Forgiveness and suffering

Preface

f 1 1HIS little book needs little introduction. -**- It has been written in the hope of indicating a new point of view, at which the writer has himself arrived, but which he has not seen elsewhere described.

The chief conscious obligations, in respect of books, are acknowledged in the course of the essay; but perhaps immediate personal influences, which cannot be acknowledged, have a more permanent effect on the direction and development of thought than the mediate influence of books. If some passages from one or more well-known works are selected for criticism, this is done in order to bring into relief the writer's own standpoint, not from any lack of respect for authors who are deservedly held in high esteem.

viii Preface

To Professor V. H. Stanton, Canon of Ely, who was good enough to read the MS and proofs, most hearty thanks are due for much helpful suggestion and kindly criticism : he must not, of course, be held responsible for the opinions expressed.

Other obligations, of a more private character, are better suited for private acknowledgement.

D. W.

Harrow-on-the-Hill, October 1913.

SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I

Divine forgiveness a permanent concept of religion (p. 1) ; Sin lowers man and alienates God (2) ; religious experience needs intelligible explanation (3) ; fear of disturbing traditional opinions (4) ; lack of definite theory to-day (5) ; understanding does not lessen reverence (6) ; largeness of grasp the secret of progress (7) ; a sane optimism (8).

Chapter II

No fixed theory in first two centuries (9). Belief in a personal Devil (11); Origen's theory of compact with Satan; its philosophic and ethical defects ; its prolonged influence (12 — 14) . Anselm breaks down current doctrine; his new hypothesis of satisfaction paid by man to God (14) ; his great influence on subsequent thought (17) . Questions raised by Schoolmen (19) ; Reformers' drastic views ; punishment must precede pardon; Socinus denies this; Grotius attempts compromise (19 — 21). Luther's view prevails. Penal substitution; its difficulties, (1) Philosophic, guilt and penalty; (2) Historical, life of Jesus; (3) Theological, implied ditheism (22 — 28).

Chapter III

Summary of foregoing theories (29). Judicial equivalence or acceptatio (30). Analogy of debt breaks down (31). All these theories transactional, not ethical (32) ; latter begin to preponderate, former to disappear (33) ; great advance, yet not wholly satisfactory (35) ; why the need of suffering ? (36) ; Pantheistic tendency ; immanence and transcendence complementary (37). pp. 29 — 37

Synopsis

Chapter IV

Ambiguity of word "Law": natural law a statement of fact, moral law a principle of ethics (38 — 40) ; concepts different yet not independent (41) ; ordinances based on facts, both in physical and moral spheres (42) ; instinct of self-defence in both (44). Consequences wrongly interpreted as penalties ; death the natural result of sin (46) ; pain restorative, not penal (48) ; moral tendency of social relations (50) ; eternal punishment, how misunderstood (51) ; God's justice automatic; his Love personal (52). pp. 38 — 52

Chapter V

God's personal antagonism to evil (53) ; moral evil inseparable from persons (54) ; God's attitude one of antagonism, not hatred (55) ; antagonism not subversive of love (56) ; our concepts necessarily anthropomorphic ; argument from human to divine (57) ; forgiveness independent of arbitrary punishment (59) ; repentance and pardon a psychological exchange (60). No need for expiation, guarantees, or vicarious penitence (63 — 67); Jesus does not face God, but expresses Him (68) ; to forgive the repentant is just (69). Forgiveness does not contravene natural law, but presupposes it (70) ; it is free but not automatic (72); forgiveness intensifies love (74). pp. 53 — 74

Chapter VI

Jesus reveals God in love, forgiveness, suffering (75, 76) ; cost of forgiveness always borne by injured person (77) ; value of pardon measured by suffering (80) ; without blood no remission ; thought implicit in ancient ritual (81). The passion of God (82) ; impassibility defined (83). Love and suffering inseparable (84); passibility not opposed to omnipotence (85) ; love and self-expression (86) ; passibility

