,,the ,,english ,,and ,,foreign ,,philosophical ,,library4 ,,the ,,essence ,,of ,,christianity4 ,,by ,,ludwig ,,feuerbach4 ,,translated ,,from ,,the ,,second ,,german ,,edition ,,by ,,marian ,,evans1 ,,translator ,,of ,,strauss',s ,,life ,,of ,,jesus4 ,second ,edition4 ,,london3 ,,kegan ,,paul1 ,,trench1 ,,tr,,bner1 ,,co41 ,ltd4 #ahij4 ,,publishers' ,,note4 ,the first edition of this work was published in #ahed1 and1 although a large one1 has been long out of print4 ,many inquiries having been made for it since the recent lamented death of the translator1 the publishers have determined to offer a second edition to the public1 and have been advised to give it a place in their ,english and ,foreign ,philosophical ,library4 ,it is an exact reprint of the first edition1 and they trust it will be received with equal favour4 ,london1 ,june #ahha4 ,,preface ,,to ,,the ,,second ,,edition4 #a ,the clamour excited by the present work has not surprised me1 and hence it has not in the least moved me from my position4 ,on the contrary1 ,i have once more1 in all calmness1 subjected my work to the severest scrutiny1 both historical and philosophical2 ,i have1 as far as possible1 freed it from its defects of form1 and enriched it with new developments1 illustrations1 and historical testimonies1--testimonies in the highest degree striking and irrefragable4 ,now that ,i have thus verified my analysis by historical proofs1 it is to be hoped that readers whose eyes are not sealed will be convinced and will admit1 even though reluctantly1 that my work contains a faithful1 correct translation of the ,christian religion out of the ,oriental language of imagery into plain speech4 ,and it has no pretension to be anything more than a close translation1 or1 to speak literally1 an empirical or historico-philosophical analysis1 a solution of the enigma of the ,christian religion4 ,the general propositions which ,i premise in the ,introduction are no priori1 excogitated propositions1 no products of speculation2 they have arisen out of the analysis of religion2 they are only1 as indeed are all the fundamental ideas of the work1 generalisations from the known manifestations of human nature1 and in particular of the religious consciousness1--facts converted into thoughts1 i4e41 expressed in general terms1 and thus made the property of the understanding4 ,the ideas of my work are only conclusions1 consequences1 drawn from premisses which are not themselves mere ideas1 but objective facts either actual or historical--facts which had not their place in my head simply in virtue of their ponderous existence in folio4 ,i unconditionally repudiate absolute1 immaterial1 self-sufficing speculation--that speculation which draws its material from within4 ,i differ toto coelo from those philosophers who pluck out their eyes that they may see better2 for my thought ,i require the senses1 especially sight2 ,i found my ideas on materials which can be appropriated only through the activity of the senses4 ,i do not generate the object from the thought1 but the thought from the object2 and ,i hold that alone to be an object which has an existence beyond one's own brain4 ,i am an idealist only in the region of practical philosophy1 that is1 ,i do not regard the limits of the past and present as the limits of humanity1 of the future2 on the contrary1 ,i firmly believe that many things--yes1 many things--which with the short-sighted1 pusillanimous practical men of to-day1 pass for flights of imagination1 for ideas never to be realised1 for mere chimeras1 will to-morrow1 i4e41 in the next century1--centuries in individual life are days in the life of humanity1--exist in full reality4 ,briefly1 the ,idea is to me only faith in the historical future1 in the triumph of truth and virtue2 it has for me only a political and moral significance2 for in the sphere of strictly theoretical philosophy1 ,i attach myself1 in direct opposition to the ,hegelian philosophy1 only to realism1 to materialism in the sense above indicated4 ,the maxim hitherto adopted by speculative philosophy3 ,all that is mine ,i carry with me1 the old omnia mea mecum porto1 ,i cannot1 alas6 appropriate4 ,i have many things outside myself1 which ,i cannot convey either in my pocket or my head1 but which nevertheless ,i look upon as belonging to me1 not indeed as a mere man--a view not now in question--but as a philosopher4 ,i am nothing but a natural philosopher in the domain of mind2 and the natural philosopher can do nothing without instruments1 without material means4 ,in this character ,i have written the present work1 which consequently contains nothing else than the principle of a new philosophy verified practically1 i4e41 in concreto1 in application to a special object1 but an object which has a universal significance3 namely1 to religion1 in which this principle is exhibited1 developed1 and thoroughly carried out4 ,this philosophy is essentially distinguished from the systems hitherto prevalent1 in that it corresponds to the real1 complete nature of man2 but for that very reason it is antagonistic to minds perverted and crippled by a superhuman1 i4e41 anti-human1 anti-natural religion and speculation4 ,it does not1 as ,i have already said elsewhere1 regard the pen as the only fit organ for the revelation of truth1 but the eye and ear1 the hand and foot2 it does not identify the idea of the fact with the fact itself1 so as to reduce real existence to an existence on paper1 but it separates the two1 and precisely by this separation attains to the fact itself2 it recognises as the true thing1 not the thing as it is an object of the abstract reason1 but as it is an object of the real1 complete man1 and hence as it is itself a real1 complete thing4 ,this philosophy does not rest on an ,understanding per se1 on an absolute1 nameless understanding1 belonging one knows not to whom1 but on the understanding of man2--though not1 ,i grant1 on that of man enervated by speculation and dogma2--and it speaks the language of men1 not an empty1 unknown tongue4 ,yes1 both in substance and in speech1 it places philosophy in the negation of philosophy1 i4e41 it declares that alone to be the true philosophy which is converted in succum et sanguinem1 which is incarnate in ,man2 and hence it finds its highest triumph in the fact that to all dull and pedantic minds1 which place the essence of philosophy in the show of philosophy1 it appears to be no philosophy at all4 ,this philosophy has for its principle1 not the ,substance of ,spinoza1 not the ego of ,kant and ,fichte1 not the ,absolute ,identity of ,schelling1 not the ,absolute ,mind of ,hegel1 in short1 no abstract1 merely conceptional being1 but a real being1 the true ,ens realissimum--man2 its principle1 therefore1 is in the highest degree positive and real4 ,it generates thought from the opposite of thought1 from ,matter1 from existence1 from the senses2 it has relation to its object first through the senses1 i4e41 passively1 before defining it in thought4 ,hence my work1 as a specimen of this philosophy1 so far from being a production to be placed in the category of ,speculation1--although in another point of view it is the true1 the incarnate result of prior philosophical systems1--is the direct opposite of speculation1 nay1 puts an end to it by explaining it4 ,speculation makes religion say only what it has itself thought1 and expressed far better than religion2 it assigns a meaning to religion without any reference to the actual meaning of religion2 it does not look beyond itself4 ,i1 on the contrary1 let religion itself speak2 ,i constitute myself only its listener and interpreter1 not its prompter4 ,not to invent1 but to discover1 to unveil existence1 has been my sole object2 to see correctly1 my sole endeavour4 ,it is not ,i1 but religion that worships man1 although religion1 or rather theology1 denies this2 it is not ,i1 an insignificant individual1 but religion itself that says3 ,god is man1 man is ,god2 it is not ,i1 but religion that denies the ,god who is not man1 but only an ens rationis1--since it makes ,god become man1 and then constitutes this ,god1 not distinguished from man1 having a human form1 human feelings1 and human thoughts1 the object of its worship and veneration4 ,i have only found the key to the cipher of the ,christian religion1 only extricated its true meaning from the web of contradictions and delusions called theology2--but in doing so ,i have certainly committed a sacrilege4 ,if therefore my work is negative1 irreligious1 atheistic1 let it be remembered that atheism--at least in the sense of this work--is the secret of religion itself2 that religion itself1 not indeed on the surface1 but fundamentally1 not in intention or according to its own supposition1 but in its heart1 in its essence1 believes in nothing else than the truth and divinity of human nature4 ,or let it be proved that the historical as well as the rational arguments of my work are false2 let them be refuted--not1 however1 ,i entreat1 by judicial denunciations1 or theological jeremiads1 by the trite phrases of speculation1 or other pitiful expedients for which ,i have no name1 but by reasons1 and such reasons as ,i have not already thoroughly answered4 ,certainly1 my work is negative1 destructive2 but1 be it observed1 only in relation to the unhuman1 not to the human elements of religion4 ,it is therefore divided into two parts1 of which the first is1 as to its main idea1 positive1 the second1 including the ,appendix1 not wholly1 but in the main1 negative2 in both1 however1 the same positions are proved1 only in a different or rather opposite manner4 ,the first exhibits religion in its essence1 its truth1 the second exhibits it in its contradictions2 the first is development1 the second polemic2 thus the one is1 according to the nature of the case1 calmer1 the other more vehement4 ,development advances gently1 contest impetuously2 for development is self-contented at every stage1 contest only at the last blow4 ,development is deliberate1 but contest resolute4 ,development is light1 contest fire4 ,hence results a difference between the two parts even as to their form4 ,thus in the first part ,i show that the true sense of ,theology is ,anthropology1 that there is no distinction between the predicates of the divine and human nature1 and1 consequently1 no distinction between the divine and human subject3 ,i say consequently1 for wherever1 as is especially the case in theology1 the predicates are not accidents1 but express the essence of the subject1 there is no distinction between subject and predicate1 the one can be put in the place of the other2 on which point ,i refer the reader to the ,analytics of ,aristotle1 or even merely to the ,introduction of ,porphyry4 ,in the second part1 on the other hand1 ,i show that the distinction which is made1 or rather supposed to be made1 between the theological and anthropological predicates resolves itself into an absurdity4 ,here is a striking example4 ,in the first part ,i prove that the ,son of ,god is in religion a real son1 the son of ,god in the same sense in which man is the son of man1 and ,i find therein the truth1 the essence of religion1 that it conceives and affirms a profoundly human relation as a divine relation2 on the other hand1 in the second part ,i show that the ,son of ,god--not indeed in religion1 but in theology1 which is the reflection of religion upon itself1--is not a son in the natural1 human sense1 but in an entirely different manner1 contradictory to ,nature and reason1 and therefore absurd1 and ,i find in this negation of human sense and the human understanding1 the negation of religion4 ,accordingly the first part is the direct1 the second the indirect proof1 that theology is anthropology3 hence the second part necessarily has reference to the first2 it has no independent significance2 its only aim is to show that the sense in which religion is interpreted in the previous part of the work must be the true one1 because the contrary is absurd4 ,in brief1 in the first part ,i am chiefly concerned with religion1 in the second with theology3 ,i say chiefly1 for it was impossible to exclude theology from the first part1 or religion from the second4 ,a mere glance will show that my investigation includes speculative theology or philosophy1 and not1 as has been here and there erroneously supposed1 common theology only1 a kind of trash from which ,i rather keep as clear as possible1 7though1 for the rest1 ,i am sufficiently well acquainted with it71 confining myself always to the most essential1 strict and necessary definition of the object1 #b and hence to that definition which gives to an object the most general interest1 and raises it above the sphere of theology4 ,but it is with theology that ,i have to do1 not with theologians2 for ,i can only undertake to characterise what is primary1--the original1 not the copy1 principles1 not persons1 species1 not individuals1 objects of history1 not objects of the chronique scandaleuse4 ,if my work contained only the second part1 it would be perfectly just to accuse it of a negative tendency1 to represent the proposition3 ,religion is nothing1 is an absurdity1 as its essential purport4 ,but ,i by no means say 7that were an easy task673 ,god is nothing1 the ,trinity is nothing1 the ,word of ,god is nothing1 c4 ,i only show that they are not that which the illusions of theology make them1--not foreign1 but native mysteries1 the mysteries of human nature2 ,i show that religion takes the apparent1 the superficial in ,nature and humanity for the essential1 and hence conceives their true essence as a separate1 special existence3 that consequently1 religion1 in the definitions which it gives of ,god1 e4g41 of the ,word of ,god1--at least in those definitions which are not negative in the sense above alluded to1--only defines or makes objective the true nature of the human word4 ,the reproach that according to my book religion is an absurdity1 a nullity1 a pure illusion1 would be well founded only if1 according to it1 that into which ,i resolve religion1 which ,i prove to be its true object and substance1 namely1 man1--anthropology1 were an absurdity1 a nullity1 a pure illusion4 ,but so far from giving a trivial or even a subordinate significance to anthropology1--a significance which is assigned to it only just so long as a theology stands above it and in opposition to it1--,i1 on the contrary1 while reducing theology to anthropology1 exalt anthropology into theology1 very much as ,christianity1 while lowering ,god into man1 made man into ,god2 though1 it is true1 this human ,god was by a further process made a transcendental1 imaginary ,god1 remote from man4 ,hence it is obvious that ,i do not take the word anthropology in the sense of the ,hegelian or of any other philosophy1 but in an infinitely higher and more general sense4 ,religion is the dream of the human mind4 ,but even in dreams we do not find ourselves in emptiness or in heaven1 but on earth1 in the realm of reality2 we only see real things in the entrancing splendour of imagination and caprice1 instead of in the simple daylight of reality and necessity4 ,hence ,i do nothing more to religion--and to speculative philosophy and theology also--than to open its eyes1 or rather to turn its gaze from the internal towards the external1 i4e41 ,i change the object as it is in the imagination into the object as it is in reality4 ,but certainly for the present age1 which prefers the sign to the thing signified1 the copy to the original1 fancy to reality1 the appearance to the essence1 this change1 inasmuch as it does away with illusion1 is an absolute annihilation1 or at least a reckless profanation2 for in these days illusion only is sacred1 truth profane4 ,nay1 sacredness is held to be enhanced in proportion as truth decreases and illusion increases1 so that the highest degree of illusion comes to be the highest degree of sacredness4 ,religion has disappeared1 and for it has been substituted1 even among ,protestants1 the appearance of religion--the ,church--in order at least that the faith may be imparted to the ignorant and indiscriminating multitude2 that faith being still the ,christian1 because the ,christian churches stand now as they did a thousand years ago1 and now1 as formerly1 the external signs of the faith are in vogue4 ,that which has no longer any existence in faith 7the faith of the modern world is only an ostensible faith1 a faith which does not believe what it fancies that it believes1 and is only an undecided1 pusillanimous unbelief7 is still to pass current as opinion3 that which is no longer sacred in itself and in truth is still at least to seem sacred4 ,hence the simulated religious indignation of the present age1 the age of shows and illusion1 concerning my analysis1 especially of the ,sacraments4 ,but let it not be demanded of an author who proposes to himself as his goal not the favour of his contemporaries1 but only the truth1 the unveiled1 naked truth1 that he should have or feign respect towards an empty appearance1 especially as the object which underlies this appearance is in itself the culminating point of religion1 i4e41 the point at which the religious slides into the irreligious4 ,thus much in justification1 not in excuse1 of my analysis of the ,sacraments4 ,with regard to the true bearing of my analysis of the ,sacraments1 especially as presented in the concluding chapter1 ,i only remark1 that ,i therein illustrate by a palpable and visible example the essential purport1 the peculiar theme of my work2 that ,i therein call upon the senses themselves to witness to the truth of my analysis and my ideas1 and demonstrate ad oculos1 ad tactum1 ad gustum1 what ,i have taught ad captum throughout the previous pages4 ,as1 namely1 the water of ,baptism1 the wine and bread of the ,lord's ,supper1 taken in their natural power and significance1 are and effect infinitely more than in a supernaturalistic1 illusory significance2 so the object of religion in general1 conceived in the sense of this work1 i4e41 the anthropological sense1 is infinitely more productive and real1 both in theory and practice1 than when accepted in the sense of theology4 ,for as that which is or is supposed to be imparted in the water1 bread1 and wine1 over and above these natural substances themselves1 is something in the imagination only1 but in truth1 in reality1 nothing2 so also the object of religion in general1 the ,divine essence1 in distinction from the essence of ,nature and ,humanity1--that is to say1 if its attributes1 as understanding1 love1 c41 are and signify something else than these attributes as they belong to man and ,nature1--is only something in the imagination1 but in truth and reality nothing4 ,therefore--this is the moral of the fable--we should not1 as is the case in theology and speculative philosophy1 make real beings and things into arbitrary signs1 vehicles1 symbols1 or predicates of a distinct1 transcendent1 absolute1 i4e41 abstract being2 but we should accept and understand them in the significance which they have in themselves1 which is identical with their qualities1 with those conditions which make them what they are3--thus only do we obtain the key to a real theory and practice4 ,i1 in fact1 put in the place of the barren baptismal water1 the beneficent effect of real water4 ,how watery1 how trivial6 ,yes1 indeed1 very trivial4 ,but so ,marriage1 in its time1 was a very trivial truth1 which ,luther1 on the ground of his natural good sense1 maintained in opposition to the seemingly holy illusion of celibacy4 ,but while ,i thus view water as a real thing1 ,i at the same time intend it as a vehicle1 an image1 an example1 a symbol1 of the unholy spirit of my work1 just as the water of ,baptism--the object of my analysis--is at once literal and symbolical water4 ,it is the same with bread and wine4 ,malignity has hence drawn the conclusion that bathing1 eating1 and drinking are the summa summarum1 the positive result of my work4 ,i make no other reply than this3 ,if the whole of religion is contained in the ,sacraments1 and there are consequently no other religious acts than those which are performed in ,baptism and the ,lord's ,supper2 then ,i grant that the entire purport and positive result of my work are bathing1 eating1 and drinking1 since this work is nothing but a faithful1 rigid1 historico-philosophical analysis of religion--the revelation of religion to itself1 the awakening of religion to self-consciousness4 ,i say an historico-philosophical analysis1 in distinction from a merely historical analysis of ,christianity4 ,the historical critic--such a one1 for example1 as ,daumer or ,ghillany--shows that the ,lord's ,supper is a rite lineally descended from the ancient cultus of human sacrifice2 that once1 instead of bread and wine1 real human flesh and blood were partaken4 ,i1 on the contrary1 take as the object of my analysis and reduction only the ,christian significance of the rite1 that view of it which is sanctioned ,christianity1 and ,i proceed on the supposition that only that significance which a dogma or institution has in ,christianity 7of course in ancient ,christianity1 not in modern71 whether it may present itself in other religions or not1 is also the true origin of that dogma or institution in so far as it is ,christian4 ,again1 the historical critic1 as1 for example1 ,ltzelberger1 shows that the narratives of the miracles of ,christ resolve themselves into contradictions and absurdities1 that they are later fabrications1 and that consequently ,christ was no miracle-worker1 nor1 in general1 that which he is represented to be in the ,bible4 ,i1 on the other hand1 do not inquire what the real1 natural ,christ was or may have been in distinction from what he has been made or has become in ,supernaturalism2 on the contrary1 ,i accept the ,christ of religion1 but ,i show that this superhuman being is nothing else than a product and reflex of the supernatural human mind4 ,i do not ask whether this or that1 or any miracle can happen or not2 ,i only show what miracle is1 and ,i show it not priori1 but by examples of miracles narrated in the ,bible as real events2 in doing so1 however1 ,i answer or rather preclude the question as to the possibility or reality of necessity of miracle4 ,thus much concerning the distinction between me and the historical critics who have attacked ,christianity4 ,as regards my relation to ,strauss and ,bruno ,bauer1 in company with whom ,i am constantly named1 ,i merely point out here that the distinction between our works is sufficiently indicated by the distinction between their objects1 which is implied even in the title-page4 ,bauer takes for the object of his criticism the evangelical history1 i4e41 biblical ,christianity1 or rather biblical theology2 ,strauss1 the ,system of ,christian ,doctrine and the ,life of ,jesus 7which may also be included under the title of ,christian ,doctrine71 i4e41 dogmatic ,christianity1 or rather dogmatic theology2 ,i1 ,christianity in general1 i4e41 the ,christian religion1 and consequently only ,christian philosophy or theology4 ,hence ,i take my citations chiefly from men in whom ,christianity was not merely a theory or a dogma1 not merely theology1 but religion4 ,my principal theme is ,christianity1 is ,religion1 as it is the immediate object1 the immediate nature1 of man4 ,erudition and philosophy are to me only the means by which ,i bring to light the treasure hid in man4 ,i must further mention that the circulation which my work has had amongst the public at large was neither desired nor expected by me4 ,it is true that ,i have always taken as the standard of the mode of teaching and writing1 not the abstract1 particular1 professional philosopher1 but universal man1 that ,i have regarded man as the criterion of truth1 and not this or that founder of a system1 and have from the first placed the highest excellence of the philosopher in this1 that he abstains1 both as a man and as an author1 from the ostentation of philosophy1 i4e41 that he is a philosopher only in reality1 not formally1 that he is a quiet philosopher1 not a loud and still less a brawling one4 ,hence1 in all my works1 as well as in the present one1 ,i have made the utmost clearness1 simplicity1 and definiteness a law to myself1 so that they may be understood1 at least in the main1 by every cultivated and thinking man4 ,but notwithstanding this1 my work can be appreciated and fully understood only by the scholar1 that is to say1 by the scholar who loves truth1 who is capable of forming a judgment1 who is above the notions and prejudices of the learned and unlearned vulgar2 for although a thoroughly independent production1 it has yet its necessary logical basis in history4 ,i very frequently refer to this or that historical phenomenon without expressly designating it1 thinking this superfluous2 and such references can be understood by the scholar alone4 ,thus1 for example1 in the very first chapter1 where ,i develop the necessary consequences of the standpoint of ,feeling1 ,i allude to ,jacobi and ,schleiermacher2 in the second chapter ,i allude chiefly to ,kantism1 ,scepticism1 ,theism1 ,materialism and ,pantheism2 in the chapter on the ,standpoint of ,religion1 where ,i discuss the contradictions between the religious or theological and the physical or natural-philosophical view of ,nature1 ,i refer to philosophy in the age of orthodoxy1 and especially to the philosophy of ,descartes and ,leibnitz1 in which this contradiction presents itself in a peculiarly characteristic manner4 ,the reader1 therefore1 who is unacquainted with the historical facts and ideas presupposed in my work1 will fail to perceive on what my arguments and ideas hinge2 no wonder if my positions often appear to him baseless1 however firm the footing on which they stand4 ,it is true that the subject of my work is of universal human interest2 moreover1 its fundamental ideas1 though not in the form in which they are here expressed1 or in which they could be expressed under existing circumstances1 will one day become the common property of mankind3 for nothing is opposed to them in the present day but empty1 powerless illusions and prejudices in contradiction with the true nature of man4 ,but in considering this subject in the first instance1 ,i was under the necessity of treating it as a matter of science1 of philosophy2 and in rectifying the aberrations of ,religion1 ,theology1 and ,speculation1 ,i was naturally obliged to use their expressions1 and even to appear to speculate1 or--which is the same thing--to turn theologian myself1 while ,i nevertheless only analyse speculation1 i4e41 reduce theology to anthropology4 ,my work1 as ,i said before1 contains1 and applies in the concrete1 the principle of a new philosophy suited--not to the schools1 but--to man4 ,yes1 it contains that principle1 but only by evolving it out of the very core of religion2 hence1 be it said in passing1 the new philosophy can no longer1 like the old ,catholic and modern ,protestant scholasticism1 fall into the temptation to prove its agreement with religion by its agreement with ,christian dogmas2 on the contrary1 being evolved from the nature of religion1 it has in itself the true essence of religion1--is1 in its very quality as a philosophy1 a religion also4 ,but a work which considers ideas in their genesis and explains and demonstrates them in strict sequence1 is1 by the very form which this purpose imposes upon it1 unsuited to popular reading4 ,lastly1 as a supplement to this work with regard to many apparently unvindicated positions1 ,i refer to my articles in the ,deutsches ,jahrbuch1 ,january and ,february #ahdb1 to my critiques and ,charakteristiken des modernen ,after-christenthums1 in previous numbers of the same periodical1 and to my earlier works1 especially the following3--,p4 ,bayle4 ,ein ,beitrag zur ,geschichte der ,philosophie und ,menschheit1 ,ausbach1 #ahch1 and ,philosophie und ,christenthum1 ,mannheim1 #ahci4 ,in these works ,i have sketched1 with a few sharp touches1 the historical solution of ,christianity1 and have shown that ,christianity has in fact long vanished1 not only from the reason but from the life of mankind1 that it is nothing more than a fixed idea1 in flagrant contradiction with our fire and life assurance companies1 our railroads and steam-carriages1 our picture and sculpture galleries1 our military and industrial schools1 our theatres and scientific museums4 ,,ludwig ,,feuerbach4 ,bruckberg1 ,feb4 #ad1 #ahdc4 ,,contents4 ,,introduction4 ,,chapter ,,page ,i4 #a4 ,the ,essential ,nature of ,man #a #b4 ,the ,essence of ,religion ,considered ,generally #ab ,part ,i4 ,,the ,,true ,,or ,,anthropological ,,essence ,,of ,,religion4 ,,ii4 ,god as a ,being of the ,understanding #cc ,,iii4 ,god as a ,moral ,being or ,law #dd ,,iv4 ,the ,mystery of the ,incarnation2 or1 ,god as ,love1 as a ,being of the ,heart #ej ,v4 ,the ,mystery of the ,suffering ,god #ei ,,vi4 ,the ,mystery of the ,trinity and the ,mother of ,god #fe ,,vii4 ,the ,mystery of the ,logos and ,divine ,image #gd ,,viii4 ,the ,mystery of the ,cosmogonical ,principle in ,god #hj ,,ix4 ,the ,mystery of ,mysticism1 or of ,nature in ,god #hg ,x4 ,the ,mystery of ,providence and ,creation out of ,nothing #aja ,,xi4 ,the ,significance of the ,creation in ,judaism #aab ,,xii4 ,the ,omnipotence of ,feeling1 or the ,mystery of ,prayer #abj ,,xiii4 ,the ,mystery of ,faith--,the ,mystery of ,miracle #abf ,,xiv4 ,the ,mystery of the ,resurrection and of the ,miraculous ,conception #ace ,,xv4 ,the ,mystery of the ,christian ,christ1 or the ,personal ,god #adj ,,xvi4 ,the ,distinction between ,christianity and ,heathenism #aej ,,xvii4 ,the ,significance of ,voluntary ,celibacy and ,monachism #afj ,,xviii4 ,the ,christian ,heaven1 or ,personal ,immortality #agj ,part ,,ii4 ,,the ,,false ,,or ,,theological ,,essence ,,of ,,religion4 ,,xix4 ,the ,essential ,standpoint of ,religion #ahe ,,xx4 ,the ,contradiction in the ,existence of ,god #aig ,,xxi4 ,the ,contradiction in the ,revelation of ,god #bjd ,,xxii4 ,the ,contradiction in the ,nature of ,god in ,general #bac ,,xxiii4 ,the ,contradiction in the ,speculative ,doctrine of ,god #bbf ,,xxiv4 ,the ,contradiction in the ,trinity #bcb ,,xxv4 ,the ,contradiction in the ,sacraments #bcf ,,xxvi4 ,the ,contradiction of ,faith and ,love #bdg ,,xxvii4 ,concluding ,application #bgj ,,appendix4 ,,section #a4 ,the ,religious ,emotions ,purely ,human #bha #b4 ,god is ,feeling ,released from ,limits #bhc #c4 ,god is the ,highest ,feeling of ,self #bhd #d4 ,distinction between the ,pantheistic and ,personal ,god #bhe #e4 ,nature without ,interest for ,christians #bhg #f4 ,in ,god ,man is his ,own ,object #bhi #g4 ,christianity the ,religion of ,suffering #bib #h4 ,mystery of the ,trinity #bic #i4 ,creation out of ,nothing #big #aj4 ,egoism of the ,israelitish ,religion #bih #aa4 ,the ,idea of ,providence #bii #ab4 ,contradiction of ,faith and ,reason #cjd #ac4 ,the ,resurrection of ,christ #cjf #ad4 ,the ,christian a ,supermundane ,being #cjg #ae4 ,the ,celibate and ,monachism #cjh #af4 ,the ,christian ,heaven #cae #ag4 ,what ,faith ,denies on ,earth it ,affirms in ,heaven #caf #ah4 ,contradictions in the ,sacraments #cag #ai4 ,contradiction of ,faith and ,love #cbj #bj4 ,results of the ,principle of ,faith #cbf #ba4 ,contradiction of the ,god-,man #ccb #bb4 ,anthropology the ,mystery of ,theology #ccf ,,the ,,essence ,,of ,,christianity4 ,,chapter ,i4 ,,introduction4 #a4 ,the ,essential ,nature of ,man4 ,religion has its basis in the essential difference between man and the brute--the brutes have no religion4 ,it is true that the old uncritical writers on natural history attributed to the elephant1 among other laudable qualities1 the virtue of religiousness2 but the religion of elephants belongs to the realm of fable4 ,cuvier1 one of the greatest authorities on the animal kingdom1 assigns1 on the strength of his personal observations1 no higher grade of intelligence to the elephant than to the dog4 ,but what is this essential difference between man and the brute8 ,the most simple1 general1 and also the most popular answer to this question is--consciousness3--but consciousness in the strict sense2 for the consciousness implied in the feeling of self as an individual1 in discrimination by the senses1 in the perception and even judgment of outward things according to definite sensible signs1 cannot be denied to the brutes4 ,consciousness in the strictest sense is present only in a being to whom his species1 his essential nature1 is an object of thought4 ,the brute is indeed conscious of himself as an individual--and he has accordingly the feeling of self as the common centre of successive sensations--but not as a species3 hence1 he is without that consciousness which in its nature1 as in its name1 is akin to science4 ,where there is this higher consciousness there is a capability of science4 ,science is the cognisance of species4 ,in practical life we have to do with individuals2 in science1 with species4 ,but only a being to whom his own species1 his own nature1 is an object of thought1 can make the essential nature of other things or beings an object of thought4 ,hence the brute has only a simple1 man a twofold life3 in the brute1 the inner life is one with the outer2 man has both an inner and an outer life4 ,the inner life of man is the life which has relation to his species1 to his general1 as distinguished from his individual1 nature4 ,man thinks--that is1 he converses with himself4 ,the brute can exercise no function which has relation to its species without another individual external to itself2 but man can perform the functions of thought and speech1 which strictly imply such a relation1 apart from another individual4 ,man is himself at once ,i and thou2 he can put himself in the place of another1 for this reason1 that to him his species1 his essential nature1 and not merely his individuality1 is an object of thought4 ,religion being identical with the distinctive characteristic of man1 is then identical with self-consciousness--with the consciousness which man has of his nature4 ,but religion1 expressed generally1 is consciousness of the infinite2 thus it is and can be nothing else than the consciousness which man has of his own--not finite and limited1 but infinite nature4 ,a really finite being has not even the faintest adumbration1 still less consciousness1 of an infinite being1 for the limit of the nature is also the limit of the consciousness4 ,the consciousness of the caterpillar1 whose life is confined to a particular species of plant1 does not extend itself beyond this narrow domain4 ,it does1 indeed1 discriminate between this plant and other plants1 but more it knows not4 ,a consciousness so limited1 but on account of that very limitation so infallible1 we do not call consciousness1 but instinct4 ,consciousness1 in the strict or proper sense1 is identical with consciousness of the infinite2 a limited consciousness is no consciousness2 consciousness is essentially infinite in its nature4 #c ,the consciousness of the infinite is nothing else than the consciousness of the infinity of the consciousness2 or1 in the consciousness of the infinite1 the conscious subject has for his object the infinity of his own nature4 ,what1 then1 is the nature of man1 of which he is conscious1 or what constitutes the specific distinction1 the proper humanity of man8 #d ,reason1 ,will1 ,affection4 ,to a complete man belong the power of thought1 the power of will1 the power of affection4 ,the power of thought is the light of the intellect1 the power of will is energy of character1 the power of affection is love4 ,reason1 love1 force of will1 are perfections--the perfections of the human being--nay1 more1 they are absolute perfections of being4 ,to will1 to love1 to think1 are the highest powers1 are the absolute nature of man as man1 and the basis of his existence4 ,man exists to think1 to love1 to will4 ,now that which is the end1 the ultimate aim1 is also the true basis and principle of a being4 ,but what is the end of reason8 ,reason4 ,of love8 ,love4 ,of will8 ,freedom of the will4 ,we think for the sake of thinking2 love for the sake of loving2 will for the sake of willing--i4e41 that we may be free4 ,true existence is thinking1 loving1 willing existence4 ,that alone is true1 perfect1 divine1 which exists for its own sake4 ,but such is love1 such is reason1 such is will4 ,the divine trinity in man1 above the individual man1 is the unity of reason1 love1 will4 ,reason1 ,will1 ,love1 are not powers which man possesses1 for he is nothing without them1 he is what he is only by them2 they are the constituent elements of his nature1 which he neither has nor makes1 the animating1 determining1 governing powers--divine1 absolute powers--to which he can oppose no resistance4 #e ,how can the feeling man resist feeling1 the loving one love1 the rational one reason8 ,who has not experienced the overwhelming power of melody8 ,and what else is the power of melody but the power of feeling8 ,music is the language of feeling2 melody is audible feeling--feeling communicating itself4 ,who has not experienced the power of love1 or at least heard of it8 ,which is the stronger--love or the individual man8 ,is it man that possesses love1 or is it not much rather love that possesses man8 ,when love impels a man to suffer death even joyfully for the beloved one1 is this death-conquering power his own individual power1 or is it not rather the power of love8 ,and who that ever truly thought has not experienced that quiet1 subtle power--the power of thought8 ,when thou sinkest into deep reflection1 forgetting thyself and what is around thee1 dost thou govern reason1 or is it not reason which governs and absorbs thee8 ,scientific enthusiasm--is it not the most glorious triumph of intellect over thee8 ,the desire of knowledge--is it not a simply irresistible1 and all-conquering power8 ,and when thou suppressest a passion1 renouncest a habit1 in short1 achievest a victory over thyself1 is this victorious power thy own personal power1 or is it not rather the energy of will1 the force of morality1 which seizes the mastery of thee1 and fills thee with indignation against thyself and thy individual weaknesses8 ,man is nothing without an object4 ,the great models of humanity1 such men as reveal to us what man is capable of1 have attested the truth of this proposition by their lives4 ,they had only one dominant passion--the realisation of the aim which was the essential object of their activity4 ,but the object to which a subject essentially1 necessarily relates1 is nothing else than this subject's own1 but objective1 nature4 ,if it be an object common to several individuals of the same species1 but under various conditions1 it is still1 at least as to the form under which it presents itself to each of them according to their respective modifications1 their own1 but objective1 nature4 ,thus the ,sun is the common object of the planets1 but it is an object to ,mercury1 to ,venus1 to ,saturn1 to ,uranus1 under other conditions than to the ,earth4 ,each planet has its own sun4 ,the ,sun which lights and warms ,uranus has no physical 7only an astronomical1 scientific7 existence for the ,earth2 and not only does the ,sun appear different1 but it really is another sun on ,uranus than on the ,earth4 ,the relation of the ,sun to the ,earth is therefore at the same time a relation of the ,earth to itself1 or to its own nature1 for the measure of the size and of the intensity of light which the ,sun possesses as the object of the ,earth is the measure of the distance which determines the peculiar nature of the ,earth4 ,hence each planet has in its sun the mirror of its own nature4 ,in the object which he contemplates1 therefore1 man becomes acquainted with himself2 consciousness of the objective is the self-consciousness of man4 ,we know the man by the object1 by his conception of what is external to himself2 in it his nature becomes evident2 this object is his manifested nature1 his true objective ego4 ,and this is true not merely of spiritual1 but also of sensuous objects4 ,even the objects which are the most remote from man1 because they are objects to him1 and to the extent to which they are so1 are revelations of human nature4 ,even the moon1 the sun1 the stars1 call to man ,gnothi seauton4 ,that he sees them1 and so sees them1 is an evidence of his own nature4 ,the animal is sensible only of the beam which immediately affects life2 while man perceives the ray1 to him physically indifferent1 of the remotest star4 ,man alone has purely intellectual1 disinterested joys and passions2 the eye of man alone keeps theoretic festivals4 ,the eye which looks into the starry heavens1 which gazes at that light1 alike useless and harmless1 having nothing in common with the earth and its necessities--this eye sees in that light its own nature1 its own origin4 ,the eye is heavenly in its nature4 ,hence man elevates himself above the earth only with the eye2 hence theory begins with the contemplation of the heavens4 ,the first philosophers were astronomers4 ,it is the heavens that admonish man of his destination1 and remind him that he is destined not merely to action1 but also to contemplation4 ,the absolute to man is his own nature4 ,the power of the object over him is therefore the power of his own nature4 ,thus the power of the object of feeling is the power of feeling itself2 the power of the object of the intellect is the power of the intellect itself2 the power of the object of the will is the power of the will itself4 ,the man who is affected by musical sounds is governed by feeling2 by the feeling1 that is1 which finds its corresponding element in musical sounds4 ,but it is not melody as such1 it is only melody pregnant with meaning and emotion1 which has power over feeling4 ,feeling is only acted on by that which conveys feeling1 i4e41 by itself1 its own nature4 ,thus also the will2 thus1 and infinitely more1 the intellect4 ,whatever kind of object1 therefore1 we are at any time conscious of1 we are always at the same time conscious of our own nature2 we can affirm nothing without affirming ourselves4 ,and since to will1 to feel1 to think1 are perfections1 essences1 realities1 it is impossible that intellect1 feeling1 and will should feel or perceive themselves as limited1 finite powers1 i4e41 as worthless1 as nothing4 ,for finiteness and nothingness are identical2 finiteness is only a euphemism for nothingness4 ,finiteness is the metaphysical1 the theoretical--nothingness the pathological1 practical expression4 ,what is finite to the understanding is nothing to the heart4 ,but it is impossible that we should be conscious of will1 feeling1 and intellect1 as finite powers1 because every perfect existence1 every original power and essence1 is the immediate verification and affirmation of itself4 ,it is impossible to love1 will1 or think1 without perceiving these activities to be perfections--impossible to feel that one is a loving1 willing1 thinking being1 without experiencing an infinite joy therein4 ,consciousness consists in a being becoming objective to itself2 hence it is nothing apart1 nothing distinct from the being which is conscious of itself4 ,how could it otherwise become conscious of itself8 ,it is therefore impossible to be conscious of a perfection as an imperfection1 impossible to feel feeling limited1 to think thought limited4 ,consciousness is self-verification1 self-affirmation1 self-love1 joy in one's own perfection4 ,consciousness is the characteristic mark of a perfect nature2 it exists only in a self-sufficing1 complete being4 ,even human vanity attests this truth4 ,a man looks in the glass2 he has complacency in his appearance4 ,this complacency is a necessary1 involuntary consequence of the completeness1 the beauty of his form4 ,a beautiful form is satisfied in itself2 it has necessarily joy in itself--in self-contemplation4 ,this complacency becomes vanity only when a man piques himself on his form as being his individual form1 not when he admires it as a specimen of human beauty in general4 ,it is fitting that he should admire it thus3 he can conceive no form more beautiful1 more sublime than the human4 #f ,assuredly every being loves itself1 its existence--and fitly so4 ,to exist is a good4 ,quidquid essentia dignum est1 scientia dignum est4 ,everything that exists has value1 is a being of distinction--at least this is true of the species3 hence it asserts1 maintains itself4 ,but the highest form of self-assertion1 the form which is itself a superiority1 a perfection1 a bliss1 a good1 is consciousness4 ,every limitation of the reason1 or in general of the nature of man1 rests on a delusion1 an error4 ,it is true that the human being1 as an individual1 can and must--herein consists his distinction from the brute--feel and recognise himself to be limited2 but he can become conscious of his limits1 his finiteness1 only because the perfection1 the infinitude of his species1 is perceived by him1 whether as an object of feeling1 of conscience1 or of the thinking consciousness4 ,if he makes his own limitations the limitations of the species1 this arises from the mistake that he identifies himself immediately with the species--a mistake which is intimately connected with the individual's love of ease1 sloth1 vanity1 and egoism4 ,for a limitation which ,i know to be merely mine humiliates1 shames1 and perturbs me4 ,hence to free myself from this feeling of shame1 from this state of dissatisfaction1 ,i convert the limits of my individuality into the limits of human nature in general4 ,what is incomprehensible to me is incomprehensible to others2 why should ,i trouble myself further8 ,it is no fault of mine2 my understanding is not to blame1 but the understanding of the race4 ,but it is a ludicrous and even culpable error to define as finite and limited what constitutes the essence of man1 the nature of the species1 which is the absolute nature of the individual4 ,every being is sufficient to itself4 ,no being can deny itself1 i4e41 its own nature2 no being is a limited one to itself4 ,rather1 every being is in and by itself infinite--has its ,god1 its highest conceivable being1 in itself4 ,every limit of a being is cognisable only by another being out of and above him4 ,the life of the ephemera is extraordinarily short in comparison with that of longer-lived creatures2 but nevertheless1 for the ephemera this short life is as long as a life of years to others4 ,the leaf on which the caterpillar lives is for it a world1 an infinite space4 ,that which makes a being what it is1 is its talent1 its power1 its wealth1 its adornment4 ,how can it possibly hold its existence non-existence1 its wealth poverty1 its talent incapacity8 ,if the plants had eyes1 taste1 and judgment1 each plant would declare its own flower the most beautiful2 for its comprehension1 its taste1 would reach no farther than its natural power of production4 ,what the productive power of its nature has brought forth as the highest1 that must also its taste1 its judgment1 recognise and affirm as the highest4 ,what the nature affirms1 the understanding1 the taste1 the judgment1 cannot deny2 otherwise the understanding1 the judgment1 would no longer be the understanding and judgment of this particular being1 but of some other4 ,the measure of the nature is also the measure of the understanding4 ,if the nature is limited1 so also is the feeling1 so also is the understanding4 ,but to a limited being its limited understanding is not felt to be a limitation2 on the contrary1 it is perfectly happy and contented with this understanding2 it regards it1 praises and values it1 as a glorious1 divine power2 and the limited understanding1 on its part1 values the limited nature whose understanding it is4 ,each is exactly adapted to the other2 how should they be at issue with each other8 ,a being's understanding is its sphere of vision4 ,as far as thou seest1 so far extends thy nature2 and conversely4 ,the eye of the brute reaches no farther than its needs1 and its nature no farther than its needs4 ,and so far as thy nature reaches1 so far reaches thy unlimited self-consciousness1 so far art thou ,god4 ,the discrepancy between the understanding and the nature1 between the power of conception and the power of production in the human consciousness1 on the one hand1 is merely of individual significance and has not a universal application2 and1 on the other hand1 it is only apparent4 ,he who1 having written a bad poem1 knows it to be bad1 is in his intelligence1 and therefore in his nature1 not so limited as he who1 having written a bad poem1 admires it and thinks it good4 ,it follows that if thou thinkest the infinite1 thou perceivest and affirmest the infinitude of the power of thought2 if thou feelest the infinite1 thou feelest and affirmest the infinitude of the power of feeling4 ,the object of the intellect is intellect objective to itself2 the object of feeling is feeling objective to itself4 ,if thou hast no sensibility1 no feeling for music1 thou perceivest in the finest music nothing more than in the wind that whistles by thy ear1 or than in the brook which rushes past thy feet4 ,what1 then1 is it which acts on thee when thou art affected by melody8 ,what dost thou perceive in it8 ,what else than the voice of thy own heart8 ,feeling speaks only to feeling2 feeling is comprehensible only by feeling1 that is1 by itself--for this reason1 that the object of feeling is nothing else than feeling4 ,music is a monologue of emotion4 ,but the dialogue of philosophy also is in truth only a monologue of the intellect2 thought speaks only to thought4 ,the splendours of the crystal charm the sense1 but the intellect is interested only in the laws of crystallisation4 ,the intellectual only is the object of the intellect4 #g ,all therefore which1 in the point of view of metaphysical1 transcendental speculation and religion1 has the significance only of the secondary1 the subjective1 the medium1 the organ--has in truth the significance of the primary1 of the essence1 of the object itself4 ,if1 for example1 feeling is the essential organ of religion1 the nature of ,god is nothing else than an expression of the nature of feeling4 ,the true but latent sense of the phrase1 ,feeling is the organ of the divine1 is1 feeling is the noblest1 the most excellent1 i4e41 the divine1 in man4 ,how couldst thou perceive the divine by feeling1 if feeling were not itself divine in its nature8 ,the divine assuredly is known only by means of the divine--,god is known only by himself4 ,the divine nature which is discerned by feeling is in truth nothing else than feeling enraptured1 in ecstasy with itself--feeling intoxicated with joy1 blissful in its own plenitude4 ,it is already clear from this that where feeling is held to be the organ of the infinite1 the subjective essence of religion1--the external data of religion lose their objective value4 ,and thus1 since feeling has been held the cardinal principle in religion1 the doctrines of ,christianity1 formerly so sacred1 have lost their importance4 ,if1 from this point of view1 some value is still conceded to ,christian ideas1 it is a value springing entirely from the relation they bear to feeling2 if another object would excite the same emotions1 it would be just as welcome4 ,but the object of religious feeling is become a matter of indifference1 only because when once feeling has been pronounced to be the subjective essence of religion1 it in fact is also the objective essence of religion1 though it may not be declared1 at least directly1 to be such4 ,i say directly2 for indirectly this is certainly admitted1 when it is declared that feeling1 as such1 is religious1 and thus the distinction between specifically religious and irreligious1 or at least non-religious1 feelings is abolished--a necessary consequence of the point of view in which feeling only is regarded as the organ of the divine4 ,for on what other ground than that of its essence1 its nature1 dost thou hold feeling to be the organ of the infinite1 the divine being8 ,and is not the nature of feeling in general also the nature of every special feeling1 be its object what it may8 ,what1 then1 makes this feeling religious8 ,a given object8 ,not at all2 for this object is itself a religious one only when it is not an object of the cold understanding or memory1 but of feeling4 ,what then8 ,the nature of feeling--a nature of which every special feeling1 without distinction of objects1 partakes4 ,thus1 feeling is pronounced to be religious1 simply because it is feeling2 the ground of its religiousness is its own nature--lies in itself4 ,but is not feeling thereby declared to be itself the absolute1 the divine8 ,if feeling in itself is good1 religious1 i4e41 holy1 divine1 has not feeling its ,god in itself8 ,but if1 notwithstanding1 thou wilt posit an object of feeling1 but at the same time seekest to express thy feeling truly1 without introducing by thy reflection any foreign element1 what remains to thee but to distinguish between thy individual feeling and the general nature of feeling2--to separate the universal in feeling from the disturbing1 adulterating influences with which feeling is bound up in thee1 under thy individual conditions8 ,hence what thou canst alone contemplate1 declare to be the infinite1 and define as its essence1 is merely the nature of feeling4 ,thou hast thus no other definition of ,god than this3 ,god is pure1 unlimited1 free ,feeling4 ,every other ,god1 whom thou supposest1 is a ,god thrust upon thy feeling from without4 ,feeling is atheistic in the sense of the orthodox belief1 which attaches religion to an external object2 it denies an objective ,god--it is itself ,god4 ,in this point of view only the negation of feeling is the negation of ,god4 ,thou art simply too cowardly or too narrow to confess in words what thy feeling tacitly affirms4 ,fettered by outward considerations1 still in bondage to vulgar empiricism1 incapable of comprehending the spiritual grandeur of feeling1 thou art terrified before the religious atheism of thy heart4 ,by this fear thou destroyest the unity of thy feeling with itself1 in imagining to thyself an objective being distinct from thy feeling1 and thus necessarily sinking back into the old questions and doubts--is there a ,god or not8--questions and doubts which vanish1 nay1 are impossible1 where feeling is defined as the essence of religion4 ,feeling is thy own inward power1 but at the same time a power distinct from thee1 and independent of thee2 it is in thee1 above thee2 it is itself that which constitutes the objective in thee--thy own being which impresses thee as another being2 in short1 thy ,god4 ,how wilt thou1 then1 distinguish from this objective being within thee another objective being8 ,how wilt thou get beyond thy feeling8 ,but feeling has here been adduced only as an example4 ,it is the same with every other power1 faculty1 potentiality1 reality1 activity--the name is indifferent--which is defined as the essential organ of any object4 ,whatever is a subjective expression of a nature is simultaneously also its objective expression4 ,man cannot get beyond his true nature4 ,he may indeed by means of the imagination conceive individuals of another so-called higher kind1 but he can never get loose from his species1 his nature2 the conditions of being1 the positive final predicates which he gives to these other individuals1 are always determinations or qualities drawn from his own nature--qualities in which he in truth only images and projects himself4 ,there may certainly be thinking beings besides men on the other planets of our solar system4 ,but by the supposition of such beings we do not change our standing point--we extend our conceptions quantitatively not qualitatively4 ,for as surely as on the other planets there are the same laws of motion1 so surely are there the same laws of perception and thought as here4 ,in fact1 we people the other planets1 not that we may place there different beings from ourselves1 but more beings of our own or of a similar nature4 #h #b4 ,the ,essence of ,religion ,considered ,generally4 ,what we have hitherto been maintaining generally1 even with regard to sensational impressions1 of the relation between subject and object1 applies especially to the relation between the subject and the religious object4 ,in the perceptions of the senses consciousness of the object is distinguishable from consciousness of self2 but in religion1 consciousness of the object and self-consciousness coincide4 ,the object of the senses is out of man1 the religious object is within him1 and therefore as little forsakes him as his self-consciousness or his conscience2 it is the intimate1 the closest object4 ,god1 says ,augustine1 for example1 is nearer1 more related to us1 and therefore more easily known by us1 than sensible1 corporeal things4 #i ,the object of the senses is in itself indifferent--independent of the disposition or of the judgment2 but the object of religion is a selected object2 the most excellent1 the first1 the supreme being2 it essentially presupposes a critical judgment1 a discrimination between the divine and the non-divine1 between that which is worthy of adoration and that which is not worthy4 #aj ,and here may be applied1 without any limitation1 the proposition3 the object of any subject is nothing else than the subject's own nature taken objectively4 ,such as are a man's thoughts and dispositions1 such is his ,god2 so much worth as a man has1 so much and no more has his ,god4 ,consciousness of ,god is self-consciousness1 knowledge of ,god is self-knowledge4 ,by his ,god thou knowest the man1 and by the man his ,god2 the two are identical4 ,whatever is ,god to a man1 that is his heart and soul2 and conversely1 ,god is the manifested inward nature1 the expressed self of a man1--religion the solemn unveiling of a man's hidden treasures1 the revelation of his intimate thoughts1 the open confession of his love-secrets4 ,but when religion--consciousness of ,god--is designated as the self-consciousness of man1 this is not to be understood as affirming that the religious man is directly aware of this identity2 for1 on the contrary1 ignorance of it is fundamental to the peculiar nature of religion4 ,to preclude this misconception1 it is better to say1 religion is man's earliest and also indirect form of self-knowledge4 ,hence1 religion everywhere precedes philosophy1 as in the history of the race1 so also in that of the individual4 ,man first of all sees his nature as if out of himself1 before he finds it in himself4 ,his own nature is in the first instance contemplated by him as that of another being4 ,religion is the childlike condition of humanity2 but the child sees his nature--man--out of himself2 in childhood a man is an object to himself1 under the form of another man4 ,hence the historical progress of religion consists in this3 that what by an earlier religion was regarded as objective1 is now recognised as subjective2 that is1 what was formerly contemplated and worshipped as ,god is now perceived to be something human4 ,what was at first religion becomes at a later period idolatry2 man is seen to have adored his own nature4 ,man has given objectivity to himself1 but has not recognised the object as his own nature3 a later religion takes this forward step2 every advance in religion is therefore a deeper self-knowledge4 ,but every particular religion1 while it pronounces its predecessors idolatrous1 excepts itself--and necessarily so1 otherwise it would no longer be religion--from the fate1 the common nature of all religions3 it imputes only to other religions what is the fault1 if fault it be1 of religion in general4 ,because it has a different object1 a different tenor1 because it has transcended the ideas of preceding religions1 it erroneously supposes itself exalted above the necessary eternal laws which constitute the essence of religion--it fancies its object1 its ideas1 to be superhuman4 ,but the essence of religion1 thus hidden from the religious1 is evident to the thinker1 by whom religion is viewed objectively1 which it cannot be by its votaries4 ,and it is our task to show that the antithesis of divine and human is altogether illusory1 that it is nothing else than the antithesis between the human nature in general and the human individual2 that1 consequently1 the object and contents of the ,christian religion are altogether human4 ,religion1 at least the ,christian1 is the relation of man to himself1 or more correctly to his own nature 7i4e41 his subjective nature72 #aa but a relation to it1 viewed as a nature apart from his own4 ,the divine being is nothing else than the human being1 or1 rather1 the human nature purified1 freed from the limits of the individual man1 made objective--i4e41 contemplated and revered as another1 a distinct being4 ,all the attributes of the divine nature are1 therefore1 attributes of the human nature4 #ab ,in relation to the attributes1 the predicates1 of the ,divine ,being1 this is admitted without hesitation1 but by no means in relation to the subject of these predicates4 ,the negation of the subject is held to be irreligion1 nay1 atheism2 though not so the negation of the predicates4 ,but that which has no predicates or qualities1 has no effect upon me2 that which has no effect upon me has no existence for me4 ,to deny all the qualities of a being is equivalent to denying the being himself4 ,a being without qualities is one which cannot become an object to the mind1 and such a being is virtually non-existent4 ,where man deprives ,god of all qualities1 ,god is no longer anything more to him than a negative being4 ,to the truly religious man1 ,god is not a being without qualities1 because to him he is a positive1 real being4 ,the theory that ,god cannot be defined1 and consequently cannot be known by man1 is therefore the offspring of recent times1 a product of modern unbelief4 ,as reason is and can be pronounced finite only where man regards sensual enjoyment1 or religious emotion1 or sthetic contemplation1 or moral sentiment1 as the absolute1 the true2 so the proposition that ,god is unknowable or undefinable1 can only be enunciated and become fixed as a dogma1 where this object has no longer any interest for the intellect2 where the real1 the positive1 alone has any hold on man1 where the real alone has for him the significance of the essential1 of the absolute1 divine object1 but where at the same time1 in contradiction with this purely worldly tendency1 there yet exist some old remains of religiousness4 ,on the ground that ,god is unknowable1 man excuses himself to what is yet remaining of his religious conscience for his forgetfulness of ,god1 his absorption in the world3 he denies ,god practically by his conduct1--the world has possession of all his thoughts and inclinations1--but he does not deny him theoretically1 he does not attack his existence2 he lets that rest4 ,but this existence does not affect or incommode him2 it is a merely negative existence1 an existence without existence1 a self-contradictory existence1--a state of being which1 as to its effects1 is not distinguishable from non-being4 ,the denial of determinate1 positive predicates concerning the divine nature is nothing else than a denial of religion1 with1 however1 an appearance of religion in its favour1 so that it is not recognised as a denial2 it is simply a subtle1 disguised atheism4 ,the alleged religious horror of limiting ,god by positive predicates is only the irreligious wish to know nothing more of ,god1 to banish ,god from the mind4 ,dread of limitation is dread of existence4 ,all real existence1 i4e41 all existence which is truly such1 is qualitative1 determinative existence4 ,he who earnestly believes in the ,divine existence is not shocked at the attributing even of gross sensuous qualities to ,god4 ,he who dreads an existence that may give offence1 who shrinks from the grossness of a positive predicate1 may as well renounce existence altogether4 ,a ,god who is injured by determinate qualities has not the courage and the strength to exist4 ,qualities are the fire1 the vital breath1 the oxygen1 the salt of existence4 ,an existence in general1 an existence without qualities1 is an insipidity1 an absurdity4 ,but there can be no more in ,god than is supplied by religion4 ,only where man loses his taste for religion1 and thus religion itself becomes insipid1 does the existence of ,god become an insipid existence--an existence without qualities4 ,there is1 however1 a still milder way of denying the divine predicates than the direct one just described4 ,it is admitted that the predicates of the divine nature are finite1 and1 more particularly1 human qualities1 but their rejection is rejected2 they are even taken under protection1 because it is necessary to man to have a definite conception of ,god and since he is man he can form no other than a human conception of him4 ,in relation to ,god1 it is said1 these predicates are certainly without any objective validity2 but to me1 if he is to exist for me1 he cannot appear otherwise than as he does appear to me1 namely1 as a being with attributes analogous to the human4 ,but this distinction between what ,god is in himself1 and what he is for me destroys the peace of religion1 and is besides in itself an unfounded and untenable distinction4 ,i cannot know whether ,god is something else in himself or for himself than he is for me2 what he is to me is to me all that he is4 ,for me1 there lies in these predicates under which he exists for me1 what he is in himself1 his very nature2 he is for me what he can alone ever be for me4 ,the religious man finds perfect satisfaction in that which ,god is in relation to himself2 of any other relation he knows nothing1 for ,god is to him what he can alone be to man4 ,in the distinction above stated1 man takes a point of view above himself1 i4e41 above his nature1 the absolute measure of his being2 but this transcendentalism is only an illusion2 for ,i can make the distinction between the object as it is in itself1 and the object as it is for me1 only where an object can really appear otherwise to me1 not where it appears to me such as the absolute measure of my nature determines it to appear--such as it must appear to me4 ,it is true that ,i may have a merely subjective conception1 i4e41 one which does not arise out of the general constitution of my species2 but if my conception is determined by the constitution of my species1 the distinction between what an object is in itself1 and what it is for me ceases2 for this conception is itself an absolute one4 ,the measure of the species is the absolute measure1 law1 and criterion of man4 ,and1 indeed1 religion has the conviction that its conceptions1 its predicates of ,god1 are such as every man ought to have1 and must have1 if he would have the true ones--that they are the conceptions necessary to human nature2 nay1 further1 that they are objectively true1 representing ,god as he is4 ,to every religion the gods of other religious are only notions concerning ,god1 but its own conception of ,god is to it ,god himself1 the true ,god--,god such as he is in himself4 ,religion is satisfied only with a complete ,deity1 a ,god without reservation2 it will not have a mere phantasm of ,god2 it demands ,god himself4 ,religion gives up its own existence when it gives up the nature of ,god2 it is no longer a truth when it renounces the possession of the true ,god4 ,scepticism is the arch-enemy of religion2 but the distinction between object and conception--between ,god as he is in himself1 and ,god as he is for me--is a sceptical distinction1 and therefore an irreligious one4 ,that which is to man the self-existent1 the highest being1 to which he can conceive nothing higher--that is to him the ,divine ,being4 ,how then should he inquire concerning this being1 what he is in himself8 ,if ,god were an object to the bird1 he would be a winged being3 the bird knows nothing higher1 nothing more blissful1 than the winged condition4 ,how ludicrous would it be if this bird pronounced3 ,to me ,god appears as a bird1 but what he is in himself ,i know not4 ,to the bird the highest nature is the bird-nature2 take from him the conception of this1 and you take from him the conception of the highest being4 ,how1 then1 could he ask whether ,god in himself were winged8 ,to ask whether ,god is in himself what he is for me1 is to ask whether ,god is ,god1 is to lift oneself above one's ,god1 to rise up against him4 ,wherever1 therefore1 this idea1 that the religious predicates are only anthropomorphisms1 has taken possession of a man1 there has doubt1 has unbelief1 obtained the mastery of faith4 ,and it is only the inconsequence of faint-heartedness and intellectual imbecility which does not proceed from this idea to the formal negation of the predicates1 and from thence to the negation of the subject to which they relate4 ,if thou doubtest the objective truth of the predicates1 thou must also doubt the objective truth of the subject whose predicates they are4 ,if thy predicates are anthropomorphisms1 the subject of them is an anthropomorphism too4 ,if love1 goodness1 personality1 c41 are human attributes1 so also is the subject which thou presupposest1 the existence of ,god1 the belief that there is a ,god1 an anthropomorphism--a presupposition purely human4 ,whence knowest thou that the belief in a ,god at all is not a limitation of man's mode of conception8 ,higher beings--and thou supposest such--are perhaps so blest in themselves1 so at unity with themselves1 that they are not hung in suspense between themselves and a yet higher being4 ,to know ,god and not oneself to be ,god1 to know blessedness and not oneself to enjoy it1 is a state of disunity1 of unhappiness4 ,higher beings know nothing of this unhappiness2 they have no conception of that which they are not4 ,thou believest in love as a divine attribute because thou thyself lovest2 thou believest that ,god is a wise1 benevolent being because thou knowest nothing better in thyself than benevolence and wisdom2 and thou believest that ,god exists1 that therefore he is a subject--whatever exists is a subject1 whether it be defined as substance1 person1 essence1 or otherwise--because thou thyself existest1 art thyself a subject4 ,thou knowest no higher human good than to love1 than to be good and wise2 and even so thou knowest no higher happiness than to exist1 to be a subject2 for the consciousness of all reality1 of all bliss1 is for thee bound up in the consciousness of being a subject1 of existing4 ,god is an existence1 a subject to thee1 for the same reason that he is to thee a wise1 a blessed1 a personal being4 ,the distinction between the divine predicates and the divine subject is only this1 that to thee the subject1 the existence1 does not appear an anthropomorphism1 because the conception of it is necessarily involved in thy own existence as a subject1 whereas the predicates do appear anthropomorphisms1 because their necessity--the necessity that ,god should be conscious1 wise1 good1 c41--is not an immediate necessity1 identical with the being of man1 but is evolved by his self-consciousness1 by the activity of his thought4 ,i am a subject1 ,i exist1 whether ,i be wise or unwise1 good or bad4 ,to exist is to man the first datum2 it constitutes the very idea of the subject2 it is presupposed by the predicates4 ,hence man relinquishes the predicates1 but the existence of ,god is to him a settled1 irrefragable1 absolutely certain1 objective truth4 ,but1 nevertheless1 this distinction is merely an apparent one4 ,the necessity of the subject lies only in the necessity of the predicate4 ,thou art a subject only in so far as thou art a human subject2 the certainty and reality of thy existence lie only in the certainty and reality of thy human attributes4 ,what the subject is lies only in the predicate2 the predicate is the truth of the subject--the subject only the personified1 existing predicate1 the predicate conceived as existing4 ,subject and predicate are distinguished only as existence and essence4 ,the negation of the predicates is therefore the negation of the subject4 ,what remains of the human subject when abstracted from the human attributes8 ,even in the language of common life the divine predicates--,providence1 ,omniscience1 ,omnipotence--are put for the divine subject4 ,the certainty of the existence of ,god1 of which it has been said that it is as certain1 nay1 more certain to man than his own existence1 depends only on the certainty of the qualities of ,god--it is in itself no immediate certainty4 ,to the ,christian the existence of the ,christian ,god only is a certainty2 to the heathen that of the heathen ,god only4 ,the heathen did not doubt the existence of ,jupiter1 because he took no offence at the nature of ,jupiter1 because he could conceive of ,god under no other qualities1 because to him these qualities were a certainty1 a divine reality4 ,the reality of the predicate is the sole guarantee of existence4 ,whatever man conceives to be true1 he immediately conceives to be real 7that is1 to have an objective existence71 because1 originally1 only the real is true to him--true in opposition to what is merely conceived1 dreamed1 imagined4 ,the idea of being1 of existence1 is the original idea of truth2 or1 originally1 man makes truth dependent on existence1 subsequently1 existence dependent on truth4 ,now ,god is the nature of man regarded as absolute truth1--the truth of man2 but ,god1 or1 what is the same thing1 religion1 is as various as are the conditions under which man conceives this his nature1 regards it as the highest being4 ,these conditions1 then1 under which man conceives ,god1 are to him the truth1 and for that reason they are also the highest existence1 or rather they are existence itself2 for only the emphatic1 the highest existence1 is existence1 and deserves this name4 ,therefore1 ,god is an existent1 real being1 on the very same ground that he is a particular1 definite being2 for the qualities of ,god are nothing else than the essential qualities of man himself1 and a particular man is what he is1 has his existence1 his reality1 only in his particular conditions4 ,take away from the ,greek the quality of being ,greek1 and you take away his existence4 ,on this ground it is true that for a definite positive religion--that is1 relatively--the certainty of the existence of ,god is immediate2 for just as involuntarily1 as necessarily1 as the ,greek was a ,greek1 so necessarily were his gods ,greek beings1 so necessarily were they real1 existent beings4 ,religion is that conception of the nature of the world and of man which is essential to1 i4e41 identical with1 a man's nature4 ,but man does not stand above this his necessary conception2 on the contrary1 it stands above him2 it animates1 determines1 governs him4 ,the necessity of a proof1 of a middle term to unite qualities with existence1 the possibility of a doubt1 is abolished4 ,only that which is apart from my own being is capable of being doubted by me4 ,how then can ,i doubt of ,god1 who is my being8 ,to doubt of ,god is to doubt of myself4 ,only when ,god is thought of abstractly1 when his predicates are the result of philosophic abstraction1 arises the distinction or separation between subject and predicate1 existence and nature--arises the fiction that the existence or the subject is something else than the predicate1 something immediate1 indubitable1 in distinction from the predicate1 which is held to be doubtful4 ,but this is only a fiction4 ,a ,god who has abstract predicates has also an abstract existence4 ,existence1 being1 varies with varying qualities4 ,the identity of the subject and predicate is clearly evidenced by the progressive development of religion1 which is identical with the progressive development of human culture4 ,so long as man is in a mere state of nature1 so long is his god a mere nature-god--a personification of some natural force4 ,where man inhabits houses1 he also encloses his gods in temples4 ,the temple is only a manifestation of the value which man attaches to beautiful buildings4 ,temples in honour of religion are in truth temples in honour of architecture4 ,with the emerging of man from a state of savagery and wildness to one of culture1 with the distinction between what is fitting for man and what is not fitting1 arises simultaneously the distinction between that which is fitting and that which is not fitting for ,god4 ,god is the idea of majesty1 of the highest dignity3 the religious sentiment is the sentiment of supreme fitness4 ,the later more cultured artists of ,greece were the first to embody in the statues of the gods the ideas of dignity1 of spiritual grandeur1 of imperturbable repose and serenity4 ,but why were these qualities in their view attributes1 predicates of ,god8 ,because they were in themselves regarded by the ,greeks as divinities4 ,why did those artists exclude all disgusting and low passions8 ,because they perceived them to be unbecoming1 unworthy1 unhuman1 and consequently ungodlike4 ,the ,homeric gods eat and drink2--that implies eating and drinking is a divine pleasure4 ,physical strength is an attribute of the ,homeric gods3 ,zeus is the strongest of the gods4 ,why8 ,because physical strength1 in and by itself1 was regarded as something glorious1 divine4 ,to the ancient ,germans the highest virtues were those of the warrior2 therefore their supreme god was the god of war1 ,odin1--war1 the original or oldest law4 ,not the attribute of the divinity1 but the divineness or deity of the attribute1 is the first true ,divine ,being4 ,thus what theology and philosophy have held to be ,god1 the ,absolute1 the ,infinite1 is not ,god2 but that which they have held not to be ,god is ,god3 namely1 the attribute1 the quality1 whatever has reality4 ,hence he alone is the true atheist to whom the predicates of the ,divine ,being1--for example1 love1 wisdom1 justice1--are nothing2 not he to whom merely the subject of these predicates is nothing4 ,and in no wise is the negation of the subject necessarily also a negation of the predicates considered in themselves4 ,these have an intrinsic1 independent reality2 they force their recognition upon man by their very nature2 they are self-evident truths to him2 they prove1 they attest themselves4 ,it does not follow that goodness1 justice1 wisdom1 are chimras because the existence of ,god is a chimra1 nor truths because this is a truth4 ,the idea of ,god is dependent on the idea of justice1 of benevolence2 a ,god who is not benevolent1 not just1 not wise1 is no ,god2 but the converse does not hold4 ,the fact is not that a quality is divine because ,god has it1 but that ,god has it because it is in itself divine3 because without it ,god would be a defective being4 ,justice1 wisdom1 in general every quality which constitutes the divinity of ,god1 is determined and known by itself independently1 but the idea of ,god is determined by the qualities which have thus been previously judged to be worthy of the divine nature2 only in the case in which ,i identify ,god and justice1 in which ,i think of ,god immediately as the reality of the idea of justice1 is the idea of ,god self-determined4 ,but if ,god as a subject is the determined1 while the quality1 the predicate1 is the determining1 then in truth the rank of the godhead is due not to the subject1 but to the predicate4 ,not until several1 and those contradictory1 attributes are united in one being1 and this being is conceived as personal--the personality being thus brought into especial prominence--not until then is the origin of religion lost sight of1 is it forgotten that what the activity of the reflective power has converted into a predicate distinguishable or separable from the subject1 was originally the true subject4 ,thus the ,greeks and ,romans deified accidents as substances2 virtues1 states of mind1 passions1 as independent beings4 ,man1 especially the religious man1 is to himself the measure of all things1 of all reality4 ,whatever strongly impresses a man1 whatever produces an unusual effect on his mind1 if it be only a peculiar1 inexplicable sound or note1 he personifies as a divine being4 ,religion embraces all the objects of the world3 everything existing has been an object of religious reverence2 in the nature and consciousness of religion there is nothing else than what lies in the nature of man and in his consciousness of himself and of the world4 ,religion has no material exclusively its own4 ,in ,rome even the passions of fear and terror had their temples4 ,the ,christians also made mental phenomena into independent beings1 their own feelings into qualities of things1 the passions which governed them into powers which governed the world1 in short1 predicates of their own nature1 whether recognised as such or not1 into independent subjective existences4 ,devils1 cobolds1 witches1 ghosts1 angels1 were sacred truths as long as the religious spirit held undivided sway over mankind4 ,in order to banish from the mind the identity of the divine and human predicates1 and the consequent identity of the divine and human nature1 recourse is had to the idea that ,god1 as the absolute1 real ,being1 has an infinite fulness of various predicates1 of which we here know only a part1 and those such as are analogous to our own2 while the rest1 by virtue of which ,god must thus have quite a different nature from the human or that which is analogous to the human1 we shall only know in the future--that is1 after death4 ,but an infinite plenitude or multitude of predicates which are really different1 so different that the one does not immediately involve the other1 is realised only in an infinite plenitude or multitude of different beings or individuals4 ,thus the human nature presents an infinite abundance of different predicates1 and for that very reason it presents an infinite abundance of different individuals4 ,each new man is a new predicate1 a new phasis of humanity4 ,as many as are the men1 so many are the powers1 the properties of humanity4 ,it is true that there are the same elements in every individual1 but under such various conditions and modifications that they appear new and peculiar4 ,the mystery of the inexhaustible fulness of the divine predicates is therefore nothing else than the mystery of human nature considered as an infinitely varied1 infinitely modifiable1 but1 consequently1 phenomenal being4 ,only in the realm of the senses1 only in space and time1 does there exist a being of really infinite qualities or predicates4 ,where there are really different predicates there are different times4 ,one man is a distinguished musician1 a distinguished author1 a distinguished physician2 but he cannot compose music1 write books1 and perform cures in the same moment of time4 ,time1 and not the ,hegelian dialectic1 is the medium of uniting opposites1 contradictories1 in one and the same subject4 ,but distinguished and detached from the nature of man1 and combined with the idea of ,god1 the infinite fulness of various predicates is a conception without reality1 a mere phantasy1 a conception derived from the sensible world1 but without the essential conditions1 without the truth of sensible existence1 a conception which stands in direct contradiction with the ,divine ,being considered as a spiritual1 i4e41 an abstract1 simple1 single being2 for the predicates of ,god are precisely of this character1 that one involves all the others1 because there is no real difference between them4 ,if1 therefore1 in the present predicates ,i have not the future1 in the present ,god not the future ,god1 then the future ,god is not the present1 but they are two distinct beings4 #ac ,but this distinction is in contradiction with the unity and simplicity of the theological ,god4 ,why is a given predicate a predicate of ,god8 ,because it is divine in its nature1 i4e41 because it expresses no limitation1 no defect4 ,why are other predicates applied to him8 ,because1 however various in themselves1 they agree in this1 that they all alike express perfection1 unlimitedness4 ,hence ,i can conceive innumerable predicates of ,god1 because they must all agree with the abstract idea of the ,godhead1 and must have in common that which constitutes every single predicate a divine attribute4 ,thus it is in the system of ,spinoza4 ,he speaks of an infinite number of attributes of the divine substance1 but he specifies none except ,thought and ,extension4 ,why8 ,because it is a matter of indifference to know them2 nay1 because they are in themselves indifferent1 superfluous2 for with all these innumerable predicates1 ,i yet always mean to say the same thing as when ,i speak of ,thought and ,extension4 ,why is ,thought an attribute of substance8 ,because1 according to ,spinoza1 it is capable of being conceived by itself1 because it expresses something indivisible1 perfect1 infinite4 ,why ,extension or ,matter8 ,for the same reason4 ,thus1 substance can have an indefinite number of predicates1 because it is not their specific definition1 their difference1 but their identity1 their equivalence1 which makes them attributes of substance4 ,or rather1 substance has innumerable predicates only because 7how strange67 it has properly no predicate2 that is1 no definite1 real predicate4 ,the indefinite unity which is the product of thought1 completes itself by the indefinite multiplicity which is the product of the imagination4 ,because the predicate is not multum1 it is multa4 ,in truth1 the positive predicates are ,thought and ,extension4 ,in these two infinitely more is said than in the nameless innumerable predicates2 for they express something definite--in them ,i have something4 ,but substance is too indifferent1 too apathetic to be something2 that is1 to have qualities and passions2 that it may not be something1 it is rather nothing4 ,now1 when it is shown that what the subject is lies entirely in the attributes of the subject2 that is1 that the predicate is the true subject2 it is also proved that if the divine predicates are attributes of the human nature1 the subject of those predicates is also of the human nature4 ,but the divine predicates are partly general1 partly personal4 ,the general predicates are the metaphysical1 but these serve only as external points of support to religion2 they are not the characteristic definitions of religion4 ,it is the personal predicates alone which constitute the essence of religion--in which the ,divine ,being is the object of religion4 ,such are1 for example1 that ,god is a ,person1 that he is the moral ,lawgiver1 the ,father of mankind1 the ,holy ,one1 the ,just1 the ,good1 the ,merciful4 ,it is1 however1 at once clear1 or it will at least be clear in the sequel1 with regard to these and other definitions1 that1 especially as applied to a personality1 they are purely human definitions1 and that consequently man in religion--in his relation to ,god--is in relation to his own nature2 for to the religious sentiment these predicates are not mere conceptions1 mere images1 which man forms of ,god1 to be distinguished from that which ,god is in himself1 but truths1 facts1 realities4 ,religion knows nothing of anthropomorphisms2 to it they are not anthropomorphisms4 ,it is the very essence of religion1 that to it these definitions express the nature of ,god4 ,they are pronounced to be images only by the understanding1 which reflects on religion1 and which while defending them yet before its own tribunal denies them4 ,but to the religious sentiment ,god is a real ,father1 real ,love and ,mercy2 for to it he is a real1 living1 personal being1 and therefore his attributes are also living and personal4 ,nay1 the definitions which are the most sufficing to the religious sentiment are precisely those which give the most offence to the understanding1 and which in the process of reflection on religion it denies4 ,religion is essentially emotion2 hence1 objectively also1 emotion is to it necessarily of a divine nature4 ,even anger appears to it an emotion not unworthy of ,god1 provided only there be a religious motive at the foundation of this anger4 ,but here it is also essential to observe1 and this phenomenon is an extremely remarkable one1 characterising the very core of religion1 that in proportion as the divine subject is in reality human1 the greater is the apparent difference between ,god and man2 that is1 the more1 by reflection on religion1 by theology1 is the identity of the divine and human denied1 and the human1 considered as such1 is depreciated4 #ad ,the reason of this is1 that as what is positive in the conception of the divine being can only be human1 the conception of man1 as an object of consciousness1 can only be negative4 ,to enrich ,god1 man must become poor2 that ,god may be all1 man must be nothing4 ,but he desires to be nothing in himself1 because what he takes from himself is not lost to him1 since it is preserved in ,god4 ,man has his being in ,god2 why then should he have it in himself8 ,where is the necessity of positing the same thing twice1 of having it twice8 ,what man withdraws from himself1 what he renounces in himself1 he only enjoys in an incomparably higher and fuller measure in ,god4 ,the monks made a vow of chastity to ,god2 they mortified the sexual passion in themselves1 but therefore they had in heaven1 in the ,virgin ,mary1 the image of woman--an image of love4 ,they could the more easily dispense with real woman in proportion as an ideal woman was an object of love to them4 ,the greater the importance they attached to the denial of sensuality1 the greater the importance of the heavenly virgin for them3 she was to them in the place of ,christ1 in the stead of ,god4 ,the more the sensual tendencies are renounced1 the more sensual is the ,god to whom they are sacrificed4 ,for whatever is made an offering to ,god has an especial value attached to it2 in it ,god is supposed to have especial pleasure4 ,that which is the highest in the estimation of man is naturally the highest in the estimation of his ,god2 what pleases man pleases ,god also4 ,the ,hebrews did not offer to ,jehovah unclean1 ill-conditioned animals2 on the contrary1 those which they most highly prized1 which they themselves ate1 were also the food of ,god 7,cibus ,dei1 ,lev4 iii4 #b74 ,wherever1 therefore1 the denial of the sensual delights is made a special offering1 a sacrifice well-pleasing to ,god1 there the highest value is attached to the senses1 and the sensuality which has been renounced is unconsciously restored1 in the fact that ,god takes the place of the material delights which have been renounced4 ,the nun weds herself to ,god2 she has a heavenly bridegroom1 the monk a heavenly bride4 ,but the heavenly virgin is only a sensible presentation of a general truth1 having relation to the essence of religion4 ,man denies as to himself only what he attributes to ,god4 ,religion abstracts from man1 from the world2 but it can only abstract from the limitations1 from the phenomena2 in short1 from the negative1 not from the essence1 the positive1 of the world and humanity3 hence1 in the very abstraction and negation it must recover that from which it abstracts1 or believes itself to abstract4 ,and thus1 in reality1 whatever religion consciously denies--always supposing that what is denied by it is something essential1 true1 and consequently incapable of being ultimately denied--it unconsciously restores in ,god4 ,thus1 in religion man denies his reason2 of himself he knows nothing of ,god1 his thoughts are only worldly1 earthly2 he can only believe what ,god reveals to him4 ,but on this account the thoughts of ,god are human1 earthly thoughts3 like man1 he has plans in his mind1 he accommodates himself to circumstances and grades of intelligence1 like a tutor with his pupils2 he calculates closely the effect of his gifts and revelations2 he observes man in all his doings2 he knows all things1 even the most earthly1 the commonest1 the most trivial4 ,in brief1 man in relation to ,god denies his own knowledge1 his own thoughts1 that he may place them in ,god4 ,man gives up his personality2 but in return1 ,god1 the ,almighty1 infinite1 unlimited being1 is a person2 he denies human dignity1 the human ego2 but in return ,god is to him a selfish1 egoistical being1 who in all things seeks only himself1 his own honour1 his own ends2 he represents ,god as simply seeking the satisfaction of his own selfishness1 while yet he frowns on that of every other being2 his ,god is the very luxury of egoism4 #ae ,religion further denies goodness as a quality of human nature2 man is wicked1 corrupt1 incapable of good2 but1 on the other hand1 ,god is only good--the ,good ,being4 ,man's nature demands as an object goodness1 personified as ,god2 but is it not hereby declared that goodness is an essential tendency of man8 ,if my heart is wicked1 my understanding perverted1 how can ,i perceive and feel the holy to be holy1 the good to be good8 ,could ,i perceive the beauty of a fine picture if my mind were sthetically an absolute piece of perversion8 ,though ,i may not be a painter1 though ,i may not have the power of producing what is beautiful myself1 ,i must yet have sthetic feeling1 sthetic comprehension1 since ,i perceive the beauty that is presented to me externally4 ,either goodness does not exist at all for man1 or1 if it does exist1 therein is revealed to the individual man the holiness and goodness of human nature4 ,that which is absolutely opposed to my nature1 to which ,i am united by no bond of sympathy1 is not even conceivable or perceptible by me4 ,the holy is in opposition to me only as regards the modifications of my personality1 but as regards my fundamental nature it is in unity with me4 ,the holy is a reproach to my sinfulness2 in it ,i recognise myself as a sinner2 but in so doing1 while ,i blame myself1 ,i acknowledge what ,i am not1 but ought to be1 and what1 for that very reason1 ,i1 according to my destination1 can be2 for an ought which has no corresponding capability does not affect me1 is a ludicrous chimra without any true relation to my mental constitution4 ,but when ,i acknowledge goodness as my destination1 as my law1 ,i acknowledge it1 whether consciously or unconsciously1 as my own nature4 ,another nature than my own1 one different in quality1 cannot touch me4 ,i can perceive sin as sin1 only when ,i perceive it to be a contradiction of myself with myself--that is1 of my personality with my fundamental nature4 ,as a contradiction of the absolute1 considered as another being1 the feeling of sin is inexplicable1 unmeaning4 ,the distinction between ,augustinianism and ,pelagianism consists only in this1 that the former expresses after the manner of religion what the latter expresses after the manner of ,rationalism4 ,both say the same thing1 both vindicate the goodness of man2 but ,pelagianism does it directly1 in a rationalistic and moral form2 ,augustinianism indirectly1 in a mystical1 that is1 a religious form4 #af ,for that which is given to man's ,god is in truth given to man himself2 what a man declares concerning ,god1 he in truth declares concerning himself4 ,augustinianism would be a truth1 and a truth opposed to ,pelagianism1 only if man had the devil for his ,god1 and1 with the consciousness that he was the devil1 honoured1 reverenced1 and worshipped him as the highest being4 ,but so long as man adores a good being as his ,god1 so long does he contemplate in ,god the goodness of his own nature4 ,as with the doctrine of the radical corruption of human nature1 so is it with the identical doctrine1 that man can do nothing good1 i4e41 in truth1 nothing of himself--by his own strength4 ,for the denial of human strength and spontaneous moral activity to be true1 the moral activity of ,god must also be denied2 and we must say1 with the ,oriental nihilist or pantheist3 the ,divine being is absolutely without will or action1 indifferent1 knowing nothing of the discrimination between evil and good4 ,but he who defines ,god as an active being1 and not only so1 but as morally active and morally critical1--as a being who loves1 works1 and rewards good1 punishes1 rejects1 and condemns evil1--he who thus defines ,god only in appearance denies human activity1 in fact1 making it the highest1 the most real activity4 ,he who makes ,god act humanly1 declares human activity to be divine2 he says3 ,a god who is not active1 and not morally or humanly active1 is no god2 and thus he makes the idea of the ,godhead dependent on the idea of activity1 that is1 of human activity1 for a higher he knows not4 ,man--this is the mystery of religion--projects his being into objectivity1 #ag and then again makes himself an object to this projected image of himself thus converted into a subject2 he thinks of himself1 is an object to himself1 but as the object of an object1 of another being than himself4 ,thus here4 ,man is an object to ,god4 ,that man is good or evil is not indifferent to ,god2 no6 ,he has a lively1 profound interest in man's being good2 he wills that man should be good1 happy--for without goodness there is no happiness4 ,thus the religious man virtually retracts the nothingness of human activity1 by making his dispositions and actions an object to ,god1 by making man the end of ,god--for that which is an object to the mind is an end in action2 by making the divine activity a means of human salvation4 ,god acts1 that man may be good and happy4 ,thus man1 while he is apparently humiliated to the lowest degree1 is in truth exalted to the highest4 ,thus1 in and through ,god1 man has in view himself alone4 ,it is true that man places the aim of his action in ,god1 but ,god has no other aim of action than the moral and eternal salvation of man3 thus man has in fact no other aim than himself4 ,the divine activity is not distinct from the human4 ,how could the divine activity work on me as its object1 nay1 work in me1 if it were essentially different from me2 how could it have a human aim1 the aim of ameliorating and blessing man1 if it were not itself human8 ,does not the purpose determine the nature of the act8 ,when man makes his moral improvement an aim to himself1 he has divine resolutions1 divine projects2 but also1 when ,god seeks the salvation of man1 he has human ends and a human mode of activity corresponding to these ends4 ,thus in ,god man has only his own activity as an object4 ,but for the very reason that he regards his own activity as objective1 goodness only as an object1 he necessarily receives the impulse1 the motive not from himself1 but from this object4 ,he contemplates his nature as external to himself1 and this nature as goodness2 thus it is self-evident1 it is mere tautology to say that the impulse to good comes only from thence where he places the good4 ,god is the highest subjectivity of man abstracted from himself2 hence man can do nothing of himself1 all goodness comes from ,god4 ,the more subjective ,god is1 the more completely does man divest himself of his subjectivity1 because ,god is1 per se1 his relinquished self1 the possession of which he however again vindicates to himself4 ,as the action of the arteries drives the blood into the extremities1 and the action of the veins brings it back again1 as life in general consists in a perpetual systole and diastole2 so is it in religion4 ,in the religious systole man propels his own nature from himself1 he throws himself outward2 in the religious diastole he receives the rejected nature into his heart again4 ,god alone is the being who acts of himself1--this is the force of repulsion in religion2 ,god is the being who acts in me1 with me1 through me1 upon me1 for me1 is the principle of my salvation1 of my good dispositions and actions1 consequently my own good principle and nature1--this is the force of attraction in religion4 ,the course of religious development which has been generally indicated consists specifically in this1 that man abstracts more and more from ,god1 and attributes more and more to himself4 ,this is especially apparent in the belief in revelation4 ,that which to a later age or a cultured people is given by nature or reason1 is to an earlier age1 or to a yet uncultured people1 given by ,god4 ,every tendency of man1 however natural--even the impulse to cleanliness1 was conceived by the ,israelites as a positive divine ordinance4 ,from this example we again see that ,god is lowered1 is conceived more entirely on the type of ordinary humanity1 in proportion as man detracts from himself4 ,how can the self-humiliation of man go further than when he disclaims the capability of fulfilling spontaneously the requirements of common decency8 #ah ,the ,christian religion1 on the other hand1 distinguished the impulses and passions of man according to their quality1 their character2 it represented only good emotions1 good dispositions1 good thoughts1 as revelations1 operations--that is1 as dispositions1 feelings1 thoughts1--of ,god2 for what ,god reveals is a quality of ,god himself3 that of which the heart is full overflows the lips2 as is the effect such is the cause2 as the revelation1 such the being who reveals himself4 ,a ,god who reveals himself in good dispositions is a ,god whose essential attribute is only moral perfection4 ,the ,christian religion distinguishes inward moral purity from external physical purity2 the ,israelites identified the two4 #ai ,in relation to the ,israelitish religion1 the ,christian religion is one of criticism and freedom4 ,the ,israelite trusted himself to do nothing except what was commanded by ,god2 he was without will even in external things2 the authority of religion extended itself even to his food4 ,the ,christian religion1 on the other hand1 in all these external things made man dependent on himself1 i4e41 placed in man what the ,israelite placed out of himself in ,god4 ,israel is the most complete presentation of ,positivism in religion4 ,in relation to the ,israelite1 the ,christian is an esprit fort1 a free-thinker4 ,thus do things change4 ,what yesterday was still religion is no longer such to-day2 and what to-day is atheism1 to-morrow will be religion4 ,,part ,i4 ,,the ,,true ,,or ,,anthropological ,,essence ,,of ,,religion4 ,,chapter ,,ii4 ,,god ,,as ,a ,,being ,,of ,,the ,,understanding4 ,religion is the disuniting of man from himself2 he sets ,god before him as the antithesis of himself4 ,god is not what man is--man is not what ,god is4 ,god is the infinite1 man the finite being2 ,god is perfect1 man imperfect2 ,god eternal1 man temporal2 ,god almighty1 man weak2 ,god holy1 man sinful4 ,god and man are extremes3 ,god is the absolutely positive1 the sum of all realities2 man the absolutely negative1 comprehending all negations4 ,but in religion man contemplates his own latent nature4 ,hence it must be shown that this antithesis1 this differencing of ,god and man1 with which religion begins1 is a differencing of man with his own nature4 ,the inherent necessity of this proof is at once apparent from this1--that if the divine nature1 which is the object of religion1 were really different from the nature of man1 a division1 a disunion could not take place4 ,if ,god is really a different being from myself1 why should his perfection trouble me8 ,disunion exists only between beings who are at variance1 but who ought to be one1 who can be one1 and who consequently in nature1 in truth1 are one4 ,on this general ground1 then1 the nature with which man feels himself in disunion must be inborn1 immanent in himself1 but at the same time it must be of a different character from that nature or power which gives him the feeling1 the consciousness of reconciliation1 of union with ,god1 or1 what is the same thing1 with himself4 ,this nature is nothing else than the intelligence--the reason or the understanding4 ,god as the antithesis of man1 as a being not human1 i4e41 not personally human1 is the objective nature of the understanding4 ,the pure1 perfect divine nature is the self-consciousness of the understanding1 the consciousness which the understanding has of its own perfection4 ,the understanding knows nothing of the sufferings of the heart2 it has no desires1 no passions1 no wants1 and1 for that reason1 no deficiencies and weaknesses1 as the heart has4 ,men in whom the intellect predominates1 who1 with one-sided but all the more characteristic definiteness1 embody and personify for us the nature of the understanding1 are free from the anguish of the heart1 from the passions1 the excesses of the man who has strong emotions2 they are not passionately interested in any finite1 i4e41 particular object2 they do not give themselves in pledge2 they are free4 ,to want nothing1 and by this freedom from wants to become like the immortal gods2--not to subject ourselves to things1 but things to us2--all is vanity2--these and similar sayings are the mottoes of the men who are governed by abstract understanding4 ,the understanding is that part of our nature which is neutral1 impassible1 not to bribed1 not subject to illusions--the pure1 passionless light of the intelligence4 ,it is the categorical1 impartial consciousness of the fact as fact1 because it is itself of an objective nature4 ,it is the consciousness of the uncontradictory1 because it is itself the uncontradictory unity1 the source of logical identity4 ,it is the consciousness of law1 necessity1 rule1 measure1 because it is itself the activity of law1 the necessity of the nature of things under the form of spontaneous activity1 the rule of rules1 the absolute measure1 the measure of measures4 ,only by the understanding can man judge and act in contradiction with his dearest human1 that is1 personal feelings1 when the ,god of the understanding1--law1 necessity1 right1--commands it4 ,the father who1 as a judge1 condemns his own son to death because he knows him to be guilty1 can do this only as a rational1 not as an emotional being4 ,the understanding shows us the faults and weaknesses even of our beloved ones2 it shows us even our own4 ,it is for this reason that it so often throws us into painful collision with ourselves1 with our own hearts4 ,we do not like to give reason the upper hand3 we are too tender to ourselves to carry out the true1 but hard1 relentless verdict of the understanding4 ,the understanding is the power which has relation to species3 the heart represents particular circumstances1 individuals1--the understanding1 general circumstances1 universals2 it is the superhuman1 i4e41 the impersonal power in man4 ,only by and in the understanding has man the power of abstraction from himself1 from his subjective being1--of exalting himself to general ideas and relations1 of distinguishing the object from the impressions which it produces on his feelings1 of regarding it in and by itself without reference to human personality4 ,philosophy1 mathematics1 astronomy1 physics1 in short1 science in general1 is the practical proof1 because it is the product of this truly infinite and divine activity4 ,religious anthropomorphisms1 therefore1 are in contradiction with the understanding2 it repudiates their application to ,god2 it denies them4 ,but this ,god1 free from anthropomorphisms1 impartial1 passionless1 is nothing else than the nature of the understanding itself regarded as objective4 ,god as ,god1 that is1 as a being not finite1 not human1 not materially conditioned1 not phenomenal1 is only an object of thought4 ,he is the incorporeal1 formless1 incomprehensible--the abstract1 negative being3 he is known1 i4e41 becomes an object1 only by abstraction and negation 7vi negationis74 ,why8 ,because he is nothing but the objective nature of the thinking power1 or in general of the power or activity1 name it what you will1 whereby man is conscious of reason1 of mind1 of intelligence4 ,there is no other spirit1 that is 7for the idea of spirit is simply the idea of thought1 of intelligence1 of understanding1 every other spirit being a spectre of the imagination71 no other intelligence which man can believe in or conceive than that intelligence which enlightens him1 which is active in him4 ,he can do nothing more than separate the intelligence from the limitations of his own individuality4 ,the infinite spirit1 in distinction from the finite1 is therefore nothing else than the intelligence disengaged from the limits of individuality and corporeality1--for individuality and corporeality are inseparable1--intelligence posited in and by itself4 ,god1 said the schoolmen1 the ,christian fathers1 and long before them the heathen philosophers1--,god is immaterial essence1 intelligence1 spirit1 pure understanding4 ,of ,god as ,god no image can be made2 but canst thou frame an image of mind8 ,has mind a form8 ,is not its activity the most inexplicable1 the most incapable of representation8 ,god is incomprehensible2 but knowest thou the nature of the intelligence8 ,hast thou searched out the mysterious operation of thought1 the hidden nature of self-consciousness8 ,is not self-consciousness the enigma of enigmas8 ,did not the old mystics1 schoolmen1 and fathers1 long ago compare the incomprehensibility of the divine nature with that of the human intelligence1 and thus1 in truth1 identify the nature of ,god with the nature of man8 #bj ,god as ,god--as a purely thinkable being1 an object of the intellect--is thus nothing else than the reason in its utmost intensification become objective to itself4 ,it is asked what is the understanding or the reason8 ,the answer is found in the idea of ,god4 ,everything must express itself1 reveal itself1 make itself objective1 affirm itself4 ,god is the reason expressing1 affirming itself as the highest existence4 ,to the imagination1 the reason is the revelation of ,god2 but to the reason1 ,god is the revelation of the reason2 since what reason is1 what it can do1 is first made objective in ,god4 ,god is a need of the intelligence1 a necessary thought--the highest degree of the thinking power4 ,the reason cannot rest in sensuous