INTRODUCTION. Comp. Hagenbach, Encyclopædie, 4te Aufl. s. 239 ff. Kliefoth, Th. Einleitung in die Dogmengeschichte, Parchim, 1839. F. Dörtenbach, Die Methode der Dogmengesch. in the Studien und Kritiken, 1842. Kling, in Herzog's Encyclopædie, under Dogmengeschichte. [Hagenbach's History of Doctrines, reviewed in the Bibliotheca Sacra, vi., 1849.] § 1. DEFINITION. The History of Doctrines is that branch of theological science, which exhibits the gradual development and definite shaping of the substance of the Christian faith into doctrinal statements (definitions, dogmas).' It also sets forth the different forms which the system of doctrines has assumed in the course of history; the changes it has undergone as influenced by the culture of different periods; and it likewise illustrates the religious value which it has always maintained, as containing unchangeable elements of truth in the midst of all these transformations." On the meaning of the word dóyua (statutum, decretum, præceptum, placitum), see Suicer, Thesaurus, sub voce. Münscher, Lehrbuch der christlichen Dogmengeschichte, edit. by von Colln, p. 1. Baumgarten-Crusius, Lehrbuch der christlichen Dogmengesch. p. 1. Augusti, Dogmengeschichte, § 1. Klee, Dogmengeschichte, Prolegomena. Nitzsch, System der chrislichen Lehre, 6th edit. p. 52. Hagenbach, Encycl., 4th edit. p. 240 sq. J. P. Lange, Dogmatik, p. 2. Gieseler and Neander, Dogmengesch. p. 1. The word dóyua signifies in the first place: decree, edict, statute. Comp. (Sept. vers.) Dan. ii. 13; vi. 8; Esth. iii. 9; 2 Macc. x. 2; and in the New Testament, Luke ii. 1; Acts xvii. 7 (where it has a political sense only), Acts xvi. 4 (used in a theological sense, denoting the apostolical rule for the gentile Christians); Eph. ii. 15, Col. ii. 14 (in these passages it has a theological sense, not referring to Christian belief and Christian doctrine, but to the Old Testament Jewish ordinances; comp. Winer, Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms, 5th ed. p. 250, 6th ed. p. 196). Its use in the sense of substance of the Christian faith, can not be established from any passage in the N. T.; the words employed to express this idea, are: evayyéλov, κήρυγμα, λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ, etc. In the writings of the Stoics, δόγμα (decretum, placitum) signifies: theoretical principle. Marcus Aurelius eiç avt. 2, 3 : Tavтá σo ȧρkéтw deì đóуpara Eσrw. Cic. Quaest. Acad. iv. 9: Sapientia neque de se ipsa dubitare debet, neque de suis decretis quæ philosophi vocant dóуuara. With this signification is connected the usage of the teachers of the Church, who first in the sphere of Christianity employed the word dóyua (also with the predicate To Oɛtov) to designate the whole substance of doctrine. Compare the passages from Ignatius, Clement of Alex. (Paed. I. 1, Strom. viii. p. 924, edit. of Potter), Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, etc., in Suicer, Thesaurus, sub voce. They also sometimes called the opinions of heretics dóуuara, with the epithet uvoapá, or others of similar import, but more frequently dóžai, vonuara; comp. Klee, 1. c. Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. 4, 2) already makes a distinction between the dogmatic and the moral, and understands by dóyua that which relates to faith, by πрağıç that which refers to moral action : Ὁ τῆς θεοσεβείας τρόπος ἐκ δύο τούτων συνέστηκε· δογμάτων εὐσεβῶν καὶ πράξεων ἀγαθῶν. The former are the source of the latter. In a similar way Seneca describes the dogmas as the elements of which the body of wisdom is composed, as the heart of life, Ep. 94, 95. Thus Socrates (Hist. Eccl. 11, 44) says of Bishop Meletius of Antioch: ПIɛpì dóyμaтos diaλéɣɛobai ὑπερετίθετο, μόνην δὲ τὴν ἠθικὴν διδασκαλίαν τοῖς ἀκροαταῖς προσήκειν. (Scribendum videtur πроσɛîɣεν vel πроσñуεν; Vales.) So, too, Gregory of Nyssa says of Christ and his mode of teaching, Ep. 6 : Διαιρῶν γὰρ εἰς δύο τὴν τῶν χρίστιανῶν πολιτείαν, εἰς τε τὸ ἠθικόν μέρος καὶ εἰς τὴν δογμάτων ἀκρίβειαν. A peculiar definition of δόγμα is given by Basil, De Spiritu S. c. 27: Αλλο γὰρ δόγμα καὶ ἄλλο κήρυγμα· τὸ μὲν γὰρ σιωπᾶται, τὰ δὲ kηpúyμaтa dημοσiɛúɛтaι (esoteric and exoteric doctrine). According to Eusebius (Adv. Marc. i. 4), Marcellus had already used the word dóyua in the sense of a human, subjective opinion: Τὸ τοῦ δόγματος ὄνομα ἀνθρωπίνης Exel tɩ Bovλñs te kaì yvwμŋs. Only in modern times (Nitzsch says, since Döderlein) did the usage become general, in accordance with which dóyua does not designate ipsa doctrina, so much as sententia alicujus doctoris, that is, doctrinal opinion rather than a definite doctrinal position. With this explanation of the word, is intimately connected the definition of the idea of the science of the History of Doctrines, as well as its worth and mode of treatment. (Comp. § 10, and Gieseler's Dogmengeschichte, p. 2.) [Gieseler here says, that dogma designates a doctrine, which, as essential to Christianity, claims acceptance among all Christians. The dogmas of any Church express its views of what is essential in the Christian system, in distinction from subjective opinions.] The 2 In respect to this, there is need of guarding against two extremes. one is that of those who descry a perversion of doctrine, in every departure from certain fixed conceptions, in every change of expression and statement; on the false assumption, that none but biblical terminology should be introduced into the doctrinal system, they look upon these alterations in such a way that the whole history of doctrines becomes to them only a history of corruptions. The other extreme is that of those, who assume that there has been