Church Dogmatics Vol 4 1 Sections 61 63 The Doctrine

of Reconciliation Study Edition 23 Karl Barth - PDF

Download (2025)

https://ebookultra.com/download/church-dogmatics-
vol-4-1-sections-61-63-the-doctrine-of-reconciliation-study-
edition-23-karl-barth/

Visit ebookultra.com today to download the complete set of

ebooks or textbooks
We have selected some products that you may be interested in
Click the link to download now or visit ebookultra.com
for more options!.

Church Dogmatics Vol 4 3 2 Sections 70 71 The Doctrine of

Reconciliation Study Edition 28 Karl Barth

https://ebookultra.com/download/church-dogmatics-
vol-4-3-2-sections-70-71-the-doctrine-of-reconciliation-study-
edition-28-karl-barth/

Church Dogmatics Vol 4 3 2 Sections 72 73 The Doctrine of

Reconciliation Study Edition 29 Karl Barth

https://ebookultra.com/download/church-dogmatics-
vol-4-3-2-sections-72-73-the-doctrine-of-reconciliation-study-
edition-29-karl-barth/

Church Dogmatics Vol 4 1 Section 60 The Doctrine of

Reconciliation Study Edition 22 Karl Barth

https://ebookultra.com/download/church-dogmatics-
vol-4-1-section-60-the-doctrine-of-reconciliation-study-
edition-22-karl-barth/

Church Dogmatics Vol 3 4 Sections 52 54 The Doctrine of

Creation Study Edition 19 Karl Barth

https://ebookultra.com/download/church-dogmatics-
vol-3-4-sections-52-54-the-doctrine-of-creation-study-edition-19-karl-
barth/
Church Dogmatics Vol 3 1 Sections 40 42 The Doctrine of
Creation Study Edition 13 Karl Barth

https://ebookultra.com/download/church-dogmatics-
vol-3-1-sections-40-42-the-doctrine-of-creation-study-edition-13-karl-
barth/

Church Dogmatics Vol 1 2 Sections 19 21 The Doctrine of

The Word of God Study Edition 5 Karl Barth

https://ebookultra.com/download/church-dogmatics-
vol-1-2-sections-19-21-the-doctrine-of-the-word-of-god-study-
edition-5-karl-barth/

Church Dogmatics Vol 1 2 Sections 22 24 The Doctrine of

the Word of God Study Edition 6 Karl Barth

https://ebookultra.com/download/church-dogmatics-
vol-1-2-sections-22-24-the-doctrine-of-the-word-of-god-study-
edition-6-karl-barth/

Church Dogmatics Vol 2 2 Sections 32 33 The Doctrine of

God Study Edition 10 Karl Barth

https://ebookultra.com/download/church-dogmatics-
vol-2-2-sections-32-33-the-doctrine-of-god-study-edition-10-karl-
barth/

Church Dogmatics Vol 3 2 Sections 43 44 The Doctrine of

Creation Study Edition 14 Karl Barth

https://ebookultra.com/download/church-dogmatics-
vol-3-2-sections-43-44-the-doctrine-of-creation-study-edition-14-karl-
barth/
Church Dogmatics Vol 4 1 Sections 61 63 The Doctrine of
Reconciliation Study Edition 23 Karl Barth Digital
Instant Download
Author(s): Karl Barth
ISBN(s): 9780567413406, 0567413403
Edition: 1
File Details: PDF, 57.16 MB
Year: 2009
Language: english
KARL BARTH
CHURCH DOGMATICS

VOLUME IV

THE DOCTRINE
OF RECONCILIATION

JESUS CHRIST, THE LORD AS SERVANT III

EDITED BY
G. W. BROMILEY
T. F. TORRANCE

."
t&t clark
Translated by G. W. Bromiley

Published by T&T Clark

A Continuum Imprint
The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SEI 7NX
80 Maiden Lane, Suite 704, New York, NY 10038

www.continuumbooks.com

Copyright @ T&T Clark, 2009

Authorised translation of Karl Barth, Die Kirchliche Dogmatik IV

Copyright @ Theologischer Verlag Zurich, 1953-1967
All revisions to the original English translation and all translations of Greek, Latin and French
@ Princeton Theological Seminary, 2009

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or
by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Typeset by In teractive Sciences Ltd, Gloucester

Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by MPG Books Group

ISBN 10: 0567413403

ISBN13 : 9780567413406
 CONTENTS

S 61. THEJUSTIFICATION OF MAN

1. The Problem of the Doctrine of Justification 1
2. The Judgment of God 16
3. The Pardon of Man 54
4. Justification by Faith Alone 94

S 62. THE HOLYSPIRITANDTHE GATHERINGOF THE CHRISTIANCOMMUNITY

1. The Work of the Holy Spirit . 13°
2. The Being of the Community 137
3. The Time of the Community 214

S 63. THE HOLYSPIRITANDCHRISTIANFAITH

1. Faith and its Object 229
2. The Act of Faith 246

v
 [514]

THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN

The right of God established in the death of Jesus Christ, and proclaimed in
His resurrection in defiance of the wrong of man, is as such the basis of the
new and corresponding right of man. Promised to man inJesus Christ, hidden
in Him and only to be revealed in Him, it cannot be attained by any thought or
effort or achievement on the part of man. But the reality of it calls for faith in
every man as a suitable acknowledgment and appropriation and application.

1. THE PROBLEM OF THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION

The event of the death of Jesus Christ is the execution of the judgment of
God, of the gracious God who in the giving of His Son in our place, and the
lowly obedience of the Son in our place, reconciled the world with Himself,
genuinely and definitely affirmed man as His creature in spite of his sin which
cried to heaven, confirmed His faithfulness towards him and carried through
His covenant with him. And the event of the resurrection is the revelation of
the sentence of God which is executed in this judgment; of the free resolve of
His love, and therefore of the righteousness of this judgment, the righteous-
ness of the Father in the giving of His Son, the righteousness of the Son in His
lowly obedience, the righteousness which has come to man too, and especially
to man, in this judgment.
But the judgment of God executed in the death of Jesus Christ, and the
sentence of God revealed in His resurrection and executed in that judgment,
have both of them a twofold sense. They have a negative sense in so far as they
are the judgment and sentence of the God who is gracious to man, the burn-
ing, the consuming fire, the blinding light of His wrath on the corrupt and
sinful man who is unfaithful to Him and therefore to himself. They have a
positive sense in so far as they are the judgment and sentence of the God who
has turned to man in goodness, mercy and grace; His decision and pronounce-
ment in man's favour, for man; the work of His redemption; His Word of
power: "Rise up and walk." We can also say that they have a negative sense in so
far as in that judgment and sentence God remains, and therefore confesses
Himself to be, true to Himself (to the salvation of man); and a positive sense in
so far as in the same judgment and sentence (to His own glory) He remains,
and pronounces Himself to be, true to man. Or we can say that they have a [515]
negative sense in so far as His judgment and sentence are related to the being
and activity and attitude of man, in so far as they have to do with the man of sin
 S 61. The Justification of Man

