!

t

f i "

f

P1H if' H fl l/. I f

.

PR()FESSOR _\HCHI
lt BU1
LER

ox

l{ 0 11 _;\. N I 8 1\1.

rittttb nt tye
nnib.ersHu
ttf;ja, -
uhli1t.
Published by 1tIACJtIILLAN & Co., Cambridge.
'Eonbon: GEORGE BELL, 186, Fleet Street.

xfotb: J. H. PARKER.
!L}ubItn: HODGES & 8:\lITH.
1E'lJfnburgl) : EDMONSTON & DOUGLAS.

IasgotD: JAMES MACLEHOSE.

JIacmillan, and Co. ltaving pZl'rchased the Copyrig7lt qf tlte late
A I"cher Butler' 8 JVorks, published and unpublished, in issuing this
work with a new Title-page, think it right to state that ,it differs
ilt no loeSjJect from the book published by lJIess'rs. Hodges and Sm,iUt,
Dublin, in 1850, under the title "Letters on the Development of
Cll1"Îstian Doctrine, ?rc."

LETTERS

ON

RO
IANISl\I,

IN

!\cpfll fa ;ntr.
efulltan' s (![;ssay on
ehtla
lltent.

BY THE

REV. WILLIA
I ARCHER BUTLER, )I.A.,

I.ATE PROFF.!'SOR OF MORAL PHIJ.080PHY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLI
.

EDITED BY

THE REV. THOl\IAS 'VOOD'VARD, 'I.A.,

YICAR OF MULLINGAR.

Ie Such is the looseness of reasoning, and the negligence of facts, which AI.L writers
more or less exhibit, who consider that they are in possession of a sure hypothesis on
which to interpret evidence, and employ argument."-J. H. NEWMAN.
Ie It is visible wherein the strength of his performance lies, and what it is that he

hiefiy trusts to. It is not Scripture, it is not antiquity, but a PHILOSOPHICAL PRINCIPLE,
to which Scripture, Fathers, everything, must yield "-ARCHDEACON W ATERLAND.

ambtibgt :
)IAC
lILLAN AND Co.
1854.

PI
EF ACE.

.

IT \vas the intention of nlY lamented friend, Professor
Butler, an intention expressed not long before his death,
to have republished the follo,ving Letters, in a se-
parate form, ,vith corrections and additions. But a
luysterious Providence has overruled that purpose, and
an early grave has closed on all his promises of wide-
spread usefulness. It has devolved upon the Editor
to carry out the design, however imperfectly. Circum-
stances, over vrhich he had no control, have hitherto
delayed the execution of this interesting, though melan-
choly task, ,vhich he unaffectedly regrets has not been
committed to a better hand.
The Letters were originally published in the columns
of that ably conducted periodical, the Irish Ecclesias-
tical Journal,. but a ,vish, too general to be disregarded,
calls for their re-appearance in a nlore convenient form.
They were ,vritten at intervals, bet\veen the close of
1845 and the cornmencement of 1847, and ,vere the

VI

PREFACE.

,vork of hurried lnoments, snatched from labours of
beneficence to the starving crowds \vho daily flocked
around their Author's residence. The famine, which
during that period ,vas at its height, had visited with
fearful intensity the parish and neighbourhood of Pro-
fessor Butler, and he was indefatigable in remedial
efforts. Such a scene, so beset with harassing inter-
ruption, so far from intellectual converse, ,vas indeed
almost incompatible with calm processes of subtle rea-
soning, and erudite investigation. The composition of
such a \vork, under disaù vantages so over,v helnling, is
in truth no small evidence of Butler's extraordinary
po"rer of thought. That some few traces of haste
should not be perceptible, it would of course be irnpos-
sible to expect. Some oversights have been corrected
in the notes. Several quotations, taken at second-hand
from text books, have evidently not been considered
in their context, and have been en1ployed in a signifi-
cance varying considerably from their rreal 1neaning.
In thro,ving in guards and qualifications, in endea-
vouring to place the quotatior.ts in the light originally
intended, the Editor has been conscious that he ,vas
doing ,vhat Professor Butler ,vonld have earnestly
desired to have done. 1'hat lllost candiù and lllost
truthful n1ind \vould have been the last purposely to
support his argurnent by unfair citation, or overstrained
interpretation, or by llulking the ,vorc1s of any author

PREFACE.

Vll

seen1 to convey an impression different froln ,vhat they
were designed to produce.
The appearance of ßlr. Ne,vman's celebrated Essay
on the Developlnent of Christian Doctrtirze a ,vas the occa-
sion ,vhich urged Professor Butler, at such inconve-
nience to himself, to undertake the publication of these
Letters. They treat, ho,vever, of topics which possess
a general and perpetual interest. 1'heyare replete ,vith
argun1ents and principles which extend far beyond
their primary object of refuting a particular disputant.
It is, perhaps, an unavoidable result of our position
bet,veen t,vo opposite extren1es, and on the defensive
against both, that our Anglican Theology is cast, for
the most part, in a controversial Inould. Its richest
treasures must be carefully picked up by the student,
not arranged in didactic treatises, but scattered as they
lie through Defences and Replies, through Apologies
and Vindications. Thus the reader, ,vho feels but little
interest in their polemical bearings, may still peruse
these pages ,vith profit and delight; may find here
disquisitions upon topics the n10st engaging, philoso-
phical as ,veIl as ecclesiastical, adorned with the richest
drapery of imagination, and clothed in language of nn-
exceeded po,ver and beauty.

1\ An Es::;ay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. By John
Henry Newman, Author of Lectures on the Prophetical Office of
the Church. London, 1845.

Vlll

PREF ACE.

But these Letters, although thus occasioned by it,
are not to be regarded as a Reply to the single Essay
of Mr. Newman. They are a comprehensive refutation
of a Systel1z, of which he indeed ,vas the ablest expo-
nent, but ,vhich lTIany other thinkers had partially
p
opounded as absolutely necessary for the preserva-
tion of the Romish cause. In the present state of cri-
tical learning, the spurious authorities, and the nlisquo-
tations from genuine ,vritings, which too often formed
the case of Romish controversialists when appealing
to antiquity, can no longer obtain even a temporary
currency. The Theory of Development is a last effort
to buttress the novelties, which can find no sanction
in ancient Catholicity, by a still more novel specula-
tion.
Ir. Ne,vrnan is the spokesman of a po\verful
School, who have surrendered the claim of antiquity,
and substituted this theory in its stead: that the Chris-
tian Revelation was at first intentionally incomplete;
"that the original doctrines of the Christian Church
were intended by its founder to be subsequently deve-
loped into a variety of ne,v forms and aspects; that
such a developll1ent ,vas antecedently natural and ne-
cessary; that the process was conducted under infalli-
ble guidance; and that the existing belief of the Roman
Comnlunion is its mature result"b. '1'0 this entire School
,

b bee infra, p. 3.

PREFACE.

IX

and to their \vhole system of argument, the folIo\vil1g
pages supply a full, and still unans\\Tered, refutation.
'Vhatever novelty may justly be attributed to the
performance of 1\11". N e\vman, it is matter of history that
he \vas not the originator of the Theory ,vhich he so
elaborately advocates. He has, however, reduced to
systen1atic form, and expanded into logical proportions,
the rude outlines and imperfect sketches of other
thinkers. "Though the evidence," says Dr. "T ords-
wortll c , "is abundant and strong, that the Theory of
Del)elopnlent is the only consistent theory of R07nanis7n,
yetit has never, I believe, been propounded so distinctly,
or ,vorked out so elaborately, as by the author of this
volume. Your theologians have sighed for it, and have
cherished it secretly, but they bave been afraid to o\vn
it publicly. 'This theory has had nUl-ny a Copernicus
among you, but he is its N e\vton; and \ve \vould in-
dulge a sanguine hope, that the cause of truth \vill be
promoted in due time by the unreserved manner in
which this theory, and this only theory, of Ron1anisln,
has been stated in this Essay." The po\ver of the pre-
sent Churfch to develope ne\v Articles of Faith has long
been maintained by ROInish theologians. It \vas alleged
by a \vriter d of the fourteenth century, as the preroga-

c Letters to 1\1. Gondon, p. 26.
d Augustinus Triumphus de Anconâ. SU711m. de Eccl. Pot. q. 59,
Art. 3.

x

PREF ACE.

ti ve of the Pontiff, nOVllJ/t syrltbolluu conde1"e, novos a'rti-
culos supra alios rnultiplicare. " That ,vhich I cl1arge
upon the Ronlan doctors," says Bishop Taylor, "is, that
they give to their Church a power of introducing and
Í7nposing nelV articles of belief." -Diss. (p. 287 : Ed.
Cardwell.) Such a clailn ,vas sho,vn by our divines
to be ,vholly incompatible with any se
tled Rule of
Faith. It ,vas proved to be an abnegation of the autho-
rity both of IIoly Scripture and of Catholic Tradition.
" Our Inost beloved l\lother, the Church of England,"
says the adn1Ïrable Dr. HanlmOnd e , "is certainly soli-
citous to avoiù, ,vith all cautious diligence, this ROC!\:
OF INNOVATORS. It is her ambition to be distinguished
through the ,vhole Christian ,vorId, and judged by an
equitable posterity, under this character, that, in de-
ciding controversies of faith and practice, it has ever
been her fixed and firnl resolution, and on this oasis
she has rested the, British Reforn1ation, that, in the
first place, respect be had to the Scripture; and then,
in the second place, to the Bishops, Thlartyrs, and Ec-
clesiastical VV riters of the first áges. Therefore, ,vhat-
soever hath been affir111ed by the Scriptures in 111atter
of Faith; ,vhatsoever, concerning ecclesiastical govern-
Inent, she hath disco\Tereù to be the appoinÌlucnt of
the universal Church throughout the "TorIel, after the

f' Quoted by Bi::;hop J ebb, Appelult:r to Sermons, p. 393.

PRE.FACE.

Xl

Apostles, these things she hath taken care to place, as
fixed and established, among the Articles of Religion,
determined never to permit her sons to alter or abalis/"
,vhat hath been thus decided." (Translated from Ham-
mond's Tr"orks, V 01. iv. p. 470.)
To the readers of this controversial ,york, it may be
interesting to learn something of its author's sentÏInents
upon an important practical point, the desirableness of
polemically assailing the faith of the simple and desti-
tute Romanists by \vhom he \yas surrounded. The
follo\ving pages, indeed, are sufficient evidence that
Professor Butler ,vas alive to the importance of the
doctrinal differences bet,veen us and Rome; that he
,vas cordially attached to the principles of the Refor-
mation; and ready to spend his best po,vers, under
circumstances of peculiar trial, in vindicating those
principles against an accomplished and I110st forlnida-
ble antagonist. But though he \vas thus zealous, before
meet audience, to give a reason for his faith, and in its
defence to bring forth out of his treasures things ne,v
and old, it ,vas his opinion (an opinion ",. hich derives
peculiar weight from the circumstance that he himself
,vas a convert fronl Romanisnl, and intimately ac-
quainted ,vith the ,vhole controversy), that no sll1all
degree of 111ental cultivation ,vas required to under-
stand the points in debate, and the argun1ents eUlployed

. .
xu

rUEF ACE.

ill their discussion. In cases where universal ignorance
overspread the nlind, respecting the first principles
of Christianity, he thought that there ,vas room for
instruction, but that it ,vas absurd, ex vi ternÛni, to talk
of proselytism, for that there could be no change of
creed, ,vhen no cr'eed at all had been received. Aud
,vith respect to those ,vho ,vere not uninstructed in
their o,vn system, and '\vere endeavouring to serve God
as they thought right, the Ininds of peasants such as
these, he shrunk frOin disturbing and unsettling in
their faith. I-Ie feared lest, in the attempt to pluck out
the tares, he might root up the ,vheat also; lest this
process of disturbance 111ight eventuate in total scepti-
cisl}), and so the last state of the convert become worse
than the first. lIe especially deprecated the idea of
elnployillg a season of un'\vonted distress as an oppor-
tunity of controversy, and Iningling temporal relief
with exhortations to conformity. Such ill-tilned pro-
jects he deelned far more likely to corrupt the neces-
sitous by hopes of gain, than to ,vin theln over to the
pure and undefiled religion of thè Gospel. IIis feelings
on the subj ect are best expressed in his o,vn language,
,vhich I am glad to elnbrace another occasion of re-
peating. "For Iny o,vn part, I \vill not scruple to say,
though, perhaps, it is scarcely ,vise to enter upon such
a topic ,vithout 1110re rootn than I can now delnanù, to

PREFACE.

XUl

explain anù defenù my meaning,-it is not ,vithout
fear anù treillbling that I should ë:lt any time receive
into the Church a convert from any of the forms of
Christianity outside it, u;lzom 1 had knolcn to be sin-
cerely devoted according to the 1neasu]"e oj- his light. The
duty of so doing may arise; and, ,vhen the duty is
plain, it must of course be done; I only say, that I
should feel very great anxiety in doing it.
len ought
never to forget ho,v fearfully heavy is the responsibi-
lity of a ne\v convert. You have unsettled all the
Inan's habitual convictions; are you prepared to labour
night and day to replace them ,vith others as effective
oyer the heart and life? If not, you have c1 one him
an irreparable ,vrong. l\Iotives to righteousness, lo,v,
mixed, uncertain, as it may be, are greatly better than
none; and there can be no doubt that he ,vho has lost
so many he once possessed, requires constant, earnest,
indefatigable exertion on the part of the teacher \vho
undertakes to supply their place. "That care, ,vhat
skill, ,vhat persevering patience does it need to repair
the shattered principle of Faith in one ,vhom you have
succeeded in convincing, that all the deepest practical
convictions of his ,vhole past life are delusion !"

ly best ackno,vledgments are due to the Rev.
Richard Gibbings, rector of RaYlllunterdoney, in the
diocese of Raphoe, for most valuable assistance afford-

XIV

PR.EF ACE.

ed me in preparing for publication this ,york of our
n1utual friend. A considerable number of annotations,
kindly furnished to 111e by that critical and accon1-
plished scholar, ,vill be found in the sequel, and may
be distinguished by the letter G., subjoined.

CONTENTS.

.

LETTER I.

PAGE.

Occasion of the present work,
Object not detailed investigation of
Ir. Newman's authorities, and
why, . 0 2

Ir. Newman's theory of development stated, 0 0 2,3
I. Opposed to the received doctrine of the Romish Church, . . 3,4
l\löhler, De l\Iaistre, and La l\lennais, . 4
Earlier forms of the theory already condemned, . 5
Case of Petavius, . ib.
Case of Bossuet, . . 6, 7
Opposed to the Tridentine Canons respecting the sole matter of
Faith, and interpretation of Scripture, 0 0
Council of Trent invariably appeals to perpetual tradition,
The same is the doctrine of the chief expositors of Romanism, .
l\lr. Newman's attempted defence of his hypothesis from philo-
sophical analogies, . . 12
Condemned by anticipation by the Romish authorities,. . . 0 ib.
Disci'plina arcani admitted by
It". Newman to be inadequate to
solve the" difficulty" of the variation of mediæval from primi-
tive Christianity,. . . . 12-14
l\lr. Newman's theory is an attempt to account for this difficulty, 14
This variation is a "difficulty" only to the Romanist, 15
I I. Development theory is a plain surrender of the claims of Romanism
to satisfactory evidence from antiquity, .
Developments are admitted not to be themselves primitive doc-
trine, . . ib.
U Deification of St. l\Iary, n . . . 16, 17

Ir. Newman rejects the rule of Vincentius, 18

1

8
9-11
II

16

XVI

CONTENTS.

PAl..E.

Charges the Ante- Nicene Fathers with inaccuracy respecting the
Trinity, . . ib.
His unfair treatment of the Fathers, . ] 9
The Syrian School, ib.
Testimony of Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Facundus t
gainst
Transubstantiation, resolved into peculiarities of that school, 20, 21

Ir. Newman's instances of the completion of primitive views:
" Deification of St.
Iary;" Purgatory, . . 21-24
It follows from
lr. Newman's argument that it is positively inju-
rious to study the early writers,
l\Iediæval religion, according to him, an improvement upon pri-
mitive Christianity: in doctrine, .
In practice,
"Expurgating" Fathers is consequently the obligatory function
of the growing Church, .
Application of this argument to the Bible,
To the teaching of our blessed Lord,

lr. Newman's decisive admissions respecting the late introduc-
tion of Image Worship, .
'V orship of Saints and Angels,
Worship of the Virgin l\tlary,
Purgatory,
Evidence of Ignatian epistles to the definiteness
the very first,
Importance of Mr. Newman's admissions,
Peculiarity of his position and value of his testimonJ, .

24

. ib.

25

ib.
. 26, 27
27

28
ib.
ib.

29

of doctrine from
. 30-32
32
32-35

LETTER II.

!vIr. Newman's theory contrary to the Tridentine Canons,
His Book formally implicated in the anathoma of Trent, .
His mode of Scriptural interpretation forbidden,
Early anticipations of his theory, 0
Fisher on Purgatory and Indulgences, .
Cardinal Cajetan and Durandus on Indulgences, .
Alphonsus de Castro on Transubstantiation,
Peter Lomhard and Sirmondus on Transubstantiation, .
Similar views to 1\lr. Newman's entertaine.d by Salmeron,
Traces of 1\lr. Newman's doctrine in Gregory VII. .
Gregory I. traced his developments to a different source,

36
31
ib.
38
. 38, 39
39
40
. 40, 41
42
ib.
. 43

CONTENTS.

XVll

PAGE.

Proved by Stillingfleet, that the assertion of unbroken A postolical
Tradition, as a separate source of articles of belief, is, in the
Roman Church, comparatively modern, 44
Gradual elevation of Tradition to coordinate authority with the
written \V ord, . 44, 45
Forgeries employed to gain credit for Romish Traditions, 45,46
Effect of the forged Decretals, . 46, 47
New measures rendered necessary by their exposure, . 48
" 1\lediæval development" now substituted for "Aposto1ical Tradi-
tion," ib.
Inconsistency of 1\11'. Newman respecting the "leading idea of Chris-
tianity," 49,50
Analysis of 1\11'. Newman's argument, . 50
" Development of an idea" explained, . ib.
Kinds of development, ib.
"
loral developments" explained, 51
Unfair citation of Bishop Butler, ib.
Instances of moral development, 51,52
Tests of genuine development, . 52, 54
Antecedent probability of developments, and of a developing autho-
rity, in Christianity, . 54, 55
Term development used ambiguously by 1\11'. Newman, 55
There are" legitimate developments" of doctrine in Christianity,. ib.
Of two kinds, intellectual and practical, 56
Intellectual developments, or logical inferences, explained and illus-
trated, 57-60
Practical developments explained, . 60
Two elements in their production, the Divine truth, and the human
recipient, . 60, 61
"Practical developments" may grow from the corruption of human
nature, 61-64
No UniVe1"Sality or permanence, of admitted innovation can be suffi-
cient to authorize it, 64
Example of idolatry, . 65,66
l\lr. Newman's principle an invention; his facts cannot be reduced
under even that invented principle, 67
His principle, ib.
His facts, 67, 68
He prepares the way for his principle by arguing the antecedent
probability of developments in Christianity, 68
But he only proves that there are such developments as none deny, 68-70
Kind of developments which Anglicans deny, . 70
b

XVlll

CONTENTS.

I' AG E.

Mr. Newman's alleged analogy of prophetic revelation, 71
Failure of the analogy; prophecy distinguished from doctrinal
teaching, . ib.
1\11'. Newman's perverted use of the parables, 72
Scriptural statements respecting the completeness of the original
revelation, irreconci]eable with his dvctrinal development,. .2, 73
How far, according to him, the Apostles were acquainted with the
developments of modern Romanism, . 73, 74
Argument from their silence respecting them, 74, 75
Unfair appeal to Bishop Butler, 75
State of the case between Anglican antiquity and Roman develop-
ment upon the supposition that the Apostles were ignorant of
these new dnctrineð, .. 76,77
Application of the principle of development to our Lord's own
teaching, 77, 78
Recapitulation, . 78-80

LETTER III.

Inadequacy of the development hypothesis unless comhined with
the jll,rther hyputhesis of an infallible directive authority, , . 81,82
Coincidence of 1\11'. Newman's" moral development" with v:trious
fanatical and heretical extrdvagancies, . 82
Found in its perfection in Tertullian's 1\lontanism, . 82, 83
Necessity of an external authority to warrant Roman developments, 84
Inconsistency of this authority with the theory of development, . ib.
Mr. Newman's chief art is the substitution of historical eventuation
for logical connexion of disputed with admitted doctrines, . 85
Tendency of his theory to perplex all the evidences of religion, . 86
Identity of Kant's and Newman's" process of development," 86,87
Positive tendency of 1\11'. Newman's development does not vindicate
it from Rationalism, .
Formal nature of Rationalism,
Ra
io'1alism of superstition,
Internal spirit and scope of 1\11'. Newman's theory,
The Church's office of instruction lies not in unlimited development
but in cautious moderation, 90, 91
This alleged incompleteness is the perfection of practical wisdom,. 90
It was Christ's intention to withhold information on certain subjects, 91
Real limits to our knowledge, . 92
Claim of infallibility leads to irreverent scrutiny into the divine
mysteries,

88
88,89
89
ib.

ib.

CONTENTS.

XIX

PAGE.

Feeble and ambiguous decisions of Rome inconsistent with infallible
authority, . Ð3
Restraint within appointed limits is characteristic of the Church's
wisdom and humility, . 94-96
Limitation and mystery the will of God for the discipline of man,. 96
Human pride and curiosity dissatisfied-twofold result, ib.
Romish development debases the true sublimity of Christianity, 96, 97
True development would be a }n'ogress from simpler to sublimer
things, 98
Romish developments, G. g. image-worship, are a descent and retro-
gradation, 98, 99
God's reality sublimer than man's imagination, . 99
Apostolic and mediæval Christianity contrasted, 100, 101
The" dark ages" the great period of development, 102, 103

Iediæval Christianity 1\11'. Newman's ideal of perfection, 104
\Vhat was the character and condition of the average instructors
of the middle ages? . 104, III
Council of Aix-Ia-Chapelle, 106
Archbishop Hincmar, . 106, 107
Theodulphus, . 107
Ratherius, . 107, 108
Gregory VII. . 108-110
Application to the argument of this test of the intellectual and
moral condition of middle ages, III
1\11'. Newman's hJpothesis cannot be referred to any historical tests, 1I2
1\lay be applied by any sect to the proof of anytking, 113
This new rule of faith clouds the evidences of Christ.ianity, . ib.
1\11'. Newman's gloomy picture of the difficulty of knowing what to
believe, . 114
Import of his maxim, that" principles are responsible for doctrines," 115
Any doctrine may be thus provpd by evidence of antiquity. ib.
Illustrated by an imaginary spct of sun-worshippers. Application
of 1\11'. Newman's principles to prove sun-worship a true develop-
ment of Christian doctrine, . 116-123
The burning of heretics proyed to be a true development according
to 1\11'. Newman's principles, 125-127
A pplication to this doctrine of his seven tests of a true development,
127-137
Fearful consequences of this theory of development, 137

LETTER IV.

The theory of development stamps with inspiration equally the
whole succession of doctrinel:ì in the Latin Church, . 138

xx

CONTENTS.

PAGE.
All Romish developments authorized by the same authority, 139, 140
Mr. Newman's hypothesis "accounts for" the Creed of Pope Pius
as well as for that of Athanasius, . 140
His rule of Faith must apply to all the Romish peculiarities, or can
apply to none, ] 41, 142
Fundamental error of his system is, making history the law of doc-
trine, 142
Confounds the functions of historian and divine, . 143
Pernicious practical results of this fundamental error, 143, ]44
" Philosophy of Romanism" derived from this error,-definition of
it, . 144
Th
past history of the Church thereby made the model of perfec-
tion,-examples, 145, 146
This criterion of Faith must be applied universally, 146, ]47
The devel0pment theory employed by Mr. Newman to defend the
authority of the past, but really tends to endless alteration, 147, 148
Impossible to set any limits to this progression of doctrine, . ] 48
Examples of possible future developments, 148-152
Infallible decisions of the Church no check to innovation, 152
Development theory sanctions other great changes, as well as the
formation of Roman system, . 153
Case of the Reformation, . 154
From the beginning Christianity combined two powerful principles,
individual Obedience and individual Inquiry, . ib.
Principle of individual Inquiry sanctioned in the New Testament,. 155
Recognised by the primitive Church, Tertullian, Cyprian, Firmi-
lian, . 156, 157
Universal perusal of Holy Scripture enjoined by Chrysostom, Au-
gustine, and Gregory 1., 158, 159
first synodical prohibition of the general use of the Scriptures, ) 59
If the papal supremacy be the development of the principle of Obe-
dience, the Reformation may be of the principle of Inquiry, 159-163
The cessation of the Papacy may be a development as well as its
growth, 163
Gradual depression of the papal power correspondent to its rise, 163-168
1\11'. Newman's theory triumphantly vindicates thf' zn'inciple of the
Reformation, . 168
The same argument applies to place as well as time, 169
The bond of the Papacy has always slackened in proportion to the
distance from Rome, ib.
The independence of the Anglican Church may thus be a develop-
ment, as well as the first local extension of the papal connexion,
169, ] 70

CONTENTS.

XXI

PAGE.
Phocas and S. Gregory the Great, . 170
Genuine historical development to be traced in the progress of the
Anglican Church, 171
Analogies of civil and ecclesiastical government, 172
Resemblance in their respective objects and means, 172, 173
Presumption that nations may be left to see their way with the same
comparative perspicacity in both, . 173
Connexion and unrivalled excellence of the Anglican civil and eccle-
siastical constitution, 173-175
l\ir. Newman's limitations of progressive revelation are altogether
arbitrary, 175
His system justifies all developments as well as the Roman,. 175, 176
Collateral supposition of Romish Infallibility is an abandonment of
his pri nci pIes, . 177, 178
Those principles sanction Lutheran as much as Roman develop-
ments, . 178-181
Gradual formation of the papal power, 182
Justification of the Anglican separation, . 183
1\lr. Newman's theory is the philosophy, not of one form of Chris-
tianity, but of all, . 183, 184
Application of it to the Greek Church, 184
Difficulty of determining precise amount of difference between the
doctrines of Greek and Latin Churches, 184-187
Theory of development inconsistent with the undeniable differences
between East and 'Vest, 187-189
Their separation not a mere schism, . 1t)9
The East is in here,,,?!, if Rome be infallible, . 189, 190
Other important disagreements, . ]90-192
Bearing of the single fact, that the East rejects the Romislt unity
on the theory of development, 193, 194
History furnishes a true experiment111n crucis between ] 95
Rival suppositions of Rome and England to explain facts in the his-
tory of Christianity, . 195, 196
The testimony of the Eastern Church confirms the Anglican hypo-
thesis, 196, 197
The theory of development, as an internal principle evolving truth
by uniform processes, cannot stand the test of history to which it
appeals, . 197, 198
1\lr. Newman has substituted a fond hypothesis about the Roman
peculiarities for a theory of the universal Church, . 199
Circumstances, under God's high providence, have equally moulded
the religious history of East and \Vest, . 200, 20 I

. .
XXlJ

CONTENTS.

PAGE.

LETTER V.

Principle of development in its nature 'lmlhnifed, 202
Romanist restriction not only arbitrary, but destructive of the prin-
ci
p, 200
1\11'. Newman's system is Rationalism under Roman colours, 204
His inconsistency, and probable causes of it, . 205
Natural result of the development theor)T, ib.
Its inapplicability to 1\11'. Newman's purpose, 205, 20G
The history of speculat1"ve philosophy has probably given rise to and
illustrates danger of this theory of Christianity, . 206
Variation of doctrine in the ancient teachers, 207
They deli vered not definite doctrines, but ideas to be developed, 208
Analogy of Christianity, according to 1\-11'. Newman, and consequent
uncertainty, ib.
The doctrines of Christianity alleged "to be only samples of its
ideas, . 209, 2] 0
If so, the Apostles had but a defective knowledge of Christianity,. 211
Imperfect information of the first tcenturies according to this
theor)', 211-213
The Apostles knew and communicated all necessary doctrine, 2]4, 215
Their account of the high attainments of the primitive Christians
incompatible with this theory of development, . 216-219
No speculative difficulties can disprove that all nE::cessary rloctrine
was delivered by the Apostles, for it is asserted by them,. 219-222
Alleged errors of the Anti-Nicene Teachers, " 222, 223
Function of the early Councils in respect of doctrine,-to define and
condemn, but not to reveal, 224, 225
Grounds on which the four first æcumenical Councils professed to
proceed. Council of Nice, 225, 226
Constantinople, 226
Ephesus, 226, 227
Chalcedon, 227-230
They re-stated and defined Church's primitive belief, . 230
Same principles avowed in subsequent Councils, 230, 231
In the furlll and disposition of the doctrine, the resolutions of Coun-
cils will differ considerably frOln Scripture expressions, 231
Reason of this difference, . 231, 232
They may present Christian doctrine in new aspects and relations,. 232
Special measure of divine blessing to be anticipated for Councils
assembled under just conditions, . 233, 234

CONTENTS.

XXlll

PAGE.

Peculiar claims of the early Councils to authoritatire decision on
fundamental doctrine, 234-23':"
The controversy respecting the ancient digests of Christian doctrine
resolves itself into two questions; one, regarding the Obligation;
the other, the 1JIatter, of these dogmatic decisions, . 237, 238
The work of systematizing and applying doctrine, by SJnods and
Doctors, is the reality which 1\11'. Newman distinguishes under
the term Development, . 238

LETTER VI.

Process by which Christian noctrines have become gradually syste-
matized,
Concession that theological knowledge is capable of a real move-
ment,
This movement takes place in two ways:
1. By logical development, 241
2. By positive discovery,-examples of, 241, 242
Process of logical development accounts for the history and the
errors of dogmatic theology, . 242, 243
Unlikely, from nature of the case, that the form of Christian doc-
trine should continue exactly the same during the inspired and
subsequent uninspired period, .
Inspired men would not require a systematized creed,
Uninspired teachers would require formal scheme of doctrines, .
Presumption
gaînst the inspiration of elaborate definitions of doc-
trine, 244, 245
General character of inspired teaching,-Prophets, our Lord,
S. Paul, 245, 246
Important that the unscientific statements of Scripture should come
before their logical version, and why, 246-249
Difficulty of regulating the proper exercise of this systematizing
process by a priori canons, .
In what senses logical development may introduce doctrines appa-
rently new, . 250, 251
Difficulty ill certain cases of deciding upon the novelty or antiquity
of doctrines, 252, 253
The conciliar determinations were the results of a process of syste-
matizing begun by indÙ,idual teachers, .
Importance of a due estimate of these first systematizers, .
Their advantage, in recent inheritance of original doctrine, .
Their disadvantage in inexperience, and its consequences,

240

ih.

243
ib.
244

249

253
ib.
254-256
256, 257

ÀXIV

CO:NTENTS.

PAGE.
The evidence of antiquity is not the same in amount for all the doc-
trines we are bound to receive,
Quantity of historical proof varies in different cases,
Vincentian rule not to be strictly interpreted,
Judicious generaHty of terms in the canon "Concionatores," .
Amount of evidence required for doctrine is not revealed, and must
be determined inductively, .
No antecedent reason to suppose that even the most important doc-
trines will be sustainable by the same amount of proof, 261,262
The apparent plausibility of the Romanist claim of certainty in reli-
gion is traceable to an ambiguity of the word" Faith,"
This word Faith used in two senses,
Both forms of belief equally applicable to all modifications, true or
false, of revealed religion, . 263-265
A constant sophism of Romish controversialists is to confound these
two senses of Faith, . 265, 266

258

259

259, 260
260

261

263
ib.

LETTER VII.

!\Ir. Newman's attempt to sustain his hypothesis of Development by
the auxiliary hypothesis of a "Developing authority in Christia-
nity," 267
Statement of his argument, . 267, 268
His argument for the likelihood of developments framed with a view
to the very developments to be accounted for, 268, 269
Antiquity would have disowned this a priori argument, 269, 270
His whole argument is a vicious cil'cle, 271
Examination of his arguments for a Developing Authority, . ib.
The Infallibility at issue is that aHeged to be ve.r;ted in the Chu'rch
of Rome, 271, 272
Importance of remembering that the real question is the localization
of Infallibility in Romish Patriarchate, . 272
No connexion between Infallibility of the Universal Church and
Romish Infallibility, . 273
Theory of development viewed in connexion with local Infal1ibility:
I. Alleged necessity of papal Infallibility to guide Development,. 274
And yet the Papacy itself admitted to be a development, 274, 275
II. Fallacy involved in making one development give authority to
others, 275, 276
III. The Roman tribunal, which is supposed necessary to guide
Development, did not arise until after period when it would
have been most necessary, 276, 277
Such a tribunal most needed in first centuries, 277, 278

CONTENTS.

xxv

PAGE.

And no allusion is made to any such in those ages,

Iore needed in East than \Vest, .
IV. First development of the Roman Supremacy not doctrinal, but
disciplinary, . 281, 282
V. The history of dogmas contradicts the fancy of regular deve-
lopment guided by this local directory,
Examples of various developments inconsi.
tent with such infal-
libility of Rome, 283-288
History of heresies contradicts infallibility of Roman See, 288, 289
YI. Christianity admits of "Historical Development" (See LeU. II.
p. 60),
These historical developments are adaptations to diversities of
circumstances, .
A local infallible authority incompatible with such develop-
ments, . 289-292
Out of this incompatibility arose the Reformation,. 292, 293
V I I. This principle of local developments explains the exterior simi-
larity between present and ancient Church of Rome,. 294-296
Probable impression which present Romanism would produce
on primitive saints, . 296-298
This power of adaptation a proof of divine origin of Christia-
nity, .
Unalterable in doctrine, Christianity may vary in external pre-
sentation, . ib.
Rome exactly reverses this rule, 298-300
V II I. The most specious claim of the Papacy, its expediency, really
contradicts its permanence, 300, 301
Foregoing observations directed to the specific theory of Roman
infallibility:
Roman falsely assumed as synonymous with Catholic infallibility, 302, 303
Infallibility never consigned by the Universal Church to Rome, 303, 304
Such a consignment would involve the power to withdraw it, . 304
Utter insufficiency of the alleged proofs that the Catholic Church
thus surrendered its right to the Papacy, 305-307
Permanence of Rome as a sacred locality not without parallel,. . 307
The Papacy, as an historical fact, not more unaccountable than the
sacerdotal sovereignty of the Thibetian Lama, 307 -310

278-281
281

282

289

ib.

298

LETTER VIII.

The development hypothesis considered in connexion with Church
infallibility in general, . 311
c

XXVI

CONTENTS.

PAGE.
The principle of development in Germany is a general law of pro-
gress equally serviceable to aU schools, . 311-3) 3
Limitation of the principle as connected with claimed infallibility,. 313
No contradiction in the abstract conception of a knowledge alway..,
right and always progressing, 314
But this sort of progress is essentially inapplicable to the history of
the doctrines in controversy, for two reasons, . ib.
Preliminary observations on the state of the question, . 3) 5
Comparison of development hypothesis with rival hypotheses, as a
concession to 1\11'. Newman, . ib.
Problem: to connect the actual facts of Church History with the
original revelation, by some general view of the way it was meant
to operate, 316
Three hypotheses for its solution:
1. The Anglo- Catholic, 316, 317
2. The Roman, . 317, 318
3. The development, or Rationalistic-Eoman, . 318-320
Consideration of the positive merits of the development hypothesis
combined with infallibility. Examination of the consistency of
the combination, 320
Even granting progression of doctrine, and its danger without spe-
cial direction, the alleged infallible guidance does not follow, 320, 3:21
Assuming infallibility, then progressive discovery of doctrines sup-
poses previous errors of doctrine and practice, at variance with such
infallible guidance. Examples. Divinity of Christ and Holy Spirit, 3:!1
Corruption of human nature, . 3:l2
Invocation of saints and angels, 322, 323
Separate state of the blessed, . 323
Purgatory, . 324
Adoration of the Host and images, . 324, 325
Five additional sacraments, . 325
These are difficu1ties as regards the past in the hJpothesis which
connects perpetual infallibility with perpetual development: dif-
ficulties as regards the future, 3
6
Decisions of a developing Church can be only provisional, 326-330
l\lay be set aside by the " Church of the future," 330-332
Practical working of infallible development as an ecclesiastical
principle, 332
Use of infallibility is authoritative guidance; but the exercise of
authority is incompatible with hypothesis of development,. 332, 333
Three conceivable relations of an infallible authority to a develop-
ing Church: examination of development hypothesis under each
of these relations, 333

CONTE:KTS.

XXVll

PAGE.
I. Supreme Authority viewed as dependent on general movement of
the Church, . 334
The infallible Authority cannot decide on a subject insufficz"ently
developed, . . . . 334, 335
Infallibility thus made dependent on the date of the decision, 336-340
2. The supreme Authority viewed as independent and controlling
general movement of the Church, . . 340
But, by the hypothesis, the process of det'elopment is itself in-
spired, . 341-343
No authority, therefore, can control what is itself divine,. 343,344
3. The supreme Authority viewed as the organ declarative of the
Church's be1ief, . . 344
Such an organ is no directive authority; but varies as the Church
itself, . . . . 344, 345
Preceding observations refer to the exercise of authority in the
regular way of Councils, 345
But infallible Authority, if essential to the Church, must have
preceded Councils, . 346
How exercised during the interval of Councils, i. e. during almost
the entire existence of the Church? . 346, 347
Authority, of any kind, an inconsistency u.ithin a developing
Church, . 348
Position of an individual speculator in the Roman Church on this
hypothesis of development, . 348-351
1\11'. Newman's system incurably sceptical, 351, 352

LETTER IX.

Examination of Mr. Newman's arguments for an infallible develop-
ing authority resident in the Roman Church,. .
General object of the first, or theoretical, part of his treatise, .
Summary of his arguments, .
Charge against Barrow of logical deficiency,
1\11'. Newman's self-contradiction with respect to the primith.e evi-
dence for the Papacy, 359, 360
His instances of hypotheses similar to his own, . 360-363
Admission of 1\11'. Newman's general principles respecting moral
evidence,
They are applicable only under certain qualifications:
Qualification 1,
Qualification 2, .
Qualification 3,

355
. 356
356-358
359

363

363
. 364
364. 365

XXVlll

CONTENTS.

PAGE.
Ï\Ir. Newman's proofs of an infallible director of developments, 366
]. Presumption that there must be such an authority to distinguish
true developments, 367
Reason and sympathy as competent to decide on the developments
as upon the authorizing infallibility, 367, 368

Ir. Newman admits that the idea of a revelation includes all clear
conclusions from the truths originally revealed, 368, 369
2. His second and third heads of argument are answers to objections
against infallibility resting upon moral certainty, . 369
His misconception of this objection, . 370, 371
3. His answer to the objection that the supposed infalIibiÌity would
destroy probation by dissipating all doubt, . 371-373
Bishop Butler has foreclosed all anticipations of what God will
or must do in giving a revelation, . . 373
1\Ir. Newman's attempt to show that Butler's reasoning does not
apply against his presumptions, . . 374
Plainly opposed to the assumption of a necessary infallibility, 375, 376
Analogy of the Jewish Church; a developing system, yet without
an infallible directory, . 376, 377
-to :Main distinction, according to 1\Ir. Newman, of natural and re-
vealed religion, and consequent necessity of a visible and per-
manent infallible authority, . 377, 378
Inaccuracy of his distinction between natural and revealed reli-
gion; confounds rule of right and obligation of the rule, 378, 379
Special evil of this confusion; exalts authority above conscience, 380
5. Various advantages alleged as secured by an infallible external
directory, . 381, 382
The chief force of this hypothesis lies in contrasting it with an
opposite extreme equally gratuitous, . 383
Importance of Church decisions even without infallibility. Opi-
nions of Vincentius, 384-388
Superintending Providence, not absolute infallibility, is the
Church's true gift, and the true key to ecclesiastical history,. 389
Sublime ideal of Christianity to conceive it originalIy delivered
in its full perfection, . 390
Proof of its Divine origin that it provides for all possible variety
of circumstances, . 391

LETTERS,

&c. &c.

.

LETTER I.

DEAR SIR,

\Vhen I had last the pleasure of see-
ing you, you were so good as to request Ine to give you
an opinion of the work a of l\fr. Ne\Vlnan, which has
been so long and anxiously expected. I am at present
obliged to undertake the fulfilment of my promise at
some disadvantage as to time and leisure. I have,
however, read the work with the attention ,vhich the
performance of such a ,vriter, at such a crisis, justly
demands; and I trust I can answer, that any observa-
tions I may offer you shall be the result of a tolerably
unprejudiced estimate of its merits. Absolute impar-
tiality can, indeed, seldom be secured, except at the
heavy cost of absolute indifference; and I cannot pre-
tend to be indifferent to the fparful alnount of evil,
which (,vith of course the purest intentions) the Author
of this work and his companions are exerting all the
energies of accomplished minds to achieve. l\Ir. N e,v-
man, in a very solemn and affecting address at the

a [Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. Lond.1845.J
B

2

ON THE DEVELOP
iENT OF

[LETT. 1.

close of his volume, ,yarns us against undue prepos-
sessions; bids us" not determine that to be truth ,vhich
,ve ,vish to be so, nor make an idol of cherished anti-
cipations." Alas! the Author is, doubtless, too humble-
minded to think it strange, that many will rise from
his ,york ,vith the profound conviction, that had not
the Inournful delusion against which he cautions us
been his own, the book itself had never been ,vritten !
The reasonings and speculations of this remarkable
volume suggest a multitude of considerations, for \vhich
it ,vould be unreasonable to expect you could supply
space. I shall, therefore, confine myself as ll1uch as
possible to observations of
very general character,
such as I Inay trust to make tolerably intelligible ,vi thin
a narro"\v cOlnpass. Detailed investigations of 1\11".
N e,vman's citations and authorities ,viII, I doubt not,
be furnished abundantly in the progress of the contro-
versy. This latter part of the inquiry, moreover, ap-
pears to Ine of the less importance, that the volu1l1e
does not seem to add lllany ne\v contributions to the
passages already so familiar to every student of the
Romish controversy; and because, granting the ge-
nuineness and authenticity of every single passage
cited, the conclusion intended by the Author appears
as hopelessly inadmissible as it could be conceived to
be by the denial of them all.
The same limitation of space must induce me to
depend, that a majority of your readers, having already
perused the book, will not require a detailed exposition
of its argument. Those who have not, must be content
to learn, that 1\1:1". Ne\Vlnan's theory is simply this :-
That the original doctrines of the Christian Church

LETT. I.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

3

,vere intended by its Founder to be subsequently" deve-
loped" into a variety of ne,v forrns and aspects; that
such a develoPlnent ,vas antecedently natural and ne-
cessary; that the process ,vas conducted under infal-
lible guidance; and that the existing belief of the
Roman communion is its lnature result. Those ,vho
have but this conception of 1\11'. Newlnan's vie,vs can,
of course, scarcely do full justice to his argulnent; I
must, ho,vever, add, that this liInited acquaintance ,vith
his performance is almost as injurious to the full ap-
preciation of the objections to it. I should certainly
desire no other reader than one who had carefully
studied the ,vhole volume frOITI beginning to end; not
only because such a perusal can alone make objections
fully intelligible, but because I think I could safely
rely, that on the mind of every such reader, if suffi-
ciently unprejudiced, ,vonld cro,vd, in forms more or
less palpable, the very objections I am about to state.
I. I must, in the first place, observe that it is much
more than doubtful, ho,v far 1\lr. Newman's doctrine is
at all the received doctrine of the Rornan Church, or
,vould be regarded by its authorities as any other than
a most perilous innovation. Convenient as it may
no,v be to tolerate it (or anything else from the same
author), for temporary purposes, and to meet the pre-
sent state of speculation, I shall be Il1uch surprised if,
as the controversy proceeds, it be not in substance
disavo,ved b as a private and un authoritative hypothesis.

b [
Ir. Newman's Theory has been already denounced by the first
authorities of American Romanism as subversive of the Catholic
Faith, and of revelation itself. It has been assailed by their leading
organ, Brownson's Quarterly Reriew (Boston, U. S.), in a series of very
B2

4

ON THE DEVELOP1\IENT OF

[LETT. 1.

It has been said that J\Iöhler c and De J\;Iaistre d , to whom
l\Ir. Newman refers as having adopted somewhat simi-
lar vie,vs (p. 27), have not at all met ,vith universal
concurrence among the members of their o,vn com-
111union ; yet, neither of them has dared to approach

able articles. "'Ve have consulted, says the reviewer (Jan. 1847,)
as high living authorities on the subject as there are in this coun-
try, and they all concur in saying that the Church can propose only
what was revealed, and that the revelation comn1Ïtted to the Church
was perfect." This revelation is divided by Romish theologians into
Scripture and Tradition, but all, except the new school of develop-
n1ent, have agreed as to the pe71ection of the revelation. In direct
opposition to the Americans, and to t
e consentient teaching of the
Romish divines, Dr. Wiseman and the Dublin Review warmly espouse
the cause of 1\11'. Newman, and assert the incompleteness of the ori-
ginal revelation.]
C [This celebrated Bavarian professor of theology was born in
1796, and died in 1838. In his Symbolik, Part i. chap. V., he ex-
pounds his theory of development (edit. Tubingen, 1832; Munich,
1838).- Vide Hagenbach's Hisl. of Ductrines, .V 01. ii.]
d 1\11'. Newman 111ight, perhaps, have added the eloquent, enthu-
siastic, wrong-headed La 1\lennais: "On la voit (la religion) tou-
jours ancienne et toujours nouvelle, conserver son unité au milieu
des developpemens successifs par lesquels elle passe." " Elle n'a pas
changé en passant d'une révélation a l'autre; elle n'a fait que se
développer et paraître avec un nouveau degré de lun1Ìère et d'au-
torité, &c." La l\Iennais, however, appli.es the principle chiefly
(where it is perfectly legitimate) to the progressive character of the
three dispensations in relation to each other; and but faintly and
secondarily to any imaginary progression of doctrine in the last.-
[Essai sm' l' Indiffel'ence.]
[It is a mistake to regard De l\laistre as a favourer of the theory
of development. On the contrary, he contends" that there is nothing
new in the Church of Rome, and that she will never believe any-
thing which she has not alwaYf:) believed."-Du Pape, Liv. i., edit.
Paris, 1841. See Dr. 'V ordsworth's Letters to M. Gondon, p. 31.]

LETT. I.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

5

the candid and courageous avo,vals of 1\Ir. N e'vn1an.
The Inore cautious and long-sighted theologians of the
Roman cÐilllllunion have always discountenanced the
earlier forms e of the present venturous hypothesis. The
case of Petavius f , and the cordial adoption g by the
Gallican Church of even his heretical refuter, ,viII at
once occur to everyone. [1 have but to add, for the
fact is instructive, that on the question then at issue

e [For an interesting sketch of the rise and progress of the theory
of development, see Dr. 'V ordsworth's Letters to 1\1. Gondon, pp.
23-36. ]
f [Petavius and Newman both en1ploy depreciation of ancient
Christianity as their best defence of modern Ron1Ïsh corruptions.
They both contend that the Tridentine Creed is a correction of its
errors, or an enlargement of its in1perfect knowledge. The words
of Bishop Bull respecting Petavius might have been written for a
description of the developn1ent school. From the supposition, that
the primitive fathers were in error, or imperfectly instructed in
Christian doctrine, says the learned Bishop, "Hæc duo facile conse-
quentur; 1. Patribus trium primorum sæculorum, quos imprimis
appellare solent Catholici Heformati, parum tribuendunl esse: ut-
pote quibus llondum satis perspecta et patefacta fuêrunt præcipua
Christianæ fidei capita. 2. Concilia æcun1enica potestatem habere
novos fidei adieulos eondendi, sive (ut Petavius loquitur) constituendi
et patefaeiendi,. unde satis prospectum videatur additamentis illis,
quæ regulæ :fidei assuerunt quæque Christiano orbi obtruserunt
Patres Tridentini. Sed istius scholæ magistris nulla re1igio est
pseudo-catholicam suanl :fidem super fidei vere Catholicæ ruinas
ædificare." -Def. F ide N ie. Proærn.
8.]
g [The thanks of the Gallican Church, synodical1y assembled at
St. Gern1ain en Laye, for Bull's Judicium Ecc. Cath. (pour Ie ser-
vice qu'il rend à l'Eglise Catholique en defendant si bien Ie juge-
ment qu'elle a porté sur Ia necessité de croire la Divinité du Fils de
Dieu), were comnlunicated by Bossuet, in a letter to 1\11'. Nelson,
who had presented the volume to the Archbishop, dated July 24,
1700. The letter is given in Nelson's Life of Bishop Bull, p. 330,
Oxford, 1846. ]

[LETT. I.

Ir. N e\Vlnan appears fully to sYlnpathize \vith the re-
jected doctrine of Petavius; e. g. p. 12, &c. 297, \vhere
he distinctly denies any Ante-Nicene consensus on the
doctrine of the Trinity, "as the ,vord (consensus) is
no\v commonly understood"-\vhatever that qualifica-
tion n1ay import. See also p. 398.J In the rnemor-
able first edition of Bossuet'sh "Exposition," suppressed,
and recovered i by our excellent "\Vake j , the following
passage occurred (TVake, p. xxiv.):

6

ON THE DEVELop
rENT OF

h [Bossuet was, however, no favourer of the doctrine of progressive
Christianity. In his controversy with the Calvinist, Jurieu, (Aver-
tissemens, passim), he explicitly condemns the theory of a progressive
religion, which was advocated by that_minister, and which agrees in
many particulars with the new theory of developnlent.]
i [Archbishop 'Vake should not receive credit for having been
the earliest 9bserver of the variations which are Inanifest upon a .
collation of the first and second editions of Bossuet's book. The
discovery had been made thirteen or fourteen years previously by
1\1. de la Bastide ; and though the Réponse to Bossuet, published by
this writer, appeared without the author's nanle, yet the learned
and accurate Bayle did not fail to trace its origin.-See his Epist.
ad fin. Deckherri De Scriptt. adesp. Con}ectur., p. 398. Anlstel.
1686.-G. ]
j [Archbishop Wake (Exposition of tlze Doctrine of the Clulrch of
England in the several A,rticles proposed by .JI. de JIeaux, &c., 3rd edit.
London, 1687) states that Bossuet's Exposition oftlze DoctnOne of the
Catholic Church first appeared in manrscript, and was composed
either to "satisfy or seduce the late l\Iareschal de Turenne," want-
ing then the chapters "of the Eucharist, Tradition, the Authority
of the Church and Pope, which no,v Inake up the ll10St considerable
part of it." The other parts were so loosely expressed, that" Pro-
testants who saw it generally believed that J\lons. de 1\leaux durst
not publicly own what in his Exposition he privately pretended
to be" the doctrine of the Church of Rome. In the beginning of
1671, the Exposition, having been approved by the Archbishop of
Rheims and nine other bishops, was sent to press. Previously to

LETT. I.]
" For 1\1. Daillé, he thinks fit to confine himself to
the first tllree centuries, in \vhich it is certain that the
Church has left n1allY things to be cleared after\vards,
both in its doctri'ne and in its practice."
This ,vas erased by the doctors of the Sorbonne,
as ,vholly inadmissible, even \vith the authority of a
Bossuet to back it: what ,vould they have said to 1\11".
Ne\Vn1an's enterprise, which risks the authority and
obligation of nearly all the chief differences bet,veen
us and the ROnlal1 Church upon the fortunes of a
theory, itself a 1110re novel" development" of theologi-
cal teaching than even they, by his o\vn admission, are
now? conceded to be? 'Vhere has the Church of Rome
ever sanctioned such a solution of its controversial
embarrassments? Its authorized doctrine is unques-
tionably that the 'cery teaching of the present hour, in
all its fulness and precision, has itself been uninter-
ruptedly preserved from the days of the Apostles.
"Hæc v'eritas et disciplina contineturkin libris scriptis
et sine scripto traditionibus, quæ ipsius Ch,'isti ore ab

CHRISTIAN DOCTHI
E.

7

publication, Bossuet, anxious to obtain the imprimatur of the 801'-
bonne, subn1Ítted it to some of their doctors, who "marked several
of the most considerable parts of it, wherein the Exposition, by the
too great desire of paHiating, had absolutely perverted the doctrine
of their Church." At the end of the same year, an altered impres-
sion was struck off, and published as thejirst edition. And Arch-
bishop 'Vake adds: "Since a copy of that very book so marked, as
has been said, by the doctors of the Sorbonne, is fallen into my hands,
I shall gratify the reader's curiosity," &.c.-Pref., p. iv. At the
end of the Preface follows, "A collection of passages altered by .ilIons.
de .llIeaux," fron1 which Professor Butler quotes in the text.]
k [" Synod us Tridentina. . .. perspiciensque hanc veritatelll et
disciplinaln contineri."-G.J

8

ON THE DEVELOPl\lENT OF

[LETT. I.

Apostolis acceptæ, aut ab ipsis Apostolis, Spiritu Sancto
dictante, quasi pel" manus traditæ, ad nos usque perve-
nerunt." . . . . . . " Traditiones ipsas, turn ad fidem, turn
ad mores pertinentes, tanquam vel ore tenus a Christo,
vel a Spiritu Sancto dictatas, et con.tinuâ successione in
Ecclesiá Catholicá conservatas, pari pietatis affectu [ac
reverentiâJ suspicit [et veneratur J (Synodus )."-Con-
cil. Trident. Sess. iv.
And a little after this clear statement of the sole
matter of faith, the Council adds, with relation to the
interpretation of the Scriptures (a solemn prohibition,
to ,vhich I beg to draw l\1r. N e\vrnan's attention, as
bearing on his vie\vs of the vision in Rev. xii., the
Second Commandment, and some other critical novel-
ties he has hazarded or sanctioned), that no one " con-
tra unanimern consensum Patrurn ipsam Scripturam
sacram interpretari audeat." l\Ir. Newman, himself, if
admitted into the Roman communion according to the
usual" Form of reconciling Converts!," has solemnly
s\vorn and professed that he would " never take and
interpret the Scriptures otherwise than according to
the unanÍJnolls consent of the Fathers;" a vow palpably
irreconcileable \vith the theory, that on many most im-
portant points of doctrine, proveable (as l\Ir. Newlnan
asserts all true doctrine is by all admitted to be, p. 323)
from Scripture, the Fathers had no definite conscious-
ness at all.

1 [The absolution of an heretic is a matter specially reserved for
the Pope; (Sacerclotale, foU. 42, 44. Venet. 1579.) and in the Pon-
tifical, where the" Ordo ad reconciliandum Apostatam, Schismati-
CUlll, vel Hæreticum" is found, there is not any such oath or obli-
gation enjoined as that which was prescribed, in the year 156-1, by
the Bulls In sacrosancta and Injunctwn nobÙ, of Pope Pius rV".-G.]

LETT. I.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

9

Accordingly, to this test of perpetual tradition,
rightly or ,vrongly affirlned, the Council invariably
appeals: "Ea verba (Rout. iii. 28, &c.) in eo sensu
intelligenda sunt, quem perpetuus Ecclesiæ Catholicæ
consensus tenuit et expressit." -Sess. vi. Cap. 8. In
the administration of the Eucharist,-" qui mos tan-
quam ex traditione apostolicá descend ens jure ac merito
retineri debet." -Sess. xiii. Cap. 8. [De Euchar.J Of
Confession to a Priest.
"U niversaEcclesia se771per intellexit, institutam [ etiam ]
esse a DOlnino integram peccatorun1 confessionem, et
omnibus post baptismurn lapsis jure divino necessariam
existere." - Sess. xiv. Cap. 5. [De Pænitentiâ.J
I cannot but interrupt Iny citations to ask
Ir. New-
man-does he, ,vith his kno,vledge of ecclesiastical and
ritual history, believe that assertion? To proceed-Of
Extreme Unction [Sess. xiv. Cap. 1. De Extrem. Unct.]
"Qui bus verbis [James, v. 14, 15,] ut e,,7] apostolicâ
traditione per rnanus acceptâ Ecclesia didicit, docet 111a-
teriam, formam, proprium ministrum, et effectun1 hujus
salutaris sacramenti.7)
Once more I cannot help asking the writer ,vho has
found a theory of development absolutely necessary to
account for the actual phenomena of Romanism, does
he believe that affirmation of the infallible Council?
-does he believe that direct apostolic authority
taught the Church in these words the matter, form,
minister, and effect of a sacrament as real and univer-
sal as the IIoly Communion; and that this belief, in
all its fulness, was uninterruptedly held in the unilJersal
Church? But again-Of the entire Doctrine of the

Iass (including the ordination of priesthood at the

10

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETT. I

Last Supper, the celebration of masses to obtain the
intercession of saints, the custom of masses in vt'"hich
the priest alone comn1unicates, the custom of ,vhisper-
ing the words of consecration and other parts of the
"Canon
lissæ," and the mixture of ,vater with the
wine), it declares-not merely that such beliefs and
practices are legitimate, are allowable deductions from
other tenets, are enacted by simple authority, are cor-
rect developn1ents of primitive beliefs, but that they
are a "fides fundata in sacrosancto evangelio, a]Josto-
lOT'lll1l traditionibus, sanctorp'Lunque patrpu'J1
doctrina,"
which last, it has been previously assumed, must be
"unanilnis" to be authoritative_. Sess. xxi. [xxii.] Cap. 9,
[De Sac. l\lissæ], et Canon. Of all the inferior orders
of the ministry it declares that-
" Ab ipso 1'nitio Ecclesiæ sequentium ordinum nomina,
atq'Lle uniuscujusque eOl"lln
pT'oprpia ministeria, subdiaconi
scilicet, acolythi, exorcistæ, lectoris, et ostiarii, in usn fu-
isse cognoscuntur."-Sess. xxiii. Cap.2. [De Sacr.Ord].
Of
Iarriage as a genuine sacrament, as real as Bap-
tism, conferring an ineffable grace as certain as the
Eucharist, the Council affirms, that" Concilia et uni-
versalis Ecclesiæ traditio ðen1J:Jer'
ocue1"unt" this truth,
and that the heretics, ,vho hesitate to admit that some-
,vhat startling proposition, " lTIulLa ab Ecclesiæ Catho-
licæ sensu et ab a]JostolO1"ll1n telnpoT'ibus probatá consue-
tudine aliena [scripto et verbo] asseruerunt." - Sess.
xxiv. [De Sac. J\tlat.] Of Purgatory it pronounces that
it teaches it" ex an tiq utLPatrurll tradi tione." - Sess. xxv.
[De Pur.]
fasses for souls in Purgatory are "juxta
apostolOl'U7n traditionen1 ;" as '\ve are infallibly assured.-
Sess. xxii. Cap. 2. [De Sacrific. l\Iissæ]. The interces-

LETT. I.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

11

sion of saints, the invocation of saints, the honour due
to relics, and even the" legitimus Ï1nagin'lt1n usus," the
Council gravely declares to be "juxta [Catholicæ et
A postolicæ] Ecclesiæ usum a prÍ1nævis Christianæ reli-
gionis tmnpo7'ibus receptun
."-[Sess. xxv. De Invoc. &c.J
And even in adlnitting, as the notoriety of the fact
compels, that the half-comn1union is an innovation, it
reduces the alteration under the principle that the
Church has po,ver over the lnere circulllstantials of the
sacraments (,vhich, of course, in its right application,
we all admit), "licet ab initio Christianæ religionis
non infreq'llens( !) utriusque speciei usus fuisset." -Sess.
xxi. Cap. 2 [De Commun.]
Such are most of the principal passages of the Coun-
cil in ,vhich its vie\vs \vith regard to the rule of Catho-
lic faith are stated or illustrated. And these are not
to be n1istaken. The distinct doglnatical enunciation
of the fundan1ental principle at the outset, and all its
subsequent applications to special cases as they arose,
are quite sufficient to evince that bet,veen 1\11". N ew-
man's theory and the vie,vs of the Tridentine Synod-
ists there is an irreconcileable discrepancy; that they
assuredly,vould never have tolerated his ventureson1e
surrender of antiquity; that those \vho are induced by
his statelnents to accept the theology of Rome, are
in fact adopting for that theology an hypothesis her
gravest authorities have, by thei:i solelnn and inspiT'ed m
decision, for ever precluded.
And this is notoriously the doctrine of the chief
expositors of Romanisll1. They nearly all earnestly

m [" Sacrosancta Tridentina Synodus, in Spiritu Sallcto legitime
congregata," passim.]

12

ON THE DEVELOPMENT O}"'

[LETI. I.

maintain that all her tenets, not expressly delivered
in Scripture, are, in the clear literal sense, genuine
apostolic traditions; that the IIoly Virgin was wor-
shipped, that iUlages \vere publicly bo,ved before in
the churches, that saints and angels were solelnnly
invoked, by the inl1nediate disciples of the apostles.
IIow they have insulted at times, and in particular
instances, the venerable \vriters of antiquity, is indeed
well known n ; but it was only after the most laborious
efforts to force upon their words the modern sense;
and always \vith the genel"al assertion that the" unani-
mous consent of the Fathers" \vas strietly their's.
Indeed
Ir. Newman hilDself seerns in some degree
a\vare that his hypothesis requires sorne apology. lIe
proceeds to defend it by philoso}Jlâcal analogies; \vith-
out at all relnembering that, \vhatever nlay be its in-
terest or value as a philosophical speculation, it is
by anticipation conden1ned by the very authorities to
whose support it is devoted After admitting that the
Disciplina Al?Cani o , so long the favourite resource of

n See for a cluster of instances, the Fourth Part of J anIes's Trea-
tise on Romish "Corruption of Scripture, Councils, and Fathers," &c.
(p. 359, edit. 1688-0n "Conten1ning and Conden1ning of Fathers."
o [An excellent account of this ma
tel' may be found in Bing-
ham's Antiquities, Book x. Chapter v. fhe 1110st celebrated treatises
on the Romish side of the question were published by the Vatican
librarian Schelstrate, and the Benedictine Scholliner; the fortuer,
Romæ, 1685, and the latter, typis l\Ionast. Tegerns. 1756. Daillé
111aintains that the ancient Discipline was not introduced previously
to the year 260; (De libris SUppOSe Dion. et Ignat. i. xxii. 142.) but
Tertullian has plainly spoken of the silence observed with respect to
mysteries. (Apol. Cap. vii.) It reluains, nevertheless, for Romanists
to adduce even the shadow of a proof that the peculiarities of their

LET!'. I.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

13

Roman controversialists, is utterly inadequate to solve
the adnlitted "difficulty" of the" variation" of mediæ-

systenl were among the sacred truths in which catechumer..s were
gradually initiated.-G.J
[See Faber's .Apostoticityof T'rinitarianism, Book i. Chap. viii., also
Newman's .Arians, Chap. i. sect. iii. To the objection of the Re-
formed, that the Roman peculiarities are not to be found in the early
records of the Church, Schelstrate replied by this bold assertion,
that all these (e. g. Transubstantiation, Seven Sacraments, Image
Worship, &c.) formed part of the disciplina arcani, and were not
committed to writing, lest they should come to the knowledge of
the uninitiated. It is hard to say whether this or the development
hypothesis is the more daring and comprehensive. " It is but work-
ing with this admirable tool, called disciplina arcani, and then all
the seeming contradictions between the ancient doctrines and prac-
tices of the Church universal, and the novel corruptions of the
nlodern Church of Rome, will vanish and disappear."-Bingham,
ubi sup.
The origin of this secret discipline seems to have been the dis-
tinction between prepared and unprepared hearers, in conforn1Îty
with our Lord's precept, "Give not that which is holy unto the
dogs." This rule of communicating religious knowledge was deve-
loped into a regular system. Allusions to a certain reserve occur in
preceding writers, but Tertullian first speaks of the discipline as a
formal system. He points it out as a characteristic of heretics (De
præscr. Hær. xli.) that they are "without discipline; it is doubtful
w.ho is a catechun1en, who a believer; they have all access alike,
they hear alike, they pray alike. Even if heathens come in upon
them. they will cast that which is holy unto dogs, and pearls, false
though they be, before swine."-Oxford Transl., Vol. x. p. 476. In
after ages we have a detailed account of the mysteries which were
concealed from catechumens, viz. :-1. The manner of administering
Baptism. 2. The unction of chrisTI1, or Confirm a tion. 3. The
Ordination of Priests. 4. The n1anner of celebrating the Eucharist.
5. The Divine Service of the Church. 7. The l11ystery of the Tri-
nity, the Creed, and Lord's Prayer, until they were ready for Bap-
tism.]

14

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETT. I.

val from primitive Christianity, or, in other ,vords, to
account for the difference bet,veen the general systems
of doctrine of which ROIne and England are the ex-
isting representatives-he proceeds, p. 27:
" It is undon btedly an hypothesis to account for a
difficulty; and such are the various explanations given
by astronomers, frorn Ptolemy to Ne,vton, of the ap-
parent motions of the heavenly bodies. But it is as
unphilosophical on that account to object to the one
as to object to the other. Nay, more so; for an hy-
pothesis, such as the present, rests upon facts as ,veIl
as accounts for then}; and independently of the need
of it, it is urged upon us by the nature of the case.
Nor is it more reasonable to express surprise, that at
this tinle of day a theory is necessary, granting for
argument sake that the theory is novel, than to have
directed a similar wonder in disparagement of the
theory of gravitation or the Plutonian theory in geo-
logy. Doubtless, the theory of the Secret and the
theory of Developments are eælJedients, and so is the
dictum of \Tincèntius, so is the art of graIn mar or the
the use of the quadrant, it is an expedient to enable
us to solve what has no,v become a necessary and an
anxious problem."
And he adds, that "the re
eption of the Roman
doctrine cannot be imlnediately based on the results"
of the theory; an assertion ,vhich (ho,vever incom-
patible ,vith the declaration in the postscript to
lr.
Newman's prefatory advertisement, that a "conviction
of the truth of the conclusion to which the discussion
leads superseded further deliberation" about joining
the Roman communion), is undoubtedly true, if it be

I
ETT. I.]
certain the Roman doctrine of tradition flatly contra-
dicts the ne,v theory.
It ,viII, I think, be moreover admitted that the pas-
sage just cited is some,vhat obscure. The" difficulty"
of which 1\11'. Ne,vman speaks as if it ,vere a perplexity
common to us all, is surely a difficulty to none but a
person ,vho has embraced the Rornish theory,. to hÍ1n
(and 1\11'. Newman abundantly discloses the feeling)
the variations in question are indeed a most forlnida-
ble difficulty; to others they bring but the regret
which charity must ever prompt when it witnesses
the noblest gift of God-Ilis holy and unchangeable
truth-abused and sullied by the ,vanton perversity
of man. And then the theory of Gravitation, in ,vhich
the Principle and the
"'acts to be eXplained there by
are both unquestionable realities of experience, is com-
pared to a solution resting upon t,vo enormous hypo-
thetical assumptions,-infallible guidance to a particu-
lar Church, and a divine design of constantly manifest-
ing ne,v progressive forms and varieties of doctrine in
the history of the Church at large P . "That the nature
of the analogy maybe bet,veen Vincentius' RuIeq(which

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

15

P "Some hypothesis," says 1\Ir. Newman, "an parties, an con-
troversialists, all historians, must adopt, if they ,vould treat of
Christianity at all."-p. 129. And he then mentions the supposi-
tion of Papal Infallibility as a hypothesis of the sort that a historian
must adopt. This is, in truth, to confuse the proper and undoubted
office of the philosophical historian (to reduce his facts as well as
he can to general principles of human nature or divine government)
with that which is the very essence of false philosophy-the inven-
tion of gratuitous and supel:fluous suppositions,-suppositions which
can neither be previously proved to be facts, nor are required by the
facts.
q [In ipsâ item Catholicâ Ecclesiâ lnagnoperè curandum est ut id

16

ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF

[LETT. I.

simply expresses what he considered the ideal of per-
fect historical evidence) and the hypothesis of devel-
opment, I am really unable even to conjecture.
II. In the mean time I aln, I apprehend, perfectly
justified in affirming, in the second place, that this
theory-whatever judgment may be passed by the
Ronlan authorities upon its prudence or validity-is
in reality what I have called it, a plain surrender of
the claims of Romanism to satisfactory evidence from
Antiquity. The claim of antiquity and the hypothesis
of development (in l\Ir. Newman's application of the
term) are absolutely incompatible. They are so ex vi
ter1ninorunl. Even conceding (what no human inge-
nuity will ever make commonly plausible to unpreju-
diced minds,) that the mediæval corruptions are legiti-
mate developments of primitive doctrine, it is manifest
that they are admitted not to be the1J2Selves primitive
doctrine. Unless the acorn be the oak, the doctrine
of the Incarnation is not" the deification r of St. l\Iary;"

teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus, creditum est.-
.Advers. HæJ'es. Oxon. A. D. 1631, Cap. iii. fol. 8.J
r I adopt l\Ir. Newman's own most awful expression, p. 405, et seq.
The phrase itself, except as a metaphor, belongs to the extrava-
gances of mystical theology, in which it was built upon a prepos-
terous application of 2 Pet. i. 4. l\Ir. Newman's use of it is, how-
ever, different from that of Rusbrock or Harphius; and infinitely
more dangerous and unwarrantable.
[l\Ir. Newman honestly confesses the" Deification of S. l\Iary" to
be the doctrine of the Romish Church, a confession which would
have saved previous controversialists an infinity of toil. The Bishop
of Exeter, in the second of his adn1irable "Letters to Charles Butler,
Esq.," has proved but too clearly how correct is the term used by
Mr. Newman to express the Ron1Ïsh cul/us of the Blessed Virgin.

LETT. 1.]

CIlRI
TIA.
DOCTRIKE.

17

-unless the oak can be ., developed" froln the acorn,
yet be \vith it sÏ1nultaneous, these doctrines did not
originally exist together. I have, indeed, not the least
doubt that this theory ,vill but aùd another to
Ir.
N e\Vll1an'S retractations before long, its controversial
inconveniences being so pressing and palpable; but, in
the 11lean tinle, be it relneUl bered that the concession
has been 11lade-lnade by a \vriter \vhose cOlnpetency
in point of learning 110 one, I suppose, ,vill doubt, and
,vho has proved, by the Illost decisive of all tests, his
attaclnnent to the systen1 \vhose peculiarities he thus
candidly adnlits to have no distinct and definite 1110del
in antiquity.
And having once adopted his theory,
Ir. Newn1an

But on no point have Ron1Ïsh polemics spent n10re subtilty, than in
denying this deification, and reconciling the denial with their teach-
ing respecting her Wh(!ll1 we, as well as they, call blessed.]
[Dr.
lilner (End of Controv. Letter xxxiii.) cites with approba-
tion the following words which occur in Bp. Challoner's abridgment
of Gother's Papist nzis'J'epresented and rep'J'esented: "Cursed is every
Goddess-worshipper," &c. It is ren1arkable, however, that Justus
Lipsius, in his Virgo Hallensis, has frequently styled the Virgin
l\Iary "Goddess;" Ç\lolinæi Iconomach. 94. Tenison Of Idol. 230.)
and Cardinal Bernbo, writing in the nan1e of Pope Leo X., has also
given to her the same name. (Epi:stt. viii. xvii. 294. Basil. 1566.)
Ko longer then can it be said with truth, that "inauditum est Ca-
tholicis l\Iariam pro Dea colendam." (Canisius, De JIaria Deip. iii.
x. 300. Ingolst. 1583.) Bellarmin does not hesitate to declare that
the Saints are" Dii per participationem;" (De cult. Sanctt. iii. ix.)
and this is likewise the doctrine of Cajetan. (In S. Tlwmæ Secundarn
Seclllldæ, Quæst. lxxxviii. Art. v. fo1. 1-15, b. Lugd. 1540. Conf. Hadr.
Lyræi Trisagion .J.JIarianznn, p. 10. Antv. 1648.) According]y in the
preface to the second Book of sacred Cerenwnies mention is distinctly
Inade of "Divorum nostrorum Apotheoses." (fo!. 148. Co]on. Agripp.
1557.)-G.]

c

18

ON THE DEVELOP
IENT OF

[LETT. I.

is too candid, his unquestioning" faith" too fearless, to
evade the admission. "T e have already seen how he
styles his hypothesis an "expedient" to remedy the
great and oppressive "difficulty" of the "apparent
variation" of the RomanislTI of Pius IV. from that of
Clelnens ROlllanus. lIe follo\vs the difficulty through
all its details. At the outset he Ineets and rejects the
time-honoured canon of 'Tincentius; ho,v much trouble
,vonld have been spared our divines, had this honest
policy been adopted in earlier da ys ! The rule of
Vincentius is "hardly available no,v, or effective of
any satisfactory result." - p. 24. lIe argues, ,vith
abundance of references, that the ante-Nicene fathers
spoke vaguely and inaccurately about the Trinity;
apparently forgetting, that if these citations do not
express positive error of doctrine, they can be of very
little real service, in a question ,vhere the scriptural
evidence is so clear, to his argulnent as against the
Anglican Rule of Faith; and that if they do, they are
utterly incompatible-I, "\vith the doctrine of pe71Jetual
infallibility; 2, ,vith that of "the unanÍ1nous consent
of the Fathers;" and 3, ,vith the theory of develop-
n1ent itself, unless (adrnitting the early Church in par-
tial error, and the latter ,vholly right) ,ve hold that a
germ can be " developed" into its o,vn contradictoTY.

Ir. Newman, indeed, seems to consiùer it a sort of
proof of the vitality of ("\vhat he calls) Catholicism;
that it can survive incessant self-contradictions. "/'"fhe
theology of St. Tholllas, nay, of the very Church of
his period, is built on that very Aristotelisll1, ,vhich
the early fathers denounce as the source of all lllisbe-
lief, and in particular, of the Ârian and 1\Ionophysite

LETT. I.]
heresies."-p. 4.51. And he exults, that the Roman
Church can achieve these mysterious transillutations
of belief, \vith a dignity, grace, and security the various
sects would errlulate in vain: an argument of divine
protection \vhich can only be conlpared \\'"ith its 1nol"al
counterpart, the celebrated inference of Baronius s frOITI
the \vickedness of the Popes of the tenth century, that
the See of Peter lnust be the object of special favonr
from heaven, to have outlived such unparalleled mon-
sters. As might be expected from this course of ar-
gument, 1\Ir. Ne\vman treats the lights of the early
Church \vith strong general approbation and keen
particular censure. "Then it becomes apparently dan-
gerous to adlnit a doctrine of great importance to be
altogether a modern" developillent," the ancient tes-
timonies that oppose it are easily resolved into the
peculiarities of a "school." Thus there \vas (\vhich,
indeed, is true enough) the " Syrian school" t, p. 287:
and this Syrian school appears to have been strangely
blind to the Lateran dogn)a of " Transubstantiation;"
for "certainly SOll1e of the 1110St cogent passages brought

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

19

5 [See U ssher's 'V or ks, VoL Ïi. p. 69: Ed. Elrington. J
[The allusion is to the Cardinal's observations in his Annals of
the end of the ninth and the commencement of the tenth age. He
attributes the evils of that dismal period not, of course, to the
Papacy itself; but he lanlents, as the greatest n1Ïsfortune, the arro-
gance of some ungodly Princes, who usurped the power of electing
to the Pontificate, and through whose tyranny even into the see of
Rome were intruded" visu horrenda monstra."-G.J
t [The Syrian School is meant by
Ir. Newman to express not any
localized institution (such as the school of Alexandria), but a "me-
thod characteristic of the Syrian churches," which n1ethod was an
application to the critical and literal sense of Scripture, as distin-
c2

20

ON TIlE DEVELOP:\IENT OF

[LETT. I.

by Inoderns against the Catholic doctrine of the Eu..
charist, are taken fron1 ,vriters ,vho are connected ,vith
that school;" in support of ,vhich 1\11". N e,vman speci-
fies 81. Chrysostoln's memorable letter to Cæsarius u ,
(of great importance, as being a direct dogJJlatical
statell1cnt, of perfect clearness and silnplicity, and so
forming a key to all that great preacher's lofty meta"

guished from the mystical and allegorical. Of this school Dorotheus
,vas one of the earliest teachers; its great exegetical doctor was
Theodore of l\10psuestia. l\Ir. Newman refers further to this school
S. Cyril of Jerusalem, and also S. Chrysostolll and Theodoret, both
Syrians. ]
u [" Sicut enÏ1n antequam sanctifi
etur panis, panem nominaillus;
divina autem ilIum sanctificante gratia, lllediante Sacerdote, libera-
tus est quidem ab appellatione panis, dignus autenl habitus DOlninici
Corporis appellatione, etiauuå natura panis in ipso permansit, et non
duo Corpora, sed ununl Corpus Filii prædicmllus," &c. (Opp. TOln.
iii. p. 744. edit. Bened.) The Epistle of S. Chrysostom to the
Ionk
Cæsarius was adduced in controversy by Peter l\fartyr about the
year ]548, and he deposited a transcript of it, taken from a Floren-
tine manuscript, in the library of Abp. Cranmer. After this Pre-
late's death the docunlent was destroyed or lost, and Cardinal Du
Perron availed himself of the opportunity thus. presented of pro-
nouncing it to be a forgery. (De l'Euchm'. pp. 381-3.) IIowever,
after llluch discussion and recrin1Ìnation between the contending
parties, the letter was published at Paris, in 1680, by Enlericus
Bigotius, in C0111pany with Palladiuf's Life of Chrysostom. This
proceeding was not acceptable to some Doctors of the Sor bonne ;
and they actually caused the printed leaves to be extern1Ïnated,
without providing anything to supply their place. An Expostulatio
with reference to this disreputable conduct of the Parisian Divines
,vas prefixed by Peter Allix to S. Anastasius In Hexaëmeron, Loud.
1682; and a very n1Ìnute description of the nnltilation may be found
in the Preface to l\lr. l\Iendhalll's Index of Pope Gregory ..tYVI., pp.
xxxii-iv. Lond. 1840. Le
Ioyne put forth this inlportant Epistle
at the end of the first volume of his Varia Sacra, in 1685; and the

LETT. 1.]

CHRI
TL\.
DOCTRI
E.

21

phors in other places,) Theoùoret'sV sÏ1nilar aud irre-
sistiLle statelnent, and Facundus w . At other tirnes,
he adrnits that the earlier \vriters \vere "left in igno-
(rance," and subsequent teachers "coln}Jleted their
,vork;" and he proceeds to specify the follo\ving in-
stances of a "colnpletion" of primitive views, "\vhich
\vill give your readers a fair exelnplification of the
lneaning of the "theory of developrnent," and its ad-
Inirable uses in controversy:-
,. Clell1ent
IAY hold a purgatory, yet tend to con-
siùer all punishrnent purgatorial, . . . . . .. St. IIilary
may believe in a purgatory, yet CON.FI.KE IT TO THE
DAY OF JUDGl\IENT . . . . .. Prayers for the faithful de-

reprint by J. Basnage appeared in 8vo., at Utrecht, in 1687. At
length a Jesuit, Hardouin, came forward as a publisher of it in the
year 1689; and in 1721 it was edited by the l\Iarquis :\Iaffei from a
1\IS. in the library of the Dominicans of S. ::\Iark at Florence. See
it in the Lectiones AntÙjllæ of Canis ius, according to Ba
nage's impres-
sion, Tom. i. pp. 233-237. Antverp. 1725. Cf. Routh, Script01'll7n
Eccles. OpllSC. ii. 127. Oxon. 18-10.-G.]
v [' AV7Ò'il 7à ÓpWf-lEVa (T'úf(ßoXa 7'!j 70'Û
wp.aTO'il Kaì <Alf(a70'il 7TpOð1]-

, , " rf.. ' ß ""\' '"\"\' - rf.. ' , ,
r'IOPlq, TE7tfO/KEV, ov 71JV ,/-,1JðlV !lETll ai\.WV, a I\. I\. a 7?J ,/-,VðEt 71JV XaplV
7TpOðTEBHKW'il.-Dial. i. Tom. iv. p. 18: edit. Lutetiæ, 1642. (For a
powerful argulnent on these words, see Taylor's Real Presence,
Sect. xii. 30.) And again (Dial. ii. p. 85): OvêÈ r'/àp pÆTà TÒV li.r,/lUð-
" " ß ""\
, , 't;' rf..' , " ,
/UOV 7a f-lVð7tKa ðVIl Oi\.a 71J'il OtKEla
E
tðTaTat ,/-,1JðEW
' flEVEl "lap E7Tt
_ , " ,,,,... , ""'/
\e. '"
71J'il 7Tp07Epa'il OVðta'il Kat 70V ðX1Jfla70'il, Kat 70V ElCOV'il, Kat opa7a Eð7t
, ,., ,., " 'i' ]
Kat CL7r7a ow. Kat 7rp07EpOV 1] V.
W [" Potest Sacramentum adoption is adoptio nuncupari, sicut Sa-
cramentum corporis et sanguinis Ejus, quod est in pane et poculo
consecrato, corpus Ejus et sanguinenl dicinnls: non quòd propriè
corpus Ejus sit panis, et poculum sanguis; sed quòd in se mysteriunl
corporis Ejus sanguiuisque contineant." (Facundus, Episc. Hf'r-
n1Ïanens., P,l'O dejèns. t7'iulll Capitl.llOl'. Lib. ix. Cap. V. p. 144. Paris.
1679: vel inter Opp. Sirnlondi, Tom. ii. col. 507. Venet. 1728.)-G.]

22

ON THE DEVELOPMENT O}'

[LETT. I.

parted lllay be found in the early liturgies, yet ,vith an
INDISTI
CTNESS 'VHICH INCLUDED ST. l\IARY and the
l\lartyrs in the same rank with the imperfect Chris-
tians, ,vhose sins ,vere as yet un expiated, . . . . . . and
succeeding times might keep ,vhat was exact, and
supply ,vhat was d
ficient.x"-p. 354.
" Deficient!" The belief that it might be right to
solernnly commend the faithful dead to the care of
God, and to include alllong the numbër the Virgin
l\lary, as one of God's honoured servants ,vho had de-
parted this life "in the true faith of his holy nanle,"
'vas a deficient belief, because it did not add to that
tenet and practice the further sll}J}Jlenlentary belief
that the 'Tirgin thus comlnended to God's care and
mercy in the general roll of His deceased, ,vas, in
reality, already exalted to the throne of the uni-
verse, to be prayed to, not (,vithout unspeakable in-
suIt) prayed for-" the refuge of sinners," the " chan-
nel of all graces to n1an," the "deified St. :ßlal'Y!" In
other ,vords, the early notion ,vas deficient, because it
did not include its 01vn direct contradiction. Again:
it ,vas " deficient" because it cOIDlnel1ded to God the
care of IIis holy servants as those ,vho alone ,vere fitly
to be commelllorated in the meetings of the Christian
household, and forgot to add another C0171pletor.'J state-

x Other instances of a different kind, and bearing no direct refer-
ence to Roman doctrine, are mingled with these. l\Ir. NeW111an
forgets that in those cases there is (so far as they ,vere errors-one
is not quite satisfied about corrective" developments" of the Atlla-
nasian Creed, ibid.) abundant contemporary evidence to oppose indi-
vidual errors; whereas the Ron1an innovations can produce none,
or next to none, in their favour synchronizing with the testÏ1nonie:;
tha t oppose then1.

LETT. I.]

ClnUSTL\
DOCTRINE.

23

Inent of a fact, in its ,vhole spirit diametrically OjJ]Josed
to the former, and ,vhich, itself an absolute invention,
is no,v forrnally founded upon a theory of satisfactions
"\vholly unkno"\vn to primitive times. 'ro take another
of the cases specified,-alTIOng those ,vho did, vaguely
and indecisively, venture to speculate about possible
purifications after death, St. Hilary}', as a private con-
jecture, thought some passages in Scripture (as ßlal.
iii. 2.) seelned to point to some universal trial of all
mankind (IIilary specially included the Virgin illary)
by fire at the day of judgment. N o"\v St. Hilary's no-
tion ,vas" deficient," because he should have c071lbined
"\vith his conception of an universal fire of probation at
the day of judgment the additional idea of that fire not
being universal at all but particular; not at all at the
day of judglnent, but directly after death, and for
hundreds of thousands of years; not at all probatory,
but punitive; as ,yell as devising for it further 1"easons,
objects, and purposes of ,vhich the good nlan never
drealned, and ,vhich ,vere equally and nlanifestly in-
consistent ,vith his o,vn notions; ,vith (to cro\vn all,
in this simple and uniforu1 process of natural develop-
Inent) a firnl belief and clear perception that the sub-
stituted doctrine ,vas no longer, as his had been, a
nlatter of free though interesting speculation, but a
tenet of such fundall1ental importance, that no Inan
could at all understand Christianity ,vithout it, and
no Inan have the renlotest chance of salvation ,vho

Y [The language of St. Hilary (Hamil. 22, 26) is wholly irrecon-
cileable with the ROlllish Purgatory. " He that can reconcile them
will be a most n1Ïghty n1an in controversy."-Bp. Taylor's Dissua-
sh'e, Part ii. Book ii. sect. ii. ]

24

OX THE DEYELOI>J\1EXT Ox'

[LETT. 1.

denied it. '1'his is \vhat 1\lr. Ne\Vnlan calls" the Fa-
thers fi,ving theÍ?
J/tinds on ,vhat they taught, grasping
it more and more closely, vie\ving it on various sides,
trying its COXSISTEKCY, \veighing their o\vn separate
expressions," and thus arriving at further perceptions
of truth (p. 353). ,,-rith such specimens as these (and
these a.re far more plausible than SOlne others on which
!\fr. N e\Vlnan boldly tries to fit his theory) of the faci-
lity \vith ,vhich modern Romanism may be senlinally
found in the records of early Christianity, \vho shall
any longer regard as extravagant the" shoulder-knot"
argument in Swift'
luùicrous parodyz?
'l'here is a conclusion which IDUSt at once occur to
everyone in perusing such speculations as these of
1\11'. N e
man; nanlcly, that if things be really as he
represents theITI, it Blust be not only useless but posi-
tively inju7
ious to study the early ,vriters at all. U se-
less, surely-for \\Tho that can enjoy the noonday \voldd
linger in the da\vn ?-but, nloreover, pernicious, for
in so faint a t\vilight not only the eyes are injured by
straining the yision, but objects thenzselves are liable to
be seen in the most mistaken and distorted aspects.
"\Vhether considered doctrinally or practically, 1\11'.
Ne\vman manifestly thinks the religion of the Iniddle
ages a vast improvement on the religion of St. Cyprian
and St. Irenæus. As regards DOCTHI
E, this is plainly
and confessedly the substance and tendency of his
\vhole arglunent; he, undoubtedly, holds it ,vas given
to Aquinas and Scotus to reach dogmatic apprehen-
sions, of ,vhich those "children in understanding"

7 [Tale of a Tub, sect. 3.]

LETT. J.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTHIKI
.

25

auove-n1entioned had sOll1etimes imperfect concep-
tions, sometilnes no conceptions at all If there be a
difference of any sort bet,veen Augustine and Liguori
(and if there be not, what becomes of 1\Ir. Ne\Vll1an's
theory?), it must manifestly be incalculably to the ad-
vantage of the latter. Nay, as persons of feeble po,vers
of vision, in the midst of a bright and abounding illu-
mination, ,vill see better than the strongest eyes in
glimmer and haze, Ininds of very inferior faculties no,v-
a-days IllUSt be strangely "\vanting to then1selves if they
are not far advanced in theological attainlnents beyond
such beginners as Basil and Chrysostom; to cOlnpare
the catechetical schools of Alexandria, Antioch, Cæsa-
rea, ,vith our Irish l\laynooth, ,vonld palpably be an
insult to the latter, too gross for even the licensed
bitterness of religious controversy. 'Vhile again, as
to PRACTICE, 1\11". Ne\vrnan explicitly speaks of such
men as St. Bruno and his fellows as specimens of an
excellence of ,vhich early days presented but imn1a-
ture types; nor, indeed, if doctrine be ell1inently prac-
tical, can it be doubted that "\vith the increase of doc-
trinal developn1ent piety must have, on the ,vhole,
proportionably increased; and thus the prÌlniti ve mar-
tyrs and confessors corne to be but nleagre models of
perfection after all. It \vill also very plainly fo11 o"\v,
that the custom of" expurgating" Fathers, "\vhich "\ve
have so long ignorantly regarded as the vilest process
of dishonesty extant in the history of religion, is no
other than the obligatory function of the gro,ving
Church. 'Vhat 111ature mind ,vonld all(}\v its juvenile
efforts at authorship to circulate uncorrected? Rut,
no,,,, is thi
inference capable of no further applica..

26

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETT. 1.

tion? IIave ,ve yet seen the terrnination of the pros-
pect it opens? An Object stands at the end of this
long vista of the past history of the Church's dogma-
tical and devotional literature,-an Object venerable,
indeed, yet scarcely nlore venerable than the Church's
o,vn conscious belief at any epoch, if both be alike in-
spired. "\Vhat can subtract the Bible itself from the
grasp of this argull1ent? If the developed organism
should fitly supersede the elementary germ, to no book
does this latter character (according to the very spirit
of this theory) more perfectly apply than to the I-Ioly
Scriptures thelnsel ves. If the Athanasian Creed, au-
thenticated by an infallible Church, ,vas, as 1\11'. N e,v-
man observes in a place already alluded to, susceptible
of alteration, on ,vhat conceivable principle should the
Bible be respected? Can one infallibly authorized do-
cument rank higher than another? or is the Bible,
consisting chiefly of insinuations and hints of doctrine
rather than express enunciations, as ,ve are perpetually
told, clearer, plainer, l110re distinct as an expression of
truth, than the ....\.thanasian Creed? ",'Then ,ve weigh
all this, ,ve can see some consistency in the principles
,vhich in the Roman expurgatory Index a led to the

a [l\Iore accurately the Index of prolp'bited books, issued by Pope
Clement'VIII., Ron1æ, 1596.
. ii. De correct. libror.-The letter of
this la1v, which may, perhaps, be considered scarcely objectionable,
seems to be a carrying out of the Tridentille Decretum de editione
et usu sacrm'll1n lib1'orllm: (Sess. iv.) "Post hæc telneritatem
illanl reprimere volens, qua ad profana quæque convertuntur et
torquentur verba et sententiæ sacræ Scripturæ; ad scurrilia scilicet,
fabulosa, van a, adulationes, detractiones, superstitiones, iInpias et
diabolicas incantationes, divinationes, sortes, ]jbellos etiam fanlosos,
mandat et præcipit [Synodus,] ad tollendall1 hujuslnodi irreveren-

LETT. 1.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

27

jealous precaution, "E.J:pllngi etianl oportet verba SCtrÏp-
turæ sacræ, quæcunque ad profanum usum in1pié ac-
COilllTIodantur." "Thy, indeed, should the" verba Scrip-
turæ sacræ" be treated with more ceren1011Y than the
,yards of any received doctor in a Church under guid-
ance as constant and unfailing as the Scriptures them-
selves could claim, and perpetually, as the ne\v theory
,vould maintain, gro\ving in fuller and yet fuller know-
ledge? "Thy should the authentic book of the apos-
tolic age be regarded as any n10re than the authentic
book of any other equally inspired age? 'Vhy so muclz,
since it was the earliest, and, therefore, tbe most un-
forn1ed, and indecisive, and iuunature?
There is a further application of these considera-
tions \vhich perhaps Iny last renlarks \vill have sug-
gested to your readers. I may yet refer to it; though,
I confess, I scarcely like c1ra\ving forth, even in argu-
nlent, such inferences to the public vie\v. Those \vho
are at all acquainted \vith the vie\vs of Inodern neolo-
gism relative to our blessed Lord himself \vill under-
stand \vhat I Inean; anù \vill observe this ne\v and in-
structive exen1plification of the invariable la,v \vhich
(though she boasts to be our only preservative froin
such evils) evermore identifies the philosophy of Ro-
lnanism and Rationalism as fundamentally one.
Habit, or a kind of instinct of preservation, does in-
deed induce ßIr. N eWIl1an at tinles to bring together
,vhat proofs he can fronl the early ages, of practices
that nlay countenance the ROlnan innovations. But

tianl et contemptum, ne de cætero quisquam quonlodolibet verba
Scripturæ sacræ ad hæc et sin1Ïlia audeat usurpare."-G.]

28

ON THE DEVELOl>:l\IENT OF

[LE'l'T. I.

his adnlissions are nevertheless decisive. For exalnple,
1st, of Image VV orship, after telling us that the early
Christians used the sign of the cross, that Constantine
had a cross on his standard, and that Julian the Apos-
tate b charged theln \vith \vorshiping the cross (a COll-
clusi \-e authority, doubtless), he adds, \vith perfect
simplicity, "IN A LATER AGE [he Inight have added,
after violent struggles] the worship of iJJlages \vas IN-
TRODUCED:'-p. 357. Again:" l'he ii1troduction of
Ï1nages leas still later, and rnet ,vith 1110re opposition in
the "rest than in the East." And he adds the hollow
sophistry of Dalnascene c , who unfortunately becalne
the defender of this lan1entable corruption, that the
\vorship of inlages ,vas a sin only Lecause the Gentiles
Inade then} goùs; \vhereas to Christians in1ages are a
triumph, &c.
pp. 362, 363. This, it ,vill be remem-
bered, ,yas far in the eighth century. Again, 2nd, of
the V,T orship of Saints and Angels he tells us (p. 400) :
"The treatlnent of the Arian and 1\Ionophysite errors
[in the fourth and fifth centuries] becalne the natu1'>al
INTRODUCTION of the cult-us sancto'J''7.un.'' 3rd, Of the
Worship of the Virgin 1\lary: "As is \vell kno,vn, the
special prerogatives of St. 1\fary \yere not fully recog-
nized in the Catholic ritual TILL A LATE DATE."-
p. 384. And again: "There ,vas in the first ages no
public and ecclesiastical [as if there was any other !]
recognition of the place ,vhich St. l\Iary holds in the
economy of grace." 4th, Of Purgatory: "As tÏ1ne
'vent on"-[ nlY readers kno,v that the "public and

b ['
id. s. Cyrill. Alex. Cont. Julian. Lib. vi. p. 19-1. ed. Spanhem.
Lips. 1696.-G. ]
C [Apol. pro ven. sanct. 1m (l!J[J. L. ii. fol. 39. Paris. 1555.-G. ]

LETT. I.]

CHRIS TIAN DOCTRINE.

29

ecclesiastical recognition" of Purgatory took place a
full thousand years later than even St. Augustine's vary-
ing and contradictory speculations d about its possibi-
lityJ-" as tiJne
cent on, the doctrine of Purgatory ,vas
o]Jened . 'Upon the apprehension of the Church;" "the
lnind of the Church \vorking out dognlatic truths-fr01TI
implicit feelings." -po 417. But" Catholic principles"
,vere even "later in develoPlnent than Catholic doc-
trines;" and" to this day," among other nlatters, "the
seat of infallibility remains lTIOre or less undeveloped,
or at least undefined by the Church."-p. 368. 'Vhy
this last rnost Ì1nportant "Catholic principle" should
still remain "undeveloped" "\ve are not very satisfacto-
rily inforlned: it certainly is not that the \vhole mind
of the ROlnan Church has not been 1110St anxiously,
eagerly, and incessantly "\vorking" on the subject;
for there is scarcely any other ,vhich has so con1pletely
busied her frol11 the Council of Constance to the pre-
sent day. I cannot derive much light from 1\11". Ne\v-
man's solution, that such a nlatter as this is rather her
"assumption than her objective profession." Does he
really lllean to convey that the doctrine of infallibility
and its accompanÍ111entR rank any\vhere but alnong the
1110St deliberate formal dogmas of the ROlnan Church?
Does he rnean to say that the sellt of infallibility is only
tacit "assulnption," \vhen he cannot but kno\v tbat it
is the ground of constant dispútation, and of a bitter
though decorous schism bet\veen the t\VO great divi-
sions of the ROlnan Comlnunion?

d [For a full discussion of St. Austin's Purgatorial opinions, see
Ep. Taylor's Dissl(((sil"e, Part ii. Book ii. sect. ii.]

30

ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF

[LETT. 1.

To all these ample admissions that the prImItIve
theology ,vas destitute of the subsequent Romish ele-
ments-adn1Ïssions ,vhich are ill c0I11pensated by ap-
parently anxious, but certainly not very successful,
efforts to detect traces sufficient to supply some gerlTI
for the "developtnent" 'v hich is, at the distance of
some centuries, faithfully to follo,v-
Ir. N e,vnlan sub-
joins, near the close of his volume, a very valuable
illustration. lIe cites a former paper of his o\vn upon
those n10st remarkable and Ï1n portant relics, the Epistles
of St. Ignatius. The object of the paper is to exhibit
the 1naturity of doctrine contained in these epistles of
a disciple of St. John; to she,v ho,v much ,vhich Dis-
senters froIn the Church are in the habit of regarding
as modern corruptions is there fully recognized. I
need not recount the particulars, as I nlay take for
granted your readers are acquainted ,vith the Epistles
themselves, and \vill readily admit the general asser-
tion :-
" Let it be granted only so far as this," argues
lr.
Ne,vman, "that the substance of them is what Ignatius
,vrote, and those \vho deny this Inay ,vrestle as they
best can ,vith the greater difficulties in ,vhich they \viII
find theln
eIves, and is any further ,vitness \vanting to
prove that the Catholic systenl [I anI quoting 1\11'.
Ne'V111an of 1839, it ,viII be ren1elnbered], not in an
inchoate state, not in doubtful da,vnings, not in ten-
dencies or in Í111J]licit teaching, or in teìJllJer, or in sur-
nâses, but in a clrfinite, cOlnplete, and dogntatic, .{oT'7n
was the religion of St. Ignatius; and if so, ,vhere in
the ,vorId did he COlne by it? IIo\v came he to lose,
to blot out from his nlind, the true Gospel, if this ,vas

LETT. I.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

31

not it? How came he to possess this, except it be
apostolic? One does not kllO\V \vhich of the t\VO nlost
to be struck \vith, his precise, unhesitating tone, or the
C0111paSS of doctrine he goes through," &c.-p. 395.
It \vas characteristic of
Ir. N e\Vnlan's fearless can-
dour to quote this; for the application to the question
before us is surely obvious. Here is a plain avo\val of
the definiteness of Christian doctrine from the very
first; an admission that the future belief \vas even then
no nlere "telnper" or" tendency;" yet here, \vith almost
all the leading features of doctrinal and practical Ca-
tholicism, there is not even a trace of anyone of the
distinctive peculiarities of Romanism. Not a trace,
through the \vhole seven epistles of this propounder
of a distinct and cornplete dogruatic Christianitye. If,
as J\Ir. N e\Vll1an after\vards urges, two or three sub-
jects are not specially mentioned (" original sin, &c."-
p. 396), \vill this explain the fact that no allusion is
made to topics that must (on supposition of their ex-
istence) have lain directly in the \vriter's \vay? Per-
petuall y enforcing Church unity through cordial su b-
n1ission to the Church's governors, ho\v does it happen
that the blessed martyr 11lakes not the renlotest refer-
ence to that \vhich the authentic chalnpions of Ro-
l11anis111 have constantly affirmed to have been froll1
the first the adrnitted guarantee of unity? Even
Ir.
Ne\Vll1an endeavours to show that the Papacy \vas
already in at least embryonic existence; and conde-
scends to revive the long-exploded argulllent froll1 the

e The Eucharistic passages, I need not say, are no where stronger
in Ignatius than in our own Service and Catechism, and of course
admit of exactly the same interpretation.