only a constant and sound development of truth within the Church, and who will not concede that, together with the healthy growth, diseased conditions have also been generated. Genuine science has respect to both; it finds progress, checks, and retrogression, genuine formations and malformations. (Thus, e. g., it would be incorrect to reject the doctrines of the Trinity, of Original Sin, of the Sacraments, etc., because these words do not occur in the Bible; although we may lawfully inquire whether foreign ideas may not have crept in with such definite formulas; for with the development of a doctrine also grows the danger of crippling or of exaggerating it.) We must, then, distinguish between formation, the deforming, and the reformation of dogmas; and this last, again, is different from mere restoration and repristination. Just here the position of the Catholic and of the Protestant in relation to the History of Doctrines is quite different. According to the former, dogmas have been shaped under the constant guidance of the Divine Spirit, and whatever is unhealthful has been rejected under the name of heresy; so that we can not really talk about a proper development of doctrine: compare the remarkable concession of Hermes of Bonn, as cited in Neander's Dogmengeschichte, p. 28 [viz., that it is contrary to the principles of the Catholic Church to treat the history of doctrines as a special branch, since this presupposes the changes made by a developing process; and, consequently, Hermes had doubts about reading lectures on the subject]. Protestantism, on the other hand, perpetually applies the standard of the Scriptures to the unfolded dogma, and allows it to be a doctrine of the Church only so far as it reproduces the contents of the Scripture. But it is a misunderstanding of the Protestant principle which would lead one to reject every thing which is not verbally contained in the Scriptures. From such a standpoint, as finds the whole of dogmatic theology already complete in the Bible, the possibility of a History of Doctrines must be denied, or it must be made to be only a history of errors. § 2. THE RELATION OF THE HISTORY OF DOCTRINES TO CHURCH HISTORY AND DOGMATIC THEOLOGY. The History of Doctrines is a part of Church History, but separated from it on account of its wide ramifications, and treated as an independent science.' It forms the transition from church history to ecclesiastical and dogmatic theology." 1 Comp. § 16, and Hagenbach, Encyclop. p. 239. Church history also treats of the history of doctrine, but, in relation to the whole ecclesiastical life, it appears only as the muscles greet the eye upon the living body, while the knife of the anatomist lays them bare, and dissects them out for scientific uses. "The difference between the history of doctrines as a separate branch of theological science, and as a part of ecclesiastical history, is merely one of form. For, apart from the difference of extent, which depends on external considerations, the subject of investigation is the same in both cases,-different poles of the same axis. The History of Doctrines treats of the dogma as it develops itself in the form of definite conceptions; ecclesiastical history views the dogma in its relation to external events." Hase, Church History, New York, ed., pref. p. iv. v. Comp., also, Neander Dogmengesch. p. 6: "Church History judges phenomena by their external influence, the History of Doctrines by their internal importance. Events are incorporated into Church History only as they have a diffused influence, while the History of Doctrines goes back to the germs of the antagonisms." Thus, the History of Doctrines gives up to Church History the narration of the external course of doctrinal controversies, and takes for granted that this is already known. 2 Many think that the History of Doctrines is an appendix to dogmatic theology, rather than an introduction to it; but this arises from incorrect assumptions about 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 is the bridge between historical theology on the one hand, and didactic (systematic) theology on the other. Ecclesiastical history is presupposed; dogmatic theology, both of the present and the future, is the aim and end of its researches. Comp. Neander, 4, 5: "The History of Doctrines mediates between pure apostolical Christianity and the Church of the present times, by exhibiting the development of Christian doctrine." § 3. RELATION TO BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. The History of Doctrines presupposes biblical theology (the doctrines of the New Testament in particular) as its basis; just as the general history of the church presupposes the life of Jesus and the apostolic age. Those writers who reduce theology in general to biblical theology, and ignore dogmatic theology, are consistent in regarding the History of Doctrines as a mere appendix to biblical theology. But in our view biblical theology is to be considered as only the foundation of the edifice; the history of doctrines the history of its construction; and dogmatic theology, as a science of doctrines, is still engaged in its completion. It is no more the object of the history of doctrines to expound 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 starting-point of church history, so the history of doctrines must rest upon, and begin with the theology, first of all of the New Testament, and, still further, in an ascending line, also of the Old Testament. It is, of course, understood that the relation in which biblical theology stands to biblical exegesis and criticism, also applies as a standard to the history of doctrines. |