f on ^rntenr iutlrr’a ‘IBritiqgs. ENGLISH REVIEW. “The name of Professor Archer Butler is well known to the theological world in connexion with a very able series of Letters on the Doctrine of De¬ velopment, which made their appearance in the Irish Ecclesiastical Journal. That series of Letters gave evidence of the possession of powers and attain¬ ments from which the most brilliant results might have been anticipated. That series of Letters established at once Mr. Butler’s reputation on this side of the Channel as an eminent divine and a profound thinker.” 0# * * PRINCETON, N. J. ""S. Shelf BT 21 . B87 4 1850 Butler, William Archer, 18147-1848. Letters on the development of Christian doctrine “To Mr. Newman’s recent work I have avoided all reference. Other oc¬ casions for speaking of it will arise erelong, if indeed there be any necessity of adding to what has already been said by . and by Professor Butler, in the excellent series of Letters which he has inserted in the Irish Ecclesiastical Journal.” — Preface to “ The Mission of the Comfor¬ ter, ” vol. i. p. 12. DUBLIN UNIVERSITY MACAZINE. “ Who can adequately estimate the fame of which the departed, the example and the works, of which the survivors have been deprived? The contempo¬ raries of Professor Butler do not, and, thanks to the volume which has suggested our Paper (Mr. Thomas Woodward’s judicious selections from his manuscripts, and admirable Memoir), posterity will not require to be told why these emotions are associated with his name. Poet, orator, metaphysician, theologian, — ‘ nihil tetigit quod non ornavit,’ — in the prime of life, just as a fitting field opened for his mature powers, and all the fond anticipations with which we followed his intellectual progress seemed about to be realized, this distinguished ornament of our Church and country was removed.” [ Continued on next page. . ■ . Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/lettersondevelopOObutl dfojrarinna uit Ifiwfmmx Mcr's tt'ritings. EDINBURGH ECCLESIASTICAL JOURNAL. “ What then shall we say of the volume [his Sermons] which Professor But¬ ler, prematurely removed by death, has bequeathed as his legacy to the Christian world ? Before answering the question, we cannot but pause to survey, for a moment, the monuments of some of those mighty dead who have consecrated our English speech to the service of the Gospel. And with the venerable shades of the most renowned preachers seeming to look forth upon us from their several tomes, we have no hesitation in saying that our author is entitled to take rank among the very greatest of them.” CHELTENHAM JOURNAL. “ We feel assured that this precious volume (Sermons) will find its way into the libraries of the clergy ; and we are equally confident that many of the laity will adopt it also as a beautiful specimen of Irish talent, not inferior to some of the compositions of the present day on Christian doctrine and practice.” IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL JOURNAL. “ With the most entire impartiality we can safely assert that every sermon in this selection bears upon it the unmistakeable impress of earnestness in feeling and depth of thought.” CHRISTIAN REMEMBRANCER. “ Professor Butler was a writer not only of merit but of promise, and his early death seems regarded in Ireland in a way somewhat similar to the removal of Mr. H. J. Rose from among ourselves. The Irish Church could little afford to lose a son so full of hope.” “ His Letters (on Development) in the Irish Ecclesiastical Journal are very powerful.” DUBLIN EVENING MAIL. “ In speaking of the literary productions of the late Professor Butler it would be idle to deal with them as we should do those of an unknown author. Indeed it seems to us that little more is necessary than the announcement of their ap¬ pearance.” THE ENGLISH REVIEW. “ All that we have read of these Sermons impresses us with a sense of their singular depth and power. We feel in perusing them that we are in contact with a mind of superior range, which can embrace in its comprehensive view the most extended relations of the subjects on which it touches, and which pos¬ sesses the power of eliciting from the most complicated questions the general laws or principles which enable us to solve the various difficulties presented to us. Butler understood the office and the manner of a preacher; and, judging from the Discourses before us, and from the account of his delivery given by his biographer, we should think that he could have been equalled by very few men of his time.” ENGLISH CHURCHMAN. “Mr. Butler was a very sound churchman, and a most able and philosophi¬ cal writer. His Letters which appeared in the Irish Ecclesiastical Journal, upon Mr. Newman’s Theory of Development, contain some of the most clear and masterly criticisms on that work which have come under our notice.” DUBLIN EVENING POST. “ We regret that our space does not permit a detailed notice of the Sermons here laid before us. All who remember the late Professor Butler will rejoice in even this faint reflection of that living eloquence — so grand, yet so tender — so uncompromising, yet so winning — whose echoes still linger in our ears.” f s \ LETTE RS. [Such is the looseness of reasoning, and the negligence of facts, which all 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.] [It is visible wherein the strength of his performance lies, and what it is that he chiefly trusts to. It is not Scripture, it is not antiquity, but a Philosophical Principle, to which Scripture, Fathers, everything, must yield. — Archdeacon Waterland.] LETTERS THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, Hn Ifieplg to jWr. jgetoman’s <&ssag. BY THE V REV. WILLIAM ARCHER BUTLER, M.A., LATE PROFESSOR OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN. EDITED BY THE REY. THOMAS WOODWARD, M.A., CURATE ASSISTANT OF FETHARD, IN THE DIOCESE OF CASHEL, AND CHAPLAIN TO HIS EXCELLENCY" THE LORD LIEUTENANT. DUBLIN: HODGES AND SMITH, GRAFTON-STREET, BOOKSELLERS TO THE UNIVERSITY. NIDCCCL. DUBLIN : ^rfatctf at tl;e ©mbustty ^|3ress, BY M. H. GILL. PREFACE. It was the intention of my lamented friend, Professor Butler, an intention expressed not long before his death, to have republished the following Letters, in a se¬ parate form, with corrections and additions. But a mysterious 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 which he had no control, have hitherto delayed the execution of this interesting, though melan¬ choly task, which 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 wish, too general to be disregarded, calls for their re-appearance in a more convenient form. They were written at intervals, between the close of 1845 and the commencement of 1847, and were the VI PREFACE. work of hurried moments, snatched from labours of beneficence to the starving crowds who daily flocked around their Author’s residence. The famine, which during that period was 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, was indeed almost incompatible with calm processes of subtle rea¬ soning, and erudite investigation. The composition of such a work, under disadvantages so overwhelming, is in truth no small evidence of Butler’s extraordinary power of thought. That some few traces of haste should not be perceptible, it would of course be impos- 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 employed in a signifi¬ cance varying considerably from