and his pride and fall; and a positive sense in so far as God looks back to the
fact that as His creature and elect covenant-partner man is from all eternity
and therefore unchangeably His own possession: looking back to His own will
and plan and purpose, and looking forward to the goal which, in spite of
man's being and activity and attitude as the man of sin, is still unchangeably set
for him, since God Himself has set it. We can and must say these two things
concerning the judgment of God executed in the death ofjesus Christ and the
sentence of God revealed in His resurrection, because in both events we are
dealing with the execution and revelation of the divine rejection of elected
man and the divine election of rejected man. It was in the indissoluble unity
and irreversible sequence of these happenings that the reconciliation of the
world with God took place injesus Christ.
We have already spoken of the execution of the divine judgment in the
humiliation and obedience of the Son of God to death, and of the Easter reve-
lation of the sentence carried out in Him, in the first and-in the narrower
sense of the term-christological part of our exposition (S 59). And we have
just completed (S 60) our development of the negative sense of the divine
sentence carried out in the death of jesus Christ. In the mirror of jesus Christ
who was offered up for us and who was obedient in this offering it is made
clear who we ourselves are, the ones for whom He was offered up, for whom
He obediently offered Himself up. In the light of the humility in demonstra-
tion of which He acted as very God for us, suffering and dying for us, we are
exposed and made known and have to acknowledge ourselves as the proud
creatures who ourselves want to be god and lord and redeemer and helper,
who have as such turned aside from God, who are therefore sinners: the
enemies of God, because our disposition to Him is hostile; those who choose
and have fallen a prey to nothingness; debtors who cannot clear themselves;
rejected therefore, and because rejected perishing. The sentence which was
executed as the divine judgment in the death of jesus Christ is that we are
these proud creatures, that I am the man of sin, and that this man of sin and
therefore I myself am nailed to the cross and crucified (in the power of the
sacrifice and obedience of jesus Christ in my place), that I am therefore des-
troyed and replaced, that as the one who has turned to nothingness I am done
away in the death of jesus Christ. This is-to put it rather more precisely-the
negative side of the divine sentence executed in that judgment.
We must not lose sight of this negative side even when it is our task to
develop the positive. In virtue of the resurrection ofJesus Christ from the dead
it is just as much a valid truth of revelation as the positive. Jesus Christ rose
[516] again from the dead and lives and reigns to all eternity as the One who was
crucified and died for us. The fact that this being destroyed and done away
and replaced came on Him in our place-and in Him as our Substitute on
us-is something which because it happened once and for all never ceases to
be true for Him and therefore for us. By suffering death-our death-for us,
He did for us that which is the basis of our life from the dead. Therefore we

2
 1. The Problem of the Doctrine of Justification

cannot be the ones for whom He has done this without being the ones for
whom He has suffered. In God's eternal counsel the election of rejected man
did not take place without the rejection of elected man: the election of jesus
Christ as our Head and Representative, and therefore our election as those
who are represented by Him. Therefore the positive sense of the sentence
executed in that judgment belongs together with the negative. It is the conse-
quence of it and is related to it. If jesus the Crucified lives, and we live in Him
and with Him, the sentence of God revealed in His resurrection is valid in Him
and therefore for us in that negative sense. Therefore the knowledge of the
grace of God and the comfort which flows from it in this sentence, the know-
ledge, therefore, of its positive sense, is bound up with the fact that in it we do
not cease to see ourselves as those who are condemned.
In turning now to the positive sense, we enter the particular sphere of the
doctrine of justification. What we have to say here is that in the same judgment
in which God accuses and condemns us as sinners and gives us up to death, He
pardons us and places us in a new life before Him and with Him. And what we
have to show is that this is possible, that the two belong together: our real sin
and our real freedom from sin; our real death and our real life beyond death;
the real wrath of God against us and His real grace and mercy towards us; the
fulfilment of our real rejection and also of our real election. We are dealing
with the history in which man is both rejected and elected, both under the
wrath of God and accepted by Him in grace, both put to death and alive: exist-
ing in a state of transition, not here only, but from here to there; not there only,
but from here to there; the No of God behind and the Yes of God before, but
the Yes of God only before as the No of God is behind. This history, the exist-
ence of man in this transition, and therefore in this twofold form, is the judg-
ment of God in its positive character as the justification of man.
The doctrine of justification not only narrates but explains this history. It is
the attempt to see and understand in its positive sense the sentence of God
which is executed in His judgment and revealed in the resurrection of jesus
Christ.
The concept of right is the formal principle for the explanation given. It cannot be more
than a formal principle. And what it means can be deduced only from the matter in ques-
tion, from the history which has to be explained. The matter in question is the divine sen-
tence as executed in the divine judgment and revealed by God. It is from this that we learn
what "right" means. But the fact that we are dealing with God's sentence and judgment [517]
means that we have to use the concept. The Bible itself gives it to us in this connexion, and
the Church has alwaysaccepted it in its proclamation and theology concerning this matter,
sometimes with more and sometimes with less caution in respect of meanings foreign to the
matter itself, sometimes with more and sometimes with less attachment to the meaning
which it necessarily acquires and has as applied to this matter.

It is a question of explaining the fact and the extent to which in this history,
or in the divine sentence on man which underlies this history, we are dealing
with that which is just and right. It is a question of showing the right of God

3
 S 61. The Justification of Man

which gives right to man, and of the right which is given by God to man. The
highly problematical point in the history is obviously the notorious wrong of
man. In relation to God he is in the wrong, and therefore he is accused and
condemned and judged by God. He is homo peccatorEN1, and in this history he
never ceases to be homo peccator. How, then, in the same sentence of God, and
therefore in the same history, can he be homo iustuS?EN2 How can he be ser-
iously in the wrong before God and in the divine sentence andjudgment, and
yet also before the same God and in the same sentence and judgment come to
be and be seriously in the right? How can he be simul peccator et iustuS?EN3 And
how can God for His part (the omniscient and righteous Judge of good and
evil) give right to man when man is obviously in the wrong before Him, and
God Himself has put him in the wrong? To what extent does God act and speak
and prove and show Himself in the justification of man-this man-as God
the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whom there is no contradiction or caprice
or disorder, no paradox or obscurity, but only light? To what extent does He
demonstrate and maintain in this remarkable justification His righteousness as
the Creator confronting the creature and as the Lord of His covenant with
man? To what extent is the opposition which man has taken up in relation to
God taken seriously and seriously overcome in this justification which is given
to Him by God? To what extent is this justification not a mere overlooking or
hiding of the pride and fall of man, a nominalistic "as if'-which is quite
incompatible with the truthfulness of God and cannot be of any real help to
man-but God's serious opposition and mighty resistance to the pride of man
and therefore the real redemption of fallen man? How in this justification can
God be effectively true to Himself and therefore to man-to man and there-
fore primarily to Himself? How can He judge man in truth and even in that
judgment be gracious to Him? How can He be truly gracious to him even in
the fact that He judges him? This is the problem of the doctrine ofjustification
which we now have to develop.
Even an outline of the question which we have to answer is enough to show
the particular importance of it. It is a matter of the genuineness of the presup-
[518] position, the inner possibility, of the reconciliation of the world with God, in so
far as this consists of a complete alteration of the human situation, a conver-
sion of sinful man to Himself as willed and accomplished by God. The Chris-
tian community as the community which proclaims this alteration to the
world, because it knows and believes in it, derives from this presupposition, as
does also the faith of every individual Christian. Therefore the Christian com-
munity and Christian faith stand or fall with the reality of the fact that in con-
firmation and restoration of the covenant broken by man the holy God has set
up a new fellowship between Himself and sinful man, instituting a new coven-

ENl sinful man

EN2 righteous man
EN3 simultaneously righteous and sinful

4
 1. The Problem of the Doctrine ofJustification

ant which cannot be destroyed or even disturbed by any transgression on the

part of man. The community rests and acts on this basis. Faith lives by the
certainty and actuality of the reconciliation of the world with God accom-
plished in Jesus Christ. There can be a basis for the community and certainty
for faith only if this actuality is true, and true with a divine and unconditional
clarity. What is not divinely true cannot be actual, and therefore cannot be
basic and certain. But whether we are dealing with a divinely true actuality
depends upon whether in this alteration of the human situation in the atone-
ment-as the work of the grace and mercy of God-we are dealing with that
which is just and right. It depends upon whether-however strange it may
seem to us-there is a genuine justification: that is, whether the right of God
which gives right to man and the right of man which is given by God to man is a
true and indisputable right. Ifwe do not have an indisputable divine right, and
(for all its difference) an indisputable human right, how can the conversion of
man to God be true, and how then can it be actual? The Christian community
would then be based merely on the hypothesis that this new conversion and
therefore peace between God and man might be true and actual, and the cer-
tainty of faith on the suspicion that the hypothesis might be more than a
hypothesis. And if there is no knowledge of the over-ruling righteousness of
God, or knowledge only in the form of a mistaken apprehension distorted by
partial or total misunderstandings, how can the community escape error and
decay, how can faith be kept from doubt and dissolution into all kinds of
unbeliefs and superstitions? The task of the doctrine of justification is to dem-
onstrate the righteousness of God which over-rules in the reconciling grace of
God, and the grace of God which truly and actually over-rules in the righteous-
ness of God. It is the task of finding a reliable answer to the question: What is
God for sinful man? and what is sinful man before the God who is for him? The
basis of the community and the certainty of faith stands or falls with the answer
to this question. The doctrine of justification undertakes to answer the ques-
tion of this presupposition. Hence its importance and theological necessity.
But even a cursory glance at the problem reveals the particular difficulty of
the doctrine. The sweet fruit is here found in a shell which is unusually hard [519]
and bitter. In whichever direction the theologian tries to move he is unusually
hampered. Where is he to begin to think and where to cease? Can we take both
the basic concepts, grace and right, in all their strictness? Can we relate them
with sufficient strictness to one another, seeking the explanation of the one
strictly in the other? Which aspects have to be brought to the forefront, and
which necessarily pushed into the background? How can we prevent the whole
falling apart like a heap of skittles stood up on end? Yet in a sense these are
only technical matters which we might overcome were it not that they repre-
sent the much more pressing question: How are we going to think and say not
merely anything at all, but the right thing, that which corresponds to the mat-
ter itself? Do we really know this presupposition, and therefore that which we
have in some way to define and formulate? Do we really know what is the basis

