326 



PHILOSOPHICAL THOUGHT. 



stated above, not only such works as this one, but 

 even Schleiermacher's own theological writings found, 

 for a long time, no place in the many histories of 

 philosophy which began to appear after the death of 

 Hegel, and which were no doubt very generally stimu- 

 lated by Hegel's own great work on the subject. 



In quite recent times, when the philosophy of religion 

 has again, together with the related metaphysical pro- 

 blems, attracted serious attention not only in Germany 

 but everywhere in European and American literature, 

 the opinion has been expressed that no real progress 

 has been made in the subject since the time of Hegel 

 and Schleiermacher ; the many later writings on it 

 being fragmentary, preliminary, and only preparative 

 to some coming greater performance.'^ In the face of 

 Lotze's philosophy of religion this view is hardly tenable, 



^ There is a very interesting 

 Review of the position of the 

 philosophy of Religion at the end 

 of the nineteenth centurj' by Prof. 

 Ernst Troltsch in the Memorial 

 Volume dedicated to Kuno Fischer 

 and frequently quoted in this 

 history. He there says (vol. i. 

 p. 109) : "The position of the 

 doctrine [philosophy of religion] 

 in the present time cannot be 

 described as showing any unity. 

 It is only possible to exhibit the 

 different main elements which con- 

 tribute to the formation of such 

 a doctrine. . . . These can be 

 divided into five groups. In the 

 first line there are the influences 

 which philosophical creeds have 

 upon the conception of religion. 

 . . . Next comes the contribu- 

 tion of theology which operates 

 with the conception of revelation, 

 and further, that of comparative 



history of religion. Then follows 

 epistemology and psychology of 

 religion. The conclusion is formed 

 by the tradition of the classical 

 modern philosophy of religion." 

 The "classics" are, according to 

 Troltsch, Schleiermacher, Hegel, 

 and Schelling. The two former 

 have been largely followed and 

 exploited, but the truth con- 

 tained in Schelling's later philo- 

 sophy awaits a dee))er compre- 

 hension. " In the meantime only 

 Richard Rothe has ingeniouslj' 

 and thoughtfully taken up Schel- 

 ling's bequest, bringing out 

 still more strongly Schelling's 

 tendency towards an exclusive 

 supernaturalism " (p. 158). It is 

 interesting to note that, in the 

 Review by this eminent scholar, 

 the names of Ritschl, Lotze, and 

 Weisse, so prominent in our text, 

 do not occur. 



