{ } = word or expression can't be understood
{word} = hard to understand, might be this

...a rubric, ec- -- economy, city facts. Economy. As you know, my topic is economics. And it says, "Economy: agriculture, tourists, research plants." I am not in it, you are not in it. We are uneconomical. And -- so that it -- taught me that the term "economics" today is subservient to many purposes. And certainly we do not agree on it. I think I am in economics. But the word "economics" in my sense, in the sense in which you have -- you will have to listen to me today and the next three times, has gone stale, or has died, or is corrupted.

Well now, about Santa Barbara. That's a story. Sixty years back -- no, 55 years back, I was a soldier. I had to serve, as everybody has in -- under conscription, in the German army. And on the Day of Santa Barbara, all the soldiers had to take the oath to their weapons. It was in the regiment of the artillery. And Santa Barbara was the saint of the artillery man. And I skipped it. I -- persuaded the senior sergeant to let me go. A friend of mine was very ill, and wrote to me that he needed my help. And lo and behold! I never took the oath. I served six more years as a soldier, however, so nobody ever ob- -- noticed it. But I, arriving here, found myself now under obligation to do something for Santa Barbara. I had deserted her.

But the -- the saint of artillery seems a far cry to the beauty here in California on this campus. How come -- how can reasonable men at the same time on one side of the globe speak of Santa Barbara as the saint of artillery, and on this campus here, advise us that it's the most beautiful spot, even in California? There is something strange that has occurred, an estrangement of meaning, an estrangement of significations; an estrangement in language, and in thought, and in action. One-half of mankind for a long time has seen in Santa Barbara the protecting saint for army men who have to deal with the terrible weapons of guns, of cannon. And here, you think of Santa Barbara as an innocent place for retired people, or those who want to retire at 55.

Really something has happened. War and peace are embodied in the two meanings of the saint, Santa Barbara. And the modern economist omits war and the sufferings of humanity when he speaks of the supermarket. Santa Barbara, the saint, to which I owed allegiance for so many years as a soldier, asks that we are ready to die for our country, or for some cause. And that we -- apply to this service, or this readiness to serve, the most developed, technical weapons and skill. We admit that engineering and machinery serves to produce more and more bombs. And on the other hand, here in Santa Barbara, we try to forget this. Man is at peace; it's a wonderful country. Everybody is here for his own best development. And there is no sacrifice needed.

All modern -- modern science has done -- all modern philosophy does is to omit one little thing: sacrifice. If you read all the modern philosophies of democratic institutions, the word "sacrifice" never occurs. That's too -- bad taste. And so, if there have to be sacrifices, as in childbirth, i's made painless, so that you cannot call it sacrifice, but a "fascinating experience."

Of course, of this I do not know myself. However, I think it is -- would be worthwhile to state here from the beginning that my topic has this difficulty from the beginning: that we speak two languages. This language of Santa Barbara as a university campus; and the language of Santa Barbara as the saint of artillery. Every one of us speaks this. you only have to think of Vietnam to know that this true, that half of our life is concerned with the problem of dying, and the -- only the other half is concerned with the problem of living.

And this has caused me over so many years now to give thought to the relation of these two economies of our created universe. The word "economy," as it is -- I proved to you before, is today used in a platitudinous sense as producing goods, using goods, buying goods, selling them. "Economy" today means what is dependent on your and my will. And certainly only asses would sacrifice in economy. They want to gain.

The old word of "economy" on which we all have been brought up, is the economy between the old and the new covenant, between the law and grace, between the creature in us and the redeemed man, the freed man, the delivered. You will not believe that down to the founding fathers of this country, the only meaning of the word "economy" was the relation between fallen man and redeemed man. That is the meaning of the word "economy." And it is very simple why this was so. The economy was the house of God, out of wild nature, out of the wilderness, and out of the desert, and out of the forests, and out of primeval matter. Man, under the advice of his creator, created an orderly world. And the better he did it, the more the oikos--that is the -- what -- the word contained in "economy," the oikos in Greek--the house of God was built.