5
 S 61. The Justification of Man

of the community and the certainty of faith, the grace and righteousness of
God in their unity, and therefore that which we have to demonstrate? Do we
really know God in the one and twofold mystery of His activity as we have to
narrate and explain it? Where are we going to find the light which is necessary
for this knowledge? And do we really know ourselves as the men who stand
over against God in the mystery of this activity? What heavy responsibilities we
undertake when we make this statement, what temptations we have to recog-
nise and guard against on the right hand and the left, what misunderstandings
we have to avoid, what obligation and freedom is necessary, what attention to
the binding counsel of those who have preceded us in the consideration of this
matter, what attention to the even more binding Word of God in the witness of
the prophets and apostles, what determination to stick to that which is actually
told us concerning the justification of man and to repeat it undisturbed by all
the obvious doubts and objections! Which of us has any real knowledge of this
matter? And if we have not, what is the value of all our repetition of ecclesi-
astical or even biblical theology, or our ever so original theorising? In the first
and final instance the problem of justification is, for those whom it occupies,
the problem of the fact of their own justification. Even when we have done our
best, which of us can think that we have even approximately mastered the
subject, or spoken even a penultimate word in explanation of it?
Certainly Martin Luther did not think so, and he was perhaps the man who worked and
suffered and prayed more in relation to this matter than any man before or after him in the
post-apostolic period. Even Paul himself did not think so. We remember the pregnant and
almost too bold saying in Rom. 11 32 in which he stated the mystery of sin and the mystery of
grace in their connexion and sequence in the sentence and judgment of God: "For God
hath concluded them all in disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all." And he adds
at once in v. 33 f.: "0 the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable are hisjudgments, and his wayspast finding out! For who hath known the
[520J mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?" Obviously this is not rejoicing in his
own knowledge which has taken him so far, but adoration in face of the incommensurable
height of the matter, and therefore modesty in respect of even the best of his own know-
ledge, as in 1 Cor. 139f., when he expressly spoke of it as a knowing in part, as the speaking
and understanding and thinking of a child, as seeing through a mirror. But let us listen to
what Luther has to say. Non est jocandum cum articulo iustijicationisEN4, he warns us: the
example of Peter at Antioch shows us what dreadful havoc (ingentes ruinasEN5) can be caused
by a single slip or mistake in this matter (on Gal. 212, 1535, WA. 401,201,26). The causa
iustijicationisEN6 is lubricaEN7 (i.e., there is something slippery and therefore unsafe and dan-
gerous about it), not in and for itself, per se enim estjirmissima et certissima, sed quoad nosENS, for
us who try to grasp it and have to speak of it. Luther knows very well the hours of darkness
when it seems as though the rays of the Gospel and grace are about to disappear behind
thick clouds, and he knows other proved and hardy warriors who have the same experience.

EN4 The doctrine of justification is no laughing matter!

ENS immense ruins
EN6 cause of justification
EN7 slippery
ENS for in itself it is most firm and sure, but as it is toward us

6
 1. The Problem of the Doctrine ofJustification

It is a good sign if we know this doctrine and can state it. But it is another thing to be able to
use it in praesenti agoneEN9, when the Law as a word of wrath and sorrow and death, or per-
haps only a single passage threatening us with perdition, strikes us and shakes us to the very
core and takes away all our comfort, when even reason speaks against the Gospel and the
flesh cannot and will not lay hold of the truth of it. It is then necessary to fight with all our
power for a right understanding, et ad hoc utatur humili oratione coram Deo et assiduo studio ac
meditatione verbiEN10• Et quanquam vehementissime decertaverimus, adhuc satis tamen
ENll
sudabimus , for we are not dealing with contemptible foes but with the strongest and most
tenacious of all, which may include amongst others even the rest of the Church (on Gal. 112,
loco cit., 128 f.). And in another word of warning: Haec dictu sunt jacilia, sed beatus, qui ista probe
nosset in certamine conscientiaeEN12 (on Gal. 219, l.c., 271, 21). And again right at the beginning
of the praejatioEN13 to the commentary on Galatians: nec tamen comprehendisse me experior de
tantae altitudinis, latitudinis, projunditatis sapientia, nisi infirmas et pauperes quasdam primitias et
veluti jragmentaEN14 (l.c., 33, 11).

There is no doubt that the unusual difficulty of the doctrine of justification

is an indication of its special function. In it we have to do with the turning, the
movement, the transition of the existence of man without God and dead into
the existence of man living for God, and therefore before Him and with Him
and for Him. We will have to speak explicitly of this transition more than once
in the whole doctrine of reconciliation. We will be dealing with it in the doc-
trines of sanctification and calling which we shall have to discuss in the second
and third main parts of the doctrine of reconciliation. And where do we not
have to do indirectly with this transition in the whole of the doctrine of recon-
ciliation and indeed in dogmatics generally? Where do we not in some meas-
ure stand before this same difficulty and have to listen to the impressive
warning of Luther? There is no part of dogmatics, no locus, where we can treat
it lightly. At every point we are dealing with the one high Gospel. What we can
and must say is that in the doctrine ofjustification we are dealing with the most
pronounced and puzzling form of this transition because we are dealing spe-
cifically with the question of its final possibility. As we have seen already, how
can it be that peace is concluded between a holy God and sinful man-by
grace, but in a way which is completely and adequately right? Later on, in the
doctrines of sanctification and calling we shall have to speak of the crisis of this [521]
relationship and of the decision which is made in it. And the crisis of this
relationship and the decision which is made in it are, as it were, the red thread
which we can follow through all the lociEN15 of the doctrine of reconciliation

EN 9 in the present struggle

ENIO and to this end, one must employ humble prayer before God and constant study and medita-
tion in the Word
EN1I And although we have struggled most energetically, yet we will still continue to sweat
ENI2 These things are easy to say, but blessed is the one who knows these things rightly in the
struggle of the conscience
ENI3 preface
EN14 But I know that I have not understood with wisdom of such great height, breadth and depth,
but only some weak and poor first-fruits - fragments, so to speak
ENI5 doctrines

7
 S 61. The Justification of Man

and dogmatics generally, the thread which makes all our knowledge in some
sense dramatic and exciting and dangerous, which makes it the kind of know-
ledge which, as Luther rightly perceived, cannot either arise or continue with-
out humble prayer and constant attention to the Word of God. But in the
doctrine ofjustification we have to do with the original centre of this crisis, and
to that extent with its sharpest form, with what we can describe provisionally as
the crisis which underlies the whole. Ifwe find it running through the whole
with all kinds of repetitions and variations, at this point where we grapple with
the peculiar difficulty of it, it has to be seen and handled as the main theme-
the question: How am I to lay hold of a gracious God? And it is from here, and
along the line which runs from here, that in different ways it works out every-
where.
It is, therefore, understandable that in at any rate some forms of Christian
theology the doctrine of justification has had the function of a basic and cen-
tral dogma in relation to which everything else will be either presupposition or
consequence, either prologue or epilogue; that its significance has been that
of the Word of Gospel.

