Continuation of the Former, and also something about Religious
Mysteries.
After the account of the secret society in the last chapter, this seems
the most appropriate place to state, for the examination of the
thoughtful reader, my opinion about _mysteries in general_, and about
the _mysteries of religion_ in particular.
_Mysteries in general_ are modes of the causal relation between objects
in nature,--modes which are real or held to be real, but which cannot be
disclosed to every man by the natural use of his powers of knowledge.
_Eternal truths_, that is, those necessary relations of objects which
are founded on the nature of our powers of knowledge, however few may be
familiar with them, are not, according to this definition, mysteries,
because any one can discover them by the use of his powers of knowledge.
On the other hand, the results of _sympathy_ and _antipathy_, the
medical _specifics_, and similar effects, which some men fall upon by
mere accident, and which they afterwards find confirmed by means of
observations and experiments, are genuine _mysteries of nature_, which
can be made known to another person, not by the use of his powers of
knowledge, but only either by an accident of the same kind, or by
communication from the first discoverer. If mysteries of this sort are
not confirmed by observation and experiment, the belief in their reality
is called _superstition_.
_Religion_ is a covenant formed between man and another moral being of a
higher genus. It presupposes a natural relation between man and this
higher moral being, so that, by the mutual fulfilment of their covenant,
they advance the interest of each other. If this natural relation (not
being merely arbitrary and conventional) is real, and the mutual
obligation of the contracting persons is founded on this relation, then
it forms a _true_, but otherwise a _false_, natural religion. If the
mutual obligation between man and the higher being or his
representatives is drawn up in a formal code, there arises a _positive_
or _revealed religion_.
The true religion, natural as well as revealed, which, as already
observed, constitutes Judaism, consists in a contract, at first merely
understood, but afterwards expressed, between man and the Supreme Being,
who revealed Himself to the patriarchs in person (in dreams and
prophetic appearances), and made known by them His will, the reward of
obeying it and the punishment of disobedience, regarding which a
covenant was then with mutual consent concluded. Subsequently, through
his representative Moses, He renewed His covenant with the Israelites in
Egypt, determining more precisely their mutual obligations; and this
was afterwards on both sides formally confirmed on Mount Sinai.
To the thoughtful reader I do not need to say, that the representation
of a covenant between God and man is to be taken merely _analogically_,
and not in its strict sense. The absolutely Perfect Being can reveal
Himself merely _as idea to the reason_. What revealed itself to the
patriarchs and prophets, suitably to their power of comprehension, in
figure, in an anthropomorphic manner, was not the absolutely Perfect
Being Himself, but a representative of Him, His sensible image. The
covenant, which this Being concludes with man, has not for its end the
mutual satisfaction of wants; for the Supreme Being has no wants, and
the wants of man are satisfied, not by means of this covenant, but only
by observation of those relations between himself and other natural
objects, which are founded on the laws of nature. This covenant,
therefore, can have its foundation nowhere but in the nature of reason,
without reference to any end.
Heathenism, in my opinion, is distinguished from Judaism mainly by the
fact, that the latter rests upon the _formal_, absolutely necessary laws
of reason, while the former (even if it be founded on the nature of
things and therefore real) rests upon the _material_ laws of nature
which are merely hypothetically necessary. From this the inevitable
result is polytheism; every particular cause is personified by
imagination, that is, represented as a moral being, and made a
particular deity. At first this result was a matter of mere
_Empiricism_; but by and by men had occasion to observe that these
causes, which were represented as particular deities, were dependent on
each other in their effects, and in a certain aspect subordinate to each
other. There thus arose gradually a whole system of heathen theology, in
which every deity maintains his rank, and his relation to the rest is
determined.
