Christian Faith (Two-Volume Set): A New Translation and Critical Edition

By Friedrich Schleiermacher, Terrence N. Tice and Catherine L. Kelsey

Christian Faith is one of the most important works of Christian theology ever written. The author, known as the "father of theological liberalism," correlates the entirety of Christian doctrine to the human experience of and consciousness of God. A work of exhaustive scholarship written in deep sympathy with the ministry of congregations and church bodies, Christian Faith has inspired admiration and debate from all quarters of the Christian family since its first publication in 1821.

This is the first full translation of Schleiermacher's Christian Faith since 1928 and the first English-language critical edition ever. Edited by top Schleiermacher scholars, this edition includes extensive notes that detail changes Schleiermacher made to the text and explain references that may be unfamiliar to contemporary readers. Employing shorter sentences and more careful tracking of vocabulary, the editors have crafted a translation that is significantly easier to read and follow. Anyone who wishes to understand theology in the modern period will find this an indispensable resource.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Westminster John Knox Press
• Release date: Sep 1, 2016
• ISBN: 9781611646757

Book preview

Christian Faith

"This translation of Friedrich Schleiermacher’s Christian Faith is a stunning achievement. It is now not only the definitive edition of this work but the standard for all future Schleiermacher translations. Christian Faith is the most famous theological text of the past two hundred years. The translation, grounded in the translators’ deep learning, renders Schleiermacher’s text in language that speaks with immediacy and clarity to contemporary theological questions and concerns. The translation is so beautiful and faithful that I swear I heard Schleiermacher’s own voice speaking through the text!"

—CHRISTINE HELMER, Arthur E. Andersen Teaching and

Research Professor, Professor of Religious Studies and German,

Northwestern University

"This magisterial and authoritative English translation and edition of Friedrich Schleiermacher’s Christian Faith (1830) constitutes a major contribution to the study and understanding of modern Christian theology. Undertaken by the foremost interpreters and translators into English of Schleiermacher’s work, Terrence N. Tice, Catherine L. Kelsey, and Edwina Lawler, this superb work will change the way in which the English-speaking world understands how one of the most important modern theologians conceptualized and defined the very nature of Christianity in the modern era.

An indispensable achievement of translation and religious scholarship, this work should become a standard in libraries, institutional and personal. Providing an English translation of the 1830–31 reworked second edition of Schleiermacher’s text, the editors make full use of the critical apparatus of previous German and English editions of Christian Faith. Following Schleiermacher’s own theory of translation, the language is clear, expressive, eminently readable, and accurate. In addition, all of Schleiermacher’s own notes in Greek and Latin are translated and, where possible, identified.

Inviting the twenty-first-century reader to engage with the thought of Friedrich Schleiermacher in an unprecedented way, this work constitutes a magnificent lifelong achievement of philological and theological scholarship."

—KATHERINE FAULL, Professor of German Studies and

Comparative Humanities, Bucknell University

The availability, for the first time, of a consistent English translation of Schleiermacher’s masterpiece is a great boon to scholars and students. Tice, Kelsey, and Lawler deserve our gratitude for the almost unimaginable labor required to produce these volumes. Readers will find the substantial notes, which provide orientation and historical context, not only useful but engaging. This marks an important moment in Schleiermacher scholarship.

—THEODORE M. VIAL JR., Professor of Theology and Modern

Western Religious Thought, Iliff School of Theology

"Until now Schleiermacher’s Christian Faith has been available to English-speaking readers only in its largely outdated 1928 translation. This much-anticipated critical edition provides a discerning, diligently researched, and well-organized new translation that takes special care to remain faithful to the rich complexities of Schleiermacher’s own prose. The meticulous notes further situate Schleiermacher’s work among his own interlocutors and relate his insights to ongoing and contemporary scholarly conversations. These volumes present a significant and welcome contribution that will quickly become a standard point of reference for Schleiermacher’s thought for specialists and nonspecialists alike."

—KEVIN VANDER SCHEL, Gonzaga University

What a tremendous contribution to twenty-first-century Friedrich Schleiermacher research and studies. This is the ultimate English translation of one of the most important dogmatic presentations of Christian faith and witness in history. The editorial notes, interpretative nuances, and language clarity are a real gift for current and future Schleiermacher scholarship.

—DUMAS A. HARSHAW JR., Shaw University Divinity School

CHRISTIAN FAITH

Volumes 1 and 2

CHRISTIAN FAITH

A New Translation and Critical Edition

Volumes 1 and 2

FRIEDRICH SCHLEIERMACHER

Translated by

Terrence N. Tice, Catherine L. Kelsey, and Edwina Lawler

Edited by

Catherine L. Kelsey and Terrence N. Tice

© 2016 Terrence N. Tice, Catherine L. Kelsey, and Edwina Lawler

First Edition

Published by Westminster John Knox Press

Louisville, Kentucky

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25—10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. For information, address Westminster John Knox Press, 100 Witherspoon Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40202-1396. Or contact us online at www.wjkbooks.com.

Scripture quotations marked RSV are from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1946, 1952, 1971, and 1973 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., and are used by permission.

Scripture quotations marked NIV are from The Holy Bible, New International Version. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

Book design by Drew Stevens and Allison Taylor

Cover design by Allison Taylor

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Schleiermacher, Friedrich, 1768–1834, author. | Tice, Terrence N., translator, editor. | Kelsey, Catherine L., translator, editor. | Lawler, Edwina G., 1943– translator.

Title: Christian faith : a new translation and critical edition / Friedrich Schleiermacher; translated by Terrence N. Tice, Catherine L. Kelsey and Edwina Lawler; edited by Catherine L. Kelsey and Terrence N. Tice.

Other titles: Christliche Glaube. English

Description: Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2016. | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Description based on print version record and CIP data provided by publisher; resource not viewed.

Identifiers: LCCN 2016018624 (print) | LCCN 2016013573 (ebook) | ISBN 9781611646757 (ebk.) | ISBN 9780664226206 (hardback) | ISBN 9780664262822 (pbk.)

Subjects: LCSH: Theology, Doctrinal. | BISAC: RELIGION / Christian Theology / General. | RELIGION / Christian Theology / History.

Classification: LCC BT75 (print) | LCC BT75.S58513 2016 (ebook) | DDC 230/.044—dc23

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016018624

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1992.

