Preface

1 „It is time that judgment begin at the house of God*), the wicked blaspheme and revile the name of God**), they increase and it is near that they defile the holy temple itself***), namely the temple which is built up of the living vessels, of which God says: „I will dwell in them+).“

2 „The wickedness of the Adversary is already stirring, who exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God as a god and sheweth himself that he is God++).“ Wickedness no longer belongs only to the wicked, it seizes also the believers and the time has come of which the Spirit „hath expressly spoken, that some shall depart from the faith and give heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils+++).“

3 This danger of the „last times, which have manifestly drawn near and impose upon every well-disposed person the duty that he bear witness courageously and intrepidly to the power and truth of the faith, this danger has moved us to step forth without regard and to attack the bulwarks of evil.

4 We obey the word: „Blow the trumpet in Zion: tremble, all ye inhabitants of the land; for the day of the Lord cometh and is near*).“

5 In Hegel the Antichrist has come and been revealed.

6 It is the duty of the truly believing to make the Evil One known to all, to accuse him openly and sincerely, to warn everyone against him and to thwart his cunning.

7 Above all we must turn to the Christian governments and bear witness before them, as the believer is called to preach and testify before kings, princes and authorities, so that they may at last learn what mortal danger threatens all that exists and above all religion, the sole foundation of the state, if they do not simply root out the root of wickedness. There is nothing firm, reliable and enduring any more if „the powerful error“ of that philosophy is tolerated any longer in the Christian state. The outcome of the unhappy tragedy which this philosophy directs as fate and executes as an acting person in its adherents, they can already foresee from how at the present moment all divine and human authority is denied, shaken and made to totter by these people. Once they have overthrown religion, dealt the death-blow to the church, they will certainly also want to overthrow the throne. O, we conjure you with tears of anguish and compassion and with sighs which the dangerous situation of the „little ones who believe“ wrings from us, let yourselves be warned, be merciless against this rabble, to you the sword is given that you may create a god-pleasing order in this world, let judgment go forth upon these desecrators of the sanctuary. You execute the judgment of God. To you they are delivered.

8 We can only accuse, warn, unveil wickedness. You were deceived by the appearance of respectability and Christianity of this *) Joel 2, 1. Preface. philosophy when you admitted it into your states, the deception was wantonly maintained by the older adherents of this philosophy, who always had the word of reconciliation on their lips — „but adder’s poison was under their lips*);“ — you were indeed warned earlier, but the accusers, even if they were animated by Christian zeal, still did not have the true courage of faith, since they attacked only the lesser and weaker members of this school, but did not dare to approach the more respected ones or even the master — yes, we must sadly confess that their attacks and accusations also bore little fruit because they themselves still loved the world inwardly and were partly still ashamed of the „divine foolishness and weakness**).“ A whole theological school arose against this school, but it could accomplish nothing, since it itself did not heed the treasures of the Gospel and flirted with the world. Finally a philosophical school also formed which wanted to create a „Christian and positive philosophy“ and philosophically refute Hegel; but it too loved only its own self, it itself offended against the foundations of Christian truth and besides it had as little success and effect among believers as among unbelievers. It could do nothing against Satan and „how can one Satan drive out another***)?“ They were all still unfit, since they were partly still ashamed of the Gospel and did not want to become wholly foolish before the world. Thus they all — O shame! O disgrace! — could not prevent the whole power of the principle from coming to light in the younger brood of the Hegelian school and breaking out against church and state. The main error of all previous opponents of this philosophy — also of the philosophical opponents — lay in the fact that they had not recognised the depth of the *) Ps. 140, 4. **) 1 Cor. 1, 25. ***) Mark 3, 23. 8 Preface. original system, its atheism, and this blindness of the believers is still maintained today by the cunning of the Young Hegelians, who, in order to mislead the opponents and keep their kind away from the root of the tree, boldly assert that their principle is distinct from that of the master.

9 Against this, faith is first of all necessary: for know ye not that the saints shall judge the world *)? ' ' Then we must not care about the judgment of the world and shrink from being called foolish, for the world with its wisdom has from the outset been made foolish by God for us **) and its carnal judgment is no judgment for us. Finally — for life and death, things present and things to come are ours and are in our power, finally — for can the devil still harm us? — we must go straight for the master of deceit and tear his web asunder.

10 In now carrying out this attack in what follows, we can carry it out successfully and in a Christian manner only by unveiling the mystery of wickedness. This unveiling is the only true refutation. For if evil is brought to light, it is annihilated. By the light the works of evil are punished ***). It is enough that evil, error and Christian truth are placed together: this opposition already annihilates error through itself, so that now light and truth shine all the more clearly. O, away with these modern scruples, transactions and anxious zigzag manoeuvres: they still rest on the presupposition that error and truth can be mediated. Away with this rage for mediation, with this sentimental jelly, with this world of slime and lies: only the One is true and when the

11 *) 1 Cor. 6, 2. **) Ibid. 3, 19. ***) John 3, 20.

12 Preface. One and the Other are placed together, the Other falls of itself into nothingness. Do not come to us with this anxious, worldly-wise timidity of the Schleiermacher school and the positive philosophy: away with this pusillanimity which only wants to mediate because it still inwardly loves error and has not the courage to tear it from the heart. Tear it out and cast it away, this double-tongued, vacillating, flattering and mediating serpent’s tongue: sincere and one and pure be your mouth, your heart and mind. Only one thing is needful, all else is of the evil one.

13 Ha! return again, ye times of Christian strength and purity, when one called evil evil and not good or half-good or only half-evil! Those were the true times of faith, when one needed only to utter error and place it beside truth in order to instruct the process and bring it immediately to an end, i.e., when one still believed in truth! Thus, in this opposition, with this simple juxtaposition of the true and the false, a Tertullian, a Saint Bernard fought and they conquered. Verum est index sui et falsi.

14 Just as Bernard fought against the mockery of philosophy, so shall we fight: for it is the only true, the only Christian manner of combat. In the mirror of truth the devilish basilisk shall behold itself and — burst asunder at the sight of itself. As snow before the sun, as the brook before the sun’s glow, as fat on the glowing oven, so error passes away before truth. Hitherto one has not yet held the pure truth before it, hitherto one has not yet grasped pure error. We bring both together in their purity, in their divine and devilish perfection, and the victory is ours. But not only ours, but that of all who are sealed for the future of the Lord, they will understand what it means: „Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers!“ The opposition will become clear to them and they, if they once wavered, will return to the truth with fear and trembling, but also with the trembling of joy. „For what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? What communion hath light with darkness? What concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel*)?“ All is ours, but this All is the One!

15 When the lie steps forth in its perfection and naked ugliness, then it is also the duty of truth to show itself in its perfected glory — then it is necessarily compelled to reveal itself wholly to its own! The heavenly Jerusalem descends when Gog and Magog appear and the devil is judged.

