Boso. Thus far it is well. But there is yet another matter that needs to be looked into. For we have said before that his death was not to be a matter of necessity; yet now we see that his mother was puri- fied by the power of his death, when without this he could not have been born of her. How, then, was not his death necessary, when he could not have been, except in view of future death? For if he were not to die, the virgin of whom he was born could not be pure, since this could only be effected by true faith in his death, and, if she were not pure, he could not be born of her. If, therefore, his death be not a neces- sary consequence of his being born of the virgin, he never could have been born of her at all; but this is an absurdity.
27O ANSELM.
Anselm. If you had carefully noted the remarks made above, you would easily have discovered in them, I think, the answer to your question.
Boso. I see not how.
Anselm. Did we not find, when considering the question whether he would lie, that there were two senses of the word power in regard to it, the one re- ferring to his disposition, the other to the act itself; and that, though having the power to lie, he was so constituted by nature as not to wish to lie, and, there- fore, deserved praise for his holiness in maintaining the truth?
Boso. It is sb.
Anselm. In like manner, with regard to the preser- vation of his life, there is the power of preserving and the power of wishing to preserve it. And when the question is asked whether the same God-man could preserve his life, so as never to die, we must not doubt that he always had the power to preserve his life, though he could not wish to do so for the pur- pose of escaping death. I And since this disposition, which forever prevents him from wishing this, arises from himself, he lays down his life not of necessity, but of free authority?)
Boso. But those powers were not in all respects similar, the power to lie and the power to preserve his life. For, if he wished to lie, he would of course be able to; but, if he wished to avoid the other, he could no more do it than he could avoid being what he is. For he became man for this purpose, and it was on the faith of his coming death that he could re- ceive birth from a virgin, as you said above.
Anselm. As you think that he could not lie, or that his death was necessary, because he could not avoid CUR DEUS HOMO. 2J1 being what he was, so you can assert that he could not wish to avoid death, or that he wished to die of necessity, because he could not change the constitu- tion of his being; for he did not become man in order that he should die, any more than for this purpose, that he should wish to die. Wherefore, as you ought not to say that he could not help wishing to die, or that it was of necessity that he wished to die, it is equally improper to say that he could not avoid death, or that he died of necessity.
Boso. Yes, since dying and wishing to die are in- cluded in the same mode of reasoning, both would seem to fall under a like necessity.
Anselm. Who freely wished to become man, that by the same unchanging desire he should suffer death, and that the virgin from whom that man should be born might be pure, through confidence in the cer- tainty of this?
Boso. God, the Son of God.
Anselm. Was it not above shown, that no desire of God is at all constrained; but that it freely maintains itself in his own unchangeableness, as often as it is said that he does anything necessarily?
Boso. It has been clearly shown. But we see, on the other hand, that what God unchangeably wishes cannot avoid being so, but takes place of necessity. Wherefore, if God wished that man to die, he could but die.
Anselm. Because the Son of God took the nature of man with this desire, viz., that he should suffer death, you prove it necessary that this man should not be able to avoid death.
Boso. So I perceive.
Anselm. Has it not in like manner appeared from 272 ANSELM.
the things which we have spoken that the Son of God and the man whose person he took were so united that the same being should be both God and man, the Son of God and the son of the virgin?
Boso. It is so.
Anselm. Therefore the same man could possibly both die and avoid death.
Boso, I cannot deny it.
Anselm. Since, then, the will of God does nothing by any necessity, but of his own power, and the will of that man was the same as the will of God, he died not necessarily, but only of his own power.
Boso. To your arguments I cannot object; for neither your propositions nor your inferences can I invalidate in the least. But yet this thing which I have mentioned always recurs to my mind: that, if he wished to avoid death, he could no more do it than he could escape existence. For it must have been fixed that he was to die, for had it not been true that he was about to die, faith in his coming death would not have existed, by which the virgin who gave him birth and many others also were cleansed from their sin. Wherefore, if he could avoid death, he could make untrue what was true.
Anselm. Why was it true, before he died, that he was certainly to die?
Boso. Because this was his free and unchangeable desire.
Anselm. If, then, as you say, he could not avoid death because he was certainly to die, and was on this account certainly to die because it was his free and unchangeable desire, it is clear that his inability to avoid death is nothing else but his fixed choice to die.
Boso. This is so; but whatever be the reason, it CUR DEUS HOMO. 273 still remains certain that he could not avoid death, but that it was a necessary thing for him to die.