their real meaning. In throwing in guards and qualifications, in endea¬ vouring to place the quotations in the light originally intended, the Editor has been conscious that he was doing what Professor Butler would have earnestly desired to have done. That most candid and most truthful mind would have been the last purposely to support his argument by unfair citation, or overstrained interpretation, or by making the words of any author PREFACE. • • Vll seem to convey an impression different from what they were designed to produce. The appearance of Mr. Newman’s celebrated Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine a was the occa¬ sion which urged Professor Butler, at such inconve¬ nience to himself, to undertake the publication of these Letters. They treat, however, of topics which possess a general and perpetual interest. They are replete with arguments and principles which extend far beyond their primary object of refuting a particular disputant. It is, perhaps, an unavoidable result of our position between two opposite extremes, and on the defensive against both, that our Anglican Theology is cast, for the most part, in a controversial mould. 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, who feels but little interest in their polemical bearings, may still peruse these pages with profit and delight ; may find here disquisitions upon topics the most engaging, philoso¬ phical as well as ecclesiastical, adorned with the richest drapery of imagination, and clothed in language of un¬ exceeded power and beauty. a An Essay on tlie Development of Christian Doctrine. By John Henry Newman, Author of Lectures on the Prophetical Office of the Church. London, 1845. Vlll PREFACE. 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 System , of which he indeed was the ablest expo¬ nent, but which many other thinkers had partially propounded as absolutely necessary for the preserva¬ tion of the Romish cause. In the present state of cri¬ tical learning, the spurious authorities, and the misquo¬ tations from genuine writings, 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. Mr. Newman is the spokesman of a powerful 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 new forms and aspects ; that such a development was antecedently natural and ne¬ cessary ; that the process was conducted under infalli¬ ble guidance; and that the existing belief of the Roman Communion is its mature result”b. To this entire School, b See infra, p. 3. PREFACE. IX and to their whole system of argument, the following pages supply a full, and still unanswered, refutation. Whatever novelty may justly be attributed to the performance of Mr. Newman, it is matter of history that he was not the originator of the Theory which he so elaborately advocates. He has, however, reduced to systematic form, and expanded into logical proportions, the rude outlines and imperfect sketches of other thinkers. “ Though the evidence,” says Dr. Words¬ worth0, “is abundant and strong, that the Theory of Development is the only consistent theory of Romanism , yetit has never, I believe, been propounded so distinctly, or worked out so elaborately, as by the author of this volume. Your theologians have sighed for it, and have cherished it secretly, but they have been afraid to own it publicly. This theory has had many a Copernicus among you, but he is its Newton ; and we would in¬ dulge a sanguine hope, that the cause of truth will be promoted in due time by the unreserved manner in which this theory, and this only theory, of Romanism, has been stated in this Essay.” The power of the pre¬ sent Church to develope new Articles of Faith has long been maintained by Romish theologians. It was alleged by a writer'1 of the fourteenth century, as the preroga- c Letters to M. Gondon, p. 26. d Augustinus Triumphus de Ancona. Suinm. cle Eccl. Pot. cp 59, Art. 3. X PREFACE. tive of the Pontiff, novum symbolum condere , novos ctrti- culos supra alios multiplicare. a That which I charge upon the Roman doctors,” says Bishop Taylor, “is, that they give to their Church a power of introducing and imposing new articles of belief” — Diss. (p. 287 : Ed. Cardwell.) Such a claim was shown by our divines to be wholly incompatible with any settled Rule of Faith. It was proved to be an abnegation of the autho¬ rity both of Ploly Scripture and of Catholic Tradition. “ Our most beloved Mother, the Church of England,” says the admirable Dr. Hammond6, “ is certainly soli¬ citous to avoid, with all cautious diligence, this rock of innovators. It is her ambition to be distinguished through the whole Christian world, 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 firm resolution, and on this basis she has rested the British Reformation, that, in the first place, respect be had to the Scripture ; and then, in the second place, to the Bishops, Martyrs, and Ec¬ clesiastical Writers of the first ages. Therefore, what¬ soever hath been affirmed by the Scriptures in matter of Faith ; whatsoever, concerning ecclesiastical govern¬ ment, she hath discovered to be the appointment of the universal Church throughout the world, after the e Quoted by Bishop Jebb, Appendix to Sermons, p. 393. PREFACE. XI 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 abolish what hath been thus decided.” (Translated from Ham¬ mond’s Works , Yol. iv. p. 470.) To the readers of this controversial work, it may be interesting to learn something of its author’s sentiments upon an important practical point, the desirableness of polemically assailing the faith of the simple and desti¬ tute Romanists by whom he was surrounded. The following pages, indeed, are sufficient evidence that Professor Butler was alive to the importance of the doctrinal differences between us and Rome ; that he was cordially attached to the principles of the Refor¬ mation ; and ready to spend his best powers, under circumstances of peculiar trial, in vindicating those principles against an accomplished and most formida¬ ble antagonist. But though he was thus zealous, before meet audience, to give a reason for his faith, and in its defence to bring forth out of his treasures things new and old, it was his opinion (an opinion which derives peculiar weight from the circumstance that he himself was a convert from Romanism, and intimately ac¬ quainted with the whole controversy), that no small degree of mental cultivation was required to under¬ stand the points in debate, and the arguments employed Xll PREFACE. in their discussion. In cases where universal ignorance overspread the mind, respecting the first principles of Christianity, he thought that there was room for instruction , but that it was absurd, ex vi termini , to talk of proselytism, for that there could be no change of creed, when no creed at all had been received. And with respect to those who were not uninstructed in their own system, and were endeavouring to serve God as they thought right, the minds of peasants such as these, he shrunk from disturbing and unsettling in their faith. He feared lest, in the attempt to pluck out the tares, he might root up the wheat also ; lest this process of disturbance might eventuate in total scepti¬ cism, and so the last state of the convert become worse than the first. He especially deprecated the idea of employing a season of unwonted distress as an oppor¬ tunity of controversy, and mingling temporal relief with exhortations to conformity. Such