^{page 31 note 1} Barth, K., ‘Parergon’, Evangelische Theologie, 8 (1948), p. 172.Google Scholar

^{page 31 note 2} Chr. Kaiser Verlag (München, 1927). That Barth was not unacquainted with St. Anselm at this time is evident from his contention in Die christliche Dogmatik: he finds him to lend support for the view that God is known only through God: we do not know him, but in him we are known (pp. 96–8; 102; 108).

^{page 31 note 3} Cf. Gilson, É., Sens et nature de l'argument de saint Anselme. Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Age 9 (1934).Google Scholar Gilson maintains contra Barth that St. Anselm's Name for God expresses an essence—a content of thought (p. 7, n. 1). An analysis of this content is sufficient to prove God's existence. Cf. Barth, , Anselms Beweis der Existenz Gottes im Zusammenhang seines theologischen Programms, 2. Auflage, Zürich, 1958 (E.T. Anselm: Fides Quaerens Intellectum. London, 1960, P. 75).Google Scholar

^{page 31 note 4} Barth, Anselm, pp. 60–62. Cf. Bouillard, H., Karl Barth, Part Two: Parole de Dieu et existence humaine, p. 146.Google Scholar

^{page 31 note 5} Barth, op. cit., p. 44.

^{page 31 note 6} op. cit., p. 46.

^{page 32 note 1} ibid.

^{page 32 note 2} ibid.

^{page 32 note 3} op. cit., p. 47.

^{page 32 note 4} op. cit., p. 48.

^{page 32 note 5} ibid.

^{page 33 note 1} Contra Prenter, R., ‘Glauben und Erkennen bei Karl Barth’, erygma und Dogma, vol. ii (1956), pp. 156ffGoogle Scholar; and ‘Die Einheit von Schöpfung und Erlösung’, Theologische Zeitschrift, 2 (1946), pp. 161ff.Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 2} Barth, op. cit., p. 160; cf. Bouillard, op. cit., pp. 161ff.

^{page 33 note 3} Barth, op. cit., p. 68.

^{page 33 note 4} op. cit., p. 70.

^{page 33 note 5} ibid.

^{page 33 note 6} ibid.

^{page 34 note 1} op. cit., p. 123.

^{page 34 note 2} op. cit., p. 74.

^{page 34 note 3} op. cit., p. 80.

^{page 34 note 4} op. cit., p. 75.

^{page 34 note 5} op. cit., p. 76.

^{page 34 note 6} cf. Bouillard, op. cit., p. 150: ‘Dieu ne ressemble à rien, n'appartient à aucun classement conceptuel. C'est tout autrement qu'il faut entendre l'iddée de Dieu: non l'essence s'offrant au regard de l'homme, mais la désignation de l'essence: aliquid quo maius cogitari potest…’

^{page 35 note 1} Barth, op. cit., p. 76.

^{page 35 note 2} Anselm, Apologetic in Reply to Gaunilon's Answer in Behalf of the Fool, chs. iv and v (in Anselm: Basic Writings. La Salle: Open Court (1962), pp. 159.ff; 161ff).

^{page 35 note 3} Barth, op. cit., pp. 79ff.

^{page 35 note 4} op. cit., p. 83.

^{page 35 note 5} ibid.

^{page 35 note 6} op. cit., pp. 84; 86–8.

^{page 35 note 7} op. cit., p. 84, n. 4.

^{page 36 note 1} op. cit., p. 94. The influence of this aspect of Barth's interpretation is seen clearly in his attitude to natural theology. This latter, on the basis of a general concept of being, attempts to divide God's potentiality from his actuality: cf. Barth, , Church Dogmatics, vol. ii, 1, pp. 63ff; 85ff.Google Scholar

^{page 36 note 2} Barth, op. cit., p. 123.

^{page 36 note 3} op. cit., p. 125.

^{page 37 note 1} op. cit., p. 128.

^{page 37 note 2} op. cit, p. 100.

^{page 37 note 3} op. cit., p. 139; cf. Barth, , ‘Schicksal und Idee in der Theologie’, Theologische Fragen und Antworten. Gesammelte Vorträge, Bd iii. Zürich (1957), pp. 78–81.Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 4} op. cit., p. 141.

^{page 38 note 1} op. cit., pp. 143–4.

^{page 38 note 2} oP. cit., P. 151.

^{page 38 note 3} oP. cit., P. 152.

^{page 38 note 4} op. cit., pp. 159–60; 165.

^{page 38 note 5} op. cit., p. 159.

^{page 38 note 6} op. cit., p. 160. There is an obvious relation here to Barth's understanding of the fool and his view of sin as das Nichtige: cf. Church Dogmatics, vol. iii. 3, pp. 327ff.Google Scholar This aspect of Barth's thought, which has given rise to criticism of its universalist direction, springs directly from his doctrine of God: this has generally not been appreciated. Cf. Berkouwer, G. C., The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth, pp. 262ffGoogle Scholar; J. Baillie, Our Knowledge of God; Hartwell, H., The Theology of Karl Barth, pp. 186–187.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 1} op. cit., p. 160.

^{page 39 note 2} op. cit., pp. 158–61; cf. Church Dogmatics, vol. ii. 2, pp. 132–3.

^{page 39 note 3} op. cit., pp. 83–4.

^{page 40 note 1} op. cit., pp. 128–9; cf. PP. 132–3.

^{page 40 note 2} Bouillard, , Parole, pp. 158ffGoogle Scholar; also Connaissance de Dieu (E.T., The Knowledge of God. London, 1969).Google Scholar

^{page 41 note 1} Apologetic, ch. viii; op. cit., pp. 161 ff.

^{page 41 note 2} cf. Findlay, J. N., ‘Can God's Existence be Disproved?’ in New Essays in Philosophical Theology, ed. Flew, and MacIntyre, , p. 55.Google Scholar

^{page 41 note 3} cf. Torrance, T. F., ‘The Problem of Natural Theology in the Thought of Karl Barth’, Religious Studies, 6.2 (1970), pp. 121ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 42 note 1} Barth, op. cit., pp. 116–17.

^{page 42 note 2} op. cit., p. 117.

^{page 42 note 3} ibid. This interpretation is indebted to E. Jüngel, Gottes Sein ist im Werden (Tübingen, 1967).

^{page 42 note 4} Barth, , Church Dogmatics, vol. iv. 1, p. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 5} Church Dogmatics, vol. i. 1, pp. 141ff; 51ff; 98ff; 213ff; 284ff.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 6} Church Dogmatics, vol. iv. 1, p. 128.Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 1} op. cit., p. 129.

^{page 43 note 2} ibid.

^{page 43 note 3} ibid.

^{page 43 note 4} op. cit., p. 131.

^{page 43 note 5} op. cit., pp. 132ff.

^{page 43 note 6} op. cit., p. 133.

^{page 44 note 1} op. cit., p. 136.

^{page 44 note 2} op. cit., pp. 147–8; 151–2; 202–4.

^{page 44 note 3} op. cit., p. 308.

^{page 44 note 4} op. cit., p. 309.

^{page 44 note 5} cf. Church Dogmatics, vol. i. 1, pp. 150ff; 162ff; 184ff.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 6} op. cit., pp. 349ff.