Revisiting Anselm of Canterburys Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement by Perichoresis

By

Timothy Ching Lung LAM

A Term Paper Submitted to Ms. Eppie Y.M. WONG of Alliance Bible Seminary in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Course of CH513-E: Church History II Winter 2006

Timothy Ching Lung LAM Student ID Number: D023111

April 18, 2006

Contents

1. 2. 3.

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 1 ANSELMS SATISFACTION THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT ............................ 1 THE CRITICISMS OF ANSELMS SATISFACTION THEORY ............................. 3 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. FEUDAL IMAGERY VS. PATRISTIC FOUNDATION ................................................... 3 HUMAN PARTICIPATION ........................................................................................ 4 ABSENCE OF THE SPIRIT ........................................................................................ 6

4.

REEXAMINATION OF ANSELMS SATISFACTION THEORY BY CHRISTOLOGICAL PERICHORESIS ........................................................................ 6 4.1. 4.2. THE MEANING OF CHRISTOLOGICAL PERICHORESIS ........................................... 6 SIMILARITIES BETWEEN ANSELMS SATISFACTION THEORY AND CHRISTOLOGICAL PERICHORESIS ......................................................................... 8

5.

ENHANCEMENT OF ANSELMS SATISFACTION THEORY BY TRINITARIAN PERICHORESIS .................................................................................. 9 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 10

6.

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... I

Revisiting Anselm of Canterburys Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement by Perichoresis

1.

Introduction

The purpose of Anselm of Canterburys two-part dialectic treatise, Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man), is to demonstrate the rationality with respect to the necessity of the Incarnation of God and the redemption through Christ. In this treatise, Anselm develops a profound model of the atonement, namely Satisfaction Theory, which has become vital in Christology and Soteriology throughout the history of Christianity. However, this theory

has inevitably received a profusion of criticisms such as its plausibility due to its feudal context, lack of human participation and the Spirit involvement in the atonement. Despite all these criticisms, a classical theological concept of perichoresis, which church fathers adapted to express the intimate communion of (1) the two natures in the one person of Jesus (Christological perichoresis), and (2) the three persons in one being of God (Trinitarian perichoresis),1 offers a useful way to mitigate the weights of these challenges. In this

respect, the goal of this paper is to affirm the patristic theological foundation in Anselms Satisfaction Theory by the very concept of Christological perichoresis and refine the Theory through the integration of the Trinitarian perichoresis in order to affirm both the human participation in the atonement process and the presence of the Spirit in the redemption work.

2.

Anselms Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement In Cur Deus Homo, Anselm explains his view of what it is to sin, i.e. justice, or uprightness of will in our heart that we do not exercise leading to the debt of honor which we owe to God.2 In other words, anyone who does not render this honor which is due to Accordingly, we, as sinners, God, robs God of His own and dishonors Him, and this is sin.3 which every sinner owes to God.4

ought to pay back the honor of which we have robbed God and this is the satisfaction,

Michael G. Lawler, Perichoresis: New Theological Wine in An Old Theological Wineskin, Horizon, 22/1 (Spr. 1995): 49. 2 St. Anselm, Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man), trans. Sidney Norton Deane (Chicago, The Open Court Publishing Company, 1903, reprinted 1926), from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anselm-curdeus.html; accessed 28 January 2006, I.11. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. Church History II Page 1 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM

Revisiting Anselm of Canterburys Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement by Perichoresis

As God will be perceived unjust if He allows sin being neither paid for nor punished, 5 it leaves God only two options as to whether the honor taken away is repaid, or the sinners are punished.6 However, Anselm contends that man is of himself unable to accomplish the Since man has no power to repay the debt of Gods honor,8

satisfaction even if man no longer commits sin, as he has nothing more to render to God for the obligation owed to Him.7 no salvation can be found for man if Christ is left out of view,9 and at this point, the theory of satisfaction has come into view.

