According to § 2, a Guidance of the Church can proceed only from a highly developed historical consciousness; but it can become truly useful, moreover, only by means of a clear knowledge respecting the relations of [men’s] religious states towards all that are of a different kind.

§ 9. If we conceive of an interest in religion and a scientific spirit, existing in a state of union, in the highest degree and in the greatest possible equilibrium, and with a view to both theory and practice,—we have the idea of a Prince of the Church.

This appellation for the theological Ideal is, it must be admitted, appropriate only when the disparity between the members of the Church is great, and when, at the same time, the exercise of influence over an extensive region of the Church is possible. But it seems more suitable than the term “Father of the Church,” which has already received the stamp of currency for a particular circle; and, for the rest, it does not in the least involve any allusion to an official relation.

§ 10. If we conceive of this equilibrium as done away: then, he who has, in his own person, cultivated chiefly the knowledge that relates to Christianity, is a Theologian in the more restricted sense of the term; and he, on the other hand, who cultivates especially the activity which has to do with the government of the Church, is a Minister [Kleriker].²

This natural sundering of the two characters shows itself outwardly with different degrees of prominence at different times; and the more it prevails, the more indispensable is a lively interaction between the two classes, in order that the Church may maintain its ground.—For the rest, the term Theologian will, in the remaining portion of this work, be taken for the most part in the broader sense, as comprehending both tendencies.

§ 11. Every dealing with any branches of theological knowledge as such, whatever its nature, is always to be reckoned within the department of Church-Guidance; and whatever process of thought,—whether it be more of a constructive, or more of a regulative character,— may be pursued concerning that activity which has to do with the Guidance of the Church,—the said thinking always belongs to the department of the Theologian in the stricter sense of the term.

Even the scientific activity of the Theologian must have for its object the promotion of the Church’s welfare,—and partakes, therefore, of a clerical character; and all technical prescriptions with regard even to the properly clerical forms of activity, have their place within the circle of the theological sciences.

§ 12. If, according to what has been said, all true Theologians also take part in the Guidance of the Church, and all who are active in the government of the Church also have their life in Theology; it follows that, notwithstanding the one-sided tendency of each class, both these characteristics,—an interest in the well-being of the Church, and a scientific spirit,—must be united in every individual.

For as in the opposite case, the scholar would no longer be a Theologian, but would merely be occupied in working up certain elements of Theology in the spirit of that particular science from which they might happen to be derived; so also the activity of the Minister would be, not a guidance technically correct, or even directed by prudent thoughtfulness, but simply a confused exercise of influence.

§ 13. Every one who finds himself called to the exercise of the guiding activity in the Church, determines for himself the mode of his working, according to the measure in which one or the other of these two elements preponderates in him.

Without such an inward calling, no one is in truth either a Theologian or a Minister; but neither of these modes of working is in any way dependent upon the circumstance, that the government of the Church constitutes the basis of a particular civil status.

§ 14. No one can be perfectly possessed of the various branches of theological knowledge in their full extent; partly because every discipline in particular is susceptible of an infinite developement in detail, and partly because the diversity of disciplinæ requires a variety of talents, which can hardly be all possessed in an equal degree by any one individual.

This capability of developement, even to the extent of an infinity of detail, applies as well to all that is historical, and all that is connected with the historical, as to all technical rules in relation to the variety of cases that may possibly arise.

§ 15. If, however, every one should determine on this account to confine himself wholly to some one part of Theology; the whole would have existence neither in any one nor in all together.

Not in the latter,—because, with such a kind of distribution, no co-operation could take place between the individual occupants of different departments; nay, strictly speaking, there could not be even a communication amongst them.

§ 16. A mastery, therefore, of all the theological disciplinæ in their essential features, is the condition under which alone even but one of them can be dealt with in the manner and the spirit which are proper to Theology.

For only thus,—when every individual, along with his own particular discipline, possesses also a general comprehension of the whole,—is it possible for communication to take place between all and sundry; and only thus is it possible for each, by means of the discipline to which he specially devotes himself, to exercise an efficient influence upon the whole.