Synopsis xi

of God a necessary outcome of Christian thought (88) ; no real philosophic difficulty (91) ; self -limitation of God a necessity (91) . Self-sacrifice a joy; but contact with sin painful (92); forgiveness not painful, yet reached through pain (93) ; God also is made perfect through suffering (94). pp. 75 — 94

Chapter VII

Transactions eliminated (95) ; God's attitude unaltered (96) ; the "finished work" explained in accord with general sense of N.T. (98) ; two objections met (100); "dereliction" discussed (101 — 4). Recapitulation (105) ; self -revelation God's purpose in Jesus (106) ; love, suffering, forgiveness — a sequence (107). Older and newer views contrasted (110) ; Crucifixion represents an eternal truth (113) ; forgiveness the beginning, not the end; brings newness of life (114); sacrifice and ensample (115) ; taking of manhood into God ; only one way of forgiveness (116). pp. 95 — 116

Chapter VIII

A living picture (117). Death of Christ not to be considered in isolation (118) ; represents God's passion. Potency of Christ's passion not less real, though symbolical (119) ; value of this view to different shades of belief (120); universal value of Passion, though in time (121); importance of revised doctrine (122), as Christianising world (123) and unifying Church (124) . Meaning of authority (126) ; recent revolution of thought (127) . pp. 117—128

Epilogue

The City of God; its houses and citizens; a comparison.

Chapter I

Divine forgiveness has always formed the central theme of religious thought, and must always so continue under man's existing condition of moral imperfection. It represents an instinctive need of man ; springing from a sense that he is not what he ought to be, nor what God desires that he should be. It is not a specifically Christian conception, for the sense of need existed long before the Christian era. But Christianity did purport to offer and to provide a satisfaction of that need, which previous systems of religion had entirely failed to supply.

The desire for forgiveness is common to mankind ; but the conceptions of forgiveness vary with the conceptions of God. Crude and unethical thoughts of God produce crude and unethical views of forgiveness. Always and everywhere these two things are necessarily interdependent. And if in the Christian church views have prevailed which are impossible for us now to accept, this is because the followers of Jesus have failed to imbibe the lofty and beautiful concept of God which he sought to impart. If we wish to reach a right understanding of the mind of Jesus on divine forgiveness, we can only succeed by setting ourselves to study his teaching about the nature of God.

The hindrance to right relations between man and God is two-fold ; for not only do men feel a sense of moral degradation on their own side, but they are instinctively conscious of a divine antagonism; the need of moral recovery and that of personal reconciliation go hand in hand.

Christians in all ages have firmly believed that both the divine antagonism and the human degradation are done away by the sufferings of Christ ; but their conceptions as to how this result is achieved have varied very widely, not only in the past but up to the present day. Thousands indeed have appropriated to themselves the benefits of the Christian religion, who have had the most primitive conceptions as to the manner in which these benefits become available, or as to the process of their assimilation; but at the present time the growing intelligence of a rising generation demands, more than ever before, some rational explanation of the doctrines which they are asked to believe ; and to-day — I say it without hesitation — the current interpretations of the Christian doctrine of God's forgiveness are such as to raise a wellnigh insuperable barrier against the adoption of a definitely Christian form of thought among men of average intelligence.

I do not suggest that out-and-out Calvinism is believed or taught by the clergy of the present day, still less that it is accepted by the laity. Yet it must be admitted that the mode of thought which produced Calvinism is still at work to-day ; satisfaction theories are still dominant, though the form in which they are presented has been greatly modified. It may be doubted whether it has even occurred to the majority of present-day Christians that there can be any alternative.

The doctrine of penal substitution, introduced at the Reformation, has few supporters at present ; but while there is a general desire to avoid this presentation, the usual tendency

1—2 is to alter its form rather than its substance ; it is still assumed that some form of satisfaction to God was necessary which man was powerless to render. But what sort of satisfaction was required, or how it has been rendered, is left indeterminate. In the pulpit, indeed, there is a tendency to say as little as possible on the subject. Enough must be said, on the one hand, to show that belief in the doctrine of Atonement is still alive ; on the other, it is not desired to disturb the faith of the older members of congregations by setting forth a new explanation ; and, even in the case of the younger members, there is a fear of depriving their minds of one form of belief before another can be assimilated — a fear, as it were, of pruning the tree too early, and exposing it to the danger of frost. Both these fears are ill-founded ; it is, after all, not so easy to disturb the settled opinions of elderly people ; and as for the younger persons, they are already exposed to doubts and questionings of a more radical kind than their elders commonly suspect ; the pressing need is that these early misgivings should be frankly met and openly dealt with.