"Ecos" in "economy," down to 1800, always meant the -- the task of God to convince you and me that we were not wild animals, that -- that we had to live in an orderly household. We were God's saints, in His house. The temple of God, or the house of God was -- had spelled, had substituted, or had followed the house of Israel. And Israel was the chosen people who knew the order of the universe, and who therefore, even out of a desert, made an orderly economy, in the very sense in which we use the word "economy," you see. With a house father, every Pesach, every Pesah -- festival in the Jewish communion to this day is an attempt to represent, or reproduce God's household, with a father, and a mother, and the children knowing what's right and wrong. Using the reserves, the goods of the

country, the -- the land, and the food, and the { }, and the onions, and the vegetables for good purposes.

The Christian economy, which took the place of the house of Israel, tried to -- establish the house of God in every Communion. The whole problem of the Holy Supper, of the Last Supper, the whole problem of -- which has, as you know, divided the Christian -- sects and churches into endless discussions, and fights, and struggles to this day, is: this demand made on our belief, and our -- and on our obedience to gather, as in a household, and to sit down at Holy Communion as though at this moment the world had ceased to be a wilderness, and was a family, the household in which the things were used right, because man himself used himself right, as a sacrifice.

And here comes in this very unpleasant word, with which I have to bother you. From the -- from the believing end, or from the historical end down to 1800, this country has been based on the assumption that only people who know that they have to sacrifice can be human beings. There's no other basis for humanity in this -- conviction. You can be clever. You can have IQ of 170, and you will go to jail -- and rightly so, because the cleverest are always also the most terrible people. For my cleverness, I go to Hell. Cleverness, even in a university campus, is no excuse for wickedness. Think of the {Loeb} brothers, who were highly intelligent, you see. And they slaughtered their friend for curiosity's sake, because they were -- so intelligent, you see. IQ: 170.

So the economy of our creation is a very difficult one, because it demands from you and me the -- as a first admission, that we are the victims in the process. God's world cannot stand without sacrifice. And you just read the paper again, and the headline, and you know that some of our brothers and sisters at this moment have to testify to this truth, disagreeable as it may be to you to think of it. Any policeman and any fireman who dis- -- extinguishes a fire is doing exactly the same thing.

This is the -- God's economy then with men, that He--the one thing--does to us suddenly and says, "You too are creature. You are needed in creation in this massive process of processes that go on: water running down, storms blowing. You, too, are like a natural force that has to find its proper use. And if you don't flow in the right direction, there will be a blackout of civilization." Not just in New York. Even in Santa Barbara.

Now this word "economy" was unknown in any other sense than in this, as I have told you -- as I have tried to describe it: economy as the order under which man's sacrifice was acceptable to restore the order of the universe. The house of God is the "ecos," and the "-nomy"; the "nomos" is the law under which

this can be established. By your participating in this sacrifice, the world can go on peacefully. Otherwise it cannot. Now you -- you will admit that today nobody understands that "economy" ever had this meaning.

Paul Tillich -- my friend Paul Tillich, who died -- recently, a fortnight ago--and who has lectured here, I understand, on this campus; is that true?--a few years ago also rediscovered the beautiful meaning of "economics" in the -- Letter to the Ephesians, and got -- waxed quite enthusiastic about this fact that men live in the economy of God. And he is instrumental to tell the theologians that they must drop the word "theology" as perfectly misstated. It's a very shorttime word. It was only invented in 1125 by Ab‚lard, by a heretic.

And you shouldn't use it. Mistrust people who talk of theology. "Our salvation" is a better thing than "theology." And Tillich tried to erase this unnecessary word by saying, "Call it theonomics." It is the law of the divine life in us. If you compare biology and bionomics, economy and ecology, economi- -- theology and theonomics, astrology and astronomics, you will find a very pertinent distinction between the two ways of talking. In ecology, we are not under any obligation. In philology we aren't. We -- we recognize something; we study something. Well, this is that; and this is that. This is, you see, Homer. And this is -- Pindar. And so we go on. And British literature. And there is no end to the philologists' writings, because they are not obliged to produce poetry. They only criticize it.

