In 1892, Hastings Rashdall delivered a University Sermon at Oxford entitled ‘Abelard's Doctrine of the Atonement’. In this sermon, he outlines with increasing enthusiasm what he considered to be ‘as noble and perspicuous a statement as can even yet be found of the faith which is still the life of Christendom’. The central theme of his sermon is that in the twelfth century figure of Peter Abailard can be found a theory of the Atonement which meets the demands of an age shaped in the spirit of Darwinism and historical criticism. What Rashdall understands by the ‘Abelardian doctrine of the Atonement’ is expounded at much greater length in his 1915 Bampton Lectures,The Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology.

¹Rashdall,H., ‘Abelard's Doctrine of the Atonement’,The Expositor 4th series,8 (1893) pp.137–150Google Scholar; reprinted inDoctrine and Development. University Sermons (London:Methuen,1898) pp.128–145Google Scholar. References are given initially to theExpositor article, followed by theDoctrine and Development reference in parentheses.

²ibid., p. 50(145).

³ Of the four spellings of the name usually encountered (viz.,Abelard, Abelard, Abaelard andAbailard), the fourth is preferred by mcdiacvalists.

⁴ The term ‘Atonement’ itself requires criticism. The term was introduced by Tyndale, apparently as an equivalent (i.e.,adunamentum) toreconcilialio. Cf.Latham,R. E.,Revised Medieval Latin Word-List from British and Irish Sources (London:British Academy,1973) pp.8–9Google Scholar. Perhaps through the Authorised Version's translation of Romans 5.11 (… through whom we have receivedthe Atonement….), the phrase ‘the Atonement’ came to have an absolute sense, meaning ‘the benefits of Christ’. The verb ‘to atone’ is derived from the noun, and not, as might be expected, the other way round. See the entry ‘Atonement’ inOxford English Dictionary for useful comments and analysis. The German termVersöhnung has similar connotations, and is thus exceptionally difficult to translate into English (see the comments of the translators inBarth,Karl,Church DogmaticsIV/1 (Edinburgh:Clark,1974) p.vii)Google Scholar. Nevertheless, the German wordsVersöhnung andversöhnen are widely used outside theological contexts, whereas the English terms ‘Atonement’ and ‘atone’ are but rarely encountered outside specifically theological contexts.

⁵The Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology, being the Bampton Lectures for 1915 (London:Macmillan,1920).Google Scholar

⁶ibid., p. 358.

⁷ibid., p. 360.

⁸SeeRamsey,A. M.,From Gore to Temple. The Development of Anglican Theology between Lux Mundi and the Second World War 1889–1939 (London:Longmans,1960) pp.53–55.Google Scholar

⁹Rashdall,,Abelard's Doctrine of the Atonement p.49 (143)Google Scholar. In the form in which it appears inDoctrine and Development, Rashdall appends a note to his sermon, to the effect that: ‘The Abelardian doctrine was, however, held by William Law. This was the main cause of the rupture between Wesley, whom he had profoundly influenced, and himself.‘ It would be futile to comment on the gross inaccuracy of this statement: for our purposes, it is sufficient to note that Rashdall appreciated that there were others between the twelfth and nineteenth centuries who held a moralist view of the Atonement, even if the particular example he cites is inappropriate.

¹⁰ What is particularly irritating is that Rashdallmust have read the excellent analysis of Stcinbart's doctrine of the work of Christ, as presented in R. S. Franks,A History of the Doctrine of the Work of Christ, which appeared in 1918: see Rashdall,Idea of Atonement, p. 429 (note). Franks' account of this importantAufklärer' discussion of the work of Christ is totally accurate and fair, and Rashdall must have appreciated the significance of what he read therein. Although Rashdall encountered this work at a late stage in the preparation of his work for publication (ibid., p. xiii), he modifies no thesis of his work on its basis.

¹¹Tractatus contra quaedam capitula errorum Petri Abaelardi vii, 17; M PL 182.1067A–B.

¹²SeeRashdall,,Idea of Atonement pp.463–464.Google Scholar

¹³Ritschl,A. B.,The Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation (Edinburgh:Edmonston and Douglas,1872) pp.35–40.Google Scholar

¹⁴Weingart,R. E.,The Logic of Divine Love. A Critical Analysis of the Soteriology of Peter Abailard (Oxford:Clarendon Press,1970) pp.78–96.Google Scholar

¹⁵ibid., pp. 125–6. See alsoTaylor,R. O. P., ‘Was Abelard an Exemplarist?’Theology31 (1935) PP.207–213.Google Scholar

¹⁶Weingart,,Logic of Divine Love, pp.202–203.Google Scholar

¹⁷Taylor,,Was Abelardan Exemplarist?, p.213.Google Scholar

¹⁸SeeBurnaby,J.,Amor Dei. A Study in the Religion of St. Augustine (London:Hodder & Stoughton,1947) pp168–172, especially p. 168Google Scholar: ‘There is one purpose of Christ's coming —ad demonstrandum erga nos dilectionem Dei — to show the love of God.’

