George Cross · 14 of 40

A. A Sketch of Schleiermacher’s Life. · RELIGIOUS REACTION IN PRUSSIA

At the conclusion of the war, notwithstanding his invaluable services to the cause of the country, Schleiermacher found himself in a difficult position. The overthrow of Napoleon was followed by a vigorous conservative reaction. As it has been said of the restored Bourbon house in France, they came back “having learned nothing and having forgotten nothing,” so also it might almost be said of Frederick William of Prussia. His attitude is indicated by his participation with the emperors of Russia and Austria in the so-called Holy Alliance, which was simply a determined attempt to prevent the rise of freedom for the individual and of democracy in government. The king attempted to play the part of a Constantine or a Charlemagne by trying to bring the church as well as the state under direct royal control. Schleiermacher was by no means persona grata to him, for he could see that individualism in religion spells democracy in ecclesiastical and state affairs. He had promised a commission for the regulation of ecclesiastical matters, but, instead, he proceeded to trample under foot the spirit of religious liberty and the rights of the Reformed church by establishing a strict Lutheranism, even going so far as to issue a new liturgy, mostly of his own composition, compulsorily to be used. Schleiermacher spoke out manfully in opposition. He affirmed that if all that the Reformation did was to transfer the pope’s power to the prince, then there was need of a new Reformation. In his Reflections (Gutachten über die für die Protestantische Kirche des Preussischen Staates einzurichtende Synodal-Verfassung), issued in 1817, he took the ground that just as in a free state constitution the power of the executive reposes on the active and willing co-operation of the citizens, so “the Protestant church consists, in truth, of the totality of the Protestant communities, and the clergy are only their servants.” He advocated a church constitution based on congregational representation, with presbyteries and synods for the regulation of all matters of order and discipline. While he was an advocate of the (rather abortive) union of the Lutheran and Reformed churches of Prussia which took place in 1817, he opposed the proposal to issue a new creed, foreseeing that it must limit the freedom of the teacher and preacher and become a barrier to the progressive apprehension of evangelical truth. He held that the teacher must be fettered by no formulae, but only when he so departs from the spirit and truth of Christianity as to alienate from him the congregation to which he ministers is he to be dealt with by the church authorities. He perceived also that the king’s policy must prove detrimental to Christianity by preventing the free critical study of the Scriptures, saying, “Purest faith and sharpest testing are one and the same, for no one that would believe what is divine should wish to believe deceptions, old or new, his own or other people’s.” Moreover his ingrained Moravianism appears in his determination to maintain freedom and spontaneity of public worship, in which the sermon and congregational singing should have a large place.

The religious struggles of those times are reflected in his Glaubenslehre, or, to use the longer title, A Systematic Exposition of the Christian Faith according to the Principles of the Evangelical Church (Der Christliche Glaube nach den Grundsätsen der evangelischen Kirche in Zusammenhange dargestellt), which the present work is intended to expound. It was published in 1821 and 1822. Throughout this great book we may perceive the working of his profound conviction that creeds and all formal doctrines are only approximate and temporary expressions of religious experiences and must ever be subordinated thereto. He endeavors, on the one hand, to do justice to traditional and current dogmatical statements by bringing into relief the religious reality that lies be hind them and, on the other, to indicate the limitations of their worth.

His differences with the civil authorities brought Schleiermacher into considerable controversy. His advocacy of congregational rights and of the freedom of the church from dictation by the state led the king to regard him as a secret republican and rendered his position insecure. His friend and brother-in-law, Arndt, was dismissed in 1817, and Schleiermacher’s letters for many years later indicate that for a long time he expected the same treatment. But his immense hold on the public esteem proved a secure protection, and he was left undisturbed. His increasing years and his chronic poor health unfitted him to become leader of a popular movement for the liberation of the church, and at last, so far as the liturgy was concerned, a compromise was reached, Schleiermacher being left free to use it or not to use it as his conscience might decide. While the propagation of his views had, doubtless, been working for the liberation of the church in Germany, his compromise with the authorities postponed it.