MBsMHRMNI

ST. MAR r

CALIFORNIA

THE INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC LIBRARY

EDITED BY REV. J. WILHELM, D.D., PH.D. VOL. XV.

Nihil obstat

F. G. HOLWECK

Censor thtol.

ST Louis, ijth November 1908

Imprimatur

O. J. S. HOOG, V.G.

ST. Louis, i?M November iQo8

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT

VOL. II.

Nihilobstat

F. G. HOLWECK

Censor theol.

ST. Louis, i7/A November 1908

Imprimatur

O. J. S. HOOG, V.G.

ST. Louis, \jth November 1908

THE DOCTRIN

I THE ATONEMENT;

A HISTORICAL ESSAY

BY

Jf RIVIERE, D.D.

PROFESSOR AT THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF ALBI

AUTHORISED TRANSLATION

BY

LUIGI CAPPADELTA

VOLUME II

'Non aequaliter mente percipitur etiam quod in fide pariter ab utrisque recipitur."

AUGUSTINE, In Joan, tract xcviii. 2.

1909

KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO. LTD.

LONDON

The rights of translation and reproduction are reserved

CONTENTS

OF THE SECOND VOLUME

CHAPTER PAGE

XVII. THE INTERMEDIATE CHANNELS ... 1

XVIII. THE DOCTRINE OF SATISFACTION — ST. ANSELM'S

SYSTEM ...... 14

XIX. OUTBREAK OF RATIONALISM AND ORTHODOX

COUNTERBLAST ..... 54

XX. FURTHER THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS — PETER LOM- BARD, ALEXANDER HALES, AQUINAS . . 79

XXI. THE LEGAL FORM : THE RANSOM THEORY. ORIGEN,

ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA . . . .111

XXII. THE POLITICAL FORM: THEORY OF THE ABUSE OF

POWER. I/ST. AUGUSTINE, ST. LEO THE GREAT . 136

XXIII. THE POETICAL FORM : DISCOURSES AND METAPHORS —

ST. AMBROSE — EUSEBIUS OF EMESA — ST. GREGORY

THE GREAT . . . • .158

XXIV. THE END OF THE DEVIL'S RIGHTS: ST. ANSELM,

AB^ELARD, ST. THOMAS . . . .194

CONCLUSION . . . . . .241

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..... 259

CONSPECTUS PATRUM ET SCHOLASTICORUM . . 262

INDEX 265

15141

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT

PART THE FOURTH

THE ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE

AGES

CHAPTER XVII

THE INTERMEDIATE CHANNELS FROM THE SEVENTH TO THE ELEVENTH CENTURY

FROM the close of Patristic times to the beginning of Scholasticism in the eleventh century, Christian thought had to endure a long period not indeed of death but of complete inaction. During this time the Church, which had only just emerged from the ruin of the Roman Empire, was engaged in converting and civilising the Barbarians ; speculation had to go to the wall before the more imperative demands of the Christian mission. Such intellectual life as still remained, was pent up within the enclosures of the monasteries, and even in these no original work was forthcoming, and the labour of their inmates was con- fined to the treasuring up of the thoughts and words of the Fathers, which were transcribed by the copyists, and, by the more scholarly recluses, worked up into their mosaic-like compilations. If then our object were to seek for novelties, we should certainly find

II. A I

2 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

but little to interest us in the works of these far-off compilers. But as a matter of fact they are interest- ing to us, not only because they are the links connect- ing two ages together, but because they show us in what form the Patristic data were handed down to the Middle Ages. For this reason they demand a few moments' consideration.

The first of the series of links was St. Isidore of Sevilla, of whom it has been said that he was "the greatest compiler of his time and perhaps of all time."1 In his summary of the doctrine of the Atonement he follows St. Augustine and St. Jerome.

The Word of God became man in order to draw nigher unto us and in order to suffer in His flesh :

" Deus Verbum . . . accepit carnem pro salute humana, in qua et impassibilis pati, immortalis mori et aeternus ante saecula tempo- rails posset ostendi."

By His death He brought a remedy for our mis- fortunes and paid thereby the penalty of our sins : "Ckririut, sicut peccatum, quodpcena dignum est, non admisit, ita poenam peccati nostri suscepit, ut per in- debitampoenam suam debitam aboleret culpam nostram" In His death was the only chance of our deliverance : " Nam si innocc Christus non occideretur, homo, diabolo addictus per prcevaricationem, non absolveretur" *

Isidore elsewhere tells us that our Salvation de- pended on our Saviour's birth and death : " Sicut propter redemptionem mundi ilium decuit nasci, ita et

1 BARDENHEWER, op. cit. iii. p. 91.

2 ISID. HISPAL. Sentent. lib. i. c. xiv. 4-13. — P.L. Ixxxiii. ; col. 566-567.

ISIDORE AND BEDE 3

pati oportuit" l and a little farther on he reminds us that this death was a Sacrifice for our sins :

" Non pro suis, sed pro nostris peccatis crucifixus est . . . iuxta Apostolum qui dicit : Quia cum peccatum non cognovisset, ipse pro nobis peccatum factus est, id est sacrificium pro peccatis nostris." 2

From which we see that St. Isidore faithfully repeated the sayings of his predecessors respecting the substitutional and sacrificial character of Christ's death.

We find them again repeated by St. Bede in the following century. Christ was the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.3 What He offered was no brute creature but Himself:

" Sacrificavit Filius Dei pro peccatis nostris, non hostias pecudum sed seipsum offerendo." 4

He thereby delivered us from our sins and from death itself:

"Mortem crucis patiendo, credentes in se ab omni peccato et ab ipsa etiam morte liberat." 5

Christ alone could thus wipe out our sins, He alone being without stain : " Nemo tollit peccata . . . nisi ille in quo peccatum non est'' 6 Christ's death had also a penal value : " Qui pro nobis mortem carnis indebitam reddidit nos a debita animce morte liber avit" r We find the same idea even more forcibly expressed in a Com- mentary on the Psalms which, though it does not belong to Bede, is printed among his works :

1 Dejtde cath. contra ludceos, lib. I. c. v. 11; ibid. col. 462.

2 Ibid. c. xliii. ; col. 487-488.

3 VEN. BED. In loan. i.—P.L. xcii. 648.

4 In 1 loan. iv. — P.L. xciii. 108.

5 In loan. iii. — P.L. xcii. ; col. 671. Cp. ibid. vi. ; col. 717.

6 1 loan. iii. — P.L. xciii. ; col. 100.

7 1 loan i. ; col. 88. Cp. In loan. xiv. — P.L. xcii. ; col. 836.

4 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

" Quae delicta feci mea, quia poenam eorum in me trans tuli." l " Pro peccatis poenas pertuli qui peccatum non commisi. . . . Peccatorum non commissor sed susceptor sum, ita tamen ut in me delicta non suscipiam, sed poenas pro ipsis luam." 2

But an even clearer passage, in which we read that Christ could suffer only for our redemption and that we could be redeemed only by His Passion, really belongs to Bede : " [Impossibile] vel Christum sine nostrce redemptionis amore pati potuisse, vel nos sine illius passione salvari" 3

From what we have said it is apparent that neither Isidore nor Bede discovered anything new in the Atonement, but that they succeeded in vesting the older ideas in a somewhat newer verbal dress. Com- pared with their successors these two Doctors were brilliant innovators.

II

Alcuin is satisfied with piecing together extracts from the Fathers, with which he occasionally associates the teaching of his master, St. Bede. In his com- mentary on the epistles to Titus and to Philemon he follows St. Jerome, whilst in commenting on Hebrews he gives a summary of the explanations of St. John Chrysostom. He several times states that Christ's death was a Sacrifice of expiation by which the forgiveness of sins is secured,4 and that this Sacrifice was final because it was voluntary : " Christus semel

1 PSEUD. BED. In Psalm, xxi. — P.L. xciii. ; col. 591.

2 Ps. Ixviii. ; ibid. col. 84-5.

3 In Marc. xiv. — P.L. xcii. ; col. 272. Cp. in Luc. lib. vi. c. xxii. ; col. 597.

4 ALCUIN, Hebr. v. 1.— P.L. c. 1052. Cp. ix. 22 ; col. 1075, i. 3 ; col. 1034, ii. 10; col. 1041, ix. 11 ; col. 1072/.

ALCUIN, SEDULIUS 5

mortuus est pro peccatis alienis, et ideo quia voluntarie et non necessarie mortuus est"1

His commentary on St. John is likewise a tissue of extracts, amongst which figure the texts of Bede which we quoted above, according to which Christ was the Lamb of God, who redeems us at the price of His blood, and whose Sacrifice delivers us both from sin and from death.2

The Collectanea of Sedulius Scotus on St. Paul's epistles is a somewhat better work. The writer is acquainted with Origen, and even refutes him. But he seems to follow the commentaries of Pelagius, of which no doubt some copies lingered in the monas- teries of Brittany, being possibly even then already ascribed, not to their real author, but to St. Jerome. Sedulius has also left us a commentary on Hebrews, though in this case his source is unknown whilst the work itself is worthless. In his books we find the common statements respecting Christ's work. He was made to be sin — i.e. a sacrifice for sin 3 ; it was His love that gives His Sacrifice its worth and makes it agreeable to God : " odor suavitatis charitas est" 4

Rhabanus Maurus, a disciple of Alcuin, not only wrote his "Praises of the Holy Cross, two books admirable for their learning and prose and verse,"5 in which we find some wonderful acrostics, and verses which read equally well, or equally bad, from left to right and from right to left; he also varied

1 ALCUIN, Hebr. ix. 28; col. 1076. Cp. x. 14; col. 1079.

2 In loan. lib. i. c. ii. ; ibid. col. 756. Cp. ibid. lib. ii. c. v. ; col. 782.

8 SEDUL. SCOT. Collect, in Rom. viii. P.I/, ciii. 69. Cp. 2 Cor. v. ; col. 170. Gal. iii. 13 ; col. 186.

*Eph. v.; col. 206.

5 RHABANUS MAURUS, De laudibus Sanctce Crucis libri duo eruditione, versu, prosaque mirifici. P.L. cvii. 133f.

6 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

his poetical efforts by writing commentaries on St. Matthew and on St. Paul's epistles. Here he tells us quite frankly what his intentions are.

His object, he says, is to compose a compendium for the use of poor readers, and, to secure this he will take care not to go beyond the letter, or at least the sense, of his predecessors. He will also show the sources of which he makes use by marginal references, which he prays all future copyists of his work to retain. He however warns his readers that they will find in his work traces of his own labour (proprii sudoris indicia).1 He prefaces his commentary on St. Paul with a similar declaration.2 Here he confines himself to stringing together Patristic texts, though he faithfully records in the margin the names of his authors, lest the reader should be perplexed by the contradictory statements. Of any real combination we here find none, the reader is prudently left to his own efforts if he wishes to harmonise the data. In fact this work does not contain a sentence which really belongs to Rhabanus.

In this compendium we find every likely author from Origen, whose orthodox views are duly appre- ciated by Rhabanus, down to St. Augustine and St. Bede. When dealing with Hebrews our author naturally quotes his master Alcuin, but the writer who influenced him most was Ambrosiaster, whose subtle effusions he impartially records together with the same writer's more successful efforts.

1 In Matth. proef. P.L. cvii. 727 : " Ea mandare curavi quae ab eis exposita sunt, vel ipsis eorum syllabis vel certe meis breviandi causa sermonibus."

2 In Epist. B. Pauli collectarium. P.L. cxi. 1275 f: "In mentem suam plurima coacervans potest de singulis iudicare quid sibi utile sit inde sumere . . . Credens sobrio lectori sufficere quod in Patrum sententiis editum repererit."

WALAFRIED STRABO 7

The G-lossa or dinar ia of Walafried Strabo con- tains just as little of the personal element, but as it had a great vogue in the Middle Ages it will be of interest to see how it expounds the chief texts which refer to the Atonement.

The cause of the Atonement was the Father's love, which was matched by the Son's love.1 For Christ's death was a voluntary one, and, as St. Augustine has it, is a sacrifice which destroys sin.2 It also was the means of delivering us from death : " Constat omnes mortuos fuisse in Adam, pro quibus mortuus est Christus, ut eos a morte liberaret" * ; cleansing our souls and soothing God's ire : " Quia nostra emun- datio et Dei propitiatio nobis sine sanguine nulla est." 4

This same death was also the penalty of our sins : " Multa patitur, quantum ad se gratis ; sed quod alius rapuit ipse solvit"5 " Pcenam alienee iniquitatis suscipit, qui nihil dignum passione egit."Q

Strabo even has it that, seeing the grievousness of our sin, Christ's death was necessary for our Sal- vation : " Tantum fuit peccatum nostrum ut salvari non possemus nisi Unigenitus Dei pro nobis moreretur, debitoribus mortis"**

This last text, which other glossaries attribute to

1 Cp. loan. iii. 15. — P.L. cxiv. ; col. 368 and ibid. x. 15; col. 397.

2 " Morte sua, uno quippe verissimo sacrificio pro nobis oblato, quidquid culparum erat . . . exstinxit." Or more briefly : " Dum innocens occiditur, peccatum crucifigitur." Col. ii. 14-15 ; col. 6 12. Cp. Matth. xxvi. 26; col. 169.

3 2 Cor. v. 14; col. 558.

*Hebr. ix. 22; col. 659.

5 Ps. Ixviii. 1. — P.L. cxiii. ; col. 946.

6 Marc. xiv. 23. — P.L. cxiv.; col. 231. Cp. Luc. xxii. 17; ibid. col. 338.

7 Hebr. ix. 14; col. 659. Cp. Gal. i. 4; col. 571 : "Non erat alia hostia digna pro peccatis nostris delendis."

8 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

St. John Chrysostom, and which is, in fact, an adaptation of his words, was to be frequently quoted in the Middle Ages. It was this text which prepared the way for that more accurate examination of the nature of sin whence will come the doctrine of Satis- faction. In fact this obscure glossator, though he is the merest echo of the Catholic tradition, is in some sense a precursor of St. Anselm.

Ill

The commentaries of Haymo, Bishop of Halberstadt, betray slightly more individuality. This writer did not merely piece together extracts from the Fathers, he digested them to some extent and combined them. His work is more than a compilation, it is a digest. Haymo's main object is to make the literal meaning clear, and, to secure this, he seeks the Greek, and even occasionally the Hebrew, text. His homilies are really running commentaries on the Gospel of the day, in which moral conclusions are drawn but rarely.

He looks on Christ's death as a Sacrifice ; as a faithful follower of Ambrosiaster and St. Augustine he always expounds in this way St. Paul's text: " Peccatum fecit esse pro nobis" l This one sacrifice, unlike the many sacrifices of the Old Law, was of itself sufficient for the forgiveness of sins.2 It recon- ciles us with God by appeasing God's righteous

1 HAYMO HALB. Rom. viii. P.L. cxvii. 427. Cp. 2 Cor. v. ; col. 631. Gal. iii. ; col. 680.

2 Cp. Hebr. vii. ; col. 872. Ibid. ix. ; col. 885, and x. ; col. 888-9. Haymo also says that this Sacrifice acquires its price from the love it reveals : ' ' Odorem suavitatis debemus intelligere intentionem bonae voluntatis et affectum mentis, quibus Deus delectatur." Epk. v. ; col. 724.

FLORUS 9

anger against us : " Filium suum proposuit Deus Pater propitiatorem et recondliatorem, ut ipse nobis propitium faceret Deum Patrem et placabikm per fidem passionis suce. ' ' l

Haymo also ascribes to Christ's death a certain penal character : " Delicta diodt sua, non quod ipse fecisset, sed pro eis portavit poenam"2 " Flagellum quod debuimus susdpere ipse suscepit, ut nos padficaret Deo" 3 and, according to the Augustinian principle, His undeserved death was the death of our death.4

This is not all ; having regard to the enormity of sin, Christ's death was required, to save us. Haymo repeats the text which we met a short time back in the Glossa ordinaria ; 5 in another passage he says : " 'Nisi ipse crucis patibulum sustinuisset, genus hu- manum ceterna morte teneretur obnoxium" But, all the same, this plan depended wholly on God's free choice.6

The ninth-century writers who came after Haymo furnish nothing new. Florus, a deacon of the Church of Lyons, wrote a commentary on St. Paul's epistles which is, however, a mere congeries of texts from St. Augustine.7 Paschasius Radbertus is another such compiler. He expresses his hope that he has not erred from the teaching of his predecessors, and that, if he has added aught it will be found to agree with

1 Rom. iii. ; col. 392. Cp. Eph. ii. ; col. 710 and Ps. xlviii.— P.L. cxvi. ; col. 362.

2 Ps. xxi. ; ibid. col. 263. Cp. Ps. Ixviii. ; col. 423.

3 In Is. liii. ; ibid. col. 989.

4 Hebr. ix.—P.L. cxvii. ; col. 884. Cp. Gal. iii. ; ibid. col. 680. It is in this wise that Haymo expounds all the texts which speak of our redemption. Rom. iii. ; col. 392. Cp. Eph. i. ; col. 703.

5 Hebr. ix. ; ibid. col. 884.

6 In Is. liii.— P.L. cxvi. ; col. 990 and 992.

7 FLOR. Com. in epist. B. Pauli. — P.L. cxix. (a work long attributed to St. Bede).

10 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

the doctrine of his masters. Like Rhabanus Maurus, he quotes in the margin the authors of whom he makes use.1 According to him our Saviour's cross is useful and even necessary for on it was offered God's own chosen expiation for the sins of the whole world." 2 The only independent mind of the period, John Scot Eriugena, was also the only one to sound a less accustomed note. He sings in Greek and Latin verse the glories of the cross,3 and states that Christ offered Himself in sacrifice on the cross for the Salvation of the whole world and that so great was the worth of His Sacrifice, that God demands no more expiation of our sins.4 But what is more, he follows in the footsteps of the Greek Fathers and seeks the sublimest ends of the Incarnation. This mystery makes us gods, snatching us from corruption and death. Christ being the head of mankind, all mankind is healed in Him.5 John Scot is fond of such general views, but he clearly connects the re- storation of fallen mankind with the Sacrifice offered on the cross. Death is the ultimate consequence of sin and the destruction of death is the ultimate result of Christ's sacrifice.6 In Scot's system the restoration of mankind is only the final outcome of the realism of the Atonement.

1 PASCH. RADBERT. In Matth. prologus. — P.L. cxx. ; col. 35. " Quorum adhaerens vestigiis, ab eorum sensibus credo me in nullo deviasse. . . . Nisi quod aut praefati dixerint aut veritas hinc hide consonat documento."

2 Ibid. lib. viii. cap. xvi. ; col. 567 f.

3 JOAN. SCOT. Verms.— P.L. cxxii. 1221-6. Cp. 1240.

4 De divis. not. v. 36 ; col. 981. Cp. ibid. 38 ; col. 1007-8.

5 Horn, in prol. loan. col. 295-6. Cp. De divis nat. v. 23 ; col. 899 jf.

6 In loan, fragm. 1 ; col. 310-313. Cp. fragm. ii. ; col. 320. Versus, ii. 58-60; col. 1225

ATTO OF VERCELLI 11

From this we glean that Scot Eriugena's soterio- logical doctrine was not only not spoilt by its author's heterodoxy on other subjects, but that on the contrary we find in it a power and grandeur such as we cannot discover in the doctrine of any of his contemporaries. But though John Scot was alone in exploring the higher regions of our doctrine, it remains that the ninth century, with all its lack of novelty, con- tinued to repeat faithfully the doctrine of the earlier ages.

IV

We can scarcely say as much of the tenth century, which has been rightly called the " dark century " ; of this age we can only quote Atto of Vercelli's commentary on St. Paul, a work which follows faith- fully St. Augustine.

Christ's death was a Sacrifice which wipes out our sins, differing in this from the useless sacrifices of the olden dispensation, and which appeases God's wrath and reconciles us with Him.1 Because His death was undeserved it destroyed our death.2 Atto even has it that Christ's Sacrifice was the only one which could effect this object, and to explain this he borrows St. Gregory's text respecting the philosophy of sacrifice.3

With regard to the eleventh century we find another more original commentary on St. Paul, ascribed to St. Bruno. This commentary sums up exceedingly well in a single sentence the double character of Christ's death : " Mortuus est iustus pro impiis : vel

1 ATTO VERCELL. Rom. iii. — P.L. cxxxiv. ; col. 162. Cp. viii. ; col. 198. Col. i. ; col. 616. Hebr. v. ; col. 755 and ix. ; col. 779-780.

2 Gal. iii.; col. 518.

3 Hebr. ix. ; col. 782-783.

12 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

vice impiorum quid impii mori deberentpro peccato mo, vel causa impiorum redimendorum." l Our Saviour thus underwent the penalty of our sins : " Peccatum factus est Christus secundum poenam peccati quam pertulit."2

In consequence of this Christ's death was a sacrifice which both reconciles us to God and forgives our sins. Bruno even adds that any other sacrifice was bound to be insufficient : " Christus dedit semetipsum non aliud sacrificium, quia nihil prceter eum sujficeret," 3 but as he often puts it, Christ gave a redemption sufficient for all.4

Towards the end of the eleventh century we find the well-stocked and well- worded homilies of Radulfus Ardens. This writer does not simply repeat the usual sayings about Christ's death freeing us from death, expiating our sins and reconciling us with God.5 He lays stress also on the moral work of our Saviour, which shows forth His love and sets us an example.6 Radulfus even attempts to classify these different benefits ; he devotes a whole homily to the texts from St. Peter (1 Pet. ii.), and asks himself the following questions : — " Quispassus est, et pro quibus, et quanta, et in quo, et quo modo, et qua nostra utilitatel" His answers are usually as good as his questions, and in dealing with the last question he distinguishes four

1 BRUN. Rom. v. — P.L. cliii. ; col. 50-51.

2 2 Cor. v. ; ibid. col. 244.. Cp. Gal. iii. ; col. 296. Ps. Ixviii.— P.L. clii. ; col. 970.

3 Gal. i. ; col. 283. Cp. Rom. v. ; col. 53. " Vere solus Christus sufficiens fuit ad iustificationem omnium."

4 Ibid. col. 54. Cp. Eph. i. ; col. 320. 1 Tim. ii.; col. 437. Hebr. vii. ; col. 527j etc.

5 RAD. ARD. Horn. ix. in Domin.—P.L. civ.; col. 1697-8. Cp. Horn, xliii. ; col. 1821 and Horn. xxi. deSanctis; col. 1568.

