History of Dogma, Volume 1 | Page 8

three; the style of Origen, that of Augustine,
and that of the Reformers. But the dogma of the post-Augustinian
Church, as well as that of Luther, does not in any way represent itself
as a new building, not even as the mere extension of an old building,
but as a complicated rebuilding, and by no means in harmony with
former styles, because neither Augustine nor Luther ever dreamed of
building independently.[8] This perception leads us to the most peculiar
phenomenon which meets the historian of dogma, and which must
determine his method.
Dogmas arise, develop themselves and are made serviceable to new
aims; this in all cases takes place through Theology. But Theology is
dependent on innumerable factors, above all, on the spirit of the time;
for it lies in the nature of theology that it desires to make its object
intelligible. Dogmas are the product of theology, not inversely; of a
theology of course which, as a rule, was in correspondence with the
faith of the time. The critical view of history teaches this: first we have
the Apologists and Origen, then the councils of Nice and Chalcedon;
first the Scholastics, then the Council of Trent. In consequence of this,
dogma bears the mark of all, the factors on which the theology was
dependent. That is one point. But the moment in which the product of
theology became dogma, the way which led to it must be obscured; for,
according to the conception of the Church, dogma can be nothing else

than the revealed faith itself. Dogma is regarded not as the exponent,
but as the basis of theology, and therefore the product of theology
having passed into dogma limits, and criticises the work of theology
both past and future.[9] That is the second point. It follows from this
that the history of the Christian religion embraces a very complicated
relation of ecclesiastical dogma and theology, and that the ecclesiastical
conception of the significance of theology cannot at all do justice to
this significance. The ecclesiastical scheme which is here formed and
which denotes the utmost concession that can be made to history, is to
the effect that theology gives expression only to the form of dogma,
while so far as it is ecclesiastical theology, it presupposes the
unchanging dogma, i.e., the substance of dogma. But this scheme,
which must always leave uncertain what the form really is, and what
the substance, is in no way applicable to the actual circumstances. So
far, however, as it is itself an article of faith it is an object of the history
of dogma. Ecclesiastical dogma when put on its defence must at all
times take up an ambiguous position towards theology, and
ecclesiastical theology a corresponding position towards dogma; for
they are condemned to perpetual uncertainty as to what they owe each
other, and what they have to fear from each other. The theological
Fathers of dogma have almost without exception failed to escape being
condemned by dogma, either because it went beyond them, or lagged
behind their theology. The Apologists, Origen and Augustine may be
cited in support of this; and even in Protestantism, mutatis mutandis,
the same thing has been repeated, as is proved by the fate of
Melanchthon and Schleiermacher. On the other hand, there have been
few theologians who have not shaken some article of the traditional
dogma. We are wont to get rid of these fundamental facts by
hypostatising the ecclesiastical principle or the common ecclesiastical
spirit, and by this normal hypostasis, measuring, approving or
condemning the doctrines of the theologians, unconcerned about the
actual conditions and frequently following a hysteron-proteron. But this
is a view of history which should in justice be left to the Catholic
Church, which indeed cannot dispense with it. The critical history of
dogma has, on the contrary, to shew above all how an ecclesiastical
theology has arisen; for it can only give account of the origin of dogma
in connection with this main question. The horizon must be taken here

as wide as possible; for the question as to the origin of theology can
only be answered by surveying all the relations into which the Christian
religion has entered in naturalising itself in the world and subduing it.
When ecclesiastical dogma has once been created and recognised as an
immediate expression of the Christian religion, the history of dogma
has only to take the history of theology into account so far as it has
been active in the formation of dogma. Yet it must always keep in view
the peculiar claim of dogma to be a criterion and not a product of
theology. But it will also be able to shew how, partly by means of
theology and partly by other means--for dogma is also dependent on
ritual, constitution, and the practical