or openly adopted a less emphatic view represent quite as strong a current of belief. Bernard associates free will with grace in the work of man's moral recovery, and in a way which, notwithstanding the strong emphasis which he places upon man's spiritual dependence, seems to reject the Augustinian theory of irresistible grace. "No one," he says, "is saved contrary to his will. For what is read in the Gospel, 'No one comes to me except my Father draw him,' likewise in another place, Compel them to come in,' is no obstacle; for truly however many the benignant Father, who wishes all to be saved, seems to compel to salvation, He judges no one worthy of salvation whom He has not first proved to be willing." (De Grat. et Lib. Arbit., XI.) More noteworthy still is the position of Alexander Hales, as being one of the great masters of systematic theology. We find him teaching that the reception of grace is determined, not by the sovereignty of God, but by the receptivity of the one to whom grace is proffered; and that, while no one is able adequately to prepare himself for salvation, he who does what lies within his own power will obtain the needful assistance. (Sum. Theol., I. 28. Compare Neander's interpretation, Kirchengeschichte, VIII.) Duns Scotus made a still larger concession to the moral ability of the fallen man. Holding that the fall simply robbed man of original righteousness, that in puris naturalibus, or his estate by birth, he has the will intact, only without the beneficent guidance which the donum superadditum provided in the unfallen Adam, he maintained that, while man cannot reach the supernatural end designed for him without grace, he can in his own virtue avoid resisting grace, can fulfil all the requirements of natural morality, and can very likely love God above all else. (Sent., II. 25. 28. See also Werner.) Durandus did not fall much short of the position of Scotus. (Sent., II. 28. 2-4.) Quite as emphatically as the Scotist, the later nominalist school, represented by Biel and Occam, asserted the ability of the

individual to co-operate efficiently in the achievement of his salvation.

A departure from Augustine, as respects acknowledging a moral ability in the fallen man, involved logically a proportionate departure on the subject of the acquisition of merit, and also upon the dogma of unconditional election; but these topics are reserved for the section on the appropriation of the benefits of Christ's work.

As respects the nature of sin or moral evil, in general, it was characteristic of mediæval theologians to define it as negation or privation, and as needing, like darkness and cold, only a causa deficiens. Such expressions as the following are found: "Malum nihil aliud est quam privatio boni." "Omne quod est recte est.” "Omne quod est bonum est." Injustitia omnino nihil est, sicut cæcitas." "Peccatum nihil est." "Injustitia est nihil." "Causa omnis peccati est voluntas a Deo deficiens." "Peccatum non appetitio malarum rerum, sed desertio meliorum." (John of Damascus, De Fide Orth., I. 4, II. 30, IV. 20; Erigena, De Prædest., III. 3, X. 4, 5; Anselm, De Casu Diab., IX., XX.; Dial. de Ver., VII.; De Concept. Virg., V.; Abelard, Scito Te Ipsum, III.; Hugo, Inst. in Dec., IV.; Sent., III. 14; De Sac., I. 1. 10; Pullus, Sent., I. 11; Aquinas, Sum. Theol., I. 14. 10; Bonaventura, Brevil., III. 1; Centil., I. 3; Wycliffe, Trial., III. 4.)

With this dominant representation others were conjoined; and the definition of sin was varied, according as the bearing of the sinner toward God, toward self, or toward finite good in general, was made the prominent point of consideration. Abelard was disposed to define sin as contempt of the Creator. "To sin," he says, "is to contemn the Creator; that is, not to do for His sake what we believe we ought to do for His sake, or not to abandon for His sake what we believe we ought to abandon." (Scito Te Ipsum, III.) Thomas Aquinas says in one place, "All sin consists

in the desire for some changeable good which is inordinately desired." (Sum. Theol., II. 1. 72. 2.) Again he remarks, "Inordinate love of self is the cause of all sin." (Ibid., II. 1. 77. 4. Compare Bonaventura, Tract. de Trib., etc.) Sin, according to Aquinas, has both an infinite and a finite aspect as an aversion from the infinite and unchangeable good it is infinite; as a turning to changeable and finite good it is finite. (Ibid., II. 1. 87. 4.) Duns Scotus emphasized in particular, as the central feature of sin, an inordinate thirst after happiness (Werner); and Anselm touched upon the same thought when he represented the rational creature as having the two ends, righteousness and blessedness, set before him, and ascribed apostasy to the fact that the pursuit of blessedness was not properly subordinated to that of righteousness. (Kahnis, Dogmatik.)

