the phrase filius adoptivus under certain restrictions. Walch, 1. c. p. 253; Gieseler, ii. 80; Baur, ii. 838.

4

Concerning the heresy of Nihilianism (Lombardi Sent. Lib. iii. Dist. 5-7, his language is not very definite), see Cramer, vol. vii. at the commencement; Dorner, p. 121, ss.; Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, pp. 86, 87; and Gieseler, Dogmengesch. 506, sq. In compliance with an order issued by Pope Alexander III., the phrase, “Deus non factus est aliquid” was examined by the Synod of Tours (A. D. 1163), and rejected: Mansi, Tom. xxii. p. 239. It was also opposed by John Cornubiensis, about the year 1175 (Martène Thesaurus, T. v. p. 1658, ss.)* But it was principally Walter of St. Victor, who made it appear that the language of Peter Lombard implied the heretical notion: Deus est nihil secundum quod homo. "The charge of Nihilianism is at least in so far unjust, as it represents the denial of existence in a certain individual form, as an absolute denial of existence. At all events, the attacks made upon Peter Lombard were among the reasons why theologians were henceforth more anxious to avoid the denial of the separate existence of the human nature of Christ. We meet, at least, in the writings of almost all the subsequent scholastics, with some passage or other, in which they urge, opposition to the phrase 'non aliquid,' used by Peter Lombard, that the human nature of Christ is something definite, and distinct from all others, but yet subsisting only in the divine person; hence they would not call it either individual, or person." Dorner, pp. 122, 123. Baur, ii. 563.

5

Albertus Magn. Compend. Theol. Lib. iv. de Incarnatione Christi c. 14, and lib. iii. on the Sentences, dist. xiii. (quoted by Dorner, pp. 124, 125). Thomas Aquinas P. iii. Qu. 8, 1, etc., quoted by Dorner, p. 126, ss. Comp. Cramer, vii. p. 571, ss.: Baur, ii. 787. [Baur, Dogmengesch. 259, says, that the christological theory of Aquinas ran out dialectically into the two negative positions, that God became nothing to the incarnation, and that of man as a real subject of the incarnation nothing could be said, because the subject (person) of the union is only the Son of God. The humanity of Christ is only a human nature, and not a human personality; the union kept the nature from becoming a person-otherwise the personality of the human nature must have been destroyed by the union. On the christological views of Anselm and Abelard, especially in relation to the possibility of Christ's sinning, see Neander, Hist. Dogmas, 513, sq. Anselm says, "that Christ could have sinned if he had so willed, but this possibility is only hypothetical;" Cur Deus Homo, ii. 10. Abelard, on Romans, avers, "that if Christ be regarded as a mere man, it is doubtful whether we could say of him nullo modo peccare posse; but speaking of him as God and man, only a non posse peccare is to be admitted."]

6

• Concerning the mystical mode of interpretation adopted by John Damascenus and others, especially by his supposed disciple, Theodore Abukara, see Dorner, p. 115, ss. On the connection between the scholastic

* John of Cornwall appeals among other things to the usage of language. When we say, e. g., All men have sinned-Christ is expressly excepted. Or, again, we say, Christ was the most holy of men; or, we count the twelve apostles and their Master together, and say, there are thirteen persons. All this could not be, if Christ were not—aliquis homo. See, further, in Baur, ubi supra.