Judaism, on the other hand, in its very origin contemplated a _system_,
that is, a unity among the forces of nature; and thereby it received at
last this _pure formal_ unity. This unity is merely of _regulative_ use,
that is, for the complete systematic connection of all the phenomena of
nature; and it presupposes a knowledge of the _multiplicity_ of the
various forces in nature. But owing to their excessive love of system,
and their anxiety for the preservation of the _principle_ in its purity,
the Israelites seem to have wholly neglected its application. The result
was that they preserved a religion which was pure indeed, but at the
same time very unfruitful, both for the extension of knowledge and for
its application in practical life. By this cause may be explained their
constant murmuring against the leaders of their religion, and their
repeated relapse into idolatry. They could not, like enlightened nations
at the present day, direct their attention to purity of principle and
useful application of their religion at the same time, and therefore of
necessity they failed either in the one or in the other. Finally the
Talmudists introduced a merely _formal_ application of religion which
aimed at no real end; and by this means they made matters worse and
worse.
This religion, therefore, which, by the intention of its founder, should
have formed the Jews into the wisest and most intelligent of nations,
made them by its injudicious application the most ignorant and
unreasonable of all. Instead of the knowledge of nature being combined
with the knowledge of religion, and the former subordinated to the
latter merely as the material to the formal, the former was altogether
neglected; and the principle, maintained in its mere abstractness,
continued without any application.
Mysteries of religion are objects and acts, which are adapted to ideas
and principles, and the inner meaning of which is of great importance,
but which have in their outward form something unseemly or ridiculous or
otherwise objectionable. They must therefore, even in regard to their
outward form, be kept concealed from the vulgar eye, which cannot
penetrate into the inner meaning of anything; and accordingly for it
they must be a double mystery. That is to say, the objects or acts
themselves constitute the lesser mysteries, and their inner meaning the
greater mysteries.
Of this sort, for example, among the Jews, in the tabernacle, and
afterwards in the Holy of Holies in the temple, was the ark of the
covenant, which, according to the testimony of renowned authors, showed
much resemblance to the sacred chest in the innermost shrine of some
heathen temples. Thus we find among the Egyptians the casket of Apis,
that concealed from the vulgar eye this dead animal, which as a symbol
indeed had an important meaning, but in itself presented a repulsive
aspect. The ark of the covenant in the first temple contained, it is
true, according to the testimony of Holy Scripture, nothing besides the
two tables of the law; but of the ark in the second temple, built after
the Babylonian captivity, I find in the Talmud a passage which is too
remarkable not to be adduced. According to this passage the enemies, who
seized the temple, found in the Holy of Holies the likeness of two
persons of different sex embracing, and profaned the sacred object by a
crass exposition of its inner meaning. This likeness was said to be a
vivid sensible representation of the union between the nation and God,
and, in order to guard against abuse, had to be withdrawn from the eye
of the common people, who cling to the symbol, but do not penetrate to
its inner meaning. For the same reason the _cherubim_ also were
concealed behind the veil.
Of the same sort were the mysteries of the ancients in general. But the
greatest of all mysteries in the Jewish religion consists in the name,
Jehovah, expressing _bare existence_, in abstraction from all
_particular kinds of existence_, which cannot of course be conceived
without _existence in general_. The doctrine of the unity of God, and
the dependence of all beings on Him, in regard to their possibility as
well as their actuality, can be perfectly comprehended only in
conformity with a _single system_. When Josephus, in his apology against
Apion, says, "The first instruction of our religion relates to the
Godhead, and teaches that God comprehends all things, is an absolutely
Perfect and Blessed Being, and is the _sole cause of all existence_," I
believe that these words contain the best explanation of the otherwise
difficult passage, where Moses says to God, "Behold, when I come unto
the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers
hath sent me unto you, and they shall ask, What is his name? what shall
I answer unto them?" and God replies, "Thus shalt thou say unto the
children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob hath sent me unto you, for this is my name for
ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations."[52] For, in my
opinion, this passage means nothing more than that the Jewish religion
lays at its foundation the unity of God as the _immediate_ cause of all
existence; and it says therefore precisely the same as the remarkable
inscription on the pyramid at Sais, "I am all that is and was and shall
be; my veil has no mortal removed," and that other inscription under the
column of Isis, "I am that which is." The name, Jehovah, is called by
the Talmudists _Shem haezam_ (_nomen proprium_), the name of the
essence, which belongs to God in Himself, without reference to His
operations. The other names of God, however, are _appellative_, and
express attributes which he has in common with all His creatures, only
that they belong to Him in the most eminent degree. For example,
_Elohim_ is a lord, a judge. _El_ is a mighty one, _Adonai_, a lord; and
the same is the case with all the rest. The Talmudists drive this point
so far as to maintain, that the Holy Scriptures consist merely of the
manifold names of God.