Most Westminster John Knox Press books are available at special quantity discounts when purchased in bulk by corporations, organizations, and special-interest groups.

For more information, please e-mail [e-mail].

Full title in 1830:

Christian Faith: Interconnectedly Presented in Accordance with Principles of the Evangelical Church

Epigram on 1830 Title page:

Neque enim quaero intelligere ut credam, sed credo ut intelligam.

Anselm, Prosol. 1

Nam qui non crediderit, non experietur,

et qui expertus non fuerit, non intelligent.

Anselm, De fide trin. 2.

For I do not seek to understand so that I may believe [have faith]; but I believe so that I may understand.

Proslogion 1

For those who have not believed [had faith] will not find by experience, and those who have not found by experience will not know [understand].

De fide trinitatis 2

Ed. note: Proslogion was written about 1079. The latter, De fide trinitatis, is actually a made-up title for that section in Da incarnatione verbi, written about 1093. ET Anselm (1033–1109), The Major Works (1998), 87 and 236; Latin: Migne Lat. 227C and 264C.

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments

Guide for Readers

Concerning This Translation

Abbreviations

Title Page (1830)

Preface (1830)

INTRODUCTION | §§1–31

[Explanation] §1

Chapter One: Toward a Definition of Dogmatics

Introduction to Chapter One §2

I.Toward the Concept Church: Propositions Borrowed from Ethics §§3 – 6

II.Regarding the Differentiations among Religious Communities in General: Propositions Borrowed from the Philosophy of Religion §§7 – 10

III.Presentation of Christianity in Accordance with Its Distinctive Nature: Propositions Borrowed from Apologetics §§11–14

IV.Regarding the Relationship of Dogmatics to Christian Piety §§15–19

Chapter Two: Regarding the Method of Dogmatics

Introduction to Chapter Two §20

I.Regarding Selection of the Dogmatic Material §§21–26

II.Regarding the Formation of Dogmatics §§27–31

THE DOCTRINES OF FAITH, PART ONE | §§32–61

Explication of Religious Self-Consciousness as It Is Always Already Presupposed by, but also Always Contained in, Every Christian Religious Stirring of Mind and Heart

Introduction to Part One §§32–35

SECTION ONE

A Description of Our Religious Self-Consciousness insofar as the Relationship between the World and God Is Expressed Therein

Introduction to Section One §§36–39

First Point of Doctrine: Regarding Creation §§40–41

Appendix One: Regarding Angels §§42–43

Appendix Two: Regarding the Devil §§44–45

Second Point of Doctrine: Regarding Preservation §§46–49

SECTION TWO

Regarding the Divine Attributes That Refer to Religious Self-Consciousness insofar as It Expresses the General Relationship between God and the World

[Introduction to Section Two] §§50–51

First Point of Doctrine: God Is Eternal §52

Second Point of Doctrine: God Is Omnipresent §53

Third Point of Doctrine: God Is Omnipotent §54

Fourth Point of Doctrine: God Is Omniscient §55

Appendix to Section Two: Regarding Some Other Divine Attributes §56

SECTION THREE

Regarding the Constitution of the World That Is Indicated in Religious Self-Consciousness inasmuch as It Expresses the General Relationship between God and the World

Introduction to Section Three §§57–58

First Point of Doctrine: Regarding the Original Perfection of the World §59

Second Point of Doctrine: Regarding the Original Perfection of Humanity §§60–61

THE DOCTRINES OF FAITH, PART TWO | §§62–169

Explication of the Facts of Religious Self-Consciousness as They Are Defined in Terms of Contrasting Features

Introduction [to Part Two] §§62–64

The First Aspect of the Contrast

Explication of the Consciousness of Sin

[Introduction to the First Aspect of the Contrast] §65

SECTION ONE

Sin as a Human Condition

[Introduction to Section One] §§66–69

First Point of Doctrine: Regarding Original Sin §§70–72

Second Point of Doctrine: Regarding Actual Sin §§73–74

SECTION TWO

Regarding Constitution of the World in Relation to Sin

[Point of Doctrine: Regarding Evil] §§75–77

Postscript to This Point of Doctrine [regarding Evil] §78

SECTION THREE

Regarding the Divine Attributes That Relate to Consciousness of Sin

[Introduction to Section Three] §§79–82

First Point of Doctrine: God Is Holy §83

Second Point of Doctrine: God Is Just §84

Addendum: Regarding the Mercy of God §85

The Second Aspect of the Contrast

Explication regarding the Consciousness of Grace

Introduction [to the Second Aspect of the Contrast] §§86–90

SECTION ONE

Regarding the Christian’s Condition insofar as the Christian Is Conscious of Divine Grace

[Introduction to Section One] §91

Division One: Regarding Christ

[Introduction to Division One] §92

First Point of Doctrine: Regarding the Person of Christ

Introduction to First Point of Doctrine §§93–95

First Doctrinal Proposition §96

Second Doctrinal Proposition §97

Third Doctrinal Proposition §98

[Addendum to This Point of Doctrine] §99

Second Point of Doctrine: Regarding the Work of Christ

[Introduction to Second Point of Doctrine] §§100–102

First Doctrinal Proposition §103

Second Doctrinal Proposition §104

Third Doctrinal Proposition §105

Division Two: Regarding the Way in which Communion with the Perfection and Blessedness of the Redeemer Is Expressed in the Individual Soul

[Introduction to Division Two] §106

First Point of Doctrine: Regarding Regeneration

[Introduction to First Point of Doctrine] §107

First Doctrinal Proposition: Regarding Conversion §108

Second Doctrinal Proposition: Regarding Justification §109

Second Point of Doctrine: Regarding Sanctification

[Introduction to Second Point of Doctrine] §110

First Doctrinal Proposition: Regarding Sins of the Regenerate §111

Second Doctrinal Proposition: Regarding the Good Works of the Regenerate §112

SECTION TWO

Regarding the Constitution of the World in Relation to Redemption

[Introduction to Section Two] §§113–114

Division One: Regarding the Emergence of the Church

[Introduction to Division One] §§115–116

First Point of Doctrine: Regarding Election

[Introduction to First Point of Doctrine] §§117–118

First Doctrinal Proposition: Regarding Predestination §119

Second Doctrinal Proposition: Regarding the Grounds for Defining Election §120

Second Point of Doctrine: Regarding Communication of the Holy Spirit

[Introduction to Second Point of Doctrine] §§121–122

First Doctrinal Proposition §123

Second Doctrinal Proposition §124

Third Doctrinal Proposition §125

Division Two: Regarding the Continuance of the Church in Its Coexistence with the World

