DOGGER BANK

dogger bank, an extensive shoal in the north sea, about 60 m. e. of the coast of northumberland, england. over its most elevated parts there is a depth of only about six fathoms, but the depth is generally from ten to twenty fathoms. it is well known as a fishing ground. the origin of the name is obscure; but the middle dutch _dogger_ signifies a trawling vessel, and was formerly applied generally to the two-masted type of vessel employed in the north sea fisheries, and also to their crews (doggermen) and the fish taken (dogger-fish). off the south end of the bank an engagement took place between english and dutch fleets in 1781. on the night of the 21st of october 1904 during the russo-japanese war, some british trawlers of the hull fishing fleet were fired upon by vessels of the russian baltic fleet under admiral rozhdestvensky on its voyage to the far east, one trawler being sunk, other boats injured, two men killed and six wounded. this incident created an acute crisis in the relations between russia and england for several days, the russian version being that they had seen japanese torpedo-boats, but on the 28th mr balfour, the english prime minister, announced that the tsar had expressed regret and that an international commission would investigate the facts with a view to the punishment of any responsible parties. the terms were settled on 25th november, the commission being composed of five officers (british, russian, american and french, and one selected by them), to meet in paris. on the 22nd of december the four original members, vice-admiral sir lewis beaumont, vice-admiral kaznakov (afterwards replaced by vice-admiral dubassov), rear-admiral davis and vice-admiral fournier, met and chose admiral baron von spaun (austria-hungary) as the fifth. their report was issued on the 25th of february 1905. while recognizing that the information received as to a possible attack led the admiral to mistake the trawlers for the enemy, the majority of the commissioners held rozhdestvensky responsible for the firing and its results, and "being of opinion that there were no torpedo-boats either among the trawlers nor anywhere near" concluded that "the opening of fire was not justifiable," though they absolved him and his squadron from discredit either to their "military qualities" or their "humanity." the affair ended in compensation being paid by the russian government. doggett (or dogget), thomas (d. 1721), english actor, was born in dublin, and made his first appearance in london in 1691 as nincompoop in d'urfey's _love for money_. in this part, and as solon in the same author's _marriage-hater matched_, he gained the favour of the public. he followed betterton to lincoln's inn fields, creating the part of ben, especially written for him, in congreve's _love for love_, with which the theatre opened (1695); and next year played young hobb in his own _the country wake_. he was associated with cibber and others in the management of the haymarket and drury lane, and he continued to play comedy parts at the former until his retirement in 1713. doggett is highly spoken of by his contemporaries, both as an actor and as a man, and is frequently referred to in _the tatler_ and _spectator_. it was he who in 1715 founded the prize of "doggett's coat and badge" in honour of the house of hanover, "in commemoration of his majesty king george's happy accession to the brittish throne." the prize was a red coat with a large silver badge on the arm, bearing the white horse of hanover, and the race had to be rowed annually on the 1st of august on the thames, by six young watermen who were not to have exceeded the time of their apprenticeship by twelve months. although the first contest took place in 1715, the names of the winners have only been preserved since 1791. the race is still rowed each year, but under modified conditions. see _thomas doggett, deceased_ (london, 1908). dogma (gr. [greek: dogma], from [greek: dokein], to seem; literally "that which seems, sc. good or true or useful" to any one), a term which has passed through many senses both general and technical, and is now chiefly used in theology. in greek constitutional history the decision of--"that which seemed good to"--an assembly was called a [greek: dogma] (i.e. decree), and throughout its history the word has generally implied a decision, or body of decisions or opinions, officially adopted and regarded by those who make it as possessing authority. as a technical term in theology, it has various shades of meaning according to the degree of authority which is postulated and the nature of the evidence on which it is based. thus it has been used broadly of all theological doctrines, and also in a narrower sense of fundamental beliefs only, confession of which is insisted upon as a term of church communion. by sceptics the word "dogma" is generally used contemptuously, for an opinion grounded not upon evidence but upon assertion; and this attitude is so far justified from the purely empirical