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 Chris