The Essence of Christianity

112

Th. xvi. p. 490.

113

“Because God has given us his Son, he has with him given us everything, whether it be called devil, sin, hell, heaven, righteousness, life; all, all must be ours, because the Son is ours as a gift, in whom all else is included.” – Luther (Th. xv. p. 311). “The best part of the resurrection has already happened; Christ, the head of all Christendom, has passed through death and risen from the dead. Moreover, the most excellent part of me, my soul, has likewise passed through death, and is with Christ in the heavenly being. What harm, then, can death and the grave do me?” – Luther (Th. xvi. p. 235). “A Christian man has equal power with Christ, has fellowship with him and a common tenure.” (Th. xiii. p. 648.) “Whoever cleaves to Christ has as much as he.” (Th. xvi. p. 574.)

114

This exhibits clearly the untruthfulness and vanity of the modern speculations concerning the personality of God. If you are not ashamed of a personal God, do not be ashamed of a corporeal God. An abstract colourless personality, a personality without flesh and blood, is an empty shade.

115

Concordienb. Erklär. Art. 8.

116

This was excellently shown by Faustus Socinus. See his Defens. Animadv. in Assert. Theol. Coll. Posnan. de trino et uno Deo. Irenopoli, 1656, c. 11.

117

Let the reader examine, with reference to this, the writings of the Christian orthodox theologians against the heterodox; for example, against the Socinians. Modern theologians, indeed, agree with the latter, as is well known, in pronouncing the divinity of Christ as accepted by the Church to be unbiblical; but it is undeniably the characteristic principle of Christianity, and even if it does not stand in the Bible in the form which is given to it by dogma, it is nevertheless a necessary consequence of what is found in the Bible. A being who is the fulness of the Godhead bodily, who is omniscient (John xvi. 30) and almighty (raises the dead, works miracles), who is before all things, both in time and rank, who has life in himself (though an imparted life) like as the Father has life in himself, – what, if we follow out the consequences, can such a being be, but God? “Christ is one with the Father in will;” – but unity of will presupposes unity of nature. “Christ is the ambassador, the representative of God;” – but God can only be represented by a divine being. I can only choose as my representative one in whom I find the same or similar qualities as in myself; otherwise I belie myself.

118

“How much better is it that I should lose the whole world than that I should lose God, who created the world, and can create innumerable worlds, who is better than a hundred thousand, than innumerable worlds? For what sort of a comparison is that of the temporal with the eternal?.. One soul is better than the whole world.” – Luther (Th. xix. p. 21).

119

It is true that the heathen philosophers also, as Plato, Socrates, the Stoics (see e. g. J. Lipsius, Physiol. Stoic. l. i. diss. xi.), believed that the divine providence extended not merely to the general, but also to the particular, the individual; but they identified providence with Nature, law, necessity. The Stoics, who were the orthodox speculatists of heathenism, did indeed believe in miracles wrought by providence (Cic. de Nat. Deor. l. ii. and De Divinat. l. i.); but their miracles had no such supranaturalistic significance as those of Christianity, though they also appealed to the supranaturalistic axiom: “Nihil est quod Deus efficere non possit.”

120

“Dicimur amare et Deus; dicimur nosse et Deus. Et multa in hunc modum. Sed Deus amat ut charitas, novit ut veritas, etc.” – Bernard, (de Consider. l. v.).

121

It is true that in one sense the individual is the absolute – in the phraseology of Leibnitz, the mirror of the universe, of the infinite. But in so far as there are many individuals, each is only a single, and, as such, a finite mirror of the infinite. It is true also, in opposition to the abstraction of a sinless man, that each individual regarded in himself is perfect, and only by comparison imperfect, for each is what alone he can be.

122

With the Hindoos (Inst. of Menu) he alone is “a perfect man who consists of three united persons, his wife, himself, and his son. For man and wife, and father and son, are one.” The Adam of the Old Testament also is incomplete without woman; he feels his need of her. But the Adam of the New Testament, the Christian, heavenly Adam, the Adam who is constituted with a view to the destruction of this world, has no longer any sexual impulses or functions.

123

“Hæ sane vires amicitiæ mortis contemptum ingenerare … potuerunt: quibus pene tantum venerationis, quantum Deorum immortalium ceremoniis debetur. Illis enim publica salus, his privata continetur.” – Valerius Max. l. iv. c. 7.

