Chapter Theme
How other angels cannot take the place of those who fell.

Boso – Tell me, why the fallen angels could not be restored or other angels substituted for them?

Anselm – When you understand how difficult it was to restore mankind, you will understand the impossibility of restoring them. As well as that, other angels cannot be substituted for them. Firstly we would have to ignore the apparent inconsistency of God calling the first creation complete when it was foreseeable it may not be [1. re: restoration]. Secondly, because the angels that replace the fallen ones ought to be in a similar position to the former angels, that had they never sinned [re: substitution].

In that case the first (original fallen but now restored) angels would have persevered without ever witnessing the punishment due for their sin [re: restoration]; but it would be impossible for the angels substituted after the fall to witness the punishment of sin [re: substitution]. For two beings that stand firm in truth can not be equally deserving of praise if one never witnessed the moment sin was punished and only witnesses its eternal reward [re: substitution]. For it must not for a moment be supposed that good angels are upheld by the fall of evil angels; they are upheld by their own holiness. For, just as they would have been condemned together, had the good sinned with the bad, had the unholy stood firm with the holy, both would have been confirmed as holy.

It is ridiculous to suggest that a number of the angels needed to fall so the rest could be upheld, because that would mean that either none could ever be upheld, or that the punishment of the fallen was required to uphold the rest; and both of these suppositions are absurd. Therefore, had all stood firm, all would have been upheld in the same 'way' as those who remained holy; and this 'way' I explained, as well as I could, when discussing the reason why God did not bestow perseverance upon the devil [2 - look up this 'like manner/way'].

Boso – You have proved that the evil angels must be restored from the human race; and from this reasoning it appears that the number of men chosen will not be less than that of fallen angels, but show, if you can, whether it will be greater.

Editor’s Footnote

[1] To make sense of what Anselm is trying to explain in this passage it is necessary to relate the arguments to concepts of either substitution or restoration, therefore for all those that have not reflected on this topic before, I have included in brackets, which is which.

[2] “Why God did not bestow perseverance upon the devil” – Here are two examples of why

Ch-7 – “For the deception of mankind was not done at the command of God.”

Ch-12 – “…it follows if sin is allowed to go unpunished, and that is, with God there will be no difference between people that are guilty and not guilty…”

Book 1, Chapter 18

Chapter Theme
Whether there will be more holy people than evil angels

Anselm – It is plain that if the angels existed as a perfect number before any fell, then mankind was made to fill the place of the fallen angels, and their number will not be greater.

But if that perfect number was not the total number of all the angels, then the loss (from fallen angels) and the original deficiency must be made up, and therefore more of humanity will be chosen than there were fallen angels, in this case mankind was made not only to restore the diminished number, but also to complete the imperfect number.

Boso – Which is the better theory, that angels were originally made perfect in number or that they were not?

Anselm – I will state my views.

Boso – I cannot ask more of you.

Anselm – If man was created after the fall of evil angels, as some understand the account in Genesis, I don’t think I can definitely prove either of these suppositions.  For it is possible, I think, that the angels could have been created perfect in number, and that afterwards man was created to complete their number when it had been lessened; and it is also possible that they were not perfect in number, because God deferred completing the number, as God does even now, determining when to create man. Therefore, either God would only complete that which was not yet perfect, or, if it were also diminished, He would restore it. 

But if the whole creation took place at once, and those days in which Moses appears to describe a successive creation are not to be understood as the same as our days, I cannot see how angels could have been created perfect in number. Since, if it were so, it seems to me that some, either men or angels, would fall immediately, else in heaven's empire there would be more than the complete number required. If, therefore, all things were created at one and the same time, it would seem that angels, and the first two human beings, formed an incomplete number, so that, if no angel fell, the deficiency alone should be made up, but if any fell, the lost part would also need to be restored; and that human nature, which had stood firm, though weaker than that of angels, might, as it were, justify God, and silence the devil, if he were to plead that his fall was due to weakness. And in case human nature fell, much more would it justify God against the devil, and even against itself, because, though made far weaker and of a mortal race, yet, in the elect, it would rise from its weakness to an estate exalted above that from which the devil was fallen, as far as good angels, to whom it should be equal, were advanced after the overthrow of the evil, because they persevered.

