History of Dogma, Volume 2 | Page 8

is due to
the alliance that Christianity and antiquity concluded in such a way that
neither was able to prevail over the other. Our inward and spiritual life,
which owes the least part of its content to the empiric knowledge which
we have acquired, is based up to the present moment on the discords
resulting from that union.
These hints are meant among other things to explain and justify[14] the
arrangement chosen for the following presentation, which embraces the
fundamental section of the history of Christian dogma.[15] A few more
remarks are, however, necessary.
1. One special difficulty in ascertaining the genesis of the Catholic
rules is that the churches, though on terms of close connection and
mutual intercourse, had no real forum publicum, though indeed, in a
certain sense, each bishop was in foro publico. As a rule, therefore, we
can only see the advance in the establishment of fixed forms in the
shape of results, without being able to state precisely the ways and
means which led to them. We do indeed know the factors, and can
therefore theoretically construct the development; but the real course of
things is frequently hidden from us. The genesis of a harmonious
Church, firmly welded together in doctrine and constitution, can no
more have been the natural unpremeditated product of the conditions of
the time than were the genesis and adoption of the New Testament
canon of Scripture. But we have no direct evidence as to what
communities had a special share in the development, although we know
that the Roman Church played a leading part. Moreover, we can only
conjecture that conferences, common measures, and synodical
decisions were not wanting. It is certain that, beginning with the last
quarter of the second century, there were held in the different provinces,
mostly in the East, but later also in the West, Synods in which an
understanding was arrived at on all questions of importance to
Christianity, including, e.g., the extent of the canon.[16]

2. The degree of influence exercised by particular ecclesiastics on the
development of the Church and its doctrines is also obscure and
difficult to determine. As they were compelled to claim the sanction of
tradition for every innovation they introduced, and did in fact do so,
and as every fresh step they took appeared to themselves necessary
only as an explanation, it is in many cases quite impossible to
distinguish between what they received from tradition and what they
added to it of their own. Yet an investigation from the point of view of
the historian of literature shows that Tertullian and Hippolytus were to
a great extent dependent on Irenæus. What amount of innovation these
men independently contributed can therefore still be ascertained. Both
are men of the second generation. Tertullian is related to Irenæus pretty
much as Calvin to Luther. This parallel holds good in more than one
respect. First, Tertullian drew up a series of plain dogmatic formulæ
which are not found in Irenæus and which proved of the greatest
importance in succeeding times. Secondly, he did not attain the power,
vividness, and unity of religious intuition which distinguish Irenæus.
The truth rather is that, just because of his forms, he partly destroyed
the unity of the matter and partly led it into a false path of development.
Thirdly, he everywhere endeavoured to give a conception of
Christianity which represented it as the divine law, whereas in Irenæus
this idea is overshadowed by the conception of the Gospel as real
redemption. The main problem therefore resolves itself into the
question as to the position of Irenæus in the history of the Church. To
what extent were his expositions new, to what extent were the
standards he formulated already employed in the Churches, and in
which of them? We cannot form to ourselves a sufficiently vivid
picture of the interchange of Christian writings in the Church after the
last quarter of the second century.[17] Every important work speedily
found its way into the churches of the chief cities in the Empire. The
diffusion was not merely from East to West, though this was the
general rule. At the beginning of the fourth century there was in
Cæsarea a Greek translation of Tertullian's Apology and a collection of
Cyprian's epistles.[18] The influence of the Roman Church extended
over the greater part of Christendom. Up till about the year 260 the
Churches in East and West had still in some degree a common history.

3. The developments in the history of dogma within the period
extending from about 150 to about 300 were by no means brought
about in the different communities at the same time and in a completely
analogous fashion. This fact is in great measure concealed from us,
because our authorities are almost completely derived from those
leading