fideles perfidosque secernitur.] By ecclesiastical 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 ecclesiastical communion recognize each other, as soldiers by the watchword (tessera militaris). Otherwise Rufinus, expos. symb.: Symbolon græce collatio dici potest hoc est, quod plures in unum conferunt.

(2) The older symbols of the Church (e.g. the so-called Apostles' Creed, the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds) were the shibboleth (Judg. xii. 6) of the Catholics, as opposed to heretics. It is evident that these symbols are deserving of special consideration in the history of doctrines. The ecclesiastical confessions are related to the private opinions of individual ecclesiastical teachers, as the mountain-range 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 cannot 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 that of symbolism. See Dorner, Entwicklungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi, I. i. s. 32 ff. [Eng. tr. p. 48]. J. P. Lange, Dogmatik, i. s. 32 ff.: "The ecclesiastical dogma has its place between Church doctrine 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."

(3) 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 this barrier; but Protestants were also forced to give prominence in special confessions to the characteristic peculiarities of their doctrine. 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 (between Lutherans and Reformed), and to other opinions at variance with those held by the orthodox party (Anabaptists, Unitarians, and others). And so, too, the Catholics exhibited the doctrine 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 Elenetica or Polemics, and in later times has taken the more peaceful appellation of Symbolism, which last name. has not so much reference to the progress of 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 a sea, the quiet contemplation of the developing process passes over into a complicated series of events, until these lead into a new course of development; and thus the older 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 f. Comp. Neander, Dogmengesch. s. 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 the history of the doctrinal system, as being the common property of the Church, it can consider the private views of individual Church teachers only so far as these have had, or at least have endeavoured to have, a real influence on the formation of the Church doctrine. More precise investigations as to 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).

1 Sack, however, has recently published a work on Polemics (Christliche Polemik, Hamburg, 2d ed. 1841) as a distinct science, falling within the historical sphere of Symbolism. Comp. Hagenbach, Encykl. s. 298 ff.; and Hase, Handbuch der protestantischen Polemik, Halle, 3d ed. 1871.

On the meaning of the indefinite term Patristics as a science, comp. Hagenbach, Encyklopädie, s. 262 ff. Even if we enlarge its sphere, so as to make it embrace not only the Church 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 original documents leads to this. But we would not, maintain, with Baumgarten-Crusius (Dogmengeschichte, s. 12), that the History of Doctrines already comprises the essential part of Patristics; for the individual characteristics, which are the essential part of 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 question 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, and Fr. Nitzsch, Geschichtliches und Mythologisches zur Patristik (Jahrb. für deutsche Theologie, 1865). On the literature of this subject, see § 14.

§ 6.

Relation to the History of Heresies and the general History of Religion.

Since ecclesiastical dogma has, for the most part, been developed in the conflict with heretical tendencies, it is

1 The distinction made by some writers, especially Roman Catholics, between Patristics and Patrology (e.g. Möhler, Patrologie, s. 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, doctors, and authors. The scholastic divines are Doctores.]

evident that the History of Doctrines must also include the History of Heresies, giving prominence to those points which have had an essential influence in completing or adjusting the formation of doctrine; or, to such as have set the doctrine itself in a clearer light by their very antagonism (1). To learn the inner formation and ramifications of heretical systems themselves, appeals to a different interest, which is met either in the so-called History of Heresies (2) 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 apologetic theology (3).

(1) From 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 in heresy only disease is to be found, and that full health can be found only in that which has been established as 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 not unfrequently a product of antecedent disease. 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 doctrine of the Church. Comp. Schenkel, das Wesen des Protestantismus (Schaffh. 1845), i. s. 13. Baur, die christliche Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit, i. s, 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 [Eng. tr. p. 344]. [See also Rothe's Anfänge d. christl. Kirche, s. 333, for the difference between the Church view and the heretical view of doctrines.]

(2) 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 monographs on some of the Fathers, are of great use to the historian of Christian

doctrine; but he cannot 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 it was the problem of the Church doctrine to work itself out between these two perilous rocks. But the widespread branches of the Gnostic systems, so far as they differ from one another (e.g. as to the number of the æons and the succession of the syzygies), cannot here be traced in detail, unless, indeed, we are to seek in the slime of heresy, as it is collected e.g. in the Clementines, for the first living germs of Christianity! Holding fast, on the other hand, from the beginning, to the original biblical type, so far as this heresy is concerned, it will be sufficient to exhibit those forms in which it deviates from this primitive type, and to delineate its physiognomy in general outlines, as they are given in Church History; and the same will suffice for the heresies of the subsequent periods. Thus Nestorianism and Monophysitism are of importance in the Christological controversy of the second period. But after they were overcome by the Catholic spirit, and fixed in sects, which, in consequence of the continued conflict, were themselves divided into smaller parties, it can be no longer the office of the History of Doctrines to follow them in this proThis 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.

cess.

(3) Just as it is no part of the functions of dogmatic theology to defend the truth of the Christian religion, since Apologetics must do this work beforehand (see Hagenbach, Encyklop. § 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, Darmstadt 1819-23, 6 Bde., 3d ed. 1843. Stuhr, allgemeine Geschichte der Religionsformen der heidnischen Völker: 1. die Religionssysteme der