Chapter II: Front Matter (2)

_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.)

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.

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.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] For "mixed articles" see DOGMA.

[2] _Hist. of Dogma_; Eng. trans. i. p. 21, footnote.

DOGRA, a race of Hill Rajputs in India, inhabiting Kashmir and the adjacent valleys of the Himalayas. They form the ruling race in Kashmir. "Dogra" is the name given to the country round Jammu, and is said to be derived from a word meaning the "two lakes," as the original home of the Dogra people was situated between the lakes of Siroensar and Mansar. There are numerous castes in the Dogra country, and the Hindu, Mahommedan and Sikh religions are represented. All, whether Hindus or Mahommedans, whether high-born Rajputs of the Maharaja's caste or low-born menials, are known as Dogras. At the time of the first Sikh War the Dogras had a great reputation as soldiers, which they have worthily maintained in the ranks of the Indian native army. They are classed as fighting men with the Sikh and Punjabi Mahommedan. They distinguished themselves in the Hunza Nagar Expedition and the affair at Chilas in 1891, and in the Tirah campaign of 1897-98.

DOGS, ISLE OF, a district of London, England, on the north bank of the Thames, which surrounds it on three sides. It falls within the metropolitan borough of Poplar. It is occupied by docks, riverside works and poor houses. The origin of the name is not known. The suggestion that it is corrupted from the Isle of Docks falls to the ground on the question of chronology; another, that there were royal kennels here, is improbable, though they were situated at Deptford in the 17th century. (See POPLAR.)

DOG-TOOTH (the French _dent-de-scie_), in architecture, an ornament found in the mouldings of medieval work of the commencement of the 12th century, which is thought to have been introduced by the Crusaders from the East. The earliest example is found in the hall at Rabbath-Ammon in Moab (c. A.D. 614) built by the Sassanians, where it decorates the arch moulding of the blind arcades and the string courses. In the apse of the church at Murano, near Venice, it is similarly employed. In the 12th and 13th centuries it was further elaborated with carving, losing therefore its primitive form, but constituting a most beautiful decorative feature. In Elgin cathedral the dog-tooth ornament in the archivolt becomes a four-lobed leaf, and in Stone church, Kent, a much more enriched type of flower. The term has been supposed to originate in a resemblance to the dog-tooth violet, but the original idea of a projecting tooth is a sufficient explanation.