The discussion of this point brings us into implicit controversy with Ernst Wolf, "Die
Rechtfertigungslehre als Mitte und Grenze reformatorischer Theologie" (Evang. Theol.,
1949-1950,298 f.).
It was again Luther, above all others, who obviously regarded and described the doctrine
of justification as the Word of the Gospel. To him it was not merely the decisive point, the
hub, as it were, of the whole of Evangelical theology in controversy with the Romanists. It was
this, in the sense of the SchmalkaldicArticlesof 1537 (Bek.-Schr. derev.-luth. Kirche, 415 f.)-in
which it is called the primus et principalis articulusEN16 in this special sense: "In relation to this
article we cannot doubt or yield an inch, though heaven and earth or all things passing may
fall .... On this article stands all that we teach and live against the Papacy, the devil and the
world. Therefore we must be sure and not doubt. Otherwise all is lost, and the Papacy and
the devil and all will prevail against us." The fact that Luther linked together the Papacy, the
devil and the world shows us, however, that Luther was not thinking merely in terms of the
polemic against Rome. In the praejatioEN17 to the 1535 Galatians we are told immediately
before the passage quoted earlier: In corde mea iste unus regnat articulus, sc. fides Christi, ex quo,
per quem et in quem omnes meae diu noctuque fluunt et refluunt theological cogitationes. Ea (doctrina)
florente florent omnia bona, religio, verus cultus, gloria Dei, certa cognitio omnium statuum et
rerumEN18 (l.c., 39). Then in the argumentumEN19 of the same commentary we read (l.c., 48,
28): Amisso articulo iustificationis amissa est simul tota doctrina ChristianaEN2o• And on Gal. 13
( l. c., 72, 20): I acente articulo iustificationis iacent omnia. Necesse igitur est, ut quotidie acuamus
(quemadmodum Moses de sua lege dicit) et inculcemus eum. Nam satis vel nimium non polest concipi et

EN16 first and principal article

EN17 preface
EN18 That one article reigns in my heart, namely the article of faith in Christ, by which, in which,
and through which all my theological reflections flow back and forth by day and by night. If
that doctrine is flourishing, then will flourish all good things, religion, true worship, the glory
of God, and assured knowledge of all conditions and matters
EN19 argument
EN20 If the article of justification is lost, then the whole of Christian doctrine is lost at the
same time

8
 1. The Problem of the Doctrine ofJustification

teneriEN21• According to Luther's exposition of Gal. 220 (l.c., 296, 23) this article and this
article alone has the power to refute all sects, anabaptists and sacramentarians, etc., seeing
they are all at error in relation to it. Moreover it is by the sententia de iustificationeEN22 that
Christianity is distinguished from all other religions: soli enim christiani hinc locum credunt et [522]
sunt iusti non quia ipsi operantur, sed quia alterius opera apprehendunt, nempe passionem ChristiEN23
(Schol. on Is. 532f., 1534, WA. 25,329, 15; 330, 8). And in the same context (l.c., 332): this
LOCUSEN24 is the jundamentum Novi Testamenti, ex quo tanquam ex patenti jonte omnes thesauri
divinae sapientiae profluuntEN25• Similarly in 1537 Luther could open a disputation (WA. 391,
205, 2) with the words: Articulus iustificationis est magister et princeps, dominus, rector et iudex
super omnia genera doctrinarum, qui conservat et gubernat omnem doctrinam ecclesiasticam EN26. If it
does not know and consider this article, the human reason is defenceless against the vainest
errors. But a mind which is strengthened by it will stand against all their assaults. The domin-
ating role which Luther assigned to the matter in his own sermons and other works corres-
ponds to these declarations of principle. The well-known description of the doctrine as the
articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiaeEN27 does not seem to derive from Luther himself, but it is
an exact statement of his view.He found in it the one point which involved the whole.
Orthodox Lutheranism in the 16th and 17th centuries handed down his doctrine ofjusti-
fication from generation to generation-it is not our present business to inquire whether
they understood it or not-and with a respectful loyalty tried to reproduce it exactly. Neither
Melanchthon nor those who followed him tried to draw out the logical consequences, as, for
example, in the order of dogmatics, of what Luther said concerning its primacy. They can
hardly have understood that for Luther it was more than an indispensable point of contro-
versy, that in it Luther saw that everything was at stake and not merely the opposition to
Rome. We must not overlook the fact that there have been men (not confessional Luther-
ans) like Zinzendorf and the Bernese Samuel Lucius and John Wesleywho followed Luther
in this matter, but whose activityand expression did not lie in the narrower theological field.
But it certainly betrays a lessening of interest in the subject, and would undoubtedly have
earned the censure of Luther himself, when in the dogmatic works of later Lutheran ortho-
doxy, as in the much read Camp. Theol. pos. of W. Baier (1686, Prol. 1, 33), and also in the
corresponding passages in Hollaz and Buddeus, the doctrine was reckoned among the
articuli jundamentals secundariiEN28, on the ground that a Christian can believe and therefore
attain forgiveness by faith without ever having reflected on iustificatio per solam fidem et non per
operaEN29• And when the tide of the moralistic Enlightenment of the 18th century had run
its course, was it really a re-discovery of the meaning and intention of Luther, or was it a
questionable discovery of the modern spirit, that in German theology in the 19th century
the doctrine was again appealed to as the material principle of Protestantism? At any rate, an
influential contribution was made on the one side by a romantic historicism which was less

EN21 If the article of justification lies in ruins, then all lies in ruins. Therefore, it is necessary that we
sharpen it (in the manner in which Moses spoke of his Law) and cram it in. For it cannot be
understood and held enough or too much
EN22 position on justification
EN23 For only Christians believe this doctrine and are righteous not because of what they them-
selves do, but because they receive the works of another, that is, the passion of Christ
EN24 doctrine
EN25 basis of the New Testament, from which, as from an open fountain, all the treasures of the
divine wisdom flow
EN26 The article of justification is master and emperor, Lord, ruler and judge over all kinds of
doctrines, and it preserves and steers all the church's doctrine
EN27 article by which the church stands or falls
EN28 fundamental, secondary articles
EN29 justification through faith alone and not through works

9
 S 61. The Justification of Man

concerned with theology than morphology, and on the other by a desire for speculative
systematics kindled by idealistic philosophy. We cannot deny an actual parallelism between
this neo-Lutheran emphasis and the statements of Luther himself. The only thing is that
with the possible exception of M. Kahler, no one dared actually to plan and organise Evan-
gelical dogmatics around the doctrine ofjustification as a centre. It is a matter for reflection
that neither in the older nor more recent Lutheranism has this ever been done.

There can be no question of disputing the particular function of the doc-

trine of justification. And it is also in order that at certain periods and in cer-
tain situations, in face of definite opposition and obscuration, this particular
function has been brought out in a particular way, that it has been asserted as
the Word of the Gospel, that both offensively and defensively it has been
adopted as the theological truth. There have been times when this has been
[523] not merely legitimate but necessary, when attention has had to be focused on
the theology of Galatians and Romans (or, more accurately, Rom. 1-8).

One such time was when Augustine had to take up arms because the, in a sense, innocent
righteousness of works of the first centuries had obviously ceased to be innocent in the
teaching of Pelagius and his followers and now threatened actually to obscure the Gospel as
the message of the free grace of God. Another such time was that of the Reformation when
Luther recognised that the sacramentalistic and moralistic misunderstanding of the much
cited "grace" was the abuse which underlay all the other abuses of the mediaeval Church,
and he set out to overcome it. Another such time was the awakening at the beginning of the
19th century, with its very necessary reaction against the secularisation of the understanding
of salvation in the Enlightenment, in face of which post-Reformation orthodoxy-which had
gone a good way along the same road-had shown itself to be powerless. Another such time
may well be our own day, when in face of the notable humanistic religiosity which is our
heritage from the 19th century, and in face of all ecclesiasticism, sacramentalism, liturgism
and even existentialism, we have been glad enough, and still are, to find in the doctrine of
justification a fully developed weapon with which to meet all these things.