With bionomics and biology, it should be the same. It isn't quite. I have to go onto the campus in Santa Cruz, talk there about the distinction between biology and bionomics. But I tell you one thing, in bionomics, death is included. In biology it is not. Therefore bionomics is a serious business, and biology --. Well, I won't say it.

The same is true of what Tillich tried to convey by -- imploring his colleagues--of course, they didn't heed -- his doctrine--but what he tried to say all his life was: theonomics differs from theology because the man who talks here ca- -- knows that he cannot talk about God. He can only talk out of God, or against God. But there is no way of looking at God, or analyzing Him. That's all nonsense. Don't try it. He's unknown for every practical purpose. And if you do not begin with this wisdom, you'll never know who He is. So it is an amazing effrontery to -- to have a theology. I don't believe in it.

And so we have always agreed -- well, now for -- since 1919, we have stolen horses together, that we should not dare to speak of -- of theology, because it is arrogant. And -- this can only be idols, if we talk of God as though we knew Him, and He -- we looked at Him, and we analyzed Him, and dissected

Him. It's all funny. How they can take themselves serious, I don't know. But they do.

But in theonomics and in astronomics, we are inside of it. We know that the -- we will be in the night as the astronomer, will be inside. We cannot predict, but we must behave. It is a discipline for our own behavior. So we must turn on the lights when there is night. That's all we can do about it. And the help the astronomer gives is to warn us: it will be dark, please. The same is true of the- -- theonomy. We know when God is angry.

This is much more important to know than how many angels there are in Heaven, you see, on His left -- left toe, big toe, which they did at the end of Scholasticism, you see: tried to figure out how many angels danced on His left toe. Then they -- the -- one other proof, it was the right leg's toe.

That's all nonsense. But the word "nomics" then is perhaps for the next thousand years a help to our mentality. If you speak of theonomics, or if you speak of economics, you know very well that the crisis will hit you, too, that you have to contribute something. That is, you are inside this knowledge. You cannot manipulate it, as the advisor to the president.

The -- knowledge that a living soul has is conditioned on his obedience. If a man doesn't obey, he cannot know anything important. First you have to obey; then you are allowed to know. But not the other way around. That's the essence of the word "economy." In ecology it's different. If you see the meadow--you know what ecology is, the combination of animals and plants in -- in our -- on our earth--you can study this, but you don't have to do anything about it. You don't have to replant the wilderness, you see. You just know that it is one.

So the ecologist is outside the things he observes. The economist never is. He's -- as soon as he thinks he is, he is battered down with blindness. The leading economist of this country, Irving Fisher, lived to see the Great Depression in 1929. I tell you this because -- not to harangue poor Mr. Irving Fisher, who was a very nice man, but to tell you that the use of the word "economy" has something to do with the salvation of this country and of our soul. Irving Fisher lived to see the Great Depression in which one-third of the fortunes of this country have been wiped out. On 2- -- October 29th, the great Crash occurred. And in the middle of October, Irving Fisher made a public speech in which he said that the country and the stock exchange had now reached a permanent plateau of high values and high prices. And we call this "science."

It's like the Kiplinger Letter. They all -- today in this country there is a whole army of -- of witches who tell you they know. The more people tell you

they know, the more you'd better take cover. There are things we are not allowed to know, because we must support the order of things, but we cannot know it. As soon as you -- as you -- describe your mother as to her character, and you -- say you know your mother with all her features, you have ceased to love her. And the family then comes crashing down. All the people who know their relatives put them in old-age pensions. You can't tolerate your -- your family as soon as you pretend to know them, you see. Then you must break away from them, because to know something is to be through with it.