Yet, while timidity of innovation to some extent explains the lack of virile teaching in the modern pulpit, there is a much more potent cause ; namely, that while the theory of penal substitution was from many points of view unsatisfactory, it was at least definite; and, as yet, no very definite theory has grown up to replace it. Modern thought on the subject has not yet crystallised ; it has assumed no concise, pictorial form to the minds of the clergy themselves ; and if the teacher's thought be misty and undefined, it is hardly likely to leave a sharp impression on the mind of the scholar.

To this it is commonly replied, " No cut-anddried theory of the Atonement can be truly satisfactory ; we are dealing with a mystery which the human mind cannot grasp in its entirety ; it is like the sun to the human eye ; we can see its effulgence only, we cannot discern its substance." Are we then to abstain from forming a big, comprehensive conception of God's attitude towards us 1 Has He given us the capacity of asking large and, as it seems to us, vital questions as regards our relations to Him, yet barred us at the start from ever answering them ? Christian thought must be progressive, if it is to escape the risk of becoming obsolete.

Again, we are told that it is more profitable for a Christian to contemplate, now from one aspect, now from another, the marvels of God's grace, than to form any theory by which it can be brought down to the level of our understanding ; we reverence most that which is beyond our grasp. This is the plea of many a reverent and thoughtful soul ; and yet I think that even this too may be wrong. Think : when did you begin to look with most wondering eyes at the glories of the star-lit sky, the sun, the moon, and all the host of heaven ? Was it before or after you had made an attempt to understand and appreciate the workings of the solar system ? Did a knowledge of the laws and relations of the heavenly bodies diminish your wonderment at God's creative power ? The question, I think, admits of but one answer. The further our mind penetrates the mysteries of nature, the more wonderful they become ; the more we come to know, the wider is the expanse of the unknown, and the greater the marvel of the partly known.

As with the material universe, so is it with our world of personalities, and so with our conceptions of God. As we understand Him better, and think of Him more truly, the greater by far will be our reverence for His sublimity, our trust in His faithfulness, and our adoration of His love. For myself, I confess, what I crave is a glimpse, a bird's-eye view, if you will, as from a distance, of the Divine System, not the less spiritual because intellectual : as we might see the city of London as a whole from high above it ; not that we do not wish to abide in the City — whether it be the city of London or the city of God — but that having seen it in its totality, though imperfectly, we might the better henceforth appreciate its details as portions of the whole. It is this very craving to grasp things as a whole, which has wrought the revolutions of science ; which has plucked observed facts from their dreary isolation of pigeon-holes, and placed them, like coloured pieces, in the beautiful harmony of Nature's picture ; which has taken men, and dates, and battles, and by the magic of a master-thought has turned them into history ; which has made the crust of the earth declare its own story, and coaxed their secrets from the stars.

All these things we know but in part ; each answer of nature leads on to further questions, which in turn draw their own response. So also must be our faith in the world which transcends material things — that to a vital question there must somewhere be an answer sufficient for us ; that when we knock at the door of knowledge, it will not remain closed to us for ever. Here also, as in other quests, our objective is Truth ; to find Truth, we must face our problem squarely, undeterred by any mistaken sense of reverence. If a conception be false, it were best unmasked. Truth will survive handling ; it may be buried out of sight for a time ; but it is alive, and will presently shoot up, green and fresh, from the soil which has hidden it. In such a spirit of frank but serious optimism, I invite my readers to enter with me into a short study of a great problem.

