text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/236

 he says that it would have been better if God had given the Jews some definite instruction regarding the immortality of the soul, rather than to have taught them to go to the      (aller à la selle). Latrinæ thus become a content of faith (Deut. xxiii. 13-15).

The non-spiritual, from its very nature, is not a content which can belong to faith. If God speaks, it is spiritually, for Spirit reveals itself to Spirit alone.

In like manner theology has in recent times laid stress in connection with exegesis on the number of codices in which this or that disputed passage is to be found. Thus there is a passage in the New Testament which, according to the Greek text, reads, “God (Θς) blessed for evermore;” an old fragment of parchment found in Oxford, on the contrary, reads, “Who (Christ) blessed for evermore,” a difference occasioned by the stroke in the Θ. Now, however, it has been pointed out that the stroke shows through from the other side, &c.

If criticism of what we know concerning the nature of God takes to do with such things, then these are testimonies which are no testimonies at all. The content of religion is the eternal nature of God, not accidental and external things of this kind.

When Mendelssohn was asked to come over to the Christian religion, his reply was that his own religion did not require of him a faith in eternal truths, but only in certain laws, modes of action or ceremonial observances, and that he looked upon it as an advantage possessed by the Jewish religion that in it eternal truths are not presented for our acceptance, since for the finding of these reason is sufficient; those positive statutes he said had been established by God, whereas these eternal truths are the laws of nature, mathematical truths, &c.

We must indeed concede that they are eternal, but they are of very limited content, and are no content of eternal Spirit in and for itself. Religion, however, must contain nothing else but religion, and it should contain


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/237

 as such only eternal truths of the Spirit. This represents the essential characteristic of religion, and for the rest, whether those positive statutes have to do with the external modes of worship, or whether such commands of God relate to moral actions, it is again the spiritual element, the disposition of mind which is the principal thing. But this religion of commands in its fully developed form is harsh in the extreme, and may become irreligious, and enter into relation with a limited content. What is to be believed must, however, possess a religious, spiritual content.

3. We have now defined faith, and attestation as mediation, to be the inmost element in the conception of worship, or as the first moments in it. In worship, God is on the one side, I am on the other; and the essential characteristic here is that I enclose myself with God within myself, know myself in God as my truth, and God in me. The essential thing is this concrete unity. Theoretical consciousness, too, is concrete in our way of looking at it, but only implicitly. When it becomes concrete for the subject too, it then is practical. Worship is the act of giving to oneself this highest, this absolute enjoyment—there is emotion in it; I am present in it with my individual personality. Thus it is the certainty or sure knowledge of the absolute Spirit in His Church, the Church’s knowledge of its own Essence; this is the substantial unity of Spirit with itself which is essential and infinite form, knowledge in itself. Thus to put it more definitely, subjective self-consciousness is, to begin with, contained in it, but this consciousness, however, is still subjective in a formal manner only, for the consciousness which has reached knowledge of the absolute content is free. That is to say, it divests itself of the reserve and isolation of Being-for-self, which as a unit is exclusive in relation to its object. Thus it knows its Essence, and that this is its Essence; it bears witness of this to the object, and this witness is thus the testimony of Absolute

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/238

 Spirit, which in like manner only in thus witnessing produces itself as Absolute Spirit. As knowledge, self-consciousness has an object; as essence it is Absolute Object, and for self-consciousness in so far as it is free this is none other than the witness of the Spirit. Spirit becomes known to self-consciousness only in its freedom, therefore only in so far as this knowledge is free knowledge is the unity of self-consciousness present, and the absolute content is substantial unity, and this means that singularity is simply abrogated, or rather determined as universal in opposition to what is singular, so that the latter exists as a mere semblance only. “I”—this empirical existence—from which Essence is still certainly different, is just what is void of essence.

Subjective consciousness itself, however, is a limited, determinate consciousness, Spirit as particular, or in a special form. For Spirit in this special form, for Spirit with a determinate character, truth too exists only in this definite mode. According as the subjective spirit is constituted, so too is objective truth constituted for it.

But in God consciousness and knowledge are inherent. These are a content, and the form which implies that this content is the object of consciousness is inseparable from it. Here we have to do with Spirit in a particular or special form, and at the progressive stages of the development of Spirit faith modifies itself and adopts a different kind of content. Thus we do right to speak to a child of God its Creator, and in this way the child forms an idea of God as of some Higher Being; this is grasped by the consciousness in early years, but only in a limited manner; and the foundation thus laid is then further extended and broadened. The One Spirit is in fact the substantial foundation; this is the spirit of a people, as it takes a definite shape in the individual periods of the history of the world. It is the national spirit. This constitutes the substantial foundation in the individual; each person is born in his own nation and belongs to the


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/239

 spirit of that people. This spirit is in fact the substantial element, and as it were the identical element of nature; it is the absolute foundation of faith. It is the standard which determines what is to be regarded as truth. This substantial element exists in this way independently in contradistinction to individuals; it is their power in reference to them as units, and is in this relation to them their absolute authority. Each individual as belonging to the spirit of his people is born in the faith of his fathers, without his fault and without his desert, and the faith of his fathers is a sacred thing to the individual and is his authority. This constitutes that basis of faith afforded by historical development.

And here the question arises as to how a religion is founded, that is to say, in what manner the substantial Spirit comes into the consciousness of nations. This is something historical; the beginnings are invisible; those who are capable of expressing that Spirit are prophets, poets. Herodotus says, Homer and Hesiod made their gods for the Greeks. Homer and Hesiod have here an authority, but for this reason only, that their utterances were in conformity with the Greek spirit. And besides, the thoughts of these poets were preceded by still earlier beginnings, which were the first glimmerings of the Divine, for it will hardly be maintained that the stage of culture which appears in the works of Homer represents what has existed from the very first. Dread of the supersensuous expressed itself in the earliest times in a crude and primitive manner. Fear is the beginning, and in order to remove it and to render that supersensuous power propitious, recourse was had to incantations, and prayers were offered up in the form of hymns. Thus by degrees consciousness develops itself, and the few who in this state of things know what the Divine is are the Patriarchs, the Priests, or it may be that a caste or a particular family is marked off to teach doctrine and to conduct the worship of God. Each individual lives into


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/240

 the spirit of these ideas and experiences, and thus a spiritual contagion is spread abroad among the people, and education, too, bears its part, so that the individual breathes in the atmosphere of his people. The children too go in festival attire with their elders to worship, take part in the religious functions, or have something to do in connection with this divine worship. In any case, they learn the prayers, hear repeated the beliefs of the church and of the nation, enter into these and accept them in the same direct way in which uniformity in dress and the customs of everyday life are propagated.

Such is natural authority; but its power is greatest in spiritual matters. However independent the individual may imagine himself to be, it is impossible for him to get beyond this spirit, for it is what is substantial, it is his special nature itself.

This authority is, to begin with, something entirely natural, and has a sure place amongst a people on its own account, without hinting at any prohibition of what is contrary to it. Under such conditions, individuals as units are neither free nor are they in bondage, for there is here no kind of opposition of reflection and subjective thought. We say, such and such peoples have believed this, but they themselves do not call it “believing,” if you understand by belief or faith what involves the consciousness of opposition.

But now different forms of faith make their appearance, different religions, which can come into collision with one another. This collision may take place in the sphere of ordinary thought and of reflection, and the defence may be based on reasons and evidences of truth, but it may also take the form of one people compelling others to conform to their faith, and thus faith becomes compulsory State-authority, enforced partly within the State itself and partly outside of it. This kind of collision has given rise to countless wars. Under this head we may rank the wars of the Mohammedans, the religious


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/241

 wars between Catholics and Protestants, the Inquisition too, and the battles in India between worshippers of Siva and Vishnu. In such conflicts the combatants fight for the glory of God, they fight in order that God may be recognised in consciousness, and that what is truth for the nation may receive recognition. Freedom of faith in the general sense revolts against such compulsion; this freedom, however, can further take up a position of impartiality relatively to the various forms of belief which assert themselves to be the truth. Thus this freedom is formally the same as freedom of faith as such, in which what is believed is not to be brought into question. Such then is the formal demand of freedom which does not criticise the truth of faith, and is concerned with subjective freedom only, whatever may be the nature of the content. It is here that the distinction enters between the inner life, the place of conscience, in which I am, so to speak, at home with myself, and the essential content. The inner life is the holy place, the seat of my freedom, and it is to be held in respect. This demand is an essential one, which is made by a man in proportion as the consciousness of freedom awakens within him. Here the basis is no longer the substantial content of faith, but its formal character.