32

O
THE DEVELOYMKNT O:F

[LETT. 1.

title of St. Clelnent's contemporary epistlef. If, then,
Clelnent ,vas really a serninal IIilùebrand, and de-
scribed his Church as "presiding in the ROlllan region,"
from sorne din1, half conscious, but real anticipations
of future greatness, it is surely some,vhat strange that
the "definite, con1plete, and dogmatic" systen1 of Ig-
natius' theology should have been absolutely \vithout
this important eleillent. Truly 1\11'. Ne,vnlan had best
adhere steadily to his" develoPlnent" theory; and not
suffer hÌ1nself to be thus at tilnes betrayed into the
fond drean1 of really verifying modern Romanislll in
the Catholicislll of the Apostolic Fathers. l\Iean,vhile,
the Church of England is content ,vith the theology
,vhich contented Ignatius.
It is scarcely possible to overstate the importance
of this adll1ission, that, after all the long and earnest
efforts of her devoted advocates to delnonstrate that
the Ronlan Church has delivered to us the sÏ1nple
Christianity of antiquity, the attempt lTIUSt honestly
be given up as hopeless. There is, indeed, sOlnething
very providential in the case. Scarcely anyone but a
person situated just as 1\11'. Newman has been, could
have prosecuted such an argument, and brought it
so satisfactorily to this result. A professed Anglican
theologian denying the antiquity of ROlnanisnl, ,vould
have been regarded as a n1ere partisan controversialist,

f [!\Ir. Newman's argulnent is not derived fron1 the title of St. Cle-
ment's epistle, but from the fact that" St. Clenlent, in the nmne of
the Roman Church, writes a letter to the Corinthians, ,,,hen they
were without a bishop."-p. 22. The description of the Church of
Rome as "presiding in the Ronlan region" occurs not in St. Clenlent,
but in St. Ignatius.-Epist. ad Ronl. ed. Jacobson, '1'0111. ii. p. 344.J

LETT. 1.]

CHIUSTIAN DOCTRIXE.

33

echoing \v hat others had said, and speaking rather
,vhat he \vished than ,vhat he kne\v. A professed
Rornanist, on the other hand, "Tould scarcely have
ventured to risk his Church's reputation upon the
chances of a sen1Ï-philosophical theory of "develop-
ment ;" kno,ving that, though the theory might go the
,yay of a thousand theories before it, the fatal adn1is-
sion it involved ,vould not be readily forgotten. l\lr.
N e,vn1an being in a trëlnsitional state, neither Anglican
nor formally and definitely Roman, ,vas emancipated
from both these restraints, and has accordingly opened
his Il1ind freely, fairly, and irrecoverably. His previ-
ous education in our great Anglican University had
fortunately expanded to hÜn the whole field of anti-
quity, ,vithout those perverting biasses by ,vhich Ro-
Inish training ,vould have prepossessed his judgment;
accordingly he could not be deceived by the hollo\v-
ness of the COl11111on pretences of the Roman theolo-
gians on behalf of their tenets; ,vhatever merits n1edi-
æval Romanism might claim, he kne,v antiquity too
,veIl not to kno,v it could not really clailn that. It
luight be (as he seems to drealn) something better
than antiquity, but it was not antiquity. Still,-if I
may \vithout presumption go on and venture to sketch
\vhat I have little doubt is nearly the true history of
this case, and of many others,-his imagination and
feelings \vere irreparably engaged; and reason, as
usual, ,vas S0011 busily active in devising subtle argu-
Inentative grounds to justify his choice. He had be-
fore his fancy a bright ideal of Unity, Perpetuity,
Holiness, Self-denial,
lajesty,-in short, that" glorious
Church, not having spot, or "'Tinkle, or any such
D

34

ON THE DEVELOP
IE
T OF

[LETT. I.

thing," \vhich the Lord of the whole Church is yet to
present to Himself" holy and without blemish;" in the
impatience of desire he had come to identify his ideal
with the actual Church of history; by constantly
dwelling among the highly-\vrought devotional \vorks
of holy men in the Ron1an cOlnmunion-\vorks which
utterly spoil the taste for the calmer and more intellec-
tualized piety of our divines (very much as romances
debauch the taste for solid reading), his heart \vas se-
duced into forgetting the vices of thousands in the
heroic virtues of comparatively few, and (what is much
worse) the gross doctrinal errors of those few for the
sake of the ardent piety their effusions seelned to em-
body; until at length tbe errors becanle tolerable, be-
came acceptable, becan1e \velcon1e, were received as
truths; and then the \vork was accomplished. But all
was not yet secure. In this crisis arose the necessity
of accounting for the undeniable absence of certain
prominent peculiarities of the system fron1 the records,
not only of inspiration but of antiquity for centuries.
Others 111ight not feel the difficulty.; he could not
escape it. And so by degrees the thought gre\v into
shape, fitting itself as it grew \vith goodly apparel frOin
the" wardrobe" of one of the richest in1aginations of
our time, that the Church of Christ 1night perhaps, be
lneant to en} body one living, growing, self-organizing
schelne of belief; that it ntÍght have been intended.
spiritually to nourish itself by Í1nbibing and assimilat-
ing materials from all around it; incorporating into
itself all the truths of all mankind, perlneating then1
\vith its o\vn transforlning spirit, and moulding theln
into ne,v shapes, so that what \vas before gentile error
and worthless superstition became merely, by virtue of

LETT. I.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

35

this regenerating adoption, high and holy truth; nor
this alone,-but that by brooding over its original
store of doctrine, it might be endowed ,vith a faculty
of expanding it into totally new and unsuspected forms,
even into collecting ne,v Objects of Worship, legiti-
lnate sharers in divine adoration, from their relation
to Him, ,vhom it once seemed the first principle of all
religion to maintain in sole and incommunicable su-
premacy. Such ,vas the "theory of developlnent,"-
an hypothesis in n1any respects brilliant, attractive,
in1posing; having against it only such objections as
these,-that it ,vas utterly destitute of evidence beyond
its utility for the explanation of the (unnecessary)
difficulty that suggested it; and that in some,vhat
alleviating that difficulty, it introduced others of ten-
fold 111agnitude peculiar to itself.
But the dimensions of your Journal are not calcu-
lated for lengthy disquisitions, and I must pause. I
have endeavoured to sho\v, that 1\11". Newman's theory
is profitless to Romanism, for it is flatly contradictory
to her o,vn recorded and unalterable decisions; that
it is dangerous to Romanism, for it surrenders her long-
cherished claim to evidence from antiquity, and gives
her in return only a precarious hypothesis ,vhich she
has herself in substance repeatedly disavo,ved. 'Vith
all this, ho,vever, I have only no,v approached the main
theory itself, and its merits. 'Vith your perlnission,
I ,vill hUlllbly attell1pt to estimate its intrinsic claims
in 1l1Y next cOlnn1unication.
I am, my dear Sir,
Your's faithfully,
"T. ARCHER BUTLER.

D2

36

ON THE DEVELOr:\fENT OF

[LETT. II.

LET T E It I I .

.

DEAR SIR,

IN the letter which appeared in your
last Number I drew the attention of your readers to the
very ÏInportant fact, that the theory of 1\11". N e,vrnan is
absolutely inconsistent with the deliberate affirlTIation
of the n10st authoritative of all Roman Councils; that
Council, "\vhose definitions and Canons are, in the
peculiar creed of the modern Romish Church, alone
specially and by na1ne commended to the undoubting
reception of all her Inembers a . Artful1y ambiguous
and elaborately qualified as are many of the declara-
tions of Trent (for the prelates of that Council "\vere

8. [The following are the terms in which all ecclesiastics and con-
verts are required to profess their assent to the Tridentine Canons:
" Cætera itenl onlnia a sacris Canonibus, et CEculnenicis Conciliis,
ac præcipue a Sacrosancta Tridentiuna Synodo tradita, definita, et
declarata, indubitanter recipio, atque profiteor, sin1ulque contrariå
on1uia, atque hæreses quascunque ab Ecclesia dan1natas, rejectas, et
anathematizatas, ego pariter darnno, l'ejicio, et anathematizo."
" Pius IV. not only enjoined all ecclesiastics to swear to his ne,v
creed, but he imposed it on all Christians as 'veram fidem Catho-
licam extra quau) nemo salvus esse potest.' "- Vide Abp. Bralnhall,
1V m'l's, 'TO!. ii. p. 201, in A nglo- Cath. Lib. ]

LETT. II.]

CIITIISTIAN DOCTRINE.

37

themselves not uninfluenced b by the movement they
nlet to resist), on tllis the deliverance is decided and
unequivocal. Beyond all doubt, 1\11'. N e,vrnan's book
is fo1'lnally Ünplicated in the anathelna of Trent; the
Council's prophetic condemnation, to which tinle can
set no lilnits
has already rnade it, qJSO facto, heretical.
The" develoPlnent" of this theorist is every where
confronted by "traditiones continuâ sllccessione conser-
vatæ." Not only are such Ï1nportant matters as the
seven Sacraments declared to be, every single one, "a
Jesu Christo Do}}
ino nostro institutum," [8ess. vii.], but
even such minute particulars of discipline as secret
sacralnental confession (as distinguished from public)
are "a sanctissÜnis et antiquissÍ7nis Patribus magna
'llnanÙnique consensu sernpe'l' cOlnmendata," and such as
"ab initio Ecclesia sancta usa est."-Sess. xiv. c. 5. [De
Pænitentiâ.] Interpretations of Scripture, in ,vhich
an inventive genius, like our Author's, ,vould find a
peculiarly fertile source of subsequent developn1ent,
are stringentlv forbidden , -" contra unanÍlnel1l consen-
U .I
SUlll Patruln" (8ess. iv. De Canonic. SS.) ; nay, the very
t!tought of such, "etialTIsi hnjuslnodi interpretationes
nullo unquam tern pore in lucen1 eùelldæ forent;" and

b [Cardinal Pole was one of the three legates commissioned by
Paul III. to open the Council in 15-12. Pole had been, along with
the excellent Cardinal Contarini, engag
d in preparing the" Consi-
lium delectol'mn Cal'dinalimn et aliol'urn Prælatorum de emendandâ Ec-
clesiâ," which in 1537 was presented to the Pontiff as a plan for the
reformation of the Church. It was not until Decenlber, 1545, that
the opening of the Council actually took place. "Contarini was
now no more; but Pole was present; and there were in the as-
senlbly nlany others warmly attached to their opinions."-Ranke's
rIÙStory of tile Popes.]

38

ON THE DEVELOPMENT 0:11"'

r
L LETT. II.

the expression of the decree is put yet more beyond
the possibility of evasion in the Creed, ,vhere the divine,
or the convert, solemnly promises "never to take and
interpret the Scripture otherwise than according to the
unanimous consent of the Fathers." The decision of
the Council can, therefore, be made to square ,vith the
new theory only by the most palpable distortion of its
express, repeated, and positive affirmations; and the
illustrious convert ,viII require to apply to the creed of
Pius IV. the same ingenious process by which he con-
trived, some years since, to disembarrass himself of the
burden of the Thirty-nine Articles.
But though the authoritative doctrine of the Roman
Church is thus unquestionable, 1\11". Nevlman's specu-
lations, as might be expected, are not without \vhat
the technical phraseology of his theory would style
SOlne scattered "early anticipations." Some of these
will, I dare say, have already occurred to your readers,
as our divines have frequently cited them \vith no un-
justifiable triumph. Such is the well-known adn1ission
of Fisher: "Aliquando Purgatoriu.m incogniturn fuit,
sero cognitum universæ Ecclesiæ." "Legat qui velit
Græcorum veterum commentarios, et nullun
, quantum
opinor, aut quam rarissimurn de Purgatorio sermonem
inveniet. Sed neque Latini simul Olnnes, at sensÍln, hujus
rei veritatem conceperunt."-Contr. Luther. ATt. 18.
But what avails the precipitate honesty of Fisher or-
1\1"1". Newman against the solemn verdict of Trent, re-
vealing to us, ,vith direct authority frOITI IIeaven, that
"Catholica Ecclesia ex antiquá Patll'uJn traditione docuit
Purgatorium esse" (Sess. xxv.); and that the Sacrifice
of the l\rIass "pro defunctis in Christo nondul1
ad l)le-

LETT. 11.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

39

nUJJt purgatis, rite, juxta APOSTOLORU
I traditionen1,
offertur." (Sess. xxi. cap. 2).-Or again,-of Indul-
gences, the same candid Cardinal adn1its C , tbat " Earum
usus in Ecclesia videtur fuisse recentior, et adïnodu1n
serò repertus;" and that" cæperunt Indulgentiæ post-
quaJ1
ad Purgatorii CTuciatus aliqua1Ttdiu trepidatum
est" (Asse

t.Luther. Confut. 1523, p. 111); and Cajetan d
confesses, "nulla sacræ Scripturæ, nulla priscorulll Doc-
torum, Græcorum ant Latinorulll, auctoritas scripta hanc
[" hunc"scil. 01'tu1n] ad nostram deduxit notitialll ;"( Op'llsc.
Ton1. i. Tractat. xv. c. 1.) and Durandus, that" sancti
etiam 'In inintè loquuntu'r de Indulgentiis." (IV. Dist. xx.
2, 3.) But ,"vhat profits all this ill-timed candour, ex-
cept to excite strange heretical surmises, "\vhen the

C [Bishop Fisher is here stating the opinion of others rather than
his own: "l\Iultos fortasse movet Indulgentiis istis non usque adeo
fidere, quòd earum usus in Ecclesiâ videatur recentior, et admodum
serò apud Christianos repertus. Quibus ego respondeo, non certò
constare à quo prinlùm tradi cæperint: fuit tamen nonnullus
earum usus, ut aiunt, apud Romanos vetustissimus; quod ex Statio-
nibus intelligi potest." This passage is transcribed fronl the work
of Polydore Vergil, De Rerum In-centoribus, Lib. viii. Cap. i. p. 484.
Basil. 1550. It is a remarkable fact that the entire citation from
Bishop Fisher, and Vergil's words which accompany it, (in all
thirty-six lines,) have been sentenced to expurgation by the Vatican
Index in 1607, and by that of Cardinal Zapata, in 1632: an instance
of the watchful jealousy of the Church of Rome respecting questions
raised as to the date of the introduction of her novelties.-G.J
[The entire passage from Polydore Vergil, including the citation
from Fisher, will be found in Bishop Taylor's Dissuasive, Part ii.
B. ii. sect. ii. p. 391. Ed. Cardwell. J
d [It must be acknowledged that Cardinal Cajetan's expressions
have reference to the difficulty of tracing the 'rise of Indulgences.
He asserts in the same place that" Indulgentiarum gratia anti'lua
est in Christi Ecclesia, et non nova adinventio."-G.)

40

ON THE DEVELOP
fENT OF

[LETT, II.

infallible Council, "Spiritu Sancto adjuvante," pro-
nounces that the Church "hujuslllodi potestate divini-
tus sibi traditâ antiqu'issimis etialD temporibus, usa
fuerit;" which, unless the Council be guilty of the
grossest deception, ,ve must, of course, understand of
indulgences in the only sense in ,vhich they were at the
time contested. Of even the characteristic ROlDan doc-
trine of the physical annihilation of the bread and wine
in the Holy Eucharist, the able Franciscan, Alpbonsus
ùe Castro, admits that "de transubstantione panis [in
corpus Christi] -rara est in antiquis scriptoribus men-
tio." (Advers. lIæ'res. viii. [verb. IndulgentiaJ) ; and
the oracular l\faster of the Sentences, in a well-known
passage (iv, 11), declares that he cannot venture to
pronounce anything definite on the subject, and ,vould
advise all pious persons to avoid the inquirye. "\Vhile
the very learned Jesuit, Sirmondus, informs us that
Paschasius "ita primu'Jn explicuit genuinuID Ecclesiæ
Catholicæ sensum ut viam cæteris aperuit" f._ TTit.

e [Peter LOlnbard's words, "definire non sufficio," are not to be
understood as intimating a doubt of the truth of the doctrine of
Transubstantiation; for in the preceding sentence he had explicitly
declared, " substantiam panis in corpus, vinique substantiam in san-
guinem converti." The question di cussed in this Distinction is
"De modis conversionis:" and the advice about avoiding an inquiry
into a ll1)'sterious subject is simply this; "Mysterium fidei credi
salubriter potest, investigari salubriter non potest;" an observation
which is made in the fonowing page, relative to the assertion that
the body and blood of Christ are not i1zc1'eased by the continued ex-
ercise of the sacerdotal office.-G. ]
f [In this extract we must read ., primus," and H ape1'Ue'll't." The
pa
sage is : "in eo que" (scil. Libro) "genuinlull Eccle:5Ìæ Catholicæ
Sl'nsnm ita primus explicuit, ut vian1 cæteris apenwrit, qui de eodem

I
ETT. II.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

41

Pasch-as. But, once more, how can the pacific coun-
sels of Lombard, or the plain admissions of many
other Roman divines (to whose opinions, concerning
the obscurity of early testimonies on the ,vhole subject,
l\lr. Newman appears in no small degree inclined,
pp. 19, 20), as to the absence from antiquity of any
unequivocal evidence to a belief in the physical change
of substance, avail against the distinct assertion of the
Council, that the very special and particular mode of
change, and no other, ,vhich is no\v styled" transub-
stantiation," was that ,vhich "persuasull1 SE
IPER in
Ecclesia Dei fuit" (sess. xiii. cap. 4). Nay, some of the

argumento multi postea scripsere." (Sirmondi Opp. iv. 448. Venet.
1728.) It is scarcely fair to interpret this description of S. Rad-
bert's work otherwise than with relation to the manner in which he
treated of the Sacramental question, in consequence of it having
been" à nonnullis temerè jactata" in the reign of Ludovicus Pius.
Bellarmin's language, (De Serptt. Eeel. ad an. 820.) which is fre-
quently n1Îsquoted, is to the same effect: "Hic auctor prin1us fuit,
qui seriò et copiosè scripsit de veri tate corporis et sanguinis Domini
in Eucharistia, contra Bertramum Presbyterum, qui fuit ex prin1Ìs
qui earn in dubium revocarunt."-G.]
[Sirmondus and Bellarmine seenl to intin1ate that Paschasius first
reduced to dogmatic form what had always been implicitly believed.
l\Iabillon suggests a very different explanation of the strangeness of
his statements in the eyes of his contemporaries; namely, that they
had lost the true doctrine once held by the Fathers, and n01V restored
by him, Ù Ante Paschasii librum confitebantur Catholici on1nes
Christi Domini verum corpus, verumque sanguinem reverâ existere
in Eucharistiâ, itemque panem et vinun1 in iIJâ converti; at nemo
Pasehasii temp01"e illud corpus esse idem quod ex l\Iariâ .Virgine
natum est, tam directè asserere auditus fuerat. Id quid em antea
ex Patribus tradiderant non pauci, sed ignota erant illo ævo, aut
certè non observata, eo rum hâc de re testimonia."- Vide Du Pin
,
V 01. ii. p. 80, English Trans.]

42

ON THE DEVELOP
IENT OF

[LETT. II.

contemporary and post-Tridentine schoolmen (of course
without the slightest authority, after the conciliar deci-
sion),-menlbers of "those modern schools in and
through which," as l\Ir. Newman, ,vith incomparable
coolness, observes, "the subsequent developments of
Catholic doctrines have proceeded" (p. 333 ),-have at
tinles, in the stress of argument, ventured to approach
the views of our author. " This," says Bishop Patrick
(Discourse about Tradition, Part ii.), "is the doctrine
of Salrl1erol1, and others of his fello,vs g , that 'the doc-
trine of faith admits of additions in essential things; for
all things vvere not taught by the Apostles, but such
as ,vere then necessary and fi
for the salvation of be-
lievers;' by"\vhich means," as he adds, "we can never
kno\v vvhen the Christian religion will be perfected."
Indeed, l\lr. Ne"Tlnan might possibly find SOlne traces
of his doctrine in an authority "\vhich he, I doubt not,
ranks among the very highest in the calendar of Ron1an
hagiology, the meek, un\vorldly " Saint Gregory VII."
" PrÏlnitiva Ecclesia," observes that Pope, "multa dis-
sinl.'ulavel'>at, gum a sanctis Patribus, postll1odum firmata
Christianitate et religione crescente, subtili examina-
tione correcta sunt." (In his Ans"\ver to the Duke of

g Bishop Patrick's assertion is no eX3Jgeration; e.g. "Non omni-
bus olnnia dedit Deus, ut quælibet ætas suis gaudeat revelationib'lls."
Sa lmel'. In Epist. ad Roman. Diss. lvii. " Unius Augustini doctrina
assumptionis B. Deiparæ cultun1 in Ecclesiam, introdllxit."-lbid.
[The" Liber de Assumptione beatæ 'Virginis l\Iariæ," here alluded
to, is unquestionably spurious.-G.] [It is a sern10n of some author
of the twelfth century or thereabouts.- Vide Du Pin, Vol. i. p. 404,
English Trans.] l\Ir. N eWlnan may compare this with his citation
frOlll this Jesuit, in p. 32], in proof of his having held an opinion
of the supremacy of Holy Scripture.

LETT. II.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

43

Bohemia, inter Epp.) Though, on the other hand, it
must be confessed, his great namesake Gregory 1,
traced his developments to a different and more direct
source. 'fo an inquirer ,vho bluntly asks how it hap-
pens that, at the opening of the seventh century, "tam
multa de anilnabus clarescunt quæ ante latuel
unt," or,
in 1\lr. N e"\vman's phraseology, ho,v "Purgatory was
opened upon the mind of the Church," the ,vorthy Pope
replies by referring the fact to the approaching end
of the ,vorld : "quantum præsens sæculum propinquat
ad JÌneJn, tantlull futuru1l1 sæculum signis Inanifestiori-
bus aperitur" (Dial. h iv. 40, 41); a view of the case
,vhich, possibly, by some profound mystical interpreta-
tion (such as 1\lr. Ne"\vrnan in this volume advocates so
strenuously), may be made to square ,vith the theory
of developn1ent; but the very allegation of ,vhich
(,vith the nU1l1erous visions and supernatural revela-
tions like,vise affirmed) would, at first sight, and to
superficial reasoners, appear to demonstrate how very
little the ]Jatì 1 ons thenlselves of the innovations on Chris-
tian doctrine, kne,v of the process by "\vhich our deeper
theorist would account for their proceedings.
The history, indeed, of the successive "expedients"
(to elnploy 1\1r. N e"\vrnan's term) for reconciling the
Roman faith ,vith prirnitive doctrine ,vould be, had I
time or space here to pursue it, exceedingly curious
and instructive. It is not generally observed <,vhat
Bishop Stillingfleet has very clearly established), that
the distinct and formal assertion of Unbroken Apos-
tolic Tradition, as a separate source of al'ticles of belief,

h [The genuineness of these Dialogues cannot be safely as-
sumed.-G. ]

44

ON THE DEVELOPl\lENT OF

[LETT. II.

is itself, even in the Roman Church, cOlllparatively
lIlodern. The great divine 'v horn I have nauled has
den10nstrated this point convincingly, fron1 the history
of the discussions in the Council of 1
rent itself, as re-
ported by Palla vicini; from the assertions of the divines
of the ROlnan Church previous to the Council for 111any
centuries; from the express statements of the Roman
Canon La\v, and fron1 ancient offices of the ROD1an
Church, and the glossers ,vho have comlnented on
then1. Exactly in proportion as innovations gre,v
l110re and 1110re irreconcileable ,vith IIoly Scripture,
we can trace the slo,v, gradual elevation of a vague,
undefined tradition to a sort of co-ordinate authority
with the ,vritten -l\r ord of God \ until at length, in the

i Perhaps the first conlplete authoritative appeal to Tradition, in
tacit preference to the written 'V ord (though even then not dis-
tinctly alleged as an absolutely separate ground for faith), may be
considered to have occurred in support of the peculiarly unscrip-
tural innovation of Inlage- Worship. """V e," say the Bishops of
the Second Nicene Council, "following the divine instructions of
the holy Fathers, and the traditions of the Catholic Church, decree,
,vith all accuracy, &c., that the venerable and holy inlages shall be
placed in the holy churches of God. Thus, the instruction of our
holy Fathers is established, to wit, the tradition of the Catholic
Church, &c."-Art. vii. [Act. vii.- The sentences here cited are not
consecutive. It ,vas an express declaration of this Council, while it
boasted of its not adding to, or taking fr0111, the truth of the Gospel,
"onlnes Ecclesiasticas, sive scripto, sive sille sen'pto, sancitas nobis
Traditiones, illibatè SerValllus." (Cuneill. Gen. iii. 661. Ronlæ, 16]2.)
-G. J Yet at that tinle, and long after, the doctrine appears very
undecided. For instance, at the Fourth Council [The eighth Ge-
neral Council, probably the thirty-sixth Synod of Constantinople,
was the fourth there held, to which the naIlle of CEcumenical is
conlmonlyattached.-G.J of Constantinople (A. D. 869), a tradition
is claimed to be obligatory, delivered "etitun a q1lolibet Deiloquo

LETT. II.]
Council of Trent, ,vhich had been preceded by fierce
Protestant discussions of the Rule of Faith, this con-
venient voucher ,vas deliberately exalted to share the
saIne throne j ; and an expedient '\l'hich itself gre,v out
of innovation ,vas n1aùe to authenticate the innovations
that originated it. These irnaginary Apo
tolic Tradi-
tions for lllodern Romanism, were supposed to be
partly oral, partly preserved in the written records of
the Church; the latter having been long before (a fact
now notorious, and adlnitteù by all parties) flagrantly
interpolated and corrupted in such instances as the
forged Decretals k , and the numerous mediæval treatises
attributed to the early ,vriters. In either sense of it,
the plea of Apostolic Tradition in behalf of the me-
diæval doglnas could only pass current ,vith the un-
informed classes, and could neyer be expected to last
very long. 'The shre\vd and daring Jesuits, men fitted
to grapple with the intel1ect and learning of the age,
,vhile making desperate efforts (TurrianusI, &c.) to
vindicate the genuineness of the forgeries, plainly ma-
nifest, by glirnpses of the very vie,vs no\v given to the
public, ho,v little they really relied for permanent suc-

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

45

pa tre ac magistro" (Can. i.) -an extension inadn1Ïssible on almost
any conceivable theory.
j " Traditiones ipsas, &c., pari pielatis a.ffectu ac reverentiâ suscipit
et veneratur."-Sess. iv.
k [For an account of these Decretals, vide infra, p.47.J
I [Turrianus, or Francis de la Torre, a J esui t of Herrera, in the
diocese of Valentia, in Spain, published a work in defence of the
forged Decretals, entitled, "Adversus l\Iagdeburgenses Centuria-
tores pro Canonibus ApostolorUl11, et Epistolis decretalibus Pontifi-
cum Apostolicorum, Libri quinque." Florent. 1572. Gieseler. ii.
335, in Clark's Fol'. Tlleol. Lib. J

46

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETT. II.

cess on these spurious testilTIonies; though, fettered as
they \vere by the unn1anageable decisions of Trent,
they \vere forced to tender a simulated allegiance to
the doctrine of continuous primitive Tradition. But
no\v, \vhen, before the light of a just and honest criti-
cism, the gloon1Y spectres of Decretal and Canon, that
so long stalked through the t\vilight of the middle ages,
have for ever vanished, and even the most reckless
controversialist is ashamed to recall them,-when, as
1\11". N ewnlan deplores, "infidelity is in a more hopeful
position as regards Christianity" (he means, more
hopeful of gaining its object), because "the facts of
revealed religion present a less cOlllpact and orderly
front to the attacks of its enemies," and this again,
because" the state of things is not as it was when an
appeal lay to the supposed ,yorks of the Areopagite m ,
or to the pritnitive Decretals n , or to St. Dionysius's

m [These writings, ascribed to S. Dionysius of Athens, are now
universally adn1Ïtted to be spurious. Thorndike supposes then1 to
have been composed in the fourth century (TVorl.;s, in Lib. Anglo-
Cath. Theology, Vol. i. Part i. p. 321). Le Quien regards thelll as the
,york of a monophysite heretic. Du Pin considers that they must
be subsequent to the fourth century, froln various internal evidences.
They were unknown in the west until much later. "The Grecian
En1peror, 1\Iichael Balbus, sent to Lew:s the l\Ieek, in the year 824,
a copy of the pretended works of Dionysius the Areopagite, which
fatal present kindled immediately the holy flame of n1ysticislll in
the western provinces."-1JIosheirn, Eccles. Hist., Cent. ix. The work
,vas translated into Latin by the order of Lewis. A new translation
vvas n1ade by John Scot Erigena, at the request of Charles the Bald,
a very interesting account of which is given by him in a letter to
the en1peror, which is preserved in U ssher's Sylloge Vetel'wn Epistola-
'J'wn Hibernicarum. Works, Vol. iv. p. 476. Edit. Elrington. ]
n [For an able sketch of the vast and pern1anent effect of these

LETT. n.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRI
E.

47

ans,vers to St. Paulo, or to the Cæna D0111ini P of St.
Cyprian" q (p. 28); in other words, 'v hen, according

Decretals in supporting the encroachments of the Papacy, see
Allies' Church of England cleared from the Charge of Schism" Ch. vii.
sect. 2; and Gieseler., Eccles. Hist., ii. 330, et seqq., in Clark's Foreign
Theol. Lib. "A new canonical jurisprudence began to be introduced
into the Gallican Church, as well as into the other provinces of the
west (from the year 836) by the invention for that purpose of the
supposititious Letters of the ancient Ronlan Pontiffs, in which there
are a great number of regulations altogether opposed to the statutes
of the ancient Canons: These were edited in a collection of Canons
which is commonly attributed to Isidore :àlercator, which Riculph,
Bishop of
Iayence, brought from Spain into Gaul. . . . . It is indeed
certain, and beyond all doubt, according to the judgment of all
learned men, and also the Cardinals Baronius and Bellarmine, that
those letters of the ancient Pontiffs, namely, Clement, Anterus,
Euaristus, Telesphorus, Callistus, Julius, Damasus, and generally
all those which precede the times of Siricius (384-398), and Inno-
cent, were fabricated by this Isidore."-De
Iarca, De Concord.
quoted by Allies. Pope Nicholas I. warmly maintained the autho-
rity of these Decretals, because they sanctioned his assulllption in
the celebrated dispute between the French Bishops and Rothadus,
Bishop of Soissons, who appealed to the Pope against the sentence
of his brethren. "He wrote a large letter to all the Bishops to
oblige them to receive Rothadus; and taking this occasion to greaten
his authority, he claims as his due that all causes of the bishops
should be brought to the Holy See. He upholds this pretence by
the false Decretals, which he vouches to be genuine, ancient, and
very authentic. This letter is dated January. Indict. 13. A. D. 866."
-Du Pin, Vol. ii. p. 62. The ßlagdeburgh Centuriators first gave
copious proof of their spuriousness, which was admitted by Bellar-
nline and Baronius. They were defended by Turrianus; but" the
question was decided by Dav. Blondelli Pseudo-Isidorus et Turri-
anus vapulantes. Genev. 1628."- '''id. Gieseler., Ecc.Hist., ii. p.3-11,
in Clark's Foreign Tlzeolog. Lib.]
o [Not" S. Paul," but" Paul ;" for the allusion evidently is to
the disputable .A..nswers of S. Dionysius of Alexandria to ten propo-

48

ON TIlE DEVELOP
IEXT OF

[LETT. II.

to :\Ir. N e\\Trnan, Christianity is in great danger, be-
cause she can no longer employ in her defence the
Inost execrable weapons that hypocrisy and falsehood
ever invented; in this alarming state of things for
" Christianity," new nleasures must be adopted; A pos-
tolic Tradition has had its day, and the Roman Pro-
teus exhibits himself in a forn1 not only different from,
but absolutely incolnpatible with, the argun1entative
grounds on which, by infallible authority, the belief of
centuries has been built. Apostoli
Tradition, itself
a conlparatively Inodern pretext, s10,vly retires, and
makes \vay for J\Iediæval Developlnent.
To the brief consideratioI1. of this latest" variation
of Romanism" I no,v proceed.
I anl, however, well R\Vare ho\v arid and uninviting
the cold process of argumentative dissection nlust ap-
pear, 'v hen contrasted vlith the comlnanding preten-

sitions of the heretic Paul of Sanwsata. Vide Tillemont, iv. Notes,
pp. 42-3. ed. Brux. Valesii A nnot. in Lib. vii. Euseb. Cap. xxx.-
G.]
P [It is very well known that the tract De Cæna Domini is the
sixth of twelve treatises De cal'dinalibus Opel'ibus Christi, written
by Arnoldus Carnotensis, Abbas Bonæ-vallis, about the year
1160.-G.]
q On reperusing the en tire of this e
{traordinary passage, I think
I can plainly perceive that it was meant (though SOInew ha t covertly),
in anticipation of objections fronl the Romanist divines themselves.
This is instructive, in relation to what has already been observed
of the absence of all ecclesiastical authority for the new system.
l\Ieanwhile, it must be remembered, that l\Ir. Newman has solelunly
conlmitted his hazardous theory to the " judgnlent of the Church"
(Pref. p. 11), and, utterly subversive as it is of all her theological
bulwarks for centuries, "the Church" has not ventured to dis-
countenance it.

LETT. II.]

CHIUSTIAN DOCfRINE.

49

sians and engaging brilliancies of a speculation Eke
1\11". Ne,vman's. Probably nothing ,vouId wholly de-
stroy the effect of such a ,york but some equally clever
rival theo7'y. An intellectual rOinance of this kind is,
in this respect, like a religious or political novel; you
cannot Ineet it effectively by nlere argulllent; to put
it do,vn at all you must ,vin the public ear and fancy
by a counter novel. 'Vhether it ,vould be very diffi-
cult to string together an equally plausible series
of opposing hypotheses, I shall not undertake to pro-
nounce; I aill certainly not about, for nlY o,vn hUIn ble
part, to attempt the unequal contest. I do not under-
take to present 1\11. N e\vman ,yith a lofty and attrac-
tiye system like his o\vn; unfolùed ,vith all the ponlp
of scientific nlethod, and branching into its infinity of
applications and illustrations. IIypotheses non jingo. I
do not pretend to have penetrated all the Ininutiæ of
the providential governnlent of the Church; nor can
I dare to approach a subject so a ,vful, except in the
cautious and careful guise either (so far as it is at all
practicable) of demonstrated theory-la,vs patiently
educed fro111 distinct and ascertained facts, or of hUln-
bIe and confessed conjecture. Indeed, 1\11'. N e'Vlnan
himself furnishes lne ,vith a ,yarning on this head,
,vhich it may not be the less prudent to adopt, that
its author has hÍInself rested the n1ain pillar of his
theory on neglecting it. "So111etÍ1nes," he tells us,
"\vith evident disapprobation, "an attelnpt has been
made to ascertain 'the leading idea,' as it has been
called, of Christiauity: a relnarkable essay, as directed
to,vards a divine religion, ,vhen, even in the existence
of the ,vorks of luan, the task is beyond us." -po 34.
E

50

ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF

[ LETT. II.

In ,vhich point of vie"\v unquestionably the author's
o,vn is an exceedingly" remarkable Essay," inasn1uch
as its principal test of genuine development, and that
on whose application the greatest amount of labour is
besto"\ved, consists in the "preservation of the idea" of
Christianity, ,vhich it is here previously pronounced
chimerical to profess to determine at all.
Let lne first attempt to cornmunicate some concep-
tion (of course a very fain t and ineffective one, ,vithin
so lill1ited a compass) of the course of the author's
argument.
" The Development of an Idea," according to 1\Ir.
N e\vman, is "the germination, gro,vth, and perfection
of some living, that is, influential, truth, or apparent
truth, in the mind of Inen, during a sufficient period."
-po 37. And as this period closes, or advances to its
close, "the system or body of thought thus laboriously
gained ,vil1, after all, be only the adequate representa-
tion of the original idea."-p. 36. The necessary cha-
racteristic of this process is, that" an idea cannot de-
velop at all except either by destroying or modifying
and incorporating ,vith itself, existing n10des of acting
and thinking." And as it n10difies, so also " it is mo-
dified or at least influenced by the state of things in
,vhich it is carried out, and depends in various ,vays
on the eirCulnstances around it."-p. 38. FrOll1 this
(which seeins intelligible enough) 1\11'. Ne\vman next
proceeds to specify the kinds of development, and,
after rejecting certain literal or physical significations,
he insists chiefly on ,vhat he styles political, p. 45; lo-
gical, p. 48; historical, p. 49; 111 oral, p. 50; and meta-
physical, p. 54, developlnents. I cannot say lnnch for
the perspicllityofhis eloquenteÀposition of these classes,

I,ETT. Ir.]
"\vhich principally consists in a rapid aggregate of il-
lustrations, the precise point of ,vhich is not in all in-
stances very obvious to readers of a fancy less excur-
sive than the gifted author's. It is not, difficult, ho,v-
ever, for such readers to perceive that the class of
developments \vith ,vhich the \vork is likely to Jnake
thel11 most fanliliar are those \vhich it styles" Illoral."
"1\loral developments are not properly matters of
cont1"ovel
sy [a convenient maxilll, as the reader ,vill
perceive, ,vhen adn1itted to the intended aplJlications
of this la,v or class of developments], but are natural
and personal, substituting ,vhat is congruous, desirable,
pious, decorous, gene1
ous, for strictly logical inference."
-po 50. And after quoting a passage of Bishop But.
leI', \vhich he considers applicable to his argument,
and stating froln the "Analogy," as an Ùlstance of a
"Dloral developl11ent," the ob1igation of ,vorship \vhich
at once, even \vithout express reyelation, arises from
the kno\vledge of the deity of the Second and Third
Persons of the Trinityr, he adds (an analogical corol-
lary ,vhich ,vonld have some\vhat astonished the great

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

51

q It is observable, that the very passage which
Ir. Newman cites
from the" Analogy" contains (in his own quotation) a qualification
which is all but a direct contradiction of the unbridled license of
"moral development" he contends for in religious worship. Even
of such unquestioned duties as the worship of beings who are them-
selves the very and eternal God, Bishop Butler adds: "In u-hat ex-
tet'nal mannel' this inward worship is to be expressed is a matter of
pure ret'ealed command." 'Yhereas, if the worship of holy men and
,,,"omen deceased be but a mere development of the Church's feelings,
the" external manner in which this inward worship is to be ex-
pressed" must, it is pretty plain, be still more utterly resolvable
into the same shadowy original.

E2

52

O
THE DEVELOP:\IENT OF

[ LETT. II.

philosophic theologian): "1 Iere is a development of
doctrine into \vorship. In lilL'e Jnanne1' the doctrine
of the Beatification of the Saints has been developed
into their cultusj of the OEOTÓKOf), or 1\fother of God,
into hyperdulia j and of the Real Presence into adora-
tion of the II0st." Not content \vith this satisfactory
deduction, l\fr. Ne\vmal1 proceeds to observe, that
there is a "converse developnlent" that still more
completely overleaps the bounds of " strict logical in-
ference;" a development of feelings into the assumption
of Objects; and (for I have no rOOlTI here to analyse
his other examples, and hasten at once to the lilain
scope of his ,vork) of this \ve have Inanifest and irre-
sistible theological instances in " the doctrineof post-
baptisl11al sin, and the usage of prayers for the faithful
departed, developing into the doctrine of Purgatory."
Accordingly, at the close of a section in \vbich he
carefully and scrupulously separates faith and reason,
he observes that to those vvho hold this safe and djgni-
fled vie\v of a Christian's faith (p. 337) "aT'gu7nents
,viII come to be considered rather as representations
and persuasives than as logicaljJ1'oofs,. and develop-
111ents as the spontaneous, gradual, and ethical gro\vth,
not as intentional and arbitrary deductions, of exist-
ing opinions." On a basis so ",.ide as this, it obviously
needs not an architect of 1\11'. N e\V111an'S powers to
raise any superstructure he pleases.
After thus eXplaining the varieties of development,
our author proceeds to investigate the tests by \vbich
a genuine development may be distinguished from a
corruption. A multitude of illustrations, more or less
applicable, 11lake up the bulk of this discussion; the

LEfT. II.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRI1\E.

53

gencral result of which, upon any candid reader, will,
I am quite satisfied, be a conviction of the utter un-
certainty of rules and applications so vague, shifting,
and flexible; and the absolute unfitness of such a n1e-
thod of inquiry for any Inan honestly desirous to kno\v
and adhere to the truth in the Inost nlomentous of all
hU111an concerns. Indeed, of the first and most inl-
portant of then1 all, the author adlnits that it is " not
of easy application in particular cases," and that it inl-
plies \vhat " often \villiead to Inere theorizing"-p. 66;
requiring, in truth, nothing less than (I have alluded
to the point already) an accurate and con1plete kno\\r-
ledge of " the essential idea of Christianity;" in other
,vords, requiring ,vhat the loftiest faculties, and (,vhat
is better) the deepest habitual spirituality, \vill be the
first to confess themsel yes poorly cOlnpetent to grasp:
and \\That, if grasped, ,youlcl surely presuppose the
point already settled, to \vhich it is here nlade subor-
dinate; for, \v hat further has he to seek ill the ,yay of
religious belief and kno\vleùge ,vho has already Inas-
tered, in the clear and perfect de!Jpee required for a
secure application of this theory, " the essential Idea
of Christianity?"
"Tith regard to these tests, in general, they are bet-
ter considered in their application in a subsequent part
of the volume. It is there the lofty, various, anù dis-
cursive style of the author can best be fixed and inter-
preted.
Ir. N e\V111all' s con1posi tion has great rlletori-
callnerits, and anlong then1 that of often producing a
strong general Ïtnpression, \yithout leaving anything
very definite, in either fact or reasoning, to ,vhich
the irnpl'ession can be distinctly traced. 'Vith such

54

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETT. II.

an adversary it is always of ilnportance to come as
speedily as possible to the specific case, or cases, to
,vhich all these imposing abstractions are skilfully
meant to be subservient. l\Ioreover, I presume, it is
not the abstract theorist, but the Romanist polemic,
that chiefly interests the public at present in 1\1:r.
N e'Vlnan. 'VeIl had it been, if his soaring specula-
tions had for ever ren1ained unen1bodied in their na-
tive regions of air; nor thus descended to earth and
taken tangible forIn, in the vain atten1pt to give soul
and spirit to the dull and lifeless dogmas in ,vhich the
second half of his volume endeavours to realize them!
I-laving enlarged on the tests which he considers
adequate to distinguish bet\veen genuine developlnent
and corruption, 1\lr. Ne,vman next argues for the an-
tecedent probability of developments in Christianity.
This he considers he has established from the neces-
sity of the case; froIn the history of sects and parties
in religion; and from the analogy and exaulple of
Scripture. Such is his own summary of his antece-
dent argument (p. 113), ,vhich I purposely adopt, in
order to avoid 111isapprehension of a style of disquisi-
tion ,vhich is certainly sOlne,vhat liable to it. lIe adds
the general analogy of developments in the natural and
moral ,vorld. Your limited space ,viII not allo,v me
to extract the ,vhole of this arglu11ent, \vhich extends
to t,venty pages; and I should unfairly risk an e:ffect

,vhich so largely depends on po,ver of style, by any
a,vk\vard abridgu1ents of mine. Your more thought-
ful readers ,viII, ho,vever, be probably at no loss to
conjecture the general purport of the argument, ",,,hen
they remember the exceedingly vague and indefinite

LETT. II. ]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

.55

sense in ,vhich 1\11'. N e,vman elnploys the leading
term of his theory, and that he finds hinlself at liberty
to cite nearly every variety of successive change to
,vhich the ,vord developnlent can be, ,vith any plausi-
bility, applied, as ,vitnessing to the validity of his
hypothesis of doctrinal develoPlnent in the Christian
fai the
From this he proceeds to contend for the proba-
bility of a developing authority in Christianity, a sup-
position which I trust hereafter to sho,v you is, by a
singular combination of logical elnbarrasslnents, at
once absolutely necessary to, and absolutely inconsis-
tent ,vith, his entire theory. And he then endeavours
to establish a ])resul1tption in favour of the existing
(Ronlan) developments of Christianity, as being its
genuine products. And ,vith this the ab
tract or
theoretical part of his ,york concludes.
I have just observed that it is, in a great Ineasnre,
by the indefinite use of language, especially of the tern1
Development itself (not,vithstanding much apparent
accuracy of distinction), that
Ir. N e,vman gives colour
and plausibility to his hypothesis. Let lne, in all hu-
111ility, endeavour to ren1edy this; and ,vithout pro-
fessing to state anything very ne,v, very profound, or
very c0111plete, on the subject, let TI1e, as the sÏlnplest
,yay of opening the question, try to offer some brief
ans,ver to the problem-Are there adnâssible develop-
1nents of doctrine in Christianity?
Unquestionably there are. But let the terll1 be
understood in its legitimate sense or senses to ,varrant
that ans,ver; and let it be carefully observed ho,v
lunch, and ho,v little, the adn1Ïssion really involves.

56

ON TIlE DEVEr
Or::\IENT OF

[LETT. II.

All varieties of real developlnent, so far as tbis ar-
gUlnent is concerned, may probably be reduced to two
general heads, intellectual deyelopments, and practical
developn1ents, of Christian doctrine. By" intellectual
developlTIents" I understand logical infeT'ences (and that
\vhether for belicf or practical discipline) from doc-
trines, or froln the comparison of doctrines; \vhich, in
virtue of the great dialectical rnaxitn, n1ust be true, if
legitin1ately deduced froln ,,
hat is trne. "Practical
developments" are the living, actual, historical results
of those true doctrines (original or inferential), ,vhen
considered as influential on all the infinite varieties of
hUlnan kind; the doctrines embodied in action; the
doctrines modifying human nature in ,vays infinitely
various, correspondently to the infinite variety of sub-
jects on ,vhom they operate, though cve
strictly pre-
serving, amid all their operations for effectually trans-
forming and renc,ving mankind, their o,vn unchanged
iùentity. Intellectual Developments, it is thu
obvious,
are in the saIne sphere ,vith the principles out of \vhich
they spring: they are (even ,vhen regarded \vith a vie,v
to rite and practice) ul1111ingled doctrine still: they are
propositions. Practical Developments, on the other
hand, essentially consist of t,vo very different, though
connected, elements; divine ductrine, and human na-
ture as affected by it; they are historical events. I am
not a\vare of any thing reasonably to be called a de-
velopment of Christian doctrine ,vhich is not reduci-
ble to either of these classes, the I---Jogical or the His-
torical. Let me exelnplify.
1. In the former case, reyealed doctrines may be
cOlllpared ,vith one another, or ,vith the doctrines of

LETT. II]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

57

"natural religion;" or the consequences of revealed
doctrines Inay be compared with other doctrines, or
,vith their consequences, and so on in great variety:
the combined ultin1ate result being what is ('a1led a
Systenl of Theology. "That the first principles of
Christian truth really are, or ho,v obtained, is not no,v
tbe question. But in all cases equally, no doctrine has
any claÏ1n ,vhatever to be received as obligatory on
belief, unless it be either itself some duly authorized
principle, or a logical deduction, through ,vhatever
l1u111ber of stages, from some such principle of religion.
Such only are legitimate developInents of doctrine for
the belief of lnan; and such alone can the Church of
Christ-the "Titness and Conservator of His Truth-
justly COlTIlnend to the consciences of her melnbers.
To take one or t\VO exalnples that present thelnselves
at the first lTIOlnent :-it is thus, that, 'v hen ,ve have
learned, on the infallible authority of inspiration, that
the Lord Jesus Christ is hitnself Very God, and ,vhen
,,'"e have learned from the safüe authority, the tren1en-
dous fact of IIis Atoning Sacrifice, ,ve could collect
(even ,vere Scripture silent) the priceless value of the
AtonelTIent thus made; the ,vondrous llunliliation
therein involyed; the unspeakable lO1.,e it exhibited;
the n1ysteriously a,vful guilt of sin; \vhich ,yould again
reflect a gloonlY light upon the equally ll1ysterious
eternity of punislunent :-and òimilar deductions of inl-
nlense practical ÏInportance. These ,vould be just aucl
legitimate developments of Christian doctrine. But in
truth, as our o\vllliability to error is extrenle, especially
,,
hen iIlllTIersed in the holy obscurity (" the cloud on
the lncrcy-seat") of such nlysteries as these, ,ve have

58

[LETT. II.
reason to thank God that there appear to be fe,v doc-
trinal developments of any importance which are not
from the first dra,vn out and delivered on divine autho-
rity to our acceptance.
Or again-to take another instance, the evidence of
,vhich the Author of the ,york before me has most
lamentably laboured to involve in doubt and perplex-
ity : - 'Vhen Three Beings are, on divine authority,
represented to us as acting ,vith mysterious, but real,
distinctness of operation, yet each possessing the attri-
butes of supreme Godhead-that Godhead ,vhich is,
and can be, but one-,ve can scarcely be said to "de-
velop," ,ve do little n10re th
n express these cOlnbined
truths, ,vhen ,ve ackno'\vledge, and bend in adoration
before, the Ever-Blessed Trinity. Ând we can easily
perceive, that ,vherever or ,vhenever there may have
been, or is, any difficulty in arriving at this truth, it is
not as if in the nature of things this truth could be had
only by long processes of conjecture and slo,v succes-
sive conteulplation,-it is not as if after it had been
revealed in Holy "ì rit, men 'Jnust err and stulnble on
the road to receive it, and pass through a discipline of
centuries before they can arrive at adlnitting that Fa-
ther, Son, and Holy Spirit are One God; but sin1ply
from the fact (granting for a 1110111ent any such supposed
or inlputed charge of error), that the nun1erous and
Inelancholy causes that iInpede the perception of valu- -
able truth in so lTIany other departnlents of hUlnan
knovvledge, Inay be conceived n10re or less to have
operated in this, incolTIparably the most precious of all.
Or again-to COlne son1e,vhat nearer the favourite
region of false and spurious "developiTIent"-,vhen ,ve

ON THE DEVELOP
IE
T OF

LETT. I!.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

59

remember the Divinity of Christ, cOlllbined in one per-
sonality ,vith His n1anhooc1, at His Incarnation through
the Holy Virgin, \ve can readily deduce (\vith the .An-
gel) that she ,vas indeed eminently" blessed among
,volnen," or (\vith herself) that she ought fitly to be
"called blessed" by "all generations." "T e cannot
deduce by exactly the same process, that that blessed
Person has been for eighteen centuries the " Queen of
Heaven," exalted above every created thing, and to be
,vorshiped \vith the veneration due to a being possess-
ing all of Godhead, except its absolute infinity, as
1\11'. N e\vman proclaÍ1ns (p. 406), that she is (as the
present Bishop of Rome not long since declared, frol11
the inmost sanctuary of infallible truth), " Our greatest
hope, yea, the entÙ'e ground of our hope !" s
I have thus instanced \vhat may exemplify legitiInate
" intellectual developments." Such justly carry autho-
rity, for such bring \vith them their O\V11 credentials.
To Inake such comparisons and conclusions \vith aecu-
racy, is, doubtless, a fruit of divine favour, blessing the
just researches of faith (Prov. ii. 4, &c.); to perceive
some of them more prominently than others, 111ay be
the characteristic of different ages or crises in the his-
tory of theology, and unquestionably has ever been the
object of a very special providence in the divine go-
vernment of the Church t ; to receive such conclusions
with practic
l effect on heart, spirit, and life, is above
all, the peculiar and supernatural gift of God; but as

II Encyclical Letter, 1832.
t I presume I need scarcely remind any reader of the numberless
fine and profound suggestions on this interesting topic, that abound
in the Remains of the late
Ir. Knox.

60

ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF

[LETT. II.

truths of theology, evolved from its revea.led principles,
such develojJ1nents are, in all cases, since the close of
the Canon of Scripture, commended to us, through the
ministry of enlightened and sanctified treason.
2. The other class I have called "Practical Deve-
lopments" of Christianity; the innlullerable instances
,vhich are furnished in the history of the Church, of the
effects of revealed truth upon illdividuals, nations, man-
ners, la,vs, institutions, and the like. These forn1 a
profoundly interesting subject of llleditation; beyonù
all doubt their course, ,vhether in purity or corruption,
is (like the forn1er) under the special and over-ruling
gover11111ent of providence;
loubtless too, they fre-
quently suggest valuable rules of Christian discipline,
valuable results of Christian experience, noble eX31ll-
pIes of Christian fortitude; nay, sometinles tend, to a
cautious, careful, anù reverential inquirer, to thro,v
sonle light upon God's o,vn purposes, and correct falla-
cious anticipations as to his designs U ; but they can have,
Sill1ply a
historical events, no authori ty in 111atter of
faith, and they are utterly inadequate to ,varrant new
articles of belief. The reason is abundantly obvious
from \vhat I have already obseryed in introducing them.
In the production of every such "practical deyelop-
luent," there are t,vo elenlents conjointly at ,vork, the

u I woulù venture to refer to a Letter in this Journal (occasioned
by son1e acute objections to a Visitation Sern10n), in, I think, the
latter part of 1842, or beginning of the following year, n1erely as
helping to illustrate what I mean by this clause, which I have nuw
no space to expand.
[This Letter is reprinted in the volume of Senl10ns of Prufe::;sur
Butler, published SOll1e months ago.]

LETT. IL]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRI
E.

61

truth, \vhich is divine, and the reci pie nt, \v ho is hu-
lnan: the conclusion cannot be stronger than the
,veaker prelniss ; the result (\vhich is the develoPlnent
itself) cannot be trusted. That men in high authority
in the Church have felt, after the lapse of centuries,
ever and anon, a tacit, gro\ving tendency (such as

Ir. N e,vnlan so seductively pourtrays) to incorporate
SOHle ne\v tenet into the primitive system of belief, can
persuade us to credit their" tendencies," only ,vhel1 ,ve
believe these lllen to have possessed the purity and the
in telligence of angels. And if \ve are to argue frolH
the analogy of providential dispensations in general, it
is certain God never yet sent a gift into the ,yorld
,yhich man did not deteriorate in the using it. The
treatnlent of IIru ,vho ,vas to us the Gift of all perfec-
tions eln bodied in one, is but the master instance of an
universal principle; the prilneval revelation of Para-
dise ,vas corrupted; the patriarchal truth ,vas corrupt-
ed; the Je\yish religion \yas corrupted (and what ap-
parently absolute promises of infallible guidance had
Israel!); hU1l1an reason and conscience, a sort of inte-
rior revelation, are perpetually corrupted. To deny
the analogy in the Olle case 1l0\V before us, is to assume
the Roman infallibility, \vhich cannot, of course, be ad-
mitted \vithout distinct and separate proof; and ,vhich,
in point of fact, is absolutely inconsistent \vith the long
course of previous \veakness, uncertain ty, and error,
\vhich the theory of development supposes.
But SOHle one of these achnitted innovations on the
primitive belief and practice is, \ve \vill suppose, "a
practical development" of cOlnparati vely early gro,vth,
is of very general preyalence, is of very long continu-

62

OY THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[I.JETT. II.

ance; have \ve not, in these characteristics of an inno-
vation, some proof of its claÍlns to being a genuine pro-
duct of Christian principles and doctrines? The ob-
servations just made at once ans,yer the question. It
is nlanifest that if there are principles capable of deve-
lopment in Christianity, there are parallel principles,
equally capable of deljelopment, in frail and erring human
nature. Both elements are busy in the history of the
Church of Christ; and \ve have, first, and before '\ve
can concede one tittle to the denland, sternly and rigo-
rously to determine, by appeal to sonle extrinsic stan-
dard, of which is the innovation a product? When the
ad vocate of certain adnlitted innovations found in the
Roman theology, pleads the universality or long con-
tinuance of these errors as establishing their claÏ1n to
the dignity and authority of truth, he COll111lits the
astonishing oversight of forgetting that the identity of
human nature, and hence the similarity of hu n1an \veak-
nesses, already furnish an abundant ground for antici-
pating the very result he pleads. " Christianity," he
cries, "IDust itself tend to this result, for it has done
so, soon, and generally, and for a long period." " Hu-
man nature," I reply, "is inherently apt to lead to this
result, and therefore \ve need not marvel that it has
done so, soon, and generally, and for a long period."
"I undertake," proclaiIDs
rr. Newman, "to account for
these novelties (for I fully admit them to be such) out -
of the original fact of Christianity." "I undertake"
(his critic \vill be permitted humbly to reply) "to ac-
count for then) \vith infinitely more probability, illus-
trated by the very history of the innovations themselves,
and supported by a host of analogies in every other

LETT.l1.J

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

63

departn1ent of religious history since the Fall, out. of
the inherent tendencies of hUlnan nature." "I ,vill
vindicate theIn," declares the new theorist, "out of
Christianity, a fact absolutely unique in the ,vorld's his-
tory, and from its leading Idea ("\vhich I confess it is
presumptuous for any l1lan to profess to master)."-
" And I," is the reply, " ,vill sho,v thein to be the mani-
fest gro,vth of that hun1al1 nature "\vith ,vhich every
man is fan1Îliar every hour of his life, and of ,vhich all
the VOIUlTIeS of all history are but repositories of the
true and unquestionable developlnel1ts." This is the
first stage of the pleadings; no equitable judge ,vill
deny that the rejoinder is full, fair, and to the point:
issue, therefore, Inust nou' be joined, and the question
as to the real source of the innovation detern1Ïned by
appealing at once to some standard of truth distinctfr'on

eith81'> pa'J>ty's allegation, separate, and incorruptible. Nor
could the pleader deserve for one n10ment the atten-
tion of the tribunal to ,yhich he addresses his argulnent,
should he refuse to advance beyond his first position,
and, in the fancied security of his o,vn private and ar-
bitrary hypothesis, call aloud and at once for the judg-
men t of the court in his favour.
For exalnple,-
Ian-and, above all, southern l\lan
-has a strong tendency to a sensuous religion; no
fact is, on the ,vhole, authenticated by a lTIOre universal
experience. The need is provided for in exactly the
right degree by I-lin1 ,,-rho" knew ,vhat ,vas in 111an," in
the original draft of Christianity. But it is antecedentZ.1j
most hnprobable that, ,vithout direct divine interposi-
tion (of course not to be assumed at this stage of the
argument), the IIlass of men will limit thernselves ac-

64

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT O:F

[ LETT. II.

curately within the appointed boundaries. If, then,
this tendency begin, in SOUle form or other, ea1"ly to
she,v itself, it is precisely \vhat "ve l1light anticipate;
for the tendency ,vas latently present, even when most
restrained. If it begin generally to sho\v itself, unhap-
pily it is equally what \ve might expect; for the ten-
dency ,vas not that of one Ulan or t"vo men, but of
Human Nature itself; and, as before observed (for it
is most important), specially and peculiarly of the sec-
tion of human nature-the countries, clime, and people
in ,vhich the holy religion ,vas first propagated, and
which thence exercised so remarkable and ahnost ne-
cessary an influence upon all its subsequent history
among otherraces- the imaginative, sYlnbolizing, pomp-
loving children of the South. If the tendency continue
long to operate, ,ve can surely be just as little surprised,
for it has a ground in man as permanent as his Ünagi-
nation and feelings. Not to insist at present upon the
obvious solution for the dUf'ation of all such unhappy
phenolnena in the fact, that the great Catholic principle
of adlze1"i11g to what has once been .fixed and t'1"ans7J
itted,
,vhich, in the fundamentals of faith, has ever been so
invaluable a protection to every branch of the Church,
lTIUst ,york to perpetuate circul1lstantial error, ,vhen
such has unfortunately gained currency, and has se-
cured the authority of commanding nanles.
No univerJ"sality, no pe1"n
anence of adn1itted innova--
tion, therefore, can sÍlnply, and of itself, authorize it.
It 111ay give a clai111 to respectful inquiry-no more.
'Y--hatever is not originally contained in the standard
of truth, ,vhatever was confessedly unnecessary to 1nan's
salvation or spiritual u.ell-being front the first, nl11st l1lake

LETT. II.]

CHRISTIA.N DOCTRI:SE.

65

good its claÎIn upon other grounds than its existence;
and it is as justly liable to that denland at its t\ventieth
century as at its first. Examples of the utter feeble-
ness of a claim to absolute authority on such a basis,
are innumerable; the only difficulty is in selection.
Take one-prominent and universal. "That is all
Idolatry but a corruption of primitive revelation; a
"development" that, doubtless, began (for in religious
belief, as in practical morality, nemo 1'ejJenle.fit tur]Jissi-
1ì
us) exactly as the 111elancholy parallel "development"
began in Christianity,-and \vas, \ve kno\v, defended
by the ,viser heathens on precisely the same plea ;-a
corruption early, general, perJJzanent ;-for it began in
the infancy of the ,vorId; it has, at one time or other,
covered its ,vhole surface, and to this day retains most
of it; and it has in its favour a prescription of near six
thousand years. "That can the \vorship of J anuarius
or DOlninic, the half-adoring invocation of nlen ,vhose
very salvation is too often doubtful, the prostration
before the theatrical Virgins and inlagil1ary relics of
the religion of Italy and Spain, offer to our acceptance
in con1parison ,vith the venerable antiquity-the "chro-
nic continuance," as
lr. Ne\Vlnan \vauld style it-of
idolatry itself? Nor let lllen attelIlpt to evade this by
urging (comp. pp. 62, 63, &c.), that in this instance the
"development" proved itself a corruption by destroying
the original; it did not, and in the case of cultivated
heathens very seldom does, destroy the original belief
of a single Supren1e God. In all the long succession
of heathen ,visdorn, frol11 its earliest da\vn in the t\vi-
light of profane history up to the present hour,-up to
the living sages of India and China, and the ,vild nleH
F

66

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETT. II.

of the ,vestern forests,-the recognition has ever, more
or less directly, been preserved of a Great Spiritual
Being ,vho has graciousl)T manifested IIimself in these
delegates of His omnipotence, and in their "sacred
inlages." Even mere unassisted oral tradition, backed
by the unconquerable affirmations of natural reason,
has effected this; can ,ve in the least degree ,vonder
that the corrupt element should exist side by side with
the revealed truth ,vithout destroying or absorbing it,
in a case ,vhere that original truth is every,vhere af-
firmed in the primary dOCU111ents of the Religion, and
in fact, from the very nature of the Religion, 1nust con-
tinue to be involved and ass':l111ed in its very existence
-an existence guaranteed by the express promise of
its Founder? At the saIne tin1e,-ho,v far in ROlnan
Christianity the corruption has eventuated in practi-
cally superseding the rights of the supreme God, by
intercepting the tribute of trusting and dependent af-
fection due to IIin1 frolll His children, ,vasting those
precious inlpulses upon ilnaginary human mediators of
intercession and even of grace, and thus reserving for
the Heavenly Father only that residue of distant awe
and terror that can reach I-lim after all the tenderness
and confidence of the heart have been lavished away
upon the intermediate agents I et"veen Him and IIis,-
ho,v far, especially among the lnass of the people
(learned divines have securities of their own in the -
very nature of their studies), in purely Romish coun-
tries, this is the case, it ,vould indeed be very painful
to d"vell on, but, I fear, far too easy to determine.
And now let me come closer to the exposition and
the defences of the new theory.

LETT. II.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

67

'l
hough
Ir. Newman takes jUdicious care to eman-
cipate himself from the bonds of the received logic of
philosophical theory (pp. 179, 180), he must not be
surprised if in a matter ,vhich involves the faith and
peace of n1illions, his critics refuse to accornpany him
into those licenses of conjecture which his rhetorical
skill would artfully substitute for the old-fashioned
process of proving facts, and thence deriving princi-
ples. I shall, therefore, in despite of his very natural
disciailller of the severity of the Baconian Inethod,
take the liberty of observing that his system violates
everyone of its rules of genuine philosophical proof,
,vithout a single exception. To bring tbe ,vhole series
of his logical offences to a head; his Principle is an
invention, and-his Facts cannot be reduced under
even that invented principle.
'Vhat is his Principle? It is the hypothesis, that
God intended to reveal dogmas of over\vhehning im-
portance, only by degrees to IIis Church; in such a
sense as that later centuries, by the mere process of
dwelling on the primitive creed, and the insensible
operation of moral feeling, ,vere to find their way to a
large body of lTIOst 111on1entous speculative and practi..
cal doctrine, of ,vhich the bishops, n1artyrs, and whole
body of the faithful of the first ages, \vere wholly, or
ahnost ,vholly, ignorant.
\Vhat are his Facts to be eXplained by this principle?
The special doctrines and practices of Romanism; its
\vorship of the Blessed Virgin, Saints, and Angels-
its religious prostration before images of ,vood and
stone-its purgatorial fire-its gradual formation of a
F2

68

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETT. II.

despotic spiritual nlonarchy-and the rest; all of
which, he informs us, can be easily developed by pa-
tient reflection and moral sensibility, out of the religion
of the N e\v Testament and the first Churches.
The formBr of these assertions,-for this must first
occupy our attention,-is not only a mere creation of
the fancy, but is encolnpassed "vith nlanifold and lna-
nifest difficulties. l\lr. Newman, indeed, endeavours
(of course) to prepare his way, by arguing the antece-
dent probability of such developments in Christianity,
in a chapter (pp. 94-114) to \vhich I have already
alluded. But not one of his argun1ents really reaches
the requir'ed mark. For instance-" Christianity is a
fact, and can be made subject-matter of the reason."-
It is seen in "aspects" that lTIUst vary to different per-
sons; and must, as a living, influential thing, " expand"
in the Inind.-Again, "ve are told that it is an universal
religion, and must have great varieties of local appli-
cation.-Again, its peculiar phrases, such as "the
VV ord of God," require much thought; and many de-
duced and connected considerations "vill gather round
mysterious expressions like these.-Again, there are
very interesting questions not solved in Scripture-
the Canon of Scripture, Sin after Baptism, the Inter..
mediate State, and the like.-Again, Prophecy ,vas a
progressive thing, the l\Iosaic history \vas so, and our
Lord's sayings are renlarkably brief and pregnant.-
Again, the style of IIoly Scripture is such that" of no
doctrine whatevel", \vhich does not actually contradict
,vhat has been delivered, can it be perelnptorily as-
serted, that it is not in Scripture!" (p. 110). Once
more: Scripture itself proclaÜns l\Ir. N eWlnan' s theory

LETT. 11.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

69

in the pa.rable of the 1\1 ustard Seed, and the Seed
sown, and the Leaven.
N o,v, I request the reader to recall the observations
Inade above on the t,vo classes, or senses, of real deve-
lopment; and I ask hÏ1n, is there a single one of these
considerations, giving them a.ll the ,veight they can
possibly claÏ1n, ,vhich establishes more than I have
already a.bundantly conceded? Indeed, the accom-
plished Author himself at times adnlits it. "Then he
,vould, in this very chapter, describe how theological
questions have arisen and been settled, he observes
that in such cases "the decision has been left to tilDe,
to the slo,v process of thought, the influence of mind
upon nlind, the issues of controversy, and the gro,vth
of opinioll"-p. 99 w . Does 1\11'. Ne'VlTIan real1y sup-
pose that anyone denies the existence of such processes
in the history of the Church, and of the heresies that
have assailed or infested it? 'V ere this the only ques-
tion at issue, between ,vhat t,vo individuals who had
ever read a volullle of any elelnentary Church history
could there be a difference about it? Or, if this ,vere
a fair account of his real theory, ho,v could the very
arguments that are used to refute it escape being its
verification? Truly, 1\11'. N e,vman must effect some-
thing n10re for his adopted cause than thus elaborately
prove ,vhat nobody denies, and then pass off this
,veighty conclusion for the proof of his real but un-
Inanageable thesis. If his object be to demonstrate

W " Argument implies deduction, that is, development"-p. 97. l\Ir.
Newman will, unquestionably, nlunber a large sect of disciples, if
every man who holds that a theological deduction can be made, is to
be regarded as a votary of "the theory of development."

70

ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF

[ LETT. II.

that various theological questions have been raised
and settled by discussion, and often by laborious, and
animated, and protracted discussion, he is not likely to
meet many adversaries. It has assuredly been the
will of God that reasonable creatures should duly em-
ploy their reason on His Divine Religion; nor is any
legitÏ1nate conclusion of the reason unacceptable to
IIim who gave the faculty that Inade it. No conclu-
sion, that, by any reach or grasp of thought, can be
logically deduced from the matter of faith as originally
revealed, do we refuse. '\That we do refuse,-and
refuse as the very principle of all the extravagances of
fanatical heresy, as (so to speak) the very logic of
enthusiam,-is the position, that doctrines unknown
to the primitime creed of the Church, nay the know-
ledge of actual facts in the realm of Spirits (as Pur-
gatory or the Saints' power of hearing prayer), '\tvere
to be gained by processes, avowedly not ratiocinative,
but emotional, impulsive, spontaneous; that men charged
with the awful responsibility of guarding and ex-
pounding God's Truth ,vere not logically to infer, but
infallibly to feel j and to "feel" not merely Illoral con-
victions, but do'\tvnright physical facts, actual pheno-
mena of the invisible world !- 'Vhat we do yet further
assert-,ve, "insulated" and heretical Anglicans-on
behalf of the insulted Catholicity of primitive saints
and martyrs, is, that no truth of the irnportance which the
special Ron
an Dogmas, if true, must possess, was un-
lrnown fro III the beginning; that no doctrine granted
to be thus unknown for ages, can now, on pretence of
subsequent discovery, be pressed on the belief of all
Christians on pain of everlasting damnation.

LETT. II.J

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

71

Any appeal to Holy Scripture, ho"\vever vague, tran-
sitory, and fanciful, has a claim to respectful attention.
1\lr. N e,vman alleges the ana
ogy of the prophetic reve-
lations. In every possible point of view the analogy
fails. Prophecy ,vas essentially n1ysterious and enig-
Inatical ; doctrinal teaching was meant to be plain and
intelligible. Prophecy was usually to grow in clear-
ness as it advanced to the event, and there alone to
find its full explanation; but 'v hat in1aginable ground
is there for assulning that doctrinal exposition was
thus to postpone its purport to the distant future ?
The excellence, the adaptation of the doctrine ,vould,
indeed, perpetually receive ne,v illustration as it ex-
tended through peoples and ages; but the very marvel
of its perfection, the gro,ving authentication of its high
celestial birth, ,vould consist in the ,vondrous fitne
s
by ,vhich, itself substantially unchanged, it matched
itself to every race and people, transmuting them in to
its o,vn likeness, not nloulding itself after their carnal
,vants and ,vishes. Alas! had the ,vilfulness of Inan
always recognised this great office and high supremacy
of Divine truth, should we have had such instances of
the" development" of God's a,vful VV ord, as are cited
,vith approbation in the chapter before me,-" develop-
nlents" which, by "\vhatever ,veight of individual autho-
rity they be recommended, God grant the conservators
of His Truth grace ever to denounce with indignation
and scorn,-" Praise the Lord in IIis saints," as a conl-
llland to "\vorship Inen; "Adore his footstool"x, as a

x " Adorate scabeHum Ejus," Ps. xcix. 5. Better" at-towards
-His footstool." It is thought to refer to the divine manifestation
in the Jewish sanctuary.

72

O
THE DEVELOP
IENT OF

[ LETT. II.

cOlTImand to fall do\vn and literally worship in Ilis
honour the lifeless nlatter lIe has made! As to the
parables \vhich :rvlr. N e\vrnan cites, I hope it can }1ardly
be necessary to observe how utterly they are perverted
froin their true signification to the profit of his theory
of doctrinal innovation; parab1es which manifestly
shado\v forth the spread of the Gospel among the na-
tions of the earth, or in their internal application sym-
bolize its gradually pervading and transforn1Ìng po\ver
upon the souls of those ,,,ho embrace it.
But as the topic of scriptural proof has come before
us, I can scarcely avoid, though I ought perhaps to
apologise for, recommending to 1\11". N e\Vlnan's medita-
tion, in contrast to the convincing instances just quoted
of ,vhat he styles "the Church's subtle}" and 7nore pow-
elflll method of proof (p. 323) by mystical interpreta-
tion, such unfortunately clear (and therefore, of course,
miserably feeble and inconclusive) testimonies con-
cerning his system as St. Paul's memorable affirma-
tions: "I kept back nothing that 'leas pT>ofdable /' "I
bave not shunned to dec1are unto you a
l the counsel of
God;" " I have sho\ved you all things ;" " We use great
plainness of s}Jeech, and not as l\Ioses, ,vhich put a veil
over his face;" being" not rude in knou;ledge, ,ve have
been thoroughly '11lade lnaniftst among you in all
things ;" " Though ,ve or an angel from heaven preach
any other Gospel unto you than that which 'lee have
preached-than that ye have '1"eceived-let him be ac-
cursed." " ICeep that ,vhich is c071nnitted to thy trust."
"II01d fast the forJ1
of sound 1(Jords-that good thing
which was c01n'lnitted unto thee keep by the IIoly Ghost;"
"The things which fho'll hast heard C!f me the saIne

LETT. n.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

73

cOlnn1it unto faithful n1en;" "Continue thou in the
things 'lvhic/t tllollltast learned;"
'Be not carried about
,vith divers and strange (l;Évalç) doctrines." Or St.
John's, "Y e have an unction from the IIoly One, and
ye kno,v all things:" or the Lord's o,vn soleu1n pro-
lnise, "the COlllforter shan teach you ALL things ;"
"the spirit of truth ,viII guide you into ALL truth:"
expressions which, to plain people, Jnay possibly ap-
pear some,vhat inconsistent ,vith the doctrine, that
they ,vho ,vere thus "taught all things," and ,vho
"kept back nothing" of w'hat they ,vere taught, left it
to future centuries, to the prelates and monasteries of
the Iniddle ages, to discover and declare articles of
transcendent in1portance to the very substance, and
the 'v hole practical operation of Christianity.
Upon the obvious question ,vhich here arises, and
,vhich, indeed, must be one of the earliest to occur to
every reader,-ho,v far the Apostles tlzentselves are
held in this system to have kno,vn the developments
of 1110dern Romanisln?-
Ir. Ne,vman delivers hin1self
as fol1o,vs, ,vhich is the only distinct reference I can
remelnber to the subject in his entire volun1e: "The
holy Apostles 'lCould knolv, ,vithout words, all the truths
concerning the high doctrines of theology, which con-
troversialists after them have piously and charitably
reduced to formulæ, and developed through argu-
ment." -po 83.
And he then proceeds, as if some,vhat afraid of so
delicate an inquiry, to talk about the kno,vledge St.
Justin and S1. I'J'enæus "1Tâght" have of (it is one of the
usual artifices of his rhetoric to class such things toge-
ther) Purgatory or Original Sin. l\Ieanw hile the above

[LETT. II.
sentence affords all the light 1\11'. Ne\vman is pleased to
furnish us as to his views of St. Paul's knowledge of
the propriety of invoking, in religious \vorship, St.J ames
after his rnartyrdom; or St. John's conceptions of the
duty of depending for his "entire hope," with Pope
Gregory X'TI., upon the boundless influence in Heaven
of her ,vhom he "took unto his own horne ;" or St. Pe-
ter's notions of the absolute suprelllacy of hirnself, and
of a line of prelates professing to occupy his place; or
St. 1\1atthew's thoughts about the utility of bowing in
"relative adoration" before \vooden images of deceased
men and WOlllen. The Apostles would knovv all these
things "\vithout words."
But no\v, if the Apostles not only" would kno'v"-
a form of expression vvhich I do not pretend precisely
to understand - but really did kno\v these things, it Inay
be pern1itted me, ,vithout presumption, to ask, on what
conceivable ground is their silence regarding then) to
be explained? Their love of souls ,vas unquestionable;
the practical importance of the doctrines in question,
if true, was equally so. If souls elect, saved, forgiven,
are, after death, to be tortured for thousands of years
in Purgatorial flan1es, and depend for their sole chance
of alleviation or release upon masses on earth, how in-
comprehensible ,vas the abstinence of earnest, loving
Paul (kno,ving all this thoroughly) froIn any allusion
to the necessity of such helps for these \vretched spi-
rits! If the invocation of the Blessed Virgin be one
of the chief instrulnents of grace in the Gospel, ho\v
inexplicable that, in all the Inany injunctions of prayer
and supplication, no syllable should ever be breathed
of tlu.s great object of prayer; on the contrary, that

74

ON THE DEVELOP
fENT OF

LETT. II.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

75

numerous apparent in) plications should occur of the
sole and exclusive right of the Deity to such addresses!
If the Bishop and Church located at the city of Ronle
were, by Divine appointment, ever to carry ,vith them
a gift of infallible guidance to itself and all Churches
in their comnlunion,-ho,v utterly inconceivable that
the Apostles, kno\ving this, above all that St. Peter
hi1nself, the conscious fountain of all this Inighty strealTI
of living ,vaters ordained to flo\v to the end of time
should, \vhile constantly predicting the growth of here-
sies, the prevalence of false kno\vledge, the glory of
steadfastness in the faith, never, even by incidental al-
lusion, refer to this obvious, safe, immediate seeurity
against error! And so of the rest.
N or let
Ir. N e\Vnlan here interpose \vith the dictulll
of that great divine, whom, I fear, he rather affects to
quote than loyally follo\vs Y , ,,\\-r e are in no sort judges

y There is something, to me, unspeakably melancholy in the re-
peated and respectful mention that occurs in this volume of Bishop
Butler. Bishop Butler I between whonl and his still lingering dis-
ciple there is now, in that disciple's estin1ation, a barrier fixed
everlasting as eternity; whOln, with all his early associations of
veneration for one to whose deep sayings no thoughtful mind was
ever yet introduced, for the first time, without acknowledging the
period an epoch in its intellectual history, lze must now regard as,
after all, a poor benighted dreamer, falling ever and anon upon
fragments of truth, and binding them together into the illusory
harmony to which alone heresy can ever attain; in reality inferior
for spiritual vision to the paltriest inditer of "Devotions to the
Heart of 1\Iary," or the most verbose schoolman that ever compiled
his page of indistinguishable distinctions! Thoughts like these
would lead me far. What a horrible confusion of all the standards
of true and false, valuable and worthless, yea, even right and wrong,
must be produced in any consistent mind by the unfortunate step

76

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETT. II.

of ho\v a revela tion would be made." J\lr. N e,vman
cannot, ,vith any argurnentative justice, first violate that
just and profound n1axin1 by aSS'lll1tÏng the ,yay in which
the revelation u'as maùe (namely, in his own \vay of
so-called developlnent), and then retreat behind the
principle he has disregarded, in order to shelter him-
self fronl the manifest Îlllprobabilities of his o,vn arbi-
trary scheme.
No; let the truth be plainly spoken. 1\11'. Newman
kno\vs \vell the Apostles kne\v none of these things.
And yet, by no human ingenuity can it be proved that
these things ,vere not as needful to be kno\vn at first
as they could ever be. By no art can it be shown that,
if 'real, they lllust not ever have been alTIOng those
" things profitable" of \vhich St. Paul declHres he kept
back none. By no subtlety can the ignorance of such
things be reconciled ,vith the express prornise of Him
\vho was IIimself substantial truth, that the Spirit
should lead IIis Apostles into all truth.
And now see, on this supposition that the Apostles
had no real kno,vledge of these doctrines, ho\v the case
stands bet,veen Anglican antiquity and Roman develop-
ment. The English Church, it appears, is content to
believe as Paul and J Ohl1 believed; as those believed
\v ho heard and transmitted their teaching; as those
who followed them for centuries (equitable allowance
ll1ade for necessary change of circulllstances, for mere
private opinions, for incidental fàshions, and even that
allo\vance requisite, in a very trifling degree, for at
least a period more than equal to our o\vn distance

this gifted but mistaken man has taken, and would seduce others
to take!

LETT. n.]
frOlTI the Reforrnation), expounded and delivered the
original belief. ROIne, on the other hand, must, on the
ne,v theory, 111aintain that the Gospel, imperfect in the
hands and hearts of Paul, and Peter, and John, has
since their day advanced in purity, perfection, complete-
ness; that men in the mediævallnonasteries, literally
and in all the fulness of the phrase, understood and
unfolded it better than the disciples of inspired Apos-
tles, better than inspired Apostles, better than-I
pa use.
There is a great future event, of ,vhich it is ,vritten,
that neither the angels kno,v it nor the
'1on oj" JIan.
There ,vas a sense in which the kno\vledge of the Son
of l\fan ,vas progressive. He grew in \visdom and sta-
ture Z ; He "learned obedience;" lIe was "perfected
through sufferings;" and, having suffered, ,vas thence
qualified to help them that suffer. There ,vas a sense
in which the believers on Him ,vere to do even "greater
,yorks"
than lIe. The blasphelny against the IIoly
Ghost (the Church's inspirer) ,vas to be a more fearful
crime than that against the Son of l\fan. There is a
Christian comnlunion in ,vhich it has been gravely
maintained, and forlnally decreed a , that a man, in the

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

77

z " The Church," says 1\Ir. Newman, to illustrate its development,
" grows in wisdom and stature"-p. 96. Is nlY application unwar-
rantable after this suggestion?
a The Liber Conformitatwn (between S. Francis and the Lord), in
which this was done, ,vas solemnly approved by the Chapter of
Assisi, in 1390,* and was for a long period a performance of un-

* [Aug. 2, 1399. The author was Barth. Albizi, or De Albizis, (Lat. AILicius,) who
was surnamed De Pi sa. The words of the Approbation of this work by the general
Chapter of the Franciscan Order may be seen in L' Alcoran dei Cordeliers, Tome i.

78

ON THE DEVELOPl\lENT OF

[ LETT. II.

thirteenth century, surpassed the Lord himself; a fact
,vhich may at least be admitted to indicate a tendency.
Considering the mysterious but n1anifest distinction
which the Incarnation, as unfolded in the Gospel his-
tory, involves, bet,veen that Godhead in which Christ
was equal to the Father, and that manhood in which
lIe ,vas to the Father inferior, lTIen of less ingenuity
than the author before me rnight extend his theory
sOlTIewhat further than he has yet ventured to carry it.
Apostolic inspiration and kno,vledge once undervalued,
,vho shall protect from dishonour unspeakable the at-
tainments of the Son of
Ian Himself-the Teacher of
those half-illumined Apostles, the Inspirer of that im-
perfect inspiration? If the development of Gospel in
Epistles (p. 102) be the adequate justification of the
develoPlnent of the Iniddle centuries from the primi-
tive, ,vho shall say that the 'reason, 'Jnode, and ]Jrocess
of Ílllprovement ,vere not the same; or, rather, is it
not strongly insinuated that they
(Jere? The Ger-
many where
lr. Ne,vrnan found the seeds of his theory
,viII also supply hiIn ,vith its fruits.
But here I n1ust, for the present, cease. Let me
recapitulate. 1\11". N eWlTIan'S system, ,ve have seen, to

restricted circulation and popularity. This is the Church whose
advocate, in the volume before me, charges 'Us with being called by
the names of men!

p. 344. A Arnst. 1734. It may be added, that this last-named book is the French
version, with additions, by the Genevan pdnter Conrad Badius, (the volumes were
afterwards illustrated with Picart's plates,) of the original, Der Barfüsser Aliinch
Eulenspiegel und Alcoran, 1581, which was composed by Erasmus Alberus of Bran-
denburg; Dot Albertus, as he is styled by Gesner, Simler, Oudin, Bayle, Uu Pin, and
others.-G. ]

LETT. II.]

CIIHISTI.AN DOCTIUXE.

79

be even nominally a theory, n1ust consist of two ele-
ments; the supposition of real and important doctrinal
innovation in the Christian Creed to be attained in the
,vay of developn1ent; and the attempt to reduce the
pecu1iarities of RomanislTI under a developing process.
The 1a tter of these points I have, as yet, scarcely
touched at all; on the former I have offered you some
observations in this paper, and lllore renlain. But we
must remember that that supposition of development
(as I have already intÏ1nated) does not stand alone; it
is conjoined \vith another supposition-infallible guid-
ance for the Roman Church in the developing process.
Nor can
Ir. Ne\vman's hypothesis, in its full integrity,
be understood \vithout COIn bining them both. I shall
do so, and it \vill then ren1ain for me to sho\v you (as
concerns this first divisio
of his general argument)
th
t not only is the supposition of developn1ent (in
1\lr. Ne,vman's sense of it) itself gratuitous, unsup-
ported, in1probable-as, I think, \ve Inay have already
in son1e degree collected-but that, \vhen united to the
notion of constant infallibility, the theory adds to these
characteristics the further attributes, partly, of assum-
ing, in the n10st important stage of the \vhole argulllent,
the very point to be established-partly, of involv-
ing, even after the assUIDption has been n1ade, direct
and lTIanifest self-contradiction. Such, unless I have
strangely n1isconceived the pûrport of 1\11'. Ne\vman's
own exposition, IDay that theory be sho\vn to be before
which the theology of England is to crumble into dust;
and ,vhich has certainly been attractive enough to re-
place that theology in the convictions of one of the

80

ON TIlE DEVELOPMENT OF

[ LETT. II.

most accolnplished, if not alvvays the most judicious, of
its expounders.
Certainly such a case as this is not without its lesson
to us all. 1Vith "\vhat rene,ved caution, "\vith what re-
verent dread of substituting in lllatters of religion our
inlagina tions for divine ideas, our wishes for God's
will, ought we to "\valk-,,
e ordinary men-"\vhen the
spectacle is here presented to us of a lnan such as this,
of genius the most brilliant, subtle in reason, affluent
in fancy, prolnpt, various, and versatile in the use of aìl
the mental po"\yers, diligent too, and eager in the pur-
suit of knowledge, industrious in moulding and re-
producing it in all the forn1s of literary labour; thus,
in the very restlessness of his o,vn high gifts, abandon-
ing a faith which even he hirnself can hardly avoid
ÌInplying to be a closer copy than his adopted creed of
the belief "\vith "\vhich Paul anù Peter went to Inartyr-
don1,-and abandoning it to risk his o,vn salvation, and
that of the nun1bers his personal influence and autho-
rity can s\\ray, upon the solidity of a phantom like the
theory I have been exposing-it being a 1110st a\vful
but inevitable fact, that if this daring theory be not
true, he has, in the very conditions and construction
of it, cOlnpletely cut off his o"\vn retreat upon any
other!

I renlain, DIY dear Sir,
Your's faithfully,
'V. ARCHEH BUTLER.

LETT. Ill]

CHRISTIAN DOCTTIIXE.

81

I
E rr l' E R T I 1 .

o

DEAR SIR,

THE hypothesis of ßIr. Ne\vman in
reality consisting in the assumption tbat the nlere his-
torical eventuation of dogmas in a certain particular
division of tbe Christian Church, is a sufficient evi-
dence of dogu1atic trutlt, and a sufficient ground for the
absolute authority of these dogmas over the belief and
conscience of all mankind; and its po"\\
er of persua-
sion consisting almost wholly in a dexterous substitu-
tion of this n1ere historical eyentuation-or, at best, of
some ÌInaginary connecting process of llloral and enlO-
tional impulse-for plain logical deduction; he him-
self soon sa\v that his hypothesis lYlust ever be feeble
and inadequate (indeed must differ in nothing, except
its imposing garb of learning and research, from the
most pitiful enthusiasn1 that ever be,vildered igno-
rance )a, unless c0111bined \vith the further supposition

a The complete coincidence between
Ir. Newman's" moral deve-
lopment," and the ordinary ground on which enthusiastic separa-
tists have ever vindicated their fantasies, it would not be very
edifying, and, I presume, must be nearly unnecessary to evince hy
examples. No reader who has ever studied (surely one of the sad-
G

82

[LETT. III.
of an Ùifallible directive authority to govern the course
of these vague spontaneous evolutions of doctrine.-

ON THE DEVELOP
IENT OF

dest chapters in the story of our race) the nlelancholy history of
such leaders and their disciples, can require to be told that the
substitution of vague impulse (under clùÍln of divine direction too)
for intelligible deduction, is the very basis of all fanaticism. But

Ir. N ewnlan's sovereign alchemy of the "sacrau1ental principle"
(by which, according to his exposition, p. 359-for so sacred an
expression requires explanation in its new sig.nificancy-heathen
and heretical extravagancies are suddenly transn1uted into Church
truths) will, of course, stand him in good stead in this strait.
The doctrine itself of progressive development (we shall presently
see it in its infidel aspect) is also no novel fOrITI of Christian heresy.
1\11'. Newnlan admits it is to be found in an its perfection, in the
l\Iontanism of Tertullian; whom he censures solely, it would seem,
for having arrived at perfection too soon (p. 351); for having mn-
bitiously presumed to be a nlediæval
aint before his tinle: perfect
excellence in the tenth century being palpable heresy in the second.
Few of our author's positions are 1110re characteristically courageous
than this. "Equall!J Catholic in tlleir principle, whether in fact or
anticipation, were lllOst of the other peculiarities of l\Iontanisn1.
The doctrinal determinations, and the ecclesiastical usages of the
n1Îddle ages, are the t'rue fulfilrnent of its self-willed and abortive at-
tempts at precipitating the growth of the Church," &c. &c. There
is, by-the-by, a happy prophetic alTIbiguity in one of Tcrtullian's
expositions of developlTIent, *which suits it perfectly to l\ir.N eWluan's
Papall\Iontanism, and would fornl a good theme for his ingenuity
of mystical interpretation. (De VÙ'[J'l'n. JTeland. c. i.) "Quonimn
hUlnana nIediocritas ornnia semel ca[e're non poterat, paulatiul dirige-

'" [Though Tertullian believed that l\lontanus was commissioned to perfect the
Christian dispensation, it is evident that in the passage referred to he is not speaking
of him, but of the Holy Spirit, who, after the ascension of our Lord, was substituted
in His place. The words in the original are not" Vicario Dei," but" Vicario Do-
mini, Spiritu Sancto;" and they relate only to the Saviour's declaration, (S. John
xvi. 12, 13.) "I have yet many things to say unto yon, but ye cannot bear them
now. IIowùeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all
truth."-G. ]

LETT. 111.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

83

(See p. 117, &c.) Had the "developn1ents" for 'v hose
defence the theor) ,vas constructed, been logical de-

retur, et ordinaretur, et ad perfectum perduceretur disciplina ab
illo VICARIO DEI" [the Pal'acleteJ. " SZl1Jl1nus Pontifex," proclaims
Innocent III., "non hominis puri sed veri DEI ,TICARHJS appellatur."
(Lib. i. Epist. 326, ad Faventin.)'I/f [The original title having been
"Vicarius Petri," which was graduany thus" developed," and the
former indignant1y rejected.Jt 1\11'. Newman win also find some
instructive exemplifications of his principle in the remains of the
teaching of the spiritualist fonowers of the Abbot Joachin1, and of
Peter J. Olivi; whose highly philosophical developlnents enlight-
ened the thirteenth century. It n1ust be confessed, however, these
resolute Franciscanst were not content with the more decorous
process of making Scripture speak their Inind by "mystical inter-

* [Faventinus was not a man's name, but signifies the Bishop of Faenza. Another
Epistle of this same Pope, which is found in the Canon Law, (Deeret. Greg. IX. Lib. i.
Tit. vii. Cap. Quanto personam.) contains the following similar decision: "Ron enim
homo, sed Deus separat, quos Rom. Pontifex (qui non purl hominis, sed veri Dei vi-
cem gerit in terris,)" &c.-G.]
t [This observation has been taken from Gieseler: (ii. 254.) but though U Christi
Yicarius" is, as might be expected, among the fifty titles of honour assigned to the
Pope by Bzovius, (Punt. Rom. Colon. Agripp. 1619.) yet Bi::;hop Barlow (Brutum
Fulmen, pp. 54-61.) has abundantly shown that there is no extraordinary peculia-
rity nor" Development" connected wit.h this name. "'Ve pray you in Christ's stead"
is the earnest language of S. Paul. (2 Cor. v. 20.) A Bishop, says S. Cyprian,
(E-'p. lix.) is "Judex vice Christi;" and Firmilian (lxxv.) dwells upon the fact of
ephcopal succession from the Apostles" ordinatione vicariâ." The Council of Trent
itself assures us, that "Dominus noster Jesus Christus, è terris ascensurus ad cælos,
Sacerdotes Sui Ipsius Vicarios reliquit." (Se
s. xh T . De Pæn. Cap. v.)-G.]
[For the distinction of Petri et Christi Vicarius, see Allies, p. 231. "The power
of the Roman Pont.iff in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, stood on a different basis
from his power in
he middle ages. The difference, perhaps, may be summed up by
saying that in the former he was Vicari us Petri, in the latter Vicari us Christi; in the
fonner he had a more or less defined Primacy, in the latter he laid claim to a com-
plete Supremacy; he was exalted as a Monarch abo'\""e his Councillors. A Primate
is one idea, a 1\Ionarch is another. It seems to be the great tour de force of Roman
writers to prove the second by the first. "]
t [Joachim, Abbot of Flora in Calabria, was not a Franciscan, but of the Cister-
cian Order.-G.]

G2

84

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETT. III.

ùuctions fron1 revealed principles, anù so, capable of
approving theIllSel yes to candid reason, this, of course,
could scarcely have been required; they would, in that
case, have vindicated thenlselves. But the actual Roman
developmen ts being too manifestly such as can claim
little or no internal valiJity in preference to a hundred
other concei va 11e foruls of doctrine, it became abso-
lutely necessary to ,varrant them by SOlne constant ex-
ternal authority; an authority which, at the same time,
if it exist, renders the ,vhole elaborate theory of deve-
lopment superfluous, except as a matter of speculative
curiosity. A Church absolutely infallible can need to
vindicate its decisions out of a theory of developnlent
no more than St. Paul \vould have needed to prove the
resurrection of the body out of the books of 1\fo
es.
Such theories as these, indeed, ,vith \vhatever air of
submissiveness propounded, are a1n10st al \vays in rea-
lity the ,york of half-believing disciples of the systelTIS

pretation:" "advel1iente EvangeJio Spiritus Sancti, eracuabitllr
Evaugelium Christi," is their decisive n1axim.* (Eccardi Corp. Rist.
l\ledii Ævi, ii. 850). It is certainly plainer speaking.

'" [Eymericus the Inquisitor haa thus set down the cnt.ire sentence: "Ulldecimus
error, quòd adveniente Evangelio Spiritus Sancti, sive clarescente opere Joachim,
(quod ibidem dicitnr Evangelium Æternum, sive Spiritus Sancti,) evacuabitur Evan-
gelium Christi." (Director. Inquis. Par. ii. p. 189. Romæ, 1578.) This writer and
his annotator Pegna (p. 57.) concur in the ascription of the Evangelium ../Eternum,
commonly attributed to the Abbot Joachim, (for 'whose Life, Acts, and Prophecies -
see 'V olfius, Lecliones LUemorabiles, i. 361-409. Francof. 1671.) to Joannes de
Parma, an Italian Monk. It would appear certain, however, that the language above
quoted belongs not to the original fantastic book, but to the Introduction to, or Ex-
position of, it, which was condemned by Pope Alexander IV. in the year 1255, and
has been since prohibited. Conseqncntly the person upon whom censure must fall
is the Franciscan Friar Gerhard. Vid. Quetif et Echard Seriptt. Ord. Præd. i. 202.
Lut. Par. 1719. Mosbemii Ins/t. Hisl. Eert. Sæc. xiii. ii. ii. xxxiv.-G.J

LETT. III.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRIKE.

85

they are brought to support; they are the last hesitat-
ing parley of " faith" ,vith still relllonstrant Reason.
'Ve are, as yet, ho\vever,-postponing the element
of infallibility,-ta be engaged far a ,,,hile longer \vith
the internal claims of the Developu1ent-Ilypothesis
itself.
I. I have said that the chief art of this performance
consists in substituting high-toned and elaborate de-
scriptions of the course of mere llistorical eventual ion,
or little more than this, far the legitilnate logical con-
nexion of the disputed "with adlnitted doctrines. N O\V
it lTIUst be quite plain, that, antecedently to all inquiry,
such a luanagement of the subject, indeed of any his-
tarico-dogmatical subject (especially \vhere the Inate-
rials are very extensive), nlust b0 easily practicaùle.
Historically, nothing is \vithout a cause, \vhether
change of action or change of belief, whether deed or
dogma. And ,vhere a system begins in perfect truth,
anù perpetually profes
es a respect for its origin, a
pleader of very 11loderate skill 'v ill ahnost al\vays be
able to sho\v that its variations have sonze point or
other ,vhereby they grapple with real truth; corrup-
tions, especially the earlier corruptions of such a sys-
tenl, are selùolll so utterly lTIOnstraus as to have no
carner where they are in contact with truth, no small
link by \vbich they hook themselves on to genuine
religion. The art of the advocate is, of course, to
Inagnify to the utnlost this little link, to gild and bur-
nish it by all the devices of eloquence. The hUlllan
hypotheses and ilnaginatiolls by the aid of \vhich alone
it can really make good its position as H 111enlber of
the true theological sy
tcn), it is easy to leaye in COll1-

86

O
THE DEVELOPMENT OF

[LEIT. III.

parative obscurity. And then the work is consider-
ably advanced, and the effect skilfully heightened, by
invariably stating, in the most exaggerated terms, the
ad versary's view (that, for example, "a counterfeit
Christianity" ""vas early substituted for the Gospel,
p. 2), so as to contrast his stern, intemperate conden1-
nation with the n1eekness and innocence of the little
stranger-dogma (whatever it be) ; or else by the equally
ingenious method of vividly describing -infidelityC, and
calling it Protestantism, and under the" Protestantism"
so described, covertly leaving to be included the Ca-
tholic Church of England.
And, as the link of connexion bet,veen the develop-
Inent and the original, is usually of the most attenu-
ated dimensions, and yet the connexion affirmed to be
irresistibly proven, the tendency of the ,vhole theory
Inust, of course, be to involve all the evidences of all
religion in perplexity, to sink the proofs of the ,vhole
to the level of these miserable demonstrations. An
organ of investigation being introduced, which may be
cmployed for any purpose indifferently, the tendency
of such a theory of religious inquiry will just tell
according to the spirit on which it acts. A sceptic
will develope the principle into infidelity, a believer
into superstition; but the principle itself rernains ac-
curately the san1e in both. The very sa1ne developing
process that led I(ant, and his innlunerable followers, -
to find at last Christianity cOlnplete "vvithin the limits
of the Pure Reason d ," has led 1\lr. N eWll1an to find it

c See pp. 368, 406, 438, &c.
d The reader who doubts this, I refer to Kant's own famous (and
undeniably very able) work on H Religion within the Boundaries of

I
ETT. IlL]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

87

conlplete only in Popery. If ßlr. N e\Vlnan has not
ended \vhere the fashionable Gerlnan school has ended,

Pure Reason." 1\11'. N ewnlan considers Christianity intended to
develope, so as to adopt new doglnas; I(ant, so as to set itself free
of the old. The one would encumber the spirit with an unwiehly
body, the other would diselnbody it altogether; but both equally
affect to preserve the spirit itself of the religion. In the I(antean
"development," nlysteries "must eventually pass into the fornl of
moral notions, by a metempsychosis, if they are ever to become ge-
nerally intelligible"-(Pref.); or, as again: "The Church creed
contains within, the germ of a principle whereby it is urged to a con-
tinual and nwre close approximation towards pure ethics and religion,
until, at length, these last being attained, the other be superseded
and dispensed with"-Book III. Apot. i.
7. Religion gradually
disengages itself" . . . . The swaddling-bands beneath which the
embryo shot up to manhood must be laid aside when the season of
lllaturity is come. The leading-strings of sacred traditions [here we
have a really edifying coincidence], &c., which, in their time may
have been of service, grow, by degrees, superfluous, &c."-Ibid.
The general object of the work is to unfold this in detail.
So too 1\11'. N eWlnan and the great Patriarch of RationalisIl1 agree
perfectly on the necessity of "nlystical interpretations" (Newnlan,
319-327), to reconcile their respective" developments" with Scrip-
ture; with I(ant, nluch "depends on tbe nlode in which the re-
vealed text is expounded, so as to receive a perpetual interpretation
parallel (to modern Romanisnl, in 1\11'. Newman's view) to the reli-
gion of Pure Heason." "An interpretation of this sort," continues
I{ant, "may often be strained, but the text must then be forced in
preference to the literal nleaning, &c."-Ibid.
6. So 1\11'. Newman
too, after sinlÎlar pleadings, formally lays it down, " that the IUYS-
tical interpretation and orthodoxy will stand or fall together,"
p. 32-1:. How instructive, yet how awful, this coincident anxiety
to provide for the felt hostility of the solemn 'V ord of the l\lost
IIigh to the resul ts of both schemes alike!
1\leanwhile I cannot venture to cornpliment 1\11'. Newnlan, inge-
uious as his book often is, and always eloquent, with having nlade
his scheme of the development of the Gospel into mediæval Lelief,

88

ON THE DEVELOP1\IENT OF

[LETT. III.

most assuredly it is not his theory or his n1ethod which
has saved him. The instant that the plain principle
is rejected, of man's obligation to bend his faith in
humble submission (however taste, fashion, associa-
tions, peculiar habits of reading, or personal inclina-
tions, nlay urge him) to the original Message of God
(in ,vhatever ,yay, once for all, communicated), and
the truths therein involved; the instant that for this-
the old and recognised nlaxim of the Catholic Church
through all its divisions, up to the fatal period ,vhen
vain and ill-conceived additions to belief and worship
forceù the theologians comn1itteù to them to cast about
for some new principle to defend ne,v practices,-he
substitutes his o,vn calculations of what may be (in
l\lr.Newnlan
s phrase) "congruous, desirable, decorous,
&c."-from that instant he has adopted a lTIaxim which
may lead to any results, and is equally illegitiluate, to
whatever result it lead.
It is, therefore, quite vainly that lVlr. Newman would
vindicate his system from being a defence of Romanism
on the principles of Rationalism, by alleging that the
tendency of the Developnlent Theory is positive, and
to extend belief; of Rationalisnl negative, and to con-
tract it (p. 83). The fornlal nature of Rationalism is
-the undue employn1ent of mere hUlTIan reason in the
things of religion, with a view to evade in some way
the simplicity of the obedience offaith. Now this may
manifest itself either in the 'result arrived at, or in the
n
etllod employed; even supposing that 1\lr. N e'Vluan

anything like so plausibJe as }{ant's developUlent of the sanle Gospel,
by the SaIne method, into ultra-rationalism.

