The Dalmatian or coach dog (sometimes called the plum-pudding dog) is a
lightly built pointer, distinguished by its spotted coloration,
consisting of evenly disposed circular black spots on a white ground.
The original breed is said to have been used as a pointer in the country
from which it takes its name, but has been much modified by the
fancier's art, and almost certainly the original strain has been crossed
with bull-terriers.
_Mastiffs_ are powerful, heavily built dogs, with short muzzles,
frequently protruding lower jaws, skulls raised above the eyes, ears
erect or pendulous, pendulous upper lips, short coats and thin tails.
The English mastiff is a huge and powerful dog with pendent ears but
short and silky coat. Fawn and brindle are the colours preferred. The
Tibetan mastiff is equally powerful, but has still larger pendent ears,
a shaggy coat and a long brush-like tail. Mastiffs are employed for
fighting or as watchdogs, and for the most part are of uncertain temper
and not high intelligence.
The bulldog is a small, compact but extremely heavily built animal of
great strength, vigour and tenacity. The lower jaw should be strongly
protruding, the ears should be small and erect, the forehead deeply
wrinkled with an indentation between the eyes, known as the "stop." The
coat should be thick, short and very silky, the favourite colours being
white and white marked with brindle. Bulldogs were formerly employed in
bull-baiting, and the tenacity of their grip is proverbial. Their
ferocious appearance, and not infrequently the habits of their owners,
have given this breed a reputation for ferocity and low intelligence. As
puppies, however, bulldogs are highly intelligent and unusually docile
and affectionate, and if well trained retain throughout life an unusual
sweetness of disposition, the universal friendliness of which makes them
of little use as guardians.
The German boarhound is one of the largest races of dogs, originally
used in Germany and Denmark for hunting boars or deer, but now employed
chiefly as watchdogs. The build is rather slighter than that of the
English mastiff, and the ears are small and carried erect.
The Great Dane is somewhat similar in general character, but is still
more gracefully built, with slender limbs and more pointed muzzle. The
ears, naturally pendent at the tips, are always cropped. It is probable
that the strain contains greyhound blood.
The bull-terrier, as its name implies, is a cross between the bulldog
and the smooth terrier. It is a clever, agile and powerful dog,
extremely pugnacious in disposition.
The pugdog is a dwarf race, probably of mastiff origin, and kept solely
as a pet. The Chinese pug is slender legged, with long hair and a bushy
tail.
_Terriers_ are small dogs of agile and light build, short muzzles, and
very highly arched skulls. The brains are large, and the intelligence
and educability extraordinarily high. The number of breeds is very
large, the two extreme types being the smooth fox-terrier with compact
shape, relatively long legs, and the long-bodied, short-legged Skye
terrier, with long hair and pendent ears.
All the well-known breeds of dogs are highly artificial and their
maintenance requires the constant care of the breeder in mating, and in
rejecting aberrant progeny. The frequency with which even the most
highly cultivated strains produce degenerate offspring is notorious, and
is probably the reason for the profound belief in telegonic action
asserted by most breeders. When amongst the litter of a properly mated,
highly bred fox-terrier, pups are found with long bodies and thick short
legs and feet, breeders are disposed to excuse the result by the
supposition that the bitch has been contaminated by some earlier mating.
There is ample evidence, however, that such departures from type are
equally frequent when there was no possibility of earlier mismating (see
TELEGONY).
_Glossary of Points of the Dog._
_Apple Head._ A rounded head, instead of flat on top.
_Blaze._ A white mark up the face.
_Brisket._ The part of body in front of the chest.
_Brush._ The tail, usually applied to sheepdogs.
_Butterfly Nose._ A spotted nose.
_Button Ear._ Where the tip falls over and covers the orifice.
_Cat Foot._ A short round foot, knuckles high and well developed.
_Cheeky._ When the cheek bumps are strongly defined.
_Chest._ Underneath a dog from brisket to belly.
_Chops._ The pendulous lip of the bulldog.
_Cobby._ Well ribbed up, short and compact in proportion.
_Couplings._ Space between tops of shoulder blades and tops of hip
joints.
_Cow Hocks._ Hocks that turn in.
_Dew Claw._ Extra claw, found occasionally on all breeds.
_Dewlap._ Pendulous skin under the throat.
_Dish Faced._ When nose is higher than muzzle at the stop.
_Dudley Nose._ A yellow or flesh-coloured nose.
_Elbow._ The joint at the top of the forearm.
_Feather._ The hair at the back of the legs and under the tail.
_Flag._ A term for the tail, applied to a setter.
