Welcome to hastingsrashdall.org.uk

the nature of the Trinity & the non-passibility of our Lord’s divine nature are really helpful: these are only two instances out of many. But I venture to think that a case can be made out for the old-fashioned theory, attractive as Abelard is. What the world at present wants is more conversions of gross sinners. And the gross sinner when he realises his sins will feel with appalling strength the idea of God’s anger. The idea is anthropomorphic no doubt, but the sinner will feel that he has incurred it. And remember that both S. Paul and S. Augustine in different ways were great sinners before conversion. Now how is that anger to be satisfied? by repentance through Christ as the mediator. But how do I feel certain that he is the mediator? If he had died an easy death like Buddha, he would have been merely a man with benefiscence and sublime ideals. It is the death with its finality which proves him to be the one true mediator; he rolls away the anger of God & its consequences.
   Then as in the case of so much sacramental language we have to remember the power of the metaphor & spiritual paradox over excited minds, & we are presently face to face with the full-formed doctrine of a propitiatory victim, a doctrine which as you well point out attaches easily to the mental conditions of our Lord’s times and will always appeal powerfuilly to minds of a certain constitution.
   I agree so much with all you say about the Abelardian theory that I am most grateful to you for your statement. But I still feel a desire to retain the old idea in a modified way, as roughly indicated above.
        Yours ever,
            A H Cruickshank.

The writing and correspondence of Hastings Rashdall: 1915 to 1924			HastingsRashdall.org.uk
Correspondence with A H Cruickshank about the Bampton Lectures after publication in Dec 1919
March 30. 1920 My dear Rashdall, I have been wrestling with your book which is full of matter and so powerful that one hesitates to criticise. Many of the things which you say, as for instance about
the nature of the Trinity & the non-passibility of our Lord’s divine nature are really helpful: these are only two instances out of many. But I venture to think that a case can be made out for the old-fashioned theory, attractive as Abelard is. What the world at present wants is more conversions of gross sinners. And the gross sinner when he realises his sins will feel with appalling strength the idea of God’s anger. The idea is anthropomorphic no doubt, but the sinner will feel that he has incurred it. And remember that both S. Paul and S. Augustine in different ways were great sinners before conversion. Now how is that anger to be satisfied? by repentance through Christ as the mediator. But how do I feel certain that he is the mediator? If he had died an easy death like Buddha, he would have been merely a man with benefiscence and sublime ideals. It is the death with its finality which proves him to be the one true mediator; he rolls away the anger of God & its consequences. Then as in the case of so much sacramental language we have to remember the power of the metaphor & spiritual paradox over excited minds, & we are presently face to face with the full-formed doctrine of a propitiatory victim, a doctrine which as you well point out attaches easily to the mental conditions of our Lord’s times and will always appeal powerfuilly to minds of a certain constitution. I agree so much with all you say about the Abelardian theory that I am most grateful to you for your statement. But I still feel a desire to retain the old idea in a modified way, as roughly indicated above. Yours ever, A H Cruickshank.
	On to further letters from Rashdall to Cruickshank	The Deanery, Carlisle Ap. 1. 1920 My dear Cruickshank, Many thanks for your letter. I will not attempt to repeat my argument: but perhaps you will allow me to say that you seem rather to mix up two questions: (1) Which theory is true? (2) Which theory converts sinners best? I might admit what you say about (2) without altering my view as to (1). And yet I am not disposed to admit much truth in contention (2) as far as present-day Englishmen are concerned. I don't believe many sinners are now converted by the objective theory, though some of them may still be converted by persons who more or less sincerely profess to hold that theory. Good Evangelicals confess that the Torrey-Alexander Mission conducted on these lines was a dead failure. I have said more on this in App. I. Your concluding words 'desire to retain the old idea in a modified way' I have no doubt represents the state of mind many will be in after reading my book. No doubt many were in that state of mind before, but, when you come to ask them what this modified form is, they will never answer; or if they do, it turns out that when clearly stated, it is the old substitutionary view after all. Yours ever, H RASHDALL

The writing and correspondence of Hastings Rashdall: 1915 to 1924

Correspondence with A H Cruickshank about the Bampton Lectures after publication in Dec 1919