  have  built  up  the  most  diverse  systems 
upon  Augustin's  materials.  The  High  Sacramenta- 
rian  and  the  Calvinist  alike  appeal  to  him,  because 
he  combined  the  characteristics  of  both  of  his  pred 
ecessors,  and  the  two  tendencies  were  not  harmonised. 
Tertullian  was  dogmatic,  Cyprian  was  ecclesiastical; 
Augustin  was  both.  So  the  adherents  of  contra 
dictory  theories  of  the  Atonement  try  to  find  in  his 
contradictory  statements  the  basis  for  their  own  con- 


THE   PATRISTIC   TEACHING          93 

victions;  but  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  nobler 
and  profounder  part  of  his  thought  should  be  con 
sidered  the  more  characteristic  and  determinative. 
As  an  illustration  of  his  ability  to  conceive  of  our 
redemption  in  a  manner  devoid  of  the  elements  most 
open  to  criticism,  the  following  may  be  quoted  from 
the  Enchiridion,  108:  "When  sin  had  placed  a  wide 
gulf  between  God  and  the  human  race,  it  was  ex 
pedient  that  a  Mediator,  who  alone  of  the  human 
race  was  born,  lived,  and  died  without  sin,  should 
reconcile  us  to  God,  and  procure  even  for  our  bodies 
a  resurrection  to  eternal  life,  in  order  that  the  pride 
of  man  might  be  exposed  and  cured  through  the 
humility  of  God ;  that  man  might  be  shown  how  far 
he  had  departed  from  God,  when  God  became  in 
carnate  to  bring  him  back;  that  an  example  might 
be  set  to  disobedient  man  in  the  life  of  obedience 
of  the  God-man;  that  the  fountain  of  grace  might 
be  opened  by  the  Only-begotten  taking  upon  Himself 
the  form  of  a  servant,  a  form  which  had  no  antecedent 
merit;  that  an  earnest  of  that  resurrection  of  the 
body  which  is  promised  to  the  redeemed  might 
be  given  in  the  resurrection  of  the  Redeemer;  that 
the  devil  might  be  subdued  by  the  same  nature 
which  it  was  his  boast  to  have  deceived;  .  .  . 
and,  in  fine,  with  a  view  to  all  the  advantages  which 
the  thoughtful  can  perceive  and  describe,  or  per 
ceive  without  being  able  to  describe,  as  flowing 


94      ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

from  the  transcendent  mystery  of  the  person  of  the 
Mediator."  1 

The  other  Latins  require  only  the  briefest  notice. 
Lactantius  chiefly  dwelt  upon  the  example  and  teach 
ing  of  Christ  (Inst.  div.,  iv.  13,  25,  26).  Seeberg  says 
that,  with  Gregory  the  Great,  the  emphasis  was  also 
on  the  example  and  teaching;  2  but  he  held  the 
deception  theory  of  Origen  and  Gregory  Nyssen  in 
its  most  revolting  form.  He  described  the  death  of 
Christ  as  an  expiatory  sacrifice,  a  true  placation,  but 
did  not  think  it  to  be  absolutely  necessary.  It  re 
quired  to  be  supplemented  by  penance,  which  was 
a  factor  of  equal  value  in  atoning  for  sin.  He  seems 
to  have  been  the  first  to  apply  the  idea  of  merit  to 
the  work  of  Christ ; 3  but  the  expiation  and  the  merit 
do  not  belong  to  the  same  category.  According  to 
Harnack,  he  worked  out  no  "theory  of  Christ's 
merit  —  after  the  analogy  of  the  merits  which  we  can 
gain.  That  was  reserved  for  the  Middle  Ages :  but 
he  has  examined  Christ's  work  from  the  point  of 
view  of  masses  for  the  dead  and  the  intercession  of 

"In  Enchir.,  108,  Augustin  has  summed  up  all  he  had  to  say 
on  the  import  of  Christ's  work ;  but  it  will  be  found  that,  although      J 
the  reconciliatio  cum  deo  —  only,  indeed,  as  restoration  to  God  — 
is  not  wanting,  what  is  called  'objective  redemption'  is  left  pretty 
much  in  the  background"  (Harnack,  V.  205). 

2  Text-Book  Hist.  Doct.,  II.  20. 

*  Seeberg,  loc.  cit.  He  used  such  expressions  as :  "  suis  men 
tis"  (Moral.,  xxiv.  2,  4 ;  3,  5 ;  17,  30 ;  P.  L.,  LXXVI.  col.  280) ;  "qui 
pro  aliis  indulgentiam  mereretur"  (Ibid.,  col. 


THE   PATRISTIC   TEACHING          95 

saints  "  (V.  265 ;  III.  312).  From  Gregory  to  Anselm 
there  was  a  dearth  of  original  thinking  upon  the  sub 
ject.  The  only  distinguished  theologian  of  the  Greek 
Church,  John  of  Damascus,  furnished  nothing  sig 
nificant.  Alcuin  is  said  to  have  simply  repeated 
Augustin.  Erigena  was  pantheistic,  and  left  no  per 
manent  trace  upon  the  history  of  the  doctrine. 

Riviere  quotes  an  obscure  author  of  the  eleventh 
century,  Radulphus  Ardeus,  who  was  apparently 
engaged  with  the  question  of  Anselm's  treatise ;  and 
it  is  just  conceivable  that  the  latter  genius  may  have 
obtained  from  him  the  hint  which  fused  the  elements 
already  at  hand  for  the  construction  of  his  theory. 
In  a  homily  on  I  Peter  ii,  Radulphus  asks  the  ques 
tion  :  "Who  suffered,  and  for  whom,  and  how  much, 
and  in  what,  and  in  what  manner,  and  with  what 
utility?"  He  also  uses  the  word  "satisfaction"  of 
Christ's  work,  though  not  specifically  of  His  death.1 
We  have  thus  single  instances  of  this  use  in  Ambrose 
and  this  author ;  but  the  first  to  realise  its  theological 
possibilities  was  Anselm. 

As  has  been  already  pointed  out,  the  intellectual 
atmosphere  of  the  Latins  predisposed  them  to  a  ter 
minology,  which  was  to  become  very  familiar  in  later 
times  and  to  be  more  rigidly  and  literally  interpreted. 
The  idea  of  placation  or  real  appeasement,  the  adop- 

1  "Ut  de  praevaricatione  satisfieret  ...  ad  satisfactionem 
illius  superbiae";  quoted  in  Riviere,  p.  289. 


9G      ANSELM   ON  THE   ATONEMENT 

tion  of  the  pagan  conception  of  sacrifice,  the  emphasis 
on  guilt,  the  stricter  use  of  the  notion  of  punishment, 
the  gradual  shading  off  of  the  figure  of  vital  union 
into  the  act  of  one  person  in  the  place  of  another,  — 
all  these  were  departures  from  the  higher  Greek  point 
of  view.  Allied  with  the  unethical  belief  that  God's 
favour  could  be  won  by  acts  of  piety,  they  furnished 
details  for  the  later  theory  of  satisfaction  as  wrought 
out  by  Thomas  Aquinas  and  the  Reformers.  Never 
theless,  they  were  not  the  actual  sources  of  Anseim's 
theory  or  of  the  Reformers'  modification  of  it,  and 
cannot  be  cited  as  parts  of  an  historical  constructive 
development  of  the  doctrine  of  redemption.  This 
development  henceforward  proceeded  on  other  lines, 
through  the  effort  to  explain  the  causes  of  the  work 
of  redemption,  and  the  effects  on  the  law  of  God  and 
his  relation  to  us  of  the  life  and  sufferings  and  death 
of  Christ. 

The  teaching  of  the  Fathers  has  been  presented  at 
some  length,  because  it  is  of  the  highest  importance 
to  the  understanding  of  Anseim's  treatise,  and  its 
place  in  the  history  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement. 
Only  by  means  of  such  a  statement  may  we  realise 
whether  his  theory  is  a  natural  corollary  of  previous 
thought  upon  the  subject,  whether  it  is  vitally  rooted  in 
the  faith  of  the  first  millennium  of  Christian  history, 
or  is  an  entirely  original  conception  of  the  mode  of 


THE   PATRISTIC   TEACHING          97 

our  redemption.  If  the  latter  be  true,  one  may  think 
with  Ritschl  that  "the  theologians  of  the  Middle  Ages 
.  .  .  lifted  the  problem  ...  to  a  higher  sphere  — 
that  in  which  sin  is  viewed  in  its  legal  and  moral 
aspects"  (p.  5);  or  its  disconnection  with  the  past, 
its  absence  from  the  writings  of  those  who  laid  the 
foundations  of  essential  Christian  theology,  may  be 
looked  upon  as  a  fatal  flaw  in  its  claim  to  a  high  place 
in  our  regard.  In  either  case,  there  is  one  notable 
confession  of  such  disconnection.  Albrecht  Ritschl, 
in  his  "Critical  History  of  the  Christian  Doctrine  of 
Justification  and  Reconciliation,"  being  the  transla 
tion  of  the  first  volume  of  the  larger  work,  and  com 
prising  about  605  pages,  devotes  about  tl^ree,  pages 
to  the  Fathers.  All  the  rest,  excepting  nineteen  pages 
treating  of  Anselm  and  Abelard,  is  given  to  the 
Reformers  and  their  successors.  As  the  Reformation 
theories  were  really  derived  from  Anselm,  by  a  dif 
ferent  application  of  his  idea  of  satisfaction,  this  is 
an  admission  whose  full  significance  will  be  appreci 
ated  by  a  comparison  of  the  preceding  pages  with  the 
ensuing  discussion. 

In  confirmation  of  what  has  been  said  of  the 
patristic  teaching  and  its  relation  to  Anselm,  the 
following  may  be  quoted  from  Professor  Harnack: 
"Yet  neither  by  Gregory  the  Great,  nor  by  any 
theologian  of  the  Carlovingian  period  was  this  view 
[of  satisfaction]  applied  to  the  work  of  Christ.  Fre- 


98      ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

quent  reference,  it  is  true,  was  already  made  to  the 
'copiousness  of  the  value  of  the  mystery  of  the  pas 
sion';  .  .  .  but  a  theory  had  not  been  framed,  be 
cause  there  was  no  reflection  at  all  on  the  nature,  the 
specific  worth,  and  the  effect  of  the  redemption  con 
tained  in  the  suffering  and  death  of  Christ.  The 
Fathers,  Augustin  included,  had  handed  down  noth 
ing  certain  on  this.  The  only  view  taken  by  the 
Greeks  was  that  the  reign  of  death  was  broken  by 
the  cross  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  or  that  man 
kind  were  thereby  bought  off,  or  cunningly  wiested, 
from  the  devil.  All  that  they  said  of  the  sacrifce  in 
the  suffering  was  quite  vague.  Only  Athcnasius 
spoke  with  noteworthy  clearness  of  the  penal  suffer 
ing  which  Christ  took  from  us  and  laid  upon  Himself. 
But,  from  the  days  of  Paul,  all  of  them  testified  that 
Christ  died  for  us,  and  delivered  us  from  the  power  of 
the  devil.  That  was  felt  and  proclaimed  as  the  great 
act  of  redemption.  Ambrose  and  Augustin  had  then 
emphasised  the  position  that  Christ  is  Mediator  as 
man,  and  had  given  many  instructions  about  partic 
ular  points;  but  the  question  why  that  Man,  who 
was  at  the  same  time  God,  was  obliged  to  suffer  and 
die,  was  dealt  with  by  pointing  to  His  example,  or  by 
reciting  Biblical  texts  about  ransom,  sacrifice,  and 
such  like,  without  the  necessity  of  the  death  here 
coming  clearly  to  view.  But  Augustin  certahly  had 
laid  the  foundation  by  a  new  and  vigorous  apprehen- 


THE   PATRISTIC   TEACHING          99 

sion  of  the  significance  of  Christ's  work,  by  emphasis 
ing  so  strongly  the  gravity  of  sin,  and  by  representing 
the  relation  between  God  and  man  under  the  scheme 
of  sin  and  grace.  At  this  point  Anselm  came  in.  The 
importance  of  his  doctrine  of  satisfaction,  as  developed 
in  Book  II.  of  his  Cur  Deus  Homo,  composed  as  a 
dialogue,  lies  in  this,  that  he  made  use  of  all  the  factors 
of  the  Augustinian  theology,  so  far  as  they  came  into 
consideration  here,  but  that  at  the  same  time  he  was 
the  first  of  all  to  frame  a  theory,  both  of  the  necessity 
of  the  appearing  of  the  God-man,  and  of  the  necessity 
of  His  death"  (VI.  55,  56). 


Ill 

THE  ANSELMIC  THEORY 


Ill 

THE  ANSELMIC  THEORY 
1.  PATRISTIC  AND  MEDLEVAL  ANTECEDENTS 

IN  the  long  interval  between  Gregory  the  Great 
and  Anselin,  there  were  many  influences  converging 
towards  the  formation  of  the  latter 's  special  theory. 
He  was  the  inevitable  product  of  his  antecedents. 
He  was  undoubtedly  original  in  the  application  of 
certain  familiar  ideas  to  the  work  of  Christ ;  but  such 
application  was  the  natural  step  to  be  taken  in  the 
development  of  theological  thought,  and  he  was  able 
to  discern  the  opportunity  that  was  sure  to  be  seized. 
His  theory  "arose  from  the  circumstances  of  his  age 
and  expressed  its  thought,"  as  truly  as  the  ransom 
theory  which  it  displaced. 

a.  Antecedents  affecting  the  SUBSTANCE  of  the 
Theory 

(1)  A  Racial  Characteristic 

We  often  hear  of  the  effect  of  Christianity  upon 
the  nations  converted  to  its  faith;  but  we  do  not 
think  often  enough  of  the  effect  on  Christianity  of 


104    ANSELM    ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

national  characteristics.  It  is  decidedly  a  different 
thing  in  important  respects,  accordingly  as  it  is 
represented  by  the  Greek  or  Latin  Fathers,  by  a 
mediaeval  Italian  or  a  Teutonic  Protestant.  The 
difference  is  not  merely  one  of  time  or  stages  of  prog 
ress,  but  of  racial  qualities.  The  Roman  genius  for  -^ 
law  ]  and  government  entailed  a  legal  theology  in 
the  Latin  Churches.  It  was  riot  the  principles  of 
the  law,  but  its  spirit,  that  influenced  the  Western 
conceptions  of  truth;  so  that  the  common  inherited 
trait  of  the  Latin  race  determined  the  forensic  point 
of  view  that  distinguished  the  Anselmic  theory.1 

Sir  Henry  Maine  has  referred  to  this  characteristic 
of  Western  Christendom.  "Theology  became  per 
meated  with  forensic  ideas  and  couched  in  forensic 
language.  .  .  .  The  Western  Church  threw  itself  into 
a  new  order  of  disputes,  the  same  which  from  those 
days  to  this  have  never  lost  their  interest  for  any 
family  of  mankind  at  any  time  included  in  the  Latin 
communion.  The  nature  of  sin  and  its  transmission 
by  inheritance  —  the  debt  owed  by  man  and  its  vica 
rious  satisfaction  —  the  necessity  and  sufficiency  of 
the  atonement  —  above  all,  the  apparent  antagonism 
between  Free  Will  and  the  Divine  Providence,  — 
these  were  the  points  which  the  West  began  to  debate. 

1  It  is  difficult  to  say  what  additional  direct  effect  may  have 
come  from  the  study  of  the  Roman  law  by  the  clergy,  at  this 
period  (see  Encyc.  Brif.,  XX.  715). 


THE   ANSELMIC   THEORY  105 

.  .  .  Almost  everybody  who  has  knowledge  enough 
of  Roman  law  to  appreciate  the  Roman  penal  system  ; 
the  Roman  theory  of  obligations  established  by  con 
tract  and  debit;  the  Roman  view  of  debts,  and  of 
the  modes  of  incurring,  extinguishing,  and  trans 
mitting  them ;  the  Roman  notion  of  the  continuance 
of  individual  existence  by  universal  succession  — 
may  be  trusted  to  say  whence  arose  the  frame  of 
mind  to  which  the  problems  of  Western  theology 
proved  so  congenial,  whence  came  the  phraseology  in 
which  these  problems  were  stated,  and  whence  the 
description  of  reasoning  employed  in  their  solution."  *  J 

(2)  Ecclesiastical  Ideas  and  Discipline 

I  have  already  said  that  the  Soteriology  of  the 
North  African  Fathers  had  little  bearing  upon  An- 
selm's  speculations.  But  some  of  their  ideas  and 
practices  constituted  the  real  basis  of  his  thought. 
From  the  time  of  Tertullian,  the  Church  had  been 
familiar  with  the  conception  of  Satisfaction;  a  term 
borrowed  by  him  from  the  Roman  civil  law,  as  also 
the  word  culpa.2  This  was  intimately  associated 
with  the  belief  that  good  works  established  a  merit 
in  the  sight  of  God,  that  they  had  an  objective  value 

1  Maine,  Ancient  Law,  p.  356.    See  also  Fairbairn,  The  Place 
of  Christ  in  Modern  Theology,  pp.  71-78,  98-100,  123,  480. 
3  Neander,  Church  History,  I.  306,  Bohn  ed. 


106    ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

to  Him.1  Gradually,  the  merit  of  supererogation  was 
ascribed  to  the  works  of  the  saints,  so  that  the  re 
dundant  piety  of  the  Church  furnished  a  treasury  of 
satisfactions,  to  be  drawn  upon  in  behalf  of  those 
who  could  not  provide  sufficiently  for  themselves. 
Thus,  very  early  a  penitential  system  arose,  which 
was  "governed  throughout  by  the  idea  that  the  mag 
nitude  of  transgressions  and  that  of  the  works  ren 
dered  to  God,  the  penitential  offerings,  were  to  have 
a  strictly  legal  relation,  and,  similarly,  that  what  a 
man's  merits  entitled  him  to  from  God  had  a  fixed 
and  regulated  value."  2  As  satisfactio  and  placatio 
were  closely  related,  the  practical  point  in  the  system 
was  "that  God  took  strict  account  of  the  quantity  of 
the  atonement,  and  that,  where  there  was  no  guilt  to 
be  blotted  out,"  the  means  of  expiation  "were  repre 
sented  as  merits."  3 

The  difference  between  the  doctrinal  theologian 
and  the  practical  churchman  is  shown  in  Cyprian's 
application  and  development  of  Tertullian's  ideas. 
In  Cyprian's  hands  the  thoughts  became  organised 
customs.  As  sins  after  baptism  could  not  be  simply 
forgiven,  but  required  satisfactions  or  acts  of  peni 
tence,  such  acts  were  assigned  for  performance,  and 
there  we  have  the  system  of  penance  complete.  It 

1  Cyprian,  De  op.  et  eleemos.,  5,  and  often. 

2  Haraack,  III.  311. 

3  Ibid. 


THE   ANSELMIC   THEORY  107 

was  strengthened  by  the  belief  in  purgatory,  which, 
after  its  earliest  suggestion  by  Clement  and  Origen, 
had  been  indorsed  by  Cyprian  and  Cyril  of  Jeru 
salem,  and  carried  out  to  its  full  statement  by  Augus- 
tin  and  Gregory.1  For  more  than  600  years  prior 
to  Anselm,  then,  the  ecclesiastical  discipline  had,, 
made  the  idea  of  satisfaction  radical  in  the  relation 
of  man  to  God.  In  the  eleventh  century,  the  belief  . 
in  satisfaction  as  a  prerequisite  to  pardon  was  uni 
versal.  Anselm  simply  applied  it  to  the  work  of 
Christ,  and  it  is  a  marvel  that  it  seems  never  to  have 
been  done  before,  except  by  the  obscure  and  unin- 
fluential  author  before  alluded  to.2 

The  theory,  however,  required  a  further  increment 
before  it  became  the  ground-work  of  Anselm's  es 
sential  doctrine.  The  "satisfaction"  became  an 
"indulgence,"  when  permitted  by  the  lenity  of  the 
bishop.  Augustin  (Con.  Jul,  i.  3),  notwithstanding 
his  writings  against  the  Manichseans,  shows  that  he 
still  retained  some  Manichsean  ideas  by  adopting 
their  view  of  indulgences.  He  quotes  an  earlier  ob 
scure  author,  who  says,  "Baptism  is  the  principal 
indulgence  known  to  the  Church."  3  As  sin  was  con 
ceived  of  as  a  debt,  and  the  penance  was  regarded 

1  Neander,  History  of  Christian  Dogmas,  I.  253;  II.  416. 

3  Dr.  Harnack  intimates  that  the  penance  regulations  were 
nowhere  so  well  observed  as  in  the  German  kingdoms,  because  so 
well  suited  to  the  German  spirit  (V.  324). 

1  Encyc.  Brit.,  XII.  846. 


108     ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

as  a  compensation,  the  quantitative  element  made 
"redemptions  "  or  commutations  possible.  If  certain 
acts  were  the  legal  equivalents  of  certain  sins,  one 
kind  of  penance  could  be  bartered  or  substituted  for 
another  kind.  As  the  equivalence  was  arbitrary,  the 
Church  soon  came  to  appropriate  grace  on  easier 
conditions.  The  next  step  was  the  commutation  of 
a  penitential  act  by  the  payment  of  money;  after 
that  the  descent  into  the  enormities  which  provoked 
the  Reformation  was  easy  and  unavoidable.  The 
reforming  canons  of  Clovesho  (A.  D.  747),  and  other 
synods  in  the  following  century,  reveal  to  us  how  long 
the  abuse  existed.1  These  low  moral  views,  "which 
one  would  gladly  attribute  to  barbarous  nations, 
had  become  the  property  of  the  Church  before  the 
incursion  of  the  Germans;  and  Anselm's  principle, 
*  Every  sin  must  be  followed  either  by  satisfaction  ^ 
or  punishment,'  can  be  already  shown  in  Sulpitius 
Severus."  2 

Anselm,  however,  first  worked  the  theory  out  from 
these  materials.  Sooner  or  later,  some  one  must  have 
applied  these  details  to  the  work  of  Christ,  because 
the  successive  links  made  such  a  view  of  redemption 
inevitable,  as  soon  as  thought  was  again  directed  to 

1  The  Council  of  Clermont,  three  years  before  the  composition   ,• 
of  the  Cur  Deus  Homo,  decreed  that  participation  in  the  crusades 
would  be  a  commutation  for  all  other  penances. 

3  Harnack,  III.  311. 


THE   ANSELMIC   THEORY  109 

questions  of  Soteriology.1  But,  historically,  he  was 
the  one  to  "make  the  principles  of  the  practice  of 
penance  the  fundamental  scheme  of  religion  in  gen 
eral."  2  To  this  source  may  be  traced  the  following 
features  of  his  theory :  the  conception  of  sin  as  debt, 
the  alternative  of  punishment  or  satisfaction,  the 
necessity  of  satisfaction,  specific  equivalents,  merit 
and  the  superabundance  of  merit,  commutation 
with  its  pecuniary  analogies,  vicarious  satisfaction 
and  the  transference  of  merit. 

(3)    German  Criminal  Law 

Certain  Teutonic  customs  were  similar  to  the 
ecclesiastical  practices  just  referred  to,  and  dovetailed 
into  them,  so  that  both  were  constituted  a  part  of  the 
law.  "The  question  has  been  debated  whether 
Anselm's  theory  was  framed  on  the  conceptions  of 
Roman  or  of  German  law."  3  But,  as  Professors 
Fisher  and  Harnack  acknowledge,  both  contribute 
to  the  formulation  of  the  principles  of  the  theory. 
Ideas  which  were  "anterior  to  the  influence  of 


1  If  Cyprian  anticipated  Anselm,  as  Dr.  Harnack  says,  it  is 
remarkable  that  no  one  else  appears  to  have  recognised  the  signi 
ficance  of  his  statement,  either  among  the  later  Fathers  or  among 
the  modern  historians  of  dogma. 

2  Harnack,  VI.  56. 

8  Fisher,  p.  221;    Cremer,  Studien  u.  Krit.,  1880,  pp.  1-24; 
Harnack,  VI.  55,  57,  note;  Ritschl,  op.  cit.  p.  32. 


110    ANSELM   ON  THE   ATONEMENT 

Teutonic  codes  and  customs,"  cannot  be  said  to  have 
arisen  in  the  Romano-German  period.1  At  the  same 
time,  the  German  criminal  code  held  some  of  the 
very  concepts  that  characterised  the  Roman  ecclesi- 
astical  and  civil  lav/.  The  chief  of  these  was  the 
Wergeld,  or  blood  money,  by  which  the  murderer 
made  pecuniary  compensation  for  his  crime.  The 
custom  is  found  among  many  primitive  peoples,  and 
even  to-day  in  undeveloped  races.2  It  corresponds 
to  the  Goel  of  the  Old  Testament;  who  is  not  the 
"avenger  of  blood,"  3  but  the  redeemer  9  restorer, 
balancer,  of  blood.  Blood  was  life.  The  killing  of 
a  man  meant  that  the  family  or  tribe  was  depleted  of 
life,  whose  loss  must  be  made  good  by  an  equivalent.4 
This  was  generally  blood,  but  sometimes  "an  agreed 
payment  for  its  value."  It  was  a  compensation  for 
loss,  a  matter  of  equity.  The  original  meaning  had 
of  course  been  obscured  among  the  Teutons,  but  the 
practice  continued,  and  the  name  was  sometimes 
given  to  fines  for  lesser  offences  than  manslaughter. 
It  had  two  details  in  common  with  the  earlier  custom, 
the  evasion  of  a  criminal  sentence  by  the  payment  of 


1  Fisher,  p.  221;  Harnack,  III.  311 ;  VI.  55. 

2  Vide  Trumbull,  The  Blood  Covenant,  Index. 

8  As  in  the  A.  V.,  the  R.  V.,  and  even  Gesenius,  owing  to  a 
prepossession  that  the  right  was  one  of  inflicting  punishment  for 
v  blood  spilt. 

4  It  was,  therefore,  a  higher  idea  than  mere  retaliation  (vs. 
Sabaticr,  p.  109). 


THE   ANSELMIC   THEORY  111 

money,  and  the  permission  to  kinsmen  to  pay  the 
debt.1  The  inability  to  pay  the  Wergeld  sometimes 
reduced  a  man  to  slavery,  either  "surrendering  him 
self  to  the  plaintiff,  or  to  some  third  party  who  paid 
•  the  sum  for  him  by  agreement  with  the  aggrieved  v 

party."  2 

This,  of  course,  cannot  be  accepted  as  the  origin 

of  Anselm's  theory.3     The  legal  composition  was 

simply   analogous   to   the   penitential   system   of   a 

definite  tax  or  penance  for  all  conceivable  sins.     It 

gave  a  new  impetus  and  a  more  vicious  form  to  the 

previous  legal  conception  of  sin  and  treatment  of 

crime,  the  tabulating  of  offences  and  enforcement  of 

pecuniary  compensation.4     It  allied  itself  also  with 

V  them   in    allowing   substitutive   satisfactions.     The 

simple  fact  is  that  the  German  State  granted  to  the 

Church  a  participation  in  the  execution  of  the  penal 

law,  and  the  two  sets  of  principles  were  fused  very 

easily  because  they  were  so  congenial.    Dr.  Harnack 

illustrates  this  as  follows:    "German  law  held  the 

principle:    either  outlawry  or  penance.     This  cor- 

V  l  The  obligation  of  kindred  to  take  up  the  enmities  and 
friendships  of  a  relative  is  noticed  by  Tacitus  as  peculiar  to  the 
Germans  of  his  day. 

2  Kemble,  The  Anglo-Saxons,  I.  197. 

8  As  in  C.  J.  Wood,  Survivals  in  Christianity,  p.  175. 

4  It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  Wergeld  and  the  penitential 
practices  (combined  with  the  doctrine  of  purgatory)  furnished  two 
strong  bases  for  Indulgences  among  the  Germanic  peoples  (Kurtz, 
Church  History,  sect.  106.  2). 


112     ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

responds  to  the  Church  principle:  either  excom 
munication  or  the  performance  of  satisfactory  acts 
of  penance.1  According  to  German  law,  vengeance 
did  not  require  to  be  executed  on  the  evil-doer  him 
self.  .  .  .  The  Church  looked  on  Christians  as  form 
ing  a  'clan'  with  the  saints  in  heaven,  and  the 
performance  of  penance  could  to  a  certain  extent,  or 
entirely,  be  passed  on  to  the  latter.  .  .  .  German  law 
held  that  the  payment  of  the  fine  could  be  divided. 
According  to  the  practice  of  the  Church,  the  saints 
interceded,  .  .  .  taking  from  the  sinner  a  part  of  the 
penance  imposed  upon  him.  Afterwards,  the  Church 
positively  adopted  the  German  institution,  and  let 
earthly  friends,  comrades,  members  of  the  family, 
and  bondmen  share  in  the  performance  of  penance 
in  order  to  lighten  the  task"  (V.  330). 

From  this  source  Anselm  may  be  said  to  have 
derived  his  ideas  of  man's  hopeless  servitude  until 
the  intervention  of  "a  third  party,"  the  commutation 
for  sins  as  debts,  a  further  inclination  to  the  use  of 
pecuniary  analogies,  and  the  vicarious  payment  of  a 
kinsman.2 


1  The  alternative  of  which  Anselm  makes  so  much,  punish 
ment  or  satisfaction,  was  a  Germanic  legal  maxim,  and  also  in 
hered  in  the  penitential  system  (R.  Seeberg,  Text-Book  of  the  His 
tory  of  Doctrines,  II.  69). 

2  Although  referred  to  only  at  the  end  of  the  treatise,  it  is  in 
sisted  that  the  Redeemer  must  be  of  the  same  race  as  man,  since 
an  angel  would  not  be  akin  by  nature  (Cur  Deus  Homo,  ii.  21). 


THE   ANSELMIC   THEORY  113 

(4)   Feudalism 

The  German  law  also  included  principles,  quite 
f  different  from  the  Wergeld,  which  had  their  share  in 
formulating  the  premises  of  Anselm's  theory.  These 
are  derived  from  feudalism,  with  its  "over-lord"  to 
whom  service  is  due,  its  emphasis  upon  the  privi 
leges  and  obligations  of  kinship,  and  its  conception  of 
/  "honour,"  still  further  "developed  by  the  institution 
of  chivalry.  The  idea  of  compensation  for  injured 
honour  was  feudal,  though  the  mode  may  have  been 
derived  from  the  Wergeld.  Canon  Kingsley  notes 
this  fact  of  pecuniary  reparation:  "So  of  personal 
honour.  '  Schilte '  or  insult,  for  instance  to  call  a  man 
arga,  i.  e.,  a  lazy  loon,  is  a  serious  offence.  If  the 
defendant  will  confess  that  he  said  it  in  a  passion, 
and  will  take  oath  that  he  never  knew  the  plaintiff 
to  be  arga,  he  must  still  pay  12  shillings."  1  Com 
pensation  for  dishonour  may  also  be  found  in  ancient 
Roman  law.2 

The  personal  circumstances,  amid  which  Anselm 
reflected  upon  his  theory  and  composed  the  treatise, 

Also,  He  makes  inheritors  of  what  is  due  to  Him,  "parentes  suos  et 
jratres  (St.  Matt.  xii.  50),  quos  aspicit  tot  et  tantis  debitis  obligates" 
(ii.  19,  12). 

1  Roman  and  Teuton,  p.  252.    See  also  Kemble,  Anglo-Saxons, 
I.  288.     It  is  worth  noting  that  he  is  here  writing  of  Lombard 
laws,  and  Anselm's  father  was  a  Lombard. 

2  Mackeldey,  Roman  Law,  sect.  488,  489. 

8 


114     ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

may  have  given  special  point  and  vividness  to  his 
conception.1  Dean  Church  says  that  he  thought  out 
and  began  to  compose  the  work  "in  the  midst  of  the 
strife  and  troubles  of  his  last  year  in  England."2 
The  questions  involved  in  his  quarrel  with  King 
William  Rufus  were  not  only  ecclesiastical  but  feudal. 
He  refused  to  receive  the  pallium  from  the  king's 
hands,  and  also  to  pay  the  accustomed  homage  to 
the  sovereign.  The  succeeding  monarch  granted  the 
papal  investiture,  and  the  Pope  permitted  the  homage 
to  the  king.  As  a  thorough  ultramontane,  he  was 
keenly  alive  to  the  honour  of  Rome  and  Canterbury, 
which  was  simply  the  ecclesiastical  correlative  of  the 
feudal  notion  then  prevalent.3 

Some  important  features  of  his  thought  are  to  be 
ascribed  to  feudalism;  such  as  his  conception  of 
God's  relation  to  man,  of  the  loss  of  God's  honour, 
of  Christ's  obedience  as  a  service  (see  the  illustra 
tion  of  a  day  appointed  for  a  service,  ii.  16  a,  17), 
of  the  mutual  relations  of  the  subjects  of  God 

1  The  first  book  was  written  in  1094,  and  the  second  in  1098 
(Ueberweg,  History  of  Philosophy,  I.  386).     It  was  finished  dur 
ing  his  temporary  exile  from  England,  at  Capua  (see  Praefat.  to 
Cur  Deus  Homo),  or  at  the  village  of    Schiavia  (Martin  Rule, 
The  Life  and  Times  of  St.  Anselm,  II.  290),  or  at  the  monastery  of 
Telese  near  Benevento,  according  to  various  authorities. 

2  at  Anselm,  p.  «31. 

3  The  quarrel  referred  to  resulted  in  the  appeal  to  Rome, 
which  was  the  beginning  of  a  mischievous  and  eventually  scanda 
lous  system. 


THE   ANSELMIC   THEORY  115 

the  Lord,  and  of  the  substitution  of  Christ's  service 
for  ours.1 


b.  Antecedents  affecting  the  FORM  of  the  Theory 

These  are  the  influence  of  Aristotle,  and  the  ration 
alistic  method  that  distinguished  Scholasticism. 
Hegel  points  out  that  the  German  world  was  the 
continuation  of  the  Roman,  so  that  Aristotelianism, 
as  preserved  in  Boetius,  "  became  the  fixed  basis  of 
speculative  thought  in  the  West  for  many  centuries." 2 
The  Fathers  had  disparaged  Aristotle,  particularly 
the  Orientals ; s  but  his  logic  prescribed  the  forms 
and  laws  of  men's  thinking,  after  the  influence  of 
the  Greeks  had  waned.  It  was  his  long  preeminence 
that  in  reality  created  the  distinction  between  the 
Fathers  and  the  Schoolmen  or  Doctors.  Independent, 

1  Dr.  Stevens  calls  Anselm's  theory  "commercial,"  "because 
it  so  constantly  uses  the  terms  of  quantity,  payment,  and  equiva 
lence."  This  would  justify  Canon  Moberly's  term,  "  mathemati 
cal"  ;  but  Stevens  himself  uses  a  much  more  apt  description  than 
either :  "  It  appears  to  me.  however,  to  be,  far  more  fundamentally, 
a  feudal  theory  —  an  interpretation  based  on  the  ideas  of  mediceval 
chivalry"  (op  cit.,  cf.  pp.  136,  241). 

3  J.  Sibree's  translation  of  Philosophy  of  History,  p.  356. 
Aristotle's  works  on  demonstrative  reasoning,  the  Analytics,  the 
Topics  and  the  Sophistical  Refutations  or  Fallacies,  were  probably 
known  to  Anselm ;  but  his  general  philosophy  was  not  accessible 
until  half  a  century  after  the  time  of  Abelard. 

1  Dr.  Farrar  refers  to  "  no  less  than  twenty  from  Justin  to 
Cyril"  (History  of  Interpretation,  p.  263). 


116     ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

fresh  thought  gave  way  to  deductive  proofs  of  what 
was  accepted,  to  shaping  and  systematising  the  ma 
terials  already  provided,  to  constructing  a  philosophy 
of  belief.  Precision  of  statement  was  a  necessity 
to  the  Aristotelian.  What  had  been  figurative  or 
rhetorical  in  the  Fathers  became  logical  and  definite. 
The  meaning  of  the  words  employed  came  to  be 
wrought  out  more  clearly,  so  that  questions  on  which 
the  Scriptures  were  silent  were  elaborately  discussed 
and  determined.  The  application  of  the  mere  pro 
cesses  of  logic  to  Divine  truth  was,  in  some  respects, 
a  great  evil.  The  very  scientific  precision  marred 
the  interpretation  of  Divine  realities,  which  were 
Scripturally  expressed  in  terms  that  were  never  in 
tended  by  the  writers  to  conform  to  logical  modes  or 
intellectual  formulations,  isolated  from  life.  But 
this  is  just  what  characterises  Anselm's  treatment  of 
his  query;  it  is  formal,  exact,  reducible  to  a  series 
of  syllogisms,  and  thus  in  complete  contrast  to  the 
varied,  metaphorical,  unsystematic  method  of  the 
New  Testament. 

Aristotle  was  the  precursor  of  Scholasticism,  by 
making  theology  a  part  of  philosophy.1  It  has  been 
defined  as  an  attempt  "so  to  fuse  faith  and  reason 
as  to  save  the  one  from  being  blind,  and  the  other 

1  Farrar,  op.  cit.,  p.  466.  John  of  Damascus  has  been  called 
the  progenitor  of  Scholasticism,  because  he  followed  Aristotle  in 
this,  and  applied  to  theology  a  philosophic  method  (Ibid.). 


THE   ANSELMIC   THEORY  117 

from  being  autocratic";  l  also,  "to  rationalise 
Christianity  (in  the  technical  sense  of  the  term),  to 
evince  its  absolute  reasonableness";2  again,  "to 
reproduce  ancient  philosophy  under  the  control  of 
ecclesiastical  doctrine/'  With  all  this  desire  for 
rationality,  in  a  period  of  intense  intellectual  activity, 
there  was  an  immense  amount  of  subtle  and  often 
absurd  speculation.  Says  Erasmus  of  its  later  de 
velopment:  "There  are  innumerable  quibblings  .  .. 
concerning  instances  and  notions,  and  relations  and 
formalitations,  and  quiddities  arid  ecceities,  which 
no  one  can  follow  out  with  eyes,  except  a  lynx,  which 
is  said  to  be  able  in  the  thickest  darkness  to  see  things 
which  exist  nowhere."  4 

A  multitude  of  such  speculations  may  be  found  in 
Anselm;  such  as,  whether  God  can  lie  (i.  12);  why 
angels  could  not  be  redeemed  by  a  God-man  (ii.  21) ; 
how  Christ  was  born  without  original  sin  (ii.  16); 
how,  if  the  Father  became  incarnate,  there  would 
be  two  grandsons  in  the  Trinity  (ii.  9) ;  that  redemp 
tion  was  a  compensation  to  supply  the  deficiency  in 
the  number  of  elect  angels,  occasioned  by  the  fall  of 
the  devils  (i.  16).5  He  has  been  called,  "the  Father 

1  F&rrar,  op.  cit.,  p.  255. 

3  Shedd,  op.  cit.,  I.  75. 

8  Farrar,  ubi  supra,  p.  265. 

4  Hagenbach,  Hist.  Dod.,  I.  400. 

*  This  last  is  taken  from  Augustin  (De  Civ.,  xxii.  1).  Compare 
i.  16  and  i.  19:  "it  is  certain";  with  i.  18,  11:  "Wherefore  hu- 


118    ANSELM   ON  THE   ATONEMENT 

of  Scholasticism " ;  *  but  this  is  interpreted  in  the 
qualified  sense  that  he  gave  form  to  a  philosophical 
spirit  which  had  been  at  work  from  the  time  of 
Isidore,  and  "had  almost  come  to  an  expression  in 
Berengar  and  Lanfranc;  and  put  it  in  the  way  of 
becoming  an  element  of  historical  progress."  The 
scholastic  era  began  in  the  ninth  century,  and  hence 
its  methods  were  antecedent  to  Anselm.  But  he 
began  an  especially  productive  period  which  lasted 
for  two  centuries,  the  first  of  which  marked  an 
epoch  in  the  history  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement, 
whose  discussion  was  started  anew  by  his  notable 
treatise. 

His  argument  has  just  those  features  which  we 
should  expect  from  the  influences  here  indicated. 
It  is  deductive,  not  inductive  —  which  indeed  would 
have  been  impossible  in  his  time.  Its  premises  take 
for  granted  much  that  needs  consideration,  if  not 
proof.  It  assumes  Christian  dogma,  and  tries  to 
show  that  it  must  be  true  by  presenting  it  in  purely 
rational  form.2  It  starts  with  the  idea  of  the  reason 
ableness  of  Christianity,  which  is  to  be  made  clear, 
but  faith  must  precede  knowledge.  "Rectus  or  do 
exigit,  ut  profunda  christianae  fidei  credamus,  prius- 

man  nature  was  made  for  its  own  account,  and  not  only  to  restore 
the  number  of  individuals  of  another  nature." 

1  Hasse  in  Hagenbach,  I.  392;  Oxenham,  p.  180. 

2  Fides  quaerens  intellectum. 


THE   ANSELMIC   THEORY  119 

quam  ea  praesumamus  ratione  discutere"  (i.  2).1 
He  was  a  childlike  believer,  and  contended  against 
the  scepticism  engendered  by  previous  modes  of 
thought.  But  his  reasoning  is  strictly  a  priori, 
"quasi  nihil  sciatur  de  Christo"  (Praefatio);  he 
never  proves  his  positions  from  the  Scriptures,  which 
explains  his  omission  of  so  many  elements  of  the 
doctrine  which  find  place  in  the  New  Testament. 
This  will  be  seen  to  have  an  impoitant  bearing  upon 
our  acceptance  of  the  details  of  the  theory.  It  also 
serves  to  mark  his  contrast  to  the  Fathers,  who  were 
Scriptural,  even  when  rationalistic.2 

Dr.  Shedd  regards  it  as  an  advantage  that  the 
Christological  question  from  this  time  turned  upon 
theories  of  the  Atonement;  and  speaks  of  Anselm's 
view  as  ''decidedly  in  advance  of  the  best  Soteriology 
of  the  patristic  age,  and  agreeing  substantially  with 
that  of  the  Reformation,"  just  because  it  is  definite 
and  metaphysical  (II.  274).  It  is  most  needful  to 
remember  that  "out  of  the  controversy  over  these 
theories  Protestantism,  as  a  theology,  arose,  and  by 
these  theories  Protestantism  is  ever  being  split  into 
sects."  3  The  Cur  Deus  Homo  was  the  prelude  to 

*  See  also  Proslog.,  i:  "Neque  enim  quaero  intelligere,  ut 
credam;  sed  credo,  ut  intelligam.  Nam  et  hoc  credo,  quia  nisi 
credidero,  non  intelligam." 

3  It  is  sometimes  said  that  the  syllogistic  and  dialectical 
method  began  with  Tertullian. 

8  The  Outlook,  Dec.  5,  1896, 


120    ANSELM   ON  THE   ATONEMENT 

the  most  important  theological  discussion  since  the 
death  of  Augustin,  and  we  must  now  proceed  to  a 
careful  statement  of  the  theory  and  its  excellences 
and  defects. 

2.   "Gun  DEUS  HoMO?"1 

Our  author  is  really  concerned  with  the  problem, 
how  to  escape  the  punishment  of  sin.  He  says  that 
the  men  of  his  time,  "non  solum  literati,  sed  etiam 
illiterati, "  were  inquiring  whether  God  could  have 
forgiven  sin  by  a  simple  act  of  will.  The  work  is  an 
answer  to  this  inquiry.  It  is  divided  into  two  books ; 
the  first  of  which  replies  to  objections,  and  aims  to 
prove  that  man  could  not  have  been  saved  without 
Christ;  the  second  shows  that  man  could  have  been 
saved  only  by  a  God-man,  and  how  this  redemption 
was  brought  about.  It  is  cast  in  the  form  of  a  dia 
logue,  which  makes  it  agreeable  reading,  but  exhibits 
the  interlocutor,  the  acquiescent  Boso,  as  too  easily 
satisfied  with  the  reasons  given  by  his  teacher.2 

1  The  translation  used  is  by  Edward  S.  Prout,  published  by 
the  Religious  Tract  Society. 

2  Riviere  well   calls  Boso  "un  interlocuteur  de  convention," 
"un  ami  complaisant"  (op.  tit.,  p.  292). 

The  theory  of  Anselm  is  criticised  in  the  Histories  of  Dogma, 
and  in  works  on  the  Atonement,  of  which  the  following  are  acces 
sible:  R.  W.  Dale,  The  Atonement,  pp.  279  sq.;  John  Young, 
The  Life  and  Light  of  Men,  pp.  450  sq. ;  J.  S.  Lidgett,  The  Spiritual 
Principle  of  the  Atonement,  pp.  451  sq.;  D.  W.  Simon,  The  Re 
demption  of  Man,  pp.  55  sq.;  R.  C.  Moberly,  Atonement  and 


THE   ANSELMIC   THEORY  121 

a.   Preliminary  to  the  Argument 

The   question    which   unbelievers    "cast   in    our 
teeth,  and  many  believers  ponder  in  their  hearts," 
is,  "for  what  reason  or  necessity  God  was  made  man, 
and  by  His  death,  as  we  believe,  restored  life  to  the 
world  ?"  (i.  1,  3).    He  first  answers  objections  to  the 
Incarnation  and  sufferings  of  Christ,  by  showing  the 
fitness  of  restoring  disobedient  man  by  "a  man's 
obedience,"  and  of  His  birth  of  a  woman  since  "sin 
had  its  beginning  from  a  woman"  (i.  3  and  4).    He 
then  gives  a  reason  why  none  other  than  God  could 
have  liberated  man ;  which  is  not  very  strong.1    Boso 
then  presents  a  dilemma  (i.  6,  3) :  either  God  is  not 
almighty,  or  else  He  is  unwilling  to  save  us  or  not 
wise  enough.     This  Anselm  answers  in  a  sentence, 
and  most  evasively  and  unsatisfactorily:    "The  will 
of  God  ought  to  be  a  sufficient  reason  for  us  when 
He  does  anything,  though  we  may  not  see  why  He 
so  wills  it,  for  the  will  of  God  is  never  unreasonable" 
(i.  8).    Boso  then  suggests  a  difficulty  from  the  current 
theology  of  the  devil's  claim  upon  man,  and  answers 

Personality,  pp.  367  sq.;  A.  Sabatier,  The  Doctrine  of  the  Atone- 
ment  pp.  68  sq. ;  Abbe  J.  Riviere,  Le  Dogme  de  la  Redemption,  pp. 
291  sq. ;  G.  B.  Stevens,  The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Salvation,  pp. 
136  sq.,  and  Index.  . 

1  "  Cum  ipse,  qui  non  nisi  Dei  servus  et  aequalis  angelis  boms 
per  omnia  futurus  erat,  servus  esset  eius,  qui  Deus  non  esset,  et 
cuius  angeli  servi  non  essent"  (i.  5). 


122    ANSELM   ON  THE   ATONEMENT 

it  himself.  "But  there  is  the  following  statement 
also  which  we  are  wont  to  make,  that  God  was 
bound  to  take  action  against  the  devil  by  a  judicial 
process  in  order  to  liberate  man,  before  He  did  so 
by  a  putting  forth  of  power;  .  .  .  otherwise  He 
would  have  done  an  act  of  unjust  violence  to  him 
[the  devil],  since  he  was  justly  in  possession  of  man. 
...  I  do  not  see  the  force  of  this.  .  .  .  Since  neither 
the  devil  nor  man  belongs  to  any  one  but  God,  and 
neither  exists  apart  from  the  power  of  God,  what 
reason  was  there  for  God  to  deal  with  His  own,  con 
cerning  His  own,  in  His  own,  unless  to  punish  His 
own  servant  who  had  persuaded  his  fellow-servant 
to  desert  their  common  Lord  and  secede  to  him,  and 
as  a  traitor  had  received  a  fugitive,  a  thief  had  re 
ceived  a  fellow-thief  in  possession  of  the  stolen  prop 
erty  of  his  Lord?"  (i.  7,  1  and  2;  also,  ii.  19,  18). 

Boso  then  adduces  popular  objections  (i.  8) ;  the 
unfitness  that  the  Most  High  should  stoop  to  such 
humiliation,  that  the  All-powerful  should  do  any 
thing  with  so  great  labour ;  and  the  injustice  of  allow 
ing  an  innocent  man  to  suffer  as  Christ  did.  Anselm 
replies  that  there  was  no  humiliation  of  God  in  the 
Incarnation,  but  an  exaltation  of  human  nature  (i.  8, 
9).1  Moreover,  Christ's  suffering  was  entirely  vol 
untary:  "God  the  Father  did  not  treat  that  Man  at 
all  in  the  way  you  seem  to  understand,  nor  did  He 
1  But  compare  Phil.  ii.  8. 


THE  ANSELMIC   THEORY  123 

deliver  to  death  the  innocent  for  the  guilty.  For  He 
did  not  compel  Him  to  die  or  permit  Him  to  be  killed 
against  His  will,  but  Christ  Himself,  of  His  own  free 
will,  endured  death  that  He  might  save  men"  (i.  8, 
14).  A  distinction  must  be  made  between  the  re 
quirement  of  obedience  and  what  resulted  from  His 
obeying  (i.  9,  1) :  He  suffered  because  He  obeyed, 
but  He  was  not  commanded  to  suffer  (i.  9,  5).  "  God 
did  not  therefore  compel  Christ,  in  Whom  was  no  sin, 
to  die ;  but  Christ  Himself  voluntarily  endured  death, 
not  to  show  His  obedience  [per  obedientiam]  in 
abandoning  life,  but  on  account  of  His  obedience  in 
holding  fast  His  righteousness,  in  which  He  so 
bravely  persevered  that  on  that  account  He  incurred 
death"  (i.  9,  10).1  Still  Boso  is  not  satisfied,  and 
wishes  to  know  why  God  could  not  spare  the  guilty 

1  Here  Anselm  distinguishes  the  whole  life  of  obedience  as 
issuing  in  death,  from  the  death  itself  which,  not  being  com 
manded,  was  not  part  of  the  necessary  obedience.  The  exigencies 
of  his  theory  require  him  to  lay  stress  on  Christ's  voluntary  en 
durance  of  what  was  not  demanded  of  Him  as  a  sinless  Man,  in 
order  to  provide  the  work  of  supererogation  which  should  repay 
to  God  the  honour  of  which  He  had  been  defrauded.  But  this 
involves  him  in  a  contradiction,  for  he  has  already  said  that  life 
was  restored  by  a  man's  obedience  (i.  3) ;  and  it  compels  him  to 
evade  the  Scripture  passages  which  assert  that  Christ  was  "obe 
dient  unto  death,"  and  that  He  did  the  will  and  commandment  of 
His  Father  (Phil.  ii.  8;  Heb.  v.  8;  Rom.  viii.  32;  St.  Jno.  vi.  38; 
xviii.  11;  St.  Matt.  xxvi.  39).  These  subtle  efforts  (i.  8  and  9), 
however,  are  rightly  called,  by  Harnack,  "clumsy  sophisms."  — 
Note  some  strange  examples  of  mediaeval  exegesis :  on  Heb.  v.  8 
(i.  9,  12) ;  St.  Luke  ii.  52  (i.  9,  19) ;  and  St.  Matt.  xxvi.  42  (i.  9,  24). 


124     ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

without  the  death  of  Christ  (i.  10,  23).  Anselm  then 
comes  to  the  detailed  explanation  of  the  work  of 
Christ.  I  shall  not  follow  him  in  his  digressions,  or 
from  chapter  to  chapter,  but  shall  present  succinctly 
in  his  own  words  what  constitutes  the  essence  of  his 
philosophy  of  the  Atonement. 

b.    The  Argument 

Logically,  his  first  proposition  is  that  all  the  actions 
of  men  are  due  to  the  promotion  of  God's  honour , 
and  that  sin  has  defrauded  God  of  this  honour.  "The" 
entire  will  of  a  rational  creature  ought  to  be  subject 
to  the  will  of  God.  .  .  .  This  is  the  debt  which  angel 
and  man  owe  to  God;  no  one  who  pays  this,  sins, 
and  every  one  who  does  not  pay  it  does  sin.  .  .  . 
This  is  the  sole  and  entire  honour  which  we  owe  to 
God,  and  which  God  exacts  of  us.  .  .  .  He  who  does 
not  render  to  God  this  honour,  which  is  His  due, 
takes  away  from  God  what  is  His  own,  and  dishon 
ours  God,  and  this  is  to  sin"  (i.  11,  4-6). ' 

Secondly,  sin,  which  thus  deprives  God  of  the 
honour  which  is  His  due,  is  a  debt.  "Sin  therefore 
is  nothing  else  than  not  rendering  to  God  what  is  His 
due.  .  .  .  This  is  the  debt  which  angel  and  man  owe 

1  "God  is  viewed  as  a  distant  and  mighty  suzerain,  having  an 
absolute  claim  on  the  obedience  of  His  subjects,  Whose  honour 
injured  or  diminished  requires  an  awful  reparation"  (Allen, 
Continuity  of  Christian  Thought,  p.  202). 


THE   ANSELMIC   THEORY  125 

to  God.  .  .  .  As  long  as  he  does  not  pay  what  he  has 
stolen,  he  remains  in  fault"  (i.  11,  3-7).  As  the  lost 
honour  must  be  restored,  the  sinner  cannot  be  simply 
exonerated  of  his  debt  by  the  mercy  or  mere  will  of 
God.  For  such  remission  is  a  pretermission  of  pun 
ishment,  which,  if  satisfaction  otherwise  be  not  made, 
is  to  let  sin  go  without  being  brought  into  orderly 
relations  with  the  righteous  nature  of  God  (inordina- 
tum  dirnittitur ;  i.  12,  2).  Also,  if  sin  be  unpunished, 
there  is  no  objective  distinction  between  the  good  man 
and  the  sinner:  "God  will  treat  in  the  same  wayj 
him  who  sins  and  him  who  does  not;  which  is  aj 
thing  not  befitting  God"  (i.  12,  5).1 

There  are   only   two   methods   by  which  God's 
honour  may  be  restored.     It  cannot  be  done  by  our 
returning  to  obedience,  because  we  owe  present  and 
future  obedience  to  God  in  any  circumstances,  and 
therefore  it  cannot  condone  the  past.     "When  you 
render  anything,  which  you  owe  to  God  even  if  you 
have  not  sinned,  you  ought  not  to  reckon  this  as  a 
debt  which   you   owe   on   account   of   sin.  ...  In 
obedience,  what  do  you  give  to  God  that  you  do  not 
owe  Him,  to  Whose  command  you  owe  all  that  you 
are  and  have  and  can  become?"  (i.  20,  6  and  12).- 
The  honour  may  be  vindicated  by  punishment,  which 
exhibits    God's    supremacy.      "God    subdues   him, 
though  unwilling,  by  tormenting  him,  and  thus  shows 
1  Thus  punishment  is  grounded  in  justice. 