6 Horn. xvi. de Temp. col. 1358. Cp. Horn. xxix. ; col. 1804.

RADULFUS ARDENS 13

kinds of utility inherent in Christ's death : the bearing of our sins, the showing forth of His love, the example, and our release from the devil and restoration to God.1 He also states that Christ offered a Sacrifice which sufficed for the reconciliation of all men.2

So far all our author's expressions are derived from tradition. But further examination reveals something new, for Radulfus is the first to make use of the idea and word " satisfaction," a term which was afterwards to play so great a part in the theology of the Atone- ment. In a homily, of which the theme is similar to that which we have just quoted, our author reckons up the benefits which accrue through Christ's incarna- tion, and he finds four : the example set, the love shown, the satisfaction rendered for the fault of our first parent, and the healing of man's pride by God's humility:

" Tertia causa est ut de prima prcevaricatione satisfaceret. Ilia autem praevaricatio fuit superbia tanta, ut se elevaret raente homo usque ad aequalitatem Dei. Cum vero contraria contrariis curentur, oportuit ut ad satisfactionem illius superbice aliquis homo humiliaretur ab altitudine divinitatis usque ad humilitatem hominis. Hoc autem nemo potuit facere nisi esset Deus et homo. Propterea Deus factus est homo." 3

This is the first occasion of this term being used to describe the Atonement. It is true that Radulfus does not apply it to Christ's death but his view serves as a transition to that of St. Anselm.

Hence from the seventh to the eleventh century the theology of the Atonement made little progress, but the compilers of those times succeeded in treasur- ing up its elements.

1 Horn. Ivi. de Dom. col. 1870-2. Cp. Horn, in Dom. pars II*, horn. xxiv. ; col. 2028.

2 Horn, de Sanct. xxv. ; col. 1589. Cp. in Dom. horn. li. ; col. 1850.

3 In Dom. pars 1% horn. x. ; col. 1700-1.

CHAPTER XVIII

THE DOCTRINE OF SATISFACTION— ST. ANSELM'S

SYSTEM

THANKS to the work of commentators and glossators, who were content to play the useful though in- glorious part of channels of communication, the Middle Ages never quite lost contact with ancient thought. But though the doctrine of the Atonement was not a loser by the dark ages so neither did it gain. At the beginning of the Middle Ages theo- logians were yet on the surface of the mystery, but the time was fast approaching when superficial explanations would no longer reign supreme.

St. Anselm, who has so many claims to be called the first of the Schoolmen, was the creator of the new theology on the Atonement. Protestants and Catholics all agree that his Cur Deus Homo was " an epoch-making work," l and they are right. Not only is this work the first real treatise on the Atonement, it is also here that we find for the first time distinctly formulated that theory of Satisfaction, in the light of which the foundations of the doctrine will be explored, and which will soon become the classical theory of theology on this matter. Anselm's work, which is a masterpiece by reason both of its influence and originality, gained its author a place among the ranks of the best of the Fathers, and even to-day it remains, on account of its ideas and of the form in which they are cast, the strongest if not

1 Cp. GRETILLAT, op. cit. iv. pp. 283-284. SCHWANE, op. cit. iv. p. 466. DOERHOLT, op. cit. p. 137.

14

r-*f,

ST. ANSELM

•^O/j> ' «: ^7

the most perfect production which Christian litera- ~ ture has brought forth concerning the mystery of the Atonement.

What we did for the syntheses of Athanasius and Gregory of Nyssa we shall do for St. Anselm. We must first inspect the work, which, in the case of such a book as this, means that we must summarise it more or less in the actual form in which it was cast by the author.

The title of the work shows its scope ; the matter it discusses is the wherefore of God's becoming man (Cur Deus Homo}.1 In a brief preface Anselm tells us his method : he intends " to set Christ aside as though He had never been, and then prove by logical arguments that it is impossible for any man to be saved without Him," and that all Faith teaches us had necessarily to come to pass.2 As a matter of fact Anselm quotes no Father in the course of his treatise, nor does he touch on Scripture save to waive certain objections. His work is thus altogether speculative. He himself expresses his guiding prin- ciple as follows : —

" Sicut in Deo quamlibet parvum inconveniens sequitur impos- sibilitas, ita quamlibet parvam rationem, si maiori non vincitur, comitatur necessitas." 3

1 See the book in P.L. clviii. 361-430. [An English translation is published by Griffith, Farran, Browne & Co., London.]

2 " Remoto Christo, quasi nunquam aliquid fuerit de illo, probat rationibus necessariis esse impossibile ullum hominem salvari sine illo. . . . Quasi nihil sciatur de Christo, monstratur ... ex neces- sitate omnia quae de Christo quaerimus fieri oportere." Prcef. loc. cit. col. 361-362. Cp. i. 20 ; col. 393.

3 Ibid. i. 10; col. 375.

16 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

And in reality his treatise proceeds from one in- ference to another with merciless logic.

The fact that the treatise is couched in the form of a dialogue gives the saint's argument a liveliness which would scarcely be expected in a work of this nature. Anselm discusses the subject with his dis- ciple Boso, whom he forces little by little to adopt his system. At times, indeed, Boso seems to be a merely conventional questioner, a friend who asks a convenient question at the right moment, and who enables the principal speaker to effect easily his transitions ; sometimes he refuses to understand only in order that the saint may explain and prove his point more fully, whereas at other times, when a point is really debatable, the questioner expresses his entire agreement. Nevertheless, there are re- partees to be found in the course of the dialogue which show that Boso was no mere dummy, but a living man, and a kind of scholastic Socrates. At any rate, Anselm has composed his work with suffi- cient skill, and combined the variety and attractive- ness of the dialogue with the strictest canons of reasoning.

The dialogue consists of two books, the first of which is devoted to establishing the need of Satis- faction for sin and man's powerlessness to give it.

After letting it be known that he presupposes the Faith and wishes only to justify it by reason, and after having, with touching humility, excused himself for dealing with so profound a mystery (c. i.-ii.), Anselm proceeds to work. Boso, first of all, ex- poses the objections of unbelievers. Why did God become man, and why did He, in order to save us, suffer all sorts of humiliations? Anselm gives the customary reply in answer: God thereby showed

ST. ANSELM 17

His love and compassion ; it was needful that, as by the disobedience of man, death had come upon the human race, so by the obedience of man life should be restored ; as sin had had its beginning from a woman it was needful that the author of our justi- fication should be born of a woman; as the devil had vanquished man by the fruit of the tree so was it meet that he should be conquered by a Man by the death He bore on the tree. Here we recognise the explanations of the Fathers. But Boso objects that all these sayings are but floating metaphors, and that they are all devoid of solid foundation. This solid foundation is what Anselm will set out to seek (c. iii.-iv.).

But first of all our saint devotes several chapters to a desultory consideration of various objections ; this was his way of clearing the ground. Boso asks why man should not be saved by an angel? Because thereby man, who had been created for God, would come to belong to a creature. Again, why did not God save us by a mere act of His will ? If you say He could not, you deny His omnipotence, if you say He would not, you deny His wisdom. We are told that God redeemed us from sin, hell, and the devil, but do not all these wholly depend on God's will ? We are also told that God by the Incarnation wished to manifest His love ; but could He not have done so otherwise ? Does He not then show His love to the good angels without enduring things such as He endured on earth ? And have we any right whatever to speak of the devil in connection with the Incarna- tion ? For what real rights had the devil over man- kind? In such wise does Anselm use Boso as an instrument with which to discreetly criticise the explanations of the Incarnation then prevalent. His

II. B

18 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

only answer to the very pointed objections of his disciple is conveyed in the evasive words : " The will of God ought to be a sufficient reason for us when He does anything, even though we do not see why He wills thus, for the will of God is never unreasonable " (c. v.-viii.).

Boso goes on to raise another difficulty. Is it not contrary to reason that the Highest should stoop to such indignities and sufferings ? Anselm answers by distinguishing between the two natures and by saying that God in His impassible nature suffers naught. — But again, is it not wrong that the righteous should suffer for the unrighteous ? It is all very well to say that Christ willed to die, but Scripture only speaks of Christ's obedience to a commandment. Anselm examines this objection at length. He opines that no commandment, properly so called, was laid on Christ that He should die. God willed and ordained His death only indirectly, by laying on Him a com- mand to do something by which He incurred death, and this mission was moreover accepted by Christ of His own free will. Or again, we may say that God willed the death of Christ because He prompted His Son so to do and did nothing to set Him free ; our author then quotes all the biblical texts which speak of Christ's freedom, dealing with the question accord- ing to a method to be afterwards adopted by St. Thomas (c. viii.-x.).

But Boso returns to his point. It was not fitting that the Father should permit His Son to be treated so unworthily. Nor is it clear how Christ's death saves mankind. This question serves Anselm as a bridge by which to pass over to the discussion of the graver aspects of the problem. He begins by laying down certain principles. Man was made for blessed-

ST. ANSELM 19

ness, but this man cannot attain except by being free from sin, which, however, he cannot escape committing in his passage through the world. Hence the forgive- ness of sins is a prior condition to attaining blessedness. St. Anselm's task is therefore to investigate the nature of sin and the conditions of its forgiveness.

Sin, he argues, is the refusal to render to God what is due, and God's due is that submission and obedience which we as creatures owe to God. Whosoever ren- ders not unto God this due honour takes away from God that which is His, and dishonours God, and this is sin :

" Omnis voluntas rationalis creaturae subiecta debet esse volun- tati Dei. . . . Hunc honorem debitum qui Deo non reddit aufert Deo quod suum est et Deum exhonorat, et hoc est peccare." *

We might easily show, were we dealing with this matter, how grand this conception of sin really is, but the reader will have noticed that the legal aspect of injustice which is ascribed to it by St. Anselm is merely an explicitation of, and an insistence on, its moral aspect, that namely of disobedience. We must also point out that, whereas the Fathers usually con- fine themselves to describing the results of sin, St. Anselm seeks its nature and finds it to be an offence against God.

To secure forgiveness, the sin must needs be re- paired ; but for it to be repaired we must first restore that to God of which we have deprived Him, and yet more, in order to make compensation for the outrage we have committed against Him. This is what is called making satisfaction :

" Nee sufficit solummodo reddere quod ablatum est, sed pro con- tumelia illata plus debet reddere quam abstulit. ... Sic ergo debet omnis qui peccat honorem quern rapuit Deo solvere ; et haec est satisfactio." 2

1 C. D. H. i. 11 ; col. 376 2 Ibid. col. 376-7.

20 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

Moreover, sin being a moral damage and an act of disobedience, the ensuing satisfaction must also have a moral character, and be an act of homage and of submission (c. xi.).

Such satisfaction is necessary. St. Anselm adduces many arguments to prove this. It would not be- seem God to forgive out of His mercy, and to exact no satisfaction, for this would be to allow sin to go unpunished ; God cannot allow such disorder in His kingdom. Moreover this would result in the just and the sinner being placed on the same footing. Never- theless God commands us to forgive those that sin against us, being unwilling that we should exercise that right of vengeance which belongs to Him alone. Some indeed appeal to God's freedom and goodness, but neither the one nor the other can come into con- flict with His dignity. God owes it to Himself that the creature should give him the homage due, other- wise His own honour would suffer (c. xii.-xiii.). Whence it follows that either the honour abstracted shall be restored or punishment shall follow : " Ne- cesse est ergo aut ut ablatus honor solvatur, aut poena sequatur."1

But how does the punishment of the sinner preserve God's honour? Anselm answers this question in a digression which will help us to understand both the nature of sin and the meaning of Satisfaction.

It is impossible that God should abandon His honour and its rights. Hence of two things one : either man will spontaneously yield submission to God, or God will subject him unwillingly and by compulsion. Submission to God may be manifested either by abstaining from sin or by making satisfac- tion for it ; short of this, God will exact His due by 1 C. D. H. i. 13; col. 379.

ST. ANSELM 21

force. St. Anselm elsewhere remarks that this honour of God's is not His intrinsic honour, which cannot be diminished, inasmuch as it pertains to Himself, and can neither be increased by Satisfaction nor diminished by sin. The honour which is affected is that external honour which is shown by the due subjection of creatures, by each one following out his allotted course and preserving his place in the order of creation. This order is disturbed by sin, but sin does not on this account lie outside of God's jurisdic- tion. Anselm explains his mind by means of an ingenious comparison. If some fine day the stars were to conceive the wish of leaving their places they would find it impossible to escape from some definite position in the sky. So is it with man, for when he tries to flee from under that Will which commands, he rushes headlong under that Will which punishes. Hence all sin must necessarily be followed either by satisfaction or by penalty (c. xiv.-xv.) :

" Ipsa namque perversitatis spontanea satisfactio vel a non satis- faciente poenae exactio in eadem universitate locum tenant suum et ordinis pulchritudinem. . . . Necesse est ut omne peccatum satis- factio aut pcena sequatur." 1

All this belongs to the purest and the best of Christian metaphysics and even now it is easier to make fun of than to controvert the principles laid down.

Satisfaction is likewise necessary to preserve the Divine plan, according to which men were made to replace the fallen angels (c. xvi.-xviii.). Lastly, it is necessary for man's own happiness. A rich man holds in his hand a priceless pearl, which he intends to lay up among his treasure. An envious person jerks it out of his hand into the mud. Would the

1 C. D. H. i. 15; col. 380-1.

22 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

rich man pick up the bespattered jewel and put it into his treasure without first cleansing it ? So neither would it befit God to bring into heaven an unclean soul, and indeed man himself would thereby lose half his happiness (c. xix.).

But man was unable to furnish the satisfaction which has been shown to be necessary. The principle is that the Satisfaction must be proportionate to the sin : " Hoc quoque non dubitabis, utputo, quia secundum mensuram peccati oportet satisfactionem esse" l Other- wise the sin would remain in some measure un-re- quited. With this Boso agrees without demur. We should be less easily satisfied, and would fain learn Anselm's reasons for the proposition which he uses as his major premise.

But what can we offer to God as a satisfaction for our sins? Boso reckons up penance, contrition, humility, fasting, bodily labour, almsdeeds, forgive- ness of injuries, obedience. Anselm replies that all these things were already owing to God. What then have we to give Him ? Boso now begins to grow alarmed at his teacher's dialectics, and confesses that he is somewhat perplexed (quamvis in angustias quasdam me ducas), but he declares himself satisfied with Anselm's principles (c. xx.). For our part, how- ever, we must decline to accept them, for, though obedience and humility are ever due to God, the other actions enumerated by Boso are free and supererogatory. Anselm's mystical reasons do not avail to prove the contrary.2

Anselm adduces a second and better argument taken from the infinite grievousness of sin. Even

1 C. D. H. i. 20 ; col. 392.

2 This is also BAINVEL'S view. Diet, tktol. cath. art Anselme, col. 1346.

ST. ANSELM 23

supposing all our good actions were not already owed to God, they would still be insufficient to repair even the smallest sin. And when Boso expresses his wonder, he is told to enter more deeply into the meaning of sin : " Nondum consider asti quanti ponderis sit peccatum." l So great is the evil of sin that it would be wrong to commit one sin even to save the whole of mankind and the world from ruin. The enormity of sin results from the greatness of Him against whom it is an offence ; now, God de- mands a proportionate satisfaction for sin (c. xxi.). St. Anselm considers this proven, but we have our doubts, for we cannot see why God could not have contented Himself with a partial satisfaction, and why repentance — of which Anselm says nothing — could not have been sufficient, had it so pleased God, to wash away the sinner's stains.

Anselm also brings forward other arguments, of a different order. Man, by allowing himself to be vanquished by Satan, dishonoured God, of whose rights he was then the champion. To restore to God His ravished honour he would have to vanquish the devil, a thing which he is in no wise able to do. By suffering defeat, man has lost to God his whole race, and justice requires that he should again restore it, and this he cannot, because no sinner is able to justify another.2

Nor must it be forgotten that man is to blame for not furnishing the Satisfaction, because it was by his fault that he lost the power of making it. It is no

1C. D. H. i. 21 ; col.

2 We have already seen that several of the Fathers use arguments such as these. This proves that St. Anselm, in spite of the originality of his work, depended to a large extent on Patristic tradition.

24 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

good to plead God's mercy, for He could only dispense either from Satisfaction or from the penalty. Were He to remit our Satisfaction He would be remitting that which He cannot get, and to ascribe to God such mercy as this is the merest mockery. If, on the other hand, He remits the penalty on account of our powerlessness to make satisfaction, then, as this powerlessness is a result of our sin, God would be making man blessed on account of his guilt. More- over, any forgiveness of this kind is excluded by man. For man may be conceived of as either willing or un- willing to make satisfaction to God. If unwilling, then he is doubly guilty, if willing and yet un- able then he is insolvent; in either case there is a bar to his blessedness.

" But," exclaims the scandalised Boso, " God's mercy then seems to vanish entirely." "You asked for a logical proof," retorts Anselm, " and you must take it." " Rationem postulasti, rationem accipe." Boso is at last forced to concede that if God follows the logic of justice there is no way by which man can escape : " Ego utique nullam tuarum rationum aliquatenus infirmari posse valeo [video]" (c. xxiv.).

Hence, outside of the Christian faith, and of Christ the Redeemer, mankind cannot be saved. We must admit Salvation by Christ even though we be not sure how it was effected. It is necessary that some human beings should attain to blessedness, otherwise God would seem either to repent of what He has done, or to be unable to carry out His first intentions (c. xxv.). This last consideration forms the transition to the second book, in which Anselm investigates the necessity and efficacy of the Satisfaction of the God-man.

After dealing with some preliminaries, which have

ST. ANSELM 25

no evident bearing on his subject (c. i.-iii.), Anselm proceeds to prove that it was necessary that God should redeem us. The reason he gives us is that God must carry out that which He has designed, otherwise He will have created human nature in vain ; it would be unlike God to allow so precious a nature to perish utterly. Boso immediately pro- poses the objection that if God is obliged to avoid inconsistency it would seem that He saves us more for His sake than for ours. But if He saved us on His own account what gratitude do we owe him ? Anselm answers that there is a necessity which increases the need of gratitude — namely, when the necessity is willingly submitted to — he instances the case of promises and vows. Now God in creating man foresaw his fall, hence when He created him He bound Himself to complete the work which He had begun and restore him in due season : " Sponte se ut perficeret inceptwn bonum quasi-obligavit" We must be careful to avoid attributing absolute necessity to God. His necessity is in truth nothing else than the immutability of His honour and of His designs. God was not obliged to create us. If He did so it was out of His goodness; but His goodness owes it to itself to effect its ends. In other words, God is obliged, if indeed not necessitated, to effect the Atonement (c. iv.-v.).1

But, to save us, complete Satisfaction was needed, and to secure this, as we have already seen, it was necessary to give to God something which would surpass all that is below God ; now nothing exists above all that is not God, save God, therefore God

1 " Necesse est ut bonitas Dei propter immutabilitatem suam perficiat de homine quod incepit ; quamvis totum sit gratia bonum quod facit." C. D. H. ii. 5 ; col. 403.

26 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

alone could make this Satisfaction ; but on the other hand this Satisfaction was required from man, there- fore what was needed was one who should be both God and man :

"Si ergo necesse est ut de hominibus perficiatur ilia superna civitas, nee hoc esse valet nisi fiat praedicta satisfactio, quam nee potest facere nisi Deus, nee debet nisi homo, necesse est ut earn faciat Deus-Homo." 1

Boso, delighted with this conclusion, cannot contain his joy : " Benedictus Deus ! iam magnum quiddam invenimus" (c. vi.).

St. Anselm uses a like reasoning to show that the Redeemer must be at once perfect God and perfect Man, which can only come about by the two natures being united in a single person. He then goes on to show that this man must be of the race of Adam, and the child of a Virgin ; and that, as the whole Trinity could not become incarnate, it was fitting that the Word should take flesh (c. vii.-ix.). Boso is forced to grant that Anselm guards his position so cleverly that he cannot get away from the same conclusion :

" Sic est via qua me ducis undique munita ratione, ut neque ad dexteram neque ad sinistram videam me ab ilia posse declinare."

After having in this wise justified the Incarnation, Anselm goes on to explain the work of the Incarnate Word. This Man deserved not to die because He was without sin. Boso objects that Christ might have sinned, for instance He might have said of the Father : " I know Him not." Anselm answers that He had indeed this power, but that the will so to act was wanting, The discussion then assumes a more speculative character. If this Man was un-

1 C. D. H. ii. 6 ; col. 404.

ST. ANSELM 27

able to sin, then He remained upright of necessity ; what reward would then be due to Him for His righteousness? Anselm answers by examining the meaning of the word merit, and comes to the conclu- sion that His merit consists in His having righteous- ness from Himself. That is why the God-man, who derived everything from Himself — i.e. from His Divine Person — has infinite merit (c. x.). In this we already catch a glimpse of St. Anselm's tendency to look at the Divine side of Christ to the exclusion of His human will.

Hence the God-man, not being a sinner, was not subject to death ; how then can we explain His death ? Simply by means of His omnipotence. If He could not die He would not be Almighty. Hence He was able to lay down His life of His own accord, or allow Himself to be put to death. His death, in this wise, will furnish just that act of supreme homage which was required for the Satis- faction of sin. All the acts of obedience which He performed during His life He owed to God, as any other creature, but His death was a work of super- erogation. His death was also most befitting because it was the greatest act of love ever given to God. His death not only made satisfaction for our sins, it had other results — such as the force of its example (c. xi.-xiii.). Lastly, His death had an infinite value, hence it exceeds in value the many and great sins of mankind.1 Anselm sums up his long argument in this single clause :

"Ecce iam vides quo modo rationabilis necessitas ostendat ex hominibus perficiendam esse supernam civitatem, nee hoc posse

1 " Putasne bonum tarn amabile posse sufficere ad solvendum quod debetur pro peccatis totius mundi ? Immo, plus potest in infinitum" C.D. H.ii. 14; col. 415.

