Tavτá σo dρkéтw deì dóyμaтa čOTW. Cic. Quaest. Acad. iv. 9: Sapientia neque de se ipsa dubitare debet, neque de suis decretis quæ philosophi vocant dóyuara. With this signification is connected the usage of the teachers of the Church, who first in the sphere of Christianity employed the word dóypa (also with the predicate To Oɛiov) to designate the whole substance of doctrine. Compare the passages from Ignatius, Clement of Alex. (Paed. I. 1, Strom. viii. p. 924, edit. of Potter), Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, etc., in Suicer, Thesaurus, sub voce. They also sometimes called the opinions of heretics dóyuara, with the epithet uvoapá, or others of similar import, but more frequently doğal, vonuara; comp. Klee, 1. c. Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. 4, 2) already makes a distinction between the dogmatic and the moral, and understands by dóyua that which relates to faith, by pasis that which refers to moral action : Ο τῆς θεοσεβείας τρόπος ἐκ δύο τούτων συνέστηκε· δογμάτων εὐσεβῶν καὶ πράξεων ἀγαθῶν. The former are the source of the latter. In a similar way Seneca describes the dogmas as the elements of which the body of wisdom is composed, as the heart of life, Ep. 94, 95. Thus Socrates (Hist. Eccl. 11, 44) says of Bishop Meletius of Antioch: ITepi dóyμaтoç diaλéɣeo0ai ὑπερετίθετο, μόνην δὲ τὴν ἠθικὴν διδασκαλίαν τοῖς ἀκροαταῖς προσήκειν. (Scribendum videtur προσεῖχεν vel προσῆγεν ; Vales.) So, too, Gregory of Nyssa says of Christ and his mode of teaching, Ep. 6 : Διαιρῶν γὰρ εἰς δύο τὴν τῶν χριστιανῶν πολιτείαν, εἰς τε τὸ ἠθικόν μέρος καὶ εἰς τὴν δογμάτων ἀκρίβειαν. Α peculiar definition of δόγμα is given by Basil, De Spiritu S. c. 27: Αλλο γὰρ δόγμα καὶ ἄλλο κήρυγμα τὸ μὲν γὰρ σιωπᾶται, τὰ δὲ kηpúyμata dημooiɛúɛтaι (esoteric and exoteric doctrine). According to Eusebius (Adv. Marc. i. 4), Marcellus had already used the word dóypua in the sense of a human, subjective opinion: Τὸ τοῦ δόγματος ὄνομα ἀνθρωπίνης EXEL TI BOVλñs Tε kai yvwμŋg. Only in modern times (Nitzsch says, since Döderlein) did the usage become general, in accordance with which Sóyua does not designate ipsa doctrina, so much as sententia alicujus doctoris, that is, doctrinal opinion rather than a definite doctrinal position. With this explanation of the word, is intimately connected the definition of the idea of the science of the History of Doctrines, as well as its worth and mode of treatment. (Comp. § 10, and Gieseler's Dogmengeschichte, p. 2.) [Gieseler here says, that dogma designates a doctrine, which, as essential to Christianity, claims acceptance among all Christians. The dogmas of any Church express its views of what is essential in the Christian system, in distinction from subjective opinions.]

The

In respect to this, there is need of guarding against two extremes. one is that of those who descry a perversion of doctrine, in every departure from certain fixed conceptions, in every change of expression and statement; on the false assumption, that none but biblical terminology should be introduced into the doctrinal system, they look upon these alterations in such a way that the whole history of doctrines becomes to them only a history of corruptions. The other extreme is that of those, who assume that there has been only a constant and sound development of truth within the Church, and who will not concede that, together with the healthy growth, diseased conditions have also been generated. Genuine science has respect to both; it finds

progress, checks, and retrogression, genuine formations and malformations. (Thus, e. g., it would be incorrect to reject the doctrines of the Trinity, of Original Sin, of the Sacraments, etc., because these words do not occur in the Bible; although we may lawfully inquire whether foreign ideas may not have crept in with such definite formulas; for with the development of a doctrine also grows the danger of crippling or of exaggerating it.) We must, then, distinguish between formation, the deforming, and the reformation of dogmas; and this last, again, is different from mere restoration and repristination.

Just here the position of the Catholic and of the Protestant in relation to the History of Doctrines is quite different. According to the former, dogmas have been shaped under the constant guidance of the Divine Spirit, and whatever is unhealthful has been rejected under the name of heresy; so that we can not really talk about a proper development of doctrine: compare the remarkable concession of Hermes of Bonn, as cited in Neander's Dogmengeschichte, p. 28 [viz., that it is contrary to the principles of the Catholic Church to treat the history of doctrines as a special branch, since this presupposes the changes made by a developing process; and, consequently, Hermes had doubts about reading lectures on the subject]. Protestantism, on the other hand, perpetually applies the standard of the Scriptures to the unfolded dogma, and allows it to be a doctrine of the Church only so far as it reproduces the contents of the Scripture. But it is a misunderstanding of the Protestant principle which would lead one to reject every thing which is not verbally contained in the Scriptures. From such a standpoint, as finds the whole of dogmatic theology already complete in the Bible, the possibility of a History of Doctrines must be denied, or it must be made to be only a history of errors.

§ 2.

THE RELATION OF THE HISTORY OF DOCTRINES TO CHURCH HISTORY AND DOGMATIC THEOLOGY.

The History of Doctrines is a part of Church History, but separated from it on account of its wide ramifications, and treated as an independent science.' It forms the transition from church history to ecclesiastical and dogmatic theology."

