^{page 412 note 1} Barth, , Evangelische Theologie im 19. Jahrhundert, Zürich, 1957, p. 6Google Scholar; cf. Church Dogmatics, II/1, pp. 634ff, and Die Menschlichkeit Gottes (Zürich, 1956), pp. 5–6.

^{page 413 note 1} Die kirchliche Dogmatik (herinafter, K.D.), II/2, p. 573; cf. Rae, S. H.: ‘Dostoevsky and the Theological Revolution in the West’, Russian Review (Stanford, Calif., 29:1, Jan. 1970), pp. 74–80.Google Scholar

^{page 413 note 2} Lehmann's, PaulEthics in a Christian Context (London, 1963Google Scholar) begins at a similar point, and is in many ways parallel to Barth's ethical thinking; e.g. ‘The indicative character of Christian ethics is the consequence of the contextual character of the forgiveness and the freedom with which Christ has set men free to be and to do what they are in the light of what God has done and is doing in him.’ (p. 161).

^{page 413 note 3} K.D. p. 619.

^{page 413 note 4} K.D. p. 627.

^{page 413 note 5} K.D. p. 624.

^{page 414 note 1} K.D. p. 628.

^{page 414 note 2} Barth, , Evangelium und Gesetz, p. 3Google Scholar; the repetition emphasises the must and the follow.

^{page 414 note 3} loc cit.

^{page 414 note 4} op. cit., p. 4.

^{page 415 note 1} op. cit., p. 10; cf. K.D. I/2, p. 436, ‘In Christ the power of the gospel promise (Du wirst sein) is restored to the demand of the law (Du sollst).

^{page 415 note 2} Evangelium und Gesetz, p. 12.

^{page 415 note 3} op. cit., p. 15.

^{page 415 note 4} op. cit., pp. 19–22.

^{page 416 note 1} Barth, , Das Geschenk der Freiheiti; for i Grundlegung evangelischer Ethik (Zürich, 1953). pp. 1–10Google Scholar. Extensive reference cannot be made in this context to the Dogmatics but much of III/4 lies behind what is said.

^{page 416 note 2} op. cit., p. 14.

^{page 416 note 3} op. cit., p. 17. This and similar statements led Joseph Fletcher to include Barth among the practitioners of situation ethics: Flecher, , Situation Ethics (London, 1966), pp. 33–34Google Scholar; cf. Rae, S. H., ‘Rule and Context in Contemporary Christian Ethics’, Colloquium: the Australian and New Zealand Theological Review, Auckland, N.Z., 4:3 (Oct. 1971), pp. 29–38.Google Scholar

^{page 416 note 4} Natur und Gnade zum Gespräch mit Karl Barth (Tübingen, 1934Google Scholar), Englis translation with Barth's ‘Nein!’ in Brunner and Barth, Natural Theology (London, 1946).

^{page 417 note 1} Natural Theology, p. 51.

^{page 417 note 2} I have elsewhere attempted to draw attention to the continuing relevance of Calvin's natural law teaching, particularly for Christian involvement in secular affairs: ‘Calvin, Natural Law and Contemporary Ethics: A Brief Note’, Reformed Theological Review (Melbourne, 30:1, April 1971), pp. 14–20.

^{page 417 note 3} A recent study, ‘The Problem of Natural Theology in the Thought of Karl Barth’, by Professor T. F. Torrance, emphasises Barth's objection to the independent character of natural theology rather than to its rational structure as such; Religious Studies, Camb., 6:2 (June 1970), pp. 121–35.

^{page 417 note 4} But cf. Ebeling, G., ‘On the Doctrine of the Triplex Usus Legis in the Theology of the Reformation’ and ‘Reflexions on the Doctrine of the Law’, chapters II and VIII of his Word and Faith (London, 1963).Google Scholar

^{page 418 note 1} ‘separatio legis et evangelii proprium et principale opus est Marcionis’, Tertullian, Adv. Marcion. I, 19, cited by Ebeling, op. cit., p. 255.

^{page 418 note 2} Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I/II, 106, 1.

^{page 418 note 3} German edition (Tübingen, 1958), pp. 188ff, esp. p. 189 n. 1; it should be noted that the English translation, Theological Ethics, vol. 1, is abbreviated at some points.

^{page 419 note 1} Thielicke, op. cit., pp. 192ff; Cullmann, Christ et le temps, Neuchâtel, 1947, p. 42, n. 2, and in general.

^{page 419 note 2} Calvin, Institutio Christianae Religionis, II, x, 2: ‘The covenant with the Patriarchs is so far from differing from ours in substance, that it is the very same: it varies only in administration.’ cf. Inst., II, xi, 8–9; Comm. on Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke, sub. Matt. 5.17.

^{page 419 note 3} Luther, Tischreden, II, 1234.

^{page 419 note 4} cf. Dodd, C. H., ‘Natural Law in the New Testament’, in his New Testament Studies (Manchester, 1953), chap. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 420 note 1} The literature is vast; standard works give extensive bibliographical details.

^{page 420 note 2} Ellul, , The Theological Foundation of Law (London, 1961).Google Scholar

^{page 420 note 3} cf. Williams, Daniel D., ‘The Concept of Truth in Karl Barth's Theology’, Religious Studies, 6:2 (June 1970), pp. 137–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who emphasises the fact that theology cannot be pursued in isolation from other disciplines, and notes Barth's own inability to remain isolated from other thinkers, both secular and Christian. Also Macquarrie, John, Three Issues in Ethics (London, 1970)Google Scholar, ‘(natural law) is the inner drive toward authentic personhood and is presupposed in all particular ethical traditions including the Christian one’, p. 91.

^{page 421 note 1} Barth, , Die Menschlichkeit Gottes (Zürich, 1956), pp. 6–8, esp. p. 8.Google Scholar