3

§ 4.

RELATION TO SYMBOLISM.

The History of Doctrines comprises the Symbols' of the church, since it must have respect, not only to the formation and contents of public confessions of faith,' but also to the distinguishing principles set forth in them. 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 of any particular period stand to the advancing history of the church.

1 On the ecclesiastical usage of the terms σύμβολον, συμβάλλειν, συμβάλ λεobal, comp. Suicer, Thesaurus, p. 1084. Creuzer, Symbolik, § 16. Marheineke, christliche Symbolik, vol. i. toward the beginning. Neander [Church History, Torrey's transl. i. 306.] [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 not its liturgical or artistic sense) are meant the public confessions of faith by which those belonging to the same branch of the church recognize each other, as soldiers by the watchword (tessera mitilaris).

2 The earlier symbols of the church (e. g., the so-called Apostles' Creed, the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds), were the shibboleth (Judg. xii. 6) of the Catholic church, in contrast with 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 the entire field may be surveyed, the principal stations in the study of the history of doctrines, and can not therefore be arbitrarily separated from it, and consigned to an isolated department. Just as little should the study of the history of doctrines be restricted to symbolisın. See, Dorner, Entwicklungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi, I. i. s. 108 sq. J. P. Lange, Dogmatik, i. s. 32 sq. "The ecclesiastical dogma lies between the doctrine of the church and the church symbols; it is their living centre, mediating between them and hence it can be considered as the church doctrine in a narrower, or as the church symbol in a wider, sense."

Since the Reformation, the symbols are to Protestants, not only, as they were to the Catholic church in ancient times, a barrier erected against heretics-although Protestantism has also united with the old church in keeping up these boundaries; but Protestants were also forced to give prominence in special confessions to the characteristic peculiarities of their faith in opposition to the old church. These confessions of faith, moreover, had regard to the differences which arose out of controversies within the pale of the Protestant

church itself (Lutherans and Calvinists), and to other opinions at variance with those held by the orthodox party (Anabaptists, Unitarians, and others). And so, too, the Catholics exhibited the doctrines of their church in a special confession of faith. All this led to the formation of a separate branch of theological science, which was first known under the name of Theologia Elenctica or Polemics, and in later times has taken the more peaceful appellation of Symbolism, which last name has not so much reference to the struggle itself as to the historical knowledge of the points at issue, and the nature of that struggle. When the history of doctrines comes to the time of the Reformation, it becomes of itself what has been meant by the word symbolism; i. e., the stream of history spreads of itself into the sea, the quiet contemplation of the developing process passes over into a complicated series of events, until these are seen to lead into a new course of development; and thus the ancient history of doctrines is adjusted in relation to the modern. Baumgarten-Crusius has also indicated the necessity of uniting symbolism and the history of doctrines, Dogmengesch. i. s. 14 sq. Comp. Neander, Dogmengesch. i. p. 7: [Symbolism sprung from a dogmatic, and the History of Doctrines from a historical, interest: the latter has to do with the historical process leading to the results, which Symbolism compares, etc.]

§ 5.

RELATION TO PATRISTICS.

As the History of Doctrines has to do with doctrines chiefly as the common property of the church, it can consider the private views. of individual teachers only so far as these have had, or at least striven after, a real influence in the formation of the church doctrine. More precise investigations about the opinions of any one person in connection with his individual characteristics, and the influence of the former upon the latter, must be left to Patristics (Patrology).

On the definition of the indefinite term Patristics as a science, comp. Hagenbach, Encyclopædie, p. 248, ss. Even if we enlarge its sphere, so as to make it embrace not only the teachers of the first six centuries, but all who have worked upon the church, either in a creative or reforming spirit—since church fathers must continue as long as the church (Möhler, Patrologie, s. 20); it is evident that a large proportion of patristic material must be incorporated into the history of doctrines; the very study of the sources leads to this. But

• Sack, however, has recently published a work on Polemics (Christliche Polemik, Ham• burgh, 1838) as a distinct science, falling within the historical sphere of Symbolism. Comp. Hagenbach, Encycl. p. 281 sq.

