When a little band of Dominicans, led by Friar Gilbert de Fresney, arrived in Oxford on the feast of Our Lady’s Assumption, August the 15th, 1221, the University was already rising to fame. Oxford, however, at that date was in no sense the rival of Paris. Her glory was yet to come—a glory to which the newly arrived friars were to contribute considerably. Oxford gave Gilbert and his brethren an enthusiastic welcome and in a short time they were able to erect a small convent and schools in the Jewry. Their fame spread, their numbers increased, and in less than three years they had outgrown their accommodation and were forced to seek a new and larger home. At the suggestion of King Henry III they chose for their new site a river-island in the south suburb of the town, outside the Water Gate in the parish of St. Ebbe. The king himself owned this property, which he generously made over to the friars. And Isabel Bolbec de Vere, the widowed Countess of Oxford, undertook to build them a new priory. It is interesting to note that, fifty years later, another widowed Countess of Oxford, Alice de Vere, rebuilt the convent of the Dominicans in the sister University of Cambridge. Walter Mauclerk, Bishop of Carlisle and Treasurer of England, also proved a signal benefactor to the community amongst whom he entered as a novice in 1246. Countess Isabel died in 1245, a few months before the friars entered their new abode.

Two recent efforts towards Reunion between the Church of England and the Eastern Orthodox Church are worthy of notice.

The first is entitled Terms of Intercommunion suggested between the Church of England and the Churches in communion with her and the Eastern Orthodox Church (S.P.C.K.). “These terms were drawn up at the request of the Eastern Churches Committee appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and are now published at their request.”

The second is entitled The Relations of the Anglican Churches with the Eastern Orthodox, especially in regard to Anglican Orders, by the Rev. J. A. Douglas, B.D. (The Faith Press, pp. 198 ; 12s.).

As an organism is essentially defined in terms, not of what it is, but of what it will become, and as movement is essentially defined in terms, not of its term whence but of its term whereto, we are loath to criticize the present state of a movement which may one day re-unite the scattered flocks of Christendom. We are not sure that the present interchange of terms between semi-official groups on either side is a display of sincere faith. But if it is a display of sincere charity we may hope that divisions and schisms begotten and fostered by a lack of love may be undone when charity—which is the love of truth—has come unto its own. For this reason we would ask the writer of the second work to drink deeply of the spirit of the first. The recurrent anti-papalism of his work is but a dubious compliment to the Orthodox Christians with whom he wishes to intercommunicate.