YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY Gift of
H.B. Huckley

ANSELM'S THEORY
OF
THE ATONEMENT

ANSELM'S THEORY
OF
THE ATONEMENT
€|jc 25oIjIen %tctmt$, 1908
By GEORGE CADWALADER FOLEY, D.D.
Professor of Homiletics and Pastoral Care in the Divinity School
of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Philadelphia

Hon quia reconciliavit amavit, Bed quia amavit reeonciliavit
Huoa or St. Victor

LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
91 AND 93 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK
LONDON, BOMBAY, AND CALCUTTA
1909

Copyright, 1908
By Lon&mans, Green, and Co.

The University Prbss, Cambkidgb, XT. 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 conti'adictory 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 Christ's 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  1
II. THE PATRISTIC TEACHING  13
1. General Characteristics  15
2. The Apostolic Fathers  19
3. The Post-Apostolic Fathers  25
a. Justin Martyr  26
6. Irenaeus  29
c. Clement of Alexandria  37
d. Origen  39
4. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers .... 46
a. Eusebius of Caesarea  47
6. 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
6. Cyprian  82
c. Augustin  86

xiv CONTENTS PAGE
III. THE ANSELMIC THEORY  101
1. Patristic and Mediaeval 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
6. Antecedents affecting the form of the
theory  115
2. "Cur Deus Homo?"  120
a. Preliminary to the argument . . . . 121
b. The argument  124
c. Some valuable features of the theory . . 1 32
d. Defects of the theory  143
Three general defects  143
Criticism in detail  147
(1) The idea of Honour .... 147
(2) The idea of Satisfaction . . . 1 54
(3) The forensic form of the theory 167
(4) The latent Dualism  173
(5) The Nestorian element . . . 1 79
(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 . . 194
a. His adherents  195
Hugh of St. Victor  195
Alexander of Hales  196
Bonaventura  196
Thomas Aquinas  197
6. 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  265
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.
AVhat 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." J 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
i Art. "Atonement," II. 56.
2 Dr. James Denney, The Atonement and the Modern Mind,
p. 116. Abbe1 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 lUdemption, 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 Its
late rise is felt by 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." 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.
3 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 Anselm's
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 immediately
preceding its composition. We must indicate 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 CHARACTEKisTica
These 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,
" 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.
2

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
giveness ; but they seem rather to express the means.
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.
a 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
statement.

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 \yirep]
our flesh, and His soul for [v-rrep] 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.
3 1 ad Cor., vii. Lightfoot reads " vTrqviyne v, 'offered.'"
The alternative reading, i-n-jveyKev, 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. 421.

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
1 AdSmyrn., ii; adPolyc, iii; adMagn.,ix; ad Troll., ii.
3 Ad Smyrn., vii.
3 Ad Troll, viii.
4 Ad Rom., vii.
6 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. dt., p. 137.