16 „It is a true need of our heart to enter into external fellowship also with our brethren in Christ and to press their hand — as we do in spirit — also personally and in confidential embrace with the kiss of peace. Unfortunately, however, we have thought to observe in the struggle so far that your heart is not yet wholly closed to worldly honours and to the enjoyment of public recognition before the people and before the great. Your only badge of honour should consist in this, that your names are written in the living book of the Lamb**)“; but your heart inclines also to other signs. We shall therefore remain in concealment, lest it appear as though we sought an honour other than the heavenly crown. When the struggle, which we hope soon to conclude, is at an end, when the lie has received its punishment, then we shall also greet you personally and embrace you warmly on the field of battle. We heartily rejoice then to meet so many dear acquaintances. Until then, however, we hope to be judged by you with indulgence, that we have occupied ourselves so much with the works of lies of the Antichrist. They had at last to be thoroughly studied, we have read them through from beginning to end and we *) 2 Cor. 6, 14. 15. **) Rev. 13, 8. Preface. 11 did it only with the intention of uncovering untruth and bringing the opposition to completion. You will therefore also grant us indulgence because we now put the devil to shame and show how his cunning is betrayed and uncovered by faith. Farewell until we meet again: we now occupy ourselves with those who have fought Satan in an imperfect and half-way manner.

17 Beforehand we further remark concerning the rubrication of our work, that we initially had the intention of dividing it into ten horns, in order to strike down the horns of that beast which „opened its mouth in blasphemy against God*),“ but we saw that Hegel had more horns than that beast of the Apocalypse. Previously we had the intention of dividing our writing into seven sections, which would correspond to the seven trumpets of the Apocalypse, but it soon became apparent that we had to blow the trumpet more than seven times. We therefore resolved simply to number the sections — also so that the philosophers might not believe that we wished, like them, to construct a priori, although we firmly believe that the Apocalypse, when it speaks of that beast, had in mind Hegel the Antichrist and that, when Christian knowledge has become ripe, it will be shown which characteristics in Hegel correspond to those ten horns of the apocalyptic beast.

18 Among those who have hitherto fought Satan in a half-way manner, the older Hegelians stand at the top. History will one day be in a bad way with these people: they pass for adherents, indeed for the most faithful adherents of the Hegelian system — especially since the Young Hegelians spread the rumour that they have first freed the Hegelian principle from its narrow limits — and yet it is precisely the older Hegelians who set forth a doctrine which could not be more opposed to the principle of the system. They have hitherto passed publicly as friends of the principle and are yet public enemies of the same. Or shall we, in that we

19 *) Rev. 13, 1. 6. 12 Preface. credit them with a better insight than they themselves wish to have — thus expressing their relation to the principle objectively — shall we say: they are public, i.e., only apparent opponents of the system, in that they make a confession opposed to the principle, but inwardly and in secret are friends of the system? What then are they really, what are they apparently and in secret: friends or enemies? Do they therefore set forth another confession only in appearance, in order to seduce youth all the more surely and unhindered? One sees, we have very much to do with these people. It was a very great error of the previous believing polemic that it did not take them sharply into view. To be sure, it could not do so also because it had not grasped the true meaning of the system, and thus also the enormous difference between it and the doctrine of the Old Hegelians. But we shall hold the mirror of the system before them and see whether they wish to recognise themselves in it. We shall see! They must answer!

20 Also for this reason they must answer — we hereby oblige in advance a Göschel, but especially a Henning, Gabler, Rosenkranz etc. etc., because they owe it to their government. They must do so in order to divert their government from a false turn which it is about to take and consistently pursue. For their government has rightly formed the resolve to extirpate root and branch the antichristian essence of the Young Hegelians, this shameless rabble, and initially to admit none of the younger ones who have surrendered themselves to atheism to public offices and chairs. That is in order and a maxim which is necessary for the preservation of the state, of civic and family welfare. Now, however, the government at the same time views the matter as though the younger ones set forth a principle which is essentially different from the genuinely Hegelian one, and it accordingly leaves the older Hegelians quietly in possession of their honours, dignities, offices and chairs, because they have the prejudice in their favour that they have remained faithful to the less dangerous genuine system of Hegel. Preface. 13 That is a maxim which, if it were to be consistently followed, would have to have the most pernicious consequences. For if faithful adherence to the Hegelian principle counts as a title of protection under which admission to state offices is to be secured, then all at once all Young Hegelians would have to attain office and dignity, whereas the older Hegelians would have to lose their offices on the spot and be expelled from the chairs. It is rather the latter who have deviated from Hegel, perhaps only publicly deviate from him in appearance, in order to work all the more surely in secret for the hellish system — this hellish machine which is to blow the Christian state into the air. The younger Hegelians, on the other hand, are the true, the genuine Hegelians. Into what dangers would the governments then have to plunge if the hypocritical appearance, which the older Hegelians perhaps knew how to produce deliberately, should persist any longer? So out with the truth! Out with the core of the system! But you too, you older Hegelians, out with the word!

21 Why have you in the last period, when the younger brood caused the governments so much unrest, why have you then remained so completely silent? You would truly have had nothing to lose if you had come forward publicly! The younger lions are indeed so „thirsty,“ so defiant and foolhardy, that they probably do not desire your assistance, at least will not listen to your voice! But you would have had to declare yourselves, so that the governments might hear the truth! Did you therefore remain silent, perhaps because you inwardly took pleasure in the works of the wicked? Or did you wish to avoid the confession that you have hitherto taught otherwise than Hegel? Why then did you remain silent? Because of your position, your voice would have carried weight and would not have been without significance for the government.

22 Read therefore our unveiling of the system, declare yourselves and say freely and publicly whether you are its friends and adherents or 14 Preface. opponents. The time has come where further silence is a crime! We earnestly request that you may decide, for if we are to foresee that you have indeed had zeal for divine things, yet loose philosophy has you still so far in its power that you could not purely grasp and leave inviolate any church dogma, any biblical utterance. You see, or, if you will not admit it, we shall prove to you how life-threatening are the gallantries which you occasionally render to philosophy. „No man can serve two masters.“ Let one example of the corruption which philosophy causes suffice for this time: but it is as much as a thousand, yes as a hundred thousand, yet what say we, as millions, no! as good as countless cases. Whoever once offends in such a manner, in him evil and concealed hatred against Scripture and positive revelation must be rooted to the innermost and deadly. It grieves us greatly to have to speak thus, but we know only one law, that of truth. Our Redeemer speaks: It hath been said by them of old time, thou shalt not forswear thyself, but I say unto you, swear not at all *).“ Every God-fearing person who still gives honour to Scripture will confess that Jesus Christ wishes to forbid swearing altogether. What aversion to the pure letter of Scripture — „the commandments of the Lord are pure, as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times **)“ — what distortion is then required when Göschel, playing with the German translation, perverts the meaning of the saying so that it reads: thou shalt „not swear“ at all things, namely not by finite things, but only by God ***)? To this, to such frivolous play with Scripture, it comes when one is not firm in faith and „lets oneself be robbed through philosophy+).“ *) Matt. 5, 33. 34. **) Ps. 12, 6. 19, 8. ***) Der Eid, p. 122. +) Col. 2, 8.