[Introduction to DivisionTwo] §126

The First Half [of the Second Division]: The Essential and Invariable Basic Characteristics of the Church

[Introduction to the First Half] §127

First Point of Doctrine: Regarding Holy Scripture

[Introduction to First Point of Doctrine] §§128–129

First Doctrinal Proposition §130

Second Doctrinal Proposition §131

Addendum to This Point of Doctrine §132

Second Point of Doctrine: Regarding the Ministry of the Divine Word

[Introduction to Second Point of Doctrine] §133

First Doctrinal Proposition §134

Second Doctrinal Proposition §135

Third Point of Doctrine: Regarding Baptism

[Introduction to Third Point of Doctrine] §136

First Doctrinal Proposition §137

Second Doctrinal Proposition §138

Fourth Point of Doctrine: Regarding the Lord’s Supper

[Introduction to Fourth Point of Doctrine] §§139–140

First Doctrinal Proposition §141

Second Doctrinal Proposition §142

Addendum to the Last Two Points of Doctrine: [Regarding the Term Sacrament] §143

Fifth Point of Doctrine: Regarding the Office of the Keys

[Introduction to Fifth Point of Doctrine] §144

Doctrinal Proposition §145

Sixth Point of Doctrine: Regarding Prayer in Jesus’ Name

[Introduction to Sixth Point of Doctrine] §146

Doctrinal Proposition §147

The Second Half of the Second Division: The Variable Characteristic of the Church by Virtue of Its Coexistence with the World

[Introduction to the Second Half ] §§148–149

First Point of Doctrine: Regarding the Plurality of the Visible Church in Relation to the Unity of the Invisible Church

[Introduction to First Point of Doctrine] §150

First Doctrinal Proposition §151

Second Doctrinal Proposition §152

Second Point of Doctrine: Regarding the Capacity for Error in the Visible Church in Relation to the Unfailing Reliability of the Invisible Church

[Introduction to Second Point of Doctrine] §153

First Doctrinal Proposition §154

Second Doctrinal Proposition §155

Postscript to These Two Points of Doctrine §156

Division Three: Regarding the Consummation of the Church

[Introduction to Division Three] §§157–159

First Point of Prophetic Doctrine: Regarding Christ’s Coming Again §160

Second Point of Prophetic Doctrine: Regarding Resurrection of the Flesh §161

Third Point of Prophetic Doctrine: Regarding the Last Judgment §162

Fourth Point of Prophetic Doctrine: Regarding Eternal Blessedness §163

SECTION THREE

Regarding the Divine Attributes That Relate to Redemption

[Introduction to Section Three] §§164–165

First Point of Doctrine: Regarding Divine Love

[Introduction to First Point of Doctrine] §166

Doctrinal Proposition §167

Second Point of Doctrine: Regarding Divine Wisdom

[Introduction to Second Point of Doctrine] §168

Doctrinal Proposition §169

CONCLUSION: REGARDING DIVINE THREENESS

§§170–172

Appendix: Preface to the First Edition (1821)

Bibliography

INDEXES

Guide to the Indexes

Index of References to Brief Outline

Index of Creeds and Confessions

Index of Scripture

Index of Persons and Places

Analytical Index of Topics: Subjects, Concepts, Themes, Definitions, Word Usage, and Contrasts

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A project this size has had to be a team effort. Each of the translators is grateful for the specific knowledge, gifts, and skills that our two colleagues have brought to the project. Terrence N. Tice has unparalleled familiarity with the breadth of Schleiermacher’s corpus, with his consistent language usage across that corpus and, for the most part, across time. Tice has often reminded us that Schleiermacher has another word he uses for that meaning. Catherine L. Kelsey has focused knowledge of how Christology provides the structural framework for this dogmatic work and deep familiarity with the corresponding preaching. She has been the one to insist that the English sentences make sense to readers unfamiliar with German academic writing. Edwina Lawler is a Germanist and frequent translator of a variety of Schleiermacher’s works. She has made sure that we noticed every word in the German text and accounted for the grammatical details. Kelsey and Tice have managed the thousands of details that constitute editing the text and bringing it to publication.

The three of us could not have completed this project without the help of a larger team as well. We are deeply appreciative of a number of persons who have helped us manage portions of the manuscript. Philippa Anastos, Jeremy Garber, Emily Flemming, Thomas Barlow, Judith Streit, and Rosa Henneke have each contributed to moving the text from one draft to the next through four drafts of each of the 172 propositions.

Our commitment to providing a translation into English of every single reference to a Latin or Greek or German text has been a major undertaking in itself. We are grateful for the then-called Robert E. Speer Library at Princeton Theological Seminary and Ira J. Taylor Library at Iliff School of Theology. The skilled assistance of librarians at each has been invaluable. Particular thanks to Laura Harris, Katie Fisher, and Alice Runis (for online database access) at the Taylor Library. Some of the texts to which Schleiermacher referred have never been translated into English. We turned to Kathleen Kienzle, AB, AM, and Beverly Mayne Kienzle, Professor of the Practice in Latin and Romance Languages, Harvard Divinity School, for about 101 separate quotations. We provided them a small amount of context, and asked them to provide translations. Their fine work can be found throughout the footnotes. Near the end we also discovered a couple more items, for which two Iliff School of Theology colleagues provided assistance. Thank you to Alton Templin and Richard Valantasis for help in a pinch.

We want to acknowledge several persons at Westminster John Knox Press whose trust that we could accomplish such a large undertaking and encouragement, as it took far longer than we intended, made it possible for this translation to appear. Donald K. McKim and Robert Ratcliff have been patient and sure editors. We are also very grateful for the skill of our production manager, Julie Tonini; copyeditor, Tina E. Noll; and typesetter, Allison Taylor. This project has required extraordinary attention to detail all the way to the end. The volume editors take responsibility for any errors that might remain.

