ner in Kitto, l. c. p. xvii.], of any particular period stand to ecclesiastical history in general. 1 On the sense in which the church uses the term ouμßohov comp. Suicer, Thesaurus, p. 1084. Creuzer, Symbolik, § 16. Marheineke, christliche Symbolik, vol. i. towards the beginning. Neander, Kirchengeschichte, i. part 2, p. 536, ss. [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 neither in its liturgica! nor technical sense) we understand the public confessions of faith by which those belonging to the same section of the church recognise each other, as soldiers by the watch-word (tessera militaris). 2 The earlier symbols of the church (e. g. the creed commonly called the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds), may be called the Shibboleth (Judg. xii. 6) of the Catholic church, by which she was distinguished from all 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 we can survey the entire field of observation, the principal stations in the pursuit of the study of the history of doctrines, and cannot therefore be separated from, nor considered out of their connection with other sciences. 3 Since the age of the Reformation the symbols are in relation to Protestants what they formerly were in relation to heretical sects—the barrier which the ancient church erected in opposition to all who held other than orthodox views. On the other hand, the Protestants were naturally led, in a similar manner, to set forth their own distinguishing principles. Their confessions of faith had, moreover, regard to the differences which had arisen out of controversies within the pale of the Protestant church herself (Lutherans and Calvinists), and to other opinions more or less at variance with those held by the orthodox party (Anabaptists, Unitarians, and others). And lastly, the Roman Catholics found it necessary to exhibit the doctrines of their church in new confessions of faith. These and other circumstances made it desirable that a separate theological science should be formed, whose special object it should be to consider the distinguishing principles before mentioned. It became first known under the name Elenchtick or Polemics, which was afterwards changed into that of Symbolism. (This latter name has not so much reference to the struggle which had been carried on between the different parties in the church, as to the historical knowledge of the points at issue, and the nature of that struggle).b § 5. RELATION TO PATRISTICS. Inasmuch as the history of the dogma in its relation to the church is the primary object of doctrine history, the private opinions of ecclesiastical writers will come before us only when these writers either exerted, or endeavoured to exert, some real influence upon the form of belief adopted by the church. The full investigation, however, of the literary character and history of the fathers, as well as of their doctrinal opinions, and the influence which the latter had upon the former, must be left to that particular science which is called Patristics (Patrology). On the definition of the term Patristics, comp. Hagenbach, Encyclopædie, p. 248, ss.; the idea conveyed by it is by no means definite and clear. But even if we enlarge it, so as to make it embrace not only the Fathers of the first six centuries, but all who have been of some standing in the church, either as founders of new systems or as reformers, (comp. Möhler, p. 20): it is evident b Sack, however, has recently published a work on Polemics (christliche Polemik, Hamburgh, 1838) as a distinct science. c The distinction made by some writers, and Roman Catholics in particular, between Patristics and Patrology (v. Möhler, Patrologie, p. 14), appears to us on the whole unfounded. [Comp. however, Credner in Kitto, l. c. p. xiv., where the same distinction is made.] that a great deal of what is contained in the writings of the Fathers must be introduced into the history of doctrines. The very study of the sources leads to the examination of their works. But we would not maintain, as Baumgarten-Crusius does, (Dogmengeschichte, p. 12) that the history of doctrines already includes the most essential parts of the science in question; the relations and interests of individuals, which constitute what may be called the essential part, the characteristic feature of Patristics, have either none but a subordinate, or no place at all in the history of doctrines. Thus the object of the one is to know the system of Augustine, of the other (Patristics) to know the history of his person. Concerning the literat. comp. § 14. § 6. RELATION TO THE HISTORY OF HERESIES AND THE The history of doctrines considers the opinions of heretics only as they represent any particular tendency of the theological mind, or by way of contrast set the doctrines of the church in a clearer light.1 Those who wish more fully to investigate the internal character of heretical systems, will obtain the desired information either in the history of heresies2 properly so called, or in the history of universal religion. Neither 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 history of comparative religion, in the same manner as dogmatic theology presupposes apologetic theology. [Comp. Credner in Kitto, 1. c. p. xvii. Tholuck in Bibliotheca Sacra, i. p. 556: "This term has ordinarily been employed to denote the science which exhibits the historical grounds for the truth, and the divine authority of Christianity," Evidences of Christianity. Pelt, 1. c. p. 375, 377.]3 i. q. 1 1 In the ecclesiastical point of view, the history of heresies may be compared to pathology, the history of doctrines to physiology. We do not, however, mean to say that every heretical tendency is in itself a state of disease, and full health only to be found in the definitions of ecclesiastical orthodoxy. On the contrary, it has been justly observed, that diseases frequently are natural transitions from a lower to a higher stage of life, and that a state of relative health is often brought about by antecedent diseases. Comp. Schenkel, das Wesen des Protestantismus (Schaffh. 1845), I. p. 13. Baur, die christliche Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit, I. p. 112. 2 The term history of heresies, is seldom used in modern works, but the science to which it is applied continues to form a distinct branch of theology. The very able publications of recent writers on the Gnostic systems, Ebionitism, Manichæism, Unitarianism, etc., and the lives of some of the Fathers, are of great use to the historian of Christian doctrines; but he cannot be expected to incorporate all the materials thus furnished into the history of doctrines. It is necessary that we should possess some knowledge, e. g. of the Gnostic and Ebionitic tendencies, because orthodoxy was in danger of being corrupted by them; but they would not come into consideration, if they did not differ from the orthodox belief. Their internal history must be treated on its own grounds. Nor is the history of doctrines the proper place to enter into a minute examination of the systems of Basilides and Valentinus; it suffices to have a clear and distinct idea of the points of contrast between the emanation-theory of the Gnostics, and the monotheistic theology of the church. In the same manner Nestorianism and Monophysitism are of importance in the controversies respecting the person of Christ in the second period. But after they had been combated by the Catholic Church, and had given rise to sects which, in consequence of further conflicts, were themselves divided into various parties, it can be no longer the task of the history of doctrines to consider the further development of those controversies. 3 The notions of 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 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 macedonische Zeit. Berlin, 1838. Grimm, T., deutsche Mythologie, Göttingen, 1835. Görres, Mythengeschichte der Asiatischen Völker. Richter, Phantasien des Orients. [Bryant, Ancient Mythology, London, 1807, 6 vols. 8vo.] Eckermann, Dr. K. Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte und Mythologie der vorzüglichsten Völker des Alterthums, nach der Anordnung von Ottfr. Müller. Halle, 1845, 2 vols. § 7. RELATION TO THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS, AND THE HISTORY OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY. Although the history of doctrines has some topics in common with the history of philosophy,1 yet they are no more to be confounded with each other than dogmatic theology and philosophy. The history of doctrines should also be separated from the history of Christian ethics, inasmuch as dogmatic theology and ethics themselves have been separated. And, lastly, the history of dogmatic theology forms a part only of the history of doctrines.3 1 This is the case, e. g. with the opinions of the Alexandrian school, the Gnostics, the scholastic divines, and of modern philosophical schools. Yet 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. ; 2nd 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.] Ten |