History of Dogma, Volume 1 | Page 2

In a historical work there is no
room for such enquiry. The question here is, whether the Author is in
sympathy with the subject about which he writes, whether he can
distinguish original elements from those that are derived, whether he
has a thorough acquaintance with his material, whether he is conscious
of the limits of historical knowledge, and whether he is truthful. These
requirements constitute the categorical imperative for the historian: but
they can only be fulfilled by an unwearied self-discipline. Hence every
historical study is an ethical task. The historian ought to be faithful in

every sense of the word; whether he has been so or not is the question
on which his readers have to decide.
Berlin, 1st May, 1894.
ADOLF HARNACK.

FROM THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
The task of describing the genesis of ecclesiastical dogma which I have
attempted to perform in the following pages, has hitherto been
proposed by very few scholars, and, properly speaking, undertaken by
one only. I must therefore crave the indulgence of those acquainted
with the subject for an attempt which no future historian of dogma can
avoid.
At first I meant to confine myself to narrower limits, but I was unable
to carry out that intention, because the new arrangement of the material
required a more detailed justification. Yet no one will find in the book,
which presupposes the knowledge of Church history so far as it is given
in the ordinary manuals, any repertory of the theological thought of
Christian antiquity. The diversity of Christian ideas, or of ideas closely
related to Christianity, was very great in the first centuries. For that
very reason a selection was necessary; but it was required, above all, by
the aim of the work. The history of dogma has to give an account, only
of those doctrines of Christian writers which were authoritative in wide
circles, or which furthered the advance of the development; otherwise it
would become a collection of monographs, and thereby lose its proper
value. I have endeavoured to subordinate everything to the aim of
exhibiting the development which led to the ecclesiastical dogmas, and
therefore have neither, for example, communicated the details of the
gnostic systems, nor brought forward in detail the theological ideas of
Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, etc. Even a history of Paulinism will be
sought for in the book in vain. It is a task by itself, to trace the
aftereffects of the theology of Paul in the post-Apostolic age. The
History of Dogma can only furnish fragments here; for it is not

consistent with its task to give an accurate account of the history of a
theology the effects of which were at first very limited. It is certainly
no easy matter to determine what was authoritative in wide circles at
the time when dogma was first being developed, and I may confess that
I have found the working out of the third chapter of the first book very
difficult. But I hope that the severe limitation in the material will be of
service to the subject. If the result of this limitation should be to lead
students to read connectedly the manual which has grown out of my
lectures, my highest wish will be gratified.
There can be no great objection to the appearance of a text-book on the
history of dogma at the present time. We now know in what direction
we have to work; but we still want a history of Christian theological
ideas in their relation to contemporary philosophy. Above all, we have
not got an exact knowledge of the Hellenistic philosophical
terminologies in their development up to the fourth century. I have
keenly felt this want, which can only be remedied by well-directed
common labour. I have made a plentiful use of the controversial treatise
of Celsus against Christianity, of which little use has hitherto been
made for the history of dogma. On the other hand, except in a few cases,
I have deemed it inadmissible to adduce parallel passages, easy to be
got, from Philo, Seneca, Plutarch, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius,
Porphyry, etc.; for only a comparison strictly carried out would have
been of value here. I have been able neither to borrow such from others,
nor to furnish it myself. Yet I have ventured to submit my work,
because, in my opinion, it is possible to prove the dependence of
dogma on the Greek spirit, without being compelled to enter into a
discussion of all the details.
The Publishers of the Encyclopædia Britannica have allowed me to
print here, in a form but slightly altered, the articles on Neoplatonism
and Manichæism which I wrote for their work, and for this I beg to
thank them.
It is now eighty-three years since my grandfather, Gustav Ewers, edited
in German