1. § 1. Name and Concept of Dogmatics.
§ 1. Name and Concept of Dogmatics.
. The name dogmatics is still of recent date. Formerly quite different names were in use. Origen gave to his dogmatic principal work the title περι ἀρχων. Augustine described his Enchiridium ad Laurentium by the addition, sive de fide, spe et caritate. John of Damascus gave an Ἐκδοσις ἀκριβης της ὀρθοδοξου πιστεως. With Isidorus Hispalensis the name
Sententiæ arises, which in the 13th century gives way to Summa theologiæ.
Melanchthon spoke of Loci communes rerum theologicarum, sive hypotyposes theologiæ. The expression loci is borrowed from Cicero, and a translation of the Greek τοπος. Aristotle understood by τοποι the general rules of dialectic, which were known of themselves and were fixed, and therefore could serve as στοιχεια των ἀποδειξεων, Rhet. lib. II c. 22 § 13.
Metaph. lib. IV c. 3 § 3. Cicero transferred this doctrine of the τοποι from dialectic to rhetoric, and understood by it those places where the orator could find the arguments which he needed in his speech. He explains the expression by sedes, notæ argumentorum, and points out as such sources the concept, the definition, the division, the basic meaning of the word, the
synonyms, etc. Top. II c. 2. This use of the word loci does not entirely correspond with the meaning in Aristotle, and was modified still more in later logic. Melanchthon himself explains in his Dialectica, lib. IV the expression loci by signa quædam, quibus rerum, quæ dici tractarique debent, capita indicantur. Loci communes are according to Cicero, de Orat.
III 27. Brutus 12, such propositions which have no relation to any [2] definite object, are general and therefore hold always and everywhere; in distinction from loci proprii, which are concrete and therefore are valid only with a definite subject or in a special science. Melanchthon wished in his loci communes to give only the principal chapters of the Christian religion, as these had been treated especially by Paul in his epistle to the Romans. He himself therefore describes them by hypotyposes, design, sketch, lineamenta of theology. And the German translation of Spalatin rendered the title by: Hauptartikel und fürnehmste Punkte der ganzen Heiligen
Schrift. Name and content of Melanchthon's dogmatics thus stand in contrast with the scholastic Sententiae and Summae. It did not intend to give a complete dogmatic system to the educated, but rather to introduce the uneducated to the knowledge of Holy Scripture. Cf. Heppe, Dogm. des
Deutschen Protest. 1857 I s. 4-14; Herzog u. Plitt, Real. Enc. 8, 708 f.; Sanseverino, Philosophia Christiana, ed. nov. Neap. 1878 III 286-315. From this it can be explained that the name loci communes among the Roman theologians, with a single exception, found no acceptance. Indeed they use the expression loci, but not in the sense of Melanchthon, but in that of Cicero or Aristotle. They understand by it not the articuli fidei, but the principia or sources of Theology, Dens, Theologia ad usum Seminariorum.
Mechl. 1828 I 5; Billuart, Summa S. Thomae sive Cursus Theologiae 1747 I 47; Daelman, Theologia seu Observ. theol. in Summam D. Thomae 1759 I
18. The famous work of Melchior Canus, Loci Theologici 1563, takes the expression in the same sense and treats not dogmatics itself, but its sources, which are ten in number: Scripture, tradition, Pope, councils, church, church fathers, scholastici, reason, philosophy, history. In contrast, the name loci communes of Melanchthon was adopted by many Lutheran and Reformed theologians, such as Chemniz, Hutter, Gerhard, Calovius; Martyr,
Musculus, Hyperius, Ursinus, etc. But nevertheless it had to yield rather soon to another title. Zwingli had brought dogmatic writings to light under the title of Commentarius de vera ac falsa religione, Christianae fidei brevis et clara expositio. Calvin preferred the name of Institutio religionis
Christianae. And later theologians from the Lutheran and Reformed church returned to the old name of theologia [3] again. In distinction from other theological disciplines, which gradually increased in number and in weight, this name of Theologia had to be further specified. For that purpose the addition didactica, systematica, theoretica, positiva served, and since L.
Reinhart, Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae 1659, also that of dogmatica.
