In his final treatise[11] he goes to the full length of the implication of his principle. He recounts with luminous {39} simplicity the mystical _unity_ of the spiritual Universe and tells of the divine purpose to draw all our finite and divided wills into moral harmony with the Central Will. Once more religion is presented as wholly a matter of the inward spirit, a thing of insight, of obedience to a living Word, of love for an infinite Lover, the bubbling of living streams of water in the heart of man. He declares that the period of signs and symbols and of "the scholastic way of truth" is passing away, and the religion of the New Testament, the religion of life and spirit, is coming in place of the old. As fast as the new comes ceremonies and sacraments vanish and fall away. They do not belong to a religion of the Spirit; they are for the infant race and for those who have not outgrown the picture-book. Christ's baptism is with power from above, and He cleanses from sin not with water but with the Holy Ghost and the burning fire of love. As soon as the spiritual man possesses "the key of David," and has entered upon "the true Sabbath of his soul," he holds lightly all forms and ceremonies which are outward and which can be gone through with in a mechanical fashion without creating the essential attitude of worship and of inner harmony of will with God: "When the Kingdom of God with its joy and love has come in us we do not much care for those things which can only happen outside us."[12] II Christian Entfelder held almost precisely the same views as those which we have found in the teaching of Buenderlin. He has become even more submerged than has Buenderlin, and one hunts almost in vain for the events of his life. Hagen does not mention him. Gruetzmacher in his _Wort und Geist_ never refers to him. The great _Realencyklopaedie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche_ has no article on him. Gottfried Arnold in his {40} _Kirchenund Ketzer-Historien_ merely mentions him in his list of "Witnesses to the Truth." The only article I have ever found on him is one by Professor Veesenmeyer in Gabler's _N. theol. Journal_ (1800), iv. 4, pp. 309-334.