Max Weber on Church, Sect, and Mysticism Author(s): Ferdinand Toennies, Georg Simmel, Ernst Troeltsch and Max

Weber Source: Sociological Analysis, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Summer, 1973), pp. 140-149 Published by: Oxford University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3709720 . Accessed: 16/01/2014 13:15
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press and Association for the Sociology of Religion, Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociological Analysis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 148.228.161.3 on Thu, 16 Jan 2014 13:15:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Max Weberon Church, Sect, and Mysticism'

Introduction
The followingdiscussionby Max Weberon church,sect, and mysticism offers an exceptional example of the differentways which four of the greatest German sociologistsrelated to key issues in the domains of the sociology of religion and the forms of religiosityin the course of a colloquy held at the first meetingof the German Sociological Society (Deutsche Gesellschaft in furSoziologie) at Frankfurt 1910. The chief themesat issue in their colloquy, though not always so plainly stated, were the varied patterns of relations of churches, sects, mysticisms, rationalisms, rationalizations, and secularizationson the roads to modernity. The main participantsin the colloquium wereErnst Troeltsch, who initiatedthe discussionby offering an historicpaper on Stoic-Christian naturallaw;2 Ferdinand Toennies, Georg Simmel, and Weber himself. (A fifth man who figured in the backgroundof these discussionsbut was not named by any of the discussantswas Weber'sclose friend,GeorgJellinek, about whose seminalresearchwe shall speak in an essay on this colloquy now in preparation.3) Weshall therewish to focus on the outcomes of Weber's interactionsand exchanges with the others in the hope of identifying distinctivecontributionshe and the others, especially Troeltsch (and Jellinek), made to a wider processual and comparative-historical sociology of religious orientations and movements than is usually ascribed to these men nowadays by specialistsin thesociology of religion.(BN)

ITr. by Jerome L. Gittleman,ed. by Benjamin Nelson from "Diskussionsredezu E. Troeltsch's Vortraguber 'Das stoisch-christliche Naturrecht'," in Max WeberGesammelte Aufsatzezur Soziologie und Sozialpolitik (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1924), pp. 462-70. The translatorand editor thank ProfessorStephen Bergerof the Departmentof Sociology of the State University of New York at Stony Brook,N.Y., forsome helpfulsuggestions about the translation.

of the fulltext of Troeltsch'spaper here under discussionwill soon be appearingin a 2A translation volume of Troeltsch'sCollected Papers now beingedited by James LutherAdams. (The originalwill now be found in E. Troeltsch,Aufsatze zur Geistesgeschichte und Religionssoziologie.Tubingen: Mohr, 1924.) 3The editor will have an opportunity along with othersto clarify theseissuesin a subsequentnumber of Sociological Analysis.

140

This content downloaded from 148.228.161.3 on Thu, 16 Jan 2014 13:15:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

141 I about the points raised by Honored guests!I wish to say something ProfessorToennies in his remarks.*With respect to the subject we are to be a Toennies has-to a considerable discussing, degree-avowedhimself we prefer of history of theeconomicinterpretation supporter (an expression of history"). One can probably inplace ofthe"materialist suminterpretation marizehis conceptionas a whole by meansof a modern whichis expression contrafrequently used but not withentire clarity, namely:thatthereligious were functions" of dictionswhich discussed in thelecture were"exponential there or other. cannotbe the some economiccontradictions Now gentlemen, doubt thateconomicrelationships enterdeeplyhere,as everywhere. slightest And my colleague and friendTroeltschhas, in his well known works, directed our attention in the most forcefulmanner to the economic But one and conditionsof specificreligiousdevelopments. relationships I ought not to think of this developmentquite so simply. believe that I agreewithToennieson manythings. perhaps,ultimately, But withrespect to what he has said,at leastin some of his remarks, at an there is an attempt all too rigidly straight construction. Professor Toennies:For the timebeing! Professor Max Weber:If I have understood him (Toennies) correctly, he has emphasized the relationshipof the religioussects to the city in the firstspecificsect, the model sect so to particular.Now, gentlemen, speak, the Donatist sect in antiquity4 -originated on purely agricultural The characteristic territory. feature of thissect,like every sect,was manifest in the factthatit could not remainsatisfied withthe Christian churchas a kind of entailed endowmentof grace, a church indifferent as to which personbestowedthisgracein sacraments, and thusindifferent to whether or not the priestwas worthy. The churchadministered magicaland marvelous forceswhich it dispensedas an institution, completely independent of the indwellingworthinessof the individual.Donatism turnsagainst this. It demandsthatif the priest is to be recognized as a priest by his congregation, he should fullyembody his religiousqualifications in his personality and mode of life.If one wishesto make a conceptualdistinction betweena sect and a church,a sect is not an institution (Anstadt) like a church,but a of the religiously community qualified. All the membersof the sect are called to salvation;only a community comprisedin this way-which also existed as an invisible church in the thought of Luther, Calvin, and Augustine-passes overintothevisiblechurch.
*Toennies,as a commentator on the Troeltsch lecture,was the first speaker precedingWeberat the GermanSociological meeting. (Tr.'s note.) 4Research since Weber's day has confirmed his emphasis on the ruralbackgrounds of the Donatist opposition to the so-calledOrthodox.On thisextremely important sect,see W.H. Frend,The Donatist Church:A Movementof Protestin Roman NorthAfrica(Oxford: ClarendonPress,1952).

