The naïve spiritualisation of the theology as practised by Holsten, Pfleiderer, and Holtzmann—by the latter no longer quite naïvely,—was over and done with._(_127_)_ The recognition of a “physical”_(_128_)_ aspect in Paul’s expectations of the future was no longer sufficient. It had to be [pg 163] admitted that his doctrine of redemption as a whole bore this character, and that the fundamental strain in his mysticism was not ethical but physical, as Lüdemann had declared as long ago as 1872 without suspecting the far-reaching consequences of his observation. The only question now was how much had to be conceded to this alien system of thought which was endeavouring to draw Paul within its borders, and how much could be saved from it. In this quandary theologians had recourse to the expedient of applying the distinction between “theoretical” (theological) and “religious” to the doctrine of the Apostle, as Holtzmann had already tried to do when he could no longer refuse to recognise its Gnostic, intellectualistic character. The position became especially critical in view of the concessions which had to be made regarding the Pauline conception of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Up to this time, that chapter had given little trouble to theological science. It had been taken for granted that at bottom it could only be a question of symbolism. The doctrine of redemption on its ethical side found, it was thought, in the sacred ceremonies its cultual expression. Holtzmann, too, in the section on “Mystical Conceptions”_(_129_)_ _(Mysteriöses)_ had still to all intents and purposes taken the same ground. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are, he explains, in the first place, acts of confession by which the death of the Lord is proclaimed. To this has to be added, in the case of the Lord’s Supper, the significance of a communion meal, and in the case of baptism the value of a symbolic act. It creates, according to Romans vi., a mystical fellowship with the buried and risen Christ. “The outward symbol of complete immersion signifies and represents the disappearance of the old, fleshly man, the coming forth out of the water represents the forthgoing of a new, spiritual man.” Paul, Holtzmann thinks, puts the content of his [pg 164] “experience” into this ceremonial act, and thereby cuts it loose from the earlier view which had arisen from its connexion with John the Baptist. Strictly speaking, he transforms both the cultus-acts, by bringing his new conception of Christianity into connexion with them in order to give it cultual expression.