This specification lay close at hand, because the truths of faith had long already been designated with the name of dogmata, and the separation of dogmatics and ethics begun with Danaeus and Calixtus demanded a separate name for both disciplines. Since then this addition has obtained so great a dominion, that it has banished the main concept of theology and has appeared independently, that it has found assent among theologians of every confession, and has not been able to be displaced by the newer names of doctrine of faith, doctrine of salvation, Christian doctrine, etc.
2. The word δογμα, from δοκειν, to seem, denotes that which is determined, decided and therefore stands firm, το δεδογμενον, statutum, decretum, placitum. In Scripture it is used of commands of the government,
LXX, Esth. 3:9; Dan. 2:13; 6:8; Luk. 2:1; Hd. 17:7, of the ordinances of the O. Covenant Ef. 2:15; Col. 2:14, and of the decisions of the assembly at Jerusalem, Hd. 15:28; 16:14. Among the classics it has the meaning of decision or command and in philosophy that of truths standing firm by themselves or by proofs, Plato, de Rep. VII c. 16. p. 538 C.; Arist. Phys. ausc. 4, 2; Cic. de fin. 2, 32; Acad. prior. 2, 9. § 27; Seneca Epist. 94, 95. In these meanings the word is also taken over in theology. Josephus, c. Ap. I, 8 says, that the Jews from childhood hold the books of the Old Covenant for θεου δογματα. In the same meaning the church fathers speak of the Christian religion or doctrine as το θειον δογμα, of the incarnation of Christ as δογμα της θεολογιας, of the truths of faith, which in and for the church are valid as τα της ἐκκλησιας δογματα, and likewise of the teachings of the heretics as δογματα των ἑτεροδοξων etc. Cf. Suicerus, Thesaurus Eccles. s. v.; Herzog2 s. v. Dogmatik; H. Cremer, Wörterbuch der neutest. Gräcität s. v. The word retains this same sense among the Latins, as Vincentius in his
Commonitorium c. 29, and among the Protest. theologians such as Sohnius, [4] Opera 1609 I 32; Ursinus, Tract. Theol. 1584 p. 22; Hyperius, Methodus
Theol. 1574 p. 34; Polanus, Synt. Theol. 1625 p. 133.
3. The use of the word teaches us in the first place, that by dogma all kinds of commands, decisions, philosophical truths, theoretical propositions, practical rules, etc. can be designated, but what they have in common is, that there always lies at their basis a certain authority. A dogma is a proposition that has authority, Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, 2te Aufl. 1888 I. 15. In the word dogma, however, there does not lie in itself on what authority it rests. With the different dogmas that authority is also different. With political dogmas that authority is the government, with philosophical dogmas the inner evidence or the force of
the proofs; with the religious or theological dogmas that authority lies only in God's testimony, whether this according to the Protestants is heard only in Scripture, or according to the Roman Catholics also in the church. A proposition has authority in church and theology only for this reason, because it rests on the testimony of God. Therefore, wrongly, by and since
Schleiermacher the essence and character of a dogma is sought in the ecclesiastical establishment and proclamation, Schleiermacher, Christl. Sitte
1884, S. 5; Rothe, Zur Dogm. 10; Schweizer, Christl. Glaub. I. 23; Daubanton, Theol. Studien 1885, bl. 136-145; Kuyper, Encycl. III 395 v.
From a Roman standpoint there would still be something to be said for this, because the church is infallible. But the Reformation recognizes no truth except only on the authority of God in Holy Scripture. Verbum Dei condit articulos fidei, et praeterea nemo, ne angelus quidem, Art. Smalc. Pars II art. 2. Dogmata and articuli fidei are only those truths, quae in scripturis proprie ut credenda proponuntur, Hyperius, Methodus theol. p. 34, 35. They are only such sententiae, quibus credi aut obtemperari necesse est propter mandatum Dei, Ursinus, Tract. Theol. 22. And therefore among the Reformed theologians this proposition repeatedly returns: principium, in quod omnia dogmata theologica resolvuntur, est: Dominus dixit, cf. Ritschl,
Lehre v. d. Rechtf. u. Vers. 3te Aufl. II 2. But from the character of authority, which is proper to a dogma, it nevertheless follows in the second place of itself, that as such it is also recognized in a certain circle. There undoubtedly lies in the concept of dogma a social element. A [5] truth may stand ever so firmly; if it is not recognized, it is in the eyes of others nothing more than a sententia doctoris, a private opinion. The concept of dogma includes that the authority which it possesses also knows how to have itself recognized and maintained. Therefore a distinction must be
made between dogma quoad se and dogma quoad nos. A proposition is dogma in itself, abstracted from all recognition, if it rests on the authority of God. But in order not to identify one's own opinion with the truth of God, it is of the highest importance for every believer and especially also for the dogmatician to know which truths from Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the church of Christ have been brought to general recognition. The confession can thus be called the dogma quoad nos. But also in this subjective sense dogma is absolutely not limited to what is expressly included in the symbols and has been ecclesiastically established.
