extends itself to all His members." (Ibid., III. 19. 4, 48. 1, 49. 1.) Aquinas also evinces a very appreciative estimate of the points embraced in the moral theory. (Ibid., III. 46. 3, 49. 1.) Bonaventura moved in much the same circle of thought as Aquinas. (Brevil., IV. 1-10; Sent., III. 1 et seq.)

The conclusion of Anselm respecting the infinite worth of Christ's work, and its adequacy in itself to atone for the sins of the race, seems to have been generally acquiesced in by succeeding writers. According to Thomas Aquinas, it was more than an offset for the sins of mankind. "The passion of Christ," he says, "was not only a sufficient, but a superabundant, satisfaction for the sins of the human race." (Sum. Theol., III. 48. 2.) Duns Scotus made a new departure, by taking direct issue with this opinion. He argued that, inasmuch as the human will in Christ is the principle acquisitive of merit, and this must be regarded as finite, it was only finite merit which He acquired. He allowed, indeed, that in fact it suffices for an indefinite number of souls; but the ground of this sufficiency he located, not in itself, but in the divine will, which is the supreme law of right and propriety, and which can make the merit of Christ of as great a value as it is pleased to accept it for, the so-called doctrine of acceptilation. (Sent., III. 19.) The representations of Durandus on the subject are much like those of Scotus. (Sent., III. 20. 1, 2; IV. 15. 1.)

The descent of Christ's soul into Hades was understood as in the previous period. The fruits of His mission there were supposed to be confined to His members. Unbaptized children, not being included in this category, were in no wise liberated by the visitation of Christ, as is distinctly taught by Aquinas. (Sum. Theol., III. 52. 1–7.)

The question whether Christ would have become incarnate if man had not sinned, received a measure of attention. Rupert of Deutz, Alexander Hales, Duns Scotus, Lullus, John Wessel, and some others, were in favor of an affirma

tive answer. (Comm. in Matt., XIII.; Sum. Theol., III. 2. 13; Sent., III. 7. 3; De Incarn.) As the subject was argued by Duns Scotus, a principal reason for this conclusion was discovered in the incongruity involved in the supposition that so grand an end as is realized in the glorified soul of Christ should have been conditioned in the divine purpose upon the contingency of man's apostasy. Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, argued that, in a matter so entirely dependent as this is upon the will of God, we have no means of deciding except by reference to the Scriptures, and that the Scriptures, by everywhere associating the incarnation with the purpose to redeem from sin, make probable the conclusion that it would not have taken place if man had not fallen. (Sum. Theol., III. 1. 3.) Bonaventura also was favorable to the negative conclusion. (Sent., III. 1.)

SECTION III. - APPROPRIATION OF THE BENEFITS OF

CHRIST'S WORK.

IN the Greek Church the teaching of John of Damascus appears in no wise distinguished from that of his predecessors as respects the opportunity of every man to partake of saving grace, predestination in his view being conditioned by God's foreknowledge of the conduct of the individual. (De Fide Orth., II. 29, 30, IV. 19.)

In the Latin Church the doctrine of predestination in the Augustinian sense was largely current; but at the same time many who accepted it were moved in so doing rather by the constraint of authority than by any hearty appreciation of the doctrine on its merits, and there were some in high standing who indulged statements involving its renunciation. On the whole, the drift was adverse to the doctrine of unconditional election. Some indication of such a drift may be discovered as early as the ninth century. It was then that Gottschalk advocated the doctrine of a twofold