Chapter II

It is impossible, and unwise if it were possible, to embark on such a quest without a glance 1 at the various solutions of the problem which have been offered in the past. Men have not always thought as they think now. Theories quite different from that of penal substitution have been advanced, claiming scriptural support ; and so large is the thought-range of the apostolic age, that even the most diverse and irreconcileable theories might seem to find some justification in one or other of the New Testament writings. All the great authors abound in figures of speech through which they seek to convey their thought ; but their conceptions are wider than the figures which illustrate them. Each writer speaks in the terms of his own mental upbringing, so long as such terms seem

1 Throughout this chapter my acknowledgements are due to H. N. Oxenham's Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement , and G. B. Stevens's Christian Doctrine of Salvation.

adequate ; St Paul in terms of Jewish Law, the writer to the Hebrews in terms of the ritual of Hebrew sacrifice ; but each of them confessedly finds his own terminology inadequate. The Law is but the nursemaid who brings pupils to the school of Christ ; the sacrifices are not the real things but only a dim shadow of the reality. Christian thought indeed is like the daffodil; its bud is at first enclosed in a flower-case ; but as the bud expands, the flower-case has done its protective work, and is thrown off. So with these writers; their thought could not keep within the limits of its early expression; as the one expanded, the other passed into obsolescence.

In thus suggesting that the writers of the apostolic age did not mean to tie themselves up to any theory of Atonement, I know that I am on debated ground ; but when once we leave the apostolic, and pass to the sub-apostolic age, the case is different. There certainly we find an entire absence of any definite theory ; and so things remained during the greater part of the second century. Not that the matter was absent from the mind of Christians of that period ; it was indeed the subject of devout meditation and beautiful utterance, as the Epistle to

Diognetus may exemplify ; but their pearls of thought were unstrung; they had no consciously formulated theory ; their faith was simple ; as yet there was no demand for an intellectual system.

One thing, however, bulked large in religious thought of that time, which was destined to give both colour and shape to Christian theory for many a long year; this was the Personality of the Devil, the Prince of this world, who held and exercised practical sway over the wills of men. In the dominance of this belief, it was natural that the work of Christ should figure as a personal triumph over Satan. And so this idea gradually asserts itself, till it finds free expression, but not full explanation, in the writings of Irenaeus (bp. of Lyons 178 — 202). Its development was left for the restless creative genius of Origen (fl. 204 — 253), the greatest Christian thinker of that age, whose versatile imagination was free from the yet unknown trammels of authority. The theory of redemption which he laid down fails indeed to meet our modern needs ; even to Origen himself, judging from the rest of his work, it must have appeared as only a partial explanation of the truth ; yet it was destined to hold the theoretic field, not indeed exclusively, but predominantly, for nearly a thousand years. By his scheme of thought the redemption of man was effected by means of a compact or bargain between God and the Devil ; and we must confess that, even regarded as a commercial transaction, it is by no means above ethical criticism. Mankind, by this theory, were under the dominion of Satan, who held over them the powers, if not the rights, of slave-ownership. Having acquired these powers not by force but by the consent of man, it was right that, if men were to be freed from the bondage, an equivalent price should be paid to the Devil ; and this price, which God alone was able to pay, was nothing else than the death of Christ. But although the compact was struck, Satan did not realise what he was doing ; not only did he overlook the influence which the life and death of Christ would exercise upon man, but he failed to perceive that, having compassed Christ's death, he could not hold the soul of Christ, which was superior to death ; by the resurrection, therefore, Satan was in effect cheated of the product of his bargain.

Thus by his ignorance the Devil compassed his own downfall ; of this ignorance God took full advantage, and paid back Satan in his own coin. To the modern mind the picture is grotesque, quite apart from ethical considerations. That God should hold traffic with the Devil is to us inconceivable. But the chief reason for this is that, unlike our forefathers, we no longer believe in a personal Devil. We believe, indeed (who does not ?), in personal influences, which are all about us, both for good and evil ; but the embodiment of evil in the person of a Devil, ranking in power second only to the good God — this is a belief which we no longer share. In spite, however, of so great a change in thought, we may note that this sort of belief has not yet wholly vanished ; even to-day from pulpit and platform you may hear explanations of the Atonement which, in the last resort, involve the same conception 1 .