The church has a life and a faith that is much richer than comes to expression in the confession. The confession by no means formulates the entire content of the Christian faith. It also does not belong to the essence of the church, is incidental, and has almost always been born from special circumstances. It usually includes only what has found opposition within or outside it. Thus, just as wood does not burn because it smokes, but the smoke is nevertheless a sign of burning, so also a proposition is not a dogma because the church recognizes it, even though it is the case that recognition by the church is an important, although always fallible, proof of its truth, Kleutgen, Theologie der Vorzeit, 2te Aufl. I, 97 f. In the third place the use of the word dogma still teaches us, that it was used now in a broader, then in a narrower sense. Sometimes the whole Christian religion is designated by it, and Basilius M., de Spiritu Sancto c. 27 can understand under δογματα (in contrast with κηρυγματα, the articuli fidei drawn from Scripture) the ecclesiastical ceremonies and rites, Suicerus, Thes. Eccl. s. v. δογμα. Polanus t. a. p. says, that dogma in a broader sense includes everything that is comprised in Holy Scripture, not only the doctrina evangelii et legis, but also all conciones, historiae sacrae etc. Usually,
however, the word was used in a narrower sense, for the doctrina evangelii et legis, for those sententiae, quibus credi aut obtemperari necesse est propter mandatum Dei, Ursinus t. a. p. 22. It thus included not only the doctrinal, but also the ethical truth. Later, however, the word dogma has been delimited still more narrowly, in that the doctrina legis was distinguished and separated from the doctrina evangelii; dogmata were now only those sententiae, quibus credi necesse est propter mandatum Dei.
Polanus went still further and also made a distinction between the dogmata and the principia theologiae. Thus dogma became the designation of the articuli fidei, which rest on the authority of God's Word and therefore obligate all to faith. And dogmatics is then the system of the articuli fidei.
4. Yet with that the concept of dogmatics has still only been established in a formal sense. A definition of dogmatics as the science of the dogmas is of little use, so long as we do not know the material, the content of the dogmas. In order now to determine the material concept of dogmatics, we must remember that dogmatics was originally an adjective for the description of the main concept theology. Accordingly, in earlier times dogmatics was commonly conceived as doctrina de Deo principaliter et de creaturis, secundum quod referuntur ad Deum ut ad principium vel finem,
Thomas, Summa Theol. I qu. 1 art. 3 en 7; Alb. Magnus, Sent. lib. I dist. 1 § 2; Petavius, Opus de theol. dogmatibus cap. 1. —Gerhard, Loci Comm., prooemium de natura theologiae; Hase Hutterus Redivivus § 11; H. Schmid,
Dogm. der ev. luth. Kirche § 2. —Fr. Junius, Opera Omnia I fol. 13751424; Polanus, S. Theol. lib. I cap. 1-4; Gomarus, Disput. Theol., thesis 1;
Owen, Θεολογουμενα, sive de natura, ortu.... verae theologiae, libri sex.
Oxon. 1661, lib. 1 cap. 1-4; Voetius, Diatribe de theologia. Ultraj. 1668; Coccejus, Summa theol. cap. 1. Others, however, had objections to making
God the main concept of dogmatics, and preferred to call its object something else. Lombardus, Sent. I dist. 1, aligned himself with Augustine, who in de doctr. christ. lib. I cap. 2 says: omnis doctrina vel rerum est, vel signorum, and therefore assigned to theology two matters for treatment: res, i.e. God, world, man, and signa, i.e. sacraments. But this incomplete determination was soon abandoned and improved by the commentators.
Alexander Halesius and Bonaventura, Proleg. qu. I in 1 Sent. and Breviloquium Pars I cap. 1, named Christ and his mystical body, the church;
Hugo a St. Victor, De sacr. lib. [7] I c. 2, named the opera reparationis as the matter and content of theology or dogmatics. And Lutheran and Reformed theologians also defined the content of dogmatics in this way.
