Eduard Von Hartmann, The Religion of The Future

THE
RELIGION OF THE FUTURE.
BY
EDWARD YON HARTMANN,

AUTHOR OF * THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE UNCONSCIOUS.’
Œranelateto from tfte ©ttm an,

W ITH THE AUTHOR’S PERMISSION,
BY
ERNEST DARE.
LO N D O N :
W . S T E W A R T & CO., 41 F A R R IN G D O N S T R E E T , E.C.
1886.
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
---- o----
T h e follow ing pages are reprinted here w ithout m aterial altera

tions from the F irs t E dition, The tim e w hich has elapsed
since th e ir composition was too short fo r getting any fresh
views about the questions considered in them. They evoked
no criticism s w orthy of notice, when firs t published singly
in the Leipsic weekly Journal, Literature, edited by Paul
W islicenus ; and the firs t collected publication of them, con
sisting of two thousand copies, was bought up w ith in eight
weeks. Accordingly, there has not been any interval long
enough to enable me to give an answer to some of the more
im portant rejoinders, by issuing a fresh E d ition w ith elucida
tions and additions. Some p olitical and ecclesiastical Journals
hastened to criticise the F irs t E dition, but failed to bring any
w eightier arguments forward. M ost of my critics drew a close
parallel between m y little book and Strauss’s The Old F aith
and the New. I, fo r my part, cannot complain of this
parallel w hich w riters of the most various standpoints put
in to prominence, nor of the censure accruing to me from the
comparison w ith Strauss.
Indeed, I have d ilig e n tly refrained from strengthening, w ith
my voice, the chorus of hostile critics and of pamphleteers who
have attacked the farew ell volume o f Strauss. I have con
tented m yself w ith pointing out th a t Strauss’s fundamental
principles must make us class him among Liberal Protestants.
i THE RELIGION OF THE FUTURE.
For Strauss as a c ritic and as an author, my respect is so

great that Γ could not jo in in the outcry evoked by his Con
fession, a book which showed most clearly to the w orld at
large th at Strauss was not a philosopher,— w hich fact was
discovered long ago by a ll our profound thinkers,— although
some Hegelians had once declared him to be such, because, in
his youth, he had followed the flag of Hegelianism. But, by
close study of Strauss’s w ritings, it was easy to see th a t his
adhesion to Hegel was only a nom inal discipleship imposed
on him by the fashion of the tim e ; and, accordingly, the
strikin g proof of this fact which, in his old age, he afforded
by his renunciation of Idealism , and by his warm partisanship
w ith Darwinism in its latest form , was quite unnecessary.
I f Strauss had ever comprehended the fu ll depth of the
Hegelian Philosophy, he would necessarily have adopted a
more spiritual conception of D arw in’s newly-founded Doctrine
of Descent, instead of enthusiastically accepting the mechanical
conception of the Universe, — not, indeed, w ithout quite
inconsistently smuggling in some fragments of his former
idealistic principles of Philosophy. Accordingly, it seemed
superfluous to enter upon a philosophical discussion of
Strauss’s theories, and a ll the more so because he, on the one
side, had shown the utter irreconcilableness of the earlier w ith
the later elements of th at cosmical conception w hich he put
fo rth , and I, on the other side, had reserved my discussion of
the Darwinians’ mechanical theory of the Universe fo r a
special exposition.1 And equally w ell was I able to dispense
w ith any account or defence of my own conception of the
Universe, inasmuch as a fu ll exposition of it is to be found in
my philosophical w ritings. Accordingly, I have been able to
avail m yself of a greater concentration of subject-matter, and
of a more concise handling of the religious questions belonging
to the present tim e, a ll extraneous m atter being excluded ; but
1 W ahrheit und Irrth u m im Darwinism us ( T ruth and E rro r in
Darwinism ). Berlin : C. Duncker.
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 5
no reader, who is of a reflecting tu rn of m ind and is w ell

acquainted w ith the systematic interdependence of a ll my
opinions, w ill doubt th at the follow ing speculations are in
essential harmony w ith my views, or th a t they are here put
forward in order to furnish a new support fo r those views.
I do not disguise from m yself the probability th a t my
treatm ent of the subject w ill please nobody. In Germany a
man who is an opponent of C hristian ity is generally also a
b itte r foe to R eligion in any shape or form, and comes easily
to regard w ith perfect contempt a ll persons supporting the
interests of R eligion as the highest interests of H um anity ; in
fact, he considers them to be mere dreamers or mystics. But,
at this tim e of day, any one who s till wishes to champion the
cause of R eligion w ill hardly dare to do so unless he stands
upon the ground of H istorical C hristianity. B ut I, neverthe
less, am attacking the orthodox, because they are C hristian
— that is, in our opinion, stu pid ; and I attack the radical
opponents of C hristianity,— such as Strauss,— because they are
irre lig io u s; and I attack Liberal Protestants, because they
not only are irreligious, but also would s till be Christians as
w ell. That the traditional Religions are in any concrete form
no longer retainable, I agree w ith Strauss in believing— th at
is, w ith the Strauss of The Old Faith and the New, not w ith
the Strauss of The Life o f Jesus. B ut I separate m yself from
him , by my contention th at irreligious Secularism w ill not be
permanent, and that, unless the whole of ’Modem C ivilization
is to become the prey of Ultram ontanism, something new must
certainly make its appearance— not an unpractical, abstract
religiousness, but a new concrete form of Religion, which is
founded on rational, yet profoundly spiritual principles. These
bases can be supplied only by a pessimistic Pantheism which
teaches the immanence of the ind ivid ua l soul in the one
U niversal S p irit, and the substantial id e n tity of the Universal
Essence w ith its ind ivid ua l m anifestation. The most sug
gestive hints about the psychological development of such a
6 THE RELIGION OF THE FUTURE.
M onistic Religion of immanence are to be found in Bieder

mann^ Christian Dogma. Biedermann, however, is s till too
deeply immersed in Hegelian Optimism, and labours under a
delusion about Free-w ill, and also is incapable of dismissing
the idea th at his psychologically developed Essence of R eligion
can be fu lly realized in H istory by some radical transform ation
of C hristianity.1
I have not concealed my conviction th at the new, much-
needed R eligion w ill not very speedily make its appearance,
and that, consequently, a period of religious perplexity must
intervene, bringing much mental anguish. Some persons,
perhaps, may reproach me fo r not scrupling to publish my
ideas, which w ill help to hasten on that perplexity, and to
aggravate the mental anguish already existing. B ut I must
avow that such scruples could never have deterred me from
publishing any opinion which I, after mature reflection, had
formed and had conscientiously fe lt to be true to the best of my
knowledge. The unsatisfying nature of the old F aith is
being fe lt on a ll sides ; and people are also clearly discerning
the direction in w hich the fu rth e r development of religious
thought must lead; nevertheless, we should remember that
no great spiritual progress is ever accomplished w ithout great
struggles, general bewilderment and many exhibitions of
deplorable excesses. Desire, if you w ill, to spare M ankind
such struggles because of the painful convulsions which they
involve, only le t this forbearance mean that your condemnation
of these struggles rests on the grounds of spiritual life . When,
however, the proper tim e has come fo r throw ing the firebrand
1 As regards the Poets, Sallet, in his Gospel o f the L a ity (Laien-

evangelium), takes much the same view as mine. The Optimism s till
tolerated by Sallet becomes in Schafer’s only h a lf pantheistic Laien-
brevier, a repulsive, cringing h u m ility , w hile in R iickert’s Wisdom o f
the Brahmans ( Weisheit der Brahmanen), Pessimism is more fa ith fu lly
represented, and the absence of arbitrary dependence on C hristianity so
u tte rly different in s p irit, is pleasing to the reader.
PREFACE TO THE SECOND ÉDITION. 7
under the stubble, and fo r preparing the field fo r next year’s

crop, cannot be determined by human calculation ; we must
continue to leave the determ ination of the tim e to a higher
Power which guides the general destinies of M ankind. The
individual, as soon as he has fu lfille d his duties as an in d i
vidual, can and should boldly transfer a ll responsibility for
the consequences of his act, which are beyond his ken, to that
higher Power. B ut the seeker after T ru th may not do this
before he has earnestly and honestly striven to acquire Know
ledge, and subm itted the results obtained to a scientific ve ri
fication, and, lastly, refuse to conceal, on external grounds,
from M ankind that which he holds to be tru e ; he must,
rather, w ithout fear of men communicate a ll he discovers,
being assured that the contribution furnished by him to
Knowledge, even though it .be m ixed up w ith error, w ill,
nevertheless, help on the development of the T ru th , and by
that means promote the progress o f H um anity. Has a man
fu lfille d a ll these conditions ? Then he need no more trouble
about the reproach th a t he sows perplexity and inflames
disputes.
O f a ll the various schools of Theology, the Evangelical is
the least able to reject these contentions of mine, inasmuch
as its own powers (and need) of development are dependent
on sim ilar arguments ; therefore, to the Evangelicals every
impulse— though coming from an enemy— w hich leads to
deeper research into the essence of R eligion and of C hristianity,
must be welcome. Indeed signs are increasing that even in
orthodox-Evangelical quarters, wherever a deep and real
religiousness is displayed, two things are being gradually
comprehended which, but a few decades of years ago, scarcely
any one had ventured to believe. The firs t is, th at the old
customary aversion to Pantheism conceived in a spiritual and
not in a naturalistic sense, arose from a misapprehension on
the part of its opponent as much as from its special contents,
and th at Pantheism is really a sp iritua l force w ith which,
sooner or later, Theology w ill have to positively reckon. The

second point which has become so plain is th at the shallow,
irreligious Secularism of pseudo-Christian Liberal Protest
antism, already stands farther removed from the deeper
C hristian religiousness than does a pessimistic Pantheism
which cares fo r real Religion and w hich also aims at making
metaphysical conceptions the bases of M orality.
Liberal Protestantism, against which Strauss so strongly set
him self as if he was unaware of its assault on C hristianity,
w ill naturally recognize in me the executioner who puts the
kn ife to its throat. B u t simple prudence compels it, in its
crim inal position, to put a good face on the m atter and to
seek how it may, by means of fresh verbosity, wriggle out of
the toils w ith which my arguments encircle it.
Quite different from both Liberal Protestantism and Evan
gelical orthodoxy must Catholic Ultram ontanism be in the
position which it takes up against me. On the one hand,
it must feel flattered because I consider it to be the real
representative o f H istorical C hristianity, and also because I
designate its march against Modem C ivilization as the last
attem pt w hich w ill ever be made by H istorical C hristianity
at self-preservation. B ut, on the other hand, how b itte rly
w ill Ultram ontanism hate me, since there is no one who has
spoken harder words than I have about its mummy-like dead
ness and religious inertia after the revolt of the Protestant
Reformation. I t w ill, therefore, be interesting to reproduce
here a criticism proceeding from an ‘ em inent’ personage on
my little book, which was not fu lly nor altogether accurately
reported in the political journals. The Prince-Archbishop of
Vienna, Cardinal von Rauscher, lately delivered an oflicial and
solemn oration at the conclusion of some religious exercises fo r
priests ; the authentic te xt of th is speech was printed in the
Austrian People's Friend, and I quote here, from that source,
the follow ing passages :— ‘ I t is now asserted by the P arty
which recently adopted the title of “ Champions of C iviliza-
tion,” that the destruction of C hristianity w ill soon be accom

plished. . . . On this side of the Rhine hitherto the heralds
of Enlightenment, of Liberalism , of true H um anity, or what
ever else they choose to call it, have not openly renounced the
bare toleration of C hristianity. B ut the new name which, in
Prussia, has been adopted by the enemies of Religion, means
nothing less than an open, b itte r struggle against the B elief in
the Incarnate W ord. Encouraged by the k in d ly patronage
of the Law’s power, they throw off the mask, and proclaim
th at Modern Culture im peratively demands the u tte r extirpa
tion of C hristianity. The Prussian Government are certainly
beginning to perceive th at it is easier to throw a firebrand
into a house than to fix any set lim its to the flames. The
Prussian Government patronize so-called Liberal Protestants
by whom the d iv in ity of C hrist is openly denied, and yet
they object to the masses being told plainly that Protestant
C hristian ity has come to an end, and they do not desire that
Prussia should cease to be reckoned among C hristian nations,
fo r fear of the deep impression which such a state of things
would make upon Germany, and also because of the very
im portant position held in Europe by Prussia. For things
have not yet come to such a pass in Europe that a Government
may reckon on w inning fu ll approbation i f it should adopt the
Confession o f F aith proclaimed by the Paris Town-Hall. Men,
therefore, s till lay stress— not indeed upon being Christian—
but on being called “ C hristian,” and this explains why the
celebrated M inister Falk, in spite of his patronage of C hrist’s
enemies, w ill not allow any Jew to be a teacher in the
Protestant schools. Now, however, a number o f determined
Atheists have enrolled themselves under the banner of “ The
Philosophy of the Unconscious,” who ju s tly charge Liberal
Protestantism w ith carrying on a scandalous imposture in that
it refuses to give up the name of “ C hristian,” to w hich it has
really no more rig h t than Muhammedanism, which, at a ll
events, considers Jesus to be a prophet sent from God, and,
indeed, to be next in greatness to the One Prophet Muhammed.

The leader of these Prussian Atheists is W islicenus, the
form er chief of the “ Enlightenm ent ” Party, but the real
leading s p irit among them is Yon Hartmann, the philosopher
of the “ Unconscious.” L
This speech, uttered in b lin d rage at the example set by
Protestant Prussia, the bearer of the banner in the great
struggle of C ivilization against Ultram ontanism, heaps together
senseless accusations upon the Prussian ’ Governm ent; it
denounces those who are antagonistic to Ultram ontanism and
to C hristianity as the eenemies of R eligion/ and it stigmatizes
as a set of ‘ determined A the ists’ those who combat the U ltra
montane idea of God ; but a ll this abuse and lam entation is
such an obvious repetition of old-fashioned Jesuitical tactics
th at no one could be surprised at it. I only mention, fo r the
reader's enlightenment, th at the Cardinal, in this speech,
confounds G. A . W islicenus w ith his son, Paul W islicenus,
the editor of Literature, and makes the la tte r responsible fo r
the utterances of a single contributor to the Journal. B u t the
accusation brought against those who openly attack w ith
spiritual weapons the C hristian dogmas, and who believe in
the speedy dissolution of C hristianity (that is, in a few
centuries), the accusation, I mean, th a t they undisguisedly
renounce a ll toleration of C hristianity, is a Jesuitical misrepre
sentation w hich can claim, at least, the advantage of being
novel. For the Jesuits cannot in the remotest degree believe
i t possible th at any party, having gained supreme power,
would refrain from copying the example set by the Catholic
Church,— a precedent which th a t Church would only too
gladly set again, namely, the personal persecution of spiritual
foes, and the extirpation of a ll such opponents by means of
the rack and the stake.
I quoted these passages from the Cardinare speech, because
they show th at one point in my argument has produced a
stupefying effect on him . Catholic Christendom has, through
Pius the N in th , become accustomed to the idea that ‘ the

extirpation of Modem C ivilization is the imperative demand
of C hΓistianity., But, to use the metaphor,— that the spit
should tu rn round,— th at Modern C ivilization should w ith
necessary consistency feel th at its im perative demand is the
extirpation of C hristianity, that, indeed, does not seem to occur
to the Reverend Fathers, although it is so obvious. In fact,
this manifest turning round of the wheel seems to have been
the firs t thing which showed them, w ith ligh tnin g-like clear
ness, that no bridge can possibly be throw n across the gaping
g u lf which separates them from the Nineteenth Century,
although, t ill now, they themselves were w ont to be proud of
th is gulf, and to insolently boast of its existence. Again, that
the person by whom th is thought was clearly and sharply
expressed in words is the veritable A n tich rist, was, of course,
a self-evident conclusion. Therefore, in spite of a ll the
nonsense contained in the above-quoted passage, there is a
correct scent of danger in i t ; and it does but u tte r the
cry of the stag when wounded in its most vulnerable part.
Ultram ontanism was not concerned about the fact th at Pro
testantism was hastening to spontaneous decomposition. I t
knew w ell enough th at the State could not im part lasting life
to Protestantism, if the la tte r were unable to support its e lf
on internal elements of a strongly anti-C hristian nature ; and
it fe lt certain th at the M aterialism of one generation is the
surest means of d rivin g the next into its fold, outside which
no man can be saved. O nly one th ing has Ultram ontanism
always dreaded, namely, the union of the German character
w ith the German sp irit, th a t is, w ith the Philosophy of
Germany, but it only h a lf believed in the existence of the
latter. Now, however, German Philosophy has made its e lf
apparent to its Ultram ontane foe, which, urged by the instin ct
of self-preservation, has turned its fro n t towards th at P hilo
sophy, the only real and form idable opponent w hich it has.
For only German Metaphysical Philosophy is able to bring
12 THE RELIGION OP THE FUTURE.
forward something positive which can overthrow U ltram on-

tanism. Against a ll else is Ultram ontanism perfectly proof,
fo r it has united w ith in its e lf the two most powerful forces to
he found in human nature, namely, religious sentiment and
stupidity.
EDW ARD VON H AR TM AN N .
B e r lin , October 1874;

CONTENTS.
PAGE
I. R econstruction or I nnovation , . 15
I I . T he H istorical M ission of P rotestantism , 20
I I I . Ch r is tia n it y and M odern Civ il iz a t io n , 28
IV . The C h r is tia n ity of S t. P a u l and of S t. John, 42
V. The C h r is tia n ity of C h ris t, 48
V I. T he U n christian Character of L iber al Protestantism , 65
V II. T he I rreligious Character of L iberal Protestantism , 73
V III. T he N ecessity and P ossibility of a N ew U niversal

R elig io n , . 91
IX . T he H istorical F oundations of the R eligion of the

F uture , 98
THE RELIGION OF THE FUTURE.
I.
R EC O N STR U CTIO N OR IN N O V A T IO N »
T he present age, although pre-eminent fo r irreligiousness,

is yet remarkable on account of the ardour of religious con
troversy. W e have emerged from a period when u tte r
indifference was combined w ith mechanical adhesion to
custom, when religious lukewarmness led men to ignore the
fact th a t the traditional forms of Religion were no longer
needed. Our fathers were conservative enough to acquiesce in
church-going, and were sufficiently rationalistic to laugh at the
idea of religious questions ever again exciting the masses ; but
the inconsistency in this conduct our fathers did not perceive.
Meanwhile, theological, historical and philosophical critics
have been engaged in unwearied labours ( I need only mention
Schopenhauer, Strauss, and Feuerbach), and modern ideas
have received a tremendous impetus. So, naturally, the
opinion that the traditional forms of R eligion are, in a ll th e ir
essential points, intolerable to us w ith our modem conception
of the Universe, has gained very wide acceptance. On the
other hand, two events showed the error w hich enlightened
persons, in th e ir indifference, made by believing th a t R eligion
has lost its influence over the masses, and may be dispensed
w ith . The Catholic Church, exerting its e lf to an extent w hich
inspired general horror and surprise, has proved th at it is s till

able to rouse the masses to fanaticism by means of persistent
agita tion ; and, as a counterpart to this, the undisguised
b ru ta lity of the German Socialists, in th e ir cosmopolitan
exultation over the horrors of the Parisian Commune, dis
played to us the depths of barbarity into which the masses
sink, when, through discarding a ll Religion, they lose the
only form of idealism w hich is accessible to them.
A fte r such strikin g evidence, a ll who are anxious about
elevating the masses to a higher stage of C ulture must, surely,
perceive that Religion is an indispensable element in the
education of men up to a conception of the Universe, which
should develop in th e ir minds the sense of the Ideal ; and,
also, that if Progressive C ivilization fancies that this lever—
namely, Religion— may he neglected, it is only encouraging
th at dishonest, anti-progressive tendency w hich uses R eligion
as a cloak ; and lastly, that Religion, in the form of the
traditional creeds, cannot serve as a support to an epoch of
intellectual development w ith w hich its fundamental principles
are to ta lly at variance.
Accordingly, the religious question waxes urgent, and much
zeal is displayed in many quarters to get a R eligion which,
by harmonizing w ith the modern s p irit and w ith the aims of
pur Modem C ivilization, shall he fit fo r the mission of edu
cating the masses up to an appreciation of the Ideal. I t is
natural th at these efforts should he made under the cover
of the traditional Religions, partly because it would he a
hazardous and impracticable enterprise to begin again entirely
anew, and partly because the idea of historical continuity
has impressed its e lf upon the modern consciousness, as an
advantage of priceless value, w hich nothing could replace
and which ought to be preserved even at the cost o f large
concessions.
Nevertheless, although those persons who devote th e ir
energies to these highly im portant efforts w ill certainly gain
RECONSTRUCTION OR IN N O VATIO N î 17
our private esteem, we have to ask whether the maintenance

of historical continuity, in the strict sense, is possible any
longer now. Are we not, in fact, standing at one of these
historical crises when a vast idea, having travelled through
a ll the phases of its Evolution, is necessarily condemned to
irrevocable banishment from the stage, in order to leave the
space open fo r other leading ideas to enter in ? The old idea,
however, w ill not be prevented from im parting to the new
development some of its most im portant elements and
furnishing w ith the remainder, manure— to use the metaphor
— fo r the fresh, sprouting life . B y the la tte r means, historical
contin uity would s till be largely preserved, notw ithstanding
th a t the rupture w ith the leading principles of the previous
epoch, and the admission of creative ideas imported from
afar, always possess the appearance of novelty and actual
revolution.
Since, however, a ll reforms, a ll new phases of development
w ith in one and the same cycle of E volution proceed, more
or less, from the introduction of germs of new ideas, and
since, on the other hand, at the end of an old cycle and the
beginning of a new, the fresh, creative ideas do not fa ll from
heaven, but are to be traced back to some part of the E volution
of the earlier C ivilization, we see that the two differ really
only in degree—that is to say, th at the essential difference
between them lies in the relative measure of importance
claimed by the elements preserved from the previous, uninter
rupted Evolution, and by the ingredients taken out of other
sources. W hat I mean here w ill be plain to any one who
takes the trouble to m ark the analogy which the origin of
Buddhism out of Brahmanism bears, firs tly to the Protestant
Reformation, secondly to the origin of C hristianity out o f
Judaism.
S till it always would be a mistake to suppose th at such a
difference in degree excludes a difference in kind. I t is a
law of Nature th at quantitive differences, when exceeding a.
B
certain lim it, appear as qualitative differences (one remem·

bers, fo r instance, the difference between the psychical faculties
of animals and those of men), and even bring about a sharp
change in quality (one calls to m ind the m odification of the
aggregate condition of the temperature accompanying a gradual
rise or fa ll of it). S im ilarly, up to a certain point, new germs
of ideas can bo introduced and worn-out principles can be
discarded, w itho ut any apparent break being made in the
historical continuity of the E volution, but, th at point once
passed, the rupture w ith the old state becomes flagrant and
the new era commences its reign.
W hen we apply this principle to the line of development
w hich the C hristian Idea has followed, we are confronted
by the question whether there is not, at the present tim e,
such an obvious necessity of rejecting so large an amount
of the old F aith, th a t the remnants le ft are too scanty to have
the stirrin g and exciting nature belonging to R eligion. And
we are also forced to ask i f th is very necessary act of rejection
does not include, in its attack, the most im portant foundation-
stones of the edifice of C hristianity, and, therefore, make
people disinclined to dw ell in a building deprived of its chief
props, as long as no fresh stones are put in the empty places.
These reflections on the necessity o f some R eligion and on the
im possibility of adherence to a R eligion opposed to the
development of Modem C ivilization, w ill, perhaps, so distress
many honest persons who are anxious about the welfare of
H um anity, that, if they cannot perceive from th eir standpoint
anything wherewith to replace the pillars which have been
tom away, they w ill rock themselves in the illusion that a
house, which has been damaged to th is extent, is s till
sufficiently inhabitable to in vite passers-by to enter in there.
Such self-delusion, as we remarked before, w ill not lessen our
personal respect fo r the honest efforts of these people. B ut
scientific honour compels every man whose intellect is not
perverted to this degree by his w ill, to keep him self free from
RECONSTRUCTION OR INNOVATION 1 19
such self-deception, and to fra n kly acknowledge to him self

th at the religious edifice, being on every side riddled and
perforated by modern criticism , has become uninhabitable.
L e t us hope th at the recognition of its insufficiency, and of
the urgent necessity of a new resting-place, w ill prove the
sharpest stim ulus to seeking and finding somewhere else
religious ideas capable of replacing and even of surpassing
those th at are worn out. W hen a merchant, form erly rich,
has become bankrupt, it is wrong of him to delude him self
and his fa m ily w ith groundless fancies of preserved prosperity.
B ut how is he to make the best of his position ? B y accepting
his case in its true plig ht, in order to recover him self as soon
as possible through a concentration of energy more earnest
than before. It, therefore, behoves us also to examine our
books more closely, th at we may find out how we stand w ith
regard to Keligion and C hristianity, and may know exactly
what is the difference between our present possessions and the
wealth of w hich they form but a sorry remainder. W e must
ascertain, too, whether our religious needs can be satisfied by
these remnants of the C hristian Faith.
To prevent any misunderstanding, I must here expressly
remark th at I do not propose in th is w ork to attack the
fundamental doctrines of positive C hristianity. I am now
only addressing those readers who have already le ft behind them
the criticism of those dogmas. B ut I wish to consult them
about the possibility of Liberal Protestantism being in a posi
tio n (as i t asserts) to insure a compensation fo r the lost
articles of fa ith , and also about the direction in w hich a real
compensation— if such there be— is to be sought.
IL
T H E H IS T O R IC A L M IS S IO N OF PR O TESTAN TISM .
A n y one who wishes to understand the real essence and nature
of modem Liberal Protestantism must, above all, clearly com