After proving the necessity for God to complete expiation of human sin in order to perfect in human nature what He has begun,10 Anselm concludes that none but God can make this satisfactionbut none but a man ought to do this, and therefore, it is necessary for the God-man to make it.11

Then, Anselm, confessing his allegiance in the Chalcedonian doctrine of Christ, describes his understanding of this God-man: the God-man, whom we require to be of a nature both human and Divine, cannot be produced by a change from one into the other, nor by an imperfect commingling of both in a third; it is necessary that the same being should perfect God and perfect man, in order to make this atonementfor he cannot and ought not to do it.it is necessary that the God-man preserve the completeness of each nature, it is no less necessary that these two natures be united entire in one person, just as a body and a reasonable soul exist together in every human being; for otherwise it is impossible that the same being should be very God and very man.12

In order to restore the human race of Adam, Anselm asserts that God should assume the human nature out of Adams race as the same race must rise and be exalted by means of

5 6

Ibid, I.12. Ibid, I.13. 7 Ibid, I.20-21. 8 Ibid, I.24. 9 Ibid, I.25. 10 Ibid, II.4. 11 Ibid, II.6. 12 Ibid, II.7 Church History II Page 2 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM

Revisiting Anselm of Canterburys Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement by Perichoresis

itself.13

Although the Word has assumed the human nature of Adams race, He has Accordingly, Christs

committed no sin and thus He ought not to be subject to death. 14

voluntary death restores honor to God for God will not demand this of Him as a debt.15 In Anselms word, nothing can be more severe or difficult for man to do for God's honor, than to suffer death voluntary when not bound by obligation; and man cannot give himself to God in any way more truly than by surrendering himself to death for God's honor.16 Son freely gives a great gift to God, He deserves a reward. and thus can bestow the reward upon someone who imitate Him.17 Satisfaction Theory in Cur Deus Homo, John Hannah states it well, to Anselm, Christ restored honor to God by meeting the qualifications of a proper sacrifice (the God-man) and then voluntarily giving up His infinitely precious life to death (the evil cancelled by the greater good). God is thus propitiated and is free to forgive sin for Christs sake.18 As the

However, the Son needs nothing To conclude Anselms

3.

The Criticisms of Anselms Satisfaction Theory

3.1. Feudal Imagery vs. Patristic Foundation

One of the major criticisms against the viability of Anselms Satisfaction Theory is its medieval feudal context.
19

In a feudal society, a persons meaning is defined in ones

ranking in the society with each person bound to one superior lord in a clearly defined rank ranging from the king at the top to the peasantry at the bottom.20 society, but also cause damage to the social order.21 Dishonor and

disobedience to the liege lord would not only affect ones meaning and identity in the In this regard, satisfaction for such act is required to repair both the breach of trust between the offender and the

13 14 15 16 17 18

Ibid, II.8 Ibid, II.11. Ibid, II.11. Ibid. Ibid, II.20. John D. Hannah, Anselm on the Doctrine of Atonement, Bibliotheca Sacra (October December 1978):

338. Hannah, 339. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, s.v. Feudal society; available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudal_society; accessed 16 April 2006. 21 John M. Nuth, Two Medieval Soteriologies: Anselm of Canterbury and Julian of Norwich, Theological Studies, 53 (1992): 622-623.
20 19

Church History II

Page 3

By Timothy Ching Lung LAM

Revisiting Anselm of Canterburys Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement by Perichoresis

lord, as well as the damage done to the society.22

As such, it is obvious that there is a very strong connection between Anselms Satisfaction Theory and the feudal imagery. escape the marks of feudal imagery.23 Anselm are medieval, not Christian.24 Jasper Hopkins says that Anselms

attempt to make the doctrines of the incarnation and atonement plausible does not George Foley and Adolph Harnack share the same view as Hopkins that the terms such as honor and satisfaction used by And Gustaf Auln even harshly criticizes

that the theology of the atonement in Cur Deus Homo has been unfortunately and drastically changed from a classical patristic view to a Latin Medieval Western view.25 What Auln attempts to do is to challenge the plausibility of Anselms Satisfaction Theory by setting off this theory from the classic approach found in the church fathers.26 Apparently for Auln, Anselms argument cannot survive without the feudal imagery.