definitions and the mystical, comp. ibid.-John Scotus Erigena considers the historical Christ as one in whom the human race is ideally represented; and at the same time he always strives to preserve Christ's specific dignity. Thus in De Divis. Nat. ii. 13: Humano intellectui, quem Christus assumsit, omnes intellectuales essentiæ inseparabiliter adhærent. Nonne plane vides, omnem creaturam, intelligibiles dico sensibilesque mediasque naturas, in Christo adunatam. Comp. v. 25, p. 252 : Quanquam enim totam humanam naturam, quam totam accepit, totam in se ipso et in toto humano genere totam salvavit, quosdam quidem in pristinum naturæ statum restituens, quosdam vero per excellentiam ultra naturam deificans; in nullo tamen nisi in ipso solo humanitas deitati in unitatem substantiæ adunata est, et in ipsam deitatem mutata omnia transcendit. Hoc enim proprium caput Ecclesiæ sibi ipsi reservavit, ut non solum ejus humanitas particeps deitatis, verum etiam ipsa deitas, postquam ascendit ad Patrem, fieret; in quam altitudinem nullus præter ipsum ascendit nec ascensurus est. [Comp. Christlieb's John Scotus Erigena, 1860, pp. 330-360. Erigena on the exinanitio espoused the view held afterwards by the Calvinists in distinction from the Lutherans, p. 335. He makes the incarnation to be necessary, v. 25: Si Dei sapientia in effectus causarum, quæ in ea æternaliter vivunt, non descenderet, causarum ratio periret: pereuntibus enim causarum effectibus nulla causa remaneret, etc. Notwithstanding Erigena's strong assertion about the historical Christ, the drift of his doctrine is to give to the incarnation a merely ideal, or symbolical character. He anticipates Schelling and Hegel in a striking manner; see Christlier, p. 354, sq.]-The scholastics in general recognized something universal in Christ, as the prototype of the race, without, however, impairing his historical individuality; see Dorner, p. 141.—This was still more the case with the mystics. Some of them, c. g., Geroch, prebendary of Reichersberg, protested as early as the time of the rise of Scholasticism, against the refining and hair-splitting tendency which became prevalent in regard to christology (especially in opposition to Folmar); see Cramer, 1. c. p. 43-78. The disciples of the school of St. Victor looked with an indifferent eye upon the subtler development of this dogma (Dorner, p. 142, note.) All the mystics urged that Christ is quickened in us. Thus Ruysbroek said, "Christ had his divinity and humanity by nature; but we have it when we are united to him in love by grace;" Comp. Engelhardt's Monograph, p. 157, and the entire section, p. 177-179. Tauler, Predigten, vol. i. p. 55, expressed himself as follows:-"We hold that we are susceptible of blessedness in the same manner in which he is susceptible, and that we receive here on earth a foretaste of that eternal blessedness which we shall enjoy hereafter. Since even the meanest powers and bodily senses of our Lord Jesus Christ were so united with his divine nature, that we may say, God saw, God heard, God suffered, so we, too, enjoy the advantage, in consequence of our union with him, that all our works may become divine. Further, human nature being united with the divine person, and with the angels, all men have more followship with him than other creatures, inasmuch as they are the members of his body, and are influenced by him as by their head, etc...... Not many sons! You may and ought to differ [from each other] according to your natural birth, but in the eternal birth there can be only one Son,

since in God there exists only one natural origin, on which account there can be only one natural emanation of the Son, not two. Therefore, if you would be one son with Christ, you must be an eternal outflowing together with the eternal word. As truly as God has become man, so truly man has become God by grace; and thus human nature is changed into what it has become, viz., into the divine image, which is consequently an image of the Father," etc. Compare also the sermon on Christmas-day, vol. i. p. 89, and other passages.-Deutsche Theologie, ch. 22: "Where God and man are so united, that we may say in truth, and truth itself must confess, that there is one who is verily perfect God, and verily perfect man, and where man is nevertheless so devoted to God, that God is there man himself, and that he acts and suffers entirely without any self-hood, or for self, or for self-having [Germ. ohne alles Ich, Mir und Mein], (i. e., without any self-will, self-love and selfishness): behold, there is verily Christ, and no where else." Comp. ch. 24 and ch. 43: "Where the life of Christ is, there is Christ himself, and where his life is not, there he is not."*-The language of Wessel is simple and dignified; De Causa Incarnat. c. 7, p. 427 (quoted by Ullmann, p. 267): “Every noble soul hath something divine in itself, which it loves to communicate. The more excellent it is, the more it endeavors to imitate the Divine Being. Accordingly, that holy and divinely beloved soul (i. e. Christ), resembling God more than any other creature, gave itself wholly up for the brethren, as it saw God doing the same with regard to itself." Comp. cap. 16, p. 450, and De Magnit. Passionis c. 82, p. 627: Qui non ab hoc exemplari trahitur, non est. On the human development of the Redeemer, see ibid. c. 17, p. 486, quoted by Ullmann, p. 259.