1 In this context cp. Hymns A. & M. 96, v. 5 :

Upon its arms (the cross) like balance true, He weigh'd the price for sinners due, The price which none but He could pay, And spoiled the spoiler of his prey. Is this an echo of the patristic view, or only an adaptation of Lc. xi. 21 ( = Mc. iii. 27, Mt. xii. 29. The strong man armed) ?

Having outlined Origen's theory of redemption, I should be ill serving my readers if I left them with the impression that this was all that Origen had to say. His teaching in truth is full of spirituality ; he dwells insistently on personal reconciliation with God, purification of life, and the permanent value of Christ's perfect manhood. At present, however, we have to deal with his formal theory of redemption ; and its defects, from a modern standpoint, need no emphasizing. Yet the Christian world, as a whole, acquiesced in that view for many centuries ; not that everybody accepted it, but it was never formally demolished till nearly 1100 a.d. Passing on, therefore, to that date, our scene changes from Alexandria to Canterbury; and the gracious figure of Anselm challenges our attention.

In the person of Anselm were combined statesman, saint, and scholar ; if Origen gave form and system to the theology of the Fathers, Anselm heralds the advent of Scholastic thought. In him for the first time we find the hypothesis of a compact with Satan formally abrogated. For Anselm, indeed, the personal Devil still exists, but not as disputing sovereignty with

God. How (he asks) could the Devil have any rights at all in God's world ? God owed the Devil nothing at all except punishment, and all the more that he had deceived man, and so lured him from the path of goodness. It was not God who had to make any recompense to the Devil, but man who had to make a recompense to God. Man by his sin had violated the order of the world, and by the same act had personally affronted God ; not only must the lost balance be restored, but the offended honour of God must be satisfied. Now (so thinks Anselm) owing to man's sinfulness neither of these objects can be achieved by him ; he already owes to God the homage of his life ; even if this were perfectly rendered, it could not atone for the sinful past ; something further is required, which must be rendered by man, and yet which is beyond man's power to supply. The need is supplied by Jesus, the God-Man. He is able both to restore the lost order, and to satisfy the offended honour of God. True, he too, as man, owed God the homage of his life ; but, being sinless, he did not pass under the sinner's sentence of death. His death, therefore, freely offered to God, was of such infinite value as not only to balance the moral deficit, but also to give satisfaction to the Creator for the personal affront. Thus reconciliation with God has been achieved, without any breach of the moral order of the universe.

Sin, then, is an affront to God. Influenced 1 , no doubt, by the environment of his own age, Anselm attributed to God something of the qualities of a great feudal baron ; affronted by sin, He requires some personal satisfaction ; since man is incapable of rendering this unaided, God graciously makes it possible by means of the Incarnation.

The negative side of Anselm's argument obtained a speedy acceptance; though combated by Bernard, it was admitted by Abelard ; the death of Christ was no longer accepted by Christendom in the sense of a compact with the Devil. His positive theory, however, profoundly as it influenced the whole Scholastic age, failed to command the general assent ; into the reasons for this failure it is not possible here to enter ; to the modern mind one reason is sufficient. The argument depends entirely

1 See Stevens, Christian Doctrine of Salvation, p. 241.

on the postulate that physical death is the penalty or result of sin. Take this away and the whole formal structure of the theory collapses.

To judge rightly, however, of Anselm's contributions to thought (and they were many) we must throw ourselves back into his age and understand his relation to it.

It is, indeed, hardly possible for any modern thinker to accept his conclusions in the form in which he moulded them ; yet his work was in advance of contemporary thought ; it fulfilled adequately the theological requirements of his own age, and offered fresh food for thought to his successors ; he had turned the stream of theological thought into an entirely new channel. And if, after the lapse of another 800 years we have ceased to feel the direct influence of his speculation, we must still remember how great a boon he conferred on Christian thought by his destruction of the unethical theory of a compact with Satan. But more than this too. For if his positive theory was inadequate, yet it contained elements of truth which were capable of exerting, and did exert, a beneficent influence on future thought.

