XII. Appendix

886 Vanini declared that a straw sufficed him to prove the existence of God.

887 In the same manner, but yet with a quite different right, since a quite different success speaks for me, I can say that I have deduced the essence of present-day theology from a straw wisp which wanted to place itself somewhat importunately in my path. Herr Gruppe was so garrulous that he betrayed and brought forward all the turns which are still at the command of present-day theologians when they want to annihilate critique.

888 I am convinced that Herr Gruppe will not become too proud of the honour I have done him by making so much of his oracles. His modesty we have already sufficiently got to know, and should he nevertheless want to become presumptuous, then, to bring the matter back into balance, from my side the repeated remark will suffice that it was only accidental that I questioned precisely Herr Gruppe about the essence of theology and that any other straw wisp could have betrayed the same secrets to me. For in the face of such modest opponents one must namely confess sincerely that one previously understood nothing of the essence of theology and without their revelations would still be groping in the dark at this moment.

889 Since we are now once so fortunate and have received the most sufficient disclosures about everything, it would be highly indifferent for the matter if one wanted to send us shiploads of straw or overwhelm us with straw. One stalk says no more to us than another; one wisp is not cleverer than another.

890 Since we are now once so fortunate and have received the most sufficient disclosures about everything, it would be highly indifferent for the matter if one wanted to send us shiploads of straw or overwhelm us with straw. One stalk says no more to us than another; one wisp is not cleverer than another.

891 My work — I must confess it — is even designed to make every new supply of theological confessions superfluous, to represent them as superfluous and to contain their appreciation in advance and for ever.

892 I have won. I wanted to show that critique alone, that only critique surveys and dominates the whole affair, that it alone can correctly present and solve the collision, that from the theological side nothing can be said and brought forward which critique does not say more correctly and which it alone says correctly: all that I have now also shown in the manner that I wrote my writing without awaiting the publication of the faculty opinions. I have appreciated these opinions in advance and I now let the last appreciation befall them by being silent about them. After the comprehensive presentation of the opposition which I have now given in my writing, they collapse in their theological poverty, weakness and confusion, they bring forward nothing which I have not said more sharply and purely in the presentation of the opposition, and they set up no accusation which I have not already refuted.

893 As the opinions appear, my work has already been for some time under the press and they appear just in time for me to express in an appendix that I have already appreciated them.

894 As the opinions appear, my work has already been for some time under the press and they appear just in time for me to express in an appendix that I have already appreciated them.

895 What I have to do with regard to them will consist only in a short characterisation of the relation in which they stand not to my critical works or to critique in general — for all that is, as said, already settled — but mutually to each other.

896 If it is first asked which opinion has most correctly grasped my work, the answer is: the second of the two opinions which the faculty at Greifswald has given. This opinion, whose author, as one sees from the depiction of the parties of the Hegelian school, has already let himself be warned by the trumpet tones, presents the matter correctly in that I can regard Christianity only as something to be negated, it declares outright that "I combat the whole Christian theology mortally not in thoughtlessness but in the earnestness of consequence," and it admits that I, because I am convinced first to give the true explanation of Christianity, must think to effect the glorification of it in this explanation. (p. 116, 117, 118, 133) This opinion therefore refutes that which the other half of the Greifswald faculty has given, whose author lives in the self-deception that "man and God," religion and thinking are reconciled in the middle region of the so-called "spirit," and also asserts of me that my world-view is a Christian one, not hostile to Christianity, if I, also or precisely because I sublate the positive, the given, the letter, the external history or at least its tradition into the spirit. The second Greifswald opinion is also expressly opposed to this first and refutes it step by step with decided success.

897 The Bonn opinion gives a diligently worked, exact and calmly held compilation of the results of my critique and says of them that they form a crying opposition with the essential of faith.

898 The Königsberg faculty declares indeed, "on the basis of the (then still) incompletely present writing, cannot give a decisive judgment about how I stand to the original and essential substance of Christianity," but easier it seems to have been for it to come to the insight, or (what in theological negotiations comes to the same thing) only to express in general that my critique — (as if then its relation to Christianity could still be dark) — "is ground- and measureless, has renounced all apologetics and finds its satisfaction in unscientific intentionality only in pulling down all evangelical history."