§ 17. Whether a man labours with a view to the perfecting of a particular discipline, and what discipline he selects for this purpose, are matters which are determined chiefly by the peculiar character of the talent possessed by the individual, but also, in part, by his views with regard to the prevailing need of the Church at the time.

The prosperous advancement of Theology in general, depends in a great measure upon the satisfaction of this condition,—that there shall be found, at any and every given period, distinguished talents for that, the onward cultivation of which is most needed. Those persons, however, can always be efficient in the greatest variety of ways, who have mastered the largest number of disciplinæ in a certain degree of proportionateness, without aiming at special proficiency in any one of them; whereas, on the contrary, those who devote themselves exclusively to a single department, are capable of accomplishing most as scholars.

§ 18. The following, therefore, are matters which are indispensable to every Theologian. In the first place, a correct view of the mutual connexion existing between the different parts of Theology, and of the particular value of each in relation to the common object. In the next place, a knowledge of the internal organization of every discipline in particular, and of those leading topics included in it, which are the most essential with regard to the entire connexion. Further, an acquaintance with those helps by means of which he may at any time procure immediately whatever information he may require. Finally, practice and certainty in the application of those precautions which are necessary, in order to his making the best and most correct use of the results presented by the labours of others.

The first two particulars are frequently united, under the title Theological Encyclopædia; and the third, too, (namely, Theological Bibliography), is possibly drawn into the same connexion. The fourth is a section of the art of Criticism which has not been worked out as a separate discipline, and concerning which but few rules can be given in the way of teaching; so that its attainment depends almost exclusively upon the possession of a certain natural capacity, and upon practice.

§ 19. Every one who wishes to make himself master of a particular discipline in its whole extent, must make it his object to sift and to supplement what others have already accomplished therein.

Without an effort of this kind he would, whatever the completeness of his knowledge, be but a mere depositary of tradition; a mental activity which is, of all, the most subordinate and the least important.

§ 20. The encyclopædian outline which is intended to be given here, relates merely to the first of the general requisites above mentioned (§ 18); only that it deals, at the same time, with the individual disciplinæ in the same manner as with the whole.

Such an outline is usually called a Formal Encyclopædia; in contradistinction to which, those which are denominated Material are intended rather to present a brief sketch of the leading contents of the individual disciplinæ, but are less exact in setting forth their organization. Inasmuch as Encyclopædia is, in its very nature, the first Introduction to the study of Theology, it certainly has connected with it, also, the Technology of the order according to which one ought to proceed in the said study,—or what is usually called Methodology. But this, in so far as it does not present itself spontaneously, upon an exhibition of the inward connexion [of the various theological disciplinæ], depends, in the present condition of our academical institutions, as well as of our literature, too much upon accidental circumstances, to make it worth while that we should constitute this a particular section, even, of the discipline with which we are occupied.

§ 21. There is no such thing as a knowledge with regard to Christianity, so long as men,—instead of endeavouring, on the one hand, to understand the essential nature of Christianity in its contrast to other modes of faith and other churches,—and on the other, to understand the essential nature of Religion and of Religious Communities in connexion with the other activities of the human mind,—content themselves with a merely empirical mode of apprehension.

The fact that the essential nature of Christianity is connected with a certain history, merely determines more particularly the mode of the understanding insisted upon; it is a circumstance which cannot prejudice the problem itself.

§ 22. Unless Religious Communities are to be looked upon as practical mistakes, it must be possible to show that the existence of such associations is a necessary element in order to the developement of the human mind.

The first part of the alternative has recently been exemplified, in the “Reflections on the Essential Nature of Protestantism.”³ What constitutes Atheism, properly so called, is just a looking at religion itself in the very same way.

§ 23. The farther developement of the notion of Religious Communities must also yield an indication, in what manner and in what degree one may be different from another; and likewise, how that which is individually characteristic in the fellowships of faith which are historically given, is related to these differences [which are conceived of as possible]. And the place for this is in the Philosophy of Religion.

The latter name, employed in this (certainly not yet altogether usual) sense, designates a discipline which, in relation to the idea of the Church, stands in the same position with regard to Ethics, as a certain other discipline which has to do with the idea of the State, and a third, which has to do with the idea of Art.

