§ 27. Two Difficulties
And now, as we come to the conception of that special Encyclopedia called Theological, the simple application to Theology of what was obtained for the conception of General Encyclopedia will not suffice. There would be no objection to this in the cases of the Encyclopedias of the Juridical or Philological sciences, but in the case of that of Theology there is. The reason of this lies in the two circumstances: first, that the scientific character of Theology is disputed by many; and, secondly, that they who do not dispute this are disagreed as to what is to be understood by Theology. Dr. Räbiger, who has referred to this difficulty in his Theologik oder Enc. der Theol., Lpz. 1880, p. 94, incorrectly inferred from it that for this reason, before its object can be ready, the Encyclopedia of science must create for itself from these several Theologies a general conception of Theology, in order that it may make this general conception of Theology the subject of scientific study. This is not possible, since then Encyclopedia would have the right of judgment between the several Theologies; it should have to furnish a complete demonstration for the sake of supporting this judgment; and thus it would have to investigate independently all the formal and material questions which are variously solved in Theology. In this way it would have to treat the leading departments of Theology fundamentally, and, dissolving into dogmatics, apologetics, church history, etc., would cease to be Encyclopedia. It would then bring forth its own object, instead of studying a given object. And, worse yet, he who would write such an Encyclopedia would not be able to escape from his own personality nor from the view-point held by himself. His criticism, therefore, would amount to this: he who agreed with him would be right, he who disagreed wrong, and the result would be that he would award the honorary title of general Theology to that particular Theology to which he had committed himself. A general Theology would then be exhibited, and, back of this beautiful exterior, the subjective view-point, which was said to be avoided, would govern the entire exposition.
§ 28. The First Difficulty
If both difficulties that here present themselves are squarely looked in the face, it must at once be granted that before Theological Encyclopedia can devote itself to its real task, it must vindicate the scientific character of Theology. This is not the creation of an object of its own, but the simple demonstration of the fact that Theology is a proper object of Encyclopedic investigation. If all Encyclopedia is the investigation of the whole or of a part of the organism of science, no Encyclopedia of Theology can be suggested as long as it is still uncertain whether Theology forms a part of this organism. Since, now, the doubt concerning the scientific character of Theology does not spring from the still imperfect development of this science, but finds its origin in the peculiar character it bears in distinction from all other sciences, it is the duty of the writer of an Encyclopedia of this science to show upon what grounds he disputes this doubt as to its right of existence. This demonstration must be given in two ways. First, by such definitions of the conception “science,” and of the conception “Theology,” that it will be evident that the second is subordinate to the first. And, secondly, by showing that the parts of Theology are mutually related organically, and that, taken as a whole, it stands in organic relation to the rest of the organism of science. This treatise also will venture the effort to furnish this double proof.
The first only of these two proofs is demanded by the peculiar character of Theology. The second proof that the parts of a special science mutually cohere organically, and together are related equally organically to the whole of science, every special Encyclopedia of whatever science undertakes to show. But the first proof that the conception of this special science is subordinate to the conception of general science does not occur in other special Encyclopedias, because with the other sciences this subordination is evident of itself and is by no one denied.
§ 29. The Second Difficulty
The second difficulty should be considered somewhat more at length. It presents itself in the fact that all sorts of Theologies offer themselves as the object of investigation to the writer of an Encyclopedic Theology. There is a Greek Theology, and a Romish Theology, a Lutheran, Reformed, and a Modern Theology, a “Vermittelungstheologie,” and, in an individual sense, we even hear a Schleiermachian, a Ritschlian, etc., Theology spoken of. Order, therefore, is to be introduced into this chaos. Simply to make a choice from among this number would be unscientific. Where choice is made its necessity must be shown. Even the Romish theologian, who looks upon every other Theology save that of his own church as the exposition of error, cannot escape from the duty of scientific proof of this position. If it involved merely a difference between several “schools,” it might be proper to select out of these several interpretations what is common to them all, and thus to conclude the existence of a general Theology. But this is not so. The difference here springs not from a difference of method in the investigation of one and the same object, but from a difference concerning the question of what the object of Theology is. One Theology investigates a different object from another. One Theology denies the very existence of the object which another Theology investigates. Even if we could agree upon the methods of investigation it would be of no use, for though the merits of your method were recognized, the objection would still hold good that you apply your method to a pseudo-object, which has no existence outside of your imagination. This springs from the fact that the object of Theology lies closely interwoven with our subjectivity, and is therefore incapable of being absolutely objectified. A blind man is no more able to furnish a scientific study of the phenomenon of color, or a deaf person to develop a theory of music, than a scholar whose organ for the world of the divine has become inactive or defective is capable of furnishing a theological study, simply because he has none other than a hearsay knowledge of the object Theology investigates. Hence no escape is here possible from the refraction of subjectivity. This should the more seriously be taken into our account because this refraction springs not merely from the circumference of our subjective existence, but is organically related to the deepest root of our life and to the very foundation of our consciousness. Whether this impossibility of completely objectifying the object of Theology does or does not destroy the scientific character of Theology can only later on be investigated; here we do not deal with the object of Theology but with Theology itself as object of Theological Encyclopedia; and of this it is evident that Theology itself cannot be presented as an absolute and constant object, because its own object cannot escape from the refraction of our subjectivity. If a scientific investigator, and in casu the writer of an Encyclopedia, could investigate his object without himself believing in the existence of his object, it might be possible for the Encyclopedist at least to keep himself outside of this difference. But this is out of the question. Faith in the existence of the object to be investigated is the conditio sine qua non of all scientific investigation. No theological Encyclopedist is conceivable except one to whom Theology has existence, neither can Theology have existence to him unless it also has an object in whose reality he equally believes. As an actual fact it is seen that all writers of Theological Encyclopedias take for their object of investigation that which they conceive to be Theology, and also that every theologian assumes something as object of Theology which to him has real existence. Thus one link locks into the other. To be able to write an Encyclopedia of Theology it must be fixed beforehand what you conceive to be Theology; and in order to know which of the several theologies that present themselves shall be your Theology, it must first be determined what the object is which you give Theology to investigate. It is evident therefore that the theological Encyclopedist cannot possibly furnish anything but an Encyclopedia of his Theology. For though this may be denied, and it be made to appear that a Theological Encyclopedia in the general sense is given, the outcome always shows that in reality the writer claims universal validity for his Theology.