THE PATRISTIC TEACHING 23
The expressions, \vrpov virep and avTaXKayi), cannot
be made to do service for the idea of substitution . The
Biblical words must stand or fall with their Biblical
use; im-ip means only "in behalf of," and Xinpov 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, l'humanite coupable" {Le Dogme 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." l "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. cit., II. 265, 211, 264.
s 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." 1 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, H. 385.
3 Op. cit., 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." 1 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.
2 Fragment in Vol. H., Ante-Nicene Library, T. and T. Clark,
p. 858. 8 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., 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." 3
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.,
• Adv. Haer., iv. 6, 2.
' Ante-Nicene Library, II. 357.
1 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." J 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 I'idee de substitution, qui sera si feconde dans la tradition
posteneure" {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. Irenceus (pb. 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" (XIH. 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
' 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." 1
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., v. 17, 1. See also iii. 18; xvii. 1.
* 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 Ireneeus, 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,
ava/ce(fia\alo}cn<;," which he also calls "theadoption."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., v. 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."
3 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 Irenaeus
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 Irenaeus
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 : i 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 \yirep\ our souls, and His flesh for [dvr'i]
our flesh" (v. 1, l).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.
3 System of Christian Doctrine, IV. 8 ; italics his.
3 "Nous sommes solidaires du second Adam comme nous
l'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).
' Probably \irpov in the lost original.
6 Contra Harnack, H. 290.
• 'Am-l is probably the preposition of price, after \vrpuaaiJ.ivov.
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 Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus are Adv.
Haer., 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 He 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.
3 "Non cum vi, . . . sed secundum suadelam, quemad-
modum decebat Deum suadentem, et non vim inferentem, accipere
quaevellet." 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. cil., 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." * 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 Versbhnung, p. 28;
A. Neander, History of Christian Dogmas, I. 212.
3 Christ's Mission to the Underworld, p. 90.
* Also, apparently, Simon, The Redemption of Man, p. 11.
4 Hist. Christ. Doctrine, H. 222.
11 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 : "&>? crwfav eTrepifrev, w? ireidwv, ov fiia-
£6uevo<;." 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 ILL 307) ; AUen (Christ. Instit., p. 357,
note) ; Lidgett, The Spiritual Principle of the Atonement, p. 431 ;
Stevens, The Christian Doctrine of Salvation, p. 139.
3 In fact, Dorner uses this very passage to refute Baur.

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 Irenaeus 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." 2
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
Ireweus 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 o "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
hundred years, it is only a question of criticism whether Irenaeus
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." * 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. 2 "It is for him a revelation rather than a restoration" (Crutt-
well, The Literary History of Early Christianity, H. 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 Irenaeus, 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 (pb. 253)
As the first great dogmatist, Origen was naturally
"the first to attempt a philosophy of the Atonement." *
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, Xvaat)
1 P. G., IX. col. 735.
3 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.
Cf. Hippolytus: " -yiyovas yccp 6e6s . . . 6tl ideoTroiridTjs, dddvaros
ytmnfiea" (Philosoph., x. 33, 34; P. G., XVI. col. 3450-3454 ter).
4 C. Bigg, The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, p. 210.
s "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 tlw 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." J 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.
3 Contra Cels., ii. 23.
8 II. 367, note.
' Ibid., III. 808.
1 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., Xn. col. 523; see also col. 755. See Charles Hodge, Syst.
Theol., H. 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." J
His theory of Christ as our Ransom is a misinter
pretation of a metaphor. It was natural that the
figure should be literalised 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., n. 236 sq.
3 "Here all that is metaphor and illustration in St. Paul seems
to be regarded as hard scientific statement" (J. H. Wilson, The
Oospel 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 Xmpovv 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." * 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 avraK-
\ayfia 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 lo 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. cit., p. 222 : Oxenham, Cath. Doct.
of At., pp. 136, 137.
3 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 touch6 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 vues fragmentaires et,
pour tout dire, superficielles : ils n'ont jamais fait de cette doctrine
1'objet special de lews recherches" (Ibid., p. 101).
8 " 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 Irenaeus'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. Nicene and Post-Nicene 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
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, n. 585. Among modern
authors, Archdeacon Wilson frankly accepts this interpretation
of the Atonement (Gospel of the Atonement, p. 88).
3 Hist. Doct., II. 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 Cwsarea (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; * also, of "attributing to Him the sins of
us all " ; : and he constantly uses such common
words as avjtyvyov and avr'CKvrpov, 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 mXaaSeh Kalri/jMiplav iTrocrxCj"; P. G., XXQ. col. 724. He
also says : " ko.1 p.6vos avrbv rofc irafftv evfievrj Kal IXeiov Trap^xiov {Ibid.,
col. 280). "Rendering the Father propitious," is an intrusion of
a heathen notion.
3 inypixj/af. Ibid., col. 89.
3 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-yjrv^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." 4 "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
1 Dictionary of Christian Biography, I. 181.
' Fisher, Hist. Christ. Doct., p. 162.
3 De Inc., 9. 2, 3.
1 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." J 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.
3 6eoTroiridC)p.£P, 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. D7. p.
886, note 1. Cf. also Gregory Nazianzen: "until He made me
God by the power of His Incarnation " (Orat., 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; Scrm., cxix. 5;
cxxi. 5; cxcii. 1; cxciv. 3).
8 Contra Ar., ii. 21, 69. See also Justin and Irenceus.

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." 1
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 -navTcov (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^v^ov, 9. 2); that "He put away death
by the offering of an equivalent" (irpocrfyopa tov
KaraWyXov, 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 Contra 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" (e7r\r)pov to
ofaiXopevov, 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, 47^9; ii. 60-70; iv. 6, 7.
2 Eastern Church, p. 350.
3 De Inc., 20. 2, 5. See also Contra Ar., ii. 66: "paying the
debt in our stead" (i-v9' #w, which makes us doubt whether
ami could have had the rigid significance of "instead of").
Riviere says : " Ces deux aspects de la question [le iisordre meta-
physique du pichi and les consequences pratiques] ne laissent pas

54 ANSELM ON THE ATONEMENT
speaks of God's consistency ; 1 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 flottement — pour ne pas dire une
reelle incoherence — dans son systeme" : and calls his explanations
"rapides et superficielles" (p. 151). This is an acknowledgment
that the later ideis are not really found in Athanasius.
1 rb wpbs rbv Bebv cAXoyoi', 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" ? 1 "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
' 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 offering
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," iifKrjpov to oQeiXouevov).
"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.
3 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 TTim who had created him.

58 ANSELM ON THE ATONEMENT
— however different it would sound in Luther or
Calvin — in Contra Ar., ii. GG : " av& tj/jluv Trjv oqbet-
Xtjv a7ro8(.8oi5?." The translator of Athanasius, Dr.
Robertson, frankly admits that "of the forensic view
he is indeed almost clear. His reference to the 'debt'
(I 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. lxx). 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 evao-is 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
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, but 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., H. 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 I'idee de la
Redemption par la croix ne domine pas plus leur esprit que lew
systeme et que, s'ils ne l'ont 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." 1 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, avTaX\ayp,a, 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.
* 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.6 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 banc fraudem
diabolo fieri" (P. L. XV. col. 1553, 1616).
3 "Ad pretium nostrum tetendit muscipulam crucem suam";
"muscipula diaboli" (P. L., XXXVHI. col. 726, 1210).
3 "Tetendit ei muscipulam crucem suam; posuit ibi, quasi
escam, sanguinem suum" (P. L., CXC1I. col. 796).
1 Simon, Redemption of Man, p. 406.
* "In hamo ergo ejus Incarnationis captus est, quia, dum in
illo appetit escam corporis, transfixus est aculeo divinitatis"
(P. L., LXXVI. col. 680; Hagenbach, I. 346).
e 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 divine
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.
3 "I ask, to whom was this ransom offered, and for what cause ?
If to the Evil One, fie upon the shameful thought !" (Orat., xlv.

