The Philosophy of Revelation

THE well-known Assyrian scholar, Hugo Winckler, some years ago boldly declared that "in the whole of the historical evolution of mankind there are only two general world-views to be distinguished, — the ancient Babylonian and the modern empirico-scientific " ; " the latter of which," he added, "is still only in process of development." x The implication was that the religion and civilization of all peoples have had their origin in the land of Sumer and Akkad, and more particularly that the Biblical religion, in its New Testament no less than in its Old Testament form, has derived its material from that source. This pan-Babylonian construction of history has, because of its syncretistic and levelling character, justly met with much serious opposition. But there is undoubtedly an element of truth in the declaration, if it may be taken in this wider sense, — that the religious supranaturalistic world-view has universally prevailed among all peoples and in all ages down to our own day, and only in the last hundred and fifty years has given way in some circles to the empirico-scientific. Humanity as a whole has been at all times supranaturalistic to the core. Neither in thought nor in life have men been able to satisfy themselves with the things of this world ; they have always assumed a heaven above the earth, and behind what is visible a higher and holier older of invisible powers and blessings. This means that God and the world while sharply distinguished have at the same time stood in the closest connection; religion and civilization have not appeared as contradictory and opposing principles, but religion has been the source of all civilization, the basis of all orderly life in the family, the state, and society. Nor has this religious view of the world been confined to the East, so that it might properly be designated the oriental or old-oriental conception. We find it in all lands and among all nations. Moreover, men have not felt it a yoke or a burden pressing heavily upon them ; on the contrary, they have lived in the conviction that this is the normal state of things, that which should be and could not be otherwise. Of a conflict between religion and civilization, generally speaking, no trace can be discovered. The ancient view of the world was thoroughly religious, and in consequence of this bore a unified, harmonious character, so as to impart to the whole of earthly life a higher inspiration and sacredness.2 Christianity introduced no change in this respect. Towards the pagan world it assumed, to be sure, a negative and hostile attitude, because it could not take over its corrupt civilization without radical cleansing. But this was precisely the task it set for itself, namely, to subject and adjust the whole of earthly existence to the kingdom of heaven. It succeeded in conquering the old world and leavening it with its own spirit. In the Middle Ages there remained in the practical conduct of life elements enough which came into conflict with a system of Christianity that had been externally imposed and not inwardly assimilated; }ret even here we meet with a unified view of the world which set its stamp upon every part of life. Whether the mediseval Christian strove to control the world or to escape it, in either case he was guided by the conviction that mind is destined to gain the victory over matter, heaven to conquer earth. The Reformation brought a change in so far as it endeavored to transform the mechanical relation between nature and grace of Rome into a dynamical and ethical one. The image of God not being a supranatural addition but an integral part of the nature of man, grace could no longer be considered a quantitative and material possession, preserved by the church, deposited in the sacrament, and communicated through the priest. According to the Reformers grace consisted above all in the gift of forgiveness of sins, in restoration to divine favor, in God's disposition towards man, so that it cannot be won by any works, but is given by God and apprehended in childlike faith. Over against the objective materializing of the benefits of salvation, the Reformers laid the stress on the religious subject; they gave due recognition, certainly, to the freedom of man; not, of course, to the freedom of sinful, natural man, but to the freedom of the Christian man, the spiritual man, who, having been made free by Christ, strives to fulfil the demands of the law in walking after the Spirit. Great as was the importance of this religious-ethical movement of the sixteenth century, it was after all a reformation, not a new erection from the foundation. No assault was made upon the system of the old religious world- view ; it was rather reinforced than weakened. Within the Church of Rome itself the Reformation in fact contributed in no small measure towards stemming the tide of religious indifference, and setting in motion an earnest effort towards improvement in life and morals on the basis of Rome's own principles. This positive effect of the Reformation is persistently ignored in Romanist and liberal circles, and the Reformation movement systematically represented as the origin and source of the Revolution. Cousin and Guizot agree in this judgment with De Bonald and De Maistre.3 French Protestantism finds it acceptable, and puts forward and praises the " Declaration of the Rights of Man " as a blessed fruit of the labors of Luther and Calvin. And in Germany, by men like Paulsen and Julius Kaftan, Kant is glorified as a second Luther, the true philosopher of Protestantism.4 No doubt between these two mighty movements of modern history certain lines of resemblance may be traced. But formal resemblance is not the same as real likeness, analogy as identity. …