SECTION II

the gospel history as criticism

No one acquainted with Christianity will deny that it has appeared in the world as a criticism of Judaism and Heathenism. Speaking generally, this critical agency has been exercised by its spirit, but it is the Gospel history which has chiefly and definitely exhibited this spirit. This is the condemnation, the crisis, that light is come into the world (Joh 3:19). Christianity being then in its nature critical, must neither be accepted, maintained, nor defended in an uncritical manner. Why callest thou Me good? said Christ to the young ruler, who acknowledged Him with superficial precipitation, and proceeded to test that enthusiastic follower by the remark: Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay His head. The prejudiced criticism which Nathanael opposed to faith in Christ was treated with marked forbearance; the sceptical criticism with which Thomas doubted the resurrection, with considerate and convincing patience. Christianity cannot commit its cause to rash and blind enthusiasts, nor to thoughtless and fanatic champions. It would communicate itself to the world, not in mere dead precepts, but according to its own nature, that is, as the spiritual life of the world; therefore it calls upon men to test and examine its contents. It would entirely liberate man, and reconcile him with God; it would therefore especially liberate and reconcile his understanding. It would further become, through the Spirit, the presence of eternal life in the Church; it therefore presents to the subjective spirit no absolutely closed and rigid external historical tradition. It was by the prompting of the Spirit that the Church was to recall all that Christ said and did (Joh 14:26). Christianity will itself be the instrument by means of which man is to judge, to comprehend, to renew, all that is in his world; hence it requires even of man’s conscience, that he shall be so thoroughly convinced of its spiritual truth as not to prejudice its interests by his own uncertainty and want of harmony. ‘Thou canst not follow Me now,’ said Christ in this sense to Peter. From its very nature, Christianity is willing to stand the critical testing of every mind, that it may rest entirely upon its own statements. The Gospel history would be received and appropriated in a critical spirit, because it is itself the criticism of the spirit.

───♦───

Notes

‘Criticism’ is spoken of in our days as if it were an infallible intellectual organ, a new science, religion, or authority, demonstrably and definitely present somewhere. But this assumption involves part of the monstrous superstition with which modern morbid idealistry is infected. In this vague sense, criticism is now this head, now that; perhaps the head of one under the delirium of fever, of a madman, perhaps the head of a rogue. In a more temperate decade, the critic, instead of uttering the spell, Criticism pronounces! might perhaps have said, This is my humble opinion! or, This is the proof which convinces me! As long as the criticism of an individual is contented to appear as the subjective activity of his own mind, it must be allowed to speak, and should be listened to with a respect proportioned to the reasons it exhibits. But as soon as it is spoken of as a power, the critic must either be able to describe its principles, its rules, its organic form, or clearly express his desire to be regarded as an incarnation of the critical spirit. In the latter case, we should know what to think of him. It is very remarkable that the assumption that some kind of incongruity exists between Christianity and criticism, has for a long time been considered a valid one. Is not Christianity criticism? Is not its spirit pure and mature truth, manifested in and corroborated by universal history? Does this spirit need assistance, in its expressions and dealings, from the rude, shallow, obscure spirit manifested, it may be, in single individuals, and more or less entangled, as it still is, in nature? The assumption that pure truth must be freed from its shell of Christianity by the help of criticism (a consummation to be effected by the intellect of the natural man, with its philosophical implements), is in direct opposition to the Christian assumption. The legitimacy of this assumption is meanwhile still confirmed, in opposition to all the false messiahs of criticism, who are, so far at least, right in entirely separating their power from that of Christianity, or of the Gospels. The result will show from which side the criticism arises; but in any case the theologian is too easily deceived, if he from the first grants the title of ‘criticism’ to the new intellectual powers which would test the Gospels.¹

1) [Cf. the admirable introductory chapter of Neander’s Life of Christ, and also the chapter entitled ʻCriticism a Necessity,’ in Ebrard’s Gospel History, Clark’s Translation, 1863.—ED.]