The Christian doctrine of forgiveness of sin : an essay

Part I.— State Of The Question

SECT. PAGE 1. Importance of the Doctrine of Forgiveness 9 2. Taught by Jesus in the Gospels . . . . . 10 3. And in the Book of Acts . .°. .-. 11 4, And in the Epistles of Paul 13 5. And by the other Apostles . . 15 6. It is necessary for Peace and Progress . . . .. . 1h 7. The Moral Law by itself may make men worse; therefore Forgiveness is needed . 18

8. But the Doctrine of Forgiveness is headed with Diff culties un op e's Slee as 21 9. Which are also found in the New eet : 24

10. Which teaches Doctrines apparently opposed to that of Forgiveness : 26

11. Such Apparent Contradictions the Token Ae mies of the Presence of Large Truths : 30

12. Truths which God has joined together, not to ta "at OSMEdET <) ee : 32 13. The Orthodox do not fally ae Retribution 34 14. Nor the Rationalists, Forgiveness ... . 37

Part II. — The Nature Of Forgiveness

SEOT. PAGE 15. What is Forgiveness? . . . . et te 41 16. The Consequences of Sin are Twotold . 42 17. The First, a Sense of Divine Displeasure . 44 18. Which is removed by Forgiveness : 45 19. Implying also an Objective Change in the Mind of God 46 20. The Second Consequence of Sin, which is Depravity of Character, is not immediately removed by Forgiveness 48 21. Recapitulation ; eres ee P, 22. This View of Forgiveness satisfies the Sense of Justice 52 23. And the Need of Pardon . 54 PART III. — FAITH AND WORKS; OR, THE CONDITIONS OF FORGIVENESS. 24, Faith, Works, a Forgiving Spirit, Repentance and Confession, the Scripture Conditions of Pardon 58 25. <Kaith Ors W OLrksS). iniiie we. ap Moh cangs 60 26. The Opposition of Paul oe o eS ke he Wet eke 27. The Distinction between Forgiveness and Justification 64 28. Faith and Knowledge distinguished .. . 65 29. Faith and Belief distinguished « ... .. 69 30. Faith and Opinion distinguished . 72 dl, Importance of these: Distinctions!) 24.08 a eee $2. Christian Maith:in particulary velit ieee bee eee 75 33. Christian Faith as the Condition of Forgiveness . . . 78 34. Works, growing out of Faith, the Condition of Full Sal- Vato" Wa heels Silre tes fot 79 3d. Mutual Relation of Paith and W oe in tb Christian bitte gripe hen te < Ba cn e b 81 36. Results of Roce nee 4 in ne Fntints Life « epee fes 82 87. Objections to this Doctrine Answered . . . . . . « 85

CONTENTS. 5)

Part Iv.— Obstacles And Helps

SECT. PAGE 38. Difficulty of believing in Forgiveness ..... . 90 39. All Moral Training makes it more difficult. . . . . 98 40. Christ’s Revelation of Pardoning Love alone makes it

ee OMT vey ie ee or ey etre emiaas 3 ei se Mere 9 OS 41. The Work or Gop in Human Forgiveness . . . . 95 42. The Work or Curist in Human Forgiveness; First,

EV CRCUCTRE RCE oto era oc? cil ait or ot oc Soe eth OS 43. Second, in his Life . . . . SO eaten Lt 44. Third, by his Death. Principal Texts dies # 102 45. Various Theories concerning the Effect of Christ’s Death 106 46. These Theories, matters of Theology, not of Religion . 108 47. How the Death of Christ may produce Faith in Forgiy-

MBP LOVE tis 3, Cine Sk LCR eet ee ae AL!) 48. As, in fact, it has Salle ee Ses ead countsna eee LA 49. How Christ’s Death may have satisfied God . . . . 118 50. By communicating Actual Holiness to Man ... . 117 51. The Work or MAN in his own Forgiveness . . . . 120 52. His Efforts to do Right a Preparation for Forgiveness . 122 53. Repentance, and its Relation to Faith. . . . . . . 124 54. Is Faith Man’s Work or God’s Gift? . . . . .. . 125 55. God and Man concur in every Act of Faith. . . . . 126 56. What Man can do, and what he cannotdo . . . . . 127 57. The Work OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. ... . 180 58. The Twofold Work of the Church in Forgiveness . . 186