prehend th at it is not a mere freak on the part of a few
individuals which has chanced to meet w ith w ider approval,
but the necessary deduction from the Protestant theory which
sprang up at the Reformation, ju s t as Papal In fa llib ility
forms the culm ination of the Catholic principle of authority.
Catholicism requires u n ity of belief in a ll essential p oints;
she herself, in virtue of being the Church, decides what
doctrines are essential and w hich are not. She forbids in d i
viduals to form th e ir own decision on the subject, because
such lib e rty would only throw the door wide open to differences
of religious opinion. The in fa llib le canonical books are the
foundations of fa ith fo r the Catholic as fo r the Evangelical
C hurch; since, however, the interpretation of these books
admits of dispute, u n ity of belief can only be preserved by a
method of interpretation from w hich there is no appeal. I f
this tribu na l had nothing but human insight to guide it, the
demand made in its name upon men ‘ to sacrifice th e ir intellect*
would be too gross a claim. B u t the Catholic Church not
u n ju stly assumes th at the H oly Ghost must be quite as much
interested about giving inspiration to the interpreters of the
canonical w ritings as about im parting it to the authors of
those books, and th at a Church forsaken by the S p irit, a
Church which has possessed inspired confessors only at one
epoch, viz. two thousand years ago or thereabouts, would be
THE HISTORICAL MISSION OF PROTE8TANTI8M. 21
in a veritably pitiable condition. Accordingly, the inspiration

of the in fa llib le vehicle of interpretation being adm itted, it is
not only superfluous to expect from the H oly Ghost the
inspiration of an entire council rather than th a t of an in d i
vidual, but there remains also the d iffic u lty of explaining why
the m inority of the council were deficient in th is grace of
inspiration. Accordingly, i t is quite logical fo r Catholics to
regard the existing head of the Church as the in fa llib le vehicle
of interpretation, fo r u n ity of belief can best be preserved by
getting one person to decide a ll religious questions. Granted
that the Pope is the successor of St. Peter, no reason can be
given why 4H is Holiness ’ should not be able to w rite B ulls
w hich are as much inspired and in fa llib le as the Epistles of
St. Peter, who was only an uneducated fisherman. Papal
In fa llib ility , therefore) is the long-expected crowning of the
u n ity of belief in Catholicism, and a ll objections to this dogma
are absurd in the mouth of those who believe the Pope to be
St. Peter’s successor, and St. Peter to be the w rite r of in fa llib ly ·
inspired Epistles.
Those, however, who deny the in fa llib ility of the Church
and the possibility of an inspiration conferring in fa llib ility ,
who refuse to sacrifice th eir intellect— that is, to subm it th eir
personal convictions m aturely weighed and revised to the
doctrinal decisions of the Church, those who, in a word,
protest against the absolute a uthority of the Church in matters
of dogma, and who reserve fo r themselves the rig h t of free
in q u iry and the lib e rty o f religious conscience, such persons,
I say, w ill fin d it hard to retain th e ir belief in the in fa llib ility
and inspiration of the canonical books. The man who is
convinced th at miracles are impossible to-day, certainly plays
a strange rôle when he asserts that they were possible eighteen
hundred years ago.
The Reformers u tte rly failed to see th at th e ir belief in the
in fa llib ility of the canonical w ritings, w hich they had imbibed
in th e ir early childhood, rested solely on the belief in the
22 THE R ELIG IO N OF THE FUTURE.
in fa llib ility of the Church w ith its tradition w hich attested

the Canon. Since the belief in b ib lica l in fa llib ility had
entered, so to speak, into th e ir very flesh and blood, the
Reformers had no suspicion th a t th e ir protests against the
in fa llib ility of the Church and of trad ition would undermine
the foundation of the B ible’s in fa llib ility ; they did not
anticipate that these protests would not only attack one part
o f the solid structure of the hierarchy, but also cause, in time,
the fa ll of the whole edifice. They had engraved on one side
of th e ir shield the Protestant principle of free inq uiry and
lib e rty of conscience ; on the other, they claimed to oppose
successfully the disorganization of dogma w hich they had
themselves begun, and to prescribe certain a rtificia l lim its to
the torrent of negations. W ith this end in view, they
promulgated under the name of formularies some doctrinal
decisions dictated by th e ir particular fancies, and they made
a great fuss about the doctrines w hich they retained.
Forsooth, they imagined th at men would agree to remain in
the precincts so a rb itra rily traced out and would accept those
formularies as barriers impassable to Reason even after the
Church’s authority had been destroyed, which was both
in fa llib le and also supported by perpetual inspiration.1
Even Luther fe lt qualms of anxiety about the reform which
he had inaugurated, as is proved by some words of his uttered
in his last days when he was reflecting on his life . He said,
‘ I t is strange and very sad that after the pure doctrine of the
Gospel has come again to lig h t, the w orld has only become
worse and worse. Every man turns his C hristian lib e rty in to
fleshly wantonness. I f I could ju s tify such a course of action
to my conscience, I would gladly help the Pope— in spite of
a ll his abominations— to become our ruler again, fo r then the
w orld would be ruled by strong laws and by superstition.*
1 Compare F. A. M üller, B riefe über die Christliche Religion,
S tuttgart, 1870, I. B rie f: ‘ Der Geist der Reformation.* (Letters on
the C hristian R digionf Letter I. : ‘ The S p irit of the Reformation. *)
THE HISTORICAL MISSION OF PROTESTANTISM. 23
The Essence of C hristianity was exhausted in the early

C hristian times and the M iddle Ages. To be a C hristian in
these times was to oppose this life to the next w ith fanatical
sincerity, to transfer the centre of importance from the visible
to the invisible w orld, and, indeed, to stigmatize th is present
existence as a snare o f the devil, who aims at decoying souls
in to eternal hell by means of transient pleasures. B ut from
the tim e when C hristian ity became the Church of the State,
and, therefore, a secular Power, its true nature was altered ;
the phenomenon was repeated which had occurred before in
Buddhism, and there arose, beside esoteiic C hristianity, an
exoteric, secular C hristianity representing a degree of holiness
which was recognized as lower than the other. As this
exoteric party began to extend and to predominate, the
esoteric fled into the retreat of orders and cloisters to keep
itse lf pure from a ll w orldly ta int. B ut when Mediævalism
declined, the orders and cloisters collapsed; the various
attempts made, e.g. by Huss and by Savonarola, to bring back
prim itive , esoteric C hristian ity were baffled by the increasing
alienation of the ago from the C hristian Idea. F in a lly the
Reformation, by abolishing the religious orders, destroyed the
empty house w hich had sheltered esoteric C hristianity so long,
and then busied its e lf w ith making secular, exoteric C hristianity
more secular than ever.
Although the Protestant principle, by its alliance w ith the
Renaissance of ancient Paganism, helped on the secularization of
the C hristian M iddle Ages which were already shaken to th e ir
foundations, yet we cannot call Protestantism ‘ the destroyer *
of C hristianity. W e must only regard it as ‘ the grave-digger.*
C hristianity was quite dead long before it was torn to pieces
by the Reformation ; and the struggle made by the Catholic
Church against its newly arisen riv a l was sim ply the a rtific ia l
galvanization of a corpse. Indeed Catholicism since the
Reformation has only had the outward semblance of life ; the
Catholic nations are dead spiritua lly, except in those quarters
where anti-catholic and anti-christian currents o f thought

have sprung up. The progress of Modern C ivilization rests
— as regards spiritual matters— exclusively on w ork done by
Protestantism, and on these tendencies among Catholic nations
which, consciously, or else unconsciously, owe th e ir existence
to the conquests of Protestantism. Catholic nations would
become mere ciphers in H istory, ju s t lik e the fa ith fu l Tibetans
of the Dalai-Lama, if they were not so closely interlaced,
through th eir geographical position, w ith Protestant nations ;
as it is, they form a standing menace to the latter, im perilling
th eir progress in C ivilization. Protestant nations are thus
spurred on to a more energetic use of th e ir powers.
W hen, after centuries of repression by the rack and by the
stake, Protestantism breathed freely, it found the real C hristian
Idea dead. But, w hile Catholicism strove to make a mummy
of this corpse and to preserve the appearance of life in it, the
historical mission, which fe ll to the lo t of Protestantism, was to
dissect the body lim b by lim b, to o fficially proclaim that life
was extinct, and then to solemnly bury it in order to bring
thus the cycle of the Evolution of C hristianity to a definite
end. The work of Protestantism in relation to C hristian
Dogma has been w holly negative, destructive and hostile ; if
it has laid great stress upon some doctrines and considerably
developed them, yet this was done solely to get compensation
fo r the dogmas rejected. B u t the substituted doctrines have
not long resisted the march of criticism and of analysis, for, in
reference to such historical processes, two or three centuries
cannot be called ‘ a long tim e.’
If, in theory, the Protestant principle of free in q u iry
guided by reason turns out to be purely destructive, in practice
it manifests a positive constructive faculty, only this con
structive power is not Christian. How C hristianity has a
moral principle which admits of no compromise, and which
demands absolute obedience to the divine w ill as set fo rth in
the Bible. A ll else is of m inor importance, fo r example, the
THE HISTORICAL MISSION OF PROTESTANTI8M. 25
question whether certain psychological impulses as the hope

of reward, the fear of punishment, love, the m ystical w orking
o f grace or some such emotion, bring about by th e ir inter
vention the obedience to the heteronomous commandment
emanating from the divine authority. In Catholicism, the
Church interposed herself as the medium between God and
Man ; she was, by means of popes and confessors, the bearer
of the divine decision on moral questions. Protestantism
puts aside th is mediation and places Man d irectly in the
presence of the D e ity m anifesting H is w ill in Scripture.
Thus Evangelical dogmatism does not dream of ever breaking
w ith heteronomous M orality, nor of opposing freedom of con
science to the D e ity’s authority, but only to the false mediators
who have interposed between the individual and God. But,
in fact, Protestantism brings about a moral revolution, inasmuch
as the Protestant, being unable to ascertain personally what
God’s w ill is, finds him self obliged to go to the B ible fo r it,
and then to decide, by the lig h t of his autonomous conscience,
what utterances in that book are to be regarded as veritable
revelations of the divine W ill, and what parts have not the
same importance. Thus the Protestant’s conscience is exalted
to the position of the supreme and sole judge in moral
questions ; in plain words, m oral autonomy succeeds m oral
heteronomy. This method, of course, involves the abandonment
of the C hristian ethical code w ith its purely external authority ;
so, by superintending this transition from heteronomy of sub
mission before a Law w hich is externally given, w ritten down
beforehand, and personified in the confessor, to the autonomy
o f personal moral conscience, Protestantism becomes the
greatest benefactor of the masses, and forms the educational
stage between blin d obedience to the Law and moral self-
government ; in a word, the Protestant religion is the teacher
who prepares the masses for the rig h t use of th eir libe rty.
W ith o u t this schooling, any nation, as soon as it throws off
the thraldoqi o f Catholicism, becomes the prey of a Radicalism
26 THE RELIGION OP THE FUTURE.
w hich knows no duties, hut only rights. As regards, therefore,

the specifically C hristian element (namely, the obligation to
do the w ill of God) in Ethics, Protestantism is purely destructive
ju s t as it is subversive of the C hristian theory ; but, though
Protestantism in the sphere of Ethics produces something new,
equally positive, and also superior to th a t which it has now
destroyed, it unfortunately deserves no compliment fo r s k ill
in constructing theories, as, in th at department, a ll its talent
is exhausted in pure negation.
There is scarcely any need to remark th at Protestantism
performs th is historical task quite unconsciously, and, at each
stage of its progress, imagines that, in the positive remnant of
dogma as yet unassailed, it possesses specific, true C hristianity
which has undergone purification. In order to understand
the last stage of this E volution w hich is w orking unconsciously
in Protestantism, it is necessary to be an outsider, and to
trace w ithout prejudice the course of H istory in its different
phases. That, however, the stage reached at the present
tim e, namely, modem Liberal Protestantism, is the logical
outcome of the Protestant theory, and has arrived, in its task
of sapping C hristianity, at a point where its inner emptiness
and religious poverty can be no longer concealed,— that, I
assert, is known already to many persons, and w ill soon be
universally recognized. These two facts being admitted, I
may claim to have demonstrated clearly what is the historical
mission of Protestantism.
A historical phenomenon as vast as C hristianity has been,
does not, even when inw ardly dead, vanish directly from the
scene of H istory ; its expulsion must be a gradual process, it
sinks but slowly into dissolution. A contrast so marked as that
which exists between Modern C ivilization and the C hristian
M iddle Ages, cannot be brought about as a sudden, direct leap
from one to the other, but only as a gradual transform ation ;
during the different stages of the change, the principal factors
of the two sides are mixed together in varying proportions,
THE HISTORICAL MISSION OF PROTESTANTI8M. 27
something lik e two dissolving views on the same curtain, one

o f w hich grows clearer w hile the other grows ever more dim.
Protestantism is nothing else but the bridge to be crossed on
the road between defunct, genuine C hristianity and Modem
Thought ; these two systems are diam etrically opposed to each
other on a ll im portant points, and, therefore, is Protestantism
a mass of contradictions from beginning to end. B ut what
else could it be when it torments its e lf during every phase of
its life to reconcile the irreconcilable 1
Catholicism, after a lengthy torpor, is now try in g to revive
her internal strength, and, w ith remarkable courage and con
sistency, declares, in the Syllabus and the Encyclical Letter,
war to the kn ife against a ll Modem C ivilization, against
everything which we regard as the most splendid conquests
of Modem Progress ; Catholicism, I affirm , has always seen
through the illogical position and fatal self-contradictions of
Protestantism. I t has always been known in Catholic circles
th at the Protestant theory must necessarily lead to the self
disintegration of Protestantism ; and Catholics have had
mischievous satisfaction in noticing the advent of this
inevitable result. Assuredly, it is no mere coincidence that
Catholicism is putting fo rth its last efforts fo r the consolidation
and concentration o f its power at the very tim e when
Protestantism is occupying its e lf w ith drawing the ultim ate
conclusions of its theory, and has become so exhausted in the
task of dechristianizing C hristianity, and reducing it to an
empty name, th a t it can make no farther progress. Also the
conservative tendencies in Protestantism display more and
more th e ir glaring inconsistency w ith the Protestant theory,
and are on the eve of losing the last remnant of th e ir credit.1
1 Compare w ith th is chapter, Paul de Lagarde, Doctor of Theology

and O rdinary Professor at Göttingen, Ueber das Verhältniss des
deutschen Staats zu Theologie, K irche, und Religion ( The Relation o f
the German State to Theology, Church, and Religion). Göttingen :
Dieterich, 1873, especially pages 16-23 and 41.
I I I.
C H R IS T IA N IT Y A N D M O D ER N C IV IL IZ A T IO N .
N o Religion, by its very essence, has any inclination fo r

Science, and C hristianity is opposed not only to Science, but
also to a ll C ivilization. Religion is an affair of the feelings ;
and although it needs ideas as foundations for the feelings,
yet these ideas must be as little abstract as possible, und the
reverse of d istinct or definite. Indeed, an idea, which is
intended to rouse the religious feelings, should be in tu itive ,
figurative, fantastic, and confused to the last degree. Science
exposes the obscure character of the im agination’s fantasies,
and is, therefore, tabooed in those quarters where religious
feeling s till bums w ith unextinguished ardour. Science
destroys the historical foundations and connections claimed
by every Religion ; fo r there is no doubt th at fantasy has
had fu ll play in the origin of a ll R eligions; and scientific,
historical criticism cannot help pointing out how weak and
unreliable the supposed historical foundations are in which
Religion trusts. In so fa r as the circle of religious ideas
encroaches upon the domain o f Metaphysics and Philosophy,
its intim ate union w ith the im agination renders it fantastic,
and its uncritical character plunges it into contradictions
causing a confusion of idea and image ; but Science exhibits
the incom patibility of these contradictory elements.
Accordingly, the true and unadulterated religious feeling,
as long as it s till has strength enough to consider Religion
to be the one im portant th ing in life , besides w hich a ll else
dwindles into insignificance, strives w ith a ll its force to pre-
CHRISTIANITY AND MODERN CIVILIZATION. 29
vent Science from in tru d in g ; fo r i t feels in stin ctive ly that

Science w ill be no friend, but a foe and an antagonist.
R eligion w ill not perm it any historical criticism of the
alleged facts, w hich are the basis of its fa ith ; nor w ill it
listen to any philosophical criticism of its metaphysical con
ceptions, nor does it allow the cold breath of abstract thought
to play upon the heat of its internal life . B riefly, Religion
claims to be the one th ing needful, and transforms intellectual
elements only to su it its needs, w hile Science models them as
rational considerations demand. Religion, being a self-con
fident feeling w hich ignores a ll Science, is able to digest,
w itho ut inconvenience, the grossest contradictions (T e rtullian
says : * Certum quia impossibile *) ; but, as soon as R eligion
gives admission to Science, it finds its e lf compelled to patch
iip the existing contradictions w ith sophistries which, how
ever, after a tim e, always burst.
Although, in spite of this profound aversion o f Religion
for Science, a marriage-union takes place between them, and a
child, namely, Theology, is bom to the parents, yet on the
part of Religion— the w ife— this is a compulsory marriage,
an embrace which she could not avoid. But, when convinced
th at there was an absolute necessity fo r the union, she tried
to derive from it the greatest possible advantage fo r herself
by making her husband — Science — her advocate against
external foes and opponents. W hat makes Religion cling to
Science is the simple fact th at many men are not religious.
Science, moreover, exists, whether Religion likes it or no,
and threatens religiousness w ith s till greater danger if Religion
refuses to fig h t the duel w ith scientific weapons. I t is the
existence of a scientific, anti-religious polemic, w hich compels
R eligion to take Science into its service as an apologist.
B ut the weapon is soon found to cut both ways ; as soon
as Science in the form of Theology has been accepted by
Religion, it commences to pursue its own ends w ith its own
means, w itho ut any scruples about im perilling the interests of
30 THE RELIGION OF THE FUTURE·
Religion instead of promoting those interests. A t first, in

deed, Theology affirms, w ith perfect sincerity, th at there
is complete harmony between its own aims and those of
R eligion; but, after some tim e, the antagonism always
appears. And then great efforts are made to plaster up the
breach, and the attem pt succeeds fo r a w hile, either through
a relaxation of religious ardour, or thanks to the perfection
of theological sophistries; but, after a short reprieve, so to
speak, the m utual disagreement between them is exposed more
clearly than before.
Catholic Theology, since the tim e of St. Thomas d*Aquino
or thereabouts, has been a sort of dead language, a w ell-
embalmed corpse, lik e the C hristian Religion, its mistress.
Protestant Theology has advanced considerably beyond the
point from which it started, but the sw ifter these progressive
steps became, the more rapidly those crises followed when
religious emotion trembled w ith frig h t at its own Theology.
And to-day we have reached a point, standing on which we
look down w ith disgust— as a ll educated readers do— upon
the most celebrated w ritings o f the orthodox ; fo r it is easy
to detect the professional glamour w ith which the apologists
impose upon the uneducated and the half-cultured. Though
they put on a mask of Scientific Culture, the asses* ears are
too long to be concealed by the lio n ’s skim Moreover, the
speculative and the critica l w ritings of Liberal theologians
have only the sorry effect of arousing our wonder at the
industry and talent wasted on the task of divesting the cur
rent dogmas of a ll meaning, and of try in g to fo ist on them a
new meaning which is u tte rly out o f harmony w ith th e ir
letter (s till retained by the Christians). A ll permanent and
scientific importance of Protestant Theology remains, tru ly ,
confined to the sphere of negation and c riticism ; of a ll the
theological publications of the last th irty or fo rty years, only
those have any scientific value, which avowedly demolish w ith
criticism the historical and metaphysical assumptions of
CHRISTIANITY AND MODERN CIVILIZATIO N. 31
dogma. Whereas a ll attempts at restitution or conciliation—

however much talent is spent on them — prove, by th e ir
ephemeral importance, th at the Protestant w ork of destroying
the C hristian dogmatic system advances w ithout check
towards its completion.
Religion in any form hates and fears Science. C hristian ity
in particular is the b itte r enemy of a ll C ivilization, w hich
strives to make use of a ll the resources of th is world, to
domesticate, so to speak, the s p irit of Man here upon E arth.
C hristianity has an absolutely transcendental conception of
the Universe. Those imbued w ith th is conception are so
absorbed by the interests of the next w orld that they are
u tte rly indifferent to the present life . This assertion can
only sound paradoxical to a reader whose ideas of the
universally - known Scriptures have been so perverted from
early childhood by systematic misrepresentations th at he
cannot read them w ith an unprejudiced m ind. Protestantism
is palpably a compromise between the claims of the invisible
w orld and the recovered rights of this life ; in other words, it is
a hybrid belonging both to the C hristian M iddle Ages and to
the Pagan Renaissance. Already, indeed, Protestantism is
so completely secularized and dechristianized th at we can
hardly believe our eyes when the real form of the C hristian
idea (from New Testament times down to St. Thomas
d’Aquino) is. presented to us w ithout the aid of Protestant
spectacles. W e are now so deeply engrossed in secular
pursuits th at we cannot form the least idea what the expres
sions cto be religious, to be a C hristian1 mean.
For example, wo wonder how any one can set attachment
to the Church— the representative of Religion— above attach
ment to his earthly fatherland, and it does not occur to us that
such wonder is to ta lly irreligious in the Christian sense. How
can a C hristian dare to make any comparison between, or to
measure together, the patriotic and political interests belonging
to the little span of his earthly existence, and the interests of
his soul which have reference to everlasting hell? The

current opinion that we ought to put patriotism above
religiousness, the laws of the State above the laws of the
Church, pla inly shows th at the C hristian estimate of the two
worlds has been so completely reversed in our consciousness,
th at success in this life holds more place in our thoughts than
am bition to get a happy eternity. Such mental attitude pre
supposes, necessarily, the loss of fa ith in C hristian ity’s promises
and threats about the fate of the im m ortal soul after * shuffling
o if this m ortal c o il/ and also the rejection of the means of grace
dispensed by the Church. I f we have not yet gone so far as
to break entirely w ith the Church and Religion, nevertheless,
it cannot be denied that the place w hich we assign to Religion
is the situation of a Cinderella compelled to w ait upon her
more privileged w orldly sisters.
There is no necessity fo r fu rthe r details to prove th a t
C hristianity must be hostile to Science. If, as we have seen,
Theology involves C hristianity in danger, Science, which
declares itse lf independent of Theology and R eligion, must
bring s till greater peril. Science, in so far as it agrees w ith
R eligion, is only a superfluous confirm ation of th at w hich
needed no support ; in so far as Science contradicts Religion,
it is an enemy to the latter ; and, in so far as it has no
contact w ith Religion, it merely satisfies a frivolous curiosity
about earthly things, w hich would be interesting enough from
a w orldly standpoint, but is u tte rly useless from the C hristian
point of view. W e a ll know th at the fire w hich consumed
the L ib ra ry of Alexandria was lighted by Christian fanatics
conforming th e ir conduct on th at occasion to the words put
by trad ition in the mouth of the Caliph Omar.
The interests of C ulture, when set apart from apologetic
literature and its needs, are secular interests co-existing w ith
those of the C hristian R eligion but hostile to i t ; fo r they
uselessly dive rt the soul from the one thing needful, and,
by sp littin g into fractions the small sum of human attention,
C H R IS TIA N ITY AND MODERN C IV ILIZ A T IO N . 33
they dim inish the C hristian amount. W e can, therefore,

confidently assert th at the representatives of Religion, in pro
portion as they defend the interests of Culture, are so far
secularized, though, perhaps, unconsciously ; and that, more
over, w ith few exceptions, they only pretend to represent
those interests, or else declare th a t C hristianity, by its very
nature, pursues the aims of secular C ivilization, th eir m otive
being, in most cases, the hope th at the C hristian Religion,
when decked out w ith plumes borrowed from Modern Culture,
w ill be more acceptable to the children of our secularized
age.
Indeed, C hristianity owes the entrance o f Science into
R eligion entirely to the necessity of apologetics. W hen th at
Gnosticism, w hich was shaking a ll the foundations of the
simple C hristian F aith, had been fortunately suppressed,
though not w itho ut leaving traces behind, Clement of A lex
andria and Origen, in order to strengthen the position of the
new R eligion in the Roman Empire where H ellenistic Science
had found a home, sought to blend this Science w ith C hristi
anity. In this attem pt they gave nearly as much authority
to the Greek philosophers as to the records of the Faith.
Yet, even an Origen could express his envy of the simple
believers (he calls them 1more sim ple/ άπλονστίροι) by con
fessing th at these Christians were happiest who fe lt no need
of apologetic treatises, as th e ir minds were untroubled by any
difficulties of belief. Now this amalgamation w ith Science
laid the foundation of perpetual religious controversies, and
C hristian ity scarcely had secured a position in the world,
when it began to reject and execrate as heretics of the worst
type those Fathers of the Church whose services it was then too
late to repudiate. One thing is certain, namely, that C hristianity,
in spite of its early dream of obtaining a Theology purely
apologetic in character, has never, except when acting on the
defensive, made any compact w ith Science ; it furnished itse lf
w ith a Theology only ( when it wished to m aintain its exist-
c
34 THE RELIG IO N OP THE FUTURE.
ence in a w orld which it properly disowns.*1 However, we