Finally, we want to acknowledge the importance for all forms of Schleiermacher scholarship of the critical editions of Schleiermacher’s work published in the Kritische Gesamtausgabe Schleiermachers (KGA) by the press Walter de Gruyter. We have translated the original publication of Schleiermacher’s second, reworked edition of 1830–1831, but, as you can see in the footnotes from the works to which we refer the reader, we have been in scholarly conversation with English and German editions of many of Schleiermacher’s various works, almost all of which have been published in German by Georg Reimer and its successor Walter de Gruyter. We hope to have matched the quality of textual care that marks the KGA and to have joined our German colleagues in providing an enduring contribution to theologians and pastors for generations to come.

The editors

Catherine L. Kelsey and Terrence N. Tice

August 2015

GUIDE FOR READERS

To start with, the translators want you to know two things: Schleiermacher’s theological work has been life-giving to us for decades. And there is no way around it, this book is not an easy read. Schleiermacher sought conciseness, and the result was both clarity and density.¹ Following Schleiermacher’s own instructions to translators, however, our translation seeks to offer his exact meaning and intent, so that you can make of it what you will. Perhaps you will find this way of describing the shared faith of communities of Jesus followers sets you free to follow God more fully. Perhaps it will just challenge you to think more analytically about what you see is essential in Christian faith. Either result could be life-giving for you too.

Schleiermacher’s Christian Faith is likely the most precise, interconnected account of Christian theology ever written. Schleiermacher focuses on 172 tight propositions, closely related explanations, and carefully shaped arguments. We have added a number of things that could aid the reader of English, and maybe German readers too: explanatory notes, translations of quotations given in other languages, their sources, and a bibliography. We have also broken down his typically long sentences, fortunately aided by his own logical practices (including punctuation and what we call the little words that connect and move the argument). We have left no German word unaccounted for and have added in the main text nothing but what a faithful rendering into precise English might require. The result is as exact a transmission of his discourse as possible. Yet it is also an interpretation, as every translation is. Our aim, like his, is not to prove, to defend, or to sell his account of Christianity to you but to present it clearly.

Things to Notice

1. The word we that Schleiermacher continually uses in this book refers to members of his own Protestant, Evangelical churches, which specifically meant persons within German churches within the German territories in the 1830s. This means that he assumes that his readers see themselves to be Christians and, for that reason, have their own experience of redemption through Jesus Christ. He is not trying to prove the value of Christian faith to readers. Instead, he is trying to provide language that will help persons from different backgrounds within Protestant and other faith communities see their commonalities, even while they retain distinctive differences. In his 1829 public letter to his colleague Friedrich Lücke, translated as On the Glaubenslehre, Schleiermacher calls John 1:14 the basic text for all dogmatics (59). That verse is a statement of having experienced redemption: And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father (RSV). The we who have beheld his glory is the we whom Schleiermacher invokes in Christian Faith.

2. Christian Faith is only half of Schleiermacher’s dogmatic project. It is the half that examines what Christian faith communities experience and think and believe about their experience of God in Christ. The other half is Christian ethics. That is where Schleiermacher describes the distinctive features of living in the reign of God as redeemed followers of Christ. So you will find few real examples of how to live out shared Christian beliefs in this book. (See the bibliography to find the publication of his lectures on Christian ethics in German.)

3. The table of contents is your best guide to the organization of this book. Notice that the Introduction (§§1–31) and Part One (§§32–61) are each preliminary to Schleiermacher’s account of specifically Christian faith experience in Part Two and the Conclusion. As a result, Part Two is much longer than Part One and is two layers deeper in the outline. If you look carefully, you will see a recurring pattern of analysis built around three features: Christian self-consciousness of oneself, of God, and of the world. In Part Two you will also see a contrast between Christian consciousness of sin and Christian consciousness of grace. You will stay oriented if you know where you are reading in relation to these features and in the outline as a whole.

4. Schleiermacher examines the potential value of many theological ideas that he ends up not adopting. He thinks about their implications, especially if those implications conflict with something more central to shared Christian experience of redemption. He does hold exactly what he says in the propositions themselves. The rest of what he says clarifies what he does and does not mean by the words in the propositions.

5. Plan to read slowly and to think as you go. Schleiermacher refers to confessional statements and many individual theologians of the church. They are all writing in the abstract. Many readers will find it helpful to identify particular examples that fit the abstract language. You might ask yourself: what in my experience of the faith of some Christians is this sentence describing? Frequently Schleiermacher examines a particular theological view in only one (long!) German sentence. In this translation that sentence might be rendered in a short paragraph. Slow reading helps you notice all the different views he considers. Connecting them to your experience helps you recognize those views as they appear around you.

6. The editors’ notes contain several different kinds of information. Schleiermacher himself says in his notes: see or compare (cf.) in relation to other propositions in Christian Faith. The translators have added additional connections to propositions in our Ed. notes. Schleiermacher’s thinking is interconnected between his various writings as well. At many points he said something in another book that might help a reader think about what he says here. He provided some of these connections, and we have provided you with many others, particularly to the third edition of On Religion (OR), both editions of Brief Outline (BO), On the Glaubenslehre (OG), and his sermons. If you know German, note that we have given you Schleiermacher’s exact words in the notes when his word choice is important for grasping the specific range of nuances or when the word has become a technical term for him. And we have found English translations for all the quotations that Schleiermacher left in their original Latin or Greek in his own notes. The accompanying editors’ notes tell you where to locate both the translation provided and the original language.

7. We have not attempted to provide biographical information that would help you to think about the context within which Schleiermacher was writing. If this book is your first encounter with him, you may find it helpful to consult one of the fine theological dictionaries or one of the brief introductions to his thought. We also encourage you to generate your own interpretation of this work as you read it rather than relying on that of others.

8. The 1830–1831 edition of Christian Faith has been reprinted many times in German and now in a second translation into English. As a result, scholars have found it more helpful to refer to the proposition (using this sign: §) and subsection number rather than page numbers, which vary from edition to edition. Hence, you will find references such as §97—which refers to the proposition itself. §97.2 refers to the entire second subsection under proposition 97. §97n4 means footnote 4 in proposition 97 and its subsections. §14.P.S. refers to the postscript section found at the very end of the subsections under proposition 14 (most propositions do not have postscripts). The abbreviations list will help you remember such shortcuts when you need them interpreted.