_Flews._ The pendulous lips of the bloodhound and other breeds.
_Forearm._ Part of foreleg extending from elbow to pastern.
_Frill._ A mass of hair on the chest, especially on collies.
_Hare Foot._ A long narrow foot, carried forward.
_Haw._ Red inside eyelid, shown in bloodhounds and St Bernards.
_Height._ Measured at the shoulder, bending head gently down.
_Hocks._ The hock joints.
_Hucklebones._ Tops of the hip joints.
_Knee._ The joint attaching fore-pastern and forearm.
_Leather._ The skin of the ear.
_Occiput._ The projecting bone or bump at the back of the head.
_Overshot._ The upper teeth projecting beyond the under.
_Pastern._ Lowest section of leg, below the knee or hock.
_Pig Jaw._ Exaggeration of overshot.
_Pily._ A term applied to soft coat.
_Rose Ear._ Where the tip of ear turns back, showing interior.
_Septum._ The division between the nostrils.
_Smudge Nose._ A nose which is not wholly black, but not spotted.
_Stifles._ The top joints of the hind legs.
_Stop._ The indentation below the eyes, most prominent in bulldogs.
_Tulip Ear._ An erect or pricked ear.
_Undershot._ The lower teeth projecting in front of the upper ones.
(W. B.; P. C. M.)
DOGE (a modified form of the Ital. _duca_, Lat. _dux_, a leader, or
duke), the title of the chief magistrate in the extinct republics of
Venice and Genoa.
In Venice the office of doge was first instituted about 700. John the
Deacon, referring to this incident in his _Chronicon Venetum_, written
about 1000, says "all the Venetian cities (_omnes Venetiae_) determined
that it would be more honourable henceforth to be under dukes than under
tribunes." The result was that the several tribunes were replaced by a
single official who was called a doge and who became the head of the
whole state. The first doge was Paolo Lucio Anafesto, and some
authorities think that the early doges were subject to the authority of
the emperors of Constantinople, but in any case this subordination was
of short duration. The doge held office for life and was regarded as the
ecclesiastical, the civil and the military chief; his duties and
prerogatives were not defined with precision and the limits of his
ability and ambition were practically the limits of his power. About 800
his independence was slightly diminished by the appointment of two
assistants for judicial work, but these officers soon fell into the
background and the doge acquired a greater and more irresponsible
authority. Concurrently with this process the position was entrusted to
members of one or other of the powerful Venetian families, while several
doges associated a son with themselves in the ducal office. Matters
reached a climax after the fall of the Orseole family in 1026. In 1033,
during the dogeship of Dominico Flabianico, this tendency towards a
hereditary despotism was checked by a law which decreed that no doge had
the right to associate any member of his family with himself in his
office, or to name his successor. It was probably at this time also that
two councillors were appointed to advise the doge, who must, moreover,
invite the aid of prominent citizens when discussing important matters
of state. In 1172 a still more important change was introduced. The
ducal councillors were increased in number from two to six; universal
suffrage, which theoretically still existed, was replaced by a system
which entrusted the election of the doge to a committee of eleven, who
were chosen by a great council of 480 members, the great council being
nominated annually by twelve persons. When a new doge was chosen he was
presented to the people with the formula "this is your doge, if it
please you." Nominally the citizens confirmed the election, thus
maintaining as a constitutional fiction the right of the whole people to
choose their chief magistrate. Five years later this committee of
eleven gave way to a committee of forty who were chosen by four persons
selected by the great council. After the abdication of Doge Pietro Ziani
in 1229 two commissions were appointed which obtained a permanent place
in the constitution and which gave emphatic testimony to the fact that
the doge was merely the highest servant of the community. The first of
these commissions consisted of five _Correttori della promissione
ducale_, whose duty was to consider if any change ought to be made in
the terms of the oath of investiture (_promissione_) administered to
each incoming doge, this oath, which was prepared by three officials,
being a potent factor in limiting the powers of the doge. The second
commission consisted of three _inquisitori sopra il doge defunto_, their
business being to examine and pass judgment upon the acts of a deceased
doge, whose estate was liable to be mulcted in accordance with their
decision. In consequence of a tie at the election of 1229 the number of
electors was increased from forty to forty-one. The official income of
the doge was never large, and from early times many holders of the
office were engaged in trading ventures. One of the principal duties of
the doge was to celebrate the symbolic marriage of Venice with the sea.