But now the freedom of faith directly appears as a contradiction in itself if the matter be regarded from the point of view of abstract thought. For in the very act of believing, a man accepts something given, something already present. Freedom, on the other hand, requires that this should be posited, produced by myself. But in this demand of freedom, faith is really conceived of as my personal faith, as an inmost certainty which is absolutely and exclusively my own. In this certainty of my own, in this my conviction, my faith has its source and its place. I am free and independent with regard to others, whatever the faith itself may happen to be; or, in other words, the definite reasons, reflections, and feelings


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/242

 upon which it is built are of no importance here. Clearly faith is in itself, as far as the content is concerned, still in bondage, and it is Thought which first seeks to be free in respect of the content also.

Here, accordingly, where freedom brings itself into relation with the content as well, is it that the breach between thought and faith makes its appearance, that breach which we already see among the Greeks in the time of Socrates. Thought implies a new relation towards faith; that is to say, the aspect of Form enters into relation with the substantial element of truth. In the Christian religion this principle is present from the beginning. Regarded in one aspect, that religion starts, it is true, from an external history which is made a matter of faith; but this history at the same time professes to be the explication of the nature of God. Christ, in accordance with the distinction which directly enters here, is not merely a man, who experienced a particular fate, but He is also the Son of God. The explication of the history of Christ, the unfolding of its meaning, is thus the deeper lying element. This has been given in thought, and it has produced Dogmatics—the doctrine of the Church. With this there co-exists a demand for “inwardness,” for thought. The breach between thought and faith then develops itself further. Thought knows itself to be free, not only so far as the form is concerned, but in respect of the content also. In thought, however, freedom does not exist altogether apart from authority; it has certain principles, which are really its own, and to which it reduces everything. But these principles themselves belong to development; a given period has certain principles, and so far authority, too, is present in it. It is the ultimate analysis only, where no assumed principles any longer exist, which constitutes the advance to philosophy.

The as yet religious mediation of faith as it appears in worship, is the active process of bringing forward


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/243

 into reality the previously determined unity, and the enjoyment of it; so that what is potentially in faith may also be realised, felt, enjoyed. When will appears in this form, worship is practical, and this active process has to begin with the form of limitation and particularity. It is frequently said that in his will man is infinite; while in his understanding, his power of knowledge, he is finite. To say this is childish; the opposite is much nearer the truth. In willing, a man confronts an Other, he isolates himself as an individual, he has in himself a purpose, an intent with regard to an Other, he behaves as if separated from that Other, and thus finitude comes in. In his acts man has an end before him, and such action essentially requires that the content, the end, should exist, should lose the form of an idea, or in other words, that the end in view being, to begin with, subjective, should have this subjectivity taken away from it, and thus at length attain to objective existence.

In so far as worship, too, is an act, it has an end in itself, and this, which is faith, is the implicit concrete reality of the Divine and of consciousness. What worship has to accomplish is not the separation of anything from the Object, or the alteration of anything in it, nor the establishing of its own claims with regard to it. Its end, on the contrary, is essentially absolute reality, and this end is not one which has still to be produced, or created, but one which is only to have actuality in me; it is, therefore, opposed to me, opposed to my particular subjectivity. This last is the husk, which is to be stripped off; I am to be in the Spirit, and the Object is to be in me as Spirit.

Here then is a twofold act, the grace of God and the sacrifice of man. In connection with the act, which we call the grace of God, the mind gets into a difficulty on account of the freedom of man. But the freedom of man just consists in the knowledge and willing of God, and exists only through the annulling of human knowledge


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/244

 and will. Man is not like a stone here, so that it is not a case of grace only operating in a practical way, while man forsooth is the passive material, without participating in any way in what goes on. The end to be reached rather is that through me the Divine should come to be in me, and that toward which the action, which is my action, tends, is the renunciation in general of that self of mine, which no longer retains itself for its own sake. Such is the twofold active movement which constitutes worship, and thus is its end the existence of God in man.

I am to make myself such that the Spirit may dwell in me, that I may be spiritual. This is my work, the human work, and that same work is God’s, regarded from His side. He moves toward man, and is in man through man’s exaltation of himself. What seems to be my act is then God’s, and conversely, too, what seems His is mine. This, it is true, runs counter to the merely moral standpoint of Kant and Fichte; there goodness still remains something which has yet to be brought forth, to be realised, and continues, too, to be something that ought-to-be, as if it were not already essentially there. Here, then, is a world outside of me, which as forsaken of God waits for me to bring the end, the good into it. The sphere of moral action is limited. In religion, on the contrary, goodness, reconciliation, is absolutely complete, and exists on its own account; the Divine unity of the spiritual and the natural world is presupposed—the particular self-consciousness being regarded as belonging to the latter—and the whole question concerns only myself and has reference to myself, and centres in this, that I lay aside my subjectivity and take and have my share in that work which eternally completes itself. According to this, goodness is in no sense something which merely ought to be, an ideal, but is, on the contrary, Divine power, eternal truth.

In like manner, if in the present day it is felt to be


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/245

 supremely necessary to bring faith near to men, and if religious talk is constantly directed toward producing a sense of wretchedness, and together with this the belief that God exists, this is not only not worship, but this persistent effort, implying that religion has first to be created, is something outside of religion. The truth rather is that worship is within religion, and the knowledge that God and reality exist is the fundamental truth which I have only to assimilate to myself. Oh, unhappy age, which must content itself merely with being continually told that there is a God!

Since the truth rather is that worship presupposes the essential existence of the final purpose of the world, and yet sets out from this presupposition to oppose empirical self-consciousness and its particular interests, a negative moment or stage is contained in it, but of such a kind that it is really the practical activity of the subject itself, by which it discards particular subjectivity. Such, then, is the notion or conception of worship in general, whose foundation is the determination of what is known as faith.

II.—The Definite Character and Special Forms of Worship or Cultus.

In faith is contained the notion or conception of absolute Spirit itself.

To begin with, this content exists as the Notion for us; we have conceived of it as such, but that does not imply that it is already posited in existence as such. The Notion is the inner, the substantial element, and as such it is through us that it is present in us in the knowledge which grasps its object. The Idea, however, does not as yet possess this shape and content in existing self-consciousness generally. At first, therefore, the Idea is like the Notion, like the Substance which is identical with subjective self-consciousness, so that subjective self-consciousness has its Essence, its truth in the object. In the Idea


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/246

 the subject is essentially conceived of as free, but at first possesses relative freedom only, freedom of the subject in relation to its universal Essence, so that it does not separate itself from that Essence, nor persist in keeping to a form which is antagonistic to this its Universality, but continues to exist only in unbroken continuity with its Object. Or, to express it otherwise, freedom is merely this formal freedom of the subject, in which the consciousness of the subject is adequate to its notion. As hitherto defined, however, true faith presupposes the self-consciousness of the absolute freedom of the spirit—the consciousness that man is free in his own nature, by virtue of his fundamental nature, and knows himself as infinite Personality. Now, if such self-consciousness be still immediate, it is, to begin with, only formally free, and labours under the defect of having a merely natural character, and is not man’s consciousness of his infinite freedom. God Himself does not exist as Spirit in an immediate manner, and the same is the case as to our consciousness regarding Him. Consequently, freedom itself, and reconciliation in worship or devotion, are in the first instance formal reconciliation and freedom: if the subject is to be adequate to its conception or notion, it is necessary that its notion, that absolute Spirit, be for it Object as Spirit, for only by bringing itself into relation with its Essence in that absolute content can the subjective spirit be free in itself. The truth is that it remains absolute for itself, and as infinite subjectivity has the consciousness that it has infinite worth for itself, or on its own account, and is the object of the infinite love of God.

We find that worship also develops in conformity with the idea of God which has just been unfolded. At one time God is thought of as the unity of the natural and spiritual, at another as the absolute unity, which itself is spiritual. The definite aspects of worship correspond with these different ideas of God.

1. God is immediately determined as an abstraction,


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/247

 and as having a merely natural character, not as absolute, infinite Spirit. In as far as this natural character is posited in Him, and He has it in Himself in an affirmative manner, He is indeed the Unity of this and the Spiritual; but in so far as the natural character is something permanent, the unity of the two is immediate also, a unity which indeed is merely natural, and not truly spiritual. As regards man, the body is just as much an affirmative ingredient as the soul if any one says he consists of body and soul; and as thus conceived, the unity of the two is also a natural immediate unity only.