This content downloaded from 148.228.161.3 on Thu, 16 Jan 2014 13:15:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

142

SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

Everything whicharose laterfromsects is linkedin thedecisive pointsto the ecclesia pura-a community the demand for purity, consisting only of and life do not of conduct whose mode those members style carrypublic signsof heavenlydisfavour, but proclaimtheglory of God. The churches, in contrast,permit their light to shine on the just and the unjust alike, and theCatholic,as well as the Lutheran accordingto the Calvinist doctrine. forexample,it is the According to the Calvinist doctrineof predestination, church's task to coerce even those who are irredeemably damned to all eternity, of the into externalconformity to the church.The formation "isect"typeof community occursfirst, as was said,outsidethecity. Toennies has Now, what was the situationoutside antiquity?Professor for the kind of developmenttypical of medieval ascribed responsibility in the agricultural to the simplicity of circumstances Christianity middle ages. He has stressed thattheconceptionof church was fractured in thecity, partlyin favorof a purelyworldly,or at least, the pure worldliness of a self-developing rationalism, partlyin favorof the sect principle (I simplify what he said withoutfalsification, this perhapswithhis agreement). Against view it can be ascertained that the power of thepapacyresteddirectly (and by no meansmerely politically)upon the cities.The Italiancitiessupported the pope in oppositionto thefeudalforces. The Italianguildsweregenerally the most Catholic ones anywhereduringthe period of the greatconflicts. Saint Thomas and the mendicant orderswere not possibleon any territory otherthan that of thecity,simply because the orders livedby begging. They could not liveamongfarmers who turned beggars away from their door. Professor Toennies:They revolted againsttheBenedictine order. Professor Max Weber:Certainly, but fromthe territory of the city.The most intensely chargedthoughts of the church, as well as thoseof thesects of piety) are first (both, the highest forms upon cityterritory in themiddle ages. . . Professor Toennies(interrupting the speaker): The Franciscans have very to the sects! important relationships Professor Max Weber:Undoubtedly, thereis no questionof that.But not the Dominicans,and I merelystate here that the Christianization of the middleages by the churches was first completed afterthere werecities.The church form and its natural law, as well as the sect form and their were first flourishing, discovered on the territory of the city.Thus I would not concede that thereis a fundamental distinction to be made here.The idea that Protestantism was really the form in which Christianpiety accommodateditselfto the modernmoney economy has been advocated In quite the same way it has been supposed thatRoman law was endlessly. only accepted as a consequenceof the relationships of the modernmoney economy.But in strong contrast to thesepositionsis the factthat-without exception-all specificformsof capitalistlaw in moderntimesoriginate in medieval law (directlyGermanic,for the most part),and are completely

This content downloaded from 148.228.161.3 on Thu, 16 Jan 2014 13:15:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MAX WEBER ON CHURCH, SECT, AND MYSTICISM

