按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
Lessing steadily avoided this method of interpretation。 He had studied Spinoza to some purpose； and the outlines of Biblical criticism laid down by that remarkable thinker Lessing developed into a system wonderfully like that now adopted by the Tubingen school。 The cardinal results which Baur has reached within the past generation were nearly all hinted at by Lessing； in his commentaries on the Fragments。 The distinction between the first three； or synoptic gospels； and the fourth； the later age of the fourth； and the method of composition of the first three； from earlier documents and from oral tradition； are all clearly laid down by him。 The distinct points of view from which the four accounts were composed； are also indicated；the Judaizing disposition of 〃Matthew；〃 the Pauline sympathies of 〃Luke；〃 the compromising or Petrine tendencies of 〃Mark；〃 and the advanced Hellenic character of 〃John。〃 Those best acquainted with the results of modern criticism in Germany will perhaps be most surprised at finding such speculations in a book written many years before either Strauss or Baur were born。
But such results； as might have been expected； did not satisfy the pastor Goetze or the public which sympathized with him。 The valiant pastor unhesitatingly declared that he read the objections which Lessing opposed to the Fragmentist with more horror and disgust than the Fragments themselves； and in the teeth of the printed comments he declared that the editor was craftily upholding his author in his deistical assault upon Christian theology。 The accusation was unjust； because untrue。 There could be no genuine cooperation between a mere iconoclast like Reimarus； and a constructive critic like Lessing。 But the confusion was not an unnatural one on Goetze's part； and I cannot agree with M。 Fontanes in taking it as convincing proof of the pastor's wrong…headed perversity。 It appears to me that Goetze interpreted Lessing's position quite as accurately as M。 Fontanes。 The latter writer thinks that Lessing was a Christian of the liberal school since represented by Theodore Parker in this country and by M。 Reville in France； that his real object was to defend and strengthen the Christian religion by relieving it of those peculiar doctrines which to the freethinkers of his time were a stumbling…block and an offence。 And； in spite of Lessing's own declarations； he endeavours to show that he was an ordinary theist；a follower of Leibnitz rather than of Spinoza。 But I do not think he has made out his case。 Lessing's own confession to Jacobi is unequivocal enough； and cannot well be argued away。 In that remarkable conversation； held toward the close of his life； he indicates clearly enough that his faith was neither that of the ordinary theist； the atheist； nor the pantheist； but that his religious theory of the universe was identical with that suggested by Spinoza； adopted by Goethe； and recently elaborated in the first part of the 〃First Principles〃 of Mr。 Herbert Spencer。 Moreover； while Lessing cannot be considered an antagonist of Christianity； neither did he assume the attitude of a defender。 He remained outside the theological arena； looking at theological questions from the point of view of a layman； or rather； as M。 Cherbuliez has happily expressed it； of a Pagan。 His mind was of decidedly antique structure。 He had the virtues of paganism： its sanity； its calmness； and its probity； but of the tenderness of Christianity； and its quenchless aspirations after an indefinable ideal； of that feeling which has incarnated itself in Gothic cathedrals； masses and oratorios； he exhibited but scanty traces。 His intellect was above all things self…consistent and incorruptible。 He had that imperial good…sense which might have formed the ideal alike of Horace and of Epictetus。 No clandestine preference for certain conclusions could make his reason swerve from the straight paths of logic。 And he examined and rejected the conclusions of Reimarus in the same imperturbable spirit with which he examined and rejected the current theories of the French classic drama。
Such a man can have had but little in common with a preacher like Theodore Parker； or with a writer like M。 Fontanes； whose whole book is a noble specimen of lofty Christian eloquence。 His attribute was light； not warmth。 He scrutinized； but did not attack or defend。 He recognized the transcendent merits of the Christian faith； but made no attempt to reinstate it where it had seemed to suffer shock。 It was therefore with the surest of instincts； with that same instinct of self…preservation which had once led the Church to anathematize Galileo； that Goetze。 proclaimed Lessing a more dangerous foe to orthodoxy than the deists who had preceded him。 Controversy； he doubtless thought； may be kept up indefinitely； and blows given and returned forever； but before the steady gaze of that scrutinizing eye which one of us shall find himself able to stand erect？ It has become fashionable to heap blame and ridicule upon those who violently defend an antiquated order of things； and Goetze has received at the hands of posterity his full share of abuse。 His wrath contrasted unfavourably with Lessing's calmness； and it was his misfortune to have taken up arms against an opponent who always knew how to keep the laugh upon his own side。 For my own part I am constrained to admire the militant pastor； as Lessing himself admired him。 From an artistic point of view he is not an uninteresting figure to contemplate。 And although his attempts to awaken persecution were reprehensible； yet his ardour in defending what he believed to be vital truth is none the less to be respected。 He had the acuteness to see that Lessing's refutation of deism did not make him a Christian； while the new views proposed as a substitute for those of Reimarus were such as Goetze and his age could in no wise comprehend。
Lessing's own views of dogmatic religion are to be found in his work entitled； 〃The Education of the Human Race。〃 These views have since so far become the veriest commonplaces of criticism； that one can hardly realize that； only ninety years ago； they should have been regarded as dangerous paradoxes。 They may be summed up in the statement that all great religions are good in their time and place； that； 〃as there is a soul of goodness in things evil； so also there is a soul of truth in things erroneous。〃 According to Lessing； the successive phases of religious belief constitute epochs in the mental evolution of the human race。 So that the crudest forms of theology； even fetishism； now to all appearance so utterly revolting； and polytheism； so completely inadequate； have once been the best； the natural and inevitable results of man's reasoning powers and appliances for attaining truth。 The mere fact that a system of religious thought has received the willing allegiance of large masses of men shows that it must have supplied some consciously felt want； some moral or intellectual craving。 And the mere fact that knowledge and morality are progressive implies that each successive system may in due course of time be essentially modified or finally supplanted。 The absence of any reference to a future state of retribution； in the Pentate