899 If each faculty has behaved peculiarly, the Greifswald namely in its totality has behaved worthily, in its one half shown a lovable goodwill towards me, in its other half (which has expressed itself in the second opinion, Appendix B.) shown a consciousness corresponding to the height of the question — if also always in theological form, if the Bonn faculty with philological exactness compiles the results of my writing, if in the Königsberg opinion the theological confusion already makes itself heard, it becomes excessively loud in the Halle opinion, which besides has the peculiar glory that it is completely and to the lowest degree common. "Your Excellency (so begins this opinion after the business introduction) have yourself already judged that the views emerging in the writing of B. Bauer attack the essential and the actual continuance of Christian truth in its innermost ground," and the faculty can ... only accede to this judgment. "The in every sense devoted faculty holds it thereby — and with right, for the devoted may not reason — 'neither for necessary nor for suitable'" — what a word! What that may only mean here! — to enter more closely into my writing. Nevertheless, although I "attack the essential and the actual continuance of Christian truth," nevertheless the dear faculty, after it has, instead of studying my book and developing its method, scribbled down a meaningless theological chria about something that is needful, and about many other things — yes then the highly reverend faculty comes to the result — or not result, but to the fancy — for everything here is fancy — that "I am to be regarded as one who still stands within Christianity, and that one can give no completely certain judgment about the degree of my heterodoxy (— I am only a heretic, not an adherent of the Antichrist, who attacks the continuance of Christian truth etc. —) from the present first volume of my writing." (p. 151.) That the faculty, after the proper interval, i.e., after it has again given a splendid chria about the one thing that is needful, and about many other things — has to rejoice in a quite different fancy, we shall soon see. First I only remark further that it has taken care to make known the baseness of its disposition, the sharpness of its judgment, the conciseness of its conclusions and the clarity of its understanding immediately in the introduction of its opinion, when it assures that it believes it can answer the questions put to it with all the greater "impartiality", "the less any of its members is devoted to the philosophy from whose principles the critique of Licentiate Bauer proceeds" — oh, you hypocrites! Should you not rather have asked whether not several and how many of the most limited opponents of this philosophy sit among you? Whether you are not all opponents of it?

900 lowest degree common. "Your Excellency (so begins this opinion after the business introduction) have yourself already judged that the views emerging in the writing of B. Bauer attack the essential and the actual continuance of Christian truth in its innermost ground," and the faculty can ... only accede to this judgment. "The in every sense devoted faculty holds it thereby — and with right, for the devoted may not reason — 'neither for necessary nor for suitable'" — what a word! What that may only mean here! — to enter more closely into my writing. Nevertheless, although I "attack the essential and the actual continuance of Christian truth," nevertheless the dear faculty, after it has, instead of studying my book and developing its method, scribbled down a meaningless theological chria about something that is needful, and about many other things — yes then the highly reverend faculty comes to the result — or not result, but to the fancy — for everything here is fancy — that "I am to be regarded as one who still stands within Christianity, and that one can give no completely certain judgment about the degree of my heterodoxy (— I am only a heretic, not an adherent of the Antichrist, who attacks the continuance of Christian truth etc. —) from the present first volume of my writing." (p. 151.) That the faculty, after the proper interval, i.e., after it has again given a splendid chria about the one thing that is needful, and about many other things — has to rejoice in a quite different fancy, we shall soon see. First I only remark further that it has taken care to make known the baseness of its disposition, the sharpness of its judgment, the conciseness of its conclusions and the clarity of its understanding immediately in the introduction of its opinion, when it assures that it believes it can answer the questions put to it with all the greater "impartiality", "the less any of its members is devoted to the philosophy from whose principles the critique of Licentiate Bauer proceeds" — oh, you hypocrites! Should you not rather have asked whether not several and how many of the most limited opponents of this philosophy sit among you? Whether you are not all opponents of it?