LETT. III.]

CHRIS TIA.N DOCTRINE.

89

were to be acquitted on the former grounù, he cannot
on the latter. A man 'v ho should affect to discard all
revealed testimonies, and to prove the Divinity of
Christ or the Doctrine of the Trinity exclusively by
internal reason, ,vould be a rationalist, though his con-
clusion be not a negative, but a most positive dogmatic
truth. It is, Inoreover, a great mistake to assume that
superstition (i. e. the unwarrantable superaddition of
beliefs or practices) has not its o,vn rationalism; in
point of fact, the various practical corruptions that have
been superadded to Christianity have all been
first jus-
tified less by an appeal to authority (for they could
have little at that stage of their history) than on plau-
sibilities of reasoning, Î1naginary analogies, alleged ex-
pediency-that is, by essentially rationalistic processes.
'Vhen :àfr. N e\vrnan lays it do\vn as a great practical
axiom prelin1Ìnary to his theory, that" to be perfect is
to have changed often" (p. 39), of what school does he
echo the principles? in what Catholic Doctor ,vill he
find his Inodel? In truth, this slippery theory can
avoid the title of rationalist only by not being even
worthy of the name; this schelne for evacuating the
Catholic Rule of Faith does not even profess to rest
on distinctly rational grounds; capricious and unli-
censed as are the ventures of rationalisln, even they are
not so precarious as the eJnotionalisrn of:ThI r. N e,vrnan.
II. Ho\vever the theory may be modified by the
subsequent additional supposition of infallible guid-
ance, it is quite evident that, considered in itself, its
internal spirit and scope (especially as illustrated by its
alleged Ron1Ïsh instances) are nothing short of this,
that ererytldng ,vhich certain good men in the Church,

90

ON THE DEVELOP
lENT OF

[ LETT. III.

or men assumed to be such, can, by reasoning or feel-
ing, collect from a revealed truth, is, by the rnere fact
of its recognition, admissible and authoritative. N O'V,
against this (and I repeat that nothing short of this can
cover the instances in question), I venture to affirln
the broad principle,-that the very perfection of the
Church's discharge of her office of instruction and ex-
position lies not in unlimited development," but in
cautious mode'l'>ation j in being not" wise beyond ;" that
the great problen1 in theological deductions and appli-
cations consists in exactly the very thing this specula-
tion overlooks, the adrnitting a certain tone o.f t!tought,
and guarding against its extravagancies. vVhat this
theorist would call tilnidity and incompleteness is just
the perfection of practical wisdom. The Aristotelian
"mediocrity," iInperfect as an ultimate criterion of
right and ,vrong, is yet a great and almost universal
practical truth; man hÏ1nself is a sort of lllean terlll
bet,veen the extrenles of being; and the very essence
of practical wisdom in almost every departnlent of hu-
man life seems to consist in carrying out this condition
of his nature, in the sagacity that accurately deterlnines
where to stop. Rare and inestÌInable as is this gift, it
is of all high qua.lities the easiest to ridicule and depre-
ciate. The Socinian regards the Anglican Catholic as
a superstitious bigot; the I
olnanist regards him as a
frigid rationalizer, v{hose religion is one llniversallle-
gative. The Puritan enters an English Cathedral (that
ahnost l11iraculously felicitous realization of the precise
degree in ,vhich religion may rightly invoke the aiù of
sense and imagination!) to snlile or scowl on the" ill-
said IntlSS;" the Italian churclul1un, to deplore the lin-

LETT. IlL]
gering infidelity that will not go farther, and dissolve
in tears before the lVladonna's pictured purity. In this,
as in so Inany other respects, English theology recalls
the theology of Antiquity. rrhe object of all the first
controversies and councils \yas to fix that middle truth
of \vhich rival heresies \vere the opposite distortions;
in 1\11'. N e,vman's forcible and happy figure (p. 448),
" The series of ecclesiastical divisions alternate bet'
>"een
the one and the other side' of the theological dognla
especially in question, as if fashioning it into shape by
opposite stTokes." It is not, then, to such an antiquity
of careful conscientious limitation that \ve l11ust look
for the n10del of unchecked and unqualified "deve-
lopnlent."
III. This consideration becomes the more m0111en-
tous, when \ye remember ho\v it may have been-in
some respects, certainly lvas-the intention of the Au-
thor of the Christian Revelation to lvitlthold infoTnlaÛon
upon subjects on vvhich IIis high \visdom sa\v it as
"\vell or better that we should not possess distinct kno,v-
ledge. In such a case \ve can scarcely ÏInagine a more
un\varrantable contravention of IIis \vill than preSUIl1p-
tuously to intrude into such" hidings of IIis po\ver,"
and authoritatively to propounù in relation to theln
obligatory articles of belief. Such subjects are, alDong
others-the state of departed souls in general, and all
its connected topics; the exact estÏInate the Supreme
God may Inake of the 'yorks of IIis saints, or of the
spiritual condition of special individuals before IIim ;
the beatification of particular deceased Christians (and
that \\"ith the certainty required to Inake theln secure
objects of religious devotion!): the precise and (so to

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

91

92

OX THE DEVELOP1\IE
T OF

[LETT. III.

speak) ll1etaphysical nature of that ineffable COnll11U-
nion of the Body of Christ, \vhich lIe I-limself describes
in those profound sentences in John vi., and. which
St. Paul peculiarly connects with" the bread ,vhich ,,"'e
break ;" -and numbers of similar subjects of specula-
tion. That there are reallinlits to all attainable kno,v-
ledge on such matters in our present state, is internally
evident froln the very nature of the case, and abun-
dantly confirmed by such solelnn warnings as that of
St. Paul, Col. ii. 18; nor even if inspired men actually
possessed such kno,vledge, does it follo,v that they
,voulù be permitted to publish it; increased kno,vledge,
merely as such, being by no means necessarily a bless-
ing; especially vvhere no new duty arises in conse-
quence, or no new light is thrown upon the old. But
it is one of the practical evils of a claim such as the
Church of Rome makes to infallible authority (and no
small presumption against its legitimacy), that she is
inevitably driven to this profane and irreverent scrutiny
and deterrnination of things mysterious; for ,vhen con-
troversies arise, she often cannot in very shalne but
profess to decide theln; and is th us forced to follow all
the abstruse distinctions and difficulties that any subtle
teacher 111ay propose for public disputation. 'Ve kno,v
iudeed ho,v often (especially in lYlOre inquiring tilnes)
ROllle has felt the burden of this inconvenient acconl-
panÏ1nent to the claim of theological omniscience, and
endeavoured to escape it; for example, in the contro-
versies about Grace and
"'ree 'Vill in the Sixteenth and
Seventeenth Centuries, ,vhich she so long strove to
evade. partly by adjourning the decision, partly ùy en-
forcing silence on the contenùing factions. "Thile, on

LETT. III.]

cnRISTL\..:.N DOCTRIKE.

93

the other hand (I cannot help observing, as the subject
is before me), it is certainly surprising that her vota-
ries are not struck by the presumption against her pre-
ternatural ,visdom involved in the lameness and feeble-
ness of these decisions. If she declined deciding at
all, ,ve could ascribe it to a Divine Ï1npulse to reserve,
and see in it perhaps some resemblance to God's o,vn
ways of partial disclosure in Revelation; but to decide,
and decide poorly, and aln biguously (so as to "more
eln broil the fray"), and in the technical terms, and
( apparen tly) borro,ved inferences of mere human ,vis-
dom, without thro,ying a ray of light upon the real
question beyonù what all tbe ,vorld possessed before,
-this surely reveals little of a po,ver beyond human,
little of the voice of the IIoly Spirit IIimself condes-
cending to enlighten men. There is-a very important
distinction to be preserved here. In things ,vhere there
can be no human test of consciousness or observation,
any arbiter ,vho assumes infallibility can carry off his .
pretensions easily; he can map out the invisible world
,vith as confiùent a security against all opposing claim-
ants, as astronomers have divided alnong themselves
the titles of districts in the lunar globe. Such are the
doglnatical affirnlations of a Purgatorial region, of a
secret physical Transubstantiation, of the beatification
of eminent defenders of the ROlnan claÌ1ns and belief,
of the omnipresent attention of such to their innunle-
rable votaries at the same mOlTIent; and the like ;-
things of ,vhich the scene is carefully placed so as to
remove theIll from the reach of direct counterprooL It
is otherwise ,,
here (as in the controyersy referred to
above), the ,vhole question and all its grounds are

94

ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF

[LETT. III.

,vithin the grasp of the ordinary student; and accord-
ingly, ,ve may observe (though it ,,,,"ould take too long
to establish it in detail), that exactly in }Jroportion as
questions are of that description, is there real and ener-
getic disunion about them, under the imposing external
uniforlnity of the Roman Church.
Restraint within appointed limits, then, not uncheck-
ed development of the kind here contemplated, is the
true characteristic both of the Church's wisdom and of
her hUlnility,. not the accumulation of new doctrines,
but the deep and earnest practical realization of the a11-
sufficing doctrine she already and from the beginning
possesses. She believes that the n
011e "living" and
influential that doctrine, the nlore ,vill it transforlll
others to its likeness, the less will it yield itself to
their's. The Truth of God stoops to men frorn on high;
though it be among them, it is among them as a supe-
rior; it is but to confound earth and heaven to cOl11pare
(p. 45) its intended course to the ,vavering miscella-
neous fortunes of a political principle or a political
party. The true Catholic reveres too deeply the mys-
teries of divine truth to take then} fron1 their own ap-
propriate region, and, casting them into the heated
alembic of hunlan feeling, to try how, by this subtle
theological chemistry, he 11lay be able to distil the pure
essence into new forms of belief and ,vorship.
rhe rnan
violates the first principle of ecclesiastical ,visdom and
duty, ,vho ,vould thus counsel the Church of Christ to
idolize itself as the source and centre of truth; to take
its o\vn half-disciplined tendencies for principles of di-
yine kno\v ledge; anù, insincerely using the oracles of
God as the con yenient occasion of new doctrines, not

LETT. III.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

95

as the "\varrant of the old, to advance rashly into the
very heart of God's own secrets, and "\vhatever its feeble
eye could catch, or seem to catch, alnid those a,vful
depths, to stamp as portions of eternal truth, authentic
revelations, supplementary scriptures. These are not
the enterprises for "\vhich the Catholic Chnrch ,vas
chartered: "Teach them" was His ,vord, ",vhatsoever
I have commanded you," it ,vas never,-"
fodify the
sin1plicity of truth to suit accidental circlllnstances as
they rise; or expand hints designedl!J faint; or Inake
all clear 'v here God ,vould haye mystery, or reCOll1-
luend doctrines to gross lllinds, by adopting and con-
secrating their grossnesses (see p. 359, &c.); and thus,
out of these fe,v prÏ1nary elements, deyelope according
to your ,visdom a systelll that 111ay a,ve, attract, and
govern mankind." No provision ,vhateyer is made in
the original documents of the religion, for such subse-
quent incorporations; the ,varnings are careful and
reiterated against it. "Tith what scrupulous caution
did the rnoùel of teachers hin1self, and on an inspired
page, distinguish bet\veen ,vhat he spake of command
from God, and ,,,,hat he offered as a private suggestion!
IIo,v earncstly did" the \\Tise n1aster-builder," ,vho had
"laid the foundation," bid " every man take heed ho,v
he should build thereupon ;" adding the solen1n ,varn-
ing, that "the ,visdom of this "\yorld ,vas foolishness
,yith God," as if to urge men to distrust the most plau-
sible suggestion, ,vhen not marked ,vith the signet of
God's declared approbation.
lysteries abound in God's
dispensations, both of Nature and of Grace. "Sin after
Baptisln," on \\Thich the present author enlarges, as if
it ,vas a problem Oll ,vhich the Gospel can thro,v no

96

O
THE DEVELOP:\IENT OF

[LETT. III.

light, \vithout help from the Council of Florence, is
surely, at ,vorst, no greater n1ystery than nun) berlesR
others that we must contentedly endure; all are equally
trials of faith, hU111ility, patience; and lnany 111ight, for
aught we can tell, require for their satisfactory disclo-
sure, a degree and kind of knowledge impossible to
our present faculties, or a change of faculties unsuited
to our present state.
But though limitation and mystery are thus mani-
festly the will of God, and subserve ends most impor-
tant in the discipline of l\Ian, it is seldolll that hUlnan
pride and curiosity are satisfied with such a dispensa-
tion. This restlessness manifests itself in a t\vo-fold
result. l\Ian's impatient spirit ,viII either tolerate no
Inystery at all with the Socinian, or, if he Illust have it,
,viII take care to handle, shape, and vulgarize it after
his o'vn coarse fashion, ,vith the monk and schoolnlan
of the middle ages. It is thus that, in melancholy truth,
Romish "development," in every point, debases the
true snblÏInity of Christianity; as, indeed, might be
expected, ,vhen we remember the period ,vhen, and
the artists by whom, the attempt ,vas undertaken, of
completing the divine outline. The reformer of Chris-
tianity (for real1y that title, so unpopular ,vith 1\11'. N e\v-
nlan's friends, In ust, by his o,vn confession, be hence-
forth allo,ved to belong most appropriately to the
devisers of his o,vn creed )-the reformer, or developer, -
of primitive Christianity ,vill suffer no mystery to be
safe from his degrading explanations. lIe ,vill not
have the blessed 111ystery of the" Communion of the
body of Christ ;" it must be squared and fashioned into
a precise and _definite Transubstantiation of sacran1en-

LETT. III.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

97

tal bread and ,vine. lIe ,viII not leave in all its grand
and pathetic ll1ystery the state of the disembodied; it
must be a LÏ1nbo or a Purgatory, the exact temperature
of \vhose penal fires d , and number of whose years of
,voe he ,vill undertake to demonstrate. lIe will not
tolerate the profound mystery of the Communion of
Saints, that fearful and glorious spiritual advent of the
Christian to "the heavenly Jerusaleln, and the general
assembly and Church of the :first-born;" it must be a
semi-idolatrous Invocation, for that every body can
understand lIe will not receive the parallel mystery
of earthly Christian unity, unless it be substantiated
in a visible monarchy, which effectually relieves it of
any mystery at all. lIe cannot accept the admirable
mystery (so abundantly sufficient and consoling for
genuine faith), of God's secret Providence governing
the Church Catholic from age to age; securing its pro-
mised pern1anence, and bestowing His Spirit according
to IIis o,vn all-,vise distribution; it must be a down-
right infallibility of a kind all can comprehend, and
even attached to a place and a person, to make the
conception more utterly on a level ,vith the vulgar ca-
pacity. It is thus that all the din1 and shado,vy features
of mystery are sharpened into cold and hard details;
its majestic distance brought near, its sublin1e immen-
sity contracted, its grandeur made mean and paltry;
and this, this condensation of a,vfullnystery into frigid
fact, is ,,,,hat ,ve are to venerate as the" development
of Christian doctrine."

d Thorn. in 4 Sentent. Disi. 21. Q. 1. [Super quad. lib. JIag. Sent.
Dist. xxi. Qu. i. fall. 123-6. Veneto 1497.-G.] Bellmm. De P'll1>gat.
ii. 6.
Delude. &c. &c. [Opp. Tom. ii. co!. 790. lngolst. 1601.-G.]
II

98

ON TIlE DEVELOP
IENT OF

[ LETI. Ill.

IV. For it might, surely, be reasonably expected
that were this progression of revelations designed to be
the realla-\v of the promulgation of Christian truth, the
gro,vth ,vould be, as in parallel cases, from things sim-
ple, easy, obvious, to matters of a character 8ublÙne r p
and yet sublimer; such as ,vould exalt the human
spirit to a loftier elevation, and open a vaster horizon
to its gaze. Even in the great historical instance of the
simple logical fixation of a disputed truth by appeal to
the written testimony of God and the transmitted belief
of the Churches, the discussion and settlement of the
doctrine of the Trinity, \ve find it perfectly so. The
doctrine of the Trinity, \vhicp' sin1p]y designates by one
name, and thus brings together into one luminous focus,
the distinct and nun1erous intilnations of the original
revelation, is a grander thing than any single portion
or detached ground of itself; in combining the sepa-
rate elements into one, it heightens by mutually re-
flected splendour the glory of each, and magnifies the
a\vful mystery of the 'v hole. But ho\v incomparably
different is the character of the Roman peculiarities!
Scarcely any lTIan ,viII venture to deÚy-indeed 1\11'.
Ne,vnlan's " sacramental principle" involves a plain ad-
mission-that they are, for the lTIOst part, of a lower
character than the truths out of which they are held to
gro\v. Invest it ,vith all the brilliancy of in1aginative
colouring, philosophize it into all the dignity of meta.,
physical abstraction, and, after all, ,vho, not irrevocably
comn1itted to the system, ,viII have the face to say that
11nage TVorrshÍ]J was not a descent and a retro-gradation?
Who that remembers the laborious foundation laid for
securing the unity of the Object of worship in the Old

LETT. II!.]

CHRISTIA.N DOCTRINE.

99

'I'estalnent,-the supply specially made (in this con-
nexion) for the just satisfaction of man's hUlnan long-
ings and sympathies by the Incarnation in the New,-
the miserable and universal tendency of men to inter-
pose men bet\veen then1selves and the a,vful purity of
God,-but will see that saint-worship ,vas belo,v, not
above, or upon, the level of the religion of John and
Paul ?
Not such are faithful " developments," -if ,ve must
elnploy a terln, ,vhose alnbiguity - the word being
equally elnployed (in its comnlon application to the
gro\vth of organic structures) for the unfolding of ori-
ginal eleJnents and the further incorporation of foreign
1nateTials-perpetuallydarkens the whole subject. Such
combinations and cOlnparisons of doctrine-hu111bly,
reverentially, patiently prosecuted-attest the glory of
the divine religion, and maintain it perpetually in its
o,vn celestial sphere. It ,vill be found so in all that is
really of God, and uncorrupted by weak human quali-
fications, ,vhether in the departments of Nature or of
Grace; truth steadily adhered to, the n10re admirable
,vill it grow ,vith every new combination! But all
depends on that scrupulous adherence. It is hard to
persuade n1en of this, hard to convince them that God's
Reality is every,vhere essentially sublimer than l\Ian's
Imagination. Yet every step in the march of human
kno,vledge has sho,vn it. '!'he real law of the physical
universe is a nobler conception, even in its Ï1naginative
aspect, than all the brightest philosophical visions that
,vent before it; patient science, ,vhich deals ,vith the
creations of God, is continually arriving at conclusions
not Inerely more valuable, but even poetically lllore
n2

100

ON THE DEVELOP
IENT OF

[LETT. III.

brilliant and beautiful, than man ever attained when
giving loose to all the capricious evolutions of fancy or
conjecture. Let any man in this point of view compare
the Tin1æus and the Principia! Just so is it in the
revealed system too. Christianity itself is infinitely be-
yond the best human and philosophical conceptions of
a religion; and such like,vise will invariably be the
superiority of the theology that original1y gre,v out of
the strict and scrupulous meditation of the revelation
itself, over any which ever has been, or will be, gene-
rated by the unlicensed aid of human feelings, sensi-
bilities, adaptations, expediencies. Amply does expe-
rience prove it in the great e:xan1ple before us! The
pretended" development" of the mediæval centuries is,
in truth, no advance, but a confused retreat upon the
old Pagan associations, so dear, so natural to man;
human nature has pretty extensive experience of its
o \vn tendencies in the construction or corruption of
religions, and it can very safely depose to its o\vn ma-
nufacture in the religion of images
nd "deified saints."
This ,vas no "shining l1lore and ,/no're unto the perfect
day." The Christianity of the Apostles was profound,
pure, lofty; the spirit of man feels that, deep as it may
plunge, it can never touch ground in that ullfatholned
ocean, nor in its strongest soat'îngs reach the heights
of that unbounded sky. The public and authorized
Christianity of the middle ages (save for the corrective
virtue of the precious body of fundanlental truths it
preserved) ,vas the religion-unless all the analogies
of history and travel are a delusion-of the decrepitude
or the infancy of the hUlnan spirit. It bears not one
token of true gro\vth, or expansion, or vigour; save

LE'IT. III.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

101

,v hat inseparably belonged to its original inheritance
of truth. It enlarged indeed its multitude of subject
minds; but, for the most part, what minds! and ho,v
utterly has it ever since, on any large scale, failed ,vhere
true Christianity has so often an10ng us achieved its
noblest victories, in proving its innate vigour, by com-
manding the allegiance of perfectly free and deeply
thoughtful spirits; the educated classes, through almost
its entire dOlTIinion, being at this moment (oh, shame
and disgrace!) notoriously and avowedly infidel; and
the Romanism ,vhich would no,v storIn or seduce the
intellect of England, having beco1l1e, on its o,vn ground
-God forbid I should say it otherwise than in sorro,v
for the suffering cause of Christianity I-the scoff and
scorn of the leading intelligences ,vithin its nOlninal
cOD1illunion. To resume. In the profound providence
of God, such a 1110dification of the primitive revelation
as the mediævallnay have been suited in some respects,
-not in the chief respects, for the glory of the pure
religion is its universal applicability and po,ver,-but
yet in SOlne respects, for the sen1i-barbarous races it
addressed, it might have bridged the passage frOITI their
national superstitions, by (as sainted Popes ,vere not
ashamed even then to recomlnend, and modern Jesuits
long after exemplified) adopting and imitating their
weaknesses. I do not deny such overruling mercies
possible to Him ,vho can extort good out of the worst
of evil; but I do reclaim against the Inonstrous pretence
that this clulnsy and uncouth scaffolding (,vhatever its
temporary uses), is to be regarded as a genuine InelTI-
ber of the majestic architecture it disfigure
: that this
hypertrophy is to be taken as a healthy and natural

102

ON THE DEVELOP
IENT OF

[LETT. III.

gro,vth of the divinely organized frame it encuJnbers
and corrupts.
Let us not be deceived by the literary fashion of an
hour. The" dark ages" have, no doubt, been unrea-
sonably darkened; keen and learned explorers c have
shown us how unfair it is to make a starless midnight
of that t,vilight of the mind; but, in the nallle of com-
mon sense and reason, let us beware of the most absurd
and irrational of all reactions; and amid all the learn-
ed revolutions that in so many departments are revers-
ing around us the old judgnlents of history, let us yet
a while pause, before we consent to call the age of the
monastic miracles and the Lateran Councils the beau
ideal of Christian sincerity, humility, and wisdom!
For, in truth, this important consideration must not
be overlooked in dealing with this daring hypothesis.
I have already in this paper argued that this system
is but a Romish application of the method by ,vhich
all the peculiarities of Christianity may be, and have
been subverted; I have argued that the theory rests
upon ideally substituting the extravagant straining of
doctrine for that llloderation \vhich is the true perfec-
tion of the Church's "\visdolU, in the discharge of her
prophetical function. I have argued that such a system
essentially contravenes the purpose of God to ,vithhold
superfluous knowledge, and to discourage vain curio-
sity on the" secret things" that "belong" to IIim alone. -

e I need scarcely mention 1\11'. 1\laitland's acute and agreeable
essays. [For a discussion of the literary attainments of the" Dark
Ages" see also Hallanl's View oftlze State of Europe during tlte JIiddle
Ages, Chap. ix. note 203, and 1\1. Ampere, Histoire Litel'aire de la
j.-"rance avant le dOllzième Siècle. Paris, 1840.J

LETT. IU.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

103

I have argued that (as might be expected) the unblest
attempts of divines (,vho often foresaw not the peril of
the example they set), to intrude into the U nrevealed,
have only terminated in degrading the Revealed; anù
thus that, in point of fact, the pretended" develop-
ments" of the ROlllan theology, are themselves a palpa-
ble descent from the level of Christianity, instead of
being, as all true growths of primitive doctrine would
assuredly be, undiminished manifestations of its prin-
ciples and power-advanced apprehensions of the one
unchangeable truth, in proportion to the advanced ex-
perience of the Church,-" wisdom" for theln that ,vere
become lTIOre and more" perfect," and whose " senses"
were" exercised to discern" ,vith a yet lTIOre exquisite
and instantaneous tact: but this argument becomes
still more convincing ,vhen ,ve recall the PERIOD at
,vhich these improvements of the Gospel were invented
or methodized, the sort of guides at ,vhose feet, as being
the only safe developers of Christianity, we primitive
Catholics are now summoned to surrender our faith.
This topic I cannot ,vholly omit, although I can do it
but little justice here.
V. That traces of some of these notions are to be
found as early as the fourth and fifth centuries, is ,veIl
known; though the lowest degree of competent criti-
cism can separate bet,veen them and authoritative
dogmas at that period; and everyone interested in
this controversy must take special care to remember,
that the Roman hierarchy is not censured rnerely Lfo}'
retaining (in despite of all the opportunities of inquiry,
and all the Inerciful teachings of Providence) these fol-
lies and weaknesses, but for enfor'cing them as essential

104

ON THE DEVELOP
IENT OF

[ LETT. III.

to the right conception of Christianity; essential to the
sal vation of every hunlan soul; essential in such a de-
gree, as to justify convulsing the whole Church of
Christ to its centre, and sundering its visible con1mn-
nion, rather than recognise their omission in any na-
tional Church. But it is not in the fourth and fifth
centuries
Ir. Newman delights to find his model; he
knows ,yell ho,v the great names of those days, even
when betrayed into countenancing (or, like St. Jerome,
too angrily championing), some of these weaknesses,
yet, in their more reflective hours, expressly speak of
them as tllings uncertain, optional, circumstantial, at
best. The rflediæval Christianity is
fr. Newman's true
Ideal of absolute perfection; is it not fair then to ask
my readers to reflect what was the real pitch of learn-
ing and morals in the period to ,vhich we are no longer
called to do even-handed justice (it is delightful to
be sho\vn how to render that), but ,vhicll is boldly
set before us as the culminating point-at least till
the next "development"-of Christian knowledge and
Christian holiness?
The devotional habits attributed in the monastic his-
tories and legends to that period, recommend it to men
who have to lament (,vhat, however, the better pre-
lates thelnselves of that day lamented ,vith at least
equal energy) the prevalence of indifference and scep-
ticisln; and numerous individual instances of excel-
lence, no doubt, there ,vere, though it requires some
ingenuity and perseverance to detect them through the
mist of extravagance "\vith ,vhich the middle-age Iny-
thology has invested its heroes. But it is not indivi-
dual instances that deteru1ine the tone and character

LETT. 111.]
of the tilnes. The n1ediæval treatises that make up so
large a portion of the huge Bibliotlzecæ Patrum (even
supposing theln to be of far higher quality than most
of them can pretend to), were the attempts of pious
Inen not so llluch to elevate and refornl a declining
Church, as to adorn and reconlmend what they found
to be its general belief. The doctrine of an age cannot
well rise above the level of its average instructors.
"That ,vas the condition of the clergy at large, ",hen
the" developments of Christian doctrine" became fixed
integral portions of the Gospel ? 'Vas it such as to
form a legitÍ7nate presumption in favour of these innova-
tions? Of what class and character ,vere the lllen to
,vhom it was given to see mysteries offaith, on ,vhich
he \vho was "caught up to the third heaven" ,vas silent,
to 'v hich, hundreds of years after him, Chrysostom and
Augustine were blind, or but feebly and indistinctly
ali ve f .
I open an ordinary authorityg almost at hazard; and
I transcribe nearly the first sentences I 111eet. I have
no room for ('v hat ,vould be very easy) lengthened

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

105

r" Nunquid Patribus," asks St. Bernard, who, if unfortunately he
did not always follow his own maxim, always, we may presume,
imagined he was strictly doing so,-" doctiores aut devotiores
sumus? Periculose præsumimus quicquid ipsorum in talibus pru-
dentia J11'æterivit."-Epist. c1xxiv.
g [Viz. Gieseler, ii. 33, where the first three quotations are more
fully given. This Text-Book of Ecclesiastical Hist01'Y, translated by
Cunningham, Philadelphia, 1836, is almost exclusively the source
of
Ir. Butler's references, and is the work intended when the
writer's name occurs in any of the notes signed G. The editor
occasionally cites another perfonnance by the SaIne author, published
ten years later.-G.]

106

ON THE DEVELOP:\IENT OF

[LETT. III.

citations; but the candid student will understand wbat
sucb as tbese i}Jply, and" develope" for himself. The
follo,ving, for example, is a decree of a very important
and influential Council of Aix la Chapelle, A. D. 789,
intended apparently for the prelates at large of tbe 'Ves-
tern Churcbes h . "VideantEpiscopi ut presbyteri missa-
T'lt1n p'J'eces bene intelligant . . . . ut Dominica1n oratione'ìì

ipsi intelligant, et omnibus prædicent intelligendam."
In an episcopal n'landelnentï, some time later, it is ear-
nestl y pressed, tba t " Sernlonenl A tbanasii de Fide, cuj us

h [The Capitulary of Aix-la-Chapelle, addressed by Charlemagne
to Ecclesiastics, may be seen alllong the Laws collected by Ansegisus
Abbas, and Benedictus Levita. On account of the olnission of a
clause after the word" intelligant," where it first occurs, it may be
well to set down the entire passage :-" Ut Episcopi diligenter dis-
cutiant per suas parochias Presbyterorum fidem, Baptisma Catholi-
CUlll, et l\Iissarum celebrationes, ut fidem rectam teneant, et Bap-
tisma Catholicum observent, et Missarum preces bene Intelligant,
et ut Psalmi dignè secundwm divisiones verSUU1n 1nodulentllr, et Don1Ï-
nicam oration em ipsiintelligant, et omnibus prædieent intelligcndam,
ut quisque sciat quid petat à Deo, et ut Gloria Patri cum omni
honore apud omnes eantetur." (Cap.lxx. foI. 14. Paris. 1603.)-G.]
i [ Of Archbishop Rincmar ( Capitula Presbyte1
is data, ann. 852, c. i.)
See rYlansi, xv. 475, in Gieseler, Ecc. Hist. ii. 263. Ed. Clark. The
injunction of Rincmar, from which the citation in the text is made,
does not imply that his clergy ,vere renlarkably low in their attain-
11lents: "U t unusquisque Presbyterorum expositionem Symboli,
atque orationis Dominicæ juxta traditionem orthodoxorum Patrum
plenills discat, exinde prædical1do populum sibi comluissU111 sedulo
instruat. Prefationem quoque Canon is, et eundem Canonem intel-
ligat, et menloriter ac distincte proferre vale at, et orationes missa-
rum, Apostoluln quoque et Evangelium bene legere possit; psahno-
rum etiam verba et .distinctiones regu]ariter et ex corde cum can-
ticis consuetudinariis pronuntiare seiat. Neenon et Sermonem
A thanasii," &e.]

LETT. 111.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

107

initium est Quicumque vult salvus esse, memoriæ com-
mendet [unusquisque presbyterorum J, et SenS'llTn iUius
intelligat, et verbis comlllunibus enuntiare que at" -
JJIansi, xv. 475. And there is no reason for supposing
that the clergy of IIincmar, the bishop who issued these
instructions, were not up to the level of their day.
A little farther on, and some sixty years afterk-"Qui
Scripturas scit, prædicet Scripturas; qui vero nescit, sal-
telll hoc quod notisshnU17
est plebibus dicat [ut declinent
a malo, et faciant bonuD1, inquirant pacem et sequantur
earn J".-Theodulpll} ad Paroch. [Capit. ad P1>esbyteros
parochiæ suæ,-G.] c. 28. Sometinle after, Rathe-
rius lli , in an age of still further develoPlllent, enforces
sternly upon the clergy of one of the most important dio-
ceses in the "\Vestern Church the absolute necessity of
kno,ving the three Creeds n ; and seems to add his earnest
admonition, that they ,vonIc1 try to learn the n}eaning

k [Rather, fifty-five years before. Archbishop Hincnlar's Capi-
tula were issued in 852, and those of Theodulphus, Bishop of
Orleans, (first published by Baronius,) about A. D. 797.-G.]
1 [It must be admitted, in fairness to the middle ages, that the
Capitular of Theodulphus does not involve such ignorance as is
implied in the text. One of his directions is as follows (Ch. 20);
" Presbyteri per villas et vicos scholas habeant, et si quilibet fide-
liunl suos parvulos ad discendas literas eis commendare vult, eos
suscipere et docere non renuant, sed cum summâ caritate eos do-
ceant. CUlll ergo eos docent nihil ab eis pretii pro hâc re exigant,
nec aliquid ab eis accipiant, except0 quod eis parentes caritatis
studio suâ voluntate obtulerunt."- Vid.l\Iansi, xiii. 993, quoted by
Gieseler, ii. 265, Ed. Clark.]
m [Ratherius became Bishop of Verona in the year 931.-See
Du Pin.]
n [" Jlemoriter" should have been added. In fact, notwithstand-
ing the enlightenment of the nineteenth century, if a Bishop in the

108

ON THE DEVELOP1tIENT OF

[ LETT. III.

of the Sundayo. "l\Ioneo etiam vos de Die DOlninico
ut cogitetis, aut si cogitare nescitis, inter1'>ogetis, quare ita
vocetur, . . . . . ut unusquisque vestrum, si fieri potest,
exposition em Syn1boli et Orationis Dominicæ juxta tra-
ditionem orthodoxorum penes se scriptam habeat, et
ea'/n pleniter intelligat; et inde, si novit, prædicando po-
pulum sibi commissulll sedulo instruat; si non, salte1n
teneat vel credat:" and he similarly recomlllends to those
who do not understand P the prayers they utter at l\fass,
that" saltern memoriter et distincte proferre valeant."
Listen again to the testimony of one who was himself
one of the great instruments of ecclesiastical "develop-
ments:" ,. Populus," he writes q , "nullo prælatorum mo-

present day were to require his Clergy, at a Visitation, to repeat
from memory the three Creeds, with the alternative of leaving his
diocese in disgrace, it may be apprehended that many a heart
would tremble.-G.]
o [By looking at the original in the Spicilegiurn of D' Achery,
(i. 376. novo ed.) it will become quite manifest, that this statement,
hastily copied from Gieseler, (ii. 98.) does not rightly represent the
Bishop of Verona's meaning. IIis object was to prevent irrever-
ence and profaneness with regard to Sunday; and he therefore di-
rects that it may be borne in mind TVllOse day it is: "si enim Do-
n1Înica est Domini, utique non nostra dies est: si Domini est, rever-
entiâ Domini est honoranda."-G.]
P [Dr. l\Iaitland, if speaking of this passage, ,vould doubtless ask
for attention to the circulnstance that the not unimportant ,vord
"bene" has been here omitted. On a similar occasion he observes,
that" surely there was no proof of brutal ignorance in inquiring
whether a candidate for holy orders could read Latin well in public-
could repeat, understand, and explain the Athanasian Creed, and
preach the doctrine con tained in it in the vernacu lar tongue."
( Dark Ages, p. 18. Lond. 1844. )-G.]
q [See Gieseler, ii. 159. Pope Gregory is lamenting the ,vorldli-
ness and anlbition prevalent among the Clergy: but the depressed

LETT. III.]

CHHISTIAN DOCTRIXE.

109

derarnine, nullisqu
mandatorum frænis in viau1justitiæ
directus, immo eorUll
qui pïæsunt r eæmnplo quæcunque
noxia et quæ Christianæ religioni sunt contraria edoc-
tus, ad 0111nia pene quæ nefaria sunt proni et studio
currentes, [corruentes,-G.] Christianum nomen, non

condition and imperfections of the Church he attributes to a most
efficient cause, the insubjection and hostility of the State. "Rec-
tores et principes hujus mundi singuli quærentes quæ sua sunt, non
quæ Jesu Christi."-G.]
r It is to be observed that (with, of course, brilliant exceptions,
as no doubt there were many brilliant exceptions for ever lost to
human fame, but known and dear to God, in all classes), there is
very little reason to exclude the prelacy of the mediæval Church
from this general character of its clergy. Whether we regard the
warrior bishops of the empire, or the more luxurious and magnifi-
cent courtiers of Rome and Avignon, it would certainly appear that
"the development of Christian doctrine" was not likely to be a
whit safer in their hands than in those of the inferior clergy- As
for the Scholastic Doctors, their office (not to insist on their inces-
sant mutual disputes), was, for the most part, to methodize, and to
defend at all hazards, what had already, in spirit and substance,
grown up before them amid such a clergy and such a laity as the
previous centuries afforded. The monastic bodies in the mass, re-
main; but the perpetual story of their reforms, and of the difficulty
and rapid decay of these reforms, too clearly indicates their average
state. Not to add, that mere monastics must ever be essentially
unqualified to understand Christianity in aUt-he fulness of its prac-
tical application, frOln inevitable lack of experience; and must,
therefore, be, of all Christian men, the most incompetent to legis-
late for universal Christian belief.
And yet the Church was, in its saddest obscuration, a light and
blessing to the world,-a priceless blessing I 'Vi th all the infir-
mities and errors of its hierarchy, it retained the great lines of
Catholic truth, and the blessing that truth inherits. It is only me-
lancholy that the preposterous and extravagant claims of the advo-
cates of its corruptions, should force men to seem to throw any
doubt upon that consoling belief.

110

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETT. III.

dico absque operum observantia, sed pene absque fidei
treligione gerunt."-Grego1'1. VII. Epp. i. 42. But such
passages as this bring one to the further ground of the
moral condition of the clergy; a matter obviously as
in1portant in relation to the present theory, but on
which to accumulate citations applicable to every suc-
cessive century, ,vould be a ,york literally endless.
They shall be forthcolning in shoals, if they are asked
for. One remark may be n1ade on thelD, all. In every
case, the evil seems to grow directly as ,ve approach
the very focus of "developillent," Rome itself. " Præ
cæteris gentibus baptislTIO renatis S ," is the declaration
of Ratherius, echoed on every side-" contemptores
canonicæ legis et vilipensores clericorum sunt magis
Italici"t. Though certainly the latter article of the
charge can scarcely move much surprise, when we re-
member of what description the vilipended clerici truly
were, on the testimony of the Veronese bishop himself.
From Hinclnar's exhortations to Bernard'su more awful

8 [" Quærat et aliquis, cur præ cæteris . . . . sint . . ."-G.]
t [D' Achery, i. 354. Pope Pius IX. might perhaps be disposed
to ask the same question as that which Ratherius undertook to an-
swer respecting the Italian laity. Possibly he might consider these
words also not to be inappropriate: "sine formidine suis volupta-
tibus, et mortiferis voluntatibus passÏ1n deserviunt omnes."-G.]
U [Bernard in Cantic. Serm. 33. Opp. Tom. Î. p. 1397. item Ser'rn.
ad Clerum in Concilio Rhemensi, cited by U ssher, TVorks, vol. ii. p. 68.
Ed. Elrington. The following words are a specimen: "Olim præ- _
dictum est, et nunc tempus impletionis advenit, Ecce in pace am a-
'J'itztdo 1nea amarissima. (Esai. Cap. 38, Ver. 17.) Amara prius in nece
martyrum; amarior post in conflictu hereticorun1; aIllarissima
nunc in Inoribus domesticoruln. Non fugare, non fugere eos potest,
ita invaluerunt et multiplicati sunt super numerum. Intestina et
insanabilis est plaga Ecclesiæ, et ideo in pace aIllaritudo ejus ama-

LETT. III.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

111

denunciations, from Bernard to the dreadful revelations
of the Council of Constance, the report is miserably
un if orIn ; till the very expression, ut populus sic sacm'"
dos, SeelTIS to have become a sort of mediæval proverb w .
This is a subject on which there is little pleasure in
enlarging, and our common historians certainly speak
too unsympathizingly of even the harmless peculiari-
ties of the l11ediæval Church, for TIle to desire to carry
such descriptions beyond their legitimate application.
But in relation to the present question, that application
is obvious, and it is indispensable. In lieu of the an-
cient Catholic Rule of Faith, given up as unmanageable,
an author stands for\vard, avo\vedly substituting" the
mind of the Church ,vorking out dognlas from feelings."
Surely, we have a right to inquire in what state was
the "lnind" that took upon itself this tremendous func-
tion? Surely, \ve may fairly ask, \vhat ,vas the pre-
vious discipline, and ,vhat the existing cultivation of
this ecclesiastical "lnind," that thus undertook to im-
prove on the religion of the Apostles, that sa\v the true
answer to problems they preferred to leave unsolved,
and \vas favoured ,vith revelations the Paraclete of
"all truth" forgot to Î1npart to them !

rissima. Sed in quâ pace? Et pax est, et non est pax; pax a
paganis, pax ab hæreticis, sed non profecto a filiis."]
W [See Glaber Rodulphus ape Ussher, JV01'ks, ii. 107. ed. Elrington.
The monk thus speaks of the pontificate of Benedict IX. commenc-
ing A. D. 1033: "Quis enin1 unquam antea tantos incestus, tanta
adulteria, tantas consanguinitatis illicitas permixtiones, tot concubi-
narum ludibria, tot malorum æmulationes audiverat? . . . . Insuper
ad cumulum tanti mali, cum non essent in populo, vel rari, qui
cæteros corrigentes tali a redarguerent, Ï1npletun1 est Prophetæ vati-
cinium, quod ait, et el'it sicut populus sic sacerdos."]

112

ON THE DEVELOP:\lENT OF

[LETT. III.

VI. But untenable as is this claim of authoritative
development ,vhen confronted with history, distorted
and discoloured as we may expect the bearDs of celes-
tiallight to issue from this mediunl of impure, uncer-
tain refraction, it is really, I must say, doing the "\vhole
hypothesis too llluch honour to refer it gravely to his-
torical tests at all. Everyone ,vho is in the least com-
petent to judge, and ,vho knows the legerdemain that
learned ingenuity can perform in such uncertainty of
light, and ,vith such an infinity of pliable materials,
must be at once satisfied that the theory of this volunle
could be made ,vith equal facility to prove any thing
whateverl'. l\fr. N e,vman himself seems at times pretty
,veIl a ,yare of this; and while in one page proclaiming
his "developrnents" as little short of delllonstration,
and "Protestants" blinded and undevout and unbe-
lieving, 'v ho cannot at once recognise their force, in
others he depresses the demands of his argument, and
speaks of it as merely evincing it not inlpossible that
the mediæval divinity 'lniglzt possibly have issued legi-
timately out of earlier doctrine. " The drift of this
argument," he tells us, p. 388, "is merely to deterrlline
whether certain developnlents [in that term simply
assunling the question] ,vhich did afterwards and do
exist, have not sUJficient countenance in early times, that
we may pronounce them to be true developnlents :"
. . . . . and he proceeds to urge that, even if very little-
countenance could be found for them, nay, if the anti-
cipations of them "were muclt fewer than those of a
contrary character, they would be the rule, and the rna-
jority would be the exception;" the entire reason for this
portentous affirmation (which really renders his ,vhole

LETT. III.]
inquiry nearly superfluous) being, that "they have a
princi pIe of consistence and tend to Bonlet/âng," 'v hereas
the others" have no nleaning, anù canle to nothing;" it
being perfectly manifest that any perrnanent corruption
(and I have already shown that the continuity of human
nature lays an adequate foundation for the pernlanence
of religious corruptions), nlay be similarly vindicated
by the fact of its existence j and that all corruptions are
likely to be more or less connected, and thus to have a
sort of internal "consistency," if they be the common
gro-\vth of tendencies in thelnsel ves so connected as are
the various superstitious impulses commonly observ-
able in our imperfect nature. But it is not on this I
no,v insist. l\Iy present object is simply to lead
Ir.
Ne"\vman's disciples to do justice to their master, by ob-
serving and admiring the universality and flexibility of
this ne"\v instrument of theological investigation, ,vhich
can be applied, for the comnlon benefit of all sects and
parties in religion, to the proof of anything they please.
In order to clear the ,yay for this modern Rule of
Faith, of course (as I have before observed), it becomes
necessary to cloud the luminous simplicity of all the
evidences of religion. The" Catholic Fathers and
ancient bishops" were accustomed to speak somewhat
triumphantly in their contests \vith heretics of the
plainness and certainty of the rule of belief. Not so
the school of \vhich
Ir. Ne\Vlnan aspires to be the
founder. 1 [e admits that the tests he had himself so
laboriously fixed for the ascertainment of correct deve-
lopments are (p. 117) "insufficient for the guidance of
individuals in the case of so long and complicated a
problem as Christianity," and he hesitates not to gene.
I

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

113

114

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETT. III.

'l'alize this unhappy principle of scepticisnl in that usual
fearful way in which ROlnish controversialists prefer
sinking the vessel itself of Christianity, to lightening it
of their o\vn superfluous burden, and had rather nlen
\vere utter Deists than rebels to their authority. " 1Ve
nlust," he Inournfully declares (p. 180), in order to dis-
cover (\vhat he calls) "the forinal basis on \vhich God
has rested His Revelations"-" ,ve must do our best
"\vith \vhat is given us, and look about for aid from any
quarter ;" and the aid "\ve are to expect, after this long
and dubious search, is to consist of" the opinions of
others, the traditions of ages, the prescriptions of au-
thority, antecedent augu'{'ies, analogies, parallel cases, and
the like ;" for the bat;is of belief, for which \ve are thus
groping through the t\vilight, is of" an historical and
}Jhiloso}Jlâcal character." This gloomy picture of the
difficulties of kno\ving 'v hat to believe (\v hich \vill an-
s\ver excellently for our next exportatioIi to Germany,
in order duly to Inaintail1 the literary balance of trade
between us and the philosophers of Bonn and Berlin),
and the convenient facility it at the same tinle presents
for believing ,vhatever \ve choose, is admirably applied
in other parts of the \vork in the establishn1ent of par-
ticular doctrines. The follo,ving struck me especially,
in perusing the VOIUll1e, as perhaps the happiest spcei-
lllen of the art of proving by "\vaiving all proof, that the
annals of even Ronlan divinity can furnish. " If it be
true," observes 1\11". N e\vman. in laying do\vn the canons
of his theological NOVUJ7l Organl17n (p. 366), "that the
}J1>inciple8 [the reader 11lUSt recur to the author for the
distinctive Ineaning of this terul x ; the explanation takes

1 " Principles are abstract and general; doctrines relate to facts;

LETT. III.]
Up four pages, 70-73], of the later Church are the sanle
as those of the earlier, then, v;hatever are the variations
of belief betu;een the two periods, the earlier, in reality,
agrees more than it differs \vith the later; for princi-
ples are resjJonsible for doctrines."
It being thus settled (for this is the real import of
the maxiln, as applied in the book) that whatever can
be sho\vn to be (in \vhatever exaggerated degree) an
instance of a principle recognised (in \vhatever limited
degree) in the early Church, has a claÜn to be received,
unless \ve are prepared wholly to disavo\v tbat princi-
pIe; and it being, lnoreover, no very difficult Inatter
for a \vriter conversant \vitb the volun1Ïnous relnains of
Christian antiquity, and reading thenl by a light re-
flected from subsequent ages, to discover those vague
entities ,vhich he designates" principles," pretty nluch
at his pleasure; the proof of any doctrine at all by
clear evidence of antiquity (should persons be so scru-
pulous as to require that \varrant) becolnes, in ne\vs-
paper phrase, "level to the meanest capacity." Let llle
ven ture a trial.
Bishop Stillingfleet, as I remember, quotes in one of
his treatises Y the case of certain sectaries, mentioned

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

115

doctrines develope, and principles do not; [compare p. 368, where
we are told that" the principles of Catholic Developnlent admit of
de
'elopmellt thelllselves," &c., so nlatuldy has this author digested
his own system;] doctrines grow and are enlarged, principles are
illustrated; doctrines are intellectual, and principles are more inl-
nlediately ethical and practical. Systellls live in principles, and
represent doctrines, &c. &c."-p. 70.
} [Discoll1
se concel'ninfJ the Idolatry practised in the Church o.t
Rome, p. 118. Lond. 1672.-G.]
12

116

ON THE DEVELOI>1\lE:XT OF

[LETT. III.

by St. Åugustine z , ,vho iùentified our I--Jurù ,vith the
Sun; the Bishop arguing (against the COlll1110n l
onlÍsh
evasion), that sun-,vorship, even under that supposi-
tion, could ill be excused from the Ïlnputation of idola-
try. A n10dern growth of these Christian Guebres
lnight, however, on th
ne,v system, Blake out no feeble
case; the public religious recognition of this great
visible type of the True Light is but a fair "develop-
Ulcnt" of "the typical principlc ;" the justifiable ÍInita-
tion of the guilt of heathens, in its adoration, is but an
instance of the transforlning po,vers of "the sacralllental
principlc ;" ,vhile it requires but the most obvious usc
of the great instrulncnt of orthodoxy, "lnystical inter-
pretation," to finù the duty hinted (clearly enough for
,vatchful "faith," though obscurely to the blinded and
undevout), in those passages that speak of a " taber-
nacle for the Sun," and ,ve kno,v the J e,vs adored
to,vards the" tabernacle," or Deity itself being" a Suu"
-or the" rising of the Sol Justitice" (for these thing

sound nlore solemnly in the ecclesiastical language )-
or " a 'VOlllan clothed ,vith the Sun," 'v hich \\rOnlan her-
self ,ve kno,v to be the object of just adoration, and
,vhose "clothing" nlay fairly be included in the ,vor-
ship, by the well-known" principle" of 11laterial contact,
on \vhich so 111uch of the supernatural virtue of relics
is founded. Indeed the 'v hole body of the righteous
are promised to "shine as the Sun" in the heavenly
kingdom; an expression ,vhich, though it appear supcr

ficially to refer to a period not yet arrived, the Church
has correctively developed into an assurance of their
present beatification, and consequent right to worship;

Z lIe quotes St. August. Præf. in Psal. xciii. [fol. 97, b. Lugd.
1519.-G.]

LETT. III.]

CIIHISTIAN DOCTRINE.

117

\,"hile it lllU5t be at once lnanifest, that if any reprcsell-
tatiye eHIblen1 uf the Deity Inay ùen1and religious pros-
tra tion ill our Churches, the analogous cn1 blcl11 of the
"deified," in the great teulple of the Jnaterial ulliverse,
Inay fairly expect a participation in that honour a . It
is trne, there is an express cOlnuland (Dent. iv. 15),
"'rake heed lest when thou seest the sun, &c., thou
shoulùest be driven to ,yorship them," &c-, but so there
is a cOllnnalld, at least as ùistiuct and Ünperative, against
the ,vorship of ÙJlages, ,vhich illr. Ne,vnlall instructs
us has been repealed under the Gospel, and ,vas never
1110re than a nlere Judaic prohibition (" intended for
1l1ere temporary observance in the letter," p. 434), his
chief reason being, that the J e,vs kept it and yet ,vere
punished, ,vhich, it is obviou
, is equally applicable to
the glorious developn1ent and high privilege of SUl1-
'\Torship ,vhich ,ve are hun1 bly vindicating. As to
" early antici pations," there is that plain and irresistible
une, the cnstonl of turning to the east in portiolls of
the puùlic service, ,vhich can, in no ,vise, be better ex-
plained than by supposing a prin1Ítive sun-,vorship, or,
at the yery least, an instinctive undeveloped "ten-
dency" thereto (\vhich ,vill ans,ver as ,ycll), of \\Thich
the Fathers indeed take little notice, because this entire

a lIe who holds ,. Laudate Don1Ïnunl in Sanctis Ejus," to justi(y

aint-worship, according to the" subtle and powerful" method of
mystical interpretation, can scarcely deny the validity of the
e
cogent scriptural proofs. I do not n1ention the other passage
quoted (to justify the worship of matter) in the same place, "ado-
1'ate scabellum Ejus," because its force and applicatiòll are too obvi-
ous to require insisting on; all argulnents to e\ ince the propriety
of worshiping any portion of the visible creation lllust, of course,
npply with an a fortiori powcr to a portion so glorious in itself, and
so suitably emblematical, as the great Orb in question.

118

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETT. III.

mystery ",vas part of the disciplina arcani. But, you
will say,-for what ,viII not the frigid and sceptical
spirit of "Protestantism" allege, to escape the un,vel-
come control of legitimate developnlent ?-that this
very custOlll appears to be condemned by the high au-
thority of St. Augustine, and something very like it
attributed to the 1\lanichees b . Undoubtedly; but our
ne,v instructor has shown us (p. 351) how to discover,
in the utnlost extravagancies of heresy, only the inlpa-
tient strugglings of premature truth,-enlbryo Catho-
licism, born before its time; as he treats Tertullian's
l\f ontanism, we treat the brilliant, but too ea.ger anti-
cipations of l\Ianes. 'Vhile, again, Augustine lived,
after all, in but the childhood of the Church; he who
certainly kne\v nothing of transubstantiation, and has
given (doubtless corrupted by the Syrian school c that
misled Chrysostom and 'fheodoret) such sad triumphs
to heresy on that head, may ,veIl be regarded as not
absolutely infallible upon this. Still, you 111ay mur-
mur, at ho,v late a period does this novel graft upon the
Christian stock appear ! Vain surmises of à Inind that
cannot rise to a due conception of the generative energy
of that prolific faith (COll1p. N e'V111an, p. 71), that even
ip old age can multiply its family of legitimate ùeve-
lopnlents! For 1110re than a thousand years the Church
had to ,vait for the full manifestation of the Gregorian
development of absolute spiritual and temporal supre.:
macy, p1ainly as it is revealed in the very first chapter
of Genesis d ; for nearly fourteen hundred she haù to

b Aug. contra l\Ianich. xx. 1. [Contra, Fallstllm, xx. i. Opp.
'1'0111. viii. 237. eù. Ben. AIU:;t.-G. ]
C' [\rid. sup. p. 19.J
tl I need scarcely recall to the reader's notice the eX(luisitc appli-

LETT. III.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

1 } 9

\\rHuder in the darkness of a vain belief that the COU}-
lnands of the Last Supper ,vere to be strictly observed,
nor kne,v ho,v (" for some ,vise purpose, doubtle
s,"
p. 366) it ,vonId add infinitely to her happiness
nd her

('ability of this mystical interpretation, (which was the great scrip-
tural proof for centuries of the absolute papal supremacy,) to the
peculiar subject imnlediately before us. "Fecit Deus duo luminaria
magna; (Gen. i. 16.) scil. Solem, h. e. ecclesiastical]} potestatem, et
Lunam, h. e. tenlporalem et inlperialem, ut regeret universum. Et
sicut Luna nullunl lunlen habet, nisi quod recipit a Sole, sic nee
aliqua potestas aliquid habet, nisi quod recipit ab ecclesiastica po-
testate," &c.- Bun if. 'VIII. in Confirmed. Alberti /.* The same iC.l-
pressive argunlent had been used long before by Greg. VII. and
Innoe. III. passÙn.t I appeal to it in preference to the other
(though equally overwhelming) evidence for the twofold papal
supremacy from Scripture, "Ecce duo gladii . . . . Satis est," be-
cause, though the latter nlystical interpretation was unquestion-
ably employed as a "nledium in which the mind of the Church was
exercised and developed in the structure of the Canon La,v, and the
Bulls and Letters of the Popes, " (Newman, pp. 320, 321.) yet the
fornler is more immediately interesting in relation to nlY present
purpose, as helping to give the Sun and 1\loon a recognised place in
theology.
* [Gieseler, ii. 2..l7.-G.]
t [Pope Innocent's decision is perfectly authenticated by its insertion in the Canon
Law. (Deeret. Greg. Lib. i. De Major. et obed. Tit. xxxiii. Cap. vi.) This Pontiff
having informed the Emperor of Constantinople, that the Pope is as much superior to
a King as the Sun is larger than the Moon, it became a matter of considerabl{' moment
to estimate accurately the comparative magnitude of these luminarid. Accordingly
Be1'llardus de Botono, in his "most erudite" Gloss, affirms that the Sun is forty-seven
times greater than the l\Ioon; and this determines the degree to which he supposes
that regal dignity ought to be lowered. A more correct edition of the Corpus Juris
Canonici elevates pontifical above imperial power in the ratio of fifty-sn.en to one.
Laurentius, a Canonist, endeavours to annihilate aU hope of future competition by de-
claring, in his comment on the same place, tbat " it is evident" that the Sun is Sel'ell.
tlwlfsand, seven hundred, and forty-four times and a half gn
ater than the 1\1oon;
and this computation having been made by one profoundly acquainted with A
tro-
nomy, the relative rank of Emperor and Pope is for ever adjusted, and infallibly
fiXl.d upon even to a fradion.-G.]

120

ON THE DEVELOP
IENT OF

[LETT. III.

orthodoxy to break thell1! But has-you persist to
urge-has the Church pronounced in favour of this, so
as to "\yarrant me to consider the VV orship of the Sun
a just and correct developn)ent of her adlnitted princi-
ple of relatively ,vorshiping nlatter as an emblem of
God? Perhaps not; but !tOlO could a development ever
take place if you were to wait first for her authoritative
COJl1/1nand? All the developlnents by ,vhich the me-
diæval theology is distinguished froln that of Ignatius
or Cyprian, gre,v up through the gradual expansion of
tendencies in individual minds, and ,vere only at length
stamped by the seal of ecclesiastical authority. The
verdict of Ronle is the consummation, not the outset,
of development. The chosen instrument of a ne,v
development must prepare for struggle and conflict;
stornlS and tempests must precede the sacred cahn ;
the protracted ,varfare of intellects is indispensable to
,vin for the Church these ne\v territories in theology.
The most characteristic, perhaps, of all developl11ents
of the Gospel-the assertion of the indefeasible right
of Christian men to bow do,vn before "\vood and stone
-,vas the result of a century anù a half of conflict in
East and "Test; and so little are you to be discouraged
by the opposition of Inodern enlightenment in forcing
a ,yay for any doctrine (ho,vever apparently monstrous)
you espouse, that it is notorions that, in that struggle,
nearly every divine of character in the Church of the-
"Test, including the royal saint, Charlenlagne, himself,
,,"'as opposed to the innovation. Since "c1eveloplnel1t"
is the la,v of the Christian Reve1ation, it is clearly the
duty of every nlan, in the first instance, to push to the
utulost, by every art of ecclesia
tical influence and agi-

LETT. II!.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

121

tation, ,vhatever he 111ay conceive to be a just develop-
Inent; he cannot kno,v it to he not so, until RODle-
not of late very for,vard to decide-has spoken; till
then it is plainly his positive duty to press his point;
the conviction he feels is evidence for-and he has no
evidence as yet against-his being the elected instru-
Inent of IIeaven to herald into the ,,"orld a ne,v "de-
velopment of Christian doctrine." On ,vhat conceiv-
able ground, consistently ,vith this theory, should the
lleliolator delay to propagate his vie,vs, or hesitate at
once to offer his hUB) ble contribution to the ever-
gro,ving accumulation of Christian theology? ROI11e
is not the moving po,ver, but the criterion, of develop-
Inent; the candidate lTIUst strive before the judge can
decide. The theory of development itself, has it ,,"aited
for the sanction of the Vatican ?
IIo,v the slight and hUlnble instance of development
,vhich I have ventured to suggest ma)7 be carried fur-
ther, and the heavenly bodies at large made the basis
of a ne,v exhibition of tbe principle of relative and
typical ,vorship, such passages as Job, xxxyiii. 7, Ps.
cxlviii.3, 1 Cor. xv. 41, &c. &c., ,vill readily suggest to
the thoughtful reader, practised in exploring the depths
of Scripture ,vith the sounding-line of 111ystical inter-
pretation. Indeed it may be questioned ,vhether, on
the sarne invaluable principles, ,ve J11ay not reconquer
to the standard of the Gospel (under some sligh t de-
corous changes of naBle and circurnstance), the ,vhole
long-lost territory of Pagan c10gnlR and ,,-'-orship; a
schelne said to haye been partly contelnplated by SOine
of the literary cardinals at the court of Leo X. nut
this is l1latter too extcnsi ve for B1Y prescnt lirnit::; ; Bor

122

ON THE DEVELOP:\IENT OF

[LETT. III.

will I anticipate the conclusions of the reflective, but
leave the subject as a matter of instructive and profi-
table speculation to those students of the theory, ,vho
,vould like to make SOlne little ventures of their o,vn
in the aTt of developing Christian doctrine. It would
surely be quite inexplicable, not to talk of its suggest-
ing to the irreverent a somewhat suspicious degree of
Inere hunlan caution in an inspired hierarchy, if from the
date of a Council of three centuries ago, the inherent
developing energies of the Church were to be myste-
riously and for ever frozen at their source!
Still possibly there may be those ,vho think this in-
stance somewhat exaggerated-though if such there
be, I do beseech thenl, in perfect seriousness, to reflect
whether Sun- 'V orship, at least an innocent dulia of
that 111agnificent object-is at a greater/" distance frolTI
the ,vorship of images, than the ,vorship of Inlages from
the general spirit of the Pauline theology, or the" keep
yoursel ves from idols" of St. John? Such more tiulid
::;pirits, therefore, lnay please themselves with demon-
strating froIn the ne,v theory the propriety of such
nlinor 1110difications of the etcisting ritual as, for ex-
arnple,-the duty of ,vorshiping the water of baptisnl,
,vhich no one who renlelnbers the constant analogy
enforced in antiquity ,vill say, is not, as regards the
1"hird Person, nearly as natural a development as the
latria of the other sacrament, first universally estab- -
J
lished in the thirteenth century, ,vas, regarding the
Second; or the high privilege of adoring the priest-
hoad e , ,vhich is but an obvious exhibition of the "prin-

(' The diftìcult.y is really to iluagillc any extravagance that has
nut been patroniscd. AugustillUS Triul11phus gravely argues whe-

LETT. III.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

]23

ciple" of Reverence, anù fully \varranted by that
"deification" of all \vho possess an iu\vard gift \vhich

lr. N e\vman has taught us is a full justification of the
cultus of men; or the practice of ComIl1unicating the
Dead, ,vhich is plainly in harillony \vith the peculiar
sacredness of bodies yet to be raised froID the grave,
in short, a manifest" developnlent of the doctrine of
the Resurrection,-" according to the same author's con-
vincing vindication of relic-worship; or-but I really
11111st not enter upon the boundless enurneration of that
infinity of rites, cuStOlllS, and beliefs, ,vhich nJay, for
the consolation and encouragement of theological dis-
coverers, be, everyone of them, defended ,vith exactly
the same force, and on exactly the same principles,
as
lr. Newman's Roman developments of Christian
doctrine.
VII. Yet it lllay still be urged that these are but
possibilities (as if all develoPll1ents ,vere not possibili-
ties before they becalne realities); "\ve do not like to

ther the Pope ought to be honoured as God is, (Sun1n1a de Potest.
Eccles. Qu. ix. 1.) and with a little qualification decides for the
affirmative;* and the" Dominus Dells noster Papa" of the Gloss on
Extrav. xiv. 4, is not the less certain and n1elTIOrable, that in the
later editions the Ï1nportant word is on1Ítted.t

* [It lllay be right to acknowledge that the principle of this Ancona l\Ionk was,
that power, and consequent honour, belong U eS5
ntialiter" to God; but to the Pope,
or any other creature, they appertain "parlicipativè, et 71linisteria1iter, 1)el instru-
mental itpT." -G. ]
t [The two references in this note bave been taken from Gieseler, iii. 46-'1. As to
the omis
ion of " Deum" in the famous Gloss of Zenzelinus, it is true that some copies
were without the word; but it was restored, amI rendered permanent, in the edition of
the Canon Law sanctioned by Pope Gregury XIII. Ten impressions ill which tIle
tiUe occurs are enumemted ill a note to Calflùll':s Answer to fo.Jarliall'/i Treatise (
ftliC
Cross, p. 6. ed. Parker Soc.-G.]

.-

]24

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETT.III.

d,vell upon such unlicensed speculations, or inùeeù to
hear religious questions treated in this tone of apparcnt
irony." On this last criticism-\vhich I readily anti-
cipate-I have but to observe, that ,vhatever of this
kind may seem censurable in this paper belongs, un-
questionably, not to the applier, but to the originato'J'
of the argUITlent under discussion; unless, indeed, the
inventor of a new l1Iethod in theology, no less than in
nlechanism, has a right to protect his. invention by a
patent, so as to restrict its application within the arbi-
trary lirüitations of his own particular purpose. But
if it be preferred, I an1 ,villing to shut out tIle long per-
spective of future possible developl11ents, to " spare the
aching sight" these" visions of glory," which nlay yet
lnake the descendants of the present generation of
Romanists blush for the contracted theology of thcir
fathers; and to confine 111yself to a simple retrospect
of 'v hat has actually taken place in the story of the
Church. In illustration, then, of the po,vers of this
ne\\
instrument of proof: I shall take leave to apply it
to a very in1portant instance, \vhich, an10ng SOHle others,
its author has quite too lTIuch neglected, and which I
beg to offer as, in the old critical phraseology, a ìnan-
tissa to his treatise.
There is a Doctrine of enormous practical lTIOlnen t,
affecting every individual Christian vitally, and Inodi-
(ying the entire character of the Gospel revelation,
,vhich, it can scarcely be denied, has son)eho,v gradu-
ally fallen into indistinctness in nlany parts of Christen-
dunI since the period of the Reforluation, but ,\'"hich
has certainly ncver been by the IlolTIan Church for-
nlally denied; ,vhich seeUlS still yery renlarkably to

LETT. III.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

125

lllallifest itself everywhere in exact proportion as that
COlllIl1Ullion attains unrestricted po,vcr; and ,vhich ,vas
in the rniddle-age period its kno,vn, aùtnitted, and en-
ergetic belief. It may be right that the ,vorld should
at once be lnade aware, that in
Ir. Newman's theory
the ,yay is prepared for its reassertion on distinct sci-
entific grounds. Briefly-I affirnl, "\\'ithout the slightest
fear of contradiction from anyone ,vho has ll1astered
the spirit and bearing of his systeln, that there is no
one argun1ent which that system can supply for any
otlteT' prolninent ROlnan peculiarity, which is not ''lith
as great or greater force applicable to demonstrate the
Antiquity, Catholicity, and Perpetual Obligation under
infallible authority, of the doctrine and practice of
I.l\IPRISONING, l\[UTILA TING, AND BURNING HERETICS.
There are those-still, God be thanked! the infinite
lnajority of Englishn1en,-,vho ,vill regard such a proof
as approaching as nearly as possible to an argllll1ellt
ad aúsurdurn in refutation of any theory that involves
it. I fear-and it is ,vith real pain and horror I ex-
press the fear- that 1\11'. N e,vman has long 111ade up
his n1Ïnd not to regard it as such. In the present
volume he does not venture forlnally upon this delicate
ground, though the topic 111USt have often crossed his
thoughts; but terrible though momentary glill1pses are
no,v and then revealed of the dismal depths ,vithin.
For instance, in his alleged examples of the gradual
forillation of definite doctrine, in p. 354, ,ve are sud-
denly startled ,vith the follo,ving olllinous ,vords :-
" St. Augustine lnight first be opposed to the elnploy-
Inent of force in 'religion, and then acquiesce in it; and
the spirit ,vhich, ,vith high encomiuln, he assigns to the

]26

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETT. III.

Church of the Fourth century (p.269), as "intolel
ant
to,vards ,vhat it considers error, and engaged in cease-
less wal' ,vith all other bodies called Christian," and the
like (though such ,vords, abounding in this book, are
capable-for this is common to his style-of different
degrees of meaning), unhappily, as referred to the in-
tended application to after ages, ,vhen we kno"\v pretty
'\vell of 'v hat sort was this intolerance and this " ,var-
fare"-too fearfully supports the same view of his real
opInIons.
This is a gloomy theme. But it is an a,vful ,varn-
ing to those-especially to the young, at present ex-
posed to such lamentable d
nger-,vho, trifling ,vith
their o,vn unùeserved privileges, and seduced by a
telnporary and local fashion in religion, shall venture
to connect theIllsel yes ,vith a system which can do this;
which can n1ake a man gifted, pious, self-denying,
allliaLle, not blush to countenance-certainly to not
discountenance-as a genuine gro,vth of the Gospel
interpreted by the same Spirit of truth and love, ",'Tho
gave it, the darkest perversion in its ,vhole annals;
nay, the most terrific and palpable intrusion of the
Spirit of Evil into the paradise of God, that any pe-
riod of hurnan history can instance, since its tremen-
dous type and ÌIl1age in the first Fall of man, and the
shedding of innocent blood that follo,ved and attested
that Fall.
l\fean,vhile, it is quite certain, that, if lVIr. Ne,vman
has indeed adopted such views, he has only accepted
the legitÍ1nate consequences of his o,vn theory of the
rule ,vhich is to deternlÎne Christian belief and prac-
tice. lIe kno,vs ,veIl that the suppression of Ïlnputed

LETT. III.]

ClIRISTL\N DOCTRI
E.

127

heresy by torture anù death is a "devclopnlent" f01
'ned
in the 'cery sante Inanner, S1l}-pu1"ted by the rcerry sa1ne
kind of evidence, warp-ranted by the very saJne SlljJl'eJne
authority as the rest of those peculiar tenets ,vithout
\vhich he no,v believes no lllan can be saved. It
,voulù not be very difficult (according to his o,vn sug-
gestion, p. 29) to take up his unfinished task ,vhere he
has left it, and carry his argument in triumphant iden-
tity through this territory of fire and blood. 'Vill you
accet)t in the meantime a very inferior artist? SOll1O
such supplel11entary section as the follo,ving, in ,vhich,
ho\vever, I anl forced to be very brief, 111ight enhance
the value of the next edition of the Essay on Develop-
IHen t :

"
-Tortllrre and JIassacre of lIerrelÎcs.
" I have reserved to the last another important
practical doctrine of Christianity, because I consiùer it
not so nluch an instance of the application of one or
t,vo of the distinguishing tests of true development
already laid do,vn, as a memorable exan1ple of t!tern
all j being anlply recol11l11ended to our undoubting be-
lief by everyone of those infallible criteria of truth;
and thus, perhaps, surpassing in force of evidence even
those fundamental doctrines of Christianity-as the
'frinity-,vhich I have already sho,vn ,vere yery doubt-
fully and indistinctly apprehended by Christians for
several hundred years. The doctrine to ,vhich I al-
lude is the duty of employing force, in all its varieties
of inlprisonmcnt, torture, and death, for the conversion
of heretics and the suppression of heresy. This great
characteristic of the Catholic Church, in ,vhich it so

128

ON THE l>EVELOJ>:ME
T OF

[LETT. III.

perfectly reflects the character, and thus attests the
guidance, of its Founder, has been ùf late Ialnentably
obscured by the influence of Protestant infidelity; no
Church out of comu1union \vith that of ROlne haviug
the least respect for the dogmatic principle, but all of
theIn, \vithout an exception, believing that \vhatever
any U1an thinks true is absolutely such; and all being
therefore inevitably blind to the beauty of the COln-
pulsory principle of conversion. It - lllust be plain,
110\vever, that the theory of these pages secures to all
true Catholics this delightful Christian privilege, \vhich
the ,vretched unbelief of our tilTIeS \vould surrender
\vithout a mUr111Ur to the_ Vandal Arians of old and.
the follo\vers of
Iohan1med in later times.
" The Catholicity of this development \vill at once
appear, if we briefly measure it by the tests aforesaid.
h 1. It exhibits' Preservation of the Type and Idea'
(p. 64), the first criterion of a true developlnellt. For
I have abundantly sho\vn (p. 240, 241), that the real
and true' idea' of Christianity is that of a society con-
sidered by those \vho conten1plate
t, 'to borro\v its
customs frol1
thelIeathen (in this case so often alleged),
to burden the n1ind by requisitions,' 'to be supported
by iluposture ;' cOlnlnonly considered (to COlne nearer
the point), 'as proselytizing, anti-social, revolutionary,
as dividing fan1Ïlies, separating chief friends, corrupt-
ing the lnaxims of governlTIent, making a mock of la,v,'
&c. &c.; 'a religion which men associate ,vith intrigue
and conspiracy, Hud which, frolll tlte Í1Jlpulse of self-
p1"ese1'vation, they \vould proscribe if they could.' I
have further sho\vl1 that in the Fourth Century this
'Idea' manifests itself by 'intolerance and ceaseless

LETT. II!.]

CHHISTIAN DOCTRINE.

129

,var' (p. 269); in the Fifth and Sixth, that these cha-
racteristics specially collected round Rome and its bi-
shop (p. 317). No,v, if the central 'Idea' of the
Gospel, out of \vhich all others originate, be this sort
of fierce and savage exclusiveness, as lnen deem it,
need I add one ,vord to she\v that the stern use of
force, and the subjugation of civil governments into
the mere instrulnents of ecclesiastical vengeance, must
tend to 'preserve,' in all its purity, 'the idea of Chris-
tiani ty?'
"2. The second test of a true 'development' is,
, Continuity of Principles.' I may, indeed, have inter-
posed SOlne difficulty in my o,vn way ,vhen in expound-
ing this 'test' abstractedly (p. 58), I have said that
'Christians conquer by yielding, gain influence by
hating it, and possess the earth by renouncing it;'
but, in truth, this touching maxÏ1n is certainly not
Dlore irreconcileable with nlY present scope than it is
-exp1ain it ho,v I may-\vith the \vhole history of
the papacy; it being, after all, a some,vhat perplexing
problenl to demonstrate, that St. Gregory '7"11. and
Innocent III. 'conquered by yielding, and gained in-
fluence by hating it.' But when, frolll this perhaps
precipitate sally, you turn to my o\vn ajJjJlications of
the second test of fidelity in developnlent, you will
easily perceiye that in nlY account of the 'dogmatic
principle' (p. 337), I have not forgotten to secure a
faithful auxiliary for our present purpose, and in ' the
supremacy of faith' (p. 327), according to 1ìzy sense of
it, a convenient ans\\yer to all the idle reclamations of
reason; while in my other application of the same test
K

130

ON THE DEVELOPMENT O:F

[LETT. III.

-the 'lnystical sense of Scripture' -I have provided
the doctrine of persecution \vith an inexhaustible trea-
sury of scriptural warrants at delnand, and need not
(if 1 but copy some of Iny o,vn examples in that sec-
tion) despair of converting the Saularitan 'fire fronl
heaven,' into a direct cOlnmand to patronize the Cru-
sades \vith Urban, and burn alive \vith Pius.
" 3. 'Po,ver of Assimilation' stands as my third test.
'l'his enables the Church to incorporate froln foreign
sources; chiefly by the operation of what I have
boldly styled the Sacralnental principle. The appli-
cation is obvious. It is thus, that the Church, rocked
in the bloody cradle of its ten perseeutions, rightly
and justly, in its 111ature age, adopted the persecuting
principles its infancy had escaped; and converted the
philosophic butchery of Antonine, and the stern vin-
dicti veness of merciless Diocletian, into a righteous
and affectionate concern for souls, by the mere act of
ass
17ning these cast clothes of Pagallisn1, ,vith all their
envenomed infection. For, as I have fully demon-
strated (p. 365), 'The Church can convert heathen
appointments into scriptural rites and usages,' 'exer-
cising a discretionary po,ver' therein; and (p. 354),
, there is a certain virtue or grace in the Gospel, 'v hich
changes the quality of usages, actions, and personal
characters, and makes thelll right and acceptable to
its Divine Author, when before they were cont-rary- to
ttruth.'
"4. The fourth test is, , Early Anticipation.' I an1
not ,vithout at least as llluch support here, as I have
for 1110st of the four instances 1 have already produced

LETT. III.]
under this head in nlY volu1l1e (pp. 369-388)f; for it
111Ust be remenlbered that the profound excellence and
luerit of persecution could not ,veIl be revealed until
the Church had po,ver to persecute ; as the blessed
St. Tho1l1as has profoundly replied (, Ecclesia 1.n sui
novitate nondunt habebat po testa tern' ), in the course of
his arguments in proof that heretical princes are justly
deposed by sentence of the Church, (2 nda 2 ndæ , Qu. xii.
Art. 2. g ) and that heretics may well and fitly be mur-
dered (' El'adicentup per 'JnoTte11
') ,vherever the work
can wholly (' totaliteì>') be done. [Qu. xi. Art. 3.]h A
doctrine ,vhich the Church has (I need not say) con-
firn1ed, alike by the voice of <Ecu1l1enical Councils, and
by the canonization of the author just nan1ed, as the
greatest and soundest of all her developers of religious
truth. But, even in earlier tÏInes, it is manifest that
, the horror of heresy, the la,v of inlplicit obedience to
ecclesiastical authority, and the doctrine of the l11ystical
virtue of unity, as active then as in the Church of St.
Carlo and St. Pius V.'i (see p. 367), involved the gernl

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

131

f Kmnely, Relic-devotion, worship (or, as
Ir. Newman, with judi-
cious ambiguity, styles it), Cultus of Saints and Angels, l\Ierit of
Virginity, and the" Office of St. l\Iary."
g [fol. 23, b. Lugd. 1540.-G. ]
h [foJ. 22, b. "Si tamen totaliter eradicentur per mortem hæretici,
non est etiam contra mandatum Domini; quod est in eo casu intel-
ligen dum, quando non pos8unt extirpari zizania sine extirpatiolle
tritici."-G.]
i The citation of this personage, as an illustration of the just
" horror of heresy" and the "law of obedience to ecclesiastical au-
thority," is another of those nlany passages which throw an un-
happy light upon :\11'. Newman's notions of both. St. Pius V. was
conspicuous, not only for a peculiar measure of the papal talent fur
1\:2

132

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETT. III.

of the doctrine before US; it being plain, whatever
rOlnalltic maxÌlns may have got currency ill modern
days about the power of truth, rational persuasion, and
the like, that constraints more intelligibly efficacious
are necessary, if the uniform testin10ny of the Catholic
Church (fairly interpreted by that illustrious Saint,
,vhom I have just mentioned) is to be received as the
voice of heaven.
" But it is ,vhen ,ve advance some,vhat further, that
we begin to find this principle effectively Inanifest
itself,-enough, at least, which is all my argument
contemplates, to countenance its subsequent recognition
by "\villing disciples. I have already hinted at the
opinion of St. Augustine; though I grieve to reflect
ho,v wavering and unsettled ,vas that great prelate on
this question k . When Priscillian was executed, the

stirring up nation against nation to mutual slaughter, for the good
of the Church, but as being nearly the most persevering-perhaps,
in heart and ten1per the very most cordial-burner of heretics in
the annals of the papacy. This-added to tl1
se sterner ascetic vir-
tues, which "were a novelty on the papal throne in an age, ,vhen one
of the commonest causes of political disturbance in Europe was the
arrangement of principalities for the sons, and alliances for the
daughters of the successors of St. Peter-secured the canonization
of St. Pius V.; and l\Ir. Newn1an has no'v the privilege of offering
up his daily devotions to this gentle Pastor, one of whose dearest
designs was to head, in person, an armed invasion against Engla
d.
(Ranke, Book iii.
8.)-
k See S. Aug. ad Dulcit. (Ep. 61, ale 204.) ad Vincent. (48, al.l13.)
[ xciii.-G. ] and De C01
'I'ect. Donatist. Also, Ad J.1Iarcellin. Ad Donat.
Proconsul. &c. Slowly and unwillingly he seen1S, by the difficulties

* [The Rev. Joseph l\Iendham is the author of the best account of the Life an(l
Pontificate of Saint Pius the Fifth. Lond. 1832.-G.]

LETT. III. ]
first heretical blood judicially shed, I confess that St.
l\Iartin of Tours, and St. Ambrose of l\Iilan l , loudly
protested against the innovation; for even strong spi-
ritual vision cannot be expected to bear unwinking
the first blaze of such light as this. But if Chrysostom
and Hilary object m , I can cite strong sayings froln
Jer0111e n and Leo o , that' Leo, Bishop of Rome,' whom

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

133

of the time and the incorrigible insubordination of the Donatists, to
have been led to this; "Corrigi eos cupimus non necari," . . . . ·
"pæna illorum rogo te ut præter supplicium nlortis sit. . . propter
Catholicam mansuetudinem cOlllnlendandanl," . . . . . "pro lenitatis
Christianæ consideratione, &c." lIe admits that it was a change in
his fornler views to countenance force at all; but that he was
shaken by observing the advantageous results of severity in produc-
ing peace, "timore legum imperialiunl." The full results of the
principle this nlost holy man thus unwarily, and in its n1Ïlder ap-
plication, countenanced, it would, perhaps, have required little
short of in spira tion to have foreseen.
1 Sulpic. Severus, III. 11 et seqq. [Dial. iii.
. xv. Amstel. 1665.
-G.] S. Ambros. Epp. 24, 26.
m " Terret exiliis et carceribus Ecclesia; credique sibi cogit, quæ
exiliis et carceribus est credita," &c., a very eloquent remonstrance
which I wish I had roonl to quote. (Contr. Auxent. l\Iediol.)
[Opp. col. 1265. ed. Ben.-G.]
n "Non est crudelitas pro Deo pietas," &c.* He goes on to quote
the Old Testament injunctions, something too much, I fear, in the
spirit of the Balfour of Burley theology. (Ep. ad Ripar.)
0" Profuit diu istadistrictio" (The severities to the Priscillianists,)
"Ecclesiasticæ lenitati, quæ etsi . . . . CTuentas refugit ultiones, se-
veris tamen Christianorunl principum ronstitutionibus adjuvatur,"
&c. (Leo, Ep. ad TU1Tib.) [So Leonis Opp. i. 227. Lugd. 1700.-G.]

· [The words are, "Non est crudelitas pro Deo, sed pietas," and are used to justify
his own seyerity of language, while they refer especial1y to some instances of zeal in
God's service recorded in :Scripture; such as the conduct of S. Pder with regard to
Allanias and Sapphira, and the sentence passed upon the sorcerer ElJmas by S. Paul.
(S. llieron. Adve7's. Vigilaut. ad Ripar. Opp. Tom. ii. p.119. Basil. 1565.)-G.]

134

ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF

[ LETT. III.

I have already celebrated (p. 302), as the bulwark of
orthodoxy when every other had failed. These fore-
shadowings of mediæval truth, combined with the un-
resisting admission by the Church of the imperial
severities against heresy, supply an array of ' early an-
ticipations' quite sufficient to save the blushes of the
most tÍInidly sensitive inquisitor of more enlightened
times.
" .5. For my fifth test (' Logical Sequence'), no diffi-
culty at all remains. The body is inferior in impor-
tance to the soul; any pain of body which brings even
the remotest chance of securing the welfare of the soul
(or even of other souls, by terror of example), is, there-
fore, only an indication of the tenderest affection on the
part of the torturer. And this instance of logical con-
nexion has the advantage, that, whereas, in other cases,
I confess (p. 388), I have been reduced to imagining a
connexion of my o"\vn, without any proof that it ever
existed in the minds of the original developers theln-
selves, in this the course of thought, in those who first
ventured to countenance civil penalties for heresy,
seems actually to have been very n1uch "\vhat I have
here suggested. I need not add ho,v this is confirmed
by the expression of St. Paul himself about' delivering'
an offender 'un to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,
&c.' (1 Cor. v. 5); a maxim which the Catholic Church

See it turned to good account in 3 Later. Canon 27; [Cap. 27.
Concin. Gen. TOln. iv. p. 33. Ron1æ, 1612.-G.] Sicut ait beaUls
Leo, &c., where it is developed into" fidelibus, qui contra eos (hære-
ticos) ærma susccperint, biel1nÏlun de pæl1itentiâ injunctâ rclaxa-
n1us,"-as well as a "relaxatio" from all bond of fealty or obe-
dience.

LETT. IlL]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

135

has very properly verified, by making its inquisitorial
punishments and dungeons bear the most striking re-
selnblance (according to the universal testimony of
historians, travellers, and the records themselves of
the Holy Office), to those which are attributed to the
agency and the abode of the Spirit of Evil hilnself.
"6. That racking and burning dissenters froln the
Roman orthodoxy is a 'Preservative Addition,' (my
sixth test), no man can well deny, ,vho is not prepared
to affirm that the rack and tbe stake have no natural
tendency to inculcate the expediency of obedience to
ecclesiastical authorityp.
"7. Lastly, that 'Chronic Continuance' attests the
doctrine of torturing or destroying the heretic and in-
fidel, there can surely be no reasonable doubt. A catena
of centuries establishes this to be at least as real a
'developn1ent' as any single peculiarity of the Ronlan
practical theologyq. Indeed it had arrived at its fullest
height hefore some of them ,vere definitively settled.
From the persecutions of Je,vs in the sixth century to
the crusades against Saracens in the t,velfth, from the

p It was left to 1\1. de l\Iaistre, of whose hardihood l\ir. Newlnan,
is, or seen1S, a disciple, to discover the value of the Inquisition as a
"preservative" of national character and spirit; "Si la nation
Espagnole," declares this preacher of paradoxes, "a conservé ses
Inaxin1es, son unité, et cet esprit public qui l'a sauvée, elle Ie doit
uniquement à 1'Inquisition." -Lettr'es a un Gentillwmme Russe, &c.
I..Jett.4ième. Strangely enough, :LVI. Quinet has adopted this notion
in a passage in his eloquent, inaccurate, Lectures on "Ultramon-
tanism." Lee. viii.
q "A cor'J'uption is of brief duration, runs itself out quickly, and
ends in death. This general law gives us additional assurance in
determining" true developn1ents.-p. 4-16.

136

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[ LETT. Ill.

slaughter of Albigeois in the thirteenth, and the estab-
lishlnent of the Holy Office, and the infallible Canons
of the CEculTIenical Council of Lateran, commanding
the purgation of heretical filth, to the crowning achieve-
ment of St. Ba.rtholonlew's Day (applauded and con-
firll1ed by a blessed Pope), in the sixteenth, it may be
confidently affirmed, that continuous attestation, accre-
dited by tlte supre'J1
e aut" ority of Bonze, can lJrove no
doctT'ine w llatsoever to be a genuine development of Cll/l"is-
tianity if it fail to demonstrate that tile dungeon, rrack, and
stake, al"e the true and legitÙnate growth of the religion of
Him 1iVllo said, 'Y e kno,v not what spirit ye are of;
for the Son of Man is NOT COME TO DESTROY MEN'S LIVES,
but to save them !'"
Such is the contribution, brief and unpolished (1
have no space here for decoration) as to style, but, as
I believe, perfectly unÎ111peachable as regards argumen-
tative application, ,vhich I beg leave to tender to the
Theory of Development. I have some apology to make
for presuming to adopt the Author's personality; and
I am sufficiently aware that, in assuming the tripod, I
have 110t inherited the energy and inspiration of the
oracle. The designed inference, ho,vever, I suppose,
is tolerably plain. Let any n1an COlnpare the case (of
which the above is the most meagre of outlines), that
can be made for the IIoly Inquisition and its agonies,
with developments argued in this volurne to be, as such,
of the essence of Ch1"istianity,. let him remember the
,vords of the Author hiInself (p. 154), "you must ac-
cept the u.hole, or reject the ,vhole;" "it is trifling to
receive all but something \vhich is as integTal as any
other lJo1"tion;" and let hin1 then estimate to ,vhat tlley

LETT. III.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRIKE.

137

are committed, \vho, abandoning the old ilnmutable
rule of faith, shall adopt as obligatory Jnatter of belief,
under the delusive pretext of development, ,vhatsoever
any cause, or combination of causes, shall havp made
permanent in the ROlnan COlnmunion; ,vho shall suffer
themselves to be entrapped by this fallacious artifice,
into accepting as the inspiration of the Holy Ghost,
whatsoever inexperience, or precipitancy, or an1bition,
or resentment, or faithless mistrust of God's sufficient
protection, or false logic, or a dominant philosophy, or
evil example, or condescension to Heathen prejudices,
or narro\v vie,vs of expediency, or the misdirected en-
ergy of individual minds, may have z.nt'l'oducecl,. and
the haughtiness of po\ver, or the indolence of rulers
and mere vis inertiæ of all that is once established, or
tbe ll1isapplication of true Catholic firlnness to vain un-
Catholic novelties, or growing ignorance of the original
standards, may have cOlýirrned; until, ,vith the claim of
absolute infallibility in all possible controversies of re-
ligion, it became Ï1npracticable to rej ect, and almost a
deadly sin even to question, the innovation.
There are some other applications of this hypothesis
to the general history of Christianity, \v hich n1ay justly
make its Ronlanist vindicators pause, and of ,vhich I
hope to say something in my next con1munication.
I am, my dear Sir,
Y ollr's faithfully,
'v. ARCHER BUTLER.

138

ON TIlE DEVELOP
IENT OF

[LETT. IV.

LET T E It I ,r .

.

DEAR SIR,

In the close of nlY last Letter I endea-
voured to illustrate, in one remarkable point of vie"\v,
the perilous tendency of a theory "\vhose object is to
substitute for the primitive Rule of Faith "once deli-
vered to the Saints," "sola immobilis et irreforma-
bilis" a, the historical succession of doctrines, practices,
feelings, fashions, in the Latin Church. I have ob-
served that such a theory cannot be maintained "\vithout
stan1ping \vith the signet of Inspiration everything equally
which that Church has unequivocally patronized; that
it is preposterous to affirm us bound, on pain of eternal
perdition, to admit the definition of Lateran b (lnerely
as such) on Transubstantiation c , and deny that the

a [" Regula quid em fidei una omnino est, sola immobilis et irre-
fonnabilis." Tert. De Veland. Virgo C. i.]
b [Fourth Lateran, in 1215, under Innocent III.J
c [It seems aln10st certain that Transubstantiation, as it is under-
stood by later Romanists, was not intended by the decree of the
Fourth Lateran Synod. The word Transubstantiatio, indeed, was
used to express the !lETaUTOLXEtwuLC;, by which the sacramental cle-
ments become the body and blood of Christ; but nothing is deter-
mined as to the nature of the Inystery, whether the change be phy-

LETT. IV.]
1101y Ghost spoke in the contemporary exhortations of
the same Council to fire and blood; the difference,
if any, being only that the essential spirit-the true
"ethical development" -of this ROITlan Catholicity, must
have been even ITIOre intensely nlanifested in a practical
matter, such as the torture and slaughter of dissentients,
than in any enunciation of a purely dogmatic decision.
The subtle distinctions which Roman divines endea-
vour to establish ,vith regard to the cOITlparative au-
thority of the various classes of Church decrees (even
if they did not abundantly contradict and confute each
other, and even if they ,vere here, in point of fact, ap-
plicable), are altogether irrelevant to this argument.
J\lr. N e,vman hinlself is eager to urge that the general
spirit of the Church's teaching and practice is that
\vhich, after all, bespeaks its heavenly origin, and its
uninterrupted inspiration. It is in this-unfolding,
adorning, enthusiastically celebrating this-that the
po,ver and seductiveness of his vollune consists; this

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

1:39

sica!, or spiritual and sacramental. It is "very probable," says l\Ir.
Palmer, in his invaluable Essay, "that the Synod of Lateran did
not intend to establish anything except the doctrine of the Real
. Presence. In fact the question was not then with those who denied
the ll10dern doctrine of Transubstantiation; it was with the l\Iani-
cheans, who denied the real presence of Christ's body in the Eucha-
rist."-- Vol. ii. p. 224. Pope Innocent himself asserts (De .J.1Iystel'.
J.1Iissæ, lib. iv.) tbat the total change of the substance is not defide ;
and it is notorious that many opinions irreconcileablewithTridentine
Transubstantiation were openly and without censure taught by
Ron1Îsh theologians, subsequent to the fourth Lateran Synod, as,
for example, Durandus a S. Porciano, and Cardinal D' Ailly, who
presided at the Council of Constance in 1415.- Vide Palmer, ubi
sup. See also IIagenbach's Hl:story of Doctrines, yolo ii. p. 96, et seqq.]

140

ON THE DEVELOP
IENT OF

[LETT. IV.

- the Catholic spirit and Catholic principles-is just
"\vhat he tells us Rome possesses, and \ve have lost;
and this, unquestionably, is not more vividly 111ani-
fested in the formal decrees of Councils (\vhichCouncils,
however, are abundantly comnlitted to the maxims I
speak of) than in the whole ecclesiastical tone a11d
practices of an age. Let, then, the test be impartially
applied; let there be 110 shirking from the full accep-
tance of these infallible Roman deveIoplnents, no elo-
quent celebration of some, and modest suppression of
other
! The same authority authorizes all. If it must
be so, that the lnediæval Church surpassed us in the
principle of religious reverence, I beg it may not be
altogether forgotten that she surpassed us also in the
principle of religious nlassacre; and that it is reallyquite
iInpossible to accept the forIner development on the
sin1J.]le basis of her authority, ,vithout accepting the latter
development on precisely the same plea. "No one," de-
clares 1\Ir. Newman, very justly-p. 29-" has power
over the issues of his principles. 'Ve cannot manage
our argument, and have as much of it as ,ve please, and
no more." " That the hypothesis here to be adopted,"
he had said just before, apparently distressed at the
over\vhehlling force of his own arguillents, "accounts
not only for the Athanasian Cl eed, but for the Creed
of Pope Pius, is no fault of those "\vho adopt it." I lllay
be perlnitted to continue the series of its achievements,
and add,-that if it accounts not only" for the Creed
of Pope Pius," but for the policy, p1"'actices, aud spirit
of that prelate, his successors, and his predecessors for
centuries, it 1nay possibly becol11e "the fault" of those
,vho, ,vith conclusions so fearful palpably involved in

LETT. IV.]

CHRISTIA
DOCTRINE.

141

the hypothesis, still \vilfully persist" to adopt it." In
a systern such as l\Ir. Ne\Vn1an's, in Ronlanism itself,
there is no eclecticism possible; let our unfortunate
brethren in peril of this ten1ptation renlember it be-
times! They \vho sigh for Catholic unity may, per-
haps, pause \vhen they see in the papal history of the
middle centuries-in the merciless tyranny of the Ro-
man, in the voluptuous infan1Ïes of the Avignon papacy
-that there can be \vorse
vils for the Church of Christ
than the independence of national churches; they ,vho
long to grovel in the dust before the successor of St.
Peter, may, perhaps, start and reflect when they :find
their idol besn1eared \vith blood.
The Rule of Faith \vhich ßlr. Ne\Vnlan \vould esta-
blish, then, applies to all tIle chatracteristics of R0171an
Christianity, or it can aplJly to none; no n1Ïddle course
is, on his theory, possible. IIis cé>de of belief is a de..
duction froln a vast series of historical facts; and all
facts, as such, are on a level; all equally clailn to be
,veighed in the theological balances; all equally claim
to be ingredients in the imlnense and diversified com-
bination, out of \vhich, in the last result, the genuine
doctrines and principles of Christianity are to be ex-
tracted. 'Vith such a theory as his, he cannot select at
his o\vn will \vhat he shall be pleased to style Catholic
development, and \vhat he shall prefer to slur over as
temporary discipline. There is no discipline-least of
all, a discipline explicitly deduced fron1 principles,
embodied under anathema in Canons, permanent and
energetic for centuries-\vhich does not involve and
express a real corresponding doctrine. If the Roman
Church ,vas indeed mistaken, when that fearful ,var-cry

142

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETT. IV.

was heard for centuries from the vicars of the Prince
of Peace-each taking up, ,vith terrible continuity, the
Inaxims of his predecessor, and transmitting them Ul1-
decayed to the aged, pitiless priest that succeeded to
the throne,-ifit was wrong thus to halloo the ruthless
baron and his wild soldiery to massacre the poor 1Val-
densian, and the half-crazed Beghard, and promise the
111urderers heaven for their labours,-if the Roman
Church, which did this as a body, and under the au-
thority of her appointed head, and the instruction of
her canonized saints, ,vith all the fulness of united de-
cision and corporate \vill, was in error so to do-intoxi-
cated, not informed, possessed, not inspired-\vho shall
demonstrate that this utterly mistaken "development,"
this perversion, doctrinal, practical, in tirnate, pervading,
pernlanent, stands alone in her history?
This ,yay of arguing (and ho\v 111any similar miscon-
ceptions of duty, and the doctrines involved in duty,
lllay be easily adduced!) is, I repeat, perfectly appli..
cable as a test of the validity of 1\11". Newman's theory.
It is essential to this theory to abide all true historical
conclusions; the theorist of" developlnent" is bound
as stringently to the history of the Church as he is to
the Four Gospels. IIistory \vith hÜn is not merely the
narrative of facts, but the la\y of doctrine; his theology
can as little neglect a fact in History, as the Anglican
can a verse in the Ne\v Testalnent.
The fundamental error of the whole system indeed
lTIay probably be stated to consist in this very thing,
that it conceives Christianity is to be investigated as a
?ne'l'e succession of historical events in order to determine
Faith. lIe comnlences ,vith it in the very first page

LETT. IV.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

143

and sentence of his Essay. "Christianity has been long
enough in the ,vorld to justify us in dealing with it as
a/act in the
L"orld'8 history."-p. 1. "To kno,v lchat
it is, \ve nlust seek it in the world, and hear the ,vorld's
,vitness of it." --po 2. 'Ve must study it in this ,yay,
as ,ve ,vould "the Spartan institutions, or the religion
of l\lahomet." This is indeed a great error. It is ,van-
tonly to confound the functions of the historian and of
the divine; and in the confusion, inevitably to generate
a history that is unfaithful, to harnlonize ,vith the divi-
nity, and a divinity corrupted, to harmonize ,vith the
history. It is to confound the kno,vledge of Church
IIistory as a succession of historical facts, ,vith the
kno\vledge of Christianity as a Rule of Duty; to con-
found Christianity as a mixed earthly Reality, ,vith
Christianity as a pure heavenly Ideal. The foriller,
doubtless, is a profoundly interesting inquiry, but the
latter alone is essentially theological. A conception
so fundamentally erroneous is enough to vitiate all sub-
sequent processes, and in point of fact (for it must in
8}Jirit be the n1axim of every Church clairning infalli-
bility) its practical results have been pernicious beyond
description. It is not difficult to analyse thenl. \Vhen,
instead of the original divine Ideal, ever to be indefi-
nitely approached, perhaps never absolutely, in this
,vorld, attainable, ,ve substitute the actual past Church
History of eighteen centuries as our lllodel of Christian
perfection, ,ve irreparably degrade, in its very essence,
our o,,,,n high aÏIn and vocation; ,ve are ahnost inevi-
tably telnpted to play false with the records themselves
of history (as in the llliserable inventions of the legeu-
clary biographies of saints), in order to give some ele-

144

O
THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETT. IV.

vation to our substituted lllodel of excellence; and \ve
condemn the Church herself to retrogression or steri.
lity,-forcing her and ourselves to reverse the Inaxim
of hiIn ,vhose noble ambition for ever impelled hiln,
" forgetting those things ,vhich are behind," to "reach
forth unto those things ,vhich are before." Out of this
prilnary error nearly all the philosophy (so to speak) of
Romanism derives; for it all consists in the contrivance
of maxims and principles such as may demonstrate (as
it were a pr'iori) the past history of the Church, dog-
matical and practical, to be, in all respects, a model of
absolute perfection. This, of course, can only be done
by, in SOlne ,yay, attributing to men the peculiar and
inconlnlunicable characteristics of The Great
fodel
Hirnself. It is thus that there has gradual1y been formed
a sort of "heroic age" of Christianity, peopled by delni-
gods, having in theln a kind of inchoate divinity, and
to be spoken of, not as blessed and venerable Christian
men and women, but as objects avvful and superhulnan,
breathing, while in this ,vorId, an atmosphere already
n1id\vay bet\veen earth and heaven, and, ,vhen departed
froln this ,vorld, invocable in the saIne prayers tbat
invoke God: It is thus that the sacred mystery of the
indwelling of Christ and of the IIoly Spirit is exa.gge-
rated into the Deification of Saints; thus that such de-
vices as the "Sacramental Principle" of our author
(in his novel sense of the phrase) have their rise; thus
that we find again recolnmended the extravagant exal-
tation of the mystical sense of Scripture frol11 its proper
place ("\vhen not applied by special divine authority)
as an illustration lnore or less pertinent, to the danger-
ous and delusive-but, for such purposes, convenient-

LETT. IV.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

145

position of an original and adequate proof of doctrine

The source and principle of all such reasonings seenIS
the same; the n1isguided effort to make the past his-
torical Church, through all its ages, a model and an
authority coordinate ,vith CHRIST IIimself; the very
conception, in short, that is involved in
Ir. Ne,vman's
opening assertion, that" Christianity" (that is-as his
argument requires-Christianity in its true design,
spirit, and doctrine) is to be studied "as a fact in his-
tory," that to kno\v 1-chat it is, we n1ust see it [not in the
Life and the Teaching of its Author, not in the writings
of IIis disciples, but] in the world /' that" history is the
true mode of detern1Ïning the character of Christianity."
Briefly,-,ve are in the Ne,v Testament presented \vith
the true transcendant
fodel of all human perfections,
enlbodied in the Holy One of God, illustrated and
applied in the inspired \vritings. Towards this-all-
sufficient labour for nlan's short life I-we are to strain;
all other exan1ples of sanctity shining only by its re-
flected light, and, ho\vever profitable in many ways,
never to be suffered to occupy IIis place, to stand upon
IIis level, or to intercept the full, constan t, unclouded
vie\v of HÏ1n. The object of all systems like the pre-
sent is-never, indeed, avowedly, perhaps never even
consciously,-to pervert this order; but nevertheless,
and in the practical effect, so to blend together the past
human in1Îtators of Christ with Christ Himself, that
He and they may al\vays be seen in one c0111plex vie\v;
or rather, that He n1ay be seen only through them as
the 111edium of beholding IIi1u, that no ray of IIis light
may be suffered to reach us except under the refraction
of their subsequent comnlents and example; a process
L

146

ON THE DEVELOP1tfENT OF

[LETT. IV.

which, of course, unless they be really IIis equals, must
reduce IIis brightness by the whole amount of their
hU111an density and dimness,-in other words, and with-
out a figure, IIlust, unless we falsify history to idealize
our Saints, prevent the Christian Life and Teaching
from ever rising higher than the average good men of
past ages have reached, or ever getting free from the
errors and misapprehensions they may have adopted.
This great fundamental and pervading mistake then,
-the degradation of the Christian's habitual Standard
of Perfection from the Ideal to the Actual, from the
celestial Model suspended above and beyond us, to such
exhibitions of holiness as past ages (the purer primi-
tive being cited even less than the grosser modern),
may have realized-must, it is clear, when once adopted
as the one criterion of Faith and life, be-the most
fatal of its evils ! -applied universally; and, above all,
be applied to the ,vhole practical operation of the me-
diæval Church, and to all the recogniseJ practical
ll1axims, without exception, of its sainted instructors.
Whether the system rest on the old ground of sin1ple
authority, or on the new ground of gradual develop-
ment, selections and omissions are equally precluded;
if the huge cOlnplex of dog-Ina and practice was not
right in every point, it 'lnay have been wrong in every
point. Those who refer all-even the best and holiest
spirits-to a standard above them, may,-indeed ought
to - exercise discrimination in their approval; those
,vho allo,v no standard at all but the mere fact, that
certain divine men entitled Saints have so taught, and
the Church so acted-cannot, on their own principle,
but approve all in approving any. They cannot quote

LETT. IV.]