Anseltn. You make a great ado about nothing, or, as the saying is, you stumble at a straw.
Boso. Are you not forgetting my reply to the ex- cuses you made at the beginning of our discussion, viz., that you should explain the subject, not as to learned men, but to me and my fellow inquirers? Suf- fer me, then, to question you as my slowness and dullness require, so that, as you have begun thus far, you may go on to settle all our childish doubts.
CHAPTER XVIII (a). 1 How, with God there is neither necessity nor impossibility, and what is a coercive necessity, and what one that is not so.
Anselm. We have already said that it is improper to affirm of God that he does anything, or that he cannot do it, of necessity. For all necessity and im- possibility is under his control. But his choice is sub- ject to no necessity nor impossibility. For nothing is necessary or impossible save as He wishes it. Nay, the very choosing or refusing anything as a necessity or an impossibility is contrary to truth. Since, then, he does what he chooses and nothing else, as no ne- cessity or impossibility exists before his choice or re- fusal, so neither do they interfere with his acting or not acting, though it be true that his choice and action are immutable. And as» when God does a thing, since it has been done it cannot be undone, but must re- main an actual fact; still, we are not correct in saying that it is impossible for God to prevent a past action IThis and the succeeding chapter are numbered differently in the differ- ent editions of Anselm's texts.
274 ANSELM.
from being what it is. For there is no necessity or impossibility in the case whatever but the simple will of God, which chooses that truth should be eternally the same, for he himself is truth. Also, if he has a fixed determination to do anything, though his design must be destined to an accomplishment before it comes to pass, yet there is no coercion as far as he is concerned, either to do it or not to do it, fo r his will i s the sole agent in the case. For when we say that God cannot do a thing, we do not deny his power; on the contrary, we imply that he has invincible authority and strength. For we mean simply this, that nothing can compel God to do the thing which is said to be impossible for him. We often use an expression of this kind, that a thing can be when the power is not in itself, but in something else; and that it cannot be when the weakness does not pertain to the thing it- self, but to something else. Thus we say: "Such a man can be bound," instead of saying, "Somebody can bind him," and, " He cannot be bound, " instead of, "Nobody can bind him." For to be able to be overcome is not power but weakness, and not to be able to be overcome is not weakness but power. Nor do we say that God does anything by necessity, be- cause there is any such thing pertaining to him, but because it exists in something else, precisely as I said with regard to the affirmation that he cannot do any- thing. For necessity is always either compulsion or restraint; and these two kinds of necessity operate variously by turn, so that the same thing is both nec- essary and impossible. For whatever is obliged to exist is also prevented from non-existence; and that which is compelled not to exist is prevented from ex- istence. So that whatever exists from necessity can- CUR DEUS HOMO. 275 not avoid existence, and it is impossible for a thing to exist which is under a necessity of non-existence, and vice versa. But when we say with regard to God, that anything is necessary or not necessary, we do not mean that, as far as he is concerned, there is any ne- cessity either coercive or prohibitory, but we mean that there is a necessity in everything else, restraining or driving them in a particular way. Whereas we say the very opposite of God. For, when we affirm that it is necessary for God to utter truth, and never to lie, we only mean that such is bis unwavering disposition to maintain the truth that of necessity nothing can avail to make him deviate from the truth, or utter a lie. When, then, we say that that man (who, by the union of persons, is also God, the Son of God) could not avoid death, or the choice of death, after he was born of the virgin, we do not imply that there was in him any weakness with regard to preserving or choos- ing to preserve his life, but we refer to the unchange ableness of his purpose, by which he freely became man for this design, viz., that by persevering in his wish he should suffer death. N And this desire nothing could shake. For it would be rather weakness than power if he could wish to lie, or deceive, or change his disposition, when before he had chosen that it should remain unchanged. And, as I said before, when one has freely determined to do some good ac- tion, and afterwards goes on to complete it, though, if unwilling to pay his vow, he could be compelled to do so, yet we must not say that he does it of neces- sity, but with the same freedom with which he made the resolution. For we ought not to say that anything is done, or not done, by necessity or weakness, when free choice is the only agent in the case. And, if this 276 ANSELM.
