Clement of Rome has often been judged and found wanting by his Protestant interpreters. His letter is frequently presented as “a good illustration of the break between the New Testament faith and the Apostolic Fathers' lapse into moralism.” (And “moralism,” to put it mildly, is not always a pleasant word in Protestant theological circles.) Rudolf Knopf calls attention to the “rationalen Moralismus des Schreibens.” And Johannes Weiss says that “a strong moralism runs through all its expressions from the first page to the last.” When James Mackinnon gives us examples of Christian moralism in the sub-apostolic period, Clement is of course present in a prominent way, as indeed he is also significantly present when H. E. W. Turner mentions the “tradition of ‘sober moralism’ which was so notable a feature of late first-century and early second-century Christianity.” Moreover, A. C. McGiffert stands in the same tradition of interpretation when he says that for Clement “salvation is to be had only by obeying God and doing his will.” One could of course go on and on citing examples of this kind, but it seems unnecessary to do so, especially in view of the fact that a great many more illustrations are readily available in Thomas F. Torrance's The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers. Not only does Professor Torrance mention numerous scholars who stress the moralism of Clement, but also he himself comes to the conclusion that grace in I Clement appears to be an “enabling power granted to those who are worthy.” Clement “may use the language of election and justification, but the essentially Greek idea of the unqualified freedom of choice is a natural axiom in his thought, and entails a doctrine of ‘works,’ as Paul would have said.”

During the eighteenth century the major problem confronting the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland was that of survival. Throughout most of the century the Irish Catholic clergy had to live and work under a code of laws designed to destroy the ecclesiastical organization of their church and, thereby, to end Catholic religious observances in Ireland. In their effects, however, the Popery laws failed their purpose. Ireland was not transformed into a state, “Protestant and past all danger of relapsing again into Popery.” In all of their respective parts, the laws against priests were impossible to enforce, perhaps never even meant to be enforced. Although the laws were sufficiently enforced to affect profoundly Catholic religious institutions and religious practices, Ireland's Catholic environment was never destroyed and never replaced by a Protestant one. The Irish language, divisions among Protestants, self-interest, jobbery, politics, missed opportunities, and stupidity combined to prevent rigorous enforcement of the laws and to frustrate the missionary and educational schemes planned by the leaders of the Established Church.

The first two words of the title simply accent the conciliarist refusal to separate Christian reform and ecclesiastical unity. Pierre d'Ailly insisted that there could be no true reformation without union, no true union without reformation. The principles necessarily delimited here in terms of their most frequently recurring expression are discussed under five large heads.

Aside from conversions, the most notable and noble achievements of the Congregational and Presbyterian missionaries, who journeyed to the Sandwich Islands under the auspices of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, were the systematization of the Hawaiian language, the development of an educational system, and the preparation of literature to be used in the churches and schools. Evangelism was the primary function of the mission, but teaching and printing, although auxiliary to the main function, played a large and significant role in the christianizing process. Through the printed word the missionaries gained access to the hearts and minds of their pupils; religious concepts and ideas were incorporated in the reading material; thus teachers converted as they taught.

After nearly a century of division the Presbyterian Church in the United States (the southern church) and the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (the northern church) attempted to unite in 1954. The southern Presbyterians voted against the merger and kept America's two largest Presbyterian bodies divided. Although little was said concerning race relations during the debates on unification, there is reason to believe that the race issue was extremely important in the defeat of the plan in the South. Two sociologists, perhaps exaggerating, have concluded that it was the key factor in the failure of union. In 1955 the moderator of the southern church told the General Assembly of the North that he felt the Negro question, in particular the Supreme Court's decision on school desegregation, affected the vote; and the organ of the North, Presbyterian Life, echoed this opinion.

Sources for discovery of the missionary motivation of the Indian evangelists and their supporters in seventeenth century New England are scanty. Nevertheless, the most compelling factors come clearly to view. The avowed missionary intent of colonization, as voiced in the Plymouth and Massachusetts Charters, was not one of these. The directors of the colonial companies might have had the notion of serving God and checking Roman Catholic political expansion through Protestant missions, but such an aim was of little force in the thinking of the colonist and his children. They were, indeed, creating a Christian commonwealth. They were completing the Reformation also in a place at the end of the earth. It had to be wrested from the heathen who possessed it. But this extension of Christendom was by the displacement of the heathen, not by their conversion.