§ 24. All that is necessary in order to a proper exhibition, (upon the basis just pointed out), of the essential nature of Christianity, by virtue of which it is a peculiar mode of faith,—as also of the form of the Christian Community,—and, at the same time, of the manner in which each of these, again, is subdivided and differenced,—all this, taken together, forms the division of Christian Theology which we call Philosophical Theology.

The appellation is justified, on the one hand, by the connexion of the problem involved with the science of Ethics, and on the other, by the nature of the contents of that problem; which has to do for the most part with notional definitions. Such a discipline, however, has not hitherto been exhibited or recognised as a unity, because the necessity for it, in the form in which it is here conceived of, does not arise until we come to deal with the problem of organizing the theological sciences. Still, the matter of the discipline in question has already been worked up with a tolerable degree of completeness, in consequence of certain practical necessities which have grown out of various circumstances of the age.

§ 25. The purpose of Christian Church-Guidance is both extensively and intensively conservative and progressive; and the knowledge relating to this activity forms a Technology which we, grouping together all its different branches, designate by the name, Practical Theology.

In the cultivation of this discipline, too, up to the present time, there has been a very unequal distribution of the labour applied. The details, namely, of official duty, have been discussed with great copiousness; but, on the other hand, that which relates to the work of guidance and arrangement upon the whole, has received but scanty attention,—indeed, the connexion proper to a disciplinary treatment of the subject has been observed only with regard to individual portions of it.

§ 26. But Church-Guidance requires also that there shall be a knowledge of the Whole that is to be guided, as viewed in its existing condition; which condition, (since the whole referred to is of a historical character), is capable of being understood only when it is viewed as a product of the Past; and this apprehension [of the Past and the Present as antecedent and consequent, and of the latter as explained by the former], in its entire extent, constitutes Historical Theology, in the wider sense of the term.

The Present cannot be rightly dealt with as the germ of a Future which is to correspond more nearly to the [true] Notion [of the thing referred to,—i. e. Christianity organized in the form of a Christian Community], unless it is perceived how this Present has itself been developed out of the Past.

§ 27. If Historical Theology exhibits every point of time [in the history of Christianity] in its true relation to the idea of Christianity; it is at once not merely the foundation of Practical, but also the verification of Philosophical Theology.

It will be both, of course, in so much the greater degree, the more manifold the developements which are already presented to our view. For this reason, Church-Guidance was, at first, a matter rather of correct instinct [than of careful study], and Philosophical Theology manifested itself in attempts of but little power.

§ 28. Historical Theology, accordingly, forms the proper Body of theological study; and is connected with Science, strictly so called, by means of Philosophical, and with the active Christian Life by means of Practical Theology.

Historical Theology also includes within itself, historically, the Practical division of the science; since the correct understanding of any particular period must needs show also what were the leading views in accordance with which the Church was governed during that period. And by reason of the connexion which was pointed out in § 27, Philosophical Theology must also, in like manner, be mirrored in Historical Theology.

§ 29. If Philosophical Theology, as a discipline, were brought to a proper degree of perfection, it might form the commencement of the entire course of theological study. As it is, on the contrary, the individual portions of it are to be acquired only in a fragmentary manner, in connexion with the study of Historical Theology; but even this can take place only when the study of Ethics,—which we have to regard as being at the same time the science of the principles of History,—has gone before.

Without a constant reference to ethical principles, even the study of Historical Theology can be nothing but an unconnected preliminary exercise, and must needs degenerate into unintelligent tradition. This enables us, to a great extent, to explain the state of confusion in which the theological disciplinæ are so often presented, and the total want of certainty which is manifested in their application to the guidance of the Church.

§ 30. Not only is it impossible for the Technology which is yet wanting for the purposes of Church-Guidance, to present itself, except as a result of the perfecting of Historical by means of Philosophical Theology; but even the customary imparting of rules respecting the details of official duty, can work only in the manner of a mechanical prescription, unless it is preceded by the study of Historical Theology.