9. There are a lot of footnotes. Three options are open to you for reading. (1) Read the main text alone, ignoring the footnotes. (2) Dip down to the footnotes whenever you feel curious or confused. (3) Read in conversation with the footnotes, which only occasionally overstep sparse explanation and which will lead you into the work’s exquisitely organized interconnectedness. We think you’ll likely come to know what you want or need as you go.

That’s it! The rest is up to whatever relation forms between you and Schleiermacher’s ideas as you read and ponder.

1. Cf. §12.1 on his distinct resolutions of difficulties faced throughout this work and §29n9 on aspects of viewing scientific method, including procedures of framing and pragmatic evaluation.

CONCERNING THIS TRANSLATION

Text Chosen for an English Critical Edition

1. Choice of original text. It was time for a fresh translation of Schleiermacher’s Christian Faith. The admirable and portable one-volume translation (1928) edited by H. R. Mackintosh and J. S. Stewart had shown scholars the value of Schleiermacher’s detailed arguments, and their translation quickly superseded the translated excerpts published by George Cross in 1911. But the years have also made visible several significant shortcomings that the volume in your hands seeks to remedy.

2. Major reasons for the choice and implications. This translation is a first English critical edition. The editors have chosen to translate the originally published text of 1830–1831. It was overseen, with his typically rigorous care, by Schleiermacher and possibly by staff of his friend Georg Reimer, the Berlin publisher. We have examined subsequent critical German editions and have found ourselves accepting fewer than ten of the many hundreds of conjectural decisions about words and punctuation appearing in them. Each of these has been discussed in the editorial notes as it appears in the main text. Thus, we have found the original 1830–1831 publication of this second edition of Christian Faith to be a primary source sufficient to provide a carefully annotated critical translation into English.

The need for a critical English edition is most evident in three areas. First, the 1928 translation team of eight scholars did not come to agreement about how to consistently translate terms that Schleiermacher himself used with careful consistency. Hence, some of the interconnected thinking providing the backbone of the entire work was obscured. This result was exacerbated by a necessarily incomplete editing of the entire translation before its release in 1928. Some significant errors crept in along with a number of misunderstandings of the text. The present translation has been scrupulous about consistency in translation of such terms and has made visible many of those choices in the footnotes, so that scholars who read German can recognize the range of meanings in Schleiermacher’s own word choices at key points. All three translators have worked in succession with every proposition, challenging and clarifying choices and instilling consistency across the whole.

Second, Christian Faith is written in conversation with the New Testament, thirty-two confessional documents, fourteen Greek Fathers, ten Latin Fathers, and at least fifteen theologians of the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries. Schleiermacher quoted most of them in their original languages of publication, usually Latin or Greek. The 1928 translation left these quotations in those languages, obscuring the ways in which the main text is a direct response to particular formulations proposed in those texts. The two latest, seventh and eighth critical German editions by Redeker and Schäfer (1960 and 2003), have left the original languages too. This present translation has located English translations for every quotation, providing the reader with references to both the translation and an original language source, using widely available sources when possible. The fewer than 120 quotations for which translation was not already available we had translated by Latinists Beverly Mayne Kienzle and Kathleen Kienzle. These are also specified in the footnotes. The conversation which Schleiermacher created with these texts is now fully visible in English.

Third, Schleiermacher himself included footnotes that referred the reader to other propositions within Christian Faith and to several of his other works. His most frequent references are to Brief Outline, which he had recently revised, then reissued earlier in 1830, and to the third, much-revised edition of On Religion (1821), which he also reissued in 1831. This translation has expanded his practice and provided further references to both of those works as well as to his sermons based on New Testament texts that are named in Christian Faith. With these footnotes, several of his technical terms gain clarity, since some of them were developed in other works.

Schleiermacher’s Plan and Ours

3. Schleiermacher’s plan for reorganizing. In 1829, as Schleiermacher was about to begin revising the 1821–1822 edition of Christian Faith, he published two open letters to his friend Friedrich Lücke largely containing replies to its critics but also some plans for revising it. The wise, plenteously annotated English translation of these open letters by James O. Duke and Francis Fiorenza (1981) is an indispensable resource for serving both interests. Therein he expresses puzzlement over the flood of misreadings he had faced and is resolved further to refine the passages on which they had focused, but he also doubts that he can succeed in dissuading many of his critics, presumably because of well-ingrained habits and profound differences (our conjecture). He would like to condense the book, already shorn of the long altercations with other contemporary scholars which fill other such textbooks, but with certain restraints placed upon him: (1) he has already been so near to aphoristic conciseness in the propositions themselves that he dare not much reduce the explanatory subsections, and (2) although for him, understanding an author’s writings as a whole is a strongly held matter of principle, he also believes that this particular work must be understandable in and of itself, not swollen with references to his other works (OG 73f.). (Believing that this quandary must be resolved, we have chosen to make some of this large body available at least by reference and to supply a great many more cross-references within the work as well.) For educational reasons given, he would also exclude the customary bibliographical material and references to passages (OG 74f.), which have now been supplied in KGA I/7.3 (1984) to a considerable extent. Despite the large number of patristic texts in the present bibliography, he would also restrict them, if possible, to the oldest and most influential (OG 76).

Now, Schleiermacher did keep to his promises in these two letters, written as he was also about to enter his fiftieth semester as a university professor (OG 87), including clarifications of doctrinal matters. At the same time, however, he promised not to simplify, not to let substantive philosophical content creep into dogmatics, and not to resort to ordinary language. He also held that the main issues dividing those of rationalist and supernaturalist persuasions were themselves based on misconceptions, a claim he did try to substantiate in the new edition. One large quandary that he found no clear resolution for, however, was whether he should try largely to reverse the order of the book itself. This would chiefly require that he start with Scripture and the core doctrines regarding Christ and the church, then move to using the Part 1 propositions, and somewhere work in the introductory matter. Adopting this arrangement, however, would lead to confusions of its own making and would not obviate difficulties inherent in the matter to be considered. So, he gave up the whole idea (OG 55–60). That leaves us to make only one recommendation to readers, one definitely not for beginners, however. Be sure to identify where the core of doctrine lies (not a set of detailed bits and pieces), then perhaps you really would like to try to read what he gave us, section by section, backward!

