It is interesting to notice how Wrede and Brückner, without themselves remarking it, have refuted one of the weightiest objections of the Ultra-Tübingen critics. [pg 172] The latter had asserted that it was impossible that the process of deification of the Person of Jesus could have reached its completion within a few years, and had claimed for it at least two generations. Now, however, it is shown that it is not this process at all, but another, which could take place in a moment, which has to be considered, since it is only a question of the taking up of the episode of the incarnation, death, and resurrection into the already present and living conception of the Messiah. The immediate effect of Wrede’s presentation of matters was that writers ventured more confidently to accept the “physical” view of the Pauline doctrine of redemption, and that the distinction between “theory” (theology) and religion, where writers could not make up their minds to do without it, was applied with moderation._(_141_)_ [pg 173] But he did not succeed in forcing on a thorough revision of previous views. Harnack, for instance, in the 1909 edition of the “History of Dogma” stands by his account of 1893, unshaken._(_142_)_ Reinhold Seeberg_(_143_)_ undertook in 1908 a very interesting attempt to walk in new paths, but does not deal with Wrede and his problems. He holds to the view that the Apostle did not create “a unified system,” but that his thought moved amid a number of different sets of ideas, which for him were held together by “religion as an experience.” This neglect of Wrede’s work does not mean anything; it was simply that the history of dogma could make nothing of his view. It is significant, however, that among those who accepted his view in substance, no one made the attempt to carry it to victory by a comprehensive presentation of it on an adequate scale. The cause of this lies in the peculiar difficulties which lie concealed in the scheme which he sketched out. The fact is that the “physical” element which is to be recognised in Paul’s doctrine is neither all of one piece nor wholly to be explained from Late Judaism. Strictly [pg 174] speaking, it takes three different forms, of which one is peculiar to the eschatology, another to the mystical doctrine of redemption, and the third to the sacraments. The “materialism” of the conception of redemption which is directed towards the future has to do with super-earthly powers, with judgment, bodily resurrection and transformation. Somewhat different is the “realism” of the mystical doctrine of the new creation, which asserts that believers here and now experience death and resurrection in fellowship with Christ, and so put on, beneath the earthly exterior which conceals it, a nature essentially immune from corruption.