CHAPTER I

THE STUDY OF CHURCH HISTORY[1:1]

OUTLINE: I.--Present status of history in college work. II.--Ecclesiastical history excluded since the Reformation by political history. III.--New view of the mediæval Church and its influence. IV.--Renaissance of interest in Church history. V.--Pedagogical value and treatment of Church history. VI.--Sources.

Half a century ago a prominent educator observed: "There is something remarkable in the actual condition of the study of Church history. While it seems to be receiving more and more cultivation from a few of us, it fails to command the attention of the educated public in the same proportion. We are strongly of the opinion that beyond the requisitions of academical and professional examination there is very little reading of Church history in any way."[1:2] Only twenty-five years ago Professor Emerton, upon taking the chair of ecclesiastical history in Harvard University, could say with truth: "There are to-day not more than half a dozen colleges in the country where any adequate provision for an independent department of history has been made."[2:1] At the present time, happily, the condition so much deplored in the last quotation has been remedied to a very large degree. Every great university in America has a well-organised faculty of history and allied subjects, while a large majority of the smaller institutions of higher education have regularly organised departments of history with instructors, well-trained at home or abroad, who devote all their time to the subject.

But, notwithstanding these facts, the statement made about Church history still remains essentially true. The political, industrial, educational, and social sides of history have been emphasised by the creation of new departments with new courses of study, and by the writing of many text-books, monographs, and general treatises. Professorships of sociology, political economy, political science, constitutional law, education, and literature have been created in unprecedented numbers. Ecclesiastical history, on the contrary, has been all but ignored. Even in Germany, where the greatest strides have been made in the subject, it is still relegated to the theological faculty, though the number of philosophical students selecting it often exceeds that of the theological--a very significant fact. In America it would be difficult to point out more than a very few universities or colleges where a chair in Church history is put on an equality with chairs of other branches of history or of correlated subjects. Its proper place, in both scholastic and popular estimation, is in the theological seminary, and there it has always remained as a "professional" study. Even in this restricted sense, however, its intrinsic worth has placed it among the most important courses in the curriculum, and has given it a standing beyond "professional" circles. Some of America's greatest scholars have contributed powerfully, through the class-room, lectures, and books, to give Church history its rightful place both as a "professional" and as a "liberal" branch of learning.

Until Luther led the great reformatory schism in the sixteenth century, all historians, crude and unscientific though much of their work was, recognised the necessary union of political and ecclesiastical history. The Venerable Bede began his celebrated history not with the coming of Abbot Augustine and his monks, but with the landing of Cæsar and his Roman cohorts. As modern civilisation crept over western Europe and crossed the mighty deep to Columbia's shores, carrying with it the revolutionising Teutonic conception of the national state with its new duties and relationships, the tendency was to magnify the political and social sides of history at the expense of the religious. The hatreds and misunderstandings of the Reformation, though doing something to rectify the "orthodox" history of the old Church, really put members of the old organisation wholly on the defensive, and checked for centuries anything like a genuinely sympathetic and scientific study of the old Church by Protestant historians. With Neander, that sympathetic Christian of Jewish descent, and the scholarly Gieseler, a new era opened. The growing doctrine of the separation of Church and state accentuated the breach between political and religious history. The early crude conception of specialisation also separated sacred from profane history, and turned the former over wholly to the theologian. Secular historians took the position of Napoleon when invited to enter the Holy City: "Jerusalem does not enter into the line of my operations."

At last the Church historian and the civic historian have joined hands, and look each other in the face. They see that their aim is essentially common: to know the truth about the past. This search for truth for its own sake is purely modern--almost contemporaneous. Formerly, history was written to justify or disprove some theory of political or ecclesiastical polity, or to glorify some dynasty, sect, party, or hero, or to vindicate some hypothesis or set of ideas. The historian was not a searcher for truth, but a lawyer with a cause to plead. It is generally realised now that the historian, whether he deals with the state, the Church, society, education, or industry, is working an important part of the field of general history. A knowledge of each one of these institutions is necessary to supplement and explain any or all of the others.

This institutional interdependence seems to be generally recognised now. "The web of history," said Professor Hatch in beginning his great work at Oxford, "is woven of one piece; it reflects the unity of human life, of which it is the record. We cannot isolate any group of facts and consider that no links of causation connect them with their predecessors or their contemporaries. Just as Professor Freeman insists on the continuity of history, so I wish to insist on its solidarity."[4:1] The mutual labours of scholars in correlating fields have revolutionised our historical knowledge of the early and later Middle Ages. A multitude of controverted points have vanished like ghosts. We see the old Church now as we never saw it before. The Catholic Church and the mediæval papacy were the greatest of the creations of the first fifteen centuries of the Christian era. The mediæval Church was not exclusively a religious organisation. It was more of an ecclesiastical state. It had laws, lawyers, courts, and prisons. If not born into it, all the people of western Europe were at least baptised into it. It levied taxes on its subjects. Standards of patriotism and treason were more sharply defined than in the modern state.[5:1] The evolution of this great organisation is the central fact of the first thirteen centuries after Christ. It aimed to control the whole life of its subjects here and to determine their destiny hereafter. Well may our greatest American Church historian, Henry C. Lea, ask: "What would have been the condition of the world if that organisation had not succeeded in bearing the ark of Christianity through the wilderness of the first fifteen centuries?"[5:2]