CHHISTIAN DOCTRINE.

147

St. Bernard, for example, as a being of gifts altogether
unearthly and superhuman, whose very name is to be
Inentioned with awe, when he discourses-as he often
does ,vith such exquisite truth and power-of general
Christian morality, and simply regard him (with us
Anglicans) as an adlnirable but very fallible human
theologian, ,vhen he stin1ulates the wild fanaticism of
the Crusades. 'Ve cannot defend the papal primacy
arrogated by Leo the Great, as a true development,
simply because the claim was made, and assert that the
absolute secular suprenlacy, asserted with much more
success in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, was not,
on the same or deeper grounds, an equally genuine
theological truth ;-even as \ve cannot, on the other
hand, say that the latter was only intended in the di-
vine purpose to be temporary, ,vithout admitting that
the former 1nay have been intended to be only teln-
porary also.
Such is the 111anifest scope of the Development Theory
when it applies to the Past; it can defend any only on
the principles on which it must defend all. It shares
this indeed in common with the rest of the Roman
theories. But it is one of the peculiarities of this un-
fortunate device, that, while it is in the volume before
us devoted to defending the unchangeable authority of
the Pa.st, its inherent spirit and bearing really tend
much more to indefinite alteration; for it is in truth
only on the principle of the legitimacy of endless
alteration that it can defend the Past itself-that Past
which was once all future. It is the principle of revo-
lution enlisted in behalf of the principle of immutabi-
lity; perpetual nlotion demonstrating the absolute duty
L2

[LETT. IV".
of perpetual repose; it is-to apply 1\11'. Robert IIall's
ùesignation of the J\fethodist leader-" the very qui-
escence of turbulence." The notion of Development
itself is plainly unlin1Ïted in tÍ1ne: we have not, there-
fore (on this systelll), any grounds "\vhatever for deter-
l11ining ,vhether Christianity is even half-developed yet.
1\11'. N e\Vlnan hi111self seems strongly to incline to the
negative, if I may venture to interpret by ordinary
rules a passage in one of his eloquent panegyrics of the
Roman Communion. "Corruptions are to be found
which sleep and are suspended; and these are usually
called deca
rs; such is not the case with Catholicity;
it does not sleep, it l
8 not stat'iona1?y even nOlD, &c."-
p. 446. 'Vith a Church thus " ever learning and never
able to come to the [full] knowledge of the truth," it
is impossible to set any definite linlits to the progres-
sion of doctrine. I have before referred to this topic
in a different connexion; it meets me here again. Half-
Communion defended on the principle of concomitance,
may hereafter become the model of a Baptisln in the
Name of One Person of the Trinity, the other T,vo
being inferred "concomitantly" present, ,vhenever one
is invoked; and the original divine cOIDlnand being
not more peren1ptory against the latter alteration than
against the forlner. The veneration of Images has been
before nO\V,on the highest individual d Roman authority,

148

ON THE DEVELOP1tIENT OF

d [The ascription of Latria to the Cross does not rest simply on
the authority of an individual. It isfully sanctioned by the ,vords
"DEBETUR EI LATRIA," which occur both in the old Innocentian
Pontifical, and in the reforu1ed in1pression patronised by Popes
Clement and Urban VIII.-( 01 ,d. ad recip.lrnperator. fol. clxxxv.
Lugd. 1511.: p.486. Antverp. 1663.)-G.J

LETT. IV.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

149

elevated to a diyine Latl'ia C ,. the Cross IS, as far as
hunlan language and gesture can express absolute ado-
ration, adored in eyery Good Friday Service f ; there
n1ay yet be some fornlal CEcumenical decree that shall
cOll1pel avo,ved, unmitigated, unqualified Idolatry. The
Blessed Virgin, already so ,vondrously elevated, nlay
yet be pronounced (the Ill1ll1aculate Conception, &c.,
are but the preludes of such a development), to have
so shared in the n1ystery of Christ's Incarnation, as to
have become one ,vith God in the nlost absolute sense,
and to require the ,vorship due to the Holy Trinity8;
as perhaps, in right of maternity she nlay be pro-
nounced ll1ightier in IIeaven (this too has been hinted h )
than Christ IIill1self; yea, in virtue of the 8E07Óh'OC;,

e "Crucis effigies latriâ adoranda est." -T1IOmas, 3 P. Q. 25,
Art. 4.
f " After this, the Priest alone carries the Cross to a place pre-
pared before the Altar; and on bended knees fixes it there. Then,
taking oi}, his Shoes, he draws near to adore the Cross (ad adorandam
Crllcem), three times bending his knees before he kisses it. This
done, he retires and puts on his Shoes, &c. After him the ßIinis-
ters of the Altar, and then the other Clergy and Laity, advancing
in pairs, and thrice bending the knee, adore the Cross."-JIissale
Roman. [Feria sexta in Parasceve, pp. 188-9. Antverp. 1765.-G.]
Alas! and these are the precious privileges men of learning and
piety have forsaken the Church of England to enjoy!
g [She has actually been styled by the Jesuit Ferd. QuiI'. de Sa-
lazar" the con1pletion of the whole TIinity l"-(ExjJos. in Pl'overb.
SaZmn. Tom. i. p. 261. Lugd. 1636.)-G.]
h [It has been in fact many times expressly stated. A single ex-
anlple will suffice; nan1ely, the notable words of an authorized
IIymn, "0 felix Puerpera, Nostra pians scelera, Jure ltIatl'is im-
pera Redemptori," found in the old Parisian and Roman l\Iissals, as
well as in those of Tournay, Liege, Amiens, and Artois.-G.]

150

ON THE DEVELOP
IENT OF

[LETT. IV.

greate.pi than even the pure Godhead ;-and all this
may be then seen to be the simple development of past
or existing beliefs, and contained in the popular ,vor-
ship and the devotional books of this ver'y age, just as
the present virgin-worship is now maintained to have
been held in invisible solution in the ea1'>ly creeds and
writings. If anyone looks upon such modifications as
improbable, I ask him to reflect-why are they so?
Not, assuredly, because they are contrary either to the
genius of Romanisln, or (still less) to the principle of
Development; but solely because the progress of ge-
neral enlightenment external to the Ronìan ecclesiastical
systeJn (and, without pretending to champion that very
variable progress as infallible, I will not be guilty of
the treason against God's Providence involved in con-

i [" Cum B. Virgo sit mater Dei, et Deus filius ejus; et omnis
filius sit naturaliter inferior 'matl'e et subditus ejus, et mater præ-
lata et superior filio; sequitur quod ipsa benedicta virgo sit superior
Deo, et ipse Deus sit subditus ejus ratione humanitatis ab ea as-
sumptæ."-Bernardin. de Bust. }'farial. Par. 9, Serm.2. Quoted by
Ussher (1Vorks, iii. 482. Edit. Elrington.)
This very quotation is produced as conveying the present autho-
ritative teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, in a ,york entitled,
The Glories of lJlary, JJIotlzer qf God, by St. Alp.1wnsus L'igu01'i, and
carefully revised by a Catholic Priept. (Third ed. Dublin, 1837.)
Similar statements occur aln10st at every page, of which the follo,v-
ing may serve as specimens:-" The J{ing of Heaven, whose bounty
is infinite, has given us his mother for our mother, and in her hands
resigned (if ,ve may so speak) His omnipotence in the sphere of
grace."-p.85. "When S. J\Iary, says St. Peter DanlÍan, presents
herself before Jesus, the Altar of reconciliation, she seems to dictate
rather than supplicate; and has 1110re the air of a queen than a sub-
ject."-p. 138. "St. Germanus says to l\Iary, You, 0 holy 'Tirgin,
have ovel' God the Ct1ltl101'ity of a 'llwtlzc1'."-p. 139.J

I..ETT. IV.]

cnHISTIA:K DOCTRINE.

151

tClllnillg and Inaligning it), \voulù be likely to prevent
the dogn1atic forn1ations of the lllediæval theology from
being paralleled no,v. But let any man endeavour to
conceive ,vhat would be the character of a religion ad-
vancing as much UpOll present Romanisln, as Romanisln
aùvanced upon the religion of tbe Ne,v Testalnent and
the early Churches; and he may then forill some esti-
Inate of the chances of safety for Christianity (if indeed,
after such a series of revolutions, any faint trace of
Christianity,vould survive ), under the unrestricted do-
n1Ïnion of the principle of Development. Take, for ex-
alnple, Aquinas's development k of ,V orks of Superero-
gation and the transferable merits of the Saints out of
the Unity of the l\Iystical Body, and imagine where a
few more such strides would leave primitive Christia-
nity. Or take our present instructor's favourite deve-
loplnent of Purgatory out of Baptisnl, and Relic-\vorship
out of Resurrection; and conceive a similar generation
out of Purgatory and Relic-'Vorship themselves, these
secondary developments in their turn begetting their
respective descendants, and all manner of collateral
alliances l taking place bet\veen the various rnembers of
this ÍInnlense and ever-gro,ving population; and then
cOlnpute ho\v much of the fanÛly-líkeness of the original

k Supplem. III. 25, Art. 1, &c. [See Gieseler, ii. 359. note 17.
'Vhat is called the Supplement of the third part of the Swmna of
Aquinas is nlerely an excerpt from his Commentary on the fourth
book of the l\Iaster of the Sentences. In this work (Disi. xx. Qu. i.
Art. iii. fo1. 121, b. Veuet. 1497.) the passage referred to may be
seen.-G. ]
1 "Nor do these separate developments stand independent of each
other, but by cross 7'eZations they are connected, and grow together
while they grow frOln one."-p. 15....

152

[LETT. IV.
parent-the religion of the Apostles-would be likely
to be discernible among the later generations of this
huge promiscuous progeny!
It may, indeed, be urged, that the Church's infallible
decision upon all points has dammed up the strealn,
and checked for ever the further progress of the cur-
rent of innovation. But has not the Church, in every
age, equally considered itself to possess all necessary
doctrine? 'Vas it far in the fifth century when an
{Ecumenical Council prohibited m all additions to the
Church's brief digest of necessary truths; and was
Pius IV. the less resolute to rend Europe in sunder,
rather than leave to men's option a single one of that
vast and various accumulation of theological inventions,
hypotheses, and surmises, that had got currency in the
long period bet\veen Ephesus and Trent? How, again,
can we tell whether there may not be a kind of deve-
lopment impossible to preclude because \vholly unsus-
pected? IIow do ,ve kno\v but the Creed of the Church
n1ay sprout out in some direction altogether novel;
SOIne train of yet unimaginable doctrines about the
Holy Ghost, or about the place, nature, and occupations
of IIeaven, or about the propriety of adding (though
this, indeed, has been deliberately done already) to the
number of Sacraments, or about the prerogatives of the
glorified body, and the like,-all to be enjoined on
pain of damnation, all essential to the very Idea of

ON TIlE DEVELOP1\IENT OF

m [The Seventh Canon of the Council of Ephesus (A. D. 431)
contains this prohibition, Tov'TWV 'Tot'vuv åvar-IIIWGOÉV'TWV, I'f,PLGEV ;í
., ,,, ., , ,<,' 'l:: " rI. "J ,
nryta GVVOOO
, E'TCpaV 7TLG'TLV IO}rEVt ('sELvat 7TpO'PEpElV 1ryovv Gvr-rlpa-
r/,.'\ e ' "It 0 ,.., ,,,, , , ,..,
'PUV 1/ GUvn f:VaL 7Tapa 'T'ì}V OplG ELGav 7Tupa, 'TWV U"/'WV 7ra7f:pwv 'TWV
· - l\.' e ' ',\ ,., n ' "" ]
EV 'T?/ H IKaEWV GVVUX EVTWV 7TO/\,EI" GVV W'ILlf! VE'U IHi'Tt, K. 'T. !\i,

LETT. IV.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

153

Christianity, all to be enforced by the developing theo-
rist of that favoured day as truths self-evident to all
genuine Catholics, and which only the blindness and
indevotion of "protestant" infidelity can possibly reject?
But ,vhatever provisions 1\11'. Newman's system may
supply against such future consequences as these (,vhich
it is quite beyond my po,ver to divine), it may be as-
sumed that he prefers to have his theory viewed in his
o,vn application of it to the past actual history of the
Christian Reljgion. In that point of vie\v, to ,vhich I
readily return, there are one or t,vo very obvious con-
siderations, ,vhich I shallno'\v proceed to suggest, that
appear to me very nearly decisive against the ,vhole
scheme when designed as an exclusive vindication of
the claÎ1ns of the Romish Communion.
I. Setting apart, for the present, as hitherto, the
assulnption of the exclusive infallibility of the ROlDan
hierarchy, and all Sill1ilar mere hypotheses, and eonti-
nuing to vie,v the Development theory simply and
per se, I beg to inquire, in the first place, by ,vhat
nleans the inventor of this system can fairly prevent its
application to several otller great and prominent events,
or series of events, in the Christian history, as ,veIl as
to the special formation of the Church and dogrnatic
system of Rome? IIo\v can he possibly demonstrate,
in consonance with the spirit of his system and in ana-
logy with the sort of facts he has biInself professed to
reduce under it, that these other events Inay not have
been equally in the intention of God, and projected in
the original design of I-lim "Tho sees the end froln the
beginning, to have their place, in due tilnc, as ulterior
developnlents of the original principles of Christianity?

154

ON THE DEVELOP
IENT UF

[LETT. IV.

I take, for instance, the Reformation of the Sixteenth
Century. I ought, perhaps, to observe (to prevent
idle cavils) that I am at present in no wise engaged in
either vindicating or assailing that memorable revolu-
tion. The question is merely, whether the champion
of the claims asserted at the Reformation, if fully in-
doctrinated in the theory of Development, can be fairly
considered as departing fronl the spirit of that theory
when he proceeds to discourse to something of the fol-
lo,ving effect.
Fronl the very outset of Christianity we observe in
it the COln bination of two powerful principles, the duty
of individual Obedience and the duty of individual
Inquiry. The accurate conciliation of these contrasted
principles, the fixation of that precise Inedial point at
,vhich these two polar forces shall be blended or equi-
librated, is indeed a great problem,-perhaps the hard-
est practical problem in Christian polity. The resolu-
tion of the parallel problem in civillegisla tiOll God has,
we know, left to be determined in a great measure by
human reason and circumstances (in constant subor-
dination to IIis overruling providence) ; perha}J8 he
Inay have chosen to act analogously in the dispensation
of the Church. However this be, there can be no
question ,vhatever of the fact, that in the original re-
cords the seeds of both principles are involved; and
that no single system, or portion of history, can be re..;
garded as an adequate exponent and representative of
the original design, 1vhich does not express both. If
the New Testan1cnt abounds (as it amply does) ,vith
earnest adlnonitions to hU111ility, obedience, subjection,
and earnest denunciations of then} that cause divisions,

LETT. IV.]
it is equally certain that the Lord of the Church has
bade the mingleù n1ultitudes who heard IIiIn "beware
of false prophets," personally testing and judging then1
by their" fruits," -that He subjected his own doctrine
to the standard of Scripture examined and applied by
IIis Je\vish hearers,-that he asked them with sorrow-
ful indignation, "why even of themselves they judged
not 1vhat was right ("-nay, that His ,vhole mission
and office consisted in an appeal against established
ecclesiastical authority, against that very authority of
which it was said-,vhat surely no so authentic voice
from Heaven has ever said of Rome-" thou shalt not
decline from the sentence which the Priests and the
Judge shall show thee, to the right hand nor to the
left; thou shalt observe to do according to all that they
inform thee." It is certain that His apostles, acting on
the same principles, applauded those ,vho individually
"searched the Scriptures daily," and so decided" ,vhe-
ther these things ,vere so ;" that they hesitated not to
exhort the whole mass n of their hearers to "prove all
things;" that they besought them to "try the spirits
,vhether they were of God;" tbat they desired that
every man should be "fully persuaded in bis own
n1ind;" that they bade thelll "be ready to give an an-
swer to every man that asked them a reason" for their
hope, ,vhich necessarily Ï1nplies a complete previous
exan1Ïnation of all the intellectual grounds of faith. N Of,

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

155

n Unquestionably the whole body of the Faithful at Thessalonica;
for they are the same to whom he had said just before, "we beseech
you, brethren, to know them 'Which are over you in the Lo'pd, and ad-
nlonish you."- V ere 12.

1 fS6

ON TIlE DEVELOr1tIENT OF

[LETT. IV.

again, is there the least reason to doubt that this great
principle (of course in due harmony with its correla-
tive) was recognised and preserved in the early Church
after its inspired guides had left it; the lnotives to
belief, the refutations of heresy, were at that period in-
variably argumentative; derived now from the affirma-
tions of Scripture, now frol11 the testimony of natural
reason, now from the uniform tradition of the Churches
(at that time so decisive an evidence!) but aT'gurnenta-
tive still. Even he ,vho with such vigour of thought
and language fulminated his "Prescription against IIe-
retics," does not forget that "hoc exigere veri tatem,
cui nerno lJræscribere potest, non spatium temporum, non
patrocinium personarum, non privilegium regionum"o.
Even the holy martyr of Carthage, one surely not dis-
posed to surrender the rights of ecclesiastical authority
and the presumption in favour of settled practice, saw
clearly that, after all, "non debemus p attendere quid
alius ante nos faciendum putaverit, sed quid qui ante
Olnnes est Christus prior fecit; neque enim bominis

o [Read" patrocinia personarum," and" privilegia regionU111."
(Tertull. De Virgo veland. Cap. i. )-G. J
P [" Quare si solus Christus audiendus est, non debemus attendcre
quid alius ante nos faciendum eSS0 putaverit, sed quid qui ante
OITIneS est Christus prior fecerit.
eque enim hominis consuetudi-
nem sequi oportet, sed Dei veri tatem, cum per Esaiam Prophetau1
Deus loquatur et dicat; sine causa autem colunt me, mandata et doe-
tl'inas hominum docentes. S. Cyp. Epist. lxii. ale lxiii. Ad Cæcil. In
the context S. Cyprian is arguing against the I-Ieretics called A qua-
rians, 'who used water only, instead of ,vine, in the Eucharist:
" QuorUndaIl1 consuetudinem, si qui in præteritull1 in calice don1Í-
nico aqualn solanl offerendam putaverunt."J

LETT. IV.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

157

consuetudinem sequi oportet seù Dei veritatem." And
St. Cyprian's illustrious frienù and supporter q against
the arrogance of a ROlnan bishop of that day, could use
,vords ,vhich surely it can scarcely be deelned hereti-
cal for England to echo; thus spake "Firmilian of
blessed memory" -as the Churches of the East ,vere
,vont to style him :-"quis tan1 vanns sit ut ve1
itati con-
8uetudine1n præferat, aut qui perspecta luce tenebras non
derelinquat? . . . vos dicere potestis, cognita veritate
errorem vos consuetudinis reliquisse"r. And he adds the
remarkable, the prophetic words (if we too may claim
our 111ystical prophecies): "Cæterum nos veritati et
consuetudinem jungimus, et consuetudini RO)IANORUl\I
consuetudinem, sed veritatis, opponimus; ab initio hoc
tenentes quod a Christo et ab Apostolis [Apostolo]
traditum est"s. The universal perusal and unpartici-

q [Firmilian, l\Ietropolitan of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, supported
S. Cyprian against Stephen on the question of rebaptization. His
Letter to S. Cyprian is still extant.-Inter Cypr. Epis. 74, ale 75.]
r [Quod autem pertinet ad consuetudinem refutandam, quam vi-
dentur opponere veritati, quis tam vanus sit ut veritati consuetudi-
nem præferat, aut qui perspecta luce tenebras non derelinquat?
Nisi si et J udæos Christo adventante, id est, veritate, adjuvat in
aliquo antiquissima consuetudo, quod re1icta nova veritatis via in
vetustate permanserint.]
B Inter Opp. Cypr. Ep. 74. *'

* [Epist. lxxv. p. 226. ed. Fell.-We must not forget that Firmilian's Epistle
was omitted by M anutius in the Roman edition of S. Cyprian's works. Pame1ius
(in Argum.) conjectured that this was done by him" consultò;" but the following
is the shameless confession of the real offender, Latinus Latinius: "Ego Latinus
omisi, non Manutius; cùm Majorum exempla secutus, tùm hominis petulantiam
detestatus." (Biblioth. p. 117. Romæ, 1677.) Mr. Husenbeth would fain persuade
himself that a " very learned divine" [Molkenbuhr] "has demonstrated the spurious-
ness of this Epistle by powerful arguments." (St. Cyprian vindicated, p. 101. Nor-
wich, 1839.) See the Letters between Bishop Bedell and 'Vaddesworth, p. 336.
Dublin, 1736.-G.]

[LETT. IV.
pated suprelnacy oflloly Scripture bears upon the sanlC
inference. IIow the arùent and Ünpassioned Chrysos-
tOIn t has spoken upon this point, how Augustine U , how
even Pope Gregory the First W , I need hardly remind
any student of the ancient writers. Involved as was
the early Church, and that for centuries (until, as it
\vere, the whole fund of possible human extravagance,
in all its varieties, had at last nearly exhausted itself),
in the misery and the warfare of perpetual heresy, it is
most relnarkable that there is no trace of any suspicion
on the part of the great prelates of those days, that the
universal perusal of the written Word of God was the
real source of the evil; or even if through human
abuse they sa,v it sonletimes became so, that the Church
could dare to arrogate the right of preventing a prac-
tice enjoined by God Himself ;-it being certain that
there can be remedies for even great evils, more dan-
gerous and sinful than the evils they are brought to

158

ON THE DEVELOPl\fENT OF

t [Vide Chrysos. in 1\Iatt. 110m. 1; in 2 Timoth. Horn. 9; in
Colos. Horn. 9; in J ohan. Horn. 1: "Let us set time apart to be
conversant in the Scripture, at least in the Gospels; let us fre-
quently handle theIn, to imprint them on our minds; which be-
cause the Jews neglected, they were commanded to have their books
in their hands. But let us not have them in our hands, but in our
houses and in our hearts."-Translated by Bishop Taylor, Dissuas.
p. 463, ed. Cardwell.]
U [For St. Augustine's opinion of the Scriptures as alone free
fron1 error, see Lib. iii. Contr. Lit. Petiliani, c. 6; Lib. de Bono Vi-
duit. Cap. i.; De Unit. Eccles. c. 16; and numerous passages in his
Epistles. Compo Taylor's Lib. of PToph. sect. viii. For a summary
of the opinions of the primitive fathers on this important subject,
see Dissuas. Part. ii. Book. i. sect. 2.]
w [See ],Io'JYlls on the Book of Job, by St. Gregory the Great, in
Oxford Library of the Fathers, Vol. xxi. p. 344; xviii. 178.J

LETT. IV.]

CIIRISTL.\..N DOCTRINE.

159

remedy. The faith of these n1en in divine protection
was too secure and nlagnanin10us to allow them to stoop
to those questionable devices that undertake to lnelld
God's defective provisions, and repair the neglects of
IIis dormant providence. The first formal synodical
prohibition of the Scriptures to the general body of
the Faithful is commonly held to have dated in the
'rhirteenth Centuryx.
But now for the application. Let us then suppose,
for argument sake, that the principle of Christian sub-
lnission to those 'v ho watch for souls, involved as its
natural, necessary, pre-ordained result, the realization
of ecclesiastical despotism ; or even that (as Mr. N e,v-
Inan sticks not to affirm), "dogn1atism involves infalli-
bility."-p.368. These involved elements, he himself
Inaintains (directly against the Roman creed indeed,
but apparently quite to his own satisfaction), evolved

x [Gieseler, ii. 392.-]\11'. Lewis also tells us, that" the first synodi-
cal prohibition or restraint" of the liberty of Christians to use the
Scriptures in their own language" was in a Synod held at Tholouse,
A. D. 1228." (Hist. of Eng. Trans. of Bible, p.2. Lond. 1739.) That
this interdict extended to the laity only appears from the words of
the Decree: "Prohibemus etian1 ne libros Veteris et N ovi Testa-
lllenti laici permittantur habere," &c. (D' Achery Spicileg. i. 711.)
The year] 228 has been erroneously assigned by D' Achery and Lewis
to this Synod, as it was really held in September, 1229. With re-
gard to the origin of this injunction it is to be observed, that it
was mainly intended to repress the anticlerical fanaticism of the
Waldenses. See a marginal note by Pegna on one of the Literæ
Apostolicæ annexed to the Directorium Inquisitorum, p. 2; as also
Eyn1er. Dir. Par. ii. Quæst. xiv. et SelIOl. xxx. ejusd. Par., and
Pegna's remarks (p. 123.) upon the authority of this Council of
Toulouse. In U sseI'. De Sc'riptu1'is et Sacris ve1'naculis, pp. 151-2,
the references are incorrectly given.-G.J

16u

[LETT. IV.
themselves slowly and graduaHy; the form of Chris-
tianity was "first Catholic-then Papal"Y. For a long
period both the principles that I have named seem to
have been equally energetic; the prelates and other
clergy of the Church assuming and realizing with per-
fect confidence, indeed, their high office as "the am-
bassadors" not of men to their brethren, but" of Christ"
to men,-yet never claiming that" dominion over the
faith" of their charges, which even an inspired Apostle
rejected. At length, from a complication of causes,
the prin?iple of authority began perceptibly to weigh
down its own side of the equipoise; and from another
cOlnplication of causes (1\ir. Newman is willing to ac-
cept Barrow's account as sufficiently accordant with
his argulnent-p. 178), the western patriarch obtained
a primacy long in dispute between him and the rival
patriarch of the other imperial city; and by degrees, a
real supremacy; and by degrees, a complete ordinary
jurisdiction over a n1ajority of the European Churches;
and by further degrees, a secular supremacy over
Churches and kingdoms both. All this 1\Ir. Ne,vlnan
regards, of course, as essentially involved in the New

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

Y "Christianity developed in the form, first, of a Catholic, then of
a Papal Church."-p. 319. This ù.nfortunate expression, which
apparently imports that the Catholicity ceased when the Papacy
began, will have, with some others, to be modified in future edi-
tions. Assuredly the Quesnels and the Fenelons have suffered the
terrors of the Vatican for nluch les
than may be found in every
chapter of this performance; a perforlnance which will secure its
nunlerous converts by teaching thenl (I speak nlost deliberateJy) a
theory of Romanism, which it must be their first care to unlearn
as a heresy, the moment they have entered the Communion into
which it has beguiled them.

LETT. IV.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

161

Testament account of Christianity, and ,vrought out by
a Providence slo,vly but surely realizing its o\vn pre-
conceptions in the fulness of fore-ordained time. Grant
it; but on what principle are you now to stop the
successive evolution of providential purposes? 'Vhat
proyision is contained in the tlzeoT'Y itself-in the notion
of a developing Christianity, that should oblige it to
pause at this stage rather than at any other? Perhaps
the same Providence that developed Gregory VII. and
Boniface 'TIll. out of one element of the Christian
polity,-the elelnent of authority and obedience-nlay
C\vhen tlley had sufficiently done their \vork, like others
in the preparatory stages before thenl), have developed
the Reforlnation leaders and tlzeir vie,vs, as the designed
instrunlents of recovering for the ,vorld that other ele-
Inent of the same systenl-the element of individual
inquiry and individual responsibility. Perhaps lIe ,vho
considered a stern and severe discipline to be the one
best fitted for a succession of ignorant and barbarous
centuries, may have equally considered that a more
intellectual presentation of religion, one appealing for
its authority more directly to the learning and the rea-
son of those to \vhom the faith ,vas to be delivered,
was best fitted for the centuries-at least for certain
races and countries in the centuries-next to succeed
thenl. The t\VO forms of the hypothesis but reflect
each other. FroIn the beginning "t\VO nations" seem
as it \vere "struggling in the VlOlllb" of Christianity;
their harn10nious manifestation and perpetual alliance
,voldd be perfection; but tlzat once lost, this painful
separate birth of the great principle of Personal Inquiry,
" as of one born out of due tillie," ,vith all the agonising

1

162

ON THE DEVELOP
IENT OF

[LETT. IV.

throes that attended it, may have become inherently
necessary. It ,vas a mighty shock doubtless; but to
restore the balance of the heavens this thunder-storIn
might perhaps alone suffice.
leanwhile it is quite
certain that no disciple of Development can deny the
plausibility of such a statement, without grievously
belying his own principles; and it is in that point of
view alone I here present it.-It is no valid answer to
this, to say that the representative of the Principle of
Authority rejected and opposed the new develoPlnent
when it came; its own development long before ,vas
not achieved without a protracted struggle. Nor in-
deed (as a mOlnent's reflection "\vill show) could, unless
by miracle, the lost principle have been recovered
without, in the very nature of things, provoking hos-
tility from the dominant one; the crisis being Illore
violent in proportion to the disease; the more exagge-
rated the principle of authority, the more certain its
resistance to be obstinate. Nor, again, will it at all
discredit this new hypothesis-or rather this slight ex-
tension of our Author's-to allege ('v hat I now neither
concede nor deny) the follies, or the errors, or the
vices, or the indifferent success, of the first Reformers:
when has it ever been that providential purposes of
lnercy have not been l110re or less counteracted by the
frailties of n1an? Even that mighty Artist, 'Vhose
work makes the history of nations, is in a manner (if
we may dare to say so), reduced to suit His designs to
the poverty of His human materials. And, after all
(whatever the advocates of the Papacy may say), can-
did bystanders, after honestly examining the records
of the tirnes, will determine how far the Church of the

LETT. IV.]

CHIU
TIAN DOCTIU
E.

163

lnediæval popes-nay, of the very contemporaries of
the Reformation lllovement-has a fair right to press
so very triumphantly on the blunders, or the extrava-
gancies, or the vices, of even the least credible of the
Continental Reformers. "Vhile-if the usual charges
be advanced, of Socinian, or Rationalistic, or Infidel
results, as ultimate consequences of the original rejec-
tion of authority, it must be relnembered, that my hypo-
thetical Protestant developer holds precisely the same
opinion (in ,vhich he is steadily sustained by the most
respectable division of the Roman obedience), on the
papal despotisln of the thirteenth and fourteenth centu-
ries, as parallel exaggerations of the principle of n
a1.n-
taiTdng authority; and that if the general principle of
development be held capable of surviving the latter
form of extravagance, it Inay be quite as fairly supposed
not necessarily responsible for the former.
1'hat as the Papacy had thus its beginning long sub-
sequent to the full establishment of the Church of
Christ in the 'V orld, so it may have been designed to
have its end long before the Church's close; that, even
supposing it ,vas ever a legitimate development of the
Gospel, every argument which proves it so, must equally
prove the possible legitimacy of its entire, or partial
cessation,-,vill appear yet more manifest, if ,ve recall
the slow successive process by which the papal supre-
macy was gradually depressed, and the balance of eccle-
siastical authority partially rectified within the Church
of Rome, in the period preceding and following the
Reformation; and the perfect c01'respondence of this
do,vn,vard moven1ent to the upper movement of the
:\1 2

164

ON THE J)EVELOP
IENT O
'

[LETT. IV.

po\ver in its original growth z . The orb descends the
western sky by a path accurately ans\vering to that east-
ern arch of gro\ving splel1dour and gro,ving strength,
by ,vhich it rose to its noontide cuhnination. "That,
indeed, ,vas the continued object of Pisa, and Constance,
and Basil a , but to replace the Papacy in the position it
occupied, vvhen having attained a primacy of honour
and executive po\ver, it yet sa,v and
evered above it
the great Councils of the United Christian Episcopate?
r.rhe ,vhole question of the grounds and origin of the
papal authority ,vas, at that period, boldly brought be-
fore the public, and that, not by irreverent Dissenters,
but by the best and ablest men of the Church-such
Romanist Reformers as Gerson, or the Cardinal of Cam-
brayb, or Cusanus; and if the ,vild theories of Augus-
tinus C or Turrecrenlata d (the Montalen1berts and De

z [For an able sketch of the Progress of the Papal Domination, see
Palmer's Essay, &c., V 01. ii.]
a [A. D. 1409, 1414, 1431.- While the Synod of Basil is ranked
as the Eighteenth General Council by the French Benedictines in
the Art de vérijier les Dates, its Acts were, through the influence of
Cardinal Bellarmin, contemptuously omitted in the Roman edition
of the General Councils, published by the Jesuit Sirnlondus, "ex
typographia Vatican a," ann. 1608-1612. Vide Richerii A1Jolog. pl
O
Joanne Gersonio, p. 127. Lugd. Bat. 1676.-G.]
b [Petrus de Alliaco.-G.]
C [Vid. info p. 165. Augustinus Triumphus de Ancona. T
is
monk maintained thåt it was the Pope's prerogative "novunl sym-
bolunl condere; novos articulos supra alios multiplicare."-Summ.
de Eccles. Pot. q. 59, Art. 3.J
d [" It is easy to understand that it belongs to the authority of
the Pope of Ronle, as to the general and principal l\Iaster and
Doctor of the whole \vorld, to determine those things which are of

J.lETT. IV.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

165

Iaiôtres of their age Y', had a place in the literature of
the times, one can but see in their very extravagancies
the infatuation of a despotislU already passing into
dotage. Slo\vly and carefully did the French and Ger-
man divines unt,vist the knot ,vhich centuries had been
doubling and tightening; ,vith such criticisn1 as the
age afforded ('v hich, to be sure, ,vas scanty and Ï1nper-
feet enough)f they laboured to explain historical texts
and doculnents; even early in the fourteenth century
the personal prerogative of 81. Peter hirnself had been

faith, and by consequence to publish a symbol of faith."-Turre-
crem., Lib. ii. Cap. 107. Quoted by Bp. Taylor, Diss. p. 280.J
e 1\11'. Kewnlan, and his party universally, seem to have adopted
this sect of the Roman theologians. It is worth remarking, that the
foreign and isolated dependencies of all comnlunities f:>eem to have
a tendency to adopt the extremes of the parent creed; the Irish
Presbyterians, almost to a nlan, sympathize with the Free I\.:irk ;
the leaders of the Romish schism in England are Ultramontanes.
The reason may partly be, that these extern sympathisers, having
comparatively little practical connexion with the main body, escape
an the practical inconveniences of the ultraisms they ad voca te, and
so can afford to display the eloquence and energy that almost always
belong to extreme principles, at a cheap cost.
[Augustinus Triumphus, an Augustinian monk of Ancona,
flourished fron11274 to 1328. Johannes de Turrecrell1ata, so called
from Torquemado, the name of his birth-place in Spain, died in
1-168. He 111aintained the absolute supremacy of the Pope at the
Council of Basil.-See Du Pin. For specimens of the extrava-
gancies of the Papal advocates in the fourteenth century, see Gie-
seler, iii. pp. 18-21, 45-47.J
r "Sunt, meo judicio," is all that Cusanus can venture, "illa de
Constantino apocrypha; sicut fortassis etiam quædanl alia longa et
lllagna scripta Sanctis Clementi et Anacleto Papæ attributa, in
quibus volentes Ronlananl sedem, onlni laude dignam, plus qUaIll
Ecclesiæ sanctæ expedit et decet, exaltare, se penitus fundant."-

166

[LETT. IV.
po,verfully impugned by writers g of credit; and there
is no question that in the middle of the fifteenth, had
the mind of the Church been free to evolve and declare
itself: the very claims of Leo\ who had mounted to
almost this stage just a thousand years before, would
have been thought barely excusable. Not to speak of
the repeal of Annates, Reservations, Expectatives, &c.
(to which, as themselves recent inventions, antiquity
cannot be expected to furnish any parallel), the old
usurpation of Appeals on which the African Church
and the personal authority of St. Augustine had re-
sisted the claims of Pope Zosimus and Pope Celestine,
was, in a great measure, reversed at Basil; the old

O
THE DEVELOP1vIENT OF

De Cathol. Concord. iii. 2.* The discourse of Laurentius Valla
was, however, written as early as 1440.t
g [Ægidius Romanus, l\Iarsilius Patavinus, Ockam.J
h [That these claims of S. Leo (A. D. 461) were the" germ of the
present Roman system;" that they were novel, and resolutely resisted
in Africa and the East, see funy proved by Allies, p. 249, et seqq. ]

* [This extract is from Gieseler, iii. 190, with the exception of the omitted quali-
fication "a'llt quasi" before" fund ant. "-G.]
t [The date of ValIa's Declarnatio is a matter of considerable interest, but there
does not appear to be any reason for fixing upon this year. Gieseler (ii. 69.) only
states that the author died in 1457. This is, however, a mistake, for Aug. 1, 1465,
was the day of his death. From internal evidence it would seem that this treatise
must have been composed at Naples, whither Laurentius fled in the year 1443. After
this time, then, and previously to 1447, when, according to Spondanus, (,dnnall.
Baron. Contino ii. 3.) he received a private castigation from the Neapolitan Inqui-
sitors, I believe that this most remarkable tract was written. VaHa's Apulugia pro
se et contra Calumniatores, in which he speaks of the virulence of his persecutors,
and of the harbour to which he had come being utterly inopportune, was addressed to
Pope Eugenius IV., and this Pontiff died in Feb. 1447. The Apologia was printed
at Basle in 1518, and in the preceding year Ulric de Rutten dedicated to Pope
Leo X. the first edition of the De falsð credita et ementita CO'1lstantini Donatione
Declamatio. The latter was republished A. D. 1535, by Orthuinus Gratius ;-not
in " the Collection of Grotius," as we read in the English version of Du Pin. iii. 65.
Dubl. 1723.-G.]

LETI. IV.]
conflict of the Gallican Church and Rome in the fifth
century, is revived in the Pragmatic Sanction of the
fifteenth; the old theology of the coequal rights of
episcopacy, unfolded as against the Roman claims by
Jerome in his sterner mood, is the very foundation
principle on ,vhich the reforming Councils build their
case; nay, even the old claim of an Apostolic see (to
which, as being the only plausible claimants of that
envied honour in the entire ,vestern side of Christen-
dom, the early Popes o\ved so much of their distinc-
tion), seems hardly to have escaped question i . It is
true that the unscrupulous use of force, and the match-
less diplonlatic skill of the Roman Court, checked any
effective explosion; afterwards s\vamped, with a sub-
servient majority, the Council at Trent, and by its su-

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

167

i "Legant," says Innocent I. triumphantly, "si in his provinciis
(Italia, Gallia, Hispania, Africa, Sicilia, et insulis interjacentibus),
alius Apostolorum invenitur aut legitur docuisse, &c."-Epist. ad
Decentimn. * As the primitive deposit of doctrine was understood
to be carefully preserved in the separate Churches, on the separate
responsibility of each Church, there was (even over and above the
honour reflected frOll1 an Apostolic founder) a claim, not destitute
of plausibility, to peculiar authenticity in the doctrine transmitted
from an inspired teacher; and this is often alleged, even before the
supposed Petrine prerogative of absolute authority was brought
into full light. Its influence in the contest with Constantinople was
manifest and decisive. Cusanus, however, treads rudely enough
upon this delicate ground, 'when he hazards the bold hypothesis
that if the Archbishop of Treves was elected by the general voice
of the Church, he would possess a higher clainl than the ROlllan
Pontiff.-De Concord. Lib. ii. [Gieseler, iii. l89-90.-G.]

· [Gieseler, i. 261.-This Epistle bas been by some condemned as counterfeit.
Denison says that, " Innocelltiulll istum producendo, innocens non erit Bellarminus."
(De Auriculari Confcssione, p. 65. Oxon. 1621. )-G.]

168

ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF

[LETT. IV.

perior organization, and powerful political connexions,
(helped by the misnlanagement of the continental Re-
formers-above all, by their fatal blunder of deserting
the Constitution, and neglecting the standards of the
Ancient Church), drove back the tide of the Reforma-
tion itself; but had the movelnent succeeded univer-
sally,
Ir. Newlnan's theory would justify that configu-
ration of events quite as cogently as it justifies the
particular development to which he arbitrarily dedicates
it; nor, on his principle-admitting as he must and
does, that several of the Roman peculiarities are little
earlier than the Reforlnation itselfk- can there relnain
the smallest reason for regarding that as perpetually
or universally obligatory, which he himself proclaims
to have been the slovv growth of events, and 'v hose
fluctuating existence, as, after centuries of gestation, it
developed at last into visible birth, nlay quite as natu-
rally develope into senility and death likewise.
"T e are thus, it appears, indebted to
fr. NeWlnan
for a theory triulnphantly vindicating the principle of
the Reformation. The admirers of that remarkable
epoch ,vould, at the SRme time, be more grateful for
his assistance, if they could avoid seeing that unfor-
tunately the theory may be made to vindicate every

k "It is equally certain, that the doctrine of Justification defined
at Trent ,vas, in some sense, new also."-Essay, p. 26. I need not
observe how many other doctrines there were in the system then
deliberately ratified, which were substantial1y newer still. Think
what ll1USt be the clailll of the 'rest of the Tridelltine "Catholic de-
velopments," if the cautious, n1easured statenlents about Justifica-
tion are admitted to have been, "in son1e sense," the creation of
doctors in the sixteenth century!

LETT. IV.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

169

J1Ïstorical variety of religious revolution altogether a

,veIl.
But no,v for another slight modification of the prin-
ciple of religious Development. Palpably the same
argument ,vhich applies to time applies quite as irre-
sistibly to place also. Regard, for example, in the light
of this theory, the case of our o,vn Anglican Church.
It is a simple fact, that in proportion to the distance
from Rome the bond of the Papacy has always slack-
ened in strength and firrnness; towards the N orth-
'Vest, especially, the interval is hardly less from the
intense temperature of the Va.tican to the climate of
the Gallican Liberties, than from the latter to the inde-
pendent Catholic Episcopacy of England. Surely it is
no great license of supposition (for one ,vhose diges-
tion has been vigorous enough for the theory of Deve-
lopn1ent itself) to conceive that this gradual relatcation
and final liberation, according to the circull1stances of
various districts in the universal Church, may have
been as really in the original scheme of Providence as
the first forn1ation and equally gradual local etctension
of the papal connexion; that Cranlner, and Ridley, anù
the rest, by ,vhose ministry the connexion was dissolv-
ed, Inay have been as truly ,vi thin the horizon of the
divine conten1plation and of the divine affections, as
Gregory the First and Augustine of Canterbury. Surely
the saIne Providence ,vhich has been pleased to pennit
-or, if you ,vill have it so, to n1aintain-a perpetual
papacy in the South of Europe, may have seen fit that
a different developlnent of the Christian polity-retain-
ing all the essential but dismissing this circulnstantial
-should arise and flourish on English soil. The se-

170

ON 'rHE DEVELOPIVfENT OF

[LETT. IV.

paration was wrought through the partial instrumenta-
lity of a tyrannical king; true-and the original con-
cession of universal papal supremacy was obtained
through flattering a murderer 1 ; the Henry of Cranmer
is but a feeble copy of the Phocas of Boniface. But,
dismissing a topic, to which the advocates of the Pa-

I "Benignitatem vestræ pietatz8 ad imperiale fastigium pervenisse
gaude111us. Lætentur cæli et exultet terra; et de vestris benignis
actibus universæ reipublicæ populus nunc usque vehementer affiic-
tus hilarescat, &c. &c." It is thus that St. Gregory the Great, to
depress his rival at Constantinople, * addressed the savage who had
moun ted to a throne of drunkenness and debauchery by the murder
of his monarch and the whole royal seed, butchered before their

* [The account here given of S. Gregory's motives and conduct is very far from
fair; and I would venture to say without doubt that 1\Ir. Butler unsuspiciously
adopted the malevolent statement of Gibbon. That the extract was derived from
this source would seem altogether probable from the use of the "&c.," and from the
reading" universæ," instead of "universus," before "Reipublicæ." (See Decline
and Fall, iv. 299. ed. Milman.) It must be borne in mind that the character of the
Emperor Maurice had become deeply degraded by extreme avarice, and unrelenting
cruelty. Even in the sentence adduced the continual and vehement affliction of the
people is spoken of; and the disaffection and revolt of the imperial army cou1ù scarcely
excite surprise after their discovery of the conspiracy formed for their destruction, and
after Maurice had refused to part with a very trifling ransom in order to prevent the
massacre of twelve thousand prisoners. Phocas having been elected Emperor, his libe-
rality and kindness to his subjects were for a while conspicuous, and the contrast be-
tween bim anù his predecessor was not advantageous to the latter. S. Gregory traces
a dispensation of Providence in the revolution; and adores the wisdom of the Most
High, who, as he reminds the usurper, "ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it
to whomsoever He wil1." At this time, remarks De Sainte-Marthe, the Benedictine
editor, "non divinabat S. Gregorius mores ejus brevi mutatos iri in pejus, et Phocam
postmodum obscænis se libidinibus mancipaturum, ac optimorum virorum cruore
satiaturum. Imõ etiamsi futurum id prævideret, de præsenti rerum statu, non de
futuro, suis in Epistolis loqui debuit." (S. Greg. Mag. Opp. ii. 1239. Paris. 1705.
Compare 1\faimbourg, Histoire du Pontificat de S. Gregoire Ie Grand, p. 180.
A Paris, 1686.) Not with much more reason, then, could we (after the example of
the infidel Gibbon, and the sceptic Bayle,) accuse Pope Gregory of having in effect
participated in the guilt of murder, than censure for the same sin those who peaceful1y
submitted to the Prince of Urange, and acquiesced in the government of one whom
they looked upon as a parricidal rebe1.-G.]

LETT. IV.]
pacy,vill be wise to draw as little attention as they can
help, let us no,v reflect whether the student of genuine
historical development-in other words, the reveren-
tial investigator of the path of Providence through
events-may not in this English case discover matter
for meditation more truly interesting than many of the

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

171

father's eyes. Boniface III. persevering in the same flattery of
the same usurper, obtained, '* according to Baronius, the coveted
titlef. It is pajnful, though a painful necessity in times like these,
to recall such guilt, especially in a character undoubtedly possess-
ing so many admirable traits as the first Gregory. But when the
Bishops who broke the Roman bond are assailed for their court
connexions, it may be well to remember what were the court con-
nexions of the Pope who formed it.
By the bye, as "developments" may be supposed usually to re-
quire a considerable period for their completion,
Ir. Newman
nlay usefully employ himself in solving the curious anomaly, of St.
Gregory's rejection of the" Universalis Episcopus," as a title be-
tokening the precursor of Antichrist, and the speedy subsequent
adoption of the substance, and even the literal words, of that desig-
nation, by his own successors. The cause of this hot-bed rapidity of
growth in one of the Fundanlentals of Roman Christianity after so
protracted a delay, and in a century which has at length been una-
ninlousl y decided by his torical critics (the tenth used to bear the
palm) to have been the "darkest" of the whole nineteen, would
surely reward investigation.

* [The authenticity of this grant is not only questionable, but the assertion of
Baronius and other Pontificians cannot be supported by a shadow of ancient evidence.
'Yith the subversion of this imaginary privilege falls the Faberian theory relative to
the twelve hundred and sixty days.-G.]
t [Not" coveted" certainly by S. Gregory, for he rejected with horror the tit1e of
Universal Pope, 'when applied to himself, as much as when given to the Patriarch of
Constantinople, as the "invention of the first Apostate/' and "an anticipation of
Anti- Christ."-See Allies (Clturc/t of England cleared from the Charge of Scllism,
pp. 356-8.) Tbe statement that this "coveted title" was confefl"ed by Phocas on
Boniface III. rests "upon the sole authority of Damnius, for none of the anci
llt
"riters have mentioned it."-l\Iosheim, Hist. of Ch., cent. vii.]

172

ON THE DEVELOPàlENT 0:1"

[LETT. IV.

boasted achievements and miraculous recoveries of the
Papacy itself
I have already hinted something of the analogies m of
civil and ecclesiastical governlnent; the disciple of St.
Paul ,viII not be slo,v to recognise a sacred character-
of different degree and grounds, no doubt, but yet a
sacred character-in both. In many particulars there is
a strong resemblance in the right practical maxilns of
each; for the p1ain reason that in many particulars the
objects of both, in their respective spheres, are literally
the same. The due conciliation of liberty anù order,
a paternal spirit in governillent, the fair discussion and
effective settlement (so far as expedient) of disputed
questions, justice between lnan - anù lTIan, and the like,
are objects ,vhich the Civil and the Ecclesiastical polity
equally propose to realize for their meillbers, and
usually atternpt more or less to realize by very silnilar
means. When ,ve relnel11ber that it is chiefly to the
Church that modern Europe o"\ves the principle of
Representative Governnlent n -pronounced by Inany

m [Compare Leslie, Case of the Regale and Pontificate stated.-
'Yorks, vol. viii. p. 292, et seqq. (Oxf. 1832.) Abp. Laud, Confer-
ence with Fisher, pp. 169-176. (Oxford, 1839.) Hooker, Eccles. Pol.
viii. 1, 2. (Ed. ICeble.) Thorndike, Review of the Right of the Church
in a Christian State.- 'V orks, VoL i. p. 66
, (in Lib. of Anglo-Cat/wlic
Theology.) ]
n It ,vas not that Bishops at Councils ",.ere the mere delegates of
their respective flocks, or even of their respective clergy (though
into their original election, ,vhen their future presence at Councils
was of course foreseen, the spirit of n10dern "constituency" must,
to a certain degree, have entered)-but that the Bishops present
and voting in the Councils ,vere regarded as collectively the repre-
sentatives of the entire Episcopate, and so of the whole Church.

LETT. IV.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

173

philosophers the greatest ad vance Iuan ever made in
political discovery, certainly the characteristic princi-
ple of the best civil constitutions-the analogy beconles
peculiarly close and striking. No"\v, if this resemblance
of their respective lneans and objects hold in these two
departInents, is there no lJresunption at all that nations
luay perchance be found to see their way pretty nearly
1vith the same cOlllparative perspicacity in both? anù
,vhen ,ve hear the great
laster of human ,visdoln bid-
ding us "\vith "pious adtniration" observe o , "eadern cal-
cata vestigia ad errorem ducentia in divinis et humanis,"
may we expect no antecedent probability that those
1vho, above all European races, have failed in securing
even the cornmonest objects of Civil government, tole-
rable security of person and property, may have sho'\"11
no superhuillan sagacity in fixing and retaining their
Ecclesiastical? If the Anglican Ecclesiastical consti-
tution is singular (,vhich ho,vever, in the sense intend-
ed, is not the case), so too is its Civil constitution;
and one of these, at least, is the envy and adn1Ïratio11
of the ,vorld. The principle 1vhich, for so nlany ages,
made the strength and union of the Church-repre;
sentative government-is the very principle 1vhich
these British islanders have realized ,vith unequalled
perfection in their political systelu. The principlc

Hence Councils came to be actually designated the" Church Re-
presentative." Such" representation" may be compared to our
own "Representative Peerage" of Ireland; elected for life, and
thenceforward ordinarily irresponsible and irremoveable; and when
convened for legislative purposes sitting as the representatives of
their own order at large.
o De Augment. Scient. V. ii.

174

ON THE DEVELOI)MENT OF

[LE'fT. IV.

which formed the characteristic of the mediæval pa-
pacy-arbitrary monarchy-is the very principle whose
subversion opened the ,yay for this marvellous British
constitution, and 'v hose retention is still the characte-
ristic of the imperfect constitutions of Europe. He
who denies such considerations to be of any force, who
regards such success in one most momentous depart-
ment of practical vvisdom to be no augury at all of
success in another ,vhich is in many respects closely
analogous to it, will probably be found to do so upon
grounds that preclude all reasoning alike; he, ho,vever,
least of all, can fairly take this course ,vhose ,vhole
argulnent is framed upon presurnjJtions infinitely more
shifting and shado,vy. 'Vithout, ho,vever, insisting
further upon this in its argumentative application
(which, possibly, our ne"\v guides will regard as some-
thing very profane), I may be allowed to invite those
who do believe the Anglican Church (when fairly car-
ried out according to her own express prescriptions)
to be, after all, the nearest approach the frailty and
perverseness of human nature have made to combine
the primitive elements with the modern application, to
suit the Church of Ambrose and Chrysostom-itself
essentially unchanged-to the needs of a different race,
a different climate, and, above all, a totally different
stage of man's intellectual history-those who do be-
lieve, that, with ,vhatever practical short-con1Ïngs, for
which ,ve need to humble ourselves in the dust (who,
alas! ,vere they that undertook to shew us how to re-
pair them, and how have they kept their plighted
faith ?) and not\vithstanding the ,vorse evil of the eva-
sion of her o,vn plain teaching by too many of her own

LETT. IV.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

175

cOlnmissioned teachers,-this Church ,vas never more
than in these later years conspicuously graced with
tokens of the divine bles
Úng-organized ane,v through
her colonial dependencies, augmenting and methodiz-
ing her missionary spirit, gro,ving in the liberality and
the self-denial of her members-those ,vho so believe
and so hope I may surely invite to recognise and adore
this t\vo-fold mercy of our God, and to renlind them,
that, in thus giving us a distinctive character in the
'V orld and in the Church, in the sphere of Time and
in that of Eternity, in the organization of our Political
and in that of our Ecclesiastical constitution, lIe has
also charged us ,vith a responsibility of as singular
weight, and has made the Church history and the State
history of Britain, perhaps, the two nlost a\vful and
solemn chapters of all that, daily recorded, are yet to
be pronounced on, in the Book of the final Judgment.
I must, however, resist the tenlptation of further
digressing (if it be a digression) on this topic; and
return at once to the argument.
On the 'v hole, then, it ,vill, I imagine, be evident to
every competent critie, that 1\11'. N e\vman's liInitations
of his system of progressive revelation are altogether
arbitrary j that it is quite as just to conceive a deve-
lopment of all Christianity as a development of the
Roman Church; that if it be urged that these contem-
porary developments contraùict in different countries,
it is no more than he himself admits of his alleged de-
velopments in different ages; that these other candi-
dates for the honour of legitimate "development" can
trace themselves in Scripture at least as well-surely
in SOllIe instances far better; that lnany of their prin-

176

ON THE DEVELOPl\lENT OF

[LETT. IV.

ciples will always be able to show thelnselves (at least
inferentially) recognised in Antiquity ,vith as much
plausibility as the others (e. g. individual judgment a.s
much as unquestioning obedience), \vhenever their
respective defenders may chance to possess as much
con1n1and as our present Author of the ancient sources;
and that the objection of late evolution, long obscura-
tion, conflict, and disorder, is perfectly preposterous
frOlTI the reasoner who ackno,vledges the bloody strug-
gle of the Image-Development for more than a century,
and the protracted birth of the Virgin service, and the
I-Ialf-Comlnunion, and others. ""Vhile, at worst, and
supposing the Rornan "developments" to be all genuine
and divine, this theory, beyond all others, palliates theÙ"
{rejection; for, after all, a Church \vhich omits thelTI (as
the Anglican) is, on this view, no worse off than the
\vhole Christian Church \vas, in \vhat have been hi-
therto cOlnmol1ly regarded as the lTIodel ages of the
faith; and surely it ,vould be somewhat hard Ineasure,
if we were to be unpardonable heretics for lilniting our
belief to the amount at which it is now conceded that
the Fathers fixed theies for centuries! Assuredly, no
vie\v could be contrived lTIOre admirably calculated for
justifying an Anglican in relnaining exactly \vhere he
is; others Inay possibly "do better," but he at least
( on this theory) is secure of " doing ,veIl." 1\fore par-
ticularly,-\ve cannot but see that, as regards the Pa-
pacy, \v hich so largely n10dified the external history of
the Church for ages, he \vho gives it a beginning, must
give it the possibility of an end; he ,vho allo\vs that
the Church could (for it did) exist \vithout it, cannot
a.rgue it necessa1"y to the Church; he whose ground

LETT. IV.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

177

for admitting its right to include the nations gradually,
is just that it did so, cannot \vell refuse their right to
exclude theillselves from its control \vhen they have
done so like,vise. 'Vhat possible escape is there from
this obvious and manifest application of his o\vn prin-
ciple? "That, except a Inere hypothetical assumption
that that, u;hichin its own nature applies to all, can be
valid only when applied to one? It is true, if he can
indeed establish an a ]JrioT>i exclusive clailll of infallible
guidance for all developments connected ,vith tbe Bi-
shop, or tbe City, of Ronle, his point is gained; but,
after all, it is gained by really abandoning the high
ground of scientific theory, by giving up that univer-
sality of the principle ,vhich is of the very essence of a
scientific proof, and contracting a nominally general
conception so as to force it to suit a certain exclusive
series of phen0111ena in history. "Thile again, as I have
already lnore than once observed, the adilli tted neces-
sity of this collateral supposition of ROlllan Infallibility
in effect leaves the \vhole controversy pretty much "\vhere
it found it; for if that can, indeed, be established ,yith
the force, clearness, and precision fairly required for a
proposition \vhich, if true, ,vonld be of nlore illlpor-
tance than the ,vhole Apostles' Creed put together,
does not all further argulnent beCOlTIe little better than
superfluous and trifling? 'Vho ,vould hesitate to re-
ceive any infallible decision, ,vhether it \vere a deve-
lopn1ent or not? 'Vho ,vould refuse to receive the
truths contained in the Second Epistle to the Corin-
thians unless they could be sho\vn to be developments
fronl the First? or the truths in St. John's Gospel,
unless they could be. proved develoPll1ents from the

N

178

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETI. IV.

sayings in St. l\Iatthew's? If the Roman gift of infallibi-
lity be only to expound and apply, it has gone palpably
beyond its commission; if it be to deduce logical infe-
rences from prin1Ïtive belief, let it produce the logical
inferences and \ve \vill gladly receive them, even with-
out the need of its authority; but if the original gift
conferred the right of revealing essentially new doc-
trine, \vhat avails a theory of development (professing
to be universally a.pplicable to all Roman doctrines),
except to restrict the mysterious gift ,vithin narro\ver
bounds than God intended? But this is to anticipate
a subject to be hereafter considered. l\Iean\vhile I
must express the conviction, 'Yhich alone concerns my
immediate argument, that no "tests" that l\fr. N e "\tvm an
has yet contrived, \vill ever prevent the spirit of the
development theory from being of universal application
to all for1ns of Christian belief"" and feeling; ho\vever
temporarily restrained, the development principle ,viII
assuredly thus develope itself; every historical fact is
a development of some sort; and every fact in the his-
tory of the Christian religion is a development (right
or \vrong) out of some Christian principle or some ori-
ginal Christian authority. l\len will say-and ho,v
will this Theorist on his o,vn principles ans\ver then}?
-that if Rome got hold of certain truths and deve-
loped them after its o\vn fashion, Luther and his con-
temporaries got hold of others and developed thelll
after their's j both series of developments have taken
place under the mysterious oversight of one divine
Providence; both are events in the history of Christia-
nity; nor, apart from all extrinsic grounds, has any
one an antecedent fight to affirn1 that, for exanlple, Pope

LETT. IV.]
Alexander ''''-1. ,vas a man beloved and inspired of God
while actively busy in providing for his children and
poisoning his Cardinals,-and fiIartin Luther a child
of the devil, ,vhile (nearly at the same time) straining
in sore perplexity for Christian truth, and groping in
his solitude, huge and Cyclops-like, around the ,valls
of that gIoonlY cavern of unquiet thought, of ,vhich his
dim lnonastic cell ,vas but the irnage. 1 say nlerely
that, apart from satisfactory separate proof (and ,ve have
hardly had that yet), the former of these personages
can scarcely be assumed, individually and pel
se, nlore
likely to develope Christian principles correctlyP than

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

179

P Leopold Ranke-among the most candid and conscientious of
historians-attributes a most nlomentous "development of Chris-
tian Doctrine" to Alexander VI. " Alexander VI. being the first
who officially declared that indulgences delivered souls out of Pur-
gatory."-Hist. of Popes, &c. Book i. Chap. ii.
2. That Alexander
asserted the power there can be no doubt. I think it will be found,
however, that it had been assumed in papal bulls before him;* and

'" [Gieseler, iii. 325.-Professor Ranke is certainly mistaken, and not a little intri-
cacy is connected with the investigation of this matter. Let us endeavour briefly to
trace the assumption of this authorit,y to a period antecedent to the year 1500, the
date of Alexander's Jubilee-bull. In the first place, Trithemius informs us that in
1490, Pope Innocent VIII. (not Innocent X., as Gieseler calls him,) sent plenary
Indulgences into Germany, applicable not only to the living but the dead, and de-
clared to be founded on such plenitude of power in the Pontiff that "ipsum Purga-
torium, si velit, penitus evacuare possit." (Clt1"onicon Hi1"saugiense, ii. 535.) Until
this time, according to Trithemius, such Indulgences were " raræ;" and a belief in
the truth of his assertion will naturally add to an inquirer's diligence. 'Ve come
next to the decisive Declaratio of Pope Sixtus IV., mentioned by Gieseler (ubi sup.)
and Gabriel Biel, or Eggeling of Brunswick, (Canon. .,:ifÎ8sæ Expos. Leet. lvii.
Addit.) which was put forth in the year 1477. This Summa1"ia Declaratio should
not be confounded with the Bull itself, which was issued in favour of the church of
Saintes in Saintogne, 3 Non. Aug. 1476, and for which see (not the ordinary Bulla-
rium, but) Euseb. Amort, De Indulgentiis, pp. 4.17-18. Veneto 1738. Dr. Kloss
(Catal. p. 107. Lond. 1835.) possessed a copy of the former, and this has been
carefully republished by that excellent presernr of Romanistic treasures, the Rev.

N2

180

ON THE DEVELOPl\IEKT OF

[LETT. IV.

the latter. Both parties in this argument, admitting
that God has permitted great and permanent error SOrtle-
where, the Ron1anist ,viII impute the ,vrong develop-
n1ent to the Reforlnation champion, the Reformer to the
Romanist, and, as far as this accommodating theory is
concerned, ,vith, I dare say, a very pretty case on either
side; \vhile the philosophic Latitudinarian (to vVh0111

the theo]ogical vindication of the princip]e is as old as Aquinas..
That unhappily dexterous n1ethodizer of all popular corruptions
saw, that" non est aliqua ratio qua Ecclesia transferre possit com-
n1unia merita quibus lndulgentiæ innituntur in vivos et non in
mortuos."-Summa; Suppl. p. iii. Qu. 71. Hales (whom Field with
son1e justice calls "the first and greatest of the schoolmen," for
,vhere he is sound 11e is excellent,) seems to have held the power
effective only pe1
modum suffragii-a distinction afterwards lTIuch
con troverted.

Joseph l\Iendham. ( Venal Indulgences all,d Pardons, Lond. 1839.) 'Yithout further
delay we may take a leap backward to A. D. 1350, on the occasion of the Jubilee
for which year Pope Clement VI. announced his dominion oyer Purgatory in the case
of the souls of his absolved subjects. His language is full of arrogant impiety:
"mandamus Ange1is Paradisi quatenus animam illins à PurgatOlio prorsus absolu-
tam in Paradisi gloriam introducant." (Baluzii Vitæ Papp. Aven. i. 310.) This
passage is repeated as a " c1ausula" in the Bun of Pope Sixtus before spoken of; and
the genuineness of the Clementine Constitution is proved by the testimony of"
es-
selus. (Contra .Jac. Hoeck, Cappo yii. yiii. Farrago rerum Tl,eol. Basil. 1522. Dre-
lincourt, Du Jubilé, p. 172. A Paris, 1627.) If we may believe Hen. Cornelius
Agrippa with regard to the antiquity of absolutions for the dead, Boniface VIII., in
the year 1300, "il1as primus in Purgatorium extendit :" (De incert. et vanit. Scientt.
Cap. lxi. sig. 1\1 iij. Colon. 1531. Cf. Bibl. Patt. vi. 546. Par. 1610.) and should we
desire a fabulous conclusion to our pursuit, Gabriel Biel (loc. sup. cit.) provides it in
the assurance that an Indulgence for the departed was granted by Pope Pascha-
sins V. As such a Prelate, however, is merely an ens rationis, BeUarmin thinks it
prudent to alter the name to Paschall., who lived in the year 820. (De Indulg. i.
xiv. 1.349.)-G.]
'" [The references here to Aquinas and Alexander de Hales are from Gieseler, ii.
359-61. This writer attributes to the latter, and not to the former, the discovery of
the Thesaurus supererogationis perfectorum, to be dispensed by the Popes alone.
Aquinas perfected the doctrine of his predecessor.-G.]

LETT. IV.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRI
E.

181

this ne,v vie,v of the Christian Creed cannot fail to
prove quite a treasure) ,viII see in both manifestations
collateral developments out of the inexhaustible bosom
of original Christianity, suited by the ,visdom and good-
ness of Providence to just the ages and the countries
in ,vhich they have respectively elnerged. "Thich of
these employers of the argU111ent is actual1y right, or
,vhether all are ,vrong, I am not no,v canvHssing; I
again request it 111ay be understood that I aln at present
delivering no judgment whatever on that very distinct
question; I simply affirm, that all nlay, ,vith perfect
equality of claims, assert their respective interests in
the all-proving, all-confuting ,; TheoryofDevelopment."
Condillac relates an anecdote of a theorist ,vho Ì1na-
gined he had discovered a Principle adequate to explain
all the phenomena of chemistry. lIe fle\v ,vith his prin-
ciple to a practical chernist, ,vho heard him ,vith ex-
emplary patience, and then, after proper complinJents
to tbe discoverer's ingenuity, expressed his regret that
there ,vas stiU one difficulty in the ,yay of applying the
Principle,-namely, that all the facts ,vere just the re-
verse of ,vhat the inventor had imagined. "Do tell
L;
me ,vhat they are, then," was the ans,yer, H tbat I may
at once make DIY doctrines explain them"q. 'l'his theo-
rist ought to have given up the unmanageable regions
of chelnistry; so pron1Ïsing a genius should at once

q "Hé bien, reprit le physicien, apprenez-les rnoi, ({fin que je les
expliqlle"-that is, as Condillac understands it, "parce qu'il croit
avoir la raison de tous les phénoll1ènes quels qu'ils puissent etre :"_
and he justly enough adds, h II n'y a que des hypothèses vagues
qui puissent donner une con fiance mal fondée."-Tntlté des S!Jstêmes,
Ch. xii. Edit. 1803, Tom. 3. I should not be much surprised if

182

ON THE DEVELOP1\IENT OF

[LETT. IV.

have betaken itself to theology; a little reflection might
have suggested to so independent a speculator the
"Theory of Development," \vhich \vould have ans\vered
all his wishes-a theory which no fact is " stubborn"
enough to resist, and \vhich \vill, \vith equal cogency,
demonstrate all-or their opposites, if required.
And now, for a moment, to throw aside polemics, let
us, before closing the subject, recall the SiUl pIe histo-
rical truth as regards the Papacy. That it was a gra-
dual formation, few honest men \vill no\v dispute. lIe
who would refer its first rise, \vith some of our ardent
L
controversialists, to mere unmingled ambition, is as
much (and more uncharitably) mistaken as he \vho sees
in it the absolute and exclusive ordinance of IIeaven.
The government of the early Church "vas one resting
on voluntary consent; rulers neither possessed, nor
would, at that period, have desired, the command of
physical force to support their judgrnents. In such a
state of things the personal influence of bishops (as St.
Cyprian), the cornparative importance of Sees (as those
of the imperial cities), ,vould almost unavoidably give
them a sort of habitual directive authority. And, in
order to perpetuate that incidental influence, not only
anlbitious men (such as Stephen, or Damasus long after,
seem to have been), but even mee
{ and humble bishops,
with a view to the convenience ofrecognised authority
in difficult conjunctures, ,vould be telnpted to adopt
very questionable arguments, \vhich those who sought

l\Ir. Newman had yet to experience the truth of another little
nlaxim of the cautious Abbé, that catches nIY eye as I turn over
the leaves of the YOlUnle: "L' Eglise n,' app1'01we point les theologiens
qui entreprennent de tout expliql.ler." -Ch. ii.

LETT. IV.]

CHIUSTIAN DOCTRINE.

183

their favour ,vould reiterate, and ,vhich, once current,
,vould be sure to becolne at last traditionally venerable.
But as, in reality, the only true ground for the assump-
tion would still be its utility, so ,vhen that utility be-
came clearly overbalanced by accompanying evils, the
obligation ,vould cease ,vith it. That just such ,vas the
case in the Anglican separation, our divines have re-
peatedly delnonstrated, and the ,vorld has not yet seen
their refuta.tion.
But such as I have described is, at all events, the real
spirit and bearing of the hypothesis of Developlnent, as
applied to the history of Religion. It is the philosophy,
not of one form of Christianity, but of all. This, of
course, ,vill be resolutely denied. There is but one
possible true development in all the innun1erable plans
of Providence; a certain comlnunion says it possesses
it-therefore it does possess it; the imlnensity of the
divine power and ,visdom cannot overflo\v the liInits
assigned by the theology of the 'T atican; the imlnen-
sity of the divine love cannot conceivably include the
objects of papal excommunication. Development is
indefinite; its very essence is variety, modification,
change: nevertheless, every development but one shall
be heresy. Those Secretaries of IIeaven ,vho are fa-
miliar enough \vith the Counsels of the nfost IIigh to
assure us lIe always purposed to reveal Christianity
in successive fragments and portions, nl ust, of course,
be believed when they make this slight further denland
upon our credulity. Nevertheless, even accepting
this lilnitation, since they ,viII have it so,-the history
of the Church seems still to present a problem, the
bearing of which upon this theory appears to deluan<l

184

ON THE DEVELOP
IENT OF

[LETT. IV.

rather l110re attention than l\lr. N e\VInan has thought
pro per to give it.
II. It is well known how complicated a subject of
controversy it has been made, to deterllline the preci
e
amount of difference bet,veen the doctrines of the Greek
and Latin Churches. The difficulty is increased-on
the one hand by the general ignorance and depression
of the Greek Church, ,vhich has left its prelates ahnost
wholly incolllpetent to test their tenets and practices
by a critical investigation of even their o,vn ecclesias-
tical antiquities, and has n1ade it easy to iU1pose on
them alnlost any modification of the tenets they profess
to lnaintain-and on the other, by the disingenuousness
of the Latins, who (especially through the indefatiga-
ble agency of the Jesuits) have spared neither nloney
(ll1iserably effective in this case), nor personal and po-
litical influence, to Latinize the Inore modern Greek
the010gy, and who have laboured to pass off upon the
learned world in the 'Vest these Latinized testÏ1nonies
as the genuine and unprompted voice of the Oriental
Churches r . This artifice has, indeed, been in SOlne
degree detected, partly by the internal evidence of the
documents adduced, ,vhich abound with a phraseology
rnanifestly borro\ved fronl the "T estern Scholasticisn}s;
partly by the evidence of tray-eHers and divines (as
Covel, &c.), who \vere thelllseives personally cognizaut

r [Aymon declares that he has annihilated nlore than five hun-
dred testilllonies in his Jlonumens authentiques de la lleligion des .
Grees, et de la fausseté de plusienrs Confessions de Foi des Chl'étieJl8
Orientaux. 4 to. A la IIa ye, 1708.-G. ]
:!I The PE70Vðt'WðU;;, so pron1Ïnent in sonle of the testilllonies ad-
duced for the Greek Eucharistic doctrine, is a modernism, and a

LETT. IV.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRIKE.

185

of the intrigues employed, more particularly at one
important stage of the process t . But the influence of

mere echo of the western" Transubstantiation." In like manner
the application of the Aristotelian avpß(ß1J Kó7a to the species, in-
stead of the older El
}j, betrays the adoption of the Latin hypothesis
ut aceidents.
t This chiefly relates to the Transubstantiation- Controversy.
Arnauld and Kicole were very solicitous to enrich their collection
of testimonies to the perpetuity of the Roman doctrine of the
Eucharist with Oriental eyidences. The political influence of the
French Ambassador, the 1\Iarquis de Nointel (himself a favourer of
Arnauld's peculiar theological party) was largely employed to in-
duce the eastern bishops to sign formularies framed by the Roman
missionarie
, which accordingly (as might be expected) was abun-
dantly done.t The strong expressions of St. Chrysostom were
flashed before the eyes of the poor Grecians till they were dazzled,
and could no longer discern the vital difference between the p.E70V-
a/watfi;, and any other cOlnpound of fu:.à.t But in truth the eastern
doctrine had been, to a great extent, warped (as I have hinted
above) before this period; the tide had probably set in for Tran-
substantiation, and the point was likely to be gained before long:
not to mention the chances that are al ways in favour of an enthu-
siastic, half-informed race preferring the extreme on any controversy.

'" [It is extremely difficult to ascertain how far the Romish idea of Transubstantia-
tion has ever attained a place in Oriental theology. The word, in a Greek form, is
us
d; but many who so use it expres
ly deny that they understand it in the Romish
sense. The following is the language of Plato, Archbishop of:\Ioscow, in his answer
to )1. Dutens on the doctrines of the Oriental Church: "EccIesia Catholica Orientalis
et Græco- Russica, admittit quidem vocem Transubstantio, Græcè jtfTOVC1í,I1(1'I!:; non
physicam illam transubstantiationem et carnalem, sed sacramentalem et mysticam ;
eodenHlue sensu hanc yoeem Transnhstantil'ltio accipit, quam quo antiquissimi Ec-
clesiæ Græcæ Patres tres voces fl,f.TaXÀay,ì, jlf.TáAHJ'l";, jlf.Ta(1'TOtXfíwC1,!: accipie-
hant." Quoted by Palmer, Treatise, &e. i. 212 : " It would seem," says :Mr. Palmer,
"as if the term Transubstantiation was employed by him merely to signify a real
change and a real presence, not to define its mode."]
t [Covel's Account oftlte Greek Clwrc!z, p. 136. ('amb. 1.'l2.-G.]
:I: [See Gieseler, i. 2
H.-G.]

186

ON THE DEVELOP:\IENT OF

[LETT. IV.

the more po,verful, organized, wealthy, and learneù
'Vestern COIDlnunion has at all tÏ1nes, even before the
fall of the Eastern ell1pire, been sufficient, in despite of
the bitterness of the separation, to produce and perpe-
tuate a strong tincture of the R01l1an theology an10ng
the Churches of the East; the ecclesiastics WhOlU the
papal Court have long maintained there-sometimes
schismatically, in some districts with the consent of a
rude and unlettered population-have al,vays been ac-
ti ve proselytists; the deeply superstitious tendency of
both con1munions must often blend and identify their
teaching, even amidst the most virulent hostility of the
teachers; and these influences, constant and pervading,
render it exceedingly difficult to disengage the genuine
Greek doctrine from this subtle combination during
the late centuries. Rome, too, has al,vays had its Greek
converts, whose ,vritings have been dedicated to dis-
guising the doctrines of their native Church, and on
whon1 such authors as Leo Allatius, hilnself a Greek,
:Th1:aimbourg, and even the much more respectable Simon,
have, in a great measure, constructed their representa-
tions. It is thus that, to obtain the true traditional
theology of the Eastern Catholics, the inquirer must
go back to a period before the necessities of the falling
Empire reduced the unfortunate Greek divines, at the
entreaty or the command of their wretched despots, to
consent to surrender almost anything if they lnight but
obtain the support of the 1Vest against the advancing
armies of the Turk; though even before that Iniserable
time the intercourse through the Crusades, and the
Latin rule at J erusalelll and Constantinople, could

LETT. IV.]
hardly have been without their effect in partial1y Ro-
manizing the speculative theology of the East U .
The details of the question would, therefore, require
long and minute and elaborate inquiry. But the gene-
ral features of the case as it stands even no,v, and has
stood for eight or nine centuries back, are plain enough,
and they are sufficient.
The theory of Development represents the doctrine
of the Catholic Church as animated by an in\vard prin-
ciple of gro\vth, ,vhich constantly enlarges its bulk;
the expanding mass ever preserving the symmetry of
truth, all parts harmonizing \vith each, and each ,vith
the 'v hole. The connexion of the gro\ving doctrine is
subtle and intricate, rather felt than seen: but felt so
po,verfully, that if you really receive one element you
will be insensibly led into all; the lilarch of progressive
theology has been mysterious, but it is unifornl and
irresistible. These doctrines are tied together by all
TIlanner of " cross-relations;" they mutually presuppose
each other; in these profound mysteries "deep calleth
unto deep;" the doctrine of the Deity of the Redeenler
is inlperfect \vithout the \vorship of the IIoly 'Tirgin ;
the doctrine of the Resurrection is but a philosophic
possibility, or a Socinian speculation, until it be adorn-
ed and sustained by the religious veneration of the

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

187

U The Orientals were a good deul intf'rested by the scholastic
theology of the Latins, congenial as it was to the character of their
own subtle intellect. Aquinas (who hin1self took a prominent part
in the Greek question) was wholly, or partially, translated into
Greek in the fourteenth century. It is not easy to overvalue the
influence a single work of such comprehensiveness and abilitr as the

umn1a would exercise over a fluctuating theology.

188

ON TIlE DEVELOP
IENT OF

[LETT. IV.

bones of the dead. To repl
r to this, that the connexion
is not very evident to the intellect, and that it is peri-
lous beyond expression to venture in matters so a,vful
to supply corollaries at onr own discretion-is lnere
rationalism, decorous infidelity; facts have proved that
the general ecclesiastical rnind is so led, and that suf-
fices. Nay, then, let us come to facts. No disciple of
this theory ,vill, I presume, deny the Catholic training
-as he ,vould regard it-of the Eastern Church; no
such reasoner will deny-he exults in affirming-that
it progressively adopted to a large extent those very
tenets and practices (at least the spirit of those) ,vhich
the Romanist calls "Catholic developl11ents," which the
colder Anglican regards as melancholy superstitions;
but many of ,vhich, whatever be their real character
and deserts, the East and "Test (from the sirnilarity of
the influences affecting both sides of Southern Christen-
dOI11, and their frequent mutual intercourse), ,vere alike
led to embrace. No,v it is lTIOst manifest, that exactly
in proportion as these developn1ents are held to have
resembled (which is the very point the ROlDan ,vriters
labour so hard to prove), the certain and undeniable
differences becol11e more inexplicable on this theory,. that
exactlyil1 proportion as it is 111aintained that Greece and
Rome, and their respective depc-nc1encies, have shared
the san1e universally vitalizing spirit, manifesting itself
in the same theological forlnations, the Rame gradual
budding, blossoming, and fructification of ùoctrines-
in the same proportion does it beco111e inconceivable
how these conjoint gro,vths should betray, after a cer-
tain stage, the most unequivocal indications of discre-
pancy; of discrepancy not superficial, but profound

I.ETT. IV.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRIKE.

189

and substantial; reaching to an irreconcileable opposi-
tion of vie\vs upon-to name no lTIore-the Papacy,
upon the great central de'
elopment of Christianity, the
bond on ,vhich the mystical virtue of unity, on \vhich
all else depends, itself \vholly depends; the Sll'n1Jna rei
CIl7'istianæ,. that very difference ,yhich above all others,
leaves unhappy unbelieving England in the exile and
abandonn1ent of heresy.
It is quite idle to attell1pt to get rid of this by urging
that the separation of the East and \Vest (continued
no\v for nearly half the duration of Christianity-for
Inore than half, if ,ve reckon froln the Photian W contro-
versy), is a n1ere "schism." The" schism" is built on,
and justifies itself by, a plain and palpable heres.1J, if
Ronle be indeed infallible; it affirms a principle which
negatives the fundan1ental assertion of the ,vhole Ro-
man systeln. It is not as if Churches, adn1Ïtting all the
saine doctrines, laboured under temporary disagree-
111ents about mutual rights and prerogatives: this is
grossly to nlistake the state of the quarrel of a thou-
sand years bet\veen Greece and ROIne. Rome affirms
that it is essential to salvation that Christians be in
COlnnlunion \vith the ROl1lan See, that See being Christ's
appointed test and centre of unity. Greece-the ,vhole
body of the original Churches of the East-affirn1s that
this clain1 of the RÖlTIan See is an audacious, unscrip-

w [For an account of this" controversy" see l\Iosheim, Cent. ix.
Gieseler, ii. p. 464, ed. Clark. Photius was chosen Patriarch of
Constantinople in the year 858, by the Emperor l\Iichael, in the
place of Ignatius, whom he degraded. Pope Nicholas I. espoused
the cause of Ignatius, and, in 862, excommunicated Photius as un-
lawfully elected, which was retorted by Photius in 866.]

190

ON THE DEVELOP
IENT OF

[LETT. IV.

tural, uncatholic usurpation; for that Christian unity,
and all the privileges therevvith connected, have no
necessary relation whatsoever to Rome or its Bishop.
If the ROlnan system be true, it is impossible to name
a more flagrant heresy than this. And this has in truth
been the perpetual doctrine of the Greek Church ;
whatever primatial privileges, after long and bitter
disputes, may have been at last nominally conceded to
Rome, at no single period, from the day that Paul planted
the Church at Philippi to the present hour, has it ever
been held by anyone of the great Churches of the East,
that connexion ,vith the ROlnan See was necessary to
salvation, or in any ,vise essential to the full reception
and operation of Christianity.
After this, it is for my present purpose superfluous
to insist upon other disagreements, for this is central
and cardinal. Yet the reader will remember (it may
be of service to some of those wavering brethren ,vho
sigh over English isolation to do so ), that these Eastern
Catholics still retain their peculiar doctrine of the Pro-
cession of the Holy Spirit (though the doctrine of the
Trinity is itself one of those, every step of which is
here referred to a process of gradual but inevitable
Catholic development); that they refuse (much more
formally than England has ever done) all those" (Ecu-
menical" Councils to vvhich ROlne refers for the conso-
lidation of her most characteristic developments,-that
is to say,-they distinctly reject the whole Inass of
those conciliar decrees which are the very instruments
at once and monuments of nearly all the authoritative
Roma.n developments-the very decrees which alone
have made these things binding at all; that their accep-

LETT. IV.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

191

tance of Transubstantiation has been positively denied
by a large and most respectable party among theln-
selves, and that their expressions, when they seen1 to
favour it, bear every mark of modern and foreign in-
fluences; that their veneration of the Eucharistic ele-
ments is affirmed to be not an adoration of a literal
Divine Presence therein, and their rejection of the Half-
C01l1111union decisive and indignant; that their doctrine
of the true sense of priestly absolution seems to be
altogether distinct from that of Rome, and apparently
coincides ,vith the ,veIl-known expressions in our Com-
III union Exhortation; that they deny the Purgatorial
Fire of the Trent Catechisnl; that they reprehend as
a gross error the figment of a thesaurus 'lneritoru7T1- and
its special development in papal indulgences and masses;
that their doctrine of departed spirits is diametrically
opposite to that of the Roman Church (a very charac-
teristic distinction); that they differ c01l1pletely on the
question of celibacy-a nlatter also most important
in principle, ,vhen we remember the special theological
grounds (unquestionably heretical )X, on ,vhich the pro-

x [These "grounds" of prohibition seem to have been derived
from the Gnostic heretics. " l\Iany heretics there were in the an-
cient Church which prohibited marriage. . . . . Such, saith Irenæus,
was Saturninus, L. i. Ch. 22, who, with Sin10n
Iagus, was the father
of the Gnostics. Of him Theodoret saith that he was the first
among Christians that affirmed marriage to be the work of the
Devil. . . . . And, indeed, that this was generally the doctrine of the
Gnostics, appears from Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 3, where, speaking of
h h . h E ".. ,. , , , "'\ '
t enl, e Salt , . . .. llHV 01, 7rOPVEWV aV7lKpv
70V r'faflov /\'E''10Vln,
,. '
ß '"'\' , , I
IWt V7rO ()ta o/\,ov 7aV7YJV 7rapaÔlôo
()at ôo"'"W7t'Ç,OVf1tv, , t 1ere are that
affirnl,' and teach for doctrine, 'all marriage to be fornication,' that
is, utterly unlawful, 'and that it is brought in and dplivered by

192

ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF

[LETT. IV.

hibition ,vas based by Siricius, by Innocent, by Gre-
gory VII.; that their vievvs on the Image and Picture
Question are at palpable variance with Rome; their
"lnystery" of Confirmation different, their "n1ystery" of
Unction different ;-not to enumerate their Infant Eu-
charist and other peculiarities on ,vhich they are wont
to contrast, and vvith no snlall pride, their beliefs and
doctrines ,vith those of the ROlnan Communion. It is
indeed only ,vonderful, that with their ignorance, their
superstitious tendencies, and their constant exposure
to po\verful "\Vestern influences and example, they have
retained even these ren1ains of differences forrnerly
,vider and more pervading.

the Devil.' "-Hammond on Tim. I. iv. 3. The Pontiffs alluded to
in the text, in their injunctions of celibacy upon the clergy, seenl
to have approached the heresy of regarding the state of holy matri-
n10nyas in se impure. "Although," says Dr. Todd, "the Church of
Rome has taken higher ground in her estimation of lllarriage than
Protestants have done, inasmuch as she makes matrimony a sacra-
nlent, and its bond indissoluble; yet, it must be confessed that con-
troversialists and mystics of that conlmunion, in their zeal to defend
the necessity of clerical celibacy, and the merit of virginity, have
often expressed themselves as if they held marrriage to be unclean.
Thus the celibacy of the clergy is defended on the ground of the
obligation of purity in them that minister in holy things, and the
marriage state is spoken of as inconsietent with chastity. For ex-
ample, Pope Innocent I., in his Letter to Exuperius, Bishop of
Thoulouse (Decl'et. Gratiani, p. 1, distinct. 82, c. 2, Proposuisti),
reasons thus: "Nan1 si B. Paulus ApostoJus ad Corinthios scribit,
dicens, abstinete vos ad tempus ut vacetis ol'ationi, et hoc utique laicis
præcepit; lllUltO magis sacerdotes, quibus et orandi et sacrificandi
juge officio est, semper debebunt ab hujusmodi consortio abstinere,
qui si contaminatus fuerit carnali concupiscentiâ, quo pudore vel
sacrificare usurpabit, aut qua conscientiâ quove merito exaudiri se
credit, cum dictull1 sit, omnia munda mundis, coinquinatis aute'/rl et

LETT. IV.]
But onlitting all inferior differences (though it is the
very principle of Rome to adrnit none such to be corl1-
patible with unity and salvation) let the reader restrict
himself to such as are principal and undeniable; nay,
to the rejection of the Roman Unit}" alone; and let him
ponder how this great Fact bears on the hypothesis
before us. I-Iere is a ,vhole side of Catholic Christen-
dom, a vast Church, ancient as Rome itself, and for a
long period 111uch greater in territorial extent, in nunl-
ber of episcopates, and in reputation for sanctity and
learning; the Church of innulnerable recognised Saints
and l\Iartyrs; the Church of all the General Councils

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

193

infidelibus nihil mUlldum."-Discourses on the Prophecies relating to
.A ntichrist, p. 334.
The sallIe ground of enjoining celibacy, namely, the impurity of
the married state, was advanced sonle years before by Pope Syricius:
(EpistoZa DecretaZis Syricii Papæ ad IIime'riU'lrt Tar'raconenseJn, Har-
douin. Conc., Tom. i. fol. 849,) "Plurimos enim Sacerdotes Christi
atque Levitas, post longa consecration is suæ tempora, tam de con-
jugiis propriis, quam etiam de turpi coitu, sobolem didicirnus procre-
asse, et crimen SUUIlI hac præscriptione defendere, quia in Vetere Tes-
taIl1ento sacerdotibus ac ministris generandi facultas legitin1a attri-
buta. . . . Hi vero qui iHiciti privilegii excusatione nituntur ut sibi
asserant veteri hoc lege concessum, noverint se ab omni ecclesiastico
honore, quo indignè usi sunt, Apostolicæ sedis auctoritate dejectos,
nec unquan1 posse veneranda attrectare nlysteria, quibus se ipsi,
dum obscenis cupiditatibus inhiant, privaverint." The sanIe idea is
perpetuated by Gregory VII., who speaks of the nIarriage of the
clergy as "inveteratum morbum fO'l'nicationis clericorum."-Epist.
ii. 30. ]
[Lib. ii. Epist. xxx. apud Binii Concill. Tom. iii. P. ii. p. 289.
Colon. Agripp. 1618. - In this letter Pope Gregory VII. commen4s
King Henry IV. for his endeavours to extirpate Simony, and for his
anxiety to correct" inveteratum morbum fornicationis Clericorum."
There if' not any express mention of marriage.-G.J
o

194

ON TIlE DEVELOPl\IEKT OF

[LETT. IV.

for a thousand years. This Church, it is strenuously
asserted, ,vas for a long period in general accordance
,vith Ron1e; or, in 1\11'. N e,vrnan's phraseology, it ,vas
divinely brought through the same series of develop-
ments, and thus manifested the saIne abiding spirit.
If all these develoPlnents infer one another, and infer
those that are to follo"\v; if they be all the members
of one divine system; if ,ve are, on that ground, to be
permitted no choice, but forced to embrace the ,vhole
or none; if the "historical" contemplation of Christia-
nity is truly to tell us ,vhat it was n1eant to be, and the
historical facts of the successive centuries are sufficient
proof of obligatory doctrine,-I ask, in \vhat conceiva-
ble ,yay is this great historicål phenomenon to be ex-
plained,-that a Church of this high and cOInmanding
character, possessing, quite as truly as llome, the alleged
infallible marks of divine guidance in the production of
doctrine, developed (as they tell us), through exactly
the same stages, and on exactly the same principles, as
Ron1e itself, ren1ains, and has ren1ained through its
entire history, utterly blind to the truth of several
points made of 1110mentous importance by ROIne, and,
above all, to that point on ,vhich the entire character
and working of the ICingdom of Christ upon Earth is
held to depend! I do not he
itate to say, that this
single consideration is absolutely fatal to the entire
theory. The theory appeals to IIistory, and IIistory
condemns and rejects it y .

Y The only reference I remember to this in1portant subject in the
" Essay," is comprised in the following words, in which the reader
will admire the easy flexibility of the theory; the lion prostrates

LETT. IV.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRI
E.

195

It is not often that History furnishes a true e.xperi-
'JTJent'Ul1
C1"ucis. "Then t\VO plausible hypotheses are
alleged, it is not al\vays that, in a field \vhere we can
only observe, not experimentalize, \ve can lay our hand
upon sOllle discrinlinating fact \vhich pronounces deci-
sively for the one and utterly excludes the other. But
this seenlS a perfect instance of that rare and precious
test. Observe how it applies. To explain certain facts
in the history of Christianity tu.o suppositions are ad-
vanced. The one conceives that the Christian Creed
,vas intended by its Founder to enlarge by successive
incorporations of doctrines mutually connected and
invol ved, and to form at last by these developments,
internally necessary and inevitable, a harmonious sys-
tem of organized truth; and on the simple fact that
doctrines have been incorporated, and that this hypo-
thesis ,vould make the incorporation legitimate, it de-
mands our assent to the doctrines on pain of everlasting
perdition. The other supposition, ackno\vledging that
the fact of the existence of such doctrines and their
gradual introduction, is historically true, is satisfied
,vith conceiying that these doctrinal phenomena, in
thenlselves no unlikely gro\vth of hU111an nature tam-
pering ,vith revealed teaching-nlay have been per-
mitted by the same gracious Providence \vhich has
preserved the Church itself and the Fundamentals of
Christianity in the \vorld, but \vhich has never pro-
mised ,vholly to suspend the operation of human folly,

his strongest antagonist with a casual sweep of the tail. "Doctrine
without its correspondent principle seems barren, if not lifeless; of
wh;ch the Greek Church seem,S an instance."-p. 72. This is to deter-
Inine Christianity" historically.I'
02

196

ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF

[LETT. IV.

anù absolutely prevent all error from gaining influence
in IIis Church. Were ROlne and England alone on
the Earth, the rival suppositions might perhaps stand
for a long \v hile in presence of the facts; the former
pointing to her tenets and practices, as, though not di-
rectly COllllnanded in Holy 'Vrit, yet the sure unerring
results of the Christian spirit in the ,vorld; the latter
professing itself unable to trace this inevitable con-
nexion, and larnenting to detect in the process-as it
deems-much more of human than divine. But anothe1

'Vitness demands to have her depositions recorded. If
the Roman development be, indeed, the genuine growth
of certain prinliti ve principles, that gro\vth ,vill be
uniform; and the further the alleged gro,vth has ad-
vanced, the nlore certainly may \ve count on the rest.
If \vhat the Anglican calls superstitions be but detach-
ed yet intimately connected portions of a vast scheme
of Catholicity, then, surely, \vherever this scheme, in all
its alleged principles, has grO\VB up exactl}7 in the same
\vay as it has done at ROBle, anù still exists in all its
vigour, there 111USt the rest of the Catholicity infallibly
appear; if not, the process is not one of internal, unerring
developtnent at all, and the other supposition [of the
providential perlnis::3ion of errorJ at once tal(es its place
as the true theory of the facts. On this principle let
the Eastern Church be inspected. rrhe history of this
Greek Church furnishes one body of facts, ,vhich are
said to identify its developments \vith those of Rome,
and another \vhich absolutely separates the tl\-O; those
first phenolnena which reseln ble cannot then be, in any
internal, natural, or necessary way, bound up ,vitlI these
others that differ. 'fo revert to the great difference

LETT. IV.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

197

alreadynoted,-it is manifest that the principle of Unity
can have no true divine or necessary connexion ,vith a
Roman papacy, or ho,v should it fail to develope thus
in the Catholic East as ,veIl as in the Catholic "rest?
But "Cil"cUlnstances prevented it in the East." ,,-rhy
then circumstances may have produced it in the "Test.
Once admit the control of circumstances, and ,vhere
,,,,ill you limit it? or ho,v ".ill you escape gradually
resolving your hypothesis into the very one you op-
pose, that is, into that simpler hypothesis of a special
but permissive Providence ,vhich ,ve Anglicans think
quite sufficient to account for the facts?
Iean,,
hile,
by these facts, test your theory. If the "rest be right,
the East is involved in error most dalTInable and deadly;
if the East be right, the West builds its ,vhole Church
system upon a gross and presunlptuous falsehood;
either one or the other is fatal1y, 11101"ta11y, in error ;-
and yet both these divisions gre,v up under the same
series of developlTIents, both possess the unfailing marks
of Catholic teaching and spirit-monks, paintings, pom-
pous vestlnents, relics, stern anathenlas against heretics
(including each other), and the rest; and "the Ca-
tholic developments" are all so exquisitely harmonious
v.rith each other, so intimately in,yoven, so mutually
correspondent, that the parts inevitably suppose the
".hole, nor can any Church enter into the spirit of 801J
e
\vithout being ,van to recognise the beauty and autho-
rity of the rest!
The theory of Developnlent, then, ,vhich supposes,
if I understand this Book, an internal principle in the
Church of Christ at large, evolving in1portant truths
by unifornl processes, cannot stand the test to \vhich it

198

ON TIlE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETT. IV.

so urgently appeals; it breaks down under-not recon-
dite facts, but the most obvious and prolninent fact in all
Church IIistory. That this nlysterious gro\vth of truth
upon truth-this eXOSl1
ose [exogenous] vegetation in
Theology-should seem to answer for the history of the
Roman Church, is indeed no great marvel; for it ,vas
inlagined chiefly as a vindication of that particular
Church's corruptions. But it ans\vers for no other.
This, ho\vever, is a cornmon mistake; . we have it in
every form in the ne\v converts' vindications of their
change. They all" ente}. the Catholic Church." No
one, indeed, who renlembers by what accidents (so to
speak), and by hovv llluch of mere human policy, the
religious profession of \vhole- nations-papal and anti-
papal-"\vas deternlÏned at the great crisis of the Six-
teenth Century, and ho\v utterly incolnpetent the mass
of Christians are to deternline the matter upon argu-
mentative grounds at all,-will regard the question of
mere numerical majority of voices llluch more impor-
tant in the modern balance of religions than it is in
politics. But even on this ground these ITlen strangely
delude themselves and others. The proxirnity and the
presumption of the ROlDan Conlmunion unite to make
men forget that-notwithstanding all the efforts of
force and of intrigue-it is the Church of hardly half
the nations of Europe, its predolllinance in these seenl-
ing (on the 'v hole ) to gro\v most remarkably in the
inverse proportion of general intelligence and morality,
and of such other Ï1n perfect colonies as-like other
comlnunions-it has continued to plant-in a great
measure schisDlatical1 y and in defiance of recogniscd
authority, else\vhere. It is of this forgetfulness that

LETT. IV.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

]99

the present Author-hinlself no doubt the sincere en-
thusiastic victim of the pretensions he ,vonld impose
on others-takes advantage, ,vhen he substitutes a fond
hypothesis about the ROlDan Papacy anù peculiaritiés
for a theory of the Universal Church. But ,ve have
no,v seen that even that more IÍ1llited object the systenl
cannot really effect; that that cannot be considered a
divine, pre-ordained, and internally necessary develop-
lllent in one part of the Church, ,vhich under the same
training and discipline is found totally to fail in another.
To listen to the new converts-\vhose views, I nlust
say, have really been some,v hat too rapidly fOflDed to
give u1uch promise of solidity-the Papacy is a sort of
perpetual miracle that supersedes all further exanÜna-
tion of the religion it teaches. They repose under the
quiet shado,v of that everlasting throne. The true
genius of history looks coldly upon these pOlllpOUS mys-
tifications. The permanence of the ROlDan patriarchate
is in some respects less "\vonc1erful than that of almost
any other in Christendonl; that is to say, l-listory can
nlore distinctly account fop it than it can for most others.
The permanence of the Church at large is indeed di-
vinely secured; tlzere is the 111iracle, if any; not in the
continuance of one among the special forms in ,vhich
the great promise has been fulfilled; though of course
it is easy for dexterous declainlers thus to transfer the
glory of the substantial truth to its circumstantial In ani-
festation. But the real lover of truth kno'\vs no such
anteceùent preferences. Having fixed his belief immu-
tably upon that ,vhich alone is immutable, he can afford
to survey the subsequent historical developments of
Christianity ,yith an interest deep indeed but uÚ biassed.

