§ 20. Since every system of doctrine, as a presentation of Dogmatic Theology, is a self-contained and closely-connected whole of dogmatic propositions, we must, with regard to the existing mass of such propositions, establish in the first place a rule according to which some will be adopted and others excluded; and in the second place, a principle for their arrangement and interconnexion.
-
It is here presupposed that the individual propositions are the original, and are in existence earlier than the systematizing tendency itself; and this is entirely in line with the foregoing discussion. Thus it is by no means the case that first of all a principle is either somehow given externally or invented specially by each investigator, and that the individual propositions only proceed from the explication of this principle. That is indeed conceivable in the speculative realm, but not here. For the Christian self-consciousness must be already developed in the community before really dogmatic elements come to be formed, and it is only through the fragmentary, and perhaps chaotic, presence of these, that the task of making an orderly connexion arises. This last, however, only fulfils its purpose when it makes the collocation so complete that we can be certain we have in the doctrine a record of all the common elements of the Christian consciousness. Such completeness is, therefore, the aim of every system of doctrine. For without it we could not even have the assurance that our dogmatic expression of the distinctive essence of Christianity was correct, since the very region which was omitted might furnish proof of the contrary. This conviction of being correct can only proceed from having an outline of the whole, which clearly exhibits a comprehensive and exhaustive division.
-
It is undeniable that there has been great diversity in systems of doctrine even at the same times and in the same Churches. And since this is at least partly due to the differences of procedure in adopting and connecting doctrines, it is only in very indefinite form that rules can be established for these two processes. But each individual system of doctrine characterizes itself best when, within these forms, it shows its own distinctive point of view with the greatest possible definiteness.
A double method naturally presents itself here. We could, starting from our general conception of the Christian consciousness, sketch an outline of the different ways in which it can express itself according to the nature of the human soul and of human life, and seek to fill in this outline with the existing doctrinal material; and with this method the only concern would be to make sure that we were not adopting any mutually incompatible elements. But we could also take the line of bringing together all expressions of religious emotion which had developed in one particular region of Christianity and belonged to one and the same type; and then it would only remain to arrange this material in the most convenient and synoptical way. To place the methods thus side by side is enough to show that we must combine the two, because each finds only in the other a security for what it lacks itself.
← Chapter I, IV. The Relation of Dogmatics to Christian Piety · Contents · Chapter II, I. The Selection of the Dogmatic Material →