4. Our corresponding plan for translating. First, then, as partly indicated in the guide for readers, all three of the translators entered into this project as extensive, long-term scholars of Schleiermacher’s works, including a goodly number already translated by Tice and Lawler. However, we have put into this translation new learnings gathered in the process. We did a four-plus-stage process to assure precision and quality control. Thereby we constantly checked for overall accuracy, sweep, ease of understanding, and supportive details. Much effort was required by the conciseness of the German text itself. Among all his works, Schleiermacher especially strove for strictness of argument and conciseness of statements in this one.

This is very much a joint work. First and later drafts were done by Tice, as were all but a few of the notes. Each draft was commented on in countless interchanges among the three of us. Germanist Lawler made proposals for revision on nearly every page. Kelsey suggested revisions, also on nearly every page, to smooth the flow of the English and to clarify theological meanings, based also on her close reading of the German text. Final revisions were then determined by agreement between the two editors. Editorial management of the text through these steps to the final text was handled by Kelsey.

Treatments of the Main Text

5. Following Schleiermacher’s rules for translation. We have followed Schleiermacher’s own recommended procedures for producing a genuine, precise translation. His procedures, in our view, offer the best general theory available for rendering a translation and thus interpreting an author’s text. In doing so, we have followed his rules for hermeneutical and critical interpretation as well.

Schleiermacher was himself a skilled translator. He translated sermons from English into German (1790–1802), then Plato’s dialogues from Greek into German (mostly in 1804–1809). The multiple volumes of sermons were by the eminent London pulpit orator Joseph Fawcett and the masterful Edinburgh preacher and teacher of rhetoric Hugh Blair. They surely gave him fine models of English discourse to reflect on. Plato’s dialogues added further to his ability to provide communication using exact presentation and argument. His now highly influential views on hermeneutics and criticism were significantly informed by his experience as a translator. As translators, we are also quite familiar with his writings concerning translation and have sought to follow his principles in our work. Thus, we have paid close attention to grammatical and stylistic details in his writing. We have taken special notice of his rigorous grammatical and author-related rules, in some respects an effort made easier to fulfill by his example and by his scrupulous, at times almost mathematical style in Christian Faith.

6. The title and German gendered nouns. We have appreciated Wilfred Cantwell Smith’s fine analysis in On Mistranslated Book Titles (Religious Studies 20, no. 1 [March 1984]: 27–42), which specifically counseled dropping The before Schleiermacher’s title. We have done this in our writings for many years. We have also carefully considered when the English the is or is not consistent with Schleiermacher’s meaning. German requires the definite article in situations where English does not. As a result, this work, being one account of faith shared by Christians among many possible accounts in Schleiermacher’s view, translates Der christliche Glaube without the definite article the in the title, thus Christian Faith. On the other hand, der heiligen Geist, which refers to one specific place and functioning of one Spirit, is rendered the Holy Spirit.

7. Translation of Mensch. In accordance with Schleiermacher’s own views regarding the conventional term Mensch, we translate it as gender-inclusive. Thus we use humans, human beings, or in a few instances where the word refers to the entire species humanity. In rare instances in the singular it specifies male.

8. Concise expression in style. We had first to grasp what Schleiermacher had done to shorten Christian Faith as much as he could and still be crystal clear, largely a matter of tracking grammar. We took seriously his shift from carefully measured rhetorical style in sermons and some other works to a scientifically rendered didactic-dialectical style here. As the index will help show, we kept terms of key importance the same in English throughout. The index also shows that, in effect, concepts often take many words to represent, and not only nouns.

9. Shorter sentences and more little words. We broke down his typically long sentences, fortunately guided in his use of little words like these: and, but, so, thus, hence, therefore, nevertheless, also, even, though, for, because, since, on account of, for the sake of, in order to. We have always translated doch (nevertheless, nonetheless, etc.) because in Schleiermacher’s usage in this work it is always a logical operator. In short, we used pointers like these, and many others, to identify where and how we could make shorter sentences without diverging from what Schleiermacher’s typically long sentences were conveying. Often we also filled in references proceeding from ever-gendered German nouns that had been replaced by pronouns in the text—sie (she), er (he), and es (it) and counterpart indicators such as diese (this), jene (that). Thereby we have also tried to be sure that the English is as precise as the German.

Occasionally Schleiermacher employed kinds of usage requiring such language as would, could, and were. In his German grammar, present tense is often used where writers of English would use past tense, or past perfect—though these are both available for use in German. On rare occasions, Schleiermacher’s discourse might require a future perfect where he is considering an imagined future event within which he is moving backward in time within or before that event but would only specify that turn with some qualifying term (before which, earlier, referring back to, etc.). We could easily make the past reference clearer to English readers than would be possible using an is or was, and we regularly did so. Sometimes he can and does use the conditional sense of would, and the like, to refer to a condition that specifies an identifying or qualifying meaning, one that might otherwise be missed. He is uneven in this practice, whereas in some cases we could not afford to be so if we were to convey his clear meaning, one already given in context. The subjunctive was not then much in use for specifying various options considered on the way to or from stating one’s own position. Thus, typically he does not employ it, again because he has other ways of separating such views from his own, whereas such stratagems could not be copied or would sound unnecessarily awkward in English. To avoid confusion, we have often needed to resort to subjunctive substitutes for is, was, can, and the like in his explanatory accounts. Through such choices we have sought to achieve in English academic prose the clarity and precision of Schleiermacher’s German.

Supplemental Aids to Understanding

10. Editorial footnotes. In the process of identifying translations for Schleiermacher’s quotations in the footnotes, we have handled the original text of almost everything referred to in his notes and have corrected identifying details provided in the 1830–1831 and, on occasion, later editions. The few exceptions were a small number of obscure seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Latin texts. These were quoted at length in the third accompanying volume to Hermann Peiter’s provision of the KGA’s first edition (1821–1822), KGA I/7.3 (1984), to a few of which we alert the reader. Throughout the notes we have updated the nineteenth-century spellings when we have quoted the German in order to facilitate the curious reader’s being able to find words in a contemporary dictionary. Not surprisingly, providing the 3,148 footnotes to this translation has engaged about half of the total effort of the project.

