7. This, in the mean time, is the answer the fool could make to the arguments urged against him. When he is assured in the first place that this being is so great that its non-existence is not even conceiv- able, and that this in turn is proved on no other ground than the fact that otherwise it will not be greater than 152 ANSELM.
all things, the fool may make the same answer, and say: When did I say that any such being exists in real- " ity, that is, a being greater than all others? — that on this ground it should be proved to me that it also ex- ists in reality to such a degree that it cannot even be conceived not to exist? Whereas in the first place it should be in some way proved that a nature which is higher, that is, greater and better, than all other na- tures, exists; in order that from this we may then be able to prove all attributes which necessarily the be- ing that is greater and better than all possesses.
Moreover, it is said that the non-existence of this being is inconceivable. It might better be said, per- haps, that its non-existence, or the possibility of its ** non-existence, is unintelligible. For according to the true meaning of the word, unreal objects are unin- • telligible. Yet their existence is conceivable in the way in which the fool conceived of the non-existence of God. I am most certainly aware of my own exist- ence; but I know, nevertheless, that my non-existence is possible. As to that supreme being, moreover, which God is, I understand without any doubt both his existence, and the impossibility of his non-exist- ence. Whether, however, so long as I am most posi- tively aware of my existence, I can conceive of my non-existence, I am not sure. But if I can, why can I not conceive of the non-existence of whatever else I know with the same certainty? If, however, I can- not, God will not be the only being of which it can be said, it is impossible to conceive of his non-existence. 8. The other parts of this book are argued with such truth, such brilliancy, such grandeur; and are so replete with usefulness, so fragrant with a certain APPENDIX. 153 APPENDIX. 153 perfume of devout and holy feeling, that though there are matters in the beginning which, however rightly sensed, are weakly presented, the rest of the work should not be rejected on this account. The rather ought these earlier matters to be reasoned more co- gently, and the whole to be received with great re- spect and honor.
ANSELM'S APOLOGETIC.
IN REPLY TO GAUNILON'S ANSWER IN BEHALF OP THE FOOL.
It was a fool against whom the argument of my IProslogium was directed. Seeing, however, that the author of these objections is by no means a fool, and is a Catholic, speaking in behalf of the fool, I think it sufficient that I answer the Cath olic.
chapter 1.
A general refutation of Gaunilon's argument. It is shown that a being than which a greater cannot be conceived exists in reality.
You say — whosoever you may be, who say that a fool is capable of making these statements — that a being than which a greater cannot be conceived is not in the understanding in any other sense than that in which a being that is altogether inconceivable in terms of reality, is in the understanding. You say that the inference that this being exists in reality, from the fact that it is in the understanding, is no more just than the inference that a lost island most certainly ex- ists, from the fact that when it is described the hearer does not doubt that it is in his understanding.
154 ANSELM.
154 ANSELM.
But I say: if a being than which a greater is in- conceivable is not understood or conceived, and is not in the understanding or in concept, certainly either God is not a being than which a greater is inconceiv- able, or else he is not understood or conceived, and is not in the understanding or in concept. But I call on your faith and conscience to attest that this is most false. Hence, that than which a greater cannot be conceived is truly understood and conceived, and is in the understanding and in concept. Therefore either the grounds on which you try to controvert me are not true, or else the inference which you think to base logically on those grounds is not justified.
But you hold, moreover, that supposing that a be- ing than which a greater cannot be conceived is un- derstood, it does not follow that this being is in the understanding; nor, if it is in the understanding, does it therefore exist in reality. , In answer to this, I maintain positively: if that j being can be even conceived to be, it must exist in reality. For that than which a greater is inconceiv- \ able cannot be conceived except as without beginning. But whatever can be conceived to exist, and does not exist, can be conceived to exist through a beginning. Hence what can be conceived to exist, but does not exist, is not the being than which a greater cannot be conceived. Therefore, if such a being can be con- ceived to exist, necessarily it does exist.
