§ 100. Introduction
The historic review of Theology, which closes this volume, cannot undertake to furnish a detailed narrative of the process run by theology in all its ramifications during these eighteen centuries. This process forms, not the subject of an encyclopedic, but of a proper historical investigation, which directs itself to a single department, or to a single period, or finally, to theology as a whole (as with Von Zezschwitz, in his Entwickelungsgang der Theologie als Wissenschaft, Lpz., 1867). In Encyclopedia, on the other hand, only the result of these investigations can be taken up and put into connection with the encyclopedic course of thought. For the writer, especially, there is less occasion to enter upon details, for the reason that the history of Theological Encyclopedia, which runs so largely parallel with that of Theology, has elsewhere been treated by him more broadly than has heretofore been done. And too much detail in this chapter would only lead to needless repetition. The question whether this review should not have been placed before the chapter on the conception of theology is here answered in the negative. It is entirely true that the forming of the conception of theology presumes the knowledge of theology as a historic phenomenon, but the historic knowledge in that sense may be presumed as universally known, and Encyclopedia can accomplish its task of pointing out the right way in this historic process, only when it is ready with its conception. According to the logical course of thought, the history of theology would really have to appear twice. First, a history of the facts should be furnished which should include as fact everything that announced itself as a theological phenomenon, without discrimination or choice, not organically, but atomistically. Then, with these facts in sight, the conception, principle, method and organic nature of theology should have to be determined. And reinforced with this insight, at the end another historic review should have to be furnished, but this time under the criticism of the idea of theology. This double treatment, however, of first recording indiscriminately the “facts,” and after that, of indicating with discrimination and selection the course of the process in these facts, could not be justified practically. No single science is capable of encyclopedic treatment, until it has obtained sufficient influence to make its appearance a matter of general knowledge, at least with its own students. This also applies to theology, “the leading facts of the manifestation” of which are to be found in every Church history, so that he who is to treat of them encyclopedically may accept them as being generally known. Encyclopedia discovers no new science, but investigates a science, the phenomena of which are everywhere seen. However much, therefore, such a review of phenomena may form an indispensable link in the course of logical thought, which must precede the forming of the conception, Encyclopedia need not furnish that link, since it is of itself present. The second review, on the other hand, may not be omitted, for that is to show how, in connection with the encyclopedic results obtained, the process is to be understood in the phenomena. In this second review, the outline of this process will differ according to the nature of the results obtained by encyclopedic investigation.
This critical review embraces six sections, each one of which covers a proper period. First, comes the period of naïvety; then the period of internal conflict; then the period of triumph claimed too prematurely; then the period of multiformity; after this, the period of apparent defeat; and finally, the period of resurrection. Let it be kept in mind, that this review does not concern itself with the history of theology as the knowledge of God, but with the science which has this knowledge of God for its object. Hence, this history begins where special Revelation is completed. If the word “Theology” is taken in the sense of science, then there is no theology of Isaiah, Micah, Peter, or Paul, but it arises only when special Revelation has reached its goal, and the task begins of introducing the content of this Revelation into the enlightened consciousness of regenerated humanity, and from this human consciousness to reproduce it. That this was the task imposed upon it, was not understood for a time by regenerated man. Had it depended upon primitive Christianity, intensely satisfied with her great salvation, she would have withdrawn herself in mystical enjoyment of the same, in obedience to the same impulse which, especially in those methodistic circles which originated with the Reveil, looks down upon theological effort with a certain spiritual self-conceit. But the Holy Spirit compelled her to undertake this task by the reaction, which in all sorts of ways, from the consciousness of the unregenerate, set itself to dissect and to destroy the content of Revelation, and the Revelation itself. And only when in this way the need had rendered this scientific effort a necessity, a taste was created for this work, after the rule of the discendo discere discimus (by learning we learn to learn), and the inclination was fostered which explains the later growth of theology. This, at the same time, exhibits the folly of the desire to explain theology from the instituted Church. As far as the instituted Church herself was concerned, she has almost never known the scientific impulse, but has ever preferred to devote herself to the still enjoyment of her great salvation. Theology, as a science, was, as a rule, more of an hindrance to her than a help; and theology owes its origin, its maintenance, and its guarantee for the future, not to the initiative of the Church, but to the initiative of the Holy Spirit, who was also its guide.