124

“The life for God is not this natural life, which is subject to decay… Ought we not then to sigh after future things, and be averse to all these temporal things?.. Wherefore we should find consolation in heartily despising this life and this world, and from our hearts sigh for and desire the future honour and glory of eternal life.” – Luther (Th. i. s. 466, 467).

125

“Eo dirigendus est spiritus, quo aliquando est iturus.” – Meditat. Sacræ Joh. Gerhardi. Med. 46.

126

“Affectanti cœlestia, terrena non sapiunt. Æternis inhianti, fastidio sunt transitoria.” – Bernard. (Epist. Ex Persona Heliæ Monachi ad Parentes). “Nihil nostra refert in hoc ævo, nisi de eo quam celeriter excedere.” – Tertullian (Apol. adv. Gentes, c. 41). “Wherefore a Christian man should rather be advised to bear sickness with patience, yea, even to desire that death should come, – the sooner the better. For, as St. Cyprian says, nothing is more for the advantage of a Christian than soon to die. But we rather listen to the pagan Juvenal when he says: ‘Orandum est ut sit mens sana in corpore sano.’” – Luther (Th. iv. s. 15).

127

“Ille perfectus est qui mente et corpore a seculo est elongatus.” – De Modo Bene Vivendi ad Sororem, s. vii. (Among the spurious writings of St. Bernard.)

128

On this subject see “Hieronymus, de Vita Pauli Primi Eremitæ.”

129

Naturally Christianity had only such power when, as Jerome writes to Demetrius, Domini nostri adhuc calebat cruor et fervebat recens in credentibus fides. See also on this subject G. Arnold. —Von der ersten Christen Genügsamkeit u. Verschmähung alles Eigennutzes, l. c. B. iv. c. 12, § 7–16.

130

How far otherwise the ancient Christians! “Difficile, imo impossibile est, ut et præsentibus quis et futuris fruatur bonis.” – Hieronymus (Epist. Juliano). “Delicatus es, frater, si et hic vis gaudere cum seculo et postea regnare cum Christo.” – Ib. (Epist. ad Heliodorum). “Ye wish to have both God and the creature together, and that is impossible. Joy in God and joy in the creature cannot subsist together.” – Tauler (ed. c. p. 334). But they were abstract Christians. And we live now in the age of conciliation. Yes, truly!

131

“Perfectum autem esse nolle delinquere est.” – Hieronymus (Epist. ad Heliodorum de laude Vitæ solit.). Let me observe once for all that I interpret the biblical passages concerning marriage in the sense in which they have been interpreted by the history of Christianity.

132

“The marriage state is nothing new or unwonted, and is lauded and held good even by heathens according to the judgment of reason.” – Luther (Th. ii. p. 377a).

133

“Præsumendum est hos qui intra paradisum recipi volunt debere cessare ab ea re, a qua paradisus intactus est.” – Tertullian (de Exhort. cast. c. 13). “Cœlibatus angelorum est imitatio.” – Jo. Damasceni (Orthod. Fidei, l. iv. c. 25).

134

“Quæ non nubit, soli Deo dat operam et ejus cura non dividitur; pudica autem, quæ nupsit, vitam cum Deo et cum marito dividit.” – Clemens Alex. (Pædag. l. ii.).

135

Thomas à Kempis de Imit. (l. ii. c. 7, c. 8, l. iii. c. 5, c. 34, c. 53, c. 59). “Felix illa conscientia et beata virginitas, in cujus corde præter amorem Christi … nullus alius versatur amor.” – Hieronymus (Demetriadi, Virgini Deo consecratæ).

136

“Divisa est … mulier et virgo. Vide quantæ felicitatis sit, quæ et nomen sexus amiserit. Virgo jam mulier non vocatur.” – Hieronymus (adv. Helvidium de perpet. Virg. p. 14. Th. ii. Erasmus).

137

This may be expressed as follows: Marriage has in Christianity only a moral, no religious significance, no religious principle and exemplar. It is otherwise with the Greeks, where, for example, “Zeus and Here are the great archetype of every marriage” (Creuzer, Symbol.); with the ancient Parsees, where procreation, as “the multiplication of the human race, is the diminution of the empire of Ahriman,” and thus a religious art and duty (Zend-Avesta); with the Hindoos, where the son is the regenerated father. Among the Hindoos no regenerate man could assume the rank of a Sanyassi, that is, of an anchorite absorbed in God, if he had not previously paid three debts, one of which was that he had had a legitimate son. Amongst the Christians, on the contrary, at least the Catholics, it was a true festival of religious rejoicing when betrothed or even married persons – supposing that it happened with mutual consent – renounced the married state and sacrificed conjugal to religious love.