standpoint that theological dogmas deal with subjects which, by their very nature, are not susceptible of demonstration by the methods of physical science. again, popularly, an unproved _ex cathedra_ statement of any kind is called "dogmatic," with perhaps an insinuation that it is being obstinately adhered to without, or beyond, or in defiance of, obtainable evidence. but again to "dogmatize" may mean simply to assert, instead of hesitating or suspending judgment. three pre-christian or extra-ecclesiastical usages are recorded by a half-heretical churchman, marcellus of ancyra (in eusebius of caesarea, _contra marcellum_, i. 4);--words which adolf harnack has placed on the title-page of his larger _history of dogma_. first there is a medical usage--empirical versus dogmatic medicine. on this old-world technical controversy we need not dwell. secondly, there is a philosophical usage (e.g. cicero, seneca and others). first principles--speculative or practical--are [greek: dogmata], lat. _decreta_, _scita_ or _placita_. the strongest statement regarding the inviolability of such dogmas is in cicero's _academics_, ii. chap. 9. but we have to remember that this is dialogue; that the speaker, hortensius, represents a more dogmatic type of opinion than cicero's own; that it is the maxims of "wisdom," not of any special school, which are described as unchangeable.[1] marcellus's third type of dogma is legal or political, the decree (says marcellus) of the legislative assembly; but it might also be of the emperor (luke ii. 1; acts xvii. 7), or of a church gathering (acts xvi. 4), or of old testament law; so especially in philo the jew, and in flavius josephus (even perhaps at _contra apionem_, i. 8). greek fathers. while the new testament knows only the political usage of [greek: dogma], the greek fathers follow one which is more in keeping with philosophical tradition. with few and early exceptions, such as we may note in the epistle of barnabas, chap, i., they confine the word to doctrine. either dogma (sing.) or dogmas (plural) may be spoken of. actually, as j. b. lightfoot points out, the best greek commentators among the fathers are so dominated by this new usage, that they misinterpret col. ii. 14 (20) and eph. ii. 15 of _christian_ doctrines. along with this goes the fundamental catholic view of "dogmatic faith"--the expression is as old as cyril of jerusalem (died 386), if not older--according to which it consists in obedient assent to the voice of authority. all doctrines are "dogmas" to the greek fathers, not simply the central teachings of their system, as with the philosophers. very noteworthy is cyril of jerusalem's fourth _catechetical discourse_ on the "ten dogmas" (we might render "ten great doctrines"). the figure ten may be taken from the commandments,[2] as in gregory nazianzen's later, and more incidental, decalogue of belief. in any case, cyril marks out the way for the subsequent division of the creeds into twelve or fourteen "articles" or heads of belief (see below). in saying that all doctrines rank as "dogmas" during the greek period, we ought to add a qualification. they do so, in so far as they are held to be of authority. clement of alexandria or origen would not call his speculations dogmas. yet these audacious spirits start from a basis of authority, and insist upon [greek: orthotomia dogmaton] (_stromata_, vii. 763). the "dogma" or "dogmas" of heretics are frequently mentioned by orthodox writers. there can be no question of confining even orthodox "dogma" to conciliar decisions in an age when definition is so incomplete; still, we do meet with references to the nicene "dogma" (e.g. letter in theodoret, _h.e._ ii. 15). but dogma is not yet technical for what is christian or churchly. the word which emerges in greek for that purpose is "orthodox," "orthodoxy," as in john of damascus (d. 760), or as in the official title still claimed by the holy orthodox church of the east. latin fathers. medieval usages. latin fathers borrow the word "dogma," though sparingly, and employ it in all the greek usages. something novel is added by jerome's phrase (in the _de viris illustribus_, cc. xxxi., cix.) _ecclesiastica dogmata_,--found again in the title of the treatise now generally ascribed to gennadius, and occurring once more in another writer of southern gaul.[3] the phrase is a serviceable one, contrasting _church_ teachings with _heretical_ "dogmas." but the main latin use of dogma in patristic times is found in vincent of lerins (d. c. 450) in his brief but influential _commonitorium_; again from southern gaul. thereafter the usage gradually drops. in thomas aquinas[4] it does not once occur. on the other hand thomas has his own technical name--doctrine (sing.) or rather _sacra doctrina_; and this expression holds its ground, though the usage of abelard, _theologia_, was destined to an even more important place (see theology). another medieval usage of importance is the division of the creed into twelve articles corresponding to the number of the apostles, who, according to a legend already found in rufinus (d. 410) _on the apostles' creed_, composed that formula by contributing each a single sentence. the division is found applied also to the "nicene-constantinopolitan" creed, both in east and west. sometimes fourteen articles are detected (in either creed), 7 + 7; the sacred number twice over.