must remember that C hristianity found in the Roman Em pire
[o f the Fourth C entury] no youthful C ivilization fu ll of life
and of growth lik e ours to-day, but a dead and fallen C iviliza
tion, one th at had run its course. Such a C ivilizatio n was
the only one w hich C hristianity could have destroyed, the
only one w hich it could safely incorporate w ith itse lf. And,
forsooth, C hristian ity was enabled to assimilate the remnants
even of a declining C ivilization, only after firs t smothering
the few pulsations of life w hich they contained; having
destroyed a ll possibility of movement among these survivals,
i t preserved up to our tim e some of them lik e an anatomical
preparation soaked in sp irit, but it displayed not the slightest
aptitude fo r developing them in any direction.
Moreover, if after the fa ll of the Roman Empire, C hristianity
strove to preserve the ancient C ivilization from becoming an
entire wreck, this effort was dictated by no religious, C hristian
interests, but by the secular interests o f the Roman Catholic
Church, and especially o f the Catholic hierarchy. Certain it is
th at this hierarchy retained the use of the dead L a tin language
in order to keep up the u n ity of church government, and only
cultivated Classical Literature because a lite ra ry education
was not then obtainable w ithout training in th at branch of
study, th is lite ra ry education being necessary fo r the purpose
of giving to the hierarchy and clergy an elevated and imposing
position amidst the barbarous nations of the M iddle Ages.
These tactics were especially successful w ith the German
tribes, who brought into the m idst of the Romans a super
stitious fear of, and a humble veneration fo r the * Science of
the Runes.* If, therefore, mediaeval C hristianity cultivated
1 Overbeck, O rdinary Professor o f Theology a t Basle, On the
C h ris tia n ity o f ou r modem Theology. [U eber die C h ristlich ke it unserer
Theologiet Leipzig, F ritzsch, 1873.] T his in te re stin g book, w hich, fo r
a theologian, is w o n d e rfu lly plainspeaking and unprejudiced in tone,
should be compared w ith the whole o f the present chapter, p a rtic u la rly
Nos. 1 and 2, and pages 46-50.
C H R ISTIA N ITY AND MODERN C IV Il'ZA TIO N . 35
the study of the Greek and L a tin Authors, it was not from
any appreciation of or sympathy w ith th at culture which is to
be derived from them, but solely in the pursuit of external
and hierarchical interests. The old Pagan w ritings were looked
upon as a necessary e vil to which the Church subm itted in
order to give to the clergy a lite ra ry and theological training,
but which, undoubted productions of the devil as they are, no
man should take in his hands w ithout firs t making the sign of
the cross and trem bling for his soul’s safety.
This way of looking at things was thoroughly in harmony
w ith the C hristian— that is to say, the transcendental—
conception of the Universe. The Reformation allied itse lf
w ith the Renaissance because it was, lik e the latter, an
apostasy— though incomplete— from the C hristian disdain of
this w orld, from a ll ascetic seclusion to Pagan joyousness and
delight in earthly existence. H istory, indeed, has justifie d
this dread of the Pagan Classics, fo r the Renaissance of
classical Paganism hastened on considerably the dechristian-
ization of Europe.
These remarks w ill suffice to u tte rly refute the argument
that, ju s t as Ancient C ivilization was incorporated in
C hristianity, so the la tte r may be united to Modern
C ivilization. In bygone »years C hristianity was te rrib ly
alarmed at the resurrection of Ancient C ivilization from the
herm etically sealed tomb of the cloisters; but how much
greater panic ought now to pervade Christendom, being in the
presence of Modern C ivilization, w hich originated in the
Renaissance of the Ancient, transformed the parent C ulture,
restored it to youth, re-created it and also re-inforced it w ith
several im portant elements of Knowledge which A n tiq u ity did
not possess Î The ancients had no Science of H istory nor any
N atural Science in our meaning of the words, and the modern
conception of the Universe, which is based on these Sciences,
would by its e lf— even apart from a ll consideration of the
progress which Philosophy has made— force us to discard the
cosmical theories taught by C hristianity. Moreover, a R eligion

is not a mechanical appendage fastened on to some cosmical
theory or other, and transferable from one of these theories to
another quite antagonistic to the former. Religion, in a ll its
forms, has organically grown up out of the particular theory of
the Universe which served as its foundation. A nd if this
support bo taken away from any R eligion, there remains no
longer a liv in g organism, but a dead lim b cut off from an
organism now destroyed, something lik e the tru n k of a tree
which has been sawn off down to the ground.
So te llin g does this argument seem to me that I th in k that
it w ill, by itse lf, suffice to decide* in favour of the second term
of the alternative, the question whether a transform ation of the
traditional Religion is necessary or a new construction
altogether. We must especially remember that the Reformers
continued to abide by the biblical cosmology ; they, therefore,
could and would have answered this question in the opposite
way to us. Melanchthon, w ith his very indignant protest
against the Copernican system, deserves our respect, but we
smile when, at this tim e of day, orthodox Lutherans, knowing
th at the contradictions between Science and the Bible cannot
be glossed over by any sophistry, actually set themselves, in
the controversy about the sun’s motion, on the side of the
Bible. W hat is proved by the difference between our
impressions ? W hy, that Modem Culture makes it impossible
for its adherents to be 1believing Christians ’ in the fullest,
unimpaired meaning of the words.
The attitude of C hristianity towards A rt is the same as its
attitude towards Science. The iconoclasts and the destroyers
of organs have always been imbued w ith the pure C hristian
Id ea ; and the admission of A rt into religious services has
never been anything else but a secular bait to entice the great
mass of persons in whom the religious sentiment has not
been strong enough by its e lf to support and prolong much
devotion or contemplation w itho ut the aid of such external
C H R ISTIA N ITY AND MODERN C IV ILIZ A T IO N . 37
means of excitement. That compromise w hich put an end to

the great ecclesiastical controversies of the Eastern Roman
Em pire was most lame and feeble, namely, the decision
w hich banished statues from the churches, but perm itted
pictures to be hung up as aids to God’s service. The decision
had great influence on the history of painting, but we owe no
thanks to the C hristian Idea for this, as it is only a sign of a
concession made by C hristianity to the secular, aesthetic tastes
of the worshippers. But, however that may be, and even
i f the A rts have indirectly derived some profit from the
influence exercised on men’s feelings by C hristianity, i t is
quite certain that our age possesses no livin g C hristian A rt,
and that in the plastic A rts, as w ell as in Music, nothing is
produced in the C hristian styles which are dead and gone,
except some academic studies. To use a metaphor, a ll the
vigorous shoots put fo rth by our Modem A rt are completely
secular, th at is, unchristian ; here is another proof that our
age is alienated from C hristianity. W ould it be possible fo r
our A rt to have such characteristics i f Modem C ivilization
were really C hristian, as the theologians would have us
believe ?
I f these points of opposition between C hristian ity and
Modem C ivilization may be summed up in the difference
between the C hristian and the scientific conception of the
Universe, the form er teaching the doctrine of Transcenden
talism , w hile the la tte r maintains the theory o f Immanence, we
now come to the incom patibility of the thoroughly Theistic
character of C hristian Metaphysics w ith the modern sp irit.
This incom patibility has both a theoretical and a practical
aspect. ‘ As regards mere theory, we are confronted by the
Anthropomorphism w hich is inseparable from a ll Theism, and
against w hich the modem s p irit resolutely rebels. As long as
Theism retains the doctrine w hich distinguishes it from
Pantheism, namely, the Personality of God, it w ill be unable
to disengage its e lf from Anthropopathism, and w ill remain
38 TH E R ELIG IO N OF TH E FUTURE.
quite irreconcilable w ith Modem Culture. For the la tte r w ill

only accept a God immanent in the Universe, a God of the
eternal laws of Reason, and protests necessarily against the idea
of a God opposed to the created Universe w hich he governs
from w ithout. As long as the C hristian R eligion retains
Theism as its metaphysical basis, it w ill always have to fear a
reaction ; there w ill be the danger th at the aversion, provoked
by a transcendental, anthropomorphic God, may cause men to
reject the good w ith the bad, to declare that the belief in God
is as absurd as that conception of God w hich is asserted by
Christians to be the only possible idea of a deity, and to thus
become a prey to Atheism under the form of M aterialistic
Naturalism . The only God which entirely suits the trans
cendental conception of the Universe taught by C hristianity
is a God external to the Universe which he rules by miracles,
but the modern s p irit w ill only adm it in to its scientific w orld
a God who is immanent in the Universe w hich he rules w ith
unchangeable laws. This conflict w ill not cease u n til there is
a general determ ination among men to break w ith the chief
elements of the Christian Idea, for a ll well-meant endeavours
on the part of philosophizing theologians and theologically
inspired professors of philosophy, w hich strive to reconcile the
antithesis, are feeble sophistries* of people who tr y to s it
between two chairs and who practise dissim ulation in matters
where a clear decision is the most pressing need of our
generation.
This difference, purely theoretical in appearance, acquires
more importance by the fact th at it has practical consequences
of a far-reaching character. Now, as long as I believe in a
personal God who created me and a ll the world, and towards
whom I have the same relation as a vase to a potter who made
it, so long I am nothing to God ; I am only a vessel in H is
hands, and I can only be moral by b lin d ly obeying the
alm ighty, holy w ill of this transcendental God. Thus a ll my
M orality rests on a basis external to myself, the commands of
a God who is outside me. In other words, my m orality is
heteronomous. B ut real m orality begins w ith moral autonomy,
and heteronomous M orality, however useful fo r the education
of minds, becomes the imm oral enemy of the only true
M orality, when it is deliberately substituted fo r the latter.
Theism, however, cannot adm it any moral principle above or
beside the w ill of G od; therefore a ll Theistic M orality
exercises a demoralizing influence upon a man i f he possesses
sufficient mental culture to practise moral autonomy. The
modern moral conscience clearly perceives th at actions which
merely carry out the commandments of a foreign W ill cannot
claim any m oral value in the proper sense of the term ; that,
on the contrary, nothing can be reasonably designated ‘ moral,*
except a w ill self-determining and legislating fo r itself.
Therefore, the moral conscience of our age is diam etrically
opposed on the subject of Ethics to the C hristian conscience,
inasmuch as it is impossible to separate the la tter from Theism
and the notions w hich rest on the Theistic hypothesis.
Accordingly, from whatever point of view one examines the
leading ideas of C hristianity and those of Modem C ivilization,
they are found to be invariably opposed to each other ; it is
not surprising, therefore, that this irreconcilable opposition
appears more or less in questions of secondary importance.
Indeed it is only by accident th at there is ever any harmony
between the deductions drawn from the two sets of ideas, ju s t
as a problem, though wrongly worked out, may be brought to
the rig h t solution by means of mistakes accidentally com
pensating one another. Also it is quite possible th at certain
sides— w hich we have not discussed— of the C hristian and the
Modem cosmical theories, sides indispensable to each theory,
yet having no special relation to either, as, fo r example,
H istorical Realism and Pessimism,— it is possible, we repeat
here, that on these points harmony may reign between the
two conceptions. We are scarcely conscious of the existence
of H istorical Realism, because the theory w hich denies it is too
feebly represented among ns ; and Pessimism has only ju s t

begun to penetrate into the w orld of ideas pervaded by the
lig h t of Modem Culture. These m inor points of agreement,
therefore, cannot alter our general assertion th at there is an
irreconcilable antagonism between the fundamental principles
of C hristianity and those of Modem‘C ivilization, w hich conflict
necessarily must end in the complete overthrow of C hristianity
by our anti-C hristian C ivilization, or in a trium phant reaction
on the part of the Old F aith ; yes, end it must, either in the
suppression of lib e rty among a ll nations who w ill be compelled
to yield to the furious attacks of Ultram ontanism , or in the
actual, if not nominal, fa ll of C hristianity.
O nly a firm belief in the logical consistency w hich prevails
in the development of ideas in H istory, could have enabled
any one before the battles of Koniggrätz and of Sedan, to feel
confident th a t Modem C ivilization would gain the upper hand.
I t is only since Prussia established the German Empire, broke
w ith the crypto-Catholicism of K in g Frederic W illia m IV .
(and of the m inister M iih le r, who carried out the same policy),
and recognized th at its chief mission in H istory was the
resumption in modem times of the m illennial struggle against
Rome ; in short, it is but recently th at there has been a fixed
point capable of form ing the centre of crystallization fo r a ll
the aspirations w hich gather round Modem C ivilization in the
struggle fo r th e ir existence menaced by C hristianity. That
the present struggle between Church and State bears on both
sides the mark of a war of exterm ination, is known to every
intellig en t man who can distinguish the unconscious aims of
H istory from the objects pursued by an ind ivid ua l at any
given moment. The Church wishes to make the State its
gendarme, w hile the State desires to reduce the Church to the
level of an association under State control. B u t the final and
the most profound meaning of this struggle lies in the settle
ment of the question whether th is w orld or the next is to be
the chief object of interest to us moderns, whether the con-
cems of E arth or of Heaven, of this life or of eternity, of

Modem C ivilization or of C hristianity, are deserving of our
greater attention. A test of the amount of real C hristian
s p irit remaining in the Protestant creed w ill be furnished by
the extent to w hich the various Protestant sects go in siding
against the State, and in recognizing how identical the interests
of C hristianity are w ith those of Catholicism. A n advantage
gained by Catholicism would be imm ediately followed by a
victory on the part of the evangelical or ‘ orthodox, tendencies
in Protestantism. B u t the trium ph of the State over U ltra -
montanism would sweep away such puny opponents as easily
as one blows the dust o ff an old book. Many persons w rite
and ta lk about the present ‘ Struggle fo r C ivilization,* but only
few of them comprehend that this struggle is the last despair-
ing effort o f the Christian Idea before its retirem ent from the
stage of H istory, against which Modem C ivilization has to
defend its great conquests by exerting its utmost powers for
life or death.
IV .
T H E C H R IS T IA N IT Y OF ST. P A U L A N D
OF ST. JO H N .
T h e canonical books of the New Testament are, as is w ell

known, emanations from standpoints of belief and of doctrine
very antagonistic to one another ; they thus furnish an in te lli
gent reader w ith the spectacle of most violent religious dis
sensions. I t is not less notorious th a t the m ajority of the
most im portant C hristian dogmas belong to later phases in the
E volution of C hristianity, and cannot, w ithout violence to the
text, be read into the New Testament, where we find reflected
the development of C hristian dogma only during the firs t
hundred and fifty years of the C hristian era. Accordingly we
meet w ith palpable contradictions between one part of the
New Testament and another, and also between the general
tone of the New Testament and the later forms taken by
ecclesiastical dogma. B ut these contradictions are ignored,
overlooked, and— when any opponent expressly points them
out— are sim ply denied by the religious sentiment w hich is
self-confident, self-supported, and regards the whole w orld of
religious ideas only as a means by which it may gain its own
aims and ends. So, as soon as the sense of scientific tru th
has become an independent power, independent enough to
recognise contradictions as they exist, and to feel offended at
them, we have a sure sign that the religious sentiment is cool
ing and is ceasing to possess exclusive dom\pation over the
soul; for, w hile the religious sentiment is strong enough to
m aintain th at supremacy, the sense of tru th is to ta lly incap-
THE C H R ISTIA N ITY OF 8T. PAUL AND OF ST. JO HN. 43
able of proving to the intellect that the contradictions really

exist. Such was the situation of mediaeval C hristianity which
regarded the assertions found in the canonical books and in
the w ritings of the orthodox Fathers as unalterable and
supreme. The fiction according to which C hristianity has
undergone no development in its doctrine, is s till accepted by
Catholicism, w hich teaches that a ll the decrees of Councils
have been only definitions of C hristian doctrines existing in
the Church from tim e immemorial, th at is, from the foundation
of the Church.
In battling w ith the abuses of the contemporary Church,
the Reformers upset this idea, but it was a reactionary move
ment on th eir part, after annulling a portion of the history of
C hristian development, to go back to the New Testament, that
is, to the doctrinal standpoint of the firs t century after C hrist’s
death. B ut the Reformers unconsciously falsified and disfigured
th at doctrine by comprising under it as many of the results of
later doctrinal development as were accidentally to th e ir taste.
Protestantism remained true to its principle only when it
continued the w ork w hich it had begun, when it discovered
and duly proclaimed the anachronisms w ith which the dogma
o f the New Testament was unhistorically enriched, when it
expunged from the history o f C hristian ity’s development
periods successively longer and longer. So Protestantism
became always more reactionary in proportion as it imagined
its e lf to be growing more Liberal. C ertainly,’ the history of
dogma had imposed upon the intellect a series of beliefs
progressing in d iffic u lty of acceptance, but these were only the
logical conclusions drawn from the propositions— so contrary
to Reason— contained in the fundamental principles of the
C hristian system. The work thus begun, therefore, was nothing
else but the gradual unravelling of the cleverly-woven fabric
o f C hristian dogma; when the task was finished, nothing
remained but an old useless yam. The radical contradictions
in the principles had led to sophisms ever fresh and more
44 TH E R ELIG IO N OP THE FUTURE.
subtle than before, against which no objection could be urged

i f the premisses were granted. Attacks made on the deduc
tions because they are contrary to Reason must necessarily
lead to the rejection of the first principles fo r the same cause.
W e cannot be under any delusion about this point, unless we
are giving only a nominal adherence to the firs t principles
w hile we really strip them of th e ir actual meaning, but
nevertheless fancy ourselves to be s till Christians.
Luther took his stand upon the doctrinal system of St. Paul,
believing in good fa ith that he was adopting the general sub
stance of C hristian dogma. B ut St. Paul’s doctrine has
absolutely nothing in common w ith the teaching of Jesus ; it is
concerned only w ith the Messiahship and the Atonement of
C hrist, by means of w hich the insufficient righteousness of the
Jewish Law before God is to be made complete.1 Now this
idea has become to us quite unacceptable. W e no longer
know of a God who judges and punishes men by retaliating
on them after the cessation of the terrestrial conditions of th eir
crime ; we can no longer comprehend a divine justice which
demands from Man more than his nature enables him to give ;
we shudder at the belief in a God who punishes a ll generations
fo r the fa u lt of an ind ivid ua l ; we are astounded when we see
a judge who k ills on the cross an innocent substitute instead
of the cu lp rit, and then boasts about his acceptance of this
substitution ju s t as if he had granted a favour instead of
accepting an exchange ; we laugh at the contradiction contained
in the idea that an actual God died fo r us; and, from an
aesthetic point of view, we find fa u lt w ith the apotheosis of
Jesus fo r m arring the pathetic tragedy of a prophet who seals
his doctrine w ith his death.
? Compare F. 0 . P fleiderer, D e r P aulinism us, Leipzig, Fiiee, 1873.

[E n g lish tran sla tio n by E. Peters, W illia m s & uN orgate, London, 1878.]
Compare also F. A . M id le r, B rie fe über die C hristliche R eligion, 4ter
B rie f, D er Paulinism us. [ Letters on the C h ristia n R eligion, F o u rth
L e tte r : * P a u lin ism .’]
THE C H R ISTIA N ITY OP ΘΤ. PAU L AN D OF ST. JO H N . 45
I t was impossible fo r our ago to retain these foundations of

the Paulino-Augustino-Lutheran dogma. Accordingly St.
Paul [and the w rite r of the Epistle to the Hebrews] had to be
abandoned; and search was made in the New Testament for
some other doctrinal system w hich m ight serve as a centre to
the much looked-for ‘ Modem C hristianity.’ Here firs t St.
John offered him self, and Schelling’s contention that after
Petrine and Paulinian C hristianity there must come a Chris
tia n ity of St. John, m ight have deluded the lovers of
philosophic-historical theories, if it had not, unfortunately,
coma too late. More than any one else, a Spener was on the
road to this Johannean C hristianity ; only Lutheranism was
then s till too firm ly established to be overthrown in favour of
a new idea, and Spener him self was too unconscious of the
doctrinal differences in the New Testament to declare positively
fo r St. John, that is, against St. Paul. Schleiermacher, the
modem successor of Spener, appeared at the eleventh hour w ith
his attem pt to reconstruct the real life and teaching of Jesus
from the (so-called) Gospel of St. John, which he considered to
be the most trustw orthy and the earliest of the four Gospels ;
but not long after Schleiermacher’s death, the Gospel bearing
St. John’s name was recognized as the latest o f the more
im portant of the New Testament books, and as a composition
w ritten to represent a certain tendency of thought, to extol a
particular idea which is removed even fu rthe r than Paulinism
from the actual teaching of Jesus.
Schleiermacher was, accordingly, the last theologian who
could try , by m ixing up together different epochs of doctrinal
development, to produce a construction w orthy of notice. To
us who come later this attem pt is debarred ; we can only con
centrate our attention on each phase of doctrinal development
in its distinctive characteristics. There is now no longer any
question about St. John’s doctrine being the most highly
developed of the series of dogmatic systems found in the New
Testam ent; nor is it now disputed that St. John’s Gospel,
46 THE RELIG IO N OF THE FUTURE.
thanks to the Alexandrian Philosophy, melted down— to use

a metaphor— in it, and because, also, of the central position
which it gives to Love, displays depths and beauties w hich in
the later development of C hristianity were not utilized as they
deserved. A nd yet St. John can no longer serve as a support
fo r our religious ideas. A part from the crude Manichæan
Dualism w hich divides men into children of the D e v il and
children of God— each eternally predestined to th e ir lo t— and
w hich is thus in glaring contrast w ith the all-embracing
Hum anitarianism of the Modem consciousness; apart, too,
from St. John’s frequent relapses into Jewish ideas about
future punishment, and from the m ystical crudity of the in
coherent fragments of Metaphysic scattered throughout his
Gospel— apart from a ll this, there is one insurmountable
barrier which w ill always prevent us from adopting St. John’s
doctrinal standpoint, namely, the dogma of the d iv in ity and
m ediation of C hrist, w hich occupies the centre of his concep
tion of the Universe.1
The belief th at no man can come to God except through
Christ, is an anathema fulm inated against a ll who disbelieve in
the necessity of this mediation ; and the belief th at the W ord
(Logos) was incarnate in Jesus in any special way more than
in Lautsze or in Spinoza, is not acceptable to the cultured men
of to-day. A nd therefore Liberal Protestantism quite ju s tly
considers St. John’s doctrines to be untenable, and has silen tly
abandoned the reactionary position occupied by Schleiermacher;
and a ll the more readily, because St. John’s metaphysical
dogma of the Logos possesses such a m anifestly Pantheistic
look and character th at it has always been really unwel
come to Theistic Liberal theologians. O nly a speculative
1 Compare F . Ch. Baur, Vorlesungen über Neutestavientliche Theo-
logic, Leipzig, Fiies, 1864,3te Periode, 2 : ‘ D er Johanneieche L ehrbegriff. *
[Lectures on N ew Testament Theology, 3rd Course, N o. 2 : ‘ The Doc
trin a l System o f S t. J o h n /] Compare also F. A . M ü lle r, B rie fe über die
christliche BeHgiony 6te r B rie f : * D ie Lehre dee Johannes.1 [ Lectures on
C h ris tia n ity , N o. 6 : *S t. John’s D o c trin e /]
THE C H R ISTIAN ITY OF ST. P AU L AND OF 8T. JO H N . 47
theologian, like, fo r example, the Hegelian Biedermann, who

has shown in his C hristian Dogma how incompatible the per
sonality of God is w ith the D e ity ’s absolute existence, and has
had the courage to avow him self a Pantheist— it is only, wo
repeat, such a theologian who can, w ith Hegel, find in St.
John’s Logos-doctrine and in the essential u n ity of the Absolute
w ith the F in ite S p irit, which th at doctrine seeks to realize,
the only tenable idea of the C hristian or of any Religion.
B ut in vain w ill he try to persuade us th at these ideas, im
ported from the latest German Philosophy into C hristianity,
have any historical connection w ith Jesus, or w ith St. Paul,
or w ith the historical C hristianity which is founded principally
on th e ir doctrines. N ot u njustly w ill a teacher of such fancies
be perpetually condemned to play the part of a black swan in
the C hristian Theology.
W hat remained, then, as the last anchor of safety for Modem
C hristianity ? O nly the ‘ original, pure, and authentic doctrine
of Jesus.’ I t was the last step in the reaction; Liberalism
resolved to take it. The whole history o f the development of
C hristian ity was to be blotted out, and the C hristian Religion
was to be compressed into that p rim itive shape w hich it had
at that moment in its E volution when its traditional founder
lifte d it out of the cradle. O nly what Jesus him self taught
shall have any authority ; only as he believed in him self w ill
we believe in h im ; on these conditions, and on these alone, shall
we become real and true Christians, the followers of the
‘ C hristianity of C hrist.’ This receipt is sim ple; le t us see
what result we shall get w ith it.
y.
T H E C H R IS T IA N IT Y OF C H R IST.
T h e doctrine of Jesus, as opposed to later interpretations of

it, was for th e ,firs t tim e depicted by Strauss in his celebrated
L ife o f Jesus. Although that book appeared before the
Tübingen School of critics had given to the w orld their
conclusions proving that the Fourth Gospel is not a historical
source for the life of Jesus, and is s till more untrustw orthy as
an account of Jesus’s teaching, yet Strauss made, in his L ife o f
Jesus, such a complete separation between the Synoptics and
the Fourth Gospel, th at it was easy fo r a reader of Strauss to
execute the necessary elim ination of the la tter Gospel. Read
in th is manner, the masterpiece of Strauss, in spite of the
progress of historical researches, is s till the most instructive
guide to the study of Jesus’s teaching, inasmuch as Strauss’s
criticism is the soundest, and because he spares us th at
sentimental phraseology w ith w hich, follow ing the precedent
of Rénan, the m ajority o f the more recent biographers have
fancied themselves obliged to envelop the subject to such an
extent th at a reader feels cloyed before arriving at the p ith of
the m atter.1
1 The re la tiv e ly best exposition o f the real teaching o f Jesns w hich I

have found in a theological w ork is perhaps th a t given b y Professor
Weiss in his E xposition o f the B ib lic a l Theology o f the N ew Testament
[Lehrbuch der biblischen Theologie des Neuen Testam ents], P a rt I.
* The D octrine o f Jesus according to the O ldest T ra d itio n . * W eiss keeps
h im self fa irly free from phrases, and does n o t im ita te the custom — so
fashionable to-day—o f m aking Jesus in to a cosm opolitan L ib e ra l.
THB C H R ISTIAN ITY OP CHRIST. 49
Unquestionably, the teaching of Jesus relieves us from a

load of h ig hly dogmatic ideas w hich St. Paul, St. John, and
later C hristian w riters place before us. I t never occurred to
Jesus to consider him self a God, or equal to God, or even only
lik e God ; he would have repelled any such suggestions more
indignantly than he repudiated the fa r more harmless epithet
of ‘ good * in the sense of ‘ free from s in / Jesus knew of no
pre-existence before his b irth , claimed fo r him self no future
glory except th a t of a judge and of a king chosen by God to
judge and rule over his elect people. He never uses the
expression ‘ son of G od9 except to designate a special object
of the D ivin e Father’s universal love. I t is thus clear from
this th at Jesus never made any attack upon the u n ity of the
D e ity by proclaim ing the later doctrine of the T rin ity ; th at
dogma cannot be attributed w ith tru th to him ; but how much
more monstrous, from a historical point of view, appears the
attem pt to invest Jesus w ith the Hegelian doctrine of the
id e n tity of the Absolute w ith the F in ite S p irit ! Again,
Jesus regards the death w hich awaits him only as a powerful
means of arousing indifferent men from th e ir torpor, and of
in citin g them to amend th e ir ways; it is only thus th at his
death becomes to him a means of salvation fo r the souls -of
many, who, w ithout this sanguinary proof of the earnestness and
sacred tru th of his doctrine, would not have troubled to have
listened to it. So we can easily get rid of the d iv in ity and
the superhuman sinlessness of C hrist, the T rin ity and the Atone
ment, if we reduce the substance of the Christian Religion to the
data furnished by the Synoptics about the teaching of Jesus.
The question, however, remains whether we w ill also bargain or
not fo r the other consequences of going back to the standpoint
of Jesus, w hich must be looked fo r in the epoch d irectly pre
ceding Judæ o-Christianity, and not (as is generally supposed)
in the period imm ediately follow ing, fo r the doctrinal stand
point of Jesus represents an intermediate phase of Religion
between the contemporary Judaism and Judæ o-Christianity.
D
50 THE R ELIG IO N OP THE FUTURE.
Jesus was emphatically a J e w ;1 his education had been

