INTRODUCTION.
§ 32. SINCE the peculiar, essential character of Christianity is as little susceptible of a purely scientific construction as of a merely empirical apprehension, it admits only of being defined critically (compare § 23) by comparing that which, in Christianity, is historically given, with those antitheses by virtue of which it is possible for Religious Communities to be different from one another.
Although certain general rubrics may be laid down with respect to characteristic differences, still, we cannot construct the individuality of individual men [ideally, a priori]; and the same process is equally impossible with regard to the individuality of such collective or moral personalities as are here referred to.
§ 33. The point of departure, therefore, of Philosophical Theology can be taken only above [or beyond] Christianity in the logical sense of the word; that is, in the general notion of a Religious Community, or Fellowship of Faith.
In accordance, namely, with what has been said before, it may be laid down as a general principle, that every determinate form of faith, and every individual Church is capable of being rightly understood only by means of the relations of co-existence and of subsequence which it sustains towards others; and so far, the point of departure referred to is the same for all the analogous disciplinæ of other Theologies [than the Christian], inasmuch as, in order to exhibit the relations just mentioned, they must all revert to the same higher notion, and to the possibility of its being subdivided.
§ 34. The relation of any historically-given condition of Christianity to the Idea of Christianity, is determined not alone by the contents of the said condition, but also by the manner in which it has been produced.
These two things, it is true, are matter of reciprocal implication; inasmuch as it is not possible for states of different character to have been produced from the same earlier condition otherwise than by some difference in the process; and so of the converse. This, however, renders it so much the safer to employ, by way of preference, sometimes the one and sometimes the other, for the purpose of finding out the above relation. And that, in the case of a living and historical whole, its various conditions do not all stand in the same relation to the Idea of the whole, is self-evident.
§ 35. Since Ethics, as the science of the principles of History, can also exhibit the mode-of-becoming of a historical whole only in a general way; so, in like manner, it is only in the way of Criticism, by a comparison of the general differences there exhibited [i. e. in the science of Ethics] with that which is historically given, that we are able to find out what, in the developement of Christianity, is the pure expression of its Idea, and what, on the contrary, must be regarded as a deviation from that Idea, and consequently as a morbid condition.
Morbid conditions do occur in historical, not less than in organic individuals; to subordinate differences in developement there can be no reference here.
§ 36. As often as Christianity, [thus historically organized], divides itself into a plurality of Church-Communities, all of which, notwithstanding, lay claim to the same appellation, Christian,—the same problems arise with regard to these also; and there is then further, in addition to the general, for every one of these a special, Philosophical Theology.
Manifestly, this is the position in which we find ourselves: for even if every one of these particular communities were to declare all the rest to be portions which had fallen into a morbid condition, still, from the point of departure which we have adopted (see § 33), the claims of all must, for the purpose of the first problem, be subjected to the critical process referred to. Our special Philosophical Theology, therefore, is Protestant in its character.
§ 37. Since the two problems here stated,—in §§ 32 and 35,—exhaust the purpose of Philosophical Theology: it is, if viewed as to its scientific contents, [a species of] Criticism; and, from the nature of its object [subject-matter,] it appertains to Historical Criticism.
In the solution of these problems, namely, is contained all that is required to form the basis of Historical as well as of Practical Theology, in their relation to Church-Guidance.
§ 38. Philosophical Theology, as a theological discipline, must have its form determined by the relation which it bears to Church-Guidance.
This, of course, applies also to every special Philosophical Theology.
§ 39. As every individual is in the Church-Community to which he belongs, only by virtue of his conviction of the verity of that mode of faith which is successively propagated therein; so also must Church-Guidance, in its conservative aspect or application, be designed to procure recognition for this conviction by imparting it. But the foundation for such a proceeding is furnished by those investigations which relate to the peculiar, essential character of Christianity, and, in like manner, to that of Protestantism; which constitute, therefore, the Apologetical portion of Philosophical Theology,—the former class of inquiries sustaining this relation to general, Christian Philosophical Theology, and the latter, to the special Philosophical Theology of Protestantism.
No other kind of defence is to be thought of in connexion with this appellation, than that which seeks to prevent any manifestation of hostility towards the Community. The endeavour to bring others, also, into the Community, is a matter of clerical practice which certainly involves a resort to the storehouse of Apologetics; and a Technology with regard to it,—which, however, has scarcely begun to be formed,—would constitute the portion of Practical Theology resting immediately upon Apologetics.
§ 40. Since every individual, in proportion to the strength and clearness of his conviction, must necessarily also experience dissatisfaction with regard to such morbid deviations as may have arisen in the Community to which he belongs; Church-Guidance, by virtue of its intensively conservative aim (§ 25), must be designed in the first instance to make this deviation, as such, a matter of consciousness. This can be effected only by means of a correct exhibition of the essential character of Christianity,—and, in like manner also, of Protestantism; which exhibitions, therefore, in this application, form the Polemical division of Philosophical Theology,—the first, in relation to its general,—the second, in relation to its special, Protestant form.
The principles of the clerical praxis which is directed towards the removal of morbid conditions, find their place here; and the Technology of this praxis would constitute the division of Practical Theology which bases itself immediately upon Polemics.
§ 41. As the direction of Apologetics is wholly outwards, so is that of Polemics altogether inwards.
That which is far more commonly designated by the name,—the outwardly directed special Polemics, of Protestants, for example, against the Catholics, and in like manner the general Polemics of Christians against the Jews, or against Deists and Atheists,—is likewise a clerical proceeding in the broader sense of the term; a proceeding that, on the one hand, has nothing in common with the discipline of which we are treating, and one that, on the other hand, could hardly be recognized as salutary in its character by a well wrought out [system of] Practical Theology. It might be affirmed, truly, that we need but to view this proceeding as having, not a Protestant, but a general Christian character, and then its direction, too, would be wholly inwards. But, in that case, it would also be directed, not, (as it is nevertheless always supposed to be), against Catholicism upon the whole, but only against that in it which does not belong to its peculiar form, but is to be regarded as a morbid condition of Christianity.
§ 42. Since, then, Philosophical Theology contains no farther problems; we have to treat, in the immediate sequel, of the organization of Apologetics and Polemics, and this as well in their general, Christian, as in their special, Protestant form.
Either, therefore, first of general Philosophical Theology in both its divisions, and then of the special in like manner; or, first of Apologetics, general and special, and then in like manner of Polemics. The latter arrangement has been preferred.