things2 it can find contentment only when it penetrates to the highest1 first necessary being1 which can be an object to the reason alone4 ,why8 ,because with the conception of this being it first completes itself1 because only in the idea of the highest nature is the highest nature of reason existent1 the highest step of the thinking power attained3 and it is a general truth1 that we feel a blank1 a void1 a want in ourselves1 and are consequently unhappy and unsatisfied1 so long as we have not come to the last degree of a power1 to that quo nihil majus cogitari potest1--so long as we cannot bring our inborn capacity for this or that art1 this or that science1 to the utmost proficiency4 ,for only in the highest proficiency is art truly art2 only in its highest degree is thought truly thought1 reason4 ,only when thy thought is ,god dost thou truly think1 rigorously speaking2 for only ,god is the realised1 consummate1 exhausted thinking power4 ,thus in conceiving ,god1 man first conceives reason as it truly is1 though by means of the imagination he conceives this divine nature as distinct from reason1 because as a being affected by external things he is accustomed always to distinguish the object from the conception of it4 ,and here he applies the same process to the conception of the reason1 thus for an existence in reason1 in thought1 substituting an existence in space and time1 from which he had1 nevertheless1 previously abstracted it4 ,god1 as a metaphysical being1 is the intelligence satisfied in itself1 or rather1 conversely1 the intelligence1 satisfied in itself1 thinking itself as the absolute being1 is ,god as a metaphysical being4 ,hence all metaphysical predicates of ,god are real predicates only when they are recognised as belonging to thought1 to intelligence1 to the understanding4 ,the understanding is that which conditionates and co-ordinates all things1 that which places all things in reciprocal dependence and connection1 because it is itself immediate and unconditioned2 it inquires for the cause of all things1 because it has its own ground and end in itself4 ,only that which itself is nothing deduced1 nothing derived1 can deduce and construct1 can regard all besides itself as derived2 just as only that which exists for its own sake can view and treat other things as means and instruments4 ,the understanding is thus the original1 primitive being4 ,the understanding derives all things from ,god as the first cause2 it finds the world1 without an intelligent cause1 given over to senseless1 aimless chance2 that is1 it finds only in itself1 in its own nature1 the efficient and the final cause of the world--the existence of the world is only then clear and comprehensible when it sees the explanation of that existence in the source of all clear and intelligible ideas1 i4e41 in itself4 ,the being that works with design towards certain ends1 i4e41 with understanding1 is alone the being that to the understanding has immediate certitude1 self-evidence4 ,hence that which of itself has no designs1 no purpose1 must have the cause of its existence in the design of another1 and that an intelligent being4 ,and thus the understanding posits its own nature as the causal1 first1 premundane existence--i4e41 being in rank the first but in time the last1 it makes itself the first in time also4 ,the understanding is to itself the criterion of all reality4 ,that which is opposed to the understanding1 that which is self-contradictory1 is nothing2 that which contradicts reason contradicts ,god4 ,for example1 it is a contradiction of reason to connect with the idea of the highest reality the limitations of definite time and place2 and hence reason denies these of ,god as contradicting his nature4 ,the reason can only believe in a ,god who is accordant with its own nature1 in a ,god who is not beneath its own dignity1 who1 on the contrary1 is a realisation of its own nature3 i4e41 the reason believes only in itself1 in the absolute reality of its own nature4 ,the reason is not dependent on ,god1 but ,god on the reason4 ,even in the age of miracles and faith in authority1 the understanding constitutes itself1 at least formally1 the criterion of divinity4 ,god is all and can do all1 it was said1 by virtue of his omnipotence2 but nevertheless he is nothing and he can do nothing which contradicts himself1 i4e41 reason4 ,even omnipotence cannot do what is contrary to reason4 ,thus above the divine omnipotence stands the higher power of reason2 above the nature of ,god the nature of the understanding1 as the criterion of that which is to be affirmed and denied of ,god1 the criterion of the positive and negative4 ,canst thou believe in a ,god who is an unreasonable and wicked being8 ,no1 indeed2 but why not8 ,because it is in contradiction with thy understanding to accept a wicked and unreasonable being as divine4 ,what then dost thou affirm1 what is an object to thee1 in ,god8 ,thy own understanding4 ,god is thy highest idea1 the supreme effort of thy understanding1 thy highest power of thought4 ,god is the sum of all realities1 i4e41 the sum of all affirmations of the understanding4 ,that which ,i recognise in the understanding as essential ,i place in ,god as existent3 ,god is what the understanding thinks as the highest4 ,but in what ,i perceive to be essential is revealed the nature of my understanding1 is shown the power of my thinking faculty4 ,thus the understanding is the ens realissimum1 the most real being of the old onto-theology4 ,fundamentally1 says onto-theology1 we cannot conceive ,god otherwise than by attributing to him without limit all the real qualities which we find in ourselves4 #ba ,our positive1 essential qualities1 our realities1 are therefore the realities of ,god1 but in us they exist with1 in ,god without1 limits4 ,but what then withdraws the limits from the realities1 what does away with the limits8 ,the understanding4 ,what1 according to this1 is the nature conceived without limits1 but the nature of the understanding releasing1 abstracting itself from all limits8 ,as thou thinkest ,god1 such is thy thought2--the measure of thy ,god is the measure of thy understanding4 ,if thou conceivest ,god as limited1 thy understanding is limited2 if thou conceivest ,god as unlimited1 thy understanding is unlimited2 ,if1 for example1 thou conceivest ,god as a corporeal being1 corporeality is the boundary1 the limit of thy understanding2 thou canst conceive nothing without a body4 ,if1 on the contrary1 thou deniest corporeality of ,god1 this is a corroboration and proof of the freedom of thy understanding from the limitation of corporeality4 ,in the unlimited divine nature thou representest only thy unlimited understanding4 ,and when thou declarest this unlimited being the ultimate essence1 the highest being1 thou sayest in reality nothing else than this3 the tre suprme1 the highest being1 is the understanding4 ,the understanding is further the self-subsistent and independent being4 ,that which has no understanding is not self-subsistent1 is dependent4 ,a man without understanding is a man without will4 ,he who has no understanding allows himself to be deceived1 imposed upon1 used as an instrument by others4 ,how shall he whose understanding is the tool of another have an independent will8 ,only he who thinks is free and independent4 ,it is only by the understanding that man reduces the things around and beneath him to mere means of his own existence4 ,in general1 that only is self-subsistent and independent which is an end to itself1 an object to itself4 ,that which is an end and object to itself is for that very reason--in so far as it is an object to itself--no longer a means and object for another being4 ,to be without understanding is1 in one word1 to exist for another1--to be an object3 to have understanding is to exist for oneself1--to be a subject4 ,but that which no longer exists for another1 but for itself1 rejects all dependence on another being4 ,it is true we1 as physical beings1 depend on the beings external to us1 even as to the modifications of thought2 but in so far as we think1 in the activity of the understanding as such1 we are dependent on no other being4 ,activity of thought is spontaneous activity4 ,when ,i think1 ,i am conscious that my ego in me thinks1 and not some other thing4 ,i conclude1 therefore1 that this thinking in me does not inhere in another thing outside of me1 but in myself1 consequently that ,i am a substance1 i4e41 that ,i exist by myself1 without being a predicate of another being4 #bb ,although we always need the air1 yet as natural philosophers we convert the air from an object of our physical need into an object of the self-sufficing activity of thought1 i4e41 into a mere thing for us4 ,in breathing ,i am the object of the air1 the air the subject2 but when ,i make the air an object of thought1 of investigation1 when ,i analyse it1 ,i reverse this relation1--,i make myself the subject1 the air an object4 ,but that which is the object of another being is dependent4 ,thus the plant is dependent on air and light1 that is1 it is an object for air1 and light1 not for itself4 ,it is true that air and light are reciprocally an object for the plant4 ,physical life in general is nothing else than this perpetual interchange of the objective and subjective relation4 ,we consume the air and are consumed by it2 we enjoy and are enjoyed4 ,the understanding alone enjoys all things without being itself enjoyed2 it is the self-enjoying1 self-sufficing existence--the absolute subject--the subject which cannot be reduced to the object of another being1 because it makes all things objects1 predicates of itself1--which comprehends all things in itself1 because it is itself not a thing1 because it is free from all things4 ,that is dependent the possibility of whose existence lies out of itself2 that is independent which has the possibility of its existence in itself4 ,life therefore involves the contradiction of an existence at once dependent and independent1--the contradiction that its possibility lies both in itself and out of itself4 ,the understanding alone is free from this and other contradictions of life2 it is the essence perfectly self-subsistent1 perfectly at one with itself1 perfectly self-existent4 #bc ,thinking is existence in self2 life1 as differenced from thought1 existence out of self3 life is to give from oneself2 thought is to take into oneself4 ,existence out of self is the world2 existence in self is ,god4 ,to think is to be ,god4 ,the act of thought1 as such1 is the freedom of the immortal gods from all external limitations and necessities of life4 ,the unity of the understanding is the unity of ,god4 ,to the understanding the consciousness of its unity and universality is essential2 the understanding is itself nothing else than the consciousness of itself as absolute identity1 i4e41 that which is accordant with the understanding is to it an absolute1 universally valid1 law2 it is impossible to the understanding to think that what is self-contradictory1 false1 irrational1 can anywhere be true1 and1 conversely1 that what is true1 rational1 can anywhere be false and irrational4 ,there may be intelligent beings who are not like me1 and yet ,i am certain that there are no intelligent beings who know laws and truths different from those which ,i recognise2 for every mind necessarily sees that two and two make four1 and that one must prefer one's friend to one's dog4 #bd ,of an essentially different understanding from that which affirms itself in man1 ,i have not the remotest conception1 the faintest adumbration4 ,on the contrary1 every understanding which ,i posit as different from my own1 is only a position of my own understanding1 i4e41 an idea of my own1 a conception which falls within my power of thought1 and thus expresses my understanding4 ,what ,i think1 that ,i myself do1 of course only in purely intellectual matters2 what ,i think of as united1 ,i unite2 what ,i think of as distinct1 ,i distinguish2 what ,i think of as abolished1 as negatived1 that ,i myself abolish and negative4 ,for example1 if ,i conceive an understanding in which the intuition or reality of the object is immediately united with the thought of it1 ,i actually unite it2 my understanding or my imagination is itself the power of uniting these distinct or opposite ideas4 ,how would it be possible for me to conceive them united--whether this conception be clear or confused--if ,i did not unite them in myself8 ,but whatever may be the conditions of the understanding which a given human individual may suppose as distinguished from his own1 this other understanding is only the understanding which exists in man in general--the understanding conceived apart from the limits of this particular individual4 ,unity is involved in the idea of the understanding4 ,the impossibility for the understanding to think two supreme beings1 two infinite substances1 two ,gods1 is the impossibility for the understanding to contradict itself1 to deny its own nature1 to think of itself as divided4 ,the understanding is the infinite being4 ,infinitude is immediately involved in unity1 and finiteness in plurality4 ,finiteness--in the metaphysical sense--rests on the distinction of the existence from the essence1 of the individual from the species2 infinitude1 on the unity of existence and essence4 ,hence1 that is finite which can be compared with other beings of the same species2 that is infinite which has nothing like itself1 which consequently does not stand as an individual under a species1 but is species and individual in one1 essence and existence in one4 ,but such is the understanding2 it has its essence in itself1 consequently it has nothing1 together with or external to itself1 which can be ranged beside it2 it is incapable of being compared1 because it is itself the source of all combinations and comparisons2 immeasurable1 because it is the measure of all measures1--we measure all things by the understanding alone2 it can be circumscribed by no higher generalisation1 it can be ranged under no species1 because it is itself the principle of all generalising1 of all classification1 because it circumscribes all things and beings4 ,the definitions which the speculative philosophers and theologians give of ,god1 as the being in whom existence and essence are not separable1 who himself is all the attributes which he has1 so that predicate and subject are with him identical1--all these definitions are thus ideas drawn solely from the nature of the understanding4 ,lastly1 the understanding or the reason is the necessary being4 ,reason exists because only the existence of the reason is reason2 because1 if there were no reason1 no consciousness1 all would be nothing2 existence would be equivalent to non-existence4 ,consciousness first founds the distinction between existence and non-existence4 ,in consciousness is first revealed the value of existence1 the value of nature4 ,why1 in general1 does something exist8 why does the world exist8 on the simple ground that if something did not exist1 nothing would exist2 if reason did not exist1 there would be only unreason2 thus the world exists because it is an absurdity that the world should not exist4 ,in the absurdity of its non-existence is found the true reason of its existence1 in the groundlessness of the supposition that it were not the reason that it is4 ,nothing1 non-existence1 is aimless1 nonsensical1 irrational4 ,existence alone has an aim1 a foundation1 rationality2 existence is1 because only existence is reason and truth2 existence is the absolute necessity4 ,what is the cause of conscious existence1 of life8 ,the need of life4 ,but to whom is it a need8 ,to that which does not live4 ,it is not a being who saw that made the eye3 to one who saw already1 to what purpose would be the eye8 ,no6 only the being who saw not needed the eye4 ,we are all come into the world without the operation of knowledge and will2 but we are come that knowledge and will may exist4 ,whence1 then1 came the world8 ,out of necessity2 not out of a necessity which lies in another being distinct from itself--that is a pure contradiction1--but out of its own inherent necessity2 out of the necessity of necessity2 because without the world there would be no necessity2 without necessity1 no reason1 no understanding4 ,the nothing1 out of which the world came1 is nothing without the world4 ,it is true that thus1 negativity1 as the speculative philosophers express themselves--nothing is the cause of the world2--but a nothing which abolishes itself1 i4e41 a nothing which could not have existed if there had been no world4 ,it is true that the world springs out of a want1 out of privation1 but it is false speculation to make this privation an ontological being3 this want is simply the want which lies in the supposed non-existence of the world4 ,thus the world is only necessary out of itself and through itself4 ,but the necessity of the world is the necessity of reason4 ,the reason1 as the sum of all realities1--for what are all the glories of the world without light1 much more external light without internal light8--the reason is the most indispensable being--the profoundest and most essential necessity4 ,in the reason first lies the self-consciousness of existence1 self-conscious existence2 in the reason is first revealed the end1 the meaning of existence4 ,reason is existence objective to itself as its own end2 the ultimate tendency of things4 ,that which is an object to itself is the highest1 the final being2 that which has power over itself is almighty4 ,,chapter ,,iii4 ,,god ,,as ,a ,,moral ,,being1 ,,or ,,law4 ,god as ,god--the infinite1 universal1 non-anthropomorphic being of the understanding1 has no more significance for religion than a fundamental general principle has for a special science2 it is merely the ultimate point of support1--as it were1 the mathematical point of religion4 ,the consciousness of human limitation or nothingness which is united with the idea of this being1 is by no means a religious consciousness2 on the contrary1 it characterises sceptics1 materialists1 and pantheists4 ,the belief in ,god--at least in the ,god of religion--is only lost where1 as in scepticism1 pantheism1 and materialism1 the belief in man is lost1 at least in man such as he is presupposed in religion4 ,as little then as religion has any influential belief in the nothingness of man1 #be so little has it any influential belief in that abstract being with which the consciousness of this nothingness is united4 ,the vital elements of religion are those only which make man an object to man4 ,to deny man is to deny religion4 ,it certainly is the interest of religion that its object should be distinct from man2 but it is also1 nay1 yet more1 its interest that this object should have human attributes4 ,that he should be a distinct being concerns his existence only2 but that he should be human concerns his essence4 ,if he be of a different nature1 how can his existence or non-existence be of any importance to man8 ,how can he take so profound an interest in an existence in which his own nature has no participation8 ,to give an example4 ,when ,i believe that the human nature alone has suffered for me1 ,christ is a poor ,saviour to me3 in that case1 he needs a ,saviour himself4 ,and thus1 out of the need for salvation is postulated something transcending human nature1 a being different from man4 ,but no sooner is this being postulated than there arises the yearning of man after himself1 after his own nature1 and man is immediately re-established4 ,here is ,god1 who is not man and never yet became man4 ,but this is not a ,god for me4444 ,that would be a miserable ,christ to me1 who 444 should be nothing but a purely separate ,god and divine person 444 without humanity4 ,no1 my friend2 where thou givest me ,god1 thou must give me humanity too4 #bf ,in religion man seeks contentment2 religion is his highest good4 ,but how could he find consolation and peace in ,god if ,god were an essentially different being8 ,how can ,i share the peace of a being if ,i am not of the same nature with him8 ,if his nature is different from mine1 his peace is essentially different1--it is no peace for me4 ,how then can ,i become a partaker of his peace if ,i am not a partaker of his nature8 but how can ,i be a partaker of his nature if ,i am really of a different nature8 ,every being experiences peace only in its own element1 only in the conditions of its own nature4 ,thus1 if man feels peace in ,god1 he feels it only because in ,god he first attains his true nature1 because here1 for the first time1 he is with himself1 because everything in which he hitherto sought peace1 and which he hitherto mistook for his nature1 was alien to him4 ,hence1 if man is to find contentment in ,god1 he must find himself in ,god4 ,no one will taste of ,god but as he wills1 namely--in the humanity of ,christ2 and if thou dost not find ,god thus1 thou wilt never have rest4 #bg ,everything finds rest on the place in which it was born4 ,the place where ,i was born is ,god4 ,god is my fatherland4 ,have ,i a father in ,god8 ,yes1 ,i have not only a father1 but ,i have myself in him2 before ,i lived in myself1 ,i lived already in ,god4 #bh ,a ,god1 therefore1 who expresses only the nature of the understanding does not satisfy religion1 is not the ,god of religion4 ,the understanding is interested not only in man1 but in the things out of man1 in universal nature4 ,the intellectual man forgets even himself in the contemplation of nature4 ,the ,christians scorned the pagan philosophers because1 instead of thinking of themselves1 of their own salvation1 they had thought only of things out of themselves4 ,the ,christian thinks only of himself4 ,by the understanding an insect is contemplated with as much enthusiasm as the image of ,god--man4 ,the understanding is the absolute indifference and identity of all things and beings4 ,it is not ,christianity1 not religious enthusiasm1 but the enthusiasm of the understanding that we have to thank for botany1 mineralogy1 zoology1 physics1 and astronomy4 ,the understanding is universal1 pantheistic1 the love of the universe2 but the grand characteristic of religion1 and of the ,christian religion especially1 is that it is thoroughly anthropotheistic1 the exclusive love of man for himself1 the exclusive self-affirmation of the human nature1 that is1 of subjective human nature2 for it is true that the understanding also affirms the nature of man1 but it is his objective nature1 which has reference to the object for the sake of the object1 and the manifestation of which is science4 ,hence it must be something entirely different from the nature of the understanding which is an object to man in religion1 if he is to find contentment therein1 and this something will necessarily be the very kernel of religion4 ,of all the attributes which the understanding assigns to ,god1 that which in religion1 and especially in the ,christian religion1 has the pre-eminence1 is moral perfection4 ,but ,god as a morally perfect being is nothing else than the realised idea1 the fulfilled law of morality1 the moral nature of man posited as the absolute being2 man's own nature1 for the moral ,god requires man to be as he himself is3 ,be ye holy for ,i am holy2 man's own conscience1 for how could he otherwise tremble before the ,divine ,being1 accuse himself before him1 and make him the judge of his inmost thoughts and feelings8 ,but the consciousness of the absolutely perfect moral nature1 especially as an abstract being separate from man1 leaves us cold and empty1 because we feel the distance1 the chasm between ourselves and this being2--it is a dispiriting consciousness1 for it is the consciousness of our personal nothingness1 and of the kind which is the most acutely felt--moral nothingness4 ,the consciousness of the divine omnipotence and eternity in opposition to my limitation in space and time does not afflict me3 for omnipotence does not command me to be myself omnipotent1 eternity1 to be myself eternal4 ,but ,i cannot have the idea of moral perfection without at the same time being conscious of it as a law for me4 ,moral perfection depends1 at least for the moral consciousness1 not on the nature1 but on the will--it is a perfection of will1 perfect will4 ,i cannot conceive perfect will1 the will which is in unison with law1 which is itself law1 without at the same time regarding it is an object of will1 i4e41 as an obligation for myself4 ,the conception of the morally perfect being is no merely theoretical1 inert conception1 but a practical one1 calling me to action1 to imitation1 throwing me into strife1 into disunion with myself2 for while it proclaims to me what ,i ought to be1 it also tells me to my face1 without any flattery1 what ,i am not4 #bi ,and religion renders this disunion all the more painful1 all the more terrible1 that it sets man's own nature before him as a separate nature1 and moreover as a personal being1 who hates and curses sinners1 and excludes them from his grace1 the source of all salvation and happiness4 ,now1 by what means does man deliver himself from this state of disunion between himself and the perfect being1 from the painful consciousness of sin1 from the distressing sense of his own nothingness8 ,how does he blunt the fatal sting of sin8 ,only by this2 that he is conscious of love as the highest1 the absolute power and truth1 that he regards the ,divine ,being not only as a law1 as a moral being1 as a being of the understanding2 but also as a loving1 tender1 even subjective human being 7that is1 as having sympathy with individual man74 ,the understanding judges only according to the stringency of law2 the heart accommodates itself1 is considerate1 lenient1 relenting1 kat' anthropon4 ,no man is sufficient for the law which moral perfection sets before us2 but1 for that reason1 neither is the law sufficient for man1 for the heart4 ,the law condemns2 the heart has compassion even on the sinner4 ,the law affirms me only as an abstract being1--love1 as a real being4 ,love gives me the consciousness that ,i am a man2 the law only the consciousness that ,i am a sinner1 that ,i am worthless4 #cj ,the law holds man in bondage2 love makes him free4 ,love is the middle term1 the substantial bond1 the principle of reconciliation between the perfect and the imperfect1 the sinless and sinful being1 the universal and the individual1 the divine and the human4 ,love is ,god himself1 and apart from it there is no ,god4 ,love makes man ,god and ,god man4 ,love strengthens the weak and weakens the strong1 abases the high and raises the lowly1 idealises matter and materialises spirit4 ,love is the true unity of ,god and man1 of spirit and nature4 ,in love common nature is spirit1 and the pre-eminent spirit is nature4 ,love is to deny spirit from the point of view of spirit1 to deny matter from the point of view of matter4 ,love is materialism2 immaterial love is a chimra4 ,in the longing of love after the distant object1 the abstract idealist involuntarily confirms the truth of sensuousness4 ,but love is also the idealism of nature--love is also spirit1 esprit4 ,love alone makes the nightingale a songstress2 love alone gives the plant its corolla4 ,and what wonders does not love work in our social life6 ,what faith1 creed1 opinion separates1 love unites4 ,love even1 humorously enough1 identifies the high noblesse with the people4 ,what the old mystics said of ,god1 that he is the highest and yet the commonest being1 applies in truth to love1 and that not a visionary1 imaginary love--no6 a real love1 a love which has flesh and blood1 which vibrates as an almighty force through all living4 ,yes1 it applies only to the love which has flesh and blood1 for only this can absolve from the sins which flesh and blood commit4 ,a merely moral being cannot forgive what is contrary to the law of morality4 ,that which denies the law is denied by the law4 ,the moral judge1 who does not infuse human blood into his judgment judges the sinner relentlessly1 inexorably4 ,since1 then1 ,god is regarded as a sin-pardoning being1 he is posited1 not indeed as an unmoral1 but as more than a moral being--in a word1 as a human being4 ,the negation or annulling of sin is the negation of abstract moral rectitude1--the positing of love1 mercy1 sensuous life4 ,not abstract beings--no6 only sensuous1 living beings are merciful4 ,mercy is the justice of sensuous life4 #ca ,hence ,god does not forgive the sins of men as the abstract ,god of the understanding1 but as man1 as the ,god made flesh1 the visible ,god4 ,god as man sins not1 it is true1 but he knows1 he takes on himself1 the sufferings1 the wants1 the needs of sensuous beings4 ,the blood of ,christ cleanses us from our sins in the eyes of ,god2 it is only his human blood that makes ,god merciful1 allays his anger2 that is1 our sins are forgiven us because we are no abstract beings1 but creatures of flesh and blood4 #cb ,,chapter ,,iv4 ,,the ,,mystery ,,of ,,the ,,incarnation2 ,,or1 ,,god ,,as ,,love1 ,,as ,a ,,being ,,of ,,the ,,heart4 ,it is the consciousness of love by which man reconciles himself with ,god1 or rather with his own nature as represented in the moral law4 ,the consciousness of the divine love1 or what is the same thing1 the contemplation of ,god as human1 is the mystery of the ,incarnation4 ,the ,incarnation is nothing else than the practical1 material manifestation of the human nature of ,god4 ,god did not become man for his own sake2 the need1 the want of man--a want which still exists in the religious sentiment--was the cause of the ,incarnation4 ,god became man out of mercy3 thus he was in himself already a human ,god before he became an actual man2 for human want1 human misery1 went to his heart4 ,the ,incarnation was a tear of the divine compassion1 and hence it was only the visible advent of a ,being having human feelings1 and therefore essentially human4 ,if in the ,incarnation we stop short at the fact of ,god becoming man1 it certainly appears a surprising1 inexplicable1 marvellous event4 ,but the incarnate ,god is only the apparent manifestation of deified man2 for the descent of ,god to man is necessarily preceded by the exaltation of man to ,god4 ,man was already in ,god1 was already ,god himself1 before ,god became man1 i4e41 showed himself as man4 #cc ,how otherwise could ,god have become man8 ,the old maxim1 ex nihilo nihil fit1 is applicable here also4 ,a king who has not the welfare of his subjects at heart1 who1 while seated on his throne1 does not mentally live with them in their dwellings1 who1 in feeling1 is not1 as the people say1 a common man1 such a king will not descend bodily from his throne to make his people happy by his personal presence4 ,thus1 has not the subject risen to be a king before the king descends to be a subject8 ,and if the subject feels himself honoured and made happy by the personal presence of his king1 does this feeling refer merely to the bodily presence1 and not rather to the manifestation of the disposition1 of the philanthropic nature which is the cause of the appearance8 ,but that which in the truth of religion is the cause1 takes in the consciousness of religion the form of a consequence2 and so here the raising of man to ,god is made a consequence of the humiliation or descent of ,god to man4 ,god1 says religion1 made himself human that he might make man divine4 #cd ,that which is mysterious and incomprehensible1 i4e41 contradictory1 in the proposition1 ,god is or becomes a man1 arises only from the mingling or confusion of the idea or definitions of the universal1 unlimited1 metaphysical being with the idea of the religious ,god1 i4e41 the conditions of the understanding with the conditions of the heart1 the emotive nature2 a confusion which is the greatest hindrance to the correct knowledge of religion4 ,but1 in fact1 the idea of the ,incarnation is nothing more than the human form of a ,god1 who already in his nature1 in the profoundest depths of his soul1 is a merciful and therefore a human ,god4 ,the form given to this truth in the doctrine of the ,church is1 that it was not the first person of the ,godhead who was incarnate1 but the second1 who is the representative of man in and before ,god2 the second person being however in reality1 as will be shown1 the sole1 true1 first person in religion4 ,and it is only apart from this distinction of persons that the ,god-man appears mysterious1 incomprehensible1 speculative2 for1 considered in connection with it1 the ,incarnation is a necessary1 nay1 a self-evident consequence4 ,the allegation1 therefore1 that the ,incarnation is a purely empirical fact1 which could be made known only by means of a revelation in the theological sense1 betrays the most crass religious materialism2 for the ,incarnation is a conclusion which rests on a very comprehensible premiss4 ,but it is equally perverse to attempt to deduce the ,incarnation from purely speculative1 i4e41 metaphysical1 abstract grounds2 for metaphysics apply only to the first person of the ,godhead1 who does not become incarnate1 who is not a dramatic person4 ,such a deduction would at the utmost be justifiable if it were meant consciously to deduce from metaphysics the negation of metaphysics4 ,this example clearly exhibits the distinction between the method of our philosophy and that of the old speculative philosophy4 ,the former does not philosophise concerning the ,incarnation1 as a peculiar1 stupendous mystery1 after the manner of speculation dazzled by mystical splendour2 on the contrary1 it destroys the illusive supposition of a peculiar supernatural mystery2 it criticises the dogma and reduces it to its natural elements1 immanent in man1 to its originating principle and central point--love4 ,the dogma presents to us two things--,god and love4 ,god is love3 but what does that mean8 ,is ,god something besides love8 a being distinct from love8 ,is it as if ,i said of an affectionate human being1 he is love itself8 ,certainly2 otherwise ,i must give up the name ,god1 which expresses a special personal being1 a subject in distinction from the predicate4 ,thus love is made something apart4 ,god out of love sent his only-begotten ,son4 ,here love recedes and sinks into insignificance in the dark background--,god4 ,it becomes merely a personal1 though an essential1 attribute2 hence it receives both in theory and in feeling1 both objectively and subjectively1 the rank simply of a predicate1 not that of a subject1 of the substance2 it shrinks out of observation as a collateral1 an accident2 at one moment it presents itself to me as something essential1 at another1 it vanishes again4 ,god appears to me in another form besides that of love2 in the form of omnipotence1 of a severe power not bound by love2 a power in which1 though in a smaller degree1 the devils participate4 ,so long as love is not exalted into a substance1 into an essence1 so long there lurks in the background of love a subject who even without love is something by himself1 an unloving monster1 a diabolical being1 whose personality1 separable and actually separated from love1 delights in the blood of heretics and unbelievers1--the phantom of religious fanaticism4 ,nevertheless the essential idea of the ,incarnation1 though enveloped in the night of the religious consciousness1 is love4 ,love determined ,god to the renunciation of his divinity4 #ce ,not because of his ,godhead as such1 according to which he is the subject in the proposition1 ,god is love1 but because of his love1 of the predicate1 is it that he renounced his ,godhead2 thus love is a higher power and truth than deity4 ,love conquers ,god4 ,it was love to which ,god sacrificed his divine majesty4 ,and what sort of love was that8 another than ours8 than that to which we sacrifice life and fortune8 ,was it the love of himself8 of himself as ,god8 ,no6 it was love to man4 ,but is not love to man human love8 ,can ,i love man without loving him humanly1 without loving him as he himself loves1 if he truly loves8 ,would not love be otherwise a devilish love8 ,the devil too loves man1 but not for man's sake--for his own2 thus he loves man out of egotism1 to aggrandise himself1 to extend his power4 ,but ,god loves man for man's sake1 i4e41 that he may make him good1 happy1 blessed4 ,does he not then love man as the true man loves his fellow8 ,has love a plural8 ,is it not everywhere like itself8 ,what then is the true unfalsified import of the ,incarnation but absolute1 pure love1 without adjunct1 without a distinction between divine and human love8 ,for though there is also a self-interested love among men1 still the true human love1 which is alone worthy of this name1 is that which impels the sacrifice of self to another4 ,who then is our ,saviour and ,redeemer8 ,god or ,love8 ,love2 for ,god as ,god has not saved us1 but ,love1 which transcends the difference between the divine and human personality4 ,as ,god has renounced himself out of love1 so we1 out of love1 should renounce ,god2 for if we do not sacrifice ,god to love1 we sacrifice love to ,god1 and1 in spite of the predicate of love1 we have the ,god--the evil being--of religious fanaticism4 ,while1 however1 we have laid open this nucleus of truth in the ,incarnation1 we have at the same time exhibited the dogma in its falsity2 we have reduced the apparently supernatural and super-rational mystery to a simple truth inherent in human nature3--a truth which does not belong to the ,christian religion alone1 but which1 implicitly at least1 belongs more or less to every religion as such4 ,for every religion which has any claim to the name presupposes that ,god is not indifferent to the beings who worship him1 that therefore what is human is not alien to him1 that1 as an object of human veneration1 he is a human ,god4 ,every prayer discloses the secret of the ,incarnation1 every prayer is in fact an incarnation of ,god4 ,in prayer ,i involve ,god in human distress1 ,i make him a participator in my sorrows and wants4 ,god is not deaf to my complaints2 he has compassion on me2 hence he renounces his divine majesty1 his exaltation above all that is finite and human2 he becomes a man with man2 for if he listens to me1 and pities me1 he is affected by my sufferings4 ,god loves man--i4e41 ,god suffers from man4 ,love does not exist without sympathy1 sympathy does not exist without suffering in common4 ,have ,i any sympathy for a being without feeling8 ,no6 ,i feel only for that which has feeling1 only for that which partakes of my nature1 for that in which ,i feel myself1 whose sufferings ,i myself suffer4 ,sympathy presupposes a like nature4 ,the ,incarnation1 ,providence1 prayer1 are the expression of this identity of nature in ,god and man4 #cf ,it is true that theology1 which is pre-occupied with the metaphysical attributes of eternity1 unconditionedness1 unchangeableness1 and the like abstractions1 which express the nature of the understanding1--theology denies the possibility that ,god should suffer1 but in so doing it denies the truth of religion4 #cg ,for religion--the religious man in the act of devotion believes in a real sympathy of the divine being in his sufferings and wants1 believes that the will of ,god can be determined by the fervour of prayer1 i4e41 by the force of feeling1 believes in a real1 present fulfilment of his desire1 wrought by prayer4 ,the truly religious man unhesitatingly assigns his own feelings to ,god2 ,god is to him a heart susceptible to all that is human4 ,the heart can betake itself only to the heart2 feeling can appeal only to feeling2 it finds consolation in itself1 in its own nature alone4 ,the notion that the fulfilment of prayer has been determined from eternity1 that it was originally included in the plan of creation1 is the empty1 absurd fiction of a mechanical mode of thought1 which is in absolute contradiction with the nature of religion4 ,we need1 says ,lavater somewhere1 and quite correctly according to the religious sentiment1 an arbitrary ,god4 ,besides1 even according to this fiction1 ,god is just as much a being determined by man1 as in the real1 present fulfilment consequent on the power of prayer2 the only difference is1 that the contradiction with the unchangeableness and unconditionedness of ,god--that which constitutes the difficulty--is thrown back into the deceptive distance of the past or of eternity4 ,whether ,god decides on the fulfilment of my prayer now1 on the immediate occasion of my offering it1 or whether he did decide on it long ago1 is fundamentally the same thing4 ,it is the greatest inconsequence to reject the idea of a ,god who can be determined by prayer1 that is1 by the force of feeling1 as an unworthy anthropomorphic idea4 ,if we once believe in a being who is an object of veneration1 an object of prayer1 an object of affection1 who is providential1 who takes care of man1--in a ,providence1 which is not conceivable without love1--in a being1 therefore1 who is loving1 whose motive of action is love2 we also believe in a being1 who has1 if not an anatomical1 yet a psychical human heart4 ,the religious mind1 as has been said1 places everything in ,god1 excepting that alone which it despises4 ,the ,christians certainly gave their ,god no attributes which contradicted their own moral ideas1 but they gave him without hesitation1 and of necessity1 the emotions of love1 of compassion4 ,and the love which the religious mind places in ,god is not an illusory1 imaginary love1 but a real1 true love4 ,god is loved and loves again2 the divine love is only human love made objective1 affirming itself4 ,in ,god love is absorbed in itself as its own ultimate truth4 ,it may be objected to the import here assigned to the ,incarnation1 that the ,christian ,incarnation is altogether peculiar1 that at least it is different 7which is quite true in certain respects1 as will hereafter be apparent7 from the incarnations of the heathen deities1 whether ,greek or ,indian4 ,these latter are mere products of men or deified men2 but in ,christianity is given the idea of the true ,god2 here the union of the divine nature with the human is first significant and speculative4 ,jupiter transforms himself into a bull2 the heathen incarnations are mere fancies4 ,in paganism there is no more in the nature of ,god than in his incarnate manifestation2 in ,christianity1 on the contrary1 it is ,god1 a separate1 superhuman being1 who appears as man4 ,but this objection is refuted by the remark already made1 that even the premiss of the ,christian ,incarnation contains the human nature4 ,god loves man2 moreover ,god has a ,son2 ,god is a father2 the relations of humanity are not excluded from ,god2 the human is not remote from ,god1 not unknown to him4 ,thus here also there is nothing more in the nature of ,god than in the incarnate manifestation of ,god4 ,in the ,incarnation religion only confesses1 what in reflection on itself1 as theology1 it will not admit2 namely1 that ,god is an altogether human being4 ,the ,incarnation1 the mystery of the ,god-man1 is therefore no mysterious composition of contraries1 no synthetic fact1 as it is regarded by the speculative religious philosophy1 which has a particular delight in contradiction2 it is an analytic fact1--a human word with a human meaning4 ,if there be a contradiction here1 it lies before the incarnation and out of it2 in the union of providence1 of love1 with deity2 for if this love is a real love1 it is not essentially different from our love1--there are only our limitations to be abstracted from it2 and thus the ,incarnation is only the strongest1 deepest1 most palpable1 open-hearted expression of this providence1 this love4 ,love knows not how to make its object happier than by rejoicing it with its personal presence1 by letting itself be seen4 ,to see the invisible benefactor face to face is the most ardent desire of love4 ,to see is a divine act4 ,happiness lies in the mere sight of the beloved one4 ,the glance is the certainty of love4 ,and the ,incarnation has no other significance1 no other effect1 than the indubitable certitude of the love of ,god to man4 ,love remains1 but the ,incarnation upon the earth passes away3 the appearance was limited by time and place1 accessible to few2 but the essence1 the nature which was manifested1 is eternal and universal4 ,we can no longer believe in the manifestation for its own sake1 but only for the sake of the thing manifested2 for to us there remains no immediate presence but that of love4 ,the clearest1 most irrefragable proof that man in religion contemplates himself as the object of the ,divine ,being1 as the end of the divine activity1 that thus in religion he has relation only to his own nature1 only to himself1--the clearest1 most irrefragable proof of this is the love of ,god to man1 the basis and central point of religion4 ,god1 for the sake of man1 empties himself of his ,godhead1 lays aside his ,godhead4 ,herein lies the elevating influence of the ,incarnation2 the highest1 the perfect being humiliates1 lowers himself for the sake of man4 ,hence in ,god ,i learn to estimate my own nature2 ,i have value in the sight of ,god2 the divine significance of my nature is become evident to me4 ,how can the worth of man be more strongly expressed than when ,god1 for man's sake1 becomes a man1 when man is the end1 the object of the divine love8 ,the love of ,god to man is an essential condition of the ,divine ,being3 ,god is a ,god who loves me--who loves man in general4 ,here lies the emphasis1 the fundamental feeling of religion4 ,the love of ,god makes me loving2 the love of ,god to man is the cause of man's love to ,god2 the divine love causes1 awakens human love4 ,we love ,god because he first loved us4 ,what1 then1 is it that ,i love in ,god8 ,love3 love to man4 ,but when ,i love and worship the love with which ,god loves man1 do ,i not love man2 is not my love of ,god1 though indirectly1 love of man8 ,if ,god loves man1 is not man1 then1 the very substance of ,god8 ,that which ,i love1 is it not my inmost being8 ,have ,i a heart when ,i do not love8 ,no6 love only is the heart of man4 ,but what is love without the thing loved8 ,thus what ,i love is my heart1 the substance of my being1 my nature4 ,why does man grieve1 why does he lose pleasure in life when he has lost the beloved object8 ,why8 because with the beloved object he has lost his heart1 the activity of his affections1 the principle of life4 ,thus if ,god loves man1 man is the heart of ,god--the welfare of man his deepest anxiety4 ,if man1 then1 is the object of ,god1 is not man1 in ,god1 an object to himself8 is not the content of the divine nature the human nature8 ,if ,god is love1 is not the essential content of this love man8 ,is not the love of ,god to man--the basis and central point of religion--the love of man to himself made an object1 contemplated as the highest objective truth1 as the highest being to man8 ,is not then the proposition1 ,god loves man an orientalism 7religion is essentially oriental71 which in plain speech means1 the highest is the love of man8 ,the truth to which1 by means of analysis1 we have here reduced the mystery of the ,incarnation1 has also been recognised even in the religious consciousness4 ,thus ,luther1 for example1 says1 ,he who can truly conceive such a thing 7namely1 the incarnation of ,god7 in his heart1 should1 for the sake of the flesh and blood which sits at the right hand of ,god1 bear love to all flesh and blood here upon the earth1 and never more be able to be angry with any man4 ,the gentle manhood of ,christ our ,god should at a glance fill all hearts with joy1 so that never more could an angry1 unfriendly thought come therein--yea1 every man ought1 out of great joy1 to be tender to his fellow-man for the sake of that our flesh and blood4 ,this is a fact which should move us to great joy and blissful hope that we are thus honoured above all creatures1 even above the angels1 so that we can with truth boast1 ,my own flesh and blood sits at the right hand of ,god and reigns over all4 ,such honour has no creature1 not even an angel4 ,this ought to be a furnace that should melt us all into one heart1 and should create such a fervour in us men that we should heartily love each other4 ,but that which in the truth of religion is the essence of the fable1 the chief thing1 is to the religious consciousness only the moral of the fable1 a collateral thing4 ,,chapter ,v4 ,,the ,,mystery ,,of ,,the ,,suffering ,,god4 ,an essential condition of the incarnate1 or1 what is the same thing1 the human ,god1 namely1 ,christ1 is the ,passion4 ,love attests itself by suffering4 ,all thoughts and feelings which are immediately associated with ,christ concentrate themselves in the idea of the ,passion4 ,god as ,god is the sum of all human perfection2 ,god as ,christ is the sum of all human misery4 ,the heathen philosophers celebrated activity1 especially the spontaneous activity of the intelligence1 as the highest1 the divine2 the ,christians consecrated passivity1 even placing it in ,god4 ,if ,god as actus purus1 as pure activity1 is the ,god of abstract philosophy2 so1 on the other hand1 ,christ1 the ,god of the ,christians1 is the passio pura1 pure suffering--the highest metaphysical thought1 the tre suprme of the heart4 ,for what makes more impression on the heart than suffering8 especially the suffering of one who considered in himself is free from suffering1 exalted above it2--the suffering of the innocent1 endured purely for the good of others1 the suffering of love1--self-sacrifice8 ,but for the very reason that the history of the ,passion is the history which most deeply affects the human heart1 or let us rather say the heart in general--for it would be a ludicrous mistake in man to attempt to conceive any other heart than the human1--it follows undeniably that nothing else is expressed in that history1 nothing else is made an object in it1 but the nature of the heart1--that it is not an invention of the understanding or the poetic faculty1 but of the heart4 ,the heart1 however1 does not invent in the same way as the free imagination or intelligence2 it has a passive1 receptive relation to what it produces2 all that proceeds from it seems to it given from without1 takes it by violence1 works with the force of irresistible necessity4 ,the heart overcomes1 masters man2 he who is once in its power is possessed as it were by his demon1 by his ,god4 ,the heart knows no other ,god1 no more excellent being than itself1 than a ,god whose name may indeed be another1 but whose nature1 whose substance is the nature of the heart4 ,and out of the heart1 out of the inward impulse to do good1 to live and die for man1 out of the divine instinct of benevolence which desires to make all happy1 and excludes none1 not even the most abandoned and abject1 out of the moral duty of benevolence in the highest sense1 as having become an inward necessity1 i4e41 a movement of the heart1--out of the human nature1 therefore1 as it reveals itself through the heart1 has sprung what is best1 what is true in ,christianity--its essence purified from theological dogmas and contradictions4 ,for1 according to the principles which we have already developed1 that which in religion is the predicate we must make the subject1 and that which in religion is a subject we must make a predicate1 thus inverting the oracles of religion2 and by this means we arrive at the truth4 ,god suffers--suffering is the predicate--but for men1 for others1 not for himself4 ,what does that mean in plain speech8 ,nothing else than this3 to suffer for others is divine2 he who suffers for others1 who lays down his life for them1 acts divinely1 is a ,god to men4 #ch ,the ,passion of ,christ1 however1 represents not only moral1 voluntary suffering1 the suffering of love1 the power of sacrificing self for the good of others2 it represents also suffering as such1 suffering in so far as it is an expression of passibility in general4 ,the ,christian religion is so little superhuman that it even sanctions human weakness4 ,the heathen philosopher1 on hearing tidings of the death of his child exclaims3 ,i knew that he was mortal4 ,christ1 on the contrary1--at least in the ,bible1--sheds tears over the death of ,lazarus1 a death which he nevertheless knew to be only an apparent one4 ,while ,socrates empties the cup of poison with unshaken soul1 ,christ exclaims1 ,if it be possible1 let this cup pass from me4 #ci ,christ is in this respect the self-confession of human sensibility4 ,in opposition to the heathen1 and in particular the stoical principle1 with its rigorous energy of will and self-sustainedness1 the ,christian involves the consciousness of his own sensitiveness and susceptibility in the consciousness of ,god2 he finds it1 if only it be no sinful weakness1 not denied1 not condemned in ,god4 ,to suffer is the highest command of ,christianity--the history of ,christianity is the history of the ,passion of ,humanity4 ,while amongst the heathens the shout of sensual pleasure mingled itself in the worship of the gods1 amongst the ,christians1 we mean of course the ancient ,christians1 ,god is served with sighs and tears4 #dj ,but as where sounds of sensual pleasure make a part of the cultus1 it is a sensual ,god1 a ,god of life1 who is worshipped1 as indeed these shouts of joy are only a symbolical definition of the nature of the gods to whom this jubilation is acceptable2 so also the sighs of ,christians are tones which proceed from the inmost soul1 the inmost nature of their ,god4 ,the ,god expressed by the cultus1 whether this be an external1 or1 as with the ,christians1 an inward spiritual worship1--not the ,god of sophistical theology1--is the true ,god of man4 ,but the ,christians1 we mean of course the ancient ,christians1 believed that they rendered the highest honour to their ,god by tears1 the tears of repentance and yearning4 ,thus tears are the light-reflecting drops which mirror the nature of the ,christian's ,god4 ,but a ,god who has pleasure in tears1 expresses nothing else than the nature of the heart4 ,it is true that the theory of the ,christian religion says3 ,christ has done all for us1 has redeemed us1 has reconciled us with ,god2 and from hence the inference may be drawn3 ,let us be of a joyful mind and disposition2 what need have we to trouble ourselves as to how we shall reconcile ourselves with ,god8 we are reconciled already4 ,but the imperfect tense in which the fact of suffering is expressed makes a deeper1 a more enduring impression1 than the perfect tense which expresses the fact of redemption4 ,the redemption is only the result of the suffering2 the suffering is the cause of the redemption4 ,hence the suffering takes deeper root in the feelings2 the suffering makes itself an object of imitation2--not so the redemption4 ,if ,god himself suffered for my sake1 how can ,i be joyful1 how can ,i allow myself any gladness1 at least on this corrupt earth1 which was the theatre of his suffering8 #da ,ought ,i to fare better than ,god8 ,ought ,i not1 then1 to make his sufferings my own8 ,is not what ,god my ,lord does my model8 ,or shall ,i share only the gain and not the cost also8 ,do ,i know merely that he has redeemed me8 ,do ,i not also know the history of his suffering8 ,should it be an object of cold remembrance to me1 or even an object of rejoicing1 because it has purchased my salvation8 ,who can think so--who can wish to be exempt from the sufferings of his ,god8 ,the ,christian religion is the religion of suffering4 #db ,the images of the crucified one which we still meet with in all churches1 represent not the ,saviour1 but only the crucified1 the suffering ,christ4 ,even the self-crucifixions among the ,christians are1 psychologically1 a deep-rooted consequence of their religious views4 ,how should not he who has always the image of the crucified one in his mind1 at length contract the desire to crucify either himself or another8 ,at least we have as good a warrant for this conclusion as ,augustine and other fathers of the ,church for their reproach against the heathen religion1 that the licentious religious images of the heathens provoked and authorised licentiousness4 ,god suffers1 means in truth nothing else than3 ,god is a heart4 ,the heart is the source1 the centre of all suffering4 ,a being without suffering is a being without a heart4 ,the mystery of the suffering ,god is therefore the mystery of feeling1 sensibility4 ,a suffering ,god is a feeling1 sensitive ,god4 #dc ,but the proposition3 ,god is a feeling ,being1 is only the religious periphrase of the proposition3 feeling is absolute1 divine in its nature4 ,man has the consciousness not only of a spring of activity1 but also of a spring of suffering in himself4 ,i feel2 and ,i feel feeling 7not merely will and thought1 which are only too often in opposition to me and my feelings71 as belonging to my essential being1 and1 though the source of all sufferings and sorrows1 as a glorious1 divine power and perfection4 ,what would man be without feeling8 ,it is the musical power in man4 ,but what would man be without music8 ,just as man has a musical faculty and feels an inward necessity to breathe out his feelings in song2 so1 by a like necessity1 he in religious sighs and tears streams forth the nature of feeling as an objective1 divine nature4 ,religion is human nature reflected1 mirrored in itself4 ,that which exists has necessarily a pleasure1 a joy in itself1 loves itself1 and loves itself justly2 to blame it because it loves itself is to reproach it because it exists4 ,to exist is to assert oneself1 to affirm oneself1 to love oneself2 he to whom life is a burthen rids himself of it4 ,where1 therefore1 feeling is not depreciated and repressed1 as with the ,stoics1 where existence is awarded to it1 there also is religious power and significance already conceded to it1 there also is it already exalted to that stage in which it can mirror and reflect itself1 in which it can project its own image as ,god4 ,god is the mirror of man4 ,that which has essential value for man1 which he esteems the perfect1 the excellent1 in which he has true delight1--that alone is ,god to him4 ,if feeling seems to thee a glorious attribute1 it is then1 per se1 a divine attribute to thee4 ,therefore1 the feeling1 sensitive man believes only in a feeling1 sensitive ,god1 i4e41 he believes only in the truth of his own existence and nature1 for he can believe in nothing else than that which is involved in his own nature4 ,his faith is the consciousness of that which is holy to him2 but that alone is holy to man which lies deepest within him1 which is most peculiarly his own1 the basis1 the essence of his individuality4 ,to the feeling man a ,god without feeling is an empty1 abstract1 negative ,god1 i4e41 nothing2 because that is wanting to him which is precious and sacred to man4 ,god is for man the commonplace book where he registers his highest feelings and thoughts1 the genealogical tree on which are entered the names that are dearest and most sacred to him4 ,it is a sign of an undiscriminating good-nature1 a womanish instinct1 to gather together and then to preserve tenaciously all that we have gathered1 not to trust anything to the waves of forgetfulness1 to the chance of memory1 in short not to trust ourselves and learn to know what really has value for us4 ,the freethinker is liable to the danger of an unregulated1 dissolute life4 ,the religious man who binds together all things in one1 does not lose himself in sensuality2 but for that reason he is exposed to the danger of illiberality1 of spiritual selfishness and greed4 ,therefore1 to the religious man at least1 the irreligious or un-religious man appears lawless1 arbitrary1 haughty1 frivolous2 not because that which is sacred to the former is not also in itself sacred to the latter1 but only because that which the un-religious man holds in his head merely1 the religious man places out of and above himself as an object1 and hence recognises in himself the relation of a formal subordination4 ,the religious man having a commonplace book1 a nucleus of aggregation1 has an aim1 and having an aim he has firm standing-ground4 ,not mere will as such1 not vague knowledge--only activity with a purpose1 which is the union of theoretic and practical activity1 gives man a moral basis and support1 i4e41 character4 ,every man1 therefore1 must place before himself a ,god1 i4e41 an aim1 a purpose4 ,the aim is the conscious1 voluntary1 essential impulse of life1 the glance of genius1 the focus of self-knowledge1--the unity of the material and spiritual in the individual man4 ,he who has an aim has a law over him2 he does not merely guide himself2 he is guided4 ,he who has no aim1 has no home1 no sanctuary2 aimlessness is the greatest unhappiness4 ,even he who has only common aims gets on better1 though he may not be better1 than he who has no aim4 ,an aim sets limits2 but limits are the mentors of virtue4 ,he who has an aim1 an aim which is in itself true and essential1 has1 eo ipso1 a religion1 if not in the narrow sense of common pietism1 yet--and this is the only point to be considered--in the sense of reason1 in the sense of the universal1 the only true love4 ,,chapter ,,vi4 ,,the ,,mystery ,,of ,,the ,,trinity ,,and ,,the ,,mother ,,of ,,god4 ,if a ,god without feeling1 without a capability of suffering1 will not suffice to man as a feeling1 suffering being1 neither will a ,god with feeling only1 a ,god without intelligence and will4 ,only a being who comprises in himself the whole man can satisfy the whole man4 ,man's consciousness of himself in his totality is the consciousness of the ,trinity4 ,the ,trinity knits together the qualities or powers which were before regarded separately into unity1 and thereby reduces the universal being of the understanding1 i4e41 ,god as ,god1 to a special being1 a special faculty4 ,that which theology designates as the image1 the similitude of the ,trinity1 we must take as the thing itself1 the essence1 the archetype1 the original2 by this means we shall solve the enigma4 ,the so-called images by which it has been sought to illustrate the ,trinity1 and make it comprehensible1 are principally3 mind1 understanding1 memory1 will1 love--mens1 intellectus1 memoria1 voluntas1 amor or caritas4 ,god thinks1 ,god loves2 and1 moreover1 he thinks1 he loves himself2 the object thought1 known1 loved1 is ,god himself4 ,the objectivity of self-consciousness is the first thing we meet with in the ,trinity4 ,self-consciousness necessarily urges itself upon man as something absolute4 ,existence is for him one with self-consciousness2 existence with self-consciousness is for him existence simply4 ,if ,i do not know that ,i exist1 it is all one whether ,i exist or not4 ,self-consciousness is for man--is1 in fact1 in itself--absolute4 ,a ,god who knows not his own existence1 a ,god without consciousness1 is no ,god4 ,man cannot conceive himself as without consciousness2 hence he cannot conceive ,god as without it4 ,the divine self-consciousness is nothing else than the consciousness of consciousness as an absolute or divine essence4 ,but this explanation is by no means exhaustive4 ,on the contrary1 we should be proceeding very arbitrarily if we sought to reduce and limit the mystery of the ,trinity to the proposition just laid down4 ,consciousness1 understanding1 will1 love1 in the sense of abstract essences or qualities1 belong only to abstract philosophy4 ,but religion is man's consciousness of himself in his concrete or living totality1 in which the identity of self-consciousness exists only as the pregnant1 complete unity of ,i and thou4 ,religion1 at least the ,christian1 is abstraction from the world2 it is essentially inward4 ,the religious man leads a life withdrawn from the world1 hidden in ,god1 still1 void of worldly joy4 ,he separates himself from the world1 not only in the ordinary sense1 according to which the renunciation of the world belongs to every true1 earnest man1 but also in that wider sense which science gives to the word1 when it calls itself world-wisdom 7welt-weisheit72 but he thus separates himself only because ,god is a being separate from the world1 an extra and supramundane being1--i4e41 abstractly and philosophically expressed1 the non-existence of the world4 ,god1 as an extramundane being1 is however nothing else than the nature of man withdrawn from the world and concentrated in itself1 freed from all worldly ties and entanglements1 transporting itself above the world1 and positing itself in this condition as a real objective being2 or1 nothing else than the consciousness of the power to abstract oneself from all that is external1 and to live for and with oneself alone1 under the form which this power takes in religion1 namely1 that of a being distinct1 apart from man4 #dd ,god as ,god1 as a simple being1 is the being absolutely alone1 solitary--absolute solitude and self-sufficingness2 for that only can be solitary which is self-sufficing4 ,to be able to be solitary is a sign of character and thinking power4 ,solitude is the want of the thinker1 society the want of the heart4 ,we can think alone1 but we can love only with another4 ,in love we are dependent1 for it is the need of another being2 we are independent only in the solitary act of thought4 ,solitude is self-sufficingness4 ,but from a solitary ,god the essential need of duality1 of love1 of community1 of the real1 completed self-consciousness1 of the alter ego1 is excluded4 ,this want is therefore satisfied by religion thus3 in the still solitude of the ,divine ,being is placed another1 a second1 different from ,god as to personality1 but identical with him in essence1--,god the ,son1 in distinction from ,god the ,father4 ,god the ,father is ,i1 ,god the ,son ,thou4 ,the ,i is understanding1 the ,thou love4 ,but love with understanding and understanding with love is mind1 and mind is the totality of man as such--the total man4 ,participated life is alone true1 self-satisfying1 divine life3--this simple thought1 this truth1 natural1 immanent in man1 is the secret1 the supernatural mystery of the ,trinity4 ,but religion expresses this truth1 as it does every other1 in an indirect manner1 i4e41 inversely1 for it here makes a general truth into a particular one1 the true subject into a predicate1 when it says3 ,god is a participated life1 a life of love and friendship4 ,the third ,person in the ,trinity expresses nothing further than the love of the two divine ,persons towards each other2 it is the unity of the ,son and the ,father1 the idea of community1 strangely enough regarded in its turn as a special personal being4 ,the ,holy ,spirit owes its personal existence only to a name1 a word4 ,the earliest ,fathers of the ,church are well known to have identified the ,spirit with the ,son4 ,even later1 its dogmatic personality wants consistency4 ,he is the love with which ,god loves himself and man1 and1 on the other hand1 he is the love with which man loves ,god and men4 ,thus he is the identity of ,god and man1 made objective according to the usual mode of thought in religion1 namely1 as in itself a distinct being4 ,but for us this unity or identity is already involved in the idea of the ,father1 and yet more in that of the ,son4 ,hence we need not make the ,holy ,spirit a separate object of our analysis4 ,only this one remark further4 ,in so far as the ,holy ,spirit represents the subjective phase1 he is properly the representation of the religious sentiment to itself1 the representation of religious emotion1 of religious enthusiasm1 or the personification1 the rendering objective of religion in religion4 ,the ,holy ,spirit is therefore the sighing creature1 the yearning of the creature after ,god4 ,but that there are in fact only two ,persons in the ,trinity1 the third representing1 as has been said1 only love1 is involved in this1 that to the strict idea of love two suffice4 ,with two we have the principle of multiplicity and all its essential results4 ,two is the principle of multiplicity1 and can therefore stand as its complete substitute4 ,if several ,persons were posited1 the force of love would only be weakened--it would be dispersed4 ,but love and the heart are identical2 the heart is no special power2 it is the man who loves1 and in so far as he loves4 ,the second ,person is therefore the self-assertion of the human heart as the principle of duality1 of participated life1--it is warmth2 the ,father is light1 although light was chiefly a predicate of the ,son1 because in him the ,godhead first became clear1 comprehensible4 ,but notwithstanding this1 light as a superterrestrial element may be ascribed to the ,father1 the representative of the ,godhead as such1 the cold being of the intelligence2 and warmth1 as a terrestrial element1 to the ,son4 ,god as the ,son first gives warmth to man2 here ,god1 from an object of the intellectual eye1 of the indifferent sense of light1 becomes an object of feeling1 of affection1 of enthusiasm1 of rapture2 but only because the ,son is himself nothing else than the glow of love1 enthusiasm4 #de ,god as the ,son is the primitive incarnation1 the primitive self-renunciation of ,god1 the negation of ,god in ,god2 for as the ,son he is a finite being1 because he exists ab alio1 he has a source1 whereas the ,father has no source1 he exists se4 ,thus in the second ,person the essential attribute of the ,godhead1 the attribute of self-existence1 is given up4 ,but ,god the ,father himself begets the ,son2 thus he renounces his rigorous1 exclusive divinity2 he humiliates1 lowers himself1 evolves within himself the principle of finiteness1 of dependent existence2 in the ,son he becomes man1 not indeed1 in the first instance1 as to the outward form1 but as to the inward nature4 ,and for this reason it is as the ,son that ,god first becomes the object of man1 the object of feeling1 of the heart4 ,the heart comprehends only what springs from the heart4 ,from the character of the subjective disposition and impressions the conclusion is infallible as to the character of the object4 ,the pure1 free understanding denies the ,son1--not so the understanding determined by feeling1 overshadowed by the heart2 on the contrary1 it finds in the ,son the depths of the ,godhead1 because in him it finds feeling1 which in and by itself is something dark1 obscure1 and therefore appears to man a mystery4 ,the ,son lays hold on the heart1 because the true ,father of the ,divine ,son is the human heart1 #df and the ,son himself nothing else than the divine heart1 i4e41 the human heart become objective to itself as a ,divine ,being4 ,a ,god who has not in himself the quality of finiteness1 the principle of concrete existence1 the essence of the feeling of dependence1 is no ,god for a finite1 concrete being4 ,the religious man cannot love a ,god who has not the essence of love in himself1 neither can man1 or1 in general1 any finite being1 be an object to a ,god who has not in himself the ground1 the principle of finiteness4 ,to such a ,god there is wanting the sense1 the understanding1 the sympathy for finiteness4 ,how can ,god be the ,father of men1 how can he love other beings subordinate to himself1 if he has not in himself a subordinate being1 a ,son1 if he does not know what love is1 so to speak1 from his own experience1 in relation to himself8 ,the single man takes far less interest in the family sorrows of another than he who himself has family ties4 ,thus ,god the ,father loves men only in the ,son and for the sake of the ,son4 ,the love to man is derived from the love to the ,son4 ,the ,father and ,son in the ,trinity are therefore father and son not in a figurative sense1 but in a strictly literal sense4 ,the ,father is a real father in relation to the ,son1 the ,son is a real son in relation to the ,father1 or to ,god as the ,father4 ,the essential personal distinction between them consists only in this1 that the one begets1 the other is begotten4 ,if this natural empirical condition is taken away1 their personal existence and reality are annihilated4 ,the ,christians--we mean of course the ,christians of former days1 who would with difficulty recognise the worldly1 frivolous1 pagan ,christians of the modern world as their brethren in ,christ--substituted for the natural love and unity immanent in man a purely religious love and unity2 they rejected the real life of the family1 the intimate bond of love which is naturally moral1 as an undivine1 unheavenly1 i4e41 in truth1 a worthless thing4 ,but in compensation they had a ,father and ,son in ,god1 who embraced each other with heartfelt love1 with that intense love which natural relationship alone inspires4 ,on this account the mystery of the ,trinity was to the ancient ,christians an object of unbounded wonder1 enthusiasm1 and rapture1 because here the satisfaction of those profoundest human wants which in reality1 in life1 they denied1 became to them an object of contemplation in ,god4 #dg ,it was therefore quite in order that1 to complete the divine family1 the bond of love between ,father and ,son1 a third1 and that a feminine person1 was received into heaven2 for the personality of the ,holy ,spirit is a too vague and precarious1 a too obviously poetic personification of the mutual love of the ,father and ,son1 to serve as the third complementary being4 ,it is true that the ,virgin ,mary was not so placed between the ,father and ,son as to imply that the ,father had begotten the ,son through her1 because the sexual relation was regarded by the ,christians as something unholy and sinful2 but it is enough that the maternal principle was associated with the ,father and ,son4 ,it is1 in fact1 difficult to perceive why the ,mother should be something unholy1 i4e41 unworthy of ,god1 when once ,god is ,father and ,son4 ,though it is held that the ,father is not a father in the natural sense--that1 on the contrary1 the divine generation is quite different from the natural and human--still he remains a ,father1 and a real1 not a nominal or symbolical ,father in relation to the ,son4 ,and the idea of the ,mother of ,god1 which now appears so strange to us1 is therefore not really more strange or paradoxical1 than the idea of the ,son of ,god1 is not more in contradiction with the general1 abstract definition of ,god than the ,sonship4 ,on the contrary1 the ,virgin ,mary fits in perfectly with the relations of the ,trinity1 since she conceives without man the ,son whom the ,father begets without woman2 #dh so that thus the ,holy ,virgin is a necessary1 inherently requisite antithesis to the ,father in the bosom of the ,trinity4 ,moreover we have1 if not in concreto and explicitly1 yet in abstracto and implicitly1 the feminine principle already in the ,son4 ,the ,son is the mild1 gentle1 forgiving1 conciliating being--the womanly sentiment of ,god4 ,god1 as the ,father1 is the generator1 the active1 the principle of masculine spontaneity2 but the ,son is begotten without himself begetting1 ,deus genitus1 the passive1 suffering1 receptive being2 he receives his existence from the ,father4 ,the ,son1 as a son1 of course not as ,god1 is dependent on the ,father1 subject to his authority4 ,the ,son is thus the feminine feeling of dependence in the ,godhead2 the ,son implicitly urges upon us the need of a real feminine being4 #di ,the son--,i mean the natural1 human son--considered as such1 is an intermediate being between the masculine nature of the father and the feminine nature of the mother2 he is1 as it were1 still half a man1 half a woman1 inasmuch as he has not the full1 rigorous consciousness of independence which characterises the man1 and feels himself drawn rather to the mother than to the father4 ,the love of the son to the mother is the first love of the masculine being for the feminine4 ,the love of man to woman1 the love of the youth for the maiden1 receives its religious--its sole truly religious consecration in the love of the son to the mother2 the son's love for his mother is the first yearning of man towards woman--his first humbling of himself before her4 ,necessarily1 therefore1 the idea of the ,mother of ,god is associated with the idea of the ,son of ,god1--the same heart that needed the one needed the other also4 ,where the ,son is1 the ,mother cannot be absent2 the ,son is the only-begotten of the ,father1 but the ,mother is the concomitant of the ,son4 ,the ,son is a substitute for the ,mother to the ,father1 but not so the ,father to the ,son4 ,to the ,son the ,mother is indispensable2 the heart of the ,son is the heart of the ,mother4 ,why did ,god become man only through woman8 ,could not the ,almighty have appeared as a man amongst men in another manner--immediately8 ,why did the ,son betake himself to the bosom of the ,mother8 #ej ,for what other reason than because the ,son is the yearning after the ,mother1 because his womanly1 tender heart found a corresponding expression only in a feminine body8 ,it is true that the ,son1 as a natural man1 dwells only temporarily in the shrine of this body1 but the impressions which he here receives are inextinguishable2 the ,mother is never out of the mind and heart of the ,son4 ,if then the worship of the ,son of ,god is no idolatry1 the worship of the ,mother of ,god is no idolatry4 ,if herein we perceive the love of ,god to us1 that he gave us his only-begotten ,son1 i4e41 that which was dearest to him1 for our salvation1--we can perceive this love still better when we find in ,god the beating of a mother's heart4 ,the highest and deepest love is the mother's love4 ,the father consoles himself for the loss of his son2 he has a stoical principle within him4 ,the mother1 on the contrary1 is inconsolable2 she is the sorrowing element1 that which cannot be indemnified--the true in love4 ,where faith in the ,mother of ,god sinks1 there also sinks faith in the ,son of ,god1 and in ,god as the ,father4 ,the ,father is a truth only where the ,mother is a truth4 ,love is in and by itself essentially feminine in its nature4 ,the belief in the love of ,god is the belief in the feminine principle as divine499 ,love apart from living nature is an anomaly1 a phantom4 ,behold in love the holy necessity and depth of ,nature6 ,protestantism has set aside the ,mother of ,god2 but this deposition of woman has been severely avenged4 #ea ,the arms which it has used against the ,mother of ,god have turned against itself1 against the ,son of ,god1 against the whole ,trinity4 ,he who has once offered up the ,mother of ,god to the understanding1 is not far from sacrificing the mystery of the ,son of ,god as an anthropomorphism4 ,the anthropomorphism is certainly veiled when the feminine being is excluded1 but only veiled--not removed4 ,it is true that ,protestantism had no need of the heavenly bride1 because it received with open arms the earthly bride4 ,but for that very reason it ought to have been consequent and courageous enough to give up not only the ,mother1 but the ,son and the ,father4 ,only he who has no earthly parents needs heavenly ones4 ,the triune ,god is the ,god of ,catholicism2 he has a profound1 heartfelt1 necessary1 truly religious significance1 only in antithesis to the negation of all substantial bonds1 in antithesis to the life of the anchorite1 the monk1 and the nun4 #eb ,the triune ,god has a substantial meaning only where there is an abstraction from the substance of real life4 ,the more empty life is1 the fuller1 the more concrete is ,god4 ,the impoverishing of the real world and the enriching of ,god is one act4 ,only the poor man has a rich ,god4 ,god springs out of the feeling of a want2 what man is in need of1 whether this be a definite and therefore conscious1 or an unconscious need1--that is ,god4 ,thus the disconsolate feeling of a void1 of loneliness1 needed a ,god in whom there is society1 a union of beings fervently loving each other4 ,here we have the true explanation of the fact that the ,trinity has in modern times lost first its practical1 and ultimately its theoretical significance4 ,,chapter ,,vii4 ,,the ,,mystery ,,of ,,the ,,logos ,,and ,,divine ,,image4 ,the essential significance of the ,trinity is1 however1 concentrated in the idea of the second ,person4 ,the warm interest of ,christians in the ,trinity has been1 in the main1 only an interest in the ,son of ,god4 #ec ,the fierce contention concerning the ,homousios and ,homoiousios was not an empty one1 although it turned upon a letter4 ,the point in question was the co-equality and divine dignity of the second ,person1 and therefore the honour of the ,christian religion itself2 for its essential1 characteristic object is the second ,person2 and that which is essentially the object of a religion is truly1 essentially its ,god4 ,the real ,god of any religion is the so-called ,mediator1 because he alone is the immediate object of religion4 ,he who1 instead of applying to ,god1 applies to a saint1 does so only on the assumption that the saint has all power with ,god1 that what he prays for1 i4e41 wishes and wills1 ,god readily performs2 that thus ,god is entirely in the hands of the saint4 ,supplication is the means1 under the guise of humility and submission1 of exercising one's power and superiority over another being4 ,that to which my mind first turns is also1 in truth1 the first being to me4 ,i turn to the saint1 not because the saint is dependent on ,god1 but because ,god is dependent on the saint1 because ,god is determined and ruled by the prayers1 i4e41 by the wish or heart of the saint4 ,the distinctions which the ,catholic theologians made between latreia1 doulia1 and hyperdoulia1 are absurd1 groundless sophisms4 ,the ,god in the background of the ,mediator is only an abstract1 inert conception1 the conception or idea of the ,godhead in general2 and it is not to reconcile us with this idea1 but to remove it to a distance1 to negative it1 because it is no object for religion1 that the ,mediator interposes4 #ed ,god above the ,mediator is nothing else than the cold understanding above the heart1 like ,fate above the ,olympic gods4 ,man1 as an emotional and sensuous being1 is governed and made happy only by images1 by sensible representations4 ,mind presenting itself as at once type-creating1 emotional1 and sensuous1 is the imagination4 ,the second ,person in ,god1 who is in truth the first person in religion1 is the nature of the imagination made objective4 ,the definitions of the second ,person are principally images or symbols2 and these images do not proceed from man's incapability of conceiving the object otherwise than symbolically1--which is an altogether false interpretation1--but the thing cannot be conceived otherwise than symbolically because the thing itself is a symbol or image4 ,the ,son is1 therefore1 expressly called the ,image of ,god2 his essence is that he is an image--the representation of ,god1 the visible glory of the invisible ,god4 ,the ,son is the satisfaction of the need for mental images1 the nature of the imaginative activity in man made objective as an absolute1 divine activity4 ,man makes to himself an image of ,god1 i4e41 he converts the abstract being of the reason1 the being of the thinking power1 into an object of sense or imagination4 #ee ,but he places this image in ,god himself1 because his want would not be satisfied if he did not regard this image as an objective reality1 if it were nothing more for him than a subjective image1 separate from ,god1--a mere figment devised by man4 ,and it is in fact no devised1 no arbitrary image2 for it expresses the necessity of the imagination1 the necessity of affirming the imagination as a divine power4 ,the ,son is the reflected splendour of the imagination1 the image dearest to the heart2 but for the very reason that he is only an object of the imagination1 he is only the nature of the imagination made objective4 #ef ,it is clear from this how blinded by prejudice dogmatic speculation is1 when1 entirely overlooking the inward genesis of the ,son of ,god as the ,image of ,god1 it demonstrates the ,son as a metaphysical ens1 as an object of thought1 whereas the ,son is a declension1 a falling off from the metaphysical idea of the ,godhead2--a falling off1 however1 which religion naturally places in ,god himself1 in order to justify it1 and not to feel it as a falling off4 ,the ,son is the chief and ultimate principle of image-worship1 for he is the image of ,god2 and the image necessarily takes the place of the thing4 ,the adoration of the saint in his image is the adoration of the image as the saint4 ,wherever the image is the essential expression1 the organ of religion1 there also it is the essence of religion4 ,the ,council of ,nice adduced1 amongst other grounds for the religious use of images1 the authority of ,gregory of ,nyssa1 who said that he could never look at an image which represented the sacrifice of ,isaac without being moved to tears1 because it so vividly brought before him that event in sacred history4 ,but the effect of the represented object is not the effect of the object as such1 but the effect of the representation4 ,the holy object is simply the haze of holiness in which the image veils its mysterious power4 ,the religious object is only a pretext1 by means of which art or imagination can exercise its dominion over men unhindered4 ,for the religious consciousness1 it is true1 the sacredness of the image is associated1 and necessarily so1 only with the sacredness of the object2 but the religious consciousness is not the measure of truth4 ,indeed1 the ,church itself1 while insisting on the distinction between the image and the object of the image1 and denying that the worship is paid to the image1 has at the same time made at least an indirect admission of the truth1 by itself declaring the sacredness of the image4 #eg ,but the ultimate1 highest principle of image-worship is the worship of the ,image of ,god in ,god4 ,the ,son1 who is the brightness of his glory1 the express image of his person1 is the entrancing splendour of the imagination1 which only manifests itself in visible images4 ,both to inward and outward contemplation the representation of ,christ1 the ,image of ,god1 was the image of images4 ,the images of the saints are only optical multiplications of one and the same image4 ,the speculative deduction of the ,image of ,god is therefore nothing more than an unconscious deduction and establishing of image-worship3 for the sanction of the principle is also the sanction of its necessary consequences2 the sanction of the archetype is the sanction of its semblance4 ,if ,god has an image of himself1 why should not ,i have an image of ,god8 ,if ,god loves his ,image as himself1 why should not ,i also love the ,image of ,god as ,i love ,god himself8 ,if the ,image of ,god is ,god himself1 why should not the image of the saint be the saint himself8 ,if it is no superstition to believe that the image which ,god makes of himself is no image1 no mere conception1 but a substance1 a person1 why should it be a superstition to believe that the image of the saint is the sensitive substance of the saint8 ,the ,image of ,god weeps and bleeds2 why then should not the image of a saint also weep and bleed8 ,does the distinction lie in the fact that the image of the saint is a product of the hands8 ,why1 the hands did not make this image1 but the mind which animated the hands1 the imagination2 and if ,god makes an image of himself1 that also is only a product of the imagination4 ,or does the distinction proceed from this1 that the ,image of ,god is produced by ,god himself1 whereas the image of the saint is made by another8 ,why1 the image of the saint is also a product of the saint himself3 for he appears to the artist2 the artist only represents him as he appears4 ,connected with the nature of the image is another definition of the second ,person1 namely1 that he is the ,word of ,god4 ,a word is an abstract image1 the imaginary thing1 or1 in so far as everything is ultimately an object of the thinking power1 it is the imagined thought3 hence men1 when they know the word1 the name for a thing1 fancy that they know the thing also4 ,words are a result of the imagination4 ,sleepers who dream vividly and invalids who are delirious speak4 ,the power of speech is a poetic talent4 ,brutes do not speak because they have no poetic faculty4 ,thought expresses itself only by images2 the power by which thought expresses itself is the imagination2 the imagination expressing itself is speech4 ,he who speaks1 lays under a spell1 fascinates those to whom he speaks2 but the power of words is the power of the imagination4 ,therefore to the ancients1 as children of the imagination1 the ,word was a being--a mysterious1 magically powerful being4 ,even the ,christians1 and not only the vulgar among them1 but also the learned1 the ,fathers of the ,church1 attached to the mere name ,christ1 mysterious powers of healing4 #eh ,and in the present day the common people still believe that it is possible to bewitch men by mere words4 ,whence comes this ascription of imaginary influences to words8 ,simply from this1 that words themselves are only a result of the imagination1 and hence have the effect of a narcotic on man1 imprison him under the power of the imagination4 ,words possess a revolutionising force2 words govern mankind4 ,words are held sacred2 while the things of reason and truth are decried4 ,the affirming or making objective of the nature of the imagination is therefore directly connected with the affirming or making objective of the nature of speech1 of the word4 ,man has not only an instinct1 an internal necessity1 which impels him to think1 to perceive1 to imagine2 he has also the impulse to speak1 to utter1 impart his thoughts4 ,a divine impulse this--a divine power1 the power of words4 ,the word is the imaged1 revealed1 radiating1 lustrous1 enlightening thought4 ,the word is the light of the world4 ,the word guides to all truth1 unfolds all mysteries1 reveals the unseen1 makes present the past and the future1 defines the infinite1 perpetuates the transient4 ,men pass away1 the word remains2 the word is life and truth4 ,all power is given to the word3 the word makes the blind see and the lame walk1 heals the sick1 and brings the dead to life2--the word works miracles1 and the only rational miracles4 ,the word is the gospel1 the paraclete of mankind4 ,to convince thyself of the divine nature of speech1 imagine thyself alone and forsaken1 yet acquainted with language2 and imagine thyself further hearing for the first time the word of a human being3 would not this word seem to thee angelic8 would it not sound like the voice of ,god himself1 like heavenly music8 ,words are not really less rich1 less pregnant than music1 though music seems to say more1 and appears deeper and richer than words1 for this reason simply1 that it is invested with that prepossession1 that illusion4 ,the word has power to redeem1 to reconcile1 to bless1 to make free4 ,the sins which we confess are forgiven us by virtue of the divine power of the word4 ,the dying man who gives forth in speech his long-concealed sins departs reconciled4 ,the forgiveness of sins lies in the confession of sins4 ,the sorrows which we confide to our friend are already half healed4 ,whenever we speak of a subject1 the passions which it has excited in us are allayed2 we see more clearly2 the object of anger1 of vexation1 of sorrow1 appears to us in a light in which we perceive the unworthiness of those passions4 ,if we are in darkness and doubt on any matter1 we need only speak of it2--often in the very moment in which we open our lips to consult a friend1 the doubts and difficulties disappear4 ,the word makes man free4 ,he who cannot express himself is a slave4 ,hence1 excessive passion1 excessive joy1 excessive grief1 are speechless4 ,to speak is an act of freedom2 the word is freedom4 ,justly therefore is language held to be the root of culture2 where language is cultivated1 man is cultivated4 ,the barbarism of the ,middle ,ages disappeared before the revival of language4 ,as we can conceive nothing else as a ,divine ,being than the ,rational which we think1 the ,good which we love1 the ,beautiful which we perceive2 so we know no higher spiritually operative power and expression of power than the power of the ,word4 #ei ,god is the sum of all reality4 ,all that man feels or knows as a reality he must place in ,god or regard as ,god4 ,religion must therefore be conscious of the power of the word as a divine power4 ,the ,word of ,god is the divinity of the word1 as it becomes an object to man within the sphere of religion1--the true nature of the human word4 ,the ,word of ,god is supposed to be distinguished from the human word in that it is no transient breath1 but an imparted being4 ,but does not the word of man also contain the being of man1 his imparted self1--at least when it is a true word8 ,thus religion takes the appearance of the human word for its essence2 hence it necessarily conceives the true nature of the ,word to be a special being1 distinct from the human word4 ,,chapter ,,viii4 ,,the ,,mystery ,,of ,,the ,,cosmogonical ,,principle ,,in ,,god4 ,the second ,person1 as ,god revealing1 manifesting1 declaring himself 7,deus se dicit71 is the world-creating principle in ,god4 ,but this means nothing else than that the second ,person is intermediate between the noumenal nature of ,god and the phenomenal nature of the world1 that he is the divine principle of the finite1 of that which is distinguished from ,god4 ,the second ,person as begotten1 as not se1 not existing of himself1 has the fundamental condition of the finite in himself4 #fj ,but at the same time1 he is not yet a real finite ,being1 posited out of ,god2 on the contrary1 he is still identical with ,god1--as identical as the son is with the father1 the son being indeed another person1 but still of like nature with the father4 ,the second ,person1 therefore1 does not represent to us the pure idea of the ,godhead1 but neither does he represent the pure idea of humanity1 or of reality in general3 he is an intermediate ,being between the two opposites4 ,the opposition of the noumenal or invisible divine nature and the phenomenal or visible nature of the world1 is1 however1 nothing else than the opposition between the nature of abstraction and the nature of perception2 but that which connects abstraction with perception is the imagination3 consequently1 the transition from ,god to the world by means of the second ,person1 is only the form in which religion makes objective the transition from abstraction to perception by means of the imagination4 ,it is the imagination alone by which man neutralises the opposition between ,god and the world4 ,all religious cosmogonies are products of the imagination4 ,every being1 intermediate between ,god and the world1 let it be defined how it may1 is a being of the imagination4 ,the psychological truth and necessity which lies at the foundation of all these theogonies and cosmogonies is the truth and necessity of the imagination as a middle term between the abstract and concrete4 ,and the task of philosophy in investigating this subject is to comprehend the relation of the imagination to the reason1--the genesis of the image by means of which an object of thought becomes an object of sense1 of feeling4 ,but the nature of the imagination is the complete1 exhaustive truth of the cosmogonic principle1 only where the antithesis of ,god and the world expresses nothing but the indefinite antithesis of the noumenal1 invisible1 incomprehensible being1 ,god1 and the visible1 tangible existence of the world4 ,if1 on the other hand1 the cosmogonic being is conceived and expressed abstractly1 as is the case in religious speculation1 we have also to recognise a more abstract psychological truth as its foundation4 ,the world is not ,god2 it is other than ,god1 the opposite of ,god1 or at least that which is different from ,god4 ,but that which is different from ,god cannot have come immediately from ,god1 but only from a distinction of ,god in ,god4 ,the second ,person is ,god distinguishing himself from himself in himself1 setting himself opposite to himself1 hence being an object to himself4 ,the self-distinguishing of ,god from himself is the ground of that which is different from himself1 and thus self-consciousness is the origin of the world4 ,god first thinks the world in thinking himself3 to think oneself is to beget oneself1 to think the world is to create the world4 ,begetting precedes creating4 ,the idea of the production of the world1 of another being who is not ,god1 is attained through the idea of the production of another being who is like ,god4 ,this cosmogonical process is nothing else than the mystic paraphrase of a psychological process1 nothing else than the unity of consciousness and self-consciousness made objective4 ,god thinks himself3--thus he is self-conscious4 ,god is self-consciousness posited as an object1 as a being2 but inasmuch as he knows himself1 thinks himself1 he also thinks another than himself2 for to know oneself is to distinguish oneself from another1 whether this be a possible1 merely conceptional1 or a real being4 ,thus the world--at least the possibility1 the idea of the world--is posited with consciousness1 or rather conveyed in it4 ,the ,son1 i4e41 ,god thought by himself1 objective to himself1 the original reflection of ,god1 the other ,god1 is the principle of creation4 ,the truth which lies at the foundation of this is the nature of man3 the identity of his self-consciousness with his consciousness of another who is identical with himself1 and of another who is not identical with himself4 ,and the second1 the other who is of like nature1 is necessarily the middle term between the first and third4 ,the idea of another in general1 of one who is essentially different from me1 arises to me first through the idea of one who is essentially like me4 ,consciousness of the world is the consciousness of my limitation3 if ,i knew nothing of a world1 ,i should know nothing of limits2 but the consciousness of my limitation stands in contradiction with the impulse of my egoism towards unlimitedness4 ,thus from egoism conceived as absolute 7,god is the absolute ,self7 ,i cannot pass immediately to its opposite2 ,i must introduce1 prelude1 moderate this contradiction by the consciousness of a being who is indeed another1 and in so far gives me the perception of my limitation1 but in such a way as at the same time to affirm my own nature1 make my nature objective to me4 ,the consciousness of the world is a humiliating consciousness2 the creation was an act of humility2 but the first stone against which the pride of egoism stumbles is the thou1 the alter ego4 ,the ego first steels its glance in the eye of a thou before it endures the contemplation of a being which does not reflect its own image4 ,my fellow-man is the bond between me and the world4 ,i am1 and ,i feel myself1 dependent on the world1 because ,i first feel myself dependent on other men4 ,if ,i did not need man1 ,i should not need the world4 ,i reconcile myself with the world only through my fellow-man4 ,without other men1 the world would be for me not only dead and empty1 but meaningless4 ,only through his fellow does man become clear to himself and self-conscious2 but only when ,i am clear to myself does the world become clear to me4 ,a man existing absolutely alone would lose himself without any sense of his individuality in the ocean of ,nature2 he would neither comprehend himself as man nor ,nature as ,nature4 ,the first object of man is man4 ,the sense of ,nature1 which opens to us the consciousness of the world as a world1 is a later product2 for it first arises through the distinction of man from himself4 ,the natural philosophers of ,greece were preceded by the so-called seven ,sages1 whose wisdom had immediate reference to human life only4 ,the ego1 then1 attains to consciousness of the world through consciousness of the thou4 ,thus man is the ,god of man4 ,that he is1 he has to thank ,nature2 that he is man1 he has to thank man2 spiritually as well as physically he can achieve nothing without his fellow-man4 ,four hands can do more than two1 but also four eyes can see more than two4 ,and this combined power is distinguished not only in quantity but also in quality from that which is solitary4 ,in isolation human power is limited1 in combination it is infinite4 ,the knowledge of a single man is limited1 but reason1 science1 is unlimited1 for it is a common act of mankind2 and it is so1 not only because innumerable men co-operate in the construction of science1 but also in the more profound sense1 that the scientific genius of a particular age comprehends in itself the thinking powers of the preceding age1 though it modifies them in accordance with its own special character4 ,wit1 acumen1 imagination1 feeling as distinguished from sensation1 reason as a subjective faculty1--all these so-called powers of the soul are powers of humanity1 not of man as an individual2 they are products of culture1 products of human society4 ,only where man has contact and friction with his fellow-man are wit and sagacity kindled2 hence there is more wit in the town than in the country1 more in great towns than in small ones4 ,only where man suns and warms himself in the proximity of man arise feeling and imagination4 ,love1 which requires mutuality1 is the spring of poetry2 and only where man communicates with man1 only in speech1 a social act1 awakes reason4 ,to ask a question and to answer are the first acts of thought4 ,thought originally demands two4 ,it is not until man has reached an advanced stage of culture that he can double himself1 so as to play the part of another within himself4 ,to think and to speak are therefore1 with all ancient and sensuous nations1 identical2 they think only in speaking2 their thought is only conversation4 ,the common people1 i4e41 people in whom the power of abstraction has not been developed1 are still incapable of understanding what is written if they do not read it audibly1 if they do not pronounce what they read4 ,in this point of view ,hobbes correctly enough derives the understanding of man from his ears6 ,reduced to abstract logical categories1 the creative principle in ,god expresses nothing further than the tautological proposition3 the different can only proceed from a principle of difference1 not from a simple being4 ,however the ,christian philosophers and theologians insisted on the creation of the world out of nothing1 they were unable altogether to evade the old axiom--,nothing comes from nothing1 because it expresses a law of thought4 ,it is true that they supposed no real matter as the principle of the diversity of material things1 but they made the divine understanding 7and the ,son is the wisdom1 the science1 the understanding of the ,father7--as that which comprehends within itself all things as spiritual matter--the principle of real matter4 ,the distinction between the heathen eternity of matter and the ,christian creation in this respect is only that the heathens ascribed to the world a real1 objective eternity1 whereas the ,christians gave it an invisible1 immaterial eternity4 ,things were before they existed positively1--not1 indeed1 as an object of sense1 but of the subjective understanding4 ,the ,christians1 whose principle is that of absolute subjectivity1 conceive all things as effected only through this principle4 ,the matter posited by their subjective thought1 conceptional1 subjective matter1 is therefore to them the first matter1--far more excellent than real1 objective matter4 ,nevertheless1 this distinction is only a distinction in the mode of existence4 ,the world is eternal in ,god4 ,or did it spring up in him as a sudden idea1 a caprice8 ,certainly man can conceive this too2 but1 in doing so1 he deifies nothing but his own irrationality4 ,if1 on the contrary1 ,i abide by reason1 ,i can only derive the world from its essence1 its idea1 i4e41 one mode of its existence from another mode2 in other words1 ,i can derive the world only from itself4 ,the world has its basis in itself1 as has everything in the world which has a claim to the name of species4 ,the differentia specifica1 the peculiar character1 that by which a given being is what it is1 is always in the ordinary sense inexplicable1 undeducible1 is through itself1 has its cause in itself4 ,the distinction between the world and ,god as the creator of the world is therefore only a formal one4 ,the nature of ,god--for the divine understanding1 that which comprehends within itself all things1 is the divine nature itself2 hence ,god1 inasmuch as he thinks and knows himself1 thinks and knows at the same time the world and all things--the nature of ,god is nothing else than the abstract1 thought nature of the world2 the nature of the world nothing else than the real1 concrete1 perceptible nature of ,god4 ,hence creation is nothing more than a formal act2 for that which1 before the creation1 was an object of thought1 of the understanding1 is by creation simply made an object of sense1 its ideal contents continuing the same2 although it remains absolutely inexplicable how a real material thing can spring out of a pure thought4 #fa ,so it is with plurality and difference--if we reduce the world to these abstract categories--in opposition to the unity and identity of the ,divine nature4 ,real difference can be derived only from a being which has a principle of difference in itself4 ,but ,i posit difference in the original being1 because ,i have originally found difference as a positive reality4 ,wherever difference is in itself nothing1 there also no difference is conceived in the principle of things4 ,i posit difference as an essential category1 as a truth1 where ,i derive it from the original being1 and vice vers3 the two propositions are identical4 ,the rational expression is this3 ,difference lies as necessarily in the reason as identity4 ,but as difference is a positive condition of the reason1 ,i cannot deduce it without presupposing it2 ,i cannot explain it except by itself1 because it is an original1 self-luminous1 self-attesting reality4 ,through what means arises the world1 that which is distinguished from ,god8 through the distinguishing of ,god from himself in himself4 ,god thinks himself1 he is an object to himself2 he distinguishes himself from himself4 ,hence this distinction1 the world1 arises only from a distinction of another kind1 the external distinction from an internal one1 the static distinction from a dynamic one1--from an act of distinction3 thus ,i establish difference only through itself1 i4e41 it is an original concept1 a ne plus ultra of my thought1 a law1 a necessity1 a truth4 ,the last distinction that ,i can think is the distinction of a being from and in itself4 ,the distinction of one being from another is self-evident1 is already implied in their existence1 is a palpable truth3 they are two4 ,but ,i first establish difference for thought when ,i discern it in one and the same being1 when ,i unite it with the law of identity4 ,herein lies the ultimate truth of difference4 ,the cosmogonic principle in ,god1 reduced to its last elements1 is nothing else than the act of thought in its simplest forms made objective4 ,if ,i remove difference from ,god1 he gives me no material for thought2 he ceases to be an object of thought2 for difference is an essential principle of thought4 ,and if ,i consequently place difference in ,god1 what else do ,i establish1 what else do ,i make an object1 than the truth and necessity of this principle of thought8 ,,chapter ,,ix4 ,,the ,,mystery ,,of ,,mysticism1 ,,or ,,of ,,nature ,,in ,,god4 ,interesting material for the criticism of cosmogonic and theogonic fancies is furnished in the doctrine--revived by ,schelling and drawn from ,jacob ,bhme--of eternal ,nature in ,god4 ,god is pure spirit1 clear self-consciousness1 moral personality2 ,nature1 on the contrary1 is1 at least partially1 confused1 dark1 desolate1 immoral1 or to say no more1 unmoral4 ,but it is self-contradictory that the impure should proceed from the pure1 darkness from light4 ,how then can we remove these obvious difficulties in the way of assigning a divine origin to ,nature8 ,only by positing this impurity1 this darkness in ,god1 by distinguishing in ,god himself a principle of light and a principle of darkness4 ,in other words1 we can only explain the origin of darkness by renouncing the idea of origin1 and presupposing darkness as existing from the beginning4 #fb ,but that which is dark in ,nature is the irrational1 the material1 ,nature strictly1 as distinguished from intelligence4 ,hence the simple meaning of this doctrine is1 that ,nature1 ,matter1 cannot be explained as a result of intelligence2 on the contrary1 it is the basis of intelligence1 the basis of personality1 without itself having any basis2 spirit without ,nature is an unreal abstraction2 consciousness develops itself only out of ,nature4 ,but this materialistic doctrine is veiled in a mystical yet attractive obscurity1 inasmuch as it is not expressed in the clear1 simple language of reason1 but emphatically enunciated in that consecrated word of the emotions--,god4 ,if the light in ,god springs out of the darkness in ,god1 this is only because it is involved in the idea of light in general1 that it illuminates darkness1 thus presupposing darkness1 not making it4 ,if then ,god is once subjected to a general law1--as he must necessarily be unless he be made the arena of conflict for the most senseless notions1--if self-consciousness in ,god as well as in itself1 as in general1 is evolved from a principle in ,nature1 why is not this natural principle abstracted from ,god8 ,that which is a law of consciousness in itself is a law for the consciousness of every personal being1 whether man1 angel1 demon1 ,god1 or whatever else thou mayest conceive to thyself as a being4 ,to what then1 seen in their true light1 do the two principles in ,god reduce themselves8 ,the one to ,nature1 at least to ,nature as it exists