[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.
DOGMATIC THEOLOGY, the name usually given in modern times to the
systematic study of Christian doctrine or of dogma in the widest sense
possible (see DOGMA). Among the many terms used in the early days of
Protestant theology to denote the great systems, three deserve special
notice--Thetic Theology, Positive Theology, Dogmatic Theology. "Thetic
theology" is connected with academic life. It recalls the literal and
original meaning of graduation "theses," also Martin Luther's memorable
theses and the replies made to him. "Thetic theology," a name now
obsolete, naturally included the whole of doctrine, i.e. whatever would
be argued for or against; and "dogmatic theology" came into use
absolutely as a synonymous expression. "Positive theology" is also a
term employed by Petau (_De theologicis dogmatibus_, 1644-1650), and
more or less current even to-day in Roman Catholic scholarship (e.g.
Joseph Turmel, _Histoire de la theologie positive_, 1906). "Dogmatic
theology" proved to have most vitality in it. After some partial
precedents of early date (e.g. F. Turrianus--one of the papal
theologians at the Council of Trent,--_Dogmaticus (liber?) de
Justificatione_, 1557), the title was used in 1659 by the Lutheran Lukas
Friedrich Reinhard (1623-1688), professor of theology at Altdorf
(_Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae_, eds. 1659, 1660, 1661), and his
influence is already seen on the Reformed theologian Andreas van Essen
(Essenius, 1618-1677), who, in 1659, published his _Systematis
theologiae pars prior_, the _tomus secundus_ in 1661, but _Systematis
dogmatici tomus tertius et ultimus_ in 1665. The same author published a
shorter _Compendium theologiae dogmaticum_ in 1669. A. M. Fairbairn
holds that it was the fame of Petau which gave currency to the new
coinage "dogmatic theology"; and though the same or kindred phrases had
been used repeatedly by writers of less influence since Reinhard and
Essenius, F. Buddeus (_Institutiones theol. dogmat._, 1723;
_Compendium_, 1728) is held to have given the expression its supremacy.
Noel Alexandre, the Gallican divine, possibly introduced it in the Roman
Catholic Church (1693; _Theologia dogmatica et moralis_). Both Roman
Catholic and Protestant authorities agree that the expression was
connected with the new habit of distinguishing dogmatics from Christian
ethics or moral theology, though A. Schweizer denies this of Reinhard.
In another direction dogmas and dogmatic theology were also contrasted
with truths of reason and natural theology.[1] F. E. D. Schleiermacher,
in his _Kurze Darstellung des theologischen Studiums_, and again in his
great System, _Der christliche Glaube ... dargestellt_, ingeniously
proposed to treat dogmatic as an historical statement, or report, of
beliefs held in the writer's communion at the time of writing. He also
insisted, however, upon personal conviction in writers on dogmatic. The
expression _Glaubenslehre_--doctrine of faith--which he did much to
bring into a wider currency, and which Schweizer, the most loyal of all
his disciples, holds to be alone fitted for Protestant use, emphasizes
the latter requirement. But "dogmatic" has also continued in use among
Protestant theologians of the Left no less than among the orthodox. When
we consider the different attitude towards dogma of Roman Catholicism,
we feel constrained to question whether the expression "dogmatic
theology" can be equally suitable for both communions. Roman theologians
may properly define dogmatic as the scientific study of dogmas;
Protestant scholars have come to use "dogma" in ways which make that
impossible. Indeed, many of them bid us regard "dogmatic" as falling
under the history of _theology_ and not of dogma (see DOGMA). Still,
usage is decisive. It will be impossible to uproot the phrase "dogmatic
theology" among Protestants. When A. Harnack[2] praises Schleiermacher's
description of dogmatic as "historical," he rather strains the meaning
of the remark, and creates fresh confusion. Harnack's point is that
"dogmatic theology" ought to be used in a sense corresponding to what he
regards as the true meaning of "dogma"--Christian belief in its main
traditional outlines. This claim is an innovation, and finds no
precedent in Schleiermacher. The latter regarded dogmatic as stating in
scientific connexion "the doctrine prevailing in a (single) Christian
church at a given time"--as "not merely historical (_geschichtlich_),"
but containing an "apologetic element"--as "not confined to the
symbolical books, but" including all--even local expressions of the
common faith which produce no breach of harmony--and as having for its
"very business and task" to "purify and perfect" doctrine (_Der
christliche Glaube_, S 19). The one merit which "dogmatic" may claim as
a term in Protestant theology is that it contrasts positive statements
of belief with mere reports (e.g. Biblical theology; history of
doctrine) of what has been taught in the past. (See DOGMA; and
THEOLOGY.)