The Essence of Christianity

175

It is curious to observe how the speculative religious philosophy undertakes the defence of the Trinity against the godless understanding, and yet, by doing away with the personal substances, and explaining the relation of Father and Son as merely an inadequate image borrowed from organic life, robs the Trinity of its very heart and soul. Truly, if the cabalistic artifices which the speculative religious philosophy applies in the service of the absolute religion were admissible in favour of finite religions, it would not be difficult to squeeze the Pandora’s box of Christian dogmatics out of the horns of the Egyptian Apis. Nothing further would be needed for this purpose than the ominous distinction of the understanding from the speculative reason, – a distinction which is adapted to the justification of every absurdity.

176

The unity has not the significance of genus, not of unum but of unus. (See Augustine and Petrus Lomb. l. i. dist. 19, c. 7, 8, 9.) “Hi ergo tres, qui unum sunt propter ineffabilem conjunctionem deitatis qua ineffabiliter copulantur, unus Deus est.” (Petrus L. l. c. c. 6.) “How can reason bring itself into accord with this, or believe, that three is one and one is three?” – Luther (Th. x. iv. p. 13).

177

“Quia ergo pater Deus et filius Deus et spiritus s. Deus cur non dicuntur tres Dii? Ecce proposuit hanc propositionem (Augustinus) attende quid respondeat … Si autem dicerem: tres Deos, contradiceret scriptura dicens: Audi Israel: Deus tuus unus est. Ecce absolutio quæstionis: quare potius dicamus tres personas quam tres Deos, quia scil. illud non contradicit scriptura.” – Petrus L. (l. i. dist. 23, c. 3). How much did even Catholicism repose upon Holy Writ!

178

A truly masterly presentation of the overwhelming contradictions in which the mystery of the Trinity involves the genuine religious sentiment, is to be found in the work already cited —Theanthropos. Eine Reihe von Aphorismen– which expresses in the form of the religious sentiment what in the present work is expressed in the form of the reason; and which is therefore especially to be recommended to women.

179

“Sacramentum ejus rei similitudinem gerit, cujus signum est.” – Petrus Lomb. (l. iv. dist. 1, c. 1).

180

In relation to the miracle-worker faith (confidence in God’s aid) is certainly the causa efficiens of the miracle. (See Matt. xvii. 20; Acts vi. 8.) But in relation to the spectators of the miracle – and it is they who are in question here – miracle is the causa efficiens of faith.

181

“Here we see a miracle surpassing all miracles, that Christ should have so mercifully converted his greatest enemy.” – Luther (Th. xvi. p. 560).

182

Hence it is greatly to the honour of Luther’s understanding and sense of truth that, particularly when writing against Erasmus, he unconditionally denied the free will of man as opposed to divine grace. “The name Free Will,” says Luther, quite correctly from the standpoint of religion, “is a divine title and name, which none ought to bear but the Divine Majesty alone.” (Th. xix. p. 28).

183

Experience indeed extorted even from the old theologians, whose faith was an uncompromising one, the admission that the effects of baptism are, at least in this life, very limited. “Baptismus non aufert omnes pœnalitates hujus vitæ.” – Mezger. Theol. Schol. Th. iv. p. 251. See also Petrus L. l. iv. dist. 4, c. 4; l. ii. dist. 32, c. 1.

184

Even in the absurd fiction of the Lutherans, that “infants believe in baptism,” the action of subjectivity reduces itself to the faith of others, since the faith of infants is “wrought by God through the intercession of the god-parents and their bringing up of the children in the faith of the Christian Church.” – Luther (Th. xiii. pp. 360, 361). “Thus the faith of another helps me to obtain a faith of my own.” – Ib. (T. xiv. p. 347a).

185

“This,” says Luther, “is in summa our opinion, that in and with the bread, the body of Christ is truly eaten; thus, that all which the bread undergoes and effects, the body of Christ undergoes and effects; that it is divided, eaten and chewed with the teeth propter unionem, sacramentalem.” (Plank’s Gesch. der Entst. des protest. Lehrbeg. B. viii. s. 369). Elsewhere, it is true, Luther denies that the body of Christ, although it is partaken of corporeally, “is chewed and digested like a piece of beef.” (Th. xix. p. 429.) No wonder; for that which is partaken of is an object without objectivity, a body without corporeality, flesh without the qualities of flesh; “spiritual flesh,” as Luther says, i. e., imaginary flesh. Be it observed further, that the Protestants also take the Lord’s Supper fasting, but this is merely a custom with them, not a law. (See Luther, Th. xviii. p. 200, 201.)

186

1 Cor. xi. 29.

187

“Videtur enim species vini et panis, et substantia panis et vini non creditur. Creditur autem substantia corporis et sanguinis Christi et tamen species non cernitur.” – Bernardus (ed. Bas. 1552, pp. 189–191).

188

It is so in another relation not developed here, but which may be mentioned in a note: namely, the following. In religion, in faith, man is an object to himself as the object, i. e., the end or determining motive, of God. Man is occupied with himself in and through God. God is the means of human existence and happiness. This religious truth, embodied in a cultus, in a sensuous form, is the Lord’s Supper. In this sacrament man feeds upon God – the Creator of heaven and earth – as on material food; by the act of eating and drinking he declares God to be a mere means of life to man. Here man is virtually supposed to be the God of God: hence the Lord’s Supper is the highest self-enjoyment of human subjectivity. Even the Protestant – not indeed in words, but in truth – transforms God into an external thing, since he subjects Him to himself as an object of sensational enjoyment.

189

“Nostrates, præsentiam realem consecrationis effectum esse, adfirmant; idque ita, ut tum se exserat, cum usus legitimus accedit. Nec est quod regeras, Christum hæc verba: hoc est corpus meum, protulisse, antequam discipuli ejus comederent, adeoque panem jam ante usum corpus Christi fuisse.” – Buddeus (l. c. l. v. c. l, §§ 13, 17). See, on the other hand, Concil. Trident. Sessio 13, cc. 3, 8, Can. 4.

190

Apologie Melancthon. Strobel. Nürnb. 1783, p. 127.

191

“The fanatics, however, believe that it is mere bread and wine, and it is assuredly so as they believe; they have it so, and eat mere bread and wine.” – Luther (Th. xix. p. 432). That is to say, if thou believest, representest to thyself, conceivest, that the bread is not bread, but the body of Christ, it is not bread; but if thou dost not believe so, it is not so. What it is in thy belief that it actually is.

192

Even the Catholics also. “Hujus sacramenti effectus, quem in anima operatur digne sumentis, est adunatio hominis ad Christum.” – Concil. Florent. de S. Euchar.

193

“If the body of Christ is in the bread and is eaten with faith, it strengthens the soul, in that the soul believes that it is the body of Christ which the mouth eats.” – Luther (Th. xix. p. 433; see also p. 205). “For what we believe that we receive, that we receive in truth.” – Ib. (Th. xvii. p. 557).

194

Hence the mere name of Christ has miraculous powers.

195

“Gott glauben und an Gott glauben.”

196

“If I wish to be a Christian, I must believe and do what other people do not believe or do.” – Luther (Th. xvi. p. 569).

197

Celsus makes it a reproach to the Christians that they boast: “Est Deus et post illum nos.” (Origenes adv. Cels. ed. Hœschelius. Aug. Vind. 1605, p. 182).

198

“I am proud and exulting on account of my blessedness and the forgiveness of my sins, but through what? Through the glory and pride of another, namely, the Lord Christ.” – Luther (Th. ii. p. 344). “He that glorieth let him glory in the Lord.” —1 Cor. i. 31.

199

A military officer who had been adjutant of the Russian general Münnich said: “When I was his adjutant I felt myself greater than now that I command.”

200

To faith, so long as it has any vital heat, any character, the heretic is always on a level with the unbeliever, with the atheist.

201

Already in the New Testament the idea of disobedience is associated with unbelief. “The cardinal wickedness is unbelief.” – Luther (xiii. p. 647).

202

God himself by no means entirely reserves the punishment of blasphemers, of unbelievers, of heretics, for the future; he often punishes them in this life also, “for the benefit of Christendom and the strengthening of faith:” as, for example, the heretics Cerinthus and Arius. See Luther (Th. xiv. p. 13).

203

“Si quis spiritum Dei habet, illius versiculi recordetur: Nonne qui oderunt te, Domine, oderam?” (Psal. cxxxix. 21); Bernhardus, Epist. (193) ad magist. Yvonem Cardin.

204

“Qui Christum negat, negatur a Christo.” – Cyprian (Epist. E. 73, § 18, edit. Gersdorf.).

205

Thus the apostle Paul cursed “Elymas the sorcerer” with blindness, because he withstood the faith. —Acts xiii. 8–11.

206

Historically considered, this saying, as well as the others cited pp. 384, 385, may be perfectly justified. But the Bible is not to be regarded as an historical or temporal, but as an eternal book.

207

“Tenerrimam partem humani corporis nominavit, ut apertissime intelligeremus, eum (Deum) tam parva Sanctorum suorum contumelia lædi, quam parvi verberis tactu humani visus acies læditur.” – Salvianus, l. 8, de Gubern. Dei.

208

1 Cor. x. 20.

209

Phil. ii. 10, 11. “When the name of Jesus Christ is heard, all that is unbelieving and ungodly in heaven or on earth shall be terrified.” – Luther (Th. xvi. p. 322). “In morte pagani Christianus gloriatur, quia Christus glorificatur.” – Divus Bernardus. Sermo exhort. ad Milites Templi.

210

Petrus L. 1. iv. dist. 50, c.4. But this passage is by no means a declaration of Peter Lombard himself. He is far too modest, timid, and dependent on the authorities of Christianity to have ventured to advance such a tenet on his own account. No! This position is a universal declaration, a characteristic expression of Christian, of believing love. The doctrine of some Fathers of the Church, e. g., of Origen and Gregory of Nyssa, that the punishment of the damned would have an end, sprung not out of Christian or Church doctrine, but out of Platonism. Hence the doctrine that the punishment of hell is finite, was rejected not only by the Catholic but also by the Protestant church. (Augsb. Confess. art. 17). A precious example of the exclusive, misanthropical narrowness of Christian love, is the passage cited from Buddeus by Strauss (Christl. Glaubensl. B. ii. s. 547), according to which not infants in general, but those of Christians exclusively, would have a share in the divine grace and blessings if they died unbaptized.

211

“Fugite, abhorrete hunc doctorem.” But why should I flee from him? because the anger, i. e., the curse of God rests on his head.

212

There necessarily results from this a sentiment which, e. g., Cyprian expresses: “Si vero ubique hæretici nihil aliud quam adversarii et antichristi nominantur, si vitandi et perversi et a semet ipsis damnati pronuntiantur; quale est ut videantur damnandi a nobis non esse, quos constat apostolica contestatione a semet ipsis damnatos esse.” Epistol. 74. (Edit, cit.)

213

The passage , as the parallel of which is cited , receives its completion and rectification in the immediately following v. 18: “He that believeth in him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

214

Faith, it is true, is not “without good works,” nay, according to Luther’s declaration, it is as impossible to separate faith from works as to separate heat and light from fire. Nevertheless, and this is the main point, good works do not belong to the article of justification before God, i.e., men are justified and “saved without works, through faith alone.” Faith is thus expressly distinguished from good works; faith alone avails before God, not good works; faith alone is the cause of salvation, not virtue; thus faith alone has substantial significance, virtue only accidental; i. e., faith alone has religious significance, divine authority – and not morality. It is well known that many have gone so far as to maintain that good works are not necessary, but are even “injurious, obstructive to salvation.” Quite correctly.

