§ 251. Although, in the Christian Church, the pre-eminent influence of individuals upon the mass diminishes, upon the whole, still it is appropriate, in relation to Historical Theology more than to other departments of History, that those periods which, (as constituting, even though but in a subordinate sense, epochs, are to be apprehended each as a unity,) should be delineated in connexion with the lives of certain eminently influential individuals.
This influence diminishes, because, in Christ, it was absolute, and there is no individual of later times whom we place on a footing of equality with the apostles, of whom, nevertheless, there were but few that exercised any distinct personal influence. The farther we advance, the more numerous do we always find the contemporary individuals by whom any new revolution was effected. This, however, is by no means to be limited to the period of the so-called Fathers of the Church. But we may perhaps say, that each individual is the better fitted to exercise such an influence, in proportion as he answers to the notion of a Prince of the Church [§ 9], but that the farther we advance, the less reason have we for expecting to meet with persons of this kind. It is often the case, too, that particular variations in the System of Doctrine, which are worthy of note as an indication and foreboding [of something yet to come], are best rendered intelligible by viewing them in connexion with the lives of their authors.
§ 252. That knowledge of the historical career which it is necessary for the purposes of Philosophical Theology (comp. § 65) to take for granted, must be merely such a knowledge as belongs to the department of Chronicle (which is independent of the system of theological study); whereas, on the other hand, the scientific treatment of the historical career in the several branches of Historical Theology, supposes at the outset a possession of the results of Philosophical Theology.
This, as may be seen from previous observations, is true not less of Exegetical and Dogmatic Theology, than of Historical Theology in the more restricted sense of the term. For all the leading notions of the science are definitively determined in those investigations which constitute Philosophical Theology.
§ 253. This circumstance, taken in connexion with the present state of Philosophical Theology (comp. § 68) furnishes an explanation, if not of the great diversity which appears in the various elaborations of the several branches of Historical Theology, yet at least of the want of a common understanding as to the original seat of this diversity.
For the diversity itself would continue, [even if Philosophical Theology were less imperfectly developed], because what was said in § 51 of Apologetics, and extended in § 64 to Polemics also, must be true in regard not merely to the different configurations which Christianity receives in different Church-Communities, but also to the not unimportant diversities which further obtain within each of these communities in particular. But if every several party has properly elaborated its Philosophical Theology, it will also necessarily become evident, which of these diversities are connected with an original difference in the mode of apprehending Christianity itself, and which are not so.
§ 254. It is necessary that Philosophical and Historical Theology should become still more decidedly separate and distinct from each other; and yet, on the other hand, they can attain to their proper perfection only in company, and by means of each other.
All branches of Historical Theology suffer from the circumstance that Philosophical Theology has not yet been properly elaborated in its distinctive character (comp. § 33.) But Philosophical Theology would become altogether an arbitrary thing, if it were to break away from the obligation of supporting all its propositions by the clearest apprehension of History. And just in the same way would Historical Theology lose all stability, if it refused to connect itself with the clearest developement of the elements of Philosophical Theology.
§ 255. In the present state of things, it is just as possible that the accusation which may be brought against an individual, of proceeding, in the department of Historical Theology, according to arbitrary hypotheses, may be unreasonable, as it is also that there may be foundation for such a charge.
It has foundation, when any one seeks to constitute the elements of Philosophical Theology by a process of mere construction, and then interprets events accordingly. It is unreasonable, when all that the man does is merely to make no secret of the fact that his Philosophical Theology, as it grows up for him along with the Historical, also furnishes its own confirmation, in its aptness with regard to the latter.
§ 256. The same remark applies to the case in which an individual is accused of transforming Historical Theology into an unintelligent Empiricism.
The charge has foundation, when any one lays down, as something empirically given, those notions which ought to be made out in the department of Philosophical Theology, in order that he may use them in that of Historical Theology. It is unreasonable, when a man does nothing more than protest against the construction of these notions a priori, and insist upon the necessity of the critical method (comp. § 32).
← Part the Second Of Historical Theology · Contents · Part the Third Of Practical Theology →