138

Inasmuch as the religious consciousness restores everything which it begins by abolishing, and the future life is ultimately nothing else than the present life re-established, it follows that sex must be re-established. “Erunt … similes angelorum. Ergo homines non desinent … ut apostolus apostolus sit et Maria Maria.” – Hieronymus (ad Theodorum Viduam). But as the body in the other world is an incorporeal body, so necessarily the sex there is one without difference, i. e., a sexless sex.

139

“Bene dicitur, quod tunc plene videbimus eum sicuti est, cum similes ei erimus, h. e. erimus quod ipse est. Quibus enim potestas data est filios Dei fieri, data est potestas, non quidem ut sint Deus, sed sint tamen quod Deus est: sint sancti, futuri plene beati, quod Deus est. Nec aliunde hic sancti. nec ibi futuri beati, quam ex Deo qui eorum et sanctitas et beatitudo est.” – De Vita solitar a (among the spurious writings of St. Bernard). “Finis autem bonæ voluntatis beatitudo est: vita æterna ipse Deus.” – Augustin. (ap. Petrus Lomb. l. ii. dist. 38, c. 1). “The other man will be renovated in the spiritual life, i.e., will become a spiritual man, when he shall be restored into the image of God. For he will be like God, in life, in righteousness, glory, and wisdom.” – Luther (Th. i. p. 324).

140

“Si bonum est habere corpus incorruptible, quare hoc facturum Deum volumus dasperere?” – Augustinus (Opp. Antwerp, 1700, Th. v. p. 698).

141

“Quare dicitur spiritale corpus, nisi quia ad nutum spiritus serviet? Nihil tibi contradicet ex te, nihil in te rebellabit adversus te… Ubi volueris, eris… Credere enim debemus talia corpora nos habituros, ut ubi velimus, quando voluerimus, ibi simus.” – Augustinus (l. c. pp. 703, 705). “Nihil indecorum ibi erit, summma pax erit, nihil discordans, nihil montruosum, nihil quod offendat adspectum” (l. c. 707). “Nisi beatus, non vivit ut vult.” (De Civ. Dei, l. 14, c. 25.)

142

And their conceptions of God are just as heterogeneous. The pious Germans have a German God, the pious Spaniards a Spanish God, the French a French God. The French actually have the proverb: “Le bon Dieu est Français.” In fact, polytheism must exist so long as there are various nations. The real God of a people is the point d’honneur of its nationality.

143

“Ibi nostra spes erit res.” – Augustin. “Therefore we have the first fruits of immortal life in hope, until perfection comes at the last day, wherein we shall see and feel the life we have believed in and hoped for.” – Luther (Th. i. s. 459).

144

According to old books of travel, however, there are many tribes which do not believe that the future is identical with the present, or that it is better, but that it is even worse. Parny (Œuv. Chois. t. i. Melang.) tells of a dying negro-slave who refused the inauguration to immortality by baptism in these words: “Je ne veux point d’une autre vie, car peut-être y serais-je encore votre esclave.”

145

Ahlwardt (Ossian Anm. zu Carthonn.).

146

There everything will be restored. “Qui modo vivit, erit, nec me vel dente, vel ungue fraudatum revomet patefacti fossa sepulchri.” – Aurelius Prud. (Apotheos. de Resurr. Carnis Hum.). And this faith, which you consider rude and carnal, and which you therefore disavow, is the only consistent, honest, and true faith. To the identity of the person belongs the identity of the body.

147

“Neque enim post resurrectionem tempus diebus ac noctibus numerabitur. Erit magis una dies sine vespere.” – Joh. Damascen. (Orth. Fidei l. ii. c. 1).

148

“Ipsum (corpus) erit et non ipsum erit.” – Augustinus (v. J. Ch. Doederlein, Inst. Theol. Christ. Altorf, 1781, § 280).

149

“Præter salutem tuam nihil cogites; solum quæ Dei sunt cures.” – Thomas à K. (de Imit. l. i. c. 23). “Contra salutem proprium cogites nihil. Minus dixi: contra, præter dixisse debueram.” – Bernhardus (de Consid. ad Eugenium Pontif. Max. l. ii.). “Qui Deum quærit, de propria salute sollicitus est.” – Clemens Alex. (Cohort. ad Gent.).

150

Here and in other parts of this work, theory is taken in the sense in which it is the source of true objective activity, – the science which gives birth to art, – for man can do only so much as he knows: “tantum potest quantum scit.”

