from a viewpoint which made it inevitable that Tillich's
thought should prove unsatisfactory in his eyes.

The same may be said of Professor Kenneth Hamilton
book, The System and the Gospel, which is to be published
concurrently with mine. It seems that Professor Hamilton
wants to argue much the same thesis as Father Tavard--that
the demands of the system militate against the proper expression
of the Gospel. He does many things that I also wish to do--such
as criticizing the ambiguity of Tillich's thought--but always
for the sole purpose of showing the reader the error of Tillich's
ways. My aim has been to try and show the bare bones of the
system and the way in which they are so richly clothed with
flesh, and only then to point out confusions and errors. In
short, I have attempted an introduction and evaluation rather
than a simple critique. True, Tillich needs to be criticized
with all the power and penetration we can muster, but we
also need to understand what he is saying. I have sought,
above all, to repay a pupil's double debt--to say what I have
learned and to pull my teacher's work to bits. And now I am
very conscious of having attempted far more than I have been
able to achieve.

Many people have shown me much kindness and I must
indicate my gratitude. My friend, Dr H. Cunliffe-Jones, read
the entire manuscript and made several useful criticisms.
Professors Ramsey and McIntyre, the editors of the SCM Press
Library of Philosophy and Theology, also encouraged me with
constructive criticism. I am grateful to them for having saved
me from infelicities, inaccuracies and errors, and if any such
faults remain the responsibility is, of course, entirely mine.
Thanks are also due to the editors of The Scottish Journal of
Theology and The London Quarterly Review for their permission
to use material that has appeared in their journals, to the
editorial staff of the SCM Press for their patience, and to Miss
June Hogg who typed the manuscript.

J. H. T.

-10-