« PrécédentContinuer »
warrant one in asserting that any seventeenth century Confession must be obsolete.
This inference, however, fell to the ground, if one accepted the claims of revivalism. If religious life is summed up in the miracle of regeneration, then God is 'sovereign' indeed, and the moralities of life are the small dust of the balance. Hence I found it necessary to argue, that even the revivalist form of Calvinism, though the only form of Calvinism possessing much vitality at the present day, does not hold the field as a system which generates an adequate religious experience. And I may here remark, that few persons seem to me to realise the vigour and rigour' of the revivalist theory. It is an antisocial system ; and if we go on playing with edged tools, we are likely to get ugly wounds.
Those who read the following essays will, I trust, grant the premises which the pamphlets were meant to make good, that neither orthodoxy nor revivalism furnishes us with a tenable theology.
Readers must not, however, assume that I use 'new theology' in Delitzsch's sense, as meaning "Ritschlianism.'' I thankfully admit my obligations to Ritschl, but yet feel it necessary to make my own essays' towards a more fully Christian theology. Another writer to whom I owe much is MʻLeod Campbell
. And he has curious affinities with Ritschl. Any one acquainted with Ritschl's brilliant revision of the doctrine of Christ's two estates and three offices' will be almost startled, on looking into the Table of Contents of Campbell on the Atonement, to see how the same thought operates there—“ Christ's dealing with man on the part of God' being i distinguished from Christ's dealing with God on behalf of men,' in regard to both the retrospective and the prospective
1 See below, p. 166.
aspects of the Atonement. So too Campbell's doctrine of
· These last terms are more peculiar to Campbell. In my copy (fifth edition) of the Nature of the Atonement the first phrase quoted from Campbell-line 1, under chapter vi.—is misprinted in the Table of Contents.
viii. 1], is clearly one with that cleansing by the blood of
which they were studied. But, while this is so, I find that
As a whole, the book is what its title indicates. It con-
Let me supply an omission, and subjoin a correction. On
EDINBURGH, October 1889.