Encyclopedia of sacred theology - pagina 653

CiiAi-.

THEOLOGY

IV]

IN ITS

TARTS

629

Thus far, however, this principium of division has not been allowed sufficiently to assert itself. This is to be attributed to the fact that each of these four groups has been viewed almost exclusively /rom the view-point of the subject, and no the object and how they notice has been taken of how they lie Hence the custom has become are taken from the object itself. almost universal to distinguish these four groups as exegetical, historical, systematic and practical. But this custom is not Distinction can be made between the exegetical, logical. sion.

m

historical it

will not

and systematic labors of the human mind, but do to add to these three the ^jrac^zmZ departments

coordinate.

as

The name

of practical departments

derived from the labor of the

is

not

human mind, but from

the

For the sake

purpose or object of these departments. consistency, therefore, historical, systematic

this

method

not be

we should speak

and

of

of

the exegetical,

technical departments.

Even with

of distinguishing the groups, Encyclopedia can-

satisfied.

For

sion in the subject.

this also locates the

It is the

principium of divi-

human mind

that lends itself

to the fourfold function of exegesis, of the study of history, of constructing certain data systematically,

and

of technically

deriving from these certain theories.

But

human mind

there is no proper but simply a passport

is

the subject of

all science,

division of theology obtained thus at

which, mutatis mutandis, is

well

all

known how

is

just because the

all,

applicable to every science

;

and

it

a similar scheme has been applied to almost

the other faculties.

But what

is

applicable to all sciences

can never disclose to us the proper organic character of theology

;

and he who derives

his

principium of division

exclusively from the subject, has no information to give con-

cerning the organic existence of the organism of theology. Better progress would have been made

if the example of Hyperius had been followed, which points to the Word, the Church and dogmatics as being the constituent elements. These, at least, are elements taken from the object and not from the subject, and therefore dissect the organism of the-

ology

itself.

Even

this,

however, does not indicate the principium of

divi-

Deze tekst is geautomatiseerd gemaakt en kan nog fouten bevatten. Digibron werkt voortdurend aan correctie. Klik voor het origineel door naar de pdf. Voor opmerkingen, vragen, informatie: contact.

Op Digibron -en alle daarin opgenomen content- is het databankrecht van toepassing. Gebruiksvoorwaarden. Data protection law applies to Digibron and the content of this database. Terms of use.

Printen