IV. History of the History of Dogma
the History of Dogma, but only in Dogmatics proper. And so, whenever the general course of doctrinal development divides itself into various currents, which yield diversified and even antithetical doctrines, as in the Greek, the Roman Catholic, the Lutheran, and the Reformed Churches, the historian should simply describe these, one after another, without testing them in any way and without expressing any preferences. Dr. Kuyper correctly calls attention to the fact, however, that no one could follow this method in describing the history of his country, or in writing the biography of a friend, since one would not be able to write as a disinterested spectator.
Just so the historian, who has definite doctrinal convictions and subscribes to a certain Creed, will find it difficult, if not impossible, to write a history of dogmas without any prepossession and without revealing his ecclesiastical standpoint. He will prefer the confessional method, according to which he will take his starting point in his own
Confession and will seek to give a genetic explanation of its contents.
In judging of the various doctrinal developments he will employ not only the standard of God's Word, but also the criterion of his own
Confession: the former as the absolute standard of religious truth, and the latter as the well considered and carefully formulated result of previous investigations which, while not infallible, should yet be regarded as a true representation of Scripture truth until the contrary is proved. History so written will not be colorless, but will naturally reflect the standpoint of the author on almost every page. It will not wittingly pervert the facts of history, but will judge them primarily by the standard of Scripture by which all religious truth should be judged, and secondarily by a predetermined ecclesiastical criterion. This is the method we prefer to follow in our study of the History of Dogma.
IV. History of the History of Dogma
1. FACTORS THAT GAVE RISE TO THE HISTORY OF DOGMA AS
A SEPARATE DISCIPLINE. The study of the History of Dogma as a separate discipline is of comparatively recent date. Valuable materials for such a study were gathered in the centuries preceding the Reformation, but, as Harnack says, "They scarcely prepared the way for, far less produced a historical view of dogmatic tradition."
History of Dogma I, p. 24. Since the Church of Rome proceeded on the assumption, and still maintains the position, that dogma is unchangeable, it may be said that the Reformation by breaking with that view opened the way for a critical treatment of the history of dogma. Moreover, it was a movement which, in its very nature, was well calculated to furnish a special incentive for such a study. It raised many questions respecting the nature of the Church and her teachings, and sought to answer these not only in the light of Scripture but also with an appeal to the Fathers of the early Church, thus furnishing a direct and powerful motive for a historical study of dogma. Yet the Reformers and the theologians of the era of the Reformation did not initiate such an investigation. Though they appealed to the Fathers of the first centuries to substantiate their views, they did not feel the need of a careful and critical inquiry into the historical genesis of that whole body of doctrine that constituted the content of their faith. They harbored no doubts as to the scriptural character of the doctrines which they believed. Moreover, these doctrines entered into their very life and were verified by experience. And not only did their robust faith have no need of such a historical investigation, but the dogmatical and polemical interests that were uppermost in their mind left little time for historical study.
That fact remains, however, that the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches accused each other of departing from the historic faith of Christendom, and that only a careful study of history could settle that dispute. While this motive remained inoperative for a long time, due to dogmatical and polemical interests, it was there and was bound to have some influence in course of time. It did not become operative, however, until it was reinforced by other motives, supplied by movements which were unfriendly to the dogma of the Church.
Pietism was born of the conviction that Protestant Scholasticism exercised a petrifying influence and thus threatened the living truths of the Reformation. It reacted against what it regarded as the barren intellectualism of the seventeenth century and saw in this a departure from the faith of the Reformers. And Rationalism was hostile to the dogma of the Church, because it was based on authority rather than on human reason and with its vaunted stability represented a check on the free inquiry of the human mind. It was interested in showing that the dogma of the Church had been changed repeatedly, and therefore could not lay claim to the permanence and stability usually ascribed to it. These two movements, however different and even antagonistic in some respects, joined hands in their opposition to dogma and began the study of its history with the ill-concealed desire of undermining it.
Another factor that should be taken into consideration, is the awakening of the historical spirit under the influence of Semler and others. Semler initiated the modern historical study of Scripture and wrote a work intitled, An Experiment of a Freer Method of Teaching, which was a pioneer work in which the practical value of the historical method was explained. In Church History the fruit of this new spirit was first seen in the great work of Mosheim. While it did not take up the history of dogma, it nevertheless gave great impetus to this study. Important elements for it are found in the works of Lessing and Semler.
2. EARLIER WORKS ON THE HISTORY OF DOGMA. The real beginnings of the study of the History of Dogma are seen in the works of S. G. Lange and Muenscher. The work of the former was planned on a large scale, but was never completed. The latter wrote a work consisting of four volumes in 1797, and followed this up with a compendium. By an unbiased study he sought to answer the queestion, How and why the doctrine of Christianity gradually assumed its present form? His work is marred by the influence of Rationalism and left the question unanswered, whether the proper object of the study is doctrine or dogma. He introduced the division
of the study into a General and Special History of Dogma, which is found in many of the later works. The manuals that followed the work of Muenscher did not mark any special advance in the study of the subject.
