III. Method and Divisions of the History of Dogma
themselves. In general it may be said that the logical order, usually followed in the study of Dogmatics, is reflected more or less in the History of Dogma.
III. Method and Divisions of the History of Dogma There has been considerable difference in the division of the subjectmatter of the History of Dogma and in the method followed in its treatment. We briefly call attention to some of these differences.
1. DIVISIONS OF THE HISTORY OF DOGMA. The common division found in most of the older works on the History of Dogma is that into General and Special History of Dogma. This division is followed in each of the successive periods, the General History sketching the general philosophic background, the main themes of discussion, and the general direction of doctrinal study in each period under discussion; and the Special History tracing the genesis and development of the separate dogmas, especially those which are central and have a controlling influence on the formation of more peripheral dogmas. The special dogmas are usually discussed under the customary rubrics of Dogmatics: theology, anthropology, christology, and so on. This is called the lokal-methode, and is followed by Hagenbach, Neander, Sheldon, and others. Ritschl objected to both parts of this method of division on the ground that they represented an anatomic rather than an organic method of treatment; and in later works on the History of Dogma both its division into General and Special History and the lokal-methode are abandoned. This is one of the striking differences between the works of Harnack, Loofs, Seeberg, and Fisher on the one hand and most of the previous Histories on the other hand. The great objection to the division of the History of Dogma into General and Special is that it separates what belongs together; and to the lokal-methode, that it is artificial rather than historical and does not do justice to the difference of emphasis in the various periods, or to that which is
distinctive in the discussions of each period. The later writers, though not in complete agreement as to the division to be applied in the study of the History of Dogma, all strive to give a more unified view of the genesis and development of the dogma of the Church.
The divisions of Harnack and Loofs reveal great similarity, while that of Seeberg runs to a great extent along similar lines. His division is as follows: I. The Construction of Doctrine in the Ancient Church. II.
The Preservation, Transformation, and Development of Doctrine in the Church of the Middle Ages. III. The Development of the Doctrinal System through the Reformation, and the Opposing
Crystallization of Doctrine by Roman Catholicism.
2. METHOD OF TREATMENT. Under this general head two distinctions call for consideration. a. That between the horizontal and the vertical method. Some follow the horizontal and others the vertical method in their study of the History of Dogma. They who adopt the former take up the history of doctrinal development as a whole by periods and trace the genesis of all the various dogmas in each particular period, leaving them at the stage at which the close of the period finds them, and taking them up again at that point, to trace their further development. Thus the unfolding of the doctrine of God is studied up to the beginning of the Middle Ages; then this is dropped and is followed by a study of the development of the doctrine of Christ up to the same point; again, this is discontinued and is succeeded by a consideration of the gradual expansion of the anthropological doctrines of sin and grace within the same period of time; and so on all along the line. They who follow the latter method, however, take up the study of the separate dogmas in the order in which they become the center of attention in the Church, and trace their development until they reach their final form. The doctrine of God is taken up first, because it was the first to engage the special attention of the Church, and its development is traced up to the time of its final formulation in the historic Creeds of the post-Reformation period. In a similar way the remaining central doctrines, such as those of Christ, of sin and grace,
of the atonement, and so on, are studied in their various stages of growth until they reach their final official form. The former method is followed by Hagenbach, Neander, Sheldon, Harnack, Loofs, and Seeberg; the latter, though with certain differences, by Thomasius,
Shedd, and Cunningham. Each one of these has its advantages and disadvantages. In our brief discussion it seems preferable to follow the latter, because it keeps the separate dogmas more prominently before the mind, and enables us to trace their development from start to finish without diverting the attention from the regular flow of thought by a more or less mechanical division. Of course, the danger lies at hand, and ought to be avoided as much as possible, that the doctrines under consideration will appear more or less detached from their historical setting and from their logical connection in the systems of thought of the great theologians of the Church, such as Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Luther,
Calvin, and others. Happily, this danger is obviated to a great extent by the fact that the central doctrines of the Church, with which we are mainly concerned, did not occupy the center of the stage simultaneously. Moreover, the reading of another work on the History of Dogma, such as that of Seeberg, Sheldon, or Fisher, will help to off-set this handicap. While pursuing this method, we shall not terminate our historical discussion of each one of the dogmas at the point of their incorporation into the last of the great historic
Creeds, but shall also consider the changes or developments suggested in later theological literature, since they may in course of time lead to sounder, clearer, or more complete dogmatical formulations. b. That between a purely objective and the confessional method.
Some are of the opinion that the only proper, the only scientific way, to treat the History of Dogma is according to the purely objective method. They regard it as the task of the historian to describe the genesis and development of the dogma of the Church without any prepossessions, without manifesting any sympathy or antipathy, and without in any way judging of the truth and falsity of the various doctrinal formulations. Such judgment, we are told, is not in place in