Now, in worship, too, man is determined in the same way, as having an immediate natural character, or as being in the unfreedom of freedom. To say that man is simply naturally free (a definition which really contradicts itself) implies also that his relation to his object, his essence, his truth, is such a natural unity, and his faith, his worship, is therefore essentially an immediate relation, or an original state of reconciliation with his object. This is a characteristic of worship in all those religions in which the absolute essential nature of God is not as yet revealed. Here man in his freedom has not yet attained to freedom. Such, for instance, is heathen worship, which has no need of reconciliation. Here worship is already that which man represents to himself as the ordinary mode of life; he lives in this substantial unity, worship and life are not separated, and a world of absolute finitude has not as yet placed itself over against an infinitude. Thus a consciousness of their felicity prevails among the heathen, a consciousness that God is near to them as the God of the nation, of the State—the feeling that the gods are friendly toward them, and bestow upon them the enjoyment of all that is best. If Athene was known to the Athenians under this guise as their divine power, they knew themselves to be originally one with her, and knew the divine to be the spiritual power of their nation itself. At the first stage of the immediate unity of the finite and infinite,


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/248

 self-consciousness has not as yet attained to development into Totality. The distinction is not in so far taken seriously. Negativity must, it is true, present itself, but not being the product of consciousness itself, the negative is shut out from the inner relation of subjectivity. It has its place outside, and is, as it were, a realm of darkness and of evil to be separated off from the immediate unity. Conflict and strife with that negative may even arise, but it is of such a kind that it is thought of more as an external conflict, and the enmity and return out of it are not regarded as essential moments of self-consciousness. In this stage there is therefore no real reconciliation, for this presupposes an absolute dualism or division in the inner life.

Here, therefore, the essential note of worship is that it is not something peculiar, not anything set apart from the rest of life, but rather a continuous life in the realm of light and in the Good. The temporal life with all its needs—this our immediate life—is itself worship, and the subject has not as yet separated its essential life from the maintenance of its temporal life, and from the occupations belonging to immediate, finite existence.

At this stage, an express consciousness of its God as such must indeed spring up in the subject; there must be a rising up to the thought of the absolute Being, and there must be adoration and praise of Him. But this is to begin with an abstract relation of a separate and independent character into which concrete life does not enter. So soon as the relation of worship takes on a more concrete shape, it takes up the entire external actual existence of the individual into itself, and the whole compass of ordinary daily life, eating, drinking, sleeping, and all actions connected with the satisfaction of natural necessities come to have a reference to worship, and the engaging in these actions and occupations constitutes a holy life.

While, however, externality and need are necessarily inherent in such occupations, they must, if they are to be


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/249

 lifted up into that essential unity, have special attention directed to them, and be engnged in with circumspection and sobriety, to the exclusion of all caprice. In this way solemnity and dignity rule in the most ordinary dealings of life. The concrete existence of finite life is not as yet esteemed a matter of indifference; it is not as yet degraded by freedom to externality, because the freedom of the inner life has not yet given itself an independent sphere. The acts of daily and ordinary life are, therefore, still regarded all through in relation to religion, and have the value of substantial acts. In order that this action, which is regarded by us as action of a contingent kind, may be congruent to the form of substantiality, it is essential that it be carried out with solemnity, repose, and becoming regularity and order. Consequently, all this is arranged in a general manner by means of rules, and that appearance of contingency is not present here, since in the process of becoming finite the subject has not cast itself loose from the Infinite, and given itself free play. An oriental who occupies this standpoint does not consider his body, nor finite occupations and the act of engaging in these as his own, but rather as being in the service of an Other, of the universal essential Will. For that reason he must engage in the most insignificant affairs with dignity and sober-mindedness, so that he may accomplish them in a becoming manner, in a manner suitable to that universal Will.

That solemnity is a mere form notwithstanding, and the content is limited to the range of the finite, and therefore the opposition is not truly done away with. Consequently, the orderliness with which the actions of everyday life are performed being only an external form belonging to that finite content, the actual distinction between external life and that which the absolute Object is for consciousness, is still present here. Subjective existence must therefore be definitely and openly annulled, and the mode in which this takes place here is connected


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/250

 with reflexion upon finitude and on its opposition to the Infinite. But the negativity of the finite can only come about in a finite manner. Now this is what is generally designated as sacrifice.

Sacrifice directly involves the renunciation of an immediate finitude in the sense of being a testifying that this finitude is not to be my own possession, and that I do not desire to have it for myself. From this standpoint of the religious consciousness, sacrifice is therefore sacrifice in the strict and proper sense. Negativity cannot here reveal itself in an inward process because we are not yet in presence of the depths of the inner life of thought and feeling. Sacrifice does not consist in a “conversion” of the inner life, of the heart and of the natural inclinations, rendering it necessary that these should be broken. On the contrary, what the subject is for itself or in its independent condition, such is it when in immediate possession, and the yielding up of its finitude in worship is only the renunciation of an immediate possession, and a natural existence. In this sense, sacrifice is not any longer present in a spiritual religion, but what is there designated sacrifice can only be such in a figurative sense.

Sacrifice, to speak more precisely, can at this stage be merely a sacrifice of adoration, of praise, the act of testifying that I have nothing peculiar to myself but that I relinquish it in thinking of myself in relation to the Absolute. He to whom the possession is yielded up, is not to be made richer by means of it; all that happens is that the subject in this renunciation gets for itself the consciousness of the removal of separation, and its action is in so far purely joyous action. This too is the general signification of gifts in Eastern countries, subjects or vanquished enemies bring presents to the king, not that he may be made richer, for everything is already assigned to him, and everything belongs to him.

Further, too, sacrifice may assume the character of a


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/251

 sacrifice of purification, having reference to a specific defilement. From the point of view which we are considering, sin, in the strict sense, has not been committed; the special sacrifices of purification group themselves round all finite action generally. They represent no repentance, no punishment; they have no spiritual change as their aim, and they do not involve the endurance of any kind of loss or damage. It is not considered that a man has done some evil deed for which he must endure an evil in return. All such categories as those just mentioned would include the idea of a justification of the subject; but that is an idea which does not as yet in any sense enter in here. From our standpoint, such sacrifices would be regarded as losses, since something we possess is relinquished by means of them. Such a view is meanwhile wholly absent from the minds of those who occupy the standpoint above referred to; their sacrifice is, on the contrary, essentially symbolical. A defilement has occurred, and this must be got rid of in a similarly immediate manner. The subject, however, cannot make what has happened into something which has not happened, nor can it repent that it has acted as it did. For this reason there must necessarily be an exchange or substitution, and something must be relinquished other than that existence which was really in question. What is offered up may be much more insignificant as regards intrinsic value than what I receive, what I have acquired for myself. Thus I actually take possession of the harvest which I have won, of the animal which I have slaughtered, and then if it is to be shown that I do not seriously take this possession as mine, this is done in a symbolical manner. It is not as if what I do ought not to take place, for such actions are necessary; through the act of sacrifice it is only this becoming finite generally, this independent existence of mine which is once more annulled.

The general characteristic which marks these acts


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/252

 of devotion, is what we call Ceremonial. It consists in this, that everyday common actions (as we regard them) are at the same time necessary actions, and are prescribed by rule. We have the right to act here in accordance with our fancies, or to follow habit in an unconscious way; in like manner we do not hold a purification to be necessary in the same degree in which such actions as the gathering of the harvest and the slaughtering of an animal, are necessary. And since, further, in the case of these offerings and purifications there is an actual reference to the religious aspect of life, no distinction presents itself here to which an importance would not be attributed. Thus the different means of sustaining life are not looked upon in relation to taste and to health merely. We have accordingly here the combination of different elements in connection with sacrifice and purification. That action by means of which purification from another action is got, can have no necessary relation to the latter, and for this reason the combination can only be an accidental and external one. Hence arises the painful element in this form of worship. If a meaning lies or has lain in these ceremonies and combinations, yet it is a trivial and a superficial one, and in becoming a matter of habit, such actions lose even the little meaning which may once have lain in them.

At this point, accordingly, definite punishment comes in, in so far as a deed which is opposed to some prescribed rule has to be annulled, and in so far as it is a question of a transgression. The punishment of such a transgression is in turn an injury, and something is relinquished—life, property, and so forth. But the meaning attached to this punishment here is that of a purely barren, formal punishment, like civil punishment. This latter, however, does not necessarily concern itself with the improvement of the delinquent, while ecclesiastical repentance or penance is in our view a punishment of which the essential


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/253

 purpose is the improvement and conversion of the person punished. To those occupying this standpoint, punishment cannot have any such moral, or rather religious, meaning. Civil laws and the laws of the State are here in fact identical with religious laws. The law of the State is the law of freedom; it presupposes personality, the dignity of man, and has essential reference to the Will, a sphere of discretion being left for the exercise of judgment regarding unimportant and indifferent matters. But for those who occupy the standpoint of which we are treating such a separation does not as yet exist, and the general condition is one of mere necessity.