The history of Europe, then, after the Roman period must be looked at through the eyes of the Church. The character and works of that great institution must first be studied, not pathologically but sympathetically. The historian, if honest, dare not show a "lack of appreciation of the service rendered to humanity by the organisation which in all ages has assumed for itself the monopoly of the heritage of Christ."[5:3] He must recognise the fact that "ecclesiastical history is simply the spiritual side of universal history."[6:1] "The value of a science depends on its own intrinsic merits," says Alzog.[6:2] When the great Teacher commanded from the Mount of Olives, "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel," that mount became the pivot on which the whole world's history has turned.

If the Christian religion be a matter, not of mint, anise, and cummin, but of justice, mercy, and truth; if the Christian religion be not a priestly caste, or a monastic order, or a little sect, or a handful of opinions, but the whole congregation of faithful men dispersed throughout the world; if the very word which of old represented the chosen "people" is now to be found in the "laity"; if the biblical usage of the phrase "ecclesia" literally justifies Tertullian's definition: _Ubi tres sunt laici, ibi est ecclesia_; then the range of the history of the Church is as wide as the range of the world which it was designed to penetrate.[6:3]

The great difficulty with the study of Church history in the past has been that teachers treated it wholly from a theological standpoint. That may have been proper when the subject was viewed as a narrow "professional" study only. A new and better conception of the subject, however, as a part of the pregnant history of humanity, has brought with it a higher estimation of its value as a cultural study. All that can be claimed for historical studies in general can be claimed for it: mental discipline, broad culture, a view of practical life, enlarged sympathies and lessened prejudices, a truer conception of duty, and a saner estimate of the significance of current events. In addition it may be ventured that no subject can be of greater vital importance to the student for the very reason that it deals with the most important of all subjects. In order to do the most good as a liberal branch of learning, Church history must be taught not as theology or dogma, but as a powerful civilising institution like the state or the school. Then it will be true that "neither can the profane historian, the jurist, the statesman, the man of letters, the artist, nor the philosopher safely neglect the study of Church history."[7:1] For each one of these persons, as well as the minister, needs that "pragmatic view" of all the changes and developments of the Christian Church and the influence it has exerted on all other human relations.[7:2]

Within the last few years, however, there has been a noticeable awakening of interest in Church history both within and without college walls. The indefatigable labours of a few men like Henry C. Lea, who has given us a series of invaluable monographs on the history of the old Church, have had much to do with the new status of Church history. Universities are already recognising courses in Church history offered by divinity schools as "liberal arts" electives for undergraduate and postgraduate study. The writers of recent text-books on general history, as well as in particular fields, recognise the revolution and try to make amends for the sin of omission by giving the Church a prominence never recognised before by secular historians.[7:3] Publishers have felt the popular pulse and, consequently, "Studies" and "Epochs" covering the whole range of Church history have appeared in cheap and popular form from the pen of scholar and compiler. Foreign works have been translated. Journals devoted to the study of Church history have been established. Lectureships have been created and endowed. Societies have been organised to further the work. Convenient editions of the "sources" are appearing. Everywhere there seems to be a reaction in favour of this misunderstood and neglected subject. An army of scholars is at work digging valuable material out of old monasteries, royal archives, private libraries, cemeteries and churches, catacombs, and every conceivable place of concealment. These labours are being rewarded by rich discoveries of valuable materials, which are immediately critically edited by competent hands and printed in translations suitable for all students. Huge collections of these sources are appearing in most of the European countries.[8:1]

The most significant evidence of reaction, however, lies in the fact that the most recent courses offered on the Middle Ages in our leading universities are essentially courses in Church history. The name matters little so long as students approach the instructive history of western Europe from the right standpoint. Thus, at length, has come the fulfilment of the prophecy of Professor Koethe (d. 1850), made many years ago: "It is reserved to future ages, and in a special sense to the institutions of learning, to give to Church history its proper place in the curriculum of studies. When its nature and importance come to be fully known and appreciated it will be no longer limited to one faculty."

The best pedagogical methods must be applied to Church history in order to obtain the best results. To that end these practical suggestions are offered:

1. Emphasis ought to be laid on ideas back of events rather than on the events themselves.

2. The important ought to be distinguished from the unimportant at every step. Athanasius and Augustine are worthier subjects of study than Flavian and Optatus. The invasion and conversion of the Teutons are more important than disputes over Easter or the shape of the tonsure.

