Volume 17, Issue 2

This paper discusses the theology of Alexander Penrose Forbes, Bishop of Brechin in the Scottish Episcopal Church and the first Anglican bishop in the British Isles to be deeply influenced by Tractarianism. A close confidant of Edward Bouverie Pusey, he extended Pusey's patristic proof-texting method into discussion of the Church of England formularies, especially the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion. His main work was an explanation of this key reformation text, which offers a good illustration of a historicist understanding of Catholicism. Like Pusey, Forbes was involved in ecumenical discussion with Roman Catholics, and was motivated principally by the attempt to find a common conservative front against the perceived liberalism that seemed to be affecting European religion and politics in the mid-nineteenth century.

Nowadays Troeltsch's discussion of Calvinism is usually – if unjustly – regarded as a confessional typology which has had its day. An analysis of the relevant texts from Troeltsch's time in Heidelberg both clarifies his understanding in the context of his theory of Protestantism and at the same time its distinctiveness from Weber's famous study of Calvinism. Troeltsch's discussion can then be reconstructed as a good example of the application of his historical method. The interdependence of factors emerging from the history of ideas and social history reveals an ambivalent and distinct history of development which moves beyond confessional boundaries. On this basis Protestantism is shown to have a constructive relationship to western social ideas including democracy, human rights and pluralist society. In distinction to the over-emphasis on Lutheranism of his contemporaries, Troeltsch regards this series of developments as the contribution of Calvinism to a religiously-based culture of responsibility under the conditions of modernity.

Theological study and teaching at Oxford prior to the First World War have been characterized as unambitious and lacking in critical rigour. In contrast to the constructive theological endeavours of biblical scholars at Cambridge or the bold revisionism of F.D. Maurice at King's College London, Oxford's theological teaching and research are perceived through the lens of E.B. Pusey and his High Church colleagues. Prior to the First World War, however, circumstances and personalities coincided to produce a radical set of proposals from the Board of the Faculty of Theology under the leadership of Henry Scott Holland, Regius Professor of Divinity from 1910 until his death in 1918. Had Oxford's graduate legislative assembly, Convocation, not comprehensively rejected the reforms approved by the resident MAs, Oxford's Faculty might have been transformed into an influential centre of comparative religion. In this article, the prevailing accounts of Oxonian ‘narrowness’ are challenged through an account of this seminal moment in the history of the Faculty. Using correspondence from the Bodleian Library Special Collections, minutes and reports from the Oxford University Archives, pamphlet material and national, ecclesiastical, and University journals, the article seeks to identify the reasoning behind the proposed reforms and the significance of that reasoning for the history of modern theology in England. In so doing, it is suggested that the standard characterization of theological life at Oxford in the ‘long nineteenth century’ merits revision and further clarification.

This essay examines the theology of the nineteenth century Danish theologian and churchman Hans Lassen Martensen (1808–1884), focusing on the disputed question of the kenotic character of Martensen's Christology. A survey of the scholarship on this question is followed by discussions of Martensen's doctrine of God and his Christology, giving particular attention to his controversial notion of the double life of the Logos, i. e. the view that the Logos continued to enjoy an unlimited divine existence in the sphere of eternity while simultaneously living a limited, earthly human existence for the duration of the incarnation. The essay concludes by arguing that Martensen has developed a form of Nestorianism and that his Christology can best be classified as ‘Nestorian kenoticism,’ i. e. an eccentric and problematic form of Christology which affirms the abandonment by the logos ensarkos of the divine attributes during the incarnation, while at the same time insisting that the logos asarkos remains unaffected and in full possession of his powers.