23 Much more decisively than the mediating Hegelians have the positive philosophers, Fichte, Weiße, Sengler and Fischer turned to Christian truth. They have expressly made it the task of philosophy to recognise the personality of God, the truth and facticity of revelation, the immortality of the soul, as they indeed confess in general that the Real, the Positive, the Personal is to be withdrawn from the all-devouring and consuming concept, i.e., from the maw of Leviathan. Above all they wish to overthrow the hereditary enemy of Christian truth, pantheism.

24 Macte virtute! would we call out to each of them, especially to their most active and freshest champion, namely Fichte, if we could convince ourselves that salvation for the Christian faith could come from philosophy. At least they have not convinced us of this, all of them together: on the contrary! they have only furnished us the proof that all philosophy, even when reduced to a minimum and robbed of its specific wildness, must harm Christian truth. Already the intention to philosophise, the will and opinion to be a philosopher, the appearance of knowledge kills the Christian life. Even the evil appearance must be avoided. One can often cure a madman by entering into his delusions and thereby freeing him by making them objective to him. But one can never overcome wickedness by acting as though one shared it: this kind of stratagem is useless, since it only strengthens the wicked in his wickedness, and it is dangerous, since it will make him who employs it evil himself, or at least give offence to the good. Thus one cannot overcome philosophy either by taking up its mask: the mask rather finally grows together with one's own skin, or at least partly sticks fast to the face, and the countenance created by God is disfigured and robbed of its heavenly innocence. Even he who acts as though he philosophises harms the good cause, he will 16 Preface. accomplish nothing and finally fall into errors which are even more terrible than those of the philosophers.

25 The „positive philosophers“ would not even be particularly grateful to us if we wished to recognise their good will and the stratagem they have employed against philosophy. We may not even recognise their good will: one must not imagine, as they have done, that one can drive out and defeat the living Satan with the appearance of the satanic. One cannot deceive Satan by painting his image on the wall. It depends not only on the deed, but also on the true will. The end alone cannot sanctify the means. Can the good end, that one wishes to overthrow philosophy, sanctify the means, if one wishes to overthrow it through philosophy, i.e., sanctify philosophy? Only One is holy. But philosophy will never become holy. „Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles*)?“

26 But suppose the impossible case that a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit, have they in fact proved that they can overthrow philosophy? Have they overpowered the enemy? Nothing of the sort! Have they subdued the unbelievers, persuaded them, deceived them and healed them through deception? Not in the least! The unbelievers have not troubled themselves at all about the Positives, they have on the contrary only become more powerful. Are the Positives even mentioned in the present so lively debates, to which even the political newspapers must now open their columns? No one thinks of them; only ever of Hegel and the Hegelians is there talk. Have they brought it about that one expects from them the resolution of the present confusion? No! Faith has been recognised as the only help. Have they healed the breach of Joseph? Or if we lament: is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there? Why then is the daughter *) Matt. 7, 16. Preface. of my people not healed*)?“ — if we so lament and the governments look about for the physician, has any one of the Positives been found as physician, have the governments entrusted the cure to any one of them? No! Other men are needed! A Krummacher, a Hävernick, Hengstenberg, a Harles have had to stand in the breach!

27 Neither the believers nor the unbelievers have been persuaded by their good will. There are indeed some theologians among their followers, but only such as have let themselves be impressed by spurious culture. Truly believing persons they have not been able to win for themselves.

28 Whence then this lack of success of their endeavour? From this — we wish to furnish the proof later and show that they had to fail. For now we wish only to show how they themselves have full consciousness of the danger and lack of success of their labours and hear the inner accusing voice of conscience quite well and let each other hear it.

29 We have gone through the writings of the Positives carefully, not in the hope of finding truth in them: for we know only One truth and could therefore not let ourselves be deceived by appearance. With this study we have accomplished something which no one before us has done. Everyone has hitherto shrunk from examining the appearance of philosophy more closely. But only when it is absolutely demanded will we give the critical dissolution of this appearance. For now the self-confessions of the Positives themselves suffice.

30 They wish to overcome pantheism. Against this Sengler says: Fichte and Weiße teach a pantheism „which is only a potentiation of the Hegelian one**).“ They are „still themselves attached to the principle which they combat“

31 *) Jer. 8, 22. **) Sengler, Special Introduction to Philosophy and Speculative Theology. 1837. p. 376-378.

32 18 Preface. (— they use this word countless times in their self-accusations —). „Hence, continues Sengler, the last convulsive twitching of the pantheism dying within them in the irritable polemical mood against it and the, especially Fichte's, continual anxious protestation against the same and the ever-repeated assurance that he herewith and therewith disposes of the pantheism of the systems preceding him and distinguishes and separates himself from them in this and that, and thus separates himself from pantheism altogether.“ Scarcely has Fichte read this accusation when he praises „the deeply thought, true and illuminating quality of the guiding fundamental idea“ in Sengler's writing, and willingly acknowledges that it has effected an essential progress of philosophising, but all this he takes back the moment afterwards by saying that even these new principles „are in no way able to break through the limit of a merely pantheistic conception of God*).“ „If you, cries Fichte to Sengler, if you think you have escaped pantheism, then I must contradict this and here it is precisely I who wish to have the much-discussed ‘overcoming’ of pantheism taken more strictly, who demands from himself and others more sufficient anti-pantheistic guarantees.“ He finds it „premature and unjustified“ when Sengler speaks of a personal God, of a free, almighty Creator, and even tells him straight to his face that through his principle he would never attain „a complete victory over the pantheistic principle**).“

33 Weiße has most to suffer from his comrades, as it also seems that he is still most „attached“ to philosophical interests. He is most praised, exalted, admired and most violently censured by them. Can, for example, anything more disgraceful be said of him than what Fichte throws in his face? „It is the old rationalism, so vigorously combated and so penetratingly characterised by Hegel himself, *) Fichte's Journal, Volume 2, p. 49. **) Ibid. p. 55. 56. Preface. 19 which Weiße still perpetuates elsewhere and in his metaphysics*).“ It comes down, therefore, according to their own confession, to this, that they combat pantheism and rationalism only in Hegel, but for their own part and in their own systems erect altars to this devilish idol. In other systems they storm against the devil, into their own system they receive him again. One demoniac is freed from the devil, in thousands the devil finds a new dwelling. They resemble the generation „with which the last state is worse than the first**).“

34 It is altogether peculiar that the Positives, whenever one praises another and extols the anti-pantheistic merit of the other's achievements, always at the same time disparage the friend most deeply, let him feel their superiority and make it very strongly known that precisely their particular conception of philosophical problems is the higher and more excellent one. Never has there been so much praise in a philosophical school, but never also such spiteful goading of one another.

35 Thus, for example, Fichte calls out to his friend Weiße at the close of a longer essay: „From this, together with all that is similar and appertaining thereto, I now hope for the liberation of our speculation precisely through you, my highly honoured friend, whose genius and mighty power of development ranks you with the most distinguished thinkers of all ages, whom I myself am by no means able to follow with equal step and from a distance on your far-reaching conquests. But it is, I believe, still a matter of bursting the last veil (thus Weiße has not yet burst it —); I recognise you above all as called to lead us beyond that formal apparent knowledge into the philosophy of the actual (— thus they do not yet stand in the philosophy of the actual, all of them, including Weiße, still stood in apparent knowledge —); to you is granted the sharp and deep *) Ibid. p. 280. **) Matt. 12, 45. 20 Preface. glance for the innermost peculiarity of things, for every paradox thereof, while the combinatory eye of the thinker never loses sight of the all-penetrating unity, the order to which they belong. You alone among the younger contemporaries and those philosophising in the same spirit can dare what has in fact become a venture since Hegel's departure — to expand the new world-view into a philosophical encyclopaedia and to lay it down therein in its inner connection. Let yourself be decided and confirmed in this undertaking by the advice of your friend. Methinks it is time, for you yourself and for us all*).“ And all this, which in itself is already uttered in the tone of a patron and master and with the intimation that fundamentally nothing has yet been accomplished, Fichte calls out to his friend at the close of an essay in which he everywhere accuses him of rationalism, emphasises the excellence of his own achievements and seeks to prove that his manner of philosophising has not been refuted by that of his friend. They praise each other and in the praise itself they retract the praise. It seems they are those of whom Scripture says: „thus one avoids the other**).“ They forget the commandment: „he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord***)!“

36 But they also do not know what it means: „Let no man glory in men+).“ They all appeal to Schelling, in order to drive out the demon of the Hegelian philosophy from the possessed with his name, as if it were not clearly said in Scripture whose name alone the demons obey. Schelling is to them „the genius, for whose equally comprehensive as deep-penetrating spiritual power every ordinary standard seems too small++),“ and with this very genius, this idol, *) Fichte's Journal Volume IV, p. 73. **) Eccles. 4, 4. ***) 1 Cor. 1, 31. ++) Fichte's Journal Volume II, p. 24. +) Ibid. 3, 21. Preface. 21 they again play very badly, by utterly denying him his comprehensive spiritual power and saying, for example, that he can hardly be disposed „to return to such fundamental researches“ as those they undertake. „A furthering judgment on Schelling's part has not yet reached them. Even after the pronouncements in his well-known preface to Cousin's writing, a preface which they have raised to their banner, it becomes only darker and more uncertain what Schelling wishes to give as foundation to the principle of reality. The less they know of Schelling — the less they have learned of Schelling despite the secret inquiries of which they boast, the more they boast with his name, the more they again exalt themselves against him with their own deeds. It is the first time in philosophy that a nothing, an unknown X, has been raised to the banner of a philosophical school — these men of positive philosophy constantly make an X into a U and twist the X again into shapes as it pleases them. When they glory in a man, they are not even in earnest about it: they rather glory most gladly in themselves — a circumstance which must make the believing consciousness most suspicious of them. Everywhere they boast of having first invented their principle, everywhere they praise their complete independence — as if the spirit must glory in its independence, its inventiveness, and not rather in its weakness and its obedience to revelation. „One is your Master,“ but man is not his own master! There is only one obedience — the „obedience of Christ, to which we must bring into captivity every thought*).“ „Only with this obedience can be destroyed the imaginations and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God.“ „For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth**).“ Quite the opposite, Fichte even sets it up as a principle that it is *) 2 Cor. 10, 5. **) Ibid. 10, 18. 22 Preface. „not only permitted, but a duty, to preserve the priority of thoughts for one's friends and oneself*).“ But the friends they often enough forget and injure when they fight for the priority of their thoughts. Each inwardly always holds himself for the first, for the true fighter of God, for the vanquisher of Leviathan. Often they therefore step forth even against each other in order to exercise „the duty of preserving the priority of thoughts“ for themselves and against their otherwise comrades. Thus Fischer says of himself**): „when the author published his Metaphysics (— in the year 1834 —), there had, so far as he knows, appeared no speculative-theistic writing, since even Fichte and Sengler declared themselves in the sense of pantheism.“ Fischer then appeals to the „most competent judges“ of his Metaphysics, who all confirmed his „declaration that he had formed himself independently“ through the most decided recognition of his independence***). „But did Fischer not know that his friends Fichte and Weiße had already before him established theism? Could such a thing be unknown to him? This too speaks against the Positives, that they entertain the public, which would gladly be led to the living water, far too much with their personal relations, with their intercourse with one another, with their epistolary exchange, with the freshness and vigour of their manner and more things of that kind. That still looks far too worldly, that proves that they have not yet died to the world. Their joy is not yet in the Lord. How worldly-coquettish is it, how heathenishly frivolous and above all how self-satisfied, when Fichte greets his friend with the words:

37 We say on the contrary with the Preacher: „where many dreams are, there is vanity and many words*).“

38 But from this we must already conclude that their philosophy is vain dream and has therefore produced so much vanity of many words, because they always remain with the preliminary questions and preparatory exercises, occupy themselves with these provisional things and even quarrel among themselves about the beginning (!) of philosophy. They „are ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.“ They „do not avoid foolish and unprofitable questions, which only breed strifes**).“ They have not advanced to knowledge, and the appearance of knowledge, the imagined knowledge, makes them almost more conceited and arrogant than the philosophers are against whom they fight.

39 Hegel says outright that he does not wish to leave religion untouched, but rather unscrupulously to aim at its overthrow! They, however, have another pride — for pride alone can we call such foolish undertaking — they wish to support religion and revelation, to bring them again to recognition, but they wish to do this not in faith, not through God's power, but — hear, hear! — their philosophical principle is to be the support of the kingdom of heaven, of the church and of the state. „New guarantees“ Fichte wishes to give mankind for state and church***), new guarantees through his philosophy. „Can any man lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ+)?“ Has Fichte forgotten „the chosen, precious corner stone in Zion++)“? Does he wish to belong to the builders who have rejected this precious stone? Has this stone become to him a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence?