But in theology it is good to look beyond the needs and necessities of the
moment, to exercise restraint in a reaction however justified, to be constantly
aware of the limits of the ruling trend (however true and well-founded it may
be). And since our present business is with Church dogmatics, which is ecu-
menical at least in prospect, this must be our attitude in relation to the doc-
trine of justification, not because we deny but because we maintain our
Evangelical position.
In the Church of jesus Christ this doctrine has not always been the Word of
the Gospel, and it would be an act of narrowing and unjust exclusiveness to
proclaim and treat it as such. We have to express and assert it with its particular
importance and difficulty and function. But we have also to remember that it
relates only to one aspect of the Christian message of reconciliation. We have
to understand this aspect with others. Neither explicitly nor implicitly have we
to overlook this aspect. There never was and there never can be any true Chris-
tian Church without the doctrine of justification. In this sense it is indeed the

10
 1. The Problem of the Doctrine ofJustification

articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiaeEN30• There is no Christian Church without

the truth of what God has done and does for man in virtue of its witness, with-
out the manifestation of this truth in some form in its life and doctrine. But in
the true Church of jesus Christ the formulated recognition and attestation of
this truth may withdraw, it may indeed be more or less hidden behind other
aspects of the Christian message, without it being right and necessary to draw
attention to its absence, to believe that its truth is denied and the unity of the
Church, is broken. When we come across actual cases of this we have to remind
ourselves and others of something which has perhaps been forgotten or mis-
taken. But we for our part have to remain open to aspects of the Christian
message which are perhaps new to us. It is the justification of man itself, and
our very confidence in the objective truth of the doctrine of justification, [524]
which forbids us to postulate that in the true Church its theological outwork-
ing must semper, ubique et ab omnibusEN31 be regarded and treated as the unum
necessariumEN32, the centre or culminating point of the Christian message or
Christian doctrine.
The view of A. Schweitzer and W. Wrede is probably exaggerated that in Paul's doctrine of
the OtKatOaVvTJ 8EOU EN33 or 7T{aTEws EN34, we have to do only with a "subsidiary crater," i.e.,
a controversial doctrine in his conflict with the judaisers. But so, too, was the doctrine of
Luther and the younger Melanchthon that Paul is only the great apostolic teacher of justifi-
cation. The Christology of Paul is more than simply an argument for his doctrine ofjustifica-
tion. And his view of the corporate and individual fellowship of Christians with Christ, his
viewof the relationship between the Church and Israel as developed in Rom. 9-1 1, his ethics
too, all have their own roots and heads, although they cannot, of course, be separated from
this doctrine. In 1 Cor. 130 we read that Christ jesus is made unto us wisdom, righteousness,
sanctification and redemption, and this obviously means that we are pointed in at least three
other directions. And the Epistles of Paul are not the whole of the New Testament. If caution
is necessary in relation to the view that the Pauline doctrine ofjustification is disputed in the
Epistle ofjames, there can be no doubt that the message ofjames and the Synoptics and the
johannine writings and the other parts of the New Testament witness cannot be simply
equated with this doctrine, even though it is not excluded by but included in them.
As already mentioned, the Church of the first centuries lived in a naive Pelagianism (as
also in a naive Adoptionism or Sabellianism). It did not know any explicit doctrine ofjustifi-
cation-pernejasEN35 and to its shame, we might say.But if we are tempted to blame or accuse
the early Church for it, we must never forget that we are dealing with the Church and the-
ology of the Christendom of the martyr-centuries, which obviously knew without the doc-
trine of justification what their faith was all about, and for which the truth of the doctrine
was not in question, although they did not clearly understand it. The same can be said of the
later Greek Church and of the Eastern Church generally. The development of the doctrine
of justification which began with Augustine was something which belonged specifically to
the Western Church. The East was much less interested in the contrast between sin and

EN30 article by which the church stands or falls

EN31 'always,everywhere,and by all'
EN32 single necessity
EN33 righteousness of God
EN34 of faith
EN35 wrongly

11
 ~ 61. The Justification of Man

grace than in that between death and life, between mortality and immortality. It had no
great concern for the problem of law-the question of the possibility and basis of a positive
relationship between God and man. Therefore in this matter ofjustification (and this was no
doubt a limitation) it contented itself with the bare minimum.
In the West it was only at the time of the Reformation that the doctrine of justification
became a burning issue, or, to put it more exactly, it was only in the questing German spirit
of Luther. But then this doctrine-although not only this doctrine-impressed itself upon
the face of Protestantism in its relation to the ancient Church. Not only this doctrine: note
. the place and function of the doctrine in Calvin's Institutio. He saw its basic, critical import-
ance. He developed it (III, 11-18) broadly and carefully, marking off both the Romanist
errors on the one hand and the Protestant, like those of A. Osiander, on the other. But in the
obvious modern dispute amongst Calvin scholars concerning his central doctrine no one
would ever dream of maintaining that it is to be found in his doctrine of justification. In
many passages of his masterpiece, and in other writings as well, he asserts that there are two
main gifts which the Christian owes to Christ or the Holy Spirit, iustijicatioEN36 (or remissio
peccatorum EN37) on the one hand, and indissolubly connected with it sanctijicatioEN38 (or
renovatioEN39 or regeneratioEN40) on the other. And if we consider as a whole his doctrine De
[525] modo percipiendae gratiaeEN41 in the third book of the Institutes, it seems more obvious to see in
the second of these, the question of the development and formation of the Christian life and
therefore of sanctification, the problem which controls and organises his thinking. This is in
accordance with the tendency already found in Zwingli and in the reconstruction of the
Church in Switzerland and other non-German territories which derives from him. In Calvin
the doctrine of justification offered the necessary basis and critical certainty for the answer-
ing of this question, although not without being itself caught up in and rather overshadowed
by the doctrine of predestination, which was raised later (c. 21-24) and which plumbed the
matter even further. Or is the starting-point the insitioEN42 of the Christian into Christ which
is described at the very beginning of the third book (c. 1) and which is accomplished by the
Holy Spirit? Or do we have to seek the basic teaching in the doctrine of faith as such which
we find developed in c. 2? One thing at least is certain-that if the theology of Calvin has a
centre at all, it does not lie in the doctrine of justification. The doctrine of the older
Reformed Church which followed him usually kept to the schema justification and sanctifica-
tion so often laid down by him. By separating the two and pursuing them along different
paths, it was more able to give the proper emphasis and therefore to take seriously the sec-
ond question (that of sanctification, of the Christian's obedience of faith, of good works)
than were the Lutherans. It was also less susceptible to the temptation which threatened
from the very first to weaken and obscure the answer to the question of justification by
mixing it with the question of sanctification (which could not be avoided). That this actually
happened in Neo-Lutheran theology (including Ritschl and his followers) is the charge lev-
elled against them rather violently but not unjustly by a Reformed teacher in Vienna,
Edward Bohl (Dogmatik 1887, Van der &chtfertigung durch den Glauben 1890). The only
trouble is that the first and positive concern of the Calvinistic distinction seems to be con-
cealed from Bohl himself. We might almost describe him as a Reformed hyper-Lutheran like
his teacher and father-in-law, Hermann Kohlbriigge, for he thought that he could appeal to

EN36 justification
EN37 forgivenessof sins
EN38 sanctification
EN39 renewal
EN40 regeneration
EN41 On the Means of Obtaining Grace
EN42 ingrafting

12
 1. The Problem of the Doctrine ofJustification

the doctrine of justification as the cardinal dogma of Protestantism (something which no