the national Jewish training, and, apart from the influence of
the Jewish Essenes, no foreign culture ever reached him .
He lived and died in the circle of ideas of his tim e and of his
nation, partaking in the superstition of the former, as w ell as
having a ll the national fa ith of the la tter in prophecies. The
whole of his a c tiv ity displayed its e lf as a reproduction of a
national Jewish prophet’s career, ascetic practices not excluded.
Since the tim e of the prophets, a belief was current th at the
national-Jewish God would one day gather together a ll nations
around his temple, and the Jews had already fo r a long tim e
accepted proselytes from foreign nations. The increasing
international relations in recent centuries had doubtless
strengthened the tendency of the national religious conscious
ness to expand into a universal Religion, and the later relapse
into the exclusiveness of a national Judaism was only a
reaction against the a n ti-Je w ish Cosmopolitanism o f the
C hristian ity preached to the Gentiles. Jesus, therefore,
remained altogether in the old religious paths marked out by
his nation, when he, w hile laying stress a ll the tim e on the
im m u tab ility of the Mosaic Law, aimed at the propagation of
the worship of Yahweh among the Gentiles. The belief in the
immediate end of the world forbade any adjournment of the
missionary work if any fraction of the Gentiles was to he
saved. As regards the psychological side of the phenomenon
we are studying, it was very natural th at the hopes set on the
conversion of the Gentiles took a ll the firm er possession of
Jesus’s m ind as his disappointment at his failure to spread his
ideas among the Jews became more b itte r.
Jesus, I repeat, was a Jew, and nothing but a Jew. W ho
ever doubts this, does so from the disturbing influence of his
w ill, or else because he is ignorant th at the Judaism o f Jesus’s
tim e differed w idely from the Judaism of Moses and of the
1 Compare F. A . M ü lle r, B rie fe über die christliche R eligion (Le tters
on the C h ristia n Religio7i)f pp. 72 and fo llo w in g .
THE C H R ISTIA N ITY OF CHRIST. 51
prophets. For between these two religious phases there is not

only an interval equal to that w hich separates the M iddle
Ages from our days, but an epoch containing such extra
ordinary incidents as captivities, conquests, inter-marriages,
and interm ixture of foreign civilizations, th at the idea of d u ll
stagnation in Jewish thought is quite inadmissible. The
Talmud, w ith its sprinkling of liberal and humane ideas, was
at th at tim e nearly completed in the form of oral trad ition ;
the educated Jew of th at age looked at the Old Testament
through the spectacles of the Talm ud,1 ju s t as the Liberal
Protestant of to-day sees the New Testament through the
spectacles of Modem Rationalism and Hum anitarianism.
There is nothing in the teaching of Jesus which he had not
learned from the culture of his tim e so deeply impregnated
w ith the T alm ud; even his parables are— some of them—
taken from the Talmud, and there is not the shadow of a
doubt that his lesser similes are borrowed from th at treasury
of national proverbs. The positive m erit of his teaching
did not consist in the promulgation of any absolutely novel
doctrine, nor in lending an essentially new character to some
pre-existing elements of dogma by altering th e ir relative place
of importance ; it consists rather in the fact that he brought
out the esoteric trad ition of the Schools to the public ear, so
th at the poor and the wretched had also th e ir share in
instruction and in edification ; and that he, w ith piercing
insight, knew how to extract from the mushroom - lik e
hypertrophy of Talm udic learning some true pearls which he,
by employing figurative language, rendered naive and fit for
distribution among the masses.
I t is true th at Jesus, apart from these loans furnished by
1 Compare Em anuel Deutsch, D e r T alm u d ( The T a lm u d ), B e rlin ,

D um m ler, and Stim m en vom E u p h ra t und Jordan {Voices fro m the
E uphrates and the Jo rd a n ). [Compare also A T alm udic M iscellany,
translated by P. J. Hershon. TrUbner & Co., Lon do n .]— N ote fo r
E nglish readers.
the popular religious belief and the contemporary theology,

has given us some apparently original ideas, thoughts w hich
he made the centre of his teaching, and which he uniform ly
and emphatically reiterated in a manner very impressive.
B u t it is precisely th is element in his Gospel— the only
original part, and indeed the message, which he considered to
he the chief object of his mission— w hich has become fo r us
no more than the dry leaf of a past season, than the dross
w hich has spontaneously fallen o ff in the process of historical
development. B ut when the subsequent E volution is brought
in as the original teaching of Jesus, and is declared to be the
only part w hich is entitled to have any religious influence
w ith us, we are also obliged to review his teaching as por
trayed in the historical documents, and to consider these things
the most im portant which Ead the greatest importance for
him .
Now, what is the Gospel of Jesus? I t is the prophetic
declaration that the national Jewish kingdom o f Yahweh
( η βασιλεία τον 0€ov), which the Jews expected in the form of
an earthly theocracy ru lin g over a new earth, w hich would
have to be created after the destruction of the old one by
fire,— that this kingdom, we repeat, is near at hand, and that
its advent— in other words, the end of the existing world and
the final Judgment— is so closely impending th at the present
generation, at a ll events, w ill he involved in the catastrophe.1
H is Gospel was principally confined to this (w hich is only a
continuation of John the B aptists teaching), and a ll counsels,
a ll suggestions about the conduct of life to be adopted in any
particular crisis, which, though given by him , are opposed to
the general views of his contemporaries, are merely conclusions
drawn from this Gospel, that is, from the belief th at it is not
w orth w hile to set up any domestic establishment on this
earth for the short span of tim e s till remaining to it, and that
1 Compare F. A . M ü lle r, B rie fe über die christliche R eligion (Letters
on the C h ristia n R eligion), pp. 51-72.
it is advisable to devote oneself entirely to repentance and

amendment, in order not to be devoured by fire at the Judg
ment Day, and excluded from any participation in the kingdom
of the new earth. Jesus him self repeatedly speaks in a way
which shows p la in ly that this alone, in his opinion, is the
specific meaning of his Gospel, and th at the rest of his
preaching merely repeats exhortations and promises w ell
known to his audience, w itho ut proclaiming any new doctrine.
This belief in the nearness of the end of the world, which
finds, moreover, a point of national religious support in the
Jewish prophecies, obviously arose from the deep-seated con
viction th at a w orld, so bad as this, deserves to perish, from
the idea th at God shares this conviction, and from the logical
conclusion th at he w ill therefore destroy the w orld w ithout
delay. Jesus, indeed, as is w ell known, has not been alone in
uttering this prediction ; at a ll times and in a ll places, a sim ilar
tra in of thought in minds open to religious emotion has pro
duced sim ilar prophecies which have, not unfrequently, met
w ith quite as much acceptance from credulous followers as
those of Jesus did from his disciples. I f Jesus now and then
hints at an ideal anticipation of this approaching kingdom of
God, s till this ideal anticipation is none the less inseparable
w ith him from the belief in the rea lity of the Jewish prophecy,
and in the tru th of his jo y fu l message announcing that the
actual accomplishment is about to take place.
If, therefore, the modem adherents of the historically
attested doctrine of Jesus lay so much stress on being real
and authentic Evangelical Christians, they must firs t give to
the jo y fu l message of Jesus concerning the kingdom of God
w hich has come upon earth,*a signification which is opposed
to the meaning expressly given to it by Jesus, and of which
he could not possibly have had any idea. However, if we
make a caricature of the alleged historical view, and discover
Jesus to have been not a Palestinian Jew liv in g in the reign
of the Emperor Tiberius, but a member, by anticipation, of
the Protestant Association of our most ‘ highly enlightened ’

age, then there is certainly nothing more strange in the whole
of H istory than the great persistency w ith w hich this Jesus
made him self into a Jew fo r love of the Jews— his com
patriots. Else, such a caricature of H istory w ill be eim ply a
remnant of the old divorce between the religious sentiment
and Reason, of that faculty fo r blending irreconcilable ideas
together in such a way th at the confused medley of thoughts
may satisfy the religious sentiment. The only difference is
th at it is no longer w orth w hile to m ystify one's reason about
the result which follows in th is case, and secondly, th at such
procedure but poorly accords w ith the pretension of pursuing
a s tric tly scientific, critical, and historical method.
B ut the principal question now presents itse lf. The adher
ents of C hrist’s C hristianity wish to believe in him only as
he believed in him self ; in what sense, then, did he believe
in him self 1 I t is adm itted th at he did not believe him self
to have pre-existed as God, or to be a M ediator lik e the ideal
Jesus of the Fourth Gospel, or to be a Redeemer in S t Paul’s
sense of the word, or to be a sinless moral pattern. A ll the
more certain is it that he did not regard him self as the
preacher of a new religious doctrine, or the founder of a new
Religion. He would have been exceedingly surprised if any
one had predicted to him that on his religious a ctivity the
b irth of a new religion would be fastened, which would perse
cute Judaism — its mother — w ith b itte r and envenomed
hate.
In reality, Jesus, at the beginning of his career, only
believed him self to be a prophet chosen by God, and it was
not u n til some tim e had elapsed th at he, thanks to his
miraculous cures, and under the influence of the praises of
deranged and excited persons who hailed him as the Messiah,
began to so m ystify his ideas about him self as to believe that
he was the expected Messiah, although, up to the tim e of
his miraculous cures, none of the signs (pointed out by the
prophets) suited liis person.1 Accordingly, he was obliged

to ta c itly sanction the baseless assumption of his D avidic
descent, and to interpret his prophetic career as an earthly
a c tiv ity (to ta lly unknown to the prophets), which was destined
to prepare the way fo r the Messiah, in the fu ll glory of whom
he would not descend before his coming at the Last Day
from the clouds of heaven w ith lire around him . Jesus so
little dreamed of an ideal interpretation of the Messianic
beliefs, that, up to his last moments, he never renounced his
conviction of the approaching end of the w orld. According
to him , his kingdom was ‘ not of this w orld,’ but by these
words Jesus only meant th at the actual commencement of his
kin g ly power would date from the foundation of a lite ra l
‘ new earth ’ and of a lite ra l ‘ new Jerusalem.’
I t was not u n til they saw th at the promises of Jesus
remained unfu lfille d, th at the Christians resorted to ideal
interpretations. B ut can the adherents of the actual doctrine
of Jesus, who make th e ir peace w ith historical criticism — can
they, we ask, have resort to such a s h ift as this ? If, however,
they do so, though conscious of doing violence to H istory by
these allegorical interpretations, what is th a t appeal w orth
w hich they make to the authority of Jesus’s Gospel? And
why, pray, as a general rule, should people make use of such
an evasion, which is equally useless and objectionable from a
historical and from a philosophical point of view ? A nd why
do people not state at the outset what they are aim ing at w ith
these shifts ? St. Paul combined the Messiah-idea w ith his
own idea of a Redeemer ; this was a bold, arbitrary proceed
ing, false as regards H istory, and im potent in the face of
criticism , but s till it was possible. If, however, we take away
from Jesus his character of divine M ediator and divine
Redeemer, it is impossible fo r us so to interpret the belief
w hich he had in him self as the Jewish Messiah, th at there
1 Compare F . A . M u lle r, B rie fe über die christliche R eligion {Letters
on the C h ristia n R eligion), pp. 38 and fo llo w in g .
56 TH E RELIGION OF THE FUTURE.
remains any admissible sense in which we could believe in

Christ. To us the Jewish Messiah-belief is nothing more
than a historical, old cu riosity; therefore, it is absurd to
suppose that we could believe in C hrist as he believed in
him self.
A fte r thus setting aside these two elements in Christ's
C hristianity, by which he believed him self to be fu lfillin g the
Jewish R eligion, because through him the national Jewish
prophecies were being at last realized, we must, in order to
find out what other distinctive characteristics there were in
Jesus's teaching, firs t take into our considerations the theory
of the Universe w hich he derived from his firmly-seated belief
in the speedy destruction of a ll things. Jesus manifested a
supreme contempt for the State, fo r the adm inistration of
justice, fo r the Fam ily, fo r Labour and fo r Property, in short,
fo r a ll w orldly advantages and a ll means w hich ensure a last
ing continuance to social order.1 This mental attitude results
quite naturally from the belief in the approaching end of the
w o rld ; so we are rather surprised when Jesus, w ith great
inconsistency, stoops occasionally (ju st lik e Schopenhauer) to
adopt the standpoint of those who are unable to rise to his
ascetic view of things, and condescends to give them moral
precepts fitte d fo r the lower point of view of secular w orld
liness.
Since, however, th is mental attitude, derived from the
4original Gospel,' is diam etrically opposed to a ll the aspirations
of the modem civilized world, it is hushed up as much as
possible by the adherents of 4the authentic teaching ' of Jesus,
and is attributed to the E bionitish colouring of the Synoptic
accounts (particularly of St. Luke). Thus Jesus is accused of
incoherency in thought, in order th at his teaching may be
better harmonized w ith Modern Culture.
A fte r discussing these principal points, we come to a feature
1 Compare F . A . M u lle r, B rie fe über die christliche R eligion {Letters
on the C h ristia n R eligion), pp. 110-131.
TH E C H R ISTIA N ITY OF CHRIST. 57
in Jesus's teaching w hich clearly marks it off from the con

temporary Talmudism. This is the pessimistic conviction that
the w orld is quite unw orthy of existence ; but this Pessimism
runs contrary,— not perhaps to Modem C ulture,— yet certainly
to the comfortable Optimism of Protestant Rationalists, who
find themselves so thoroughly contented w ith th e ir D eity and
w ith his creation— th is w orld of ours. Accordingly, this
Pessimism is ignored, ju s t as the Pessimism of the other
New Testament w riters is again and again disregarded.
Thus we have fortunately extracted from the teaching of
Jesus a ll that was peculiarly characteristic in it. The remainder
consists of parables and sentences which, as Jesus sim ply
accepted the metaphysics of Jewish Theology, do not contain,
s tric tly speaking, any metaphysics at all, and add nothing new
about M orality. B ut he elucidates and develops the M o ra lity
w hich is based on rewards and punishments,1 an ethical system
w hich Liberal Protestants can no longer uphold,— le t it be
embellished or disguised in ever so cunning a way. The
transition to a higher method of Ethics is to be found in
the conclusion of the Sermon on the M ount, where Jesus
reproduces the famous answer of H ille l to a disciple, that the
whole Law is contained in the precept, ‘ Do unto others th at
w hich you w ish they should do unto yo u/ In another passage
(M att. x x ii. 40) Jesus declares the substance of the Law and
o f the Prophets to be the two commandments (given in Deut.
v i. 4, 5 and Lev. x ix . 1), not claim ing at a ll th at he is saying
something new, as the immediate assent of the doctor of the
Law (M ark x. 31, 33), and s till more St. Luke's version of the
incident, prove. The la tte r evangelist (Luke x. 25, 28) makes
Jesus quote to the doctor of the Law him self these com
mandments of love towards God and love towards one's
1 The celebrated beatitudes o f th e Sermon on the M ount have also

th is character, and, m oreover, th e y express th ro u g h o u t the ardent
desire to flee from th is w orld, and the b e lie f in th e speedy advent o f the
e a rth ly kingdom .
58 THE RELIG IO N OF TH B FUTURE.
neighbour, as being the principal laws. Later on in the

same Gospel (Luke x v iii. 20), Jesus quotes the five most
im portant of the Mosaic Laws, and fin a lly he formulates the
precept (follow ing, doubtless, Lev. x ix . 2 and x i. 44), * Be ye
perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect * (M att. v. 48) ;
th a t is, the command to take the personal God as th e ir model
of conduct. This last conception is, of course, surrendered
by a ll who are transcendental Theists, inasmuch as w ith an
immanent D eity there can he no question of moral relations
between him and his manifestations.
Thus the entire fraction of Jesus’s ethical teaching, which
Liberal Protestants can consistently retain, is reduced to the
Mosaic commands of love towards God and love towards one’s
neighbour, w hich are quoted by him only once. And, although
Jesus lays emphasis on th e ir importance, he draws no con
clusions from them ; th e ir significance is, in tru th , fu rthe r
weakened by the fact th at the other passage attributes the
same importance, namely, of being the summary of the Law
and of the Prophets, to the homely m orality of H ille l, w hich
is a most rational rule of life , based on reciprocity. W e can
draw from this no conclusion except th at Jesus did not clearly
distinguish between the two maxims ; in other words, th at the
commandment to love God and one’s neighbour did not seem
to him a higher or a more exalted maxim than the practical
rule of reciprocity of services, a rule suggested by prudence,
and which is found as a native proverb in so many languages.
St. John is the firs t who makes love, in its profoundest
meaning, the central point of Ethics, and, therefore, it is
contrary to historical tru th to attribute this ethical teaching
to Jesus, whose system of M o ra lity is essentially based on the
egoistic m otive of choosing the lesser e v il and the greater
advantage. W e may add th at this teaching of his was in
harmony w ith the s p irit of his Jewish contemporaries. If,
when referring to the moral order of things, or rather to the
springs of moral motives, Jesus’s teaching has any oHginal
feature, it is only the so-called Gospel announcing th at the

end of the w orld and the kingdom of God are close at hand ;
a declaration which, by representing the te rrific punishment
and the seductive reward to be im m ediately coming, gives
them greater m otive power to moral action.
As regards M orality, therefore, the teaching of Jesus has no
original element w hich we could use ; a ll th a t is practical in
it consists of occasional quotations, the depth and meaning
of w hich Jesus certainly did not grasp. Accordingly the
adherents of Jesus C hrist’s teaching find themselves in a
corner out of w hich they cannot escape, except by im porting
th e ir own meaning into his declarations, and making the latter
into mottoes or headings whose historical meaning one need
not scrutinize too closely. The result is th at when the
adherents of C hrist’s C hristianity preach sermons on bib lica l
texts, their arbitrariness of interpretation, th e ir talent for
finding types, th e ir construction of theories outdo the per
formances of the earlier centuries; and th e ir equals in this
field are to be found only in the discourses of liberal-m inded
Rabbis, who, however, have a model and an excuse in the
bold flights and leaps of oriental imagination which make us
laugh when we come across them in the Talmud. There,
indeed, the sentences are, fo r the most part, expressed, not in
abstract language, but by m etaphor; and accordingly this
uncritical and unhistorical process of im porting modern thoughts
in to old texts is much facilitated, as a figurative expression
admits of any number of meanings when it is separated from
its historical and psychological connections.
The fundamental error of the adherents of C hrist’s C hristianity
is tw ofold. I t consists, firs tly , in the belief th a t the historical
importance of Jesus is to be looked for in his teaching, instead
of in his personal influence on those around him , and, secondly,
in the idea th at Jesus ought to be considered and honoured as
the founder of the U niversal Religion, viz., C hristianity.
About the firs t of these points St. Paul and St. John
60 THE R ELIG IO N OP TH E FUTURE.
had a clearer historical conception than our modem critica l

historians possess. St. Paul did not trouble him self about
what Jesus had said, nor about ‘ the sayings of the L o rd '
current among the band of disciples; he considered such
slavery to the le tte r to be quite unnecessary and lik e ly to
cause confusion of ideas. He held only to the doctrines of
the approaching end of the world, the Messianic character of
Jesus, and, above all, his death on the Cross fo r M ankind’s
redemption. Thus Paul b u ilt up his new U niversal Religion.
St. John, or rather the w rite r of the Fourth Gospel, had so
little regard fo r the historical teaching of Jesus, th at he, in
the freest manner, altered the trad ition of th a t teaching in
order to make it fit in w ith his own doctrinal tendencies;
on the contrary, he considered th a t the Incarnation formed
the crisis of the U niversal Judgment, that, when the ‘ L ig h t’
came into the world, the crisis had arrived ; and he regarded
the crucifixion of Jesus as the turning-point in the w orld’s
history. I t is certain, therefore, th at we can no longer
believe, as these tw o w riters did, in a particular efficacy of the
person and o f the actions of Jesus ; b ut we can acknowledge
his influence as a man upon men.
How d iffic u lt is it to define what it is th at constitutes the
captivating charm of a personality fo r those who come into
contact w ith it ! The poet’s pen hardly evokes afresh in the
imagination of the reader th at mysterious som ething; how,
then, can prose perform the task? W e can w ith ease
enumerate a ll the amiable qualities of a man, but s till there
w ill be le ft unnamed a something w hich cannot be expressed
in words, which exercises on those around him an electrifying
and enchanting influence, and which, nevertheless, may be
accompanied by great failings quite repellent when considered
by themselves. Such must have been the indefinable personal
influence exercised by Jesus, as is proved by the enthusiasm
of the crowds who le ft house and home, wives and children,
in order to follow him in his wanderings.
TH E C H R ISTIA N ITY OF CHRI8T. 61
M ost enthusiastic was the personal devotion which th is

wonderful, prophetic Man inspired ; H is followers had already
begun to call H im ‘ L o rd ’ in anticipation of H is future
kingdom on the earth. I t was this devotion, p rim itive ly
called ‘ fa ith / on the part of those who had surrounded Jesus,
which, by its persistence after the Master’s b uria l and by its
jo y fu l acceptation of martyrdom, imposed sufficiently upon
one of th e ir most decided persecutors, to cause the charm of
such a wonder-working personality to draw him also into its
meshes, and— favoured by other psychological conditions— to
change him from a Saul into a PauL
As we have already remarked, nothing was fu rthe r removed
from Jesus’s thoughts than the idea of being the herald of a
new doctrine or the founder of a new Religion. L ike the
earlier prophets, he only wished to teach pure Judaism, pro
claim ing that the national promises of the Jewish R eligion
were about to be fu lfille d , and presenting him self as the
expected Messiah, as the Man called to accomplish th at
fulfilm ent. If, in later times, his life was made the point
of departure from Judaism to a new and non-Jewish Religion,
if his teaching was interpreted and disfigured in the meaning
of th at new R eligion, this was no less contrary to his wish
than to his intention. H e would have considered such con
sequences of his work impossible, as he believed the end of
the w orld and the new kingdom of the Jewish God to be
immediately approaching. So the work and death of Jesus
were only the unconscious and involuntary causes of the
foundation of the new Religion by Paul. Had no Paul got
hold of the death of Jesus on the Cross, and, by the help of
that fact, developed his own new dogmatic and religious ideas,
had the doctrine of Jesus continued to be th a t Jewish Chris-
tianism which it was before the counter-influence of Paul
modified it so largely, then the community of C hrist’s disciples,
who only differed from other Jews by believing th at the
Messiah would speedily appear (and that, too, in the form of
62 THE BEU G IO N OF THE FUTURE.
the returning Jesus), after practical demonstration of the error

of th at belief, would have died out of its e lf as fa r as being a
religious body separate from the other Jews. For the difference
was so small th at we cannot describe Jesus C hrist’s disciples
as a Jewish sect, the notion of sect im plying some difference
in dogma or in ritu a l.
From a ll th is it. is very plain th a t those who wish to revert
to the original teaching of Jesus, but reject the doctrines of
the nearness of the end of the w orld and the Messiahship, are
sim ply reverting to the religious standpoint of the Jews in the
tim e of Jesus, inasmuch as they object to those features in his
doctrines which distinguished the la tte r from the contemporary
Jewish beliefs. Such persons, unless they prefer attaching
themselves to John the Baptist instead of adhering to Jesus,
ought not to be baptized; they should rather undergo cir
cumcision, fo r Jesus d id not baptize any of his disciples, but
he presupposed th at they had been or would be circumcised,
since not an article of the Mosaic Law is to remain u n fu lfille d
(M att. V . 1 8 , 1 9 ) . As, however, the adherents of the doctrine
of Jesus probably do not feel inclined to subm it to th at opera
tion, but consider themselves superior to Jewish customs,
although they do not essentially differ from modem Liberal
Jews, th e ir eclectic standpoint vanishes into th in a ir and is
reduced to nothing. Under the superscription, ‘ The Chris
tia n ity of C h ris t/ there remains only a blank sheet from
which a ll th at was previously w ritten upon it has been erased.
And this is doubtless w hat the good people wish fo r ; they
want an open space, w ithout lim its or barriers, in order to
launch th e ir own ideas into the w orld w itho ut abandoning
the name of C hristianity ; in other words, they make modem
ideas sail under the C hristian flag instead of under the flag of
C ivilization.
I t would be strange if, when confronted w ith the falseness
of this title , the sense of tru th and Reason were not offended
quite as deeply as when coming in to contact w ith any other
dogma. And we should also be surprised if the historical

sense of men did not protest against historical tru th being
derided by persons who profess to be guided by the critica l
Science of H istory. A fte r these good people have made a
clean sweep of the essential dogmas of C hristianity, they
then, fo r the purpose of retaining, at least, one miserable scrap
— we mean the name * C hristianity ’— pause before a dogma
w hich is equally unpalatable to Reason. This dogma is the
affirm ation th at the fragments of m isinterpreted bib lica l
sentences and of ideas borrowed from Modern C ivilization,
w hich they have fastened together, really form the original
and authentic C hristianity of C hrist.
The real teaching of Jesus and his belief about him self have
been b riefly sketched in the foregoing pages. I t is perfectly
clear th at the attem pt to revive in our tim e a C hristian ity lik e
C hrist’s is a thousand times more chim erical than the enter
prise of restoring St. Paul's or St. John’s teaching to the place
of honour.
B u t in a ll th is noise which is made about ‘ The C hristianity
of C hrist ’ there lurks a hidden remnant of the old belief in
authority, w hich we must not refrain from bringing to lig h t.
People reckon on the respect fo r C hrist’s authority, w hich has
prevailed from the earliest C hristian times among the masses
u n til now. The foundation of this wonderful respect is the
belief in his d iv in ity ; and, thanks to the power of persistence
possessed by spiritual forces, the respect is s till surviving fo r
longer or shorter tim e, though the root which was its support
is dead. I t is th is lingering respect which, after a ll other
authority has been overthrown, ensures fo r the teaching of
Jesus a more complete and unquestioning acceptance than
it would obtain if men considered and examined his declara
tions sim ply as being what they were meant to be and really
are, namely, the occasional discourses q f a visionary Jew who
lived more than a thousand years ago, who was a man lik e
ourselves, but whose culture was th at of a ruder and more super-
64 TH E R ELIG IO N OP TH E FUTURE.
stitious age than ours. B u t the inconsistency to which we allude