64 ANSELM ON THE ATONEMENT
tively 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 (olKovo/MrjaavTo^) 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.
3 Ol«oro/i(o is variously translated; as, "l'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
oiKOPopta was distinguished from Beokoyia, 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" (Orat.,
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 Himself 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 Orat., 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 wilt 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., hi. 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, H. 41, 42; Oxenham, p. 144; Dale, The Atonement, p. 274;
Harnack, DU. 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?"1 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
¦ Horn. viii. on I Cor.
3 Eccl. Pol, bk. vi. c. v.
3 He uses the unscriptural phrases, KaraXXay/; AetrTbrov, and
oStos KaraWayi,! Qeov irpbs avBpdnrovs iiroidiaari (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.
3 In Gal. iii. 13. See also Horn. xi. on H 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 avriXvrpov ; 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
eh virep ttcivtoov. 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 (iKTenKorav) 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 avrdgios 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." 1 ^yril
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 (i^LXaafia) 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., XXTX. col. 440.
" Catechetical Lectures, xiii. 13. "C'est, avec les termes tech
niques en moins; la premiere affirmation theologique de l'infinie
surabondance des satisfactions de PHomme-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." J 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
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," l 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. . . . lis 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 Irenaeus 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.
18 altogether excludes the idea of Christ's vicarious satisfaction
(Adv. Praxean, xxix).
3 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. cit., 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." l "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.
3 De orat., 23 ; see also de bapt., 20 ; de pudic, 9.
• 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.
4 Harnack, HI. 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 ^le
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.
3 Scarp., 6. See also, "meritum fidei" (De orat., 2); "merita
cujusque" (Ibid., 4); "merita poenitentiae " (De poen., 2); also,
the verbs, "mereri" and "promereri deum" ; as, "the catechumen
covets to merit it," i. c, baptism (De poen., 6), and the expressions,
"I shall stand with credit," "I shall deserve" (Scarp., 10). For
other illustrations, see Harnack, IH. 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. H. 294, note, and DTI. 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.
3 De orat., 7 ; de pudidt., 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."3
"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." 4
"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.,
p. lxx. 3 Rudiments of Theology, p. 361. Probably there was no
distinction. See W. E. Ball, St. Paul and the Roman Law, pp. 58,
71 sq.3 Ep., xi. 2.
' 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." 3 "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." *
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." B " 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., 5
3 Ep., Ii. 22.
3 De laps., 35.
1 De op. et eleemos., 2; also 1, 5, 6, 9, 18. The satisfactions
were often church penances.
8 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." * 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.
8 Hist. Dogm., II. 294 note; HI. 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." 1 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
mediaeval 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.
3 It is needless to multiply proofs of the prevalence of the ideas
of appeasement 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 wa3 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 He 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, Dial., 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." 1
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." 2
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 hanciram . . . placaret." But he at once
explains that this wrath is not a feeling, but an attitude toward sin.

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 I 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 for
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., xni. 10, 13. See also De Agone Ch., 10.
3 See also De gratia Christi et pecc. orig., 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." 1 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.
3 Op. cit., HI. 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. " x 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.
8 De Johann. Evang., c. 1, Tractate iii. 13; P. L., XXXV. col.
1401. 8 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" (il. 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" (Moralia, 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." 2 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 bis
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 Manichaean
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." x
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 ; ' 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
1 "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
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).
3 Text-Book Hist. Doct., II. 20.
8 Seeberg, loc. cit. He used such expressions as : " suis meri-
tis" (Moral., xxiv. 2, 4; 3, 5; 17, 30; P. L., LXXVL col. 280) ; "qui
pro aliis indulgentiam mereretur" (Ibid., col. 289).

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.

96 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 Anselm'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 Anselm'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 three 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-
7

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 wrested,
from the devil. All that they said of the sacrifice in
the suffering was quite vague. Only Athanasius
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 certainly 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 n. 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 Anselm, 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 famihar 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 not 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. Brit., 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." '
(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
' 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. 806, 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
* Cyprian, De op. et eleemos., 5, and often.
* Harnack, III. 311.
8 Ibid.

THE ANSELMIC THEORY 107
was strengthened by the belief in purgatory, which,
after its earliest suggestion by Clement and Origen, .1
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 Manichaeans, shows that he
still retained some Manichaean 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; n. 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).
8 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. ' 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
Sever us." 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, HI. 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

' 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.
3 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 law. 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, 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, IH. 311 ; VI. 55.
3 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
blood spilt.
4 It was, therefore, a higher idea than mere retaliation (vs.
Sabatier, 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
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
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-
1 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.
3 Kemble, The Anglo-Saxons, I. 197.
3 As in C. J. Wood, Survivals in Christianity, p. 175.
* 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-Booh of the His
tory of Doctrines, H. 69).
3 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
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
fratres (St. Matt. xii. 50), quos aspicit tot et tantis debitis obligatos"
(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.
3 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.
3 St. Anselm, p. 231.
8 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 ; J 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,