28 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

fieri nisi per remissionem peccatorum, quam homo nullus habere potest nisi per hominem qui idem ipse sit Deus atque sua morte homines peccatores Deo reconciliet." 1

Boso, to show that he has rightly grasped his master's thought, repeats in his turn the lesson :

"Summa quaestionis fuit cur Deus homo factus sit ut per mortem suam salvaret homines. . . . Ad quam tu multis et necessariis rationibus respondens, ostendisti restaurationem humanae naturae non debuisse remanere; nee potuisse fieri nisi solveret homo quod pro peccato Deo debebat. Quod debitum tantum erat ut illud, cum non deberet solvere nisi homo, non posset nisi Deus ; ita ut idem esset homo qui et Deus. Unde necesse erat ut Deus assumeret hominem in unitatem personae. . . . Vitam autem huius hominis tarn sublimem, tarn speciosam apertissime pro- basti, ut sufficere possit ad solvendum quod pro peccatis totius mundi debeter, et plus in infinitum." 2

We have yet to learn how Christ's satisfaction is applied to us. Anselm reminds his hearer that Christ, by His faithfulness to His mission even unto death, gave His life for God's honour, and that this act was free and supererogatory, and consequently meritorious. In justice, God was bound to requite such an act of generosity. Now Christ could merit nothing for Himself ; He had no debt to pay, and all His Father's goods belonged to Him. But He could pass on His merits to others, and if the Son requested this the Father could not refuse ; and on whom could He more fitly bestow these merits than on us, His brethren in the flesh (c. xix., xx.)?3 St. Anselm

1 C. D. H. ii. 15; col. 416.

2 Ibid. ii. 18; col. 425.

3 It will be noticed that St. Anselm — in this passage at least — posits, between Christ's merits and mankind .which He saves, a merely outward and legal relationship, instituted, as it were, casually, by a special and accidental decree of God. This is perhaps the weakest point in Anselm' s system ; farther on we shall propose a truer conception.

ST. ANSELM 29

concludes by saying that God stood in no need of doing all this, but that the " immutable verity " re- quired it, and that God thereby showed His great mercy.

II

The Cur Dem Homo has this advantage, that it represents in systematic form the fundamental ideas of St. Anselm, but, as Ritschl remarks,1 we must not seek his whole thought here ; his other writings reveal it under other aspects, and in some way correct it.

Anselm resumes his consideration of the Atone- ment in one of his meditations ; after having set aside the fiction of the devil's rights he comes to the subject, and deals with it according to the principles of the Cur Deus Homo, but with less logical rigour and stiffness.

The Incarnation, he states, had no other cause than the Divine Will, and the only law of this Will is goodness :

" An aliqua necessitas coegit ut Altissimus sic se humiliaret ? . . . Sed omnis necessitas eius subiacet voluntati. . . . Sola ergo volun- tate, et, quoniam voluntas eius semper bona est, sola fecit hoc bonitate."

Man could only attain to blessedness by obtaining the forgiveness of his sins, and this could only be reached through entire Satisfaction : " Peccatorem remissio non fit nisi prcecedente Integra satisfactione" As he could not furnish such Satisfaction, which nevertheless was absolutely required, Divine good- ness came to his rescue :

"Quod quoniam humana natura sola non habebat, nee sine debita satisfactione reconciliari poterat . . . , subvenit bonitas Dei."

The Death of the God-man, because it was un- 1 Op. cit. pp. 46-47.

30 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

deserved and voluntary, repaid abundantly the debt we had contracted.

But between our Saviour and ourselves there is something more than that merely legal and outward relationship alluded to by the Cur Deus Homo ; there is also a real identity, for in Christ it was our own human nature which furnished Satisfaction :

" Dedit humana natura Deo in illo homine sponte et non ex debito quod suum erat, ut redimeret se in aliis, in quibus quod ex debito exige- batur reddere non habebat." 1

In this manner St. Anselm contrived to lessen somewhat the rigidity of his dialectics, in order to make room for the conception of Divine goodness. In another meditation he enlarges yet more on the same theme.2

Anselm depicts the state of the sinner who has offended God and dealt a blow at the whole order of nature, and who now stands trembling before God's justice, but who picks up courage by recalling God's mercy, which still continues to overwhelm him with its benefits : " Peccata mea non possunt eius bonitatem vincere" God showed His mercy when, instead of punishing Adam immediately, He allowed him time to repent. This kindness He has continued to manifest towards Adam's descendants. He sent them His angels to warn them, but they plunged ever deeper into the slough of sin. He sent them the patriarchs and the prophets, and they heeded them not. Even the chastisements which from time to time He inflicted on them were merely the correc- tions of a loving Father. But all was to no purpose. Then the Divine goodness could no longer restrain itself (non se potuit fans pietatis ultra retinere), and

1 Medit. xi. ; ibid. col. 764-766.

2 Ibid. vi. ; col. 736-738.

ST. ANSELM 31

the Son of God Himself deigned to assume our man- hood that He might restore hope to us and preach penance. To this end he carried His love so far as to die for us in order to redeem us by His blood and thereby snatch us from despair.

In another passage Anselm shows how our Saviour underwent the chastisement of our sins, and, in words full of feeling, describes the mystery of substitution : " He who had done no sin bore our sins and healed our wounds by His sufferings. . . . Didst thou, O Lord, not strike Him, though He was Thy Son, in order to redeem the servant?" He proceeds with the following prayer : —

" Conspicare Dei hominis pcenam et relaxa conditi hominis miseriam. Vide Redemptoris supplicium et redempti dimitte delictum. Hie est quern propter peccata populi tui percussisti, licet ipse sit dilectus. ..."

St. Anselm now gives full vent to his emotion :

" O mirabilis censurae condicio ! et ineffabilis mysterii dispositio ! Peccat iniquus et punitur iustus ; deliquit reus et vapulat innocens ; offendit impius et damnatur pius ; quod meretur malus patitur bonus ; quod perpetrat servus exsolvit dominus. . . . Ego inique egi, tu pcena mulctaris ; ego f acinus admisi, tu ultione plecteris." 1

We likewise read in one of his sermons :

" Ego peccavi quod tu tulisti ; ego servus contumax commisi quod tu devapulasti . . . causa tuae mortis fuit iniquitas mea, vulnera tua fecerunt crimina mea." 2

Lastly Bitschl is quite right in saying that a few reminiscences of Athanasius are to be found in St. Anselm. The Incarnation was an ointment for our suffering eyes which made them to see God and to love Him, and thereby to merit one day a share in His blessedness :

1 Oral. ii. ; ibid. col. 860-1 .

2 Serm. ibid. col. 675.

32 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

" Ecce Redemptor tuus caecatis luminibus collyrium suae Incarna- tionis apposuit, ut qui Deum in secreto maiestatis fulgentem videre non poteras, Deum in homine apparentem aspiceres, aspiciendo cognosceres, cognoscendo diligeres, diligens summo studio ad eius gloriam pervenire satageres."

By His Incarnation God also made us partakers of His Divine unchangeableness :

" Incarnatus est ut te ad spiritualia revocaret. Mutabilitatis tuae particeps factus est, ut te suae incommutabilitatis participem faceret. Inclinavit se ad humilia tua, ut te sublimaret ad excelsa sua."

For in the Incarnate Word the entire human kind was glorified :

"Ipse namque Deus tuus per Incarnationis mysterium factus frater tuus, quid tibi inenarrabilis gaudii causaverit, dum naturam super omnem creaturam videris in eo exaltatam." l

But, this notwithstanding, St. Anselm is even more struck by the Saviour's humanity :

" Certe nescio quia, nee plene comprehendere valeo unde hoc est quod longe dulcior es in corde diligentis te in eo quod caro es, quam in eo quod Verbum ; dulcior in eo quod humilis, quam in eo quod sublimis." 2

He again describes the love which is testified to by the Incarnation and the love which it demands of us:

" Nee mens mea capere, nee lingua sufficit exprimere quam sis dignus amari a me, qui tantum dignatus es amare me. Creasti me cum non essem, redemisti me cum perditus essem. Sed conditionis quidem meae et redemptionis causa sola fuit dilectio tua. . . . Mul- tum quidem contulisti Creator, sed longe plus Redemptor. Si diligo multum te, tu certe et ante dilexisti me et plus. Dilexisti quando non dilexi, et, nisi non diligentem diligeres, diligentem quoque non efficeres." 3

1 Med. i. 8; ibid. col. 71 6-7.

2 Med. xii. ; col. 770-1.

3 Ibid. col. 772. Cp. Med. i. 6; col. 714. Med. xi. ; col. 769. Oral. xli. ; col. 935-7.

ST. ANSELM 33

Not only does the Atonement inspire us with love it also gives us confidence. If the sight of our sins scares us, let the thought of Christ's death reassure us :

" Cum respicio ad mala opera quse opera tus sum, si me iudicare vis secundum quod merui, certus sum de perditione mea : cum vero respicio ad mortem tuam, quam pro redemptione peccatorum passus es, non despero de misericordia tua." x

In yet another place we find this prayer :

" Cerne manus innocuas pio manantes sanguine et remitte placa- tus scelera quse patraverunt manus meae 2 ... Si me pro mea, ut dignum est, despicis iniquitate, respice me saltern misertus pro dilectse sobolis charitate. . . . Multum quippe est quod meretur mea impietas : longe autem maius est quod Redemptoris mei re- poscit iure pietas." 3

These short extracts show us that there was another side to Anselm's mind of which the somewhat for- bidding dialectics of the Cur Deus Homo give us no hint ; the two sides are not contradictory, they are mutually complementary. We preferred to quote this other side of his teaching before discussing his doctrine, that we might thereby have a complete view of his system and provide beforehand against certain objections.

Ill

St. Anselm's system was at once too original and too important not to have drawn on itself the atten- tion and the animadversions of the historians of dogma whose zeal is moreover far from being entirely unbiassed. They do not merely praise the logic and the novelty of his conceptions, nor do they forget that he set the Atonement on its true basis, an exact

1 Med. vi. ; col. 740.

2 Oral. ii. ibid. ; col. 860.

3 Ibid. col. 864. Cp. col. 865. II. C

34 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

analysis of sin, and that in this matter he gave Catholic theology its definitive form — this last con- sideration perhaps furnishes an explanation for the persistent attacks of which St. Anselm is the butt, for, as M. Sabatier says, by blowing up the walls of St. Anselm's fortress the whole Catholic army may be buried in its ruins.

A classical objection is to ascribe to a Germanic source that idea of satisfaction which, as we have seen, is put by St. Anselm at the foundation of his system. Germanic law allowed of a crime being forgiven in consideration of a pecuniary compensation, or Wer- geld, which is not a penalty but a species of voluntary fine ; understood thus, Satisfaction takes the place of the penalty and dispenses from it. Now there is no doubt that this is St. Anselm's principle : " Omne peccatum satisfactio aut poena sequatur" On the other hand, according to Roman law the two ideas of satisfaction and penalty were correlative. That was the reason why the Latin Fathers attributed to Christ's death a penal character, whereas St. Anselm ascribes to it a satisfadent value. Hence the fact of this idea being derived from the old Teutonic law is evident : such at least is the view of Ritschl and of some of his disciples.1

But history gives the lie to this superficial identifi- cation, for it tells us that the elements of St. Anselm's theory of Satisfaction are to be found even from the beginning in the theory and practice of ecclesiastical penance, especially as it was understood by the Latin Church. Long before she had any knowledge of Germanic law, the Church had bidden her sinful children choose between two things: everlasting

1 RITSCHL, op. cit. 1, p. 40. Cp. CREMER, in Studien und Kritikeny 1880, p. 7 s. and 1893, pp. 316-345.

ST. ANSELM 35

death, which is the penalty of the sinner, or penance, which is the voluntary compensation for this penalty. It is Tertullian who vouches for this : " Omne delictum aut venia dispungit aut poena" and he shows the direction to be taken by Christian thought when he adds: "venia ex castigatione, pcena ex damnatione"1 Sulpicius Severus had also laid it down that "forni- catio deputatur adpcenam, nisi satisfactione purgatur" 2 Surely it would be a matter of difficulty to prove that this writer was under the influence of Germanic law. It may be argued that, according to Roman law, Satisfaction was the penalty itself ; but it is easy to reply that, in the penitential discipline of the early Church, Satisfaction was never at any time conceived of solely according to the principles of Roman law. Again, it is wrong to set in opposition, as if they were irreconcilable, the ideas of Satisfaction and penalty ; for in point of fact Satisfaction always consists in a penalty — not of course in the penalty deserved by the guilty, but in a work which is troublesome to him who undertakes it. The very most we can say is that the idea of Satisfaction came to Anselm through a Germanic channel ; the term acquired indeed in Anselm 's works a new meaning, but we have no right to deny that St. Anselm's idea was originally drawn from an ecclesiastical source; that this was the case is sufficiently proved by facts.

Such are the conclusions to which modern historians have come ; conclusions which are all the more solid in that they proceed from a quarter which can cer- tainly not be suspected of any bias. In what we have just said we have been merely summing up, almost verbatim, the reasoning of Harnack and

1 TERTULL. De pudicit. ii. — P.L. ii. ; col. 985.

2 SULP. SEVER. Dial. ii. 10. — P.L. xx.; col. 208.

36 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

Loofs.1 In spite of this, Ritschl's untenable view has been adopted by the popularisers of the history of Dogma, notably by M. Lichtenberger and M. Sabatier.2

But those historians who do not seek to contest the Catholic origin of Anselm's doctrine are not on that account favourably disposed to it; on the contrary, they never tire of carping at it ; in this we find Harnack in complete agreement with Ritschl. After having faithfully and scrupulously summarised the Cur Deus Homo, Harnack devotes to St. Anselm a long critique, in which, against a few appreciative remarks, are set seven solid pages containing very nearly every objection that could possibly be levelled against St. Anselm. 3

First of all, in order to show what Anselm's theory is not and will not be, Harnack points to its doctrinal incompleteness. Remarkable for its absence is any doctrine of reconciliation, of penal suffering, and of substitution in the proper sense of the word, or any theory assuring Salvation to the individual.4 This we may answer by saying that the Cur Deus Homo deals with the objective requisites of Salvation, but that Christ's Satisfaction, when once allowed, becomes — as we see from St. Anselm's meditations — a fruitful source of confidence and love. No better means of reconciliation, no better assurance of Salvation could exist for the individual. Harnack also takes it griev- ously that Anselm forgets the principle of the guiltless

,

1 HARNACK, op. cit. iii. pp. 357-358, note 2. Cp. ii. pp. 176-177. LOOFS, Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte (3rd ed.), p. 273.

2 LICHTENBERGER, op. cit. p. 139. SABATIER, op. cit. p. 54.

3 HARNACK, op. cit. iii. pp. 367-374. RITSCHL, op. cit. i. pp. 38-47.

* Ibid. pp. 367-368.

ST. ANSELM 37

suffering for the guilty,1 forsooth because Anselm speaks of Christ's death as a Satisfaction rather than a penalty in the true sense of the word. But on the other hand all satisfaction is troublesome — Harnack had pointed this out himself — and consequently Satis- faction necessarily partakes of the nature of a penalty ; moreover, what else could be the Satisfaction of Christ, who had no sin of His own to expiate, save the penalty of our sins ? At the same time we admit that in the Cur Deus Homo these ideas remain in the back- ground; the end he was pursuing in this dialogue led St. Anselm to accentuate the main outlines of his doctrine to the detriment of the secondary ideas. These other ideas reappear, however, in the freer setting of his Meditations, and we have already had occasion to see how touching were the thoughts sug- gested to him by the idea of substitution. Hence it would be wrong to turn into a weapon against St. Anselm his omission of certain points with which he forbears to deal, simply because they would have been out of place in his didactic work, and not because they were in any way inconsistent with his system.

But these defects are as nothing compared with the other faults and contradictions which Harnack dis- covers in St. Anselm's doctrine, and which are equally offensive to common sense, morality, and the gospel.2 Following in the footsteps of Ritschl, the learned historian, with the help of much subtle logic curiously reminiscent of scholasticism, proceeds to lay bare the antinomies inherent in St. Anselm's system. There is a contradiction in that God's honour may be and may not be injured — as if St. Anselm had not

1 HARNACK, p. 368. Cp. p. 374.

2 Ibid. pp. 369-371. Cp. RITSCHL, op. cit. pp. 44-46.

38 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

established the distinction between God's inward and inviolable honour and that merely outward honour which consists in the order of the world, and which we may either observe or violate. There is another contradiction because God exacts Satisfaction now on His own behalf, now on that of man — as if there could be any contradiction in proving a thesis by two arguments belonging to different orders, but both tending in the same direction. There is a yet worse contradiction in that Christ's death is described as free, whereas on the other hand it is included in His mission of obedience. But had not St. Anselm expressly declared that Christ was not bound to die, because He was sinless, and that the texts which would seem to hint at a command to die must be understood as signifying merely His foreknowledge of, and His having accepted beforehand, His voluntary self-sacrifice ? Lastly, it seems to Harnack that the two ideas of Satisfaction and merit are incompatible. But as Loofs,1 a Protestant historian, who holds a different view from Harnack's, has it : "It was already quite a common opinion in the penitential teaching that supererogatory works afford satisfaction for sin, and that, when need for satisfaction is non-existent, or no longer exists, they form a beginning of merit. But in Christ's case this is exactly what happened, for He did not refuse to suffer death which had no right over Him."

Besides these inherent contradictions, Harnack makes many other complaints against St. Anselm. One of the oddest of these is that he accuses St. Anselm of rejecting the doctrine of the two natures and of dividing Christ according to the manner of the Nestorians (eine volkommene nestorianische Zerreissung

1 LOOFS, op. cit. pp. 273-274.

ST. ANSELM 39

der Person).1 The only ground for this complaint seems to be that Anselm had said that Christ's satis- faction was made by His humanity, and derived from His divine Person an infinite value. Harnack allows that this is the Western tradition held also by Ambrose and Augustine ; we might go further and point out that it was also the tradition of the East, but Harnack's own admission is sufficient to set our minds at rest regarding Anselm's orthodoxy.

Lastly, Harnack objects to the very principle of Satisfaction, and roundly accuses Anselm of having transformed moral realities into legal categories 2 ; of having conceived of sin as a debt and a personal offence against God, of having viewed God as a jealous proprietor who defends His rights and His honour, an idea of God which Harnack agrees with Kitschl in describing as " entirely mythological " (der mythologische Begriff Gottes).3 We are also told that St. Anselm depicts God as drawn between two — between His mercy and His justice ; M. Sabatier repeating the accusation of Strauss, charges St. Anselm with having "introduced into theology a theorem similar to that of the parallelogram of forces : the Divine mercy pulling towards forgive- ness and the Divine justice demanding pitiless punishment are the two forces of which the neces- sary resultant is the diagonal of vicarious satis- faction." What is yet worse is that God is described as cruel, as unwilling to pardon us by love, and as taking pleasure in the death of His Son.

1 HARNACK, ibid. p. 372.

2 Cp. LlCHTENBERGER, Op. Clt. p. 140. GRE~TILLAT, Op. Clt. iv. p. 287.

SABATIER, passim.

3 HARNACK, ibid. p. 373. Cp. RITSCHL, op. cit. p. 43.

4 SABATIER, op. cit. pp. 53-54.

40 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

Hence it is the Father who is just and the Son who is good — in other words, a division is set up in the very bosom of the Trinity. Is this not the merest gnosticism, or indeed something worse than any gnosticism ? Such at least is Harnack's impression.1

After having thus convicted Anselm of leanings to Nestorianism, mythology, and gnosticism, the learned professor can scarcely be blamed for stating that a more pernicious theory than that of Anselm never has seen the light within the Church. He adds, however, that, granting the separation of Christ's death from the rest of His life, no better theory could be suggested.

This last sentence perhaps gives us the key to the previous anathemas. The reason of all this ire is that Anselm attributes to Christ's death a special and objective value ; that, whilst fully acknowledging the worth of the other actions of Christ's life, he takes His death as an independent factor, and as one which, of itself alone, furnishes the foundation of our Salvation. In a word, St. Anselm laid down the theory of that realistic conception of the Atonement which, as we have seen, had prevailed throughout the course of tradition. This is the reason why critics have seen fit to belabour him with all the reproaches which it is customary to heap on the Catholic doc- trine of the Atonement, and, generally speaking, on all Christian metaphysics. This is not the place to reply to all these objections in detail. We have already seen how sin, though it does not person- ally hurt God, is an offence against Him ; how His justice demands a chastisement though it does

1 " Dieganz gnostische Spannung zwischen Gerechtigkeit und Giite sofern der Vater der Gerechte ist und der Sohn der Gute." Op. cit. p. 373.

ST. ANSELM 41

so without prejudice to His goodness ; how Christ's death was willed by God though He did not take pleasure in it ; how, in a word, the whole work of Atonement was the result of the love both of the Father and of the Son, a work which was nevertheless effected consistently with the claims of the most rigorous justice. As for the legal formulae : honour, debt, satisfaction, etc. — which are used by St. Anselm and also by us — we have already, in summarising the Cur Dens Homo, shown how that they are merely a better-fitting garment and a more exact expression of certain great moral truths. Is it then true that not theologians only, but also his- torians are sometimes deceived by the appearance of words ?

The above are the reasons why Catholic theology adopted the doctrinal legacy left by St. Anselm and failed to perceive in it any leanings towards either gnosticism or mythology ; doubtless, too, Catholic theology will not lightly abandon this legacy, in spite of those historians who deny its orthodoxy.

But does this amount to saying that Anselm's system is the perfect expression of Catholic truth, and that it comprises no inexactitude and no ex- aggeration which might explain, though not indeed justify, the charges which are brought against it ?

In the course of our examination of St. Anselm's doctrine we ventured to criticise certain points ; for instance, we allowed that he does not bring out sufficiently Christ's human freedom, and that he does not seem to admit the possibility of works of supererogation. Another accusation which might be rightly made against the Cur Deus Homo is that it fails to establish an intimate solidarity between Christ and ourselves. The Saviour, by His voluntary

42 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

death, acquires in God's sight an infinite merit which remains, so to speak, unapplied ; in order that this merit be applied to us there is required a new and special act of God, who, seeing Himself unable to recompense His Son, consents to remunerate His brethren in the Flesh. This manner of conceiving of the application of Christ's merits is explained by the legal procedure adopted by St. Anselm, but this explanation is not a sufficient excuse for the artificial and mechanical character of his scheme. This is the weakest point in St. Anselm's system.1 We have, however, shown that the eleventh meditation corrects and completes the defect apparent in the Cur Deus Homo, a fact which tends to prove how difficult it is even for the greatest genius to compress his thoughts within the narrow boundaries of a system.

