The last issue of the Scottish Journal of Theology opens with a series of four articles on Amsterdam which provide much matter for thought and discussion. Professor Haire's summary of the implications is an excellent one, though all too short, for space does not permit him to develop some of the interesting points raised, which one feels he could do most competently. Bishop Warner's article has a special attraction in that it expresses the Anglican view from the inside; moreover, he makes interesting references to the attitude of laymen towards the Ecumenical Movement, and the following pages are an attempt to deal with some aspects of reunion where the lay and clerical outlooks may tend to diverge.

The distinction between clerical and lay appeared early in the history of the Church as a natural influence of pagan and Jewish practice, and is assumed by Clement of Rome, who, however, makes an important point when he treats the laity as an order: “to the high priest his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests the proper place has been allotted, and on levites their proper services have been imposed; the layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity.” In course of time the gulf widened between clergy and laity and the laity degenerated into mere spectators, the liturgy being in the hands of the clergy. The distinction is sufficiently plain in Tertullian and Origen. The conception of opus operatum, though not intended to exclude the co-operation either of the celebrant or of the receiver, had the practical effect of setting the people a great distance away; and lay communion in one kind, though this was not its motive, seemed to symbolise the separation.

In the foregoing number of this Journal Dr. J. A. T. Robinson has done us the service of raising once again the question of universalism in a way that both merits admiration and challenges discussion. Rarely has the case for universalism been stated so adroitly and so persuasively, but when even that statement rests upon deep inconsistencies one has less hesitation in turning away from the formidable authorities which he cites to the voice of the Catholic Church which throughout all ages has consistently judged universalism as a heresy for faith and a menace to the Gospel. Without doubt however there is a great truth here and that must be disentangled from the dangerous untruth.

Some years ago, on Christmas Eve, I was invited to explain the significance of Christmas to a group of Hindu students in one of the Institutions at Sevagram (Mr. Gandhi's Ashram). In the discussion which followed the address, the thoughtful Principal of this Institution said something like this: “Would it not be correct to say that the real difference between you Christians and ourselves is that you teach that forgiveness is possible, while we believe it is impossible and the idea immoral?”

Prophetic speech and action have been regarded with suspicion both in the old Israel and in the new. The doctors and lawyers of the church have sought to apply the brake (“Prophesy not any more in Bethel…”). In the past, theological dealing with prophetic movements has often been haphazard, unsympathetic, or scholastic. We stand now at some watershed of history. It is of urgent importance that sound theology and right action should have a church wedding. In this article I hope to do no more than draw attention to the danger that theological thinking to-day may do less than justice to prophetic action. The theologian may misinterpret the nature and scope of his task. My concern that this should not happen is sharpened by my membership of a movement which I count prophetic, the Iona Community (though in this article I speak personally, in no sense as the Community's representative). Where any such movement exists the theologian has inevitably his contribution to make. There is the obvious need to sift affirmations and scrutinise methods. It is the manner of that contribution which requires careful thought.