' 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 mediaeval
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.
8 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." 3 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 and 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 Farrar, op. cit., p. 255.
3 Shedd, op. cit., I. 75.
8 Farrar, ubi supra, p. 265.
* Hagenbach, Hist. Doct., I. 400.
5 This last istaken fromAugustin (De Ctt\, xxii. 1). Compare
L 16 and i. 19: "it is certain"; with i. 18, 11: "Wherefore hu-

118 ANSELM ON THE ATONEMENT
of Scholasticism " ; J 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 ordo
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 important 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
1 See also Proslog., i: "Neque enim quaero intelligere, ut
credam; sed credo, ut inteUigam. Nam et hoc credo, quia nisi
credidero, non inteUigam."
3 It is sometimes said that the syllogistic and dialectical
method began with Tertulh'an.
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. "Cur 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. cit., 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, Tlie 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 bonis
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 » 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 dimittitur; 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 way
him who sins and him who does not; which is a
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 ut 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
be 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, which 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 the
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
cause a sinner cannot justify a sinner" (i. 23, 7).2
»
' Baur finds here "the nerve of Anselm's doctrine" (Hagen-
bach, H. 46).
3 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.
9

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
' 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.1 The
mercy seemed to be "clean gone" (perire), 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.
3 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 Versbhnung, 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
Boso. 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." 1 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
aeval 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
1 Continuity of Christian Thought, p. 202.
3 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. There are strong objections to most of
those propounded since his day, and his own has
such grave defect* 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 unverifiable. 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 conceit 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 XvTpov or
avTikvTpov 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 Xvrpov 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.
3 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
" 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. 3 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, he 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.1 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 be 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 amvre pe'nible) 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.
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 ?
The very limitation of the inquiry turned men's
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. 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 of 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. "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
(airoXuTpcoai^, dvTiXvTpov, i^ayopd^eiv), of sacri
fice (Ovala), of propitiation (IXacrT-qpiov), of recon
ciliation (KaTaXXayrj), of mediation (/ieo-m??), of
representation (xrrrep) and mystical union (eV Xpio-Tm,
tce<paXr] tov crdouaTO';, 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.
3 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." 1
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. Boso 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. Doct. of
Salvation, p. 243).
1 Op. cit., 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." 1 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. Doct., H. 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. 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).
3 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." ' 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
(jL^l^fSl^-'But then he has practically made it the
only condition by introducing the claim of justice.3
' Dale, The Atonement, p. 284.
8 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 satisfactione" (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).
3 Ibid., p. 30. Per contra, see Josef Bach, Dogmengeschichte
des MittelaUers, 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 then
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.
3 Observe the special emphasis in section 5 of that chapter,
quoted above.
8 Ritschl, op. cit., p. 32.
4 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
ground of satisfaction.3
1 Oxenham, Cath. Doct. of At, pp. 186-188.
3 The distinction between the Divine and human natures as
subjects betrayed him into other difficulties. See later on Nestorian
defect. 3 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
Ritschl 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.
' 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 estabhsh 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." 1
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"
1 Op. cit., p. 242.

THE ANSELMIC THEORY 157
(i. 20, 1); "patet quia secundum quantitatem exigit
Deus satisfactionem " (i. 21, 13). •
(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
* 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 hes 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 impossibihty, 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 sq.).

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
1 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 dweUing
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." ' "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 does n'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
' 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
1 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 He 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. 3 The justice of forgiving a paid debt is further asserted in
ii. 20.