40 It almost seems so! Would he otherwise speak so contemptuously of simple trust in the promises of Scripture, of the inner confidence of faith, as he indeed does? Would he otherwise designate this purity of faith so contemptuously as mere „appeal to historical authorities or as the wearying force of tradition“ and assert that the mysteries of the divine counsel wish „no longer merely to be believed, but to be known and victoriously (!) justified“? Our victory is alone in the name of the Lord!

41 In fact, Fichte also wishes — thus even apparent knowledge, or merely the will and intention of knowledge, brings it about — he too wishes to emancipate himself from God and His pure revelation. He wishes to be lord where he should be servant, where he should obey! Holy authorities, he says, can exist for philosophy not at all*). „Those who defend the inviolability of faith against a pernicious philosophy, he calls 'corner-faith-judges,' the believers he calls, in contrast to the knowing, 'the stupid.'“ The confidence of faith that in it all things of this world are judged, and the obedience to the word of the Lord: „go ye into all the world and teach,“ the wish of faith that all may be saved, Fichte calls „pious importunity and clumsy proselytising zeal.“ Just as much, declares Fichte, as he has „always shown himself an opponent of every pantheistic direction,“ so he well sees that it is just as necessary „to send the merely pious and Christian-minded decidedly back to their limits,“ as soon as they wish to assert their needs against science**). „The merely pious and Christian-minded?“ What lies behind this? Is it still the one foundation which is laid and which becomes an offence to Fichte? Should we have another mind than „the mind of Christ,“ so that we say with the Apostle: „but we *) Journal 4, 114. 115. **) Ibid. p. 105. 106.

42 *) Journal 4, 114. 115.

43 It is, however, clear: the purely and truly Christian as such lies not at all close to the heart of the Positives, and it can only be explained from certain causes, which we cannot here indicate more fully, that this disease of positive philosophy has hitherto been neither thoroughly searched out nor healed. The Positives wish to enjoy both worlds, that of faith and that of idolatrous philosophy, and thus it comes about that they are neither true philosophers nor true Christians.

44 A couple of examples will suffice for now as proof. It is common to all Positives and they pride themselves much on it, that they give to the concept of creation a new turn, a quite different depth than it has in the ordinary rigid dogmatic views (!). Namely, „the being distinct from God, the independent reality of nature must be grasped just as much as its own deed, as on the other hand as God's deed**).“ That is, the Positives wish at the same time to confess the living God of faith, who alone grants the world its existence, and to contemplate the world in the sense of a heathen philosophy, which is of the opinion that the world is in itself its own constant creator and preserver. Theism and atheism they wish to confess at once. „Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter***)?“ Impossible! „My brethren, these things ought not so to be!“ There is only One God, only One Creator, the One God, of whom it is written: „Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust. Thou sendest *) 1 Cor. 2, 16. **) e.g. Weiße, Metaphysics, p. 563. ***) James 3, 11. 26 Preface. forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth*).“

45 Further, they love to say that God is essentially in Himself process and only through this process becomes true God. „God is, they say**), also in His being absolutely free act, eternal act of Himself. Through this act God gives Himself His own determinateness, only after this further freely posited determinateness is He called God.“ This same process of mediation, which atheistic philosophy places only in the universe, they thus see twice, in God and as free act of creation. The philosophers will laugh at and mock this luxury, the religious man will reject it utterly and repudiate the thought that God through the change of mediation, i.e., presumably through inner determination and negation, first becomes true God, with Scripture. For is it not written that with Him, from whom every perfect gift cometh, „there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning***)?“

46 Even the simplest elements of the Christian faith are dissolved and denied through the rage for mediation of the Positives. Thus, for example, Fischer blindly chases after mediations that he even denies the Redeemer His original divinity and unity with the Father. He says: „the faith of the mediator in God formed the life-principle determining him, through which he became one with the Father.“ „The Redeemer himself had to realise his divine essence through his temporal development into the divinity of his person+).“ But it is not written: I and the Father became one or have become one through my deed and my faith, but rather: „I and my Father are one++).“ *) Ps. 104, 29. 30. **) Weiße, Metaph. p. 562. ***) James 1, 17. +) Fischer, The Idea of the Godhead, p. 116. 120. ++) John 10, 30. Preface. 27 Nor does it please us at all that these philosophers set so much store by the real, the actual, the positive. The freshness after which they strive, of which they boast and with which, as they say, the world shines towards them, wafts towards them, greets them green, seems to us far too little spiritual, namely far too little that spiritual energy which spiritually overcomes the world, but rather, on the world's side, the freshness of a mown meadow and, on the philosophers' side, the greed with which a horse inhales the fresh scent of hay. It seems they strive more after the world in its immediacy than after heavenly goods, they would rather grasp the world with their hands, smell it with their nose, eat it raw and directly, than overcome it with faith. Faith, on the contrary, is a quite different power, it is „the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen*).“ „In faith, we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal**).“ We would almost say that a philosophy which is so much and so immediately concerned with the real is a philosophy of animals — but if it seems too outrageous that we find in the feeding and grasping organs of animals the best organ of this philosophy, if one believes that we let ourselves be carried away too much by an exaggerated Christian zeal in this mode of consideration, we can remove all this false suspicion by letting the Positives bear witness concerning themselves. „In his speculations, says Weiße of his friend, Fichte seems quite to forget that besides men or rational spirits there are other sentient beings, that there is, in a word, an animal world.“ That is, when Fichte sets up his epistemological dialectic, it seems either as if he wishes to make animals into philosophers or philosophers into animals. From Fichte's dialectic, says the same Weiße, „it would follow *) Heb. 11, 1. **) 2 Cor. 4, 18. 28 Preface. that all sentient beings, thus also animals, are philosophers*).“ Very correct! And Fichte answers this remark of his friend in such a manner**) that he concedes to his friendly critic that he has hit his meaning.

47 Finally it is still the duty of the Christian critic to remove an appearance which may already have deceived some believers, or to show how the Positives themselves do not confess to this appearance. They speak in their metaphysics and ontologies of an absolute personality and many may accordingly have thought that philosophers who are so much concerned with the real, when they speak of an absolute personality, are speaking of the living God. But they themselves say that this determination „is given only as a category, as an empty form, whose non-fulfilment is still always posited as possible by metaphysics as such***).“ „To the ontological idea itself, says Fichte+), objective personality, will, creative power is not ascribed.“ It concerns us not at all how these philosophers arrive at a real, living, actual personality, when they protest that „through pure dialectic, through any transition in the concept, a reality cannot be speculated out,“ we also do not ask why so much noise with a philosophy if it cannot speculate out the real, for all we care they may always create for themselves new real grasping instruments in order to grasp the real: all this is to us in the highest degree indifferent. But this is very serious and important, that the Positives wish to excite even the appearance as if at least the category (!) of the divine were expressed and secured in that determination. Rather — we must unveil the mystery and if it is demanded, we shall later, if one wishes, also quite soon, prove it — rather has each of the *) Fichte's Journal II, 184. 190. **) Ibid. p. 285. 286. ***) Weiße, Met. p. 562. +) Journal II, 40. Preface. 29 Positives in that determination of the Absolute only objectified his own more or less narrow or broad personality. Fichte, for example, has in the absolute personality provided his own ego with the halo of ontology and set it up as an object of veneration.