predestination. According to his way of stating the case, the righteous are predestinated to eternal life, and eternal life is predestinated to them; the wicked are predestinated to perpetual punishment, and perpetual punishment is predestinated to them. (Confess. Prolixior. Compare Ratramnus, De Prædest.; Remigius, De Trib. Epist.) Now, the amount of exception which was taken to this teaching indicates something like an under-current of alienation from strict Augustinianism. It may be allowed, indeed, that the technical accord of Gottschalk's teachings with Augustine might be called into question, since the latter, in the great majority of instances, applied the term "predestination " only to the heirs of salvation. Inasmuch, however, as Gottschalk taught that God did not predestinate to sin, but only to punishment for sin, his view did not differ essentially from that assigned by his opponents to Augustine; namely, that the non-elect are simply left in their naturally sinful and condemned condition, this condition meanwhile making certain their everlasting punishment. It may also be allowed that a very respectable body of theologians agreed with Gottschalk, and openly proclaimed their agreement; as, for example, at the council of Valence, which declared in favor of a double predestination and a limited atonement. But to this it is to be replied that the issue was practically adverse to the doctrine of Gottschalk, and discouraging to its propagation. The general facts, then, of the controversy may be pronounced indicative of a drift adverse to strict Augustinianism. There was, indeed, no open disclaiming of the doctrine of predestination. The opponents of Gottschalk spoke freely of the predestination of the righteous. They also spoke of the predestination of everlasting punishment to the wicked, though not of the wicked to everlasting punishment. (Hincmar, De Prædest., XIX.; Erigena, De Prædest., XIV. 5, XV. 2.) But at the same time they employed statements showing a bias quite different from the Augustinian, and in fact verging pretty

close upon a denial of predestination as an unconditional decree of God. This appears especially in their teaching that Christ died for all, a doctrine expressly asserted by a synod convened by Hincmar, and also affirmed more than once in his writings. (De Prædest., XXIV., XXVIII., XXXIV.) Now, if Christ truly died for all, then the benefits of His death ought to be available to all; and election or non-election ought to be conditioned upon the use or the neglect of means that are set before all alike. That Hincmar and his associates definitely asserted this conclusion cannot be affirmed. Their position is perhaps best described as a kind of illogical mean between Augustine and the Greek theologians (among whom Chrysostom is frequently quoted by Hincmar). They showed, at the same time, a certain disinclination to Augustinianism, and a disinclination to cut loose from the same.

Theologians generally, between Gottschalk and Alexander Hales, taught in tolerably clear terms the doctrine of a single predestination; but at the same time some of them gave place to statements indicative of more or less of an inclination to modify the doctrine. Hugo of St. Victor, it must be allowed, does not reveal much of this inclination. Some of his statements embody, in the most explicit terms, the doctrine of unconditional election. "God does not will," he says, "that all men should be justified; and yet who doubts that he is able?" (Sent., I. 14.) "Those who, according to their merits, are justly damned, through the grace of God could have been justly saved, if God had so willed. And again, those who through the grace of God are justly saved, according to their own merits, could have been justly damned, if God had not willed to save them." (De Sac., I. 8. 9.) In Anselm, we find quite a strong interest manifested in conserving the free will, and some of his statements look rather counter to the predestinarian basis. Thus, he seems to assign to predestination quite as little of a positive bearing upon the futurition of events as

he does to foreknowledge. He says: "Sicut præscientia quæ non fallitur, non præscit nisi verum sicut erit, aut necessarium, aut spontaneum; ita prædestinatio quæ non mutatur, non prædestinat nisi sicut est in præscientia. Et quemadmodum quod præscitur, licet in æternitate sit immutabile, tamen in tempore aliquando antequam sit, mutari potest, ita est per omnia de prædestinatione." (De Concord. Præscient. et Prædest. cum Lib. Arbit., Quæst. II.) Too much account, however, is not to be made of this representation of Anselm; for in the very treatise under consideration he declares for the doctrine of unconditional election, maintaining that grace alone can liberate the will from the bondage to sin in which it is placed by nature, and that this grace, according to the good pleasure of God, is given to some and withheld from others. Abelard, in one connection, seems to charge it wholly to the guilty torpor and negligence of the reprobate, that grace does not produce the same effect in them as in the elect. (Comm. super Epist. ad Rom., IV. 9.) Bernard, while he strongly emphasized dependence upon divine grace, like some others of the mystics, had a lively sense of the ethical value of a teaching favorable to freedom and responsibility; and accordingly, as was noticed in a previous section, we find him indulging some representations adverse to strict predesti

narianism.

Among those representing the crowning era of scholasticism, Thomas Aquinas taught predestination in terms as emphatic as those employed by Augustine. His definition of predestination is as follows: "Predestination is a certain kind of disposition (quædam ratio ordinis), in the divine mind, of some unto eternal salvation; the execution, however, of this disposition is indeed passively in the elect, but actively in God." (Sum. Theol., I. 23. 2.) Reprobation is defined on this wise: "Since through divine providence men are disposed unto eternal life, it pertains also to divine providence that it should permit some to fail of that end;