7 Thus the Beghards: Dicunt, se credere, quod quilibet homo perfectus sit Christus per naturam. (Mosheim, p. 256, after the letter of the bishop of Strasbourg.) According to Baur (Gesch. d. Trinit. ii. 310, comp. however, note to above), the church doctrine as expounded by John Scotus Erigena, was nothing more than that of the immanence of God in the world, which appeared in man in the form of an actual, concrete self-consciousness. [Comp. also Christlier, ubi supra.]

The partus virgineus was one of those subjects which greatly occupied the ingenuity of the scholastics. It was at the foundation of the controversy between Paschasius Radbert and Ratramn, about the year 850, on the question, whether Mary had given birth to Christ utero clauso? to which the former (after Jerome) replied in the affirmative, the latter (as Helvidius had done) in the negative. For further details, see Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, pp. 85 and 86; and Walch, C. G. F. Historia Controversiæ sæculi IX. de Partu B. Virginis. Gott. 1758. 4°. Anselm sought to prove in a very ingenious way, that the birth of the Virgin was necessary in the circle of divine possibibilities, Cur Deus Homo, ii. 8: Quatuor modis potest Deus facere hominem; videlicet aut de viro et de femina, sicut assiduus usus monstrat; aut nec de viro nec de femina, sicut creavit Adam; aut de viro sine femina, sicut fecit Evam; aut de femina sine viro, quod nondum fecit. Ut igitur hunc quoque modum probet suæ subjacere potestati, et ad hoc ipsum opus dilatum esse, nihil convenientius, quam ut de femina sine viro assumat illum hominem, quem quærimus. Utrum autem de virgine aut de non virgine dignius hoc fiat, non est opus disputare, sed sine omni dubitatione asserendum est, quia de virgine hominem nasci oportet.-In the

* Lest this passage might be misinterpreted, so as to refer to a mere ideal Christ, comp. what is said c. 52: "All that is hitherto written, Christ taught by a long life, which lasted thirty-three years and six months," etc.

writings of Robert Pulleyn, we meet with absurd questions respecting the exact moment at which, and the manner in which, the union of the divine nature of the Son with the human assumed in the womb of Mary, had taken place (Cramer, vi. p. 484, ss.)

The fondness of the scholastics for starting all sorts of questions, led them also to inquire, whether the union between the divine and human natures of Christ continued to exist after his death (the separation of the body from the soul.) Pulleyn replied in the affirmative. He supposed that only Christ's body had died, but not the whole man Christ; see Cramer, vi. pp. 487, 488. A controversy was also carried on between the Franciscans and Dominicans respecting the question, whether the blood shed on the cross was also separated from the divine nature of Christ? A violent discussion took place in Rome at Christmas, 1462. The Dominicans took the affirmative, the Franciscans the negative side of the question. At last Pope Pius II. prohibited the progress of the controversy by a bull, issued A. D. 1464; see Gobellin, Comment. Pii II. Rom. 1584, p. 511...... Fleury, Hist. ecclesiast. xxiii. p. 167, ss.

§ 180.

REDEMPTION AND ATONEMENT.

* Baur, Geschichte der Versönungslehre, p. 118, ss. Seisen, Nicolaus Methonensis, Anselmus Cantuariensis, Hugo Grotius, quod ad Satisfactionis Doctrinam a singulis excogitatum inter se comparati. Heidelberg, 1838-40. [Thomasius, Christologie, iii. 1. Comp. § 134. Anselm's Cur Deus Homo, transl. by Vose, in Bib. Sacra, 1854-5.]