48 As said: we shall soon prove. But do you beware of knowledge which puffeth up, since we see how even apparent knowledge puffs up those who harbour it to infinity.

49 We now come to a third class of opponents of the Hegelian philosophy: they are the Schleiermacherians. We are far from failing to recognise with what zeal these men oppose Hegelian theory and practice, but, to go straight to the main point — for intention and zeal alone do not yet give the decision — but they are themselves still exposed to the temptations of evil, since they love to produce the appearance as if they themselves were philosophers. From the positive philosophers they are distinguished by the fact that the latter give some support to appearance, while they do nothing by which even the appearance of the philosophical could be excited. The former speak indeed in philosophical formulas, but they do not even act as if they philosophised. The former build philosophical houses of cards or paper temples, in which they set up their own ego as a deity, the Schleiermacherians build nothing at all and yet wish to count as builders, as masters of the lodge. It is already incomprehensible to us how a Christian theologian can hit upon the idea and come to the arrogance, or can so debase himself, that he wishes to pass as a philosopher; but it is even more incomprehensible to us how a theologian can strive after the mere fame of philosophical culture without holding out proofs of this culture to the worldly envious. This conceit has in fact brought the Schleiermacher theologians so far that they have become neither philosophers nor theologians, neither children of the world nor Christians. To them applies the word that was spoken to the church of Laodicea: „I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 30 Preface. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked*).“

50 Most of all, indeed, the zeal of these men for „church life,“ their zeal against the pride of the world, their effort against those who declare the state to be the kingdom of heaven and accordingly renounce a future and otherworldly completion of the kingdom of heaven, their open zeal against the governments which do not recognise the claims of the church, their zeal against Caesaropapism, their zeal for an autonomous morality which wishes to emancipate itself from sanctification through the church, their zeal for church discipline — this zeal is most to be recognised. But unfortunately we must at the same time confess that their zeal is not serious, not thorough, not comprehensive, not zealous enough. They have not been able to prevent a raging adherent of the Hegelian philosophy from pretty well dissolving their category of church life. This pupil of the devil has even been able to reproach them, not without reason, that their church life lacks all ground and foundation; they have made it so easy for him that he could assert that the territorial churches must be dissolved into the state, must perish in the state. When this same insolent fellow drove dialectics so far that he dared to prove that through the Prussian Union Act the church's doctrinal concept had been robbed of all public validity, when he even carried through this proof by means of the view of the Union which one of their most skilful champions had set forth, they set nothing against him that could overthrow his blasphemous assertions. The reason for this lies in the fact that they have in truth given up the church's doctrinal concept, so that their church life is without ground and foundation. Do not not a few of them go so far as to have surrendered themselves to criticism and Preface. declare whole parts of biblical books, even whole books, to be inauthentic? Who among them still has the sense of truth to recognise the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the authenticity of the book of Daniel, of the second part of Isaiah, of the Revelation of John, of the Gospel of Matthew, etc. etc.? Do they not all agree in deriving the content of the synoptic Gospels from tradition? It is sad that Christian theologians have admitted scepticism and critical doubt to such a wide extent! They will have much to answer for!

51 Hence comes the main disease of this whole school, that they can never powerfully represent the holy sublimity of the church over the state, not even truly divine it, still less, therefore, although their present heads would have the best opportunity for it, bring it to practical recognition vis-à-vis the state. For that which is hollow in itself can never attain validity, but hollow is their principle, since it is only the word, at least only the intention of that which during the flourishing time of Christian life was deed and reality.

52 One will see that it would be to waste words if we wished to make wide detours in order to depict the feeble nature of this principle, as soon as we give only a sample of the stilted, sugary, feeble, bloated, pretentious and yet impoverished essence with which it appears. We give — but we could choose any other paragraph for this — we give § 206 from Nipsch's System of Christian Doctrine *). This paragraph, which would have to solve all riddles and make one feel the weight of church life, is entitled: „The State“ and reads as follows:

53 „A new, rich summons to mutual sanctification and common exercise of Christianity will be given us by the state, an institution of the preserving and administering God, *) Third Edition. 32 Preface. which finds the Gospel either already in significant development or at least everywhere in its rudiments. Just as the Preserver in conscience bounds evil, just as He by laws holding in equilibrium keeps destruction from the perishable world Gen. 8, 22, so He has from the beginning surrounded the community of earthly man with means of protection Gen. 4, 15. 9, 5. 6. Personal right shall be preserved for each against each, so that also each for all and all for each may gain the most appropriate space for the cultivation of the totality of higher or lower earthly determinations of man. All actual appearances thereof, all foundations of a lawful commonwealth have their share in divine institution and authority and neither conquest nor contract alone, but always at the same time with them and through them the given and believed divine necessity conditions the institution through which the evil-doer is punished and warded off, the well-doer praised and furthered Rom. 13, 3. 4. 1 Pet. 2, 14. 15. Just as therefore the Apostle Rom. 7, 14 ascribes to the law also in its deepest ground and origin the same principle which is revealed in the Gospel, so the Christian must be as capable as willing to recognise the divinity of the state. A threefold relation of the state to the community of Christ presents itself to him. If he sees in the former first the provisional salvation of a disciplinary institution against sin, he also does not fail to recognise that the compelling power of the state-law already in itself requires the higher guarantee which is given with the law of the spirit as a liberating one, and that accordingly state and church work together for the good the more their modes of operation remain separated and the immediate ends which they set before themselves, or the less the state for its part wishes to produce what it cannot, and the church for its part what it ought not. According to the second relation the state appears as protector and fosterer of the institutions of the spirit, to which man as man has his determination and without whose efficacy civic honour and joy, love and patience can in no respect Preface. 33 thrive. If now especially church life for its external development finds no point of support at all without the legal estate presupposed in some formation — and therefore must seek and request it, so it is again on its part bound — and this forms the third.

54 Yet it is impossible for me to copy out the few remaining lines of this stilted paragraph, which does not even dare to express openly that the church must be superior to the state. In the second edition of these sheets I shall perhaps copy out the remainder.

