nemann, W. G. Geschichte der Philosophie, Leipzig, 1798–1819, 11 vols. [The "Lehrbuch" of the same author was translated into English under the title: A Manual of the History of Philosophy, translated from the German, by the Rev. Arthur Johnson, Oxf. 1832] Reinhold, E. Geschichte der Philosophie, Jena, 1845, 3rd edit. 2 vols. Ritter, H. Geschichte der Philosophie, Hamburg, 1829-34, 4 vols. [Translated into English, by Alex.. J. W. Morrison, Oxf. 1838-39, 3 vols. 8vo.] Fries, Geschichte der Philosophie, I. Halle, 1837. Schleiermacher, Geschichte der Philosophie, edit. by H. Ritter. (Complete works, iv. 1), Berlin, 1839.

2 Comp. Baumgarten-Crusius, p. 9.

Although the different branches of theological science which have successively come before us are strictly distinct from the history of doctrines, they are nevertheless connected with it as auxiliary sciences.1 Archæology,2 and the sciences auxiliary to ecclesiastical history,3 may be added to their number.

1 Ecclesiastical history itself may be viewed in the light of an auxiliary science, since form of church government, of worship, the private life of Christians, etc., have had more or less influence upon the development of the doctrines. In like manner Patristics, the history of heresies, the history of universal religion, the history of philosophy, and the history of Christian ethics, are to be numbered amongst the auxiliary sciences.

2 From the connection between the doctrines and the liturgy of the church, it is obvious that Archæology must be considered as an auxiliary science, if we understand by it the history of Christian worship [Germ. Cultus.] This may easily be seen from the use of certain doctrinal phrases (e. g. OeOTÓKOS etc.) in the liturgies of the church, the appointment of certain festivals (the feast of Corpus Christi, that of the conception of the Virgin Mary), the influence of the existence or absence of certain liturgical usages upon the doctrines (e. g. the influence of the

withholding of the sacramental cup from the laity upon the doctrine of concomitancy, comp. § 195), etc. Works of reference: Bingham, J. Origg. s. antiqu. ecclesiasticæ. Halæ, 1751-61. [Bingham, J. Antiquities of the Christian church, and other works. Lond. 1834, ss. 8 vols. A new edition is in course of publication.] J. Jahn, Biblische Archæologie. Vienna, 180725, 2nd edition, 5 vols. [The Latin abridgment was translated by Prof. Upham, and republished in Ward's Library of Standard Divinity.] Augusti, J. Ch. W., Denkwürdigkeiten aus der christlichen Archæologie. Leipz. 1817-31, 12 vols. [Christian Antiquities, translated and compiled from the works of Augusti by the Rev. Lyman Coleman of Andover, 1844. De Wette, W. M. L., Lehrbuch der Hebræisch-jüdischen Archæologie, etc. Leipz. 1842, 3rd edition.] Rheinwald, F. H., kirchliche Archæologie. Berl. 1830. [Schöne, K., Geschichtforschungen über die kirchlichen Gebräuche und Einrichtungen der Kirche. Berl. 1819-22, 3 vols.] Böhmer, W., christlich-kirchliche Alterthums wissenschaft, Bresl. 1836-39, 2 vols.

3 There are, beside those already mentioned: universal history, ecclesiastical philology, ecclesiastical chronology, diplomacy, etc. (Comp. the introductions to works on ecclesiastical history. Gieseler, Kirchengesch. I. § 3).

§ 9.

IMPORTANCE OF THE HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.

Ernesti, prolusiones de theologiæ historicæ et dogmaticæ conjungendæ necessitate, Lips. 1759, in his Opusc. theol. Lips. 1773-92. Illgen, Ch. T., über den Werth der christlichen Dogmengeschichte, Leips. 1817. Augusti, Werth der Dogmengeschichte, in his theologische Blätter II, 2, p. 11, ss. Hagenbach, Encyclop. § 69. [Knapp, 1. c. p. 41.]

