V. FORGIVENESS IN MAN
THERE is no space here to study all the records of that Life in terms
of Forgiveness, nor indeed could anything of the sort be properly done
except after years of attention; the danger of the invention of neat morals
and pretty metaphysics is too great. But certain incidents in that Life
stand out. It was the Life that was the fact—of Forgiveness as of everything
holy else, and there was no moment in that Life which was not, towards
men and women, a fact of Forgiveness, or at least a fact of the offer of
Forgiveness. It proceeded steadily towards the consummate Forgiveness and
the consummate Reconciliation, but they were not apart from the Life.
The Temptation, for example, is precisely, among other things, a temptation
of Forgiveness, an effort to turn Forgiveness into something other than
itself. All temptations are, in a sense, the same; they all depend on the
rousing of some false hope, and on some action for its satisfaction. The
order of the three temptations in the Canonical Writings cannot be of first
importance, or we should not have been given two different accounts; we
may presumably use each for edification without denying the other. The
first temptation of Forgiveness then is to procure, through its own operation,
some immediate comfort. The stones—let us say, the stones of offence—which
are in the way are to be turned at once into bread. They are to perform
the office of bread and not of stones. No doubt something like this may
eventually happen to the holy soul; no doubt, in the end, the very stones
themselves become nourishing. The nourishment derived at last from that
hard strong state which can be described as “ stones “ may be found to
be much superior to that easier appeasement of natural hunger described
as “ bread.” Our natural hunger desires immediate comfort. Yet any haste
after this comfort is apt to destroy the whole act of forgiveness. It may
often be easier for us to forgive than not—easier because more comfortable;
nor is it always wrong to do so, any more than it is wrong to eat bread.
But to pretend to forgive for the sake of one’s own comfort is nonsense.
“Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth out
of the mouth of God”; that is, by God’s knowledge of sin and forgiveness.
It may be possible to return to that point presently.
The Second Temptation, let us say, is the setting on the pinnacle of
the Temple; this is the order in St. Matthew. The principle of this is
that the Son of God should “tempt” God; that Forgiveness should presume
on its own nature instead of referring all to God’s will. It assumes that
it will be sustained by the divine messengers; nay, it assumes that the
divine messengers will be there to support it. Inconceivable as it may
seem that the humanity of the Son of God should feel that temptation, yet
we must believe that he did, or the whole thing is false. But for us this
temptation is probably even more common than the first; the worse temptations
are always the commonest. The first was a kind of Sloth; this is Pride.
Pride is the besetting sin of Pardon, almost the infernal twin of Pardon;
it is its consciousness; rather, say, its self-consciousness become its
only consciousness. It is the condescension, the de haut en has element,
which is with so much difficulty refused. After all, if one has been injured,
if one has suffered wrong? “ Cast thyself down,” the devil murmurs, “the
angels will support you; be noble and forgive. You will have done the Right
Thing; you will have behaved better than the enemy.” So, perhaps; but it
will not be the angels of heaven who will support that kind of consciousness,
unless by a fresh reference of ourselves to Forgiveness. “ Thou shalt not
tempt the Lord thy God.”
The Third Temptation is not perhaps so common. The false hope of comfort,
the false hope of superiority; and now? The false hope of freedom, but
a freedom given by the devil. Can Forgiveness worship the devil? all the
virtues can worship the devil. Was not the Incarnate tempted? and is one
to suppose the temptation was not real? No; in some sense Forgiveness is
promised the kingdoms of this world; and how? Precisely by being set free
from grudges and resentments, from bitterness and strife. This certainly
is the proper nature and the proper result of Forgiveness, but than also
Forgiveness which primarily desired that would not be forgiveness at all.
It is but the mere point of whom one adores, the very last point, so small,
yet so much all. It is the” having nothing yet possessing all things “
of St. Paul turned into a maxim of personal greed. If one could achieve
that state one would be completely free, one would no longer be hurt by
others. To be, or to desire to be, free from being hurt by others, is to
be, or to desire to be, free from the co-inherence of all human souls,
which it was the express intention of Christ to redeem. In the perfect
redemption, no doubt we all shall be free so; and when all, then each one.
But till all, none. The achievement would be exactly hell; it would be
to desire something other than he. “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God
and him only shalt thou serve.”
Such then were the temptations he rejected, the delusions he would not
choose. He exhibited delusion as delusion; he left the Church to declare
what delusion was. It has not done it, or it has; the discussions on its
fidelity or apostacy need not detain us here. He himself exhibited the
facts of existence. Neither comfort nor pride nor detachment were to interfere
with them; if they did, the facts would combine with the delusions to bring
about hell. Yet he restored what was permissible; the first of the marvellous
works did but increase enjoyment. He did not merely give men wine; when
they had already drunk wine, he gave them more and better wine. He who
would not make bread for himself would make wine for others. “ Others he
saved; himself he could not save.”
All this matter of the Temptation was, in our sacred Lord, after its
own and central kind, and indeed must still remain so. No definition or
dogma can explain to us how Forgiveness was tempted not to be Forgiveness,
and Love not to be Love. We only know that he maintained his exact function;
he remained free. He remained free, that is, to proclaim forgiveness—free
to derive that power from his Father, free to exercise it towards us. When
he had returned to his public life he began to do so: notably, in the case
of the man sick of the palsy....