Lutheran either old or new had ever dared to do).
But it is worth noting that in Luther himself-although we might easily miss it under the
overpowering impression of his doctrine of justification and what he has to say concerning
it-we can trace a pervasive and not by any means a thin line in which he did not speak with
the one-sidedness that we should expect from his talk of the unicus articulusEN43, but with an
obvious two-sidedness, with the same kind of two-sidedness as later characterises the thought
of Calvin. He could speak (Enarr. on Is. 538, 1544, YEA. 40111, 726, 24) of a twofold
sanatio EN44 of man proceeding from the exalted Christ: the one the forgiveness of sins by
virtue of His substitutionary death; the other the gracious gift of a holy life purifying itself
from sins. Or, again (Pred. ub. Act. 2lf., YEA. 52, 317, 22), of a twofold sanctification, the first
perfect, the other imperfect but, in its own way,no less real. Or, again (Pred. ub. Kor. 1 56f.,
YEA. 21, 16), of a twofold purification, the first having taken place once and for all in Christ,
the second to be accomplished day by day in us. Or, again (Pred. ub. Luk. 16lf., E.A. 13,238),
of a twofold justification, inwardly in the spirit and before God only by faith, outwardly and
publicly, before men and according to the judgment of men by works. Or, again (Pred. ub.
Matth. 2234ff., 1537, YEA. 45, 34), of a twofold help of Christ, the first consisting in the fact
that He represented us before God, spreading out His wings over us against the devil like a
hen over her chickens, the second that He feeds and nourishes us with the Holy Spirit as a
hen does her chickens, so that we begin to love God and keep His commandments. Or, again
(zu Gal. 313, YEA. 40\ 408, 24), of a twofold fulfilling of the Law, the first by the imputation
of the righteousness of jesus Christ, the second by the gift of the Holy Spirit which begets a
new life. In substance the distinction is one and the same. Luther connected the two elem- [526J
ents of the atoning activityof God in Christ with the relationship between eternity and time,
between the present and the future life of man, between heaven and earth, or (zu Gal. 212,
YEA. 40 1,427, 11) between the divine and the human nature of jesus Christ. Many things
have to be noted. As the parallels show, and in accordance with his basic view, (1) he never
hesitates to assert the priority of the first of the two elements over the other: the one is the
main part (Pred. ub. 1 Petro 220f., YEA. 21,313,22), the other is secondary. Again (2) on every
available opportunity he shows the great difference between them. He describes them separ-
ately (with particular emphasis on the first) and therefore refrains from doing the very thing
which was so often attempted under his name, the merging of the first into the second, or
the second into the first, the interpretation of justification in terms of sanctification or of
sanctification in terms of justification. But (3) he insists that both these parts have alwaysto
be properly maintained. If either of them is forgotten or neglected in favour of the other,
this will inevitably involve the corruption either of faith or of its power and fruit. And (4) he
perceives and confesses that the origin and unity of the two elements, the source and object
of a necessarily complete Christian faith and the measure of a necessarily incomplete Chris-
tian obedience, is injesus Christ acting for us as very God and very man. It is clear-and this
is our present concern-that side by side with the doctrine of justification and distinct from
it, directly confronting and connected with it, but seen and asserted with the same clarity, he
also knew and taught this second article, which Calvin was everywhere to present as that of
sanctijicatioEN45• All these statements are, of course, drawn from the theology of the older
Luther. More recent research (cf. Axel Gyllenkrok, Rechtfertigung und Heiligung in der fruhen
eve Theologie Luthers, 1952) has shown that at first Luther did not dialectically equate justifica-
tion and sanctification merely with one another, but also with Christology, and the three

EN43 single article

EN44 healing
EN45 sanctification
 ~ 61. The Justification of Man

together with the Word of God, and the Word of God understood in this way and man's faith
in the promised grace of God with the grace itself, and this again with the humble acknow-
ledgment of sin. In this original and tremendously profound enterprise of Luther there is no
end to the parallels and coincidences of subject and object, of God and man, of giving and
receiving, of passion and action. It was a theologia crucisEN46 which had strangely enough all
the marks of a theologia gloriaeEN47: a theology which saw everything together from the stand-
point of God (which will also be that of the believer). In his own life-time Luther himself did
not deny that this was his original enterprise, and we are always coming upon traces of it,
blinding flashes and confusing uncertainties which we can explain only in the light of it. We
do not have to decide here whether we prefer the younger Luther to the older. What is
certain is that in that first stage of his thinking and teaching he did not manage to say plainly
what he meant by the one thing or what he meant by the other, so that he could not establish
with any theological clarity either a certainty of salvation or a Christian ethics. If we prefer
the more violent dialectic of the younger Luther we must see to it that we are more success-
ful than Luther himself in these two respects. It is also certain that, at the very latest in the
early twenties-Gyllenkrok traces the beginning of the movement-Luther himself turned
from this theology of parallels to a less interesting but more articulated theology of dissimi-
larities and distinctions-it was still exciting enough. If in his earlier period he had spoken
almost suspiciously much of humilitasEN48, he now began to practise it. His theology now
became-I am almost bold to sayfor the first time-a theologia viatorumEN49• It was reforming
from the very first. In this new form it was effectively so for the edification of the Church.
And the change is perhaps explicable from within if we can accept that it went hand in hand
with a developing isolation of his Christology from the Christian anthropology which almost
completely dominated his early thinking. At any rate we are forced to say that in the last
[527] resort Lutheranism old and new followed the direction of Luther-or at least the older
Luther-when, like Calvin and Calvinism, it refused to centre its theology upon the one
article of justification.
We have already drawn attention to the independent importance and function of the
problem of sanctification side by side with that of justification not only in the older Protest-
antism but also in Calvin, and even Luther himself. But we have to remember that in this
problem, from the historical standpoint, we have to do with the particular problem of Piet-
ism and Methodism. Whatever reservations we may have with regard to this movement, an
attempt to do justice to it is something which no Church dogmatics can evade.
But in conclusion we have also to remember that there is a third element in the reconcil-
ing work of God in Jesus Christ which, like sanctification, cannot be subsumed under the
concept of justification, or can be so only very artificially and to the great detriment of the
matter: The office ofJesus Christ is that of the priest who sacrifices himself and the king who
rules, but it is also that of the prophet. And the reconciling grace of God has a dimension
and form which cannot simply be equated with justification or sanctification, the form and
dimension of the calling of man, his teleological setting in the kingdom of God which comes
and is present in Jesus Christ, the form of mission in relation to the community and in
relation to the individual Christian the form of hope. There are many things that we can say
against the theology of the last few centuries but they were not saecula obscuraEN50 in this
respect, that they brought out this aspect of the Christian message with a much greater

EN46 theology of the cross

EN47 theology of glory
EN48 humility
EN49 theology of pilgrims
EN50 dark ages
 1. The Problem of the Doctrine ofJustification

clarity than it had for the great Christians of the 16th century. This was the time when the
world-wide mission of the Church was taken up in earnest, the time of a new vision and
expectation of the kingdom of God as coming and already come, the time of a new awaken-
ing of Christianity to its responsibility to state and society, the time of a new consciousness of
its ecumenical existence and mission. These are actualities of Church history which a
Church dogmatics cannot overlook. And here, as in the doctrine of sanctification, we shall
have to adopt as far as we can the concern of the Eastern Church, which is so very remote
from the tradition of the West, but is still genuinely grounded in the New Testament. One
good reason for doing so is that in it we have to do with at least one of the roots of the
secularised political and social Chiliasm of the Eastern world which, for all the horror and
repugnance which it feels at its perversion, the Christian West has not so long outgrown that
it can try to close its eyes to the particula veriEN51 perverted in this way.Now withoutjustifica-
tion there is certainly no calling, no mission, no hope, no responsibility to the world. We still
have every reason to go very carefully into the great question of the Reformation and of
Luther in particular. The modern movements and enterprises of which we have to think in
this connexion have neglected this to their own hurt. It would not really harm the Eastern
Church to try to understand seriously the doctrine of the justification of the sinner by faith
alone-and certainly not the contemporary Eastern world. But, again, if we are going to
consider properly what we have to consider in connexion with the prophetic office of Christ,
we need a rather greater freedom than that which is allowed us if we move only within the
framework of the Reformation doctrine ofjustification. All honour to the question: How can
I find a gracious God? But for too long it has been for Protestantism-at any rate European
and especially German Protestantism-the occasion and temptation to a certain narcissism,
and a consequent delay in moving in the direction we have just indicated.