3. Original sources ought to be used so far as possible. History should be studied "from the sources of friend and foe, in the spirit of truth and love, _sine ira et studio_."[9:1]

4. Both Protestant and Catholic secondary authorities ought to be read on every important controverted point.

5. Origins ought to be studied with special care.

6. Transition periods rather than crises ought to be given the most time.

7. Biographies of epoch-making men like Constantine, Gregory the Great, Charlemagne, Hildebrand, St. Francis, Innocent III., etc., ought to be carefully considered.

8. Causes and results ought to be closely worked out and classified.[9:2]

9. The continuity of the Church as a great force in the world ought to be ever kept in mind.[9:3]

10. Differentiation ought to be thoughtfully noted through the ages.

11. The unity of history--the influence of the Church upon every other institution--ought to be followed from one transitional period to another.

12. The sympathetic attitude ought to be taken at all times in judging men and movements. The student ought to stand in the centre of the circle so that he may see all points of the circumference--all persons, all events, all parties, all creeds, all sects, all shades of opinion--and see their true historical relations.

SOURCES

1.--Bright, W., _The Study of Church History_. In _Waymarks of Church History_. N. Y., 1894.

2.--Cave, A., _Introduction to the Study of Theology_. Edinb., 1885, 421 _ff._

3.--Collins, W. E., _The Study of Ecclesiastical History_. N. Y., 1903.

4.--Coxe, A. C., _Institutes of Christian History_. Chicago, 1887.

5.--De Witt, J., _Church History as a Science, as a Theological Discipline, and as a Mode of the Gospel_. Cinc., 1883.

6.--Foster, F. H., _The Seminary Method of Original Study in the Historical Sciences_. N. Y., 1888.

7.--Gwatkin, H. M., _The Meaning of Ecclesiastical History_. Camb., 1891.

8.--Hatch, E., _An Introductory Lecture on the Study of Ecclesiastical History_. Lond., 1885.

9.--Hitchcock, R. D. _The True Idea and Uses of Church History_. N. Y., 1856.

10.--Jortin, J., _The Use and Importance of Ecclesiastical History_. _Works_, vii., 405-454. Lond., 1772.

11.--Lea, H. C., _Studies in Church History_. Introd. Phil., 1869.

12.--McGiffert, A. C., "The Historical Study of Christianity." _Bibliotheca Sacra_, Jan., 1893, 150-171.

13.--Robinson, J. H., _Sacred and Profane History_. In _An. Rep. Am. Hist. Assn._ 1899, i., 527.

14.--Smith, H. B., "Nature and Worth of the Science of Church History." _Bibliotheca Sacra_, vol. vii., 1851, 412. See _Faith and Philosophy_, Edinb. and N. Y., 1877, 49-86.

15.--Smyth, E. C., _Value of the Study of Church History in Ministerial Education_. Andover, 1874.

16.--Stanley, A. P., _Three Introductory Lectures on the Study of Ecclesiastical History_. In _History of the Eastern Church_. Lond. and N. Y., 1884, 17-76.

See the introductions of the Church histories of Schaff, Gieseler, Alzog, Moeller, Kurtz, Hase, Döllinger, and Hergenröther.

FOOTNOTES:

[1:1] Reprinted from _The Methodist Review_, Jan., 1905.

[1:2] _Bib. Rep._, vol. xxvi.

[2:1] _Unit. Rev._, vol. xix.

[4:1] Hatch, _An Introductory Lecture on the Study of Ecclesiastical History_, London, 1885. Comp. Gwatkin, _The Meaning of Ecclesiastical History_, Cambridge, 1891.

[5:1] Maitland, _Canon Law in the Church of England_, London, 1898, 100, 101.

[5:2] Lea, _Studies in Church History_, p. iii.

[5:3] _Ibid._

[6:1] Gwatkin, _The Meaning of Ecclesiastical History_, 8.

[6:2] Alzog, _Universal Church History_, i., § 13.

[6:3] Stanley, _Eastern Church_, Introduction, 25.

[7:1] Alzog, i., 32.

[7:2] Gieseler, _Ecclesiastical History_, sec. 3 and 7.

[7:3] Examine recently published texts like Emerton, _Mediæval Europe_, Robinson, _History of Western Europe_, Munro, _A History of the Middle Ages_, etc.

[8:1] The _Monumenta_ in Germany, the _Rolls Series_ in England, etc.

[9:1] Schaff, _Church History_, preface.

[9:2] Mace, _Method in History_, 27-39.

[9:3] Freeman, _Methods of Historical Study_, Lond. and N. Y., 1886.

##