§ 22. The natural heresies in Christianity are the Docetic and the Nazarean, the Manichean and the Pelagian.

1. If in using these expressions we think only of the historical phenomena which have been so called, the choice of them as designating the whole range of heresy may seem very arbitrary and very disproportionate. For while the last two have been very widespread and have frequently recurred, the first two were very transitory and confined to narrow circles, and there are other names which are far more important and far more in everybody’s mouth. But these names are here intended only to denote universal forms which we are here going to unfold, and the definitions of which they are intended to remind us proceed from the general nature of the situation, even if, e.g., Pelagius himself should not be a Pelagian in our sense. But the nature of the situation means primarily the number of different ways in which the distinctive fundamental type of Christian doctrine can be contradicted while the appearance of Christianity yet remains. The question, from what foreign influences these can have sprung, is a matter of purely historical investigation, which does not properly concern us here; though, of course, the conviction that all alien material, if it is to lay claim at all to the name of Christian, must fit into one of these forms, would be the only complete security for the truth of our presentation of the matter.

2. Now, if the distinctive essence of Christianity consists in the fact that in it all religious emotions are related to the redemption wrought by Jesus of Nazareth, there will be two ways in which heresy can arise. That is to say: this fundamental formula will be retained in general (for otherwise the contradiction would be manifest and complete, so that participation in Christian communion could not even be desired), but either human nature will be so defined that a redemption in the strict sense cannot be accomplished, or the Redeemer will be defined in such a way that He cannot accomplish redemption. But each of these two cases, again, can appear in two different ways. As regards the former: if men are to be redeemed, they must both be in need of redemption and be capable of receiving it. Now, if one of these conditions is openly posited, but the other covertly denied, the contradiction at the same time touches the fundamental formula itself, only this is not directly apparent. If, then, in the first place, the need of redemption in human nature, i.e. its inability to bring the feeling of absolute dependence into all human states of consciousness, is posited in such an absolute way that the ability to receive redeeming influences is made actually to disappear, so that human nature is not simultaneously in need of redemption and capable of receiving it, but only becomes capable of receiving it after a complete transformation, this is equivalent to an annulling of our fundamental formula. Now this is the unfailing consequence, if we suppose an Evil-in-itself as being original and opposed to God, and think of human nature as suffering from that inability by reason of a dominion which this original Evil exercises over it; and therefore we call this deviation the Manichean. But, on the other hand, suppose the ability to receive redemption is assumed so absolutely, and consequently any hindrance to the entry of the God-consciousness becomes so utterly infinitesimal, that at each particular moment in each individual it can be satisfactorily counterbalanced by an infinitesimal overweight. Then the need of redemption is reduced to zero, at least in the sense that it is no longer the need of one single Redeemer, but merely, for each person in one of his weak moments, the need of some other individual who, if only for the moment, is stronger as regards the eliciting of the God-consciousness. Thus redemption would not need to be the work of one particular Person, but would be a common work of all for all, in which, at most, some would only have a greater share than others; and this aberration we may with good reason call, as above, the Pelagian.

Turn now to the other kind of heresy. If Christ is to be the Redeemer, i.e. the real origin of constant living unhindered evocation of the God-consciousness, so that the participation of all others in it is mediated through Him alone, it is, on the one hand, necessary that He should enjoy an exclusive and peculiar superiority over all others, and, on the other hand, there must also be an essential likeness between Him and all men, because otherwise what He has to impart could not be the same as what they need. Therefore on this side also the general formula can be contradicted in two different ways, because each of these two requisites may be conceived so unlimitedly that the other no longer remains co-posited, but disappears. If the difference between Christ and those who are in need of redemption is made so unlimited that an essential likeness is incompatible with it, then His participation in human nature vanishes into a mere appearance; and consequently our God-consciousness, being something essentially different, cannot be derived from His, and redemption also is only an appearance. Now though the Docetics, properly so called, directly denied only the reality of the body of Christ, yet this likewise excludes the reality of human nature in His Person generally, since we never find body and soul given in separation from each other; and therefore we may fitly call this aberration the Docetic. Finally, if on the other hand the likeness of the Redeemer to those who are to be redeemed is made so unlimited that no room is left for a distinctive superiority as a constituent of His being, which must then be conceived under the same form as that of all other men, then there must ultimately be posited in Him also a need of redemption, however absolutely small, and the fundamental relationship is likewise essentially annulled. This aberration we call by the name given to those who are supposed first to have regarded Jesus entirely as an ordinary man, the Nazarean or Ebionitic.