ill-timed pro¬ jects he deemed far more likely to corrupt the neces¬ sitous by hopes of gain, than to win them over to the pure and undefiled religion of the Gospel. His feelings on the subject are best expressed in his own language, which I am glad to embrace another occasion of re¬ peating. “ For my own part, I will not scruple to say, though, perhaps, it is scarcely wise to enter upon such a topic without more room than I can now demand, to PREFACE. Xlll explain and defend my meaning, — it is not without fear and trembling that I should at any time receive into the Church a convert from any of the forms of Christianity outside it, whom 1 had known to be sin¬ cerely devoted according to the measure of his light. The duty of so doing may arise ; and, when the duty is plain, it must of course be done ; I only say, that I should feel very great anxiety in doing it. Men ought never to forget how fearfully heavy is the responsibi¬ lity of a new convert. You have unsettled all the man's habitual convictions ; are you prepared to labour night and day to replace them with others as effective over the heart and life ? If not, you have done him an irreparable wrong. Motives to righteousness, low, mixed, uncertain, as it may be, are greatly better than none ; and there can be no doubt that he who has lost so. many he once possessed, requires constant, earnest, indefatigable exertion on the part of the teacher who undertakes to supply their place. What care, what skill, what persevering patience does it need to repair the shattered principle of Faith in one whom you have succeeded in convincing, that all the deepest practical convictions of his whole past life are delusion !” My best acknowledgments are due to the Rev. Richard Gibbings, rector of Raymunterdoney, in the diocese of Raphoe, for most valuable assistance afford- XIV PREFACE. eel me in preparing for publication this work of our mutual friend. A considerable number of annotations, kindly furnished to me by that critical and accom¬ plished scholar, will be found in the sequel, and may be distinguished by the letter G., subjoined. CONTENTS. LETTER I. PAGE. Occasion of the present work, . . . 1 Object not detailed investigation of Mr. Newman’s authorities, and why, . 2 Mr. Newman’s theory of development stated, . 2,3 I. Opposed to the received doctrine of the Romish Church, . . . 3, 4 Mohler, De Maistre, and La Mennais, . . 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, . 8 Council of Trent invariably appeals to perpetual tradition, . 9-11 The same is the doctrine of the chief expositors of Romanism, . 1 1 Mr. Newman’s attempted defence of his hypothesis from philo¬ sophical analogies, . 12 Condemned by anticipation by the Romish authorities, . . . . ib. Disciplina arcani admitted by Mr. Newman to be inadequate to solve the “ difficulty” of the variation of mediceval from primi¬ tive Christianity , . 12-14 Mr. Newman’s theory is an attempt to account for this difficulty, 14 This variation is a “ difficulty” only to the Romanist, .... 15 II. Development theory is a plain surrender of the claims of Romanism to satisfactory evidence from antiquity, . 16 Developments are admitted not to be themselves primitive doc¬ trine, . ib. “Deification of St. Mary,” . 16, 17 Mr. Newman rejects the rule of Vincentius, . 18 XVI CONTENTS. PAGE. Charges the Ante-Nicene Fathers with inaccuracy respecting the Trinity, . ib. His unfair treatment of the Fathers, . 19 The Syrian School . . ib. Testimony of Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Facundus, against Transubstantiation, resolved into peculiarities of that school, 20, 21 Mr. Newman’s instances of the completion of primitive views: “ Deification of St. Mary Purgatory, . 21-24 It follows from Mr. Newman’s argument that it is positively inju¬ rious to study the early writers, . 24 Mediaeval religion, according to him, an improvement upon pri¬ mitive Christianity : in doctrine, . ib. In practice, . 25 “ Expurgating” Fathers is consequently the obligatory function of the growing Church, . ib. Application of this argument to the Bible, . 26, 27 To the teaching of our blessed Lord, . 27 Mr. Newman’s decisive admissions respecting the late introduc¬ tion of Image Worship, . 28 Worship of Saints and Angels, . ib. Worship of the Virgin Mary, . ib. Purgatory, . 29 Evidence of Ignatian epistles to the definiteness of doctrine from the very first , 30-32 Importance of Mr. Newman’s admissions, ... .... 32 Peculiarity of his position and value of his testimony, . . . 32-35 LETTER II. Mr. Newman’s theory contrary to the Tridentine Canons, ... 36 His Book formally implicated in the anathema of Trent, .... 37 His mode of Scriptural interpretation forbidden, . ib. Early anticipations of his theory, . 38 Fisher on Purgatory and Indulgences, . 38, 39 Cardinal Cajetan and Durandus on Indulgences, . 39 Alphonsus de Castro on Transubstantiation, . 40 Peter Lombard and Sirmondus on Transubstantiation, .... 40,41 Similar views to Mr. Newman’s entertained by Salmeron, .... 42 Traces of Mr. Newman’s doctrine in Gregory VII . ib. Gregory I. traced his developments to a different source, .... 43 CONTENTS. xvn PAGE. Proved by Stillingfleet, that the assertion of unbroken Apostolical 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 Word, . 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 “ Mediaeval development” now substituted for “ Apostolical Tradi¬ tion,” . ib. Inconsistency of Mr. Newman respecting the “ leading idea of Chris¬ tianity,” . 49, 50 Analysis of Mr. Newman’s argument, . 50 “ Development of an idea” explained, . ib. Kinds of development, . ib. “ Moral 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 Mr. 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 universality or permanence, of admitted innovation can be suffi¬ cient to authorize it, . 64 Example of idolatry, . 65, 66 Mr. 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 a XV111 CONTENTS. PAGE. Mr. Newman’s alleged analogy of prophetic revelation, .... 71 Failure of the analogy ; prophecy distinguished from doctrinal teaching, . ib. Mr. Newman’s perverted use of the parables, . 72 Scriptural statements respecting the completeness of the original revelation, irreconcileable with his doctrinal development, . . 72, 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 doctrines, . 76,77 Application of the principle of development to our Lord’s own teaching, . 77, 7S Recapitulation, . 7S-80 LETTER III. Inadequacy of the development hypothesis unless combined with the further hypothesis of an infallible directive authority, . . 81,82 Coincidence of Mr. Newman’s “ moral development” with various fanatical and heretical extravagancies, . 82 Found in its perfection in Tertullian’s Montanism, . 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 Mr. Newman’s development does not vindicate it from Rationalism, . 88 Formal nature of Rationalism, . 88, 89 Rationalism of superstition, . 89 Internal spirit and scope of Mr. Newman’s theory, . ib. 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, . ib. CONTENTS. XIX PAGE. Feeble and ambiguous decisions of Rome inconsistent with infallible authority, . . 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 progress from simpler to sublimer things, . 98 Romish developments, e. g. image- worship, are a descent and retro- gradation, . 98, 99 God’s reality sublimer than man’s imagination, . 