[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.