From these reasons, I prefer the belief that there was no original complete number of angels; since, it is possible that man and angels were not created at the same time. The majority believe they were created at the same time, because we read: "He, who lives forever, created all things at once." But if the perfection of the created universe is to be understood as consisting, not so much in the number of beings, as in the number of natures; it would follow that human nature was either made to consummate this perfection, or that it was superfluous, however we would not say this about the nature of the smallest reptile. Therefore, humanity was made for itself, and not just to restore the number of fallen beings from another nature. Even had no angel fallen, mankind would have had their place in the celestial kingdom. So it follows that there was not a perfect number of angels, even before a part fell, because otherwise, some men or angels would have been required to fall to reduce the actual number to the perfect number.

Boso – You have not labored in vain.

Anselm – There is, also, another important reason that supports the opinion that angels were not created perfect in number.

Boso – Let us hear it.

Anselm – Had a perfect number of angels been created, and had mankind been made only to fill the place of these lost angels, it is plain that, had not some angels fallen from their happiness, mankind would never have, been exalted to it.

Boso – We are agreed.

Anselm – If any one says: "Since the elect rejoice as much over the fall of angels as over their own exaltation (because both of these would happen); how can they be justified in this unholy joy, or how shall we say that angels are restored by the substitution of men, if these angels would have remained free from this fault of rejoicing over others, had they not fallen?" We reply: Cannot men be made free from this fault? No, how could they be happy with this fault? With what bold reason, then, do we say that God neither wishes nor is able to make this substitution without this fault!

Boso – Is not the case similar to that of the Gentiles who were called to faith, because the Jews rejected it?

Anselm – No; for even if the Jews had all believed, the Gentiles would also have been called; for "God does not show favouritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right (Acts 10:34-35)." But since the Jews despised the apostles, there was an immediate opportunity for the apostles to turn to the Gentiles.

Boso – I see no way of opposing you.

Anselm – Where does the joy we receive over another's fall come from?

Boso – It comes from the fact that each individual would be certain they would never have attained a place in the perfect number without the fall of another.

Anselm – If, then, no one had this certainty, there would be no cause for anyone to rejoice over the fall of another.

Boso – So it would seem.

Anselm – Do you think any one of them will have this certainty, if their numbers far exceed those who fell?

Boso – I cannot see that any one would or should be certain (they attained their place at the fall of another). For how can any one know if they were created to restore the part diminished, or to make up a number that was not yet complete?  But all could be sure that they were made with a view to the perfection of the kingdom.

Anselm – If, then, there is a larger number (of believers) than that of the fallen angels, no one can know if they have attained this at the expense of another's fall.

Boso – That is true.

Anselm – Therefore, no one will have any cause to rejoice over the demise of another.

Boso – So it appears.

Anselm – Since it is impossible that there should be anything incongruous in that celestial state, it becomes a necessary fact that angels were not made perfect in number, and that there will be more happy people than doomed angels.

Boso – I do not see how this can be denied.

Anselm – I think that another reason can be brought to support this opinion.

Boso – Then you should present it.

Anselm – We believe that the material substance of the world must be renewed (that is, “a new earth” 2Pet 3:13, Rev 21:1), and that this will not take place until the number of the elect is complete, and the kingdom made perfect, and that after its completion there will be no change (because it is perfect). Therefore it may be reasoned that God planned to perfect both (the saints and the earth) at the same time, in order that the inferior nature, which does not know God (the earth?), might not be perfected before the superior nature which ought to enjoy God (mankind); and that the inferior, being renewed at the same time with the superior, might, as it were, rejoice in its own way; yes, that every creature having so glorious and excellent a consummation, might delight in its Creator and in itself, in turn, rejoicing always after its own manner, so that what the will effects in the rational nature (mankind) of its own accord, this also  the irrational creature naturally shows by the arrangement of God.

On the birthdays of the saints we delight with festive triumph, and tend to rejoice in the fame of our ancestors, rejoicing in their honor. And this opinion is supported by the fact that, if Adam had not sinned, God might have put off the completion of that state (of perfection/completion) until the number of mankind that God designed should be made out, and men themselves be transferred, so to speak, to an immortal state of bodily existence. For they had in paradise a kind of immortality, that is, a power not to die, but since it was possible for them to die, this power was not immortal, as if, indeed, they had been capable of death.