goes fu rth e r : people seek to a rtific ia lly nourish this respect,
though robbed of its foundation, by entertaining towards
the figure of Jesus, when levelled to the position of a man,
the veneration w hich was paid to the God-Man of the old
fa ith , and which would, by its absurdity, raise a laugh, i f the
degrading Byzantinism of such an action d id not provoke
in us the deepest moral indignation. Strauss’s demand of
reverence fo r the m aterial Cosmos is sim ply absurd, hut when
Liberal Protestants ask fo r such homage to he paid to the
man Jesus, the proposal seems both offensive and revolting.
However, the good people w ill hardly expect th a t the regard
fe lt by the masses fo r Jesus, which is kept up in so unpro-
testant a manner, can long survive after th a t the aureole of his
d iv in ity has vanished. This consideration should bring them
to perceive how insufficient th e ir transitory expedient is. The
Protestant theory, when carried to its logical conclusion, clears
mercilessly away every k in d of dogmatic authority ; so these
good people, whether they w ill or not, must take th eir part
in the mission of Protestantism ; they must extricate themselves
w itho ut applying to C hrist’s authority any more than to that
of his apostles.
W e resume ; the attem pt to revert to the teaching of Jesus
no longer gives us the hope of any positive advantage to be
gained from it and employed in building up a modem Religion.
There is only the negative advantage th a t we find in the
teaching of Jesus fewer dogmas than in th a t of his disciples,
and th at his doctrine, by its deficiencies, is in greater harmony
w ith the teaching of Liberal Protestantism than any later
phase of the Evolution of C hristianity.
VL
T H E U N C H R IS T IA N C H AR AC TER OF L IB E R A L
PR O TE STAN TISM .
W e have seen, in the last chapter, how the Protestant theory,

in the irresistible course of its ever-advancing criticism , under
mines and overthrows a ll authority, not only of Popes, Coun
cils, tradition, fathers of the Church, the New Testament and
its writers, but also even the authority of the person to whom
a ll these appealed as being the direct bearer of D ivine
Revelation. W hen the Protestant method has been consistently
carried out, there remains no reason why we should give,
except relatively, a greater authority to Jesus the carpenter’s
son than to the fisherman Peter or to the tent-maker Paul.
We learn to measure them a ll w ith the same rule, and to
consider th e ir teaching valid only on those points which
harmonize w ith the doctrinal standpoint of the modern reader.
Since, however, the position taken on a ll the principal ques
tions by these various representatives of the Christian fa ith is
untenable now, only some of its subordinate and accessory
doctrines can be retained by the representatives of Modem
C hristianity. -This method of picking and choosing is called
* Eclecticism.* B ut by Eclecticism one gets outside that period
of development in the different phases of w hich one selects
what is pleasing ; fo r the choice is determined by motives and
considerations which lie outside the E volution of the idea
governing the period— (in this case in accordance w ith con
siderations drawn from Modern C ivilization).
A man who has renounced the pretension of being a
E
66 THE RELIG IO N OP THE FUTURE.
C hristian can, nevertheless, quote for the occasion passages

from the Bible ju s t as w ell as from the poets, but he makes the
quotations not to get additional evidence fo r his p o in t; he
thinks of them only as a rhetorical set-off, or because he is
charmed w ith the strikin g expression w hich a thought has
discovered in some passage or other. Liberal Protestants are
in danger of interlarding th e ir sermons w ith Scripture texts
fo r this purpose only ; yet they always seek to p ro fit by the
respect fo r the Bible, w hich among the masses has survived
the destruction of the fa ith in revelation. B ut this is ju s t as
dishonourable a farce as the pretence o f having respect fo r
Jesus of w’hich we have spoken in the last chapter. Both
these juggleries w ill be carried on some tim e longer, but one
day Liberal Protestants w ill see th e ir hearers signify to them
th at they knew the tric k . W hether a Liberal Protestant
preacher should borrow his te xt from the B ible and divide his
sermon according to the divisions of his te x t or not,— th at is,
after the utter uprooting of authority, not to m ention the
possible abuse which he may make of the privileges s till le ft
to him ,— that is, we repeat, a to ta lly indifferent question. H is
doing so would be but a harmless amusement if, by retaining
the empty form , the speaker did not appear to retain, at the
same tim e, the essential character of the C hristian sermon,
w hich is nothing less than the interpretation of God’s revealed
word. By means of such juggleries, Liberal Protestantism
tries to pass fo r a preserver of historical continuity w ith
positive C hristianity, whereas, by surrendering a ll belief in
revelation and in the authority of the Bible, they have struck
this continuity a blow from which it cannot recover. There
is, indeed, no longer any in trin sic reason proceeding from the
subject itself, why such a preacher should seek to support his
discourse by any text, fo r his reason is the supreme criterion
of the w orth of what is put before him. Does he wish to prop
him self up on foreign doctrinal opinions Ί That is his own
affair, and the best methods of exposition are alone to be con-
TH E UNC H RISTIAN CHARACTER OF LIB E R A L PROTESTANTISM. 67
sidered. Is he to seek fo r the required support in modern or

classical writers, ecclesiastical or profane, in Chinese, Buddhist,
Jewish, or C hristian authors? The answer to this question
can only he supplied by the solution of another question,
namely, where w ill he find the most appropriate and con
cise expression of the ideas w hich he represents? There
is no question of authority, since none of them have any
of it.
If, then, these preachers s till take th e ir texts invariably
from the New Testament, they are incited to do so only by an
external motive, namely, the desire to proclaim th at th eir
thought is connected w ith the New Testament more closely
than w ith any other book. B ut this is a false representation,
inasmuch as they regard w ith great aversion a ll the principal
doctrines of the New Testament. Their biblical eclecticism,
in its positive aspect, is confined to certain m inor points w hich
they, in the bargain, misrepresent entirely through unhistorical
interpretation. As regards firs t principles, th e ir eclecticism is
purely negative, since they accept, in any New Testament
w riter, only those passages where he, e x p lic itly or by im plica
tion, denies the dogmatic principles belonging to other stand
points in the same phase of religious development. Thus it
is th at Liberal Protestants support themselves on St. Paul
when they reject the Mosaic Law, and they rely on St. John
to ju s tify them in th e ir complete separation from Judaism, and,
by the way, in th e ir indifference to the Eucharist ; they appeal
to Jesus Chrises simple teaching when they deny the meta
physical dogmas which form the basis of C hristianity, and
which could have been form ulated only after his death, inasmuch
as before he died there d id not exist any C hristian R eligion
separated from Judaism. I t is unnecessary to remark th at
such negative eclecticism cannot claim to arouse any positive
interest ; the whole of its u tility consists in promoting destruc
tive, aggressive criticism . I t can only interest us as long as
the positive dogma— which has become objectionable— sur-
vives s till in its historical force, a continuation of the conflict

being, in that case, rendered necessary.
W e now ask, once for all, what rig h t a Liberal Protestant
has to call him self 4a C hristian / unless it is the fact th a t his
parents had him baptized and confirmed. In a ll times, those
who professed to be Christians have had a common charac
teristic, namely, fa ith in Christ. In C hrist’s God the Jews
and the Muhammedans believe, and the la tte r also believe that
Jesus C hrist was a wise, virtuous prophet, fo r whom God had
a special regard. I f it were, then, sufficient to believe that
Jesus was a popular religious orator, gifted w ith good sense and
judgm ent, of course the believers in Muhammed, the Muham
medans, would have as true, nay, a better claim than we to
the name of 4Christians.’ Therefore, if it is the belief in
C hrist w hich makes men 4C hristians/ it must be understood
in a stronger and narrower sense. B u t we have seen that
Liberal Protestants cannot believe in C hrist either as Luther,
or as St. Thomas d’A quino, or as St. John, or as St. Paul, or
as St. Peter believed in h im ; and much less, unfortunately
fo r them, are they able to possess the identical belief about
him which he had about him self, fo r he fancied that he was
the Jewish Messiah, the Anointed One. In what way, then,
do they believe in H im Ί They believe in H im as the founder
o f the Christian Religion.
Now we saw in the preceding chapter th at Jesus cannot be
regarded as the conscious and w illin g founder of a new
Religion. I t is proved, therefore, that the only form of belief
which Liberal Protestants have in Jesus C hrist does not accord
w ith historical fact.
But, w aiving this objection, we are unable to adm it that the
belief which recognizes in a person the form al quality of being
the founder of a Religion furnishes sufficient proof th at the
believer belongs to th at Religion. In the firs t place, a ll non-
Christians, who have heard of Jesus C hrist according to the
traditional Christian account, believe that he was the founder
Ύη ε u n c h r is t ia n CHARACTER OF LIB E R A L PROTESTANTISM. 69
of C hristianity ; and secondly, we should be arguing in an

empty circle if we alleged th at the essential Christian F a ith
consisted in believing Jesus C hrist as the founder of the
belief that he is the founder of th a t F a ith itse lf. The
necessary consequence of this reduction to a m inim um of the
old belief in C hrist is th at Liberal Protestants proclaim that
belief to be quite unnecessary fo r membership of the C hristian
Religion, and they seek for the characteristic m ark of such
membership away from the belief in C hrist, th at is, in a
different quarter from th at where the history of C hristianity
has sought fo r it, w itho ut exception, for the last two thousand
years. W e here witness the disruption o f continuity w ith
historical C hristianity.
Moreover, when a man, true to his Protestant principles,
has unconditionally rejected the authority of tradition, he
cannot possibly find any sign of adhesion to the C hristian
Religion, except the belief in the person o f C hrist or the
belief in the contents of his teaching. B u t we saw in the
last chapter that the first of these and (we proved ju s t now)
th at the second of them are untenable by Liberal Protestants.
We have therefore placed it beyond a doubt that the stand
point of Liberal Protestants is already outside the C hristian
Religion. The Protestant theory, at its present standpoint,
has already passed the boundary where historical continuity
w ith the Essence of C hristianity ceases.1
I need hardly say that I have no idea of h urling the reproach
of untruthfulness at those Liberal Protestants who demand to
be recognized as * Christians * because they affirm that they are
1 De Lagarde, in his work, On the R elation o f the Germ an State to
Theology y arrives at the frankly-expressed conclusion th a t ‘ there can be
for us no longer any question of C h ristia n ity.’ This logical and lucid
statement is the more remarkable, as De Lagarde s till keeps to the
delusion of seeing in C h ristia nity only a corruption and not a develop
ment o f the Gospel, and of considering the la tte r in its pure, th a t is, its
histo rica lly authentic, form, to be, even at the present day, a sufficient
basis for a religious reconstruction.
such. A ll I m aintain is, th at these persons either have not

clearly comprehended the final consequences of the Protestant
principle, or else are under a delusion about the veritable
results of historical-critical inq uiry into the sources whence a
R eligion arises. Science is now-a-days making such rapid
progress, th at the tim e cannot be very distant when the
delusions in w hich they yet rock themselves w ill to them also
appear untenable. W e can p la inly see how i l l at ease they
are in th eir present position. This feeling of insecurity and
uneasiness explains w hy Strauss’s negative reply to the ques
tio n which he proposed, ‘ Are we s till ChristiansP was the
object of so vehement attacks from Liberal Protestants. I t
is true th a t the argument of Strauss in this part is rather
superficial, inasmuch as he does not consider the standpoint
of Liberal Protestants, but contents him self w ith showing us
how great our rupture is w ith the orthodox Religion. B ut
the conclusions of his argument on th at question are the only
unassailable points in his book (The Old F a ith and the New),
and th e ir value consists in the straightforw ard reply w hich he
gives.
From th at same feeling of insecurity about th e ir religious
attitude can also be explained the illib e ra l intolerance which
‘ Liberal * Protestants display towards Liberal views in general.
The less they have of C hristianity, and the greater the
a rtific ia lity w hich they employ to keep up the illusion of th eir
pretended Christian character, the greater naturally must be
the zeal w ith which they guard the narrow lim it which, even
in th e ir opinion, separates them from extra-Christian principles.
Christians, who s till command a ll the rich treasure of a positive
belief, can be tolerant up to a certain p o in t; but when, in
order to keep up the outward show of C hristian fa ith, one is
obliged to im itate, so to speak, the tric k of w alking among
eggs, and to fig ht about syllables, a ll toleration has become
sim ply impossible, and the C hristian L e ft is bound over to
intolerance. I t is a well-known fact that a ll religious parties
THE UNCHRISTIAN CHARACTER OF LIB E R A L PROTESTANTISM. 71
are Liberal and advocates fo r toleration, only as long as they

are in opposition, and find themselves oppressed by other
parties who are in power. B ut as soon as the oppressed party
gets the upper hand, nothing more is seen of th e ir Liberalism ,
and, as a general rule, each party outdoes its predecessors in
intolerance. Throughout H istory this phenomenon is found,
and it would be repeated to the fullest extent i f our modern
Liberal Protestants ever get into power. Already, for the
reason ju s t indicated, they ought to show themselves more
intolerant than a ll religionists who have previously ruled.
B ut at present Liberal Protestantism w ill, though w ith bad
grace, put up w ith anti-C hristian Philosophy, as long as it can
borrow, from the latter’s arsenal, weapons fo r sharpening its
destructive work o f criticism ; b ut th at Philosophy would
have no bitterer enemy in the present or the past than this
same Liberal Protestantism would be i f it succeeded in deposing
orthodoxy.
No one can fa il to see th at in Germany the chances are
rather in favour of this party, and certainly they may raise
th e ir hopes high. I f indeed the adherents of Liberal Pro
testantism did not believe in the possibility of th e ir gaining
power, it would be u nintellig ible why they so vehemently
insist upon rem aining in the N ational Evangelical Church of
Prussia, where Liberal Protestantism is as much at home as a
sparrow in a swallow’s nest. The Liberal Protestants of the
‘ free communities,’ a generation back, went far more honestly
to work, who, though they clung to the delusion th a t they
were s till Christians, did not see the propriety of remaining
in a N ational Church founded on positive C hristian principles.
W hether they would have consulted th e ir temporal interests
better i f they had looked forward to future supremacy w ith in
the N ational Church is a question hard to decide. B ut
perhaps the fate of the ‘ free comm unities’ movement has
served as a warning to modern Liberal Protestantism, w hich
perceives th at it is of no use to reckon on the support of the
masses, and that, in order to gain position, it is necessary to

have influence in high quarters. Such a reflection, indeed,
would be the severest condemnation of th eir cause, which
really is the reverse of popular, and has only the appearance
of popularity. And this reflection would also be equivalent
to an admission that the masses cannot be roused to any
enthusiasm about the fa ith which Liberal Protestantism has
to offer them, and that it is only a rtificia lly, by means of the
machinery of the traditional hierarchy, th at this party can
make a tool of the masses. And yet, in every age, a ll religious
movements have proved th e ir v ita lity by th e ir power to s tir
and carry along the masses. B u t since the masses among
whom Liberal Protestantism strives to propagate its creed are
no longer ‘ C hristians’ in the stric t sense, and as therefore it
cannot be the rupture w ith C hristianity, concealed as it is
otherwise in every possible way, which keeps them off ; and
since, on the other hand, the masses, except in large towns,
have not yet become irreligious, but on the contrary earnestly
desire to satisfy th e ir religious needs in a manner suitable to
the times, it must be the fa u lt of the gospel, or rather of the
no-gospel of Liberal Protestantism, i f the masses cannot be
roused to any interest in it, except when, by its negative side,
i t satisfies th e ir desire of opposing the ecclesiastical authorities,
when, in other words, it satisfies not th e ir religious needs but
th e ir desire of freedom.1 The man who, unless urged by his
hatred of orthodoxy or by the prospect of the enjoyment to be
obtained by listening to an unusually eloquent preacher, never
goes to hear a Liberal Protestant’s sermon, generally prefers
to take a w alk on Sunday mornings or to devote his Sunday
mornings to w ork or reading. W hy this is the case, we
showed clearly enough in our preceding considerations, but it
may be useful to give an entire chapter to this point.
1 Compare Overbeck’s D ie C h ristlich ke it unserer heutigen Theologie
( The C h ris tia n ity o f C ontem porary Theology), chaps, iii. and iv.
V IL
T H E IR R E LIG IO U S N E S S OF L IB E R A L
PR O TESTAN TISM .
T he man who carries w ith in him self metaphysical conceptions

of such a nature th a t his emotions are positively affected by
them possesses Religion. W hether he is sligh tly or deeply
moved, whether he receives such impressions occasionally and
by accident, or expressly seeks them and abandons him self
entirely to th e ir influence,— a ll that depends upon his natural
religious disposition and the culture w hich he has received.
B ut it is very rare to find a man quite destitute of the
elements of a religious disposition, though w ith some persons,
the feelings aroused by certain metaphysical conceptions may
remain in the purely instinctive and unconscious stage, w hile,
in others, these same ideas evoke powerful emotion. Now
there is a Science of Metaphysics. B ut it is not given to a ll
men to attain to Science, least of a ll to the scientific study of
Metaphysics. And yet every man, as Schopenhauer has so
beautifully shown, has need of Metaphysics; every man has need
of metaphysical ideas in order to satisfy his need of Religion.
And therefore arises the necessity of a set of metaphysical
conceptions w hich can be communicated and transferred to
the minds of others in a way different from th at of Science ; it
must be, too, a system of Metaphysics which w ill serve to satisfy,
even in those persons who are strangers to Science, directly,
the need of Metaphysics, and, indirectly, the religious need.
This Metaphysic, which we m ight call popular Metaphysic,
is Religion. However, R eligion consists of something more
than the metaphysical ideas of the masses; it contains the
capability of discerning the means and directions fo r arousing,

in a strong and lasting form , the religious sentiment w ith this
Metaphysic for its foundation,— th a t is to say, religious cultus ;
and, secondly, R eligion contains the deductions drawn from
this Metaphysic fo r the practical conduct of men, in other
words, religious Ethics: Cultus belongs to R eligion alone;
but M orality constitutes a domain w hich R eligion shares not
only w ith Science properly so called,— as is the case as regards
Metaphysic,— but also w ith custom, the origin and develop
ment of w hich are often unconscious. In custom, M orality
appears as something fixed, empirical, unconscious, and palpably
resting on no principle. I t is only in Science, as far as Science
attaches M orality to metaphysical principles, and in Religion,
w hich fu lfils the same office, th at moral precepts find a ju s ti
fication, and th is justifica tion opposes a barrier, at least
theoretically, to the assaults of the arbitrary individual.
Thus we see th at Religion constitutes the whole of the
Philosophy of the masses, since the other elements in P hilo
sophy affect the masses little or not at all. In fine, Religion
comprises a ll the Idealism of the masses, A rt not being
accessible to them, except under a form too coarse to elevate
them to a rtistic Idealism. Every ideal (or, speaking more
exactly, a ll ideals of an ideal nature, to the exclusion of the
m aterialistic ideal of a Social-Democratic U topia), and every
tendency of the heart towards the Ideal, become incarnate
among the masses as Religion. I t is Religion alone w hich
constantly reminds the masses th a t there is something higher
than eating and d rinkin g and sexual intim acy, th a t this
transient w orld of the senses is not the A ll in A ll, but only
the manifestation of an eternal, super-sensuous principle of
which we see here only the confused shadow. To keep alive
this sentiment in the hearts o f the simple masses— be it only
as a dark foreboding— is the task common to a ll Religions
when they have raised themselves above the p rim itive stage of
rude, natural Religion.
THE IRRELIGIOUSNESS OF LIB E R A L PROTESTANTISM. 75
The world of metaphysical ideas must always be, to the

religious man, the liv in g source whence the excitement of the
emotions in worship and the influence on the w ill in moral
action arise. When this source is dried up, worship is
petrified into dead, meaningless ceremonies, and religious
M orality becomes converted into abstract precepts or senti
mental phrases by which no liv in g soul on earth could be
influenced. On the other hand, Metaphysics lose th eir religious
character as soon as they cease to be a direct stim ulus to the
emotions and to the w ill, and become mere theory or pseudo-
Science ; pure Science, indeed, among philosophers, but pseudo-
Science among theologians who confine th eir attention to inter
preting and systematizing the traditional dogmas. The masses
are by no means clear in th e ir ideas about the various elements
which go to make up Religion, but they instin ctively feel th at
it is the u nity of a ll these notions, which is the object of th eir
search in Religion. The masses do not know Metaphysics by
name, but they do know what they require of Religion, namely,
th at it should give them the tru th ; not a ll the truths as they
lie scattered in the various special Sciences, but the truth
which the Universal Science, Philosophy, strives to attain, the
one and eternal tru th able to satisfy th e ir unconscious need
of Metaphysics.1 N ot that it can be ever imparted to the
masses in a ll its fu ll extent and depth, even supposing that
Science had really found and form ulated it. No, the super-
sensuous cannot so easily be made in te llig ib le to the human
understanding. The essence of T ru th is a M ystery, and w ill
ever remain so ; its expression w ill be always only symbolical,
never exhaustive or scientific, whether the symbols consist of
abstract notions or of images and figures.
W ith o u t the profundity fu ll of promises, and the in fin ite
riches o f a mystery displaying a different aspect to each
individual, there is no Religion possible; in other words, a
1 Compare H einrich Lang’s R eligious Discourses (Religiöse Reden),
pp. 149-151, and 254 and following.
Metaphysic devoid of mystery would not have any influence

on the religious sentiment. M ystery, indeed, plays the same
part in R eligion w hich it does in a work of A rt. For a work
of A rt, also, begins to really deserve the name only when its
external form is merely the symbol of a mystery opening an
in fin ite w orld to the person who meditates on it and to the
presentiments of the heart ; a w orld in which each man finds
the meaning w hich suits him w itho ut being able to accuse
others of error. Nevertheless, real M ystery has place only
where the super-sensuous meets the sensuous, where the
eternal meets the temporal, as is the case w ith Metaphysics,
Religion, and A rt. B ut there can be now no question of
mystery when one is dealing only w ith the temporal and
natural relations of phenomena to each other w ithout reference
to the metaphysical origin of physical existence ; for instance,
in the results of the special Sciences, in the reciprocal action
which is exercised and suffered by natural beings in the
Struggle for Existence, and in practical life . To introduce a
m ystery where it is out of place (for example, as D avid Strauss
wishes to do in the subject of the monarchy) is to m ystify
oneself and others also ; to reject mystery in things of which
it forms the essence, (as Strauss wishes to do in R eligion), is
to elevate the knowledge, acquired by superficial observation,
to the d ig n ity of sovereign-ruler of the w orld reduced to its
physical basis, instead of the Ideal destroyed in its mysterious
essence. The masses, as a whole, have no objection to a
mystery w hich is presented to them as tru th , even though it
be contrary to Reason; but Modern Culture, w hich relies
upon Reason’s supremacy, w ill not to-day accept as tru th a
mystery which contradicts Reason. W e adm it mystery only
in the form of a hypothesis obtained by the inductive
method and appearing to be necessary, a hypothesis which,
by going beyond the domain of sense - objects, leaves
necessarily a remainder unintelligible to our understanding
w hich rests upon the senses; only th is remainder must
n o t be self-contradictory, for that would be contrary to

