§ 63. As each of these two disciplinæ, Apologetics and Polemics, excludes the other, so is each of them, at the same time, conditionally dependent on the other.
They exclude each other, by the opposite character of their contents, (comp. §§ 39 and 40), and by the oppositeness of their direction, (comp. § 41). They are conditionally dependent on each other, because that which is morbid in the Church is capable of being discovered only by a reference to some definite representation of the peculiar, essential character of Christianity, and because, at the same time, in the investigations by which this representation is established, it is necessary that the morbid phenomena should also be taken up, preliminarily, as a portion of that given matter which the critical process requires for its basis.
§ 64. These two disciplinæ, therefore, can attain to perfect developement only by means of each other, and along with each other.
And, for this very reason, only by a process of approximation, and only after a variety of transformations. Compare § 51; what is said there being true also with regard to Polemics.
§ 65. Philosophical Theology, it is true, supposes the material of Historical Theology as already known; but it is itself the first to lay a foundation for such a view1 of Christianity as may properly be called historical.
This material is identical with the given matter (comp. § 32) which lies at the basis of the investigations respecting the peculiar and essential character of Christianity, as well as of those which have to do with the antithesis of the healthy and the morbid, (comp. § 35). But it is the result of these investigations which first determines the value of the individual momenta in connexion with the whole developement, and, by consequence, the historical view of the entire career of Christianity.
§ 66. Philosophical and Practical Theology occupy, on the one hand, a common position of contrast with regard to Historical Theology; but, on the other hand, they have also a relation of contrast between themselves.
The former assertion is true, because the two first-mentioned disciplinæ have an immediately practical, Historical Theology, on the contrary, a purely contemplative direction. For although, certainly, Apologetics and Polemics are in their nature theories, from which we ought ‘perhaps to distinguish actual services of an apologetical or polemical character; still the purpose of the former first receives its accomplishment in the latter, and the former are laid down only for the sake of the latter. On the other hand, the two are in contrast, partly, as first and last, Philosophical Theology determining in the first instance the objects with which Practical Theology has to deal,—and partly, because Philosophical Theology attaches itself to certain constructions of pure science [as its points of connexion and departure], while Practical Theology, on the contrary, lays hold, in the manner of a Technology, on the department of the particular and individual.
§ 67. Since every man’s Philosophical Theology includes within itself, essentially, the principles of his entire mode of thinking in reference to Theology, it is also necessary that every Theologian should produce for himself, entirely, this part of his system.
There is no sort of intention here to deprive any Theologian of the liberty of professing his adherence to a system of Philosophical Theology which may have emanated from another; only it must be appropriated thoroughly, as a matter of clear and firm conviction. But especially is it requisite that every theologian should be in possession of Philosophical Theology in its entirety and completeness, without regard, so far as this division of Theology is concerned, to the distinction laid down in §§ 14–17; because here, namely, all with which we have to do is in the nature of first principles, and every particular is connected in the most intimate manner with the whole. That all theological principles, moreover, have their place in this portion of the whole, follows immediately from §§ 65 and 66.
§ 68. Both the disciplinæ of Philosophical Theology still await their farther developement.
This fact is explained, in part, by a reference to the relations [i. e., of the great divisions of Theology amongst themselves] which have here been exhibited. Further, also, Apologetics, on the one hand, have been made to relate too strictly and exclusively to properly apologetical services, the occasions for which presented themselves only at intervals, while, on the contrary, the propositions belonging to this discipline found their place, not without serious prejudice to the clear survey of the whole field of study,—in the “Introductions” to Dogmatics. It is only within the most recent period, that they have begun to receive again a special elaboration, in their more general design and their true comprehensiveness. Polemics, on the other hand,—chiefly because their proper direction was misapprehended,—had, for a considerable time past, ceased to be wrought out and discoursed upon as a theological discipline.
← Part the First Of Philosophical Theology · Contents · Part the Second Of Historical Theology →
Footnotes
-
That is, a contemplation accompanied by insight. Comp. § 188.—Tr. ↩