Part V.— Results Of Forgiveness

59. The New Lire growing out of Forgiven Sin Pe eo 840

60. Its Twofold Character, and that of Goodness in general 144

61. The Christian Life the Synthesis of both kinds of PRT ee er a Vee lho a ee ew el ee LAD

6 CONTENTS.

SECT. PAGE 62. The Evil of cultivating exclusively the Goodness of

BERT 0 os Fn NS eee? Pah Nene en shen ee ee 63. Forgiveness the Practical Solution of the Problem of Evil 155 64. And that of Human Freedom and Divine Providence . 157

Ne Owe

-Tuer American Unitarian Association have, with the consent of the author, and in response to a very frequent and earnest request, republished this volume, which has for many years been out of print. The cordial reception of this Treatise in the former editions proves that it meets a very general religious want.

PART LI.

STATE OF THE QUESTION.

§ 1. Importance of the Doctrine of Forgiveness.

THE doctrine of ForGIVENESS OF SIN occupies an important place in Christian theology. As connected with the doctrine of the Atonement, it has been placed by many theologians in the centre of the Christian system, and has ‘been called the essential doctrine of Christianity. It is prominent in the teachings of Jesus and his apostles. Its influence on the - formation of the Christian character is, as I shall hereafter show, great and constant. Yet the subject is attended with difficulties, which past investigation has not wholly removed. On this account, it seems desirable that the doctrine should be examined anew, its difhculties fairly considered, and an attempt made to remove them.

§ 2. Taught by Jesus in the Gospels.

In the Gospels, we find our Saviour frequently speaking of the Forgiveness of Sin. In the Lord’s Prayer, we are taught to pray for Forgiveness every day. Sometimes, when healing diseases, Jesus said to the patient, “Thy sins are forgiven thee.” One of these occasions occurred near the commencement of his ministry, and is recorded in the second chapter of Matthew and the fifth of Luke. On this occasion, the scribes accused him of blasphemy, saying, “ Who can forgive sins but God alone?” But Jesus assured them that he had power to forgive sins, and confirmed his assertion by healing the sick man. In another place (Luke, vii.), we have the remarkable story of the sinful woman, who washed his feet with tears, and anointed them with the ointment. At this time, Jesus not only said to her, “ Thy sins are forgiven,”

but seemed to show that her love was a proof of it. She was not forgiven because she loved, but she loved because she was forgiven.* Another remarkable passage, in relation to this subject, is that in which Jesus says, that “ All sins shall be forgiven to men, except that against the Holy Ghost.” So also is that in which he gives to his disciples the authority or the power of remitting -sins.t The parable of the “ Prodigal Son” turns upon Repentance and Forgiveness. The parable of the “ Pharisee and the Publican” teaches that humility is a condition of Forgiveness.

§ 3. And in the Book of Acts.

When we turn to the book of Acts, and read the History of the Planting of the Christian Church, we find that Forgiveness of Sins

* This appears from the last clause of verse 47, “To whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.’’ Love is here not the condition, but the effect, of Forgiveness, —a distinction, as we shall hereafter see, of great moment.

¢ John, xx. 28.

was always announced by the apostles as one of the great privileges of the Kingdom of Christ. In Peter’s first sermon, he tells his hearers fo “repent and be baptized,” and they “shall receive the remission of sims, and the sift of the Holy Ghost.” In his next address (recorded in the following chapter), he tells them to “repent and be converted, that their sins may be blotted out.” In the fifth chapter, we have another address of Peter to the Jewish Sanhedrim, in which he tells them that “ God has made Jesus a Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.” In the first account we have of the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts, x.), Peter teaches Cornelius concerning the facts in the life of Jesus, and about his resurrection; and says, that, “through his name, whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.’ In the first account which we have of the preaching of Paul (Acts, xiii.) at Antioch, he says, “Be it known unto you _therefore, Men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins.” In the book of Acts, therefore, it appears that the forgiveness of sins was the first thing offered, both to the Jews and to the Gentiles, as the gift of God to believers.

§ 4. And in the Epistles of Paul.

When we turn to the epistles of Paul,* we find this doctrine made equally prominent in his system of doctrine. It is the main subject of the Epistle to the Romans, and of the Epistle to the Galatians; for Justification is but another name for Forgiveness, and the essential idea of Forgiveness is also conveyed by the word Reconciliation. Throughout Paul’s other epistles, the Forgiveness of Sin

* Ts it not time to stop calling the apostles Saints, and to speak of Matthew, Mark, John, and Paul, without degrading them with this Roman Catholic title? We never hear a minister say, “Let us read from the Epistle of Saznt Paul,” or “ Sainr Peter,” without feeling that a true reverence for those great men ought to show itself by following their own gospel simplicity. They called ALL believers ‘ Saints,” “ HoLY;’’ for all believers were * one in Christ, and partaking of his holiness by faith. We discard, so far, their own idea of Christianity when we separate them from their brethren by such titles of honor.

is a prominent idea. ‘Thus (Ephes. 1.7), “ In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins.” (Hphes. iv. 32) “ Be ye kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ (or by Christ) has forgwen you.” (Col. i. 14) “In whom we have redemption, even the forgiveness of sins.” (Col. ii, 18) “ And you, being dead in your sins, hath he made alive with him, having forgwen you all trespasses.” So (Col. iii. 13), too, he tells them to forgive one another, even as Christ forgave them. We see, therefore, from such passages, that, while the hope of forgiveness was presented by Paul as a leading motive to induce men to become Christians, he also appeals to their consciousness of being forgiven as a main motive to induce them to live as Christians. Future forgiveness is a motive to repentance ; past forgiveness is a motive to Love. This, we see, corresponds again with the declaration of Jesus, that the woman loved much “ because she had been forgiven much.”

§ 5. And by the other Apostles.

The other Apostles, in their writings, lay equal stress upon this doctrine. The author of the Hpistle to the Hebrews (whose purpose is to show that the Jew loses nothing of real value when he becomes a Christian) teaches that the essential advantage and meaning of the priesthood and the temple-worship is replaced by something in Christianity which is, in relation to these, like the Substance to the Shadow. Christ therefore, he says, “is our High Priest, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.” “ He is our sacrifice (or covenant-oflering) for the redemption of our transgression” (Heb. ix. 15); and “the mediator of that new covenant, of which God had said, that in it he would be merciful to the unrighteousness of Israel, and their sins and iniquities would remember no more” (Heb. viii. 12; x. 17). Luther called the Epistle of | James “an epistle of straw,” because James lays stress on works, and seems to contradict the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith alone. But even James teaches (v. 15) that by the prayer of faith Sins shall be Forgiven. The apostle Peter, as we might suppose from his sermons in the book of Acts, refers to the same doctrine in his epistles. “ Christ also,” he says (1 Peter, iii. 18), “hath suffered for sins, that he might bring us to God.” God,” he says (i. 8), “hath, by his abundant mercy, begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” In the epistles of John, the Doctrine of Forgiveness is quite as prominent. We read (1 John, i. 9) that “If we confess our sins, He its faithful and just to forgive us our sins.” (ii. 2) “He is the propitiation of our sins.” (ii. 12) “I write unto you, little children, because your sins are Jorgen.” And (iv. 10) “ Herein is Love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” John also teaches (iv. 19), “ We love him because he first loved us,” agreeing with Jesus and the apostle Paul in repre-

STATE OF THE QUESTION. We senting Forgiveness as a motive to Christian Love.

§ 6. Necessary to Peace and Progress.