is so with regard to man, much less can we speak of necessity or weakness in reference to God; for he does nothing except according to bis choice, and his will no force can drive or restrain. For this end was accomplished by the united natures of Christ, viz., that the Divine nature should perform that part of the work needful for man's restoration which the human nature could not do; and that in the human should be manifested what was inappropriate to the Divine. < Finally, the virgin herself, who was made pure by faith in him, so that he might be born of her, even she, I say, never believed that he was to die, save of his own choice. For she knew the words of the prophet, who said of him: "He was offered of his own will. " Therefore, since her faith was well founded, it must necessarily turn out as she believed. And, if it perplexes you to have me say that it is necessary, remember that the reality of the virgin's faith was not the cause of his dying by his own free will; but, be- cause this was destined to take place, therefore her faith was real. If, then, it be said that it was neces- sary for him to die of his single choice, because the antecedent faith and prophecy were true, this is no more than saying that it must be because it was to be. But such a necessity as this does not compel a thing to be, but only implies a necessity of its exist- ence. There is an antecedent necessity which is the cause of a thing, and there is also a subsequent necessity arising from the thing itself. Thus, when the heavens are said to revolve, it is an antecedent and efficient necessity, for they must revolve. But when I say that you speak of necessity, because you are speaking, this is nothing but a subsequent and in- operative necessity. For I only mean that it is im- CUR DEUS HOMO. 277 possible for you to speak and not to speak at the same time, and not that some one compels you to speak. For the force of its own nature makes the heaven re- volve; but no necessity obliges you to speak. But wherever there is an antecedent necessity, there is also a subsequent one; but not vice versa. For we can say that the heaven revolves of necessity, because it revolves; but it is not likewise true that, because you speak, you do it of necessity. This subsequent necessity pertains to everything, so that we say: Whatever has been, necessarily has been. Whatever is, must be. Whatever is to be, of necessity will be. This is that necessity which Aristotle treats of ("</<? propositionibus singularibus et futuris"), and which seems to destroy any alternative and to ascribe a ne- cessity to all things. By this subsequent and impera- tive necessity, was it necessary (since the belief and prophecy concerning Christ were true, that he would die of his own free will), that it should be so. For this he became man; for this he did and suffered all things undertaken by him; for this he chose as he did. For therefore were they necessary, because they were to be, and they were to be because they were, and they were because they were; and, if you wish to know the real necessity of all things which he did and suffered, know that they were of necessity, because he wished them to be. But no necessity preceded his will. Wherefore if they were not save by his will, then, had he not willed they would not have existed. So then, no one took his life from him, but he laid it down of himself and took it again; for he had power to lay it down and to take it again, as he himself said. Boso. You have satisfied me that it cannot be proved that he was subjected to death by any neces- 278 ANSELM.
sity; and I cannot regret my importunity in urging you to make this explanation.
eAnscltn. I think we have shown with sufficient learness how it was that God took a man without sin om a sinful substance; but I would on no account deny that there is no other explanation than this which we have given, for God can certainly do what human reason cannot grasp. But since this appears ade- quate, and since in search of other arguments we should involve ourselves in such questions as that of original sin, and how it was transmitted by our first parents to all mankind, except this man of whom we are speaking; and since, also, we should be drawn into various other questions, each demanding its own separate consideration; let us be satisfied with this account of the matter, and go on to complete our in- tended work.
Boso. As you choose; but with this condition that, by the help of God, you will sometime give this other explanation, which you owe me, as it were, but which now you avoid discussing.
Anseltn. Inasmuch as I entertain this desire my- self, I will not refuse you; but because of the uncer- tainty of future events, I dare not promise you, but commend it to the will of God. But say now, what remains to be unravelled with regard to the question which you proposed in the first place, and which in- volves many others with it?
Boso. The substance of the inquiry was this, why God became man, for the purpose of saving men by his death, when he could have done it in some other -^ - — way,-} And you, by numerous and positive reasons, / ' 1 have shown that the restoring of mankind ought not / J to take place, and could not, without man paid the CUR DEUS HOMO. 279 debt which he owed God for his sin. And this debt was so great that, while none but man must solve the debt, none but God was able to do it; so that he who does it must be both God and man. And hence arises a necessity that God should take man into unity with his own person; so that he who in his own nature was bound to pay the debt, but could not, might be able to do it in the person of God. In fine, you have shown that that man, who was also God, must be formed from the virgin, and from the person of the Son of God, and that he could be taken without sin, though from a sinful substance. Moreover, you have clearly shown the life of this man to have been so ex- cellent and so glorious as to make ample satisfaction for the sins of the whole world, and even infinitely more. It now, therefore, remains to be shown how that payment is made to God for the sins of men.
CHAPTER XVIII (b.)