But the greatest objection alleged against St. Anselm's doctrine is that he represents as necessary the method adopted by God for the Atonement; that he, as it were, obliges God to it, and considers God as bound by the twofold necessity of redeeming us and of exacting an adequate satisfaction for our sin which could only be furnished by the God-man. There can be no doubt that this is Anselm's view, a view which is equally alien to the Fathers and to our theologians, who all contend that God was supremely free. This objection is anything but new, for it was made against St. Anselm soon after the publication of his book. Of this we have a curious testimony in a letter addressed to Abaelard. The writer, whom some believed to have been Roscelin, answers Abaelard, who had accused him of having calumniated certain saintly men, in particular that " grand doctor of the Church, Anselm, bishop of Canterbury." He dis-

1 Cp. HARNACK, op. cit. pp. 368-369.

ST. ANSELM 43

poses of this charge by stating that he reveres this glorious pontiff, who, by the saintliness of his life and the splendour of his learning, stands far above all other men, but that on one point he feels obliged to dissent from his doctrine :

"Ait enim in libro, quern ' Cur Deus homo ' intitulat, aliter non posse Deum homines salvare nisi sicut fecit/ id est nisi homo fieret et omnia ilia quae passus est pateretur. Eius sententiam sanctorum doctorum, quorum doctrina fulget Ecclesia, dicta vehe- menter impugnant." 1

Many attempts have been made to soften, by benignant interpretation, St. Anselm's thought. It has been pointed out that he has no wish of im- posing on God any necessity strictly so-called, that he himself states that all necessity depends on God's free will.2 Hence, when he speaks of the necessity of our Atonement, what he is thinking of is the actual, present plan of Providence, which, once decreed, must necessarily come to pass. It is also argued that this necessity may merely imply fitness. Such is Doerholt's argument ; but in order to be able to reason thus he is obliged to have recourse to distinctions invented by St. Thomas and by Suarez, and, finally, he too has to admit that St. Anselm might have put matters more clearly.3 As for the necessity of Satisfaction, this same author frankly avows that he can find no excuse for St. Anselm, and that the saint has failed to consider quite a number of possible

1 Inter opp. AB^JLARD, Epist. xv. — P.L. clxxviii. ; col. 362. Cp. ibid. Ep. xiv. ; col. 357-358.

2 " Omnis quippe necessitas et impossibilitas eius subiacet volun- tati. Illius autem voluntas nulli subditur necessitati aut impossi- bilitati. Nihil enim est necessarium aut impossibile nisi quia ipse ita vult." Cur Deus Homo, ii. 17.

3 DOERHOLT, op. cit. pp. 200-211.

44 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

hypotheses between the two extremes of entire Satisfaction for sin and a free pardon which allows sin to go entirely unrequited.1 On the whole, it is better to acknowledge openly that St. Anselm "lays too much stress on the necessity of God's having to create men to take the place of the fallen angels and on the impossibility of a free pardon."2 Anselm was led astray into these exaggerations by the apriorism of his methods and by the very object of his work, which, as will be remembered, was to demonstrate by reason to the unbeliever the need of the Incarnation. Such a demonstration was itself an impossibility, and it is not a thing to be wondered at, if, even in the twelfth century, protests were heard. Ever since then, like protests have been registered by every theologian who has studied objectively the work of St. Anselm.3

But in the course of his work St. Anselm had touched on some of the sublimest problems. He had shown that Salvation may be brought down to the repairing of sin, conceived of as an offence against God; he had also been led to study the grievousness of sin and the demands of Divine Jus- tice. Moreover, the principles of which he makes use, though they may not prove the necessity of the Incarnation and of the Atonement, do at least serve to show the wonderful fitness of both. In a word, St. Anselm was the great builder of the theology of the Atonement ; his Cur Deus Homo gives the plan and the framework of this theology; on later theologians will devolve the humbler task of per-

1 DOERHOLT, p. 265. Cp. pp. 267-268.

2 BAINVEL, op. cit. col. 1346.

3 Cp. PETAVIUS, De Incarn. Ferbi, lib. ii. c. xiii. 8-12. SCHWANE, op. cit. iv. pp. 470-471. Cp. p. 478.

YVO OF CHARTRES 45

fecting his work by introducing into it that which it lacks by way of elasticity.

IV

"Anselm's theory did not forthwith succeed as well as might have been expected. The older tradi- tion still held sway over men's minds and over popular preaching. Anselm's rational speculations and his Platonic dialectics excited much admiring wonder but proportionately little confidence."1 If M. Sabatier intended this clause of his as anything more than a merely oratorical embellishment, serving as a transition from Anselm to Abaslard, then we can only say that this statement is not warranted by history.

By this we must not, however, be taken to mean that St. Anselm immediately gave rise to a new school of thought. The Cur Deus Homo was written about the year 1098, and some time had to elapse before it became known abroad. Hence it is not to be wondered at that it was unknown to certain writers at the beginning of the twelfth century. Such was the case, for instance, with Yvo of Chartres, who died in 1116. On the Atonement he confines himself to the traditional generalities. According to him, Christ's death was a Sacrifice pre-figured by the sacrifices of the Old Law.2 By it our death was destroyed ; by Christ's obedience on the Cross the results of Adam's disobedience were repaired.3

What is more remarkable is the case of St.

1 SABATIER, op. cit. p. 58.

2 Yvo CARNUT. Serm. v.— P.L. clxii. ; col. 535-549. Cp. Serm. viii. ; col. 569-570.

3 Ibid. Serm. vi. ; col. 563-564.

46 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

Hildebert of Lavardin. He was a friend and corre- spondent of St. Anselm's ; he reproaches him with the fewness and shortness of his letters.1 He was acquainted with some of his friend's works, for a letter of his is preserved in which he asks St. Anselm for the work in which the latter had embodied the substance of what he had said against the Greeks at the Council of Bari. St. Anselm answered, send- ing him those of his works which Hildebert had not yet seen.2 This happened at about the time when the Cur Deus Homo first saw the light, but, this notwithstanding, we find no trace of this work in Hildebert 's theology.

When explaining the wherefore of the Incarnation, the latter states that no fitter means of Salvation could be found. The devil had to be vanquished by a man, and the Mediator, in order to reconcile God and Man, had to unite in Himself the two natures ; lastly, that God could not have found any better means of demonstrating His love.3 Again when describing the work of the Saviour, Hildebert, in a series of stately antitheses, tells us that His life was the example of our life, and that His death was the destruction of ours :

" Vita Christ! nobis regula vivendi ; mors Christi nostra est a morte redemptio et liberatio. Vita Christi nostram instruxit, mors Christi nostram destruxit." 4

In another passage he makes his own the legal axiom of the Fathers: " Duas nostras mortes ma simplici morte delevit."5 He also concedes to Christ's

1 HILDEBERT. CENOM. Epitt. lib. iii. 6. — P.L. clxxi. ; col. 287.

2 Ibid. lib. ii. 9-11 ; col. 216 and 218.

3 Serm ix. ; col. 384. Cp. Serm. xi. ; col. 390. Serm. Ixxi. ; col. 683. Serm. Iv. ; col. 610.

4 Ibid. xcix. ; col. 799.

5 Ibid, xlviii. ; col. 579.

BRUNO OF ASTI 47

death a penal value: " Pcence, quas non pro suis9 sed alioru7n peccatis pertulit"1 And he adds that so great was our sin that it could be expiated by no other victim :

"Tantum erat peccatum human! generis ut per aliam hostiam non posset dimitti, nisi Unigenitus Dei Films moreretur pro nobis debitoribus mortis." 2

These different texts are all of them in agreement with tradition, but there is nothing in them to sug- gest that the writer was in any way indebted to St. Anselm.

Belonging to about the same period is the short treatise on the Incarnation by Bruno of Asti, Bishop of Segni, who died in 1125. This tract also ignores the doctrine of Satisfaction, and the author confines himself to explaining the Atonement by means of the traditional philosophy of Sacrifice.

God, he says, having failed to repair the angels' fall by means of guiltless man, resolved to do so by redeeming guilty man. But this He could not do without a sacrifice (et hoc non sine immolatione). This sacrifice was due to the Creator, this much is clear ; but who was to offer it ? It was not fit that it should be offered by an inanimate creature or by a creature devoid of reason. Hence it had to be offered by a rational being. But among rational creatures, angels were unable to offer it, being by nature invisible; hence it could only be offered by a man : " Constabat igitur ut ab homine hcec fieret oblatio."

But the question arises : Of what nature must

1 Serm. xlii. ; col. 551. Cp. Serm. xcix. ; col. 805. Serm. cvi. ; col. 830.

2 Serm. xcix. ; col. 802. Cp. ibid. col. 797-798. Serm. c.; col. 809 /.

48 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

this sacrifice be ? Evidently it must be equal or superior to those for whom it is offered :

"In auctoritate compertum est ut hoc sacrificium par aut exu- berans esse debeat pro quo offertur."

Hence a reasonable victim was required for the human race (rationale pro rationali condecens hostia aderat). Was man himself such a victim ? No, because all men are sinners, and, moreover, because a single man could not suffice to redeem the whole human race. Nor could this office be fulfilled by an angel, because the nature of an angel is such as to render suffering impossible in his case, and, even grant- ing that he could become incarnate, no angel would have sufficient love to offer himself on our behalf (angelica charitas pro iniusto puniri frigesceret). Hence one only could save us, the God-man :

" Quapropter solus restabat Creator qui . . . hominem liberarat . . . et hoc non in sua natura, sed per assumptum hominem, ut qui solum hominem redimere venerat Deus et homo immolaretur." 1

In this curious passage there are some striking reminiscences of Gregory the Great ; but at the most it could only be argued that the author applied to the popular notion of Sacrifice the methods of St. Anselm's dialectics.

So far, then, we have found no trace of any direct influence of St. Anselm. Nevertheless, recollecting how much his friends urged him to publish the Cur Deus Homo, and how, as we learn from St. Anselm's own statement, they even went so far as to circulate surreptitiously inexact transcripts of it,2 there can be no doubt about the favour with which this work must have been received on its first publication.

1 BRUNO AST. De Incarn.—P.L. clxv. ; coL 1079-1081.

2 ANSELM, Cur Deus Homo, i. 1-2 ; col. 361-363 Prcef. and col. 359- 360.

HONORIUS OF AUTUN 49

Again, as we have already seen, it was sufficiently well known at the beginning of the twelfth century to have called forth a protest. But, happily, we have far stronger testimonies to the influence exerted by St. Anselm, and several texts exist in which this influence can be directly traced.

The Elucidarium, now usually ascribed to Honorius of Autun (1120), long passed as a work of St. Anselm himself, an ascription which is not surprising, con- sidering how well it reflects the great Doctor's doctrine.

Sin is grievous, more grievous even than all worldly evils. For us to be saved two things were required : God's honour had to be restored to Him and Satisfac- tion had to be made for the injury that had been done. As sin is something greater than the world, man, in order to repair it, had to offer to God some- thing greater than the world ; now, manifestly, such a thing he could by no means do. But God did not will to leave him to perish utterly, lest His Divine plan should be brought to naught (statutum Dei immutari non potuit). Why, however, did He not pardon His creature, seeing that it had repented ? Because if He allowed His honour to be thus flaunted, and found no means of restoring it to Him- self, His powerlessness would then be manifest, and because, if, on the other hand, He allowed man to be glorified, without inflicting on him any punishment, this would be going counter to Justice. Hence God deigned to send us a Saviour. It was neither possible nor fit that this Saviour should be an angel ; on the other hand, a mere man would have been powerless to make Satisfaction (homo per se satisfacere non potuit). Hence the Son of God became incarnate and by His precious and undeserved death paid our debt :

II. D

50 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

" In ea autem natura qua homo fuit, maius pro iniuria mundo solvit, cum mortem indebitam subiit, quod solus homo debuit facere."

God moreover did not exact this death ; He merely permitted it. Christ underwent it out of the purest love, thereby acquiring an infinite merit, which is applied to us.1 All this is nothing but a summary of the Cur Deus Homo. This same doctrine is re- peated by Honorius, in similar words, in another of his works, in which we find this excellent formula : " Quod Filius Dei est iucarnatus seu pro homine im- molatus, quantum ad ipsum solafuit voluntas ; quantum ad hominem, summa necessitas"

It was necessary because it was not fit that an angel should redeem us, and because no man could do so :

" Ilium ergo mitti oportuit, qui solus sine peccato Deo hominem reconciliare potuit. Et cur in homine venit ? Ut ipse innocens pro homine reo Deo Patri satisfaceret." 2

The treatise written by Hermann, Abbot of St. Martin at Tournai, somewhere in the first quarter of the twelfth century, is a more personal work than the Elucidarium, but it none the less faithfully follows the theory of St. Anselm.3 The author himself names the Cur Deus Homo as one of the works he has utilised.

He sets himself to answer the same question as St. Anselm : Why did God, who could have redeemed man by a single fiat, choose the so laborious means

1 HONOR. AUG. Elucidarium, i. 15-17. — P.L. clxxii. ; col. 1120-2. Cp. ibid. 21 ; col. 1125-6.

2 Inemtabile, ibid. col. 1207-8. This was not, however, the only object of the Incarnation, for Honorius teaches that, even had sin not existed, the Son of God would have become man in order to deify the human race. Libell. octo qucest. ibid. col. 1187-8.

8 HERMANN, De Incarn. i.-vi. — P.L. clxxx. ; col. 11-12.

HERMANN 51

of the Incarnation and Passion ? He replies that God had created man to take the place of the fallen angels ; this is why, when the devil had led man astray, God still desired to save him. But it was first of all necessary that man should be reconciled with God, and, for this, Satisfaction was required :

" Haec autem reconciliatio sine aliqua peccati ipsius satisfactione fieri non potest."

Now Satisfaction comprises two things : compensa- tion for the damage done, and the repairing of the injury. Man by his sin had stolen from God all the souls which God purposed to save. To make Satis- faction he must therefore restore these souls, or their equivalent. But it is clear that a man cannot restore to God all the souls destined to be saved, he is un- able to restore even a single soul such as that of Adam. The reason of this is that every man is a sinner ; even though he offered to die for the sins of others he could not justify his own self, and still less others. On the other hand, can man restore, in lieu of these souls, some real equivalent ? No ; for all sacrifices, and the world itself, are nothing in com- parison with the value of a soul. What then was God to do ? Create a new man who should be just, as Adam was ? But even such a man would not be able to redeem all men, and an angel would likewise be incapable of so doing. In fine, no creature, no not even the whole world, could offer to God a sufficient satisfaction for the sin of the first man.

From which it appears that God alone could offer such a satisfaction, whilst man alone owed it. God therefore became man, and, as the Creator's worth transcends that of all creatures, His death formed a superabundant compensation. His humiliations,

52 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

moreover, repaired the injury done to God by our pride and thus Christ furnished complete Satisfaction.

This material and quantitative equivalence estab- lished by Hermann is, of course, a quite illegitimate travesty of St. Anselm's deep doctrine, and the latter cannot be held responsible for it, but even in the false interpretation of the disciple we can recognise the influence of the master.

In describing Christ's work of Satisfaction, Her- mann was the first to speak both of the sacrifice He had offered to God and of the undeserved death which He suffered as the penalty of our faults ; he thus succeeded in combining the traditional saying with the new ideas introduced by St. Anselm. A like combination is to be found in the Commentaries of Herveus, a monk of Bourg-Dieu, who died in 1150.

Herveus, like his predecessors, follows in the foot- steps of St. Augustine. Hence he considers Christ's death as a sacrifice for sin which is agreeable to God by the love which it demonstrates, and which thereby reconciles us with God.1 This does not mean that God had not loved us before, but that by Christ's death was made the expiation of those sins which had estranged us from God.2 Only Christ's death could suffice for the remission of all sins,3 and it likewise had a penal character and paid our debt.4 In this we find merely a restatement of the usual sayings. But Herveus, in at least one passage, has recourse also to the idea of Satisfaction :

1 HERV. In Rom. viii. — P.L. clxxxi. ; col. 698. Cp. 2 Cor. v. ; col. 1048. Gal. i. ; col. 1132. Eph. v. ; col. 1258.

2 Rom. v. ; col. 659-660. Cp. Rom. iii. ; col. 639.

3 2 Cor. v. ; col. 1048. Cp. Hebr. vii. ; col. 1591.

4 Rom. v. col. 658-661. Cp. Gal iii. ; col. 1154. Is. liii. ; col. 493.

HERVEUS 53

" Interficiens inimicitias : Ipse enim pro nobis Deo satisfecit, sus- tinendo passiones et opprobria vice nostri, quas nos merito pati deberemus." a

From this text it is clear that the idea of Satisfac- tion was not really a new one, but rather a stronger and more scientific statement of an idea already ancient. This explains why St. Anselm's doctrine was everywhere unhesitatingly accepted as soon as it became known. From its first statement it was seen to be just that natural and simple formula which theology had awaited so long. This same formula was soon to see service in the defence of truth in the now fast approaching hour of contradiction.

1 Eph. ii. ; col. 1228.

CHAPTER XIX

OUTBREAK OF RATIONALISM AND ORTHODOX COUNTERBLAST

ABSELARD — ST. BERNARD — HUGO OF ST. VICTOR

WE have seen that, so far, the doctrine of the Atone- ment had been growing slowly but peacefully without having once encountered a professed and determined adversary. But the theology of the Atonement was not to escape such an ordeal, though, whereas the other doctrines were, so to speak, assailed in their very cradle, and were reduced to the necessity of defending themselves almost before they had come into being, that of the Atonement was not called into question until it had reached maturity. The doctrine had just received its almost final touch from St. Anselm when Abaelard appeared on the scene. Abselard did not indeed lead an attack on the faith, but, as with the other doctrines of the Church, so on that of the Atonement he ventured to emit such outspoken criticism and such adventurous hypotheses, that, as St. Bernard put it, he seemed to sum up in his person all previous heretics. The venturesome character of his views explains the honour in which Abselard is held by modern Protestants, who look on him as their most remote precursor. But the Church saw in the latent rationalism of his doctrines a standing danger, if not a direct attack on her mysteries. This explains why the rash state- ments of the reformer gave rise to a reaction, of

54

AB^LARD 55

which St. Bernard was the most brilliant champion and Hugo of St. Victor the greatest worker. We shall now consider the progress of this controversy, of which the result was to place the dogmatic in- heritance of the past on a yet securer footing, and likewise to ensure it a future development on the old lines.

In his commentary on Romans Abselard deals ex professo with the Atonement. He first sets down the difficulties inherent in the question and then gives his own answer.

According to him the question resolves itself into this:

" Primo videtur quserendum qua necessitate Deus hominem as- sumpserit ut nos secundum carnem moriendo redimeret, vel a quo nos redemerit . . . et qua iustitia nos ab eius potestate liberaverit."

Abaslard dismisses the popular explanation drawn from the devil's rights. He then expounds the difficulties, the rationes dubitandi, which are involved in the very essence of the mystery such as he has represented it — those namely which concern the why and the wherefore of the Atonement. In this we find a list, though scarcely a well-ordered one, of the objections which it has since become customary to urge against the Catholic doctrine.

" What necessity, what reason or need had God, who could have delivered us by a single fiat, to be- come incarnate for our salvation and thus to suffer so many miseries and insults even to dying on the cross ? " How, moreover, were we justified and re- conciled to God by His death, seeing that men, in crucifying the Son of God, were committing a sin

56 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

far greater then Adam's act of disobedience? If then Christ's death was needed to expiate Adam's crime, what will be not needed to expiate the crime of His executioners ? Can it reasonably be argued that Christ's death was so pleasing to God that, on this account merely, He became reconciled to us who had brought about Christ's death by our mis- deeds ? If He could thus pardon us this awful crime, why then did He not give us a free pardon for our previous and lesser faults ?

Moreover, in what way has Christ's death made us more righteous than we were heretofore, in what way has it so justified us as to have delivered us from the penalties due ? As Christ's death was a ransom paid to God, how could God free the captives on account of this ransom, seeing that He Himself had fixed this as the price of their deliverance ? Or again, does it not seem unjust and cruel to demand the soul of an innocent man as a ransom, and to take pleasure in his death, even supposing we did not go so far as to say that this death was so agreeable to God, as, of itself, to reconcile Him to the world ?

These reasons and their like, according to Abgelard, give rise to a question of some difficulty (non medio- crem mover e qucestionem), that of our redemption and justification by the death of Christ. No doubt, the question is a difficult one, though the objections are perhaps not so insoluble as they appeared to Abaelard. At any rate, it is quite clear that Abselard's objections were directed, not, as is sometimes said, against certain exaggerations of St. Anselm's, but against the very mystery of the Atonement. " Abselard," writes M. Sabatier, "agreed with Anselm in denying the devil's vested right, and in excluding it from the work of

AB^ELARD 57

redemption; but he was likewise opposed to any theorising which tended to transform moral realities into geometrical categories."1 But as a matter of fact, what Abselard opposed was not so much St. Anselm's theory of Satisfaction, as the realistic view of the Atonement, a view which is essential to Catholic faith.

After having brought all these difficulties into the light, Abaslard does not deign to answer them, but proceeds to lay down his own doctrine concerning the mystery. His view amounts to this, that the Incarnation and the Passion justify us because they call forth our love :

" Nobis autem videtur quod in hoc iustificati sumus in sanguine Christi et Deo reconciliati, quod, per hanc singularem gratiam nobis exhibitara quod Filius suus nostram susceperit naturam, et in ipsos nos tarn verbo quam exemplo instituendo usque ad mortem per- stiterit, nos sibi amplius per amor em astrixit."

The just of the olden Law had already this faith and this charity, but these virtues were strengthened by the realisation of the prophecies. It was only natural that the reality should be a more powerful factor than the promise :

" lustior, id est amplius Dominum diligens, quisque fit post pas- sionem Christi quam ante, quia amplius in amorem accendit com- pletum beneficium quam speratum."

