Dogma (Gr. SSyfui)^ a doctrine received as an ar- ticle of fsith. I. In the Scriptures the Greek word Soyfia has nowhere the meaning of doctrine. In Ephes. ii, 15, and Col. ii, 14, it denotes Jewbh ordi- nances. In other passages (Luke ii, 1 ; Acts xvi, 1 ; xvii, 7) it designates the decrees of Roman emper- ors. IL This term is used by some of the earliest writers of the Christian Church, both Greek and Lat- in, to designate a doctrine of the Christian Church, he whole of the Christian doctriaes. Thus, by
Ignatius, in the epistle to the Hmpkegim^ (cfcsfi xk the Christian doctrines are called ioypuxra rem 0^ Koi rutv dwoorSXiitVi and by Origen (m MatA, hm. xii, § 23), SoyfUiTa Btov. In his woi^ uganw^ Cefax (001161a Celstan, iii, c 89) be calls the wbok sf ^ Christian doctrines rd doy/uz, and the apodfas i^ oKoXoi rov iSyfiaro^. The ecrlfiastical wntos if ik 2d and 8d centuries also applisd it to the teaeo 4 philosophical schools. But the meaniBK 0krirlim i^ trine came to be the commoa use of the w«rd m a theological and ecclesiastical lan^nage oi the Gni and Latin writers, and tram the Latin it has psMd into most of the modem langoagea, espedaUythMtrf Roman Catholic countries. In English, tiK wari/)bf. mo, in this theological sense, is only of late ohhb; much in use, but Doctrine has generally beea asada- stead of it
Dogmatio Theology (Lst TTkeoiogia Germ. DogmaOscke TheSogie^ DogmeOik) is a~ branch of theology, the object of whictf is to pnaeott scientific and connected view of the accepted dectiiu of the Christian faith. In English theology the sas has not come into general use, bat dogmiiirs src b> eluded in S3r8tematic Theoloig7. In Genaaay it ^ came common, particularly after DanseiB and G^xt to separate systematic theologj mto degiaaiies tai ethics, and this arrangement is now genereJIy iilniiiil. In the following article we speak of " Dognstic Tki> ology" with special reference to its cnltivatke a Go- many, and to its place in the theological KtecsfeBK «f Germany, reserving the English Utentme on te is^ Ject for the article '' Theology."
I. Idea and Scope of DogmaUce, — ^Tlie ftmctiaai if dogmatic theology are twofold : first, to estafaliih vhM constitutes a doctrine of the Christian lai^ sad to elucidate it in both its religions and Its phUniwifhini aspects ; secondly, to connect the individnal dectn^ into a system. As regards the second faDction. si writers on dogmatic theology have mote or Ins tk same aim in view ; but with regard to the fbraMr,tba is between them the widest possible divergeaee. Then are, in particular, three raidically different vievi «f what constitutes a doctrine, of the soorces frsa vbck dogmatic theology has to derive its chief niatefisl,Mf of the value of the doctrines shown to be artidfls of tfat Christian faith. These views we may call the Ena- gelical, the Roman Catholic, and the Rationalistk.
1. From the stand-point of an Evangelka] the^ gian the Bible alone is recognised as the rale of ftiiL and as the source from which we have to derive tw religious beliefr. The Evangelical dogmatic tbe^ gian presupposes the divine inspizatioa of Ae B&k. which another special branch of systematae thealsi^. Apologetics Qn English literatore coaunonly aSei Evidences), has to demonstrate. He does net cBftr into a minute interpretation of the true sense of ti» word of the Bible, which is the proper tanetiamdaas getical theology, but his aim is, by combining afl rnVkk the Scriptures teach on one particnlar snl^^ect ti es- tablish a doctrine of the Bible. Among those vte accept the Bible as the inspired word of God aad ts the only rule of faith, there has been from the begin- ning of the ChrAian Church a wide difiTerence of c^ ion as to the meaning of many paseaf^es of the Bible- word. Thus different theological parties have srivrs in the Church, and different ecclesiastical organizatiav (churches, sects, heresies). The latter, in many is- stances, have adopted " symbolical bo<^*' setting festli their conception of the teaching of the Bible oa thr most important articles of fiiith, and hare iVimsaiVi^ fh>m their members, and in particnlar from nuoisMv an acceptance of their distinctive views. Henct vi have Lutheran dogmatics, Refbnnsd dfyaatirs. elc Julius Mttller Qn Herzog's Bnqftiopadie^ s. v. Jkf- matik) objects to denominational di^natics, and m- sorts that Protestants should have only CSbwicua (k«- matioe— not Reformed, Lutheran, etc Bnt in tka
DOGMATIC THEOLOGY
865 DOGMATIC THEOLOGY
pe<rt ire think Schleiermacher is correct (Dantelhrng Aeoi, StvdkuMj § 98) in stating that dogmatic the- Ky must be written firom tiie point of view of some lurcli. Confession, while he is entirely wrong in mak- : il; a branch of Historical Theology. Protestant paoAifcics treats, not of opinions, bat of doctrines ao- *te€i as snch by the Church.
2. T*lie dogmatic theology of the Soman Catholic urcb recognises, besides the Scriptores, the tradi^ a of the Church as part of the rule of fkith. The ript;iiTe8 are only to be understood in the sense dclk the Church declares to be the true one. The ^matic theology of the Roman Catholic Church dse^piently contains only those doctrines which that Lurcli has declared to be such. All other doc- nes that have not received this formal definition by e Clinrch, however clearly they may appear to be ounded in the Scriptures or demonstrated by the- >gical science, have only the value of ^theological •inioii" iikeol<^pumen<m). With regard to the Bibli- 1 proof for the doctrines, Ronuun Catholic writers atmgniah between Biblioal and ecclesiastical doc- ines, the latter of which can only be proved by tra- tion. Other distinctions made by them are : Dog- ata ifnpUcUa and eapticUa (fttlly defined) ; pure (if Ley can only be known ftx)m divine revelation) and Ixed (if they can also be demonstrated by reason), ecessaiy (those a belief in which is declined to be ecessmry for salvation) and useful (which are not ecessaxy for salvation).