[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. für prot. Theol. Cf. also Prof. Loofs’s Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte.