The question of the relation of language to being in general, and of theological language to the divine being in particular, is no new question. It was one which confronted the early Church Fathers in a very pressing fashion when they came to deal with the theological formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity. Heretical teaching caused them to wrestle with the problems and to discuss what is involved in the use of human language to set forth divine realities. At a time when the problem of theological language is very much in the forefront in present day discussions, it is immensely helpful to turn to the Fathers and to see how they dealt with these questions and to endeavour to learn from them.

When the nineteenth-century historian R. W. Dixon called Peter Martyr Vermigli ‘a learned stranger’ he was reflecting what Martyr's own contemporaries had said. For example, Edmund Grindal, Bishop of London wrote to Sir William Cecil about Martyr's role at the Colloquy of Poissy:

The aim of this essay is to come to an understanding of how Paul relates ethics to justification; but to begin with Paul's epistles themselves often lead one into categories of thought, especially in relation to ethics, that are used rather unconsciously and which presuppose at least certain types of answers. Any theologian who deludes himself into believing that he may begin studying a topic purely on the basis of the Greek text is almost surely doomed to repetition of past theological mistakes. Rather than ignore the influences and prejudices which operate in his thought patterns, the serious theologian must take cognisance of them as cornerstones for constructive thinking or reject them as too confining for fruitful thought. It is for this very reason that we must begin by looking at two representative thinkers of Catholic and Protestant theology in the field of ethics so that we may be aware of the traditional categories of thought that pervade the language and much of modern thought in ethics.

Unless it is to resemble a voice without a speaker, Christology must pre-suppose a backing in Theism; and any talk of Revelation must assume some conviction, to be more or less rationally defended, of the existence of the God who speaks. Such a Theism, admittedly, can by no means be erected from the bricks of the discursive reason alone; for reason is often, if not always, simply the finding of reasons for what one cannot help but believe by a sort of insight, intuition–or even inspiration. Yet reason, together with the language in which it is bound up, is the common factor which we all share with each other; so that if Theism is to be given a hearing, it must be able publicly to commend itself by the displaying of some reasons, even if (as is the case) those reasons fall short of proof. Such at any rate is my excuse for what follows.

The philosopher John Macmurray's specifically theological intent, contribution, and method stand strangely neglected. In the past decade theologians have argued that his philosophic work might suggest a new natural theology. Such is the case in appreciative comments by John A. T. Robinson and Thomas A. Langford. Both focus on the primacy that Macmurray accords the ‘personal’, and the bearing that this might have on an apologetic for the ‘religious dimension of life’. That Macmurray, however, might be more adequately interpreted as theologian than as philosopher only, that his philosophy itself might legitimately be considered the development of a theological position, and that finally his work might point the way toward reorientation of the relationship between theology and other human sciences will be argued in this article.

In the course of the history of Christianity two types of approaches were expressed in relation to Judaism. They are those expressed by the phrase adversus Judaeos and by Justin Martyr's Dialogos pros Tryphona. The first type has been more prevalent. Beginning with Tertullian a great bulk of literature has been written ‘against the Jews’, contra Judaeos. The dialogue with Trypho seems to have been an anomaly in the flood of literature that was written against Judaism. Among the persons who spoke against Judaism most prominently are St. John Chrysostom and St. Augustine.