From that finite form of existence and action which the religious worship just described brings into relation with what has essential being, there is further to be distinguished a more specific form of action which is in accordance with ends. The performance of such actions as have immediate reference to our necessities or requirements does not take place in accordance with an end, but is regulated in an immediate way. This action, on the other hand, which is in accordance with an end, is not mere action prompted by necessity or habit, but determines itself in accordance with ideas. Thus it still, it is true, is finite action, in so far as it has a finite end; but since the leading principle here is that the finite should be lifted up to the infinite, the finite ends too are to be extended into an infinite one. In this way religious work or labour makes its appearance, and this produces works of devotion which have not reference to a finite end, but which are meant to be something which exists for its own sake. This work is here itself worship. Such works and such productions are not to be regarded as corresponding with our ecclesiastical buildings, which are only undertaken because they are required. This labour, on the other hand, as pure production and as perennial work, is its own end, and is consequently never completed.

Now, this religious work is of diverse kinds and of


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/254

 various degrees, from the mere bodily movement of the dance up to the erection of enormous colossal structures. The latter are principally of the nature of monuments, and are endless in number, for a fresh beginning must continually be made as each generation completes its own work.

The determining agent in connection with such works is not yet the free imagination; on the contrary, what is produced has the character of something enormous and colossal. The production of such things is still essentially chained to what is Natural and Given, and the discretion left to active effort is limited merely to this, that the dimensions be on an exaggerated scale, and the actual forms be characterised by proportions of the “enormous” order.

All these works too fall within the sphere of sacrifice, for in these, as in sacrifice, the end is the Universal, as against which what is peculiar to self and the interests of the subject must be relinquished. All activity, in fact, is a relinquishment, no longer, however, of a merely external thing, but of inward subjectivity. This renunciation or sacrifice which is involved in activity, in virtue of its character as activity, produces at the same time an object, brings something into existence, yet not in such a way that the Being which is created merely issues from myself, but rather so that the act of production takes place in accordance with an end which is full of content. The labour of man by which the unity of the finite and infinite is brought about only in so far as it is penetrated throughout by Spirit and wrung out of the action of Spirit, is, however, already a deeper sacrifice, and an advance on that form under which sacrifice originally makes its appearance merely as the renunciation of an immediate finitude; for in this act of production the sacrifice is a spiritual deed, and is the effort which, as negation of particular self-consciousness, holds fast the end which has its life within the inner region of thoughts


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/255

 and ideas, and brings it forth in an outward way for sense-perception.

Hitherto we have considered the worship which belongs to this standpoint as it proceeds from the assumed unity of self-consciousness and the Object. A falling away from this original unity notwithstanding, often makes its appearance here, a deviation from this state of reconciliation, or from the sense of defect which gives rise to the need for that state. This falling away has its root partly in the freewill of the subject, in the enjoyment which the individual has in his world,—for he is not spiritually self-conscious, and is thus still inclination, desire,—or it comes in from another side, from the power of Nature, from the misery of man, of the individual, of peoples, or states. After a disturbance of this kind, whereby the unity is interrupted, there is constant need of stern negation to restore it again.

Here we have the severance of the Divine and human, and the meaning of worship is not the enjoyment of this unity, but the abrogation of the separation. Here, too, we have the presupposition of a reconciliation which exists on its own account.

2. This severance or separation is, to begin with, one which presents itself in the natural world, and it appears here as some external disaster which falls upon a people. God is here the substantial power, the power in the spiritual as in the natural world. Now, if death, adverse fortunes in war, pestilence, and other calamities weigh upon a land, the direction which worship takes is that of seeking to regain the goodwill of the gods, originally enjoyed. It is the calamity which here constitutes the severance; it has reference to the natural sphere only, the external state in respect of bodily existence, these outward conditions not being such as the demand for happiness requires. The assumption here is that this natural state is not an accidental one, but depends upon a higher Power, which determines itself as God: God


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/256

 has laid down those conditions, has created them. A further leading idea is that this Will which decrees the calamity, acts in accordance with the moral connection which implies that it goes well or ill with a man or with a people because that man or that people has merited what happens as their desert. The course of Nature is on this account interrupted in reference to the purposes of men, and thus Nature appears as antagonistic to their advantage and prosperity. In the case of such severance, what is requisite is the re-establishment of the unity of the divine Will with the ends of men. Worship thus takes the form of propitiation or atonement. This is brought about by means of acts of repentance and expiation, by sacrifice and ceremonies, in which man makes it manifest that he is in earnest as regards the renunciation of his particular will.

The view that God is the ruling power over Nature—that Nature depends upon a higher Will—is what really lies at the basis of this standpoint. The only question which presents itself here is as to how far the divine Will is represented in natural events—as to how it is to be recognised in these. It is taken for granted from this point of view that the power of Nature is not natural only, but contains within itself purposes which, as such, are foreign to it—namely, purposes of goodness, which concern the welfare of man, and that that welfare is dependent upon these purposes. We too recognise this as true. But the well-being is of an abstract, universal sort. When people speak of their well-being, they have particular ends which are wholly their own as apart from others, and thus they comprise their well-being within limited, natural existence. But if a man descends in this manner from the divine Will to particular ends, he descends into the realm of finiteness and contingency. The religious feeling, the pious thought that individual misfortune is dependent upon the Good, rises also, it is true, direct from the individual up to God, to the Universal,


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/257

 and thus the sovereignty of the Universal over the Particular is acknowledged. But what next follows is the application of this Universal to the Particular, and here the defectiveness of this conception becomes evident. Nations which are visited by calamity search after some transgression as its cause, and then fly for refuge to a Power which determines itself in accordance with ends. Even although the presence of this Universal be conceded here, its application to the Particular leads, on the other hand, to a disparity or false relation.

In the disturbed relations which we find at this first stage, unity appears as limited in character. It is capable of being rent asunder; it is not absolute, for it is an original and unreflected unity. Thus, over this presupposed, immediate, and consequently destructible harmony, and over the celebration and enjoyment of it, there still broods a Higher, a Supreme. For the original unity is mere natural unity, and in being such is limited for Spirit. Being encumbered with a natural element, it has not that reality which it ought in accordance with its notion to possess. This disunion must necessarily come to be present for consciousness, for consciousness is implicitly thinking Spirit. There must arise in consciousness the need of an absolute unity which hovers over that satisfying fruition, a unity which, however, remains abstract only, since that original harmony is the complete, concrete, and living foundation. Over this sphere there hovers a sense of division which is not resolved and harmonised, and thus through the gladness of that living unity there sounds a jarring and unresolved tone of mourning and of pain; a fate, an unknown power, a coercive necessity, unknown but recognised, without reconciliation, to which consciousness submits, but only by the negation of itself, broods over the heads of gods and men. This is an element which is bound up with the particular form of self-consciousness under consideration.


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/258

 Now it is just here that a special aspect of worship presents itself. For in that first unity the negation of the subject is superficial and accidental, and what broods over the subject is only the feeling of sadness, the thought of necessity, which is a negative element as opposed to that living unity. But this negativity has also to become actual, and prove itself to be a higher power over that unity. This necessity does not remain merely an idea or general conception; the lot of man becomes a stern one, the natural man passes away, death makes serious work with him, fate devours him, and he is comfortless, for the very reconciliation, the unity, is not that of what is deepest and most inward; but, on the other hand, the natural life is still an essential moment, and is not relinquished. The division has not as yet gone so far as this; a unity of the natural and spiritual has, on the contrary, remained, in which the former maintains an affirmative character. This destiny has now to be transformed for ordinary thought and in a subjective manner, into the affirmative, and thus the spirits of the dead are regarded as the unreconciled element which has to be reconciled: they must be avenged for the injustice of their death. Here, accordingly, we have that service in honour of the dead, which is an essential part or aspect of worship.