200

O
THE DEVEI..Ol).MENT OF

[LETT. IV.

God over all, and Events IIis ministers, he sees; and
he sees both univeT'sally. C
ircumstances, under God's
high Providence, have moulded the religious history
of the East; circumstances have, under the saIne pre-
siding Providence, forlDed the history of the 'Vest;
circumstances, under a Providence still more auspicious
and benign, have secured her purer Catholicity to an
elnpire nobler than either includes. Greece, Rome,
England, in inherent authority all perfectly on a level,
by a Cornmon Standard equally and immeasurably
above them all, shall all three be one day tried!
I feel that these disquisitions n1ake a somewhat dis-
proportionate demand upon your limited space. You
would pardon me if you knew how much I purposely
omit in order to abridge them. In selecting only \vhat
seem to me the simplest and most obvious illustrations
of the hollowness of this system, I am at the same time
well aware that I must be traversing ground familiar
to its Author, and stating objections his sagacity cannot
but have anticipated. Yet even he wil1 excuse the
critic ,vho undertakes the humble task of directing
public attention to diffieulties for which, however ma-
nifest they be, it is quite certain he has no ,vhere in
this Volume provided the solution. The fervour of his
attachment to the religious system to \vhose support
this theory is dedicated ll1ay be such as to have con-
sumed all these obstacles in its blaze; Faith glories in
such sacrifices; and since it could not make any other
terms with the Reason than these (for certainly this
theory excludes aU the ordinary and received ROlDan
systems), IDay have been resolved to take the Triden-
tine Creed even on this precarious hypothesis rather

LETT. IV.]

CHRISTIAN DC CTRINE.

201

than not at all. Faith, ho,vever, vlÌll not constitute
argument, though it may supply the ,vant of it; and
those who have still command enough of their faculties
to consider Romanisnl matter of reasonirg, lnay be
allo,ved to express their deliberate conviction that there
is no solution for the palpable difficulties of this new
scheme of the Christian Revelation, except such as "\vill
be found to involve additional assumptions as arbitrary
as the old, and thus to complicate improbabilities in-
stead of removing them.
This may perhaps appear Inore evident in the obser-
vations I hope to present in your nex
Number.
I renlain, my dear Sir,
Your's faithfully,
'V. ARCHER BUTLER.

202

ON THE DEVELOPME
T OF

[LETT. V.

L E 'f 'I' f
11. "\r.

- .

DEAR SIR,

I haye spoken of the obvious applica-
tions ,vhich open in all, even the most opposite, direc-
tions, for those who adopt the hypothesis of a Develop-
ing energy perpetually moulding the original principles
of Christianity into ne'v forms of doctrine. The religion
of the Ne\v /'"festament, thus regarded as not so much
a body of definite doctrine as a prolific "Idea," is of
course equally visible in all the diversified products of
that Idea; it becomes a Genus branching into IDany
Species, a Species capable of nlany Varieties; mani-
festing itself under endless modifications, even as the
physiologist beholds a single fundamental Type govern-
ing all the manifold organislDs in each division of the
animal and vegetable I(ingdoms. It thus becomes diffi-
cuI t to determine when the type begins to be lost, \v hat
degree of aberration will constitute a total departure
frolD the Ideal of Christianity; and it is a negation of
the essential spirit and principle of the theory to affect
to apply any rigorous test for discriminating among all
the possible results of Christian teaehil1g upon human
TIl inùs. lIe \v ho honestly accepts this theory of Reve-

LETT. v.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTHI
E.

203

lation, must feel that every such limitation is not only
arbitrary, but contradictory; to say that only one ele-
nlent, or group of elements, in Christianity, shall deve-
lope, is in substance to retract the principle of Deve-
loplnent itself; to say tll,at only one selected age anù
locality of Christiani ty shall exhibit the true unfolded
Idea., is to deny the Idea any true unfolding po \ver. It
,vill not do to lay your foundation with the Sceptic,
and build your superstructure ,vith the Romanist! For
the former, the religion "'JìH1St develope in some ,vay
"
and for the latter, "it did develope in this." Absurd
and ul1"\varral1table restriction! "Thy not develope
" son1e ways" as \vell as some
Day ? "Thy affirnl that
it did develope in this alone, "\vhen ,ve all kno,v it has
in fact developed in t,venty others? IIo,v has the
developn1el1t of one century or one latitude, 1JJlerely as
such, the slightest internal prerogative over any other,
past, present, or to come? If Christianity be by divine
promise everlasting and universal, and if this imaginary
Developnlent be the inseparable token of life, what
antecedent prohibition is producible, ,vhich shall strike
,vith sterility that Christianity, in one period or nation,
whose pregnant ,vonlb is teen1Íng ,vith ne,v and 111Ul-
tiplied and unexpected births in another? And then,
to judge by their Rpplication, ho,v sure, irrefragable,
anù instantaneous 111USt be those" tests," ho,v satisfac-
tory a security for Christian Faith, which in this uni-
yersal competition of develop1uen ts, are brought to
discriminate bet,veen the legitimate offspring and the
spurious: how confidently an inquirer can rest his sal-
vation upon the unerring accuracy find easy application
of the philosophical" test" that at once pronounces the

204

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETT. v.

devotion of heart and soul to St.l\Iary, though unkno\vn
for centuries, to have been Inanifestly involved in the
original Christian religion, and (for exan1ple) the An-
glican Article on Justification to have been as mani-
festly excluded as a palpable heresy! IIow safe a
position for a Christian to occupy, to have the" test"
that does this the only barrier between him and jnfi-
deli ty !
I have been, even \vitbin lny own limited studies, too
habituated to observe that, if men are often inferior,
they are also sometÏ1nes very much superior to their
o,vn theories, to desire or presume to intrude any infe-
rences \vhatever from the contents of this volume as to

Ir. N e\Vlnan's own lnental history; but, assuredly,
this ,vhole system nlight \vell be the systeln of a man
whose Intellect ,vas diseased ,vith a radical tendency
to Scepticisln, ,vhile his better Heart o,vned the nobler
necessi ty of Belief. IIowever this Ina y be, it is certain
the systelll ,viII never relllain where he has placed it.
lIe has brought, under !{onlan colours, the Rationalisln
of Germany alllong us; and though he may have forced
the uncouth monster to labour at the Roman oar, he
may rely there are those in England who \vill not be
long in teaching the slave the secret of his strength,
and the folly of his unnatural hondage. IIo\v it has
come to pass that he has preferred to devote the ration-
alistic principles of his book to the exclusive service
of Romanism, is doubtless to be traced to circumstan-
tial influences distinct from mere argument, of which,
as so often happens, he is probably himself altogether
unconscious. Perhaps strong inlaginative irnpressions,
-or exclusive habits of Ron1an theological reading,

LETT. v.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

205

,vhich ,vonid natnral1y make Rome and its affairs at last
occupy the ,vhole field of vision,-or that quick sense of
the imperfections a man sees, which is so often united
to the 1110st delusive credulity as to the imagined per-
fections 11e does not see,-or again, the apparent sYln-
metry and cOlnpleteness of the Roman theory (so like
the artificial ,york of Inan, so unlike the vast half-seen
dispensations of God ),-01', above all, that very ,veari-
ness of a mind over,vrought, which unfortunately, be-
yond any other state, makes it at last the easy prey of
whatever systenl ta.lks loudest and will promise most:
I say that Borne extrinsic influences of this kind (,vith-
out venturing lllore than the humblest conjecture as
to their possible nature) must have directed and con-
trolled the current of his thoughts, because he has
manifestly not given to his principles their natural and
unconst
ained deyelopn1ent. The natural result of the
theory of the perpetual evolution of ne,v doctrine under
ne\v circunlstances, is unquestionably,-in quiet tem-
pers, an easy latitudinarianisl11, welcoming all forms of
the Christian, and a1most of any other, religion as alike
acceptable to God, ,vhose repose is in the meagreness
of its belief, settled in their very unsettledness ;-in
more ardent and energetic dispositions, a doctrine of
the perpetual expansion and intended progressiveness
of Christianity, such as has so long been fashionable in
Gerrnany. But to attempt on such a principle to vin-
dicate a systeln ,yhich equal1y excludes both these con-
ceptions of Christianity,-,vhich fortifies itself against
the forlner ,vith a ranlpart of exclusi ve anathen1as and all
the apparatus of a theology that affects to leave nothing
undefined--,vhich, in the face of the latter, invokes the

206

ON TIlE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETT. V.

Past (or ,vhat it thinks to be the Past) as its sole au-
thority and absolute Jllodel of perfection, is an under-
taking which really seems likely to proye little but the
very undecided state of the ll1ind that conceived it, and
the pressing difficulties of a cause for ,vhich a Heart
altogether devoted to its service could only extort from
its subservient Intellect this strange contradictory jus-
tification.
I. It happens that the literature of Philosophy has
for nlany years back abounded ,vith a species of dis-
quisitions ,vhich, as they n1ay relTIotely have occasioned
the rise of such a theory of Christianity as this, so also
present the most vivid and varied exenlplificatiol1s of
its inherent uncertainty and danger. I allude to that
multitude of elaborate treatises ,vith which the Gernlan
press-and, of later years, the French-has enriched
the learned ,vorld on the IIistory of S]JeculatÍ1)e Philo-
sophy. The explorers of this interesting though intri-
cate region of inquiry, make it of course their object to
detect as far as possible the leading Ideas in the ori-
ginal conception of each system, and to trace the 1110di-
fication of these ideas in the subsequent fortunes of
the School. This is a perfectly legitimate subject of
investigation; and even when the positive results are
scanty or doubtful, it enjoys the advantage "\vhich hap-
pil y belongs to all elevating studies, that in them the
mere search is often nlore truly beneficial than palpable
success in other inquiries. Nor indeed is this consola-
tion superfluous; for in truth these innumerable theo-
rists of the history of Speculation seldom do coincide,
except in fixing the most general features of the diffe-
rent systems; and Inany seem hardly to disguise their

LETT. v.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

207

belief that it is vain to think of tracing the perpetuity
of anyone fundalnental Idea in almost any succession,
-nay in almost any individual, though his entire re-
lnains-of the ancient teachers. The causes of this
discrepancy in results are obvious enough. 1. The
original Idea or Ideas (supposing ,ve can detect them),
,vere usually very vague and undefined. 2. rrhe sub-
sequent teachers in the school being thus under the
control not of a definite, unalterable schen1e of doc-
trine, but of these indefinite generalities, did themselves
alter the doctrine they inherited, and that in direct
proportion to their indi ,-idual ability; so that it at last
arrived at forms more or less irreconcileable ,vith its
first beginnings. 3. The very
an1e ,vriters sometin1es
appear to have themselves en1braced inconsistent views,
,vhich give rOOITI for opposite theories as to their real
opinions. 4. In SOlne cases differ-ent schools arose out
o..f one cornprehensive teacher; some of these being at
first nearly eclipsed by their companions, and not till
long after fully asserting their p1ace. 5. "Thile it is
not the least of these sources of variance, that the
(J1lodern explorers theillselves do constantly, ,vhether
unconsciously or purposely, modify the old records so
as to enlist them in the support of their o,vn lnodern
vie,vs.- These causes ,vill operate in varying degrees;
but it is evident that the main ground, both of the
variation of the doctrines, and of the difficulty of reduc-
ing them to any precise or uniform la,v of progress,
,vill ever bp the first I have nailled,- the fact that the

ounder delivered to his pupils not any distinct scheme
of unalterable doctrines (,vheneyer he did pretend to
do so the pretence being a failure, for the doctrines,

208

[LETT. v.
being really unproved, remained essentially alterable),
but a body of undefined though active and energetic
"Ideas." In other words, the reason ,vhy the elder
philosophical schools were ever in fluctuation, and the
determination of their fundamental principles relnains
to this day obscure and contested, was just because the
original teaching and the subsequent growth were con-
ducted on the very principles which the present author
would persuade the ,vorld ,vere those
hat regulated
the revelation and history of Christian Doctrine a . As
the Ionics had their single Physical Elen1ents, and the
Eleatics their principle of Unity, and the Pythagoreans
their Principle of divine Numbers, so Christianity has
its analogous fundamental Ideas and developable Prin-
ciples, as undefined in their import, as progressive in
their evolution. The Revelation was really (according
to this system) a revelation of Iùeas and Princi pIes,
exeJnplified in sorne chosen instances, ,vhich mere in-

ON THE DEYELOP:\.fE
T OF

a It is thus that l\lr. Newman adopts the very dialect of philo-
sophical speculation when speaking of the variations of Christian
Doctrine. "On the subject of Purgatory, there were, to speak
generally, two schools of opinion."-p. 18. "Two schools of opi-
nion I" on a doctrine which is "the necessary complen1ent of Bap-
tism;" among canonized Saints and under the direct superinten-
dence of an infallible authority, which is argued to exist at all
solely because rival claims to develoFment need to be decided,
pp. 14, 131); "two schools of opinion," "one of which resembled
the present doctrine of the Ron1an Church," on a question about
which the same author believes that no man can entertain a doubt
and be saved; on a doctrine which he argues (p. 423) to be indis-
pensable to produce heroic endurance, though martyrs and confes-
sors, it seems, could win eternal crowns by thousands without any
distinct belief, say rather, in the vast n1ajority of cases, undoubtedly
without any belief at all about it !

LETT. V.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTHINE.

209

stances the Christian Church \vas for ages dull enough
to Inistake for the Revelation itself; the truth being
(as now at last has been fortunately discovered) that
the Doctrines of the Creed were lnerelya sort of exhi-
bition, in the way of s(tJJlple, of the vast unfathomable
"Ideas" that lay hidden behind thenl; a kind of tenl-
porary parables embodying the Ideas in an emphatic
tangible form, until the tilne should come that lnen
,vould find their ,vayto the abstract l\Iaxinls thenlselves,
and thence fetch new doctrines at their pleasure. It
is like the transition from Arithmetic to Algebra; from
single cases to theorems and formulas in theology.
Thus,-to apply this to one or two instances,-"\ve are
henceforth to understand, that the original Revelation
,vas not (except in the ,yay of exeln plification), "the
dead shall rise," but "there is a great sanctity about
hUlnan bodies: and thus, as it is one of the leadina
. 0
exhibitions of the Principle, that the dead shnll rise, so
like\vise every thing else shall be equally true that shall
any\vise appear to illustrate the sanctity of bodies, and
be, by "\vhatever 11leans, connected with that Principle."
Or again, the real Revelation was not "Baptize," or
" Do this in remembrance," but, "It is a principle of
the Gospel to adopt ritual observances "\vith spiritual
significations and effects: therefore all DJanner of ob-
servances shall in virtue of this la,v he obligatory in
the highest sense of Sacraments, \v hen ever the Church
shall appoint them; Bàptisnl and the Eucharist being
for the present given as striking specinlens of this future
process." Or once lTIOre, the Revelation was not at all
the simple and lin1Íted fact that the Holy Ghost shall
dVlell in the follo,vers of Christ, but the" Principle"
p

210

OX THE DEVELOP.MENT OF

[LETT. V.

of Divine Presences at large and in the abstract; inso-
111uch that every possible aspect of a Divine Presence,
and every conceivable consequence of that Presence
in all its senses, even unto the divinizing of its subject,
and the consequent right to religious \vorship, is therein
incluùed quite as really and as certainly, as the fact
above noted, though (by son1e accident) that alone Hnd
its inunediate accompaniments happen to be selected
for specialllotice in Scripture. In short, the Revela-
tion itself is contained in no existing Creed; the first
approach to a sumTJzarry of it is probably to be found
in a ,york of the Nineteenth Century on the Develop-
111ent of Christian Doctrine; though scattered frag-
men ts of the original /'"feaching may, by persevering
explorers, be here and there caught al
ong the folios
of the schoolmen. /'"fhe Revelation itself \vas the de-
claration of a nUll} ber of abstract principles of religion,
sonle important cases of \vhich constitute the Apostles'
Creed; the doctrines of that Creed being only a fe\v
of the earlier gro,vths of the "Idea" of Christianity,
paradigms (as in Grall1nlar or Arithmetic), by ,vhich
the master would show his pupils ho\v to \vork out ne\v
doctrines to an indefinite extent for thenlselves.
The reader may start at this, \v hich I assure hilTI I
sincerely present as the inlport (so far as I can con1-
prehend it) of the first half of the volume before lne.
But let hill1 be tranquil: he is not alnong the Licht

f1'1eunde, he is not perusing lIegel or Strauss. It is the
leading Divine of the ROITlan COlnn1union in England,
the recognised chan1pion and apologist of the ,vhole
group of its converts, \vho, with the strict and sol{Jmn
anathelnas of the Council of Trent in one hand, is \vith

LETT. v.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

211

the other sketching the outlines of a theory which de-
pri ves Christianity of a Creed, in order to elevate it to
the dignity of a Philosophy. If the Apostles truly under-
stood all Christianity, this, according to the ne,v systen1,
'JJZllst have been the forn1 in ,vhich they received it ;
for this-a body of abstract Principles and of Doctrines
expressly given as exernplifying others to c0111e-alone,
on that systen1, is complete Christianity. 'Vhile, on
the other hand, if they only kne,v the doctrines their
records express, and their disciples inherited,-nay,
even if they knew the general fact that other Inost in1-
portant doctrines were to come, but had no distinct
conception of those doctrines,-they then unquestion-
ably did not kno,v all Christianity, and they,vrote 'v hat
,vas untrue ,vhen they asserted or inlplied that they
did.
I have already observed (Letter II.) ho,v cautiously
indeterrninate are
Ir. N e,vll1an's positions regarding
the kno,vledge b the Apostles possessed of such funda-
mentals of Christianity as the CUltu8 of Saints or the
rescue of Souls fronl Purgatory. There is less deli-
cacy required in conjecturing the condition of" the
first centuries ;" and the follo,ving illustration helps us
to estilnate theil- unenviable state of perplexity:
"The instance of Conscience, ,vhich has already
served us in illustration, n1ay assist us here. "That
Conscience is in the history of an individual mind, such
,vas the dogn1atic principle in the history of Christia-
nity. Both in the one case and the other there is the
gradual formation of a directing power out of a prin-

11 [Vide supra, pp. 73, 74.]
r2

212

O
THE DEVELor
IENT OF

[LETT. v.

ciple. The natural voice of Conscience is far more
inlperative in testifying and enforcing a rule of duty,
than successful in determining that duty in particular
cases. It acts as a messenger froIn above, and says that
there is a right and a ,vrong, and that the right n1ust
be followed; but it is variously, and therefore errone-
ously, trained in the instance of various persons. It
mistakes error for truth; and yet \ve believe that, on
the \vhole, and even in those cases where it is ill-
instructed, if its voice be diligently obeyed, it \vill gra-
dually be cleared, simplified, and perfected; so that
minds starting differently ,vilJ, if honest, in course of
time converge to one and the same truth. I \vould
not iUlply that there is indistinctness 80 great as this in
the kno\vledge of the first centuries," &c.-p. 348.
The indistinctness ,vas not "80 great," it seems; but,
if the "illustration" is to illustrate, the cases lTIUst have
borne a general resen1 blance. 'Ve are therefore to con-
ceive that the first centuries-of course avo\ved here-
tics are not now in question-had a sort of rule \vhich
taught thelll that there \vas "a right a
d a ,vrong" in
religious belief, but gave theln comparatively feeble
light as to \vhat \vas the right and the \vrong; they
were n101"e or less variously, and therefore more or less
erroneously, trained; they lTIistùok error for truth (in
whatever deg1ree, ,vhich is in this place left undecided),
but happily they could look for\vard (as honest igno-
rant men can do in Inatters of Duty), to some future
period, when" in course of tilne," their descendants-
at Lateran, at Florence, at Trent, as it nlight be-\vould
in aU probability eventually converge to some one and
the same truth, ,vhatever that truth might prove to be.

LETT. v.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTHIKE.

213

Thus the possessors of Revealed Religion, expressly
given to supply the deficiencies and infirlnities of Na-
tural Reason and Conscience, relnained in just the
same position (or one closely analogous to it) as those
,vho have Natural Reason and Conscience alone to
guide them.
II. But of all the obvious objections to this theory,
,vhich I have already enunlerated-above aU, of the
J
lllanifest facility ,vith "hich (hy sinlply detaching the
one hypothesis of Roman infallibility, no Inore demon-
strated in this volume than in any other it has been nlY
fortune to see) it lends itself to the purposes of any
school of theology indifferently, I cannot iInagine the
penetrating understanding of its author not to have
been through the "Thole eourse of his ,york abundantly
a\vare. Doubtless he has set aside all such intrusive
suggestions ,vith the general repl}-', that upon these lo\v
grounds of rnere intellectual disputation, the question
bet\\"een all rival schelnes is in some respects a choice
of logical difficulties, and \ve must only select the opti-
}JlZtS qzÛ Jnininzls 'llrgetur. lIe ,yill hardly deny that
there are some difficulties in a theory which only one
unproved assulllption rescues froln extravagant latitu-
dinal
ianisln,-a theory ,vhich can scarcely be said to
be abused, rather used in its nlost obvious and natural
application, \v hen elnployed to sustain any variety of
successive or even collateral forn1s of Christian Doc-
trine; but he \vill probably reply that greater difficulties
,viII be found to attach to the ordinary vie,vs of the
history of dogn1atic theology, ,yhethel' Roman or An-
glican. Bet,veen the ROlnan theory (of perpetual tra-
dition for all the disputed peculiarities) and
Ir. Ne\v-

214

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETT. v.

111an'S refutation of it, I shall not no,v undertake to
"deciùe; but as regards ,vhat I presume to be the lnost
usual ,yay of conceiving the matter an10ng English
theologians, I ,vould venture to sketch (I can at present
only sketch) its outlines as follo,vs; and I confess I
perceive nothing inconsistent or contradictory in its
elen1ents, anù no uncertainty in its grounds, beyond
that ,vhich belongs to every thing alike 'v hich rests on
a basis, ho,vever firn], of Illoral probabi]ities,-an un-
certainty (if it is to be called such) ,vhich no theory
ever yet proposed (Roman or any other) has in any
degree succeeded in sho,ving us ho,v to escape. I begin,
then, by saying,-
1. The ...A..postles knew all doctrine at any time neces-
sary for Inan's belief, gro,vth in holiness, and ultilnate
sal va tion. And,
2. 'fhey c071ununicated all that doctrine.
'l'hese are àffirmations grounded on the express de-
clarations of our Lord and the Apostles then1selves ;
to ,vhich, as I formerly dre,v attention, I need not no'v
recur. 1'he apostolic knolvleclge C , indeed, ,vill hardly be
directly denied. But to the delivery of it they therü-
selves as distinctly testifyd. Indeed, froln the very

e [For an argulnent similar to that
n the text respecting the
Apostolic knowledge, see Taylor's Dissuasive, p.279. Ed. Cardwel1.]
d " Solent dicere (hæretici), Non on1nia Apostolos 8cisse,. eâdem agi-
tati dementiâ, qua rursus convertunt, On1nia quidem Apostolos scisse,
sed non Olnnia on1nibus tradidisse: in utroque Christulll reprehen-
sioni injicientes [subjicientes,-G.] qui aut n1Ïnus instructos, aut
paruIll siu1plices Apostolos n1Ïserit."-Tertull. De P'J'æscript. [I:læl'et.]
Cap. xxii. lIe confutes tbese heretics by abundant scriptural proof.
See also Cap. xxv. xxvi. xxvii. Conlpare Iren. III. iii. v. [See Te1--
tull. i. 455. Oxf. trans. Library oftlte Fathers, x. 18-t2.-G.]

I,ETT. v.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTIU
E.

9 1 --
- ;)

nature of the case, ,vhen ,ve relnember the abundant
thue the Apostles had for training and indoctrinating
their disciples (froll1 the Pentecost follo,vil1g the Ascen-
sion to the death of St. John ),-the gro\vth, sufficiently
intinlated, of many of these disciples in the discernment
of spiritual mysteries, and the plain unquestionable
111anner in "rhich they are all declared to be instructed
in every thing necessary for the attainlnent of consun1-
111ate glory,-the lofty and profound character of many
of the Apostles' o\vn "'Titings (such as the Gospel and
Rey-elation of St. John, the Epistle to the Ephesians,
and to the fIe bre\vs, and part of that to the ROlllans,
&c.) ,ve can scarcely doubt that it ,,'as not their inten-
tion to "keep back" anything that could be "profitable"
to any class of their disciples. To \vhich is to be added
the important consideration,-that no announcelnent
,vhatever is ll1ade of this 1l10Inentolls po\ver of autho-
rizing ne,v doctrines, as distinct from the po\ver (\v hich
,ve fully concede to be inherent in the very function
of instruction) of reasoning out inferences, or exhibit-
ing harnlonies and contrasts of doctrine, by the ordi-
nary use of the understanding; but, on the contrary,
very 111al1ifest exclusions of any such subsequent reve-
Ia tions e .

e It is remarkable enough, that in 1 Cor. xiii. within the compass
of a few verses, the cessation of supernatural inspiration is ex-
pressly predicted (prophesies shall fail, tongues shall cease, and
knowledge vanish), and the ne:d great accession of spiritual enlight-
enment distinctly referred to the fllture 1["01'ld. So in Ephes. i. 1-1,
the promised :Spirit then possessed was an earnest until" the re-
demption of the purchased possession;" no intervening stage of ex-
traordinary ::;pirituality or Illun1Ínation foretokened. The same
eager anticipation of the h
avenly world as the true scene of the

216

ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF

[LEfT. V.

Indeed, if anyone ,vere to take tbe trouble of re-
flecting callnly on the account given by tbe Apostles
thelllseives of the state of spiritual attainment \vhich
the Christians they taught and exhorted had actually
reached, and the further degree to ,vhich they ardently
urged then} to aspire as their proper privilege, as the
natural result \vhich the teaching they received \ras
perfectly adequate, unùer divine blessing, to accomplish
-he ,vould be some,vhat puzzled to c1eteruline ,vhat
'lno're the successors of these first believers could have
fairly expected, either of doctrine to enlighten, or of
holiness to sanctify. To convey this in the full nIea-
sure of its irresistible force against the speculation I
alll CODI bating, ,vould require the transcription of a
large proportion of the New Testament. Fortunately,
it is a topic on ,vhich, above all others, I rejoice to
think I can trust to the menlory of most of Iny readers.
I request them then to conceive Christianity 11lain tain-
ed to have been a 111erely germinant Iùea, or even a
fornlal body of explicit doctrine, but only in its earliest
stage of gro,vth, among men characterized, as they
cannot fail to remember the Saints of the first Churches
,vere characterized by their inspired teachers; al110ng
nlen described as, in virtue of their justification, enjoy-
ing complete" peace ,vith God," "rejoicing in hope of
IIis glory," and glorying even in their" tribulations ;"
living "in the Spirit," and by the Spirit "\vitnessed"
to be "the children of God and joint-heirs \vith Christ;"
being eufranchised by "the ]a \v of the Spirit of Life,"

dp.veloplnent of the doctrine of faith into the fulness of inul1ediate
knowledge, is seen in 2 Cor. v. 2-7, 1 John, iii. 2, &c.

LETT. v.]

CHRISTIA:N DOCTRINE.

217

" ITIOre than conquerors," and inseparable from the love
of God in Christ; "perfecting holiness ;" free citizens
of a "kingù01TI ,vhich is righteousness, and peace, and
joy in the IIoly Ghost;" so that "all things ,vere their's,
and they Christ's," even as " Christ ,vas God's ;" "ne,v
creatures in Christ," "crucified and risen ,vith Christ,"
and already, even on earth, "set in heavenly places
,vith I-liIn," and enjoying a life "hid ,vith Christ in
God ;"-in short "coJ7l}Jlete in Christ :" "rejoicing ,vith
joy unspeakable and full of glory, receiving tlte end of
their faith, even the salvation of their souls ;" ",valking
in the Light, even as God l-litnself is in the light;" and
so having ,. the love of God" in them" pelfected," inso-
much that they "could not sin ;" "d,yelling in God, and
God in theln." And all these ,vonderful attainrnents
traced directly to the po,ver of the teaching they had
already 'received; they ,vere thus" established according
to ,(JlY gos}Jel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, accorù-
ing to the revelation of the myst
ry kept secret since
the ,vorId began, but nou; nlade manifest;" they had
"heard the 'lcord of truth, the Gospel of their sal yation ;"
they had "received the word of God, ,vhich effe
tual1y
lcorh:ed in theln ;" they had been" chosen to salvation,
through sanctification of the Spirit and beli
f o.f the tJ>uth,
to the obtaining of the glory of Christ," on ,yhich ac-
count (" therefore") they are in the ÎInlnediate context
besought to hold fast "the traditions they hud been
taught./' -they ,vere "enriched in aU utterance and
cuu1Ïllg Lehind in no gift," havillg " Christ Inade unto
thenl wisdont;" (lud so, u righteousness and sanctifica-
tion and redeul ption ;" "beholding it" ith OjJeJl face, as in
a (llaS8, the
dor'T of the l..ord , and chanuecl iuto the

I v J 0

218

OX THE DEVELOr:MENT OF

[LETT. V.

sanle ÎInage;" "blessed ,vith all spiri tual blessings"
fronl God, "Tho "had abounded to,vards theln in all
wisdom and prudence, having made kno\vn unto thern
the mystery of IIis 'Vill" -that "now unto the hea-
venly pCHvers n1ight be known by the Church the mani-
fold ,visdoln of God ;" "taugh t in all ,visdonl," and as
"spiritual, judging all things," "having received the
Spirit of God, that they nâgltt knOl() the things freely
given to then1 of God," inS0l11Uch that "they needed not
that any luan should teach thenl :" having received "all
things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the
knolcledge of IIim ,vho had called theln ;" having re-
cei ved "great and precious pron1ises," of such po,ver
that by thell1 they ,vere already capacitated to enjoy the
greatest blessing conceivable to the thought or utter-
able by the language of man, even that of being " par-
takers of the Divine nature ;"-the old fathers "\vaiting
to be "lnade perfect" ,vith theJn; the prophets" prophe-
sying of the grace that calne unto tlimn, ancllninistering
not unto thelnselve8 but unto theln the very things now
reported unto then1 by the preachers of. the Gospel ;"
the A postolic Revelation being the great central Light
of the last days to ,vhich the prophets looked for,vard
as ,ve look back; already it ,vas "the Faith," "t!zerrruth,"
"the Gospel," "the "T ord" -ouc, distinct, exclusive,
com plete. And ,vhen in the secrecy of prayer- the
ineffable cOl1lll1union of such a spirit as Paul's ,vith his
God-the great Apostle besought on behalf of the
Church the gift ofulore and yet 1110re of light and love,
,vas it to SOlne dinl and shado,vy future he pointed his
glance, \vhen that ,vhich ,vas no\v but inùistinctly
kno\vn nlight ue fully di
closec1 to the Inaturer saints

LETT. v.]
of ages to con1e? Not so; his prayer-surely the sub-
limest supplication that ever broke from hunlan lips-
,vas, "that YE, being rooted and grounded in love, 11lay
he able to comp1J
ehend ,vith all saints, ,yhat is the breadth,
and length, and depth, and height; and to kno,v the
love of Christ, ,vhich passed1 kno\\'ledge, THAT YE :MIGHT
BE FILI...ED """ITII ALL THE FLTLKESS OF GOD I"
3. "Thateyer ,yas essential to be kno\vl1 for nlan's
belief and salvation in respect of any particular doc-
trine (as, for instance, in the doctrine after\vanls fitly
nall1ed the Trinityf), ,vas therefore undoubtedly deli-
vered by the .i\..postles and received by their disciples.
No speculative difficulties ,vhatsoever, 110 difficulties

CHRISTIA
DOCTRINE.

219

f I do not for a moment nlean to insinuate that any real portion
of that doctrine is non-essential; but it is, I conceive, our duty to
distinguish between those elements which are really necessary to
constitute the doctrine, and certain illustrations and inferences con-
nected with the essential mystery itself, wllich, even though pro-
foundly interesting, and authorized by en1Ìnent fathers, do not ap-
pear absolutely necessary to a sufficìe'Jlt conception of the doctrine.
1\11'. Newman evidently regards the doctrine of the Trinity as a
distant vision lou'ards 'Which the Church was slowly struggling for
centuries; a heresy being sure to arise whenever (one would think
a pardonable ambition 1) she became too precipitate in her anxiety
to attain to necessary and fundan1ental truth. "The efforts of
Sabellius to cornplete the mystery of the ever-blessed Trinity failed;
it became a heresy," &c. (p. 352). Now in order to settle this point,
is it unfair to request 1\lr. Newman, instead of thus clouding a n10st
important question in vague phrastology, to propose to himself, and
then state to others explicitly, and with the necessary proofs, of
tchat p1'ecise element of tile doctrine he considers a disciple of St. Paul
or St. John was ignorant (not to raise the painful question about

t. Paul and St. John then1selves)? Let him speak out plainly.
'Vas it the Unity of God? 'Vas it the Divinity of Christ? His
co-eternity as the "r ord and
on of God? The Divinity or Persu-

220

ON THE DEVELOPi\fENT OF

[LETT. V.

even about the exact anlount of scriptural proof for
special points, can be a.llo,ved in the least to disturb

nality of the Holy Ghost? Let him tell us this distinctly; people
win then know his real opinions, and how to meet them.
Meanwhile it l11ay be useful to observe, with a view to this point
-that no one professes to maintain that the disciples of St. John
habitually used such words as "hypostatic," "consubstantiality,"
&c.-what proportion of the whole ll1ultitude of perfectly orthodox
believers on earth, even at this hour, habitually use theIn, or have
ever used thelll? It may be further adlnitted, that when a doc-
trine has come to be intellectually analyzed and measured, certain
relations nlay be seen to be involved in it, the distinct expression
of which may become thenceforth useful and even necessary; and
that until circumstances, usually heresy, have led to this close in-
telleetual survey, these relations, though involved in the existing
belief, and logical1y deducible therefrom, may not occupy a prOlni-
nent position in the common expositions of the faith. In what
precise degree this holds in such a statenlent of the doctrine of the
Trinity as the A thanasian Creed, is another question; the pJ
inciple
is exenlplified in every stage of the history of theology. Those-
not even to investigate their expressed dogmatic belief-who were
taught to equally worship the mysterious Three into \Vhose single
Divine N aIne they had been baptized,-to look on thenl habitually
as Protecting Powers equally because infinitely aþove them, sepa-
rate in their special titles, offices, and agency, and so a real Three,
yet One (as the very act of supreme Worship implied) in the One
Godhead,-would probably see little in even that elaborate Creed
beyond the careful intellectual exhibition of the truths necessarily
involved in that Worship. They would easily see that to contradict
explicitly any proposition of that Creed 'would be directly or indi-
rectly to deny tbe faith; while at the same tinle they may have
held, as the infinite lllajority of the Christian world have since held,
the pure faith of Father, Son, and floly Ghost, without perpetually
retaining a distinct explicit recollection of all the separate proposi-
tions that Creed contains. In fact, may we not be justified in say-
ing, that that adnlÌraLle Syulbol-itself mnong the most precious
dUCUlnents in the archives of the Church-is in its very nature ad-

LETT. v.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

221

the certainty of this proposition, expressed or implied
as it is in every page of the apostolic "\vritings. And

dressed to a class whose intellectual powers are cu1tivated? It is,
in truth, only such who can understand the very import of several
of its terms. This does not make it either less true in itself, or less
necessary for those in view of whose mental needs it exists; but
surely such a consideration implies this at least, that whatever it
added to the original belief was not absolutely but relatively neces-
sary; in short, that that creed gives us, as it were, the intellectual
edition of the doctrine held from the beginning-the doctrine ex-
pressed (as mathenlaticians say) "in terms of" the pure intellect.
It would probably illustrate this process if anyone were to reflect
upon the quantity of minute and refined thought, and the extreme
accuracy of expression, required to fix and secure, so as at once to
discriminate them from all rival hypotheses, some of those elemen-
tary and fundanlental notions of simple Theism, which yet no one
doubts to be the real belief, not merely of all classes of Christians,
but of the greater portion of the civilized world. For example, to
fix the precise and formal notion of Creation out of Nothing (so as
to distinguish it absolutely from, e. g., the hypothesis of Emana-
tion); to state the precise relation of the Divine Power to the
Divine Rectitude,-such, that the Almighty God can never do but
what is right; to deliver with an accuracy liable to no evasion the
exact relation of the Divine OU1nipotence and Goodness to the ex-
istence of l\Ioral Evil, &c. On all such subjects every ordinary
Christian has a sufficiently decisive practical belief, a belief which
would at once be shocked by any express assertion of its contradic-
tory: he tells you, "God made all things frOIl! nothing;" "God
can never do wrong;" "God makes no man sin, it is the Devil who
tempts him, it is man's own corrupt choice to do evil:" and yet it
is easy to conceive how very different an aspect these simple but
profound truths would assunle in an Atlzanasian Creed of Theism;
how novel n1ight appear doctrines, before almost too universaHy
recognised to be laboriously insisted on, if it became necessary to
exhibit them guarded at all points against the subtlety of some
Arius or Sabellius of Natural Theology.
I need not add, that the saIne general principle (of the distinction

222

ON THE DEVELOP:\IENT OF

[LETT. V'

therefore 'v hatever e1'TO'J>S are alleged [a disputed mat-
ter of fact, into ,vhich I do not no,v enter at g all] to
occur in exta.nt remains of Ánte- Nicene Teachers, eitllm>
did not affect necessary doctrine on the Divine Nature,
or ,vas a departure from thé apostolic Teaching and
the previous belief of the Church, for 'v hich those
Teachers alone are ans,verable. And further (as in-
sisted on below), if the alleged errors did affect neces-
sary doctrine (or indeed if they ,vere errors of any

between the be1ief of truths and the accurate and scientific state-
ment of them against all direct and indirect impugners,) applies to
all the maxilTIs of the practical life. A perfect system of ethical
principles would be the Athanasian Creed of that common morality
,vhich every good ma.n already acknowledges and exemplifies.
g It must be remembered (so far as the matter of fact is con-
cerned), that on this point 1\Ir. Newman differs frolll, with a few
remarkable exceptions, the divines reputed soundest in his own
communion as well as in our's, and in substance agrees with the
Arians; between whose judgment of the Ante-Nicene Fathers and
that of
Ir. Newman there appears no material difference, except
that the latter carefully prefixes the title Saint before the Teachers
w hose dangerous errors he exposes, and adds a solemn disavowal of
any imputation that they 'ineant the heresies he cites them as ex-
p7'esszng.
In a question of Criticism, which must stand on its own merits,
it would be unfair to prejudge the case fronl its .supporters; it is
not unfair, however, but both just and In1portant, to direct atten-
tion, to this instance among Inany, of the unfortunate tendency of
Roman Controversy, which makes it, in every step but its last, exert
an the powers of reasoning and erudition to do the work of either
absolute Infidelity or of the 1110re qualified unbelief of the Arian or
Socinian. Everyone knows that the work of the Ron1an Divine whose
views 1\11'. Newlnan here adopts, has been, ever since its appearance,
the arsenal of Arian polelnics; and there is no reason to doubt that
his own volu111e will in due time share the honour. Can he really

LETT. v.]

CIUUSTIAN DOCTRIXE.

223

ill1 portance in any vie,v), their existence uncorrected
for so protracted a period is absolutely fatal to the
ROlDan theory of Infallibility, unless on the supposition
that the infallible Spirit never instructs except by
Universal Councils, a supposition which ,vould involve
the ROlnan Church in hopeless embarrassment,-inl-
plying, for exalnple, that 'fransubstantiation anù Pur-
gatory \yere Inere current conjectures, destitute of all
divine sanction, until the thirteenth and fifteenth cen-
turies. I observe,-

imagine that, so far as his staten1ents have any effect at all, the Ina-
jority of his readers will not rise from then1 'rather persuaded that
the Doctrine of the Trinity is either non-essential or altogether
post-scriptural, than induced to become ROD1anists in order to be-
lieve it? Indeed, unless strangely short-sighted, they will see that
the latter course would be far the more illogical of the two; they
,vill conclude (what
Ir. Newman altogether evades), that such
error and such uncertainty, for three hundred long and important
years of the Church-error and uncertainty which were at last (if
even then) tenninated, not by any spontaneous act of the Church
itself-its only great act of that kind (at Antioch) was, it seen1S, a
blunder, p. 13-but by the incidental excitement of a particular
heresy arousing the incidental interference of a Civil Sovereign,
who required a Council to be held to restore unanin1ity-that such
facts as these are utterly incon1patible with the Ronlan doctrine of
absolute and pel']Jetual infallible guidance! And this is, of course,
the true reason why the ROll1an theologians in general have shrunk
from adopting the desperate and self-destructive tactics of Petavius
and his followers.
It is perhaps worth adding here, with regard to Petavius, that
Kelson tells us (" Letters to a P. Priest"), Bossuet had informed
hin1 that Petavius altered and retracted before his death. Nelson
even speaks of some" edition" in which this was done. Anlong the
Illuititude of ROl11an defences of the Ante-Nicene orthodoxy, the
reader may be refërred to the ardent vindication of Le N ourry ;
Apparat. ad Bibliotll. JIa:c. P P. [Paris. 1703. -G.]

224

ON THE DEVELOP)IENT OF

[IIETT. V.

4. That the function of the early Councils h ,vas,
ho,vever, a very Ï1nportant one-naJnely, to define 're-
ceived doctrine, to elucidate obscu/red doctrine, to con-
demn false doctrine. But it ,vas not to reveal i new doc-
trine. This is established: From the very object and
occasion of their doctrinal definition8, the suppression
of a heresy, ,vhich presupposes an ante'rior truth de-
parted fro In , and requiring to be restated. 2. From
their o,vn express declarations, in ,vhich they allege
(and, if infallible, cannot have falsely alleged) their
objects to be exclusively as above, and distinetly, in
their very condemnation of all novelties as false, dis-
avo,v any mysterious faculty of evolving truths sub-
stantially ne,v. 3. Fron1 the entire tenor of their pro-
ceedings, and the argulnents on which their conclu-
sions ,vholly rest, which are al,vays the 'Vritten ,V ord,
and the continuous Belief of the Churches; both of
then} available only to fix doctrine already revealed, or

h [For a silnilar vie,v of the functions of the early Councils, see
Bishop Taylor's Diss., p. 270, et seqq.; Archbishop Laud Against
Fishel', pp. 25, 26. (Oxf. 1839); Leslie, JJTorks,. Vol. iii. p. 248.
(Oxf. 1832); and for a statement of the manner in which the pri-
mitive Creed may legitimately be enlarged, not to declare new
credenda, but to guard the essentials of the Faith against the per-
versions of heretics, see 'Vaterland, 1f"ol'ks, VoL iii. p. 254, et seqq.
See also S. Athanasius, Treatises a[JaÏ1 i st Arianism. Oxford Trans.
pp. 80, 81.J
i [Thus S. Athanasius, speaking of the Nicene Fathers: "About
the Faith they wrote not, 'it seen1ed good as follows,' but' thus
believes the Catholic Church;' and thereupon they confessed how
the Faith lay, in order to show that their own sentiments were not
novel but Apostolical; and what they wrote down was no discovery
of their's, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles."-Treatises
against Arianism. Oxf. Trans. p. 80.J

LETT. v.]

CHHISTIAN DOCTRINE.

225

to ground logical inferences therefrom, so far as 111ight
seem expedient; but neither of them capable of being
thus made tlte entire and exclusive SOU1-ces of evidence to
a Council met to receive and issue ne,v revelations.
Thus, the FIRST, the Council of Nice, declares (Epist.
Synod.) [Concill. Gen. i. 31-2. Romæ, 1608.-G.] that
it has" anathen1atized all these tenets [of Arius], not
enduring so n/;uch as to listen to such impious senti-
ments, and such madness, and such blasphemous say-
ings;" a tolerably clear intimation of the instantaneous
perception of its error ,vith 'v hich the Bishops met the
ne,v heresyk. And when deciding a dispute about

k I cannot here in fairness omit an argument of l\Ir. Newman's,
wbose force, as I am sincerely perplexed to determine even its
Ineaning, I must leave to some more sagacious reader fully to ap-
preciate. "It is plain," he says (p. 344), "that what the Chris-
tians of the first ages anathematized, included deductions from the
Articles of Faith, that is, developments, as well as those Articles
themselves. For since the reason they commonly gave for using
the anathema was that the doctrine in question v
'as strange and
startling, it follows that the truth 'lchich u.,'as its contradictory had also
been unknown to them hitherto; which is also shown by their tempo-
rary perplexity, &c." Probably there are few things which would
"startle" us more than to hear a preacher from his pulpit gravely
lay down and argue the proposition that there is no God; how
triumphant, according to this principle (if I indeed understand it),
would be his rejoinder, that the very intensity of our shock proved
the depth of our Atheism, demonstrating clearly that the being of
a God was "unknown to us hitherto I"
The ignorance inlputed to the orthodox in these loose, incautious
,vords, would, of course, apply only to the case of some very remote
and curious deduction; but as such an error is the very last that
could be described as peculiarly" startling," I am still somewhat
puzzled to harmonize 1\11'. N eW111an'S meaning. This uncertainty i

increased by the fact that the expressions apparently cited to prove
Q

226

ON THE DEVELOP:L\IENT OF

[LETT. V.

ecclesiastical prerogative in a Canon!, 'v hich has since
indirectly becolne of much controversial inlportance,
they lay do,vn, as every oue will remelnber, their me-
morable n1axim, ,vhich I presume it ,viII hardly be
said was lll0re applicable to a question of discipline
than to a fundamental of the Faith,-" Let tbe ancient
customs be maintained." Of the Creed of Nice and
the subsequent completion at Constantinople, it has
been sho,vn, t11at every single expression is contained
either in previous Creeds, or in other authentic re-
cords, antecedent to the Council m ; the llomo-ousios
itself \vas a term in received use, and other phrases
fully equivalent to it are easily adducible.
The SECOND, the Council of Constantinople, declares n ,
in reporting its proceedings to the En1peror, (Epist.
Synod.) that it has "pronounced SOlne short defini-
tions ratifying the faith of the Nicene Fathers, and
anathematizing the heretics who have sprung up con-
trary to it;" and in its Canons pronounces, that "the
faith of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers as-
sembled at Nicæa in Bithynia is not to be made void,
but shall continue established, and that every heresy
shall be anathematized, especially those of the Euno-
mians, Semiarians, Sabellians, &c."-Canon 1.
The THIRD, the Council of Ephesus, proclaims

the" perplexity" of the reprovers of the heresies (which indeed
alone ,vouid be in point), "who ever heard the like 1" &c., most
distinctly evince that there was no perplexity at all.
I [Can. vi.-G.]
m The reader may consult a very learned and useful digest of this
evidence in the Oxford Translation of Tertullian, p. 490.
n [Concill. Gen. i. pp. 86, 87.-G.]

LETT. V.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

227

(Canon 7 )0, "that no person shall be allo,ved to pro-
pose, or to \vrite, or to conlpose, any other Creed besides
that which was settled by tile holy Fathers ,vho ,,"'ere
assembled in the city of Nicæa ,vith the Holy Ghost."
Aud it denounces deposition against any cleric, and
anathema against any laic, who shall dare to do so.
And, like the Council to ,vhich it appeals, it decides
the claims of Provinces, by that ,vhich "has been
heretofore, and from the beginning."-Canon 8.
The FOURTH, the Council of Chalcedon, declaring
(Defin. of Faith in Act. v.) that" our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ confirrned the knowledge of the Faith to
His disciples," but that" sOITIething new had been in-
vented against the truth," pronounces that it "'l'eneu.s
the 1.('ner1
ing faith of the Fathers, by publishing to all
the Creed of the Three Hundred and Eighteen, and
adding to thenl as of the same fanlily the Fathers who
llave received the same form of religion, and particu-
larly those Hundred and Fifty who assenlbled in the
great city of Constantinople, and ratified the same
Faith." And it subjoins the rel11arkable expressions,
that" this ,vise and saving Creed of the Divine Grace
ltould be sufficient for the .full acknou;ledg1Tlent and con-
firllzation of the ttrue religion; for it teaches completely
tIle perfect doctrine concerning the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit, and fully explains the Incarnation
of the Lord to those ,vho endeavoured to make void

o [The first six Canons are decisions contained in a circular
Epistle written by the Ephesine Council. (ubi sup. p. 499.) What
is called the seventh Canon is the Decretum de Fide, p. 442; and the

ighth, which is found elsewhere, (497.) is a Synodical determina-
tion relative to the Bishops of Cyprus.-G.]
Q2

228

ON THE DEVELOP1tiENT O:F

[LETT. V.

the preaching of the truth p , some daring to corrupt
the rnystery of the Lord's Incarnation for us q , and
refusing to the Virgin the appellation of Theotocos,
others bringing in a confusion and mixture, &c.; there-
fore, the present holy, great, and CEcumenical Synod,
wishing to shut out all devices against the truth, and
to teach the doctrine u.hich has been unalterably held
from the beginning, has in the first place decreed that
the faith of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers
should remain free from assault. Further, on account
of those ,vho in later times have contended against

II [Þ
..s the translation of this passage is not correctly set down, it
may be well to give the Latin version from Sirmondus. (ii. 315.)
"Sufficeret quidem, ad plenam cognitionem et confirmationem pie-
tatis, hoc sapiens et salutare divinæ gratiæ Symbolum; de Patre
enim, et Filio, et Spiri tu Sancto perfectionelll docet, ac Domini
nostri inhumanationem fideliter accipientib'lls re]Yræsentat. Sed quoniam
hi qui veritatis reprobare prædicationem conantur, per proprias
hæreses novas [vanas] voces genuerunt; alii quidem mysteriunl dis-
pensationis [OiKoVopiaf;]] Domini, quæ propter nos facta est, corrun1-
pere præsumentes . . . . et confirmat doctrinam, quæ de substantia
Spiritus Sancti à Patribus centum quinquaginta postea congregatis
in regia civitate tradita est, propter illos qui Spiritui Sancto repug-
nabant: quam illi omnibus notam fecerunt, non quasi aliquid de-
esset prioribus adjicientes, sed sutlm de Sancto Spiritu intellectum,
contra illos qui dominationem Ejus respuere tentaverunt, Scriptura-
rum testimoniis declarantes."-G.J
q Few of my reasons will require to be reminded ho,v clearly this
clause gives the true ground of the controversy about the title
theotocos, the security, namely, of the single Personality. of Christ,
as against the gross disingenuousness (for they cannot be ignorant

* [U Quoniam, ut supra dictum est, jam in ejus sacrato utero sacrosanctum illud
mysterium perpetratum est, quod propter singularem quandam atque unicam Per-
80næ unitatem., sicut Yerbum in carne caro, ita homo in Deo Deus est." (Vincent. Lir.
Adt'er$. Hæres. fo1. 21, a. Conf. fo1. 16, b. Paris. 1561.)-G.]

LETT. v.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

229

the Holy Spirit, it confirnls the doctrine concerning
the substance of the Spirit ,vhich \vas delivered by the
hundred and fifty holy Fathers who \vere asseln bled
in the royal city, which they published, not as adding
any thing t!tat was wanting to the things which they had
before received, but declaring by written testin10nies
their sentiments concerning the 1Ioly Spirit against
those \vho endeavour to destroy IIis dominion." And
they then proceed to refer to the ne\v heresy imme-
diately before theln ; and sanction with their conciliar
authority the Letters of Cyril and Leo as orthodox
expressions of the truth. Defining their beliefr, they
declare that" \ve following the holy FatheTs, all with
one consent teach men to confess, &c. Even as the
Prophets from the beginning have declared concern-
ing Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Hi1nselJ hatl

taught us, and the Creed of the Holy Fathers has deli-
vered to us." In their Canons B they pronounce that
"the Canons \vhich have been issued by the IIoly
Fathers in each Synod up to the present tirae should
continue in force." -Canon 1. And in giving Constan-
tinople equal privileges \vith Rome, each declared to
be exalted silnply on the ground of its political posi-

of the real state of the case) of the Roman Controversialists in ge-
neral. J\Ir. Newman, in his mysterious way, talks somewhere in his
volume of this phrase as being the greatest addition ever made to the
Christian belief. What he means I cannot pretend even to conjecture.
r [Ut sup. p. 316.-G.]
II [Concill. Genet'. ii. 409, 414.-Canon xxviii. has not been in-
serted in the Codex of Dionysius Exiguus; (p. 133. Lut. Paris.
1609.) and tbe fraudulent omission of it was continued by Isidorus

Iercator, (1Ierlini Cone. Tom. i. fol.lxxiv. Colon. 1530.) and others.
{Bp. Barlow's Brutum Fulmen, p. 64. Lond. 16Sl.)-G.J

230

ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF

[LETT. V.

tion, they repeat that they "fòllow in all things the de-
cisions of the holy Fathers."-Canon 28.
Such are the grounds upon ,vhich the first four
<Ecumenical Councils professed to proceed. The reader
,viII decide ,vhether a n10dern theologian's opinion of
their function, or their own conception of it, has the
better claim to acceptance. He will reflect, too, whe-
ther if, in incorporating substantially new elements
into the body of the Faith (by ,vhich I Inean elements
as new in their nature as Purgatory, or Virgin 'V orship,
or the like, which alone ,viII ans,ver the requirelnents
of this argument), they imagined themselves to be only
re-stating and defining the Church's primitive belief,-
whether if they thus palpably n1isapprehended their
o\vn ,vork, and really dre,v conclusions "\vhich confute
their o,vn declared principle, their decisions in any
point of view can continue any longer to be regarded
as of moment.
It would be needless to allege citations to the san1e
effect from subsequent Councils; the same general
principl
s will be found decisively avo,ved in them
also; urged indeed ,vith such pertinacity, that even
,vhen (as at 2 Nice) an error rnost perilous and prac-
tically debasing to the character of Christian 'V orship
received sanction, it ,vas under the mistaken pretext of
t'l'adition it was established; anJ the occasion above all
others on which a claim of the prerogative of expound-
ing old doctrine into ne,v revelation ,vonld have been,
in the 111anifest default of Scripture \varrant, the most
convenient and appropriate, happens to be above all
others the occasion on 'v hich traditional evidence ,vas
most strenuously celebrated. Centuries after, in the

LETT. V.]
Florentine Synod of the Fifteenth Age, the ,vhole ques-
tion of the legitinlacy of additions to the Creed ,vas
ardently contested; abundant InelTIOrials of the discus-
sions renlain; and it is most observable that no ap-
proach seen1S to have been even then 111ade by the acute
and able lTIanagers of the controversy for the Latin
Church, to,vards hazarding the clainl no,v advanced or
insinuated in its behalf.
5. It Juay nevertheless be fairly anticipated, that the
Resolutions of Councils ,viII in thefornt and disposition
of the doctrine differ considerably froln the arrange-
ments and expressions of Holy Scripture. For, mani-
festly, the Council's statelnent of n1ere Scripture could
effect no more than the Scripture itself had effected;
and had the Scripture expressions availed to prevent
dissension, no Council would have been held at all
And, therefore, it must be the very scope of the Council
to express the ancient truth, not in the ancient ,vords,
but in that special form which shall directly meet the
modern error t . And it nlay be added, that, in ,vhat-

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

231

t Which will naturally lead to a peculiarly-probably an 'llnpre-
ceclenteclly-clistinct expression of tbe orthodox belief on the con-
tested point. And thus the remarkable words of S. Paul (" there
nlust be heresies among you, that they which are approved may be
made manife.st," 1 Cor. ix. 19.) are almost as applicable to the in-
direct influence of heresy in bringing the received doctrine, as in
bringing its defenders, into clearer manifestation.
Everyone will reInenlber how eal'nestIy St. Athanasius* assures
us that the Nicene Council desi'red to 'Use the simple expressions of
Scripture, with simple negations of the Arian forms [T
S' uvvóêov
ß ,\' , , .... ' A " " , ß ' i\ 't: ' i\ ,... ,
OV/\'OftEV1jS' TaS' !lEV TWV pEtaVWV T'JS' CLUE ElaS' E
Elr; aVE EtV, Tar;

,.... rf..." ot i\ ' C ot '\ ' G] rf...' ,
("E TWV t'/pa'j-'wv O/W O,O}tEvaS' OP,O/\'O"'{ovftEvaS'- . 'j-'wvaS' t:'/pCL'Þ'at,

* [Episf. de Deer. Sic. Syn. Opp. i. i. p. 224. edit. Bened.-G.]

232

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETT. v.

ever degree the error is one ,vhich rather contradicts
inferences from Scripture, or from the common Formu-
lary of the Church's belief, than the very ,vords of
either; in the same degree ,ve lllust expect that the
Council, to meet that false inference, shall have to put
forth decisions which shall themselves be inferences
also, and which therefore ,viII appear still more removed
from the ipsissirna verba of Scripture, or the very and
actual phraseology habitual in t}le Church. Nay, fur-
ther, it is very possible and natural, when \ve consider
the great amount of reflection devoted to the subject at
issue, the earnest anxiety for correctness, and the varied
gifts called into action, that a Council should, ill the
discharge of its office, come, by God's providence, to
presen t Christian Doctrine in new aspects and relations
of great interest; even as by the same Divine blessing
elninent Teachers in all ages have in their individual
labours more or less achieved the san1e object, and
brought the "new" as well as "the old" out of their
treasures. It being still understood, that neither did
the said Councils, however venerable, ever claim, nor
do we concede to them, any absolute authority for such
new aspects and relations of old Doctrine, except so far
as the same may be justified upon intelligible grounds

IC. 'T. À. J; but ,vere necessitated [
VCl,r'lKáO"e1JO"av] to use this peculiar
test-term [ÈK 7

ovO"ía
J, in order to avoid evasion. It seeD1S the
Council was so little aware of its high function of infallibly deve-
loping. Scripture into new doctrine-of completing the 111ystery of
the Trinity" beyond the feeble rudimental conceptions of S. J ohn,-
that it considered the Doctrine it declared to require no positive ex-
pressions but those of Holy 'Vrit; negative expressions must of
course be 8S numerous as the heresies that evoke them.

LETT. v.]
of deduction fronl the priulitive articles of the Faith,
and by the ,varrant of I-Ioly Scripture u .
6. But I think I am justified in adding, that, fron1 the
general pro1l1ise of peculiar fa v our to all united Chris-
tian labours, afartlzer special measure of Divine bless-
ing may be reverently anticipated for such Councils
(as contrasted ,vith rnere individual research), ,vhen
a.ssen1bled under just conditions,-for example, as to
occasion, (\vhen their interposition seelns urgently de-
manded by the conjuncture); as to iU1jJartiality (,vhen
the whole Church is honestly invited, and candidly
heard); as to object, (the restoration of obscured or im-
perilled truth); as to 1/zotive, ('v hen the greater glory
of God is disinterestedly sought). And that these cha-
racteristics (even should some al1o\\
anee be required

CHRISTL.\.:8 DOCTRINE.

233

u The office of the rulers of the Christian Church in relation to
Doctrine seems to be clearly exhibited in the remarkable passage,
Ephes. iv. 11-16. Their objects are to be, the attainment of the
Unity in Faith and Knowledge, which is the proper perfection of
the Body of Christ,-the measure of the stature of His fulness
(verse 13); the protection of the sin1ple from deceptive teaching
(ver. 14); and so, the increase of the Body itself edified in love
(ver. 15, 16). The passage probably involves reference to a conti-
nued n1Ïnistry (the general lp"Iov ÐtaKOVlaf!: of verse 12), from the
continuance (P.ÉXPl) of the object to be realized; and indeed the
very offices specified in verse II seem to be in substance perpe-
tuated in the Bishops, eminent Doctors, l\Iissionaries, Parochial
Clergy, and School-Instructors of a modern fully organized Church.
It is, in this view of the passage, renlarkable how purely nlinisterial
and conservative is the dognlatic function here described; "the
faith" (emphatically" the faith") and the knowledge are manifestly
presupposed; it is the unity of doctrine, and the prevention of no-
velties, and the edifying of the growing Body, which are exhibited
as the chief aiD1 of " the stewards of the mysteries of Christ."

234

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETT. V.

for human infirn1ity)
eem on the ,vhole to belong- to
the early Councils, and fully justify the respect in ,vhich
they have ever been held by the universal Church.
\Vhile the same characters seem grievously lacking in
those later asselllblies of the Papal obedience, in ,vhich
(not to speak of rnotives) the occasion was often an ima-
ginary necessity; the partiality manifest, a large por-
tion of the Church being ,vholly unrepresented; and
the object (though this indeed ,vas never distinctly
avowed, so ,vholly modern is the new system that as-
sun1es it), not the elucidation or recovery of primitive
truth, but the establishn1ent of superadded doctrines,
and tbe unjust and tyrannical eXCOlTIlllUnication of those
,vho questioned them. That, consequently, ,ve cannot,
on the same grounds, anticipate any peculiar blessing
as attaching to these assen) blies.
But even beyond this strong claÏ1n to our respect,
those ,vho maintain (a question I do not no,v specially
discuss) that the Lord 11lUSt be understood to have
pledged Hilllself in His prolnises to the preservation of
all necessary doctrine in the Church-all such doctrine
as is necessary to the Being of the Church-,vill natu-
rally regard the early Councils as specially under pro-
vidential control w in fixing and confirming it ; and ,vill,

W \Vhich yet, it must be carefully remembered, is altogether dis-
tinct from infallibility. The special providential control here in-
tended, is that which may be properly conceived to guide the steps
of any manifest instrun1ent in the hands of God for lllaintaining or
recovering Divine truth-an Athanasius, for example, or an Augus-
tine. A Council is, in this respect, but a sort of COllJo'l'ate A thana-
sius, or Augustine; meeting in the san1e unpresumptuous depen-
dence on Divine assistance in which they wrote; with, of course (as

LETT. V.]

CHRISTIAN nOCTRI
E.

235

on this account, give their decisions a Ineasure of con-
sideration to \v hich later Synods can nlake no preten-
sions. But in such an inference, it IlIUst be still reIn em-
bered that the Council is presumed to have enjoyed
this degree of Divine favour because the doctrine is,
on distinct grounds, kno,vn to be fundamental and true,
not the doctrine kno,vn to be either true or fundamen-
tal, simply because the Council has so declared it. In
order to deduce the latter proposition froln the original
priuciple (of the covenanted preservation of all neces-
sary doctrine), the reasoner \vould be forced to assume

already observed), an additional degree of encouragement in the
pron1Ïse of peculiar blessing to united endeavours, but still an addi-
tional degree only. It is neces8ary to insist on this; for the confu-
sion between a just !tope of God's special assistance in the greater
matters of a Council, and a gift of inherent and absolute infallibility
in all ll1atters, great and snlall, is the source of endless fallacies in
the ROluish controversies about Church authority in matter of
Faith; arguments which really conclude for the probability of the
former, being hastily conceived to make the latter certain.
Should a luan argue that so far as the Church's retention of truth
absolutely necessary and fundamental was 1'eally dependent on the
decision of the Council of Nice (a matter fully known to God alone),
a holy confidence is justifiable that God would not suffer it to go
astray, I have no desire to contest an assertion which comes recom-
mended by nlany consoling probabilities. But it must be renIem-
bered that the same gift of inerrability, under the same limitations,
would belong to any Divine instrun1ent, whether body or individual,
on whom the sallIe tremendous i8sue was permitted to rest; and that
it would require a vision beyond n1an's to convert this hypothetical
confidence into an absolute rule of Faith.
IIow far divine promises to " the Church" can be considered pro-
luises to Councils of its prelates, the reader will find very acutely
canvassed in Dean Sherlock's "Discourse concerning the Nature,
&c., of the Catholic Church."

236

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETT. V.

that God 11as tied IIim self to the exclusive means of a
Council so and so constituted, in order to signify and
to Inaintain fundamental truth; an arbitrary supposi-
tion, altogether destitute of proof, besides being fatal
(when \ve ren1en1ber the sn1all nUlnber and the long
in tervals of even all the reputed General Councils) to
that security of continuous doctrine ,vhich yet is the
very principle of the ,vhole argun1ent. It may be
asked, then, whether we do not, in this. account of the
respect due to the greater Councils (froln their provi-
dential office of fixing and fortifying fundamental truth),
take away with one hand ,vhat we give ,vith the other?
By no means; for it is unquestionable that a man ,vho
believes a certain doctrine (as the Trinity) fundalnen-
tal, and sees plainly that a Council (as that of Nice or
the other Trinitarian Councils) ,vas providentially em-
ployed as the main instrument in securing it, \vill justly
attach a peculiar degree of veneration to its labours;
and exactly as ,ve do in the case of all eminent indivi-
dual servants of God-an analogy often luminous in
the obscurities of this controversy-will regard its de-
cisions as coming ,vith a certain special presumption
in their favour, a presumption of great force to minds
of hunÜlity and prudence, in many points \vhere he
cannot readily follo,v the logical grounds on ,vhich the
decision ,vas originally made. On the precise amount
of this special presumption it is quite impossible to lay
do\vn any universal rule; quite as impossible as in the
parallel instance of high individual authority. But
while of course it could not (were there any real oppo-
sition of the t'vo) for a Inoment stand against any ex-
press declaration of the ,vritten "T or
, of 'v hose meaning

LETT. v.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

237

,ve could properly consider ourselves perfectly certain,
it n1ay yet exert a legitinIate and most valuable prac-
tical influence in strengthening and tranquilizing the
inquirer's belief. The recognition of this just clainl
of the early ecclesiastical decisions on fundamental
doctrine (their disciplinary vie,vs are essentially vari-
able ,vith circumstances and tiDIes) to deep respect and
gratitude, constitutes indeed the chief element of ,vhat
is rightly understood by a "Catholic" spirit in theology;
a phrase ,vhich, though it has been, and continues to
be, beyond all others, nIisapplied in one direction or
other, does not therefore cease to possess a real, and
intelligible, and important meaning.
"\Vith regard, then, on the ,vhole, to the ancient
digests of Christian Doctrine, ,vhether by collective
Councilor individual rreacher,-,vhell ,ve shall have
set apart this peculiar species of authority on which I
have just spoken, arising out of character and provi-
dential position, and real in its nature though hardly
definable in its degree,-,ve shall probably perceive that
the controversy truly at issue resolves itself into tvvo
questions, one regarding the Obligation, and the other
the }'Iatter, of these dogulatic decisions. 1. Is there
any absolutely binding authority for those systeillatic
exhibitions of Christian Doctrine beyond the authority
due to a just and appropriate ,york of hUlnan Reason,
making its comparisons, combinations, and deductions
in dependence on God, and for the general benefit of
the Church? 2. Can these rnore methodical foriTIs of
primitive belief ever rightly include any addition to the
original deposit, of essential doctrine before substantially
unknolcn; or any addition at all but that ,vhich is ob-

238

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETT. v.

tained by the ordinary processes of reasoning, and in
\vhich every step of the process in each case is capable
of being exhibited and tested by the universal canons
of legitin1ate inference? These are the points really
at issue; and on \vhich, as on the one hand nothing
approaching satisfactory proof has been offered for the
Affirmative (\vhich Affirmative, even if granted, ,vould
but rentotely prepare the ,yay for the theory of ROITlanislTI
no,v before us), so on the other, the adoption of the
Negative (which must be absolutely fatal to that theory)
does not appear to deprive the Anglican theologian of
one item of the interest or utility tbat belongs to the
historical study of theology; '\vhile it certainly releases
him froln numerous and complicated embarassments
under ,vhich the opposite hypothesis labours in the
attelnpt to n1ake it quadrate with the actual facts of
history.
On the nature of this ,vhole work of systen
atizing
and applying doctrine, by the Synods and Doctors of
the Church, ,vhich seems to be the reality of that vague,
unlimited process of innovation ,vhich the present au-
thor disguises under the term Development, and on the
circumstances under ,vhich it takes rise, I should be
glad to hazard SOlne additional observations; indeed
they are the natural complement of the statement I
have already offered. But I must not intrude further
for the present.

I am, my dear Sir,
Your's fai thf ull y,
'V. ARCHER BUTLER.

LETT. VI.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

239

LErrTER 'T I.

.

DEAR SIR.,

You have reminded me that I o,ve the
balance of an account still undischarged to your read-
ers. I had desisted from prolonging these criticisms,
partly because I thought it hardly \varrantable to con-
tinue Inaking so disproportioned a demand on your
space; and partly, too, I may perhaps pardonably con-
fess, because the argument itself under revie,v, the
more it ,vas reflected on, really seelned n10re and Inore
such as Inight be safely left ,vithout detailed reply.
The yery slight amount of controversy (slight, consi-
dering the ackllo,vledged ability and singular position
of its author) ,vhich the ,york has succeeded in pro-
ducing, now abundantly evinces that the general ver-
dict of the public is not far fron1 coinciding ,vith this
i111pression. Force of style ,vill al,vays produce a sort
of mechanical effect upon the imagination, but pre-
mises so manifestly devised to "argue a foregone con-
clusion," and on a principle so obviously applicable to
prove any conclusion, are not likely to give much dis-
turbance to those ,,-ho are not yet seduced into con-
ceiving the imagination, or those vague preferences

240

ON THE DEVELOP
IENT OF

[LETT. VI.

"rhich ,,-re are expected to dignify by the title of
"moral" inspirations, the suprenle arbiters in matter
of faith.
vVhile, however, this work can hardly be considered
as very formidable in its polemical aspect, the hypo-
thesis it advocates undoubtedly tends to suggest-as
anything froBl a mind so fertile and ingenious migh t
,veIl be expected to suggest-some very interesting
matters of considera.tion relative to the history of re-
vealed truth. Among them is that general question
about the process by which Christian doctrines have
becon1e gradually systmnatized a , to ,vhich, I believe, I
alluded at the close of my
ast communication, and on
which I shall now attelnpt to offer a fe\v remarks;
though the rene,ved consideration of it only impresses
more forcibly ho,v little my present limited space (not
to speak of limitations of knowledge and faculties
lnore difficult to be relnedied) allo,vs me to do justice
to such a topic, or even to my own Ï1nperfect notions
of it, peculiarly liable, as "\\Tould be even the most care-
ful and elaborate statements on so very delicate a sub-
ject, to misconception.
Before introducing this lnatter, let me, ho,vever,
make room for it, by again repeating the concession
often and cordially admitted or implied in my former
communications. I have no disposition to conceal or
question-
That theological knowledge is capable of a real
movement in time, a true successive history, through
the legitimate application of human reason. This

a [Vide S. Cyril. Oxford Translation, p. 58.]

LETT. VI.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINF.

241

lTIOVelnent 111ay probably be regarded as taking place
in t,vo principal ,vays :
The ./h'st is the process of logical develolJnuJnt b (a
very innocent term, ,vhich ,viII ans,ver as ,veIl as any
other) of primitive truth into its consequences c , con-
nexions, and applications; the 1'eality of that undefined,
irregular operation of feeling and conjecture by,vhich
the present author labours to account for innovations
,vhich can neither be deduced by reason, nor have
ever ,villingly recognised its authority.
The second is-positive discovery.
lembers of the
English Church ,vhich (by a strange dispensation of
Providence) has, since its lapse into" heresy," done
more to benefit Christianity in this ,yay than all others
put together, ,viII not find much difficulty in conceiv-
ing many classes of these precious gifts of God to IIis
Church conveyed through the ministration of human
sagacity. Such are-
Unexpected confirn1ations or illustrations of revealed
doctrine frorn ne,y sources; as from unobserved appli-
cations and collations of Holy Scripture; or from pro-
found investigations of natural religion, .and the phi-
losophy of 111orals, as in some parts of the researches
of Bishop ,,,.... arburton.
New proofs in support of the evidences of J'eligion ;
such as the conception and conlplete establishment of
the analogical argument by Bishop Butler, or the in-
vention and exquisite application of the test of unde-
signed coincidence by Paley.

b [That deductions from Scripture are as necessary as Scripture
itself for a cOD1plete Rule of Faith, see Jackson, Vol. iv. p. 399.J
C [Compo Field, Of the Chw'ch, Book iv. Ch. 12.]
H

242

ON THE DEVELOP1IENT OF

[ LETT. VI.

Discoveries regarding the flr11
and ci'pcllrnstances of
tlte revelation itself; such as those of Bishops Lo,vth
and Jebb on the remarkable structure of the poetical
and sententious parts of Holy Writ.
Discoveries of divine laws in the government of the
Church and world, so far as the same may lawfully be
collected by observation and theory.
Discoveries, through events disclosing the 'J1zeaning
oj"prophecy, or correcting erroneous interpretations of
Scripture. And others, either already exelnplified in
the history of divine learning, or which possibly may
still renlain unexplored and even uniInagined, designed
to reward the noble ambit
on of those ,vho shall yet
search for the "hid treasures" of ,visdom.
'Vhy IIuman Reason, which ,vill hardly be deemed
incompetent to the latter of these two divisions of
theological labour, should be so to the jO'l"Jner,. or
how the former process is not in fact performed by
uninspired faculties in every thoughtful preacher's
sermon; or how that which one thoughtful preacher
can do without inspiration, one Church may not do;
or how that which one Church may do, the 'v hole fa-
mily of Churches, the Catholic cOlnmunion, may not
do; or ho\v the latter reasonable supposition should
not, under divine Providencè, sufficiently account for
the history of dogmatic theology (besides, which is a
special advantage, accounting for the errors also), 1\Ir.
Ne\vman Inay perhaps some time or other find leisure
to inform us more distinctly.
l\Ieanwhile my immediate business is of course only
with that division of the general subject upon which
his treatise is engaged; the former of those specified

LETT. VI.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

243

above, and just no\v alluded to; that operation begin-
ning \vith the earliest times, and in all tin1es 1110re or
less actively Inanifested, by \vhich, under God's high
providence, divine truth is arranged, unfolded, applied,
by the natural faculties of that hUlnan Intelligence
which, hardly less than the human Affections, it \vas
no doubt designed to nourish, a\vaken, and de1ight.
And this \vill naturally justify a fe\v relnarks also on
the nature of the evidence for doctrine derivable froIn
the earlier records of this process. I trust I 111ay de-
pend upon the sagacity of your readers to see the in1-
portan t bearing of both those topics upon the theory
of
Ir. Ne,vman, and the logic of Roman controversy
in general.

I.-I. I think, then, it \vill be easily seen, that fro1l1
the very nature of the case it \vas unlikely that the
fornl of Christian doctrine should continue exactly the
saIne during the inspired and the subsequent unin-
spired period; that it \vas inevitable that a great
change should
in this respect, take place in the tran-
sition fro 111 direct divine instruction to the hUlnan
conception of revealed truth. It \vould seem that that
truth rnust, in the hands of its new trustees, acquire
more of a systen1atic shape. l\Ien \vho \yrite by iU1-
mediate inspired guidance are the last to feel the \vant
of a systelnatic organization of their convictions; their
beliefs being suggested and preserved to them under
direct divine operation, they are not personally sen-
sible of the need as other men. They ,vill probably
dra\v up and set forth for the benefit of others, some
brief collective statelnents of the capital truths of reli-
R2

244

ON THE DEVELOP
IENT OF

[LETT. VI.

gion, as ,ve see occasionally in the Epistles of St. Paul
(such as 1 Cor. xv. 3-8; 1 Tin1. iii. 16; Phil. ii. 6-11) ;
or, as ,vas exhibited in that COlnmon original-what-
ever it ,vas, if not a portion of the Apostles' Creed
itself-frolTI which all the first summaries of the faith
seem to have been derived; but they ,viII not be
pressed to do so by an interior necessity. "It is given
unto them ,vhat they shall speak," according as they
need it. But vvith the cessation of direct inspiration,
,vith the close of this exalted intimacy ,vith IIeaven,
another and an humbler state of t}lings inevitably
arises. The uninspired teacher ,vill soon come to feel
the necessity of some for'mql sche}ne of doctrines mutu-
ally related and rigorously defined, as a guide to his
teaching. The Patriarchs, under supernatural guidance,
lllight go forth "not kno,ving whither they ,vent;"
the ordinary traveller requires a map of the country.
'Valking by his o\vn strength, the uninspired instructor
must have a staff to steady him; he ,vho could lean
wholly upon the everlasting arms was independent of
such aids. In this ,yay of reflection ,ve shall be led
to see that the religion Illust alnlost necessarily assume
more of a systematic and dogmatical exterior in the
keeping of uninspired men; and it is manifest the
process ,viII be accelerated according as it has to repel
heresy no longer by force of mere authority but by
allegation of proof, and according as, becoming diffused
among the cultivated and reflective classes, it has to
meet their intellectual needs.
On the other hand, this vie\v of the case tells against
the direct inspiration of the elaborate definitions of
doctrine that succeeded the original silnple abstracts

LETT. YI.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

245

of the faith. It cannot be denied that, though true
in substance, they are very unlike all the genuine
products of undoubted inspiration. Inspired teaching
(explain it ho\v \ve nlay) seen1S conlparatively indif-
ferent to ('v hat seeins to us so peculiarly important),
close logical connexion, and the intellectual symlnetry
of doctrines. Even in the Je\vish Church, \vhen it
began to outgro\v its old institutes, and already its
loftiest spirits caught the faint beams of the unrisen
Slln,-at a period when ,ve can hardly doubt that
nunlbers \vere busy upon the internal relations and
ulterior scope of the national doctrines (as indeed the
very 111ultitude and conlplication of their traditional
distinctions and decisions-a sort of scholastic theo-
logy in its o,vn ,vay-evinces), ho,v little do their
inspired instructors, the Prophets, Ininister to such a
craving. And the sanle general character is palpably
applicable to the instructions of the great Author and
lllodel of inspired teaching IIinlself, even ,vhen in some
cases (as in conference \vith the Scribes) a 111ethodical
deduction of doctrine lnight seem peculiarly adapted
to the conviction of IIis hearers. The necessity of
confuting gainsayers at times forced one of the greatest
of his inspired servants, St. Paul, to prosecute conti-
nuous arguilleut; yet even ,vith hÌ1n ho\v abrupt are
the transitions, ho\v intricate the cOl1nexion, ho\v nluch
is conveyed by asslunptions such as inspiration alone
can Inake \vithout any violation of the canons of rea-
soning-for \vith it alone assertion is argurnent; in
short, ho,v utterly unlike is the \v hole texture of his
exposition to the technical exactness of an ecclesias-
tical definition. The saIne nlay be said of some pas-

246

ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF

[LETT. VI.

sages of St. John, supposed to have been similarly
occasioned. Inspiration has ever left to human Reason
the filling up of its outlines, the careful connexion of
its more isolated truths; the t\VO are as the lightning
of Heaven, brilliant, penetrating, far-flashing, abrupt-
cOlnpared with the feebler but continuous illumination
of some earthly beacon.
But, as the inspired pron1ulgation of truth, on the
one hand, and its reduction to methodical system, and
translation into a more scientific phraseology, on the
other, h01vever different in dignity, have both their
uses, so I imagine that a little reflection 1vill show it
more beneficial that the unscientific statements should
come first, and the precise logical version of then) in its
due tilne after1vards. And for this plain reason, that
the logical phraseology is absolutely worthless except
so far as its lneaning is absolutely certain, and only
thus (so far as 1ve can see), could its 1neaning be J]laced
beyond doubt. It is by recalling the history and scope
of the heresies that the true import of the orthodox
fixation of doctrine is ascertained; any other Inode of
deternlining ,vhich (as by etymology, popular usage,
&c.) would have been undoubtedly found as unsatis-
factory as in the parallel inquiries into the precise
meaning of IllaDY of the technical terms of ancient phi-
losophy or la1v. Can ,ve doubt that had St. Paul, for
example, originally, and prior to an controversy, de-
livered some sentences of the Nicene or Athanasian
creeds in his Epistles, the lneaning of these sentences,
,vhich no,v, discerned in the Ijght of the controversy
that produced then., appears so unquestionable, \vould
}1aye been, subsequently to the A postle's clay, disputed

LETT. VI.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRISE.

247

by nUlnbers unwilling, in the pride of the sensual un-
derstanding, to accept the doctrine d . And then hardly
any conceivable remedy ,vould have ren1ained; for
,vhere should the guardians of the truth have found
plainer or preciser language to express it? At all
events since heresies, as predicted, ,vere sure to arise
(for the seeds of such are implanted in the perversity
of man), and since they ,vould have found little diffi-
culty in distorting any language that Inspiration had
adopted; it does not appear that Inspiration ,vould
have gained much by descending from its usual style,
which conveys the doctrine clearlyenough to those ,vho
are ,villing to receive it; ,vhile, through the interven-
tion of the heresies, the phraseology finally adopted by
common consent and authority, as best expressing the

d Even in
the Nicene Creed itself, there is a point which the
Honw-ousios is by some nlaintained to have left undetermined,.
though commonly supposed to imply it. The history of this dis-
pute, however, would, I conceive, only illustrate the main point
here insisted on (that controversy is almost indispensable for fixing
the sense of Church definitions); for the ambiguity seems to have
arisen from the distinction in question not having been prominent
in the controversy at the Nicene stage, and so overlooked.

* ["The true reason," sars 'Vaterland (Yolo i. 543-4), "why the Kicene Fathers
laid so great a stress upon the homo-ousion was 110t because this alone was sufficient
to make Father and Son one God, but because they could not be so without it.
'Op.oovuwç the Son must be, or he could not be God at all, in the strict sense; aud
yet, if he was barely óp.oovuwr;, like as one human person is to another, the two
would be two Gods. And, therefore, the Nicelle Fathers, not content to say only that
the Son is óp.oovuwç, insert likewise 'God of God, Light of Light, begotten,' &c.,
and 'of the substance of the Father;' and this they are known to have declared over
and oyer, to be 'without an.y dh'ision;' all which taken together expresses a great
deal more than óp.ooVulÜr; wouM do alone; and are, as it were, so many qualif)'ing
clauses, on purpose to prevent any such misapprehension and misconstruction, as the
worù might other,,- ise be liable to."]

248

ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF

[LETT. VI.

original truth, was placed beyond the possibility of mis-
conception. And thus both the depositories of doctrine
were suitably provided for. Scripture (in which there
are doubtless higher objects than 1nere perspicuity),
was left to its native a.nd transcendant style; eccle-
siastical definitions (in "\vhich the chief object is perspi-
cuity) were secured from Inisinterpretation by the only
infallible means for fixing their purport. 'fhe revela-
tion having been given by God hilnself, the rest of the
process was in His high overruling providence distri-
buted bet\veen the t\VO great parties of I-lis professing
servants; the false and disloyal, ,vho indirectly, by their
gainsayings, gave the impulse; the faithful and devoted,
\v ho to meet the attack ,vere led (and thus only, as I
have argued, could have been ,vith enduring benefit
led), to Inethodize e their beliefs, and fortify them at all
points against all assailants. It \vas after the Fall the
flan1Îng sword turned every way to guard the gates of
paradise, and prohibit the un\vorthy, ,vho had daringly
tampered ,vith its ICnow ledge, from tasting of its Life.
Heresyf-and that not the rapid, transitory, obscure

e [" Quid unquanl aliud Ecclesia Conciliorum decretis enisa est,
nisi ut quod antea simpliciter credebatur, hoc idem postea diligen-
tius crederetur r"- Vincent. Lirinens. (Adv. Hæres. c. 32.) ]
f [" As to the primitive Churches, their constant way was to en-
large their creeds in proportion to the growth of heresies; that so
every corruption arising to the Faith of Christ n1Ïght have an im-
mediate relnedy." "As n10re and nlore of the sacred truths, in
process of tinle, came to be opposed or called in question, so Creeds
have been enlarged in proportion."- 'V aterland, IV01-ks, ,-r 01. iii.
pp. 249-254. (Oxford, 1843.) C0111pare Beveridge, Codex Can. vincI.
Pl'oæmium, p. 25. (TVorks, 'T 01. xi. in Lib. of Anglo-Cat/wiie Theo-
logy.) ]

LETT. VI.]
heresy proper to the apostolic age, but a lllovement ex-
tensive, public, historical-was just the necessary pre-
liminary to the authoritative restatement of the funda-
Inentals of the faith. Nor was there any antecedent
probability that this seconùary ,york should either ,vait
for or receive inspiration, in the high and peculiar sense
of that gift; such paraphrases of divine utterances in
the feebler, cautious dialect of hU1l1an reason, are emi-
nently a ,york for man; God ,voldd be honoured in
the faculties that had offended IIin1; a sanctified use
of Reason ,vas the appropriate corrective of Reason
lnisused.
But no,v, though it be perfectly eyident that this
process of systelnatizing Divine Truth by Human Rea-
son, Inay become not only useful but necessary, and, as
both useful and necessary, a n1anifest duty on the part
of those ,vho are intrusted ,vith the charge of teaching
and defending it, yet it is also very evident, that, like
Inany other imperative duties (,vhich do not, therefore,
cease to be duties), its discharge is accompanied ,vith
special difficulties; and that, as for other reasons so for
this, that it is nearly, if not altogether, impossible to
propound any single a priori Canon 'v hich shall dis-
tinctly regulate and test its proper exercise in all cases.
Suppose it granted that the Church is bound to intro-
duce no new doctrine, yet there is a variety of senses
in ,vhich a doctrine may be Rtyled "ne,v;" and the dis-
cussion ,vould probably be endles8, ,vhose object ,vas
to fix by anyone inflexible anù universal rule, at ,vhat
precise stage in a cOlnplicated process of deduction the
epithet should begin to be applied in the sense of Ult-
ll.o1Tanfoble innovation. It can hardly be questioned,

CHRISTIAN" DOCTRIKE.

249

250

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETT. VI.

that before that point is reached, numerous instances are
adducible in ,vhich novelty might be with equal inno-
cence, because in different senses, affirmed or denied.
For instance,-
A doctrine may be apparently new, which is ne\v
only in the language expressing it, as \tvhen a technical
or scientific phraseology is employed instead of the
previous simple and inartificial expression of the same
substantial import; which naturally occurs (as ,ve have
seen), when some perverse interpretation of the com-
lnon form of statement forces the orthodox to substi-
tute some Inore precise philosophical equivalent capa-
ble of no second meaning.
Or it nlay be styled new, when, though so full
y be-
lieved as to be al"vays acted on (as the duty of a reve-
rential manner in pra}Ter, &c.), it happens to be for the
first tÏ1ne forn-tally propounded to the intellect j in which
sense the common axioms of geometry are new; and
the man who could never have made a rational use of
his lÍ1nbs without assuming it, learns a "new" truth,
when inforlned that a straight line is the shortest dis-
tance between t\tvo points.
Or a doctrine may appear new, when detached truths
are carefully gT'ouped together, and some bT'iej terrn for
the .fiT'st tirne ernployed to keep theln in that conjunction;
as when the word Trinity is adopted to express the
combination revealed in Scripture of the numeric

l
singleness of the substance of Deity ,vith the distinction
of the three personal agents therein mysteriously com-
prised, and mutually related; or when a precise and
Inethodical declaration is issued of the con1 bination of
the single Personality with the double nature.

LETT. VI.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

251

Or it may seem new, ,vhen a truth involved in the
public doctrine of the Church, and in a manner assu1Jled
by all who receive that doctrine in its integrity, though
no special act may have yet separated it from the Inass,
is put forth jJrondnently and alone, and thenceforth, of
course, designated by SOine appropriate term; a truth
,vhich, however, is still rested l1pon this basis of plain
inference, that to deny it can be sho,vn to contradict
SOBle unquestionable principle, and ultimately to con-
found the harnlony of the systen1 of belief; such was
the deterlnination of the l\Ionothelite Controversy.
'Vhether such statements of doctrine as these-novel
only in their Phraseology, their formal Affirmation,
their Combination, their Deduction-are to be called
new or old, is a question rather of ,vords than of things;
as long as it is admitted by those who prefer to call
then1 new, that these detern1inations, ho"rever unlike
the exterior forn1 and language of Scripture, really con-
tained nothing essential to belief, sanctification, and
salvation, ,vhich ,vas not accepted frorn the beginning
(a principle ,vhich, I need not reiterate fron1 nlY last
Letter, the framers themselves of these determinations
energetically affirll1); and so long as it is fully conceded
by those who celebrate the exclusive claims of the ori-
ginal inspired dOCUll1ents, and so ,vould prefer to pro-
clainl all the Church's doctrines to be as truly old as
theyg, that the substance of divine truth, retaining its
identity under many varieties of form, may la\vfully and

g " We look upon this tradition [of the Church in all ages] as
nothing else but the Scripture unfolded; not a new thing, which is
not in the Scripture, but the Scripture eXplained and made more
evident."-Patrick on Tradition, p. 18. (Ed. 1683).

252

ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF

[ LETI. VI.

usefully assume those varieties, and that alilegitirnate
conclusions fron1 truth, by whorTIsoever lTIade, are then1-
selves unquestionably true.
Nevertheless, while in the history of theology, it is
thus easy enough to instance 'v hat ,vas not essential1y
new, and unfortunately too easy like,vise to instance
,vhat unquestionably was,-between these extremes a
large territory of unauthorized, though often interest-
ing, reasoning and speculation, has ever spread, in which
it n1ight sometimes be found perplexing enough to pro-
nounce to ,vhich of these divisions particular points of
theology belong. It is in this obscure border-land that
the ad vocate of the unquestionable novelties delights
to range; endeavouring to draw his opponent into a
position ,vhere he can avail himself of all the difficulties
of the ground, and claiming as a victory to his o,vn arnlS
the nlere bewildern1ent of an adversary ,vho should
never have suffered himself to be betrayed into these
fastnesses at all. Such are some of the subtle problelns
connected ,vith-though not essential to-the doctrines
of the Trinity, of the Sacran1ents, of Original Sin, and
the like; the artful tactician skilfully exposing and
heightening the difficulty of settling the question be-
t,veen novelty and antiquity the

e; and then triulllph-
alltly challenging his opponent to say \yhere he ,vill
halt and affirlTI that real novelty begins. IIis opponent
should demur to the legitin1acy of the question. 1 t
may be impossible--I would certainly advise all con-
cerned to be cautious how they undertake-to lay <1o\vn
any general canon for deternlining this issue, in all cases
alike. There is nothing nlore dangerous than to make
the truth ùepenùent on our theories of it. It rllay be

LETT. VI.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRIKE.

253

irresistibly manifest that certain alleged doctrines are
real innovations, and yet no easy matter to achieve the
very different object of furnishing some one universal
test by ,vhich all innovations shall be instantly discri-
111inated from an.cient truths and their legitilnate conse-
quences. I shall have to return to this point presently.
2. I have hitherto been speaking principally (because
it is the 1110st imlnediately important) of the Conciliar
deterlninations of antiquity. But, it must be remen1-
bered, that the spirit and language of these determina-
tions were themselves, in no sinall degree, the results
of a process of systematizing doctrine, which had already
gone on from the earliest period in the hands of indi-
vidual teachers. The Conciliar Definitions, if in1me-
diately occasioned by heresy, are also the monument of
a very extensive and varied process of exposition by
the orthodox. Councils ""ere ten1porary and inciden-
tal; but systematic teaching ,vas, in some form or other,
inevitable from the beginning. It thus becomes a very
interesting question to consider-if the original doc-
trine comnlitted to the first disciples, and comprised in
Scri pture, was, in all ages, sure to be systelnatized in
some ,yay, ,vhat ,vould be the probable characteristics
of the earlie1
rnanifestations of this natural, inevitable
process in the Christian Church?
No,v it appears to me that in the prosecution of this
,york ( of organizing doctrines into system), the early
teachers \vould possess a considerable ad vantage, ba-
lanced by some disadvantages; and I doubt not that
it is in the due comparative estÌ111ate of these charac-
teristics that most of the skill of genuine criticism in
the ancient theology consists. Their great advantage

254

ON THE DEVELOPMENT OJ!"

[LETT. VI.

"\vould be their recent inheritance of the original doc-
trine, and that reverential solicitude for its correct
translnission, always, except by heretical parties h (and
sOlnetimes, such ,vas the prevalence of the feeling, even
by them), strenuously professed; a solicitude the more
earnest (and thence reflecting the more value upon
their concurrent testÏ1nonies), that the preservation of
the faith was for a considerable period almost ,vholly
in the charge of the bishops of the Churches, ,vith far
less help than we habitually derive from the eollective
Scriptures. No one can doubt that the Canon was gTa-
dually fixed, and probably not wholly and finally fixed,
before the beginning of the third centuryi; anù it is
manifest, on the very face of their writings, and fr0111
their o,vn express affirmations, that the earlier teachers
rested their teaching not alone on the inspired docu-
nlcnts, but upon a distinct body of inherited doctrine,

h The general characteristic of heresy from the very beginning
,vas the assertion of either secret traditions. comlnitted to the ex-
clusive keeping of the heretical bodies, 01" new and refined develop-
men ts of the apostolic teaching. Tertullian, who hinlself becanle a
luelancholy example of the latter, records in his better writings the
prevalence of the former of these t,vo remarkable contemporary an-
ticipations of the very two forms of vindication now at once exhi-
bited by the defenders of the Roman peculiarities.
i [Bishop Cosin proves that the C2.non was determined at a nluch

· [Basiliùes, of the first or second century, and his partisans, claimed tradition in
their fa\Tour. Valentinus, of the second century, and his disciples, "fetched their doc-
trine by one Theodades, as they said, from the Apostle S. Paul." The l\Iarcionites
pretended to derive their doctrines by tradition from the Apostle Matthias. The
Artemonians of the third century pretended tradition from the Apostles themselves.
'rhe Arians claimed tradition equally with the Catholics. The l\Iacedonians also
pleaded tradition for their rejecting the Divinity of the Holy Ghost.-See Waterland,
JVorks, iii. pp. 658-9.]

LETT. VI.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

255

perfectly concordant and co-extensive (as ,ve no,v
fully see), but nut verbally identical with Scripture.
One of the most en1inent of theIn, indeed, (S. Irenæus ),
in a ,vell-kno,vn passagek, where he states the chief
heads of this body of doctrine, starts, for argu1l1ent
sake, the supposition, that there had been no written
instructions left by the Apostles, and insists that, in
such a case [than which, ultimately, no doubt there
could have been no greater nlÌsfortune to the Church],
it ,vould still have been men's duty to have adhered
to the line of traditional belief, ,vhich had originated
in the very saìne authority. The guides of the early
Church, then, being circumstanced as I have described,
,ve can hardly doubt that the anxiety to preserve tra-
ditionary truth in all points, must have been In ore
earnest and zealous than, ,vith our ready recourse to
the 'v hole inspired volunle, and our innun1erable other

earlier period. "After the Apostles, in whose time the whole Canon
of Scripture was detern1Ïned, the hour was past, and the door was
shut; no addition might be made, nor any other book taken in,
but what they had first received, and left sacred to the Church.
Which is not only acknowledged by S. Augustine, but likewise by
the Doctors of the Church of Rome itself, both those that lived be-
fore the Council of Trent, and those that have written since."-
Scholas. Hist. of the Canon, 'V orks, (in Lib. of Anglo-Catlwlic Tlzeol.)
'V' 01. iii. p. 31. The Bishop refers to
Ielchior Canus, who thus
states the A postoIical origin of the Canon: " Non enim alios libros
Canonicos habemus, sive veteris si"f.' novi Testamenti, quam quos
Apostoli probaverunt, atque Ecclesiæ tradiderunt."-(DeLoc. TlzeoZ.
p. 37.) The language of Bellarmine is equally explicit.-De Verb.
Dez', Tom. i. co!. 80.]
k S. Iren. iii. 4. [See Beaven's Account of the Life and JVritings of
S. Irenæus, pp. 142-156. Lond. 1841. Chillingworth's Religion of
Protestants, Chap. ii. 'Yorks, pp. 121-2. lb. 1742,-G.]

256

ON THE DEVELOP)IENT OF .

[LETT. VI.

resources of confirmation and refutation, ,ve can at
once or easily conceive. And this reverential anxiety
,vould naturally form a strong check upon undue iUl-
pulses to systen1atize; not to add, that these men's
ea1'liest systelnatic . conceptions of divine truth 111ay,
,vith fair probability, clailn an authority higher than
their own; furnished to them, very possibly, by their
apostolic teachers for the purpose of teaching others,
and thus, perhaps, transmitting to us the last declining
beams of Inspiration itself.
On the other hand, I should expect of such Inen
that they ,vould evince a certain degree of iJZe.J:j)erience
in the hun1an ,york of systematizing doctrine, ,vhich,
not Ï1nprobabl
y, might betray thelTI into (1.) occasional
mistakes of its real internal connexions, into (2.) pre-
cipitancy, it might be too, in the filling up of the out-
lines of revealed doctrine by pure speculation; into
(3.) a laxity of phraseology (una\vare as they ,vere of
the importance of every syllable of those rapid expres-
sions of their's, on \v hose interpretation rival folios
,vere yet to be ,vrittell !), a laxity for \vhich, in the in-
firmity of man, controversy seems to be the only sure
corrective; and son1etimes (4.) into misconceptions of
the most eligible methods of proof. To calculate on
such abatements as these, really seems only to admit
that, unless able and honest men invariably ,vrite under
miraculous guidance, there Inust be sO'1netlâng left for
them to learn from experience. And ,ve cannot fail
to see, that the ability of tbe individual must not, in
the just investigation of traditional doctrine, and its
authority, occupy at all the same rank which it holds
in the history of a hun1an and progressive philosophy;

I
ETT. VI.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

257

it being certain, that in proportion to the ability, un-
less ,vhere ,ve can presume a strong intellectual re-
straint, ,vill be the temptation, to mingle the private
speculations of the teacher ,vith the original deposit
con1mitted to his charge. Such a case as that of
Origen ,vill at once occur to every reader as a palmary
instance in point. At the same time, the rnultitude of
consenting witnesses ,viII proportionably correct this
evil; that multitude (though even here the po,verful
personal influence of authoritative leaders must not be
forgotten), tenùing to eliminate the private element in
theology, and present us with the public tradition, as
that alone in ,vhich all can be expected to coincide.
And, if the systematic expositions of antiquity give us,
as they surely do, this substantial sameness, ,ve may
justly see in their endless circumstantial peculiarities
the proof of their genuineness,-in their very aberra-
tions a mark of the independence of their testin10ny
on the great truths in ,vhich they agree.
II. If this be at all a fair account of ,vhat ,ve might
anticipate, and may observe, in those ,vritings in which
the first uninspired teachers of Christianity undertook
to dispense their a\vful trust to 111ankind,-undertook
hum bly but resolutely (for it ,vas their duty, and it is
our's), to connect by the links of human reason, and
arrange in didactic order, and unfold in their logical
consequences, those n1ighty elements of truth which
inspiration had delivered, as it ever has done, briefly
and in the ll13ss,-I would venture again to suaaest
'-' Ob
ho\v it COnfirlTIS the observation already made upon
the inadn1Ïssibility of those broad and 'llnive'rsallnaa:Í1ns
so constantly hazarded in the controversial use of their
s

258

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT O:F

[ LETT. VI.

testÏ1nony. Such maXilTIS are utterly inapplicable to
the sort of cOlnplex evidence ,vith ,vhich divines, \vhe-
ther Anglican or, if they would honestly confess it,
Ron1an, have really to deal in establishing doctrines.
The evidence of Antiquity, like the evidence of Scrip-
ture itself, is not accurately the same in arrlount for all
those doctrines ,vhich, nevertheless, ,ve are bound
,vith equal and unhesitating cordiality to receive. Let
me dwell for a mOlllent on this, a perpetual source of
unnecessary perplexity.
I ,vouid say, that ,vhile, no doubt (as a simple mat-
ter of fact), the common doctrinal tradition of anti-
quity is found to tally ,vith the received interpretation
of Scripture in all essential matters, and the soundest
scriptural criticislll in its turn confirms that vener-
able tradition; that \vhile (to adopt the philosophical
phraseology of our times), that old inherited theoTY of
doctrine is found to embrace all the pheno]}
ena of
Scripture texts, and the latter to fall in with, and rnar-
shal themselves readily under that old theory,-yet,
fron1 the very nature of the evidence, no single uni-
versal rule can be strictly enforced to define the jyre-
cise a71
ount of testimony to be fairly required in every
instance for the proof of this, from the extant remains
of antiquity. 'Vhatever \ve can plainly see to be true
and ilnportant, no doubt, was al\vays held, but the
quantity of proof now actually adducible to establish-
this, if al,vays sufficient, n1ay yet differ considerably in
different cases. 'Ve can as little fix under a single in-
flexible formula the necessary amount of uninspired
confirmation as of original inspired proof, for any theo-
logical proposition; when men shall have agreed ho,v

LETT. VI.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

259

ll1any verses of Scripture shall be required to nlake a
doctrine certain or fundanlental, they may settle ho,v
l11any corroborati ve Fathers or Synodical Canons shall
be deenled exactly sufficient to sustain it in that rank.
The custOlll of treating all points of belief as if they
must necessarily possess the sanle precise amount of
producible doculllentary evi?ence (in rivalry of the
affected simplicity of the Ronlan "rule"), instead of
being content with demanding for them all (what they
all ought really to obtain, and ,vhat alone concerns us
as Christians), the san1e amount of habitual acceptance
and practical influence, is a common ,veakness \vith de-
fenders of Catholic truth, and easily taken advantage
of (see p. 8, &c.) by a dexterous disputant like the
author before us. It is really inconsistent ,vith the
very nature of complex historical proof; nor does this
position expose primitive Catholicity to any objection
,vhatsoever, ,vhich cannot ,vith the greatest ease be
retorted upon Ronlanisnl, so far as it ventures to rest
its" rule" upon that species of proof. It is true ,ve
are accusto111ed, ,vith no un\vorthy pride, to enlploy
some general expressions that seem to Î1nport this uni-
versal equality of evidence, but it is as general expres-
sions they must be interpreted. The se'Jnpel
, 'llbique,
g'c., expresses ,vhat no doubt is a nlatter of fact as to
all important doctrine, and is COlll HI only affirnled as
such by our divines, in refuting those peculiarities
which no,v at last are ingenuously confessed to be
Vincentian heresies; but I conceive that such a rule,
as applied to the remaining lcritings of antiquity, can
as little be interpreted with absolute nletaphysical
strictness, as the analogous assertion that a doctrine is
82

260

ON TIlE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETT. VI.