Reason.
C hristianity offered to the masses * the Truth,* th at is, the
Metaphysics of the M iddle Ages, an ingenious combination of
Jewish and Greek Philosophy, a system of thought most
w onderfully complete in itse lf, holding in readiness logically-
connected answers to a ll questions, a system w hich can be
despised only by those who have not yet overcome th e ir
h o s tility towards it so as to look at it solely from a historical
point of view. The tru th of Christian Metaphysics was not,
during the days of its supremacy, challenged seriously, because
it had no competitors then, inasmuch as Theology was the
only Science. W ith the decline of the M iddle Ages arose
again a free Science w hich relied solely on Reason and
experience, and which u tte rly ignored R evelation; the con
tradictions between this secular tru th and the C hristian ‘T ru th *
were glided over by means of the queer doctrine of two orders
of tru th . W ith the Reformation began attempts to reconcile
these two orders of truths, attempts, each of which rapidly
succeeded and perished more quickly than its predecessor.
Protestantism, being a m akeshift, asks us to believe th at it is
able to bring about a permanent reconciliation of Revelation
and Reason, of F aith and Science, or whatever other names
they go by. I t is only when Protestantism has finished its
course, has broken w ith Revelation, and has ceased to possess
a Theology in the s tric t sense of the word, then only is it
th at these castles of the Fata Morgana vanish, and the pre
viously-supposed divine tru th of C hristianity retires from the
scene in favour of the secular tru th of Science.
The Liberal Protestantism of the present day has almost
reached this boundary, and it is open inconsistency on its
part to be afraid of taking the last step. Liberal Protestants
no longer believe in any Revelation except that which is pro
duced whenever an original and creative genius appears ; tru th ,
therefore, for them can be nothing else but the actual result
of the history of the E volution of th e ir principles in a ll

persons co-operating in the movement. Now in th is series,
Jesus and his disciples can only occupy a very modest place,
inasmuch as th e ir chief standpoint has been generally rejected.
In other words, Liberal Protestantism ought no longer to look
fo r the tru th anywhere else but in the history of Philosophy,
and it should take the history of Theology in to consideration
only when the la tte r contains some philosophical tru th , th a t
is, tru th resting on its own foundations and not on a pretended
Revelation. B ut the real state of things is very different from
this. Men go on m aking new theological theories, w hile
preserving the external form of the old Theology w hich could
not survive even the idea of Revelation. They retain in it a
term inology (w hile doing violence to the meaning of the words)
w hich owes its origin to a to ta lly different conception of the
Universe, and they im part an entirely wrong signification to
it by the help of the most arbitrary interpretations and double
meanings. Such performances are, in tru th , much more w orth
less and repulsive than the restless and fruitless labours of the
orthodox theologians applying themselves to a task lik e that
of the Danaides. Under such circumstances we need not be
very surprised to find that strict orthodoxy, when trying to
combat such m isinterpretations which take a ll meaning out of
the traditional theological notions, imagines that its opponents
are inferio r to its e lf in point of good fa ith and sincerity. I f
the imposing Gothic structure of mediaeval Theology is no
longer to our taste, nothing hinders us from b uilding in
another style, but le t no one try to persuade us th a t the true
signification— now deciphered fo r the firs t tim e— of the old
cathedrals turns out to be only castles o f cards. Liberal Pro
testantism, therefore, has only a pseudo-Theology which it dare
not renounce, fo r fear of seeming to break the chain o f his
torical continuity. And this pseudo-Theology, in its turn,
prevents Liberal Protestants from accepting Scientific T ru th
as the new and only foundation to rest upon. Speaking
THE IRRELIGIOUSNESS OP LIB E R A L PROTESTANTISM. 79
m etaphorically, we may say th at now Liberal Protestantism

sits on a chair, the legs of which it has sawn off, and lays
hold of the neighbouring unbroken chair w ith its hands fo r
support. Can the masses expect to find in such a system as
th is * the T ru th 1 w hich they look fo r in R eligion ?
W e saw before th at the fundamental element of a Keligion
is its Metaphysic. B ut if we were to ask Liberal Protestantism
‘ W hat then is your Metaphysic ?* we should greatly embarrass
it ; and its representatives are very wisely determined to keep
silence on the subject, and, w ith evident fear, avoid a ll oppor
tu n ity of expressing th e ir views about it. They have two
reasons fo r this conduct ; firstly, they know th at each of them
has a different Metaphysic,— a fact which the masses are not
to know,— secondly, they a ll have more or less an undefined
feeling of being inconvenienced by th e ir Metaphysics. In
fact, it is absolutely impossible fo r them to free themselves
from Theism, as long as they desire to preserve historical con-
tin ü ity w ith C hristianity, and w hile they accept the anthropo
morphic conception of the Heavenly Father who personally
loves his children and troubles him self about th e ir prayers.
They are compelled, also, to accept the consequences of Theism,
namely, the heteronomous M orality which we have alluded to
before, and the necessity of a theodicy, th at is, of a justifica tion
of the all-wise, personal deity in the face of the grave defects
m arring the creation which he, consciously and w ith fu ll fore
knowledge, made ; thus, too, an Optimism w hich softens down
the evils, and which makes golden promises fo r the future ;
and, lastly, Liberal Protestants are bound to accept the free
w ill of the creature, serving as a scapegoat fo r the evil. W hat
does this im p ly ? N othing less than that Liberal Protestants
ignore the works of the great philosophers since K ant, or, at
least, only borrow from them m inor propositions which suit
th eir purpose, and do not practically get beyond the d u ll
Theism of the ‘ enlightenment * epoch of the last century.
The only difference is that Liberal Protestants combine that
dry Rationalism w ith the sentim entality of the latest theo

logian to whom it has been s till historically perm itted to
believe in the possibility of a reconciliation between fa ith and
knowledge ; they also gloss over the nonsensical absurdities
which they get in this m ixture, by using a deafening mass of
phrases, the ingredients of w hich are s k ilfu lly taken from a ll
the corners of ‘ Modem C iv iliz a tio n / B ut at the present
tim e the pre-Kantian Deism, w ith its watchwords ‘ God,
Freedom, and Im m o rta lity / w ill stand as little chance of
being accepted in Philosophy as the systematized vagueness of
Schleiermacher. In so far as Liberal Protestantism is in
earnest w ith its Theism, it remains outside the line of
philosophical development of the last hundred years, and it
displays zeal fo r ‘ the T ru th ’ and signs of spiritual progress
only in a negative sense, th at is, only when there is occasion
to destroy positive dogma and to tear down the barriers of
ancient authority.1
B ut there is worse to come. Liberal Protestantism perceives
the state of things, and no longer really believes in its own
Metaphysic, w hich it retains only faute de mieux, and fo r the
sake of preserving its connection w ith C hristianity. Liberal
Protestants teach us, indeed, the doctrines of the im m ortality
and in fin ite progress of the individual, but they presuppose
th at we shall not trouble ourselves any fu rthe r about this
doubtful future state. They teach us to believe in moral
freedom and in the paternal providence of God, but they
assume, as a m atter of course, th at we, in harmony w ith
modem N atural Science, believe that the Universe is governed
by unchangeable necessary laws. How tempted one feels to
suspect that the Metaphysic o f Theism is only a sham façade
concealing the reality of a very different structure, I mean
modem Naturalism w ith its superstitious belief in the sub
sta ntia lity of M atter. I t is useless to struggle against or to
1 Compare Lang’s R eligious W ords (Religiöse Reden)t pp. 290 and
following.
THE IBRELIGIOUSNESS OF LIB E R A L PROTESTANTISM. 81
resist facts ; the old Theistic conception of the Universe has,

in tru th , become incompatible w ith the modern s p irit which
has no longer any choice except between M aterialistic N atur
alism, lik e th at of Strauss, and Monism or idealistic Pantheism.
I f the former be chosen, there are various forms of M aterialism
w hich may be adopted, but the latter, as long as there is no
Pantheistic Religion in the Western world, is to be found only
in the w ritings of true Philosophers.
Deism and M aterialism have a marvellous affinity, which,
doubtless, is owing to th e ir m utual shallowness and to th eir
m utual aversion towards a ll that is profound and incompre
hensible. Both are rationalistic, in the bad sense of the term,
inasmuch as they reject, before any investigation, every irra
tional remainder, and find a ll problems as simple and d ull as
th eir own faculty of comprehension really is. For centuries
both have agreed very w ell together in France and in England,
for the Universe of M aterialism is a purely material machine,
which God, adds Deism, made and set going on a certain
day. B u t th is apparent harmony comes always to an end by
M aterialism resolving to dismiss the mechanician. I t seems
to M aterialists to be quite unnecessary to retain him , since
they have discovered th at the wheels have rubbed against one
another so long and so w ell th at at last the machine went.
Ought not, indeed, Liberal Protestants to perceive th a t they
are on the point of losing th e ir God ? And is not the explana
tio n of th eir excessive rage against Strauss to be found in the
fact th at he so b lu n tly held up this unpleasant prospect before
th e ir eyes 1
However th at may be, the loss appears inconsiderable. For
M ystery, on which the religious sentiment essentially rests, is
as little to be found in Deism as in M aterialism . In the
former, as in the latter, everything is so cleared up and
explained that not a single dark point remains to which the
religious sentiment could betake itself. I t may be, indeed,
th at German Philosophy is wrong, and that the D eistic and
F
M aterialistic platitudes are rig h t ; but then we must renounce

a ll pretensions of making this ‘ T ru th ,’ w hich is an u tter
stranger to Metaphysic, or has only a pseudo-Metaphysic, the
support of the means to arouse and satisfy the religious senti-
ment. I t is not only a daring but rather a naive demand o
Strauss th a t we should feel a sentiment of religious piety and
attachment towards his Universe which is only the aggregate
of a ll ind ivid ua l m aterial substances, and which threatens
every moment, fo r no reason whatever, to crush us between
the wheels and the teeth of its pitiless mechanism. The ex
theologian is here playing the modem th inke r a sorry tric k .
B ut s till more rash than this contention of Strauss is his
attem pt to demonstrate its tru th by means of an isolated
experiment, namely, by producing his own sentiment of
repulsion at Schopenhauer’s Pessimism. The cause of
Strauss’s sentiment of horror is his feeling of comfortable,
w orldly satisfaction w ith this life ; in other words, his irre
ligious sentiment becomes shocked by the unw orldly, that is,
religious attitude of A rth u r Schopenhauer.1
In the C hristian Sacraments, moreover, M ystery was per-
sented to the masses, and brought close to them in an almost,
so to speak, palpable form. Has, then, Liberal Protestantism
anything to offer as a really religious equivalent fo r these
mysteries which have become unacceptable because they are
contrary to Reason ? Shall the much-needed compensation
be personal supplication to, and communion w ith, a D eity who,
1 A n y one who does not yet clearly comprehend the depth of a rtific ia l
shallowness and tr iv ia lity ic which the theories o f Strauss would plunge
us, may consult the often quoted work of Overbeck ( The C h ris tia n ity o f our
C ontem porary Theology, pp. 71-78) ; b u t also, especially, Bruno Bauer’s
delicious banter and argument in his book entitled, P h ilo , Strauss and
Rénan and P rim itiv e C h ris tia n ity (P h ilo t Strauss und Rénan und das
U rchristenthum . B e rlin : Hempel, 1874), pp. 36 and following. The
firs t part of Nietzsch’s Inopportune Reflections (Unzeitgemässen B etrach
tungen) contains excellent remarks in parts, b u t often goes beyond the
point, and is defective in style.
I believe, is no more able to supernaturally interfere w ith m y

thoughts or w ith the determinations of my w ill than w ith the
phenomena of external Nature, so that prayer to him for moral
strength or fo r consolation in trouble would be as absurd an
act as to ask him fo r good weather in harvest-time or fo r the
cessation of a raging epidemic % B ut as soon as prayer is seen
to be only an illu sion of which one is conscious, yet which it
would be w ell to keep up on account of its good effects on the
m ind, it becomes reduced to the level of the strong oath which
a porter utters in order to s tir up fresh energy w ith in him self
when his load seems too heavy to lif t up on his shoulders.
The Ethics of Liberal Protestantism fare no better than its
Metaphysics. As we remarked before, Theism, if consistent
w ith itse lf, can only produce a heteronomous M orality ; but
the modern consciousness is to ta lly antagonistic to this style
of Ethics, and Liberal Protestants have too much regard fo r
the Culture of the age to stupidly offer us a heteronomous
M orality based on the w ill of God. Since therefore the
Theism of these good people is tolerably ashamed of itse lf, and
conceals its metaphysical deficiencies under the cloak of Chris
tian love, the simplest way of getting rid of this unwelcome
heteronomy is to declare M orality independent and to detach
it from Metaphysics which are dispensed w ith at a ll other
times and crises. We may, perhaps, here be confronted w ith
the precedents set by Herbart and by Kant, although K a nt’s
‘ Practical Reason ’ is not solely psychological, but has, when
closely examined, a very metaphysical character because of its
universa lity; and we shall probably meet w ith many critics
indulging to th e ir hearts’ content in hyper-moral and senti
mental declarations about ‘ a love w ithout end,’ and tryin g to
elevate themselves up to the height of contemporary Culture
by the adoration of the idea of. H um anity. Against such a
moral system, the reproach of heteronomy cannot be brought,
and a preacher who adheres to this system of Ethics is
abundantly provided w ith subjects fo r sermons.
B ut * to preach M orality is easy, to find a basis fo r it is

d iffic u lt.’ 1 On what basis are preachers going to rest th e ir
moral discourses ? I t is clear th at a preacher w ill be obliged
to appeal to the moral inclinations and instincts of men ; if
these are strong enough, the appeal w ill succeed, but in that
case it was superfluous; if they are weak, then the moral
discourse w ill be scorned and ridiculed, and the preacher w ill
be prevented from demonstrating, even in theory, to the
scomers that they are wrong. For the latter, they also appeal
to men’s instincts and propensities as he does ; and in order
to decide w hich instincts are to be preferred, love or hate,
forgiveness or revenge, renunciation or egoism, and which of
these ought to guide our actions, the preacher again has no
other means at his disposal besides an appeal to sentiments or
to tastes,— things w hich differ in different individuals. Once
detached from Metaphysics, M orality is at best nothing but*
the N atural Science of human interests and propensities
considered in th eir effects on the community ; as regards the
claim to be the rule of action, such M orality may raise but
cannot ju s tify it, if the unfettered w ill of the individual asks
to see its title-deeds. (The reader may compare M ax Stim er’s
work, The In d iv id u a l and his Property [D er Einzige und sein
Eigenthum, Leipzig, W igand, 1845], especially the chapter,
‘ Hum anitarian Libera lism 1— cD er humane Liberalism us.’
This book, richer in ideas than the complete works of many a
celebrated Philosopher, is, in the C am ival-like extravagance
of its thoroughly logical conclusions, the most s tiik in g ly
unintentional proof of the im possibility of making In d i
vidualism the basis of M orality, and of the necessity of finding
this basis in Monism. There has been a conspiracy of silence
against this book even in the most Liberal circles, and people
have covered th eir faces w ith virtuous indignation at it. B ut
the secret terror, betrayed by this mode of action, only proves
th a t they have not been able to find a weak point in this
1 Schopenhauer.
unpleasant adversary, or that they have shrunk from putting

on the only weapons w ith which this egoism can he struck to
the heart, namely, Monism and Pessimism.) M orality, in the
true sense o f the word, th at is, as a Science of reforming
present conditions, is only possible when founded on a M onistic,
Metaphysical basis. This Metaphysic reduces the individual
W ill, which in its apparent substantiality fancies itse lf absolute,
to the condition of a simple objective phenomenon, and thus
deprives it of its assumed sta b ility and sovereignty. Theism,
on the contrary, confirms the individual w ill in the illu sion of
its substantiality, and expressly provokes the Prometheus-like
rebellion against the Creator who has created it w ithout firs t
asking its permission. The unscientific character of its
M orality would not, after all, be so dreadful a m isfortune to
Liberal Protestantism in the presence of the fact that, even i f
it does not promote M orality, it is not directly opposed, lik e
the equally unscientific, heteronomous pseudo-Morality of true
C hristian Theism, to scientific Ethics. B u t what concerns us
here is the fact that the M orality of Liberal Protestantism is
no longer a religious system of Ethics, lik e the heteronomous
M orality of C hristianity was from beginning to end. For an
ethical system, in tru th , cannot be religious in character, unless
it be something more than a mere elucidation of the
psychological play of instincts, unless it support its e lf on the
metaphysical bases of Religion, and derives its force from
them. W e have not broken w ith the Law of Moses and w ith
the commandments of the In fa llib le Church in order to le t
some Liberal preacher or other dictate to us the laws of
M orality, which would s till appear to our minds as heter
onomous as before. The orthodox priest may pose as an
oracle, but the Liberal preacher must renounce such claims,—
both in Ethics and in Metaphysics he must be prepared to
prove the intrinsic value of his prescriptions, w hile the orthodox
refers his to the command of God. W hen the Liberal
preacher sees him self obliged to abandon the authoritative
86 THB RELIG IO N OF THE FUTURE.
position which theoretically he refuses and abhors, but which

in practice he would be very glad to share w ith his orthodox
colleague at times, he is wont to take to Love as the principle
of Morals. B ut i f at last people should become inclined to
believe that M orality is identical w ith Love and kindness of
heart, the preachers w ill have to instantly leave off preaching.
M o ra lity ; fo r it is impossible to create the feeling of Love
in the hearts of those who are devoid of it by means of
sermons. I f by some psychological process we come to regard
Religion as nothing more than M orality, and if, through
sweetness of disposition, we consider M orality to be identical
w ith Love, if, th at is, we reduce the whole of Religion to
Love, then we reject a ll the elements, excepting Love, which
compose Religion, and we also abandon th a t which imparts a
religious character to Love ; in other words, we confess that
it has been necessary to raise the instinct of Love to the d ig nity
of Religion, because we have lost a ll true religious feeling.
C ertainly religion is not a shark, as the inquisitors believed it
to be, but neither is it a m ollusk ; a shark can at any rate
inspire dread, but a m ollusk is sim ply stupid and disgusting.
In making this remark, we have not the least intention of
denying the high value of Love, but only of rem inding people
that they have no rig h t to take a part, even the noblest, fo r
the whole. Love is only one of the numerous forms in which
M orality is displayed as sentim ent; and sentiment its e lf is
only one of the forms under w hich the moral element is
produced in the m ind, neither is the true basis of M orality to
be found in any of these psychological factors. Love can be
natural ; it can even be moral, w ithout having in the remotest
degree any religious character. To declare Love as such to be
Religion is to deny the essential nature of R eligion ; and to
call a ll secular relations in to w hich Love enters by the name
‘ religious ’ is to tu rn people's attention away from th a t which
alone is tru ly religious.
W e need not be surprised to find th at a system w hich has
every possible reason to conceal its Metaphysics from view,

which has a culfcns w rapt up in inconsistencies, and a M orality
detached from Metaphysics and from R eligion, floating in the
a ir and knowing not where to rest,— we need not wonder that
such a system as this should be unable to satisfy the religious
need. Liberal Protestantism is a historical phenomenon which
has necessarily become irreligious, firs tly , because it has taken
as its measuring-line the interests of Modern C ivilization, and
has attempted to recast C hristianity on that pattern ; secondly,
because this Modern C ivilization which was to be the model
fo r C hristianity to copy has its e lf an irreligious character,
inasmuch as it owes its b irth to the struggle of the secular
principle against Religion.
Now, Religion universally arises from the feeling of dismay
which the human m ind experiences when confronted w ith the
e vil and sin in the world, and from the desire to explain th e ir
existence, and, if possible, to overcome them. The man who
does not feel him self beset by any evils or tainted by any
g u ilt, he, indeed, w ill have no cause to send his thoughts
fu rthe r than the interests of th is world. B u t the man who
asks him self, ‘ W hy must I endure these evils Ί ’ and * How
shall I reconcile my sin-laden conscience w ith its e lf V he is
on the road to R eligion ; in other words, he is a lik e ly man to
trouble him self about questions and interests which go beyond
the interests of this w orld. One man lays greater stress on
the evil of pain, w hile another gives more attention to the
idea of g u ilt ; but, in both cases, it is discontentment w ith the
things of th is w orld which leads men to Religion, either dis
contentment w ith the evils w hich have to be endured or w ith
a natural disposition w hich causes him to fa ll into sin. I f the
painful sensations caused by suffering and by sin are not
strong enough to outweigh the agreeable sensations of w orldly
existence, then the streams of religious feeling w ill be mere
passing currents, b rie f spasms of emotion w itho ut any lasting
influence on the habitual disposition of the m ind. But, when
the painful doubts produced by the existence of evil, and when

the pangs of anguish in the conscience, outweigh the joys of
life and become the regular occupants of the m ind, in other
words, when the m ind reaches the pessimistic conception of
the Universe, then firs t is R eligion able to establish its e lf
firm ly and permanently in the heart of a man. W here the
pessimistic view of life iff absent, there R eligion cannot grow
spontaneously, if at all. The respect for the external forms of
R eligion, which education inculcates upon men, is only able
to provide them w ith the outward show of religiousness.
C hristianity, lik e a ll real Religions, sprang from the
pessimistic conception of the Universe, and, up to the tim e of
the Renaissance, C hristian religiousness continued to have its
roots in Pessimism. B ut from the epoch of the Renaissance
commenced the struggle between the Pagan love of life and
the Christian hatred of this world and avoidance of it ; from
th at tim e, the decline of fa ith in happiness beyond the grave
made men look more eagerly after earthly joys which previously
they had disdained through hope of celestial happiness.
Rationalism hastened to ju s tify , in theory, the Optimism which
the Pagan Renaissance had favoured in practice ; and Liberal
Protestantism, keeping pace w ith Modem C ivilization, lives
and moves in th is Pagan glorification of life and in this
pleasant Optimism ; th a t is to say, it adopts the cosmic con
ception w hich is as unfavourable as possible to religiousness.
Liberal Protestantism lives by open compromise, and i t has a
special talent fo r getting a droitly out of an affair ; th is talent
i t takes care to use when standing face to face w ith the evils
and sin in the world, which do not look so terrible, after all,
i f one contemplates them w ith the good-humour and placid,
easy-going temper of a Protestant pastor. Strange to say,
moreover, the orthodox and the Liberals are, on th is point, as
lik e each other as two peas. The Reformers, I adm it, used
to look very melancholy about this miserable w orld w hich
belonged to the devil but, nevertheless, in secret they gave
THE IRRELIGIOUSNESS OP LIB E R A L PROTESTANTISM. 89
him a little finger, and we a ll know th at the devil, in such

cases, knows how to gain possession of the whole hand. In
theory, the modern orthodox disciples of Luther s till express
themselves strongly on the subject of this u tte rly corrupt and
wicked world sighing under the curse of God ; but, in practice,
they feel themselves perfectly at home in this wicked world,
which gives them, as a recompense for th eir sufferings, a
parsonage where they can keep a w ife, and a cow in the stable ;
so they are quite as much at th e ir ease as the Liberals who
praise this w orld as the best of a ll possible worlds. This may
be very sensible, very natural, very id y llic , or very anything
else on th e ir part, but Christian it is not, nor religious. Are
any more proofs required of the extent to which this satisfied
and w orldly sp irit, th at is, this irreligiousness of Protestantism,
is carried? We need only listen to the angry cries raised by
these Liberal Protestants against persons who dare to disturb
them in the m idst of th e ir jo lly Pagan life , th e ir calm leisure
hours, and th e ir adm iration of this glorious w o rld ; against
those who try to open the eyes of contemporary H um anity to
the nothingness of a ll th at th is world contains, to the depth
and universality of woe, to the illusory nature of the m ajority
of th is w orld’s joys and of those which are the most sought
after. ‘ Stone the wretch,’ they cry out, ‘ who dares to lay a
sacrilegious hand on our sanctuary, E arthly Happiness I W hy,
i f such doctrines as his once become general, who knows but
th at men w ill end by turning religious again, and Liberal
Protestantism w ith a ll its snug comfort w ill vanish.’ 1
To sum up. Liberal Protestantism consists of a vague, d u ll,
and incoiuplete Metaphysic w hich avoids a ll criticizing gaze as
much as possible; of a cultus, fortunately, free from any
mystery, but s till not exempt from contradictions, and of a
1 Compare A . Taubert’s Pessimism and its Opponents (D e r Pessim is-
runs und seine Gegner, B erlin, Carl Duncker, 1873), on the value o f
Pessimism from the various standpoints o f M ora lity, H istory, A rt, and
Religion, and also on the baselessness o f the ordinary prejudices against
it.
moral code divorced from Metaphysics, and therefore irre

ligious. Moreover, Liberal Protestantism rests on a conceptioit
of the Universe, which, on account of its optim istic and satis
fied character, is not in a position to create a Religion, and
which must, sooner or later, le t the fragments of religiousness
retained by it perish from starvation in the m idst of secular
satisfaction. This result of our study w ill suffice to ju s tify
the charge of irreligiousness w hich we bring against Liberal
Protestantism. By this charge we do not, in the least, assert
th at a ll its partisans are irreligious men ; we only contend that
the very principle of the system is irreligious, and that, if it
should have a lasting influence on H um anity, it w ill leave of
religiousness only some sorry scraps barely deserving to be
called sreligious/
V III.
T H E N E C E S S ITY A N D T H E P O S S IB IL IT Y OF A
N E W U N IV E R S A L R E L IG IO N .
T h e result of our investigations seems to have definitely

decided the question w ith which we began our inq uiry,
namely, whether, at the present crisis, a transform ation of
the existing religious ideas is necessary, or an innovation
consecrating essentially different conceptions. The la tter
alternative is the one to be taken. The Catholic theory
which is the principle of authority, and the Protestant theory
w hich criticizes authority from a hostile standpoint, have each
drawn th e ir ultim ate conclusions; the form er in the mummified
C hristianity of U ltram ontanism and in the dogma of In fa llib ility ,
w hich is a gauntlet of defiance throw n down at a ll Reason
and C ivilization, the latter, through the entire dissolution of
positive C hristian ity and by the weakening and declining of
R eligion into a purely w orldly irreligiousness. A ll attempts
to strike a route between these equally unwelcome, extreme
paths have been made on the narrow inclined plane of Protest
antism, and have already been superseded by others in the
course of historical E volution. To go over these again would
be to place oneself in fro n t of the wheels of the logically
necessary E volution, in order to impede, i f not to push, them
back.
The C hristian Idea has come to the end of its career, which
comprises two periods; the first, p rim itive C hristian ity and
the Catholic epoch up to the flourishing of the C hristian
‘ T ru th ’ under S t Thomas d’A q uin o; the second, the decline
^ I
of Catholicism and the labours of Protestantism to establish

compromises useful, doubtless, in practice and for a tim e, but
unacceptable in principle or fo r long. The end w onderfully
resembles the beginning in having no body of C hristian
doctrine, but is very different from it in its positive contents ;
fo r prim itive C hristianity had the Talm udian Judaism of
H ille l the Jew, w hile Liberal Protestantism has the ideas of
Modem C ivilization. The ordinate of the C hristian curve
has become equal to zero at the end as it was at the commence
ment, but now the abscissa is quite a different one w ithout
the possibility of comparison.
C hristianity shares w ith other Religions the pessimistic
conception of the Universe, and the impulse to rise beyond
th is w orld and its miseries by means of metaphysical tru th ;
b ut the specifically fundamental idea of C hristian ity is the
belief in a Redeemer who cures men of the consciousness of
g u ilt (evil being here considered secondary), and in a M ediator
who brings about reconciliation and union w ith God. The
C hristian Faith, then, is the belief th at Jesus C hrist is this
Redeemer and M ediator. B ut if Jesus is considered to be
the legitim ate son of the carpenter Joseph and of his w ife
M ary, this Jesus and H is death can no more redeem me from
my sins than, fo r example, Bismarck or the late Deputy Lasker
could ; and he is less fitte d to be a M ediator between me and
God than, for example, the Catholic confessor is, who has
God’s Son and the saints to help him . Accordingly, the idea,
w hich forms the very basis of C hristianity, has become quite
repulsive to Modem Culture. I t is possible that the remnants
le ft of C hristianity may be put into the fram ework of a
religious system starting on a new principle, and may obtain
a secondary and auxiliary importance w hich ought not to be
under-estimated. B ut this remainder is impotent, by itself,
to satisfy the religious need, especially if the indispensable
pre-supposition of a ll religiousness be rejected, namely, Pes
simism, which positive C hristianity teaches. But, even if this
THE NECESSITY OF A NEW UNIVERSAL RELIG IO N . 93
factor be retained, or if it were re-established in opposition to