901 If I have conceded to the Breslau opinion the glory of the most slovenly confusion — it judges my book approximately like Herr Gruppe — I must still give the Berlin faculty the duty-bound declaration that it has betrayed the deepest ignorance about the standpoint of my critique. The opinion it has given stands, when the scientific and moral standard is applied, the lowest. It speaks in the usual Berlin and Neander phrases, like "pantheism, allegory" etc., as if the world were still the same as ten years ago, as if the phrases which Herr Neander has repeated to the point of disgust had not been deprived of all their significance — i.e., also of the slight significance they have in the mouth of a theologian — precisely by the more recent critique. In an opinion now whose author only dreams of the scare-image of pantheism and the allegorical explanation, judgment is passed on my book, on a book which precisely places its merit in having driven out those spectres! That is called scientific, that is called moral!

902 If I have conceded to the Breslau opinion the glory of the most slovenly confusion — it judges my book approximately like Herr Gruppe — I must still give the Berlin faculty the duty-bound declaration that it has betrayed the deepest ignorance about the standpoint of my critique. The opinion it has given stands, when the scientific and moral standard is applied, the lowest. It speaks in the usual Berlin and Neander phrases, like "pantheism, allegory" etc., as if the world were still the same as ten years ago, as if the phrases which Herr Neander has repeated to the point of disgust had not been deprived of all their significance — i.e., also of the slight significance they have in the mouth of a theologian — precisely by the more recent critique. In an opinion now whose author only dreams of the scare-image of pantheism and the allegorical explanation, judgment is passed on my book, on a book which precisely places its merit in having driven out those spectres! That is called scientific, that is called moral!

903 Yet this opinion is so pitiful that it would even be too much said if I wanted to say that it judges my book in a frivolous and thoughtless manner: it does not judge at all, but screams like an old woman set in fear and rage, who thinks she sees the unclean spirit before her, a confession of faith in the crudest form: it screams: "the Christian faith proceeds from historical facts" as if the matter were thereby settled, as if it were not rather to be explained whether this its starting point, the point from which it thinks it proceeds, despite the highly protesting assurance of the Berlin or all faculties, is not merely a representation — it screams: "according to my work it is only left to arbitrariness what is still to be held of the historical Christ and what he is to be made into" as if critique did not furnish the proof that this historical Christ .... yet why say all that once more! it laments: "I could not comfort the weak with my critique and its results" — and it is precisely critique that will put an end to cowardice, lack of courage, weakness and wretchedness.

904 In the limited fury of the Berlin opinion the true spirit, namely the animal spirit of theology, has given its judgment.

905 The faculties now answer the second question which the ministry has put to them, the question whether there can still be any staying for me in the theological faculty and at the university in general.

906 The second Greifswald opinion has given the answer almost completely — its authors have namely correctly seen that it is also the question whether I can remain at a Prussian university at all — and it has grasped the matter as purely as is possible on the theological standpoint. According to its verdict I must be removed from the theological faculty, since according to my principle I can dissolve Christianity in no other way, and "whether in another than the theological faculty the permission to read is to be granted to me, that would ( — among other things — ) depend on the question how the new principle of free self-consciousness relates to the development of state life in general" — a question which is not answered by the opinion, but whose answer, as one will see from my above treatise, I by no means shun.

907 If, however, the authors of this second opinion propose my removal from the association with the theological faculty, they have answered the question only in the sense of the ministry, of the Christian state and of Christian theology, but not as the question is posed by history and by mankind. If they finally say that the task of the theological faculty is a "scientific and religious" one, they have thereby indeed designated the collision whose solution the world now finally demands, but truly not solved it if they propose my removal from the association with the faculty.

908 I have, however, correctly posed and solved the collision, and from my presentation may the authors of this second Greifswald opinion, as well as the members of the Bonn faculty, learn better; the latter namely also want to be rid of me, although they also wish the free research of the theological faculty to be safeguarded, as we have already learned earlier.

909 The Breslau faculty declares that I must be removed from the chair, since the government "can authorise no one through public appointment to the refutation of the Christian faith." This faculty therefore punishes the confusion of its opinion itself, when it one time calls my proofs arbitrary presuppositions and afterwards speaks (and it is right when it speaks so) as if to leave me as teacher on the chair would mean as much as to authorise me to refute Christianity. To give free research means to give free the dissolution of Christianity, for the knowledge of the religious pretensions of Christianity is its dissolution, the dissolution of all religion.

