Page 40

THE EGO AND HIS OWN

whether he has ever doubted that the copulation of
brother and sister is incest, that monogamy is the
truth of marriage, that filial piety is a sacred duty,
etc., then a moral shudder will come over him at the
conception of one's being allowed to touch his sister as
wife also, etc. And whence this shudder ? Because
he believes in those moral commandments. This
moral faith is deeply rooted in his breast. Much as
he rages against the pious Christians, he himself has
nevertheless as thoroughly remained a Christian,--to
wit, a moral Christian. In the form of morality
Christianity holds him a prisoner, and a prisoner
under faith. Monogamy is to be something sacred,
and he who may live in bigamy is punished as a crim-
inal; he who commits incest suffers as a criminal.
Those who are always crying that religion is not to be
regarded in the State, and the Jew is to be a citizen
equally with the Christian, show themselves in accord
with this. Is not this of incest and monogamy a
dogma of faith ? Touch it, and you will learn by ex-
perience how this moral man is a hero of faith too, not
less than Krummacher, not less than Philip II. These
fight for the faith of the Church, he for the faith of
the State, or the moral laws of the State ; for articles
of faith, both condemn him who acts otherwise than
their faith will allow. The brand of " crime " is
stamped upon him, and he may languish in reformato-
ries, in jails. Moral faith is as fanatical as religious
faith ! They call that " liberty of faith " then, when
brother and sister, on account of a relation that they
should have settled with their " conscience," are
thrown into prison, " But they set a pernicious exam-

MEN OF THE OLD TIME AND THE NEW 59

ple." Yes, indeed: others might have taken the no-
tion that the State had no business to meddle with
their relation, and thereupon " purity of morals "
would go to ruin. So then the religious heroes of
faith are zealous for the " sacred God," the moral ones
for the " sacred good."

Those who are zealous for something sacred often

look very little like each other. How the strictly or-
thodox or old-style believers differ from the fighters
for " truth, light, and justice," from the Philalethes,
the Friends of Light, the Rationalists, etc. And yet,
how utterly unessential is this difference ! If one
buffets single traditional truths (e. g. miracles, un-
limited power of princes, etc.), then the rationalists
buffet them too, and only the old-style believers wail.
But, if one buffets truth itself, he immediately has
both, as believers, for opponents. So with moralities;
the strict believers are relentless, the clearer heads are
more tolerant. But he who attacks morality itself
gets both to deal with. " Truth, morality, justice,
light, etc.," are to be and remain " sacred." What
any one finds to censure in Christianity is simply sup-
posed to be " unchristian " according to the view of
these rationalists; but Christianity must remain a
" fixture," to buffet it is outrageous, " an outrage." ,
To be sure, the heretic against pure faith no longer
exposes himself to the earlier fury of persecution, but
so much the more does it now fall upon the heretic
against pure morals.

Piety has for a century received so many blows, and

had to hear its superhuman essence reviled as an " in-