History of Dogma, Volume 2 | Page 9

Churches that were connected with each other by constant
intercourse. Yet the difference can still be clearly proved by the ratio of
development in Rome, Lyons, and Carthage on the one hand, and in
Alexandria on the other. Besides, we have several valuable accounts
showing that in more remote provinces and communities the
development was slower, and a primitive and freer condition of things
much longer preserved.[19]
4. From the time that the clergy acquired complete sway over the
Churches, that is, from the beginning of the second third of the third
century, the development of the history of dogma practically took place
within the ranks of that class, and was carried on by its learned men.
Every mystery they set up therefore became doubly mysterious to the
laity, for these did not even understand the terms, and hence it formed
another new fetter.
Footnotes:
[Footnote 1: Aubé (Histoire des Persécutions de l'Eglise, Vol. II. 1878,
pp. 1-68) has given a survey of the genesis of ecclesiastical dogma. The
disquisitions of Renan in the last volumes of his great historical work
are excellent, though not seldom exaggerated in particular points. See
especially the concluding observations in Vol. VII. cc. 28-34. Since the
appearance of Ritschl's monograph on the genesis of the old Catholic
Church, a treatise which, however, forms too narrow a conception of
the problem, German science can point to no work of equal rank with
the French. Cf. Sohm's Kirchenrecht, Vol. I. which, however, in a very
one-sided manner, makes the adoption of the legal and constitutional
arrangements responsible for all the evil in the Church.]
[Footnote 2: Sohm (p. 160) declares: "The foundation of Catholicism is
the divine Church law to which it lays claim." In many other passages
he even seems to express the opinion that the Church law of itself, even

when not represented as divine, is the hereditary enemy of the true
Church and at the same time denotes the essence of Catholicism. See,
e.g., p. 2: "The whole essence of Catholicism consists in its declaring
legal institutions to be necessary to the Church." Page 700: "The
essence of Church law is incompatible with the essence of the Church."
This thesis really characterises Catholicism well and contains a great
truth, if expressed in more careful terms, somewhat as follows: "The
assertion that there is a divine Church law (emanating from Christ, or,
in other words, from the Apostles), which is necessary to the spiritual
character of the Church and which in fact is a token of this very
attribute, is incompatible with the essence of the Gospel and is the
mark of a pseudo-Catholicism." But the thesis contains too narrow a
view of the case. For the divine Church law is only one feature of the
essence of the Catholic Church, though a very important element,
which Sohm, as a jurist, was peculiarly capable of recognising. The
whole essence of Catholicism, however, consists in the deification of
tradition generally. The declaration that the empirical institutions of the
Church, created for and necessary to this purpose, are apostolic, a
declaration which amalgamates them with the essence and content of
the Gospel and places them beyond all criticism, is the peculiarly
"Catholic" feature. Now, as a great part of these institutions cannot be
inwardly appropriated and cannot really amalgamate with faith and
piety, it is self-evident that such portions become continued: legal
ordinances, to which obedience must be rendered. For no other relation
to these ordinances can be conceived. Hence the legal regulations and
the corresponding slavish devotion come to have such immense scope
in Catholicism, and well-nigh express its essence. But behind this is
found the more general conviction that the empirical Church, as it
actually exists, is the authentic, pure, and infallible creation: its
doctrine, its regulations, its religious ceremonial are apostolic.
Whoever doubts that renounces Christ. Now, if, as in the case of the
Reformers, this conception be recognised as erroneous and
unevangelical, the result must certainly be a strong detestation of "the
divine Church law." Indeed, the inclination to sweep away all Church
law is quite intelligible, for when you give the devil your little finger he
takes the whole hand. But, on the other hand, it cannot be imagined
how communities are to exist on earth, propagate themselves, and train

men without regulations; and how regulations are to exist without
resulting in the formation of a code of laws. In truth, such regulations
have at no time been wanting in Christian communities, and have
always possessed the character of a legal code. Sohm's distinction, that
in the oldest period there was no "law," but only a "regulation," is
artificial, though possessed of a certain degree of truth; for the
regulation has one aspect in a circle of like-minded enthusiasts, and a
different one