151

Concerning the biblical conceptions of Satan, his power and works, see Lützelberger’s “Grundzüge der Paulinischen Glaubenslehre,” and G. Ch. Knapp’s “Vorles. über d. Christl. Glaubensl.,” § 62–65. To this subject belongs demoniacal possession, which also has its attestation in the Bible. See Knapp (§ 65, iii. 2, 3).

152

Doubtless, this unveiling of the mystery of predestination will be pronounced atrocious, impious, diabolical. I have nothing to allege against this; I would rather be a devil in alliance with truth, than an angel in alliance with falsehood.

153

A kindred doctrine is that of the Concursus Dei, according to which, God not only gives the first impulse, but also co-operates in the agency of the second cause. For the rest, this doctrine is only a particular form of the contradictory dualism between God and Nature, which runs through the history of Christianity. On the subject of this remark, as of the whole paragraph, see Strauss: Die Christliche Glaubenslehre, B. ii. § 75, 76.

154

“Dum sumus in hoc corpore, peregrinamur ab eo qui summe est.” – Bernard. Epist. 18 (ed. Basle, 1552). “As long as we live, we are in the midst of death.” – Luther (Th. i. p. 331). The idea of the future life is therefore nothing else than the idea of true, perfected religion, freed from the limits and obstructions of this life, – the future life, as has been already said, nothing but the true opinion and disposition, the open heart, of religion. Here we believe – there we behold; i. e., there there is nothing besides God, and thus nothing between God and the soul; but only for this reason, that there ought to be nothing between them, because the immediate union of God and the soul is the true opinion and desire of religion. “We have as yet so to do with God as with one hidden from us, and it is not possible that in this life we should hold communion with him face to face. All creatures are now nothing else than vain masks, under which God conceals himself, and by which he deals with us.” – Luther (Th. xi. p. 70). “If thou wert only free from the images of created things, thou mightest have God without intermission.” – Tauler (l. c. p. 313).

155

“Voluntate igitur Dei immobilis manet et stat in seculum terra … et voluntate Dei movetur et nutat. Non ergo fundamentis suis nixa subsistit, nec fulcris suis stabilis perseverat, sed Dominus statuit eam et firmamento voluntatis suæ continet, quia in manu ejus omnes fines terræ.” – Ambrosius (Hexæmeron. l. i. c. 61).

156

It is only unbelief in the efficacy of prayer which has subtly limited prayer to spiritual matters.

157

According to the notion of barbarians, therefore, prayer is a coercive power, a charm. But this conception is an unchristian one (although even among many Christians the idea is accepted that prayer constrains God); for in Christianity God is essentially feeling satisfied in itself, Almighty goodness, which denies nothing to (religious) feeling. The idea of coercion presupposes an unfeeling God.

158

“Natura enim remota providentia et potestate divina prorsus nihil est.” – Lactantius (Div. Inst. lib. 3, c. 28). “Omnia quæ creata sunt, quamvis ea Deus fecerit valde bona, Creatori tamen comparata, nec bona sunt, cui comparata nec sunt; altissime quippe et proprio modo quodam de se ipso dixit: Ego sum, qui sum.” – Augustinus (de Perfectione Just. Hom. c. 14).

159

“Pulchras formas et varias, nitidos et amœnos colores amant oculi. Non teneant hæc animam meam; teneat eam Deus qui hæc fecit, bona quidem valde, sed ipse est bonum meum, non hæc.” – Augustinus (Confess. l. x. c. 34). “Vetiti autem sumus (2 Cor. iv. 18.) converti ad ea quæ videntur… Amandus igitur solus Deus est: omnis vero iste mundus, i. e. omnia sensibilia contemnenda, utendum autem his ad hujus vitæ necessitatem.” – Ib. de Moribus Eccl. Cathol. l. i. c. 20.

160

At the same time, however, their result is to prove the nature of man. The various proofs of the existence of God are nothing else than various highly interesting forms in which the human nature affirms itself. Thus, for example, the physico-theological proof (or proof from design) is the self-affirmation of the calculated activity of the understanding. Every philosophic system is, in this sense, a proof of the existence of God.

161

“Christ is ascended on high, … that is, he not only sits there above, but he is also here below. And he is gone thither to the very end that he might be here below, and fill all things, and be in all places, which he could not do while on earth, for here he could not be seen by all bodily eyes. Therefore he sits above, where every man can see him, and he has to do with every man.” – Luther (Th. xiii. p. 643). That is to say: Christ or God is an object, an existence, of the imagination; in the imagination he is limited to no place, – he is present and objective to every one. God exists in heaven, but is for that reason omnipresent; for this heaven is the imagination.