126     ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

that  He  is  the  Lord  —  a  truth  this  same  man  refuses 
of  his  own  will  to  confess.  And  on  this  point  we 
must  reflect  that  as  man,  by  sinning,  steals  what  is 
God's,  so  God,  by  punishing,  takes  away  what  is 
man's.  .  .  .  For  although  God  does  not  transfer 
what  He  takes  away  to  the  use  of  His  own  advantage, 
as  a  man  converts  to  his  own  use  money  he  has  taken 
from  another,  yet  what  He  takes  away  serves  the 
purpose  of  His  own  honour  by  the  very  fact  that  He 
does  take  it  away.  For  by  doing  so  he  proves  that 
the  sinner  and  all  that  are  his  are  subject  to  Him 
self"  (i.  14.  3-6). 

Or,  on  the  other  hand,  the  honour  may  be  vindi 
cated  by  making  satisfaction,  by  giving  back  to  God 
more  than  has  been  taken  away  from  Him.1  "It  is 
not  sufficient  only  to  restore  what  has  been  taken 
away,  but  in  return  for  the  injury  inflicted  he  ought 
to  restore  more  than  he  took  away.  For  just  as 
when  one  injures  the  health  of  another,  it  is  not  suf 
ficient  to  restore  his  health,  unless  he  give  some  rec 
ompense  for  the  injury  inflicted  in  causing  him  suffer 
ing;  so  when  one  violates  the  honour  of  any  one,  it 
is  not  sufficient  to  restore  his  honour,  if  he  restore  not 
something  which  may  be  pleasing  to  him  whom  he 
has  dishonoured,  according  to  the  extent  of  the  in 
jury  caused  by  his  dishonour.  This,  too,  should  be 

1  "Necesse  est  lit  omne  peccatum  satisfactio  aut  poena  se- 
quatur"  (i.  15,  11). 


THE   ANSELMIC   THEORY  127 

noticed,  that  when  any  one  repays  what  he  unjustly 
took  away,  he  ought  to  give  something  which  could 
not  be  required  of  him  if  he  had  not  stolen  the  prop 
erty  of  another.    In  like  manner,  every  one  who  sins 
ought  to  pay  back  to  God  the  honour  he  has  taken 
away;  and  this  is  the  satisfaction  which  every  sinner 
ought  to  make  to  God"  (i.  11,  7-10;   also  i.  14,  3). 
But  God  in  His  lovingkindness  does  not  demand 
punishment,  and  will  therefore  accept  satisfaction.1 
He  demonstrates  the  necessity  of  satisfaction  in 
another  way,  and  so  leads  up  to  the  answer  to  the 
question  on  his  title-page.  —  The  debt  of  man  must 
he.  paid:    "Nothing  is  less  tolerable  in  the  order  of 
things  than  that  the  creature  should  take  away  from 
the  Creator  the  honour  due  to  Him,  and  not  repay 
what  he  takes  away"  (i.  13,  1).    "Regard  it  therefore 
'  as  most  certain  that  without  satisfaction,  i.  e.,  without 
a  willing  payment  of  what  is  due,  God  cannot  let  sin 
pass  unpunished;  ...  for  man  would  not  in  this 
way  be  restored  to  such  a  position  as  he  had  before 
he  sinned"  (i.  19,  14).     But  "satisfaction  must  be 
made  according  to  the  measure  of  sin"  (i.  20,  1).    Sin 


1  Note  the  unsatisfactory  answer  to  Boso's  difficulty,  ^hich  is 
acute  also  in  modern  times,  as  to  our  forgiving  another  freely, 
while  God  demands  satisfaction  (i.  12,  10-12).  See  also  the 
Roman  Catholic  acceptance  of  this  idea  of  satisfaction,  as  ex 
pressed  by  the  Bishop  of  Amycla:  "To  make  satisfaction  to 
another  ...  is  to  perform  a  retributive  act  more  pleasing  in  tt 
sight  of  the  Person  offended  than  the  act  to  be  atoned  for  was 
displeasing"  (The  Atonement:  A  Clerical  Symposium,  p.  234). 


128     ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

is  such  a  serious  offence  that  it  is  impossible  for  man 
to  make  compensation  for  it/  This  is  illustrated  by 
a  single  look  taken  in  opposition  to  the  will  of  God, 
which  is  declared  to  be  so  weighty  that  the  whole 
universe  should  rather  perish  than  that  we  commit 
such  a  wrong  (i.  21,  3-8).  Boso  assents  to  the  gravity 
of  sin :  "I  must  confess  that  in  order  to  preserve  the 
whole  creation,  I  ought  not  to  do  anything  against 
the  will  of  God"  (i.  21,  9).  And  Anselm  concludes: 
"You  do  not,  therefore,  make  satisfaction,  if  you  do 
not  return  something  greater  than  that  for  the  sake 
of  which  you  were  under  obligation  not  to  commit  the 
sin"  (i.  21,  14).  He  enforces  this  conclusion  by  re 
turning  to  the  thought  of  the  insult  or  gross  dishonour 
to  God  through  man's  voluntary  yielding  to  the  devil 
(i.  22).  Man  "took  away  from  God  whatever  He 
had  purposed  to  effect  out  of  human  nature  "  (i.  23, 3). 
This  he  cannot  restore :  "man,  therefore,  neither  can 
nor  ought  to  receive  from  God  what  God  purposed  to 
give  him,  if  he  does  not  restore  to  God  all  that  he 
took  away,  so  that  as  through  him  God  lost,  through 
him  also  God  may  recover  [what  He  lost]"  (i.  23,  6).1 
"But  man,  the  sinner,  can  by  no  means  do  this,  be- 
V cause  a  sinner  cannot  justify  a  sinner"  (i.  23,  7).3 

1  Baur  finds  here  "the  nerve  of  Anselm's  doctrine"  (Hagen- 
bach,  II.  46). 

2  We  may  remark  the  attempt  to  give  a  rational  explanation  of 
Augustin's  amphiboly,  that  sin  against  an  infinite  God  is  infinite, 
and   deserves   infinite   punishment.     This   exaggerated   way   of 


THE   ANSELMIC   THEORY  129 

As  the  debt  must  be  paid  and  man  cannot  pay  it, 
the  otherwise  valid  excuse  of  man's  inability  will  not 
hold,  because  he  has  voluntarily  incurred  this  ina 
bility,  and  so  is  responsible  for  it  (i.  24).    The  first' 
book  then  concludes  with  the  assertion  that  either 
man  cannot  be  saved  at  all,  or  he  may  be  saved  by 
some  other  means  than  that  recognised  by  Christians,^ 
or  he  must  be  saved  by  Christ  (i.  25,  5  and  6).    Re 
jecting  the  first  two  alternatives,  he  proceeds  in  the 
second  book  to  show  how  we  are  saved  by  Christ.1 
The  argument  is  briefly  this :  man  must  render  satis 
faction,  and  he  cannot  do  it;  but  only  man  ought  to, 
and  only  God  can ;  hence,  God  became  man  in  Jesus 
Christ.    "This  cannot  be  done  except  by  a  complete 
satisfaction  for  sin,  which  no  sinner  can  make"  (ii. 
4,  3).    "There  is  no  one  therefore  who  can  make  this 
satisfaction  except  God  Himself.  .  .  .  But  no  one 
ought  to  make  it  except  man ;   otherwise  man  does 
not  make  satisfaction.  ...  If,  therefore,  as  is  evi 
dent,  it  is  needful  that  that  heavenly  state  be  per 
fected  from  among  men,  and  this  cannot  be  unless 
the  above-mentioned  satisfaction  be  made,  which  no 
one  can  make  except  God,  and  no  one  ought  to  make 
except  man ;  it  is  necessary  that  a  God-man  make  it" 
(ii.  6,  4  and  5).    Christ  is  God-man,  not  by  conversion 

reckoning  the  heinousness  of  sin  was  adopted  by  Cardinal  New 
man  (Farrar,  Witness  of  History  to  Christ,  p.  168). 
1  See  Boso's  summary  in  ii.  17,  36-40. 


130     ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

of  the  Divine  nature  into  the  human,  nor  by  the 
blending  of  the  two  natures  into  a  tertium  quid,  but 
by  the  co-existence  of  the  two  natures  in  one  person 
(ii.  7).  He  must  be  of  the  race  of  Adam,  in  order  to 
make  satisfaction  for  it  (ii.  8).  Being  sinless,  He  did 
not  need  to  die  (ii.  10).  "But  there  is  nothing  more 
severe  and  arduous  that  a  man  can  suffer  for  the 
honour  of  God  of  his  own  accord,  and  not  as  a  matter 
of  debt,  than  death.  And  a  man  can  in  no  way  more 
entirely  give  himself  up  to  God,  than  when  he  delivers 
himself  up  to  death  for  His  honour"  (ii.  11,  21). 
Christ's  death  was  therefore  voluntary,  and  herein 
consisted  its  supreme  value :  His  merits  are  infinite,  / 
hence  superabundant  and  available  for  man's  rescue. 
It  is  then  shown  "how  His  death  outweighs  the 
number  and  greatness  of  all  sins"  (ii.  14,  1).  The 
merit  of  His  death  is  derived  from  the  uniqueness  of 
His  personality;  "because  a  sin  which  is  committed 
against  His  person  surpasses  beyond  comparison  all 
those  which  can  be  conceived  of  apart  from  His  per 
son  "  (ii.  14,  7).  "The  life  of  this  Man  was  so  exalted 
and  so  precious,  that  it  may  suffice  to  pay  what  is  due 
for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  and  infinitely  more" 
(ii.  17,  40). 1 

1  Infinite  merits  are  substituted  for  infinite  demerit,  and  so  a 
just  compensation  is  made  to  God's  honour.  It  was  the  supereroga 
tory  character  of  the  obedience  that  gave  it  legal  value,  "  its  capa 
city  to  procure  forgiveness  for  the  ill-deserving"  (Fisher,  p.  221). 


THE   ANSELMIC   THEORY  131 

"It  remains,  therefore,  now  to  show  how  that 
[life]  is  paid  to  God  for  the  sins  of  men"  (ii.  17,  40). 
"No  man  beside  Him  ever  gave  to  God,  by  dying, 
what  he  would  not  at  some  time  have  necessarily 
lost,  or  paid  what  he  did  not  owe.  But  this  Man 
freely  offered  to  the  Father  what  it  would  never  have 
been  necessary  for  Him  to  lose,  and  paid  for  sinners 
what  He  did  not  owe  for  Himself"  (ii.  18,  5).  Thus 
Christ  pays  the  debt,  and  receiving  a  forgiveness 
which  He  did  not  need,  bestows  it  on  man.  So  great 
a  gift  must  have  its  reward;  but  "he  who  recom 
penses  any  one,  either  gives  him  what  he  has  not,  or 
forgives  what  might  be  required  of  him.  But  before 
the  Son  did  this  great  work,  all  things  that  the  Father 
had  were  His;  nor  did  He  ever  owe  anything  that 
could  be  forgiven  Him.  ...  If  so  great  and  well- 
deserved  a  reward  is  paid  neither  to  Him  nor  to 
another,  the  Son  will  seem  to  have  accomplished  so 
great  a  work  in  vain.  ...  It  is  needful,  therefore, 
that  the  payment  be  made  to  some  one  else,  since  it 
cannot  be  to  Him"  (ii.  19,  5-8).  (in  this  way,  the 
mercy  of  God  is  harmonised  with  His  justice. l  j  The 
mercy  seemed  to  be  "clean  gone"  (per ire),  but  by 
the  contrivance  here  outlined  mankind  is  redeemed; 
and  "what  is  more  just  than  that  He  to  whom  a  price 

1  The  idea  of  justice  is  continually  mingled  with  the  argu 
ment  concerning  God's  honour,  and,  as  will  be  shown,  renders  it 
nugatory. 


132    ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

is  paid  more  valuable  than  all  the  debt,  if  it  is  given 
with  the  proper  disposition,  should  forgive  the  whole 
debt?"  (ii.  20,  3).1 


c.  Some  Valuable  Features  of  the  Theory 

Its  chief  merit  is  that  it  dealt  the  death-blow  to 
the  ancient  immoral  notion  that  man  was  the  devil's 
lawful  prey,  and  that  the  slaveholder's  claims  must 
be  met  before  the  ransom  is  complete  (ii.  19,  18).2 
This  theory  of  our  redemption,  which  held  such  long 
sway  over  the  minds  of  Christian  thinkers,  is  un 
doubtedly  rejected  as  wholly  untenable  by  every 
school  of  thought  in  the  modern  Church.  There  was 
a  certain  truth  in  the  idea  that  we  were  rescued  from 
the  power  of  the  devil ;  but  the  patristic  statement  is 
maimed  by  the  admission  that  we  were  purchased 
from  him,  when  as  a  matter  of  fact  we  were  redeemed 
by  Christ's  victory  over  him^  As  the  subversion  of 
the  elder  theory  is  left  to  Boso,  instead  of  being  prom 
inently  stated  by  Anselm,  it  may  be  that  he  did  not 
fully  realise  the  important  service  he  was  rendering. 
He  may  not  have  been  sufficiently  alive  to  the  con- 

1  I  have  omitted  in  this  statement  of  Anselm's  argument 
everything  but  the  necessary  elements  of  his  theory. 

2  In  this  respect,  Anselm's  theory  is  nobler  than  that  of  the 
Fathers.    Baur  regards  this  as  Anselm's  original  contribution  to 
the  development  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement  (Die  Christ- 
liche  Lehre  von  der  Versohnung,  p.  187). 


THE   ANSELMIC   THEORY  133 

ception  of  redemption  "by  a  mighty  hand  and  a 
stretched-out  arm,"  like  those  succeeding  him  who 
did  not  follow  him  in  rejecting  the  ransom  paid  to 
the  devil;    and  accordingly  he  made  his  argument 
against  it  subordinate  and  put  it  into  the  mouth  of 
.  B°oso.     However  this  may  be,  he  clearly  repudiated 
the  right  of  the  devil,  and  declared:    "quidquid  ab 
illo  exigebatur,  hoc  Deo  debebat  non  diabolo"  (ii.  19, 
18).    In  giving  up  this  mythical  transaction  with  the 
devil,  he  was  combating  a  long  dominant  dualism; 
but   he    unfortunately   fell    into   another    "dualism 
within  the  divine  nature  itself  between  justice  and 
love,"  which  Professor  Allen  regards  as  "a  great 
step   forward."  l      So   persistent,  however,  was   the 
influence  of  the  patristic  conception,  that  in  the  next 
century  Bernard  accused  Abelard  of  heresy  for  con 
testing  it;  it  is  repeated  in  Peter  Lombard  and  Inno 
cent  III.,  and  is  found  in  a  sermon  by  the  English 
Bishop  Hooper. 

Another  practical  value  of  the  theory  is  that,  as 
the  doctrine  of  the  later  Fathers  had  delivered  men 
from  the  fear  of  the  devil,  this  "delivered  the  medi- 
seval  world  from  the  unnatural  dread  of  God  which 
the  Church  was  engendering."  2  The  ecclesiastical 
mediation  removed  God  from  any  intimate  relation 
with  mankind ;  His  paternal  love  became  more  and 


Continuity  of  Christian  Thought,  p.  202.  V 
Allen,  Christian  Institutions,  p.  366. 


134     ANSELM   ON   THE  ATONEMENT 

more  vague  and  intangible,  and  men's  thoughts  of 
Him  were  paganised  into  a  fear  of  a  distant  Ruler 
whose  rigorous  justice  exacted  severe  punishments'* 
This  was  an  unchristian  misconception,  and  in  the 
superstitious  age  in  which  Anselm  wrote,  it  was 
important  that  the  tendency  of  his  teaching  was  to 
make  the  thought  of  God  more  alluring.  It  is  true 
that  he  so  presented  the  complete  satisfaction  of  God's 
claims  against  us  that  it  might  be  construed  as  our 
redemption  out  of  the  hands  of  the  Father.  But  the 
Latin  idea  of  the  necessity  of  appeasing  the  Divine 
wrath  is  wholly  absent;  the  demand  for  satisfaction 
was  responded  to  and  fulfilled  by  God  Himself;  God 
became  man  in  order  that  He  might  be  one  with  man, 
and  thus  was  brought  so  near  that  man  was  freed 
from  the  dread  of  Him. 

Again,  Anselm  has  been  highly  estimated  as  the 
champion  of  the  objective  efficacy  of  the  Atonement. 
The  satisfaction  which  he  describes  removes  an 
obstacle  to  the  work  of  grace  in  the  forgiveness  of 
man,  and  is  exclusively  directed  towards  God.  It 
must  be  admitted  that  there  is  to-day  a  general  im 
patience  of  any  explanation  of  the  modus  of  the 
Atonement/1  There  are  strong  objections  to  most  of 
those  propounded  since  his  day,  and  his  own  has 
such  grave  defects  as  to  be  entirely  inadmissible. 
There  is  particularly  a  repugnance  to  any  pretended 
acquaintance  with  things  deliberately  left  undis- 


THE   ANSELMIC   THEORY          135 

closed,  such  as  the  change  wrought  by  the  death  of 
Christ  in  the  relation  of  God  towards  us.  This  is 
what  is  usually  meant  by  "objective";  and,  even  if 
it  were  true,  it  is  conspicuously  avoided  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  it  is  wholly  un verifiable.  Never 
theless,  there  is  a  strong  impression,  to  which  the 
purely  subjective  theories  have  never  done  justice, 
that  the  work  of  Christ  was  influential  with  God  as 
well  as  with  men  —  even  if  it  be  left  wholly  unex 
plained;  and  Anselm  must  be  credited  with  making 
it  permanent  from  his  time,  even  though  we  must 
reject  every  detail  of  his  speculation  and  must  regard 
its  exclusively  objective  character  as  an  essential 
defect. 

The  entire  reasoning  of  St.  Paul  upon  the  subject 
of  redemption  involves  the  conception  of  a  sacrifice 
unto  God,  which  was  too  much  obscured  by  the 
patristic  £con€eit}  of  a  payment  to  the  devil.  The 
thought  is  barely  suggested  and  not  fully  expressed ; 
but  it  surely  gives  to  the  sacrifice  a  Godward  aspect. 
The  Apostle  certainly  thought  of  Christ  as  both  God  , 
and  man,  and  considered  that  He  not  only  represented 
God  to  man,  but  that,  as  Head  of  the  race,  He  also 
represented  man  to  God.  If  he  conceived  of  Christ 
as  offering  to  God  the  sacrifice  of  mankind  which 
was  mystically  one  with  Him,  he  must  have  thought 
of  the  work  of  Christ  as  primarily  looking  towards 
God.  It  is  true  that  he  merely  indicates  this  aspect 


136    ANSELM   ON   THE  ATONEMENT 

of  atonement,  while  it  has  been  the  fashion  since 
Anselm  to  work  it  out  with  apparent  familiarity 
with  all  its  details.  This,  however,  should  not  lead 
us  to  ignore  such  hints  of  the  objective  idea  in 
this  form  as  are  plainly  to  be  found  in  the  New 
Testament. 

Moreover,  the  use  of  such  a  word  as  \vrpov  or  f> 
avr(\vrpov  suggests  another  point   of   view   which 
contains  an  important  truth.    The  word  conveys  no 
intimation  that  the  cross  was  the  cause  or  ground  of 
forgiveness;    this  idea  has  been  the  source  of  the 
hazardous  speculation  upon  what  has  not  been  re 
vealed.    But  it  is  the  simple  fact  that  the  cross  has 
been  the  means  of  the  proclamation  of  forgiveness.1 
The  Scriptural  sense  of  \vrpov  is  that  of  a  figurative 
description  of  effect,  and  not  method!  our  deliver 
ance  from  sin  may  be  actually  traced  to  the  sacrifice 
of  Christ,  as  though  a  literal  ransom  had  been  paid 
by  Him;    this  has  been  objectively  and  historically 
the  means  and  cause  of  our  knowledge  of  the  recon 
ciling  love  of^God.    The  revelation  of  that  love  and 
righteousness  was  His  work,  a  work  which  was  out 
side  of  ourselves  and  independent  of  us  and  which 
we  could   not   have   performed;    it   is  the  historic 
source  of  our  life  in  Him,  and  is  something  more  than 
a  subjective  "moral  influence."     Hence  the  Atone 
ment  is  more  than  an  at-one-ment,  at  least  in  the 
1  Cf.  W.  L.  Walker,  The  Cross  and  the  Kingdom,  p.  199. 


THE   ANSELMIC   THEORY  137 

sense  that  an  effective  work  was  performed  by  the 
historic  Christ  distinct  from  its  consummation  in 
our  personal  reconciliation.  We  come  to  be  at  one 
with  God,  not  merely  because  we  are  to-day  im 
pressed  by  the  exhibition  of  God's  love  in  Christ, 
but  because  what  Christ  was  and  did  centuries  ago 
mediated  for  us  the  love  and  life  of  God  and  accom 
plished  for  us  what  we  could  not  do  for  ourselves. 
The  term  "objective  atonement"  has  traditionally 
meant  "an  appeasement  of  which  God  is  the  ob 
ject."  That  description  of  Christ's  work  can  no 
longer  be  accepted;  all  the  best  modern  writers 
vigorously  protest  against  the  gross  abuse  of  a 
Christian  truth  by  this  pagan  survival.  (The  meaning 
of  the  adjective  has  been  softened  and  weakened, 
and  so  wholly  changed,  even  by  the  most  conserva 
tive  theologians,  that  its  use  could  be  discontinued 
with  great  advantage  to  clearness  of  thought.1!  But 
the  Church  cannot  afford  wholly  to  lose  the  idea  that 
the  life  and  death  of  obedience  were  a  sacrifice  of 
which  God  was  the  object,  and  that  the  unique 
service  which  Christ  rendered  to  mankind  was  his 
torically  and  potentially  efficient  before  it  was  ap 
propriated  by  any  of  its  beneficiaries.2 

1  Vide  George  B.  Stevens,  The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Salvation, 
pp.  425,  432. 

2  Principal  Simon  stands  almost  alone  in  regarding  Anselm's 
theory  as  "exclusively  manward-looking."    This  seems  a  strange 
misconception;  for  the  dynamic  effect  of  Christ's  work  is  merely 


138    ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

The  moral  necessity  of  this  mode  of  Atonement 
enabled  him  to  express  another  valuable  thought,  — 
that  the  Divine  will  is  not  absolute.  The  contrary 
idea  had  done  vast  harm  to  dogma  and  ecclesiasti- 
cism  ever  since  Augustin  had  made  it  fundamental. 
If  man  could  not  be  restored  by  a  mere  fiat,  the 
theory  of  the  abstract  omnipotence  of  God  disap 
pears.  Dr.  Allen  shows  also  that  he  incidentally 
helped  to  undermine  the  Papal  authority  by  his 
position  that  even  Almighty  God  cannot  forgive 
sin  by  His  will  alone.1  This  opened  the  way  to  the 
conception  that  there  are  necessities  laid  upon  love 
and  righteousness  which  God  cannot  evade  if  He 
will.  Athanasius  said  that  God  need  not  redeem 
man,  but  did  so  from  motives  of  love.  Anselm 
held  that  God  was  under  necessity,  because  He 
would  have  been  unjust  to  Himself  if  He  did  not  re 
deem  (i.  cap.  16-18;  ii.  cap.  4  and  5).  But  to  be 
just  to  Himself  is  to  be  faithful  to  His  own  nature  of 
Love,  and  hence  there  are  eternal  necessities  of 
character  which  not  only  limit  His  power  and  liberty 

glanced  at,  and  is  really  inconsistent  with  his  whole  point  of  view. 
Dr.  Simon  justifies  his  opinion  that  Anselm's  "conception  of  the 
influence  or  action  of  the  work  of  Christ  is  not  properly  objective," 
by  laying  stress  upon  Anselm's  point  that  the  direct  object  of 
redemption  was  to  fill  the  gap  made  by  the  fall  of  the  angels,  so 
that  the  theory  "really  looks  towards  the  cosmos  as  a  whole,  with 
special  reference,  of  course,  to  man  and  angelic  intelligences" 
(D.  W.  Simon,  The  Redemption  of  Man,  pp.  54-58). 
1  Christian  Institutions,  p.  367. 


THE   ANSELMIC   THEORY          139 

(i.  12,  14),  but  which  impel  Him  to  those  acts  which 
constitute  His  glory  and  make  Him  supremely 
worthy  of  our  worship.1 

Still  another  valuable  element  in  the  theory  is 
its  emphasis  upon  Christ's  work  as  being  essentially 
obedience.  It  is  true  that  the  efficacious  import  of 
that  work  was  found  in  His  voluntary  submission 
to  death,  but  the  stress  lies  upon  His  obedience  unto 
death.2  The  satisfaction  therefore  was  active,  and 
the  idea  of  punishment  is  entirely  absent  from  the 

1  Dr.  Stevens  considers  that  Anselm  has  not  made  out  the 
absolute  necessity  of  a  particular  method  of  redemption,  but  only 
that  it  was  fit  or  suitable,  required  by  the  Divine  feeling  of  com 
promised  dignity  or  honour  (Op.  cit.,  p.  243).     But  the  idea 
of  a  moral  necessity  is  undoubtedly  to  be  found  in  the  above 
references. 

2  I  have  already  indicated  that  Anselm  is  contradictory  in  his 
statements  on  this  point.    He  makes  the  satisfaction  to  consist  in 
Christ's  gift  of  His  life,  which  was  not  a  commandment  of  God 
and  therefore  not  an  essential  part  of  His  duty.    It  was  additional 
to  His  required  obedience,  and  that  constituted  its  merit  or  legal 
value.    But  he  begins  by  calling  Christ's  work  " a  man's  obedience" 
(i.  3);    he  expressly  says  that  the  death  was  "inflicted  on  Him 
because  He  persevered  in  obedience"  (i.  9) ;  and  he  admits  that 
the  cup  which  could  not  pass  from  Him  was  the  death  which  God 
had  willed  as  the  means  of  saving  the  world,  and  God  had  sent 
Him  to  perform  that  will  (i.  10).     There  could  have  been  no 
ethical  significance  in  the  death  if  it  had  not  been  obedience. 
There  could  have  been  no  merit  or  desert  if  it  was  not  a  moral  act. 
In  his  contrast  of  necessity  and  free  will,  be  simply  juggles  with 
the  former  word;    for  no  one  considers  the  moral  necessity  of 
obedience  as  incompatible  with  freedom.     Hence,  Dr.  Fisher  is 
quite  right  in  describing  Anselm's  conception  of  satisfaction:   "It 
was  an  act  of  obedience,  but  a  supererogatory  act  of  obedience" 
(p.  221). 


140    ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

scheme,  and  indeed  quite  alien  to  it.))  It  is  of  the 
highest  importance  to  the  understanding  of  the  re 
lation  of  Anselm's  theory  to  the  subsequent  modifi 
cation  of  it,  that  it  should  he  emphasised  as  far 
removed  from  the  penal  satisfaction  of  later  times. 
Instead  of  being  penal,  it  was  explicitly  a  substitute 
for  the  penal  idea.  The  distinction,  "satisfactio 
aut  poena,"  is  vital  to  the  whole  argument ;  and  the 
very  title  of  the  book  shows  that  Anselm  did  not 
wholly  separate  the  death  from  the  previous  human 
life,  as  was  the  subsequent  custom  of  many  Protes 
tant  theologians.2 

The  legal  and  quantitative  method  of  conceiving 
the  satisfaction  may  be  passed  over  as  no  longer 
concerning  modern  thought;  but  it  is  a  profoundly 
ethical  advantage  to  have  it  asserted  that  God  can 
be  satisfied  with  nothing  less  than  an  obedience  as 
perfect  as  His  Son's.  Anselm  was  unable  to  give 
this  statement  its  due  moral  significance;  but,  inas 
much  as  Satisfaction  was  the  characteristic  word  of 


1  Baur  is  certainly  right  upon  this  point,  and  Hagenbach  as 
certainly  wrong  (II.  46). 

3  Abbe  Riviere,  however,  insists  that  the  theory  is  one  of 
penal  satisfaction,  because  satisfaction  being  a  painful  work 
(une  ceuvre  penible)  is  itself  a  penalty  (une  peine;  op,  cit.,  p.  310). 
But  Anselm  definitely  avoids  the  idea  of  punishment,  and  makes 
the  whole  virtue  of  Christ's  submission  to  death  to  consist  in 
voluntary  active  obedience;  and  his  theory  cannot  be  called 
penal  merely  because  some  of  its  details  are  derived  from  the 
ecclesiastical  system  of  penance. 


THE   ANSELMIC   THEORY          141 

this  period,  as  Ransom  was  of  the  patristic,  and 
Substitution  of  the  Reformation,  and  the  word  is 
still  vital  in  all  discussions  upon  Soteriology,  we  may 
apply  it  in  ways  impossible  to  him  and  more  con 
genial  to  a  Scriptural  understanding  of  the  doctrine. 
I  Even  as  he  put  it,  the  grace  of  God  is  solely  mani 
fested  in  the  saving  work  of  Christ,  and  his  argument 
leads  to  the  modern  thought  of  Christ  Himself  as 
our  salvation  and  atonement.  Notwithstanding  its 
failure  as  a  speculation,  it  was  a  real  attempt  to  as 
sociate  the  Incarnation  with  the  needs  of  the  indi 
vidual  :  this  is  the  practical  meaning  of  his  doctrine, 
and  it  is  still  the  dynamic  element  of  personal 
religion. 

It  is  wonderful  that  a  theory  which  had  for  one 
of  its  chief  antecedents  the  ideas  of  a  penitential 
discipline  should    have  contained  a  feature   which 
led  ultimately  to  the  overthrow  of  that  discipline; 
but  this  may  be  regarded  as  its  final  excellence.    It 
is  a  notable  fact  that  Anselm  should  have  been  con 
cerned  with  the  question,  Why  did  God  become  Man  ? 
jThe   very  limitation   of   the   inquiry  turned   men's 
i  thoughts  away  from  the  externalism  and  superstition 
/  of  a  mere  ecclesiastical  system  to  the  significance  of 
the  person  and  work  of  Christ.    The  discussion  has 
not  one  word  to  say  of  personal  and  legal  satisfactions, 
of  priestly   interpositions,   of  the   Church's  control 
of  the  means  of  salvation.     It  fixes  attention  upon 


142    ANSELM   ON  THE  ATONEMENT 

the  redemptive  meaning  of  the  Incarnation,  upon  the 
perfect  offering  of  an  obedient  life,  upon  a  death 
whose    loving    acquiescence    and    completeness    of 
sacrificial  surrender  absolutely  satisfied  a  Father's 
desire  for  an  ideal  Son,  and  it  makes  these  the  all- 
sufficient  source  and  explanation  of  our  reconcilia 
tion  with  God.  1  That  is  to  say,  it  acknowledges  the 
greatness  and  sufficiency  of  Christ's  work;   forgive 
ness  "springs  from  the  Divine  initiative,  rests  on 
Divinely  appointed  means,"  is  the  free  gift  of  Divine 
grace,   and   is   undeserved   and   wholly   dissociated 
from  human  merit.     Doubtless,  the  usual  ecclesias 
tical  means  of  applying  the  benefits  of  this  work 
to  the  individual  soul  are  taken  for  granted.    Doubt 
less,  Anselm  would  have  been  dismayed  at  any  in 
ferences  from  his  theory  which  would  have  impaired 
the   authority   of  the   Church   and   disparaged   the 
traditional  mode  of  its  exercise.     Nevertheless,  the 
emphasis  was  removed  from  the  futile  efforts  of  the 
sinner  to  placate  the  favour  of  God  by  his  own  merits 
and  good  works  to  the  obedient  death  of  One  whose 
merits  were  infinite,  who  had  superabundantly  ful 
filled  the  demands  of  the  Divine  righteousness,  and 
who  was  willing  to  share  His  reward  with  those 
who  followed  Him.     The  precise  form  of  the  state 
ment  may  have  been  of  only  temporary  value,  but  it 
exalted  the  figure  and  achievement  of  the  Redeemer 
to  the  supreme  place  which  they  occupy  in  the  New 


THE   ANSELMIC   THEORY          143 

Testament.  The  remunerative  discipline  of  the 
Church  might  continue  for  centuries  longer,  might 
even  grow  more  degraded  and  offensive.  But  the 
fact  of  man's  forgiveness  had  been  treated  quite 
apart  from  that  discipline,  and  had  been  adequately 
accounted  for  in  the  person  and  work  of  Christ 
alone;  and  thus  the  way  was  prepared  for  the  dis 
regard  of  the  pagan  system  introduced  by  Tertullian 
and  Cyprian,  and  for  a  return  to  the  Pauline  under 
standing  of  the  plenary  efficiency  of  the  Incarnate 
life  and  death.1 

d.   Defects  oj  the  Theory 

There  are  three  main  defects  marking  the  theory 
as  a  whole,  to  be  noted  before  proceeding  to  a  criti 
cism  in  detail.  First,  it  is  wholly  outside  of  the  teach 
ing  of  the  Scriptures.  The  total  silence  of  the  New 
Testament  upon  its  essential  elements  furnishes  a 
strong  presupposition  against  it.  The  expressed 
intention  of  the  author  to  conduct  his  discussion  as 
though  nothing  had  been  revealed  upon  the  subject 
might  have  had  great  apologetic  value  if  his  con 
clusions  had  coincided  with  the  Apostolic  concep 
tions  of  the  work  of  Christ.  But  when  he  is  ex- 

1  It  is  unfortunate  that  nearly  every  good  feature  in  this 
treatise  should  be  so  connected  with  objectionable  details  that  it 
must  be  isolated  and  reapplied  before  it  is  of  use  to  doctrinal  or 
practical  theology. 


144    ANSELM    ON   THE    ATONEMENT 

clusively  speculative  and  rationalistic  and  takes  a 
point  of  view  entirely  unfamiliar  to  the  inspired 
writers,  his  very  originality  is  the  most  suspicious 
feature  of  his  argument.1  By  his  consistent  disre 
gard  of  Scripture  he  fails  adequately  to  include  the 
death  of  Christ  with  his  whole  life-work,  and  con 
siders  it  as  an  adscititious  merit  rather  than  as  the 
consummation  of  His  redeeming  effort.  7  "This 
God-man  need  not  have  preached  and  founded  a 
kingdom,  no  disciples  need  have  been  gathered :  He 
only  required  to  die."  2  Anselm  entirely  passes  over 
the  fundamental  ideas  of  St.  Paul,  who  treated  of  the 
work  of  Christ  under  the  categories  of  redemption 
(aTroXvT/Dftxrt?,  avri\VTpov,  e^ayopd^eiv),  of  sacri 
fice  (6vo-ia\  of  propitiation  (l\ao-Trjpiov'),  of  recon 
ciliation  (rcaraXXaytf),  of  mediation  (/-ie<7/T?7?),  of 
representation  (vTrep)  and  mystical  union  (ev  Xpia-rq), 
/ce(f>a\r)  TOV  o-a)fj,aros,  etc).  He  brings  us  into  an  at 
mosphere  quite  uncongenial  with  any  of  these  con 
cepts.  He  is  so  purely  speculative,  so  entirely  aloof 
from  Biblical  ideas,  that  the  enormous  influence  of 
his  characteristic  word  has  made  nearly  all  subse 
quent  thought  on  the  Atonement  extra-Scriptural, 
if  not  unscriptural.3  This  is  so  distinct  a  defect  that 

1  Baur  calls  his  theorising  "abstract  dialectic"  (Die  Christ' 
Lehre,  p.  185).  Minute  definition  has  been,  in  Soteriology  more 
than  in  other  departments,  the  scourge  of  theological  thought. 

8  Harnack,  op.  cit.,  VI.  76. 

8  "I  know  of  no  important  treatise  on  our  subject  which  has  so 


THE   ANSELMIC   THEORY          145 

Professor  Harnack  says  that  it  is  strange  that  any 
thing  so  unworthy  of  the  Apostolic  tradition  could 
have  been  produced  without  being  condemned  as 
heretical.  "No  theory  so  bad  had  ever  before  his 
day  been  given  out  as  ecclesiastical.  But  perhaps  no 
one  can  frame  a  better,  who  isolates  the  death  of 
Christ  from  His  life,  and  wishes  to  see  in  this  death 
something  else  than  the  consummation  of  the  'ser 
vice*  which  He  rendered  throughout  His  life."  * 

Secondly,  the  theory  fails  even  as  an  abstract  and 
rationalistic  explanation  of  the  Atonement.  It  is 
severely  logical  in  method,  and  marked  by  a  passion 
for  metaphysical  subtlety.  It  exhibits  the  same 
reverence  for  the  intellectual  process  as  such  that 
was  afterwards  displayed  by  the  Calvinist  scholas 
tics;  it  is  not  concerned  with  what  precious  things 
are  trampled  down  in  the  march  of  the  remorseless 
argument,  ^oso  cries  out  at  the  demonstration  that 
forgiveness  of  the  sinner,  forasmuch  as  he  had  not  to 
pay,  is  contrary  to  justice ;  which  permits  nothing 
but  punishment  to  be  the  due  of  sin.  He  says:  "If 
God  follows  the  method  [rationem]  of  justice,  God's 
mercy  seems  to  be  at  an  end."  To  which  Anselm 
frigidly  replies:  "Rationem  postulasti,  rationem 
accipe"  (i.  24,  20,  21,  23);  and  poor  Boso  hastens 

few  points  of  contact  with  Scripture"  (Stevens,  Christ.  Dod.  of 
Salvation,  p.  243). 
1  Op.  tit.,  VI.  78. 

10 


146    ANSELM   ON    THE   ATONEMENT 

to  yield :  "I,  at  any  rate,  do  not  see  that  any  of  your 
arguments  can  be  invalidated." 

Now,  there  is  nothing  in  Christianity  antagonistic 
to  logic  or  philosophy;  but  if  the  philosophy  be 
false  or  crude,  if  the  premises  of  the  logical  process 
be  themselves  insecure  —  both  of  which  are  true  of 
Anselm's  argument  —  then  the  theory  lacks  scien 
tific  validity.  Dr.  Shedd  remarks:  "Anselm  con 
cedes,  by  implication,  throughout  his  work,  that  if  it 
cannot  be  made  out  that  the  vicarious  satisfaction 
of  Divine  justice,  by  the  theanthropic  sufferings  of 
Jesus  Christ,  is  required  by  a  necessary  and  imma 
nent  attribute  of  the  Divine  nature,  then  a  scientific 
character  cannot  be  vindicated  for  the  doctrine;  for 
nothing  that  is  not  metaphysically  necessary  is 
scientific."  *  But  Anselm  explicitly  denies  any 
metaphysical  necessity;  the  most  that  he  will  admit 
is  the  moral  necessity  of  not  leaving  the  universe 
unordered  (inordinatum).  Then,  he  makes  Christ's 
work  depend  on  the  Divine  determination  to  save 
enough  men  to  take  the  place  of  the  fallen  angels: 
an  idea  which  he  derived  from  Augustin  (Enchir., 
62).  This  trivial  notion  is  so  completely  without 
verification,  his  general  postulates  are  so  alien  to 
Christian  ideas  of  God's  nature  and  relation  to  us, 
his  syllogisms  are  so  fallacious,  that  the  pretentious 
structure  is  manifestly  without  foundation. 
1  Hist.  Doc*.,  II.  275. 


THE   ANSELMIC   THEORY  147 

The  third  general  defect  is  that  it  is  external  and 
institutional,  as  will  be  seen  in  the  ensuing  criticism.1 
It  was  the  weak  sense  of  individuality  characteristic 
of  the  times  that  gave  the  penitential  system  its  op 
portunity,  and  made  it,  together  with  the  ruling  ideas 
of  the  criminal  law  and  of  feudal  customs,  the  natural 
mould  of  Anselm's  thought J  He  could  not  have 
escaped  his  environment,  perhaps ;  for  he  lived  in  a 
preeminently  institutional  age,  was  a  prince  of  an 
institutional  Church,  which  offered  an  institutional 
religion.  But  Christianity,  while  it  necessarily  de 
veloped  institutions,  is  essentially  personal ;  and  the 
most  vital  element  of  our  religion  is  ignored  by 
Anselm,  except  in  a  mere  incidental  reference  of  a 
few  lines.2 

(1)    The  Idea  of  Honour 

Sin  is  conceived  as  a  deprivation  of  the  honour 
of  God,  and  hence  satisfaction  is  the  vindication  of 
His  dignity  as  a  sovereign.3  As  sin  is  "an  affront 

1  Mr.  Lidgett  contrasts  the  real  and  spiritual  atonement  con 
ceived  by  Athanasius  with  the  "external,  mechanical,  and  almost 
accidental"  satisfaction  of  Anselm's  theory,  wherein  salvation 
becomes  "rather  a  gift  of  external  status  than  of  spiritual  con 
dition"  (Spir.  Princ.  of  At.,  p.  455). 

*  Latin  and  early  Teutonic  Christianity  was  largely  corporate 
rather  than  personal.  The  chief  personal  expression  of  religion 
among  Catholics  —  as  distinct  from  ecclesiastical  practices  — 
was  through  mysticism,  of  which  Anselm  in  this  treatise  betrays 
hardly  a  trace. 

3  The  whole  conception  of  God  as  an  "over-lord"  is  crudely 
anthropomorphic. 


148    ANSELM   ON  THE  ATONEMENT 

to  His  infinite  majesty,"  "  the  Atonement  is  therefore 
an  act  of  homage  to  God  in  which  His  supremacy 
is  recognised."  1  This  is  derived  from  the  institu 
tion  of  feudalism.  The  offence  is  not  the  wounding 
of  the  heart  of  personal  love,  but  defrauding  the 
suzerain  of  a  vassal's  service ;  and  so  the  reparation 
is  not  the  reconciliation  of  the  rebellious  subject  to 
his  duty,  not  even  the  conciliation  of  the  Ruler  by  a 
Sponsor  who  ensures  the  obedience  of  the  serf,  but 
the  soothing  of  a  feeling  of  impaired  official  prestige 
and  glory.  Dr.  Harnack  speaks  of  it  as  "the  mytho 
logical  conception  of  God  as  a  mighty  private-man, 
who  is  incensed  at  the  injury  done  to  His  honour, 
and  does  not  forego  His  wrath  until  He  has  received 
an  at  least  adequately  great  equivalent."  2 

(a)  But  there  is  here  a  logical  inconsistency. 
First,  as  to  the  premises  of  satisfaction.  By  making 
the  honour  of  God  fundamental,  he  has  not  demon 
strated  that  legal  satisfaction  is  the  only  condition 
of  forgiveness,  as  he  himself  is  constrained  to  admit 
(ii.  17,  31).  But  then  he  has  practically  made  it  the 
only  condition  by  introducing  the  claim  of  justice.3 

1  Dale,  The  Atonement,  p.  284. 

*  Vol.  VI.  p.  76.    Among  other  incongruities,  notice  that  God 
cannot  forgive  for  the  sake  of  His  honour,  and  then  cannot  receive 
again  "hominem  peccati  sorde  maculatum  sine  omni  lavatione,  i.  e. 
absque  omni  satisfaction "  (i.  19,  12);   in  the  latter  case  satis 
faction  consists  in  moral  cleansing. 

*  It  is  of  the  utmost  importance  to  observe  that  Anselm  inserts 
this  alien  idea,  making  his  argument  thenceforth  that  forgiveness 


THE   ANSELMIC   THEORY          149 

Compensation  is  due  to  the  honour  of  God,  but  it  is 
required  by  His  justice;  the  justice  is  involved  in  the 
acceptance  of  Christ's  death  as  a  reparation.1  That 
is,  according  to  Anselm's  own  premises,  it  is  not 
honour,  but  justice,  which  makes  satisfaction  the 
only  proper  condition  of  forgiveness.  But  the  two 
ideas  are  incompatible ;  they  denote  entirely  different 
relations  between  God  and  man.  "The  relation  of 
men  to  God  cannot  be  determined  at  once  by  the 
glory  of  God,  in  which  God  is  the  superior  of  the 
latter,  .  .  .  and,  at  the  same  time  by  the  justice  of 
God  implying  a  legal  coordination  between  man 
and  God."  2  There  is  a  difference  between  a  sov 
ereign  whose  majesty  has  been  insulted  —  an  of 
fence  to  be  atoned  for  only  by  punishment,  not  to 
be  wiped  out  by  any  commutation  —  and  a  person 
whose  honour  has  been  injured,  who  claims  satis 
faction  for  the  infringement  of  his  rights,  and  who 
thus  occupies  before  the  law  a  coordinate  relation 

without  satisfaction  is  contrary  to  justice,  instead  of  being  de 
manded  by  God's  honour.  "Sibi  ipsi  Deus  Justus  non  erit" 
(i.  13,  7).  "Intende  in  districtam  justitiam"  (i.  23,  4).  "Verum 
hujusmodi  misericordia  Dei  nimis  est  contraria  justitiae  illius" 
(i.  24,  16).  See  also  i.  12,  title;  i.  13,  2;  ii.  20,  title,  and  last 
sentence. 

1  "  Satisfaction  to  God  is  necessary  —  generally,  on  account 
of  His  honour:  particularly,  on  account  of  His  justice"  (Ritschl, 
p.  27).     "But  .  .  .  the  idea  of  satisfaction  is  not  regulated  directly 
by  the  honour  of  God,  but  by  His  justice"  (Ibid.,  p.  29). 

2  Ibid.,  p.  30.     Per  contra,  see  Josef  Bach,  Dogmengeschichte 
des  Mittelalters,  I.  347,  note  99. 


150    ANSELM   ON  THE   ATONEMENT 

with  the  offender.  "Reparation  to  the  injured 
honour  of  God"  is  not  to  be  "compared  to  a  civil 
action  for  damages."  The  logical  conclusion  from 
the  premise  of  honour  is  that  no  satisfaction  can  be 
rendered.  Admitting  satisfaction  on  the  score  of 
justice,  another  might  conceivably  render  it,  but  ihen 
honour  ceases  to  be  fundamental.  Therefore,  satis 
faction  may  be  consistent  with  the  justice  of  God, 
but  not  with  the  claim  of  His  honour.1 

The  theory  is  logically  inconsistent,  secondly,  as 
to  what  constituted  the  value  of  Christ's  death  as 
satisfaction.  The  author  says  that  Christ  was  not 
bound  to  die  as  man  was,  but  He  did  it  to  make  com 
pensation  to  the  honour  of  God;  the  whole  merit 
of  the  death  lay  in  its  being  voluntary  and  therefore 
surplus.  The  very  gist  of  the  theory  is  found  in  this 
point.  The  entire  eighteenth  chapter  of  Book  ii  is 
devoted  to  a  subtle  effort  to  prove  that  Jesus  "non  de- 
buit  facere,  quia  non  ex  debito."2  But  "the  God-man 
is  constantly  bound,  on  Anselm's  own  assumptions,  to 
the  honour  of  God."  3  "He  was  under  obligation  to 
do  what  He  thought  to  be  better  and  more  pleasing 
to  God,"  is  the  statement  of  Boso  himself  which 
Anselm  endorses  and  then  seeks  to  explain  away.4 

1  Harnack,  op.  cit.,  VI.  72,  73. 

2  Observe  the  special  emphasis  in  section  5  of  that  chapter, 
quoted  above. 

8  Ritschl,  op.  cit.,  p.  32. 

*  Lib.  ii.  18,  8.    See  also  i.  9,  4,  5,  24. 


THE   ANSELMIC   THEORY          151 

This  is  His  personal  duty  as  man;  for  Anselm  dis 
tinctly  makes  the  obedience  as  human  as  the  death. 
But  if  the  death  was  the  requisite  satisfaction  for  the 
injured  honour,  then,  although  He  was  exempt  from 
death  regarded  as  the  punishment  of  sin,  He  must 
die  to  restore  the  honour.  In  which  case  the  death 
was  not  voluntary,  in  Anselm's  sense  of  suffering 
what  He  was  under  no  obligation  to  undergo.  Hence, 
according  to  the  theory,  it  was  not  a  gift  over  and 
above  what  was  due,  and  it  was  not  priceless  in 
value;  it  lacked  the  quality  of  either  surplus  or 
superlative  merit  which  would  make  it  a  satisfaction 
that  could  be  carried  to  the  account  of  sinners.1 
Being  a  human  death,  the  dignity  of  the  Divine 
person  could  not  have  made  it  infinite  from  any 
point  of  view.2  On  the  other  hand,  if  it  was  volun 
tary  and  yet  not  a  part  of  His  obligation,  the  death 
was  not  a  personal  obedience,  but  a  mere  material 
payment  or  compensation.  Or,  in  a  word,  if  the 
death  of  Christ  was  no  part  of  His  duty,  it  was  not 
a  personal  satisfaction  and  had  only  the  ethical  sig 
nificance  of  a  bank-note ;  if  it  was  personal,  then  He 
owed  it  to  God  and  could  not  claim  it  as  a  merit  or 
yground  of  satisfaction.3 

1  Oxenham,  Cath.  Doct.  of  At,  pp.  186-188. 

*  The  distinction  between  the  Divine  and  human  natures  as 
subjects  betrayed  him  into  other  difficulties.  See  later  on  Nestorian 
defect. 

8  Ritschl,  ubi  supra;  Harnack,  VI.  72,     It  does  not  follow,  as 


152    ANSELM   ON  THE   ATONEMENT 

(b)  The  theory,  however,  is  destroyed  by  Anselm 
himself.  The  loss  of  God's  honour  is  the  basis  of 
his  whole  reasoning;  but  he  admits  that  God  can 
suffer  no  objective  loss  of  this  kind.  "It  is  impossible 
for  God  to  lose  His  own  honour"  (i.  14,  2).  " Nothing 
can  be  added  to  or  taken  from  the  honour  of  God 
absolutely  [quantum  ad  ilium  pertinet].  For  this 
honour,  like  Himself,  is  incorruptible,  and  in  no 
way  subject  to  change"  (i.  15,  2).  "It  is  plain, 
therefore,  that  no  one  can  honour  or  dishonour  God 
as  He  is  in  Himself;  but  any  one  seems  to  do  it,  so 
far  as  it  is  in  his  power,  when  he  submits  or  with 
holds  his  will  from  the  will  of  God"  (i.  15,  12).  The 
too  complaisant  Boso  may  reply:  "I  do  not  know 
that  I  can  say  anything  against  this";  but  in  fact 
the  argument,  notwithstanding  all  its  acuteness,  is 
utterly  vitiated  by  this  contradiction.1 

Dr.  Baur  gives  the  most  plausible  statement  of 
Anselm's  distinction  between  the  essential  honour 
which  is  immanent  and  inviolable,  and  the  exterior 
honour  which  consists  in  the  order  of  the  world  and 
which  we  may  either  respect  or  violate.2  This  dis 
tinction  undoubtedly  is  made;  but  it  does  not  help 
our  author's  case,  as  he  himself  indicates  by  such 

RitschI  asserts,  that  Anselm  was  not  influenced  by  the  analogy  of 
the  Wergeld,  but  only  that  he  failed  to  apply  it  consistently. 

1  Hagenbach,  Hist.  Doct.,  II.  45;  Harnack,  Hist.  Dogm., 
VI.  72. 

3  Christ.  Lehre,  pp.  173  sq. 


THE   ANSELMIC   THEORY          153 

words  as  "seems,"  "as  if"  (i.  9  and  15).  If  the 
honour  that  was  lost  is  the  moral  order  of  the  uni 
verse,  if  the  outrage  upon  that  honour  is  our  refusal 
of  obedience  to  the  moral  order,  then  the  necessary 
reparation  cannot  be  an  act  of  satisfaction  which 
purports  to  supply  a  past  deficiency,  but  a  restora 
tion  of  the  order  by  the  sinner's  own  obedience. 
What  God  exacts  for  our  refusal  to  obey  His  laws 
and  recognise  His  authority  is  a  reversal  of  our  atti 
tude,  combined  with  an  inevitable  endurance  of 
spiritual  penalty.  But  Anselm  degrades  the  demand 
and  longing  for  submission  to  the  moral  order  into  a 
sense  of  injured  dignity,  more  suited  to  a  petty 
potentate  than  the  Ruler  of  the  universe  who  is  also 
the  Father  of  men.  By  reducing  the  honour  or 
glory  of  God  from  the  noble  idea  that  it  is  synony 
mous  with  His  character  to  the  shallow  conception  of 
a  prestige  which  must  be  saved  from  insult,  he  ex 
ternalises  and  conventionalises  the  Divine  relation 
to  us,  and  deprives  God's  personal  claim  of  all  moral 
significance.  What  he  calls  God's  honour  is  very 
ill  expressed  by  such  a  term,  and  requires  no  such 
elaborate  satisfaction  as  he  outlines ;  the  injury  done 
to  it  calls  for  simpler  and  yet  profounder  atonement. 
The  distinction  between  intrinsic  and  external 
honour,  then,  simply  helps  to  involve  the  argument 
in  utter  confusion  and  contradiction.1 

1  The  judicial  fictions  of  the  Germanic  law  were  not  moral, 
and  have  been  outgrown  in  the  laws  of  modern  nations.    The 


154     ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

(2)    The  Idea  of  Satisfaction 

This  refers  to  the  human  obligation  as  the  idea 
of  honour  does  to  the  Divine  claim.  It  may  there 
fore  be  ascribed  to  the  same  institutional  origin. 
But,  considered  by  itself,  as  the  payment  of  a  debt, 
it  allies  itself  with  those  other  externalising  insti 
tutions,  the  penal  requirement  of  the  Wergeld  and 
the  ecclesiastical  practice  of  commutation. 

(a)   The  conception  of  sin  as  debt. 