[5] the reformation. the reformation set up a new idea of faith, or recurred to one of the oldest of all. faith was not belief in authoritative teachings; it was trust in the promises of god and in jesus christ as their fulfilment. but the protestant view was apt to seem intangible, and the influence of the learned tradition was strong--for a time, indeed, doctrine was more cultivated among protestants than in the church of rome. the result was a structure which is well named the protestant scholasticism. the new view of faith is bracketed with the old, and practically neutralized by it; as was already the case in melanchthon's theological definitions in the 1552-1553 edition of _loci communes_, also printed in other works by him. this brings back again the catholic view of "dogmatic faith." article. the word "article" for a time holds the field. pope leo x. in 1520 condemns among other propositions of martin luther's the twenty-seventh--_"certum est in manu papae, aut ecclesiae, prorsus non esse statuere articulos fidei (imo nec leges morum seu bonorum operum)."_ the augsburg confession (1530) is divided into numerous "articles," while luther's lesser catechism gathers christianity under three "articles"--creation, redemption, sanctification. where moderns would speak of the "doctrine" of this or that, lutherans especially, but also churchmen of other communions, wrote upon this or that "article." nikolaus hunnius ([greek: diaskepsis], &c., 1626), a. quenstedt (c. 1685) and others--in a controversial interest, to blacken the calvinists still more--distinguished which articles were "fundamental." modern lutheranism (g. thomasius, _dogmengeschichte_, 1874-1876, influenced by t. f. d. kliefoth 1839) speaks rather of "central dogmas";[6] and the roman catholic j. b. heinrich[7] is willing to speak of "fundamental dogmas," those which must be _known_ for salvation; those for which "implicit" faith does not suffice. when addis and arnold's _catholic dictionary_ denounces the conception of central dogmas, what they desire to exclude as uncatholic is the belief that dogmas lying upon the circumference may be questioned or perhaps denied.[8] this suggests the great ambiguity both in roman catholic and protestant writers of the 17th century as to the relation between "articles" and "dogmas." many writers in each communion felt that an "article" is a higher thing. others, in each communion, made the identification absolute. perhaps the roman theologians of that age were more concerned than the protestants to draw a line round necessary truths. this attempt was made by dr henry holden (_div. fidei analysis_, 1652) in connexion with the word "articles.[9]" decreta. another term to be considered is _decretum_, the old latin equivalent for [greek: dogma]. another of luther's assertions branded by the pope in 1520--the twenty-ninth--claimed liberty _judicandi conciliorum decreta_. on the other hand, the augsburg confession protests its loyalty to the _decretum_ of nice. what protestantism saw in the distant past, trent naturally recognized in the present. every one of its own findings is a _decretum_--except five, among the sacramental chapters, each of which is headed _doctrina_. holden again quotes the (indefinite) _decretum_ of the council of basel regarding the immaculate conception. dogmata in revived use. the word "dogma" was however to revive, and, with more or less success, to differentiate itself from "doctrine." early writers of the modern period, protestant or roman catholic, use it frequently of heretics; thus the augsburg confession protests that the protestants have carefully avoided _nova dogmata_. a roman catholic writer, jan driedo of louvain, revives the reference to _ecclesiastica dogmata--de ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus_ (1533)--using the word, though not exclusively yet emphatically, of teachings _extra canonem scripturae sacrae_. philip melanchthon's preface to his _loci communes_ (ed. 1535) protests that he has not expressed himself _de ullo dogmate_--on any point of doctrine--without careful consideration of what has been said before him. richard hooker (d. 1600) in bk. viii. of _eccl. polity_ (pub. 1648 or perhaps 1651) quotes thomas stapleton, the roman catholic (_de principiis doctrinalibus fidei_, 1579), on the royal right or duty to enforce "dogmas," and adds a gloss of his own--"very articles of the faith,"--a surprising and probably isolated usage. many identified dogmas and articles by levelling down or broadening out; but hooker levels up. the statement of the council of trent (1545-1562) may be quoted here. the council will rely chiefly upon scriptures[10] _in