II. Period. From the death of Origen to John Damascenus (254-730): the Age of Polemics.* III. Period. From John Damascenus to the Reformation (730-1517): the Age of Systems (scholasticism in its widest sense).5 IV. Period. From the Reformation to the Rise of the Philosophy of Leibnitz and Wolf in Germany (1517-1720): the Age of Polemico-ecclesiastical Symbolism, or of the Conflict of Confessions." V. Period. From the year 1720 to the present day: the Age of Criticism, of Speculation, and of the Antagonism between Faith and Knowledge, Philosophy and Christianity, Reason and Revelation, including the attempts to reconcile them." 1 Events that make an epoch in church history may not have the same significance in respect to the history of doctrines; and so conversely. It is true that the development of doctrines is connected with the history of church government, of Christian worship, etc., but the influences which they exert upon each other are not always contemporaneous. Thus the Arian controversy occurred in the age of Constantine, but it was not called forth by his conversion, which, on the other hand, is of so much importance, that it determines a period in ecclesiastical history. On the contrary, the views of Arius arose out of the speculative tendency of Origen and his followers, in opposition to Sabellianism. Accordingly, it is better in this instance to make the epoch with the death of Origen, and the rise of the Sabellian controversy, which are nearly coeval.* And so in other periods. The numerical differences are very great. Baumgarten-Crusius adopts twelve periods, Lenz eight, etc. Münscher follows a different division in his (larger) Hand-book from the one in his Text-book-in the former he has seven, in the latter only three periods (ancient, medieval, and modern times). Engelhardt and Meier have adopted the same threefold division, with this difference, that the latter, by subdividing each period into two, has six periods. It is alike inconvenient to press very different tendencies into This is conceded by Neander, although he prefers, as does Gieseler, to retain in the History of Doctrines the periods of general church history. + [Neander's division is: 1. To Gregory the Great, subdivided by the times of Constantine, and forming respectively the Apologetic period and the Polemic and Systematic periods. 2. To the Reformation, subdivided by Gregory VII., comprising a transition period and the scholastic era. 3. From the Reformation to the present time. Gieseler separates the ancient from the medieval periods by the Image Controversy, taking A. D. 726 as the epoch. Baumgarten-Crusius, in his Compendium, makes six periods, skillfully characterized: 1. Formation of the System of Doctrines by reflection and opinion (to the Council of Nice). 2. Formation by the Church (to Chalcedon). 3. Confirmation of the System by the Hierarchy (to Gregory VII.). 4. Confirmation by the Philosophy of the Church (to the end of the fifteenth century). 5. Purification by Parties (to beginning of the eigthteenth century). 6. Purification by Science (to the present time).] long periods, and to have too great a number of divisions. Thus it is one of the chief defects of Münscher's Text-book, that the first period extends from A. D. 1 to 600. The periods in the History of Doctrines may be of greater extent than those in ecclesiastical history (see Baur in the review above cited), because the whole style of the system of doctrines does not undergo as rapid changes as Christian life in general; but natural boundaries which are as distinct as the age of Constantine, should not be lightly disregarded. Klee coincides most nearly with us, though he considers the division into periods as superfluous. Vorländer also, in his tables, has adopted our terminology. Comp. also the review of Lenz's Dogmengesch., in the Litt. Blätter d. allg. Lit. Zeitung, for Jan., 1836. Rosenkranz (Encyclopædie, 2d edit., p. 259, ss.) makes, according to philosophico-dialectic categories, the following division: 1. Period of Analytic Knowledge, of substantial feeling (Greek Church). 2. Period of Synthetic Knowledge, of pure objectivity (Roman Catholic Church). 3. Period of Systematic Knowledge, which combines the analysis and synthesis in their unity, and manifests itself in the stages of symbolical orthodoxy, of subjective belief and unbelief, and in the idea of speculative theology (Protestant Church). The most ingenious division is that of Kliefoth, though it is not free from faults peculiar to itself: 1. The Age of Formation of Doctrines....Greek........ Analytic......Theology. Rom. Catholic. Synthetic..... Anthropology. ? .... ? On the grounds on which this division rests, see Kliefoth, 1. c. cycl. p. 323) combines this with our division. Church. Pelt (En In answer to the question, Why not commence with the first year of our era comp. § 3. The year 70 here assumed is also only approximative. We call this period the age of Apologetics, because its theology was chiefly developed in the defense of Christianity against both Judaism and Paganism. The controversies which took place within the church itself (with Ebionites, Gnostics, etc.), had respect for the most part to the opposition of judaizing teachers and pagan philosophers, so that the polemical interest was conditioned by the apologetic. The work of Origen Tepí ȧpxwv is the only one in which we find any independent attempt to form a system of theology. During the second period the conflict became an internal one. The apologetic interest in relation to those outside of the church ceases almost entirely with the conversion of Constantine, or, at any rate, recedes into the background as compared with the polemical activity (a converse relation to that of the previous period). The history of ecclesiastical controversies, from the rise of the Sabellian, down to the close of the Monothelite controversy, forms one continuous series, the different parts of which are so intimately connected that it can not easily be interrupted. It is concluded by the work of John Damascenus (EKOεσiç πíσтεwÇ). This period, with its numerous conflicts, its synods for the definition of doctrines, is undoubtedly the most important for the History of Doctrines, if this importance be measured by the efforts put forth to complete the structure, whose foundation had been laid in the preceding period. The following periods, too, are employed either in completing and adorning what was here constructed, or else in efforts to restore when not to demolish it, in the most wonderful succession and variation. 'This period, which we call the scholastic, in the widest sense of the word, may be subdivided into three shorter periods. 1. From John Damascenus to Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury; during this period John Scotus Erigena takes the most prominent position in the West. 2. From Anselm to Gabriel Biel, the age of scholasticism properly so called, which may again be subdivided into three periods (its rise, ripeness, and decay); and, 3, from Gabriel Biel to Luther (the period of transition). But we prefer an arrangement which facilitates a general view of the subject, to such articulations. Mystical and scholastic tendencies alternately rule this period; even the forerunners of the Reformation adhered more or less to the one or the other of these tendencies, though they belong to the next period in the other half of their nature. We might have fixed upon the year 1521, in which the first edition of Melancthon's Loci Communes was published, or upon the year 1530, in which the Confession of Augsburg was drawn up, instead of the year 1517; but, for the sake of the internal connection of the events, we make our date agree with the normal epoch of ecclesiastical history, especially as the Theses of Luther were of importance in a doctrinal point of view. Inasmuch as the distinguishing principles of the different sections of the church are brought out very prominently in the Confessions of the age of the Reformation, the History of Doctrines naturally assumes the character of Symbolism; what may be called the statistics of the History of Doctrines, as has already been stated (comp. § 4). From the second half of the sixteenth century, the history again assumes the form of a progressive narrative; up to that time it has rather the character of a comparative sketch of opinions—a broad surface and not a process of growth. The age of Polemics, and that of Scholasticism, may be said to re-appear during this period, though in different forms; we also see various modifications of mysticism in opposition to one-sided rationalism. We might commence a new period with Calixt and Spener, if their peculiar opinions had then at all prevailed. What both of them wished to effect, from different points of view, shows itself in the sphere of doctrinal history in the period which we have adopted as the last. A definite year can here least of all be given. The tendency to a dissolution of the old forms begins with the English deists as early as the close of the seventeenth century. In Germany the struggle with the established orthodoxy is prepared by Thomasius and the Pietists; both elements of opposition the rationalistic and the pietistic-at first work together, but are separated after Wolf begins to teach philosophy in Halle. The negative, critical, and rationalistic tendency does not, however, become vigorous until the middle of the century; and hence many date the new period from 1750. But, in general, it is very perceptible that the bonds of strict symbolical orthodoxy began to be relaxed even in the first decennia of the cen tury; this is manifest in the abolition of the Formula Consensus in Switzerland, and in the attempts at union in Germany; and also in the fact that it was more frequently asked, What are the conditions of a living Christianity? What are the differences in the confessions than, of faith? In the period that preceded the Reformation, apologetic tendencies came first, and were followed by the polemic; now the order is reversed; we first have the polemic period of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and then the apologetic of the eighteenth, in which the question was, whether Christianity is to be or not to be. None of these agencies are indeed isolated; and the nearer we come to the present times, the more varied and involved becomes the conflict. Thus we can subdivide this last period into three parts. The first, from Wolf to Kant, contains the struggles of a stiff and unwieldy dogmatism (in part, too, a supernaturalism on a deistic basis), with an undefined illuminatism (Aufklärung). The second, from Kant, strives to insure the predominance in science and the church