tianity or the Christian facts, this school empha- sizes its importance as part of the essence of Christianity ; but in order to maintain its inde- pendence of the results of historical criticism, falls back upon one fact, \\7.. — the so-called 'historic Christ.' It is not meant that Christianity is independent of the results of historical criticism in such a sense that, if there were no ba.sis for their historic Christ in the Gospels, Christianity could still survive. Their idea is that the ' his- toric Christ' stands fast after historical criticism has done its work. But .since this criticism is largely determined by an anti-supernaturalistic bias, it is evident that the historic Christ of the Ritsch- lians is not a Christ who is independent of histori- ( al ( liticism, but the Christ which a naturalistic ■ 1 it iri-m has left us. This shows that independence . it I hi' ie>ults of criticism is impossible, since Chris- tianity is a historical religion. The supposed inde- pendence of its results turns out to be a surrender of all that is difficult to defend against a criticism •which is determined by naturalism. Accordingly Harnack says (Das Christcntum u. die Geschichte) that 'the tradition as to tlu' incidents attending the birth and early liir it .li-u~ Christ has been shattered.' This uiaki - m-. i-^aiy the old rational- istic distinction bet\\eLii ■ kcimr and 'husk,' and so in his lectures on the Essence of Christianitij we are told that we must distinguish between the Easter message of the empty tomb, which is not essential to Christianity, and the Easter faith that Jesus gained a victory over death and still lives. Of course, if we follow this method, not only will all the external supernatural events of Christ's life have to be surrendered, but also those elements in His inner life which involve the supernatural must go. And so we find Herrmann in the Verkehi- falling back upon the inner life of Jesus reduced to a merely ethical content.*
Thus the Ritschlian attempt at independence of historical criticism results really in a sunender to a criticism determined by naturalism. The \argin- birth and the bodily resurrection of Christ are given up, and we have no longer the Christ of the Gospels, but the Christ of a Gospel reconstructed by the critics. It is the subordination of Chris- tian facts to a human theory.
When we turn to the demand for a 'new dogma,' which we saw w^as emphasized by Kaftan (Glaube II. Dogmn), we find the other principle of the school at work, viz. — the separation of theology from metaphysics, and the distinction between religious and theoretic knowledge. The watchword ' theo- logy without metaphysics,' however, does not mean simply theology which shall be free from a specu- lative reconstruction as in the Hegelian school. It means a theology without any metaphysical ele- ments, i.e. with niithiiiL: that transcends experience. Hence we nm-t nut only ilistinuuish the 'historical Christ' from tlir Cliii-t of an uncritical tradition ; we must also ilistini;ui-li Him from the Christ of a metaphy.sical dogma of Greek origin. Accordingly the doctrines of the Trinity and of the two natures in one person in oiu- Lord are to be abandoned as metaphysical. The new dogma expresses itself in
* It is true that both Herrmann and Reischle (' Der Streit iiber die Begriindung: des Glaubens auf dem gesch. Christus,' Zeitgch. f. T/ieol. u Kirche, 1897) make a sharp distinction between the 'ground'and the 'content ' of t;iitli ; ami what they seek is an independent ground of i - ilso true that the
ground of faith once I - in their hands a
i husk in iU *con-
tent.' Accordingly t that tits ill Willi tlifir 1
' .'i
f of faith
r(I)ersnfj,<,
tin-uish the .itiiiiin- and thus makes room
for endless subjectivity.
s iiistori.-.l
FACT AND THEOEY
FAITH
religious knowledge which s})rings from faith, and not in metaphysical propositions. Christ, there- fore, is not Divine in a metaphysical sense as in the doctrine of the two natiires, but simply in the religious sense that in the man Jesus we have the perfect revelation of God, or else that the term 'Divinity' expresses His value for the believer. This latter is Kitschl's position, and members of the school who have tukt'ii a niuif iiii.-itiv(> attitude than Ritsehl liave fallvii shi.rl ..l a~,.Miiim Christ's Divinitjr in any meta|ili,y^iral .-.ii-c i(t. Kaftan, Dogmatik; Lobstein, LiJin' r. il. nhn-iinl. Gcburt C/iristi. Harnack, op. lit., and H. Schultz, Lchre V. d. Gottheit Christi, occupy much the same posi- tion as Ritsehl).
We must conclude that in the Kitschlian theol- ogy we have again the subordination of the great Christian facts and dogmas to a phenomenalistic philosophy and a historical criticism subject to a naturalistic bias. This amounts to their subjec- tion to a human theory. For the fundamental question Ls — Upon what ilues this theology rest? Has it a more objecti%e basis tlian rationalism and mysticism ? It seeks to base revelation on Clirist. The source of its tlognia is not the individual Cliristian consciousness but the Christian life, or the revelation of (iod jiortrayed in the Bible. Kut its Christ is a human ( 'lirist who i-au give no ab.so- lute ri'\ elation of (l.id ; :uhI (lir Scripture is not reganlfd as aiitliniital i\i> in :iny olijc(ttive sense as containing; a ^npurnalnral rrvelat ion, but simply as the record of the revelation by the human Christ. The Scrijrture is subjected to the Christian con- sciousness to such an extent that the Christian doctrines are not to be taken directly from Scrip- ture as 'external revelations,' but only as 'appro- priated ' and ' authenticated ' by Christian faith (cf. Kaftan, Doffmaiik, § on the Scripture, p. 48). Thus the idea of revelation has changed its biblical sense of a supernatural oumninnication of truth, and becomes the product of the religious life of those who stood nearest ( "lirist. Hut the Christian life does not remove tlic noetic elfects of sin all at once, and con.sequently this idea of special revela- tion does not meet the demand which made a special revelation necessary. In short, if we aban- don the principle of external authority, we cannot escape the subjection of the facts and doctrines of Christianity to a philosophical theory.