It Was significant of H. R. Mackintosh and his whole theological position that he made his class for the preparation of sermons a part of his course in theology. He often declared that the test of theology is whether it will preach well. When we first heard it, it may not have carried conviction. But experience taught us how true it is.

Professor Mackintosh considered that the task of theology was to assist the proclamation of the Gospel. In his eyes theology was not an academic study but a practical one, because the Gospel is not so much the explanation of life as the cure of its disorder. It was his duty as a theologian to explain and justify the doctrine of the Church. But he never forgot that it would be the duty of his students when they became ministers of the Church to translate that doctrine into proclamation and appeal. If such preaching carried conviction and strengthened faith, then the theology behind it would be justified. To take an example-he used to draw a distinction between the positive and negative sides of the doctrine of election. He argued that the positive form of the doctrine is a conviction of believing experience. It declares that faith rests upon the grace of God which was directed towards the believer before ever he responded to it, and that he can count upon it to sustain him to the end.

The main theme of this paper is that, whereas in general, Greek thought sharply distinguishes and indeed opposes the notion of ‘word’ and the notion of ‘act’, the thought of the Old Testament so closely associates the two that it can use one term for both; and further that while traces of the Greek attitude are certainly to be found in the New Testament, yet it is the OT attitude which is dominant. It will be maintained that recognition of this fact is of the utmost importance for the understanding of NT thought in general, and in particular is relevant to an understanding of the NT view of (I) God and History, (2) The Incarnation.

We may begin our survey of Protestant theology where Karl Barth left it off in Die Protestantische Theologie im Neunzehnten Jahrhundert, which he ended with the observation that for all his popularity and following, Ritschl failed finally to carry the day. Theology moved on beyond his moral evaluation of Christ. Even those under the influence of Ritschl did not simply repeat what he had said—e.g. Wilhelm Herrmann. In May 1900 Adolf Harnack's The Essence of Christianity was published. Harnack's aim was to demonstrate what the various Churches and Christian communities held in common: that God is our Father and the human soul is of infinite value. As to the Gospel of Jesus Christ he declared, ‘Not the Son but the Father alone has a place in the Gospel proclaimed by Jesus’.

This is a very serious subject. Perhaps we are afraid to speak about it because of the controversies that once raged between pietism and the orthodoxy of Protestant scholasticism, controversies that have not yet been settled. Let us not forget, however, that even scholasticism spoke of conversion. There is a hymn by Paul Gerhard which runs:

The need for conversion is never forgotten. The only difference between orthodoxy and pietism in this respect concerns the manner in which this need can be met. The claim that is made upon us radically alters our whole life: conversion means a complete reversal. We know from personal experience as well as from the experience of others the feeling of apprehension when someone tries to ‘convert’ us. We may want to avoid a certain house or a particular group of people because we feel: ‘They want to convert me.’ Perhaps that feeling is caused by misunderstanding, for turning to God is joy—that is a fact that is often overlooked when we speak of conversion. But the challenge remains: Be converted.

In the first part of this article we shall have a look at several features of this passage: discussion of the empty tomb, of the discrepancies between our several sources, and of the question whether Mark intended to end his Gospel with 16.8, we reserve for the second part.

According to all four Gospels women were the first to receive the news of the Lord's resurrection. According to Matthew, the Markan appendix and John it was also a woman or women who first saw the risen Lord, though Luke would seem to agree with Paul in representing Peter as the first to see Him. Is this precedence of women in the Easter narratives of the Gospels significant?