(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 makes an epoch 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 determine the epoch by the death of Origen, and the rise of the Sabellian controversy, which are nearly coeval.' And so in other periods. (2) The number of periods adopted is very different. Baumgarten-Crusius has twelve periods, Lenz eight, etc. Münscher follows a different division in his (larger) Handbook from the one in his Text-book: in the former he has seven, in the latter only three periods (ancient, mediæval, 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 This is conceded by Neander, although he prefers, as does Gieseler, to retain in the History of Doctrines the periods of general Church History. Baur divides the whole into the three principal periods of ancient, mediæval, and modern history, but subdivides each of them into two smaller periods. In the ancient Church the division is made by the Synod of Nicæa; in the Church of the Middle Ages, by scholasticism. In the modern period, it commences with the Reformation, by the beginning of the eighteenth century. 2 [Neander's division (Dg. s. 21 ff.) 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 mediæval periods by the Image Controversy, taking A.D. 726 as the epoch. Baumgarten - Crusius, in his Compendium, makes six periods; skilfully 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 eighteenth century). 6. Purification by Science (to the present time).] inconvenient to press very different tendencies into 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 form of the system of doctrines does not undergo as rapid changes as that of Christian life in general; but 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. Kirch. Zeitung for Jan. 1836. Rosenkranz (Encyklopädie, 2d ed. s. 259 ff.) 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 Church). 3. Period of Systematic Knowledge, which combines 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. १ On the grounds on which this division rests, see Kliefoth, 1.c. Pelt (Encykl. s. 323) combines this with our division. (3) In answer to the question, Why not commence with the first year of our era? comp. § 3. The year (of the destruction of Jerusalem). A.D. 70 here assumed is also only approximative. We call this period the age of Apologetics, because its theology was chiefly developed in the defence of Christianity against both Judaism and Paganism. The controversies which took place within the Church itself with heretics (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. Systematic theology is still more subordinate; and the work of Origen Tepi apxwv is the only one in which we find any independent attempt to form such a system. (4) During the second period the conflict became an internal one. Apologetic activity towards those outside the Church ceases almost entirely after the conversion of Constantine, or, at any rate, recedes into the background as compared with polemics (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 chain which cannot easily be broken if we trace the History of Doctrine continuously. It is concluded by the work of John Damascene (exeσis πίστεως). 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, either elaborated and adorned what was here constructed, or else, by remarkable variations, sometimes restored and sometimes partly overthrew the work of the past. (5) This period, which we call the scholastic, in the widest sense of the word, may be subdivided into three shorter periods. 1. From John Damascene to Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, during which period John Scotus Erigena takes the most prominent position in the West. 2. From Anselm to Gabriel Biel (of Tübingen), the age of scholasticism properly so called, which may again be subdivided into three periods (its rise, its prime, and its 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 a minute articulation. Mystical and scholastic tendencies alternately rule this period; even the forerunners of the Reformation adhered more or less to one or other of these tendencies, though they belong to the next period in the other half of their nature. (6) We might have fixed upon the year 1521, in which the first edition of Melanchthon'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 reappear 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 Calixtus 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 theology in the period which we have adopted as the last. (7) 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 towards the close of the seventeenth century. In Germany, the struggle with the established orthodoxy is prepared by Thomasius and the Pietists; both elements of the opposition (the rationalistic and the pietistic) at first work together, but are separated after Wolf begins to teach in Halle. The negative (critical and rationalistic) tendency does not, however, become vigorous until after the middle of the century; and hence many begin a 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 century; 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? than, What are the differences in the Confessions 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 as to the existence or non-existence o Christianity. 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 rigid and unwieldy dogmatism (in part, too, a supernaturalism on a deistic basis), with an undefined illuminism (Aufklärung). The second (from Kant onwards) strives to ensure 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, steadily looking at the real and vital questions respecting Christianity, brings into view the most diverse tendencies, partly reactionary to restore the old, partly idealizing and meditating, and again destructive and reconstructive; 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 (1); in connection with them, the acts of councils (2), the decrees, edicts, circular letters, bulls, and breves of ecclesiastical superiors, whether clerical or secular (3); and, lastly, the catechisms (4), liturgies (5), and hymns (6) sanctioned by the Church. |