606 THE MIDDLE AGES. A.D. 1049-1294.
Anselm concludes his treatise with the inquiry why the devil and his angels are not saved by Christ. His answer is that they did not derive their guilt and sinful estate through a single individual as men do from Adam. Each sinned for himself. For this reason each would have to be saved for himself by a God-angel. In declaring the salvation of fallen angels to be impossible, Anselm closes with the words, " I do not say that this is impossible as though the value of Christ's death were not great enough to be sufficient for all the sins of men and fallen angels, but because of a reason in the un changeable nature of things which stands in the way of the salvation of the lost angels." l
It is the merit of Anselm's argument that, while Athanasius and Augustine had laid stress upon the article that through Christ's sufferings atonement was made, Anselm explained the necessity of those sufferings. He also did the most valu able service of setting aside the view, which had been handed down from the Fathers, that Christ's death was a ransom-price paid to Satan. Even Augustine had asserted the rights of the devil. Again, Anselm laid proper stress upon the guilt of sin. He made earnest with it, not as a mistake, but as a violation of law, a derogation from the honor due to God.
The subject of the atonement was not exhausted by the argument of the Cur Deus homo. No one theory can com prehend its whole meaning. Certain biblical features have been made prominent since his day which Anselm did not emphasize. Each creative age has its own statement of the ology, and now one aspect and now another aspect of the un changeable biblical truth is made prominent. The different theories must be put into their proper places as fragments of the full statement of truth. Anselm regarded the atonement
1 II. 22 ; Migne, 158. 431. It is a matter of dispute how far Anselm drew upon the doctrine of penance which had been handed down from the Fathers or from the German law with its Wehrgeld, or debt of honor ; or whether he drew upon them at all. It is probable that the Church's penitential system had affected the chivalric idea of honor. Harnack, Dogmengesch., III. 252 sq., and Ritschl, Justification, etc., p. 203, make the objection against An selm's argument that it was based upon an " idea of God's justice which im plies an equality in private rights between God and man."
§ 98. ANSELM OF CANTERBURY. 607
from the legal rather than from the moral side of the divine nature. The attribute of justice is given a disproportionate emphasis. Man's relation to God is construed wholly as the re lation of a subordinate to a superior. The fatherhood of God has no adequate recognition. The actor in human redemption is God, the sovereign and the judge. Anselm left out John 3 : 16 and the Parable of the Prodigal Son.1
Anselm as a mystic. — In Anselm, mysticism was com bined with scholasticism, pious devotion with lofty specu lation, prayer with logical analysis. His deeply spiritual nature manifests itself in all his writings, but especially in his strictly devotional works, his Meditations and Prayers.2 They are in danger of suffering neglect in the attention given to Anselm's theological discussions.
The Schoolman's spiritual reflections abound in glowing utterances from the inner tabernacle of his heart. Now he loses himself in the contemplation of the divine attributes, now he laments over the deadness and waywardness of man. Now he soars aloft in strains of praise and adoration, now he whispers low the pleadings for mercy and pardon. At one moment he surveys the tragedy of the cross or the joys of the redeemed ; at another the terrors of the judgment and hopeless estate of the lost. Such a blending of mellow sentiment with high speculations is seldom found. No one of the greater personages of the Middle Ages, except Ber nard, excels him in the mystical element ; and he often re minds us of Bernard, as when he exclaims, " O good Jesus, how sweet thou art to the heart of him who thinks of thee
1 Harnack gives prolonged attention to Anselin's argument (Dogmengesch., III. 341-358) and, in specifying its merits and defects, declares that the defects largely outweigh the merits. Anselm's theory is not at all to be adopted, die Theorie ist vollig unannehmbar. It would not be necessary, Harnack says, to waste many words over the defects if it were not that the theology of the present day is stuck in traditionalism and neglects all the canons of Gospel, — ethics, logic, and culture. He declares it to be a fearful thought that God may not forgive from pure love, but had to have his honor appeased by sacrifice. Anselm's argument taken by itself does not justify such severe criticism, and, if his other writings and his own character be taken into account, he will be absolved from the implied charges.
*Meditationes sen Orationes, Migne, 158. 709-1014. See Hasse, I. 176-232.