“A Reform manifesto”: Thus did Professor James Mackinnon characterise Luther's Commentary on Romans. This twofold collection of interlinear and marginal glosses (glossae) and continuous expositions (scholia), discovered only at the birth of the present century and first published in 1908 under the editorship of Johannes Ficker, represents the doctrinal core of the Protestant Reformation. The Wittenberg Theses only marked the practical outcome of a theological revolution which had already been announced in Luther's Lectures on Romans, delivered in the years 1515 and 1516. This declaration of theological independence merits close attention. It is indeed a work of genius “of very great span, of remarkable clarity and vigour,” as Henri Strohl affirmed. Karl Holl went even further. He regarded this as Luther's greatest achievement, along with his Galatians, and thought it still unsurpassed.

An exposition of recent trends in Anglican Evangelical Theology can best be introduced by referring to the Preface of a book which is but little known to-day, the Horae Homileticae of Charles Simeon, one time Vicar of Holy Trinity Church in Cambridge. His twenty-eight volumes of sermon “skeletons” are long since dead. They never possessed any very great influence in themselves but remain a monument of patient industry and remind us that the profound influence of Charles Simeon in his own day and upon many in succeeding generations was based on no superficial charm of personality but on a life deeply and profoundly rooted upon the rock of Scripture.

The acids of Universalism are biting deeply into our national life: and we are indebted to the Scottish Journal of Theology for this timely discussion. It was that good Scot, Alexander Whyte, who observed that “if fear slays its tens, presumption slays its thousands”. Nothing can be more natural than the hope that all may end happily in some future state of existence. But such a philosophy calls for some surer foundation than that of human opinion however ably presented. And there seems to be something alarming, to us at least who own allegiance to Christ as God, in the presumption that, to entertain this hope, we may lightly disregard His most solemn warnings as to the decisiveness of this present life. Were the ancient Greeks wrong in believing that presumption (hubris as they called it) was the prelude to disaster? Unquestionably Universalism has cost us dear in many ways. It is with its effects in the sphere of morals that this article is concerned.

In the New Testament there is only one principle or standard of Christian knowledge, character and life—Jesus Christ Himself. All other norms of religious insight, belief and practice are superseded in Him, or if they continue to be valid, it is because they have been taken up into Him, amended, reenacted and completed. In this sense the New Testament on what is really its first page asserts: “No one has at any time seen God; the divine One, the only Son, who is on the Father's breast, has made known the mystery.” All eyes in the New Testament are turned, therefore, towards the Christ who as the Living Word stands above the written word, as Head of the Church stands above the Church, and as Lord of history stands above history. Written word and Church are there, and exist in a relation of mutuality or interdependence; both of them are in subordination to Him who is their informing principle of authority. But this general recognition that Christ is the norm of life, character and thought for His people hardly prepares us for the singular fulness and diversity of the schematic formulations by the aid of which, in the Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament, the dependence of Christian life on Jesus is expressed and enforced. Some of these formulations are so sharply defined and featured that a brief reference may be made to them before we pass further on.

None of the findings of the Amsterdam Assembly has excited more interest than that which calls upon the Church to refuse to identify itself with either Communism or laissez-faire Capitalism. On the one hand this finding has brought the World Council of Churches into bad odour with big business circles in America: on the other hand it has caused a certain quiet rejoicing among British Socialists. It is not surprising that Labour supporters in Britain should claim to have the desired solution intermediate between Communism and Capitalism. What is surprising, however, is that some churchmen appear to be inclined to agree. Without being an opponent of Labour one may question the wisdom of such easy acceptance of its views. Would it not be wiser for churchmen to recall the social teaching of the Church in earlier ages and seek there the inspiration for new creative solutions?

The last number of the Scottish Journal of Theology contained an article of great interest and importance by Professor T. W. Manson under the title “Baptism in the Church”. It was a weighty and illuminating contribution to the discussion of the ordinance of baptism which is now proceeding vigorously in almost every Christian communion. One brought up in the Baptist tradition and adhering to it by conviction read with appreciation Professor Manson's admission of the strength of the case against infant baptism so far as it rests on the New Testament evidence. On the other hand, the general treatment of the subject and the conclusions reached include some rather surprising statements and raise a number of questions.

In reading the Gospels it is as well to bear in mind the process of selection which lies behind them; for the stories about Jesus which are included in the Gospels are, as Jn. 20.30, 21.25 remind us, only a small selection from a much larger mass of material. Quite often—and perhaps this is particularly true of the miracle-stories—the most effective approach to the question of an episode's message for ourselves is to ask what feature or features of it would have struck Christians of the fourth to seventh decades of the first century as specially significant and so contributed to its preservation, when so much was allowed to be forgotten. The purpose of this article is to indicate three such features of the episode recorded in Mk. 9.14-29 and to suggest that it is in them that we have also to recognise the significance of the passage for ourselves.

The limitations of a study of ideas upon a purely verbal basis are at once apparent in the case of Christian hope. Hope is conspicuous in many passages of the New Testament where the word itself does not occur. It is a sufficient indication of this fact that the word “hope” does not occur anywhere in the book of Revelation. For a complete investigation of the idea one would, therefore, have to examine not only the passages specially concerned with “hope” but every exhortation, every prayer and in fact every future tense in every book of the New Testament. If, however, we recognise the limitations of our study we may expect to find in the passages where the word itself appears a sufficient if not complete illumination of the characteristics of Christian hope, which is central as it is all-pervasive in New Testament thought.

The conception of the Remnant is a distinctive element in the national consciousness of Israel. It gives expression to the radical faith of that people in their national destiny. From a purely secular point of view it may be regarded as an idea of great survival value, contributing to the spiritual toughness of Israel. Such rationalisations are within limits illuminating and legitimate. When we turn to the particular Biblical witness to the Remnant we find that it divides into two main tendencies. In the optimistic message of the so-called false prophets it was an ingredient in the eschatology of weal which served to soothe the hearts and uplift the hopes of patriotic Israelites. It was a popular belief similar to that faith in the British capacity for muddling through, which at times appears in our own people. On the other hand in the preaching of the canonical prophets the popular conception of the Remnant was subjected to rough and critical treatment and received a fresh content. Our concern is to bring out this new content given to the conception by the Prophets and to determine the meaning and importance of the Remnant for the doctrine of the Church.