99 Apostolic and mediaeval Christianity contrasted, .... 100, 101 The “ dark ages” the great period of development, . . . 102, 103 Mediaeval Christianity Mr. Newman’s ideal of perfection, . . . 104 What was the character and condition of the average instructors of the middle ages ? . 104,111 Council of Aix-la-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, . Ill Mr. Newman’s hypothesis cannot be referred to any historical tests, 112 May be applied by any sect to the proof of anything . . 113 This new rule of faith clouds the evidences of Christianity, ... ib. Mr. 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 proved by evidence of antiquity, ... ib. Illustrated by an imaginary sect of sun-worshippers. Application of Mr. Newman’s principles to prove sun-worship a true develop¬ ment of Christian doctrine, . 116-T23 The burning of heretics proved to be a true development according to Mr. Newman’s principles, . 125-127 Application 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 doctrines 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, . 141, 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, 144 “ Philosophy of Romanism” derived from this error, — definition of it, . 144 The past history of the Church thereby made the model of perfec¬ tion, — examples, . 145, 146 This criterion of Faith must be applied universally, . . . 146, 147 The development 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, . . . 148 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 I., . 158, 159 First synodical prohibition of the general use of the Scriptures, . 159 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 Mr. Newman’s theory triumphantly vindicates the principle of the Reformation, . 168 The same argument applies to p)lace 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, 170 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 Mr. 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 principles, . 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 Mr. 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 West, . 187-189 Their separation not a mere schism, . 189 The East is in heresy, if Rome be infallible, . 189, 190 Other important disagreements, . 190-192 Bearing of the single fact, that the East rejects the Romish unity on the theory of development, . 193, 194 History furnishes a true experimentum crucis between .... 1 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 Mr. 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 West, . 200, 201 xxu CONTENTS. PAGE. LETTER V. Principle of development in its nature unlimited, . 202 Romanist restriction not only arbitrary, but destructive of the prin¬ ciple, . 203 Mr. Newman’s system is Rationalism under Roman colours, . . 204 His inconsistency, and probable causes of it, . 205 Natural result of the development theory, . ib. Its inapplicability to Mr. Newman’s purpose, . 205, 206 The history of speculative philosophy has probably given rise to and illustrates danger of this theory of Christianity, . 206 Variation of doctrine in the ancient teachers, . 207 They delivered not definite doctrines, but ideas to be developed, . 208 Analogy of Christianity, according to Mr. Newman, and consequent uncertainty, . ib. The doctrines of Christianity alleged to be only samples of its ideas, . . . 209, 210 If so, the Apostles had but a defective knowledge of Christianity, . 211 Imperfect information of the first tcenturies according to this theory, . 211-213 The Apostles hnew and communicated all necessary doctrine, 214, 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 necessary doctrine 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 (Ecumenical 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 form and disposition of the doctrine, the resolutions of Coun¬ cils will differ considerably from 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. XX111 PAGE, Peculiar claims of the early Councils to authoritative 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 Matter, of these dogmatic decisions, . . . 237, 238 The work of systematizing and applying doctrine, by Synods and Doctors, is the reality which Mr. Newman distinguishes under the term Development, . 238 LETTER VI. Process by which Christian doctrines have become gradually syste¬ matized, . 240 Concession that theological knowledge is capable of a real move¬ ment, . ib. 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, . 243 Inspired men would not require a systematized creed, .... ib. Uninspired teachers would require formal scheme of doctrines, . . 244 Presumption against 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, . 249 In what senses logical development may introduce doctrines appa¬ rently new, . 250, 251 Difficulty in 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 individual teachers, . 253 Importance of a due estimate of these first systematizers, .... ib. Their advantage, in recent inheritance of original doctrine, . 254-256 Their disadvantage in inexperience, and its consequences, . 256, 257 XXIV CONTENTS. PAGE. The evidence of antiquity is not the same in amount for all the doc¬ trines we are bound to receive, . 258 Quantity of historical proof varies in different cases, . 259 Vincentian rule not to be strictly interpreted, . 259, 260 Judicious generality of terms in the canon “ Concionatoresf . . . 260 Amount of evidence required for doctrine is not revealed, and must be determined inductively, . 261 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,” . . 263 This word Faith used in two senses, . ib. 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 LETTER VII. Mr. 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 circle, . 271 Examination of his arguments for a Developing Authority, ... ib. The Infallibility at issue is that alleged to be vested in the Church 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 Infallibility: 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, . . 278-281 More needed in East than West, . 281 IV. First development of the Roman Supremacy not doctrinal, but disciplinary, . 2S1, 282 V. The history of dogmas contradicts the fancy of regular deve¬ lopment guided by this local directory, . 282 Examples of various developments inconsistent with such infal¬ libility of Rome, . 283-288 History of heresies contradicts infallibility of Roman See, 288, 289 VI. Christianity admits of “ Historical Development” (See Lett. II. p. 60), . 289 These historical developments are adaptations to diversities of circumstances, . ib. A local infallible authority incompatible with such develop¬ ments, . 289-292 Out of this incompatibility arose the Reformation, . . 292, 293 VII. 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, . 298 Unalterable in doctrine, Christianity may vary in external pre¬ sentation, . ib. Rome exactly reverses this rule, . 298-300 VIII. 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 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 all schools, . 311-313 Limitation of the principle as connected with claimed infallibility, . 313 No contradiction in the abstract conception of a knowledge always 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, . 315 Comparison of development hypothesis with rival hypotheses, as a concession to Mr. 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- Roman, . 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, 321 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, 321 Corruption of human nature, . 322 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 difficulties as regards the past in the hypothesis which connects perpetual infallibility with perpetual development : dif¬ ficulties as regards the future, . 326 Decisions of a developing Church can be only provisional, . 326-330 May 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 CONTENTS. XXV11 PAGE. 1. Supreme Authority viewed as dependent on general movement of the Church, . . . . 334 The infallible Authority cannot decide on a subject insufficiently 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 development 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 belief, . 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 within a developing Church, . 348 Position of an individual speculator in the Roman Church on this hypothesis of development, . 348-351 Mr. 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, . 355 General object of the first, or theoretical, part of his treatise, . . 356 Summary of his arguments, . 356-358 Charge against Barrow of logical deficiency, . 359 Mr. Newman’s self-contradiction with respect to the primitive evi¬ dence for the Papacy, . 359, 360 His instances of hypotheses similar to his own, . 360-363 Admission of Mr. Newman’s general principles respecting moral evidence, . They are applicable only under certain qualifications : Qualification 1, . 363 Qualification 2, . 364 Qualification 3, . 364, 365 • • • XXV111 CONTENTS. PAGE. Mr. 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 Mr. 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 infallibility 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 Mr. 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 4. Main distinction, according to Mr. 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 originally delivered in its full perfection, . 390 Proof of its Divine origin that it provides for all possible variety of circumstances, . . . . 391 -J -4.’^ LETTERS, A -n A V h • &c. &c. LETTER I. Dear Sir, When I had last the pleasure of see¬ ing you, you were so good as to request me to give you an opinion of the worka of Mr. Newman, 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 which the performance of such a writer, 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 fearful amount of evil, which (with of course the purest intentions) the Author of this work and his companions are exerting all the energies of accomplished minds to achieve. Mr. New¬ man, in a very solemn and affecting address at the a [Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. Lond. 1845.] B 2 ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF [LETT. I. close of his volume, warns us against undue prepos¬ sessions ; bids us “ not determine that to be truth which we wish 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 work with the profound conviction, that had not the mournful delusion against which he cautions us been his own, the book itself had never been written ! The reasonings and speculations of this remarkable volume suggest a multitude of considerations, for which it would be unreasonable to expect you could supply space. I shall, therefore, confine myself as much as possible to observations of a very general character, such as I may trust to make tolerably intelligible within a narrow compass. Detailed investigations of Mr. Newman’s citations and authorities will, I doubt not, be furnished abundantly in the progress of the contro¬ versy. This latter part of the inquiry, moreover, ap¬ pears to me of the less importance, that the volume does not seem to add many new 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 Mr. Newman s theory is simply this : — That the original doctrines of the Christian Church LETT. I.] CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 3 were intended by its Founder to be subsequently “deve¬ loped” into a variety of new forms and aspects ; tliat such a development was antecedently natural and ne¬ cessary ; that the process was conducted under infal¬ lible guidance; and that the existing belief of the Roman communion is its mature result. Those who have but this conception of Mr. Newman’s views can, of course, scarcely do full justice to his argument ; I must, however, add, that this limited acquaintance with 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 whole volume from 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, would crowd, 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, how far Mr. Newman’s doctrine is at all the received doctrine of the Roman Church, or would be regarded by its authorities as any other than a most perilous innovation. Convenient as it may now 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 much surprised if, as the controversy proceeds, it be not in substance disavowed15 as a private and unauthoritative hypothesis. b [Mr. 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, BrownsorCs Quarterly Review (Boston, U. S.), in a series of very B 2 4 ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF [LETT. 1. It has been said that Mohler0 and De Maistre11, to whom Mr. Newman refers as having adopted somewhat simi¬ lar views (p. 27), have not at all met with universal concurrence among the members of their own com¬ munion ; yet, neither of them has dared to approach able articles. “We 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 committed to the Church was perfect.” This revelation is divided by Romish theologians into Scripture and Tradition, but all, except the new school of develop¬ ment, have agreed as to the perfection of the revelation. In direct opposition to the Americans, and to the consentient teaching of the Romish divines, Dr. Wiseman and the Dublin Revieiv warmly espouse the cause of Mr. 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 Symbolile , Part i. chap, v., he ex¬ pounds his theory of development (edit. Tubingen, 1832; Munich, 1838) _ Vid. Hagenbach’s Hist, of Doctrines , Vol. ii.] d Mr. Newman might, perhaps, have added the eloquent, enthu¬ siastic, wrong-headed La Mennais : “ On la voit (la religion) tou- jours ancienne et toujours nouvelle, conserver son unite ciu milieu des developpemens successifs par lesquels elle passe.” “Elle n’a pas change en passant dTme revelation a l’autre ; elle n’a fait que se developper et paraitre avec un nouveau degre de lumiere et d’au- torite, &c.” La Mennais, however, applies 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 sur V Indifference.^ [It is a mistake to regard De Maistre 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 always believed.” — Du Pape, Liv. i., edit. Paris, 1841. See Dr. Wordsworth’s Letters to M. Gondon, p. 31.] LETT. I.] CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 5 the candid and courageous avowals of Mr. Newman. The more cautious and long-sighted theologians of the Koman communion have always discountenanced the earlier forms6 of the present venturous hypothesis. The case of Petaviusf, and the cordial adoption8 by the Gallican Church of even his heretical refuter, will at once occur to every one. [I 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. Wordsworth's Letters to M. Gondon, pp. 23-36.] f [Petavius and Newman both employ depreciation of ancient Christianity as their best defence of modern Romish corruptions. They both contend that the Tridentine Creed is a correction of its errors, or an enlargement of its imperfect knowledge. The words of Bishop Bull respecting Petavius might have been written for a description of the development school. From the supposition, that the primitive fathers were in error, or imperfectly instructed in Christian doctrine, says the learned Bishop, “ Llasc duo facile conse¬ quents ; 1. Patribus trium primorum sasculorum, quos imprimis appellare solent Catholici Reformati, parurn tribuendum esse : ut- pote quibus nondum satis perspecta et patefacta fuerunt prsecipua Christianas hdei capita. 