Calovius, Isagoge ad theologiam 1662, most strongly contests that God is the proper object of theology; the etymology decides nothing here, theology on earth is quite something different than in heaven, we do indeed strive here after knowledge of God, but do not attain it. To make God the object of theology is just as wrong as to make the Prince the object of the politica, instead of the res publica, p. 283 s. 291 s.; the proper object of theology is homo in quantum est perducendus ad salutem p. 252, 290 or religion p. 299,
324. And thus also by Amesius, Medulla Theol. I c. 5; Maestricht, Theor. pract. Theol. I c. 1 § 47; Marck, Merch der Christ. Godg. I § 34; Moor,
Comment. in Marckii Compendium I p. 112; Burmannus, Synopsis Theol. I c. 2 § 30; Limborch, Theol. Christ. I c. 1, the Deo vivere per Christum, the religio, the cultus Dei is made the content of dogmatics. The subjective, practical conception of theology thus gradually began to gain more acceptance. And when now the philosophy of Kant limited human cognitive capacity to the visible things, Agnosticism pronounced the unknowability of God, historical criticism undermined supernatural revelation, this
subjective, practical conception has become the dominant one.
Schleiermacher conceived dogmatics as Glaubenslehre, and defined the dogmata as Auffassungen der frommen Gemüthszustände, Der Christl.
Glaube § 15, 16. And since then almost all theologians have made this transition as well. Not God, but religion is the object of theology. And indeed, religion in general as a historical and psychological phenomenon,
Tiele, Gids Mei 1866; Idem, Theol. Tijdschr. 1ste aflev. 1867; Rauwenhoff, Theol. Tijdschr. 1869 bl. 1 v. 163 v. Wet op het Hooger Onderwijs van
1876, or more specifically the Christian religion, as it comes to manifestation in Scripture and congregation. Accordingly, dogmatics is then given as its content the religio or doctrina christiana, as it is either drawn from Holy Scripture, or confessed by one or another church, or known through personal experience. [8] 5. Now Thomas already in his time, against those who gave another description of Theology, remarked that they came to that because attendentes ad ea, quae in ista scientia tractantur et non ad rationem, secundum quam considerantur, Summa Theol. I qu. 1 art. 7. In theology and thus also in dogmatics, much more is treated than only God; also angel and man, heaven and earth, indeed all creatures come therein under discussion.
But the question is, under what point of view and with what purpose they are treated in theology. For, all these things are also treated in other sciences; the distinctive character of their treatment in theology consists in this, that they are considered in their relation to God, ut ad principium et finem, Kaftan, Wahrheit der Chr. Rel. S. 3. Further, the definition of dogmatics as science of the religio christiana in itself would still not be so wrong, if, as in earlier time, thereunder was understood that religio which was objectively laid down in Scripture. But after Kant and Schleiermacher
this definition has acquired another sense and dogmatics has become the description of that historical phenomenon which is called Christian religion and also reveals itself in a distinctive faith and doctrine. If now dogmatics is understood in this sense, then it ceases to be dogmatics and becomes simply description of what in a certain circle is held for truth in the religious domain. But science is concerned with truth; if dogmatics really wants to be science, then it is not satisfied with the description of what is, but it ought to indicate what must count as truth. Not the ὁτι, but the διοτι, not the reality, but the truth; not the real, but the ideal, the logical, the necessary it ought to demonstrate. As soon as, however, it attempts that, it at once returns to God, it becomes again theology in the proper sense. For, whoever makes
Christianity into the object of a science of its own, proceeds not from the fact of the existence of that Christianity — for then treatment of that historical phenomenon in the litt. faculty would be completely sufficient — but from a special valuation of that fact, Gunning en Saussaye Jr., Het ethische beginsel der Theologie 47. Theology as a separate faculty-science presupposes that in those historical facts of Christianity God in a special way [9] has revealed himself, thus presupposes and demands the existence and the revelation of God. That is, theology demands, in order to be and to remain theology, that everything in it be considered sub ratione Dei. And if against this the unknowability of God be adduced, then the rule holds: qui nimis probat, nihil probat. If God is not knowable, thereby not only dogmatics and theology fall, but also religion, for this is built upon the knowledge of God. Thus dogmatics is the scientific system of the knowledge of God, i.e. of that knowledge which He concerning himself and concerning all creature as in relation to Him in his Word has revealed to the church.