Not only does the importance of this doctrine appear from the prominent place which it occupies in the Christian Scriptures, but also from its necessity for peace and progress. The mind which is weighed down with a sense of sin can have no peace. The mind that is destitute of peace can make no progress. Anxiety and doubt unnerve the will. There must be inward composure, or there can be no moral energy. Every thing which distracts or divides the mind weakens its powers. And, to accomplish any thing well, we must be able to “ forget the things behind, and reach out to those before.” ‘The man who is looking back with regret at the failure of past enterprises will not engage with energy in new ones. The man who is looking back with remorse at past violations of duty will not fulfil his present duties with that joyful 2 energy which alone does duty well. Accordingly, we find, throughout all Christian experience, that the peace which comes from a conviction of pardoned sin is one of the essential motives to Christian progress.

§ 7. The Moral Law by itself may make men worse.

This brings us to a profound truth of human nature, namely, that to enlighten the * conscience by the moral law, instead of making man morally better, may often make him worse. We all know that the conscience, when unenlightened or misinformed, may lead to crime; and that men (like the apostle Paul) have “verily thought that they ought to” persecute heretics and burn errorists. But the apostle Paul was the first to recognize the fact, which no one since his time has dared to state as plainly as himself, that moral teaching by itself, instead of strengthening, may weaken the moral energies. “ The law,” he says, “is holy, just, and good;” but “though ordained for life, it becomes death”

in consequence of human weakness (Rom. vil. 8—13). “Sin,” he says, “takes occasion by the commandment,” and, being dead before the moral law comes, is developed by it, and becomes active. And, still more forcibly, “The strength of sin is the law” (1 Cor. xv.). The way in which this takes place is plain. The law (that is, the sight of moral truth) arouses the conscience, and shows us our duty, but does not give us strength to perform it. It produces a disproportion between our moral powers and our moral aims. In order that we may make moral progress, éwo things are necessary, — a hew aim, and a new power; a clearer sight of what we ought to be, and stronger motive to induce us to become it. Now, the moral law only fulfils one of these conditions. It shows us what we ought to be. We endeavor to obey it, and may succeed to a certain extent, but never wholly; for the moral law demands perfect obedience, and consequently it always leaves us with a sense of failure.

This, of itself, unnerves us. But more than this. It sets before us duties which are opposed to our wishes, and which we do not even try to fulfil. This leaves us not only - with a sense of failure, but with a sense of sin, of guilt. But a sense of guilt no one can endure; and, to escape from it, we must stifle the voice of conscience, cease to think of duty, and plunge recklessly into that other kind of satisfaction which comes from the gratification of desire. Consequently, we go further into guilt than we should have done if the conscience had not been enlightened at all. Much more might be added upon this subject; but for our present purpose this must suffice. We see that to awaken the conscience, and to enlighten it by the sight of a high moral standard, is the first and essential condition of moral progress. But we see also, that, in order effectually to make progress, a second condition must be fulfilled; otherwise, instead of becoming better, one may be made worse.

It is absolutely necessary to take the first step, but still more necessary to take the second. And this second step is taken by means of the Doctrine of Forgiveness. The law teaches duty, and awakens conscience. The gospel offers pardon, and creates Love. The first gives us aim; the second, power. The way in which this is effected we shall show hereafter.

§ 8. The Doctrine of Forgiveness is attended with difficulties.

But though the Doctrine of Forgiveness is thus prominent in the New Testament, and is thus important for the development of the Christian character, it is attended with difficulties. WHAT IS FORGIVENESS? We know what forgiveness is when predicated of man; but how can we say in any like sense that Gop forgives? When man forgives an insult or an injury, we know what it means. It means either that he ceases to be angry with the offender, or that he remits the punishment of the offence, or both. When the executioners who were about to kindle the pile which was to consume the Maid of Orleans asked her forgiveness, they did not mean to ask her for a remission of punishment, for they were not exposed to any punishment: they meant to ask that she should not be offended with them for what they were compelled to do. But when a condemned criminal asks forgiveness of the executive power, he does not ask that the King or Governor, in whose hand mercy lies, shall not be angry with him; for he knows that they entertain no such feeling. He asks for a remission of the penalty of his crime. Now, it would seem at first sight that the Deity cannot be expected to forgive the sinner in either of these ways. Not by ceasing to be angry; for he never was angry. Not by remitting the penalty; for the penalty is not an arbitrary infliction, but the natural and necessary consequence of the offence. When God is said to be angry, when his wrath is spoken of, whatever it means, it cannot mean any thing like human passion. Such passion is inconsistent with the essential