Under the influence of Hegel a better historical method was introduced. The application of it to the study of the History is seen especially in the work of F. C. Baur, the father of the Tuebingen
School of New Testament criticism. The Hegelian principle of evolution was introduced in tracing a definite order and progress in the rise of ecclesiastical dogmas. It was regarded as the object of the History of Dogma (a) to ascertain the facts in their actual settings as attested by accredited witnesses, and (b) to interpret them in accordance with an exact law of inner unfolding. For a long time, however, it was a purely speculative idea of development, as embodied in the familiar Hegelian triad, that was superimposed on this study. This appears most clearly in the work of Baur.
The idea of development, however, gradually acquired other than Hegelian applications. It is assumed in the productions of Schleiermacher's school of theology. It is also applied by such mediating writers as Neander and Hagenbach, who surpass the Hegelians in their estimate of Christianity as a religion and of the religious value of doctrine. They fall short, however, in their application of the historic principle where they continue the old division into a General and Special History, and in the latter also apply the so-called lokal-methode. Other modifications are found in the writings of such confessionalists as Kliefoth and Thomasius. In the work of the former the idea of dogma in distinction from doctrine emerges and is made the proper object of this study. According to this writer each epoch yields its own cycle of dogmatic truth and leaves this to succeeding generations as a treasure to be preserved rather than as material to be reshaped, or even to be cancelled
(Baur). It is to be incorporated as a whole in the following development. Thomasius carefully distinguished between central and peripheral dogmas, the former being the great fundamental
doctrines of God, of Christ, and of Sin and Grace, and the latter the more derivative doctrines which are developed on the basis of the central doctrines. His work is written from the confessional standpoint of the Lutheran Church.
Roman Catholic scholarship was slow in taking an interest in the study of the History of Dogma. And when it did, it took its startingpoint in the distinct conception of dogma as the authoritative deliverance of the Church on the fundamentals of the Christian religion. The older works proceed on the assumption that the early
Church was in possession of the complete dogma of Christianity, and that there is no possibility of material alteration from one generation to another. It is claimed that there has been no addition to the original deposit but only interpretations of it. Newman introduced the theory of development. According to him the original deposit of revealed truth in the Bible is largely implicit and germinal, and only gradually unfolds under the stimulus of external conditions. The process of development is absolutely controlled, however, by the infallible Church. But even this theory, however, carefully put, did not meet with general acceptance in Roman Catholic circles.
3. LATER WORKS ON THE HISTORY OF DOGMA. Later works on the History of Dogma reveal a tendency to break with the mechanical arrangement of the earlier works with their division of the subject into a General and a Special History and their application of the lokal-methode. This is still found, indeed, in the work of Sheldon, and partly also in that of Shedd, but is conspicuous by its absence in other recent works. There is a growing conviction that the History of Dogma should be treated more organically. Nitzsch adopted a genetic arrangement under the following heads: The Promulgation of the Old Catholic Church Doctrine, and The Development of the Old
Catholic Church Doctrine. A similar division is found in Harnack, who speaks of The Rise of Ecclesiastical Dogma and The Development of Ecclesiastical Dogma.
Harnack shows affinity with both Thomasius and Nitzsch, but advances far beyond their position. He limits his discussion to the rise and development of dogmas as distinguished from doctrines, and takes into account the constantly changing aspects of Christianity as a whole, particularly in connection with the general cultural development. His work breaks radically with the lokalmethode. But he has an erroneous conception of dogma, regarding it in its inception and structure as a work of the Greek spirit on the soil of the Gospel, a mixture of Christian religion and Hellenistic culture, in which the latter predominates. As he sees it, propositions of faith were wrongly turned into intellectual concepts, which were supported by historical and scientific proofs, but by that very process lost their normative value and dogmatic auhority. According to him that corruption began, not in the New Testament itself, as later writers assert, but in the second and third centuries with the development of the Logos doctrine, and was continued in the Roman
Catholic Church up to the time of the Vatican Council, while Protestantism at the time of the Reformation in principle set aside the dogmatic conception of Christianity. Its dogmas are constantly subject to revision. Strictly speaking, it has no place for fixed truths, for dogmas, but only for a Glaubenslehre. Harnack takes too limited a view of dogma, does not do justice to the aversion of the early
Church Fathers to heathen influence, and makes the whole History of Dogma one gigantic error.
Loofs and Seeberg do not follow the division of Harnack, but seem to feel that the second division of his great work really covers practically the whole of the History of Dogma, though the former still has a separate chapter on the genesis of dogma among the Christians. And though he does not entirely agree with Harnack's conception of dogma, he shows greater affinity with him than Seeberg does in his monumental work. This work is somewhat of a sourcebook, since it contains numerous quotations from the authors whose doctrinal views are discussed. Like Harnack, Seeberg has also written a textbook in two volumes, which was translated into English by Dr.
Charles E. Hay and appeared in 1905 under the title, Textbook of the