3.2. Human Participation

As Anselm asserts that Christ bestows to man the reward He receives from God for His voluntary death, it appears that human participation in the atonement process is missing from Anselms theory. Roger Olsen comments that Anselms Satisfaction Theory seems too objective to include any human activity in the process so that humans appear to be pawns in a great cosmic transaction between God the Father and Jesus Christ.27 Louis Berkhof shared the same view that [Anselms Satisfaction There is no hint of the mystical union of Christ and believers.28

Theory] represents the application of the merits of Christ to the sinner as a merely external transaction.

Ibid. Jasper Hopkins, A Companion to the Study of St. Anselm, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1972), 197-198, quoted in Nicholas Cohen, Feudal Imagery or Christian Tradition? A Defense of the Rationale for Anselms Cur Deus Homo, The Saint Anselm Journal 2.1 (Fall 2004): 23. 24 Hannah, 339. 25 Cohen, 22-23. 26 Ibid, 23. 27 Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 325. 28 Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1937), 174, quoted in Scott David Foutz, A Brief Survey of Anselm of Canterburys Cur Deus Homo?, http://www.quodlibet.net/anselm.shtml; accessed 12 March 2006.
23

22

Church History II

Page 4

By Timothy Ching Lung LAM

Revisiting Anselm of Canterburys Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement by Perichoresis

Having said that, it is unfair to accuse Anselms lacking of human aspects in the atonement as humanity does play a major role in his theory. the debt of Gods honor.29 For Anselm, it is man who robs God of His own and dishonors Him, and hence has the obligation to repay Accordingly, repayment of the debt is what human should Since man has no power to do so, such In order

participate in the work of redemption.

participation can only take place through the union of humanity in Christ.30 typology to describe the representative act of Christs redemption.31

to demonstrate the continuity of Christs humanity to ours, Anselm uses Adam/Christ As Anselm

contends, the sin of Adam, the representative of the human race, is propagated among all humans, the reward due to the satisfaction of Christ, the representative born of Adams race, could be shared among all humans as well.32

It is noteworthy that Christ makes this satisfaction for humans as their representative rather than their substitute.33 Hopkins has incorrectly translated Cur Deus Homo with Burnell Eckardt points it out that God Most profoundly he states, The In this

the indefinite article from Why God Became Man to Why God Became a Man denoting Christs assumption of an individual man.34

assume human-ness, the same humanness, ontologically, as Adams, in order to become existentially united with the human race.35 vicarious substitution of Christ is for Anselm not x for y, but x for x.36

regard, a substitute for humanity is not sufficient to make atonement for human sin, which, as a result, requires humanity to participate in the atonement, and this is the whole point for Anselms Why God Became Man. Notwithstanding human

participation in Anselms Satisfaction Theory is affirmed, Anselm, as criticized by Nuth, fails to demonstrate how this happen except for the hint that imitation of Christ is required.37

Anselm, I.11. Ibid, I.24. 31 Nuth, 624. 32 Anselm, II.8. 33 Nuth, 624. 34 Burnell F. Eckardt, Anselm and Luther on the Atonement : Was it "Necessary"? (San Francisco: Mellen Research University Press, 1992), 36. 35 Ibid, 38. 36 Ibid. 37 Nuth, 625-626.
30

29

Church History II

Page 5

By Timothy Ching Lung LAM

Revisiting Anselm of Canterburys Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement by Perichoresis

3.3. Absence of the Spirit

Another deficiency of Anselms Satisfaction Theory is the absence of the Spirit in the redemption work. In Anselms argument, it is the Son who makes the satisfaction for

human to repay the debt of the Fathers honor, and in return, it is the Father who bestows the reward to the Son who then gives away to human. Consequently, as Olsen opines, [Anselms theory] divides the Trinity between Father and Son and leaves the Spirit totally out of the equation.38

4.

