denote the science which exhibits the historical grounds for the truth, and the divine authority of Christianity," i.q. Evidences of Christianity. Pelt, 1. c. p. 375, 377.](3)

(1) In the ecclesiastical point of view, the history of heresies may be compared to pathology, the history of doctrines to physiology. We do not, however, mean to say that every heretical tendency is in itself a state of disease, and full health only to be found in the definitions of ecclesiastical orthodoxy. On the contrary, it has been justly observed, that diseases frequently are natural transitions from a lower to a higher stage of life, and that a state of relative health is often brought about by antecedent diseases. Comp. Schenkel, das Wesen des Protestantismus (Schaffh. 1845.) I. p. 13. Baur, die christliche Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit, I. p. 112.

(2) The term: history of heresies, is seldom used in modern works, but the science to which it is applied, continues to form a distinct branch of theology. The very able publications of recent writers on the Gnostic systems, Ebionitism, Manichæism, Unitarianism, etc., and the lives of some of the Fathers, are of great use to the historian of Christian doctrines; but he cannot be expected to incorporate all the materials thus furnished into the history of doctrines. It is necessary that we should possess some knowledge, e. g. of the Gnostic and Ebionitic tendencies, because orthodoxy was in danger of being corrupted by them; but they would not come into consideration, if they did not differ from the orthodox belief. Their internal history must be treated on its own grounds. Nor is the history of doctrines the proper place to enter into a minute examination of the systems of Basilides and Valentinus; it suffices to have a clear and distinct idea of the points of contrast between the emanation-theory of the Gnostics, and the monotheistic theology of the church. In the same manner Nestorianism and Monophysitism are of importance in the controversies respecting the person of Christ in the second period. But after they had been combated by the Catholic Church, and had given rise to sects which, in consequence of further conflicts, were themselves divided into various parties, it can be no longer the task of the history of doctrines to consider the further developement of those controversies. (3) The notions of Jewish sects, the myths and symbols of lytheistic religions, the systems of Mohammed, of Buddha, etc.,

po

are still more foreign to the history of Christian doctrines, than the heresies of the church. Works of reference: Creuzer, Symbolik und Mythologie der alten Völker, Darmstadt, 1819-23, 6 vols. Stuhr, allgemeine Geschichte der Religionsformen der heidnischen Völker: 1. die Religionssysteme der heidnischen Völker des Orients. Berlin 1836. 2. die Religionssysteme der Hellenen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwickelung bis auf die macedonische Zeit. Berlin 1838. Grimm, T. deutsche Mythologie, Göttingen 1835. Görres, Mythengeschichte der Asiatischen Völker. Richter, Phantasien des Orients. [Bryant, Ancient Mythology, London 1807, 6 vols. 8vo.] Eckermann, Dr. K. Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte und Mythologie der vorzüglichsten Völker des Alterthums, nach der Anordnung von Ottfr. Müller. Halle 1845. 2 vols.

§ 7.

RELATION TO THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS, AND THE HISTORY OF DOGMATIC

THEOLOGY.

Although the history of doctrines has some topics in common with the history of philosophy, () yet they are no more to be confounded with each other, than dogmatic theology and philosophy. The history of doctrines should also be separated from the history of Christian ethics, inasmuch as dogmatic theology and ethics themselves have been separated. (2) And, lastly, And, lastly, the history of dogmatic theology forms a part only of the history of doctrines.(3)

(This is the case, e. g. with the opinions of the Alexandrian school, the Gnostics, the scholastic divines, and of modern philosophical schools. Yet the object of the history of philosophy is distinct from that of the history of doctrines. Comp. Baumgarten-Crusius, i. p. 8. Works of reference: Brucker, J. Historia critica philosophiae, Lips. 1742-44, 5 vols. 4to. 2d edit. 1766, 67. 6 vols. 4to. [The History of Philosophy drawn up from Brucker's Hist. Crit. Philos. by William Enfield, Lond. 1819. 2 vols.] Ten

nemann, W. G. Geschichte der Philosophie, Leipzig 1798-1819, 11 vols. [The "Lehrbuch" of the same author was translated into English under the title: A Manual of the History of Philosophy, translated from the German, by the Rev. Arthur Johnson, Oxf. 1832.] Reinhold, E. Geschichte der Philosophie, Jena, 1845. 3d edit. 2 vols. Ritter, H. Geschichte der Philosophie, Hamburg, 1829-34. 4 vols. [Translated into English, by Alex. J. W. Morrison, Oxf. 1838–39. 3 vols. 8vo.] Fries, Geschichte der Philosophie, I. Halle, 1837. Schleiermacher, Geschichte der Philosophie, edit. by H. Ritter. (Complete works, iv. 1.) Berlin, 1839.

Comp. Baumgarten-Crusius, p. 9.

(3) Comp. § 11.

§ 8.

AUXILIARY SCIENCES.

