Preface

PREFACE.

The two fragments presented in this volume, include all that Dr. Alexander left in a condition fit for the press, of his remarkable Biblical and Historical Lectures. It had long been his purpose to write out these Lectures on Old and jSew Testament History and Literature, but two causes operated to prevent this: First, the pressure of his professional labours, including the preparation of his Commentaries; and secondly, the rapid strides he was constantly making in the knowledge of his subjects, never brought him to the point when he could satisfy his own mind that he was ready to print. It was this fact that gave such vivacity and originality to his instructions, his lectures to each succeeding class being the outpouring of his own acquisitions. These fragments alone remain to us. The brief skeletons of his biblical research, although covering hundreds of pages, could hardly be arranged, and never filled out, by any living man.

I have felt some hesitation in printing beyond § 401, on account of its unfinished condition, but hoping that even these notes may be suggestive to the student of Ecclesiastical History, I concluded to insert them.

S. D. A.

New York, Nov.

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.

SECTION

Important preliminaries to

this study, . . 1

Two preliminary questions, 2 Etymology of terms the first

thing, . . .3

Etymology of English word

History—its definition, 4 One exception, . . 6

Distinction between Objective and Subjective History, . . .6 An example of this, . 7 Subjective History—its definition, . . .8 Can never be exhausted, 9 All History eclectic, . 10 Elimination and division of

History, . . .11

What is meant by Elimination, . . .12 What is to be eliminated

from History, . . 13

How elimination differs from

division, . . .14

Division either mechanical

or rational, . . 15

Civil and Religious History, 16 History of the Church, 17 Definition of Church History, 18 Etymology of the word

Church, . . 10, 20

The use of this Greek word

SECTION

in the Classics and the Bible, . . .21

The widest application of the phrase "Church History," . . .22

The early existence of the Church, . . .23

The promise of a Saviour . (Gen. 3, 15), . . 24

How this promise gives complexion to Church History, . . .25

The extent of Church History, . . .20

Its division into Biblical and Ecclesiastical, . 27, 28

The difference between them essential — one inspired, the other uninspired, 29

Subdivision of Biblical History into Old Testament and New Testament History, . . .30

The three divisions of Church History, Old Testament, New Testament, and Ecclesiastical, unequal in chronological dimensions, 31

Ecclesiastical History, . 32

Its relation to Biblical or Sacred History, . . 33

The relation of Ecclesiastical

SECTION

^History to other sciences or fields of knowledge, 34

Its relation to Geography, Chronology, and Archaeology, . . . 85

Historical Geography, . 36

Chronology, . . 37

Uses of Historical Chronology, . . . 38,39

Archaeology, . . 40

Cannot be separated from History, . . 41, 42

Limitation of Archaeology, 43

Auxiliary Studies—Statistics —Diplomatics, and Historical Philosophy. . . 44

Utility of History in general, 45

Abuse of the Maxim, "History is Philosophy teaching by Examples," . 46

Benefits of Ecclesiastical History, . . .47, 48

Salutary moral influences of the study of History, . 49

The sources and materials of Ecclesiastical History, 50

Uninspired, numerous, and diversified, . .51

Have been divided into Monumental and Documentary, . . .52

What the first class includes, 53

The authorities of this class are originals, . . 54

The arch of Titus and ancient Christian tombs examples, . . .55

Not as abundant as Documentary, . . .56

Division of Documentary
History into Private or
Personal, Public or Offi-
cial, . . .57

Definition of Public Documents, . . .58

Documents of the first authority, . . .59

_, „ , SECTION

The extent of these mate-
rials, . . .60
An inferior class, . . 61
Their extent, . . 62
A third class, . . 63
Symbolical Books, Creeds,
Confessions, Catechisms,
&c, . . .64
Ancient Liturgies, . . 65
Kulcs and Statutes of Reli-
gious bodies, . . 60
The Catalogue of materials

not exhausted, . . 67

Definition of Private Documents, . . .68 The highest class of these, 69 Another class, . . 70 A residuary class, . .71 This class not to be underrated, . . .72 Who have used these materials, . . 73, 74, 75 The first three centuries almost a blank in works on Ecclesiastical History, . 76 Works of Hegesippus, . 77 Julius Af-ricanus, . .78 Not extant, . . .79 Why Ecclesiastical History was neglected at this period, . . 80, 81, 82 Eusebius and his writings, 83, 84 Epiphanius—Philostorgius—

Sidetes, . . .85

Socrates— Sozomcn — Theo

doret, , . .80

Theodorus—Evagrius, . 87 Histories of the Latin Church mere translations—Sulpicius Severus—Orosius— Rufinus—Cassiodorus, . 68 Byzantine Historians, . 89 Effect of the subjugation of Western Komau Empire upon historical works, 90 William of Tyre—Matthew Paris, • . • ⁹⁰

SECTION

above Chronological Arrangement. . .156

Magdeburg Centuriators, . 157

Their Chronological Arrangement, . .158

Topical arrangement, 159, 160

Their immediate purpose was polemical, . . 161

This method constructed a priori, . . .162

Intended for the early centuries, . . . 163

Not intended to be perpetual, 164

It has given character to subsequent historiography, . 165

The real merit of the plan of the Centuriators, . 166

Cannot be read continuously, 167

The Romanists adopt a simpler form, . . 168

A change in the mode of treating Ecclesiastical History became necessary, . 169

The change was gradual— reaches its culmination in the Institutioues of Mosheim, . . 170, 171

Mosheim's use of the Centurial Arrangement, . 172, 173

Its disadvantages, . . 174

Methods of Ecclesiastical Historiography increase during the last half century, . . . 175

Germans retain the Biblical system and change the chronological arrangement of subjects, . 176

The nature of this change, 177

Their change in the topical arrangement, . . 178

Type of all these modern methods, - . . 179

Regarded by the Germans and their imitators as the ultimatum of improvement, . . .180

. . SECTION

Objections to it, . . \%\

Objection of this school to the old arrangement, . 182

The objection partially admitted, but with two qualifying circumstances, 183, 184

A more specific charge against the centurial arrangement, . . 185

The answer, . . 186, 187

A qualifying circumstance in favour of old arrangement, . . . 188

The modern German school not united on one scheme, 189

Difficulties of the modern periodical arrangement, 190

Partial changes in the topical and rubrical arrangement, . . . 191

The essence of the rubrical arrangement, . . 192

Objections to this system, . 193

The historical objection, 194, 195

Objection drawn from analogy, . . .196

Objection from practical effects, . . . 197, 198

An improvement of both chronological and topical arrangement proposed, . 199

Change in the topical part, . 200

Not new, . . .201

Change in chronological division, . • 202

How this is to be accomplished, . . 203, 204

Its advantages, . . 205

The difference between this method and the one it supersedes, . . • 206

This course of History divided into two unequal

parts, • . • The first division a general

survey, Confusion avoided by view

207

208