THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
ES
Founded upon the experience of the practical reason, the knowledge of freedom, immortality, and God (on the three postulates, see RELIGION, Put- LOSOPHY OF, I., 3, § 4) is more secure than if derived from the complex of outer experience. This meant the reenthronement of the will in philosophy, which in the Aristotelian metaphysics had become a mere attendant of the intellect (cf. Thomas Aquinas, in Scnoxasticism, III., 2, § 1). In this realm of the practical reason, ethical truth obtained an impregnable security, and here Kant laid the basis. The doctrine of the twofold sense had become firmly established in principle and method, and notwithstanding recurring attack, it prevails to this day in theology and philosophy.
Certainly there is only one truth; but it does not lend itself so readily to the convenient scheme of reality there and thought here. On the contrary,
in different ways, by means of differ-
3. Theory ent powers, and in pursuit of differing of Historical interests, the human spirit avails itself
Truth. of that accessible to it which proves to
be truth. According to the ways pur-
sued, truth is realized as knowledge of nature, of morality, of religion, or of art. A precipitated generalization, like the popular German ‘‘ monism ”’ of the day, affords no more than an abridgment of the kingdom of realization allotted to man. Thus, by this specialized interest, one side of the truth has come to light only recently, the truth of history. Just as the preparation of the materials of physical knowledge by Newton and his colleagues was necessary to render the critical analysis of Kant possible, so the theory of history, neglected from the time of Aristotle, had to await the preparatory historical research and grouping of material by Leopold von Ranke and his colaborers. Now, the distinction between the processes of knowledge of natural science and scientific history is seriously undertaken as well as an inquiry as to their limits. The human spirit operates under the voluntary impulse toward historical research differently from its method toward the knowledge of natural science. In the latter the process is from the individual as a mere example of the many to the concept of multiplicity, and further to law amidst manifold phenomena. Starting out from the particular, yet essentially indifferent to particularity, the reason ascends by ever repeated and rarer abstractions to the ultimate universal and necessary. But in respect of historical research, the interest attaches to the individual as regards its particularity, singularity, and unity. To invade the mystery of the individual is the specific undertaking of history. This does not mean its isolation; for the experimenter in natural science isolates the individual in order to master its phenomena, but, for the historical investigator, the single indivisible possesses its unity only in its relations, as a social individual. The term individual is not used here to refer only to the single human being, the individual exchange medium, but also to the collective unities, such as the State, the people, or the Church. The correctness of the process with reference to natural science is shown by the applied technical results. While this test is want-
ing in the other, yet in the sum total of scientific knowledge, historical science presents a conception of history which is equally fundamental to a comprehensive world-view with natural science. Natural science aims to grasp the rational in the universe; historical science, the irrational in the particular and singular in the world: both are essential to a knowledge of the whole.
This examination is of the utmost importance to theology as the science of religion; because at the present hour, the question of the verity of religion resolves itself into an inquiry into the truth of his-
torical religion. In fact, religion and 4. Religion history at present constitute the and ground themes of theology whereby
History. it is to create its master-work. Two
reasons may be ascribed for the unrest manifested on this account in certain theological and lay circles: (1) the historical critical theology (from J. S. Semler down) has done its earnest work in advance of a clear theory of the relation of history and religion; but the problems of historical theology lie momentarily more in the order of historical theory than in research; (2) the naive or traditional Christianity of many has not yet adapted itself to that advantage which devolves, with respect to the historical material, upon the subjective factor of appropriation by faith or personal conviction independently achieved. No longer is the truth that system of supernatural cognitions and opinions handed down by the theologians from generation to generation. Nor is it simply search for truth without rest or aim (Lessing). Just as for natural science there is in order a “ will for natural science,” so for religious truth there is requisite a “ will for religious truth.”” The latter is undoubtedly at hand as idea, in general; but as reality it is present only in that receptive subject in which it has become reality. Religious truth is also the common historical property of the religious society, but only so far as experienced and adapted anew in the experience of the individuals. The absoluteness of Christianity no longer rests upon Aristotelian logic and Platonic mysticism, or syllogistic abstractions and the via negativa; but upon the fact that from the time of Jesus Christ there have been men continually who attributed absolute worth to Christianity and gave their life for it. There is no absoluteness on earth but that of personal estimation and conviction. Religion demands no more than that men affirm: thou art true. God requires no more than that men shall fear, love, and trust him in all things. Christ asks no more than that men accept him as the way, the truth, and the life. The relativity of the history of religion can be overcome only practically, each man working for himself and not by proxy in any other way. The only triumphant answer to the relativity of universal religious history is its mission to the world, which is also its necessary complement for the theory of religious truth.
Under these circumstances error has won a different position in the religious system. There is not only tolerable, but also, on the average, necessary, dissonance in the harmony. Not every error 1s meant, but that of the sincerely seeking man,
-