I have not read this far, but It might be of some use to read two works by Dr. Pelikan:
The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 4: Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700)
The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 5: Christian Doctrine and Modern Culture (since 1700)
He seems to be pretty good on the first three, although it seems he favors Eastern Orthodoxy.
Just to add.
I am reading these volumes as well, but I have not come to Vol. 4 yet. Dr. Pelikan favored Cardinal Newman's Theory of Development (19th C.). The Cardinal Newman who was once an Anglican Church priest who took a leading role in Tractarianism and is generally known as the father of Vatican Two. He (Cardinal Newman) has recently undergone beautification (1 false miracle) by the last pope (Pope Benedict). Dr. Pelikan also favored von Harnack (liberalism). While I read his 1st volume and come across his emphasis on liturgical* practice and how doctrine, as he defines it is believed, taught, and confessed (pg. 3 cited below); therefore his understanding of church doctrine was heavily sought in the liturgy (where the meaning of doctrine comes to light for him at times). Liturgy does define church doctrine, but this is hermeneutical to him in understanding church history. He has a humanistic way of studying church history attempting to research how the church was, but lacks God's standard to anchor his thoughts. I find Pelikan not very discerning at times, ex. he emphasizes at one point that Christ's ill-return in the early church was a delay and the early church had to deal with this expectation due to the delay. He then leaves it there. Did the whole early church really have to deal critically with this delay? Or did some believe the words of God in 2 Peter in that God is longsuffering and God will come, though as a thief in the night. So it is not a 'delay' in the sense of what God revealed to Peter. I know there were believers in the early church who heeded God's Word and found comfort in that God is longsuffering and so His coming is not 'delayed' - delayed by what? God did not reveal His Words to Peter in order that Peter would write the letter in vain, though this is not to say that interpreting the scriptures was and is done perfectly. To be charitable maybe I am not getting the nuance of Pelikan's use of the word 'delay'. That is surely possible.
Yet at other times he interprets the early church that leaves me with the obvious sense that Pelikan has a harder delineation between the Old Testament and New Testament than a Covenantal understanding. So Pelikan will describe what the early church received from the Old Testament in unreformed ways. When Pelikan describes the contrast between Gnosticism and Christian supernatural orderings he does so accurately by pointing out quite wonderfully that the Creator-creature distinction is rooted in the Old Testament, as opposed to the Gnostic supernatural distinction between the spiritual world and earthly world (remembering in Gnosticism 'earthly' is evil). Yet Pelikan goes on to say about this "corrective" of the Gnostic distinction by Old Testament-Christian distinction as follows:
Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition V. 1, (The University of Chicago Press: Chicago and London, 1971.) 140-141.
For this corrective upon the implications that could be drawn from its acceptance of a supernatural order Christian doctrine was indebted to its biblical roots, especially to its retention of the Old Testament. Harnack's exclamation, 'What a wealth of religious material, derived from the most variegated stages in the history of religion, is contained in this book!' is certainly borne out by the lush religious imagery of the liturgy or by the history of the Christian exegesis of the Song of Solomon. But it utterly overlooks what the Old Testament had done to this 'wealth of religious material.' A myth that seems originally to have described the discovery of sex became the most profound of accounts of the fall, and the Canaanite celebrations of cosmic and human fertility were transformed into festivals of the covenant between the people of Israel and a just and merciful God. The church used, but it did not need, the Old Testament as a resource for the supernaturalism that bound it to the history of religion. But from the Old Testament it learned to redefine the 'supernatural'...
You may see the liberalism (A myth...), the theory of development (Old Testament correcting (developing) the Canaanite celebrations, the church learning to "redefine" from the Old Testament - that developmental emphasis on learning to redefine or develop), and a quote from Harnack as an added bonus. Pelkin seemingly provides a dedication, does not title it "Dedication", but does in those first pages of the book before the content of the book itself, he quotes from Cardinal Newman and von Harnack. Pelikan was ecumenically minded and did become Eastern Orthodox.
I am reading this book alongside William Cunningham's book "Historical Theology" and there is a world of difference even on the grounds of defining history and therefore the hermeneutic of history. Cunningham actually takes on the Tractarians and Dr. Newman's Theory of Development so though 19th C. possesses contemporary relevance. Cunningham does not shy away from applying God's standard to history, and as Ruben mentions above in a previous post in how the Puritan's defined the early church in denouncing fashion, though Cunningham is not Puritan historically conceived, he is I would say Puritan minded for he definitely covers the corruption in the early church (even as seen in the New Testament) and he uses the Scriptures the wade through the historical waters that the reader will find himself anchored by God's Word in defining the early church. I greatly recommend this book.
Pelikan may contrast his view with the Reformers in Volume 4 of his series, as I mentioned I have not read it. But from what I have read from Pelikan there would need to be a necessary contrast between his interpretation of history from how a Puritan would interpret history.
*Edit: When I say "liturgy" above it would be better to say "tradition". Liturgy is part of tradition, but is narrow in scope compared to the broader term tradition.
