he who first forced free England to submit to the galling yoke of Papal usurpation, and saddled upon the theological world a harsh and repugnant conception of a bloody, cruel, and avenging God, who could find judicial satisfaction in the shedding of the innocent blood of His Son. The intellectual efforts of St. Anselm and the other schoolmen amounted to little more than quibbling. There were no great doctrinal controversies at the time, and their hair-splitting discussions. chiefly in a circle, were in reality only a by-play with intellectual Latin Chris- weapons. Milman says that "of those tianity, Vol. IX., Page 118. vast monuments of theology which amaze and appal the mind, the sole remnant is that barren amazement."

Draper, Vol. II.,

"We have just cause to expect little

Page 13. of permanent value from this source, since history, criticism and science were almost unknown. Latin was the language of scholars, while Greek was hardly studied, a fact especially unfortunate since the early Greek Fathers

were-without an exception-the best theolo

gians."

Of Anselm in connection with this scholasti

Church History, Middle Ages,

Page 258.

cism, Hardwick justly regards him

as the purest and most able type of it in the West: "He occupied the place of St. Augustine in relation to the Middle Ages. The basis of his principles was also Augustinian; but the form and color which they took from the alliance now cemented between them and Aristotleian dialectics, gave to Anselm a peculiar mission, and compared with his great master, a one-sided character."

But in the analysis of his character and of his doctrine, let us not forget the lesson that a comprehensive study of the history of Christianity teaches; for however much we may admire the purity of motive of the "Puritans" of any age, the men who have heroically come out from the low moral conditions into which the Christianity of their age had fallen, let us not fail to recognize the always attendant conditions. For on

the higher plane to which they rose, the atmosphere was as cold as it was pure, and in every instance they advocated theories that presented a hard and unlovely representation of God's character; theories that later generations-with no less purity, but with a truer appreciation of God's love-rejected. Lauding the noble heroism and self-denial, let us recognize the universal tendency of such reformers, to attribute to God the same stern condemnation of the sinner that they exhibited in their own lives-lives that were made incapable of charitable judgment, through asceticism.

PART II.

The Witness of the Fathers.

Of what importance or value are the works of those who have been called the Fathers of the church? Their writings were not inspired; yet because of this there are many who, while they look upon certain modern writers as little short of infallible, utterly despise an appeal to the primitive authorities. Do these authors supersede the teachings of the Bible? Certainly not.

Yet zealous Christian authors, often disciples of the Apostles, or of those who have walked with Jesus in the flesh-in many cases themselves martyrs and confessors-are worthy of attention; and, whereas they wrote before the days of later controversy, may fairly be regarded as unbiased witnesses, and become almost com

plementary to the inspired Word. They were human, however, and in some things disagreed among themselves; but they were dilligent students of Holy Writ; indeed, to such an extent that the New Testament, if lost, could almost be restored through the quotations they made from it. Moreover, it is upon their authority that we accept certain writings as canonical and inspired: and while much that they have written seems on the borderland of mysticism; was largely influenced by that Eastern mode of thought that delights in an involved method of reasoning and in subtle distinctions, still they were too closely held by the faith as they had received it to permit themselves to advocate such error as was reserved for Anselm -so far removed from the period of our Lord's immediate witnesses-to promulgate.

Yet no one who analyzes their mode of thought can for a moment doubt that, if any authority had been given them to advocate the satisfaction theory, the early Christian