¹⁹ On this important period, seeBauer,J.,Salus Christiana. Die Rechtfertigungslehre in der Geschichtc des christlkhen Heilsverständnisses (Gütersloh:Mohn,1968) pp.111–179Google Scholar. See alsoHornig,G.,Die Anfänge der historischen-kritischen Theologie. Johann Salomo Semlers Schriftverständnis undseine Stellung zu Luther (Göttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1961)Google Scholar;Schollmeier,J.,Johann Joachim Spalding. Ein Beitrag zur Theologie der Aufklärung (Gütcrsloh:Mohn,1967)Google Scholar.

²⁰ For a characteristically droll comment, seeBarth,K.,Die prolestantische Theologie imig. Jahrhundert (Zürich:Evangelische Verlag,1952) p.16.Google Scholar

²¹System der reinen Philosophic oder Gl¨cklickkeitslehre des Christenthums (Züllichau,1778).Google Scholar

²²ibid., p. 78.

²³SeeHornig,,Anfänge, pp.133–144.Google Scholar

²⁴ Steinbart,System, p. 126.

²⁵ibid., p. 162.

²⁶Kähler,M.,Zur Lehre von der Versöhnung. Dogmatische Zejitfragen II. (Leipzig,1898) p.337Google Scholar: ‘Hat Christus bloß irrige Ansichten über eine unwandelbare Sachlage berichtigt, oder ist er der Begründer einer veränderten Sachlage?’ Cf. our analysis of this question with relation to Barth:McGrath,Alister, ‘Karl Barth als Aufklärer? Der Zusammenhang seiner Lehre vom Werkc Christi mit der Erwählungslchre’,Kerygma und Dogma30 (1984) pp.273–283.Google Scholar

²⁷Rashdall,,Idea of Atonement, p.463.Google Scholar

²⁸ E.g.,Duncan,A. R. C.,Practical Reason and Morality (London:Nelson,1957)Google Scholar;Paton,H. J.,The Categorical Imperative (London:Hutchinson,1946)Google Scholar;Silber,J. R., ‘The Importance of the Highest Good in Kant's Ethics’,Ethics73 (1962) pp.179–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar;Ward,K.,The Development of Kant's View of Ethics (Oxford:Blackwell,1972)Google Scholar.

²⁹ We have used the edition of this work contained inKants gesammelte Schriften, ed.der Wissenschaften,Königliche Preussische Akademie (Berlin:Reimer,1902ff.), volume6Google Scholar. Reference will be made by page and line number from this edition.

³⁰ 170.15–19.

³¹ 75.1–76.6. See also 62.14–66.18.

³² 117.14–15. For the Latin equivalent (quod in se est), as used by the theologians of thevia moderna, seeMcGrath,A. E., ‘The Anti-Pelagian Structure of “Nominalist” Doctrines of Justification’,Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses57 (1981), pp.107–119.Google Scholar

³³ E.g., 141.9–142.3.

³⁴ 74.1–75.1. The emphasis (e.g., 74.16–17) upon the fact that the old disposition ‘ist moralisch ein anderer’ is of particular significance.

³⁵ 183.37–184.3. ‘Dieser Muth, auf eigenen Füssen zu stehen, wird nun selbst durch die darauf folgende Versöhnungslehre gestärkt, indem sie, was nicht zu ändern ist, als abgethan vorstellt und nun den Pfad zu einem neuen Lebenswandel für uns eröffhet.’

³⁶SeeRitschl,,Christian Doctrine of Justification, pp.416–426Google Scholar. This whole question is explored in considerably greater detail in ourlustitia Dei. A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (3 vols:Cambridge,forthcoming), volume3.Google Scholar

³⁷Ritschl,,Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation, pp.320–386.Google Scholar

³⁸ibid., p. 387.

³⁹ For the influence of ihe events which led up to that war upon Karl Barth, seeHarle,W., ‘Der Aufruf der 93 Intellektuellcn und Karl Barths Bruch mil dcr liberalen Theologie’,Zeitschriftfür Theologie und Kirche72 (1975) pp.207–224.Google Scholar

⁴⁰SeeZahrnt,H.,The Question of God. Protestant Theology in the Twentieth Century (London:Collins,1969) pp.15–54Google Scholar. For an assessment of the significance of Luther'stheologia crucis, seeMcGrath,Alister E.,Luther's Theology of the Cross. Martin Luther's Theological Breakthrough (Oxford,1985).Google Scholar

⁴¹CitedVidler,A. R.,20th Century Defenders of the Faith (London:SCM,1964) p.98.Google Scholar

⁴² The most celebrated instance beingForsyth,P. T.,The Person and Place of Jesus Christ (London:Independent Press,1930).Google Scholar