§ 2.

THE RELATION OF THE HISTORY OF DOCTRINES TO ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, AND DOGMATIC THEOLOGY.

The history of doctrines properly constitutes a part of ecclesiastical history, [Church History, Credner in Kitto, 1. c. p. xvii.], but is now separated from it on account of its wide extent, and treated as a particular science. (1) The history of doctrines further forms the transition from ecclesiastical history to dogmatic theology properly so called.(2)

(1) Comp. § 16. and Hagenbach, Encyclop. p. 242. “Whether we consider the history of doctrines as a separate branch of theological science, or regard it as a part of ecclesiastical history, is in itself indifferent; and the distinction, if there be any, is merely nominal. For apart from the difference of extent which depends on external relations, the subject of investigation is the same in both cases, only under various aspects. The subject of the history of doctrines, properly so called, is the dogma as it presents itself in the various stages of its developement; that of ecclesiastical history, is the dogma in its relation to external circumstances." Hase, Kirchengeschichte, pref. p. iv. v.

(2) Many think that the history of doctrines is a kind of appendix to dogmatic theology, rather than an introduction to it; but this opinion is erroneous, and appears to arise both from incorrect views on the nature of dogmatic theology, and from a misapprehension of its historical character; (one sided conception of dogmatic theology, either from the biblical, or from the speculative point of view.) The history of doctrines forms the point of connection between historical theology on the one hand, and didactic (systematic) theology on the other. Ecclesiastical history is its foundation, dogmatic theology, both of the present and the future, is the subject of its researches.

§ 3.

RELATION TO BIBLICAL THEOLOGY.

The history of doctrines presupposes biblical theology

(and the theology of the N. T. in particular) as its basis; in like manner the general history of the church presupposes the life of Christ and the apostolic age.

Those writers who reduce theology in general to biblical theology, and exclude dogmatic theology altogether, consistently look upon the history of doctrines as a mere appendix to biblical theology. But in our opinion biblical theology is only to be regarded as the foundation-stone of the edifice; the history of doctrines as the historian of its progressive construction; and dogmatic theology as the builder, who is still engaged in its completion. It is no more the object of doctrine history fully to expound all the doctrines of the Bible, than of ecclesiastical history to give a complete account of the life of Christ and his Apostles. But as the history of primitive Christianity is the only solid foundation and startingpoint of church history, so the history of doctrines must rest upon, and begin with the theology of both the New and Old Testaments.

§ 4.

RELATION TO SYMBOLISM.

The history of doctrines takes in the Symbolism (1) of the church, since it must have respect not only to the general formation and import of public confessions of faith,(2) but also to the distinguishing principles set forth in them.(3) Symbolism may however be separated from the history of doctrines, and treated as comparative dogmatic theology. It stands in the same relation to the history of doctrines, as the church statistics, [comp. Credner in Kitto, l. c. p. xvii.], of any particular period stand to ecclesiastical history in general.

* [Comp. Credner in Kitto, l. c. p. xiii. Pelt, Theol. Encyclop. p. 448. defines Symbolism as that branch of theological science, which considers the distinguishing principles of the various sections of the Christian church.]

(1) On the sense in which the church uses the term ouμBoλor comp. Suicer, Thesaurus p. 1084. Creuzer, Symbolik, § 16. Marheineke, christliche Symbolik, vol. i. towards the beginning. Neander, Kirchengeschichte, i. part 2. p. 536, ss. [Pelt, Theol. Encyclop. p. 456. Maximus Taurinensis (about the year 460), says in Hom. in Symb. p. 239: Symbolum tessera est et signaculum, quo inter fideles perfidosque, secernitur.] By symbols (in the doctrinal sense of the word, but neither in its liturgical, nor technical sense) we understand the public confessions of faith by which those belonging to the same section of the church recognise each other, as soldiers by the watch-word (tessera militaris.)