This was done by casting a precious ring from the state ship, the
"Bucentaur," into the Adriatic. In its earlier form this ceremony was
instituted to commemorate the conquest of Dalmatia by Doge Pietro
Orseole II. in 1000, and was celebrated on Ascension day. It took its
later and more magnificent form after the visit of Pope Alexander III.
and the emperor Frederick I. to Venice in 1177.
New regulations for the elections of the doge were introduced in 1268,
and, with some modifications, these remained in force until the end of
the republic. Their object was to minimize as far as possible the
influence of the individual families, and this was effected by a very
complex machinery. Thirty members of the great council, chosen by lot,
were reduced, again by lot, to nine; the nine chose forty and the forty
were reduced by lot to twelve, who chose twenty-five. The twenty-five
were reduced by lot to nine and the nine elected forty-five. Then the
forty-five were reduced by lot to eleven, and the eleven chose the
forty-one, who actually elected the doge. As the oligarchical element in
the constitution developed, the more important functions of the ducal
office were assigned to other officials, or to administrative boards,
and he who had once been the pilot of the ship became little more than
an animated figurehead, properly draped and garnished. On state
occasions he was surrounded by an increasing amount of ceremonial, and
in international relations he had the status of a sovereign prince of
the first rank. But he was under the strictest surveillance. He must
wait for the presence of other officials before opening despatches from
foreign powers; he was forbidden to leave the city and was not allowed
to possess any property in a foreign land. To quote H. F. Brown, "his
pomp was splendid, his power limited; he appears as a symbol rather than
as a factor in the constitution, the outward and visible sign of the
impersonal oligarchy." The office, however, was maintained until the
closing days of the republic, and from time to time it was held by men
who were able to make it something more than a sonorous title. The last
doge was Lodovico Manin, who abdicated in May 1797, when Venice passed
under the power of Napoleon.
In Genoa the institution of the doge dates from 1339. At first he was
elected without restriction and by popular suffrage, holding office for
life; but after the reform effected by Andrea Doria in 1528 the term of
his office was reduced to two years. At the same time plebeians were
declared ineligible, and the appointment of the doge was entrusted to
the members of the great and the little councils, who employed for this
purpose a machinery almost as complex as that of the later Venetians.
The Napoleonic Wars put an end to the office of doge at Genoa.
See Cecchetti, _Il Doge di Venezia_ (1864); Musatti, _Storia della
promissione ducale_ (Padua, 1888); and H. F. Brown, _Venice: a
Historical Sketch_ (1893).
DOG-FISH, a name applied to several species of the smaller sharks, and
given in common with such names as hound and beagle, owing to the habit
these fishes have of pursuing or hunting their prey in packs. The
small-spotted dog-fish or rough hound (_Scyllium canicula_) and the
large-spotted or nurse hound (_Scyllium catulus_) are also known as
ground-sharks. They keep near the sea bottom, feeding chiefly on the
smaller fishes and Crustacea, and causing great annoyance to the
fishermen by the readiness with which they take bait. They differ from
the majority of sharks, and resemble the rays in being oviparous. The
eggs are enclosed in semi-transparent horny cases, known on the British
coasts as "mermaids' purses," and these have tendril-like prolongations
from each of the four corners, by means of which they are moored to
sea-weed or some other fixed object near the shore, until the young
dog-fish is ready to make its exit. The larger of these species attains
a length of 4 to 5 ft., the smaller rarely more than 30 in. The picked
dog-fish (_Acanthias vulgaris_, formerly known as _Squalus acanthias_)
is pre-eminently _the_ dog-fish. It is the most abundant of the British
sharks, and occurs in the temperate seas of both northern, and southern
hemispheres. It attains a length of 4 ft., but the usual length is 2 to
3 ft., the female, as in most sharks, being larger than the male. The
body is round and tapering, the snout projects, and the mouth is placed
ventrally some distance from the end of the snout. There are two dorsal
fins, each of which is armed on its anterior edge with a sharp and
slightly curved spine, hence its name "picked." This species is
viviparous, the female producing five to nine young at a birth; the
young when born are 9 to 10 in. long and quite similar to the parents in
all respects except size. It is gregarious, and is abundant at all
seasons everywhere on the British coasts. In 1858 an enormous shoal of
dog-fish, many square miles in extent, appeared in the north of
Scotland, when, says J. Couch, "they were to be found floating in
myriads on the surface of every harbour." They are the special enemies
of the fisherman, injuring his nets, removing the hooks from his lines,
and spoiling his fish for the market by biting pieces out of them as
they hang on his lines. They are however eaten, both fresh and salted,
by fishermen, especially on the west coast of England, and they are sold
regularly in the French markets.
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.)