THE ANSELMIC THEORY 165
in foregoing a claim which has been paid to the utter
most farthing. Either the debt has been fully paid, I
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 Da vies 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 on the Doctrine of Atonement,
p. 43; Paton J. Gloag in The Atonement: A Clerical Symposium,
p. 257. 3 Syst. Theol., H. 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 ShaU 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 167
God, in order that He might be enabled to act like
God." J (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." s 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." s In this respect also the theory is
institutional. God is not thought of as a Father, but as a Judge
1 John Hyde, Tract. 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 man . . . are
almost unknown in the East." See also J. B. Heard, Old and New
Theology, cap. ix.
8 Encyc. Brit., XVH. 548.
« T. T. Munger, The Freedom of Faith, p. 21.
5 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
1 The two notions blend in the mind of Anselm.
3 Lyman Abbott, Evolution of Christianity, p. 86.
8 Progressive Orthodoxy, p. 159.
4 On the distinction between righteousness and justice, see
Bushnell, Vicarious Sacrifice, I. 247 sq., 382 sq.
8 Introd. to Aids to Reflection, p. 52.
8 Hist. Doct., H. 216.
7 Ibid., n. 278.

THE ANSELMIC THEORY 169
This is truly Anselmic: "Verum hujusmodi miseri-
cordia Dei nimis est contraria justitiae Alius, 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 StKatoo-vvv.
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 unspiritual, 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 juristisch
gedacht. Nicht urn 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 voli
verstanden worden " (Thomasius, Dogmengeschichte des Mittel-
alters, bearbeitet von R. Seeberg, 1889, p. 123).
3 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 rela-
1 Luthardt, History of Christian Ethics, p. 311.
* Borden P. Bowne, The Atonement, p. 117.
8 Lidgett, op. cit., 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.
3 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" ? 1 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 "beheve
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 Harnack, 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 bis own tneory 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.
2 Neander incorrectly says that Pope Innocent ITI. was the
first to refer to such a reconciliation of the attributes (Hist. Christ.
Dogmas, H . 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 hypostatising
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 office 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 (ob. 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 man.
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. ' 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.
3 Encyc. Brit., XXIJJ. 241.
* Bigg, op. cit., p. 290. "Has God the Father a different
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).
3 Many have confessed this, who have known only the satis
faction theory.
8 Hist. Dogma, VI. 76, 77. Vide Aug., De Trin., xiii. 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." ! This led to such expressions as
©eoTo/w>?, "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. 16b, 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, 38, 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." 2 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.4
1 Harnack, VI. 74.
3 Ibid.
' The Latin idea of substitution was always more real than the
Greek (Harnack, m. 314).
* 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 satisfactio passiva, but activa, 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 recognised, because the Anselmic
theory of a judicial process that would nowadays be
called civil has given way to the analogy of criminal
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." x Anselm 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 who
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 obhgation is so absolutely upon the person that
another cannot undertake it.
2 The Atonement, p. 230. He also admits the previous point
that, if there was satisfaction, there could be no mercy.
3 Syst. Divin., IH. 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." J 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
1 In Armour, ubi supra, p. 153.
2 Aids to Reflection, pp. 313, 314.

186 ANSELM ON THE ATONEMENT
as if they were mere material substances." 1 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. 3 C. J. Wood, Survivals in Christianity, p. 146.
* "It is suicidal in theology to refuse the appeal to a moral
criterion" (Jowett, in London Library, p. 493).
* 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." 2
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 from
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.
3 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.
8 Heard, Alex, and Carthag. Theology, p. 235; Thomasius,
op. cit., p. 124.
3 Allen, Continuity of Christian Thought, p. 203.
* Harnack says that no Greek theologian bluntly asserted that
Christ would have become incarnate if there had been no sin
(HI. 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.
' 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," "imitatores"). 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 KaTaXXayrj. 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. Munger 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." L
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 was universally custom
ary. The very principle of commutation becoming
1 The Freedom of Faith, p. 33.
3 Ueberweg, op. cit., I. 386.