Reexamination of Anselms Satisfaction Theory by Christological Perichoresis

Notwithstanding that Satisfaction Theory was said to be set off from the patristic theological foundation, we now demonstrate how Anselm confesses his allegiance in the church fathers. In fact, there appears a strong linkage between Anselms understanding of the God-man and Lutheran Christology for it presents a view similar to the Lutheran communicatio idiomatum.39 For John McIntyre, the God-man in Anselmic language, demonstrates a real transference of properties from one side to the other, and there occurs in St. Anselm a foreshadowing of the Lutheran communicatio idiomatum in its fullest form.40 However,

this reciprocal relationship of the two natures within the one Person of Jesus is not Anselmic innovation for he appears to follow the patristic tradition such as perichoresis which will be discussed as follows: 4.1. The Meaning of Christological Perichoresis

The Greek term, perichoresis or its Latin equivalent, circumencessio, circuminsessio means mutual indwelling or, better, mutual interpenetration.41 According to Liddell

and Scott, the meaning of perichoresis can be best explained from its verb form, perichorein where chorein means, to make room for another, and peri means round

Olsen, 320. John McIntyre, St. Anselm and His Critics: A Re-interpretation of the Cur Deus homo (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1954), 139. The meaning of communicatio idiomatum is the properties of both natures deity and humanity are communicated to, or interchanged in, the one person of Jesus Christ. See Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 298. 40 Ibid, 140-141. 41 S.M. Smith, Perichoresis, in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House Company, May 1990), 906-907.
39

38

Church History II

Page 6

By Timothy Ching Lung LAM

Revisiting Anselm of Canterburys Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement by Perichoresis

about.42

In T.F. Torrances findings, it was Gregory Nazianzen who used perichorein

to help express the way in which the divine and the human natures in the one Person of Christ coinhere in one another without the integrity of either being diminished by the presence of the other.43 Then, the term became more popular in its usage for

describing the two natures in Jesus, which was introduced by Maximus the Confessor and first appeared in patristic philology in its noun form, i.e. perichoresis denoting that the human nature totally makes room for the divine nature, to which it is united without any confusion.44 In an attempt to explain such concept, Maximus used an analogy of a red-hot knife as follows: As a red-hot knife burns and cuts simultaneously because of the perichoresis of the nature of iron and the nature of fire, so also Christ is simultaneously God and man because of the perichoresis of the divine and human natures.45

Later on, an anonymous author, Pseudo-Cyril in his De Sacrosancta Trinitate, continued to use this term to describe the two natures of Jesus, but said that the mutual interpenetrating concept of perichoresis was indeed asymmetrical.46 Cyril further explained that the divinity is the anointing element, the humanity the anointed element, the anointing itself the perichoresis of the anointer in the anointed, which came to a conclusion that the perichoresis is achieved by the divinity not by the humanity in order to preserve the impassiblity of God. 47 In this respect, it is Jesus

anointing divinity that makes room for the anointed humanity and that the humanity is intertwined with the divinity without being diminished, but rather being granted room
Henry Liddell and Robert Scott, Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1964) quoted in Michael G. Lawler, Perichoresis: New Theological Wine in An Old Theological Wineskin, Horizon, 22/1 (Spr. 1995): 49. 43 T.F. Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being Three Persons, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 102. Actually, Torrance was partially correct in identifying the origin of perichoresis, but the term was first used by Gregory Nazianzen to describe the relation between life and death at his fathers funeral where he argued that life comes from and leads to corruption and death transforms us from earthly ills to a higher life. In addition, the verb was found three times in Gregory of Nazianzen (d.ca. 389) who used it to describe (1) the coinherent relation between life and death, and (2) satiety where all things coinhere in or make room for one another, and (3) the coinherence between Christs humanity and divinity. See Lawler, 50. 44 Ibid. 45 Ibid. 46 Ibid, 50-51. In Cyrils word, But the interpenetration does not come to be from the flesh but from the Godhead, for it is impossible that the flesh should penetrate through the Godhead, but the divine nature, having once penetrated through the flesh, gave also to the flesh the ineffable penetration toward itself, which is called union. Ps-Cyril, De Trin..24, PG 77.1165C-D=John of Damascus, Expos. Fid. 91=Fid. Orth. 4.18, Kotter 2:214 quoted in Verna Harrison, Perichoresis in the Greek Fathers, St Vladimirs Theological Quarterly 35 No. 1 (1991): 60. Church History II Page 7 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
42

