152. Relation of the Critical and Speculative Theology to the Church.

SCHLEIERMACHER has said, that when he reflected on the approaching crisis in theology, and imagined himself obliged to choose one of two alternatives, either to surrender the Christian history, like every common history, as a spoil to criticism, or to hold his faith in fee to the speculative system; his decision was, that for himself, considered singly, he would embrace the latter, but that, regarding himself as a member of the Church, and especially as one of its teachers, he should bo induced rather to take the opposite course. For the idea of God and of man on which, according to the speculative system, the truth of the Christian faith rests, is indeed a precious jewel, but it can be possessed only by a few, and he would not wish to be that privileged individual in the Church, who alone among thousands held the faith on its true grounds. As a member of the Church, he could have no satisfaction but in perfect equality, in the consciousness that all receive alike, both in kind and manner, from the same ource. And as a teacher and spokesman to the Church, he could not possibly attempt the task of elevating old and young, without distinction, to the idea of God and of man: he must rather attack their faith as a groundless one, or else endeavour to strengthen and confirm it while knowing it to be groundless. As thus in the matter of religion an impassable gulf would be fixed between two parties in the Church, the speculative ^{P.898} theology threatens us with the distinction of an esoteric an exoteric doctrine, which accords poorly with the declaration of Christ, that all shall be taught by God. The scientific alone, have the foundation of the faith: the unscientific have only the faith, and receive it only by means of tradition. If the Ebionite view, on the contrary, leave but little of Christ, yet this little is equally attainable by all, and we are thereby secured from the hierarchy of speculation, which ever tends to merge itself in the hierarchy of Rome.

Here we see presented, under the form of thought belonging to a cultivated mind, the same opinion which is now expressed by many in a less cultivated fashion: namely, that the theologian who is at once critical and speculative, must in relation to the Church be a hypocrite. The real state of the case is this. The Church refers her Christology to an individual who existed historically at a certain period: the speculative theologian to an idea which only attains existence in the totality of individuals; by the Church the Gospel narratives are received as history: by the critical theologian, they are regarded for the most part as mere myths. If he would continue to impart instruction to the Church, four ways are open to him:

First, the attempt already excluded by the above observations of Schleiermacher, namely, to elevate the Church to his own point of view, and for it, also, to resolve the historical into the ideal: an attempt which must necessarily fail, because to the Church all those premises are wanting on which the theologian rests his speculative conclusions; and upon which, therefore, only an enthusiast for interpretation would venture.

The second and opposite measure would be, to transport himself to the point of view of the Church, and for the sake of imparting edification ecclesiastically, to descend from the sphere of the ideal into the region of popular conception. This expedient is commonly understood and judged too narrowly. The distinction between the theologian and the Church is regarded as a total one; it is thought, that in answer to the question, whether he believes in the story of Christ, he ought to say exactly, no; whereas he says, yes: and this is a falsehood.

It is true, that if in the discourses and instructions of the spiritual teacher, the main interest were an historical one, this would be a correct representation of the case: but, in fact, the interest is a religious one, it is essential religion which is here communicated under the form of a history; hence he who does so, believe in the story as such, may yet appreciate the religious traits therein contained, equally with one who does also receive the history as such: the distinction is one of form merely, and does not affect the substance. Henceit is an evidence of an uncultivated mind, to denounce as a hypocrite a theologian who preaches, for example, on the resurrection of Christ, since, though he may not believe in the reality of that event as a single sensible ^{P.899} fact, he may, nevertheless, hold to be true the representation of the process of spiritual life, which the resurrection of Christ affords. Strictly considered, however, this identity of the substantial truth, exists only in the apprehension of him who knows how to distinguish the substance from the form of religion, i.e. of the theologian, not of the Church, to whom he speaks. The latter can conceive no faith in the dogmatical truth of the resurrection of Christ, for example, apart from a conviction of its historical reality; and if it come to discover that the theologian has not this conviction, and yet preaches on the resurrection, he must appear in the eyes of the Church a hypocrite, and thus the entire relation between the theologian and the Church would be virtually cancelled.

