We have entered on a period of history in which it is becoming difficult to obtain a hearing for the New Testament and Reformed doctrine of the Word of God. For it rests on the belief in a Word which God has spoken from beyond, once for all in time, and which is absolute, ultimate, and authoritative for the Church.

It is not a truth which can be arrived at by scientific investigation, and on that account it is a scandalon to the scientist, and to this scientifically-minded generation. It is not a truth which is discoverable by the study of history (although it has been given inside history), and therefore it is a scandalon to the historian. It is not a truth which can be reached by the processes of human thought, and on that account it is a scandalon to the philosopher—“ the scandal of particularity ”—because of its claim to be absolute, authoritative, and “ once for all”.

During the past quarter of a century the problem of Old Testament Theology has been the subject of discussion by a succession of well-known scholars (such as Rudolf Kittel, Marti, Gressmann, W. Staerk, Steuernagel, Eissfeldt, Eichrodt and Weiser) and still the debate shows no signs of coming to an end. In fact at the present time there are very deep cleavages of opinion among students of the Bible and among theologians, the consequent confusion of thought in the minds of many people leading to grave embarrassment. The question at issue is related to, though not identical with, the question as to what one has a right to expect of an Old Testament commentator. In this connection I need scarcely remind you that during the few years immediately before the War, more particularly in Germany and Switzerland, there was a tremendous amount of writing and discussion about the true nature of Biblical exegesis. The circumstances of the time, which included a violent attack delivered from certain directions upon the Old Testament, sufficiently explain why all this high debate should have taken place just then. The debate goes on and a solution is not yet in sight.

In all this, most serious theological issues are involved in so far as the present theological confusion means that many people, who are interested in the Old Testament and wish to make use of it for personal edification or in religious instruction, are sincerely perplexed by the results of Old Testament scholarship and so are inclined to set them on one side and get on with the business in hand in their own way.

The text of a lecture delivered in German by the author in September 1944 in the Church of the village of Riehen at the Conference of Members of the Church Courts and Commissions and the Officials, Presidents and Directors of the Parish Choirs of Basle, and in English in January 1948 before the Theological Faculties of the Universities of Cambridge and Manchester. The English translation is by the Rev. James W. Leitch, B.D.

Concluded from previous issue of the Journal 5. Lutheranism and German Protestantism1 The difference in spirit between Calvinism and Lutheranism is illustrated by Melanchthon's famous phrase: hoc est Christum cognoscere, beneficia eius cognoscere. There are of course evident dangers in the wholesale application of the principle, and later Lutheranism did not successfully avoid them. The religious egotism to which it gave rise was certainly too anthropocentric to convey an unobjectionable view of the relation between God and man. It is not by chance, as Brunner (Mediator p. 408) points out, that Ritschl is found repeatedly appealing to the principle in defence of a point of view which really regards God as the “guarantee of the value of human life”. Yet if there is any place where the principle can exert a salutary influence upon theological thought, it is in the doctrine of Predestination. Calvin avoided the pernicious consequences of the principle in virtue of his consistent emphasis on the sovereignty of God. But it would be difficult to defend Calvinism against the charge of scholasticism as it worked out the doctrine of Predestination in obedience to this emphasis, without the corrective influence of Melanchthon's principle. It can hardly be disputed that at this point faith begins to breathe more freely as it turns from the austere and highly rarefied atmosphere of Calvinism to the more robust air of Lutheranism. (i) Heppe is incontestably right in his judgment that the principle of Protestantism was to “ vindicate for the believer the certainty of the possessor of salvation in the promise and reality of God”.

In His Foreword to an impressive volume, the Bishop of Oxford hails as the happiest ecclesiastical development of the last halfcentury the growing desire for unity among Christians. Nevertheless he finds himself profoundly disquieted when as in South India this desire leads to the formulation of plans for reunion which accept the institution of episcopacy but stipulate that no theory of it shall be obligatory. “The doctrine of the ministry is the crux of the whole matter, involving the continuous integrity of the Gospel of Christ throughout the ages.” With this Presbyterians must have some sympathy. Dr. Kirk has oversimplified the problem and, so far as Presbyterianism is concerned, quite misunderstood it, when he continues: “ Is the ministry ‘ from above ’ or ‘from below ’? Is it a gift to the Church from her Founder and Saviour, or an expedient evolved by the Church to meet the exigencies of her daily life? Has it a commission transmitted in orderly sequence from the Lord Himself, or is it commissioned simply and solely by the congregation of believers among whom the minister is to serve? ”On this issue Presbyterians stand solidly with him, except in the interpretation of the words ” transmitted in orderly sequence”. To make matters of order enter into the substance of the faith is primitive Presbyterianism, as it was no feature of original Anglicanism.

The Apostolic Ministry is a volume of outstanding importance, as Professor Burleigh points out in his review, not only because of its wealth of learning but because in many respects it represents a change of front on the part of Anglicans in the realisation that it is ultimately upon theological grounds that a true conception of the ministry must rest. At the same time it cannot but be of extreme interest to the Reformed Churches in that it approaches their view that the ministry is creative of the Church. Nevertheless the precise interpretation given to that doctrine in these pages throws out a real challenge to the Reformed Churches which must be taken seriously, particularly as it has been thrown out in view of the widespread movement for re-union. I have no hesitation, therefore, in adding to the excellent review above a further discussion particularly of the more theological issues raised.

At the very outset something must be said about the methods employed by the various scholars who contribute to this book. It is refreshing to find here the combination of biblical and historical research with dogmatic construction or reconstruction. That is a method of investigation which I, for one, welcome, as being a great advance even upon the impartial scholarly method of men like Lightfoot, Hort, and Swete, and I find myself in definite agreement with them against many of their predecessors in this field in their insistence that, apart from a doctrine of the ministry, no real progress can be made through the criss-cross tradition of Church history on this subject.

The Ministry of the Church is a reprint of the reviews of the muchdiscussed volume, The Apostolic Ministry, which have appeared in The Record, to which has been added a preliminary chapter by Bishop Stephen Neill. For its scope and size it is about as good as anything could be; and it is highly satisfactory to find that progressive Evangelicals within the Church of England are rousing themselves to vigorous and effective warfare against a theory of the Church and ministry whose doctrinal implications strike at the very heart of their Evangelicalism. Something like a note of “righteous wrath” can be heard from time to time in these articles, and inasmuch as this note is sounded in the tones of first-rate scholarship, it is very welcome. The task of the writers was indeed a formidable one. They had to deal with a volume vast in bulk, heavily weighted with erudition, and abounding in historical constructions and generalisations of a very far-reaching kind. The number of effective criticisms which they have been able to make within so small a compass is really astonishing.

In the main, they have concerned themselves with three lines of attack. They have set themselves to show first of all how slender are the assured historical data from which so vast a web of theory has been spun.