Back to our problem of economy. The economy is only -- the term "economy" in our modern sense of goods--this side of the grave, of living without sacrifices, of paying the price but not the penalty--this only is the invention of the French physiocrats. It is not older than perhaps 1780. So it isn't -- coincides with the days of the beginning of this republic. And that's quite important, because there is a grave distinction between the roots of this country in the economy of old, and the surface economy which you think is the only thing in this country that is so massive and imposing today. The 10 million cars in California, which is imposing.

How did the change -- became necessary? It is the content of these four lectures, where I will try to show you that the change is quite understandable, and has been even very useful. But that at this moment, the world is waiting for some reconciliation of the two meanings of the word "economy." The Sant- -- Santa Barbara who asks you to become a soldier in Vietnam, cannon fodder, because she's the saint of the cannons--and the other economy who proves to you how you can get rich and make friends, have to be recognized in some form or other as one.

You see perhaps from the title of the four lectures how I've tried to set out about this. I can only ask you to believe me that it is my own problem, my own concern which I have tried to put before you. It's nothing that I want to sell you short on. I'm satisfied if I can understand it myself, these strange ways of providence by which for 2,000- -- 1,000 years, 2,000 years man has called "economy" one thing; and now for 150 years two great sects--the capitalists and the Communists--have tried to sell us "economy" in an opposite sense. This is very strange. So what I -- have tried to -- show you is how these two big sects have defected from the whole tree of mankind, how we can neither live as capitalists nor we can live as Communists, because the economy of our creator obviously is a little more complex, a little more difficult, a little more eternal. It has nothing to do with the stock exchange of today or tomorrow.

The biggest difference between the economy of the Old and New Testament, and the economy of Mr. Irving Fisher is that Mr. Irving Fisher became the

laughing-stock of this country on October 29th, after he had spoken on October 15th, and that we still today have every reason to read the Bible, although it's the most obsolete book, because it was written before people could write and read, I suppose. It was not in print, because printing had not yet been invented. It's a totally obsolete book. The only thing is that when you call it "obsolete," I can -- you can be sure that you haven't read it, because it has still the whole future in front of it. And Mr. Irving Fisher just hasn't.

The peculiar problem is then the problem of two sizes of economy. The economy of the World Bank, with its 84 billion capital, and outlay, is small, of the moment. And the economy of the Bible is gigantic, because it has only to do with a few people. Twelve Apostles, you see, a few prophets, minor -- smaller and bigger prophets. So, very small. However, {gentlemen}, far-reaching, universal, absolutely comprehensive.

Why is this so? Well, let me today -- use then today only for one practical purpose. I want to tell you how it came about that the ancients were compelled to speak of such an economy, and how we lost the term. It's a strange story. You have never heard the word "economy" used in theology, I understand. I read the -- the English books, even the theological books. And you don't run into the term "economy" there, for the divine purpose. There is another term used. And the word is today pale, feeble, meaningless. It's the -- the Latin translators of the Bible use the term "economy" which is to -- found in Ephesians and in Corinthians. In a strange manner they -- they use the term "dispensatio" for it, dispensation. Wherever you read the term "dispensation" today, you must know that it is simply replacing the original Greek term "economy." This in itself is quite -- quite strange, because we dispense with dispensation today. That is, we have ruined the term. Imagine! We have made out of something indispensable--the dispensation of God--we have made that which -- with which we can dispense.

How this has come about is a long story. I can't go into this in detail, but it's certainly -- an original way, you see, of abolishing the tree on which you yourself sit, by saying, "There is no dispensation; we have dispensed with the dispensation."

This is very -- a very short time, really, that it is so. If you come to New England in the 18th century, and you come -- even later on to Emerson, and to Herman Melville, you will find the term "dispensation" in a serious manner used.