But if God determined to bring to perfection, at the same time, the problem created a number of angels falling from grace (i.e. a perfect number of good angels) and this earthly and irrational nature; it follows that either, there were not enough angels before some of them fell, and God was waiting to complete the number from mankind and then renovate the material nature of the world; or that, even if no angels had sinned and they were  perfect in number, the confirmation would have been deferred, until the renewal of the world that we look forward to; or that, if this confirmation could not be deferred that long, the renewal of the world would be hastened so that both events might take place at the same time.

It could be argued that angels were not complete in number, because it is not fitting for God to renew the world immediately after it was made, destroying things as it were before they were even created. However, just as being conquered by sin meant they were then unable to live without sinning, if mankind had been tempted but not sinned, they would have preserved the original holiness of themselves and all their offspring. They would have been confirmed forever sinless, even though they had not reached the sort of equality with angels that would be attained when the number taken from mankind was complete.

For who would argue that wickedness binds us more powerfully, after we first yielded to it, than holiness is able to confirm us in liberty when we embrace it? For just as the human nature of our first parents was completely won over to sin (in the original trial), (with the single exception of that man whom God being able to create from a virgin was equally able to save from the sin of Adam), if they had not sinned, human nature would have wholly conquered. It therefore remains that the celestial state was not complete in its original number, but must be completed from among men.

(See Footnote)

Boso – What you say seems very reasonable to me. But what shall we think of that which is said respecting God: "He hath appointed the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel;" which some, because for the expression "children of Israel" is found sometimes "angels of God," explain in this way, that the number of elect men taken should be understood as equal to that of good angels?

Anselm – This does not clash with the previous opinion, if it were not certain that the number of angels who fell is the same as that of those who did not. For if there are more elect than evil angels, and the elect need to be substituted for the evil angels, and it is possible for them to equal the number of the good angels, then there will be more holy elect than evil angels. But remember with what condition I undertook to answer your inquiry - that if I say anything not upheld by greater authority, though I appear to demonstrate it, it should be considered as my opinion only for the present, until God makes a clearer revelation to me.

For if I say anything that plainly opposes Holy Scripture, I'm sure that it is false; and if I become aware of it, I will alter my theology accordingly. But if it is a matter where opposite opinions may be held without any difficulty, for example these angel questions, then the soul is not in danger; because we not know whether there are to be more people elected than the number of the lost angels, and therefore there are many opinions on the matter.

In fact it is possible to explain the Scripture so that it favors different sides, and because there is no way of deciding the matter beyond reasonable doubt, the matter is open to question that will remain debate. As to the passage that you spoke of:  'He has determined the bounds of the people (or tribes) according to the number of the angels of God;' or as another translation has it: 'according to the number of the children of Israel' (Dt. 32:8). Both translations either mean the same thing, or are different, without contradicting each other because the interpretation is not clear. We may understand that good angels only are intended by both expressions, 'angels of God,' and 'children of Israel,' or that elect men only are meant, or that both angels and elect men are included, or even the whole celestial kingdom. Alternatively angels of God may be understood as holy angels only, and by children of Israel, holy people only; or, by children of Israel, angels only, and by angels of God, holy people. If good angels are intended in both expressions, it is the same as if only ‘angels of God' had been used.

But if the whole heavenly kingdom were included, this means that the gathering of elect, is to be taken, or that there will be a people will remain on earth as it is, until the appointed number of the kingdom, not yet completed, shall be made up from among mankind. But I do not yet see why angels only, or even angels and holy people together, are meant by the expression 'children of Israel'; for it is not improper to call holy people 'children of Israel,' as they are called 'sons of Abraham.' And they can also properly be called 'angels of God,' because they imitate the life of angels, and they are promised in heaven a likeness to and equality with angels, and all that live holy lives are angels of God. That is why the confessors or martyrs are called angels of God; for whoever declares and bears witness to the truth, is a messenger of God, that is, an angel. And if a wicked person is called a devil, as our Lord says of Judas, it is because they are alike in malice, so why should not a good person be called an angel, if they follow the way of holiness? [Isa 43].  In this way I think we may say that God has linked the maximum number of people to be born according to the number of elect required, because there will be a natural increase of mankind, until the number of elect is accomplished; and when that occurs, the act of birth as we know it in this life, will cease.

