Everling’s investigations are continued, on modern lines, by a study of Martin Dibelius, _Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus,_ 1909, 249 pp. (“The World of Spirits as conceived in Paul’s Belief”). In addition to the Late Jewish passages the author cites also the Rabbinical and those suggested by the Comparative Study of Religion. The excursuses on the linguistic history of the subject are very instructive (pp. 209-232). On Everling, see pp. 55-57 of the present work. 127 G. F. Heinrici’s work, _Das Urchristentum,_ 1902, 142 pp., still occupies the old stand-point. On Paul, pp. 71-101. For what he has to say against the “physical” in the doctrine of redemption, see pp. 95, 96. W. Bousset, _Der Apostel Paulus,_ 1906, holds that we shall never completely understand the Apostle’s doctrine. We must make up our minds to the fact . . that in his letters we have before us only fragments of his spiritual life, the full wealth of which we can only vaguely imagine. The individual arguments of Paul look to us like erratic boulders; only toilsomely and partially can we reconstruct the connexion of thought. 128 Rendering _naturhaft._ Dr. Schweitzer has favoured me with the following note on this difficult concept, which from this point becomes prominent in the discussions. After consultation with him, the word has been rendered “physical,” but placed in quotation marks to indicate the special use.—TRANSLATOR. “In the special sense in which it is here used _naturhaft_ is intended to convey that it is not a question of a purely spiritual redemption, but that the whole physical and hyperphysical being of the man is thereby translated into a new condition. Body and soul are redeemed together; and in such a way that not only the elect portion of mankind, but the whole world is completely transformed in a great catastrophic event.” 129 _Neutestamentliche Theologie,_ vol. ii., 1897, pp. 175-187. 130 W. Heitmüller, _Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus,_ 1903, 56 pp. 131 How unwilling theology was to draw this inevitable inference is to be seen from the works of Weinel and Heitmüller. They refuse to go beyond the statement that the sacraments stand in sharp opposition to the real “religion” of Paul, and think that they have solved the problem by asserting that the Apostle of the Gentiles did not notice the contradiction. Weinel remarks, “Paul himself is quite unconscious of the problem raised by the collision of the ‘physical’ doctrine of redemption of the Mysteries with the ethical doctrine of Christianity.” Heitmüller says, “These views of baptism and the Lord’s Supper stand in unreconciled and unreconcilable opposition with the central significance of faith for Pauline Christianity, that is to say, with the purely spiritual, personal view of the religious relation which stands in the foreground of Pauline religious life and religious thought.” 132 William Wrede, _Paulus,_ 1904, 113 pp. (In the series entitled “Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher.”)