The consequences of occupying one’s self prematurely with this Technology, are a practical superficiality, and an indifference to scientific progress.

§ 31. Within this trilogy,—Philosophical, Historical, and Practical Theology,—the entire course of theological study is included: and the most natural order for the present Outline is, indisputably, to begin with Philosophical Theology, and conclude with Practical.

Whatever division we might choose to begin with, there would always be a good deal which we should find it necessary to assume from the other two, on account of the mutual relation which exists between them all.

---

← Preface to the Second Edition · Contents · Part the First Of Philosophical Theology →

Footnotes

1. Vorstellung, in its older and more established acceptation, is the generic term employed to designate the contents of the intellectual consciousness; it may also mean the act by which these are brought before the mind It is made to include, as its leading subordinates, Anschauungen, (percep- tions, contemplations, observations, intuitions), in which prominence is given to the antithesis between the subject (the personal mind itself) and the object; Begriffe, (notions, conceptions),—in which the special reference is to the object represented or conceived of; and Erkenntnisse, (cognitions), which imply an agreement between the contents or totality of the mental image and the real character of the object for which it stands. It corresponds on the whole, therefore, to the word idea, in its loose and popular application among ourselves. I have chosen to render it, here and elsewhere, (though not with absolute uniformity), by “mental representation,” which gives both the literal and the real meaning. Hegel and his school, on the contrary, make the term specific instead of general; using it to denote the imperfect of which Begriff is the complete.—Tr. ↩

2. Etymologically, this word should of course have been rendered Clergyman. But, to say nothing of the invidious distinction which in practice confines the application of the latter term to the ministers of but one or two of the Christian Communities existing in this country, (which, however, would of itself suffice to justify our rejection of the word as an adequate representative of Schleiermacher’s more catholic meaning), it is, if we mistake not, commonly used to designate the individual as being a member of the clerical order, rather than as a preacher, pastor, or Church dignitary. Applied to our own country, therefore, the term would really include that which is here opposed to it by the author; for we have no large order or class of unordained theologians and Church dignitaries, as they have in Germany.—Tr. ↩

3. Betrachtungen über das Wesen des Protestantismus. Thus the title of the work referred to is given by Schleiermacher. Under this title, however, I have sought for it in vain. Probably he meant to refer to “Betrachtungen über den Protestantismus,” (8vo, Heidelberg, 1826). The first chapter of the latter book is entitled “Das Wesen des Priesterthums;” and this may have led to the apparent mistake. The work was published anonymously; it is attributed to a certain K. I. Jochmann, of whom I know nothing further. What I have to say of the book is derived from a merely cursory examination of it, and is so far open to cor- rection. The fundamental principle appears to be a thoroughly Kantian identification of religion and morality. The author starts with sundry quotations from Hume, setting forth the evil consequences which have resulted from the separation of the two; and, pursuing his principle to its furthest consequences, exhibits Christianity as absolutely opposed to what (expressing the parallel meaning, as he has done, in parallel terminology) we may call Priestianity and Churchianity. The Church, in so far as it can be said to have any existence at all, becomes merely a moral association, and the Christian minister a moral teacher (in the Kantian sense). In short, while the book is not without some good things in detail, its general tendency is decidedly negative and destructive. I subjoin a brief synopsis of the contents, and must refer the reader who is desirous of farther information to the work itself. Book I. is introductory, being devoted to the statement and discussion of principles. Chap. i. The Essence of Priestianity. Chap. ii. Christianity and its Disfigurement. Chap. iii. The Purer Transmissions of Christianity (these the author finds amongst the sects of the Middle Ages). Chap. iv. Protestantism. Chap. v. The Aberrations of Protestantism. Book II. (Historical, containing the application and verification of the author’s principles), The Protestant Churches. Chap. i. The Presbyterians (especially those of Scotland. Neal’s “History of the Puritans,” and, if my memory serves me, M’Crie’s “Life of Knox,” have stood the author in good stead). Chap. ii. The Episcopal Church (of England, of course). Chap. iii. The Political Church (as organized under the German Princes).—Tr. ↩