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 Contemporaries 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., XH. 847.
* 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).
8 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

196 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." J 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, wliile neither
full satisfaction, "but this does not exclude other methods of
satisfaction, or free forgiveness" (Oxenham, p. 195).
1 Riviere, p. 359.
3 Cf. 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,
Crit. Hist, of At, p. 60).
3 Ibid., quaest. xlvhi. art. 2.
8 Ibid.
* 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 non upon which God could bestow forgiveness,
but only an expedient or modus per quod melius et convenientius
pervenitur ad fidem (Ritschl, ubi supra, p. 48).
3 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 superabundans 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.
5 Neander, Hist. Christ. Dogm., II. 583.
8 Summa, quaest. xlviii. art. 2.
* 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. Deutsch, Peter Abalard, p. 378: "Christus durch
alles, was er gethan und gelitten, sich kein hoheres Verdienst
erworben habe, als er es schon durch die Liebe, die in ihm war,
besessen habe. (Note. — Sic quoque de Christo sane asserimus,
quod, quando ad passionem ductus est el in ligno affixus est, non
plus meruit quam ab ipsa conceptione. Neque enim tunc melior
effectus quam ab ipsa pueritia exstitisset, cum ex tunc Deum ex
toto corde diligeret. — Sententt., cap. 34, p. 107)." See also
Harnack, VI. 79.
3 Neander, Ch. Hist., IV. 501.
" Oxenham, p. 190.
* Deutsch, op. cit., p. 370. See also J. Bach, op. cit., H.
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 Anselm 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 Sunde 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 Gottcs
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." 1 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., CLXXVHI. col. 859.
* 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., CLXXVHI. 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
did 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." x
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
cord, that was acceptable to God." 2 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., H. 521).
1 "Satisfecit ergo caput pro membris, Christus pro visceribus
suis" (De Error. Aboel., 6. 15; P. L„ CLXXXH. 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.
3 "Non mors, sed voluntas placuit sponte morientis" (De Err.
Ab„ 8.
8 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.,
CLXXXH. col. 1069).
3 Neander, Hist. Dogm., H. 520; Oxenham, p. 193; Riviere,
pp. 333-339; J. Bach, op. cit., H. 108-111.
3 P. L., CXCH. col. 795. On the other hand, Abbe Riviere
says: "Pierre Lombard fonde le merit du Christ sur une significa
tion objective et metaphysique de sa mort, et pour I'exphquer, il
introduit la vieiUe 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 !
4 Ch. Hist., IV. 505.
" 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." 1 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." 3 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.6
1 P. L., CXCH. col. 797.
3 Harnack, VI. 81.
3 P. L., CXCII. col. 798 sq.
* Oxenham, p. 197.
8 Fisher, p. 227; Hagenbach, H. 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. 247 sq.; Riviere, pp. 368-372; Neander, Hist. Dogm.,
H. 521.
3 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." 1 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 famihar 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 ; 6 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.
cit., p. 150.
3 Hagenbach, n. 51.
8 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.
* Fisher, p. 247; Neander, Hist. Dogm., II. 584; Harnack,
VI. 196-198.
8 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,
1 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.
3 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.

212 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 ; 1 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 bis 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).
3 Quoted in Seeberg, op. cit., II. p. 268, from KirchenpostHle,
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."
3 Seeberg, Text-Book Hist, of Doct., H. 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 quem utrique satisfaceret tarn
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, H. c. 17. See also
Sabatier, p. 81.
1 Syst. Theol., H. 204.
3 Hist. Dogmas, Tl. 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 satisfactio 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, H. 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. Doct., H. 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." x 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.
1 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." x 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 221
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." 1 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." 2
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 Galatians, p. 205 folio edition of 1760.
» Ibid., p. 203.