in the conception1 abstracted from its reality2 the other to mind1 consciousness1 personality4 ,the one half1 the reverse side1 thou dost not name ,god1 but only the obverse side1 on which he presents to thee mind1 consciousness3 thus his specific essence1 that whereby he is ,god1 is mind1 intelligence1 consciousness4 ,why then dost thou make that which is properly the subject in ,god as ,god1 i4e41 as mind1 into a mere predicate1 as if ,god existed as ,god apart from mind1 from consciousness8 ,why1 but because thou art enslaved by mystical religious speculation1 because the primary principle in thee is the imagination1 thought being only secondary and serving but to throw into formul the products of the imagination1--because thou feelest at ease and at home only in the deceptive twilight of mysticism4 ,mysticism is deuteroscopy--a fabrication of phrases having a double meaning4 ,the mystic speculates concerning the essence of ,nature or of man1 but under1 and by means of1 the supposition that he is speculating concerning another1 a personal being1 distinct from both4 ,the mystic has the same objects as the plain1 self-conscious thinker2 but the real object is regarded by the mystic1 not as itself1 but as an imaginary being1 and hence the imaginary object is to him the real object4 ,thus here1 in the mystical doctrine of the two principles in ,god1 the real object is pathology1 the imaginary one1 theology2 i4e41 pathology is converted into theology4 ,there would be nothing to urge against this1 if consciously real pathology were recognised and expressed as theology2 indeed1 it is precisely our task to show that theology is nothing else than an unconscious1 esoteric pathology1 anthropology1 and psychology1 and that therefore real anthropology1 real pathology1 and real psychology have far more claim to the name of theology than has theology itself1 because this is nothing more than an imaginary psychology and anthropology4 ,but this doctrine or theory is supposed--and for this reason it is mystical and fantastic--to be not pathology1 but theology1 in the old or ordinary sense of the word2 it is supposed that we have here unfolded to us the life of a ,being distinct from us1 while nevertheless it is only our own nature which is unfolded1 though at the same time again shut up from us by the fact that this nature is represented as inhering in another being4 ,the mystic philosopher supposes that in ,god1 not in us human individuals1--that would be far too trivial a truth1--reason first appears after the ,passion of ,nature2--that not man1 but ,god1 has wrestled himself out of the obscurity of confused feelings and impulses into the clearness of knowledge2 that not in our subjective1 limited mode of conception1 but in ,god himself1 the nervous tremors of darkness precede the joyful consciousness of light2 in short1 he supposes that his theory presents not a history of human throes1 but a history of the development1 i4e41 the throes of ,god--for developments 7or transitions7 are birth-struggles4 ,but1 alas6 this supposition itself belongs only to the pathological element4 ,if1 therefore1 the cosmogonic process presents to us the ,light of the power of distinction as belonging to the divine essence2 so1 on the other hand1 the ,night or ,nature in ,god represents to us the ,penses confuses of ,leibnitz as divine powers4 ,but the ,penses confuses--confused1 obscure conceptions and thoughts1 or more correctly images--represent the flesh1 matter2--a pure intelligence1 separate from matter1 has only clear1 free thoughts1 no obscure1 i4e41 fleshly ideas1 no material images1 exciting the imagination and setting the blood in commotion4 ,the ,night in ,god1 therefore1 implies nothing else than this3 ,god is not only a spiritual1 but also a material1 corporeal1 fleshly being2 but as man is man1 and receives his designation1 in virtue not of his fleshly nature1 but of his mind1 so is it with ,god4 ,but the mystic philosopher expresses this only in obscure1 mystical1 indefinite1 dissembling images4 ,instead of the rude1 but hence all the more precise and striking expression1 flesh1 it substitutes the equivocal1 abstract words nature and ground4 ,as nothing is before or out of ,god1 he must have the ground of his existence in himself4 ,this all philosophies say1 but they speak of this ground as a mere idea1 without making it something real4 ,this ground of his existence which ,god has in himself1 is not ,god considered absolutely1 i4e41 in so far as he exists2 it is only the ground of his existence4 ,it is ,nature--in ,god2 an existence inseparable from him1 it is true1 but still distinct4 ,analogically 7871 this relation may be illustrated by gravitation and light in ,nature4 ,but this ground is the non-intelligent in ,god4 ,that which is the commencement of an intelligence 7in itself7 cannot also be intelligent4 ,in the strict sense1 intelligence is born of this unintelligent principle4 ,without this antecedent darkness there is no reality of the ,creator4 ,with abstract ideas of ,god as actus purissimus1 such as were laid down by the older philosophy1 or such as the modern1 out of anxiety to remove ,god far from ,nature1 is always reproducing1 we can effect nothing4 ,god is something more real than a mere moral order of the world1 and has quite another and a more living motive power in himself than is ascribed to him by the jejune subtilty of abstract idealists4 ,idealism1 if it has not a living realism as its basis1 is as empty and abstract a system as that of ,leibnitz or ,spinoza1 or as any other dogmatic system4 ,so long as the ,god of modern theism remains the simple1 supposed purely essential1 but in fact non-essential ,being that all modern systems make him1 so long as a real duality is not recognised in ,god1 and a limiting1 negativing force1 opposed to the expansive affirming force1 so long will the denial of a personal ,god be scientific honesty4 ,all consciousness is concentration1 is a gathering together1 a collecting of oneself4 ,this negativing force1 by which a being turns back upon itself1 is the true force of personality1 the force of egoism4 ,how should there be a fear of ,god if there were no strength in him8 ,but that there should be something in ,god which is mere force and strength cannot be held astonishing if only it be not maintained that he is this alone and nothing besides4 #fc ,but what then is force and strength which is merely such1 if not corporeal force and strength8 ,dost thou know any power which stands at thy command1 in distinction from the power of kindness and reason1 besides muscular power8 ,if thou canst effect nothing through kindness and the arguments of reason1 force is what thou must take refuge in4 ,but canst thou effect anything without strong arms and fists8 ,is there known to thee1 in distinction from the power of the moral order of the world1 another and more living motive power than the lever of the criminal court8 ,is not ,nature without body also an empty1 abstract idea1 a jejune subtilty8 ,is not the mystery of ,nature the mystery of corporeality8 ,is not the system of a living realism the system of the organised body8 ,is there1 in general1 any other force1 the opposite of intelligence1 than the force of flesh and blood1--any other strength of ,nature than the strength of the fleshly impulses8 ,and the strongest of the impulses of ,nature1 is it not the sexual feeling8 ,who does not remember the old proverb3 ,amare et sapere vix ,deo competit8 ,so that if we would posit in ,god a nature1 an existence opposed to the light of intelligence1--can we think of a more living1 a more real antithesis1 than that of amare and sapere1 of spirit and flesh1 of freedom and the sexual impulse8 ,personality1 individuality1 consciousness1 without ,nature1 is nothing2 or1 which is the same thing1 an empty1 unsubstantial abstraction4 ,but ,nature1 as has been shown and is obvious1 is nothing without corporeality4 ,the body alone is that negativing1 limiting1 concentrating1 circumscribing force1 without which no personality is conceivable4 ,take away from thy personality its body1 and thou takest away that which holds it together4 ,the body is the basis1 the subject of personality4 ,only by the body is a real personality distinguished from the imaginary one of a spectre4 ,what sort of abstract1 vague1 empty personalities should we be1 if we had not the property of impenetrability1--if in the same place1 in the same form in which we are1 others might stand at the same time8 ,only by the exclusion of others from the space it occupies does personality prove itself to be real4 ,but a body does not exist without flesh and blood4 ,flesh and blood is life1 and life alone is corporeal reality4 ,but flesh and blood is nothing without the oxygen of sexual distinction4 ,the distinction of sex is not superficial1 or limited to certain parts of the body2 it is an essential one3 it penetrates bones and marrow4 ,the substance of man is manhood2 that of woman1 womanhood4 ,however spiritual and supersensual the man may be1 he remains always a man2 and it is the same with the woman4 ,hence personality is nothing without distinction of sex2 personality is essentially distinguished into masculine and feminine4 ,where there is no thou1 there is no ,i2 but the distinction between ,i and thou1 the fundamental condition of all personality1 of all consciousness1 is only real1 living1 ardent1 when felt as the distinction between man and woman4 ,the thou between man and woman has quite another sound than the monotonous thou between friends4 ,nature in distinction from personality can signify nothing else than difference of sex4 ,a personal being apart from ,nature is nothing else than a being without sex1 and conversely4 ,nature is said to be predicated of ,god1 in the sense in which it is said of a man that he is of a strong1 healthy nature4 ,but what is more feeble1 what more insupportable1 what more contrary to ,nature1 than a person without sex1 or a person who in character1 manners1 or feelings denies sex8 ,what is virtue1 the excellence of man as man8 ,manhood4 ,of man as woman8 ,womanhood4 ,but man exists only as man and woman4 ,the strength1 the healthiness of man consists therefore in this3 that as a woman1 he be truly woman2 as man1 truly man4 ,thou repudiatest the horror of all that is real1 which supposes the spiritual to be polluted by contact with the real4 ,repudiate then1 before all1 thy own horror for the distinction of sex4 ,if ,god is not polluted by ,nature1 neither is he polluted by being associated with the idea of sex4 ,in renouncing sex1 thou renouncest thy whole principle4 ,a moral ,god apart from ,nature is without basis2 but the basis of morality is the distinction of sex4 ,even the brute is capable of self-sacrificing love in virtue of the sexual distinction4 ,all the glory of ,nature1 all its power1 all its wisdom and profundity1 concentrates and individualises itself in distinction of sex4 ,why then dost thou shrink from naming the nature of ,god by its true name8 ,evidently1 only because thou hast a general horror of things in their truth and reality2 because thou lookest at all things through the deceptive vapours of mysticism4 ,for this very reason then1 because ,nature in ,god is only a delusive1 unsubstantial appearance1 a fantastic ghost of ,nature1--for it is based1 as we have said1 not on flesh and blood1 not on a real ground1--this attempt to establish a personal ,god is once more a failure1 and ,i1 too1 conclude with the words1 ,the denial of a personal ,god will be scientific honesty3--and1 ,i add1 scientific truth1 so long as it is not declared and shown in unequivocal terms1 first priori1 on speculative grounds1 that form1 place1 corporeality1 and sex do not contradict the idea of the ,godhead2 and secondly1 posteriori1--for the reality of a personal being is sustained only on empirical grounds1--what sort of form ,god has1 where he exists1--in heaven1--and lastly1 of what sex he is4 ,let the profound1 speculative religious philosophers of ,germany courageously shake off the embarrassing remnant of rationalism which yet clings to them1 in flagrant contradiction with their true character2 and let them complete their system1 by converting the mystical potence of ,nature in ,god into a really powerful1 generating ,god4 ,the doctrine of ,nature in ,god is borrowed from ,jacob ,bhme4 ,but in the original it has a far deeper and more interesting significance than in its second modernised and emasculated edition4 ,jacob ,bhme has a profoundly religious mind4 ,religion is the centre of his life and thought4 ,but at the same time1 the significance which has been given to ,nature in modern times--by the study of natural science1 by ,spinozism1 materialism1 empiricism--has taken possession of his religious sentiment4 ,he has opened his senses to ,nature1 thrown a glance into her mysterious being2 but it alarms him1 and he cannot harmonise this terror at ,nature with his religious conceptions4 ,when ,i looked into the great depths of this world1 and at the sun and stars1 also at the clouds1 also at the rain and snow1 and considered in my mind the whole creation of this world2 then ,i found in all things evil and good1 love and anger1--in unreasoning things1 such as wood1 stone1 earth1 and the elements1 as well as in men and beasts4444 ,but because ,i found that in all things there was good and evil1 in the elements as well as in the creatures1 and that it goes as well in the world with the godless as with the pious1 also that the barbarous nations possess the best lands1 and have more prosperity than the godly2 ,i was therefore altogether melancholy and extremely troubled1 and the ,scriptures could not console me1 though almost all well known to me2 and therewith assuredly the devil was not idle1 for he often thrust upon me heathenish thoughts1 of which ,i will here be silent4 #fd ,but while his mind seized with fearful earnestness the dark side of ,nature1 which did not harmonise with the religious idea of a heavenly ,creator1 he was on the other hand rapturously affected by her resplendent aspects4 ,jacob ,bhme has a sense for ,nature4 ,he preconceives1 nay1 he feels the joys of the mineralogist1 of the botanist1 of the chemist--the joys of godless natural science4 ,he is enraptured by the splendour of jewels1 the tones of metals1 the hues and odours of plants1 the beauty and gentleness of many animals4 ,in another place1 speaking of the revelation of ,god in the phenomena of light1 the process by which there arises in the ,godhead the wondrous and beautiful structure of the heavens in various colours and kinds1 and every spirit shows itself in its form specially1 he says1 ,i can compare it with nothing but with the noblest precious stones1 such as the ruby1 emerald1 epidote1 onyx1 sapphire1 diamond1 jasper1 hyacinth1 amethyst1 beryl1 sardine1 carbuncle1 and the like4 ,elsewhere3 ,but regarding the precious stones1 such as the carbuncle1 ruby1 emerald1 epidote1 onyx1 and the like1 which are the very best1 these have the very same origin--the flash of light in love4 ,for that flash is born in tenderness1 and is the heart in the centre of the ,fountain-spirit1 wherefore those stones also are mild1 powerful1 and lovely4 ,it is evident that ,jacob ,bhme had no bad taste in mineralogy2 that he had delight in flowers also1 and consequently a faculty for botany1 is proved by the following passages among others3--,the heavenly powers gave birth to heavenly joy-giving fruits and colours1 to all sorts of trees and shrubs1 whereupon grows the beauteous and lovely fruit of life3 also there spring up in these powers all sorts of flowers with beauteous heavenly colours and scents4 ,their taste is various1 in each according to its quality and kind1 altogether holy1 divine1 and joy-giving4 ,if thou desirest to contemplate the heavenly1 divine pomp and glory1 as they are1 and to know what sort of products1 pleasure1 or joys there are above3 look diligently at this world1 at the varieties of fruits and plants that grow upon the earth1--trees1 shrubs1 vegetables1 roots1 flowers1 oils1 wines1 corn1 and everything that is there1 and that thy heart can search out4 ,all this is an image of the heavenly pomp4 #fe ,a despotic fiat could not suffice as an explanation of the origin of ,nature to ,jacob ,bhme2 ,nature appealed too strongly to his senses1 and lay too near his heart2 hence he sought for a natural explanation of ,nature2 but he necessarily found no other ground of explanation than those qualities of ,nature which made the strongest impression on him4 ,jacob ,bhme--this is his essential character--is a mystical natural philosopher1 a theosophic ,vulcanist and ,neptunist1 #ff for according to him all things had their origin in fire and water4 ,nature had fascinated ,jacob's religious sentiments1--not in vain did he receive his mystical light from the shining of tin utensils2 but the religious sentiment works only within itself2 it has not the force1 not the courage1 to press forward to the examination of things in their reality2 it looks at all things through the medium of religion1 it sees all in ,god1 i4e41 in the entrancing1 soul-possessing splendour of the imagination1 it sees all in images and as an image4 ,but ,nature affected his mind in an opposite manner2 hence he must place this opposition in ,god himself1--for the supposition of two independently existing1 opposite1 original principles would have afflicted his religious sentiment2--he must distinguish in ,god himself a gentle1 beneficent element1 and a fierce consuming one4 ,everything fiery1 bitter1 harsh1 contracting1 dark1 cold1 comes from a divine harshness and bitterness2 everything mild1 lustrous1 warming1 tender1 soft1 yielding1 from a mild1 soft1 luminous quality in ,god4 ,thus are the creatures on the earth1 in the water1 and in the air1 each creature out of its own science1 out of good and evil4444 ,as one sees before one's eyes that there are good and evil creatures2 as venomous beasts and serpents from the centre of the nature of darkness1 from the power of the fierce quality1 which only want to dwell in darkness1 abiding in caves and hiding themselves from the sun4 ,by each animal's food and dwelling we see whence they have sprang1 for every creature needs to dwell with its mother1 and yearns after her1 as is plain to the sight4 ,gold1 silver1 precious stones1 and all bright metal1 has its origin in the light1 which appeared before the times of anger1 c4 ,everything which in the substance of this world is yielding1 soft1 and thin1 is flowing1 and gives itself forth1 and the ground and origin of it is in the eternal ,unity1 for unity ever flows forth from itself2 for in the nature of things not dense1 as water and air1 we can understand no susceptibility or pain1 they being one in themselves4 #fg ,in short1 heaven is as rich as the earth4 ,everything that is on this earth is in heaven1 #fh all that is in ,nature is in ,god4 ,but in the latter it is divine1 heavenly2 in the former1 earthly1 visible1 external1 material1 but yet the same4 ,when ,i write of trees1 shrubs and fruits1 thou must not understand me of earthly things1 such as are in this world2 for it is not my meaning that in heaven there grows a dead1 hard1 wooden tree1 or a stone of earthly qualities4 ,no3 my meaning is heavenly and spiritual1 but yet truthful and literal2 thus1 ,i mean no other things than what ,i write in the letters of the alphabet2 i4e41 in heaven there are the same trees and flowers1 but the trees in heaven are the trees which bloom and exhale in my imagination1 without making coarse material impressions upon me2 the trees on earth are the trees which ,i perceive through my senses4 ,the distinction is the distinction between imagination and perception4 ,it is not my undertaking1 says ,jacob ,bhme himself1 to describe the course of all stars1 their place and name1 or how they have yearly their conjunction or opposition1 or quadrate1 or the like1--what they do yearly and hourly1--which through long years has been discovered by wise1 skilful1 ingenious men1 by diligent contemplation and observation1 and deep thought and calculation4 ,i have not learned and studied these things1 and leave scholars to treat of them1 but my undertaking is to write according to the spirit and thought1 not according to sight4 #fi ,the doctrine of ,nature in ,god aims1 by naturalism1 to establish theism1 especially the theism which regards the ,supreme ,being as a personal being4 ,but personal theism conceives ,god as a personal being1 separate from all material things2 it excludes from him all development1 because that is nothing else than the self-separation of a being from circumstances and conditions which do not correspond to its true idea4 ,and this does not take place in ,god1 because in him beginning1 end1 middle1 are not to be distinguished1--because he is at once what he is1 is from the beginning what he is to be1 what he can be2 he is the pure unity of existence and essence1 reality and idea1 act and will4 ,deus suum ,esse est4 ,herein theism accords with the essence of religion4 ,all religions1 however positive they may be1 rest on abstraction2 they are distinguished only in that from which the abstraction is made4 ,even the ,homeric gods1 with all their living strength and likeness to man1 are abstract forms2 they have bodies1 like men1 but bodies from which the limitations and difficulties of the human body are eliminated4 ,the idea of a divine being is essentially an abstracted1 distilled idea4 ,it is obvious that this abstraction is no arbitrary one1 but is determined by the essential stand-point of man4 ,as he is1 as he thinks1 so does he make his abstraction4 ,the abstraction expresses a judgment1--an affirmative and a negative one at the same time1 praise and blame4 ,what man praises and approves1 that is ,god to him2 #gj what he blames1 condemns1 is the non-divine4 ,religion is a judgment4 ,the most essential condition in religion--in the idea of the divine being--is accordingly the discrimination of the praiseworthy from the blameworthy1 of the perfect from the imperfect2 in a word1 of the positive from the negative4 ,the cultus itself consists in nothing else than in the continual renewal of the origin of religion--a solemnising of the critical discrimination between the divine and the non-divine4 ,the ,divine ,being is the human being glorified by the death of abstraction2 it is the departed spirit of man4 ,in religion man frees himself from the limits of life2 he here lets fall what oppresses him1 obstructs him1 affects him repulsively2 ,god is the self-consciousness of man freed from all discordant elements2 man feels himself free1 happy1 blessed in his religion1 because he only here lives the life of genius1 and keeps holiday4 ,the basis of the divine idea lies for him outside of that idea itself2 its truth lies in the prior judgment1 in the fact that all which he excludes from ,god is previously judged by him to be non-divine1 and what is non-divine to be worthless1 nothing4 ,if he were to include the attaining of this idea in the idea itself1 it would lose its most essential significance1 its true value1 its beatifying charm4 ,the divine being is the pure subjectivity of man1 freed from all else1 from everything objective1 having relation only to itself1 enjoying only itself1 reverencing only itself--his most subjective1 his inmost self4 ,the process of discrimination1 the separating of the intelligent from the non-intelligent1 of personality from ,nature1 of the perfect from the imperfect1 necessarily therefore takes place in the subject1 not in the object1 and the idea of ,god lies not at the beginning but at the end of sensible existence1 of the world1 of ,nature4 ,where ,nature ceases1 ,god begins1 because ,god is the ne plus ultra1 the last limit of abstraction4 ,that from which ,i can no longer abstract is ,god1 the last thought which ,i am capable of grasping--the last1 i4e41 the highest4 ,id quo nihil majus cogitari potest1 ,deus est4 ,that this ,omega of sensible existence becomes an ,alpha also1 is easily comprehensible2 but the essential point is1 that he is the ,omega4 ,the ,alpha is primarily a consequence2 because ,god is the last or highest1 he is also the first4 ,and this predicate--the first ,being1 has by no means immediately a cosmogonic significance1 but only implies the highest rank4 ,the creation in the ,mosaic religion has for its end to secure to ,jehovah the predicate of the highest and first1 the true and exclusive ,god in opposition to idols4 ,the effort to establish the personality of ,god through ,nature has therefore at its foundation an illegitimate1 profane mingling of philosophy and religion1 a complete absence of criticism and knowledge concerning the genesis of the personal ,god4 ,where personality is held the essential attribute of ,god1 where it is said--an impersonal ,god is no ,god2 there personality is held to be in and by itself the highest and most real thing1 there it is presupposed that everything which is not a person is dead1 is nothing1 that only personal existence is real1 absolute existence1 is life and truth--but ,nature is impersonal1 and is therefore a trivial thing4 ,the truth of personality rests only on the untruth of ,nature4 ,to predicate personality of ,god is nothing else than to declare personality as the absolute essence2 but personality is only conceived in distinction1 in abstraction from ,nature4 ,certainly a merely personal ,god is an abstract ,god2 but so he ought to be--that is involved in the idea of him2 for he is nothing else than the personal nature of man positing itself out of all connection with the world1 making itself free from all dependence on nature4 ,in the personality of ,god man consecrates the supernaturalness1 immortality1 independence1 unlimitedness of his own personality4 ,in general1 the need of a personal ,god has its foundation in this1 that only in the attribute of personality does the personal man meet with himself1 find himself4 ,substance1 pure spirit1 mere reason1 does not satisfy him1 is too abstract for him1 i4e41 does not express himself1 does not lead him back to himself4 ,and man is content1 happy1 only when he is with himself1 with his own nature4 ,hence1 the more personal a man is1 the stronger is his need of a personal ,god4 ,the free1 abstract thinker knows nothing higher than freedom2 he does not need to attach it to a personal being2 for him freedom in itself1 as such1 is a real positive thing4 ,a mathematical1 astronomical mind1 a man of pure understanding1 an objective man1 who is not shut up in himself1 who feels free and happy only in the contemplation of objective rational relations1 in the reason which lies in things in themselves--such a man will regard the substance of ,spinoza1 or some similar idea1 as his highest being1 and be full of antipathy towards a personal1 i4e41 subjective ,god4 ,jacobi therefore was a classic philosopher1 because 7in this respect1 at least7 he was consistent1 he was at unity with himself2 as was his ,god1 so was his philosophy--personal1 subjective4 ,the personal ,god cannot be established otherwise than as he is established by ,jacobi and his disciples4 ,personality is proved only in a personal manner4 ,personality may be1 nay1 must be1 founded on a natural basis2 but this natural basis is attained only when ,i cease to grope in the darkness of mysticism1 when ,i step forth into the clear daylight of real ,nature1 and exchange the idea of the personal ,god for the idea of personality in general4 ,but into the idea of the personal ,god1 the positive idea of whom is liberated1 disembodied personality1 released from the limiting force of ,nature1 to smuggle again this very ,nature1 is as perverse as if ,i were to mix ,brunswick mum with the nectar of the gods1 in order to give the ethereal beverage a solid foundation4 ,certainly the ingredients of animal blood are not to be derived from the celestial juice which nourishes the gods4 ,but the flower of sublimation arises only through the evaporation of matter2 why1 then1 wilt thou mix with the sublimate that very matter from which thou hast disengaged it8 ,certainly1 the impersonal existence of ,nature is not to be explained by the idea of personality2 but where personality is a truth1 or1 rather1 the absolute truth1 ,nature has no positive significance1 and consequently no positive basis4 ,the literal creation out of nothing is here the only sufficient ground of explanation2 for it simply says this3 ,nature is nothing2--and this precisely expresses the significance which ,nature has for absolute personality4 ,,chapter ,x4 ,,the ,,mystery ,,of ,,providence1 ,,and ,,creation ,,out ,,of ,,nothing4 ,creation is the spoken word of ,god2 the creative1 cosmogonic fiat is the tacit word1 identical with the thought4 ,to speak is an act of the will2 thus1 creation is a product of the ,will3 as in the ,word of ,god man affirms the divinity of the human word1 so in creation he affirms the divinity of the ,will3 not1 however1 the will of the reason1 but the will of the imagination--the absolutely subjective1 unlimited will4 ,the culminating point of the principle of subjectivity is creation out of nothing4 #ga ,as the eternity of the world or of matter imports nothing further than the essentiality of matter1 so the creation of the world out of nothing imports simply the non-essentiality1 the nothingness of the world4 ,the commencement of a thing is immediately connected1 in idea if not in time1 with its end4 ,lightly come1 lightly go4 ,the will has called it into existence--the will calls it back again into nothing4 ,when8 ,the time is indifferent3 its existence or non-existence depends only on the will4 ,but this will is not its own will3--not only because a thing cannot will its non-existence1 but for the prior reason that the world is itself destitute of will4 ,thus the nothingness of the world expresses the power of the will4 ,the will that it should exist is1 at the same time1 the will--at least the possible will--that it should not exist4 ,the existence of the world is therefore a momentary1 arbitrary1 unreliable1 i4e41 unreal existence4 ,creation out of nothing is the highest expression of omnipotence3 but omnipotence is nothing else than subjectivity exempting itself from all objective conditions and limitations1 and consecrating this exemption as the highest power and reality3 nothing else than the ability to posit everything real as unreal--everything conceivable as possible3 nothing else than the power of the imagination1 or of the will as identical with the imagination1 the power of self-will4 #gb ,the strongest and most characteristic expression of subjective arbitrariness is1 it has pleased2--the phrase1 it has pleased ,god to call the world of bodies and spirits into existence1 is the most undeniable proof that individual subjectivity1 individual arbitrariness1 is regarded as the highest essence--the omnipotent world-principle4 ,on this ground1 creation out of nothing as a work of the ,almighty ,will falls into the same category with miracle1 or rather it is the first miracle1 not only in time but in rank also2--the principle of which all further miracles are the spontaneous result4 ,the proof of this is history itself2 all miracles have been vindicated1 explained1 and illustrated by appeal to the omnipotence which created the world out of nothing4 ,why should not ,he who made the world out of nothing1 make wine out of water1 bring human speech from the mouth of an ass1 and charm water out of a rock8 ,but miracle is1 as we shall see further on1 only a product and object of the imagination1 and hence creation out of nothing1 as the primitive miracle1 is of the same character4 ,for this reason the doctrine of creation out of nothing has been pronounced a supernatural one1 to which reason of itself could not have attained2 and in proof of this1 appeal has been made to the fact that the pagan philosophers represented the world to have been formed by the ,divine ,reason out of already existing matter4 ,but this supernatural principle is no other than the principle of subjectivity1 which in ,christianity exalted itself to an unlimited1 universal monarchy2 whereas the ancient philosophers were not subjective enough to regard the absolutely subjective being as the exclusively absolute being1 because they limited subjectivity by the contemplation of the world or reality--because to them the world was a truth4 ,creation out of nothing1 as identical with miracle1 is one with ,providence2 for the idea of ,providence--originally1 in its true religious significance1 in which it is not yet infringed upon and limited by the unbelieving understanding--is one with the idea of miracle4 ,the proof of ,providence is miracle4 #gc ,belief in ,providence is belief in a power to which all things stand at command to be used according to its pleasure1 in opposition to which all the power of reality is nothing4 ,providence cancels the laws of ,nature2 it interrupts the course of necessity1 the iron bond which inevitably binds effects to causes2 in short1 it is the same unlimited1 all-powerful will1 that called the world into existence out of nothing4 ,miracle is a creatio ex nihilo4 ,he who turns water into wine1 makes wine out of nothing1 for the constituents of wine are not found in water2 otherwise1 the production of wine would not be a miraculous1 but a natural act4 ,the only attestation1 the only proof of ,providence is miracle4 ,thus ,providence is an expression of the same idea as creation out of nothing4 ,creation out of nothing can only be understood and explained in connection with ,providence2 for miracle properly implies nothing more than that the miracle worker is the same as he who brought forth all things by his mere will--,god the ,creator4 ,but ,providence has relation essentially to man4 ,it is for man's sake that ,providence makes of things whatever it pleases3 it is for man's sake that it supersedes the authority and reality of a law otherwise omnipotent4 ,the admiration of ,providence in ,nature1 especially in the animal kingdom1 is nothing else than an admiration of ,nature1 and therefore belongs merely to naturalism1 though to a religious naturalism2 #gd for in ,nature is revealed only natural1 not divine ,providence--not ,providence as it is an object to religion4 ,religious ,providence reveals itself only in miracles--especially in the miracle of the ,incarnation1 the central point of religion4 ,but we nowhere read that ,god1 for the sake of brutes1 became a brute--the very idea of this is1 in the eyes of religion1 impious and ungodly2 or that ,god ever performed a miracle for the sake of animals or plants4 ,on the contrary1 we read that a poor fig-tree1 because it bore no fruit at a time when it could not bear it1 was cursed1 purely in order to give men an example of the power of faith over ,nature2--and again1 that when the tormenting devils were driven out of men1 they were driven into brutes4 ,it is true we also read3 ,no sparrow falls to the ground without your ,father2 but these sparrows have no more worth and importance than the hairs on the head of a man1 which are all numbered4 ,apart from instinct1 the brute has no other guardian spirit1 no other ,providence1 than its senses or its organs in general4 ,a bird which loses its eyes has lost its guardian angel2 it necessarily goes to destruction if no miracle happens4 ,we read indeed that a raven brought food to the prophet ,elijah1 but not 7at least to my knowledge7 that an animal was supported by other than natural means4 ,but if a man believes that he also has no other ,providence than the powers of his race--his senses and understanding1--he is in the eyes of religion1 and of all those who speak the language of religion1 an irreligious man2 because he believes only in a natural ,providence1 and a natural ,providence is in the eyes of religion as good as none4 ,hence ,providence has relation essentially to men1 and even among men only to the religious4 ,god is the ,saviour of all men1 but especially of them that believe4 ,it belongs1 like religion1 only to man2 it is intended to express the essential distinction of man from the brute1 to rescue man from the tyranny of the forces of ,nature4 ,jonah in the whale1 ,daniel in the den of lions1 are examples of the manner in which ,providence distinguishes 7religious7 men from brutes4 ,if therefore the ,providence which manifests itself in the organs with which animals catch and devour their prey1 and which is so greatly admired by ,christian naturalists1 is a truth1 the ,providence of the ,bible1 the ,providence of religion1 is a falsehood2 and vice vers4 ,what pitiable and at the same time ludicrous hypocrisy is the attempt to do homage to both1 to ,nature1 and the ,bible at once6 ,how does ,nature contradict the ,bible6 ,how does the ,bible contradict ,nature6 ,the ,god of ,nature reveals himself by giving to the lion strength and appropriate organs in order that1 for the preservation of his life1 he may in case of necessity kill and devour even a human being2 the ,god of the ,bible reveals himself by interposing his own aid to rescue the human being from the jaws of the lion6 #ge ,providence is a privilege of man4 ,it expresses the value of man1 in distinction from other natural beings and things2 it exempts him from the connection of the universe4 ,providence is the conviction of man of the infinite value of his existence1--a conviction in which he renounces faith in the reality of external things2 it is the idealism of religion4 ,faith in ,providence is therefore identical with faith in personal immortality2 save only1 that in the latter the infinite value of existence is expressed in relation to time1 as infinite duration4 ,he who prefers no special claims1 who is indifferent about himself1 who identifies himself with the world1 who sees himself as a part merged in the whole1--such a one believes in no ,providence1 i4e41 in no special ,providence2 but only special ,providence is ,providence in the sense of religion4 ,faith in ,providence is faith in one's own worth1 the faith of man in himself2 hence the beneficent consequences of this faith1 but hence also false humility1 religious arrogance1 which1 it is true1 does not rely on itself1 but only because it commits the care of itself to the blessed ,god4 ,god concerns himself about me2 he has in view my happiness1 my salvation2 he wills that ,i shall be blest2 but that is my will also3 thus1 my interest is ,god's interest1 my own will is ,god's will1 my own aim is ,god's aim1--,god's love for me nothing else than my self-love deified4 ,thus when ,i believe in ,providence1 in what do ,i believe but in the divine reality and significance of my own being8 ,but where ,providence is believed in1 belief in ,god is made dependent on belief in ,providence4 ,he who denies that there is a ,providence1 denies that there is a ,god1 or--what is the same thing--that ,god is ,god2 for a ,god who is not the ,providence of man1 is a contemptible ,god1 a ,god who is wanting in the divinest1 most adorable attribute4 ,consequently1 the belief in ,god is nothing but the belief in human dignity1 #gf the belief in the absolute reality and significance of the human nature4 ,but belief in a 7religious7 ,providence is belief in creation out of nothing1 and vice vers2 the latter1 therefore1 can have no other significance than that of ,providence as just developed1 and it has actually no other4 ,religion sufficiently expresses this by making man the end of creation4 ,all things exist1 not for their own sake1 but for the sake of man4 ,he who1 like the pious ,christian naturalists1 pronounces this to be pride1 declares ,christianity itself to be pride2 for to say that the material world exists for the sake of man1 implies infinitely less than to say that ,god--or at least1 if we follow ,paul1 a being who is almost ,god1 scarcely to be distinguished from ,god--becomes man for the sake of men4 ,but if man is the end of creation1 he is also the true cause of creation1 for the end is the principle of action4 ,the distinction between man as the end of creation1 and man as its cause1 is only that the cause is the latent1 inner man1 the essential man1 whereas the end is the self-evident1 empirical1 individual man1--that man recognises himself as the end of creation1 but not as the cause1 because he distinguishes the cause1 the essence from himself as another personal being4 #gg ,but this other being1 this creative principle1 is in fact nothing else than his subjective nature separated from the limits of individuality and materiality1 i4e41 of objectivity1 unlimited will1 personality posited out of all connection with the world1--which by creation1 i4e41 the positing of the world1 of objectivity1 of another1 as a dependent1 finite1 non-essential existence1 gives itself the certainty of its exclusive reality4 ,the point in question in the ,creation is not the truth and reality of the world1 but the truth and reality of personality1 of subjectivity in distinction from the world4 ,the point in question is the personality of ,god2 but the personality of ,god is the personality of man freed from all the conditions and limitations of ,nature4 ,hence the fervent interest in the ,creation1 the horror of all pantheistic cosmogonies4 ,the ,creation1 like the idea of a personal ,god in general1 is not a scientific1 but a personal matter2 not an object of the free intelligence1 but of the feelings2 for the point on which it hinges is only the guarantee1 the last conceivable proof and demonstration of personality or subjectivity as an essence quite apart1 having nothing in common with ,nature1 a supra- and extra-mundane entity4 #gh ,man distinguishes himself from ,nature4 ,this distinction of his is his ,god3 the distinguishing of ,god from ,nature is nothing else than the distinguishing of man from ,nature4 ,the antithesis of pantheism and personalism resolves itself into the question3 ,is the nature of man transcendental or immanent1 supranaturalistic or naturalistic8 ,the speculations and controversies concerning the personality or impersonality of ,god are therefore fruitless1 idle1 uncritical1 and odious2 for the speculatists1 especially those who maintain the personality1 do not call the thing by the right name2 they put the light under a bushel4 ,while they in truth speculate only concerning themselves1 only in the interest of their own instinct of self-preservation2 they yet will not allow that they are splitting their brains only about themselves2 they speculate under the delusion that they are searching out the mysteries of another being4 ,pantheism identifies man with ,nature1 whether with its visible appearance1 or its abstract essence4 ,personalism isolates1 separates1 him from ,nature2 converts him from a part into the whole1 into an absolute essence by himself4 ,this is the distinction4 ,if1 therefore1 you would be clear on these subjects1 exchange your mystical1 perverted anthropology1 which you call theology1 for real anthropology1 and speculate in the light of consciousness and ,nature concerning the difference or identity of the human essence with the essence of ,nature4 ,you yourselves admit that the essence of the pantheistical ,god is nothing but the essence of ,nature4 ,why1 then1 will you only see the mote in the eyes of your opponents1 and not observe the very obvious beam in your own eyes8 why make yourselves an exception to a universally valid law8 ,admit that your personal ,god is nothing else than your own personal nature1 that while you believe in and construct your supra- and extra-natural ,god1 you believe in and construct nothing else than the supra- and extra-naturalism of your own self4 ,in the ,creation1 as everywhere else1 the true principle is concealed by the intermingling of universal1 metaphysical1 and even pantheistic definitions4 ,but one need only be attentive to the closer definitions to convince oneself that the true principle of creation is the self-affirmation of subjectivity in distinction from ,nature4 ,god produces the world outside himself2 at first it is only an idea1 a plan1 a resolve2 now it becomes an act1 and therewith it steps forth out of ,god as a distinct and1 relatively at least1 a self-subsistent object4 ,but just so subjectivity in general1 which distinguishes itself from the world1 which takes itself for an essence distinct from the world1 posits the world out of itself as a separate existence1 indeed1 this positing out of self1 and the distinguishing of self1 is one act4 ,when therefore the world is posited outside of ,god1 ,god is posited by himself1 is distinguished from the world4 ,what else then is ,god but your subjective nature1 when the world is separated from it8 #gi ,it is true that when astute reflection intervenes1 the distinction between extra and intra is disavowed as a finite and human 787 distinction4 ,but to the disavowal by the understanding1 which in relation to religion is pure misunderstanding1 no credit is due4 ,if it is meant seriously1 it destroys the foundation of the religious consciousness2 it does away with the possibility1 the very principle of the creation1 for this rests solely on the reality of the above-mentioned distinction4 ,moreover1 the effect of the creation1 all its majesty for the feelings and the imagination1 is quite lost1 if the production of the world out of ,god is not taken in the real sense4 ,what is it to make1 to create1 to produce1 but to make that which in the first instance is only subjective1 and so far invisible1 non-existent1 into something objective1 perceptible1 so that other beings besides me may know and enjoy it1 and thus to put something out of myself1 to make it distinct from myself8 ,where there is no reality or possibility of an existence external to me1 there can be no question of making or creating4 ,god is eternal1 but the world had a commencement2 ,god was1 when as yet the world was not2 ,god is invisible1 not cognisable by the senses1 but the world is visible1 palpable1 material1 and therefore outside of ,god2 for how can the material as such1 body1 matter1 be in ,god8 ,the world exists outside of ,god1 in the same sense in which a tree1 an animal1 the world in general1 exists outside of my conception1 outside of myself1 is an existence distinct from subjectivity4 ,hence1 only when such an external existence is admitted1 as it was by the older philosophers and theologians1 have we the genuine1 unmixed doctrine of the religious consciousness4 ,the speculative theologians and philosophers of modern times1 on the contrary1 foist in all sorts of pantheistic definitions1 although they deny the principle of pantheism2 and the result of this process is simply an absolutely self-contradictory1 insupportable fabrication of their own4 ,thus the creation of the world expresses nothing else than subjectivity1 assuring itself of its own reality and infinity through the consciousness that the world is created1 is a product of will1 i4e41 a dependent1 powerless1 unsubstantial existence4 ,the nothing out of which the world was produced1 is a still inherent nothingness4 ,when thou sayest the world was made out of nothing1 thou conceivest the world itself as nothing1 thou clearest away from thy head all the limits to thy imagination1 to thy feelings1 to thy will1 for the world is the limitation of thy will1 of thy desire2 the world alone obstructs thy soul2 it alone is the wall of separation between thee and ,god1--thy beatified1 perfected nature4 ,thus1 subjectively1 thou annihilatest the world2 thou thinkest ,god by himself1 i4e41 absolutely unlimited subjectivity1 the subjectivity or soul which enjoys itself alone1 which needs not the world1 which knows nothing of the painful bonds of matter4 ,in the inmost depths of thy soul thou wouldest rather there were no world1 for where the world is1 there is matter1 and where there is matter there is weight and resistance1 space and time1 limitation and necessity4 ,nevertheless1 there is a world1 there is matter4 ,how dost thou escape from the dilemma of this contradiction8 ,how dost thou expel the world from thy consciousness1 that it may not disturb thee in the beatitude of the unlimited soul8 ,only by making the world itself a product of will1 by giving it an arbitrary existence always hovering between existence and non-existence1 always awaiting its annihilation4 ,certainly the act of creation does not suffice to explain the existence of the world or matter 7the two are not separable71 but it is a total misconception to demand this of it1 for the fundamental idea of the creation is this3 there is to be no world1 no matter2 and hence its end is daily looked forward to with longing4 ,the world in its truth does not here exist at all1 it is regarded only as the obstruction1 the limitation of subjectivity2 how could the world in its truth and reality be deduced from a principle which denies the world8 ,in order to recognise the above developed significance of the creation as the true one1 it is only necessary seriously to consider the fact1 that the chief point in the creation is not the production of earth and water1 plants and animals1 for which indeed there is no ,god1 but the production of personal beings--of spirits1 according to the ordinary phrase4 ,god is the idea of personality as itself a person1 subjectivity existing in itself apart from the world1 existing for self alone1 without wants1 posited as absolute existence1 the me without a thee4 ,but as absolute existence for self alone contradicts the idea of true life1 the idea of love2 as self-consciousness is essentially united with the consciousness of a thee1 as solitude cannot1 at least in perpetuity1 preserve itself from tedium and uniformity2 thought immediately proceeds from the divine ,being to other conscious beings1 and expands the idea of personality which was at first condensed in one being to a plurality of persons4 #hj ,if the person is conceived physically1 as a real man1 in which form he is a being with wants1 he appears first at the end of the physical world1 when the conditions of his existence are present1--as the goal of creation4 ,if1 on the other hand1 man is conceived abstractly as a person1 as is the case in religious speculation1 this circuit is dispensed with1 and the task is the direct deduction of the person1 i4e41 the self-demonstration1 the ultimate self-verification of the human personality4 ,it is true that the divine personality is distinguished in every possible way from the human in order to veil their identity2 but these distinctions are either purely fantastic1 or they are mere assertions1 devices which exhibit the invalidity of the attempted deduction4 ,all positive grounds of the creation reduce themselves only to the conditions1 to the grounds1 which urge upon the me the consciousness of the necessity of another personal being4 ,speculate as much as you will1 you will never derive your personality from ,god1 if you have not beforehand introduced it1 if ,god himself be not already the idea of your personality1 your own subjective nature4 ,,chapter ,,xi4 ,,the ,,significance ,,of ,,the ,,creation ,,in ,,judaism4 ,the doctrine of the ,creation sprang out of ,judaism2 indeed1 it is the characteristic1 the fundamental doctrine of the ,jewish religion4 ,the principle which lies at its foundation is1 however1 not so much the principle of subjectivity as of egoism4 ,the doctrine of the ,creation in its characteristic significance arises only on that stand-point where man in practice makes ,nature merely the servant of his will and needs1 and hence in thought also degrades it to a mere machine1 a product of the will4 ,now its existence is intelligible to him1 since he explains and interprets it out of himself1 in accordance with his own feelings and notions4 ,the question1 ,whence is ,nature or the world8 presupposes wonder that it exists1 or the question1 ,why does it exist8 ,but this wonder1 this question1 arises only where man has separated himself from ,nature and made it a mere object of will4 ,the author of the ,book of ,wisdom says truly of the heathens1 that1 for admiration of the beauty of the world they did not raise themselves to the idea of the ,creator4 ,to him who feels that ,nature is lovely1 it appears an end in itself1 it has the ground of its existence in itself3 in him the question1 ,why does it exist8 does not arise4 ,nature and ,god are identified in his consciousness1 his perception1 of the world4 ,nature1 as it impresses his senses1 has indeed had an origin1 has been produced1 but not created in the religious sense1 is not an arbitrary product4 ,and by this origin he implies nothing evil2 originating involves for him nothing impure1 undivine2 he conceives his gods themselves as having had an origin4 ,the generative force is to him the primal force3 he posits1 therefore1 as the ground of ,nature1 a force of ,nature1--a real1 present1 visibly active force1 as the ground of reality4 ,thus does man think where his relation to the world is sthetic or theoretic 7for the theoretic view was originally the sthetic view1 the prima philosophia71 where the idea of the world is to him the idea of the cosmos1 of majesty1 of deity itself4 ,only where such a theory was the fundamental principle could there be conceived and expressed such a thought as that of ,anaxagoras3--,man is born to behold the world4 #ha ,the standpoint of theory is the standpoint of harmony with the world4 ,the subjective activity1 that in which man contents himself1 allows himself free play1 is here the sensuous imagination alone4 ,satisfied with this1 he lets ,nature subsist in peace1 and constructs his castles in the air1 his poetical cosmogonies1 only out of natural materials4 ,when1 on the contrary1 man places himself only on the practical standpoint and looks at the world from thence1 making the practical standpoint the theoretical one also1 he is in disunion with ,nature2 he makes ,nature the abject vassal of his selfish interest1 of his practical egoism4 ,the theoretic expression of this egoistical1 practical view1 according to which ,nature is in itself nothing1 is this3 ,nature or the world is made1 created1 the product of a command4 ,god said1 ,let the world be1 and straightway the world presented itself at his bidding4 #hb ,utilism is the essential theory of ,judaism4 ,the belief in a special ,divine ,providence is the characteristic belief of ,judaism2 belief in ,providence is belief in miracle2 but belief in miracle exists where ,nature is regarded only as an object of arbitrariness1 of egoism1 which uses ,nature only as an instrument of its own will and pleasure4 ,water divides or rolls itself together like a firm mass1 dust is changed into lice1 a staff into a serpent1 rivers into blood1 a rock into a fountain2 in the same place it is both light and dark at once1 the sun now stands still1 now goes backward4 ,and all these contradictions of ,nature happen for the welfare of ,israel1 purely at the command of ,jehovah1 who troubles himself about nothing but ,israel1 who is nothing but the personified selfishness of the ,israelitish people1 to the exclusion of all other nations1--absolute intolerance1 the secret essence of monotheism4 ,the ,greeks looked at ,nature with the theoretic sense2 they heard heavenly music in the harmonious course of the stars2 they saw ,nature rise from the foam of the all-producing ocean as ,venus ,anadyomene4 ,the ,israelites1 on the contrary1 opened to ,nature only the gastric sense2 their taste for ,nature lay only in the palate2 their consciousness of ,god in eating manna4 ,the ,greek addicted himself to polite studies1 to the fine arts1 to philosophy2 the ,israelite did not rise above the alimentary view of theology4 ,at even ye shall eat flesh1 and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread2 and ye shall know that ,i am the ,lord your ,god4 #hc ,and ,jacob vowed a vow1 saying1 ,if ,god will be with me1 and will keep me in this way that ,i go1 and will give me bread to eat and raiment to put on1 so that ,i come again to my father's house in peace1 then shall the ,lord be my ,god4 #hd ,eating is the most solemn act or the initiation of the ,jewish religion4 ,in eating1 the ,israelite celebrates and renews the act of creation2 in eating1 man declares ,nature to be an insignificant object4 ,when the seventy elders ascended the mountain with ,moses1 they saw ,god2 and when they had seen ,god1 they ate and drank4 #he ,thus with them what the sight of the ,supreme ,being heightened was the appetite for food4 ,the ,jews have maintained their peculiarity to this day4 ,their principle1 their ,god1 is the most practical principle in the world1--namely1 egoism2 and moreover egoism in the form of religion4 ,egoism is the ,god who will not let his servants come to shame4 ,egoism is essentially monotheistic1 for it has only one1 only self1 as its end4 ,egoism strengthens cohesion1 concentrates man on himself1 gives him a consistent principle of life2 but it makes him theoretically narrow1 because indifferent to all which does not relate to the well-being of self4 ,hence science1 like art1 arises only out of polytheism1 for polytheism is the frank1 open1 unenvying sense of all that is beautiful and good without distinction1 the sense of the world1 of the universe4 ,the ,greeks looked abroad into the wide world that they might extend their sphere of vision2 the ,jews to this day pray with their faces turned towards ,jerusalem4 ,in the ,israelites1 monotheistic egoism excluded the free theoretic tendency4 ,solomon1 it is true1 surpassed all the children of the ,east in understanding and wisdom1 and spoke 7treated1 agebat7 moreover of trees1 from the cedar that is in ,lebanon1 even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall1 and also of beasts and of fowl1 and of creeping things and of fishes 7#a ,kings iv4 #cj1 #cd74 ,but it must be added that ,solomon did not serve ,jehovah with his whole heart2 he did homage to strange gods and strange women2 and thus he had the polytheistic sentiment and taste4 ,the polytheistic sentiment1 ,i repeat1 is the foundation of science and art4 ,the significance which ,nature in general had for the ,hebrews is one with their idea of its origin4 ,the mode in which the genesis of a thing is explained is the candid expression of opinion1 of sentiment respecting it4 ,if it be thought meanly of1 so also is its origin4 ,men used to suppose that insects1 vermin1 sprang from carrion and other rubbish4 ,it was not because they derived vermin from so uninviting a source that they thought contemptuously of them1 but1 on the contrary1 because they thought thus1 because the nature of vermin appeared to them so vile1 they imagined an origin corresponding to this nature1 a vile origin4 ,to the ,jews ,nature was a mere means towards achieving the end of egoism1 a mere object of will4 ,but the ideal1 the idol of the egoistic will is that ,will which has unlimited command1 which requires no means in order to attain its end1 to realise its object1 which immediately by itself1 i4e41 by pure will1 calls into existence whatever it pleases4 ,it pains the egoist that the satisfaction of his wishes and need is only to be attained immediately1 that for him there is a chasm between the wish and its realisation1 between the object in the imagination and the object in reality4 ,hence1 in order to relieve this pain1 to make himself free from the limits of reality1 he supposes as the true1 the highest being1 ,one who brings forth an object by the mere ,i will4 ,for this reason1 ,nature1 the world1 was to the ,hebrews the product of a dictatorial word1 of a categorical imperative1 of a magic fiat4 ,to that which has no essential existence for me in theory ,i assign no theoretic1 no positive ground4 ,by referring it to ,will ,i only enforce its theoretic nullity4 ,what we despise we do not honour with a glance3 that which is observed has importance3 contemplation is respect4 ,whatever is looked at fetters by secret forces of attraction1 overpowers by the spell which it exercises upon the eye1 the criminal arrogance of that ,will which seeks only to subject all things to itself4 ,whatever makes an impression on the theoretic sense1 on the reason1 withdraws itself from the dominion of the egoistic ,will3 it reacts1 it presents resistance4 ,that which devastating egoism devotes to death1 benignant theory restores to life4 ,the much-belied doctrine of the heathen philosophers concerning the eternity of matter1 or the world1 thus implies nothing more than that ,nature was to them a theoretic reality4 #hf ,the heathens were idolaters1 that is1 they contemplated ,nature2 they did nothing else than what the profoundly ,christian nations do at this day when they make ,nature an object of their admiration1 of their indefatigable investigation4 ,but the heathens actually worshipped natural objects4 ,certainly2 for worship is only the childish1 the religious form of contemplation4 ,contemplation and worship are not essentially distinguished4 ,that which ,i contemplate ,i humble myself before1 ,i consecrate to it my noblest possession1 my heart1 my intelligence1 as an offering4 ,the natural philosopher also falls on his knees before ,nature when1 at the risk of his life1 he snatches from some precipice a lichen1 an insect1 or a stone1 to glorify it in the light of contemplation1 and give it an eternal existence in the memory of scientific humanity4 ,the study of ,nature is the worship of ,nature--idolatry in the sense of the ,israelitish and ,christian ,god2 and idolatry is simply man's primitive contemplation of ,nature2 for religion is nothing else than man's primitive1 and therefore childish1 popular1 but prejudiced1 unemancipated consciousness of himself and of ,nature4 ,the ,hebrews1 on the other hand1 raised themselves from the worship of idols to the worship of ,god1 from the creature to the ,creator2 i4e41 they raised themselves from the theoretic view of ,nature1 which fascinated the idolaters1 to the purely practical view which subjects ,nature only to the ends of egoism4 ,and lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven1 and when thou seest the sun1 the moon1 and the stars1 even all the host of heaven1 shouldst be driven to worship them and serve them1 which the ,lord thy ,god hath divided unto 7i4e41 bestowed upon1 largitus est7 all nations under the whole heaven4 #hg ,thus the creation out of nothing1 i4e41 the creation as a purely imperious act1 had its origin only in the unfathomable depth of ,hebrew egoism4 ,on this ground1 also1 the creation out of nothing is no object of philosophy2--at least in any other way than it is so here2--for it cuts away the root of all true speculation1 presents no grappling-point to thought1 to theory2 theoretically considered1 it is a baseless air-built doctrine1 which originated solely in the need to give a warrant to utilism1 to egoism1 which contains and expresses nothing but the command to make ,nature--not an object of thought1 of contemplation1 but--an object of utilisation4 ,the more empty it is1 however1 for natural philosophy1 the more profound is its speculative significance2 for just because it has no theoretic fulcrum1 it allows to the speculatist infinite room for the play of arbitrary1 groundless interpretation4 ,it is in the history of dogma and speculation as in the history of states4 ,world-old usages1 laws1 and institutions continue to drag out their existence long after they have lost their true meaning4 ,what has once existed will not be denied the right to exist for ever2 what was once good1 claims to be good for all times4 ,at this period of superannuation come the interpreters1 the speculatists1 and talk of the profound sense1 because they no longer know the true one4 #hh ,thus religious speculation deals with the dogmas torn from the connection in which alone they have any true meaning2 instead of tracing them back critically to their true origin1 it makes the secondary primitive1 and the primitive secondary4 ,to it ,god is the first1 man the second4 ,thus it inverts the natural order of things4 ,in reality1 the first is man1 the second the nature of man made objective1 namely1 ,god4 ,only in later times1 in which religion is already become flesh and blood1 can it be said--,as ,god is1 so is man2 although1 indeed1 this proposition never amounts to anything more than tautology4 ,but in the origin of religion it is otherwise2 and it is only in the origin of a thing that we can discern its true nature4 ,man first unconsciously and involuntarily creates ,god in his own image1 and after this ,god consciously and voluntarily creates man in his own image4 ,this is especially confirmed by the development of the ,israelitish religion4 ,hence the position of theological one-sidedness1 that the revelation of ,god holds an even pace with the development of the human race4 ,naturally2 for the revelation of ,god is nothing else than the revelation1 the self-unfolding of human nature4 ,the supranaturalistic egoism of the ,jews did not proceed from the ,creator1 but conversely1 the latter from the former2 in the creation the ,israelite justified his egoism at the bar of his reason4 ,it is true1 and it may be readily understood on simply practical grounds1 that even the ,israelite could not1 as a man1 withdraw himself from the theoretic contemplation and admiration of ,nature4 ,but in celebrating the power and greatness of ,nature1 he celebrates only the power and greatness of ,jehovah4 ,and the power of ,jehovah has exhibited itself with the most glory in the miracles which it has wrought in favour of ,israel4 ,hence1 in the celebration of this power1 the ,israelite has always reference ultimately to himself2 he extols the greatness of ,nature only for the same reason that the conqueror magnifies the strength of his opponent1 in order thereby to heighten his own self-complacency1 to make his own fame more illustrious4 ,great and mighty is ,nature1 which ,jehovah has created1 but yet mightier1 yet greater1 is ,israel's self-estimation4 ,for his sake the sun stands still2 for his sake1 according to ,philo1 the earth quaked at the delivery of the law2 in short1 for his sake all ,nature alters its course4 ,for the whole creature in his proper kind was fashioned again anew1 serving the peculiar commandments that were given unto them1 that thy children might be kept without hurt4 #hi ,according to ,philo1 ,god gave ,moses power over the whole of ,nature2 all the elements obeyed him as the ,lord of ,nature4 #ij ,israel's requirement is the omnipotent law of the world1 ,israel's need the fate of the universe4 ,jehovah is ,israel's consciousness of the sacredness and necessity of his own existence1--a necessity before which the existence of ,nature1 the existence of other nations1 vanishes into nothing2 ,jehovah is the salus populi1 the salvation of ,israel1 to which everything that stands in its way must be sacrificed2 ,jehovah is exclusive1 monarchical arrogance1 the annihilating flash of anger in the vindictive glance of destroying ,israel2 in a word1 ,jehovah is the ego of ,israel1 which regards itself as the end and aim1 the ,lord of ,nature4 ,thus1 in the power of ,nature the ,israelite celebrates the power of ,jehovah1 and in the power of ,jehovah the power of his own self-consciousness4 ,blessed be ,god6 ,god is our help1 ,god is our salvation4--,jehovah is my strength4--,god himself hearkened to the word of ,joshua1 for ,jehovah himself fought for ,israel4--,jehovah is a ,god of war4 ,if1 in the course of time1 the idea of ,jehovah expanded itself in individual minds1 and his love was extended1 as by the writer of the ,book of ,jonah1 to man in general1 this does not belong to the essential character of the ,israelitish religion4 ,the ,god of the fathers1 to whom the most precious recollections are attached1 the ancient historical ,god1 remains always the foundation of a religion4 #ia ,,chapter ,,xii4 ,,the ,,omnipotence ,,of ,,feeling1 ,,or ,,the ,,mystery ,,of ,,prayer4 ,israel is the historical definition of the specific nature of the religious consciousness1 save only that here this consciousness was circumscribed by the limits of a particular1 a national interest4 ,hence1 we need only let these limits fall1 and we have the ,christian religion4 ,judaism is worldly ,christianity2 ,christianity1 spiritual ,judaism4 ,the ,christian religion is the ,jewish religion purified from national egoism1 and yet at the same time it is certainly another1 a new religion2 for every reformation1 every purification1 produces--especially in religious matters1 where even the trivial becomes important--an essential change4 ,to the ,jew1 the ,israelite was the mediator1 the bond between ,god and man2 in his relation to ,jehovah he relied on his character of ,israelite2 ,jehovah himself was nothing else than the self-consciousness of ,israel made objective as the absolute being1 the national conscience1 the universal law1 the central point of the political system4 #ib ,if we let fall the limits of nationality1 we obtain--instead of the ,israelite--man4 ,as in ,jehovah the ,israelite personified his national existence1 so in ,god the ,christian personified his subjective human nature1 freed from the limits of nationality4 ,as ,israel made the wants of his national existence the law of the world1 as1 under the dominance of these wants1 he deified even his political vindictiveness2 so the ,christian made the requirements of human feeling the absolute powers and laws of the world4 ,the miracles of ,christianity1 which belong just as essentially to its characterisation as the miracles of the ,old ,testament to that of ,judaism1 have not the welfare of a nation for their object1 but the welfare of man3--that is1 indeed1 only of man considered as ,christian2 for ,christianity1 in contradiction with the genuine universal human heart1 recognised man only under the condition1 the limitation1 of belief in ,christ4 ,but this fatal limitation will be discussed further on4 ,christianity has spiritualised the egoism of ,judaism into subjectivity 7though even within ,christianity this subjectivity is again expressed as pure egoism71 has changed the desire for earthly happiness1 the goal of the ,israelitish religion1 into the longing for heavenly bliss1 which is the goal of ,christianity4 ,the highest idea1 the ,god of a political community1 of a people whose political system expresses itself in the form of religion1 is ,law1 the consciousness of the law as an absolute divine power2 the highest idea1 the ,god of unpolitical1 unworldly feeling is ,love2 the love which brings all the treasures and glories in heaven and upon earth as an offering to the beloved1 the love whose law is the wish of the beloved one1 and whose power is the unlimited power of the imagination1 of intellectual miracle-working4 ,god is the ,love that satisfies our wishes1 our emotional wants2 he is himself the realised wish of the heart1 the wish exalted to the certainty of its fulfilment1 of its reality1 to that undoubting certainty before which no contradiction of the understanding1 no difficulty of experience or of the external world1 maintains its ground4 ,certainty is the highest power for man2 that which is certain to him is the essential1 the divine4 ,god is love3 this1 the supreme dictum of ,christianity1 only expresses the certainty which human feeling has of itself1 as the alone essential1 i4e41 absolute divine power1 the certainty that the inmost wishes of the heart have objective validity and reality1 that there are no limits1 no positive obstacles to human feeling1 that the whole world1 with all its pomp and glory1 is nothing weighed against human feeling4 ,god is love3 that is1 feeling is the ,god of man1 nay1 ,god absolutely1 the ,absolute ,being4 ,god is the nature of human feeling1 unlimited1 pure feeling1 made objective4 ,god is the optative of the human heart transformed into the tempus finitum1 the certain1 blissful ,,is1--the unrestricted omnipotence of feeling1 prayer hearing itself1 feeling perceiving itself1 the echo of our cry of anguish4 ,pain must give itself utterance2 involuntarily the artist seizes the lute that he may breathe out his sufferings in its tones4 ,he soothes his sorrow by making it audible to himself1 by making it objective2 he lightens the burden which weighs upon his heart by communicating it to the air1 by making his sorrow a general existence4 ,but nature listens not to the plaints of man1 it is callous to his sorrows4 ,hence man turns away from ,nature1 from all visible objects4 ,he turns within1 that here1 sheltered and hidden from the inexorable powers1 he may find audience for his griefs4 ,here he utters his oppressive secrets2 here he gives vent to his stifled sighs4 ,this open-air of the heart1 this outspoken secret1 this uttered sorrow of the soul1 is ,god4 ,god is a tear of love1 shed in the deepest concealment over human misery4 ,god is an unutterable sigh1 lying in the depths of the heart2 #ic this saying is the most remarkable1 the profoundest1 truest expression of ,christian mysticism4 ,the ultimate essence of religion is revealed by the simplest act of religion--prayer2 an act which implies at least as much as the dogma of the ,incarnation1 although religious speculation stands amazed at this1 as the greatest of mysteries4 ,not1 certainly1 the prayer before and after meals1 the ritual of animal egoism1 but the prayer pregnant with sorrow1 the prayer of disconsolate love1 the prayer which expresses the power of the heart that crushes man to the ground1 the prayer which begins in despair and ends in rapture4 ,in prayer1 man addresses ,god with the word of intimate affection--,thou2 he thus declares articulately that ,god is his alter ego2 he confesses to ,god1 as the being nearest to him1 his most secret thoughts1 his deepest wishes1 which otherwise he shrinks from uttering4 ,but he expresses these wishes in the confidence1 in the certainty that they will be fulfilled4 ,how could he apply to a being that had no ear for his complaints8 ,thus what is prayer but the wish of the heart expressed with confidence in its fulfilment8 #id what else is the being that fulfils these wishes but human affection1 the human soul1 giving ear to itself1 approving itself1 unhesitatingly affirming itself8 ,the man who does not exclude from his mind the idea of the world1 the idea that everything here must be sought intermediately1 that every effect has its natural cause1 that a wish is only to be attained when it is made an end and the corresponding means are put into operation--such a man does not pray3 he only works2 he transforms his attainable wishes into objects of real activity2 other wishes which he recognises as purely subjective he denies1 or regards as simply subjective1 pious aspirations4 ,in other words1 he limits1 he conditionates his being by the world1 as a member of which he conceives himself2 he bounds his wishes by the idea of necessity4 ,in prayer1 on the contrary1 man excludes from his mind the world1 and with it all thoughts of intermediateness and dependence2 he makes his wishes--the concerns of his heart1 objects of the independent1 omnipotent1 absolute being1 i4e41 he affirms them without limitation4 ,god is the affirmation #ie of human feeling2 prayer is the unconditional confidence of human feeling in the absolute identity of the subjective and objective1 the certainty that the power of the heart is greater than the power of ,nature1 that the heart's need is absolute necessity1 the fate of the world4 ,prayer alters the course of ,nature2 it determines ,god to bring forth an effect in contradiction with the laws of ,nature4 ,prayer is the absolute relation of the human heart to itself1 to its own nature2 in prayer1 man forgets that there exists a limit to his wishes1 and is happy in this forgetfulness4 ,prayer is the self-division of man into two beings1--a dialogue of man with himself1 with his heart4 ,it is essential to the effectiveness of prayer that it be audibly1 intelligibly1 energetically expressed4 ,involuntarily prayer wells forth in sound2 the struggling heart bursts the barrier of the closed lips4 ,but audible prayer is only prayer revealing its nature2 prayer is virtually1 if not actually1 speech1--the ,latin word oratio signifies both3 in prayer1 man speaks undisguisedly of that which weighs upon him1 which affects him closely2 he makes his heart objective2--hence the moral power of prayer4 ,concentration1 it is said1 is the condition of prayer2 but it is more than a condition2 prayer is itself concentration1--the dismissal of all distracting ideas1 of all disturbing influences from without1 retirement within oneself1 in order to have relation only with one's own being4 ,only a trusting1 open1 hearty1 fervent prayer is said to help2 but this help lies in the prayer itself4 ,as everywhere in religion the subjective1 the secondary1 the conditionating1 is the prima causa1 the objective fact2 so here1 these subjective qualities are the objective nature of prayer itself4 #if ,it is an extremely superficial view of prayer to regard it as an expression of the sense of dependence4 ,it certainly expresses such a sense1 but the dependence is that of man on his own heart1 on his own feeling4 ,he who feels himself only dependent1 does not open his mouth in prayer2 the sense of dependence robs him of the desire1 the courage for it1 for the sense of dependence is the sense of need4 ,prayer has its root rather in the unconditional trust of the heart1 untroubled by all thought of compulsive need1 that its concerns are objects of the ,absolute ,being1 that the almighty1 infinite nature of the ,father of men is a sympathetic1 tender1 loving nature1 and that thus the dearest1 most sacred emotions of man are divine realities4 ,but the child does not feel itself dependent on the father as a father2 rather1 he has in the father the feeling of his own strength1 the consciousness of his own worth1 the guarantee of his existence1 the certainty of the fulfilment of his wishes2 on the father rests the burden of care2 the child1 on the contrary1 lives careless and happy in reliance on the father1 his visible guardian spirit1 who desires nothing but the child's welfare and happiness4 ,the father makes the child an end1 and himself the means of its existence4 ,the child1 in asking something of its father1 does not apply to him as a being distinct from itself1 a master1 a person in general1 but it applies to him in so far as he is dependent on1 and determined by his paternal feeling1 his love for his child4 #ig ,the entreaty is only an expression of the force which the child exercises over the father2 if1 indeed1 the word force is appropriate here1 since the force of the child is nothing more than the force of the father's own heart4 ,speech has the same form both for entreaty and command1 namely1 the imperative4 ,and the imperative of love has infinitely more power than that of despotism4 ,love does not command2 love needs but gently to intimate its wishes to be certain of their fulfilment2 the despot must throw compulsion even into the tones of his voice in order to make other beings1 in themselves uncaring for him1 the executors of his wishes4 ,the imperative of love works with electro-magnetic power2 that of despotism with the mechanical power of a wooden telegraph4 ,the most intimate epithet of ,god in prayer is the word ,father2 the most intimate1 because in it man is in relation to the absolute nature as to his own2 the word ,father is the expression of the closest1 the most intense identity1--the expression in which lies the pledge that my wishes will be fulfilled1 the guarantee of my salvation4 ,the omnipotence to which man turns in prayer is nothing but the ,omnipotence of ,goodness1 which1 for the sake of the salvation of man1 makes the impossible possible2--is1 in truth1 nothing else than the omnipotence of the heart1 of feeling1 which breaks through all the limits of the understanding1 which soars above all the boundaries of ,nature1 which wills that there be nothing else than feeling1 nothing that contradicts the heart4 ,faith in omnipotence is faith in the unreality of the external world1 of objectivity1--faith in the absolute reality of man's emotional nature3 the essence of omnipotence is simply the essence of feeling4 ,omnipotence is the power before which no law1 no external condition1 avails or subsists2 but this power is the emotional nature1 which feels every determination1 every law1 to be a limit1 a restraint1 and for that reason dismisses it4 ,omnipotence does nothing more than accomplish the will of the feelings4 ,in prayer man turns to the ,omnipotence of ,goodness2--which simply means1 that in prayer man adores his own heart1 regards his own feelings as absolute4 ,,chapter ,,xiii4 ,,the ,,mystery ,,of ,,faith--,,the ,,mystery ,,of ,,miracle4 ,faith in the power of prayer--and only where a power1 an objective power1 is ascribed to it1 is prayer still a religious truth--is identical with faith in miraculous power2 and faith in miracles is identical with the essence of faith in general4 ,faith alone prays2 the prayer of faith is alone effectual4 ,but faith is nothing else than confidence in the reality of the subjective in opposition to the limitations or laws of ,nature and reason1--that is1 of natural reason4 ,the specific object of faith1 therefore1 is miracle2 faith is the belief in miracle2 faith and miracle are absolutely inseparable4 ,that which is objectively miracle or miraculous power is subjectively faith2 miracle is the outward aspect of faith1 faith the inward soul of miracle2 faith is the miracle of mind1 the miracle of feeling1 which merely becomes objective in external miracles4 ,to faith nothing is impossible1 and miracle only gives actuality to this omnipotence of faith3 miracles are but a visible example of what faith can effect4 ,unlimitedness1 supernaturalness1 exaltation of feeling1--transcendence is therefore the essence of faith4 ,faith has reference only to things which1 in contradiction with the limits or laws of ,nature and reason1 give objective reality to human feelings and human desires4 ,faith unfetters the wishes of subjectivity from the bonds of natural reason2 it confers what ,nature and reason deny2 hence it makes man happy1 for it satisfies his most personal wishes4 ,and true faith is discomposed by no doubt4 ,doubt arises only where ,i go out of myself1 overstep the bounds of my personality1 concede reality and a right of suffrage to that which is distinct from myself2--where ,i know myself to be a subjective1 i4e41 a limited being1 and seek to widen my limits by admitting things external to myself4 ,but in faith the very principle of doubt is annulled2 for to faith the subjective is in and by itself the objective--nay1 the absolute4 ,faith is nothing else than belief in the absolute reality of subjectivity4 ,faith is that courage in the heart which trusts for all good to ,god4 ,such a faith1 in which the heart places its reliance on ,god alone1 is enjoined by ,god in the first commandment1 where he says1 ,i am the ,lord thy ,god4444 ,that is1 ,i alone will be thy ,god2 thou shalt seek no other ,god2 ,i will help thee out of all trouble4 ,thou shalt not think that ,i am an enemy to thee1 and will not help thee4 ,when thou thinkest so1 thou makest me in thine heart into another ,god than ,i am4 ,wherefore hold it for certain that ,i am willing to be merciful to thee4--,as thou behavest thyself1 so does ,god behave4 ,if thou thinkest that he is angry with thee1 he is angry2 if thou thinkest that he is unmerciful and will cast thee into hell1 he is so4 ,as thou believest of ,god1 so is he to thee4--,if thou believest it1 thou hast it2 but if thou believest not1 thou hast none of it4--,therefore1 as we believe so does it happen to us4 ,if we regard him as our ,god1 he will not be our devil4 ,but if we regard him not as our ,god1 then truly he is not our ,god1 but must be a consuming fire4--,by unbelief we make ,god a devil4 #ih ,thus1 if ,i believe in a ,god1 ,i have a ,god1 i4e41 faith in ,god is the ,god of man4 ,if ,god is such1 whatever it may be1 as ,i believe him1 what else is the nature of ,god than the nature of faith8 ,is it possible for thee to believe in a ,god who regards thee favourably1 if thou dost not regard thyself favourably1 if thou despairest of man1 if he is nothing to thee8 ,what else then is the being of ,god but the being of man1 the absolute self-love of man8 ,if thou believest that ,god is for thee1 thou believest that nothing is or can be against thee1 that nothing contradicts thee4 ,but if thou believest that nothing is or can be against thee1 thou believest--what8--nothing less than that thou art ,god4 #ii ,that ,god is another being is only illusion1 only imagination4 ,in declaring that ,god is for thee1 thou declarest that he is thy own being4 ,what then is faith but the infinite self-certainty of man1 the undoubting certainty that his own subjective being is the objective1 absolute being1 the being of beings8 ,faith does not limit itself by the idea of a world1 a universe1 a necessity4 ,for faith there is nothing but ,god1 i4e41 limitless subjectivity4 ,where faith rises the world sinks1 nay1 has already sunk into nothing4 ,faith in the real annihilation of the world--in an immediately approaching1 a mentally present annihilation of this world1 a world antagonistic to the wishes of the ,christian1 is therefore a phenomenon belonging to the inmost essence of ,christianity2 a faith which is not properly separable from the other elements of ,christian belief1 and with the renunciation of which1 true1 positive ,christianity is renounced and denied4 #ajj ,the essence of faith1 as may be confirmed by an examination of its objects down to the minutest speciality1 is the idea that that which man wishes actually is3 he wishes to be immortal1 therefore he is immortal2 he wishes for the existence of a being who can do everything which is impossible to ,nature and reason1 therefore such a being exists2 he wishes for a world which corresponds to the desires of the heart1 a world of unlimited subjectivity1 i4e41 of unperturbed feeling1 of uninterrupted bliss1 while nevertheless there exists a world the opposite of that subjective one1 and hence this world must pass away1--as necessarily pass away as ,god1 or absolute subjectivity1 must remain4 ,faith1 love1 hope1 are the ,christian ,trinity4 ,hope has relation to the fulfilment of the promises1 the wishes which are not yet fulfilled1 but which are to be fulfilled2 love has relation to the ,being who gives and fulfils these promises2 faith to the promises1 the wishes1 which are already fulfilled1 which are historical facts4 ,miracle is an essential object of ,christianity1 an essential article of faith4 ,but what is miracle8 ,a supranaturalistic wish realised--nothing more4 ,the ,apostle ,paul illustrates the nature of ,christian faith by the example of ,abraham4 ,abraham could not1 in a natural way1 ever hope for posterity2 ,jehovah nevertheless promised it to him out of special favour1 and ,abraham believed in spite of ,nature4 ,hence this faith was reckoned to him as righteousness1 as merit2 for it implies great force of subjectivity to accept as certain something in contradiction with experience1 at least with rational1 normal experience4 ,but what was the object of this divine promise8 ,posterity1 the object of a human wish4 ,and in what did ,abraham believe when he believed in ,jehovah8 ,in a ,being who can do everything1 and can fulfil all wishes4 ,is anything too hard for the ,lord8 #aja ,but why do we go so far back as to ,abraham8 ,we have the most striking examples much nearer to us4 ,miracle feeds the hungry1 cures men born blind1 deaf1 and lame1 rescues from fatal diseases1 and even raises the dead at the prayer of relatives4 ,thus it satisfies human wishes1 and wishes which1 though not always intrinsically like the wish for the restoration of the dead1 yet in so far as they appeal to miraculous power1 to miraculous aid1 are transcendental1 supranaturalistic4 ,but miracle is distinguished from that mode of satisfying human wishes and needs which is in accordance with ,nature and reason1 in this respect1 that it satisfies the wishes of men in a way corresponding to the nature of wishes--in the most desirable way4 ,wishes own no restraint1 no law1 no time2 they would be fulfilled without delay on the instant4 ,and behold6 miracle is as rapid as a wish is impatient4 ,miraculous power realises human wishes in a moment1 at one stroke1 without any hindrance4 ,that the sick should become well is no miracle2 but that they should become so immediately1 at a mere word of command1--that is the mystery of miracle4 ,thus it is not in its product or object that miraculous agency is distinguished from the agency of ,nature and reason1 but only in its mode and process2 for if miraculous power were to effect something absolutely new1 never before beheld1 never conceived1 or not even conceivable1 it would be practically proved to be an essentially different1 and at the same time objective1 agency4 ,but the agency which in essence1 in substance1 is natural and accordant with the forms of the senses1 and which is supernatural1 supersensual1 only in the mode or process1 is the agency of the imagination4 ,the power of miracle is therefore nothing else than the power of the imagination4 ,miraculous agency is agency directed to an end4 ,the yearning after the departed ,lazarus1 the desire of his relatives to possess him again1 was the motive of the miraculous resuscitation2 the satisfaction of this wish1 the end4 ,it is true that the miracle happened for the glory of ,god1 that the ,son of ,god might be glorified thereby2 but the message sent to the ,master by the sisters of ,lazarus1 ,behold1 he whom thou lovest is sick1 and the tears which ,jesus shed1 vindicate for the miracle a human origin and end4 ,the meaning is3 to that power which can awaken the dead no human wish is impossible to accomplish4 #ajb ,and the glory of the ,son consists in this3 that he is acknowledged and reverenced as the being who is able to do what man is unable but wishes to do4 ,activity towards an end is well known to describe a circle3 in the end it returns upon its beginning4 ,but miraculous agency is distinguished from the ordinary realisation of an object in that it realises the end without means1 that it effects an immediate identity of the wish and its fulfilment2 that consequently it describes a circle1 not in a curved1 but in a straight line1 that is1 the shortest line4 ,a circle in a straight line is the mathematical symbol of miracle4 ,the attempt to construct a circle with a straight line would not be more ridiculous than the attempt to deduce miracle philosophically4 ,to reason1 miracle is absurd1 inconceivable2 as inconceivable as wooden iron or a circle without a periphery4 ,before it is discussed whether a miracle can happen1 let it be shown that miracle1 i4e41 the inconceivable1 is conceivable4 ,what suggests to man the notion that miracle is conceivable is that miracle is represented as an event perceptible by the senses1 and hence man cheats his reason by material images which screen the contradiction4 ,the miracle of the turning of water into wine1 for example1 implies in fact nothing else than that water is wine1--nothing else than that two absolutely contradictory predicates or subjects are identical2 for in the hand of the miracle-worker there is no distinction between the two substances2 the transformation is only the visible appearance of this identity of two contradictories4 ,but the transformation conceals the contradiction1 because the natural conception of change is interposed4 ,here1 however1 is no gradual1 no natural1 or1 so to speak1 organic change2 but an absolute1 immaterial one2 a pure creatio ex nihilo4 ,in the mysterious and momentous act of miraculous power1 in the act which constitutes the miracle1 water is suddenly and imperceptibly wine3 which is equivalent to saying that iron is wood1 or wooden iron4 ,the miraculous act--and miracle is only a transient act--is therefore not an object of thought1 for it nullifies the very principle of thought2 but it is just as little an object of sense1 an object of real or even possible experience4 ,water is indeed an object of sense1 and wine also2 ,i first see water and then wine2 but the miracle itself1 that which makes this water suddenly wine1--this1 not being a natural process1 but a pure perfect without any antecedent imperfect1 without any modus1 without way or means1 is no object of real1 or even of possible experience4 ,miracle is a thing of the imagination2 and on that very account is it so agreeable3 for the imagination is the faculty which alone corresponds to personal feeling1 because it sets aside all limits1 all laws which are painful to the feelings1 and thus makes objective to man the immediate1 absolutely unlimited satisfaction of his subjective wishes4 #ajc ,accordance with subjective inclination is the essential characteristic of miracle4 ,it is true that miracle produces also an awful1 agitating impression1 so far as it expresses a power which nothing can resist1--the power of the imagination4 ,but this impression lies only in the transient miraculous act2 the abiding1 essential impression is the agreeable one4 ,at the moment in which the beloved ,lazarus is raised up1 the surrounding relatives and friends are awestruck at the extraordinary1 almighty power which transforms the dead into the living2 but soon the relatives fall into the arms of the risen one1 and lead him with tears of joy to his home1 there to celebrate a festival of rejoicing4 ,miracle springs out of feeling1 and has its end in feeling4 ,even in the traditional representation it does not deny its origin2 the representation which gratifies the feelings is alone the adequate one4 ,who can fail to recognise in the narrative of the resurrection of ,lazarus the tender1 pleasing1 legendary tone8 #ajd ,miracle is agreeable1 because1 as has been said1 it satisfies the wishes of man without labour1 without effort4 ,labour is unimpassioned1 unbelieving1 rationalistic2 for man here makes his existence dependent on activity directed to an end1 which activity again is itself determined solely by the idea of the objective world4 ,but feeling does not at all trouble itself about the objective world2 it does not go out of or beyond itself2 it is happy in itself4 ,the element of culture1 the ,northern principle of self-renunciation1 is wanting to the emotional nature4 ,the ,apostles and ,evangelists were no scientifically cultivated men4 ,culture1 in general1 is nothing else than the exaltation of the individual above his subjectivity to objective universal ideas1 to the contemplation of the world4 ,the ,apostles were men of the people2 the people live only in themselves1 in their feelings2 therefore ,christianity took possession of the people4 ,vox populi vox ,dei4 ,did ,christianity conquer a single philosopher1 historian1 or poet of the classical period8 ,the philosophers who went over to ,christianity were feeble1 contemptible philosophers4 ,all who had yet the classic spirit in them were hostile1 or at least indifferent to ,christianity4 ,the decline of culture was identical with the victory of ,christianity4 ,the classic spirit1 the spirit of culture1 limits itself by laws1--not indeed by arbitrary1 finite laws1 but by inherently true and valid ones2 it is determined by the necessity1 the truth of the nature of things2 in a word1 it is the objective spirit4 ,in place of this1 there entered with ,christianity the principle of unlimited1 extravagant1 fanatical1 supranaturalistic subjectivity2 a principle intrinsically opposed to that of science1 of culture4 #aje ,with ,christianity man lost the capability of conceiving himself as a part of ,nature1 of the universe4 ,as long as true1 unfeigned1 unfalsified1 uncompromising ,christianity existed1 as long as ,christianity was a living1 practical truth1 so long did real miracles happen2 and they necessarily happened1 for faith in dead1 historical1 past miracles is itself a dead faith1 the first step towards unbelief1 or rather the first and therefore the timid1 uncandid1 servile mode in which unbelief in miracle finds vent4 ,but where miracles happen1 all definite forms melt in the golden haze of imagination and feeling2 there the world1 reality1 is no truth2 there the miracle-working1 emotional1 i4e41 subjective being1 is held to be alone the objective1 real being4 ,to the merely emotional man the imagination is immediately1 without his willing or knowing it1 the highest1 the dominant activity2 and being the highest1 it is the activity of ,god1 the creative activity4 ,to him feeling is an immediate truth and reality2 he cannot abstract himself from his feelings1 he cannot get beyond them3 and equally real is his imagination4 ,the imagination is not to him what it is to us men of active understanding1 who distinguish it as subjective from objective cognition2 it is immediately identical with himself1 with his feelings2 and since it is identical with his being1 it is his essential1 objective1 necessary view of things4 ,for us1 indeed1 imagination is an arbitrary activity2 but where man has not imbibed the principle of culture1 of theory1 where he lives and moves only in his feelings1 the imagination is an immediate1 involuntary activity4 ,the explanation of miracles by feeling and imagination is regarded by many in the present day as superficial4 ,but let any one transport himself to the time when living1 present miracles were believed in2 when the reality of things without us was as yet no sacred article of faith2 when men were so void of any theoretic interest in the world1 that they from day to day looked forward to its destruction2 when they lived only in the rapturous prospect and hope of heaven1 that is1 in the imagination of it 7for whatever heaven may be1 for them1 so long as they were on earth1 it existed only in the imagination72 when this imagination was not a fiction but a truth1 nay1 the eternal1 alone abiding truth1 not an inert1 idle source of consolation1 but a practical moral principle determining actions1 a principle to which men joyfully sacrificed real life1 the real world with all its glories2--let him transport himself to those times and he must himself be very superficial to pronounce the psychological genesis of miracles superficial4 ,it is no valid objection that miracles have happened1 or are supposed to have happened1 in the presence of whole assemblies3 no man was independent1 all were filled with exalted supranaturalistic ideas and feelings2 all were animated by the same faith1 the same hope1 the same hallucinations4 ,and who does not know that there are common or similar dreams1 common or similar visions1 especially among impassioned individuals who are closely united and restricted to their own circle8 ,but be that as it may4 ,if the explanation of miracles by feeling and imagination is superficial1 the charge of superficiality falls not on the explainer1 but on that which he explains1 namely1 on miracle2 for1 seen in clear daylight1 miracle presents absolutely nothing else than the sorcery of the imagination1 which satisfies without contradiction all the wishes of the heart4 #ajf ,,chapter ,,xiv4 ,,the ,,mystery ,,of ,,the ,,resurrection ,,and ,,of ,,the ,,miraculous ,,conception4 ,the quality of being agreeable to subjective inclination belongs not only to practical miracles1 in which it is conspicuous1 as they have immediate reference to the interest or wish of the human individual2 it belongs also to theoretical1 or more properly dogmatic miracles1 and hence to the ,resurrection and the ,miraculous ,conception4 ,man1 at least in a state of ordinary well-being1 has the wish not to die4 ,this wish is originally identical with the instinct of self-preservation4 ,whatever lives seeks to maintain itself1 to continue alive1 and consequently not to die4 ,subsequently1 when reflection and feeling are developed under the urgency of life1 especially of social and political life1 this primary negative wish becomes the positive wish for a life1 and that a better life1 after death4 ,but this wish involves the further wish for the certainty of its fulfilment4 ,reason can afford no such certainty4 ,it has therefore been said that all proofs of immortality are insufficient1 and even that unassisted reason is not capable of apprehending it1 still less of proving it4 ,and with justice2 for reason furnishes only general proofs2 it cannot give the certainty of any personal immortality1 and it is precisely this certainty which is desired4 ,such a certainty requires an immediate personal assurance1 a practical demonstration4 ,this can only be given to me by the fact of a dead person1 whose death has been previously certified1 rising again from the grave2 and he must be no indifferent person1 but1 on the contrary1 the type and representative of all others1 so that his resurrection also may be the type1 the guarantee of theirs4 ,the resurrection of ,christ is therefore the satisfied desire of man for an immediate certainty of his personal existence after death1--personal immortality as a sensible1 indubitable fact4 ,immortality was with the heathen philosophers a question in which the personal interest was only a collateral point4 ,they concerned themselves chiefly with the nature of the soul1 of mind1 of the vital principle4 ,the immortality of the vital principle by no means involves the idea1 not to mention the certainty1 of personal immortality4 ,hence the vagueness1 discrepancy1 and dubiousness with which the ancients express themselves on this subject4 ,the ,christians1 on the contrary1 in the undoubting certainty that their personal1 self-flattering wishes will be fulfilled1 i4e41 in the certainty of the divine nature of their emotions1 the truth and unassailableness of their subjective feelings1 converted that which to the ancients was a theoretic problem into an immediate fact1--converted a theoretic1 and in itself open question1 into a matter of conscience1 the denial of which was equivalent to the high treason of atheism4 ,he who denies the resurrection denies the resurrection of ,christ1 but he who denies the resurrection of ,christ denies ,christ himself1 and he who denies ,christ denies ,god4 ,thus did spiritual ,christianity unspiritualise what was spiritual6 ,to the ,christians the immortality of the reason1 of the soul1 was far too abstract and negative2 they had at heart only a personal immortality1 such as would gratify their feelings1 and the guarantee of this lies in a bodily resurrection alone4 ,the resurrection of the body is the highest triumph of ,christianity over the sublime but certainly abstract spirituality and objectivity of the ancients4 ,for this reason the idea of the resurrection could never be assimilated by the pagan mind4 ,as the ,resurrection1 which terminates the sacred history 7to the ,christian not a mere history1 but the truth itself71 is a realised wish1 so also is that which commences it1 namely1 the ,miraculous ,conception1 though this has relation not so much to an immediately personal interest as to a particular subjective feeling4 ,the more man alienates himself from ,nature1 the more subjective1 i4e41 supranatural or antinatural1 is his view of things1 the greater the horror he has of ,nature1 or at least of those natural objects and processes which displease his imagination1 which affect him disagreeably4 #ajg ,the free1 objective man doubtless finds things repugnant and distasteful in ,nature1 but he regards them as natural1 inevitable results1 and under this conviction he subdues his feeling as a merely subjective and untrue one4 ,on the contrary1 the subjective man1 who lives only in the feelings and imagination1 regards these things with a quite peculiar aversion4 ,he has the eye of that unhappy foundling1 who even in looking at the loveliest flower could pay attention only to the little black beetle which crawled over it1 and who by this perversity of perception had his enjoyment in the sight of flowers always embittered4 ,moreover1 the subjective man makes his feelings the measure1 the standard of what ought to be4 ,that which does not please him1 which offends his transcendental1 supranatural1 or antinatural feelings1 ought not to be4 ,even if that which pleases him cannot exist without being associated with that which displeases him1 the subjective man is not guided by the wearisome laws of logic and physics1 but by the self-will of the imagination2 hence he drops what is disagreeable in a fact1 and holds fast alone what is agreeable4 ,thus the idea of the pure1 holy ,virgin pleases him2 still he is also pleased with the idea of the ,mother1 but only of the ,mother who already carries the infant on her arms4 ,virginity in itself is to him the highest moral idea1 the cornu copi of his supranaturalistic feelings and ideas1 his personified sense of honour and of shame before common nature4 #ajh ,nevertheless1 there stirs in his bosom a natural feeling also1 the compassionate feeling which makes the ,mother beloved4 ,what then is to be done in this difficulty of the heart1 in this conflict between a natural and a supranatural feeling8 ,the supranaturalist must unite the two1 must comprise in one and the same subject two predicates which exclude each other4 #aji ,oh1 what a plenitude of agreeable1 sweet1 supersensual1 sensual emotions lies in this combination6 ,here we have the key to the contradiction in ,catholicism1 that at the same time marriage is holy and celibacy is holy4 ,this simply realises1 as a practical contradiction1 the dogmatic contradiction of the ,virgin ,mother4 ,but this wondrous union of virginity and maternity1 contradicting ,nature and reason1 but in the highest degree accordant with the feelings and imagination1 is no product of ,catholicism2 it lies already in the twofold part which marriage plays in the ,bible1 especially in the view of the ,apostle ,paul4 ,the supernatural conception of ,christ is a fundamental doctrine of ,christianity1 a doctrine which expresses its inmost dogmatic essence1 and which rests on the same foundation as all other miracles and articles of faith4 ,as death1 which the philosopher1 the man of science1 the free objective thinker in general1 accepts as a natural necessity1 and as indeed all the limits of nature1 which are impediments to feeling1 but to reason are rational laws1 were repugnant to the ,christians1 and were set aside by them through the supposed agency of miraculous power2 so1 necessarily1 they had an equal repugnance to the natural process of generation1 and superseded it by miracle4 ,the ,miraculous ,conception is not less welcome than the ,resurrection to all believers2 for it was the first step towards the purification of mankind1 polluted by sin and ,nature4 ,only because the ,god-man was not infected with original sin1 could he1 the pure one1 purify mankind in the eyes of ,god1 to whom the natural process of generation was an object of aversion1 because he himself is nothing else but supranatural feeling4 ,even the arid ,protestant orthodoxy1 so arbitrary in its criticism1 regarded the conception of the ,god-producing ,virgin as a great1 adorable1 amazing1 holy mystery of faith1 transcending reason4 #aaj ,but with the ,protestants1 who confined the speciality of the ,christian to the domain of faith1 and with whom1 in life1 it was allowable to be a man1 even this mystery had only a dogmatic1 and no longer a practical significance2 they did not allow it to interfere with their desire of marriage4 ,with the ,catholics1 and with all the old1 uncompromising1 uncritical ,christians1 that which was a mystery of faith was a mystery of life1 of morality4 #aaa ,catholic morality is ,christian1 mystical2 ,protestant morality was1 in its very beginning1 rationalistic4 ,protestant morality is and was a carnal mingling of the ,christian with the man1 the natural1 political1 civil1 social man1 or whatever else he may be called in distinction from the ,christian2 ,catholic morality cherished in its heart the mystery of the unspotted virginity4 ,catholic morality was the ,mater dolorosa2 ,protestant morality a comely1 fruitful matron4 ,protestantism is from beginning to end the contradiction between faith and love2 for which very reason it has been the source1 or at least the condition1 of freedom4 ,just because the mystery of the ,virgo ,deipara had with the ,protestants a place only in theory1 or rather in dogma1 and no longer in practice1 they declared that it was impossible to express oneself with sufficient care and reserve concerning it1 and that it ought not to be made an object of speculation4 ,that which is denied in practice has no true basis and durability in man1 is a mere spectre of the mind2 and hence it is withdrawn from the investigation of the understanding4 ,ghosts do not brook daylight4 ,even the later doctrine 7which1 however1 had been already enunciated in a letter to ,st4 ,bernard1 who rejects it71 that ,mary herself was conceived without taint of original sin1 is by no means a strange school-bred doctrine1 as it is called by a modern historian4 ,that which gives birth to a miracle1 which brings forth ,god1 must itself be of miraculous divine origin or nature4 ,how could ,mary have had the honour of being overshadowed by the ,holy ,ghost if she had not been from the first pure8 ,could the ,holy ,ghost take up his abode in a body polluted by original sin8 ,if the principle of ,christianity1 the miraculous birth of the ,saviour1 does not appear strange to you1 why think strange the nave1 well-meaning inferences of ,catholicism8 ,,chapter ,,xv4 ,,the ,,mystery ,,of ,,the ,,christian ,,christ1 ,,or ,,the ,,personal ,,god4 ,the fundamental dogmas of ,christianity are realised wishes of the heart2--the essence of ,christianity is the essence of human feeling4 ,it is pleasanter to be passive than to act1 to be redeemed and made free by another than to free oneself2 pleasanter to make one's salvation dependent on a person