The articulus stantis et cadentis ecciesiaeEN52 is not the doctrine of justification

as such, but its basis and culmination: the confession of jesus Christ, in whom
are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col. 23); the knowledge of
His being and activity for us and to us and with us. It could probably be shown
that this was also the opinion of Luther. If here, as everywhere, we allow Christ [528]
to be the centre, the starting-point and the finishing point, we have no reason
to fear that there will be any lack of unity and cohesion, and therefore of sys-
tematics in the best sense of the word.
The problem of justification does not need artificially to be absolutised and
given a monopoly. It has its own dignity and necessity to which we do more and
not lessjustice if we do not ascribe to it a totalitarian claim which is not proper
to it, or allow all other questions to culminate or merge into it, or reject them
altogether with an appeal to it, but if we accept it with all its limitations as this
problem and try to answer it as such. Its very confusion and fusion with the
problem of sanctification has only been to the detriment of its proper treat-
ment. The general significance and reach of the doctrine of justification will
themselves be better brought out if we accept it with all its limitations as this
problem. And although other questions are all connected with it, and the
answering of this question has for them the decisive significance of a leaven,
they will then have their own particular place side by side with it. The doctrine

EN5l grain of truth

EN52 article by which the church stands or falls
 ~ 61. The Justification of Man

of justification will then further the free development of the riches of Chris-
tian knowledge instead of hindering it. It can then be recalled with a good
conscience as a warning where the importance of its particular truth is not
recognised or where in the preoccup~tion with other interests it is far too
rashly and unthinkingly assumed that it can be ignored. With a good con-
science-for the inculcation of it will not be a compulsion, a Caudine yoke, a
disqualification or artificial transmutation of that which at other times and
places has rightly been important for others in the same knowledge of the one
Jesus Christ. With. a good conscience-for we can be open to the viewpoints of
these others, and communication (and not simply tolerance) is then rightly
possible in the Church. In its own place-in the context in which it has to be
put and answered-the problem of justification does arise with a pitiless ser-
iousness, and it has to be answered with the same seriousness: the problem of
the presupposition and the possibility and the truth of the positive relation-
ship of God with man, of the peace of man with God.

2. THE JUDGMENT OF GOD

By sin man puts himself in the wrong in relation to God. He makes himself
impossible as the creature and covenant-partner of God. He desecrates the
good nature which has been given and forfeits the grace which is addressed to
him. He compromises his existence. For he has no right as sinner. He is only in
the wrong.
The presupposition, the possibility and the truth of a positive relationship
[529] between God and man and the peace of man with God consists (1) in there
being a right which is superior, absolutely superior to the wrong of which man
is guilty and in which he now finds himself, (2) in this right not merely being
transcendent but worked out in man and (3) in the wrong of man being set
aside and a new human right being established and set up in the working out
of this higher right. This higher right is the right of God, and its outworking,
the setting aside of the wrong of man and the restoration of his right, is the
judgment of God. The justification of man takes place in the eventuation of
this judgment.
We must first speak of the right of God which is absolutely superior to the
wrong of man. What kind of a right is this? We cannot see it except in the
judgment of God. But to understand this and the justification of man, we must
first lay down that it is right, the right of God, which is worked out and exe-
cuted in it. Where do we see the freedom of God more clearly than in the
justification of sinful man? But nowhere do we see more clearly that it is true
freedom and not the false freedom of an arbitrary whim. The fact that God
acts as He does in the justification of man proves conclusively that He could
not act in this wayjust as well as any other but that what we have here is not
whim and caprice but right, the supreme right of all. Not, of course, that God

16
Other documents randomly have
different content
reasons for seeing a new edition published: to get the public better
acquainted with a classic, to augment the income of his illustrious
friend and predecessor, and to pay personal tribute to one to whom
he felt deeply indebted.

In the preface Doughty says regarding Lawrence and the new

edition: “A re-print has been called for; and is reproduced thus, at
the suggestion chiefly of my distinguished friend, Colonel T. E.
Lawrence, leader with Feysal, Meccan Prince, of the nomad
tribesmen; whom they, as might none other at that time marching
from Jidda, the port of Mecca, were able, (composing, as they went,
the tribes’ long-standing blood feuds and old enmities), to unite with
them in victorious arms, against the corrupt Turkish sovereignty in
those parts: and who greatly thus serving his Country’s cause and
her Allies, from the Eastward, amidst the Great War, has in that
imperishable enterprise, traversed the same wide region of Desert
Arabia.”

No sooner was the edition off the press than it was exhausted,
and since then more editions have followed. So Lawrence’s ambition
to do something for Doughty, and gain for his classic a still wider
circulation, was more than realized. Unquestionably the sale of
“Arabia Deserta” was stimulated by the fact that Lawrence had
written a special introduction to it in which he paid glowing tribute to
the great traveler whose experiences in the desert had done so
much to pave the way for his own success. Lawrence’s introduction
to this new edition also gives us a hint as to his own skill with the
pen and as to what we may expect from his own volume on Arabia.
He writes:

The realism of the book is complete. Doughty tries to tell the

full and exact truth of all that he saw. If there is a bias it will be
against the Arabs, for he liked them so much; he was so
impressed by the strange attraction, isolation and independence
of this people that he took pleasure in bringing out their virtues
by a careful expression of their faults. “If one live any time with
the Arab he will have all his life after a feeling of the desert.” He
had experienced it himself, the test of nomadism, that most
deeply biting of all social disciplines, and for our sakes he
strained all the more to paint it in its true colours, as a life too
hard, too empty, too denying for all but the strongest and most
determined men. Nothing is more powerful and real than this
record of all his daily accidents and obstacles, and the feelings
that came to him on the way. His picture of the Semites, sitting
to the eyes in a cloaca, but with their brows touching Heaven,
sums up in full measure their strength and weakness, and the
strange contradictions of their thought which quicken curiosity
at our first meeting with them.
 To try and solve their riddle many of us have gone far into
their society, and seen the clear hardness of their belief, a
limitation almost mathematical, which repels us by its
unsympathetic form. Semites have no half-tones in their register
of vision. They are a people of primary colours, especially of
black and white, who see the world always in line. They are a
certain people, despising doubt, our modern crown of thorns.
They do not understand our metaphysical difficulties, our self-
 questionings. They know only truth and untruth, belief and
unbelief, without our hesitating retinue of finer shades.

Semites are black and white not only in vision, but in their
inner furnishing; black and white not merely in clarity, but in
apposition. Their thoughts live easiest among extremes. They
inhabit superlatives by choice. Sometimes the great
inconsistents seem to possess them jointly. They exclude
compromise, and pursue the logic of their ideas to its absurd
ends, without seeing incongruity in their opposed conclusions.
They oscillate with cool head and tranquil judgment from
asymptote to asymptote, so imperturbably that they would
seem hardly conscious of their giddy flight.

Lawrence’s command of English is amazing, by reason, of course,

of his familiarity with the classics and his knowledge of both ancient
and modern languages. His vocabulary is wider than that of most
learned professors, and he has great descriptive powers, as we have
observed from his description of the death of his friend Tallal el
Haredhin of Tafas.

While in London and at All Souls, he lived much as he did in the

desert. Indeed, from force of habit after his long experience in the
East, he has become much like the Bedouins and has no desire for
luxuries. He rarely eats or sleeps regularly, and says it is fatal if you
are caught in an emergency to have formed regular habits. He
usually goes without sleep one night a week and eats like a bird. It
is his custom to sleep from three to ten in the morning and then
take a long walk until three in the afternoon. Upon his return from
his walk he would work until two in the morning, when he would go
out for his dinner. The only places in London open at that unusual
hour were the station restaurants, where he would tell the waiter to
bring him anything he liked. He hates to order food, and a few
minutes after he has had a meal he has forgotten what the dishes
were. When walking along the streets in London he is usually
absorbed and pays no attention to anything until he comes to with a
start and finds that a bus is about to run him down.

In avoiding the network of modern complexities he seldom has to

worry about the countless things that crowd the joy out of our ultra-
civilized modern life. He has no private income and scorns money
except what he needs for the simple necessities of life and for his
one luxury, books. His mother once told me that he had always been
a trial to her because she never knew what he was going to do next.
He himself declares that he probably will never marry because “no
woman would live with me.”

Yet despite his scorn of money in private life, and his well nigh
complete lack of it, while in the desert he had almost unlimited
credit and could draw on his government up to many hundreds of
thousands of pounds. It was by no means an uncommon sight to
see him stuffing ten thousand pounds in gold sovereigns in one
camel-bag and ten thousand in another. Then off he would go with
it, accompanied only by ten or twelve Bedouins. On one occasion
Lawrence drew a paltry six hundred pounds from Major Scott “to do
a bit of shopping.” Major Scott kept the boxes of sovereigns in his
tent at headquarters in Akaba. Major Maynard, who was in charge of
some of the records, heard of this and asked for a receipt. When
Scott informed Lawrence, the latter nearly doubled up with laughter
and said, “He shall have it!” And so far as I could find out that was
the only receipt he ever signed. As for the letters he received in the
desert, he usually read them but then burned them and never
bothered about answering.