"universal1y delivered in the New Testanlcnt" can be
understood to import that it is expressly stated, or
even implied, in every single document of the t\venty-
seven contained in the Holy V olun1e. The Bishops of
England, in the remarkable Canon of 1571\ linliting
the doctrine to be taught by preachers, ,vith judicious
reserve en1ployed the general expressions Dl , "quod ex
illâ ipsâ ùoctrinâ Catholici lJatres et veter'es episcopi col-
legerint," ,vithout thinking it necessary to exhibit the
criterion in any lTIOre rigorous form; ,vithout, that is,
undertaking to pronounce on the complicated questions
of criticisn1-11ow 1nany of these Fathers and Prelates,
at anyone tin1e, and for each specific tenet; 'v ho pre-
cisely were" Catholic Fathers;" and still more, at ,vhat
period" ancient Bishops" must be considered as giving
place to n1ediæval or modern; content, and rightly
content, ,vith a general standard, and a general injunc-
tion of reverence for the old traditional "collection"
froIll Scripture doctrine, and reserving their stricter
obligation for \vhere it is justly required to the letter,
for the Articles, Liturgy, and Ordinal that follo,v in

1 [Sparrow's Collection, p. 238. Lond. 1671. Booke of ce7'taine
Canons, p. 23. Lond. Iohn Daye, 1571. In the latter very rare
volume this celebrated ordinance app
ars in the original English..
-G.]
m [" Imprimis vero videbunt (concionatores) ne quid unquam do-
ceant pro concione, quod a populo religiosè teneri et credi velint,
nisi quod consentaneU111 sit doctrinæ Veteris et N ovi Testamenti,
quodque ex ilJâ ipsâ doctrinâ Catholici Pat res et veteres Episcopi
collegerint." This Canon is styled by Bishop Cosin, "The Golden
Rule of our Church, the Doctrine of IIoly Scripture, and the In-
terpretation thereof by the ancient Fathers."-( IVorks, V 01. iii.
p. 317, in Lib. of Anglo-Catlwlic Tl1eolo[J!/.)

LETT. VI.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

61

the Canon. The plain truth is, that to Inultiply iùeal
standards is only to 111ultiply advantages for the adver-
sary; each tenet claiming to be a portion of the Chris-
tian Faith B1Ust first be decided (by the fe\v \vho are
qualified, and no others have a right, to entertain such
inquiries at all) on its o,vn exclusive evidence; ,vhe-
ther it reach a conceived standard or not, if it be
lJPoven, it delnands to be believed. If Scripture fur-
nish sufficient proof, it is idle to complain that it does
not furnish nlore; if antiquity incline the balance of
probability to the belief that the doctrine in question
,vas the doctrine received, it is equally idle to delnancl
farther evidence from that source, or feebly continue
to d,vell upon difficulties ,vhich, once fairly overba-
lanced, should be suffered to disturb the calculation
no more. The prudent inquirer kno\vs, that the pre-
cise amount of evidence required for doctrine has been
no\vhere revealed, and can only be deterrnined induc-
tively, as a conclusion, in each instance, from the in-
quiry, not as a prelÜninary to it; he ,vill try every
case by its individual Inerits, ren1enlbering that the
true and only question is-for tlzis specific doctrine
(\vhatever it lnay be), is there evidence enough to
nlake a reasonable Ulan accept it as a real portion of
the truth of God?
For (I repeat) it is to be observed-and I think
very iUlportant to be observed,-that, even alTIOng the
most nlomentous doctrines, ,ve have no antecedent
reason \vhatsoever to presun1e that all ,vould be sus-
tainable by exactly the saIne amount of proof; that
SOlne one 1nay really be 1110re evident than SOll1e
other; a.nd yet, that (on this supposition) no right-

262

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT O]t

[ LETT. VI.

minded man \vho relnelnbers the conditions of all
human belief and duty, ,yould think of perlnitting
himself practically to doubt either, or attempt to sug-
gest such a course to others, by invidiously exhibiting
tbe supposed lack of absolute, or inferiority of relative,
proof: Both are certain enough to ground the duty
of belief and action, and even of equally energetic
action D , and this once clear, it becolnes the direct duty
of one who must either act or not-"\vith whom inac-
tion is itself a real choice-to discountenance any ten-
dency to d,vell upon the positive or comparative un-
certainty of either.

n I say advisedly, of equall!J energetic action; for it may be, that
the less certain demands (from the immense importance of the issue,
&c.) action 80 energetic that the other cannot exceed it. A matter
so manifest ,vhen stated, can hardly need illustration. If a man
had a very strong chance of a large estate by expending a trifling
sum of money, he would not hesitate to do so; ,vere the prospect
even to brighten by some additional chance of success, it would not
be physically possible for him to be more eager in staking his pit-
tance than he had been already. He would stare at the friend who
should admonish hin1, that active energy requiring to be directly as
probability of success, he was no,v bound to hasten to his agent
with a new velocity, accurately graduated to correspond to the new
accession of probability. Simple as this is, it is upon forgetting it
that half the Ronlish argulnents for the necessity of absolute cer-
tainty in religion are founded. Faith, as a practical principle, may
retain its habitual confidence, and so its equal operative influence,
under very different degrees in the luathen1atical estin1ate of proba- .
bilities. It should never be forgotten, by those who are perpetu-
ally den1anding infallible certainty in all matters of faith, that it is
infallibly certain that we ought to act, and act strenuously, upon
rnoral certainty. No\v, has any man a right to delnand more infal-
libility than an infallibly certain 1'ule of action? [See Jackson's
TV01'ks, i.608-13. (" Proportion of Certainty in .A.ssent of Chris-
tian .Faitb.") Lond. 1673.-G.]

LEfT. VI.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRIKE.

263

I can easily understand that such a representation
as this 111ay appear cold and un::;atisfactory ,vhen con-
trasted ,vith the pompous claims of instant and abso-
lute certainty in religion, ,,
hich are so tl'ilunphantly
advanced by the advocates of Romanism, as the ex-
clusive privilege of their cOlnmunion. r.rhe apparent
plausibility of these exclusive claims seeIns usually
traceable to a fal1acy of no great depth; an anlbiguity
of the ,vord "faith," and a dexterous, sOlnetimes per-
haps an unconscious, alternate substitution, according
to occasion, of the t,vo very distinguishable ideas ,vhich
are conveyed by it. This inlportant word, and all the
synonymous and connected terms,-:3elief, Conviction,
Certainty, and the like,-are theologically employed
in t,vo different senses,-for a purely intellectual con-
viction, and for an habitual pracÛcal assent. The na-
ture of the former of these mental states is to adnlit
(and, doubtless, in n1any instances pardonably) many
degrees of conviction-as of evidence-belo,v the
highest; of the latter, to admit habi tually no hesita-
tion or indecision at all; and this apparent inconsis-
tency is not only paralleled by the 1nost ordinary facts
of every day's experience, but strictly justifiable upon
the soundest principles of logic and philosophy. And
both these concurrent forms of belief are 'llniVel
8al
phenomena, applicable to all practical matters depen-
dent on testimony, and so to all modifications, ,vhether
true or false, of revealed religion. Thus (having first
excluded those special spiritual influences, which, in
this case, to aSSUlne for anyone party, ,,
ould be to
assume the question at issue ),-as regards the fornzer'
notion of faith, all systems of belief 111Ust consent to

264

O
THE DEVELOPMENT OF

[LETT. VI.

claim by the same general title, hovvever different the
real merits of their clai m; none can pretend to rise
beyond the sin1ple ground of historical, or other, evi-
dence of strong probability, and the species of belief,
it produces; if, to apply the principle to the matter
immediately in hand, the Romanist is dull or daring
enough to attempt evading this, he may be asked to
account for the mere fact of infidelity in any province
of his Church; to explain how, if by virtue of his po-
sition he possesses a kind of intellectual proof of the
Christian Religion that admits of no possibility of
doubt, it has actually come to pass that it has been and
'is doubted bv thousands of deists '\vitbin bis COlllmu-
01
nion ; to reflect, in \vhich of the Christian Churches,
for example, arose the great and popular school of un-
belief which poisoned all the literature of the eigh-
teenth century? In the latter sense, again, all systems
of belief, as before, stand on the same basis; for an,
whether right or wrong, equally claÏ1n unqualified in-
fluence, unhesitating practical" faitb," as the proper
consequence of the assent, to whatever degree informed
or convinced, if it but be, on the whole, the assent of
the understanding. So that, in that purely intellectual
sense of belief, in '\vhich it ,veighs and accepts '\vhat
it takes to be high testimonial proof, and in that prac-
tical sense in which it imports habitual influential as-
surance, it is not easy to see ho\v anyone division of
Christianity can claim to occupy a different basis froln
any other. The con1parative justice of their respective
clain1s is, indeed, another and a very different q ues-
tion; but the only point that no\v concerns us is this,
and it seeins sufficiently nl
nifest,-that all alike, the

LETT. VI.]

CHRISTIA.N DOCTHINE.

265

l)ettiest subdivision of American Independency, no
Inore, and no less, than the Church of the ,r atican o ,
appeal, if they profess to reason at all, to the lnerely
moral certainty of historical proof for the unùerstanù-
ings, ,vhile they demand unhesitating practical affiance
fron1 the hearts, of their adherents.
N o'v it ,viII be intelligible enough, that if a skilful
controversialist can contrive so to perplex this distinc-
tion as, ,vhenever it is his object to expose uncertainty,
to insist largely upon the intellectual difficulties of the
"faith" he rejects, and, '\vhenever it suits his purpose
to magnify the secul
ity of "faith," to d,vell on the ful-
ness of that practical assurance of,vhich I have spoken;
if he can manage by this artifice to thro\v into the
shade at once the real deficiencies of his o,vn grounds
of intellectual certainty (deficiencies at tbe least as
unquestionable as his antagonist's) and the real prac-
tical assurance of his antagonist's faith (at the least as
vigorous and unhesitating as his own), he may thus,
by a sort of logical sleight-of-hand, succeed in exhibit-
ing to the dazzled eyes of his adn1iring disciples an
unifo,}
7n in1pression of some sublime and unalterable
stability of faith which it is the exclusive privilege
of his o\vn comulunion to afford. Simple as is this
sophisln, the substance of voluminous treatises of school
divines on this endless topic, seerns to resolve into
nothing better P . It is hence, too, that, as another lllO-

o I say this, to avoid all discussion of that" assent inevident" and
"assent obscure," by which some of the schoohnen have, with a
miserably obvious aim, laboured to mystify the nature of Faith.-
P An unsteady hold of the Saine manifest distinction (no doubt

* [.Jackson, ut Sup., pp. 608, 618.-G.]

266

0:8 THE DEVELOP)IENT OF

[ LETT. VI.

dification of the same fallacy, when Rornanists argue
the uncertainty of the COlnmon process of determining
religious truth by evidence, they conceive of inquiring
men, forgetting that to such Inen their o,vn rule (which
must circuitously travel to the saIne point in the end)
could not bring one whit ll10re real satisfaction; and
when, on the other hand, they declaim on the ease and
excellence of their own, they conceive of uninquiring
n1en, forgetting that to such men, ,vhose belief is con-
tingen t on the circumstances of their position, all rules
are alike.
Our present Author was of course obliged by the
nature of his general argument to atten1pt to contri-
bute something to this question of continuous Infal-
lible Authority. IIis contribution, hovvever [Chap. ii.
Sect. 2], is remarkably brief, and on the whole, hardly
vvorthy of his genius. 'Ve are, probably, to attribute
it to the humility of the catechulnen, that he has not
yet permitted himself to be original upon this vener-
able common-place. IIowever it be explained, there
is certainly no part of his argument in ,vhich he has
been more signally ineffective than in this, by far the
most indispensable of all. I shall endeavour to offer a
few observations upon it in another c0111munication.
I ren1ain, my à Jar Sir,
Your's faithfully,
W. ARCHER BUTLER.

exhibiting itself in a style of eloquent disquisition, considerably
lTIOre agreeable than school divinity), seen1S to be at the bottom
of our author's unsatisfactory chapter about Faith and Reason,
pr. 327-337.

LETT. VII.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

267

LEl"'TER VII.

.

DEAR SIR,

I have to offer you a fe\v rema.rks on
that indispensable portion of l\Ir. Ne\vman's argurnent,
in which he attempts to sustain his hypothesis of Deve-
lopment by the auxiliary hypothesis of a "Developing
A uthority in Christianity."
I am not a \vare that I do any real injustice to the
course of this author's reasoning, \vhen I exhibit it
some\vhat unceren1oniously in this fashion. Certain
doctrines and practices exist \vhich have little or no
express authority in Scripture or countenance in Eccle-
siastical Antiquity. They are attractive, or at least
connected \vith a systenl \vhich has become so; and it
would be exceedingly pleasant to be able to believe
and to justify them. They may be justified by sup-
posing the Christian revelation designed to be con1mu-
nicated to men in the ,yay of successive additions in
the course of ages. Therefore it zoas so designed. But
as endless additions are conceivable, and numerous
opposing additions have actually been lllade, it would
be useful that there ,vere some authority to decide
alTIOng them. 'l'herefore there is such an authority.

268

ON TIlE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETT. YII.

Connecting the comlnencing and closing links of the
chain, ,ve obtain the highly satisfactory inference: cer-
tain agreeable tenets exist; therefore they are infallibly
guaranteed, and infallibly certain.
The author Inay object to this: he may urge tha.t I
omit a collateral link ; his independent proofs (pp. 94-
114) of the probability of develoPlnent in Christianity.
I will insert it, when I can discover a single candid
reader of either cOllununion ,vho will declare that he
honestly believes that this argulnent about the likelihood
of developments (in the present extent and import of
the terln) would ever have been concocted eæcept in
vielv of the very peculiarities to be accounted fOT,a, and in
consequence of the felt inlPossibility of accounting for
them ,vithout such assumption; who will declare his
belief that (to reduce the matter to an intelligible test),
if the doctrine of the universal Christian Church now
stood precisely as it stood in the first ages, 1\11'. N e,v-
lllan, or any other speculative divine, ,vould ever have
prospectively demanded for that Church any future

a " An hypothesis to account for a dijjiculty," as he hilnself can-
didly confesses, p. 27. But how did the difficulty arise which only
this hypothesis can save? He compares his hypothesis (as I believe
I have before noticed), to "the explaration given by astronOll1ers
of the apparent motions of the heavenly bodies." 'Vhat should we
have thought of some astronOlner of superhuman powers, who
should first contrive to derange the heavenly bodies, and then
gravely devise an astronon1Ïcal hypothesis to account for the diffi-
culty; or a geologist (to take another of his illustrations, p.28,
and a nlore n1anageable one) who should take for natural strata the
fragments of a mine dislocated and disordered by the worknwn, and
set about inventing an hypothesis to accùunt fur the sadly" lliffi-
cult" facts he had to deal with?

LETT. VU.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRI
E.

269

right of "developUlent," beyond that right, or duty, of
logical inference and practical application, which, in
COlnmon ,vith those ages, I have eyery \vhere abun-
dantly conceded and claitnecl. Nay, I ,vill grant his
antecedent argument, ,vhen 1\11'. N e\vrnan himself shall
distinctly state his conviction that any prelate or doctor
of the Nicene age, ,vho should have professed to regard
the doctrine of the rrrinity as a lnatter of Church reve-
lation, neither kno\vn nor intended to be kno\vn in the
first ages, and resting for its real security on the infal-
lible authority of the Church alone-,vould have es-
caped the instant anathelna of that very Church as a
scoffing Arian. Is this too lnuch to ask-too n1uch to
delnand of one "Tho, in deserting the principles of Ca-
tholicism, still, at least, clings to the nalne,-that he
should distinctly affirn1 a belief that his book ,vould
not have been condenu1ed as heterodox by the saints
he prays to? And yet I am perfectly \villing to abide
the issue. 1\11'. N e,vman is deep-fe,v of our time more
so-in Athanasius and IIilary; let hin1 tranquilly reflect
,vhat either of these holy lnen-,vhat Basil, again, or
Nazianzen,-,yould have thought of thejòllower ,,,ho
had dared to insinuate that the truth they dedicated
their titHe and toil to establishing on Scripture ,varrant,
and confirlning by inherited tradition, ,vas, after alL the
tardy gro\vth of their o,vn age; a truth ,vhich Sabel-
Ii us ,vas a heretic for atten1pting too hastily to antici-
pate (p. 352 )-a heretic for presumiug to penetrate
,vhat Athanasius ,vas a saint for defending; in itself
only one hypothesis among n1any, and delnancling but
provisional acceptance until-if even then-a Church

270

ON THE DEVELOP
IENT OF

[LETT. VII.

decision-a ROlnan decision-should fix and authorize
the floating n1ass of conjecture b .
It is idle, then, to speak of probabilities prior to the
facts, "\vhich in tirnes prior to the facts "\vould have been
dislnissed by all men as dangerous and chimerical;
idle to speak of argulnents as independent, vvhich are,
thelnselves, attempts at illustrating an arbitrary hypo-
thesis, and derive all the little plausibility they possess
solely from their understood subservience to the object
the hypothesis is brought to maintain. I will not adn1Ït
that to be in itself and antecedently probable "\vhich
Athanasius or Augustine vvould never have suspected
as JJo8sible. I ,viII not admit that light to be "indepen-
dent" vvhich is \vholly r
flected from the object it is
brought to illun1Ïne; or consent to adlnit for "antece-
dent" proof the forecast shado\v of the fact itself to be
proved !
But "\vhen, instead of this imposing schelne of pro-
babilities, independently constructed in dependance on

b Not such was the opinion of one whose singularly solid judg-
ment gives great weight to his testimony as to a matter of fact on
'which the ,vritten and traditional evidence must have been more
abundant in his day than it can be in our's. "'Vho, before the
profane Pelagius, ever claimed such power for the will as to deny
that the grace of God was necessary to aid it in the particular acts
of obedience? 'Vho, before his marvellous ["prodigiosum"J disciple
Celestius, ever denied that the whole hun1an race ,vas brought
under the guilt of Adam's sin? JVho, before the blasphemer [" sacri-
legum"] Arius, dared to divide in his creed the Unity of the Trinity?
TV/w, bef01
e the wretched [" sceleratum"] Sabellius, to confuse the
Trinity of the Unity ?"- Vincent. Lirin. Cornrnonit. c.34. [foll. :12-3.
Paris. 1561.- There is nothing in the original corresponding to the
words" in his creed."-G.]

LETT. 1"11.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

271

the very innovations they "vere to recollnnend, ,ve sub-
stitute the 111anifest, the hardly disguised fact, that the
probability of the hypothesis is solely to be found in
the service it can render to,vards Inaking the innova-
tions tolerable, we find the ,vhole argun1ent revolve in
as pretty a circle as any the schools can furnish. I
believe certain doctrines, because of infallible autho-
rity. I believe infallible authority, because of its ante-
cedent necessity. I believe it antecedently necessary,
because of developments wanting to be directed. I
believe developments to "vant direction, because they
must exist in great variety. I believe they Inust exist,
because certain doctrines exist 'v hich I cannot other-
,vise prove to be part of the Christian religion. I
believe them to be part of the Christian religion, be-
cause of infallible authority. This again, as before, I
conclude frOlTI its antecedent necessity. And so on,
the theological cycloid is ane,v described, as the circle
rotates in Ol1zne volubilis ceVUJJz.
But it is time to proceed to some closer examina-
tion of our author's argulnents for his DEVELOPI
G
AUTHORITY.
It is to be carefully observed in this question of In-
fallible Authority, that the infallibility to be Inade good
is 7l0t any infallible authority of the diffusive, or even
the representative, universal Church, as such, (though,
even on this ground, as ,ve shall presently see, the pe-
culiar positions of the author would be ahnost equally
inconclusive). It would be a vr'"aste of tin1e to go about
proving that no such universal voice has spoken col-
lectively for ages. The infallibility exclusively at issue
in this controversy is that 'v hich is alleged to be by

272

OK THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETT. VII.

special divine gift vested in the Church in connexion
\vith the bishop of the city of Rome. The localization
of the gift, its concentration in and around a particular
patriarchate, its identification \vith the decisions or opi-
nions of one exclusive line of prelates, uttering itself
by one fixed and definite organ (whether Pope, or Pope
and Western Council), as distinct from all others, or
fronl all together,-tltis is the thing to be proved essen-
tial to all revealed religion (p. 124 ),-the thing with-
out \vhich, sternly rejected though it be by ful1y one
half of those no\v on earth, \vho name the nal11e of
Christ, it is to be proved antecedently irnpossible for
Christianity to exist. ThiE?, I say, must be carefully
remem bered as the real question; because l\fr. N e\v-
man, in that inspired abandonlnent \vhich is the privi-
lege of genius, has unfortunately chanced to overlook
it. IIumbler inquirers \vill find time to observe that,
from the very nature of the new theory, even granting
that a special pro111ise protects the Christian Church at
large in the possession of fundalTIental truths, the real
argulllent has not even begun, until the author has in-
structed us at \vhat time this Christian Church at large
formally, or even constructively, consigned-or how it
could ever have had the po\ver to consign, and that
in ne\v and enlarrged ternls-its corporate gift to the
Church of the \\Testern patriarch. Unless he can do
this-\vhich I lTIay take the liberty of ren1Índing him -
he perfectly ,veIl kno\vs he cannot do,-the unity of
his professing historical developtnent is shattered to
pieces; and \vith -to go no further-the whole Eastern
Church resolutely, amid all its many \veaknesses, deny-
ing the transference, \vhat is it, to speak plainly, but a

LETT. VII.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

273

gross imposition on the part of those advocates 'VhOlll
1\lr. N e,vman has too confidingly follo,vec1, to keep as-
sUlning that there is any connexion at all bet\veen the
alleged infallibility of the consenting Universal Church
(,vhatever that amounts to), and tbe perpetual inspira-
tion of any single C c0111munion ,vithin it, as long as all
the rest strenuously disclaim the usurpation ?-Does
he, then, intend by his authoritative sanction of deve-
lopments the voice of the Church? It has never once
delivered sentence in his favour. Does he intend the
infallible decision of the ROlnan Church? Let him but
distinctly say this, and steadily keep to it; and his
hypothesis of a developing authority rises in all the un-
enviable singularity (I can hardly recall another theo-
logical invention that has contrived to combine both) of
being at once an assulnption of the point to be proved,
and even then internally inconsistent; of purchasing
contradiction at the price of begging the question.
I shall endeavour to explain this more exactly. Let
me first vie,v the theory in connexion ,vith the doctrine
really in question, the local Infallibility; and after\vards

c [Archbishop Bramhall points out the same assumption in the
argument of La J,IiZletière. " I presume this is one of the idiotisms
of your language, in which by the Church you always understand
the Roman Church, making Rornan and Catholic to be convertibles. . .
There is a vast difference between the Catholic Church, and a pa-
triarchal Church. The Catholic Church can never fail; any pa-
triarchal Church n1ayapostate and fail. \Ve have a promise that
the candle shall not be put out; we have no promise that the can-
dlesticks shall not be removed."- TVorks, \-r 01. i. p. 43, in Lib. of
Anglo- Catholic Theology. Compare Leslie, TVorks, Vol. i. p. 386,
seqq., iii. p. 91. Oxford, 1832.J

T

274

ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF

[LETT. VII.

lTIOre generally, in its relation to infallible guidance in
general. I shall dedicate this Letter to the former.

I. In assu111ing that Christian Doctrine ,vas to " de-
velope," that the Apostles' Creed ,vas originally intended
in due season to expand into the Creed of Pius IV.,
1\11'. Ne,vman admits that many opposing developnlents
of the New Testament "'ere possible or probable; and
as one only series, among innumerable coexistent lines
of development, could be true, and this true series of
value only as 1ve could be ascertained of its truth, he
concludes that an infallible guide must have been pro-
vided to pilot the rnind of !he Church through these
tempests of conflicting developlnents, and give us the
requisite assurance. Correct development alone is to
be accepted as divine; and this alone can secure its
correctness. This infallible guide, \ve have seen, is to
be heard in the decisions of the 'Vestern Patriarch In
a council of his prelates; if the theory is ever to prove
its point, no other is in question, for no other ,viII ever
involve the conclusion to ,vhich the,vhole theory is
subordinate-the claims of the existing papal supre-
macy. N O"\V 1\11". N e,vrnan admits,-abundantly adn1its,
-\vhat indeed it ,yould be perfectly idle to deny in
the present state of historichl knowledge,-that the
Roman prilnacy and its prerogatives ,vere themselves
a subsequent forlnation; "the Church \vas first Ca-
tholic, t!ten Papal," is his o,vn memorable affirn1ation.
In other ,vords, the Ronlan infallibility-the infallibi-
lity denied by England and the East, by the Church of
Andre,ves and Taylor, by the Church of Chrysostom

LETT. VI!.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

27.5

and Basil-is adn1Ïtted to share, along ,vith the 'V or-
ship of In1ages, the Trinity, Original Sin, and other
Church revelations, the character of a gradually deve-
loped doctrine, a slo\v, ho\vever sure, discovery in fun-
dan1ental truth. That is to say,-the security of deve-
loplnent resolves into that \vhich is itselJ. a developJnent;
,ve are satisfied that development is a divine la\v, and
that an other\vise uncertain body of doctrine is legiti-
lnately developed, because the chief developn1ent in
the \vhole mass of uncertainty says so. We lnust first
assume the whole line of developn1ents perfectly cor-
rect, in order to be sure of the ROlnan infallibility-
for it is but one among then1; and we n1ust first assume
the Roman infallibility certain, in order to pronounce
the developments perfectly correct-for it is this very
necessity that makes the infallibility indispensable.
II. That this collateral security for the development
process is thus not (as 1\11'. Ne\Vlnan seems strangely
to have persuaded hin1self) " external to the develop-
lnents" (p. 117), but itself included among then1, and,
therefore, no more authorized to guide them than they
to guide themselves; that a development directive of
all others cannot claim authority on this pretext of the
uncertainty of all developments, \vithout itself requir-
ing an antecedent guarantee, to be sÍlnilarly \varranted,
without end; that thus mutually confronted, the Deve-
lopment and the Infallibility hang their heads like two
detected ,vitnesses, \vho appeal to each other for a cha-
racter ;-a11 this, no doubt, appears 1nore palpable \vhen
the infallibility is understood (as it ever ought in this
controversy to be understood) in its peculiar Roman
sense; for few at this tÍlne of day ,viII have the courage
. T 2

276

ON THE DEVELOJ>:l\IENT OF

[LETT. VII.

to maintain that that can be regarded as more really
prÏInitive than any other of the developments to be
defended. But it lllust not be forgotten that, in truth,
the same fallacy is involved in every vie\v in \vhich the
developnlent hypothesis is connected with the alleged
necessity of a visible, unerl
ing guide, of whatever kind,
corporate or individual, local or universal. For as the
authority of such a tribunal \vas assuredly never, even
once, the ground on ,vhich the prin1Ïtive teachers rested
their dognlatic detern1Ïnations, \ve are still forced to
view the rl'ecognition of SUCll an arbiter of faith (,vher-
ever situated), the public adn1Ïssion of it for a sole and
all-sufficing medium of proof in theological reasonings,
as itself a development,. and a late one; and \ve are
again brought, as before, to the inevitable paralogisnl
of an infallible developnlent, the child of the Church's
later years, authorizing its o\vn elder brethren, and that
belief obtaining currency and acceptance at a period
cOlnparatively modern, \vithout \vhich \ve are, never-
theless, expected to adnlit that no previous belief, in
the long chronology of developn1ent, could ever have
been safe or certain!
III. But besides this Inanifest confusion inherent in
the attempt to make a tardy infallibility the regulator
of antecedent develoPlnent, it is impossible not to ob-
serve ho,v poorly the speculationillatches \vith the his-
torical facts. rfhe [RonJan] infallible tribunal is Inain-
tained to be required from the variety and discordance
of developments. N o,v no person, moderately informed
in the history of the Church, can fail to see that the
probability founded in this alleged ,vant ,vas infinitely
stronger at a period before the Roman authority arose

LETT. VII.]
at all; that authority having been first comlnonly ac-
kno,,?ledged in the 'Vest at a time \vhen the controver-
sies here held to necessitate it ,vere beginning to dis-
appear in the gro,ving barharism of the age, and to be
lost in the fiercer tUlllults that accompanied the forl11a-
tion of the ne\v po1itical divisions of Europe. If an
infallible See ,vas ever required to direct doctrinal
developl11ent, it \vas at the very period ,,,hen, it is no\v
hardly denied, the gift \vas never clai1l1ecl or suspected;
the history of fundamental development ,vas closed
before the authority ,vas recognised, ,vithout ,vhich, \ve
are no,v instructed, that no right developInent can ever
proceed. Through all the endless perplexities of the
Gnostic reveries, through the imposing austerities of
l\lontanisn1, through the i1l1portant and difficult discus-
sions connected ,vith the question of IIeretical Bap-
tislns, through the conflict ,vith :ßlanicheis1l1, through
the various stages of the long Trinitarian controversy-
fron1 Theodotus and Artelnon,fromNoetus and Praxeas
and Sabellius, to the Council of Chalcedon, and later
-not to add the practical ùifficulties of N ovatianisll},
Donatislll, anù other incessant schisn1s-the Church,
under that Divine Providence ,vhich has guaranteed
its indefectible perpetuity, Inade its ,yay, altogether
unassisted d by the" Developing Authority" of an illfal-

CHRISTIAN DOCTHINE.

277

d [" It is most prodigious that, in t"PP disputes managed by the Fa-
thers against heretics, (the Gnostics,.V alentinians, 1\Iarcionites, l\Ion-
tanists, l\Ianichees, Paulianists, Arians, &c.), they should not, even in
the first place, allege and urge the sentence of the universal Pastor
and Judge, as a 1110st eyidently conclusive argument, as the TIl0st
efficacious and compendious method of convincing and silencing them.
. . . 'Vhereas divers of the Fathers purposely do treat on nlethods of
confuting heretics, it is strange they should be so blind or dull as

[LETT. VII.
lible See. The labour ,vas great, but the Church knew
no ,yay of abridging it; the responsibility ,vas tremen-
dous, but the Church knew no way of evading it. Not
even once, through all those periods of trial, not once
through the fifty or sixty enormous folios that still re-
main as the nlemorials of the men who preached, and
wrote, and struggled through those critical tÍ1nes, is
Inention made of this ultimate court of appeal, ,vhose
judgment was to be the unerring test of truth, ,vhose
voice an echo from the inmost sanctuary of heaven. No
where is Athanasius heard to proclaim" Ronle has de-
cided for the consubstantial Son, and infidels alone can
no\v prolong the dispute ;" never once declares Augus-
tine, "ROlne has pronounced against Pelagius e , and
further argunlent is superfluous." Both, like all their
contemporaries, go to ,york \vith their Bibles in the
most unequivocally "Protestant" fashion, and appeal
to the con11110n belief of their predecessors, like sinlple
Catholics ,vho kne\v no better. Their Scripture texts
are not confirnlations, but principles. The Syrian ex-
egetics, against ,vhich our author deals such unmea-
sured reprobation f , (as i
a revelation in hUll1an language

278

ON THE DEVELOJ>:MENT OF

not to hit on this most proper and obvious way of referring debates
to the decision of hin1, to whose office of universal Pastor and
Judge it did belong."-Barrow. (
l'reatise of the Pope's Suprmnacy,
p. 171. Ed. Cardwell.) ]
e [8. Prosper, (Ca1'men de Ingratis,) whatever interpretation be
put upon his ,,"ords, has said, with reference to Pelagianisn1 :

. . . . . . . . . . "Pestem subeuntem prima recidit
Sedes Roma Petri: quæ pastoralis honoris
Facta caput mundo, quidquid non possidet armis
Relligione tenet. "-G.]

f See p. 282, &c. The
in1ple fact appears to be, that the Syrian

LETT. VII.]

CHIUSTIAN DOCTRINE.

279

is not to be fairly examined by the la,vs of language,)
,,?ere never declined by such Catholic disciples of the

critical school instructed quite as many Catholic doctors as heterodox
teachers; a pretty nlanifest indication, one would think, that Scrip-
tural criticism can exist and flourish without any inherent heretical
tendency; that the heresy, when it does come, is rather in the soil
than in the seed. I can hardly regard it as very respectful to Reve-
lation to maintain ihat "comments, clear, natural, 11lethodical,
apposite, and logically exact" (p. 28-1), naturally lead to heresy;
or that "Nestorianism is founded on the literal interpretation of
Scnpture" (p. 290), for any n1Índ that would not have got at he-
terodoxy under any interpretation.
Of course hypercriticism in Scripture interpretation is an abuse;
and just so is extravagant subn1Ïssion to human authority an abuse;
and an ingenious disquisition on the evils of the one proves, for the
point at issue, precisely as much as a similar display of rhetoric on
the evils of the other.
The writer of the following sentence does not seenl to have con-
templated the task of biblical criticisln with these apprehensions.
"Præmunitus scientiâ linguarum, ne in verbis locutionibusque
ignotis hæreat; præmunitus etiam cognitione quarundem rerum
necessariarum, ne vinl naturanlve earUIIl quæ propter sin1ilitudinenl
adhibentur, ignoret; adjuvante etiam codicum veri tate, quam sollers
emendationis diligentia procuravit; veniat ita instructus ad ambigua
Scripturarunl discutienda atque solvenda," &c.-S. August. De Doc-
trin. Christ. Lib. iii. Cap. I. [Opp. Tom. iii. i. 33. ed. Ben. Arnst.
-G.]
)11'. Newnlan observes (p.287), "that the Syrian critics tended
as to X estorianisll1, so by a parallel nlovemen t to Sacramen tarianism ;"
and attempts to evade under this prete
t the well-known testÏ1110ny
attributed to St. Chrysostom, and that of Theodoret, against the
Roman dogma. lIe ough t to have carried the speculation a step
farther. The truth is, that the Kestorian and Eutycltian heresies
seem remarkably enough reflected in the rival errors about the Holy
Supper; the cold symbolism of the one party, the transubstantiation
of the other. And we all know how irresistibly the recognized fact
of the permanence of the elpments in the Eucharist was employed

280

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETT. VII.

school as Chrysostom, or Cyri 1 of Jerusalem, or Ephrem,
or Basil, ,vhenever they thought that biblical criticism
could be turned to a Catholic account. There is no one
of the dogmatic treatises of those times (allowance made
for peculiarities of style and incidental al1usions no,vise
relevant to the present question) which might not have
been the production of our flammond, or Pearson, or
Taylor; there is not one of them, say Athanasius's
Discourses against the Arians, Augustine's general sum-
maries of the faith in his work on Catechizing, or the
like, that could by any possibility be conceived written,
as it stands, by Romish di vines g . I will not no,v insist
how fatal, beyond all hope 9f evasion, is this universal
blank h in one of the alleged essentials of Christianity
and Christian Church Jnembership to the Ronlan pre-
tensions to antiquity. It is unnecessary to argue what
is at last confessed; but I must no,v beg to press it as

for the very purpose of denying the Personal Transubstantiation
im
gined by Eutyches for our Lord Hinlself; enlployed by a Pope
in the fifth cent.ury to condenln by anticipation the doctrine of
his own Church in the thirteenth. [Gelasius Papa I. De duabus
Naturis in Christo: Scripta Veterum Latina, fol. 84, b. ed. Sinller.
Tiguri, 1571.-G.]
g A convenient, though in1aginary, test, which I beg my reader
carefully to remember in reference tf) a similar supposition of 1\Ir.
Newnlan's to which I shall have presently to introduce hin1-
h [" It is nlatter of anlazement, if the Pope were such as they
would have him to be, that in so nlany bulky volumes of ancient
Fathers, living through lnany ages after Christ, in those vast trea-
suries of learning and knowledge, wherein all sorts of truth are
displayed, all sorts of duty are pressed, this nl0111entous point of
doctrine and practice should now here be expressed in clear and
peremptory tenus."-Barrow. (T'reatise if tile Pope's Supremacy,
p. 174. ed. CardwelL)]

LETT. VII.]

CHRISTIA:N DOCTRINE.

281

a consideration no less fatal to the ne,v shift than to the
old. If the need of this central infaJlibility infer-
make even plausible-the fact of its existence, how is
it that the fact never arose until the need had ill a great
measure ceased? The controversies, ,vhich Rome has
actually undertaken by her authority to deeiùe, ,vere
incol11parably less important than those which the
Church contrived to decide without it. "Popes are
summoned into action at the call of the dogl11atic prin-
ciple" (p. 348). 'Vhatever this precisely means (and
doubtless it is a highly satisfactory account of the origin
of a po,ver ,vhich no Il1an can doubt, and be saved),
ho,v is it to be eXplained that the dogmatic principle
never drealned of calling for H Popes" un til the best
and hardest of its ,york ,vas well nigh done? One
might add that, as at all tilnes, the genius of the East
,vas more inclined than that of the "\Vest to theological
disputation, if the need of the tribunal be the argument
of its existence, the tribunal \vas strangely n1isplaced.
nut in truth its origin ,vas very different.
1\'. The first developnlent of the Roman supren)acy
,vas not doctrinal, but disciplinary; it ,vas not as an
inspired arbiter of faith, but as an ecclesiastical sove-
reignty, that (except incidentally) it strove to enforce
its precedence. Fronl the very nature of the disputes
that accompanied its claims to po,ver, ,vhich ,vere ne-
cessarily to a considerable degree theological, clailIls to
prinlRcy among the Christian dioceses ,vonld be (as in
St. Leo) naturally attended ,vith lofty celebrations of
the unshaken orthodoxy of the See; but the real object
of ambition "
as not doctrinal ascendancy, but SOlne-
thing very much more congenial (it is to be feared) to

282

[L}
TT. VII.
the temper of " those firrn-n1Ïnded Latins." The sup-
posed necessity of a single central tribunal of theology,
in any distinct or Inatured forIn, was the conception of
a far later age; it arose \vhen the ecclesiastical usur-
pation began to be disliked on doctrinal grounds, and
when it thus became absolutely necessary either to give
up the supremacy of po","'er or to assert a parallel supre-
macy of inspired knowledge. There cannot be a greater
historical mistake than to date the dogmatic supremacy
of llorne as if it synchronized vvith its ecclesiastical
11l0narchy; the distinct recognition of this mysterious
gift really ranks among the latest of those develop-
lnents, \vhich, nevertheless, if this perilous advocate is
to be credited, were in all probability (a probability so
great that the chance of the infallible gift itself rests
upon it i ) a tissue of mistakes, until this tardy lun1Ïnary
arose, to light the Church to doing what \vas done be-
fore it appeared.
V. And how cOlnpletely, at \v hatever time its rise
be dated, the history of dogma, in connexion \vith this
local infallible directory, contradicts the superficial
fancy of a fregula'J
and consistent development of seminal
truths k into maturer doctrine, I am sure I need hardly
remind any intelligent student of historical theology.

ON THE DEVELOPDIENT OF

i For since the probability of the Infallible Gift is grounded on
its utility or necessity to prevent error, it 111USt of course he exactly
equal to the probability that as long as it was wanting there would
be, and was, error.
k As Stapleton expresses it, (in a violent effort to explain away
St. Augustine's celebrated saying about subsequeut plenary Coun-
cils frequently correcting their predecessors' decisions): "Concilia
posteriora 'emendant,' id est, perfectius explicant (!) fideln in semine
antiquæ doctrinæ latenten1," &c.-Relect. Controt.:. vi. q. 3. A. 4;

LEIT. VII.]
"That shall we say of a "development" that for1Tlally
denies the earlier truth out of \vhich it is said to spring;
and ,vhat shall ,ve say of the infallibility that guaran-
tees both? Take the establishnlent of the Canon of
IToly Scripture; a great and ITI0111entous object, surely,
for the exhibition of this supernatural prudence, and
one "rhich ,ve are perpetually told could never other-
,vise have been securely èlttained. Yet it is notorious
(not to speak of the universal and unifornl belief of the
Eastern Church, the express declarations l of
uch IHen
as Eusebius and Athanasius, and Epiphanius and Na-
zianzen, in opposition to the ultinlate Roman decision,)
that St. J erome m (,vholn St. Hilaryn corroborates,) con-
fessedly the highest authority in such nlatters in the
Latin Church, repeatedly and energetically denies the
canonicity of books sanctioned at Trent; it is notorious

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

283

[Princ(p. Fidei doct. Relectio, p.612. Antverp. 1596.-G.] where
)Ir. Newman may find some anticipation of his theory by a very
voluminous, and sonletimes an acute controversialist.
1 [For a full account of these " express declarations" of Eusebius,
Athanasius, Epiphanius, and N azianzen, see Cosin's Sclwlastical
History of the Canon. TVorl's (in Lib. of Anglo-Catlwlic Theology),
VoL iii. Numb. liii. Iv. lxiv. I xvi. ]
III [" Nonnulli Scriptorum veterum hunc (librum ðapientiæ) esse
Judæi Philonis affirmant. Sicut ergo Judith, et Tobiæ, et
Iachabæ-
orum libros legit quidem Ecclesia, sed eos inter Canonicas SCl'ipturas
non recipit; sic et hæc duo volumina legat ad ædificationem plebis,
non ad auctoritatenl Ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirnlandam."-
S. Hie1'. Pl'æf. in Lib. Salom., Tom. ix. Co!. 1296. Twelve other
testimonies against the Tridentine addition to the Canon are pro-
duced by Bishop Co sin, ubi sup. out of the writings of Jerome.]
n [St. Hilary gives a catalogue of the canonical books, according
to the Jewish division into twenty-two books.-S. Hitar. Prole Ex-
planat. in Psal., pp. 335, 336.]

284

[LETT. VII.
that Pope Gregory the Great hinlself, at a llluch later
period, has done the sanle O . Take, again, the common
belief of the separate locus refrigerii for the souls of the
blessed p , developing into a positive doctrine of their pre-
sent sovereignty with Christ in suprelne glory. Take

ON THE DEVELOP
lENT OF

oSee Stillingfleet on all this question of the Canon, "Council of
Trent Examined," &c. [Page 36. edit. 2. Lond. 1688.-G.] The
holy Pope employs, I may add, nearly the language of our Article;
his expression having been, perhaps, formed like our own on St.
Jerome: "Libris, licet non canonicis, sed tamen ad ædificationem
plebis [Ecclesiæ.-G.] editis."-J1Ioral. in Job. lib. xix. s. 34. [Opp.
Tom. i. col. 622. edit. Ben.-G.] Compare the decision of Canus:
"Oportet judicem vivum in Ecclesi áesse, qui fidei cOl1troversias deci-
dere possit. (Siquidem Deus in necessariis Ecclesiæ suæ non defuit.)
At librulll esse canoniculn necne, fidem maxime tangit."-De Loc.
Tlzeol. 1] . [ii. p. 30. Lugd.1704.-G. ] vii. (quoted, Thorndike, "Princ.
of Chr. Truth, 1. ii.
. 4.) [page 23. TV01'ks, VoJ. ii. P. i. Library of
Anglo-Cath. Theol. Oxf. ] 845.-G.] Of course the old subterfuge
of the pope quatenùs "private doctor," nlay be employed to salve
this difficulty; but ,vbat shall be done with his manifest testimony,
even as a private doctor, to the belief-at the lowest, the uncer-
tainty, in despite of previous alleged decisions-of his Church on
this Ï1nportant point, and at so late a period of her infallible legis-
la tion ?
P "Fideles omnes reservabuntur in sinu scilicet interÏ1n Abrahæ
collocati, quo adire inlpios interjectum chaos inhibet, quousque in-
troeundi rlusunl in regnUl11 cælorum tenlpus adveniat."-IIil. in
Ps. cxx. [...." futuri boni exspecta tio est, cùm exeuntes de cor-
pore ad introitum illum regni cælestis per custodiam Don1Íni fideles
onlnes reservabuntur," &c. (S. I-lilarÏi Opp. 383. cd. Bened.)-G.J
And this seenlS to have been, on the whole, the custonla.ry conjec-
ture of the tilnes. Pope John XXII., long after, fell into the lleresy,
and had in some inlperfect way, when dying, to recant it, of reviv-
ing the supposition that the fulness of the Beatific'Vision is post-
poned till after the Judgnlent. [For the last sentence in this note,
and the reference to Fleury, compare Maclaine's l\losheim, Cent. xiv.
ii. ii.
. 9.-G.] (See Fleury, xciv. xxi.)

LETT. VII.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

285

the adrnission of the ill1possibility of penitential satis-
faction after death q , developing into an elaborate system
of purgatorial pains, and their remission. The universal
belief, that none but God ought to be the object of
religious supplication r , develojJÙzg into the ,vorship of

q "Quod munus. [apparently the "purgatio salubri satisfac-
tione" which he has just before mentioned] in corpore non rece-
perit, consequi exutus carne non potel'it," &c.-Leo .J..1I. Ep. xci. [aliàs
lxxxiii.-G. ] ad Theo dor.
r St. A llgustin. De verâ Relig. c. Iv. [Opp. Tom. i. 587.-G.] De
Civit. Dei, Lib. xxii. c. 10: "Suo ordine nominantur, non invo-
cantur." [" Suo loco et ordine non1Ïnantur, non tamen à Sacerdote,
qui sacrificat, invocantur." (co!. 1355. Basil. 1570.)-G. ] So the
Greeks cOIllInonly; Origen. C. Gels.V. iv. [po 239. Can tab. lö58.-G.]
Athanas. contr. Arian. III. xxv.
. 6. [Orat. iii. cmd. Arian.
. 12.
p. 561. ed. Ben.-G. ] S. Clzl
ysost. et Theod. on Col. ii. [and Theod. on
Col. iii. 17, (Opp. Tom. ii. 138. Colon. Agripp. 1573.) as the Oxford
editor presently Inentioned informs us; and he, be it remembered,
was 1\11'. Newman hinlself.-G. ] Passages of plain doctrinal expla-
nation, which no bursts of oratory, or passing conjectures of writers
inexperienced in the peril of all conjectures on such lllatters, (as the
single word so often cited from St. Ambroset), can properly coun-

* [There is not any such reading as this either in an old (Colon. Agr. 1569.) or in
Quesnel's (Lugd. 1700.) edition of S. Leo's works. The wonl "manens," not
" munus," is found in both, as well as in the Canon Law, to which part of this
Epistle has been transferred. (Decret. ii. Par. Caus. xxxiii. Quæst. iii. De Pæn.
Dist. i. Cap. xlix.) It is access to sacramental communion, by means of reconcilia-
tion, that the Pontiff declares cannot be obtained by anyone after death.-G.]
t [See Gieseler, i. 288.-It is an erroneous and mischievous assertion of this
writer, that S. Ambrose "is the first wh? seems to recommend" the worship of
Angels. In proof of his supposition he adduces these words, to which Professor
Butler evidently alludes, from C. ix. De Viduis: "obsecrandi sunt Angeli [pro
nobis,] qui nobis ad præsidium dati sunt." (S. Amb. Opp. iv. 505.) This passage
exhibits more than a "passing conjecture" of S. Ambrose, but much less than a re-
commendation of the propriety of rendering religious worship to Angels. As well
might it be said that Jacob prayed to an Angel when he desired that a ministering
Spirit might be employed to " bless the lads;" or that David invoked a created being
when he used the denunciation, "Let the Angel of the Lord persecute them;" or

286

ON THE DEVELOP:
IENT OF

[LETT. VII

real or ilTIaginary saints. The custOlll of con1111ending
to God's lTIerciful care the Virgin
Iother, with other
saint
departed this life s , develo]Jing into praying to her

terbalance; even if any anlount of traditional testimony could dis-
turb the assurance Holy Scripture must convey to every candid
mind on the question. The late Editor of the Oxford English
Athanasius thinks it necessary to warn us that such places as I have
referred to do not contain "the w
ole doctrine of Origen, &c. on
the cuttus angelorum;" and that of "course they are not inconsis-
tent ,vith such texts as 1 Tim. v. 21," [Select Treatises, 9'c. pp. 417,
418J; as if that text did, in any conceivable way, warrant any such
cultus! and" such texts," as if the place were one of a large class of
proofs, and not notably peculiar. Perhaps the commentator meant
to include anlong "such texts" as ?emonstrate the cuitus angelorum,
the "let no Ulan beguile you in worshiping of angels" (the very
cultus itself without a shadow of difference, except that ÐpYJðKEía is
Greek, and cultus is Latin), of Col. ii. 18; and the" See thou do it
not," of Rev. xix. 10; xxii.8.
It is a real pity that this very profound, able, and diligent per-
formance, which recals in our days the learned labours of St. l\Iaur
and the Oratory, should be stained by such unhappy blemishes as
these.
s Cust0111ary in the Liturgies :* "Be n1Ìndful, Lord, of thy Saints,
,vho have pleased Thee in their generations, &c., patriarchs, pro-

that we worship the" Angels of the Lord," and the" Spirits and Souls of the Right-
eous," when we publicly read the Benedicite. Assuredly a very great distinction
should be made between the Romish direct solicitation of assistance from Angels and
Saints, and the earnest expression of a wish t1u
t Angelical protection may be granted
through the favour of God, according to His promise, and tbat the hea\Tenly host may
pray for us, which is all that S. Ambrose intended. "Tn, yidua," (he continues,)
" invenis qui pro te supplicent, si quasi verè vidua et desolata in Deum speres, instes
obsecrationibus, insist as orationibus," &c. The true doctrine of S. Ambrose is con-
tained in his solemn declaration, "Sed tamen Tu SOLUS, DO:\IINE, INVOCAXDUS ES."
(Cone. de obitu Theod. Imp. Opp. v. 122.) Compare Tyler's 1rors/lip of the Blessed
Virgin frIary, p. 254. Lond. 1846. Palmer's Fifth Letter to TViseman, p. 50. Oxford,
1841.-G.]
'" [Vid. Renaudotii Litllrg. Collect. i. 18. Paris. 1716. Taylor's Dissuasive from
Popery. Part ii. Book ii. Sect. ii. p. 504. Lond. 16ï3.-G.]

LETT. VII.]
as all but supreille in heaven. The abhorrence of
Illlaaes whose veneration \vas condemned so late as
ð ,
by Gregory the Great on the eve of the seventh cen-
turyt, developing into their erection as objects of public
prostration in Christian churches. The belief of the
equality ofbishopsu, develoJ]ing into papal suprelnacy by
original divine right. The belief of the danger and
i1npiety of half-conlmunio
w, develolJing into making it

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

287

phets, and every just spirit departed hence in the faith of Christ;
especially of the holy, glorious, Virgin," &c. And after a celebra-
tion, in the glowing style of the age, of the amazing favour done
her in the Incarnation, whereby, as they say, "her womb was made
the seat of Him whom the Heavens cannot contain," St. John the
Baptist, St. Stephen the proto-martyr, and sometinles the saint by
whom the Church had been first founded, are similarly commended
to divine protection. SOlnetinles God is besought to hear the
prayers offered to him on behalf of the Church militant by His de-
parted servants, (See CY1'ili. Catech. J.1Iy
tagog. v. 6.) [po 539. Paris.
1609.-G.J as being still one with us in the lllystical communioll
of the Body of Christ; an introduction of a later date, so far as ex-
tant liturgies attest, into the public service of SOlne churches; and
perhaps an instance of that too ambitious "intrusion into things
not seen," hardly pardonable in private speculation, quite unjustifi--
able in public offices, but essentially and manifestly distinct fron}
the Roman Invocation.
t "Adorare [adorari verò.-G.J Imagines modis omnibus veta."-
Epist. ix. 9. [Epistt. Lib. xi. Indict. iv. Ep. xiii. Opp. TOln. ii. 1101.
edit. Bened.-G.] He had himself, however, criminally departed
frolll prilnitive prudence in tolerating them in the churches as llle-
nlorials, against the universal judgment of earlier tillles.
uSee Epist. of Roman Clergy to S. Cyprian. [Ep. xxx. p. 56.
ed. Fell.-G.J So Pope SymJnaclzus ad Æonium Arelat. [Binii Con-
cilia, Tom. ii. P. i. p. 511. Colon. Agripp. 1618.-G.] So again
Greg. JL Epist. vi. 30. [So Greg. Epistt. Lib. ix. Indict. ii. Ep. lix.
Opp. ii. 976.-G.J
W Pope Gelasius in Decret. iii. P. de Consecr. Dist. ii.
. 12. [Cap.

288

ON THE DEVELOP}IENT OF

[LETT. VII.

heresy to deny it. The assertion of papal secular su-
prelnacy by Gregory, and Innocent, and Boniface (as
real a develoPlllent as the religious papacy itself), deve-
lOjJing into a still later abdication of it. The condeln-
nation of the peculiarities of :à1:ontanism, developing
(according to this author, p. 351) into their universal
disserrIination and adoption. Nay, the condelnnation
of the very principle of "developlnent" by the Roman
representatives, in common with others, at the Council
of Ephesus, developing into its triumphant establish-
ment. These are only brief and transient hints, but
they are easily verified and easily enlarged; and do
they not, even as they stand, suffice to establish the
exquisite harnlony of the progressive development, and
the value of the infallible developer? vVho can pardon
Sabellius for allo"\vil1g his untimely ardour for truth to
hurry hitn too fast for such a guide?
Nor this alone-but, as if purposely to preclude the
notion of an infallibility concentrated around the Ro-
man See, it is relnarkable ho,v, not,vithstanding the
comparative disinclination to the subtleties of contro-
versy so characteristic of the Western Church, the
names of several of its Popes did, unfortunately, get so
far entangled in the history of heresies as, in 1\11". N e,v-
n1an's gentle confession, to "leave to posterity the

xii.-G.J "Comperimus autem," &c., "quia divisio unius ejus-
demque sacran1enti [n1ysterii.-G.J sine grandi sacrilegio non potest
provenire." [Bp. Taylor, ut sup. p. 303.-G.J
Concil. Trident. 8ess. xxi. Canon 2: "Si quis dixerit sanctalll
Ecclesialll Catholicam non justis causis et rationibus adducta1TI
fuisse, ut laicos, atque etiau1 clericos non conficientes, sub panis tan-
tun1n10do specie comlnunicaret, aut in eo errasse; anathema sit /"

LETT. Y1I.]

CHRISTL\X DOCTRIXE.

289

burden of their defence." Liberius, ZOSilTIUS, 'Tigilius,
Honol-ius, represen t the infallible accuracy of the papacy
of the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries, and in
the Inost pressing and important controversies of their
respective times. Such accuracy upon the points on
'v hich ,ve agree, ITIay ,veIl dispose us to yield to the
same authority upon those on ,vhich \ve differ.
VI. The ROlllan authority has not, then, very effi-
ciently discharged its office of infallible superintendent
of developrrlents. But (as I intilnated in a forIner let-
ter) there is a real and iInportant sense in ,vhich Chris-
tianity does adu1it of varieties ,vhich may, if ,ve please
it, be terIned development
, and these distinct, too, from
111ere logical deductions; I mean those allo\va ble adap-
tations ,vhich, in the second of these Letters, I have
included, ,vith other facts of the same kind, under the
general head of "historical developments," by which
it justifiably meets and admits the diversities of indi-
vidual and national character. It is one of the peculiar
excellencies of this universal dispensation that it can
bear all clin1ates. But it usually receives, as the heal-
thiest constitutions ,viII, the out,vard cOlTIplexion of the
clÎ1nate it inhabits. Here then it is that the local x
"developing authority" novv in question, so far from

x [Compare Barrow. "'Vhereas all the world in design anù obli-
gation is Christian (the utmost parts ot the earth being granted in
possession to our Lord, and His Gospel extending to every creature
under heaven), and may in effect become such, when God pleaseth,
by acceptance of the Gospel; . . . it is thence hugely incommodious
that all the Church should depend upon an authority resident in
one place, and to be n1anaged by one person."-Treatise of the Pope's
Supremacy, p. 190. Ed. Cardwell.]
U

290

OK TilE DEVELOr:\IENT OF

[ LETT. VII.

being necessary or even expedient, is almost invariably
n1ischievous in its operation. Instead of assisting such
developnlents, it cramps, and fetters, and distorts them.
"\tVe may be assured, (however indirectly useful now
and again), it was never designed as a permanent di vine
provision in that dispensation, when "all flesh should
come to worship" before the Lord; \vhen "the isles afar
off, that had not heard His fame nor seen IIis glory,"
should be brought to hear and to behold; "\vhen the
abundance of tbe sea should be converted, and the
forces of the Gentiles" won to the Church of God.
The Christianity, for example, of the North and
South of Europe, ,vill ever_tend to characteristical dif-
ferences of exterior; and this nlay help us to do more
charitable justice to both. I have little sympathy \vith
the narrow superciliousness that objects to the Italian
his preference of a symbolical and picturesque religion;
his imaginative temperanlent, his tendency to reduce
the abstract to the conerete, and all to visible form,
,viII nlake any religion in his hands assume that aspect.
Who could even conceive the "platforn1" of the Scotch
I{irk taking pern1anent root, and becoming the recog-
nised worship, in Naples, or Florence, or RaIne? This
may seem an extreme case, but it \votlld be only a
higher degree of \Vl1at is t00 natural and customary
with us all, the attempt to refer all the varieties of per-
spective under which the same great Object is beheld
to our o\vn exclusive point of standing. The true ob-
jection to this Southern Christianity, as it has stood
for ages, is not that it delights in gorgeous ten1ples and
pOlnpous processions, in the popular legend and the
ready miracle; these things, so far as they are weak-

I.ETT. YII.]

CHIHSTI...\.N DOCTRIXE.

291

nesses, are probably no ,yorse than our o,vn, though
they Inay be son1e,vhat different fronl our o,vn; they
are inherent in the very nature of the people, and he
n1Ïserably underrates the na.tive energy of Christianity
,vho deell1s it Inust expire under the burden of this
gaudy costunle. The real objection is t,vofold. 'Ve
object, in the first place, that these teachers have suf.
fered the inlagination not Inerely to adorn doctrines
but to invent them; ,,"'e permit it to colour as brightly
as it nlay the original outline of the faith; and wil-
lingly abjure the bigotry of making our distaste, ho,v-
ever decided, for such florid decorations, an authorita-
tive standard to others; but ,ve cannot tolerate the
audacity that has dared to alter the outlines thenlselves.
Our second objection is to the arrogance \vhich not
only idolizes those peculiarities ,vhich to a certain ex-
tent ,ve have as little desire to assail as to in1Ïtate, but
insists upon in1J-}osing them, and the unhappy dogmas
that acconlpany them, upon the ,vorld on pain of uni-
versal anathema. The very liberality ,vhich concedes
to national tenlperament its fair (because its inevitable)
influence in colouring the exterior of Christianity, is
just ,vhat obliges us to resist the presumption ,vhich
,yould nlake these local prepossessions a law to the
,vorld. I-Janc venia'ln petil1lUs danlusque vicissÍ1n. N O\V
it is in this vie\v that the subject connects ,vith the
general question under discussion. For it is thus that
Ronle is not the protectress, but the narrow and tÌ1nid
enenlY of aillegitiinate local "developn1ents" of Chris-
tianity. A central infallibility of this kind-the infal-
libility of a given latitude and longitude-is essentially
incompatible ,vith the free and healthy expansion of an
u2

292

ON THE DEVELOPl\IE:XT O
'

[LETT. VII.

universal religion. The" Developing Authority" for
the globe is a petty Italian Prince, ,vho has spent his
life in the cloisters of a monastery or the cabals of a
conclave; a respectable ecclesiastic of rather limited
faculties Y is the legislator of a planet; the destined
religion of a thousand ll1illions, or more, of Ï1nmortals,
is to be R0711an Catholic. The God of the Gospel, 'v ho
is also the God of Nature and her laws, can hardly
have intended this.
But it has succeeded! Emphatically I deny it. In
this very incompatibility ,vas rooted the mOVelTIent of
the Sixteenth century; a moven1ent, observe, ,vhich
commenced the very morDent that the opposing tern-
peranlents of the North - and South found roon1 fairly
to exhibit then1selves in the ,vorld of intelligence; for
till then the senli-barbarous North had taken its reli-
gion almost altogether upon trust; instructed by n1is-
sionaries, and largely officered by functionaries, in the
interest of Rome; receiving its entire ecclesiastical
literature from the South, and possessing neither n1eans
nor inclination to detect an old and learned Ï1nposition.
And even granting that, to a certain extent, this Ro-
lDan monarchy has as yet kept together, and is likely
for a considerable period to do so, ho,v precarious and

Y The present occupant of the position is regarded as an excep-
tion; and the journalists are exhausted in devising expressions for
an adluiration which too surely testifies to the novelty of the object
that excites it. Awkwardly enough, the good works of Pius IX.
are without exception borrowed from heterodox nlodels; the super-
natural wisdom of the Roman See rises to its highest manifestation
in venturing a feeble, though very praiseworthy, in1Ïtation of the
ordinary spirit and po]icy of heretical nations.

LETT. VII.]

CIIRISTIAX DOCTRIXE.

').0 0
_iJi)

uncertain is it to argue froln the history of SOHle thirty
or forty generations of TIlen, to the real design and ul-
tÏInate fortunes of a dispensation such as the Christian,
that lnay extend (for aught any living man can tell) to
ten tirI1es the number; that yet, dating its annals by ft,
"year of OUT Lord" comprising a hundred centuries,
lnay have abandoned Europe to feebleness and barbar-
iSln, and erected its proudest patriarchates in Australia
or Japan. As the case no,v stands, the Roman supre-
macy has retained in adherence nations ,vhose physical
tenlperament and habits naturally united them around
a eommon centre; it has even among these becon1e
gradually less and less po,verful, exactly in proportion
as the natural influences diminish in power; it has for
ages ,vholly failed ,vhere alone supernatural interfe-
rence might have been plausibly inferred from success.
This inherent incornpatibility of a single human lno-
narchy ,vith the diversities of national position and
temper, points at once to the true and only Sovereign Z
for the Universal Church of God, in HI
I ,vho took not
on Him so Inuch the nature of a man as of humanity;
who, though He ,vas pleased to assume that nature
from a Je,vish stock, has not borne ,vith IIim to Hea-
ven the special influences of any clime or class, but,
universal Himself as
Iankind, can feel for all, and un-
derstand all, and appropriately distribute to the needs
of all.
'TII. This is a subject far too extensive for my pre-
sent purpose, and I shall restrict myself to a brief
attell1pt to illustrate one further observation ,vhich lnay

z [CoD1pare Barrow, pp. 176, seqq.]

294

ON THE DEVELOP1\IENT OF

[LETT. VII.

he thought of SOITIe importance. It is to this very prin-
ciple of local developnlents of Christianity, their silnila-
rity in the sanle, their discrepancy in different regions,
that Roman Controversy really owes almost all its plau-
sibility in discussions about antiquity. It has been
perpetually observed that the strength of the Roman
case consists in the attractive resemblance ,vhich it
exteriorly presents to the Church of the Fathers, even
under unquestionable changes of substantial doctrine.
The chief force of the very ,york before IDe consists in
its highly coloured representations of this; its danger,
too, for the majority of readers are superficial, and this
is precisely an argull1ent for superficial thinkers a . N o"\,y
it is the incidental good fortune of the Roman centre
of influence, that it occupies the very ground ,vhich
itself was the theatre of ancient ecclesiastical history.

a Some parts of 1\11'. Newman's labours in this ,yay are, I n1lIst,
however, confess, greatly beyond the" superficial thinker." l\1uch
of his "Application of the First Test" really requires no small sharp-
ness to penetrate its ain1 at all. The patient reader is at length re-
warded by discovering that a series of rapid and clever sketches of
early Church history is entirely intended to den10nstrate a perfect
resenlblance between our Restored Catholicity and the doings of the
Arians (p. 273, &c.), the Nestorians (p. 291, &c.), the Eutychians
(p. 308, &c.), and others; the Church of Hooker and I-Ierbert thus
affording a sort of concentrated es
ence of all the heresies-and
even the mutually opposed heresies-that have gone before it. I
am not sure that this is quite creditable. The real and great abi-
lities of 1\11'. Newman might, methinks, find some more dignified
occupation than allegorizing history into polen1Îcal puzzles, twisting
the pages of Eusebius and Theodorct into prophetic enigrnas; a
vexatious and often inexpressibly unfair mode of attack, which
n1Ïght, without any luaterialloss, have been left where it was found
-to infidelity and Gibbon.

LETT. VII.]

CHRISTI.AN DOCTRINE.

295

Besilles other results of this, ,vhich Italian ecclesiastics
kno,v ,veIl ho,v to turn to use, ,ve can at once perceive
that ,vhatever ùe the influence of race and clime, these
it 111ust inherit; tl1-ese, at least, must be the saIne, and
operate in the same ,yay, for both. If, then, there ,vas
anything of this kind to affect IIilary, or Jerome, or
Leo, or .L
ugustine hinlself, or their Eastern contempo-
raries too,-if there ,vas anything in these secret but
potent local influences, that predisposed to certain
modes of life, that heightened men's habitual vie,vs of
the pOln p and splendour proper to religious services,
tl1at inclined to drearny conjecture about matters super-
natural, that tended, if not carefully controlled, to en-
thusiastic extremes, that modified the style of oratory
and exposition, that gave a ,varm, imaginative colour-
ing to all things religious,-if, I say, there ,vas in those
glo,ving Southern climes, ,vhether of verdure or of
\vilderness, any tendency at all to beget such a tone of
thought and action as this,-and if the holy men of old
,vere TIlen, not angels, and so, liable to the influences
that necessarily nlove Inen,-and this the lllore readily
that they had no past, and no diversified experience to
preach caution,-is it not natural that the Christian
movement they directed should have exhibited some
exterior influences from a source so constant and po,ver-
ful; and is it not equally natural that ,vith those exte-
rior influences, under any an10unt ,vhatever of interior
change, the Church and population of the sarne clime,
tenpep, and habits, should habitually sympathize, and
so sympathizing, that it should diffuse the san1e exter-
nal garb of Christianity through the sphere of its autho-
rity, as long as an equally po,verful opposing tendency

2D6

[LETT. VII.
suffered that authority to flourish? And lastly, ,vhel'e
that opposing tendency -a national character of colder
and 11lore cautious texture-existed,-is it impossible
that the divine and inlmortal elenlents of Christianity
lllight be more accurately possessed anù l1lore reve-
rently treasured; and yet the external fornl of religion
be far less similar than in the last case to that exhibit-
eù in those earlier \vriters, \vhom, nevertheless, all
equally agree to regard \vith respect and affection?
This consideration supplies the true key to the ùiffi-
culty \vhich 1\11". N e\Vlnan starts against us, in a charIn-
ingly-\vritten passage of his book (p. 138), \vhere he
Ï1l1agiues Athanasius and
n1 brose at Oxford, or else-
where; and triurnphantly urges that "it cannot be
doubted \vhat comn1unioll they ,vould mistake for their
o,vn." Not to hint what would be the probable judg-
ment of the two Saints ,vith regard to even the exterio r /,
of innumerable lnatters that they nlight see without
leaving Italy itself, I ,viII canùidly admit that I should
be by no means confident of a verdict, if the illustrious
strangers \vere forced to a decision \vithin an hour after
their arrival. The 1110difying influences of an interval
of fifteen hundred years are not to be judged by even
Saints in an hour. A certain antique style of expres-
sion faluiliar to their ears, nay, the old Latin phraseo-
logy itself; the nlonastic circle in \v hich they \vere
,vont so often to find retreat and refreshnlent; the pOlnp
of services grateful to the glo\ving irnaginations of
Alexandria and
Iilan ;- these things, and the like,
would attract; for \vho is there anlong us that does not
attribute sonlething 1110re than is due to such habitual
associations as these? But Athanasius and Ânlbrose

OX TIlE DEVELOIJ:\IENT O:F

LETT. VI!.]

CUUISTIAN DOCTIUNE.

297

,vere both luen of distinguished intellectual powers;
and ,vith a reasonaùle time for inquiry I should have
no doubt at all of the issue; there could never have
been a doubt, ,vere it not for the external reselnblance
I have noted and accounted for; and in such hands a
very short time ,vould suffice to penetrate that. And
even as regards the first immediate aspect of Roman-
i
m, 1\11". N e,vrnan \vill never persuade Jne that St. Atha-
llasius ,vould have joined" the unlettered cro,vd before
the altar," ,vhen he heard that cro,vd utter the prayer
of enthusiastic devotion to creatures-to hírn8elf,-he
,vho has so emphatically declared that " Angels theln-
selves are not worshipped but ,vorshippers, and God
alone to be adored"b, and built on the exclusiveness of
the right the proof of the divinity of his Lord; or that
AITI brose, who proclaÏ1TIs that" the Church kno,vs no
such idle fornls of in1ages"c, \vould have willinglybowed
his 111itred head to the dressed and painted statue of a
holy,voman. But as 1\11". Newnlan indulges his fancy
in iInagining the Saints of the Fourth Century upon
their travels, he ,vill pardon me for renlinding hÏ1n that
an appeal lies to mightier authorities still. Alnbrose
and Athanasius vail before Paul; I conduct the Apos-
tle from an English country Church, "\vith its noble
and intelligible liturgy, and the expressive simplicity of

b Orate contr. Arian. II. eh. xvi.
. 7. [" Therefore to God alone
appertains worship, and this the very Angels know, that though
they excel other beings in glory, yet they are all creatures and not
to be worshipped." (S. Ath. Opp. i. i. 491. Orate ii. cant. Ar.

. 23.)-G.]
C De Fugâ Sæculi,
. 27. [Cap. v. Opp. i. 358. Lut. Par. lö61.-
" Ecclesia inanes ideas, et vanas nescit SimuIacrorum figuras."-G.]

298

ON THE DEVELOP:r.IENT OF

[LETT. VII.

its ritual, and the chastened ardours of its C0111nlUnion,
-to the procession of the Host, and the incensing
priests chanting in "an unkno"\vn tongue," and the cro\vd
of ,vorshippers prostrate before the God beneath the
canopy,-and I confidently ask-"\yhich c0111munion
,voulù HE mistake for his o\vn?
I cannot but think that it \vill by this time be tole-
rably evident u;hose is the narro"\v and confined theory
of developnlcnt; \vhich vie\v of Christianity it is that
linlits it to a single exclusive type, and fetters its grow-
ing lilnbs, and freezes its vital energies. II ad it not
been, indeed, for this iron ligature compressing the
Roman theology as soon as it had reached a certain
stage, and never since allo,ving it to expand, it might
possibly have developed into sinlplicity; for there are
"developments" in organized bodies that consist in
thro\ving off excrescences as \vell as in adopting foreign
l11aterial; and no one \vill say that the former is not
in itself as conceivable as the latter. But, to vie\v the
case lTIOre generally-Christianity is in nothing 11lore
signally divine than in its marvellous power of adapta-
tion; inflexible as to substantial truth, nothing is more
happily flexible as to circulllstantial attire. No,v here
is the essential error of the present theory. The author
has got hold of this great truth of legitinlate variation;
but he has got hold of it (as \ve say) by the \vrong end.
To this, ho\vever, he is bound by the articles of his ser-
vice; for it is precisely the error of the Roman Church
herself. Christianity, unalterable in doctrine, adnlits
considerable variation in its external presentation;
ROlnanis111 just reverses this,-it alters the doctrine,
and insists rigorously on a single exterior of cerelnony,

LETT. VI!.]
and a single type of the Sain tl y life. Catholicisln is
the religion of a ,vorlc1; ROlDan Catholicis1l1 is the
religion of a tribe or race of In an d. I t has spread,
doubtless, and doubtless it ,viII still spread; but its
diffusiveness is in the truth it holds in solution; and its
remoter sway invariably ,veakens and expires in pro-
portion as its dependencies become civilized. Not at
all that Ronlanisl11 is hostile to a civilization of a cer-

CHRISTIAN DOCTIUXE.

299

d l\Ir. Newman insists at considerable length (p. 248, &c.) on the
appropriation of the title" Catholic" by the South- 'Vestern Church
of Europe. I am not aware that this ha.s ever been a fact, to the
exclusion of the orthodox Eastern communion; though certainly,
as far as we of this Church are concerned, it is sometimes pern1Ïtted
to approach nearer to a fact than it ought. 'Vith a sad recollection,
no doubt, of the mutual jealousies of DonlÌnican, and Franciscan,
and the rest, he pities those who, instead of the common and glori-
ous title of Catholic, are styled by the names of men. Yet after aU,
which was the Body that first dared to contract the majestic uni-
versality of the title? Is it in itself nluch nlore sectarian to glory
in the name of a man than in that of a town? Let it be remenl-
bered that local denominations for heretical sects (Cataphryges, &c.)
were not at all uncommon in Antiquity.
I am afraid I cannot retract this charge even under such over-
powering proofs of the primitiveness of this fanlous prænomen as the
fact tbat Gregory of Tours (towards the end of the sixth century)
found it absolutely necessary to explain to the world [" for they call
men of our religion Romans,"-lYelcman, p. 276,J that certain bar-
barians contemptuously distinguished the 'Vestern Christians by the
name of their chief city.
Stapleton, in treating this old topic, boldly commences: "Apud
veteres pro eodenl habita fuit Ecclesia Ronlana etEcclesiaCatholica;"
but his more modest reason is, that "ejus communio erat evidenter
ct certissimè cum tota Catholica."*-Relect. Controv. I. v. 3.

" [" Sola Romana Ecc1esia adeò est Catholica, ut apud \'eteres pro eodem habita
fuerit Romana Ecc1csia, fides,societas, et Catholica Ecc1esia, fides, societas." -. . . .
" sed quia ejus communio erat evidenter et cel'tissimè cum tot a Ecc1esia Catholica,"
&c.-(Principior. Fid. doct. Releet. pp. 150, 151. Antv. 1596.)-G.]

300

OX TIlE DEVELOP:\lENT OF

[ LETT. VII.

tain kind. But civilization, vie\ved abstractedly and
on the whole, is the developlnent of hun1anity; it in-
variably calls out the distinctive genius of peoples; and
the thorough assertion of that distinctive genius is fatal
to the pern1anent dOlnination of any foreign influence
whether political or religious.
'TIll. Accordingly, the only solid clailn the Papacy
ever could advance-its expediency, is a claim \vhich
really contradicts its 1]e1
7Itanence. That the Church
should n10nopolize po\ver ill the Inediæval period, ,vas
not so much blan1e\vorthy as it \vas inevitable; the
po\ver lTIUSt be \vhere the kno\vledge is; and it is best
it should be there. For my own part, I can never be-
lieve that it \vas not on the \vhole better that Church-
n1en should govern mediæval Europe, than the \veak
and ignorant tyrants who occupied its thrones, and their
semi-barbarian feudal nobles. This \vill not, indeed,
excuse crin1inal ambition and secularity, but it ,viII
tend to explain its success, and tend to vindicate the
mercy of Providence in permitting it. In the same
,yay, the ascetic Saint of the n1iddle ages \vas often the
appropriate holy man of that tin1e; the telnptation, to
a Church of great wealth, and po\ver almost absolute,
would ever be to luxury and love of ease; \vhile the
gross state of domestic society, and the separation of
the clergy frOITI even such influences as it could afford
to refine and civilize, lTIay have necessitated a n10del of
ecclesiastical piety which \vould no\v be unnatural and
extravagant. The v''''ork of the stern Carthusian and
his fellows may, it is probable, be achieved in other
days by other n1eans; but he was-perhaps is-a me-
1110rial of un worldliness not \vithout real value in his
time and place. But neither the Pope nor the l\fonk

LEIT. VII.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

301

is an imnlortal element in the Church of the Ke,v Co-
venant; seen beside that great Idea and the essential
truth on ,vhich it reposes, Canterbury is as genuine a
reality as Rome, and George IIerbert's holy parsonage
as true a developn1ent as the Grande Chartreuse. Let
us never dare to tamper ,vith the imlTIutable, in order
to eternalize the temporary; let us be,vare of altering
the landlnarks of that Truth 'v hich ",vas in the begin-
ning, is no,v, and ever shall be," in order to give a pre-
posterous perpetuity to such accidents as a papacy and
the special theology that grew up to maintain it. Above
all, in the advocate of Christian Developlnent is this
unpardonable; arbitrarily to fix "hat his o,vn principle
admits to fluctuate; arbitrarily to arrest in nlid-flo,v,
and congeal into one cold unyielding nJass, the Inajestic
strean1 ,,"hose free and abounding current he has him-
self undertaken to trace and celebrate; arbitrarily to
suppose (again to return to the Îlnmediate question),
that a Po,ver, often useful as a comnlon and stable
centre of intelligence in the long and turbulent transi-
tion period of Europe, had any clain1 to the same kind
of attachment ,vhen, in the general diffusion of kno,v-
ledge, and the formation of separate centres of national
life, the conditions that alone gave it value had expired;
and to fancy he has proved this (and not proved pre-
cisely the contrary), when he has e]aboratel:r sho,vn
how out of those conditions it naturally enough arose.

The foregoing observations are directed to the spe-
cific theory of infallibility ,vhich is maintained by the
Roman theologians; that, namely, ,,,,hich concentrates
the infallible gift in or around a special line of prelates

302

ON TIlE DEYELOP1\tIENT OF

[LETT. VII.

and a special locality ; \vhich, ,,'hatever other conditions
it contelnplates for the exercise of the po\yer (and I do
not at all forget its endless variations on the subject, or
ho\v the oracle, infallible in all else, has nlarvellously
continued to this day unable to identify itself), at least
Inakes the R0111an element SOlne ,yay or other essential.
'ro this papal conception of Church Infallibility J\fr.
N e,vman fully subscribes; tit-is, and no other, is his
real "Developing Authority." "All Catholics," he pro-
clain1s from Dellarn1Ïne (p. 125), "agree that the P o]Je
,vith General Council, cannot err, &c., and that tIle Pope,
,v hen deterlnining anything in a doubtful 111atter, by
hilnself or ,vith his o,vn particular Council, "\vhether it
is possible for biln to erf- or not, is to be obeyed by all
the faithful." This notion, then, I haye been justified
in cOlllparing ,vith the hypothesis of develop1l1ent ; sug-
gesting ho\v 111anifestly, as itself R posterior formation,
it aSSUlnes the great question at issue-the legitinlacy
of post-Scriptural essentials of Christianity, and the in-
fallible certainty \vith \vhich they successively arose;
that is, assumes the very certainty it is introduced to
confer ;-and again, ho,v little the history of dogl11as
attests its necessity; and, after all, ho,v really hostile
such a directory--local, limited, prepossessed by cir-
CUlnstances and position, 111USt ever be to the fair and
free expansion of Christianity, to the genuine "deve-
lopment" of its inherent energies alllong the diversified
tribes of lllankind.
Still, it 11lay be urged that I have hardly done jus-
tice to the theory in restricting its application to the
R01nan forln of developing authority, and detaching
the latter fro111 the trunk on which it grew. The Ro-

LETT. VII.]

CHHISTIAN DOCTRIKE.

303

man infallibility, it ,vill be said, is not to be vie,veù as
un isolateù phenomenon; no doubt it was a late evo-
lution of Christianity; but the Catholic Church, in the
exercise of its corporate infallibility, grew to be iden-
tified, in the course of centuries, ,vith the Roman,
and so becalne, as it ,vere, gradually transfigured into
the ROlnan, retaining all its original gifts and graces.
I3efore this vague conception (which I presume to be
the common one w'ith the fe,v among ROlnanists who
are permitted to be aware of the total absence of infal-
lible papacy from the records of antiquity) can be re-
ceived, not merely as justifying anathelnas against all
who doubt it, but as comlnonly intelligible,-it ,viII be
necessary (as I ha ve partly in tilnated before in this
letter) to ll1ake SOlne attelllpt to satisfy the following
plain inquiries.
1. "'hat ,vere the exact nature and linlÌts of tltis ]Jri-
nâtit'e C'atholic Infallibility,-to 'v hat doctrines (funda-
lnental only, or detailed) did it extend, and ho,v ,vere
its decisions collected? What has Scripture intin1ated
about it; and ho,v far ,vere the early doctors of the
Church accustomed to rely upon it as a sufficient test
of truth, and a bar to all further discussion?
2. Supposing the nature and extent of this Catholic
Gift settled and conceded, did the possession of the
Gift involve the totally distinct privilege qf consigning
it to any comlnunion less than that Universal Church
in ,v"hich it is supposed to have been originally vested?
3. Supposing the special privilege delnOl1strated, of
thus alienating the Gift, and confining it under condi-
tions confessedly unkno,vn to antiquity,-at zchat tÙue,
and by what recorded process, DID the U ni versal Church

30-t

ox TIlE DEVELOr:\1E
T OF

[LETT. VII.

ever consign the benefits of its cor I 1orate blessinO' to
v 0
any particular cOlnlnunion,-as the Ronlan?
These are three very Inaterial inquiries; of \v hich
not one but all must be solved, before "'"e can adn1Ït
the Catholic and the Roman senses of the divine su-
perintendence of the Church's Faith to be convertible.
And even supposing them all ans\vered and Bubstan-
tiated; that the fact and a1Jlounl of the Infallibility
\vere distinctly settled, that the fl'igl1J to tranifer it \vere
made good, and that the records of that nlomentous
Council of the Church Universal ,vere exhibited in
which the sole Inn transference was made,-I cannot but
think that another legitimate subject of inquiry \youlù
still renlain, to s0111ethiI
g -of the following effect:
4. Supposing that the Church Universal ever did
make the transference, that in the recesses of SODle un-
explored chronicler of the seventh or eighth century
the deed of conveyance should eyen be detected and
dragged to 1ight,-does not the right to make the con-
signrnent apparently involve tIle
"ight to u.ithdraw it j or
can the Church of one age anù region, by a purely
arbitrary act, bind irrevocably the C"hurch of all ages
and all regions? And if the corporate gift ,vere trans-
ferable only by corporate consent, and the transference
perpetually dependent thereJn,-is not the manifest
cessation of that consent a signal that the gift has lapsed
back to its original depository. IIo,v can it be proved
that the Catholic infallibility "\vhich is Dlaintained by
mere force of COlnnlon consent to have developed into
ROBle, lnay not,-rather, n1ust not-by subsequent dis-
sent of the parties, dcyelope back into a purely Catholic
endO\Vlnent again?

LETT. VII.]
But I lTIUst not tempt my readers' patience by push-
ing this into fa.rther minutiæ. They cannot but kno\v
ho\v little has ever really been done to establish the
requisite proofs of this portentous development, to forge
the indispensable connecting links between the Chris-
tianity that ,vas "first Catholic, then Papal." A fe\v
strong expressions in the epistles of ROlnan bishops
about the unequalled majesty and mightiness of their
See,-arrogations \vhich, '\vhenever they involved any
actual usurpation of supreme preeminence, seen1 to haye
been constantly resisted,-,vitness the failure of even
such a Inan as Leoe at Chalcedon f ; and the rejection-
or ,vhat is as good, the equal g arrogation-of which by

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

305

e [See an able account of the Pontificate of Leo in Allies (Cllurclt
of England Guarded, qc., Chap. iv.) In that Pontiff's mode of
stating his own Primacy,
Ir. Allies conceives that the "germ of
something very like the present Papal system, without, however,
such a wonderful concentration and absorption of all power, is
discerni bIe."]
f [For a full discussion of the proceedings at Chalcedon, in their
bearing upon Leo's claims, see Allies, ubi Slp. "It is n1uch to be
observed," concludes 1\11'. Allies, "that the acts and the words of
the Council give no countenance to the present Papal theory, for
they declare that in 'lclwtel.,'er sense Rome is jb'st, in tlzat same sense
Constantinople is second. If the prÙnus inter pm'es becon1es a mo-
narch, it is not a development but an usurpation."-p. 302.J
g [" At the end of this period (A. D. 451), the four Patriarchs of
the East were held in their patriarchates for ecclesiastical centres,
to which the other bishops had to attach themselves for mainte-
nance of ecclesiastical unity, and, in conjunction with their patriar-
chal synod, they formed the highest tribunal of appeal in all ecclesi-
astical matters of the patriarchate."-Giesele7', i. Pt. ii. pp. 191-2.
1\11'. Allies has shown that the same kind of evidence, which is relied
on by Ron1anists to prove the papal supremacy, may be adduced in
favour of the Patriarch of Constantinople and other eastern Patri-
X

[ LETT. VII.
others, we should probably discover much more amply
if all the records of the rival Patriarchates had been as
carefully preserved and skilfully edited by their o,vn
servants, as those of the Latin Church ;-a fe,v flat-
tering compliments to the throne of Peter from eccle-
siastics endeavouring to ingratiate themselves ,vith an
influential Bishop, and in an age ,vhen such flattering
courtesies to great Prelates ,vere universal h ; such are
the testimonies on ,vhich ,ve are to rely in proof that
a transition into a ne,v and unalterable form of being,
,vas, at one time or other, effected, under divine com-
n1a.nd, by the conjoint energy of the ,vhole Church; that

306

ON TilE DEVELOPMENT OF

arc]1s. They received the same titles of respect; they were the
highest tribunal of appeal in their provinces; they occupied the
same place in the eastern liturgies as the Pope in the Roman.
"The similar authority exercised by other bishops, especially that
of Constantinople, nay, solen1nly comn1Ïtted to hiln by the largest
<Ecun1enical Council, (Canons of Chalcedon, 9 and 17,) is carefully
put out of view."-Allies, p. 342.J .
h It is one of the incurable evils of a controversy like this, which
deals with enormous masses of historical documents, that, usually
consisting in the array of rival regiments of quotation, it is hardly
ever conducted ,vith perfect fairness, and can never possibly be
brought to an end. To SOU1e readers the mere title of" blessed and
holy Pope," applied to an early Roman Bishop, brings all the asso-
ciations of the triple crown and the Vatican; because their little
bundle of "testimonies from Antiquity" does 110t enable them to
turn the page and find the same paternal designation applied to a
Patriarch of Alexandria or Constantinople. (Sirmond, if I remem-
ber rightly, shows that the word was first authoritatively lin1Ìted to
the Roman Prelate by Gregory.YI1. in 1079).- 'Ve must remen1-

'" [The statement here made is founded on a note in Gieseler, i. 339, and this
writer has inaccurately named the year 1075 as the date of the peculiar application
of the title " Papa" to the Bishop of Rome. Sirmondus wishes to make it appear that

LETT. VII.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

307

a great vital and essential transformation of the lIlysti-
cal Body of Christ took place, from ,vhich thenceforth
no 11lenl bel" can insulate itself and retain life. No doubt
the Papacy is a Fact-a" great Fact" if you please it ;
but it is no very unlikely fact, under any hypothesis as
to its cause ;-nor perhaps, as a nle1
e historical pheno-
menon vie,ved on ordinary human principles, is the
permanence of Rome as a sacred locality 1110re really
,vonderful than that of
ledina or Cairouan, for some
t,velve hundred years back, not to speak of Jerusalem
itself; or the permanent throne of its Pope l1lore inex-
plicable (still as a mere historical fact) than that ,vhich
bears to it so curious an analogy, the popedom of the

ber that in the early tinles it was universal to insist with extraor-
dinary pertinacity upon the rights of sees and the order of episcopal
precedence; to a somewhat unhappy degree, indeed, when we recaIl
our Lord's men10rable injunction to lIis disciples contending for
supren1acy. K ow this being the case, it naturally followed, first,
that the celebration of the special claims of a see became an obvious
mode of adulation on the part of clients or supplicants of influential
bishops; and, secondly, that in tbat age any recognised supreme au-
thority would have exhibited itself with a prominence impossible to
be mistaken. Lavish as they were in titles of respect in all their
public acts, we n1ay conjecture how profusely they would have de-
corated the ecclesiastical sovereign with all the insignia of his office:
when the n10st ordinary bishop was "the 1110st blessed Lord, the
bishop beloved of God," &c., how would language have been ex-
hausted in addressing or describing the Vicar of Christ t*

Ennodius, early in the sixth century, specially assigned this appellation to the Roman
Pontiff; (Rot. in Ennod. Epistt. iv. i.
irmondi Opp. i. 837. Veneto 1728.) and it
was A. D. 1076 that Hildebrand's appropriation of the name took place. (Binii
Concill. Tom. iii. Par. ii. p. 398. )-G.]
" [Respecting this title see before, p. 83. Bingham has plainly shown that all
Bishops were anciently styled" Vicars of Christ." (Anti'l.'l.' Book ii. Chapter ii. Sec-
tion x.)-G.]

x2

308

ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF

[ LETT. VII.

far East-the long successive line and mystic sacerdotal
soyereignty of the Thibetian Lama i .

i Of whom travellers ten us that" he is esteemed the Vicegerent of
the only God, the mediator between mortals and the Supreme. They
[the vast population and innul11erable tribes of Eastern Tartary and
Thibet] view him as perpetually absorbed in religious duty, and
w hen called on to attend to the concerns of n10rtals, as being en1-
ployed only in the benign office of distributing comfort and conso-
lation, forgiveness and mercy. lIe is also the centre of all civil
government, &c. He is the head of the whole system, which is a
regular gradation from the most venerated Lama, through the
whole order of Gylongs, to the young noviciate. . . . . For the per-
formance of daily service in the temple of Teshoo Loon1boo, there
are 3700 gylongs or priests. . . . . Youth intended for the service of
the monastery are received i
to the establishment at the age of
eight or ten years. They are then called tlippa, and are occupied in
receiving instruction suited to their age. At fifteen they are usu-
any admitted into the order of tohba, if found sufficiently qualified;
and thf'nce into the order of gylong between
he ages of twenty-one
and twenty-four. They are then eligible to the superintendence of
some endowed monastery, of which there are multitudes spread all
over Thibet, with lands assigned then1 for their support; their pro-
nlotion depending on their interest or their character. In this sta-
tion as chief of a flock, they are honoured with the appellation of
lama. Those who enter the religious order are enjoined sobriety,
celibacy, and all the austere practices of the cloister. [Immense
numbers of mendicant brethren also live on the charity of the de-
vout.] There is a considerable nu nber of nunneries as well as
n1onasteries; and the strictest prohibitions exist against any woman
even accidentally passing a night within the walls of the one, or a
n1an within those of the other. The ecclesia.stical class who hold
intercourse ,vith heaven are entirely divided fronl the lay class, who
carryon the business of the world, a.nd no interference ever inter-
rupts the regulated duties of the clergy. Their religion is divided
into two sects; . . . . the red differ from the sectaries of the yellow
in admitting the ma.rria.ge of the priests, but the latter are con-
sidered as the more orthodox, as well as possessed of grea.ter in-

LEIT. Y1I.]
r-rhe difficulties of the hypothesis of Infallible Dcve-
IUplllent are not, ho".eyer, confined to its application in

CHHISTL\X DOCTRIXE.

309

fluence. . . .. But the
piritual influence of the lamas ha<;; been
much weakened by that of th
ir earthly protectors, the enlperors of
China," L\.c. [From a summary in the Enc!lcl. Br;tallll., '
01. xxi.
p. 25.. &eventh edit.]
I had not designed to have extended this quotation 80 far; open-
Ït.lg 3S it dO
5 a new and distinct fidd of thought; but I h..l.ve really
been drawn on from sentence to sentence by the
ingular force of
the
mâlo!;!y it su
O'est:s. Peruse it as it stands; make even allow-
'-. \,...0
ance for
ome exaggeration (in truth the reseIublance might be
òrawn closer-even to such characteristics a
ritual service in a
sacred tongue not understood by the votaries &c.), and what re-
flections does it awaken 1 Far should I be from commenting harshly
upon disciplinary societies or practices which have been thought
valuable by men whom I am not worthy to praise, but I would
strenuously resist the artful and seductive eloquence which is now
employed to make then1 essentials of Christianity, as if exclush ely
exhibiting tbe workings oi its peculiar nnd Inàtchl

s spirit. How
does the instance before us apply? H
re is nearly, if not altogether,
the nl('
t degrading, and immor:;l.t and. often pitiless idulatrJ on the
face of th
e:.uth; one, ob3erv(' which, however "'ume 5light details
IllaY. po
sibly, have been affected at some time or other by Christian
intercm.lr
e, could never have got at its general polity nnd dis-
cipline-its Pnpacy its mona
t
ri
5, its celibacy, and the rest-
b). awkwardly parodying an) "
e
tern mood; one which in mere
multitude of, ot:.uies, is p
rhaps nearly equal if u11 its Yarieti
s be
add
d tog
th
r, to all Chri5tendûln twic
o"er. Can any man, with
the free use of his reason, bdi
Ye that to be
S:3èlltial to the Chris-
tian Church <I Jf.wm f!f'thougllt ami p,oaclÙ: so p Cl11Ù171g and emin Iltlg
Christian that thos u:ho 1O-ð it JÒ'"jt.it all the sp cial t'.l'celleltcie.$ oj' Ch,.,
-
tian sallclitg,-\\ hich in its fullest vigour has
o grlH\ n up and flou-
rished as to constitute an l:

entit\l and indispensable characteristic
in the IllOSt po" erful :.Hld extell
i\
pro\ ince ill the whole kiugllulU
o( Snt:'1ll? _\nd let me observe that it would be a great llli5take h)
de
patch this cuincidence
.rta"ual only; if tbe tlscetÌcislli of the
e
,'otnrics ditfer from tb:1t of tht' l
ulllall lllOlh\Sti

. it is ill beiUtV'
o
luuch more rigorous ill pra
ticc, antluluch nlore subtle, r
.tined, anù

310

ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF

[LETT. VII.

that peculiar Ronlan sense of Infallibility ,vhich has
been the subject of this Letter. They \vill be found,
I irnagine, in every attelTI pt to conI bine the notion of
a Developnlen t capable of covering the doctrines to be
defended, ,vith any cortsistent sense whatever of perpe..
tuaÌ infallible guidance of the Christian Church. To
this I shall venture to request the attention of your
readers in another N urn ber of this Journal.
I alTI, my dear Sir,
Your's faithfully,
'V. ARCHER BUTLER.

exalted in the mysticis111 which forms its doctrinal and philosophic
basis. The tone of thought itself, and the practical life that em-
bodies it, are in no wise peculiar -to Christianity. No doubt-God
forbid I should deny-that Christianity has frequently anÏ1nated
the institute of the solitary and the cenobite with a far better spirit,
and can turn all those things to its own blessed profit; but since it
is---cIear, that tbe grossest superstition on earth can quite as readily,
instinctively, congenially, permanently, do so, is it not palpable that
they are of no necessary and inherent excellence, but to be esti-
mated in each case by the degree in which they sub serve son1e ulte-
rior and extrinsic end? Test by this rule the rapturous encOluiums
I allude to, scattered in this Volume and elsewhere; they will
ahnost universally be found enconÜulIls not of the object to be
gained (which can be gained in many ways), but of'the visible ma-
chinery itself, as if it were something peculiarly and incommunicably
Christian, the one tr11e and exclusive deyelopnlent of the religion of
Christ; that which alone exhibits it, that which it alone can ex-
hibit. The silent cell, the stern rule, the superhu111an indifference
to physical pain, the heroic penitence,-or again, the n1ajestic sacer-
dotal monarchy, the ritual pomp, the vast array of ecclesiastical
strength,-these, in and for themselves, are the things which are
triumphantly contrasted with the 111ean and timid rationality of our
Anglican spirit. I confess I cannot but think that such a descrip-
tion as I have quoted (and tIle points of resen1blancce nlight be
easily nlultiplied), is fairly calculated to adnÜnister a salutary check
to this strain of unbridled exultation.

LETT. VIII.]

CHHISTIAN DOCTRINE.

311

LET rr E It V I I I .

.