215

“Causa fidei … exorbitantem et irregularem prorsus favorem habet et ab omni jure deviare, omnem captivare rationem, nec judiciis laicorum ratione corrupta utentium subjecta creditur. Etenim Causa fidei ad multa obligat, quæ alias sunt voluntaria, multa, imo infinita remittit, quæ alias præcepta; quæ alius valide gesta annullat, et contra quæ alias nulla et irrita, fiunt valida … ex jure canonico.” – J. H. Boehmeri (Jus Eccles. lib. v. tit. vii. § 32. See also § 44 et seq.).

216

“Placetta de Fide, ii. Il ne faut pas chercher dans la nature des choses mêmes la veritable cause de l’inseparabilité de la foi et de la pieté. Il faut, si je ne me trompe, la chercher uniquement dans la volonté de Dieu… Bene facit et nobiscum sentit, cum illam conjunctionem (i. e., of sanctity or virtue with faith) a benifica Dei voluntate et dispositione repetit; nec id novum est ejus inventum, sed cum antiquioribus Theologis nostris commune.” – J. A. Ernesti. (Vindiciæ arbitrii divini. Opusc. theol. p. 297.) “Si quis dixerit … qui fidem sine charitate habet, Christianum non esse, anathema sit.” – Concil. Trid. (Sess. vi. de Justif. can. 28).

217

See on this subject Luther, e. g., T. xiv. p. 286.

218

“Therefore good works must follow faith, as an expression of thankfulness to God.” – Apol. der Augs. Conf. art. 3. “How can I make a return to thee for thy deeds of love in works? yet it is something acceptable to thee, if I quench and tame the lusts of the flesh, that they may not anew inflame my heart with fresh sins.” “If sin bestirs itself, I am not overcome; a glance at the cross of Jesus destroys its charms.” – Gesangbuch der Evangel. Brüdergemeinen (Moravian Hymn-book).

219

The only limitation which is not contradictory to the nature of love is the self-limitation of love by reason, intelligence. The love which despises the stringency, the law of the intelligence, is theoretically false and practically noxious.

220

The Peripatetics also; who founded love, even that towards all men, not on a particular, religious, but a natural principle.

221

Active love is and must of course always be particular and limited, i. e., directed to one’s neighbour. But it is yet in its nature universal, since it loves man for man’s sake, in the name of the race. Christian love, on the contrary, is in its nature exclusive.

222

Including external nature; for as man belongs to the essence of Nature, – in opposition to common materialism; so Nature belongs to the essence of man, – in opposition to subjective idealism; which is also the secret of our “absolute” philosophy, at least in relation to Nature. Only by uniting man with Nature can we conquer the supranaturalistic egoism of Christianity.

223

Yes, only as the free bond of love; for a marriage the bond of which is merely an external restriction, not the voluntary, contented self-restriction of love, in short, a marriage which is not spontaneously concluded, spontaneously willed, self-sufficing, is not a true marriage, and therefore not a truly moral marriage.

224

“Because God does good through government, great men and creatures in general, people rush into error, lean on creatures and not on the Creator; – they do not look from the creature to the Creator. Hence it came that the heathens made gods of kings… For they cannot and will not perceive that the work or the benefit comes from God, and not merely from the creature, though the latter is a means, through which God works, helps us, and gives to us.” – Luther (T. iv. p. 237).

225

“They who honour me, I will honour, and they who despise me shall be lightly esteemed.” —1 Sam. ii. 30. “Jam se, o bone pater, vermis vilissimus et odio dignissimus sempiterno, tamen confidit amari, quoniam se sentit amare, imo quia se amari præsentit, non redamare confunditur… Nemo itaque se amari diffidat, qui jam amat.” – Bernardus ad Thomam (Epist. 107). A very fine and pregnant sentence. If I exist not for God, God exists not for me; if I do not love, I am not loved. The passive is the active certain of itself, the object is the subject certain of itself. To love is to be man, to be loved is to be God. I am loved, says God; I love, says man. It is not until later that this is reversed, that the passive transforms itself into the active, and conversely.

