Pearson Edexcel Level 3 Advanced GCE in Religious Studies – Anthology
165
it. The next model to dominate the Christian imagination was proposed by St
Anslem in his Cur Deus Homo? (c omplet ed in it s present form in 1098), whic h
together with his Proslogion was among t he most influent ial t heologic al books ever
written. Anselm took over the c onc ept of satisfac tion whic h has long operated in
both c hurc h and soc iety. This was the idea that disobedience, whether to God or to
one’s feudal lord, was a slight upon his honour and dignity, and required for its
c anc ellat ion an appropriat e penanc e or gift in sat isfac t ion. In the medieval
penitential system a sinner’s prescribed act of penance was believed to be accepted
by God as restoring the moral balance and likewise, when one did something to
undermine the dignity and authority of one’s earthly overlord, one had either to be
punished or to give some suffic ient satisfac tion to appease the lord’s injured
dignit y. T his not ion, reflec t ing a st rongly hierarc hic al and t ight ly-knit soc iet y,
evidently made sense within the culture of medieval Europe.
Against this bac kground Anselm defined sin as ‘nothing else than not to render
to God his due’ (Anselm 1962, 202; Part I, c hapter 11). What is due t o God is
absolute obedienc e: ‘He who does not render this honour whic h is due to God, robs
God of his own and dishonours him; and this is sin... So then, everyone who sins
ought to pay bac k the honour of whic h he has robbed God; and this is the
satisfac tion whic h every sinner owes to God’ (Part I, chapter 11). Further, ‘Even
God c annot raise to happiness any being bound at all by the debt of sin, bec ause he
ought not to’ (Part I, chapter 21). However, it is impossible for humanit y t o make
the necessary satisfaction; for even if we were perfectly obedient in the future, we
would only be giving t o God what is already due t o him, and a sat isfac t ion requires
something extra that was not already due. Further, bec ause God is the lord of the
whole universe the adequate satisfac tion for a slight upon the divine honour ‘c annot
be effected, except the price paid to God for the sin of man be something greater
than all the universe besides God’ (Part II, c hapter 6). And, to add to the difficulty,
sinc e it is humanity who has offended God, it must be humanity that makes the
restitution. Thus, sinc e the needed satisfac tion is one whic h ‘none but God c an
make and none but man ought to make, it is nec essary for the God-ma n t o ma ke it ’
(Part II, c hapt er 6). T he God-man c an give something that was not already owing
t o God, namely his own life: ‘For God will not demand t his of him as a debt ; for, as
no sin will be found, he ought not to die’ (Part II, c hapter 11), Ac c ordingly, Christ ’s
voluntary death on the c ross c onstituted a full satisfac tion for the sins of t he world.
T his is t he Anselmic t heory.
However, in our own more democ rat ic age it is virt ually impossible t o share
Anselm’s medieval sense of wrongdoing as a slight upon God’s honour whic h
requires a sat isfac t ion t o assuage t he divine dignit y before even the truly penitent
can receive forgiveness. The entire c onc eption, presupposing as it does a long-sinc e
vanished in soc ial order, now makes lit t le sense t o us; and in my view it would be
best to cease altogether to use it in our contemporary theologies and lit urgies.
Yet another emphasis was introduc ed by the Reformers in the sixteenth
c entury. T hey made t he originally Pauline idea of just ific at ion c ent ral,
understanding it in a legal sense, defined by Melanc hthon as follows: ‘To justify, in
accordanc e with forensic usage, here signifies to ac quit the ac c used and to
pronounc e him righteous, but on ac c ount of the righteousness of another, namely
of Christ, whic h righteousness of another is c ommunic ated to us by faith’ (Grensted
1962, 193). The c onc ept of justific ation, and henc e of salvation as being c ounted