This leads Abaelard to the statement that our redemption consisted merely in the love which was enkindled in our hearts by the Passion, a love which frees us from sin and bestows on us the true freedom of the children of God :

" Redemptio itaque nostra est ilia summa in nobis per passionem Christi dilectio." 2

1 SABATIER, op. cit. p. 54.

2 AB^LARD, In Rom. lib. ii. c. iii. — P.L. clxxviii. ; col. 833-836.

58 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

We find similar-sounding statements in other passages of the same commentary :

" Eum pro nobis non ob aliud mortuum, dicit [Apostolus] nisi propter veram illam charitatis libertatein propagandam, per hanc videlicet quam nobis exhibuit summam dilectionem." l " Peccatum damnare, id est reatum omnem et culpam destruere per charitatem ex summo beneficio." 2

It is curious to notice how Abselard, who usually makes a point of basing his views upon texts, here puts aside both tradition and Scripture, and allows himself to be led by mere speculation. In other words, he seeks to solve by logic alone a question of fact, and if in this wise he succeeds in removing the mystery, it is only by neglecting the very data of the problem. But what is more remarkable still, is that we find in Abaelard, in those passages in which he discards theory, all the customary traditional sayings. Thus he, too, looks on Christ's death as a Sacrifice :

" In cruce suspensus tanquam in ara pro nobis immolatus est." 3

He, too, speaks of the ransom,4 and of the cleansing of our souls by Christ's blood :

" Ut in eius sanguine nostrorum maculas dilueret peccatomm." 5

He, too, admits that Christ's death had a penal value — the very point which Harnack states to be missing in Abaslard 6 :

" Nostra maledictio in Christum retorquetur per poenam, quern, percussura a Deo et attritum propter scelera nostra, Propheta longe

1 AB^LARD, In Rom. lib. ii. c. v. ; col. 860.

2 Ibid. lib. iii. c. viii. ; col. 898.

3 Expos. Symb. Apost. ibid. col. 622.

4 In Rom. lib. iii. c. vii. ; col. 893-4.

5 Ibid. lib. iii. c. viii. ; col. 908. Cp. col. 898.

6 HARNACK, Dogmeng. iii. p. 377.

AB^ELARD 59

ante praedixerat. . . . Christus corporaliter est mortuus et corpora- liter per poenam a Deo maledictus, hoc est ex sententia Dei poenae huic deputatur. Hinc et peccata nostra suscepisse seu portasse dicitur, hoc est peccatorum nostrorum pcenam tolerasse" l

A like passage is also found in the Commentary

on Romans :

" Duobus modis propter delicta nostra mortuus dicitur, turn quia nos deliquimus propter quod ille moreretur et peccatum commisimus, cuius ille pcenam sustinuit : turn etiam ut peccata nostra moriendo tolleret, id est poenam peccatorum pretio suae mortis auferret." 2

Abaelard even extends the efficaciousness of Christ's sacrifice to the just imprisoned in Limbo :

" Passionis illius efficaciam iusti senserunt antiqui, per earn a poems liberati." 3

It is instructive to find in the works of the re- former such involuntary reminiscences of orthodoxy.4 But we have no right to lay too much stress on these stray texts, which, taken alone, might prove that the Passion was, objectively speaking, efficacious, for, as we know, Abselard has deliberately excluded such an efficaciousness and only allows the Passion the sub- jective value of an example. Such passing incon- sistencies and unconscious concessions to popular language are not sufficient to correct, still less to contradict, Abaelard's formal statements.

Abselard refers us for further information to his Theology. This work is no longer extant, but we possess another source of knowledge in the Epitome, formerly ascribed to him, but which is now acknow- ledged to be a kind of hand-book of his theology

1 Serm. xii. ; ibid. col. 480-1.

2 In Rom. lib. ii. c. iv. ; col. 859- 8 Expos, sym. Apost. col. 626.

4 This apparent orthodoxy is noticed by BALTZER, Die Sentenzen des Petrus Lombardus (Leipzig, 1902), p. 102.

60 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

compiled by one of his disciples.1 Here we find an echo of the same ideas which we met in the com- mentary on Romans.

Of all the benefits conferred by the Word-made- Flesh, the greatest, says the writer, is the instruction He gives us and the love He shows us. It is love which delivers us from sin, and Christ's death — the author follows Abaelard in also using expressions derived from the figures of redemption and sacrifice — is but a means of exciting us to love :

" Venit . . . ut eum [hominem] a servitute peccati, dilectionem suam ei infundens, redimeret, seipsum pretium et hostiam Patri offerendo et solvendo."

There were many other means of effecting our Salvation but none was fitter, because none was more apt to instruct man by word and example and to lead martyrs to be humble.

Hence the whole work may be summed up in the love which God thereby reveals and in the love with which He inspires us :

" Et hoc totum factum constat, ut ostenderet quantam dilectio- nem in homine haberet et ut hominem magis ad sui dilectionem accenderet." 2

Another document illustrating Abaelard's thought is the humble retractation which has been left to posterity by one of his disciples, Godfrey, Bernard's successor at Clairvaux :

" Ego mihi aliquando magistrum fuisse recorder, qui . . . pretium redemptionis evacuans, nil aliud nobis in sacrincioDominicaepassionis commendabat nisi virtutis exemplum et incentivum amoris. . . . Et quidem magna hsec et vera, sed non sola." 3

1 PORTALIE, Diet, theol. cath. art. Abelard, col. 40. Cp. col. 53 f.

2 Epitome theologies Christiance, xxiii. ; col. 1730-1. Cp. col. 1732.

3 Inter opp. GULLIELM. A. s. THEOD. — P.L. clxxx. ; col. 331-332,

WILLIAM OF ST. THIERRY 61

Hence it is certain that Abselard, though he some- times, from force of habit, used traditional expressions, denied all objective value to the Passion, and reduced its saving efficaciousness to a merely subjective im- pression, and that liberal Protestants are uttering no calumny when they speak of him as their forerunner. This is no doubt the reason why they describe his doctrine as deep and touching. But this doctrine was radically opposed to that of tradition, and for this reason the Church, under pain of being false to herself, was bound to impugn it.

II

William of St. Thierry was the first to call attention to Abselard's errors, and he forthwith penned a re- futation which soon excited St. Bernard to a like effort. Of the two works thus called forth, William's has at least the advantage of being more moderate and kindly in tone.

Our author first of all points out that Abaelard's disciples go so far as to say that Christ's coming was not necessary for our Salvation, and he complains that thereby the whole mystery of the Atonement is dis- solved. He then goes on to examine one by one Abaslard's objections not only against the devil's rights, but also against the Atonement itself. He reproaches his opponent with want of respect for authority, and charges him with reading the Gospel with less reverence than the works of Plato.

Having reached the real question at issue, he begins by taking refuge behind the mystery :

note. The writer proceeds : " Benedict us Dominus, quimihi simul et vobis magistrum postea dedit raeliorem, per quern prioris redarguit ignorantiam, insolentiam confutavit."

62 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

" Quae vero sit iustitia in sanguine Christi et quo modo sit hominis reconciliatio ad Deum per mortem Filii eius, difficilis quaestio est, non agitanda in tumultu, sed pie et humiliter quaerenda in spiritu."

He then protests against the exaggeration of which Abeelard unjustly accused the Church. There can be no question of a reconciliation between God and man, in the common meaning of the word reconcilia- tion :

" Tanquam hominis irati et implacabilis nisi per mortem innocentis Filii, cum magis debuerit irasci pro morte iniusta innocentis."

The real meaning of the expression is this : God had from all eternity decreed to create the world, and, in the world, man, who should repair the loss occa- sioned by the fall of the angels. Foreseeing man's own fall, He also decreed to restore him by the inter- mediary of Christ. In the event man sinned, and angered God, and thus rendered some punishment necessary :

" Ira Dei iusta vindicta fuit peccati immissa peccatori ; inimi- citiae inter Deum et hominem non aliae quam quae esse solent inter iustitiam et peccatum."

But when the time for mercy came, God sent His Son to save us. Foreseeing that He would be put to death, He willed to make this death the instrument of the world's Salvation :

" Praedestinavit quid de ipsa morte eius ageretur, scilicet salus mundi."

In the event, through the devil's hatred, Christ was led to death, though He had not deserved to die, being without sin. He, however, accepted in all freedom His death, taking as it were on to His own shoulders the burden of our guilt :

" Sponte suscepit mortem . . . et transtulit in se poenam omnium peccatorum."

WILLIAM OF ST. THIERRY 63

Thereby He left us a legacy of righteousness, just as Adam had left us a legacy of sin. Hence He literally became our substitute and underwent the punishment of our sins, which have therefore not remained unrequited, for they were expiated by Him in our lieu :

"Sicque in regno iustitiae malum non remansit inordinatum, cum, in eo qui pro peccatoribus mortuus est, nullum remansit iusti- ficati hominis peccatum impunitum."

In this wise His undeserved death freed us from everlasting death :

"Tantique valuit pretium sanguinis illius innocentis ut, per indebitam eius mortem temporalem, aeternam debitam evaderent."

But must we say that God insisted on His Son's death as a satisfaction ? No, He merely accepted it as a willing sacrifice :

"Nee a Deo Patre quasi ad satisfaciendum est requisitus, cum tamen ei plenissime satisfecerit oblatus."

In this Sacrifice the union of the Trinity is mani- fested by its common plan of love :

"Bonitas Patris ad Filium et ad creaturam ipsa est imperium Patris ad Filium de salute humana . . . Christus per earn [obedien- tiam] obtinuit iustitiam, patiendo poenam peccati sine peccato."

Christ's righteousness is applied to us by God's bounty, and thus our sins are wiped away and we are reconciled with God :

te Sicque sublato, hoc est dimisso peccato, cui iustitia inimicaba- tur, plena facta est Dei et hominum reconciliatio, et finis irse, hoc est iustae vindictae in Deo . . . Fit finis vindictae, sed aeternae ..."

In concluding, William distinguishes three things in the work of the Redeemer: the mystery of our reconciliation, the example of humility, and the enkindling of charity. He points out that Abselard forgets the first and neglects the second, and con-

64 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

fines himself to considering at length the third, as if this one could exist apart from the others :

" Tanquam posset provocari homo superbus ad amorem Dei, nisi primo humiliaretur ab amore sui et nisi prius sacramento redemptionis solveretur, ligatus a condicione et vinculo peccati." *

Thus William of St. Thierry's work had a twofold object ; he laboured to substantiate the supernatural realism of the mystery of the Atonement — and this part of his work is not so well done as it might have been — and he endeavoured to clear the mystery from the false ideas with which Abselard had disfigured it. This same double task was now to be undertaken in his turn, more fully and also more vigorously, by St. Bernard.

Ill

Historians never fail to observe that St. Bernard defended against Abselard the rights of the devil, but they seem to confine Bernard's work to this, forgetful of the fact that he, amongst other things, and at even greater length, explained and defended the traditional doctrine of expiation.

The unbiassed student will notice that, when stating Abaslard's errors, he devotes a whole page to Abselard's criticism of the doctrine of expiation, whilst he has only a few lines dealing with the devil's rights.2 This is sufficient to show us how unequal was the respective value of these ideas in his mind. Likewise, in refuting Abselard's errors, after having given the devil his own — with this part of his work we shall deal later — Bernard devotes most of

1 GULLIELM. A. s. TnEOD. Disput. adv. Abcel. vii. — P.L. clxxx. ; col. 269-276.

2 BERNARD, Capitula hcer. Petri Abcelardi, iv. — P.L. clxxxii. ; col. 1050.

ST. BERNARD 65

his labour to expounding and justifying the Catholic doctrine.1

He explains the mystery of the Atonement by our intimate solidarity with Christ :

" Homo siquidem qui debuit, homo qui solvit. Nam si unus pro omnibus mortuus est, ergo omnes mortui sunt : ut videlicet satisfactio unius omnibus imputetur, sicut omnium peccata unus ille portavit. Nee alter iam inveniatur qui forefecit, alter qui satisfecit ; quia caput et corpus unus est Christus. Satisfecit ergo caput pro membris, Christus pro visceribus suis."

He then shows that it is as just that we should be hallowed by the righteousness of one, as that we should be stained by another's sin :

" Cur non aliunde iustitia, cum aliunde reatus ? Alius qui pecca- torem constituit, alius qui iustificat a peccato ; alter in semine, alter in sanguine."

This solidarity, or rather this identity, of all men with Christ, shows a distinct improvement on the purely legal point of view of the Cur Deus Homo ; his- torians rightly point to this idea as one of the most remarkable characteristics of the Abbot of Clairvaux's doctrine.2 In adopting this point of view he was, how- ever, merely reverting to St. Paul and the Fathers.

St. Bernard then proceeds to belabour Abaelard for having sought to reduce all to a mere example :

" Ad id solum putet et disputet redigendum, ut traderet homi- nibus formam vitae vivendo et docendo, patiendo autem et moriendo charitatis metam praefigeret. Ergo docuit iustitiam, et non dedit ? ostendit charitatem, sed non infudit ? "

To do so, is to make plain, in other words, to dis- solve, the mystery :

"Altissimum sacramentum et mysterium . . . planum et aper- tum reddit."

1 Contra errores Abcelardi, vi. 15-ix. 25. Ibid. col. 1065-1072.

2 Cp. RITSCHL, op. cit. i. p. 18 and GRETILLAT, op. cit. iv. p. 289.

II. E

66 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

He then answers the objections of his adversary. Why was it necessary for the Saviour to undergo this cruel Passion? It was because we needed it, and because of His love ; beyond this we cannot go. God had no doubt a thousand other ways of saving us, but this does not detract from the value of that means which He chose. Our business is to examine the facts as they are given to us in Revelation, and not to seek their why and wherefore. Nevertheless we may state that the method adopted was the fittest, because the many sufferings of the Redeemer serve better for our instruction. Moreover, even though we cannot discern the mystery of God, we are always free to gather its fruit. This fruit is our reconciliation with God and the forgiveness of our sins. Let us take the fact without seeking its reason :

" Cur, inquis, per sanguinem, quod potuit facere per sermonem ? Ipsum interroga [Apostolum]. Mihi scire licet quod ita ; cur ita, non licet."

These are the words of a believer who puts faith before reason.

No doubt Christ's death was a crime, but notwith- standing this it was pleasing to God on account of the love which it displayed :

"Quasi non potuerit Deo in uno eodemque facto displicere iniquitas malignantium, et placer e pietas patientis."

Who will expiate this sin ? Is not Christ's blood precious enough to wipe out even the sin of His own executioners? It is asked how God could take pleasure in the death of the Innocent. But it was not with His death but in His self-sacrifice that God was well pleased : " Non mors, sed voluntas placuit sponte morientis" This explains how there was there no act of cruelty.

ST. BERNARD 67

" Non requisivit Pater sanguinem Filii, sed tamen acceptavit oblatum : non sanguinem sitiens, sed salutem, quia salus erat in sanguine. . . . Salus plane, et non sola charitatis ostensio."

Having thus answered Abaglard's objections, St. Bernard goes on to attack his doctrine. What is the use of an example, he asks, if Christ did not first restore us : " Quid prodest quod nos institute, si non restituit ? " Seeing that the Apostle established a comparison between Christ and Adam, we must admit a like influence in the two instances. Now, no one short of a Pelagian would argue that Adam was hurtful to us only by his example :

"Si christianae fidei et non haeresi Pelagianae acquiescentes, generatione non institutione traductum in nos confitemur Adae peccatum, et per peccatum mortem ; fateamur necesse est et a Christo nobis non institutione sed regeneratione restitutam iusti- tiam, et per iustitiam vitam."

Abaglard's principles would also result in the Atonement being useless to children, who are incap- able of that great love which he preaches.

Lastly, in concluding, Bernard, like William of St. Thierry, sums up the objects of the Incarnation :

" Tria praecipua in hoc opere nostrae salutis intueor : formam humilitatis . . . , charitatis mensuram . . . , redemptionis sacra- mentum."

Evidently the last point is a necessary condition of the other two :

" Horum duo priora sine ultimo sic sunt, ac si super inane pin- gas. . . . Non habent fundamentum, ac proinde nee statum, si desit redemptio. . . . Nee humilitatis exempla, nee charitatis insignia praeter redemptionis sacramentum sunt aliquid."

In these passages, we have seen, St. Bernard main- tains against Abaelard the Catholic realism, without however explaining the mode. He reasserts the existence of the mystery which had been called

68 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

into question, but he does not seek to determine its nature. He poses as a defender of the faith but not as a theologian.

The explanation of the mystery, which is wanting here, is outlined elsewhere, in a work written outside of any polemical preoccupation.1

Christ's life and death, we read there, are both most precious, the first for our instruction, the second for our deliverance :

"Vita Christ! vivendi mihi regula exstitit; mors, a morte re- demptio. Ilia vitam instruxit, mortem ista destruxit."

Here it is easy to feel the influence of St. Augustine. Man, says St. Bernard, had found in sin the death of his soul, and, in consequence of this, the death also of his body. Christ's single death was the destruction of both :

" Utrique Deus-Homo una sua corporali ac voluntaria benigne et potenter occurrit, illaque una sua nostram utramque damnavit."

The reason of this power of Christ's death must be sought in its being undeserved and free :

"Unde confidimus quod mortem abstulit? Hinc plane quod earn ipse qui non meruit pertulit. Qua enim ratione exigeretur a nobis quod pro nobis ipse iam solvit ? "

The sinner's death, at the most, can only repay a personal debt, but a just man can rightly die for others :

" Quanto sane indignius moritur qui mortem non meruit, tanto is iustius, pro quo moritur, vivit."

It is asked how Justice can cause the guiltless to die for the guilty. St. Bernard answers that this is a proceeding not of Justice but of Mercy :

" Non est iustitia, sed misericordia. ... At vero si iustitia non est, non tamen contra iustitiam est."

1 Liber ad milites templi, xi. 18-28. Ibid. col. 932-937.

ST. BERNARD 69

But, admitting that the just can make satisfaction for the sinner, how, it is asked, can one make satis- faction for many ? St. Bernard, following the lead of St. Paul, answers that if Adam's sin could be the loss of all of us, a fortiori, Christ's righteousness could save us, and he concludes, summing up his own thought :

" Christus igitur et peccata dimittere potuit, cum Deus sit ; et mori, cum sit homo ; et mortis moriendo solvere debitum, quia iustus ; et omnibus unus ad iustitiam vitamque sufficere, quando- quidem et peccatum et mors ex uno in omnes processerit."

But His death was delayed that He might set us an example and so excite us to charity, so that nothing might be wanting to our Salvation.

In his sermons, St. Bernard frequently speaks of the Atonement, usually with the object of describing, with all his glowing eloquence, how great a love Christ has shown to us and what love His life de- mands of us.1 He tells us that the only motive which led the Saviour to effect the Atonement by means of suffering, was that He considered this means the most apt to urge us to charity.2 From this we see that St. Bernard was far from abandoning to Abaslard the monopoly of the moral aspect of the Atonement. Harnack himself is forced to admit that St. Bernard speaks " in a most edifying manner of his love for Christ."3 But withal he never lost sight of the objective value of the Passion.

In Christ's Passion there was manifested an obedi- ence which absolves us from our sins. His death was more powerful for good than all our sins had

1Serm de passione, 4-5. — P.L. clxxxiii. ; col. 264-5. Cp. De Sj Serm. xxii. 5-7 ; col. 597-8.

2 In cantic. cant. Serm. xi. 7 ; ibid. col. 827.

3 HARNACK-CHOISY, Precis, p. 339.

70 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

been for evil.1 His death alone would have sufficed to save us : " Ea nimirum hostia, sicut sola prodesse potuit, sic sola sujfecit" The reason being that Christ alone was sinless.2 Hence our reconciliation, which is gratuitous so far as we are concerned, was a work of toil for God :

"... Gratis quod ad te pertinet. Nam quod ad ilium, plane non gratis. Salvus factus es pro nihilo, sed non de nihilo tamen." 3

But the explanation of the whole work is to be sought in His love :

" Dilexit autem dulciter, sapienter, fortiter. ... In carnis assumptione condescendit mihi, in culpae vitatione consuluit sibi, in mortis susceptione satisfecit Patri"

This Satisfaction is the all-important thing, but it, too, presupposes charity :

" Ut Patri nos reconciliet, mortem fortiter subit et subigit, fun- dens pretium nostrae redemptionis sanguinem suum. Ergo, nisi amasset dulciter, non me in carcere requisisset ilia maiestas ; sed iunxit affectioni sapientiam, iunxit et patientiam, qua placaret offensum Deum Patrem." 4

In fine, the Abbot of Clairvaux, neither in his refutation of Abselard nor in his other works, is inclined to study seriously the doctrine of the Atonement. He lays stress on the traditional side of the doctrine which had been impugned by Abaelard, but he is little concerned with its explanation, and confines himself to repeating the dicta of the Fathers ; the idea which has his preference is that of penal substitution. The reader will also have per-

1 Serm. de passione, 1 ; ibid. col. 266-267. Cp. In festo Annunt. Serm. i. 4 ; ibid. col. 384.

2 In domin. Palm. Serm. iii. 3; col. 26l. Cp. In not. Domini, Serm. iv. 5 ; col. 102.

8 In Psalm. " Qui habitat." Serm. xiv. 3 ; col. 240. 4 In cant. Sermo. xx. 2-3 ; col. 867-868.

ST. BERNARD 71

ceived that St. Bernard sometimes makes use of the idea of Satisfaction ; his using it proves it to be in agreement with traditional views ; but, all the same, he does not enter at all fully into the meaning of the idea. In this, moreover, St. Bernard was acting consistently, his object being to " expound the doc- trine without entering into the regions of speculative theology which St. Anselm explored." *

As a result of St. Bernard's polemics and of the ecclesiastical anathemas which followed, Abaelard was induced to recant. In his retractation he expresses himself as follows concerning the Atonement : —

" Solum Filium Dei incarnatum profiteer, ut nos a servitute pec- cati et a iugo diaboli liberaret, et supernae aditum vitae morte sua nobis reseraret." 2

Apart from the sentence which deals with the devil's rights, the clause is indefinite. It fails to express the manner of the efficaciousness of Christ's death ; but it safeguards adequately the supernatural and objective value of the Atonement and this is at once the substance of the Catholic doctrine and the fact which St. Bernard wished to be placed above discussion. Nor are there wanting certain Protestants, such as Reuter and Seeberg, who fully appreciate the good work done by St. Bernard in impugning the dangerous innovations of Abaelard, and who praise him for having laid stress on the objective foundation of the Atonement. It is in vain that Harnack bids them emerge from such outworn dogmatic categories.3 The objectivity of the Atonement is still dear to every soul which believes in the reality of the greatest of

1 VACANDARD, Diet. th. cath. art. Bernard, col. 762.

2 ABAELARD, Confessiojidei. — P.L. clxxviii. ; col. 105-106.

3 HARNACK, Dogmengeschichte, iii. p. 376, note 1.

72 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

our mysteries. In defending it, St. Bernard merely conformed himself to the attitude of every Christian teacher, from the time of St. Paul and the Gospel. This is sufficient to earn for St. Bernard the lasting gratitude of every historian who retains the senti- ment of Catholic tradition, and to ensure his being followed by all believers who are not willing to abandon the essential facts of Christianity at the bidding of a vague liberalism.