The distinction made by some writers, especially Roman Catholics, between Patristics and Patrology (v. Möhler, Patrologie, p. 14), appears to be rather arbitrary. [Protestants usually end the series of the fathers of the church with the sixth century, Roman Catholics extend it to the thirteenth. The latter distinguish between fathers, teachers, and authors. The scholastic divines are Doctores.]

we would not maintain with Baumgarten-Crusius (Dogmengeschichte, p. 12), that the History of Doctrines already comprises the essential part of Patristics; for the individual characteristics which are essential to the latter, can have only a secondary place in the former. Thus the object of the latter is to know Augustinianism, that of Patristics to know Augustine. How the system is related to the person? is a biographical (patrological) question: what is its relation to the doctrine of the church? is the inquiry in the History of Doctrines. The opinions, too, of individual theologians are of importance in the History of Doctrines, only so far as they have had an appreciable influence upon the formation of the doctrinal system, or have in some way acted upon it. Comp. Gieseler, Dogmengesch. s. 11. On the literature of this subject, see § 14.

$ 6.

RELATION TO THE HISTORY OF HERESIES AND THE GENERAL

HISTORY OF RELIGION.

Since the doctrines of the church have for the most part been shaped in conflict with heretical tendencies, it is evident that the History of Doctrines must also include the History of Heresies, giving prominence to those points which have had an influence in completing or adjusting the forms of the doctrine, because they contained essential elements of the doctrinal development; or, to such as have set the doctrine itself in a clearer light, by their very antagonism. To learn the formation and ramifications of heretical systems themselves appeals to a different interest, which is met either in the so-called History of Heresies' or in the general History of Religion. Still less 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 comparative history of religion, in the same manner as dogmatic theology presupposes apologetie theology.3

In the ecclesiastical point of view, the history of heresies may be compared to pathology, the history of doctrines to physiology. It is not meant by this that every heretical tendency is an absolute disease, and that full health can only be found in what has been established under the name of ecclesiastical orthodoxy. For it has been justly observed, that diseases are frequently natural transitions from a lower to a higher stage of life, and that a state of relative health is often the product of antecedent diseases. Thus the obstinacy of a one-sided error has often had the effect of giving life, and even a more correct form of statement, to the doctrines of the church. Comp. Schenkel, das Wesen des Protestantismus (Schaffh. 1845), i. p. 13. Baur, die christliche Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit, i. p. 112. Neander, Dogmengesch. s. 16. On the relation of heresy to orthodoxy in general, see Dorner, Lehre von der Person Christi, I. i. s. 71 Note. [See also Rothe's Aufäuge

d. christl Kirche, s. 333, for the difference between the church view and the heretical view of doctrines.].

The phrase History of Heresies, has been banished by a more humane usage; but not the thing itself, any more than Polemics. The very able publications of recent writers on the Gnostic systems, Ebionitism, Manichæism, Montanism, Unitarianism, etc., and the lives of some of the Fathers, are of great use to the historian of Christian doctrine; but he can not be expected to incorporate all the materials thus furnished into the History of Doctrines. Thus the first period of the History of Doctrines must constantly recur to the phenomena of Ebionitism and Gnosticism, since the problem of the church doctrine then was to work itself out between these two perilous rocks. But the wide-spread branches of the Gnostic systems, so far as they differ from one another (e. g., as to the number of the wons and the succession of the syzygies), can not here be traced in detail, unless, indeed, we are to seek in the slime of heresy, as it is collected e. g. in the Clementina, for the living germ of Christianity! Holding fast, on the other hand, to the Biblical type of truth, so far as heresy is concerned it will be sufficient to exhibit those forms in which it deviates from this type, and to delineate its physiognomy in general outlines, as they are given in church history. In the same manner Nestorianism and Monophysitism are of importance in the christological controversies of the second period. But after they have been overcome by the Catholic Church, and fixed in sects, which, in consequence of further conflicts, were themselves divided into various parties, it can be no longer the office of the History of Doctrines to follow them in this process." This must be left to monographs on the heresies. For as soon as a sect has lost its doctrine-shaping power, it falls simply into the department of statistics.