The  use  of  this  figure  was  justified  both  by  the 
Scriptures  and  the  Fathers,  though  probably  de 
rived  from  neither.  As  Anselm  was  familiar  with 
the  parable  of  the  Unmerciful  Servant,  it  is  strange 
that  he  should  have  so  completely  missed  both  its 
surface  statement  and  its  deeper  meaning.  His 
thought  of  sin  as  debt  necessitates  a  payment  by  the 
debtor  or  his  substitute ;  the  Scriptural  idea  is  as 
sociated  not  with  payment,  but  with  forgiveness 
(St.  Matt.  vi.  12;  xviii.  27;  St.  Luke  vii.  42).  The 
patristic  treatment  of  debt  is  equally  far  removed 
from  Anselm's,  especially  as  it  is  seen  in  Athanasius. 
That  was  not  the  compensation  for  a  loss,  but  the 
fulfilment  of  a  law  which  demanded  death  as  the 
penalty  of  sin.  The  analogy  was  not  commercial, 

atmosphere  of  thought  has  so  changed  that  these  notions  can  no 
longer  live  in  it. 


THE   ANSELMIC   THEORY  155 

but  ethical;  whereas  Anselm  made  no  distinction 
between  pecuniary  and  moral  debts.  However,  the 
one  represents  a  thing  demanded  and  given,  the 
other  a  personal  failure  whose  liability  cannot  be 
transferred.  But  the  obligation  to  restore  God's  * 
honour  is  entirely  impersonal  and  unmoral,  because 
it  may  be  evaded  by  the  debtor  and  passed  over  to 
One  who  is  not  Himself  bound  to  fulfil  it.  Moreover, 
sin  is  to  be  measured  not  by  its  effects  upon  God, 
but  by  its  motive  and  intention,  and  its  relation  to 
righteousness;  there  all  its  ethical  quality  lies. 
Consequently,  it  is  idle  to  establish  a  quantitative 
relation  between  the  sum  of  human  sin  and  Christ's 
merits,  and  to  make  a  single  sin  equivalent  to  an 
infinite  debt.1  The  conception  therefore  is  neither 
Scriptural  nor  patristic,  and  is  seen  to  be  hopelessly 
unsatisfactory  as  soon  as  we  consider  the  payment 
of  the  debt. 

He  has  no  understanding  of  a  real  salvation  be 
cause  he  has  no  real  understanding  of  sin.  It  is 
represented  as  something  momentous  in  its  effects 
upon  both  God  and  man,  but  its  true  ethical  char 
acter  is  never  discerned.  It  is  not  to  him  an  "offence 
against  inherent  right  and  truth,"  against  the  reason 
able  principles  of  righteousness  or  the  loving  heart  of 

1  He  strives  to  make  this  seem  reasonable  (i.  21),  but 
it  is  a  useless  attempt  to  maintain  the  validity  of  Augustin's 
amphiboly. 


156     ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

a  Father ;  it  is  not  disunity  of  spirit  or  perversion  of 
will  or  depravation  of  nature.  It  is  an  affront  to  a 
great  dignitary,  a  laesa  majestas,  an  outward  act  of 
refusal  to  pay  what  is  due.  As  Dr.  Stevens  says: 

•  "According  to  this  theory,  sin  is  high  treason,  not 
moral    corruption;    it    is    not    a    character;    it  re 
mains  outside  the  human  conscience;   it  is,  indeed, 
a  great  fault,  but   it  is   hardly  a    moral  fault;    it 
is  sternly  condemned,  but  not  by  holiness  in  God 
or   conscience   in   man.  ...  It   would   be   difficult 
to  name  any  prominent  treatise  on  atonement  whose 
conception   of    sin   is  so  essentially   unethical    and 
superficial." 

As  this  notion  of  sin  is  so  unreal  and  irrelevant  to 
man's  need  of  an  actual  salvation,  the  analogy  of  it 
as  debt  is  necessarily  misleading.  A  personal  quality 
cannot  be  treated  as  similar  to  a  pecuniary  or  legal 
liability.  It  cannot  be  measured,  or  compared  in 
quantity,  or  offset  by  an  equivalent.  It  is  not  an 
obligation  that  may  be  shifted  to  another  or  assumed 
by  him.  So  far  as  the  past  is  concerned,  it  does  not 
represent  anything  that  may  be  paid ;  it  may  be  for 
given,  it  may  be  altered,  but  it  does  not  admit  of 

*  compensation.    But  Anselm's  theory  has  no  reference 
to  the  personal  or  the  qualitative  idea;    and  such 
language  as  the  following  is  fundamental:    "secun- 
dum  mensuram  peccati  oportet  satisfactionem  esse" 

»  Op.  cit.,  p.  242. 


THE   ANSELMIC   THEORY          157 

(i.  20,  1);  "patet  quia  secundum  quantitatem  exigit 
Deus  satisfactionem"  (i.  21,  13).1 

(b)    Christ's  death  as  a  satisfaction. 

Until  evidence  is  forthcoming  that  Cyprian  de 
scribed  Christ's  work  as  a  satisfaction,  we  may 
consider  that  Anselm  was  the  first  to  use  the  term 
as  part  of  a  theory.  The  fact  that  the  Church  had  to 
wait  a  thousand  years  for  such  a  philosophy  of  the 

1  Baur,  Christ.  Lehre,  p.  188.  "His  question  is  conceived 
arithmetically,  and  raised  really  in  terms  of  arithmetic.  What 
wonder  if  the  conclusion  reached  is  also  arithmetical?  'Non  est 
aliud  peccare  quam  Deo  non  reddere  debitum.'  Here  is  a  defini 
tion  which  —  though  true  no  doubt  as  far  as  it  goes  —  is  fatal. 
It  makes  sin  in  its  essence  quantitative,  and,  as  quantitative, 
external  to  the  self  of  the  sinner,  and  measurable,  as  if  it  had  a  self, 
in  itself.  The  problem  caused  by  sin  is  exhibited  as  if  it  were  a 
faulty  equation,  which  by  fresh  balancing  of  quantities  is  to  be 
equated  aright.  But,  in  fact,  sin  is  not  in  what  I  do  so  really  as  in 
what  I  am.  What  I  am  may  be  evidenced,  nay,  may  be  actualized, 
through  what  I  do.  Yet  the  sin  lies  not  in  the  deed,  as  deed ;  but  in 
the  'I',  as  doer  of  the  deed.  The  'I'  is  not  distinguishable  from 
the  sin.  The  sin  is  within  the 'I.'  It  is  in  what 'I' am.  It  follows 
that  it  is  an  impossibility,  in  any  full  sense  of  the  words,  'dimittere 
peccatum,'  so  long  as,  in  real  fact,  '  peccatum  '  remains.  But  if  sin 
is  within  the  'I,'  it  does  remain  until  the  'I'  be  changed.  It  is  an 
essential  alteration  of  the  very  constitution  of  the  'I,'  not  a  trans 
action  or  equation  external  to  the  'I,'  in  which  the  true  forgiveness 
of  sins  finds  its  meaning.  There  could  hardly  be  a  better  illustra 
tion  than  the  Cur  Deus  Homo,  of  the  inherent  failure  of  any  ex 
position  of  atonement,  which  is  not,  at  every  turn,  in  terms  of 
personality ;  which  does  not  find,  in  all  the  terms  concerned,  in  sin, 
in  punishment,  in  penitence,  in  forgiveness,  in  atonement,  mean 
ings  which,  if  conceived  of  apart  from  personality,  and  not  as 
aspects,  or  states,  or  possibilities  of  personality,  would  rapidly 
become  no  meanings  at  all"  (Moberly,  Atonement  and  Personality, 
pp.  370  *?.).  ^~- 


158     ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

Atonement  suggests  the  strongest  doubt  of  its  truth, 
apart  from  any  question  of  the  interpretation  itself. 
But  the  theory  is  open  to  fatal  objections,  both  on 
speculative  grounds  and  on  account  of  its  disagree 
ment  with  the  New  Testatment. 

The  obedience  of  Christ  unto  death  was  not  a 
satisfaction  of  God's  demands  upon  men.  Anselm 
proposes  only  two  modes  of  satisfying  God's  honour, 
punishment  and  vicarious  payment,  but  neither  of 
them  can  satisfy  God.  The  honour  of  God  is  what 
the  Bible  calls  His  glory.  But  His  glory  is  not  an 
external  dignity  that  may  be  imperilled  and  out 
raged;  it  is  inseparably  associated  with  His  char 
acter.  Anselm,  of  course,  specifically  distinguishes 
satisfaction  from  punishment;  but  he  particularly 
admits  that  God's  honour  may  be  vindicated  by 
punishment  (i.  14,  3-6),  and  because  this  would 
"serve  the  purpose  of  His  honour"  it  must  be 
thought  of  as  a  possible  (though  rejected)  satisfac 
tion  of  His  requirements. 

Now,  punishment  for  sin  comes  inevitably,  but  its 
visitation  is  no  satisfaction  to  the  Divine  righteous 
ness,  except  as  that  righteousness  is  involved  in  the 
operation  of  the  law  of  sin  and  penalty.  In  interpret 
ing  the  work  of  Christ  by  means  of  the  analogies  of 
mediaeval  sovereignty,  Anselm  was  misled  by  the 
defects  and  temporary  value  of  that  system,  to  which 
indeed  he  could  not  be  alive.  A  feudal  monarch 


THE   ANSELMIC   THEORY  159 

might  not  be  able  to  rise  above  a  sensitiveness  to  his 
personal  honour,  and  might  be  satisfied  with  in 
different  amends  for  slights  upon  it.  But  God  is  not 
a  monarch,  much  less  a  mediaeval  monarch.  He 
cannot  be  satisfied  with  the  punishment  of  the  sinner 
or  any  one  else.  He  would  not  be  glorified,  that  is, 
His  honour  would  not  be  restored,  by  the  perdition 
of  all  mankind :  a  lost  soul  is  not  a  satisfaction  but 
an  eternal  loss  to  God.  The  grandeur  of  the  Biblical 
description  of  a  Father  is  that  it  shows  that  nothing 
can  satisfy  the  righteous  love,  which  is  the  synonym 
for  His  character,  but  the  fulfilment  of  His  desire 
for  His  children's  obedience.1 

This  is  the  strange  and  radical  misunderstanding 
of  the  theory  —  that  something  else  will  satisfy  a 
Father  than  the  one  thing  upon  which  He  has  set 
His  heart,  that  punishment  is  a  conceivable  alterna 
tive  for  the  restoration  of  God's  honour.  He  can  be 
satisfied  only  by  our  redemption,  by  a  filial  return 
not  a  legal  payment,  by  a  positive  righteousness  not 
a  passive  endurance  of  penalty,  by  an  actual  response 
to  His  demand  of  goodness  not  by  a  material  and 
juristic  requital  of  pain  or  a  formal  equation.  In  the 
modern  retention  of  the  word,  this  is  the  ethical 

1  Anselm  makes  God  act  in  His  own  interests  rather  than 
ours;  an  objection  raised  by  Boso,  and  not  answered  by  Anselm 
(ii.  4,  5).  Hence  he  fails  to  manifest  the  Divine  love  in  dwelling 
upon  the  personal  resentment,  the  enforcement  of  personal  claim, 
and  the  content  with  an  inadequate  satisfaction. 


160     ANSELM   ON  THE   ATONEMENT 

sense  we  put  upon  it :  "  God  is  not  satisfied  except 
by  really  saving  us."  1  "How  could  the  Father  be 
satisfied  with  the  death  of  Christ,  unless  He  saw  in 
the  sacrifice  mirrored  His  own  love  ?  —  for  God  can 
be  satisfied  only  with  that  which  is  as  perfect  as 
Himself.  Agony  doesn't  satisfy  God;  agony  only 
satisfied  Moloch.  Nothing  satisfies  God  but  the 
voluntary  sacrifice  of  love."2 

But  Anselm  says  that  God  accepts  another  satis 
faction  in  lieu  of  punishment;  and  even  that  cannot 
satisfy  Him.  The  question  of  another's  obedience 
substituted  for  what  He  demands  of  each  individual 
may  be  deferred  for  the  present.  Even  if  it  could  be 
accepted,  it  could  not  satisfy  the  longings  of  the 
Divine  nature,  which  underlie  any  expression  of 
His  law.  The  obedience  which  man  failed  to  render 
is  conceived  according  to  the  feudal  notion  of  the 
service  of  a  vassal;  and  Christ's  rendering  of  this 
service  is  —  if  not  a  mercantile  transaction,  as  it  has 
sometimes  been  called  —  a  thoroughly  unspiritual 
and  external  conception  of  what  would  satisfy  the 
righteousness  of  God.  If  only  such  a  service  is  re 
quired,  it  is  easy  to  understand  why  Anselm  did  not 
appreciate  the  ethical  difficulties  of  his  system,  and 
why  the  Divine  honour  was  so  easily  restored.  But 
it  quite  overlooks  the  inner  relation  between  sin  and 

1  Stevens,  op.  cit.,  p.  210. 

8  F.  W.  Robertson,  Sermons,  second  series,  p.  301. 


THE   ANSELMIC   THEORY          161 

a  true  satisfaction.  Dr.  Dale  says:  "The  Atone 
ment  is  ...  an  act  of  homage  having  such  tran 
scendent  value  that  it  outweighs  the  sins  of  mankind, 
and  creates  an  adequate  reason  for  remitting  them"  * 
(p.  284).  This  corresponds  to  Anselm's  view  that 
"escape  from  the  punishment  of  sin  is  the  highest 
deliverance  which  the  redemption  in  Christ  accom 
plished."  1  But  it  is  a  very  poor  rendering  of  the 
Scriptural  thought  of  freedom  from  sin  and  union 
with  Christ,  to  make  forgiveness  mean  only  acquittal 
or  the  suspension  of  penalty.  Anselm's  conception 
of  sin,  however,  had  been  too  much  externalised  by 
the  system  of  penances  for  him  to  have  a  true  under 
standing  of  the  punishment  of  sin.  The  outward 
act  only  could  be  estimated  for  the  purposes  of  dis 
cipline,  and  naturally  the  adventitious  penalty  was 
thought  of  rather  than  the  essential.  It  is  a  very 
light  valuation  of  the  consequence  of  sin  which 
makes  it  to  consist  in  physical  death;  but  that 
seems  to  be  Anselm's  idea  of  its  severest  result. 
From  this  point  of  view  it  is  merely  judicial,  dis 
connected,  arbitrary,  not  natural  and  organic.  The 
modern  analogies  are  biological  rather  than  legal, 
and  the  penalties  of  sin  are  perceived  to  be  not  ex 
trinsic,  but  inherent  and  inevitable.  The  sinful  act 
punishes  itself  with  the  capacity  and  likelihood  of 
further  sinning,  and  it  continues  so  to  do  as  long  as 

1  Allen,  Christian  Institutions,  p.  366. 
11 


162     ANSELM  ON  THE  ATONEMENT 

its  source  remains  in  the  soul.  The  sinful  state  is 
itself  the  dreadful  penalty,  and  that  is  entirely  ig 
nored  :  no  external  satisfaction  can  affect  this.  "The 
damage  suffered  is  internal  to  the  man,"  and  hence 
the  relief  needed  is  a  new  internal  right  relation  with 
God.  The  sinful  will  is  the  cause,  and  the  sinful 
habit  or  character  is  the  effect;  and  the  thing  re 
quired  to  obviate  this  penal  effect  is  something  to 
operate  upon  its  cause.  No  amends,  even  by  the 
Son  of  God  Himself,  can  of  itself  remove  the  punish 
ment  of  the  state  of  sin,  the  deterioration  of  the 
spiritual  life.  Even  if  we  could  admit  that  Christ's 
work  were  best  regarded  as  a  shield  from  the  law's 
justice,  "a  cut-off  of  the  natural  consequences  of 
wrongdoing,"  it  would  still  not  be  a  satisfaction  in 
the  sense  of  Anselm ;  because  it  would  not  touch  the 
most  serious  and  awful  of  those  consequences.  They 
can  be  done  away  only  by  a  literal  reparation,  not 
by  an  indemnification.  If  satisfaction  is  in  lieu 
of  punishment,  and  is  accepted  as  the  equivalent  of 
punishment,  which  thenceforth  may  not  be  visited 
upon  the  man  for  whom  Christ  died,  then  Christ's 
payment  of  the  debt  is  not  a  satisfaction  because 
the  worst  part  of  the  punishment  is  not  provided 
for.1 

Besides,  the  satisfaction  which  is  said  to  have 

'    l  See,  for  full  discussion,  J.  M.  Whiton,  Divine  Satisfaction, 
and  John  Young,  Life  and  Light  of  Men. 


THE    ANSELMIC    THEORY          163 

averted  the  punishment  was  an  opus  supereroga-' 
tionis,  which  is  the  fatal  flaw  in  the  notion  of  Indul 
gences  and  the  treasury  of  merit.  The  idea  that  a 
man  could  do  all  that  was  required  of  him,  and  more, 
reveals  a  crude  apprehension  of  what  will  satisfy 
the  heart  of  the  Father  of  men.  This  theory  of  satis 
faction  corresponds  to  nothing  whatever  in  our  ex 
perience  or  in  our  conscience.  Instead  of  contenting 
conscience,  it  excites  its  scruples  and  critical  judg 
ment.  Instead  of  being  confirmed  .by  experience,  we 
do  as  a  matter  of  fact  endure  many  penalties  of  sin 
for  which  full  satisfaction  is  said  to  have  been  made. 
But  Anselm  teaches  satisfaction  instead  of  punish 
ment,  and  hence  penalties  can  no  longer  be  justly 
visited  upon  us;  nevertheless,  they  are  visited,  and 
therefore  there  has  been  no  such  satisfaction. 

Again,  if  the  death  of  Christ  were  accepted  as  a 
genuine  satisfaction,  it  would  nullify  the  Divine  for 
giveness.  Anselm  foresaw  this  serious  difficulty, 
which  is  suggested  by  Boso  and  is  not  answered,  and 
remains  unanswered  to  this  day  in  connection  with 
any  form  of  the  theory.  "But  how  is  it  that  we  say 
to  God,  'Forgive  us  our  debts,'  and  every  nation 
prays  to  the  God  in  Whom  it  believes,  that  He  would 
forgive  their  sins  ?  For  if  we  pay  what  we  owe,  why 
do  we  pray  Him  to  forgive?  For  is  God  unjust,  to 
demand  again  what  has  been  paid?  But  if  we  do  not 
pay,  why  do  we  pray  in  vain  that  Pie  would  do  what 


164    ANSELM    ON    THE   ATONEMENT 

He  cannot  because  it  is  unseemly?"  (i.  19,  15  and  16). 
Anselm  evades  the  point:  "It  is  not  needful  now  to 
answer  as  to  this.  For  when  you  learn  why  Christ 
died,  perhaps  you  will  see  for  yourself  what  you  are 
asking."  All  that  he  offers  is  the  following:  "He 
who  does  not  pay  says  in  vain,  *  Forgive,'  but  he  who 
pays  asks  for  pardon ;  for  the  very  fact  that  he  asks 
is  part  of  the  payment.1  For  God  owes  no  man  any 
thing,  but  every  creature  is  in  debt  to  Him ;  and  so 
it  is  not  proper  for  a  man  to  deal  with  God  as  an 
equal  with  an  equal."2  To  this  Boso  as  usual  re 
plies,  "Sufficit  nunc  mihi " ;  but  the  explanation  does 
not  suffice. 

The  satisfaction  of  Christ  was  the  discharge  of 
man's  debt;  consequent  upon  that  payment  there 
can  be  no  forgiveness,  for  there  is  nothing  to  forgive. 
When  every  debt  incurred  in  the  past  or  possible  in 
the  future  has  been  abundantly  paid  many  times 
over,  it  is  unjust  to  consider  man  a  debtor ;  the  more 
than  sufficient  satisfaction  makes  it  an  act  of  justice 
to  declare  man  free  of  debt.  But  precisely  because 
it  is  thus  an  act  of  justice,  it  is  not  then  an  act  of 
mercy.  There  can  be  no  compassion  or  generosity 


1  He  is  talking  of  our  prayers,  though  he  may  identify  Christ 
who  pays  with  us  who  pray.  In  any  case,  our  supplication  is  made 
part  of  the  payment,  and  so  Christ  has  not  completely  satisfied  for 
us. 

J  The  justice  of  forgiving  a  paid  debt  is  further  asserted  in 
ii.  20. 


COLUEQE, 
THE    ANSELMIC    THEORY         165 

in  foregoing  a  claim  which  has  been  paid  to  the  utter 
most  farthing.  Either  the  debt  has  been  fully  paid, 
and  there  can  be  no  forgiveness;  or  enough  debt 
remains  to  be  forgiven,  and  then  there  has  been  no 
satisfaction:  the  two  thoughts  are  wholly  incom 
patible.  The  force  of  this  contention  is  admitted 
by  many  advocates  of  passive  satisfaction,1  and  is 
boldly  asserted  by  Dr.  Charles  Hodge:  "It  is  a 
simple  matter  of  commutative  justice,  a  quid  pro  quo, 
so  much  for  so  much.  There  can  be  no  condescen 
sion,  mercy  or  grace  on  the  part  of  a  creditor  re 
ceiving  the  payment  of  a  debt." 2  Archbishop 
Thomson  in  Aids  to  Faith  reminds  objectors  that 
they  have  simply  revived  an  idea  of  Socinus.  But 
Llewelyn  Davies  wisely  answered:  "Such  a  taunt 
is  adequately  met  by  the  manly  reply  of  Gro- 
tius:  'Neque  me  pudeat  consentire  Socino,  si 
quando  is  in  veram  veteremque  sententiam 
incidit.'  "  3 

Dr.  Harnack  well  calls  it  a  "terrible  idea"  that 
it  is  impossible  for  God  freely  to  remit  our  debts  to 
Him.  Anselm  is  opposed  to  the  entire  previous 

1  E.  g.,  C.  Jerram,  A  Treatise  an  the  Doctrine  of  Atonement, 
p.  43;  Paton  J.  Gloag  in  The  Atonement:  A  Clerical  Symposium, 
p.  257. 

2  Syst.  Theol.,  II.  470.    Dr.  Briggs  says:   "Forgiveness  of  Sin 
and  Pardon  of  Sin  are  not  found  in  the  indexes  of  the  doctrinal 
systems  of  Dr.  Shedd,  Dr.  Charles  Hodge,  and  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge  " 
(How  Shall  We  Revise?  p.  13). 

8  Tracts  for  Priests  and  People,  xiii.  35. 


166     ANSELM    ON    THE    ATONEMENT 

history  of  the  doctrine  in  holding  to  it.  The  Scrip 
tural  teaching  and  the  creedal  confession  of  the 
" forgiveness  of  sins"  are  lost  in  a  philosophy  which 
is  not  even  consistent  with  itself.  It  makes  impossi 
ble  the  imitation  of  God,  whose  precepts  enjoin  for 
giveness,  but  whose  justice  exacts  satisfaction.  It 
not  only  deprives  the  manifestation  of  God's  love  of 
its  grace,  but  it  leaves  no  room  for  the  motive  of 
love  in  our  redemption.  It  represents  Him  as  in 
exorable,  not  as  merciful.  If  His  honour  requires 
indemnification,  He  sent  His  Son  into  the  world  for 
His  own  sake,  not  for  ours  (see  ii.  5) ;  it  was  an  in 
herent  obligation  of  His  own  nature  to  itself.1  And 
this  obligation  was  not  to  His  nature  of  love,  but  to 
His  attribute  of  justice.  If  infinite  justice  demands 
its  due,  what  sphere  of  activity  has  infinite  love  ? 
There  must  be  a  necessity  for  our  redemption  in  the 
eternal  nature  of  His  love ;  to  centre  theology  in  His 
justice  is  paganism,  not  Christianity.  And  yet  a  dis 
tinguished  theologian  says:  "Justice  is  the  most 
central  attribute  of  the  Divine  nature.  God  is  in  no 
sense  bound  to  show  mercy,  but  He  is  inevitably 
bound  to  punish  sin."  But  if  there  be  any  meaning 
in  His  name  of  Father,  He  is  at  least  as  much  bound 
to  be  pitiful  as  to  be  just.  So  that  this  theory  of 
satisfaction  annuls  the  most  essential  truth  of  the 
Gospel.  "It  paints  God  as  acting  altogether  unlike 
1  Oxenham,  pp.  187  sq. 


THE    ANSELMIC    THEORY          1G7 

God,  in  order  that  He  might  be  enabled  to  act  like 
God."  1 

(3)    The  Forensic  Form  of  the  Theory 

"The  Latin  divine  succeeded  to  the  Roman  ad 
vocate,"  and  naturally  theology  was  expressed  in 
the  familiar  terms  of  Roman  jurisprudence.2     The 
juristic  conception  of  satisfaction  belonged  also  to  a 
time  when  a  child's  relation  to  his  father  was  severely 
legal,  and  was  made  more  natural  to  Anselm  by  the 
fact  that  the  Norman  was  "a  born  lawyer."  3    Thus 
his  doctrine,  as  all  succeeding  forms  of  it,  was  "shot 
through  with  colours  drawn  from  the  corruption  of 
Roman  society,  from  the  Roman  sense  of  authority 
and  the  Roman  forms  of  justice."  4     "The  law  be 
came  an  abstraction  to  be  set  beside  the  throne  of 
God  Himself,  and  to  which  His  other  attributes 
must  conform."  5    In  this  respect  also  the  theory  is 
institulional. 

God  is  not  thought  of  as  a  Father,  but  as  a  Judge 

1  John  Hyde,  Trad.    The  parables  of  our  Lord  picture  a  free 
forgiveness  — the  two  Debtors,    the    Prodigal,    the    Unmerciful 
Servant. 

2  Stanley,  Eastern  Church,  pp.  Ill,  112 :   "The  subtleties  of  the 
Roman  law  as  applied  to  the  relations  of  God  and  mnn  .  .  .  are 
almost  unknown  in  the  East."    See  also  J .  B.  Heard,  Old  and  New 
Theology,  cap.  ix. 

8  Encyc.  Brit.,  XVH.  548. 

4  T.  T.  Munger,  The  Freedom  of  Faith,  p.  21. 

8  J.  B.  Heard,  Alexandrian  and  Carthaginian  Theology,  p.  54. 


168    ANSELM    ON    THE    ATONEMENT 

or  a  Teutonic  Over-lord.1  The  government  of  this 
sovereign  was  "not  one  of  redeeming  love,  but  of 
imperial,  inexorable  justice."2  "The  absoluteness 
of  sovereign  love  was  too  much  conceived  of  as  the 
love  of  an  absolute  sovereignty."  3  This  was  not  the 
Scriptural  idea  of  a  God  near  to  us  and  dwelling 
within  us,  but  the  deistic  idea  of  One  remote  and 
transcendent.  We  are  introduced  into  the  atmos 
phere  of  a  court-room,  and  our  redemption  is  a 
purely  forensic  transaction  or  device.  There  is  no 
apprehension  of  St.  Paul's  strong  conception  of  a 
righteousness  that  must  righten,  that  is  not  in  con 
flict  with  love,  but  its  effective  and  redemptive  agent. 
The  ruling  influence  is  retributive  justice*  But  is 
the  "retributive  the  sole  element"  in  God's  relation 
to  the  sinner,  as  Dr.  Shedd  affirms  ?  5  He  says  again  : 
"All  true  scientific  development  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Atonement,  it  is  very  evident,  must  take  its  de 
parture  from  the  idea  of  Divine  justice."6  He  shows 
what  this  means:  "There  is  no  attribute  more  just 
and  necessary  than  that  punitive  righteousness  in 
nate  to  Deity  which  maintains  the  honour  of  God."  7 

The  two  notions  blend  in  the  mind  of  Anselm. 
Lyman  Abbott,  Evolution  of  Christianity,  p.  86. 
Progressive  Orthodoxy,  p.  159. 

On  the  distinction  between  righteousness  and  justice,  see 
Bushnell,  Vicarious  Sacrifice,  I.  247  sq.,  382  sq. 
Introd.  to  Aids  to  Reflection,  p.  52. 
Hist.  Doct.,  II.  216. 
7  Ibid.,  II.  278. 


THE    ANSELMIC    THEORY          169 

This  is  truly  Anselmic:  "Verum  hujusmodi  miseri- 
cordia  Dei  nimis  est  contraria  justitiae  illius,  quae 
non  nisi  poenam  permittit  reddi  propter  peccatum"  (i. 
24, 16).  It  may  be  that  justitia  demands  only  punish 
ment;  but  that  is  a  poor  equivalent  of  SiKaioavvr}. 
which  in  the  nature  of  things  brings  punishment, 
but  demands,  not  that  distinctively,  but  its  own 
likeness.  This  hard  mechanical  legality  is  com 
pletely  unethical  and  un spiritual,  because  morally 
impersonal.  It  contains  no  revelation  of  the  heart 
of  God,  and  has  no  relation  to  the  personal  life  of 
conscience  and  obedience :  it  is  technical  and  subtle 
like  a  lawyer's  brief,  external  to  the  needs  and  moral 
activities  of  the  human  soul.1 

It  is  unfortunate,  but  quite  true,  as  Archdeacon 
Wilson  says,  that  the  less  spiritual  the  forensic 
statement  is,  the  stronger  hold  it  takes  on  the  popu 
lar  imagination,  and  that  it  lends  itself  "  most  easily 
to  preaching,  by  degrading  a  spiritual  mystery  to  the 
level  of  the  understanding."  2  However  logical  and 
convincing  it  may  sound,  it  is  contrary  to  the  inmost 
spirit  of  Christianity.  The  idea  of  merit  belongs  to 


1  "  Das  Verhaltnis  Gottes  zur  Menschheit  ist  lediglich  jurlstisch 
gedacht.     Nicht  um  ein  Verhaltnis,  wie  es  zwischen  Vater  und 
Kind  besteht,  handelt  es  sich.     Daher  ist  weder  das  Wesen  der 
Siinde  noch  der  neuen  Lebens  in  der  Vergebung  der  Siinden  voll 
verstanden  worden  "  (Thomasius,  Dogmengeschichte  des  Mittel- 
alters,  bearbeitet  von  R.  Seeberg,  1889,  p.  123). 

2  The  Gospel  of  the  Atonement,  p.  80. 


170    ANSELM   ON    THE    ATONEMENT 

every  theory  of  satisfaction ;  but  it  is  unevangelical 
and  legal,  and  characteristic  of  the  very  form  of 
thought  against  which  St.  Paul  waged  such  unceasing 
warfare.1  The  Atonement  is  "not  a  problem  in 
forensic  technicalities,  but  in  spiritual  dynamics."  2 
The  end  proposed  is  not  that  of  saving  men  from 
justice  or  from  penalty,  but  from  sin;  and  this 
ethical  end  cannot  be  accomplished  by  legal  processes. 
To  be  sure,  the  legal  may  be  regarded  as  a  low  stage 
of  the  ethical;  but  when  this  great  reality  is  ex 
pressed  in  terms  of  a  legal  transaction,  it  invariably 
lacks  intimate  moral  contact,  and  loses  the  appeal  of 
great  motives.  Instead  of  being  the  inevitable  out 
come  of  the  nature  of  God  Himself,  the  work  of 
Christ  becomes  a  mere  device  or  expedient.  There 
is  no  necessary  relation  of  the  Son  of  God  to  man,  as 
Athanasius  taught,  —  no  solidarity  between  Him 
and  mankind;  He  is  a  mere  incidental  auxiliary, 
literally  a  deus  ex  machina;  and  the  reward  which 
He  assigns  to  sinners  is  something  exterior  to  Him 
self,  and  not  therefore  as  in  the  Scriptures  something 
of  His  very  life  and  self.3  All  that  such  a  transaction 
can  do  is  to  establish  for  us  a  legal  status  with  God ; 
it  can  never  initiate  a  moral  salvation,  for  it  is  al 
most  destitute  of  moral  implications.  But  the  rcla- 

1  Luthardt,  History  of  Christian  Ethics,  p.  811. 
1  Borden  P.  Bowne,  The  Atonement,  p.  117. 
»  Lidgett,  op.  tit.,  p.  137. 


THE    ANSELMIC    THEORY          171 

tionship  between  man  and  God  is  exclusively  moral, 
and  to  make  it  purely  legal  is  to  miss  the  essential 
point  in  the  need  for  a  work  of  redemption.1 

With  characteristic  inconsistency,  however,  after 
carefully  building  up  his  forensic  theory,  Anselm 
forsakes  the  legal  for  the  ethical.  He  says:  "To 
whom  could  He  assign  the  fruit  and  recompense  of 
His  death  more  suitably  than  to  those  ...  to  whom 
by  His  death  He  gave  an  example  of  dying  on  behalf 
of  justice?  Since  they  will  be  imitators  of  Him  in 
vain,  if  they  are  not  sharers  of  His  merit"  (ii.  19,  11. 
See  also  ii.  11,  26;  ii.  18,  3-6).  He  had  omitted  to 
say  how  man  was  to  receive  the  benefits  of  Christ's 
satisfaction,  because  he  took  it  for  granted  that  it  was 
through  the  Church.  This  had  taken  the  place  of 
the  individual  conscience,  and  he  was  governed  by 
the  institutional  idea,  and  had  no  logical  room  for 
faith  and  personal  relations.  But  in  making  the  imi 
tation  the  means  of  participation  in  the  merit  of 
Christ,  he  has  unconsciously  gone  back  to  those 
ethical  ideas  which  are  so  foreign  to  his  theory.  For 
satisfaction  may  be  valid  without  our  being  aware 
that  Christ  made  it;  but  he  realized  that  moral 
personality  requires  moral  renewal.2  But  then,  if 
satisfaction  has  been  all-sufficient,  how  will  men 
make  use  of  the  example  of  Christ?  Will  it  arouse 

1  See  Thomasius,  op.  cit.,  p.  124. 

a  Cf.  his  illustration  of  the  pearl,  i.  19,  8-12.  » 


172    ANSELM    ON    THE    ATONEMENT 

them  to  zeal  ?  Will  it  not  rather  make  sin  easier  to 
the  conscience,  because  "Jesus  paid  it  all,  all  the 
debt  we  owe"  ?  *  Satisfaction  has  reference  to  God, 
and  following  Christ's  example  belongs  to  men; 
which  involves  a  further  defect.  We  must  then  con 
sider  this  as  an  admission  by  Anselm  that  his  theory 
is  incomplete,  and  that  a  full  satisfaction  has  not  been 
made.  The  fact  is,  the  theory  "  does  not  guarantee 
to  the  individual  that  he  really  becomes  saved;  it 
aims  rather  at  only  showing  for  all  the  possibility  of 
their  being  saved."  2  He  refers  to  those  who  "believe 
in  Him"  (i.  20,  16).  He  says:  "In  what  way  we  are 
to  gain  access  to  a  share  in  so  great  a  favour,  and 
how  we  are  to  live  in  it,  Holy  Scripture  everywhere 
teaches  us"  (ii.  19,  14).  He  acknowledges  that 
"God  the  Father  says  to  the  sinner  condemned  to 
eternal  torments,  and  having  no  power  to  redeem 
himself  from  them,  'Accept  My  only-begotten  Son, 
and  give  Him  for  thyself,'"  and  "the  Son  Himself 
says,  '  Take  Me  and  redeem  thyself  '"(ii.  20).  But  a 
full  satisfaction  puts  the  sinner  where  he  was  before 
he  committed  sin,  and  accomplishes  more  than  a 
possibility  of  salvation ;  it  is  complete  exoneration 
from  penalty,  which  is  what  Anselm  understands  by 
salvation.  To  demand  conditions  of  access  to  the 

1  Church  history  proves  that  Antinomianism  is  a  natural 
sequence  of  the  theory  of  satisfaction;  but  the  believer  in  it  is 
happily  often  illogical. 

3  Hafnack,  VI.  68. 


THE    ANSELMIC    THEORY          173 

privilege  won  by  Christ  is  to  admit  that  the  satis 
faction  is  inadequate. 

(4)    The  Latent  Dualism  in  the  Theory 

Anselm  had  rejected  the  dualism  of  the  patristic 
interpretation  of  ransom,  but  his  own  theory  is 
dualistic  in  two  ways.  The  first  is  the  result  of  his 
misconception  of  God's  relation  to  us  as  Love  and 
Righteousness  as  something  legal.  /  He  created  a 
disunity  in  the  Divine  nature  by  picturing  a  conflict 
of  Divine  attributes.  He  made  such  a  complete  dis 
tinction  between  justice  and  mercy  as  to  render  an 
tagonism  possible,  and  then  arrayed  the  one  against 
the  other  by  portraying  the  one  as  demanding  what 
the  other  does  not.  This  is  a  practical  revival  of  the 
Gnosticism  of  Marcion.1  (Mercy  was  represented  as 
helpless  until  justice  was  satisfied ;  their  reconcilia 
tion  was  the  proof  of  their  previous  opposition 
(ii.  20).2  "^These  qualities  were  treated  "as  independ- 

1  Allen'  Continuity  of  Christian  Thought,  p.  56 ;  Bigg,  Chris 
tian  Platonists  of  Alexandria,  p.  290.  Marcion  regarded  justice  as 
so  antithetic  to  love  and  mercy  that  he  deemed  the  being  who  for 
gives  and  saves  as  not  the  same  as  Him  who  punishes.  Anselm, 
and  all  who  follow  him  in  this  antithesis,  fall  into  a  similar  per 
sonal  dualism. 

a  Neander  incorrectly  says  that  Pope  Innocent  III.  was  the 
first  to  refer  to  such  a  reconciliation  of  the  attributes  (Hist.  Christ. 
Dogmas,  II.  583) .  "  Anselm  was  the  first  to  formulate  the  doctrine 
that  the  forgiveness  of  unpunished  sin  would  be  incompatible  with 
the  Divine  justice"  (Tymms,  The  Christian  Idea  of  Atonement,  p. 
34).  "  Anselm  was  the  first  to  oppose,  within  the  Godhead,  the  at- 


174     ANSELM    ON   THE    ATONEMENT 

ent  entities,  each  having  a  fixed  and  definite  existence 
and  meaning  of  its  own ;  and  as,  when  taken  thus 
abstractly,  they  seem  to  involve  conflicting  results  — 
Righteousness  being  a  principle  which  demands  the 
infliction  of  deserved  penalties,  Mercy  a  principle 
which  seeks  their  remission  —  a  crude  attempt  is 
made  to  solve  the  contradiction  by  hypostat^sing 
both  attributes,  and  inducing  the  one  personified 
quality  to  accept  fictitious  concessions  or  compensa 
tions  in  order  that  the  other  may  have  its  way.  Ob 
viously,  however,  here  as  elsewhere,  the  unity  which 
is  attained  is  got  not  by  any  real  conciliation  of  differ 
ences,  but  by  explaining  away  one  side  or  aspect  of 
a  complex  truth,  in  order  to  hold  by  another  with 
which  it  seems  to  come  into  collision."  1 

tributes  of  justice  and  mercy.  .  .  .  The  gravest  consequence  of  the 
old  judicial  and  legal  point  of  view  was  that  it  introduced  an 
irreducible  dualism  into  the  Christian  conception  of  God.  ...  In 
fact,  men  have  imagined  an  internal  conflict  between  His  justice 
and  His  mercy,  so  that  He  was  not  able  to  exercise  the  one  without 
offending  the  other.  Christ,  instead  of  being  the  Saviour  of  men, 
became  an  intra-divine  mediator  whose  essential  ofBce  it  was  to 
reconcile  the  hostile  attributes  within  the  Godhead,  and  to  ensure 
peace  and  unity  within  God  Himself.  This  was  termed  high 
metaphysics;  it  was  pure  mythology"  (A.  Sabatier,  The  Atone 
ment,  pp.  69,  118  sq.).  Riviere  quotes  Gilbert  Foliot,  Bishop  of 
London  (o&.  1134),  as  an  exponent  of  the  Anselmic  doctrine: 
"  Misericordia  et  justitia  sibi  contra  venire  coeperunt.  ...  Ad 
poenas  hominem  veritas  exigebat.  de  cujus  reparatione  miseri- 
cordia  melius  aliquid  disponebat"  (Op.  cit.,  p.  354).  He  calls 
this  "un  conflit  nai'vement  imagine." 

1  John  Caird,  Philosophy  of  Religion,  p.  213.    Strauss  quite 
properly  likens  this  theorem  to  that  of  the  parallelogram  of  forces 


THE  ANSELMIC  THEORY  175 

But  such  a  division  of  the  Divine  personality  into 
fatherly  and  rectoral  attributes,  the  one  requiring  that 
the  sinner  amend  his  ways  and  the  other  that  he 
render  satisfaction  for  his  disobedience,  really  de 
stroys  the  very  idea  of  personality,  since  it  makes 
the  Divine  Being  "nothing  more  than  the  sum  of 
these  various  attributes."    In  speaking  of  the  justice 
and  mercy  of  God,  however,  we  merely  connote  a 
person  of  such  dispositions;    and  we  are  driven  to 
absurdity  by  thinking  of  the  attributes  themselves 
as  personal,  as  if  they  were  ^anything  but  different 
phases  of  the  one  character.  \The  attributes  of  God 
are  equal,  because  they  are  infinite)    If  they  could 
be  conceived  as  conflicting  —  justice  seeking  punish 
ment,  and  love  planning  rescue)—  they  would  simply 
neutralise  each  other,  and  the  sinner  could  neither 
be  saved  nor  destroyed./    In   order  to  disturb  the 
equilibrium  and  make  either  effective  against  the 
other,  another  attribute  must  be  imagined  which,  by 
the  very  terms  of  the  theory,  is  neither  just  nor 
loving.     What  is  this  but  to  break  the  unity  of  the 
Divine  Being  into  a  series  of  independent  forces? 
If  this  be  rejected  as  preposterous,  the  Person  by 
all  His  attributes  must  be  regarded  as  demanding 
the  same  thing,  and  there  can  be  no  collision  or  need 

in  mechanics:  "divine  mercy  inclining  towards  forgiveness  and 
justice  calling  for  inexorable  punishment  are  two  equal  forces, 
and  the  resulting  force  lies  in  the  diagonal  of  vicarious  satisfaction" 
(Sabatier,  op.  cit.,  p.  70). 


176     ANSELM    ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

of  reconciliation  among  them.  We  must  insist  on 
the  absolute  and  unalterable  unity  of  God,  which 
will  not  admit  of  such  oppositions  within  itself.  <^The 
work  of  Christ  was  not  the  at-one-ment  of  mercy 
and  justice,  but  the  at-one-ment  of  God  and  manS 
Such  separation  of  attributes  is  mere  rhetoric,  and, 
if  converted  into  fact,  is  essentially  pagan  and 
mythological.1 

The  second  dualistic  feature  of  the  theory  is  the 
schism  in  the  Godhead  involved  in  the  divergence  of 
the  Persons.  The  conception  of  a  transaction  be 
tween  justice  and  mercy  leads  to  that  of  a  transac 
tion  between  the  Father  and  the  Son.  This  is  the 
feudal  idea  of  the  intervention  of  a  "third  party'* 
between  God  and  man.  The  two  Divine  Persons 
come  to  represent  different  attributes,  and  so  ex 
hibit  different  characteristics.2  Anselm  followed 
the  Platonists  in  his  argument  for  the  existence  of 
God,  and  they  personified  the  attributes.3  He  made 
the  Son  correspond  to  the  intelligence  of  God,  and 

1  "The  mediaeval  thought  of  God  was  profoundly  dualistic, 
save  as  it  gained  a  seeming  unity  by  an  exaltation  of  an  unethical 
omnipotence"  (Progressive  Orthodoxy,  p.  159).  The  same  may 
be  said  of  the  whole  Latin  theology,  which,  as  Sir  Henry  Maine 
said,  is  "saturated  with  Roman  Law." 

3  "Wessel" — who  was  one  of  the  "Reformers  before  the 
Reformation"  —  "declares  that  'Christ  is  not  only  the  Mediator 
between  God  and  man,  but  is  rather  a  Mediator  for  man  between 
the  God  of  justice  and  the  God  of  mercy'"  (Stevens,  op.  cit., 
p.  152).  See  also  Dale,  p.  288;  Ritschl,  p.  113. 

3  Encyc.  Brit.,  XXI.  422. 


THE   ANSELMIC    THEORY  177 

the  Spirit  with  the  love  of  God.1  Most  of  the  scholas 
tics  agreed  that  "the  attributes  were  not  really  or 
objectively  in  God,  but  merely  human  representa 
tions  reflected,  as  it  were,  on  the  idea  of  God.'*  And 
yet  they  represented,  together  with  Anselm,  "the 
Persons  of  the  Trinity  as  corresponding  to  distinc 
tions  among  the  very  attributes  which  they  in  another 
reference  denied  to  be  distinct."  Inevitably,  in  the 
scheme  of  satisfaction,  the  Father  would  be  held  to 
be  the  rigorous  creditor  and  the  Son  the  generous 
benefactor.  There  would  be  no  escape  from  "the 
suspicion  of  moral  opposition  between  Him  who 
exacts  and  Him  who  pays  the  debt."  3  The  Son  sat 
isfies  the  justice  of  the  Father,  but  nothing  is  in 
timated  as  to  His  own  sense  of  justice  which  had  an 
equal  claim.  If  He  satisfied  Himself  as  well  as  the 
Father,  then  we  have  the  unreal  conception  of  God 
bargaining  with  Himself.  Moreover,  how  could  He 
satisfy  for  His  own  loss  of  honour  by  His  own  obe 
dience,  when  it  was  man  who  caused  the  loss  ?  But 
it  is  the  Father's  right  to  satisfaction  that  is  dwelt 
upon,  and  if  God  must  be  reconciled  to  man,  then 
our  Lord  becomes  almost  a  substitute  for  God,  in 
stead  of  His  Word  and  express  Image.  In  that  case 

1  Hagenbach,  I.  460. 

2  Encyc.  Brit.,  XXIII.  241. 

3  Bigg,  op.  cit.,  p.  290.     "Has  God  the  Father  a  different 
i    mind  from  God  the  Son  ?    Is  the  one  hard  justice,  the  other  loving 

mercy  ?  "  (Wilson,  The  Gospel  of  the  Atonement,  p.  82). 
12 


178    ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

we  are  rescued  from  the  Father,  which  is  a  far  more 
mischievous  thought  than  our  rescue  from  the  devil 
by  a  ransom.1  The  Persons  are  so  separated  that  we 
are  drawn  to  the  love  of  Christ,  but  not  to  the  love 
of  God.  Christ's  mercy  and  pity  are  beyond  ques 
tion;  but  God's  character  seems  severe,  relentless, 
and  inspires  awe,  dread,  and  even  aversion.2  But 
all  this  is  subversive  of  the  Divine  Unity,  and  there 
can  be  no  divergence,  compromise,  afterthought  or 
contrivance  within  that  unity.  "I  and  the  Father 
are  one,"  said  Christ;  and  every  representation  that 
imperils  or  overshadows  this  fact  must  be  false.  The 
theory  well  deserves  the  sarcasm  of  Harnack,  who 
includes  among  its  worst  features  "the  quite  Gnos 
tic  antagonism  between  justice  and  goodness,  the 
Father  being  the  just  One,  and  the  Son  the  good ;  the 
frightful  idea  (as  compared  with  which  the  views  of 
the  Fathers  and  the  Gnostics  are  far  to  be  preferred) 
that  mankind  are  delivered  from  the  wrathful  God; 
the  illusory  performance  [Schattenspiel]  between 
Father  and  Son,  while  the  Son  is  one  with  the 
Father;  the  illusory  performance  of  the  Son  with 
Himself,  for  according  to  Anselm  the  Son  offers  Him 
self  to  Himself"  (ii.  18).3 

1  "Better  to  Satan,  however,  than  to  the  Father  — the  most 
horrible  doctrine  of  all"  (Wilson,  Gospel  of  At,,  p.  70). 

2  Many  have  confessed  this,  who  have  known  only  the  satis 
faction  theory. 

3  Hist.  Doqma,  VI.  76,  77.    Vide  Aug.,  De  Trin.,  xm.   11. 
The  mythological  character  of  the  transaction  is  evident.     God 


THE   ANSELMIC   THEORY  179 


(5)    The  Nestorian  Element  in  the  Theory 

"From  the  time  of  Athanasius,  and  even  earlier, 
the  doctrine  of  the  Two  Natures  was  so  understood 
as  to  imply  that  the  God-Logos  is  the  Subject,  and 
He  takes  the  human  nature  into  the  unity  of  His 
Divine  Being."  l  This  led  to  such  expressions  as 
©eoTo/eo?,  "the  Word  of  God  died,"  etc.  But  in 
Anselm  the  Divine  and  human  are  separated,  so 
that  it  was  the  Man  Jesus  who  died  and  became  our 
Mediator,  and  the  Godhead  is  referred  to  only  as 
determining  the  worth  of  the  human  Person  in  His 
actions.  The  Man  obeyed,  and  the  God  claimed 
the  merit.  He  says  indeed  that  the  Logos  and  the 
Man  are  one  Person:  "Was  it  not  equally  clear, 
from  what  was  said,  that  the  Son  of  God  and  the 
Man  taken  by  Him  [notice,  "hominem"]  are  one 
person,  so  that  the  same  being  may  be  both  God  and 
man?"  (ii.  16  b,  16)  "Whence  it  was  necessary 
that  God  should  take  man  into  the  unity  of  His 
person,  so  that  he  who  in  his  own  nature  ought  to 
pay  and  could  not,  might  be  in  a  Person  who  could" 

satisfying  Himself,  or  one  Person  offering  a  gift  to  Another  and 
receiving  in  return  a  reward  to  be  passed  on  to  sinners  —  this  is 
not  only  an  account  of  experiences  within  the  Divine  Being  of 
which  we  are  told  nothing  and  of  which  we  can  know  nothing,  but 
it  is  the  baldest  and  crudest  Tritheism,  or  Ditheism,  as  Arch 
deacon  Wilson  calls  it  with  reference  to  the  two  Persons. 
1  Harwick,  VI.  73. 


180     ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

(ii.  17,  38).  The  following  also  has  an  orthodox 
sound:  "For  this  object  the  diversity  of  natures 
and  unity  of  person  in  Christ  were  of  value;  that 
whatever  needed  to  be  done  for  the  restoration  of 
men,  if  the  human  nature  could  not  do  it,  the  Divine 
nature  might,  and  if  there  were  anything  incongru 
ous  to  the  Divine  nature,  the  human  nature  might 
manifest  it.  And  yet  it  would  not  be  sometimes  one 
person  and  sometimes  another,  but  the  very  same 
person,  who  existing  perfectly  in  both  natures, 
through  the  human  might  pay  what  it  owed,  and 
through  the  Divine  [might  pay]  what  was  expedient" 
(ii.  17,  18). 

But  this  is  not  the  Athanasian  teaching  of  the 
Divine  as  the  Subject  of  all  the  theanthropic  actions. 
The  emphasis  here  is  upon  the  natures,  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  leave  the  impression,  "this  He  did  as 
God,  that  He  did  as  Man."  He  appears  to  juggle 
with  the  word  "nature,"  as  in  i.  9,  4:  "That  man, 
therefore,  owed  this  obedience  to  God  the  Father, 
and  the  human  nature  to  the  Divine  [humanitas 
divinitati] " ;  and  in  ii.  17,  88,  quoted  above,  where 
he  seems  to  approach  the  Greek  thought  of  man's 
incorporation  with  Christ:  "So  that  he  who  in  his 
own  nature  ought  to  pay  and  could  not,  might  be  in 
a  Person  who  could."  But  he  who  ought  to  pay  was 
man,  not  a  man's  human  nature;  and  the  human 
nature  of  Christ  does  not  satisfy,  but  the  Person  of 


THE   ANSELMIC  THEORY  181 

Christ  by  means  of  that  nature  which  could  die. 
Where  the  Greeks  laid  stress  on  the  God-Logos  as 
"the  Subject  of  the  redeeming  personality,"  Anselm 
really  makes  Christ  as  Man  the  subject.1  He  ad 
mits  the  Godhead,  but  does  not  make  it  more  than 
the  means  of  giving  value  to  the  acts  of  the  Manhood : 
it  is  not  the  Subject,  the  Person  who  achieves  sal 
vation  through  Incarnation,  obedience  and  death. 
This  is  a  "quite  Nestorian  diremption  of  the  Per 
son,"  "such  as  had  regularly  occurred  in  the  West 
from  the  time  of  Augustin."  In  order  to  preserve 
the  theanthropic  unity,  not  only  the  Godhead  of 
Christ  must  be  asserted,  but  His  "God-manhood" 
must  be  established. 

(6)   Satisfaction  considered  as  Substitution 

Christ  is  represented  as  paying  the  debt  for  us, 
because  we  were  unable  to  pay  it:  that  is  substitu 
tion.3  Vicarious  suffering  was  recognised  in  the 
Ante-Nicene  church,  but  Anselm  substitutes  the  in 
finite  merits  of  Christ  for  the  infinite  demerits  of 
mankind,  by  means  of  the  price  He  paid  to  justice. 
This  is  a  novelty  in  Christian  theology.* 

*  Harnack,  VI.  74. 

2  Ibid. 

3  The  Latin  idea  of  substitution  was  always  more  real  than  the 
Greek  (Harnack,  III.  314). 

4  Neander  says  that  we  do  not  find  the  satisfactio  vicaria  in 
Anselm,  but  in  Peter  Lombard  (Ch.  History,  IV.  505).    It  is  true 


182      ANSELM   ON   THE  ATONEMENT 

The  objections  to  a  literal  substitution  are  many 
and  obvious.  First,  it  is  an  impersonal,  institutional 
idea,  derived  equally  from  the  Church  discipline,  the 
Wergeld,  and  feudalism.  The  privileges  of  kinship 
are  referred  to  by  Anselm  (ii.  19,  12).  If  the  law  be 
regarded  as  impersonal,  and  the  debt  of  man  as 
well,  then  any  one  may  render  satisfaction.  But 
justice,  or  rather  righteousness,  is  God's  nature,  and 
law  is  the  expression  of  His  character,  of  Himself. 
He  demands  man's  obedience,  and  that  is  what  man 
owes.  Christ's  obedience  cannot  be  accepted  in 
place  of  ours,  because  it  is  ours  which  is  wanted. 
The  obedience  which  we  failed  to  render  cannot  be 
offered  by  any  one  else,  so  as  to  make  up  the  defi 
ciency;  because  obedience  is  personal,  and  nothing 
can  be  done  with  the  deficiency  but  to  pardon  it  or 
else  let  it  work  its  due  punishment.  One  who  is 
mystically  united  with  us,  as  our  Head,  our  Sponsor, 
our  Representative,  may  offer  His  perfect  obedience 
as  the  pledge  of  our  own,  as  the  response  of  human 
ity  to  the  requirements  of  God.  But  God  can  be 
satisfied  with  nothing  less  than  righteousness,  and 
not  even  with  that  from  any  other  than  the  one  who 

that  he  does  not  teach  the  satisfadio  passiva,  but  adiva,  which, 
however,  was  certainly  in  our  stead.  Neander  admits  this  very 
distinction  (Hist.  Dogmas,  II.  517).  The  word  "vicaria"  is  by 
many  referred  entirely  to  the  passive  satisfaction.  Thomasius  says 
of  the  death:  "as  a  gift  to  the  honour  of  God,  it  is  not  strictly 
vicarious,  but  rather  supplementary"  (Hagenbach,  II.  46). 