IV

Whilst St. Bernard was engaged in defending against Abaelard the integrity of our doctrine, others were striving, in the quiet of their studies, to set up on its old lines of development, the doctrine, of which the normal progress had been retarded by Abaelard's ill-advised efforts. Against the school of St. Gene- vieve was pitted that of St. Victor, and it is now a matter of common knowledge, how powerfully this latter school, especially its best-known master, Hugo, contributed to the formation of Scholasticism, by re- straining within the bounds of orthodoxy the erring curiosity of the friends of Abaelard. Hugo of St. Victor accepts St. Anselm's conception of the Atonement.

The devil, he writes, was forthwith cast into hell, whilst man, whom God wished to save, was left on earth to work out his Salvation. But, having proved unequal to the task, he was finally forced to throw himself on God's mercy, whereupon God willed to doff His character of judge in order to become man's counsellor and Saviour :

" Necesse est ut Deus . . . interim per gratiam ostendat evadendi consilium et post consilium conferat auxiliura."

Under the natural law, God left man to himself,

HUGO OF ST. VICTOR 73

that he might find by experience the need of counsel. When he had discovered his powerlessness, this counsel was given to him by means of the written Law. Lastly, when man had fully recognised his helplessness, God in the time of grace was pleased to offer His help :

" Consilium erat in ratione satisfactionis : auxilium erat in effectu redemptionis."

But Hugo does not confine himself to thus de- scribing this help in mystical terms. Sin was an injury and an insult offered to God, and, to appease His wrath, both had to be repaired :

"Deum rationabiliter placare non poterat, nisi et damnum quod intulerat restauraret et de contemptu satisfaceret."

Whence the two parts we find in the work of Salva- tion : compensation and Satisfaction.

But man had nothing which he could give to God as a compensation for his fault ; an irrational creature was insufficient, and a man likewise, because all men were sinners :

" Nihil ergo homo invenit uncle Deum sibi placare posset, quia sive sua, sive jeipsum daret, digna recompensatio non esset."

Hence God came to man's rescue by giving him a man who was much higher than the first man, and who could make satisfaction in his lieu :

" Dedit Deus gratis homini quod homo ex debito Deo redderet. Dedit igitur homini hominem, quern homo pro homine redderet, qui, ut digna recompensatio fieret, priori non solum aequalis sed maior esset."

By this means, in Christ, both justice and mercy were made manifest :

"Quod ergo homini datus est Christus, Dei fuit misericordia. Quod ab homine redditus est Christus, fuit hominis iustitia."

Christ's very birth sufficed to appease God's wrath,

74 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

for, from that moment, mankind had in its midst a man who was equal to, and even greater than, the first. But satisfaction had still to be made for the insult offered to God :

"Sed adhuc supererat homini ut, sicut restaurando damnum placaverat iram, ita quoque pro contemptu satisfaciendo dignus fieret evadere pcenam."

The means to effect this was to impose a voluntary suffering, which should be undeserved, in order that man might thus escape the punishment he deserved. But man already deserved every affliction for his sins, hence a guiltless one was required to suffer in his place :

" Ut ergo homo iuste debitam poenam evaderet, necesse fuit ut talis homo pro homine poenam susciperet, qui nihil pcenae debuis- set."

Christ alone could do this, and He did it. His birth, as we have seen, paid man's debt, His death was the expiation of our sin :

" Nascendo debitum hominis Patri solvit et moriendo reatum hominis expiavit, ut, cum ipse pro homine mortem quam non debebat sustineret, iuste homo propter ipsum mortem quam de- bebat evaderet."

In this wise our Saviour put Himself in our place :

" Causam nostram fecit, quia debitum Patri pro nobis solvit et moriendo reatum expiavit."

A little farther on Hugo lays stress on the soli- darity which binds our nature with Christ's :

" Suscepit de natura hostiam pro natura, ut de nostro esset holocaustum offerendum pro nobis."

Lastly he takes care to admit, with St. Augustine, that God might have redeemed us otherwise ; but he, nevertheless, considers the Incarnation as the

HUGO OF ST. VICTOR 75

aptest means to excite in us hope, and to serve us for our instruction.1

In Hugo's doctrine there are some curious subtle- ties ; for instance, his fashion of conceiving of the Incarnation as the payment of our debt is quite original, and, need we say, quite unfounded. But, as we can see, he applies to the older idea of penal substitution, which we found likewise in St. Bernard, all that Anselm had said of moral Satisfaction. We find here the same principles, though they are applied to an idea of secondary interest. Hugo thereby betrays that he is a shallower thinker than St. Anselm, albeit a more logical theologian than St. Bernard ; in other words, he may serve as a con- necting link between the two.

The healthy progressivism of the school of St. Victor was all the more useful, seeing that Abselard's influence was not yet dead. Recent criticism in- forms us that Abselard laid the foundation of a school of his own 2 ; when we examine the works of the members of this school we find that, unwilling either to follow or to impugn the doctrine of the master, they preserve a discreet silence on the matter of the Atonement, or else express themselves quite insuffi- ciently.

Besides the Epitome, which, as we have seen, follows Abaelard purely and simply, other Sums, which were doubtless written after Abselard's condemnation,

1 HUG. A. s. VICT. De Sacr. i. ; pars, viii.* c. iii. and iv. — P.L. clxxvi. ; col. 307-309. Cp. ibid. 7-10 ; col. 310-312, and De sacr. legis naturalis et scriptce ; ibid. col. 29-30.

2 Cp. PORTALIE, Diet, de theol. cath. art. Abelard, col. 4-9-55.

76 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

follow the general lines of his doctrine whilst en- deavouring to accommodate it to orthodoxy. The Summa Sententiarum, which is now no longer ascribed by anybody to Hugo of St. Victor, and which evidently is the work of one of Abaelard's disciples, is the first instance of such an attempt at accom- modation. The author says as little as possible of the Atonement, and merely states that Christ came to condemn the devil and deliver man (ut damnaret diabolum et hominem Uberaret), and that, in order to do this, He took both our body and our soul. As to the manner in which our deliverance was accom- plished he says nothing, save that twice he tells us that Christ " merited for us." x

The Sentences of Roland Bandinelli,2 though they have more to say, are scarcely more explicit. Speaking of the Eucharist, the author tells us that the sacrifices of the Old Law were the figure of a new and more perfect Sacrifice 3 ; we may infer from this that Roland looked on Christ's death as a Sacrifice. Farther on, he states that the Incarnation sums up the whole mystery of our Salvation :

" In quo totius nostrae salutis ad liberationem summa videtur consistere."

Without further explaining the manner of our deliverance he immediately asks himself how God, who could have redeemed us otherwise, chose rather this means ? He answers : because this means is the most apt to excite us to love and obedience :

" Hac itaque de causa hoc modo humanum genus voluit redi-

1 Inter opp. HUG. Sum. Sent. i. 15. — P.L. clxxvi. ; col. 70. Cp. ibid. i. 18; col. 77.

2 Better known under his subsequent title, Alexander III. Trans. 8 Die Sentenzen Roland's (Gietl's ed.), pp. 152-153.

ROBERT PULLUS

mere, ut ad humilitatem et sui venerationera homines magis pro- vocaret." ]

Beyond this he says nothing. Father Gietl admits that "Roland betrays the influence of Abselard in that he puts Satisfaction in the second place"2 — a kindly way of stating that Roland suppresses it altogether.

Another work which was written, though less directly, under Abaslard's influence was the Sum of Robert Pullus ; we feel this in his doctrine of the Atonement.

God, he says, delayed the Atonement that He might teach man to esteem the more this benefit, and, in order to prepare him, He sent him the prophets. But the Law was insufficient, and its sacrifices were unable to cleanse from sin. Hence Christ came, at once a perfect Victim and a perfect Priest :

" Unum pro multis, novum prae veteribus, rem pro figuris, sacri- ficium scilicet mei corporis inducens, dignumque tanto sacerdotium sacrificio."

He could have saved us otherwise, but the means He chose was the fittest because it best served to show His mercy.3 This is said of the Incarnation, but, farther on, he explains Christ's death similarly :

"Non quod aliter redimere non poterat: verum ut quantitate pretii quantitatem nobis sui innotesceret amoris nostrique peccati."

But he immediately goes on to say that His death was a Sacrifice, on account of which God delivers us from the yoke of the devil and forgives us our sins.4

1 Die Sentensen Roland's, pp. 157-159- See, in the footnotes, the parallel passages from OMNEBENE and from the Sentences of ST. FLORIAN.

2 Introd. p. xxxiii.

3 ROBERT PULL. Sent. lib. iii. 1-6. — P.L. clxxxvi. ; col. 765-771 and ibid. 13-14; col. 778-780.

4 Ibid. iv. 13-15; col. 820-822.

78 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

Robert had moreover just stated that the Saviour is the Lamb who was slain and who takes away the sins of the world,1 and he elsewhere seems to admit that His death had a penal value.2

To conclude, all these different writers, by the infrequency and relative poverty of their formulae, testify to a backward movement in the development of the theology of the Atonement ; they lay some stress on its moral fitness, and they do not deny its efficaciousness, but neither do they seek to explain it. In all this we feel Abselard's evil influence, from which even the more orthodox among his disciples were unable to shake themselves free. This also enables us to perceive the better how opportune were the refutations of which he was made the object, and the doctrinal reaction which he called forth. Such efforts were meritorious, nor were they without profit. The doctrine of the Atonement owes it to this controversy that its nature was better understood; St. Bernard explained several of its details and contributed to clear it from some misunderstandings, whilst Hugo of St. Victor finally brought back Christian minds to the school of St. Anselm. In fact, this struggle strengthened the basis of faith, enabling it to ex- press itself better, and Theology, when the trial was over, was ready to gird herself up for the new progress in the future.

1 ROBERT PULL. Sent. lib. iii. 28 ; col. 802.

2 Ibid. 21 ; col. 794.

CHAPTER XX

FURTHER THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS— PETER LOMBARD, ALEXANDER HALES, AQUINAS

STRENGTHENED, though momentarily retarded, by Abaslard's opposition, the doctrine of the Atonement, when once the crisis was past, was destined to take up in the quiet of the Schools the normal course of its development. We shall find indeed nothing novel, for the time for original work has already gone by, but the time for organisation is at hand and we shall now see how the traditional data will be, little by little, shaped and shaded and brought into that logical order which is usually associated with the elaborate theology of a dogma ; in a word, how, by a series of efforts, from that of Peter Lombard to that of St. Thomas Aquinas, the various results of the Atonement com- mented on by the Fathers, together with the principle elaborated by St. Anselm, were combined in a handy synthesis to form the theology of the Atonement such as we know it now.

We cannot be expected to dwell here on the im- portance of the position occupied by Peter Lombard in the history of theology. Everybody knows that by uniting in his works the dialectics, for which Abaelard's school was famous, with the orthodoxy of the school of St. Victor, and by basing everything on a selection of Patristic texts, comprising nearly all those known at his time, the " Master of Sentences " 79

80 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

became the real founder of Scholasticism. But on the subject of the Atonement his doctrine still betrays the influence of Abaelard ; this explains why his own influence on the doctrine in question was less than might have been expected.

The first idea which Peter Lombard connects with Christ's Passion is that of merit. Our crying need was the opening of Heaven's gates. The primary effect of Christ's Passion was to merit for Himself the glorification of His body and soul ; but this He had already sufficiently merited by the virtues of His life. Hence, if He died, it was for us and not for Himself. His death was at once an example of virtue and the cause of Salvation :

" . . . ut ipsius passio et mors tibi esset forma et causa : forma virtutis et humilitatis, causa gloriae et libertatis : forma Deo usque ad mortem obediendi et causa tuse liberationis ac beati- tudinis."

Thereby He merited for us heaven, and deliverance from sin and from Satan :

" Meruit enim nobis per mortis ac passionis tolerantiam quod per praecedentia non meruerat, scilicet aditum paradisi et redemptionem a peccato, a pcena, a diabolo. . . . Ipse enim moriendo factus est hostia nostrae liberationis."

God had decreed that man should never return to the lost paradise, unless there could be found a man to repair by his humility the havoc wrought by the pride of Adam. But no man was able to offer a sacrifice which should suffice for our reconciliation. This victim was, however, found in Christ :

" Sed Christus homo sufficiens et perfecta fuit hostia, qui multo amplius est humiliatus . . . quam ille Adam superbiit."

In fact our sin was so great that no other sacrifice

PETER LOMBARD 81

would have availed to save us. The Lombard quotes the text so often met in the Glosses :

"Tantum fuit peccatum nostrum ut salvari non possemus, nisi Unigenitus Dei films pro nobis moreretur debitoribus mortis."

But, being a good theologian, he immediately in- terprets it in the light of the following distinction : —

"Quod non ita intelligendum, quasi non alto modo salvari non potuerit quam per mortem suam, sed quia per aliam hostiam non potuit nobis aperiri regni aditus."

He considers that he has thus in some way ex- plained (aUquatenus ostensum est) how Christ's death opened to us the gates of heaven.1

From this we see that Peter Lombard bases Christ's merit on an objective and metaphysical aspect of His death, and that he explains it by having recourse to the old idea of sacrifice, combining rather ingeniously the ritual terminology with the moral reality of a satisfacient humility. What else is this than a restatement of the theory of Satisfaction ? All historians have observed that Peter Lombard does not use St. Anselm's idea, and so far their state- ment is correct; but when they add that this was because he considered the idea to be insufficiently based on tradition 2 they are going beyond the mark. This is quite clear from the very reasoning adopted by the Lombard. He avoids, indeed, using the word satisfaction and prefers the less expressive but older figure of Sacrifice; in this he shows himself too scrupulous in his adhesion to ancient formalism, but at the same time we should not allow ourselves to be led astray by his words so far as to forget that he knows and uses the idea of Satisfaction.

1 PET. LOMB. Sent. lib. iii. Dist. xviii.— P.L. cxcii. ; col. 793-5.

2 Cp. RITSCHL, op. cit. i. pp. 56-7. HARNACK, op. cit. iii. pp. 377-8. BALTZER, op. cit. pp. 104-5.

II. F

82 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

In the next question Peter Lombard examines how by Christ's death we were redeemed from the devil, from sin, and from its penalty. He seeks in other words the manner in which was applied to us that Atonement, with the general principles of which he had dealt in the previous section.

Our Saviour delivered us from Satan by delivering us from sin ; how then are we delivered from sin and from death ? Here Abselard's ideas first make their appearance. Christ's death, says the Lombard, by manifesting the greatness of Divine Love, excites in us that charity which justifies us :

"Exhibita tantae erga nos dilectionis arrha, et nos movemur accendimurque ad diligendum Deum, qui pro nobis tanta fecit ; et per hoc iustificamur, id est soluti a peccatis iusti efficimur. Mors ergo Ckristi nos iustificat, dum per earn charitas excitatur in cordibus nostris."

We are also delivered in another fashion, by faith in the Passion (per fidem in passionem), as were the Hebrews who gazed on the brazen serpent. The Lombard does not lay much stress on this second explanation, of which the meaning is not clear, but which may probably, like the first, be reduced to a ; deliverance of the psychological and moral order, but he infers, following in this the lead of St. Augustine, that thus, by Christ's Sacrifice, all our sins were destroyed.1

Those same historians, who are so anxious to keep Peter Lombard aloof from St. Anselm's influence, are quite willing to allow that we here find reminiscences of Abselard.2 It can certainly not be doubted that the doctrine which the Lombard has just laid down is that of Abselard ; but when we examine it closely we

1 Dist. xix. 1-2; ibid. col. 795-796.

2 HARNACK, op. cit. p. 378, note 2.

PETER LOMBARD 83

see that it here stands for something quite different. Abselard's intention was to express thereby the whole result of the Passion, whereas the Lombard is speak- ing of the personal and subjective application of the Atonement, the objective reality of which he has already proved. His opinion thus resolves itself into something neither wrong nor shallow. His only fault, one which subsequent commentators will not fail to notice, is that he does not clearly put these ideas in their due order. Such want of logic in a theologian who is usually so remarkably precise in his utterances could not fail to lead to unfortunate misunderstandings.

After having told us how the Passion frees us from sin, Peter Lombard adds that it also delivers us from the penalty. Eternal punishment is completely destroyed with the sin of which it is the result, but the temporal punishment will not disappear until the next life by the resurrection of the body :

"Ab aeterna quidem [pcena] relaxando debitum : a temporal! vero penitus nos liberabit in future." 1

But the penalty which is remitted to us was under- gone in our stead by Christ on the Cross :

" Per ipsius pcenam, quam in cruce tulit, omnis pcena temporalis ... in baptismo penitus relaxatur . . . et in poenitentia minoratur."

Christ's suffering suffices for what is wanting to the penance of the sinner :

"Non enim sufficeret ilia pcena, qua pcenitentes ligat Ecclesia, nisi pcena Christi cooperaretur, qui pro nobis solvit."

Thus Christ is our Mediator, and reconciles us with the Father ; but as the Lombard observes, following St. Augustine, this does not mean that God then

1 BALTZER (op. cit. p. 96) gives this sentence the exactly opposite meaning.

84 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

began to love us, but rather that He then destroyed that sin which was an obstacle between ourselves and Him.1

Lastly, the Lombard asks whether God could have saved us otherwise, and he answers with St. Augustine that the Incarnation was not necessary, but that it was the fittest means, among other things, to lift our souls to the hope of everlasting life. Hence Christ was the perfect Victim offered to God for our re- conciliation :

"Christus est sacerdos, idemque hostia et pretium nostrae re- conciliationis, qui se in ara crucis non diabolo, sed Deo-Trinitati optulit, pro omnibus quantum ad pretii sufficientiam, sed pro elec- tis tantum quantum ad efficientiam." 2

Did we wish, we could show that these same ideas — that of an expiatory sacrifice,3 and that of a penal substitution4 — are to be found in the commentaries in which Peter Lombard has brought together his recollections of the Fathers and of previous com- mentators; but it is useless to quote texts, which would only repeat, with no additions, the doctrines summarised in the Sentences.

Peter Lombard has deserved well by combining, or rather by classifying — for, as we have seen, the connection is not always quite apparent — those texts of the Fathers which bear on the Atonement. It is to him, also, that we owe the connection established between the idea of sin and that of penal substitu- tion, a connection which had not been utilised by St. Anselm, and, besides this, certain well-found dis-

1 Dist. xviii. 3-7 ; ibid. col. 796-798.

2 Ibid. xix. 1-2 ; ibid. col. 798-799.

3 2 Cor. v. 21 ; ibid. col. 45. Gal. i. 4 ; col. 96. Eph. v. 2 ; col. 209. Hebr. ii. ; col. 419.

4 Ps. xxi. 6.— P.L. cxci. col. 229. Ps. Ixviii. 6 ; col. 629.

RICHARD OF ST. VICTOR 85

tinctions which will be of help in the future. But, generally speaking, he is a strict conservative, his originality being restricted to matters of detail, so much so that he could not perceive how harmoniously St. Anselm's idea — which, no doubt, he considered too modern — would have fitted in with his system and supplied it with the depth and cohesion which it lacked. The book of Sentences is a conscientious and relatively methodical repertory of traditional ideas ; this is sufficient to show its value, and at the same time its shortcomings.

II

St. Anselm's doctrine had been kept too much in the background by Peter Lombard, but its in- fluence was felt in various degrees by the Lombard's contemporaries. Richard of St. Victor, for instance, has incorporated into his treatise De Verbo Incar- nato, amidst much unintelligible symbolism, a general outline of the scheme of the Atonement.

To explain how Christ was the "desired of the nations," Richard describes the different mental states existing previous to the Atonement. Some, he says, suffered from the darkness of idolatry without realising the extent of their bondage ; others, better instructed, felt their captivity and the wound made by sin ; but they knew no way of freeing themselves. Lastly, there were others, who understood the means of restoration, though they did not comprehend God's good pleasure. Richard considers only this last category. They had seen, by the light of reason and of faith, that had man not sinned he would have arrived at everlasting life. They could also see that, having once fallen, if he was restored to his lost

86 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

inheritance out of simple mercy he would not have profited thereby. For the devil could always taunt him with possessing things to which he had no right. Even supposing there were no devil, man's own conscience would reproach him, and shame him, with the recollection of the unrepaired fault. Hence Satisfaction was needed :

" Perspicua igitur ratio docet quod sine satisfactione homo ad plenum reparari non posset."

But to make this Satisfaction there was required a humility which should be as great as the pride which caused the Fall. The reader will duly appreciate this entirely moral aspect of Satisfaction, which agrees, in everything, with what we met in Peter Lombard, save that the latter avoids using the word :

" Ad plenitudinem autem satisfactionis oportuit ut tanta esset humiliatio in expiatione quanta fuerat praesumptio in praevarica- tione."

The pride which was in man's sin could be repaired, only by the humiliation of a God :

"Quando homo praesumpsit contra Deum, facta est elatio de imo ad summum. Oportuit ergo ut ad expiationis remedium fieret humiliatio de summo ad imum."

For one reason, had man been redeemed by a creature, he would be under obligation to this creature, but this was not fit. Hence God was required :

" Ad plenam restaurationem omnino non sufficeret persona quae Deus non esset."

But, on the other hand, a man was required, that the satisfaction might be applied to man, and also because it was man who was under sentence of death. An undeserved death was needed to acquit us of this debt :

" Ad eiusdem debiti expiationem obediendo indebitam mortem pro debita solvere oportuit."

RICHARD OF ST. VICTOR 87

Hence what was really required was a mediator who should unite in himself the two natures :

" Ecce quo modo ex ratione colligitur quo modo oportuit media- torem Dei et hominum verum Deura et verum hominem esse."

Richard then goes on to prove by subtle arguments, through which we need not follow him, that this mediator could be no one else than the Son of God, and he concludes by assigning to each of the Persons of the Trinity, His exact place in the scheme of the Redemption :

"Divisit itaque Trinitas negotium salutis humanse, ut unam eamdemque hominis culpam Pater puniret, Filius expiaret, Spiritus Sanctus ignosceret. . . . Pater satisfactionem exigit, Filius ex- sol vit, Spiritus Sanctus se medium interposuit." l

In such texts Harnack might be excused for find- ing traces of Gnosticism, and, though we should not think of describing them as heretical, it is not our business to defend them. But whatever we may think of such momentary aberrations, into which Richard was probably betrayed by inadvertence, our author's interpretations of Satisfaction are usually fairly correct, and sufficiently personal to be interest- ing. Not only does he retain the aspect of penal substitution, in this following Hugo, but he subor- dinates it to moral reparation. He also borrows from the Cur Deus Homo the idea of this Satisfaction being necessary, though he fails to give St. Anselm's metaphysical principle. From this we infer that Richard had a good deal in him of the populariser, and as such is faithful to the more superficial part of St. Anselm's doctrine, even to re-echoing its very exaggerations.