However if we understand 'angels of God' to be only holy angels, and by 'children of Israel' only holy people; it may be explained in two ways: that ‘God has appointed the bounds of the people according to the number of the angels of God,' viz., either that the number of people taken will equal the number of God's holy angels, or that a people will continue to exist upon earth, until the number of angels is completed from among mankind. And I think there is no other possible method of explanation: 'he has appointed the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel,' that is, that there will continue to be a people in this stage of existence, as I said before, until the number of holy people is completed. And we infer from either translation that the number of people taken will equal the number of angels who remained faithful. Yet, even when the gaps left by fallen angels are filled, it does not follow that the number of lost angels equals those that persevered. Whoever prefers to believe this, will have to find a way of invalidating the reasons given above, I think which prove, that the perfect number as mentioned previously was not the total number of angels before their fall, and that there are more people to be saved than the number of evil angels.

Boso – I am glad that I urged you to these remarks about the angels, for it has been informative. Now let us return to the main subject.

Editor’s Footnote:
This slightly long-winded explanation seems based on the example of the angels. For even though some angels chose to sin and were confirmed in their sin, most angels chose not to sin and were confirmed as holy. Having been confirmed as holy these holy angels appear to have no ongoing struggle to remain holy. On the contrary, the original decision to obey God and not sin appears to have been all that God required to confirm their holiness. Of course how far you want to push this beautifully clear logic and what other areas should be influenced by it is another matter. 

Book 1, Chapter 19

Chapter Theme
How man cannot be saved without satisfaction being made for our sin 

Anselm – It was fitting for God to fill the places of the fallen angels from among mankind.

Boso – That is certain.

Anselm – Therefore in the heavenly empire the number of those taken as substitutes for the fallen angels should be the same as the number as those whose place they take, that is, as many as there are good angels now; otherwise the number of those who fell will not be restored, and it will follow that God either could not accomplish the good which he begun, or he will repent of having undertaken it; either of which is absurd.

Boso – It is truly fitting that mankind should be equal with good angels.

Anselm – Have good angels ever sinned?

Boso – No.

Anselm – Do you think that anyone may become the equal of an angel if they are reluctantly allowed to go unpunished and fail to give satisfaction to God for their sin?

Boso – Ideas like that are easy to say and think, but I can't imagine them actually happening, because that would mean making falsehood out of truth.

Anselm – Therefore it is not fitting that God should take people who have not received atonement for their sin, as a substitute for lost angels [who can not receive Christ's atonement]; for truth will not stand for sinful people to be raised equally with holy beings that are sinless.

Boso – Reason shows this.

Anselm – Putting aside the question of equality with the angels, we should also consider whether under these circumstances, it is right for God to raise mankind to the same or a similar kind of happiness that existed before we sinned.

Boso – Tell me your opinion, and I will consider it as well as I can.

Anselm – Suppose a rich man possessed a choice pearl which had never been defiled. He had determined to commit it to the treasury of his dearest and most valuable possessions, and it could not be taken from his hands without his permission.

Boso – I accept your supposition.

Anselm – What if for no reason at all he should allow it to be struck from his hand and fall into a septic tank even though he could have prevented it. If he then took it from the septic tank unwashed, and placed it again into a beautiful and loved casket; would you consider him a wise man?

Boso – How could I? For it would have been far better to preserve and keep the pearl pure, than to have it polluted.

Anselm – We could say God was acting like this, because we were in paradise [Gen 2:15], as it were in the hand of God, without sin, and destined to the society of angels. Then with our consent [and act of disobedience (Gen 3:11)] God allowed the devil, inflamed with envy, to cast us into the cesspit of sin. For had God chosen to restrain the devil, the devil could not have tempted us, but now we are stained with the defilement of sin [Rom 5:12-14, 1Jn 1:8], and unwashed, that is, without any satisfaction for sin. Now tell me, should God restore mankind at once to paradise to remain in that sinful state for eternity? After all, we had been thrust out of paradise because of sin [Gen 3:23]. Would God not be acting like the unwise man?

Boso – I dare not deny the aptness of your comparison, and therefore agree God should not restore us to paradise in that state. For God would then either not be able to accomplish what was designed, or else have to repent of the good intended, and neither of these things are possible with God.

Anselm – Therefore, consider it settled that [according to strict justice], without satisfaction, that is, without the voluntary payment of the debt owed, God must abide by the following principles:

    1. Sin needs to be punished

    2. That a sinner can not attain happiness

    3. That happiness [or bliss], as it existed before sin entered in is not obtainable

For mankind cannot be restored and return to a sinless state as in the beginning, without the voluntary payment of the debt owed.