THE   ANSELMIC   THEORY  183 

lacks  it  and  of  whom  He  asks  it.  He  may  forgive 
our  failures,  but  not  even  His  Son  can  satisfy  His 
desire  that  we  should  obey  Him. 

Again,  the  idea  of  substitution  fails  to  distinguish 
between  a  material  and  a  moral  debt.  The  difference 
between  a  pecuniary  and  an  ethical  obligation  is 
now  generally  rccogniLed,  because  the  Anselmic 
theory  of  a  judicial  process  that  would  nowadays  be 
called  civil  has  given  way  to  the  analogy  of  ciiminal 
proceedings.  But  the  fundamental  point  remains 
untouched,  and  the  following  admissions,  chiefly 
by  believers  in  satisfaction,  may  be  applied  to 
Anselm's  satisfaction  by  substitution.  Archbishop 
Magee  says:  "Neither  guilt  nor  punishment  can  be 
conceived,  but  with  reference  to  consciousness  which 
cannot  be  transferred."  l  Anselrn  does  not  teach  that 
Christ  bore  our  punishment,  though  he  uses  the 
,  idea  of  guilt  as  indicating  our  exposure  to  penalty ; 
it  is  in  this  connection  that  we  may  claim  Magee 's 
support.  Turretin  says:  "In  a  pecuniary  debt  the 
payment  of  the  thing  owed  ipso  facto  liberates  the 
debtor  from  all  obligations  whatsoever,  because  he/e 
the  point  is  not  who  pays,  but  what  is  paid  .  .  .  The 
case  is  different  with  respect  to  a  penal  debt,  because 
in  this  case  the  obligation  respects  the  person  as  well 
as  the  thing;  the  demand  is  upon  the  person  ivho 
pays  as  well  as  the  thing  paid  .  .  .  Hence,  pecuniary 
1  Atonement  and  Sacrifice,  I.  268. 


184     ANSELM   ON  THE  ATONEMENT 

satisfaction  differs  from  penal  thus:  In  debt,  the 
demand  terminates  upon  the  thing  due.  In  crime, 
the  legal  demand  for  punishment  is  upon  the  person 
of  the  criminal."  1 

Albert  Barnes  also  rejects  the  conception  of  a 
literal  debt  and  payment,  because  our  burden  is 
"guilt,  not  a  failure  in  a  pecuniary  obligation."2 
Dr.  Charles  Hodge  asks:  "If  among  men  the  bank 
rupt  can  become  solvent  by  a  rich  man's  assuming 
his  responsibilities,  why  in  the  court  of  God  may 
not  the  guilty  become  righteous  by  the  Son  of  God's 
assuming  their  responsibilities?"3  He  has  given 
the  answer  himself:  because  we  cannot  argue  from 
pecuniary  debts  to  moral  obligations.  He  says : 
"In  the  case  of  crimes  the  matter  is  different.  The 
demand  is  then  upon  the  offender.  He  Himself  is 
amenable  to  justice.  Substitution  in  human  courts 
is  out  of  the  question.  The  essential  point  in  matters 
of  crime  is,  not  the  nature  of  the  penalty,  but  who 
shall  suffer"  (II.  470).  And  again :  demerit  "is  in 
separable  from  sin.  It  can  belong  to  no  one  who  is 

1  In  J.  M.  Armour,  Atonement  and  Law,  pp.  130, 131.   Armour 
struggles  to  evade  this  concession,  by  insisting  that  money  does  not 
pay  debts,  but  money  from  the  debtor,  or  the  substitute  who  is 
treated  as  the  debtor.    But  he  wholly  fails  to  overthrow  the  objec 
tion  that  moral  obligation  is  so  absolutely  upon  the  person  that 
another  cannot  undertake  it. 

2  The  Atonement,  p.  230.    He  also  admits  the  previous  pointy 
that,  if  there  was  satisfaction,  there  could  be  no  mercy. 

3  Syst.  Diuin.,  III.  175. 


THE   ANSELMIC  THEORY  185 

not  personally  a  sinner.  ...  It  cannot  be  trans 
ferred  from  one  person  to  another"  (11.476).  It  is 
manifest  that  this  is  equally  true  of  merit.  And 
again:  "As  -a  matter  of  mere  law,  no  satisfac 
tion  can  find  acceptance  other  than  the  literal 
suffering  of  the  penalty  by  the  criminal  in  per 
son."  1  The  principle  is  the  same  if  the  satisfaction 
is  obedience. 

Coleridge  makes  the  same  point,  as  an  objection 
to  substitution:  "Morality  commences  with,  and 
begins  in,  the  sacred  distinction  between  thing  and 
person.  On  this  distinction  all  law,  human  and 
divine,  is  grounded ;  consequently  the  law  of  justice. 
If  you  attach  any  meaning  to  the  term  justice,  as  ap 
plied  to  God,  it  must  be  the  same  to  which  you  refer 
when  you  affirm  or  deny  it  of  any  other  personal 
agent  —  save  only  that,  in  its  attribution  to  God, 
you  speak  of  it  as  unmixed  and  perfect.  .  .  .  Should 
it  be  found  irreconcilable  with  the  justice  which  the 
light  of  reason,  made  law  in  the  conscience,  dictates 
to  man,  how  much  more  must  it  be  incongruous  with 
the  all-perfect  justice  of  God."2  As  a  sample  of 
many  similar  statements  in  recent  books,  the  follow 
ing  may  be  quoted  from  Archbishop  W.  C.  Magee 
of  York  :  "  Persons  are  not  things ;  personal  feelings, 
states,  conditions,  cannot  be  made  to  change  places 


In  Armour,  ubi  supra,  p.  153. 
Aids  to  Reflection,  pp.  313,  314. 


186     ANSELM   ON   THE  ATONEMENT 

as  if  they  were  mere  material  substances."  Many 
of  the  objections  to  Substitution  do  not  apply  to  the 
Anselmic  statement;  but  the  general  thought  of 
the  foregoing  quotations  does  apply,  that  Anselm 
has  ignored  the  significance  of  a  moral  debt  and 
treated  it  as  simply  material,  as  so  external  to  the 
person  as  to  permit  of  a  transfer  of  the  duty  of 
obedience. 

The  idea  of  literal  substitution  is  really  a  survival 
of  folk-faith,  where  continually  we  see  "the  dis 
position  of  men  to  shift  upon  another  the  results  of 
their  sin."  2  But  it  cannot  for  a  moment  be  con 
sidered  as  literal,  because  it  is  an  utterly  fictitious 
proceeding,  and  confusing  to  the  moral  sense.3  It 
makes  God  violate  the  very  justice  which  is  said  to 
demand  satisfaction,  because  it  makes  Him  satisfied 
with  an  obedience  as  ours  which  is  not  ours.  This 
is  a  double  offence  against  justice :  it  foregoes  the 
claim  of  obedience  upon  the  one  who  owes  it,  and  it 
accepts  a  substitute  from  one  who  does  not  owe  it.4 
Finally,  it  logically  leads  to  Antinomianism,  as  was 
said  above,  by  its  being  a  substitute  for  our  obedience 

1  The  Atonement,  p.  103.  See  also  Moberly,  op.  cit.,  p. 
283. 

8  C.  J.  Wood,  Survivals  in  Christianity,  p.  146. 

8  "It  is  suicidal  in  theology  to  refuse  the  appeal  to  a  moral 
criterion"  (Jowett,  in  London  Library,  p.  493). 

4  This  objection  is  greatly  strengthened  when  directed  against 
the  Reformation  theory  of  substitutionary  punishment,  which  is 
not  found  in  Anselm. 


THE   ANSELMIC   THEORY  187 

in  the  future  as  well  as  in  the  past,  since  the  satis 
faction  must  cover  all  possible  needs.1 


(7)    The  Purpose  of  the  Incarnation 

The  work  is  a  defective  statement  of  the  meaning 
and  object  of  the  Incarnation,  especially  as  con 
trasted  with  the  rich  conceptions  of  Athanasius  and 
the  Greeks.  It  led  the  way  to  the  extreme  and  one 
sided  presentation  of  Christianity  as  merely  a  scheme 
of  salvation,  so  that  "the  religion  of  the  Incarnation 
was  narrowed  into  the  religion  of  the  Atonement." 
The  answer  to  the  question  in  its  title,  "Cur  Deus 
Homo  ?"  represents  the  wide  interval  between  An- 
selm  and  the  Fathers.  They  taught  that  God  be 
came  man  to  unite  us  to  Himself;  he  held  that  it 
was  to  make  satisfaction  to  His  own  outraged  dig 
nity.  They  rejoiced  in  the  Incarnate  Word  as  the 
assurance  of  the  removal  of  sin  and  the  restoration 
of  man  —  Christ  became  human  that  man  might  be 
come  divine ;  he  dwelt  upon  the  Incarnation  of  the 
Word  simply  as  the  means  of  His  offering  to  God  the 
gift  of  His  death,  by  which  the  debt  of  mankind 
might  be  fully  paid  and  the  race  exonerated^Aom 

1  If  Christ  is  conceived  as  one  with  us,  as  by  the  Greek  Fathers, 
this  would   not  apply;    but  then,  that  is  not  substitution  but 

'•    mystical  identity. 

2  Lux  Mundi,  p.  183. 


188     ANSELM  ON  THE  ATONEMENT 

the  claims  of  justice.1  They  make  the  Incarnation 
the  keynote  of  the  Gospel  system;  he  is  followed 
by  the  Reformers  in  making  central  the  death  of 
Christ.  That  is,  unlike  the  Fathers,  he  explains  the 
Incarnation  by  the  atoning  death;  thus  finding  the 
significance  of  the  Person  in  His  work,  not  seeing 
the  work  grow  out  of  the  essential  characteristics  of 
the  Person.2  Where  they  start  with  the  idea  of  God, 
he  begins  with  the  idea  of  sin:  he  builds  his  theory 
of  the  necessity  of  satisfaction  upon  the  condition 
of  servitude  and  alienation  into  which  the  race  had 
fallen,  instead  of  "the  pure  and  free  consciousness 
of  Him  who  is  the  type  of  the  normal  man,  who 
abode  in  undisturbed  communion  with  the  Father, 
and  aims  through  the  power  of  His  living  presence 
to  bring  all  men  into  the  same  relation."  3  The 
appearance  of  Christ  on  earth  became  dependent 
on  the  existence  of  sin  (i.  16-18),  instead  of  the  nat 
ural  revealing  of  the  universal  mediation  of  the 
Logos,  irrespective  of  human  sin.4 

1  He  makes  the  death  of  Christ  the  only  possible  means  of 
man's  rescue.  His  admission  that  another  method  was  conceivable 
for  Omnipotence  is  one  of  reverence;  his  whole  argument  really 
posits  the  other  idea. 

3  Heard,  Alex,  and  Carthag.  Theology,  p.  235 ;  Thomasius, 
op.  cit.,  p.  124. 

3  Allen,  Continuity  of  Christian  Thought,  p.  203. 

4  Harnack  says  that  no  Greek  theologian  bluntly  asserted  that 
Christ  would  have  become  incarnate  if  there  had    been  no   sin 
(III.  303) ;  but  it  is  frequently  implied. 


THE   ANSELMIC   THEORY  189 

But  this  reduces  the  Incarnation  to  a  mere  means 
or   condition    of   making   the    death   possible,   and 
giving  it  value.     It  makes  redemption  the  end,  to 
which  the  Incarnation  was  subordinate;    when  the 
Word's   becoming  flesh  was  the  natural  climax  of 
the  history  of  creation,  and  redemption  itself  was 
but  a  means  to  "the  reconsecration  of  the  universe 
to  God."    But  the  Scriptural  emphasis  upon  Christ's 
death  has  reference  to  a  fact,  that  it  was  actually  and 
historically  the  source  of  our  cleansing;   it  does  not 
require  the  treatment  of  the  Incarnation  as  an  after 
thought  of  God  resulting  from  the  threatened  per 
dition  of  humanity.    That  was  not  occasioned,  it  was 
only  modified,  by  the  necessities  of  our  sinful  and 
lost  state.     The  mediation  of  Christ  was  not  con 
fined  to  the  Cross ;   it  had  been  manifested  in  crea 
tion,  in  providence,  in  the  theophanies,  in  the  giving 
of  the  law.1    It  was  extended  to  His  coming  into  the 
world,  not  as  "a  pitiful  expedient  devised  to  remedy 
an  unexpected  disaster  in  the  plan  of  salvation," 
but,  as  St.  Paul  put  it,  as  part  of  the  eternal  purpose 
of  God  and  destiny  of  man.2    Anselm  makes  it  ex 
ceptional,  incidental,  having  another  and  more  im 
portant  object  than   itself,   instead   of  the   normal, 
essential,  inevitable  outgoing  of  the  nature  of  God, 
the  revelation  of  His  character  and  eternal  humanity. 

1  P.  G.  Medd,  The  One  Mediator,  passim. 
3  Vide  W.  Kirkus,  ubi  supra. 


190     ANSELM  ON  THE  ATONEMENT 

It  was  an  institutional  device,  and  hence  could  not 
occupy  the  prominent  place  assigned  to  it  through 
out  the  patristic  period.  But  the  Fathers  were  un 
doubtedly  Scriptural  in  regarding  the  Incarnation 
as  the  larger  and  more  significant  term,  inclusive  of 
the  Atonement,  primarily  and  intrinsically  impor 
tant,  the  characteristic  mystery  and  disclosure  of  the 
"good  news"  of  God.1 

(8)    The  purely  Objective  Character  of  the  Theory 

It  has  already  been  noted,  as  one  of  the  valuable 
features  of  Anselm's  work,  that  he  reminded  us  of 
the  objective  implications  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ. 
But  it  must  be  considered  as  a  defect,  that  he  repre 
sents  it  as  exclusively  objective  and  retrospective, 
a  mere  "transaction  external  to  the  selves  to  be 
atoned  for."  2  The  Fathers,  like  the  Scriptures, 
were  chiefly  occupied  with  the  effect  of  Christ's  re 
demption  upon  us;  our  author  is  engaged  solely 
with  its  effect  upon  God.  This  has  already  been  re 
ferred  to  under  preceding  sections,  but  it  is  worthy 
of  separate  mention.  It  was  the  natural  result  of  the 

1  The  contingency  of  the  Incarnation  upon  sin  is  more  often 
inferential  with  the  Latin  Fathers  than  with  the  Greeks.     The 
latter,  beginning  with  Clement,  but  excepting  Athanasius,  suggest 
what  was  plainly  stated  by  John  Scotus  Erigena  and  Duns  Scotus, 
that  God  would  have  become  man  if  there  had  been  no  Fall. 
Vide  Medd,  ubi  supra,  pp.  106-108,  500. 

2  Moberly,  op.  cit.,  p.  319. 


THE   ANSELMIC   THEORY  191 

externalised  conception  of  religion,  with  which  the 
mediaeval  Churchman  was  acquainted. 

It  is  recognised  that  Anselm's  purpose  was  to  give 
a  rational  explanation  of  the  Atonement;  but  it  is 
wholly  novel  and  unscriptural  to  confine  the  Atone 
ment  to  the  relations  between  God  and  Christ,  and 
to  ignore  the  reconciliation  between  God  and  man 
without  which  the  Atonement  is  incomplete.  The 
subjective  element  is  barely  hinted  at,  in  such  pas 
sages  as  i.  20,  16  ("credunt"),  ii.  16  a,  19;  ii.  19,  11 
("exemplum,"  "imita tores").  It  is  so  much  in  the 
background  that  he  may  be  said  to  disregard  it  al 
together  in  his  theory.  He  would  have  felt  the  less 
need  to  dwell  upon  it  because  the  Church  had  all  the 
requisite  machinery  to  apply  the  rewards  of  Christ's 
satisfaction.  But  he  had  indeed  no  room  for  faith 
as  the  condition  of  receiving  these  benefits,  or  for 
the  realization  of  personal  relations,  connoted  by 
such  a  word  as  /cara\\ayij.  Our  debt  was  only  an 
insult  to  God's  majesty,  which  might  be  atoned  for 
officially;  if  it  had  been  appreciated  as  a  personal 
deficiency  as  well,  the  theory  must  have  provided 
specifically  for  its  removal.  This  indifference  to  the 
subjective  side  of  the  work  of  Christ  certainly  makes 
the  presentation  imperfect.  It  is  so  characterised 
by  Ueberweg,  who  speaks  of  "the  transcendence  of 
the  act  of  Atonement,  in  his  view  of  it,  in  that, 
although  accomplished  through  the  humanity  of 


192     ANSELM   ON  THE  ATONEMENT 

Jesus,  it  is  represented  as  exterior  to  the  conscious 
ness  and  intention  of  the  men  to  be  redeemed,  so 
that  stress  is  laid  rather  on  the  judicial  requirement 
that  guilt  should  be  removed,  than  on  the  ethical 
requirement  of  a  purified  will."  * 

But  this  introduces  us  to  the  real  difficulty  of  an 
exclusively  objective  theory.  The  conflict  between 
God's  love  for  us  and  His  regard  for  His  own  honour, 
the  resolution  of  forces  by  means  of  the  obedience 
of  a  Divine  Person,  —  all  this  is  transcendent  and 
unknowable.  To  philosophise  about  it  is  to  talk 
most  of  what  we  can  know  least.  It  is  entirely 
independent  of  revelation,  and  is  mere  matter  of 
speculation.  It  is  being  wise  above  what  is  written 
to  pretend  to  familiarity  with  the  intimate  relations 
within  the  Deity,  with  the  precise  obstacles  in  the 
Divine  mind  to  the  fulfilment  of  His  purpose,  with 
the  exact  facts  regarding  the  "councils  of  the  Trin 
ity,"  and  all  those  well-known  accompaniments  of 
the  exclusive  objectivity  of  redemption.  It  is  not 
only  impertinent,  but  futile;  for  it  is  utterly  imagi 
nary  and  baseless  from  the  Biblical  point  of  view,  and 
it  is  fatally  clear-cut  and  defined  in  treating  of  the 
mystery  of  personality,  human  and  divine.  It  is 
not  only  the  neologian,  but  the  truly  reverent  thinker 
of  to-day,  who  coincides  with  Dr.  Hunger  in  desiring 
the  statement  of  "an  atonement  that  saves  men  by 

1  History  of  Philosophy,  I.  386. 


THE   ANSELMIC   THEORY  193 

a  traceable  process,  and  not  one  that  is  contrived  to 
explain  problems  that  may  safely  be  left  with  God."  1 
Any  attempt  to  go  beyond  this  plunges  us  into  the 
perplexities  several  times  enumerated,  the  risks  of 
Antinomianism,  and  the  dreadful  misconception 
that  the  Son  delivered  us  out  of  the  hands  of  the 
Father. 

(9)   A  Pernicious  Effect  of  the  Theory 

It  has  been  shown  that  the  penitential  system  was 
an  antecedent  of  Anselm's  thought.  His  applica 
tion  to  the  work  of  Christ  of  the  principles  underlying 
the  practice  of  discipline  deepened  their  significance 
for  the  men  of  his  time.  The  notion  of  supereroga 
tory  and  transferable  merit  and  the  custom  of  in 
dulgences  received  a  strong  enforcement  from  the 
idea  that  these  things  were  exemplified  in  the  Divine 
accomplishment  of  our  salvation.  Although  the 
theory  logically  seems  to  lead  to  Universalism  (see 
Boso  in  ii.  19),  yet  Anselm  appears  arbitrarily  to 
confine  the  benefits  of  satisfaction  to  those  who  imi 
tate  Christ.2  Being  arbitrary,  the  grace  of  pardon 
might  be  easily  appropriated  by  the  Church  on 
easier  conditions,  and  this  \vas  universally  custom 
ary.  The  very  principle  of  commutation  becoming 

1  The  Freedom  of  Faith,  p.  33. 

2  Ueberweg,  op.  cit.,  I.  386. 

13 


194     ANSELM  ON  THE  ATONEMENT 

the  interpreting  element  of  the  Cross  itself,  there  was 
nothing  needed  to  give  dogmatic  vindication  to  the 
vicious  system  of  indulgences.  The  Schoolmen  first 
reduced  the  praxis  to  a  theory;1  but  the  growing 
content  with  the  thought  of  the  work  of  Christ  as 
precisely  analogous  to  an  ecclesiastical  satisfaction 
made  the  statement  of  the  theory  extremely  simple 
and  easy.  The  "pretended  sacrament"  was  con 
verted  into  a  "revenue"  by  the  Pope,2  and  became 
such  a  crying  abomination  as  to  give  effective  im 
pulse  to  the  reforming  effort  of  Martin  Luther. 

3.  ANSELM'S  CONTEMPOBAKIES  AND  SUCCESSORS 

Anselm  did  not  succeed  in  convincing  the  School 
men  of  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries.3  They 
betray  his  influence  by  bringing  into  the  foreground 
more  prominently  than  had  been  the  custom  the 
effect  upon  God  of  the  work  of  redemption,  and  the 
meritorious  quality  of  that  work.  They  are  usually 
very  general  and  indefinite  as  to  the  way  in  which 
Christ  enables  us  to  escape  the  penalties  of  sin ;  the 
best  of  them  teaching,  with  Augustin,  that  God 
chose  the  method  most  likely  to  elicit  His  children's 

1  Kurtz,  Church  History,  Sect.  107;  Encyc.  Brit.,  XII.  847. 

a  Hooker,  Eccles.  Polity,  vi.  cap.  vi. 

8  Hagenbach,  II.  46,  47;  Harnack,  VI.  78;  Thomasius,  pp. 
125-144 ;  Joseph  Schwane,  Dogmengeschichte  der  mittleren  Zeit, 
pp.  304-327. 


THE   SCHOLASTICS  195 

love.  But  they  give  no  support  to  his  positive  theory 
for  nearly  two  hundred  years;  and  his  idea  of  the 
necessity  on  God's  part  of  the  death  of  Christ  is 
repudiated  even  by  those  who  are  claimed  as  his 
disciples,  by  Hugh  of  St.  Victor,  by  Bonaventura, 
and  by  Aquinas.1  However,  his  influence  was  felt 
by  those  who  did  not  accept  his  system,  and  survived 
even  the  rejection  of  everything  but  its  one  feature 
of  Satisfaction  at  the  Reformation.2 

a.   His  Adherents 

Several  may,  on  the  whole,  be  classed  as  his  ad 
herents  who  agree  with  his  positions  only  at  single 
points,  with  important  reservations  and  distinct 
lines  of  cleavage.  Hugh  of  St.  Victor  employs  the 
significant  word  "satisfaction."  He  admits  that  God 
requires  to  be  propitiated,  and  that  Christ  paid 
man's  debt  and  expiated  his  sin  by  His  death  and 
perfect  obedience;  but  he  parts  with  Anselm  in  the 
recognition  of  Satan's  claim,  in  the  denial  of  the 
necessity  of  the  Incarnation,  and  in  the  expres 
sion  of  a  quasi-penal  element  in  Christ's  sufferings.3 

1  Oxenham,  pp.  197,  202,  205. 

2  Seeberg  denies  that  Anselm' s  fundamental  ideas  were  gener 
ally  accepted.     On  the  contrary,  he  finds  Abelard's  much  more 
general  in  the  later  Middle  Age  (Op.  cit.,  II.  200). 

3  P.  L.,  CLXXVI.  col.  307-312;    Fisher,  op.  cit.,  p.  226; 
Oxenham,  op.  cit.,  p.  194 ;  Riviere,  op.  cit.,  pp.  339-342.    Richard 
of  St.  Victor  accepted  the  necessity  of  the  death  of  Christ  for  a 


190    ANSELM   ON  THE   ATONEMENT 

He  is  best  remembered  by  the  oft-quoted  saying: 
"Non  quia  reconciliavit  amavit,  sed  quia  amavit 
reconciliavit." 

Alexander  of  Hales  also  adopts  the  word  "satis 
faction";  but  he  uses  none  of  Anselm's  analogies 
of  the  right  of  the  suzerain  and  the  loss  of  his  honour. 
He  does  not  explain  precisely  what  he  means  by  the 
word,  except  by  insisting  that,  unless  satisfaction  is 
made,  there  is  disorder  in  the  universe.  His  state 
ment  of  the  necessity  of  the  Incarnation  is  truly 
Anselmic  —  a  necessity  not  inevitable,  but  immu 
table.  "Homo  enim  non  poterat  reddere,  sed  debe- 
bat;  Deus  poterat,  sed  non  debebat:  oportuit  ergo 
quod  solveret  homo-Deus,  homo  qui  debebat,  Deus 
qui  posset."  l  He  is  said  to  have  introduced  the  idea 
of  equivalence;  but  although  he  made  much  use  of 
the  idea,  it  was  already  familiar.2  He  also  devel 
oped  the  theory  of  a  "treasury  of  merit,"  and  helped 
to  furnish  the  doctrinal  basis  for  Indulgences.3 

Bonaventura  regarded  satisfaction  as  the  most 
fitting  mode  of  restoring  human  nature,  being  most 
consistent  with  the  Divine  justice  and  mercy.  But 
he  firmly  believed  (firmitur  credo)  that  the  race  could 
have  been  delivered  by  other  methods,  while  neither 

full  satisfaction,  "but  this  does  not  exclude  other  methods  of 
satisfaction,  or  free  forgiveness"  (Oxenham,  p.  195). 

1  Riviere,  p.  359. 

2  C/.  Lias,  The  Atonement,  p.  50. 

3  Fisher,  Hist.  Christ.  Doct.,  p.  250;  Riviere,  pp.  357-360. 


THE   SCHOLASTICS  197 

affirming  nor  denying  that  it  could  have  been  other 
wise  redeemed.  A  mere  creature  could  not  make 
satisfaction  for  the  race,  either  for  the  injury  done  to 
God  or  for  the  loss  sustained  by  Him.  He  admits 
that  man  may  make  semi-satisfactions  (semi-plenam) 
for  himself,  but  Christ's  work  is  necessary  to  com 
plete  these  by  His  merits.  A  mere  man  could  not 
make  plenary  satisfaction  for  himself,  because 
original  sin  "involves  depravation  not  only  of  will  * 
but  of  nature."  Christ  alone  could  atone  for  that, 
and  His  Passion  acts  most  fully  in  the  sacrament  of 
baptism.  The  method  of  satisfaction  is  the  noblest 
that  can  be  conceived;  and  yet  God  might  have 
saved  us  "by  way  of  mercy  and  not  of  justice,  and 
still  nothing  would  have  been  left  disordered"  (An- 
selm's  own  word,  "inordinatum")  —  here  deserting 
Anselm  at  the  most  essential  point.1 

The  system  of  Thomas  Aquinas  is  practically  the 
completed  Catholic  theology  of  the  Middle  Ages, 
especially  after  its  endorsement  in  most  particulars 
by  the  Council  of  Trent.  The  official  recognition  of 
Pope  Leo  XIII.  (1879)  may  be  said  to  have  consti 
tuted  it  the  authoritative  theology  of  the  modern 
Roman  Church.  It  contains  the  nearest  approach 
to  an  acceptance  of  the  Anselmic  theory  by  any  of  the 
Scholastics,  and  may  be  said  to  have  fixed  the  satis 
faction  theory  in  theological  thought.  It  will  be 
1  Oxenham,  pp.  198-203 ;  Riviere,  pp.  360-364. 


198     ANSELM   ON   THE  ATONEMENT 

seen,  however,  to  diverge  from  Anselm  in  important 
respects  under  the  influence  of  the  great  Pope  at  the 
beginning  of  the  thirteenth  century.  It  began  with 
nearly  the  same  premises,  but  Aquinas  has  to  admit 
that  "the  acts  of  the  creature  as  such  cannot  be  in 
finite,"  even  when  considered  as  offences  against 
God.  Yet  there  is  a  "sort  of  infinitude"  because 
they  are  committed  against  Him,  and  so  their  de 
merit  may  be  regarded  as  infinite.1  He  also  makes 
the  death  an  act  of  obedience,  the  highest  act  of 
homage  that  could  have  been  paid  to  God ;  but  he 
does  not  confine  the  obedience  to  the  death,  extend 
ing  it  to  embrace  the  whole  life  of  service  and  suffer 
ing.  It  was  thus  an  objective  satisfaction,  because 
its  essential  element  was  that  it  offered  Him  "what 
He  loved  more  than  He  hated  the  offence."  2  It  was 
not  only  a  sufficient,  but  a  superabundant  satisfaction, 
on  account  of  the  dignity  of  the  life  laid  down  and 
the  greatness  of  the  love  displayed.3 

Yet  God  could  have  pardoned  sin  without  any 
satisfaction.4  There  was  no  necessity  beyond  His 
own  self-determination ;  but  it  was  the  most  suitable 

1  "Quamdam  infinitatem  habet":  Summa  TheoL,  pars  iii, 
quaest.  i.  art.  2.  This  is  of  course  denied  by  Duns  Scotus  (Ritschl, 
Grit.  Hist,  of  At.,  p.  60). 

3  Ibid.,  quaest.  xlviii.  art.  2. 

3  Ibid. 

4  This  is  so  remote  from  Anselm  that  it  is  evident  that  those 
who  are  called  his  adherents  are  conveniently  so  styled;  only 
because  they  differed  less  wholly  from  him  than  his  opponents. 


THE   SCHOLASTICS  199 

mode  (sicut  equus  necessarius  est  ad  iter),  because  it 
best  revealed  His  love,  it  afforded  an  example  of  obe 
dience,  and  it  was  calculated  to  awaken  reciprocal 
affection  in  us.1  He  denies  that  any  change  was 
wrought  in  the  disposition  of  God,  and  he  insists  that 
we  have  to  supplement  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  for 
sins  after  baptism.  He  did  not,  therefore,  teach  a 
complete  objective  satisfaction.2 

But  Aquinas  went  beyond  Anselm  in  his  emphasis 
upon  the  Passion.  Sabatier  says  that  the  satisfaction 
is  founded  by  him,  not  as  with  Anselm  on  Germanic 
law  (compensation  for  an  offence  by  an  offering 
equivalent  to  the  wrong  committed),  but  on  Roman 
law  (satisfaction  by  the  legal  penalty  merited  and 
duly  borne).3  Christ  endured  every  kind  of  suffering 
common  to  man,  the  greatest  ever  borne  by  man,  in 

1  Summa  TheoL,  pars  iii.  quaest.  xlviii.  art.  2.    The  necessity 
was,    therefore,  only  relative;  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  was  not  a 
conditio  sine  qua  nan  upon  which  God  could  bestow  forgiveness, 
but  only  an  expedient  or  modus  per  quod  melius  et  convenientius 
pervenitur  ad  fidcm  (Ritschl,  ubi  supra,  p.  48). 

2  Ibid.,  quaest.  xlix.  art.  1-6.     The  want  of  harmony  in  his 
several  points  of  view  is  thus  referred  to  by  Harnack:  "When  we 
review  the  exposition  given  by  Thomas,  we  cannot  escape  the 
impression  created   by   confusion    (multa,    non   multum).     The 
wavering  between  the  hypothetical  and  the  necessary  modes  of 
view,    between    objective    and    subjective    redemption,    further 
between  a  satisfactio  superabundant  and  the  assertion  that  for  the 
sins  after  baptism  we  have  to  supplement  the  work  of  Christ, 
prevents  any  distinct  impression  arising.     It  was  only  a  natural 
course  of  development   when  Duns  Scotus  went  on  to  reduce 
everything  entirely  to  the  relative"  (VI.  p.  196). 

3  A.  Sabatier,  op.  cit.,  pp.  75  sq. 


200    ANSELM   ON  THE   ATONEMENT 

a  spirit  of  obedience  to  God.1  Here  we  see  the  influ 
ence  of  Pope  Innocent's  distinction  between  active 
and  passive  satisfaction ; 2  but  we  are  still  a  long 
way  from  the  Reformation  theory.  The  merit  of  the 
atoning  work  was  transferred,  not  by  imputation, 
but  by  mystical  union  with  the  Redeemer.  It  has 
been  said  that  his  idea  of  substitution  is  clearly  set 
forth  in  the  following  language:  "The  head  and  the 
member  are,  as  it  were,  one  mystical  person,  and 
therefore  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  pertains  to  all  the 
faithful,  as  to  His  own  members.  For  in  so  far  as 
two  men  through  love  become  one  being,  the  one  can 
offer  satisfaction  for  the  other."  3  This  is  either  a 
contradiction,  since  Christ's  substitution  for  us  and 
identification  with  us  are  opposites;  or  more  prob 
ably,  it  is  a  clumsy  attempt  to  harmonise  the  great 
patristic  thought  with  a  current  mode  of  speech 
(unus  pro  alio).  In  either  case  the  penal  side  of  his 
theory  is  very  different  from  that  which  came  later, 
when  the  sufferings  of  Christ  were  regarded  as  liter 
ally  substituted  for  our  just  dues.4 

1  Summa,  pars  iii.  quaest.  xlvi.  art.  1-3,  5-8. 
8  Neander,  Hist.  Christ.  Dogm.,  II.  583. 

3  Summa,  quaest.  xlviii.  art.  2. 

4  Fisher,  Hist.  Christ.  Doct.,  pp.  245  sq. ;  Hagenbach,  II.  50 ; 
Harnack,  190-196;  Oxenham,  pp.  204-207;  Lias,  pp.   131  sq.; 
Riviere,  pp.  364-368 ;  Lidgett,  Spir.  Princ.  of  At.,  pp.  455-458. 


THE   SCHOLASTICS  201 


b.   His  Opponents 

Among  these  must  be  numbered  such  great  names 
as  Abelard,  Bernard,  Peter  Lombard,  and  Duns 
Scotus;  of  whom  the  first  three  may  be  almost  said 
to  have  ignored  Anselm.  Abelard  indeed  rejected 
the  ransom  from  the  devil,  but  he  also  rejected  the 
doctrine  of  satisfaction.  He  does  not  touch  upon  the 
juridical  view,  or  ask  how  God's  honour  and  justice 
may  be  satisfied.  He  is  the  antithesis  of  Anselm, 
being  ethical  where  the  latter  is  legal,  and  Scriptural 
where  the  other  is  speculative.  Thus  he  supplies 
some  elements  of  truth  totally  lacking  in  Anselm, 
and  needful  to  our  understanding  of  Atonement. 
He  begins  with  the  love  and  the  righteousness  of 
God,  and  inquires  only  how  Christ  accomplished 
our  reconciliation  through  the  manifestation  of  that 
love  and  righteousness.  The  ground  of  the  recon 
ciliation  is  not  justice,  but  love ;  this  is  an  enormous 
advance  upon  Anselm,  whose  scheme  necessarily 
left  out  the  love  of  God  as  the  fundamental  and  inter 
pretative  element  in  atonement.  The  necessity  for 
it  exists,  not  for  the  sake  of  God's  honour,  but  of 
man's  knowledge  of  God's  love.  There  was  no  ob 
stacle  to  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  but  the  self-will  and 
alienation  of  the  sinner  himself.  The  merit  of  Christ 
was  not  a  sum  of  definite  actions,  but  His  indwelling 


202     ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

fulness  of  love  towards  God;  and  this  merit  was 
accredited  to  man,  not  as  the  performance  of  an 
external  work,  but  as  the  incitement  of  an  inward 
disposition.1  God  could  have  forgiven  us  by  His 
will  alone,  but  He  could  best  manifest  His  love  in  the 
Passion.2  We  are  justified  by  the  blood  of  Christ, 
because  the  Cross  is  the  best  persuasive  to  renewed 
obedience.3  The  free  grace  of  God,  by  kindling 
affection  in  man,  blots  out  his  guilt  and  sin.  "Our 
redemption  consists  in  that  love  which  is  awakened 
in  us  by  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  and  which  sets  us 
free  from  the  slavery  of  sin  and  acquires  for  us  the 
true  liberty  of  the  sons  of  God,  by  means  of  which 
we  fulfil  His  commandments  no  longer  with  fear  but 
with  love." 4 

Abelard  distinguishes  between  forgiveness  and 
justification,  both  having  their  basis  in  the  work  of 
Christ,  but  the  one  objective  in  the  sense  of  not  re- 


1  S.  M.  Deutseh,  Peter  Abalard,  p.  378:    "Christus  durch 
alles,  was  er  gethan  und  gelitten,  sich  kein  hoheres  Verdienst 
erworben  babe,  als  er  es  schon  durch  die  Liebe,  die  in  ihm  war, 
besessen  habe.     (Note.  —  Sic  quoque  de  Christo  sane  asserimus, 
quod,  quando  ad  passionem  duct  us  est  et  in  ligno  affi.xus  est,  non 
plus  meruit  quam  ab  ipsa  conceptione.    Neque  enim  tune  melior 
effectus  quam  ab  ipsa  pueritia  exstitisset,  cum  ex  tune  Deum  ex 
toto  corde  diligeret.  —  Sententt.,  cap.  34,  p.   107)."     See    also 
Harnack,  VI.  79. 

2  Neander,  Ch.  Hist.,  IV.  501. 

3  Oxenham,  p.  190. 

4  Deutsch,  op.  cit.,  p.  370.     See  also  J.  Bach,  op.  cit.,  II. 
68-85. 


THE   SCHOLASTICS  203 

quiring  man's  cooperation,  the  other  demanding  co 
operation  in  the  individual.1  The  distinctive  point 
is  that  the  Atonement  depends  on  personal  partici 
pation  with  Christ,  and  the  theory  has  therefore 
been  called  subjective.  It  has,  however,  the  ad 
vantage  that  it  deals  exclusively  with  the  knowable ; 
although  it  is  inadequate  in  laying  so  little  stress 
upon  the  work  of  Christ  as  a  sacrifice  unto  God,  and, 
as  Bernard  effectively  shows,  in  practically  elimi 
nating  infants  from  the  benefits  of  that  work,  since 
they  are  incapable  of  the  love  inspired  by  it.  Never 
theless,  it  recovers  for  us  that  aspect  of  reconciliation, 
as  complete  only  when  accomplished  within  our 
selves,  which  is  overlooked  by  Anselrn  because  he 
is  occupied  exclusively  with  the  other  and  objective 
side.  It  is  sometimes  called  "the  moral  view,"  and 
was  generally  accepted  by  the  fourteenth  century 
Mystics,  and  has  been  popular  with  many  in  our 
own  time.  Ritschl  says  that  "in  the  Middle  Ages 
themselves,  through  the  influence  of  Peter  the  Lom 
bard,  the  preference  is  given  to  Abelard  over  An- 

1  "Die  Vergebung  der  Siinde  ist  die  Aufhebung  des  gottlichen 
Strafurteiles,  welches  dem  Menschen  das  Himmelreich  verschliesst, 
die  Rechtfertigung  dagegen  ist  das  wirkliche  Gerechtwerden 
des  Menschen,  das  den  Glauben  zur  Voraussetzung  hat,  und 
durch  die  Liebe  sich  vollzieht,  sie  ist  ein  in  dem  Menschen  erfol- 
gender  Vorgang,  wobei  die  Frage,  wie  sich  die  Gnade  Gottes 
und  das  eigne  Wirken  des  Menschen  dabei  verhalt,  zunachst 
noch  ausser  Betracht  bleibt"  (Deutsch,  p.  373;  see  also  pp.  374, 
375). 


204      ANSELM  ON  THE   ATONEMENT 

selm."  '  Even  if  he  be  one-sided  and  deficient,  his 
ethical  insight  is  a  valuable  reaction  from  the  purely 
transactional  view.  It  is  wonderful  that  so  thorough 
a  rationalist  should  have  elevated  the  problem  to 
such  a  high  plane,  and  should  have  presented  so 
many  practical  and  fruitful  points  of  view  unattained 
by  his  elder  contemporary. 

Abelard  uses  many  of  the  traditional  expressions. 
For  example,  he  says:  "peccatum  commissimus, 
cujus  ille  poenam  sustinuit."  2  In  the  Epitome  (cap. 
xxiii)  he  says:  "this  He  does  by  offering  the  man 
whom  He  has  taken  to  Himself  to  the  Father ;  that 
is,  by  giving  the  man  as  a  price  for  man."3  "And 
yet,"  says  Canon  Moberly,  "it  may  be  doubted 
whether  they  really  quite  cohere  with  his  proper 
thought.  He  seems  in  them  to  be  doing  a  somewhat 
conventional  (and  indeed  in  some  cases  even  undue) 
homage  to  conventional  modes  of  expression.  Plainly 
his  real  heart  is  rather  in  such  statements  as  that 
our  real  justification  is  the  Divine  Love  within  us. 
.  .  .  The  emphasis  of  his  thought  is  not  really  so 
much  upon  Calvary  as  a  picture  exhibited  before 
our  eyes,  as  it  is  upon  Calvary  as  a  constraining  and 
*  transforming  influence  upon  our  characters.  It  is 

1  Crit.  Hist.,  p.  24.  Riviere  doubts  if  this  is  true  after  the 
end  of  the  twelfth  century  (p.  357). 

3  In  Rom.,  II.  c.  iv;  P.  L.,  CLXXVIII.  col.  859. 

8  It  should  be  remembered  that  the  Epitome  of  Abelard's  lost 
work  on  theology  was  drawn  up  by  one  of  his  disciples.  See 
P.  L.,  CLXXVIII.  col.  1695  sq. 


THE  SCHOLASTICS  205 

not  so  much  really  upon  the  love  of  God  manifested 
to  us,  as  upon  the  love  of  God  generated  within  us. 
The  difference  is  important.  And,  so  far,  he  is 
wholly  in  the  right  direction.  But  if  the  question  be 
pressed,  how  is  it  generated?  Abelard's  exposition 
seems  to  have  no  deeper  answer  to  give  than  that 
the  exhibition  of  the  Cross  constrains  it.  He  dwells 
on  the  Cross  very  finely,  as  an  incentive  to  love ;  but 
hardly  conceives  of  it  more  profoundly  than  as  an 
incentive.  He  has  lost  the  emphasis  upon  the  thought 
of  humanity  as  a  corporate  unity,  summed  up  and 
represented  in  Christ,  so  that  what  Christ  did  and 
suffered,  Christians  themselves  also  suffered  and 
diAd  in  Christ,  —  which  was  so  strong  and  clear  in 
the  earliest  Christian  theologians ;  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  he  has  totally  failed  to  interpret  the  produc 
tion  of  Divine  love  within  us,  not  as  a  mere  emotion 
of  ours,  elicited  in  us  as  our  response  to  an  external 
incentive,  but  as  being  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  —  that  presence  of  Christ  as  constitutive 
Spirit  within,  which  is  the  extension  of  the  Incarna 
tion  and  Atonement,  the  very  essential  of  the  true 
Church  of  Christ,  the  real  secret  of  the  personal 
being  of  Christians,  and  therefore  the  characteristic 
doctrine  of  the  Christian  faith,  as  it  is  the  character 
istic  experience  of  the  Christian  life."  * 

1  Atonement  and  Personality,  pp.  381  sq.    Robert  Pulleyn  is 
reckoned  among  the  followers  of  Abelard.    He  denied  the  necessity 


206      ANSELM   ON   THE  ATONEMENT 

Although  Bernard  was  Abelard's  constant  an 
tagonist,  he  agrees  with  him  in  rejecting  Anselm's 
positive  theory  of  satisfaction.  He  retains  the 
patristic  idea  of  ransom,  fully  admitting  the  right 
of  Satan  over  mankind.  By  regarding  our  bondage 
as  the  proper  retribution  of  sin,  Satan  becomes  "the 
executioner  of  the  Divine  justice."  Satisfaction, 
therefore,  is  made  to  him,  not  to  God  as  with  An- 
selm;  and  in  making  it  Christ  is  the  Head  of  the 
body,  representing  its  members.1  The  death  was 
voluntary,  but  not  penal:  "it  was  not  the  death  in 
itself,  but  the  will  of  Him  who  died  of  His  own  ac-  v' 
cord,  that  was  acceptable  to  God."  The  occasion 
for  the  death  was  "non  justitia,  sed  misericordia " ; 
which  is  another  vital  difference  from  Anselm.3 
The  reason  for  the  method  of  redemption  is  referred 

of  an  objective  satisfaction,  because  we  might  have  been  redeemed      * 
in  some  other  way ;  and  he  held  the  sufferings  of  Christ  to  be  ex-    * 
emplary,  and  only  so  requisite  to  redemption.     "Ut  quantitate 
pretii  quantitatem  nobis  sui  innotesceret  amoris  et  nostri  peccati" ; 
this  method  was  chosen  in  order  to  make  us  sensible  of  the  great 
ness  of  His  love  and  of  our  sin  (P.  L.,  CLXXXVI.  col.  82 ;  Neander, 
Hist.  Dogm.,  II.  521). 

1  "Satisfecit  ergo  caput  pro  membris,  Christus  pro  visceribus 
suis"   (De  Error.  Abael.,  6.  15;  P.  L.,  CLXXXII.  col.  1065). 
Again,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  this  patristic  idea  of  solidarity  is  not 
only  an  advance  on  Anselm's  juridical  view,  but  is  antithetic  to 
it,  since  the  latter  made  Christ's  work  the  intervention  of  a  "third 
party"  between  God  and  man. 

2  "Non  mors,  sed  voluntas  placuit  sponte  morientis"  (De  Err. 
Ab.,  8. 

3  P.  L.,  CLXXXH.  col.  934. 


THE   SCHOLASTICS  207 

to  the  "inscrutable  council  of  God,"1  but  it  is  not 
absolutely  imperative,  however  suitable,  since  other 
means  of  deliverance  were  possible.2 

Peter  Lombard  exhibits  in  his  Four  Books  of 
Sentences  the  strong  influence  of  his  teacher  Abelard. 
He  does  not  follow  him  in  rejecting  the  devil's  claims 
upon  us ;  but  he  places  the  need  of  reconciliation  on 
the  side  of  man,  not  of  God,  and  the  mode  of  Atone 
ment  is  subjective:  "the  death  of  Christ  justifies  us 
by  exciting  His  love  in  our  hearts."  3  Neander  says 
that  he  teaches  vicarious  satisfaction,  which  "we  do 
not  find  in  Anselm."  4  But  we  do  find  the  satis- 
factio  activa  vicaria  in  Anselm ;  and  Ritschl  says  that 
the  Lombard  "exhibits  the  death  of  Christ  under 
all  possible  categories,  except  that  of  a  satisfaction  to 
God."  5  He  employed  the  idea  of  merit,  which  be- 

1  "Mihi   scire    licet   quod    ita;  cur   ita,   non  licet"    (P.  L., 
CLXXXIL  col.  1069). 

2  Neander,  Hist.  Dogm.,  II.  520;  Oxenham,  p.  193;  Riviere, 
pp.  333-339;  J.  Bach,  op.  cit.,  II.  108-111. 

8  P.  L.,  CXCII.  col.  795.  On  the  other  hand,  Abbe  Riviere 
says:  "Pierre  Lombard  fonde  le  merit  du  Christ  sur  line  significa 
tion  objective  et  metaphysique  de  sa  mort,  et  pour  1'expliquer,  il 
introduit  la  vieille  idee  de  sacrifice"  (p.  348).  He  bases  this  solely 
on  the  use  of  the  word  "meruit" ;  and,  while  this  may  be  an  in 
consistency,  he  is  compelled  to  admit  that,  in  showing  how  we  are 
delivered  from  sin,  the  Lombard  employs  the  ideas  of  Abelard. 
Riviere  goes  on  to  call  the  figure  of  sacrifice  "impropre  et  vieillie": 
most  characteristic  for  the  legalist  and  ecclesiastic  to  call  the 
Scriptural  term  improper  and  obsolete ! 

*  Ch.  Hist.,  IV.  505. 

6  P.  41.  "The  Anselmic  theory  is  not  mentioned  at  all" 
(Harnack,  VI.  81). 


208      ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

came  predominant  after  Anselm's  use  of  it,  even 
with  those  who  did  not  apply  it  to  a  satisfaction.  He 
also  speaks  of  Christ  as  bearing  the  punishment  of 
our  sins:  "per  ipsius  poenam,  quam  in  cruce  tulit"; 
"poena  Christi,  qui  pro  nobis  solvit."  l  But  this  is 
not  worked  out,  and  probably  means  no  more  than, 
as  with  Athanasius,  that  He  died  and  so  shared  our 
penalty,  and,  as  with  Gregory  Nyssen,  that  He 
thereby  won  for  us  release  from  the  power  of  Satan.2 
He  rejects  with  Augustin  the  necessity  of  Christ's 
death,  which  is  viewed  "as  a  proof  of  love,  which 
awakens  counter-love."  He  is  careful  to  repeat 
the  now  familiar  thought,  that  God  might  have 
found  other  ways  to  save  us,  and  that  no  change 
was  effected  in  the  mind  of  God  by  the  work  of 
Christ.  "We  were  reconciled  to  God,  when  He  al 
ready  loved  us.  For  He  did  not  begin  to  love  us 
from  the  time  we  were  reconciled  to  Him  by  His  Son's 
blood,  but  before  the  world  and  before  we  existed."  4 
As  his  theory  did  not  admit  the  objective  efficacy  of 
the  Atonement,  it  cannot  justly  be  regarded  as  "a 
distinct  step  in  advance  of  Anselm"  in  the  direction 
of  the  Reformation  dogmas,  unless  his  use  of 
"  poena "  involves  much  more  than  as  stated  above.5 

1  P.  L.,  CXCII.  col.  797. 

3  Harnack,  VI.  81. 

8  P.  L.,  CXCII.  col.  798  sq. 

4  Oxenham,  p.  197. 

8  Fisher,  p.  227;  Hagenbach,  II.  49;  J.  Bach,  II.  213-215. 


THE    SCHOLASTICS  209 

Duns  Scotus  cannot  be  said  to  have  ignored  the 
Anselmic  theory,  but  he  contradicts  it  in  every  essen 
tial  point  except  in  the  single  fact  that  he  uses  the 
word,  satisfaction ;  which  is  not  actual  and  adequate 
as  with  Anselm,  but  merely  accepted  as  such  by 
God's  absolute  will.1  His  philosophy  was  radically 
different  from  that  of  Anselm  and  Aquinas,  and  the 
antagonism  between  the  Dominicans  and  the  Fran-, 
ciscans  may  have  determined  his  views  upon  Soteri- 
ology  as  well  as  upon  Realism.  He  disputes  the 
assertion  that  redemption  is  the  motive  of  the  In 
carnation,  and  says  that  Christ  would  have  come  if 
man  had  not  sinned,  in  order  to  be  the  Second  Adam 
and  Head  of  the  mystical  Body,  and  that  He  would 
have  offered  the  perfect  sacrifice  of  His  life.2  He 
held  that  Christ  suffered  only  in  His  human  nature, 
and  hence  His  merit  was  finite.  "The  worth  of  any 
merit  depends  upon  the  value  at  which  it  is  set  by 
the  acceptance  of  God.  It  has  merit  because  it  is 
accepted,  and  just  that  amount  of  merit  which  God 
is  pleased  to  attach  to  it.  And  thus,  while  intrinsi 
cally  the  merit  of  Christ  cannot  be  other  than  finite, 
it  may  receive  a  kind  of  infinity,  because  God's  ac- 

1  His  use  of  the  idea  shows  the  influence  of  Anselm,  but  the 
Scotist  view  of  Atonement  is  contrasted  with  the  Anselmic  as 
representing  henceforth  the  two  general  opposing  theories  (Fisher, 
pp.    £47   sq.;    Riviere,   pp.   368-372;    Neander,   Hist.    Dogm., 
II.    521. 

2  This  idea  is  suggested  in  Hilary,  but  Scotus  was  probably  the 
first  to  make  the  formal  statement. 

14 


210      ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

ceptation  of  it  takes  it  for  an  infinite  value."  *  Hav 
ing  no  inherent  claim  to  be  accepted  by  God,  it  is 
however  accepted  as  a  sovereign  act  of  grace,  the 
obedience  of  Christ  being  arbitrarily  regarded  as  a 
sufficient  compensation  for  evil.  But  this  destroys 
the  principal  argument  of  Anselm's  treatise,  the 
satisfaction  being  nominal,  not  real.2  He  calls  this 
process  "acceptilatio,"  adopting  a  familiar  term  of 
the  civil  law,  meaning  the  acceptance  of  something 
merely  imaginary  in  satisfaction  of  a  verbal  contract.3 
This  compensation,  however,  was  not  necessary  ex 
cept  "as  consequent  on  the  Divine  predestination." 
As  there  was  no  infinite  debt  and  no  infinite  merit, 
there  was  no  infinite  satisfaction,  and  no  need  of  any.4 
He  makes  the  moral  law  itself  the  expression  of 
God's  arbitrary  will ; 8  which  of  course  is  open  to 

1  Summary  in  Lidgett,  Spir.  Princ.  of  At.,  p.  458.  "All  satis 
faction  and  all  merit  obtain  their  worth  from  the  arbitrary  estima 
tion  of  the  receiver.  Hence,  the  value  of  Christ's  death  was  as 
high  as  God  chose  to  rate  it"  (Harnack,  VI.  196).  "The  value 
of  meritorious  acts  is  measured  by  God's  acceptance,  not  His  ac 
ceptance  by  their  value"  (Oxenham,  p.  207).  See  Sabatier,  op. 
tit.,  p.  150. 