The importance of the history of doctrines, in a scientific point of view, partly follows from what has already been said: 1. It forms one of the most important branches of ecclesiastical history. 2. It serves as an introduction to the study of dogmatic theology. But it is no less useful in a moral and practical aspect. On the one hand it exerts a beneficial influence upon the mind of man, by placing before him the efforts and

struggles of others in relation to their most important concerns. On the other, it is of special use to the student of theology, for it will preserve him both from that one-sided and rigid adherence to the letter which may be styled false orthodoxy, and from the adoption of daring, superficial, and hastily formed opinions, (false heterodoxy and neology).2

1 Comp. § 2.

2 Comp. § 10. The importance of the history of doctrines in both these respects has frequently been overrated. The various parties in the church have either appealed to it in support of their peculiar views, or dreaded its results. Comp. Baumgarten-Crusius, I. p. 16-20.

§ 10.

SCIENTIFIC TREATMENT OF THE HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.

Daub, die Form der christlichen Dogmen-und Kirchenhistorie in Betracht gezogen, in Baur's Zeitschrift fur speculative Theologie. Berlin, 1836. Part 1 and 2. Kliefoth, Th., Einleitung in die Dogmengeschichte, Parchim und Ludwigsburg, 1839.

The advantage which may be derived from the study of the history of doctrines, depends more or less on the mode of its treatment. That method alone is correct and useful, which clearly represents the constant change which the definitions of doctrines are undergoing, while the great and essential truths which they teach remain the same in all ages, and shows in a philosophical manner the connection between the external causes of that change and the internal dynamic principle.

Although it cannot be said that nothing but the prevailing notions of the age, differences of climate, personal feelings, passions, court intrigues, priestly impositions, and the fanaticism of monks, have determined the character of dogmatic theology, yet we should not wholly set aside their influence. They have not made the dogma,

but they have assisted in giving it the form in which it has come down to us.

§ 11.

ARRANGEMENT.

The history of doctrines has to consider, on the one hand, the history of the doctrine of the church in general, and of the doctrinal tendencies which are represented by it; and, on the other, the history of dogmas, i. e. of those particular doctrines, opinions, and notions which form the standard of the church in different ages. Both are to be connected so as to illustrate each other; the general may be made clearer by the particular, and the particular by the general. Resting on these definitions, we consider ourselves justified in making a distinction between the general and the special history of doctrines, which stand in such a relation to each other, that the former is the source of the latter, and, as regards their extent, forms the introduction to it. We think it best to commence each period with the general history of doctrines, which, though closely allied to, yet is not identical with the history of dogmatic theology, and then to pass over to special history of doctrines.

The history of dogmatic theology presupposes the general history of doctrines, though the latter takes from the former, and incorporates some of its results. They stand in the same relation to each other as the history of jurisprudence to the history of law, the history of æsthetics to the history of art.

$12.

DIVISION INTO PERIODS.

Comp. Hagenbach, Abhandlung in den theologischen Studien und Kritiken, 1828, part 4, Encyclop. p. 244. [Pelt, Encyclopædie, § 51.]

The periods of the history of doctrines are to be deter

mined according to the most important epochs (periods of development) in the history of the theological mind. They do not quite coincide with those adopted in ecclesiastical history,1 and may be specified as follows:2—

I. Period. From the close of the Apostolic age to the death of Origen, (from the year 80-254): the age of Apologetics.3

II. Period. From the death of Origen to John Damascenus, (240-730): the age of Polemics. III. Period. From John Damacenus to the Reformation, (730-1517): the age of Systems (scholasticism in its widest sense).5

IV. Period. From the Reformation to the Abolition of the Formula Consensus in reformed Switzerland, and the rise of the Wolfian philosophy in Germany, (1517-1720): the age of polemicoecclesiastical Symbolism.

V. Period. From the year 1720 to the present day : the age of criticism, of speculation, and of antithesis between faith and knowledge, philosophy and Christianity, reason and revelation.7

1 Inasmuch as the divisions in ecclesiastical history, and in the history of doctrines, are not founded upon the same principles, it is evident that the periods themselves will not be the same. It is true that the development of the doctrine of the church is connected with the history of church government, of Christian worship, etc., but the influences which they exert upon each other are not always manifested at the same time. Thus the Arian controversy took place during the age of Constantine, but 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 notions of Arius arose out of the speculative tendency of Origen and his followers, which was opposed to Sabellianism. Accordingly, we think it better to fix in this instance upon the death of Origen, and the