than on the force of one's own spontaneity2 pleasanter to set before oneself an object of love than an object of effort2 pleasanter to know oneself beloved by ,god than merely to have that simple1 natural self-love which is innate in all beings2 pleasanter to see oneself imaged in the love-beaming eyes of another personal being1 than to look into the concave mirror of self or into the cold depths of the ocean of ,nature2 pleasanter1 in short1 to allow oneself to be acted on by one's own feeling1 as by another1 but yet fundamentally identical being1 than to regulate oneself by reason4 ,feeling is the oblique case of the ego1 the ego in the accusative4 ,the ego of ,fichte is destitute of feeling1 because the accusative is the same as the nominative1 because it is indeclinable4 ,but feeling or sentiment is the ego acted on by itself1 and by itself as another being1--the passive ego4 ,feeling changes the active in man into the passive1 and the passive into the active4 ,to feeling1 that which thinks is the thing thought1 and the thing thought is that which thinks4 ,feeling is the dream of ,nature2 and there is nothing more blissful1 nothing more profound than dreaming4 ,but what is dreaming8 ,the reversing of the waking consciousness4 ,in dreaming1 the active is the passive1 the passive the active2 in dreaming1 ,i take the spontaneous action of my own mind for an action upon me from without1 my emotions for events1 my conceptions and sensations for true existences apart from myself4 ,i suffer what ,i also perform4 ,dreaming is a double refraction of the rays of light2 hence its indescribable charm4 ,it is the same ego1 the same being in dreaming as in waking2 the only distinction is1 that in waking1 the ego acts on itself2 whereas in dreaming it is acted on by itself as by another being4 ,i think myself--is a passionless1 rationalistic position2 ,i am thought by ,god1 and think myself only as thought by ,god--is a position pregnant with feeling1 religious4 ,feeling is a dream with the eyes open2 religion the dream of waking consciousness3 dreaming is the key to the mysteries of religion4 ,the highest law of feeling is the immediate unity of will and deed1 of wishing and reality4 ,this law is fulfilled by the ,redeemer4 ,as external miracles1 in opposition to natural activity1 realise immediately the physical wants and wishes of man2 so the ,redeemer1 the ,mediator1 the ,god-man1 in opposition to the moral spontaneity of the natural or rationalistic man1 satisfies immediately the inward moral wants and wishes1 since he dispenses man on his own side from any intermediate activity4 ,what thou wishest is already effected4 ,thou desirest to win1 to deserve happiness4 ,morality is the condition1 the means of happiness4 ,but thou canst not fulfil this condition2 that is1 in truth1 thou needest not4 ,that which thou seekest to do has already been done4 ,thou hast only to be passive1 thou needest only believe1 only enjoy4 ,thou desirest to make ,god favourable to thee1 to appease his anger1 to be at peace with thy conscience4 ,but this peace exists already2 this peace is the ,mediator1 the ,god-man4 ,he is thy appeased conscience2 he is the fulfilment of the law1 and therewith the fulfilment of thy own wish and effort4 ,therefore it is no longer the law1 but the fulfiller of the law1 who is the model1 the guiding thread1 the rule of thy life4 ,he who fulfils the law annuls the law4 ,the law has authority1 has validity1 only in relation to him who violates it4 ,but he who perfectly fulfils the law says to it3 ,what thou willest ,i spontaneously will1 and what thou commandest ,i enforce by deeds2 my life is the true1 the living law4 ,the fulfiller of the law1 therefore1 necessarily steps into the place of the law2 moreover he becomes a new law1 one whose yoke is light and easy4 ,for in place of the merely imperative law1 he presents himself as an example1 as an object of love1 of admiration and emulation1 and thus becomes the ,saviour from sin4 ,the law does not give me the power to fulfil the law2 no6 it is hard and merciless2 it only commands1 without troubling itself whether ,i can fulfil it1 or how ,i am to fulfil it2 it leaves me to myself1 without counsel or aid4 ,but he who presents himself to me as an example lights up my path1 takes me by the hand1 and imparts to me his own strength4 ,the law lends no power of resisting sin1 but example works miracles4 ,the law is dead2 but example animates1 inspires1 carries men involuntarily along with it4 ,the law speaks only to the understanding1 and sets itself directly in opposition to the instincts2 example1 on the contrary1 appeals to a powerful instinct immediately connected with the activity of the senses1 that of involuntary imitation4 ,example operates on the feelings and imagination4 ,in short1 example has magical1 i4e41 sense-affecting powers2 for the magical or involuntary force of attraction is an essential property1 as of matter in general1 so in particular of that which affects the senses4 ,the ancients said that if virtue could become visible1 its beauty would win and inspire all hearts4 ,the ,christians were so happy as to see even this wish fulfilled4 ,the heathens had an unwritten1 the ,jews a written law2 the ,christians had a model--a visible1 personal1 living law1 a law made flesh4 ,hence the joyfulness especially of the primitive ,christians1 hence the glory of ,christianity that it alone contains and bestows the power to resist sin4 ,and this glory is not to be denied it4 ,only1 it is to be observed that the power of the exemplar of virtue is not so much the power of virtue as the power of example in general2 just as the power of religious music is not the power of religion1 but the power of music2 #aab and that therefore1 though the image of virtue has virtuous actions as its consequences1 these actions are destitute of the dispositions and motives of virtue4 ,but this simple and true sense of the redeeming and reconciling power of example in distinction from the power of law1 to which we have reduced the antithesis of the law and ,christ1 by no means expresses the full religious significance of the ,christian redemption and reconciliation4 ,in this everything reduces itself to the personal power of that miraculous intermediate being who is neither ,god alone nor man alone1 but a man who is also ,god1 and a ,god who is also man1 and who can therefore only be comprehended in connection with the significance of miracle4 ,in this1 the miraculous ,redeemer is nothing else than the realised wish of feeling to be free from the laws of morality1 i4e41 from the conditions to which virtue is united in the natural course of things2 the realised wish to be freed from moral evils instantaneously1 immediately1 by a stroke of magic1 that is1 in an absolutely subjective1 agreeable way4 ,the word of ,god1 says ,luther1 for example1 accomplishes all things swiftly1 brings forgiveness of sins1 and gives thee eternal life1 and costs nothing more than that thou shouldst hear the word1 and when thou hast heard it shouldst believe4 ,if thou believest1 thou hast it without pains1 cost1 delay1 or difficulty4 #aac ,but that hearing of the word of ,god which is followed by faith is itself a gift of ,god4 ,thus faith is nothing else than a psychological miracle1 a supernatural operation of ,god in man1 as ,luther likewise says4 ,but man becomes free from sin and from the consciousness of guilt only through faith1--morality is dependent on faith1 the virtues of the heathens are only splendid sins2 thus he becomes morally free and good only through miracle4 ,that the idea of miraculous power is one with the idea of the intermediate being1 at once divine and human1 has historical proof in the fact that the miracles of the ,old ,testament1 the delivery of the law1 providence--all the elements which constitute the essence of religion1 were in the later ,judaism attributed to the ,logos4 ,in ,philo1 however1 this ,logos still hovers in the air between heaven and earth1 now as abstract1 now as concrete2 that is1 ,philo vacillates between himself as a philosopher and himself as a religious ,israelite--between the positive element of religion and the metaphysical idea of deity2 but in such a way that even the abstract element is with him more or less invested with imaginative forms4 ,in ,christianity this ,logos first attained perfect consistence1 i4e41 religion now concentrated itself exclusively on that element1 that object1 which is the basis of its essential difference4 ,the ,logos is the personified essence of religion4 ,hence the definition of ,god as the essence of feeling has its complete truth only in the ,logos4 ,god as ,god is feeling as yet shut up1 hidden2 only ,christ is the unclosed1 open feeling or heart4 ,in ,christ feeling is first perfectly certain of itself1 and assured beyond doubt of the truth and divinity of its own nature2 for ,christ denies nothing to feeling2 he fulfils all its prayers4 ,in ,god the soul is still silent as to what affects it most closely1--it only sighs2 but in ,christ it speaks out fully2 here it has no longer any reserves4 ,to him who only sighs1 wishes are still attended with disquietude2 he rather complains that what he wishes is not1 than openly1 positively declares what he wishes2 he is still in doubt whether his wishes have the force of law4 ,but in ,christ all anxiety of the soul vanishes2 he is the sighing soul passed into a song of triumph over its complete satisfaction2 he is the joyful certainty of feeling that its wishes hidden in ,god have truth and reality1 the actual victory over death1 over all the powers of the world and ,nature1 the resurrection no longer merely hoped for1 but already accomplished2 he is the heart released from all oppressive limits1 from all sufferings1--the soul in perfect blessedness1 the ,godhead made visible4 #aad ,to see ,god is the highest wish1 the highest triumph of the heart4 ,christ is this wish1 this triumph1 fulfilled4 ,god1 as an object of thought only1 i4e41 ,god as ,god1 is always a remote being2 the relation to him is an abstract one1 like that relation of friendship in which we stand to a man who is distant from us1 and personally unknown to us4 ,however his works1 the proofs of love which he gives us1 may make his nature present to us1 there always remains an unfilled void1--the heart is unsatisfied1 we long to see him4 ,so long as we have not met a being face to face1 we are always in doubt whether he be really such as we imagine him2 actual presence alone gives final confidence1 perfect repose4 ,christ is ,god known personally2 ,christ1 therefore1 is the blessed certainty that ,god is what the soul desires and needs him to be4 ,god1 as the object of prayer1 is indeed already a human being1 since he sympathises with human misery1 grants human wishes2 but still he is not yet an object to the religious consciousness as a real man4 ,hence1 only in ,christ is the last wish of religion realised1 the mystery of religious feeling solved3--solved however in the language of imagery proper to religion1 for what ,god is in essence1 that ,christ is in actual appearance4 ,so far the ,christian religion may justly be called the absolute religion4 ,that ,god1 who in himself is nothing else than the nature of man1 should also have a real existence as such1 should be as man an object to the consciousness--this is the goal of religion2 and this the ,christian religion has attained in the incarnation of ,god1 which is by no means a transitory act1 for ,christ remains man even after his ascension1--man in heart and man in form1 only that his body is no longer an earthly one1 liable to suffering4 ,the incarnations of the ,deity with the ,orientals--the ,hindoos1 for example--have no such intense meaning as the ,christian incarnation2 just because they happen often they become indifferent1 they lose their value4 ,the manhood of ,god is his personality2 the proposition1 ,god is a personal being1 means3 ,god is a human being1 ,god is a man4 ,personality is an abstraction1 which has reality only in an actual man4 #aae ,the idea which lies at the foundation of the incarnations of ,god is therefore infinitely better conveyed by one incarnation1 one personality4 ,where ,god appears in several persons successively1 these personalities are evanescent4 ,what is required is a permanent1 an exclusive personality4 ,where there are many incarnations1 room is given for innumerable others2 the imagination is not restrained2 and even those incarnations which are already real pass into the category of the merely possible and conceivable1 into the category of fancies or of mere appearances4 ,but where one personality is exclusively believed in and contemplated1 this at once impresses with the power of an historical personality2 imagination is done away with1 the freedom to imagine others is renounced4 ,this one personality presses on me the belief in its reality4 ,the characteristic of real personality is precisely exclusiveness1--the ,leibnitzian principle of distinction1 namely1 that no one existence is exactly like another4 ,the tone1 the emphasis1 with which the one personality is expressed1 produces such an effect on the feelings1 that it presents itself immediately as a real one1 and is converted from an object of the imagination into an object of historical knowledge4 ,longing is the necessity of feeling1 and feeling longs for a personal ,god4 ,but this longing after the personality of ,god is true1 earnest1 and profound only when it is the longing for one personality1 when it is satisfied with one4 ,with the plurality of persons the truth of the want vanishes1 and personality becomes a mere luxury of the imagination4 ,but that which operates with the force of necessity1 operates with the force of reality on man4 ,that which to the feelings is a necessary being1 is to them immediately a real being4 ,longing says3 ,there must be a personal ,god1 i4e41 it cannot be that there is not2 satisfied feeling says3 ,he is4 ,the guarantee of his existence lies for feeling in its sense of the necessity of his existence the necessity of the satisfaction in the force of the want4 ,necessity knows no law besides itself2 necessity breaks iron4 ,feeling knows no other necessity than its own1 than the necessity of feeling1 than longing2 it holds in extreme horror the necessity of ,nature1 the necessity of reason4 ,thus to feeling1 a subjective1 sympathetic1 personal ,god is necessary2 but it demands one personality alone1 and this an historical1 real one4 ,only when it is satisfied in the unity of personality has feeling any concentration2 plurality dissipates it4 ,but as the truth of personality is unity1 and as the truth of unity is reality1 so the truth of real personality is--blood4 ,the last proof1 announced with peculiar emphasis by the author of the fourth ,gospel1 that the visible person of ,god was no phantasm1 no illusion1 but a real man1 is that blood flowed from his side on the cross4 ,if the personal ,god has a true sympathy with distress1 he must himself suffer distress4 ,only in his suffering lies the assurance of his reality2 only on this depends the impressiveness of the incarnation4 ,to see ,god does not satisfy feeling2 the eyes give no sufficient guarantee4 ,the truth of vision is confirmed only by touch4 ,but as subjectively touch1 so objectively the capability of being touched1 palpability1 passibility1 is the last criterion of reality2 hence the passion of ,christ is the highest confidence1 the highest self-enjoyment1 the highest consolation of feeling2 for only in the blood of ,christ is the thirst for a personal1 that is1 a human1 sympathising1 tender ,god allayed4 ,wherefore we hold it to be a pernicious error when such 7namely1 divine7 majesty is taken away from ,christ according to his manhood1 thereby depriving ,christians of their highest consolation1 which they have in 444 the promise of the presence of their ,head1 ,king and ,high ,priest1 who has promised them that not his mere ,godhead1 which to us poor sinners is as a consuming fire to dry stubble1 but he--he the ,man--who has spoken with us1 who has proved all sorrows in the human form which he took upon him1 who therefore can have fellow-feeling with us as his brethren1--that he will be with us in all our need1 according to the nature whereby he is our brother and we are flesh of his flesh4 #aaf ,it is superficial to say that ,christianity is not the religion of one personal ,god1 but of three personalities4 ,these three personalities have certainly an existence in dogma2 but even there the personality of the ,holy ,spirit is only an arbitrary decision which is contradicted by impersonal definitions2 as1 for example1 that the ,holy ,spirit is the gift of the ,father and ,son4 #aag ,already the very procession of the ,holy ,ghost presents an evil prognostic for his personality1 for a personal being is produced only by generation1 not by an indefinite emanation or by spiratio4 ,and even the ,father1 as the representative of the rigorous idea of the ,godhead1 is a personal being only according to opinion and assertion1 not according to his definitions2 he is an abstract idea1 a purely rationalistic being4 ,only ,christ is the plastic personality4 ,to personality belongs form2 form is the reality of personality4 ,christ alone is the personal ,god2 he is the real ,god of ,christians1 a truth which cannot be too often repeated4 #aah ,in him alone is concentrated the ,christian religion1 the essence of religion in general4 ,he alone meets the longing for a personal ,god2 he alone is an existence identical with the nature of feeling2 on him alone are heaped all the joys of the imagination1 and all the sufferings of the heart2 in him alone are feeling and imagination exhausted4 ,christ is the blending in one of feeling and imagination4 ,christianity is distinguished from other religions by this1 that in other religions the heart and imagination are divided1 in ,christianity they coincide4 ,here the imagination does not wander1 left to itself2 it follows the leadings of the heart2 it describes a circle1 whose centre is feeling4 ,imagination is here limited by the wants of the heart1 it only realises the wishes of feeling1 it has reference only to the one thing needful2 in brief1 it has1 at least generally1 a practical1 concentric tendency1 not a vagrant1 merely poetic one4 ,the miracles of ,christianity--no product of free1 spontaneous activity1 but conceived in the bosom of yearning1 necessitous feeling--place us immediately on the ground of common1 real life2 they act on the emotional man with irresistible force1 because they have the necessity of feeling on their side4 ,the power of imagination is here at the same time the power of the heart1--imagination is only the victorious1 triumphant heart4 ,with the ,orientals1 with the ,greeks1 imagination1 untroubled by the wants of the heart1 revelled in the enjoyment of earthly splendour and glory2 in ,christianity1 it descended from the palace of the gods into the abode of poverty1 where only want rules1--it humbled itself under the sway of the heart4 ,but the more it limited itself in extent1 the more intense became its strength4 ,the wantonness of the ,olympian gods could not maintain itself before the rigorous necessity of the heart2 but imagination is omnipotent when it has a bond of union with the heart4 ,and this bond between the freedom of the imagination and the necessity of the heart is ,christ4 ,all things are subject to ,christ2 he is the ,lord of the world1 who does with it what he will2 but this unlimited power over ,nature is itself again subject to the power of the heart2--,christ commands raging ,nature to be still1 but only that he may hear the sighs of the needy4 ,,chapter ,,xvi4 ,,the ,,distinction ,,between ,,christianity ,,and ,,heathenism4 ,christ is the omnipotence of subjectivity1 the heart released from all the bonds and laws of ,nature1 the soul excluding the world1 and concentrated only on itself1 the reality of all the heart's wishes1 the ,easter festival of the heart1 the ascent to heaven of the imagination3--,christ therefore is the distinction of ,christianity from heathenism4 ,in ,christianity1 man was concentrated only on himself1 he unlinked himself from the chain of sequences in the system of the universe1 he made himself a self-sufficing whole1 an absolute1 extra- and supra-mundane being4 ,because he no longer regarded himself as a being immanent in the world1 because he severed himself from connection with it1 he felt himself an unlimited being--7for the sole limit of subjectivity is the world1 is objectivity71--he had no longer any reason to doubt the truth and validity of his subjective wishes and feelings4 ,the heathens1 on the contrary1 not shutting out ,nature by retreating within themselves1 limited their subjectivity by the contemplation of the world4 ,highly as the ancients estimated the intelligence1 the reason1 they were yet liberal and objective enough1 theoretically as well as practically1 to allow that which they distinguished from mind1 namely1 matter1 to live1 and even to live eternally2 the ,christians evinced their theoretical as well as practical intolerance in their belief that they secured the eternity of their subjective life only by annihilating1 as in the doctrine of the destruction of the world1 the opposite of subjectivity--,nature4 ,the ancients were free from themselves1 but their freedom was that of indifference towards themselves2 the ,christians were free from ,nature1 but their freedom was not that of reason1 not true freedom1 which limits itself by the contemplation of the world1 by ,nature1--it was the freedom of feeling and imagination1 the freedom of miracle4 ,the ancients were so enraptured by the cosmos1 that they lost sight of themselves1 suffered themselves to be merged in the whole2 the ,christians despised the world2--what is the creature compared with the ,creator8 what are sun1 moon1 and earth compared with the human soul8 #aai ,the world passes away1 but man1 nay1 the individual1 personal man1 is eternal4 ,if the ,christians severed man from all community with ,nature1 and hence fell into the extreme of an arrogant fastidiousness1 which stigmatised the remotest comparison of man with the brutes as an impious violation of human dignity2 the heathens1 on the other hand1 fell into the opposite extreme1 into that spirit of depreciation which abolishes the distinction between man and the brute1 or even1 as was the case1 for example1 with ,celsus1 the opponent of ,christianity1 degrades man beneath the brute4 ,but the heathens considered man not only in connection with the universe2 they considered the individual man1 in connection with other men1 as member of a commonwealth4 ,they rigorously distinguished the individual from the species1 the individual as a part from the race as a whole1 and they subordinated the part to the whole4 ,men pass away1 but mankind remains1 says a heathen philosopher4 ,why wilt thou grieve over the loss of thy daughter8 writes ,sulpicius to ,cicero4 ,great1 renowned cities and empires have passed away1 and thou behavest thus at the death of an homunculus1 a little human being6 ,where is thy philosophy8 ,the idea of man as an individual was to the ancients a secondary one1 attained through the idea of the species4 ,though they thought highly of the race1 highly of the excellences of mankind1 highly and sublimely of the intelligence1 they nevertheless thought slightly of the individual4 ,christianity1 on the contrary1 cared nothing for the species1 and had only the individual in its eye and mind4 ,christianity--not1 certainly1 the ,christianity of the present day1 which has incorporated with itself the culture of heathenism1 and has preserved only the name and some general positions of ,christianity--is the direct opposite of heathenism1 and only when it is regarded as such is it truly comprehended1 and untravestied by arbitrary speculative interpretation2 it is true so far as its opposite is false1 and false so far as its opposite is true4 ,the ancients sacrificed the individual to the species2 the ,christians sacrificed the species to the individual4 ,or1 heathenism conceived the individual only as a part in distinction from the whole of the species2 ,christianity1 on the contrary1 conceived the individual only in immediate1 undistinguishable unity with the species4 ,to ,christianity the individual was the object of an immediate providence1 that is1 an immediate object of the ,divine ,being4 ,the heathens believed in a providence for the individual only through his relation to the race1 through law1 through the order of the world1 and thus only in a mediate1 natural1 and not miraculous providence2 #abj but the ,christians left out the intermediate process1 and placed themselves in immediate connection with the prescient1 all-embracing1 universal ,being2 i4e41 they immediately identified the individual with the universal ,being4 ,but the idea of deity coincides with the idea of humanity4 ,all divine attributes1 all the attributes which make ,god ,god1 are attributes of the species--attributes which in the individual are limited1 but the limits of which are abolished in the essence of the species1 and even in its existence1 in so far as it has its complete existence only in all men taken together4 ,my knowledge1 my will1 is limited2 but my limit is not the limit of another man1 to say nothing of mankind2 what is difficult to me is easy to another2 what is impossible1 inconceivable1 to one age1 is to the coming age conceivable and possible4 ,my life is bound to a limited time2 not so the life of humanity4 ,the history of mankind consists of nothing else than a continuous and progressive conquest of limits1 which at a given time pass for the limits of humanity1 and therefore for absolute insurmountable limits4 ,but the future always unveils the fact that the alleged limits of the species were only limits of individuals4 ,the most striking proofs of this are presented by the history of philosophy and of physical science4 ,it would be highly interesting and instructive to write a history of the sciences entirely from this point of view1 in order to exhibit in all its vanity the presumptuous notion of the individual that he can set limits to his race4 ,thus the species is unlimited2 the individual alone limited4 ,but the sense of limitation is painful1 and hence the individual frees himself from it by the contemplation of the perfect ,being2 in this contemplation he possesses what otherwise is wanting to him4 ,with the ,christians ,god is nothing else than the immediate unity of species and individuality1 of the universal and individual being4 ,god is the idea of the species as an individual--the idea or essence of the species1 which as a species1 as universal being1 as the totality of all perfections1 of all attributes or realities1 freed from all the limits which exist in the consciousness and feeling of the individual1 is at the same time again an individual1 personal being4 ,ipse suum esse est4 ,essence and existence are in ,god identical2 which means nothing else than that he is the idea1 the essence of the species1 conceived immediately as an existence1 an individual4 ,the highest idea on the standpoint of religion is3 ,god does not love1 he is himself love2 he does not live1 he is life2 he is not just1 but justice itself2 not a person1 but personality itself1--the species1 the idea1 as immediately a concrete existence4 #aba ,because of this immediate unity of the species with individuality1 this concentration of all that is universal and real in one personal being1 ,god is a deeply moving object1 enrapturing to the imagination2 whereas1 the idea of humanity has little power over the feelings1 because humanity is only an abstraction2 and the reality which presents itself to us in distinction from this abstraction is the multitude of separate1 limited individuals4 ,in ,god1 on the contrary1 feeling has immediate satisfaction1 because here all is embraced in one1 i4e41 because here the species has an immediate existence1--is an individuality4 ,god is love1 is justice1 as itself a subject2 he is the perfect universal being as one being1 the infinite extension of the species as an all-comprehending unity4 ,but ,god is only man's intuition of his own nature2 thus the ,christians are distinguished from the heathens in this1 that they immediately identify the individual with the species--that with them the individual has the significance of the species1 the individual by himself is held to be the perfect representative of the species--that they deify the human individual1 make him the absolute being4 ,especially characteristic is the difference between ,christianity and heathenism concerning the relation of the individual to the intelligence1 to the understanding1 to the nous4 ,the ,christians individualised the understanding1 the heathens made it a universal essence4 ,to the heathens1 the understanding1 the intelligence1 was the essence of man2 to the ,christians1 it was only a part of themselves4 ,to the heathens therefore only the intelligence1 the species1 to the ,christians1 the individual1 was immortal1 i4e41 divine4 ,hence follows the further difference between heathen and ,christian philosophy4 ,the most unequivocal expression1 the characteristic symbol of this immediate identity of the species and individuality in ,christianity is ,christ1 the real ,god of the ,christians4 ,christ is the ideal of humanity become existent1 the compendium of all moral and divine perfections to the exclusion of all that is negative2 pure1 heavenly1 sinless man1 the typical man1 the ,adam ,kadmon2 not regarded as the totality of the species1 of mankind1 but immediately as one individual1 one person4 ,christ1 i4e41 the ,christian1 religious ,christ1 is therefore not the central1 but the terminal point of history4 ,the ,christians expected the end of the world1 the close of history4 ,in the ,bible1 ,christ himself1 in spite of all the falsities and sophisms of our exegetists1 clearly prophesies the speedy end of the world4 ,history rests only on the distinction of the individual from the race4 ,where this distinction ceases1 history ceases2 the very soul of history is extinct4 ,nothing remains to man but the contemplation and appropriation of this realised ,ideal1 and the spirit of proselytism1 which seeks to extend the prevalence of a fixed belief1--the preaching that ,god has appeared1 and that the end of the world is at hand4 ,since the immediate identity of the species and the individual oversteps the limits of reason and ,nature1 it followed of course that this universal1 ideal individual was declared to be a transcendent1 supernatural1 heavenly being4 ,it is therefore a perversity to attempt to deduce from reason the immediate identity of the species and individual1 for it is only the imagination which effects this identity1 the imagination to which nothing is impossible1 and which is also the creator of miracles2 for the greatest of miracles is the being who1 while he is an individual1 is at the same time the ideal1 the species1 humanity in the fulness of its perfection and infinity1 i4e41 the ,godhead4 ,hence it is also a perversity to adhere to the biblical or dogmatic ,christ1 and yet to thrust aside miracles4 ,if the principle be retained1 wherefore deny its necessary consequences8 ,the total absence of the idea of the species in ,christianity is especially observable in its characteristic doctrine of the universal sinfulness of men4 ,for there lies at the foundation of this doctrine the demand that the individual shall not be an individual1 a demand which again is based on the presupposition that the individual by himself is a perfect being1 is by himself the adequate presentation or existence of the species4 #abb ,here is entirely wanting the objective perception1 the consciousness1 that the thou belongs to the perfection of the ,i1 that men are required to constitute humanity1 that only men taken together are what man should and can be4 ,all men are sinners4 ,granted2 but they are not all sinners in the same way2 on the contrary1 there exists a great and essential difference between them4 ,one man is inclined to falsehood1 another is not2 he would rather give up his life than break his word or tell a lie2 the third has a propensity to intoxication1 the fourth to licentiousness2 while the fifth1 whether by favour of ,nature1 or from the energy of his character1 exhibits none of these vices4 ,thus1 in the moral as well as the physical and intellectual elements1 men compensate for each other1 so that1 taken as a whole1 they are1 as they should be1 they present the perfect man4 ,hence intercourse ameliorates and elevates2 involuntarily and without disguise1 man is different in intercourse from what he is when alone4 ,love especially works wonders1 and the love of the sexes most of all4 ,man and woman are the complement of each other1 and thus united they first present the species1 the perfect man4 #abc ,without species1 love is inconceivable4 ,love is nothing else than the self-consciousness of the species as evolved within the difference of sex4 ,in love1 the reality of the species1 which otherwise is only a thing of reason1 an object of mere thought1 becomes a matter of feeling1 a truth of feeling2 for in love1 man declares himself unsatisfied in his individuality taken by itself1 he postulates the existence of another as a need of the heart2 he reckons another as part of his own being2 he declares the life which he has through love to be the truly human life1 corresponding to the idea of man1 i4e41 of the species4 ,the individual is defective1 imperfect1 weak1 needy2 but love is strong1 perfect1 contented1 free from wants1 self-sufficing1 infinite2 because in it the self-consciousness of the individuality is the mysterious self-consciousness of the perfection of the race4 ,but this result of love is produced by friendship also1 at least where it is intense1 where it is a religion1 #abd as it was with the ancients4 ,friends compensate for each other2 friendship is a means of virtue1 and more3 it is itself virtue1 dependent however on participation4 ,friendship can only exist between the virtuous1 as the ancients said4 ,but it cannot be based on perfect similarity2 on the contrary1 it requires diversity1 for friendship rests on a desire for self-completion4 ,one friend obtains through the other what he does not himself possess4 ,the virtues of the one atone for the failings of the other4 ,friend justifies friend before ,god4 ,however faulty a man may be1 it is a proof that there is a germ of good in him if he has worthy men for his friends4 ,if ,i cannot be myself perfect1 ,i yet at least love virtue1 perfection in others4 ,if therefore ,i am called to account for any sins1 weaknesses1 and faults1 ,i interpose as advocates1 as mediators1 the virtues of my friend4 ,how barbarous1 how unreasonable would it be to condemn me for sins which ,i doubtless have committed1 but which ,i have myself condemned in loving my friends1 who are free from these sins6 ,but if friendship and love1 which themselves are only subjective realisations of the species1 make out of singly imperfect beings an at least relatively perfect whole1 how much more do the sins and failings of individuals vanish in the species itself1 which has its adequate existence only in the sum total of mankind1 and is therefore only an object of reason6 ,hence the lamentation over sin is found only where the human individual regards himself in his individuality as a perfect1 complete being1 not needing others for the realisation of the species1 of the perfect man2 where instead of the consciousness of the species has been substituted the exclusive self-consciousness of the individual2 where the individual does not recognise himself as a part of mankind1 but identifies himself with the species1 and for this reason makes his own sins1 limits and weaknesses1 the sins1 limits1 and weaknesses of mankind in general4 ,nevertheless man cannot lose the consciousness of the species1 for his self-consciousness is essentially united to his consciousness of another than himself4 ,where therefore the species is not an object to him as a species1 it will be an object to him as ,god4 ,he supplies the absence of the idea of the species by the idea of ,god1 as the being who is free from the limits and wants which oppress the individual1 and1 in his opinion 7since he identifies the species with the individual71 the species itself4 ,but this perfect being1 free from the limits of the individual1 is nothing else than the species1 which reveals the infinitude of its nature in this1 that it is realised in infinitely numerous and various individuals4 ,if all men were absolutely alike1 there would then certainly be no distinction between the race and the individual4 ,but in that case the existence of many men would be a pure superfluity2 a single man would have achieved the ends of the species4 ,in the one who enjoyed the happiness of existence all would have had their complete substitute4 ,doubtless the essence of man is one1 but this essence is infinite2 its real existence is therefore an infinite1 reciprocally compensating variety1 which reveals the riches of this essence4 ,unity in essence is multiplicity in existence4 ,between me and another human being--and this other is the representative of the species1 even though he is only one1 for he supplies to me the want of many others1 has for me a universal significance1 is the deputy of mankind1 in whose name he speaks to me1 an isolated individual1 so that1 when united only with one1 ,i have a participated1 a human life2--between me and another human being there is an essential1 qualitative distinction4 ,the other is my thou1--the relation being reciprocal1--my alter ego1 man objective to me1 the revelation of my own nature1 the eye seeing itself4 ,in another ,i first have the consciousness of humanity2 through him ,i first learn1 ,i first feel1 that ,i am a man3 in my love for him it is first clear to me that he belongs to me and ,i to him1 that we two cannot be without each other1 that only community constitutes humanity4 ,but morally1 also1 there is a qualitative1 critical distinction between the ,i and thou4 ,my fellow-man is my objective conscience2 he makes my failings a reproach to me2 even when he does not expressly mention them1 he is my personified feeling of shame4 ,the consciousness of the moral law1 of right1 of propriety1 of truth itself1 is indissolubly united with my consciousness of another than myself4 ,that is true in which another agrees with me1--agreement is the first criterion of truth2 but only because the species is the ultimate measure of truth4 ,that which ,i think only according to the standard of my individuality is not binding on another2 it can be conceived otherwise2 it is an accidental1 merely subjective view4 ,but that which ,i think according to the standard of the species1 ,i think as man in general only can think1 and consequently as every individual must think if he thinks normally1 in accordance with law1 and therefore truly4 ,that is true which agrees with the nature of the species1 that is false which contradicts it4 ,there is no other rule of truth4 ,but my fellow-man is to me the representative of the species1 the substitute of the rest1 nay1 his judgment may be of more authority with me than the judgment of the innumerable multitude4 ,let the fanatic make disciples as the sand on the sea-shore2 the sand is still sand2 mine be the pearl--a judicious friend4 ,the agreement of others is therefore my criterion of the normalness1 the universality1 the truth of my thoughts4 ,i cannot so abstract myself from myself as to judge myself with perfect freedom and disinterestedness2 but another has an impartial judgment2 through him ,i correct1 complete1 extend my own judgment1 my own taste1 my own knowledge4 ,in short1 there is a qualitative1 critical difference between men4 ,but ,christianity extinguishes this qualitative distinction2 it sets the same stamp on all men alike1 and regards them as one and the same individual1 because it knows no distinction between the species and the individual3 it has one and the same means of salvation for all men1 it sees one and the same original sin in all4 ,because ,christianity thus1 from exaggerated subjectivity1 knows nothing of the species1 in which alone lies the redemption1 the justification1 the reconciliation and cure of the sins and deficiencies of the individual1 it needed a supernatural and peculiar1 nay1 a personal1 subjective aid in order to overcome sin4 ,if ,i alone am the species1 if no other1 that is1 no qualitatively different men exist1 or1 which is the same thing1 if there is no distinction between me and others1 if we are all perfectly alike1 if my sins are not neutralised by the opposite qualities of other men3 then assuredly my sin is a blot of shame which cries up to heaven2 a revolting horror which can be exterminated only by extraordinary1 superhuman1 miraculous means4 ,happily1 however1 there is a natural reconciliation4 ,my fellow-man is per se the mediator between me and the sacred idea of the species4 ,homo homini ,deus est4 ,my sin is made to shrink within its limits1 is thrust back into its nothingness1 by the fact that it is only mine1 and not that of my fellows4 ,,chapter ,,xvii4 ,,the ,,christian ,,significance ,,of ,,voluntary ,,celibacy ,,and ,,monachism4 ,the idea of man as a species1 and with it the significance of the life of the species1 of humanity as a whole1 vanished as ,christianity became dominant4 ,herein we have a new confirmation of the position advanced1 that ,christianity does not contain within itself the principle of culture4 ,where man immediately identifies the species with the individual1 and posits this identity as his highest being1 as ,god1 where the idea of humanity is thus an object to him only as the idea of ,godhead1 there the need of culture has vanished2 man has all in himself1 all in his ,god1 consequently he has no need to supply his own deficiencies by others as the representatives of the species1 or by the contemplation of the world generally2 and this need is alone the spring of culture4 ,the individual man attains his end by himself alone2 he attains it in ,god1--,god is himself the attained goal1 the realised highest aim of humanity2 but ,god is present to each individual separately4 ,god only is the want of the ,christian2 others1 the human race1 the world1 are not necessary to him2 he is not the inward need of others4 ,god fills to me the place of the species1 of my fellow-men2 yes1 when ,i turn away from the world1 when ,i am in isolation1 ,i first truly feel my need of ,god1 ,i first have a lively sense of his presence1 ,i first feel what ,god is1 and what he ought to be to me4 ,it is true that the religious man has need also of fellowship1 of edification in common2 but this need of others is always in itself something extremely subordinate4 ,the salvation of the soul is the fundamental idea1 the main point in ,christianity2 and this salvation lies only in ,god1 only in the concentration of the mind on him4 ,activity for others is required1 is a condition of salvation2 but the ground of salvation is ,god1 immediate reference in all things to ,god4 ,and even activity for others has only a religious significance1 has reference only to ,god1 as its motive and end1 is essentially only an activity for ,god1--for the glorifying of his name1 the spreading abroad of his praise4 ,but ,god is absolute subjectivity1--subjectivity separated from the world1 above the world1 set free from matter1 severed from the life of the species1 and therefore from the distinction of sex4 ,separation from the world1 from matter1 from the life of the species1 is therefore the essential aim of ,christianity4 #abe ,and this aim had its visible1 practical realisation in ,monachism4 ,it is a self-delusion to attempt to derive monachism from the ,east4 ,at least1 if this derivation is to be accepted1 they who maintain it should be consistent enough to derive the opposite tendency of ,christendom1 not from ,christianity1 but from the spirit of the ,western nations1 the occidental nature in general4 ,but how1 in that case1 shall we explain the monastic enthusiasm of the ,west8 ,monachism must rather be derived directly from ,christianity itself3 it was necessary consequence of the belief in heaven promised to mankind by ,christianity4 ,where the heavenly life is a truth1 the earthly life is a lie2 where imagination is all1 reality is nothing4 ,to him who believes in an eternal heavenly life1 the present life loses its value1--or rather1 it has already lost its value3 belief in the heavenly life is belief in the worthlessness and nothingness of this life4 ,i cannot represent to myself the future life without longing for it1 without casting down a look of compassion or contempt on this pitiable earthly life1 and the heavenly life can be no object1 no law of faith1 without1 at the same time1 being a law of morality3 it must determine my actions1 #abf at least if my life is to be in accordance with my faith3 ,i ought not to cleave to the transitory things of this earth4 ,i ought not2--but neither do ,i wish2 for what are all things here below compared with the glory of the heavenly life8 #abg ,it is true that the quality of that life depends on the quality1 the moral condition of this2 but morality is itself determined by the faith in eternal life4 ,the morality corresponding to the super-terrestrial life is simply separation from the world1 the negation of this life2 and the practical attestation of this spiritual separation is the monastic life4 #abh ,everything must ultimately take an external form1 must present itself to the senses4 ,an inward disposition must become an outward practice4 ,the life of the cloister1 indeed ascetic life in general1 is the heavenly life as it is realised and can be realised here below4 ,if my soul belongs to heaven1 ought ,i1 nay1 can ,i belong to the earth with my body8 ,the soul animates the body4 ,but if the soul is in heaven1 the body is forsaken1 dead1 and thus the medium1 the organ of connection between the world and the soul is annihilated4 ,death1 the separation of the soul from the body1 at least from this gross1 material1 sinful body1 is the entrance into heaven4 ,but if death is the condition of blessedness and moral perfection1 then necessarily mortification is the one law of morality4 ,moral death is the necessary anticipation of natural death2 ,i say necessary1 for it would be the extreme of immorality to attribute the obtaining of heaven to physical death1 which is no moral act1 but a natural one common to man and the brute4 ,death must therefore be exalted into a moral1 a spontaneous act4 ,i die daily1 says the apostle1 and this dictum ,saint ,anthony1 the founder of monachism1 #abi made the theme of his life4 ,but ,christianity1 it is contended1 demanded only a spiritual freedom4 ,true2 but what is that spiritual freedom which does not pass into action1 which does not attest itself in practice8 ,or dost thou believe that it only depends on thyself1 on thy will1 on thy intention1 whether thou be free from anything8 ,if so1 thou art greatly in error1 and hast never experienced what it is to be truly made free4 ,so long as thou art in a given rank1 profession1 or relation1 so long art thou1 willingly or not1 determined by it4 ,thy will1 thy determination1 frees thee only from conscious limitations and impressions1 not from the unconscious ones which lie in the nature of the case4 ,thus we do not feel at home1 we are under constraint1 so long as we are not locally1 physically separated from one with whom we have inwardly broken4 ,external freedom is alone the full truth of spiritual freedom4 ,a man who has really lost spiritual interest in earthly treasures soon throws them out at window1 that his heart may be thoroughly at liberty4 ,what ,i no longer possess by inclination is a burden to me2 so away with it6 ,what affection has let go1 the hand no longer holds fast4 ,only affection gives force to the grasp2 only affection makes possession sacred4 ,he who having a wife is as though he had her not1 will do better to have no wife at all4 ,to have as though one had not1 is to have without the disposition to have1 is in truth not to have4 ,and therefore he who says that one ought to have a thing as though one had it not1 merely says in a subtle1 covert1 cautious way1 that one ought not to have it at all4 ,that which ,i dismiss from my heart is no longer mine1--it is free as air4 ,st4 ,anthony took the resolution to renounce the world when he had once heard the saying1 ,if thou wilt be perfect1 go thy way1 sell that thou hast and give to the poor1 and thou shalt have treasure in heaven2 and come and follow me4 ,st4 ,anthony gave the only true interpretation of this text4 ,he went his way1 and sold his possessions1 and gave the proceeds to the poor4 ,only thus did he prove his spiritual freedom from the treasures of this world4 #acj ,such freedom1 such truth1 is certainly in contradiction with the ,christianity of the present day1 according to which the ,lord has required only a spiritual freedom1 i4e41 a freedom which demands no sacrifice1 no energy1--an illusory1 self-deceptive freedom2--a freedom from earthly good1 which consists in its possession and enjoyment6 ,for certainly the ,lord said1 ,my yoke is easy4 ,how harsh1 how unreasonable would ,christianity be if it exacted from man the renunciation of earthly riches6 ,then assuredly ,christianity would not be suited to this world4 ,so far from this1 ,christianity is in the highest degree practical and judicious2 it defers the freeing oneself from the wealth and pleasures of this world to the moment of natural death 7monkish mortification is an unchristian suicide72--and allots to our spontaneous activity the acquisition and enjoyment of earthly possessions4 ,genuine ,christians do not indeed doubt the truth of the heavenly life1--,god forbid6 ,therein they still agree with the ancient monks2 but they await that life patiently1 submissive to the will of ,god1 i4e41 to their own selfishness1 to the agreeable pursuit of worldly enjoyment4 #aca ,but ,i turn away with loathing and contempt from modern ,christianity1 in which the bride of ,christ readily acquiesces in polygamy1 at least in successive polygamy1 and this in the eyes of the true ,christian does not essentially differ from contemporaneous polygamy2 but yet at the same time--oh6 shameful hypocrisy6--swears by the eternal1 universally binding1 irrefragable sacred truth of ,god's ,word4 ,i turn back with reverence to the misconceived truth of the chaste monastic cell1 where the soul betrothed to heaven did not allow itself to be wooed into faithlessness by a strange earthly body6 ,the unworldly1 supernatural life is essentially also an unmarried life4 ,the celibate lies already1 though not in the form of a law1 in the inmost nature of ,christianity4 ,this is sufficiently declared in the supernatural origin of the ,saviour1--a doctrine in which unspotted virginity is hallowed as the saving principle1 as the principle of the new1 the ,christian world4 ,let not such passages as1 ,be fruitful and multiply1 or1 ,what ,god has joined together let not man put asunder1 be urged as a sanction of marriage4 ,the first passage relates1 as ,tertullian and ,jerome have already observed1 only to the unpeopled earth1 not to the earth when filled with men1 only to the beginning1 not to the end of the world1 an end which was initiated by the immediate appearance of ,god upon earth4 ,and the second also refers only to marriage as an institution of the ,old ,testament4 ,certain ,jews proposed the question whether it were lawful for a man to separate from his wife2 and the most appropriate way of dealing with this question was the answer above cited4 ,he who has once concluded a marriage ought to hold it sacred4 ,marriage is intrinsically an indulgence to the weakness or rather the strength of the flesh1 an evil which therefore must be restricted as much as possible4 ,the indissolubleness of marriage is a nimbus1 a sacred irradiance1 which expresses precisely the opposite of what minds1 dazzled and perturbed by its lustre1 seek beneath it4 ,marriage in itself is1 in the sense of perfected ,christianity1 a sin1 #acb or rather a weakness which is permitted and forgiven thee only on condition that thou for ever limitest thyself to a single wife4 ,in short1 marriage is hallowed only in the ,old ,testament1 but not in the ,new4 ,the ,new ,testament knows a higher1 a supernatural principle1 the mystery of unspotted virginity4 #acc ,he who can receive it let him receive it4 ,the children of this world marry1 and are given in marriage3 but they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world1 and the resurrection from the dead1 neither marry nor are given in marriage3 neither can they die any more3 for they are equal unto the angels2 and are the children of ,god1 being the children of the resurrection4 ,thus in heaven there is no marriage2 the principle of sexual love is excluded from heaven as an earthly1 worldly principle4 ,but the heavenly life is the true1 perfected1 eternal life of the ,christian4 ,why then should ,i1 who am destined for heaven1 form a tie which is unloosed in my true destination8 ,why should ,i1 who am potentially a heavenly being1 not realise this possibility even here8 #acd ,marriage is already proscribed from my mind1 my heart1 since it is expelled from heaven1 the essential object of my faith1 hope1 and life4 ,how can an earthly wife have a place in my heaven-filled heart8 ,how can ,i divide my heart between ,god and man8 #ace ,the ,christian's love to ,god is not an abstract or general love such as the love of truth1 of justice1 of science2 it is a love to a subjective1 personal ,god1 and is therefore a subjective1 personal love4 ,it is an essential attribute of this love that it is an exclusive1 jealous love1 for its object is a personal and at the same time the highest being1 to whom no other can be compared4 ,keep close to ,jesus ,jesus ,christ is the ,christian's ,god1 in life and in death2 trust his faithfulness3 he alone can help thee1 when all else leaves thee4 ,thy beloved has this quality1 that he will suffer no rival2 he alone will have thy heart1 will rule alone in thy soul as a king on his throne4--,what can the world profit thee without ,jesus8 ,to be without ,christ is the pain of hell2 to be with ,christ1 heavenly sweetness4--,thou canst not live without a friend3 but if the friendship of ,christ is not more than all else to thee1 thou wilt be beyond measure sad and disconsolate4--,love everything for ,jesus' sake1 but ,jesus for his own sake4 ,jesus ,christ alone is worthy to be loved4--,my ,god1 my love my heart3 thou art wholly mine1 and ,i am wholly thine4--,love hopes and trusts ever in ,god1 even when ,god is not gracious to it or tastes bitter1 non sapit2 for we cannot live in love without sorrow4444 ,for the sake of the beloved1 the loving one must accept all things1 even the hard and bitter4--,my ,god and my all1 444 in thy presence everything is sweet to me1 in thy absence everything is distasteful4444 ,without thee nothing can please me4--,oh1 when at last will that blessed1 longed-for hour appear1 when thou wilt satisfy me wholly1 and be all in all to me8 ,so long as this is not granted me1 my joy is only fragmentary4--,when was it well with me without thee8 or when was it ill with me in thy presence8 ,i will rather be poor for thy sake1 than rich without thee4 ,i will rather be a pilgrim on earth with thee1 than the possessor of heaven without thee4 ,where thou art is heaven2 death and hell where thou art not4 ,i long only for thee4--,thou canst not serve ,god and at the same time have thy joys in earthly things3 thou must wean thyself from all acquaintances and friends1 and sever thy soul from all temporal consolation4 ,believers in ,christ should regard themselves1 according to the admonition of the ,apostle ,peter1 only as strangers and pilgrims on the earth4 #acf ,thus love to ,god as a personal being is a literal1 strict1 personal1 exclusive love4 ,how then can ,i at once love ,god and a mortal wife8 ,do ,i not thereby place ,god on the same footing with my wife8 ,no6 to a soul which truly loves ,god1 the love of woman is an impossibility1 is adultery4 ,he that is unmarried1 says the ,apostle ,paul1 careth for the things that belong to the ,lord1 how he may please the ,lord2 but he that is married careth for the things that are of the world1 how he may please his wife4 ,the true ,christian not only feels no need of culture1 because this is a worldly principle and opposed to feeling2 he has also no need of 7natural7 love4 ,god supplies to him the want of culture1 and in like manner ,god supplies to him the want of love1 of a wife1 of a family4 ,the ,christian immediately identifies the species with the individual2 hence he strips off the difference of sex as a burdensome1 accidental adjunct4 #acg ,man and woman together first constitute the true man2 man and woman together are the existence of the race1 for their union is the source of multiplicity1 the source of other men4 ,hence the man who does not deny his manhood1 is conscious that he is only a part of a being1 which needs another part for the making up of the whole of true humanity4 ,the ,christian1 on the contrary1 in his excessive1 transcendental subjectivity1 conceives that he is1 by himself1 a perfect being4 ,but the sexual instinct runs counter to this view2 it is in contradiction with his ideal3 the ,christian must therefore deny this instinct4 ,the ,christian certainly experienced the need of sexual love1 but only as a need in contradiction with his heavenly destination1 and merely natural1 in the depreciatory1 contemptuous sense which this word had in ,christianity1--not as a moral1 inward need--not1 if ,i may so express myself1 as a metaphysical1 i4e41 an essential need1 which man can experience only where he does not separate difference of sex from himself1 but1 on the contrary1 regards it as belonging to his inmost nature4 ,hence marriage is not holy in ,christianity2 at least it is so only apparently1 illusively2 for the natural principle of marriage1 which is the love of the sexes1--however civil marriage may in endless instances contradict this1--is in ,christianity an unholy thing1 and excluded from heaven4 #ach ,but that which man excludes from heaven he excludes from his true nature4 ,heaven is his treasure-casket4 ,believe not in what he establishes on earth1 what he permits and sanctions here3 here he must accommodate himself2 here many things come athwart him which do not fit into his system2 here he shuns thy glance1 for he finds himself among strangers who intimidate him4 ,but watch for him when he throws off his incognito1 and shows himself in his true dignity1 his heavenly state4 ,in heaven he speaks as he thinks2 there thou hearest his true opinion4 ,where his heaven is1 there is his heart1--heaven is his heart laid open4 ,heaven is nothing but the idea of the true1 the good1 the valid1--of that which ought to be2 earth1 nothing but the idea of the untrue1 the unlawful1 of that which ought not to be4 ,the ,christian excludes from heaven the life of the species3 there the species ceases1 there dwell only pure sexless individuals1 spirits2 there absolute subjectivity reigns3--thus the ,christian excludes the life of the species from his conception of the true life2 he pronounces the principle of marriage sinful1 negative2 for the sinless1 positive life is the heavenly one4 #aci ,,chapter ,,xviii4 ,,the ,,christian ,,heaven1 ,,or ,,personal ,,immortality4 ,the unwedded and ascetic life is the direct way to the heavenly1 immortal life1 for heaven is nothing else than life liberated from the conditions of the species1 supernatural1 sexless1 absolutely subjective life4 ,the belief in personal immortality has at its foundation the belief that difference of sex is only an external adjunct of individuality1 that in himself the individual is a sexless1 independently complete1 absolute being4 ,but he who belongs to no sex belongs to no species2 sex is the cord which connects the individuality with the species1 and he who belongs to no species1 belongs only to himself1 is an altogether independent1 divine1 absolute being4 ,hence only when the species vanishes from the consciousness is the heavenly life a certainty4 ,he who lives in the consciousness of the species1 and consequently of its reality1 lives also in the consciousness of the reality of sex4 ,he does not regard it as a mechanically inserted1 adventitious stone of stumbling1 but as an inherent quality1 a chemical constituent of his being4 ,he indeed recognises himself as a man in the broader sense1 but he is at the same time conscious of being rigorously determined by the sexual distinction1 which penetrates not only bones and marrow1 but also his inmost self1 the essential mode of his thought1 will1 and sensation4 ,he therefore who lives in the consciousness of the species1 who limits and determines his feelings and imagination by the contemplation of real life1 of real man1 can conceive no life in which the life of the species1 and therewith the distinction of sex1 is abolished2 he regards the sexless individual1 the heavenly spirit1 as an agreeable figment of the imagination4 ,but just as little as the real man can abstract himself from the distinction of sex1 so little can he abstract himself from his moral or spiritual constitution1 which indeed is profoundly connected with his natural constitution4 ,precisely because he lives in the contemplation of the whole1 he also lives in the consciousness that he is himself no more than a part1 and that he is what he is only by virtue of the conditions which constitute him a member of the whole1 or a relative whole4 ,every one1 therefore1 justifiably regards his occupation1 his profession1 his art or science1 as the highest2 for the mind of man is nothing but the essential mode of his activity4 ,he who is skilful in his profession1 in his art1 he who fills his post well1 and is entirely devoted to his calling1 thinks that calling the highest and best4 ,how can he deny in thought what he emphatically declares in act by the joyful devotion of all his powers8 ,if ,i despise a thing1 how can ,i dedicate to it my time and faculties8 ,if ,i am compelled to do so in spite of my aversion1 my activity is an unhappy one1 for ,i am at war with myself4 ,work is worship4 ,but how can ,i worship or serve an object1 how can ,i subject myself to it1 if it does not hold a high place in my mind8 ,in brief1 the occupations of men determine their judgment1 their mode of thought1 their sentiments4 ,and the higher the occupation1 the more completely does a man identify himself with it4 ,in general1 whatever a man makes the essential aim of his life1 he proclaims to be his soul2 for it is the principle of motion in him4 ,but through his aim1 through the activity in which he realises this aim1 man is not only something for himself1 but also something for others1 for the general life1 the species4 ,he therefore who lives in the consciousness of the species as a reality1 regards his existence for others1 his relation to society1 his utility to the public1 as that existence which is one with the existence of his own essence--as his immortal existence4 ,he lives with his whole soul1 with his whole heart1 for humanity4 ,how can he hold in reserve a special existence for himself1 how can he separate himself from mankind8 ,how shall he deny in death what he has enforced in life8 ,and in life his faith is this3 ,nec sibi sed toti genitum se credere mundo4 ,the heavenly life1 or what we do not here distinguish from it--personal immortality1 is a characteristic doctrine of ,christianity4 ,it is certainly in part to be found among the heathen philosophers2 but with them it had only the significance of a subjective conception1 because it was not connected with their fundamental view of things4 ,how contradictory1 for example1 are the expressions of the ,stoics on this subject6 ,it was among the ,christians that personal immortality first found that principle1 whence it follows as a necessary and obvious consequence4 ,the contemplation of the world1 of ,nature1 of the race1 was always coming athwart the ancients2 they distinguished between the principle of life and the living subject1 between the soul1 the mind1 and self3 whereas the ,christian abolished the distinction between soul and person1 species and individual1 and therefore placed immediately in self what belongs only to the totality of the species4 ,but the immediate unity of the species and individuality is the highest principle1 the ,god of ,christianity1--in it the individual has the significance of the absolute being1--and the necessary1 immanent consequence of this principle is personal immortality4 ,or rather3 the belief in personal immortality is perfectly identical with the belief in a personal ,god2--i4e41 that which expresses the belief in the heavenly1 immortal life of the person1 expresses ,god also1 as he is an object to ,christians1 namely1 as absolute1 unlimited personality4 ,unlimited personality is ,god2 but heavenly personality1 or the perpetuation of human personality in heaven1 is nothing else than personality released from all earthly encumbrances and limitations2 the only distinction is1 that ,god is heaven spiritualised1 while heaven is ,god materialised1 or reduced to the forms of the senses3 that what in ,god is posited only in abstracto is in heaven more an object of the imagination4 ,god is the implicit heaven2 heaven is the explicit ,god4 ,in the present1 ,god is the kingdom of heaven2 in the future1 heaven is ,god4 ,god is the pledge1 the as yet abstract presence and existence of heaven2 the anticipation1 the epitome of heaven4 ,our own future existence1 which1 while we are in this world1 in this body1 is a separate1 objective existence1--is ,god3 ,god is the idea of the species1 which will be first realised1 individualised in the other world4 ,god is the heavenly1 pure1 free essence1 which exists there as heavenly pure beings1 the bliss which there unfolds itself in a plenitude of blissful individuals4 ,thus ,god is nothing else than the idea or the essence of the absolute1 blessed1 heavenly life1 here comprised in an ideal personality4 ,this is clearly enough expressed in the belief that the blessed life is unity with ,god4 ,here we are distinguished and separated from ,god1 there the partition falls2 here we are men1 there gods2 here the ,godhead is a monopoly1 there it is a common possession2 here it is an abstract unity1 there a concrete multiplicity4 #adj ,the only difficulty in the recognition of this is created by the imagination1 which1 on the one hand by the conception of the personality of ,god1 on the other by the conception of the many personalities which it places in a realm ordinarily depicted in the hues of the senses1 hides the real unity of the idea4 ,but in truth there is no distinction between the absolute life which is conceived as ,god and the absolute life which is conceived as heaven1 save that in heaven we have stretched into length and breadth what in ,god is concentrated in one point4 ,the belief in the immortality of man is the belief in the divinity of man1 and the belief in ,god is the belief in pure personality1 released from all limits1 and consequently eo ipso immortal4 ,the distinctions made between the immortal soul and ,god are either sophistical or imaginative2 as when1 for example1 the bliss of the inhabitants of heaven is again circumscribed by limits1 and distributed into degrees1 in order to establish a distinction between ,god and the dwellers in heaven4 ,the identity of the divine and heavenly personality is apparent even in the popular proofs of immortality4 ,if there is not another and a better life1 ,god is not just and good4 ,the justice and goodness of ,god are thus made dependent on the perpetuity of individuals2 but without justice and goodness ,god is not ,god2--the ,godhead1 the existence of ,god1 is therefore made dependent on the existence of individuals4 ,if ,i am not immortal1 ,i believe in no ,god2 he who denies immortality denies ,god4 ,but that is impossible to me3 as surely as there is a ,god1 so surely is there an immortality4 ,god is the certainty of my future felicity4 ,the interest ,i have in knowing that ,god is1 is one with the interest ,i have in knowing that ,i am1 that ,i am immortal4 ,god is my hidden1 my assured existence2 he is the subjectivity of subjects1 the personality of persons4 ,how then should that not belong to persons which belongs to personality8 ,in ,god ,i make my future into a present1 or rather a verb into a substantive2 how should ,i separate the one from the other8 ,god is the existence corresponding to my wishes and feelings3 he is the just one1 the good1 who fulfils my wishes4 ,nature1 this world1 is an existence which contradicts my wishes1 my feelings4 ,here it is not as it ought to be2 this world passes away2 but ,god is existence as it ought to be4 ,god fulfils my wishes2--this is only a popular personification of the position3 ,god is the fulfiller1 i4e41 the reality1 the fulfilment of my wishes4 #ada ,but heaven is the existence adequate to my wishes1 my longing2 #adb thus there is no distinction between ,god and heaven4 ,god is the power by which man realises his eternal happiness2 ,god is the absolute personality in which all individual persons have the certainty of their blessedness and immortality2 ,god is to subjectivity the highest1 last certainty of its absolute truth and essentiality4 ,the doctrine of immortality is the final doctrine of religion2 its testament1 in which it declares its last wishes4 ,here therefore it speaks out undisguisedly what it has hitherto suppressed4 ,if elsewhere the religious soul concerns itself with the existence of another being1 here it openly considers only its own existence2 if elsewhere in religion man makes his existence dependent on the existence of ,god1 he here makes the reality of ,god dependent on his own reality2 and thus what elsewhere is a primitive1 immediate truth to him1 is here a derivative1 secondary truth3 if ,i am not immortal1 ,god is not ,god2 if there is no immortality1 there is no ,god2--a conclusion already drawn by the ,apostle ,paul4 ,if we do not rise again1 then ,christ is not risen1 and all is vain4 ,let us eat and drink4 ,it is certainly possible to do away with what is apparently or really objectionable in the popular argumentation1 by avoiding the inferential form2 but this can only be done by making immortality an analytic instead of a synthetic truth1 so as to show that the very idea of ,god as absolute personality or subjectivity is per se the idea of immortality4 ,god is the guarantee of my future existence1 because he is already the certainty and reality of my present existence1 my salvation1 my trust1 my shield from the forces of the external world2 hence ,i need not expressly deduce immortality1 or prove it as a separate truth1 for if ,i have ,god1 ,i have immortality also4 ,thus it was with the more profound ,christian mystics2 to them the idea of immortality was involved in the idea of ,god2 ,god was their immortal life1--,god himself their subjective blessedness3 he was for them1 for their consciousness1 what he is in himself1 that is1 in the essence of religion4 ,thus it is shown that ,god is heaven2 that the two are identical4 ,it would have been easier to prove the converse1 namely1 that heaven is the true ,god of men4 ,as man conceives his heaven1 so he conceives his ,god2 the content of his idea of heaven is the content of his idea of ,god1 only that what in ,god is a mere sketch1 a concept1 is in heaven depicted and developed in the colours and forms of the senses4 ,heaven is therefore the key to the deepest mysteries of religion4 ,as heaven is objectively the displayed nature of ,god1 so subjectively it is the most candid declaration of the inmost thoughts and dispositions of religion4 ,for this reason1 religions are as various as are the kingdoms of heaven1 and there are as many different kingdoms of heaven as there are characteristic differences among men4 ,the ,christians themselves have very heterogeneous conceptions of heaven4 #adc ,the more judicious among them1 however1 think and say nothing definite about heaven or the future world in general1 on the ground that it is inconceivable1 that it can only be thought of by us according to the standard of this world1 a standard not applicable to the other4 ,all conceptions of heaven here below are1 they allege1 mere images1 whereby man represents to himself that future1 the nature of which is unknown to him1 but the existence of which is certain4 ,it is just so with ,god4 ,the existence of ,god1 it is said1 is certain2 but what he is1 or how he exists1 is inscrutable4 ,but he who speaks thus has already driven the future world out of his head2 he still holds it fast1 either because he does not think at all about such matters1 or because it is still a want of his heart2 but1 preoccupied with real things1 he thrusts it as far as possible out of his sight2 he denies with his head what he affirms with his heart2 for it is to deny the future life1 to deprive it of the qualities by which alone it is a real and effective object for man4 ,quality is not distinct from existence2 quality is nothing but real existence4 ,existence without quality is a chimera1 a spectre4 ,existence is first made known to me by quality2 not existence first1 and after that quality4 ,the doctrines that ,god is not to be known or defined1 and that the nature of the future life is inscrutable1 are therefore not originally religious doctrines2 on the contrary1 they are the products of irreligion while still in bondage to religion1 or rather hiding itself behind religion2 and they are so for this reason1 that originally the existence of ,god is posited only with a definite conception of ,god1 the existence of a future life only with a definite conception of that life4 ,thus to the ,christian1 only his own paradise1 the paradise which has ,christian qualities1 is a certainty1 not the paradise of the ,mahometan or the ,elysium of the ,greeks4 ,the primary certainty is everywhere quality2 existence follows of course when once quality is certain4 ,in the ,new ,testament we find no proofs or general propositions such as3 there is a ,god1 there is a heavenly life2 we find only qualities of the heavenly life adduced2--in heaven they marry not4 ,naturally2--it may be answered1--because the existence of ,god and of heaven is presupposed4 ,but here reflection introduces a distinction of which the religious sentiment knows nothing4 ,doubtless the existence is presupposed1 but only because the quality is itself existence1 because the inviolate religious feeling lives only in the quality1 just as to the natural man the real existence1 the thing in itself1 lies only in the quality which he perceives4 ,thus in the passage above cited from the ,new ,testament1 the virgin or rather sexless life is presupposed as the true life1 which1 however1 necessarily becomes a future one1 because the actual life contradicts the ideal of the true life4 ,but the certainty of this future life lies only in the certainty of its qualities1 as those of the true1 highest life1 adequate to the ideal4 ,where the future life is really believed in1 where it is a certain life1 there1 precisely because it is certain1 it is also definite4 ,if ,i know not now what and how ,i shall be2 if there is an essential1 absolute difference between my future and my present2 neither shall ,i then know what and how ,i was before1 the unity of consciousness is at an end1 personal identity is abolished1 another being will appear in my place2 and thus my future existence is not in fact distinguished from non-existence4 ,if1 on the other hand1 there is no essential difference1 the future is to me an object that may be defined and known4 ,and so it is in reality4 ,i am the abiding subject under changing conditions2 ,i am the substance which connects the present and the future into a unity4 ,how then can the future be obscure to me8 ,on the contrary1 the life of this world is the dark1 incomprehensible life1 which only becomes clear through the future life2 here ,i am in disguise2 there the mask will fall2 there ,i shall be as ,i am in truth4 ,hence the position that there indeed is another1 a heavenly life1 but that what and how it is must here remain inscrutable1 is only an invention of religious scepticism1 which1 being entirely alien to the religious sentiment1 proceeds upon a total misconception of religion4 ,that which irreligious-religious reflection converts into a known image of an unknown yet certain thing1 is originally1 in the primitive1 true sense of religion1 not an image1 but the thing itself4 ,unbelief1 in the garb of belief1 doubts the existence of the thing1 but it is too shallow or cowardly directly to call it in question2 it only expresses doubt of the image or conception1 i4e41 declares the image to be only an image4 ,but the untruth and hollowness of this scepticism has been already made evident historically4 ,where it is once doubted that the images of immortality are real1 that it is possible to exist as faith conceives1 for example1 without a material1 real body1 and without difference of sex2 there the future existence in general is soon a matter of doubt4 ,with the image falls the thing1 simply because the image is the thing itself4 ,the belief in heaven1 or in a future life in general1 rests on a mental judgment4 ,it expresses praise and blame2 it selects a wreath from the flora of this world1 and this critical florilegium is heaven4 ,that which man thinks beautiful1 good1 agreeable1 is for him what alone ought to be2 that which he thinks bad1 odious1 disagreeable1 is what ought not to be2 and hence1 since it nevertheless exists1 it is condemned to destruction1 it is regarded as a negation4 ,where life is not in contradiction with a feeling1 an imagination1 an idea1 and where this feeling1 this idea1 is not held authoritative and absolute1 the belief in another and a heavenly life does not arise4 ,the future life is nothing else than life in unison with the feeling1 with the idea1 which the present life contradicts4 ,the whole import of the future life is the abolition of this discordance1 and the realisation of a state which corresponds to the feelings1 in which man is in unison with himself4 ,an unknown1 unimagined future is a ridiculous chimera3 the other world is nothing more than the reality of a known idea1 the satisfaction of a conscious desire1 the fulfilment of a wish2 #add it is only the removal of limits which here oppose themselves to the realisation of the idea4 ,where would be the consolation1 where the significance of a future life1 if it were midnight darkness to me8 ,no6 from yonder world there streams upon me with the splendour of virgin gold what here shines only with the dimness of unrefined ore4 ,the future world has no other significance1 no other basis of its existence1 than the separation of the metal from the admixture of foreign elements1 the separation of the good from the bad1 of the pleasant from the unpleasant1 of the praiseworthy from the blamable4 ,the future world is the bridal in which man concludes his union with his beloved4 ,long has he loved his bride1 long has he yearned after her2 but external relations1 hard reality1 have stood in the way of his union to her4 ,when the wedding takes place1 his beloved one does not become a different being2 else how could he so ardently long for her8 ,she only becomes his own2 from an object of yearning and affectionate desire she becomes an object of actual possession4 ,it is true that here below1 the other world is only an image1 a conception2 still it is not the image of a remote1 unknown thing1 but a portrait of that which man loves and prefers before all else4 ,what man loves is his soul4 ,the heathens enclosed the ashes of the beloved dead in an urn2 with the ,christian the heavenly future is the mausoleum in which he enshrines his soul4 ,in order to comprehend a particular faith1 or religion in general1 it is necessary to consider religion in its rudimentary stages1 in its lowest1 rudest condition4 ,religion must not only be traced in an ascending line1 but surveyed in the entire course of its existence4 ,it is requisite to regard the various earlier religions as present in the absolute religion1 and not as left behind it in the past1 in order correctly to appreciate and comprehend the absolute religion as well as the others4 ,the most frightful aberrations1 the wildest excesses of the religious consciousness1 often afford the profoundest insight into the mysteries of the absolute religion4 ,ideas1 seemingly the rudest1 are often only the most childlike1 innocent1 and true4 ,this observation applies to the conceptions of a future life4 ,the savage1 whose consciousness does not extend beyond his own country1 whose entire being is a growth of its soil1 takes his country with him into the other world1 either leaving ,nature as it is1 or improving it1 and so overcoming in the idea of the other life the difficulties he experiences in this4 #ade ,in this limitation of uncultivated tribes there is a striking trait4 ,with them the future expresses nothing else than home-sickness4 ,death separates man from his kindred1 from his people1 from his country4 ,but the man who has not extended his consciousness1 cannot endure this separation2 he must come back again to his native land4 ,the negroes in the ,west ,indies killed themselves that they might come to life again in their fatherland4 ,and1 according to ,ossian's conception1 the spirits of those who die in a strange land float back towards their birthplace4 #adf ,this limitation is the direct opposite of imaginative spiritualism1 which makes man a vagabond1 who1 indifferent even to the earth1 roams from star to star2 and certainly there lies a real truth at its foundation4 ,man is what he is through ,nature1 however much may belong to his spontaneity2 for even his spontaneity has its foundation in ,nature1 of which his particular character is only an expression4 ,be thankful to ,nature6 ,man cannot be separated from it4 ,the ,german1 whose ,god is spontaneity1 owes his character to ,nature just as much as the ,oriental4 ,to find fault with ,indian art1 with ,indian religion and philosophy1 is to find fault with ,indian ,nature4 ,you complain of the reviewer who tears a passage in your works from the context that he may hand it over to ridicule4 ,why are you yourself guilty of that which you blame in others8 ,why do you tear the ,indian religion from its connection1 in which it is just as reasonable as your absolute religion8 ,faith in a future world1 in a life after death1 is therefore with savage tribes essentially nothing more than direct faith in the present life--immediate unbroken faith in this life4 ,for them1 their actual life1 even with its local limitations1 has all1 has absolute value2 they cannot abstract from it1 they cannot conceive its being broken off2 i4e41 they believe directly in the infinitude1 the perpetuity of this life4 ,only when the belief in immortality becomes a critical belief1 when a distinction is made between what is to be left behind here1 and what is in reserve there1 between what here passes away1 and what there is to abide1 does the belief in life after death form itself into the belief in another life2 but this criticism1 this distinction1 is applied to the present life also4 ,thus the ,christians distinguish between the natural and the ,christian life1 the sensual or worldly and the spiritual or holy life4 ,the heavenly life is no other than that which is1 already here below1 distinguished from the merely natural life1 though still tainted with it4 ,that which the ,christian excludes from himself now--for example1 the sexual life--is excluded from the future3 the only distinction is1 that he is there free from that which he here wishes to be free from1 and seeks to rid himself of by the will1 by devotion1 and by bodily mortification4 ,hence this life is1 for the ,christian1 a life of torment and pain1 because he is here still beset by a hostile power1 and has to struggle with the lusts of the flesh and the assaults of the devil4 ,the faith of cultured nations is therefore distinguished from that of the uncultured in the same way that culture in general is distinguished from inculture3 namely1 that the faith of culture is a discriminating1 critical1 abstract faith4 ,a distinction implies a judgment2 but where there is a judgment there arises the distinction between positive and negative4 ,the faith of savage tribes is a faith without a judgment4 ,culture1 on the contrary1 judges3 to the cultured man only cultured life is the true life2 to the ,christian only the ,christian life4 ,the rude child of ,nature steps into the other life just as he is1 without ceremony3 the other world is his natural nakedness4 ,the cultivated man1 on the contrary1 objects to the idea of such an unbridled life after death1 because even here he objects to the unrestricted life of ,nature4 ,faith in a future life is therefore only faith in the true life of the present2 the essential elements of this life are also the essential elements of the other3 accordingly1 faith in a future life is not faith in another unknown life2 but in the truth and infinitude1 and consequently in the perpetuity1 of that life which already here below is regarded as the authentic life4 ,as ,god is nothing else than the nature of man purified from that which to the human individual appears1 whether in feeling or thought1 a limitation1 an evil2 so the future life is nothing else than the present life freed from that which appears a limitation or an evil4 ,the more definitely and profoundly the individual is conscious of the limit as a limit1 of the evil as an evil1 the more definite and profound is his conviction of the future life1 where these limits disappear4 ,the future life is the feeling1 the conception of freedom from those limits which here circumscribe the feeling of self1 the existence of the individual4 ,the only difference between the course of religion and that of the natural or rational man is1 that the end which the latter arrives at by a straight line1 the former only attains by describing a curved line--a circle4 ,the natural man remains at home because he finds it agreeable1 because he is perfectly satisfied2 religion which commences with a discontent1 a disunion1 forsakes its home and travels far1 but only to feel the more vividly in the distance the happiness of home4 ,in religion man separates himself from himself1 but only to return always to the same point from which he set out4 ,man negatives himself1 but only to posit himself again1 and that in a glorified form3 he negatives this life1 but only1 in the end1 to posit it again in the future life4 #adg ,the future life is this life once lost1 but found again1 and radiant with all the more brightness for the joy of recovery4 ,the religious man renounces the joys of this world1 but only that he may win in return the joys of heaven2 or rather he renounces them because he is already in the ideal possession of heavenly joys2 and the joys of heaven are the same as those of earth1 only that they are freed from the limits and contrarieties of this life4 ,religion thus arrives1 though by a circuit1 at the very goal1 the goal of joy1 towards which the natural man hastens in a direct line4 ,to live in images or symbols is the essence of religion4 ,religion sacrifices the thing itself to the image4 ,the future life is the present in the mirror of the imagination3 the enrapturing image is in the sense of religion the true type of earthly life1--real life only a glimmer of that ideal1 imaginary life4 ,the future life is the present embellished1 contemplated through the imagination1 purified from all gross matter2 or1 positively expressed1 it is the beauteous present intensified4 ,embellishment1 emendation1 presupposes blame1 dissatisfaction4 ,but the dissatisfaction is only superficial4 ,i do not deny the thing to be of value2 just as it is1 however1 it does not please me2 ,i deny only the modification1 not the substance1 otherwise ,i should urge annihilation4 ,a house which absolutely displeases me ,i cause to be pulled down1 not to be embellished4 ,to the believer in a future life joy is agreeable--who can fail to be conscious that joy is something positive8--but it is disagreeable to him that here joy is followed by opposite sensations1 that it is transitory4 ,hence he places joy in the future life also1 but as eternal1 uninterrupted1 divine joy 7and the future life is therefore called the world of joy71 such as he here conceives it in ,god2 for ,god is nothing but eternal1 uninterrupted joy1 posited as a subject4 ,individuality or personality is agreeable to him1 but only as unencumbered by objective forces2 hence1 he includes individuality also1 but pure1 absolutely subjective individuality4 ,light pleases him2 but not gravitation1 because this appears a limitation of the individual2 not night1 because in it man is subjected to ,nature3 in the other world1 there is light1 but no weight1 no night1--pure1 unobstructed light4 #adh ,as man in his utmost remoteness from himself1 in ,god1 always returns upon himself1 always revolves round himself2 so in his utmost remoteness from the world1 he always at last comes back to it4 ,the more extra- and supra-human ,god appears at the commencement1 the more human does he show himself to be in the subsequent course of things1 or at the close3 and just so1 the more supernatural the heavenly life looks in the beginning or at a distance1 the more clearly does it1 in the end or when viewed closely1 exhibit its identity with the natural life1--an identity which at last extends even to the flesh1 even to the body4 ,in the first instance the mind is occupied with the separation of the soul from the body1 as in the conception of ,god the mind is first occupied with the separation of the essence from the individual2--the individual dies a spiritual death1 the dead body which remains behind is the human individual2 the soul which has departed from it is ,god4 ,but the separation of the soul from the body1 of the essence from the individual1 of ,god from man1 must be abolished again4 ,every separation of beings essentially allied is painful4 ,the soul yearns after its lost half1 after its body2 as ,god1 the departed soul yearns after the real man4 ,as1 therefore1 ,god becomes a man again1 so the soul returns to its body1 and the perfect identity of this world and the other is now restored4 ,it is true that this new body is a bright1 glorified1 miraculous body1 but--and this is the main point--it is another and yet the same body1 #adi as ,god is another being than man1 and yet the same4 ,here we come again to the idea of miracle1 which unites contradictories4 ,the supernatural body is a body constructed by the imagination1 for which very reason it is adequate to the feelings of man3 an unburdensome1 purely subjective body4 ,faith in the future life is nothing else than faith in the truth of the imagination1 as faith in ,god is faith in the truth and infinity of human feeling4 ,or3 as faith in ,god is only faith in the abstract nature of man1 so faith in the heavenly life is only faith in the abstract earthly life4 ,but the sum of the future life is happiness1 the everlasting bliss of personality1 which is here limited and circumscribed by ,nature4 ,faith in the future life is therefore faith in the freedom of subjectivity from the limits of ,nature2 it is faith in the eternity and infinitude of personality1 and not of personality viewed in relation to the idea of the species1 in which it for ever unfolds itself in new individuals1 but of personality as belonging to already existing individuals3 consequently1 it is the faith of man in himself4 ,but faith in the kingdom of heaven is one with faith in ,god--the content of both ideas is the same2 ,god is pure absolute subjectivity released from all natural limits2 he is what individuals ought to be and will be3 faith in ,god is therefore the faith of man in the infinitude and truth of his own nature2 the ,divine ,being is the subjective human being in his absolute freedom and unlimitedness4 ,our most essential task is now fulfilled4 ,we have reduced the supermundane1 supernatural1 and superhuman nature of ,god to the elements of human nature as its fundamental elements4 ,our process of analysis has brought us again to the position with which we set out4 ,the beginning1 middle and end of religion is ,man4 ,,part ,,ii4 ,,the ,,false ,,or ,,theological ,,essence ,,of ,,religion4 ,,chapter ,,xix4 ,,the ,,essential ,,standpoint ,,of ,,religion4 ,the essential standpoint of religion is the practical or subjective4 ,the end of religion is the welfare1 the salvation1 the ultimate felicity of man2 the relation of man to ,god is nothing else than his relation to his own spiritual good2 ,god is the realised salvation of the soul1 or the unlimited power of effecting the salvation1 the bliss of man4 #aej ,the ,christian religion is specially distinguished from other religions in this1--that no other has given equal prominence to the salvation of man4 ,but this salvation is not temporal earthly prosperity and well-being4 ,on the contrary1 the most genuine ,christians have declared that earthly good draws man away from ,god1 whereas adversity1 suffering1 afflictions lead him back to ,god1 and hence are alone suited to ,christians4 ,why8 ,because in trouble man is only practically or subjectively disposed2 in trouble he has resource only to the one thing needful2 in trouble ,god is felt to be a want of man4 ,pleasure1 joy1 expands man2 trouble1 suffering1 contracts and concentrates him2 in suffering man denies the reality of the world2 the things that charm the imagination of the artist and the intellect of the thinker lose their attraction for him1 their power over him2 he is absorbed in himself1 in his own soul4 ,the soul thus self-absorbed1 self-concentrated1 seeking satisfaction in itself alone1 denying the world1 idealistic in relation to the world1 to ,nature in general1 but realistic in relation to man1 caring only for its inherent need of salvation1--this soul is ,god4 ,god1 as the object of religion1--and only as such is he ,god1--,god in the sense of a nomen proprium1 not of a vague1 metaphysical entity1 is essentially an object only of religion1 not of philosophy1--of feeling1 not of the intellect1--of the heart's necessity1 not of the mind's freedom3 in short1 an object which is the reflex not of the theoretical but of the practical tendency in man4 ,religion annexes to its doctrines a curse and a blessing1 damnation and salvation4 ,blessed is he that believeth1 cursed is he that believeth not4 ,thus it appeals not to reason1 but to feeling1 to the desire of happiness1 to the passions of hope and fear4 ,it does not take the theoretic point of view2 otherwise it must have been free to enunciate its doctrines without attaching to them practical consequences1 without to a certain extent compelling belief in them2 for when the case stands thus3 ,i am lost if ,i do not believe1--the conscience is under a subtle kind of constraint2 the fear of hell urges me to believe4 ,even supposing my belief to be in its origin free1 fear inevitably intermingles itself2 my conscience is always under constraint2 doubt1 the principle of theoretic freedom1 appears to me a crime4 ,and as in religion the highest idea1 the highest existence is ,god1 so the highest crime is doubt in ,god1 or the doubt that ,god exists4 ,but that which ,i do not trust myself to doubt1 which ,i cannot doubt without feeling disturbed in my soul1 without incurring guilt2 that is no matter of theory1 but a matter of conscience1 no being of the intellect1 but of the heart4 ,now as the sole standpoint of religion is the practical or subjective standpoint1 as therefore to religion the whole1 the essential man is that part of his nature which is practical1 which forms resolutions1 which acts in accordance with conscious aims1 whether physical or moral1 and which considers the world not in itself1 but only in relation to those aims or wants3 the consequence is that everything which lies behind the practical consciousness1 but which is the essential object of theory--theory in its most original and general sense1 namely1 that of objective contemplation and experience1 of the intellect1 of science #aea--;is regarded by religion as lying outside man and ,nature1 in a special1 personal being4 ,all good1 but especially such as takes possession of man apart from his volition1 such as does not correspond with any resolution or purpose1 such as transcends the limits of the practical consciousness1 comes from ,god2 all wickedness1 evil1 but especially such as overtakes him against his will in the midst of his best moral resolutions1 or hurries him along with terrible violence1 comes from the devil4 ,the scientific knowledge of the essence of religion includes the knowledge of the devil1 of ,satan1 of demons4 #aeb ,these things cannot be omitted without a violent mutilation of religion4 ,grace and its works are the antitheses of the devil and his works4 ,as the involuntary1 sensual impulses which flash out from the depths of the nature1 and1 in general1 all those phenomena of moral and physical evil which are inexplicable to religion1 appear to it as the work of the ,evil ,being2 so the involuntary movements of inspiration and ecstasy appear to it as the work of the ,good ,being1 ,god1 of the ,holy ,spirit or of grace4 ,hence the arbitrariness of grace--the complaint of the pious that grace at one time visits and blesses them1 at another forsakes and rejects them4 ,the life1 the agency of grace1 is the life1 the agency of emotion4 ,emotion is the ,paraclete of ,christians4 ,the moments which are forsaken by divine grace are the moments destitute of emotion and inspiration4 ,in relation to the inner life1 grace may be defined as religious genius2 in relation to the outer life as religious chance4 ,man is good or wicked by no means through himself1 his own power1 his will2 but through that complete synthesis of hidden and evident determinations of things which1 because they rest on no evident necessity1 we ascribe to the power of chance4 ,divine grace is the power of chance beclouded with additional mystery4 ,here we have again the confirmation of that which we have seen to be the essential law of religion4 ,religion denies1 repudiates chance1 making everything dependent on ,god1 explaining everything by means of him2 but this denial is only apparent2 it merely gives chance the name of the divine sovereignty4 ,for the divine will1 which1 on incomprehensible grounds1 for incomprehensible reasons1 that is1 speaking plainly1 out of groundless1 absolute arbitrariness1 out of divine caprice1 as it were1 determines or predestines some to evil and misery1 others to good and happiness1 has not a single positive characteristic to distinguish it from the power of chance4 ,the mystery of the election of grace is thus the mystery of chance4 ,i say the mystery of chance2 for in reality chance is a mystery1 although slurred over and ignored by our speculative religious philosophy1 which1 as in its occupation with the illusory mysteries of the ,absolute ,being1 i4e41 of theology1 it has overlooked the true mysteries of thought and life1 so also in the mystery of divine grace or freedom of election1 has forgotten the profane mystery of chance4 #aec ,but to return4 ,the devil is the negative1 the evil1 that springs from the nature1 but not from the will2 ,god is the positive1 the good1 which comes from the nature1 but not from the conscious action of the will2 the devil is involuntary1 inexplicable wickedness2 ,god involuntary1 inexplicable goodness4 ,the source of both is the same1 the quality only is different or opposite4 ,for this reason1 the belief in a devil was1 until the most recent times1 intimately connected with the belief in ,god1 so that the denial of the devil was held to be virtually as atheistic as the denial of ,god4 ,nor without reason2 for when men once begin to derive the phenomena of evil from natural causes1 they at the same time begin to derive the phenomena of good1 of the divine1 from the nature of things1 and come at length either to abolish the idea of ,god altogether1 or at least to believe in another ,god than the ,god of religion4 ,in this case it most commonly happens that they make the ,deity an idle inactive being1 whose existence is equivalent to non-existence1 since he no longer actively interposes in life1 but is merely placed at the summit of things1 at the beginning of the world1 as the ,first ,cause4 ,god created the world3 this is all that is here retained of ,god4 ,the past tense is necessary2 for since that epoch the world pursues its course like a machine4 ,the addition3 ,he still creates1 he is creating at this moment1 is only the result of external reflection2 the past tense adequately expresses the religious idea in this stage2 for the spirit of religion is gone when the operation of ,god is reduced to a fecit or creavit4 ,it is otherwise when the genuine religious consciousness says3 ,the fecit is still to-day a facit4 ,this1 though here also it is a product of reflection1 has nevertheless a legitimate meaning1 because by the religious spirit ,god is really thought of as active4 ,religion is abolished where the idea of the world1 of so-called second causes1 intrudes itself between ,god and man4 ,here a foreign element1 the principle of intellectual culture1 has insinuated itself1 peace is broken1 the harmony of religion1 which lies only in the immediate connection of man with ,god1 is destroyed4 ,second causes are a capitulation of the unbelieving intellect with the still believing heart4 ,it is true that1 according to religion also1 ,god works on man by means of other things and beings4 ,but ,god alone is the cause1 he alone is the active and efficient being4 ,what a fellow-creature does is in the view of religion done not by him1 but by ,god4 ,the other is only an appearance1 a medium1 a vehicle1 not a cause4 ,but the second cause is a miserable anomaly1 neither an independent nor a dependent being3 ,god1 it is true1 gives the first impulse1 but then ensues the spontaneous activity of the second cause4 #aed ,religion of itself1 unadulterated by foreign elements1 knows nothing of the existence of second causes2 on the contrary1 they are a stone of stumbling to it2 for the realm of second causes1 the sensible world1 ,nature1 is precisely what separates man from ,god1 although ,god as a real ,god1 i4e41 an external being1 is supposed himself to become in the other world a sensible existence4 #aee ,hence religion believes that one day this wall of separation will fall away4 ,one day there will be no ,nature1 no matter1 no body1 at least none such as to separate man from ,god3 then there will be only ,god and the pious soul4 ,religion derives the idea of the existence of second causes1 that is1 of things which are interposed between ,god and man1 only from the physical1 natural1 and hence the irreligious or at least non-religious theory of the universe3 a theory which it nevertheless immediately subverts by making the operations of ,nature operations of ,god4 ,but this religious idea is in contradiction with the natural sense and understanding1 which concedes a real1 spontaneous activity to natural things4 ,and this contradiction of the physical view with the religious theory1 religion resolves by converting the undeniable activity of things into an activity of ,god4 ,thus1 on this view1 the positive idea is ,god2 the negative1 the world4 ,on the contrary1 where second causes1 having been set in motion1 are1 so to speak1 emancipated1 the converse occurs2 ,nature is the positive1 ,god a negative idea4 ,the world is independent in its existence1 its persistence2 only as to its commencement is it dependent4 ,god is here only a hypothetical ,being1 an inference1 arising from the necessity of a limited understanding1 to which the existence of a world viewed by it as a machine is inexplicable without a self-moving principle2--he is no longer an original1 absolutely necessary ,being4 ,god exists not for his own sake1 but for the sake of the world1--merely that he may1 as a ,first ,cause1 explain the existence of the world4 ,the narrow rationalising man takes objection to the original self-subsistence of the world1 because he looks at it only from the subjective1 practical point of view1 only in its commoner aspect1 only as a piece of mechanism1 not in its majesty and glory1 not as the ,cosmos4 ,he conceives the world as having been launched into existence by an original impetus1 as1 according to mathematical theory1 is the case with matter once set in motion and thenceforth going on for ever3 that is1 he postulates a mechanical origin4 ,a machine must have a beginning2 this is involved in its very idea2 for it has not the source of motion in itself4 ,all religious speculative cosmogony is tautology1 as is apparent from this example4 ,in cosmogony man declares or realises the idea he has of the world2 he merely repeats what he has already said in another form4 ,thus here1 if the world is a machine1 it is self-evident that it did not make itself1 that1 on the contrary1 it was created1 i4e41 had a mechanical origin4 ,herein1 it is true1 the religious consciousness agrees with the mechanical theory1 that to it also the world is a mere fabric1 a product of ,will4 ,but they agree only for an instant1 only in the moment of creation2 that moment past1 the harmony ceases4 ,the holder of the mechanical theory needs ,god only as the creator of the world2 once made1 the world turns its back on the ,creator1 and rejoices in its godless self-subsistence4 ,but religion creates the world only to maintain it in the perpetual consciousness of its nothingness1 its dependence on ,god4 #aef ,to the mechanical theorist1 the creation is the last thin thread which yet ties him to religion2 the religion to which the nothingness of the world is a present truth 7for all power and activity is to it the power and activity of ,god71 is with him only a surviving reminiscence of youth2 hence he removes the creation of the world1 the act of religion1 the non-existence of the world 7for in the beginning1 before the creation1 there was no world1 only ,god71 into the far distance1 into the past1 while the self-subsistence of the world1 which absorbs all his senses and endeavours1 acts on him with the force of the present4 ,the mechanical theorist interrupts and cuts short the activity of ,god by the activity of the world4 ,with him ,god has indeed still an historical right1 but this is in contradiction with the right he awards to ,nature2 hence he limits as much as possible the right yet remaining to ,god1 in order to gain wider and freer play for his natural causes1 and thereby for his understanding4 ,with this class of thinkers the creation holds the same position as miracles1 which also they can and actually do acquiesce in1 because miracles exist1 at least according to religious opinion4 ,but not to say that he explains miracles naturally1 that is1 mechanically1 he can only digest them when he relegates them to the past2 for the present he begs to be excused from believing in them1 and explains everything to himself charmingly on natural principles4 ,when a belief has departed from the reason1 the intelligence1 when it is no longer held spontaneously1 but merely because it is a common belief1 or because on some ground or other it must be held2 in short1 when a belief is inwardly a past one2 then externally also the object of the belief is referred to the past4 ,unbelief thus gets breathing space1 but at the same time concedes to belief at least an historical validity4 ,the past is here the fortunate means of compromise between belief and unbelief3 ,i certainly believe in miracles1 but1 nota bene1 in no miracles which happen now--only in those which once happened1 which1 thank ,god6 are already plus quam perfecta4 ,so also with the creation4 ,the creation is an immediate act of ,god1 a miracle1 for there was once nothing but ,god4 ,in the idea of the creation man transcends the world1 he rises into abstraction from it2 he conceives it as non-existent in the moment of creation2 thus he dispels from his sight what stands between himself and ,god1 the sensible world2 he places himself in immediate contact with ,god4 ,but the mechanical thinker shrinks from this immediate contact with ,god2 hence he at once makes the prsens1 if indeed he soars so high1 into a perfectum2 he interposes millenniums between his natural or materialistic view and the thought of an immediate operation of ,god4 ,to the religious spirit1 on the contrary1 ,god alone is the cause of all positive effects1 ,god alone the ultimate and also the sole ground wherewith it answers1 or rather repels1 all questions which theory puts forward2 for the affirmative of religion is virtually a negative2 its answer amounts to nothing1 since it solves the most various questions always with the same answer1 making all the operations of ,nature immediate operations of ,god1 of a designing1 personal1 extra-natural or supranatural ,being4 ,god is the idea which supplies the lack of theory4 ,the idea of ,god is the explanation of the inexplicable1--which explains nothing because it is supposed to explain everything without distinction2 he is the night of theory1 a night1 however1 in which everything is clear to religious feeling1 because in it the measure of darkness1 the discriminating light of the understanding1 is extinct2 he is the ignorance which solves all doubt by repressing it1 which knows everything because it knows nothing definite1 because all things