3  Hagenbach,  II.  51. 

3  The  same  word  is  used  to-day  in  Scottish  legal  practice. 
The  acceptilation  theory  has  been  accepted  practically  by  Grotius, 
and  explicitly  by  Professor  Crawford,  Dr.  Charles  Hodge,  and 
Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge;   see  D.  W.  Simon,  The  Redemption  of  Man, 
pp.  20-23,  413-415. 

4  Fisher,  p.  247;  Neander,  Hist.  Dogm.,  II.  584;  Harnack, 
VI.  196-198. 

6  Dale,  Atonement,  p.  286. 


THE   SCHOLASTICS  211 

the  objection  that  in  that  case  all  existing  moral 
distinctions  are  purely  contingent.  But  it  enables 
him  to  deny  the  necessity  of  any  particular  mode  of 
satisfaction,  because  any  mode  whatever  might  have 
been  arbitrarily  demanded.1  Dr.  Dale  thinks  this 
degrades  the  scholastic  theory,  and  we  should  cor 
dially  agree  with  him;  but  it  makes  evident  how 
completely  Scotus  denies  the  fundamental  principles 
of  Anselm.2  On  the  other  hand,  Ritschl  regards  his 
doctrine  as  a  truer  expression  of  the  Catholic  attitude 
in  the  Middle  Ages  than  that  of  Aquinas  (p.  60).  And 
Oxenham  says  that  the  Scotist  theory  was  the  pre 
vailing  one  in  the  Roman  church  in  1881  (p.  213), 
and  commends  it  because  it  saved  the  Church  from 
the  Lutheran  and  Calvinistic  extensions  of  the 
Anselmic  satisfaction. 

This  brief  survey  will  suffice  to  show  how  slight 
was  the  influence  of  Anselm 's  specific  theory  upon 
his  contemporaries  and  successors.  It  has  never 
indeed  obtained  any  general  recognition.  Neverthe 
less,  its  vital  thought  was  reapplied  by  many  of  the 
Scholastics,  it  was  fully  accepted  by  the  Reformers, 

_  l  Scotus  says  that  a  good  angel  or  a  man  begotten  without  sin 
might  have  served  to  redeem  humanity,  if  God  had  been  pleased 
to  adopt  that  method.  See  Sabatier,  p.  151. 

2  Like  Anselm,  he  regards  the  work  of  Christ  as  procuring 
only  the  possibility  of  redemption,  the  reality  of  which  is  to  be 
attained  by  the  man  himself  through  the  customary  ecclesiastical 
channels. 


ANSELM   ON  THE  ATONEMENT 

and  has  ruled  the  theology  of  the  Atonement  to  our 
own  day.  The  Roman  position  during  the  sixteenth 
century  is  fairly  represented  by  Lainez,  the  General 
of  the  Jesuits.  At  the  Council  of  Trent,  in  arguing 
for  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  in  the  Last  Supper  instead 
of  on  the  cross,  he  contended  that  our  salvation  is 
not  to  be  ascribed  solely  to  the  death  of  Christ, 
though  that  was  the  final  and  crowning  act,  but  to 
the  life  and  death  of  Christ  as  a  whole,  and  as  em 
bracing  no  one  salutary  and  satisfactory  act,  but 
countless  acts  of  obedience  to  the  will  of  the  Father. 
However,  the  Council  finally  declared  that  "Christ 
on  account  of  the  great  love  wherewith  He  loved 
us,  merited  justification  for  us  by  His  most  holy 
Passion  on  the  wood  of  the  cross,  and  made  satis 
faction  for  us  to  God  the  Father." 

4.  ANSELM'S  RELATION  TO  REFORMATION  THEOLOGY 
a.  Basis  of  Protestant  Soteriology 

Although  the  theory  secured  so  little  adherence, 
yet,  when  modified  in  certain  significant  details,  it 
became  substantially  the  basis  of  Protestant  Soteri 
ology.  Certain  Anselmic  ideas  became  imbedded  in 
all  the  thinking  about  the  Atonement  — of  merit, 
of  the  provision  for  escape  from  the  judicial  conse 
quences  of  sin,  of  a  legal  transaction  between  the 
attributes  or  the  Persons  of  the  Trinity,  of  the 


THE   REFORMERS  213 

payment  of  a  debt  or  the  rescue  from  a  criminal  sen 
tence  by  a  Substitute,  of  a  legal  Atonement  strongly 
distinguished  from  an  accompanying  subjective  re 
conciliation.  These  ideas  were  naturally  inherited  by 
the  Reformers,  and  have  governed  the  figures  and 
conceptions  of  theologians  since  Luther  and  Calvin. 
Especially  did  the  thought  of  Satisfaction  become 
dominant,  either  as  sufficient  or  superabundant,  as 
accepted  by  mercy  or  possessing  inherent  claims  to 
acceptance;  the  former  through  the  influence  of 
Scotus,  and  the  latter  through  that  of  Aquinas. 
Indeed,  the  word  practically  banished  the  Scriptural 
and  patristic  figure  of  sacrifice ;  l  although  for 
ethical  purposes  Luther  deprived  its  use  of  any 
validity.  He  said:  "Therefore  let  this  word,  satis 
faction,  henceforth  be  nothing  and  dead  in  our 
churches  and  our  theology,  be  committed  to  the 
judges  and  to  the  schools  of  the  jurists,  where  it  be 
longs  and  whence  the  papists  derived  it."  2  Not 
withstanding  his  distaste  for  the  word,  the  power  of 
tradition  is  shown  by  his  retention  of  it  in  speaking 
of  the  work  of  Christ,  and  by  his  elaboration  of  its 
characteristic  idea  of  substitution. 

The  Reformers  adopted  Anselm's  radical  principle 
that  the  forgiveness  of  unpunished  sin  would  be  un- 

1  Archbishop  Thomson  says  with  approval:   "It  has  gone  far 
to  replace  the  word  sacrifice"  (Aids  to  Faith,  p.  350). 

2  Quoted  in  Seeberg,  op.  cit.,  II.  p.  268,  from  Kirchenpostille, 
I.  621.    See  the  original  in  Sabatier,  p.  152. 


214     ANSELM   ON  THE  ATONEMENT 

just,  and  that  contrivance  must  be  resorted  to  in  order 
to  enable  God  to  be  both  just  and  forgiving.  But 
they  departed  from  his  essentially  non-moral  theory 
by  grounding  the  work  of  Christ  "in  the  ethical 
nature  of  God."  "They  picture  the  atonement,  not 
as  a  reparation  for  a  private  wrong,  but  as  a  satis 
faction  to  inviolable  holiness  and  a  protection  to  the 
universal  interests  of  the  moral  order.  The  whole 
subject  was  brought  into  the  field  of  ethics."  1  They 
improved  upon  Anselm  by  illogically  insisting  on 
the  subjective  condition  of  faith.  It  was  an  im 
provement  because  no  external  work  of  atonement 
can  be  efficient  if  severed  from  the  spiritual  experi 
ence  of  the  redeemed ;  and  it  was  illogical  because, 
if  faith  is  required  as  a  condition  of  receiving  the 
benefits  of  Christ's  work,  the  satisfaction  has  not 
been  sufficient  and  complete.  By  this  happy  incon 
sistency  they  did  much  to  restore  the  ethical  aspects 
of  religion  and  theology;  and  it  is  all  the  more  re 
markable  that  they  should  have  held  so  rigorously 
to  the  ideas  of  law  in  defining  the  Atonement.  They 
rejected  the  Latin  conception  of  merit  as  applied 
to  man,  but  retained  it  with  reference  to  the  satis 
faction  of  Christ,  and  treated  it  as  legally  and  ex 
ternally  as  Gregory  or  Anselm  or  Aquinas.2  They 

1  Stevens,  Christ.  Doct.  of  At.,  p.  244;  "it  does  not  follow  that 
the  ethics  which  was  applied  to  it  was  sound  and  tenable." 

2  Seeberg,  Text-Book  Hist,  of  Doct.,  II.  20,  note.    The  confu 
sion  of  Calvin  on  this  point  and  his  final  adoption  of  free  and 


THE   REFORMERS  215 

used  the  Scholastic  logic  and  the  language  of  Scho 
lastic  theology,  because  these  had  been  current  for 
centuries ;  but  they  developed  a  theory  of  their  own 
which  is  quite  as  foreign  to  Anselm  as  to  the  Fathers 
of  the  Church.  Its  novelty  and  variance  from  earlier 
thought  are  indicated  by  Dr.  Shedd,  when  he  says 
that  "it  was  reserved  to  the  Protestant  Church 
...  to  bring  the  doctrines  of  Soteriology  to  a  cor 
respondent  degree  of  expansion  "  with  Theology  and 
Anthropology. 1 

The  connecting  link  by  which  Anselm  led  to  the 
Reformation  doctrine,  was  the  teaching  of  Pope 
Innocent  III  (circa  1200  A.  D.).  He  is  said  by  Nean- 
der  to  have  been  "the  first  who  represented  the  satis 
faction  of  Christ  as  a  reconciliation  between  the 
divine  attributes  of  mercy  and  justice." 2  But  we 
have  already  found  such  a  reconciliation  in  Anselm 
(ii.  20).  What  was  original  with  Innocent  was  the 
description  of  Christ's  satisfaction  as  punishment : 
"Modum  invenit,  per  quern  utrique  satisfaceret  tam 
misericordiae  quam  justitiae ;  judicavit  igitur,  ut 
assumeret  in  se  poenam  pro  omnibus  et  donaret  per 
se  gloriam  universis."  His  argument  is:  "God's 
justice  required  an  adequate  punishment  for  all; 
His  mercy  could  not  permit  this ;  hence  the  adjust- 

sovereign  grace  may  be  found  in  his  Institutes,  II.  c.  17.  See  also 
Sabatier,  p.  81. 

1  Syst.  TheoL,  II.  204. 

3  Hist.  Dogmas,  II.  583 ;   Ch.  Hist.,  IV.  506. 


216    ANSELM   ON  THE   ATONEMENT 

ment  that  God  took  upon  Himself  the  punishment 
for  all,  and  bestowed  the  gift  of  salvation  upon  all 
through  Himself."  Neander  is  right  in  saying  that 
"this  was  the  first  assertion  of  the  satis factio  vicaria 
passiva  among  the  Schoolmen." 

b.   Antithesis  of  Protestant  Soteriology 

The  Reformers  greatly  developed  the  passive 
satisfaction  of  Innocent  by  adding  speculative  de 
tails,  such  as  literal  appeasement  of  wrath,  the 
equivalent  or  identical  endurance  of  our  penalty ;  so 
that  their  agreement  with  Anselm  is  verbal,  not  real. 
As  Dr.  Dale  remarks,  the  Reformation  idea  of  the 
Atonement  is  "the  precise  antithesis  of  the  concep 
tion  in  the  Cur  Deus  Homo.  .  .  .  The  theological 
distance  between  the  theories  cannot  be  measured."  1 
The  contrast  is  marked  in  four  particulars. 

(1)  First,  the  Anselmic  satisfaction  was  active, 
and  the  Reformation  doctrine  was  chiefly,  and 
tended  to  be  exclusively,  passive.  Jonathan  Ed 
wards  the  younger,  who  carried  it  to  an  extreme, 
said:  "I  venture  to  say  further  that,  not  only  did 
not  the  Atonement  of  Christ  consist  essentially  in 
His  active  obedience,  but  that  His  active  obedience 
was  no  part  of  His  Atonement,  properly  so  called, 
nor  essential  to  it."  2  Anselm  made  much  of  the 

1  The  Atonement,  p.  290. 

2  Works,  II.  41. 


THE   REFORMERS  217 

fact  of  Christ's  death;  but  he  treated  it,  not  as  a 
passive  endurance,  but  as  a  moral  act  additional  to 
the  obedience  of  the  whole  life.  He  did  not,  indeed, 
attribute  any  redemptive  power  to  the  life  of  the 
Lord,  whose  obedience  was  owed  to  God,  and  was 
of  merely  "private  significance."  It  was  the  su 
pererogatory  obedience  to  the  will  of  God  for  our 
salvation  which  availed,  the  obedience  which  re 
sulted  in  death,  but  which  was  not  commanded  and 
which  consequently  He  did  not  owe,  and  which  could 
therefore  restore  the  lost  honour  of  God.  He  re 
ferred  to  the  suffering,  but  it  was  particularly  the 
suffering  of  death,  and  that  considered  as  the  effect 
of  obedience  rather  than  as  suffering  in  itself.  The 
Reformers,  however,  emphasised  the  literal  sense  of 
the  word  Passion,  and  enlarged  upon  the  details  of 
the  sufferings  which  the  Redeemer  underwent  on 
our  behalf;  and  it  was  in  these  that  they  found  the 
efficacy  of  His  satisfaction.  This  constitutes  a  fun 
damental  difference  between  the  two  theories,  and 
creates  a  striking  contrast  between  what  Hagenbach 
not  too  strongly  calls  "the  chaste  and  noble,  tragical 
style,  too,  in  which  the  subject  is  discussed"  by 
Anselm,  and  "the  weak  and  whining,  even  sensuous, 
*  theology  of  blood*  of  later  ages."  1 

The   separation   of  the  life   from  the   death  of 
Christ,  the  distinction  between  the  significance  and 
1  Hist.  Dod.t  II.  46. 


218     ANSELM  ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

effects  of  the  active  and  passive  obedience,  is  not 
tenable.  It  is  evident  that  St.  Paul  had  in  mind  no 
such  artificial  discrimination,  when  he  said  that 
"  through  the  obedience  of  the  one  shall  the  many 
be  made  righteous"  (Rom.  v.  19).  The  spirit  of  the 
death  was  the  consummation  of  the  spirit  of  the  life, 
and  it  is  psychologically  impossible  to  set  off  one 
moment  of  its  manifestation  from  all  that  preceded 
and  prepared  for  it,  and  assign  to  it  alone  a  redemp 
tive  value.  Moreover,  as  a  historic  fact,  the  active 
and  passive  elements  entered  into  our  Lord's  entire 
obedience.  From  the  circumcision  to  the  cross, 
there  was  suffering  involved  in  His  participation  in 
our  humanity.  In  His  active  fulfilment  of  His 
Father's  will  and  in  His  ministry  of  teaching  and 
service,  He  suffered  from  His  sensitiveness  to  men's 
physical  ills  and  mental  dulness  and  spiritual 
hostility  and  degradation.  On  the  other  hand,  there 
was  an  active  spirit  of  self-surrender  throughout  the 
endurance,  and,  above  all,  in  the  supreme  moments 
of  it.  "Indeed,"  says  Mr.  Lidgett,  "so  entirely  pre 
dominant  is  this  activity,  that  the  words  passive  en 
durance  seem  wholly  out  of  place.  Of  His  life  our 
Lord  said,  '  No  one  taketh  it  from  Me,  but  I  lay  it 
down  of  Myself.'  From  the  moment  when  'He  set 
His  face  to  go  up  to  Jerusalem '  to  the  moment  when 
He  cried,  'It  is  finished,'  our  Lord's  attitude  was 
that  of  one  who  was  consummating  a  great  act  of 


THE   REFORMERS  219 

self-oblation."  '  If  attention  is  led  away  from  the 
spirit  of  Him  in  whom  the  Father  was  well  pleased 
to  the  mere  physical  and  mental  sufferings,  the  ex 
aggerated  importance  attached  to  the  latter  deprives 
them  of  all  ethical  significance ;  for  suffering,  as  such, 
has  no  moral  value.  It  leads  also,  by  the  withdrawal 
of  the  ethical  or  active  element,  to  the  penal  aspect 
of  the  Atonement,  by  which  "the  measure  of  the 
sufficiency  of  the  satisfaction  was  the  intensity  of  the 
suffering."  2 

(2)  Secondly,  the  Reformers  taught  that  our 
Lord's  sufferings  were  penal,  and  Anselm  expressly 
distinguishes  between  punishment  and  satisfaction: 
"necesse  est,  ut  omne  peccatum  satisfactio  aut 
poena  sequatur"  (i.  15,  11;  also,  i.  13,  7).  As  a 
commutation,  satisfaction  was  instead  of  punish 
ment;  but  they  transformed  it  into  satisfaction  by 
punishment.  He  has  been  criticised  as  unethical 
in  several  of  his  positions;  but,  as  between  the 
passive  satisfaction  of  punishment  and  the  active 
satisfaction  of  obedience,  there  can  be  no  question 
as  to  which  was  more  ethical.  He  says  nothing  of 
the  endurance  of  the  Divine  curse,  or  the  burden  of 
the  wrath  of  God ;  on  the  contrary,  penal  satisfac 
tion  is  the  rejected  alternative,  he  denies  that  Christ 

1  The  Spiritual  Principle  of  the  Atonement,  p.  146.     See  pp. 
141-151,  which  have  suggested  part  of  the  above  criticism. 
3  Ibid.,  p.  150. 


220    ANSELM   ON  THE   ATONEMENT 

could  have  been  miserable  (i.  11-14;  ii.  12).  But 
they  followed  Innocent  in  making  the  sufferings 
penal,  and  enlarging  upon  them  with  rhetorical 
detail,  making  them  superlative  in  accordance  with 
the  deserts  of  sin.  Their  descriptions  of  His  pre 
eminent  anguish  read  strangely  enough  by  the  side 
of  the  reverent  reticence  of  the  Evangelists. 

The  language  of  Luther  is  very  extreme,  although 
it  is  rhetorical  and  inconsistent,  and  probably  was 
not  intended  to  be  interpreted  with  the  scientific 
accuracy  of  definite  dogma.  Mr.  Lidgett  says  of  it : 
"When  he  speaks  of  the  Atonement  the  same  char 
acteristics  are  present  which  are  so  marked  elsewhere : 
namely,  a  perfervid  intensity,  sometimes  breaking 
through  the  restraints  of  both  reverence  and  pru 
dence  ;  a  curious  mixture  of  extreme  literalism  with 
profound  mysticism;  and,  above  all,  the  over 
mastering  sense  of  perfect  deliverance,  in  Christ, 
from  the  condemnation  of  sin."  1  Still,  his  accept 
ance  of  the  penal  character  of  the  satisfaction  is 
unmistakable.  He  said:  "It  was  the  anger  of  God 
itself  that  Christ  bore  —  the  eternal  anger  which 
our  sins  had  deserved.  .  .  .  The  inner  sufferings  of 
Jesus,  His  anguish  —  an  anguish  in  comparison  with 
which  all  human  anguish  and  fear  are  but  a  slight 
matter  —  was  the  feeling  of  the  Divine  anger."  2 

1  Op.  cit.,  p.  463. 

3  Quoted  in  Simon,  Redemption  of  Man,  p.  31. 


THE  REFORMERS 

He  thus  described  Christ's  substitutive  endurance 
of  the  curse  of  God:  "Our  most  merciful  Father, 
seeing  us  to  be  oppressed  and  overwhelmed  by  the 
curse  of  the  law,  .  .  .  laid  upon  Him  the  sins  of  all 
men,  saying,  'Be  Thou  Peter,  that  denier;  Paul, 
that  persecutor,  blasphemer,  and  cruel  oppressor; 
David,  that  adulterer ;  that  sinner  which  did  eat  the 
apple  in  Paradise ;  that  thief  which  hanged  upon  the 
cross ;  and,  briefly,  be  Thou  the  person  which  hath 
committed  the  sins  of  all  men.  See  therefore  that 
Thou  pay  and  satisfy  for  them.'  Here  now  cometh 
the  law  and  saith,  I  find  Him  a  sinner,  and  that  such 
a  one  as  hath  taken  upon  Him  the  sins  of  all  men,  and 
I  see  no  sins  else  but  in  Him,  therefore  let  Him  die 
upon  the  cross;  and  so  he  setteth  upon  Him,  and 
killeth  Him."  l  And  again :  "  If  thou  wilt  deny  Him 
to  be  a  sinner  and  accursed,  deny  also  that  He  was 
crucified  and  was  dead.  ...  It  is  not  absurd  to  say 
that  He  was  accursed,  and  of  all  sinners  the  greatest" 

Melanchthon  and  the  Reformed  divines  departed 
from  the  Catholic  statements  of  all  the  preceding 
history  of  this  doctrine.  The  Saxon  Confession  says : 
''Such  is  the  severity  of  His  justice,  that  there  can 
be  no  reconciliation  unless  the  penalty  is  paid.  Such 
is  the  greatness  of  the  anger  of  God,  that  the  eternal 
Father  cannot  be  placated,  save  by  the  beseeching 

1  Gdatians.  p.  205  folio  edition  of  1760. 
a  Ibid',  p.  203. 


222     ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

and  death  of  His  Son."  I  The  Wurtemberg  Con 
fession  says:  "The  Son  of  God  alone  is  the  placator 
of  the  anger  of  God."  The  Heidelberg  Catechism 
(Quaest.  37)  declares  that  Christ  "bore  in  body  and 
soul  the  anger  of  God  against  the  sins  of  the  whole 
race."  The  Belgic  Confession  (Art.  XXI.)  also 
speaks  of  Him  "in  body  as  in  soul,  feeling  the 
terrible  punishment  which  our  sins  had  merited."  3 
Calvin  is  supposed  by  some  to  have  been  more 
cautious  in  his  language;  and  he  evidently  tries  to 
keep  in  harmony  two  entirely  contradictory  ideas. 
He  makes  the  love  of  God  to  precede  the  reconcilia 
tion,  the  cause  and  not  the  consequence  of  placation ; 
which,  of  course,  makes  placation  utterly  meaningless. 
He  says:  "We  do  riot  admit  that  God  was  ever 
hostile  to  Him,  or  angry  with  Him.  For  how  could 
He  be  angry  with  His  'Beloved  Son,  in  whom  His 
soul  delighted'?  ...  But  we  affirm  that  He  sus 
tained  the  weight  of  the  Divine  severity,  since,  being 
smitten  and  afflicted  by  the  hand  of  God,  He  ex 
perienced  from  God  all  the  tokens  of  wrath  and 
vengeance."  Also,  compare  the  following:  "It  was 
requisite  that  He  should  feel  the  severity  of  Divine 
vengeance  [ultionis],  in  order  to  appease  the  wrath 
of  God,  and  satisfy  His  justice."  "Christ  took  upon 

1  Lias,  p.  133;  Simon,  p.  32. 

a  Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom,  III.  319. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  40. 


THE   REFORMERS  223 

Himself  and  suffered  the  punishment  which  by  the 
righteous  judgment  of  God  impended  over  all  sinners, 
and  by  this  expiation  the  Father  has  been  satisfied 
and  His  wrath  appeased."  "The  cross  was  accursed, 
not  only  in  the  opinion  of  men,  but  by  the  decree  of 
the  Divine  law.  Therefore,  when  Christ  was  lifted 
up  upon  it,  He  renders  Himself  obnoxious  to  the 
curse.  .  .  .  From  the  visible  symbol  of  the  curse, 
we  more  clearly  apprehend  that  the  burden,  with 
which  we  were  oppressed,  was  imposed  upon  Him." 
And  what  that  burden  was  is  thus  defined:  "For 
sinners,  till  they  be  delivered  from  guilt,  are  always 
subject  to  the  wrath  and  malediction  of  God.  .  .  . 
We  are  obnoxious  to  the  wrath  and  vengeance  of 
God,  and  to  eternal  death.  .  .  .  We  all,  therefore, 
have  in  us  that  which  deserves  God's  hatred." 
Such  sentences  and  expressions  are  constantly  to  be 
found  in  him,  and  it  is  needless  to  show  how  foreign 
they  all  are  to  the  theory  of  Anselm. 

(3)  Another  contrast  between  the  Reformers  and 
Anselm  logically  follows  from  that  just  mentioned. 
From  Christ's  endurance  of  punishment  ensued  His 
endurance  of  the  self-same  punishment  as  was  due 
to  mankind:  this  was  especially  the  contribution  of 
Calvin.  "He  was  made  a  substitute  and  surety  for 
transgressors,  and  even  treated  as  a  criminal  Him 
self,  to  sustain  all  the  punishment  which  would  have 
1  Institutes,  lib.  ii.  cap.  xvi.  sect.  1-4,  6,  10,  11. 


224    ANSELM    ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

been  inflicted  on  them."  The  idea  of  equivalence 
was  carried  so  far  as  to  represent  Him  as  suffer 
ing  the  mors  aeterna,  the  actual  torments  of  hell. 
"Hence  it  was  necessary  for  Him  to  contend  with  the 
powers  of  hell,  and  the  horrors  of  eternal  death.  .  .  . 
Therefore  it  is  no  wonder,  if  He  be  said  to  have  de 
scended  into  hell  ( !),  since  He  suffered  that  death 
which  the  wrath  of  God  inflicts  on  transgressors.  .  .  . 
He  suffered  in  His  soul  the  dreadful  torments  of  a 
soul  condemned  and  irretrievably  lost."  l  This  wras 
inconsistent  with  the  conception  that  He  suffered 
only  in  His  human  nature,  and  was  properly  called 
by  Bellarmine  "a  new  and  unheard-of  heresy." 2 
It  is  manifestly  unscriptural  and  even  pagan. 

Calvin  indeed  combined  the  active  and  passive 
satisfactions.  "Now,  in  answer  to  the  inquiry,  how 
Christ,  by  the  abolition  of  our  sins,  has  destroyed  the 
enmity  between  God  and  us,  and  procured  a  right 
eousness  to  render  Him  favourable  and  propitious 
to  us,  it  may  be  replied  in  general,  that  He  accom 
plished  it  for  us  by  the  whole  course  of  His  obedience. 
.  .  .  There  is  no  exclusion  of  the  rest  of  His  obedience 
which  He  performed  in  His  life.  .  .  .  His  voluntary 
submission  is  the  principal  circumstance  even  in  His 
death."  3  The  difficulty  of  harmonising  this  position 

1  Ubi  supra,  sect.  10. 

2  Baur,  Christ.  Lehre  van  der  Versohnung,  p.  348. 
8  Ubi  supra,  sect.  5. 


THE    REFORMERS  225 

with  passive  penal  satisfaction  has  been  already  al 
luded  to;  and  it  can  hardly  be  denied  that,  in  sys- 
tematising  the  Reformation  doctrine,  he  added  some 
abhorrent  features,  which  however  were  implicit  in 
the  teaching  of  Luther.  They  only  serve  to  show  how 
unwise  it  is  to  theorise  about  the  infinite ;  for  either 
Christ  could  suffer  only  one  eternal  death  and  so 
could  pay  the  debt  of  only  one  sinner,  or  else  that 
eternal  death  is  equal  to  all  eternals,  in  which  case 
the  perdition  of  all  mankind  is  exactly  equal  to  the 
perdition  of  one.  Such  quantitative  comparisons 
between  guilt  and  satisfaction  are  called  by  Harnack 
"frivolous  arithmetical  sums."1 

The  idea  of  the  literal  punishment  of  the  Son  of 
God  is  to-day  unthinkable.  It  is  inconceivable  that 
the  Father's  wrath  could  be  visited  upon  the  blame 
less  and  holy  One.  It  is  utterly  confusing  to  the  moral 
sense  to  imagine  that  the  justice  of  God  makes  no 
distinction  between  the  innocent  and  the  guilty,  and 
that  the  sufferings  of  Christ  can  in  any  proper  sense 
be  called  penal.  The  necessity  for  a  penal  satisfac 
tion  is  derived  from  the  supposed  conflict  of  the 
Divine  attributes ;  but,  as  is  always  the  case  with  this 
dualistic  conception,  the  governing  attribute  is  justice 
—  not  the  love  which  is  the  fundamental  description 
of  God's  character,  and  punitive  justice  at  that - 
not  the  righteousness  which  is  both  loving  and  holy. 
1  Op.  cit.,  III.  306. 
15 


226     ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

Thus  Dr.  Shedd  makes  justice  "the  unconditional 
necessity  to  punish."  Accordingly,  justice  is  im 
perative,  while  mercy  is  optional ;  or,  as  Dr.  Strong 
puts  it:  "God  may  be  merciful,  but  must  be  holy." 
But  the  objection  to  making  punitive  justice  the 
ruling  principle  of  the  Divine  administration  is 
radical.  As  Dr.  Stevens  remarks :  If  it  "lies  deeper 
than  love  in  God,  and  is  independent  of  it,  and  has 
its  infinite  energy  of  wrath  excited  against  sin,  how 
is  it  logically  conceivable  that  an  inferior,  optional, 
and  (in  its  relation  to  'holiness')  dependent  and 
non-determining  attribute  (love)  should  succeed  in 
checking  this  punitive  energy  ?  The  theory  lays  no 
logical  basis  in  the  nature  of  God  for  a  work  of  salva 
tion.  It  sacrifices  the  very  motive  to  salvation  in  its 
effort  to  show  how  God  surmounted  the  difficulty  of 
making  it  possible."  2 

(4)  A  further  inference  from  the  passive  and 
penal  details  is  the  idea  of  imputation.  Anselm 
knows  no  more  than  the  Scriptures  of  the  imputation 
of  our  sins  to  Christ,  or  of  His  righteousness  to  us.3 

1  Stevens,  op.  cit.,  p.  248.  It  is  not  difficult  to  understand  why 
the  Calvinists  of  our  day  desired  revision  of  the  Westminster 
standards,  in  order  to  introduce  ideas  essential  to  the  Gospel. 

3  Ubi  supra,  p.  243. 

8  The  New  Testament  speaks  only  of  the  imputing  of  our 
sins  to  us  under  the  law,  the  non-imputing  of  our  sins  to  us  through 
forgiveness,  and  the  imputation  by  grace  of  "the  righteousness  of 
the  faith"  which  we  have  in  Christ  (Rom.  v.  13,  20;  iv.  8; 
£  Cor.  v.  19;  Rom.  iv.  9-11). 


THE  REFORMERS  227 

He  conceives  of  Christ  as  rewarded  for  His  unique 
righteousness;  the  Reformers  conceive  of  Him  as 
enduring  the  penalties  which  we  deserve,  but  which 
are  transferred  to  Him  by  imputation. 

Luther  thus  literally  interprets  Gal.  iii.  13:  "All 
the  prophets  saw  this  in  the  Spirit,  that  Christ  would 
be  of  all  men  the  greatest  robber,  murderer,  adulterer, 
thief,  sacrilegious  person,  blasphemer,  etc.,  than 
whom  none  greater  ever  was  in  the  world,  because 
He  who  is  a  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world 
now  is  not  an  innocent  person,  and  without  sin,  is 
not  the  Son  of  God  born  of  the  Virgin,  but  a  sinner 
who  has  and  bears  the  sin  of  Paul  who  was  a  blas 
phemer,  a  persecutor  and  violent,  of  Peter  who 
denied  Christ,  of  David  who  was  an  adulterer,  a 
murderer,  and  made  the  Gentiles  blaspheme  the 
name  of  the  Lord;  to  sum  up,  who  has  and  bears 
all  the  sins  of  all  men  in  His  own  body,  not  because 
He  committed  them,  but  because  He  took  them, 
committed  by  us,  upon  His  own  body  to  make 
satisfaction  for  them  with  His  own  blood."  1  He 
further  says:  "If  the  sins  of  the  whole  world  are  on 
that  one  man  Jesus  Christ,  then  they  are  not  on  the 
world ;  but  if  they  are  not  on  Him,  they  are  still  on 
the  world.  So  if  Christ  Himself  was  made  guilty  of 
all  the  sins  which  we  all  have  committed,  then  we 
are  absolved  from  all  sins,  yet  not  through  ourselves, 
1  Op.  cit.t  p.  203. 


228     ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

our  own  works  or  merits,  but  through  Him."  The 
peril  of  this  kind  of  statement  is  that  it  leaves  no 
room  for  justifying  faith,  although  justification  by 
faith  was  to  him  articulus  stantis  aut  cadentis  eccle- 
siae.  If  all  our  sins  are  absolutely  taken  from  us  and 
their  full  punishment  endured  and  complete  satis 
faction  made,  there  is  no  need  for  further  conditions, 
since  we  stand  before  God  as  though  we  had  not 
sinned.  The  logical  implication,  also,  is  that,  as 
Christ  has  taken  upon  Him  all  the  sins  of  the  future 
as  well  as  of  our  past,  we  need  no  more  concern  our 
selves  about  the  former  than  the  latter;  and  that  is 
the  practical  Antinomianism  which  has  been  so  often 
charged  against  Luther 's  doctrine,  which  has  been 
not  seldom  exhibited  by  some  who  adopted  it,  but 
which,  it  must  be  confessed,  has  been  usually  avoided 
by  the  inconsistent  influence  of  a  devoted  faith  and 
love.  Language  as  incautious  as  the  following  is 
certainly  very  dangerous :  "  Ab  hoc  non  avellet  nos 
peccatum,  etiamsi  millies  millies  uno  die  fornicemur 
aut  occidamus."1 

Calvin  seems  in  one  passage  to  deny  external 
imputation.  "We  do  not  contemplate  Him  at  a  dis 
tance  out  of  ourselves,  that  His  righteousness  may 
be  imputed  to  us ;  but  because  we  have  put  Him  on, 
and  are  ingrafted  into  His  body,  and  because  He 
has  deigned  to  unite  us  to  Himself,  therefore  we 
1  Hallam,  Literature  of  Europe,  I.  299. 


THE   REFORMERS  229 

glory  in  a  participation  of  His  righteousness."  * 
But  this  is  with  reference  to  justification  by  faith; 
when  he  speaks  of  the  Atonement,  he  uses  such  ex 
pressions  as  these:  "Thus  we  shall  behold  Christ 
sustaining  the  character  of  a  sinner  and  malefactor, 
while  from  the  lustre  of  His  innocence  it  will  at  the 
same  time  evidently  appear,  that  He  was  loaded  with 
the  guilt  of  others,  but  had  none  of  His  own.  .  .  . 
This  is  our  absolution,  that  the  guilt,  which  made 
us  obnoxious  to  punishment,  is  transferred  to  the 
person  of  the  Son  of  God.  .  .  .  Our  guilt  and  pun 
ishment  being  as  it  were  transferred  to  Him,  they 
must  cease  to  be  imputed  to  us.  .  .  .  When  He  was 
about  to  expiate  our  sins,  they  were  transferred  to 
Him  by  imputation."  2 

It  is  evident  that  this  element  is  necessary  to  com 
plete  the  theory,  for  the  passive  satisfaction  could  not 
have  been  penal  and  equivalent  if  the  sins  of  man 
kind  were  not  imputed  to  the  sinless  One.  It  was, 
however,  often  revolting  even  to  men  who  embraced 
the  chief  Reformation  doctrines ;  for  Osiander  calls 
it  "forensic  and  sophistical,  contrary  to  Scripture, 
and  verging  on  blasphemy."  3  Its  defect  is  that  it 
involves  crude  and  literal  substitution,  which  cannot 
be  made  rational  or  moral.  Suffering  by  the  inno- 


Inst.,  III.  xi.  10. 
Ibid.,  xvi.  5,  6, 

Oxeuham,  p.  242 


230    ANSELM   ON  THE   ATONEMENT 

cent  for  the  guilty  is  a  common  fact  of  experience, 
and  is  one  of  the  redemptive  forces  of  human  life; 
but  it  is  never  in  their  stead,  in  the  sense  that  the 
due  of  one  is  borne  by  the  other,  or  the  same  conse 
quences,  or  an  equivalent  amount,  or  a  similar 
quality,  and  it  has  nothing  of  the  character  of  pun 
ishment.1  "Vicarious  punishment  is  pure  injustice, 
and  vicarious  guilt  pure  nonsense."2  Whatever  our 
Lord  endured,  it  was  in  no  respect  penal ;  moral  re 
sponsibility  cannot  be  transferred,  and  the  infliction 
of  so  much  suffering  for  so  much  sin  by  means  of  a 
mechanical  substitution  is  irrational  and  inequitable. 
The  Christian  concept  of  God  will  not  permit  us  to 
represent  Him  as  "so  just  that  He  cannot  forgive 
the  guilty,  but  so  unjust  that  He  can  punish  the 
innocent."  3 

These  four  additions  to  the  Anselmic  idea  of  satis 
faction  were  undoubtedly  associated  with  a  spiritual 
conception  of  the  personal  relation  of  Christ  to  the 
human  soul,  which  greatly  obviated  their  dogmatic 
defects.  Nevertheless,  they  ushered  in  that  era  of 
Protestant  scholasticism  which  developed  so  many 
statements  of  doctrine  which  have  now  become  un 
palatable  and  are  rapidly  passing  into  oblivion.  The 
theologians  of  the  two  following  centuries  worked 

1  The  modern  distinction  between  substitutionary  punishment 
and  vicarious  suffering  is  convenient,  though  somewhat  inaccurate. 
*  H.  M.  Gwatkin,  The  Knowledge  of  God,  I.  217. 
3  Stevens,  p.  250. 


THE   MODERN   REACTION          231 

out  the  consequences  of  the  Reformers'  teaching  on 
the  Atonement  to  their  pitiless  logical  issue;  the 
orthodoxy  of  Protestantism  was  fixed  in  its  final 
form  by  Francis  Turretin,  towards  the  close  of  the 
seventeenth  century.  The  exaggerations  of  these 
speculations  on  the  method  of  the  Atonement,  their 
disregard  of  Scriptural  and  primitive  forms  of  thought, 
their  dogmatic  tyranny,  contributed  to  the  inevitable 
reaction  which  is  reaching  its  full  proportions  in  our 
own  day. 

c.    The  Modern  Development  and  Reaction 

In  tracing  the  history  of  this  doctrine  from  the 
eailiest  Fathers  down  to  the  Reformation  statement, 
it  has  become  evident  that  the  stream  of  thought  has 
not  grown  more  pure  as  it  flowed  through  the  cen 
turies.  From  time  to  time  we  have  observed  ideas 
emerging  and  colouring  the  original  Scriptural  con 
ceptions,  which  were  alien,  inharmonious,  obscuring 
the  crystal  simplicity  of  Apostolic  teaching.  The 
notion  of  a  fraudulent  ransom  was  succeeded  by  an 
external,  forensic,  transcendental  scheme  of  satis 
faction;  so  that  the  categories  under  which  men  de 
scribed  the  work  of  Christ  became  radically  changed, 
and  the  whole  current  of  thought  shifted  in  direction. 
\Ve  have  here  almost  reached  the  point  of  widest 
divergence  from  the  Scriptures  and  the  best  patristic 


232      ANSELM    ON   THE  ATONEMENT 

insight;  and  we  have  now  to  notice  the  gradual 
precipitation  of  those  elements  which  have  given  a 
strange  hue  to  the  views  of  the  work  of  redemp 
tion.  The  remaining  history  of  thought  upon  this 
subject,  for  the  most  part,  is  a  record  of  succes 
sive  changes  of  statement,  brought  about  by  acute 
criticism,  the  relinquishrnent  of  one  and  another 
detail  fundamental  to  the  Reformation  dogma,  the 
attempted  readjustment  of  the  theory  by  the  reten 
tion  of  the  familiar  terminology  and  the  alteration 
of  its  significance,  until  we  find  in  the  most  recent 
books,  even  on  the  conservative  side,  an  almost 
total  departure  from  the  Lutheran  and  Calvinistic 
teaching. 

The  theory  of  Anselm  was  so  much  modified  by 
the  unauthorised  speculations  of  the  Reformers  that 
it  may  seem  to  have  entirely  disappeared.  But  its 
essential  principle  of  satisfaction  remained  and 
dominated  thought,  and  has  been  the  basis  ever  since 
of  what  has  been  called  Evangelical  Theology.  It 
may  be  noted  that  before  the  Reformation  very 
different  explanations  of  the  Atonement  were  allowed 
to  pass  current,  and  that  thereafter  this  one  doctrine 
assumed  peculiar  importance,  whose  several  hy 
potheses  claimed  the  sole  right  to  the  title  of  ortho 
doxy,  and  permitted  no  opposition  or  even  variation. 
It  is  indeed  wonderful  that  this  iron-bound  dogma 
tism  should  have  held  sway  for  so  many  centuries, 


THE   MODERN    REACTION  233 

despite  the  continuous  evidences  of  reaction  against 
its  objectionable  features. 

The  first  great  protest  came  from  a  confessedly 
unorthodox  source.  Lselius  and  Faustus  Socinus 
were  undoubtedly  much  handicapped  by  their  heresy 
concerning  the  person  of  Christ.  For  a  long  time 
it  seemed  enough  to  answer  an  objection  to  the 
theory  of  satisfaction  to  call  it  Socinian ;  as  though 
doubt  of  the  full  statement  of  forensic  and  penal 
substitution  were  heretical,  because  its  most  vigorous 
critics  happened  to  be  also  unbelievers  in  the  deity  * 
of  our  Lord.  But  even  that  fact  does  not  destroy  the 
validity  of  a  protest  against  a  form  of  doctrine  which 
shocked  the  moral  consciousness  and  outraged  the 
reason.  The  imperfection  of  the  Socinian  view  of 
Christ  naturally  made  their  constructive  theory  a 
failure.  The  death  of  Christ  was  to  them  merely 
an  example  similar  to  martyrdom,  an  assurance  of 
the  Divine  forgiveness,  and  a  preparation  for  the  y 
resurrection  which  was  the  real  power  in  the  redemp 
tion  from  sin.  As  a  positive  statement,  this  must 
be  regarded  as  deficient,  because  it  ignores  what 
St.  Paul  and  the  Greek  Fathers  made  so  prominent, 
the  relation  between  Christ  and  the  whole  of  human-  ^ 
ity,  and  the  solidarity  of  humanity  itself  by  which 
alone  His  sufferings  in  our  behalf  become  intelligible. 
The  final  formulation  of  the  truth  regarding  Christ's 
work  will  contain  all  the  Scriptural  elements,  though 


234     ANSELM   ON  THE  ATONEMENT 

it  may  be  questioned  whether  the  time  for  that  has 
even  yet  come;  certainly  it  had  not  come  at  the 
period  of  the  Sozzini,  especially  with  the  embarrass 
ment  of  their  faulty  theology. 

Their  significance  lay  in  their  powerful  negative 
criticism,  in  the  substitution  of  plain  sense  for  juristic 
fictions.  The  general  point  of  view  has  been  already 
indicated,  because  it  has  been  largely  absorbed  in  the 
modern  attitude  toward  the  idea  of  satisfaction. 
First  of  all,  satisfaction,  of  which  the  New  Testa 
ment  says  nothing,  and  the  remission  of  sins,  of 
which  it  is  full,  are  mutually  exclusive.  If  satisfac 
tion  has  been  made,  there  is  no  logical  room  for  for 
giveness,  the  release  is  a  matter  of  strict  justice;  if 
remission  is  a  gift  of  grace,  there  has  been  no  satis 
faction.  Moral  obligations  may  not  even  figura 
tively  be  compared  to  debts  or  sums  of  money ;  the 
difference  between  personal  delinquencies  and  pe 
cuniary  debts  is  ethically  as  wide  as  possible.  Nor 
may  the  punishment  of  sin  be  treated  under  the 
analogy  of  criminal  proceedings;  for  the  punish 
ment  of  the  innocent  is  unrighteous,  and  the  suffer 
ing  of  others  through  being  involved  in  the  sin  of  the 
guilty  is  not  penal  suffering.  If  sin  be  a  violation  of 
private  right,  as  Anselm  asserts,  then  satisfaction 
is  unnecessary,  because  the  affront  could  be  par 
doned  by  the  magnanimity  of  the  One  offended.  If 
it  be  a  violation  of  public  law,  and  the  essential  note 


THE  MODERN   REACTION  235 

of  justice  be  the  necessity  to  punish  sin,  as  the  Re 
formers  and  their  successors  asserted  against  Anselm, 
then  satisfaction  becomes  impossible.  Justice  re 
quires  that  the  sinner  should  suffer  the  penalty  of 
eternal  death.  The  inner  and  spiritual  punishment 
of  sin  cannot  be  transferred ;  merit  and  demerit  are 
inseparable  from  the  subject  himself. 

There  was  and  could  be  no  equivalence  between 
Christ's  sufferings  and  our  deserts.  For  He  suffered 
as  man,  and  this  suffering  was  consequently  finite, 
and  not  equal  to  the  penalty  deserved  by  the  whole 
race.  If  the  value  of  the  suffering  is  sought  to  be 
enhanced  by  the  fact  that  He  was  God,  so  that  what 
was  lacking  in  the  quantity  is  made  up  by  the  quality, 
still  there  was  no  actual  equivalence.  An  individual 
endurance  of  penalty,  even  if  regarded  as  construc 
tively  infinite,  would  be  equal  to  only  one  eternal 
death,  and  therefore  could  compensate  for  only  one 
sinner.  Moreover,  if  any  endurance  becomes  equiva 
lent  to  infinity,  merely  because  the  sufferer  was  Divine, 
then  the  smallest  amount  of  suffering  would  have 
been  adequate,  for  it  would  have  for  the  same  reason 
an  infinite  worth  to  God.  The  only  real  equivalence 
for  even  one  sin  would  be  that  Christ  should  have 
died  the  eternal  death;  but  on  the  contrary  He  was 
raised  and  ascended  into  glory.  Still  further,  if  His 
Divine  nature  is  supposed  to  invest  His  passion  with 
its  true  value,  then  the  satisfaction  is  artificial  and 


236     ANSELM   ON  THE   ATONEMENT 

unreal,  because  that  makes  God  compensate  Him- 
^elf,  and  this  is  contrary  to  the  orthodox  view  that 
God  is  impassible.  Finally,  the  idea  of  imputation 
is  incompatible  with  that  of  satisfaction ;  for,  if  the 
latter  is  complete,  it  excludes  anything  further,  and 
if  it  be  imputed  on  the  ground  of  faith,  it  is  condi 
tional  not  perfect.1 

These  objections  must  be  considered  as  on  the 
whole  unanswerable,  because  they  have  distinctly 
modified  the  whole  subsequent  discussion,  except  in 
the  scholastic  development  of  the  seventeenth  cen 
tury.  They  made  the  analogy  of  criminal  procedure 
indefensible,  because  that  demands  the  punishment 
of  the  offender,  and  the  satisfaction  theory  requires  a 
substitute.  Hence  the  theorists  were  driven  back 
to  the  figure  of  a  civil  debt,  which  permits  of  substi 
tution,  but  destroys  the  conception  of  sin  and  of 
distributive  justice.  Those  who  have  tried  to  make 
satisfaction  seem  rational  and  just  have  ever  since 
been  involved  in  hopeless  vacillation  and  incon 
sistency,  in  the  attempt  to  evade  the  crushing  force 
of  the  Socinian  criticism.  It  has  so  affected  the  think 
ing  of  the  Christian  world  that  nothing  is  more  re 
markable  in  modern  theology  than  the  open  or  tacit 
omission  of  all  those  conceptions  against  which  it 

1  Ritschl,  op.  tit.,  pp.  298-309;  Baur,  op.  cit.,  pp.  374-414; 
Harnack,  VII.  156-159;  Hagenbach,  II.  355-360;  Neander, 
Hist.  Christ.  Dogrn.,  II.  260;  Stevens,  op.  tit.,  pp.  157-161; 
Sabatier,  pp.  83-88;  Lidgett,  pp.  474-476. 


THE   MODERN   REACTION  237 

was  directed.  It  has  compelled  "Christian  thought 
to  abandon  once  and  for  all  the  regions  of  mythology 
and  of  penal  law,  and  to  take  its  stand  at  last  on  the 
firm  ground  of  moral  realities."  1 

The  Defence  of  the  Catholic  Faith  concerning  the 
Satisfaction  of  Christ  by  Hugo  Grotius  was  intended 
to  be  an  answer  to  Faustus  Socinus ;  but  it  has  to  be 
acknowledged  that  it  betrays  the  powerful  influence 
of  his  destructive  criticism.  It  must  therefore  be 
considered  as  the  beginning  of  the  revolt  within  the 
ranks  of  the  orthodox  against  the  Calvinistic  doc 
trine.  Grotius  substituted  the  relation  of  a  ruler 
(rector)  to  his  subject  for  that  of  debtor  and  creditor, 
and  for  that  of  judge  and  criminal.  He  perceived 
the  inadequacy  of  the  metaphor  of  debt  and  payment, 
and  also  the  impropriety  of  an  injured  person  acting 
as  judge  in  his  own  cause  or  demanding  punishment 
when  he  has  a  right  only  to  compensation.  The 
method  of  salvation  was  not  by  a  fulfilment  of  the 
law,  but  by  its  relaxation.  As  Ruler  or  Governor, 
God  might  have  forgiven  sin  as  a  matter  of  preroga 
tive,  but  He  must  consider  the  effect  upon  the  moral 
universe.  "He  most  wisely  chose  that  way  by  which 
He  might  at  the  same  time  manifest  the  greater 
number  of  His  attributes,  both  clemency  and  severity, 
a  hatred  of  sin,  and  care  for  preserving  the  law." 
The  end  of  His  government  is  the  preservation  of 
1  Sabatier,  p.  84. 


238     ANSELM   ON   THE  ATONEMENT 

order  and  the  prevention  of  transgression.  That  end 
was  secured  by  the  death  of  Christ  as  a  penal  ex 
ample,  "placing  in  clear  light  the  character  of  God, 
the  heinousness  of  sin,  and  the  authority  of  the  law.'* 
It  was  not  a  payment  of  a  debt  (solutio),  but  a  satis 
faction  ;  for  payment  excludes  remission,  the  display 
of  rectoral  justice  (justitia  rectoris)  fulfilled  the  ends 
of  government,  and  room  was  left  for  the  exaction  of 
faith  and  repentance  as  the  conditions  of  pardon. 

Such,  in  brief,  is  what  is  known  as  the  govern 
mental  theory  of  the  Atonement.  Its  author  used 
much  of  the  current  terminology  of  the  Reformation 
theory,  such  as  "paying  our  debt,"  "receiving  our 
punishment,"  "suffering  the  penalty  of  our  sins"; 
but,  in  fact,  he  destroyed  the  real  ground  of  that 
theory  by  depriving  it  of  its  characteristic  features. 
He  rejected  the  idea  of  equivalence,  and  he  did  not 
maintain  a  strict  satisfaction,  but  a  Divine  acquittal. 
As  Ritschl  has  said,  he  made  Christ's  death,  not  a 
^"satisfaction  for  past  sins,"  but  a  "penal  example 
for  the  prevention  of  future  sins."  God  accepts  this 
substitution  of  Christ's  affliction  in  lieu  of  real  pun 
ishment,  because  it  is  needed  to  vindicate  His  recti 
tude  and  the  dignity  of  His  government,  and  not 
because  it  is  a  necessity  of  His  punitive  justice.  But 
such  acceptance  is  practically  the  same  thing  as  the 
Scotist  idea  of  " acceptation";  and  Dr.  Baur  says: 
"There  is  no  theory  to  which  the  idea  of  acceptilation 


THE   MODERN   REACTION  239 

could  be  applied  with  greater  propriety  than  to  that 
of  Grotius."  On  every  essential  point,  then,  he  de 
viates  from  the  Reformers ;  in  the  technical  sense  of 
those  words,  he  knows  nothing  of  punishment,  of 
substitution,  or  of  satisfaction,  and  for  his  justi 
fication  of  the  execution  of  one  as  an  example  for 
the  rest  his  only  appeal  is  to  heathen  ethics  and 
illustrations. 

The  theory  is  unsatisfactory,  because  it  makes 
God's  sovereignty  fundamental;  whereas  back  of 
His  will  is  the  character  of  love  and  righteousness 
which  conditions  it,  and  it  cannot  depend  upon  His 
arbitrary  will  whether  He  punishes  or  forgives.  It 
is  not  juristic  indeed,  but  it  is  political,  and  a  reflex 
of  the  politics  of  the  time;  it  makes  God's  relation 
to  us  official  instead  of  personal,  despotic  instead  of 
paternal.  It  was  developed  under  conceptions  of 
law,  different  from  those  of  Anselm  or  the  Reformers, 
which  we  have  outgrown  as  barbarous  and  immoral. 
His  whole  notion  of  the  dignity  of  law  is  an  abstrac 
tion,  and  the  means  by  which  God  upholds  His  moral 
government  are  well  described  as  "the  primitive 
and  impei  feet  expedients  resorted  to  by  human 
legislators  in  the  rudest  times."  The  theory  is  an 
attempt  to  provide  a  via  media,  but  like  most  at 
tempts  at  compromise  it  is  unsuccessful.  It  is  a 
distinct  movement  away  from  the  Reformation  type 
of  thought ;  but,  as  Dr.  Stevens  says,  it  has  the  ad- 


240      ANSELM   ON   THE  ATONEMENT 

vantage  of  being  "capable  of  adjustment,  by  modi 
fication,  to  the  requirements  of  modern  thought  and 
of  harmonisation  with  the  Christian  ideas  of  God 
and  of  His  relations  to  the  world."  1 

Notwithstanding  the  suspicion  of  heresy  attaching 
to  it,  the  governmental  theory  has  had  great  weight 
down  to  our  own  day,  although  it  has  suffered  con 
siderable  modifications  in  form,  in  the  endeavour 
to  "ethicise  the  conception  of  satisfaction."  Natur 
ally,  the  Arminians  followed  Grotius,  and  the  preva 
lence  of  their  theology  commended  the  theory  to 
many  English  Churchmen  like  Archbishop  Tillotson 
and  Bishop  Patrick,  and  gave  it  a  far-reaching  in 
fluence  on  English  Nonconformity.  It  was  accepted 
by  Jonathan  Edwards,  Sr.,  and  the  New  England 
divines  generally,  and  survives  in  some  of  the  most 
notable  works  published  in  recent  years.  Its  vogue 
is  one  evidence  of  the  extent  of  the  revulsion  from 
any  mode  of  stating  the  idea  of  penal  satisfaction.2 

1  Dale,  The  Atonement,  pp.  295-297;  Baur,  pp.  414-435; 
Fisher,  p.  341;  Hagenbach,  II.  355,  361;  Lidgett,  pp.  111-114, 
480;  Stevens,  pp.  161-171,  252-254,  417;  Ritschl,  pp.  309-319. 

a  Dr.  Simon  considers  it  one  of  the  so-called  "moral"  views 
of  the  Atonement,  which  is  a  sufficient  illustration  of  its  distance 
from  the  Reformation  dogma.  He  mentions  Albert  Barnes  and 
Professor  Wace  among  its  modern  advocates.  Dr.  Stevens  devotes 
a  chapter  (pp.  198-220)  to  "Modern  Ethical  Satisfaction  Theo 
ries,"  as  exhibiting  the  perpetuity  of  some  of  the  conceptions  and 
principles  of  Grotius.  He  names  Professor  Edwards  A.  Park, 
Dr.  J.  McLeod  Campbell,  Dr.  R.  W.  Dale.  Dr.  S.  Harris,  Dr. 
Lewis  F.  Stearns,  Professor  George  Harris  (Essay  in  Progressive 


THE   MODERN   REACTION  241 

The  Protestant  scholastics  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  Gerhard,  Mastricht,  Quenstedt,  and  Turre- 
tin,  carried  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  to  its  farthest 
extreme.  They  were  stalwart  in  pushing  the  logical 
process  to  its  utmost  conclusions,  shrinking  from  no 
statement,  however  startling,  that  seemed  to  be  justi 
fied  by  their  unfortunate  premises.1  They  were 
unable,  however,  to  curb  the  tendency  to  depart 
from  the  Reformation  orthodoxy,  and  this  diver 
gence  has  continued  until  it  has  grown  to  the  pro 
portions  of  a  revolution  in  our  own  age. 

