At the end of February 1950 there was published a directive from the Vatican concerning the rules to be observed by Roman Catholics on the occasion of ecumenical conversations. These show clearly how seriously such conversations are taken in that quarter. The line of thought developed in the following pages is not intended as a critical analysis and discussion of the Vatican declaration; it was complete in writing before that was published. Our aim here is rather to consider in a general way elements of difficulty and promise in ecumenical conversations. Of course the following reflections are purely private in character although they do endeavour to give due weight to a variety of experience gained within the Ecumenical Movement and also in the struggle of the Confessional Church in Germany. It would perhaps be in the interest of the Ecumenical Movement if we can come to see clearly and without illusions what are the limits that are set here to all human efforts and at the same time try to direct our view to the Lord of the Church, who alone can bring about the unification of Christendom.

I have chosen to speak of Existentialism in France for two reasons. First because it is in France that Existential thinking has won its most distinguished success, both as a fashionable craze among laymen, and in the region of philosophical research. Amongst contemporary Existential thinkers, Jean-Paul Sartre and Gabriel Marcel stand out as leaders, and it is to their contrasting types of thinking that we shall pay most attention. But the second reason for confining attention mainly to French Existentialism is that there are so many other types of Existential thinking to be found in various countries. Not only France, but Denmark, Germany, Russia, Italy, Spain, and to a lesser degree America and Britain, have thinkers whose basis of thought is existentialist. And as Foulquié says: “There are as many Existentialisms as there are Existentialist philosophers”. Moreover the claim is made that Existentialist modes of thought are to be found even in Classical Philosophy. Mounier in his book Existentialist Philosophies has an interesting illustration which throws light on this history of Existentialism. He calls it “the Existential Tree”. Below the ground the several roots of this tree are labelled “Socrates”, “Stoics”, “St. Augustine” and “St. Bernard”. Where the stem emerges from the ground we find “Pascal”. The long trunk bears the name of “Kierkegaard”. At the top of the trunk, before the branches spread out, “Phenomenology” indicates that this type of philosophy is a basis of most modern Existentialist thinking. The branches are labelled with fourteen names, representing authors from various countries.

It was Gerald Heard who said: “Newton banished God from nature, Darwin banished Him from life, and now Freud has banished Him from His last stronghold, the soul.” The one thing I wish here to suggest about that dictum is this—that if for great numbers of our contemporaries the effect of Newton, Darwin and Freud has been to banish the divine, it has even more emphatically been to banish the demonic. St. Paul's “principalities and powers” and “spirit forces of evil” are now known, we are told, to have been mere apocalyptic imagination.

Mark 4.1–34 is a stretch of the Gospel where it is specially important for the English-speaking student working under the guidance of Rawlinson's great commentary to be aware that much water has flowed under the bridge since 1925; for during the last quarter of a century much has been published that bears directly on the exegesis of this section. The problem of the parables of Jesus is so fascinating, so tantalisingly difficult, and of such obvious importance, that we are forced to return to it again and again. In the first part of this article we shall look at vv. 3–9 and 13–20; in the second part we hope to look at the structure of the whole section and then to concentrate our attention on the notorious crux interpretum, vv. 11 and 12.

It has often been remarked that the last verse of this passage is an epitome of the teaching of the three great eighth century prophets: the appeal of Amos for justice; Hosea's unfolding of the meaning of hesedh; Isaiah's summons to the life of humble faith and obedience, which was the outcome of his vision of the holy and living God of Israel. Nowhere is the prophetic message more concisely and powerfully expressed. There are about these words a dignity and comprehensiveness which may easilytempt the modern reader to isolate them from what precedes, and so to miss the ground and the significance of the prophetic appeal. As George Adam Smith wrote many years ago: “Usually it is only the last of the verses upon which the admiration of the reader is bestowed: What doth the Lord require of thee, O man, but to do justice and love mercy and walk humbly with thy God? But in truth the rest of the passage differeth not in glory; the wonder of it lies no more in its peroration than in its argument as a whole.”1 The observation is salutary. We have not adequately interpreted these words (v. 8) when we see in them simply an ethical counterblast to a religion whose requirements were exclusively cultic and formal, or when we think of them as merely enunciating an austere but unattainable moral standard, as law without gospel. Nor ought they to be dismissed as an impressive testimony to a faith which we have outgrown.

Many readers will have access to J. Armitage Robinson's valuable note on the meaning of pleroma in his Ephesians (Macmillan, 1903), containing not only some important illustrative quotations from secular writers and from the Old Testament, but also a famous critique of the findings of previous scholars, in particular of J. B. Lightfoot.1 The present article is an attempt to consider once more, but only in outline, the meaning of the root pler-(“fill”, “fulness”, etc.), and to show, in rather more detail, its bearing on the theology of the New Testament.

In Mark 10.17–31 (= Matt. 19.16–30 = Luke 18.18–30) we have a section made up of three parts: (1) the episode of the rich man who asks Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life (Mark 10.17–22).; (2) a conversation between Jesus and His disciples (Mark 10.23–27); and (3) a remark by Peter (in Matt, it has a question appended) and Jesus' reply (Mark 10.28–31). The whole section might be entitled: “Riches and the Kingdom of God”.