NOTE I.—P. 56.

TRANSITION FROM PESSIMISM TO THEISM—HARTMANN AND KARL PETERS.

It is a remarkable circumstance that Pessimism also should end by recognising the need of religion, and in its own way should be found seeking to provide for that need. The new religion, Hartmann thinks, will represent the synthesis of the religious evolution of the East and of that of the West—of the pantheistic and of the monotheistic evolution: only resting on that which is the indispensable presupposition of all religion, “the Pessimism of positive Christianity.” He describes it as “a Pantheism, and indeed a pantheistic Monism (with exclusion of all Polytheism); or impersonal immanent Monotheism, whose Godhead has the word as its objective manifestation, not outside of, but within itself” (Selbst. d. Christ. pp. 93, 97, 121). The basis of this new religious system is elaborated in the second part of his Religionsphilosophie, entitled Die Religion des Geistes. A simple reference to the table of contents in this work will show in how extraordinary a fashion it is attempted to take over the whole nomenclature of Christianity into this new philosophical religion. First the human side of the religious relation is treated of, often very suggestively. Then it is treated of in its double-sided aspect—Divine and human—under the following headings—(1) Grace and Faith in General; (2) The Grace of Revelation and Intellectual Faith; (3) The Grace of Redemption and Faith of the Heart; (4) The Grace of Sanctification and Practical Faith. The object of religion in turn is considered in a threefold aspect—(l) God as the Moment overcoming the Dependency of the World; (2) God as the Moment grounding the Dependency of the World; (3) God as the Moment grounding the Freedom of the World (Freedom in God, the righteousness of God the holiness of God). Man is considered—(1) as in need of Redemption; and (2) as capable of Redemption. The process of salvation itself is exhibited in a threefold light—(1) The Awakening of Grace; (2) The Unfolding of Grace; (3) The Fruits of Grace (!). 402Yet God, endowed with all these attributes, wise, omniscient, gracious, righteous, holy, etc., is still regarded as impersonal and unconscious. Is not Hartmann chargeable with the same fault which he seeks to fasten on the Protestant Liberals, of trying to profit by the respect which is paid to the Bible while teaching a totally different doctrine? (Selbst. d. Christ. p. 62).

Karl Peters is undoubtedly right, when he says of the systems both of Frauenstadt and of Hartmann, that they represent the transition to Theism without knowing it. In Frauenstadt’s system, he remarks, “the world in its totality is no more identified with the world-Ego, and we have, without being aware of it, gone over from Pantheism to Theism.” Criticising Hartmann, be comments on “this absolute, unconscious, all-wise idea , an omniscient wisdom, which embraces all, and only knows not itself,” and argues that in principle Theism is involved in Hartmann’s doctrine. “Here,” he says, “we reach the kernel of the whole criticism. I maintain, namely, positively, that the Philosophy of the Unconscious represents the transition from Pantheism to Theism. . . . As in Schopenhauer we have the transition from an idealistic to a realistic, so in Hartmann there is executed the transition from a pantheistic to a theistic ‘Weltanschauung.’ The former indeed believed himself to stand on quite the other side, and no doubt the latter also thinks that he is planted on the opposite bank. But as Schopenhauer could not prevent the historical development from growing beyond his standpoint, so Hartmann will seek in vain to guard himself against such a breaking up of his system....Ed v. Hartmann’s Unconscious is an almighty and all-wise Providence, raised above the world-process, which comprehends and holds within itself the whole world-development.”—Willenswelt, pp. 148, 268, 272.