Just as it is no part of the functions of systematic divinity to defend the truth of the Christian religion, since Apologetics (the Evidences) must do this work beforehand (see Hagenbach, Encyclop., § 81); so, too, the history of doctrines has nothing to do with the conflict of Christianity with polytheism, Islamism, etc. But the history of these religions is indispensable as an auxiliary study. The notions of the Jewish sects, the myths and symbols of polytheistic religions, the systems of Mohammed, of Buddha, etc., 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, Darmstad, 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 makedonische Zeit. Berlin, 1838. Grimm, J., deutsche Mythologie, Göttingen, 1835. 2. Aufl. 1844. Görres, Mythengeschichte der Asiatischen Völker. Richter, Phantasien des Orients. Eckermann, Dr. K., Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte und Mythologie der vorzüglichsten Völker des Alterthums, nach der Anordnung von Ottfr. Müller. Halle, 1845, 2 vols. [A. Wuttke, Gesch. des Heidenthums, 2. 8vo. Berl. 1852-3. Hegel, Phil. der Religion (Werke). Sepp, Das Heidenthum, 3 Bde. 1853. L. Preller, Griech Mythologie, 2. 8vo. 1854. J. J. I. Döllinger, Heidenthum und Judenthum, Regensb.

1857. C. C. J. Bunsen, Gott in d. Geschichte, 3. 8vo. 1857-8. Schelling, Phil, der Mythologie, 2. 1857. C. O. Müller, Mythology, transl. by Leitch. Lond. 1844. Chs. Hardwick, Christ and other Masters, four parts, Cambridge, 1855-9.]

§ 7.

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

Although the History of Doctrines has elements 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 is also to be separated from the history of Christian ethics, so far as systematic theology itself is able to make a relative distinction between dogmatics and morals. And even to the history of scientific theology, it has the relation, at the utmost, of the whole to the part, since the former may indeed have its place in the history of doctrines (in the general portion), but can by no means be supplanted by it.'

This is the case, e. g. with the Alexandrian school, the Gnostics, the scholastics and modern philosophical schools. Still 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.] Tennemann, W. G., Geschichte der Philosophie, Leipzig, 1798-1819, 11 vols. [The "Lehrbuch" of the same author is published in English under the title: "A Manual of the History of Philosophy, translated from the German, by the Rev. Arthur Johnson, Oxf. 1832; revised edition by Morell, in Bohn's Library.] Reinhold, E., Geschiehte der Philosophie, Jena, 1845, 3d edit. 2 vols. Ritter, H., Geschichte der Philosophie, Hamburg, 1829-53, 12 vols. [The Ancient Phil. translated into English, by Alex. J. W. Morrison, Oxf. 1838– 39, 4 vols. 8vo.] Fries, Geschichte der Philosophie, i. Halle, 1837. Schleiermacher, Geschichte der Philosophie, edit. by H. Ritter. (Complete works, iv. 1), Berlin, 1839. [T. A. Rixner, Handbuch d. Gesch. d. Phil. 3 Bde. 1829; Gumposch, Supplement, 1850. E. Zeller, Die Philos. d. Griechen. 3 Bde. 1846-59. J. E. Erdmann, Gesch. d. neueren Phil. 3 Bde. (6 Theile) 1834-53. K. Fischer, Neuere Phil. 2 Bde. 1853-4. Albert Schwegler, Hist. of Phil., transl. by J. H. Seelye, New York, 1856. J.D. Morell, Phil. of the Nineteenth Century. New York, 1856. H. M. Chalybäus, Hist. Entwickelung. von Kaut bis Hegel. Trans. (Edinb. and Andover) 1856. H. Ritter. Die christl. Philosophie. . . in ihrer Geschichte, 2 Bde. Göttingen, 1858-9.]

"By the obliteration of the distinction between the History of Philosophy and the History of Doctrines, the essential nature of Christianity is funda