His has indeed been a strange existence, full of individual

experience. Fond of Oriental rugs, Lawrence picked up many rare
ones during his wanderings. On the floor of his tent at Akaba were
two beauties. Lawrence slept on one of them, while his companion,
Major Marshall, used a camp-bed. One of the two rugs is now in the
possession of Lady Allenby, while Marshall has the other. One day in
the bazaar in Jedda, Lawrence saw a barber kneeling on a prayer-
rug that he liked. It had two holes in it three or four inches in
diameter. The barber offered it to him for two pounds, and Lawrence
bought it. When he took it to Cairo and had it appraised by one of
the leading rug merchants of Egypt he found that it was worth about
seventy pounds after being repaired. So Lawrence sent the barber a
five-pound note. At his mother’s home in Oxford he had a pile of
Oriental rugs and carpets still covered with the dust of the East. A
friend of the family got married at a time when Lawrence was away,
and his mother sent one of the rugs as a wedding gift. When the
colonel returned she told him about the incident and said she
presumed it was not worth much. “That one you gave away cost me
147 pounds” ($665), replied Lawrence. But he was not the least bit
vexed and promptly forgot all about it.

When the year was up during which he had promised to serve as

Near Eastern advisor at the Colonial Office, Lawrence put on his hat
and walked out. Since then he has found a new exhaust for his
surplus energy. He met an army officer who had a high-power
motor-cycle which was too much for the latter to handle. So
Lawrence bought it and streaks it about England much as he
formerly raced across the North Arabian Desert in the “Blue Mist.”

When an undergraduate at Oxford, he and another student made

a solemn compact that if either ever did anything particularly
noteworthy he would wire for the other to come so that they could
celebrate. In 1920 Lawrence telegraphed his friend as follows:
“Come at once. Have done something.” This was the first word that
had passed between the two since their pre-war college days. When
the friend arrived this is what Lawrence had done that he thought
worth celebrating: he had just finished his bungalow on the edge of
Epping Forest, and was keeping cows!
 Epping Forest is a semi-national preserve of some sort, and there
is a law that forbids the erection of non-movable structures. After
Lawrence had finished his bungalow the police came and pointed out
to him that he had broken the law because his house was a
stationary edifice. So Lawrence bought some paint and made four
camouflage red wheels on the sides of the cottage. This so amused
the authorities that they said no more about the law. But not long
afterward a fire wiped out nearly everything he had.
 As to what will happen to Lawrence in the future, only Allah
knows. One thing is certain, that he will not permit his country to
make a hero out of him. The maker of history has once more
become the student of history. But Lawrence may live to see the
effect of the wave that he rolled up out of the desert, in the form of
an important new power in the East. As a result of the Arabian war
of liberation, which was not a foolish dream on paper, and as a result
of Allenby’s smashing campaign in Palestine and Syria, three new
Arabian states have come into existence: the kingdom of Hedjaz
under Hussein I, of Mecca; the independent state of Transjordania
under Hussein’s second son, the Sultan Abdullah; and the kingdom
of Iraq in Mesopotamia, where Hussein’s third son, King Feisal I,
occupies the throne. It is the dream of these three, assisted by
Hussein’s eldest son, the Emir Ali, who remains in Mecca, one day to
form a United States of Arabia.

Much depends on King Feisal. Colonel Lawrence played the

dominate part in making him the greatest Arab in five centuries. But
the task before Feisal is stupendous. He has vision and high ideals
for his people. Will he be strong enough to maintain his position in
Bagdad and remain the leading figure in the Arabian world? Events
are now moving swiftly in the Near East. If King Feisal can, through
the quiet force of his personality, continue the work of wiping out
the ancient quarrels between the tribes and cities of the desert in
which task he and his father and brothers were given such effective
help by Lawrence, and if the nations of the West will send railway,
sanitary, and irrigation engineers and disinterested military and
political advisers; coöperate in the establishment of schools; and
lend financial support, the glory that once was Babylon’s may come
again in Mesopotamia. The future of King Feisal and his brothers
may be the future of Arabia. None may know the end of the story.
But one thing is certain, and that is that Feisal, like his romantic
predecessor, Harun al Rashid of the Arabian Nights, is a just and
merciful monarch; but had it not been for the youthful Lawrence,
Feisal would not be ruling in Bagdad to-day, nor would his brother
Abdullah be the sultan of Transjordania, nor would the Arabs
recently have had the opportunity to proclaim King Hussein as the
Calif of all Islam and Commander of the Faithful. For it was this
young man who destroyed the thousand-year-old network of blood-
feuds, who built up the Arabian army, who planned the strategy of
the desert campaign and led the Arabs into battle, who swept the
Turks from a thousand miles of country between Mecca and
Damascus, who was the brains of the epic Arabian campaign and
rode in triumph through the bazaars of Damascus, and established a
government for Prince Feisal in the capital of Omar and Saladin, the
oldest surviving city in the world. But without a complete
understanding of the mentality and instinct of Arabia, and without a
sincere love for the peoples of the desert, this would never have
been possible. Nor is it surprising that with such love and
understanding from such a man, translated into successful policies
and glorious deeds, he won the adoration of the Arab race.

Little did young Lawrence dream, when he was studying Hittite

ruins, that it was his destiny to play a major rôle in building a new
empire, instead of piecing together, for a scholar’s thesis, the
fragments of a dead-and-buried kingdom. Captain Tuohy has tersely
said in his brief note in “The Secret Corps,” for “romantic adventure
his career has probably been unexampled in this or in any other
war.”

This twenty-eight-year-old poet and scholar had started across the

Arabian Desert in February, 1916, to raise an army, accompanied by
only three companions. I do not know of a more helpless task than
this that has been essayed during the last thousand years. They at
first had no money, no means of transportation except a few camels,
and no means of communication except camel-riders. They were
trying to raise and equip an army in a country which has no
manufacturing interests, which produces very little food and less
water. In many parts of Arabia water-holes are a five days’ camel
trek apart. They had no laws to help them, and they were trying to
raise an army among the nomadic Bedouin tribes that had been
separated from one another by blood-feuds for hundreds of years.
They were trying to unify a people who quarrel over the possession
of the water-holes and pasture-lands of Arabia, and war with one
another for the possession of camels; a people who, when they
meet one another in the desert, usually substitute volleys of pot-
shots for the conventional rules of Oriental courtesy.

In habit, instinct, and mental outlook Europe is utterly at variance

with Asia, and it is rarely, only once in hundreds of years, that there
comes forward some brilliant Anglo-Saxon, Celt, or Latin who,
possessing an understanding that transcends race, religion, and
tradition, can adopt the Eastern temperament at will. Such men
were Marco Polo, the Venetian, and General Charles Gordon. Such a
man is Thomas Edward Lawrence, the modern Arabian knight.

[End]
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WITH LAWRENCE
IN ARABIA ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States
copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy
and distribute it in the United States without permission and
without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the
General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree
to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease
using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for
keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the
work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement
by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full
Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge
with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and
with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it,
give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project
Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country
where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of
the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
 containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute

this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must,
at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy,
a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy
upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive
from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
 payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt
that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project
Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
Project Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different
terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain
permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright
law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these
efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium
on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as,
but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data,
transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property
infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be
read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE
THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT
EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE
THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you
paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you
received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.
If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund
in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set

forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’,
WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this
agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this
agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the
maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable
state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of
this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless
from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you
do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project
Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or
deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect
you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission

of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new
computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of
volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™
collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In
2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was
created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project
Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your
efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the
Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-
profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status
by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or
federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions
to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and
your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500

West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at
www.gutenberg.org/contact
 Section 4. Information about Donations to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works
that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated
equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly
important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws

regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of
the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform
and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many
fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not
solicit donations in locations where we have not received written
confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine
the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states

where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know
of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from
donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot

make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations
received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp
our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current

donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a
number of other ways including checks, online payments and
credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About

Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could
be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose
network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several

printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by
copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus,
we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any
particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear
about new eBooks.
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookultra.com