910 As the true theologian, i.e., the fanatic who, if he still had power, would immediately light the pyre, had bellowed with animal desire in the first part of the Berlin opinion: I know my needs, I want the real, the biblical-massive, I want a fact, I want to be dependent, so he howls in the second part of the same opinion: I want freedom, I want freedoms, I want all freedom, but only for me, only for my needs and their satisfaction, but not the freedom which is general and real freedom, not the freedom which should be right for a researcher like Bauer; i.e., I want unfreedom, Bauer must as quickly as possible down from the chair! Down with him! The animal spirit which has gained language in this opinion rages and howls. The theological, the zeal of faith has finally once again found its true expression.

911 I would say that one must write the Berlin opinion on the tombstone which time will soon erect for theology, if it were not itself this

912 There still remain the opinions which have spoken against my removal from the chair.

913 Above all the separate opinion is to be mentioned in which Herr Middeldorpf expresses himself against the opinion of his colleagues in Breslau. He is unconditionally for my being left in my academic activity, he expresses himself throughout worthily and manfully and only deceives himself in that he thinks, "if one opposes science to science in struggle, the victory of Christianity is always decided in advance."

914 With particular goodwill the first Greifswald opinion has taken my part; it "fears no danger even if I am permitted to teach theology," but unfortunately! I cannot accept its help either, since it deceives itself if it thinks that critique brings no danger to Christianity as a religious statute. Still less may I accept the succour which is sent to me from Königsberg. Should I accept it in the consciousness of my absolute, my historical right, that I with my critique be "tolerated as an admittedly extravagant one-sidedness in the total body of the relevant faculty"?

915 From the faculties I can accept nothing, because what they wanted to give me they would give only as grace, yes only as gracious indulgence towards my "arbitrary, extravagant, extreme presuppositions, errors and aberrations" and could also only give it.

916 One has (according to the public papers) wanted to make out that the majority of the opinions speak in my favour. However, precisely those opinions which speak for me I must, if I, as cannot be otherwise, follow my duty and act in the interest of my work and task, reject with protest.

917 With contempt, however, the Halle opinion. That it occupies the standpoint of baseness in the circle of these opinions I have shown, and unfortunately there remains to me the disgusting task of showing how it finally proceeds with great business on this standpoint.

918 Although it declares that it holds "no completely certain judgment about the degree of my heterodoxy" possible up to now, the same opinion nevertheless holds it possible to declare "that I stand in a principled contradiction to the church and that therefore my academic activity at a theological faculty could not be beneficial, but only detrimental." Nevertheless it is the same faculty which wants me removed from the chair because of my principled contradiction to the church, yet again possible to declare that it has scruples whether it is advisable to proceed against me.

919 And what are these scruples which suddenly make them forget the danger with which I threaten the church? Removed, thinks the highly reverend faculty, I would be held back by no official obligation and no civil consideration, "if I should perhaps take a fancy to attack Christianity." As if I had not blown the trumpet and written my writings while I indeed had official obligations! — as if I had not written all my writings and developed their content also on the chair, because I had the conviction that only as I wrote and taught could I conscientiously fulfil all my obligations!

920 But the gentlemen think that a little office and a little cap and annual salary increase and salary supplement are the true means for the maintenance of Christianity.

921 — Further they think that if I were "punished" — let one hear! "punished"! "punished"! — where is the judge who can "punish" me? History will judge who can "punish" me, it will not forget the word and at the right time "punish" — if I therefore were "punished", my writings would be "more read" than hitherto.

922 Do they then not deserve to be read? Must they not be read? Must not your writings fall prey to an early and everlasting oblivion? The time is no longer far when one would know nothing more of your names and writings if one learned nothing of them from my writings. That is then the thanks which you give me in advance? Yet I expect nothing from you and want nothing from you and what you want to give me I reject with abhorrence.

923 On the one side of the tombstone which marks the grave of theology will stand the (in any case very short) Berlin opinion; on the other one will engrave an extract from that of the Halle faculty.

924 A worthy tombstone!

925 May only first also all other burdens be cast off under it, by which humanity has hitherto been pressed to the ground.