11. Schleiermacher’s notes. We have made clear which notes are from Schleiermacher himself, in every case further identified and translated, by explicitly beginning every editor’s note with "Ed. note:". Where his handwritten marginal notes, added to his copy of the 1821–1822 edition, were particularly informative, not simply titles to remind him where he was when lecturing, we translated these. Thönes (1873) provided these texts. Almost all of this apparatus was cooperatively contributed by Tice and Kelsey. This huge effort might seem counter to Schleiermacher’s intention to shave down the text. However, it is very much a part of the interpretive-translative task required for this same work now. This is so, because (a) it has been greatly misunderstood in the past, and (b) it is now even more likely not to be grasped accurately, in an atmosphere of many contending interpretations, old and new. We have tried to include only such commentary as would be useful for understanding what Schleiermacher said, though, despite this principle, admittedly not entirely forsaking our own informed slant.

12. Schleiermacher’s sermons. During the period in which this translation was being completed, the Kritische Gesamtausgabe (KGA) Abteilung III, to appear in more than thirteen sizeable volumes containing Schleiermacher’s sermons, was also being published. We regret not being able to identify all of the sermons that we have cited in their KGA edition as well. However, knowing the date on which a sermon was preached will enable a reader easily to locate the KGA volume containing the desired sermon text. Since the KGA includes some sermon transcripts and sermon outlines never before published, there may be a few sermons on New Testament texts referred to in the notes here that we have not been able to cite. This KGA Abteilung is a wonderful resource, one that significantly enlarges areas for scholarly investigation for readers of German.

13. Grasping the arguments. Always we have asked whether we have understood the argument being made in the German and then asked how to render it in English clearly and in Schleiermacher’s own meaning and linguistic intent. To accomplish this second level of translation, we have viewed the work as an interconnected whole, as he both counseled and facilitated. Moreover, we have seen Schleiermacher’s corpus to be internally consistent to a remarkable degree, particularly in his use of terminology throughout his mature work and his frequent cues in this one. We have rendered his terminology in light of his own usage, itself often defined differently and independently of his predecessors and colleagues. To accomplish this goal, we have paid close attention to definitions of terms found within Christian Faith and to definitions in his other works, particularly Brief Outline. We have also used the notes to refer readers to word usage from one portion to another within Christian Faith. We have taken pains to be consistent in translation of all these terms.

One of our goals has been to continue conversation about the shared faith of Christians. If this translation initiates further conversations, it will have met that key goal.

ABBREVIATIONS

The bibliography contains a complete citation for all works indicated below.

*Christian Faith: Interconnectedly Presented in Accordance with Principles of the Evangelical Church

**For English translations see the epigrams on page v.

PREFACE (1830)

Today I am looking at the preface with which I accompanied this work at its first appearance,¹ nearly nine years ago now. Precisely because I have no desire to reissue it, I much prefer to dwell on the wish with which I closed it, which was that the book might contribute to an ever clearer shared understanding as concerns the content of our Evangelical faith—where possible in and of itself, where not in and of itself then by means of disagreement that its imperfections would stimulate. This wish, thank God, has not stayed unfulfilled, except that I am unable to distinguish how much of the stir it has engendered in the theological public and of the disagreement it has suffered is to be reckoned to the truth it contains and how much of that stir is to be reckoned to its imperfections. The subject matter itself will show this distinction as the controversy that is strongly aroused by it proceeds now. May this controversy continue only upon a path fitting to that subject matter, and may no one suppose that acts of brute force, even if perpetrated within the church itself, would be the fire in which it would be most surely proven who will have built with straw and who with choice stones.² That is to say, never does the outcome of such extraneous battles yield warranty for the quality of the subject-matter itself.

Elsewhere³ I have already essentially explained how I am proceeding in this new edition. Even so, even beyond the Introduction many readers will perhaps find the difference between the two editions more significant than they had expected. Yet, however great that difference might be, no major proposition has been abandoned or altered in its actual content. No matter how hard I tried, on the whole I have not succeeded in expressing myself more briefly. It was also scarcely possible to do this, since experience has shown that explanations themselves still required much more explanation. Yet I have done my utmost in this revision, in the hope that although the results are not briefer, much will have been brought to greater clarity and misunderstandings will have been remedied or obviated. For the most part, this effort has thus bolstered my confidence that the time may not be very far off when it will no longer be necessary to write at length on much that will have become antiquated by then, likewise on much that is still misconstrued. When that time comes, a later theologian who proceeds from the same point of view will also be able to write a far shorter dogmatics. I have no doubt whatsoever that such a dogmatics will exist one day, though I must most definitely protest against the honor some have afforded me here and there in recent years by putting me at the head of a new theological school. I protest against this honor, because I lack both of the characteristics requisite for it. That is, by my recollection I have not devised anything new except in the way I have organized the material and occasionally described things. Just as little, moreover, have I ever intended anything with my thoughts than to communicate them in a way that would stimulate each reader to use them after one’s own fashion. Only in this sense, furthermore, am I publishing this book this second, and certainly last, time, not as a storehouse of formulations in which members of a school could recognize one another by repeating them. It is indeed the last time, for if more time should be allowed to me, I would rather communicate at least brief outlines concerning other theological disciplines.

Now, if in the first edition I presumed too much in declaring my book to be the first faith-doctrine⁴ composed with a view to union of our two Evangelical communities of the church,⁵ joyfully I extend this wreath of honor to my dear friend, G. K. R. Schwarz in Heidelberg.⁶ I would simply note that it is to be viewed as a basic condition for the church union that has been accomplished thus far in these territories that it requires no dogmatic adjustment between the two parties, much less any new confessional symbol. Thus it was quite properly incumbent on me not only to proceed based on this presupposition but also to realize it as an established principle to the best of my powers, through a free and conciliatory treatment of writings that are in dispute.

In conclusion, I would only add this note: that since the two volumes of the first edition turned out to be of very unequal length, I have placed a portion of the former second volume into the first volume of the present edition. This external switch, however, bears no effect on the internal organization of the whole. As I wish and hope, within a short while the second volume is to follow this first one.

Berlin, on the Thursday after Quasimodogeniti 1830 [April 22, 1830].⁷

Dr. Friedrich Schleiermacher

1. Ed. note: The 1821 Preface to which he refers is provided in the Appendix.

2. Ed. note: Compare the admonishment and promise in 1 Cor. 3:12–15.

3. Ed. note: In his 1829 essay On the Glaubenslehre: Two Letters to Dr. Lücke, ed. and trans. by Duke and Fiorenza (1981). See bibliography as well as references to this essay (OG) in editorial footnotes.

