(conception); by πpâtis, that which refers to moral action: Ὁ 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 (see above). Thus Socrates (Hist. Eccl. ii. 44) says of Bishop Meletius of Antioch: Περὶ δόγματος διαλέγεσθαι ὑπερετίθετο, μόνην δὲ τὴν ἠθικὴν διδασκαλίαν τοῖς ἀκροαταῖς προσήκειν. (Scribendum videtur προσεῖχεν vel προσήγεν, πроonуev, 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 ἠθικὸν μέρος καὶ εἰς τὴν Soyμáтwv ȧкpíẞetav. According to Chrysostom, too (Hom. 27 in Joh. iii.), Christianity requires along with the opórns δογμάτων 2 πολιτείαν ὑγιαίνουσαν. A peculiar definition of dóyua is given by Basil, De Spiritu S. c. 27: "AXλo yàp dóyμa καὶ ἄλλο κήρυγμα· τὸ μὲν γὰρ σιωπᾶται, τὰ δὲ κηρύγματα Enμoσieveтaι (esoteric and exoteric doctrine). According to Eusebius (Adv. Marc. i. 4), Marcellus had already used the word Soyua in the sense of a human, subjective opinion: Tò τοῦ δόγματος ὄνομα ἀνθρωπίνης ἔχεται βουλῆς τε καὶ γνώμης. Only in modern times (Nitzsch says, since Döderlein) did the usage become general, in accordance with which Soyua does. not designate ipsa doctrina, so much as sententia alicujus doctoris, that is, doctrinal opinion instead of doctrinal conception. 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 value and mode of treatment. (Comp. § 10, and Gieseler's Dogmengeschichte, s. 2.) [Gieseler here says, that dogma designates a doctrine, which, as essential to a true faith, 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.] (2) In respect to this, there is need to beware of two wrong paths. The one is that of those who descry a perversion or change of doctrine, in every other manner of apprehending doctrine, in every change of expression and statement, on the false assumption that none but biblical terminology should be introduced into doctrinal theology (Dogmatik), which would make the whole History of Doctrines only a history of deterioration and corruption. The other extreme is that of those who assume that there has been only a constant sound development of truth within the Church, and who will not concede that, together with sound development, diseased conditions have also been generated. Genuine science has respect to both; it finds progress, checks, and retrogression, legitimate developments and those which are illegitimate. (Thus, e.g., it would be incorrect to reject the doctrines of the Trinity, of Original Sin, of the Sacraments, etc., because these exact expressions 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 contracting or of exaggerating it.) We must, then, distinguish between the formation, the deformation, and the reformation of dogma; and this last, again, is different from mere restoration and repristination. It is here that the point of view of the Catholic and of the Protestant in relation to the History of Doctrines differs. According to the former, dogma has been developed under the constant guidance of the Divine Spirit, and whatever is unsound has been rejected under the form of heresy; so that we cannot really speak of a proper development of doctrine (compare the remarkable concession of Hermes of Bonn, as cited in Neander's Dogmengeschichte, s. 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 as to reading lectures on the subject]. Protestantism, on the other hand, perpetually applies the standard of the Scriptures to the developed dogma, and allows it to be a doctrine of the Church only so far as it reproduces the contents of Scripture. But it is a misunderstanding of the Protestant principle which would lead one to reject everything which is not verbally and literally contained in the Scriptures. From this standpoint, which 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 (1). It forms the transition. from Church History to ecclesiastical and dogmatic theology (2). (1) Comp. § 16, and Hagenbach, Encyklop. s. 253 ff. Church History also treats of the History of Doctrine; but, in relation to the whole ecclesiastical life, it appears only as the muscles of the living body stand forth to the eye, while the knife of the anatomist lays them bare in the corpse, and proceeds to separate them 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 formal. 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 developes itself in the form of definite conceptions; ecclesiastical history views the dogma in its relation to external events." Hase, Church History, pref. Comp. also Neander, Dogmengesch. s. 6: "Church History judges phenomena by their extensive, the History of Doctrines by their intensive 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." Baur (s. 2) distinguishes the History of Doctrines and Church History in this manner, that, "whilst the latter concerns itself with the external side of Christian life, the former has reference to the internal." But the inner life of the Church, which has many other factors, is not expressed in dogma. Baur, too, certainly regards Church History chiefly from the standpoint of dogma, and shows less interest for its inner life, which is not formulated in dogma. Ebrard has declared himself as opposed to a History of Doctrines which is separated from Church History (Pref. to his History of the Church and its Doctrines, 1865, s. viii.). But there is a distinct difference between the inner development of dogma in the laboratory of thought and the visible conflict of differing doctrinal tendencies which appears in history. The History of Doctrines gives up to Church History the external course of doctrinal controversies, and takes for granted that this is already known.1 (2) Many regard the History of Doctrines as an appendix to dogmatic theology, rather than an introduction to it; but this arises from incorrect assumptions respecting 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 from the sphere of historical theology to that of didactic (systematic) theology. Ecclesiastical history is presupposed; dogmatic theology, both of the present and the future, is the aim and end of its researches. Comp. Neander, 1.c. 9: "The History of Doctrines mediates between pure apostolical Christianity and the Church of the present, by exhibiting the development of Christian doctrine." [Baur remarks, l.c. s. 2, 3: "The object (of the History of Doctrines and doctrinal theology) is the same, but the form in which it appears is different. Doctrinal theology is the stream of the History of Doctrines come to rest. What, in the history, is in a continual state of change, doctrinal theology handles at some particular moment as stationary."] § 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 dogmatic theology to biblical 1 Not so Baur in his lectures on the History of Doctrines, in which he introduces a good deal of Church History. theology, and ignore ecclesiastical 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 further construction; and dogmatic theology (as a science) 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 the 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 biblical theology, beginning with that of the New Testament, and going back to that of the Old Testament. It is, of course, understood that the relation in which biblical theology stands to biblical exegesis and criticism, also applies as a standard to the History of Doctrines. § 4. Relation to Symbolism. The History of Doctrines comprises the Symbols (1) of the Church, since it must have respect not only to the formation and contents of public confessions of faith (2), but also to the distinguishing doctrines 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 continuous history of the Church. (1) On the ecclesiastical usage of the terms cúμßolov (συμβάλλειν, συμβάλλεσθαι), comp. Suicer, Thesaurus, s.v. p. 1084. Creuzer, Symbolik, § 16. Marheineke, christliche Symbolik, Bd. i. near the beginning. Neander, Kirch. Gesch. i. 2, s. 536. [Pelt, Theol. Encyclop. s. 456. Maximus Taurinensis (about the year 460) says in Hom. in Symb. p. 329: Symbolum tessera est et signaculum, quo inter |