226

“The Lord spake to Gideon: The people are too many that are with thee, that I should give Midian into their hands; Israel might glorify itself against me and say: My hand has delivered me,” —i. e., “Ne Israel sibi tribuat, quæ mihi debentur.” Judges vii. 2. “Thus saith the Lord: Cursed is the man that trusteth in man. But blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord and whose hope is in the Lord.” —Jer. xvii. 5. “God desires not our gold, body and possessions, but has given these to the emperor (that is, to the representative of the world, of the state), and to us through the emperor. But the heart, which is the greatest and best in man, he has reserved for himself; – this must be our offering to God – that we believe in him.” – Luther (xvi. p. 505).

227

Christian baptism also is obviously only a relic of the ancient Nature-worship, in which, as in the Persian, water was a means of religious purification. (S. Rhode: Die heilige Sage, &c., pp. 305, 426.) Here, however, water baptism had a much truer, and consequently a deeper meaning, than with the Christians, because it rested on the natural power and value of water. But indeed for these simple views of Nature which characterised the old religions, our speculative as well as theological supranaturalism has neither sense nor understanding. When therefore the Persians, the Hindoos, the Egyptians, the Hebrews, made physical purity a religious duty, they were herein far wiser than the Christian saints, who attested the supranaturalistic principle of their religion by physical impurity. Supranaturalism in theory becomes anti-naturalism in practice. Supranaturalism is only a euphemism for anti-naturalism.

228

“Eating and drinking is the easiest of all work, for men like nothing better: yea, the most joyful work in the whole world is eating and drinking, as it is commonly said: Before eating no dancing, and, On a full stomach stands a merry head. In short, eating and drinking is a pleasant necessary work; – that is a doctrine soon learned and made popular. The same pleasant necessary work takes our blessed Lord Christ and says: ‘I have prepared a joyful, sweet and pleasant meal, I will lay on you no hard heavy work … I institute a supper,’ &c.” – Luther (xvi. 222).

229

“Manifestum igitur est tantum religionis sanguini et affinitati, quantum ipsis Diis immortalibus tributum: quia inter ista tam sancta vincula non magis, quam in aliquo loco sacrato nudare se, nefas esse credebatur.” – Valer. Max. (l. ii. c. i.)

230

See the author’s “Leibnitz.”

231

[Here follows in the original a distinction between Herz, or feeling directed towards real objects, and therefore practically sympathetic; and Gemüth, or feeling directed towards imaginary objects, and therefore practically unsympathetic, self-absorbed. But the verbal distinction is not adhered to in the ordinary use of the language, or, indeed, by Feuerbach himself; and the psychological distinction is sufficiently indicated in other parts of the present work. The passage is therefore omitted, as likely to confuse the reader. – Tr.]

232

“Haereticus usu omnium jurium destitutus est, ut deportatus.” – J. H. Boehmer (l. c. l. v. Tit. vii. § 223. See also Tit. vi.)

233

Very many Christians rejected the punishment of death, but other criminal punishments of heretics, such as banishment, confiscation – punishments which deprive of life indirectly – they did not find in contradiction with their Christian faith. See on this subject J. H. Boehmer, Jus. Eccl. Protest. l. v. Tit. vii. e. g. §§ i. 155, 157, 162, 163.

234

On this subject I refer to Lützelberger’s work: “Die Kirchliche Tradition über den Apostel Johannes und seine Schriften in ihrer Grundlosigkeit nachgewiesen,” and to Bruno Bauer’s “Kritik der Evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker und des Johannes” (B. iii.).

235

In another place Luther praises St. Bernard and Bonaventura because they laid so much stress on the manhood of Christ.

236

It is true that in Catholicism also – in Christianity generally, God exists for man; but it was Protestantism which first drew from this relativity of God its true result – the absoluteness of man.