3. The higher attitude, then, as compared with this last stage of worship, is that where subjectivity has arrived at the consciousness of its intrinsic infinitude. It is here that religion and worship enter completely into the domain of freedom. The subject knows itself to be infinite, and knows itself to be such in its character as subject. In this it is involved that what was formerly the Unrevealed or Undisclosed has the moment of individuality in itself, so that individuality by this means acquires absolute value. But now individuality has value as being this absolute and consequently purely universal singularity or individuality. Here the individual exists only through


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/259

 the abrogation of his immediate individuality, through which abrogation he produces absolute individuality in himself, and is consequently free in himself. This freedom exists as the movement of absolute Spirit in him by the abrogation of the natural and finite. Man, in arriving at a consciousness of the infinity of his spirit, has brought into view the element of division in its most extreme form in regard both to Nature generally and to himself: it is in this division that the domain of true freedom has its origin. Through this knowledge of absolute Spirit the opposition between infinite and finite has entered in in its most extreme form, and this division is the bearer of reconciliation. It is no longer asserted here that man is good and is reconciled with absolute Spirit from his birth, that is, in accordance with his immediate nature; but, on the contrary, that just because his conception is the absolutely free unity, that natural existence of his directly proves itself to be in a state of opposition, and consequently to be something which is to be abrogated and absorbed. Nature, the heart in its immediate state, is what has to be relinquished, because that moment does not leave Spirit free, and as natural spirit it is not posited by its own act. If the natural element be retained, the spirit is not free. Accordingly, what it is, it is not by its own act, or on its own account, but it finds itself so. In that higher sphere, on the other hand, all that man ought to be lies involved in the domain of freedom. Here, then, worship essentially passes over into the region of inner life; here the heart must break, that is to say, the natural will, the natural consciousness is to be relinquished. On the one hand, too, there are actual sins, of which man has to repent, sins which, as single acts, have a contingent character, and do not concern human nature as such. But, on the other hand, in the abstraction of finitude and infinitude—in that general opposition—the finite, as such, is reputed to be evil. That separation which is originally inherent in man has


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/260

 to be annulled. And assuredly the natural will is not the will as it ought to be, for it ought to be free, and the will of passion is not free. By nature Spirit is not as it ought to be; by means of freedom only does it become such. That the will is by nature evil is the form under which this truth is presented here. But man is only guilty if he adhere to this his natural character. Justice, morality, are not the natural will, for in it a man is selfish, his desire is only toward his individual life as such. It is by means of worship, accordingly, that this evil element is to be annulled. Man is not innocent in the sense that he is neither good nor bad. What results from the freedom of man is not natural innocence of this kind. But man becomes educated to freedom, which has an essential character only when it wills the essential will and this will represents what is good, right, moral.

Man is to become free, that is to say, upright and moral, and he is to become such by the way of education. According to the view here referred to, this kind of education is expressive of the overcoming of the evil element, and as thus regarded it is posited in the sphere of consciousness, while education takes place in an unconscious manner. The abrogation of the antithesis of good and evil has its place in this form of worship; the natural man is represented as evil, but the evil element is the aspect of separation and estrangement, and this estrangement is to be negated. There is also present the assumption that reconciliation is potentially accomplished; in worship a man creates this assurance for himself, and lays hold upon the potentially completed reconciliation. It is, however, already perfected in and through God, and it is this divine reality which man is to take to himself as his own.

But this appropriation of reconciliation takes place by the negation of the estrangement, and therefore by means of renunciation. And now the question arises, What then actually is it that man is to renounce? Man is to


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/261

 renounce his particular will, his passions and natural impulses. This may be understood as if the impulses of nature were to be eradicated, not merely purified—as if the vitality of the will were to be slain. This is wholly a mistake. What is true is that it is only the impure content that is to be purified; in other words, its content is to be made conformable to the moral will. It is a false demand, on the contrary, that is made when the renunciation is conceived of in an abstract way as if the impulse of vitality in itself were to be annulled. Possession, personal property, is likewise a part of what pertains to man; it is his by his own will; therefore it might now be demanded of him that he should relinquish his possession; celibacy is a demand of this kind. Freedom, conscience, belong also to man; in the same sense it may be required of him that he should give up his freedom, his will, in which case he sinks down into a gloomy, will-less creature. This is the extreme form of such a demand. Connected with this part of the subject is the idea that I should undo my deeds, and suppress the workings of evil action. Renunciation means here that I do not desire to regard certain deeds which I have committed as being my own, that I regard them as not having taken place, that is, I desire to repent of them. As regards time, it is true the action has passed by, so that it is nullified by time. But as to its inner content, in so far as it belongs to my will, it is still preserved in the inner sphere, and the destruction of it then means, relinquishment of the state of mind in which it exists ideally. If punishment be the destruction of the evil element in the sphere of reality, this destruction in the inner life is penitence and contrition, and the Spirit is able to accomplish this renunciation, since it has the energy to effect a change in itself, and to annul in itself the maxims and intentions of its will. If in this manner a man renounces his selfishness and the separation between himself and goodness, he then has become a


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/262

 of reconciliation, and by means of this internal process has attained to peace. And thus it comes to pass that Spirit here manifests itself in the subject as it truly is in its essential nature, and in conformity with its content, and that this content is no longer something beyond this world, but that free subjectivity has in it its own Essence as its object. Worship is thus finally the presence of the content which constitutes absolute Spirit, and this makes the history of the divine content to be essentially the history of mankind as well—the movement of God toward man, and of man toward God. Man knows himself to be essentially included in this history, woven into it. While in contemplating it he immerses himself in it, his immersion in it is the active intermingling of this content and process, and he secures for himself the certain knowledge and enjoyment of the implied reconciliation.

This working out of subjectivity, this purification of the heart from its immediate natural character—if it be thoroughly carried out, and create a permanent condition which corresponds with the universal end of subjectivity—assumes a complete form as morality, and by this path religion passes over into established custom, into the State.

Thus it is that that essential connection known also as the relation of religion to the State makes its appearance. With regard to this, we have now to speak with greater detail.

III.—The Relation of Religion to the State.

1. The State is the true form of reality. In it the true moral will comes into the sphere of reality, and Spirit lives in its true nature. Religion is divine knowledge, the knowledge man has of God, the knowledge of himself in God. This is the divine wisdom, and the field of absolute Truth. But there is besides a second


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/263

 wisdom, the wisdom of the world, and the question arises as to the relation in which it stands to that divine wisdom.

In a general sense, religion and the foundation of the State are one and the same; they are in their real essence identical. In the patriarchal condition, in the Jewish theocracy, the two are not as yet separated, and are still outwardly identical. But yet they are different, and in the further course of events they are sharply separated from one another, and then again are posited in true identity. From what has just been said, the reason of the existence of the essentially existing unity is already clear. Religion is the knowledge of the highest truth, and this truth more precisely defined is free Spirit. In religion man is free before God; in that he brings his will into conformity with the divine will, he is not in opposition to the supreme will, but possesses himself in it; he is free, since in worship he has attained to the annulling of the division. The State is only freedom in the world, in the sphere of actuality. Everything essentially depends here on the conception of freedom which a people bears in its own self-consciousness, for in the State the conception of freedom is realised, and to this realisation the consciousness of freedom which exists in its own right essentially belongs. Such nations as do not know that man is free in his own right, live in a condition of torpor, both as regards their form of government and their religion. There is but one conception of freedom in religion and the State. This one conception is man’s highest possession, and it is realised by man. A nation which has a false or bad conception of God, has also a bad State, bad government, bad laws.

The detailed consideration of this essential connection between the State and religion belongs properly to the Philosophy of History. It is only to be considered here in the definite form under which it appears to ordinary thought, and as it gets involved in contradictions in this form, and, finally, as it arrives at the opposition between


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/264

 the two created by the interests of modern times. We therefore, first of all, consider this connection as it is ordinarily conceived.

2. Men are distinctly conscious of this connection, not, however, in its true character as absolute, and as it is known in philosophy, but rather they know and conceive of it in a general way only. The mode in which the idea of this connection finds expression is in the tracing of laws, authority, and the constitution of the State to a divine origin. They are considered as deriving their authorisation from this source, and, in fact, from the highest authority which can be conceived of. These laws are the development of the conception of freedom, and this latter, reflecting itself thus upon actual existence, has the conception of freedom as it appears in religion for its foundation and truth.

To say this implies that these laws of morality, of right, are eternal and unchangeable rules for the conduct of man, that they are not arbitrary, but continue to exist so long as religion itself continues to exist. We find a general conception of this connection among all nations. It may be taken as meaning that man obeys God in the act of conforming to the laws, to the ruling authority, to the powers which hold the State together. This way of stating the matter is in one aspect correct enough, but in this form the thought is exposed to the risk of being taken in a wholly abstract sense, inasmuch as nothing is determined regarding the explanation of what is involved in the laws, nor as to what laws are fitted to form the fundamental statutes. Expressed in this formal manner, the meaning of the proposition is that men are to obey the laws whatever they may happen to be. In this way the act of governing and the giving of laws are abandoned to the caprice of the governing power. This condition of things has actually existed in Protestant States, and it is only in such States that it can be found, for it is in these that that unity of religion and the State actually


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/265

 exists. The laws of the State are regarded as rational and as having a divine character in virtue of this assumed original harmony, and religion has not principles peculiar to itself which contradict those which prevail in the State. While, however, formal principles are adhered to, free scope is given to caprice, to tyranny, and to oppression. This state of things presented itself in a marked manner in England (under the last kings of the House of Stuart) when a passive obedience was demanded, and it was an accepted principle that the ruler was responsible for his actions to God only. This also involves the assumption that it is the ruler alone who knows for certain what is essential and necessary to the State; for in him and in his will is contained the principle in its more precise form that he is an immediate revelation of God. This principle, however, when further logically developed, reaches the point at which it turns round into its direct opposite, for the distinction between priests and laymen does not exist among Protestants, and priests are not privileged to be the sole possessors of divine revelation, and still less does there exist any such privilege which can belong exclusively to a layman. To the principle of the divine authorisation of the ruler there is accordingly opposed the principle of this same authorisation which is held to be inherent in the laity in general. Thus there arose a Protestant sect in England, the members of which asserted that it had been imparted to them by revelation how the people ought to be governed, and in accordance with the directions thus received from the Lord, they raised the standard of revolt, and beheaded their king. But even supposing that the general principle at least has been established that laws exist through an act of the divine will, still there is another aspect of the matter which is just as important, namely, that we should have a rational knowledge of this divine will, and such knowledge is not anything particular or special, but belongs to all.