I -- a lady in Germany has written a book on the religious typology in American thinking. She came here for three years, and although she studied in Harvard, she found out about it. And I took down all her quotations on the

typology of the American thinkers of the -- in the -- 18th century in which the word "dispensation" occurs. And it's quite numerous. The first is this Edward Taylor. Have you heard of Edward Taylor? Six- -- no, you haven't. It's only printed in 1960, Sir. You -- you and I don't have to really know it. It's after our days that they had discovered that there had been a man living from 1641 to 16- -- to 1725 who had written all his life odes and poems. And they were never printed. And he -- didn't even want them to be printed. But now they have, of course, because they have to get a Ph.D. And so we know all about Mr. Edward Taylor. He wrote meditations. And he uses the term "dispensation."

Since it is of some importance, gentlemen, the history--or ladies and gentlemen, pardon me--the history of this word "economics" and "dispensatio," you'll bear with me if I go into this. He speaks of the Old and the New Testament, as all these New England poets. And "this first edition did the covenant rend with typic seals, and rites, and ceremony, that till the typic dispensations end, should -- ratify it as God's testimony."

"Till the typic dispensations end," the march in the desert, you see, Joshua, the occupation of the Holy Land. All these great stories of the Old Testament, they're dispensations; that is, they were stages, phases, chapters in the preparation of the redemption of mankind. Because the whole Jewish people, after all, left Egypt to put an example of a universal faith, at a time when all the people on this earth believed with the American Legion that they only were Americans, and nobody else should -- be there.

The world is very wide, and always has been. And it took some strenuous effort to covince -- convince Pharaoh of Egypt that the non-Egyptians were human. And he -- they called this break between the dispensation in which every country had its own gods, and the first attempt to proclaim that the whole of mankind was actually one, they called this "dispensation." We would say today "epochs."

So the word "economy"--and this -- is of lasting importance for your own use, I think--the word "economy" is not composed of continents as in geography, not of things, as gold and silver, and machinery, and land, and art- -- articles, and crafts. When you think today of economy, it's all things. No. It -- {were} God's times. The economy of God consists of ages.

And there has been a tremendous literature and -- which today therefore in the last hundred years has never been read again. It was just all put in a corner as annuated, superannuated, as obsolete, dealt with the economy of the centuries. How much time had this to last, you see? How long did we have to wait? How long must we wait again? These problems are not for serious people

nowadays, because people are impatient. If you cannot prove that it can be done tomorrow, nobody's interested. Can't make money out of it. You see, in a thing that happens a hundred years from now, even a realtor wouldn't invest. It's too long.

God of course is a -- has a strange, different idea. He thinks that the world is allowed to last a very long time. And the interest in the economy of old, therefore, and in this man Edward Taylor is still, in the old manner, interested in epochs. The -- there are no pounds, so to speak, of weight for butter or for iron. But there are kilo-epochs, epochs of a thousand years, millennia; and they weigh, you see. This takes more ages than one, for example, an answer would be to the question, "When will slavery disappear?" or "When will the black man and the white man, you see, sit down together?" You see it. The Civil War didn't end the problem. It's now just a hundred years. And we must learn to look at these hundred years as one epoch. The story hasn't ended, yet; the peace has really never made.

Don't forget that this is all -- a divided soul in America. The half of it in your textbooks says peace was made in 1865, you see, and our friend King can prove that it hasn't yet been made. That's why he got the Nobel Prize, because it -- for peace, because he at least made an attempt.

So it takes much longer in the epochs of the -- our creator to make this peace which so glibly then people sign on paper. Don't forget that the World War has not been settled by a peace, to this day. What you call "Cold War" is nonsense. It's just the old war that has not been settled. There has been an armistice. Don't forget this. But never peace. And you will run into the same trouble for the next hundred years with the European--or Korean problem for that matter--as with the slavery issue, you see. Because it's -- it's just no -- official shooting. And now there is even official shooting, you see, because the peace has never been included. Don't betray yourself. This is never mentioned in the -- our papers--I don't understand--that there has never been a peace between Germany and the rest of the world. And that all this ballyhoo about these poor Russians, who have nothing to eat, and are called now the -- the -- the "danger." The danger is that there's no peace, and never peace was made. The Russians and the Americans have always been allies since they exist, as you know. They have -- they are the short-lived -- short-lived, most--how do you say? most short -- shortest-living--nations on earth, you see. They only were -- came about in the 18th century. And they have always been allies.

