But one must not, in one’s admiration, forget justice. What is here set forth is not absolutely new. A view of a similar character, and more closely reasoned, had been put forward by Kabisch—Kabisch,_(_134_)_ whom theologians had passed over in complete silence, because they did not know what to make of him. Wrede does nothing else than to give to the presentation of the latter’s discoveries the advantage of his literary skill, while at the same time showing that the separation of “theory” (theology) and “religion” which had barred the way to their acceptance is not tenable. There is one thing which is to be regretted in Wrede’s book, and that is that the terse popular method of presentation forbids any detailed discussion of the problems. If the author had worked [pg 169] out his arguments thoroughly, and replied to his opponents and predecessors, he would have been obliged to face many questions which, as it was, did not force themselves upon him. What are the points that remain obscure? Wrede proposes to conceive the possibility of redemption in such a way that “mankind,” in view of Christ’s solidarity with the race by virtue of His earthly life, has a part in His death and resurrection. This view is, in this form, untenable. In Paul, salvation has not reference to mankind as a whole, but only to the elect. It is also questionable whether the idea of racial solidarity suffices to explain how the death and resurrection of Jesus can realise themselves in other men. What is the basis of the mystical union with Christ? To this question Wrede has given no answer. Then, too, the inconsistent attitude of Paul towards the law was not explained by him. He does not even succeed in showing how the Apostle arrived at the idea that the law was no longer valid. The suggestion that it was in part through his experience at his conversion, in part through the exigencies of the mission to the Gentiles, is a mere expedient. Unless it is possible to explain Paul’s attitude, with all its inner contradictions, as a logical and necessary conclusion from his system as a whole, it remains for us practically unexplained._(_135_)_ Again, Wrede gives no scheme of the events of the End, although such a scheme obviously belongs to the “system.” It is not explained, either, how the death of Jesus can be interpreted at the same time as taking place for the forgiveness of sins. In general, the relation between the essential theology, as laid down in the mystical doctrine of redemption, and the “controversial doctrines” is not clear. [pg 170]