Furthermore: if it can be conceived at all, it must exist. For no one who denies or doubts the existence of a being than which a greater is inconceivable, de- nies or doubts that if it did exist, its non-existence, either in reality or in the understanding, would be impossible. For otherwise it would not be a being APPENDIX. 155 than which a greater cannot be conceived. But as to whatever can be conceived, but does not exist — if there were such a being, its non-existence, either in reality or in the understanding, would be possible. Therefore if a being than which a greater is incon- ceivable can be even conceived, it cannot be non- existent.
But let us suppose that it does not exist, even if it can be conceived. Whatever can be conceived, but does not exist, if it existed, "would not be a being than which a greater is inconceivable. If, then, there were a being a greater than which is inconceivable, it would not be a being than which a greater is inconceivable: which is most absurd. Hence, it is false to deny that a being than which a greater cannot be conceived ex- ists, if it can be even conceived; much the more, therefore, if it can be understood or can be in the un- derstanding.
Moreover, I will venture to make this assertion: without doubt, whatever at any place or at any time does not exist — even if it does exist at some place or at some time — can be conceived to exist nowhere and never, as at some place and at some time it does not exist. For what did not exist yesterday, and exists to-day, as it is understood not to have existed yester- day, so it can be apprehended by the intelligence that it never exists. And what is not here, and is else- where, can be conceived to be nowhere, just as it is not here. So with regard to an object of which the individual parts do not exist at the same places or times: all its parts and therefore its very whole can be conceived to exist nowhere or never.
For, although time is said to exist always, and the world everywhere, yet time does not as a whole exist Z56 ANSKLM.
always, nor the world as a whole everywhere. And as individual parts of time do not exist when others exist, so they can be conceived never to exist. And so it can be apprehended by the intelligence that in- dividual parts of the world exist nowhere, as they do not exist where other parts exist. Moreover, what is composed of parts can be dissolved in concept, and be non-existent. Therefore, whatever at any place or at any time does not exist as a whole, even if it is ex- istent, can be conceived not to exist.
But that than which a greater cannot be conceived, if it exists, cannot be conceived not to exist. Other- wise, it is not a being than which a greater cannot be conceived: which is inconsistent. By no means, then, does it at any place or at any time fail to exist as a whole: but it exists as a whole everywhere and al- ways.
Do you believe that this being can in some way be conceived or understood, or that the being with re- gard to which these things are understood can be in concept or in the understanding? For if it cannot, these things cannot be understood with reference to it. But if you say that it is not understood and that it is not in the understanding, because it is not thor- oughly understood; you should say that a man who cannot face the direct rays of the sun does not see the light of day, which is none other than the sun- light. Assuredly a being than which a greater cannot I be conceived exists, and is in the understanding, at least to this extent — that these statements regarding it are understood.
APPENDIX. 157 CHAPTER II.
The argument is continued. It is shown that a being than which a greater is inconceivable can be conceived, and also, in so far, exists.
I have said, then, in the argument which you dis- pute, that when the fool hears mentioned a being than which a greater is inconceivable, he understands what he hears. Certainly a man who does not understand when a familiar language is spoken, has no under- standing at all, or a very dull one. Moreover, I have said that if this being is understood, it is in the under- standing. Is that in no understanding which has been proved necessarily to exist in the reality of fact?
But you will say that although it is in the under- standing, it does not follow that it is understood. But observe that the fact of its being understood does ne- cessitate its being in the understanding. For as what is conceived, is conceived by conception, and what is conceived by conception, as it is conceived, so is in conception; so what is understood, is understood by understanding, and what is understood by understand- ing, as it is understood, so is in the understanding. What can be more clear than this?