222 ANSELM ON THE ATONEMENT
and death of His Son." • The W'urtemberg 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." 2 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 not 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
¦ Lias, p. 133; Simon, p. 32.
3 Schaff, Creeds of Christendom., IH. 319.
8 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." 1
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." 1 This was
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 Ul>i supra, sect. 10.
3 Baur, Christ. Lehre von 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." 1
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;
2 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 : " K 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., p. 208.

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 aid 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
• 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-
1 Inst., m. xi. 10.
2 Ibid., xvi. 5, 6,
3 Oxenham, 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.
3 H. M. Gwatkin, The Knowledge of God, I. 217.
' 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
earliest 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.
We 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 relinquishment 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
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
self, 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. cit., pp. 298-309; Baur, op. cit., pp. 374-414;
Harnack, VII. 156-159; Hagenbach, II. 355-360; Neander,
Hist. Christ. Dogm., II. 260; Stevens, op. cit, pp. 157-161;
Sabatier, pp. 83-88; Lidgett, pp. 474-476.

THE MODERN REACTION 237
was directed. It has compelled "Chiistian 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." x
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 t&eory 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 deatiVnoLa
"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 "acceptilation"; 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 imperfect 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.
3 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 earher; 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 all 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." 1
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 Can-
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
» 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." 1 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. cit., 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 foice. 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 andthe 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 we 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." 1 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.
3 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." * 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. cit.,
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 the
legal word "justice" to "righteousness" as the
nobler equivalent of the Scriptural term hiKaioavvn,
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 infinite
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
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 httle 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 v6uos 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 unkkeness 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 hfe 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
dehverance 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 httle 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 of 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
beyond 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 Ersktne 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 by 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. xm. 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 Kjrkus (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 Pilktxgton 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-sufficient and to the humble" (Catholic
Thoughts on the Bible and Theology, p. 247).
Newman Smyth (1879). — "Now human love has in
it three essential elements ; there are three primary colours
in love's perfect hght; 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
divines have pondered and written upon it, no explanation
yet 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 articuius 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,

APPENDLX 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, 9-2-96).
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 hght 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 Mundi, 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 Dehverance 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
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

292 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 I'envisage
comme dormant pleine satisfaction a Foffense, n'est pas
moins incompatible avec la notion de l'amour. Satisfaction
recue et pardon genereux sont choses qui s'excluent l'une
l'autre. . . . De la la necessity de l'ceuvre 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 ProbVeme de I'lmmor-
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 which 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 hiKaiocrivn 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. Fairbatrn (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 hght 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 with 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 sq.).
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 impossibihty 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, which 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. Ansehn, 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 and 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. McConnell (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. WTe 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. Adeney (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. 1.51 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. Munger (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. Wtld (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 sq.).
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. 131, 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. Fairbairn, 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
man 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. 317^00, 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,
The 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 Theology, 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. Davies, 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 ilie 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 Kingdom; G. 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 Crueis: The Problem of
the Atonement; J. H. Beibitz, Gloria Crueis; Henry S.
Nash, The Atoning Life; W. F. Lofthouse, Ethics and
Atonement; Wr. 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
'AmKe<f>a\alw<ri.s: 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
'AvraWayJi, 23
' Arr&WayiM, 44, 61
'Airdfios, 69
'Ami, 33, 51, 53, 58
'tuniXvrpov, 47, 69, 136
Antinomianism, 172, 186, 228
'Avrl\j/vxpv, 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
CAraD, John, 174
Calvin, 214, 222-225, 228, 229
Chrysostom, 66-68]
Church, Dean, 144, 253, 275
Clement of Alexandria, 37-39,
107
Clement of Bome, 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

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 Incarnotione, 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
AiKaiotrtii'r), 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
FoUot, 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, 62, 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
Hermas, 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 HI., 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
Lactanttus, 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
Airpov, 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 wtema, 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
OUovoiila, 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
Recapitulatio, 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
Sabatieb, 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 Severus, 86
Supererogation, 106, 123, 130,
139, 150, 151, 163, 217
Tertullian, 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

YALE UNIVERSITY

,39002 001025007b