reformandis dogmatibus et instaurandis in ecclesia moribus_; the roman reply to the two sets of _articuli_ of augsburg, and the roman counterpart to the (later) protestant assertion that the bible[11] is the "only rule of faith and practice." at trent, therefore, once more, dogma means doctrine. it still means "doctrine" when the collected _decreta_ of trent bear on their title-page (1564) reference to an _index dogmatum et reformationis_; but here "dogma" is already verging towards the narrower and more precise sense--truth defined by church authority. in other words, it is already edging away from its identification with (all or any) doctrines. on the protestant side the identity is still clear in the lutheran formula of concord (1577). this creed formulates its relation to scripture over and over, as the one _regula_ by which all _dogmata_ are to be tried. that characteristic protestant assertion had been still earlier pushed to the front in "reformed" creeds, e.g. the first helvetic confession (1536), and more notably in the second (1566). definition in protestant scholasticism. protestant creeds had clearly affirmed that _nothing possessed authority_ which _was not in scripture_: in a short time, protestant theologians--following an impulse common to all christian communions--define more sharply the identity of what is authoritative with the letter of scripture, _and call these entire contents dogmas_. here then, under protestant scholasticism (lutheran and reformed), we have the first perfectly definite conception of dogma, and the most definite ever reached. dogma is the whole text of the bible, doctrinal, historical, scientific, or what not. thus dogma is _revealed_ and is _infallibly_ true. dogma is doctrine, viz. that body of doctrines and related facts which god himself has propounded for dogmatic faith. every true dogma, says johann gerhard[12]--the most representative figure of lutheran scholasticism--occurs in plain terms somewhere in scripture. roman catholic replies. over against these sweeping assumptions and deductions, the roman catholic church had to build up its own statement of the basis of belief. its early controversialists--like driedo or cardinal bellarmine--meet assertions such as gerhard's with a flat denial. the great dogmas are not, literally and verbally, in the bible. along with the bible we must accept unwritten traditions; the council of trent makes this perfectly clear. but not any and every tradition; only such as the church stamps with her approval. and that raises the question whether the church has not a further part to play? a. m. fairbairn holds that d. petavius's great work _de theologicis dogmatibus_ (especially the 1st vol., 1644) made the word "dogma" current for _doctrines which were authoritative as formulated by the church_. we must keep in mind, however, that the question is not simply one as to the meaning of a word. the equation holds, more firmly than ever; dogma=the contents of faith. it has to be established on the roman catholic side that faith (or dogma; the two are inseparable) deals with divine truths historically revealed long ago but now administered with authority, according to god's will, by the church. the englishman henry holden (see above), the frenchman veronius (francois veron, s.j., 1575-1649) in his _regle generale de la foy catholique_ (1652), the german philipp neri chrismann,[13] in his _regula fidei catholicae et collectio dogmatum credendorum_ (1792),[14] all work at this task. dogmas or articles of faith (taken as synonymous) depend upon revelation in scripture or tradition, as confirmed by the church whether acting in general councils or through the pope (in some undefined way; holden)--in general councils or by universal consent (chrismann; of bishops? the definite gallican theory?). veronius is willing to waive the difficult point of church infallibility as the council of trent did not define it. holden insists strongly upon infallibility. church traditions are infallible; and church dogmas reach us (from the original revelation) through an infallible medium, the catholic church, which the protestants sadly lack. in chrismann the word "dogma" has superseded the word "article"; holden uses both, though "article" has the preponderance. all three writers seek to draw a sharp line round what is "of faith." hence in chrismann (who is in other respects the most definite of the three) we have a view of dogma almost as clear-cut as that of the protestant schoolmen. dogmas are _revealed_; dogmas are _infallible_; the church is infallible on dogmas (for this statement he cites muratori) _and on nothing else_. this whole period of theology, protestant and roman catholic, is statical. men are defining and protecting the positions they have inherited; they do not think of progress. and yet the roman catholic church had upon its hands one great unsettled question--the thesis of the immaculate conception of the virgin. this became the standing type of an assertion which, while favoured by the