which impress the intellect disappear before religion1 lose their individuality1 in the eyes of divine power are nothing4 ,darkness is the mother of religion4 ,the essential act of religion1 that in which religion puts into action what we have designated as its essence1 is prayer4 ,prayer is all-powerful4 ,what the pious soul entreats for in prayer ,god fulfils4 ,but he prays not for spiritual gifts #aeg alone1 which lie in some sort in the power of man2 he prays also for things which lie out of him1 which are in the power of ,nature1 a power which it is the very object of prayer to overcome2 in prayer he lays hold on a supernatural means1 in order to attain ends in themselves natural4 ,god is to him not the causa remota but the causa proxima1 the immediate1 efficient cause of all natural effects4 ,all so-called secondary forces and second causes are nothing to him when he prays2 if they were anything to him1 the might1 the fervour of prayer would be annihilated4 ,but in fact they have no existence for him2 otherwise he would assuredly seek to attain his end only by some intermediate process4 ,but he desires immediate help4 ,he has recourse to prayer in the certainty that he can do more1 infinitely more1 by prayer1 than by all the efforts of reason and all the agencies of ,nature1--in the conviction that prayer possesses superhuman and supernatural powers4 #aeh ,but in prayer he applies immediately to ,god4 ,thus ,god is to him the immediate cause1 the fulfilment of prayer1 the power which realises prayer4 ,but an immediate act of ,god is a miracle2 hence miracle is essential to the religious view4 ,religion explains everything miraculously4 ,that miracles do not always happen is indeed obvious1 as that man does not always pray4 ,but the consideration that miracles do not always happen lies outside the nature of religion1 in the empirical or physical mode of view only4 ,where religion begins1 there also begins miracle4 ,every true prayer is a miracle1 an act of the wonder-working power4 ,external miracles themselves only make visible internal miracles1 that is1 they are only a manifestation in time and space1 and therefore as a special fact1 of what in and by itself is a fundamental position of religion1 namely1 that ,god is1 in general1 the supernatural1 immediate cause of all things4 ,the miracle of fact is only an impassioned expression of religion1 a moment of inspiration4 ,miracles happen only in extraordinary crises1 in which there is an exaltation of the feelings3 hence there are miracles of anger4 ,no miracle is wrought in cold blood4 ,but it is precisely in moments of passion that the latent nature reveals itself4 ,man does not always pray with equal warmth and power4 ,such prayers are therefore ineffective4 ,only ardent prayer reveals the nature of prayer4 ,man truly prays when he regards prayer as in itself a sacred power1 a divine force4 ,so it is with miracles4 ,miracles happen--no matter whether few or many--wherever there is1 as a basis for them1 a belief in the miraculous4 ,but the belief in miracle is no theoretic or objective mode of viewing the world and ,nature2 miracle realises practical wants1 and that in contradiction with the laws which are imperative to the reason2 in miracle man subjugates ,nature1 as in itself a nullity1 to his own ends1 which he regards as a reality2 miracle is the superlative expression of spiritual or religious utilitarianism2 in miracle all things are at the service of necessitous man4 ,it is clear from this1 that the conception of the world which is essential to religion is that of the practical or subjective standpoint1 that ,god--for the miracle-working power is identical with ,god--is a purely practical or subjective ,being1 serving1 however1 as a substitute for a theoretic view1 and is thus no object of thought1 of the knowing faculty1 any more than miracle1 which owes its origin to the negation of thought4 ,if ,i place myself in the point of view of thought1 of investigation1 of theory1 in which ,i consider things in themselves1 in their mutual relations1 the miracle-working being vanishes into nothing1 miracle disappears2 i4e41 the religious miracle1 which is absolutely different from the natural miracle1 though they are continually interchanged1 in order to stultify reason1 and1 under the appearance of natural science1 to introduce religious miracle into the sphere of rationality and reality4 ,but for this very reason--namely1 that religion is removed from the standpoint1 from the nature of theory--the true1 universal essence of ,nature and humanity1 which as such is hidden from religion and is only visible to the theoretic eye1 is conceived as another1 a miraculous and supernatural essence2 the idea of the species becomes the idea of ,god1 who again is himself an individual being1 but is distinguished from human individuals in this1 that he possesses their qualities according to the measure of the species4 ,hence1 in religion man necessarily places his nature out of himself1 regards his nature as a separate nature2 necessarily1 because the nature which is the object of theory lies outside of him1 because all his conscious existence spends itself in his practical subjectivity4 ,god is his alter ego1 his other lost half2 ,god is the complement of himself2 in ,god he is first a perfect man4 ,god is a need to him2 something is wanting to him without his knowing what it is--,god is this something wanting1 indispensable to him2 ,god belongs to his nature4 ,the world is nothing to religion1 #aei--the world1 which is in truth the sum of all reality1 is revealed in its glory only by theory4 ,the joys of theory are the sweetest intellectual pleasures of life2 but religion knows nothing of the joys of the thinker1 of the investigator of ,nature1 of the artist4 ,the idea of the universe is wanting to it1 the consciousness of the really infinite1 the consciousness of the species4 ,god only is its compensation for the poverty of life1 for the want of a substantial import1 which the true life of rational contemplation presents in unending fulness4 ,god is to religion the substitute for the lost world1--,god is to it in the stead of pure contemplation1 the life of theory4 ,that which we have designated as the practical or subjective view is not pure1 it is tainted with egoism1 for therein ,i have relation to a thing only for my own sake2 neither is it self-sufficing1 for it places me in relation to an object above my own level4 ,on the contrary1 the theoretic view is joyful1 self-sufficing1 happy2 for here the object calls forth love and admiration2 in the light of the free intelligence it is radiant as a diamond1 transparent as a rock-crystal4 ,the theoretic view is sthetic1 whereas the practical is unsthetic4 ,religion therefore finds in ,god a compensation for the want of an sthetic view4 ,to the religious spirit the world is nothing in itself2 the admiration1 the contemplation of it is idolatry2 for the world is a mere piece of mechanism4 #afj ,hence in religion it is ,god that serves as the object of pure1 untainted1 i4e41 theoretic or sthetic contemplation4 ,god is the existence to which the religious man has an objective relation2 in ,god the object is contemplated by him for its own sake4 ,god is an end in himself2 therefore in religion he has the significance which in the theoretic view belongs to the object in general4 ,the general being of theory is to religion a special being4 ,it is true that in religion man1 in his relation to ,god1 has relation to his own wants as well in a higher as in the lower sense3 ,give us this day our daily bread2 but ,god can satisfy all wants of man only because he in himself has no wants1--because he is perfect blessedness4 ,,chapter ,,xx4 ,,the ,,contradiction ,,in ,,the ,,existence ,,of ,,god4 ,religion is the relation of man to his own nature1--therein lies its truth and its power of moral amelioration2--but to his nature not recognised as his own1 but regarded as another nature1 separate1 nay1 contradistinguished from his own3 herein lies its untruth1 its limitation1 its contradiction to reason and morality2 herein lies the noxious source of religious fanaticism1 the chief metaphysical principle of human sacrifices1 in a word1 the prima materia of all the atrocities1 all the horrible scenes1 in the tragedy of religious history4 ,the contemplation of the human nature as another1 a separately existent nature1 is1 however1 in the original conception of religion an involuntary1 childlike1 simple act of the mind1 that is1 one which separates ,god and man just as immediately as it again identifies them4 ,but when religion advances in years1 and1 with years1 in understanding2 when1 within the bosom of religion1 reflection on religion is awakened1 and the consciousness of the identity of the divine being with the human begins to dawn1--in a word1 when religion becomes theology1 the originally involuntary and harmless separation of ,god from man becomes an intentional1 excogitated separation1 which has no other object than to banish again from the consciousness this identity which has already entered there4 ,hence the nearer religion stands to its origin1 the truer1 the more genuine it is1 the less is its true nature disguised2 that is to say1 in the origin of religion there is no qualitative or essential distinction whatever between ,god and man4 ,and the religious man is not shocked at this identification2 for his understanding is still in harmony with his religion4 ,thus in ancient ,judaism1 ,jehovah was a being differing from the human individual in nothing but in duration of existence2 in his qualities1 his inherent nature1 he was entirely similar to man1--had the same passions1 the same human1 nay1 even corporeal properties4 ,only in the later ,judaism was ,jehovah separated in the strictest manner from man1 and recourse was had to allegory in order to give to the old anthropomorphisms another sense than that which they originally had4 ,so again in ,christianity3 in its earliest records the divinity of ,christ is not so decidedly stamped as it afterwards became4 ,with ,paul especially1 ,christ is still an undefined being1 hovering between heaven and earth1 between ,god and man1 or in general1 one amongst the existences subordinate to the highest1--the first of the angels1 the first created1 but still created2 begotten indeed for our sake2 but then neither are angels and men created1 but begotten1 for ,god is their ,father also4 ,the ,church first identified him with ,god1 made him the exclusive ,son of ,god1 defined his distinction from men and angels1 and thus gave him the monopoly of an eternal1 uncreated existence4 ,in the genesis of ideas1 the first mode in which reflection on religion1 or theology1 makes the divine being a distinct being1 and places him outside of man1 is by making the existence of ,god the object of a formal proof4 ,the proofs of the existence of ,god have been pronounced contradictory to the essential nature of religion4 ,they are so1 but only in their form as proofs4 ,religion immediately represents the inner nature of man as an objective1 external being4 ,and the proof aims at nothing more than to prove that religion is right4 ,the most perfect being is that than which no higher can be conceived3 ,god is the highest that man conceives or can conceive4 ,this premiss of the ontological proof--the most interesting proof1 because it proceeds from within--expresses the inmost nature of religion4 ,that which is the highest for man1 from which he can make no further abstraction1 which is the positive limit of his intellect1 of his feeling1 of his sentiment1 that is to him ,god--id quo nihil majus cogitari potest4 ,but this highest being would not be the highest if he did not exist2 we could then conceive a higher being who would be superior to him in the fact of existence2 the idea of the highest being directly precludes this fiction4 ,not to exist is a deficiency2 to exist is perfection1 happiness1 bliss4 ,from a being to whom man gives all1 offers up all that is precious to him1 he cannot withhold the bliss of existence4 ,the contradiction to the religious spirit in the proof of the existence of ,god lies only in this1 that the existence is thought of separately1 and thence arises the appearance that ,god is a mere conception1 a being existing in idea only1--an appearance1 however1 which is immediately dissipated2 for the very result of the proof is1 that to ,god belongs an existence distinct from an ideal one1 an existence apart from man1 apart from thought1--a real self-existence4 ,the proof therefore is only thus far discordant with the spirit of religion1 that it presents as a formal deduction the implicit enthymeme or immediate conclusion of religion1 exhibits in logical relation1 and therefore distinguishes1 what religion immediately unites2 for to religion ,god is not a matter of abstract thought1--he is a present truth and reality4 ,but that every religion in its idea of ,god makes a latent1 unconscious inference1 is confessed in its polemic against other religions4 ,ye heathens1 says the ,jew or the ,christian1 were able to conceive nothing higher as your deities because ye were sunk in sinful desires4 ,your ,god rests on a conclusion1 the premisses of which are your sensual impulses1 your passions4 ,you thought thus3 the most excellent life is to live out one's impulses without restraint2 and because this life was the most excellent1 the truest1 you made it your ,god4 ,your ,god was your carnal nature1 your heaven only a free theatre for the passions which1 in society and in the conditions of actual life generally1 had to suffer restraint4 ,but1 naturally1 in relation to itself no religion is conscious of such an inference1 for the highest of which it is capable is its limit1 has the force of necessity1 is not a thought1 not a conception1 but immediate reality4 ,the proofs of the existence of ,god have for their aim to make the internal external1 to separate it from man4 #afa ,his existence being proved1 ,god is no longer a merely relative1 but a noumenal being 7,ding an sich73 he is not only a being for us1 a being in our faith1 our feeling1 our nature1 he is a being in himself1 a being external to us1--in a word1 not merely a belief1 a feeling1 a thought1 but also a real existence apart from belief1 feeling1 and thought4 ,but such an existence is no other than a sensational existence2 i4e41 an existence conceived according to the forms of our senses4 ,the idea of sensational existence is indeed already involved in the characteristic expression external to us4 ,it is true that a sophistical theology refuses to interpret the word external in its proper1 natural sense1 and substitutes the indefinite expression of independent1 separate existence4 ,but if the externality is only figurative1 the existence also is figurative4 ,and yet we are here only concerned with existence in the proper sense1 and external existence is alone the definite1 real1 unshrinking expression for separate existence4 ,real1 sensational existence is that which is not dependent on my own mental spontaneity or activity1 but by which ,i am involuntarily affected1 which is when ,i am not1 when ,i do not think of it or feel it4 ,the existence of ,god must therefore be in space--in general1 a qualitative1 sensational existence4 ,but ,god is not seen1 not heard1 not perceived by the senses4 ,he does not exist for me1 if ,i do not exist for him2 if ,i do not believe in a ,god1 there is no ,god for me4 ,if ,i am not devoutly disposed1 if ,i do not raise myself above the life of the senses1 he has no place in my consciousness4 ,thus he exists only in so far as he is felt1 thought1 believed in2--the addition for me is unnecessary4 ,his existence therefore is a real one1 yet at the same time not a real one2--a spiritual existence1 says the theologian4 ,but spiritual existence is only an existence in thought1 in feeling1 in belief2 so that his existence is a medium between sensational existence and conceptional existence1 a medium full of contradiction4 ,or3 he is a sensational existence1 to which however all the conditions of sensational existence are wanting3--consequently an existence at once sensational and not sensational1 an existence which contradicts the idea of the sensational1 or only a vague existence in general1 which is fundamentally a sensational one1 but which1 in order that this may not become evident1 is divested of all the predicates of a real1 sensational existence4 ,but such an existence in general is self-contradictory4 ,to existence belongs full1 definite reality4 ,a necessary consequence of this contradiction is ,atheism4 ,the existence of ,god is essentially an empirical existence1 without having its distinctive marks2 it is in itself a matter of experience1 and yet in reality no object of experience4 ,it calls upon man to seek it in ,reality3 it impregnates his mind with sensational conceptions and pretensions2 hence1 when these are not fulfilled--when1 on the contrary1 he finds experience in contradiction with these conceptions1 he is perfectly justified in denying that existence4 ,kant is well known to have maintained1 in his critique of the proofs of the existence of ,god1 that that existence is not susceptible of proof from reason4 ,he did not merit1 on this account1 the blame which was cast on him by ,hegel4 ,the idea of the existence of ,god in those proofs is a thoroughly empirical one2 but ,i cannot deduce empirical existence from an priori idea4 ,the only real ground of blame against ,kant is1 that in laying down this position he supposed it to be something remarkable1 whereas it is self-evident4 ,reason cannot constitute itself an object of sense4 ,i cannot1 in thinking1 at the same time represent what ,i think as a sensible object1 external to me4 ,the proof of the existence of ,god transcends the limits of the reason2 true2 but in the same sense in which sight1 hearing1 smelling transcend the limits of the reason4 ,it is absurd to reproach reason that it does not satisfy a demand which can only address itself to the senses4 ,existence1 empirical existence1 is proved to me by the senses alone2 and in the question as to the being of ,god1 the existence implied has not the significance of inward reality1 of truth1 but the significance of a formal1 external existence4 ,hence there is perfect truth in the allegation that the belief that ,god is or is not has no consequence with respect to inward moral dispositions4 ,it is true that the thought3 ,there is a ,god1 is inspiring2 but here the is means inward reality2 here the existence is a movement of inspiration1 an act of aspiration4 ,just in proportion as this existence becomes a prosaic1 an empirical truth1 the inspiration is extinguished4 ,religion1 therefore1 in so far as it is founded on the existence of ,god as an empirical truth1 is a matter of indifference to the inward disposition4 ,as1 necessarily1 in the religious cultus1 ceremonies1 observances1 sacraments1 apart from the moral spirit or disposition1 become in themselves an important fact3 so also1 at last1 belief in the existence of ,god becomes1 apart from the inherent quality1 the spiritual import of the idea of ,god1 a chief point in religion4 ,if thou only believest in ,god--believest that ,god is1 thou art already saved4 ,whether under this ,god thou conceivest a really divine being or a monster1 a ,nero or a ,caligula1 an image of thy passions1 thy revenge1 or ambition1 it is all one1--the main point is that thou be not an atheist4 ,the history of religion has amply confirmed this consequence which we here draw from the idea of the divine existence4 ,if the existence of ,god1 taken by itself1 had not rooted itself as a religious truth in minds1 there would never have been those infamous1 senseless1 horrible ideas of ,god which stigmatise the history of religion and theology4 ,the existence of ,god was a common1 external1 and yet at the same time a holy thing3--what wonder1 then1 if on this ground the commonest1 rudest1 most unholy conceptions and opinions sprang up6 ,atheism was supposed1 and is even now supposed1 to be the negation of all moral principle1 of all moral foundations and bonds3 if ,god is not1 all distinction between good and bad1 virtue and vice1 is abolished4 ,thus the distinction lies only in the existence of ,god2 the reality of virtue lies not in itself1 but out of it4 ,and assuredly it is not from an attachment to virtue1 from a conviction of its intrinsic worth and importance1 that the reality of it is thus bound up with the existence of ,god4 ,on the contrary1 the belief that ,god is the necessary condition of virtue is the belief in the nothingness of virtue in itself4 ,it is indeed worthy of remark that the idea of the empirical existence of ,god has been perfectly developed in modern times1 in which empiricism and materialism in general have arrived at their full blow4 ,it is true that even in the original1 simple religious mind1 ,god is an empirical existence to be found in a place1 though above the earth4 ,but here this conception has not so naked1 so prosaic a significance2 the imagination identifies again the external ,god with the soul of man4 ,the imagination is1 in general1 the true place of an existence which is absent1 not present to the senses1 though nevertheless sensational in its essence4 #afb ,only the imagination solves the contradiction in an existence which is at once sensational and not sensational2 only the imagination is the preservative from atheism4 ,in the imagination existence has sensational effects1--existence affirms itself as a power2 with the essence of sensational existence the imagination associates also the phenomena of sensational existence4 ,where the existence of ,god is a living truth1 an object on which the imagination exercises itself1 there also appearances of ,god are believed in4 #afc ,where1 on the contrary1 the fire of the religious imagination is extinct1 where the sensational effects or appearances necessarily connected with an essentially sensational existence cease1 there the existence becomes a dead1 self-contradictory existence1 which falls irrecoverably into the negation of atheism4 ,the belief in the existence of ,god is the belief in a special existence1 separate from the existence of man and ,nature4 ,a special existence can only be proved in a special manner4 ,this faith is therefore only then a true and living one when special effects1 immediate appearances of ,god1 miracles1 are believed in4 ,where1 on the other hand1 the belief in ,god is identified with the belief in the world1 where the belief in ,god is no longer a special faith1 where the general being of the world takes possession of the whole man1 there also vanishes the belief in special effects and appearances of ,god4 ,belief in ,god is wrecked1 is stranded on the belief in the world1 in natural effects as the only true ones4 ,as here the belief in miracles is no longer anything more than the belief in historical1 past miracles1 so the existence of ,god is also only an historical1 in itself atheistic conception4 ,,chapter ,,xxi4 ,,the ,,contradiction ,,in ,,the ,,revelation ,,of ,,god4 ,with the idea of the existence of ,god is connected the idea of revelation4 ,god's attestation of his existence1 the authentic testimony that ,god exists1 is revelation4 ,proofs drawn from reason are merely subjective2 the objective1 the only true proof of the existence of ,god1 is his revelation4 ,god speaks to man2 revelation is the word of ,god2 he sends forth a voice which thrills the soul1 and gives it the joyful certainty that ,god really is4 ,the word is the gospel of life1--the criterion of existence and non-existence4 ,belief in revelation is the culminating point of religious objectivism4 ,the subjective conviction of the existence of ,god here becomes an indubitable1 external1 historical fact4 ,the existence of ,god1 in itself1 considered simply as existence1 is already an external1 empirical existence2 still1 it is as yet only thought1 conceived1 and therefore doubtful2 hence the assertion that all proofs produce no satisfactory certainty4 ,this conceptional existence converted into a real existence1 a fact1 is revelation4 ,god has revealed himself1 has demonstrated himself3 who then can have any further doubt8 ,the certainty of the existence of ,god is involved for me in the certainty of the revelation4 ,a ,god who only exists without revealing himself1 who exists for me only through my own mental act1 such a ,god is a merely abstract1 imaginary1 subjective ,god2 a ,god who gives me a knowledge of himself through his own act is alone a ,god who truly exists1 who proves himself to exist1--an objective ,god4 ,faith in revelation is the immediate certainty of the religious mind1 that what it believes1 wishes1 conceives1 really is4 ,religion is a dream1 in which our own conceptions and emotions appear to us as separate existences1 beings out of ourselves4 ,the religious mind does not distinguish between subjective and objective1--it has no doubts2 it has the faculty1 not of discerning other things than itself1 but of seeing its own conceptions out of itself as distinct beings4 ,what is in itself a mere theory is to the religious mind a practical belief1 a matter of conscience1--a fact4 ,a fact is that which from being an object of the intellect becomes a matter of conscience2 a fact is that which one cannot criticise or attack without being guilty of a crime2 #afd a fact is that which one must believe nolens volens2 a fact is a physical force1 not an argument1--it makes no appeal to the reason4 ,o ye shortsighted religious philosophers of ,germany1 who fling at our heads the facts of the religious consciousness1 to stun our reason and make us the slaves of your childish superstition1--do you not see that facts are just as relative1 as various1 as subjective1 as the ideas of the different religions8 ,were not the gods of ,olympus also facts1 self-attesting existences8 #afe ,were not the ludicrous miracles of paganism regarded as facts8 ,were not angels and demons historical persons8 ,did they not really appear to men8 ,did not ,balaam's ass really speak8 ,was not the story of ,balaam's ass just as much believed even by enlightened scholars of the last century1 as the ,incarnation or any other miracle8 ,a fact1 ,i repeat1 is a conception about the truth of which there is no doubt1 because it is no object of theory1 but of feeling1 which desires that what it wishes1 what it believes1 should be true4 ,a fact is that1 the denial of which is forbidden1 if not by an external law1 yet by an internal one4 ,a fact is every possibility which passes for a reality1 every conception which1 for the age wherein it is held to be a fact1 expresses a want1 and is for that reason an impassable limit of the mind4 ,a fact is every wish that projects itself on reality3 in short1 it is everything that is not doubted simply because it is not--must not be--doubted4 ,the religious mind1 according to its nature as hitherto unfolded1 has the immediate certainty that all its involuntary1 spontaneous affections are impressions from without1 manifestations of another being4 ,the religious mind makes itself the passive1 ,god the active being4 ,god is activity2 but that which determines him to activity1 which causes his activity 7originally only omnipotence1 potentia7 to become real activity1 is not himself1--he needs nothing1--but man1 the religious subject4 ,at the same time1 however1 man is reciprocally determined by ,god2 he views himself as passive2 lie receives from ,god determinate revelations1 determinate proofs of his existence4 ,thus in revelation man determines himself as that which determines ,god1 i4e41 revelation is simply the self-determination of man1 only that between himself the determined1 and himself the determining1 he interposes an object--,god1 a distinct being4 ,god is the medium by which man brings about the reconciliation of himself with his own nature3 ,god is the bond1 the vinculum substantiale1 between the essential nature--the species--and the individual4 ,the belief in revelation exhibits in the clearest manner the characteristic illusion of the religious consciousness4 ,the general premiss of this belief is3 man can of himself know nothing of ,god2 all his knowledge is merely vain1 earthly1 human4 ,but ,god is a superhuman being2 ,god is known only by himself4 ,thus we know nothing of ,god beyond what he reveals to us4 ,the knowledge imparted by ,god is alone divine1 superhuman1 supernatural knowledge4 ,by means of revelation1 therefore1 we know ,god through himself2 for revelation is the word of ,god--,god declaring himself4 ,hence1 in the belief in revelation man makes himself a negation1 he goes out of and above himself2 he places revelation in opposition to human knowledge and opinion2 in it is contained a hidden knowledge1 the fulness of all supersensuous mysteries2 here reason must hold its peace4 ,but nevertheless the divine revelation is determined by the human nature4 ,god speaks not to brutes or angels1 but to men2 hence he uses human speech and human conceptions4 ,man is an object to ,god1 before ,god perceptibly imparts himself to man2 he thinks of man2 he determines his action in accordance with the nature of man and his needs4 ,god is indeed free in will2 he can reveal himself or not2 but he is not free as to the understanding2 he cannot reveal to man whatever he will1 but only what is adapted to man1 what is commensurate with his nature such as it actually is2 he reveals what he must reveal1 if his revelation is to be a revelation for man1 and not for some other kind of being4 ,now what ,god thinks in relation to man is determined by the idea of man--it has arisen out of reflection on human nature4 ,god puts himself in the place of man1 and thinks of himself as this other being can and should think of him2 he thinks of himself1 not with his own thinking power1 but with man's4 ,in the scheme of his revelation ,god must have reference not to himself1 but to man's power of comprehension4 ,that which comes from ,god to man1 comes to man only from man in ,god1 that is1 only from the ideal nature of man to the phenomenal man1 from the species to the individual4 ,thus1 between the divine revelation and the so-called human reason or nature1 there is no other than an illusory distinction2--the contents of the divine revelation are of human origin1 for they have proceeded not from ,god as ,god1 but from ,god as determined by human reason1 human wants1 that is1 directly from human reason and human wants4 ,and so in revelation man goes out of himself1 in order1 by a circuitous path1 to return to himself6 ,here we have a striking confirmation of the position that the secret of theology is nothing else than anthropology--the knowledge of ,god nothing else than a knowledge of man6 ,indeed1 the religious consciousness itself admits1 in relation to past times1 the essentially human quality of revelation4 ,the religious consciousness of a later age is no longer satisfied with a ,jehovah who is from head to foot a man1 and does not shrink from becoming visible as such4 ,it recognises that those were merely images in which ,god accommodated himself to the comprehension of men in that age1 that is1 merely human images4 ,but it does not apply this mode of interpretation to ideas accepted as revelation in the present age1 because it is yet itself steeped in those ideas4 ,nevertheless1 every revelation is simply a revelation of the nature of man to existing men4 ,in revelation man's latent nature is disclosed to him1 because an object to him4 ,he is determined1 affected by his own nature as by another being2 he receives from the hands of ,god what his own unrecognised nature entails upon him as a necessity1 under certain conditions of time and circumstance4 ,reason1 the mind of the species1 operates on the subjective1 uncultured man only under the image of a personal being4 ,moral laws have force for him only as the commandments of a ,divine ,will1 which has at once the power to punish and the glance which nothing escapes4 ,that which his own nature1 his reason1 his conscience says to him1 does not bind him1 because the subjective1 uncultured man sees in conscience1 in reason1 so far as he recognises it as his own1 no universal objective power2 hence he must separate from himself that which gives him moral laws1 and place it in opposition to himself1 as a distinct personal being4 ,belief in revelation is a childlike belief1 and is only respectable so long as it is childlike4 ,but the child is determined from without1 and revelation has for its object to effect by ,god's help what man cannot attain by himself4 ,hence revelation has been called the education of the human race4 ,this is correct2 only revelation must not be regarded as outside the nature of man4 ,there is within him an inward necessity which impels him to present moral and philosophical doctrines in the form of narratives and fables1 and an equal necessity to represent that impulse as a revelation4 ,the mythical poet has an end in view--that of making men good and wise2 he designedly adopts the form of fable as the most appropriate and vivid method of representation2 but at the same time1 he is himself urged to this mode of teaching by his love of fable1 by his inward impulse4 ,so it is with a revelation enunciated by an individual4 ,this individual has an aim2 but at the same time he himself lives in the conceptions by means of which he realises this aim4 ,man1 by means of the imagination1 involuntarily contemplates his inner nature2 he represents it as out of himself4 ,the nature of man1 of the species--thus working on him through the irresistible power of the imagination1 and contemplated as the law of his thought and action--is ,god4 ,herein lie the beneficial moral effects of the belief in revelation4 ,but as ,nature unconsciously produces results which look as if they were produced consciously1 so revelation generates moral actions1 which do not1 however1 proceed from morality2--moral actions1 but no moral dispositions4 ,moral rules are indeed observed1 but they are severed from the inward disposition1 the heart1 by being represented as the commandments of an external lawgiver1 by being placed in the category of arbitrary laws1 police regulations4 ,what is done is done not because it is good and right1 but because it is commanded by ,god4 ,the inherent quality of the deed is indifferent2 whatever ,god commands is right4 #aff ,if these commands are in accordance with reason1 with ethics1 it is well2 but so far as the idea of revelation is concerned1 it is accidental4 ,the ceremonial laws of the ,jews were revealed1 divine1 though in themselves adventitious and arbitrary4 ,the ,jews received from ,jehovah the command to steal2--in a special case1 it is true4 ,but the belief in revelation not only injures the moral sense and taste1--the sthetics of virtue2 it poisons1 nay it destroys1 the divinest feeling in man--the sense of truth1 the perception and sentiment of truth4 ,the revelation of ,god is a determinate revelation1 given at a particular epoch3 ,god revealed himself once for all in the year so and so1 and that1 not to the universal man1 to the man of all times and places1 to the reason1 to the species1 but to certain limited individuals4 ,a revelation in a given time and place must be fixed in writing1 that its blessings may be transmitted uninjured4 ,hence the belief in revelation is1 at least for those of a subsequent age1 belief in a written revelation2 but the necessary consequence of a faith in which an historical book1 necessarily subject to all the conditions of a temporal1 finite production1 is regarded as an eternal1 absolute1 universally authoritative word1 is--superstition and sophistry4 ,faith in a written revelation is a real1 unfeigned1 and so far respectable faith1 only where it is believed that all in the sacred writings is significant1 true1 holy1 divine4 ,where1 on the contrary1 the distinction is made between the human and divine1 the relatively true and the absolutely true1 the historical and the permanent1--where it is not held that all without distinction is unconditionally true2 there the verdict of unbelief1 that the ,bible is no divine book1 is already introduced into the interpretation of the ,bible1--there1 at least indirectly1 that is1 in a crafty1 dishonest way1 its title to the character of a divine revelation is denied4 ,unity1 unconditionality1 freedom from exceptions1 immediate certitude1 is alone the character of divinity4 ,a book that imposes on me the necessity of discrimination1 the necessity of criticism1 in order to separate the divine from the human1 the permanent from the temporary1 is no longer a divine1 certain1 infallible book1--it is degraded to the rank of profane books2 for every profane book has the same quality1 that together with or in the human it contains the divine1 that is1 together with or in the individual it contains the universal and eternal4 ,but that only is a truly divine book in which there is not merely something good and something bad1 something permanent and something temporary1 but in which all comes as it were from one crucible1 all is eternal1 true and good4 ,what sort of a revelation is that in which ,i must first listen to the apostle ,paul1 then to ,peter1 then to ,james1 then to ,john1 then to ,matthew1 then to ,mark1 then to ,luke1 until at last ,i come to a passage where my soul1 athirst for ,god1 can cry out3 ,eureka6 here speaks the ,holy ,spirit himself6 here is something for me1 something for all times and men4 ,how true1 on the contrary1 was the conception of the old faith1 when it extended inspiration to the very words1 to the very letters of ,scripture6 ,the word is not a matter of indifference in relation to the thought2 a definite thought can only be rendered by a definite word4 ,another word1 another letter--another sense4 ,it is true that such faith is superstition2 but this superstition is alone the true1 undisguised1 open faith1 which is not ashamed of its consequences4 ,if ,god numbers the hairs on the head of a man1 if no sparrow falls to the ground without his will1 how could he leave to the stupidity and caprice of scribes his ,word--that ,word on which depends the everlasting salvation of man8 ,why should he not dictate his thoughts to their pen in order to guard them from the possibility of disfiguration8 ,but if man were a mere organ of the ,holy ,spirit1 human freedom would be abolished6 #afg ,oh1 what a pitiable argument6 ,is human freedom1 then1 of more value than divine truth8 ,or does human freedom consist only in the distortion of divine truth8 ,and just as necessarily as the belief in a determinate historical revelation is associated with superstition1 so necessarily is it associated with sophistry4 ,the ,bible contradicts morality1 contradicts reason1 contradicts itself1 innumerable times2 and yet it is the ,word of ,god1 eternal truth1 and truth cannot contradict itself4 #afh ,how does the believer in revelation elude this contradiction between the idea in his own mind of revelation as divine1 harmonious truth1 and this supposed actual revelation8 ,only by self-deception1 only by the silliest subterfuges1 only by the most miserable1 transparent sophisms4 ,christian sophistry is the necessary product of ,christian faith1 especially of faith in the ,bible as a divine revelation4 ,truth1 absolute truth1 is given objectively in the ,bible1 subjectively in faith2 for towards that which ,god himself speaks ,i can only be believing1 resigned1 receptive4 ,nothing is left to the understanding1 the reason1 but a formal1 subordinate office2 it has a false position1 a position essentially contradictory to its nature4 ,the understanding in itself is here indifferent to truth1 indifferent to the distinction between the true and the false2 it has no criterion in itself2 whatever is found in revelation is true1 even when it is in direct contradiction with reason4 ,the understanding is helplessly given over to the haphazard of the most ignoble empiricism2--whatever ,i find in divine revelation ,i must believe1 and if necessary1 my understanding must defend it2 the understanding is the watchdog of revelation2 it must let everything without distinction be imposed on it as truth1--discrimination would be doubt1 would be a crime3 consequently1 nothing remains to it but an adventitious1 indifferent1 i4e41 disingenuous1 sophistical1 tortuous mode of thought1 which is occupied only with groundless distinctions and subterfuges1 with ignominious tricks and evasions4 ,but the more man1 by the progress of time1 becomes estranged from revelation1 the more the understanding ripens into independence1--the more glaring1 necessarily1 appears the contradiction between the understanding and belief in revelation4 ,the believer can then prove revelation only by incurring contradiction with himself1 with truth1 with the understanding1 only by the most impudent assumptions1 only by shameless falsehoods1 only by the sin against the ,holy ,ghost4 ,,chapter ,,xxii4 ,,the ,,contradiction ,,in ,,the ,,nature ,,of ,,god ,,in ,,general4 ,the grand principle1 the central point of ,christian sophistry1 is the idea of ,god4 ,god is the human being1 and yet he must be regarded as another1 a superhuman being4 ,god is universal1 abstract ,being1 simply the idea of ,being2 and yet he must be conceived as a personal1 individual being2--or ,god is a person1 and yet he must be regarded as ,god1 as universal1 i4e41 not as a personal being4 ,god is2 his existence is certain1 more certain than ours2 he has an existence distinct from us and from things in general1 i4e41 an individual existence2 and yet his existence must be held a spiritual one1 i4e41 an existence not perceptible as a special one4 ,one half of the definition is always in contradiction with the other half3 the statement of what must be held always annihilates the statement of what is4 ,the fundamental idea is a contradiction which can be concealed only by sophisms4 ,a ,god who does not trouble himself about us1 who does not hear our prayers1 who does not see us and love us1 is no ,god2 thus humanity is made an essential predicate of ,god2--but at the same time it is said3 ,a ,god who does not exist in and by himself1 out of men1 above men1 as another being1 is a phantom2 and thus it is made an essential predicate of ,god that he is non-human and extra-human4 ,a ,god who is not as we are1 who has not consciousness1 not intelligence1 i4e41 not a personal understanding1 a personal consciousness 7as1 for example1 the substance of ,spinoza71 is no ,god4 ,essential identity with us is the chief condition of deity2 the idea of deity is made dependent on the idea of personality1 of consciousness1 quo nihil majus cogitari potest4 ,but it is said in the same breath1 a ,god who is not essentially distinguished from us is no ,god4 ,the essence of religion is the immediate1 involuntary1 unconscious contemplation of the human nature as another1 a distinct nature4 ,but when this projected image of human nature is made an object of reflection1 of theology1 it becomes an inexhaustible mine of falsehoods1 illusions1 contradictions1 and sophisms4 ,a peculiarly characteristic artifice and pretext of ,christian sophistry is the doctrine of the unsearchableness1 the incomprehensibility of the divine nature4 ,but1 as will be shown1 the secret of this incomprehensibility is nothing further than that a known quality is made into an unknown one1 a natural quality into a supernatural1 i4e41 an unnatural one1 so as to produce the appearance1 the illusion1 that the divine nature is different from the human1 and is eo ipso an incomprehensible one4 ,in the original sense of religion1 the incomprehensibility of ,god has only the significance of an impassioned expression4 ,thus1 when we are affected by a surprising phenomenon1 we exclaim3 ,it is incredible1 it is beyond conception6 though afterwards1 when we recover our self-possession1 we find the object of our astonishment nothing less than incomprehensible4 ,in the truly religious sense1 incomprehensibility is not the dead full stop which reflection places wherever understanding deserts it1 but a pathetic note of exclamation marking the impression which the imagination makes on the feelings4 ,the imagination is the original organ of religion4 ,between ,god and man1 in the primitive sense of religion1 there is on the one hand only a distinction in relation to existence1 according to which ,god1 as a self-subsistent being1 is the antithesis of man as a dependent being2 on the other hand1 there is only a quantitative distinction1 i4e41 a distinction derived from the imagination1 for the distinctions of the imagination are only quantitative4 ,the infinity of ,god in religion is quantitative infinity2 ,god is and has all that man has1 but in an infinitely greater measure4 ,the nature of ,god is the nature of the imagination unfolded1 made objective4 #afi ,god is a being conceived under the forms of the senses1 but freed from the limits of sense1--a being at once unlimited and sensational4 ,but what is the imagination8--limitless activity of the senses4 ,god is eternal1 i4e41 he exists at all times2 ,god is omnipresent1 i4e41 he exists in all places2 ,god is the omniscient being1 i4e41 the being to whom every individual thing1 every sensible existence1 is an object without distinction1 without limitation of time and place4 ,eternity and omnipresence are sensational qualities1 for in them there is no negation of existence in time and space1 but only of exclusive limitation to a particular time1 to a particular place4 ,in like manner omniscience is a sensational quality1 a sensational knowledge4 ,religion has no hesitation in attributing to ,god himself the nobler senses3 ,god sees and hears all things4 ,but the divine omniscience is a power of knowing through the senses while yet the necessary quality1 the essential determination of actual knowledge through the senses is denied to it4 ,my senses present sensible objects to me only separately and in succession2 but ,god sees all sensible things at once1 all locality in an unlocal manner1 all temporal things in an untemporal manner1 all objects of sense in an unsensational manner4 #agj ,that is to say3 ,i extend the horizon of my senses by the imagination2 ,i form to myself a confused conception of the whole of things2 and this conception1 which exalts me above the limited standpoint of the senses1 and therefore affects me agreeably1 ,i posit as a divine reality4 ,i feel the fact that my knowledge is tied to a local standpoint1 to sensational experience1 as a limitation2 what ,i feel as a limitation ,i do away with in my imagination1 which furnishes free space for the play of my feelings4 ,this negativing of limits by the imagination is the positing of omniscience as a divine power and reality4 ,but at the same time there is only a quantitative distinction between omniscience and my knowledge2 the quality of the knowledge is the same4 ,in fact1 it would be impossible for me to predicate omniscience of an object or being external to myself1 if this omniscience were essentially different from my own knowledge1 if it were not a mode of perception of my own1 if it had nothing in common with my own power of cognition4 ,that which is recognised by the senses is as much the object and content of the divine omniscience as of my knowledge4 ,imagination does away only with the limit of quantity1 not of quality4 ,the proposition that our knowledge is limited1 means3 we know only some things1 a few things1 not all4 ,the beneficial influence of religion rests on this extension of the sensational consciousness4 ,in religion man is in the open air1 sub deo2 in the sensational consciousness he is in his narrow confined dwelling-house4 ,religion has relation essentially1 originally--and only in its origin is it something holy1 true1 pure1 and good--to the immediate sensational consciousness alone2 it is the setting aside of the limits of sense4 ,isolated1 uninstructed men and nations preserve religion in its original sense1 because they themselves remain in that mental state which is the source of religion4 ,the more limited a man's sphere of vision1 the less he knows of history1 ,nature1 philosophy--the more ardently does he cling to his religion4 ,for this reason the religious man feels no need of culture4 ,why had the ,hebrews no art1 no science1 as the ,greeks had8 ,because they felt no need of it4 ,to them this need was supplied by ,jehovah4 ,in the divine omniscience man raises himself above the limits of his own knowledge2 #aga in the divine omnipresence1 above the limits of his local standpoint2 in the divine eternity1 above the limits of his time4 ,the religious man is happy in his imagination2 he has all things in nuce2 his possessions are always portable4 ,jehovah accompanies me everywhere2 ,i need not travel out of myself2 ,i have in my ,god the sum of all treasures and precious things1 of all that is worth knowledge and remembrance4 ,but culture is dependent on external things2 it has many and various wants1 for it overcomes the limits of sensational consciousness and life by real activity1 not by the magical power of the religious imagination4 ,hence the ,christian religion also1 as has been often mentioned already1 has in its essence no principle of culture1 for it triumphs over the limitations and difficulties of earthly life only through the imagination1 only in ,god1 in heaven4 ,god is all that the heart needs and desires--all good things1 all blessings4 ,dost thou desire love1 or faithfulness1 or truth1 or consolation1 or perpetual presence8--this is always in him without measure4 ,dost thou desire beauty8--he is the supremely beautiful4 ,dost thou desire riches8--all riches are in him4 ,dost thou desire power8--he is supremely powerful4 ,or whatever thy heart desires1 it is found a thousandfold in ,him1 in the best1 the single good1 which is ,god4 #agb ,but how can he who has all in ,god1 who already enjoys heavenly bliss in the imagination1 experience that want1 that sense of poverty1 which is the impulse to all culture8 ,culture has no other object than to realise an earthly heaven2 and the religious heaven is only realised or won by religious activity4 ,the difference1 however1 between ,god and man1 which is originally only quantitative1 is by reflection developed into a qualitative difference2 and thus what was originally only an emotional impression1 an immediate expression of admiration1 of rapture1 an influence of the imagination on the feelings1 has fixity given to it as an objective quality1 as real incomprehensibility4 ,the favourite expression of reflection in relation to this subject is1 that we can indeed know concerning ,god that he has such and such attributes1 but not how he has them4 ,for example1 that the predicate of the ,creator essentially belongs to ,god1 that he created the world1 and not out of matter already existing1 but out of nothing1 by an act of almighty power1--this is clear1 certain--yes1 indubitable2 but how this is possible naturally passes our understanding4 ,that is to say3 the generic idea is clear1 certain1 but the specific idea is unclear1 uncertain4 ,the idea of activity1 of making1 of creation1 is in itself a divine idea2 it is therefore unhesitatingly applied to ,god4 ,in activity1 man feels himself free1 unlimited1 happy2 in passivity1 limited1 oppressed1 unhappy4 ,activity is the positive sense of one's personality4 ,that is positive which in man is accompanied with joy2 hence ,god is1 as we have already said1 the idea of pure1 unlimited joy4 ,we succeed only in what we do willingly2 joyful effort conquers all things4 ,but that is joyful activity which is in accordance with our nature1 which we do not feel as a limitation1 and consequently not as a constraint4 ,and the happiest1 the most blissful activity is that which is productive4 ,to read is delightful1 reading is passive activity2 but to produce what is worthy to be read is more delightful still4 ,it is more blessed to give than to receive4 ,hence this attribute of the species--productive activity--is assigned to ,god2 that is1 realised and made objective as divine activity4 ,but every special determination1 every mode of activity is abstracted1 and only the fundamental determination1 which1 however1 is essentially human1 namely1 production of what is external to self1 is retained4 ,god has not1 like man1 produced something in particular1 this or that1 but all things2 his activity is absolutely universal1 unlimited4 ,hence it is self-evident1 it is a necessary consequence1 that the mode in which ,god has produced the ,all is incomprehensible1 because this activity is no mode of activity1 because the question concerning the how is here an absurdity1 a question which is excluded by the fundamental idea of unlimited activity4 ,every special activity produces its effects in a special manner1 because there the activity itself is a determinate mode of activity2 and thence necessarily arises the question3 ,how did it produce this8 ,but the answer to the question3 ,how did ,god make the world8 has necessarily a negative issue1 because the world-creating activity in itself negatives every determinate activity1 such as would alone warrant the question1 every mode of activity connected with a determinate medium1 i4e41 with matter4 ,this question illegitimately foists in between the subject or producing activity1 and the object or thing produced1 an irrelevant1 nay1 an excluded intermediate idea1 namely1 the idea of particular1 individual existence4 ,the activity in question has relation only to the collective--the ,all1 the world2 ,god created all things1 not some particular thing2 the indefinite whole1 the ,all1 as it is embraced by the imagination1--not the determinate1 the particular1 as1 in its particularity1 it presents itself to the senses1 and as1 in its totality as the universe1 it presents itself to the reason4 ,every particular thing arises in a natural way2 it is something determinate1 and as such it has--what it is only tautology to state--a determinate cause4 ,it was not ,god1 but carbon that produced the diamond2 a given salt owes its origin1 not to ,god1 but to the combination of a particular acid with a particular base4 ,god only created all things together without distinction4 ,it is true that according to the religious conception1 ,god has created every individual thing1 as included in the whole2--but only indirectly2 for he has not produced the individual in an individual manner1 the determinate in a determinate manner2 otherwise he would be a determinate or conditioned being4 ,it is certainly incomprehensible how out of this general1 indeterminate1 or unconditioned activity the particular1 the determinate1 can have proceeded2 but it is so only because ,i here intrude the object of sensational1 natural experience1 because ,i assign to the divine activity another object than that which is proper to it4 ,religion has no physical conception of the world2 it has no interest in a natural explanation1 which can never be given but with a mode of origin4 ,origin is a theoretical1 natural-philosophical idea4 ,the heathen philosophers busied themselves with the origin of things4 ,but the ,christian religious consciousness abhorred this idea as heathen1 irreligious1 and substituted the practical or subjective idea of creation1 which is nothing else than a prohibition to conceive things as having arisen in a natural way1 an interdict on all physical science4 ,the religious consciousness connects the world immediately with ,god2 it derives all from ,god1 because nothing is an object to him in its particularity and reality1 nothing is to him as it presents itself to our reason4 ,all proceeds from ,god3--that is enough1 that perfectly satisfies the religious consciousness4 ,the question1 how did ,god create8 is an indirect doubt that he did create the world4 ,it was this question which brought man to atheism1 materialism1 naturalism4 ,to him who asks it1 the world is already an object of theory1 of physical science1 i4e41 it is an object to him in its reality1 in its determinate constituents4 ,it is this mode of viewing the world which contradicts the idea of unconditioned1 immaterial activity3 and this contradiction leads to the negation of the fundamental idea--the creation4 ,the creation by omnipotence is in its place1 is a truth1 only when all the phenomena of the world are derived from ,god4 ,it becomes1 as has been already observed1 a myth of past ages where physical science introduces itself1 where man makes the determinate causes1 the how of phenomena1 the object of investigation4 ,to the religious consciousness1 therefore1 the creation is nothing incomprehensible1 i4e41 unsatisfying2 at least it is so only in moments of irreligiousness1 of doubt1 when the mind turns away from ,god to actual things2 but it is highly unsatisfactory to reflection1 to theology1 which looks with one eye at heaven and with the other at earth4 ,as the cause1 so is the effect4 ,a flute sends forth the tones of a flute1 not those of a bassoon or a trumpet4 ,if thou hearest the tones of a bassoon1 but hast never before seen or heard any wind-instrument but the flute1 it will certainly be inconceivable to thee how such tones can come out of a flute4 ,thus it is here3--the comparison is only so far inappropriate as the flute itself is a particular instrument4 ,but imagine1 if it be possible1 an absolutely universal instrument1 which united in itself all instruments1 without being in itself a particular one2 thou wilt then see that it is an absurd contradiction to desire a particular tone which only belongs to a particular instrument1 from an instrument which thou hast divested precisely of that which is characteristic in all particular instruments4 ,but there also lies at the foundation of this dogma of incomprehensibility the design of keeping the divine activity apart from the human1 of doing away with their similarity1 or rather their essential identity1 so as to make the divine activity essentially different from the human4 ,this distinction between the divine and human activity is nothing4 ,god makes1--he makes something external to himself1 as man does4 ,making is a genuine human idea4 ,nature gives birth to1 brings forth2 man makes4 ,making is an act which ,i can omit1 a designed1 premeditated1 external act2--an act in which my inmost being is not immediately concerned1 in which1 while active1 ,i am not at the same time passive1 carried away by an internal impulse4 ,on the contrary1 an activity which is identical with my being is not indifferent1 is necessary to me1 as1 for example1 intellectual production1 which is an inward necessity to me1 and for that reason lays a deep hold on me1 affects me pathologically4 ,intellectual works are not made1--making is only the external activity applied to them2--they arise in us4 ,to make is an indifferent1 therefore a free1 i4e41 optional activity4 ,thus far then--that he makes--,god is entirely at one with man1 not at all distinguished from him2 but an especial emphasis is laid on this1 that his making is free1 arbitrary1 at his pleasure4 ,it has pleased ,god to create a world4 ,thus man here deifies satisfaction in self-pleasing1 in caprice and groundless arbitrariness4 ,the fundamentally human character of the divine activity is by the idea of arbitrariness degraded into a human manifestation of a low kind2 ,god1 from a mirror of human nature1 is converted into a mirror of human vanity and self-complacency4 ,and now all at once the harmony is changed into discord2 man1 hitherto at one with himself1 becomes divided3--,god makes out of nothing2 he creates1--to make out of nothing is to create1--this is the distinction4 ,the positive condition--the act of making--is a human one2 but inasmuch as all that is determinate in this conception is immediately denied1 reflection steps in and makes the divine activity not human4 ,but with this negation1 comprehension1 understanding comes to a stand2 there remains only a negative1 empty notion1 because conceivability is already exhausted1 i4e41 the distinction between the divine and human determination is in truth a nothing1 a nihil negativum of the understanding4 ,the nave confession of this is made in the supposition of nothing as an object4 ,god is ,love1 but not human love2 ,understanding1 but not human understanding1--no6 an essentially different understanding4 ,but wherein consists this difference8 ,i cannot conceive an understanding which acts under other forms than those of our own understanding2 ,i cannot halve or quarter understanding so as to have several understandings2 ,i can only conceive one and the same understanding4 ,it is true that ,i can and even must conceive understanding in itself1 i4e41 free from the limits of my individuality2 but in so doing ,i only release it from limitations essentially foreign to it2 ,i do not set aside its essential determinations or forms4 ,religious reflection1 on the contrary1 denies precisely that determination or quality which makes a thing what it is4 ,only that in which the divine understanding is identical with the human is something1 is understanding1 is a real idea2 while that which is supposed to make it another--yes1 essentially another than the human--is objectively nothing1 subjectively a mere chimera4 ,in all other definitions of the ,divine ,being the nothing which constitutes the distinction is hidden2 in the creation1 on the contrary1 it is an evident1 declared1 objective nothing2--and is therefore the official1 notorious nothing of theology in distinction from anthropology4 ,but the fundamental determination by which man makes his own nature a foreign1 incomprehensible nature is the idea of individuality or--what is only a more abstract expression--personality4 ,the idea of the existence of ,god first realises itself in the idea of revelation1 and the idea of revelation first realises itself in the idea of personality4 ,god is a personal being3--this is the spell which charms the ideal into the real1 the subjective into the objective4 ,all predicates1 all attributes of the ,divine ,being are fundamentally human2 but as attributes of a personal being1 and therefore of a being distinct from man and existing independently1 they appear immediately to be really other than human1 yet so as that at the same time the essential identity always remains at the foundation4 ,hence reflection gives rise to the idea of so-called anthropomorphisms4 ,anthropomorphisms are resemblances between ,god and man4 ,the attributes of the divine and of the human being are not indeed the same1 but they are analogous4 ,thus personality is the antidote to pantheism2 i4e41 by the idea of personality religious reflection expels from its thought the identity of the divine and human nature4 ,the rude but characteristic expression of pantheism is3 ,man is an effluence or a portion of the ,divine ,being2 the religious expression is3 ,man is the image of ,god1 or a being akin to ,god2--for according to religion man does not spring from ,nature1 but is of divine race1 of divine origin4 ,but kinship is a vague1 evasive expression4 ,there are degrees of kinship1 near and distant4 ,what sort of kinship is intended8 ,for the relation of man to ,god there is but one form of kinship which is appropriate1--the nearest1 profoundest1 most sacred that can be conceived1--the relation of the child to the father4 ,according to this1 ,god is the father of man1 man the son1 the child of ,god4 ,here is posited at once the self-subsistence of ,god and the dependence of man1 and posited as an immediate object of feeling2 whereas in pantheism the part appears just as self-subsistent as the whole1 since this is represented as made up of its parts4 ,nevertheless this distinction is only an appearance4 ,the father is not a father without the child2 both together form a correlated being4 ,in love man renounces his independence1 and reduces himself to a part2 a self-humiliation which is only compensated by the fact that the one whom he loves at the same time voluntarily becomes a part also2 that they both submit to a higher power1 the power of the spirit of family1 the power of love4 ,thus there is here the same relation between ,god and man as in pantheism1 save that in the one it is represented as a personal1 patriarchal relation1 in the other as an impersonal1 general one1--save that pantheism expresses logically and therefore definitely1 directly1 what religion invests with the imagination4 ,the correlation1 or rather the identity of ,god and man is veiled in religion by representing both as persons or individuals1 and ,god as a self-subsistent1 independent being apart from his paternity3--an independence which1 however1 is only apparent1 for he who1 like the ,god of religion1 is a father from the depths of the heart1 has his very life and being in his child4 ,the reciprocal and profound relation of dependence between ,god as father and man as child cannot be shaken by the distinction that only ,christ is the true1 natural son of ,god1 and that men are but his adopted sons2 so that it is only to ,christ as the only-begotten ,son1 and by no means to men1 that ,god stands in an essential relation of dependence4 ,for this distinction is only a theological1 i4e41 an illusory one4 ,god adopts only men1 not brutes4 ,the ground of adoption lies in the human nature4 ,the man adopted by divine grace is only the man conscious of his divine nature and dignity4 ,moreover1 the only-begotten ,son himself is nothing else than the idea of humanity1 than man preoccupied with himself1 man hiding from himself and the world in ,god1--the heavenly man4 ,the ,logos is latent1 tacit man2 man is the revealed1 expressed ,logos4 ,the ,logos is only the prelude of man4 ,that which applies to the ,logos applies also to the nature of man4 #agc ,but between ,god and the only-begotten ,son there is no real distinction1--he who knows the ,son knows the ,father also1--and thus there is none between ,god and man4 ,it is the same with the idea that man is the image of ,god4 ,the image is here no dead1 inanimate thing1 but a living being4 ,man is the image of ,god1 means nothing more than that man is a being who resembles ,god4 ,similarity between living beings rests on natural relationship4 ,the idea of man being the image of ,god reduces itself therefore to kinship2 man is like ,god1 because he is the child of ,god4 ,resemblance is only kinship presented to the senses2 from the former we infer the latter4 ,but resemblance is just as deceptive1 illusory1 evasive an idea as kinship4 ,it is only the idea of personality which does away with the identity of nature4 ,resemblance is identity which will not admit itself to be identity1 which hides itself behind a dim medium1 behind the vapour of the imagination4 ,if ,i disperse this vapour1 ,i come to naked identity4 ,the more similar beings are1 the less are they to to be distinguished2 if ,i know the one1 ,i know the other4 ,it is true that resemblance has its degrees4 ,but also the resemblance between ,god and man has its degrees4 ,the good1 pious man is more like ,god than the man whose resemblance to ,him is founded only on the nature of man in general4 ,and even with the pious man there is a highest degree of resemblance to be supposed1 though this may not be obtained here below1 but only in the future life4 ,but that which man is to become belongs already to him1 at least so far as possibility is concerned4 ,the highest degree of resemblance is that where there is no further distinction between two individuals or beings than that they are two4 ,the essential qualities1 those by which we distinguish things from each other1 are the same in both4 ,hence ,i cannot distinguish them in thought1 by the reason1--for this all data are wanting2--,i can only distinguish them by figuring them as visible in my imagination or by actually seeing them4 ,if my eyes do not say1 ,there are really two separately existent beings1 my reason will take both for one and the same being4 ,nay1 even my eyes may confound the one with the other4 ,things are capable of being confounded with each other which are distinguishable by the sense and not by the reason1 or rather which are different only as to existence1 not as to essence4 ,persons altogether alike have an extraordinary attraction not only for each other1 but for the imagination4 ,resemblance gives occasion to all kinds of mystifications and illusions1 because it is itself only an illusion2 my eyes mock my reason1 for which the idea of an independent existence is always allied to the idea of a determinate difference4 ,religion is the mind's light1 the rays of which are broken by the medium of the imagination and the feelings1 so as to make the same being appear a double one4 ,resemblance is to the ,reason identity1 which in the realm of reality is divided or broken up by immediate sensational impressions1 in the sphere of religion by the illusions of the imagination2 in short1 that which is identical to the reason is made separate by the idea of individuality or personality4 ,i can discover no distinction between father and child1 archetype and image1 ,god and man1 if ,i do not introduce the idea of personality4 ,resemblance is here the external guise of identity2--the identity which reason1 the sense of truth1 affirms1 but which the imagination denies2 the identity which allows an appearance of distinction to remain1--a mere phantasm1 which says neither directly yes1 nor directly no4 ,,chapter ,,xxiii4 ,,the ,,contradiction ,,in ,,the ,,speculative ,,doctrine ,,of ,,god4 ,the personality of ,god is thus the means by which man converts the qualities of his own nature into the qualities of another being1--of a being external to himself4 ,the personality of ,god is nothing else than the projected personality of man4 ,on this process of projecting self outwards rests also the ,hegelian speculative doctrine1 according to which man's consciousness of ,god is the self-consciousness of ,god4 ,god is thought1 cognised by us4 ,according to speculation1 ,god1 in being thought by us1 thinks himself or is conscious of himself2 speculation identifies the two sides which religion separates4 ,in this it is far deeper than religion1 for the fact of ,god being thought is not like the fact of an external object being thought4 ,god is an inward1 spiritual being2 thinking1 consciousness1 is an inward1 spiritual act2 to think ,god is therefore to affirm what ,god is1 to establish the being of ,god as an act4 ,that ,god is thought1 cognised1 is essential2 that this tree is thought1 is to the tree accidental1 unessential4 ,god is an indispensable thought1 a necessity of thought4 ,but how is it possible that this necessity should simply express the subjective1 and not the objective also8--how is it possible that ,god--if he is to exist for us1 to be an object to us--must necessarily be thought1 if he is in himself like a block1 indifferent whether he be thought1 cognised or not8 ,no6 it is not possible4 ,we are necessitated to regard the fact of ,god being thought by us1 as his thinking himself1 or his self-consciousness4 ,religious objectivism has two passives1 two modes in which ,god is thought4 ,on the one hand1 ,god is thought by us1 on the other1 he is thought by himself4 ,god thinks himself1 independently of his being thought by us3 he has a self-consciousness distinct from1 independent of1 our consciousness4 ,this is certainly consistent when once ,god is conceived as a real personality2 for the real human person thinks himself1 and is thought by another2 my thinking of him is to him an indifferent1 external fact4 ,this is the last degree of anthropopathism4 ,in order to make ,god free and independent of all that is human1 he is regarded as a formal1 real person1 his thinking is confined within himself1 and the fact of his being thought is excluded from him1 and is represented as occurring in another being4 ,this indifference or independence with respect to us1 to our thought1 is the attestation of a self-subsistent1 i4e41 external1 personal existence4 ,it is true that religion also makes the fact of ,god being thought into the self-thinking of ,god2 but because this process goes forward behind its consciousness1 since ,god is immediately presupposed as a self-existent personal being1 the religious consciousness only embraces the indifference of the two facts4 ,even religion1 however1 does not abide by this indifference of the two sides4 ,god creates in order to reveal himself3 creation is the revelation of ,god4 ,but for stones1 plants1 and animals there is no ,god1 but only for man2 so that ,nature exists for the sake of man1 and man purely for the sake of ,god4 ,god glorifies himself in man3 man is the pride of ,god4 ,god indeed knows himself even without man2 but so long as there is no other me1 so long is he only a possible1 conceptional person4 ,first when a difference from ,god1 a non-divine is posited1 is ,god conscious of himself2 first when he knows what is not ,god1 does he know what it is to be ,god1 does he know the bliss of his ,godhead4 ,first in the positing of what is other than himself1 of the world1 does ,god posit himself as ,god4 ,is ,god almighty without creation8 ,no6 ,omnipotence first realises1 proves itself in creation4 ,what is a power1 a property1 which does not exhibit1 attest itself8 ,what is a force which affects nothing8 a light that does not illuminate8 a wisdom which knows nothing1 i4e41 nothing real8 ,and what is omnipotence1 what all other divine attributes1 if man does not exist8 ,man is nothing without ,god2 but also1 ,god is nothing without man2 #agd for only in man is ,god an object as ,god2 only in man is he ,god4 ,the various qualities of man first give difference1 which is the ground of reality in ,god4 ,the physical qualities of man make ,god a physical being--,god the ,father1 who is the creator of ,nature1 i4e41 the personified1 anthropomorphised essence of ,nature2 #age the intellectual qualities of man make ,god an intellectual being1 the moral1 a moral being4 ,human misery is the triumph of divine compassion2 sorrow for sin is the delight of the divine holiness4 ,life1 fire1 emotion comes into ,god only through man4 ,with the stubborn sinner ,god is angry2 over the repentant sinner he rejoices4 ,man is the revealed ,god3 in man the divine essence first realises and unfolds itself4 ,in the creation of ,nature ,god goes out of himself1 he has relation to what is other than himself1 but in man he returns into himself3--man knows ,god1 because in him ,god finds and knows himself1 feels himself as ,god4 ,where there is no pressure1 no want1 there is no feeling2--and feeling is alone real knowledge4 ,who can know compassion without having felt the want of it8 justice without the experience of injustice8 happiness without the experience of distress8 ,thou must feel what a thing is2 otherwise thou wilt never learn to know it4 ,it is in man that the divine properties first become feelings1 i4e41 man is the self-feeling of ,god2--and the feeling of ,god is the real ,god2 for the qualities of ,god are indeed only real qualities1 realities1 as felt by man1--as feelings4 ,if the experience of human misery were outside of ,god1 in a being personally separate from him1 compassion also would not be in ,god1 and we should hence have again the ,being destitute of qualities1 or more correctly the nothing1 which ,god was before man or without man4 ,for example3--,whether ,i be a good or sympathetic being--for that alone is good which gives1 imparts itself1 bonum est communicativum sui1--is unknown to me before the opportunity presents itself of showing goodness to another being4 ,only in the act of imparting do ,i experience the happiness of beneficence1 the joy of generosity1 of liberality4 ,but is this joy apart from the joy of the recipient8 ,no2 ,i rejoice because he rejoices4 ,i feel the wretchedness of another1 ,i suffer with him2 in alleviating his wretchedness1 ,i alleviate my own2--sympathy with suffering is itself suffering4 ,the joyful feeling of the giver is only the reflex1 the self-consciousness of the joy in the receiver4 ,their joy is a common feeling1 which accordingly makes itself visible in the union of hands1 of lips4 ,so it is here4 ,just as the feeling of human misery is human1 so the feeling of divine compassion is human4 ,it is only a sense of the poverty of finiteness that gives a sense of the bliss of infiniteness4 ,where the one is not1 the other is not4 ,the two are inseparable1--inseparable the feeling of ,god as ,god1 and the feeling of man as man1 inseparable the knowledge of man and the self-knowledge of ,god4 ,god is a ,self only in the human self1--only in the human power of discrimination1 in the principle of difference that lies in the human being4 ,thus compassion is only felt as a me1 a self1 a force1 i4e41 as something special1 through its opposite4 ,the opposite of ,god gives qualities to ,god1 realises him1 makes him a ,self4 ,god is ,god1 only through that which is not ,god4 ,herein we have also the mystery of ,jacob ,bhme's doctrine4 ,it must only be borne in mind that ,jacob ,bhme1 as a mystic and theologian1 places outside of man the feelings in which the divine being first realises himself1 passes from nothing to something1 to a qualitative being apart from the feelings of man 7at least in imagination71--and that he makes them objective in the form of natural qualities1 but in such a way that these qualities still only represent the impressions made on his feelings4 ,it will then be obvious that what the empirical religious consciousness first posits with the real creation of ,nature and of man1 the mystical consciousness places before the creation in the premundane ,god1 in doing which1 however1 it does away with the reality of the creation4 ,for if ,god has what is not-,god1 already in himself1 he has no need first to create what is not-,god in order to be ,god4 ,the creation of the world is here a pure superfluity1 or rather an impossibility2 this ,god for very reality does not come to reality2 he is already in himself the full and restless world4 ,this is especially true of ,schelling's doctrine of ,god1 who though made up of innumerable potences is yet thoroughly impotent4 ,far more reasonable1 therefore1 is the empirical religious consciousness1 which makes ,god reveal1 i4e41 realise himself in real man1 real nature1 and according to which man is created purely for the praise and glory of ,god4 ,that is to say1 man is the mouth of ,god1 which articulates and accentuates the divine qualities as human feelings4 ,god wills that he be honoured1 praised4 ,why8 because the passion of man for ,god is the self-consciousness of ,god4 ,nevertheless1 the religious consciousness separates these two properly inseparable sides1 since by means of the idea of personality it makes ,god and man independent existences4 ,now the ,hegelian speculation identifies the two sides1 but so as to leave the old contradiction still at the foundation2--it is therefore only the consistent carrying out1 the completion of a religious truth4 ,the learned mob was so blind in its hatred towards ,hegel as not to perceive that his doctrine1 at least in this relation1 does not in fact contradict religion2--that it contradicts it only in the same way as1 in general1 a developed1 consequent process of thought contradicts an undeveloped1 inconsequent1 but nevertheless radically identical conception4 ,but if it is only in human feelings and wants that the divine nothing becomes something1 obtains qualities1 then the being of man is alone the real being of ,god1--man is the real ,god4 ,and if in the consciousness which man has of ,god first arises the self-consciousness of ,god1 then the human consciousness is1 per se1 the divine consciousness4 ,why then dost thou alienate man's consciousness from him1 and make it the self-consciousness of a being distinct from man1 of that which is an object to him8 ,why dost thou vindicate existence to ,god1 to man only the consciousness of that existence8 ,god has his consciousness in man1 and man his being in ,god8 ,man's knowledge of ,god is ,god's knowledge of himself8 ,what a divorcing and contradiction6 ,the true statement is this3 man's knowledge of ,god is man's knowledge of himself1 of his own nature4 ,only the unity of being and consciousness is truth4 ,where the consciousness of ,god is1 there is the being of ,god1--in man1 therefore2 in the being of ,god it is only thy own being which is an object to thee1 and what presents itself before thy consciousness is simply what lies behind it4 ,if the divine qualities are human1 the human qualities are divine4 ,only when we abandon a philosophy of religion1 or a theology1 which is distinct from psychology and anthropology1 and recognise anthropology as itself theology1 do we attain to a true1 self-satisfying identity of the divine and human being1 the identity of the human being with itself4 ,in every theory of the identity of the divine and human which is not true identity1 unity of the human nature with itself1 there still lies at the foundation a division1 a separation into two1 since the identity is immediately abolished1 or rather is supposed to be abolished4 ,every theory of this kind is in contradiction with itself and with the understanding1--is a half measure--a thing of the imagination--a perversion1 a distortion2 which1 however1 the more perverted and false it is1 all the more appears to be profound4 ,,chapter ,,xxiv4 ,,the ,,contradiction ,,in ,,the ,,trinity4 ,religion gives reality or objectivity not only to the human or divine nature in general as a personal being2 it further gives reality to the fundamental determinations or fundamental distinctions of that nature as persons4 ,the ,trinity is therefore originally nothing else than the sum of the essential fundamental distinctions which man perceives in the human nature4 ,according as the mode of conceiving this nature varies1 so also the fundamental determinations on which the ,trinity is founded vary4 ,but these distinctions1 perceived in one and the same human nature1 are hypostasised as substances1 as divine persons4 ,and herein1 namely1 that these different determinations are in ,god1 hypostases1 subjects1 is supposed to lie the distinction between these determinations as they are in ,god1 and as they exist in man1--in accordance with the law already enunciated1 that only in the idea of personality does the human personality transfer and make objective its own qualities4 ,but the personality exists only in the imagination2 the fundamental determinations are therefore only for the imagination hypostases1 persons2 for reason1 for thought1 they are mere relations or determinations4 ,the idea of the ,trinity contains in itself the contradiction of polytheism and monotheism1 of imagination and reason1 of fiction and reality4 ,imagination gives the ,trinity1 reason the ,unity of the persons4 ,according to reason1 the things distinguished are only distinctions2 according to imagination1 the distinctions are things distinguished1 which therefore do away with the unity of the divine being4 ,to the reason1 the divine persons are phantoms1 to the imagination realities4 ,the idea of the ,trinity demands that man should think the opposite of what he imagines1 and imagine the opposite of what he thinks1--that he should think phantoms realities4 #agf ,there are three ,persons1 but they are not essentially distinguished4 ,tres person1 but una essentia4 ,so far the conception is a natural one4 ,we can conceive three and even more persons1 identical in essence4 ,thus we men are distinguished from one another by personal differences1 but in the main1 in essence1 in humanity we are one4 ,and this identification is made not only by the speculative understanding1 but even by feeling4 ,a given individual is a man as we are2 punctum satis2 in this feeling all distinctions vanish1--whether he be rich or poor1 clever or stupid1 culpable or innocent4 ,the feeling of compassion1 sympathy1 is therefore a substantial1 essential1 speculative feeling4 ,but the three or more human persons exist apart from each other1 have a separate existence1 even when they verify and confirm the unity of their nature by fervent love4 ,they together constitute1 through love1 a single moral personality1 but each has a physical existence for himself4 ,though they may be reciprocally absorbed in each other1 may be unable to dispense with each other1 they have yet always a formally independent existence4 ,independent existence1 existence apart from others1 is the essential characteristic of a person1 of a substance4 ,it is otherwise in ,god1 and necessarily so2 for while his personality is the same as that of man1 it is held to be the same with a difference1 on the ground simply of this postulate3 there must be a difference4 ,the three ,persons in ,god have no existence out of each other2 else there would meet us in the heaven of ,christian dogmatics1 not indeed many gods1 as in ,olympus1 but at least three divine ,persons in an individual form1 three ,gods4 ,the gods of ,olympus were real persons1 for they existed apart from each other1 they had the criterion of real personality in their individuality1 though they were one in essence1 in divinity2 they had different personal attributes1 but were each singly a god1 alike in divinity1 different as existing subjects or persons2 they were genuine divine personalities4 ,the three ,persons of the ,christian ,godhead1 on the contrary1 are only imaginary1 pretended persons1 assuredly different from real persons1 just because they are only phantasms1 shadows of personalities1 while1 notwithstanding1 they are assumed to be real persons4 ,the essential characteristic of personal reality1 the polytheistic element1 is excluded1 denied as non-divine4 ,but by this negation their personality becomes a mere phantasm4 ,only in the truth of the plural lies the truth of the ,persons4 ,the three persons of the ,christian ,godhead are not tres ,dii1 three ,gods2--at least they are not meant to be such2--but unus ,deus1 one ,god4 ,the three ,persons end1 not1 as might have been expected1 in a plural1 but in a singular2 they are not only ,unum--the gods of ,olympus are that--but ,unus4 ,unity has here the significance not of essence only1 but also of existence2 unity is the existential form of ,god4 ,three are one3 the plural is a singular4 ,god is a personal being consisting of three persons4 #agg ,the three persons are thus only phantoms in the eyes of reason1 for the conditions or modes under which alone their personality could be realised1 are done away with by the command of monotheism4 ,the unity gives the lie to the personality2 the self-subsistence of the persons is annihilated in the self-subsistence of the unity--they are mere relations4 ,the ,son is not without the ,father1 the ,father not without the ,son3 the ,holy ,spirit1 who indeed spoils the symmetry1 expresses nothing but the relation of the two to each other4 ,but the divine persons are distinguished from each other only by that which constitutes their relation to each other4 ,the essential in the ,father as a person is that he is a ,father1 of the ,son that he is a ,son4 ,what the ,father is over and above his fatherhood1 does not belong to his personality2 therein he is ,god1 and as ,god identical with the ,son as ,god4 ,therefore it is said3 ,god the ,father1 ,god the ,son1 and ,god the ,holy ,ghost3--,god is in all three alike4 ,there is one person of the ,father1 another of the ,son1 and another of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,but the ,godhead of the ,father1 of the ,son1 and of the ,holy ,ghost1 is all one2 i4e41 they are distinct persons1 but without distinction of substance4 ,the personality1 therefore1 arises purely in the relation of the ,fatherhood2 i4e41 the idea of the person is here only a relative idea1 the idea of a relation4 ,man as a father is dependent1 he is essentially the correlative of the son2 he is not a father without the son2 by fatherhood man reduces himself to a relative1 dependent1 impersonal being4 ,it is before all things necessary not to allow oneself to be deceived by these relations as they exist in reality1 in men4 ,the human father is1 over and above his paternity1 an independent personal being2 he has at least a formal existence for himself1 an existence apart from his son2 he is not merely a father1 with the exclusion of all the other predicates of a real personal being4 ,fatherhood is a relation which the bad man can make quite an external one1 not touching his personal being4 ,but in ,god the ,father1 there is no distinction between ,god the ,father and ,god the ,son as ,god2 the abstract fatherhood alone constitutes his personality1 his distinction from the ,son1 whose personality likewise is founded only on the abstract sonship4 ,but at the same time these relations1 as has been said1 are maintained to be not mere relations1 but real persons1 beings1 substances4 ,thus the truth of the plural1 the truth of polytheism is again affirmed1 #agh and the truth of monotheism is denied4 ,to require the reality of the persons is to require the unreality of the unity1 and conversely1 to require the reality of the unity is to require the unreality of the persons4 ,thus in the holy mystery of the ,trinity1--that is to say1 so far as it is supposed to represent a truth distinct from human nature1--all resolves itself into delusions1 phantasms1 contradictions1 and sophisms4 #agi ,,chapter ,,xxv4 ,,the ,,contradiction ,,in ,,the ,,sacraments4 ,as the objective essence of religion1 the idea of ,god1 resolves itself into mere contradictions1 so also1 on grounds easily understood1 does its subjective essence4 ,the subjective elements of religion are on the one hand ,faith and ,love2 on the other hand1 so far as it presents itself externally in a cultus1 the sacraments of ,baptism and the ,lord's ,supper4 ,the sacrament of ,faith is ,baptism1 the sacrament of ,love is the ,lord's ,supper4 ,in strictness there are only two sacraments1 as there are two subjective elements in religion1 ,faith and ,love3 for ,hope is only faith in relation to the future2 so that there is the same logical impropriety in making it a distinct mental act as in making the ,holy ,ghost a distinct being4 ,the identity of the sacraments with the specific essence of religion as hitherto developed is at once made evident1 apart from other relations1 by the fact that they have for their basis natural materials or things1 to which1 however1 is attributed a significance and effect in contradiction with their nature4 ,thus the material of baptism is water1 common1 natural water1 just as the material of religion in general is common1 natural humanity4 ,but as religion alienates our own nature from us1 and represents it as not ours1 so the water of baptism is regarded as quite other than common water2 for it has not a physical but a hyperphysical power and significance2 it is the ,lavacrum regenerationis1 it purifies man from the stains of original sin1 expels the inborn devil1 and reconciles with ,god4 ,thus it is natural water only in appearance2 in truth it is supernatural4 ,in other words3 the baptismal water has supernatural effects 7and that which operates supernaturally is itself supernatural7 only in idea1 only in the imagination4 ,and yet the material of ,baptism is said to be natural water4 ,baptism has no validity and efficacy if it is not performed with water4 ,thus the natural quality of water has in itself value and significance1 since the supernatural effect of baptism is associated in a supernatural manner with water only1 and not with any other material4 ,god1 by means of his omnipotence1 could have united the same effect to anything whatever4 ,but he does not2 he accommodates himself to natural qualities2 he chooses an element corresponding1 analogous to his operation4 ,thus the natural is not altogether set aside2 on the contrary1 there always remains a certain analogy with the natural1 an appearance of naturalness4 ,in like manner wine represents blood2 bread1 flesh4 #ahj ,even miracle is guided by analogies2 water is changed into wine or blood1 one species into another1 with the retention of the indeterminate generic idea of liquidity4 ,so it is here4 ,water is the purest1 clearest of liquids2 in virtue of this its natural character it is the image of the spotless nature of the ,divine ,spirit4 ,in short1 water has a significance in itself1 as water2 it is on account of its natural quality that it is consecrated and selected as the vehicle of the ,holy ,spirit4 ,so far there lies at the foundation of ,baptism a beautiful1 profound natural significance4 ,but1 at the very same time1 this beautiful meaning is lost again because water has a transcendental effect1--an effect which it has only through the supernatural power of the ,holy ,spirit1 and not through itself4 ,the natural quality becomes indifferent3 he who makes wine out of water1 can at will unite the effects of baptismal water with any material whatsoever4 ,baptism cannot be understood without the idea of miracle4 ,baptism is itself a miracle4 ,the same power which works miracles1 and by means of them1 as a proof of the divinity of ,christ1 turns ,jews and ,pagans into ,christians1--this same power has instituted baptism and operates in it4 ,christianity began with miracles1 and it carries itself forward with miracles4 ,if the miraculous power of baptism is denied1 miracles in general must be denied4 ,the miracle-working water of baptism springs from the same source as the water which at the wedding at ,cana in ,galilee was turned into wine4 ,the faith which is produced by miracle is not dependent on me1 on my spontaneity1 on freedom of judgment and conviction4 ,a miracle which happens before my eyes ,i must believe1 if ,i am not utterly obdurate4 ,miracle compels me to believe in the divinity of the miracle-worker4 #aha ,it is true that in some cases it presupposes faith1 namely1 where it appears in the light of a reward2 but with that exception it presupposes not so much actual faith as a believing disposition1 willingness1 submission1 in opposition to an unbelieving1 obdurate1 and malignant disposition1 like that of the ,pharisees4 ,the end of miracle is to prove that the miracle-worker is really that which he assumes to be4 ,faith based on miracle is the only thoroughly warranted1 well-grounded1 objective faith4 ,the faith which is presupposed by miracle is only faith in a ,messiah1 a ,christ in general2 but the faith that this very man is ,christ--and this is the main point--is first wrought by miracle as its consequence4 ,this presupposition even of an indeterminate faith is1 however1 by no means necessary4 ,multitudes first became believers through miracles2 thus miracle was the cause of their faith4 ,if then miracles do not contradict ,christianity1--and how should they contradict it8--neither does the miraculous efficacy of baptism contradict it4 ,on the contrary1 if baptism is to have a ,christian significance it must of necessity have a supernaturalistic one4 ,paul was converted by a sudden miraculous appearance1 when he was still full of hatred to the ,christians4 ,christianity took him by violence4 ,it is in vain to allege that with another than ,paul this appearance would not have had the same consequences1 and that therefore the effect of it must still be attributed to ,paul4 ,for if the same appearance had been vouchsafed to others1 they would assuredly have become as thoroughly ,christian as ,paul4 ,is not divine grace omnipotent8 ,the unbelief and non-convertibility of the ,pharisees is no counter-argument2 for from them grace was expressly withdrawn4 ,the ,messiah must necessarily1 according to a divine decree1 be betrayed1 maltreated and crucified4 ,for this purpose there must be individuals who should maltreat and crucify him3 and hence it was a prior necessity that the divine grace should be withdrawn from those individuals4 ,it was not indeed totally withdrawn from them1 but this was only in order to aggravate their guilt1 and by no means with the earnest will to convert them4 ,how would it be possible to resist the will of ,god1 supposing of course that it was his real will1 not a mere velleity8 ,paul himself represents his conversion as a work of divine grace thoroughly unmerited on his part2 #ahb and quite correctly4 ,not to resist divine grace1 i4e41 to accept divine grace1 to allow it to work upon one1 is already something good1 and consequently is an effect of the ,holy ,spirit4 ,nothing is more perverse than the attempt to reconcile miracle with freedom of inquiry and thought1 or grace with freedom of will4 ,in religion the nature of man is regarded as separate from man4 ,the activity1 the grace of ,god is the projected spontaneity of man1 ,free ,will made objective4 #ahc ,it is the most flagrant inconsequence to adduce the experience that men are not sanctified1 not converted by baptism1 as an argument against its miraculous efficacy1 as is done by rationalistic orthodox theologians2 #ahd for all kinds of miracles1 the objective power of prayer1 and in general all the supernatural truths of religion1 also contradict experience4 ,he who appeals to experience renounces faith4 ,where experience is a datum1 there religious faith and feeling have already vanished4 ,the unbeliever denies the objective efficacy of prayer only because it contradicts experience2 the atheist goes yet further1--he denies even the existence of ,god1 because he does not find it in experience4 ,inward experience creates no difficulty to him2 for what thou experiencest in thyself of another existence1 proves only that there is something in thee which thou thyself art not1 which works upon thee independently of thy personal will and consciousness1 without thy knowing what this mysterious something is4 ,but faith is stronger than experience4 ,the facts which contradict faith do not disturb it2 it is happy in itself2 it has eyes only for itself1 to all else it is blind4 ,it is true that religion1 even on the standpoint of its mystical materialism1 always requires the co-operation of subjectivity1 and therefore requires it in the sacraments2 but herein is exhibited its contradiction with itself4 ,and this contradiction is particularly glaring in the sacrament of the ,lord's ,supper2 for baptism is given to infants1--though even in them1 as a condition of its efficacy1 the co-operation of subjectivity is insisted on1 but1 singularly enough1 is supplied in the faith of others1 in the faith of the parents1 or of their representatives1 or of the church in general4 #ahe ,the object in the sacrament of the ,lord's ,supper is the body of ,christ1--a real body2 but the necessary predicates of reality are wanting to it4 ,here we have again1 in an example presented to the senses1 what we have found in the nature of religion in general4 ,the object or subject in the religious syntax is always a real human or natural subject or predicate2 but the closer definition1 the essential predicate of this predicate is denied4 ,the subject is sensuous1 but the predicate is not sensuous1 i4e41 is contradictory to the subject4 ,i distinguish a real body from an imaginary one only by this1 that the former produces corporeal effects1 involuntary effects1 upon me4 ,if therefore the bread be the real body of ,god1 the partaking of it must produce in me immediate1 involuntary sanctifying effects2 ,i need to make no special preparation1 to bring with me no holy disposition4 ,if ,i eat an apple1 the apple of itself gives rise to the taste of apple4 ,at the utmost ,i need nothing more than a healthy stomach to perceive that the apple is an apple4 ,the ,catholics require a state of fasting as a condition of partaking the ,lord's ,supper4 ,this is enough4 ,i take hold of the body with my lips1 ,i crush it with my teeth1 by my oesophagus it is carried into my stomach2 ,i assimilate it corporeally1 not spiritually4 #ahf ,why are its effects not held to be corporeal8 ,why should not this body1 which is a corporeal1 but at the same time heavenly1 supernatural substance1 also bring forth in me corporeal and yet at the same time holy1 supernatural effects8 ,if it is my disposition1 my faith1 which alone makes the divine body a means of sanctification to me1 which transubstantiates the dry bread into pneumatic animal substance1 why do ,i still need an external object8 ,it is ,i myself who give rise to the effect of the body on me1 and therefore to the reality of the body2 ,i am acted on by myself4 ,where is the objective truth and power8 ,he who partakes the ,lord's ,supper unworthily has nothing further than the physical enjoyment of bread and wine4 ,he who brings nothing1 takes nothing away4 ,the specific difference of this bread from common natural bread rests therefore only on the difference between the state of mind at the table of the ,lord1 and the state of mind at any other table4 ,he that eateth and drinketh unworthily1 eateth and drinketh damnation to himself1 not discerning the ,lord's body4 #ahg ,but this mental state itself is dependent only on the significance which ,i give to this bread4 ,if it has for me the significance not of bread1 but of the body of ,christ1 then it has not the effect of common bread4 ,in the significance attached to it lies its effect4 ,i do not eat to satisfy hunger2 hence ,i consume only a small quantity4 ,thus to go no further than the quantity taken1 which in every other act of taking food plays an essential part1 the significance of common bread is externally set aside4 ,but this supernatural significance exists only in the imagination2 to the senses1 the wine remains wine1 the bread1 bread4 ,the ,schoolmen therefore had recourse to the precious distinction of substance and accidents4 ,all the accidents which constitute the nature of wine and bread are still there2 only that which is made up by these accidents1 the subject1 the substance1 is wanting1 is changed into flesh and blood4 ,but all the properties together1 whose combination forms this unity1 are the substance itself4 ,what are wine and bread if ,i take from them the properties which make them what they are8 ,nothing4 ,flesh and blood have therefore no objective existence2 otherwise they must be an object to the unbelieving senses4 ,on the contrary3 the only valid witnesses of an objective existence--taste1 smell1 touch1 sight--testify unanimously to the reality of the wine and bread1 and nothing else4 ,the wine and bread are in reality natural1 but in imagination divine substances4 ,faith is the power of the imagination1 which makes the real unreal1 and the unreal real3 in direct contradiction with the truth of the senses1 with the truth of reason4 ,faith denies what objective reason affirms1 and affirms what it denies4 #ahh ,the mystery of the ,lord's ,supper is the mystery of faith3 #ahi--;hence the partaking of it is the highest1 the most rapturous1 blissful act of the believing soul4 ,the negation of objective truth which is not gratifying to feeling1 the truth of reality1 of the objective world and reason1--a negation which constitutes the essence of faith1--reaches its highest point in the ,lord's ,supper2 for faith here denies an immediately present1 evident1 indubitable object1 maintaining that it is not what the reason and senses declare it to be1 that it is only in appearance bread1 but in reality flesh4 ,the position of the ,schoolmen1 that according to the accidents it is bread1 and according to the substance flesh1 is merely the abstract1 explanatory1 intellectual expression of what faith accepts and declares1 and has therefore no other meaning than this3 to the senses or to common perception it is bread1 but in truth1 flesh4 ,where therefore the imaginative tendency of faith has assumed such power over the senses and reason as to deny the most evident sensible truths1 it is no wonder if believers can raise themselves to such a degree of exaltation as actually to see blood instead of wine4 ,such examples ,catholicism has to show4 ,little is wanting in order to perceive externally what faith and imagination hold to be real4 ,so long as faith in the mystery of the ,lord's ,supper as a holy1 nay the holiest1 highest truth1 governed man1 so long was his governing principle the imagination4 ,all criteria of reality and unreality1 of unreason and reason1 had disappeared3 anything whatever that could be imagined passed for real possibility4 ,religion hallowed every contradiction of reason1 of the nature of things4 ,do not ridicule the absurd questions of the ,schoolmen6 ,they were necessary consequences of faith4 ,that which is only a matter of feeling had to be made a matter of reason1 that which contradicts the understanding had to be made not to contradict it4 ,this was the fundamental contradiction of ,scholasticism1 whence all other contradictions followed of course4 ,and it is of no particular importance whether ,i believe the ,protestant or the ,catholic doctrine of the ,lord's ,supper4 ,the sole distinction is1 that in ,protestantism it is only on the tongue1 in the act of partaking1 that flesh and blood are united in a thoroughly miraculous manner with bread and wine2 #aij while in ,catholicism1 it is before the act of partaking1 by the power of the priest1--who however here acts only in the name of the ,almighty1--that bread and wine are really transmuted into flesh and blood4 ,the ,protestant prudently avoids a definite explanation2 he does not lay himself open1 like the pious1 uncritical simplicity of ,catholicism1 whose ,god1 as an external object1 can be devoured by a mouse3 he shuts up his ,god within himself1 where he can no more be torn from him1 and thus secures him as well from the power of accident as from that of ridicule2 yet1 notwithstanding this1 he just as much as the ,catholic consumes real flesh and blood in the bread and wine4 ,slight indeed was the difference at first between ,protestants and ,catholics in the doctrine of the ,lord's ,supper6 ,thus at ,anspach there arose a controversy on the question--whether the body of ,christ enters the stomach1 and is digested like other food8 #aia ,but although the imaginative activity of faith makes the objective existence the mere appearance1 and the emotional1 imaginary existence the truth and reality2 still1 in itself or in truth1 that which is really objective is only the natural elements4 ,even the host in the pyx of the ,catholic priest is in itself only to faith a divine body1--this external thing1 into which he transubstantiates the divine being1 is only a thing of faith2 for even here the body is not visible1 tangible1 tasteable as a body4 ,that is3 the bread is only in its significance flesh4 ,it is true that to faith this significance has the sense of actual existence2--as1 in general1 in the ecstasy of fervid feeling that which signifies becomes the thing signified2--it is held not to signify1 but to be flesh4 ,but this state of being flesh is not that of real flesh2 it is a state of being which is only believed in1 imagined1 i4e41 it has only the value1 the quality1 of a significance1 a truth conveyed in a symbol4 #aib ,a thing which has a special significance for me1 is another thing in my imagination than in reality4 ,the thing signifying is not itself that which is signified4 ,what it is1 is evident to the senses2 what it signifies1 is only in my feelings1 conception1 imagination1--is only for me1 not for others1 is not objectively present4 ,so here4 ,when therefore ,zwinglius said that the ,lord's ,supper has only a subjective significance1 he said the same thing as his opponents2 only he disturbed the illusion of the religious imagination2 for that which is in the ,lord's ,supper1 is only an illusion of the imagination1 but with the further illusion that it is not an illusion4 ,zwinglius only expressed simply1 nakedly1 prosaically1 rationalistically1 and therefore offensively1 what the others declared mystically1 indirectly1--inasmuch as they confessed #aic that the effect of the ,lord's ,supper depends only on a worthy disposition or on faith2 i4e41 that the bread and wine are the flesh and blood of the ,lord1 are the ,lord himself1 only for him for whom they have the supernatural significance of the divine body1 for on this alone depends the worthy disposition1 the religious emotion4 #aid ,but if the ,lord's ,supper effects nothing1 consequently is nothing1--for only that which produces effects1 is1--without a certain state of mind1 without faith1 then in faith alone lies its reality2 the entire event goes forward in the feelings alone4 ,if the idea that ,i here receive the real body of the ,saviour acts on the religious feelings1 this idea itself arises from the feelings2 it produces devout sentiments1 because it is itself a devout idea4 ,thus here also the religious subject is acted on by himself as if by another being1 through the conception of an imaginary object4 ,therefore the process of the ,lord's ,supper can quite well1 even without the intermediation of bread and wine1 without any church ceremony1 be accomplished in the imagination4 ,there are innumerable devout poems1 the sole theme of which is the blood of ,christ4 ,in these we have a genuinely poetical celebration of the ,lord's ,supper4 ,in the lively representation of the suffering1 bleeding ,saviour1 the soul identifies itself with him2 here the saint in poetic exaltation drinks the pure blood1 unmixed with any contradictory1 material elements2 here there is no disturbing object between the idea of the blood and the blood itself4 ,but though the ,lord's ,supper1 or a sacrament in general1 is nothing without a certain state of mind1 without faith1 nevertheless religion presents the sacrament at the same time as something in itself real1 external1 distinct from the human being1 so that in the religious consciousness the true thing1 which is faith1 is made only a collateral thing1 a condition1 and the imaginary thing becomes the principal thing4 ,and the necessary1 immanent consequences and