His, indeed, was the first theoretic advancement of a satisfaction rendered to God ; but it is a superficial view which sees in him the father of the Reformation theories ; these, I think, would have repelled Anselm almost as much as they repel us. Indeed, strange as it may sound, I suspect that the undercurrent 1 of Anselm's thought was more in line with modern ideas than with those of the Reformation ; for, after his own fashion, he was the first to express two important things ; first, the conception of what I may call the moral equilibrium of the universe ; and secondly, the personal sensitiveness of God towards sin. The terms, indeed, in which that sensitiveness are expressed are unfortunate, being coloured by the social conditions of his own day; yet it was something to have perceived it at all. As we proceed, we shall see the significance to ourselves of these two ideas, although they need modern interpretation and handling.

The name of Anselm ushers in the age of the Schoolmen. Into their systems of thought we cannot here enter. Was the life and death

1 It is unjust, I think, to label Anselm's theory "commercial." The thought of equilibrium invites commercial illustration, in the sense of balancing accounts; but the thought runs deeper than its illustration.

of Christ an absolute necessity for man's salvation, or could God have found another way ? Was the Incarnation devised as a remedy for man's sin alone, or was it a necessary step in the gradual perfection of the human race, irrespective of sin? Both these questions are of deep interest. By their opposite answers to the latter, Thoma.s Aquinas and Duns Scotus sowed the seeds of two conflicting tendencies of modern theology. Yet such questions are not on the direct line of our present study ; we must pass on to the sixteenth century, in which thought again becomes creative rather than contemplative.

By the Reformers, " sin is viewed as a "violation of God's inexorable law, and not " merely as an affront to His honour. The "necessity which now arises is not merely "a necessity to vindicate His majesty ; it is the "necessity that sin be punished. It is no "longer a question of God's dignity or honour, "but of His inflexible justice. It is no longer, "as with Anselm, a question of satisfaction or "punishment, but of satisfaction by punish - "ment. If therefore sin is to be forgiven, "it must, first of all, be punished 1 ." This

1 Stevens, Christian Doctrine of Salvation, p. 152.

2—2 is the essence of the Reformation view, of which Luther and Calvin are the chief, but not the only, exponents. The revolt of Socinus (1539 — 1604) from this doctrine, is of interest, not only in itself, but as leading up to the theory of Grotius (1583 — 1645). Socinus maintained (with Anselm) that sin, indeed, is an affront to the majesty of God ; but he also propounded that it is perfectly competent for God to forgive the affront, if He so pleases, without punishment. He condemns as impossible the theory of penal substitution, which he also considers superfluous. Indeed, for him, the necessity of Christ's death disappears entirely, in so far as it is regarded as a basis for the forgiveness of sins. The declaration of Socinus, in fact, constituted a powerful challenge to the whole system of current orthodoxy.

The challenge thus thrown down, is taken up by Grotius, the lawyer, in a somewhat unexpected manner. He answers that God is the Governor of the world, and that He must govern on principles of righteousness. The abrogation of the right to exact satisfaction for sin would produce chaos, although such a right need not be exercised in every case.

God's right to exact satisfaction was exhibited in the death of Christ — whose mission to earth is, on this view, regarded as a sort of armed demonstration of the rights and righteousness of God. God need not indeed exact from every man satisfaction equivalent to his sin ; but He must do something to maintain the moral order of the world which He governs. He must, to use the modern useful but elusive phrase, vindicate His righteousness. In view of this necessity, a striking example is required ; this character Christ voluntarily undertakes, and thus exhibits to the world the terrible consequences of sin, in order that man may in future choose the path of righteousness. Grotius does not consider that Christ paid the penalty of man's sin, but that he exemplified it. The obvious answer to this proposition is that, if the Governor is to uphold law and order, he can only do so by punishing the guilty ; if a dreadful example be regarded as necessary, the choice for that purpose of an innocent person is singularly infelicitous.