Other kinds of heresy than can be comprehended under one or other of these four forms cannot be conceived, if the conception of the Christian religion (piety) is to remain unchanged. For there are no more points at which the conception can be indirectly attacked. And if the conception of redemption is roundly denied, or another redeemer is set up, and thus it is roundly asserted either that men are not in need of redemption or that there is no redeeming power in Jesus, then the assertion is no longer heretical but anti-Christian,

3. These concepts of the natural heresies likewise serve, from our point of view, in the construction of any system of Christian doctrine, as limiting points which one must avoid if the agreement of particular details with the remainder is not to be destroyed. But then this also implies that no formula, in whatever division of the system it may occur, which avoids the two opposite aberrations, is to be regarded as heretical: however disproportionate the one side may appear as compared with the other, so long as neither completely disappears, the formula is still ecclesiastical or catholic. On the other hand, every formula must be suspect which can be identified with any one of these aberrations. Only, let everybody guard in this matter against the illusions so easily produced by the ‘foreshortening’ natural to distance. For the nearer a man stands to the Pelagian line himself, the more easily will he believe that he sees actually on the Manichean side the man who really is still standing almost in the middle; and so, too, with other cases. And therefore, unless the confusion is to grow ever greater, it is highly important that people should go to work with the greatest caution when it comes to declaring anything heretical.

But further, these heresies are specially bound up in pairs. That is to say, in their relation to the essence of Christianity the Manichean and the Docetic belong together, and so again do the Pelagian and the Ebionitic. For if human nature is essentially infected with positively original Evil, then the Redeemer cannot have any real participation in human nature; and if the higher self-consciousness is hindered by the lower in Christ in the same way as in all other men, then His contribution to redemption can only be related to any other man’s contribution as the more to the less. But if, on the other hand, we have regard to the fact that what cannot be understood from the essence of Christianity must have arisen through foreign influences, and that in the period of the original development of doctrine Christianity came into contact almost exclusively with Judaism and Greek Heathenism, then the Manichean and the Nazarean seem rather to belong together, as being of Judaizing tendency, the one in a purer form, and the other rather imbued with Orientalism; while the Docetic and the Pelagian seem to be of Hellenizing tendency, since mythology led to the former, and the ethical trend of the Mysteries to the latter.

Postscript.—We are far from wishing to drag in here the antithesis, at present so intense, between Supernaturalism and Rationalism. But nevertheless let us note that since in accordance with the above discussion we have to admit, even within the range of the ecclesiastical, manifold approximations to these heretical extremes, they also are divided between those two modes of treatment; and that in supernaturalistic presentations—not only in the properly dogmatic ones, but in the popular ones too—echoes may be found of the Docetic and Manichean, just as rationalistic presentations may with some justice be reproached with approximating to the Ebionitic and Pelagian. And the fact that any treatment of doctrine which does not escape one-sidedness altogether, necessarily inclines to one or other of these two sides, seems to testify to the correctness of this account of the heretical.

§ 23. A system of doctrine drawn up at the present time within the Western Church cannot be indifferent to the antithesis between Roman Catholic and Protestant, but must adhere to one or the other.

1. Some justification seems to be required for our here making the antithesis between the Eastern and the Western Church greater than the antithesis which we have expressed (between Roman Catholic and Protestant), and then, nevertheless, passing over the former. The first of these two steps seems to have against it the fact that the Eastern Church, as anti-Papal, appears to stand on the side of Protestantism. But suppose it were admitted that that antithesis is greater: then to pass over it seems inconsistent; and the common character of the Western Church would first have to be specified, in order that we might discover within it the principle for the subordinate antithesis between Romanism and Protestantism. As against this, however, it is to be noted that this cannot at all be the place to construe these antitheses in a completely graduated scale, but only in their relation to the study of doctrine. And how little the anti-Papal character of the Eastern Church signifies in this respect, may be seen from the facility with which individual fragments of that Church acknowledge the Roman Primacy without giving up their Eastern type, and especially without making any considerable alteration in their doctrine. The antithesis is indeed a greater one in the precise connexion with which we are here concerned, in the sense that a lively activity in the realm of doctrine has remained common to the two Western Churches even since their separation, whereas the Eastern Church since its break-away has in this realm become more and more torpid, and in it the combination of knowledge about religion with a really scientific organization is almost entirely destroyed. But just because of this purely negative character there was the less to be said here about that Church, since it cannot be determined whether it will again step back more into connexion with the world’s intellectual intercourse, and so have the strength to elicit and develop within itself an antithesis analogous to the Western one.

