Catholic Theology

In the broad view three great epochs in the progress of theology are distinguishable, namely, the Greek, the Latin and the Modern. The last might also be called with relative propriety the Protestant, since the motive-power for its developments has been supplied in large part from within the domain which bears that title. The development of the Latin type was in part contemporary with the shaping and manifestation of the Greek type; still the former appears clearly second in order, since its initial stages were synchronous with the culminating stages of the latter. Greek theology had run its course and come essentially to a standstill before the more characteristic systems of Latin theology were elaborated by the mediaeval scholastics. The two undoubtedly had very much in common. The same great creeds were acknowledged in the Latin as obtained in the Greek division of Christendom, and the dogmatic grounds which were alleged ultimately for the severance of fellowship were of subordinate import.

Still Greek theology stood in measurable contrast with Latin. It took on the whole a more genial view of the divine relation to the non-Christian world. It was less inclined to a sombre conception of man's native guilt and moral impotency. It accentuated to a special degree the thought of a divine incarnation and of the intimate connection between God and man provided for by means of the incarnation. The same thought was by no means foreign to Latin theology, but in its domain it was given, relatively speaking, less prominence, since it was made to share the field with the greatly emphasized conception of divine rulership.

The standpoint of the one affiliated with a mystical theory of an interior life; the standpoint of the other was more legal and governmental. Both admitted the ideas of priestly mediation and sacramental efficacy, at least after the initial stage; but it accorded with the genius of Latin theology to work out the most consummate expression of these ideas in a thoroughly elaborated hierarchical and sacramental system. In the one authority came to be regarded as specially resident in the creeds and formularies of the past, in the other great prominence came to be assigned to the hierarchy, and especially to its head, as the perpetual embodiment of infallible authority. While this line of contrasts may legitimately be affirmed, it is to be understood that one and another point of difference cannot be taken too strictly, since in neither the Latin nor the Greek domain was theological thinking entirely uniform or homogeneous.

The Protestant era was initiated in a revision of the principle of authority which had been transmitted in Latin Christianity; and a fundamental feature of the theological activity of that era has consisted in carrying out this revision to its logical results. Original Protestantism accepted in common with the Latin communion the great outlines of doctrine contained in the ancient creeds, especially the Nicene and the Chalcedonian. But it accepted them upon a revised basis. What was that basis? In the last analysis it must be defined as the principle of free rational induction, in opposition to the principle of judicial determination by official authority.

The primary appeal was indeed to the scriptural content and to the doctrine of justification by faith. But since no infallible tribunal was set over the Scriptures, the appeal thereto amounted practically to a transference of the main emphasis to the free rational process. As respects the doctrine of justification by faith, it looked evidently in the same direction, since it profoundly qualified the necessity of priestly mediation or of dependence upon the hierarchy.

The assertion of this revised conception of authority, it is needless to say, was not designed to imply any challenge to the idea of supernatural revelation. Logically, too, the Protestant principle involves no necessity to challenge that idea. What it shuts out is official monopoly of revelation and authoritative determination of its import by official prerogative. In place of this it installs, as the proper ground of theological convictions, free rational induction, an induction which, to be properly carried out, must take full account of the data of history, reason and experience.

The advocates of the Protestant principle admit the great difficulty of the task of ideal theological construction on the basis of that principle; but it is their conviction that exemption from the labor of a thorough-going induction ought not to be sought in the religious sphere any more than in other spheres. The seeking of relief in the attachment of infallible authority to some perpetual office in the Church they regard as quite useless and mistaken, since it is less difficult to accredit, on the basis of history, reason and experience, any worthy element of belief, than it is to prove the continuous existence of an infallible tribunal.

In a closer review of the progress of theology it would be necessary to notice a number of significant developments in each of the great epochs mentioned. Account would need to be taken of the peculiarities of the early Alexandrian, the Cappadocian. the later Alexandrian and the Antiochian schools m the Greek Church.

In relation to the Latin Church attention would need to be given to the long history of the antithesis between Augustinian and anti-Augustinian tendencies; to the struggle between Jansenism and Jesuitism ; to the conflict between Gallicanism and Ultramontanism. Within the Protestant domain there would be occasion to consider the early creative period of the Lutheran theology; the scholastic period in the 17th century; the Pietistic and Rationalistic movements in Germany ; the implication of Lutheran theology with successive philosophies since the dawn of the 18th century; the controversies between Calvinism and Arminianism; the contrasts between High Church, Low Church and Broad Church parties in the Anglican Establishment; the wide-reaching tendencies born of the Wesleyan revival; and the initiation in Germany of the great movement of biblical criticism and its extension to other countries.