55 With these few precarious words, then, a champion of „church life“ wishes to regulate the relation of church and state, after such a violent attack on the church had occurred as Hegel carried out in his Philosophy of Right? Stahl has come forward quite differently, and in truth there is now need of such a thorough humiliation of the state in a time which wishes to make it the sole, the this-worldly kingdom of heaven. Since Stahl's recognition is sufficiently secured, we wish here rather to communicate the view of St. Augustine on state and church as a reagent against modern softness, a view which, apart from some only apparently extravagant expressions, is perfectly correct, grounded in the principle of the church and in agreement with the statements of Holy Scripture.

56 The state and the kingdom of God, says Augustine, are opposed to each other; in the former one lives carnally, i.e., according to the principles of the flesh, in the latter spiritually; in the former one lives as man and according to the principles of man as such, in the latter one lives in a manner pleasing to God and according to God. (Quod itaque diximus, hinc exstitisse civitates duas diversas inter se atque contrarias, quod alii secundum carnem, alii secundum spiritum viverent; potest etiam isto modo dici, quod alii secundum hominem, alii secundum Deum vivant*).) The earthly state has its origin in self-love, which *) de civit. Dei XIV, 4. 34 Preface. drives itself on to contempt of God, the heavenly in the love of God, which is necessarily connected with contempt of self. (Fecerunt igitur civitates duas amores duo, terrenam scilicet amor sui usque ad contemtum Dei, coelestem vero amor Dei usque ad contemtum sui. Denique illa in se ipsa, haec in domino gloriatur. Illa enim quaerit ab hominibus gloriam: huic autem Deus conscientiae testis maxima est gloria. Illa in gloria sua exaltat caput suum: haec dicit Deo suo: gloria mea et exaltans caput meum. Illi in principibus ejus vel in eis, quas subjugat, nationibus dominandi libido dominatur: in hac serviunt invicem in caritate et praepositi consulendo et subditi obtemperando. Illa in suis potentibus diligit virtutem suam: haec dicit Deo suo: diligam te, domine, virtus mea. Ideoque in illa sapientes ejus secundum hominem viventes aut corporis aut animi sui bona aut utriusque sectati sunt: in hac autem nulla est hominis sapientia nisi pietas, qua recte colitur verus Deus*).) The earthly state is in part an image of the heavenly and according to this side, where it signifies not itself but the other, it must serve this, the heavenly, because according to this side it is not an end in itself. (Pars quaedam terrenae civitatis imago coelestis civitatis effecta est, non se significando sed alteram et ideo serviens. Non enim propter se ipsam sed propter aliam significandum est instituta; et praecedente alia significatione et ipsa praefigurans praefigurata est. Invenimus ergo in terrena civitate duas formas, unam suam praesentiam demonstrantem, alteram coelesti civitati significandae sua praesentia servientem. Parit autem cives terrenae civitatis peccato vitiata natura, coelestis vero civitatis cives parit a peccato naturam liberans gratia: unde illa vocantur vasa irae, ista vasa misericordiae**).) The earthly state is not eternal, but its future punishment awaits it, since its purpose is strife and war, as indeed it has its origin in strife and murder. *) ibid. XIV, 28. **) ibid. XV, 2. Preface. 35 (Terrena civitas, quae sempiterna non erit, neque enim cum extremo supplicio damnata fuerit, jam civitas erit, hic habet bonum suum, cujus societate laetatur, qualis esse de talibus rebus laetitia potest. Et quoniam non est tale bonum, ut nullas angustias faciat amatoribus suis, ideo civitas ista adversus se ipsam plerumque dividitur litigando, bellando atque pugnando et aut mortiferas aut certe mortales victorias requirendo. Primus itaque fuit terrenae civitatis conditor fratricida *).)

57 Let this suffice to remind us of the vigorous principles of an earlier, better time, to edify ourselves by their steadfast faith and to show to the newer champions of church life a pattern which they must first strive after if they wish to overcome the present atheism. Augustine knew what churchliness is. He had and still knew a real church. He knew what state means.

58 Everyone who undertakes to unveil and accuse the atheism of the Hegelian system must remember the man who first had the courage to step forth publicly against this godless philosophy, formally to accuse it and to draw the attention of the Christian-minded governments to the pressing danger which threatens from this philosophy to the state, the church and all morality. It is Leo! We give him sincere honour and fully recognise that he has paved the way for us, even when we press further forward, and that he himself has made possible the more fortunate attack, if we are more fortunate. His name is honourably involved in the history of this shameful school.

59 Nevertheless we cannot refrain — but we must, for it concerns the most important action of recent times — we cannot avoid censuring something in his attack. We are certain of his assent, since he is concerned only with the matter, with the salvation of so many millions; *) ibid. XV, 4. 36 Preface. and if we censure something, we do not forget that he was our champion and that his example most of all spurred us on. At that time at least, when his writing on the Hegelians appeared, we were full of joy that at last the godless were being attacked in person: we felt uplifted by the thought that at last a Christian battle was being waged against hell.

60 What we therefore still have to point out consists in this, that our friend attacked only the less prominent members of the school, that he did not emphasise how also in the so-called men of the right side the system possessed dangerous supports and propagandists, and that finally he did not himself attack the master, the father of the hellish brood. It grieves us, but love of truth compels us — with a painful feeling we must express the suspicion that Leo perhaps still followed a worldly consideration, so that he regarded the person and attacked only those who possessed no distinguished position in the state. Should he in fact have spared the older Hegelians because they sat in office and dignity? Did he spare Hegel himself because he occupied his chair by state authority and spread his principles under public authority? Should Leo in fact have become weak with regard to these men and denied the burning zeal for the house of God because his heart was still open to worldly considerations? We dare scarcely suspect it and hope that Leo himself will yet enlighten us publicly about his motives.

61 In part the explanation may also lie in the fact that Leo, as he himself confessed, had taken no philosophical book in hand for many years when he stepped forth against the Hegelians. As regards the latter point, we can indeed only approve the principle of avoiding all philosophical reading, since the weak can all too easily be infected and killed by the sweet poison of speculation. But to the same degree we cannot approve it when at last a holy champion steps forth and does not examine the corpus delicti Preface. 37 precisely. We have attempted to make good the damage; for the rest, however, we request our brethren to examine our work just as precisely as we have done with theirs, and to designate freely and openly the errors, of which there will be not a few in it as in all human works, and to make them publicly known for the advantage of our holy cause. If we do not freely examine and supplement our weaknesses, who shall do it, and how shall the cause, of which we as individuals are fundamentally unworthy, be carried through? Faith indeed does much under the protection of divine grace, but it must also produce works. Above all, however, love is needed, with which we mutually admonish, chastise and improve one another.