2. Concilia oecumenica potestatem habere novos fidei articulos condendi, sive (ut Petavius loquitur) constituendi et patefaciendi ; unde satis prospectum videatur additamentis illi-s, quas regulas fidei assuerunt quasque Christiano orbi obtruserunt Patres Tridentini. Sed istius scholas magistris nulla religio est pseudo-catliolicam suam fidem super fidei vere Catholicas ruinas asdificare.” — Def Fid. Nic. Procem. § 8.] s [The thanks of the Gallican Church, synodically assembled at St. Germain en Laye, for Bull's Judicium Ecc. Cath. (pour le ser¬ vice qu’il rend a l’Eglise Catholique en defendant si bien le juge- ment qu’elle a porte sur la necessite de croire la Divinite du Fils de Dieu), were communicated by Bossuet, in a letter to Mr. 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] 6 ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF [LETT. I. Mr. Newman appears fully to sympathize with the re¬ jected doctrine of Petavius; e.g. p. 12, &c. 297, where he distinctly denies any Ante-Nicene consensus on the doctrine of the Trinity, “as the word ( consensus ) is now commonly understood” — whatever that qualifica¬ tion may import. See also p. 398.] In the memor¬ able first edition of Bossuet’sh “Exposition,” suppressed, and recovered1 by our excellent Wakej, the following passage occurred ( Wake, p. xxiv.): 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 development.] 1 [Archbishop Wake should not receive credit for having been the earliest observer of the variations which are manifest upon a collation of the first and second editions of Bossuet’s book. The discovery had been made thirteen or fourteen years previously by M. de la Bastide ; and though the Reponse to Bossuet, published by this writer, appeared without the author’s name, yet the learned and accurate Bayle did not fail to trace its origin. — See his Epist. ad fin. Deckherri De Scriptt. adesp. Conjecture p. 398. Amstel. 1686 _ G.] j [Archbishop Wake ( Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the several Articles proposed by M. deMeaux , &c., 3rd edit. London, 1687) states that Bossuet’s Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church first appeared in manuscript, and was composed either to “ satisfy or seduce the late Mareschal de Turenne,” want¬ ing then the chapters “of the Eucharist, Tradition, the Authority of the Church and Pope, which now make up the most considerable part of it.” The other parts were so loosely expressed, that “ Pro¬ testants who saw it generally believed that Mons. de Meaux 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.] CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 7 “ For M. Daille, he thinks fit to confine himself to the first three centuries , in which it is certain that the Church has left many things to be cleared afterwards, both in its doctrine and in its practice.” This was erased by the doctors of the Sorbonne, as wholly inadmissible, even with the authority of a Bossuet to back it : what would they have said to Mr. Newman’s enterprise, which risks the authority and obligation of nearly all the chief differences between us and the Roman Church upon the fortunes of a theory, itself a more novel “ development” of theologi¬ cal teaching than even they, by his own admission, are now conceded to be ? Where has the Church of Rome ever sanctioned such a solution of its controversial embarrassments ? Its authorized doctrine is unques¬ tionably that the very teaching of the present hour, in all its fulness and precision, has itself been uninter¬ ruptedly preserved from the days of the Apostles. “Ha3C veritas et disciplina contineturkin libris scrip tis et sine scripto traditionibus, quce ipsius Christi ore ah publication, Bossuet, anxious to obtain the imprimatur of the Sor¬ bonne, submitted 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 palliating, 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 the first edition. And Arch¬ bishop Wake 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 Mons. de Meauxf from which Professor Butler quotes in the text.] k [uSy nodus Tridentina .... perspiciensque lianc veritatem et disciplinam contineri.” — G.] 8 ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF [LETT. I. Apostolis acceptor , aut ab ipsis Apostolis, Spiritu Sancto dictante, quasi per manus traditce , 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 continud successione in Ecclesid Catholica conservatas, pari pietatis affectu [ac reverentia] suspicit [et veneratur] (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 which I beg to draw Mr. Newman’s attention, as bearing on his views 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 unanimem consensum Patrum ipsam Scripturam sacram interpretari audeat.” Mr. Newman, himself, if admitted into the Roman communion according to the usual “ Form of reconciling Converts1,” has solemnly sworn and professed that he would “ never take and interpret the Scriptures otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers a vow palpably irreconcileable with the theory, that on many most im¬ portant points of doctrine, proveable (as Mr. Newman 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; ( Scicerdotale , foil. 42, 44. Venet. 1579-) and in the Pon¬ tifical, where the “ Ordo ad reconciliandum Apostatam, Schismati- cum, vel Htereticum” is found, there is not any such oath or obli¬ gation enjoined as that which was prescribed, in the year 15G4, by the Bulls In sacrosancta and Injunctum nobis of Pope Pius IV. — G.] LETT. I.] CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 9 Accordingly, to this test of perpetual tradition, rightly or wrongly affirmed, the Council invariably appeals: “ Ea verba ( Horn . iii. 28, &c.) in eo sensu intelligenda sunt, quem perpetuus Ecclesise Catholicre consensus tenuit et expressit.” — Sess. vi. Cap. 8. In the administration of the Eucharist, — “ qui mos tan- quam ex traditione apostolicd descenclens jure ac merito retineri debet.” — Sess. xiii. Cap. 8. [De Euchar.] Of Confession to a Priest. “UniversaEcclesia semper intellexit, institutam [etiam] esse a Domino integram peccatorum confessionem, et omnibus post baptismum lapsis jure divino necessarian existere.” — Sess. xiv. Cap. 5. [De Poenitentia.] I cannot but interrupt my citations to ask Mr. New¬ man — does he, with his knowledge of ecclesiastical and ritual history, believe that assertion? To proceed — Of Extreme Unction [Sess. xiv. Cap. 1. De Extrern. Unct.] “ Quibus verbis [James, v. 14, 15,] ut ex apostolicd traditione per manus acceptd Ecclesia didicit, docet ma- teriam, formam, proprium ministrum, et effectum hujus salutaris sacramenti.” Once more I cannot help asking the writer who 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 Holy Communion ; and that this belief, in all its fulness, was uninterruptedly held in the universal Church ? But again — Of the entire Doctrine of the Mass (including