And it's very strange to live here and to see that the Russians are considered the -- the enemy. The enemy is our inability to produce peace. That's serious. And it rankles in all of us, and -- I'll grant you. But the shouting about

Communism clouds the issue. The issue is: peace has not ended the two world wars, with an armistice in between. -- American never signed the Treaty of Versailles. Don't you know that? This was the first peace that was not made. And in 1945, the Germans never signed the peace. So where are we?

Now you cannot understand this if you will only believe in the economy of the World Bank. You have to believe that the peace of God is higher than all reason. Which it is. And -- the only thing you can immediately grasp is that His periods, His ages are much longer than the -- our short-lived things. What you think can be done in one year He thinks cannot be done in hundred years.

Mr. Edgar Hoover went in 1946 in April to Tokyo. And the headlines were, "Mr. Edgar Hoover is flying to Tokyo to reform the Japanese police." He was back in May.

Obviously, the Japanese police were { }. Mistrust anybody who can set a speed record, even if it is 600 miles in the desert of Utah. That's not important. Because we are more and more estranged from the times of our creator. The times of our creator are very difficult to learn. But they certainly have been created. The Middle Ages, and the antiquity, and -- and the Exodus, and the time of the kings, and -- and -- and when Jesus saw the tragedy of man, of his shortlivedness, and his -- that he wants to speed up, He said, "All right, we can compress the whole dispensation, the whole economy of God in one man's life," and He did it. But that is the -- only as a lesson so that you and I can understand how the long-range plan of God can even be expressed -- explained in one life.

Now the first man in Eng- -- in New England who grasped this very clearly--that man himself hurried, and God went slow--is a second man. Not {Taylor}, but Jonathan Edwards. Jonathan Edwards, as you know, is the -- the greatest American theologian. He died in 1756. And his book was only printed after his death, in 1758. And it was printed in the same year in which the first economy in the modern sense also appeared, in the same city of Edinburgh, Scotland, by Adam -- a certain man called Adam Smith. But our friend had undergone -- he was -- had been made president of Princeton in January, '56. He came to Princeton and obediently had himself vaccinated to set a good example for the rest of us. And in March, he was dead; he died from the vaccination.

And today we can learn from him. He has been rediscovered. Perry Miller has given, as you know, much -- much thought to the man's significance. This book is full of -- of quotations. I had it all here, xeroxed, to bring it to this lecture. Now this man's book has this genius to say, "The life of Jesus is exceedingly short, because man is so blind, so deaf, that he will only learn the ways of God in the form of this -- of this smallness, of this little cell." The -- as if you take cellular

pathology and say, "In one cell we have the whole problem of all cell life," you see. It's really a -- a stroke of genius to say explicitly--and then he does this with great eloquence, I can't go into this; it's too long--that the -- the miracle of the Bible story is that in one short life, in a few years, there is compressed the whole -- epochal length of the story of mankind with hi- -- their maker, with maker -- our maker. This really is a stroke of genius. I've never heard it said by any other theologian or preacher, that it is the -- the -- His excellency, or His sacrifice, His contribution is that he has made it -- brought into our grasp as one man's life that what matters in the order of the universe.

For this reason, his book, The Work of Redemption, is to be recommended. Because it is in fact an economy of salvation. And that's why I -- have taken the liberty of calling this first meeting here -- putting it under the title of "The Economy of Salvation." It is the idea of Jonathan Edwards, in this last, great fling at the secrets of our existence on this earth before the Declaration of Independence, before the Americans were, so to speak, dissociated from the universal stream of thought, you see, and could go their own way as an American way. This didn't exist in 1756. You had to try to remain in the mainstream of hum- -- human thought. Now people always speak of the mainstream of American thought, don't they? But I don't see it streaming.