DEAR SIR,

I have promised to consider the hypo-

hesis of Development in connexion ,vith the doctrine
of Church Infallibility in general. I shall endeavour
in the follo\ving paragraphs to perform this task.
This supposition of Developlnent, so long as it re-
mained on Gern1an ground, served, or might serve, an
important end. It ans\vered adn1irably to give a sort
of superficial unity to any of those innu111erable "His-
tories of Dogrnas," \vhich, rivalling each other in daring
plunges for originality, form a regular and stated por-
tion of the academic labours. of theological lecturers in
that countrya. The cool speculative indifference-say.

a The taste for this species of Gern1an manufacture has manifestly
set in of late; especially in Scotland, and among the teachers of the
English Dissenting Acadelnies. The translators of these works are
not very likely to heed the advices oj. warnings of the Irish Eccle-
siastical Journal; they are, however, shrewd enough to interpret
a plain and palpable "sign of the tilDes ;"-let them study the
" Essay on the Developlnent of Christian Doctrine," and then
calmly reflect what party they are now likely to benefit most by
multiplying al110ng us treatises to expose the ignorance and super-
stition of early Christianity, and the precariousness of all evidence,

312

ON THE DEVELOP
fENT OF

[LETT. VIII.

rather, the shocking frigiùity-,vith ,vhich these teach-
ers undertake, ill presence of their young and unin-
formed hearers, to denlonstrate on the venerable fl'anle
of the old Christian Creed, might be animated into
SOlne degree of \varmth by the announcement of a great
general la \v of progress, redeenling the tedious historic
detail frolll utter confusion, regulating its tardy gro\vth,
and preparing its triunlphant maturity; the possible
Future lnight receive the homage ,vhich ,vas denied to
the ignorant and blundering Past. Whether the deve-
lopment ,vere to proceed, as some might maintain, by
successive additions, or, as others and the greater nUll1-
ber, by successive ejections, of doctrine; ,vhether by
taking on ne\v integume
1Ú3, or by stripping off the old,
or (as in the only producible analogy-that of Judaisrn)
by both; ,vhether the Creed of the Inartyrs were to be
lnade to expand into that of Aquinas, or contract into
that of Paulusb;-\vas indeed to be altogether deter-
mined by the accidental position and circumstances of
the teacher; for the principle itself is absolutely indif
.ferent to either application; both have been largely ex-
elnplified in the history of Christianity; and neither
forIn of the theory can claim any antecedent authority

either for the canon of Scripture or the fundamentals of received
doctrine, derived from that source. I do not hesitate to affirm that
under the form this controversy nlust no\v assume, there is not one
of these works (superficial as they often are, with all their affecta-
tion of elaborate research) which is not of more real utility to the
cause of Romanism in England than reprints of Bossuet and Bellar-
mIne.
b [Dr. H. E. G. Paulus, the "Coryphæus of Rationalisln," Pro-
fessor of Theology at IIeidelberg, was born A. D. 1761. For an
account of hiln, see Hagcnbach, IIi;stol'!J of Doctrines, ii. p. 381. An

LETT.
III.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

313

above the other, so long as no clause of the original re-
yelation pre-signifies in 'lclâch direction the Gospel of
Christ ,vas intended to travel into perfect truth. But
this easy flexibility of the principle ,vauld, of course,
only nlake nlore precious a discovery \vhich ,vas so hap-
pily at the service of all parties; so long as telnporary
effect ,vas the real object of conlpetition, so long as the
instructor \vas satisfied to secure the cro\vded lecture-
room anù the admiring train,-no doubt, a theory (ho,v-
ever really illusive, because equally pliable to all facts,
and even all possibilities) ,vonld soon become univer-
sally popular for this very reason, that it afforded to
every school alike an endless fielù for ingenuity in de-
vising the connexions of doctrines ,vith each other, and
,vith that Ideal of consumnlate truth in the remote fu-
ture, to ,vhose ultimate realization (different though it
111ust be to every school respectively) all partial lllove-
111ents in the history of theology ,vere at last to be seen
to contribute.
But the case beCOll1es very different ,vhen, along \yith
this princip1e of indefinite transition froln doctrine to
doctrine, is maintained the concomitant gift and exer-
cise of a perpetual and rigor'ouB infallibility.

interesting and learned series of Essays on the German Rationalism
will be found in the I1'l'sh Ecclesiastical Journal, con1mencing De-
cember, 1848, contributed by the Rey. 'Villiam Lee, Fellow and
Tutor of Trinity College, Dublin. "The Con1mentary of Dr.
Paulus," says :\11'. Lee, (Irish Ecclesia
lical Jounzal, December, 1848,
p. 178.) " publi
hed in 1800, first brought into general notice the
so-called 'Hationalistic' Theory, which professed to explain the
Scripture narrative by showing that what is there recorded relates
to n1erely natural events."]

314

ON THE DEVELOP
IENT OF

[LETT. VIII.

It is true that there is no contradiction in the abstract
conception of a knowledge that shall alwa}7s be right
and yet al,vays increasing; the progress of a pure sci-
ence,-of Geometry, for exanlple, or Algebra,-is an
unequivocal instance in point; perhaps (speaking ,vith
reverent tilnidity of a subject so greatly beyond our
faculties as the Inental history of the Incarnate Son)
such too may have been the hlunan kno,vledge of Hirn
,vho, while incapable of error, yet "increased in ,vis-
ùon1 and stature." But this sort of movement in ,vhich
every step shall be a step gained, perpetual ad vance-
nlent "\vithout a falter,-this light ever equally pure and
intense in quality, and increasing in quantity only be-
cause, ,vhile maintaining that equal brilliance, the sphere
itself of its radiance is perpetually enlarging,-this is
esseIitially inapplicable to the history of the doctrines
really in question in this controversy. Such a notion
is inapplicable, in the first place, fro11
the very scope and
natu1'e of those docfrt'ines then1selves, in 'v hich partial
kno,vledge lTIUst have involved either grievous positive
error, or on1issions of essential duty quite incompatible
with any tolerable notion of the state in "\vhich the
original revelation left its recipients. "Tl1Íle again,
secondly, the internal infallibility is supposed to be ríl{l-
nifested and e1Jzbodied in a cOr',.esponding authority, ,vith
a vie,v to ,vhich the infallibility itself has been given;
but no real exercise of authority over the Church's
faith can ever be made cOlnpatible ,vith the process of
doctrinal developnlent inlagined in this author's pages.
I shall endeavour in this c01l1munication to illustrate
Loth these considerations.

LETT. VIII.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

315

Let me, first, ho\vever, be permitted to premise one
or t\VO observations on the state of the question no\v di-
rectly at issue.
I. "\Ve are no\v vie\vi ng this question less as one to
be deterrnined by the strict criterion of plain, positive
testimony, than as a conlpetition of 'rival hypotheses.
This is to descend from a vantage-post, and give the
author the choice of his o\vn ground and \veapons. lIe
constantly Ï1npresses on his reader, as the main reCOln-
mendation of his schenle, that we must all have sorne
hypothesis or other about the Church and its historyc.
It is possible that, in insisting so earnestly upon this, he
extends to inferior nlinds an intellectual necessity pe-
culiar to faculties like his o\vn. But let it be granted;
and assluning that \ve nlust have-at least that nlany
of us are apt to carry about us-some such favourite
master-key to unlock the nlanifolc1 difficulties of God's
provjdence in the story of the Church, let me again
recall \vhat I have partly exhibited already, and once
lTIOre place side by side the hypotheses that are ad-
vanced to satisfy the phenOIl1ena of Christian history.

c "Those who find fault with the explanation here offered of the
historical phenomena of Christianity, will find it their duty to pro-
vide one oftlzeir oll,'n."-p. 29. This is "an lzypothesis to account
for a difficulty."-p. 27. "Some hypothesis all parties, all contro-
versialists, all historians must adopt, if they would treat of Chris-
tianity at aIL"-p. 129. "The qUI?
tion is-which of all these
theories is the simplest, the most natural, the n10st persuasive?
Certainly the notion of development under infallible authority is
not a less grave, a less winning hypotlzesis" than others here exclu-
sively specified as being the received notions of those who reject it,
namely, "chance and the coincidence of events, or the oriental phi-
losophy, or the working of Antichrist."-pp. 129, 130.

316

ON TIlE DEVELOP)lENT OF

[LETT. VIII.

The problen1 in this yie,v 111ay, I suppose, be stated
thus :-Given a revelation such as that ,vhich our Lord
and His Apostles delivered, to connect ,vith it as its
practical results in the ,vorld, ùy SOJ1le gene1"al vielV of tlte
lcay it was 1neant to operate, the actual facts of Church
history since its date.
For this purpose, perhaps others also, but at least
the three follo,ving hypotheses are offered by divines:
The FIRST supposes d that all the essentials of Chris-
tian belief ,vere kno,vn to the Apostles, and by then1
deliyered to their disciples; being, in fact, contained,
in a sufficiently clear though unsystelnatic forIn, in the
,vritings of the N e,v Testanlent.
That the reason of n1
n
rightly exerted under God's
blessing, is capable of exhibiting these truths in various
ue,v forlns, by comparison and deduction; an ,vhich
ne,v forms, standing the usual tests of sound reasoning,
becon1e, of course, to those to \VhOln they are 111ade
kno'Yl1, as authoritatiye as the principles from ,vhich
they are dra,vn.
That in this ,yay, though no ne,v doctrine in itself
necessary to
alvation is any,vise to be anticipated, yet
the general Church of Christ, or particular branches
thereof, may, in fact, possess a fuller light upon diffe..
rent points in Jifferent ages; eyen as any individual
believer, by divine grace, il1creases his spiritual kno\\r-
ledge in different points at different tin1es, through
social conference or private nleditation.
'That ,,, hereas the sanle process (of discussion and

d [Con1pare Appendix to Bishop Jebb's SenTIons, where will be
found a noble expansion of the views stated in this first hypothesis.]

I..ETT. VIII.]

CIIRISTIAX DOCTRINE.

317

reflexion) by ,vhich spiritual kno,vledge is thus in-
creased, is also, frolll human "reakness, liable to error
of greater or less magnitude, God has rnade no promise
to his ChuTch. at large that it should be secure fronl all
degree of error,-often the just and appropriate punish-
ment of its o,vn moral guilt,-any l110re than froll1 all
sinfulness, itself a po,verful cause of doctrinal error;
anclno promise to any individual Church that it should
be secure from even the greatest. And that thence
great varieties lllay he expected in the comparative
enlightennzent, no less than in the comparative holiness,
of the Church in yarious ages and places.
To ,vhich is adùed by Illany-and, I ,vould hope,
justly-the comfortable belief that, nevertheless, God's
pro111ises of aLiding stability to his Church "
arrant a
holy confidence that, however it may sin, and for its
sin be more or less given over, in the sinning InelTI ber,
or even in all its 111e111 bel's, for a tim e, to its o,vn de-
vices (a judicial abandonment perpetually testified for
a la\v of the divine operation in the forI11er Church of
God), lIe ,,
ould not, and ,vill not ever suffer it, uni-
versallyand as one body, totally to faU a,vay by directly
denying that faith ,vhich is essential to the very being of
the Church of Christ on earth.
The SECOND hypothesis supposes all the essentials of
Christian belief kno,vn by the Apostles and delivered
to their disci pIes; but that several of them ,vere pre-
served only by an extra-scriptural tradition, continuous
froln the apostolic age; ,vhich tradition, and all other
theological truths, the Church in connexion ,vith the
See of Rome has an exclusive divine gift of infallibly
declaring; all 111atters so declared, \vhatever their im-

318

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETT. VIII.

portance, becoming thence obligatory, on pain of sepa-
ration frOITl the body of Christ.
The THIRD hypothesis (arising, at length, out of the
over\vhehning difficulty of establishing the apostolic
f'l'adition assumed in the last, just as the last itself, long
before, arose out of the similar difficulty of establishing
the same doctrine from ScrÏpt'llre e ), supposes that the
full scheme of Christian truth was not kno\vn at all (to
the Apostles it ,vould seemf-or, however) to the first
disciples, and even to many generations of the Fathers
that follo\ved then1; but ,vas, in slo\v succession of
ages, progressively discovered and cOlnpleted, under
the infallible inspiration of the Church, more especially
of the Bishop of the Roman See and the doctors in
connexion there\vith. Thus disclaiming, in behalf of
c.....;
the Roman Church's infallibility, that Church's ou;n
Ùifallible settlement of its standard of faith.
No\v there is one fact ,vhich must strike everyone

e There is no novelty in this double transition. The following
observable passage of Athanasius will show the respectable prece-
den tit may clainl :-
T ,.. "" A ,..""'\,, ,.. · , , s:- ' , '"
wv () PElOfluVl7WV 7YJV ai\.Or'\/lav Kal vvv E7iEf'/"wv. OVVEV "lap OV7
,,"'\ " ", s:- t: ' ,.. e ' rf... ,.. · , · ,
E.V/\,Or'\/OV, O.V7E 7ipOfi: a7iOVElIi,LV EIC 71]fi: EtClfi: ('lp a 'P1]fi: p1J70V EXOV
1J

,.. ., ,,..,,, rf... ' , , "y ,
7YJfi: atpE
EWfi: aV7WV, aEt flEV 7ipO'Pa
El
avaL
xvv70V
f?7iOpl-::, OV70 Kat
rf... ' () ',.. s:- ' 's:- ß '"'\ \ ' , "'\ ,
aO'Pt
fla7a tit ava. vuv eE Kat eta a/\ ElV 70 V
7i a 7 E P a
7E70^P1JlCa
l.
-De Sentent. Dionys., p. 243, Edit. Benedict. [Opp. Tom. i. P. i.
Paris. 1698.-G.]
f [" Who then of sound n1Ïnd can believe that they [the Apostles]
were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord appointed as masters,
keeping them undivided in attendance, in discipleship, in cOlnpa-
nionship; to whom, when they were alone, He expounded all things
that were dark, saying, that to theln it was given to know the
Inysteries, which the people were not permitted to understand ?"-
Tert. (De Præscrip. Ilær., in Lib. oftlze Fatbers, Vol. x. p. 454.) ]

LETT. VIII.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

319

in revie\ving these three suppositions; nan1ely, that in
COlllparing them \vith the actual ,vorking of the religion
of Christ in the ,vorld, the first has the advantage-the
great philosophical advantage in any hypothesis-of
explaining the leading phenomena on the fe\vest as-
sumptions. The objection to the R077lan scheme as a
key to Church history, is, that it does indeed give ac-
count of SOlne of the facts, but it is by an hypothesis
'v hich has no root in the original revelation; ,y hich,
after a11, is little lllore than a statement of the facts
theillselves \vhich it professes to explain (the rise and
progress of the Ron1an claims and po,ver), and that it
leaves others (the history of the Church antecedent to
its o,vn po,ver, of the Oriental, Anglican, and other
Churches since) ,vholly unprovided for. The objection
to the ne,v-the Rationalistic-Ro}}lan-hypothesis is
like the last; its principle has no independent basis,
irrespectively of its service to explain the facts, and is
then little 1110re than a statement of the particular facts
it explains (the gro,vth of certain ne,v doctrines in one
large province of the Church); besides the additional
difficulties of being apparently precluded by the very
terms of the original revelation (al \vays representing
itself as once for all sufficient and con1plete), and being
chargeable ,vith grave internal inconsistellcies (as we
sha11 presently see) in the supposition itself. But the
fiT'st vie,v aSSUlnes no principle at all beyond ,vhat all
Inust adlnit to exist, to be (in the dialect of N e\vton)
"'CeT'æ causæ" anterior to, and independently of any
ternporary application 'v hatever; to ,vit, the l
evelation
itself,-and the agency of hurnan reason,-and the sjJe-
cial sU}Jerintendence of Providence, trying, re,varding,

320

ON THE DEVELOP
iENT OF

[LETT. VIII.

punishing, but ever and equally in mercy, justice, and
,visdoBl, governing-his universal Church.
II. So much for the cOlì11Jarative claims of the new
theory, as solving difficulties no other supposition can
effectual1y overcome. I have no,v to ,veigh (still con-
sidering it simply as an hypothesis) its J)ositive Inerits,
the internal consistency of this combination of the t,vo
suppositions, of perpetual Infallibility, and constant
Progression of doctrines, in the Church of Christ.
1. In the first place, it is obvious enough,-even
granting this progression of doctrine, and even granting
its uncertainty and danger without special direction,-
that, unless ,ve irnagine tbe "development" to be a mere
eUjJlzel1lis1Tl- used to disguise revolutions of doctrine as
fundanlental as the first inspired teaching itself, the
alleged infallible guidance is still no necessary inference.
That providential superintendence, 'v hich guides the
course of an earnest individual explorer of religious
truth (a principle of divine government perfectly dis-
tinct froln infallibility, but every\vhere strangely for-
gotten in this ,vork), may be conceived to oversee the
theological movement of the Church at large; to leave
it liable, indeed, in case of ,vilfulness, negligence, and
pre SUl11P tion, to error, but justly hopeful of truth; and
never advancing into eithel error or truth vvithout a
high divine purpose of good, under the control of that
great transcendent maxinl of Christian Providence (fàr
lllore certain than any infallibility, and really cOlIlpris-
ing all the practical consolations infallibility could ever
bring), that in every dispensation alike, ,vhether of
mercy or judgn1ent, "all things u;ork togetheT"for good
to them that love God." -- This, I say, is still a sufficient

LETT. VIII.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

321

supposition, even though \ve should concede the Deve-
loplnent Process to be the realla\v of divine enlighten-
ment: that process does not necessitate infallibility at
alllTIore certainly than any otlze7'" progression of impor-
tant knowledge does. If you imagine it must, it is only
because at that instant you are unconsciously exchang-
ing the notion of "development" for that of absolute
and unqualified ne\v revelation.
But, assuming the Infallibility into alliance ,vith the
Developn1ent, let us reflect ho\v the t\VO suppositions
hang together. I anI III uch mistaken or this ponderous
auxiliary will be found, like the elephants of old, some-
\vhat apt to charge back upon its o\vn lines; or like
those allies invoked by distressed nations, "Tho have
sometinles renlained to destroy the liberties they caIne
to succour.
2. I observe, then, that very manifestly the progres-
sive discovery of doctrine imagined in this theory sup-
poses gross err01
S of omission antecedent to the disco-
yery; and \vith those errors serious errors of practice
necessarily involved; both utterly incolllpatible \vith
a perpetuity of infallible guidance. 'fhis is a topic upon
,vhich I must limit myself to suggesting or recapitu-
lating heads of inquiry. To several of these, indeed,
I have had occasion to refer already; they nO"\v, how-
ever, re-appear under a new aspect, and in a ne\v rela-
tion to the general arguIIlent; and even as mere facts
they cannot be too urgently and repeatedly Ï1npressed
upon the reader.
Regard, then, for example, the belief of the absolute
Divinity of our Lord and the Holy Spirit, and any other
eRf3entials of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. If this
y

322

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[ LETT. VIII.

great belief (as our author seeIns, though some,vhat
indistinctly and irresolutely, to intin1ate) were only
gathered by degrees, then, before its full revelation,
men, under infallible direction, must either not have
given supreme adoration to the three Holy Persons,
or done so crÙninally, because without any divine
authority.
Regard the Doctrine of the Corrupt and Guilty State
of every l\Ian by Nature. If this doctrine (p. 19, &c.)
was only gradually discovered, then not only was the
real value of Redernption, and the real excellence of
the sinless Humanity of Christ, unknown, but Inen
lllust even have baptized the Church's children \vithout
any real intelligence of the meaning of the rite they
employed; and this in a Church strictly, absolutely,
and in all things, even as now, infallible.
Regard the Doctrine of the legitimacy and utility of
the Invocation of Saints and Angels in religious \vor-
ship. If this important doctrine, which must have been
al,vays as true as it ever was, becalne only gradually
known to Christians, then an absolutely infallible
Church must have been for ages defrauding these crea-
tures of their due; and, \vhat is more important, losing
in the most trying times all the ad vantages of the prac-
tice; and, ,vhat is as singular as either, carrying on its
warfare more triumphantly and successfully before it
began to claim these succours than these succours
ever afterwards enabled it to do. But this is far from
the \vhole. The Church not only forgot them by igno-
rance, but insulted them by refusal. For (not,vith-
standing all the natural temptations to practices of this
kind, and the degree in \vhich the first seeds of corrup-

LETT. VIII.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

323

tion are apt to deceive the wisest, until they have seen
theln in the blossom and in the fruit) the earlier wri-
tings do happen to abound ,vith disavowals of religious
devotion addressed to any being but the One that
" heareth prayer." And all this-both the loss and the
insult-n1ust, of course, apply ,vith tenfold force to
('v hat appears to have first shown itself above ground
at a much later period than addresses to Angels, or to
l\Iartyrs at their tombs g ), to the ,vorship of the l\lother
of our Lord, the all-po,verful " Queen of IIeaven."
Regard the Doctrine (nearly connected with the
last) of the Separate State of the Blessed. The prac-

ft Of all these. practices of creature-worship, the addresses, or
respectful homage, to Angels was, no doubt, the most plausible; as
these holy creatures, in their capacity of" ministers to the heirs of
salvation," might possibly be considered present in the assemblies
of Christians, and with good men in their distresses. Accordingly
it is in this fonn that these unauthorized practices probably first
appeared, arising, no doubt, in the first instance, out of an inward
feeling of respect for a holy presence, (see such expressions as that in
Origen c. Cels. viii. p. 385, Edit. 1677, &c.) [po 400. ed. Spencer.
Cantab. 1658.-G.] which afterwards may have passed into some
direct form of address; and this, too, (it is renlarkable,) is the spe-
cial form of the general error which, as jf foreseeing its seductive-
ness to even holy men, inspiration has explicitly recorded and for-
bidden in the person of St. John himself,-of St. John, too, who
saw (what we can never pretend) the angel he sought to worship.
The utterly unwarrantable invocation of martyrs began in a similar
notion of their p'l'esence at their tonlbs; and, however vain and ima-
ginary, was quite distinct from that "deification" (to employ our
author's phrase) of the spirits of the dead, by imagining thenl
capable of hearing and helping their votaries at all times and places,
which long afterwards so Iniserably darkened the Church, by eclips-
ing the glory of the one ever-present and ever-sympathizing Friend
of l\Ian.

y 2

324

ON THE DEVELOr
IENT OF

[ LETT. VIII.

tical bearing of this doctrine became in Inany ,vays iU1-
portant. Yet here the Church, infallible then as now,
commonly admitted and acted on a belief the direct
contradictory of the existing alleged developn1ent.
"That claim has the developnlent beyond its own seed,
the superstructure more than the basis? vVhether
does the infallibility end ,vith the ancient doctrine or
begin with the Il10dern ?
Regard the doctrine of Purgatorial Pains, and their
remission by the present suffrages of the Church l\iili-
taut, or the authority of the Roman Bishop. Here the
Church, by numbers of its influential doctors, unques-
tionably taught a doctrine
irectly contradictory to this
authoritative development; though some of theIn, after
the lapse of ages, began to hint something like a part of
it as a confessed conjecture; but, meanwhile, in the
exercise of its sovereign and immutable infallibility,
universally and notoriously neglected for centuries a
work of piety, equally and urgently obligatory at all
tin1es, in behalf of wretched and suffering spirits h .
Consider, again, the fearful impiety of neglecting,
for so many successive ages, to worship ,vith supreme
lai1
ia,-,vith the absolute worship of God-the Eucha-
ristic elements. Consider the doubtful infallibility of
Apostles who neglected, of f
Church that was unable,

h Even in the Roman Canon of the l\Iass, (a venerable relic, which,
with some corruptions, bears remarkable testin10ny against several
of the mediæval innovations,) there is no mention ,vhatever of the
souls in Purgatory, but a commemoration alone of those ,vho "have
gone before us with the sign of faith, and sleep in the sleep of
peace." [" qui nos præcesserunt cum signo fidei, et dormiunt in
somno pacis." (Co1ìnnem01'atio pl'O defunctis.) -G. ]

LET'!'. VIII.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

325

to instruct its disciples, on this great, imperative duty of
religion; a duty ,vhich gro,vs as necessarily out of the
infallible truth on ,vhich it is based as the ,vorship of
the Deity in any case gro,vs out of IIis existence.
Consider the use of Images as objects of religious
veneration; so infallibly necessary nou), that a Church
cannot be admitted to that communion and fello\vship
on ,vhich salvation irrevoeably depends, ,vhich rejects
then); so unnecessary under the infallibility of that day,
that their use ,vas commonly execrated and condemned.
Consider similarly (for I must abridge) the necessity
of five additional ßleans of supernatural Grace,-of
grace deep and Inysterious as that 'v hich gives and sus-
tains the regenerate Life,-either not used as means
of grace at all, in the seed-tÏIne of developn1ent, or used
,vith an inferior degree of respect which ,voldd now
be a sinful, and must then have been a strangely igno-
rant, irreverence. Consider the extraordinary reve-
rence and universal submission due to the succession
of St. Peter, ,vhich, if inherent in the See, must have
been due to St. Clement of Rome, as absolutely as to
Innocent III., but ,vhich ,vas so inexplicably neglected
by the earlier infallibility. And consider, to crO'Vl1
the heap of perplexity, that the earlier Church did un-
questionably, and (according to the hypothesis under
examination) infallibly, believe and assert itself to be
in the full possession of all needful doctrine, indepen-
dent of any kind or degree of enlargement (beyond the
inevitable accessions of experience and reason) before
the second coming of its Lord.
3. These are difficulties of SOllIe moment in the
hypothesis ,vhich eom bines perpetual Infallibility and

326

ON THE DEVELOP
lEKT OF

[LETT. VIII.

perpetual Development; difficulties as regards the Past.
Are there none as regards the Future? If the infalli-
ble development of any given age must look back with
some misgivings upon the equally infallible Past it
abandons, how must it regard the infallible Future that
may similarly abandon -it?
It is manifest that a developing Church, honestly
realizing its o\vn position, can never pretend to state
the cOlnplete truth on any subject. Not merely the
complete truth, absolutely considered, which is proba-
bly beyond human faculties under any earthly enlighen-
Inent; but the complete amount of that truth which is
to be expected under the existing dispensation, and
,vhich, it is commonly "imagined, the children of the
Church have a right to demand from their spiritual
mother. Its best decisions can be but provisional.
Granting it can pronounce "the truth, and nothing but
the truth," it can never rise to the calm assurance of
"the ,vhole truth." For, indeed, it can never absolutely
li1nit a proposition; if it could limit anyone, there can
be no internal reason ,vhy it should not be equally eln-
powered to limit all; and then where is rOOln reserved
for "development" ? Once enter thoroughly into the
spirit of this theory, and ,vhere is the extravagance of
the mocker's supposition, ,vho scoffingly professed his
desire that the nlunber of the IIoly Persons could be
increased, in order to give more scope to faith? The
Church has as yet only seen its way to a Trinity of
Divine Persons; but there llJaS a tin1e (\ve are appa-
rently to understand) ,vhen it knew not of so many;
and there may be a time ,vhen it shall know of 1110re.
Nay, is not the discovery-for such it surely, such it

LETT. VIII.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

327

UO\V avowecZlyi was, of that "wonùer in heaven," as

lr. Newman justly styles it, the 'Tirgin and her" dei-
fication," almost as great a stride in ad vance of apostolic
teaching as the direct revelation of a new divine agent;
or rather, in the sense in 'v hich the "deification" 111Ust
needs be understood\ is it not all but the very Sa1Jle?

i The Arian controversy" discovered a new sphere, if we may so
speak, in the realms of light, to which the Church had not yet assigned
t'ts inhabitant."-P. 405. "\Vere not the subject so exceedingly me-
lancholy, there would surely be something to move a smile in this
grave assumption of the Church having a function to "discover"
new regions in heaven, and "assign inhabitants" to them at its
earliest convenience!
k I need scarcely stop to say (indeed I believe I noticed the sub-
ject before), that the sense in which St. Athanasius repeatedly
speaks of Christ as "deifying" the nature of nlan (Èf)E07TOt'YjO"EV) by
assuming it,-(e. g. in answer to an Arian objection, he writes that
" the Word was not inlpaired in receiving a body, but 'rather He
deified that which lIe put on,"-Orat. c. Arian. I.
. 42.) [po 446.
Opp. i. i.-G.] and as exalting us all in Himself as mell1bers of His
body, so that the heavenly powers are no longer amazed at seeing
human beings introduced among thenl [ibid.],-that all this has no
resenlblance at all to the extravagant sense of a literal participation
of the prerogatives of Godhead (unless we are to construe Athana-
sius's strong, but justifiable, figure into gross Eutychianism), and
the still nlore monstrous inferences of worship which J\Ir. Newman
labours (pp. 402,403) to extort from this simple and very innocent
sentiment. St. Athanasius, indeed, nlanifestly refers not. to any
special divinizing of saints in glory (which alone would suit the
purpose); but to a gift, in one sense belonging to human nature in
the abstract, to all mankind, as sharing in that comnlon humanity
which was so wondrously made the shrine of God; in another and
higher sense, to the collective body of the regenerate, his thoughts
evidently running much nlore upon the present than the future
state of the latter. Finely applying 1 Cor. xiv. 25, he observes:
"Because of our relationship to IIis Body, we, too, have become

0)-:) 8
ù_

[LETT. V III.
But I have enlarged sufficiently upon this in a forn1er
letter. I anI now viewing the san1e topic strictly in its

ON THE DEVELOPl\lE
T OF

God's temple, and, in consequence, are made God's sons; so that
even in us the Lord is now worshiped, and beholders report, as. the
Apostle says, f that God is in them of a truth.'" What is to be
though t of the perspicacity which discovers in this passage (which
might issue, for aught I can see, from the most ultra-Protestant
pulpit in Europe) "a doctrine which both interprets and accounts
for tbe invocation of saints and the observance of relics ?"
To speak plainly,-more plainly than I should ever desire to
speak of one whose superiority in learning and abilities those are
not least willing to admit, who the most distinctly recognise in
him one more of the thousand instances which Church history fur-
nishes of the melancholy perversion of both,-I really do not be-
lieve the entire literature of tþeology can produce a nlore prodigious
sample of rhetorical sophistication than the whole discussion in the
place 1 have alluded to; in which the author labours to sho'w that
the Arian controversy led the Church to perceive the propriety of
worshiping departed spirits, and deifying the Virgin. The reader
has already had a slight specimen of the argunlent on the fornler
topic. On the latter, the reasoning is to this effect. Because tbe
Arian devotion to the Son, however nominally boundless, was not
enough to satisfy the orthodox, as long as He was not also confessed
to be very and su bstan tial God, therefore that boundless degree of
devotion may be properly given to a creature, 'without practically
making that creature God, or encroaching upon the rights of God.
Try it in a parallel case. To take up arms, and perform all other
duties of loyalty in defence of the king, is not enough as long as
you continue steadily to deny him to be the legitimate king; there-
fore, any man has a perfect right to devote all those same exertions,
which are the king's due, to some other personage, without any
imputation upon that man's exclusive loyalty to the throne 1 Try
it again. Owing a benefactor a large sum of money, 1 am strictly
bound to pay the whole; therefore, so long as 1 refrain from squan-
dering the entire, I may make a present of half Iny means of paying
it to SOllie one else, without defrauding my creditor. No doubt the
Catholics said, and tiaid justly, that that adoration was to count for

LETT. VIII.]
conl1exion ,vith infallibility, and the formal decrees in
,vhich infallibility is embodied. No,v it is most certain

CHIUSTIAN DOCTRINE.

329

nothing which still denied the perfect Godhead of its object; but
does the commentator on Athanasius require to be reminded that
they also argued that the adoration itself was inconsistent and un-
warrantable which was offered to any but the Godhead? The error
of the Arian was twofold. He denied the proper Deity of the Son,
and he gave (or some of the party gave) an adoration to the Son so
contemplated, which, on that supposition, became an infringement
on the rights of the Father. The adoration did not infer the belief
of Godhead, only because the Arian persisted in denying the God-
head; of itself and natu'rally (like the parallel extravagancies of
Bonaventure and Alphonsus) it did infer that belief;-because of
the denial the devotion was insufficient; but also, because of that
same denial, the devotion was p'reposterous and contradictory. In
short, the Lord demands two forms of submission, which are God's,
and God's alone; the Intellect confessing Him to be truly divine,
and the Heart and Will adoring Him as such. The Arian (we are
supposing) gave the latter, and refused the former. How can it
possibly be pretended, that when the Nicene Doctors denied this to
be sufficient, they, even in the rell10test way of inference, sanctioned
the monstrous principle, that such adoration was not, after aU, the
exclusive right of God? that because it is wrong to refuse God all
His due, it can ever be, therefore, allowable to give others the
grea ter part of it?
I do not know that it is worth while to follow out so plain a
matter any farther. It will probably be found that the source of
the fallacy is in the confusion between the objects of worship and
ll1an's capacities of adoration. It is true that the Infinite must be
infinitely beyond the greatest creature; the two are incommensur-
able. But it is false (indeed cOlltradictory) that a finite mind can
make a propm'tÍonate distinction in its affections; man's religious
faculties, like all his other faculties, are limited; just because he
is finit.e he has but (so to speak) a certain amount, or fund, of devo-
tion to expend; and it is hence that what is unduly given to ano-
ther is necessarily withdrawn frun1 that "jealous God," to whüIn

330

ON THE DEVELOP1\IENT O:F

[ LETT. VIII.

-certain as a mere matter of fact-that iJ" the modern
Church of the Developments be alone continuously
identical ,vith the Church of Antiquity, the one Church
Catholic has actually reversed its own feelings, or deci"
sions, on several points of momentous importance at
issue bet\veen England and Rome. "\Ve have only then
to invert the point of view in each of the instances cited
in the last article; to stand at the remoter end of the
vista, ,vhere the younger Church actually stood; and
reflect ho,v that Church could have been justified in
establishing dogmatic canons on these ]Joints, and arm-
ing them with terrific anathenlas; then to reflect that
just such a Church, cOlTIpar_atively young and inexpe-
rienced, may the present be in relation to the " Church
of the Future;" that even as Laodicea denouncing angel-
worship, or Nice slighting the Roman Bishop, are to
Lateran and Trent, just so may Lateran and Trent be
in their turn to the developn1ents of councils yet to
come. 'Vhat right has such an instructress as this to
deal in the canon and the curse? IIow can she profess
to utter the fulness of eternal verity, whose conjectural
truth of one century is but the formless embryo of the
truth of another? l\Iethinks that, after all, it is of such
a teacher, "the stammering lips of ambiguous formu-
laries" are the appropriate organs.; the first lesson of

all the wealth of the religious affections, and all the corresponding
fulness of adoration, are exclusively due.
I I am not aware that the obvious remark has been distinctly
n1ade, that the effort to show that the English Articles were" pa-
tient of" a Roman sense, could never have been imagined practicable,
except through, at least, an equal anlbiguity in the Ronlan decrees

LETT. VIII.]
her infallibility Inust be, never to dare profess or ex-
ercise it !
It is evident, then, that in such points as those at
issue in this controversy-points of vital moment both
in the doctrinal schelne and the practical life of reli-
gion-points, in all of,vhich there must have et'er been
a right and a vvrong, and both fronl the first of tremen-
dous importance-that in such points, I say, if the de-
velopment be infallible, it must have been preceded by
perilous error; and that, as there is no period at 'v hich
the developluent-process can be deterlnined to cease,
the antecedent period of possible error is similarly pro-
tracted to an indefinite duration. The infallible deve-
lopment is itself immersed in an abyss of fallibilities ;
it is fallible in relation to the past and the future, if

CHRISTIAN DOCTRI
E.

331

themselves. Both were to be brought to meet midway; because
both were held to admit of con1pron1Ïse. And this the detail of the
attempt itself (of February, 1841) actually proves; in which (if I
remember rightly a performance not very well calculated to secure
a place in the recollection, and which always appeared to me not
more singular in any other respect than in its n1arvellous inferiority
to the admitted abilities of its author) reference is continually made
to the Tridentine judgments; the author, in his capacity of n1ediator,
endeavouring to disprove their iInagined hostility; in short, endea-
vouring to demonstrate that they" stamn1er" pretty 11luch like our-
selves. In this point of view, the conten1ptuouS expression quoted in
the text was) at least, son1ewhat misplaced where it first appeared. An
infallible Church must always aSSU111e a certain external air of deci-
siveness; this is the infallible style, and as cheap and easy as any
other verbal artifice; but, as regards the substance of the decisions,
-that the expression is far more applicable to the Council of Trent
than to that of London, few who have ever candidly studied the
history of both, and the decrees of both, will entertain the slnallest
doubt.

332

ON THE DEVELOP
[ENT OF

[LETT. VIII.

these be infallible (,vhich, ho,vever, fortunately for it,
are sinlilarly fallible in relation to each other); ,vhile,
as regards the present-the instant of its hasty and
trembling utterance-it cannot dare profess to speak
the full truth \vithout usurping the rights of the Church
unborn, and thereby implicitly destroying its own.
It is, I hope, unnecessary to insist further upon the
internal consistency of the conjoint hypotheses of Infal-
libility and Development; the theological student \vill
have little difficulty in filling for himself the outlines
which alone I have here space to design. I proceed
at once to that other aspect of the same supposition
which I have intimated above-the practical working
of Infallible Development as an ecclesiastical prin-
ci pIe.
II. The end and use of Infallibility is absol1äe autlto-
ritati1'e guidance; but the lowest exercise of authority
is incompatible with the consistent adoption of this
theory. A developing Church, fully conscious of its
position, can neither itself rigorously affirm nor restrain
others from affirlning. I have no pleasure in attempt-
ing to invest a very grave subject with ridicule; but
surely a Church which avo\vs itself as much an ex-
plorer as any bold critic \vithin its donlain, \vhich repre-
sents itself as sailing do\vn the ocean of successive
centuries, upon a voyage of theological discovery,-
no\v falling in with the unsuspected region of Saint-
"T orship,-now touching upon the gloomy shores of
the interluediate Purgatorial reahn,-now obtaining a
dim-a clearer-a full and distinct vie,v (as of SOlne
Mount of Transfiguration in the far horizon), of the in-
effable glories of the deified St.
Iary,-nay, discovering

LETT. VIII.]

CHIUSTIAN DOCTRINE

333

fucts about the past existence of that blessed person,
utterly hidden for centuries from the most persevering
inquirers (as her deathless Assumption to heaven, to
,vhich, by celebrating its festival, a Church incapable
of error is as unequivocally bound as to the fact of the
lncarnation)-a Church which thus admits that it is
but an humble student in the mysterious volun1e of
unknown possible development-what clailn can it
consistently make, of subrnission to its definitive un-
certain ties ?
But ,ve have to sift this a little more closely. The
suprelne unerring Authority \vhich demands the obe-
dience of individual mernbers of the Church, may be
vie,ved either as an authority controlling the belief and
judgment of the Church at large, and that too, depen-
dently, or independently,-or as the ofrgan and mouth-
piece which simply utters that belief and judgment.
I \vill briefly examine the present hypothesis in rela-
tion to each of these conceptions of the exercise of a
Supreme Authority in matters of Faith. In doing so
I n1ust confess to making some little demand upon the
steady attention of my readers; a demand ,vhich, hu\v-
ever, they Inay be inclined to concede, \vhen they re-
mem bel' that they are nu\v in front of the last and inmost
citadel of the new fortress. Disclaimed as is the sys-
tem by history,-nay, by the common notorious facts
of history,-,ve are now inquiring whether it can pass
muster on even the poor ground of a merely conceiva-
ble hypothesis; ,vhether it is in itself compatible \vith
any notion at all of Church Infallibility; or (as we are
now to discuss) ,vith any notion at all of such Autho-
rity as that Infallibility implies; or even ,vith an)T notion

334

ON THE DEVELUP
lENT OF

[LETT. VIII.

at all of any real ecclesiastical authority of whatever kind.
But this very question, just because it is so entirely
abstract and hypothetical, may possibly require a little
of that stricter attention which purely abstract reason-
ings conln10nly claim.
1. It is admitted, it is involved, in this theory, that
the Supreme Authority, ,vherever it reside, is not qua-
lified to treat an undeveloped, or insufficiently deve-
loped subject; if it were, the whole hypothesis ,vould
be superfluous. The conception of infallibility, and the
authority corresponding thereto, ,vith \vhich ,ve have
to deal, must therefore be so understood as to be corll-
patible with this condition. If, for example, any early
Council, such as that of N
ce, could have been properly
expected to utter a deliverance upon the Papal Supre-
macy (supposing the question proposed to it), with full
Dlediæval orthodoxy, then the papal supremacy, ,vhen
it was actually proclaimed, ,vas no development, ,vhich
necessarily presupposes a previous comparative obscu-
rity, but a direct unconditional inspiration, appertaining
to any infallible Council as such; and all the labour is
wasted ,vhich is devoted to exhibiting, or conjecturing,
ho\v CirCU111stances [Jl'>adually opened the mind of the
Church to the apprehension of this great fundamental
truth. Since, then, ,vhat the luthority cannot rightly
do it certainly has no right to do, it is strictly bound to
pronounce on no subject until that subject has been
thoroughly ripened for decision by development; no,v
the authority, in its capacity of authority, has really
but a ternporary and occasional existence, whether pre-
lates in councilor Pope ett cathed1Yl,. and the develop-
111cnt process 111ust, therefore, be understood as that

LETT. VIII.]

CHHISTIAN DOCTRJ NE.

835

,vhich perpetually proceeds in the Ch'll'l'ch at lal'1ge. lIenee,
even though the Pope and collective Roman bishops
were supposed alone to possess the infallible directive
authority; and still III ore on any other theory of that
obscure and undecided question; yet it is an essential
assumption in this hypothesis that the authority finally
decisive and obligatory, however supreme over all
others, is yet never independent of the general move-
ment of opinion in the Church, but in even its highest
exercise influenced and predisposed thereby. Other-
,vise (I repeat) the decision is no result or index of
"development;"
Ir. Newman gives ,yay to the Council
of Trent; and the old notion of direct inspiration, irre-
spective of times and circumstances, resumes its place.
And plainly, the more energetic that universal nlove-
ment, the more likely are its true character and bearings
to become palpable, and to be influential for good upon
the ultimate decision; if there be indeed a spirit that
ag'itat 1nolern et 1nagno se corpore miscet, the more uncon-
strained the motions of the body, the more irresistibly
and unequivocally ,viII this pervading spirit exhibit its
influence. Ho,v then does the case stand? Before a
certain indefinite period the guides of the Church are
supposed to have kno,vn little or nothing ,vith cer-
tainty upon the question at issue, for if they did, the
basis of the new theory disappears, the doctrine is no
"developlnent." At a certain period these saIne guides,
or their descendants, are to pronounce infallibly upon
it. But dependent as they are indefinitely but really
(by virtue of the system under exau1ination), upon the
general progression of thought in the Church, and at a
certain assignable date maintained to be absolutely in-

336

ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF

[ LETI. VIII.

COlnpetent to lneet the question supposed to be at issue,
by what signal shall they know when discussion ought
to cease, ,vhen the preliminary operation of the Church's
mind is complete, and their o\vn function is to begin?
They are not absolutely infallible until they have met
in assembly, and are actually deciding the question;
and they are certain not to decide even then \vith in-
fallible correctness unless their meeting has taken place
at the exact crisis of consunlmate development in rela-
tion to the question (whatever it be) that is at stake.
The mere consent to meet, in obedience to the com-
mand of a Constantine or a Theodosius, a Leo or an
Innocent, will hardly be held an inspired revelation;
and yet it is certain that. infallibility itself must fail-
fail as Nice or Constantinople would confessedly have
failed on the question of Images or the Half-Comnlu-
nion-if it undertake to decide on any candidate doc-
trine one hour before that critical moment ,vhen the
Church by its doctors and debates has been brought to
a certain point upon its march of progressive develop-
ment. Any primitive (Eclul1enical Council, it is no,v
hardly denied-it is assul1zed,-would have gone \vrong
upon most of the Roman peculiarities: the power of
infallible decision must therefore strictly depend on the
age-nay, on the year, 'lnonth, 'lnd day, of tlte Council j
and all that infinite multitude of Roman theoloO'ians
o
are henceforth to be disavo\ved, who in their sÏ1npli-
city have held that a plenary Council is inherently com-
petent, at any moment that it is duly constituted, to
decide a.11 questions of importance agitated in the
Church. The infallibility being thus absolutely depen-
dent on the epoch of the Council, unless each individual

LETT. VIII.]

CHRISTIA:N DOCTRINE.

337

personage, antecedent to any combined session, have
been in the Inost absolute sense of inspiration inspired
to determine this precise period,-unless the dates of
the Councils accepted by the Church of Rome are all
held to have been the results of immediate revelation
fr0111 IIeaven to the Emperors and Popes ,vho con-
vened theln,-the time of assen1bly as really a super-
natural comn1unication as the doctrine determined,-
unless (for exan1ple) Trent ,vas known to have becorne
specially infallible in 1545, ,vhile it could have had no
certainty of infallibility in 1544,-such Councils could
not, in consistency lcith this theory, have claimed un-
erring insight, or ,vithout tyranny authoritatively inter-
fered to suppress the delivery of vie\vs ,vhich 'inight
have been, for aught they could kno,v, the necessary
preliminaries of some great approaching ecclesiastical
developn1ent. And no assembly which has not claimed
a specific inspiration upon this point,-not a mere pro-
videntialleading, not an ordinary spiritual instinct, but
absolute supernatural inspiration in the highest sense,
fixing the precise day and hour of congregation, in
\vhich divine illulnination-bifore ,vhich only obscurity
and error-was to be expected,-that is, no assembly
(so far as I kno,v) ever yet by any party held and re-
puted a Catholic Council, could, on the terms of an
hypothesis ,vhich \vholly rests the infallibility on the
date, have exercised the slnallest degree of legitÜnate
authority over the teaching of the Church's doctors or
the consciences of its members.
It is no ans\ver to this, to plead (as some possibly
may), the general principle that whenever the Council
meets, in the Fourth century or the Sixteenth, it ,vill
z

338

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETT. VIII.

pronounce, if not the sarne truth, yet exclusively what
is true; and that this is equally supposable under all
hypotheses as to the stationary or progressive discovery
of the truth itself. This is a generality plausible only
while general; practically it is quite inapplicable as a
solution of the difficulty. vVere the Councils of the
Church to meet ,vithout cause or object, to R\vait vague
and fortuitous inspirations upon subjects ,vhich neither
they nor others could anticipate, it might be conceiva-
ble that, though kno,vledge ,vere necessarily gradual,
yet at all periods a Council might be able to enunciate
a cOlnplete truth of SOlne sort. But it is notorious that
this has never been the real history of Church deci-
sions. The verdict 'v hich the Council is to pronounce
is already limited to fixed points of inquiry ; the ques-
tion in dispute already exists; the points to be decided
have already agitated the Church; the Council does
not meet to cast about for new revelations m on unkno,vn
topics; it assembles to make a distinct and definite
deli verance on previous distinct and definite issues.
The question pre-exists, it has called the Council into

m [" The benefit derived by the Church from Councils" is thus
well stated by Dr. Hammond, in a manner very similar to the views
of Professor Butler: "In a word, tb!1t which lvas before the con-
stant belief of the whole Church, reC'cived from the Apostles' times
and preaching, and by conciliar discussions and search found to be
so, is thus delivered down to us by those Councils, and testified by
them to be that which they found in the Church universally. This,
I suppose, is the meaning of the dvaKpwÉ7wO"av dÀÀ
ÀovfiJ 7à ôóryfta7a
7
fiJ ev(u;ßEl'a
, in the thirty-seventh Apostolical Canon: 'Let them,
in their Councils, discuss and examine the doctrines of piety; inquire
and discern what have been delivered to them as such;' and then:
7àfiJ èft7rt7r7ovO"a
èK"À1}ataa7tKà
åv7tÀoryt'afiJ ÔtaÀvÉ7waav, 'Let them

LETT. VIII.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

339

existence, and the Council must no,v either resign all
clain1 to authority, or select as its o,vn some one of two
or three possible answers. ]\'[ean,vhile the development
of the question is (,ve ,viII suppose) only a fe\v years
old; its development-period (,vhich may be one of a
century or t'vo) has little Inore than cOlllnlenced; infal-
libility itself, on this theory, cannot compass the truth
at such a date in the history of the doctrine ;-it is
therefore perfectly idle to pretend that under these
circumstances the supposed Council, "whatever it utter,
,viII utter the truth;" it rnust utter an answer to a given
question (for to that end alone is it convened), to whielt,
on the development schenle, it is sinzply ÙTtjJossible fOl

it at that tÍ1ne to utter a correct an8u.er. And the same
disqualification l11ust obviously vitiate all conciliar au-
thority (or papal, or any other), upon all possible doc-
trines, except at or after certain unrevealed epochs;
then alone can any authority utter the truth, if the truth
be the result of developnlent; then alone can any de-
veloped doctrine be communicated to man; and the
Council that dares lay hold of any before the myste-

answer or satisfy the incidental objections which shall happen to be
11lade to them in the Church.' And so no new doctrine ever received
from their authority or power of defining, but the ancient, Apostolical,
Catholic, pious doctrine testified to us."-(Pal'ænesz's, Minor Theolo-
gicalTVorks, p. 340, in Lib. of Änglo-Catlwlic Theology.)
So also Leslie: " Neither you nor we think that Councils can
add anyone article to the Creed, or take away any; but, upon the
arising of any new heresy, a Council is the best evidence of the
faith received in those Churches of which it is composed. Thus
they are witnesses and guards of the faith, but neither the authors
nor masters of it."-Änswe1' to the Bishop of .JIeaux: ( Works, Vol. iii.
p. 248. Oxford, 1832.)]

z2

340

ON THE DEVELüPl\lENT OF

[LETT. VIII.

rious hour that closes its" development" (when unfor-
tunately the Council itself becon1es nearly superfluous),
may be "infallible," indeed,-the verbal concession
cannot well be escaped, for no theologian up to this
ùay ever yet made the date of a General Council an
essential requisite to its infallibility,-but nevertheless,
if development be the law of all infallible revelation,
it ,vill, every assignable date up to that hour of final
development, most infallibly err.
2. It 11lay be urged, however, that all this statement
represents the supreme controlling authority as too
constantly dependent on the general movement of deve-
lopn1ent in the mass of the Church. The theory itself
seenlS to DIe to involve thi
even lnore cOlnpletely than
I have done; if the development be the ordinary pre-
condition of enlightenment, the decretory infallibility
,vhich is to terminate doubt and discussjon l1lust surely
attend, at least as much as guide, its Illotions. But I
am willing to exhibit the merits of the system in any
form its author and his adlnirers may prefer. 'Ve shall
no\v then regard the suprelne authority as asserting a
more direct and independent right to control and Ino-
dify general developnlent; and observe ho,v lnuch the
hypothesis ,viII have gained by this variation.
There are now two distinct parties to be contemplated;
the Developing Church and the Judicial Authority;
both equally and independently inspired. Should they
always necessarily and perfectly harlnonize, there can
be no need, and no use, of the judicial authority at aU;
the body of the Church is then its own judge; it is
autonomous, self-Iurninous, self-controlling, self - suffi-
cient. Those who ,viII not hear its voice are not very

LETT. VII!.]

CIIRISTL\N DOCTRIXE.

341

likely to listen to any other \vhich only echoes it. But
should they in any\vise differ j should the developing
Church really need control, direction, authoritative gui-
dance, \vhat then beconles of the supernatural inspira-
tion of the developn
ent itself,. and \vith it of the sanctity
and glory of that n10venlent of spiritual kno\vledge by
,vhich the private doctors of the Church have becolne
the legislators of its ne\v and better Faith, the divinely
inspired Bezaleels of its architecture of dogma, the
Evangelists of a Inediæval gospel? As I have already
observed, the seat of ùeveloplnent must be the body of
the ChurGh, the general congregation of the faithful;
for it alone has perlnanent existence to allo\v of con-
tinuous progression. How then shall any distinct au-
thority presunle to interfere ,vith that \vhich is itself
essentially divine? Ho\v can it venture to do so \vith-
out infi"inging not only on individual rights, but on
the rights of the Church's corporate inspiration? The
daily and hourly developlnent, itself the \vorking and
expression of a Divine Spirit, is essentially as authorita-
tive as any decision that ca.n ever be pronounced upon
it; the progressive popular belief is itself the revela-
tion of God, or this theory is a drealn, for this very
position it is the entire object of the theory to illustrate
anù establish. If indeed this current opinion have been
anything less than divine, \vhat claiIll has it to conle
in among us pritnitive CatholIcs, and delnand to over-
lay our ancient faith, and su persede our interpretations
of Scripture, anù reconstruct our Creed, and dictate
our \vhole conception of Christianity? This current
opinion was itself notoriously the fOrInative principle
of the papal religion, \vhich cannot be divine unless it

342

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETT. VIII.

was so. It \vas never in the canons qf Councils that
mediæval Christianity was shaped and completed; it
was by the growth of popular opinion among unlettered
races, by the habits of the nlonastic, and the teaching
of the priest, and the treatise of the schoolman, that it
,vas really formed, continued, consolidated. Ifmediæval
Christianity (distinctly such,-as distinguished from
e. g. the Christianity of the Common Prayer-Book), be
be indeed the one exclusive ideal which He conceived
who spal{e the Sern10n on the blount,-then not
council-decrees, but these instruments-the schoolnlan,
and the priest, and the monk, and the popular notion,
-must have been as directly inspired as John and Paul;
for these were they that .made it. 'Vho can pretend
that any single Council is as ans\verable for the forma-
tion of modern Rornanism as the Sumnla of Aquinas?
All parties must admit,-tlâs theory at least does not
question, but affirnls it,-that the existing theology
of an Italian priest is not the very and identical theo-
logy expressed in the Ne\v 'Testament; the supplelnen-
tary Creed, then, if binding, must surely be as truly
inspired as the original; yet that supplelnentary creed
was never in the first instance the creation of any
Councilor other recognised authority of the Church;
its very authors can in few cases be traced with cer-
tainty ; yet assuredly, if that superadded mass of doc-
trine be as divine as the sernlons of Christ, its unknown
authors must have been in each case in the highest sense
inspired to reveal it. The divinity of Bellarmine's Con-
troversies, taken altogether, is surely as great an advance
on the Epistles of St. Paul, as these on the prophecies
of Isaiah. If ,ve denland inspiration to guarantee St.

LETT. VIII. ]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

343

Paul's doctrine of Justification or the Resurrection of
the Body, ,ve can certainly require no less on behalf of
those C,vhoever they were, for no man can c01l1pletely
say) ,vho first propounded each specific tenet in the
,vhole huge mass of the Roman dogmatic. To this na-
tural and obvious demand the theory of a divine process
of development gives the fullest sanction; it supposes
the doctrines gradually introduced, and introduced by
the special agency of the Spirit of God. But no,v-I
beseech its votaries to reflect,-for to this I return,-
over such a Church, itself the organ of perpetual and
increasing inspiration,-over the individual ,vriters and
speculators of such a Church, the instruments-and,
1110re perplexing, the unkno\vn instruments-of Hea-
ven in disclosing its ever-gro\ving revelationsn,-,vhat
legitimate cont
'>ol can any ecclesiastical authority affect

n It is worth observing, that the principle of individual inspira-
tions and their authority is recognised in 5 Lateran, one of the
titular <Ecumenical Councils of the Roman Church. "Si quibus-
dam eo rum Dominus futura quædam in Dei Ecc1esiâ inspiratione
quapiam revelaverit, ut per Amos Prophetam Ipse pronlittit, et
Paulus ape [Apostolus,] prædicatorum princeps, Spiritum, in quit,
nolite restinguere, [extinguere,] Prophetas [prophetias] nolite sper-
nere, hos, &c., impediri minÌIllè volumus."-Sess. xi. [Concill.
Gener. Tom. iv. ii. p. 163. Romæ, 1612.-G.] This was designed
for the peculiar case of prophecy; but in truth the Roman doctrinal
system can only stand upon its universal and perpetual application
to priyate teaching of all kinds; upon a constant canonization of
the "private spirit" as fully coordinate with Scripture. For un-
questionably in that" private spirit," and nothing else, began every
single one of its peculiarities. *

· [Compare l\Ir. Xewman's able reasoning upon this subject, in his Lectlaes on
the Prophetical Office oft/ie Church: Instances of the abuse of Private Judgment,
pp. 209-223. Lond. 1837.-G.]

344

ON THE DEVELOP:ßIENT OF

[LETT. VIII.

to exercise? How shall either of the collateral autho-
rities-the developing Church and the independent
Council-assume to govern the other? If the condi-
tion of thought vvith \vhich the council deals be the
product of inspiration, a progressive product too, perpe-
tually advancing in depth and importance, what indeed
is it but palpably "quenching the Spirit," to interpose
and extinguish, instead of reverently observing and
cherishing it ?
3. If then, neither as dependently controlling, nor as
indeJ]endently controlling, can any ordinary conception
of SuprelIle Ecclesiastical Authority be made consis-
tent with the genuine operation of contemporary eccle-
siastical Development, perhaps such a development
lnay at least be conciliated \vith that othe1'> notion which
regards the infallible authority (wherever situated)
simply as an organ decla1"ative of the Church's belief,
expressing that belief, not dictating it. But applied to
any actual conjuncture, and, strictly understood (as it
lTIUSt be, to separate it from the other suppositions just
dismissed), this notion of the Authority will be found
quite as unmanageable as the former. rrhe Authority
exists to decide.
'he Church is therefore supposed
to require a directive voice. It requires direction be-
cause involved in difficulty, ahd agitated ,vith diversity
of opinion. N O\V it is Inauifest that the organ of such
a Church, sintply as 1'>epresentative of its state of belief at
the given instant, 111Ust be as uncertain, hesitating, and
unfixed as the Church itself; the echo-if but an echo
-Inust be lilnited to transmitting the very discords
that create it; an authority, \vhich should thus repro-
duce to the developing Church the picture of its o\vn

LETT. VII!.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

345

confusion (and an organ or index of its judgment can
do no 111 ore ), is manifestly an authority only in name;
it can govern or pacify the Church, no n10re than the
mirrored in1age of the agonized sufferer can still the
agonies it reflects.
I have thus attelnpted briefly to review the various
relations of a Supreme Authority to a Developing
Church, under any notion that can be framed of the
forlner; and I imagine your readers will now be able
to estimate ho,v much trouble it must yet cost the im-
porter of the Developl11ent theory to tame this wild
colt of Rationalism into the steady paces and heavy
harness of old-fashioned Roman theology. Fully and
fairly carried out, the notion of perpetual, undetermined
Developn1ent by unassignable authors in unassignable
ways, by authors inspired to announce ne,v fundan1en-
tals, and so to teach Councils themselves, '\vithout any
out,vard token of their own inspiration, and in the midst
of a Church 'v hich, though inspired itself: is strangely
unable to receive their doctrine vvithout tlunult and
division,-is inconsistent ,vith even the lo,vest degree
of that "authority" which "the Church hath in lnatters
of faith." But I have really not even yet noticed the
,vorst practical difficulties the consistent reception of
this doctrine ,vould involve.
4. For, it will be observed, the foregoing observa-
tions have exclusive reference to the exercise of autho-
rity in the regular way of Councils. The difficulty is
enorlnously increased by reflecting ho"\v, on the one
hand, authority, if essential to the Church, must have
long preceded the existence of Councils (which, in fact,
,vere tlzel11.selL'es, according to 1\lr. Ne,vrnan (p. 348), a

346

UN THE DEVELOP:\IENT OF

[LETT. VIII.

develoPlnent); and ho,v, on the other, its subsequent
exercise, through the medium of Councils, has, in the
Ron1an Church, been exceedingly rare and reluctant.
Take the case as it lies within lllodern experience. For
near three centuries past, centuries in intellectual and
moral interest, importance, and difficulty, far exceeding
any ever before traversed by the Ron1an Church,-she
has been synodically dUD1b; a petty occasional Congre-
gation at Rome, for \vhich she herself does not dare to
claim conciliar dignity, has been the only authoritative
effort of this destined Light of the Nations to direct
the vastest movement of minds the ,vorld's history has
yet recorded. She issued infallible dictates at her ease
to the mediæval ages, wh
n she kne,v herself safe from
antagonist or scrutiny; how significant the silence of
her infal1ibility from the hour that the cold, calm eye
of general intelligence ,vas fixed upon her! But to
IllY argU111ent. In the interval, then, of Councjlso-in-
finitely the greater portion of the Church's history-
there ren1ains no authority on earth external to the deve-
loping P 1"0 cess itself, except on the ultra-montane figment
of the Pope's personal infallibility, and even that, too,
some\vhat tardy in its oracles. J\feanwhile, busy and
incessant, the fermentation proceeds; the work of ec-
clesiastical develoPlnent is its2lf a,vful and divine; it

o [So Leslie: "Suppose you were agreed among yourselves con-
cerning your Councils, and that they were infallible, yet they are
not a living infallible judge always in being; you have not had one
since that of Trent, which began in the year 1545, and concluded
in the year 1563; . . . . and there luay not be another in twice that
time, if ever. 'Vhere then is the living Judge always in being?"-
( JVol'ks, Vol. iii. p. 58. Oxford, ] 832.) ]

LETT. VIII. ]

CHRI
TIAN DOCTRINE.

347

heaves with the breath of inspiration; It IS pregnant
,vith an unknown and Inighty future. 'Vhat individual
prelate or local Synod shall risk meddling ,vith a move-
ment of the general mind, so trelnendous in its vast-
ness, so delieate in its complication? 'Vho shall dare,
,vith canon and inhibition, to cross the mysterious
Inarch of God through the souls of IIis saints? The
narrow stream of true doctrine (it is here admitted)
,vinds through s\vamps of choking heresies, at times is
almost lost among them; they beset it with calumnies,
and mock it ,vith counterfeits, and it has no standard
to confront them \vith, no n10del to appeal to, for it is
forced to grope for a standard, not in the in1mutable
Past, but tIle possible Future, and to confess itself an
innovator even as they? But an authoritative innova-
tor? No doubt; and for that very reason subject to no
authority beyond itself. That Development, ,vhich is
itself Inspiration alive and in motion, I have already
sho\vn, can recognise no legitimate superior on earth;
beyond the Church, none ,vill be pretended; and witltin
the Church (the rare case of Councils apart) all indi-
vidual authority is lost and consumed in the collective
Inajesty of the Developing Church itself.
It is 111anifest, then, that on this hypothesis, honestly
carried into action, authoritative guidance of any pos-
sible kind n1ust ever be simply despotic and contradic-
tory; the individual believer, hOYleVer sorely perplexed,
Inay ask an opinion, but not a judgment; no prelate or
pastor can legitimately interfere ,vith a divine evolu-
tion of doctrine, except to join \vith the rest in the
common scramble of controversy, out of \vhich it is at
length to arise; to attempt to repress or control it is

348

ON THE DEVELOP:\IENT UF

[LETT. VIII.

blaspheIny against that Providence which alone has
authority to direct, urge, or limit its rnarch. Autho-
rity, of ,vhatever kind, zcithin a developing Church,
would indeed be the arrogation of a controlling po\ver
to countervail the very laws and conditions of its ou'n
being, to arrest the very process upon 'v hich the per-
fection of its o\vn living organization depends; it ,vould
be as if the body, or the head of the body, \vere to bid
a single limb not dare to enlarge, and threaten it with
amputation for disobedience, ,vhile avovving that the
body could not continue to exist, except in incessant
gro,vth. On the one hand, the Church cannot know
(for her kno,vledge is maintained to be but gradual, and
ne,v develoPlnents adtni
ted to be "startling") that the
n10vement she dreads and silences may not be the pain-
ful and difficult opening of a new theological develop-
ment; on the other, the private divine, to \vhom the
suspected speculation occurs, cannot kno\v but that he
may be the instrlunent of IIeaven selected to herald
and proclain1 the ne,v light; on which supposition it
\vould become his duty to resist the jealous interference
that would retard the dawn of unrisen truth. So feebly
( I must again warn the reader) is the essential Ration-
alism of this theory concealed under the flimsy veil of
an affected and verbal Catholicity.
These objections lllay perhaps SeelTI speculative as
the speculation they oppose, ,vhile thus viewed gene-
rally and on a large scale. Con1e then (before I close
the topic) to plain intelligible lllatter of daily practical
duty. Regard for one rDon1ent the position of an indi-
vidual 8peculatoí'>, under this theory of the perpetual
deyelopment of doctrine, by the tnind. of the Church.

LETT. VIII.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRIXE.

349

Suppose hirn even a devoteù ROlnallist, anù I desire to
kno\v \vhat conceivable authority t11is theory supplies
to govern hilD, to repress his ,vildest heretical fantasies,
over and above \vhat is admitted on any theory of phi-
losophic rationalism?
A strong and novel fancy enters his thoughts. He
recurs to the past recorùs of the Church. It may
be, he finds nothing there absolutely to preclude it ;
nothing at the worst, \vhir h he hinlself cannot (re-
mem bering \vhat an infallible Church has already
ùone in this ,yay) sufficiently interpret as pernlissive.
If so, it may be true, and not only true, but (trernen-
dous to think!) it may be a great fllndal1wntal, 'llnre-
vealed truth, a truth like the Trinity and Original Sin,
\vhich gre\v up in just this indirect \vay; or like the
\vorship of the Virgin, or the Papal supremacy, \vhich,
\vhen they first occurred to some private doctor, had
no \vhit better authority. The gro,ving conviction
that his precious treasure may be the first glorious
glealn of a conling development, is not very likely to
din1Ínish his eagerness to cherish and promulgate it.
. .
IIis priest, his bishop, has plainly no authority to in-
terfere; a bishop nlight as justly have suppressed the
.first mention of Purgatory or Inlage-\vorship; Inani-
festly nothing under absolute infallibility has any law-
ful right to overbear \vhat 'Jnay be as Î1nportant a
ùevelopnlent as either. To apply to Rome in every
such private case ,vould be impracticable and ridicu-
lous; the repose of Rome is not to be disturbed to
satisfy the uncertainty of every individual conscience;
and, after all, Rome itself is admitted not to be final
and absolute in the matter. Where, then, shall he

.

350

ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF

[LETT. VIII.

apply? "That restraining authority exists on earth to
control him '? An {Ecurnenical ()ouncil, a new Lateran
or Trent, rnust be called; or this man is justified, by
virtue of the theory of development, in living and dy-
ing in his private heresy, as long as he believes it 'Jnay
be unrevealed truth. No other conceivable remedy
exists; and even supposing the absurdity got over, of
convoking such an assembly to cure every individual
dreamer's crotchets, the {Ecumenical Council itself
must deal timidly enough with one who may be the
chosen of God; when it remembers that (by virtue
of the same theory) half the Councils of the Church
would confessedly have gone astray on half the doc-
trines it now believes!
Justified, therefore, in his independence, our deve-
lopist goes forth " to open the mind of the Church" to
his dogma. It spreads-spreads justly, if prelates but
understand their duty, for how shall they venture to
deny the possibility of the new apostle's mission?
Whatever their personal opinion of the doctrine, they
cannot forget how the best and gravest prelates of the
eighth century were as deeply persuaded of the peril
of Image-,vorship as they, yet that development ulti-
mately justified itself by its success. Discussion arises,
discussion for years, and millions die in the new belief
unwarned, unhindered; for where is the authority that
shall dare to interdict its diffusion; or who is there
whose duty is not rather to watch and wait upon the
providential movement, "lest haply he be found fight-
ing against God ?"
Such is the position, such the rights and privileges,
of an individual explorer, under the warrant of the

LETT. VIII.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

351

theory of developtnent. But if, after an, in humble
terror of such results, the individual Inember of the
developing Church, avoiding, as our author contrives
to do, by some secret, unconscious evasion, the legiti-
Inate result of his o\vn doctrine, binds himself to re-
ceive the Church's successive fluctuations, rather than
hi
own, as invariable and infallible, ,vhere is the
material difference? It is but this, that he substitutes
jor lti1nself the Church at large, as the organ of equally
unfixed doctrinal progression; the Church Catholic
herself becomes a huge corporate Rationalist, under
,vhose capricious arbitration he lives in the bondage,
,vithout the security, of a slave.
III. And hence it is, that I have before so often in-
timated, and no\v must once more distinctly and finally
reiterate, that the system of this book is inherently
and incurably sceptical. Sceptical it assuredly is, if a
doctrine may deserve that evil name (and I am quite
alive to the responsibility of affixing it), ,vhich in-
volves in a doubt dark as that of utter infidelity, all
the plain historical grounds of a Christian man's be-
lief, and gives him absolutely no proof at all in return.
This indeed has ever been in various degrees a charac-
teristic of the more daring champions of ROlTlanism ;
though hardly ever so undisguisedly exhibited as now.
}""'or, in fact, it is the very consummation of that cre-
dulity,vhich is the intoxication of intelligent faith, that
.
it exults in adopting the premises of the Infidel, and is
delighted to show ho\v it can reach to undoubting
conviction by the very path which timid reason dreads
as the precipice of un belief. It despises the slo,v and
feeble digestion \vhich cannot convert perilous poison

352

ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF

[LETT. VIII.

to nutritive food; it thinks scorn of the lnan ,vho can-
not extort his predetermined conclusion from any data
at all, or is afraid of the company of the Gibbons and
v"T oltaires the whole way to the one last step. " I ,viII
make every other proof so vain," is its vaunt, "that
you must be either Satan's or mine !" The writer of
this volume has ever been rather too much addicted
...
to ,vhat he has himself styled this" kill or cure" me-
thod of proof; his present performance differs in this
only from the ingenious mischief of his forIner of the
same kind, that he has in this case unfortunately for-
gotten altogether the "cure." One by one he detaches
from under us (to apply 1\Ioore's beautiful fiction)
every foothold; and at length leaves his bewildered
disciple clinging with the hands alone, the ,veak relax-
ing hands, to the chain that suspends him over the
abyssp. "Scripture?" It is so ambiguous and eso-
teric, that " plain and logical" comments are certain to
lead to heresy. "Primitive belief?" Christian truth,
in the sense required, is not prirnitive. Roman autho-
rity? It is forced to rest upon the unproved ass'lunp-
tion that a claim never made for centuries may yet be
indispensable to salvation. Universal and perpetual
Church infallibility? It is hardly disguised,-it is
lllOSt surely involved, as I have deJllonstrated,-that it
cannot be made to fit the facts of Roman theological
history ,vithout contradiction. While, under all sup-
positions alike-even universal infallibility, whereso-
ever placed,-the guide of faith is but an explorer of
truth, gaining on it by degrees, slo,vly and painfully

P The Epicurean; Chap. vii.

LETT. VII!.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRIKE.

353

making her ,yay to its complete cOIn prehension : she
does not see truth, she only feels after it; she has the
gifted touch of the blind indeed, but that is all; she
\vill come to kno\v it in its integrity SOlne ti.me or
other, but in the mean tÏIne she cannot profess to give
Inore than fragments and samples of the will and the
truth of God. \Ve may call her" infallible;" but in-
fallibility is no more than a word, though a long one;
the 'lco'l
d can ,york no charm. If in reality the Church
is sure to go \vrong (as the theory insists) unless there
be infallibility to direct it; if the infallibility that di-
rects it (as again the theory involves) be itself com-
pletely dependent on, and directed by, the 1110venlent
of the Church-guided by tbat ,vhich it alone can
guide ;-if the general development urgently delnand
a superintending authority to keep it from confusion
and error; and yet that superintending authority (as
the ne,v doctrine maintains, and all history attests)
only gives utterance to the general development itself
of the age in ,vhich it happens to speak ;-once more
-if the original Scripture revelation be an inscrutable
enigma which might lead to anything, and prove any-
thing, and be consistent ,vith anything, until expounded
by an authority ,vhich that inconlprehensible revela-
tion alone can guarantee, and \vhich, after it has been
guaranteed, is itself essentially mutable, confessedly
unrecognized for ages, and to this day unable distinctly
to define itself; in what but utter unbelief can such a
medley of conflicting suppositions end, except so far as
the lnercy of I-Ieaven may confound the logic of its
authors, and force them to break the la,ys of reasoning,
that they n1ay keep the la,vs of God? Such, Inean-
2A

354

ON THE DEVELOPl\IENT OF

[LETT. VIII.

,vhile, is unquestionably the present position of this
theory: if it is to be further prosecuted,-if a " school"
of develoPlnent theology is to be founded in our age,
he Inust be strangely dull, or strangely devoted, ,vho
can doubt where it ll1Ust end; who can doubt ,vhat
111Ust be the last miserable result of a scheme ,vhich
first discredits all the old grounds of belief, and 80 far
unquestionably cooperates ,vith the Infidel, in order to
exalt in their place a specific source of authority; and
then, by virtue of the very reasoning brought to esta-
blish that authority, Ünplies that the authority itself is
shifting, changeable, uncertain,-and so far teaches the
disciple, ,vhat I am quite ready to believe it has not
taught the Inaster,-to _ take the second step ,vith the
Infidel as ,veIl as the first.
Your readers may, ho,vever, feel some curiosity to
learn what the Author himself has been aùle to do
,vith this question of infallible authority. To tbe very
fe,v and very feeble contributions ,vhich he has added
to the labours of his predecessors on the topic, I had
intended to direct their attention in this letter. I have,
ho,vever, already transgressed my lin1its; and 111ust
reserve the subject for another occasion.
I renlain, my dear Sir,
Your's fai thfull y,
'V. ARCHER BUTLER.

LETT. 1:\.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

355

LETTER IX.

.

. DEAR SIR,

Circumstances,-some of ,vhich fe,v
parochial 11linisters in Ireland, at the present absorbing
season a , ,vill be at a loss to conjecture,-have prevented
TIle from completing the examination, which I had un-
dertaken in your pages sonle months since, of the argu-
ments of 1\11". Newman in support of his hypothesis
of an Infallible Developing Authority resident in the
Ronlan Church. Your readers ,vill require to be re-
Ininded, that I had endeavoured to investigate that
supposition,-first, as it assumed or argued a certain
local centre of authoritative development,-the specifi-
cally RO]J
nn aspect of the hypothesis (Letter VII.) ;
and secondly (Letter VIII.), in its relations to the
,vider notion of Church Infallibility in general. The
objections ,vhich I then enumerated ,vere drawn chiefly
fron1 the nature of the hypothesis itself, either as COlll-
pared ,vith historical facts, or as analyzed into its o,vn
constituent elelnents. It would, ho,vever, be scarcely
satisfactory to those of your readers ,vho Inay feel any

a [Written in 1\Iarch, 1847, when the mmnorable famine was pre-
vailing. ]

2A2

356

ON TIlE DEVELOP
IENT OF

[LETT. I
.

interest in the discussion, to omit a 1110re distinct refe-
rence to the arguments, or surmises, by ,vhich the
Author himself attempts to give plausibility to the
doctrine of Infallible Authority.
"Thy it is that so large a measure of attention is due
to this topic \viII n1anifestly discover itself as I proceed,
and the explanation ,vill incidentally introduce some
of the Author's chief collateral reasonings. In refer-
ring to which,-and, indeed, through all this commu-
llication,-I must express a \vish that nlY readers \vould
first consult the Second and Third Chapters of the
volume itself; in justice to the Author, \vhose manifold
plausibilities of style must be wholly lost in these rapid
allusions; in justice to myself, whose observations Inust
appear sonle,vhat obscure and disconnected, \vhen not
perused as a running cOlnmentary upon the original, in
,vhich the secret of their connexion is to be found.
The general object of tbe \vhole of the first or theo-
retical part of the treatise (to which, except in passing
references, I have intentional1yconfined Inyselfthrough-
out) is, as I have already repeatedly implied, to evince
that the 1nere etrcistence of beliefs and practices must be
admitted as alnlost irresistible evidence in their favour;
that \ve are bound to aSSUlne that if \ve kne\v more, all
difficulties would be removeJ.; and that, \vherever de-
ficiency or indistinctness as to ROlDan doctrine appear
in the language, \vhether of Holy W"'-rit or of uninspired
authorities, we are bound to interpret all such records
by later dogmas, their alleged. develoPlnents; to read
thenl in the light of subsequent ages; to understand
them as tendencies to the maturer theology of Popes and
schoolmen; to reform the anallzo1"phosis of such imper-

LETT. IX.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRIKE.

357

feet artists as Paul and J ohn,-or such inexperienced
copyists as Justin and Irenæus, and Tertullian and Cle-
lnent,-by reflecting its rude and distorted perspective
from the harmonizing n1Ïrror of mediæval doctrine.
Attempts are made, in the part of the Essay \vhich I
an1 now about to examine, to illustrate or confirn1 this
yie\v,-in itself so attractive to natural indolence, so
con1fortable to ,vearied scepticism,-by such sugges-
tions as follo\v :-by citing instances in which some
authors have omitted, for no reason \ve can no\v deter-
111ine, facts they Inight have been expected to mention
(p. 139, &c.); to \vhich plain persons \vill probably
reply, that such olnissions, so far as they go, are argu-
Inents against the reality of the facts, but arguments
in the supposed cases outweighed by stronger evidence;
-by urging, that in cornmon matters ,ve take things for
granted \Vhell there is any presun1ption in their favour
(p. 148); \vhich is, no doubt, often true, and some-
tirnes necessary; but inasmuch as it also takes place in
every ordinary instance of erroneous belief, may pos-
sibly not be considered absolutely conclusive for truth;
-by observing, that \ve subnlit our reason on compe-
tent authority to interpretations not other\vise probable
(p. 150); an analogy not precisely in point, \vhen the
question at issue is just the cOlnpetency of the autho-
rity alleged ;-by citing Bishop Butler's statenlents
about general completions of prúphecy sufficiently valid
in despite of difficulties of detail (p. 151); \vhich \vilI
vindicate the details of Romanism, \v hen D1ediævaI
Christianity U in general" shall have first been proved
the subject of scriptural prophecy ;-by quoting the
same \vriter to sho\v (p. 156), that "the truth of reli-

.

358

OX THE DEVELOP
lENT O
'

[LETT. IX.

gion ll]Ust be judged by all the evidence taken toge-
ther," a maxim ,vhich may be discussed \vhen anybody
is found to dispute it. Or again,-in order to establish
the necessity of interpreting ancient hints by modern
dogmas, \ve are reminded (as usual) of the uncertainty
of the Canon of Scripture, and the absolute necessity
of "infallibility" to prove it (pp. 143, 160) ;-when ,viII
this immortal sophism have closed the cycle of its re-
surrections? 'Ve are shown how very improbable it
was that Roman doctrine could "arise" or "be recog-
nised" till long after the first ages (p. 145 ),-a propo-
sition which I am certainly not inclined to question.
We are inforlned, that" we are to choose between this
theology and none" (p. 147); an affirn1ation which vtill
possibly require no further cOllllnent, than to vouch
my perfect seriousness in stating, that it is actually ad-
vanced by the author. And again, that "all will agree
that St. Paul resen1 bles Alfonso Liguori, or a Carmelite
friar, more than any other class of Inen" (p.147),-an
observation \vhich, I fear, I must be reduced to attest
by a similar ,varrant ;-or, that th
se who disclaiIn
Origen's notions about praying to angels (supposing the
fact adn1Ïtted), act" in like manner" ,vith those \vho
deny that" I and the Father are one" is an assertion of
Our Blessed Lord's divinity
p. 153); or, that no one
can admit the Eucharist \vithout implicitly a<.hnitting
"the virtue of relics" (p. 154), (for of such fantastic
texture is the staple of his argun1ent composed); or
Baptislll ,vithout Indulgences; or Original Sin \vithout
(though this connexion is indeed a very ancient drean1)
the consequent n1erit of Celibacy. To these specula-
tions of an author \v ho (p. 157) accuses Barro\v of log i-

LETT. I
.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

35

cal dcficiencyb, is added an elaborate attenlpt to bring
together sorne adulnbrations in the early ages of the
IIalf-Cornulullion and the Papal Suprelnacy (pp. 161,
177 )c. And finally, a some\vhat desultory section of

b The charge against Barrow seems to be, that he took the papal
argument in pieces, and undertook to destroy its separate consti-
tuents separately, instead of first conlbining all the alleged proofs
into one aggregate probability for a papal suprClnacy. But this
appears hasty and ill-considered criticism. Barrow does no more
than analyze the argument with great distinctness, into the suppo-
sitions which are conjointly necessary (and by the adversary ad-
mitted to be necessary) to prove the conclusion, and successively
refute everyone of theln. If a reasoner nlay not lawfully do this,
what may he lawfully do to confute error?
Barrow argues largely from omissions; but su.rely, when the op-
posing evidences,-as our present Author clearly concedes,-are in-
considerable, there is hardly any other Dlode of refutation left. For
we cannot expect positive di'sclamations to be adducible till the dainl
has first been made. The validity of the received logical maxinl, of
reasoning" fron1 the relnotion of the consequent to the remotion of
the antecedent," has never been questioned; and what else is the
" argument from omissions," whenever the fact onlitted is an inevi-
table consequence of the disputed supposition?
At the same tin1e it lnay, I think, be admitted, that Barrow's
treatise is more brilliant and forcible in the assault than the de-
fence; the attack is so triumphant, that he seems to have hardly
thought it necessary to canvass specifically every passage adduced
by the Rmnan writers. A more conlplete collection and analysis of
such passages would be a valuable and an easy supplement in any
future edition.
c The perplexity of our Author, in dealing with the question of
the primitive evidence for the Papacy, discovers itself in an amusing
variety of expressions on the subject, scattered over the volume, a
few of which, lying near each other in the part now under conside-
ration, I shall here submit to the reader.
I need not renlind hinl, that the whole body of Roman controver-

360

ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF

[ LETT. IX.

"parallel instances" (pp. 179-202), of the saIne way of
reasoning" when/acts a}'>e scarce,"-a "method delicate

sialists (a few of the ultra-Gallican school hardly excepted) in-
variably ainl at demonstrating that the presidency of Peter was
universally acknowledged by the Apostles, and unequivocally trans-
mitted by him to the Bishops of the diocese of Rome;-that this
was notorious, and acted upon by the common consent of the Uni-
versal Church from the beginning of Christianity.
The writer of the following sentences belongs to the same Church
which reckons Cardinal Bellarmine as the greatest of her contro-
versialists, and Cardinal Baronius as the most authoritative of her
historians; he is dealing with a question which has been concur-
rently characterized as the" summa rei Christianæ;" he is the fa-
voured disciple and champion of a Communion which (unlike the
perishable sects around it) e
ults in harbouring no difference of
judgment on any point of importance to Christian belief and prac-
tice. Under the auspices of this author the latest edition of un-
changeable Romanism runs thus:
"Nor would a Pope arz'se, but in proportion as the Church was
consolidated."-p. 145.
" The Pope's authority was not and could not be in operation" in
the age of Ignatius: "first the power of the Bishop awoke, then the
power of the Pope."-p. 165.
" St. Peter's prerogative would remain a mere letter, till the com-
plication of ecclesiastical matters became the cause of ascertaining
it."-p. 166.

'The regalia Petri 111ight sleep. . . . not as an obsolete, for it
neve/'" had been operative, but as a my
terious privilege, &c."-p. 166.
"{Ecumenical disturbances gave rise to Popes."-p. ] 6i. "The
papal supremacy was not f01
mally acknowledged [he has just said
that Popes had not yet" risen" at all] in the second century, no
more than the doctrine of the Holy Trinity till the fourth;" froITl
which it seems inevitably to follow, that, as the most he can say of
the forn1er, previous to the" forn1al acknowledgtnent," is, that" a
certain element was at work, or [at least] in existence" (p. 165);
so, if the analogy is to hold good, "a certain element" is all tke

LETT. IX.]
and doubtful when used in proof of" what he styles
"the Catholic Creed ;"-the apparent scope-certainly

CHRISTIAN DOCTRI:S-E.

361

Church must be permitted to have known of the Trinity before the
fourth century!
"The papacy began to form, as soon as the Empire 'relaxed its
tyrannous oppression."-p. 167. [\Vicked Protestants will mutter
their 2 Thess. ii. 6.]
But, on turning a few pages (p. 170), we are thrown again into
hopeless perplexity; for our clear and consistent author, arguing
that an earthly monarchical head is absolutely essential to the.
kingdom of Christ, boldly affirnls, of an "element" which for cen-
turies "had never been operative," that, "at least this is the expe-
rience of EIGHTEEN HUNDRED years."
I may be pernlitted to exchange these citations (which are of
little interest, except as evincing the ill-disgui
ed awkwardness of
the position in which this theory places its hesitating contriver) fur
an observation, which has sometinles struck me in reflecting on the
sort of complimentary and respectful nlention of the ROlllan See, so
frequently found in the African and 'Vestern writers of the fourth
and fifth centuries. The dignity of that See would not only receive
the acknowledgments due to its ac\ual superiority of rank at the tinle
(respectful acknowledgnlents, which, if other and weightier circum-

tances had not long rendered it inlpossible, the bishops of England
would of course be just as willing to tender, as .Augustine or Jerome
in their day), but by a very natural illusion it would be celebrated,
as if by a sort of immutable prerogative, the ecclesiastical president of
the rest. And this because the ancient writers must have conceived
and described the Church under an unduly rim'tted notion of its des-
tined dirnensions, and as if it were to be concentrated for ever
around certain chief localities familiar to their experience, from
their actual unacquaintance with tIle 'J't.al extent of the habitable world;
something on the sanle principle (though, of course, not so great a
degree of it) as the ancient philosophers went astray in their specu-
lations, whenever the subject demanded a knowledge of the real
extent of the physical 'llnz"ve'l"se. In the latter case, we readily make
allowance for the inevitable confinell1ent of views which must have
giv('n all-even their deepest nletaphYðical-speculations a sort of

362

OK THE DEVELOP!\IE
T OF

[LETT. IX.

the inevitable result-of which is, to evince the absurù
or arbitrary hypotheses to ,vhich speculators have been
led, tbrough adopting the mode of argtunent employed
by the Author hi111self. The reader nJay be surprised
at this; but no controversialist knows better than

Ir. N eWlnan the value of boundless candour in a c.1a-
lTIaged case. There is no lTIOre profitable study for the
controversial practitioner, than that prudential precipi-
tancy "\vith which our Author everywhere prodigally
grünts ,vhat he cannot possibly deny. 1Ieal1 \V hile, ,vhat
can be a lTIOre distinct conùen1nation of his o"\vn che-
rished "method" of taking all for truth in the first
instance, and harmonizing facts subsequently as we
best may, than his own ,vords (p. 185), ,vhich I beg to
suggest as a general epigraph or moral, to be appended
to the next edition of the Essay: "Such is the loose-
ness of reasoning, and the negligence of facts, vvhich

geocentric limitation; we "correct" for the mental position of the
observer. Just so, can we not understand, that nothing could be
more natural than for a writer to assume, that, e. g., Rome was
pointed out by inherent, unalterable clainls for the leading ecclesi-
astical station of the world, when his notion of "the world" was
really little more than the Roman Empire itself, and a fe,voutlying
barbarian territories?
On the other hand,-if I may add an observation, to which I
have no space to do justice,-I have often been accustomed to re-
gard the singular superiority to all these san1e local limitations in
our Lord's discourses and actions, as one of the most unequivocal
proofs of llis superhuman inspiration. His ,vhole teaching is, in its
very tone and sty Ie, a sort of perpetual inlplied prophecy of the uni-
versality of the kingdom He Calne to establish; it could not have
come fronl anyone who did not beforehand inwardly know, that the
systenl he taught was already irrevocably secure of universal ex-
tension.

LETT. IÀ.]

CIIRISTL\.K DOCTIUNE.

363

ALL ,vriters 1110re or less exhiLit, ,vho consider that they
are in possession of a sure hYl)othesis on ,vhich to inter-
pret evidence and elTIploy argument."
Now, to the general principles,-for I ,vill not delay
longer upon these fee blenesses or inconsistencies of de-
tail,-that l110ral evidence is to be taken cun1ulatively;
that ,ve n}ust often, in practical matters, be content ,vith
proofs of indifferent qualityd; that ,ve nnlst be satisfied
with even small probabilities in complicated historical
discussions, and the like ;-,ve have but to ans"
er, that,
no doubt, all this is true enough, but it is a]Jplicable
only under certain very obvious qualifications. In the
FIRST place, the case ought to be one ,vhere no bette,.
evidence can be had, or ,vhere there is no otlze1'> c07npetitor
for our acceptance, or no extTinsic standa7'd ,vhatever
to appeal to. If it be certain that God has given reli-
gion to man, and if there be but one fOI'ln of religion
adducible, either in the terms of the original revelation
of His 'Vill, or in the subsequent hUlnan ,vorkings of
that revelation up to this hour, no doubt ,ve must take
it, subject to ,vhatever difficulties of detail; for, on this

d "If such [, conclusions, independent of definite facts'], are
allowable where speculation is harmless, why lllay they not be a
duty u'he7'e action is impel ative ?"-p. 196. Here is one of those
confused applications of a sound nlaxirn, with which all this part of
the volun1e abounds. 'Ye reply, certain]y 'not, where (as we con.
tend, and he is bound to disprove) such conclusions are overba]anced
by greater improbabilities. 'Ve are obliged to act upon slight proba-
bility, doubtless, but not upon any slight probability indifferently.
'Yhere there are contending probabiJitie::;, the excess, after deducting
the opposing clainls, huwever s]ight it be, constitutes a proper and
sufficient ground of action; let hinl prove this e;rcess, and we are
sati
tied.

364

ON THE DEVELOP:\IENT OF

[LETT. IX.

supposition, to reject the details, ,vould be to reject the
religion altogether. But to assume this the real state
of the question, is so lnanifestly to assume the question
itself, that I must not waste tilne in exposing sophistry
so transparent. Or, again, SECONDLY, such conjectural
and hypothetic supplements to historical records as are
here contended for, ,vhereby an historian assumes the
pri vilege of filling outlines, and connecting detached
facts, according to his own estÏInate- of probabilities,
are admissible and ,velcome, when the subject is one
of little more than speculative curiosity, but manifestly
unsatisfactory (unless, indeed, no other choice be left)
where interests of unbounded importance are depen-
dent on the decision. It can never be anything more
than ingenious trifling, to vindicate a method of deter-
n1Ïning Christian faith,-and an exclusive method of
doing so, for it implicitly discards all others,-by such
parallel cases, as (p. 194, &c.) the conjectures of histo-
rians about the forlnation of the Greek n1ythology, or
about the original connexion of Religion and Trade;
whilst it n1ust be obvious, that such a process is equally
open to all parties; that its results must entirely de-
pend on the comparative artistic skill of the advocates;
and, since, surely, no one will pretend that the por-
traits of historic personages and their deeds in "\Vaverley
or Ivanhoe are not incomparably more genuine history,
than a novel which should imagine, e. g., a supreme
papacy (dominant or developed) in the second century,
-can only end in making the Christian Rule of Faith
the premium of a competition Ðf historical r011lances.
But THIRDLy,-and which is the Inain point,-all such
reasonings are allo\\?able in reply to objections, when a

LETT. IX.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

365

strong Jìositive case !tas already been substantiated on its
own direct proofs. In other ,vords, and as regards the
special question here at issue; ,vhen the distinctive
Roman systern,-the body of teaching progressively
added to the primitive scheme and its equivalent, that
of the English Prayer Book,-has been first proved
divine by its proper evidence, such possibilities as these
are fairly adduced in reply to attendant difficulties; for
then (,vhich is just their proper place) they help the
imagination to realize ,vhat the understanding has
already taught the lllan he ought, at all events, to be-
lieve. And this brings us to the point from ,vhieh I
set out. For, in this case, the "direct evidence" for the
Roman scheme is sinlply the ,varrant,-"\vhatever that
nlay amount to,-for the presupposition of Roman in-
fallibility j the course and scope of the argunlent is
really this,-on supposition of infallible direction fully
proven, such and such introductions ,vould not be ab-
solutely contradictory to it; or,-,vith a strong antece-
dent persuasion of Roman infallibility, such and such
innovations ,vill not appear monstrous or impossible.
Remove this basis, and the \vhole edifice of speculation
and conjecture crumbles into dust e .

e Sometimes the Author admits this, sometimes he seems to dis-
guise or forget it, but everywhere equally it is indispensable. "It
,vill be said," he observes, in one place (p. 170), after speculating
why nothing is said about Supreme Popes in the first ages, "that
all this is theory. Certainly it is; it is a theory to account for facts
as they lie in the history, to account for so much being told us
about the papal authority in early times, and not more; a theory to
reconcile what is and what is not recorded about it, &c."
One might ask, why is any" theory" wanting? 'Vhat is there to
"reconcile?" 'Yhy not be content with the facts as they stand?

366

[LETT. IX.
The reader will no,v perceive why this special topic
deluands so searching an investigation. lIe ,viII see
that, though the Author has given so miserably dis-
proportionate a Iueasure of consideration to the ques-
tion, it is, and ever must be, the sole decisive issue on
which the entire argU111ent depends.
I proceed, therefore, to consider what proofs of any
such infallible directorJT of developInents are exhibited
in the chapter which the Author of this ,york has de-
voted to the su bj ect.
1. The }
irst proof,-or probabiIity,-is that general
presumption alluded to on a forIner occasion. On sup-
position of" developments" of the sort contended for,
the" tests" (on the elab9ration of ,vhich three-fourths

ON THE DEVELOP:\IENT OF

Who ever heard of a "theory" to account for the laws of the Roman
Republic not mentioning the edicts of the Enlperors? Conceive the
papacy,-in other ,vords the absolute necessity to salvation, of sub-
jection to the Bishop of the Roman diocese,-an essential element of
the Gospel; conceive the absolute monarchy of Nero, or of Trajan,
an essential elenlent in the original Roman constitution, and no
doubt there does arise, in both cases equally, a difficulty to "recon-
cile," but only then.
Accordingly, the Author in this place adds, what he seems too
often elsewhere to forget, "supposing there be OTHERWISE good
reason for saying that the papal supremacy is part of Christianity,
there is nothing in the early history of the Church to contradict it."
Passing over the preposterous assertion in the latter clause, ,ve may
admit that here at last the real question is raised. 'Ve eagerly read
on for the promised proofs, on which, he tells us, "all depends."
They entirely consist of-" a presumption." This is not very satis-
factory. But of what does this all-supporting presumption itself
consist? Of" two parts;" first, that it was likely there would be
a supreme monarch (and, p. 171, an infallible one) over the Church;
and secondly, that the Ronlan bishop has actually assumed the posi-
tion; in other words, of a conjecture, and of the fact itself which is

LETT. IX.]
of the present volume are expended) being to the
majority practically useless for the purpose (p. 117),
nothing but an infallible authority is C011Z]Jetent to decide
among such innlunerable growths of human feeling or
fancy. Those ,vho deny that any addition to Revela-
tion can absolutely oblige the Church of God, except
such as from that Revelation is logically deduced, and
by that Revelation can therefore be at any time logi-
cally verified, are not very likely to be much disturbed
by an argument which vanishes with the hypothesis
,vhich grounds it,-an argun1ent founded on a difficulty
,vhich is itself a portion of the very hypothesis we re-
Ject.- 'Vhile, again, either Reason or mere Sympathy
is to decide tbe Christian inquirer. If Inere human

CHRISTJA
DOCTRINE.

367

on its trial. But I am precipitate; there is a further supplemen-
tary presun1ption,-" the probability that all TRU"E developn1ents of
doctrine which have been permitted, and THIS in the number, have
been divinely approved." When to the a priori conjecture, and the
statmnent of the fact under investigation, we have added this quiet
assulnption of the whole question z
sel.f at issue, the sternest stickler
for logical accuracy must be satisfied.
But the real objects of the" reconcilement" are unfortunately too
D1anifest throughout. The aim of the theory is sin1ply to reconcile
a predetermination to embrace Romanism, from whatever complica-
tion of sYlnpathies arising, with the glaring difficulties of the Ron1an
theology itself. This indeed the" theory" effectual1y does; a slight
praise, for what imaginable theory would not? This the theory
does, even at the expense of maintaiping that the "rock" upon
which the Church of Christ was" huilt," was actually not in exis-
tence till the edifice,-then centuries old,-had stood all the shocks
of its fiercest persecutions, and all the convulsions of its most peri-
lous heresies I Those ingenious little architects of the insect world,
who build down from the roof, are hardly aware what loftyautho-
ri ty they n1ay claim.

3G8

ON THE DEVELOPl\[ENT OF

[LETT. IX.

reason can denlonstrate the infallibility, it is not inade-
quate to demonstrate the develoPlnents; both because
the infallibility 'is itself one of theln (colnp. pp. 347,
348), and because no reasoner in his senses ever yet
adlnitted the infallibility without a previous collateral
estilnate of the" developments" it professes to \varrant;
the character of these develoPlnents being itself a main
element in determining \vhether the infallibility be
genuine; the theological authority of the ROI11an bishop,
,vhen (for example) he proclaims the Virgin
lary
"the ,vhole ground of a Christian's hope," inevitably
depenùing for acceptance, in a great degree, on our
judgnlent of the dogma thus C0l11nlended, and being
hardly capable of being received, if that dogma be con-
tradictory to all our most mature and deliberate con-
victions of the nature and operation of the Christianity
of the Scriptures. But if, on the other alternative,
those indefinite syrnpathies, on \vhich the Author seems
chiefly to rely, be the means or organ of embracing the
developing authority, why should they not address them-
selves as directly and spontaneously to the develop-
lnents it authorizes, without any need of the authoriz-
ing medium at all? Feelings do not usually ,vait for
warrant of law or obligation of authority. lIe who
adopts Roman theology because he likes the Roman
authority, may surely as ,veIl adopt ROlnan theology
because he likes itself.
The great principle upon ,vhich I have just insisted,
-that a Revelation of fundamental religious truths
being once given to man, all clear conclusions ,froln
these truths are virtually warranted by the authority
that warranted the Revelation itself (and, therefore,

LETT. IX.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRI
E.

369

require no other ),-is stated with sufficient accuracy
in a passage which, strangely enough, is found under
the first head of the Author's argument for the neces-
sity of a ne,v and disÛnct external authority. " If,"
he says (p. 118), "there are certain great truths, or
proprieties, or observances, naturally and legithnately
resulting from the doctrines originallg professed, it is but
reasonable to include these true results in the idea of
the Revelation, to consider them parts of it, and, if the
Revelation be not only true, but guaranteed as true, to
anticipate that they ,viII be guaranteed Ùlclusively." I
have no comment to make upon this passage, except
to express my uncertainty as to the object of the Au-
thor in inserting it. This" inclusive" guarantee of all
"legitimate results" is precisely ,vhat I contend for;
the security ,vhich every fundamental truth gives to
its corollaries; a security independent of an authority
,vhich ,vouId itself require to be similarly secured;
resting on two unshaken pillars, the certainty of the
original truth, and,-under God's superintending pro-
vidence,-that va1idity of the processes of human rea-
son, which may indeed be questioned, but questioned
only to involve all eviùence alike in confusion.
2. "Then, a little after, as his Second and Third
heads of argument, 1\11'. N e,vman urges that it is un-
reasonab1e to object against an infallibility resting on
'i}loral certainty, he appears to misconceive the real
nature of the objection he undertakes to refute, or
at least to exchange it very gratuitously for another.
Nobody objects to an infallible authority commending
itself to our acceptance on historical evidence. To do
so \vere to question the infallible authority of Christ
2 n

370

ON THE DEVELOP
IENT O:F

[LETT. IX.

hin1self, which is received on that evidence. But
every just reasoner objects to an infallible certainty
ultimately reposing on such evidence,-to an infallible
certainty resolving into moral certainty. The objec-
tion to which alone he ,vas bound to r
ply, is one ,vhich
itself originally holds the position of reply to a hollo,v
pretence of the Romish logicians. This pretence is,
that their theory alone admits of a genuine act of " di-
vine faith," because it alone provides its disciple with
the means of absolute, unquestioning certaintye. To
this the answer is obvious and cOlTIplete; that if that .
certainty rest on the mere authority of priest or teacher,
it is no better certainty than is produced in any other
of ten thousand parallel instances of belief on authority;
that if it depend in any,vise on exalnination, it is in
kind no better certainty than what any similar case of
belief on exalnination can furnish. To this,-the only

e Compare Bellarmine: "Sciendum est enin1, propositioneD1 fidei
concIudi tali syllogismo: 'Quicquid Deus revelavit in SSe [Scrip-
turis :-G.] est verum: hoc Deus revelavit in SSe [Scripturis :]
ergo hoc est verlun. De [Ex-G.] propositionibus hujus syllogismi
prima certe [certa] est apud orones, secunda apud Catholicos est
etiam firmissin1a, nititur el1i111 testimonio Ecclesiæ, COl1cilii, vel
Pontificis, de quibus habemus in Scripturis APERTAS promissiol1es,
quod errare non possint. Actor. xv. Visum) est Spiritui Sancto et
nobis. [Et] Luc. xxii. Rogavi p1
ú te, ut non deficiat fides tua. At
apud hæreticos nititur solis cOl1jecturis, vel judicio proprii spiritus,
qui plerun1que videtur bonus, et est malus. Et cùm conclusio
sequatur debiliorem partem, fit necessariò, ut tota fides hæreticorum
sit conjecturalis et incerta." De Verb. Dei Intel'p1
et. III. x. Resp. ad
Arg. 16. [Arg. 15.-Disputt. Tom. i. 198. Ingolst. 1601.-G.] 'Vhe-
ther the whole scope of the new theory,-" the character of the
evidence," "the method of conducting the inquiry" (Chap. III.
Sect. ii. iii. ),-be not to prove that all the grounds of faith in the
Christian developments must inevitably be, in kind, thus" conjec-

LET'r. IX.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

371

real question at issue,-1\Ir. Newman's reply is altoge-
ther irrelevant; that an infallible Instructor may safely
repose his claÏ1ns to authority on moral evidence,-tbat
the absolute reality of objective truth or objective infal-
libility is nowise impaired by adn1itting that doubt may
possibly affect its subjective apprehension,-is so far
from being an answer to the objection, that it is itself
the very principle on which the objection proceeds.
And, therefore, ,vhen Mr. Newman undertakes, in
his Fourth paragraph, to meet the objection that the
supposed infallibility would "destroy probation" by
"dissipating doubt," he contemplates an antagonist (who-
ever he be) ",-horn I, at least, am little concerned to
uphold. 'Vith the Inquirer into the ultimate grounds
of Christian Faith (and an inquiTeT alone we are con-
templating when we speak of "doubt"), to whom the
mere supposition that the Roman papacy was infallible,

tura! and uncertain," the candid critic will determine for himself.
It is instructive enough to observe Bellarmine's ".apertæ prOlllis-
siones," characterized by the new teacher as "certain announcements
in Scripture, 'more or less Obscul
e and needing a comment."-p. 171.
The student who feels any interest in threading the labyrinths of
perplexity, in which the Romish doctors have involved themselves,
in the vain attempt to ùemonstrate that their schenle affords a species
of certainty otherwise unattainable, ,vill find abundance of passages
cited and acutely analyzed in Dr. Jackson's Second and Third Books
on the Creed. May I take the opportunity, in this place, of regret-
ting that the managers of the Clarendon Press publications, in
issuing the late Volulllinous edition of Jackson, have been content
(Index excepted) with a bare republication of the old folios, with-
out any attempt
o verify or cOlllplete quotations, and hardly any
to correct typographical inaccuracies? The late adnlirable editions
of IIooker, Bramhall, and others, have justly made us fastidious of
t]lese barren reprints.