1

1 Comp. § 16, and Hagenbach, Encyclop. p. 239. Church history also treats of the history of doctrine, but, in relation to the whole ecclesiastical life, it appears only as the muscles greet the eye upon the living body, while the knife of the anatomist lays them bare, and dissects them out for scientific uses. "The difference between the history of doctrines as a separate branch of theological science, and as a part of ecclesiastical history, is merely one of form. For, apart from the difference of extent, which depends on external considerations, the subject of investigation is the same in both cases,-different poles of the same axis. The History of Doctrines treats of the dogma as it

develops itself in the form of definite conceptions; ecclesiastical history views the dogma in its relation to external events." Hase, Church History, New York, ed., pref. p. iv. v. Comp., also, Neander Dogmengesch. p. 6: "Church History judges phenomena by their external influence, the History of Doctrines by their internal importance. Events are incorporated into Church History only as they have a diffused influence, while the History of Doctrines goes back to the germs of the antagonisms." Thus, the History of Doctrines gives up to Church History the narration of the exterual course of doctrinal controversies, and takes for granted that this is already known.

Many think that the History of Doctrines is an appendix to dogmatic theology, rather than an introduction to it; but this arises from incorrect as sumptions about the nature of dogmatic theology, and from a misapprehension of its historical character (one-sided conception of dogmatic theology, either from the biblical or from the speculative point of view). The History of Doctrines is the bridge between historical theology on the one hand, and didactic (systematic) theology on the other. Ecclesiastical history is presupposed; dogmatic theology, both of the present and the future, is the aim and end of its researches. Comp. Neander, 4, 5: "The History of Doctrines mediates between pure apostolical Christianity and the Church of the present times, by exhibiting the development of Christian doctrine."

§ 3.

RELATION TO BIBLICAL THEOLOGY.

The History of Doctrines presupposes biblical theology (the doctrines of the New Testament in particular) as its basis; just as the general history of the church presupposes the life of Jesus and the apostolic age.

Those writers who reduce theology in general to biblical theology, and ignore dogmatic theology, are consistent in regarding the History of Doctrines as a mere appendix to biblical theology. But in our view biblical theology is to be considered as only the foundation of the edifice; the history of doctrines the history of its construction; and dogmatic theology, as a science of doctrines, is still engaged in its completion. It is no more the object of the history of doctrines to expound the doctrines of the Bible, than of ecclesiastical history to give a complete account of the life of Christ and his apostles. But as the history of primitive Christianity is the only solid foundation and starting-point of church history, so the history of doctrines must rest upon, and begin with the theology, first of all of the New Testament, and, still further, in an ascending line, also of the Old Testament. It is, of course, understood that the relation in which biblical theology stands to biblical exe gesis and criticism, also applies as a standard to the history of doctrines.

§ 4.

RELATION TO SYMBOLISM.

The History of Doctrines comprises the Symbols' of the church, since it must have respect, not only to the formation and contents of public confessions of faith,' but also to the distinguishing principles set forth in them.3 Symbolism may, however, be separated from the history of doctrines, and treated as comparative dogmatic theology. It stands in the same relation to the history of doctrines, as the church statistics of any particular period stand to the advancing history of the church.

1 On the ecclesiastical usage of the terms σύμβολον, συμβάλλειν, συμβάλ λɛobal, comp. Suicer, Thesaurus, p. 1084. Creuzer, Symbolik, § 16. Marheineke, christliche Symbolik, vol. i. toward the beginning. Neander [Church History, Torrey's transl. i. 306.] [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 not its liturgical or artistic sense) are meant the public confessions of faith by which those belonging to the same branch of the church recognize each other, as soldiers by the watchword (tessera militaris).

The earlier symbols of the church (e. g., the so-called Apostles' Creed, the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds), were the shibboleth (Judg. xii. 6) of the Catholic church, in contrast with 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 the entire field may be surveyed, the principal stations in the study of the history of doctrines, and can not 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 symbolism. See, Dorner, Entwicklungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi, I. i. s. 108 sq. J. P. Lange, Dogmatik, i. s. 32 sq.: "The ecclesiastical dogma lies between the doctrine of the church 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."

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 these boundaries; but Protestants were also forced to give prominence in special confessions to the characteristic peculiarities of their faith 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 (Lutherans and Calvinists), and to other opinions at variance with those held by the orthodox party (Anabaptists, Unitarians, and others). And so, too, the Catholics exhibited the doctrines 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 Elenctica or Polemics, and in later times has taken the more peaceful appellation of Symbolism, which last name has not so much reference to 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 the sea, the quiet contemplation of the developing process passes over into a complicated series of events, until these are seen to lead into a new course of development; and thus the ancient 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 sq. Comp. Neander, Dogmengesch. i. p. 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 doctrines chiefly as the common property of the church, it can consider the private views of individual teachers only so far as these have had, or at least striven after, a real influence in the formation of the church doctrine. More precise investigations about 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).

On the definition of the indefinite term Patristics as a science, comp. Hagenbach, Encyclopædie, p. 248, ss. Even if we enlarge its sphere, so as to make it embrace not only the 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 sources leads to this. But

• Sack, however, has recently published a work on Polemics (Christliche Polemik, Hamburgh, 1838) as a distinct science, falling within the historical sphere of Symbolism. Comp. Hagenbach, Encycl. p. 281 sq.

The distinction made by some writers, especially Roman Catholics, between Patristics and Patrology (v. Möhler, Patrologie, p. 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, teachers, and authors. The scholastic divines are Doctores.]