Another adaptation of St. Anselm's doctrine is to

1 RICHARD. A s. VICT. De Verbo incarn. 8-11. P.L. cxcvi. ; col. 1002-5.

88 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

be found in a commentary on the Song of Songs compiled by Gilbert Foliot, Bishop of London.

Man, he says, had sinned, and thereby deserved everlasting punishment. Had he remained faithful, he would have become for all eternity a partaker of the happiness of heaven ; hence justice requires that, having fallen, he should be eternally punished. This resulted in a strange conflict (mirabiUs obviatio) be- tween mercy and justice :

" Misericordia et iustitia sibi contra venire coeperunt. ... Ad poenas hominem veritas exigebat, de cuius reparatione misericordia melius aliquid disponebat."

First of all, justice got the best of it, and man was punished. But when justice had been to a great extent satisfied, mercy still claiming withal its rights, God decided to take into account the latter :

" Cumque magna iam parte satisfactum esset iustitiae . . . pul- santi semper et instant! plurimum misericordiae tandem locus datus est in excelsis."

The Father then decided to restore all things in Him by whom they had been created. This mission was accepted by the Son, and His submitting to undertake it is the more admirable because He is in all things equal to the Father. Hence He became obedient even to the cross, and by undergoing death for us He restored us to life. His precious blood was the redemption of our souls, and His sacrifice repaired Adam's guilty laxity. Hence even justice itself can now no longer complain :

" I ustitiam misericordia osculatur : hie namque simul utrique satisfactum est, cum et homo, misericordia sic agente, redimitur, et iustitiae longe plus quam debebatur exsolvitur."

It might be objected that man had been sentenced to everlasting punishment whereas Christ only un- derwent a short Passion. To this we may easily

ALANUS DE INSULIS 89

reply. Put into the scales the everlasting death of all mankind and the temporal death of the Son of God who takes their place (in unitate et Sacramento corporis et capitis). Is it not clear that the latter is the greater ? This is why our Saviour applies to Himself, and expounds to His Father, the words of the Prophet : " Utinam appenderentur peccata in statera ! " (Job vi. 2).

"Pcena mea cum obedientia longe peccatis hominum praepon- derabit, et tibi [Deo] in expiationera culpse eius et prsestationem pcenae . . . satis erit." l

Apart from the fanciful conflict between God's justice and mercy — and we cannot ascribe to St. Anselm the mistakes of his followers — the above shows us that the doctrine of Satisfaction was under- stood and expounded by Gilbert Foliot, even better than by Richard of St. Victor.

In the well-known theologian of the twelfth century, Alanus de Insulis, we find another distant disciple of St. Anselm. First, in one of his works there is to be found a traditional synthesis of the Atonement, composed without recourse to the idea of Satisfaction.

Before the coming of Christ, men were all slaves of sin and after their death descended to hell. To save mankind from everlasting death it was necessary to restore it, but such a restoration required the In- carnation of God :

" Ne ergo homo in seternum periret, restitui hominem oportebat ; restitui autem non poterat, nisi Deus hominem assumeret."

For man, being a sinner, could not redeem himself. On the other hand, were an angel to redeem us we should be under an obligation to him and thus our

1GiLB. FOLIOT, Expositio in Cantic. cant. — P.L. ccii. ; col. 1160- 1162.

90 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

restoration would not be complete. This was why God became man. His undeserved death broke Satan's sovereignty and expiated our sins : " Mors Christi peccati originalis apud Patrem hostia et pro- pitiatio fuit"

That Christ delivered Himself for this twofold object appears to Alanus to be demonstrated by many proofs, especially by Isaias, chapter liii.1

In his Articles of Catholic Faith, in which he sums up the doctrines of the Church in the geometrical form of theorems and corollaries, in order to con- vince, as he says, by reason those minds who rebel against authority,2 we find that the whole of the third book is devoted to the problem of the Atonement.

Man, he says, being weak, has a right to be mercifully dealt with by God ; moreover God, having decreed that he should be associated with the angels, is morally bound to restore him after his fall. Divine justice could not, however, allow sin to go unpunished, hence Satisfaction was necessary. Again, as it was man who had sinned, this Satisfaction had to be made by man and by no other. But man could not make it, not only on account of the infinite enormity of sin, but also because all acts which he could accomplish were already due to God. Hence it was necessary that God should become man :

"Ergo oportuit Deum esse hominem qui satisfaceret pro crea- tura."

It was part of Christ's duty to offer Himself to God in man's stead. Moreover, seeing that a single sin deserved infinite punishment, and that there were not merely one but many sins to repair, the Saviour

*ALAN. DE INS. Contra hcereticos, iii. 19-20 — P.L. ccx. ; col. 418- 420.

2 De art. cathol.Jidei, Prolog, ibid. col. 596-7.

ALANUS DE INSULIS 91

was bound to undergo the greatest penalty possible. This was why Christ underwent death, which is the greatest of all human penalties. Hence He offered Himself to God as a Victim of expiation, and, as His Godhead gave an infinite worth to His sacrifice, His death sufficed to destroy the sins of all men.1

Alanus does not at all fully explain here in what consists Christ's Satisfaction. Concerning this we are told more under the word " Redeem," in a kind of theological dictionary written by him. It was Christ's humility, which made satisfaction, and paid the price for Adam's pride :

(( jEquivalens pretium dedit Christus pro liberatione hominis, immo maius, quia maior fuit in Christo humilitas quam in Adam superbia." 2

The reader will notice that this idea of a repara- tion by means of humility is becoming classical; but speaking broadly, the doctrine of Alanus is merely a syllogistical summing-up of the Cur Deus Homo.

Ritschl protests against any impression that An- selm's theory was ever universally accepted, and he adds : " Even in the Middle Ages, thanks to the authority of Peter Lombard, Abaelard prevailed over Anselm." 3

This statement certainly does not apply to the end of the twelfth century, when, as we have just seen, Anselm 's doctrine, down to its very exaggerations, was everywhere accepted. We shall be still less surprised to find it in a modified form dominating the minds of the great masters of the thirteenth century.

lDe art. cathol.Jtdei, iii. 1-13 ; col. 609-612. 2Dist. diet, theol. "Redimere"; ibid. col. 923. 3 RITSCHL, op. cit. i. pp. 32-33.

92 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

III

The brief summaries and partial adaptations with which we have just dealt, sufficed, in spite of Peter Lombard's influence, to keep theologians in contact with St. Anselm's thought. We shall now see how Alexander Hales introduced it, so to speak, officially into the teaching of the schools.

After having proved that human nature had fallen — though not beyond hope of relief — Alexander investigates whether its restoration was necessary. We must, he says, consider the necessity from two points of view : that of God and that of man. More- over, a thing is necessary either because it is immut- able, or, because it is inevitable (Est enim qucedam necessitas immutabilitatis et qucedam necesssitas in- evitabiUtatis). This latter form of necessity mani- festly cannot be attributed to God ; but the former kind may. In this sense our redemption was necessary that the immutability of God's decrees might be safeguarded, but this form is not necessity properly so-called. In man neither of these necessities exist ; but Alexander, presumably for the sake of symmetry, invents another — the necessity of indigence. By means of such distinctions he contrives to retain the word necessity, whilst practically rejecting the idea. But so far it is not quite clear whether God's decree to redeem the world was free or not.

Given the hypothesis of the Atonement, was Satisfaction necessary ? Roughly speaking we may reply affirmatively. No doubt, de potentia absoluta, God could restore human nature without exacting any satisfaction, but He cannot do so having regard to His Justice, because, according to St. Anselm, this

ALEXANDER HALES 93

would be to allow sin to go unpunished; an ill-ordered goodness and a real injustice :

" Sicut iustitia sine misericordia crudelis est et vitiosa, ita be- nignitas sine iustitia vitiosa est ; et ita, si dimitteret peccatum sine satisfactione, ista benignitas esset iniustitia."

But man cannot make satisfaction for himself, because he is a sinner. With regard to original sin there is a special and quite insurmountable difficulty ; for as that sin comes to us from another, it is necessary that the temporal punishment for it should be paid by another.1

Nor could sin be repaired by an angel, both because man's dignity does not allow of his being sub- ject to an angel, and also because no angel is powerful enough to make compensation for the whole human race. For a like reason any other creature is likewise incapable ; for to make to God a fit reparation for the damage and insult committed against Him, some- thing would have to be offered which is greater than anything which is not God.

" Ille qui poterit dare de suo aliquid maius quam omne quod non est Deus potest hanc satisfactionem facere, et non alius."

Hence nothing remains save for a God-man to offer satisfaction :

" Necesse est ut satisfaciat Deus qui potest et homo qui debet : ergo debet satisfacere Deus homo."

God could not — Alexander repeats this — allow sin to go unpunished, nor could He therefore offer a free pardon, without exacting satisfaction.2

By similar abstruse dialectics Alexander comes to the conclusion, that even had man not sinned, the Son of God would nevertheless have become incarnate.3 After having thus demonstrated that Christ's Satis-

1 ALEXAND. ALENS. Summa iheol. pars. iii.a quaest. i. membrum i.-v.

2 Ibid, membr. vi.-vii. 3 Ibid, quaest. ii. membr. xiii.

94 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

faction was required, our author goes on to show how it was brought about. Was the Passion necessary ? Yes ; given the Divine plan of our Salvation :

" Redemptio non potuit esse nisi per satisfactionem, nee satis- factio nisi per passionem."

But it must not be forgotten that this plan de- pends on God's free-will. Hence, had Christ not died, man could not have been saved, because he could not have found elsewhere a sufficient ransom, and this too would all have happened according to the Divine Will. Was the Passion befitting ? Yes ; more especially did it beseem God's Justice which thus made the God-man pay the debt which man owed but was unable to pay :

" Homo enim non poterat reddere, sed debebat ; Deus poterat, sed non debebat: oportuit ergo quod solveret homo-Deus, homo qui deberet, Deus qui posset."

The value of Christ's Passion must be measured by the dignity of the Sufferer ; on this account it sufficed to make Satisfaction for all.1

Alexander then reckons up its effects, of which the first is our Justification, and here he clearly indicates the objective and the subjective value. Objectively (in rei natura), our Saviour's death justifies us by meriting and by satisfying. In effect it merits grace and is an expiation which infinitely surpasses our faults. Subjectively (secundum esse quod habet in animabus), it justifies us in four ways : by love, by faith, by compassion, and by imitation ; for it urges us to love, and to make satisfaction likewise for our own sins. Other results of the Passion are mentioned by Alexander : it reconciles us with God, it diminishes the power of the devil, and opens to us the gates of heaven.2

1 ALEXAND. ALENS. Summa theol. pars, iii.* qu. xviii. membr. iii.-v.

2 Ibid, membr. vi. ; art. 1-4.

BONAVENTURE 95

It is scarcely needful to point out that Alexander Hales follows the Cur Deus Homo step by step. His work was to arrange the doctrine of that book under the titles which were soon to become classical. He did but little to perfect it, except in so far as Justifica- tion is concerned, in which his work is a decided improvement on that of the Lombard. He never penetrated into the innermost recesses of the mystery, and never even succeeded in quite explaining what he means by Satisfaction, and the two ideas of moral re- paration and penal substitution appear confused to the extent that we cannot say which is the dominant one. But the worst of all is that, in dealing with the great question of the necessity of Satisfaction, instead of candidly disclaiming St. Anselm's exaggerations, he actually seems to narrow his Master's doctrine by his own rigid dialectics.1 To sum up, Alexander was original merely in his formal arrangement of the matter. Peter Lombard had classified the Patristic texts, Alexander formulated, in the shape of theses, the rational arguments of St. Anselm, without how- ever improving on them.

IV

Alexander Hales was the master of St. Bonaventure and the chosen model of St. Thomas Aquinas. Hence he exerted a far-reaching influence over the two greatest Doctors of the Middle Ages.

St. Bonaventure's doctrine of the Atonement is found in his commentary on the Sentences ; as our readers are aware, commentaries, as then understood, allowed of authors expounding fully their own personal views. Bonaventure follows step by step the master's arrange-

1 SCHWANE, op. cit. iv. p. 490.

96 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

ment of the questions — an arrangement which is by no means perfect — and thus he begins, when dealing with merit, by speaking of the efficaciousness of the Passion. Christ, he says, merited by His whole life but more especially by His death. The excellent will which He showed in His death makes it meritorious far above all the sufferings of the saints.1 Hence He gained merit for Himself and still more for us ; first of all the opening of heaven's gate,2 and secondly the forgiveness of sins. His death destroyed the account which was against us — by this expression our author wishes to convey that it destroys the need of punish- ment which follows sin — it also delivers us from Satan. By means of a mystic comparison, Bonaventure ex- plains how the devil had two hands. With one he drew souls irresistibly into hell ; this hand was cut off; with the other he tempted man, this hand was only weakened. The Passion also remits our punish- ment, everlastingpunishment, completely, and temporal punishment also, though only partially.3 In the same Question Bonaventure meets the text of Peter Lom- bard's in which we had remarked the influence of Abselard, and in which the forgiveness of sins is ascribed to the charity aroused in our hearts by the Passion. The commentator states this difficulty in a dubium, and answers that the subjective efficacious- ness of charity presupposes the objective value of merit, otherwise it would be worthless :

"Et haec quidem bona ratio est et sufficiens, priori supposita: per se autem non sufficit." *

1 BONAVENT. In III. Sent. Dist. xviii. ; art. i. qu. 3. Quaracchi's Edition, p. 386.

2 Ibid. art. ii. q. 3 ; p. 392.

8 Dist. xix. ; art. i. q. 1-4; pp. 400-407. 4 Ibid. Dist. xix. ; dubium i. p. 412.

BONA VENTURE 97

After having thus explained the results of the Atonement according to the method adopted by the Master of Sentences, Bonaventure enters on the consideration of its requisites. Was the Atonement necessary ? Bonaventure discreetly words the question so as to inquire " whether it was fit (utrum congruum fuerit) that human nature should be restored." Cer- tainly, he replies, it was fit. In the first instance, such a restoration befits God ; this he proves by four principles borrowed from St. Anselm. It did not beseem His immutability that His plans should be brought to naught ; nor His goodness that all man- kind should be damned for the sin of one ; nor His wisdom that the noblest of His creatures should perish ; nor His power that His servants should be unjustly held in thrall by another.

It was also fit, gauged from man's side ; both be- cause of man's dignity and because of his wretched- ness, which, in God's eyes, already constituted a kind of expiation as well as an appeal to His mercy. In spite of this, Bonaventure considers himself obliged to retain St. Anselm' s expression, even though he has already deprived it of its content, and he accord- ingly says that the Atonement was necessary by the necessity of immutability :

" Non quacumque necessitate, sed necessitate immutabilitatis, quae non opponitur libertati voluntatis, ac per hoc nee gratiae nee liberalitati." 1

Farther on St. Bonaventure likewise confines him- self to asking, not whether Satisfaction was necessary, but, whether it was more fitting (utrum magis con- gruerit), and he follows Augustine and Anselm in replying affirmatively, both because God thus shows forth His mercy and His Justice and because this is

1 Dist. xx. ; qu. 1, pp. 416-419.

II. G

98 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

more conformable with our entire Justification and glorification.1 But no creature could repair the sin of the human race. If we consider sin as an insult, no mere human reparation could counterbalance the outrage committed against God ; if we consider the injury it does to God, no man can make satisfaction for the loss of the whole human race ; hence what was needed was a God-man. St. Bonaventure would have kept well within the truth, had he clearly told us that he is taking for granted an actual decree of Providence to this effect.2 This, however, he hints at in the next Question by stating that when personal sin is in question, man cannot offer for it complete satisfaction; but that, if God consents to forgive the sin, man can then make partial satisfaction (send- plenam), by making reparation, with the help of God's grace, for the injury done to God. Thus Christ had to come to atone for original sin and to fill up by His merits what was wanting to our own partial Satisfaction.3

Lastly Bonaventure shows that the Atonement by means of the Passion was the fittest means that could be devised. He considers this means the best to appease the Divine wrath, to arouse man's love, and to vanquish Satan. Our Saviour's death was agreeable to God, because the greatest sacrifice that can be offered is that of one's life. Our Doctor also points out that this death was not inflicted or commanded by God, but was simply allowed and accepted :

" Non tradidit infligendo mortem vel praecipiendo . . . sed per- mittendo et voluntatem eius acceptando."

1 Dist. xx. ; qu. 2, pp. 419-422. 2 Q. 3, p. 423.

3 Q. 4, pp. 425-426.

BONAVENTURE 99

Nor did God take pleasure in the penalty, but only in the love of the Sufferer :

" Deus non delectatur in poena . . . delectatur tamen et placet sibi optima voluntas per quam poena sustinetur et ad honorem Dei ordinatur." l

But, notwithstanding the fitness of this means, God had others at His command, for His Almighty power has no bounds ; but, as for us, we have no choice. This is the sense — viz. as relatively to us and sub- sequently to the free decree of God — in which St. Bonaventure interprets the traditional texts which speak of the necessity of the Atonement :

" Auctoritates illae intelliguntur ex parte nostra, praesupposita dispositione divina qua nos sic et non alio modo liberare decrevit." 2

The fourth objection is interesting as giving an excellent summary of St. Anselm's system. God, it is said, in order to restore the human race, unless He wishes to prove false to Himself, must do so justly. Hence He must have Satisfaction, and Satisfaction must be made by Christ. St. Bonaventure replies by denying the major, for God, as he says, could have granted us a free pardon without prejudice to His justice :

"Potuit liberare per viam misericordiae, nee in hoc fuisset factum praeiudicium iustitiae. . . . Et ita, si sine satisfactione genus humanum liberasset, non propter hoc contra iustitiam fecisset."

Still less can the Passion be described as necessary ; the slightest suffering of so great a Person would have been sufficient. God could possibly not have redeemed us otherwise, but He had many other means of delivering us.3

To complete our idea of St. Bonaventure's doctrine one thing is lacking, we do not yet know what

1 Q. 5, pp. 427-429. 2 Q. 6, pp. 431-432.

3 Ibid. qu. 6, ad 4um, p. 432.

100 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

exactly he implies by Satisfaction. He nowhere ex- plains himself quite clearly, but his opinion may be inferred from the following text : —

" Nullus poterat Deum placare, quamvis vohmtarie perferendo mortem posset Deo placere. . . . Christus autem, quia sine debito mortis pertulit mortem, et placere potuit et placare : placere quia ex bona voluntate, placare vere quia prceter necessitatem." 1

From this it follows that, according to St. Bona- venture, Satisfaction requires two conditions, one being outward and the other inward. Hence it might be defined as a work of supererogation per- formed with love.

This proves that St. Bonaventure's doctrine was nowise different from that of Alexander Hales and St. Anselm. He sets himself the same questions, and resolves them according to the same principles ; but the tone of the answers has changed ; we hear no more of necessity but only of fitness. Thanks to the softening influence of Bonaventure, the too rigid doctrine of the Cur Deus Homo has at last been brought into the way of mildness, in which it will be definitively fixed by St. Thomas.

The doctrine of Aquinas differs but little from that of St. Bonaventure. It is not even, as might be ex- pected, better ordered. The commentary on the Sentences and the Summa theologica are both incom- plete, and require to be brought together if we wish to have anything like a complete idea of his views.

Was the redemption of the human race necessary ? St. Thomas answers negatively ; but it was exceed- ingly fit both from God's point of view, on account

1 Dist. xviii. ; dubium iv. 396.

AQUINAS 101

of His mercy, power, and wisdom, and from the point of view of man, who had fallen through the fault of another. Was it necessary that God should demand Satisfaction ? No ; but this too was fit, both in order to manifest God's justice and in order to restore man more completely even in his own sight, and also to re-establish in the world the normal course of things :

" Congruum ... ex parte Dei, quia, in hoc divina iustitia mani- festatur, quod culpa per pcenam diluitur . . . ; ex parte hominis, qui satisfaciens perfectius integrator . . . ; etiam ex parte universi, ut scilicet culpa per poenam satisfactionis ordinetur et sic nihil inordinatum in universo remaneat." 1

St. Thomas has not thought fit to deal with these questions in the Summa, though he there touches on the last, when proving the rights of the Divine mercy. God could freely pardon sin without in any way prejudicing His Justice. It is argued indeed, that human judges must, under penalty of being unjust, punish misdeeds ; but this is only because they are the guardians of a higher good, whereas God is Himself the supreme Good. Hence He can pardon without demanding any Satisfaction, just as any man can, without injustice, forgive a personal insult.2

Was the Incarnation necessary ? St. Thomas natu- rally rejects any idea of its absolute necessity, but he maintains that it too was most fit; both in order to lead us to good ; to urge us to greater faith, hope, and charity ; to set us an example ; and in order to deliver us from evil, and more especially to expiate our sins. A common man could not make satisfac- tion for our sins, the reason being that sin has in it a kind of infinity (quamdam infinitatem habet), because

1 THOM. AQUIN. In III. Sent. Dist. xx. q. 1, art. 1. Solutio i. and ii.

2 Sum. theol. 3* pars. q. 46, art. 2 ad 3um.

102 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

it is committed against God, who is infinite. Sin, moreover, has corrupted the whole human race, whereas a man is unable to make satisfaction for him- self alone. Hence the Incarnation was in itself something fit ; it even becomes a necessity granted the hypothesis — which is now a fact — that God exacts adequate Satisfaction.1

We must say the same of the Passion. It was not necessary, save subsequently to the Divine decree which decided it, but it was most fit, not only as a means of safeguarding the rights both of Justice and Mercy, but also on account of the immense benefits which accrue to us through it :

"Multa concurrerunt ad salutem hominis pertinentia praeter liberationem a peccatis."