143

unknownin Roman law. It is certain thattheReformation furthermore, was firstset in motion fromregionsthat were economicallyfarbehind Italy, Florence,etc. Also, all sects,even the Baptistsects,have developedin rural areas (e.g. of Friesland), and especially well upon agriculturalsoil. Nonetheless, you shall see how farwe both agree.I onlyobject to this(and perhapsyou shall not disputewhat I say againstit). We shouldnot yieldto the opinion (whichcould be drawnfrom yourwords,eventhough indirectly and probably against your intention), that one might view religious developments as a reflexof something else, of some economicsituation. In my opinionthisis unconditionally not the case. If one wishesto clarify the relationship between economic and religious one should recallthe matters, following. As Professor Toennieswillremember, thenobility led theCalvinist-Huguenot revoltin Scotland and France-entirely so in Scotlandand predominantly so in France. And thiswas the case everywhere. The splitin the church went perpendicularly and vertically the social strataof the 16th through century;it embracedpersonsfromthe highest to the lowestclasses of the population.It is certainly no accident(and doubtlessthereare also economic reasons) that the nobility returned to the lap of the Episcopal church, and vice versa; that the Scottishmiddle class found an outlet in the Scottish CovenantChurch.It is no accidentthatmoreof theFrenchnobility quit the bannersof the Huguenotsaftera period of time,and thatwhatremained of the Huguenotsin Francewas increasingly middleclassin character. But this too should not be takento meanthatthemiddleclass as suchhad developed the pietyin questionfromeconomicmotives.On the contrary. The middle class thatwas shaped in Scotlandhas a JohnKeats,forexample,to showas one of the productsof theirtype of churchman. And Voltaireknew the genuinetypewell in France.In short,it would be entirely mistaken (and I onlyobject to this)to wishto givea one-sided economicinterpretation (even the sense thattheeconomicwas thechiefcause), or thatthesematters could be treated as a merereflex of theeconomic. 11 Now I wish to say something directly concerning Professor Troeltsch's lecture. Firstof all, thedifferent typeswhichhe introduced to us. For thepresent one must regard them as having mutuallypermeatedeach other to a considerabledegree-that is evident.Thus, Calvinism(for example) is a churchthat could not have enduredon the strength of its own dogmatic foundation. For if one manwas destined to go to helland another to heaven because of God's decreepriorto the creationof the world,theneventually one would have to raisethequestionwhichCalvinhimself avoided-wouldit be possible to see whether a man was predestined to the one place or the

This content downloaded from 148.228.161.3 on Thu, 16 Jan 2014 13:15:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

144

SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

other? In addition it must have awakened the following reflection: What of state power and the discipline purpose could be servedby the interference of the church? It is absolutely useless for the man who is condemned to hell. No matter what the man does, or what he is, God has decreed that end for him many thousands of years ago-he goes to hell and is damned. There is nothing to be done. And this is the purpose for which those instruments possessed by the church (in contrast to the sects) are generallyset in motion! In fact-I simplify the matter again-it occurs repeatedly. Witness the colossal expansion in England of a Baptism dependent upon predestination beliefs, which was a strong supporter of Cromwell's movement. Even the situation in New England, for instance, furnishesevidence. The only ones who dominated the church there were those whose external conduct at least embraced the possibility that they did not belong among the condemned. This went so far, that the others-those who did not carry these external signs-were, on these grounds, not invited to communion because it would have dishonoured God. And theirchildrenwere not admitted to christening. I wish to expand on the following point. The Greek church played a specially significantrole. It did not quite permit itself to be placed in this role without further development. Gentlemen, three decades ago Russia found itself,politically and organizationally,approximately in the situation of Diocletian's empire (and even more so of course until the abolition of serfdom), although the cultural relationships, and in many respects the economic relationships, were, in part, essentially different.Russian Christianity was, and still is today to a considerable measure, classically Christian in its specific type. Wheneverone looks at an authoritarianchurch this is the firstquestion to be raised with respect to it: Where is the court of last resort in which the ultimate infallible power rests for deciding whether or not someone belongs to the church, or if some church doctrine is correct or incorrect?-and so forth.We know that in the Catholic church today, after prolonged struggles,this authority is the Pope's alone. We know that in the Lutheran church authorityrests in the "word," the Holy Scriptures,and also with those who are called upon to interpretthe Scripturesin virtueof their office,and only these. If we now ask who representsthe court of last resortin the Greek church, the official answer (as Khomiakov5 in particular has interpretedit) is the community of the church united in love. And here it becomes apparent that while the Calvinist church is permeated by sectarianism,the Greek church is saturated, in great measure, with a very specific classical mysticism.There lives in the Orthodox church a specific mysticism based on the East's
5For Khomiakov's views, see: S. Kuznets,s.v., "Khomyakov,A.S.," in Encyclopaedia of the Social ed. Sciences, ed. E. R. A. Seligman,IV (1932), pp. 562-3; RussianIntellectualHistory:An Anthology, and tr. M. Raeff (N.Y.: Harcourt,Brace and World,1966) pp. 208-29; cf. also I.V. Kireevski'svery important letter, "On the Natureof European Cultureand Its Relation to the Cultureof Russia," ibid, pp. 174-207.

This content downloaded from 148.228.161.3 on Thu, 16 Jan 2014 13:15:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MAX WEBER ON CHURCH, SECT, AND MYSTICISM

145

unforgettable belief that brotherly love and charity, those special human relationshipswhich the great salvation religionshave transfigured (and which seem so pallid among us), that these relationships form a way not only to some social effects that are entirely incidental, but to a knowledge of the meaning of the world, to a mystical relationship to God. It is known how Tolstoy came to termswith this mysticalbelief. Generally speaking, if you wish to understandRussian literaturein its full greatness,then you must regard the mystical as the substratumupon which everything is built. When one reads Russian novels like The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky, for example, or Tolstoy's Warand Peace, one has the impression,above all, of the total meaninglessnessof events, a senseless promiscuity of passions. This effectis absolutely not accidental. It does not merely rest upon the fact that all these novels were writtenfor newspapers, and when they were begun the author had no suspicion of how they would end (as was the case with Dumas). Rather the cause lies in the secret conviction that the political, social, ethical, literary,artistic,and familially shaped life is really meaninglessin contrastto the substratumwhich extends beneath it, and which is shown and embodied in the specific forms of Russian literature.This, however, is extraordinarilydifficultfor us to grasp because it rests upon the simple classical Christian idea which Baudelaire calls the "holy prostitutionof the soul," the love of our fellow creature,i.e., anyone at all no matter who he may be, even the second-best. That it is this amorphous unshaped life-relationshipthat grants access to the gates of the eternal, timeless, and divine.' The artistic unity of these productions of Russian literature,which we customarilyfail to see, the forming principleof their greatest works lies on the reverse side of what is obtained through reading. It lies in the gravitationof the person, in his behavior, toward the spiritualextremes,the antipodes, this man whose acts appear to occur on the world's stage. And that is the result of Russian religiosity.From this acosmic quality, characteristicof all Russian religiosity,is derived a specific kind of natural rightwhich is stamped upon the Russian sects and also on Tolstoy. In addition it is supported by that agrarian communism which still servesas divine law directing the peasant in the regulation of his social interests.I cannot detail the matter thoroughly now. But all fundamental ideals of people like W. L. Solovjev go back to that basis. Solovjev's specific concept of the church, in particular,rests on it. The concept rests on "community" (in Toennies sense), not on "society." I wish to point out one thing in the short time remaining.In his lecture our colleague Troeltsch treated the contrasts between church, sect, mysti-

6Helpful suggestions on the backgrounds broached in Weber'sremarks on Russia will be foundin the following:M. Cherniavsky, Tsar and People: Studies in RussianMyths(New Haven: Yale Univ.Press, 1961); Robert C. Williams,"The Russian Soul: A Study in European Thought and Non-European Nationalism," Journalof theHistoryof Ideas, 31: 4 (Oct.-Dec., 1970), pp. 573-88, esp. 584 ff.