After this, I have said that if it is even in the un- derstanding alone, it can be conceived also to exist in reality, which is greater. If, then, it is in the under- standing alone, obviously the very being than which a greater cannot be conceived is one than which a greater can be conceived. What is more logical? For if it exists even in the understanding alone, can it not be conceived also to exist in reality? And if it can be so conceived, does not he who conceives of this conceive of a thing greater than that being, if it exists 158 ANSELM.
in the understanding alone? What more consistent inference, then, can be made than this: that if a be- ing than which a greater cannot be conceived is in the understanding alone, it is not that than which a greater cannot be conceived?
But, assuredly, in no understanding is a being than which a greater is conceivable a being than which a greater is inconceivable. Does it not follow, then, that if a being than which a greater cannot be conceived is in any understanding, it does not exist in the understanding alone? For if it is in the under- standing alone, it is a being than which a greater can be conceived, which is inconsistent with the hypoth- esis.
CHAPTER III.
A criticism of Gaunilon's example, in which he tries to show that in this way the real existence of a lost island might be inferred from the fact of its being conceived.
But, you say, it is as if one should suppose an island in the ocean, which surpasses all lands in its fertility, and which, because of the difficulty, or rather the impossibility, of discovering what does not exist, is called a lost island; and should say that there can be no doubt that this island truly exists in reality, for this reason, that one who hears it described easily understands what he hears.
Now I promise confidently that if any man shall devise anything existing either in reality or in concept alone (except that than which, a greater cannot be conceived) to which he can adapt the sequence of my reasoning, I will discover that thing, and will give him his lost island, not to be lost again.
But it now appears that this being than which a greater is inconceivable cannot be conceived not to APPENDIX. 159 be, because it exists on so assured a ground of truth; for otherwise it would not exist at all.
Hence, if any one says that he conceives this be-| ing not to exist, I say that at the time when he con- ceives of this either he conceives of a being than -which a greater is inconceivable, or he does not con- ceive at all. If he does not conceive, he does not conceive of the non-existence of that of which he does not conceive. But if he does conceive, he certainly con- ceives of a being which cannot be even conceived not to exist. For if it could be conceived not to exist, it could be conceived to have a beginning and an end. But this is impossible.
He, then, who conceives of this being conceives of a being which cannot be even conceived not to ex- ist; but he who conceives of this being does not con- ceive that it does not exist; else he conceives what is inconceivable. The non-existence, then, of that than which a greater cannot be conceived is inconceivable.
CHAPTER IV.
The difference between the possibility of conceiving of non-exist- ence, and understanding non-existence.
You say, moreover, that whereas I assert that this supreme being cannot be conceived not to exist, it might better be said that its non-existence, or even the possibility of its non-existence, cannot be under- stood.
But it was more proper to say, it cannot be con- ceived. For if I had said that the object itself cannot be understood not to exist, possibly you yourself, who say that in accordance with the true meaning of the term what is unreal cannot be understood, would offer the objection that nothing which is can be underl6o ANSELM.
stood not to be, for the non-existence of what exists is unreal: hence God would not be the only being of which it could be said, it is impossible to understand its non-existence. For thus one of those beings which most certainly exist can be understood not to exist in the same way in which certain other real objects can be understood not to exist.
But this objection, assuredly, cannot be urged against the term c onception, if one considers the mat- ter well. For although no objects which exist can be understood not to exist, yet all objects, except that which exists in the highest degree, can be conceived not to exist. For all those objects, and those alone, can be conceived not to exist, which have a beginning or end or composition of parts: also, as I have already said, whatever at any place or at any time does not exist as a whole.
That being alone, on the other hand, cannot be I conceived not to exist, in which any conception dis- I covers neither beginning nor end nor composition of {parts, and which any conception finds always and (everywhere as a whole.
Be assured, then, that you can conceive of your own non-existence, although you are most certain that you exist. I am surprised that you should have ad- mitted that you are ignorant of this. For we conceive of the non-existence of many objects which we know to exist, and of the existence of many which we know not to exist; not by forming the opinion that they so exist, but by imagining that they exist as we conceive of them.