the Optimism of Protestantism w hich finds the world very
satisfactory and rejoices in it, then what we should have would
always be merely the undoubtedly indispensable foundation of
the new religious edifice, and nothing more. We should have
a conception of the Universe, im plying th at our minds were
so disposed th at Religion is to us a veritable need, we should
have a theory about life lik e th at held by The Buddha, Jesus,
St. Paul, St. John, St. Francis, Savonarola, and others. We
should always be face to face w ith the question of discovering
what new religious edifice would be lik e ly to give satisfaction,
both to the religious need born of this disposition of mind,
and to Modem C ivilization.
A ny attem pt at giving a direct answer to this question
would im ply that the respondent claimed to be the founder of
a new Religion. Such a pretension lies far from me, not
only on account of personal reasons, but also because I am
convinced th at Science, by its very nature, and the representa
tives of Science are not absolutely qualified to have a direct
influence on the establishment o f a new Religion. H istory
shows th is to be the case, and it is also proved by the relations
between Science and R eligion, w hich we discussed in our th ird
chapter. In tru th , founders of Religions owe th e ir great and
decisive successes among the masses, never to the help of
Science, but to th e ir g ift of presenting in clear and figurative
language the religious ideas which are in harmony w ith the
tim e ; and, secondly, to the authority of the personality re
presenting those ideas. But, nevertheless, these men do not
originate those ideas w hich act like sparks, they draw them
out of the mental treasury constituted, in every age, by the
popular beliefs and by Science. Among those ideas which
come to th e ir knowledge only in a very im perfect form , they
lig h t on some which pow erfully seize upon th e ir religious
feeling. In communicating these ideas to an extended circle,
they discover the enthusiasm w hich may be kindled there ;
circumstances of the tim e may have previously disposed the

feelings of the masses to receive such impressions, b ut perhaps
the power of these ideas has been overlooked or under-estimated
by others. This w ill enlighten us on the nature of the assist
ance w hich Science can give towards the hatching of (to use
a metaphor) Religions not yet bom, but the need of w hich
exists and increases ; Science’s task is to w ork w ith zeal and
loyalty, to take its most vigorous flig h t in profoundness and
many-sidedness, in order to offer to the future a store of ideas
as rich and valuable as possible, from which the eventual new
Religion can one day be formed.
Is there any probability of our seeing, in the immediate
future, the rise of a creative force capable o f producing new
religious forms w hich would be permanent? I t would be
rather hazardous to answer in the affirm ative. For who has
so accurately estimated the tenacity and the historical power
of resistance inherent in the religious forms surrounding us
as to make such an assertion? W ould it not be estimating
them too low, if we declared that, at the present tim e, when
the scouts of the Liberal Protestant army have hardly begun
to be conscious of the final consequences of the Protestant
theory, the old fa ith, which is the Religion of the masses, is
already sufficiently fallen and decayed to allow a fresh and
enlivening breeze of religious feeling to blow it out of the
way. W e must not forget that, in point of enlightenm ent
which is acquired by Culture, the masses are always some
centuries behind the s p irit of the age. Nay, more, even if this
point had been reached in the process of religious E volution,
th at would be no reason why the advent of a new fa ith should
necessarily follow . I t may very w ell happen th at the reigns
of the old fa ith and of the new should be separated by an
interregnum of longer or shorter duration, pending w hich the
dissolution of the old elements w ill bo completed; in this
follow ing tim e the soil w ill undergo a chemical preparation
which w ill render, in the future, a fresh fe rtility .
THE NECESSITY OF A NEW UNIVERSAL R ELIG IO N . 95
Moreover, we cannot prove the im possibility of the proposi

tio n asserting that, on the whole, there w ill no more be any
permanent religious novelty, although this opinion is as extreme
and as improbable as th at which declares the Religion of the
Future to be at hand. The form er assertion is, indeed, sup
ported by the apparently plausible argument th a t the life of
the emotions becomes stifled more and more by the increasing
a ctivity and power of the intellect, and that, in particular, the
religious emotions are constantly declining in strength. B ut,
in the firs t place, there is a confusion made here between a
momentary phenomenon and a permanent tendency of Develop
ment ; secondly, to this tendency, w hich is adm ittedly real in
a certain sense, is given an interpretation erroneous as regards
both its reaction on religiousness and on feeling in general.
I t is true that conscious intelligence is th at which is debated
about in the firs t rank among the progressive movements of
H um anity ; but, in tim e, each acquisition of the intellect
exercises on the sphere of the emotions an influence which
enriches and refines them. The struggle of the intellect
against the emotions is always directed solely against the
mental attitude bequeathed to the emotions by an earlier
phase of intellectual development; but there is no dispute
w ith emotions corresponding to the new phase of intelligence,
which can only begin to grow after the partial destruction of
the old. No one w ill deny th at intellectual development
advances w ith energetic and constant strides; it is equally
certain that a new Religion must adopt Reason as one of its
principles, whereas the old Religions only found it necessary
to give Reason a secondary place. B ut does it follow from
this th at the religious need must decrease ever more and
more? N ot at all, at least not as long as the masses are not
thoroughly imbued w ith abstract Science properly so called,
and we cannot expect th at they w ill ever be so. On the
contrary, the pessimistic conception of the Universe, from
w hich the religious need springs, w ill not cease to spreadL
For the more H um anity sees the means m ultiplied of making

existence pleasant, the more w ill it he convinced of the im
possibility of conquering, in this manner, the misery of life ,
and of attaining to happiness or even to contentment. A
period of onward progress in w orldly affairs can be favourable
to Optimism only as long as it hopes to find and enjoy happi
ness at the end; but, the instant the aim is attained, the
people who strove fo r it perceive that they are no happier,
and that the torm enting needs, which prey on th e ir minds,
are only increased. Optimism, therefore, is never anything
but an interlude among the nations who are engaged in the
flig h t of w orldly activity. B ut Pessimism is the fundamental,
permanent disposition of H um anity arrived at self-conscious
ness, and it appears w ith renewed a ctivity at the close of each
epoch of secular progress. The aspirations, therefore, of
H um anity to overcome this w orld’s misery, if only in idea
and in consciousness, grow always more intense and vigorous
at the end of epochs when this w orld and its interests have
absorbed and secularized men’s attention ; and therefore, also,
the religious question w ill become the most burning of all,
when H um anity shall have attained a ll th a t it can attain in
point of C ivilization on earth, and then takes in, at a glance,
the u tte r pitiableness of this situation— the pinnacle of earthly
aims.
However, when Science undertakes, as such, to make pre
parations fo r the structure w hich the Religion of the Future
w ill occupy, we shall not blame it fo r examining its actual
stock of materials or for asking its e lf what ideas are lik e ly
to hereafter take the place of C hristianity, and to absorb the
few remaining C hristian ideas which are fated to survive-
the rest. But, of course, the value o f this examination is
lim ite d by the actual state of knowledge. The investigation
w ill best be carried out by casting a general glance at the
present historical importance of the principal R eligions;
this survey w ill also help to prove an assertion which is borne
THE NECESSITY OP A NEW UNIVERSAL R ELIG IO N . 97
out by the existing international relations among the nations

of the world. I refer to the contention th at a Religion
w hich would become a Universal R eligion in the Future,
must represent a synthesis of the religious development of
the East and also of the W est, of Pantheistic Evolution and
of M onotheistic E volution. Unless both these conditions are
really fu lfille d , no Religion w ill be able to pay due attention
both to the religious and to the intellectual requirements of
the Modern Epoch.
The follow ing hasty sketch w ill show what ideas Science
w ith a ll its riches can contribute to serve as m aterial fo r
Religion. This sketch w ill not claim to prescribe to the
Religion of the Future what paths it should follow ; but it
w ill, at any rate, strongly advocate the immediate dropping
of the unphilosophical distinction between ‘ Heathen ’ and
* C hristians/ I t w ill strive, w ith cosmopolitan im p artia lity,
to give th e ir respective rights to C ivilizations apparently un
connected w ith , and standing in no relation to, each other,
namely, the H indu C ivilizatio n and the C ivilizatio n of the
countries washed by the Mediterranean. And, moreover, it
w ill indicate reasons why the future meeting of these great
religious streams, and th e ir flowing together in a single
channel, may be confidently expected. I t is only thus that
Universal H istory comes to mean anything real, fo r one
ordinarily understands by th is name, merely the H istory of
the Western h a lf of the ancient world, the C ivilization of
Central Asia being neglected, as if it were — to use the
expression— a mere fifth wheel on the car of H istory.
W e are not, therefore, going to consider the actual R eligion
of the Future, w hich a th ick fog veils from our gaze, but only
the materials furnished by H istory, Religion, and Philosophy,
w hich may seem to us lik e ly to prove useful endowments for
th a t coming creed.
G
IX .
T H E H IS T O R IC A L F O U N D A T IO N S OF T H E
R E L IG IO N OF T H E FU TU R E .
A t firs t Religion shows its e lf indifferent to Theism, or to

Pantheism, or to Monotheism, or to Polytheism, and presents
phases of a ll these elements. Consciousness has not yet
realized the im port of the differences w hich we mark in
opposing transcendence to immanence, u n ity to m u ltip lic ity ;
it represents its deity, according to the needs of the moment,
as exterior to, or as immanent in the Universe, as one god or
as many gods. Religion begins w ith the adoration of the
forces of Nature, and, therefore, the tendency of a ll p rim itive
Religions necessarily leads to Polytheism. The childish m ind,
which th inks by help of metaphors, cannot rid its e lf of
anthropomorphism and anthropopathism ; accordingly, it
applies this method of interpretation to the various forces of
Nature, which thus become various personal deities. Y et it
is part of the essence of these forces to be immanent in
Nature, and th eir conflicts do not dispel the notion, created
by Religion, that there is a connection, a u n ity among a ll the
natural phenomena. Each of the principal natural forces
appears to the p rim itive religionist to be identical w ith the
others in being a revelation of the supernatural, of the divine :
accordingly, prim itive Religion uses on every occasion, w ithout
scruple, the figure of speech called synecdoche,— the part for
the whole, pars pro toto,— that is, it adores each natural force
as God, in the sense of being a manifestation of the universal
THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE RELIG IO N OF THE FUTURE. 99
divine power.1 The prim itive religious consciousness does

not yet perceive the contradiction in which it is placed by the
anthropomorphizing work o f its imagination. I t does not
perceive the contradiction, because it s till anthropomorphizes
everything (as language already proves), and also because it
is not yet thoroughly in earnest w ith its anthropomorphisms,
w hich only serve as means to connect ideas and to arrange
them in the orders which alone are fam iliar to it at th at stage
of mental development. B ut, as the masses cling to and get
accustomed to these anthropomorphisms which are more
in te llig ib le to them than any other ideas, the forms of deities,
whose meaning was o riginally symbolical, are materialized and
become real persons w ith fixed spheres of activity. The
symbol thus stiflin g the thought w hich created it, the con
sciousness of the u n ity of the divine power is lost in the
petrifactions of Polytheism, where it subsists as a mere after
thought, obscure and incomprehensible, discoverable only by
minds of deep thought and inq uiry.
Thus it is that we find Polytheism in most of the nations
who belong to H istory. Polytheism is the corruption of an
earlier and more elevated standpoint, w hich could not be
m aintained in its naive innocence, because i t had not recog
nised as such the differences which are prefigured in it, and
had not intellectually vanquished them. Everywhere Poly
theism tends to creep, under some disguise or other, into
purer religious systems, because it always offers to the uncul
tured masses that form of mechanical religious cultus, w hich
is, so to speak, the easiest and the most empty of ideas.
The special task of the religious E volution of the historical
epoch is to conquer that element of p rim itive religion, w hich
brings about the degeneration in to Polytheism, and w hich
1 T his rela tio n comes out w ith sufficient clearness in th e Vedas.

Compare M ax M u lle r’s Lectures on the Science o f R e lig io n, V o l. i.,
Nos. i. and iii. , and p a rtic u la rly pp. 24 and fo llo w in g ,—in the German
T ranslation.
secures to Polytheism such a long life ; I mean the tendency

of the human m ind, under strong sense impressions, to
anthropomorphize the divine Power. I t is only by this
victory over anthropomorphism that we shall ever be enabled
to preserve, one and all, the admissible elements of p rim itive
Religion, namely, the u n ity of the divine Power, its imman
ence and the m u ltip lic ity of its manifestations.
In order to accomplish this, H istory has followed two
paths, neither of which could attain the end required, because
each of them regarded it from a one-sided point of view, but
which, taken together, enable us to clearly recognize the goal
of H istory. The East took the way w hich, apparently, went
more to the bottom of things, and was the more comprehen
sive; it did not wish to abandon m u ltip lic ity which is justifie d
by being the internal com plexity of the One ; and it also
carefully retained the doctrine of immanence, which is so im
portant fo r the religious sentiment, and it wished to ensure
the u n ity of the D ivin e by recognizing the One w hich is all,
w hich animates a ll, which shows its e lf w orking in a ll its
human and divine manifestations. This form of R eligion is
Brahmanism. And, according to this fa ith , everything is a
m anifestation of Brahm, the sole Being, eternal and imper
sonal, having the attributes of existence, knowledge and
fe lic ity , which, firs tly , manifests its creating, preserving, and
destroying a ctivity in the T rim u rti (Brahma, Vishnu, and
Siva), and then displays its divine essence in numberless
entities. U nfortunately, the many gods are only a stum bling-
block to the popular im agination. The D iv in ity , one im
personal, immanent is retained indeed in theory, but only as
an esoteric doctrine which the masses care nothing about, fo r
they attend only to the m anifold personal forms in which the
All-one is manifested, these forms seeming nearer to them.
The religious system of Brahmanism is free from anthropo
morphism at the summit, but this anthropomorphism a ll the
more uninterruptedly luxuriates around the steps which lead
down from the metaphysical summ it to the broad physical

basis.
Judaism followed the opposite route. I t chooses from the
many deities one to be its trib a l god, and makes w ith him a
compact of a synallagmatic nature (the ancient alliance).
Now those old Jews had as firm a belief in the d iv in ity of
other deities worshipped by neighbouring tribes as these
tribes themselves possessed ; only they thought th a t th e ir own
god was the strongest, they trusted in his promises, and
believed th at they ought to be fa ith fu l to him in return fo r
the benefits which he had bestowed on th e ir fathers. As the
national feeling of the Jews grew stronger, th e ir pride in their
god increased. From the tim e when they exalted him to the
position of sole creator of heaven and earth, they were obliged
to consider as illegitim ate the authority of other gods on the
earth made by Yah web, and to hope, in honour of him , that
one day a ll nations would be converted to him , and would
adore him as the supreme god and the sole creator of the
Universe. B ut Monotheism, as it develops and progresses, at
last arrives at the conviction th at foreign gods are false, unreal
gods, not merely deities exercising an illegitim ate rule on the
earth by the side of Yahweh. This implies, of course, that
the religious consciousness has now raised its conception of
deity or d iv in ity so high, by taking its supreme god as the
standard of comparison, th at the foreign gods no longer answer
to th is conception, and fa ll to the rank of demons who have
falsely given themselves out fo r gods in order to obtain
undeserved homage. I t is in Muhammedanism that Mono
theism most strongly, expressly (and intolerantly) speaks out
on this point, for the abstract u n ity of the D eity becomes, in
th a t Religion, the centre of religious fanaticism. Y et such
fanaticism cannot m aintain its e lf fo r any length of tim e unless
the u n ity of the D e ity be threatened w ith attacks from some
quarter, for example, by the C hristian T rin ity , or by the divine
honours paid to Muhammed, or by any other sim ilar innovation.
We have here, then, an E volution going in a direction

contrary to the Evolution of Brahmanism from Polytheism.
B y a sort of N atural Selection in the struggle for existence
among the gods, that god came out conqueror over the others,
and he alone, thus, survived as god, who was religiously the
strongest ; a ll the others were stripped of th e ir divine d ig n ity
by him . C ertainly, by this means, the u n ity of the D e ity was
re-established, and was, at any rate, brought w ith in the reach
of the intellectual consciousness of the whole nation. B ut, as
the notion of the One God had been evolved out of an anthro
pomorphic form o f Polytheism, i t remained wrapt up in the
grossest anthropopathism, which forced it to be transcendental,
and it did not quench the th irs t of the religious sentiment for
an immanent God, except by giving to it something as unsatis
fyin g as a stone would be to a hungry man asking fo r bread.
W e do not ignore the fact that the Old Testament, in in
dividual passages, makes feeble efforts to arrive at the idea of
God’s immanence, but they were only passing fancies of the
Jewish religious sentiment, w hich are overwhelmed by the
opposing doctrine of the transcendental personality of the
Jewish D eity.
Thus we find th at the H indu Aryans preserved in Brahman
ism the immanence of the impersonal D eity, but not w ithout
sacrificing the u n ity, at least, as regards the consciousness of
the masses. The Semites, on the contrary, gave to a ll the
u n ity of the D eity, but at the cost of the abandonment of his
immanence, which is compatible only w ith an impersonal
D eity. Brahmanism, its higher aspirations notw ithstanding,
remained fixed in that very anthropomorphic apotheosis of the
manifestations of the one supersensible Essence in the m idst
of m ultiple Nature. Judaism and Muhammedanism sever the
threads of communication between the m u ltip lic ity of the
phenomena and the u n ity of the Essence, for fear of doing
in ju ry to the la tte r in. its abstract form ; and they reduce the
constant function of the D ivine Being in its manifestations in
Nature to the single act— done once fo r a ll— of a creation

relegated to the past. This contrast is too characteristic not
to betray to us that it is connected w ith the psychological
peculiarities of race, belonging to the Aryan H indus on the
one side, and to the Sem itic Jews and Arabs on the other.
The contrast does not, as M. Rénan maintains, lie between
Polytheism and Monotheism,— fo r Aryans and Semites alike
are polytheists,— it consists, rather, in the methods w hich
they employ to get rid of th is Polytheism common to them
both, the form er adopting Pantheistic Monism, w hile abstract
personal Monotheism is preferred by the latter.
The conflict between the esoteric Metaphysics of Brahman
ism and the exoteric popular R eligion evoked a Reformer.
The Buddha summed up the doctrines of the Vedânta and
Sânkhya Philosophy,1 and preached them to the masses as a
new Gospel bringing salvation. H is teaching recognized
neither gods nor priests ; but, unfortunately, he threw away—
to use a metaphor—a ll the straw along w ith the useless
stubble ; he rejected a ll the polytheistic popular deities, but
at the same tim e he abandoned the metaphysical d iv in ity , the
substance of the Universe, the essence underlying a ll pheno
mena. The Buddha, then, preached pure Atheism . H is
error in believing that the Universe is only the apparition of
a N othing, would not have been possible w ithout the sub
jective Idealism w hich makes of the Universe a dream, an
Idealism w idely spread among the H indus from tim e im
memorial, and which has so little belief in any reality whatso
ever, th at it does not even comprehend the logical necessity of
the existence of an Essence behind the phenomena. There
fore (when»considered from the standpoint of Realism), the
Buddha’s teaching is acosmism as w ell as Atheism . W ith o u t
such premisses about the theory of knowledge, it would not
1 The E nglish reader should study The Sânkhya A phorism s o f K a p ila .
Translated by J. R. B alla n tyn e ; edited by F itz Edward H a ll. London :
T rübner & Co. [T ra n sla to r’s note. ]
104 THE R ELIG IO N OP THE FUTURE
have been possible to found an atheistic Religion. U nfortun

ately, also, Buddhism could not keep its e lf free from the popular
tendencies w hich everywhere produce anthropomorphism
and Polytheism. The Buddha him self became deified as Jesus
afterwards was ; the Nirvana, which he had proclaimed as the
supreme aim, was transformed into a Paradise of positive
happiness; the hierarchy w hich he interdicted was re-estab
lished in a ll its glory, ju s t as the priesthood was among the
Christians in spite of C hrist’s prohibition. The corrupted
form of Buddhism no longer differed from Brahmanism in
principle sufficiently to be capable of resisting, in the countries
where it arose, a reaction in favour of the older Religion.
Nevertheless, we must, in justice, recognize the tru th that
Buddhism is a stricter form of Monism than Brahmanism ever
was, and that its Ethics, so sim ilar to Johannean C hristianity,
form a great step of progress in the religious history of the East.
Compared w ith the Religion of the Roman Empire, th at is,
w ith a Polytheism exhausted, worn out, and spiritless, the
Monotheism of the Jews stood out as an imposing religious
force. One thing only prevented it from successful pro-
pagandism ; it was fettered by the troublesome and childish
restrictions of the Mosaic Law claim ing to rule over the most
insignificant action. D ire ctly St. Paul had throw n down this
harrier, Jewish Monotheism began its march of conquest along
the countries washed by the Mediterranean. As long as the
Aryan populations of these lands considered the god o f the
C hristians to be merely one of the numerous deities then
lately im ported from the East, and a member of the polythe
istic Pantheon, he suited th e ir Aryan ideas. B u t when the
strictness of Jewish Monotheism made its e lf felt,* there aroso
a reaction on the part of the Aryan popular m ind against the
doctrine o f the abstract u n ity w hich had been imposed on it ;
and, in virtue o f th e ir psychological characteristics, the Aryans
overthrew the Monotheism w ith the help of the doctrine of
the T rin ity .
THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE R ELIG IO N OF THE FUTURE. 105
E xactly resembling the Brahmanic T rim u rti, the T rin ity

embraces three fundamental activities of the D eity, which are
anthropomorphized into three divine persons ; only the three
activities in the C hristian T rin ity are different, and consist of
creation, redemption, and sanctification. The contradiction
w hich in the p rim itive Religion of the Vedas s till slumbers
unperceived, w hich in the Jewish attem pt at solution is glar
in g ly shown by the severance o f the m u ltip lic ity from the one
root, comes to fu ll lig h t in the T rin ity o f the Brahmans and
of the Christians, the contradiction, namely, th at one is three
and three are one. The Brahmans have got rid o f the con
tradiction by representing the impersonal Brahm as the one
Essence underlying the three divine persons, w hich is mani
fested as phenomena in a ll three of them. For fifteen centuries
the Christians have been entangled in this contradiction, because
they had not the courage to resolve it after the fashion of the
Brahmans. In reality, the form ula, ‘ one Substance or one
Essence in three Persons/ led them near enough to that
re su lt; b u t already the Jewish anthropopathism of the trans
cendental personality of the supreme God was implanted too
firm ly in the dogma fo r them not to fear, as heretical, the
frank profession of the consistency w hich recognized a
D iv in ity one and impersonal, w hich is a ll including the
three gods.
Nevertheless, it is clear th a t neither one of the three
Persons, nor even a fourth Person, can constitute the substan
tia l id e n tity between the th re e ; an impersonal, divine sub
stance must be recognised as form ing the identical Essence of
the three Persons, and in relation to w hich the three Persons,
necessarily, stand only as methods of m anifestation, as modes
or forms of phenomena. B ut then, th is impersonal, divine
substance is the inner and specific essence of the three divine
modes o f manifestation, the all-one and only true D iv in ity ,
the metaphysical summ it of the C hristian Metaphysic, and
which alone is able to ju s tify its name of Monotheism before
the tribunal of Reason. Regarded from this standpoint, the three

personified modes of manifestation of this one impersonal
D iv in ity can only appear as fantastical anthropomorphizings of
the divine functions exactly as in Brahmanism, w ith the sole
difference th at natural functions are p artly replaced by mystico-
etliical functions. The lin k (severed by Judaism) between the
divine Essence and the phenomenal w orld of Nature at any
given tim e (for example, Man) C hristian ity could not fasten
again, except by having recourse to heretical mysticism, or by
indulging in slight passing fancies w hich wrecked the dogma
of the D e ity’s personality. However, C hristian ity furnished
its e lf w ith an im perfect substitute fo r this lin k by re-establishing
w ith in the transcendental D eity the relation of Essence and
of manifestation, w ith his character of immanence, and by
thus putting before its e lf an ideal (unattainable, doubtless,
w ith the adm itted premisses) of the mode in w hich Man
ought to be united w ith God, and of the way in w hich the
m u ltip lic ity of natural phenomena ought to be absorbed in the
divine u n ity as in the essence w hich is these phenomena
themselves.
This profound, metaphysical meaning of the T rin ity was
quite misunderstood by the modem Protestants belonging to
the R ationalistic ‘ epoch o f Enlightenm ent.’ Instead of
energetically follow ing up the correction of the abstract u n ity
o f the transcendental Jewish Monotheism, th is modem Pro
testantism relapsed in to the Jewish standpoint, by elim inating
two Persons of the T rin ity and keeping the th ird as a Personal
God, who remained as external and opposed to Man as he had
ever been before. In fact, however, these Reformers were
undecided about taking in earnest the idea th a t Man ought to
be one w ith the D e ity ju s t as the three anthropomorphic,
divine forms of the T rin ity are one w ith th e ir D ivine Essence.
That proposition needed only one correction; the ‘ ought to
be ’ should have been altered into ‘ is,’ from the tim e when
[w ith Hegel and Biedermann] one rejected the unjustifiable,
THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE R ELIG IO N OF THE FUTURE. 107
polytheistic arid anthropomorphic personifications of the

principal modes of m anifestation of the D eity, and when the
idea had been re-introduced th at the D e ity is one, impersonal,
but also immanent in the Universe w hich manifests him.
Then, and only then, would the problem have been solved,
namely, how to unite Monotheism and Pantheism by elim i
nating a ll anthropomorphism and anthropopathism ; in other
words, how to get a Monotheism of which the D e ity is not
separated by his personality from Man, and a Pantheism w hich
is not corrupted by any Polytheism.
C hristianity, w ith its fundamental dogma of the T rin ity ,
may be regarded as the firs t attem pt at a synthesis of the
Aryan arid Sem itic religious Evolutions. B u t the attem pt
failed in tw o ways ; the lo fty conception of the divine imper
sonality, w hich renders immanence possible, was not reached and
grasped w ith clearness and precision; secondly, the re-appearance
of the Polytheism of the old Brahmanic T rim u rti previously
overthrown by Buddhism, was the price which had to be paid
fo r the gain already lost. Nevertheless, the tendency alone of
the attem pt and the fervour w ith w hich nearly two thousand
years have clung to the contradictions of the T rin ity , furnish
such a mine of instruction th at this form of Religion w ith a ll
its want of m aturity and depth cannot be cut out of H istory.
I t shows us, in conjunction w ith Buddhism in its purest form ,
the way in w hich we must advance ; the abolition of Poly
theism and of transcendency, a tw ofold progress which pre
supposes the abandoriment of the anthropopathic conception
and of the personification of the D eity. We are to-day as
zealous Monotheists as are the Jews and the Muhammedans,
and we are as zealous adherents of the doctrine of the D e ity’s
immanence as are the Hindus. W e wish to u tte rly e x tir
pate the Polytheism of C hristianity [both the saint-worship of
Catholicism and the tritheism of Lutheranism ], ju s t as a
R ationalist desires, but we, fo r our part, do not care to ex
change the impersonal D iyine Substance immanent in the
108 TH E R ELIG IO N OP THE FUTURE.
three Gods of the T rin ity fo r the personal D e ity worshipped

by the Jews and by the Muhammedans, who remains eternally
opposed to (and removed from ) a ll his creation, including
M ankind.
C hristianity, in spite of its Aryan tendencies to transform
itse lf, has remained, on the whole, fa ith fu l to its Semitic
origin whence it sprang. And to-day, as in the second
century, it is through the speaking-trumpet of Philosophy th at
the Aryan s p irit àddresses its challenges to the trad ition al
Semitism. Then it was Greek Philosophy in its Alexandrian
m odification aided by Egyptian influences ; to-day it is German
Philosophy in the form of Pantheism or of S p iritu al Monism,
which has been b u ilt up on the K antian criticism of Rational
istic Theism, and may be regarded as the continuation of Greek
Philosophy on a much higher level of consciousness. Hegel
elaborated a grandiose system founded on the postulate of the
D ivine Immanence ; and the ‘ W ord made Flesh * of St. John
is represented by Hegel as the destiny of M an in general,
especially in proportion as he has become conscious o f the
D ivine Immanence. Thus, indeed, Hegel, though w itho ut
knowing it, directly attaches him self to th a t branch of H indu
Philosophy which, in the Tao-te-king of Lautsze,1 has put
fo rth such a magnificent blossoming free from H indu fantasy.
Nevertheless, Hegel sees the Absolute R eligion in his arbitrary
transform ation and dialectical interpretation of C hristianity
(especially in the Logos-doctrine of the F ourth Gospel).
Schopenhauer, on the contrary, plunges in to the cosmic con
ception of the Yedas and of Buddhism ; he revived th e ir
subjective Idealism , which compares the Universe to a dream,
1 Translated in to German b y R. Plaenckner, Leipzig, Brockhaus, 1870 ;

compare, in p a rticu la r, x x i., x l., x lv ., li.
[The E nglish reader should study The Speculations on M etaphysics,
P o lity , and M o ra lity o f the * O ld P h ilo so p h e r/ Lautsze, translated from
the Chinese w ith an In tro d u c tio n by John Chalm ers, M .A ., T m bner &
Co., London, 1868.]—T ra n sla to r’s note.
TH E FOUNDATIONS OF THE R E LIG IO N OF THE FUTURE. 109
th eir Pessimism [w hich is fa r more profound than th at of