To know and recognise what is rational is accordingly


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/266

 the business of cultured thought, and is specially the business of philosophy, which may, perhaps, in this sense be termed worldly wisdom. It is a matter of no importance under what external form true laws have succeeded in establishing themselves, and whether they have been extorted by threats out of rulers or not; the cultivation and development of the conception of freedom, of right, of humanity, is on its own account necessary to mankind. With regard to the truth that laws are the divine will, it is therefore of the utmost moment to determine what these laws are. Principles as such are mere abstract thoughts, which only attain their truth in being unfolded and developed; held fast in their abstract state, they represent what is wholly untrue.

3. Finally, the State and religion may be severed from one another, and may have different laws. What is worldly and what is religious stand on a different basis, and a distinction in regard to principle also may make its appearance here. Religion does not merely keep to its own proper sphere, but concerns the subject too, prescribes rules in reference to his religious life, and consequently in reference to his active life also. Those rules which religion makes for the individual may be different from the fundamental principles of right and of morality which prevail in the State. The form in which this contradiction expresses itself is that the demands of religion have reference to holiness; those of the State, to right and morality: what is in view on the one side is Eternity; on the other, Time and temporal welfare, which must be sacrificed to eternal well-being. In this way a religious ideal is set up—a heaven upon earth; in other words, the abstraction of Spirit as against the substantial element of the actual world. Renunciation of this actual world is the fundamental principle which appears here, and with it appear conflict and flight. Something quite different, which is to be regarded as higher, is set in opposition to the substantial foundation, to the True.


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/267

 The primary moral relation in the substantial world of reality is marriage. The love which God is, is in the sphere of reality, conjugal love. As the primary manifestation of the substantial will in the concretely existing world, this love has a natural side; but it is a moral duty as well. To this duty, renunciation—celibacy—is opposed as something holy.

Secondly, as a unit, man has to engage in a conflict with the necessity of nature; for him it is a moral law, that he should render himself independent by means of his activity and understanding, for in his natural aspect man is dependent on many sides. By his spiritual nature, by his sense of honesty, he is placed under the necessity of earning his livelihood, and thus setting himself free from that necessity of nature. This is man’s honesty or integrity. A religious duty which has been placed in opposition to this worldly one requires that man should not exercise activity in this fashion, and should not trouble himself with such cares as these. The entire sphere of action, of all that activity which connects itself with gain, with industries, and such like, is consequently abandoned. Man is not to take to do with such ends. Want, however, is more rational here than such religious views. On the one side the activity of man is represented here as something unholy; on the other, it is even demanded of him, if he have a possession, not only that he should not increase it by his activity, but that he should give it away to the poor, and especially to the Church—that is to say, to those who do nothing, do not work. Thus, what in life is highly esteemed as integrity is consequently repudiated as unholy.

Thirdly, the highest morality in the State is based upon the carrying into effect of the rational universal will; in the State the subject possesses his freedom, this being realised or actualised in the State. In opposition to this a religious duty is set up, in accordance with which man is not permitted to make freedom his object and end. On the contrary, he


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/268

 is to subject himself to a strict obedience; he is to abide in the condition of will-lessness; and more than this, he is to be selfless in his conscience too; in his faith, in his deeper inner life, he is to renounce himself and cast away his self.

When religion lays its arrest on the active life of man in this manner, it can prescribe peculiar rules to him which are in opposition to the rationality of the world. In contrast to this action of religion, worldly wisdom, which recognises the element of truth in the sphere of reality, makes its appearance, the principles of its freedom are awakened in the consciousness of the Spirit, and here the demands of freedom are seen to enter into conflict with the religious principles which required that renunciation. Such is the relation in which religion and the State stand toward one another in Catholic States when subjective freedom awakes in men.

In connection with this contradiction, religion expresses itself in a negative way only, and requires of man that he should renounce all freedom; put in a more definite form, this contradiction means that man in his actual or secular consciousness generally is essentially without rights, and religion recognises no absolute rights in the domain of actual or secular morality. So enormous is the change which has in consequence of this made its appearance in the modern world, that it is even asked whether the freedom of man is to be recognised as something which is really and essentially true, or whether it may be repudiated by religion.

It has been stated already that it is possible that there should be harmony between religion and the State. This is the case in a general sense in Protestant States so far as the principle is concerned, though indeed the harmony is of an abstract kind; for Protestantism demands that a man should only believe what he knows, that his conscience should be regarded as a holy thing that is not to be touched or interfered with. In connection with the working of divine grace man is no passive being; he


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/269

 plays an essential part, and co-operates with God by exercising his subjective freedom, and in his acts of knowing, willing, and believing, the presence of the moment of subjective freedom is expressly required. In States where different religions prevail, it may happen, on the other hand, that the two sides do not agree, that the religion is different from the principle of the State. We see this to be the case over a very widely extended area: we find, on the one side, a religion which does not recognise the principle of freedom; on the other, a constitution which makes that principle its basis. If it be said that man is in his true nature free, then this certainly expresses a principle of infinite value. But if an abstraction of this kind be adhered to, it effectually prevents the development of any kind of organically-constituted government, for this demands a systematic organisation in which duties and rights are limited. That abstraction permits of no inequality, and inequality there must necessarily be if an organism, and with it true vitality, are to exist.

Such principles as these are true, but they must not be taken in their abstract meaning. The knowledge of the truth that man is free in virtue of his real nature, that is, in virtue of his true conception, belongs to modern times. Now whether the abstraction be adhered to or not, it may in either case happen that to these principles a religion stands opposed, which does not acknowledge them, but regards them as illegitimate, and holds that freewill or caprice alone is legitimate. This necessarily gives rise to a conflict which does not permit of adjustment in a true way. Religion demands the annulling of the will; the worldly principle, on the contrary, takes it for its starting-point. If such religious principles succeed in establishing themselves, it cannot but happen that the government should proceed by force and suppress the religion which is thus opposed to it, or else treat those who belong to it as a faction. Religion, in the form of the Church, may indeed act discreetly here, and be


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/270

 compliant, but in such a case the feeling of inconsistency enters into the minds of men. The community clings to a definite religion, and cleaves at the same time to principles which are in opposition to it; in so far as people carry these out, while at the same time they wish to continue to belong to that definite religion, they are guilty of great inconsistency. Thus for example, the French who hold fast to the principle of worldly freedom, have as a matter of fact ceased to belong to the Catholic religion, for that religion can relinquish nothing, but consistently demands unconditional submission to the Church in everything. In this way religion and the State come to be in contradiction to each other, and religion is in this case left to get along how it can. It passes for being something which is merely the affair of individuals, about which the State has no occasion to concern itself; and then it is further asserted that religion is not to be mixed up with the constitution of the State. The laying down of those principles of freedom goes on the assumption that they are true because they are in essential connection with the inmost consciousness of man. If, however, it be really reason which finds these principles, the verification it gives of them, so far as they are true and do not remain formal, consists in this only, that it traces them up to the rational knowledge of absolute truth, and this is just the object of philosophy. This tracing up, however, must be accomplished in a complete manner, and carried to the ultimate point of analysis; for if rational knowledge does not attain completeness in itself, it runs the risk of becoming the one-sidedness of formalism; but if it penetrate to the ultimate ground, it reaches that which is recognised as the Highest—as God. It may perhaps be affirmed with regard to this, that the constitution of the State ought to remain on the one side, and religion on the other. But here there is a danger that such principles may remain infected with one-sidedness.


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/271

 At the present day we see the world full of the principle of freedom, and we see that principle brought into special relation with the constitution of the State. These principles are correct, but when infected with formalism they are assumptions or presuppositions, since rational knowledge or cognition has not penetrated to the ultimate ground. It is there alone that reconciliation with what is absolutely Substantial is to be found.

The other aspect of the matter which falls to be considered in connection with the separation just spoken of is this—that if the principles of actual freedom are made the basis, and these develop into a system of Right, then, given positive laws consequently come into existence and these acquire the general form of judicial laws in relation to individuals. The upholding of the existing legislation is handed over to the courts of justice; whoever transgresses the law is brought up for trial, and the existence of the community as a whole is made to rest on laws in this legal form. Over against this, however, stands that subjective conviction, that inner life which is the very home of religion. In this way two sides, both of which pertain to the actual world, are mutually opposed, namely, positive legislation, and the subjective disposition or feeling in reference to this legislation.

As regards the constitution of the State, there are two systems here—the modern system in which the essential characteristics of freedom and its whole structure are upheld in a formal manner to the disregard of subjective conviction. The other system is that of subjective conviction—which represents, speaking generally, the Greek principle, and which we find developed in a special way in the Republic of Plato. Here simply a few orders constitute the foundation, while the State as a whole is based upon education, upon culture, which is to advance to science and philosophy. Philosophy is to be the ruling power, and by means of it man is to be led to morality: all orders are to be partakers of the σωφροσύνη.


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/272

 The two sides—the subjective conviction and that formal constitution—are inseparable, and neither can do without the other; but in recent times a one-sided view has made its appearance, according to which the constitution is to be self-sustaining, and subjective disposition or private conviction, religion, conscience, are to be set aside as matters of indifference, it being no concern of the government what may be the sentiments or private convictions of individuals, or what form of religion they profess. How one-sided this is, however, is clearly seen when we consider that the administration of the laws is in the hands of judges, and hence everything depends upon their uprightness, as also upon their insight, for the law does not rule, but men have to make it rule. This carrying of the law into effect is something concrete; the will of men, and their power of insight, too, must contribute their share. The intelligence of the individual must therefore often decide, because although civil laws are very comprehensive, yet they cannot touch each special case. But subjective conviction by itself is onesided, too, and the Republic of Plato suffers from the defect which this implies. At the present day men will not rely at all upon intelligence, but insist on everything being deduced in accordance with positive laws. A striking example of this one-sidedness has been given us in connection with the most recent contemporary history. We have seen a religious sentiment or conviction taking its place at the head of the French Government, a conviction for which the State generally was something illegitimate and devoid of rights, while it itself took up an antagonistic attitude to all that was actually established, to justice, and morality. The last revolution was thus the result of the dictates of a religious conscience, which contradicted the principles of the constitution, and yet, according to that same constitution, it is not of any importance what religion individuals may profess. The two elements which


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/273

 this collision are still very far from being brought into harmony.

This private sentiment or subjective conviction does not necessarily assume the form of religion; it may also continue in a more indefinite state. But amongst what we call “the people,” ultimate truth does not exist in the form of thought and principles. On the contrary, what will pass with the people as right or justice can hold this position only in so far as it has a definite, special character. Now this definite character of justice and morality has its ultimate verification for a people only in the form of an actually existing religion, and if this last is not essentially in harmony with the principles of freedom, there is always present a rent, and an unresolved division or dualism,—an antagonistic relation which ought not to exist in the State, of all places. Under Robespierre terror reigned in France, and this “terror” was directed against those who did not hold the sentiments of freedom, because they had fallen under suspicion—that is to say, because of the existence of this conviction or sentiment. In the same way the Ministry of Charles X. fell under suspicion. According to the formal principles of the constitution, the monarch was responsible to no one, but this formal principle did not hold its ground, and the dynasty was hurled from the throne. It thus becomes evident that even in the formally-matured constitution the ultimate sheet-anchor is still the general sentiment or feeling which has been put on one side in that constitution, and which now asserts itself in contempt of all form. It is from this contradiction, and from the prevailing insensibility to it, that our age is suffering.

Transition to the Following Section.

We have distinguished definite, limited worship from worship in the element of freedom, and thus have found


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/274

 the same distinction which is, in fact, involved in the idea of God.

The two aspects of Spirit—of Spirit in its objectivity, when it is pre-eminently known as God, and of Spirit in its subjectivity,—constitute the reality of the absolute notion or conception of God, who, as the absolute unity of these His two moments, is Absolute Spirit. The determinate character of any one of these aspects corresponds with the other aspect; it is the all-pervading universal form in which the Idea is found, and which again constitutes one stage in the totality of its development.

As regards these stages of realisation, the following general distinction has already been established in what has gone before, namely, that according to the one form of reality, Spirit is confined to a certain specific form in which its Being and self-consciousness appear, while according to the other, again, it is its absolute reality, in which it has the developed content of the Idea of Spirit as its object. This form of reality is the true religion.

In accordance with this distinction, definite religion will in the following section be treated of first of all.


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/275

 PART II

DEFINITE RELIGION


text: Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/276


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/277

 PART II

DEFINITE RELIGION

DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT

we speak of definite religion, it is implied, in the first place, that religion generally is taken as a genus, and the definite religions as species. This relation of genus to species is, from one point of view, quite legitimate, as, for instance, when in other sciences we pass over from the universal to the particular; but there the particular is only understood in an empirical manner; it is a matter of experience that this or the other animal, this or that kind of justice exists. In philosophical science it is not allowable to proceed in this way. The particular cannot advance towards the universal; on the contrary, it is the universal itself which resolves upon determination, upon particularisation; the Notion differentiates itself, makes a determination which originates with itself or is its own act. Simultaneously with determinateness in general, existence or definite Being and essential connection with an “Other” are posited. That which is determined is for an “Other,” and what is undetermined is not there at all. That for which religion exists—the definite existence of religion—is consciousness. Religion has its reality as consciousness. What is to be understood by the realisation of the Notion is that the content is determined by means of it, both as regards the fact and the manner of its existence for consciousness. Our course of procedure is as follows: We began with the consideration of the notion or conception


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/278

 of religion, of what religion implicitly is. That is what it is for us, as we have seen it. For it to attain to consciousness is, however, quite another matter. Or, to put it in other words, as we considered the conception of religion, this was our thought, it existed in the medium of our thought, we thought the conception, and it had its reality in our thought. But religion is not merely this subjective element, but is essentially objective; it has a mode of existence of its own, and the first form of this existence is that of immediacy, where religion has not as yet itself advanced to thought, to reflection. This immediacy, however, by its own onward impulse moves toward mediation, because it is potentially thought, and in true religion it becomes for the first time known what it essentially is, what its notion or conception is. True or actual religion is adequate to its notion or conception. We now have to consider the course by which true religion takes its rise. In its notion or conception religion is no religion as yet, for it is essentially present as such in consciousness only. This is the meaning of what we are here considering, namely, the self-realisation of the Notion. The progress of the realisation has been already indicated in a general way: the Notion is, as it were, a capacity in Spirit; it constitutes its inmost truth; but Spirit must attain to the knowledge of this truth; not till then does true religion become real and actual. It may be said of all religions that they are religions, and correspond with the notion or conception of religion. At the same time, however, in being still limited, they do not correspond with the notion, and yet they must contain it, or else they would not be religions. But the notion or conception is present in them in different ways. At first they contain it implicitly only. These definite religions are but particular moments of the notion, and for that very reason they do not correspond with it, for it does not exist in an actual shape in them. In like manner, man certainly is implicitly free, but Africans and


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/279

 Asiatics are not free, because they do not possess the consciousness of that which constitutes the notion or conception of man. Religion is now to be considered in its determinate character. The highest that is or can be attained to is that the determinateness should be the Notion itself, where the limits are therefore annulled, and the religious consciousness is not distinguished from the Notion. This is the Idea, the perfectly realised Notion, but this does not come before us until we reach the concluding division of our subject.

It has been the work of Spirit throughout thousands of years to work out the notion or conception of religion, and to make it the subject of consciousness. In this work the movement begins from immediacy and nature, and these must be overcome. Immediacy is the natural element; consciousness, however, is elevation above nature; natural consciousness is sensuous consciousness, as the natural will is passion; it is the individual which wills itself in accordance with its naturalness, its particularity—it is sensuous knowing and sensuous willing. But religion is the relation of Spirit to Spirit, the knowledge by Spirit of Spirit in its truth, and not in its immediacy or naturalness. The determination or characterisation of religion is the advance from naturalness to the notion; this latter is, to begin with, the inner element only, the true essence or potentiality, not the outer element of consciousness. Regarding this ambiguity, namely, that the notion exists primarily or originally, while at the same time its first existence is not its true primariness or originality, some further remarks will be made later.

We have first to give the division of the subject, and to indicate the particular forms of these definite religions which have to be considered. To begin with, however, this must be done in a general manner only.