Orthodoxy),  Rev.  A.  Lyttelton  (Essay  in  Lux  Mundi),  Rev.  J.  S. 
Lidgett,  Canon  Moberly,  Rev.  W.  L.  Walker,  Dr.  J.  T.  Hutcheson, 
Principal  Fairbairn,  and  Dr.  Henry  C.  Sheldon. 

1  The  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  by  comparison,  is 
very  tame,  although  loyal  to  the  general  position  of  the  Reformers. 
"The  Lord  Jesus,  by  His  perfect  obedience  and  sacrifice  of  Him 
self,  .  .  .  hath  fully  satisfied  the  justice  of  His  Father"  (ch.  viii. 
sect.  v.).  We  may  also  note  the  admirable  reticence  of  the  Angli 
can  standards  of  a  century  earlier;  except  that  Article  II.  contains 
a  wholly  unscriptural  expression :  "  Who  truly  suffered,  was  cru 
cified,  dead,  and  buried,  to  reconcile  His  Father  to  us,  and  to  be 
a  sacrifice,  not  only  for  original  guilt,  but  also  for  actual  sins  of 
men."  Article  XXXI.  has  language  similar  to  that  of  the  Eucha- 
ristic  Office,  which  says:  "Who  made  there  (by  His  one  oblation  of 
Himself  once  offered)  a  full,  perfect,  and  sufficient  sacrifice,  obla 
tion,  and  satisfaction,  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world."  The 
phraseology  is  a  natural  reflex  of  the  theology  of  the  time,  but  it 
does  not  commit  us  to  a  particular  theory.  While  we  might  to-day 
employ  a  different  word,  and  are  entirely  at  liberty  to  think  of  the 
Father's  satisfaction  in  an  obedient  Son,  we  are  to  look  for  the 
Church's  authoritative  formulas  in  the  language  of  the  Catechism: 
"who  redeemed  me  and  ail  mankind,"  and  in  the  sober  statement 
of  fact  in  the  Nicene  Creed. 

16 


242     ANSELM   ON   THE  ATONEMENT 

The  New  England  theologians,  from  their  sym 
pathy  with  the  Grotian  theory,  denied  that  Christ 
suffered  the  penalty  of  our  sins.  Dr.  Dwight  said: 
"Nor  will  it  be  believed  that  any  created  nature 
could  in  that  short  space  of  time  suffer  what  would 
be  equivalent  to  even  a  slight  distress  extended 
through  eternity  .  .  .  When,  therefore,  we  are  told 
that  it  pleased  Jehovah  to  bruise  Him,  it  was  not  as 
a  punishment."  Dr.  Edwards  the  younger  said: 
"It  is  not  true  that  Christ  endured  an  equal  quantity 
of  misery  to  that  which  would  have  been  endured 
by  all  His  people,  had  they  suffered  the  curse  of  the 
law  ...  As  the  Eternal  Logos  was  capable  of 
neither  enduring  misery  nor  losing  happiness,  all  the 
happiness  lost  by  the  substitution  of  Christ  was 
barely  that  of  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  during  only 
thirty-three  years;  or  rather,  during  the  last  three 
years  of  His  life."  And  Dr.  Emmons  said:  "His 
sufferings  were  no  punishment,  much  less  our  pun 
ishment.  His  sufferings  were  by  no  means  equal  in 
degree  or  duration  to  the  eternal  sufferings  we  de 
serve,  and  which  God  has  threatened  to  inflict 
upon  us.  So  that  He  did  in  no  sense  bear  the 
penalty  of  the  law  which  we  have  broken,  and  justly 
deserve."  1 

These  concessions  must  not  be  estimated  as  a 

1  Introduction  to  Theological  Essays,  edited  by  Geo.  R.  Noyes, 
D.D.,  pp.  xxiv,  xxv. 


THE   MODERN   REACTION  243 

complete  departure  from  the  Calvinistic  view  of  the 
Atonement;  but  they  clearly  indicate  the  beginning 
of  the  return  to  simpler  and  wiser  theorising  on  the 
unrevealed.  It  is  unmistakable  that,  during  the 
whole  of  the  century  just  past,  many  familiar  con 
ceptions  were  becoming  quite  impossible  of  belief. 
Dr.  McLeod  Campbell  has  illustrated  this  from 
modern  English  Calvinism.  Thus,  Dr.  Payne  re 
jected  the  imputation  taught  by  Owen  and  Edwards : 
"  Guilt  and  merit  not  being  transferable  —  but  only 
their  consequences."  Dr.  Jenkyn  admitted  that 
"Christ's  sufferings  were  not  a  punishment."  Dr. 
Stroud  approvingly  quoted  President  Edwards,  to 
the  effect  that  to  represent  Christ  as  "suffering  a 
positive  infliction  of  Divine  wrath"  is  chargeable 
with  error,  "not  to  say  absurdity."  1  Among  English 
Churchmen  the  same  disregard  of  the  old  tenets  is 
shown  in  the  work  which  was  so  long  regarded  as 
the  classic  upon  the  subject,  Magee's  Atonement  and 
Sacrifice.  He  said:  "I  have  used  the  expression, 
'vicarious  import,'  rather  than  vicarious,  to  avoid 
furnishing  any  colour  to  the  idle  charge,  made 
against  the  doctrine  of  atonement,  of  supposing  a 
real  substitution  in  the  room  of  the  offender,  and  a 
literal  translation  of  his  guilt  and  punishment  to  the 
immolated  victim ;  a  thing  utterly  incomprehensible, 
as  neither  guilt  nor  punishment  can  be  conceived, 
1  McLeod  Campbell,  The  Atonement,  pp.  66,  70,  72. 


244     ANSELM   ON   THE  ATONEMENT 

but  with  reference  to  consciousness,  which  cannot  be 
transferred."  ' 

However,  the  Reformation  dogma,  in  its  main 
features  but  with  constantly  diminishing  emphasis, 
was  frequently  repeated  in  the  first  half  of  the  last 
century,  and  has  not  been  entirely  dislodged  in  our 
own  day,  but  is  manifestly  obsolescent.  Hugh 
Martin,  Charles  Jerram,  and  J.  M.  Armour  pre 
sented  variant  forms  of  the  traditional  view,  although 
some  important  reservations  are  made.  Edwards 
A.  Park  and  Albert  Barnes  gave  good  representations 
of  the  modified  Grotian  doctrine.  The  controversial 
treatises  of  Drs.  Smeaton,  Crawford,  and  Cari- 
dlish ;  the  Bampton  Lectures  of  Archbishop  Thom 
son,  and  his  essay  in  Aids  to  Faith;  the  essays  in 
The  Atonement:  A  Clerical  Symposium  by  Mr.  Mac- 
kennal,  Dr.  Olver,  Dr.  Rainy,  Dr.  Cave,  Dr. 
Morris,  and  Dr.  Gloag ;  the  work  of  Dr.  Dale ;  The 
Scriptural  Doctrine  of  Sacrifice  and  Atonement  by 
Dr.  Cave ;  The  Humiliation  of  Christ  by  Dr.  Bruce 
(which  adheres  to  the  penal  element  in  the  sufferings 
of  Christ  and  the  objective  imputation  of  our  sins  to 
Him);  the  Kerr  Lectures  of  Dr.  D.  W.  Forrest; 
The  Christian  View  of  God  and  the  World  (Lecture 
viii)  by  Dr.  Orr ;  the  Studies  in  Theology  and  The 

1  I.  268,  edition  of  1822.  Dr.  Simon  includes  the  view  of 
Archbishop  Magee  among  the  theories  that  are  "exclusively 
manward-looking"  (The  Redemption  of  Man,  p.  58). 


THE   MODERN   REACTION          245 

Death  of  Christ  by  Dr.  James  M.  Denney;  The 
Christian  Salvation  by  Dr.  J.  S.  Candlish;  and 
Bishop  Moule's  Outlines  of  Christian  Doctrine  are 
some  more  recent  illustrations  of  the  partial  survival 
of  the  older  conceptions.1 

One  characteristic  of  the  modern  statement  is  the 
attempt  to  "put  a  piece  of  new  cloth  into  an  old 
garment "  that  is  already  much  patched  and  ready 

1  The  thoughtful  work  of  Dr.  R.  W.  Dale  (The  Atonement)  has 
been  so  deservedly  admired  for  its  candour  and  scholarship,  and 
has  had  so  much  wider  reception  than  any  of  the  others,  that  it 
may  be  considered  a  typical  instance  of  the  effects  of  the  modern 
influence.  He  says  in  his  Preface:  "The  premature  attempt  to 
construct  a  Theory  of  the  Atonement  on  the  basis  of  those  de 
scriptions  of  the  Death  of  Christ  which  represent  it  as  a  Ransom 
for  us,  or  as  a  Propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the  world,  or  on  phrases 
in  which  Christ  is  described  as  dying  for  us,  or  dying  for  our  sins, 
has  been  the  mischievous  cause  of  most  of  the  erroneous  Theories 
by  which  the  glory  of  the  FACT  has  been  obscured."  On  which 
Professor  Adeney  remarks:  "That  great  theologian  was  not  con 
tent  to  rest  in  any  half-way  house  himself,  and  proceeded  to  work 
out  a  most  elaborate  argument  in  the  region  of  hypothesis"  (A 
Theological  Symposium,  p.  143).  He  seems  genuinely  Grotian 
when  he  says :  "It  belonged  to  Him  to  assert,  by  His  own  act,  that 
suffering  is  the  just  result  of  sin.  He  asserts  it,  not  by  inflicting 
suffering  on  the  sinner,  but  by  enduring  suffering  itself"  (p.  392). 
Dr.  Stevens  thinks  he  only  approximates  the  penal  theory,  al 
though  he  employs  the  usual  terms.  He  calls  imputation  "a  legal 
fiction,"  and  he  labours  to  show  that  Christ's  suffering  was  a  sub 
stitute  for  punishment  (pp.  391-394).  Yet  this  whole  passage  is 
vitiated  by  a  real  recognition  of  the  penal  idea  (see  also  p.  222), 
and  he  admits  the  validity  of  literal  substitution,  expiation,  and 
propitiation  (pp.  475  sq.,  103,  237,  242).  See,  for  effective  criti 
cisms,  Lidgett,  The  Spiritual  Principle  of  the  Atonement,  pp.  155- 
170 ;  Moberly,  Atonement  and  Personality,  pp.  393-396 ;  Stevens, 
op.  cit.,  pp.  190,  198. 


246     ANSELM  ON  THE   ATONEMENT 

to  fall  to  pieces.  The  language  of  the  historic  theories 
is  retained,  but  it  is  evacuated  of  its  original  meaning. 
Dr.  George  B.  Stevens  says:  "Almost  all  modern 
evangelical  writers,  whatever  their  particular  shade 
of  opinion,  are  disposed  to  qualify  and  tone  down 
the  definitions  and  formulas  of  the  old  theology, 
even  where  they  employ  some  of  its  terms;  they 
seldom  glory  in  the  claim,  as  earlier  writers  did,  that 
theirs  is  the  'legal'  and  'forensic'  interpretation  of 
the  work  of  Christ,  or  assert  that  the  determination 
to  punish  is  the  primary  element  in  the  Christian 
concept  of  God,  which  He  must  gratify  in  the  suffer 
ings  of  Christ  before  he  can  forgive."  *  Most  of  the 
authors  referred  to  above  recognise  that  the  theory 
needs  restatement  in  view  of  modern  objections,  and 
oftentimes  closely  approach  the  standpoint  of  its 
critics.  This  is  especially  seen  in  their  reluctance  to 
formulate  a  complete  philosophy  of  the  Atonement, 
their  endeavour  to  revitalise  the  old  words  by  a  spirit 
ual  rather  than  a  legal  interpretation,  and  their  re 
jection  of  those  details  which  have  made  the  accepted 
doctrine  abhorrent.2  But  it  must  be  remarked  that 
these  qualifications,  which  have  almost  totally  al 
tered  the  old  form  of  penal  substitution  and  attenu- 

1  Op.  tit,  pp.  198,  199. 

3  A  comparison  of  the  Clerical  Symposium  (1883)  with  the 
Theological  Symposium  (1902)  upon  the  same  subject,  will  furnish 
a  suggestive  indication  of  the  progress  of  twenty  years. 


THE   MODERN  REACTION          247 

ated  it  so  that  it  is  barely  recognisable,  have  shorn 
it  of  its  consistency  and  logical  ioice.  It  is  not  too 
much  to  say,  therefore,  that,  as  an  explanation  of 
the  method  of  our  redemption,  it  is  disappearing 
as  antiquated  and  outworn.  To  quote  again  from 
Dr.  Stevens's  profoundly  able  discussion  of  the  Chris 
tian  doctrine  of  salvation:  "In  but  very  few  books 
on  the  Atonement  which  are  fairly  recent  has  the 
old  Protestant  traditional  theory  been  preserved 
without  important  qualifications.  In  Germany  I 
do  not  know  of  a  single  prominent  living  theolo 
gian  who  has  championed  it  in  any  well-known 
treatise.1  ...  At  any  rate,  for  better  or  for  worse, 
the  theory  is  moribund.  .  .  .  No  British  theolo 
gian,  so  far  as  I  know,  has,  within  recent  years, 
consistently  elaborated  or  defended  the  theory  of 
vicarious  punishment."2 

Many  of  the  modern  writers  make  no  effort  to 
harmonise  the  Reformation  terminology  with  the 
changed  conception  of  the  work  of  Christ.  They 
frankly  acknowledge  that  the  attempt  is  not  only 

1  The  Germans  and  French  Protestants  universally  regard 
the  death  of  Christ  as  "the  historical  means  of  a  subjective 
atonement." 

3  Pp.  186,  187,  190.  Even  Dr.  Denney  repudiates  such  words 
as  "legal,"  "judicial,"  "forensic"  (The  Atonement  and  the  Modern 
Mind,  p.  69),  and  avoids  the  use  of  the  word  "penal,"  although, 
both  in  this  and  his  former  treatise,  The  Death  of  Christ,  he  holds 
to  the  word  "substitution,"  which  he  admits  "lends  itself  very 
easily  to  misconstruction"  (ubi  supra,  p..  130). 


248      ANSELM   ON  THE  ATONEMENT 

vain  but  unnecessary,  because  that  mode  of  speech 
is  radically  at  variance  with  the  truth.    The  fear  of 
heterodoxy    withheld    many    thinkers    from    taking 
such  a  decided  position,  until  their  courage  was  re 
inforced  by  the  stimulating  reflections  of  Coleridge.1 
Since  1860  the  movement  in  favour  of  a  new  con 
struction  of  thought  upon  redemption  has  become 
very  pronounced.     The  significant  fact  about  it  is 
that  it  has  been  largely  characterised  by  an  endeav 
our  to  bring  out  the  essential  truths  which  had  been 
too  long  minimised  or  ignored.     The  new  historic 
sense  of  the  period  necessitated  the  study  of  doctrine 
in  its  historical  development;    with  the  result  that 
the    original    authority    of   many   customary   state 
ments  was  challenged,  there  was   more   and   more 
evident  a  refusal  to  philosophise  about  what  in  its 
nature  is  unrevealable  or  what  at  least  has  not  been 
clearly  disclosed  to  us,  and  there  was  a  disposition 
to  be  silent  about  those  elements  of  any  theory  which 
cannot  be  found  in  the  Scriptures  and  the  writings 
of   the    Greek   Fathers.    The   extreme    recoil   from 
any  form  or  modification  of  the  Anselmic  theory  is 
witnessed  by  a  host  of  writers,  far  too  many  to  name, 
whose   works  are  remarkable   frequently  for   their 
rejection  of  all  its  details,  but  more  often  for  what 
they  do  not  say,  and  what  they  must  have  said  if  the 

1  The  term  "orthodoxy"  should  be  confined  to  the  few  things    ' 
pronounced  upon  by  the  Church  universal. 


THE   MODERN  REACTION  249 

• 
omitted   features   were    important.     There  is  great 

difference  among  them  as  to  what  constitutes  atone 
ment,  and  even  whether  it  be  in  some  sense  both 
objective  and  subjective  or  only  the  latter;  but  they 
practically  agree  in  disavowing  those  statements 
which  were  until  recently  regarded  as  the  essence  of 
orthodoxy. 

The  tendency  seems  to  be,  on  the  whole,  to  lay 
stress  on  the  fact  that  wre  are  reconciled  to  God 
through  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  with  no  attempt  to 
define  precisely  its  method  or  to  dogmatise  about  it 
or  even  to  insist  that  any  understanding  of  it  is  need 
ful.  The  love  of  God  is  made  primary  and  funda 
mental,  inclusive  of  His  righteousness,  and  a  far  more 
splendid  and  rectifying  attribute  than  what  has  been 
called  "a  desire  to  be  willing  to  forgive."  i  The 
judicial  is  completely  superseded  by  the  ethical,  and 
the  Incarnation  resumes  its  ancient  power  of  inter 
preting  the  work  of  Christ.  Instead  of  employing 
the  words  suggestive  of  some  particular  method  of 
atonement,  we  are  reverting  to  Sacrifice,  Redemption, 
and  Reconciliation  as  being  Scriptural  and  so  best 
descriptive  of  the  fact.2 

1  Jas.  Morison,  Exposition  of  Romans  Third,  p.  305. 

2  See  Appendix  for  illustrations. 


IV 

ESTIMATE     OF    THE     VALUE     OF    THE 
TREATISE 


IV 

ESTIMATE     OF     THE     VALUE    OF     THE 
TREATISE 

THE  Cur  Deus  Homo  has  an  importance  for  the 
history  of  doctrine  which  it  does  not  possess  as  a 
positive  theory.  Per  se  it  has  little  permanent  worth. 
Ritschl  thinks  it  has  been  much  overestimated,  and 
that  its  appreciation  is  "conventional  and  unhis- 
torical"  (p.  23).  It  has  been  shown  how  meagre 
were  its  results  upon  scholastic  thought,  and  at  the 
same  time  how  vital  has  been  its  hold  upon  the 
theology  of  the  past  three  centuries.  Dean  Church 
speaks  of  it  as  "the  famous  dialogue,  in  which,  seek 
ing  the  rational  ground  of  the  Incarnation,  he  lays 
down  a  profound  and  original  theory  of  the  Atone 
ment,  which,  whether  accepted  or  impugned,  has 
moulded  the  character  of  all  Christian  doctrine 
about  it  since."  1  This  indicates  at  once  its  histori 
cal  import  and  its  prime  defect. 

It  is  certainly  remarkable,  that  a  theory  which  so 
entirely  lacked  the  power  to  commend  itself  to  gen- 

1  St.  Anselm,  p.  232.  Thomasius  calls  Anselm  "  the  theo 
logical  founder  of  the  dogma  of  the  Atonement"  (op.  dt., 
p.  123). 


254     ANSELM   ON  THE  ATONEMENT 

eral  acceptance  should  have  contained  so  many 
ideas  whose  influence  has  persisted  for  eight  cen 
turies.  Perhaps  no  other  theological  statement  has 
been  so  universally  rejected  as  a  whole,  but  whose 
essential  characteristics  have  so  completely  coloured 
subsequent  thinking.  To  Anselm  is  due  the  displace 
ment  of  the  simple  doctrine  and  fact  that  Christ 
"died  for  our  sins"  by  a  philosophy  of  the  Atone 
ment.  Though  the  form  of  the  theory  has  been 
strikingly  changed,  he  has  given  popularity  and 
continuance  to  an  almost  exclusively  objective 
treatment  of  the  Atonement,  to  the  subordination 
of  the  Incarnation  to  a  mere  incidental  means,  to 
the  thought  of  God  as  Sovereign  rather  than  as 
Father,  to  the  conception  of  the  governmental 
administration  of  Divine  law  instead  of  the  paternal, 
to  the  fiction  that  righteousness  is  more  peremptory 
in  its  demands  than  love,  to  the  preference  of  tfcfe 
legal  word  "justice"  to  "righteousness"  as  the 
nobler  equivalent  of  the  Scriptural  term  Si/caioo-vvrj. 
He  has  introduced  the  idea  of  satisfaction  as  the 
chief  demand  of  the  nature  of  God,  of  punishment 
as  a  possible  alternative  of  satisfaction  and  equally 
fulfilling  the  requirements  of  justice  —  thus  open 
ing  the  way  to  the  assertion  of  punishment  as  the 
true  satisfaction  of  the  claims  of  the  law.  He  has 
authenticated  the  notion  of  a  "battle  of  the  at 
tributes";  he  has  substituted  a  legal  and  commercial 


VALUE   OF  THE   TREATISE         255 

use  of  the  figure  of  debt  for  the  Scriptural  use  of 
the  same  figure  and  for  other  figures  more  frequently 
employed  in  the  New  Testament;  and  he  has  pro 
moted  the  ambiguous  description  of  the  in-finite 
guilt  of  sin  and  of  the  merely  forensic  value  of  the 
infinite  merits  of  Christ. 

The  student  of  popular  theology  will  recognise 
all  of  these  elements  as  occupying  greater  or  less 
prominence  in  the  familiar  statement  of  the  doctrine 
of  Atonement;  and  their  permanence  is  a  strong 
testimony  to  the  extent  of  Anselm's  influence.  But, 
as  Dean  Church  said,  the  theory  is  "original"* with 
him,  and,  in  their  application  to  the  mode  of*  our 
redemption,  the  details  above  noted  are  equally 
novel.  It  is  suspicious  and  ill-omened  that  they  had 
no  expression  for  a  thousand  years.  Their  local 
antecedents,  their  exclusive  development  in  the  West, 
their  determination  of  thought  to  such  different 
categories  from  those  assumed  by  the  Fathers,  render 
them  interesting  as  a  phase  of  historical  theology, 
but  quite  without  authority  in  the  investigation  of 
fundamental  Christian  truth.  It  cannot  be  denied 
that  they  have  wrought  grievous  harm,  as  will  have 
appeared  in  the  preceding  discussion.  Surely  it  was 
not  a  false  instinct  that  led  the  Fathers  to  think  more 
of  the  indwelling  of  God  in  humanity  than  of  the 
sufferings  and  death  that  resulted  from  the  "human 
life  of  God."  It  was  a  simpler  and  truer  conception 


256     ANSELM   ON   THE  ATONEMENT 

of  the  meaning  of  the  Incarnation  that  made  the 
presence  of  God  in  the  form  of  man  the  natural  and 
presumptive  corollary  of  the  creation  of  man  in  the 
image  of  God,  instead  of  making  it  the  adventitious 
sequel  of  human  sin. 

It  was  a  distinct  loss  when  the  Atonement  was 
made  so  central  that  theories  of  its  modus  were  no 
longer  tolerated,  if  certain  speculative  elements  were 
absent.  The  "ransom"  theory  was  not  imposed 
upon  the  faith  of  the  church,  and  its  exponents  were 
considered  no  more  orthodox  than  its  opponents. 
The  satisfaction  theory  of  Anselm  was  accepted  in 
part  by  a  very  few,  but  its  rejection  did  not  affect  the 
standing  of  a  thinker  as  a  defender  of  Catholic  truth. 
The  satisfaction  theory  of  the  Reformation,  however, 
which  owed  its  existence  to  Anselm,  was  made  the 
test  of  orthodoxy,  and  continued  to  be  so  urged 
until  a  few  years  ago.  Yet  the  mischief  of  requiring 
subscription  to  a  rationalistic  and  metaphysical 
formula,  in  the  place  of  the  Scriptural  doctrine  from 
which  it  was  heroically  asserted  to  be  a  derivation, 
should  have  been  manifest  from  the  deliberate 
avoidance  in  the  Scriptures  of  any  explanation  of 
the  process  of  redemption.  Anselm's  adoption  of  a 
purely  objective  interpretation  of  Christ's  work,  his 
assumption  of  an  ability  to  penetrate  into  the  eso 
teric  relations  of  the  Trinity,  made  him  primarily 
responsible  for  the  intrusive  prying  into  Divine  mys- 


VALUE   OF  THE   TREATISE         257 

teries,  and  for  the  confident  familiarity  with  the  un- 
revealed  portions  of  truth  that  issued  in  the  dog 
matic  tyranny  so  conspicuous  in  the  Protestant 
churches.  When  we  compare  the  compact  and,  in 
many  respects,  consistent  theory  of  Anselm  with  the 
unsystematised  and  multiform  and  independent 
utterances  of  the  Evangelists  and  Apostles,  we 
wonder  why  the  very  coherence  and  symmetry  of  his  \r 
logic  were  not  regarded  as  a  dubious  excellence.  The 
features  in  which  the  elder  divines  most  delighted 
are  precisely  those  which  fail  to  commend  them 
selves  to  modern  thought.  What  Professor  Fisher 
says  of  Scholastic  Theology  in  general  may  be  applied 
to  the  Anselmic  and  ensuing  theories:  "It  is  the 
great  drawback  to  the  value  of  these  wonderful  feats 
of  intellectual  acumen  that  it  is  abstractions  and 
logical  relations  that  are  dealt  with,  so  that  Chris 
tianity  appears  to  lose,  so  to  speak,  its  flesh  and 
blood,  and  to  be  resolved  into  a  lifeless  structure  of 
metaphysics"  (p.  215). 

But  it  must  be  .fairly  acknowledged  that  we  are 
indebted  to  Anselm  for  two  great  services  in  con 
nection  with  this  doctrine.  The  first  has  already 
been  sufficiently  treated ;  by  overthrowing  the  theory 
of  Origen,  he  brought  our  thought  back  to  God 
from  the  devil,  whose  power  and  rights  had  been 
unduly  exalted.  The  second  is  his  indirect  and 

entirely   unintentional   contribution   to   the   modern 

17 


258    ANSELM    ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

reality  of  personal  religion.  His  theory  is  justly 
criticised  as  a  speculation;  but,  in  tracing  the 
sources  of  certain  spiritual  impulses  in  and  after  the 
Reformation,  we  find  them  latent  in  him.  Pro 
fessor  Nash,  in  his  Genesis  of  the  Social  Conscience, 
has  shown  how  monasticism  enhanced  the  value  of 
the  common  man.  "The  declaration  that  the  world 
«  was  worthless  and  so  must  be  abandoned  was  the 
negative  side  of  the  conviction  that  the  essential 
man  in  every  man  was  infinitely  worthy.  .  .  .  The 
monastery  was  the  pledge  of  the  independence  of 
the  spiritual  view  of  things  and  of  its  ultimate  master 
fulness.  Confronting  the  castle,  it  bespoke  the  reality 
of  a  world  where  the  low-born  stands  level  to  the 
noble."  "  The  monastery  was  the  home  and  fortress 
of  the  conscience"  (pp.  161,  162,  178).  Professor 
Allen,  in  Christian  Institutions,  has  contrasted  mo 
nasticism  with  the  Episcopate,  to  bring  out  the  indi 
vidualism  of  the  one  in  opposition  to  the  solidarity 
of  the  other.  "The  Catholic  Church  had  aimed  to 
solidify  the  Church  and  the  world  in  unity,  and  it 
had  begun  to  appear  as  if  its  purpose  were  already 
achieved,  when  the  monks  arose  to  dispute  its  ideal, 
to  assert  the  importance  of  the  individual  man  as 
greater  than  the  institution,  as  greater  than  any 
temple  that  man  could  build,  or  wherein  he  might 
worship"  (p.  156).  This  interpretation  of  the  inner 
meaning  of  the  monastic  life,  as  an  emphasis  upon 


VALUE   OF  THE   TREATISE         259 

the  worth  of  the  individual  experience,  validates  his 
inference  respecting  the  good  work  begun  so  uncon 
sciously  by  Anselm. 

The  Cur  Deus  Homo  was  the  work  of  a  monk, 
who  had  been  prior  and  abbot  of  Bee.  He  was 
thoroughly  imbued  with  the  monastic  traditions,  and 
his  theory  was  such  as  could  hardly  have  been  de 
vised  by  a  representative  of  the  secularised  church. 
It  implied  the  Church  as  an  organisation,  and  no 
doubt  intended  to  leave  to  the  Church  the  control 
of  the  treasury  of  mercy.  But  it  makes  no  reference 
to  sacrament  or  penance  or  priesthood.  These 
were  not  the  means  proposed  for  deliverance  from 
the  fear  of  a  just  God,  but  a  satisfaction  of  divine 
justice  so  abundant  that  it  promised  peace  to  the 
souls  tortured  with  the  dread  of  the  consequences  of 
sin.  It  was  a  crude  statement  of  the  good-news  of 
forgiveness,  but  it  opened  the  way  to  a  better  under 
standing  when  better  ideas  of  God  should  prevail. 
It  contained  also  a  fresh  and  powerful  statement  of 
the  Incarnation  of  Christ,  one  with  man  and  one  with 
God,  which  assured  mankind  that  the  Divine  atti 
tude  towards  each  one  of  the  redeemed  was  goodness, 
not  severity.  Through  these  ideas  and  the  accom 
panying  elevation  of  the  Atonement  as  the  doctrine 
of  prime  significance,  Anselm  was  the  spiritual 
forerunner  of  Luther.1  It  was  a  strange  irony  of 
1  Allen,  Christ.  Institutions,  p.  366. 


260    ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

fate  that  a  theory  whose  antecedents  lay  partly  in 
ecclesiastical  practices  which  made  the  Church  a 
necessary  mediator  between  God  and  man  should 
have  by  discernible  stages  issued  in  such  a  con 
ception  of  the  Christian  life  as  gave  immediate  access 
to  God  in  Christ. 

Yet  such  was  the  actual  result.  When  recon- 
ceived  by  the  Reformers,  the  idea  of  satisfaction  be 
came  a  new  proclamation  of  the  Gospel  of  hope  to 
every  man.  As  they  made  it  apprehensible  only  by 
personal  faith,  they  were  the  logical  successors  of  the 
monk  who  after  all  stood  for  the  individual  as  con 
trasted  with  the  hierarchy.  Anselm  was  himself  an 
Archbishop  and  a  genuine  ultramontane,  and  did 
not  in  the  least  suspect  that  he  was  aiding  to  change 
the  very  idea  of  the  Church  to  which  he  was  de 
voted.  But  after  the  superstitions  were  rejected, 
which  did  not  offend  his  conscience  and  some  of 
which  had  contributed  to  the  framing  of  his  thought, 
the  fact  of  reconciliation  became  the  dynamic  ele 
ment  in  the  revived  power  of  the  personal  religious 
life.  Below  all  the  objectionable  theorisings  there 
was  felt  the  consciousness  of  the  individual  relation 
to  God,  and  of  peace  with  God  through  Jesus  Christ 
and  not  through  the  mediation  of  a  priesthood.  The 
sense  of  personal  pardon,  the  privilege  of  immediate 
access  to  God,  the  spiritual  instead  of  the  institu 
tional  idea,  the  hope  of  justification  by  faith  apart 


VALUE  OF  THE  TREATISE        261 

from  the  deeds  of  the  law,  —  these  made  the  Atone 
ment  vital  in  the  creation  of  a  new  and  free  person 
ality,  from  which  ensued  the  religious  and  social 
benefits  of  the  Reformation.  It  was  the  meaning  of 
the  fact  of  reconciliation  to  the  world  at  large,  the 
translation  of  the  strange  dogma  which  preserved 
the  fact  into  personal  experience  —  and  only  what 
was  true  in  it  could  be  so  transferred  —  that  enabled 
such  an  inspiring  apprehension  of  the  love  of  Christ 
and  such  a  renewing  appropriation  of  the  cleansing 
blood.  But  this  takes  us  back  of  the  ecclesiastical 
development  to  the  New  Testament,  where  the 
teaching  was,  not  of  the  method,  but  simply  and 
preeminently  and  continually  of  the  fact  whose  ac 
ceptance  transformed  Jew  and  Gentile  into  new 
creatures  in  Christ  Jesus. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  Fathers  laid  stress  upon 
the  Incarnation  and  the  Reformers  upon  the  Atone 
ment  ;  but  the  two  things  need  not  remain  in  opposi 
tion.  By  the  better  understanding  of  the  Atonement, 
as  just  described  with  reference  to  the  service  ren 
dered  by  Anselm,  we  may  go  back  to  the  teaching 
of  the  best  of  the  Fathers,  and  greatly  enrich  their 
thought  of  the  Incarnation,  in  its  application  to  the 
needs  of  sinful  man  as  the  means  of  our  at-one-ment. 
This  does  not  mean  that  we  are  to  be  as  exclusive  in 
our  references  to  the  life  of  God  in  human  flesh  as 
the  Reformers  were  to  the  death  for  human  sin. 


262    ANSELM   ON   THE   ATONEMENT 

But  we  may  return  to  the  patristic  thought  of  the 
primary  importance  of  the  Incarnation,  as  including 
the  sacrificial  death  as  a  "dispensation"  growing 
out  of  the  necessities  of  man's  redemption.  This 
seems  to  be  the  trend  of  the  more  recent  Soteriology ; 
and  it  reveals  the  movement,  referred  to  by  Aubrey 
Moore  in  another  connection,  when  he  says:  "Our 
modes  of  thought  are  becoming  increasingly  Greek" 
(Lux  Mundi,  p.  100).1 

1  It  is  sometimes  asserted  that  we  need  to  modify  the  Greek 
theology  by  the  ideas  developed  in  the  Latin  theology,  especially 
with  reference  to  the  conception  of  sin.  It  is  admitted  that  the 
Latins  contributed  much  that  was  valuable  to  Christian  thought ; 
but  they  added  very  little  in  the  department  of  Soteriology,  and 
whatever  was  original  with  them  was  generally  mischievous. 
Their  theological  concepts  were  too  commonly  cast  in  legal 
phraseology,  in  which  they  seem  to  have  entirely  misunderstood 
the  difference  between  the  vopos  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles  and  the 
lex  of  Roman  jurisprudence.  The  paternal  idea  of  the  relation 
between  God  and  man  was  displaced  by  the  juridical.  The 
"divine  kinsmanship"  between  Creator  and  creature  was  rejected 
in  favour  of  a  profound  unlikeness  and  disjunction  between  them, 
that  could  be  remedied  only  by  a  series  of  forensic  transactions. 
Sin  was  not  essentially  spiritual,  the  substitution  of  self-will  for 
the  will  of  God,  a  missing  of  the  end  for  which  man  was  made; 
it  was  a  "crimen,"  a  "delictum  interdictum."  Penalty  was  no 
longer  the  natural  and  inevitable  consequence  of  sin,  the  separa 
tion  of  the  life  from  God,  the  deterioration  of  the  spiritual  nature ; 
it  was  a  judicial  imposition  from  without,  extrinsic  and  contingent. 
Forgiveness  was  not  so  much  the  remission  of  sins  as  a  legal 
quittance  from  penalty;  redemption  was  transformed  from  the 
deliverance  of  man  at  the  cost  of  a  loving  sacrifice,  by  figures  that 
reduced  it  to  the  payment  of  costs  imposed  by  the  judgment  of  a 
court ;  the  ruling  motive  in  the  work  of  Christ  was  not  so  much  a 
divine  and  righteous  love  as  divine  punitive  justice.  The  legal 
morality  of  merit  and  good  works,  which  St.  Paul  so  vehemently 


VALUE   OF  THE   TREATISE         263 

opposed,  was  the  appropriate  correlative  of  this  forensic  theology. 
(In  many  respects,  Augustin  was  a  noble  exception  to  this  repre 
sentation  ;  but  I  speak  of  the  theology  that  was  generally  wrought 
out  in  the  Western  Church.) 

It  is  true  that  no  Greek  ever  uttered  such  intense  and  passion 
ate  confessions  of  sin  as  did  some  of  the  Latins,  in  which  they  went 
far  beyond  St.  Paul  in  Romans  vii.  But  that  was  because  sin 
could  not  bulk  so  large  to  the  consciousness  of  men  who  dwelt 
upon  the  Incarnation  as  the  evidence  of  an  affinity  between  divine 
and  human  nature,  as  it  did  to  that  of  men  who  denied  or  at  least 
underestimated  this  affinity.  The  Greeks  were  not  insensitive  to 
the  "exceeding  sinfulness  of  sin";  but  they  were  splendidly  alive 
to  the  truth  that,  "where  sin  abounded,  grace  did  much  more 
abound."  It  is  mainly  a  matter  of  emphasis.  The  Greeks  placed 
it  upon  God  in  Christ  and  Christ  in  man ;  the  Latins  placed  it 
upon  human  sin.  There  can  be  very  little  doubt  as  to  which  of 
these  thoughts  is  the  more  spiritually  fruitful. 


APPENDIX 


APPENDIX 

THOSE  who  are  not  familiar  with  the  literature  of 
this  subject  can  have  but  little  idea  of  the  extent  of 
the  reaction  from  the  Reformation  dogma,  referred 
to  in  the  foregoing  pages.  It  is  exhibited  not  only 
by  writers  who  wholly  repudiate  the  details  of  that 
theory,  but  also  by  those  who  strive  to  retain  its 
phraseology  while  giving  up  the  features  essential  to 
its  consistency.  Some  illustrations  are  accordingly 
submitted  for  those  who  may  desire  materials  for 
further  study.  Many  of  the  quotations  and  refer 
ences  are  for  the  sole  purpose  of  showing  the  reluc 
tance  of  even  the  most  conservative  of  modern 
thinkers  to  explain  the  precise  method  of  the 
Atonement. 

WILLIAM  LAW  (1728).  —  "The  innocent  Christ  did  not 
suffer  to  quiet  an  angry  Deity,  but  as  cooperating,  assist 
ing,  and  uniting  with  that  love  of  God  which  desired 
our  salvation.  He  did  not  suffer  in  our  place  or  stead 
but  only  on  our  account,  which  is  a  quite  different 
matter." 

"Our  guilt  is  transferred  upon  Him  in  no  other  sense 
than  as  He  took  upon  Him  the  state  and  condition  of  our 
fallen  nature  ...  to  heal,  remove,  and  overcome  all  the 
evils  which  were  brought  upon  us  by  the  Fall." 


268  APPENDIX 

"His  merit  or  righteousness  is  imputed  or  derived  into 
us  in  no  other  sense  than  as  we  receive  from  Him  a  birth,  a 
nature,  a  power,  to  become  the  sons  of  God"  (Quoted  in 
English  Church  in  the  Eighteenth  Century,  p.  583). 

BISHOP  JOSEPH  BUTLER  (1736).  — "How  and  in  what 
particular  way,  it  had  this  efficacy,  there  are  not  wanting 
persons  who  have  endeavoured  to  explain;  but  I  cannot 
find  that  the  Scripture  has  explained  it.  .  .  .  And  if  the 
Scripture  has,  as  it  surely  has,  left  this  matter  of  the  sat 
isfaction  of  Christ  mysterious,  left  somewhat  in  it  unre- 
vealed,  all  conjectures  about  it  must  be,  if  not  evidently 
absurd,  yet  at  least  uncertain"  (Analogy  oj  Religion, 
Pt.  ii.  cap.  v.). 

JOHN  WESLEY  (1775).  —  "This  grave  danger  was  no 
ticed  by  John  Wesley,  since  he  promised  never  again  to  use 
intentionally  the  term  '  imputed  righteousness,'  when  once 
he  found  '  the  immense  hurt  which  the  frequent  use  of  this 
unnecessary  phrase  had  done  '"  (Melville  Scott,  Crux 
Crucis,  p.  94). 

ARCHBISHOP  WILLIAM  MAGEE  (1809).  — "I  know  not, 
nor  does  it  concern  me  to  know,  in  what  manner  the  sacri 
fice  of  Christ  is  connected  with  the  forgiveness  of  sins: 
it  is  enough,  that  this  is  declared  by  God  to  be  the  medium, 
through  which  my  salvation  is  effected.  I  pretend  not  to 
dive  into  the  councils  of  the  Almighty"  (The  Scriptural 
Doctrines  of  Atonement  and  Sacrifice,  Discourse  I.  p.  20). 

S.  T.  COLERIDGE  (1825).  —  "Forgiveness  of  sin,  the 
abolition  of  guilt,  through  the  redemptive  power  of  Christ's 
love,  and  of  His  perfect  obedience  during  His  voluntary 
assumption  of  humanity,  is  expressed,  on  account  of  the 


APPENDIX  269 

resemblance  of  the  consequences  in  both  cases,  by  the  pay 
ment  of  a  debt  for  another,  which  debt  the  payer  had  not 
himself  incurred.  Now  the  impropriation  of  this  metaphor 
(that  is,  the  taking  it  literally)  by  transferring  the  same 
ness  from  the  consequents  to  the  antecedents,  or  inferring 
the  identity  of  the  causes  from  a  resemblance  in  the  effects 
—  this  is  the  point  on  which  I  am  at  issue :  and  the  view 
or  scheme  of  Redemption  grounded  on  this  confusion  I 
believe  to  be  altogether  unscriptural.  .  .  . 

"The  purpose  of  a  metaphor  is  to  illustrate  a  some 
thing  less  known  by  a  partial  identification  of  it  with  some 
other  thing  better  understood,  or  at  least  more  familiar. 
Now  the  article  of  Redemption  may  be  considered  in  a 
two-fold  relation  —  in  relation  to  the  antecedent,  that  is, 
the  Redeemer's  act,  as  the  efficient  cause  and  condition 
of  redemption ;  and  in  relation  to  the  consequent,  that  is, 
the  effects  in  and  for  the  redeemed.  Now  it  is  the  latter 
relation,  in  which  the  subject  is  treated  of,  set  forth,  ex 
panded,  and  enforced  by  St.  Paul.  The  mysterious  act, 
the  operative  cause,  is  transcendent.  Factum  est:  and 
bevond  the  information  contained  in  the  enunciation  of  the 
fact,  it  can  be  characterised  only  by  the  consequences" 
(Aids  to  Reflection,  pp.  30  sq.  See  also  p.  235). 

THOMAS  ERSKINE  OF  LINLATHEN  (1831).  —  "This 
view  of  the  Atonement,  which  is  generally  known  by  the 
name  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  substitution,  has,  I  know, 
been  held  by  many  living  members  of  His  body  —  and  yet 
I  believe  that,  with  some  truth  in  it,  it  contains  much  dan 
gerous  error.  In  the  first  place,  I  may  observe,  that  it 
would  not  be  considered  justice  in  an  earthly  judge,  were 


270  APPENDIX 

he  to  accept  the  offered  sufferings  of  an  innocent  person  as 
a  satisfaction  for  the  lawful  punishment  of  a  guilty  person. 
And  as  the  work  of  Christ  was  wrought  to  declare  and 
make  manifest  the  righteousness  of  God,  not  only  to 
powers  and  principalities  in  heavenly  places,  but  to  men, 
to  the  minds  and  consciences  of  men  —  it  is  not  credible 
that  that  work  should  contain  a  manifestation  really  op 
posed  to  their  minds  and  consciences.  .  .  .  Christ  died 
for  every  man,  as  the  head  of  every  man  —  not  by  any 
fiction  of  law,  not  in  a  conventional  way,  but  in  reality  as 
the  head  of  the  whole  mass  of  the  human  nature,  which, 
although  composed  of  many  members,  is  one  thing,  — 
one  body,  —  in  every  part  of  which  the  head  is  truly  pres 
ent.  .  .  .  The  substance  of  all  these  passages  proves  that 
the  substitution  of  Christ  did  not  consist  in  this,  that  He 
did  or  suffered  something  instead  of  men,  so  as  to  save 
them  from  doing  or  suffering  it  for  themselves.  .  .  .  What 
Christ  did  for  us,  was  done  for  us  in  a  sense  and  with  a 
view  very  different  from  that  of  saving  us  from  doing  it 
ourselves.  He  fulfilled  the  law,  for  instance,  certainly  not 
with  a  view  of  saving  us  from  fulfilling  it,  but,  on  the  con 
trary,  with  the  very  view  of  enabling  us  to  fulfil  it.  ...  He 
made  Himself  a  sin-offering,  '  that  the  righteousness  of  the 
law  might  be  fulfilled  in  us,  who  walk  not  after  the  flesh 
but  after  the  Spirit'"  (From  The  Brazen  Serpent  in  Letters 
pp.  548-550.  See  also  Letters,  pp.  26,  215,  411). 

ALEXANDRE  R.  VINET  (1844).  —  "The  transfer  of  guilt 
upon  the  innocent  is  absolutely  contradicted  by  our  ideas 
of  morality.  ...  It  is  not  only  by  the  sufferings  of  His 
life,  but  bv  His  life  as  a  whole.  .  .  .  The  death  of  the 


APPENDIX  271 

cross  was  not  a  punishment  endured  as  such;  it  was  a 
self-sacrifice"  (A.  Sabatier,  The  Doctrine  of  the  Atonement, 
p.  101). 

NEWMAN  HALL  (1856).  —  "It  does  not  represent  Christ 
as  having  been  punished.  ...  It  does  not  represent 
Christ  as  appeasing  the  wrath  of  God.  .  .  .  Most  em 
phatically  we  renew  our  denunciation  of  so  monstrous  a 
notion  as  that  the  wrath  of  the  Father  is  appeased  by  the 
death  of  the  Son.  This  is  heathenism  in  its  most  terrible 
form"  (Tracts  for  Priests  and  People,  Second  Series, 
No.  XIII.  p.  5). 

FRANCIS  GARDEN  (1862).  —  "But  many  such  men 
may  fail  of  reconciling  themselves  to  the  theory  of  vicarious 
punishment,  may  find  that  to  them  it  in  no  way  manifests 
the  righteousness  of  God,  may  be  unable  to  see  anything 
in  Scripture  which  warrants  the  theory.  .  .  .  And  even 
so  I  may  venture  to  say  that  the  most  resolute  decliner  of 
such  theories  in  regard  to  the  work  of  Christ  for  our  re 
demption,  may  use  the  language  of  Isaiah  liii.,  and  all  that 
other  language  of  Scripture  which  so  corresponds  with  it, 
in  sincerity,  as  expressing  what  all  inadequately  he  feels 
and  sees  when  he  tries  to  contemplate  the  agony  of  the 
garden  and  the  darkness  of  Calvary.  He  can  see  and  ac 
cept  the  fact,  while  he  declines  all  theory  respecting  it" 
(Tracts  for  Priests  and  People,  Vol.  I.  p.  144). 

WILLIAM  KIRKUS  (1865).  —  "With  the  exception  of 
that  statement  of  it  which  we  find  in  the  Articles  of  Religion 
and  the  Homilies,  the  Anglican  doctrine  of  the  Atonement 
belongs  to  a  period  of  Church  history  when  the  fact  of 
redemption  was  deemed  far  more  important  than  any 


272  APPENDIX 

theoretical  explanation  of  it;  and  when  'the  wisdom  of 
words'  had  not  made  'the  cross  of  Christ  of  none  effect.* 
The  Liturgy  belongs,  for  the  most  part,  to  that  period  of 
sacred  reticence,  when  men  were  afraid  to  attribute  to  the 
Divine  Being  those  mental  conflicts  and  spiritual  con 
tradictions  which  constitute  the  misery  and  weakness  of 
their  own  lives.  They  made  no  attempt  to  reconcile  the 
justice  and  mercy  of  God,  for  it  had  never  occurred  to 
them  that  these  divine  attributes  could  possibly  be  at  war. 
The  prayers  and  praises  of  the  early  church  ask  for,  and 
gratefully  acknowledge,  a  stupendous  blessing;  which 
only  can,  and  really  does,  find  an  adequate  explanation 
in  the  inexhaustible  resources  of  the  love  of  God.  But 
they  never  attempt  to  limit  that  love,  or  to  determine  the 
modes  of  its  operation"  (Orthodoxy,  Scripture  and  Reason, 
p.  137.  See  also  pp.  133-230). 

JOHN  HENRY  NEWMAN  (1865).  —  "Why  Christ's  death 
was  requisite  for  our  salvation,  and  how  it  has  obtained  it, 
will  ever  be  a  mystery  in  this  life." 

J.  BALDWIN  BROWN  (1869).  —  "From  one  point  of 
view,  this  tendency  may  be  regarded  as  a  reaction,  and  a 
reaction  in  a  healthy  direction,  though  extreme,  against  the 
mercenary  and  mechanical  views  of  the  Atonement  which 
have  obscured  this  great  portion  of  'the  whole  counsel  of 
God.'  ...  So  many  finite  deaths  due  as  the  penalty  of 
human  transgression,  one  infinite  death  sums  them  all, 
and  quits  the  debt  —  is  the  exposition  which  we  have 
often  heard  of  the  mystery  of  the  Atonement.  That  sum 
in  arithmetic  —  bad  in  arithmetic  as  in  theology  —  will 
never  bring  us  near  to  the  heart  of  the  work  of  the  Lord 


APPENDIX  273 

Jesus.  .  .  .  The  more  we  can  enlarge  the  word  substitute, 
until  it  becomes  equivalent  to  representative,  the  nearer 
we  can  keep  to  the  relation  of  the  head  of  the  body  and  the 
members,  and  their  essential  sympathy  and  cooperation, 
in  our  conception  of  what  the  Lord  has  done  and  suffered 
for  mankind,  the  nearer  shall  we  be  to  the  truth  of  the 
matter.  .  .  .  The  Lord  has  not  redeemed  us  from 
suffering,  nor  from  the  death  which  He  died.  He  is  re 
deeming  us  by  suffering  and  through  death.  What  He  has 
redeemed  us  from  is  the  hopeless  suffering  of  the  sinner, 
and  the  death  of  the  soul  that  never  dies"  (The  Divine 
Mysteries,  pp.  328-330.  See  also  Misread  Passages  of 
Scripture,  Second  Series,  pp.  91-107). 

BISHOP  ALEXANDER  EWING  (1871).  —  "The  Scriptural 
and  unscriptural  views  may  be  briefly  characterized  thus. 
The  first  view  is,  that  the  incarnation  and  death  of  Christ 
are  outgoings  of  the  eternal  nature  of  God  acting  according 
to  its  normal  laws,  and  manifested  for  others  in  time  as 
there  was  need ;  the  second,  that  it  was  an  exceptional  and 
arbitrary  act,  on  the  ground  of  which  God  may  dispense 
Himself  from  the  ordinary  operation  of  His  laws,  and 
which  has  its  end  in  itself  or  towards  Him.  The  first  con 
ception  has  for  its  foundation  that  the  *  nature  of  God  is 
the  ground  of  our  hope,  of  which  the  incarnation  and 
death  of  Christ  are  the  revelation  and  proof;  the  second, 
that  the  proofs  themselves  are  the  ground.  In  the  first  case 
the  incarnation  and  death  of  Christ  are  conceived  of  as 
incidental  to  the  object  in  view ;  in  the  second  they  are  the 
object  itself.  This  last  conception  makes  the  incarnation 
to  have  a  retrospective  or  backward  aspect  towards  God; 

18 


274  APPENDIX 

and  the  other,  a  forward  or  prospective  aspect  towards 
man.  The  first  contemplates  the  reconciliation  of  man,  the 
second  the  reconciliation  of  God.  .  .  .  The  Reformers 
themselves  were  chiefly  to  blame  for  the  conversion  of  the 
summary  of  results  into  technical  terms  for  operative 
causes"  (Present  Day  Papers,  Third  Series,  "Reconcilia 
tion,"  pp.  9,  22.  See  also  First  Series,  "The  Atonement"). 

R.  W.  DALE  (1875). —"But  these  representations  of 
the  death  of  Christ  as  a  Ransom,  as  a  Vicarious  Death,  as 
a  Propitiation,  though  they  illustrate  the  cause  of  His 
sufferings  and  their  effect,  and  contain  all  that  is  necessary 
for  faith,  do  not  constitute  a  theory.  As  they  stand,  they 
are  not  consistent  with  each  other.  .  .  .  These  illustra 
tions  of  the  nature  and  effect  of  the  death  of  Christ  are 
illustrations,  and  nothing  more.  They  are  analogous  to 
the  transcendent  fact  only  at  single  points.  The  fact  is 
absolutely  unique"  (The  Atonement,  pp.  355-358). 

"The  general  movement  of  European  thought  of  which 
I  have  spoken  is  rendering  it  impossible  to  retain  theo 
logical  theories  which  were  constructed  in  the  sixteenth 
century.  Men  whose  whole  life  is  rooted  in  Christ,  .  .  . 
are  conscious  that  the  rivets  which  fastened  their  doctrinal 
definitions  are  loosening  —  they  hardly  know  how  or  why ; 
that  their  theological  theories,  as  distinct  from  their  reli 
gious  faith,  are  dissolving  and  melting  away.  .  .  .  They 
have  not  lost  sight  of  sun  and  stars ;  they  will  tell  you  that 
with  their  increasing  years  the  glory  of  the  sun  is  brighter 
to  them  than  ever,  and  that  the  stars  are  more  mysterious 
and  divine;  but  they  want  a  new  astronomical  theory. 
The  sun  and  stars  are  God's  handiwork;  astronomical 


APPENDIX  275 

theories  are  the  provisional  human  explanations  of  Divine 
wonders"  (The  Evangelical  Revival  and  Other  Sermons, 

P-  21). 