2

The mythical notion, developed in the preceding period, of a legal transaction with the devil, and the deception practised upon him on the part of God and Christ, was also adopted by some theologians of the present period, e. g., John Damascenus.' But it soon gave way, or at least became subordinate to, another theological mode of stating the doctrine, viz., that the fact of redemption was deducible with logical necessity from certain divine and human relations. We find the transition to this in the Greek church in the writings of Nicolas of Methone, who arrived at similar conclusions with Anselm, though independently of him. In the Western church, Anselm of Canterbury established his theory with an amount of ingenuity, and a completeness of reasoning, hitherto unattained. It is in substance as follows: In order to restore the honor of which God was deprived by sin, it was necessary that God should become man; that, by voluntary submission to the penalty of death, he might thus, as God-man, cancel the debt, which, beside him, no other being, whether a heavenly one or an earthly one, could have paid. And he not only satisfied the requirements of divine justice, but, by so doing, of his own free will, he did more than was needed, and was rewarded by obtaining the deliverance of man from the penalty pronounced upon him. Thus the apparent contradiction between divine love on the one hand, and divine justice and benevolence on the other, was adjusted.

1 De Fide Orth. iii. 1. : Αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ δημιουργός τε καὶ κύριος τὴν ὑπὲρ

τοῦ οἰκείου πλάσματος ἀναδέχεται πάλην, καὶ ἔργῳ διδάσκαλος γίνεται. Καὶ ἐπειδὴ θεότητος ἐλπίδι ὁ ἐχθρὸς δελεάζει τὸν ἄνθρωπον, σαρκὸς προβλήματι δελεάζεται καὶ δείκνυται ἅμα τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ τὸ σοφὸν, τὸ δίκαίον τε καὶ τὸ δυνατὸν τοῦ θεοῦ· τὸ μὲν ἀγαθὸν, ὅτι οὐ παρεῖδε τοῦ οἰκείου πλάσματος τὴν ἀσθένειαν, ἀλλ' ἐσπλαγχνίσθη ἐπ' αὐτῷ πεσόντι, καὶ χεῖρα ὤρεξε· τὸ δὲ δίκαιον, ὅτι ἀνθρώπου ἡττηθέντος οὐχ ἕτερον ποιεῖ νικῆσαι τὸν τύγαννον, οὐδὲ βιᾷ ἐξαρπάζει τοῦ θανάτου τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλ ̓ ὃν πάλαι διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας καταδουλοῦται ὁ θάνατος, τοῦτον ὁ ἀγαθὸς καὶ δίκαιος νικητὴν πάλιν πεποίηκε, καὶ τῷ ὁμοίῳ τὸν ὅμοιον ἀνεσώσατο, ὅπερ ἄπορον ἦν· τὸ δὲ σοφὸν, ὅτι εὗρε τοῦ ἀπόρου λύσιν εὐπρεπεστάτην. He opposed, indeed, the notion (of Gregory of Nyssa), that the devil had received the ransom, iii. 27 : Μὴ γὰρ γένοιτο τῷ τυράννῳ τὸ τοῦ δεσπότου προσενεχθῆναι αἷμα, but used very strange language in the subsequent part of the chapter : Πρόσεισι τοιγαροῦν ὁ θάνατος καὶ καταπιὼν τὸ σώματος δέλεαρ τῷ τῆς θεότητος ἀγκίστρῳ περιπείρεται, καὶ ἀναμαρτήτου και ζωοποίον γευσάμενος σώματος διαφθείρεται καὶ πάντας ἀνάγει, οὓς πάλαι κατέπιεν

των.