162

“Thou hast not to complain that thou art less experienced than was Abraham or Isaac. Thou also hast appearances… Thou hast holy baptism, the supper of the Lord, the bread and wine, which are figures and forms, under and in which the present God speaks to thee, and acts upon thee, in thy ears, eyes, and heart… He appears to thee in baptism, and it is he himself who baptizes thee, and speaks to thee… Everything is full of divine appearances and utterances, if he is on thy side.” – Luther (Th. ii. p. 466. See also on this subject, Th. xix. p. 407).

163

The denial of a fact is not a matter of indifference; it is something morally evil, – a disowning of what is known to be true. Christianity made its articles of faith objective, i. e., undeniable, unassailable facts, thus overpowering the reason, and taking the mind prisoner by the force of external reality: herein we have the true explanation why and how Christianity, Protestant as well as Catholic, enunciated and enforced with all solemnity the principle, that heresy – the denial of an idea or a fact which forms an article of faith – is an object of punishment by the temporal power, i. e., a crime. What in theory is an external fact becomes in practice an external force. In this respect Christianity is far below Mohammedanism, to which the crime of heresy is unknown.

164

“Præsentiam sæpe divi suam declarant.” – Cicero (de Nat. D. 1. ii.). Cicero’s works (de Nat. D. and de Divinatione) are especially interesting, because the arguments there used for the reality of the objects of pagan faith are virtually the same as those urged in the present day by theologians and the adherents of positive religion generally for the reality of the objects of Christian faith.

165

“Quod crudeliter ab hominibus sine Dei jussu fieret aut factum est, id debuit ab Hebrais fieri, quia a deo vitæ et necis summo arbitrio, jussi bellum ita gerebant.” – J. Clericus (Comm. in Mos. Num. c. 31, 7). “Multa gessit Samson, quæ vix possent defendi, nisi Dei, a quo homines pendent, instrumentum fuisse censeatur.” – Ib. (Comm. in Judicum, c. 14, 19). See also Luther, e. g. (Th. i. p. 339, Th. xvi. p. 495).

166

It was very justly remarked by the Jansenists against the Jesuits: “Vouloir reconnoitre dans l’Ecriture quelque chose de la foiblesse et de l’esprit naturel de l’homme, c’est donner la liberté à chacun d’en faire le discernment et de rejetter ce qui lui plaira de l’Ecriture, comme venant plûtot de la foiblesse de l’homme que de l’esprit de Dieu.” – Bâyle (Dict. art. Adam (Jean) Rem. E.).

167

“Nec in scriptura divina fas sit sentire aliquid contrarietatis.” – Petrus L. (l. ii. dist. ii. c. i.). Similar thoughts are found in the Fathers.

168

This is especially apparent in the superlative, and the preposition super, ὑπερ, which distinguish the divine predicates, and which very early – as, for example, with the Neo-Platonists, the Christians among heathen philosophers – played a chief part in theology.

169

“Scit itaque Deus, quanta sit multitudo pulicum, culicum, muscarum et piscium et quot nascantur, quotve moriantur, sed non scit hoc per momenta singula, imo simul et semel omnia.” – Petrus L. (l. i. dist. 39, c. 3).

170

“Qui scientem cuncta sciunt, quid nescire nequeunt?” – Liber Meditat. c. 26 (among the spurious writings of Augustine).

171

Tauler, l. c. p. 312.

172

“The closest union which Christ possessed with the Father, it is possible for me to win… All that God gave to his only-begotten Son, he has given to me as perfectly as to him.” – Predigten etzlicher Lehrer vor und zu Tauleri Zeiten. Hamburg, 1621, p. 14. “Between the only-begotten Son and the soul there is no distinction.” – Ib. p. 68.

173

“God can as little do without us as we without him.” – Predigten etzlicher Lehrer, &c., p. 16. See also on this subject – Strauss, Christl. Glaubensl. B. i. § 47, and the author’s work entitled, P. Bayle, pp. 104, 107.

174

“This temporal, transitory life in this world (i. e., natural life) we have through God, who is the almighty Creator of heaven and earth. But the eternal untransitory life we have through the Passion and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ… Jesus Christ a Lord over that life.” – Luther (Th. xvi. s. 459).