effects of this religious materialism1 of this subordination of the human to the supposed divine1 of the subjective to the supposed objective1 of truth to imagination1 of morality to religion1--the necessary consequences are superstition and immorality3 superstition1 because a thing has attributed to it an effect which does not lie in its nature1 because a thing is held up as not being what it in truth is1 because a mere conception passes for objective reality2 immorality1 because necessarily1 in feeling1 the holiness of the action as such is separated from morality1 the partaking of the sacrament1 even apart from the state of mind1 becomes a holy and saving act4 ,such1 at least1 is the result in practice1 which knows nothing of the sophistical distinctions of theology4 ,in general3 wherever religion places itself in contradiction with reason1 it places itself also in contradiction with the moral sense4 ,only with the sense of truth coexists the sense of the right and good4 ,depravity of understanding is always depravity of heart4 ,he who deludes and cheats his understanding has not a veracious1 honourable heart2 sophistry corrupts the whole man4 ,and the doctrine of the ,lord's ,supper is sophistry4 ,the ,truth of the disposition1 or of faith as a requisite to communion1 involves the ,untruth of the bodily presence of ,god2 and again the ,truth of the objective existence of the divine body involves the ,untruth of the disposition4 ,,chapter ,,xxvi4 ,,the ,,contradiction ,,of ,,faith ,,and ,,love4 ,the ,sacraments are a sensible presentation of that contradiction of idealism and materialism1 of subjectivism and objectivism1 which belongs to the inmost nature of religion4 ,but the sacraments are nothing without ,faith and ,love4 ,hence the contradiction in the sacraments carries us back to the primary contradiction of ,faith and ,love4 ,the essence of religion1 its latent nature1 is the identity of the divine being with the human2 but the form of religion1 or its apparent1 conscious nature1 is the distinction between them4 ,god is the human being2 but he presents himself to the religious consciousness as a distinct being4 ,now1 that which reveals the basis1 the hidden essence of religion1 is ,love2 that which constitutes its conscious form is ,faith4 ,love identifies man with ,god and ,god with man1 consequently it identifies man with man2 faith separates ,god from man1 consequently it separates man from man1 for ,god is nothing else than the idea of the species invested with a mystical form1--the separation of ,god from man is therefore the separation of man from man1 the unloosening of the social bond4 ,by faith religion places itself in contradiction with morality1 with reason1 with the unsophisticated sense of truth in man2 by love1 it opposes itself again to this contradiction4 ,faith isolates ,god1 it makes him a particular1 distinct being3 love universalises2 it makes ,god a common being1 the love of whom is one with the love of man4 ,faith produces in man an inward disunion1 a disunion with himself1 and by consequence an outward disunion also2 but love heals the wounds which are made by faith in the heart of man4 ,faith makes belief in its ,god a law3 love is freedom1--it condemns not even the atheist1 because it is itself atheistic1 itself denies1 if not theoretically1 at least practically1 the existence of a particular1 individual ,god1 opposed to man4 ,love has ,god in itself3 faith has ,god out of itself2 it estranges ,god from man1 it makes him an external object4 ,faith1 being inherently external1 proceeds even to the adoption of outward fact as its object1 and becomes historical faith4 ,it is therefore of the nature of faith that it can become a totally external confession2 and that with mere faith1 as such1 superstitious1 magical effects are associated4 #aie ,the devils believe that ,god is1 without ceasing to be devils4 ,hence a distinction has been made between faith in ,god1 and belief that there is a ,god4 #aif ,but even with this bare belief in the existence of ,god1 the assimilating power of love is intermingled2--a power which by no means lies in the idea of faith as such1 and in so far as it relates to external things4 ,the only distinctions or judgments which are immanent to faith1 which spring out of itself1 are the distinctions of right or genuine1 and wrong or false faith2 or in general1 of belief and unbelief4 ,faith discriminates thus3 ,this is true1 that is false4 ,and it claims truth to itself alone4 ,faith has for its object a definite1 specific truth1 which is necessarily united with negation4 ,faith is in its nature exclusive4 ,one thing alone is truth1 one alone is ,god1 one alone has the monopoly of being the ,son of ,god2 all else is nothing1 error1 delusion4 ,jehovah alone is the true ,god2 all other gods are vain idols4 ,faith has in its mind something peculiar to itself2 it rests on a peculiar revelation of ,god2 it has not come to its possessions in an ordinary way1 that way which stands open to all men alike4 ,what stands open to all is common1 and for that reason cannot form a special object of faith4 ,that ,god is the creator1 all men could know from ,nature2 but what this ,god is in person1 can be known only by special grace1 is the object of a special faith4 ,and because he is only revealed in a peculiar manner1 the object of this faith is himself a peculiar being4 ,the ,god of the ,christians is indeed the ,god of the heathens1 but with a wide difference3--just such a difference as there is between me as ,i am to a friend1 and me as ,i am to a stranger1 who only knows me at a distance4 ,god as he is an object to the ,christians1 is quite another than as he is an object to the heathens4 ,the ,christians know ,god personally1 face to face4 ,the heathens know only--and even this is too large an admission--what1 and not who1 ,god is2 for which reason they fell into idolatry4 ,the identity of the heathens and ,christians before ,god is therefore altogether vague2 what the heathens have in common with the ,christians--if indeed we consent to be so liberal as to admit anything in common between them--is not that which is specifically ,christian1 not that which constitutes faith4 ,in whatsoever the ,christians are ,christians1 therein they are distinguished from the heathens2 #aig and they are ,christians in virtue of their special knowledge of ,god2 thus their mark of distinction is ,god4 ,speciality is the salt which first gives a flavour to the common being4 ,what a being is in special1 is the being itself2 he alone knows me1 who knows me in specie4 ,thus the special ,god1 ,god as he is an object to the ,christians1 the personal ,god1 is alone ,god4 ,and this ,god is unknown to heathens1 and to unbelievers in general2 he does not exist for them4 ,he is1 indeed1 said to exist for the heathens2 but mediately1 on condition that they cease to be heathens1 and become ,christians4 ,faith makes man partial and narrow2 it deprives him of the freedom and ability to estimate duly what is different from himself4 ,faith is imprisoned within itself4 ,it is true that the philosophical1 or1 in general1 any scientific theorist1 also limits himself by a definite system4 ,but theoretic limitation1 however fettered1 short-sighted and narrow-hearted it may be1 has still a freer character than faith1 because the domain of theory is in itself a free one1 because here the ground of decision is the nature of things1 argument1 reason4 ,but faith refers the decision to conscience and interest1 to the instinctive desire of happiness2 for its object is a special1 personal ,being1 urging himself on recognition1 and making salvation dependent on that recognition4 ,faith gives man a peculiar sense of his own dignity and importance4 ,the believer finds himself distinguished above other men1 exalted above the natural man2 he knows himself to be a person of distinction1 in the possession of peculiar privileges2 believers are aristocrats1 unbelievers plebeians4 ,god is this distinction and pre-eminence of believers above unbelievers1 personified4 #aih ,because faith represents man's own nature as that of another being1 the believer does not contemplate his dignity immediately in himself1 but in this supposed distinct person4 ,the consciousness of his own pre-eminence presents itself as a consciousness of this person2 he has the sense of his own dignity in this divine personality4 #aii ,as the servant feels himself honoured in the dignity of his master1 nay1 fancies himself greater than a free1 independent man of lower rank than his master1 so it is with the believer4 #bjj ,he denies all merit in himself1 merely that he may leave all merit to his ,lord1 because his own desire of honour is satisfied in the honour of his ,lord4 ,faith is arrogant1 but it is distinguished from natural arrogance in this1 that it clothes its feeling of superiority1 its pride1 in the idea of another person1 for whom the believer is an object of peculiar favour4 ,this distinct person1 however1 is simply his own hidden self1 his personified1 contented desire of happiness3 for he has no other qualities than these1 that he is the benefactor1 the ,redeemer1 the ,saviour--qualities in which the believer has reference only to himself1 to his own eternal salvation4 ,in fact1 we have here the characteristic principle of religion1 that it changes that which is naturally active into the passive4 ,the heathen elevates himself1 the ,christian feels himself elevated4 ,the ,christian converts into a matter of feeling1 of receptivity1 what to the heathen is a matter of spontaneity4 ,the humility of the believer is an inverted arrogance1--an arrogance none the less because it has not the appearance1 the external characteristics of arrogance4 ,he feels himself pre-eminent3 this pre-eminence1 however1 is not a result of his activity1 but a matter of grace2 he has been made pre-eminent2 he can do nothing towards it himself4 ,he does not make himself the end of his own activity1 but the end1 the object of ,god4 ,faith is essentially determinate1 specific4 ,god according to the specific view taken of him by faith1 is alone the true ,god4 ,this ,jesus1 such as ,i conceive him1 is the ,christ1 the true1 sole prophet1 the only-begotten ,son of ,god4 ,and this particular conception thou must believe1 if thou wouldst not forfeit thy salvation4 ,faith is imperative4 ,it is therefore necessary--it lies in the nature of faith--that it be fixed as dogma4 ,dogma only gives a formula to what faith had already on its tongue or in its mind4 ,that when once a fundamental dogma is established1 it gives rise to more special questions1 which must also be thrown into a dogmatic form1 that hence there results a burdensome multiplicity of dogmas1--this is certainly a fatal consequence1 but does not do away with the necessity that faith should fix itself in dogmas1 in order that every one may know definitely what he must believe and how he can win salvation4 ,that which in the present day1 even from the standpoint of believing ,christianity1 is rejected1 is compassionated as an aberration1 as a misinterpretation1 or is even ridiculed1 is purely a consequence of the inmost nature of faith4 ,faith is essentially illiberal1 prejudiced2 for it is concerned not only with individual salvation1 but with the honour of ,god4 ,and just as we are solicitous as to whether we show due honour to a superior in rank1 so it is with faith4 ,the apostle ,paul is absorbed in the glory1 the honour1 the merits of ,christ4 ,dogmatic1 exclusive1 scrupulous particularity1 lies in the nature of faith4 ,in food and other matters1 indifferent to faith1 it is certainly liberal2 but by no means in relation to objects of faith4 ,he who is not for ,christ is against him2 that which is not christian is antichristian4 ,but what is christian8 ,this must be absolutely determined1 this cannot be free4 ,if the articles of faith are set down in books which proceed from various authors1 handed down in the form of incidental1 mutually contradictory1 occasional dicta1--then dogmatic demarcation and definition are even an external necessity4 ,christianity owes its perpetuation to the dogmatic formulas of the ,church4 ,it is only the believing unbelief of modern times which hides itself behind the ,bible1 and opposes the biblical dicta to dogmatic definitions1 in order that it may set itself free from the limits of dogma by arbitrary exegesis4 ,but faith has already disappeared1 is become indifferent1 when the determinate tenets of faith are felt as limitations4 ,it is only religious indifference under the appearance of religion that makes the ,bible1 which in its nature and origin is indefinite1 a standard of faith1 and under the pretext of believing only the essential1 retains nothing which deserves the name of faith2--for example1 substituting for the distinctly characterised ,son of ,god1 held up by the ,church1 the vague negative definition of a ,sinless ,man1 who can claim to be the ,son of ,god in a sense applicable to no other being1--in a word1 of a man1 whom one may not trust oneself to call either a man or a ,god4 ,but that it is merely indifference which makes a hiding-place for itself behind the ,bible1 is evident from the fact that even what stands in the ,bible1 if it contradicts the standpoint of the present day1 is regarded as not obligatory1 or is even denied2 nay1 actions which are essentially ,christian1 which are the logical consequences of faith1 such as the separation of believers from unbelievers1 are now designated as unchristian4 ,the ,church was perfectly justified in adjudging damnation to heretics and unbelievers1 #bja for this condemnation is involved in the nature of faith4 ,faith at first appears to be only an unprejudiced separation of believers from unbelievers2 but this separation is a highly critical distinction4 ,the believer has ,god for him1 the unbeliever1 against him2--it is only as a possible believer that the unbeliever has ,god not against him2--and therein precisely lies the ground of the requirement that he should leave the ranks of unbelief4 ,but that which has ,god against it is worthless1 rejected1 reprobate2 for that which has ,god against it is itself against ,god4 ,to believe1 is synonymous with goodness2 not to believe1 with wickedness4 ,faith1 narrow and prejudiced refers all unbelief to the moral disposition4 ,in its view the unbeliever is an enemy to ,christ out of obduracy1 out of wickedness4 #bjb ,hence faith has fellowship with believers only2 unbelievers it rejects4 ,it is well-disposed towards believers1 but ill-disposed towards unbelievers4 ,in faith there lies a malignant principle4 ,it is owing to the egoism1 the vanity1 the self-complacency of ,christians1 that they can see the motes in the faith of non-christian nations1 but cannot perceive the beam in their own4 ,it is only in the mode in which faith embodies itself that ,christians differ from the followers of other religions4 ,the distinction is founded only on climate or on natural temperament4 ,a warlike or ardently sensuous people will naturally attest its distinctive religious character by deeds1 by force of arms4 ,but the nature of faith as such is everywhere the same4 ,it is essential to faith to condemn1 to anathematise4 ,all blessings1 all good it accumulates on itself1 on its ,god1 as the lover on his beloved2 all curses1 all hardship and evil it casts on unbelief4 ,the believer is blessed1 well-pleasing to ,god1 a partaker of everlasting felicity2 the unbeliever is accursed1 rejected of ,god and abjured by men3 for what ,god rejects man must not receive1 must not indulge2--that would be a criticism of the divine judgment4 ,the ,turks exterminate unbelievers with fire and sword1 the ,christians with the flames of hell4 ,but the fires of the other world blaze forth into this1 to glare through the night of unbelief4 ,as the believer already here below anticipates the joys of heaven1 so the flames of the abyss must be seen to flash here as a foretaste of the awaiting hell1--at least in the moments when faith attains its highest enthusiasm4 #bjc ,it is true that ,christianity ordains no persecution of heretics1 still less conversion by force of arms4 ,but so far as faith anathematises1 it necessarily generates hostile dispositions1--the dispositions out of which the persecution of heretics arises4 ,to love the man who does not believe in ,christ1 is a sin against ,christ1 is to love the enemy of ,christ1 #bjd ,that which ,god1 which ,christ does not love1 man must not love2 his love would be a contradiction of the divine will1 consequently a sin4 ,god1 it is true1 loves all men2 but only when and because they are ,christians1 or at least may be and desire to be such4 ,to be a ,christian is to be beloved by ,god2 not to be a ,christian is to be hated by ,god1 an object of the divine anger4 #bje ,the ,christian must therefore love only ,christians--others only as possible ,christians2 he must only love what faith hallows and blesses4 ,faith is the baptism of love4 ,love to man as man is only natural love4 ,christian love is supernatural1 glorified1 sanctified love2 therefore it loves only what is ,christian4 ,the maxim1 ,love your enemies1 has reference only to personal enemies1 not to public enemies1 the enemies of ,god1 the enemies of faith1 unbelievers4 ,he who loves the men whom ,christ denies1 does not believe ,christ1 denies his ,lord and ,god4 ,faith abolishes the natural ties of humanity2 to universal1 natural unity1 it substitutes a particular unity4 ,let it not be objected to this1 that it is said in the ,bible1 ,judge not1 that ye be not judged2 and that thus1 as faith leaves to ,god the judgment1 so it leaves to him the sentence of condemnation4 ,this and other similar sayings have authority only as the private law of ,christians1 not as their public law2 belong only to ethics1 not to dogmatics4 ,it is an indication of indifference to faith1 to introduce such sayings into the region of dogma4 ,the distinction between the unbeliever and the man is a fruit of modern philanthropy4 ,to faith1 the man is merged in the believer2 to it1 the essential difference between man and the brute rests only on religious belief4 ,faith alone comprehends in itself all virtues which can make man pleasing to ,god2 and ,god is the absolute measure1 his pleasure the highest law3 the believer is thus alone the legitimate1 normal man1 man as he ought to be1 man as he is recognised by ,god4 ,wherever we find ,christians making a distinction between the man and the believer1 there the human mind has already severed itself from faith2 there man has value in himself1 independently of faith4 ,hence faith is true1 unfeigned1 only where the specific difference of faith operates in all its severity4 ,if the edge of this difference is blunted1 faith itself naturally becomes indifferent1 effete4 ,faith is liberal only in things intrinsically indifferent4 ,the liberalism of the apostle ,paul presupposes the acceptance of the fundamental articles of faith4 ,where everything is made to depend on the fundamental articles of faith1 there arises the distinction between essential and non-essential belief4 ,in the sphere of the non-essential there is no law1--there you are free4 ,but obviously it is only on condition of your leaving the rights of faith intact1 that faith allows you freedom4 ,it is therefore an altogether false defence to say1 that faith leaves judgment to ,god4 ,it leaves to him only the moral judgment with respect to faith1 only the judgment as to its moral character1 as to whether the faith of ,christians be feigned or genuine4 ,so far as classes are concerned1 faith knows already whom ,god will place on the right hand1 and whom on the left2 in relation to the persons who compose the classes faith is uncertain2 but that believers are heirs of the ,eternal ,kingdom is beyond all doubt4 ,apart from this1 however1 the ,god who distinguishes between believers and unbelievers1 the condemning and rewarding ,god1 is nothing else than faith itself4 ,what ,god condemns1 faith condemns1 and vice vers4 ,faith is a consuming fire to its opposite4 #bjf ,this fire of faith regarded objectively1 is the anger of ,god1 or what is the same thing1 hell2 for hell evidently has its foundation in the anger of ,god4 ,but this hell lies in faith itself1 in its sentence of damnation4 ,the flames of hell are only the flashings of the exterminating1 vindictive glance which faith casts on unbelievers4 ,thus faith is essentially a spirit of partisanship4 ,he who is not for ,christ is against him4 #bjg ,faith knows only friends or enemies1 it understands no neutrality2 it is preoccupied only with itself4 ,faith is essentially intolerant2 essentially1 because with faith is always associated the illusion that its cause is the cause of ,god1 its honour his honour4 ,the ,god of faith is nothing else than the objective nature of faith--faith become an object to itself4 ,hence in the religious consciousness also the cause of faith and the cause of ,god are identified4 ,god himself is interested3 the interest of faith is the nearest interest of ,god4 ,he who toucheth you1 says the prophet ,zachariah1 toucheth the apple of ,his eye4 #bjh ,that which wounds faith1 wounds ,god1 that which denies faith1 denies ,god himself4 ,faith knows no other distinction than that between the service of ,god and the service of idols4 ,faith alone gives honour to ,god2 unbelief withdraws from ,god that which is due to him4 ,unbelief is an injury to ,god1 religious high treason4 ,the heathens worship demons2 their gods are devils4 ,i say that the things which the ,gentiles sacrifice1 they sacrifice to devils1 and not to ,god3 and ,i would not that ye should have fellowship with devils4 #bji ,but the devil is the negation of ,god2 he hates ,god1 wills that there should be no ,god4 ,thus faith is blind to what there is of goodness and truth lying at the foundation of heathen worship2 it sees in everything which does not do homage to its ,god1 i4e41 to itself1 a worship of idols1 and in the worship of idols only the work of the devil4 ,faith must therefore1 even in feeling1 be only negative towards this negation of ,god3 it is by inherent necessity intolerant towards its opposite1 and in general towards whatever does not thoroughly accord with itself4 ,tolerance on its part would be intolerance towards ,god1 who has the right to unconditional1 undivided sovereignty4 ,nothing ought to subsist1 nothing to exist1 which does not acknowledge ,god1 which does not acknowledge faith3--,that at the name of ,jesus every knee should bow1 of things in heaven and things on earth1 and things under the earth2 and that every tongue should confess that ,jesus ,christ is ,lord1 to the glory of the ,father4 #baj ,therefore faith postulates a future1 a world where faith has no longer an opposite1 or where at least this opposite exists only in order to enhance the self-complacency of triumphant faith4 ,hell sweetens the joys of happy believers4 ,the elect will come forth to behold the torments of the ungodly1 and at this spectacle they will not be smitten with sorrow2 on the contrary1 while they see the unspeakable sufferings of the ungodly1 they1 intoxicated with joy1 will thank ,god for their own salvation4 #baa ,faith is the opposite of love4 ,love recognises virtue even in sin1 truth in error4 ,it is only since the power of faith has been supplanted by the power of the natural unity of mankind1 the power of reason1 of humanity1 that truth has been seen even in polytheism1 in idolatry generally1--or at least that there has been any attempt to explain on positive grounds what faith1 in its bigotry1 derives only from the devil4 ,hence love is reconcilable with reason alone1 not with faith2 for as reason1 so also love is free1 universal1 in its nature2 whereas faith is narrow-hearted1 limited4 ,only where reason rules1 does universal love rule2 reason is itself nothing else than universal love4 ,it was faith1 not love1 not reason1 which invented ,hell4 ,to love1 ,hell is a horror2 to reason1 an absurdity4 ,it would be a pitiable mistake to regard ,hell as a mere aberration of faith1 a false faith4 ,hell stands already in the ,bible4 ,faith is everywhere like itself2 at least positive religious faith1 faith in the sense in which it is here taken1 and must be taken unless we would mix with it the elements of reason1 of culture1--a mixture which indeed renders the character of faith unrecognisable4 ,thus if faith does not contradict ,christianity1 neither do those dispositions which result from faith1 neither do the actions which result from those dispositions4 ,faith condemns1 anathematises2 all the actions1 all the dispositions1 which contradict love1 humanity1 reason1 accord with faith4 ,all the horrors of ,christian religious history1 which our believers aver not to be due to ,christianity1 have truly arisen out of ,christianity1 because they have arisen out of faith4 ,this repudiation of them is indeed a necessary consequence of faith2 for faith claims for itself only what is good1 everything bad it casts on the shoulders of unbelief1 or of misbelief1 or of men in general4 ,but this very denial of faith that it is itself to blame for the evil in ,christianity1 is a striking proof that it is really the originator of that evil1 because it is a proof of the narrowness1 partiality1 and intolerance which render it well-disposed only to itself1 to its own adherents1 but ill-disposed1 unjust towards others4 ,according to faith1 the good which ,christians do1 is not done by the man1 but by the ,christian1 by faith2 but the evil which ,christians do1 is not done by the ,christian1 but by the man4 ,the evil which faith has wrought in ,christendom thus corresponds to the nature of faith1--of faith as it is described in the oldest and most sacred records of ,christianity1 of the ,bible4 ,if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received1 let him be accursed1 #bab anathema esto1 ,gal4 i4 #i4 ,be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers3 for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness8 and what communion hath light with darkness8 ,and what concord hath ,christ with ,belial8 or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel8 ,and what agreement hath the temple of ,god with idols8 for ye are the temple of the living ,god2 as ,god hath said1 ,i will dwell in them and walk in them2 and ,i will be their ,god1 and they shall be my people4 ,wherefore come out from among them1 and be ye separate1 saith the ,lord1 and touch not the unclean thing2 and ,i will receive you1 #b ,cor4 iv4 #ad-ag4 ,when the ,lord ,jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels1 in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not ,god1 and that obey not the ,gospel of our ,lord ,jesus ,christ3 who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the ,lord1 and from the glory of his power2 when he shall come to be glorified in his saints1 and admired in all them that believe1 #b ,thess4 i4 #g-aj4 ,without faith it is impossible to please ,god1 ,heb4 xi4 #f4 ,god so loved the world1 that he gave his only begotten ,son1 that whosoever believeth in him1 should not perish1 but have everlasting life1 ,john iii4 #af4 ,every spirit that confesseth that ,jesus ,christ is come in the flesh is of ,god3 and every spirit that confesseth not that ,jesus ,christ is come in the flesh is not of ,god3 and this is the spirit of antichrist1 #a ,john iv4 #b1 #c4 ,who is a liar1 but he that denieth that ,jesus is the ,christ8 ,he is antichrist that denieth the ,father and the ,son1 #a ,john ii4 #bb4 ,whosoever transgresseth1 and abideth not in the doctrine of ,christ1 hath not ,god3 he that abideth in the doctrine of ,christ1 he hath both the ,father and the ,son4 ,if there come any unto you1 and bring not this doctrine1 receive him not into your house1 neither bid him ,god speed3 for he that biddeth him ,god speed1 is partaker of his evil deeds1 #b ,john ix4 #aa4 ,thus speaks the apostle of love4 ,but the love which he celebrates is only the brotherly love of ,christians4 ,god is the ,saviour of all men1 specially of those that believe1 #a ,tim4 iv4 #aj4 ,a fatal specially6 ,let us do good unto all men1 especially unto them who are of the household of faith1 ,gal4 vi4 #aj4 ,an equally pregnant especially6 ,a man that is a heretic1 after the first and second admonition reject2 knowing that he that is such is subverted1 and sinneth1 being condemned of himself1 #bac ,titus iii4 #aj1 #aa4 ,he that believeth on the ,son hath everlasting life3 and he that believeth not the ,son shall not see life2 but the wrath of ,god abideth on him1 #bad ,john iii4 #cf4 ,and whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me1 it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck1 and that he were cast into the sea1 ,mark ix4 #db2 ,matt1 xviii4 #f4 ,he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved2 but he that believeth not shall be damned1 ,mark xvi4 #af4 ,the distinction between faith as it is expressed in the ,bible and faith as it has exhibited itself in later times1 is only the distinction between the bud and the plant4 ,in the bud ,i cannot so plainly see what is obvious in the matured plant2 and yet the plant lay already in the bud4 ,but that which is obvious1 sophists of course will not condescend to recognise2 they confine themselves to the distinction between explicit and implicit existence1--wilfully overlooking their essential identity4 ,faith necessarily passes into hatred1 hatred into persecution1 where the power of faith meets with no contradiction1 where it does not find itself in collision with a power foreign to faith1 the power of love1 of humanity1 of the sense of justice4 ,faith left to itself necessarily exalts itself above the laws of natural morality4 ,the doctrine of faith is the doctrine of duty towards ,god1--the highest duty of faith4 ,by how much ,god is higher than man1 by so much higher are duties to ,god than duties towards man2 and duties towards ,god necessarily come into collision with common human duties4 ,god is not only believed in1 conceived as the universal being1 the ,father of men1 as ,love3--such faith is the faith of love2--he is also represented as a personal being1 a being by himself4 ,and so far as ,god is regarded as separate from man1 as an individual being1 so far are duties to ,god separated from duties to man3--faith is1 in the religious sentiment1 separated from morality1 from love4 #bae ,let it not be replied that faith in ,god is faith in love1 in goodness itself2 and that thus faith is itself an expression of a morally good disposition4 ,in the idea of personality1 ethical definitions vanish2 they are only collateral things1 mere accidents4 ,the chief thing is the subject1 the divine ,ego4 ,love to ,god himself1 since it is love to a personal being1 is not a moral but a personal love4 ,innumerable devout hymns breathe nothing but love to the ,lord2 but in this love there appears no spark of an exalted moral idea or disposition4 ,faith is the highest to itself1 because its object is a divine personality4 ,hence it makes salvation dependent on itself1 not on the fulfilment of common human duties4 ,but that which has eternal salvation as its consequence1 necessarily becomes in the mind of man the chief thing4 ,as therefore inwardly morality is subordinate to faith1 so it must also be outwardly1 practically subordinate1 nay1 sacrificed1 to faith4 ,it is inevitable that there should be actions in which faith exhibits itself in distinction from morality1 or rather in contradiction with it2--actions which are morally bad1 but which according to faith are laudable1 because they have in view the advantage of faith4 ,all salvation depends on faith3 it follows that all again depends on the salvation of faith4 ,if faith is endangered1 eternal salvation and the honour of ,god are endangered4 ,hence faith absolves from everything2 for1 strictly considered1 it is the sole subjective good in man1 as ,god is the sole good and positive being3--the highest commandment therefore is3 ,believe6 #baf ,for the very reason that there is no natural1 inherent connection between faith and the moral disposition1 that1 on the contrary1 it lies in the nature of faith that it is indifferent to moral duties1 #bag that it sacrifices the love of man to the honour of ,god1--for this reason it is required that faith should have good works as its consequence1 that it should prove itself by love4 ,faith destitute of love1 or indifferent to love1 contradicts the reason1 the natural sense of right in man1 moral feeling1 on which love immediately urges itself as a law4 ,hence faith1 in contradiction with its intrinsic character1 has limits imposed on it by morality3 a faith which effects nothing good1 which does not attest itself by love1 comes to be held as not a true and living faith4 ,but this limitation does not arise out of faith itself4 ,it is the power of love1 a power independent of faith1 which gives laws to it2 for moral character is here made the criterion of the genuineness of faith1 the truth of faith is made dependent on the truth of ethics3--a relation which1 however1 is subversive of faith4 ,faith does indeed make man happy2 but thus much is certain3 it infuses into him no really moral dispositions4 ,if it ameliorate man1 if it have moral dispositions as its consequence1 this proceeds solely from the inward conviction of the irreversible reality of morals3--a conviction independent of religious faith4 ,it is morality alone1 and by no means faith1 that cries out in the conscience of the believer3 thy faith is nothing1 if it does not make thee good4 ,it is not to be denied that the assurance of eternal salvation1 the forgiveness of sins1 the sense of favour and release from all punishment1 inclines man to do good4 ,the man who has this confidence possesses all things2 he is happy2 #bah he becomes indifferent to the good things of this world2 no envy1 no avarice1 no ambition1 no sensual desire1 can enslave him2 everything earthly vanishes in the prospect of heavenly grace and eternal bliss4 ,but in him good works do not proceed from essentially virtuous dispositions4 ,it is not love1 not the object of love1 man1 the basis of all morality1 which is the motive of his good works4 ,no6 he does good not for the sake of goodness itself1 not for the sake of man1 but for the sake of ,god2--out of gratitude to ,god1 who has done all for him1 and for whom therefore he must on his side do all that lies in his power4 ,he forsakes sin1 because it wounds ,god1 his ,saviour1 his ,benefactor4 #bai ,the idea of virtue is here the idea of compensatory sacrifice4 ,god has sacrificed himself for man2 therefore man must sacrifice himself to ,god4 ,the greater the sacrifice the better the deed4 ,the more anything contradicts man and ,nature1 the greater the abnegation1 the greater is the virtue4 ,this merely negative idea of goodness has been especially realised and developed by ,catholicism4 ,its highest moral idea is that of sacrifice2 hence the high significance attached to the denial of sexual love1--to virginity4 ,chastity1 or rather virginity1 is the characteristic virtue of the ,catholic faith1--for this reason1 that it has no basis in ,nature4 ,it is the most fanatical1 transcendental1 fantastical virtue1 the virtue of supranaturalistic faith2--to faith1 the highest virtue1 but in itself no virtue at all4 ,thus faith makes that a virtue which intrinsically1 substantially1 is no virtue2 it has therefore no sense of virtue2 it must necessarily depreciate true virtue because it so exalts a merely apparent virtue1 because it is guided by no idea but that of the negation1 the contradiction of human nature4 ,but although the deeds opposed to love which mark ,christian religious history1 are in accordance with ,christianity1 and its antagonists are therefore right in imputing to it the horrible actions resulting from dogmatic creeds2 those deeds nevertheless at the same time contradict ,christianity1 because ,christianity is not only a religion of faith1 but of love also1--pledges us not only to faith1 but to love4 ,uncharitable actions1 hatred of heretics1 at once accord and clash with ,christianity8 how is that possible8 ,perfectly4 ,christianity sanctions both the actions that spring out of love1 and the actions that spring from faith without love4 ,if ,christianity had made love only its law1 its adherents would be right1--the horrors of ,christian religious history could not be imputed to it2 if it had made faith only its law1 the reproaches of its antagonists would be unconditionally1 unrestrictedly true4 ,but ,christianity has not made love free2 it has not raised itself to the height of accepting love as absolute4 ,and it has not given this freedom1 nay1 cannot give it1 because it is a religion1--and hence subjects love to the dominion of faith4 ,love is only the exoteric1 faith the esoteric doctrine of ,christianity2 love is only the morality1 faith the religion of the ,christian religion4 ,god is love4 ,this is the sublimest dictum of ,christianity4 ,but the contradiction of faith and love is contained in the very proposition4 ,love is only a predicate1 ,god the subject4 ,what1 then1 is this subject in distinction from love8 ,and ,i must necessarily ask this question1 make this distinction4 ,the necessity of the distinction would be done away with only if it were said conversely3 ,love is ,god1 love is the absolute being4 ,thus love would take the position of the substance4 ,in the proposition ,god is love1 the subject is the darkness in which faith shrouds itself2 the predicate is the light1 which first illuminates the intrinsically dark subject4 ,in the predicate ,i affirm love1 in the subject faith4 ,love does not alone fill my soul3 ,i leave a place open for my uncharitableness by thinking of ,god as a subject in distinction from the predicate4 ,it is therefore inevitable that at one moment ,i lose the thought of love1 at another the thought of ,god1 that at one moment ,i sacrifice the personality of ,god to the divinity of love1 at another the divinity of love to the personality of ,god4 ,the history of ,christianity has given sufficient proof of this contradiction4 ,catholicism1 especially1 has celebrated ,love as the essential deity with so much enthusiasm1 that to it the personality of ,god has been entirely lost in this love4 ,but at the same time it has sacrificed love to the majesty of faith4 ,faith clings to the self-subsistence of ,god2 love does away with it4 ,god is love1 means1 ,god is nothing by himself3 he who loves1 gives up his egoistical independence2 he makes what he loves indispensable1 essential to his existence4 ,but while ,self is being sunk in the depths of love1 the idea of the ,person rises up again and disturbs the harmony of the divine and human nature which had been established by love4 ,faith advances with its pretensions1 and allows only just so much to ,love as belongs to a predicate in the ordinary sense4 ,it does not permit love freely to unfold itself2 it makes love the abstract1 and itself the concrete1 the fact1 the basis4 ,the love of faith is only a rhetorical figure1 a poetical fiction of faith1--faith in ecstasy4 ,if faith comes to itself1 ,love is fled4 ,this theoretic contradiction must necessarily manifest itself practically4 ,necessarily2 for in ,christianity love is tainted by faith1 it is not free1 it is not apprehended truly4 ,a love which is limited by faith is an untrue love4 #bbj ,love knows no law but itself2 it is divine through itself2 it needs not the sanction of faith2 it is its own basis4 ,the love which is bound by faith is a narrow-hearted1 false love1 contradicting the idea of love1 i4e41 self-contradictory1--a love which has only a semblance of holiness1 for it hides in itself the hatred that belongs to faith2 it is only benevolent so long as faith is not injured4 ,hence1 in this contradiction with itself1 in order to retain the semblance of love1 it falls into the most diabolical sophisms1 as we see in ,augustine's apology for the persecution of heretics4 ,love is limited by faith2 hence it does not regard even the uncharitable actions which faith suggests as in contradiction with itself2 it interprets the deeds of hatred which are committed for the sake of faith as deeds of love4 ,and it necessarily falls into such contradictions1 because the limitation of love by faith is itself a contradiction4 ,if it once is subjected to this limitation1 it has given up its own judgment1 its inherent measure and criterion1 its self-subsistence2 it is delivered up without power of resistance to the promptings of faith4 ,here we have again an example1 that much which is not found in the letter of the ,bible1 is nevertheless there in principle4 ,we find the same contradictions in the ,bible as in ,augustine1 as in ,catholicism generally2 only that in the latter they are definitely declared1 they are developed into a conspicuous1 and therefore revolting existence4 ,the ,bible curses through faith1 blesses through love4 ,but the only love it knows is a love founded on faith4 ,thus here already it is a love which curses1 an unreliable love1 a love which gives me no guarantee that it will not turn into hatred2 for if ,i do not acknowledge the articles of faith1 ,i am out of the sphere of love1 a child of hell1 an object of anathema1 of the anger of ,god1 to whom the existence of unbelievers is a vexation1 a thorn in the eye4 ,christian love has not overcome hell1 because it has not overcome faith4 ,love is in itself unbelieving1 faith unloving4 ,and love is unbelieving because it knows nothing more divine than itself1 because it believes only in itself as absolute truth4 ,christian love is already signalised as a particular1 limited love1 by the very epithet1 ,christian4 ,but love is in its nature universal4 ,so long as ,christian love does not renounce its qualification of ,christian1 does not make love1 simply1 its highest law1 so long is it a love which is injurious to the sense of truth1 for the very office of love is to abolish the distinction between ,christianity and so-called heathenism2--so long is it a love which by its particularity is in contradiction with the nature of love1 an abnormal1 loveless love1 which has therefore long been justly an object of sarcasm4 ,true love is sufficient to itself2 it needs no special title1 no authority4 ,love is the universal law of intelligence and ,nature2--it is nothing else than the realisation of the unity of the species through the medium of moral sentiment4 ,to found this love on the name of a person1 is only possible by the association of superstitious ideas1 either of a religious or speculative character4 ,for with superstition is always associated particularism1 and with particularism1 fanaticism4 ,love can only be founded on the unity of the species1 the unity of intelligence--on the nature of mankind2 then only is it a well-grounded love1 safe in its principle1 guaranteed1 free1 for it is fed by the original source of love1 out of which the love of ,christ himself arose4 ,the love of ,christ was itself a derived love4 ,he loved us not out of himself1 by virtue of his own authority1 but by virtue of our common human nature4 ,a love which is based on his person is a particular1 exclusive love1 which extends only so far as the acknowledgment of this person extends1 a love which does not rest on the proper ground of love4 ,are we to love each other because ,christ loved us8 ,such love would be an affected1 imitative love4 ,can we truly love each other only if we love ,christ8 ,is ,christ the cause of love8 ,is he not rather the apostle of love8 ,is not the ground of his love the unity of human nature8 ,shall ,i love ,christ more than mankind8 ,is not such love a chimerical love8 ,can ,i step beyond the idea of the species8 ,can ,i love anything higher than humanity8 ,what ennobled ,christ was love2 whatever qualities he had1 he held in fealty to love2 he was not the proprietor of love1 as he is represented to be in all superstitious conceptions4 ,the idea of love is an independent idea2 ,i do not first deduce it from the life of ,christ2 on the contrary1 ,i revere that life only because ,i find it accordant with the law1 the idea of love4 ,this is already proved historically by the fact that the idea of love was by no means first introduced into the consciousness of mankind with and by ,christianity1--is by no means peculiarly ,christian4 ,the horrors of the ,roman ,empire present themselves with striking significance in company with the appearance of this idea4 ,the empire of policy which united men after a manner corresponding with its own idea1 was coming to its necessary end4 ,political unity is a unity of force4 ,the despotism of ,rome must turn in upon itself1 destroy itself4 ,but it was precisely through this catastrophe of political existence that man released himself entirely from the heart-stifling toils of politics4 ,in the place of ,rome appeared the idea of humanity2 to the idea of dominion succeeded the idea of love4 ,even the ,jews1 by imbibing the principle of humanity contained in ,greek culture1 had by this time mollified their malignant religious separatism4 ,philo celebrates love as the highest virtue4 ,the extinction of national differences lay in the idea of humanity itself4 ,thinking minds had very early overstepped the civil and political separation of man from man4 ,aristotle distinguishes the man from the slave1 and places the slave1 as a man1 on a level with his master1 uniting them in friendship4 ,epictetus1 the slave1 was a ,stoic2 ,antoninus1 the emperor1 was a ,stoic also3 thus did philosophy unite men4 ,the ,stoics taught #bba that man was not born for his own sake1 but for the sake of others1 i4e41 for love3 a principle which implies infinitely more than the celebrated dictum of the ,emperor ,antoninus1 which enjoined the love of enemies4 ,the practical principle of the ,stoics is so far the principle of love4 ,the world is to them one city1 men its citizens4 ,seneca1 in the sublimest sayings1 extols love1 clemency1 humanity1 especially towards slaves4 ,thus political rigour and patriotic narrowness were on the wane4 ,christianity was a peculiar manifestation of these human tendencies2--a popular1 consequently a religious1 and certainly a most intense manifestation of this new principle of love4 ,that which elsewhere made itself apparent in the process of culture1 expressed itself here as religious feeling1 as a matter of faith4 ,christianity thus reduced a general unity to a particular one1 it made love collateral to faith2 and by this means it placed itself in contradiction with universal love4 ,the unity was not referred to its true origin4 ,national differences indeed disappeared2 but in their place difference of faith1 the opposition of ,christian and un-,christian1 more vehement than a national antagonism1 and also more malignant1 made its appearance in history4 ,all love founded on a special historical phenomenon contradicts1 as has been said1 the nature of love1 which endures no limits1 which triumphs over all particularity4 ,man is to be loved for man's sake4 ,man is an object of love because he is an end in himself1 because he is a rational and loving being4 ,this is the law of the species1 the law of the intelligence4 ,love should be immediate1 undetermined by anything else than its object2--nay1 only as such is it love4 ,but if ,i interpose between my fellow-man and myself the idea of an individuality1 in whom the idea of the species is supposed to be already realised1 ,i annihilate the very soul of love1 ,i disturb the unity by the idea of a third external to us2 for in that case my fellow-man is an object of love to me only on account of his resemblance or relation to this model1 not for his own sake4 ,here all the contradictions reappear which we have in the personality of ,god1 where the idea of the personality by itself1 without regard to the qualities which render it worthy of love and reverence1 fixes itself in the consciousness and feelings4 ,love is the subjective reality of the species1 as reason is its objective reality4 ,in love1 in reason1 the need of an intermediate person disappears4 ,christ is nothing but an image1 under which the unity of the species has impressed itself on the popular consciousness4 ,christ loved men3 he wished to bless and unite them all without distinction of sex1 age1 rank1 or nationality4 ,christ is the love of mankind to itself embodied in an image--in accordance with the nature of religion as we have developed it--or contemplated as a person1 but a person who 7we mean1 of course1 as a religious object7 has only the significance of an image1 who is only ideal4 ,for this reason love is pronounced to be the characteristic mark of the disciples4 ,but love1 as has been said1 is nothing else than the active proof1 the realisation of the unity of the race1 through the medium of the moral disposition4 ,the species is not an abstraction2 it exists in feeling1 in the moral sentiment1 in the energy of love4 ,it is the species which infuses love into me4 ,a loving heart is the heart of the species throbbing in the individual4 ,thus ,christ1 as the consciousness of love1 is the consciousness of the species4 ,we are all one in ,christ4 ,christ is the consciousness of our identity4 ,he therefore who loves man for the sake of man1 who rises to the love of the species1 to universal love1 adequate to the nature of the species1 #bbb he is a ,christian1 is ,christ himself4 ,he does what ,christ did1 what made ,christ ,christ4 ,thus1 where there arises the consciousness of the species as a species1 the idea of humanity as a whole1 ,christ disappears1 without1 however1 his true nature disappearing2 for he was the substitute for the consciousness of the species1 the image under which it was made present to the people1 and became the law of the popular life4 ,,chapter ,,xxvii4 ,,concluding ,,application4 ,in the contradiction between ,faith and ,love which has just been exhibited1 we see the practical1 palpable ground of necessity that we should raise ourselves above ,christianity1 above the peculiar stand-point of all religion4 ,we have shown that the substance and object of religion is altogether human2 we have shown that divine wisdom is human wisdom2 that the secret of theology is anthropology2 that the absolute mind is the so-called finite subjective mind4 ,but religion is not conscious that its elements are human2 on the contrary1 it places itself in opposition to the human1 or at least it does not admit that its elements are human4 ,the necessary turning-point of history is therefore the open confession1 that the consciousness of ,god is nothing else than the consciousness of the species2 that man can and should raise himself only above the limits of his individuality1 and not above the laws1 the positive essential conditions of his species2 that there is no other essence which man can think1 dream of1 imagine1 feel1 believe in1 wish for1 love and adore as the absolute1 than the essence of human nature itself4 #bbc ,our relation to religion is therefore not a merely negative1 but a critical one2 we only separate the true from the false2--though we grant that the truth thus separated from falsehood is a new truth1 essentially different from the old4 ,religion is the first form of self-consciousness4 ,religions are sacred because they are the traditions of the primitive self-consciousness4 ,but that which in religion holds the first place--namely1 ,god--is1 as we have shown1 in itself and according to truth1 the second1 for it is only the nature of man regarded objectively2 and that which to religion is the second--namely1 man--must therefore be constituted and declared the first4 ,love to man must be no derivative love2 it must be original4 ,if human nature is the highest nature to man1 then practically also the highest and first law must be the love of man to man4 ,homo homini ,deus est3--this is the great practical principle3--this is the axis on which revolves the history of the world4 ,the relations of child and parent1 of husband and wife1 of brother and friend--in general1 of man to man--in short1 all the moral relations are per se religious4 ,life as a whole is1 in its essential1 substantial relations1 throughout of a divine nature4 ,its religious consecration is not first conferred by the blessing of the priest4 ,but the pretension of religion is that it can hallow an object by its essentially external co-operation2 it thereby assumes to be itself the only holy power2 besides itself it knows only earthly1 ungodly relations2 hence it comes forward in order to consecrate them and make them holy4 ,but marriage--we mean1 of course1 marriage as the free bond of love #bbd--;is sacred in itself1 by the very nature of the union which is therein effected4 ,that alone is a religious marriage1 which is a true marriage1 which corresponds to the essence of marriage--of love4 ,and so it is with all moral relations4 ,then only are they moral1--then only are they enjoyed in a moral spirit1 when they are regarded as sacred in themselves4 ,true friendship exists only when the boundaries of friendship are preserved with religious conscientiousness1 with the same conscientiousness with which the believer watches over the dignity of his ,god4 ,let friendship be sacred to thee1 property sacred1 marriage sacred1--sacred the well-being of every man2 but let them be sacred in and by themselves4 ,in ,christianity the moral laws are regarded as the commandments of ,god2 morality is even made the criterion of piety2 but ethics have nevertheless a subordinate rank1 they have not in themselves a religious significance4 ,this belongs only to faith4 ,above morality hovers ,god1 as a being distinct from man1 a being to whom the best is due1 while the remnants only fall to the share of man4 ,all those dispositions which ought to be devoted to life1 to man--all the best powers of humanity1 are lavished on the being who wants nothing4 ,the real cause is converted into an impersonal means1 a merely conceptional1 imaginary cause usurps the place of the true one4 ,man thanks ,god for those benefits which have been rendered to him even at the cost of sacrifice by his fellow-man4 ,the gratitude which he expresses to his benefactor is only ostensible2 it is paid1 not to him1 but to ,god4 ,he is thankful1 grateful to ,god1 but unthankful to man4 #bbe ,thus is the moral sentiment subverted into religion6 ,thus does man sacrifice man to ,god6 ,the bloody human sacrifice is in fact only a rude1 material expression of the inmost secret of religion4 ,where bloody human sacrifices are offered to ,god1 such sacrifices are regarded as the highest thing1 physical existence as the chief good4 ,for this reason life is sacrificed to ,god1 and it is so on extraordinary occasions2 the supposition being that this is the way to show him the greatest honour4 ,if ,christianity no longer1 at least in our day1 offers bloody sacrifices to its ,god1 this arises1 to say nothing of other reasons1 from the fact that physical existence is no longer regarded as the highest good4 ,hence the soul1 the emotions are now offered to ,god1 because these are held to be something higher4 ,but the common case is1 that in religion man sacrifices some duty towards man--such as that of respecting the life of his fellow1 of being grateful to him--to a religious obligation1--sacrifices his relation to man to his relation to ,god4 ,the ,christians1 by the idea that ,god is without wants1 and that he is only an object of pure adoration1 have certainly done away with many pernicious conceptions4 ,but this freedom from wants is only a metaphysical idea1 which is by no means part of the peculiar nature of religion4 ,when the need for worship is supposed to exist only on one side1 the subjective side1 this has the invariable effect of one-sidedness1 and leaves the religious emotions cold2 hence1 if not in express words1 yet in fact1 there must be attributed to ,god a condition corresponding to the subjective need1 the need of the worshipper1 in order to establish reciprocity4 #bbf ,all the positive definitions of religion are based on reciprocity4 ,the religious man thinks of ,god because ,god thinks of him2 he loves ,god because ,god has first loved him4 ,god is jealous of man2 religion is jealous of morality2 #bbg it sucks away the best forces of morality2 it renders to man only the things that are man's1 but to ,god the things that are ,god's2 and to him is rendered true1 living emotion1--the heart4 ,when in times in which peculiar sanctity was attached to religion1 we find marriage1 property1 and civil law respected1 this has not its foundation in religion1 but in the original1 natural sense of morality and right1 to which the true social relations are sacred as such4 ,he to whom the ,right is not holy for its own sake will never be made to feel it sacred by religion4 ,property did not become sacred because it was regarded as a divine institution1 but it was regarded as a divine institution because it was felt to be in itself sacred4 ,love is not holy because it is a predicate of ,god1 but it is a predicate of ,god because it is in itself divine4 ,the heathens do not worship the light or the fountain because it is a gift of ,god1 but because it has of itself a beneficial influence on man1 because it refreshes the sufferer2 on account of this excellent quality they pay it divine honours4 ,wherever morality is based on theology1 wherever the right is made dependent on divine authority1 the most immoral1 unjust1 infamous things can be justified and established4 ,i can found morality on theology only when ,i myself have already defined the ,divine ,being by means of morality4 ,in the contrary case1 ,i have no criterion of the moral and immoral1 but merely an unmoral1 arbitrary basis1 from which ,i may deduce anything ,i please4 ,thus1 if ,i would found morality on ,god1 ,i must first of all place it in ,god3 for ,morality1 ,right1 in short1 all substantial relations1 have their only basis in themselves1 can only have a real foundation--such as truth demands--when they are thus based4 ,to place anything in ,god1 or to derive anything from ,god1 is nothing more than to withdraw it from the test of reason1 to institute it as indubitable1 unassailable1 sacred1 without rendering an account why4 ,hence self-delusion1 if not wicked1 insidious design1 is at the root of all efforts to establish morality1 right1 on theology4 ,where we are in earnest about the right we need no incitement or support from above4 ,we need no ,christian rule of political right3 we need only one which is rational1 just1 human4 ,the right1 the true1 the good1 has always its ground of sacredness in itself1 in its quality4 ,where man is in earnest about ethics1 they have in themselves the validity of a divine power4 ,if morality has no foundation in itself1 there is no inherent necessity for morality2 morality is then surrendered to the groundless arbitrariness of religion4 ,thus the work of the self-conscious reason in relation to religion is simply to destroy an illusion3--an illusion1 however1 which is by no means indifferent1 but which1 on the contrary1 is profoundly injurious in its effect on mankind2 which deprives man as well of the power of real life as of the genuine sense of truth and virtue2 for even love1 in itself the deepest1 truest emotion1 becomes by means of religiousness merely ostensible1 illusory1 since religious love gives itself to man only for ,god's sake1 so that it is given only in appearance to man1 but in reality to ,god4 ,and we need only1 as we have shown1 invert the religious relations--regard that as an end which religion supposes to be a means--exalt that into the primary which in religion is subordinate1 the accessory1 the condition1--at once we have destroyed the illusion1 and the unclouded light of truth streams in upon us4 ,the sacraments of ,baptism and the ,lord's ,supper1 which are the characteristic symbols of the ,christian religion1 may serve to confirm and exhibit this truth4 ,the ,water of ,baptism is to religion only the means by which the ,holy ,spirit imparts itself to man4 ,but by this conception it is placed in contradiction with reason1 with the truth of things4 ,on the one hand1 there is virtue in the objective1 natural quality of water2 on the other1 there is none1 but it is a merely arbitrary medium of divine grace and omnipotence4 ,we free ourselves from these and other irreconcilable contradictions1 we give a true significance to ,baptism1 only by regarding it as a symbol of the value of water itself4 ,baptism should represent to us the wonderful but natural effect of water on man4 ,water has1 in fact1 not merely physical effects1 but also1 and as a result of these1 moral and intellectual effects on man4 ,water not only cleanses man from bodily impurities1 but in water the scales fall from his eyes3 he sees1 he thinks more clearly2 he feels himself freer2 water extinguishes the fire of appetite4 ,how many saints have had recourse to the natural qualities of water in order to overcome the assaults of the devil6 ,what was denied by ,grace has been granted by ,nature4 ,water plays a part not only in dietetics1 but also in moral and mental discipline4 ,to purify oneself1 to bathe1 is the first1 though the lowest of virtues4 #bbh ,in the stream of water the fever of selfishness is allayed4 ,water is the readiest means of making friends with ,nature4 ,the bath is a sort of chemical process1 in which our individuality is resolved into the objective life of ,nature4 ,the man rising from the water is a new1 a regenerate man4 ,the doctrine that morality can do nothing without means of grace has a valid meaning if1 in place of imaginary1 supernatural means of grace1 we substitute natural means4 ,moral feeling can effect nothing without ,nature2 it must ally itself with the simplest natural means4 ,the profoundest secrets lie in common everyday things1 such as supranaturalistic religion and speculation ignore1 thus sacrificing real mysteries to imaginary1 illusory ones2 as here1 for example1 the real power of water is sacrificed to an imaginary one4 ,water is the simplest means of grace or healing for the maladies of the soul as well as of the body4 ,but water is effectual only where its use is constant and regular4 ,baptism1 as a single act1 is either an altogether useless and unmeaning institution1 or1 if real effects are attributed to it1 a superstitious one4 ,but it is a rational1 a venerable institution1 if it is understood to typify and celebrate the moral and physical curative virtues of water4 ,but the sacrament of water required a supplement4 ,water1 as a universal element of life1 reminds us of our origin from ,nature1 an origin which we have in common with plants and animals4 ,in ,baptism we bow to the power of a pure ,nature-force2 water is the element of natural equality and freedom1 the mirror of the golden age4 ,but we men are distinguished from the plants and animals1 which together with the inorganic kingdom we comprehend under the common name of ,nature2--we are distinguished from ,nature4 ,hence we must celebrate our distinction1 our specific difference4 ,the symbols of this our difference are bread and wine4 ,bread and wine are1 as to their materials1 products of ,nature2 as to their form1 products of man4 ,if in water we declare3 ,man can do nothing without ,nature2 by bread and wine we declare3 ,nature needs man1 as man needs ,nature4 ,in water1 human mental activity is nullified2 in bread and wine it attains self-satisfaction4 ,bread and wine are supernatural products1--in the only valid and true sense1 the sense which is not in contradiction with reason and ,nature4 ,if in water we adore the pure force of ,nature1 in bread and wine we adore the supernatural power of mind1 of consciousness1 of man4 ,hence this sacrament is only for man matured into consciousness2 while baptism is imparted to infants4 ,but we at the same time celebrate here the true relation of mind to ,nature3 ,nature gives the material1 mind gives the form4 ,the sacrament of ,baptism inspires us with thankfulness towards ,nature1 the sacrament of bread and wine with thankfulness towards man4 ,bread and wine typify to us the truth that ,man is the true ,god and ,saviour of man4 ,eating and drinking is the mystery of the ,lord's ,supper2--eating and drinking is1 in fact1 in itself a religious act2 at least1 ought to be so4 #bbi ,think1 therefore1 with every morsel of bread which relieves thee from the pain of hunger1 with every draught of wine which cheers thy heart1 of the ,god who confers these beneficent gifts upon thee1--think of man6 ,but in thy gratitude towards man forget not gratitude towards holy ,nature6 ,forget not that wine is the blood of plants1 and flour the flesh of plants1 which are sacrificed for thy well-being6 ,forget not that the plant typifies to thee the essence of ,nature1 which lovingly surrenders itself for thy enjoyment6 ,therefore forget not the gratitude which thou owest to the natural qualities of bread and wine6 ,and if thou art inclined to smile that ,i call eating and drinking religious acts1 because they are common everyday acts1 and are therefore performed by multitudes without thought1 without emotion2 reflect1 that the ,lord's ,supper is to multitudes a thoughtless1 emotionless act1 because it takes place often2 and1 for the sake of comprehending the religious significance of bread and wine1 place thyself in a position where the daily act is unnaturally1 violently interrupted4 ,hunger and thirst destroy not only the physical but also the mental and moral powers of man2 they rob him of his humanity--of understanding1 of consciousness4 ,oh6 if thou shouldst ever experience such want1 how wouldst thou bless and praise the natural qualities of bread and wine1 which restore to thee thy humanity1 thy intellect6 ,it needs only that the ordinary course of things be interrupted in order to vindicate to common things an uncommon significance1 to life1 as such1 a religious import4 ,therefore let bread be sacred for us1 let wine be sacred1 and also let water be sacred6 ,amen4 ,,appendix4 ,,explanations--,,remarks--,,illustrativ e ,,citations4 #a4 ,man has his highest being1 his ,god1 in himself2 not in himself as an individual1 but in his essential nature1 his species4 ,no individual is an adequate representation of his species1 but only the human individual is conscious of the distinction between the species and the individual2 in the sense of this distinction lies the root of religion4 ,the yearning of man after something above himself is nothing else than the longing after the perfect type of his nature1 the yearning to be free from himself1 i4e41 from the limits and defects of his individuality4 ,individuality is the self-conditionating1 the self-limitation of the species4 ,thus man has cognisance of nothing above himself1 of nothing beyond the nature of humanity2 but to the individual man this nature presents itself under the form of an individual man4 ,thus1 for example1 the child sees the nature of man above itself in the form of its parents1 the pupil in the form of his tutor4 ,but all feelings which man experiences towards a superior man1 nay1 in general1 all moral feelings which man has towards man1 are of a religious nature4 #bcj ,man feels nothing towards ,god which he does not also feel towards man4 ,homo homini deus est4 ,want teaches prayer2 but in misfortune1 in sorrow1 man kneels to entreat help of man also4 ,feeling makes ,god a man1 but for the same reason it makes man a ,god4 ,how often in deep emotion1 which alone speaks genuine truth1 man exclaims to man3 ,thou art1 thou hast been my redeemer1 my saviour1 my protecting spirit1 my ,god6 ,we feel awe1 reverence1 humility1 devout admiration1 in thinking of a truly great1 noble man2 we feel ourselves worthless1 we sink into nothing1 even in the presence of human greatness4 ,the purely1 truly human emotions are religious2 but for that reason the religious emotions are purely human3 the only difference is1 that the religious emotions are vague1 indefinite2 but even this is only the case when the object of them is indefinite4 ,where ,god is positively defined1 is the object of positive religion1 there ,god is also the object of positive1 definite human feelings1 the object of fear and love1 and therefore he is a positively human being2 for there is nothing more in ,god than what lies in feeling4 ,if in the heart there is fear and terror1 in ,god there is anger2 if in the heart there is joy1 hope1 confidence1 in ,god there is love4 ,fear makes itself objective in anger2 joy in love1 in mercy4 ,as it is with me in my heart1 so is it with ,god4 ,as my heart is1 so is ,god4--,luther 7,th4 i4 p4 #gb74 ,but a merciful and angry ,god--,deus vere irascitur 7,melancthon7--is a ,god no longer distinguishable from the human feelings and nature4 ,thus even in religion man bows before the nature of man under the form of a personal human being2 religion itself expressly declares--and all anthropomorphisms declare this in opposition to ,pantheism4--quod supra nos nihil ad nos2 that is1 a ,god who inspires us with no human emotions1 who does not reflect our own emotions1 in a word1 who is not a man1--such a ,god is nothing to us1 has no interest for us1 does not concern us4 7,see the passages cited in this work from ,luther47 ,religion has thus no dispositions and emotions which are peculiar to itself2 what it claims as belonging exclusively to its object1 are simply the same dispositions and emotions that man experiences either in relation to himself 7as1 for example1 to his conscience71 or to his fellow-man1 or to ,nature4 ,you must not fear men1 but ,god2 you must not love man1--i4e41 not truly1 for his own sake1--but ,god2 you must not humble yourselves before human greatness1 but only before the ,lord2 not believe and confide in man1 but only in ,god4 ,hence comes the danger of worshipping false gods in distinction from the true ,god4 ,hence the jealousy of ,god4 ,ego ,jehova1 ,deus tuus1 ,deus sum zelotypus4 ,ut zelotypus vir dicitur1 qui rivalem pati nequit3 sic ,deus socium in cultu1 quem ab hominibus postulat1 ferre non potest4 7,clericus1 ,comment4 in ,exod4 c4 #bj1 v4 #e47 ,jealousy arises because a being preferred and loved by me directs to another the feelings and dispositions which ,i claim for myself4 ,but how could ,i be jealous if the impressions and emotions which ,i excite in the beloved being were altogether peculiar and apart1 were essentially different from the impressions which another can make on him8 ,if1 therefore1 the emotions of religion were objectively1 essentially different from those which lie out of religion1 there would be no possibility of idolatry in man or of jealousy in ,god4 ,as the flute has another sound to me than the trumpet1 and ,i cannot confound the impressions produced by the former with the impressions produced by the latter2 so ,i could not transfer to a natural or human being the emotions of religion1 if the object of religion1 ,god1 were specifically different from the natural or human being1 and consequently the impressions which he produced on me were specific1 peculiar4 #b4 ,feeling alone is the object of feeling4 ,feeling is sympathy2 feeling arises only in the love of man to man4 ,sensations man has in isolation2 feelings only in community4 ,only in sympathy does sensation rise into feeling4 ,feeling is sthetic1 human sensation2 only what is human is the object of feeling4 ,in feeling man is related to his fellow-man as to himself2 he is alive to the sorrows1 the joys of another as his own4 ,thus only by communication does man rise above merely egoistic sensation into feeling2--participated sensation is feeling4 ,he who has no need of participating has no feeling4 ,but what does the hand1 the kiss1 the glance1 the voice1 the tone1 the word--as the expression of emotion--impart8 ,emotion4 ,the very same thing which1 pronounced or performed without the appropriate tone1 without emotion1 is only an object of indifferent perception1 becomes1 when uttered or performed with emotion1 an object of feeling4 ,to feel is to have a sense of sensations1 to have emotion in the perception of emotion4 ,hence the brutes rise to feeling only in the sexual relation1 and therefore only transiently2 for here the being experiences sensation not in relation to itself taken alone1 or to an object without sensation1 but to a being having like emotions with itself1--not to another as a distinct object1 but to an object which in species is identical4 ,hence ,nature is an object of feeling to me only when ,i regard it as a being akin to me and in sympathy with me4 ,it is clear from what has been said1 that only where in truth1 if not according to the subjective conception1 the distinction between the divine and human being is abolished1 is the objective existence of ,god1 the existence of ,god as an objective1 distinct being1 abolished3--only there1 ,i say1 is religion made a mere matter of feeling1 or conversely1 feeling the chief point in religion4 ,the last refuge of theology therefore is feeling4 ,god is renounced by the understanding2 he has no longer the dignity of a real object1 of a reality which imposes itself on the understanding2 hence he is transferred to feeling2 in feeling his existence is thought to be secure4 ,and doubtless this is the safest refuge2 for to make feeling the essence of religion is nothing else than to make feeling the essence of ,god4 ,and as certainly as ,i exist1 so certainly does my feeling exist2 and as certainly as my feeling exists1 so certainly does my ,god exist4 ,the certainty of ,god is here nothing else than the self-certainty of human feeling1 the yearning after ,god is the yearning after unlimited1 uninterrupted1 pure feeling4 ,in life the feelings are interrupted2 they collapse2 they are followed by a state of void1 of insensibility4 ,the religious problem1 therefore1 is to give fixity to feeling in spite of the vicissitudes of life1 and to separate it from repugnant disturbances and limitations3 ,god himself is nothing else than undisturbed1 uninterrupted feeling1 feeling for which there exists no limits1 no opposite4 ,if ,god were a being distinct from thy feeling1 he would be known to thee in some other way than simply in feeling2 but just because thou perceivest him only by feeling1 he exists only in feeling--he is himself only feeling4 #c4 ,god is man's highest feeling of self1 freed from all contrarieties or disagreeables4 ,god is the highest being2 therefore1 to feel ,god is the highest feeling4 ,but is not the highest feeling also the highest feeling of self8 ,so long as ,i have not had the feeling of the highest1 so long ,i have not exhausted my capacity of feeling1 so long ,i do not yet fully know the nature of feeling4 ,what1 then1 is an object to me in my feeling of the highest being8 ,nothing else than the highest nature of my power of feeling4 ,so much as a man can feel1 so much is 7his7 ,god4 ,but the highest degree of the power of feeling is also the highest degree of the feeling of self4 ,in the feeling of the low ,i feel myself lowered1 in the feeling of the high ,i feel myself exalted4 ,the feeling of self and feeling are inseparable1 otherwise feeling would not belong to myself4 ,thus ,god1 as an object of feeling1 or what is the same thing1 the feeling of ,god1 is nothing else than man's highest feeling of self4 ,but ,god is the freest1 or rather the absolutely only free being2 thus ,god is man's highest feeling of freedom4 ,how couldst thou be conscious of the highest being as freedom1 or freedom as the highest being1 if thou didst not feel thyself free8 ,but when dost thou feel thyself free8 ,when thou feelest ,god4 ,to feel ,god is to feel oneself free4 ,for example1 thou feelest desire1 passion1 the conditions of time and place1 as limits4 ,what thou feelest as a limit thou strugglest against1 thou breakest loose from1 thou deniest4 ,the consciousness of a limit1 as such1 is already an anathema1 a sentence of condemnation pronounced on this limit1 for it is an oppressive1 disagreeable1 negative consciousness4 ,only the feeling of the good1 of the positive1 is itself good and positive--is joy4 ,joy alone is feeling in its element1 its paradise1 because it is unrestricted activity4 ,the sense of pain in an organ is nothing else than the sense of a disturbed1 obstructed1 thwarted activity2 in a word1 the sense of something abnormal1 anomalous4 ,hence thou strivest to escape from the sense of limitation into unlimited feeling4 ,by means of the will1 or the imagination1 thou negativest limits1 and thus obtainest the feeling of freedom4 ,this feeling of freedom is ,god4 ,god is exalted above desire and passion1 above the limits of space and time4 ,but this exaltation is thy own exaltation above that which appears to thee as a limit4 ,does not this exaltation of the divine being exalt thee8 ,how could it do so1 if it were external to thee8 ,no2 ,god is an exalted being only for him who himself has exalted thoughts and feelings4 ,hence the exaltation of the divine being varies according to that which different men or nations perceive as a limitation to the feeling of self1 and which they consequently negative or eliminate from their ideal4 #d4 ,the distinction between the heathen1 or philosophic1 and the ,christian ,god--the non-human1 or pantheistic1 and the human1 personal ,god--reduces itself only to the distinction between the understanding or reason and the heart or feelings4 ,reason is the self-consciousness of the species1 as such2 feeling is the self-consciousness of individuality2 the reason has relation to existences1 as things2 the heart to existences1 as persons4 ,i am is an expression of the heart2 ,i think1 of the reason4 ,cogito1 ergo sum8 ,no6 ,sentio1 ergo sum4 ,feeling only is my existence2 thinking is my non-existence1 the negation of my individuality1 the positing of the species2 reason is the annihilation of personality4 ,to think is an act of spiritual marriage4 ,only beings of the same species understand each other2 the impulse to communicate thought is the intellectual impulse of sex4 ,reason is cold1 because its maxim is1 audiatur et altera pars1 because it does not interest itself in man alone2 but the heart is a partisan of man4 ,reason loves all impartiality1 but the heart only what is like itself4 ,it is true that the heart has pity also on the brutes1 but only because it sees in the brute something more than the brute4 ,the heart loves only what it identifies with itself4 ,it says3 ,whatsoever thou dost to this being1 thou dost to me4 ,the heart loves only itself2 does not get beyond itself1 beyond man4 ,the superhuman ,god is nothing else than the supernatural heart2 the heart does not give us the idea of another1 of a being different from ourselves4 ,for the heart1 ,nature is an echo1 in which it hears only itself4 ,emotion1 in the excess of its happiness1 transfers itself to external things4 ,it is the love which can withhold itself from no existence1 which gives itself forth to all2 but it only recognises as existing that which it knows to have emotion4 #bca ,reason1 on the contrary1 has pity on animals1 not because it finds itself in them1 or identifies them with man1 but because it recognises them as beings distinct from man1 not existing simply for the sake of man1 but also as having rights of their own4 ,the heart sacrifices the species to the individual1 the reason sacrifices the individual to the species4 ,the man without feeling has no home1 no private hearth4 ,feeling1 the heart1 is the domestic life2 the reason is the res publica of man4 ,reason is the truth of ,nature1 the heart is the truth of man4 ,to speak popularly1 reason is the ,god of ,nature1 the heart the ,god of man2--a distinction however which1 drawn thus sharply1 is1 like the others1 only admissible in antithesis4 ,everything which man wishes1 but which reason1 which ,nature denies1 the heart bestows4 ,god1 immortality1 freedom1 in the supranaturalistic sense1 exist only in the heart4 ,the heart is itself the existence of ,god1 the existence of immortality4 ,satisfy yourselves with this existence6 ,you do not understand your heart2 therein lies the evil4 ,you desire a real1 external1 objective immortality1 a ,god out of yourselves4 ,here is the source of delusion4 ,but as the heart releases man from the limits1 even the essential limits of ,nature2 reason1 on the other hand1 releases ,nature from the limits of external finiteness4 ,it is true that ,nature is the light and measure of reason2--a truth which is opposed to abstract ,idealism4 ,only what is naturally true is logically true2 what has no basis in ,nature has no basis at all4 ,that which is not a physical law is not a metaphysical law4 ,every true law in metaphysics can and must be verified physically4 ,but at the same time reason is also the light of ,nature2--and this truth is the barrier against crude materialism4 ,reason is the nature of things come fully to itself1 re-established in its entireness4 ,reason divests things of the disguises and transformations which they have undergone in the conflict and agitation of the external world1 and reduces them to their true character4 ,most1 indeed nearly all1 crystals--to give an obvious illustration--appear in ,nature under a form altogether different from their fundamental one2 nay1 many crystals never have appeared in their fundamental form4 ,nevertheless1 the mineralogical reason has discovered that fundamental form4 ,hence nothing is more foolish than to place ,nature in opposition to reason1 as an essence in itself incomprehensible to reason4 ,if reason reduces transformations and disguises to their fundamental forms1 does it not effect that which lies in the idea of ,nature itself1 but which1 prior to the operation of reason1 could not be effected on account of external hindrances8 ,what else then does reason do than remove external disturbances1 influences1 and obstructions1 so as to present a thing as it ought to be1 to make the existence correspond to the idea2 for the fundamental form is the idea of the crystal4 ,another popular example4 ,granite consists of mica1 quartz1 and feldspar4 ,but frequently other kinds of stone are mingled with it4 ,if we had no other guide and tutor than the senses1 we should without hesitation reckon as constituent parts of granite all the kinds of stone which we ever find in combination with it2 we should say yes to everything the senses told us1 and so never come to the true idea of granite4 ,but reason says to the credulous senses3 ,quod non4 ,it discriminates2 it distinguishes the essential from the accidental elements4 ,reason is the midwife of ,nature2 it explains1 enlightens1 rectifies and completes ,nature4 ,now that which separates the essential from the non-essential1 the necessary from the accidental1 what is proper to a thing from what is foreign1 which restores what has been violently sundered to unity1 and what has been forcibly united to freedom1--is not this divine8 ,is not such an agency as this the agency of the highest1 of divine love8 ,and how would it be possible that reason should exhibit the pure nature of things1 the original text of the universe1 if it were not itself the purest1 most original essence8 ,but reason has no partiality for this or that species of things4 ,it embraces with equal interest the whole universe2 it interests itself in all things and beings without distinction1 without exception2--it bestows the same attention on the worm which human egoism tramples under its feet1 as on man1 as on the sun in the firmament4 ,reason is thus the all-embracing1 all-compassionating being1 the love of the universe to itself4 ,to reason alone belongs the great work of the resurrection and restoration of all things and beings--universal redemption and reconciliation4 ,not even the unreasoning animal1 the speechless plant1 the unsentient stone1 shall be excluded from this universal festival4 ,but how would it be possible that reason should interest itself in all beings without exception1 if reason were not itself universal and unlimited in its nature8 ,is a limited nature compatible with unlimited interest1 or an unlimited interest with a limited nature8 ,by what dost thou recognise the limitation of a being but by the limitation of his interest8 ,as far as the interest extends1 so far extends the nature4 ,the desire of knowledge is infinite2 reason then is infinite4 ,reason is the highest species of being2--hence it includes all species in the sphere of knowledge4 ,reason cannot content itself in the individual2 it has its adequate existence only when it has the species for its object1 and the species not as it has already developed itself in the past and present1 but as it will develop itself in the unknown future4 ,in the activity of reason ,i feel a distinction between myself and reason in me2 this distinction is the limit of the individuality2 in feeling ,i am conscious of no distinction between myself and feeling2 and with this absence of distinction there is an absence also of the sense of limitation4 ,hence it arises that to so many men reason appears finite1 and only feeling infinite4 ,and1 in fact1 feeling1 the heart of man as a rational being1 is as infinite1 as universal as reason2 since man only truly perceives and understands that for which he has feeling4 ,thus reason is the essence of ,nature and ,man1 released from non-essential limits1 in their identity2 it is the universal being1 the universal ,god4 ,the heart1 considered in its difference from the reason1 is the private ,god of man2 the personal ,god is the heart of man1 emancipated from the limits or laws of ,nature4 #bcb #e4 ,nature1 the world1 has no value1 no interest for ,christians4 ,the ,christian thinks only of himself and the salvation of his soul4 ,a te incipiat cogitatio tua et in te finiatur1 nec frustra in alia distendaris1 te neglecto4 ,praeter salutem tuam nihil cogites4 ,de inter4 ,domo4 7,among the spurious writings of ,st4 ,bernard47 ,si te vigilanter homo attendas1 mirum est1 si ad aliud unquam intendas4--,divus ,bernardus4 7,tract4 de ,,xii grad4 humil4 et sup474444 ,orbe sit sol major1 an pedis unius latitudine metiatur8 alieno ex lumine an propriis luceat fulgoribus luna8 quae neque scire compendium1 neque ignorare detrimentum est ullum4444 ,res vestra in ancipiti sita est3 salus dico animarum vestrarum4--,arnobius 7adv4 gentes1 l4 ii4 c4 #fa74 ,quaero igitur ad quam rem scientia referenda sit2 si ad causas rerum naturalium1 quae beatitudo erit mihi proposita1 si sciero unde ,nilus oriatur1 vel quicquid de coelo ,physici delirant8--,lactantius 7,instit4 div4 l4 iii4 c4 #h74 ,etiam curiosi esse prohibemur4444 ,sunt enim qui desertis virtutibus et nescientes quid sit ,deus 444 magnum aliquid se agere putant1 si universam istam corporis molem1 quam mundum nuncupamus1 curiosissime intentissimeque perquirant4444 ,reprimat igitur se anima ab hujusmodi vanae cognitionis cupiditate1 si se castam ,deo servare disposuit4 ,tali enim amore plerumque decipitur1 ut 7aut7 nihil putet esse nisi corpus4--,augustinus 7de ,mor4 ,eccl4 cath4 l4 i4 c4 #ba74 ,de terrae quoque vel qualitate vel positione tractare1 nihil prosit ad spem futuri1 cum satis sit ad scientiam1 quod scripturarum divinarum series comprehendit1 quod ,deus suspendit terram in nihilo4--,ambrosius 7,hexaemeron1 l4 i4 c4 #f74 ,longe utique praestantius est1 nosse resurrecturam carnem ac sine fine victuram1 quam quidquid in ea medici1 scrutando discere potuerunt4--,augustinus 7de ,anima et ejus orig4 l4 iv4 c4 #aj74 ,let natural science alone4444 ,it is enough that thou knowest fire is hot1 water cold and moist4444 ,know how thou oughtest to treat thy field1 thy cow1 thy house and child--that is enough of natural science for thee4 ,think how thou mayest learn ,christ1 who will show thee thyself1 who thou art1 and what is thy capability4 ,thus wilt thou learn ,god and thyself1 which no natural master or natural science ever taught4--,luther 7,th4 xiii4 p4 #bfd74 ,such quotations as these1 which might be multiplied indefinitely1 show clearly enough that true1 religious ,christianity has within it no principle of scientific and material culture1 no motive to it4 ,the practical end and object of ,christians is solely heaven1 i4e41 the realised salvation of the soul4 ,the theoretical end and object of ,christians is solely ,god1 as the being identical with the salvation of the soul4 ,he who knows ,god knows all things2 and as ,god is infinitely more than the world1 so theology is infinitely more than the knowledge of the world4 ,theology makes happy1 for its object is personified happiness4 ,infelix homo1 qui scit illa omnia 7created things7 te autem nescit1 ,beatus autem qui te scit1 etiam si illa nesciat4--,augustin 7,confess4 l4 v4 c4 #d74 ,who then would1 who could exchange the blessed ,divine ,being for the unblessed worthless things of this world8 ,it is true that ,god reveals himself in ,nature1 but only vaguely1 dimly1 only in his most general attributes2 himself1 his true personal nature1 he reveals only in religion1 in ,christianity4 ,the knowledge of ,god through ,nature is heathenism2 the knowledge of ,god through himself1 through ,christ1 in whom dwelt the fulness of the ,godhead bodily1 is ,christianity4 ,what interest1 therefore1 should ,christians have in occupying themselves with material1 natural things8 ,occupation with ,nature1 culture in general1 presupposes1 or1 at least1 infallibly produces1 a heathenish1 mundane1 anti-theological1 anti-supranaturalistic sentiment and belief4 ,hence the culture of modern ,christian nations is so little to be derived from ,christianity1 that it is only to be explained by the negation of ,christianity1 a negation which certainly was1 in the first instance1 only practical4 ,it is indeed necessary to distinguish between what the ,christians were as ,christians and what they were as heathens1 as natural men1 and thus between that which they have said and done in agreement1 and that which they have said and done in contradiction with their faith4 7,see on this subject the author's ,p4 ,bayle47 ,how frivolous1 therefore1 are modern ,christians when they deck themselves in the arts and sciences of modern nations as products of ,christianity6 ,how striking is the contrast in this respect between these modern boasters and the ,christians of older times6 ,the latter knew of no other ,christianity than that which is contained in the ,christian faith1 in faith in ,christ2 they did not reckon the treasures and riches1 the arts and sciences of this world as part of ,christianity4 ,in all these points1 they rather conceded the pre-eminence to the ancient heathens1 the ,greeks and ,romans4 ,why dost thou not also wonder1 ,erasmus1 that from the beginning of the world there have always been among the heathens higher1 rarer people1 of greater1 more exalted understanding1 more excellent diligence and skill in all arts1 than among ,christians or the people of ,god8 ,christ himself says that the children of this world are wiser than the children of light4 ,yea1 who among the ,christians could we compare for understanding or application to ,cicero 7to say nothing of the ,greeks1 ,demosthenes and others78--,luther 7,th4 xix4 p4 #cg74 ,quid igitur nos antecellimus8 ,num ingenio1 doctrina1 morum moderatione illos superamus8 ,nequaquam4 ,sed vera ,dei agnitione1 invocatione et celebratione prstamus4--,melancthonis 7et al4 ,declam4 ,th4 iii4 de vera invocat4 ,dei74 #f4 ,in religion man has in view himself alone1 or1 in regarding himself as the object of ,god1 as the end of the divine activity1 he is an object to himself1 his own end and aim4 ,the mystery of the incarnation is the mystery of the love of ,god to man1 and the mystery of the love of ,god to man is the love of man to himself4 ,god suffers--suffers for me--this is the highest self-enjoyment1 the highest self-certainty of human feeling4 ,god so loved the world1 that he gave his only-begotten ,son4--,john iii4 #af4 ,if ,god be for us1 who can be against us8 ,he that spared not his own ,son1 but gave him up for us all1 how shall he not with him also freely give us all things8--,rom4 viii4 #ca1 #cb4 ,god commendeth his love towards us1 in that1 while we were yet sinners1 ,christ died for us4--,rom4 v4 #h4 ,the life which ,i now live in the flesh ,i live by the faith of the ,son of ,god1 who loved me1 and gave himself for me4--,gal4 ii4 #bj4 ,see also ,titus iii4 #d2 ,heb4 ii4 #aa4 ,credimus in unum ,deum patrem 444 et in unum ,dominum ,jesum ,christum filium ,dei 444 ,deum ex ,deo 444 qui propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem descendit et incarnatus et homo factus est passus4--,fides ,nicaenae ,synodi4 ,servator 444 ex praeexcellenti in homines charitate non despexit carnis humanae imbecillitatem1 sed ea indutus ad communem venit hominum salutem4--,clemens ,alex4 7,stromata1 l4 vii4 ed4 ,wirceb4 #aggi74 ,christianos autem haec universa docent1 providentiam esse1 maxime vero divinissimum et propter excellentiam amoris erga homines incredibilissimum providentiae opus1 dei incarnatio1 quae propter nos facta est4--,gregorii ,nysseni 7,philosophiae1 l4 viii4 de ,provid4 c4 i4 #aeab4 ,b4 ,rhenanus4 ,jo4 ,cono interp47 ,venit siquidem universitatis creator et ,dominus3 venit ad homines1 venit propter homines1 venit homo4--,divus ,bernardus ,clarev4 7de ,adventu ,domini1 ,basil1 #aeeb74 ,videte1 ,fratres1 quantum se humiliavit propter homines ,deus4444 ,unde non se ipse homo despiciat1 propter quem utique ista subire dignatus est ,deus4--,augustinus 7,sermones ad pop4 ,s4 #cga1 c4 #c74 ,o homo propter quem ,deus factus est homo1 aliquid magnum te credere debes4 7,s4 #chj1 c4 #b74 ,quis de se desperet pro quo tam humilis esse voluit ,filius ,dei8 ,id4 7de ,agone ,chr4 c4 #aa74 ,quis potest odire hominem cujus naturam et similitudinem videt in humanitate ,dei8 ,revera qui odit illum1 odit ,deum4--7,manuale1 c4 #bf4 ,among the spurious writings of ,augustine47 ,plus nos amat ,deus quam filium pater4444 ,propter nos filio non pepercit4 ,et quid plus addo8 et hoc filio justo et hoc filio unigenito et hoc filio ,deo4 ,et quid dici amplius potest8 et hoc pro nobis1 i4e4 pro malis1 etc4--,salvianus 7de gubernatione ,dei4 ,rittershusius1 #afaa1 pp4 #abf1 #abg74 ,quid enim mentes nostras tantum erigit et ab immortalitatis desperatione liberat1 quam quod tanti nos fecit ,deus1 ut ,dei filius 444 dignatus nostrum inire consortium mala nostra moriendo perferret4--,petrus ,lomb4 7lib4 iii4 dist4 #bj1 c4 #a74 ,attamen si illa quae miseriam nescit1 misericordia non praecessisset1 ad hanc cujus mater est miseria1 non accessisset4--,d4 ,bernardus 7,tract4 de ,,xii4 gradibus hum4 et sup47 ,ecce omnia tua sunt1 quae habeo et unde tibi servio4 ,verum tamen vice versa tu magis mihi servis1 quam ego tibi4 ,ecce coelum et terra quae in ministerium hominis creasti1 praesto sunt et faciunt quotidie quaecunque mandasti4 ,et hoc parum est3 quin etiam ,angelos in ministerium hominis ordinasti4 ,transcendit autem omnia1 quia tu ipse homini servire dignatus es et te ipsum daturum ei promisisti4--,thomas ,kempis 7de ,imit4 l4 iii4 c4 #aj74 ,ego omnipotens et altissimus1 qui cuncta creavi ex nihilo me homini propter te humiliter subjeci4444 ,pepercit tibi oculus meus1 quia pretiosa fuit anima tua in conspectu meo 7ibid4 c4 #ac74 ,fili ego descendi de coelo pro salute tua1 suscepi tuas miserias1 non necessitate1 sed charitate trahente 7ibid4 c4 #ah74 ,si consilium rei tantae spectamus1 quod totum pertinet1 ut s4 litterae demonstrant4 ad salutem generis humani1 quid potest esse dignius ,deo1 quam illa tanta hujus salutis cura1 et ut ita dicamus1 tantus in ea re sumptus8444 ,itaque ,jesus ,christus ipse cum omnibus ,apostolis 444 in hoc mysterio ,filii ,dei en sarki phanerothentos angelis hominibusque patefactam esse dicunt magnitudinem sapientis bonitatis divinae4--,j4 ,a4 ,ernesti 7,dignit4 et verit4 inc4 ,filii ,dei asserta4 ,opusc4 ,theol4 ,lipsiae1 #aggc1 pp4 #djd1 #dje4 ,how feeble1 how spiritless compared with the expressions of the ancient faith67 ,propter me ,christus suscepit meas infirmitates1 mei corporis subiit passiones1 pro me peccatum h4 e4 pro omni homine1 pro me maledictum factus est1 etc4 ,ille flevit1 ne tu homo diu fleres4 ,ille injurias passus est1 ne tu injuriam tuam doleres4--,ambrosius 7de fide ad ,gratianum1 l4 ii4 c4 #d74 ,god is not against us men4 ,for if ,god had been against us and hostile to us1 he would not assuredly have taken the poor wretched human nature on himself4 ,how highly our ,lord ,god has honoured us1 that he has caused his own ,son to become man6 ,how could he have made himself nearer to us8--,luther 7,th4 xvi4 pp4 #ecc1 #egd74 ,it is to be remarked that he 7,stephen7 is said to have seen not ,god himself but the man ,christ1 whose nature is the dearest and likest and most consoling to man1 for a man would rather see a man than an angel or any other creature1 especially in trouble4--,id4 7,th4 xiii4 p4 #agj74 ,it is not thy kingly rule which draws hearts to thee1 ,o wonderful heart6--but thy having become a man in the fulness of time1 and thy walk upon the earth1 full of weariness4 ,though thou guidest the sceptre of the starry realm1 thou art still our brother2 flesh and blood never disowns itself4 ,the most powerful charm that melts my heart is that my ,lord died on the cross for me4 ,that it is which moves me2 ,i love thee for thy love1 that thou1 the creator1 the supreme prince1 becamest the ,lamb of ,god for me4 ,thanks be to thee1 dear ,lamb of ,god1 with thousands of sinners' tears2 thou didst die for me on the cross and didst seek me with yearning4 ,thy blood it is which has made me give myself up to thee1 else ,i had never thought of thee through my whole life4 ,if thou hadst not laid hold upon me1 ,i should never have gone to seek thee4 ,o how sweetly the soul feeds on the passion of ,jesus6 ,shame and joy are stirred1 ,o thou son of ,god and of man1 when in spirit we see thee so willingly go to death on the cross for us1 and each thinks3 for me4 ,the ,father takes us under his care1 the ,son washes us with his blood1 the ,holy ,spirit is always labouring that he may guide and teach us4 ,ah6 ,king1 great at all times1 but never greater than in the blood-stained robe of the martyr4 ,my friend is to me and ,i to him as the ,cherubim over the mercy-seat3 we look at each other continually4 ,he seeks repose in my heart1 and ,i ever hasten towards his3 he wishes to be in my soul1 and ,i in the wound in his side4 ,these quotations are taken from the ,moravian hymn-book 7,gesangbuch der ,evangelischen ,brdergemeine4 ,gnadau1 #ahbd74 ,we see clearly enough from the examples above given1 that the deepest mystery of the ,christian religion resolves itself into the mystery of human self-love1 but that religious self-love is distinguished from natural in this1 that it changes the active into the passive4 ,it is true that the more profound1 mystical religious sentiment abhors such naked1 undisguised egoism as is exhibited in the ,herrnhut hymns2 it does not in ,god expressly have reference to itself2 it rather forgets1 denies itself1 demands an unselfish1 disinterested love of ,god1 contemplates ,god in relation to ,god1 not to itself4 ,causa diligendi ,deum1 ,deus est4 ,modus sine modo diligere4444 ,qui ,domino confitetur1 non quoniam sibi bonus est1 sed quoniam bonus est1 hic vere diligit ,deum propter ,deum et non propter seipsum4 ,te enim quodammodo perdere1 tanquam qui non sis et omnino non sentire te ipsum et a temetipso exinaniri et pene annullari1 coelestis est conversationis1 non humanae affectionis 7thus the ideal of love1 which1 however1 is first realised in heaven74--,bernhardus1 ,tract4 de dilig4 ,deo 7ad ,haymericum74 ,but this free1 unselfish love is only the culmination of religious enthusiasm1 in which the subject is merged in the object4 ,as soon as the distinction presents itself--and it necessarily does so--so soon does the subject have reference to itself as the object of ,god4 ,and even apart from this3 the religious subject denies its ego1 its personality1 only because it has the enjoyment of blissful personality in ,god--,god per se the realised salvation of the soul1 ,god the highest self-contentment1 the highest rapture of human feeling4 ,hence the saying3 ,qui ,deum non diligit1 seipsum non diligit4 #g4 ,because ,god suffers man must suffer4 ,the ,christian religion is the religion of suffering4 ,videlicet vestigia ,salvatoris sequimur in theatris4 ,tale nobis scilicet ,christus reliquit exemplum1 quem flerisse legimus1 risisse non legimus4--,salvianus 7l4 c4 l4 vi4 #aha74 ,christianorum ergo est pressuram pati in hoc saeculo et lugere1 quorum est aeterna vita4--,origenes 7,explan4 in ,ep4 ,pauli ad ,rom4 l4 ii4 c4 ii4 interp4 ,hieronymo74 ,nemo vitam aeternam1 incorruptibilem1 immortalemque desiderat1 nisi eum vitae hujus temporalis1 corruptibilis1 mortalisque poeniteat4444 ,quid ergo cupimus1 nisi ita non esse ut nunc sumus8 ,et quid ingemiscimus1 nisi poenitendo1 quia ita summus8--,augustinus 7,sermones ad pop4 ,s4 #cea1 c4 #c74 ,si quidem aliquid melius et utilius saluti hominum quam pati fuisset1 ,christus utique verbo et exemplo ostendisset4444 ,quoniam per multas tribulationes oportet nos intrare in regnum ,dei4--,thomas ,kempis 7de ,imit4 l4 ii4 c4 #ab74 ,when1 however1 the ,christian religion is designated as the religion of suffering1 this of course applies only to the ,christianity of the mistaken ,christians of old times4 ,protestantism1 in its very beginning1 denied the sufferings of ,christ as constituting a principle of morality4 ,it is precisely the distinction between ,catholicism and ,protestantism1 in relation to this subject1 that the latter1 out of self-regard1 attached itself only to the merits of ,christ1 while the former1 out of sympathy1 attached itself to his sufferings4 ,formerly in ,popery the sufferings of the ,lord were so preached1 that it was only pointed out how his example should be imitated4 ,after that1 the time was filled up with the sufferings and sorrows of ,mary1 and the compassion with which ,christ and his mother were bewailed2 and the only aim was how to make it piteous1 and move the people to compassion and tears1 and he who could do this well was held the best preacher for ,passion-,week4 ,but we preach the ,lord's sufferings as the ,holy ,scripture teaches us4444 ,christ suffered for the praise and glory of ,god 444 but to me1 and thee1 and all of us1 he suffered in order to bring redemption and blessedness4444 ,the cause and end of the sufferings of ,christ is comprised in this--he suffered for us4 ,this honour is to be given to no other suffering4--,luther 7,th4 xvi4 p4 #ahb74 ,lamb6 ,i weep only for joy over thy suffering2 the suffering was thine1 but thy merit is mine6 ,i know of no joys but those which come from thy sufferings4 ,it remains ever in my mind that it cost thee thy blood to redeem me4 ,o my ,immanuel6 how sweet is it to my soul when thou permittest me to enjoy the outpouring of thy blood4 ,sinners are glad at heart that they have a ,saviour 444 it is wondrously beautiful to them to see ,jesus on the ,cross 7,moravian hymn-book74 ,it is therefore not to be wondered at if ,christians of the present day decline to know anything more of the sufferings of ,christ4 ,it is they1 forsooth1 who have first made out what true ,christianity is--they rely solely on the divine word of the ,holy ,scriptures4 ,and the ,bible1 as every one knows1 has the valuable quality that everything may be found in it which it is desired to find4 ,what once stood there1 of course now stands there no longer4 ,the principle of stability has long vanished from the ,bible4 ,divine revelation is as changing as human opinion4 ,tempora mutantur4 #h4 ,the mystery of the ,trinity is the mystery of participated1 social life--the mystery of ,i and thou4 ,unum ,deum esse confitemur4 ,non sic unum ,deum1 quasi solitarium1 nec eundem1 qui ipse sibi pater1 sit ipse filius1 sed patrem verum1 qui genuit filium verum1 i4e4 ,deum ex ,deo 444 non creatum1 sed genitum4--,concil4 ,chalced4 7,carranza ,summa1 #aeei4 p4 #aci74 ,si quis quod scriptum est3 ,faciamus hominem1 non patrem ad filium dicere1 sed ipsum ad semetipsum asserit dixisse ,deum1 anathema sit4--,concil4 ,syrmiense 7ibid4 p4 #fh74 ,jubet autem his verbis3 ,faciamus hominem1 prodeat herba4 ,ex quibus apparet1 ,deum cum aliquo sibi proximo sermones his de rebus conserere4 ,necesse est igitur aliquem ei adfuisse1 cum quo universa condens1 colloquium miscebat4--,athanasius 7,contra ,gentes ,orat4 ,ath4 ,opp4 ,parisiis1 #afbg1 ,th4 i4 p4 #ea74 ,professio enim consortii sustulit intelligentiam singularitatis1 quod consortium aliquid nec potest esse sibi ipsi solitario1 neque rursum solitudo solitarii recipit3 faciamus4444 ,non solitario convenit dicere3 faciamus et nostram4--,petrus ,lomb4 7l4 i4 dist4 #b1 c4 #c1 e474 ,the ,protestants explain the passage in the same way4 ,quod profecto aliter intelligi nequit1 quam inter ipsas trinitatis personas quandam de creando homine institutam fuisse consultationem4--,buddeus 7comp4 ,inst4 ,theol4 dog4 cur4 ,j4 ,g4 ,walch4 l4 ii4 c4 i4 #de74 ',let us make' is the word of a deliberative council4 ,and from these words it necessarily follows again1 that in the ,godhead there must be more than one person4444 ,for the little word 'us' indicates that he who there speaks is not alone1 though the ,jews make the text ridiculous by saying that there is a way of speaking thus1 even where there is only one person4--,luther 7,th4 i4 p4 #ai74 ,not only consultations1 but compacts take place between the chief persons in the ,trinity1 precisely as in human society4 ,nihil aliud superest1 quam ut consensum quemdam patris ac filii adeoque quoddam velut pactum 7in relation1 namely1 to the redemption of men7 inde concludamus4--,buddeus 7,comp4 l4 iv4 c4 i4 #d1 note #b74 ,and as the essential bond of the ,divine ,persons is love1 the ,trinity is the heavenly type of the closest bond of love--marriage4 ,nunc ,filium ,dei 444 precemur1 ut spiritu sancto suo1 qui nexus est et vinculum mutui amoris inter aeternum patrem ac filium1 sponsi et spons pectora conglutinet4--,or4 de ,conjugio 7,declam4 ,melancth4 ,th4 iii4 p4 #dec74 ,the distinctions in the ,divine essence of the ,trinity are natural1 physical distinctions4 ,jam de proprietatibus personarum videamus4444 ,et est proprium solius patris1 non quod non est natus ipse1 sed quod unum filium genuerit1 propriumque solius filii1 non quod ipse non genuit1 sed quod de patris essentia natus est4--,hylarius in l4 iii4 de ,trinitate4 ,nos filii ,dei sumus1 sed non talis hic filius4 ,hic enim verus et proprius est filius origine1 non adoptione1 veritate1 non nuncupatione1 nativitate1 non creatione4--,petrus ,l4 7l4 i4 dist4 #bf1 cc4 #b1 #d74 ,quodsi dum eum aeternum confitemur1 profitemur ipsum ,filium ex ,patre1 quomodo is1 qui genitus est1 genitoris frater esse poterit8444 ,non enim ex aliquo principio praeexistente ,pater et ,filius procreati sunt1 ut fratres existimari queant1 sed ,pater principium ,filii et genitor est3 et ,pater ,pater est neque ullius ,filius fuit1 et ,filius ,filius est et non frater4--,athanasius 7,contra ,arianos4 ,orat4 ,,ii4 ,ed4 c4 ,t4 i4 p4 #cbj74 ,qui 7,deus7 cum in rebus quae nascuntur in tempore1 sua bonitate effecerit1 ut suae substantiae prolem quaelibet res gignat1 sicut homo gignit hominem1 non alterius naturae1 sed ejus cujus ipse est1 vide quam impie dicatur ipse non gennisse id quod ipse est4--,augustinus 7,ep4 #agj1 #f4 ed4 ,antwp4 #agjj74 ,ut igitur in natura hominum filium dicimus genitum de substantia patris1 similem patri3 ita secunda persona ,filius dicitur1 quia de substantia ,patris natus est et ejus est imago4--,melancthon 7,loci praecipui ,theol4 ,witebergae1 #aeie1 p4 #cj74 ,as a corporeal son has his flesh and blood and nature from his father1 so also the ,son of ,god1 born of the ,father1 has his divine nature from the ,father of ,eternity4--,luther 7,th4 ix4 p4 #djh74 ,h4 ,a4 ,roel1 a theologian of the school of ,descartes and ,coccejus1 had advanced this thesis3 ,filium ,dei1 ,secundam ,deitatis personam improprie dici genitam4 ,this was immediately opposed by his colleague1 ,camp4 ,vitringa1 who declared it an unheard-of thesis1 and maintained3 ,generationem ,filii ,dei ab aeterno propriissime enunciari4 ,other theologians also contended against ,roel1 and declared3 ,generationem in ,deo esse maxime veram et propriam4--7,acta ,erudit4 ,supplem4 ,t4 i4 ,s4 vii4 p4 #cgg1 etc474 ,that in the ,bible also the ,filius ,dei signifies a real son is unequivocally implied in this passage3 ,god so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten ,son4 ,if the love of ,god1 which this passage insists upon1 is to be regarded as a truth1 then the ,son also must be a truth1 and1 in plain language1 a physical truth4 ,on this lies the emphasis that ,god gave his own ,son for us--in this alone the proof of his great love4 ,hence the ,herrnhut hymn-book correctly apprehends the sense of the ,bible when it says of the ,father of our ,lord ,jesus ,christ1 who is also our ,father3 ,his ,son is not too dear4 ,no6 he gives him up for me1 that he may save me from the eternal fire by his dear blood4 ,thou hast so loved the world that thy heart consents to give up the ,son1 thy joy and life1 to suffering and death4 ,god is a threefold being1 a trinity of persons1 means3 ,god is not only a metaphysical1 abstract1 spiritual1 but a physical being4 ,the central point of the ,trinity is the ,son1 for the ,father is ,father only through the ,son2 but the mystery of the generation of the ,son is the mystery of physical nature4 ,the ,son is the need of sensuousness1 or of the heart1 satisfied in ,god2 for all wishes of the heart1 even the wish for a personal ,god and for heavenly felicity1 are sensuous wishes2--the heart is essentially materialistic1 it contents itself only with an object which is seen and felt4 ,this is especially evident in the conception that the ,son1 even in the midst of the ,divine ,trinity1 has