2 Anecd. i. p. 25, ms. fol. 148 b., (quoted by Seisen, p. i.); ibid., p. 30, ss. fol. 150 b., (quoted by Seisen, p. 2): Ἦν γὰρ θανάτῳ ὑπεύθυνον τὸ πᾶν ἡμῶν γένος" πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον, κέντρον δὲ τοῦ θανάτου ἐστὶν ἡ ἁμαρτία (1 Cor. xv. 56), δί ἧς τρώσας ἡμᾶς ὁ θάνατος καταβέβληκε, καὶ ἄλλως οὐκ ἦν τῶν δεσμῶν τῆς δουλείας ἀπαλλαγῆναι τοὺς δόρατι ληφθέντας, ἢ διὰ θανάτου (Rom. v. 14.) Τὰ γὰρ λύτρα ἐν τῇ αἱρέσει κείται τῶν κατεχόν. Οὐκ ἦν οὖν ὁ δυνάμενος ὑπελθεῖν τὸ δρᾶμα καὶ ἐξαγορᾶσαι τὸ γένος, οὐκ ἦν οὐδεὶς τῶν τοῦ γένους ἐλεύθερος· μόγις δὲ τῆς ἰδίας ἐνοχῆς ἐλευθε ροῦταί τις, ὅς ἑαυτοῦ ἀποθνήσκων οὐ δυνάμενος συνελευθερῶσαι ἕνα γοῦν ἑαυτῷ. Εἰ δὲ οὐδένα, τίς ἦν δυνατὸς, ὅλον κοσμον ἀπαλλάξαι δουλείας; εἱ γὰρ καὶ ἀξιόχρεως ἦν πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν ἐλευθερίαν ἕκαστος· ἀλλ ̓ οὖν οὐκ ἦν πρέπον, πάντας ἀποθανεῖν, οὐδὲ ὑπὸ τὴν τοῦ θανάτου ἐξουσίαν καταμεῖναι. Τίνος οὖν ἦν τὸ κατόρθωμα; δῆλον ὅτι ἀναμαρτήτου τινός. Τίς δὲ τῶν πάντων ἀναμάρτητος ἢ μόνος ὁ Θεός; ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν καὶ θεοῦ τὸ ἔργον ἦν καὶ χωρίς θανάτου καὶ τῶν ἡγησαμένων τοῦ θανάτου παθῶν ἀδύνατον ἦν τελεσθῆναι, ὁ θεὸς δὲ παθῶν καὶ θανάτου ἐστὶν ἀπαράδεκτος, προσέλαβε φύσιν παθῶν καὶ θανάτου δεκτικὴν, ὁμοουσίαν ἡμῖν ὑπάρχουσαν κατὰ πάντα καὶ ἀπαραλλάκτως ἔχουσαν πρὸς ἡμᾶς, ὅμου λαβὴν διδοὺς τῷ προσπαλαίοντι θανάτῳ κατὰ σάρκα, καὶ δι' αὐτῆς τῆς ὑποκειμένης αὐτῷ φύσεως καταγωνιούμενος αὐτὸν, ἵνα μήτε αὐτὸς χώραν σχοίη λέγειν, οὐχ ὑπὸ ἀνθρώπου, ἀλλ' ὑπὸ θεοῦ ἡττῆσθαι, μήτε μὴν ἡμείς καταμαλακιζοίμεθα πρὸς τοὺς ἀγῶνας· καιροῦ καλοῦντος ἔχοντες παράδειγμα τὴν ὁμοφυῆ καὶ ὁμοούσιον σάρκα, ἐν ᾗ κατεκρίθη ἡ ἁμαρτία, χώραν οὐδόλως εὑροῦσα ἐν αὐτῇ.. Οὐ γὰρ μάτην τι γέγονε τὴν περὶ τὸ τίμιον αὐτοῦ παθος συμβεβηκότων, ἀλλὰ λόγῳ τινὶ κρείττονι καὶ ἀναγκαίῳ, πᾶσαν λόγων δύναμιν ὑπερβάλλοντι. Comp. Refut. p. 155, ss., quoted by Seisen, p. 4, and Ullmann, p. 90, ss. “He agreed (with Anselm) principally in endeavoring to demonstrate that the Redeemer must needs have been God and Man, but differed from him in this, that Anselm referred the necessity of the death of Jesus to the divine holiness, while Nicolas brought it into connection with the dominion of Satan over sinful men." Ullmann, p. 94.