The Cabbalists made use of this principle. Having enumerated the chief
attributes of God, arranged them in order and brought them into a system
which they call _Olam Eziloth_ or _Sephiroth_, they not only picked out
an appropriate name for each in the Holy Scriptures, but they made in
addition all sorts of combinations of these attributes in various
relations, which they expressed by similar combinations of the
corresponding names. They could therefore easily expound the Holy
Scriptures according to their method, inasmuch as they found therein
nothing but what they had before put in themselves.
Besides these there may also be mysteries in a religion which consist in
the knowledge that the religion, as understood by enlightened people,
has no mysteries at all. This knowledge may be connected either with an
endeavour to destroy gradually among the people the belief in mysteries,
and to banish the so-called lesser mysteries by publishing the greater,
or, on the contrary, with an endeavour to preserve among the people the
belief in mysteries, and to make the preservation of the lesser
mysteries part of the subject of the greater.
The Jewish religion, according to the spirit of its founder, is of the
first kind. Moses, as well as the prophets who followed him, sought
constantly to inculcate that the end of religion is not _external
ceremonies_, but the knowledge of the true God as the sole
incomprehensible cause of all things, and the practice of virtue in
accordance with the prescriptions of reason.
The heathen religions, on the other hand, show evident traces of the
second kind. Still I am not, like some, inclined to believe that
everything in these was planned for _intentional deception_, but I
believe that the founders of these religions were for the most part
deceived deceivers; and this mode of representing the matter is far more
in accordance with human nature. I am also unable to imagine that such
secret designs could be propagated, by means of a formal tradition, from
generation to generation. And, moreover, what would have been the use of
this? Have not later generations the same faculty as the earlier of
contriving schemes to reach their ends? There are princes who have never
read Macchiavelli, and yet have admirably carried his principles into
practice.
With regard to the society of pietists described above I am persuaded
that it had as little connection with the free-masons as with any other
secret society. But conjectures are allowed, and here we have to do
merely with the _degree of probability_. In my opinion there are in
every state societies which are essentially secret, but which externally
have no appearance of being such. Every body of men with a common
interest is to me a secret society. Its aim and principal operations may
be ever so well known, still the _most important_ of these remain
concealed to the uninitiated. Of such a secret society, as of others,
much good as well as evil may therefore be said; and so long as they do
not carry their mischief too far, they are always tolerated.
The Society of Pietists had a similar end in view to that of the Order
of Illuminati in Bavaria, and employed nearly the same means. Its aim
was to spread itself among people wandering in the dark; and it made use
of superstition in a remarkable manner, as means to this end. It sought
chiefly to attract the youth to itself, and by a sort of empirical
knowledge of men, to educate every member to that, for which he seemed
to be destined by nature, and to assign him his proper place. Every
member of the society was allowed to acquire as much knowledge of its
aim and internal constitution, as enabled him to look merely backwards
on his subordinates, but not forwards on his superiors. These superiors
understood the art of communicating truths of reason by means of sublime
figures, and of translating these figurative representations into truths
of reason. It might almost be said of them, that _they understood the
language of animals_--a very important art, which is indispensable to
every teacher of the people. By doing away with a gloomy piety, their
doctrines met with acceptance among the lively youth. The principle of
self-annihilation, taught by them, is, when well understood, nothing
else than the foundation of self-activity. By its means all the modes of
thought and action, which have become rooted by education, habit and
communication with others, and by which human activity is wont to
receive a wrong direction, are to be destroyed, and one's own free mode
of action introduced. Moral and æsthetic feeling can in fact be
preserved and perfected by this principle alone. It is only when ill
understood, that it can be injurious, as I have shown by the example of
this society itself.