In words familiar to us all St. Paul observes that in Christ there is “neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free.” This is usually, and I think correctly, not taken to mean that the Apostle's ideal is the abolition of human distinctions in a blank uniformity. His own love for the figure of the Body with its various members suggests rather the maintenance of differences, freed from the stigma of inferiority, in the harmony of corporate life. We were reminded last year of the importance of the Barbarian, that is the non-Greek element in the Christian tradition. My subject this address is one of the chief representatives of another element—the Roman. Neither in the passage just quoted nor in the similar one in Galatians does the Roman appear in St. Paul's listing of the differences capable of being united in Christ. But St. John tells us that the titulus upon the cross of Jesus was written in Latin as well as in Hebrew and Greek. Pious as well as scholarly comment has seen in his emphasis on this point a reference to the place of Roman along with Greek and Jew in the Christian body, and in so doing has probably sensed correctly the intent of the Evangelist. Certainly the Roman striving for liberty under law is of great concern for us today, when the alternative to law appears to be not anarchy but despotism.

A strange contrast exists in the status of the Christian Church in the past seventy years. On the one hand the Church has clearly lost some of the ground which once appeared to be safely within its possession. On the other hand it has become more widely spread geographically and, when all mankind is taken into consideration, more influential in shaping human affairs than ever before in its history. In a paper as brief as this must of necessity be, space can be had only for the sketching of the broad outlines of this paradox and for suggesting a reason for it. If details were to be given, a large volume would be required. Perhaps, however, we can hope to do enough to point out one of the most provocative and important set of movements in recent history.

In the minds of many Americans Russia was born in the Revolution of 1917. Many Russians who first awakened to cultural life after that Revolution share this misconception. Yet Russia has a thousand-year-old past: she is one of the oldest nations in Europe. Her literature, her arts, particularly her music, had won the attention and the admiration of the world long ago. At the same time, the primitivity or backwardness of Russia in certain respects is undeniable. How can the highly refined civilization of a cultured few be reconciled with the barbarism of large strata of the people? And, on the other hand, what bridge can be thrown over the gulf created by the Revolution between the Russia of the past and the Russia of today? Radical and ruthless as any revolution may be, it is unable to destroy completely the continuity of life. After the waters of the flooded river recede into their shores the natural, permanent contours of the land reappear. A historically trained observer recognizes in Boishevist Russia the features of days long gone by.