This content downloaded from 148.228.161.3 on Thu, 16 Jan 2014 13:15:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

146

SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

cism and their to theworldand to natural relationship law structurally,7 and But thejustification of course he mustdeal withthemstructurally. forthis proceduredependsupon the factthatwhenone asksa sectarian about those he will come at last (no trainsof thoughtwhich made him a sectarian, how obscurely he expresses matter it) to what we gathered today from our of theCatholicchurch colleagueTroeltsch.If one asksa member whyhe is a member of this church and not a sectarian,in a similarmannerhe is led to these thoughts. And you can graspthe evidenceforthis ultimately withyour own handswhenyou discover thatBaronvon Hertling assuredhis co-religionists as follows: whetherthe Bible is construedin one way or another,and whateverhas happened with it historically, is a matterof forthechurch as a divinely indifference, entailedendowment tellsus whatis in the Bible no matterwho wrote it. Whatever fitsin withthisis a divine norm,a divinetruth.If we did not have the churchthe Protestant Bible would not help us at all. That being so, this conception of the church manifestly in its ultimateconsequencesto the one reported corresponds to us. I have some possibleobjectionsto the lecture, namelythatthischainof reasoning does not haveto be consciously of a church alivein every adherent or sect,as an anticipation just forthe sake of belief. Finally,I shall only point out one thing. Whenone analyzesnaturallaw doctrinesfrom the perspective of the church,the sect, etc., as Troeltsch does, one has not of coursethereby said thatthesedoctrines did not result in practical consequences for conduct which appear to us to be entirely heterogeneous withrespectto the inherent contentof the churchdoctrine. The principleof irrationality, and the lack of congruity in value between cause and effect is due to the following:A doctrine like that of sectarian Protestantism, Calvinism, Pietism, which most piously condemns the collecting of the earth'streasures, may strengthen the psychological motive whichthisdoctrineset in motionin such a way,thatit leadsjust thesevery people to become the greatbearersof moderncapitalistdevelopment. For, theuse of treasures forone's satisfaction wereevenmoresharply condemned than the gathering of treasures;consequently, nothingless than an ever renewedutilizationof these treasures for capitalistpurposeswas brought about. It fostered capitalistdevelopment because the necessityforascetic proofsin theworldbredtheman of vocationupon whomcapitalism rests. This is frequently the case. Whenforexample,Troeltsch pointedout that a national church (Volkskirche), a national Christianity is the only conceivableformof churchthatis universal in accordancewithits own idea of universality, thenof course the objectionto be made againstthisis that
7For otherexpressions of Troeltsch'sview that"the church,the sect,and mysticism" constituted "the three main types of the sociological developmentof Christian thought,"see esp. Troeltsch'sSocial Teachingsof the Christian Churches(1919) in HarperTorchbook ed., 2 vols. (N.Y., 1960), esp. II, pp. 993, 1007.

This content downloaded from 148.228.161.3 on Thu, 16 Jan 2014 13:15:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MAX WEBER ON CHURCH, SECT, AND MYSTICISM

147

experience shows that America was the most pious country (measured not only quantitativelybut qualitatively) until the threshholdof this century.It did not know a state church for the longest time and Christianity generally took on the form of the sects. If I am not mistaken, in the middle of the 1890's only 5% of the American population did not officiallybelong to a religious community. And membership in a religious society costs unbelievably more in America than with us. It costs something even for those who lack the means. It costs the worker who emigrated from Germany to America (and with whom by chance I became acquainted in the region of Buffalo) 1,800 marks, yearly revenue payments to the church of 100 marks, quite apart from the collections and so forth.Try to find a German worker who would pay as much for any church community, any at all. Precisely because there (in America) the religious type is the sect type, the religionis a national (Volk) affair. Because the sect type is not universal but exclusive, and because its exclusiveness offers definite privileges inwardly and externally to its supporters, the real place of Christian universalism is, therefore,in effectivemembership in a religious community there and not, as in Germany, among the Christians in name only, where a part of the well-to-do pay all the taxes for the church-"to preserve religion for the people"-and, otherwise are happy if they don't have to have anythingmore to do with the matter. The only reason they don't leave the church is because the consequences for advancement and for all other possible social prospects would be disagreeable. III I wish to say only a few words about Simmel's remarks.* The question concerning the genuine meaning of Christian religiosity is not up for discussion today. Nevertheless,we have certainlybeen happy to receive these arguments.Since they have been partlydirected against me, I shall therefore permitmyselfto reply briefly. Having entirely conceded the thesis that in accordance with the metaphysical meaning of Christianity,nothing might be placed between the soul and its god, these matters,the empirical relationshipswhich sociology is concerned with, stand as follows. Every devoutly pious soul, even the majority of the religious among the highly resolved souls in primitive Christianityand in all times of religious excitement, these souls must feel that they really had been standing face to face with their god, and not somethingelse, to be able in any fashion to enjoy assurance (in faith) in their everyday lives, that is, to have the "certitude salutis." This certitude can be