(2) The earlier symbols of the church (e. g. the creed commonly called the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds), may be called the Shibboleth (Judg. xii. 6.) of the Catholic church, by which she was distinguished from all heretics. It is evident that these symbols are deserving of special consideration in the history of doctrines. They are in relation to the private opinions of individual ecclesiastical writers, what systems of mountains are in relation to the hills and valleys of a country. They are as it were the watch-towers from which we can survey the entire field of observation, the principal stations in the pursuit of the study of the history of doctrines, and cannot therefore be separated from, nor considered out of their connection with other sciences.

(3) Since the age of the Reformation the symbols are in relation to Protestants, what they formerly were in relation to heretical sects-the barrier which the ancient church erected in opposition to all who held other than orthodox views. On the other hand, the Protestants were naturally led, in a similar manner, to set forth their own distinguishing principles. Their confessions of faith had, moreover, regard to the differences which had arisen out of controversies within the pale of the Protestant church herself (Lutherans and Calvinists), and to other opinions more or less at variance with those held by the orthodox party, (Anabaptists, Unitarians, and others.) And lastly, the Roman Catholics found it necessary to exhibit the doctrines of their church in new confessions of faith. These and other circumstances made it desirable that a separate theological science should be formed, whose special object it should be to consider the distinguishing principles before mentioned. It became first known

7

under the name Elenchtik or Polemics, which was afterwards changed into that of Symbolism. (This latter name has not so much reference to the struggle, which had been carried on between the different parties in the church, as to the historical knowledge of the points at issue, and the nature of that struggle.)

§ 5.

RELATION TO PATRISTICS.

Inasmuch as the history of the dogma in its relation to the church is the primary object of doctrine history, the private opinions of ecclesiastical writers will come before us only when these writers either exerted, or endeavoured to exert some real influence upon the form of belief adopted by the church. The full investigation however of the literary character and history of the fathers, as well as of their doctrinal opinions, and the influence which the latter had upon the former, must be left to that particular science which is called Patristics (Patrology.)

On the definition of the term Patristics, comp. Hagenbach, Encyclopaedie, p. 248, ss.; the idea conveyed by it is by no means definite and clear. But even if we enlarge it, so as to make it embrace not only the Fathers of the first six centuries, but all who have been of some standing in the church, either as founders of new systems or as reformers, (comp. Möhler, p. 20): it is evident that a great deal of what is contained in the writings of

Sack, however, has recently published a work on Polemics (christliche Polemik, Hamburgh 1838.) as a distinct science.

The distinction made by some writers, and Roman Catholics in particular, between Patristics and Patrology, (v. Möhler, Patrologie, p. 14.) appears to us on the whole unfounded. [Comp. however, Credner in Kitto 1. c. p. xiv., where the same distinction is made.]

the Fathers must be introduced into the history of doctrines. The very study of the sources leads to the examination of their works. But we would not maintain, as Baumgarten-Crusius does, (Dogmengeschichte, p. 12.) that the history of doctrines already includes the most essential parts of the science in question; the relations and interests of individuals, which constitute what may be called the essential part, the characteristic feature of Patristics, have either none but a subordinate, or no place at all in the history of doctrines. Thus the object of the one is to know the system of Augustine, of the other (Patristics) to know the history of his perConcerning the literat. comp. § 14.

§ 6.

RELATION TO THE HISTORY OF HERESIES AND THE HISTORY OF UNIVERSAL RELIGION.

The history of doctrines considers the opinions of heretics only as they represent any particular tendency of the theological mind, or by way of contrast set the doctrines of the church in a clearer light. (1) Those who wish more fully to investigate the internal character of heretical systems, will obtain the desired information either in the history of heresies(2) properly so called, or in the history of universal religion. Neither is it the object of the history of doctrines to discuss the relation between Christianity, and other forms of religion. On the contrary, it presupposes the history of comparative religion, in the same manner as dogmatic theology presupposes apologetic theology. [Comp. Credner in Kitto, l. c. p. xvii. Tholuck in Bibliotheca Sacra, p. 556: "This term has ordinarily been employed to

i.