Hence, theoretically, God had at His command many methods for effecting our salvation, but practi- cally, and so far as we are concerned, there was no other means.2

Having seen what St. Thomas's doctrine was concerning the conditions of Salvation, we may now seek how, according to him, our Salvation was actually wrought. The Angelic Doctor first considers the Passion in itself, and points out the immensity of Christ's sufferings. Christ suffered in His body and in His soul. He suffered in all His senses and for all men. This accounts for the Passion being, of all sufferings the greatest, both by reason of its cruelty and by reason of His great sensibility, though we must beware of thinking for an instant that it reached the higher part of His soul or deprived Him

1 Sum. theol. iii. p. q. 1, art. 2. Cp. HI. Sent. Dist. i. q. 1, art. 2 and Dist. xx. q. 1, art. 2.

2 Ibid. q. 46, art. 1-3. Cp. III. Sent. Dist. xx. q. 1, art. 3 and 4.

AQUINAS 103

of the beatific vision.1 St. Thomas also points out that the essential quality of the Passion was its freedom, which, by the way, is not incompatible with obedience. Christ really delivered Himself up, though He accepted, in obedience and love, His Father's Will. When we say that the Father delivered Him we only mean that He inspired and permitted His sacrifice.2

To these moral dispositions which form the human value of our Saviour's death, His Godhead adds an infinite price whence results our Salvation. Christ's death reacts on us as a merit, because He is the head of a body of which we are the members, and it is also a Satisfaction, a Sacrifice, and a redemption. 3 We see that St. Thomas here enumerates, without classify- ing them, the current sayings, an enumeration which, by the way, has resulted in his being accused of heaping together contradictory ideas.4 As a matter of fact the contradiction is only on the surface, for these different words merely render different aspects of the same reality ; the idea of redemption and that of Sacrifice both being reducible to the idea of Satis- faction ; and the latter resulting from the extent of the sufferings undergone in the Passion, from the dignity of the Sufferer, and from the love which He therein showed. M. Sabatier opines that St. Thomas's idea of Satisfaction is based " on Roman Law " and is " a Satisfaction made through the legal punishment, de- served and undergone." 5 On the contrary Harnack

1 Sum. th. q. 46, art. 5-8.

2 Q. 47, art. 1-3. Cp. HI. Sent. Dist. xx. q. 1, art. 5.

3 Q. 48, art. 1-5. Cp. ibid. q. 22, art. 2 and 3, q. 49 art. 1 and ///. Sent. Dist. xviii. q. 1, art. 6.

4 Cp. RITSCHL, op. oil. p. 31. HARNACK, p. 476. SABATIER, p. 61, note 1.

5 SABATIER, op. cit. p. 59.

104 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

is of opinion that such an idea scarcely ever makes its appearance in St. Thomas.1 In this opinion he is correct, but he is wrong in desiderating anything else. As we have seen, the idea of substitution, though it is well founded, is relatively less important, and only superficial theologians could think of it as the one thing necessary. St. Thomas saw clearly that the Passion, though it was a penalty, and the penalty of our sins, was more particularly a grand act of obedience and love. This was why he took care not to make Satisfaction consist in a mere penal verdict, but followed Anselm's lead in making it a work of a high moral order.

Thanks to this Satisfaction we were delivered from sin, snatched from Satan, and reconciled with God, In other words we, all of us, benefit by the merits of Christ our head and this by reason of a solidarity estab- lished by God Himself. We are thus dispensed from undergoing any penalty, for Christ's satisfaction was not merely sufficient but superabundant. Yet with respect to the sins which we commit after baptism, we must expiate them by personal satisfaction by which we unite ourselves in a certain fashion to Christ's Passion.2

In this manner St. Thomas avoids any exaggeration; he admits the great fitness of the Passion, though he does not state it to be necessary ; he maintains the objectivity and the superabundance of the Atonement, though he does not allow this to interfere with our own twofold collaboration. Possibly his wise reserve may be the reason why certain historians consider his doctrine to lack order and stability.3 No doubt they

1 HARNACK, op. cit. iii. pp. 478-479-

2 Sum. th. 3a pars. q. 49, art. 1-6. Cp. III. Sent. Dist. xix.

8 Cp. HARNACK, op. cit. iii. pp. 480-481. SABATIER, op. cit. p. 6l, note 1.

DUNS SCOT 105

would prefer him to have upheld a system as absolute as that of Anselm, for then it would have been an easy task for them to demonstrate its unreality. As for us, our preference is for St. Thomas and for his delicate sense of shades and distinctions, which after all is merely the art of rendering aright the com- plexity of reality.

VI

But this doctrine, in which Aquinas had succeeded in adjusting in due equilibrium the different elements of an extraordinarily complex problem, was soon to be threatened by the subtle dialectics of Duns Scot. Under the pretext of criticising St. Anselm's ex- aggerations, the great Franciscan Doctor subjected to a merciless criticism even those metaphysical and dogmatic principles which had been respected by St. Thomas.

According to Scot the Atonement was no wise necessary, and even granted that God wished to save mankind He could have remitted all Satisfaction; for the plan of Salvation is an effect of God's free- will. So far Scot is in agreement with the School- men of the milder party of Bonaventure and St. Thomas. But Scot goes further, and impugns even the relative necessity of the Incarnation ; accord- ing to him a mere creature, properly gifted with grace, would be capable of making a sufficient atone- ment, supposing God to require it ; for it is untrue that the grievousness of sin is in any sense infinite. Moreover Christ's Satisfaction was not infinite, for our Saviour only suffered in His human nature ; it only becomes infinite through its benevolent acceptance by God, who deigns to consider it as such. Hence

106 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

Scot does away with all intrinsic necessity and sub- ordinates everything to God's free-will.1

Protestant historians rejoice to find in the strictures of Duns Scot an anticipation of Socinianism,2 and this no doubt explains why they attach so much importance to Scot's views. But as a matter of fact Scot's arguments are subtle rather than deep. He diminishes the grievousness of sin; he lowers our Saviour to the condition of a creature, since the value of His merit depends wholly on God's accept- ance. To do so is to forget that every action of the God-man, by reason of the hypostatic union, has the infinite worth of the Divine Person from which it proceeds. In Scot's system — here we for once find Harnack agreeing with Schwane — there was an unfortunate tendency to Nestorianism.3 On the philosophy both of sin and of the Incarnation St. Thomas's doctrine is both deeper and more conform- able with Catholic tradition. He maintains the infinite grievousness of sin and the infinite superabundance of Christ's Satisfaction, thus throwing light at once on the reason and on the unspeakable efficaciousness of the Atonement. Both these things are scouted by Scot, who, in consequence of this, belittles the mystery, if indeed he does not shake it to its very foundations.

Hence the reader will not be surprised to learn that very few adopted the view of Duns Scot. Harnack indeed states that "the Scotist theory gained more and more adherents in the fourteenth century ; that by means of the formal dialectics of some it was exaggerated even to the verge of blas-

1 For a more detailed exposal and criticism of the theory, see SCHWANE, iv. pp. 514-520.

2 Cp. SABATIER, op. cit. p. 63. Cp. p. 68.

8 Cp. HARNACK, op. cit. p. 482, note 2, and SCHWANE, p. 520.

DUNS SCOT 107

phemy, and that it exerted its influence even on the Thomists."1 But Harnack makes no attempt to prove his statement whilst the only disciples of Scot known to Dr. Schwane in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries are "a few theologians such as Durandus and Aureolus." 2

It may be observed that several determined Scotists — such as Mastrius, Hauzeur, Frassenius, Humo, and others — even endeavoured to mitigate the master's doctrine concerning Christ's merits and their accept- ance by God. Recollecting Scot's words :

"In commendando Christum malo excedere quam deficere a laude sibi debita, si propter ignorantiam oporteat in alterum in- cidere,"

they preferred to consider this good intention, rather than stick to the literal meaning of his words :

" Respiciendum potius ad illam eius intentionem quam serpere eius sensum litteralem." 3

All that we can say, is that their interpretation, however well meant, is unfounded, though it serves to show how faithful Catholic theology remained to the doctrine of St. Thomas. At a later date Suarez was to write that the real and intrinsic infinity of Christ's merits is so certain, that the " contrary opinion seems neither probable, pious nor in sufficient agreement with the faith."4

But though Scot's doctrine found few followers, it was none the less helpful indirectly in calling forth refutations both many and lengthy. Since the six- teenth century, theologians do not consider their task

1 HARNACK, op. cit. p. 483.

2 SCHWANE, op. cit. p. 521.

3 Cp. BONAVENT. (Quaracchi's edition), Scholia of the Editors, iii. pp. 429-430.

4 SUAREZ, De Incarnat. Disp. iv. sect. 3, concl. 3, n. 11.

108 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

at an end when they have proved the superabundance of Christ's Satisfaction ; they also seek to determine whether it is conformable with justice, with strict justice (ad strictos juris apices), and with commuta- tive justice.1 It is scarcely necessary to point out that the importance of such questions is not com- mensurate with the amount of room they occupy in our hand-books, and that, without our doctrine thereby suffering in the least we may bring its history to a close at the point where it was left by St. Thomas, for then it was that St. Anselm's system received its finishing touch and definitively took its place in our theology.

Glancing back over the Middle Ages we find that it was then that the Atonement first claimed separate consideration by theology. It then began to be perceived that desultory comments on the Scripture- texts dealing with this mystery, and casual references in the course of a homily to the traditional metaphors, were insufficient. The problem was felt to be one deserving more serious treatment ; hence the classi- fication of the different aspects of the Atonement ; hence, too, St. Anselm's treatise.

This treatise is based on an analysis of sin, which is now seen to be a moral disorder and offence against God, not only by reason of its consequences, but in its very essence. This being so, it was natural that St. Anselm should look on Christ's death as an act of reparation through obedience and love, and that, to the mystical expressions : redemption or ransom, sacrifice and expiation, which till then were the only ones in use to express its value, he should prefer the highly moral idea and term of Satisfaction. Now that the question had been examined more closely it is not surprising to find that the answer was more exact.

1 Cp. DOKRHOLT, op. cit. pp. 424-488.

ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES 109

The analysis of sin also results in showing that its wickedness is in some sense boundless, because it is directed against the Infinite, and that, in conse- quence of this, God alone could repair it. But sin once destroyed, all its consequences likewise vanished ; we are redeemed, reconciled, and delivered from ever- lasting death ; what is more, Christ's merits are a guarantee of God's favour and love. Hence Salva- tion is wholly bound up with the forgiveness of sins and remains therefore dependent on the Satisfaction which God awaited from His Son's death. The key being now discovered all the rest becomes evident. There are, however, some good people who consider that thereby the question was illegitimately narrowed, and that there is more real grandeur in those eloquent syntheses, in which the Fathers de- scribed Salvation as the work of the whole mission of the Word. But this objection is unfounded ; it was high time to express the doctrine in more rigor- ously logical terms, and in this the work of the Schoolmen consisted. They were not unaware of the benefits secured to us by the Incarnation, but they devoted their attention more especially to Christ's death. In so doing they took their stand in the very centre of the problem, and were thus enabled to perceive the better what was the essence and what the cause of Salvation. In a word, their work was done scientifically and their shortcomings were merely the shortcomings inherent in their method, for can any science exist without some degree of abstraction and narrowing of issues ? What is lost in breadth is, however, gained in depth.

But as a matter of fact the problem discussed in the Middle Ages was the same as that dealt with by the Fathers — that, namely, which was suggested

110 ATONEMENT IN THE MIDDLE AGES

to Christian thought by St. Paul and by the Gospels — viz. the relation which exists between Christ's death and the forgiveness of sins. The Fathers, as we saw, explain this relationship by means of the ritual idea of sacrifice, or else by means of the legal idea of penal substitution. The Middle Ages, follow- ing the lines laid down by St. Anselm, sought the metaphysical reason of this legal processus, and brought out the latent moral truths which were con- cealed beneath the ritual terminology. Hence the doctrine of satisfaction was new only in its form ; in reality it was merely a simpler and a deeper restate- ment of traditional ideas.

To sum up, we owe to the Middle Ages a special treatise on the Atonement, based on a better under- standing of sin, and which issued in a higher idea of the supernatural efficaciousness and relative necessity of the death of the God-man. Scholasticism, in thus producing a theology of the Atonement, merely ex- plored more deeply, and co-ordinated, the doctrinal data supplied by the Fathers.

PART THE FIFTH

THE RIGHTS OF THE DEVIL CHAPTER XXI

THE LEGAL FORM: THE RANSOM THEORY ORIGEN, ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA

WE have followed, without ever deviating into side issues, the different stages of the doctrine of the Atonement from its starting-point in Scripture until its definitive statement in mediaeval times. Our task would therefore seem to be finished. There is, how- ever, one question which we frequently met in company with our doctrine, but which we felt it necessary to waive, lest it should interfere with our work. As this question, that of the devil's rights, is intimately connected with the doctrine of the Atonement we feel it our duty to give its history, although this will involve our travelling a second time over the same ground.

The question arose as follows: — God and Satan are as it were two masters who contend for the possession of mankind. Hence men by departing from God fell under Satan's power, by whom they are now kept in bondage. As, moreover, men had fallen into his power, not unwillingly, but of their own choice, may we not say that the devil has over them a real right, a right of property and a right of con- quest? Hence, when God decided to free Satan's captives, was He not bound in justice to recognise in

112 THE DEVIL'S RIGHTS

and take into consideration the devil's rights ? Many of the Fathers answered this question affirmatively.

Christ certainly gave Himself out as Satan's ad- versary. We cannot fail to see that it is Himself that He describes under the figure of the stronger one who overcomes the strong man and takes away his armour and rifles his goods (MATT. xii. 29 ; LUKE xi. 22). Speaking generally, according to the Gospel, the kingdom of God, of which Christ is the founder, progresses by the gradual overcoming of the kingdom of Satan.1 This is how St. John comes to say that Christ came "that he might destroy the works of the devil" (1 John iii. 8), whilst St. Paul describes Him as "despoiling the principalities and powers and exposing them confidently in open show" (Col. ii. 15). Elsewhere our Lord Himself seems to give implicit sanction to the devil's rights when He says : "The prince of this world cometh and in me he hath not anything " ( JOHN xiv. 30). If the devil has no right over Christ, does this not show that he has some right over us ? This is the reason, no doubt, why the defeat of Satan is described as a judgment (JOHN. xii. 31) — i.e. as a condemnation. Lastly, can the many texts in which the word " redemption " or "ransom" occurs, refer to aught save to a ransom paid to the devil, who, through sin, had become the possessor, if not indeed the rightful owner, of our souls ? Thus there came to be built on these Scrip- ture-texts a theory, or rather a regular system, to which, however, more was contributed by fancy than by reason.

Our opponents are fond of lingering over this singular system. Ritschl and Harnack represent it as one of the most important forms, Lichten-

1 Cp. ROSE, op. cit. pp. 103-107.

IREN^EUS 113

berger and Sabatier as almost the only form of early Christian thought. Naturally enough, they find in it an excuse for deriding the simplicity of that unfortunate Catholic Church, who, for so long, put her trust in conceptions so utterly childish and absurd. M. Sabatier sees in it an evident "product of mythological habits of thinking which persisted well into the Christian era and enslaved the imagination of the early Christians."1 Perhaps our readers will wonder why we have not dealt before with a matter of such gravity. We reserved it until now because we wished to treat it fully, and because we are under the impression that, notwithstanding the extent to which this view invaded the domains of theology, it never succeeded in monopolising Christian thought. This was why, so far, we confined ourselves to show- ing that, side by side with the theory of the devil's rights, and quite independently of it, another doctrine, which is the Church's own, was growing apace. We have studied the growth of the seed of truth ; we have watched it from its humble beginning to its rich harvest ; it is now our duty to turn our attention to the rank weeds which have grown up in its midst.

St. Irenaeus was the first of the Fathers to speak of the devil's rights. According to Irenseus the death and sin which held man in thrall were no mere abstractions ; besides being physic- ally real they were personified. Death and the devil are synonyms, and St. Irengeus used the

1 Op. cit. p. 90. Cp. p. 45. Note 1 : " The supernaturalism of the Fathers was merely a result of their mythological habits of mind."

II. H

114 THE DEVIL'S RIGHTS

words indiscriminately. This being so the devil is our great enemy. He is the tyrant who holds sinners captive, and, ever since Adam's fall, every man is a sinner : " By sin we were reduced to bondage ; we were all of us captives of Death " (iii. 18, 7). A first consequence of this is, that, just as man had been vanquished by the devil, so the devil would in his turn be vanquished by a man :

" Quoniam in initio homini suasit transgredi praeceptum factoris, ideo eum habuit in sua potestate . . . ; per hominem ipsum iterum oportebat victum eum contrario colligari iisdem vinculis, quibus alligavit hominem . . ." (v. 21, 3).

This was demanded by justice : " Neque enim iuste victus fuisset inimicus9 nisi ex muliere homo esset qui vicit eum " (ibid. 1). 1

But what is more, Satan had acquired a certain right over man. No doubt this right was an unjust one — this is clearly stated by Irenaeus — for it was based on a lie and hence God committed no injustice in rescuing from the devil his victims (iii. 23, 1). Nevertheless God consented to come to terms. The devil's sovereignty was not according to law ; by nature we belonged to God, from whom the devil had stolen us to make us his own disciples. But the Word of God, who is almighty, is also in- finitely just ; hence He willed to act justly even with the devil when taking away from him what really belonged to God : " Non defidens in sua iustitia, iuste etiam adversus ipsam conversus est apostasiam, ea quce sunt sua redimens ab ea."

He would not consent to treat the devil in the way the devil had treated us — i.e. He preferred to work by persuasion as it befitted God to work :

1 See the same idea, expressed in different words, in iii. 1 8, 7.

IREN^SUS 115

" Secundum suadelam, quemadmodum decebat Deum suadentem et non vim infer entem"

In this wise he succeeded in saving His creatures without infringing the rules of strictest justice (v. i. 1).

In what did the Divine persuasion consist? Irengeus does not leave us in any doubt as to his opinion ; it consisted in God Himself buying us at the price of His blood, Himself becoming our ransom :

"Sanguine suo rationabiliter redimens nos, redemptionem semetipsum dedit pro his qui in captivitatem ducti sunt " (ibid.).

Irenaeus does not tell us to whom this ransom was given. He even says elsewhere that we were debtors only to God, whose commandments we had trans- gressed (v. 16, 3 ; cp. v. 17, 1). Are we then to believe that Irenseus was unable to explain how we were redeemed from the devil J or in what the " per- suasion" of God consisted? Did Irenasus really mean that Christ's life was given to the devil as the price of our redemption ? He does not actually say so but he comes very near the admission. Though he never seems to have actually fallen into this childish error, he could scarcely have gone a step further, without so doing.

At any rate, and whatever the method may have been, " the Atonement was, so far as the devil was concerned, an act of justice, and so far as it con- cerned us, an act of mercy " (v. 2, 1), of which the ultimate result was the defeat of the devil and man's deliverance. Christ overcame the strong man and rifled his house. " The devil who unjustly kept man captive was himself most justly made a prisoner, and

1 Cp. v. 2, 1 : « Quantum attinet ad apostasiam, iuste suo sanguine redimens nos ab ea."

116 THE DEVIL'S RIGHTS

God's mercy delivered man from the power of his oppressor" (v. 21, 3).

To sum up, St. Irenseus did not fall into the same excesses as some of his successors. But he laid down the principle that the devil should be treated according to the laws of justice, from which he inferred the two main consequences that he was to be vanquished by a man, and in some sense repaid for the loss of his rights. This thesis of the Doctor of Lyons will assume a new form in passing through the brilliant mind of Origen.

II

" Christ is our Redeemer because, having fallen into captivity, we stood in need of a ransom."1 The very terms of this abstract principle show that, according to Origen, our redemption is no mere metaphor but a reality of which his whole system is an elaboration.

Man had been created free. God had put him between life and death that he might seal his destiny by his own choice. He chose death and delivered himself to the devil. Our soul cannot be without a master, and as soon as it escapes from the yoke of Christ it is brought under that of Satan. This bondage of sin is viewed by Origen as a real slavery ; the devil being the creditor to whom we all are debtors. " We all are debtors, having a bill against us, and even after our first bill has been paid how many new ones does not each of us incur again."2 The devil is a master of whom we are the slaves. " The soul which God had created free, reduces itself

1 ORIGEN, In loan. i. 39.— P. G. xiv. ; col. 91. 2/» lerem. horn. xv. 4. — P.O. xiii. ; col. 433.

ORIGEN 117

to slavery ; it hands over to the devil the charter of immortality which it had received from God and from the devil it accepts a new grant ; it signs away its freedom, in order to receive the yoke of sin and the sovereignty of death." 1

We belong to the devil as a piece of goods belongs to its purchaser. " We are God's creatures, but by our misdeeds we turn our backs on our Creator and sell ourselves to sin. Hence we belong to God because He created us, but we have become the slaves of Satan because we have sold ourselves to sin. This is why God was literally able to redeem us ; by so doing He restored to Himself what was His by creation, and yet at the same time, in a sense, He bought someone else's goods, because through sin we had given ourselves to another master." Origen even tells us with what currency the devil had bought us. " His coin, the coin which bears his image on it, is murder, adultery, thieving, and in general all forms of sin. Such is the devil's money of which his treasury is, alas, all too full. With this money he bought us and received a deed of ownership over us (chirographum decreti)." 2

This odd idea of the financial rights of the devil leads Origen to use a still more curious figure. " The devil has his own frontier-police, who are charged to examine each one of us to see what they can seize. Woe betide him who is unfortunate enough to have only debts and nothing with which to pay them. Christ alone was able to say : ' Vemt princeps mundi istius et in me habet nihil.'"* Nor is there in this latter power of the demon anything to surprise us.

1 In Rom. v. 3.— P.O. xiv. ; col. 1026.

2 In Exod. horn. vi. 9.— P.O. xii. ; col. 338.

3 In Luc. horn, xxiii.— P.G. xiii. ; col. 1862.

118 THE DEVIL'S RIGHTS

Granting that he has so many rights over us, is it not necessary that he possess also some means of enforcing them ?

Christ came to rescue our souls from this bondage, but it behoved Him first to give a price to the devil. "We were sold to sin, He redeemed us with His own blood from him who had bought us."1 This redemption is as literally true as was our bondage ; Origen explains this at length : " We term ransom that money which is paid to the enemy to free the captives he holds. The human race was such a captive, having been vanquished in the conflict with sin and taken prisoner by the devil. Christ became our ransom, that is, He delivered Him- self to our enemies. He shed all His precious blood for which the devil thirsted." 2 " His