The sphere we have first to deal with contains, accordingly, definite religion, which, so far as its content is concerned, does not as yet go beyond determinateness.


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/280

 In the active process of emerging from immediacy, we do not yet find the freedom which has been truly conquered, but only liberation, which is still entangled in that from which it frees itself.

What we have now to consider first is the form of natural, immediate religion. In this primal natural religion consciousness is still natural consciousness, the consciousness of sensuous desire. It is thus immediate. Here there does not as yet exist any division of consciousness within itself, for this division or dualism implies that consciousness distinguishes its sensuous nature from what belongs to its essential Being, so that the natural is known only as mediated through the Essential. It is here that it first becomes possible for religion to originate.

In connection with this rising up to the Essential we have to consider the conception of this exaltation in general. Here the object is defined in a positive way, and this true element from which consciousness distinguishes itself is God. This exaltation or rising up is exactly what appears in a more abstract form in the proofs of the existence of God. In all these proofs there is one and the same exaltation; it is only the point of departure and the nature of this Essence which are different. But this rising up to God, however it may be defined, is only the one side. The other is the reverse process. God, in whatever way He may be defined, brings Himself into relation with the subject which has thus lifted itself. Here then comes in the question as to the manner in which the subject is characterised or defined; it, however, knows that it itself is what God is determined to be.

The conscious turning of the subject toward this Essence has to be treated of likewise, and this introduces the aspect of Worship,—the close union of the subject with its Essence.

The division of the subject takes, therefore, the following form:—


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/281

 1. Natural Religion.—This is the unity of the spiritual and natural, and God is here conceived of in this aspect as yet natural unity. Man in his immediacy represents merely sensuous natural knowledge and natural volition. In so far as the moment of religion is contained in this, and the moment of elevation is still shut up within the natural state, there is something present which is to be regarded as higher than anything merely immediate. This is magic.

2. We have the division or dualism of consciousness within itself. This implies that consciousness knows itself to be something merely natural, and distinguishes from this the True, the Essential, in which this naturalness, this finiteness has no value, and is known to be a nullity. While in natural religion Spirit still lives in neutrality with nature, God is now defined as the absolute Power or Substance in which natural will—the subject—is something transient, accidental, selfless, and devoid of freedom. Here it is man’s highest dignity that he should know himself to be a nullity.

At first, however, elevation of spirit above the natural is not carried through in a consistent manner. On the contrary, there is still a frightful inconsistency here, as is shown in the way in which the different spiritual and natural powers are mixed up with one another. This intrinsically inconsistent elevation has an historical existence in the three Oriental religions of Substance.

3. But the entanglement of the natural and spiritual leads to the conflict of subjectivity, for the latter seeks to reinstate itself in its unity and universality, and this conflict again has had its historical existence in three religions, which constitute the religions of the transition to the stage of free subjectivity. Since, however, in these too, as well as in the previous stages, Spirit has not as yet completely subjected the natural element to itself, they constitute, together with the preceding ones, the sphere—


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/282

 A.

OF THE RELIGION OF NATURE.

In contrast with this, the second stage of definite religion, at which the elevation of Spirit is carried through in a consistent manner in relation to the natural element, is—

B.

THE RELIGION OF SPIRITUAL INDIVIDUALITY OR OF FREE SUBJECTIVITY.

It is here that the spiritual independent existence of the subject begins. Here thought is what rules and determines, and the element of naturalness being merely a moment preserved within the process, is degraded to the state of what is a mere show or semblance, and is regarded as something which is accidental relatively to the Substantial. Its relation to the latter is such that it is only natural life, material form for the subject, or, in other words, is under the absolute determination of the subject.

And here again, too, we get three forms:—

1. Inasmuch as the spiritual being-for-self or independent existence thus brings itself into prominence, it is that which is held fast as reflection into itself, and as negation of the natural unity. There is thus One God only who is in thought, and natural life is merely a posited life, standing as such over against Him, having no substantial character of its own in relation to Him, and existing only through the Essence of thought. This is the spiritually One, God, who is in Himself eternally unchangeable, in relation to whom what is of nature, of the world, of the finite generally, is posited as something having an unessential character, and devoid of substantiality. But this God thereby openly shows Himself, since it is only by the positing of the unessential that


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/283

 He is the essential, since it is only through that positing that He even is at all; and this unessential, this semblance or show of existence, is not a manifestation of Him. This is the Religion of Sublimity.

2. The Natural and the Spiritual are united, still they are not in immediate union, but in a unity which implies that the Spiritual is what determines, and is so united with the bodily element that this last does not stand over against it, but is merely an organ, is its expression, in which it outwardly presents itself. This is the religion of divine outward manifestation, of divine corporeality, materiality, naturalness, and this is of such a kind that it is the appearing of subjectivity, or else the self-manifestation of subjectivity is present in it, not appearing for others only, but appearing to itself. Thus this spiritual individuality is not the limitless individuality of pure thought; it has a spiritual character only. Thus on the one hand the Natural is, as it were, the body of the Spiritual, and owing to the fact that the Spiritual thus makes use of a body, the subject is on the other hand determined as finite. This is the Religion of Beauty.

In the religion of sublimity the one God is the Lord, and individuals stand related to Him as servants. In the religion of beauty, too, the subject has purified itself from its mere immediate knowing and willing, but it has also retained its will and knows itself as free, and knows itself thus because it has completed the negation of its natural will, and as moral has a free affirmative relation to God. But the subject has not as yet passed through the consciousness, and through the opposition of good and evil, and so is still affected with naturalness. If, therefore, the religion of beauty forms the stage of reconciliation as contrasted with the sphere of sublimity, this reconciliation is still immediate reconciliation, because it is not yet mediated through consciousness of the opposition.

3. The religion in which the notion, the independent,


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/284

 self-determined, concrete content, has its beginning, and is the end or purpose which the universal powers of nature or the gods of the religion of beauty serve, is the Religion of External Utility or Conformity to an End. We have here a concrete content which comprises determinate characteristics within itself, implying that the hitherto separate individual powers are made subservient to one single end or purpose. The particular subject has hitherto been something other than these divine powers; these constitute the divine content generally, and the particular subject is human consciousness, the finite end. The divine content is now of use to that culminating point of subjectivity which was wanting to the content in the religion of beauty, as a means whereby it can fully develop itself. Thus the form under which religion here presents itself is that of outward finite purpose, or adaptation to an end. The idea of Spirit determines itself on its own account and by its own act; it is clearly itself the end, and this end is just the notion or conception of Spirit, the notion which realises itself. Here the Spiritual too is an end, has the intrinsically concrete determinations within itself, but here too these are still finite and represent a limited end, which consequently is not as yet the relation of Spirit to itself. In its gods the particular spirit seeks its own subjective end only; it seeks itself, not the absolute content.

The religion of utility or adaptation to an end, in which an end is posited in God, though not yet as the absolute end, may also be called the Religion of Fate, because that end itself is not as yet a pure spiritual end, but is in its form as a particular end forthwith posited in God. This particular end, when treated thus, is void of rational character as against other ends which would have just as much right to exist as it.

This division of the subject must not be taken in a merely subjective sense; it is, on the contrary, the necessary one in the objective sense of the nature of Spirit. Spirit,


text:
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 1.djvu/285

 in the particular form in which it appears in religion, is first of all natural religion. What next takes place is that reflection enters, Spirit becomes free within itself, becomes the subjective generally, which notwithstanding issues out of the unity of nature, and is still related to it. This is conditioned freedom. The third stage is represented by the willing of Spirit to determine itself within itself, and this accordingly appears in the form of an end, of adaptation to an end on its own account. This, too, is at first still finite and limited. Such are the fundamental determinations, which are the moments or stages of the development of the Notion, and at the same time of concrete development.

These stages may be compared to those of the ages of man. The child is still in the primal immediate unity of the will with nature, as representing both his own nature and the nature which surrounds him. The second stage, adolescence, when individuality is in process of becoming independent, is the living spirituality, the vitality of Spirit, which, while setting no end before it as yet, moves forward, has aspirations, and takes an interest in everything which comes in its way. The third is the age of manhood; this is the period of work for a particular end, to which the man makes himself subservient, to which he devotes his energies. Finally, old age might be considered as a last stage, which having the Universal before it as an end, and recognising this end, has turned back from the particular interests of life and work to the universal aim, the absolute final end, and has, as it were, gathered itself together out of the wide and manifold interests of actual outward existence and concentrated itself in the infinite depths of its inner life. Such are the determinations which follow in a logical manner from the nature of the Notion. At the close it will become apparent that even the original immediacy does not exist as immediacy, but is something posited. The child itself is something begotten.