of a rationalism, negative as to doctrine, and chiefly restricted to morals, in opposition to both the old and the new faith. In fine, the third period, most fitly dated from Schleiermacher, constantly looking at the real and vital questions about Christianity, brings into view the most diverse tendencies, partly reactionary to restore the old, partly idealizing and mediating, and again tearing down and building up all anew; and thus it is the introduction to a new period, for which history has as yet no name. § 13. SOURCES OF THE HISTORY OF DOCTRINES. a. Public Sources. Everything may be considered as a source of the History of Doctrines, which gives sure expression to the religious belief of any given period. In the first rank stand the public confessions of faith or symbols (creeds) of the church ;' in connection with them the acts of councils,' the decrees, edicts, circular letters, bulls, and breves of ecclesiastical superiors, whether clerical or secular, and, lastly, the catechisms,* liturgies," and hymns, sanctioned by the church. 1 Comp. § 4. The ancient creeds may be found in the Acts of Councils mentioned Note 2; the three creeds commonly called œcumenical (the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene, and the Athanasian) are also reprinted in the collections of Protestant symbols; comp. Ch. W. F. Walch, Bibliotheca Symbolica Vetus. Lemgoviæ, 1770, 8. Semler, J. S., Apparatus ad Libros Symbolicos Ecclesiæ Lutheranæ, Hal. 1755, 8. COLLECTIONS OF SYMBOLICAL BOOKS (they become important only since the fourth period): a) Of the Lutheran Church: Libri Symbolici Ecclesiæ Evangelicæ ad fidem opt. exempl. recens. J. A. H. Tittmann, Misn. 1817, '27. Libri Symbolici Ecclesiæ Evangelicæ, s. Concordia, rec. C. A. Hase, Lips. 1827, '37, '46. Die Symbolischen Bücher der Evang Luther. Kirche, von J. J. Müller, Stuttg. 1846. Libri Symbol. Eccl. Luth. ed. F. Francke, Ed. stereotyp. Lips. 1847. Libri Symbol. Luth. ad edit. princ. ele. ed. H. A. G. Meyer, Gött. 1850. b) Of the Reformed: Corpus Libror. Symbolicor. qui in Ecclesia Reformatorum Auctoritatem publicam obtinuerunt, ed. J. Ch. W. Augusti, Elberf. 1828. Sammlung Symb. Bücher der ref. Kiche, von J. J. Mess. Neuwied, 1828, 30, 2 vols. 8. H. A. Niemeyer, Collectico Confessionum in Ecclesiis Reformatis Publicatarum, Lips. 1840, 8. Die Bekeuntnisschriften der Evangel. ref. Kirche, mit Einleitung, und Anmk. von E. G. A. Böckel, Leips. 1847. [Harmonia Confessionum Fidei Orthodoxarum et Reform. Ecclesiarum, ete. 4to. Genev. 1581: an English translation, Cambr. 1586, Lond. 1643. Corpus et Syntagma Confess. Fidei, ete. 4to. 1612, and Geneva 1654. Sylloge Confess. sub Tempus. Reform. Eccl. Oxon. 1801, 1827. The Harmony of Prot. Confess. of Faith, edited Rev. Peter Hall, 8vo. Lond. 1842. Butler's Historical and Literary Account of the Formularies, ete. 8vo. Lond. 1816.] c) Of the Roman Catholic: Danz, Libri Symbolici Ecclesiæ RomanoCatholicæ, Vimar. 1835.-Streitwolf and Klener, Libri Symb. Eccl. Cathol. Gött. 1835. [Sacrosancti et Ecumenici. Conc Trid. Canones et Decreta, ed. W. Smets, Bielefeld, ed. 4, 1854. Canones et Decreta Conc. Trid. acced. declarationes Ex Bullario Romano, edd. A. L. Richter et Fr., Schulze, Lips. 1853.] (Comp. the works mentioned § 16, Note 9.) d) Of the Greek: E. T. Kimmel, Libri Symbolici Ecclesiæ Orientalis. Jen. 1843, 8. Append. adj. H. T. C. Weissenborn, 1849. (Comp. Pitzipios, l'Eglise Orientale de Rome.) 'ACTS OF COUNCILS: J. Merlin (Par. 1523, fol. Cöln. 1530, ii. Par. 1535). Grabbe (Coln. 1508, f.). L. Surius, Col. 1577, fol. iv. The edition of Sixtus V. Venice, 1585, that of Binius (Severinus) Col. 1606, iv. f. Collectio Regia, Paris, 1644 (by Cardinal Richelieu) xxxvii. f. Phil. Labbeus and Gabr. Cossart, Par. 1671, 72, xvii. f. Balluzii (Stephan.) Nova Collectio Conciliorum, Par. 1683, f. (Suppl. Conc. Labbei) incomplete. Harduin, (Joh.), Conciliorum Collectio Regia Maxima, seu Acta Conciliorum et Epistolæ Decretales ac Constitutiones summorum Pontificum, græce et latine, ad Phil. Labbei et Gabr. Cossartii labores haud modica accessione facta et emendationibus pluribus additis Par. 1715, xi. (xii.) fol.-Nic. Coleti, S. S. Concilia ad regiam edit. exacta, etc. Venet. xxiii. with additions by Mansi vi. f.—* Mansi (J. Dom.), Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio, Flor et Venet. 1759, sqq. xxxi. f. Comp. Ch. W. F. Walch, Entwurf einer vollständigen Geschichte der Kirchenversammlungen, Lpz. 1759. Fuchs, Bibliothek der Kirchenversammlungen des 4 und 5. Jahrhunderts, Lpz. 1788, 4 vols. Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica quam moderante D. Augusto Neander adornavit Herm. Theod. Bruns, I. (Canones Apostolorum et Concil. Sæcul. iv. v. vi. vii.) Pars. I. Berol. 1839. [D. Wilkins, Conc. Mag. Brit. et Hibern. Lond. 1727, 4 fol. Hefele, C. J., Conciliengeschichte, 3 8vo. 1855-9. E. H. Landon, Manual of Councils, 1846. W. A. Hammond, Definitions of Faith and Canons of Six Ecumenical Councils, New York ed. 1844. L. Howell, Synopsis Conciliorum, fol. 1708.] The so-called Apostolical Constitutions belong here for the ancient times: Constitutiones Apostol. Text. Græc. rerognovit Gulielm. Ueltzen. Suerini. 1853. [Cf. Bunsen's Hippolytus, vol. 3. The Didascalia or Apost. Const. of Abyssinian Church, by Thos. P. Platt, published by the Orient. Transl. Society, vol. xxxix. Beveridge, |