62 In this spirit of love we continue to make our ally attentive to some fleshly weaknesses which still cling to him. We open his textbook of world history. This work is indeed — we say it with heartfelt joy — written with perfect Christian sentiment, but unfortunately it is still permeated with some worldly leaven. One example! It is extraordinarily pleasing to see how once again a world history appears which proceeds from the recognition of divine revelation and knows how to discover and make recognisable the governance as well as the punitive office of God in the whole of history. Thus Leo says: „The general point of departure of the whole is always immediate, thus: revelations*).“ „The that-ness of language is an immediately given, thus positively divine. The wondrous structure of language is a divine grace.“ Very fine! But everything is again cancelled, divine grace is denied and cast into the abyss of dark, even pantheistic necessity, when it says: „the peoples build their languages out of natural necessity**).“ *) Textbook, 1835. 1, 5. **) Ibid. p. 6.

63 Through the whole textbook of this universal history we could demonstrate how the recognition of a free Godhead and His revelation is always again displaced or obscured by a still pantheistic world-view: we content ourselves, however, with demonstrating this relapse of Leo into a profane and philosophically constructed view in a section where we should least expect it: in the section on the history of the Israelites and also here at one point of it. We see here how a philosophical Sataniskus strikes the believer with fists.

64 Here Leo says: „the energy of Moses, called forth by faith in God and His immediate assistance, led the Israelite people out of Egypt to freedom*).“ But in his own writing Moses says countless times to the people: „the Lord thy God brought thee out from thence, out of the land of Egypt, with a mighty hand and with an outstretched arm**).“ Of his own energy, however, Moses says not a single word.

65 When it says: and the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, then we must betake ourselves in silence and it is already far too worldly even to ask: who would dare to utter anything explanatory about the mechanism of communication between Jehovah and Moses***)?

66 „Incalculably great“ Leo calls „the deed,“ „that one man with the ten commandments steps into the midst of a people still inwardly very undisciplined, and undertakes to give these words to the people as laws+).“ As if it were the „deed“ of Moses and not rather Jehovah who spoke all these words from the mountain to the people++).

67 *) Ibid. p. 565.

68 How worldly-constructed it is when Leo says: „it was natural that Moses had to write down his legislation.“ It was rather God Himself who with His finger wrote the commandments*) and in other cases commanded Moses to write down the laws and the sacred history.

69 We cease: for we would have to break off before the conclusion, since it is impossible without writing a special book to demonstrate everywhere in Leo's later writings the remnant of his old leaven. Everywhere the wild claw of philosophical enlightenment protrudes, everywhere the earlier arrogance of the understanding betrays itself, further traces of a kind of disruptedness which is foreign to true Christian faith, and even the striving after a pointed, witty language, which should be avoided in religious subjects, is still everywhere to be noticed. Leo should not follow the recent example of Tholuck, but should learn purity and simplicity of language from the biblical writings, and as regards the O. T., he should study the writings of a Hengstenberg, Hävernick: hitherto it still seems to be one of his earlier rationalist quirks that he has not yet applied himself to these writings.

70 The old rationalist, however, looks a little too strongly through the armour of faith when Leo, for example, says**): „Christ, in the moral power of his spirit unbroken by world and death, became the guarantee that all tyranny of this world is insufficient to strike man's highest life in fetters, so long as he holds faithfully to God. In him sinful man found again the archetype for which he was created.“

71 Enough of admonition! It gives us heartfelt joy that we can close this reminder to Leo with a declaration of the most sincere assent on one of the most important points. Leo has thereby acquired an extraordinary merit *) Ex. 31, 18. Deut. 5, 22. **) Textbook, I, 594. 40 Preface. in that he has cut off from the rationalists every previously so dangerous appeal to Luther's Reformation. He has thoroughly shown how Luther was wrong, for the sake of the abuse, to reject the thing itself, namely the institution of spiritual authority, how he went too far in attacking the institution in its foundations*). „Excellently Leo shows that the celibacy of the clergy is necessary and salutary for the purity of the church, that it was unjustly abolished so absolutely and that there is certainly for a clergyman no weight more deeply pressing down from the regions in which his spirit should live and more hindering his soul's development than a not perfectly spiritually-minded wife**).“ He could, however, have added that for the same reason the saying also applies to us all: it is good for a man not to touch a woman. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife***).

72 In general Leo has truly acutely and with the light of faith discovered all the points where „sin clings“ to the Reformation, and, in the face of shallow and flat enlightenment and its present power, it required on his part an immense courage to recognise and fearlessly express that the clergy is due and deserves the „princely position.“ By a Gregory VII, Innocent III, Ximenes, goals were striven for and attained to which modern politics dare not raise its eyes+).

73 On this foundation may Leo build boldly and intrepidly, and all traces of his earlier rationalist formation will disappear from his works. He will stand as one

74 of the most powerful heroes of faith and deliver victorious battles to the atheists. For the present we have dared to sustain the struggle, to overthrow the master of lies and to offer battle to his nefarious disciples. We have the promise for us, that their essence will not long endure and the good cause of truth will triumph. „The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes. They encourage themselves in an evil matter: they commune of laying snares privily. All their doctrine is hurtful and false, they will not be made wise to do good. They devise mischief upon their bed; they set themselves in a way that is not good; they abhor not evil*).“

75 „They destroy all and speak evil thereof, and speak and blaspheme loftily. What they speak must be spoken from heaven. What they say must prevail on earth**).“

76 They are „the false mouths that speak against the righteous, stiff, proud and scornful***).“

77 „They devise to do hurt and seek false matters against them that are quiet in the land+).“

78 „Their fat ones hold together, they speak with their mouth proudly. Whither we go, they compass us about; they set their eyes, casting us down to the earth; like as a lion that is greedy of his prey, and as it were a young lion lurking in secret places++).“

79 „For, lo, the wicked bend their bow, they make ready their arrow upon the string, that they may privily shoot at the upright in heart. For they destroy the foundations+++).“

80 *) Ps. 36, 2-5.

81 „The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes. They encourage themselves in an evil matter: they commune of laying snares privily. All their doctrine is hurtful and false, they will not be made wise to do good. They devise mischief upon their bed; they set themselves in a way that is not good; they abhor not evil*).“

82 „Their mouth is smoother than butter, but war is in their heart: their words are softer than oil, yet are they drawn swords*).“

83 „They whet their tongue like a sword, they aim with their poisonous words like arrows, that they may shoot in secret at the perfect: suddenly do they shoot at him, and fear not. They are bold in their evil devices, and say how they will lay snares, and speak: who can see them? They devise iniquity, and keep it secret, they are cunning and have swift wiles. But God shall shoot at them with an arrow; suddenly shall they be wounded. Their own tongue shall cut them down: all that see them shall laugh them to scorn**).“

84 „They shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb. The wicked shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the Lord, they shall inherit the earth.“

85 „For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be***).“