t means that
historians recognize the peculiar importance of those beliefs which are
constitutive of church agreement; and it finds some support from the
philosophical and political associations of ancient "dogma." Also Roman
Catholic writers could accept the definition in so far as their own
church's authoritative teachings are concerned. But can a _historian_
separate the opinions which rose to authority in the church from the
other opinions which succumbed? Or the accepted modifications of a
theory from those which were rejected? Again, can we substitute church
authority for that which is always the background of "dogma" as
interpreted from inside--divine authority?[22] Or, again, can we say
definitely which doctrines _are_ "enforced" in Protestant communions and
so _are_ "dogmas"? It has even been asserted by A. Schweizer
(_Christliche Glaubenslehre nach prot. Grundsatzen_, 1863-1872) that
Protestantism ought not to speak of dogmas at all, except as things of
its imperfect past.[23] And historically it seems plain that--since the
age of Protestant scholasticism--there has been nothing in Protestant
church life to which the name "dogma" can be assigned, without dropping
a good deal of its original connotation. Dogma is no longer[24] held to
be of immediate divine authority. Hence Catholic, and scientific or
historical, definitions of dogma are on different planes. They never
properly meet.[25]

4. A. Harnack varies in his usage. He is not prepared to exclude the
great medieval pronouncements, or the modern Roman Catholic definitions,
from the list of dogmas; but on the whole he prefers to keep in view
"one historical species"--Loofs suggests that he ought perhaps rather to
say one _individual_ type--that greatest group of Christian dogmas which
"was created by the Greek spirit upon the soil of the gospel" (_Hist. of
Dogma_, Eng. tr., vol. i. pp. 17, 21, 22). Thus Harnack agrees with
Catholic theologians in holding that, in the fullest sense, there is no
dogma except the Catholic. He differs, of course, in holding dogma to be
obsolete now. While Protestants, he thinks, have undermined it by a
deeper conception of faith,[26] Roman Catholics have come to attach more
value to obedience and "implicit belief" than to knowledge; and even the
Eastern Church lives to-day by the cultus more than by the vision of
supernatural truth. Again, Harnack gravely differs from Catholic
dogmatists in assigning a historical origin to what