2 n 2

372

ON TIlE DEVELOPMENT OF

[LETT. I:\.

-the SU}J}Josition,-for, if believed to be fully proved,
it can effect no more than any other theory believed to
be as fully proven, and ,ve are no,v speaking of special
and peculiar effects,-to '\vhom, then, this supposition
can at once dissipate all "doubt," whose moral disci-
pline it can even endanger by making him too conl-
pletely satisfied,-I have certainly too little in common,
to be able even to comprehend his state of mind. Un-
inquiring minds, no doubt, the hypothesis ma
r lull ;
but Rome must be content to share tllis prerogative
with Canterbury or Constantinople,-nay, with Berlin
or Geneva,-for all equally can keep those in submis-
sion ,vho have never desired to rebel. But that the
inquÍ'/ 1 ing mind, which cannot be satisfied with relying
on the infallibility of Christ, should at once be appeased
by supposing the infallibility of His alleged Vicar,-
that he who is sceptical about receiving the doctrine of
the New Testament, and its practical illustration in the
life and teaching of the Apostolic Churches, should be
cured by the assun1ption of a huge additional hypothesis
of doctrine and discipline, claiming equal or greater
authority, and grounding itself chiefly on the doubtful
interpretation of some two or three passages of that
doubted New Testalnent itself,-this is a process too
anon1alous, according to all he ordinary standards of
reasoning, to be worth elTIploying in the controversy,
either for objection on the one side, or triumph on the
other. Faith in Roman infallibility, it must be repeat-
eù, can neutralize doubt neither 1110re nor less than tlte
sante meaSU1"e of faith in any other authority. If the
prevention of doubt ,vere in itself the sole aim of au-
thority in matters religious, Johanna Southcote might

LETT. IX.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

373

take rank ,vith Pius IX. Unhesitating faith is a duty
only ,vhere the object of faith is obligatory; but tlle1'e
indeed it is a duty; and though doubt and discussion
haye unquestionably their Illoral uses, and the atteInpt
at their absolute extinction may be narro"\v and injudi-
cious, yet let the right to dictate our belief be proved,
and I, for my o,vn part, shall be little disposed to dis-
turb the advocates of the papacy by objecting that they
}lave nlade religion too easy to believe.
3. But 1\11". Ne\vrnan relnembers (p. 122) that an
authority whon1 he himself \vill hardly deny to have (by
SOlne unaccountable accident) surpassed in the very
heart of an heretical comulunion the sainted casuists of
R0111e herself,-that the great English writer on the
theory of Religion has foreclosed all these specious
anticipations of ,vhat God lnust do or will do, in that
n1emorable chapter of his work (Analogy, II. iii.), in
,vbich he argues that "\ve are ,vholly ignorant ,vhat
degree of ne,v kno\yledge it were to be expected God
,vould give 111ankind by revelation, upon supposition of
His affording one; or how far, or in ,vhat way, lie would
interpose Iniraculously to qualify them to ,vholn He
should originally make the Revelation for communi-
cating the kno\\Tledge given by it, and to secure their
doing it to the age in \vhich they should live, and to
secure its being translllitted to posterity." And, again,
that ",ve are not in any sort able to judge ,vhether it
,vere to have been expected that the Revelation should
have been committed to ,vriting, or left to be handed
down, and, consequently, corrupted, by verbal tradition,
and, at length, sunk under it, if mankind so pleased, and
during such tinle as they are pern1Ìtted, in the degree

374

ON THE DEVELOPl\1
ENT OF

[LETT. IX.

they evidently are, to act as they will." 1\11". Newman
considers that "this reasoning does not here apply,"
because "it contemplates only the abstract hypothesis
of revelation, not the fact of an existing revelation of
a particular kind, "\vhich may, of course, in various ,vays
modify our state of kno,vledge by settling some of those
very points on which, before it was given, we had no
means of deciding." N o,v, let us weigh the value of
thif; answer. If, by "the existing Revelation," settling
certain" points," ,ve are to understand (as we must, to
make the observation even remotely pertinent), that
the existing revelation has settled, or materially contri-
buted to settle, the question now before us (t
cil. whether
God did or did not purpose to establish a perpetual
tribunal to govern an ever-growing revelation), this is
a decisive reply indeed; but then it is also an assump-
tion of the point to be proved, and ends all further dis-
cussion. But if the existing revelation have not settled
this question, then we lllay be pardoned for asking, in
"\vhat conceivable way the spirit of Dishop Butler's
Inaxinl can be shown not to apply as well to the actual
Revelation already given, as to any hypothetical reve-
lation before it has been given? Suppose the existing
Revelation not to have any,vhere preappointed the
alleged infallible tribunal,-and the probability tbat,
because the Apostles "\vere inspired, any supposed line
of prelates (or their cOlllmunion) ,vould be perpetually
inspired as ,vell, seems about as strong as the probabi-
lity that, because St. Peter raised the dead, the saIne
gift ,vould be the perpetual appanage of son1e special
succession among the Christian prelacy. 'l'he l\liracle
of l\:l1o,vledge and the l\firacle of Po,vcr ,vere both

L:ETT. IX.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

375

equally necessary at first, both equally uncalled for
(though, for even spiritual purposes, both Inight often
seen} equally desirable) after,vards. But \ve do not
press this. 'Ve are content to occupy aD hunl bIer posi-
tion; to 111aintain that l11en have no data at all for con-
structing probabilities on the subject; and that equally
as regards a revelation in the abstract, or the revela-
tion in the concrete.-Anù it is just as vain to allege
that, even as Creation implies Preservation (p. 124),
so the inspiration of the Apostles 111USt inlply perrpetllal
infallibility; unless it can be sho"\vn that Christianity
can be preserved in no other ,yay than by the infallible
tribunal,-that the effects of lniraculous interposition
can only be upheld by miracle,-an assumption contra-
dicted by the very analogy (of Creation) to which it
appeals. Indeed the chief force of Butler's reasoning lies
in its irresistible delnonstration that this very notion is
a prejudice; "upon supposition of his a.llording" a reve-
lation : and, again, "upon supposition God should ({fJord
men SOlne additional instruction by revelation," are his
o\vn ,vords. It is on the hypothesis that a revelation
is given that he argues \ve have no sort of right to con-
clude, froln our poor and Í1nperfect anticipations, ,vhat
ought or ought not to be its characteristics; nay, that
" it is highly creùible beforehand," "it "\vould be \vith
circulnstances, in manners, degrees, and respects, which
we should be apt to fancy ,ve haç1 great objection against
the credibility of. Anù it must be at once manifest
that everything he has said in reply to the popuhtr ill-
fiùel objection against Christianity, on account of sup-
posed deficiency in the evidence of its truth, is accurately
applicable to the sirnilar Romanist objections to every

376

ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF

[LETT. IX.

scheme of Christianity but their own, on account of
alleged absence of certainty as to its 'Ineaning and in-
terpretation.
It would appear, indeed, as if l\fr. N e,vman himself
was not wholly satisfied with this perplexing topic of
Analogy; for he subjoins an opinion, that as Analogy
tells against anticipating a revelation at all, ",ve cannot
'regulate OUt/, antecedent view of the character of a revela-
tion by a test which applied simply overthrows the
very notion of a revelation altogether." To which he
adds in the next page, that "the circulnstance that a
work (sciZ. supernatural revelation) bas begun, Blakes
it more p'l'lobable than not that it will proceed." Analogy
being thus applied to d<? the very thing which it "can-
not" do,-and that antecedent vie\v of revelation regu-
lated by analogy which analogy" cannot regulate,"-
I lnay
e permitted to spare myself and my reader
trouble, by leaving l\Ir. Newman's paragraphs to settle
the question with each other.
It will have occurred to everyone, and I need only
allude to it in closing the topic, that the only analogous
case in the least directive as to the course likely to be
employed by the Supreme Dispenser in issuing and
preserving a revelation, is that furnished by the Jewish
Church. This ,vas a Churc 1 1, too, in which, as essen-
tially preparatory, as havil1g "nothing perfect," but
being constantly progressive to a great future manifes-
tation, all the principles of "development" would be
exhibited on a peculiarly luminous stage. Accordingly,
there is not one arglunent,. 01' conjecture, advanced by
the Author for his infallible tribunal, ,,'"hich would not
be equally, or more than eq nally, applicable in the

LET r. IX.]

CHRISTL\S DOCTHIXE.

377

J e\vish instance f . K O\V, \v hether the purposes of God
to reveal, preserve, and unfold Divine truth, could or
could not be secured by IIis Providence, in perfect
cornpatibili ty ,vith gross errors, and frequent failures,
and even final apostacy, in the ruling powers of that
which, for lllore than fourteen hundred years, ,vas the
sole Church of God on earth, they will decide who have
recalled the history of the providential preservation
and yet incurable frailties of Israel; ho\v that Church
to \vhich " were committed the oracles of God" as truly
as to any Christian keeping, discharged its trust, they
Inay learn from the \vriter \vho argues it all but inlpos-
sible to conceive a developing revelation ,vithout infal-
libility, and ,vho tells us (p. 319) that Judaism,-the
very depository, instrlunent, and organ of develoPlnent,
-" becarne corrupt, as
oon and in proportion as it fan-
cied itself self-sufficient." The 'v hole latter history of
Je\vish theology, its divarication into Pharisaislll, Sad-
ducisln, Essenism,-\vhile preserving, or professing,
unqualified respect for the original
Iosaic institute,-
presen ts indeed so astonishingly vivid an analogy to
the parallel corruptions of Christianity,-its exaggera-
tions in the direction of Ritualisln, Rationalislu, and

Iysticisnl, \vithout explicit rejection of the chief fun-
damentals of the faith,-that surely the most promi-
nent lesson of experience is lost upon those ,vIlo, ,vith
such an example, can still specuhLte upon the antece-
dent ilnpossibility or iInprobability of doctrinal corrup-
tion in the Church of God.
4. It is next urged by our Author (p. 124), that,

r [Conlpare Leslie, TVorks, Vol. iii. pp. 37, seqq.]

378

ON TIlE DEVELOr
IENT OF

[ LETT. IX.

inasmuch as it is the main distinction bctvveen Natural
Religion and Revealed, " that the one has a subjective
authority, and the other an objective," and that the very
essence of revealed religion is the supremacy of an ex-
ternal authority; therefore it must not only be at first
delivered on such authority, but always proposed to us
by some visible external authority of equal and abso-
lute infallibility. Why it is that the reverent preser-
vation and reception of the original
xtepnal autho1>ity
nlight not suffice for this purpose ;-Ho,v it is to be
eXplained that, as a mere matter of fact, men by thou-
sands have, without the condition insisted on by 1\11".
Ne\vman, lived and died in the clearest conviction of
the reality of revealed religion as distinguished from a
religion of mere natural conscience ;-IIo,v it is that
the great majority of members of even the ROlnan Com-
munion unquestionably realize the very same awful
truth (so far as they realize it at all), without ever
thinking of that remote and to them invisible charter
of infallibility, for whose absolute necessity to all real
apprehension of revealed religion our Author argues;
-Ho,v (as he appears to confess) the whole Catholic
Church lived through its earlier ages, ,vhen a faith in
revelation enduring enough to stand the fires of lnar-
tyrdom was needed, without any distinct kno,vledge of
this indispensable oracle;- These are questions whose
solution it has not yet suited our ingenious advocate
to undertake.
But, in fact, there is great inaccuracy in the funda-
111ental idea of the paragraph froin ,vhich I am citing;
that the distinction between Natural Religion and Re-
vealed lies in this, that the one has a "subjective"

LETT. IX.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

379

authority, anù the other an "objective;" "in the sub-
stitution of the voice of a La,vgiver for the voice of
Conscience;" and that, as "the supremacy of Con-
science is the essence of Natural Religion," so "the
suprenlacy of Apostle, or Pope, or Church, or Bishop,
is the essence of revealed." Not to insist upon the ex-
traordinary assumption that "Natural Religion" does
not include the recognition of God's Being and objec-
tive authority, as well as the bare subjective authority
of Conscience,-the whole statement is only a new
instance of the COlllmon confusion bet,veen the Rule of
Right and the Obligation of the Rule. When Revealed
Religion supervenes upon Natural, the rule, no doubt,
is enlarged, but the nature of the obligation does not
alter, it never can alter, it is still, as it was and must
be, the authority of Conscience. " The substitution of
the voice of a La,vgiver for the voice of Conscience"
is alnbiguous, as the ,vord Law itself is alnbiguous; if
it luean that a new subject-1natter of duty, and addi-
tional reasons for the discha.rge of duty, are "substi-
tuted" for the linlited code of Conscience, the expression
is true; but if it nlean, as the context appears to in-
tend, that an authority is substituted in the room of
Conscience, to supersede Conscience, or not referrible
to Conscience, it is grievouslÿ false. The error, so long
as it is confined to the case of the Supreme Being
alone, though it be an error, is seldolll of llluch prac-
tical 1110111ent ; but it becomes not only false, but 1110st
sophistical and ùangerous, ,vhen it is extended to
" Apostle, or Pope, or Church, or Bishop ;" as if these
could ever be authorities properly coordinate ,vith
Conscience, or possess any authority at all over hlunan

380

O
THE DEYELOP
IENT OF

[LETT. IX.

actions except through the Conscience. The special
evil of such a doctrine-or sentiment-is this, that it
invariably tends to exalting the human authority above
the Conscience; fron1 blending the error (,vhich is
very analogous in the field of 'Jnorals to the ultra-
111ysticism about Faith in the region of intellect) \vith
just general ilnpressions of the real superiority of Re-
vealed to Natural Religion. What precious fruit it
111ay at last bear, even ,vhen the binding power of
Conscience is still recognised as at least nOlninally
supren1e, the reader ,vill ren1en1ber in such passages as
Bellarlnine'sg "Si Papa erraret præcipiendo vitia, vel
prohibendo virtutes, teneretur Ecclesia credere vitia
esse bona, et virtutes ITlalas, nisi vellet cont'pa conscien-
. tia1n peccare"h.

[De Rom. Pont. Lib. iv. Cap. v. Disp. i. 974.-Independentlyof
the proof afforded by the context, ,ve cannot in justice refuse to
admit as certain the explanation which Bellarmin has elsewhere
given of his meaning in this place; namely, that he was not speak-
ing of things" per se bona vel mala," but merely" de actibu.s dubiis
virtutum aut vitiorunl." (Recognit. libror. p. 19. lngolstad. 1608.)
-G.] [See a full discussion of this point in 'V ordsworth's Letters
to JI. Gondon, Sequel, Let. ii. Bellarn1Ìne's qualification, "de actibus
dubiis," seems to leave his rule in full force, that whatever the
Pope connnands must be done. For ,vhat roonl is left for doubt
w here an Infallible authority comm..tnds? And if the Infallible au-
thority availed only so far as to 111ake us doubt if it must not be in
the right, then the rule becomes applicable: "Tenetur enim in rebus
dubiis Ecclesia acquiescere judicio Sumn1Í Pontificis, et facere quod
ille præcipit, et non facere quod ille prohibet, ac ne forte contra con-
scientiarn agat tenetur credere bonUD1 esse quod ille præcepit, malum
quod ille prohibet."-Bell. de Pont. iv. 6. ed. Paris, 1620.]
h Use is made nlore than once in this volume of certain supposed
analogies of Conscience. Sonletimes Conscience is brought to illus-

LETT. IX.]

CIIHISTIAN DOCTRI
E.

381

5. I must not detain my readers by minutely citing
or analyzing the remainder of this section on the "De-
veloping .Authority," ,vhich consists of little nlore
than diversified expressions of the value of infallible
guidance, and the pleasure of possessing it ;-that, for
example, the "COlnmon sense of mankind" feels that
"the very idea of Revelation implies a present infal-
lible informant," which, if it mean a living individual
or company incapable of error, is false; if it rnean any-
thing else, is not to the purpose; and, whichever it
ß1ean, adduces what is no ultimate standard of reli-
gious truth :-that " the claim" is peculiarly" welcol1le
at a time like the present;" though "by the Church
of England a hollow uniformity is preferred to an in-
fallible chair;" as if the" preferences" of the Church

trate the growth of the Church itself, sometimes the obedience of
the individual n1ember. It is strange enough that our Author,
however, has not observed that his comparison of obedience in all
cases to Conscience, and obedience in all cases to the Pope, is liable
to one rather startling difficulty.
" It may be objected, indeed, that Conscience is not infallible; it
is true, but still it is ever to be obeyed. And this is just the pre-
rogative which controversialists assign to the See of Peter; it is not
in all cases infallible, it may err beyond its special province, but it
has, in all cases, a claim on our obedience."-p. ] 24.
l\Iy difficulty is this: suppose the two members of the compari-
son, to both of which unqualified obedience is due, should happen to
be tlzenz.selves at variance! The case of Berengarius,

"'twixt Conscience staggering and the Pope,"

may have been very sinful, but is surely in no wise inconceivable.
I an1, I confess, wholly unable to suggest any solution for a diffi-
culty which might match the far-fauled Pseudomen08 itself. If, in

382

ON THE DEVELOP
IENT OF

[ LETT. IX.

of England, or any other Church, can be of the least
use in helping us to deterlnine the purposes of God;
or as if any ,vise person would allow hin1self to specu-
late in "preferences" on such a subject; or as if the
Church of England, if it preferred at all, would not, in
all likelihood, prefer infallibility, ,vere it to be had:-
and, finally, that the hypothesis of infallibility is as
" winning" an hypothesis as "Chance, or the Oriental
philosophy, or the ,vorking of An
icbrist;" a plea
,vhich I have the courage to leave unanswered, to
operate in its full force upon the reader.

sU0h a case, Conscience must give way, then so must the IIoly See
that controls it, for just such, and no nlore, is the prerogative of
the latter; if the Holy See is -to yield in the collision, then so must
the Conscience that opposes it, and victor and vanquished are
mingled in one inextricable melée.
In truth, however, this is no lllere dialectical puzzle. It exposes
the radical falsity of the whole comparison. The reason why Con-
science is always to be followed is such as call apply to no other
authority in the same sense. The final decision of deliberate Reason
in matter of Obligation is to be always obeyed, because, from the
very nature and necessity of the case, there neve1 7 can be any higher
standard of action; if any higher could be imagined, it would in-
stantly enter into the calculation of Reason, and become only a new
elernen t in a ne,v final decision of the moral reason itself. 1\10,-
nifestly nothing can ever be higher than that which, in its own
nature, is highest of all; nothIng can claim authority to supersede
that which, by inherent and indefeasible prerogative, judges every
other authority whatever.
The confusion of this ultimate standard with any external aut110-
rity probably arises, certainly derives all its plausibility, from some
vague notions of Conscience itself, as if it were a sort of inspiration
altogether detached from reason, and so itself a kind of external and
superadded element of hU111an nature.

I
ETT. IX.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

383

This, ho,vever, the assertion just dislnissed will sug-
gest; and it is an observation perpetually applicable
in ROlnan controversy. The chief force of the pro-
posed hypothesis lies in contrasting it with an opposite
e.rctrerne as gratuitous as itself. Is there, indeed, to the
student of the history of Christianity, no medium be-
t\veen Roman infallibility and" Chance" or Antichrist ?"
Does this Author Ï1nagine that that providential super-
intendence which the most superficial reader of profane
history adn1its to have guided and èontrolled the mi-
nutest facts in the story of nations, is not held to have
controlled \vith infinitely more solicitude, and over-
ruled to its o,vn n1ysterious ends, every turn in the
fortunes of Christianity? No doubt, through each suc-
cessive year of the Church's annals, there is a ll10st
true and profound sense in which" ,vhatever \vas ,vas
right ;" right, in its relation to the universal systelll
and ultinlate ends of divine wisdo111; right, as, finally
and on the whole, productive of a greater arnonnt of
good than any other arrangement of events; right, as,
in many cases, productive of even much in1rnediate
good, and as remedying evil, if sornetimes by evil, yet
by the only relnedy the conjuncture admitted (even as
poisons are anlong the profoullder resources of 111edi-
cine); and yet not therefore right in and for itself, not
naturally and necessarily right, above all, not perma-
nently obligatory. It is a most groundless notion,-
which the \vhole scope of this book tends to nothing
else but, by innulnerable feats and fetches of eloquent
sophistry, to insinuate,-that the history of the Church
and its beliefs must lose all interest, and its teachers
from age to age all syn1pathy, if \ye cease to suppose

384

ON THE DEVELOPl\lENT OF

[LETT. IX.

its progress a perpetuallniracle; that ,ve have no op-
tion between regarding it as accursed of God and
regarding it as absolutely incapable of error. Is it not
possible for men to read the story of the universal
Church as an Anglican (for example) reads the story
of his own? Experience sufficiently manifests that it
is not necessary a Church decision should be absolutely
inspired, or believed to be so, in order to be of great
service in limiting the sphere of speculation, and in
influencing the subsequent tone and language of theo-
logical instruction. There are ITIany topics at all times,
-ho\v many at this hour I-on which, ,vhile the gene-
ral belief is sound, men of original minds are tempted
to indulge in unguarde
speculation, until the subject
has been so fixed and defined by authority, and the
peril of unlicensed conjecture exposed, and the course
of straying argument met and turned back, that, either
through conviction, or modesty, or even lnere dread of
general disapprobation, such writers learn to avoid the
question, regard it,-and justly,-as foreclosed, and
direct-their intellectual activity into some different and
more profitable channel. Instances of this may, no
doubt, be observed here and there on the outskirts of
even the doctrine of the Trinity (as in passages of Ter-
tullian and others), previou8 to the conciliar discussion
and settlement; nothing short of miracle could have
kept men of ,varIn fancy, comparatively inexperienced
in the danger of the indulgence, from sometimes min-
gling the private speculation with the public traditioll;
and a public reconsideration and settlement would be
the natural remedy for the natural failing. But all tl1is
pacific and corrective influence of doctrinal legislation

LETT. IX.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

385

needs 110 absolute infallibility, and, as
uredly, ,vas never
once in those days thought to require or infer it i . It is

i An author who Inay be considered a fair representative of the
current opinion of divines at a very advanced period of Christian
antiquity (far in the fifth century, *) could conceive the Church be-
coming the lupanar errOTum, with only an earnest ejaculation to
God it n1Ïght never be so; and could cahnly give directions under
the supposition-" Quid si novella aliqua contagio non jam porti-
unculmn tantum, sed totam pariter Ecclesi(l'ln conllnaculare conetur?"
To which he replies, not by referring his disciple to the decision of
the existing Church, still less of any particular prelate, or conclave
of prelates, selected from its pastors, but by directing the individual
inquirer to appeal fr01n the confused and conflicting tribunals of
the day to an authority equally distinct from them all ;-" tun1
[tunc-G.] item providebit ut antiquitatiinhæreat."- Vincent. Li'ri-
nens. Common. Cap. 4. :\lr. Newman, who has no doubt long ar-
rived at the point which Cornelius
Iussus had reached,t when he
broke out into his fanlous avowal of "preferring one Pope above a
thousand Jeromes and Augustines,"-probably looks with some-
thing like contempt from the height of his Development Theory
upon the narrow and liInited dogmas of Vincentius; and can now
endure with perfect tranquillity the thunders of such sentences as-
"...L\.dnunciare aliquid Christianis Catholicis præter id quod .accepe-
runt, nunquam licuit, nunquam [nusquam-G.] licet, nl
nqUaIn
licebit; et anathen1atizare [anathemare-G.] eos qui adnuncient
aliquid præterquan1 quod semel acceptum est, nunquam non oportllit,
nusquatn non oportet, nusquaIn [nunquam-G.] non oportebit."-
Cap. I..!, Or again,-"
Iirari I'atis nequeo tan tam [tanquam-G.]
quorundan1 horninun1 vesaniam, tantarn excæcatæ mentis irnpieta-
tern, tantarn postremo e'rrandi libidine7Tl, ut contenti non sint tradita
semel et accepta antiqz/itus credendi regult "; sed nova et [ac-G.] nova

* [The exact date of the treatise of Vincenti us is ascertained from his own state-
ment, (fot. 40, a. Paris. ] 561.) that it was written three years after the holding of
the Council of Ephesus; consequently, A. D. 434.-G.]
t [" Ego, ut ingenuè fatear, plus uni Sunllllo Pontifici crederem, in his quæ fidei
mysteria tangunt, quàm mille Augustinis, Hieronymis, Gregoriis." (Cornel. 1\fussus,
Episc. Bitunt., In Epist. ad Rom., Cap. xiv. p. 606. Yenet. 1388.)-G.]
2 C

386

ON THE DEVELOP
IENT OF

[ LETT. IX.

no more than has taken place, in 3 greater or less de-
gree, in every religious comulunion in which men have
acted in the ,yay of C01l1mon council; allo"\ving, of
course, for the great superiority of Ï1nportance attaching
to aSSelTI blies conceived to represent the whole Chris-

'In diem quærunt [quærant-G.], semper'que aliquid gestiunt [gestiant
-G.] religioni ADDERE, mutare, detrahere. Quasi non cæleste
dogma sit, quod semel revelatum esse su:fficiat; sed terrena insti-
tutio, quæ aliter pe'l'fici nisi assidua enwndatione, i111mo potius re-
prehensione, non possit" [posset.-G.J-Cap. 26. It is manifest
that the spirit of all this, in reality, is quite as applicable to a
Church as to an individual; though, no doubt, the ve
erable mo-
nastic of Lerins would have shuddered to d well on. the painful
possibility of such an application. A permanent corruption of
the doctrine of the general .Church by the gradual incorporation
of unwarrantable hun1an inlaginations, ,vould probably have ,vorn
to most men of that day the sort of "impossibility" which the
ROlnan la,v attributed to certain flagrant forms of guilt, that
are unfortunately not at all the less real for all that grave com-
pliment to human nature. It is also quite evident that the vali-
dity and the authority (as representing the current judgment)
of the maxims of the Commonitoriunl, are not in the least aflected
by any doubts that may be raised-into which I do not here
enter at all-as to the Author's own application of his principles;
no more than in any other parallel case of correct traditional
rules, and defective present practice, an inconsistency than which
none surely is n10re comillon. Vincentius supplies us with the cor-
rect 'major proposition, which remains one and the same in every
age; though each successive century may unconsciously bring a
different 'Jninor to subsume under the principle; and though even
his own should be held by no means immaculate.
In what sense St. Vincent admitted of doctrinal "development,"
,vith what caution he limited it to the expansion and elucidation of
the very and original doctrines themselves, as distinguished from all
extraneous accretions, may be seen, in Chap. 28-31 of his treatise.
The question thus incidentally glanced at,-ho,v far the age of
Vincentius really acted up to its own maxims,-recalls an objec-

LETT. IX.]

CHHISTIAN DOCTRINE.

387

tian interest of their tÍlne. I insist upon this, because,
-as I have before intimated,-the clear and steady
apprehension of this single distinction at once dissi-
pates all the eloquent subtleties of our present theorist.
Absolute infallibility, I repeat, is no,vhere demanded

tion to which, at the risk of unduly lengthening this note, I must
here devote a few paragraphs.
It is urged then, that, adn1Ïtting as we all do, that the doctors of
the Fifth Century sa,v their way on the whole with laudable clear-
ness and precision through the Trinitarian controversy, and some
others of great importance, it seems strange and improbable that
they, or some among them, could have at the same time indiscreetly
begun to countenance superstitious innovations on the primitive
scheme of Christian doctrine and practice. 1\11'. Newman, accord-
ingly, (who really seems to regard it as something little short of
rnÙ'aculous, that these nlen could have agreed so well in collecting
the doctrine of the Trinity fronl Scripture), often and forcibly
presses this view. Divines who could achieve such wonders as to
escape the successive seductions of Arianism, N estorianisrn, and
Eutychianism,-can we believe them capable of any possible indis-
cretion in any possible department of Christian belief and ,yorship?
Unhappily nothing can be conceived more accordant with all which
experience teaches us of the ordinary history of opinion. Do we
really require to be reminded, that the speculations of men can be
nlutually inconsistent, as truly as their speculation and pl'actice per-
petually are? Are we expected to demonstrate with all the forma-
lity of methodical proof, that Dlen who are sound upon a fundanlen tal
tenet, may yet indulge themselves in Ünprudent and dangerous
fancies upon others; that they may sometimes tolerate what they
do not wholly approve, sonletiules a-pprove what they have not
wholly examined, sometimes examine what (from the thousand in-
direct sources of error and weakness) they fail rightly to resolve?
How, indeed, if this be not possible, has any error or corruption
ever entered into any system of truth? For all truth is internally
harnlonious and consistent; and there is hardly any error upon any
subject which will not be found to have indirectly contradicted
some principle of truth already received by the very reasoner who

388

ON THE DEVELOPMENT O:F

[LETT. IX.

either by the actual historry of the Christian Church, or
by its possible
.deal. Divine superintendence, and all
the solicitude of the closest special providence, is its
true, precious, and sufficing gift; as keys to ecclesias-
tical history, the former, contradicted at every turn,

unconsciously introduces it. If we do not grant any corruption of
the truth to be in itself possible, the controversy is at an end, ex-
tinguished in the absurdity of so preposterous a negative; if we do,
,vhat beCOllleS of an argunlent which in substance denies it, by de-
nying the possibility of that which lnust take place in every case
whatever in which corruption is successful? All corruption of a
true principle by false details is but an instance of this, and is im-
possible, if this be so.
The whole force of the Author's reasoning upon this n1atter rests
upon two very gross exaggerations; first, upon a great and culpable
exaggeration of the difficulty of sy
telnatically propounding the
fundalllentals of Christianity, and the credit due to those who have
correctly done so; and secondly, upon an exaggeration, not so great
indeed, but yet an exaggeration, of the degree in which any real
and effective support is given to the mediæval corruptions by the
teachers in question ;-the exaggeration which conyerts into the
" evidence of antiquity," some dozens of scattered, and often very
weak and fanciful expressions, collected by the diligence of centuries
of devoted advocates, out of an hundred massive folios,-and sonle-
tinles out of the obscurest and least authoritative productions C0111-
prised in these folios; collected out of the writings of an age, when
amid the universal and rapid decay of all the nobler intellectual
pursuits, it is a n1arvel of providential superintendence, thftt ten
thousand such ,veaknesses are not in every volume adduciLle; col-
lected out of volun1es which thelnselves, for the nlost part, contain
elsewhere contradictions, qualifications, explanations of the judg-
l11ent they are for the 11l0ll1ent betrayed into expressing, and which
usually dainl no authority whatever for any such judgnlents beyond
the reasons they adduce,-an authority from which an appeal, of
course, perpetually lies to reason better instructed, and mupler ex-
pericnce; collected, luore than half of then1, out of rhetorical effu-
sions lllOuldcd in the nlost ardent fornlS of imaginative eloquence,

LETT. IX.]

CHHISTIAN DOCTHINE.

389

really accounts for nothing; the latter,-mysterious
often, but ever consoling,-"\velcomes every fact, dis-
guises none, gives interest to all :-as practical prin-
ciples,-the one is the refuge of despairing scepticism,
,vhich dreads the smallest doubt, because it kno"\vs the
rapidity of the contagion; the other, -the cahn confi..

from which the candid critic will feel himself about as much justi-
fied in drawing theological deductions, as he would from the llluch
less impassioned language of ordinary poetry.
I have sOll1etinles thought that it would be a task almost as use-
ful as aillusing, to expose these artifices of controversial citation, by
subn1Ïtting to the same process some Anglican theologian, whose
anti-papal views are undoubted. I would suggest for this purpose
the writer who, perhaps, among all our great divines, bears the
strongest resemblance to an ancient Father, in the volun1Ïnous ex-
tent, the miscellaneous purport, the peculiar combination of inlagi-
nativeness and subtlety, which mark his compositions,-Bishop
JerenlY Taylor. Of Taylor's views on the Roman controversy, his
polemical treatises leave little doubt; and yet, I do not hesitate to
say, that anyone who will take the trouble may frame a catena of
passages from the various and diversified writings of Taylor, which,
if they had been discovered in any author of the age of Augustine,
would, beyond all doubt, be found transcribed into the collections
of Bellarmine or of Berington. If this be in even any degree pos-
sible in a writer living in the midst of controversy upon the very
questions concerned, -after all the degrading practical consequences
of the mediæval theology had been fully evolved and exemplified,-
how infinitely more may it be anticipated in writers moving for the
first tinle on the outer borders of these dangerous and seductive
topics, at a period when attractive appearances of devotion or edifi-
cation were alone visible; when everything might seem justifiable
that could arouse a flagging piety, and stimulate a gross and igno-
rant age ;-when, though not indeed obligatory, they might be
thought at least,-and at times,-and under circumstances,-aud
with great watchfulness of intention,-and when human weakness
was to be provided fur,-pern1Ïssible.

390

ON TIlE DEVELOP
IENT OF

[LETT. L
.

dence of healthy faith,-,vhich asks no lnore of God
than such anlount of reasonable evidence for the things
of the futu1'
e world, as men are found willing to risk
their lives on in the things of this.
\Vhile again, on the other hand,-if one must be
betrayed into speculating about possible ideals, about
'v hat, to our imperfect apprehension, might seem best
and worthiest of God,-it surprises Ine that the pre-
sen t Author has not felt how infinitely more sublÍ1ne a
vie,v of the Christian Revelation is presented by con-
ceiving it originally delivered to the world in its full,
COnSUIlUl1ate perfection, than by this cUlnbrous and
complicated hypothesis of perpetual supplelnents and
infallible guarantees. IIöw incolnparably more won-
derful appears the con1pass of that \visdoln which
"once for all delivers" to lnankind a brief system of
belief and practice, of such depth and po,ver, that
comprised ,vithin it, and capable of being educed anù
applied according to the needs of man in the simple
exercise of reason, shall be found all that, in all the
changes of society, shall ever be required for the
perfect education of humanity,-than that ,vhich is
displayed in furnishing supplementary revelations as
circumstances arise, anù providing a perpetual inspira-
tion to watch and adjust thf' variations of the system.
Every nlan can understand this in the obvious parallel
of the working of a machine; the machine is perfect
in proportion as it is self-regulative. Every man can
understand it in the instance of any general theorelTI ;
the formula is admirable in, proportion as it involves
the greatest Inultitude of special cases, and requires
only to be applied to the circun1stances to reproduce

LETT. IX.]

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

391

its one unchanged law in the temporary forD1 of these
new conditions. The true glory of the Gospel is that
of original maturity, simplicity, and comprehensive-
ness,-not ( though under any form we had been
bound to unutterable gratitude for the blessing) that
of progressive enlargement and gradual completion.
Christianity ,vas not designed to become known at
last, by striking, from age to age, a precarious and dif-
ficult average among hesitating teachers; it was not
to be nursed through an infancy and childhood of cen-
turies into a slow and imperfect adolescence. Chris-
tianity was born full-grown. Its authentic stamp of
divinity is this,-that its Author so marvellously
" knew ,vhat was in man," that no revolution of man's
history could take His Dispensation by surprise; that
He should so lay down (if I may venture a figure in-
telligible to mathematicians) the equation of the human
heart, that in that single comprehensive provision all
the possible varieties of individual and social man
were for ever foreseen and included.
To the reflective mind this aspect of the characte-
ristic excellency of the Christian Revelation will open
views ,vhich I cannot but think infinitely superior,
both in speculative interest and in practical profit, to
any ,vhich are ever likely to be suggested by the op-
posite hypothesis of doctrinal development. But to
the reflective mind I must, for the present, be content
to leave them.

I am, my dear Sir,
Your's faithfully,
VV. ARCHER BUTLER.

CAMBRIDGE, Fcb. 1856.

A LIST OF

tlU
DDItS nub
elu <tbitiDus t
PUBLISHED BY
IAC:\IILLAN & Co.

BY THOMAS RAWSON BIRKS, M.A.,
RECTOR OF KELSllALL, FORMERLY FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE,
Author of" The Life oj the Rev. E. Bickersteth."
The Difficulties of Belief, III connexion ,vith the
Creation and the Fall. Crown Svo. cluth, 48.6d.
CO
TE
.TS :-INTRODUCTIO
. On the Knowledge of God-CHAP. 1.
On the Power of God-II. On the Nature of God-III. On the
Creation of Free Agents-IV. On Temptation in Free Agents-
V. On the Creation and Fall of Angels-VI. On the Creation and
Fall of Man-VII. On t
Permission of Satanic Temptation-
VIIi and IX. On Original Sin.
Lectures to Ladies on Practical Subjects. Second Edition.
Crown 8vo. cloth, '18. 6d.
COXTENTS :--I
TRODUCTORY LECTURE. Plan of a Female College for
the Help of the Rich and the Poor. By the Rev. F. D. 1IAUÈICE-
I. The College and the Hospital. By the Rev. F. D.
IAURICE-
II. 1'he Country Parish. By the Rev. C. KnWSLEy-III. On
Over-work, Distress, and Anxiety, as Causes of :Mental and Bodily
Disease amongst the Poor; and on the :Means of counteracting
the!':e injurious Influences. By GEORGE JOHNSON, )! D., Fellow of
the Royal College of Physicians, Assistant Physician to King's
College Hospital-IV. On Dispen
aries and Allied Institutions.
By EDWARD H.SIEVEKIXG, M.D., Fellow of the Royal College of
Physicians-V. District Yisiting. By the Rev. J. LL. DAVIES-
VI. The Influence of Occupation on Health. By Dr. CHAMBERS,
Ph)Tsician to St. Mary's Hospital-VII. On Law as it affects the
Poor. By FIT7JAMES STEPHEN, LL.B. of the Inner Temple, Bar-
rister-at-Law - VIII. On the Every-day 'V ork of Ladies. By
ARCHDEACON ALLEN-IX. On Teaching by'Vords. By the Rev.
R. C. TRENCH - X. On Sanitary Law. By TOM TAYLOR, Esq.,
Secretary to the General Board of Health - XI. 'Y orkhouse
Visiting. By the Rev. J. S. BREWER-POSTSCRIPT.
" By some 0/ the highest minds of tlie day, and the most actiæ in the advancement
of their fellow-creatures." -SPE('TA TOR, Oct. 27, 1855.
n These 1'aluable lessons may be carried to any part of LOlldon., of Great Britain,
of the world. Thousands 01 miles away from home, in scenes of war, privatim,
and disease, 110 less thatl when--justice preceding charity-she rul
s oz'er her
own household. tComan may be the better for many of the u:ords 'uttered last
J1'!y ill the 1i1ifashionahl
little square in which the TI orking }tIen'l College 1-3
e8tablished. .A glance at the suhjects treated of, and a bare enumeration of
t,
e names of the gndlemen who deliz'ered the lectures, should be enough to
ensure careful attention. to them. . . . . These men, lhemselL'es an hOlWUT to
their times, do honour to women by giV111g her the benefit of the best thought.r
of fltanly miJttis."-EDI:NBURGH REVIEW, Jan. 1856.
n We recommelld the book most headily to all OM readers, alld especiallgladies."-
THl' PRE
S, Jan. 19,1836.
A

2

NEW BOOKS AND NE'V EDITIONS,

THE WORKS OF

THE RE
WILLIAM ARCHER BUTLER

Late Professor of lIIoml Philosophy in the University of Dublin.

5 vols. 8vo. cloth, .B2 188.

" One destined, if we mistake 'I1ot, to taKe the highest place among writers of OUT
English tongue."-KoRTII BRITISH REVIEW, Feb. 6, 1856.
"JIay justly take Tank with the }irst writings in OUT l-angllage."-THEoLOGJA"1'J.
" ÁJ
emÍtle'ilt di'dne and a }Jrúfound thinker."-ENGLlSn REVIEW.
(( Poet, orator, metaphysician, theologiall, C niltil tetigit quod non orllavit."
DUBLIN UNIYEUSITY J\1A&AZINE.
cc lJiscriminatiolt and earnesfness, beauty alld power, a tT1tly philosophical spirit."
, BRITISH QUARTERLY.
" A huming and a shining light."-BIsnop OF EXETER.
" A man C!f whom, both as regards his life and his remarkable powers, his ClwTck
may justly be proud."-GuARDIAN.

ALSO SOLD SEPARATELY AS FOLLOWS.

1. A Third Edition of Sern10ns Doctrinal and Practical.
FIRST SERIES. Edited by the Very Rev. T. WOODWAUD, :M.A.
Dean of Dowll, with a 1\Iemoir and Portrait. Svo. cloth, 128. -

CONTENTS: - U llcertainty of Christ's Coming - The Incarnation-
Daily Self-denial of Christ - Crucifying the Son of God afresh
-The Power of the Resurrection-The Trinity disclosed in the
Structure of St. John's 'Vritings-:l\Ieetness for the Inheritance of
the Saints in Light-Occasional m
Tsteriousness of Christ's Teaching
-Christ our Life-Self-delusion as to our real state before God-
The Eternal Life of Christ in Heaven-The Canaanite 'V oman a
type of the Gentile Church-The Faith of Man and the Faithfulness
of God-The "Tedding Garment-Christ sought and found in tht.
Old Testament Scriptures-Hunan Affections raised, not destroyed,
by the Gospel-The Rest of the People of God-Christ the 'I'rea-
sury of 'Yisdom and Knowledge-The Divinity of our Priest,
Prophet, and King - Expediency of Christ's Iuvisibility - The
Invisible Government of Christ through His Spirit - Christ's
Departure the Condition of the Spirit's Advent-The Faith that
cometh by Hearing- The Christian's 'Valk in Light anrl Love-
Primitive Church Principles not inconsistent with Universal
Christian Sympathy-Church Education.
" Present a J.icher combination of/he qualities for Sermon.s of the .first class than
any we have met with in any liviug writer."-BRITISII QUARTERLY.

PUBLISHED BY MAC:JIILLAN AND CO.

:3

REV. ARCHER BUTLER'S WORKS.
2. Serl110nS, Doctrinal and Pract.ical. SECOKD SEIUESr
Edited from the Author's :M:SS., by J. A. JEREMIE, D.D., Regius
Professor of Divinity in the Uni\Tersity of Cambridge. 8vo. cloth,
10s. 6d. Just Ready.
CONTENTS :-Christ the Source of aU Blessings-Living and Dying
unto the Lord-The Hope of Glory and the Charities of Life-
The Holy Trinity-The Sorrow that exalts and sanctifies-The
Purifying Power of Tribulation-The Growth of the Divine Life-
l..essons from a Monarch's Death-Dying to Sin and the Law-The
Restorer of Mankind-The 1'rue Fast-The 'Yay to Divine Know-
ledge-The Ascension-The Folly of :Moral Cowardice-The 'YiII of
God towards His Children- Strength and :Mission of the Church-
The Ingratitude of the Jews-Danger of Backsliding-The 'Y orù of
God-The Claims of Spiritual Destitution-The Blessedness of
Submission-The Holy Trinity-'Vatchman, what of the :Kight?-
The Principles of the Final Judgment-Eternal Punishment.
" They are mad..ed by the same originalily and vigollr of e.rpression, Ihe S'.lt/l
richness of imagery and illustration, I he same la1"fle 'L.iews alld catholic spirit. a1t.i
tlte same depth and fervour
f devotional fepling, which so remarkably distin-
guished the preceding Se1'ies, and which rendered it a most valuable accession to
our theologicalliteratllrc."-From DR. JEREMIE'S "PREFACE.
"Distinguished by the point and vig01lr of their st!Jle, the happiness of their
illustrations, and the largeness of their views."-ATHEXÆU::\I, Feb. 9, 1856.
3. Letters on ROll1anism. .A Reply to DR. KEWJIAX'S Essay
on Development. Edited by the Very Rev. T. ,rOODWARD,
I.A.
Dean of Down. 8\'0. doth, 10s. 6d.
" A !cork which ought to be in the Library of every Student of Divinity."
BISIIOP OF ST. DAVID'S.
" 1'here are books which while elicited bylemporary contrOt'e1'sy become so rick ih
geJlius as to possess a permanent 'Calue. 1'he book before U8 is of that rare
class."-BRITISH QUARTERLY, Jan. 1855.
" Dne of lhe ahl.est refutations of Rom{mism ill its latest alld Inost refilled form."
-NORTH BRITISH REVIEW, Feb. 1856.
4. Lectures on the History of l\.l1cient Philosophy.
Edited from the Author's
IRS., wit.h Notes, by WILLL-DI
JIEPwoRTH THO)[PSON, )I.A., Rcgius Professor of Greek in the
University of Cambridge. 2 vols.'Svo., 21 5s. Just Rea(Z/f.
CONTENTS :-Science of Mind, or Psychology-Real Existence, or
Ontology-Ancient and )Iodern Histories of Philosophy-Inòian
Philosophies-Greek Philosophy-'l'he Ionic and Atomic Schools-
The Pythagorean and Eleatic Schools-The Sophist-SocrateR and
his followers-The Pure Socratics-The .l\Iegarics-The Cynics and
Cyrenaics-The Life and 'Vritings of Plato-The Platonic Dia-
logues-The Philosophy of Plato .as a whole-The Dialectic of
Plato-The Ideal Theory-The Physics of Plato-The Psychology
of Plato-The Ethics of Plato-The Ruccessors of Plato-The
Academy-The Neoplatonist-The Psychology of Aristotle.
" Of the dialectic and physics of Plato lhey are tlte ouly exposili01l at once fldl,
accurate, and popular, with 1vhiclt I am acquainted :'/;eing far more accurate than
the FreJlch, alld incomparabl!J more popular than tile Germml treatises on these
deparbnenfs of tlle Platonic philosoph.l/."
From PROFESSOR Tuo1JPso:,\'s PREFACF.
A2

4

NK\V BOOKS A
D NE'Y EDITIOKS,

BY JOHN McLEOD CAMPBELL.
'rhe Nature of the Atonelnent, and its Re]ation to
Remission of Sills and Eternal Life. Bvo. dotl], 108. 6d.

CO
TENTS : -CHAP. I. The ends contemplated in the Atonement
awaken the expectation thRt we are to understand its nature.-
CHAP. II. Teaching of Luther.-CHAP. III. Calvinism as taught by
Dr. Owen and President E.lwards.-CHAP. IV. Calvinism as recently
nlodified.-CHAP. V. Heason for not!resting in the conception of the
nature of the Atonement on which these systems proceed..- The
Atonement to be seen by its own light.-CHAP. VI. Retrospective
aspect of the Atonemel1t.-CHAP. VII. Prospective aspect of the
Atonement.-CHAP. VIII. Further illustration of the fixed and
necessary character of salvation as determining the nature of the
Atonement and the form of the grace of God to m
n.-CHAP. IX.
The Intercession, which was an element in the Atonement, con-
sidered as prayer.-CBA.p. X. The Atonement as illustrated by the
details of the sacred narrative.-CHAP. XI. How we are to conceive
of the sufferings of Christ during that closing period of which suf-
fering was the distinctive. character.- CHAP. XII. The sufferings of
Christ, in which the Atonement was perfected, considered in their
relation, 1st, to His witnessing for God to men, and 2d, to his dea.ling
with God on behalf of men.-CHAP. XIII. The death of ChriBt
contemplated as his .c tasting death," and" for every man;" and the
light it sheds on His life, and on that feHowship in His life, through
being con "ormed to His death, to which we are called.-CHAP. XIV.
Comparative commendation of the view now taken of the nature of
the Atonement as to 1, Light, 2, Unity and Simplicity, 3, A natural
relation to Christianity, and 4, Harmony with the divine righteous-
ness.-CHAP. XV. That God is the Father of our spirits, the ultimate
truth on which Faith must here ultimately rest.-CHAP. XVI. Con-
clusion.

BY THE LATE HENRY LUSHINGTON, AND FRANKLIN
LUSHINGTON.

La Nation Boutiquière: and other Poen1s, chiefly
Politiral. ",Vit.h a Prefare. BJ HENRY LUSHINGTON.
POINTS OF ",YAR. By :Fl"ANKLIN LUSllIXGTON.
In 1 vol. fC3p. Svo. cloth, 38.

" Full of truth and warmth, aud 'll,oble life.........Ift these few pages are contained
some of the last thoughts of afine-headed man of gen21ls.........01Ie of a class
that must be milked amollg the rarest of our time......... There is need of men.
who can tlws not o.nly feel and tlÛllk 1'ighteoflsly and no!;!?! on the war, but can
utter what is at their hearts about it Ùt a way to ell-sure the kÙtdlitif/ of Jtigh aud
true tlwugltts in other hcads and millds."-ExXMIXER, Aug. 18, 1855.

PUBLISHED BY :MAC
nLLAN AND CO.

5

BY JULIUS CHARLES HARE, M.A.,

.Archdeacon of Lewes, and Rector of Herstmonceux, Chaplain in Ordinary to the {luee",
alld formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.

1. Charges to the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of
Le\ves. Delivered at the Ordinary Visitations from the year 1840
to 1854, with Notes on the Principal Events affecting the Church
during that period. 'Vith an Introduction, explanatory of his
position in the Church, with reference to the Parties which divide
it. 3 vols. 8vo. cloth, EllIs. 6d.

As a ver!Jlimited edition of these collecled Charges has been made vp, those who
wúk to possess them are 1'equested to make an early application.

2. Charges to the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of
Le\ves. Delivered at the Ordinary Visitations in the years
1843, 184:5, 1846. K ever before published. With an Introduc-
tion, explanatory of his position ill t.he Church, with reference to
t.he Parties that divide it. 8vo. cloth, 6s.6d.
This is Ï1lcluded in the 3 vola. of collected Charges, hut is published separately/or
the sake of those who have the rest.

3. l\Iiscellaneous Palnphlets on sonle of the Leading
Questions agitated in the Church during the last Ten Years.
Svo. cloth, 12s.
Ás a ver!llimifed edition of these rollecled Pamphlets has bee1t made up, those who
wish to possess them are 1"equested to make an early application,.

4. A Second Editioll of , Tin die at ion of Luther against
his recent English Assailants. 8vo. clotb, 78.

5. .A l?econd Edition of The l\Iission of the Con1forter.
1Yith Notes. 8vo. cloth, 128.

6. A Second Series of Parish Sermons.

8vo. cloth, 128.

7. A Second Edition of The Victory of Faith.
8vo. cloth, 5s.
8. The Contest ,,-ith ROIlle. A Charge, delivered in 185l.
'Yith Notes, especially in answer to DR. NEWMAN'S recent
Lectures. 8vo. cloth, lOSe 6d.

6

NEvV BOOKS AND NE\V EDITIONS,

BY THE REV. CHARLES KINGSLEY,

Rector of Eversley, and Canon of Middleham.

1. A Secolld Edition of Phaethon; Of, Loose Thoughts
for Loose rThinkers. II Crown 8vo. boards, 28.

" Tlte Dialogue of Phaet!wn has striking heauties viewed apart from its express
reference to t1lis modern form, of neres-g; aud its sU(JgestioJl.s may meet half 'wa!l
mallY a lateut doubt, and, like a light breeze, lift from the soul clouds that are
gatheriug heaâly, and t1lreate'll,in(J to settle dow//' Ùl willtry gloom on the summer
of mallY a fair and promisi1lg young life." -SPECTATOR, Oct. 2, 1853.
" We cordially welcome l\IR. KrXGSLEY into tlte field of discussion on which he
has !tere entered. It is one iu which he is capable beyoll,d most of doing the
state some serrice." -BRITISH QUARTERLY.

" Gne oftke most interesting works we ecer read."
NONCONFORMIST, Jan. 12, 1853,

2. .A Seconr] Editioll of - Glaucus; Of, the "Vonders of
the Shore. With a Frontispiece. Fcap. 8vo. cloth, 38.6d.

" As useful and excitiltg a sea-side compauiou as we l
aL'e erer seeu."-GUARDh:;S-.

" Its pages sparkle with life, they opelt up a thol/BalllI sources of ullanticipated
pleasure, and combine amusement wdh Ùt8truCÜUJI, ill, a L'e},!! hapP!l alld 2l1lWOllted
dt"gree."-EcLECTIC REVIEW.
" The gmeral remarKs sh02lJ the wide sympathy, the deep thought) and the rick
eloquence that charaderise :MR. KINGSLEY."-SPECTATOR.
" .A pleasant and cheerful sea-side hook." -CHRlSTIA...
RE:MEMBRANCER.

3. Alexandria and Her Schools. Being Four Lectures delivered
at the Philosophical Institution, Ediliburgh. vYith a Preface.
Crown 8vo. cloth, 58.

CONTE
TS :-Preface of 24 pageF:.-Lecture I. Ptolemaic Era.-
2. Ptolemaic Era, continued.-3. Neoplatonists.-4. The Cross and
the Crescent.

CC .A series of hrilliant biographical and literary sketches, inte1'spe1'sed with com-
ments of the closest moder1l, 01' mther ulÛver6al application."-Sp}:CTATOR.
".A clear, rapid, accurate, and Ï1derelting Iketch.........02lgltt to enjoy a general
and all enduring popularit!/."-NEw QUARTERLY REnEW.

PUBLISHED BY MACMILLAN AND CO.

7

MR. KINGSLEY'S WORKS.
4. The Heroes: Greek Fairy Tales for my Children.
"Vith Eight Illustrations drawn on wood by the Author.
In 8vo. cloth, 7 s. 6d.
" In this delzr;ldfrtl book, áelig!ttjullo the child, and ez'en more delightj1d to the
man, l\IR. KINGSLEY has told three Greek sto'ries, with all the sÙ,pli(:ity that
charms the YOUJlg, and yet 'with no little of the colour and richness that belo1lg
to his great power of picturesque narratimt. The fascination of a fairy tale i6
giveJt to each legend." -EXAMINER.
" :MR. KDlGSLEY !tas imbued his narrative with a classical feelin!}, and tln'own
over it the glow of a rich imagination and a poetical spirit."-SPECTATOR.
" Very leamed, and thoughtjul, and ingenious; but having the uncommon merit of
being at the same time simple, unaffected and intelligible, it is admirably adapted
for the perusal of ,!!oung people, u'ho will grow both wiser and merrier while
they read."-MoRNING POST, Jan. 4, 1856.
5. .A Second Edition of "'V est,yard Ho t" or the
Voyages and Adventures of Sir Amyas Leigh, Knight, of Bor-
rough, in the County of Devon, in the reign of Her most
Glorious
Iajesty Queen Elizabeth. Rendered into modern
English. 3 vols. crown 8vo, cloth, .El lIs. 6d.
" .MR. KINGSLEY has selected a good subject, and has 'written a good 'LOvel to
e:l:Cellent purpose."-'fuE TIl\IES, Aug, 18, 1855.
" Noble and u'ell-timed." -SPECTATOR.

BY MACVEY NAPIER, ESQ.,
Late Editor of the U Edinburgh Review," and of the Ie Encyclopædia Britannica."
Lord Bacon and Sir Walter Raleigh. Critical and
Biographical Essays. Post Svo. cloth, 78. 6d.
" Botlt Essays exhibit aver'!! '!"emar!.:able combination of judgment and paiJlsta!.:il/g
research. . . . The ESSllJ OJ/, Raleigh is likely to be more i'll/eresting to flu-
majority of readers, and is pei-ltapS the most discriminating sketch of its subject
to be met witlt."-ATIIENÆU:M.
" The Essay on Bacon fills up an i1Jl;porlant chapter in the history of Philosophy. . .
The Essay on Raleigh is by far t
e best Life of that remarkable man that hæ
hitherto been published."-THE ECO
OMIST.
cc The Article Oft BaCOlt is clear, accurate, convincing, complete. The Article on
Raleigh is very 'l.'aluable, first, because 1\lR. NAPIER has had access to mOlt'!!
documents unknown to former biographers, and next, because he completely
clears Raleigh from the old imputatioJt of deceit about the Guiana mine, æ u;ell
as of the other minor charges."-NoRTH :BRITISH REVIEW.
BY J. E. B. MAYOR, M.A.,
Fellow and Assistant Tutor of St. John's College.
Lives of Nicholas Ferrar, of Clare llaU.
By his Brother John, and Dr. J ebb. Now first edited, with
Illustrations. Fcap. 8vo. 7 s. 6d.
BY THE RIGHT REV. CHARLES PERRY, D.D.,
Lord Bishop of AI elbor{rne, and formerly Fellow ana Tutor of Trinity College. Cambridge.
Five Sernlons, Preached before the University of
Cambridge in the month of November, 1855.
Crown 8vo. Just ready,

8

NEW BOOKS AND NE\V EDITIONS,

BY THE REV. G. E. LYNCH COTTON, M.A.,
Master of J.farlborough College, formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
Sermons: Chiefly connected with Public Events, 1854.
Feap. 8vo. cloth, 3s.
" A t:olume of which we caN, speak wilh hig!z admirafion."
CHRISTIAN REMEMBRANCER.

BY JOHN WILLIATd COLENSO, B.D.,
Bishop of Natal, rlnd formerly Fellow of St. John', College, Cambridge.
1. Ten 'Veeks in Natal. A Journal of a First Tour of Visita-
tion among the Colonists and ZUlU Kaffirs of Natal. 1Yith four
Lithographs and a
Iap. Fcap. 8vo. cloth, 5s.
U.A most interesting alld charmingly vJritten little hook."-ExnH:'4ER.
" The Ckurclt has good reason to he grateful for lhe puhlication."
COLONIAL CHURCH CHRO
ICLE.

2. A Secon4 Edition of Village Sermons.
:Fcap. 8vo. cloth, 2s. 6d.
3. C0111panion to the CQITI-lTIunion. The Communion Service
from the Prayer Book: with Srlect. Readings from the'Vritings of
the Rev. F. D. :MAURICE. Fine Edition, rubricated aud bound
in morocco antique, gilt edg-es, 6s.; or in cloth, red edges, 2s. 6d. ;
common paper, limp clotL, lð.

LORD ARTHUR HERVEY, I'II.A.,
Rector of Ickworth-with-Horinger.
1. The Genealogies of our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ, as contained in the Gospels of St. l\latthew and St. Luke,
reconciled with each other and with the Genealogy of the House
of David, from Adam to the close of the Canon of t.he Old Testa-
ment, and shown to be in harmony with the true Chronology of
the Times. 8vo. cloth, 10s. 6d.
(( The proih,clion of a thorough scholar."-BltITISH QU..\RTERLY. ·
"An addilion of mark to our Lihrary of Biblical C'riticism."-GUARDIAN.
"It seems to us that in view of the kind if criticism to which the Old and New
Testament records are now subjected, his work has special importance and
claims." -
O
COJ'iFOltMIST.
cc Ire commend LORD HERVEY'S hook to our readers as a valuable storehouse of
Ùiformation on this important subject, and as indicative of an apyroximatioJl.
towards a solution of tlte difficulties !vitl" which it is heset."-JouRNAL OF
SACRED LITER.\TURE.

2. The J nspiration of I-Ioly Scripture. Five Sermons
Preached before the U uiversity in the month of December, 1855.
. 8vo. cloth, 3s. 6d.

PUBLISHED BY MAC
nLLAN AND CO.

9

BY ISAAC TAYLOR, ESQ.,

Author of" Tile Natural History of Enthusiasm."

The Restoration of Belief.

Crown 8vo. cloth, 8s. 6d.

CO
TE
TS :-1. Christianity in relation to its Ancient and Modern
Antagonists-II. On the Supernatural Element contained in the
Epistles, and its bearing on the Argument-III. The Miracles of
the Gospels considered in their relation to the principal features of
the Christian Scheme.

"A volume which contains logical sagacity, and philosophic comprehension, ru well
as the magnanimity and courage of faith, in richer profusion than any other
work hearing on religious matters that has been addressed to this generatiOlt.
'The Restoration of Beliif' may, in many respects, take a place among the
books of the nineteeJdh century, corresponding to that justly conceded by us
to the' Analogy' of Butler in the literature of the last age, or to the' Thoughtl
of Pascal in that of the age preceding."
KORTH BRITISH REVIEW, Nov. 1855.

BY GEORGE AUGUSTUS SELWYN, D.D.,

Bishop of New Zealand, formerly Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge.

A Third Edit-ion of The vV ork of Christ in the \V orld.
:Four Sermons, Preached before the University of Cambridge on
the Four Sundays preceding Advent, in the Year of our Lord,
1854. Published for the benefit of the New Zealand Church
Fund. Crown 8 vo. 2,.

" Liherally conceived and eloquently expressed." -AT HEN ÆUl\r, Feb. 10, 1855.
cc 1fé presume that few if any of (>ur readers will withhold from themselves tlte
pleasure and the profit of thoroughly studying the advice of Bishop 8elWY'1
on the work which lies before us all."-COLO
IAL CHURCH CHRONICLE.
"Only require an acknowledgment at our ha1tds. They are, we are convinced,
in the possessiO?, and in the hearts of all our readers."
CHRISTIAN REMEl\:1BRL
CER, April, 1855.
c, We commend Bishop Selwyn's Four Sermons to our readers, as fine specimens of
English and of Christiamty."
CHRISTIA...."'V l\!ONTHLY SPECTATOR, April, 1855.
n These are .JJlissionary Sermons, i,l, the truest and deepest sellse."
N ONCONI'ORMIST.

A3

10

NE\V BOOKS AND NE'V EDITIONS,

BY THE REV. F. D. l\IAURICE J :rvi.A.,

Chaplain of Lincoln's Inn.

1. 'fhe Doctrine of Sacrifice deduced fro1l1 the Scrip-
tures. 78. ßd.

CONTENTS: Dedicatory Letter-The Sacrifices of Cain and Abel-
Noah's Sacrifice-The Sacrifice of Abraham-Sacrifice of the Pass-
over-The Legal Sacrifices-David's Sacrifice-The Lamb before
the Foundation of the \V orld-Christ's Sacrifice a Redemption-
Christ's Sacrifice a Deliverance from the Curse of the Law-The
Sacrifice of Christ a Propitiation-The Sacrifice of Christ the Puri-
fication of the Conscience-Christ made Sin for us -Christ's Sacrifice
the Peace-offering for Mankind-Christ's Sacrifice a Power to form
us after his Likeness-Christ's Death a Victory over the Devil-
Christ the Advocate-Christ the High-priest-The Adoration of the
Lamb-The Word of God conquering by Sacrifice.

2. Learning and "\V orkiilg. The
Religion of ROlne,
and its influence on l\lodern Civilization.
In 1 vol. 5s.

CONTENTS: Juvenile and Adult Learning-Learning and Lei::mre-
Learning and 1\1oney \V orship incompatible-Learning the Minister
of Freedom and Order-The Studies in a'Vorking College-The
Teachers in a \V orking College.

Home in its Youth-Rome under Greek Teachers-Rome at the
\
beginning of the New \V orld-The Influence of Home and Germany
upon Modern Europe.

3. Lectures on the Ecclesiastical I-listory of the First
and Second Centuries. 108. 6d.

CO
TEXTS: The Jewish Calling- Th
other Nations-The Sect Age of
the Jewish Commonwealth-The Kingdom of Heaven-rrhe New
Society in JeruEalem-Samaria and Syria-rrhe Churches in Gentile
Cities-St. James, St. Peter, and St. Paul-St. J ohn- The Apocalypse
-Different Churches in the Second Century: Judæa, Samaria,
Syria.-Asia :Minor -Greece and Egypt-Italy and Gaul-Africa-
The Church and the Goàs-The Church and the Emperors-The
Church and the Philosophers-The Church and the Sects.

PUBLISHED BY MACMILLAN AND CO.

11

REV. F. D. MAURICE'S WORKS-continued.
4. 'rheological Essays. SECOKD EDlTIOY. 10s. 6d.
CO
TE
TS: Charity-Sin-The Evil Spirit-The Sense of Righteous-
ness in )Ien, and their Discovery of a Redeemer-The Son of God
- The Incarnation-The Atonement- The Resurrection of the Son
of God from Death, the Grave, and Hell-Justification by Faith-
Regeneration-The Ascension of Christ-The Judgment Day-
Inspiration-The Personality and Teaching of the Holy Spirit-The
Unity of the Church-The Trinity in Unity-Eternal Life and
Eternal Death.

5. Patriarchs and La,vgivers of the Old Testament.
Second Edition. 6s.

COXTENTS: The Creation of
Iankind, and of the First Man-The
Fall and the Deluge-Noah and Abraham-Abraham and Isaac-
Esau and Jacob-The Dreams of Joseph-Joseph and his Brethren
-The :Mission of Moses-The Miracles of Moses, and the Hardening
of Pharaoh-The Passover-The Rebellion of Korah-The Propbecy
of Balaam-Prosperity and Adversity-The Nation and the Church
-1'he Test of Prophecy and
Iiracle-Pentecost-Joshua and
St. John-The Book of Judges-Eli and Samuel.

6. Prophets and Kings of the Olel Testament.
Second Edition. 10s. 6d.

CONTE
TS: The New Period in ,Jewish History-The Life of Saul-
David the Shepherd and the Outlaw-David the King-The 'Vise
King-The Rending of the Kingdom-The Calf-worship Denounced
-Ahab and Elijah-Elisha and Jehu-The Shepherd Prophet-
The ValJey of Decision-The Unfaithful 'Vife-The Vision of the
King-Isaiah and Ahaz-The Light in Darkness-The Proud City
Doomed-The sufferill g King and People-The Jew conquering the
Nations-The Village greater than the Cities-1'he Evil City saved
and destroyed-Manasseh and Josiah, Zephaniah and Habakkuk-
Temptation the School of the Prophet-The Potter's ,V ork-The
Xew Covenant-The Heavens opened to the Exile-The Valley of
Dry Bones-The New Temple.

7. The Unity of the New Te
tament.

148.

CO
TE
TS: Subjects common to the Three Evangelists-Differences
of the Evangelists-Acts of the Apostles, Epistles of St. Jamei,
St. Peter, and St. Paul.

12

NE\V BOOKS AND NE\V EDITIONS,

REV. F. D. :rlIAURICE'S WORKS-continued.
8. Christn1as Day, anù other Serrllons.

lOSe 6a.

CONTENTS: Christmas Day-The Unbelief of the Galatians-\Vho did
Sin; this l\-Ian or his Parents ?-The Flesh and the Spirit-The
Fools and the 'Vise-The Kingdom which cannot be moved-The
Race and the Prize-The perfect Sacrifice-The Sick
Ian's Prayer
-The Christian Covenant the Ground of National Education-
Christ in the \Vilderness-Commallù these Stones to be made Bread
-Cast Thyself down from hence-The Kingdoms of the World and
their Glory-The Alabaster Box of Ointmen
The Prince of Suf-
ferers-The Universal Prayer-The Resurrection of the Spirit-
The Resurrection of the Eody-The Responsibilities of Medical
Students-Human Sorrow the best Evidence of Christianity-The
true Rest and Hope of
Ial1-The Invisible Guide-The Feast of
Pentecost-Strength in 'Y eakness- The Mustard Tree-The Prin-
ciples and :l\Iethod of Christian Civilization-The Hindrance to
Christian Missions.

9. On the Religions of the "r orld.

Third Edition. 58.

CONTE
TS: Mahometanism; its Successes, Reasons assigned for them;
Principle of the Faith- Hindooism; Character of the Faith, the
Brahmin, 'V orship of the pure Intelligence, the Popular Heaction,
Vishnu alid Siva, Relations of the English Government to Hindooism,
-Buddhism; its Origin and Diffusion, its various Forms; the Lama-
Buddhism and its Rivals in China-The Old Persian Faith and its
Destruction - The Egyptian-The Greek-The Roman-The Gothic
- 'Vhy Judaism has not occupied a separate place in these Lectures
-The Relation between Christianity and Hindooism generally com-
pared-How this Relation should be. detected-The early Preach-
ing of the Gospel; how it affected Greeks, Egyptians, Romans,
Goths.

10. On the Prayer-Book.
"

Second Edition. 58. 6d.

CONTENTS: Introductory-The Confession-The Absolution-The
Lord's Prayer after Absolution-The Gloria Patria-The XCVth
Psalm-The Psalms-The Firat Lesson-The Second Lesson-The
Songs of the Church-The Creed-Ejaculations and Collects-The
Litaay-The Communion Service.

PUBLISHED BY :\IACMILLAN AND CO. 13

REV. F. D. MAURICE'S Y10RKS-continued.
11. 'I:'he Church a Faluily.

4.,. 6d.

CONTENTS: The Servant and the Son - Nature and Grace-Repentance,
Baptism, the Gift of the Spirit-Nature, Law, Education-Confir-
mation-The Virgin Mary-:Marriage- Visitation of the Sick-
Burial Service-The Christian )1inistry-Ordination of Deacons and
Priests-Consecration of Bishops-Commination Service.

1:2. On the Lord's Prayer. Third Edition. 28.6d.
13. On the Sabbath, and other Sermons. 28. 6d.
14. La,v on the Fable of the Bees. 48.6d.

The ,V ord "Eternal" and the Punishment of the
1Vicked. Third Edition. 18.

Eternal Life and Eternal Death. 18. 6d.

'fhe N alne Protestant. Three Letters to )Ir. Palmer. Second
Edition. 38.

Right and 'Vrong Methods of Supporting Pro-
testantism. 18.

The Duty of a Protestant in the Oxford Election.
1847. 18.
The Case of Queen's College, London. 18. 6d.
Plan of a Female College. 6d.
Death and Life. In 1\Iemoriam C. B.1!. Is.
Adlnlnistì
ative Reform. 3d.

BY YvILLIAM NIND, M.A.,
Fellow of St. Peter's College.

The German Lvrist; or, l\Ietrical Versions from the
"
Principal Lyric Poets. Crown 8vo. cloth, 3.\'.

14

NE\V BOOKS AND NE\V EDITIONS,

BY JOSEPH FRANCIS THRUPP,

r.A.,
riear of Barrington, Cambridgeshire, late Fellow of Trinity College.
Antient J erusaleill. A New Investigation into the History,
Topography, and Plan of the City, Environs, and Temple. De-
signed principally to illustrate the records and prophecies of
Scripture. With
fap and Plans. 8vo. cloth, 158.
" He is calm and candid, and has a thorollgh acquaintmlce with all that has hem
fc'rittetl upon his sub}ect."-ATHENÆU?f..
" A book of '110 ordinary value. Patient research, candour, and a reverence for divine
trut/t distinguish the whole volume."-JoURNAL OF S..:.\.CRED LITERATURE.
(C A well-directed and able endeavour to throw additional light VPO!t the history
and topography if the Holy City. 1'hose 'who read it will find reason to be
grateful to tlte author." -LITERARY CHURCHMAN.

BY W. J. BEAMONT, M.A.,
Pellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, late Principal of the English ,llege, Jerusalem.
Catherine, the Egyptian Slave in 1852. A Tale of
Eastern Life. Fcap. 8vo. cloth, 5s. 6d.
" There is a genuine Oriental colo'lfri'1l[J of the scenes, and a painful because well
attested 'representation of the stale of justice and society 'under Turkisll rule."-
ATHENÆUM.
" TIle story is 'l,;ery ably 'æritten, a!ld the assurance that the main facts are true,
will add ver!! considerably to the interest with whick it will be perused."-
CRITIC.

BY CHARLES MANSFIELD, M.A.
1. Letters from Brazil, Buenos Ayres, and Paraguay.
By the late CHAllLES
fANSFIELD,
I.A., Clare Hall, Cambridge.
With a life by CHARLES KINGSLEY, Rector of Eversley. Post 8vo.
In the Press.
2. On the Constitution of Salts. Edited from the Author's
118. by
I. H. S.
iASKELYKE,
I.A., Wadham College, anù
Reader in
Iilleralogy in the University of Oxford. In the Press.

BY THE HON. HENRY E. J. HOWARD, D.D.,
Dean of Lichfield.
rrbe Book of Genesis, according to the Version of the
LXX. Translated into English, with Notices of its Omissions
and Insertions, and with Notrs on the Passages in which it
differs from our Authorized Version. Crown 8vo. cloth, 8s. 6d.
"The Work deserves high commendation; it is an excelle'td introduction to the
comparative stvdy of God's lJórd, in these tllree lauguages with which all
ordinary Englislt student is mainly, if ')lot entirely eOllcerued."-GuARDIAN.
" Wè recommend to all who would enter successfllll,y on the cultivation of the Sacred
Literature of the Old Testament, to begin will" this Volume, and they will find
their Knowledge of both tlte Hebrew and Greek Scriplure [Jl'eatly increased as
they follow tlte guide tltus prepared for them."
JOURNAL OF SACRED LITERATURE.

PUBLISHED BY l\IACMILLAN AND CO.

15

BY J. LL. DAVIES, IVI.A., AND D. J. VAUGHAN, M.A.,

Fellows of Trinity College, Cambridge.

1 l he Republic of Plato.

Translated into English.
Crown Svo. cloth, 7 s. 6d.

Ie JYe congratulate the p'llUic Olt the appearance of a good, by which we mea1t
a literal and elegant, tra/tslatiolt of tlte greatest of Plato's dialogues."
SPECTATOR.
" This translation of the m'ist interesting C!f Plato's Worlcs, conducted with all the
advantages of improved criticism and refined scholarship, will be of great value
not only to those 'who are enabled to stlldy the original, but to all who are
desirous of attailtillg a lcnowledge of the p1"inciples of the Platonic Philosophy,
or of revising their acquaintance VJith it
It is preceded hy a very ahle critical
Introduction, and by a careful analysis."-ENGLISJI REVIEW.
" A sound and scholarly versiOJt, in choice English."
CHRISTIAN REM.EMBRANCER.
" We recommend this volume to the attention of those who would gladly learn
sometlting C!f the great founder of the Academy. They will gain an Í11.Sigkt into
tlte true nobility of his sentiments, the grandeur of his ideas, and the gorgeous.
ness of his descriptions, and more than this, they may hope to rise from its
perusal with a mind strengthened to meet the philosophical scepticism of the
lJ'i'esellt day."-ENGLISH JOURNAL OF EDUCATIOY.

BY THE LATE HENRY
!ACKENZIE, B.A.,

Scholar of Trinity College.

'rhe Christian Clergy of the First Ten Centuries;
their Beneficial Influence on European Progress.
Crown 8vo. cloth, 68. 6d.
"He has ShOWJl cOl1.Siderable researck into the History of the early Clerf/?/, atld
expresses himself with a facility and force 'lvhick many an experienced writer
may CJlZOY. lIe hM displayed Ùt this essay a sound judgment, a freedom from
JJrejudice, and a conscientious eltdeavour to reach the trut/t, whick com:inccs '118
that an able and excellent man u'as lost to the world by the untiTttely death of
RE
RY l\L<\CKENZIE."-ATHEN.ÆUM, Jan. 12, 1856.
" lITe rarely meet witk a prize-essay of so muck general interest."
GUARDIA...."'V, Feb. ß, 1856.

Brave 'V orcts to Brave Soldiers and Sailors.
Price 2d. or 1 Os. per 100, for distribution.
"T!tis small tract, whiclt is desi:Jlled for circulati01l among Englisk soldiers
engaged in active service, is liberal, geuial, and Cltcouragill(! . . . tltere will be
mall!! in our camp who would he glad to read it."-E:XA.MI
ER.

1ð

NEW BOOKS AND NE'V EDITIONS,

PROSPECTUS OF A SERIES

OF

MANUALS FOR THEOLOGICAL STUDENTS

KO'V IN COURSE OF PUBLICATION.

It is now upwards of three years since the Prospectus of this Series was
first issued. Four volumes have now been published, and several
others are in an advanced state. The reception which the volumes
already published have met with, has full.v justified the antici-
pation with which the Publishers commenced the Series, and
warrants them in the belief, that their aim of supplying books
"concise, comprehensive, and accurate," "convenient for the
professional Student aI,ld interesting to the general reader," has
been not unsuccessfully fùlfilled.
The following paragraphs appeared in the original Prospectus, and may
be here conveniently reproduced:-
" The Authors being Clergymen of the English Church, and the Series
being designed primarily for the use of Candidates for office in
her
Iinistry, the books win seek to be in accordance with her
spirit and principles; and therefore, in treating of the opinions
and principles of other communions, every effort will be made to
avoid acrimony or misrepresentation.
"It will be the aim of the writers throughout the Series to avoid all
dogmatic expression of doubtful or individual opinions."

THE FOUR FOLLOWING VOLU
fES ARE NOW READY:-

1. A History of the Christian Church during the
Reformation. By CHARLES HARDWICK,
I.A., Fellow
of St. Catharine's Hall, Cambridge, Divinity Lecturer of King's
College, and Christian Advocate in the University.
Crown 8vo. cloth, 10s. ûd.
rOlC read!!.

PUBLISHED BY MAC1ULLAN AXD CO.

17

THEOLOGICAL MANUALS-continued.

2. A IIistory of the Christian Church from the S
venth
Century to the Reformation. By the REV. CHARLES H\RDWICK,

LA., Fellow of St. Catharine's Hall, Divinity Lecturer of King's
College. and Christian Advocate in the University of Cambridge,
Author of "A History of the XXXIX Articles." With, Four
Maps constructedfor this 1Forle by A. Keith JohJlstoJl.
Crown 8vo. cloth, 10s. 6d.

OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.

"This forms one of a series oj Theological J[anuals which :\IESSRS. M.\C'IILLA:\,
Cambridge, haz.e in course of publication. If the other volumes of the series
are as well and careful
1j written as this, theological students wilt have good
cause to thank them."-CLERICAL JOUR
AL, Sept. 22, 1853.
(( It is full in references and authority, systematic and formal in division, with
enough of life ill the style to counteract the dry/less inseparable fl'011l its brevity,
alld exhibiting the results rather than- the principles oj investigation. ::MR.
HARDWICK is to be congratulated on the sllCCeS
flll achievement of a difficult
tas!.:."-CHRISTIA...."V REMEMBR.-L
CER, Oct. 1853.
(( He has bestowed patient and e:rfensÏl'e reading on the collection of his materials;
Ile Ilas selected thelll with judgment, aild he presents them in an equable alld
compact style."-SPECTATOR, Sept. ]7, 1853.
cc This book is one of a promised series of' 'l'HEOLOGICAL l\b:NUALS.' In, one
respect, it may be taken a.<J a sign of the tim
s. It is a small ullpretenrling
f:olume in appearance, but it is based on learniJlg enough to have sufficed, half ..
century since, for the ground of two or three quartos, or at least for saeral
portly octavos. Fur its purpose it is admirable, giring you a careful {Tnrl intel-
l
qent summary of ez'ents, and at. the same time indicating the best SQurces of
Ù
formation jor the further guidance of the student. Among the authorities
thus referred to, u'e find the most modern as well as the most ancient, the con-
tinental as well as the Englisll."-BRITISH QUARTERLY, Nov. 1853.
"It is distinguished by the same diligent research and conscientious acknowledg-
ment of authorities which procured for l\IR. HARDWICK'S 'History of the
Articles of Religion' such a favourable reception."
NOTES A...."VD QUERIES, Oct. 8, 1853.
ee To a good method and good materials l\IR. II-\RDWICK adds that g,'eat virtue,
a perfectly transparent style. We did not expect to find great literary qualities
in such a manual, but we have found them. we should he satisfied in this
respect Witll conciseness and Ùdell
qibility,. but while this boo!.: has both, it is
also elegallt, ltighly ji1lislted, and highly i/tteresting."
KOXCOYFORllIST,
o\". 30, 1853.
ee As a manual for the student of Ecclesiastif'al Histvry in tlte ]Iliddle .Ages, we
Imow no English work 1vhich can be compared to )IR. H \RDWIf'K'S book. It
has two great merits, that it constantly "efers the reader to the authorities, both
origillal a1l,(] critical, on WhlC/: its statements are .founded; alld that it pre-
,erves ajust proportion in dealing with various subjects."
GUARDL\...."V, April1
, 1854.

.

18

NE'V BOOKS AND NE'V EDITIONS,

THEOLOGICAL MANUALS-continued.

3. A History of the Book of Common Prayer,
together with a Rationale of the several Offices. By the Rev.
FRANCIS PROCTER,
I.A", Vicar of "\Vitton, Norfolk, and late
Fellow of St. Catharine's Hall. Crown 8vo. cloth, IDs. 6d.

".MR, PROCTER'S C History of the Book of Common Prayer' is hy far the vest
commentary extant. . . , . . Not only do the prese1lt illustrations embrace the
whole range oj original sources indicated by l\IR, PALMER, but l\IR, PROCTER
compares the present Book of Commo1/, Prayer with the Scotch and American
forms; and he frequently sets out Ùt full the Sarum Offices. ds a manual of
extensive Ùiformation, historical and ritual, imbued with sound Church princi-
ples, we are entirely sati8jìed with MR, PROCTER'S important volunze. u
CHRISTIAN REMEl\1BRANCER, April, ] 855,
" It is a résumé of all that has heen done in the 1cay of investigation Í1t reference to
the Prayer-Book."-ATIIENÆUM, Feb. 17, 1855.
" lYe can have liUle doubt that :MR, P!tOCTER'S History oj our Lilurgy will SOOll.
supersede the u'ell-known 'Work _ of \VHEATLY, and become a much.used hand-
book beyond tlte circuits of the UJliversity for the more immediate use of which
it has beell. produced." - NOTES A...'iD QUERIES, l\larch, 1835.

" Although very decidedly anti-Roman in its lone, we gladly accept it as a substitute
for the dull and dreary dogmatism of WUE.\TLY. It presents, in a popular and
agreeable nm'rative, the history of those variations to w/tich so much attenti011,
has been directed during the late eventful contrOt"ersies; and while it contains a
very caref'ul, learned and scholarlike exposition oft/tese changes, it also furnishes
a most valuable commentary on the successive texts of the formularies themselves,
as they are exhibited either in, the original editions, or ill the useful manuals of
BULLEY and KEELI:NG."-DuBLIN REVIEW (Roman Catholic), April, 1855.

CC Ire can speak with just praise of this compendious but comprehen3Ìt'e rolume. It
appears to be compiled with great care and judgment, and has profiled largely by
the accumulated materials collected by the learnillg and research of the last Jifty
years, It is a manual of gt'eat value to the student oj Ecclesiastical History and
of almost equal interest to el'eryadmit'er of the Liturg!/ and Services of the
English Clmrclt."-LO:NDON QUARTERLY REVIEW, April, 1855.
" It is indeed a complete and fai1'ly-written history of the Liturgy; and from the
dispassionate 'Way Ùt which disputed points are touched on, will prove to many
troubled consciences what ought to be known to them, viz, :-that they may,
without fear of compromising the pl'im:iples of evangelical truth, git'e their assent
and cO'J't8ent to the contents of the Book of Common Prayer. l\IR. PROCTER has
done a great sC1'vice to the CllIlrch by tltis admirable digest."
CHURCH OF ENGLAND QUA.RTERLY, April, 1855.

.

PUBLISHED BY }IACJIILLAN AND CO.

19

THEOLOGICAL lYIANUALS-continued.

4.

BROOKE FOSS WESTCOTT, l'tI.A.,

.A.."islanl jI,[aster of Harrow School, formerly Pellr-w of Trinity College, Cambridge.

A General Vie,v of the" History of the Canon of the
Ne,v Testament during the FIRST FOUR CENTURIES.
Crown 8vo. cloth, 128. 6d.

" The Author is one of those who are teaching U8 that it is possible to rifle the
storehouses qf German theology, without bearing away the tai,tt of their atmo-
sphere: and to recogrlise the value of their accumulated treasures, and et'ell,
track the t,'agariesof theÍ1' theoretic ingenuity, without aband01ting in the pursuit
the clear sight and sound feeling of English common sense. . . . It is by far
the best and most complete book of the kind
' alid we should be glad to see it
u:ell placed on the lists of our examining chaplains." -GUARDL\....""i, Oct. 3, 18;)5.
"Learned, dispassionate, discrimin(J,tiug, wodhy of his subject and the present
stale of Christiall, LitC1'atllre in relatioll, to it."
BRITISH QUARTERLY, Oct. 3, 1855.
" 1'0 the student ill, Theology it will prore all, admirable Text-Book: and to all
others who have any curiosity on the subject it will be satirlfactory as (}ne of the
most liseftel and iJl.strucfit'e pieces of history which the records of the Clmrck
slljpl!l."-Lmmo::i QU_\RTERLY, Oct. 1855.
" The Author carries Ùdo the execution of his design a careful and painstaking
scholarship . . . . COllsidered as a list 01 Testimonials ;'1, favour of the canonical
writings, our Author's work deserves the praise of great diligence altd maldfest
cOllSCiellliolisnes8."-N
TIOlS.\L REVIEW (UlSITARL\.....
), Oct. 1855.
" If the rest of the series of manuals, of which the present volume forms a part, are
as ably executed, the Chri8tian public will be g1'cally indebted to the prqjecf01s
of the plan."-LITERA.RY CIIURCH}IA
. .
" There is nothillg, 30 far as 'We lUlOW, reJembling it in the English tongue. . . lJ""r
hat'e kere presented to us a strikin!! and lumi1UJ'lls view of a very broad and
corprehe'llsive S'ubject, marked thro1lghout by rich and CopiOliS er1lditi01I.
.L1. t,'olll'me which we cOllsider a most valuable additi01t to the literat11re of
RelJelatiO'lt. Scripture Expositors, 01 wha/n'er name, wilt acknO'll:ledge that they
hare been laid under deep obligation by the 'Work of MR. \VESTCOTT."
BRITISH BA

ER, Jan. 4, 1856.
" The colU:eption of the work, alld the discri, 'nati01I and learnillg with u:kich it is
e.t:Ccuted, adapt it most thor01tghl!l to the present state and forml of C(}lltrOl:er'sy
OIL the subject to which it relates."-NoxcoxFoR
nsT, Jan. 23, 1856.

FOR Å LIST OF THOSE IN DDIEDlATE PREPARATION, SEE OVER PAGE.

o

NEW BOOKS AND NE\V EDITIONS,

QtgwlogxtaI ID:anuak

THE FOLLO"TING \fORKS OF 'rIlE SERIES ARE IN PREPARATION.

,
An IntroductioJz to the Study of the Old Testa'll/en t,
with an outline of Scripture History.

Notes, Crit?
cal and Etrplanat017/, on the Jiebrezv TerT!
of the Prophet ISAIAH.

All Introduction to the Study oj the Gospels.
Epistles.
Notes, Critical and ETplanatory, on the Greek Teæt
of the FOUR GOSPELS AND rTHE ACTS OF '.rR"E
APOSTLES.

]\1 0 tes, Critical and li
1Jplanalory, on the Greek leæt
of the CANONICAL EPISTLES AKD THE APOCALYPSE.

.A History of the Christiart Church during THE FIRST
SIX CENTURIES.

.A History of the Christian Church fro'ln the Beginning
of the XVIIth CENTURY TO THE PRESENT TIl\IE.

An Historical Eæp08zïion of the Apostles', Nìcene,
and Athanasian CREEDS.

.An Eæ}Josition of the Articles of the Church of
England.

Others are in progress, and will be announced in due time.

PUBLISHED BY
IACMILLAN AND CO.

21

THE JOURN AL

OF

CLASSICAL AND SACRED PHILOLOGY.

Nos. I. to VI. price 4s. each. V ols. 1. and II. in cloth, 12s. 6d. each.

This Journal has been established as a medium of communication
between Schola.rs and others interested in Classical and SacreJ
Philology. The first number appeared in )Iarch, 1854-; and it is
proposed to continue the publication of three numbers, forming a
volume yearly, in .March, June, and December. The character of
this publication may be seen feom the following li
t of the principal
contents of the first six numbers:-

On the Birds of Aristophanes; On Lucretius; On St. Paul, and Philo
J udæus; On the Dating of Ancient History; On the Study of the
Bible among our Forefathers; On the Sophists; On the .Martyrdom
and Commemoration of ;:;aint Hippolytus; On some Greek Tragic
Fragments; On the Classical Authorities for Ancient Art; On a
point of Doctrine of the Ancient Atomists; Review of Schneide-
win's Edition of the CEJipus Rex of Sophocles; S. Clemens Alex.
on New Testament Chronology; On the Interpretation of a passage
in the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle; On the Topography of
Halicarnassus; On some Passages in Lucretius; On the Hebrew
Cubit; On the probable Connexion of the Rhætians and Etruscani
with the Thracian Stock of Nations; A Plea for Greek Accents;
On a Passage in the Muratorian Canon; On the Egyptian :Month
Adrian; On the Date of the Composition of Herodotus's Hi
tory;

icomachean Ethics, Book V.; Eudemian Ethics, Book IV.;
On Sophistical Rhetoric; On
'Eschylus Choeph. 278-296 (ed.
Dindorf); On some Passages in Sophocles; The :\Ii
sion of Titus
'to the Corinthians; On the Origi n and
Ieaning of Roman Names;
On Latin Lexicography; On the Borders of the Inheritance of the
Tribe of Naphtali; and on the Site of the Cities denounced by our
Saviour in the Gospels; Observations on l\Ir L
w's" Criticism of
Mr. Ellis's new Theory concerning the Route of Hannibal."

Besides the above, the Journal conL,.ins shorter articles under the
titles of " Adversaria" and" Anecdota;" Copious Notices of X ew
Books; the" Contents" of Foreign Journals; and very carefully
drawn up "Lists of X ew Books," English and Foreign, bearing on
the sU
ljt:cts to which the Journal is devoted.

22

NE\V BOOKS AND NE\Y EDITIONS,

CLASSICAL AND SACRED PHILOLOGY-continued.

As it has not been always practicable to issue the numbers at the
beginning of the month, so as to be in time for" :l\fagazine Parcels,"
some disappointment has occasionally arisen. To prevent this,
Gentlemen ordering it from their country Booksellers, should
request them to keep repeating the order during the month till
they get it; and in all cases care should be taken to give the exact
title and the London Publishers' names, 1Ylessrs. BELL & DA.LDY,
186, F1eet Street.

Contributions, Books for Review, and Advertisements, should be
directed to "EDITORS OF THE JOURNAL OF CLASSICAL AXD SA.CRED
PHILOLOGY, care of Messrs. MACMILLAN & CO., Cambridge."

A FEW COMPLETE COPIES IN 9 Y OLS. 8YO. CLOTH, PRICE E7 4s.,
CAN STILL BE HAD OF

TI-IE CAl\IBRIDGE AXD DUBLI

MATHEMATICAL

J 0 URN A L.

\VITH AN IKDEX OF SUBJECTS AND OF AUTHORS.

This important \Y ork was commenced in 1846, and the last volume
was completed in 1854. During these nine years, it received
original contributions on almost every branch of pure and applied
Mathematics, by many of the most distinguished British
Iathe-
maticians, and also by several of the most eminent Foreign. It
may, therefore, justly claim a place in every Scientific, Public, or
Private Library.

Amongst the Contributors will be founel :- Professors BLACKBURN,
BOOLE, COLLI:KS, DE :MORGAN, DO
hIN, STOKES, SYLVESTER,
\YILLIAM THOMPSON; Sir 'VILLIAM ROWAN HAMILTON; Dr. BOOTH;
}Iessrs. CARMICHAEL, CAYLEY, COCKLE, COTTERIL, HOMERSHAM Cox,
HART, HAUGHTON, HEARN,
IAXWEr..L, F. 'V. NEWMAN, PHEAR,
SALMON, SPOTTISWOODE, TOWNSEND, \V ALTON, 'YEDDLE, &c. &c. &c.

.

PUBLISHED BY 1tIACMILLA
AND CO.

23

:ûiATHErI.IATICAL CLASS BOOKS

FOR

COLLEGES AKD SCIIOOLS.

1R. COOPER'S GEOMETRICAL COXIC SECTIOKS.

IR. FROST's NEWTON, SECl'IOXS 1. II. III.
Problems.

[ Preparing.
\Yith Notes and
1 Os. 6d.
5s. 6!l.

1IR. GODFRAY'S TREATISE OX THE LUNAR THEORY.

IR. GRANT'S PLANE ASTROKOMY.

IR. HE:\nUNG'S DIFFEREKTIAL AND IKTEGRAL CALCULUS.
Second Edition. 98.
l\fR. LUND'S EASY COURSE OF .A..LGEBRA. Second Edition. 3s. 6<1.
1\IR. P ARKIXSON'S ELE1IEXTARY
IECHANICS. 9s. 6d.

IR. PEARSOI\'S TREATISE ON FIXITE DIFFERENCES.
Second Edition. 5s.

68.

fR. PREAR'S ELEME
T..\RY HYDROSTATICS.

58. 6el.

1\IR. PREAR'S ELEMEXTARY
rECHANICS. 1 Os. 6d.
I\1R. PUCKLE'S ELE1IEXTARY CONIC SECTIOKS. 7s. 6d.
1\1R. BARNARD S
IITH'S ARITH)1ETIC AND ALGEBRA. 10s.6<1.
l\IR. BARNARD S
lITH'S ARITHMETIC FOR SCHOOLS. 4s.6el.

IR. BARNARD S1UTH'S TrEY TO THE ABOVE. [Just Ready. 8s. 6el.

1R. BARNARD SMITH'S
IECHÅNICS A

II YDROSTATICS.
[ Prepa1-ing.
ßfR. SNOWBALL'S PLANE AND SPHERICAL TRIGOXO)IETRY.
Eighth Edition. 78 6el.
PROF. TAIT'S AXD 1\IR. STEEL'S TREATISE ON DY
AMICS. 108. 6d.

IR. TODHUNTER'S DIFFEREXTIAL AXD INTEGRAL CALCULUS.
Second Edition. 108. 6d.

IR. TODHUXTER'S ANALYTIC..\.L STATICS. 10,.6d.

24 'YORKS PUBLISHED BY :M.ÅC
IILLA:X AND CO.

.LrIATHEJfATIOAL GLASS BOOI{S-continued.

IR. TODHUKTER'S PLAKE CO-ORDIXATE GEO:!tIETRY. 10s. t)(l.

IR. TODHUXTER'S TRE.-\TlSE O
ALGEBRA. [Prepanng.
1IR. TODHUNTER'S ALGEBRA FOR BEGI
NERS. [P'rcpw'íng.
PROF. "\Y ILSON'S TREATISE ON DYNA:\UCS. 98. 6d.
CA::\IBRIDGE SENATE-HoUSE PROBLE1IS, 1848 TO 1851. With
Solutions by 1IIessrs. FERRERS anù JACKSON. 158. 6d.
CA}IBRIDGE SEXATE-HoUSE RIDERS, ] 848 TO 1851. \Vith Solu-
tions by Mr. JAMESON. 'is. 6d.
CAl\IBRIDGE SE
ATE-HoUSE PROBLE::\IS, JAN. 8, 1852. 'Vith
Solutions. Is. 6d.
CAMBRIDGE SE
ATE-HoUSE PROBLE::\IS AXD RIDER
. 1854. With
Solutions by the )Ioderators, Messrs. 'V ALTON &
IACKEKZIE. 10s. 6à.

GREEK AND LATIN CLASS BOOKS.

IR. DRAKE'S EUMENIDES OF ÆSCHYLUS. \Vith English Notes.
7s. 6d.

IR. DRAKE'S DE:r.IOSTHENES DE CORONA. \Yith English Notes. 5
.
MR. FROST'S THUCYDIDES, BOOK 'T1. 'Vith English Notes. 78.6d.
DR. H UMPHREY
' EXERCITATIOI\ES IAMBICÆ. 58. 6d.

)IR.
fAYOR'S J L"VENAL. 'Yith English Notes.
:ðIR.
lERIV ALE'S SALLUST. 'Yith English Notes.

IR. THllING'S CONSTRUING BOOK.

IR. "\V RIGHT'S HELLENICA. 'Vith English
ote8.
1\IR. "\VRIGHT'S HELP TO LATIN GRA
nL\R.

1 Os. 6d.

58.

28. 6d.
3
. 6d.
4,. 6d.

ENGLISH GRAMMARS.

11R. THRING'S ELEMENTS OF GRA \I MAR.
}.{R. THRIXG'S CHILD'S GRAMMAR.

New EditioD. 2,.

New Edition. 1&.

IR. P ARMIXTER'S MATERIAIß FOR EXGr..LSH GRAMMAR

.t. 6d.

}t. c.:LAT, l'R.l)ì'T:KR. .BRXAD STaEET HILL.

;- \ !Ií
! \"'r''krIHr:I'å

' ..}/
';!!;'
Þ'
K\
ìlt

i!J
)1\ 1 '
dj;;*';.:,

.),
1

'
}H
Jßi \w f RNß 1 J
J.
:.. . WfIJ
i
' 'J .
ffih
IN
' Vr"l

ç{ff1t . \;

ál\
!lìJ
{Nn

J
'l1
l f.tW

\I
" t.
!1 . ! .q
I
?

1Jjl'J'
h I 11
I. I
:. "rl;'t
\!l I J"
.h; \((\' Ifl1-1
11t!(lqM1J\!1
1w.:
1 II\ûP1!! jf1J.'.t\jI
Ì!I!
il:, \
,." I .. · ,jl:!ì 'I,'
.; I;) · i/li

ß\*,'.

!
Y,
i

Þ

'ij
m\l\$wþìfu.
Wl

;
J! ' "

'j
i
'.
I

" .
.,
,... 'I t W · j/,,,t\!'Ji' 174t,'
1 ,II:JÌ

Ji tJ.Ii"
A :l\
Vi ÌIi @VIF'J1!
JI
,U11V' q."" -"
I 17. ;, ' J
:.JVrÿJf.

1
'" ',' '}ifl
., .frli m!j VI I
i I} III:' ;rlr.'&I
' I

I ' I r
I fj .
ï
'

" · I

11

v!.
J

I;p!ù.!íflÜÎ\

f j
ii!l;

>>'},\\.t

\
!
I{. I
t
ff,'

!j

7k)

l: 1, ;

I W. dn,
lf'H 1 fJ -r-"
\ l '
..} ,.,'1}J1J \\[{: r 'rJ 11 M ' n

. '11' . J ')/
.;
.j
if;

:11$m: ;,
i! 11!i

t

í

>

ljt'1f{11{
d
\'.i-.

l' \

it

j.ì\
' 'W
UJP(i

. , w, .il j I.n, \i.,. yti
ñ'\
W' !1&!l1I
I' j d{IHí
11I I (
Il! } I It 1 I ·
(2
II I'

!'ì :lid
ì(
11
1

Jft&W
1c1\
'
'
Ik

I1

t:f

1} :
;

',
ftH.
:i1
!
J :

'I ?i U4
'j
("Ål
ll. fr J .
\I}
r
,1/H'
W)n ' .
l.í'n Ill
: Jll
/' ", .\ A i t {
. !:t t.t.1. .' J Y. f

l'

't 'M I r "'lm
' î't ,IHë I I j( &1' V'//i /.
!
'w. , 11 u'

<<h. 4\,1\ \ jf '
}
l:a:r

. f
flf.
\
!j
. ;f fJlJ.H(rJil tl . l*m
A
' . ' .

1'
iir: :ml
í

.
í
I:' :
.
\
. l'e ;qj;
!If
'U ØI t(t,.Jt/1jl JPW!i. l .!
1Ii'

1
Ù, .(I
I.W ' n
d

ð z M'øJ
\ "

" ,tr. 11]
Ißljfí.
,lhlg I ' JI
)\1 \ dvjll4l J
'\
'í l v} ,
l.fj! í I r

. ìtq.