The writing and correspondence of Hastings Rashdall:The early years - to 1905 |
HastingsRashdall.org.uk |
||
Article by Rashdall on "Atonement and Personality"
by R C Moberly, published in the Journal of Theological Studies in 1902.
|
|
||
concluding paragraphs:I may be asked what theory of the Atonement it is proposed to substitute for those which have been criticised. That is a question which it is quite beyond the compass of this article to answer. The general drift of the treatment which I desiderate has perhaps been sufficiently indicated by the agreement which I have ventured to express with large parts of Dr Moberly’s work. An adequate modern treatment of the subject – at least an English treatment of it – is still much to be desired; but, if I have felt it a duty to introduce a discordant note into the chorus of approbation with which the book has been received, it is largely because I fear it may draw away the attention of theological students from the writings from which they would be able to collect what seem to me more reasonable - I will venture to add, far more worthy and far more reverent - ideas about this great subject, from the writings of Maurice and Westcott and Llewelyn Davies, from the scholarly history of the subject by Nutcombe Oxenham, and above all from the profound and inspiring, if somewhat dry and technical, treatise of Albrecht Ritschl, which has recently been made available for English readers. It is a significant fact that it should be possible for an Oxford Professor of Theology to write an elaborate treatise upon the doctrine of the Atonement without so much as mentioning the name of Ritschl, or alluding to any of the characteristic ideas of a school which has coloured the whole theological thought of modern Germany. |
|||
The quotation on the index page is taken from a letter from Hastings Rashdall to 'Harthill': New College, Oxford. Sept 27th 1901 My dear Harthill, . . . I have also been writing an article on Moberly’s ‘Atonement and Personality’ which I am sorry to say seems to me to be a very bad book. |
|
||