the ordination of priesthood at the 10 ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF [LETT. I Last Supper, the celebration of masses to obtain the intercession of saints, the custom of masses in which the priest alone communicates, the custom of whisper¬ ing the words of consecration and other parts of the “ Canon Missae,” and the mixture of water 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 developments of primitive beliefs, but that they are a “ tides fundata in sacrosancto evangelio, aposto- lorum traditionibus, sanctorum que patrum doctrina,” which last, it has been previously assumed, must be “unanimis” to be authoritative. Sess.xxi. [xxii.] Cap. 9, [De Sac. Missse], et Canon. Of all the inferior orders of the ministry it declares that — “ Ab ipso initio Ecclesice sequentium ordinum nomina, atque uniuscuj usque eorum propria ministerial subdiaconi scilicet, acolythi, exorcists, lectoris, et ostiarii, in usufu- isse cognoscuntur.” — Sess. xxiii. Cap. 2. [DeSacr.Ord]. Of Marriage 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 Ecclesice traditio semper docuerunt ” this truth, and that the heretics, who hesitate to admit that some¬ what startling proposition, “ multa ab Ecclesis Catho¬ lics sensu et ab apostolorum temporibus probata consue- tudine aliena [scripto et verbo] asseruerunt.” — Sess. xxiv. [De Sac. Mat.] Of Purgatory it pronounces that it teaches it “ex anti qua Patrum traditione.” — Sess.xxv. [De Pur.] Masses for souls in Purgatory are “juxta apostolorum traditionem;”as we are infallibly assured. — Sess. xxii. Cap. 2. [De Sacrific. Misss]. The interces- LETT. I.] CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 11 sion of saints, the invocation of saints, the honour due to relics, and even the “ legitimus imaginum usus,” the Council gravely declares to be “juxta [Catholics et Apostolicte] Ecclesim usum a primcevis Christiana? reli- gionis temporibus receptum” — [Sess. xxv. De Invoc. &c.] And even in admitting, as the notoriety of the fact compels, that the half-communion is an innovation, it reduces the alteration under the principle that the Church has power over the mere circumstantials of the sacraments (which, of course, in its right application, we all admit), “ licet ab initio Christianas religionis non infrequens( !) u triusque speciei usus fuisset.” — Sess. xxi. Cap. 2 [De Comrnunh] Such are most of the principal passages of the Coun¬ cil in which its views with regard to the rule of Catho¬ lic faith are stated or illustrated. And these are not to be mistaken. The distinct dogmatical enunciation of the fundamental principle at the outset, and all its subsequent applications to special cases as they arose, are quite sufficient to evince that between Mr. New¬ man’s theory and the views of the Tridentine Synod- ists there is an irreconcileable discrepancy ; that they assuredly would never have tolerated his venturesome surrender of antiquity; that those who are induced by his statements to accept the theology of Home, are in fact adopting for that theology an hypothesis her gravest authorities have, by their solemn and inspired m decision, for ever precluded. And this is notoriously the doctrine of the chief expositors of Romanism. They nearly all earnestly m [“ Sacrosancta Tridentina Synodus, in Spiritu Sancto legitime congregata,” passim .] 12 ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF [LETT. I. maintain that all her tenets, not expressly delivered in Scripture, are, in the clear literal sense, genuine apostolic traditions ; that the Holy Virgin was wor¬ shipped, that images were publicly bowed before in the churches, that saints and angels were solemnly invoked, by the immediate disciples of the apostles. How they have insulted at times, and in particular instances, the venerable writers of antiquity, is indeed well known11; but it was only after the most laborious efforts to force upon their words the modern sense ; and always with the general assertion that the “ unani¬ mous consent of the Fathers” was strictly theirs. Indeed Mr. Newman himself seems in some degree aware that his hypothesis requires some apology. Fie proceeds to defend it by philosophical analogies ; with¬ out at all remembering that, whatever may be its in¬ terest or value as a philosophical speculation, it is by anticipation condemned by the very authorities to whose support it is devoted. After admitting that the Disciplina Arcani °, so long the favourite resource of n See for a cluster of instances, the Fourth Part of James’s Trea¬ tise on Romish “ Corruption of Scripture, Councils, and Fathers,” &c. (p. 359, edit. 1688 — On “ Contemning and Condemning of Fathers.” 0 [An excellent account of this matter may be found in Bing¬ ham’s Antiquities , Book x. Chapter v. The most celebrated treatises on the Romish side of the question were published by the Vatican librarian Schelstrate, and the Benedictine Scholliner ; the former, Romee, 1685, and the latter, typis Monast. Tegerns. 1756. Daille maintains that the ancient Discipline was not introduced previously to the year 260; ( De libris suppos. Dion, et Ignat, i. xxii. 142.) but Tertullian has plainly spoken of the silence observed with respect to mysteries. ( Apol . Cap. vii.) It remains, nevertheless, for Romanists to adduce even the shadow of a proof that the peculiarities of their LETT. I.] CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 13 Roman controversialists, is utterly inadequate to solve tlie admitted “ difficulty” of the “ variation” of medias- system were among the sacred truths in which catechumens were gradually initiated. — G.] [See Faber’s Apostolicity of Trinitarianism, 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 disciplinct 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 modern 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 conformity 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 prcescr. Hcer. xli.) that they are “ without discipline ; it is doubtful who is a catechumen, 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 Transit Yol. 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 chrism, or Confirmation. 3. The Ordination of Priests. 4. The manner of celebrating the Eucharist. 5. The Divine Service of the Church. 7. The mystery of the Tri¬ nity, the Creed, and Lord’s Prayer, until they were ready for Bap¬ tism.] 14 ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF [LETT. I. val from primitive Christianity, or, in other words, to account for the difference between the general systems of doctrine of which Rome and England are the ex- O isting representatives — lie proceeds, p. 27: “ It is undoubtedly an hypothesis to account for a difficulty ; and such are the various explanations given by astronomers, from Ptolemy to Newton, 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 well as accounts for them; 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 time 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 expedients, and so is the dictum of Vincentius, so is the art of grammar or the the use of the quadrant, it is an expedient to enable us to solve what has now become a necessary and an anxious problem.” And he adds, that “ the reception of the Roman doctrine cannot be immediately based on the results” of the theory; an assertion which (however incom¬ patible with the declaration in the postscript to Mr. Newmans 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 