And indeed, we can conceive of the non-existence of an object, although we know it to exist, because at the same time we can conceive of the former and APPENDIX. l6l I *Uow the latter. And we cannot conceive of the non- existence of an object, so long as we know it to exist, 1 because we cannot conceive at the same time of exist - h ence and non-existence.
If, then, one will thus distinguish these two senses of this statement, he will understand that nothing, so long as it is known to exist, can be conceived not to exist; and that whatever exists, ^except that being than which a greater cannot be conceived,) can be conceived not to exist, even when it is known to exist.
So, then, of God alone it can be said that it is im- possible to conceive of his non-existence; and yet many objects, so long as they exist, i n_ one se nse can- not be conceived not to exist. But in what sense God is to be conceived not to exist, I think has been shown clearly enough in my book.
chapter v.
A particular discussion of certain statements of Gaunilon's. In the first place, he misquoted the argument which he undertook to refute.
The nature of the other objections which you, in behalf of the fool, urge against me it is easy, even for a man of small wisdom, to detect; and I had therefore thought it unnecessary to show this. But since I hear that some readers of these objections think they have some weight against me, I will discuss them briefly.
In the first place, you often repeat that I assert that what is greater than all other beings is in the un- derstanding; and if it is in the understanding, it ex- ists also in reality, for otherwise the being which is greater than all would not be greater than all.
Nowhere in all my writings is such a demonstra- tion found. For the real existence of a being which 1 62 ANSELM.
is said to be greater than all other beings cannot be demonstrated in the same way with the real existence of one that is said to be a being than which a greater cannot be conceived.
If it should be said that a being than which a greater cannot be conceived has no real existence, or that it is possible that it does not exist, or even that it can be conceived not to exist, such an assertion can be easily refuted. For the non-existence of what does not exist is possible, and that whose non-existence is possible can be conceived not to exist. But whatever can be conceived not to exist, if it exists, is not a be- ing than which a greater cannot be conceived; but if it does not exist, it would not, even if it existed, be a being than which a greater cannot be conceived. But it cannot be said that a being than which a greater is inconceivable, if it exists, is not a being than which a greater is inconceivable; or that if it existed, it would not be a being than which a greater is inconceivable.
It is evident, then, that neither is it non-existent, nor is it possible that it does not exist, nor can it be conceived not to exist. For otherwise, if it exists, it is not that which it is said to be in the hypothesis; and if it existed, it would not be what it is said to be in the hypothesis.
But this, it appears, cannot be so easily proved of a being which is said to be greater than all other be- ings. For it is not so evident that what can be con- ceived not to exist is not greater than all existing be- ings, as it is evident that it is not a being than which a greater cannot be conceived. Nor is it so indubit- able that if a being greater than all other beings ex- ists, it is no other than the being than which a greater cannot be conceived; or that if it were such a being, APPENDIX. 163 some other might not be this being in like manner; as it is certain with regard to a being which is hypo- thetically posited as one than which a greater cannot be conceived.
For consider: if one should say that there is a be- ing greater than all other beings, and that this being can nevertheless be conceived not to exist; and that a being greater than this, although it does not exist, can be conceived to exist: can it be so clearly inferred in this case that this being is therefore not a being greater than all other existing beings, as it would be most positively affirmed in the other case, that the being under discussion is not, therefore, a being than which a greater cannot be conceived?
For the former conclusion requires another pre- mise than the predication, greater than all other beings. In my argument, on the other hand, there is no need of any other than this very predication, a being than -which a greater cannot be conceived.
If the same proof cannot be applied when the be- ing in question is predicated to be greater than all others, which can be applied when it is predicated to le a being than which a greater cannot be conceived, ^ou have unjustly censured me for saying what I did zmot say; since such a predication differs so greatly ^rom that which I actually made. If, on the other ^iand, the other argument is valid, you ought not to ~fclame me so for having said what can be proved.
Whether this can be proved, however, he will ^easily decide who recognises that this being than "^vhich a greater cannot be conceived is demonstrable.
3For by no means can this being than which a greater ^cannot be conceived be understood as any other than ~that which alone is greater than all. Hence, just as 164 ANSELM.
that than which a greater cannot be conceived is un- derstood, and is in the understanding, and for that reason is asserted to exist in the reality of fact: so what is said to be greater than all other beings is un- derstood and is in the understanding, and therefore it is necessarily inferred that it exists in reality.
You see, then, with how much justice you have compared me with your fool, who, on the sole ground that he understands what is described to him, would affirm that a lost island exists.
CHAPTER VI.
A discussion of Gaunilon's argument in his second chapter: that any unreal beings can be understood in the same way, and would, to that extent, exist.
Another of your objections is that any unreal be- ings, or beings whose existence is uncertain, can be understood and be in the understanding in the same way with that being which I discussed. I am sur- prised that you should have conceived this objection, for I was attempting to prove what was still uncer- tain, and contented myself at first with showing that this being is understood in any way, and is in the un- derstanding. It was my intention to consider, on these grounds, whether this being is in the under- standing alone, like an unreal object, or whether it also exists in fact, as a real being. For if unreal ob- jects, or objects whose existence is uncertain, in this way are understood and are in the understanding, be- cause, when they are spoken of, the hearer under- stands what the speaker means, there is no reason why that being of which I spoke should not be under- stood and be in the understanding.
How, moreover, can these two statements of yours APPENDIX. 165 be reconciled: (1) the assertion that if a man should speak of any unreal objects, whatever they might be, you would understand, and (2) the assertion that on hearing of that being which does exist, and not in that way in which even unreal objects are held in concept, you would not say that you conceive of it or have it in concept; since, as you say, you cannot conceive of it in any other way than by understanding it, that is, by comprehending in your knowledge its real existence?
How, I ask, can these two things be reconciled: that unreal objects are understood, and that under- standing an object is comprehending in knowledge its real existence? The contradiction does not con- cern me: do you see to it. But if unreal objects are also in some sort understood, and your definition is applicable, not to every understanding, but to a cer- tain sort of understanding, I ought not to be blamed for saying that a being than which a greater cannot be conceived is understood and is in the understand- ing, even before I reached the certain conclusion that this being exists in reality.
CHAPTER VII.
In answer to another objection: that the supremely great being may be conceived not to exist, just as by the fool God is con- ceived not to exist.
Again, you say that it can probably never be be- lieved that this being, when it is spoken of and heard of, cannot be conceived not to exist in the same way in which even God may be conceived not to exist.
Such an objection could be answered by those who have attained but little skill in disputation and argu- ment. For is it compatible with reason for a man to 1 66 ANSELM.
deny the existence of what he understands, because it is said to be that being whose existence he denies because he does not understand it? Or, if at some times its existence is denied, because only to a certain extent is it understood, and that which is not at all understood is the same to him: is not what is still undetermined more easily proved of a being which exists in some understanding than of one which exists is no understanding?
Hence it cannot be credible that any man denies the existence of a being than which a greater cannot be conceived, which, when he hears of it, he under- stands in a certain degree: it is incredible, I say, that any man denies the existence of this being because he denies the existence of God, the sensory perception of whom he in no wise conceives of.
Or if the existence of another object, because it is not at all understood, is denied, yet is not the exist- ence of what is understood in some degree more easily proved than the existence of an object which is in no wise understood?
Not irrationally, then, has the hypothesis of a be- ing a greater than which cannot be conceived been employed in controverting the fool, for the proof of the existence of God: since in some degree he would understand such a being, but in no wise could he un- derstand God.
CHAPTER VIII.
The example of the picture, treated in Gatmilon's third chapter, is examined. — From what source a notion may be formed of the supremely great being, of which Gaunilon inquired in his fourth chapter.
Moreover, your so careful demonstration that the being than which a greater cannot be conceived is APPENDIX. 167 not analogous to the not yet executed picture in the understanding of the painter, is quite unnecessary. It was not for this purpose that I suggested the pre- conceived picture. I had no thought of asserting that the being which I was discussing is of such a nature; 4 but I wished to show that what is not understood to 4 exist can be in the understanding.
Again, you say tjiat when you hear of a being than which a greater is inconceivable, you cannot conceive of it in terms of any real object known to you either specifically or generally, nor have it in your under- standing. For, you say, you neither know such a be- ing in itself, nor can you form an idea of it from any- thing like it.
But obviously this is not true. For everything that is less good, in so far as it is good, is like the I greater good. It is therefore evident to any rational mind, that by ascending from the lesser good to the greater, we can form a considerable notion of a being than which a greater is inconceivable.
For instance, who (even if he does not believe that what he conceives of exists in reality) supposing that there is some good which has a beginning and an I end, does not conceive that a good is much better, which, if it begins, does not cease to be? And that as the second good is better than the first, so that good which has neither beginning nor end, though it is ever passing from the past through the present to the future, is better than the second? And that far better than this is a being — whether any being of such a nature exists or not — which in no wise requires change or motion, nor is compelled to undergo change or motion?
Is this inconceivable, or is some being greater 1 68 ANSELM.
than this conceivable? Or is not this to form a notion from objects than which a greater is conceivable, of the being than which a greater cannot be conceived?
1 There is, then, a means of forming a notion of a being than which a greater is inconceivable. I So easily, then, can the fool who does not accept \ sacred authority be refuted, if he denies that a notion may be formed from other objects of a being than which a greater is inconceivable. But if any Catholic would deny this, let him remember that the invisible things of God, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead. (Romans CHAPTER IX.
The possibility of understanding and conceiving of the supremely great being. The argument advanced against the fool is con- firmed.
But even if it were true that a being than which a greatef is inconceivable cannot be conceived or under- stood; yet it would not be untrue that a being than which a greater cannot be conceived is conceivable and intelligible. There is nothing to prevent one's saying ineffabl e, although what is said to be ineffable cannot be spoken of. Inconceivable is conceivable, al though that to which the word incon ceivable can be ap plied is not conceivable. So, when one says, that than which nothing greater is conceivable, undoubtedly w hat is heard is conceivable and inte lligible, although t hat being itself, than which a gr eater is inconceiv- a ble f cannot be conceived or understo od.
Or, though there is a man so foolish as to say that there is no being than which a greater is inconceiv- able, he will not be so shameless as to say that he APPENDIX. 169 cannot understand or conceive of what he says. Or, if such a man is found, not only ought his words to be rejected, but he himself should be contemned.
Whoever, then, denies the existence of a being than which a greater cannot be conceived, at least understands and conceives of the denial which he makes. But this denial he cannot understand or con- ceive of without its component terms; and a term of this statement is a being than which a greater cannot be conceived. Whoever, then, makes this denial, under- J stands and conceives of that than which a greater is I inconceivable.
Moreover, it is evident that in the same way it is possible to conceive of and understand a being whose non-existence is impossible; but he who conceives of this conceives of a greater being than one whose non- existence is possible. Hence, when a being than which a greater is inconceivable is conceived, if it is a being whose non-existence is possible that is con- ceived, it is not a being than which a greater cannot be conceived. But an object cannot be at once con- ceived and not conceived. Hence he who conceives of a being than which a greater is inconceivable, does not conceive of that whose non-existence is possible, but of that whose non-existence is impossible. There- fore, what he conceives of must exist; for anything whose non-existence is possible, is not that of which he conceives.
CHAPTER X.
The certainty of the foregoing argument. — The conclusion of the book.
I believe that I have shown by an argument which is not weak, but sufficiently cogent, that in my former I70 ANSELM.
(book I proved the real existence of a being than which a greater cannot be conceived; and I believe that this argument cannot be invalidated by the validity of any objection. For so great force does the signification of this reasoning contain in itself, that this being which is the subject of discussion, is of necessity, I from the very fact that it is understood or conceived, proved also to exist in reality, and to be whatever we should believe of the divine substance.