Revisiting Anselm of Canterburys Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement by Perichoresis

for around itself.48 After Pseudo-Cyril, John of Damascus, who shared Cyrils view that the perichoresis in Christ was not wholly symmetrical, but nonetheless it could not exclusively be one-sided.49 For him, a state of coinherence is established upon incarnation, in which the divine and human natures remain forever present in each other, for [divine nature] grants the flesh participation in its own splendors while remaining impassible and without participating in the passions (or passivity) of the flesh.50 The perichoresis arises out of the divine nature as it pervades the human, but through this divine action, it becomes mutual (though not fully). Thus, there is symmetry within asymmetry.51

4.2. Similarities between Anselms Satisfaction Theory and Christological Perichoresis

When comparing Anselms notion of the God-man with perichoresis, there are at least three areas in common:

Anselm Two Natures in One Person Union without Confusion the Divine and human natures cannot alternatethe God-man preserve the completeness of each nature. (CDH II.7) Asymmetrical Coinherence In the incarnation of God there is no lowering of the Deity; but the nature of man we believe to be exalted. (CDH I.8) Attributes of mortality (CDH II.11) and Ignorance (CDH II.13) cannot be found in the God-man. two natures be united entire in one person. (CDH II.7)

Perichoresis The divine and the human natures in the one Person of Christ coinhere in one another. The divine and human natures remain forever present in each other without the integrity of either being diminished by the presence of the other. It is the anointing divinity that makes room for the anointed humanity for the divine nature grants the flesh participation in its own splendors while remaining impassible and without participating in the passions (or passivity) of the flesh.

47 48 49 50

Ps-Cyril, De Trin.. 22, PG 77, 1162-1163 quoted in Lawler, 51. Ibid. Ibid, 62. Ibid. Page 8 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM

Church History II

Revisiting Anselm of Canterburys Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement by Perichoresis

From the above table, it is no doubt that Anselmic Christology is still in line with the patristic theology in light of perichoresis and thus Aulns criticism against the orthodoxy of Anselms theory is not justified. Having said that, the concept of Christological perichoresis itself still cannot explain human participation in the process of the atonement and the role of the Spirit in the work of redemption.

5.

Enhancement of Anselms Satisfaction Theory by Trinitarian Perichoresis

While Christological perichoresis helps explain the intimate communion of the two natures in one person of Jesus, the Trinitarian perichoresis is useful to elucidate the onto-relational character of the triune God. For John of Damascus, Trinitarian perichoresis refers to the

three divine persons make room for one another in such fashion that they are not commingled or diminished but simultaneously and mutually coinhere.52 ultimately one, as Torrance contends.53 Accordingly, God is not three discrete Persons but rather a communion of Persons in which Being and Communion are In light of this, all Gods activities indwell in Gods Being and vice versa, but each Person acts in a way in accordance with that Persons distinctive activities in communion with each other. Thus, in terms of the incarnation, it is obviously the Sons primary act, but, it is also an involvement of both the Father and the Spirit. Torrance states it well that: This does not mean of course that the Father and the Spirit became incarnate with the Son, but that with and in the incarnate Son the whole undivided Trinity was present and active in fulfilling the eternal purpose of Gods Love for mankind, for all three divine Persons have their Being in homoousial and hypostatic interrelations with one another, and they are all inseparably united in Gods activity in creation and redemption, not least as those activities are consummated in the incarnate economy of the Son.54

With the illumination of this Trinitarian perichoresis, the vicarious/representative sense of Anselms Satisfaction Theory can be supplemented that Christ receives the Holy Spirit on our behalf and redeems our humanity throughout His vicarious life, death, and resurrection in the

51 52 53

Ibid. Ibid, 52. Elmer M. Colyer, T.F. Torrance on the Trinity: An Invitation for Dialogue, 6. Page 9 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM

Church History II

Revisiting Anselm of Canterburys Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement by Perichoresis

power and presence of the Spirit, so as to reunite our humanity to Christ, sharing in His vicarious humanity, and through which we are in communion with God. Accordingly, the

presence of the Spirit in the humanity of Jesus not only empowers Jesus to fulfill His vicarious satisfaction to the Father on our behalf, but also composes the Spirit Himself to dwell with the human nature in order for the human nature accustomed to what Anselm would say imitating Christ. By this, not only is our human participation in the atonement

process affirmed, but also the Spirit is no longer isolated and alienated to the redemption work.

6.

Conclusion

Throughout the history of Christianity, Anselms Satisfaction Theory is undoubtedly one of the most important theologies in the incarnation and atonement which is still influential today. However, as shown in this paper, there has been a great deal of challenges against Anselms argument, of which three criticisms are discussed here, i.e. (1) viability in jeopardy due to heavy reliance on the feudal imagery, (2) lacking of human participation in the process of the atonement, and (3) the absence of the Spirit in the redemption work. In an attempt to

mitigate the weight of these three criticisms, a classical theological concept of perichoresis, which Auln may consider incompatible to Anselms theory, has been adapted here not only to affirm the viability of this theory, but also integrate it to form a more refined notion.

With the aid of the Christological perichoresis, a firm patristic foundation in terms of the concepts and languages used for the God-man can be found in Anselms Satisfaction Theory, and thus everything of importance in Anselmic arguments can still survive even without the feudal imagery. In addition, an integration of Satisfaction Theory and the Trinitarian

perichoresis has been established here to enhance the vicarious/representative sense of Anselms theory that the Son has assumed our human nature and make His vicarious satisfaction to the Father in the Spirit while we, in the Spirit, are united to the Son sharing His vicarious humanity and through Him, we are united to the Father. As such, our real and

truly human responses are not undermined in the process of the atonement for the Spirit who empowers the Son, empowers us to imitate Him throughout the entire order of salvation.

54

Torrance, 162. Page 10 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM

Church History II

Bibliography

Primary Source

St. Anselm, Cur Deus Homo. Trans. Deane, Sidney Norton. Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Company, 1903, reprinted 1926. From http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anselm-curdeus.html; accessed 28 January 2006.

Secondary Sources

Books:

Eckardt, Burnell F. Anselm and Luther on the Atonement: Was it "Necessary"? San Francisco: Mellen Research University Press, 1992. Grenz, Stanley J. Theology for the Community of God. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000. McIntyre, John St. Anselm and His Critics: A Re-interpretation of the Cur Deus Homo. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1954. Olson, Roger E. The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1999. Torrance, Thomas F. The Christian Doctrine of God, One Being Three Persons. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996.

Dictionaries Smith, S.M. Perichoresis, In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Elwell, Walter A. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House Company, May 1990.

Articles Colyer, Elmer M. T.F. Torrance on the Trinity: An Invitation for Dialogue.

Journal Articles Cohen, Nicholas. Feudal Imagery or Christian Tradition? A Defense of the Rationale for Anselms Cur Deus Homo. The Saint Anselm Journal 2.1 (Fall 2004): 22-29. Hannah, John D. Anselm on the Doctrine of Atonement. Bibliotheca Sacra (October December 1978): 333-344. Harrison, Verna. Perichoresis in the Greek Fathers, St Vladimirs Theological Quarterly 35 No. 1 (1991): 53-65. Lawler, Michael G. Perichoresis: New Theological Wine in An Old Theological Wineskin, Horizon, 22/1 (Spr. 1995): 49-66. Nuth, John M. Two Medieval Soteriologies: Anselm of Canterbury and Julian of Norwich. Theological Studies 53 (1992): 611-645.

Websites Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, s.v. Feudal society; available from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudal_society; accessed 16 April 2006. Foutz, Scott David. A Brief Survey of Anselm of Canterburys Cur Deus Homo? http://www.quodlibet.net/anselm.shtml; accessed 12 March 2006.

ii