Boso – I am completely unable to refute your reasoning. But what do you say about this: we all pray for God to, 'take our sins away from us,' and every nation prays for the God of its faith to take its sins away. For, if we pay our debt, why do we pray for God to take it away? Is not God unjust to demand what has already been paid? But if we do not make any payment, why do we plead in vain that God will do what can not be done? It does not seem to be an honorable way for God to act.

Anselm – Whoever does not pay, says in vain 'please forgive'; but he who pays makes supplication, because prayer is properly connected with the payment; for God owes no one anything, but every creature owes God; and, therefore, it is not right for us to interact with God as we would with an equal. But it is not necessary for me to answer this now. When you consider why Christ died, I think you will see for yourself the answer to your question.

Boso – Your reply with regard to this matter suffices me for the present. You have so clearly shown that no one can attain happiness in a state of sin, or be freed from sin, without satisfaction being provided for that sin, and that even if I was inclined to that point of view, I could find no fault with your reasoning.

Book 1, Chapter 20 

Chapter Theme
That satisfaction for sin ought to be proportionate to that sin; and that man is of himself unable to provide this satisfaction

Anselm – I do not think you will disagree with me that this satisfaction should be proportionate to the level of sin.

Boso – Otherwise sin would remain in a state that was exempt from any appropriate control or penalty (inordinatum), and that can not be true, for God leaves nothing uncontrolled in his kingdom. However, even the smallest unfitness is impossible with God [like saying - I'm just a little bit dead].

Anselm – Tell me then, what payment you would make God for your sin?

Boso – Repentance, a broken and contrite heart, self-denial, various bodily sufferings, charity in giving and forgiving, and obedience.

Anselm – What do you give to God in all these acts?

Boso – Do I not honour God, when, for his love and fear, in heart felt contrition I give up worldly joy, amid abstinence and hard work. Do I not also give honour when I despise or ignore the delights and ease of this life, and submit obediently to God, freely giving my possessions and releasing others?

Anselm – We should not consider these things as the debt that we owe for sin. When we give to God anything that we owe, we give it [out of love and respect] regardless of past sin. We owe God every one of those things that you have mentioned. The goal of our mortality should be focused toward attaining the true end of our being. This should be done with love and passion and prayer. There should be grief that we have not yet reached it, and fear for the possibility of failing to achieve it, so that we should only find joy in whatever helps and encourages success in these things.

It is good and right that the attaining of something we love and desire for its own sake, should involve grief, because of your eager desire, and the great danger of never getting it. In order to find real rest and pleasure, we are required to avoid excessive and inappropriate ease and worldly pleasures that distract the mind from real rest and pleasure. But we should consider the gifts we give as a part of our debt, since we should all know that what we give comes from God, whom we serve.

And nature itself teaches you to deal with your fellow servant, on an equal and reasonable basis, as you would be treated, and that he who ever will not give what he has, ought not to receive what he has not.

I will speak only briefly of forgiveness, for we have no right to avenge ourselves, since you are not your own [that is - we were bought with a price... (1 Cor 6:20)], and whoever injures you does not belong to anyone either, because you are both the servants of one Lord, created by the one out of nothing [Gen 1: dust of the earth]. If you take revenge on another human being, you proudly assume the role of pronouncing sentence and judgment, when it is the sole right of God, the judge of all. But [to return to the question of our debt to God] what can we give to God by obedience that is not already divinely owed? Surely God already owns all that we are and have and may become?

Boso – In that case you are right.  In all these things I do not pay any portion of my debt to God, [in fact my debt grows when I fail to give them].

Anselm – How then do you pay God for your transgression?

Boso – If I truly owe God all my powers, and myself even when I do not sin, I have nothing left to give for my sin.

Anselm – What will become of you then? How will you be saved?

Boso – Following through your arguments, I can see no way of escape. But, turning to my belief, I hope through Christian faith, 'which works by love,' that I may be saved, and we also read that if the sinner turns from his iniquity and does what is right, all his transgressions shall be forgotten [Scripture?].

Anselm – This was only written for those who either looked for Christ before his coming, or who believe in him since he has appeared. But you will remember that we set aside Christ and his religion as if they did not exist, when we proposed to inquire whether his coming was necessary to man's salvation.

Boso – Yes, so we did.

Anselm – Let us then proceed simply by reason.

Boso – Though you lead me into a tight corner, yet I sincerely wish you to proceed in the same manner you began.

Paraphrased by - P. I. Editor
© Prophetic International   2009