There is no mainstream of American thought. It's just nonsense. This is a mixture of -- of -- of A & P and -- and God. You can't do that.

Beware of these expressions. They are all obscene borrowings from theology, or theonomics, or the divine order, if you say "mainstream." How do you know that there is rain? Today there is rain, yes. But the spirit, the other rain of God, that blows where it listeth, and not where you say there is a mainstream. Tomorrow there is no mainstream. It's just dry. I think there's a tremendous drought at this moment, you see, with so many students on campus. They drink it all empty.

These are silly expressions. And this all comes from the incredible arrogance of the economists of the stock exchange to say the other economy, the -- economy of creation, revelation, and redemption is unnecessary.

I must -- can't go on long. But I wanted to give -- leave one impression with you of this man Jonathan Edwards. Jonathan Edwards said that the end of time is just as close upon us as the beginning. And he expressed it very beautifully. He said, "Don't betray yourself. When we say 'creation' and when we say 'providence,' it is the same. 'Providence' we say of God's creation tomorrow. And 'creation' we say of the providence of God yesterday. And it is your -- our weakness that we call the things not yet visible to us as under God's providence.

And we call the trees, and the continents, and the seas as already being created."

You don't -- misunderstand this, if you separate providence and creation. It was God's providence to create, and His providence in the end is even greater as a creative power than in the beginning. It is nonsense to separate the two as though you could look complacently, go into the zoo and botanic garden, and here, look at His creation; and then go on to the stock exchange and speculate with His creatures, instead of continuing His creation, or being used to continue His creation, because of course you are the next creature which He tries to create. Usually you run away from Him and are disobedient. But we are created now, and the trees were created before, and the process is going on, without rest.

This is Jonathan Edwards' last fling at the economy of salvation. An English theologian, great man, who wrote on the Gospel of St. John, a famous book--{Hoskins} is his name; some -- one of you may have heard his name; it's the best commentary to the Gospel of St. John in--only in our own age and our own time has again res- -- restored this expression, the -- "in the economy of salvation." If you bear with me, I would like to read this special sentence of his. He writes in -- I think it was written in 1940. And immediately if you try to find something important, 25 years are like nothing.

"In the year in which the economy of salvation, as the old fa- -- Church father Origenes called it, was completed" -- that is, in 33 of our era -- "the high priest of Judaism temporarily recovered his power of prophecy."

I think you have here a strange example of a recovery of a lost terminology. You have never heard this before. In the year in which the economy of salvation, as Origen called it, was complete --. Origenes, as you may know, was a church father of 200 of our era. And so he called the whole story already the "economy of salvation." You'll find it also, as I said, in St. Paul.

I only have time to -- show you today that our forefathers lived on a different time axis. They had more time. And I think they have relayed to us this consciousness, that the epochs, the eras, the centuries, the millennia are nothing to laugh about. They are more important than today or tomorrow. And you can see it, that all the important, incisive things -- are not done when people are in a hurry. Peace has not been concluded in our time, because the people -- the statesmen are -- have to be re-elected every four years. On such a basis, you cannot make peace. You must be indifferent to being re-elected. Then perhaps you can bring peace.

Sometimes it is more important not to be re-elected, you see, more important to be not re-elected, but to make peace. I mean, to sacrifice your office. There

are great stories. You'll just think of the man who gave the one -- voice to acquit Frederick Johnson in 19- -- 1867, wasn't it? Great trial. This man was never heard of again. People didn't talk about -- of him, you see, anymore. He is, of course, a great man. He's the real servant of God. He's done more for the justice and the restoration of the United States to peace than any man of these blatant generals with their no- -- notations and donations. But you don't -- you hardly know him. We owe it to our President Kennedy that he has been restored in his Profiles of Courage. That's the man now who is in the economy of salvation an important figure.

So, I'm sorry. My time is up.