How Christ's life is paid to God for the sins of men, and in what sense Christ ought, and in what sense he ought not, or was not bound, to suffer.
Anselm. If he allowed himself to be slain for the sake of justice, he did not give his life for the honor of God?
Boso. It should seem so, but I cannot understand, although I do not doubt it, how he could do this rea- sonably. If I saw how he could be perfectly holy, and yet forever preserve his life, I would acknowledge that he freely gave, for the honor of God, such a gift as surpasses all things else but God himself, and is able to atone for all the sins of men.
Anselm. Do you not perceive that when he bore D£C 7 28o ANSELM.
with gentle patience the insults put upon him, vio- lence and even crucifixion among thieves that he might maintain strict holiness; by this he set men an example that they should never turn aside from the holiness due to God on account of personal sacrifice? But how could he have done this, had he, as he might have done, avoided the death brought upon him for such a reason?
Boso. But surely there was no need of this, for many persons before his coming, and John the Baptist after his coming but before his death, had sufficiently enforced this example by nobly dying for the sake of the truth.
Anselm. No man except this one ever gave to God what he was not obliged to lose, or paid a debt he did not owe. But he freely offered to the Father what there was no need of his ever losing, and paid for sin- ners what he owed not for himself. Therefore he set a much nobler example, that each one should not hesi- tate to give to God, for himself, what he must at any rate lose before long, since it was the voice of reason; for he, when not in want of anything for himself and not compelled by others, who deserved nothing of him but punishment, gave so precious a life, even the life of so illustrious a personage, with such willing- ness.
Boso. You very nearly meet my wishes; but suffer me to make one inquiry, which you may think fool- ish, but which, nevertheless, I find no easy thing to answer. You say that when he died he gave what he did not owe. But no one will deny that it was better for him, or that so doing he pleased God more than if he had not done it. Nor will any one say that he was not bound to do what was best to be done, and what CUR DEUS HOMO. 28l CUR DEUS HOMO. 28l he knew would be more pleasing to God. How then can we affirm that he did not owe God the thing which he did, that is, the thing which he knew to be best and most pleasing to God, and especially since every creature owes God all that he is and all that he knows and all that he is capable of?
Anselm. Though the creature has nothing of him- self, yet when God grants him the liberty of doing or not doing a thing, he leaves the alternative with him, so that, though one is better than the other, yet neither is positively demanded. And, whichever he does, it may be said that he ought to do it; and if he takes the better choice, he deserves a reward; because he. renders freely what is his own. For, though celibacy be better than marriage, yet neither is absolutely enjoined upon man; so that both he who chooses marriage and he who prefers celibacy, may be said to do as they ought. For no one says that either celibacy or marriage ought not to be chosen; but we say that what a man esteems best before taking action upon any of these things, this he ought to do. And if a man preserves his celibacy as a free gift offered to God, he looks for a reward. When you say that the creature owes God what he knows to be the better choice, and what he is able to do, if you mean that he owes it as a debt, without implying any command on the part of God, it is not always true. Thus, as I have already said, a man is not bound to celibacy as a debt, but ought to marry if he prefers it. And if / you are unable to understand the use of this word "debere," when no debt is implied, let me inform you that we use the word "debere" precisely as we some- times do the words "posse" and "non posse" and also "necessitas" when the ability, etc., is not in the things 1 282 ANSELM.
themselves, but in something else. When, for in- stance, we say that the poor ought to receive alms from the rich, we mean that the rich ought to bestow alms upon the poor. For this is a debt not owed by the poor but by the rich.v^Ve also say that God ought to be exalted over all, ncT because there is any obliga- tion resting upon him, but because all things ought Vto be subject to him. And he wishes that all creatures should be what they ought; for what God wishes to be ought to be. And, in like manner, when any crea- ture wishes to do a thing that is left entirely at his own disposal, we say that he ought to do it, for what he wishes to be ought to be. So our Lord Jesus, when he wished, as we have said, to suffer death, ought to have done precisely what he did; because he ought to be what he wished, and was not bound to do anything as a debt. As he is both God and man, in connection with his human nature, which made him a man, he must also have received from the Divine nature that control over himself which freed him from all obliga- tion, except to do as he chose. In like manner, as one person of the Trinity, he must have had what- ever he possessed of his own right, so as to be com- plete in himself, and could not have been under obli- gations to another, nor have need of giving anything Jn order to be repaid himself. .^"' Boso. Now I see clearly that he did not give him- * ': self up to die for the honor of God, as a debt; for this \ my own reason proves, and yet he ought to have done \ what he did.
Anseltn. That honor certainly belongs to the whole Trinity; and, since he is very God, the Son of God, he offered himself for his own honor, as well as for that of the Father and the Holy Spirit; that is, he CUK DEUS HOMO. 283 gave his humanity to his divinity, which is one per- son of the Triune God. But, though we express our idea more definitely by clinging to the precise troth, yet we may say, according to our custom, that the Son freely gave himself to the Father. For thus we plainly affirm that in speaking of one person we un- derstand the whole Deity, to whom as man he offered himself. And, by the names of Father and Son, a wondrous depth of devotion is excited in the hearts of the hearers, when it is said that the Son supplicates the Father on our behalf.
Boso. This I readily acknowledge.
CHAPTER XIX. How human salvation follows upon his death.
Anselm. Let us now observe, if we can, h aw t he salvation of men rests on this.
Boso. This is the very wish of my heart. For, although I think I understand you, yet I wish to get from you the close chain of argument.
Anselm. There is no need of explaining how pre- cious was the gift which the Son freely gave.
Boso. That is clear enough already.
Anselm. But you surely will not think that he de- serves no reward, who freely gave to great a gift to God.
Boso. I see that it i* nwoftwry for the Father to reward the Son; el*a h«i la gither unjuat in not wish- \ ingtodoit, or weak in »ot luring wlrio to do it; but,' neither of these thiug« mmi \m attributed to God.
Anselm. H«* who tawtfrri* auotlier fiither gives him something which \m Ant* unt Imv*, or clue remits some rightful claim m^um U\m> tint anterior to the V 284 ANSELM.
great offering of the Son, all things belonging to the Father were his, nor did he ever owe anything which could be forgiven him. How then can a reward be bestowed on one who needs nothing, and to whom no gift or release can be made?
Boso. I see on the one hand a necessity for a re- ward, and on the other it appears impossible £ tor God must necessarily render payment for what he owes, and yet there is no one to receive it.
Anselm. But if a reward so large and so deserved is not given to him or any one else, then it will almost appear as if the Son had done this great wor k in vain.
Boso. Such a supposition is impious.
Anselm, The reward then must be bestowed upon some one else, for it cannot be upon him.
Boso. This is necessarily so.
Anselm. Had the Son wished to give some one else what was due to him, could the Father rightfully prevent it, or refuse to give it to the other person?
Boso. No! but I think it would be both just and necessary that the gift should be given by the Father to whomsoever the Son wished; because the Son should be allowed to give away what is his own, and the Father cannot bestow it at all except upon some other person.
Anselm A Upon whom would he more properly be- stow the reward accruing from his death, than upon those for whose salvation, as right reason teaches, he became man; and for whose sake, as we have already said, he left an example of suffering death to preserve holiness? CFor surely in vain will men imitate him, if they be not also partakers of his reward. J Or whom could he more justly make heirs of the inheritance, which he does not need, and of the superfluity of his CUR DEUS HOMO. 285 possessions, than his parents and brethren? (What more proper than that, when he beholds so many of them weighed down by so heavy a debt, and wasting through poverty, in the depth of their miseries, he should remit the debt incurred by their sins, and give them what their transgressions had forfeited? ' Boso. The universe can hear of nothing more rea- sonable, more sweet, more desirable. And I receive such confidence from this that I cannot describe the joy with which my heart exults. For it seems to me that God can reject none who come to him in his name.
Anseltn. Certainly not, if he come aright. And the Scriptures, which rest on solid truth as on a firm foundation, and which, by the help of God, we have somewhat examined, — the Scriptures, I say, show us how to approach in order to share such favor, and how we ought to live under it.
Boso, And whatever is built on this foundation is founded on an immovable rock.
Anseltn. I think I have nearly enough answered your inquiry, though I might do it still more fully, and there are doubtless many reasons which are be- yond me and which mortal ken does not reach. It is also plain that God had no need of doing the thing spoken of, but eternal truth demanded it. For though God is said to have done what that man did, on ac- count of the personal union made; yet God was in no need of descending from heaven to conquer the devil, nor of contending against him in holiness to free man- kind. But God demanded that man should conquer the devil, so that he who had offended by sin should atone by holiness. As God owed nothing to the devil but punishment, so man must only make amends by v 286 ANSELM.
conquering the devil as man had already been con- quered by him. But whatever was demanded of man, he owed to God and not to the devil.