the human body as an essential1 permanent attribute4 ,ambrosius3 ,scriptum est ,ephes4 i43 ,secundum carnem igitur omnia ipsi subjecta traduntur4 ,chrysostomus3 ,christum secundum carnem pater jussit a cunctis angelis adorari4 ,theodoretus3 ,corpus ,dominicum surrexit quidem a mortuis1 divina glorificata gloria 444 corpus tamen est et habet1 quam prius habuit1 circumscriptionem4 7,see ,concordienbuchs-anhang4 ,zeugnisse der h4 ,schrift und ,altvter von ,christo1 and ,petrus ,l4 l4 iii4 dist4 #aj1 cc4 #a1 #b4 ,see also on this subject ,luther1 ,th4 xix4 pp4 #dfd-dfh47 ,in accordance with this the ,united ,brethren say3 ,i will ever embrace thee in love and faith1 until1 when at length my lips are pale in death1 ,i shall see thee bodily4 ,thy eyes1 thy mouth1 the body wounded for us1 on which we so firmly rely1--all that ,i shall behold4 ,hence the ,son of ,god is the darling of the human heart1 the bridegroom of the soul1 the object of a formal1 personal love4 ,o ,domine ,jesu1 si adeo sunt dulces istae lachrymae1 quae ex memoria et desiderio tui excitantur1 quam dulce erit gaudium1 quod ex manifesta tui visione capietur8 ,si adeo dulce est flere pro te1 quam dulce erit gaudere de te4 ,sed quid hujusmodi secreta colloquia proferimus in publicum8 ,cur ineffabiles et innarrabiles affectus communibus verbis conamur exprimere8 ,inexperti talia non intelligunt4 ,zelotypus est sponsus iste4444 ,delicatus est sponsus iste4--,scala ,claustralium 7sive de modo orandi4 ,among the spurious writings of ,st4 ,bernard74 ,luge propter amorem ,jesu ,christi1 sponsi tui1 quosque eum videre possis4--7,de modo bene vivendi4 ,sermo x4 id47 ,adspectum ,christi1 qui adhuc inadspectabilis et absens amorem nostrum meruit et exercuit1 frequentius scripturae commemorant4 ,joh4 xiv4 #c2 #a ,joh4 iii4 #a2 #a ,pet4 i4 #h2 #a ,thess4 iv4 #ag4 ,ac quis non jucundum credat videre corpus illud1 cujus velut instrumento usus est filius ,dei ad expianda peccata1 et absentem tandem amicum salutare8--,doederlein 7,inst4 ,theol4 ,chr4 l4 ii4 ,p4 ii4 ,c4 ii4 ,sect4 ii4 #cjb4 ,obs4 #c74 ,quod oculis corporis ,christum visuri simus1 dubio caret4--,j4 ,fr4 ,buddeus 7,comp4 ,inst4 ,theol4 ,dogm4 l4 ii4 c4 iii4 #aj74 ,the distinction between ,god with the ,son1 or the sensuous ,god1 and ,god without the ,son1 or ,god divested of sensuousness1 is nothing further than the distinction between the mystical and the rational man4 ,the rational man lives and thinks2 with him life is the complement of thought1 and thought the complement of life1 both theoretically1 inasmuch as he convinces himself of the reality of sensuousness through the reason itself1 and practically1 inasmuch as he combines activity of life with activity of thought4 ,that which ,i have in life1 ,i do not need to posit beyond life1 in spirit1 in metaphysical existence1 in ,god2 love1 friendship1 perception1 the world in general1 give me what thought does not1 cannot give me1 nor ought to give me4 ,therefore ,i dismiss the needs of the heart from the sphere of thought1 that reason may not be clouded by desires2--in the demarcation of activities consists the wisdom of life and thought2--,i do not need a ,god who supplies by a mystical1 imaginary physicalness or sensuousness the absence of the real4 ,my heart is satisfied before ,i enter into intellectual activity2 hence my thought is cold1 indifferent1 abstract1 i4e41 free1 in relation to the heart1 which oversteps its limits1 and improperly mixes itself with the affairs of the reason4 ,thus ,i do not think in order to satisfy my heart1 but to satisfy my reason1 which is not satisfied by the heart2 ,i think only in the interest of reason1 from pure desire of knowledge1 ,i seek in ,god only the contentment of the pure1 unmixed intelligence4 ,necessarily1 therefore1 the ,god of the rational thinker is another than the ,god of the heart1 which in thought1 in reason1 only seeks its own satisfaction4 ,and this is the aim of the mystic1 who cannot endure the luminous fire of discriminating and limiting criticism2 for his mind is always beclouded by the vapours which rise from the unextinguished ardour of his feelings4 ,he never attains to abstract1 i4e41 disinterested1 free thought1 and for that reason he never attains to the perception of things in their naturalness1 truth1 and reality4 ,one more remark concerning the ,trinity4 ,the older theologians said that the essential attributes of ,god as ,god were made manifest by the light of natural reason4 ,but how is it that reason can know the ,divine ,being1 unless it be because the ,divine ,being is nothing else than the objective nature of the intelligence itself8 ,of the ,trinity1 on the other hand1 they said that it could only be known through revelation4 ,why not through reason2 because it contradicts reason1 i4e41 because it does not express a want of the reason1 but a sensuous1 emotional want4 ,in general1 the proposition that an idea springs from revelation means no more than that it has come to us by the way of tradition4 ,the dogmas of religion have arisen at certain times out of definite wants1 under definite relations and conceptions2 for this reason1 to the men of a later time1 in which these relations1 wants1 conceptions1 have disappeared1 they are something unintelligible1 incomprehensible1 only traditional1 i4e41 revealed4 ,the antithesis of revelation and reason reduces itself only to the antithesis of history and reason1 only to this1 that mankind at a given time is no longer capable of that which at another time it was quite capable of2 just as the individual man does not unfold his powers at all times indifferently1 but only in moments of special appeal from without or incitement from within4 ,thus the works of genius arise only under altogether special inward and outward conditions which cannot thus coincide more than once2 they are apax legomena4 ,einmal ist alles wahre nur4 ,the true is born but once4 ,hence a man's own works often appear to him in later years quite strange and incomprehensible4 ,he no longer knows how he produced them or could produce them1 i4e41 he can no longer explain them out of himself1 still less reproduce them4 ,and just as it would be folly if1 in riper years1 because the productions of our youth have become strange and inexplicable to us in their tenor and origin1 we were to refer them to a special inspiration from above2 so it is folly1 because the doctrines and ideas of a past age are no longer recognised by the reason of a subsequent age1 to claim for them a supra- and extra-human1 i4e41 an imaginary1 illusory origin4 #i4 ,the creation out of nothing expresses the non-divineness1 non-essentiality1 i4e41 the nothingness of the world4 ,that is created which once did not exist1 which some time will exist no longer1 to which1 therefore1 it is possible not to exist1 which we can think of as not existing1 in a word1 which has not its existence in itself1 is not necessary4 ,cum enim res producantur ex suo non-esse1 possunt ergo absolute non-esse1 adeoque implicat1 quod non sunt necessari4--,duns ,scotus 7ap4 ,rixner1 ,b4 ii4 p4 #gh74 ,but only necessary existence is existence4 ,if ,i am not necessary1 do not feel myself necessary1 ,i feel that it is all one whether ,i exist or not1 that thus my existence is worthless1 nothing4 ,i am nothing1 and ,i am not necessary1 is fundamentally the same thing4 ,creatio non est motus1 sed simplicis divinae voluntatis vocatio ad esse eorum1 quae antea nihil fuerunt et secundum se ipsa et nihil sunt et ex nihilo sunt4--,albertus ,m4 7de4 ,mirab4 ,scient4 ,dei ,p4 ii4 ,tr4 i4 ,qu4 #d1 ,art4 #e1 memb4 ii47 ,but the position that the world is not necessary1 has no other bearing than to prove that the extra- and supra-mundane being 7i4e41 in fact1 the human being7 is the only necessary1 only real being4 ,since the one is non-essential and temporal1 the other is necessarily the essential1 existent1 eternal4 ,the creation is the proof that ,god is1 that he is exclusively true and real4 ,sanctus ,dominus ,deus omnipotens in principio1 quod est in te1 in sapientia tua1 quae nata est de substantia tua1 fecisti aliquid et de nihilo4 ,fecisti enim coelum et terram non de te1 nam esset aequale unigenito tuo1 ac per hoc et tibi1 et nullo modo justum esset1 ut aequale tibi esset1 quod in te non esset4 ,et aliud praeter te non erat1 unde faceres ea ,deus4444 ,et ideo de nihilo fecisti coelum et terram4--,augustinus 7,confessionum l4 xii c4 #g74 ,vere enim ipse est1 quia incommutabilis est4 ,omnis enim mutatio facit non esse quod erat4444 ,ei ergo qui summe est1 non potest esse contrarium nisi quod non est4--,si solus ipse incommutabilis1 omnia quae fecit1 quia ex nihilo id est ex eo quod omnino non est--fecit1 mutabilia sunt4--,augustin 7de nat4 boni adv4 ,manich4 cc4 #a1 #ai74 ,creatura in nullo debet parificari ,deo1 si autem non habuisset initium durationis et esse1 in hoc parificaretur ,deo4--7,albertus ,m4 l4 c4 ,quaest4 incidens #a74 ,the positive1 the essential in the world is not that which makes it a world1 which distinguishes it from ,god--this is precisely its finiteness and nothingness--but rather that in it which is not itself1 which is ,god4 ,all creatures are a pure nothing 444 they have no essential existence1 for their existence hangs on the presence of ,god4 ,if ,god turned himself away a moment1 they would fall to nothing4--7,predigten vor4 u4 zu4 ,tauleri ,zeiten1 ed4 c4 p4 #bi4 ,see also ,augustine1 e4g4 ,confess4 l4 vii4 c4 #aa74 ,this is quite correctly said from the standpoint of religion1 for ,god is the principle of existence1 the being of the world1 though he is represented as a personal being distinct from the world4 ,the world lasts so long as ,god wills4 ,the world is transient1 but man eternal4 ,quamdiu vult1 omnia ejus virtute manent atque consistunt1 et finis eorum in ,dei voluntatem recurrit1 et ejus arbitrio resolvuntur4--,ambrosius 7,hexaemeron4 l4 i4 c4 #e74 ,spiritus enim a ,deo creati nunquam esse desinunt4444 ,corpora coelestia tam diu conservantur1 quamdiu ,deus ea vult permanere4--,buddeus 7,comp4 l4 ii4 c4 ii4 #dg74 ,the dear ,god does not alone create1 but what he creates he keeps with his own being1 until he wills that it shall be no longer4 ,for the time will come when the sun1 moon1 and stars shall be no more4--,luther 7,th4 ix4 s4 #dah74 ,the end will come sooner than we think4--,id4 7,th4 xi4 s4 #ecf74 ,by means of the creation out of nothing man gives himself the certainty that the world is nothing1 is powerless against man4 ,we have a ,lord who is greater than the whole world2 we have a ,lord so powerful1 that when he only speaks all things are born4444 ,wherefore should we fear1 since he is favourable to us8--,id4 7,th4 vi4 p4 #bic74 ,identical with the belief in the creation out of nothing is the belief in the eternal life of man1 in the victory over death1 the last constraint which nature imposes on man--in the resurrection of the dead4 ,six thousand years ago the world was nothing2 and who has made the world8444 ,the same ,god and ,creator can also awake thee from the dead2 he will do it1 and can do it4--,id4 7,th4 xi4 p4 #dbf4 ,see also #dba1 c47 ,we ,christians are greater and more than all creatures1 not in or by ourselves1 but through the gift of ,god in ,christ1 against whom the world is nothing1 and can do nothing4--,id4 7,th4 xi4 p4 #cgg74 #aj4 ,the ,creation in the ,israelitish religion has only a particular1 egoistic aim and purport4 ,the ,israelitish religion is the religion of the most narrow-hearted egoism4 ,even the later ,israelites1 scattered throughout the world1 persecuted and oppressed1 adhered with immovable firmness to the egoistic faith of their forefathers4 ,every ,israelitish soul by itself is1 in the eyes of the blessed ,god1 dearer and more precious than all the souls of a whole nation besides4 ,the ,israelites are among the nations what the heart is among the members4 ,the end in the creation of the world was ,israel alone4 ,the world was created for the sake of the ,israelites2 they are the fruit1 other nations are their husks4 ,all the heathens are nothing for him 7,god72 but for the ,israelites ,god has a use4444 ,they adore and bless the name of the holy and blessed ,god every day1 therefore they are numbered every hour1 and made as 7numerous as7 the grains of corn4 ,if the ,israelites were not1 there would fall no rain on the world1 and the sun would not rise but for their sakes4 ,he 7,god7 is our kinsman1 and we are his kindred4444 ,no power or angel is akin to us1 for the ,lord's portion is his people 7,deut4 xxxii4 #i74 ,he who rises up against an ,israelite 7to injure him71 does the same thing as if he rose up against ,god4 ,if anyone smite an ,israelite on the cheek1 it is the same as if he smote the cheek of the divine majesty4--,eisenmengers 7,entdecktes ,judenthum1 ,t4 i4 ,kap4 #ad74 ,the ,christians blamed the ,jews for this arrogance1 but only because the kingdom of ,god was taken from them and transferred to the ,christians4 ,accordingly1 we find the same thoughts and sentiments in the ,christians as in the ,israelites4 ,know that ,god so takes thee unto himself that thy enemies are his enemies4--,luther 7,t4 vi4 p4 #ii74 ,it is the ,christians for whose sake ,god spares the whole world4444 ,the ,father makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good1 and sends rain on the just and on the unjust4 ,yet this happens only for the sake of the pious and thankful4 7,t4 xvi4 p4 #ejf47 ,he who despises me despises ,god4 7,t4 xi4 p4 #ech47 ,god suffers1 and is despised and persecuted1 in us4 7,t4 iv4 p4 #egg47 ,such declarations as these are1 ,i should think1 argumenta ad hominem for the identity of ,god and man4 #aa4 ,the idea of ,providence is the religious consciousness of man's distinction from the brutes1 from ,nature in general4 ,doth ,god take care for oxen8 7#a ,cor4 ix4 #i47 ,nunquid curae est ,deo bobus8 inquit ,paulus4 ,ad nos ea cura dirigitur1 non ad boves1 equos1 asinos1 qui in usum nostrum sunt conditi4--,j4 ,l4 ,vivis ,val4 7de ,veritate ,fidei ,chr4 ,bas4 #aedd1 p4 #ajh74 ,providentia ,dei in omnibus aliis creaturis respicit ad hominem tanquam ad metam suam4 ,multis passeribus vos pluris estis4 ,matth4 x4 #ca4 ,propter peccatum hominis natura subjecta est vanitati4 ,rom4 viii4 #bj4--,m4 ,chemnitii 7,loci theol4 ,francof4 #afjh1 ,p4 i4 p4 #cab74 ,nunquid enim cura est ,deo de bobus8 ,et sicut non est cura ,deo de bobus1 ita nec de aliis irrationalibus4 ,dicit tamen scriptura 7,sapient4 vi47 quia ipsi cura est de omnibus4 ,providentiam ergo et curam universaliter de cunctis1 quae condidit1 habet4444 ,sed specialem providentiam atque curam habet de rationalibus4--,petrus ,l4 7l4 i4 dist4 #ci1 c4 #c74 ,here we have again an example how ,christian sophistry is a product of ,christian faith1 especially of faith in the ,bible as the word of ,god4 ,first we read that ,god cares not for oxen2 then that ,god cares for everything1 and therefore for oxen4 ,that is a contradiction2 but the word of ,god must not contradict itself4 ,how does faith escape from this contradiction8 ,by distinguishing between a general and a special providence4 ,but general providence is illusory1 is in truth no providence4 ,only special providence is providence in the sense of religion4 ,general providence--the providence which extends itself equally to irrational and rational beings1 which makes no distinction between man and the lilies of the field or the fowls of the air1 is nothing else than the idea of ,nature--an idea which man may have without religion4 ,the religious consciousness admits this when it says3 he who denies providence abolishes religion1 places man on a level with the brutes2--thus declaring that the providence in which the brutes have a share is in truth no providence4 ,providence partakes of the character of its object2 hence the providence which has plants and animals for its object is in accordance with the qualities and relations of plants and animals4 ,providence is nothing else than the inward nature of a thing2 this inward nature is its genius1 its guardian spirit--the necessity of its existence4 ,the higher1 the more precious a being is1--the more ground of existence it has1 the more necessary it is1 the less is it open to annihilation4 ,every being is necessary only through that by which it is distinguished from other beings2 its specific difference is the ground of its existence4 ,so man is necessary only through that by which he is distinguished from the brutes2 hence providence is nothing else than man's consciousness of the necessity of his existence1 of the distinction between his nature and that of other beings2 consequently that alone is the true providence in which this specific difference of man becomes an object to him4 ,but this providence is special1 i4e41 the providence of love1 for only love interests itself in what is special to a being4 ,providence without love is a conception without basis1 without reality4 ,the truth of providence is love4 ,god loves men1 not brutes1 not plants2 for only for man's sake does he perform extraordinary deeds1 deeds of love--miracles4 ,where there is no community there is no love4 ,but what bond can be supposed to unite brutes1 or natural things in general1 with ,god8 ,god does not recognise himself in them1 for they do not recognise him2--where ,i find nothing of myself1 how can ,i love8 ,god who thus promises1 does not speak with asses and oxen1 as ,paul says3 ,doth ,god take care for oxen8 but with rational creatures made in his likeness1 that they may live for ever with him4 ,luther 7,th4 ii4 s4 #aef74 ,god is first with himself in man2 in man first begins religion1 providence2 for the latter is not something different from the former1 on the contrary1 religion is itself the providence of man4 ,he who loses religion1 i4e41 faith in himself1 faith in man1 in the infinite significance of his being1 in the necessity of his existence1 loses providence4 ,he alone is forsaken who forsakes himself2 he alone is lost who despairs2 he alone is without ,god who is without faith1 i4e41 without courage4 ,wherein does religion place the true proof of providence8 in the phenomena of ,nature1 as they are objects to us out of religion1--in astronomy1 in physics1 in natural history8 ,no6 ,in those appearances which are objects of religion1 of faith only1 which express only the faith of religion in itself1 i4e41 in the truth and reality of man1--in the religious events1 means1 and institutions which ,god has ordained exclusively for the salvation of man1 in a word1 in miracles2 for the means of grace1 the sacraments1 belong to the class of providential miracles4 ,quamquam autem haec consideratio universae naturae nos admonet de ,deo 444 tamen nos referamus initio mentem et oculos ad omnia testimonia1 in quibus se ,deus ecclesiae patefecit ad eductionem ex ,aegypto1 ad vocem sonantem in ,sinai1 ad ,christum resuscitantem mortuos et resuscitatum1 etc4444 ,ideo semper defixae sint mentes in horum testimoniorum cogitationem et his confirmatae articulum de ,creatione meditentur1 deinde considerent etiam vestigia ,dei impressae naturae4--,melancthon 7,loci de ,creat4 p4 #fb1 ed4 cit474 ,mirentur alii creationem1 mihi magis libet mirari redemptionem4 ,mirabile est1 quod caro nostra et ossa nostra a ,deo nobis sunt formata1 mirabilius adhuc est1 quod ipse ,deus caro de carne nostra et os de ossibus nostris fieri voluit4--,j4 ,gerhard 7,med4 s4 ,m4 #ae74 ,the heathens know ,god no further than that he is a ,creator4--,luther 7,t4 ii4 p4 #cbg74 ,that providence has only man for its essential object is evident from this1 that to religious faith all things and beings are created for the sake of man4 ,we are lords not only of birds1 but of all living creatures1 and all things are given for our service1 and are created only for our sake4--,luther 7,t4 ix4 p4 #bha74 ,but if things are created only for the sake of man1 they are also preserved only for the sake of man4 ,and if things are mere instruments of man1 they stand under the protection of no law1 they are1 in relation to man1 without rights4 ,this outlawing of things explains miracle4 ,the negation of providence is the negation of ,god4 ,qui ergo providentiam tollit1 totum ,dei substantiam tollit et quid dicit nisi ,deum non esse8444 ,si non curat humana1 sive nesciens1 cessat omnis causa pietatis1 cum sit spes nulla salutis4--,joa4 ,trithemius 7,tract4 de ,provid4 ,dei74 ,nam qui nihil aspici a ,deo affirmant prope est ut cui adspectum adimunt1 etiam substantiam tollant4--,salvianus 7l4 c4 l4 iv474 ,aristotle almost falls into the opinion that ,god--though he does not expressly name him a fool--is such a one that he knows nothing of our affairs1 nothing of our designs1 understands1 sees1 regards nothing but himself4444 ,but what is such a ,god or ,lord to us8 of what use is he to us8--,luther 7in ,walch's ,philos4 ,lexikon1 art4 ,vorsehung74 ,providence is therefore the most undeniable1 striking proof that in religion1 in the nature of ,god himself1 man is occupied only with himself1 that the mystery of theology is anthropology1 that the substance1 the content of the infinite being1 is the finite being4 ,god sees men1 means3 in ,god man sees only himself2 ,god cares for man1 means3 a ,god who is not active is no real ,god4 ,but there is no activity without an object3 it is the object which first converts activity from a mere power into real activity4 ,this object is man4 ,if man did not exist1 ,god would have no cause for activity4 ,thus man is the motive principle1 the soul of ,god4 ,a ,god who does not see and hear man1 who has not man in himself1 is blind and deaf1 i4e41 inert1 empty1 unsubstantial4 ,thus the fulness of the divine nature is the fulness of the human2 thus the ,godhead of ,god is humanity4 ,i for myself1 is the comfortless mystery of epicureanism1 stoicism1 pantheism2 ,god for me1 this is the consolatory mystery of religion1 of ,christianity4 ,is man for ,god's sake1 or ,god for man's8 ,it is true that in religion man exists for ,god's sake1 but only because ,god exists for man's sake4 ,i am for ,god because ,god is for me4 ,providence is identical with miraculous power1 supernaturalistic freedom from ,nature1 the dominion of arbitrariness over law4 ,etsi 7sc4 ,deus7 sustentat naturam1 tamen contra ordinem jussit aliquando ,solem regredi1 etc4444 ,ut igitur invocatio vere fieri possit1 cogitemus ,deum sic adesse suo opificio1 non1 ut ,stoici fingunt1 alligatum secundis causis1 sed sustentantem naturam et multa suo liberrimo consilio moderantem4444 ,multa facit prima causa praeter secundas1 quia est agens liberum4--,melancthon 7,loci de ,caus ,peccati1 pp4 #hb1 #hc1 ed4 cit47 ,scriptura vero tradit1 ,deum in actione providentiae esse agens liberum1 qui ut plurimum quidem ordinem sui operis servet1 illi tamen ordini non sit alligatus1 sed #a7 quicquid facit per causas secundas1 illud possit etiam sine illis per se solum facere #b7 quod ex causis secundis possit alium effectum producere1 quam ipsarum dispositio et natura ferat #c7 quod positis ausis secundis in actu1 ,deus tamen effectum possit impedire1 mutare1 mitigare1 exasperare4444 ,non igitur est connexio causarum ,stoica in actionibus providentiae ,dei4--,m4 ,chemnitius 7l4 c4 pp4 #caf1 #cag74 ,liberrime ,deus imperat naturae--,naturam saluti hominum attemperat propter ,ecclesiam4444 ,omnino tribuendus est ,deo hic honos1 quod possit et velit opitulari nobis1 etiam cum a tota natura destituimur1 contra seriem omnium secundarum causarum4444 ,et multa accidunt plurimis hominibus1 in quibus mirandi eventus fateri eos cogunt1 se a ,deo sine causis secundis servatos esse4--,c4 ,peucerus 7de ,praecip4 ,divinat4 gen4 ,servestae1 #aeia1 p4 #dd74 ,ille tamen qui omnium est conditor1 nullis instrumentis indiget4 ,nam si id continuo fit1 quicquid ipse vult1 velle illius erit author atque instrumentum2 nec magis ad haec regenda astris indiget1 quam cum luto aperuit oculos coeci1 sicut refert historia ,evangelica4 ,lutum enim magis videbatur obturaturum oculos1 quam aperturum4 ,sed ipse ostendere nobis voluit omnem naturam esse sibi instrumentum ad quidvis1 quantumcunque alienum4--,j4 ,l4 ,vives 7l4 c4 #ajb74 ,how is this to be reconciled8 ,the air gives food and nourishment1 and here stones or rocks flow with water2 it is a marvellous gift4 ,and it is also strange and marvellous that corn grows out of the earth4 ,who has this art and this power8 ,god has it1 who can do such unnatural things1 that we may thence imagine what sort of a ,god he is and what sort of power he has1 that we may not be terrified at him nor despair1 but firmly believe and trust him1 that he can make the leather in the pocket into gold1 and can make dust into corn on the earth1 and the air a cellar for me full of wine4 ,he is to be trusted1 as having such great power1 and we may know that we have a ,god who can perform these deeds of skill1 and that around him it rains and snows with miraculous works4--,luther 7,t4 iii4 p4 #eid74 ,the omnipotence of ,providence is the omnipotence of human feeling releasing itself from all conditions and laws of ,nature4 ,this omnipotence is realised by prayer4 ,prayer is ,almighty4 ,the prayer of faith shall save the sick4444 ,the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much4 ,elias was a man subject to like passions as we are1 and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain2 and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months4 ,and he prayed again1 and the heavens gave rain and the earth brought forth her fruit4--,james v4 #ae-ah4 ,if ye have faith and doubt not1 ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig-tree1 but also if ye shall say unto this mountain1 ,be thou removed and be thou cast into the sea1 it shall be done1 and all things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer1 believing1 ye shall receive4--,matt4 xxi4 #ba1 #bb4 ,that under this mountain which the power of faith is to overcome are to be understood not only very difficult things--res difficillimae1 as the exegetists say1 who explain this passage as a proverbial1 hyperbolical mode of speech among the ,jews1 but rather things which according to ,nature and reason are impossible1 is proved by the case of the instantaneously withered fig-tree1 to which the passage in question refers4 ,here indubitably is declared the omnipotence of prayer1 of faith1 before which the power of ,nature vanishes into nothing4 ,mutanturquoque ad preces ea quae ex naturae causis erant sequutura1 quemadmodum in ,ezechia contigit1 rege ,juda1 cui1 quod naturales causarum progressus mortem minabantur1 dictum est a propheta ,dei3 ,morieris et non vives2 sed is decursus naturae ad regis preces mutatus est et mutaturum se ,deus praeviderat4--,j4 ,l4 ,vives 7l4 c4 p4 #acb74 ,saepe fatorum saevitiam lenit ,deus1 placatus piorum votis4--,melancthon 7,epist4 ,sim4 ,grynaeo74 ,cedit natura rerum precibus ,moysi4 ,eliae1 ,elisaei1 ,jesaiae et omnium piorum1 sicut ,christus inquit ,matt4 #ba3 ,omnia quae petetis1 credentes accipietis4--,id4 7,loci de ,creat4 p4 #fd1 ed4 cit474 ,celsus calls on the ,christians to aid the ,emperor and not to decline military service4 ,whereupon ,origen answers4 ,precibus nostris profligantes omnes bellorum excitatores daemonas et perturbatores pacis ac foederum plus conferimus regibus1 quam qui arma gestant pro ,republica4--,origenes 7adv4 ,celsum4 ,s4 ,glenio int4 l4 viii474 ,human need is the necessity of the ,divine ,will4 ,in prayer man is the active1 the determining1 ,god the passive1 the determined4 ,god does the will of man4 ,god does the will of those that fear him1 and he gives his will up to ours4444 ,for the text says clearly enough1 that ,lot was not to stay in all the plain1 but to escape to the mountain4 ,but this his wish ,god changes1 because ,lot fears him and prays to him4 ,and we have other testimonies in the ,scriptures which prove that ,god allows himself to be turned and subjects his will to our wish4 ,thus it was according to the regular order of ,god's power that the sun should maintain its revolution and wonted course2 but when ,joshua in his need called on the ,lord and commanded the sun that it should stand still1 it stood still at ,joshua's word4 ,how great a miracle this was1 ask the astronomers4--,luther 7,t4 ii4 p4 #bbf74 ,lord1 ,i am here and there in great need and danger of body and soul1 and therefore want thy help and comfort4 ,item3 ,i must have this and that2 therefore ,i entreat thee that thou give it me4 ,he who so prays and perseveres unabashed does right1 and our ,lord ,god is well pleased with him1 for he is not so squeamish as we men4--,id4 7,t4 xvi4 p4 #aej74 #ab4 ,faith is the freedom and blessedness which feeling finds in itself4 ,feeling objective to itself and active in this freedom1 the reaction of feeling against ,nature1 is the arbitrariness of the imagination4 ,the objects of faith therefore necessarily contradict ,nature1 necessarily contradict ,reason1 as that which represents the nature of things4 ,quid magis contra fidem1 quam credere nolle1 quidquid non possit ratione attingere8444 ,nam illam quae in ,deum est fides1 beatus papa ,gregorius negat plane habere meritum1 si ei humana ratio praebeat experimentum4--,bernardus 7contr4 ,abelard4 ,ep4 ad4 ,dom4 ,papam ,innocentium74 ,partus virginis nec ratione colligitur1 nec exemplo monstratur4 ,quodsi ratione colligitur non erit mirabile4--,conc4 ,toletan4 ,,xi4 ,art4 ,,iv4 7,summa4 ,carranza47 ,quid autem incredibile1 si contra usum originis naturalis peperit ,maria et virgo permanet3 quando contra usum naturae mare vidit et fugit atque in fontem suum ,jordanis fluenta remearunt8 ,non ergo excedit fidem1 quod virgo peperit1 quando legimus1 quod petra vomuit aquas et in montis speciem maris unda solidata est4 ,non ergo excedit fidem1 quod homo exivit de virgine1 quando petra profluit1 scaturivit ferrum supra aquas1 ambulavit homo supra aquas4--,ambrosius 7,epist4 ,l4 x4 ,ep4 #ha4 edit4 ,basil4 ,amerbach4 #adib et #aeaf74 ,mira sunt fratres1 quae de isto sacramento dicuntur4444 ,haec sunt quae fidem necessario exigunt1 rationem omnino non admittunt4--,bernardus 7de ,coena ,dom474 ,quid ergo hic quaeris naturae ordinem in ,christi corpore1 cum praeter naturam sit ipse partus ex virgine4--,petrus ,lomb4 7l4 iv4 dist4 #aj1 c4 #b74 ,laus fidei est credere quod est supra rationem1 ubi homo abnegat intellectum et omnes sensus4 7,addit4 ,henrici de ,vurimaria4 ibid4 dist4 #ab1 c4 #e47 ,all the articles of our faith appear foolish and ridiculous to reason4 444 ,we ,christians seem fools to the world for believing that ,mary was the true mother of this child1 and was nevertheless a pure virgin4 ,for this is not only against all reason1 but also against the creation of ,god1 who said to ,adam and ,eve1 ',be fruitful and multiply4' ,we ought not to inquire whether a thing be possible1 but we should say1 ,god has said it1 therefore it will happen1 even if it be impossible4 ,for although ,i cannot see or understand it1 yet the ,lord can make the impossible possible1 and out of nothing can make all things4--,luther 7,t4 xvi4 pp4 #adh1 #adi1 #egj74 ,what is more miraculous than that ,god and man is one ,person8 that he is the ,son of ,god and the ,son of ,mary1 and yet only one ,son8 ,who will comprehend this mystery in all eternity1 that ,god is man1 that a creature is the ,creator1 and the ,creator a creature8--,id4 7,t4 vii4 p4 #abh74 ,the essential object of faith1 therefore1 is miracle2 but not common1 visible miracle1 which is an object even to the bold eye of curiosity and unbelief in general2 not the appearance1 but the essence of miracle2 not the fact1 but the miraculous power1 the ,being who works miracles1 who attests and reveals himself in miracle4 ,and this miraculous power is to faith always present2 even ,protestantism believes in the uninterrupted perpetuation of miraculous power2 it only denies the necessity that it should still manifest itself in special visible signs1 for the furtherance of dogmatic ends4 ,some have said that signs were the revelation of the ,spirit in the commencement of ,christianity and have now ceased4 ,that is not correct2 for there is even now such a power1 and though it is not used1 that is of no importance4 ,for we have still the power to perform such signs4 ,now1 however1 that ,christianity is spread abroad and made known to all the world1 there is no need to work miracles1 as in the times of the apostles4 ,but if there were need for it1 if the ,gospel were oppressed and persecuted1 we must truly apply ourselves to this1 and must also work miracles4--,luther 7,th4 xiii4 pp4 #fdb1 #fdh74 ,miracle is so essential1 so natural to faith1 that to it even natural phenomena are miracles1 and not in the physical sense1 but in the theological1 supranaturalistic sense4 ,god1 in the beginning1 said3 ,let the earth bring forth grass and herbs1 c4 ,that same word which the ,creator spoke brings the cherry out of the dry bough and the cherry-tree out of the little kernel4 ,it is the omnipotence of ,god which makes young fowls and geese come out of the eggs4 ,thus ,god preaches to us daily of the resurrection of the dead1 and has given us as many examples and experiences of this article as there are creatures4--,luther 7,th4 x4 p4 #dcb4 ,see also ,th4 iii4 pp4 #ehf1 #eib1 and ,augustine1 e4g41 ,enarr4 in ,ps4 #ij1 ,sermo ii4 c4 #f74 ,if1 therefore1 faith desires and needs no special miracle1 this is only because to it everything is fundamentally miracle1 everything an effect of divine1 miraculous power4 ,religious faith has no sense1 no perception for ,nature4 ,nature1 as it exists for us1 has no existence for faith4 ,to it the will of ,god is alone the ground1 the bond1 the necessity of things4 ,god 444 could indeed have made us men1 as he did ,adam and ,eve1 by himself1 without father and mother1 as he could reign without princes1 as he could give light without sun and stars1 and bread without fields and ploughs and labour4 ,but it is not his will to do thus4--,luther 7,th4 xvi4 p4 #fad74 ,it is true ,god employs certain means1 and so conducts his miraculous works as to use the service of ,nature and instruments4 ,therefore we ought--truly on very natural grounds--not to despise the means and instruments of ,nature4 ,thus it is allowable to use medicine1 nay1 it ought to be used1 for it is a means created in order to preserve health4--,luther 7,th4 i4 p4 #ejh74 ,but--and that alone is decisive--it is not necessary that ,i should use natural means in order to be cured2 ,i can be cured immediately by ,god4 ,what ,god ordinarily does by means of ,nature1 he can also do without1 nay1 in opposition to ,nature1 and actually does it thus1 in extraordinary cases1 when he will4 ,god1 says ,luther in the same place1 could indeed easily have preserved ,noah and the animals through a whole year without food1 as he preserved ,moses1 ,elijah1 and ,christ forty days without any food4 ,whether he does it often or seldom is indifferent2 it is enough if he only does it once2 what happens once can happen innumerable times4 ,a single miracle has universal significance--the significance of an example4 ,this deed1 the passage through the ,red ,sea1 happened as a figure and example1 to show us that it will be so with us4--,luther 7,th4 iii4 p4 #eif74 ,these miracles are written for us1 who are chosen4--,ib4 7,th4 ix4 p4 #adb74 ,the natural means which ,god employs when he does no miracle1 have no more significance than those which he employs when he performs miracles4 ,if the animals1 ,god so willing it1 can live as well without food as with it1 food is in itself as unnecessary for the preservation of life1 as indifferent1 as non-essential1 as arbitrary1 as the clay with which ,christ anointed the eyes of the blind man to whom he restored sight1 as the staff with which ,moses divided the sea 7,god could have done it just as well without the staff74 ,faith is stronger than heaven and earth1 or all creatures4 ,faith turns water into stones2 out of fire it can bring water1 and out of water fire4--,luther 7,th4 iii4 pp4 #efd1 #efe74 ,that is to say1 for faith there exists no limit1 no law1 no necessity1 no ,nature2 there exists only the will of ,god1 against which all things and powers are nothing4 ,if therefore the believer1 when in sickness and distress1 has recourse notwithstanding to natural means1 he only follows the voice of his natural reason4 ,the one means of cure which is congruous with faith1 which does not contradict faith1 which is not thrust upon it1 whether consciously and voluntarily or not1 from without1--the one remedy for all evil and misery is prayer2 for prayer is almighty4--,luther 7,th4 iv4 p4 #bg74 ,why then use a natural means also8 ,for even in case of its application1 the effect which follows is by no means its own1 but the effect of the supernatural will of ,god1 or rather the effect of faith1 of prayer2 for prayer1 faith determines the will of ,god4 ,thy faith hath saved thee4 ,thus the natural means which faith recognises in practice it nullifies in theory1 since it makes the effect of such means an effect of ,god1--i4e41 an effect which could have taken place just as well without this means4 ,the natural effect is therefore nothing else than a circumstantial1 covert1 concealed miracle2 a miracle however which has not the appearance of a miracle1 but can only be perceived as such by the eyes of faith4 ,only in expression1 not in fact1 is there any difference between an immediate and mediate1 a miraculous and natural operation of ,god4 ,when faith makes use of a natural means1 it speaks otherwise than it thinks2 when it supposes a miracle it speaks as it thinks1 but in both cases it thinks the same4 ,in the mediate agency of ,god faith is in disunion with itself1 for the senses here deny what faith affirms2 in miracle1 on the contrary1 it is at one with itself1 for there the appearance coincides with the reality1 the senses with faith1 the expression with the fact4 ,miracle is the terminus technicus of faith4 #ac4 ,the ,resurrection of ,christ is bodily1 i4e41 personal immortality1 presented as a sensible indubitable fact4 ,resurrexit ,christus1 absoluta res est4--,ostendit se ipsum discipulis et fidelibus suis1 contrectata est soliditas corporis4444 ,confirmata fides est non solum in cordibus1 sed etiam in oculis hominum4--,augustinus 7,sermones ad ,pop4 ,s4 #bdb1 c4 ,i4 ,s4 #cfa1 c4 ,s4 ,see also on this subject ,melancthon1 ,loci3 de ,resurr4 ,mort474 ,the philosophers 444 held that by death the soul was released from the body1 and that after it was thus set free from the body1 as from a prison1 it came into the assembly of the gods1 and was relieved from all corporeal burthens4 ,of such an immortality the philosophers allowed men to dream1 though they did not hold it to be certain1 nor could defend it4 ,but the ,holy ,scriptures teach of the resurrection and eternal life in another manner1 and place the hope of it so certainly before our eyes1 that we cannot doubt it4--,luther 7,th4 i4 p4 #edi74 #ad4 ,christianity made man an extramundane1 supernatural being4 ,we have here no abiding city1 but we seek one to come4--,heb4 xiii4 #ad4 ,whilst we are at home in the body1 we are absent from the ,lord4--#b ,cor4 v4 #f4 ,if in this body1 which is properly our own1 we are strangers1 and our life in this body is nothing else than a pilgrimage2 how much more then are the possessions which we have for the sake of the body1 such as fields1 houses1 gold1 c41 nothing else than idle1 strange things1 to be used as if we were on a pilgrimage8 ,therefore we must in this life live like strangers until we reach the true fatherland1 and receive a better life which is eternal4--,luther 7,th4 ii4 pp4 #bdj1 #cgj a74 ,our conversation 7politeuma1 civitas aut jus civitatis7 is in heaven1 from whence also we look for the ,saviour1 the ,lord ,jesus ,christ1 who shall change our vile body that it may be like unto his glorious body1 according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself4--,phil4 iii4 #bj1 #ba4 ,neque mundus generat hominem1 neque mundi homo pars est4--,lactantius 7,div4 ,inst4 l4 ii4 c4 #f74 ,coelum de mundo3 homo supra mundum4--,ambrosius 7,epist4 l4 vi4 ,ep4 #ch1 ed4 cit474 ,agnosce o homo dignitatem tuam1 agnosce gloriam conditionis humanae4 ,est enim tibi cum mundo corpus 444 sed est tibi etiam sublimius aliquid1 nec omnino comparandus es caeteris creaturis4--,bernardus 7,opp4 ,basil4 #aeeb1 p4 #gi74 ,at ,christianus 444 ita supra totum mundum ascendit1 nec consistit in coeli convexis1 sed transcensis mente locis supercoelestibus ductu divini spiritus velut jam extra mundum raptus offert ,deo preces4--,origenes 7contra ,celspum4 ed4 ,hoeschelio1 p4 #cgj74 ,totus quidem iste mundus ad unius animae pretium aestimari non potest4 ,non enim pro toto mundo ,deus animam suam dare voluit1 quam pro anima humana dedit4 ,sublimius est ergo animae pretium1 quae non nisi sanguine ,christi redimi potest4--,medit4 devotiss4 c4 ii4 7,among the spurious writings of ,st4 ,bernard47 ,sapiens anima 444 ,deum tantummodo sapiens hominem in homine exuit1 ,deoque plene et in omnibus affecta1 omnem infra ,deum creaturam non aliter quam ,deus attendit4 ,relicto ergo corpore et corporeis omnibus curis et impedimentis omnium quae sunt praeter ,deum obliviscitur1 nihilque praeter ,deum attendens quasi se solam1 solumque ,deum existimans1 etc4--,de ,nat4 et ,dign4 ,amoris ,divini1 cc4 #ad1 #ae4 7,ib47 ,quid agis frater in saeculo1 qui major es mundo8--,hieronymus 7ad ,heliod4 de ,laude ,vitae solit474 #ae4 ,the celibate and monachism--of course only in their original1 religious significance and form--are sensible manifestations1 necessary consequences1 of the supranaturalistic1 extramundane character of ,christianity4 ,it is true that they also contradict ,christianity2 the reason of this is shown by implication in the present work2 but only because ,christianity is itself a contradiction4 ,they contradict exoteric1 practical1 but not esoteric1 theoretical ,christianity2 they contradict ,christian love so far as this love relates to man1 but not ,christian faith1 not ,christian love so far as it loves man only for ,god's sake4 ,there is certainly nothing concerning celibacy and monachism in the ,bible2 and that is very natural4 ,in the beginning of ,christianity the great matter was the recognition of ,jesus as the ,christ1 the ,messiah--the conversion of the heathens and ,jews4 ,and this conversion was the more pressing1 the nearer the ,christians supposed the day of judgment and the destruction of the world2--periculum in mora4 ,there was not time or opportunity for a life of quietude1 for the contemplation of monachism4 ,hence there necessarily reigned at that time a more practical and even liberal sentiment than at a later period1 when ,christianity had attained to worldly dominion1 and thus the enthusiasm of proselytism was extinguished4 ,apostoli 7says the ,church1 quite correctly3 ,carranza1 l4 c4 p4 #bef7 cum fides inciperet1 ad fidelium imbecillitatem se magis demittebant1 cum autem evangelii praedicatio sit magis ampliata1 oportet et ,pontifices ad perfectam continentiam vitam suam dirigere4 ,when once ,christianity realised itself in a worldly form1 it must also necessarily develop the supranaturalistic1 supramundane tendency of ,christianity into a literal separation from the world4 ,and this disposition to separation from life1 from the body1 from the world1--this first hyper-cosmic then anti-cosmic tendency1 is a genuinely biblical disposition and spirit4 ,in addition to the passages already cited1 and others universally known1 the following may stand as examples3 ,he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal4 ,i know that in me1 that is1 in my flesh1 dwelleth no good thing4--,rom4 vii4 #ah4 7,veteres enim omnis vitiositatis in agendo origenes ad corpus referebant4--,j4 ,g4 ,rosenmller ,scholia47 ,forasmuch then as ,christ hath suffered for us in the flesh1 arm yourselves also with the same mind2 for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin4--#a ,pet4 iv4 #a4 ,i have a desire to depart1 and to be with ,christ4--,phil4 i4 #bc4 ,we are confident and willing rather to be absent from the body and present with the ,lord4--#b ,cor4 v4 #h4 ,thus1 according to these passages1 the partition-wall between ,god and man is the body 7at least the fleshly1 actual body72 thus the body as a hindrance to union with ,god is something worthless1 to be denied4 ,that by the world1 which is denied in ,christianity1 is by no means to be understood a life of mere sensuality1 but the real objective world1 is to be inferred in a popular manner from the belief that at the advent of the ,lord1 i4e41 the consummation of the ,christian religion1 heaven and earth will pass away4 ,the difference between the belief of the ,christians and that of the heathen philosophers as to the destruction of the world is not to be overlooked4 ,the ,christian destruction of the world is only a crisis of faith1--the separation of the ,christian from all that is anti-christian1 the triumph of faith over the world1 a judgment of ,god1 an anti-cosmical1 supernaturalistic act4 ,but the heavens and the earth which are now1 by the same word are kept in store1 reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men4--#b ,pet4 iii4 #g4 ,the heathen destruction of the world is a crisis of the cosmos itself1 a process which takes place according to law1 which is founded in the constitution of ,nature4 ,sic origo mundi1 non minus solem et lunam et vices siderum et animalium ortus1 quam quibus mutarentur terrena1 continuit4 ,in his fuit inundatio1 quae non secus quam hiems1 quam aestas1 lege mundi venit4--,seneca 7,nat4 ,qu4 l4 iii4 c4 #bi74 ,it is the principle of life immanent in the world1 the essence of the world itself1 which evolves this crisis out of itself4 ,aqua et ignis terrenis dominantur4 ,ex his ortus et ex his interitus est4--7,ibid4 c4 #bh47 ,quidquid est1 non erit2 nec peribit1 sed resolvetur4--7,idem4 ,epist4 #ga47 ,the ,christians excluded themselves from the destruction of the world4 ,and he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet2 and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds1 from one end of heaven to the other4--,matt4 xxiv4 #ca4 ,but there shall not a hair of your head perish4444 ,and then shall they see the ,son of ,man coming in a cloud with power and great glory4 ,and when these things begin to come to pass1 then look up and lift up your heads2 for your redemption draweth nigh4--,luke xxi4 #ah1 #bg1 #bh4 ,watch ye therefore and pray always1 that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass1 and to stand before the ,son of ,man4--,ib4 #cf4 ,the heathens1 on the contrary1 identified their fate with the fate of the world4 ,hoc universum1 quod omnia divina humanaque complectitur 444 dies aliquis dissipabit et in confusionem veterem tenebrasque demerget4 ,eat nunc aliquis et singulas comploret animas4 ,quis tam superbae impotentisque arrogantiae est1 ut in hac naturae necessitate1 omnia ad eundem finem revocantis1 se unum ac suos seponi velit4--,seneca 7,cons4 ad ,polyb4 cc4 #bj1 #ba74 ,ergo quandoque erit terminus rebus humanis4444 ,non muri quenquam1 non turres tuebuntur4 ,non proderunt templa supplicibus4--7,nat4 ,qu4 ,l4 iii4 c4 #bi47 ,thus here we have again the characteristic distinction between heathenism and ,christianity4 ,the heathen forgot himself in the world1 the ,christian forgot the world in himself4 ,and as the heathen identified his destruction with the destruction of the world1 so he identified his immortality with the immortality of the world4 ,to the heathen1 man was a common1 to the ,christian1 a select being2 to the latter immortality was a privilege of man1 to the former a common good which he vindicated to himself only because1 and in so far as1 he assigned to other beings a share in it also4 ,the ,christians expected the destruction of the world immediately1 because the ,christian religion has in it no cosmical principle of development3--all which developed itself in ,christendom developed itself only in contradiction with the original nature of ,christianity2--because by the existence of ,god in the flesh1 i4e41 by the immediate identity of the species with the individual1 everything was attained1 the thread of history was cut short1 no other thought of the future remained than the thought of a repetition of the second coming of the ,lord4 ,the heathens1 on the contrary1 placed the destruction of the world in the distant future1 because1 living in the contemplation of the universe1 they did not set heaven and earth in motion on their own account1--because they extended and freed their self-consciousness by the consciousness of the species1 placed immortality only in the perpetuation of the species1 and thus did not reserve the future to themselves1 but left it to the coming generations4 ,veniet tempus quo posteri nostri tam aperta nos nescisse mirentur4--,seneca 7,nat4 ,qu4 l4 vii4 c4 #be74 ,he who places immortality in himself abolishes the principle of historical development4 ,the ,christians did indeed1 according to ,peter1 expect a new heaven and a new earth4 ,but with this ,christian1 i4e41 superterrestrial earth1 the theatre of history is for ever closed1 the end of the actual world is come4 ,the heathens1 on the contrary1 set no limits to the development of the cosmos2 they supposed the world to be destroyed only to arise again renovated as a real world2 they granted it eternal life4 ,the ,christian destruction of the world was a matter of feeling1 an object of fear and longing2 the heathen1 a matter of reason1 an inference from the contemplation of nature4 ,unspotted ,virginity is the principle of ,salvation1 the principle of the regenerate ,christian world4 ,virgo genuit mundi salutem2 virgo peperit vitam universorum4444 ,virgo portavit1 quem mundus iste capere aut sustinere non potest4444 ,per virum autem et mulierem caro ejecta de paradiso3 per virginem juncta est ,deo4--,ambrosius 7,ep4 ,l4 x4 ,ep4 #hb74 ,jure laudatur bona uxor1 sed melius pia virgo praefertur1 dicente ,apostolo 7#a ,cor4 vii474 ,bonum conjugium1 per quod est inventa posteritas successionis humanae2 sed melius virginitas1 per quam regni coelestis haereditas acquisita et coelestium meritorum reperta successio4 ,per mulierem cura successit3 per virginem salus evenit4--7,id4 ,ep4 #ha47 ,castitas jungit hominem coelo4444 ,bona est castitas conjugalis1 sed melior est continentia vidualis4 ,optima vero integritas virginalis4--,de modo bene vivendi1 ,sermo #bb4 7,among the spurious writings of ,bernard47 ,pulchritudinem hominis non concupiscas4--7,ibid4 ,s4 #bc47 ,fornicatio major est omnibus peccatis4444 ,audi beati ,isidori verba3 ,fornicatione coinquinari deterius est omni peccato4--7,ibid47 ,virginitas cui gloriae merito non praefertur8 ,angelicae8 ,angelus habet virginitatem1 sed non carnem1 sane felicior1 quam fortior in hac parte4--,bernardus 7,ep4 #aac1 ad ,sophiam ,virginem74 ,memento semper1 quod paradisi colonum de possessione sua mulier ejecerit4--,hieronymus 7,ep4 ,nepotiano74 ,in paradiso virginitas conversabatur4444 ,ipse ,christus virginitatis gloria non modo ex patre sine initio et sine duorum concursu genitus1 sed et homo secundum nos factus1 super nos ex virgine sine alieno consortio incarnatus est4 ,et ipse virginitatem veram et perfectam esse1 in se ipso demonstravit4 ,unde hanc nobis legem non statuit 7non enim omnes capiunt verbum hoc1 ut ipse dixit7 sed opere nos erudivit4--,joan4 ,damasc4 7,orthod4 ,fidei1 l4 iv4 c4 #be74 ,now if abstinence from the satisfaction of the sensual impulse1 the negation of difference of sex and consequently of sexual love1--for what is this without the other8--is the principle of the ,christian heaven and salvation2 then necessarily the satisfaction of the sexual impulse1 sexual love1 on which marriage is founded1 is the source of sin and evil4 ,and so it is held4 ,the mystery of original sin is the mystery of sexual desire4 ,all men are conceived in sin because they were conceived with sensual1 i4e41 natural pleasure4 ,the act of generation1 as an act of sensual enjoyment1 is sinful4 ,sin is propagated from ,adam down to us1 simply because its propagation is the natural act of generation4 ,this is the mystery of ,christian original sin4 ,atque hic quam alienus a vero sit1 etiam hic reprehenditur1 quod voluptatem in homine ,deo authore creatam asserit principaliter4 ,sed hoc divinae scriptura redarguit1 quae serpentis insidiis atque illecebris infusam ,adae atque ,evae voluptatem docet1 siquidem ipse serpens voluptas sit4444 ,quomodo igitur voluptas ad paradisum revocare nos potest1 quae sola nos paradiso exuit8--,ambrosius 7,ep4 ,l4 x4 ,ep4 #hb74 ,voluptas ipsa sine culpa nullatenus esse potest4--,petrus ,l4 7l4 iv4 dist4 #ca1 c4 #e74 ,omnes in peccatis nati sumus1 et ex carnis delectatione concepti culpam originalem nobiscum traximus4--,gregorius 7,petrus ,l4 l4 ii4 dist4 #cj1 c4 #b74 ,firmissime tene et nullatenus dubites1 omnem hominem1 qui per concubitum viri et mulieris concipitur1 cum originali peccato nasci4444 ,ex his datur intelligi1 quid sit originale peccatum1 scl4 vitium concupiscentiae1 quod in omnes concupiscentialiter natos per ,adam intravit4--7,ibid4 c4 #c1 see also dist4 #ca1 c4 #a47 ,peccati causa ex carne est4--,ambrosius 7ibid47 ,christus peccatum non habet1 nec originale traxit1 nec suum addidit3 extra voluptatem carnalis libidinis venit1 non ibi fuit complexus maritalis4444 ,omnis generatus1 damnatus4--,augustinus 7,serm4 ad ,pop4 ,s4 #bid1 cc4 #aj1 #af74 ,homo natus de muliere et ob hoc cum reatu4--,bernardus 7de ,consid4 l4 ii474 ,peccatum quomodo non fuit1 ubi libido non defuit8444 ,quo pacto1 inquam1 aut sanctus asseretur conceptus1 qui de spiritus non est1 ne dicam de peccato est8--,id4 7,epist4 #agd1 edit4 cit474 ,all that is born into the world of man and woman is sinful1 under ,god's anger and curse1 condemned to death4 ,all men born of a father and mother are children of wrath by nature1 as ,st4 ,paul testifies1 ,ephes4 ii4 ,we have by nature a tainted1 sinful conception and birth4--,luther 7,th4 xvi4 #bdf1 #egc74 ,it is clear from these examples1 that carnal intercourse--even a kiss is carnal intercourse--is the radical sin1 the radical evil of mankind2 and consequently the basis of marriage1 the sexual impulse1 honestly outspoken1 is a product of the devil4 ,it is true that the creature as the work of ,god is good1 but it has long ceased to exist as it was created4 ,the devil has alienated the creature from ,god and corrupted it to the very foundation4 ,cursed be the ground for thy sake4 ,the fall of the creature1 however1 is only an hypothesis by which faith drives from its mind the burdensome1 disquieting contradiction1 that ,nature is a product of ,god1 and yet1 as it actually is1 does not harmonise with ,god1 i4e41 with the ,christian sentiment4 ,christianity certainly did not pronounce the flesh as flesh1 matter as matter1 to be something sinful1 impure2 on the contrary1 it contended vehemently against the heretics who held this opinion and rejected marriage4 7,see for example ,augustin4 contra ,faustum1 l4 #bi1 c4 #d1 l4 #cj1 c4 #f4 ,clemens ,alex4 ,stromata1 lib4 iii4 and ,bernard4 ,super ,cantica1 ,sermo #ff47 ,but quite apart from the hatred to heretics which so inspired the holy ,christian ,church and made it so politic1 this protest rested on grounds which by no means involved the recognition of ,nature as such1 and under limitations1 i4e41 negations1 which make the recognition of ,nature merely apparent and illusory4 ,the distinction between the heretics and the orthodox is only this1 that the latter said indirectly1 covertly1 secretly1 what the former declared plainly1 directly1 but for that very reason offensively4 ,pleasure is not separable from matter4 ,material pleasure is nothing further1 so to speak1 than the joy of matter in itself1 matter proving itself by activity4 ,every joy is self-activity1 every pleasure a manifestation of force1 energy4 ,every organic function is1 in a normal condition1 united with enjoyment2 even breathing is a pleasurable act1 which is not perceived as such only because it is an uninterrupted process4 ,he therefore who declares generation1 fleshly intercourse1 as such1 to be pure1 but fleshly intercourse united with sensual pleasure to be a consequence of original sin and consequently itself a sin1 acknowledges only the dead1 not the living flesh--he raises a mist before us1 he condemns1 rejects the act of generation1 and matter in general1 though under the appearance of not rejecting it1 of acknowledging it4 ,the unhypocritical1 honest acknowledgment of sensual life is the acknowledgment of sensual pleasure4 ,in brief1 he who1 like the ,bible1 like the ,church1 does not acknowledge fleshly pleasure--that1 be it understood1 which is natural1 normal1 inseparable from life--does not acknowledge the flesh4 ,that which is not recognised as an end in itself 7it by no means follows that it should be the ultimate end7 is in truth not recognised at all4 ,thus he who allows me wine only as medicine forbids me the enjoyment of wine4 ,let not the liberal supply of wine at the wedding at ,cana be urged4 ,for that scene transports us1 by the metamorphosis of water into wine1 beyond ,nature into the region of supernaturalism4 ,where1 as in ,christianity1 a supernatural1 spiritual body is regarded as the true1 eternal body1 i4e41 a body from which all objective1 sensual impulses1 all flesh1 all nature1 is removed1 there real1 i4e41 sensual fleshly matter is denied1 is regarded as worthless1 nothing4 ,certainly ,christianity did not make celibacy a law 7save at a later period for the priests74 ,but for the very reason that chastity1 or rather privation of marriage1 of sex1 is the highest1 the most transcendent1 supernaturalistic1 heavenly virtue1 it cannot and must not be lowered into a common object of duty2 it stands above the law1 it is the virtue of ,christian grace and freedom4 ,christus hortatur idoneos ad coelibatum1 ut donum recte tueantur2 idem ,christus iis1 qui puritatem extra conjugium non1 retinent1 praecipit1 ut pure in conjugio vivant4--,melancthon4 7,responsio ad ,colonienses4 ,declam4 ,t4 iii474 ,virginitas non est jussa1 sed admonita1 quia nimis est excelsa4--,de modo bene viv4 7,sermo #ba74 ,et qui matrimonio jungit virginem suam1 benefacit1 et qui non jungit1 melius facit4 ,quod igitur bonum est1 non vitandum est1 et quod est melius eligendum est4 ,itaque non imponitur1 sed proponitur4 ,et ideo bene ,apostolus dixit3 ,de virginibus autem praeceptum non habeo1 consilium autem do4 ,ubi praeceptum est1 ibi lex est1 ubi consilium1 ibi gratia est4444 ,praeceptum enim castitatis est1 consilium integritatis4444 ,sed nec vidua praeceptum accipit1 sed consilium4 ,consilium autem non semel datum1 sed saepe repetitum4--,ambrosius 7,liber4 de viduis74 ,that is to say3 celibacy1 abstinence from marriage1 is no law in the common or ,jewish sense1 but a law in the ,christian sense1 or for the ,christian sentiment1 which takes ,christian virtue and perfection as the rule of conscience1 as the ideal of feeling1--no despotic but a friendly law1 no public but a secret1 esoteric law--a mere counsel1 i4e41 a law which does not venture to express itself as a law1 a law for those of finer feelings1 not for the great mass4 ,thou mayst marry2 yes indeed6 without any fear of committing a sin1 i4e41 a public1 express1 plebeian sin2 but thou dost all the better if thou dost not marry2 meanwhile this is only my undictatorial1 friendly advice4 ,omnia licent1 sed omnia non expediunt4 ,what is allowed in the first member of the sentence is retracted in the second4 ,licet1 says the man2 non expedit1 says the ,christian4 ,but only that which is good for the ,christian is for the man1 so far as he desires to be a ,christian1 the standard of doing and abstaining4 ,quae non expediunt1 nec licent1 such is the conclusion arrived at by the sentiment of ,christian nobility4 ,marriage is therefore only an indulgence to the weakness1 or rather the strength of the flesh1 a taint of nature in ,christianity1 a falling short of the genuine1 perfect ,christian sentiment2 being1 however1 nevertheless good1 laudable1 even holy1 in so far as it is the best antidote to fornication4 ,for its own sake1 as the self-enjoyment of sexual love1 it is not acknowledged1 not consecrated2 thus the holiness of marriage in ,christianity is only an ostensible holiness1 only illusion1 for that which is not acknowledged for its own sake is not acknowledged at all1 while yet there is a deceitful show of acknowledgment4 ,marriage is sanctioned not in order to hallow and satisfy the flesh1 but to restrict the flesh1 to repress it1 to kill it--to drive ,beelzebub out by ,beelzebub4 ,quae res et viris et feminis omnibus adest ad matrimonium et stuprum8 ,commixtio carnis scilicet1 cujus concupiscentiam ,dominus stupro adaequavit4444 ,ideo virginis principalis sanctitas1 quia caret stupri affinitati4--,tertullianus 7de ,exhort4 ,cast4 c4 #i74 ,et de ipso conjugis melius aliquid1 quam concessisti1 monuisti4--,augustinus 7,confess4 x4 c4 #cj74 ,it is better to marry than to burn4--,i ,cor4 vii4 #i4 ,but how much better is it1 says ,tertullian1 developing this text1 neither to marry nor to burn4444 ,possum dicere1 quod permittitur bonum non est4--7,ad ,uxorem1 l4 i4 c4 #c47 ,de minoribus bonis est conjugiam1 quod non meretur palmam1 sed est in remedium4444 ,prima institutio habuit praeceptum1 secunda indulgentiam4 ,didicimus enim ab ,apostolo1 humano generi propter vitandam fornicationem indultum esse conjugium4--,petrus ,lomb4 7l4 iv4 dist4 #bf1 c4 #b74 ,the ,master of the ,sentences says rightly1 that in ,paradise marriage was ordained as service1 but after sin as medicine4--,luther 7,th4 i4 p4 #cdi74 ,where marriage and virginity are compared1 certainly chastity is a nobler gift than marriage4--,id4 7,th4 i4 p4 #cai74 ,those whom the weakness of nature does not compel to marriage1 but who are such that they can dispense with marriage1 these do rightly to abstain from marriage4--,id4 7,th4 v4 p4 #ech74 ,christian sophistry will reply to this1 that only marriage which is not ,christian1 only that which is not consecrated by the spirit of ,christianity1 i4e41 in which ,nature is not veiled in pious images1 is unholy4 ,but if marriage1 if ,nature is first made holy by relation to ,christ1 it is not the holiness of marriage which is declared1 but of ,christianity2 and marriage1 ,nature1 in and by itself1 is unholy4 ,and what is the semblance of holiness with which ,christianity invests marriage1 in order to becloud the understanding1 but a pious illusion8 ,can the ,christian fulfil his marriage duties without surrendering himself1 willingly or not1 to the passion of love8 ,yes indeed4 ,the ,christian has for his object the replenishing of the ,christian ,church1 not the satisfaction of love4 ,the end is holy1 but the means in itself unholy4 ,and the end sanctifies1 exculpates the means4 ,conjugalis concubitus generandi gratia non habet culpam4 ,thus the ,christian1 at least the true ,christian1 denies1 or at least is bound to deny ,nature1 while he satisfies it2 he does not wish for1 he rather contemns the means in itself2 he seeks only the end in abstracto2 he does with religious1 supranaturalistic horror what he does1 though against his will1 with natural1 sensual pleasure4 ,the ,christian does not candidly confess his sensuality1 he denies ,nature before his faith1 and his faith before ,nature1 i4e41 he publicly disavows what he privately does4 ,oh1 how much better1 truer1 purer-hearted in this respect were the heathens1 who made no secret of their sensuality1 than the ,christians1 who1 while gratifying the flesh1 at the same time deny that they gratify it6 ,to this day the ,christians adhere theoretically to their heavenly origin and destination2 to this day1 out of supranaturalistic affectation1 they deny their sex1 and turn away with mock modesty from every sensuous picture1 every naked statue1 as if they were angels2 to this day they repress1 even by legal force1 every open-hearted1 ingenuous self-confession even of the most uncorrupt sensuality1 only stimulating by this public prohibition the secret enjoyment of sensuality4 ,what then1 speaking briefly and plainly1 is the distinction between ,christians and heathens in this matter8 ,the heathens confirmed1 the ,christians contradicted their faith by their lives4 ,the heathens do what they mean to do1 the ,christians what they do not mean3 the former1 where they sin1 sin with their conscience1 the latter against their conscience2 the former sin simply1 the latter doubly2 the former from hypertrophy1 the latter from atrophy of the flesh4 ,the specific crime of the heathens is the ponderable1 palpable crime of licentiousness1 that of the ,christians is the imponderable1 theological crime of hypocrisy1--that hypocrisy of which ,jesuitism is indeed the most striking1 world-historical1 but nevertheless only a particular manifestation4 ,theology makes sinners1 says ,luther--,luther1 whose positive qualities1 his heart and understanding1 so far as they applied themselves to natural things1 were not perverted by theology4 ,and ,montesquieu gives the best commentary on this saying of ,luther's when he says3 ,la dvotion trouve1 pour faire de mauvaises actions1 des raisons1 qu'un simple honnte homme ne saurait trouver4--7,penses ,diverses47 #af4 ,the ,christian heaven is ,christian truth4 ,that which its excluded from heaven is excluded from true ,christianity4 ,in heaven the ,christian is free from that which he wishes to be free from here--free from the sexual impulse1 free from matter1 free from ,nature in general4 ,in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage1 but are as the angels of ,god in heaven4--,matt4 xxii4 #cj4 ,meats for the belly1 and the belly for meats2 but ,god shall destroy 7katargesei1 make useless7 both it and them4--#a ,cor4 vi4 #ac4 ,now this ,i say1 brethren1 that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven1 neither doth corruption inherit incorruption4--,ib4 xv4 #ej4 ,they shall hunger no more1 neither thirst any more2 neither shall the sun light on them1 nor any heat4--,rev4 vii4 #af4 ,and there shall be no night there2 and they need no candle1 neither light of the sun4--,ib4 xxii4 #e4 ,comedere1 bibere1 vigilare1 dormire1 quiescere1 laborare et caeteris necessitatibus naturae subjacere1 vere magna miseria est et afflictio homini devoto1 qui libenter esset absolutus et liber ab omni peccato4 ,utinam non essent istae necessitates1 sed solum spirituales animae refectiones1 quas heu6 satis raro degustamus4--,thomas ,k4 7de ,imit4 #a4 i4 cc4 #bb1 #be74 ,see also on this subject ,s4 ,gregorii ,nyss4 de ,anima et ,resurr41 ,lipsiae1 #ahcg1 pp4 #ih1 #add1 #aec74 ,it is true that the ,christian immortality1 in distinction from the heathen1 is not the immortality of the soul1 but that of the flesh1 that is1 of the whole man4 ,scientia immortalis visa est res illis 7the heathen philosophers7 atque incorruptibilis4 ,nos autem1 quibus divina revelatio illuxit 444 novimus1 non solum mentem1 sed affectus perpurgatos1 neque animam tantum1 sed etiam corpus ad immortalitatem assumptum iri suo tempore4--,baco de ,verul4 7de ,augm4 ,scien4 #a4 i474 ,on this account ,celsus reproached the ,christians with a desiderium corporis4 ,but this immortal body is1 as has been already remarked1 an immaterial1 i4e41 a thoroughly fanciful1 subjective body--a body which is the direct negation of the real1 natural body4 ,the ideal on which this faith hinges is not the recognition or glorification of nature1 of matter as such1 but rather the reality of the emotive imagination1 the satisfaction of the unlimited1 supranaturalistic desire of happiness1 to which the actual1 objective body is a limitation4 ,as to what the angels strictly are1 whom heavenly souls will be like1 the ,bible is as far from giving us any definite information as on other weighty subjects2 it only calls them pneumata1 spirits1 and declares them to be higher than men4 ,the later ,christians expressed themselves more definitely on this subject2 more definitely1 but variously4 ,some assigned bodies to the angels1 others not2 a difference which1 however1 is only apparent1 since the angelic body is only a phantasmal one4 ,but concerning the human body of the resurrection1 they had not only different1 but even opposite1 conceptions2 indeed1 these contradictions lay in the nature of the case1 necessarily resulted from the fundamental contradiction of the religious consciousness which1 as we have shown1 exhibits itself in the incompatible propositions that the body which is raised is the same individual body which we had before the resurrection1 and that nevertheless it is another4 ,it is the same body even to the hair1 cum nec periturus sit capillus1 ut ait ,dominus3 ,capillus de capite vestro non peribit4--,augustinus und ,petrus1 ,l4 l4 iv4 dist4 #dd1 c4 #a4 ,nevertheless it is the same in such a way that everything burdensome1 everything contradictory to transcendental feeling1 is removed4 ,immo sicut dicit ,augustinus3 ,detrahentur vitia et remanebit natura4 ,superexcrescentia autem capillorum et unguium est de superfluitate et vitio naturae4 ,si enim non peccasset homo1 crescerent ungues et capilli ejus usque ad determinatam quantitatem1 sicut in leonibus et avibus4--7,addit4 ,henrici ab ,vurimaria1 ibid4 edit4 ,basiliae1 #aeac47 ,what a specific1 nave1 ingenuous1 confident1 harmonious faith6 ,the risen body1 as the same and yet another1 a new body1 has hair and nails1 otherwise it would be a maimed body1 deprived of an essential ornament1 and consequently the resurrection would not be a restitutio in integrum2 moreover they are the same hair and nails as before1 but yet so modified that they are in accordance with the body4 ,why do not the believing theologians of modern times enter into such specialities as occupied the older theologians8 ,because their faith is itself only general1 indefinite1 i4e41 a faith which they only suppose themselves to possess2 because1 from fear of their understanding1 which has long been at issue with their faith1 from fear of risking their feeble faith by bringing it to the light1 that is1 considering it in detail1 they suppress the consequences1 the necessary determinations of their faith1 and conceal them from their understanding4 #ag4 ,what faith denies on earth it affirms in heaven2 what it renounces here it recovers a hundred-fold there4 ,in this world1 faith occupies itself with nullifying the body2 in the other world1 with establishing it4 ,here the main point is the separation of the soul from the body1 there the main point is the reunion of the body with the soul4 ,i would live not only according to the soul1 but according to the body also4 ,i would have the corpus with me2 ,i would that the body should return to the soul and be united with it4--,luther 7,th4 vii4 p4 #ij74 ,in that which is sensuous1 ,christ is supersensuous2 but for that reason1 in the supersensuous he is sensuous4 ,heavenly bliss is therefore by no means merely spiritual1 it is equally corporeal1 sensuous--a state in which all wishes are fulfilled4 ,whatever thy heart seeks joy and pleasure in1 that shall be there in abundance4 ,for it is said1 ,god shall be all in all4 ,and where ,god is1 there must be all good things that can ever be desired4 ,dost thou desire to see acutely1 and to hear through walls1 and to be so light that thou mayst be wherever thou wilt in a moment1 whether here below on the earth1 or above in the clouds1 that shall all be1 and what more thou canst conceive1 which thou couldst have in body and soul1 thou shalt have abundantly if thou hast him4--,luther 7,th4 x4 pp4 #chj1 #cha74 ,certainly eating1 drinking1 and marriage find no place in the ,christian heaven1 as they do in the ,mohammedan2 but only because with these enjoyments want is associated1 and with want matter1 i4e41 passion1 dependence1 unhappiness4 ,illic ipsa indigentia morietur4 ,tunc vere dives eris1 quando nullius indigens eris4--,augustin4 7,serm4 ad ,pop4 p4 #gg1 c4 #i74 ,the pleasures of this earth are only medicines1 says the same writer2 true health exists only in immortal life--vera sanitas1 nisi quando vera immortalitas4 ,the heavenly life1 the heavenly body1 is as free and unlimited as wishes1 as omnipotent as imagination4 ,futurae ergo resurrectionis corpus imperfectae felicitatis erit1 si cibos sumere non potuerit1 imperfectae felicitatis1 si cibus eguerit4--,augustin4 7,epist4 #ajb1 #f1 edit4 cit74 ,nevertheless1 existence in a body without fatigue1 without heaviness1 without disagreeables1 without disease1 without mortality1 is associated with the highest corporeal well-being4 ,even the knowledge of ,god in heaven is free from any effort of thought or faith1 is sensational1 immediate knowledge--intuition4 ,the ,christians are indeed not agreed whether ,god1 as ,god1 the essentia ,dei1 will be visible to bodily eyes4 7,see1 for example1 ,augustin4 ,serm4 ad ,pop4 p4 #bgg1 and ,buddeus1 ,comp4 ,inst4 ,th4 l4 ii4 c4 #c1 #d47 ,but in this difference we again have only the contradiction between the abstract and the real ,god2 the former is certainly not an object of vision1 but the latter is so4 ,flesh and blood is the wall between me and ,christ1 which will be torn away4444 ,there everything will be certain4 ,for in that life the eyes will see1 the mouth taste1 and the nose smell it2 the treasure will shine into the soul and life4444 ,faith will cease1 and ,i shall behold with my eyes4--,luther 7,th4 ix4 p4 #eie74 ,it is clear from this again1 that ,god1 as he is an object of religious sentiment1 is nothing else than a product of the imagination4 ,the heavenly beings are supersensuous sensuous1 immaterial material beings1 i4e41 beings of the imagination2 but they are like ,god1 nay1 identical with ,god1 consequently ,god also is a supersensuous sensuous1 an immaterial material being4 #ah4 ,the contradiction in the ,sacraments is the contradiction of naturalism and supernaturalism4 ,in the first place the natural qualities of water are pronounced essential to ,baptism4 ,si quis dixerit aquam veram et naturalem non esse de necessitate ,baptismi atque ideo verba illa domini nostri ,jesu ,christi3 ,nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et ,spiritu sancto1 ad metamorpham aliquam detorserit1 anathema sit4--,concil4 ,trident4 7,sessio vii4 ,can4 ii4 de ,bapt47 ,de substantia hujus sacramenti sunt verbum et elementum4444 ,non ergo in alio liquore potest consecrari baptismus nisi in aqua4--,petrus ,lomb4 7l4 iv4 dist4 #c1 c4 l4 c4 #e74 ,ad certitudinem baptismi requiritur major quam unius guttae quantitas4444 ,necesse est ad valorem baptismi fieri contactum physicum inter aquam et corpus baptizati1 ita ut non sufficiat1 vestes tantum ipsius aqua tingi4444 ,ad certitudinem baptismi requiritur1 ut saltem talis pars corporis abluatur1 ratione cujus homo solet dici vere ablutus1 v4 #f1 collum1 humeri1 pectus et praesertim caput4--,theolog4 ,schol4 7,p4 ,mezger4 ,aug4 ,vind4 #afie1 ,th4 iv4 pp4 #bcj1 #bca74 ,aquam1 eamque veram ac naturalem in baptismo adhibendam esse1 exemplo ,joannis 444 non minus vero et ,apostolorum ,act4 viii4 #cf1 x4 #dg1 patet4--,f4 ,buddeus 7,com4 ,inst4 ,th4 dog4 l4 iv4 c4 i4 #e74 ,thus water is essential4 ,but now comes the negation of the natural qualities of water4 ,the significance of ,baptism is not the natural power of water1 but the supernatural1 almighty power of the ,word of ,god1 who instituted the use of water as a sacrament1 and now by means of this element imparts himself to man in a supernatural1 miraculous manner1 but who could just as well have chosen any other element in order to produce the same effect4 ,so ,luther1 for example1 says3 ,understand the distinction1 that ,baptism is quite another thing than all other water1 not on account of its natural quality1 but because here something more noble is added4 ,for ,god himself brings hither his glory1 power1 and might 444 as ,st4 ,augustine also hath taught3 'accedat verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum4' ,baptize them in the name of the ,father1 c4 ,water without these words is mere water4444 ,who will call the baptism of the ,father1 ,son1 and ,holy ,ghost mere water8 ,do we not see what sort of spice ,god puts into this water8 ,when sugar is thrown into water it is no longer water1 but a costly claret or other beverage4 ,why then do we here separate the word from the water and say1 it is mere water2 as if the word of ,god1 yea1 ,god himself1 were not with and in the water4444 ,therefore1 the water of ,baptism is such a water as takes away sin1 death1 and unhappiness1 helps us in heaven and to everlasting life4 ,it is become a precious sugared water1 aromaticum1 and restorative1 since ,god has mingled himself therewith4--,luther 7,th4 xvi4 p4 #aje74 ,as with the water in ,baptism1 which sacrament is nothing without water1 though this water is nevertheless in itself indifferent1 so is it with the wine and bread in the ,eucharist1 even in ,catholicism1 where the substance of bread and wine is destroyed by the power of the ,almighty4 ,accidentia eucharistica tamdiu continent ,christum1 quamdiu retinent illud temperamentum1 cum quo connaturaliter panis et vini substantia permaneret3 ut econtra1 quando tanta fit temperamenti dissolutio1 illorumque corruptio1 ut sub iis substantia panis et vini naturaliter remanere non posset1 desinunt continere ,christum4--,theol4 ,schol4 7,mezger4 l4 c4 p4 #bib74 ,that is to say3 so long as the bread remains bread1 so long does the bread remain flesh2 when the bread is gone1 the flesh is gone4 ,therefore a due portion of bread1 at least enough to render bread recognisable as such1 must be present1 for consecration to be possible4--7,ib4 p4 #bhd47 ,for the rest1 ,catholic transubstantiation1 the conversio realis et physica totius panis in corpus ,christi1 is only a consistent continuation of the miracles of the ,old and ,new ,testaments4 ,by the transformation of water into wine1 of a staff into a serpent1 of stones into brooks 7,ps4 cxiv47 by these biblical transubstantiations the ,catholics explained and proved the turning of bread into flesh4 ,he who does not stumble at those transformations1 has no right1 no reason to hesitate at accepting this4 ,the ,protestant doctrine of the ,lord's ,supper is not less in contradiction with reason than the ,catholic4 ,the body of ,christ cannot be partaken otherwise than in two ways1 spiritually or bodily4 ,again1 this bodily partaking cannot be visible or perceptible1 i4e41 is not bodily1 else no bread would remain4 ,again1 it cannot be mere bread2 otherwise it would not be a bodily communion of the body of ,christ1 but of bread4 ,therefore the bread broken must also be truly and corporeally the body of ,christ1 although invisibly 7i4e41 incorporeally74--,luther 7,th4 xix4 p4 #bjc74 ,the difference is1 that the ,protestant gives no explanation concerning the mode in which bread can be flesh and wine blood4 ,thereupon we stand1 believe1 and teach1 that the body of ,christ is truly and corporeally taken and eaten in the ,lord's ,supper4 ,but how this takes place1 or how he is in the bread1 we know not1 and are not bound to know4--,id4 7ut sup4 p4 #cic74 ,he who will be a ,christian must not ask1 as our fanatics and factionaries do1 how it can be that bread is the body of ,christ and wine the blood of ,christ4--,id4 7,th4 xvi4 p4 #bbj74 ,cum retineamus doctrinam de praesentia corporis ,christi1 quid opus est quaerere de modo8--,melancthon 7,vita ,mel4 ,camerarius1 ed4 ,strobel1 ,halae1 #aggg1 p4 #ddf74 ,hence the ,protestants as well as the ,catholics took refuge in ,omnipotence1 the grand source of ideas contradictory to reason4--7,concord4 ,summ4 ,beg4 ,art4 #g1 ,aff4 #c1 ,negat4 #ac4 ,see also ,luther1 e4g41 ,th4 xix4 p4 #djj47 ,an instructive example of theological incomprehensibleness and supernaturalness is afforded by the distinction1 in relation to the ,eucharist 7,concordienb4 ,summ4 ,beg4 art4 #g71 between partaking with the mouth and partaking in a fleshly or natural manner4 ,we believe1 teach1 and confess that the body of ,christ is taken in the bread and wine1 not alone spiritually by faith1 but also with the mouth1 yet not in a ,capernaitic1 but a supernatural heavenly manner1 for the sake of sacramental union4 ,probe namque discrimen inter manducationem oralem et naturalem tenendum est4 ,etsi enim oralem manducationem adseramus atque propugnemus1 naturalem tamen non admittimus4444 ,omnis equidem manducatio naturalis etiam oralis est1 sed non vicissim oralis manducatio statim est naturalis4444 ,unicus itaque licet sit actus1 unicumque organum1 quo panem et corpus ,christi1 itemque vinum et sanguinem ,christi accipimus1 modus 7yes1 truly1 the mode7 nihilominus maximopere differt1 cum panem et vinum modo naturali et sensibili1 corpus et sanguinem ,christi simul equidem cum pane et vino1 at modo supernaturali et insensibili1 qui adeo etiam a nemine mortalium 7nor1 assuredly1 by any ,god7 explicare potest1 revera interim et ore corporis accipiamus4--,jo4 ,fr4 ,buddeus 7l4 c4 ,lib4 v4 c4 i4 #ae74 #ai4 ,dogma and ,morality1 ,faith and ,love1 contradict each other in ,christianity4 ,it is true that ,god1 the object of faith1 is in himself the idea of the species in a mystical garb--the common ,father of men--and so far love to ,god is mystical love to man4 ,but ,god is not only the universal being2 he is also a peculiar1 personal being1 distinguished from love4 ,where the being is distinguished from love arises arbitrariness4 ,love acts from necessity1 personality from will4 ,personality proves itself as such only by arbitrariness2 personality seeks dominion1 is greedy of glory2 it desires only to assert itself1 to enforce its own authority4 ,the highest worship of ,god as a personal being is therefore the worship of ,god as an absolutely unlimited1 arbitrary being4 ,personality1 as such1 is indifferent to all substantial determinations which lie in the nature of things2 inherent necessity1 the coercion of natural qualities1 appears to it a constraint4 ,here we have the mystery of ,christian love4 ,the love of ,god1 as the predicate of a personal being1 has here the significance of grace1 favour3 ,god is a gracious master1 as in ,judaism he was a severe master4 ,grace is arbitrary love1--love which does not act from an inward necessity of the nature1 but which is equally capable of not doing what it does1 which could1 if it would1 condemn its object2 thus it is a groundless1 unessential1 arbitrary1 absolutely subjective1 merely personal love4 ,he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy1 and whom he will he hardeneth 7,rom4 ix4 #ah74444 ,the king does what he will4 ,so is it with the will of ,god4 ,he has perfect right and full power to do with us and all creatures as he will4 ,and no wrong is done to us4 ,if his will had a measure or rule1 a law1 ground1 or cause1 it would not be the divine will4 ,for what he wills is right1 because he wills it4 ,where there is faith and the ,holy ,spirit 444 it is believed that ,god would be good and kind even if he consigned all men to damnation4 ',is not ,esau ,jacob's brother8 said the ,lord4 ,yet ,i have loved ,jacob and hated ,esau4'--,luther 7,th4 xix4 pp4 #hc1 #hg1 #ij1 #ia1 #ig74 ,where love is understood in this sense1 jealous watch is kept that man attribute nothing to himself as merit1 that the merit may lie with the divine personality alone2 there every idea of necessity is carefully dismissed1 in order1 through the feeling of obligation and gratitude1 to be able to adore and glorify the personality exclusively4 ,the ,jews deified the pride of ancestry2 the ,christians1 on the other hand1 interpreted and transformed the ,jewish aristocratic principle of hereditary nobility into the democratic principle of nobility of merit4 ,the ,jew makes salvation depend on birth1 the ,catholic on the merit of works1 the ,protestant on the merit of faith4 ,but the idea of obligation and meritoriousness allies itself only with a deed1 a work1 which cannot be demanded of me1 or which does not necessarily proceed from my nature4 ,the works of the poet1 of the philosopher1 can be regarded in the light of merit only as considered externally4 ,they are works of genius--inevitable products3 the poet must bring forth poetry1 the philosopher must philosophise4 ,they have the highest satisfaction in the activity of creation1 apart from any collateral or ulterior purpose4 ,and it is just so with a truly noble moral action4 ,to the man of noble feeling1 the noble action is natural3 he does not hesitate whether he should do it or not1 he does not place it in the scales of choice2 he must do it4 ,only he who so acts is a man to be confided in4 ,meritoriousness always involves the notion that a thing is done1 so to speak1 out of luxury1 not out of necessity4 ,the ,christians indeed celebrated the highest act in their religion1 the act of ,god becoming man1 as a work of love4 ,but ,christian love in so far as it reposes on faith1 on the idea of ,god as a master1 a ,dominus1 has the significance of an act of grace1 of a love in itself superfluous4 ,a gracious master is one who foregoes his rights1 a master who does out of graciousness what1 as a master1 he is not bound to do--what goes beyond the strict idea of a master4 ,to ,god1 as a master1 it is not even a duty to do good to man2 he has even the right--for he is a master bound by no law--to annihilate man if he will4 ,in fact1 mercy is optional1 non-necessary love1 love in contradiction with the essence of love1 love which is not an inevitable manifestation of the nature1 love which the master1 the subject1 the person 7personality is only an abstract1 modern expression for sovereignty7 distinguishes from himself as a predicate which he can either have or not have without ceasing to be himself4 ,this internal contradiction necessarily manifested itself in the life1 in the practice of ,christianity2 it gave rise to the practical separation of the subject from the predicate1 of faith from love4 ,as the love of ,god to man was only an act of grace1 so also the love of man to man was only an act of favour or grace on the part of faith4 ,christian love is the graciousness of faith1 as the love of ,god is the graciousness of personality or supremacy4 7,on the divine arbitrariness1 see also ,j4 ,a4 ,ernesti's treatise previously cited3 ,vindici arbitrii divini47 ,faith has within it a malignant principle4 ,christian faith1 and nothing else1 is the ultimate ground of ,christian persecution and destruction of heretics4 ,faith recognises man only on condition that he recognises ,god1 i4e41 faith itself4 ,faith is the honour which man renders to ,god4 ,and this honour is due unconditionally4 ,to faith the basis of all duties is faith in ,god3 faith is the absolute duty2 duties to men are only derivative1 subordinate4 ,the unbeliever is thus an outlaw #bcc--;a man worthy of extermination4 ,that which denies ,god must be itself denied4 ,the highest crime is the crime laesae majestatis ,dei4 ,to faith ,god is a personal being--the supremely personal1 inviolable1 privileged being4 ,the acme of personality is honour2 hence an injury towards the highest personality is necessarily the highest crime4 ,the honour of ,god cannot be disavowed as an accidental1 rude1 anthropomorphic conception4 ,for is not the personality1 even the existence of ,god1 a sensuous1 anthropomorphic conception8 ,let those who renounce the honour be consistent enough to renounce the personality4 ,from the idea of personality results the idea of honour1 and from this again the idea of religious offences4 ,quicunque ,magistratibus male precatus fuerit1 pro eorum arbitrio poenas luito2 quicunque vero idem scelus erga ,deum admiserit 444 lapidibus blasphemiae causa obruitur4--7,lev4 xxiv4 #ae1 #af4 ,see also ,deut4 xii41 whence the ,catholics deduce the right to kill heretics4 ,boehmer1 l4 c4 l4 v4 ,th4 vii4 #dd47 ,eos autem merito torqueri1 qui ,deum nesciunt1 ut impios1 ut injustos1 nisi profanus nemo deliberat3 quum parentem omnium et dominum omnium non minus sceleris sit ignorare1 quam laedere4--,minucii ,fel4 ,oct4 c4 #ce4 ,ubi erunt legis praecepta divinae1 quae dicunt3 honora patrem et matrem1 si vocabulum patris1 quod in homine honorari praecipitur1 in ,deo impune violatur8--,cypriani ,epist4 #gc 7ed4 ,gersdorf74 ,cur enim1 cum datum sit divinitus homini liberum arbitrium1 adulteria legibus puniantur et sacrilegia permittantur8 ,an fidem non servare levius est animam ,deo1 quam feminam viro8--,augustinus 7de ,correct4 ,donatist4 lib4 ad ,bonifacium1 c4 #e74 ,si hi qui nummos adulterant morte mulctantur1 quid de illis statuendum censemus1 qui fidem pervertere conantur8--,paulus ,cortesius 7in ,sententias 7,petri ,l47 iii4 l4 dist4 vii474 ,si enim illustrem ac praepotentem virum nequaquam exhonorari a quoquam licet1 et si quisquam exhonoraverit1 decretis legalibus reus sistitur et injuriarum auctor jure damnatur3 quanto utique majoris piaculi crimen est1 injuriosum quempiam ,deo esse8 ,semper enim per dignitatem injuriam perferentis crescit culpa facientis1 quia necesse est1 quanto major est persona ejus qui contumeliam patitur1 tanto major sit noxa ejus1 qui facit4 ,thus speaks ,salvianus 7de ,gubernat4 ,dei1 l4 vi4 p4 #bah1 edit4 cit47--,salvianus1 who is called ,magistrum ,episcoporum1 sui saeculi ,jeremiam1 ,scriptorem ,christianissimum1 ,orbis christiani magistrum4 ,but heresy1 unbelief in general--heresy is only a definite1 limited unbelief--is blasphemy1 and thus is the highest1 the most flagitious crime4 ,thus to cite only one among innumerable examples1 ,j4 ,oecolampadius writes to ,servetus3 ,dum non summam patientiam prae me fero1 dolens ,jesum ,christum filium ,dei sic dehonestari1 parum christiane tibi agere videor4 ,in aliis mansuetus ero3 in blasphemiis quae in ,christum1 non item4--7,historia ,mich4 ,serveti4 ,h4 ab ,allwoerden ,helmstadii1 #agcg1 p4 #ac74 ,for what is blasphemy8 ,every negation of an idea1 of a definition1 in which the honour of ,god1 the honour of faith is concerned4 ,servetus fell as a sacrifice to ,christian faith4 ,calvin said to ,servetus two hours before his death3 ,ego vero ingenue praefatus1 me nunquam privatus injurias fuisse persecutum1 and parted from him with a sense of being thoroughly sustained by the ,bible3 ,ab haeretico homine1 qui autokatakritos peccabat1 secundum ,pauli praeceptum discessi4--7,ibid4 p4 #abj47 ,thus it was by no means a personal hatred1 though this may have been conjoined1--it was a religious hatred which brought ,servetus to the stake--the hatred which springs from the nature of unchecked faith4 ,even ,melancthon is known to have approved the execution of ,servetus4 ,the ,swiss theologians1 whose opinion was asked by the ,genevans1 very subtilely abstained1 in their answer1 from mentioning the punishment of death1 #bcd but agreed with the ,genevans in this--,horrendos ,serveti errores detestandos esse1 severiusque idcirco in ,servetum animadvertendum4 ,thus there is no difference as to the principle1 only as to the mode of punishment4 ,even ,calvin himself was so ,christian as to desire to alleviate the horrible mode of death to which the ,senate of ,geneva condemned ,servetus4 7,see on this subject1 e4g41 ,m4 ,adami1 ,vita ,calvini1 p4 #ij2 ,vita ,bezae1 p4 #bjg2 ,vitae ,theol4 ,exter4 ,francof4 #afah47 ,we have1 therefore1 to consider this execution as an act of general significance--as a work of faith1 and that not of ,roman ,catholic1 but of reformed1 biblical1 evangelical faith4 ,that heretics must not be compelled to a profession of the faith by force was certainly maintained by most of the lights of the ,church1 but there nevertheless lived in them the most malignant hatred of heretics4 ,thus1 for example1 ,st4 ,bernard says 7,super ,cantica1 #ff7 in relation to heretics3 ,fides suadenda est1 non imponenda1 but he immediately adds3 ,quamquam melius procul dubio gladio coercerentur1 illius videlicet1 qui non sine causa gladium portat1 quam in suum errorem multos trajicere permittantur4 ,if the faith of the present day no longer produces such flagrant deeds of horror1 this is due only to the fact that the faith of this age is not an uncompromising1 living faith1 but a sceptical1 eclectic1 unbelieving faith1 curtailed and maimed by the power of art and science4 ,where heretics are no longer burned either in the fires of this world or of the other1 there faith itself has no longer any fire1 any vitality4 ,the faith which allows variety of belief renounces its divine origin and rank1 degrades itself to a subjective opinion4 ,it is not to ,christian faith1 not to ,christian love 7i4e41 love limited by faith72 no6 it is to doubt of ,christian faith1 to the victory of religious scepticism1 to free-thinkers1 to heretics1 that we owe tolerance1 freedom of opinion4 ,it was the heretics1 persecuted by the ,christian ,church1 who alone fought for freedom of conscience4 ,christian freedom is freedom in non-essentials only3 on the fundamental articles of faith freedom is not allowed4 ,when1 however1 ,christian faith--faith considered in distinction from love1 for faith is not one with love1 potestis habere fidem sine caritate 7,augustinus1 ,serm4 ad ,pop4 #ij7--;is pronounced to be the principle1 the ultimate ground of the violent deeds of ,christians towards heretics 7that is1 such deeds as arose from real believing zeal71 it is obviously not meant that faith could have these consequences immediately and originally1 but only in its historical development4 ,still1 even to the earliest ,christians the heretic was an antichrist1 and necessarily so--adversus ,christum sunt haeretici 7,cyprianus1 ,epist4 #gf1 #ad1 edit4 cit47--accursed--apostoli 444 in epistolis haereticos exsecrati sunt 7,cyprianus1 ib4 #f7--;a lost being1 doomed by ,god to hell and everlasting death4 ,thou hearest that the tares are already condemned and sentenced to the fire4 ,why then wilt thou lay many sufferings on a heretic8 ,dost thou not hear that he is already judged to a punishment heavier than he can bear8 ,who art thou1 that thou wilt interfere and punish him who has already fallen under the punishment of a more powerful master8 ,what would ,i do against a thief already sentenced to the gallows8444 ,god has already commanded his angels1 who in his own time will be the executioners of heretics4--,luther 7,th4 xvi4 p4 #acb74 ,when therefore the ,state1 the world1 became ,christian1 and also1 for that reason1 ,christianity became worldly1 the ,christian religion a ,state religion2 then it was a necessary consequence that the condemnation of heretics1 which was at first only religious or dogmatic1 became a political1 practical condemnation1 and the eternal punishment of hell was anticipated by temporal punishment4 ,if1 therefore1 the definition and treatment of heresy as a punishable crime is in contradiction with the ,christian faith1 it follows that a ,christian king1 a ,christian ,state1 is in contradiction with it2 for a ,christian ,state is that which executes the ,divine judgments of faith with the sword1 which makes earth a heaven to believers1 a hell to unbelievers4 ,docuimus 444 pertinere ad reges religiosos1 non solum adulteria vel homicidia vel hujusmodi alia flagitia seu facinora1 verum etiam sacrilegia severitate congrua cohibere4--,augustinus 7,epist4 ad ,dulcitium74 ,kings ought thus to serve the ,lord ,christ by helping with laws that his honour be furthered4 ,now when the temporal magistracy finds scandalous errors1 whereby the honour of the ,lord ,christ is blasphemed and men's salvation hindered1 and a schism arises among the people 444 where such false teachers will not be admonished and cease from preaching1 there ought the temporal magistracy confidently to arm itself1 and know that nothing else befits its office but to apply the sword and all force1 that doctrine may be pure and ,god's service genuine and unperverted1 and also that peace and unity may be preserved4--,luther 7,th4 xv4 pp4 #aaj1 #aaa74 ,let it be further remarked here1 that ,augustine justifies the application of coercive measures for the awaking of ,christian faith by urging that the ,apostle ,paul was converted to ,christianity by a deed of force--a miracle4 7,de ,correct4 ,donat4 c4 #f47 ,the intrinsic connection between temporal and eternal1 i4e41 political and spiritual punishment1 is clear from this1 that the same reasons which have been urged against the temporal punishment of heresy are equally valid against the punishment of hell4 ,if heresy or unbelief cannot be punished here because it is a mere mistake1 neither can it be punished by ,god in hell4 ,if coercion is in contradiction with the nature of faith1 so is hell2 for the fear of the terrible consequence of unbelief1 the torments of hell1 urge to belief against knowledge and will4 ,boehmer1 in his ,jus4 ,eccl41 argues that heresy and unbelief should be struck out of the category of crimes1 that unbelief is only a vitium theologicum1 a peccatum in ,deum4 ,but ,god1 in the view of faith1 is not only a religious1 but a political1 juridical being1 the ,king of kings1 the true head of the ,state4 ,there is no power but of ,god 444 it is the minister of ,god--,rom4 xiii4 #a1 #d4 ,if1 therefore1 the juridical idea of majesty1 of kingly dignity and honour1 applies to ,god1 sin against ,god1 unbelief1 must by consequence come under the definition of crime4 ,and as with ,god1 so with faith4 ,where faith is still a truth1 and a public truth1 there no doubt is entertained that it can be demanded of every one1 that every one is bound to believe4 ,be it further observed1 that the ,christian ,church has gone so far in its hatred against heretics1 that according to the canon law even the suspicion of heresy is a crime1 ita ut de jure canonico revera crimen suspecti detur1 cujus existentiam frustra in jure civili quaerimus4--,boehmer 7l4 c4 v4 ,tit4 vii4 #bc-db74 ,the command to love enemies extends only to personal enemies1 not to the enemies of ,god1 the enemies of faith4 ,does not the ,lord ,christ command that we should love even our enemies8 ,how then does ,david here boast that he hates the assembly of the wicked1 and sits not with the ungodly8444 ,for the sake of the person ,i should love them2 but for the sake of the doctrine ,i should hate them4 ,and thus ,i must hate them or hate ,god1 who commands and wills that we should cleave to his word alone4444 ,what ,i cannot love with ,god1 ,i must hate2 if they only preach something which is against ,god1 all love and friendship is destroyed2--thereupon ,i hate thee1 and do thee no good4 ,for faith must be uppermost1 and where the word of ,god is attacked1 hate takes the place of love4444 ,and so ,david means to say3 ,i hate them1 not because they have done injury and evil to me and led a bad and wicked life1 but because they despise1 revile1 blaspheme1 falsify1 and persecute the word of ,god4 ,faith and love are two things4 ,faith endures nothing1 love endures all things4 ,faith curses1 love blesses3 faith seeks vengeance and punishment1 love seeks forbearance and forgiveness4 ,rather than ,god's word should fall and heresy stand1 faith would wish all creatures to be destroyed2 for through heresy men lose ,god himself4--,luther 7,th4 vi4 p4 #id2 ,th4 v4 pp4 #fbd1 #fcj74 ,see also1 on this subject1 my treatise in the ,deutsches ,jahrb4 and ,augustini ,enarrat4 in ,psalm cxxxviii4 7cxxxix474 ,as ,luther distinguishes the person from the enemy of ,god1 so ,augustine here distinguishes the man from the enemy of ,god1 from the unbeliever1 and says3 ,we should hate the ungodliness in the man1 but love the humanity in him4 ,but what1 then1 in the eyes of faith1 is the man in distinction from faith1 man without faith1 i4e41 without ,god8 ,nothing3 for the sum of all realities1 of all that is worthy of love1 of all that is good and essential1 is faith1 as that which alone apprehends and possesses ,god4 ,it is true that man as man is the image of ,god1 but only of the natural ,god1 of ,god as the ,creator of ,nature4 ,but the ,creator is only ,god as he manifests himself outwardly2 the true ,god1 ,god as he is in himself1 the inward essence of ,god1 is the triune ,god1 is especially ,christ4 7,see ,luther1 ,th4 xiv4 pp4 #b1 #c1 and ,th4 xvi4 p4 #eha47 ,and the image of this true1 essential1 ,christian ,god1 is only the believer1 the ,christian4 ,moreover1 man is not to be loved for his own sake1 but for ,god's4 ,diligendus est propter ,deum1 ,deus vero propter se ipsum4--,augustinus 7de ,doctrina ,chr4 #a4 i4 cc4 #bb1 #bg74 ,how1 then1 should the unbelieving man1 who has no resemblance to the true ,god1 be an object of love8 #bj4 ,faith separates man from man1 puts in the place of the natural unity founded in ,nature and ,love a supernatural unity--the unity of ,faith4 ,inter ,christianum et gentilem non fides tantum debet1 sed etiam vita distinguere4444 ,nolite1 ait ,apostolus1 jugum ducere cum infidelibus4444 ,sit ergo inter nos et illos maxima separatio4--,hieronymus 7,epist4 ,caelanti matronae74444 ,prope nihil gravius quam copulari alienigeniae4444 ,nam cum ipsum conjugium velamine sacerdotali et benedictione sanctificari oporteat3 quomodo potest conjugium dici1 ubi non est fidei concordia8444 ,saepe plerique capti amore feminarum fidem suam prodiderunt4--,ambrosius 7,ep4 #gj1 ,lib4 ix474 ,non enim licet christiano cum gentili vel judaeo inire conjugium4--,petrus ,l4 7l4 iv4 dist4 #ci1 c4 #a74 ,and this separation is by no means unbiblical4 ,on the contrary1 we find that1 in support of it1 the ,fathers appeal directly to the ,bible4 ,the well-known passage of the ,apostle ,paul concerning marriage between heathens and ,christians relates only to marriages which had taken place before conversion1 not to those which were yet to be contracted4 ,let the reader refer to what ,peter ,lombard says in the book already cited4 ,the first ,christians did not acknowledge1 did not once listen to1 all those relatives who sought to turn them away from the hope of the heavenly reward4 ,this they did through the power of the ,gospel1 for the sake of which all love of kindred was to be despised2 inasmuch as 444 the brotherhood of ,christ far surpassed natural brotherhood4 ,to us the ,fatherland and a common name is not so dear1 but that we have a horror even of our parents1 if they seek to advise something against the ,lord4--,g4 ,arnold 7,wahre ,abbild4 der ersten ,christen4 ,b4 iv4 c4 #b74 ,qui amat patrem et matrem plus quam me1 non est me dignus ,matth4 x4 444 in hoc vos non agnosco parentes1 sed hostes4444 ,alioquin quid mihi et vobis8 ,quid a vobis habeo nisi peccatum et miseriam8--,bernardus 7,epist4 iii4 ,ex persona ,heliae monachi ad parentes suos74 ,etsi impium est1 contemnere matrem1 contemnere tamen propter ,christum piissimum est4--,bernardus 7,ep4 #ajd4 ,see also ,ep4 #cea1 ad ,hugonem novitium74 ,audi sententiam ,isidori3 multi canonicorum1 monachorum 444 temporali salute suorum parentum perdunt animas suas4444 ,servi ,dei qui parentum suorum utilitatem procurant a ,dei amore se separant4--,de modo bene vivendi 7,s4 vii474 ,omnem hominem fidelem judica tuum esse fratrem4--7,ibid4 ,sermo #ac74 ,ambrosius dicit1 longe plus nos debere diligere filios quos de fonte levamus1 quam quos carnaliter 7genuimus4--,petrus ,l4 7l4 iv4 dist4 #f1 c4 #e1 addit4 ,henr4 ab ,vurim474 ,infantes nascuntur cum peccato1 nec fiunt haeredes vitae aeternae sine remissione peccati4444 ,cum igitur dubium non sit in infantibus esse peccatum1 debet aliquod esse discrimen infantium ,ethnicorum1 qui manent rei1 et infantium in ,ecclesia1 qui recipiuntur a ,deo per ministerium4--,melancthon 7,loci de bapt4 inf4 ,argum4 ,,ii4 ,compare with this the passage above cited from ,buddeus1 as a proof of the narrowness of the true believer's love74 ,ut ,episcopi vel ,clerici in eos1 qui ,catholici ,christiani non sunt1 etiam si consanguinei fuerint1 nec per donationes rerum suarum aliquid conferant4--,concil4 ,carthag4 ,,iii4 can4 #ac 7,summa ,carranza74 ,cum haereticis nec orandum1 nec psallendum4--,concil4 ,carthag4 ,,iv4 can4 #gb 7ibid474 ,faith has the significance of religion1 love only that of morality4 ,this has been declared very decidedly by ,protestantism4 ,the doctrine that love does not justify in the sight of ,god1 but only faith1 expresses nothing further than that love has no religious power and significance4 7,apol4 ,augsb4 ,confess4 art4 #c4 ,of ,love and the ,fulfilment of the ,law47 ,it is certainly here said3 ,what the scholastic writers teach concerning the love of ,god is a dream1 and it is impossible to know and love ,god before we know and lay hold on mercy through faith4 ,for then first does ,god become objectum amabile1 a lovable1 blissful object of contemplation4 ,thus here mercy1 love is made the proper object of faith4 ,and it is true that faith is immediately distinguished from love only in this1 that faith places out of itself what love places in itself4 ,we believe that our justification1 salvation1 and consolation1 lie out of ourselves4--,luther 7,th4 xvi4 p4 #dig2 see also ,th4 ix4 p4 #ehg74 ,it is true that faith in the ,protestant sense is faith in the forgiveness of sins1 faith in mercy1 faith in ,christ1 as the ,god who suffered and died for men1 so that man1 in order to attain everlasting salvation1 has nothing further to do on his side than believingly to accept this sacrifice of ,god for him4 ,but it is not as love only that ,god is an object of faith4 ,on the contrary1 the characteristic object of faith as faith is ,god as a subject1 a person4 ,and is a ,god who accords no merit to man1 who claims all exclusively for himself1 who watches jealously over his honour--is a self-interested1 egoistic ,god like this a ,god of love8 ,the morality which proceeds from faith has for its principle and criterion only the contradiction of ,nature1 of man4 ,as the highest object of faith is that which most contradicts reason1 the ,eucharist1 so necessarily the highest virtue of the morality which is true and obedient to faith is that which most contradicts ,nature4 ,dogmatic miracles have therefore moral miracles as their consequence4 ,antinatural morality is the twin sister of supernatural faith4 ,as faith vanquishes ,nature outside of man1 so the morality of faith vanquishes ,nature within man4 ,this practical supernaturalism1 the summit of which is virginity1 the sister of the angels1 the queen of virtues1 the mother of all good 7see ,a4 v4 ,buchers3 ,geistliches ,suchverloren4 7,smmtl4 ,w4 ,b4 vi4 #aea71 has been specially developed by ,catholicism2 for ,protestantism has held fast only the principle of ,christianity1 and has arbitrarily eliminated its logical consequences2 it has embraced only ,christian faith and not ,christian morality4 ,in faith1 ,protestantism has brought man back to the standpoint of primitive ,christianity2 but in life1 in practice1 in morality1 it has restored him to the pre-,christian1 the ,old ,testament1 the heathen1 ,adamitic1 natural standpoint4 ,god instituted marriage in paradise2 therefore even in the present day1 even to ,christians1 the command ,multiply6 is valid4 ,christ advises those only not to marry who can receive this higher rule4 ,chastity is a supernatural gift2 it cannot therefore be expected of every one4 ,but is not faith also a supernatural gift1 a special gift of ,god1 a miracle1 as ,luther says innumerable times1 and is it not nevertheless commanded to us all8 ,are not all men included in the command to mortify1 blind1 and contemn the natural reason8 ,is not the tendency to believe and accept nothing which contradicts reason as natural1 as strong1 as necessary in us1 as the sexual impulse8 ,if we ought to pray to ,god for faith because by ourselves we are too weak to believe1 why should we not on the same ground entreat ,god for chastity8 ,will he deny us this gift if we earnestly implore him for it8 ,never6 ,thus we may regard chastity as a universal command equally with faith1 for what we cannot do of ourselves1 we can do through ,god4 ,what speaks against chastity speaks against faith also1 and what speaks for faith speaks for chastity4 ,one stands and falls with the other2 with a supernatural faith is necessarily associated a supernatural morality4 ,protestantism tore this bond asunder3 in faith it affirmed ,christianity2 in life1 in practice1 it denied ,christianity1 acknowledged the autonomy of natural reason1 of man1--restored man to his original rights4 ,protestantism rejected celibacy1 chastity1 not because it contradicted the ,bible1 but because it contradicts man and nature4 ,he who will be single renounces the name of man1 and proves or makes himself an angel or spirit4444 ,it is pitiable folly to wonder that a man takes a wife1 or for any one to be ashamed of doing so1 since no one wonders that men are accustomed to eat and drink4--,luther 7,th4 xix4 pp4 #cfh1 #cfi74 ,does this unbelief as to the possibility and reality of chastity accord with the ,bible1 where celibacy is eulogised as a laudable1 and consequently a possible1 attainable state8 ,no6 ,it is in direct contradiction with the ,bible4 ,protestantism1 in consequence of its practical spirit1 and therefore by its own inherent force1 repudiated ,christian supranaturalism in the sphere of morality4 ,christianity exists for it only in faith--not in law1 not in morality1 not in the ,state4 ,it is true that love 7the compendium of morality7 belongs essentially to the ,christian1 so that where there is no love1 where faith does not attest itself by love1 there is no faith1 no ,christianity4 ,nevertheless love is only the outward manifestation of faith1 only a consequence1 and only human4 ,faith alone deals with ,god1 faith makes us gods2 love makes us merely men1 and as faith alone is for ,god1 so ,god is for faith alone1 i4e41 faith alone is the divine1 the ,christian in man4 ,to faith belongs eternal life1 to love only this temporal life4 ,long before ,christ came ,god gave this temporal1 earthly life to the whole world1 and said that man should love him and his neighbour4 ,after that he gave the world to his ,son ,christ1 that we through and by him should have eternal life4444 ,moses and the