*Simmelcommentedon Troeltsch'slectureafterWebermade the remarks in sectionI and II translated above. Justpriorto Troeltsch'sreply,Weberrejoinedthe discussionand spoke again. (Tr.'s note.)

This content downloaded from 148.228.161.3 on Thu, 16 Jan 2014 13:15:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

148

SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

won in various ways. Firstof all it is not a sociologicalcertitude, but a purely touchedupon,but one which psychological questionthatis therewith has sociologically interesting consequences.The most extremecontrasting poles which exist are, on the one hand, the formsof world-rejecting religiosities (whichwe also experience in modern times)whichare preserved in those spiritual movementsof which I spoke earlier and were also characteristic of certainpartsof primitive a kindof "acosmic" Christianity: love of man,thatis the one possibility. On theotherhand,there is itsmost extreme counterpole: the Calvinistic whichfinds thecertitude religiosity of beingGod's child in the to-be-attained of oneself"(Bewahrung) "proving ad majoremdei gloriamwithin thegivenand ordered we world.In otherwords, have on the one side the completely of acosmic amorphousformlessness love; on the other side that unique attitudeextremely for the important historyof social and political practice,that the individualfeels himself placed within the social community for the purpose of realizing"God's glory"and therewith thesalvation of his soul. This last peculiarity of Calvinismdetermines the meaning of the entire innerconfiguration of the social structure whichwe see originating on this foundation. In the rearing of these structures thereis alwaysa distinctive moment which reveals the formationof the social structureupon an egocentric base. It is alwaysthe individual who seeks himself by serving the totality,whateverit may be called. To make use here of the conceptual polaritiesused in one of the fundamental books of our modern socialphilosophicalorientation, FerdinandTonnies' work on Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft:the kind of human relationshipwhich develops on this formationis always a "society" (Gesellschaft),an "associative social relationship" (Vergesellschaftung), a "civilization"whichshedsits "humanity." It is always exchange,market,goal-oriented associations,insteadof personalbrotherliness. It is always thisas opposed to the otherkind-that community" of acosmiclove on a purefoundation of "brotherhood." The communism of primitive Christianity and its derivative have empirically the mostvariedmotives, but motives whichalways(as in primitive Christianity) connect up to the old tradition of the primordial relationship of brotherhood in which the community of eatingand drinking together foundeda family-like community. The banning of usury(interest) forChristians, even in the time of Clementof Alexandria,was motivated by the old principle that one did not haggle among brothers or employ domanialrights, and usury (interest)is a domanial right.One did not take advantageamong brothers, but practisedbrotherhood.8 Conceding everything that Simmel says on the meaning of the religious attitude, stillone must,from thepoint of view of sociology,constantly put the psychological question, and indeed
8Cf. B. Nelson, The Idea of Usury: From Tribal Brotherhoodto UniversalOtherhood, 2nd ed., enlarged(Chicago: University of Chicago Pressand PhoenixBooks, 1969).

This content downloaded from 148.228.161.3 on Thu, 16 Jan 2014 13:15:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MAX WEBER ON CHURCH, SECT, AND MYSTICISM

149

from and therefore, it has been raisedby all sides,even the most extreme, namely: of mysticism, forms perhapsthe highest, the religiousstandpoint, How, throughwhat medium,does the individualbecome certain of his relationship to theeternal? Professor Simmel:Reason! doubt,it Certainly, without correct. Max Weber: That is entirely Professor not a real ground(Realground(Erkenntnisgrund), is merelya cognitive grund)forbliss.

This content downloaded from 148.228.161.3 on Thu, 16 Jan 2014 13:15:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions