least
shaken
by
his
criticism,
which,
however,
ener-
getically
asserted
the
firm
foundation
of
moral
con-
sciousness,
and
so
led
up
to
God
by
a
new
way,
in
postulating
the
existence
of
a
deity
for
the
estab-
lishment
of
the
harmony
required
by
12.
Kant
the
moral
consciousness
between
the
and
Fichte.
moral
dignity
of
the
subjects
and
their
happiness
based
upon
the
adaptation
of
nature
to
their
ends.
Fichte
was
led
from
this
standpoint
to
a
God
who
is
not
personal,
but
repre-
sents
the
moral
order
of
the
universe,
believing
in
which
we
are
to
act
as
duty
requires,
without
ques-
tion
as
to
the
results.
But
for
a
time
the
most
successful
and
apparently
the
most
dangerous
to
Christian
theology
was
a
pantheistic
philosophical
conception
of
God
which
took
for
its
foundation
the
idea
of
an
Absolute
raised
above
subject
and
object,
above
thinking
and
being;
which
explained
and
claimed
to
deduce
all
truth
as
the
necessary
self
-development
of
this
idea.
With
Schelling
this
pantheism
is
still
in
embryo,
and
finally
comes
back
(in
his
"
philosophy
of
revelation
")
to
the
recognition
of
the
divine
per-
sonality,
with
an
attempt
to
construct
it
specula-
tively.
In
a
great
piece
of
constructive
work
the
philosophy
of
Hegel
imdertook
to
show
how
this
Absolute
is
first
pure
being,
identical
with
not-
being;
how
then,
in
the
form
of
extemalization
or
becoming
other,
it
comes
to
be
nature
1
3.
HegeL
or
descends
to
nature
;
and
finally,
in
the
finite
spirit,
resumes
itself
into
itself,
comes
to
itself,
becomes
self-conscious,
and
thus
now
for
the
first
time
takes
on
the
form
of
personality.
For
Christian
theology
the
special
importance
of
this
teaching
was
its
claim
to
have
taken
what
Christian
doctrine
had
comprehended
only
in
a
limited
way
of
God,
the
divine
Personality,
the
Incarnation,
etc.,
and
to
have
expressed
it
according
to
its
real
con-
tent
and
to
the
laws
of
thought.
The
conservative
Hegelians
still
maintained
that
God,
in
himself
and
apart
from
the
creation
of
the
world
and
the
origin
of
hiunan
personality,
was
to
be
considered
as
a
self-conscious
spirit
or
personality,
and
thus
offered
positive
support
to
the
Christian
doctrine
of
God
and
his
revelation
of
himself.
But
the
Hegelian
principles
were
more
logically
carried
out
by
the
opposite
wing
of
the
party,
especially
by
David
Friedrich
Strauss
(in
his
ChriaUichcGlatibenS'
lehre^
Tilbingen,
1840)
in
the
strongest
antithesis
to
the
Christian
doctrine
of
a
personal
God,
of
Christ
as
the
only
Son
of
God
and
the
God-Man,
and
of
a
personal
ethical
relation
between
God
and
man.
Some
other
philosophers,
however,
who
may
be
classed
in
general
under
the
head
of
the
modem
speculative
idealism,
have,
in
their
specu-
lations
on
the
Absolute
as
actually
present
in
the
universe,
retained
a
belief
in
the
personality
of
God.
The
realist
philosopher
Herbart,
who
recognized
a
personal
God
not
through
speculations
on
the
Absolute
and
the
finite,
but
on
the
basis
of
moral
consciousness
and
teleology,
yet
defined
little
about
him,
and
what
he
has
to
say
on
this
subject
never
attracted
much
attention
among
theologians.
The
Hegelian
pantheistic
"
absolute
idealism,
''
once
widely
prevalent,
did
not
long
retain
its
domi-
nation.
Its
place
was
taken
first
in
many
quarters,
as
with
Strauss,
by
an
atheistic
materialism;
Hegel
had
made
the
universal
abstract
into
14.
Post-
God,
and
when
men
abandoned
their
Hegelian
belief
in
this
and
in
its
power
to
pro-
Philoso-
duce
results,
they
gave
up
their
belief
phers.
in
God
with
it.
Among
the
post-
Hegelian
philosophers
the
most
im-
portant
for
the
present
subject
is
Lotze,
with
his
de-
fense
and
confirmation
of
the
idea
of
a
personal
God,
going
back
in
the
most
independent
way
both
to
Herbart
and
to
idealism,
both
to
Spinoza
and
to
Leibnitz.
Christian
theology
can,
of
course,
only
protest
against
the
peculiar
pantheism
of
Schopen-
hauer,
which
is
really
much
older
than
he,
but
never
before
attained
wide
currency,
and
against
that
of
Von
Hartmann.
The
significance
for
the
doctrine
of
God
of
the
newer
philosophical
undertakings
which
are
characterized
by
an
empiricist-realist
tendency,
and
based
on
epistemology
and
criticism
is
found
not
so
much
in
their
definite
expressions
about
God
—
they
do
not
as
a
rule
consider
him
an
object
of
scientific
expression,
even
when
they
allow
him
to
be
a
necessary
object
of
faith
—
as
in
the
impulse
which
they
give
to
critical
investigation
of
religious
belief
and
perception
in
general.
Theology,
at
least
German
theology,
before
Schleiermacher
showed
but
little
understanding
of
and
interest
in
the
problems
regarding
a
proper
conception
and
confirmation
of
the
doctrine
of
God
which
had
been
laid
before
it
in
this
development
of
philosophy
beginning
with
Kant.
This
is
espe-
cially
true
of
its
attitude
toward
Kant
himself
—
and
not
only
of
the
supranaturalists
who
were
sus-
picious
of
any
exaltation
of
the
natural
reason,
but
also
of
the
rationalists,
who
still
had
a
superficial
devotion
to
the
Enlightenment
and
to
Wolffian
phi-
losophy.
In
Schleiermacher
's
teaching
about
God,
however,
the
results
of
a
devout
and
immediate
consciousness
were
combined
with
philosophical
postulates.
In
his
mind
the
place
of
all
the
so-called
proofs
of
the
existence
of
God
is
completely
suph
plied
by
the
recognition
that
the
feeling
of
absolute
dependence
involved
in
the
devout
15.
Schleier-
Christian
consciousness
is
a
universal
macher.
element
of
life;
in
this
consciousness
he
finds
the
explanation
of
the
source
of
this
feeling
of
dependence,
i.e.,
of
God,
as
being
love,
by
which
the
divine
nature
communicates
itself.
For
his
reasoned
philosophical
speculation,
however,
on
the
human
spirit
and
imiversal
being,
the
idea
of
God
is
nothing
but
the
idea
of
the
abso-
lute
unity
of
the
ideal
and
the
real,
which
in
the
world
exist
as
opposites.
(Compare
Schelling's
philosophy
of
identity,
unlike
which,
however,
Schleiermacher
acknowledges
the
impossibility
of
a
speculative
deduction
of
opposites
from
an
original
identity;
and
the
teaching
of
Spinoza,
whose
con-
ception
of
God,
however,
as
the
one
substance
he
does
not
share.)
Thus
God
and
the
universe
are
to
him
correlatives,
but
not
identical
—
God
is
unity
without
plurality,
the
universe
plurality
without
unity;
and
this
God
is
apprehended
by
man's
feeling,
just
as
man's
feeling
apprehends
the
unity
of
ideal
and
real.
Marheineke
believed
it
possible
as
a
dogmatic