The theory that evil on the whole is no detraction from the perfection of the universe claimed a measure of assent. Hugo represents that the added ornament and beauty which accrue to the good from contrast with the evil are a full compensation for the otherwise disfiguring presence of the latter. (De Sac., I. 4. 6.) Thomas Aquinas teaches that the perfection of the universe requires that there should be different grades of goodness, and hence, at the lower end of the scale, a changeable goodness, with the contingency, or rather certainty, which it involves of more or less defection from righteousness. "Ordo universi requirit quod quædam sint quæ deficere possint, et interdum deficiant." (Sum. Theol., I. 48, 49.)

CHAPTER IV.

REDEEMER AND REDEMPTION.

SECTION I.THE PERSON OF CHRIST.

THE subject of the section may conveniently be treated under the following three topics: the theory of John of Damascus, Adoptionism, and the teaching of the Latin Church after the rise of Adoptionism.

The Christology of John of Damascus is interesting, as showing the interpretation of the Chalcedonian symbol, which became current in the orthodox Greek Church. That symbol states that Christ has the human nature in full, and the divine in full, and that these two concur in one person; but the precise relation of the natures to the personality it does not attempt to define. In John of Damascus we find an endeavor to give a further development upon this point. He teaches that the human nature in Christ never had any personality of its own; that in the God-man the pre-existing Logos supplied the element of personality. The moment a human nature came into existence, it appeared as the human nature of the Logos. In other words, in the incarnation the Son of God assumed, not a distinct personal being, but a human nature, to which personality was supplied by union with the already existing divine person. (De Fide Orth., III. 2.) From the united subsistence of the two natures, as he further teaches, there results a species of interpenetration. Especially is the human glorified by union with the divine. As fire penetrates iron, so that one cannot touch the iron without at

the same time touching the fire, so one cannot disconnect the human in Christ from the divine; and this it is which makes it proper to adore the flesh of Christ. (Ibid., III. 8.) Still each nature retains its own attributes. "We do not attribute," he says, "those things to the humanity which are proper to the divinity." (Ibid., III. 4.) The human soul of Christ, to be sure, had perfect knowledge from the first, but this knowledge is to be regarded as derived; it accrues to the soul through its union with the Logos. In general, the representation of John of Damascus emphasizes the subordination of the human to the divine factor. He acknowledges, indeed, a human will in Christ as a faculty, but places it in subject relation to the divine will, to which pertains the initiative in all acts of the God-man. (Ibid., II. 22, III. 18.)

The West, from early times, manifested relatively a strong interest in the human nature of Christ. While Monophysitism won the adherence of a large section of the East, its obscuration of the human attributes of the Redeemer commanded very little sympathy upon Western soil. Adoptionism may be regarded as a special and culminating manifestation in the West of the tendency to give emphatic acknowledgment to the human nature in Christ. It originated in Spain, and largely pervaded the Spanish Church in the latter part of the eighth century. Its chief exponents were Felix of Urgellis and Elipandus of Toledo. Condemned by several synods in the last decade of the eighth century, it soon lost adherents, and was reckoned in the list of vanquished heresies. Among the contemporary theologians who attempted its refutation, a conspicuous place was held by Alcuin.

The peculiarity of Adoptionism was expressed in the affirmation that Christ, as to His human nature, was not naturally the Son of God, and to become the Son of God in respect to this nature needed to be adopted. In His humanity Christ is the adopted head, of which believers, as