law belong to this life1 but for the other life we must have the ,lord4--,luther 7,th4 xvi4 p4 #dei74 ,thus although love belongs to the ,christian1 yet is the ,christian a ,christian only through this1 that he believes in ,christ4 ,it is true that to serve one's neighbour1 in whatever way1 rank1 or calling1 is to serve ,god4 ,but the ,god whom ,i serve in fulfilling a worldly or natural office is only the universal1 mundane1 natural1 pre-,christian ,god4 ,government1 the ,state1 marriage1 existed prior to ,christianity1 was an institution1 an ordinance of ,god1 in which he did not as yet reveal himself as the true ,god1 as ,christ4 ,christ has nothing to do with all these worldly things2 they are external1 indifferent to him4 ,but for this very reason1 every worldly calling and rank is compatible with ,christianity2 for the true1 ,christian service of ,god is faith alone1 and this can be exercised everywhere4 ,protestantism binds men only in faith1 all the rest it leaves free1 but only because all the rest is external to faith4 ,it is true that we are bound by the commandments of ,christian morality1 as1 for example1 ,avenge not yourselves1 c41 but they have validity for us only as private1 not as public persons4 ,the world is governed according to its own laws4 ,catholicism mingled together the worldly and spiritual kingdoms1 i4e41 it sought to govern the world by ,christianity4 ,but ,christ did not come on earth to interfere in the government of the ,emperor ,augustus and teach him how to reign4--,luther 7,th4 xvi4 p4 #di74 ,where worldly government begins ,christianity ends2 there worldly justice1 the sword1 war1 litigation1 prevail4 ,as a ,christian ,i let my cloak be stolen from me without resistance1 but as a citizen ,i seek to recover it by law4 ,evangelium non abolet jus natur4--,melancthon 7de ,vindicta ,loci4 ,see also on this subject ,m4 ,chemnitii ,loci ,theol4 de ,vindicta74 ,in fact1 ,protestantism is the practical negation of ,christianity1 the practical assertion of the natural man4 ,it is true that ,protestantism also commands the mortifying of the flesh1 the negation of the natural man2 but apart from the fact that this negation has for ,protestantism no religious significance and efficacy1 does not justify1 i4e41 make acceptable to ,god1 procure salvation2 the negation of the flesh in ,protestantism is not distinguished from that limitation of the flesh which natural reason and morality enjoin on man4 ,the necessary practical consequences of the ,christian faith ,protestantism has relegated to the other world1 to heaven--in other words1 has denied them4 la heaven first ceases the worldly standpoint of ,protestantism2 there we no longer marry1 there first we are new creatures2 but here everything remains as of old until that life2 there the external life will be changed1 for ,christ did not come to change the creature4--,luther 7,th4 xv4 p4 #fb74 ,here we are half heathens1 half ,christians2 half citizens of the earth1 half citizens of heaven4 ,of this division1 this disunity1 this chasm1 ,catholicism knows nothing4 ,what it denies in heaven1 i4e41 in faith1 it denies1 also1 as far as possible1 on earth1 i4e41 in morality4 ,grandis igitur virtutis est et sollicitate diligentiae1 superare quod nata sis3 in carne non carnaliter vivere1 tecum pugnare quotidie4--,hieronymus 7,ep4 ,furiae ,rom4 nobilique viduae74 ,quanto igitur natura amplius vincitur et premitur1 tanto major gratia infunditur4--,thomas ,k4 7,imit4 l4 iii4 c4 #ed74 ,esto robustus tam in agendo1 quam in patiendo naturae contraria4--7,ibid4 c4 #di47 ,beatus ille homo1 qui propter te1 ,domine1 omnibus creaturis licentiam abeundi tribuit1 qui naturae vim facit et concupiscentias carnis fervore spiritus crucifigit 7c4 #dh74 ,adhuc proh dolor6 vivit in me verus homo1 non est totus crucifixus4--7,ibid4 c4 #cd1 l4 iii4 c4 #ai1 l4 ii4 c4 #ab47 ,and these dicta by no means emanate simply from the pious individuality of the author of the work ,de ,imitatione ,christi2 they express the genuine morality of ,catholicism1 that morality which the saints attested by their lives1 and which was sanctioned even by the ,head of the ,church1 otherwise so worldly4 ,thus it is said1 for example1 in the ,canonizatio ,s4 ,bernhardi ,abbatis per ,alexandrum papam ,,iii4 anno ,ch4 #aafd4 ,litt4 apost 444 primo ad4 ,praelatos ,eccles4 ,gallic43 ,in afflictione vero corporis sui usque adeo sibi mundum1 seque mundo reddidit crucifixum1 ut confidamus martyrum quoque eum merita obtinere sanctorum1 etc4 ,it was owing to this purely negative moral principle that there could be enunciated within ,catholicism itself the gross opinion that mere martyrdom1 without the motive of love to ,god1 obtains heavenly blessedness4 ,it is true that ,catholicism also in practice denied the supranaturalistic morality of ,christianity2 but its negation has an essentially different significance from that of ,protestantism2 it is a negation de facto but not de jure4 ,the ,catholic denied in life what he ought to have affirmed in life1--as1 for example1 the vow of chastity1--what he desired to affirm1 at least if he was a religious ,catholic1 but which in the nature of things he could not affirm4 ,thus he gave validity to the law of ,nature1 he gratified the flesh1 in a word1 he was a man1 in contradiction with his essential character1 his religious principle and conscience4 ,adhuc proh dolor6 vivit in me verus homo4 ,catholicism has proved to the world that the supernatural principle of faith in ,christianity1 applied to life1 made a principle of morals1 has immoral1 radically corrupting consequences4 ,this experience ,protestantism made use of1 or rather this experience called forth ,protestantism4 ,it made the illegitimate1 practical negation of ,christianity--illegitimate in the sense of true ,catholicism1 though not in that of the degenerate ,church--the law1 the norm of life4 ,you cannot in life1 at least in this life1 be ,christians1 peculiar1 superhuman beings1 therefore ye ought not to be such4 ,and it legitimised this negation of ,christianity before its still ,christian conscience1 by ,christianity itself1 pronounced it to be ,christian2--no wonder1 therefore1 that now at last modern ,christianity not only practically but theoretically represents the total negation of ,christianity as ,christianity4 ,when1 however1 ,protestantism is designated as the contradiction1 ,catholicism as the unity of faith and practice1 it is obvious that in both cases we refer only to the essence1 to the principle4 ,faith sacrifices man to ,god4 ,human sacrifice belongs to the very idea of religion4 ,bloody human sacrifices only dramatise this idea4 ,by faith ,abraham offered up ,isaac4--,heb4 xi4 #ag4 ,quanto major ,abraham1 qui unicum filium voluntate jugulavit4444 ,jepte obtulit virginem filiam et idcirco in enumeratione sanctorum ab ,apostolo ponitur4--,hieronymus 7,epist4 ,juliano74 ,on the human sacrifices in the ,jewish religion we refer the reader to the works of ,daumer and ,ghillany4 ,in the ,christian religion also it is only blood1 the sacrifice of the ,son of ,man1 which allays ,god's anger and reconciles him to man4 ,therefore a pure1 guiltless man must fall a sacrifice4 ,such blood alone is precious1 such alone has reconciling power4 ,and this blood1 shed on the cross for the allaying of the divine anger1 ,christians partake in the ,lord's ,supper1 for the strengthening and sealing of their faith4 ,but why is the blood taken under the form of wine1 the flesh under the form of bread8 ,that it may not appear as if ,christians ate real human flesh and drank human blood1 that the natural man may not shrink from the mysteries of the ,christian faith4 ,etenim ne humana infirmitas esum carnis et potum sanguinis in sumptione horreret1 ,christus velari et palliari illa duo voluit speciebus panis et vini4--,bernard4 7edit4 cit4 pp4 #ahi-aia74 ,sub alia autem specie tribus de causis carnem et sanguinem tradit ,christus et deinceps sumendum instituit4 ,ut fides scil4 haberet meritum1 quae est de his quae non videntur1 quod fides non habet meritum1 ubi humana ratio praebet experimentum4 ,et ideo etiam ne abhorreret animus quod cerneret oculus2 quod non habemus in usu carnem crudam comedere et sanguinem bibere4444 ,et etiam ideo ne ab incredulis religioni christianae insultaretur4 ,unde ,augustinus3 ,nihil rationabilius1 quam ut sanguinis similitudinem sumamus1 ut et ita veritas non desit et ridiculum nullum fiat a paganis1 quod cruorem occisi hominis bibamus4--,petrus ,lomb4 7,sent4 lib4 iv4 dist4 ii4 c4 #d74 ,but as the bloody human sacrifice1 while it expresses the utmost abnegation of man1 is at the same time the highest assertion of his value2--for only because human life is regarded as the highest1 because the sacrifice of it is the most painful1 costs the greatest conquest over feeling1 is it offered to ,god2--so the contradiction of the ,eucharist with human nature is only apparent4 ,apart from the fact that flesh and blood are1 as ,st4 ,bernard says1 clothed with bread and wine1 i4e41 that in truth it is not flesh but bread1 not blood but wine1 which is partaken1--the mystery of the ,eucharist resolves itself into the mystery of eating and drinking4 ,all ancient ,christian doctors 444 teach that the body of ,christ is not taken spiritually alone by faith1 which happens also out of the ,sacraments1 but also corporeally2 not alone by believers1 by the pious1 but also by unworthy1 unbelieving1 false and wicked ,christians4 ,there are thus two ways of eating ,christ's flesh1 one spiritual 444 such spiritual eating however is nothing else than faith4444 ,the other way of eating the body of ,christ is to eat it corporeally or sacramentally4--7,concordienb4 ,erkl4 art4 #g74 ,the mouth eats the body of ,christ bodily4--,luther 7against the fanatics4 ,th4 xix4 p4 #dag74 ,what then forms the specific difference of the ,eucharist8 ,eating and drinking4 ,apart from the ,sacrament1 ,god is partaken of spiritually2 in the ,sacrament he is partaken of materially1 i4e41 he is eaten and drunken1 assimilated by the body4 ,but how couldst thou receive ,god into thy body1 if it were in thy esteem an organ unworthy of ,god8 ,dost thou pour wine into a water-cask8 ,dost thou not declare thy hands and lips holy when by means of them thou comest in contact with the ,holy ,one8 ,thus if ,god is eaten and drunken1 eating and drinking is declared to be a divine act2 and this is what the ,eucharist expresses1 though in a self-contradictory1 mystical1 covert manner4 ,but it is our task to express the mystery of religion1 openly and honourably1 clearly and definitely4 ,life is ,god2 the enjoyment of life is the enjoyment of ,god2 true bliss in life is true religion4 ,but to the enjoyment of life belongs the enjoyment of eating and drinking4 ,if therefore life in general is holy1 eating and drinking must be holy4 ,is this an irreligious creed8 ,let it be remembered that this irreligion is the analysed1 unfolded1 unequivocally expressed mystery of religion itself4 ,all the mysteries of religion ultimately resolve themselves1 as we have shown1 into the mystery of heavenly bliss4 ,but heavenly bliss is nothing else than happiness freed from the limits of reality4 ,the ,christians have happiness for their object just as much as the heathens2 the only difference is1 that the heathens place heaven on earth1 the ,christians place earth in heaven4 ,whatever is1 whatever is really enjoyed1 is finite2 that which is not1 which is believed in and hoped for1 is infinite4 #ba4 ,the ,christian religion is a contradiction4 ,it is at once the reconciliation and the disunion1 the unity and the opposition1 of ,god and man4 ,this contradiction is personified in the ,god-man4 ,the unity of the ,godhead and manhood is at once a truth and an untruth4 ,we have already maintained that if ,christ was ,god1 if he was at once man and another being conceived as incapable of suffering1 his suffering was an illusion4 ,for his suffering as man was no suffering to him as ,god4 ,no6 what he acknowledged as man he denied as ,god4 ,he suffered only outwardly1 not inwardly1 i4e41 he suffered only apparently1 not really2 for he was man only in appearance1 in form1 in the external2 in truth1 in essence1 in which alone he was an object to the believer1 he was ,god4 ,it would have been true suffering only if he had suffered as ,god also4 ,what he did not experience in his nature as ,god1 he did not experience in truth1 in substance4 ,and1 incredible as it is1 the ,christians themselves half directly1 half indirectly1 admit that their highest1 holiest mystery is only an illusion1 a simulation4 ,this simulation indeed lies at the foundation of the thoroughly unhistorical1 #bce theatrical1 illusory ,gospel of ,john4 ,one instance1 among others1 in which this is especially evident1 is the resurrection of ,lazarus1 where the omnipotent arbiter of life and death evidently sheds tears only in ostentation of his manhood1 and expressly says3 ,father1 ,i thank thee that thou hast heard me1 and ,i know that thou hearest me always1 but for the sake of the people who stand round ,i said it1 that they may believe in thee4 ,the simulation thus indicated in the ,gospel has been developed by the ,church into avowed delusion4 ,si credas susceptionem corporis1 adjungas divinitatis compassionem1 portionem utique perfidiae1 non perfidiam declinasti4 ,credis enim1 quod tibi prodesse praesumis1 non credis quod ,deo dignum est4444 ,idem enim patiebatur et non patiebatur4444 ,patiebatur secundum corporis susceptionem1 ut suscepti corporis veritas crederetur et non patiebatur secundum verbi impassibilem divinitatem4444 ,erat igitur immortalis in morte1 impassibilis in passione4444 ,cur divinitati attribuis aerumnas corporis et infirmum doloris humani divinae connectis naturae8--,ambrosius 7de incarnat4 domin4 sacr4 cc4 #d1 #e74 ,juxta hominis naturam proficiebat sapientia1 non quod ipse sapientior esset ex tempore 444 sed eandem1 qua plenus erat1 sapientiam caeteris ex tempore paulatim demonstrabat4444 ,in aliis ergo non in se proficiebat sapientia et gratia4--,gregorius in homil4 quadam 7ap4 ,petrus ,lomb4 l4 iii4 dist4 #ac1 c4 #a74 ,proficiebat ergo humanus sensus in eo secundum ostensionem et aliorum hominum opinionem4 ,ita enim patrem et matrem dicitur ignorasse in infantia1 quia ita se gerebat et habebat ac si agnitionis expers esset4--,petrus ,l4 7ibid4 c4 #b74 ,ut homo ergo dubitat1 ut homo locutus est4--,ambrosius4 ,his verbis innui videtur1 quod ,christus non inquantum ,deus vel ,dei filius1 sed inquantum homo dubitaverit affectu humano4 ,quod ea ratione dictum accipi potest3 non quod ipse dubitaverit1 sed quod modum gessit dubitantis et hominibus dubitare videbatur4--,petrus ,l4 7ibid4 dist4 #ag1 c4 #b74 ,in the first part of the present work we have exhibited the truth1 in the second part the untruth of religion1 or rather of theology4 ,the truth is only the identity of ,god and man4 ,religion is truth only when it affirms human attributes as divine1 falsehood when1 in the form of theology1 it denies these attributes1 separating ,god from man as a different being4 ,thus1 in the first part we had to show the truth of ,god's suffering2 here we have the proof of its untruth1 and not a proof which lies in our own subjective view1 but an objective proof--the admission of theology itself1 that its highest mystery1 the ,passion of ,god1 is only a deception1 an illusion4 ,it is therefore in the highest degree uncritical1 untruthful1 and arbitrary to explain the ,christian religion1 as speculative philosophy has done1 only as the religion of reconciliation between ,god and man1 and not also as the religion of disunion between the divine and human nature1--to find in the ,god-man only the unity1 and not also the contradiction of the divine and human nature4 ,christ suffered only as man1 not as ,god4 ,capability of suffering is the sign of real humanity4 ,it was not as ,god that he was born1 that he increased in wisdom1 and was crucified2 i4e41 all human conditions remained foreign to him as ,god4 ,si quis non confitetur proprie et vere substantialem differentiam naturarum post ineffabilem unionem1 ex quibus unus et solus extitit ,christus1 in ea salvatum1 sit condemnatus4--,concil4 ,later4 ,i4 can4 #g 7,carranza74 ,the divine nature1 notwithstanding the position that ,christ was at once ,god and man1 is just as much dissevered from the human nature in the incarnation as before it1 since each nature excludes the conditions of the other1 although both are united in one personality1 in an incomprehensible1 miraculous1 i4e41 untrue manner1 in contradiction with the relation in which1 according to their definition1 they stand to each other4 ,even the ,lutherans1 nay1 ,luther himself1 however strongly he expresses himself concerning the community and union of the human and divine nature in ,christ1 does not escape from the irreconcilable division between them4 ,god is man1 and man is ,god1 but thereby neither the natures nor their attributes are confounded1 but each nature retains its essence and attributes4 ,the ,son of ,god himself has truly suffered and truly died1 but according to the human nature which he had assumed2 for the divine nature can neither suffer nor die4 ,it is truly said1 the ,son of ,god suffers4 ,for although the one part 7so to speak71 as the ,godhead1 does not suffer1 still the person who is ,god suffers in the other half1 the manhood2 for in truth the ,son of ,god was crucified for us1 that is1 the person who is ,god2 for the person is crucified according to his manhood4 ,it is the person that does and suffers all1 one thing according to this nature1 another according to that nature1 all which the learned well know4--7,concordienb4 ,erklr4 art4 #h47 ,the ,son of ,god and ,god himself is killed and murdered1 for ,god and man is one person4 ,therefore ,god was crucified1 and died1 and became man2 not ,god apart from humanity1 but united with it2 not according to the ,godhead1 but according to the human nature which he had assumed4--,luther 7,th4 iii4 p4 #ejb74 ,thus only in the person1 i4e41 only in a nomen proprium1 not in essence1 not in truth1 are the two natures united4 ,quando dicitur3 ,deus est homo vel homo est ,deus1 propositio ejusmodi vocatur personalis4 ,ratio est1 quia unionem personalem in ,christo supponit4 ,sine tali enim naturarum in ,christo unione nunquam dicere potuissem1 ,deum esse hominem aut hominem esse ,deum4444 ,abstracta autem naturae de se invicem enuntiari non posse1 longe est manifestissimum4444 ,dicere itaque non licet1 divina natura est humana aut deitas est humanitas et vice versa4--,j4 ,f4 ,buddeus 7,comp4 ,inst4 ,theol4 ,dogm4 l4 iv4 c4 ii4 #aa74 ,thus the union of the divine and human natures in the incarnation is only a deception1 an illusion4 ,the old dissidence of ,god and man lies at the foundation of this dogma also1 and operates all the more injuriously1 is all the more odious1 that it conceals itself behind the appearance1 the imagination of unity4 ,hence ,socinianism1 far from being superficial when it denied the ,trinity and the ,god-man1 was only consistent1 only truthful4 ,god was a triune being1 and yet he was to be held purely simple1 absolute unity1 an ens simplicissimum2 thus the ,unity contradicted the ,trinity4 ,god was ,god-man1 and yet the ,godhead was not to be touched or annulled by the manhood1 i4e41 it was to be essentially distinct2 thus the incompatibility of the divine and human attributes contradicted the unity of the two natures4 ,according to this1 we have in the very idea of the ,god-man the arch-enemy of the ,god-man1--rationalism1 blended1 however1 with its opposite--mysticism4 ,thus ,socinianism only denied what faith itself denied1 and yet1 in contradiction with itself1 at the same time affirmed2 it only denied a contradiction1 an untruth4 ,nevertheless the ,christians have celebrated the incarnation as a work of love1 as a self-renunciation of ,god1 an abnegation of his majesty--,amor triumphat de ,deo2 for the love of ,god is an empty word if it is understood as a real abolition of the distinction between him and man4 ,thus we have1 in the very central point of ,christianity1 the contradiction of ,faith and ,love developed in the close of the present work4 ,faith makes the suffering of ,god a mere appearance1 love makes it a truth4 ,only on the truth of the suffering rests the true positive impression of the incarnation4 ,strongly1 then1 as we have insisted on the contradiction and division between the divine and the human nature in the ,god-man1 we must equally insist on their community and unity1 in virtue of which ,god is really man and man is really ,god4 ,here then we have the irrefragable and striking proof that the central point1 the supreme object of ,christianity1 is nothing else than man1 that ,christians adore the human individual as ,god1 and ,god as the human individual4 ,this man born of the ,virgin ,mary is ,god himself1 who has created heaven and earth4--,luther 7,th4 ii4 p4 #fga74 ,i point to the man ,christ and say3 ,that is the ,son of ,god4--7,th4 xix4 p4 #eid47 ,to give life1 to have all power in heaven and earth1 to have all things in his hands1 all things put under his feet1 to purify from sin1 and so on1 are divine1 infinite attributes1 which1 according to the declaration of the ,holy ,scriptures1 are given and imparted to the man ,christ4 ,therefore we believe1 teach1 and confess that the ,son of ,man 444 now not only as ,god1 but also as man1 knows all things1 can do all things1 is present with all creatures4 ,we reject and condemn the doctrine that he 7the ,son of ,god7 is not capable according to his human nature of omnipotence and other attributes of the divine nature4--7,concordienb4 ,summar4 ,begr4 u4 ,erklr4 art4 #h47 ,unde et sponte sua fluit1 ,christo etiam qua humanam naturam spectato cultum religiosum deberi4--,buddeus 7l4 c4 l4 iv4 c4 ii4 #ag74 ,the same is expressly taught by the ,fathers and the ,catholics1 e4g41 ,eadem adoratione adoranda in ,christo est divinitas et humanitas4444 ,divinitas intrinsece inest humanitati per unionem hypostaticam3 ergo humanitas ,christi seu ,christus ut homo potest adorari absoluto cultu latriae4--,theol4 ,schol4 7sec4 ,thomam ,aq4 ,p4 ,metzger4 iv4 p4 #abd74 ,it is certainly said that it is not man1 not flesh and blood by itself1 which is worshipped1 but the flesh united with ,god1 so that the cultus applies not to the flesh1 or man1 but to ,god4 ,but it is here as with the worship of saints and images4 ,as the saint is adored in the image and ,god in the saint1 only because the image and the saint are themselves adored1 so ,god is worshipped in the human body only because the human flesh is itself worshipped4 ,god becomes flesh1 man1 because man is in truth already ,god4 ,how could it enter into thy mind to bring the human flesh into so close a relation and contact with ,god if it were something impure1 degrading1 unworthy of ,god8 ,if the value1 the dignity of the human flesh does not lie in itself1 why dost thou not make other flesh--the flesh of brutes the habitation of the ,divine ,spirit8 ,true it is said3 ,man is only the organ in1 with1 and by which the ,godhead works1 as the soul in the body4 ,but this pretext also is refuted by what has been said above4 ,god chose man as his organ1 his body1 because only in man did he find an organ worthy of him1 suitable1 pleasing to him4 ,if the nature of man is indifferent1 why did not ,god become incarnate in a brute8 ,thus ,god comes into man only out of man4 ,the manifestation of ,god in man is only a manifestation of the divinity and glory of man4 ,noscitur ex alio1 qui non cognoscitur ex se--this trivial saying is applicable here4 ,god is known through man1 whom he honours with his personal presence and indwelling1 and known as a human being1 for what any one prefers1 selects1 loves1 in his objective nature2 and man is known through ,god1 and known as a divine being1 for only that which is worthy of ,god1 which is divine1 can be the object1 organ1 and habitation of ,god4 ,true it is further said3 ,it is ,jesus ,christ alone1 and no other man1 who is worshipped as ,god4 ,but this argument also is idle and empty4 ,christ is indeed one only1 but he is one who represents all4 ,he is a man as we are1 our brother1 and we are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone4 ,in ,jesus ,christ our ,lord every one of us is a portion of flesh and blood4 ,therefore where my body is1 there ,i believe that ,i myself reign4 ,where my flesh is glorified1 there ,i believe that ,i am myself glorious4 ,where my blood rules1 there ,i hold that ,i myself rule4--,luther 7,th4 xvi4 p4 #ecd74 ,this then is an undeniable fact3 ,christians worship the human individual as the supreme being1 as ,god4 ,not indeed consciously1 for it is the unconsciousness of this fact which constitutes the illusion of the religious principle4 ,but in this sense it may be said that the heathens did not worship the statues of the gods2 for to them also the statue was not a statue1 but ,god himself4 ,nevertheless they did worship the statue2 just as ,christians worship the human individual1 though1 naturally1 they will not admit it4 #bb4 ,man is the ,god of ,christianity1 ,anthropology the mystery of ,christian ,theology4 ,the history of ,christianity has had for its grand result the unveiling of this mystery--the realisation and recognition of theology as anthropology4 ,the distinction between ,protestantism and ,catholicism--the old ,catholicism1 which now exists only in books1 not in actuality--consists only in this1 that the latter is ,theology1 the former ,christology1 i4e41 7religious7 ,anthropology4 ,catholicism has a supranaturalistic1 abstract ,god1 a ,god who is other than human1 a not human1 a superhuman being4 ,the goal of ,catholic morality1 likeness to ,god1 consists therefore in this1 to be not a man1 but more than a man--a heavenly abstract being1 an angel4 ,only in its morality does the essence of a religion realise1 reveal itself3 morality alone is the criterion1 whether a religious dogma is felt as a truth or is a mere chimera4 ,thus the doctrine of a superhuman1 supernatural ,god is a truth only where it has as its consequence a superhuman1 supernatural1 or rather antinatural morality4 ,protestantism1 on the contrary1 has not a supranaturalistic but a human morality1 a morality of and for flesh and blood2 consequently its ,god1 at least its true1 real ,god1 is no longer an abstract1 supranaturalistic being1 but a being of flesh and blood4 ,this defiance the devil hears unwillingly1 that our flesh and blood is the ,son of ,god1 yea1 ,god himself1 and reigns in heaven over all4--,luther 7,th4 xvi4 p4 #egc74 ,out of ,christ there is no ,god1 and where ,christ is1 there is the whole ,godhead4--,id4 7,th4 xix4 p4 #djc74 ,catholicism has1 both in theory and practice1 a ,god who1 in spite of the predicate of love1 exists for himself1 to whom therefore man only comes by being against himself1 denying himself1 renouncing his existence for self2 ,protestantism1 on the contrary1 has a ,god who1 at least practically1 virtually1 has not an existence for himself1 but exists only for man1 for the welfare of man4 ,hence in ,catholicism the highest act of the cultus1 the mass of ,christ1 is a sacrifice of man1--the same ,christ1 the same flesh and blood1 is sacrificed to ,god in the ,host as on the cross2 in ,protestantism1 on the contrary1 it is a sacrifice1 a gift of ,god3 ,god sacrifices himself1 surrenders himself to be partaken by man4 7,see ,luther1 e4g41 ,th4 xx4 p4 #bei2 ,th4 xvii4 p4 #ebi47 ,in ,catholicism manhood is the property1 the predicate of the ,godhead 7of ,christ7--,god is man2 in ,protestantism1 on the contrary1 ,godhead is the property1 the predicate of manhood 7,christ7--man is ,god4 ,this1 in time past1 the greatest theologians have done--they have fled from the manhood of ,christ to his ,godhead1 and attached themselves to that alone1 and thought that we should not know the manhood of ,christ4 ,but we must so rise to the ,godhead of ,christ1 and hold by it in such a way1 as not to forsake the manhood of ,christ and come to the ,godhead alone4 ,thou shouldst know of no ,god1 nor ,son of ,god1 save him who was born of the ,virgin ,mary and became man4 ,he who receives his manhood has also his ,godhead4--,luther 7,th4 ix4 pp4 #eib1 #eih74 #bcf ,or1 briefly thus3 in ,catholicism1 man exists for ,god2 in ,protestantism1 ,god exists for man4 #bcg ,jesus ,christ our ,lord was conceived for us1 born for us1 suffered for us1 was crucified1 died1 and was buried for us4 ,our ,lord rose from the dead for our consolation1 sits for our good at the right hand of the ,almighty ,father1 and is to judge the living and the dead for our comfort4 ,this the holy ,apostles and beloved ,fathers intended to intimate in their confession by the words3 ,us and our ,lord--namely1 that ,jesus ,christ is ours1 whose office and will it is to help us 444 so that we should not read or speak the words coldly1 and interpret them only of ,christ1 but of ourselves also4--,luther 7,th4 xvi4 p4 #ech74 ,i know of no ,god but him who gave himself for me4 ,is not that a great thing that ,god is man1 that ,god gives himself to man and will be his1 as man gives himself to his wife and is hers8 ,but if ,god is ours1 all things are ours4--7,th4 xii4 p4 #bhc47 ,god cannot be a ,god of the dead1 who are nothing1 but is a ,god of the living4 ,if ,god were a ,god of the dead1 he would be as a husband who had no wife1 or as a father who had no son1 or as a master who had no servant4 ,for if he is a husband1 he must have a wife4 ,if he is a father1 he must have a son4 ,if he is a master1 he must have a servant4 ,or he would be a fictitious father1 a fictitious master1 that is1 nothing4 ,god is not a ,god like the idols of the heathens1 neither is he an imaginary ,god1 who exists for himself alone1 and has none who call upon him and worship him4 ,a ,god is he from whom everything is to be expected and received4444 ,if he were ,god for himself alone in heaven1 and we had no good to rely on from him1 he would be a ,god of stone or straw4444 ,if he sat alone in heaven like a clod1 he would not be ,god4--7,th4 xvi4 p4 #dfe74 ,god says3 ,i the ,almighty ,creator of heaven and earth am thy ,god4444 ,to be a ,god means to redeem us from all evil and trouble that oppresses us1 as sin1 hell1 death1 c4--7,th4 ii4 p4 #cbg47 ,all the world calls that a ,god in whom man trusts in need and danger1 on whom he relies1 from whom all good is to be had and who can help4 ,thus reason describes ,god1 that he affords help to man1 and does good to him1 bestows benefits upon him4 ,this thou seest also in this text3 ',i am the ,lord thy ,god1 who brought thee out of the land of ,egypt4' ,there we are taught what ,god is1 what is his nature1 and what are his attributes1--namely1 that he does good1 delivers from dangers1 and helps out of trouble and all calamities4--7,th4 iv4 pp4 #bcf1 #bcg47 ,but if ,god is a living1 i4e41 real ,god1 is ,god in general1 only in virtue of this--that he is a ,god to man1 a being who is useful1 good1 beneficent to man2 then1 in truth1 man is the criterion1 the measure of ,god1 man is the absolute1 divine being4 ,the proposition3 ,a ,god existing only for himself is no ,god--means nothing else than that ,god without man is not ,god2 where there is no man there is no ,god2 if thou takest from ,god the predicate of humanity1 thou takest from him the predicate of deity2 if his relation to man is done away with1 so also is his existence4 ,nevertheless ,protestantism1 at least in theory1 has retained in the background of this human ,god the old supranaturalistic ,god4 ,protestantism is the contradiction of theory and practice2 it has emancipated the flesh1 but not the reason4 ,according to ,protestantism1 ,christianity1 i4e41 ,god1 does not contradict the natural impulses of man3--,therefore we ought now to know that ,god does not condemn or abolish the natural tendency in man which was implanted in ,nature at the creation1 but that he awakens and preserves it4--,luther 7,th4 iii4 p4 #bij74 ,but it contradicts reason1 and is therefore1 theoretically1 only an object of faith4 ,we have shown1 however1 that the nature of faith1 the nature of ,god1 is itself nothing else than the nature of man placed out of man1 conceived as external to man4 ,the reduction of the extrahuman1 supernatural1 and antirational nature of ,god to the natural1 immanent1 inborn nature of man1 is therefore the liberation of ,protestantism1 of ,christianity in general1 from its fundamental contradiction1 the reduction of it to its truth1--the result1 the necessary1 irrepressible1 irrefragable result of ,christianity4 ,,the ,,end4 ,,notes #a ,the opening paragraphs of this ,preface are omitted1 as having too specific a reference to transient ,german polemics to interest the ,english reader4 #b ,for example1 in considering the sacraments1 ,i limit myself to two2 for in the strictest sense 7see ,luther1 ,t4 xvii4 p4 #eeh71 there are no more4 #c ,objectum intellectus esse illimitatum sive omne verum ac1 ut loquuntur1 omne ens ut ens1 ex eo constat1 quod ad nullum non genus rerum extenditur1 nullumque est1 cujus cognoscendi capax non sit1 licet ob varia obstacula multa sint1 qu re ipsa non norit4--,gassendi 7,opp4 ,omn4 ,phys474 #d ,the obtuse ,materialist says3 ,man is distinguished from the brute only by consciousness--he is an animal with consciousness superadded2 not reflecting1 that in a being which awakes to consciousness1 there takes place a qualitative change1 a differentiation of the entire nature4 ,for the rest1 our words are by no means intended to depreciate the nature of the lower animals4 ,this is not the place to enter further into that question4 #e ,toute opinion est assez forte pour se faire exposer au prix de la vie4--,montaigne4 #f ,homini homine nihil pulchrius4 7,cic4 de ,nat4 ,d4 l4 i47 ,and this is no sign of limitation1 for he regards other beings as beautiful besides himself2 he delights in the beautiful forms of animals1 in the beautiful forms of plants1 in the beauty of nature in general4 ,but only the absolute1 the perfect form1 can delight without envy in the forms of other beings4 #g ,the understanding is percipient only of understanding1 and what proceeds thence4--,reimarus 7,wahrh4 der ,natrl4 ,religion1 iv4 ,abth4 #h74 #h ,verisimile est1 non minus quam geometri1 etiam music oblectationem ad plures quam ad nos pertinere4 ,positis enim aliis terris atque animalibus ratione et auditu pollentibus1 cur tantum his nostris contigisset ea voluptas1 qu sola ex sono percipi potest8--,christ4 ,hugenius 7,cosmotheor41 l4 i474 #i ,de ,genesi ad litteram1 l4 v4 c4 #af4 #aj ,unusquisque vestrum non cogitat1 prius se debere ,deum nosse1 quam colere4--,m4 ,minucii ,felicis ,octavianus1 c4 #bd4 #aa ,the meaning of this parenthetic limitation will be clear in the sequel4 #ab ,les perfections de ,dieu sont celles de nos mes1 mais il les possede sans bornes--il y a en nous quelque puissance1 quelque connaissance quelque bont1 mais elles sont toutes entires en ,dieu4--,leibnitz 7,thod4 ,preface74 ,nihil in anima esse putemus eximium1 quod non etiam divin natur proprium sit--,quidquid a ,deo alienum extra definitionem anim--,st4 ,gregorius ,nyss4 ,est ergo1 ut videtur1 disciplinarum omnium pulcherrima et maxima se ipsum nosse2 si quis enim se ipsum norit1 ,deum cognoscet4--,clemens ,alex4 7,pd4 #a4 iii4 c4 #a74 #ac ,for religious faith there is no other distinction between the present and future ,god than that the former is an object of faith1 of conception1 of imagination1 while the latter is to be an object of immediate1 that is1 personal1 sensible perception4 ,in this life and in the next he is the same ,god2 but in the one he is incomprehensible1 in the other comprehensible4 #ad ,inter creatorem et creaturam non potest tanta similitudo notari1 quin inter eos major sit dissimilitudo notanda4--,later4 ,conc4 can4 #b4 7,summa ,omn4 ,conc4 ,carranza4 ,antw4 #aeei4 p4 #cbf47 ,the last distinction between man and ,god1 between the finite and infinite nature1 to which the religious speculative imagination soars1 is the distinction between ,something and ,nothing1 ,ens and ,non-,ens2 for only in ,nothing is all community with other beings abolished4 #ae ,gloriam suam plus amat ,deus quam omnes creaturas4 ,god can only love himself1 can only think of himself1 can only work for himself4 ,in creating man1 ,god seeks his own ends1 his own glory1 c4--,vide ,p4 ,bayle1 ,ein ,beitrag zur ,geschichte der ,philos4 u4 ,menschh41 pp4 #ajd-ajg4 #af ,pelagianism denies ,god1 religion--isti tantam tribuunt potestatem voluntati1 ut pietati auferant orationem4 7,augustin de ,nat4 et ,grat4 cont4 ,pelagium1 c4 #eh47 ,it has only the ,creator1 i4e41 ,nature1 as a basis1 not the ,saviour1 the true ,god of the religious sentiment--in a word1 it denies ,god2 but1 as a consequence of this1 it elevates man into a ,god1 since it makes him a being not needing ,god1 self-sufficing1 independent4 7,see on this subject ,luther against ,erasmus and ,augustine1 l4 c4 c4 #cc47 ,augustinianism denies man2 but1 as a consequence of this1 it reduces ,god to the level of man1 even to the ignominy of the cross1 for the sake of man4 ,the former puts man in the place of ,god1 the latter puts ,god in the place of man2 both lead to the same result--the distinction is only apparent1 a pious illusion4 ,augustinianism is only an inverted ,pelagianism2 what to the latter is a subject1 is to the former an object4 #ag ,the religious1 the original mode in which man becomes objective to himself1 is 7as is clearly enough1 explained in this work7 to be distinguished from the mode in which this occurs in reflection and speculation2 the latter is voluntary1 the former involuntary1 necessary--as necessary as art1 as speech4 ,with the progress of time1 it is true2 theology coincides with religion4 #ah ,deut4 xxiii4 #ab1 #ac4 #ai ,see1 for example1 ,gen4 xxxv4 #b2 ,levit4 xi4 #dd2 xx4 #bf2 and the ,commentary of ,le ,clerc on these passages4 #bj ,augustine1 in his work ,contra ,academicos1 which he wrote when he was still in some measure a heathen1 says 7l4 iii4 c4 #ab7 that the highest good of man consists in the mind or in the reason4 ,on the other hand1 in his ,libr4 ,retractationum1 which he wrote as a distinguished ,christian and theologian1 he revises 7l4 i4 c4 #a7 this declaration as follows3--,verius dixissem in ,deo4 ,ipso enim mens fruitur1 ut beata sit1 tanquam summo bono suo4 ,but is there any distinction here8 ,where my highest good is1 is not there my nature also8 #ba ,kant1 ,vorles4 ber d4 philos4 ,religionsl41 ,leipzig1 #ahag1 p4 #ci4 #bb ,kant1 l4 c41 p4 #hj4 #bc ,to guard against mistake1 ,i observe that ,i do not apply to the understanding the expression self-subsistent essence1 and other terms of a like character1 in my own sense1 but that ,i am here placing myself on the standpoint of onto-theology1 of metaphysical theology in general1 in order to show that metaphysics is resolvable into psychology1 that the onto-theological predicates are merely predicates of the understanding4 #bd ,malebranche4 7,see the author's ,geschichte der ,philos41 #a ,bd4 p4 #cbb47 ,exstaretne alibi diversa ab hac ratio8 censereturque injustum aut scelestum in ,jove aut ,marte1 quod apud nos justum ac prclarum habetur8 ,certe nec verisimile nec omnino possibile4--,chr4 ,hugenii 7,cosmotheoros1 lib4 i474 #be ,in religion1 the representation or expression of the nothingness of man before ,god is the anger of ,god2 for as the love of ,god is the affirmation1 his anger is the negation of man4 ,but even this anger is not taken in earnest4 ,god 444 is not really angry4 ,he is not thoroughly in earnest even when we think that he is angry1 and punishes4--,luther 7,th4 viii4 p4 #bjh74 #bf ,luther1 ,concordienbuch1 ,art4 #h1 ,erklr4 #bg ,luther1 ,smmtliche ,schriften und ,werke1 ,leipzig1 #agbi1 fol4 ,th4 iii4 p4 #ehi4 ,it is according to this edition that references are given throughout the present work4 #bh ,predigten etzlicher ,lehrer vor und zu ,tauleri ,zeiten1 ,hamburg1 #afba1 p4 #ha4 #bi ,that which1 in our own judgment1 derogates from our self-conceit1 humiliates us4 ,thus the moral law inevitably humiliates every man when he compares with it the sensual tendency of his nature4--,kant1 ,kritik der prakt4 ,vernunft1 #dth edition1 p4 #acb4 #cj ,omnes peccavimus4444 ,parricide cum lega cperunt et illis facinus poena monstravit4--,seneca4 ,the law destroys us4--,luther 7,th4 xvi4 s4 #cbj74 #ca ,das ,rechtsgefhl der ,sinnlichkeit4 #cb ,this1 my ,god and ,lord1 has taken upon him my nature1 flesh and blood such as ,i have1 and has been tempted and has suffered in all things like me1 but without sin2 therefore he can have pity on my weakness4--,hebrews v4 ,luther 7,th4 xvi4 s4 #ecc74 ,the deeper we can bring ,christ into the flesh the better4--7,ibid4 s4 #efe47 ,god himself1 when he is dealt with out of ,christ1 is a terrible ,god1 for no consolation is found in him1 but pure anger and disfavour4--7,th4 xv4 s4 #bih47 #cc ,such descriptions as those in which the ,scriptures speak of ,god as of a man1 and ascribe to him all that is human1 are very sweet and comforting--namely1 that he talks with us as a friend1 and of such things as men are wont to talk of with each other2 that he rejoices1 sorrows1 and suffers1 like a man1 for the sake of the mystery of the future humanity of ,christ4--,luther 7,th4 ii4 p4 #ccd74 #cd ,deus homo factus est1 ut homo ,deus fieret4--,augustinus 7,serm4 ad ,pop4 p4 #cga1 c4 #a74 ,in ,luther1 however 7,th4 i4 p4 #ccd71 there is a passage which indicates the true relation4 ,when ,moses called man the image of ,god1 the likeness of ,god1 he meant1 says ,luther1 obscurely to intimate that ,god was to become man4 ,thus here the incarnation of ,god is clearly enough represented as a consequence of the deification of man4 #ce ,it was in this sense that the old uncompromising enthusiastic faith celebrated the ,incarnation4 ,amor triumphat de ,deo1 says ,st4 ,bernard4 ,and only in the sense of a real self-renunciation1 self-negation of the ,godhead1 lies the reality1 the vis of the ,incarnation2 although this self-negation is in itself merely a conception of the imagination1 for1 looked at in broad daylight1 ,god does not negative himself in the ,incarnation1 but he shows himself as that which he is1 as a human being4 ,the fabrications which modern rationalistic orthodoxy and pietistic rationalism have advanced concerning the ,incarnation1 in opposition to the rapturous conceptions and expressions of ancient faith1 do not deserve to be mentioned1 still less controverted4 #cf ,nos scimus affici ,deum misericordia nostri et non solum respicere lacrymas nostras1 sed etiam numerare stillulas1 sicut scriptum in ,psalmo ,,lvi4 ,filius ,dei vere afficitur sensu miseriarum nostrarum4--,melancthonis et aliorum 7,declam4 ,th4 iii4 p4 #bhf1 p4 #dej74 #cg ,st4 ,bernard resorts to a charmingly sophistical play of words3--,impassibilis est ,deus1 sed non incompassibilis1 cui proprium est misereri semper et parcere4--7,sup4 ,cant4 ,sermo #bf47 ,as if compassion were not suffering--the suffering of love1 it is true1 the suffering of the heart4 ,but what does suffer if not thy sympathising heart8 ,no love1 no suffering4 ,the material1 the source of suffering1 is the universal heart1 the common bond of all beings4 #ch ,religion speaks by example4 ,example is the law of religion4 ,what ,christ did is law4 ,christ suffered for others2 therefore1 we should do likewise4 ,qu necessitas fuit ut sic exinaniret se1 sic humiliaret se1 sic abbreviaret se ,dominus majestatis2 nisi ut vos similiter faciatis8--,bernardus 7in ,die nat4 ,domini74 ,we ought studiously to consider the example of ,christ4444 ,that would move us and incite us1 so that we from our hearts should willingly help and serve other people1 even though it might be hard1 and we must suffer on account of it4--,luther 7,th4 xv4 p4 #dj74 #ci ,hrent plerique hoc loco4 ,ego autem non solum excusandum non puto1 sed etiam nusquam magis pietatem ejus majestatemque demiror4 ,minus enim contulerat mihi1 nisi meum suscepisset affectum4 ,ergo pro me doluit1 qui pro se nihil habuit1 quod doleret4--,ambrosius 7,exposit4 in ,luc ,ev4 l4 x4 c4 #bb74 #dj ,quando enim illi 7,deo7 appropinquare auderemus in sua impassibilitate manenti8--,bernardus 7,tract4 de xii4 ,grad4 ,humil4 et ,superb474 #da ,deus meus pendet in patibulo et ego voluptati operam dabo8--7,form4 ,hon4 ,vit4 ,among the spurious writings of ,st4 ,bernard47 ,memoria crucifixi crucifigat in te carnem tuam4--,joh4 ,gerhard 7,medit4 ,sacr1 ,m4 #cg74 #db ,it is better to suffer evil than to do good4--,luther 7,th4 iv4 s4 #ae74 #dc ,pati voluit1 ut compati disceret1 miser fieri1 ut misereri disceret4--,bernhard 7de ,grad474 ,miserere nostri1 quoniam carnis imbecillitatem1 tu ipse eam passus1 expertus es4--,clemens ,alex4 ,pdag4 l4 i4 c4 #h4 #dd ,dei essentia est extra omnes creaturas1 sicut ab terno fuit ,deus in se ipso2 ab omnibus ergo creaturis amorem tuum abstrahas4--,john ,gerhard 7,medit4 ,sacr1 ,m4 #ca74 ,if thou wouldst have the ,creator1 thou must do without the creature4 ,the less of the creature1 the more of ,god4 ,therefore1 abjure all creatures1 with all their consolations4--,j4 ,tauler 7,postilla4 ,hamburg1 #afba1 p4 #cab74 ,if a man cannot say in his heart with truth3 ,god and ,i are alone in the world--there is nothing else1--he has no peace in himself4--,g4 ,arnold 7,von ,verschmhung der ,welt4 ,wahre ,abbild der ,ersten ,christen1 ,l4 #d1 c4 #b1 #g74 #de ,exigit ergo ,deus timeri ut ,dominus1 honorari ut pater1 ut sponsus amari4 ,quid in his prstat1 quid eminet8--,amor4 ,bernardus 7,sup4 ,cant4 ,serm4 #hc74 #df ,just as the feminine spirit of ,catholicism--in distinction from ,protestantism1 whose principle is the masculine ,god1 the masculine spirit--is the ,mother of ,god4 #dg ,dum ,patris et ,filii proprietates communionemque delectabilem intueor1 nihil delectabilius in illis invenio1 quam mutuum amoris affectum4--,anselmus 7in ,rixner's ,gesch4 d4 ,phil4 ,,ii4 ,b4 ,anh4 p4 #ah74 #dh ,natus est de ,patre semper et matre semel2 de ,patre sine sexu1 de matre sine usu4 ,apud patrem quippe defuit concipientis uterus2 apud matrem defuit seminantis amplexus4--,augustinus 7,serm4 ad ,pop4 p4 #cgb1 c4 #a1 ed4 ,bened4 ,antw4 #agja74 #di ,in ,jewish mysticism1 ,god1 according to one school1 is a masculine1 the ,holy ,spirit a feminine principle1 out of whose intermixture arose the ,son1 and with him the world4 ,gfrrer1 ,jahrb4 d4 ,h4 i4 ,abth4 pp4 #ccb-ccd4 ,the ,herrnhuters also called the ,holy ,spirit the mother of the ,saviour4 #ej ,for it could not have been difficult or impossible to ,god to bring his ,son into the world without a mother2 but it was his will to use the woman for that end4--,luther 7,th4 ii4 p4 #cdh74 #ea ,in the ,concordienbuch1 ,erklr4 ,art4 #h1 and in the ,apol4 of the ,augsburg ,confession1 ,mary is nevertheless still called the ,blessed ,virgin1 who was truly the ,mother of ,god1 and yet remained a virgin1--worthy of all honour4 #eb ,sit monachus quasi ,melchisedec sine patre1 sine matre1 sine genealogia3 neque patrem sibi vocet super terram4 ,imo sic existimet1 quasi ipse sit solus et ,deus4 7,specul4 ,monach4 ,pseudo-,bernard47 ,melchisedec 444 refertur ad exemplum1 ut tanquam sine patre et sine matre sacerdos esse debeat4--,ambrosius4 #ec ,negas ergo ,deum1 si non omnia filio1 qu ,dei sunt1 deferentur4--,ambrosius de ,fide ad ,gratianum1 l4 iii4 c4 #g4 ,on the same ground the ,latin ,church adhered so tenaciously to the dogma that the ,holy ,spirit proceeded not from the ,father alone1 as the ,greek ,church maintained1 but from the ,son also4 ,see on this subject ,j4 ,g4 ,walchii1 ,hist4 ,contr4 ,gr4 et ,lat4 de ,proc4 ,spir4 ,s4 ,jen1 #agea4 #ed ,this is expressed very significantly in the ,incarnation4 ,god renounces1 denies his majesty1 power1 and affinity1 in order to become a man2 i4e41 man denies the ,god who is not himself a man1 and only affirms the ,god who affirms man4 ,exinanivit1 says ,st4 ,bernard1 majestate et potentia1 non bonitate et misericordia4 ,that which cannot be renounced1 cannot be denied1 is thus the ,divine goodness and mercy1 i4e41 the self-affirmation of the human heart4 #ee ,it is obvious that the ,image of ,god has also another signification1 namely1 that the personal1 visible man is ,god himself4 ,but here the image is considered simply as an image4 #ef ,let the reader only consider1 for example1 the ,transfiguration1 the ,resurrection1 and the ,ascension of ,christ4 #eg ,sacram imaginem ,domini nostri ,jesu ,christi et omnium ,salvatoris quo honore cum libro sanctorum evangeliorum adorari decernimus4444 ,dignum est enim ut 444 propter honorem qui ad principia refertur1 etiam derivative imagines honorentur et adorentur4--,gener4 ,const4 ,conc4 viii4 ,art4 #aj1 ,can4 #c4 #eh ,tanta certe vis nomini ,jesu inest contra dmones1 ut nonnunquam etiam a malis nominatum sit efficax4--,origenes adv4 ,celsum1 l4 i2 see also l4 iii4 #ei ,god reveals himself to us1 as the ,speaker1 who has1 in himself1 an eternal uncreated ,word1 whereby he created the world and all things1 with slight labour1 namely1 with speech1 so that to ,god it is not more difficult to create than it is to us to name4--,luther1 ,th4 i4 p4 #cjb4 #fj ,hylarius 444 ,si quis innascibilem et sine initio dicat filium1 quasi duo sine principio et duo innascibilia1 et duo innata dicens1 duos faciat ,deos1 anathema sit4 ,caput autem quod est principium ,christi1 ,deus4444 ,filium innascibilem confiteri impiissimum est4--,petrus ,lomb4 ,sent4 l4 i4 dist4 #ca1 c4 #d4 #fa ,it is therefore mere self-delusion to suppose that the hypothesis of a creation explains the existence of the world4 #fb ,it is beside our purpose to criticise this crass mystical theory4 ,we merely remark here1 that darkness can be explained only when it is derived from light2 that the derivation of the darkness in ,nature from light appears an impossibility only when it is not perceived that even in darkness there is a residue of light1 that the darkness in ,nature is not an absolute1 but a modified darkness1 tempered by light4 #fc ,schelling1 ,ueber das ,wesen der ,menschlichen ,freiheit1 #dbi1 #dcb1 #dbg4 ,denkmal ,jacobi's1 s4 #hb1 #ig-ii4 #fd ,kernhafter ,auszug 444 ,j4 ,bhme3 ,amsterdam1 #agah1 p4 #eh4 #fe ,l4 c4 pp4 #dhj1 #cch1 #cdj1 #cbc4 #ff ,the ,philosophus teutonicus walked physically as well as mentally on volcanic ground4 ,the town of ,grlitz is paved throughout with pure basalt4--,charpentier1 ,mineral4 ,geographie der ,churschsischen ,lande1 p4 #ai4 #fg ,l4 c4 pp4 #dfh1 #fag1 #fah4 #fh ,according to ,swedenborg1 the angels in heaven have clothes and dwellings4 ,their dwellings are altogether such as the dwellings or houses on earth1 but far more beautiful2 there are apartments1 rooms1 and sleeping chambers therein in great number1 and entrance-courts1 and round about gardens1 flowers1 meadows1 and fields4 7,e4 v4 ,s4 ,auserlesene ,schriften1 #a ,th4 ,frankf4 a4 ,m4 #aggf1 p4 #aij1 and #if47 ,thus to the mystic this world is the other world2 but for that reason the other world is this world4 #fi ,l4 c4 p4 #cci1 p4 #fi4 #gj ,quidquid enim unus quisque super ctera colit3 hoc illi ,deus est4--,origines ,explan4 in ,epist4 ,pauli ad ,rom4 c4 l4 #ga ,quare fecit ,deus coelum et terram8 ,quia voluit4 ,voluntas enim ,dei causa est coeli et terr et ideo major est voluntas ,dei quam coelum et terra4 ,qui autem dicit3 quare voluit facere coelum et terram8 majus aliquid qurit1 quam est voluntas ,dei1 nihil enim majus invenire potest4--,augustinus 7de ,genesi adv4 ,manich4 l4 i4 c4 #b74 #gb ,a more profound origin of the creation out of nothing lies in the emotional nature1 as is both directly and indirectly declared in this work4 ,but arbitrariness is1 in fact1 the will of the emotions1 their external manifestation of force4 #gc ,certissimum divin providenti2 testimonium prbent miracula4--,h4 ,grotius 7de ,verit4 ,rel4 ,christ4 l4 i4 #ac74 #gd ,it is true that religious naturalism1 or the acknowledgment of the ,divine in ,nature1 is also an element of the ,christian religion1 and yet more of the ,mosaic1 which was so friendly to animals4 ,but it is by no means the characteristic1 the ,christian tendency of the ,christian religion4 ,the ,christian1 the religious ,providence1 is quite another than that which clothes the lilies and feeds the ravens4 ,the natural ,providence lets a man sink in the water1 if he has not learned to swim2 but the ,christian1 the religious ,providence1 leads him with the hand of omnipotence over the water unharmed4 #ge ,in this contrast of the religious1 or biblical1 and the natural ,providence1 the author had especially in view the vapid1 narrow theology of the ,english natural philosophers4 #gf ,qui ,deos negant1 nobilitatem generis humani destruunt4--,bacon 7,serm4 ,fidel4 #af74 #gg ,in ,clemens ,alex4 7,coh4 ad ,gentes7 there is an interesting passage4 ,it runs in the ,latin translation 7the bad ,augsburg edition1 #aggh7 thus3--,at nos ante mundi constitutionem fuimus1 ratione futur nostr productionis1 in ipso ,deo quodammodo tum prexistentes4 ,divini igitur ,verbi sive ,rationis1 nos creatur rationales sumus1 et per eum primi esse dicimur1 quoniam in principio erat verbum4 ,yet more decidedly1 however1 has ,christian mysticism declared the human nature to be the creative principle1 the ground of the world4 ,man1 who1 before time was1 existed in eternity1 works with ,god all the works that ,god wrought a thousand years ago1 and now1 after a thousand years1 still works4 ,all creatures have sprung forth through man4--,predigten1 vor u4 zu ,tauleri ,zeiten 7,ed4 c4 p4 #e1 p4 #aai74 #gh ,hence is explained why all attempts of speculative theology and of its kindred philosophy to make the transition from ,god to the world1 or to derive the world from ,god1 have failed and must fail4 ,namely1 because they are fundamentally false1 from being made in ignorance of the idea on which the ,creation really turns4 #gi ,it is not admissible to urge against this the omnipresence of ,god1 the existence of ,god in all things1 or the existence of things in ,god4 ,for1 apart from the consideration that the future destruction of the world expresses clearly enough its existence outside of ,god1 i4e41 its non-divineness1 ,god is in a special manner only in man2 but ,i am at home only where ,i am specially at home4 ,nowhere is ,god properly ,god1 but in the soul4 ,in all creatures there is something of ,god2 but in the soul ,god exists completely1 for it is his resting-place4--,predigten etzlicher ,lehrer1 c41 p4 #ai4 ,and the existence of things in ,god1 especially where it has no pantheistic significance1 and any such is here excluded1 is equally an idea without reality1 and does not express the special sentiments of religion4 #hj ,here is also the point where the ,creation represents to us not only the ,divine power1 but also the ,divine love4 ,quia bonus est 7,deus71 sumus 7,augustin74 ,in the beginning1 before the world1 ,god was alone4 ,ante omnia ,deus erat solus1 ipsi sibi et mundus et locus et omnia4 ,solus autem2 quia nihil extrinsecus prter ipsum 7,tertullian74 ,but there is no higher happiness than to make another happy1 bliss lies in the act of imparting4 ,and only joy1 only love imparts4 ,hence man conceives imparting love as the principle of existence4 ,extasis bono non sinit ipsum manere in se ipso 7,dionysius ,a474 ,everything positive establishes1 attests itself1 only by itself4 ,the divine love is the joy of life1 establishing itself1 affirming itself4 ,but the highest self-consciousness of life1 the supreme joy of life is the love which confers happiness4 ,god is the bliss of existence4 #ha ,in ,diogenes 7,l4 #a4 ii4 c4 iii4 #f71 it is literally1 for the contemplation of the sun1 the moon and the heavens4 ,similar ideas were held by other philosophers4 ,thus the ,stoics also said3--,ipse autem homo ortus est ad mundum contemplandum et imitandum4--,cic4 7de ,nat474 #hb ,hebri numen verbo quidquid videtur efficiens describunt et quasi imperio omnia creata tradunt1 ut facilitatem in eo quod vult efficiendo1 summamque ejus in omnia potentiam ostendant4--,ps4 xxxiii4 #f4 ,verbo ,jehov coeli facti sunt4--,ps4 cxlviii4 #e4 ,ille jussit eaque creata sunt4--,j4 ,clericus 7,comment1 in ,mosem4 ,genes1 i4 #c74 #hc ,exod4 xvi4 #ab4 #hd ,gen4 xxviii4 #bj4 #he ,exod4 xxiv4 #aj1 #aa4 ,tantum abest ut mortui sint1 ut contra convivium hilares celebrarint4--,clericus4 #hf ,it is well known1 however1 that their opinions on this point were various4 7,see e4g4 ,aristoteles de ,coelo1 #a4 i4 c4 #aj47 ,but their difference is a subordinate one1 since the creative agency itself is with them a more or less cosmical being4 #hg ,deut4 iv4 #ai4 ,licet enim ea1 qu sunt in coelo1 non sint hominum artificia1 at hominum tamen gratia condita fuerunt4 ,ne quis igitur solem adoret1 sed solis effectorem desideret4--,clemens ,alex4 7,coh4 ad ,gentes74 #hh ,but of course they only do this in the case of the absolute religion2 for with regard to other religions they hold up the ideas and customs which are foreign to us1 and of which we do not know the original meaning and purpose1 as senseless and ludicrous4 ,and yet1 in fact1 to worship the urine of cows1 which the ,parsees and ,hindoos drink that they may obtain forgiveness of sins1 is not more ludicrous than to worship the comb or a shred of the garment of the ,mother of ,god4 #hi ,wisd4 xix4 #f4 #ij ,see ,gfrrer's ,philo4 #ia ,we may here observe1 that certainly the admiration of the power and glory of ,god in general1 and so of ,jehovah1 as manifested in ,nature1 is in fact1 though not in the consciousness of the ,israelite1 only admiration of the power and glory of ,nature4 7,see1 on this subject1 ,p4 ,bayle1 ,ein ,beitrag1 c41 pp4 #be-bi47 ,but to prove this formally lies out of our plan1 since we here confine ourselves to ,christianity1 i4e41 the adoration of ,god in man 7,deum colimus per ,christum4 ,tertullian1 ,apolog4 c4 #ba74 ,nevertheless1 the principle of this proof is stated in the present work4 #ib ,the greater part of ,hebrew poetry1 which is often held to be only spiritual1 is political4--,herder4 #ic ,sebastian ,frank von ,wrd in ,zinkgrefs ,apophthegmata deutscher ,nation4 #id ,it would be an imbecile objection to say that ,god fulfils only those wishes1 those prayers1 which are uttered in his name1 or in the interest of the ,church of ,christ1 in short1 only the wishes which are accordant with his will2 for the will of ,god is the will of man1 or rather ,god has the power1 man the will3 ,god makes men happy1 but man wills that he may be happy4 ,a particular wish may not be granted2 but that is of no consequence1 if only the species1 the essential tendency is accepted4 ,the pious soul whose prayer has failed consoles himself1 therefore1 by thinking that its fulfilment would not have been salutary for him4 ,nullo igitur modo vota aut preces sunt irrit aut infrugifer et recte dicitur1 in petitione rerum corporalium aliquando ,deum exaudire nos1 non ad voluntatem nostram1 sed ad salutem4--,oratio de ,precatione1 in ,declamat4 ,melancthonis1 ,th4 iii4 #ie ,ja-wort4 #if ,also1 on subjective grounds1 social prayer is more effectual than isolated prayer4 ,community enhances the force of emotion1 heightens confidence4 ,what we are unable to do alone we are able to do with others4 ,the sense of solitude is the sense of limitation3 the sense of community is the sense of freedom4 ,hence it is that men1 when threatened by the destructive powers of ,nature1 crowd together4 ,multorum preces impossibile est1 ut non impetrent1 inquit ,ambrosius4444 ,sanct orationis fervor quanto inter plures collectior tanto ardet diutius ac intensius cor divinum penetrat4444 ,negatur singularitati1 quod conceditur charitati4--,sacra ,hist4 de ,gentis ,hebr4 ortu4 ,p4 ,paul4 ,mezger4 ,aug4 ,vind4 #agjj1 pp4 #ffh1 #ffi4 #ig ,in the excellent work1 ,theanthropos1 eine ,reihe von ,aphorismen 7,zurich1 #ahch71 the idea of the sense of dependence1 of omnipotence1 of prayer1 and of love1 is admirably developed4 #ih ,luther 7,th4 xv4 p4 #bhb2 ,th4 xvi4 pp4 #dia-dic74 #ii ,god is ,almighty2 but he who believes is a ,god4 ,luther 7in ,chr4 ,kapps ,christus u4 die ,weltgeschichte1 s4 #aa74 ,in another place ,luther calls faith the ,creator of the ,godhead2 it is true that he immediately adds1 as he must necessarily do on his standpoint1 the following limitation3--,not that it creates anything in the ,divine ,eternal ,being1 but that it creates that ,being in us 7,th4 xi4 p4 #afa74 #ajj ,this belief is so essential to the ,bible1 that without it the biblical writers can scarcely be understood4 ,the passage #b ,pet4 iii4 #h1 as is evident from the tenor of the whole chapter1 says nothing in opposition to an immediate destruction of the world2 for though with the ,lord a thousand years are as one day1 yet at the same time one day is as a thousand years1 and therefore the world may1 even by to-morrow1 no longer exist4 ,that in the ,bible a very near end of the world is expected and prophesied1 although the day and hour are not determined1 only falsehood or blindness can deny4 7,see on this subject ,ltzelberger47 ,hence religious ,christians1 in almost all times1 have believed that the destruction of the world is near at hand--,luther1 for example1 often says that ,the last day is not far off 7e4g41 ,th4 xvi4 p4 #bf72--or at least their souls have longed for the end of the world1 though they have prudently left it undecided whether it be near or distant4 ,see ,augustin 7de ,fine ,sculi ad ,hesychium1 c4 #ac74 #aja ,gen4 xviii4 #ad4 #ajb ,to the whole world it is impossible to raise the dead1 but to the ,lord ,christ1 not only is it not impossible1 but it is no trouble or labour to him4444 ,this ,christ did as a witness and a sign that he can and will raise from death4 ,he does it not at all times and to every one4444 ,it is enough that he has done it a few times2 the rest he leaves to the last day4--,luther 7,th4 xvi4 p4 #eah74 ,the positive1 essential significance of miracle is therefore that the divine nature is the human nature4 ,miracles confirm1 authenticate doctrine4 ,what doctrine8 ,simply this1 that ,god is a ,saviour of men1 their ,redeemer out of all trouble1 i4e41 a being corresponding to the wants and wishes of man1 and therefore a human being4 ,what the ,god-man declares in words1 miracle demonstrates ad oculos by deeds4 #ajc ,this satisfaction is certainly so far limited1 that it is united to religion1 to faith in ,god3 a remark which however is so obvious as to be superfluous4 ,hut this limitation is in fact no limitation1 for ,god himself is unlimited1 absolutely satisfied1 self-contented human feeling4 #ajd ,the legends of ,catholicism--of course only the best1 the really pleasing ones--are1 as it were1 only the echo of the keynote which predominates in this ,new ,testament narrative4 ,miracle might be fitly defined as religious humour4 ,catholicism especially has developed miracle on this its humorous side4 #aje ,culture in the sense in which it is here taken4 ,it is highly characteristic of ,christianity1 and a popular proof of our positions1 that the only language in which the ,divine ,spirit was and is held to reveal himself in ,christianity is not the language of a ,sophocles or a ,plato1 of art and philosophy1 but the vague1 unformed1 crudely emotional language of the ,bible4 #ajf ,many miracles may realty have had originally a physical or physiological phenomenon as their foundation4 ,but we are here considering only the religious significance and genesis of miracle4 #ajg ,if ,adam had not fallen into sin1 nothing would have been known of the cruelty of wolves1 lions1 bears1 c41 and there would not have been in all creation anything vexatious and dangerous to man 4442 no thorns1 or thistles1 or diseases 4442 his brow would not have been wrinkled2 no foot1 or hand1 or other member of the body would have been feeble or infirm4--,but now1 since the ,fall1 we all know and feel what a fury lurks in our flesh1 which not only burns and rages with lust and desire1 but also loathes1 when once obtained1 the very thing it has desired4 ,but this is the fault of original sin1 which has polluted all creatures2 wherefore ,i believe that before the ,fall the sun was much brighter1 water much clearer1 and the land much richer1 and fuller of all sorts of plants4--,luther 7,th4 i4 s4 #cbb1 #cbc1 #cbi1 #ccg74 #ajh ,tantum denique abest incesti cupido1 ut nonnullis rubori sit etiam pudica conjunctio4--,m4 ,felicis1 ,oct4 c4 #ca4 ,one ,father was so extraordinarily chaste that he had never seen a woman's face1 nay1 he dreaded even touching himself1 se quoque ipsum attingere quodammodo horrebat4 ,another ,father had so fine an olfactory sense in this matter1 that on the approach of an unchaste person he perceived an insupportable odour4--,bayle 7,dict4 ,art4 ,mariana ,rem4 ,c474 ,but the supreme1 the divine principle of this hyperphysical delicacy is the ,virgin ,mary2 hence the ,catholics name her ,virginum ,gloria1 ,virginitatis corona1 ,virginitatis typus et forma puritatis1 ,virginum vexillifera1 ,virginitatis magistra1 ,virginum prima1 ,virginitatis primiceria4 #aji ,salve sancta parens1 enixa puerpera ,regem1 ,gaudia matris habens cum virginitatis honore4 ,theol4 ,schol4 ,mezger4 t4 iv4 p4 #acb4 #aaj ,see e4g4 ,j4 ,d4 ,winckler1 ,philolog4 ,lactant4 s4 ,brunsvig1 #aged1 pp4 #bdg-bed4 #aaa ,see on this subject ,philos4 und ,christenthum1 by ,l4 ,feuerbach4 #aab ,in relation to this1 the confession of ,augustine is interesting3 ,ita fluctuo inter periculum voluptatis et experimentum salubritatis3 magisque adducor 444 cantandi cousuetudinem approbare in ecclesia1 ut per oblectamenta aurium infirmior animus in affectum pietatis assurgat4 ,tamen cum mihi accidit1 ut nos amplius cantus1 quam res qu canitur moveat1 poenaliter me peccare confiteor4--,confess4 l4 x4 c4 #cc4 #aac ,th4 xvi4 p4 #dij4 #aad ,because ,god has given us his ,son1 he has with him given us everything1 whether it be called devil1 sin1 hell1 heaven1 righteousness1 life2 all1 all must be ours1 because the ,son is ours as a gift1 in whom all else is included4--,luther 7,th4 xv4 p4 #caa74 ,the best part of the resurrection has already happened2 ,christ1 the head of all ,christendom1 has passed through death and risen from the dead4 ,moreover1 the most excellent part of me1 my soul1 has likewise passed through death1 and is with ,christ in the heavenly being4 ,what harm1 then1 can death and the grave do me8--,luther 7,th4 xvi4 p4 #bce74 ,a ,christian man has equal power with ,christ1 has fellowship with him and a common tenure4 7,th4 xiii4 p4 #fdh47 ,whoever cleaves to ,christ has as much as he4 7,th4 xvi4 p4 #egd47 #aae ,this exhibits clearly the untruthfulness and vanity of the modern speculations concerning the personality of ,god4 ,if you are not ashamed of a personal ,god1 do not be ashamed of a corporeal ,god4 ,an abstract colourless personality1 a personality without flesh and blood1 is an empty shade4 #aaf ,concordienb4 ,erklr4 ,art4 #h4 #aag ,this was excellently shown by ,faustus ,socinus4 ,see his ,defens4 ,animadv4 in ,assert4 ,theol4 ,coll4 ,posnan4 de trino et uno ,deo4 ,irenopoli1 #afef1 c4 #aa4 #aah ,let the reader examine1 with reference to this1 the writings of the ,christian orthodox theologians against the heterodox2 for example1 against the ,socinians4 ,modern theologians1 indeed1 agree with the latter1 as is well known1 in pronouncing the divinity of ,christ as accepted by the ,church to be unbiblical2 but it is undeniably the characteristic principle of ,christianity1 and even if it does not stand in the ,bible in the form which is given to it by dogma1 it is nevertheless a necessary consequence of what is found in the ,bible4 ,a being who is the fulness of the ,godhead bodily1 who is omniscient 7,john xvi4 #cj7 and almighty 7raises the dead1 works miracles71 who is before all things1 both in time and rank1 who has life in himself 7though an imparted life7 like as the ,father has life in himself1--what1 if we follow out the consequences1 can such a being be1 but ,god8 ,christ is one with the ,father in will2--but unity of will presupposes unity of nature4 ,christ is the ambassador1 the representative of ,god2--but ,god can only be represented by a divine being4 ,i can only choose as my representative one in whom ,i find the same or similar qualities as in myself2 otherwise ,i belie myself4 #aai ,how much better is it that ,i should lose the whole world than that ,i should lose ,god1 who created the world1 and can create innumerable worlds1 who is better than a hundred thousand1 than innumerable worlds8 ,for what sort of a comparison is that of the temporal with the eternal8444 ,one soul is better than the whole world4--,luther 7,th4 xix4 p4 #ba74 #abj ,it is true that the heathen philosophers also1 as ,plato1 ,socrates1 the ,stoics 7see e4g4 ,j4 ,lipsius1 ,physiol4 ,stoic4 l4 i4 diss4 xi471 believed that the divine providence extended not merely to the general1 but also to the particular1 the individual2 but they identified providence with ,nature1 law1 necessity4 ,the ,stoics1 who were the orthodox speculatists of heathenism1 did indeed believe in miracles wrought by providence 7,cic4 de ,nat4 ,deor4 l4 ii4 and ,de ,divinat4 l4 i472 but their miracles had no such supranaturalistic significance as those of ,christianity1 though they also appealed to the supranaturalistic axiom3 ,nihil est quod ,deus efficere non possit4 #aba ,dicimur amare et ,deus2 dicimur nosse et ,deus4 ,et multa in hunc modum4 ,sed ,deus amat ut charitas1 novit ut veritas1 etc4--,bernard1 7de ,consider4 l4 v474 #abb ,it is true that in one sense the individual is the absolute--in the phraseology of ,leibnitz1 the mirror of the universe1 of the infinite4 ,but in so far as there are many individuals1 each is only a single1 and1 as such1 a finite mirror of the infinite4 ,it is true also1 in opposition to the abstraction of a sinless man1 that each individual regarded in himself is perfect1 and only by comparison imperfect1 for each is what alone he can be4 #abc ,with the ,hindoos 7,inst4 of ,menu7 he alone is a perfect man who consists of three united persons1 his wife1 himself1 and his son4 ,for man and wife1 and father and son1 are one4 ,the ,adam of the ,old ,testament also is incomplete without woman2 he feels his need of her4 ,but the ,adam of the ,new ,testament1 the ,christian1 heavenly ,adam1 the ,adam who is constituted with a view to the destruction of this world1 has no longer any sexual impulses or functions4 #abd ,h sane vires amiciti mortis contemptum ingenerare 444 potuerunt3 quibus pene tantum venerationis1 quantum ,deorum immortalium ceremoniis debetur4 ,illis enim publica salus1 his privata continetur4--,valerius ,max4 l4 iv4 c4 #g4 #abe ,the life for ,god is not this natural life1 which is subject to decay4444 ,ought we not then to sigh after future things1 and be averse to all these temporal things8444 ,wherefore we should find consolation in heartily despising this life and this world1 and from our hearts sigh for and desire the future honour and glory of eternal life4--,luther 7,th4 i4 s4 #dff1 #dfg74 #abf ,eo dirigendus est spiritus1 quo aliquando est iturus4--,meditat4 ,sacr ,joh4 ,gerhardi4 ,med4 #df4 #abg ,affectanti coelestia1 terrena non sapiunt4 ternis inhianti1 fastidio sunt transitoria4--,bernard4 7,epist4 ,ex ,persona ,heli ,monachi ad ,parentes74 ,nihil nostra refert in hoc vo1 nisi de eo quam celeriter excedere4--,tertullian 7,apol4 adv4 ,gentes1 c4 #da74 ,wherefore a ,christian man should rather be advised to bear sickness with patience1 yea1 even to desire that death should come1--the sooner the better4 ,for1 as ,st4 ,cyprian says1 nothing is more for the advantage of a ,christian than soon to die4 ,but we rather listen to the pagan ,juvenal when he says3 ',orandum est ut sit mens sana in corpore sano4'--,luther 7,th4 iv4 s4 #ae74 #abh ,ille perfectus est qui mente et corpore a seculo est elongatus4--,de ,modo ,bene ,vivendi ad ,sororem1 s4 vii4 7,among the spurious writings of ,st4 ,bernard47 #abi ,on this subject see ,hieronymus1 de ,vita ,pauli ,primi ,eremit4 #acj ,naturally ,christianity had only such power when1 as ,jerome writes to ,demetrius1 ,domini nostri adhuc calebat cruor et fervebat recens in credentibus fides4 ,see also on this subject ,g4 ,arnold4--,von der ersten ,christen ,gengsamkeit u4 ,verschmhung alles ,eigennutzes1 l4 c4 ,b4 iv4 c4 #ab1 #g-af4 #aca ,how far otherwise the ancient ,christians6 ,difficile1 imo impossibile est1 ut et prsentibus quis et futuris fruatur bonis4--,hieronymus 7,epist4 ,juliano74 ,delicatus es1 frater1 si et hic vis gaudere cum seculo et postea regnare cum ,christo4--,ib4 7,epist4 ad ,heliodorum74 ,ye wish to have both ,god and the creature together1 and that is impossible4 ,joy in ,god and joy in the creature cannot subsist together4--,tauler 7ed4 c4 p4 #ccd74 ,but they were abstract ,christians4 ,and we live now in the age of conciliation4 ,yes1 truly6 #acb ,perfectum autem esse nolle delinquere est4--,hieronymus 7,epist4 ad ,heliodorum de laude ,vit solit474 ,let me observe once for all that ,i interpret the biblical passages concerning marriage in the sense in which they have been interpreted by the history of ,christianity4 #acc ,the marriage state is nothing new or unwonted1 and is lauded and held good even by heathens according to the judgment of reason4--,luther 7,th4 ii4 p4 #cgg;a74 #acd ,prsumendum est hos qui intra paradisum recipi volunt debere cessare ab ea re1 a qua paradisus intactus est4--,tertullian 7de ,exhort4 cast4 c4 #ac74 ,coelibatus angelorum est imitatio4--,jo4 ,damasceni 7,orthod4 ,fidei1 l4 iv4 c4 #be74 #ace ,qu non nubit1 soli ,deo dat operam et ejus cura non dividitur2 pudica autem1 qu nupsit1 vitam cum ,deo et cum marito dividit4--,clemens ,alex4 7,pdag4 l4 ii474 #acf ,thomas ,kempis de ,imit4 7l4 ii4 c4 #g1 c4 #h1 l4 iii4 c4 #e1 c4 #cd1 c4 #ec1 c4 #ei74 ,felix illa conscientia et beata virginitas1 in cujus corde prter amorem ,christi 444 nullus alius versatur amor4--,hieronymus 7,demetriadi1 ,virgini ,deo consecrat74 #acg ,divisa est 444 mulier et virgo4 ,vide quant felicitatis sit1 qu et nomen sexus amiserit4 ,virgo jam mulier non vocatur4--,hieronymus 7adv4 ,helvidium de perpet4 ,virg4 p4 #ad4 ,th4 ii4 ,erasmus74 #ach ,this may be expressed as follows3 ,marriage has in ,christianity only a moral1 no religious significance1 no religious principle and exemplar4 ,it is otherwise with the ,greeks1 where1 for example1 ,zeus and ,here are the great archetype of every marriage 7,creuzer1 ,symbol472 with the ancient ,parsees1 where procreation1 as the multiplication of the human race1 is the diminution of the empire of ,ahriman1 and thus a religious art and duty 7,zend-,avesta72 with the ,hindoos1 where the son is the regenerated father4 ,among the ,hindoos no regenerate man could assume the rank of a ,sanyassi1 that is1 of an anchorite absorbed in ,god1 if he had not previously paid three debts1 one of which was that he had had a legitimate son4 ,amongst the ,christians1 on the contrary1 at least the ,catholics1 it was a true festival of religious rejoicing when betrothed or even married persons--supposing that it happened with mutual consent--renounced the married state and sacrificed conjugal to religious love4 #aci ,inasmuch as the religious consciousness restores everything which it begins by abolishing1 and the future life is ultimately nothing else than the present life re-established1 it follows that sex must be re-established4 ,erunt 444 similes angelorum4 ,ergo homines non desinent 444 ut apostolus apostolus sit et ,maria ,maria4--,hieronymus 7ad ,theodorum ,viduam74 ,but as the body in the other world is an incorporeal body1 so necessarily the sex there is one without difference1 i4e41 a sexless sex4 #adj ,bene dicitur1 quod tunc plene videbimus eum sicuti est1 cum similes ei erimus1 h4 e4 erimus quod ipse est4 ,quibus enim potestas data est filios ,dei fieri1 data est potestas1 non quidem ut sint ,deus1 sed sint tamen quod ,deus est3 sint sancti1 futuri plene beati1 quod ,deus est4 ,nec aliunde hic sancti4 nec ibi futuri beati1 quam ex ,deo qui eorum et sanctitas et beatitudo est4--,de ,vita solitar a 7among the spurious writings of ,st4 ,bernard74 ,finis autem bon voluntatis beatitudo est3 vita terna ipse ,deus4--,augustin4 7ap4 ,petrus ,lomb4 l4 ii4 dist4 #ch1 c4 #a74 ,the other man will be renovated in the spiritual life1 i4e41 will become a spiritual man1 when he shall be restored into the image of ,god4 ,for he will be like ,god1 in life1 in righteousness1 glory1 and wisdom4--,luther 7,th4 i4 p4 #cbd74 #ada ,si bonum est habere corpus incorruptible1 quare hoc facturum ,deum volumus dasperere8--,augustinus 7,opp4 ,antwerp1 #agjj1 ,th4 v4 p4 #fih74 #adb ,quare dicitur spiritale corpus1 nisi quia ad nutum spiritus serviet8 ,nihil tibi contradicet ex te1 nihil in te rebellabit adversus te4444 ,ubi volueris1 eris4444 ,credere enim debemus talia corpora nos habituros1 ut ubi velimus1 quando voluerimus1 ibi simus4--,augustinus 7l4 c4 pp4 #gjc1 #gje74 ,nihil indecorum ibi erit1 summma pax erit1 nihil discordans1 nihil montruosum1 nihil quod offendat adspectum 7l4 c4 #gjg74 ,nisi beatus1 non vivit ut vult4 7,de ,civ4 ,dei1 l4 #ad1 c4 #be47 #adc ,and their conceptions of ,god are just as heterogeneous4 ,the pious ,germans have a ,german ,god1 the pious ,spaniards a ,spanish ,god1 the ,french a ,french ,god4 ,the ,french actually have the proverb3 ,le bon ,dieu est ,franais4 ,in fact1 polytheism must exist so long as there are various nations4 ,the real ,god of a people is the point d'honneur of its nationality4 #add ,ibi nostra spes erit res4--,augustin4 ,therefore we have the first fruits of immortal life in hope1 until perfection comes at the last day1 wherein we shall see and feel the life we have believed in and hoped for4--,luther 7,th4 i4 s4 #dei74 #ade ,according to old books of travel1 however1 there are many tribes which do not believe that the future is identical with the present1 or that it is better1 but that it is even worse4 ,parny 7,o,euv4 ,chois4 t4 i4 ,melang47 tells of a dying negro-slave who refused the inauguration to immortality by baptism in these words3 ,je ne veux point d'une autre vie1 car peut-tre y serais-je encore votre esclave4 #adf ,ahlwardt 7,ossian ,anm4 zu ,carthonn474 #adg ,there everything will be restored4 ,qui modo vivit1 erit1 nec me vel dente1 vel ungue fraudatum revomet patefacti fossa sepulchri4--,aurelius ,prud4 7,apotheos4 de ,resurr4 ,carnis ,hum474 ,and this faith1 which you consider rude and carnal1 and which you therefore disavow1 is the only consistent1 honest1 and true faith4 ,to the identity of the person belongs the identity of the body4 #adh ,neque enim post resurrectionem tempus diebus ac noctibus numerabitur4 ,erit magis una dies sine vespere4--,joh4 ,damascen4 7,orth4 ,fidei l4 ii4 c4 #a74 #adi ,ipsum 7corpus7 erit et non ipsum erit4--,augustinus 7v4 ,j4 ,ch4 ,doederlein1 ,inst4 ,theol4 ,christ4 ,altorf1 #agha1 #bhj74 #aej ,prter salutem tuam nihil cogites2 solum qu ,dei sunt cures4--,thomas ,k4 7de ,imit4 l4 i4 c4 #bc74 ,contra salutem proprium cogites nihil4 ,minus dixi3 contra1 prter dixisse debueram4--,bernhardus 7de ,consid4 ad ,eugenium ,pontif4 ,max4 l4 ii474 ,qui ,deum qurit1 de propria salute sollicitus est4--,clemens ,alex4 7,cohort4 ad ,gent474 #aea ,here and in other parts of this work1 theory is taken in the sense in which it is the source of true objective activity1--the science which gives birth to art1--for man can do only so much as he knows3 tantum potest quantum scit4 #aeb ,concerning the biblical conceptions of ,satan1 his power and works1 see ,ltzelberger's ,grundzge der ,paulinischen ,glaubenslehre1 and ,g4 ,ch4 ,knapp's ,vorles4 ber d4 ,christl4 ,glaubensl41 #fb-fe4 ,to this subject belongs demoniacal possession1 which also has its attestation in the ,bible4 ,see ,knapp 7 #fe1 iii4 #b1 #c74 #aec ,doubtless1 this unveiling of the mystery of predestination will be pronounced atrocious1 impious1 diabolical4 ,i have nothing to allege against this2 ,i would rather be a devil in alliance with truth1 than an angel in alliance with falsehood4 #aed ,a kindred doctrine is that of the ,concursus ,dei1 according to which1 ,god not only gives the first impulse1 but also co-operates in the agency of the second cause4 ,for the rest1 this doctrine is only a particular form of the contradictory dualism between ,god and ,nature1 which runs through the history of ,christianity4 ,on the subject of this remark1 as of the whole paragraph1 see ,strauss3 ,die ,christliche ,glaubenslehre1 ,b4 ii4 #ge1 #gf4 #aee ,dum sumus in hoc corpore1 peregrinamur ab eo qui summe est4--,bernard4 ,epist4 #ah 7ed4 ,basle1 #aeeb74 ,as long as we live1 we are in the midst of death4--,luther 7,th4 i4 p4 #cca74 ,the idea of the future life is therefore nothing else than the idea of true1 perfected religion1 freed from the limits and obstructions of this life1--the future life1 as has been already said1 nothing but the true opinion and disposition1 the open heart1 of religion4 ,here we believe--there we behold2 i4e41 there there is nothing besides ,god1 and thus nothing between ,god and the soul2 but only for this reason1 that there ought to be nothing between them1 because the immediate union of ,god and the soul is the true opinion and desire of religion4 ,we have as yet so to do with ,god as with one hidden from us1 and it is not possible that in this life we should hold communion with him face to face4 ,all creatures are now nothing else than vain masks1 under which ,god conceals himself1 and by which he deals with us4--,luther 7,th4 xi4 p4 #gj74 ,if thou wert only free from the images of created things1 thou mightest have ,god without intermission4--,tauler 7l4 c4 p4 #cac74 #aef ,voluntate igitur ,dei immobilis manet et stat in seculum terra 444 et voluntate ,dei movetur et nutat4 ,non ergo fundamentis suis nixa subsistit1 nec fulcris suis stabilis perseverat1 sed ,dominus statuit eam et firmamento voluntatis su continet1 quia in manu ejus omnes fines terr4--,ambrosius 7,hexmeron4 l4 i4 c4 #fa74 #aeg ,it is only unbelief in the efficacy of prayer which has subtly limited prayer to spiritual matters4 #aeh ,according to the notion of barbarians1 therefore1 prayer is a coercive power1 a charm4 ,but this conception is an unchristian one 7although even among many ,christians the idea is accepted that prayer constrains ,god72 for in ,christianity ,god is essentially feeling satisfied in itself1 ,almighty goodness1 which denies nothing to 7religious7 feeling4 ,the idea of coercion presupposes an unfeeling ,god4 #aei ,natura enim remota providentia et potestate divina prorsus nihil est4--,lactantius 7,div4 ,inst4 lib4 #c1 c4 #bh74 ,omnia qu creata sunt1 quamvis ea ,deus fecerit valde bona1 ,creatori tamen comparata1 nec bona sunt1 cui comparata nec sunt2 altissime quippe et proprio modo quodam de se ipso dixit3 ,ego sum1 qui sum4--,augustinus 7de ,perfectione ,just4 ,hom4 c4 #ad74 #afj ,pulchras formas et varias1 nitidos et amoenos colores amant oculi4 ,non teneant hc animam meam2 teneat eam ,deus qui hc fecit1 bona quidem valde1 sed ipse est bonum meum1 non hc4--,augustinus 7,confess4 l4 x4 c4 #cd74 ,vetiti autem sumus 7#b ,cor4 iv4 #ah47 converti ad ea qu videntur4444 ,amandus igitur solus ,deus est3 omnis vero iste mundus1 i4e4 omnia sensibilia contemnenda1 utendum autem his ad hujus vit necessitatem4--,ib4 de ,moribus ,eccl4 ,cathol4 l4 i4 c4 #bj4 #afa ,at the same time1 however1 their result is to prove the nature of man4 ,the various proofs of the existence of ,god are nothing else than various highly interesting forms in which the human nature affirms itself4 ,thus1 for example1 the physico-theological proof 7or proof from design7 is the self-affirmation of the calculated activity of the understanding4 ,every philosophic system is1 in this sense1 a proof of the existence of ,god4 #afb ,christ is ascended on high1 444 that is1 he not only sits there above1 but he is also here below4 ,and he is gone thither to the very end that he might be here below1 and fill all things1 and be in all places1 which he could not do while on earth1 for here he could not be seen by all bodily eyes4 ,therefore he sits above1 where every man can see him1 and he has to do with every man4--,luther 7,th4 xiii4 p4 #fdc74 ,that is to say3 ,christ or ,god is an object1 an existence1 of the imagination2 in the imagination he is limited to no place1--he is present and objective to every one4 ,god exists in heaven1 but is for that reason omnipresent2 for this heaven is the imagination4 #afc ,thou hast not to complain that thou art less experienced than was ,abraham or ,isaac4 ,thou also hast appearances4444 ,thou hast holy baptism1 the supper of the ,lord1 the bread and wine1 which are figures and forms1 under and in which the present ,god speaks to thee1 and acts upon thee1 in thy ears1 eyes1 and heart4444 ,he appears to thee in baptism1 and it is he himself who baptizes thee1 and speaks to thee4444 ,everything is full of divine appearances and utterances1 if he is on thy side4--,luther 7,th4 ii4 p4 #dff4 ,see also on this subject1 ,th4 xix4 p4 #djg74 #afd ,the denial of a fact is not a matter of indifference2 it is something morally evil1--a disowning of what is known to be true4 ,christianity made its articles of faith objective1 i4e41 undeniable1 unassailable facts1 thus overpowering the reason1 and taking the mind prisoner by the force of external reality3 herein we have the true explanation why and how ,christianity1 ,protestant as well as ,catholic1 enunciated and enforced with all solemnity the principle1 that heresy--the denial of an idea or a fact which forms an article of faith--is an object of punishment by the temporal power1 i4e41 a crime4 ,what in theory is an external fact becomes in practice an external force4 ,in this respect ,christianity is far below ,mohammedanism1 to which the crime of heresy is unknown4 #afe ,prsentiam spe divi suam declarant4--,cicero 7de ,nat4 ,d4 #a4 ii474 ,cicero's works 7de ,nat4 ,d4 and de ,divinatione7 are especially interesting1 because the arguments there used for the reality of the objects of pagan faith are virtually the same as those urged in the present day by theologians and the adherents of positive religion generally for the reality of the objects of ,christian faith4 #aff ,quod crudeliter ab hominibus sine ,dei jussu fieret aut factum est1 id debuit ab ,hebrais fieri1 quia a deo vit et necis summo arbitrio1 jussi bellum ita gerebant4--,j4 ,clericus 7,comm4 in ,mos4 ,num4 c4 #ca1 #g74 ,multa gessit ,samson1 qu vix possent defendi1 nisi ,dei1 a quo homines pendent1 instrumentum fuisse censeatur4--,ib4 7,comm4 in ,judicum1 c4 #ad1 #ai74 ,see also ,luther1 e4g4 7,th4 i4 p4 #cci1 ,th4 xvi4 p4 #die74 #afg ,it was very justly remarked by the ,jansenists against the ,jesuits3 ,vouloir reconnoitre dans l',ecriture quelque chose de la foiblesse et de l'esprit naturel de l'homme1 c'est donner la libert chacun d'en faire le discernment et de rejetter ce qui lui plaira de l',ecriture1 comme venant pltot de la foiblesse de l'homme que de l'esprit de ,dieu4--,byle 7,dict4 art4 ,adam 7,jean7 ,rem4 ,e474 #afh ,nec in scriptura divina fas sit sentire aliquid contrarietatis4--,petrus ,l4 7l4 ii4 dist4 ii4 c4 i474 ,similar thoughts are found in the ,fathers4 #afi ,this is especially apparent in the superlative1 and the preposition super1 hyper1 which distinguish the divine predicates1 and which very early--as1 for example1 with the ,neo-,platonists1 the ,christians among heathen philosophers--played a chief part in theology4 #agj ,scit itaque ,deus1 quanta sit multitudo pulicum1 culicum1 muscarum et piscium et quot nascantur1 quotve moriantur1 sed non scit hoc per momenta singula1 imo simul et semel omnia4--,petrus ,l4 7l4 i4 dist4 #ci1 c4 #c74 #aga ,qui scientem cuncta sciunt1 quid nescire nequeunt8--,liber ,meditat4 c4 #bf 7among the spurious writings of ,augustine74 #agb ,tauler1 l4 c4 p4 #cab4 #agc ,the closest union which ,christ possessed with the ,father1 it is possible for me to win4444 ,all that ,god gave to his only-begotten ,son1 he has given to me as perfectly as to him4--,predigten etzlicher ,lehrer vor und zu ,tauleri ,zeiten4 ,hamburg1 #afba1 p4 #ad4 ,between the only-begotten ,son and the soul there is no distinction4--,ib4 p4 #fh4 #agd ,god can as little do without us as we without him4--,predigten etzlicher ,lehrer1 c41 p4 #af4 ,see also on this subject--,strauss1 ,christl4 ,glaubensl4 ,b4 i4 #dg1 and the author's work entitled1 ,p4 ,bayle1 pp4 #ajd1 #ajg4 #age ,this temporal1 transitory life in this world 7i4e41 natural life7 we have through ,god1 who is the almighty ,creator of heaven and earth4 ,but the eternal untransitory life we have through the ,passion and ,resurrection of our ,lord ,jesus ,christ4444 ,jesus ,christ a ,lord over that life4--,luther 7,th4 xvi4 s4 #dei74 #agf ,it is curious to observe how the speculative religious philosophy undertakes the defence of the ,trinity against the godless understanding1 and yet1 by doing away with the personal substances1 and explaining the relation of ,father and ,son as merely an inadequate image borrowed from organic life1 robs the ,trinity of its very heart and soul4 ,truly1 if the cabalistic artifices which the speculative religious philosophy applies in the service of the absolute religion were admissible in favour of finite religions1 it would not be difficult to squeeze the ,pandora's box of ,christian dogmatics out of the horns of the ,egyptian ,apis4 ,nothing further would be needed for this purpose than the ominous distinction of the understanding from the speculative reason1--a distinction which is adapted to the justification of every absurdity4 #agg ,the unity has not the significance of genus1 not of unum but of unus4 7,see ,augustine and ,petrus ,lomb4 l4 i4 dist4 #ai1 c4 #g1 #h1 #i47 ,hi ergo tres1 qui unum sunt propter ineffabilem conjunctionem deitatis qua ineffabiliter copulantur1 unus ,deus est4 7,petrus ,l4 l4 c4 c4 #f47 ,how can reason bring itself into accord with this1 or believe1 that three is one and one is three8--,luther 7,th4 x4 iv4 p4 #ac74 #agh ,quia ergo pater ,deus et filius ,deus et spiritus s4 ,deus cur non dicuntur tres ,dii8 ,ecce proposuit hanc propositionem 7,augustinus7 attende quid respondeat 444 ,si autem dicerem3 tres ,deos1 contradiceret scriptura dicens3 ,audi ,israel3 ,deus tuus unus est4 ,ecce absolutio qustionis3 quare potius dicamus tres personas quam tres ,deos1 quia scil4 illud non contradicit scriptura4--,petrus ,l4 7l4 i4 dist4 #bc1 c4 #c74 ,how much did even ,catholicism repose upon ,holy ,writ6 #agi ,a truly masterly presentation of the overwhelming contradictions in which the mystery of the ,trinity involves the genuine religious sentiment1 is to be found in the work already cited--,theanthropos4 ,eine ,reihe von ,aphorismen--which expresses in the form of the religious sentiment what in the present work is expressed in the form of the reason2 and which is therefore especially to be recommended to women4 #ahj ,sacramentum ejus rei similitudinem gerit1 cujus signum est4--,petrus ,lomb4 7l4 iv4 dist4 #a1 c4 #a74 #aha ,in relation to the miracle-worker faith 7confidence in ,god's aid7 is certainly the causa efficiens of the miracle4 7,see ,matt4 xvii4 #bj2 ,acts vi4 #h47 ,but in relation to the spectators of the miracle--and it is they who are in question here--miracle is the causa efficiens of faith4 #ahb ,here we see a miracle surpassing all miracles1 that ,christ should have so mercifully converted his greatest enemy4--,luther 7,th4 xvi4 p4 #efj74 #ahc ,hence it is greatly to the honour of ,luther's understanding and sense of truth that1 particularly when writing against ,erasmus1 he unconditionally denied the free will of man as opposed to divine grace4 ,the name ,free ,will1 says ,luther1 quite correctly from the standpoint of religion1 is a divine title and name1 which none ought to bear but the ,divine ,majesty alone4 7,th4 xix4 p4 #bh74 #ahd ,experience indeed extorted even from the old theologians1 whose faith was an uncompromising one1 the admission that the effects of baptism are1 at least in this life1 very limited4 ,baptismus non aufert omnes poenalitates hujus vit4--,mezger4 ,theol4 ,schol4 ,th4 iv4 p4 #bea4 ,see also ,petrus ,l4 l4 iv4 dist4 #d1 c4 #d2 l4 ii4 dist4 #cb1 c4 #a4 #ahe ,even in the absurd fiction of the ,lutherans1 that infants believe in baptism1 the action of subjectivity reduces itself to the faith of others1 since the faith of infants is wrought by ,god through the intercession of the god-parents and their bringing up of the children in the faith of the ,christian ,church4--,luther 7,th4 xiii4 pp4 #cfj1 #cfa74 ,thus the faith of another helps me to obtain a faith of my own4--,ib4 7,t4 xiv4 p4 #cdg;a74 #ahf ,this1 says ,luther1 is in summa our opinion1 that in and with the bread1 the body of ,christ is truly eaten2 thus1 that all which the bread undergoes and effects1 the body of ,christ undergoes and effects2 that it is divided1 eaten and chewed with the teeth propter unionem1 sacramentalem4 7,plank's ,gesch4 der ,entst4 des protest4 ,lehrbeg4 ,b4 viii4 s4 #cfi74 ,elsewhere1 it is true1 ,luther denies that the body of ,christ1 although it is partaken of corporeally1 is chewed and digested like a piece of beef4 7,th4 xix4 p4 #dbi47 ,no wonder2 for that which is partaken of is an object without objectivity1 a body without corporeality1 flesh without the qualities of flesh2 spiritual flesh1 as ,luther says1 i4e41 imaginary flesh4 ,be it observed further1 that the ,protestants also take the ,lord's ,supper fasting1 but this is merely a custom with them1 not a law4 7,see ,luther1 ,th4 xviii4 p4 #bjj1 #bja47 #ahg #a ,cor4 xi4 #bi4 #ahh ,videtur enim species vini et panis1 et substantia panis et vini non creditur4 ,creditur autem substantia corporis et sanguinis ,christi et tamen species non cernitur4--,bernardus 7ed4 ,bas4 #aeeb1 pp4 #ahi-aia74 #ahi ,it is so in another relation not developed here1 but which may be mentioned in a note3 namely1 the following4 ,in religion1 in faith1 man is an object to himself as the object1 i4e41 the end or determining motive1 of ,god4 ,man is occupied with himself in and through ,god4 ,god is the means of human existence and happiness4 ,this religious truth1 embodied in a cultus1 in a sensuous form1 is the ,lord's ,supper4 ,in this sacrament man feeds upon ,god--the ,creator of heaven and earth--as on material food2 by the act of eating and drinking he declares ,god to be a mere means of life to man4 ,here man is virtually supposed to be the ,god of ,god3 hence the ,lord's ,supper is the highest self-enjoyment of human subjectivity4 ,even the ,protestant--not indeed in words1 but in truth--transforms ,god into an external thing1 since he subjects ,him to himself as an object of sensational enjoyment4 #aij ,nostrates1 prsentiam realem consecrationis effectum esse1 adfirmant2 idque ita1 ut tum se exserat1 cum usus legitimus accedit4 ,nec est quod regeras1 ,christum hc verba3 hoc est corpus meum1 protulisse1 antequam discipuli ejus comederent1 adeoque panem jam ante usum corpus ,christi fuisse4--,buddeus 7l4 c4 l4 v4 c4 l1 #ac1 #ag74 ,see1 on the other hand1 ,concil4 ,trident4 ,sessio #ac1 cc4 #c1 #h1 ,can4 #d4 #aia ,apologie ,melancthon4 ,strobel4 ,nrnb4 #aghc1 p4 #abg4 #aib ,the fanatics1 however1 believe that it is mere bread and wine1 and it is assuredly so as they believe2 they have it so1 and eat mere bread and wine4--,luther 7,th4 xix4 p4 #dcb74 ,that is to say1 if thou believest1 representest to thyself1 conceivest1 that the bread is not bread1 but the body of ,christ1 it is not bread2 but if thou dost not believe so1 it is not so4 ,what it is in thy belief that it actually is4 #aic ,even the ,catholics also4 ,hujus sacramenti effectus1 quem in anima operatur digne sumentis1 est adunatio hominis ad ,christum4--,concil4 ,florent4 de ,s4 ,euchar4 #aid ,if the body of ,christ is in the bread and is eaten with faith1 it strengthens the soul1 in that the soul believes that it is the body of ,christ which the mouth eats4--,luther 7,th4 xix4 p4 #dcc2 see also p4 #bje74 ,for what we believe that we receive1 that we receive in truth4--,ib4 7,th4 xvii4 p4 #eeg74 #aie ,hence the mere name of ,christ has miraculous powers4 #aif ,gott glauben und an ,gott glauben4 #aig ,if ,i wish to be a ,christian1 ,i must believe and do what other people do not believe or do4--,luther 7,th4 xvi4 p4 #efi74 #aih ,celsus makes it a reproach to the ,christians that they boast3 ,est ,deus et post illum nos4 7,origenes adv4 ,cels4 ed4 ,hoeschelius4 ,aug4 ,vind4 #afje1 p4 #ahb74 #aii ,i am proud and exulting on account of my blessedness and the forgiveness of my sins1 but through what8 ,through the glory and pride of another1 namely1 the ,lord ,christ4--,luther 7,th4 ii4 p4 #cdd74 ,he that glorieth let him glory in the ,lord4--#a ,cor4 i4 #ca4 #bjj ,a military officer who had been adjutant of the ,russian general ,mnnich said3 ,when ,i was his adjutant ,i felt myself greater than now that ,i command4 #bja ,to faith1 so long as it has any vital heat1 any character1 the heretic is always on a level with the unbeliever1 with the atheist4 #bjb ,already in the ,new ,testament the idea of disobedience is associated with unbelief4 ,the cardinal wickedness is unbelief4--,luther 7xiii4 p4 #fdg74 #bjc ,god himself by no means entirely reserves the punishment of blasphemers1 of unbelievers1 of heretics1 for the future2 he often punishes them in this life also1 for the benefit of ,christendom and the strengthening of faith3 as1 for example1 the heretics ,cerinthus and ,arius4 ,see ,luther 7,th4 xiv4 p4 #ac74 #bjd ,si quis spiritum ,dei habet1 illius versiculi recordetur3 ,nonne qui oderunt te1 ,domine1 oderam8 7,psal4 cxxxix4 #ba72 ,bernhardus1 ,epist4 7#aic7 ad magist4 ,yvonem ,cardin4 #bje ,qui ,christum negat1 negatur a ,christo4--,cyprian 7,epist4 ,e4 #gc1 #ah1 edit4 ,gersdorf474 #bjf ,thus the apostle ,paul cursed ,elymas the sorcerer with blindness1 because he withstood the faith4--,acts xiii4 #h-aa4 #bjg ,historically considered1 this saying1 as well as the others cited pp4 #chd1 #che1 may be perfectly justified4 ,but the ,bible is not to be regarded as an historical or temporal1 but as an eternal book4 #bjh ,tenerrimam partem humani corporis nominavit1 ut apertissime intelligeremus1 eum 7,deum7 tam parva ,sanctorum suorum contumelia ldi1 quam parvi verberis tactu humani visus acies lditur4--,salvianus1 l4 #h1 de ,gubern4 ,dei4 #bji #a ,cor4 x4 #bj4 #baj ,phil4 ii4 #aj1 #aa4 ,when the name of ,jesus ,christ is heard1 all that is unbelieving and ungodly in heaven or on earth shall be terrified4--,luther 7,th4 xvi4 p4 #cbb74 ,in morte pagani ,christianus gloriatur1 quia ,christus glorificatur4--,divus ,bernardus4 ,sermo exhort4 ad ,milites ,templi4 #baa ,petrus ,l4 #a4 iv4 dist4 #ej1 c4#d4 ,but this passage is by no means a declaration of ,peter ,lombard himself4 ,he is far too modest1 timid1 and dependent on the authorities of ,christianity to have ventured to advance such a tenet on his own account4 ,no6 ,this position is a universal declaration1 a characteristic expression of ,christian1 of believing love4 ,the doctrine of some ,fathers of the ,church1 e4g41 of ,origen and ,gregory of ,nyssa1 that the punishment of the damned would have an end1 sprung not out of ,christian or ,church doctrine1 but out of ,platonism4 ,hence the doctrine that the punishment of hell is finite1 was rejected not only by the ,catholic but also by the ,protestant church4 7,augsb4 ,confess4 art4 #ag74 ,a precious example of the exclusive1 misanthropical narrowness of ,christian love1 is the passage cited from ,buddeus by ,strauss 7,christl4 ,glaubensl4 ,b4 ii4 s4 #edg71 according to which not infants in general1 but those of ,christians exclusively1 would have a share in the divine grace and blessings if they died unbaptized4 #bab ,fugite1 abhorrete hunc doctorem4 ,but why should ,i flee from him8 because the anger1 i4e41 the curse of ,god rests on his head4 #bac ,there necessarily results from this a sentiment which1 e4g41 ,cyprian expresses3 ,si vero ubique hretici nihil aliud quam adversarii et antichristi nominantur1 si vitandi et perversi et a semet ipsis damnati pronuntiantur2 quale est ut videantur damnandi a nobis non esse1 quos constat apostolica contestatione a semet ipsis damnatos esse4 ,epistol4 #gd4 7,edit1 cit47 #bad ,the passage ,luke ix4 #ef1 as the parallel of which is cited ,john iii4 #ag1 receives its completion and rectification in the immediately following v4 #ah3 ,he that believeth in him is not condemned2 but he that believeth not is condemned already1 because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten ,son of ,god4 #bae ,faith1 it is true1 is not without good works1 nay1 according to ,luther's declaration1 it is as impossible to separate faith from works as to separate heat and light from fire4 ,nevertheless1 and this is the main point1 good works do not belong to the article of justification before ,god1 i4e41 men are justified and saved without works1 through faith alone4 ,faith is thus expressly distinguished from good works2 faith alone avails before ,god1 not good works2 faith alone is the cause of salvation1 not virtue2 thus faith alone has substantial significance1 virtue only accidental2 i4e41 faith alone has religious significance1 divine authority--and not morality4 ,it is well known that many have gone so far as to maintain that good works are not necessary1 but are even injurious1 obstructive to salvation4 ,quite correctly4 #baf ,causa fidei 444 exorbitantem et irregularem prorsus favorem habet et ab omni jure deviare1 omnem captivare rationem1 nec judiciis laicorum ratione corrupta utentium subjecta creditur4 ,etenim ,causa fidei ad multa obligat1 qu alias sunt voluntaria1 multa1 imo infinita remittit1 qu alias prcepta2 qu alius valide gesta annullat1 et contra qu alias nulla et irrita1 fiunt valida 444 ex jure canonico4--,j4 ,h4 ,boehmeri 7,jus ,eccles4 lib4 v4 tit4 vii4 #cb4 ,see also #dd et seq474 #bag ,placetta de ,fide1 ii4 ,il ne faut pas chercher dans la nature des choses mmes la veritable cause de l'inseparabilit de la foi et de la piet4 ,il faut1 si je ne me trompe1 la chercher uniquement dans la volont de ,dieu4444 ,bene facit et nobiscum sentit1 cum illam conjunctionem 7i4e41 of sanctity or virtue with faith7 a benifica ,dei voluntate et dispositione repetit2 nec id novum est ejus inventum1 sed cum antiquioribus ,theologis nostris commune4--,j4 ,a4 ,ernesti4 7,vindici arbitrii divini4 ,opusc4 theol4 p4 #big47 ,si quis dixerit 444 qui fidem sine charitate habet1 ,christianum non esse1 anathema sit4--,concil4 ,trid4 7,sess4 vi4 de ,justif4 can4 #bh74 #bah ,see on this subject ,luther1 e4g41 ,t4 xiv4 p4 #bhf4 #bai ,therefore good works must follow faith1 as an expression of thankfulness to ,god4--,apol4 der ,augs4 ,conf4 art4 #c4 ,how can ,i make a return to thee for thy deeds of love in works8 yet it is something acceptable to thee1 if ,i quench and tame the lusts of the flesh1 that they may not anew inflame my heart with fresh sins4 ,if sin bestirs itself1 ,i am not overcome2 a glance at the cross of ,jesus destroys its charms4--,gesangbuch der ,evangel4 ,brdergemeinen 7,moravian ,hymn-book74 #bbj ,the only limitation which is not contradictory to the nature of love is the self-limitation of love by reason1 intelligence4 ,the love which despises the stringency1 the law of the intelligence1 is theoretically false and practically noxious4 #bba ,the ,peripatetics also2 who founded love1 even that towards all men1 not on a particular1 religious1 but a natural principle4 #bbb ,active love is and must of course always be particular and limited1 i4e41 directed to one's neighbour4 ,but it is yet in its nature universal1 since it loves man for man's sake1 in the name of the race4 ,christian love1 on the contrary1 is in its nature exclusive4 #bbc ,including external nature2 for as man belongs to the essence of ,nature1--in opposition to common materialism2 so ,nature belongs to the essence of man1--in opposition to subjective idealism2 which is also the secret of our absolute philosophy1 at least in relation to ,nature4 ,only by uniting man with ,nature can we conquer the supranaturalistic egoism of ,christianity4 #bbd ,yes1 only as the free bond of love2 for a marriage the bond of which is merely an external restriction1 not the voluntary1 contented self-restriction of love1 in short1 a marriage which is not spontaneously concluded1 spontaneously willed1 self-sufficing1 is not a true marriage1 and therefore not a truly moral marriage4 #bbe ,because ,god does good through government1 great men and creatures in general1 people rush into error1 lean on creatures and not on the ,creator2--they do not look from the creature to the ,creator4 ,hence it came that the heathens made gods of kings4444 ,for they cannot and will not perceive that the work or the benefit comes from ,god1 and not merely from the creature1 though the latter is a means1 through which ,god works1 helps us1 and gives to us4--,luther 7,t4 iv4 p4 #bcg74 #bbf ,they who honour me1 ,i will honour1 and they who despise me shall be lightly esteemed4--#a ,sam4 ii4 #cj4 ,jam se1 o bone pater1 vermis vilissimus et odio dignissimus sempiterno1 tamen confidit amari1 quoniam se sentit amare1 imo quia se amari prsentit1 non redamare confunditur4444 ,nemo itaque se amari diffidat1 qui jam amat4--,bernardus ad ,thomam 7,epist4 #ajg74 ,a very fine and pregnant sentence4 ,if ,i exist not for ,god1 ,god exists not for me2 if ,i do not love1 ,i am not loved4 ,the passive is the active certain of itself1 the object is the subject certain of itself4 ,to love is to be man1 to be loved is to be ,god4 ,i am loved1 says ,god2 ,i love1 says man4 ,it is not until later that this is reversed1 that the passive transforms itself into the active1 and conversely4 #bbg ,the ,lord spake to ,gideon3 ,the people are too many that are with thee1 that ,i should give ,midian into their hands2 ,israel might glorify itself against me and say3 ,my hand has delivered me1--i4e41 ,ne ,israel sibi tribuat1 qu mihi debentur4 ,judges vii4 #b4 ,thus saith the ,lord3 ,cursed is the man that trusteth in man4 ,but blessed is the man that trusteth in the ,lord and whose hope is in the ,lord4--,jer4 xvii4 #e4 ,god desires not our gold1 body and possessions1 but has given these to the emperor 7that is1 to the representative of the world1 of the state71 and to us through the emperor4 ,but the heart1 which is the greatest and best in man1 he has reserved for himself2--this must be our offering to ,god--that we believe in him4--,luther 7xvi4 p4 #eje74 #bbh ,christian baptism also is obviously only a relic of the ancient ,nature-worship1 in which1 as in the ,persian1 water was a means of religious purification4 7,s4 ,rhode3 ,die heilige ,sage1 c41 pp4 #cje1 #dbf47 ,here1 however1 water baptism had a much truer1 and consequently a deeper meaning1 than with the ,christians1 because it rested on the natural power and value of water4 ,but indeed for these simple views of ,nature which characterised the old religions1 our speculative as well as theological supranaturalism has neither sense nor understanding4 ,when therefore the ,persians1 the ,hindoos1 the ,egyptians1 the ,hebrews1 made physical purity a religious duty1 they were herein far wiser than the ,christian saints1 who attested the supranaturalistic principle of their religion by physical impurity4 ,supranaturalism in theory becomes anti-naturalism in practice4 ,supranaturalism is only a euphemism for anti-naturalism4 #bbi ,eating and drinking is the easiest of all work1 for men like nothing better3 yea1 the most joyful work in the whole world is eating and drinking1 as it is commonly said3 ,before eating no dancing1 and1 ,on a full stomach stands a merry head4 ,in short1 eating and drinking is a pleasant necessary work2--that is a doctrine soon learned and made popular4 ,the same pleasant necessary work takes our blessed ,lord ,christ and says3 ',i have prepared a joyful1 sweet and pleasant meal1 ,i will lay on you no hard heavy work 444 ,i institute a supper1' c4--,luther 7xvi4 #bbb74 #bcj ,manifestum igitur est tantum religionis sanguini et affinitati1 quantum ipsis ,diis immortalibus tributum3 quia inter ista tam sancta vincula non magis1 quam in aliquo loco sacrato nudare se1 nefas esse credebatur4--,valer4 ,max4 7l4 ii4 c4 i47 #bca ,see the author's ,leibnitz4 #bcb ,here follows in the original a distinction between ,herz1 or feeling directed towards real objects1 and therefore practically sympathetic2 and ,gemth1 or feeling directed towards imaginary objects1 and therefore practically unsympathetic1 self-absorbed4 ,but the verbal distinction is not adhered to in the ordinary use of the language1 or1 indeed1 by ,feuerbach himself2 and the psychological distinction is sufficiently indicated in other parts of the present work4 ,the passage is therefore omitted1 as likely to confuse the reader4--,tr4 #bcc ,haereticus usu omnium jurium destitutus est1 ut deportatus4--,j4 ,h4 ,boehmer 7l4 c4 l4 v4 ,tit4 vii4 #bbc4 ,see also ,tit4 vi47 #bcd ,very many ,christians rejected the punishment of death1 but other criminal punishments of heretics1 such as banishment1 confiscation--punishments which deprive of life indirectly--they did not find in contradiction with their ,christian faith4 ,see on this subject ,j4 ,h4 ,boehmer1 ,jus4 ,eccl4 ,protest4 l4 v4 ,tit4 vii4 e4g4 i4 #aee1 #aeg1 #afb1 #afc4 #bce ,on this subject ,i refer to ,ltzelberger's work3 ,die ,kirchliche ,tradition ber den ,apostel ,johannes und seine ,schriften in ihrer ,grundlosigkeit nachgewiesen1 and to ,bruno ,bauer's ,kritik der ,evangelischen ,geschichte der ,synoptiker und des ,johannes 7,b4 iii474 #bcf ,in another place ,luther praises ,st4 ,bernard and ,bonaventura because they laid so much stress on the manhood of ,christ4 #bcg ,it is true that in ,catholicism also--in ,christianity generally1 ,god exists for man2 but it was ,protestantism which first drew from this relativity of ,god its true result--the absoluteness of man4