For we attribute to the divine substance anything of which it can be conceived that it is better to be than not to be that thing. For example: it is better to be eternal than not eternal; good, than not good; nay, goodness itself, than not goodness itself. But it cannot be that anything of this nature is not a prop- erty of the being than which a greater is inconceiv- able. Hence, the being than which a greater is in- conceivable must be whatever should be attributed to the divine essence.
I thank you for your kindness both in your blame and in your praise for my book. For since you have commended so generously those parts of it which seem to you worthy of acceptance, it is quite evident that you have criticised in no unkind spirit those parts of it which seemed to you weak.
CUR DEUS HOMO.
CUR DEUS HOMO.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
CUR DKUS HOMO. BOOK FIRST.
* ^^ PAGE I. The question on which the whole work rests 178 Xx How those things which are to be said should "be re- ceived 179 X X I. Objections of infidels and replies of believers 182 X "V. How these things appear not decisive to infidels, and merely like so many pictures 183 "V. How the redemption of man could not be effected by any other being but God 184 ^Vl. How infidels find fault with us for saying that God has redeemed us by his death, etc 185 ^11. How the devil had no justice on his side against man.. 187 ^ t II. How, although the acts of Christ's condescension which we speak of do not belong to his divinity, it yet seems improper to infidels that these things should be said of him even as a man, etc 190 XX. How it was of his own accord that he died 192 X. On the same topics 197 3£I. What it is to sin, and to make satisfaction for sin 201 " ^CII. Whether it were proper for God to put away sins by compassion alone, without any payment of debt 203 ^ClII. How nothing less was to be endured, in the order of things, than that the creature should take away the honor due the Creator, etc 206 3CIV. How the honor of God exists in the punishment of the wicked 207 - XV. Whether God suffers his honor to be violated even in the least degree 208 174 TABLE OF CONTENTS.
XVI. The reason why the number of angels who fell most be made up from men 210 XVII. How other angels cannot take the place of those who fell 211 XVIII. Whether there will be more holy men than evil an- gels 212 . XIX. How man cannot be saved without satisfaction for sin 222 XX. That satisfaction ought to be proportionate to guilt...225 XXI. How great a burden sin is 228 XXII. What contempt man brought upon God when he allowed himself to be conquered by the devil 230 XXIII. What man took from God by his sin 231 XXIV. How, as long as man does not restore what he owes God, be cannot be happy 233 XXV. How man's salvation by Christ is necessarily possible 237 BOOK SECOND.
I. How man was made holy by God, so as to be happy in the enjoyment of God 239 II. How man would never have died, unless he had sinned 241 III. How man will rise with the same body which he has in this world 241 IV. How God will complete, in respect to human nature, what he has begun 242 V. How, although the thing may be necessary, God may not do it by a compulsory necessity 242.
VI. How no being, except the God-man, can make the atonement by which man is saved 244 VII. How necessary it is for the same being to be perfect God and perfect man 245 VIII. How it behooved God to take a man of the race of Adam, and born of a woman 247 IX. How of necessity the Word only can unite in one per- son with man 250 X. How this man dies not of debt; and in what sense he can or cannot sin 251 XI. How Christ dies of his own power 255 XII. {low, though he share in our weakness, he is not therefore miserable, 259 * TABLE OF CONTENTS. 1 75 PAGE XIII. How, along with our other weaknesses, he does not partake of our ignorance 260 XIV. How his death outweighs the number and greatness of our sins 261 XV. How his death removes even the sins of his murderers 263 XVI. How God took that man from a sinful substance, and yet without sin; and of the salvation of Adam and Eve 265 XVII. How he did not die of necessity though he could not be born, except as destined to suffer death 269 X Villa. How with God there is neither necessity nor impos- sibility 273 XVIII b. How Christ's life is paid to God for the sins of men 279 XIX. How human salvation follows upon his death 283 XX. How great and how just is God's compassion 286