reference to God of the mystery of an experience in which the believer already rejoices.  On the other hand, in the dogma the order is reversed.  Election must come first, since it is the decree of God upon which all depends.  Redemption and reconciliation have, in Christian doctrine, been traditionally regarded as completed transactions, waiting indeed to be applied to the individual or appropriated by him through faith, but of themselves without relation to faith.  Reconciliation was long thought of as that of an angry God to man.  Especially was this last the characteristic view of the West, where juristic notions prevailed.  Origen talked of a right of the devil over the soul of man until bought off by the sacrifice of Christ.  This is pure paganism, of course.  The doctrine of Anselm marks a great advance.  It runs somewhat thus:  The divine honour is offended in the sin of man.  Satisfaction corresponding to the greatness of the guilt must be rendered.  Man is under obligation to render this satisfaction; yet he is unable so to do.  A sin against God is an infinite offence.  It demands an infinite satisfaction.  Man can render no satisfaction which is not finite.  The way out of this dilemma is the incarnation of the divine Logos.  For the god-man, as man, is entitled to bring this satisfaction for men.  On the other hand, as God he is able so to do.  In his death this satisfaction is embodied.  He gave his life freely.  God having received satisfaction through him demands nothing more from us.

Abelard had, almost at the same time with Anselm, interpreted the death of Christ in far different fashion.  It was a revelation of the love of God which wins men to love in turn.  This notion of Abelard was far too subtle.  The crass objective dogma of Anselm prevailed.  The death of Christ was a sacrifice.  The purpose was the propitiation of an angry God.  The effect was that, on the side of God, a hindrance to man’s salvation was removed.  The doctrine accurately reflects the feudal ideas of the time which produced it.  In Grotius was done away the notion of private right, which lies at the basis of the theory of Anselm.  That of public duty took its place.  A sovereign need not stand upon his offended honour, as in Anselm’s thought.  Still, he cannot, like a private citizen, freely forgive.  He must maintain the dignity of his office, in order not to demoralise the world.  The sufferings of Christ did not effect a necessary private satisfaction.  They were an example which satisfied the moral order of the world.  Apart from this change, the conception remains the same.

As Kaftan argues, we can escape the dreadful externality and artificiality of this scheme, only as redemption and regeneration are brought back to their primary place in consciousness.  These are the initial experiences in which we become aware of God’s work through Christ in us and for us.  The reconciliation is of us.  The redemption is from our sins.  The regeneration is to a new moral life.  Through