In this case, the theologian, though in himself no hypocrite, Would appear such to the Church, and would be conscious of this misconstruction. If notwithstanding this, he should continue to instruct the Church under the form of its own conceptions, he would ultimately appear a hypocrite to himself also, and would be driven to the third, desperate course, of forsaking the ministerial office. It avails nothing to say, he has only to descend from the pulpit, and mount the professor's chair, where he will not be under the necessity of withholding his scientific opinions from such as are destined to science; for if he, whom the course of his own intellectual culture has obliged to renounce the ministerial office, should by his instructions lead many to the same point, and thus render them also incapable of that office, the original evil would only be multiplied. On the other hand, it could not be held good for the Church, that all those who pursue criticism and speculation to the results above presented, hould depart from their position as teachers. For no clergyman would any longer meddle with such inquiries, if he thus ran the risk of being led to results which would oblige him to abandon the ministerial office; criticism and philosophy would fall into the hands of those who are not professed theologians, and to the theologian nothing would remain but the faith, which then could not possibly long resist the attacks of the critical and speculative laity. But where truth is concerned, the possible consequences have no weight; hence the above remark ought not to be made. Thus much, however, may be maintained in relation to the real question: he whom his theological studies have led to an intellectual position, respecting which he must believe, that he has attained the truth, that he has penetrated into the deepest mysteries of theology, cannot feel either inclined or bound just at this point in his career to abandon theology: on the contrary, such a step would be unnatural, indeed, impossible.

He will therefore seek another expedient; and as such there presents itself a fourth, which is not, like the two first, onesided, nor like the third, merely negative, but which offers a positive mode of reconciling the two extremesthe consciousness of the theologian, and that of the Church. In his discourses to the Church, he will ^{P.900} indeed adhere to the forms of the popular conception, but on every opportunity he will exhibit their spiritual significance, which to him constitutes their sole truth, and thus preparethough such a result is only to be thought of as an unending progress'the resolution of those forms into their original ideas in the consciousness of the Church also. Thus, to abide by the example already chosen, at the festival of Easter, he will indeed set out from the sensible fact of the resurrection of Christ, but he will dwell chiefly on the being buried and vising again with Christ, which the Apostle himself has strenuously inculcated. This very course every preacher, even the most orthodox, strictly takes, as often as he draws a moral from the Gospel text on which he preaches: for thisjs nothing else than the transition from the externally historical to the inward and spiritual. It is true, we must not overlook the distinction, that the orthodox preacher builds his moral on the text in such a way, that the lattr remains as an historical foundation; whereas, with the speculative preacher, the transition from the biblical history or the Church doctrine, to the truth which he thence derives, has the negative effect of annihilating the former. Viewed more closely, however, the transition of the orthodox preacher from the Gospel text to the moral application, is not free from this negative tendency; in proceeding from the story to the doctrine he implies at least thus much: the story is, not enough, it is not the whole truth, it must be transmuted from a past fact into a present one, from an event external to you, it must become your own intimate experience: so that with this transition, the case is the same as with the proof of the existence of God, in which the cosmical existence, which is the point of departure, apparently remains as a foundation, but is in fact negatived as a true existence, and merged in the absolute. Nevertheless, there remains a marked distinction between these two propositions: since, and in so far as, this has happened, so and so is your duty and your consolation and this is indeed related as having happened once, but the truth is, that it always so happens, and both in and by you ought to happen. At least, the community will not receive both as identical; and thus, here again, in every excess or diminution which the more or less spontaneous relation of the teacher to critical theology, together with the variety in the degrees of culture of the community, introduces, the danger is incurred that the community may discover this difference, and the preacher appear to it, and consequently to himself, a hypocrite.

In this difficulty, the theologian may find himself driven, either directly to state his opinions, and attempt to elevate the people to his ideas; or, since this attempt must necessarily fail, carefully to adapt himself to the conception of the community; or, lastly, since, even on this plan, he may easily betray himself, in the end to leave the ministerial profession.

We have thus admitted the difficulty of the relation of the clergyman to the Church; we have exhibited the collision into which the theologian falls, when it is asked, what course remains for him in so far as he has adopted such views? and we have shown that our age has not arrived at a certain decision on this subject. But this collision is not the effect of the curiosity of an individual; it is necessarily introduced by the progress of time and the development of Christian theology; it surprises and masters the individual without his being able to guard himself from it. Or rather he can do this with slight labour, if he abstain from study and thought, or, if not from these, from freedom of speech and writing. of such there are already enough in our day, and there was no need to make continual additions to their number through the calumniation of those who have expressed themselves in the spirit of advanced science. But there are also a few who, notwithstanding such attacks, freely declare what can no longer be concealedand time will show whether by the one party or the other, the Church, Mankind, and Truth are best served.

End of this e-text.