church and on the very verge of dogma, was yet not a dogma[15]--till the definition came through pius ix. in 1854. here then the frontier of dogma had unquestionably moved forward. its conception must become dynamic; there was need of some theory of development like j. h. newman's (1845). it does not happen, however, that the papal definition of 1854 employs the _word_ "dogma"; that honour was withheld from the word until the vatican decrees of 1870 affirmed the personal infallibility of the pope as _divinitus revelatum dogma_. with this, one line of tendency in roman catholic doctrine reached its climax; the pope and the council use "dogma" in a distinctive sense for what is definitely formulated by authority. but there is another line of tendency. the same council defines not indeed dogma but faith--inseparable from dogma--as[16] (1) revealed, (a) in scripture or (b) in unwritten tradition, and (2) taught by the church, (a) in formulated decrees, or (b) in her ordinary _magisterium_. this is a correction of chrismann. not only does the correction involve the substitution of papal authority for a universal consent of "pastors" and "the faithful"; it also deliberately ranks the unformulated teachings of the church on points of doctrine as no less _de fide_ than those formulated. this amounts to a serious warning against trying to draw a definite line round dogma. the modern roman catholic temper must be eager to believe and eager to submit. new dogmas have been precipitated more than once during the 19th century; there may still be others held in solution in the church's teaching. if so, these are likely one day to crystallize into full dogmas; and, even while not yet "declared," they have the same claim upon faith. thus there seems to be a measure of uncertainty as to what the church of rome now calls "dogma"--only in part relieved by the distinction between "dogmas strictly" and mere "dogmatic truths." again, the assertion that the church is infallible upon some questions, not belonging to the area of revelation (properly so-called in roman catholic theology), destroys the identification of "dogmas" with "infallible certainties" which we noted both in the protestant schoolmen and in chrismann. the identification of dogma with revelation remains, with another distinction in support of it, between "material dogmas" (all scriptural or traditional truth) and "formal" or ecclesiastically formulated dogmas.[17] on the other hand, there is absolute certainty on a point long disputed. questions about church authority are henceforth questions about the pope's authority. what he calls heresy, under the sanction of excommunication or that more formal excommunication known as anathema, is heresy. what he finds it necessary to condemn even in milder terms as bad doctrine is infallibily condemned; that is certain, roman catholic theologians tell us, though not yet _de fide_. finally we have to glance at a new list of definitions which perhaps in some cases seek more or less to formulate modern protestant ideas, but which in general represent rather the world of disinterested historical scholarship. that world of the learned offers us non-dogmatic definitions, drawn up from the outside; definitions which do not share the root assumptions either of catholicism or of post-reformation protestant orthodoxy. it might have been best to surrender the term "dogma" to the dogmatists; but few scholars have consented to do so. 1. we may brush aside the view[18] for which j. c. doderlein, j. a. a. tittmann, and more recently c. f. a. kahnis are quoted. according to this definition, "dogma" means the opinion of some individual theologian of distinction. that might be a conceivable development of usage. it has been said that persons who dislike authority often show great devotion to "authorities"; and the word dogma might make a similar transition. but, in its case, such a usage would constitute a violent break with the past. 2. though there is no formal definition in the passage, it is worth recording that, towards the end of his _chief end of revelation_ (1881), a. b. bruce sharply contrasts "dogmas of theology" with "doctrines of faith."[19] while he manifests no wholesale dislike to doctrine, such as is seen in the broad church school, bruce inverts the catholic estimate. dogma stands lowest, not highest. it seems hardly better than a _caput mortuum_, out of relation to the original faith or the original facts that are held to have given it birth. there is more than a touch of matthew arnold in this; though, while arnold held nothing in religious experience beyond morality to be objectively genuine, bruce believed in god's "gracious" purpose.[20] 3. much more like chrismann's view is the "generally accepted position" among protestant scholars, as its leading representative to-day, f. loofs, has called it;[21] the doctrine enforced within any one church community is dogma. this definition is significant. it means that historians recognize the peculiar importance of those beliefs which are constitutive of church agreement; and it finds some support from the philosophical and political associations of ancient "dogma." also roman catholic writers could accept the definition in so far as their own church's authoritative teachings are concerned. but can a _historian_ separate the opinions which rose to authority in the church from the other opinions which succumbed? or the accepted modifications of a theory from those which were rejected? again, can we substitute church authority for that which is always the background of "dogma" as interpreted from inside--divine authority?[22] or, again, can we say definitely which doctrines _are_ "enforced" in protestant communions and so _are_ "dogmas"? it has even been asserted by a. schweizer (_christliche glaubenslehre nach prot. grundsatzen_, 1863-1872) that protestantism ought not to speak of dogmas at all, except as things of its imperfect past.[23] and historically it seems plain that--since the age of protestant scholasticism--there has been nothing in protestant church life to which the name "dogma" can be assigned, without dropping a good deal of its original connotation. dogma is no longer[24] held to be of immediate divine authority. hence catholic, and scientific or historical, definitions of dogma are on different planes. they never properly meet.[25] 4. a. harnack varies in his usage. he is not prepared to exclude the great medieval pronouncements, or the modern roman catholic definitions, from the list of dogmas; but on the whole he prefers to keep in view "one historical species"--loofs suggests that he ought perhaps rather to say one _individual_ type--that greatest group of christian dogmas which "was created by the greek spirit upon the soil of the gospel" (_hist. of dogma_, eng. tr., vol. i. pp. 17, 21, 22). thus harnack agrees with catholic theologians in holding that, in the fullest sense, there is no dogma except the catholic. he differs, of course, in holding dogma to be obsolete now. while protestants, he thinks, have undermined it by a deeper conception of faith,[26] roman catholics have come to attach more value to obedience and "implicit belief" than to knowledge; and even the eastern church lives to-day by the cultus more than by the vision of supernatural truth. again, harnack gravely differs from catholic dogmatists in assigning a historical origin to what in their view is essentially divine--supernatural in origin, supernatural even in its declaration by the church. if they do not deny that greek philosophy has entered into christian doctrine, they consider it a colourless medium used in fixing the contents of revelation. in all this, harnack speaks from a point of view of his own. he is no friend of catholicism or of dogma. perhaps his detachment makes for clearness of thought; loofs's friendliness towards dogma, but in a much humbler sense than the catholic, involves the risk of confusion. both loofs and harnack contrast with "dogma" the work of individual thinkers, calling the latter "theology." hence they and other authorities wish to see "history of dogma" supplemented by "histories of theology." our usual english phrase "history of doctrine" ignores that distinction. 5. a place must be made for the definition proposed by a philosopher, j. m. e. mctaggart. in _some dogmas of religion_ (1906), he uses "dogma" of affirmations, whether supported by reasoning or merely asserted, if they claim "metaphysical" value, metaphysics being defined as "the systematic study of the ultimate nature of reality." briefly, a dogma is what claims ultimate, not relative, truth. this agrees with one feature in ordinary literary usage--the contrast between "dogmatizing" and suspending judgment, or taking refuge in conjecture. but it ignores another quality marked out in common speech--that in respect of which "dogmatism" is opposed to proof. also it omits the political or social reference so much insisted on by loofs and others. there are materials for misunderstanding here. 6. a very different view is implied in the _symbolo-fideisme_ of athanase sabatier and some other french protestants: religious dogma consists of symbols in contrast to a scientific gnosis of reality. this is a radical version of the early protestant idea of faith, and yields a theory of what in english we call "doctrine." more precisely, it is a theory of what doctrine ought to be, or a deeper analysis of its nature; it is not a statement of what doctrine has been held to be in the past. and therefore the definition does not proceed from historical scholarship. nor yet does it throw light upon "dogma," if dogma is to be distinguished--somehow--from doctrine. literature.--matthew arnold's _literature, and dogma_ (1873) is important for literary usage: cf. a. b. bruce, op. cit. classical and early christian usages, e. hatch, _hibbert lect._ (1888), pp. 119, 120; j. b. lightfoot on colossians ii. 14 (20); w. schmidt, _dogmatik_, vol. i. (1895)--many quotations _in extenso_; c. stange, _das dogma und seine beurteilung in der neueren dogmengeschichte_ (1898)--a pamphlet protesting against what loofs terms the "generally accepted view." articles in the (roman catholic) _kirchenlexikon_ of wetzer and welte, 2nd ed; (by hergenrother and kaulen), 1882-1901, arts. "dogmatik" (j. kostlin), "dogmengeschichte" (f. loofs) in herzog-hauck's _encykl. f. prot. theol._ (vol. iv., 1898). art. "glaubensartikel" in previous ed. (herzog-plitt, vol. v., 1879) by c. f. kling and l. f. schoeberlein. for works on the history of dogma see theology. see also dogmatic theology. (r. ma.) footnotes: [1] sextus empiricus (c. a.d. 240) denounces all forms of dogmatism, even perhaps the scepticism of definite denial. blaise pascal and immanuel kant, among others, have sextus's grouping in mind when they oppose themselves to "dogmatism" and "scepticism" alike. a new shade of condemnation for dogmas as things merely assumed comes to be noticeable here, especially in kant. [2] but there is a variant reading--eleven--supported by a different arrangement. [3] quoted by c. h. turner in _journal of theol. studies_ (oct. 1906, and cf. oct. 1905). g. elmenhorst's statement, that musanus and didymus in an earlier age wrote treatises with the name _de ecclesiasticis dogmatibus_, seems a plain blunder, if we compare jerome's latin with eusebius's greek. [4] _"so viel uns bekannt"_--j. b. heinrich, "dogma," in wetzer and welte's (catholic) _kirchenlexikon_. [5] see g. hoffmann, _fides implicita_, vol. i. (1903), pp. 82, &c.; and cf. the 17th-century creed of bishop mogilas adopted by the whole greek church. [6] a. schweizer's _protestant central dogmas_ (1854-1856) was an historical study of reformed, i.e. calvinist-zwinglian theology. [7] "dogma," &c., in wetzer and welte's _kirchenlexikon_. [8] the distinction of pure and mixed articles--those of revelation and those taught in common by revelation and natural theology--reappears in modern roman catholic theology as a distinction between pure and mixed _dogmas_. [9] luther's schmalkalden articles and the thirty-nine articles of the church of england should also be mentioned. [10] that seems to be what is meant. [11] early protestantism lived too much in the thought of justification to mark out the boundaries of creed with this scholastic precision. [12] _loci communes_ (1610-1622), on interpretation of sacred scripture, ix. 149. [13] three writers mentioned in wetzer's and welte's _kirchenlexikon_. [14] also quoted as having appeared 1745, but that is an error; he quotes f. a. blau, _on the rule of faith_ (mainz, 1780). see further the sketch of chrismann in _allgemeine deutsche biographie_, supplement. [15] g. perrone, e.g. _de immaculato b. v. mariae conceptu; an dogmatico decreto definiri possit?_ (1847). [16] these divisions and subdivisions are not numbered in the decrees, as for clearness they have been numbered above. [17] three zones apparently (1) the church's formal decrees, (2) the church's general teaching, (3) points of revelation which the church may not yet have overtaken. _per contra_, much that was only "implicit" in the deposit of faith has become "explicit" in dogma. (the reader must note that "implicit" is used here in a different sense from that referred to earlier in this article. here, church dogma has explicated what was implicit in revelation. there, the unlearned accept by _implication_, i.e. by a general acceptance of church belief and teaching, dogmas they perhaps have never heard of. both usages are current in roman catholic theology.) [18] or the view of d. schenkel, that dogma is what is enforced by civil and criminal law. [19] cf. also preface to 2nd ed. pp. ix., x. [20] cf. pp. 279, 280; the undogmatic words of religious emotion are "thrown out," not at "a cloud mistaken for a mountain," but at a "majestic" and "veritable mountain range." [21] see art. "dogmengeschichte" in herzog-hauck's _realencykl. fur prot. theol._ cf. also prof. loofs's _leitfaden zum studium der dogmengeschichte_. [22] it should be noted that loofs does not speak merely as a historian. he places himself in a sense within the dogmatic circle by his declaration that guidance is to be expected from developments--in a "free protestant evangelical spirit"--out of the old confessions of the protestant churches. this belief may be called what loofs has called harnack's definition of dogma--_individuell berechtigt_, and perhaps _nur individuell_. others, who hold no less strongly to theological progress by evolution, not revolution, will hesitate to grant that the line of advance passes through the symbolical books. [23] cf. dogmatic theology, and the footnote above. [24] unless in certain confined circles. [25] when loofs declares (art. "dogmengeschichte" in herzog-hauck's _realencykl._, 1898) that dogma is historically equivalent to _regula fidei_, he is in flat contradiction to the "dogma" of his own church as stated in the formula of concord. see above. [26] here perhaps harnack speaks from inside his own type of religious faith; but not from inside dogma.