C hristian ity], and also he resuscitated the Ethics and the
N irvana of Buddhism. Thus Philosophy, anticipating the
history of Religious Evolution, revives the more or less useful
elements of Hinduism , brings them near to the consciousness
of Modern Culture, and prepares a future synthesis of them
w ith the transformed doctrines of (or the elements fit to be
retained of) the Jewish-Christian religious development. One
task remains fo r German Philosophy to fu lfil; namely, to
blend the religious ideas of Central Asia, which have been
grasped in fragments' by Hegel, Schopenhauer, Fichte,
Schelling, Herbart, and others,— to blend them, I say, w ith
the elements of C hristianity which are w orth preserving, and
w ith the series of ideas developed by Modem C ivilization, [and
finding fo r the most part already th e ir expression in H egel],
so as to produce a thoroughly compact system. B y this means
a metaphysical conception of the Universe would be obtained,
w hich, gradually in filtra tin g into the deepest recesses of the
consciousness of the masses, m ight offer the conditions the
most favourable to the growth o f a new religious life replacing
the extinct C hristian life . If , up to the present tim e, religious
Philosophy has taken a wrong path, the reason is th at she
fancied it was necessary to regard and .to defend as absolute
R eligion one only out of many religious systems ; Hegel (fo r
example) fixed upon the C hristian Religion, w hile Schopen
hauer was attracted by the A siatic group of * the venerable,
p rim itive Religions of M ankind.’ The progress o f the critica l
s p irit ought, necessarily, to open our eyes to the uselessness of
these efforts, and to teach the Philosophy of R eligion to c ir
cumscribe its task ; it has now only to point out the factors
philosophically tenable and capable of assisting new religious
creations, w hich are met w ith in a ll religions, and particularly
in those the most highly developed ; and, next, to point out
the aims of the H istory of the development convergent on
Religion in the various seats of C ivilization.
We have already pointed out, more than once, th at tran

scendental Personal Theism has become quite unacceptable to
the modem consciousness, both in its e lf and in its consequences
(heteronomous M orality, theodicy, undetermined Free-W ill, etc. ).
O nly a respectable but uncritical and unphilosophical Con
servatism can be deluded on this point. B ut along w ith this
im possibility of Theism comes a question of v ita l importance
to Religiousness and to the ideals of H um anity, namely, how
Pantheism is to be brought into the consciousness of the
nations who represent Modern C ivilization ; fo r if Pantheism
does not penetrate there or arrives late, the inevitable conse
quence w ill be th at irreligious M aterialistic Naturalism must
occupy the empty place. And indeed th is phenomenon
presents its e lf every day before our eyes, b u t always only in
those regions where German Pantheistic Philosophy has not
yet penetrated w ith its lig h t and warmth. H einrich Heine
indeed is quite rig h t when he says, ‘ Pantheism is the secret
R eligion of Germany.’ C ertainly it is a sign o f the times that,
even in Jewish circles, a Philosophy penetrates w ith pro
nounced religious tendencies, which takes th is saying of
Heine fo r its watchword, which preaches the im personality
and the immanence of the D eity, and also makes a profession
of Pessimism.1 I f such things are possible in Sem itic
Judaism, to which we owe our personal Monotheism, assuredly
there is no need to despair or to doubt that, first in purely
Aryan Germany, Pantheism, after having been the secret
Religion of esoteric Philosophy, should become the general
conception of the Universe, firs tly , among educated men, and
afterwards among the masses, and th at it should form the
germ of a new religious life .
I f the objection be raised that the Pantheism of In d ia has
plunged the masses into apathy, the objectors would be
1 Compare D r. M o ritz Yenetianer’s D e r A llg e ist [ The U niversal
S p irit], B e rlin , C arl Duncker, 1874 ; and his Schopenhauer als
Scholastiker [ Schopenhauer as ScholasticJ ibidem , 1873.
THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE R ELIG IO N OF TH E FUTURE. I l l
forgetting the preceding considerations where we saw th at

H indu Pantheism was not sufficiently M onotheistic to be able
to w ithstand the encroachments of spirit-destroying Polytheism.
Again it would be a mistake to accuse Pantheism of being the
cause of the Hindus’ dreamy apathy; one ought rather to
blame that dreamy subjective Idealism which is a characteristic
o f th e ir national sp irit. The man who regards the Universe,
not as a real objective m anifestation of the Absolute Essence,
but as a subjective phenomenon having no reality, as a dream,
as foam, as an illusion, and who consequently declares th a t
space and tim e are mere forms of in tu itio n , having no corre
lative forms of real existence, and therefore th at H istory
(including the Evolution which works its e lf out w ith in it) is
an illu sion w itho ut any object behind it,— this man, I say,
shuts him self up in his dream-world lik e a caterpillar in its
chrysalis. W ith such premisses about the theory of know
ledge, there tru ly can no longer be a Metaphysic capable of
resisting the apathetic question w hich is the necessary outcome
of them. W e must, therefore, also entirely reject th at cosmic
conception which is derived from th is theory of knowledge
(unfortunately accepted by Schopenhauer), if we do not wish
to lapse, like the Hindus, into absolute indolence.1 Here is
a point where the idea of the Judæo-Muliammedan-Christian
world, that is to say, the realistic idea which believes in the
rea lity of Time, o f H istory, and of Evolution, is superior to
the H indu idea ; and it is essentially this superiority, which,
in contrast to Asiatic stagnation, is the condition of vigorous
historical progress of which the Muhammedan - C hristian
C ivilization offers an instance, and which has made the
C hristian nations the agents and the actual representatives of
the progress of Universal H istory. In Protestantism, realistic
E volution became evolutionistic Optimism, which has been
1 Compare m y w ork on th is subject,—D as D in g an sich und seine
Beschaffenheit [T he T hing in its e lf and its N a tu re ], B e rlin , C. D uncker,
1871.
made, especially by Leibnitz and by Hegel, the fundamental

idea of Modern C ivilization. That this Optimism has passed
from the logical-evolutionistic domain to the eudæmonological
domain is not very surprising. B ut this false Optimism of
Leibnitz is, in Hegel, already considerably dim inished by the
la tte r’s open disregard of the ind ivid ua l’s happiness, and by
the description which he gives of E volution being accom
plished by means of the painful struggles of opposing prin
ciples.1 In Schopenhauer this Optimism runs into the other
extreme, namely, the most decided Pessimism, which, more
over, in its tu rn passes, by an equally unjustifiable transition,
from eudæmonism to evolutionism. W ith o u t eudæmonological
Pessimism must evolutionistic Optimism necessarily lead to
irreligious Secularism ; w ithout evolutionistic Optimism must
eudæmonological Pessimism become an indolent despondency,
or degenerate into religious asceticism. O nly by combining
the two can we get a conception of the Universe, which,
firstly, gives to R eality and to the E volution o f the terrestrial
part of i t th eir rights, and, secondly, avoids the mistake of
regarding this R eality as final, of a ttrib u tin g value to it in
its e lf and fo r itself, and which, by its metaphysical, objective
Idealism, soars above the worthlessness of th is Universe
w hich does not deserve to exist.
C hristianity, as has often been remarked, has also its point
o f departure from eudæmonological Pessimism, but it mars this
separation by an egoistic amalgamation w ith a transcendental,
eudæmonological Optimism which rests on the belief in in d i
vidual im m ortality, and on the eternal fe lic ity promised to the
pious man. Thus a metaphysical egoism is harboured, refined
indeed, but therefore a ll the more pernicious to true M orality,
w hich is founded on renunciation ; and thus the pessimistic
judgm ent of the real actual w orld ceases to have any but a
relative, transient importance. The present age im peratively
i Compare I. Y o lk e lt’s D as Unbewusste und der Pessimismus [ The
Unconscious and Pessim ism ], B e rlin , Henschel, 1873, pp. 246-255.
THE FOÜN DATIONS OF THE RELIG IO N OF ÏH Ë FÜTÜRE. 113
demands that M orality should be purged from a ll kinds of
egoism, whether gross or refined, and therefore cannot retain
this belief in heavenly rewards, but must rather attach itse lf
to Pessimism, which, in its unfalsified form, does not seek fo r
any illusion about a fancied future existence in order to deceive
itse lf about the misery of this life , and w hich knows only one
aspiration for the individual as such, namely, to become freed
from the painful duty of assisting in the process of Evolution,
to plunge its e lf again into the Bralim lik e the bubble into the
ocean, to be extinguished lik e a lig h t in the w ind, and to be
no more ‘ born again, * as the exoteric expression, suitable to
the popular belief, phrases it. This is the fu ll expression fo r
the aspiration of the purely religious soul which aims not at
fe lic ity but at peace, and at union w ith the U niversal S p irit,
a union complete and no more troubled by any apparent
separation; vet this soul is one which, as an individual,
patiently fu lfils a ll moral duties u n til the hour strikes for its
deliverance.
In the place of the belief in individual continuance of life
after death,— a low and pernicious belief,— Pantheism offers
to the religious sentiment the profound emotion and the high
satisfaction of feeling its e lf eternally one w ith its God, w ithout
the possibility of separation, man being him self a manifestation
of God, in w hich manifestation nothing exists but God. A
consciousness of this insight is the aim of the Mystics’ most
exalted reveries, but this aim they could not reach as long as
God appeared to them to be a Person opposed to themselves,
and they fancied themselves to be a Substance (though a
created one only), and they placed between the two the
Personal cM ediator,’ incapable of uniting, and only proving
eternally the wideness of the g ulf. Yes, Pantheism is the
only R eligion which realizes the most daring dreams of the
Mystics w ithout contradicting Reason ; i t alone renders
dialogues w ith God to ta lly superfluous, which in Theism are
miserable expedients to conceal the want of u n ity ; it renders
H
i 14 THE RELIG IO N OF THE FUTURE.
such dialogue superfluous by reducing the dualism of Persons,

presupposed in the act of prayer, to a simple u n ity leaving a ll
dialogue far behind, and having in fin ite ly more to offer than a
dialogue to the religious sentiment.
In the place of the heteronomous pseudo-Morality of
Theism, Pantheism offers to Ethics a m etaphysical' basis
through w hich the hum anitarian M orality (which floats in
the air and can only appeal to the good heart of those who
wish to accept it), gains, in theory, a foundation and con
solidation w ithout losing anything of its autonomy. Λ
M orality devoid of Metaphysic w ill always be forced to
relapse into taking its support from the pseudo-Morality of
refined egoism which knows how to prudently calculate
(the Ethics of Spinoza and of the Encyclopaedists), since,
w ithout such a support, there is fa r too little ground in this
kin d of M orality to form an ethical foundation. The so-
called ‘ enlightened selfishness ’ M orality possesses so little of
the real ethical element th at i t cannot even dare to put on
the outward appearance of being a system of Ethics, as the
heteronomous M orality of Theism has done w ith such
success hitherto ; it only claims to be a substitute fo r real
M orality, which it declares to be a mere dream and illusion.
l>ut heteronomous M orality is not justifie d in giving itse lf
airs and disparaging the M orality of ‘ enlightened selfishness,’
for really they each have as little as the other of true
M orality , and of the two sorts of pseudo-Morality the
‘ enlightened selfishness ’ system has the advantage o f being
autonomous.
Pantheism, or spiritualistic Monism, is the only system of
Metaphysics which, w ithout in ju rin g the objectively real
phenomenon of the individual, throws back the self-w ill,
which fancies itse lf supreme, into the nothingness of its
phenomenal existence, by showing it th at it does to its e lf
(tha t is to the Essence w hich it, as w ell as its neighbour, is)
the wrong which it does to its neighbour, and that it renders
THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE RELIGION OF TH E FUTURE. 115
to its e lf the service which it renders to its neighbour. That,

of which compassion and charity have only an instinctive
idea when realizing it in practice, the knowledge, namely,
that the ego of self-consciousness which is separated from and
opposed to the non-ego, is not the true ego, but th at the true
ego embraces a ll other men and the whole w orld,— th is great,
fundamental, ethical tru th is fu lly expressed by Pantheism
alone. The ‘ ta t tvain asi ’ 1 of the H indus is a foundation
fo r Ethics in fin ite ly more profound, being real in the strictest
sense o f the word, than the C hristian, anthropomorphic
argument according to w hich we ought to love one another
because we are the children of one Father, as if the natural
love between brothers was not cancelled by the natural hatred
between brothers, and as if the obligation to th is love did
not its e lf rather need a support in M orality, instead of actually
serving as a support. As long as Monism is not the basis of
Ethics, everything is dissolved into subjective caprice, in
default of being held together by external, heteronomous
laws or by a refined egoism ; even Reason its e lf appears to be
only a personal caprice (according to which one declares fo r
Reason and refuses to be unreasonable), as long as it is not
regarded as an attribute of the One U niversal Essence mani
fested in a ll individuals, that is, u n til Reason is recognized
as an objective, cosmic force or principle. And, whatever
definition we may seek and fix upon as the highest principle
of M orality, be it compassion, love, fid e lity, justice, universal
harmony, solidarity, the greatest happiness of the greatest
number, the co-operation w ith the aims [unconscious] of the
Universe, or anything else, a ll elucidations, such as these,
w ill be only subjective ideas of which one suits one man,
another somebody else, but the necessity of th e ir actual
realization w ill never be demonstrated, unless metaphysical
Monism l>e appealed to and bring in its authority.
This proves that in the sphere of Ethics also we have to
i ‘ Thou a rt th a t.’
borrow more from Buddhism than from C hristianity, and that

what is the case w ith Monism is equally the case w ith
Pessimism ; in other words, that Buddhism is the only
religious system in which Pessimism serves expressly as the
basis o f M orality. Buddhism, indeed, is devoid of that
instrum ent of complete redemption which C hristianity pos
sesses, but this redemption remains, in the latter system of
Religion, precisely as external, as heteronomous as the moral
law. In C hristianity, ju s t as the substance of M orality has
been fixed once for a ll by the transcendental D e ity on M ount
Sinai w ithout the participation of Man, and ju s t as moral
g u ilt (original sin) has been incurred once, fo r a ll human
beings, by Adam the father of M ankind, so the C hristian
redemption from sin has been accomplished once fo r a ll on
Golgotha, in behalf of a ll generations by a single, purely
external act. As the heteronomous moral law has its psycho
logical reflection in b lin d obedience, so the transcendental
m anipulation o f the redemption is paralleled, psycho
logically, by b lin d fa ith ; Man is no more a participator in
the conquest of sin than he is autonomous in his moral life .
Consequently, the pretended redemption can no more produce
a real amendment and an elevation from the fallen state of
sin, than external obedience to the law can produce a true
M orality. The forgiveness of sins by a confessor and the
dogma of justifica tion by fa ith destroy the possibility of true
moral degeneration, inasmuch as they, when put in the
presence of the germs of really moral self-elevation, expel
these germs lik e a foetus incapable of livin g , instead of letting
them develop and ripen into liv in g organisms.
Just as heteronomous M orality, as a means of propaedeutic
education for the masses, is of considerable use towards th eir
acquirement of autonomous M orality, so also the calm afforded
to the conscience by the belief in a justifica tion obtained by
foreign m erit, and the amendment due to foreign help, may
have th e ir relatively historical ju s tifia b ility . But, at the
present time, the question is whether we can keep up, by our
own efforts, and carry out to the end, a self-reformation and
moral improvement after a fa ll brought about by our own
deed and not by that of another, in order that we may, in
future, possess and firm ly hold a possession acquired w ith
much pain, as a moral capital which belongs peculiarly to us.
This path is certainly harder and much more fatiguing than
the easy bridge of an acquittal obtained by the m erit of
another ; but the serious task of self-reformation by means of
a progressive moral discipline, w ill give us real results, and
not mere imaginary consequences, such as the regeneration
proclaimed by St. Paul, after which a man is found to have
advanced in nothing but spiritual pride.
However, although Pantheistic M orality thus rejects the
external and a rtificia l expedients of redemption w hich are held
out by C hristianity, it does not, fo r a ll that, cease to be a
religious system of Ethics ; whereas the hum anitarian M orality
of Liberal Protestantism, which has broken away from Meta
physics, is quite irreligious in character. Pantheistic
M orality, by u n itin g its e lf w ith the Metaphysic possessing the
greatest moral influence, rises to the height o f religious Ethics,
in a far more elevated sense than C hristian M orality does.
For the latter, whatever else it is, remains always a mere
heteronomous pseudo-Morality, and can never reach the most
profoundly metaphysical root of M orality, because the personal
God of the Christians is not immanent in the Universe, but
stands opposed to it as to a substance w hich he has created.
On the subject of religious worship very little can be said
now except a few b rie f hints, since accident plays* the greatest
part in the choice of symbols and the form taken by devotional
exercises. A ll we can affirm is that the cultus of the Religion
of the Future must be more internal than th at of existing
Religions. The more a Religion loses of its essential substance
and of its emotion-exciting power, the more external its
worship w ill become. Nay, a ll religious reformers have
118 THE RELIGION OF THE FUTURE,
assailed the external form of worship w hich they found

established, and have insisted upon an internal cultus.
Jesus, also, though practically reducing a ll cultus to prayer,
protested against public and common prayer, and recommended
private prayer. We must not, therefore, find fa u lt w ith
Liberal Protestantism for cutting short the external forms of
worship, but only fo r underm ining the foundation of internal,
religious cultus. If, as m ight be expected, the process of
Development starts from Catholic uniform ity, passes through
Protestant sectarianism, and arrives at religious individualism
which would harmonize particularly w ell w ith the German
sp irit, then we may argue, from this progress, th at the
Religion of the Future w ill have a cultus of a s tric tly internal
character. As regards individual, internal cultus, in other
words, fo r depth of religious feeling and of religious
contentment, no Metaphysics, we repeat, can surpass Panthe
istic Metaphysics, w hich offer the accomplishment of that
which has been sought fo r and striven after by the mystics
of a ll times and lands.
If, then, we consider the actual condition o f Science, what
appears to be most probable is that the Religion of the Future
— if, in a general way, such a R eligion be thought possible—
w ill be a Pantheism, or, to speak more precisely, a Pantheistic
Monism [a ll Polytheism being rejected], or else an impersonal,
immanent Monotheism, whose D eity has his objective
manifestation— the Universe— not outside him self, but w ith in
him self. B ut this is not furnished by positive C hristianity
w ith its polytheistic T rin ity , nor by positive Protestantism
w ith its abstract, Personal Theism. In accordance w ith the
history of Religions, the object sought fo r now by us must be
gained only by means of a synthesis of the two religious
Evolutions,— the H indu and the Jew ish-C hristian,— w hich
constitutes a form uniting in its e lf the advantages of both,
w hile elim inating th eir defects, and only in this way
becomes capable of playing the role of a really U niversal
*ΓΗΕ FOUNDATIONS OF THE RELIG IO N OF THE FUTURE. 119
Religion. Λ Pan-Monotheism of this kind "would he the

metaphysical system w hich would harmonize the best w itli
Reason ; it would both the most energetically arouse and the
most completely satisfy the religious emotions ; i t would also
lend to M orality the most firm support. Therefore it would
approach the most nearly to th at w hich the masses search fo r
in Religion under the name of ‘ T ru th .’

Eduard Von Hartmann, The Religion of The Future

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Eduard Von Hartmann, The Religion of The Future

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eduard Von Hartmann, The Religion of The Future

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE

RELIGION OF THE FUTURE.

EDWARD YON HARTMANN,

Œranelateto from tfte ©ttm an,

T h e follow ing pages are reprinted here w ithout m aterial altera­

For Strauss as a c ritic and as an author, my respect is so

no reader, who is of a reflecting tu rn of m ind and is w ell

M onistic Religion of immanence are to be found in Bieder­

1 As regards the Poets, Sallet, in his Gospel o f the L a ity (Laien-

under the stubble, and fo r preparing the field fo r next year’s

sooner or later, Theology w ill have to positively reckon. The

tion,” that the destruction of C hristianity w ill soon be accom­

indeed, to be next in greatness to the One Prophet Muhammed.

Pius the N in th , become accustomed to the idea that ‘ the

forward something positive which can overthrow U ltram on-

B e r lin , October 1874;

I I . T he H istorical M ission of P rotestantism , 20

I I I . Ch r is tia n it y and M odern Civ il iz a t io n , 28

IV . The C h r is tia n ity of S t. P a u l and of S t. John, 42

V. The C h r is tia n ity of C h ris t, 48

V I. T he U n christian Character of L iber al Protestantism , 65

V II. T he I rreligious Character of L iberal Protestantism , 73

V III. T he N ecessity and P ossibility of a N ew U niversal

IX . T he H istorical F oundations of the R eligion of the

T he present age, although pre-eminent fo r irreligiousness,

inspired general horror and surprise, has proved th at it is s till

our private esteem, we have to ask whether the maintenance

certain lim it, appear as qualitative differences (one remem·

such self-deception, and to fra n kly acknowledge to him self

A n y one who wishes to understand the real essence and nature

of modem Liberal Protestantism must, above all, clearly com­

in a veritably pitiable condition. Accordingly, the inspiration

in fa llib ility of the Church w ith its tradition w hich attested

The Essence of C hristianity was exhausted in the early

where anti-catholic and anti-christian currents o f thought

question whether certain psychological impulses as the hope

w hich knows no duties, hut only rights. As regards, therefore,

something lik e two dissolving views on the same curtain, one

1 Compare w ith th is chapter, Paul de Lagarde, Doctor of Theology

N o Religion, by its very essence, has any inclination fo r

vent Science from in tru d in g ; fo r i t feels in stin ctive ly that

Religion instead of promoting those interests. A t first, in ­

dogma. Whereas a ll attempts at restitution or conciliation—

his soul which have reference to everlasting hell? The

they dim inish the C hristian amount. W e can, therefore,

ence in a w orld which it properly disowns.*1 However, we

cosmical theories taught by C hristianity. Moreover, a R eligion

means of excitement. That compromise w hich put an end to

quite irreconcilable w ith Modem Culture. For the la tte r w ill

feebly represented among ns ; and Pessimism has only ju s t

cems of E arth or of Heaven, of this life or of eternity, of

T h e canonical books of the New Testament are, as is w ell

able of proving to the intellect that the contradictions really

subtle than before, against which no objection could be urged

? Compare F. 0 . P fleiderer, D e r P aulinism us, Leipzig, Fiiee, 1873.

I t was impossible fo r our ago to retain these foundations of

thanks to the Alexandrian Philosophy, melted down— to use

theologian, like, fo r example, the Hegelian Biedermann, who

T h e follow ing pages are reprinted here w ithout m aterial altera

M onistic Religion of immanence are to be found in Bieder

tion,” that the destruction of C hristianity w ill soon be accom

of modem Liberal Protestantism must, above all, clearly com

Religion instead of promoting those interests. A t first, in

in Jesus's teaching w hich clearly marks it off from the con

dry Rationalism w ith the sentim entality of the latest theo

moral code divorced from Metaphysics, and therefore irre

Moreover, we cannot prove the im possibility of the proposi

have been possible to found an atheistic Religion. U nfortun

We have already pointed out, more than once, th at tran