DEAN  R.  W.  CHURCH  (1875).-  "I  see  the  suffering; 
I  am  told,  on  His  authority,  what  it  means  and  involves. 
I  can,  if  I  like,  and  as  has  often  been  done,  go  on  and  make 
a  theory  how  He  bore  our  sins,  and  how  He  gained  their 
forgiveness,  and  how  He  took  away  the  sins  of  the  world. 
But  I  own  that  the  longer  I  live  the  more  my  mind  recoils 
from  such  efforts.  It  seems  to  me  so  idle,  so,  in  the  very 
nature  of  our  condition,  hopeless,  just  in  proportion  as  one 
seems  to  grasp  more  really  the  true  nature  of  all  that  went 
on  beyond  the  visible  sight  of  the  cross,  all  that  was  in 
Him  who  was  God  and  man,  whose  capacities  and  inner 
life  human  experience  cannot  reach  or  reflect"  (Life  and 
Letters,  p.  274). 

JOHN  PILKINGTON  NORRIS  (1875).  —  "The  deep  com 
fort  of  the  doctrine  who  can  tell  ?  But  it  is  not  the  comfort 
of  sin  being  made  less  penal,  it  is  not  the  comfort  of  being  ac 
counted  righteous  when  we  are  unrighteous,  it  is  not  the 
comfort  of  being  told  that  Another  has  borne  for  us  the 
punishment  that  we  deserved"  (Rudiments  of  Theology, 
p.  69.  See  also  pp.  266-268,  273,  311). 

NORMAN  MACLEOD  (1875).  —  "He  certainly  never 
recurred  to  the  conception  of  the  sufferings  of  our  Lord 
as  penal,  or  to  those  notions  of  the  nature  of  salvation 
which  it  involves.  .  .  .  Would  to  God  we  could  lose 
our  Calvinism,  and  put  all  the  teaching  of  Christ  and 
His  Apostles  in  a  form  according  to  fact  and  not  theory" 
(Life,  pp.  281,  425). 


276  APPENDIX 

J.  B.  MOZLEY  (1875).  —  "But  viewed  as  acting  on  this 
mediatorial  principle,  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement  rises 
altogether  to  another  level;    it  parts  company  with  the 
gross  and  irrational  conception  of  mere  naked  material 
substitution  of  one  person  for  another  in  punishment,  and 
it  takes  its  stand  upon  the  power  of  love,  and  points  to  the 
actual  effect  of  suffering  love  in  nature,  and  to  a  parallel 
case  of  mediation  as  a  pardoning  power  in  nature.  .  .  . 
That  doctrine  was,  in  fact,  as  much  a  reform  upon  the 
pagan  doctrine  of  substitution,  as  the  Gospel  was  upon 
paganism  in  religious  truth  in  general.     The  doctrine  of 
Scripture,  so  far  from  being  the  doctrine  of  mere  substitu 
tion,  is  a  protest  against  that  doctrine ;   it  makes  accurate 
provision  for  moral  claims;    it  enforces  conditions  on  the 
subject  of  the  sacrifice ;   it  attributes  a  reasonable  and  ra 
tional  ground  of  influence  and  mode  of  operation  to  the 
sacrifice.  .  .  .  And  so  also  there  is  a  kind  of  substitution 
involved  in  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  and 
a  true  kind ;  but  it  is  not  a  literal  but  a  moral  kind  of  sub 
stitution.    It  is  one  person  suffering  in  behalf  of  another, 
for  the  sake  of  another ;    in  that  sense  he  takes  the  place 
and  acts  in  the  stead  of  another,  he  suffers  that  another 
may  escape  suffering,  he  condemns  himself  to  a  burden 
that  another  may  be  relieved.     But  this  is  the  moral  sub 
stitution  which  is  inherent  in  acts  of  love  and  labour  for 
others ;   it  is  a  totally  different  thing  from  the  literal  sub 
stitution  of  one  person  for  another  in  punishment"  (Uni 
versity  Sermons,  pp.  173-175.     See  also  The  Augustinian 
Doctrine  of  Predestination,  pp.  369-372,  for  an  admission 
that  the  theory  of  satisfaction  cannot  be  held  as  a  truth 


APPENDIX  277 

of  reason  or  made  intelligible  to  the  reason  or  sense  of 
justice). 

FREDERIC  MYERS  (1879).  —  "This  Atonement  of 
Christ  ...  is  to  be  received  by  faith  rather  than  by  the 
understanding;  it  cannot  be  fully  explained,  either  in  its 
causes  or  its  consequences.  And  it  is  most  important  thus 
to  think  of  it:  for  much  of  the  theology  which  has  been 
hitherto  most  commonly  connected  with  it,  has  been  not 
unreasonably  a  stumbling-block  and  a  rock  of  offense 
equally  to  the  self-sufficjent  and  to  the  humble"  (Catholic 
Thoughts  on  the  feffiteand  Theology,  p.  247), 

NEWMAN  SMYTH  (1879).  —  "Now  human  love  has  in 
it  three  essential  elements ;  there  are  three  primary  colours 
in  love's  perfect  light;  and  these  three  are,  the  giving  of 
self,  or  benevolence;  the  putting  self  in  another's  place, 
sympathy,  or  the  vicariousness  of  love;  and  the  assertion 
of  the  worth  of  the  gift  —  of  the  self  which  is  given  — 
self-respect,  or  the  righteousness  of  love.  Under  the  con 
ceptions  of  vicariousness  and  the  assertion  of  its  own 
worth  involved  in  perfect  love,  the  Christian  doctrines  of 
atonement  and  redemption  need  to  be  regarded;  and 
when  considered  from  any  lower  point  of  view,  as  that  of 
law  or  government,  the  sacrificial  work  of  Christ  is  hardly 
lifted  out  of  difficulties  and  shadows  into  a  pure  moral 
light"  (Old  Faiths  in  New  Light,  p.  278). 

DANIEL  R.  GOODWIN  (1880).  —  "But  in  relation  to  the 
Divine  attributes,  precisely  how  it  is  objectively  effectual, 
why  it  is  necessary,  the  process  of  the  propitiation,  in  short, 
the  modus  operandi  in  or  upon  the  Divine  mind,  we  may 
not  presume  to  scan  or  set  forth.  As  usual  in  such  cases, 


278  APPENDIX 

men  have  proposed  many  theories,  as :  The  ransom  theory, 
the  satisfaction  theory,  the  substitution  theory,  the  moral 
exhibition  theory,  the  governmental  theory,  etc.  While 
all  these  theories  have  a  portion  of  the  truth,  they  may  all 
be  pushed  too  far  and  too  exclusively.  .  .  .  But  we  may 
not  represent  it  as  a  mere  ransom  from  the  devil,  from 
hell,  or  from  sin,  or  from  justice ;  as  a  bargain  —  a  quid 
pro  quo;  or  as  a  'quenching  of  the  flames  of  the  Father's 
wrath  in  the  blood  of  the  Son';  or  as  a  'wresting  of  the 
sword  of  Divine  vengeance  from  the  Father's  hand';  or 
as  a  suffering  of  'the  very  pains  of  the  damned,'  or  of  pre 
cisely  the  kind  and  degree  of  punishment  due  to  the  sinner ; 
or  as  a  mere  scenic  exhibition  of  any  of  the  Divine  attri 
butes,  or  of  any  amount  of  human  suffering,  for  moral 
effect  or  governmental  purposes;  nor  may  we  say,  with 
Luther,  that  'Christ  was  the  greatest  sinner  in  the  uni 
verse'  because  upon  Him  were  laid  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world"  (Some  Thoughts  on  the  Atonement,  p.  59). 

DEAN  STANLEY  (1881).  —  "What  is  Redemption?  It 
is,  in  one  word,  deliverance.  .  .  .  Deliverance  —  how, 
or  by  what  means  ?  By  one  part  of  Christ's  appearance  ? 
by  one  part  of  Christianity?  by  a  single  doctrine  or  a 
single  fact  ?  By  all  —  by  the  whole.  Not  by  His  sufferings 
only  —  not  by  His  death  only  —  not  by  His  teaching  only ; 
but  'by  the  mystery  of  His  holy  incarnation  —  by  His 
baptism  —  by  His  fasting  —  by  His  temptation  —  by 
His  agony  and  bloody  sweat  —  by  His  precious  death 
and  burial  —  by  His  glorious  resurrection  and  ascension, 
and  by  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'  This  wide  mean 
ing  of  the  mode  of  Redemption  was  a  truth  sufficiently 


APPENDIX  279 

appreciated  in  the  early  ages  of  the  Church;  and  then  it 
was  piece  by  piece  divided  and  subdivided,  till  the  whole 
effect  was  altered  and  spoiled.  Let  us  go  back  once 
more  in  the  Litany  to  the  complex  yet  simple  whole. 
Let  us  believe  more  nearly  as  we  pray.  The  particular 
forms  used  may  be  open  to  objection.  We  might  wish 
that  some  features  had  been  omitted,  or  that  other  feat 
ures  had  been  added.  But  there  remains  the  general  truth 
—  that  it  is  by  the  whole  life  and  appearance  of  Christ 
we  hope  to  be  delivered"  (Christian  Institutions,  p.  270). 
RICHARD  F.  LITTLEDALE  (1883).  —  "  According  to  this 
view,  then,  it  is  the  Life  of  Christ  which  has  wrought  out 
Atonement  in  the  highest  sense,  while  the  Death  of  Christ, 
albeit  essential  as  the  seal  and  crown  of  the  self-dedication 
of  that  life,  and  as  completing  its  sacrificial  character,  has 
to  do  mainly  with  the  secondary  and  lesser  sense  of  Atone 
ment.  .  .  .  Christ's  death,  in  ancient  Christian  theology, 
did  not  pervade  by  any  means  as  much  space  as  it  has  done 
for  several  centuries  past,  but  it  was  regarded  as  a  single 
incident,  of  transcendent  importance  and  value  indeed,  but 
still  only  a  single  incident  in  the  great  chain  of  events  from 
the  Incarnation  to  the  Ascension.  .  .  . 

"It  remains  a  mystery,  and  although  thousands  of 
Imines  have  pondered  and  written  upon  it,  no  explanation 
^et  offered  has  proved  satisfactory  to  the  Christian  under 
standing,  and  least  of  all  that  which  views  it  as  a  vicarious 
punishment,  inflicted  upon  Christ  in  the  stead  of  sinners  " 
(The  Atonement:  A  Clerical  Symposium,  pp.  8,  16). 

J.  J.  LIAS  (1884).  —  "A  certain  theory  of  Atonement, 
which,  though  by  no  means  excluded  by  the  language  of 


280  APPENDIX 

Scripture,  is  not  laid  down  in  Scripture  itself,  has  been 
insisted  upon  as  the  very  keystone  of  the  Christian  faith. 
The  rejection  of  this  theory  has  frequently  been  regarded 
both  by  supporters  and  opponents  of  Christianity  as  the 
rejection  of  revealed  religion.  The  object  of  these  lectures 
is  to  show  that  there  is  no  ground  whatever  for  such  a  sup 
position  ;  that  the  theory  in  question  was  not  propounded 
by  the  first  preachers  of  the  Gospel,  nor  by  their  successors 
for  the  next  fifteen  hundred  years,  and  that  it  is  not  ac 
cepted  by  the  vast  majority  of  Christians  of  our  own  time. 
Consequently  a  man  may  be  a  very  good  Christian  without 
believing  it,  and  a  very  serious  hindrance  in  the  way  of 
belief  is  thus  removed.  .  .  . 

"No  (Ecumenical  Council  was  ever  assembled  to  de 
cide  on  the  way  in  which  Christ's  offering  of  Himself 
availed  to  put  away  our  sins.  No  early  Father  attempted 
to  dogmatise  on  the  subject.  It  was  reserved  for  Protest 
ant  theology  to  make  the  Death  of  Christ  rather  than  His 
Incarnation  the  keystone  of  the  Gospel  system,  and  to 
make  the  acceptance  of  a  particular  theory  respecting  that 
Death,  not  only  the  articulus  stantis  aut  cadentis  ecclesiae, 
but  the  indispensable  requisite  for  the  salvation  of  the  in 
dividual  soul.  .  .  . 

"Thus,  then,  we  find  the  popular  theory  that  Christ 
made  atonement  for  our  sins  by  bearing  the  Father's 
wrath  against  sin  in  our  stead,  to  be  not  only  without  the 
slightest  support  from  the  Church  before  the  Reformation, 
but  we  find  it  rejected  by  some  theologians  of  the  greatest 
note  after  that  period.  It  forms  no  part  of  the  theological 
standards  of  our  own  or  of  the  Lutheran  Churches.  It  is 


APPENDIX  281 

repudiated  by  Calvin  ( ?) ;  it  is  expressly  rejected  by  Jona 
than  Edwards"  (The  Atonement  Viewed  in  the  Light  of 
Certain  Modern  Difficulties,  pp.  vi,  44,  62). 

DEAN  FARRAR  (1885).  —  "I  say  at  once,  and  without 
fear  of  contradiction,  that  no  theory  of  the  Atonement  ever 
formulated,  no  scholastic  explanation  of  the  Atonement 
ever  devised,  has  been  accepted  by  the  Universal  Church, 
or  can  put  forth  the  slightest  claim  to  catholicity.  .  .  . 
And  the  cause  of  all  these  errors,  and  of  the  human  theories 
from  which  they  spring,  is  obvious.  They  spring  from 
ignoring  the  fact  that  it  has  not  pleased  God  to  give  us  the 
plan  of  salvation  in  dialectics;  from  the  bad  tendency  to 
torture  isolated  expressions  into  the  ever-widening  spiral 
ergo  of  unlimited  consequences;  from  tessellating  varied 
metaphors  into  formal  systems;  from  trying  to  construct 
the  whole,  when  God  has  given  us  knowledge  only  of  a 
part;  from  the  bad  rule  of  ecclesiastical  opinionativeness 
and  tyranny,  consequentiae  equipollent  revelatis.  ...  Of 
the  blessed  effects  of  the  Atonement  in  relation  to  man 
we  know  or  may  know  all ;  of  the  mysterious  acts,  of  the 
operative  cause,  we  know  and  can  know  nothing"  (Report 
of  Tenth  Church  Congress  of  the  P.  E.  Church,  pp.  41-43. 
See  also  A  Clerical  Symposium,  pp.  64-88). 

RANDOLPH  H.  McKiM  (1885).  — "We  who  stand  for 
the  objective  view  owe  a  debt  of  gratitude  to  you  who  have 
maintained  the  opposite  view.  You  have  sifted  out  a 
great  deal  of  chaff  from  our  conceptions  on  this  subject. 
You  have  cleansed  our  temple  for  us.  With  your  whip  of 
small  cords  you  have  driven  out  those  materialistic  and 
commercial  ideas  which  had  intruded  themselves  into  the 


282  APPENDIX 

sacred  precincts  of  this  doctrine.  Who  is  not  thankful  to 
see  the  scales  and  balances,  and  the  arithmetical  tables, 
and  the  ledgers  with  debit  and  credit  accounts,  disappear 
from  the  sanctuary  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement  ?  They 
have  disappeared"  (Tenth  Church  Congress,  p.  47). 

WILLIAM  R.  HUNTINGTON  (1885).  —  "How  shall  any 
man  of  his  own  motion,  and  out  of  his  own  head,  venture 
to  do  what  'Holy  Church  throughout  all  the  world'  has 
never  done  —  namely,  to  set  forth,  in  precise  theological 
terms,  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  Atonement?  Minute 
definitions  of  the  dogma  there  have  been  without  number, 
some  of  them  backed  by  more,  some  by  less,  of  recognised 
authority,  but  nowhere,  save  in  the  few  broken  words, 
'Who  for  us  men,  and  for  our  salvation,  came  down  from 
heaven,'  'was  crucified  for  us  under  Pontius  Pilate,' 
'suffered,'  'was  buried'  —  nowhere  save  here  can  the 
voice  of  the  Church  Universal  be  justly  said  to  have  set 
forth  any  credenda  of  Atonement.  .  .  .  With  respect  both 
to  the  process  and  to  the  act  we  are,  and,  under  the  limi 
tations  of  this  life  present,  must  always  be,  to  a  great  ex 
tent  agnostic.  .  .  .  'There  they  crucified  Him'  —  that  we 
can  understand.  It  is  an  event  in  time.  But  of  the  mys 
terious  title,  'Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world,' 
who  shall  say  what  that  means  ?  It  carries  us  out  into  the 
unvisited  region  of  eternity.  .  .  .  The  penalty  He  did  not 
bear,  the  burden  He  did"  (Tenth  Church  Congress,  pp.  33, 
37.  Reprinted  in  Theology's  Eminent  Domain,  pp.  63  sq.}. 

BISHOP  ARTHUR  C.  A.  HALL  (1885).  —  "We  hear  ob 
jections  to  a  theory  of  vicarious  Atonement  in  which  a  man 
innocent  and  faultless  bears  the  penalty  of  others'  sins, 


APPENDIX  283 

which  are  laid  to  his  account,  and  then,  by  an  equally 
fictitious  imputation,  his  merits  are  put  to  the  account  of 
men  still  guilty.  That  is  not  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the 
Atonement,  but  springs  from  an  un-Catholic  doctrine  of 
the  Incarnation.  .  .  .  The  sacrifice  which  He  offers  is 
representative,  and  not  vicarious.  His  merits  are  imparted 
and  communicated  rather  than  imputed.  He  is  our  Leader 
and  our  Head  rather  than  our  Substitute"  (Tenth  Church 
Congress,  pp.  45,  46.  See  also  The  Forgiveness  of  Sins, 
pp.  12,  43,  44,  92-96). 

WILLIAM  MILLIGAN  (1885).  — "On  the  one  hand, 
there  is  the  merely  legal  or  juridical  view  of  that  work, 
which  has  a  paralysing  effect  upon  the  life  of  the  Church. 
Taken  by  itself,  it  leaves  the  impression  upon  the  mind  of 
something  outward  and  unreal.  The  truly  awakened  con 
science  cannot  be  satisfied  with  a  mere  verdict  of  acquittal 
at  the  bar  of  Divine  justice.  What  it  needs,  and  can  never 
be  at  peace  without  having,  is  deliverance  from  sin  itself, 
is  a  moral  and  spiritual  change,  through  which  there  shall 
be  produced  a  walk  with  God  instead  of  a  walk  in  sin.  And 
this  change  must  be  involved  in  the  very  process  of  redemp 
tion.  .  .  .  Thus  we  ought  to  find  ourselves  drawn  to  a 
theology,  less  one-sided  and  more  pervaded  by  Catholic 
elements  than  that  of  the  Reformation,  because  dealing 
more  with  life  than  with  death"  (The  Resurrection  of  our 
Lord,  pp.  288  sq.). 

"The  Church  has  had  bitter  enough  experience  of  the 
evil  effects  of  that  system  of  legal  theology  which  has  so 
long  held  possession  of  the  field.  She  has  seen  a  wide  gulf 
opened  between  a  supposed  salvation  in  Christ  and  life  in 


284  APPENDIX 

Him.  She  has  seen  a  so-called  orthodoxy,  cold  and  hard, 
reigning  in  her  pulpits  and  her  pews,  until  at  last  many  of 
the  occupants  of  both,  unable  to  endure  their  dissatisfaction 
longer,  and  having  no  better  substitute,  have  been  con 
strained  to  abandon  theology,  if  not  also  Christianity,  alto- 
gether.  She  has  seen  words  expressive  of  the  most  solemn 
realities  of  the  eternal  world  played  with  as  if  they  were  a 
set  of  counters  without  meaning.  She  has  seen  a  preaching, 
boasting  itself  to  be  that  of  the  only  gospel,  so  separated 
from  sweetness  of  moral  tone  and  beauty  of  moral  conduct 
that  the  faith  of  weak  Christians  has  trembled  in  the  bal 
ance,  while  a  merely  outward  formalism  has  passed  gaily 
.through  the  Church  and  the  world,  smiling  at  its  own  ac 
complishments.  All  this  the  Church  has  seen,  until  it  may 
be  doubted  whether  her  life,  looked  at  on  a  large  scale,  has 
not  become  an  obstacle  to  the  progress  of  Christianity, 
instead  of  being,  as  it  ought  to  be,  the  most  powerful  ar 
gument  in  its  favour"  (The  Ascension  of  our  Lord,  pp. 
365  sq.  See  the  whole  of  Note  B). 

BISHOP  B.  F.  WESTCOTT  (1886).  — "The  Incarnation 
is  commonly  made  to  depend  upon  the  Fall.  And  the 
whole  tenour  of  revelation,  as  I  conceive,  leads  us  to  regard 
the  Incarnation  as  inherently  involved  in  the  Creation.  .  .  . 
We  are  coming  to  understand,  in  a  word,  what  is  the  true 
meaning  of  that  phrase  'vicarious  suffering'  which  has 
brought  at  other  times  sad  perplexity  to  anxious  minds; 
how  it  excludes  everything  that  is  arbitrary,  fictitious,  un 
natural,  external  in  human  relationships ;  how  it  expresses 
the  highest  energy  of  love  which  takes  a  friend's  sorrows 
into  the  loving  heart  and  taking  them  by  God's  grace 


APPENDIX  285 

transfigures  them,  satisfying  every  claim  of  righteousness, 
justifying  every  instinct  of  hope,  quickening  the  spirit  of 
self-surrender,  offering  within  the  sphere  of  common  life  a 
faint  image  of  forgiveness,  of  redemption,  of  reconcilia 
tion"  (Christus  Consummator,  pp.  104,  123). 

ARCHBISHOP  W.  C.  MAGEE  (1887).  —  "But  it  is  one 
thing  to  say  that  the  sacrifice  of  Christ's  death  has  had  a 
reconciling  or  an  atoning  efficacy,  and  quite  another  thing 
to  say  that  this  atoning  efficacy  consists  in  this  or  in  that 
fact  or  circumstance.  It  is  one  thing  to  say  that  propitia 
tion  means  the  removal  of  an  obstacle  to  forgiveness,  and 
quite  another  thing  to  say  what  that  obstacle  was,  and  how 
it  has  been  removed.  On  this  latter  point  it  is  most  in 
structive  to  observe  the  guarded  silence  of  Scripture.  Texts 
there  are  in  abundance  setting  forth  the  idea  that  in  some 
way  Christ's  death  has  removed  an  obstacle  to  our  forgive 
ness  —  an  obstacle  existing  not  on  the  human  but  on  the 
Divine  side  —  an  objective,  not  a  subjective,  hindrance 
to  our  forgiveness;  but  where  are  the  texts  which  profess 
to  explain,  still  less  to  formulate  scientifically,  the  nature 
of  this  obstacle  and  the  precise  manner  of  its  removal  — 
to  tell  us,  that  is  to  say,  wherein  consists  the  atoning  efficacy 
of  the  death  of  Christ  ?  The  truth  is,  that  this  whole  notion 
of  Atonement  by  satisfaction  of  justice  is  not  the  revealed 
doctrine  of  the  Atonement;  it  is  a  theory  about  the  doctrine 
of  Atonement.  It  is  an  attempt  —  one  of  many  attempts  — • 
and  a  comparatively  modern  one  too  —  to  do  just  that 
which  Scripture  has  refrained  from  doing  —  namely,  to 
explain  the  Atonement,  to  make  the  deep  mystery  of  it  no 
mystery,  to  reduce  it  to  a  form  in  which  we  may  be  able, 


286  APPENDIX 

as  it  is  said,  'to  grasp'  it,  to  receive  and  understand  what 
is  called  'the  Gospel  plan  of  salvation.'  I  confess  to  a 
rooted  distrust  of  all  such  attempts.  .  .  . 

"The  truth  is,  that  all  these  theories,  and  their  name  is 
'Legion,'  are  only  so  many  attempts  to  make  that  clear 
which  God  has  not  made  clear,  by  fastening  on  some  one 
of  the  many  and  purposely  varied  expressions  in  which  He 
has  shadowed  forth  for  us  the  great  mystery  of  the  Atone 
ment  by  means  of  partial  analogies  in  human  nature  and 
human  life,  as  if  that  one  were  the  only  true  aspect  of  it, 
and  then,  by  expanding  this  analogy  —  imperfect  and  par 
tial  as  it  must  necessarily  be  —  into  some  elaborate  theory 
or  system  which  rests  on  it  like  a  pyramid  upon  its  apex, 
sure  to  topple  over  under  the  blast  of  the  first  searching  and 
honest  criticism  that  is  directed  against  it"  (The  Atone 
ment,  in  "Helps  to  Belief"  Series,  pp.  107-110). 

GEORGE  MACDONALD  (1889).  —  "If  I  explain  the 
atonement  otherwise  than  they  explain  it,  they  assert  that 
I  deny  the  atonement;  nor  count  it  of  any  consequence 
that  I  say  that  I  believe  in  the  atoner  with  my  whole  heart, 
and  soul,  and  strength,  and  mind.  .  .  .  Because  I  refuse 
an  explanation  which  is  not  in  the  New  Testament,  though 
they  believe  it  is,  because  they  can  think  of  no  other,  one 
which  seems  to  me  as  false  in  logic  as  detestable  in  morals, 
not  to  say  that  there  is  no  spirituality  in  it  whatever,  there 
fore  I  am  not  a  Christian !  What  wonder  men  such  as  I 
have  quoted  refuse  the  Christianity  they  suppose  such 
'  believers '  to  represent !  .  .  .  To  do  what  He  wishes  is  to 
put  forth  faith  in  Him.  For  this  the  teaching  of  men  has 
substituted  this  or  that  belief  about  Him,  faith  in  this  or 


APPENDIX  287 

that  supposed  design  of  His  manifestation  in  the  flesh.  It 
was  Himself,  and  God  in  Him  that  He  manifested;  but 
faith  in  Him  and  His  Father  thus  manifested,  they  made 
altogether  secondary  to  acceptance  of  the  paltry  contrivance 
of  a  juggling  morality,  which  they  attribute  to  God  and 
His  Christ,  imagining  it  the  atonement  and  'the  plan  of 
salvation'"  (Unspoken  Sermons,  Second  Series,  pp.  241, 
247). 

ARTHUR  JAMES  MASON  (1889).  — "No  one  can  rest 
with  confidence  upon  what  is,  on  the  face  of  it,  an  artifice, 
a  scheme.  What  are  called  forensic  doctrines  have  seemed 
to  satisfy  many  hearts,  but  only  so  far  as  they  were  right 
metaphors,  parables  hinting  at  a  fuller  truth  which  was 
consciously  or  unconsciously  felt  to  lie  behind  them.  If 
our  Lord's  work  be  regarded  as  a  cleverly  devised  legal 
contrivance,  it  repels  instead  of  attracting ;  or  if  it  does  not 
actually  repel,  it  invites  criticism  and  admiration  rather 
than  worship  and  devotion.  It  is  only  when  we  strongly 
apprehend  the  naturalness  of  it  all  that  we  are  able  to 
embrace  it  with  a  hearty  faith.  Our  Lord's  redeeming 
work  may  be  infinitely  complicated.  It  may  have  many 
more  aspects  and  a  greater  number  of  effects  than  we 
can  imagine.  It  would  not  be  natural  were  it  other 
wise;  for  all  that  is  natural  is  complex.  But  its  compli 
cations  must  be  those  which  belong  to  life,  capable  of  be 
ing  resolved  into  a  simple  and  majestic  unity,  and  not  the 
complications  of  a  studied  mechanism.  .  .  . 

"It  will  be  seen  that,  on  this  view  of  the  Atonement, 
there  is  no  need  to  resort  to  the  language  of  substitution, 
which  has  so  often  alienated  thoughtful  minds.  That 


288  APPENDIX 

language  is  neither  scriptural  nor  ancient,  and  therefore 
has  no  special  claim  upon  the  adhesion  of  the  Christian 
conscience.  Indeed,  it  seems  to  be  studiedly  excluded 
from  the  New  Testament.  ...  So  far  therefore  as  the 
language  of  the  New  Testament  goes,  there  is  no  reason 
for  supposing  our  Lord  to  have  been  substituted  for  us  in 
His  Passion.  But  the  objection  to  a  theory  of  atonement 
by  substitution  lies  deeper  than  the  meaning  of  a  preposi 
tion.  If  the  one  object  of  the  Divine  justice  had  been  to 
inflict  a  condign  punishment,  perhaps  the  theory  might 
have  been  more  tolerable.  But  we  have  seen  that  such  was 
not  the  case,  and  that  an  equivalent  penalty  could  not 
satisfy  God,  instead  of  the  removal  of  the  sin.  .  .  . 

"And  yet,  however  we  may  labour  to  set  forth  in  human 
words  the  nature  and  character  of  the  Atonement,  it  is 
certain  that  no  complete  account  of  it  can  be  given.  It  is 
too  far-reaching  for  our  understanding.  We  are,  no  doubt, 
intended  to  inquire  about  it,  to  dispel  false  notions  about  it, 
to  bring  together  facts  which  throw  light  upon  it.  But 
there  is  a  danger  in  doing  so,  lest  men  should  rest  in  a 
theory  of  redemption  rather  than  on  the  fact  itself.  We 
are  not  saved  by  what  we  think  about  the  Cross  of  Christ, 
but  by  the  Cross  itself"  (The  Faith  of  the  Gospel]  pp.  172, 
205-207,  209). 

ARTHUR  LYTTELTON  (1889).  —  "The  fault  of  many  of 
the  theories  of  the  Atonement  has  been  that,  though  none  of 
them  failed  to  be  partially  true,  they  were  limited  to  one 
or  other  of  the  various  aspects  which  that  mysterious  fact 
presents.  It  is  certain,  again,  that  of  this  complex  fact  no 
adequate  explanation  can  be  given.  .  .  .  The  truth  of  the 


APPENDIX  289 

vicarious  sacrifice  has  been  isolated  till  it  has  almost  be 
come  untrue,  and,  mysterious  as  it  undoubtedly  is,  it  has 
been  so  stated  as  to  be  not  only  mysterious,  but  contrary 
to  reason  and  even  to  conscience.  .  .  .  The  truth  of  the 
wrath  of  God  against  sin  and  of  the  love  of  Christ  by  which 
that  wrath  was  removed,  has  been  perverted  into  a  belief 
in  a  divergence  of  will  between  God  the  Father  and  God 
the  Son,  as  if  it  was  the  Father's  will  that  sinners  should 
^perish,  the  Son's  will  that  they  should  be  saved ;  as  if  the 
Atonement  consisted  in  the  propitiation  of  the  wrathful 
God  by  the  substituted  punishment  of  the  innocent  for  the 
guilty.  .  .  .  Nothing  is  more  common  than  to  hear  the 
doctrine  of  the  Atonement  stated  as  if  the  work  of  Christ 
consisted  in  His  endurance  of  our  punishment  in  order  that 
we  might  not  endure  it.  ...  Attempts  have  been  made  to 
establish  a  quantitative  relation  between  our  Lord's  suffer 
ings  and  the  punishment  which  is  thereby  remitted  to  us, 
to  prove  that  the  eternal  nature  of  the  Sufferer  made  His 
death  equivalent  to  eternal  punishment.  But  even  if  such 
attempts,  in  so  mysterious  a  region,  could  succeed,  it  would 
be  vain  to  establish  a  quantitative  equivalence  where  there 
is  no  quantitative  relation.  Eternal  punishment  is  'eternal 
sin'  and  as  such  could  never  be  endured  by  the  sinless 
Son  of  God"  (Lux  Hundi,  pp.  285,  307,  309). 

AUBREY  MOORE  (1889). —  ''Forensic  fictions  of  sub 
stitution,  immoral  theories  of  the  Atonement,  '  the  rending 
asunder  of  the  Trinity,'  and  the  opposing  of  the  Divine 
Persons,  like  parties  in  a  lawsuit,  were  the  natural  corol 
laries  of  a  theory  which  taught  that  God  was  above  morality 
and  man  beneath  it"  (Lux  Mundi,  p.  80). 

19 


290  APPENDIX 

R.  C.  MOBERLY  (1889).  —  "When  in  fact  we  enter  upon 
the  domain  of  explicative  theories,  we  have  not  only  left  the 
sure  ground  of  the  Creeds,  and  embarked  upon  views  which 
may  or  may  not  be  correct,  but  we  find,  as  a  fact,  that  the 
modes  of  thought  which  seemed  adequately  to  explain  the 
doctrine  to  the  conscience  of  some  ages,  have  not  only 
failed  to  satisfy,  but  have  actually  shocked  and  offended 
others.  The  teaching  that  God  was  angry,  but  that  Jesus, 
as  a  result  of  gentler  mercy,  and  through  His  innocent 
blood,  appeased,  by  satisfying,  the  wrath  of  the  Father,  and 
so  reconciled  God  to  us ;  .  .  .  the  teaching  that  a  debt  was 
due  from  humanity  to  God,  and  that  Jesus,  clothed  as 
man,  alone  could  deliver  man  by  discharging  God's  debt: 
these  —  be  they  popular  blunderings,  or  genuine  efforts  of 
theology  —  may,  in  their  times,  have  both  helped  and 
wounded  consciences;  but  whether  they  be  to  us  as  helps 
or  hindrances,  it  is  of  the  utmost  importance  that  we  should 
discriminate  them,  and  others  which  may  have  succeeded 
to  them  as  theories  explanatory  of  the  Atonement,  from 
our  cardinal  belief  in  the  Atonement  itself"  (Lux  Mundi, 
p.  251). 

"The  difficulties  which  are  generally  felt  about  Christian 
atonement  arise  neither  from  the  Evangelical  history  of  the 
Cross  itself,  nor  even  from  anything  in  the  original  apos 
tolic  proclamation  of  the  fact,  or  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Cross;  but  rather  from  the  inadequacy  of  certain  more 
or  less  current  explanations,  logical  and  inferential,  of  the 
original  apostolic  doctrine.  Such  inferential  structures 
(the  most  untrue  of  which  has  considerable  relation  to 
truth)  are  precisely  the  things  which  ought  to  be  closely 


APPENDIX  291 

re-examined  and  reconstructed.  They  are  no  part  of  the 
original  tradition.  They  are  practically  almost  unknown 
in  the  earliest  ages  of  Christianity.  They  are  the  work  of 
human  intellect,  honest,  instructive,  —  and  visibly  inade 
quate.  They  are  stages  in  the  human  assimilation  of  a 
truth  more  fundamental  and  inclusive  than  the  assimilating 
power  of  human  intellect.  It  does  not  take  any  exceptional 
knowledge  of  the  history  of  the  doctrine,  especially  in  the 
earliest  Christian  centuries,  to  detach  them  from  the  doc 
trine  itself,  and,  if  not  fully  to  correct  them,  at  least  to  see 
the  elements  in  them  which  are  most  obviously  open  to 
question  and  correction.  .  .  . 

"The  untenable  elements  of  thought  which  were  often 
introduced  into  the  theological  explanation  of  the  Atone 
ment  (itself  substantially  always  held  in  truth)  from  Origen 
to  Anselm,  and  from  Anselm  to  Luther,  may  be  broadly 
said  to  have  arisen  out  of  exaggerated  or  disproportioned 
use  of  such  metaphorical  phrases  as  Redemption,  Ransom, 
and  Deliverance  out  of  the  dominion  of  Satan.  The  un 
tenable  elements  of  thought  which  have  been  too  often 
characteristic  of  the  atoning  theories  of  popular  Protestant 
ism,  may  be  said  to  have  arisen  out  of  a  still  more  mischiev 
ous  misuse  of  such  phrases  as  those  which  constituted 
our  second  group,  Propitiation,  Reconciliation,  and  Justi 
fication.  Out  of  these  words  have  been  drawn  —  per 
versely  enough  —  the  conceptions  of  an  enraged  Father, 
a  victimised  Son,  the  unrighteous  punishment  of  the  inno- 
f  cent,  the  unrighteous  reward  of  the  guilty,  the  transfer  of 
innocence  and  guilt  by  fictitious  imputation,  the  adroit 
settlement  of  an  artificial  difficulty  by  an  artificial,  and 


APPENDIX 

strictly  irrelevant,  transaction"  (Atonement  and  Personality, 
pp.  xi,  342). 

Louis  DURAND  (1890).  —  ''Incompatible  avec  la  no 
tion  de  justice,  la  substitution,  en  tant  qu'on  1'envisage 
comme  donnant  pleine  satisfaction  a  1'offense,  n'est  pas 
moins  incompatible  avec  la  notion  de  1'amour.  Satisfaction 
re^-ue  et  pardon  genereux  sont  choses  qui  s'excluent  1'une 
1'autre.  .  .  .  De  la  la  necessite  de  1'oeuvre  du  Redemp- 
teur,  non  pas  pour  payer  a  notre  place,  lui  juste,  la  peine 
que  nous  avions  meritee,  mais  pour  nous  inspirer  la  vraie 
repentance,  nous  faire  mourir  au  peche  et  nous  reconcilier 
avec  Dieu.  C'est  ce  que  Jesus- Christ  a  fait,  ou  c'est  ce  que 
Dieu  a  fait  par  lui,  specialement  par  sa  croix.  La  croix  de 
Jesus-Christ  est  le  jugement  de  ce  monde.  Jesus  a  subi  la 
mort  dans  la  gloire  de  son  innocence,  afin  de  juger  et  de 
punir  le  peche  dans  nos  consciences,  en  meme  temps  qu'il 
nous  donnait  le  temoignage  supreme  de  son  amour"  (From 
Eleven  Theses  presented  to  the  Vaudois  Society  of  Theol 
ogy,  quoted  in  E.  Petavel-Olliff,  Le  Probleme  de  Vlmmor- 
talite,  I.  408  sq.). 

JOHN  FULTON  (1892).  —  "When  we  consider  the  end 
less  controversies  of  mediaeval  and  modern  theologians 
concerning  the  Divine  means  and  method  of  human  salva 
tion,  it  is  truly  humbling  and  most  instructive  to  turn  to  the 
sublime  simplicity  of  the  Nicene  Creed.  In  popular  theol 
ogy  one  often  finds  something  like  a  controversy  between 
the  persons  of  the  Godhead,  the  Father  standing  as  an 
impersonation  of  inexorable  vengeance,  and  the  Son  as  an 
impersonation  of  infinite  goodness  and  Divine  compassion. 
.  .  .  The  truth  is  that  popular  theology  contains  in  it  a 


APPENDIX  293 

large  amount  of  unconscious  Manicheism,  and  offers  to 
popular  faith  one  God  to  be  dreaded  and  another  God  to 
be  loved.  Naturally  that  theology  takes  little  note  of  the 
great  Christian  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation.  .  .  .  The 
Nicene  Creed  states  the  whole  truth,  and  states  it  without 
one  syllable  of  interpretation  which  our  Lord  and  His 
Apostles  withheld.  It  exalts  nothing  beyond  measure,  and 
depresses  nothing  from  its  due  importance.  .  .  . 

"What  an  amazing  contrast  have  we  here  to  the  endless 
intellectual  muddle,  the  pretentious  jargon  and  the  arro 
gant  absurdities  of  individual  doctors,  sects  and  churches 
that  have  undertaken  to  be  wiser  than  the  universal  Church 
of  Christ !  Theories  of  the  plan  of  salvation  have  cleared 
away  no  difficulties ;  they  have  made  many.  Some  of  the 
most  effective  and  profane  assaults  that  have  ever  been 
made  upon  Christianity  have  been  grounded  upon  one  or 
other  of  those  theories;  so  that  one  might  well  hesitate 
before  concluding  whether  those  assaults,  or  the  unau 
thorised  theories  which  made  them  possible,  are  the  more 
profane.  I  think  it,  therefore,  necessary  to  insist  that 
any  theory  whatever,  and  whether  it  be  true  or  false, 
which  pretends  to  pass  one  line  beyond  the  limits  of  the 
reverent  reserve  of  the  Nicene  Creed,  is  no  part  of  Chris 
tianity,  and  is  only  too  likely  to  be  both  untrue  and  pre 
sumptuously  profane"  (The  Chalcedonian  Decree,  pp. 
112-114). 

"No  doctrine  of  Christian  faith  has  suffered  more  from 
attempted  definitions  than  the  Sacrificial  Atonement  of 
our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  of  which  the  Church 
is  now  making  its  special  annual  commemoration.  In  the 


294  APPENDIX 

truest  sense  the  Atonement  was  a  Mystery,  having  its  out 
ward  and  visible  manifestation  in  His  Agony  and  Bloody 
Sweat,  His  Cross  and  Passion,  His  Precious  Death  and 
Burial,  and  in  the  effect  of  these  exhibited  in  His  glorious 
Resurrection  and  Ascension.  But  behind  these  awful  and 
tremendous  facts,  transacted  in  the  sphere  of  time  and 
space,  was  a  Divine  fact  of  Reconciliation  and  Redemption, 
the  mode,  method,  and  character  of  which  are  hid  among 
the  unsearchable  things  of  God.  Within  the  past  genera 
tion  there  has  been  a  just  and  reverent  recoil  from  the 
former  vain  attempts  to  tear  aside  the  veil  wrhich  hides  that 
part  of  the  Great  Transaction;  but  there  should  be  no 
feeble  or  halting  proclamation  of  the  fact  itself  as  it  is  as 
serted  in  the  Catholic  Symbol  of  the  Christian  Faith.  There 
is  no  need  to  resort  to  Augustinian  theories,  or  mediaeval 
definitions,  to  Calvinistic  scholasticism  or  Puritan  theology, 
all  of  which,  and  all  alike,  are  purely  speculative  and  es 
sentially  rationalistic.  The  true  doctrine  of  the  Atonement 
by  which  our  Blessed  Lord  made  a  'full,  perfect  and 
sufficient  sacrifice,  oblation,  and  satisfaction  for  all  the  sins 
of  the  whole  world '  is  best  expressed  in  the  language  of  the 
Nicene  Creed :  '  For  us  men  and  for  our  salvation  He  came 
down  from  heaven,  and  was  incarnate  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  was  made  man ;  and  was  cruci 
fied  also  for  our  sakes  under  Pontius  Pilate,  and  suffered, 
and  was  buried ;  and  rose  again  on  the  third  day,  accord 
ing  to  the  Scriptures;  and  ascended  into  heaven,  and  sit- 
teth  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Father':  all  this  was  'for  us 
men  and  for  our  salvation';  each  and  every  part  of  it 
'for  our  sakes.'  That,  and  that  only,  is  the  true  and 


APPENDIX  295 

Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Atonement"  (The  Church  Stand 
ard,  April  2,  1904). 

GEORGE  B.  STEVENS  (1892).  —  "The  conclusion  is 
inevitable  that  these  expressions  must  not  be  treated  like 
scientifically  precise  formulae,  but  like  human  forms  of 
thought  —  the  most  useful  forms  of  thought  which  were 
available,  for  the  illustration  and  enforcement  of  truths  and 
relations  which  are  beyond  the  full  reach  of  definition  by 
any  human  analogies.  Few,  if  any,  of  those  systems  of 
thought  which,  like  those  of  Anselm  or  Grotius,  have  been 
formed  by  a  strict  carrying  out  of  some  one  particular 
analogy,  or  thought-form,  have  proved  satisfactory  to 
Christian  thinkers  generally,  as  is  shown  by  their  constant 
effort  to  penetrate  beneath  the  figures  of  ransom  and  fo 
rensic  imputation  to  the  moral  and  spiritual  realities  which 
underlie  them.  .  .  .  What  are  the  limits  of  their  legitimate 
use  in  theology?  is  another  question.  That  there  are 
limits,  most  Christian  thinkers  will  agree,  as  is  shown  by 
the  general  disfavour  into  which  the  theories  of  equiva 
lence  and  purchase  have  fallen.  .  .  . 

"The  idea  that  SiKaioa-vvr)  here  means  the  necessity  of 
punishing  sin  leads  to  the  view  that  God  punished  Christ 
with  the  full  penalty  of  the  world's  sin,  —  a  view  which 
annuls  the  very  idea  of  punishment,  since  punishment  for 
sin  can  be  inflicted  only  upon  those  who  commit  it,  and  the 
notion  of  punishing  an  innocent  person  is  the  essence  of 
injustice  and  a  contradiction  in  terms.  .  .  .  Two  prob 
lems,  then,  press  for  solution :  (a)  In  what  sense  is  Christ's 
death  for  us,  and  His  sufferings  instead  of  our  punishment  ? 
and  (b)  How  does  His  vicarious  work  meet  the  demands 


296  APPENDIX 

of  the  law,  and  satisfy  the  ethical  requirements  of  God's 
holy  nature  in  respect  to  sin  ?  Neither  of  these  inquiries  is 
explicitly  answered  by  any  statement  contained  in  Paul's 
letters"  (The  Pauline  Theology,  pp.  253,  254,  101,  243. 
See  also  pp.  244,  245). 

"The  essence  of  Paul's  thought  does  not  lie  in  such 
notions  as  those  of  a  deified  law,  quantitative  equivalents, 
and  literal  substitutions  and  transfers,  but  of  the  concep 
tion  of  a  fuller  realisation  in  Christ  of  God's  perfections  in 
His  treatment  of  mankind  than  was  otherwise  possible" 
(Theology  of  the  New  Testament,  p.  412). 

A.  M.  FAIRBAIRN  (1893).  —  "The  [Anselmic]  theory 
was  throughout  a  piece  of  forensic  speculation;  it  was  the 
relations  of  God  and  man  interpreted  in  the  terms  of  Roman 
law,  though  as  modified  by  Teutonic,  and  as  applied  in 
the  penitential  discipline  of  the  Church.  As  such  it  was 
fatal  to  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  reign  of  grace.  The  satis 
faction  which  compensated  the  offended  secured  the  legal 
quittance  of  the  offender;  the  debt  paid  could  not  be  a 
debt  forgiven ;  to  deny  salvation  or  reward  to  any  man  so 
redeemed  was  to  deny  him  his  most  manifest  rights.  If 
grace  was  saved  by  God  being  made  to  provide  the  person 
who  satisfied,  then  the  whole  became  a  preconcerted  trans 
action,  a  sort  of  commercial  drama,  a  legal  fiction  sanc 
tioned  by  the  offended  for  the  good  of  the  offender.  Or  if 
the  notion  of  forgiveness  was  retained  by  the  act  being 
transferred  from  the  satisfied  Father  to  the  satisfying  Son, 
then  the  ethical  union  of  the  Godhead  was  endangered 
and  the  most  serious  of  all  heresies  endorsed"  (The  Place 
of  Christ  in  Modern  Theology,  pp.  123  sq.  See  also  pp.  100, 
174  sq.,  310-320,  479-487). 


APPENDIX  297 

WILLIAM  N.  CLARK  (1894).  —  The  work  of  Christ  is 
to  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  His  Person.  This  we  may 
hold  for  certain,  that  whatever  was  done  in  this  great 
Divine  work  was  done  straightforwardly.  The  Person  who 
was  active  did  what  as  a  person  it  was  normal  and  natural 
for  Him  to  do,  and  the  work  was  a  true  expression  of  Him. 
In  that  person,  Jesus,  we  recognise  both  the  divine  and  the 
human,  and  discern  God  in  humanity.  We  are  sure,  there 
fore,  that  the  simplicity  and  sincerity  of  God  will  be  mani 
fest  in  His  work,  when  we  rightly  understand  it.  All  was 
genuine.  There  can  have  been  no  fictions  or  unrealities  in 
it,  and  no  transactions  that  were  not  expressive  of  eternal 
verity.  Christ  was  not  regarded  by  God  as  anything  that 
He  was  not,  nor  are  men,  in  their  relation  to  Christ,  viewed 
as  anything  but  what  they  are.  There  is  no  unreal  chang 
ing  of  places,  or  imputation  to  any  one  of  character  that 
does  not  belong  to  him.  Christ,  working  straightforwardly 
from  His  own  person,  acts  according  to  truth.  Nor  would 
it  appear  that  such  a  work  was  done  in  pursuance  of  some 
special  plan  or  device,  an  invention  of  the  Divine  mind  or 
an  expedient  of  the  Divine  administration  to  serve  some 
special  purpose.  When  God  has  come  into  humanity  for 
the  broad  purpose  of  rendering  effective  His  saving  grace, 
we  may  be  sure  that  He  will  simply  act  out  His  eternal 
nature,  in  ways  that  are  normal  to  Him.  God's  work  is 
not  the  fruit  of  special  device  or  planning,  but  proceeds 
from  the  inner  necessity  of  His  character.  Christ  acted 
out  His  real  self,  never  doing  anything  that  did  not  corre 
spond  to  the  real  state  of  His  mind  and  affections,  and  al 
ways  simply  following  the  motive  with  which  He  began.  . .  . 


298  APPENDIX 

"If  grace  comes  simple  and  whole-hearted  into  the 
world,  it  does  not  come  to  satisfy  legal  claims  or  win  law- 
righteousness.  Neither  with  God  who  gives  it  nor  with 
man  who  receives  it,  nor  yet  with  Christ  through  whom  it 
comes,  is  the  Christian  salvation  a  salvation  by  satisfaction 
of  law.  It  is  not  procured,  imparted,  or  received  on  the 
terms  of  law ;  that  is  to  say,  it  is  not  procured  by  works  or 
earned  by  merit,  whether  of  men  or  of  Christ.  Men  are 
not  saved  by  the  payment  of  debt,  or  by  legal  satisfaction, 
or  by  transfer  of  merit  from  Christ  to  them.  God  does  not 
deal  with  men  through  Christ  in  the  character  of  lawgiver, 
or  judge,  or  in  any  special  character,  but  in  His  real  char 
acter  as  God.  His  own  very  self,  in  personal  relations  with 
His  creatures  as  their  very  selves ;  and  the  method  of  His 
saving  word  is  that  of  grace,  which  does  not  wait  for  any 
one's  merit  or  earning,  but  freely  gives.  .  .  . 

"What  view  of  the  work  of  Christ  is  to  be  presented 
here?  Not  exactly  any  one  of  the  great  historic  theories. 
Not,  of  course,  the  ancient  theory  that  Christ  offered  a 
ransom  to  Satan;  not  that  Christ  paid  to  God  a  satisfac 
tion  equivalent  to  the  sins  that  God  was  to  forgive;  not 
that  Christ  was  punished  for  the  sins  that  God  was  to  for 
give;  not  that  Christ  dealt  with  God  as  moral  governor, 
and  set  right  the  governmental  relations  of  men;  and  not 
that  His  work  was  intended  exclusively  to  bring  men  to 
repentance.  It  is  out  of  the  two  convictions  above  re 
corded  [that  the  work  is  to  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of 
the  Person,  and  as  the  work  of  a  single  motive  in  God, 
namely,  the  motive  of  free  grace]  that  the  present  ap 
proach  to  the  subject  is  made.  The  work  of  Christ  has 


APPENDIX  299 

been  described  by  various  adjectives.  It  has  been  called 
forensic,  commercial,  vicarious,  substitutionary,  penal, 
vice-penal,  governmental,  ethical,  moral.  But  the  adjec 
tives  that  lead  most  helpfully  into  the  subject  are  'direct' 
and  'vital.' 

"When  it  is  said  that  the  work  of  Christ  is  direct,  it  is 
meant  that  the  end  in  view  was  sought  not  indirectly,  but 
directly,  by  a  work  of  the  same  kind  with  the  result  that 
was  to  be  accomplished  by  it.     The  end  in  view  was  the 
great  reconciliation,  or  the  establishment  of  moral  and 
spiritual  fellowship  between  God  and  man;    and  toward 
that  end  Christ  wrought  directly.     His  work  was  not  a 
transactional  ground  for  the  desired  fellowship,  but  the 
direct  and  reasonable  way  into  the  fellowship  itself.    And 
when  it  is  said  that  the  work  of  Christ  is  vital,  it  is  meant 
that  by  His  vital  unity  with  God  and  men  He  was  the 
means  of  effecting  true  union  of  men  writh  God.     His 
personality  is  the  meeting-point  for  the  great  reconciliation. 
"The  adjectives  that  were  lately  cited  have  been  ap 
plied  to  the  work  of  Christ  mainly  to  express  in  some  form 
the  transactional  idea.    That  work  has  been  regarded  as  a 
transaction  to  which  God  and  men  might  afterward  refer 
as  the  basis  of  their  reconciliation,  and  has  been  called 
substitutionary,  penal,  and  the  like.     According  to  this 
idea  Christ  justified  God  in  saving  men;   according  to  the 
idea  that  is  here  presented,  Christ  is  God's  direct  means  of 
saving  men.    One  view  makes  Christ  the  ground  of  recon 
ciliation;    the  other  makes  Him  the  way  of  God  to  men 
and  of  men  to  God,  the  meeting-point  of  God  and  men,  and 
the  starting-point  of  the  saved  humanity.     In  the  latter 


300  APPENDIX 

view,  reconciliation  is  not  regarded  as  an  agreement  or  a 
settlement  of  differences,  but  as  a  spiritual  union  of  persons, 
a  meeting  of  God  and  men  in  genuine  spiritual  fellowship. 
That  the  Christian  reconciliation  is  thus  personal  and 
spiritual  when  it  becomes  a  matter  of  experience,  all 
Christians  know.  What  is  now  asserted  is  that  the  work  of 
Christ  as  Mediator  and  Redeemer  was  of  the  same  order 
with  the  result  that  it  brought  about,  —  not  something 
different  from  it  on  which  it  might  be  based,  but  something 
like  it  in  which  the  result  itself  might  be  realised;  and 
further,  that  this  work  proceeded  from  the  Divine-human 
constitution  of  Christ  Himself,  to  the  Divine-human  ex 
perience  of  spiritual  reconciliation  and  fellowship"  (An 
Outline  of  Christian  Theology,  pp.  332,  336-339.  See 
generally  pp.  246-259,  316-362). 