* attributes of Deity; for it implies weakness, suffering, and selfish irritation. But if God’s anger be a holy indignation, or the necessary aversion with which a holy nature contemplates sin, then it would appear that this anger cannot cease until the sinner is altogether purified. And if punishment be the natural consequence of sin; if, in the very nature of things, evil conduct must deprave the character, pollute the mind, harden the heart, — how can we expect these consequences to be remitted? Can the wicked be made happy until they be made holy? Can we enjoy an outward Heaven until we have Heaven within us? And must not each man’s happiness, here and hereafter, depend upon the precise degree of his moral character and moral attainments? If, then, forgiveness means either the cessation of God’s holy indignation against sin, or the remission of the penalty of sin, which is its natural attendant, it would seem that the one kind of forgiveness is forbidden by the nature of

2: a STATE OF THE QUESTION.

God, and the other by the nature of man; and that, therefore, forgiveness of sin is an impossibility.

§ 9. The same Difficulties in the New Testament.

lf now we turn to the New Testament, we meet with the same difficulty there. The doctrine of Forgiveness is, as we have seen, plainly taught. But other things are also taught, which seem, at first view, inconsistent with it. We read, indeed, that God loves the sinner; for we are told that his Love for the sinner was the original cause of the coming of Christ, and that the salvation of the sinner was the final cause of Christ’s coming. We read that “God reconciles us, when sinners, to Himself;” and “that, when we were sinners, Christ died for us.” The joy in Heaven over one sinner who repents, shows the yearning love toward the impenitent, which dwells in heavenly minds. But, on the other hand, we read, in equally plain and distinct language, that the wrath of God abides on the impenitent; that “indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish,” come by the righteous judgment of God upon “every soul that doeth evil.” A sound criticism must admit, and seek for the meaning of both these classes of texts, and explain away neither. The in-. dignation against the sinner, ascribed to God, must be consistent with his Love for the sinner; and his Love must consist with this Indignation. It must therefore be an aversion, or an estrangement from the sinner, only because of his sin, and only while he continues in sin. But, inasmuch as the sincerely penitent have sin still clinging to them, and are not wholly free from it, the difficulty which remains is this: How can that Reconciliation to God, which is God dwelling in us, and we in him, and by which we become “ partakers of the Divine Nature,” take place (which is promised in the New Testament, and is implied in forgiveness), so long as we continue to any degree sinners? ‘Though God is not angry with us with the anger of human passion, must he not be and continue estranged from us by the anger of divine holiness, just so far and so long as any degree of sin remains in us? It would seem, therefore, from the Scripture, that the holiness therein ascribed to the Divine Nature must prevent him from being wholly reconciled to man, while man remains to any extent a sinner. But, according to the same Scripture (Rom. v. 10), “ We were reconciled to God when enemies.” Here, then, we find the same apparent contradiction, or antinomy, in the Scripture which we before found in the nature of the subject itself.

§ 10. Which seems to declare that Forgiveness in either sense is impossible.

We have seen that we know only two kinds of forgiveness, —one of which removes alienation of feeling, and the other removes the external penalty. We have seen, moreover, that the New Testament opposes difhculties to the supposition that God forgives us in the first sense. But it presents still greater difficulties to the supposition that God forgives us by removing the external penalty. ‘The New ‘Testament plainly teaches a fixed and certain Retribution for all; penitent and impenitent; believers and unbelievers; those who are forgiven, and those who are not. We read that “we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (2 Cor. v. 10; Rom. xiv. 10— 12). Weread that God “will render to every man according to his deeds,” and that “ every one of us shall give an account of himself to God.” We are also taught in one parable (Luke xix. 13) the principle of Retribution ; and in another (Matt. xxv. 14) the principle of Accountability.* According to the first, we