Although the different branches of theological science which have successively come before us, are strictly distinct from the history of doctrines, they are nevertheless connected with it as auxiliary sciences. (1) Archaology,(2) and the sciences auxiliary to ecclesiastical history,(3) may be added to their number.

(1) Ecclesiastical history itself may be viewed in the light of an auxiliary science, since form of church government, of worship, the private life of Christians, etc. have had more or less influence upon the developement of the doctrines. In like manner Patristics, the history of heresies, the history of universal religion, the history of philosophy, and the history of Christian ethics, are to be numbered amongst the auxiliary sciences.

(2) From the connection between the doctrines and the liturgy of the church, it is obvious, that Archeology must be considered as an auxiliary science, if we understand by it the history of Christian worship, [Germ. Cultus.]. This may easily be seen from the use of certain doctrinal phrases, (e. g., deoróxos etc.) in the liturgies of the church, the appointment of certain festivals, (the feast of Corpus Christi, that of the conception of the Virgin Mary,) the influence of the existence or absence of certain liturgical usages upon the doctrines, (e. g. the influence of the

withholding of the sacramental cup from the laity upon the doctrine of concomitancy, comp. § 195.) etc. Works of reference: Bingham, J. Origg. s. antiqu. ecclesiasticæ. Halæ, 1751-61. [Bingham, J. Antiquities of the Christian church, and other works. Lond. 1834, ss. 8 vols. A new edition is in course of publication.] J. Jahn, Biblische Archaeologie. Vienna, 180725, 2nd edition, 5 vols. [The Latin abridgement was translated by Prof. Upham, and republished in Ward's Library of Standard Divinity.] Augusti, J. Ch. W., Denkwürdigkeiten aus der christlichen Archæologie. Leipz. 1817-31, 12 vols. [Christian Antiquities, translated and compiled from the works of Augusti by the Rev. Lyman Coleman of Andover, 1844. De Wette, W. M. L., Lehrbuch der Hebræisch-jüdischen Archæologie, etc. Leipz. 1842. 3rd Edition.] Rheinwald, F. H., kirchliche Archæologie. Berl. 1830. [Schöne, K., Geschichtforschungen über die kirchlichen Gebräuche und Einrichtungen der Kirche. Berl. 1819-22, 3 vols.] Böhmer, W., christlich-kirchliche Alterthumswissenschaft, Bresl. 1836-39, 2 vols.

(3) There are beside those already mentioned: universal Listory, ecclesiastical philology, ecclesiastical chronology, diplomacy, etc. (Comp. the introductions to works on ecclesiastical history. Gieseler, Kirchengesch. I. § 3.)

§ 9.

IMPORTANCE OF THE HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.

Ernesti, prolusiones de theologiæ historicæ et dogmaticæ conjungendæ necessitate, Lips. 1759, in his Opusc. theol. Lips. 1773-92. Illgen, Ch. T., über den Werth der christlichen Dogmengeschichte, Leips. 1817. Augusti, Werth der Doginengeschichte, in his theologische Blätter II. 2. p. 11, ss. Hugenbach, Encyclop. § 69. [Knapp 1. c. p. 41.]

The importance of the history of doctrines, in a scientific point of view, partly follows from what has already been said: 1. It forms one of the most important branches of ecclesiastical history. 2. It serves as an introduction to the study of dogmatic theology.(1) But it is no less useful in a moral and practical aspect. On the one hand, it exerts a beneficial influence upon the mind of man, by placing before him the efforts and

struggles of others in relation to their most important concerns. On the other, it is of special use to the student of theology, for it will preserve him both from that one-sided and rigid adherence to the letter which may be styled false orthodoxy, and from the adoption of daring, superficial, and hastily formed opinions, (false heterodoxy and neology.)(2)

(1) Comp. § 2.

(2) Comp. § 10. The importance of the history of doctrines in both these respects has frequently been overrated. The various parties in the church have either appealed to it in support of their peculiar views, or dreaded its results. Comp. Baumgarten-Crusius, I. p. 16-20.

§ 10.

SCIENTIFIC TREATMENT OF THE History OF DOCTRINES.

Daub, die Form der christlichen Dogmen-und Kirchenhistorie in Betracht gezogen, in Bauer's Zeitschrift fur speculative Theologie.

Berlin 1836. Part 1 and Kliefoth, Th., Einleitung in die Dogmengeschichte, Parchim und Ludwigsburg 1839.

The advantage which may be derived from the study of the history of doctrines, depends more or less on the mode of its treatment. That method alone is correct and useful, which clearly represents the constant change, which the definitions of doctrines are undergoing, while the great and essential truths which they teach, remain the same in all ages, and shows in a philosophical manner the connection between the external causes of that change, and the internal dynamic principle.

Although it cannot be said that nothing but the prevailing notions of the age, differences of climate, personal feelings, passions, court intrigues, priestly impositions, and the fanaticism of monks, have determined the character of dogmatic theology, yet we should not wholly set aside their influence. They have not made the dogma,