FIRST BOOK. It is not a history of the Protestant Church of Germany since the middle of the last century which the following pages pretend to offer, but a survey of the systems and tendencies which, since that period, have agitated Protestantism, that thus we may be enabled to understand the history of the present. A threefold prejudice stands in the way of such a history: First, That we are thereby led from the fresh blooming territory of life into the dark misty land of abstractions. Secondly, That by the confusion occasioned by the crossing and opposition of the various systems, we are distracted rather than edified. Thirdly, That as regards a comprehensive view of the whole, the reader is too much at the mercy of the stand-point of the author. It is true that such a history of systems and tendencies leads into the world of thoughts. In no age, however, have thoughts ventured farther out into life than in the second half of the eighteenth century, where philosophy sought to rule over both State and Church. It is true, also, that it is precisely in this period that these thoughts come more into contact and conflict with B each other; but the task which this book proposes to itself is, in substance, to point out their internal unity. This, however, we state with the conviction that our ability falls very far short of the ideal which we ourselves entertain of such a task. It is farther true that the author views this movement from a stand-point which is not common to all. But, on the other hand, no true history has hitherto been obtained without forming a judgment. All that can be demanded is, that the opinion should not break in upon the phenomena like a thunderbolt from a clear sky, but should be able to point out, and bring to light the judgment which, from within, is passed upon the systems; that the last word which the author may have to speak should not be in strict opposition to the whole movement, but should be able to vindicate itself just by the movement. It would be moving in a circle, if the author were here to state the reasons which have induced him to divide the period here to be traversed into two, which, as far as systems can be circumscribed by numbers, have, for their boundary, the end of the eighteenth century. The second half of the eighteenth century is to him the period of Illuminism; the first half of the nineteenth century the period of Renovation. Of the former we shall treat in this First Book: the Second Book will embrace the latter. The German word is Aufklärung, which means " clearing-up, illumination, enlightenment." It has not in itself a bad meaning, but is so used by all parties-although, of course, in a different sense. The context must decide the exact meaning to be attached to it. Our author designates thereby opposition to the mysteries of faith, and to all truth revealed from without. By its derivation from the adjective klar, i.e. clear, the word reminds us, moreover, of the leading principle of all these schools and systems: Wahr ist, was klar ist, i.e. true is all that which is clear, i.e. which agrees with man's natural sense for truth--with common sense.-TR. CHAPTER I. ILLUMINISM. It is scarcely possible to understand an age which undertook to determine all the forms and institutions of life by the pure idea, to explain all of them from it, without viewing, carefully and minutely, the course of philosophy, -that science which has, from of old, considered herself as queen in the domain of thoughts. Proceeding from the fundamental view that philosophy is the scientific self-consciousness of an age, modern philosophy, of which Descartes is usually considered the father, has been declared to be the philosophy of Protestantism. That which, in the Reformation, was carried out on the territory of religion, was, as is generally affirmed, accomplished, since Descartes, on the domain of philosophy. It is true that, at first sight, this view is contradicted by the circumstance that Descartes was a zealous Roman Catholic, who even made a pilgrimage to Loretto; that Spinoza was a Jew; and that Leibnitz exerted himself, with all his might, for a final union of the separated individual churches. By such outward facts, however, a matter so purely internal in its character, cannot be determined, and this all the more, because to these external facts others may be opposed: such as, that the writings of Descartes were put into the Index; Spinoza was compelled to leave the Synagogue; and Leibnitz, after all, belonged by birth to the Protestant Church. It is argued, that as Protestantism, proceeding from subjective faith, broke through the authority and tradition of the Church of the Middle Ages, so the father of modern philosophy proceeded from doubting all truth handed down by tradition;-as Protestantism developed all its doctrines from subjective faith, so the father of modern philosophy acquired and formed the sum and substance of his knowledge from self-consciousness. But this dazzling combination rests on an assertion as unphilosophical as it is unhistorical. Protestantism is a religious, a Christian, and an ecclesiastical stage of development; but being such, it demands that it shall be measured by the law of its own territory of life. He, however, who affirms that Protestantism, with its doctrine of the subjective faith, broke through the tradition of the Church of the Middle Ages, confounds Protestantism with a caricature of the Reformation-with fanaticism. Protestantism has assailed the authority of the Medieval Church with an authority, the decisive weight of which the latter herself acknowledged, viz., with Scripture. According to the principle of Protestantism, it is not that which agrees with the subjective faith, but that which is in accordance with Scripture, which is true. It is not consistent with truth to fasten upon the Reformers who assailed, with the strongest weapons, a spirit destructive of the word of Scripture and of the right of what is historical, and who, acquainted as they were with the old philosophy and with scholasticism, denied to reason any right whatsoever to judge in matters of faith; it is not consistent with truth to fasten upon them the inference that the truth of their standing-point was self-consciousness,-that self-consciousness which pulls down a world in order to rebuild it out of itself. Another question is, Whether the character of modern philosophy does not stand in vital connection with the essence of Protestantism? In opposition to the Jewish kings, who made flesh their arm; in opposition to the priests, who performed works which were merely external, |