* It is often taken for granted that the Parable of the ten Pounds (Luke, xix. 13), and that of the Talents (Matt. xxv. 14), convey the same doctrine. But it is evident the one teaches the Law of Retribution, and the other the Law of Accountability. In the first, the trust committed to each is the same (ten pounds to ten servants); but the improvement of each is different, and the reward different. In the second, the original trust confided to are rewarded hereafter according to the exact degree in which we have improved the talents, means, opportunities, faculties, of which we are the stewards. According to the other, we are to account according to the different amount and quality of these talents. To whom much has been given, of him will much be required. This Retribution is not arbitrary, but is compared to the most certain and inflexible operations of nature. “ Be not deceived; God is not mocked: whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. He who soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the spirit, from the spirit shall reap Eternal Life” (Gal. vi. 8). In the book of Revelation (xx. 12, 18) we read that “the books were opened, and every man judged out of the things written in the books, according to their works.” It each is different; but the proportionate gain is the same, and the reward the same. A parable might have been constructed which would have included both doctrines, but it would have been too complicated; and Jesus, with his usual wisdom, separated what he had to say, and taught part on one occasion, and the other part on another. ;

seems, therefore, that Scripture plainly teaches, what we have already seen to be reasonable, that every action, good or evil, brings after it an inevitable consequence. ‘The consequence in the one case is Eternal Life; that is, as I suppose, an elevation and strengthening of the immortal Principle. The good action re-acts upon the character by a fixed law to make it better. It brings an access of faith and love, which qualifies us for higher action and deeper enjoyment. We “sow to the spirit, and of the spirit reap” spiritual or eternal Life. The consequence in the other case is as unerring. The bad action also re-acts upon the character. He who sows to the flesh reaps corruption. Every higher faculty decays. The power of insight is dulled. Love is frozen in the heart. Faith in God, in things unseen, in universal ideas, in the Right, the Good, the Beautiful, dies out of the soul. The Retribution is sure and certain; certain as the law of gravitation. Forgiveness cannot remit this penalty; for what remission of penalty will change the character? Can one who is stained, weakened, defiled by sin, gain any thing by being taken from an outward Hell, and placed in an outward Heaven? He would rather lose thereby ; for to such an one Hell is more satisfactory than Heaven.* Just so, the depraved taste of a vulgar mind finds more pleasure in coarse and profane society than in the company of the pure.

§ 11. Such apparent Contradictions the token of the presence of large Truths.

We are therefore brought to this conclusion. On the one hand, Reason demands and Scripture teaches a doctrine of Forgiveness; and, on the other, Reason and Scripture deny that Forgiveness is possible in

* Which is well illustrated by Swedenborg in one of his mem- * orable relations. He states that a person in one of the Hells thought himself unjustly treated, and wished to be in Heaven. Whereupon the angels were allowed to take him up there, to show him his error. No sooner was he placed in Heaven than he fell down, writhing with pain and in great agony; which was only relieved by his being taken back “to his own place,” when he became comparatively comfortable. We quote from memory.

STATE OF THE QUESTION. ol either of the usual meanings of the term. But such apparent contradictions are everywhere to be found in the domain of Truth, and like paradoxes are constant in the Scripture. Truths, indeed, are never really contradictory to each other; but they seem so because they are antagonist. As the whole movement of the human body is carried on by means of antagonist muscles; as the movement of the planets round the sun is maintained by constant antagonist forces; as the mental and moral constitution of man consists throughout of antagonist faculties, so in the world of Truth we find the same law of Polarity, and God “has set everywhere two against two.” It is only by the perception of these antagonisms that any progress is possible in true knowledge. We must see the contradiction before we can find its solution. We must see the Thesis on the one side, and the Antithesis on the other, before we can find the higher Synthesis which includes the two. It is not by ignoring such difficulties, but by distinctly recognizing them, that we make a truly scientific progress. The charge sometimes brought against Scripture, that it furnishes proof-texts for both sides of every question, is in fact its highest praise; for it shows that Scripture is wide and deep as Nature. Nature, too, furnishes proof-texts on both sides of every question. When we meet, therefore, with these apparent contradictions, we are to regard them as locked doors, by which, when we have found their key, we shall have access to a higher plane of thought.