History of Dogma, Volume 2 | Page 3

I.
HISTORICAL SURVEY.
The second century of the existence of Gentile-Christian communities
was characterised by the victorious conflict with Gnosticism and the
Marcionite Church, by the gradual development of an ecclesiastical
doctrine, and by the decay of the early Christian enthusiasm. The
general result was the establishment of a great ecclesiastical association,
which, forming at one and the same time a political commonwealth,
school and union for worship, was based on the firm foundation of an
"apostolic" law of faith, a collection of "apostolic" writings, and finally,
an "apostolic" organisation. This institution was the Catholic Church.[1]
In opposition to Gnosticism and Marcionitism, the main articles
forming the estate and possession of orthodox Christianity were raised
to the rank of apostolic regulations and laws, and thereby placed
beyond all discussion and assault. At first the innovations introduced
by this were not of a material, but of a formal, character. Hence they
were not noticed by any of those who had never, or only in a vague
fashion, been elevated to the feeling and idea of freedom and
independence in religion. How great the innovations actually were,
however, may be measured by the fact that they signified a scholastic
tutelage of the faith of the individual Christian, and restricted the
immediateness of religious feelings and ideas to the narrowest limits.
But the conflict with the so-called Montanism showed that there were
still a considerable number of Christians who valued that
immediateness and freedom; these were, however, defeated. The fixing
of the tradition under the title of apostolic necessarily led to the
assumption that whoever held the apostolic doctrine was also
essentially a Christian in the apostolic sense. This assumption, quite
apart from the innovations which were legitimised by tracing them to
the Apostles, meant the separation of doctrine and conduct, the
preference of the former to the latter, and the transformation of a
fellowship of faith, hope, and discipline into a communion "eiusdem
sacramenti," that is, into a union which, like the philosophical schools,
rested on a doctrinal law, and which was subject to a legal code of
divine institution.[2]

The movement which resulted in the Catholic Church owes its right to
a place in the history of Christianity to the victory over Gnosticism and
to the preservation of an important part of early Christian tradition. If
Gnosticism in all its phases was the violent attempt to drag Christianity
down to the level of the Greek world, and to rob it of its dearest
possession, belief in the Almighty God of creation and redemption,
then Catholicism, inasmuch as it secured this belief for the Greeks,
preserved the Old Testament, and supplemented it with early Christian
writings, thereby saving--as far as documents, at least, were
concerned--and proclaiming the authority of an important part of
primitive Christianity, must in one respect be acknowledged as a
conservative force born from the vigour of Christianity. If we put aside
abstract considerations and merely look at the facts of the given
situation, we cannot but admire a creation which first broke up the
various outside forces assailing Christianity, and in which the highest
blessings of this faith have always continued to be accessible. If the
founder of the Christian religion had deemed belief in the Gospel and a
life in accordance with it to be compatible with membership of the
Synagogue and observance of the Jewish law, there could at least be no
impossibility of adhering to the Gospel within the Catholic Church.
Still, that is only one side of the case. The older Catholicism never
clearly put the question, "What is Christian?" Instead of answering that
question it rather laid down rules, the recognition of which was to be
the guarantee of Christianism. This solution of the problem seems to be
on the one hand too narrow and on the other too broad. Too narrow,
because it bound Christianity to rules under which it necessarily
languished; too broad, because it did not in any way exclude the
introduction of new and foreign conceptions. In throwing a protective
covering round the Gospel, Catholicism also obscured it. It preserved
Christianity from being hellenised to the most extreme extent, but, as
time went on, it was forced to admit into this religion an ever greater
measure of secularisation. In the interests of its world-wide mission it
did not indeed directly disguise the terrible seriousness of religion, but,
by tolerating a less strict ideal of life, it made it possible for those less
in earnest to be considered Christians, and to regard themselves as such.
It permitted the genesis of a Church, which was no longer a

communion of faith, hope, and discipline, but a political
commonwealth in which the Gospel merely had a place beside other
things.[3] In ever increasing measure it invested all the forms which
this secular commonwealth required