4. Glaubenslehre. Ed. note: Literally, this term means a work of faith-doctrine (doctrina fidei), and it was the shorthand expression for a work in dogmatics.

5. Ed. note: By custom, the two communities called Evangelical at that time were Lutheran and Reformed, though other churches were also surely entitled to that description. On Palm Sunday, March 31, 1822, Schleiermacher’s own congregation was the first to celebrate achieving such a union in Prussia or elsewhere in the German territories.

6. Ed. note: The person was Friedrich Heinrich Christoph Schwarz (1766–1837), thus the initials given are mistaken. He was indeed a friend and correspondent, and the review of Schleiermacher’s Glaubenslehre in which Schwarz’s remark about precedents appeared was his third review of a work by Schleiermacher since 1812, all in the same periodical. The review was in Heidelberger Jahrbücher der Literatur, Bd. 15 (1822) and Bd. 16 (1823). The reference here is from the very beginning of this lengthy review: "Indeed, the reviewer could count his own name and that of others with that of the author when he declares himself (Preface, viii) to be the first to set forth a Glaubenslehre in accordance with the principles of the Evangelical church, as if his were the only one, and thus declares that for him no dogmatic dividing wall would appear to exist between the two churches. Actually, not only the reviewer’s Grundriß der kirchlich-protestantischen Dogmatik (Heidelberg, 1816) but also other books on doctrine have done this, before and since." In this context, however, Schwarz proceeds to distinguish Schleiermacher’s work from loosely organized collections and from the works of mostly rationalists and traditional absolute supernaturalists. Whether or not Schwarz’s own 1816 work would qualify as genuinely looking forward to celebrating a united church, Schleiermacher would be generous enough to acknowledge value in any generally Evangelical and not party-driven dogmatics, as he does at this point.

7. Ed. note: In its original 1821–22 printing, volume 1 was 350 pages and included only the introduction and part 1 (§§1–76). Volume 2, containing the entire part 2 and conclusion (§§77–190), was 780 pages. In contrast, the second edition (1830–1831) closed the first volume with the end of the first aspect of part 2, on sin (§§1–85, 522 pp.), and the main text of volume 2 covered the second aspect of part 2, on grace, running through the conclusion (§§86–172, 594 pp.).

INTRODUCTION

[Explanation]

§1. The sole purpose of this Introduction is twofold: in part, to set forth the definition of dogmatics that underlies the work itself and, in part, to give preliminary notice of the method and arrangement followed within it.

1. To begin the treatment of a discipline¹ with a definition of it can be superfluous only if complete agreement on that definition is already reliably presupposed. Such an agreement, in turn, obtains only when no controversy has ever arisen as to how the discipline is to be put to use or when it belongs to a larger scientific whole that is delimited and subdivided in the same fashion throughout.²

Now, as concerns the first of these two conditions, we surely can proceed from the fact that in most Christian ecclesial communities use has been made of dogmatics³ in what they pass on internally and in their external dealings with other such communities. Only with difficulty, however, might people gain agreement on what then actually makes statements that have Christian religious content into dogmatic propositions. As pertains to the second condition, dogmatics might well be placed within the domain generally designated by the term theological sciences. Yet, one need compare only the most highly respected among the encyclopedic overviews of this field, the theological sciences, to see how variously it is subdivided and how differently authors conceive, interrelate, and assess the individual disciplines—and this is true of dogmatics to a preeminent degree. It would indeed be natural to use the definition of dogmatics that appears in my own overview⁴ as the basis of that to be offered here; however, that work is too brief and aphoristic not to necessitate supplementing what is stated there with some further elucidations.

The very title of the present work, wherein the name dogmatics has been avoided, contains features that serve toward a definition, but, in part, they lack in completeness and, in part, the particular components given there are not beyond all need of clarification. Hence, this first part of the Introduction will take its own independent course, and only as its explication advances, step by step, will the reader be referred to pertinent passages in Brief Outline. After all, since what precedes a science⁵ by way of defining it cannot belong to the science itself, it self-evidently follows that none of the propositions that will appear here can themselves also be dogmatic propositions.

2. To be sure, the method of a work and its arrangement are best justified by their outcome—that is, to the extent that the nature of the subject matter permits of variations in method and arrangement. To a high degree, moreover, this is the case in dogmatics, as the very matter it addresses shows. Yet, the most favorable outcome can be reached only if readers are acquainted with both the method and the arrangement of a work in advance. This is so, for by this means readers are enabled to command a view of each proposition directly and in its manifold relations. Further, under this condition it can also be instructive to compare particular sections of a work with sections that have the same content in works that are similar but are differently organized, a process that would simply have to be confusing otherwise.

The greatest variations in arrangement and method would indeed be those that interconnect with a distinct way of grasping the concept dogmatics, such that they could no longer find room within a dogmatics that has a different way of grasping that concept. In addition, however, lesser variations also exist that one can choose among even if one is proceeding from the same definition.

1. Disciplin. Ed. note: Schleiermacher uses this term for the subdivisions of a field of study, in this case theology. In 1829, OG 56, Schleiermacher described this Introduction as only preliminary; cf. §15. It refers to dogmatic contents but contains none, unlike most traditional introductions.

2. Ed. note: In typical German usage, theology is such a whole, as are the academic fields of psychology, economics, education, and law. Schleiermacher had developed a systematic account of science (Wissenschaft) that explains what the sciences have in common and in what respects they may be divided into two parts: physical and ethical sciences. His meaning is much tighter than field of scholarship, which is often used as a synonym. His usage, however, includes the humanities and positive professional fields (theology, medicine, and law, in his time) as well as the natural and social sciences. See §§17 and 9.

3. Dogmatik. Ed. note: As will be seen, this discipline is itself divided into two theoretically inseparable parts: faith-doctrine (Glaubenslehre) and ethics (Sittenlehre).

4. Brief Outline (1811), §3. Ed. note: See Brief Outline (2011), under §195 (1830), at note 145, for the 1811 definition: §3. That theological discipline which is known under the name of thetic or dogmatic theology has to do with the systematic presentation of the whole body of doctrine that now has currency in the church. In §195 (1830) the corresponding phrase reads: "Here we have to do with dogmatic theology (see §§94–97), as the knowledge of doctrine that now has currency in the Evangelical church, and with church statistics, as information regarding the existing social condition in all the