2. This antithesis has not affected the whole range of doctrine, for alongside of the doctrines over which the two Churches are avowedly in conflict there are others for which they set up the same formulæ, and yet others about which analogous differences are found within both Churches. And the antithesis itself, like every similar one within the Christian communion, must be regarded as destined some day and somehow to disappear. So one can certainly conceive of very different modes of procedure in the construction of the system of doctrine, according as one believes that the antithesis has not yet reached its culminating-point, or that it has already passed it. In the latter case, it would be a true progress if we were to seek for, or prepare in. advance, mediating formulæ in the controversial doctrines, in order to facilitate and help to bring about, from every standpoint, the approaching abrogation of the antithesis. Then it would likewise be the correct thing to establish as firmly as possible the common matter in the non-controversial doctrines, in order to make it as difficult as possible for well-meaning zealots who misconceived the whole condition of the Church, to delay unnecessarily the union of its two parts by stirring up new and unprofitable controversies. But, in the other case, we should have to assume the probability that, if the tension between the two parts is destined still to increase generally, it will also increase in the realm of doctrine. And in that case we should, in the same spirit (namely, with a view to accelerating the whole process in a steady course as much as possible), have to adopt the opposite line of procedure. A Protestant system of doctrine has in that case to aim at exhibiting the antithesis in those portions of doctrine where it has not hitherto appeared; for only when it had been developed in all portions could we be quite sure that it had reached its culminating-point in doctrine. Now since the course of such an antithesis is seldom quite direct, the main trend being from time to time interrupted by reactions towards the opposite side, there may easily arise in the first half of the course an appearance of one’s being in the second, and vice versa. Therefore, both modes of treatment are usually found simultaneously alongside of each other; but in both there is also found sometimes more consciousness, sometimes less, of the particular point at which they stand.

3. The proposition which we have set up therefore excludes neither of these two modes of treatment. For even he who regards the tension as now decreasing, and prepares means of accommodation, cannot (if he remains within the realm of Dogmatics) help putting forward the distinction as still valid, and professing the side which corresponds to the rest of his presentation of Christian doctrine. A system of doctrine could only remain neutral on controversial points if it went back to older formulæ, and that means, of course, to less definite ones, out of which the more definite ones have only developed in the course of controversy. But it is impossible in a scientific exposition to confine oneself to the indefinite when the definite is already given.

We, however, cannot regard the tension as already on the decrease. For when there arises in the Evangelical (Protestant) Church a variety of views regarding any portion of doctrine, the result of it is never a greater approximation to Roman formulæ; and similarly in the Roman Church those movements which take an anti-Protestant direction seem to be the most successful. It is therefore rather to be presumed that, even when the doctrines sound the same, there are still hidden differences, than that, when the formulæ diverge considerably, the difference in the religious affections themselves is inconsiderable.

§ 24. In so far as the Reformation was not simply a purification and reaction from abuses which had crept in, but was the origination of a distinctive form of the Christian communion, the antithesis between Protestantism and Catholicism may provisionally be conceived thus: the former makes the individual’s relation to the Church dependent on his relation to Christ, while the latter contrariwise makes the individual’s relation to Christ dependent on his relation to the Church.

1. If we confine our attention to the rise of Protestantism, it is certainly undeniable that the Reformers and their first adherents were conscious only of the wish to purify. They had no intention whatsoever of forming a Church of their own, but were simply driven to it. If, on the other hand, we confine our attention to the present time, and reflect that the Evangelical (Protestant) Church never exercises an organized missionary activity upon the Catholic Church, and indeed never expresses, as part of its essential nature, the desire to bring over the whole Catholic Church into the Evangelical; and if we reflect that we could not help doing these things if we regarded all elements which are alien to us and peculiar to Roman Catholicism, whether doctrines or institutions and usages, as simply corruptions of Christianity; then it follows that, while we do not cease to combat by word and deed what we really reckon as corruptions, we at the same time assume that other matter, which is indigenous there but equally alien to us, is yet of such a kind that we feel we may leave it standing alongside of our own religion, as being of a different formation but equally Christian. It will also be evident that even supposing the Catholic Church leant towards our definitions in all doctrines that have become controversial, this would not cause a reunion of the two Churches; and this can only be explained by the existence of a spirit alien to ours, which repels us. But it is plain that the two conclusions go together: we ascribe such a peculiarity of character to our own Church, just as we do to the Catholic. And in case we should be disposed to keep solely to the idea of purification, this also must be added: in the first place, that, as a universal rule, what has previously existed never recurs at a later time in quite the same form; and, in the second place, that no one particular point of time could be given, all over, to which the Church should have been brought back by the Reformation. For the Apostolic Age cannot be brought back, partly because we cannot sacrifice the dogmatic precision of our ideas, partly because we can as little re-establish the then relations to Judaism and Heathenism as we can the political passivity. Some things in the Evangelical Church may point to earlier periods, and some to later; but its self-reproducing unity is of a kind which did not formerly exist, though there may have been individuals whose religion was analogous to it.

2. Now this naturally creates for the Evangelical theologian the task of bringing to clear consciousness the distinctive character of Protestantism in antithesis to Catholicism, and thus fixing the antithesis itself, if possible, in a formula. Otherwise he will no more be able to perform his work with some degree of security and completeness than will the Christian theologian in general who has similarly failed to fix the distinctive essence of Christianity. Now it is of course very natural that such a formula should not arise out of the controversy between the two parties themselves; but unfortunately even we Protestants among ourselves have by no means come to agree upon such a formula. Usually we reduce the antithesis to some one salient point which does not explain everything, and we do it in such a way that one of the two parties appears only negatively defined; or we treat the antithesis as a more or less accidental aggregate of individual differences. Some people, perhaps, have thought that for Evangelical Dogmatics it is already, unfortunately, too late for such a formula, because the doctrine of our Church is completely settled in our Symbols, so that no new element can be gained for it. And others, perhaps, have thought it is not yet time for such a formula, because the spirit of Protestantism has not yet in doctrine fully developed itself on all sides. But, as a matter of fact, the relation of the two Churches is at present such that it is now possible, and also now necessary, to come to a complete orientation on the point; and, for another thing, we have to provide against un-Protestant matter creeping in unawares even into our own further development. Since, however, so little has yet been done upon this task, the attempt here made can claim to be no more than a provisional one.

3. Just as the distinctive essence of Christianity could never be discovered from the mere concept of religion and of the religious communion, so the distinctive essence of Protestantism cannot be discovered from the general expression which we have given to Christianity. And just as the essence of Christianity could not be discovered by a merely empirical method, so it would be difficult to arrive in that way at the principle of the inner unity of the Evangelical Church. Here, indeed, the difficulty would be still greater. For, on the one hand, at the rise of Protestantism the purificatory aim alone appeared definitely, and the distinctive spirit which began to develop lay unconscious and concealed behind that aim. And, on the other hand, even the outward unity of the new Church is much more difficult to define, because there was no unity of starting-point, and yet there did not arise as many new communions as there were starting-points. Hence amid the great mass of very diverse and independently developed personal peculiarities, it must be almost impossible to determine what there was to unite them apart from that purificatory aim, and how far they belonged together. Now since the antithesis can be most clearly seen from the present consolidated existence of the two Churches alongside of each other, it seemed best to attempt the solution of the problem by considering what kind of qualities of the one communion most strongly arouse in the common mind of the other the consciousness of the antithesis. Now it is the charge most generally made by the Roman Church against Protestantism, that it has so much destroyed the old Church, and yet, by reason of its own fundamental principles, is not in a position to build up again a stable and durable communion, but leaves everything uncertain and in solution, and each individual standing by himself. The main reproach which we, contrariwise, bring against Catholicism is that, in ascribing everything to the Church and tracing everything to the Church, it deprives Christ of the honour due to Him, and puts Him in the background, and even in a measure subordinates Him to the Church. To this add the fact, that ecclesiastical Protestantism is as little chargeable in the latter respect as Catholicism in the former; and consider how nevertheless each party is disposed to point out in the other chiefly what could most easily lead it astray from the common ground of Christianity. Plainly the opinion of the Catholics is that, even though we were to hold fast the reference to Christ, we should nevertheless be in danger of giving up the Christian principle by dissolving the communion; and our opinion of the Roman Church is that, however fast it may hold this communion, it is nevertheless in danger of becoming un-Christian by neglecting the reference to Christ. Now add to this the further fact that the spirit of Christianity which rules in both Churches does not allow either of them ever to reach that extreme. Then there follows from this the formula which we have set up. In the controversial doctrines themselves this formula can only justify itself gradually in the course of the further discussion (unless we want to anticipate in a fragmentary way a large part of our system of doctrine). Here we can only make some preliminary remarks in support of the formula, and draw some conclusions from it regarding the treatment of Evangelical Dogmatics.

4. In support of our formula it may be said (though we could not take this as our starting-point) that it ascribes to the two parties antithetical characters which modify the essence of Christianity in antithetical ways. For since Christian piety never arises independently and of itself in an individual, but only out of the communion and in the communion, there is no such thing as adherence to Christ except in combination with adherence to the communion. That the two should be subordinated to each other in opposite ways is only possible because the same fact which we regard as the institution of the Church, to serve the work or influence of Christ, is regarded by them as a transference to the Church of the work of Christ. So this, too, speaks well for our formula, that here, where we are primarily seeking to define the antithesis for the theoretic side of the doctrine, the formula fastens mainly upon the concept of the Church. This makes it probable that what is opposed in the practice of the two Churches and in the principles of their constitution can also be evolved out of this formula.

But as regards the treatment of Evangelical Dogmatics, what follows is that in those portions of doctrine to which the formula can be most directly applied, the greatest care must be taken not to carry the antithesis too far, lest we should fall into un-Christian positions. And, on the other hand, that in those doctrines in which the antithesis is least prominent, especial care must be taken not to set up formulæ which have never got rid of the antithetical character, or which have perhaps even taken on something of it once again. In this way it can best be ascertained how far the distinctive Evangelical spirit has everywhere become developed in doctrine. At the same time it seems natural that that Church which places the communion above the relation to Christ also most easily takes over matter from the earlier religious communions, and consequently that whatever has a certain flavour of the Jewish or the Heathen is more in keeping with the Roman Church, just as every opposition to these elements, even in earlier times, contained something akin to Protestantism.

Postscript.—What has been said about the indefiniteness of the outward unity of the Evangelical (Protestant) Church refers especially to the different branches of it, and in particular to the separation between the Reformed and the Lutheran Church. For the original relation was such that, notwithstanding their different starting-points, they might just as well have grown together into an outward unity as have come to separate from each other. Now this presentation of doctrine, even in its very title, professes adherence only to the Protestant Church in general, without naming either of those two in particular. Thus it starts from the assumption that the separation of the two has lacked sufficient grounds, inasmuch as the differences in doctrine are in no sense traceable to a difference in the religious affections themselves, and the two do not diverge from each other, either in morals and moral theory or in constitution, in any way which at all corresponds to those differences of doctrine. Therefore we can only treat of such differences in the same way as writers in other subjects take notice of divergent presentations by different teachers—in short, simply as an academic matter.

§ 25. Every Evangelical (Protestant) Dogmatic ought to contain a peculiar and distinctive element; only, this will be more prominent in some systems than in others, and sometimes more in some points of doctrine, sometimes in others.

Note.—Cf. Brief Outline, p. 118. 1. We could not at all grant the name of Dogmatics to a presentation composed purely of original doctrines peculiar to itself. Even the earliest coherent presentations of the Evangelical Faith could only bear that name, in so far as they linked themselves to what went before, and had most of their system in common with what was ecclesiastically given. And so an epitome of doctrine which claimed no connexion with that which at the time of the Reformation either took shape or was for the Evangelical Church recognized anew, could not by any means pass as an Evangelical system of doctrine, however opposed all its contents might be to Romanism. And if we had nothing to show but such an epitome, then indeed the unity and identity of our Church would not appear at all in its doctrine, and there would, from this side, be no guarantee whatever of the mutual kinship of those who call themselves Protestants. If, on the other hand, our system of doctrine were so perfectly and precisely definite that there could be no divergence unless one were willing to exclude oneself from the communion of the Church, then new presentations of the system of doctrine within our Church would be entirely superfluous and useless. If repetitions of a hard-and-fast letter are to mean anything, there must at least be change in the turns of expression or in the arrangement of the propositions. But both of these really always indicate characteristic alterations, since there never are two expressions meaning exactly the same thing, and since every proposition acquires a somewhat different meaning when it is placed in a different context. And so even where there was only a slight tinge of difference in a number of different presentations, there would always likewise be divergent and distinctive doctrines. As a matter of fact, however, our system of doctrine is very far from having such a thoroughgoing definiteness, for even in the different confessional documents the same thing is not always comprehended in the same letters, and these solely official and perhaps universally recognized presentations have, after all, only individual parts of the system of doctrine as their subject. And just as in the Reformation age this common matter sprang simply out of the free agreement of individuals, it is still true, since the Protestant Church has become firmly established, that there is no other way in which anything can become generally accepted than by the free concurrence of the results obtained by individuals who are engaged upon the same subject. The fact that, notwithstanding, common doctrine is not lacking, sufficiently proves that the individuals are united by something distinctive which they have in common; and anything more than this, as regards unity of doctrine, is not to be expected in the Evangelical Church, nor is it required.

2. Let us then start from the facts that the system of doctrine in our Church all over is not a thing absolutely settled, and that it may indeed be asserted that its distinctive character has not yet become fully manifest in doctrine. Then we can only proceed on the supposition that in the further development also of the system of doctrine in the future these two elements will appear together, and will penetrate each other—matter which is common to all, and which makes good its claim as a pure and universally recognizable expression of the distinctive Protestant spirit; and peculiar matter which expresses the personal views of its exponents. And every particular presentation of the substance of the doctrine, which lays claim to an ecclesiastical character, will be the more perfect the more inwardly it unites in itself and relates together the common and the peculiar. The common matter naturally starts from, and becomes most prominent in, those portions of doctrine which are most akin to the original efforts to purify the faith. Now if this effort at the time of the Reformation itself did not transform the whole tenor of doctrine, but allowed much to be simply taken over unaltered from earlier definitions, this realm will naturally become a controversial one, and much of what has hitherto passed as common matter will gradually become obsolete. The element of peculiarity lies originally in the arrangement of the individual doctrines, in which there is, and can be, practically nothing which would be recognized as necessarily of general acceptance. But further, all points of doctrine, even while keeping within the universally recognized mode of expression, permit of more exact definition in many ways; and everyone achieves something who makes people recognize this capacity for modification, and in his own way makes use of his rights in the matter. Finally, the element of peculiarity in the presentation touches also the area of what is gradually becoming antiquated, with a view to remodelling individual doctrines in a way more true to the Protestant spirit. But even the most lively originality cannot aim at anything higher than to set the common doctrine in the clearest light; just as, again, for the common element there is no higher aim than to encourage the peculiar and original development of doctrine without disturbing the communion, by establishing as definitely as possible the Protestant character of the system. The more the two elements thus interpenetrate each other, the more ecclesiastical, and at the same time the more favourable to progress, is the presentation. The more they are detached from each other, and merely stand side by side as unconnected, the more does the element which clings to the historical, and is set up as of common acceptance, appear to be of merely antiquarian interest, and the original element to be simply ultra-modern.

Postscript.—The terms orthodox and heterodox, which even etymologically do not form a proper antithesis, are too uncertain for me to have any great desire to employ them. Consider, however, how much there is which was originally decried as heterodox in our Church, and which afterwards came to pass muster as orthodox, but always through an earlier orthodoxy becoming obsolete. Then it becomes plain how this antithesis refers solely to what professes to be common matter. The name of orthodox is then given to what is in unmistakable conformity with the matter fixed in the confessional documents; and what is not thus in conformity is heterodox. But now, if heterodox matter succeeds in vindicating itself as being more accordant with the spirit of the Evangelical Church than is the letter of the confessional documents, then the latter becomes antiquated and the former becomes orthodox. Now, since such changes in our Church can never by a special act be declared universally valid, the employment of these two terms, for things which are still subject to discussion, is always doubtful policy. The situations which occasion it will probably never cease to arise, because what is fixed in the confessional documents contains exegeses of Scripture, and thus the progress of the art of exegesis may render doubtful that part of the Symbols. And similarly, on the other hand, even if the heterodox cannot be definitely distinguished in content and expression from the heretical of older times, yet it must not be regarded as heretical, if only it seeks to make good its claim in connexion with the commonly accepted elements of our Church’s system of doctrine. For, in the case of those people who do not desire to separate themselves from our Church’s system of doctrine, we must not, even when there are such divergences, put them down to anything more than misunderstandings, which are sure to disappear again through scientific interchange of views within the Church itself. And especially we must not think there has been any hidden influence of principles which belong to other religious communions.

§ 26. In the Evangelical (Protestant) Church the Science of Christian Doctrine and that of Christian Morals have long been separated: and so here too, for the purposes of our presentation, we eliminate from the totality of the dogmatic material such propositions as are elements of the Science of Christian Morals.

Note.—Cf. Brief Outline, §§ 31 ff.

1. Even the propositions of the Science of Christian Morals are in the above sense propositions or doctrines of the faith. For the modes of action which they describe under the form of theorems or precepts (for the two come to the same thing) are likewise expressions of the religious affections of the Christian. That is to say, every religious emotion is essentially a modification of human existence, and if it is understood as a quiescent state, there arises a proposition which belongs to the Science of Christian Doctrine. But every such emotion, unless it either gets interrupted in its natural course or is too weak from the beginning (and we cannot here take account of either of these cases), issues just as essentially in activity; and if the different modifications of the Christian’s religious consciousness are understood as activities which arise in different ways in accordance with the circumstances which at the time occasion and determine them, there arise propositions which belong to the Science of Christian Morals. But rules of life and formulæ for modes of action which were not of that type would not belong to the Science of Christian Morals, but either to the purely rational Science of Morals or to some special technical or practical study.

2. Now it is clear that only the two taken together represent the whole reality of the Christian life. For it is inconceivable that a man should everywhere and always have in his self-consciousness the emotions which are expressed in the doctrines of the Christian faith, without also acting, everywhere and always, in the way set forth by Christian morals. And it is equally easy to understand how the two could have been for a long time unified in presentation, so that they formed a single discipline. For the issues of the religious emotions in activity can always, when taken together at suitable points, be described in a supplemental way even in the Science of Doctrine, as natural consequences of the described states themselves; as, e.g., what are called duties to God may come after the treatment of the Divine Attributes. Similarly there are doctrines which in themselves belong equally to both studies, and which thus provide in the Science of Doctrine a place where particular parts of the Science of Morals, or even the whole of it, could easily be introduced. Such are the portions of doctrine which treat of Sanctification and of the Church. But in the nature of the case the Science of Doctrine could equally well be introduced into the Science of Morals, and in the same twofold manner; i.e. the religious affections could be described, each as something which preceded the developing activities in general, but which also accompanied and was, as it were, echoed in these; but they could also be described at particular points. For since the expression of the self-consciousness is a moral activity, it would be possible in a treatment of this latter to introduce the whole Science of Doctrine as an explication of the thing which is to be expressed. But (when the two were united) the relation was always a purely one-sided one, the treatment of the Science of Morals being included in the Science of Doctrine. The Science of Doctrine in this way became shapeless in consequence of unevenly distributed appendices, and the need for viewing as a connected whole the modes of action accepted in the Christian Church was not satisfied. Hence it was inevitable that the ethical interest should sooner or later lead to the two studies being separated from each other.

---

← Chapter II. The Method of Dogmatics · Contents · Chapter II, II. The Formation of the Dogmatic System →