GEORGE  HARRIS  (1896).  —  "Until  recently  the  usual 
representations  of  atonement  were  justly  open  to  the 
charge  of  immorality.  .  .  .  The  imputation  of  our  sins 
to  Christ  has  been  so  stated  that  it  seemed  as  if  all  regard 
for  righteousness  had  been  overlooked.  The  penal  suffer 
ing  of  Christ  was  regarded  as  the  philosophy  of  atonement. 
It  was  believed  that  God  laid  on  Christ  the  penalty  of  our 
sins,  or  a  sufficient  equivalent  to  that  penalty.  The  atone 
ment  was  represented  as  an  arrangement  satisfactory  to 
God,  but  incomprehensible  to  us.  The  fact  that  character 
and  its  consequences  cannot  be  transferred  from  one  per 
son  to  another  was  contradicted  by  the  theory  that  Christ 
suffered  what  we  otherwise  should  have  suffered.  It  is 
not  an  exaggeration  to  say  that  atonement  was  represented 
as  a  device  by  which  God  escapes  from  apparently  in- 


APPENDIX  301 

superable  difficulties  to  the  forgiveness  of  sinners,  as  if  it 
would  be  impossible  for  God  to  forgive  outright,  even  on 
genuine  repentance,  but  becomes  possible  by  reason  of  the 
sufferings  and  death  of  Christ.  The  love  of  Christ  making 
its  great  way  to  men  at  the  cost  of  suffering  is  the  motive  ./• 
which  leads  men  to  repentance,  but  has  been  represented 
as  the  motive  which  induces  God  to  forgive.  This  dis 
appearing  theory  fails  to  satisfy  because  it  is  immoral,  be 
cause  it  places  salvation  somewhere  else  than  in  character, 
because  it  converts  the  sympathy  and  love  of  Christ  into 
legal  fictions,  because  it  places  the  ethical  demands  of 
justice  above  the  ethical  necessities  of  love.  .  .  .  When  the 
doctrine  of  atonement  is  traced  through  its  successive 
phases,  as  a  ransom  paid  to  the  devil,  as  the  satisfaction  of 
justice,  as  the  vindication  of  Divine  government,  and  finally 
as  the  great  motive  power  which  transforms  character,  it  is 
seen  that  there  has  been  a  progressive  moral  evolution. 
The  doctrine  of  redemption  through  sacrifice  remains,  but 
is  no  longer  made  to  rest  on  an  unethical  philosophy" 
(Moral  Evolution,  pp.  407  .•?</.). 

JOHN  WATSON  [Ian  Maclaren]  (1896).  —  "One  joy 
fully  anticipates  the  place  this  final  idea  of  God  will  have 
in  the  new  theology.  .  .  .  No  doctrine  of  the  former 
theology  will  be  lost;  all  will  be  recarved  and  refaced  to 
suit  the  new  architecture.  Sovereignty  will  remain,  not 
that  of  a  despot,  but  of  a  father ;  the  Incarnation  will  not 
be  an  expedient,  but  a  consummation ;  the  Sacrifice  will 
not  be  a  satisfaction,  but  a  reconciliation ;  the  end  of  Grace 
will  not  be  standing,  but  character ;  the  object  of  punish 
ment  will  not  be  retribution,  but  regeneration.  Mercy  and 


302  APPENDIX 

justice  will  no  longer  be  antinomies;  they  will  be  aspects 
of  Love,  and  the  principle  of  human  probation  will  be 
exchanged  for  the  principle  of  human  education"  (The 
Mind  of  the  Master,  p.  269). 

CHARLES  CUTHBERT  HALL  (1896).  — "  The  soul 
hungers  to  find  that  starting-point.  It  cannot  take  Jesus 
Christ  and  Him  crucified  as  an  incident,  an  after- thought, 
an  heroic  rescue  devised  in  an  emergency.  It  feels  in 
stinctively  that  the  Cross  must  be  the  result  of  some  deeper 
cause.  It  demands  to  be  led  to  that  deeper  cause,  that  it 
may  make  it  the  starting-point  of  thought.  Such  a  starting- 
point  is  provided  in  the  formula:  The  Atonement  not  the 
cause  of  God's  Love,  but  Love  the  cause  of  the  Atonement. 
.  .  .  The  effect  of  this  view  [that  the  Atonement  is  the 
cause  of  Love]  seems  to  be  the  introduction  of  discord  into 
the  Holy  Trinity,  setting  the  Father  against  the  Son,  and 
the  Son  against  the  Father  in  their  respective  attitudes 
towards  man.  The  Father  is  stern  and  wrathful ;  the  Son 
is  tender  and  pitiful;  the  Father  has  lifted  His  hand  to 
strike  and  destroy;  the  Son,  moved  by  a  holy  passion  to 
save,  has  flung  Himself  into  the  very  path  of  descending 
judgment,  to  receive  its  shock  upon  His  own  Person.  Can 
this  be  our  deepest  and  best  thought  of  God  ?  .  .  .  One 
result  is  a  form  of  clinging  to  Christ  which  practically 
separates  Him  from  God.  .  .  .  The  other  result  is  sub 
stantially  the  rejection  of  the  Atonement  as  something  un 
worthy  of  God;  the  setting  aside  of  Jesus  as  Mediator, 
from  the  feeling  that  God  is  too  great,  too  noble,  too  good 
to  demand  the  blood  of  an  innocent  victim  such  as  Christ 
was,  before  He  will  be  induced  to  love  man.  There  are 


APPENDIX  303 

those  who  deny  the  Atonement  out  of  respect  for  God.  .  .  . 
What,  then,  is  the  Atonement  to  God  ?  Ask  that  question 
in  the  light  of  these  preceding  thoughts,  —  what  man  is  to 
God,  and  what  sin  is  to  God.  Man  is  the  dear  object  of 
God's  love;  sin  is  the  intolerable  outrage  against  God's 
nature,  filling  God's  universe  with  lawlessness  and  misery. 
Atonement  is  the  supreme  effort  of  God's  love,  by  His  own 
suffering,  to  save  man  from  that  sin  which  makes  Him  an 
object  of  God's  wrath.  .  .  .  There  is  no  longer  any  occa 
sion  to  call  in  question  the  morality  of  God  in  exacting 
suffering  from  an  innocent  Being  to  satisfy  anger  stirred 
by  the  sins  of  the  guilty.  Such  a  conception  of  God  van 
ishes  like  a  grim  nocturnal  shadow  before  the  dawn" 
(The  Gospel  of  the  Divine  Sacrifice,  pp.  7,  12,  13,  75). 

GEORGE  PARK  FISHER  (1896).  —  "On  the  subject  of 
the  Atonement,  theology  seeks  for  a  point  of  view  where 
all  appearance  of  arbitrariness  in  the  doctrinal  explana 
tions  of  the  New  Testament  as  to  the  purport  and  effect 
of  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ,  shall  disappear  — 
where  the  historic  facts  shall  interpret  themselves  in  ac 
cordance  with  these  explanations.  ...  It  is  plain  to  keen 
observers  that,  in  the  later  days,  both  within  and  without 
what  may  be  called  the  pale  of  Calvinism,  there  is  a  certain 
relaxing  of  confidence  in  the  previously  accepted  solutions 
of  some  of  the  gravest  theological  problems.  This  appears 
among  many  whose  attachment  to  the  core  of  the  essential 
truths  formulated  in  the  past  does  not  wane,  whose  sub 
stantial  orthodoxy,  as  well  as  piety,  is  not  often,  if  it  be  at 
all,  questioned,  and  who  have  no  sympathy  with  agnosti 
cism,  in  the  technical  sense  of  the  word.  .  .  .  Even  by 


304  APPENDIX 

them  the  formulas  respecting  .  .  .  the  mode  in  which  the 
Saviour's  death  affects  the  mind  of  God  and  lays  a  basis 
for  the  proclamation  of  forgiveness,  .  .  .  the  formulas  on 
these  themes  are  looked  upon  with  at  least  a  modicum  of 
distrust.  A  larger  space  is  remanded  to  the  region  of 
mystery.  There  is  a  tendency  to  enlarge  the  domain  of  the 
unrevealed"  (History  of  Christian  Doctrine,  pp.  547,  551). 

ALEXANDER  V.  G.  ALLEN  (1897).  —  "As  one  contem 
plates  the  many  and  conflicting  theories  of  the  atonement, 
or  the  vast  amount  of  profound  and  subtle  thought  ex 
pended  in  efforts  at  its  elucidation  since  the  time  of  Anselm, 
the  vitality  of  opinions  which  seem  to  have  been  refuted, 
the  apparent  impossibility  that  common  agreement  should 
be  reached,  —  in  view  of  this  one  is  tempted  to  look  with 
more  complacency  upon  the  liturgies  of  the  ancient 
Church,  —  the  work  of  the  bishops  in  their  capacity 
of  pastors  dealing  directly  with  the  people  and  not  domi 
nated  by  monastic  aspiration.  In  the  ritual  of  the  altar, 
no  effort  is  made  to  explain  the  great  transaction  on  Cal 
vary,  but  it  is  held  up  before  the  people  as  if  it  needed  or 
could  have  no  explanation,  or  as  though  the  simple  event 
in  itself  spoke  with  direct  plainness  and  power  to  the  Chris 
tian  heart.  The  late  Dr.  Bushnell  experienced  this  passing 
mood,  wrhich  has,  however,  a  representative  significance, 
when  at  the  close  of  his  book  on  the  Vicarious  Sacrifice  he 
urged  the  retention  of  the  altar  language,  notwithstanding 
that  it  had  been  'so  long  and  dreadfully  misapplied  by  the 
dogmatic  schemes  of  expiation  and  judicial  satisfaction'" 
(Christian  Institutions,  p.  373.  See  pp.  352-374). 

HENRY  WACE  (1898).  —  "It  has  been  a  danger  in  the- 


APPENDIX  305 

ological  thought  on  this  subject,  from  even  the  earliest 
times,  to  lay  such  stress  on  some  of  the  images,  by  which 
that  Atonement  is  illustrated  in  the  Scriptures,  as  to 
present  it  in  the  light  of  a  kind  of  formal  and  material 
transaction;  as  though  it  consisted,  for  example,  in  the 
payment  of  a  ransom  or  the  discharge  of  a  debt  .  .  . 
and  the  nobler  appreciation  of  the  mystery  which  is  due  to 
St.  Anselm,  the  great  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  has  been 
observed  to  be  too  much  pervaded  by  feudal  conceptions 
of  the  satisfaction  by  which  offenses  against  superiors,  or 
against  an  external  law,  could  be  expiated.  .  .  .  But  just 
as  the  Mosaic  Law  itself,  with  its  Divinely  ordered  regu 
lations,  fell  away  at  once  before  the  revelation  of  the  eternal 
laws  of  religion  and  morality  in  Christ,  so  must  any  arti 
ficial  rule  of  action,  any  law  due  to  special  forms  of  human 
society  and  experience,  be  put  aside,  when  considering 
the  deepest  and  most  essential  elements  of  God's  relation 
to  us"  (The  Sacrifice  of  Christ,  pp.  36-38). 

MARVIN  R.  VINCENT  (1899).  — "In  this  matter  we 
must  allow  words  to  tell  their  own  story.  We  must  not 
begin  with  theories  and  then  fit  the  words  to  the  theories. 
The  words  were  selected  to  embody  facts,  and  our  concep 
tion  of  Justification  and  Atonement  must  be  based  upon 
the  usage  of  the  words,  and  the  relation  of  that  usage  to  the 
representations  of  Scripture  generally.  Our  first  question 
is  therefore :  Do  the  terms  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments 
exhibit  the  ideas  of  judicial  procedure  and  satisfaction 
to  Divine  justice  as  the  fundamental  ideas  of  Justifi 
cation  and  Atonement?  I  believe  that  they  do  not;  but 
that  they  set  forth  other  and  quite  different  ideas.  .  .  . 


306  APPENDIX 

The  New  Testament  terms  concur  with  those  of  the  Old 
Testament  to  the  effect  that  if  we  desire  to  find  in  the 
Scriptures  the  idea  of  a  satisfaction  to  Divine  justice,  we 
must  seek  for  it  outside  the  terms  used  to  describe  atone 
ment  for  sin.  The  idea  is  not  in  them.  I  do  not  know  any 
term  or  any  passage  in  the  New  Testament  which  declares 
that  Christ  was  a  satisfaction  to  Divine  justice,  a  pro 
pitiation  of  the  wrath  of  God,  a  compensation  to  offended 
majesty.  .  .  . 

"The  New  Testament  habitually  represents  the  atone 
ment  of  Christ  as  bearing  upon  man  and  his  sin  rather  than 
upon  God;  as  finding  its  great  result  in  personal  character; 
as  averting  God's  wrath,  not  by  the  payment  of  a  penalty  or 
consideration,  but  by  getting  out  of  the  way  the  sin  which 
stands  in  the  way  of  reconciliation  between  God  and  man. 
It  is  not  God's  offended  dignity  which  is  thrown  into  the 
foreground,  but  man's  lost  and  wretched  condition  on  ac 
count  of  sin,  and  God's  yearning  and  effort  to  save  him 
from  his  sin,  and  to  restore  his  manhood  to  its  original 
divine  ideal.  The  atonement  is  put,  in  the  New  Testa 
ment,  as  the  consummate  expression  of  God's  great  love 
for  mankind;  as  the  outgoing  of  God's  love  and  power  in 
order  to  save  it  by  reconciling  it  to  Himself"  (Unpublished 
Seminary  lecture,  from  which  Dr.  Vincent  kindly  permits 
quotation) . 

BISHOP  ALFRED  M.  RANDOLPH  (1899).  —  The  Atone 
ment  is  a  doctrine  concerning  a  fact.  "The  fact  is  the  death 
upon  the  cross,  the  revealed  doctrine  explaining  the  fact 
is  that  'Christ  died  for  our  sins,'  that  we  have  redemption 
through  His  blood.  How  His  death  redeems  us  by  securing 


APPENDIX  307 

the  forgiveness  of  our  sins,  that  is,  the  method  and  philoso 
phy  of  the  Atonement,  is  not  a  part  of  the  doctrine  neces 
sary  to  faith.  It  is  a  subject  for  thought  and  speculation," 
under  conditions  arid  limitations.  "But  a  doctrine,  in 
volving  a  theory  of  the  Atonement  and  explaining  its 
philosophy,  is  not  a  necessary  element  of  saving  faith. 
We  may  adopt  a  theory  which  seems  to  us  reasonable,  or 
we  may  reject  all  theories  of  the  mode  in  which  the  Atone 
ment  is  accomplished,  but  if  we  reject  the  fact  that  Christ 
died,  and  the  doctrine  revealed  in  connection  with  the  fact 
that  'He  died  for  our  sins,'  then  we  have  rejected  the 
Christian  faith"  (Article  in  The  Protestant  Episcopal 
Review,  Jan.,  1899,  p.  189). 

RICHARD  W.  Micou  (1899).  —  "  Not  the  doctrine  of  the 
At-one-ment,  in  any  form,  but  the  death  of  Christ  itself  in 
its  spiritual  power  is  the  objective  ground  of  the  forgive 
ness  of  sins,  and  no  doctrine  can  adequately  state  such  a 
transcendent  fact.  .  .  .  Recent  theology  has  returned  to 
the  Pauline  and  Greek  conception  of  Christ's  unity  with 
men  which  made  His  perfect  obedience  and  sacrifice  of 
will  the  act  of  the  race,  to  be  accepted  by  each  in  faith.  .  .  . 
God  is  the  Father,  and  all  His  dealings  with  us  must  be  in 
terpreted  ethically,  in  terms  of  righteous  human  fatherhood 
and  love,  not  of  sovereignty  and  impersonal  Law"  (Out 
line  Notes  of  Lectures  in  Systematic  Divinity,  pp.  52,  57). 

SAMUEL  D.  MC€ONNELL  (1901).  —  "It  may  be  ages  yet 
before  we  recover  from  the  misfortune  of  having  had  the 
truth  of  Christ  interpreted  and  fixed  by  jurists  and  logi 
cians  instead  of  by  naturalists  and  men  of  science"  (Evo 
lution  of  Immortality,  p.  134). 


308  APPENDIX 

P.  J.  FORSYTH  (1901). —  "The  Anselmic  theory  of 
satisfaction  is  now  out  of  date,  and  has  little  more  than  a 
historic  value.  With  it  and  its  habit  of  mind  have  gone 
also  the  various  substitutionary  schemes  and  commercial 
transactions  into  which  it  has  been  degraded.  They  are 
all  more  juridical  than  moral.  They  fail  to  satisfy  the 
modern  conscience;  they  fall  coldly  on  our  more  sympa 
thetic  religious  intelligence"  (Religion  and  Recent  Art, 
p.  259). 

E.  GRIFFITH- JONES  (1901).  —  "There  are  not  wanting 
serious  signs  that  the  old  juridical  language  fails  to  appeal 
as  it  once  did  to  the  spiritual  consciousness  of  a  large  sec 
tion  of  Christian  believers.  It  sounds  artificial ;  it  stands 
aloof  from  the  dominant  ideas  of  the  time ;  there  is  not  a 
little  in  it  which  shocks  the  moral  sense  of  many  devout 
minds  that  are  earnestly  desirous  of  arriving  at  something 
like  a  consistent  theory  of  the  Atonement"  (The  Ascent 
through  Christ,  p.  289). 

P.  T.  FORSYTH  (1902).  —  "There  is  a  deepening  evo 
lution  of  human  thought  in  this  regard.  The  efforts  to 
pluck  the  heart  from  its  mystery  are  not  a  series  of  assaults 
renewed  with  blind  and  dogged  courage  on  an  impregnable 
hold.  They  form  the  stages  of  a  long  spiritual  movement 
of  slow  battle,  of  arduous  illumination  and  severe  con 
quest.  .  .  .  And  the  progress  is  no  less  sure  because  it 
is  neither  continuous  nor  direct.  We  have  much  to  drop 
on  the  route  as  a  condition  of  getting  home.  We  have  to 
save  truth  by  losing  it,  though  it  seem  part  of  our  soul. 
We  shed  the  husk  to  grow  the  tree.  And  in  this  matter 
of  Atonement  some  things  are  clearly  learnt  to  be  wrong, 


APPENDIX  309 

some  are  as  clearly  found  to  be  true  as  we  move  from 
faith  to  faith.  We  have  outgrown  the  idea  that  God  has 
to  be  reconciled,  .  .  .  that  Redemption  cost  the  Father 
nothing,  .  .  .  that  Christ  took  our  punishment  in  the 
quantitative  sense  of  the  word,  .  .  .  that  forgiveness  cost 
so  much  that  it  was  impossible  to  God  till  justice  was 
appeased  and  mercy  set  free  by  the  blood  of  Christ, 
.  .  .  that  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  was  made  either  to 
God's  wounded  honour  or  to  His  punitive  justice"  (The 
Atonement  in  Modern  Religious  Thought:  A  Theological 
Symposium,  pp.  62,  64-67). 

WALTER  F.  ADKNEY  (1902).  —  "Each  conception  of 
the  Atonement  that  has  held  possession  of  the  mind  of  the 
Church  at  successive  epochs  has  interpreted  itself  in  har 
mony  with  the  ruling  ideas  of  the  age.  .  .  .  But  with  the 
abandonment  of  the  old  demonology,  the  decay  of  feudal 
ism,  the  reluctance  to  admit  the  abstract  claims  of  law  as 
such,  the  feeling  that  religion  must  be  regarded  spiritually 
and  not  as  a  business  affair,  every  one  of  these  theories  is 
swept  away  and  cast  into  the  limbo  of  dead  beliefs.  Or, 
if  here  and  there  a  champion  is  found  for  one  or  other  of 
them,  we  feel  that  his  argument  is  purely  academic"  (Ibid., 
pp.  151  sq.  See  also  Hastings,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  art. 
"Mediator,"  III.  321  ;  The  Theology  of  the  New  Testa 
ment,  pp.  123,  160,  166,  190,  192,  244-247). 

JOHN  HUNTER  (1902).  —  "The  moral  order  requires 
no  special  and  external  vindication  of  its  majesty.  God 
does  not  need  to  be  appeased,  for  His  laws  never  fail  to 
punish  sin  in  their  own  good  time  and  way.  But  compen 
sation  He  does  not  exact  or  need.  It  is  not  the  suffering  of 


310  APPENDIX 

the  sinner,  but  his  restoration  to  goodness  and  a  life  of 
conscious  harmony  with  the  Divine  will  that  satisfies  the 
holy  and  righteous  God.  Propitiation,  expiation,  and 
substitution,  in  their  current  interpretations  and  forms,  are 
as  little  in  accord  with  what  we  see  to  be  the  order  of  things 
in  the  universe  as  they  are  with  the  tone  and  tendency 
of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  and  the  real  and  profound  needs 
of  the  enlightened  soul.  ...  It  is  not  by  imputing,  but 
imparting  righteousness ;  not  by  substituting  His  obedience 
for  ours,  but  by  inspiring  us  to  obey;  not  by  displacing, 
but  reinforcing  our  personal  will  and  activity,  Jesus  Christ 
is  the  power  of  God  and  the  wisdom  of  God"  (Ibid.,  pp. 
316,  326). 

THEODORE  T.  HUNGER  (1902).  —  "If  an  intelligent 
man,  having  laid  aside  all  preconceptions  of  the  Atonement, 
were  to  begin  the  study  of  it  afresh,  the  first  thing  he  would 
notice  is  that  it  has  not  only  passed  through  many  phases, 
but  that  mutually  excluding  theories  of  it  have  been  held, 
and  that  these  theories  bear  each  the  impress  of  its  age  and 
often  of  its  region,  and  reflect  the  environing  social  institu 
tions.  ...  As  he  continues  his  study  he  finds  that  each 
theory  is  subdivided  by  minor  and  qualifying  theories, 
and  that  these  often  bear  the  impress  of  some  individual 
mind  or  some  school  of  philosophy.  .  .  .  More  and  more 
does  our  seeker  become  convinced  that  the  theories  simply 
neutralize  one  another,  and  that,  so  far  as  throwing  any 
light  upon  the  truth  itself  is  concerned,  they  may  be  left  by 
the  wayside  as  milestones  to  mark  their  distance  from  the 
generic  fact  out  of  which  they  sprang.  For  that  he  begins 
to  search,  and  he  finds  it,  of  course,  in  Christ  Himself.  One 


APPENDIX  311 

thing  he  has  gained,  and  an  immense  gain  it  is,  he  has  got 
rid  of  theory  and  dogma,  and  come  into  the  essence  of  a 
Life.  ...  No  mysterious  necessity,  no  governmental  exi 
gency,  no  expiation  of  guilt  or  propitiation  of  wrath  or 
satisfaction  of  justice,  can  be  found  in  it,  unless  found  in 
the  heart  of  fatherhood  and  in  the  relation  of  father  and 
son"  (Ibid.,  pp.  355,  357,  363). 

''It  would  have  a  moral  God,  a  Divine  government 
truly  moral,  a  moral  atonement,  and  not  one  involving  es 
sential  injustice,  nor  clouded  with  mysteries  that  put  it 
outside  of  human  use;  an  atonement  resting  on  God's 
heart,  and  calling  into  play  the  known  laws  and  sentiments 
of  human  nature,  and  not  one  constructed  out  of  a  mechani 
cal  legality;  an  atonement  that  saves  men  by  a  traceable 
process,  and  not  one  that  is  contrived  to  explain  problems 
that  may  safely  be  left  to  God ;  an  atonement  that  secures 
oneness  with  the  Christ,  and  not  one  framed  to  buttress 
some  scheme  of  Divine  government  constructed  out  of 
human  elements"  (The  Freedom  of  Faith,  p.  33). 

H.  L.  WILD  (1902).  — "The  mistake  of  subsequent 
writers  has  lain  in  placing  the  emphasis  too  exclusively 
upon  the  death  of  Jesus  as  the  means  of  redemption.  The 
faith  that  brings  forgiveness,  as  St.  John's  Gospel  makes 
quite  clear,  is  faith  in  a  living  Person  and  in  His  life  of 
willing  sacrifice  seen  as  a  proof  of  love  to  God  and  men. 
The  true  life  lies  in  the  assimilation  of  the  human  life  to 
the  life  of  God.  The  true  life  therefore  is  one  sacrifice  to 
love,  of  which  death  is  the  consummation  and  final  proof. 
It  was  perhaps  natural  that  later  writers  should  take  the 
death  as  the  symbol  of  the  whole :  the  loss  thereby  involved 


312  APPENDIX 

has  none  the  less  been  serious,  seeing  that  it  is  this  that  has 
all  too  often  obscured  the  full  glory  and  brightness  of 
Jesus'  doctrine  of  God.  We  cannot  be  too  often  reminded 
that  the  central  idea  of  Jesus'  teaching  is  that  of  God  as  a 
loving  Father,  and  that  it  is  this  that  forms  the  sole  basis  of 
the  hope  of  forgiveness,  as  it  is  the  spring  of  all  true  conduct 
whether  in  Jesus  or  in  His  followers.  ...  It  is  the  perfect 
love  of  God  that  demands  a  return  of  perfect  love  mani 
fested  in  obedience  to  His  will  in  sacrifice  for  men.  This 
Jesus  gave,  winning  others  thereby,  and  entered  into  His 
glory;  this  others  are  to  seek  to  give  in  Him"  (Contentio 
Veritatis,  pp.  161  sq.). 

BISHOP  PHILLIPS  BROOKS  (1904).  —  "Now  what  rela 
tion  this  death  of  Jesus  may  have  borne  to  the  nature  and 
plans  of  God,  I  hold  it  the  most  futile  and  irreverent  of 
all  investigations  to  inquire.  I  do  not  know,  and  I  do  not 
believe  that  any  theology  is  so  much  wiser  than  my  igno 
rance  as  to  know,  the  sacred  mysteries  that  passed  in  the 
courts  of  the  Divine  Existence  when  the  miracle  of  Calvary 
was  perfect.  .  .  .  You  say  that  it  appeased  His  wrath.  I 
am  not  sure  there  may  not  be  some  meaning  of  those  words 
which  does  include  the  truth  they  try  to  express;  but  in 
the  natural  sense  which  men  gather  from  them  out  of  their 
ordinary  human  uses,  I  do  not  believe  that  they  are  true. 
Nay,  I  believe  that  they  are  dreadfully  untrue.  I  think 
that  all  such  words  try  to  tell  what  no  man  knows.  If  this 
be  so,  then  it  seems  clear  that  all  we  have  to  do  with  in  the 
death  of  Jesus  is  its  aspect  toward,  its  influence  upon 
humanity.  We  are  concerned  with  that  which  Jesus 
spoke  of,  its  powerful  effect  to  work  upon  the  lives 


APPENDIX  313 

of  men"  (Sermons  for  the  Church  Year,  Seventh  Series, 
pp.  257^.). 

J.  R.  ILLINGWORTH  (1904).  —  "Yet  it  does  not  explain 
wherein  that  rescue  from  sin  consists  —  the  intimate,  es 
sential  nature  of  the  Atonement.  And  it  may  well  be  that, 
under  the  present  limitations  of  our  knowledge,  no  such 
explanation  could  be  made.  But  it  is  round  this  point  that 
controversy  has  so  often  raged,  and  counsel  has  been  so 
often  darkened.  Men  have  translated  the  doctrine  of  the 
Atonement  into  the  favourite  categories  of  their  age,  pass 
ing  modes  of  thought  which  were  valid  for  their  own  gener 
ation,  but  inadequate  for  another.  And  so  the  doctrine 
has  come  down  to  us  encumbered  and  obscured  by  the 
obsolete  methods  of  its  by-gone  presentation  —  methods 
that  in  their  day  successfully  emphasised  its  reality,  but 
which,  when  retained  after  they  have  gone  out  of  date, 
only  make  it  seem  to  be  unreal.  We  must  remember, 
therefore,  that  belief  in  the  fact  of  the  Atonement  has  per 
sisted  without  change,  behind  all  variations  of  its  intellect 
ual  expression,  inspiring  alike  the  sanctity  of  Anselm  and 
the  penitence  of  Abelard,  for  all  their  divergence  of  view, 
and  proving  its  reality,  like  other  forces,  by  its  manifest 
power  in  the  world.  ...  It  is  in  harmony,  therefore,  with 
all  human  analogy,  that  an  absolutely  unique  person  should 
perform  an  absolutely  unique  service  to  mankind;  vicari 
ously,  not  in  the  sense  of  'instead  of  them,'  but  in  the  sense 
of  'for  their  sake,'  while  they  in  turn  are  enabled  by  His 
Spirit  to  appropriate  His  work,  till,  from  being  a  thing 
outside  them,  it  becomes  their  very  own,  and,  in  Pauline 
language,  Christ  is  formed  in  them.  The  first  step  in  this 


314  APPENDIX 

process  is  man's  justification,  the  work  which  he  could 
not  do,  the  step  which  he  could  not  take  for  himself ;  while 
its  second  stage  is  his  sanctification,  which  involves  the 
appropriation  of  the  work  done  for  him,  by  the  active  co 
operation  of  his  own  free- will"  (Christian  Character ; 
pp.  19-21). 

E.  H.  ARCHER-SHEPHERD  (1906).  —  "The  cause  why 
the  New  Testament  doctrine  of  the  Atonement  is  so  much 
disliked,  is  in  large  measure  to  be  found  in  the  immoral 
ideas  which  have  been  read  into  it  —  ideas  which  are 
worthy  of  the  heathen  who  smeared  their  idols  with 
human  blood.  The  New  Testament  writers  throw  little 
light  on  the  nature  of  the  Atonement.  They  state  the 
fact  unequivocally;  and  with  that  they  are  content" 
(Burning  Questions  in  the  Light  of  To-day,  p.  42.  See  pp. 
30-53). 

THE  CATHOLIC  ENCYCLOPAEDIA  (1907).  —  "That  great 
doctrine  has  been  faintly  set  forth  in  figures  taken  from 
man's  laws  and  customs.  It  is  represented  as  the  payment 
of  a  price,  or  as  a  ransom,  or  as  the  offering  of  satisfaction 
for  a  debt.  But  we  can  never  rest  in  these  material  figures 
as  though  they  were  literal  and  adequate.  As  both  Abelard 
and  Bernard  remind  us,  the  Atonement  is  the  work  of 
love.  It  is  essentially  a  sacrifice,  the  one  supreme  sacrifice 
of  which  the  rest  were  but  types  and  figures.  And,  as  St. 
Augustin  teaches  us,  the  outward  rite  of  sacrifice  is  the 
sacrament,  or  sacred  sign,  of  the  invisible  sacrament  of  the 
heart.  It  was  by  this  inward  sacrifice  of  obedience  unto 
death,  by  this  perfect  love  with  which  He  laid  down  His 
life  for  His  friends,  that  Christ  paid  the  debt  to  justice,  and 


APPENDIX  315 

taught  us  by  His  example,  and  drew  all  things  to  Himself" 
(II.  58). 

BISHOP  CHARLES  GORE  (1907).  —  "It  will  appear 
plainly  that  it  was  a  true  instinct  which  caused  the  Catholic 
Church  to  define  its  faith  in  terms  of  the  doctrine  of  God 
and  the  person  of  Christ,  and  to  leave  the  belief  in  Christ's 
atonement  and  the  inspiration  of  Scripture  undefined.  .  .  . 
There  have  been  different  theories  —  as  Origen's  and 
Anselm's,  and  Abelard's  and  Calvin's  —  which  we  have 
all  come  to  recognise  as  in  various  ways  inadequate.  And 
the  Church  has  never  corporately  faced  the  question  raised, 
or  embodied  its  faith  in  any  formula,  while  all  the  time  the 
doctrine  is  liable  very  easily  to  be  so  isolated,  and  distorted 
in  popular  belief,  as  to  become  a  dangerous  and  misleading 
error.  .  .  .  And  the  idea  of  vicarious  punishment  —  Christ 
punished  that  we  might  be  'let  off'  —  has,  more  than 
anything  else,  tended  to  alienate  the  best  moral  conscience 
of  mankind  from  Christian  teaching.  .  .  .  There  is  no 
shadow  of  a  doctrine  of  imputed  righteousness  in  the  New 
Testament,  such  as  will  suffer  us  to  imagine  that  there  can 
be  any  final  reconciliation  of  an  individual  man  with  God, 
on  any  other  basis  than  likeness  of  character"  (The  New 
Theology  and  the  Old  Religion,  pp.  1.31,  134,  136,  142). 

"The  idea  of  injustice  has  been  introduced  into  the 
transaction'  of  the  Atonement,  and  has  been  the  most 
fruitful  source  of  difficulty;  —  but  quite  unnecessarily. 
There  is  a  story  that  when  Edward  VI.  was  a  child,  and 
deserved  punishment,  another  boy  was  taken  and  whipped 
in  his  place.  This  monstrously  unjust  transaction  has 
been  taken  by  Christian  teachers  as  an  illustration  of  the 


316  APPENDIX 

Atonement ;  and  it  is  truly  an  illustration  of  the  Atonement 
as  they  misconceived  it.  But  the  misconception  is  gratui 
tous;  there  is  no  real  resemblance  in  the  two  cases.  For 
first,  what  is  represented  to  us  in  the  New  Testament  is 
not  that  Jesus  Christ,  an  innocent  person,  was  punished, 
without  reference  to  His  own  will,  by  a  God  who  thus 
showed  himself  indifferent  as  to  whom  He  punished  so 
long  as  some  one  suffered.  .  .  .  Secondly,  God  is  not 
represented  as  imposing  any  specially  devised  punishment 
on  His  only  Son  in  our  nature.  .  .  .  What  is  ascribed  to  the 
Father  is  that  He  '  spared  not '  His  only  Son  by  miraculously 
exempting  Him  from  the  consequences  of  His  mission ;  .  . 
Thirdly  and  lastly,  the  Christ  (as  represented  in  the  New 
Testament)  did  not  suffer  in  order  that  we  might  be  let  off 
the  punishment  for  our  own  sins,  but  in  order  to  bring  us 
to  God  "  (St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  Vol.  II,  Note  D). 

See  also  Archbishop  Thomson,  The  Atoning  Work  of 
Christ,  pp.  178-181;  F.  W.  Robertson,  Sermons  on 
"Caiaphas's  View  of  Vicarious  Sacrifice,"  "The  Sacrifice 
of  Christ,"  and  "Reconciliation  by  Christ";  Benjamin 
Jowett,  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  vol.  II.,  Essay  on  "The  Doc 
trine  of  the  Atonement";  Tracts  for  Priests  and  People, 
Nos.  iii.  and  xiii. ;  The  Atonement:  A  Clerical  Symposium, 
about  one  half  of  the  Essays;  E.  Mulford,  The  Republic  of 
God,  cap.  ix.;  W.  Beyschlag,  New  Testament  Theology, 
II.  137,  141-154;  D.  Somerville,  St.  Paul's  Conception  of 
Christ,  pp.  81,  89,  91,  283;  Progressive  Orthodoxy,  cap.  iii; 
A.  M.  Fairbaira,  The  Philosophy  of  the  Christian  Religion, 
pp.  403-411,  418-433,  492-507;  H.  C.  Trumbull,  The 


APPENDIX  317 

Blood  Covenant,  pp.  209-293;  Hastings  Rashdall,  Doc 
trine  and  Development,  pp.  136  sq. ;  M.  R.  Vincent,  Word 
Studies  in  the  New  Testament,  on  all  the  pertinent  texts; 
C.  J.  Wood,  Survivals  in  Christianity,  pp.  137-191 ;  Ly- 
inan  Abbott,  The  Evolution  of  Christianity,  pp.  121-135, 
and  The  Theology  of  an  Evolutionist,  pp.  80-128;  E.  P. 
Gould,  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament,  pp.  70, 
74-79,  122,  130,  171,  190;  A.  B.  Bruce,  The  Humiliation 
of  Christ,  pp.  317-400,  and  St.  Paul's  Conception  of  Chris 
tianity,  cap.  ix. ;  James  Orr,  The  Progress  of  Dogma,  cap. 
vii.,  and  The  Christian  Idea  of  God  and  the  World,  pp. 
295-318,  341;  A.  W.  Eaton,  The  Heart  of  the  Creeds, 
cap.  iii. ;  Hastings,  Dictionary  of  Christ  and  the  Gospels, 
Arts.  "Atonement,"  "Mediator,"  "Merit,"  "Redemp 
tion"  (pp.  482-484),  "Vicarious  Sacrifice";  O.  S.  Bunt 
ing,  Art.  in  The  Protestant  Episcopal  Review,  Dec.,  1899 ; 
Laurence  H.  Schwab,  The  Kingdom  of  God,  cap.  ii.; 
Borden  P.  Bowne,  The  Atonement,  pp.  26-29,  31-33, 
104-107,  115,  150;  Wm.  Sanday,  The  Life  of  Christ  in 
Recent  Research,  pp.  229-312;  Leighton  Pullan,  The 
Atonement,  pp.  94,  104,  198,  202,  205,  231 ;  G.  Ferries, 
Tlie  Growth  of  Christian  Faith,  pp.  176-291,  301-332; 
R.  R.  Rogers,  New  Theology  Problems,  cap.  iv.;  Cam 
bridge  Theological  Essays,  Essay  v. ;  R.  Seeberg,  The  Fun 
damental  Truths  of  the  Christian  Religion,  Lecture  xiii.; 
C.  M.  Mead,  Irenic  Theologij,  cap.  ix.,  x. ;  Wm.  Adams 
Brown,  Christian  Theology  in  Outline,  pp.  359-369. 

See  also  H.  Bushnell,  The  Vicarious  Sacrifice;  F.  D. 
Maurice,  The  Sacrifice  of  Christ,  and  Theological  Essays; 


318  APPENDIX 

J.  LI.  Da  vies,  The  Work  of  Christ;  J.  McLeod  Campbell, 
The  Nature  of  the  Atonement;   John  Young,  The  Life  and 
Light  of  Men;  F.  M.  lams,  Reconciliation;  A  Reasonable 
Faith,  by  Three  "Friends";    J.  B.  Heard,  Old  and  New 
Theology;    D.    N.    Beach,    Plain   Words   on  our  Lord's 
Work;  J.  M.  Whiton,  The  Divine  Satisfaction;  C.  Giles, 
The  Incarnation  and  Atonement;    H.  N.  Oxenham,  The 
Catholic  Doctrine  of  the  Atonement;   A.  V.  G.  Allen,  The 
Continuity  of  Christian  Thought;    P.  Waldenstrom,  The 
Reconciliation;  P.  G.  Medd,  The  One  Mediator;  J.  Stein- 
fort    Kedney,    Christian    Doctrine    Harmonized;    C.    C. 
Everett,    The  Gospel  of  Paul;    Samuel  Harris,   God  the 
Creator  and  Lord  of  All;   John  Caird,  The  Fundamental 
Ideas  of  Christianity;    J.  T.  Hutcheson,  A  View  of  the 
Atonement;   D.  W.  Simon,  The  Redemption  of  Man,  and 
Reconciliation  by  Incarnation;  A.  Sabatier,  St.  Paul,  and 
The  Doctrine  of  the  Atonement;    John  Gamier,  Sin  and 
Redemption;    B.  F.  Westcott,   The  Victory  of  the  Cross; 
J.  Scott  Lidgett,  The  Spiritual  Principle  of  the  Atonement; 
James  M.  Wilson,  The  Gospel  of  the  Atonement;   W.  P. 
DuBose,  The  Soteriology  of  the  New  Testament,  The  Gospel 
according  to  St.  Paul,   The  Gospel  in  the  Gospels,  and 
Priesthood    and    Sacrifice;     The    Atonement    in    Modern 
Religious   Thought;    A    Theological  Symposium;    H.   C. 
Sheldon,    System    of    Christian    Doctrine;     T.    Vincent 
Tymms,  The  Christian  Idea  of  Atonement;  W.  L.  Walker, 
The  Cross  and  the  Kingdomfyfa.  B.  Stevens,  The  Chris 
tian  Doctrine  of  Salvation;   L.  F.  Stearns,  Present  Day 
Theology;  H.  C.  Beeching  and  Alex.  Nairne,  The  Bible 
Doctrine   of  Atonement;  Lonsdale  Ragg,  Aspects  of  the 


APPENDIX  319 

Atonement;  Melville  Scott,  Crux  Crucis:  The  Problem  of 
the  Atonement;  J.  H.  Beibitz,  Gloria  Crucis;  Henry  S. 
Nash,  The  Atoning  Life;  W.  F.  Lofthouse,  Ethics  and 
Atonement;  W.  B.  Frankland,  Some  Estimates  of  the 
Atonement. 


INDEX 


INDEX 


ABELARD,  133,  201-205 

Acceptilatio,  210,  238 

Admissions  by  conservatives,  18, 
24,  25,  29,  42,  43,  45,  46,  54, 
58,  60,  74,  76,  81,  85,  183-186, 
215,  242,  243,  Appendix. 

Alexander  of  Hales,  196 

Allen,  A.  V.  G.,  33,  124,  133, 
138,  258,  259,  304 

Ambrose,  62,  84,  90,  95,  98 

'Arajce^aAafoxus:  see  Recapitu- 
latio 

Anglican  statements,  8, 240,  241, 
243,  246,  248 

Anselm,  6,  8,  10,  72,  99,  103, 
108,  114,  117,  118,  258-260; 
influence  of,  7,  141,  144,  194, 
195,  198,  201,  206,  207,  209, 
211-216,  232,  253-256 

Anselm's  theory,  6,  7,  120-194, 
217,  219;  antecedents  of,  72, 
73,  78,  95-99,  103-119;  value 
of,  132-143,  253-263 ;  defects 
of:  see  Defects 

'AvrdXXayri,  23 

'AvTd\\ay/j.a,  44,  61 

'Aird£tos,  69 

'Avrl,  33,  51,  53,  58 

'AvriXirrpov,  47,  69,  136 

Antinomianism,  172,  186,  228 

'Airtyvxoj>,  47,  48,  51 

Apostolic  Fathers,  19-25 

Aristotelianism,  115-119 

Article  XXXI.,  241 

Athanasius,  48-59,  63,  88,  89, 
98,  138,  147,  154,  170,  180, 
208 


Augustin,  50,  62,  86-93,  98,  107, 
117,  138,  146,  155,  194,  208 

BARNABAS,  20 

Barnes,  Albert,  184,  244 

Basil,  50,  70 

"Battle  of  attributes,"  173-176, 

192,  212,  215,  254 
Baur,  F.  C.,  35,  37,  128,  132, 

140,  144,  152,  224,  238 
Belgic  Confession,  222 
Bernard  of  Clairvaux,  133,  203, 

206 

Bigg,  Charles,  39,  40 
Bonaventura,  196 
Boso,   120-122,   127,   132,   133, 

145,  152,  159,  163,  164 

CAIRD,  John,  174 

Calvin,  214,  222-225,  228,  229 

Chrysostom,  66-68J 

Church,  Dean,  144,  253,  275 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  37-39, 

107 

Clement  of  Rome,  20 
Coleridge,  S.  T.,  185,  248,  268 
Commercial  analogies,  111,  112, 

115,  154,  183-186,  234,  254 
Commutation,    108,    109,    111, 

112,  154,  193,  219 
Council  of  Trent,  212 
Cur  Deus  Homo,  7,  99,  103, 

119,  120,  253 
Curse  of  the  law,  28,  48,  68,  89, 

223,  227 
Cyprian,  77,  82-85,  92,  106,  107, 

109,  143,  157 


324 


INDEX 


Cyril  of  Alexandria,  68-70 
Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  70,  107 

DALE,  R.  W.,  120, 148,  161,  211, 

216,  240,  245,  274 
Davies,  LI.,  165 
Death  of  Christ,  17,  20,  21,  27, 

28,  38,  40,  42,  50-52,  56-59, 

65,  70,  73,  77,  78,  90,  98,  123, 

217 
Debt,  sin  considered  as,  53,  56, 

58,  71-73,  91,  109,  124,  127- 

131,  154-156,  162,  164,  183, 

191,  236,  255 
Deceit  of  devil,  44,  60-63,  91, 

92,  94,  132 
Defects  of  Anselm's  theory,  143- 

194,  254-256 
Deification  of  humanity,  18,  31, 

39,  50,  60,  71 
De  Incarnatione,   summary  of, 

54-57 

Denney,  James,  7,  247 
Desert,  80,  83 
Deterioration  of  later  Fathers, 

70-72,  95 

Deutsch,  S.  M.,  202,  203 
Didache,  19 
AiKaiofffy-ri,    169,  254 
Diognetus,  Epistle  to,  21-24,  36 
Dogma,     antecedents     of,     5; 

judged  by  history,  3,  4,  10 
Dorner,  Dr.,  33 
Dualism,  173-181 
Duns  Scotus,  190,  198,  209-211, 

213 
Dwight,  Dr.,  242 

EDWARDS,  Jonathan,  Jr.,  216, 

242 

Edwards,  Jonathan,  Sr.,  243 
Emmons,  Nathaniel,  242 
Equivalence,  51,  59,  62,  69-71, 

108,  109,  127,  140,  156,  196, 

223-225,  235,  238 


Erasmus,  117 
Erigena,  95,  190 
Eucharistic  office,  241 
Eusebius,  47,  48 

FARRAR,   Dean,    115-117,    129, 

281 
Feudalism,  113,  114,  147,  148, 

176 
Fisher,  G.  P.,  17,  21,  26,  78,  109, 

130,  139,  257,  303 
Foliot,  Gilbert,  174 
Forensic  form  of  theory,  167-172 
Forgiveness,  154,  161,  163-166, 

173,  234,  262 

GARDEN,  F.,  9,  271 
German  law,  109-112,  153,  199 
Gnostic  defect,  173,  178 
Governmental  theory,  237-240 
Greek  Fathers,  later,  60-75 
Greek  theology,  71-73,  262,  263: 

see     Post-Apostolic,     Nicene 

and  Post-Nicene  Fathers 
Gregory  Nazianzen,  50,  63-66 
Gregory  Nyssen,  44,  50,  60-63, 

208 
Gregory  the  Great,  6£,  90,  94, 

97,  107 

Grotius,  165,  210,  237-240 
Gwatkin,  H.  M.,  64,  230 

HAGENBACH,  K.  R.,  53,  117, 
118,  128,  140 

Hallam,  Henry,  228 

Harnack,  A.,  27,  33,  40,  51,  64, 
66-68,  74,  79,  90,  94,  97-99, 
107-109,  111,  123,  144,  145, 
148,  165,  172,  178,  179,  181, 
199,  207,  225;  error  of,  81, 
84,  109 

Heard,  J.  B.,  167 

Hegel,  115 

Heidelberg  Catechism,  222 

Hennas,  19 


INDEX 


325 


Hilary,  32,  50,  86,  209 
Hippolytus,  39,  50 
Hodge,  A.  A.,  19,  165,  210 
Hodge,  Charles,  165,  184,  185, 

210 
Honour  of  God,  124-130,  147- 

153,  158,  159 
Hugh  of  St.  Victor,  195 
Huidekoper,  F.,  35,  44 
Humanity,   deification  of:    see 

Deification 

IGNATIUS,  21 

Imputation,  48,   88,  200,   226- 

230,  236 
Incarnation,  contingency  of,  17, 

50,    65,    75,    187-190,    209; 

primary,  16-18,  25,  26,  29-32, 

45,  49,  65,  75,  187-190,  256, 

262 

Indulgence,  84,  94,  107,  194,  196 
Infinite  guilt,  155,  198,  210,  255 
Innocent  III.,  133, 173, 198,  200, 

215,  220 
Institutional  features  of  theory, 

109,  112,  114,  147,  148,  154, 

167,  182,  190 
Irenaeus,  29-37 
Isidore,  62 

JOHN  of  Damascus,  50,  62,  66, 

74,  95,  116 

Juridical  theory,  6,  167-172,  201 
Justice  of  God,  125,  131,  148- 

150,  166,  173-176,  186,  206; 

retributive,  168,  225,  226 
Justin  Martyr,  26-28 

KEMBLE,  J.  M.,  113 
Kingsley,  Charles,  113 

LACTANTIUS,  85,  94 
Latin  Fathers,  the,  75-99 
Latin  theology,  5,  262,  263 
Legalism,  78,  80,  82,  91,  103- 


105,  140,  167-172,  174,  213, 
214,  239,  247,  254,  262 

Leo  the  Great,  62 

Lias,  J.  J.,  15,  279 

Lidgett,  J.  S.,  20,  120,  147,  210, 

218,  220,  245 
Lindsay,  T.  M.,  29 
Liturgies,  71,  241 
Luther,  62,  213,  220,  221,  227, 

228 
Atrpov,  23,  33,  136 

MAGEE,  Archbishop,  183,  243, 

268 

Magee,  W.  C.,  185,  285 
Maine,  Sir  Henry,  104 
Mediator,  32,  93,  98,  176 
Melanchthon,  221 
Merit,  79,  80,  83,  86,  94,  105, 

106,  109,   169,   193,  214;    of 
Christ,  130, 131, 139,  144,181, 
197,  201,  207,  209,  214;  trans 
fer   of,    109,    131,    185,    196, 
200 

Mistranslations  of  Fathers,  23, 

28,  33,  59,  70,  89,  90 
Moberly,  R.  C.,  7,  20,  58,  115, 

120,  157,  186,  190,  204,  245, 

290 
Modus  of  redemption,    16,  66, 

134,  232,  249,  256,  261 
Moral   theories,    136,    201-205, 

240 

Mors  edema,  224 
Munger,  T.  T.,  167,  193,  310 
Mystical  identity,  18,  32,  33,  47, 

48,  50,  51,  63,  65,  69,  73,  88, 

182,  187,  200,  205,  206 
Mythology,  174,  176,  178,  237 

NASH,  H.  S.,  258 

Neander,  A.,  25,  28,  173,  181, 

215,  216 
Necessity  of  Christ's  death,  27, 

51,  65,  87,  94,  138,  139,  146, 


326 


INDEX 


188,  194,  195-199,  202,  206- 

208,  211 

Nestorian  defect,  179-181 
Nicene  Fathers,  46-60 
Norris,  J.  P.,  23,  34,  58,  275 

OBEDIENCE  of  Christ,  30,  123, 

139,  217,  218,  224 
Objective  atonement,  25,  134- 

137,  190-193,  198,  199,  208 
Olxovo/jiia,  64 
Origen,  34,  39-45,  107 
Orthodoxy,  232,  248,  256 
Osiander,  229 
Oxenham,  H.  N.,   19,  35,  45, 

196,  211 

PASSIVE  satisfaction,  200,  216- 

219,  229 
Patristic  teaching,  the,   15-99; 

characteristics  of,  15-19,  24, 

25,  45,  46,  71-77,  96-99 
Penal  suffering,  22,  28,  40,  47, 

52,  54,  58,  69,  72,  73,  89,  90, 

96,  125,  139,  195,  199,  200, 

206,  208,  215,  219-226,  242 
Penalty  of  sin,  160-162,  262 
Penance,  79,  94,  106,  112 
Penitential     discipline,     79-84, 

105-109,  112,  141,  142,  193 
Personality,  defective  sense  of, 

157,  175 

Peter  Lombard,  62, 133, 203, 207 
Post-Apostolic  Fathers,  25-46 
Post-Nicene  Fathers,  60-75 
Propitiation,  25,  29,  37,  40,  41, 

47,  67,  79,  82,  83,  85-87,  94, 

95,  106,  137,  222,  223 
Purgatory,  107 

RACIAL  antecedents,  103-105 
Radulphus  Ardeus,  95 
Ransom  to  devil,  33-37,  43-46, 

63,  91, 122, 195,  201,  206,  207, 

257 


Reaction,  the  modern,  231-249 
Recapitidatio,  27,  30,  32,  50,  73 
Redemption  by  Christ's  teach 
ing,  17,  26,  30,  38,  39,  94 
Reformation  doctrine,  modern, 
9;   obstacle  to  faith,  10;   ob 
solescent,  244,  246-249 
Reformers,  the,  212-231 
Richard  of  St.  Victor,  195 
Ritschl,  A.,   86,   97,    149,   152, 

203,  207,  211 

Riviere,  Abbe  J.,  25,  28,  32,  33, 
42,  45,  49,  53,  59,  64,  69,  70, 
74,  76,  81,  84,  120,  121,  140, 
174,  204,  207 
Robert  Pulleyn,  205 
Robertson,  F.  W.,  160 
Roman  law,  105,  109,  113,  167, 

199 
Rufinus,  62 

SABATIER,  A.,  5,  121,  174,  175, 
237 

Sacrifice,  19,  20,  40-42,  88,  90, 
96,  98,  135,  207 

Satisfaction,  78,  105,  109,  126, 
154;  in  the  Fathers,  18,  24, 
25,  28,  39,  42,  45,  53,  57-59, 
72-74,  88,  97,  98;  by  Christ, 
79,  81,  84,  97,  126-131,  139, 
140,  154-166,  181-186;  by 
man,  79,  82,  86;  by  obedi 
ence,  139-141,  150,  151,  158- 
162,  182,  198,  217,  218,  224; 
by  punishment,  25,  112,  125, 
139,  140,  158,  219-226 

Saxon  Confession,  221 

Scholasticism,  115-117 

Scholastics,  the,  194-212 

Seeberg,  R.,  39,  94,  112 

Shedd,  W.  G.  T.,  18,  24,  35,  42, 
46,  59,  64,  74,  90,  146,  165, 
168,  215,  226 

Simon,  D.  W.,  120,  137,  138, 
240,  244 


INDEX 


327 


Sin,   nature   of,    155-157,   234, 

262:     see   Debt ;   penalty  of, 

160-162,  262 
Socinus,  165,  233-237 
Sovereignty,    divine,    138,    168, 

239 

Stanley,  Dean,  53,  167,  278 
Stevens,  G.  B.,  9,  115,  121,  139, 

145,  156,  160,  176,  214,  226, 

240,  245,  246,  295 
Strauss,  D.  F.,  3,  174 
Subjective  atonement,  136,  191, 

203 
Substitution,  22,  28,  33,  38,  41, 

42,  47,  51-53,  65,  67-69,  73, 

74,  78,  91,  96,  109,  111,  112, 

115,  160,  181-186,  200,  221, 

223,  229,  230,  243 
Sulpitius  Seyerus,  86 
Supererogation,  106,  123,  130, 

139,  150,  151,  163,  217 

TEBTULLIAN,  28,  76,  77-82,  92, 
105,  119,  143 


Thomasius,  Gottfried,  169,  182 
Thomas  Aquinas,  197-200,  213 
Thomson,  Archbishop,  74,  165, 

213 

Turretin,  F.,  183,  231,  241 
Tymms,  T.  V.,  9,  36,  173 

UEBERWEG,  F.,  191 

VICARIOUS,  42,  52,  69,  181,  182, 
207,  243 

WERGELD,  110,  111,  113,  154 

Wessel,  176 

Westminster    Confession,    226, 

241 

Whiton,  J.  M.,  162 
Wilson,  J.  H.,  43,  46,  169,  177, 

178 

Wood,  C.  J.,  Ill,  186 
Wiirtemberg  Confession,  222 

YOUNG,  John,  120,  162 


.-V         r 


COLLEGE 
TORONTO 


KNOX  COLLEGE  LIBRARY