LETT. I.] CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 15 certain the Roman doctrine of tradition flatly contra¬ dicts the new theory. It will, I think, be moreover admitted that the pas¬ sage just cited is somewhat obscure. The “ difficulty” of which Mr. Newman speaks as if it were a perplexity common to us all, is surely a difficulty to none but a person who has embraced the Romish theory ; to him (and Mr. Newman abundantly discloses the feeling) the variations in question are indeed a most formida¬ ble difficulty ; to others they bring but the regret which charity must ever prompt when it witnesses the noblest gift of God — His holy and unchangeable truth — abused and sullied by the wanton perversity of man. And then the theory of Gravitation, in which the Principle and the Facts to be explained thereby are both unquestionable realities of experience, is com¬ pared to a solution resting upon two enormous hypo¬ thetical assumptions, — infallible guidance to a particu¬ lar Church, and a divine design of constantly manifest¬ ing new progressive forms and varieties of doctrine in the history of the Church at largep. What the nature of the analogy maybe between Vincentius’ Ruleq( which p “Some hypothesis,” says Mr. Newman, “all parties, all con¬ troversialists, all historians, must adopt, if they would 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 superfluous suppositions, — suppositions which can neither be previously proved to be facts, nor are required by the facts. q [In ipsa item Catholica. Ecclesia magnopere 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 am, I apprehend, perfectly justified in affirming, in the second place, that this theory — whatever judgment may be passed by the Roman 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 Mr. Newman’s application of the term) are absolutely incompatible. They are so ex vi termmorum. Even conceding (what no human inge¬ nuity will ever make commonly plausible to unpreju¬ diced minds,) that the mediaeval corruptions are legiti¬ mate developments of primitive doctrine, it is manifest that they are admitted not to be themselves primitive doctrine. Unless the acorn be the oak, the doctrine of the Incarnation is not “ the deification1, of St. Mary;” teneamus, quod ubique , quod semper, quod ab omnibus , creditum est. — Advers. Hceres. Oxon. A. D. 1631, Cap. iii. fol. 8.] r I adopt Mr. 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. Mr. Newman’s use of it is, how¬ ever, different from that of Rusbrock or Harphius; and infinitely more dangerous and unwarrantable. [Mr. Newman honestly confesses the “ Deification of S. Mary” 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 admirable “ Letters to Charles Butler , Esq.,” has proved but too clearly how correct is the term used by Mr. Newman to express the Romish cultus of the Blessed Virgin. LETT. I.] CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 17 — unless the oak can be “ developed” from the acorn, yet be with it simultaneous, these doctrines did not originally exist together. I have, indeed, not the least doubt that this theory will but add another to Mr. Newman’s retractations before long, its controversial inconveniences being so pressing and palpable; but, in the mean time, be it remembered that the concession has been made — made by a writer whose competency in point of learning no one, I suppose, will doubt, and who has proved, by the most decisive of all tests, his attachment to the system whose peculiarities he thus candidly admits to have no distinct and definite model in antiquity. And having once adopted his theory, Mr. Newman But on no point have Romish polemics spent more subtilty, than in denying this deification, and reconciling the denial with their teach¬ ing respecting her whom we, as well as they, call blessed.] [Dr. Milner ( End of Controv. Letter xxxiii.) cites with approba¬ tion the following words which occur in Bp. Challoner’s abridgment of Gother’s Papist misrepresented and represented : “ Cursed is every Goddess- worshipper,” &c. It is remarkable, however, that Justus Lipsius, in his Virgo Hallensis , has frequently styled the Virgin Mary “ Goddess (Molinaei Ico7iomach. 94. Tenison Of Idol. 230.) and Cardinal Bembo, writing in the name of Pope Leo X., has also given to her the same name. ( Epistt . viii. xvii. 294. Basil. 1566.) No longer then can it be said with truth, that “ inauditum est Ca- tholicis Mariam pro Dea colendam.” (Canisius, De Maria 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. Thomce Secundam Secundce , Qusest. lxxxviii. Art. v. fol. 145, b. Lugd. 1540. Cont. Hadr. Lyraei Trisagion Marianum , p. 10. Antv. 1648.) Accordingly in the preface to the second Book of sacred Ceremonies mention is distinctly made of “Divorum nostrorum Apotheoses.” (fol. 148. Colon. Agripp. 1557.)— G.] 18 ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF [LETT. I. is too candid, his unquestioning “ faith” too fearless, to evade the admission. We have already seen how he styles his hypothesis an “ expedient” to remedy the great and oppressive “difficulty” of the “apparent variation” of the Romanism of Pius IV. from that of Clemens Romanus. lie follows the difficulty through all its details. At the outset he meets and rejects the time-honoured canon of Vincentius; how much trouble would have been spared our divines, had this honest policy been adopted in earlier days ! The rule of Vincentius is “ hardly available now, or effective of any satisfactory result.” — p. 24. He argues, with 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 where the scriptural evidence is so clear, to his argument as against the Anglican Rule of Faith; and that if they do, they are utterly incompatible — 1, with the doctrine of perpetual infallibility; 2, with that of u the unanimous consent of the Fathers;” and 3, with the theory of develop¬ ment itself, unless (admitting the early Church in par¬ tial error, and the latter wholly right) we hold that a germ can be “developed” into its own contradictory. Mr. Newman, indeed, seems to consider it a sort of proof of the vitality of (what he calls) Catholicism, that it can survive incessant self-contradictions. “ The theology of St. Thomas, nay, of the very Church of his period, is built on that very Aristotelism, which the early fathers denounce as the source of all misbe¬ lief, and in particular, of the Arian and Monophysite LETT. I.] CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 19 heresies.” — p. 451. And lie exults, that the Roman Church can achieve these mysterious transmutations of belief, with a dignity, grace, and security the various sects would emulate in vain : an argument of divine protection which can only be compared with its moral counterpart, the celebrated inference of Baronius8 from the wickedness of the Popes of the tenth century, that the See of Peter must be the object of special favour from heaven, to have outlived such unparalleled mon¬ sters. As might be expected from this course of ar¬ gument, Mr. Newman treats the lights of the early Church with strong general approbation and keen particular censure. When it becomes apparently dan¬ gerous to admit a doctrine of great importance to be altogether a modern “ development,” the ancient tes¬ timonies that oppose it are easily resolved into the peculiarities of a “ school.” Thus there was (which, indeed, is true enough) the “ Syrian school”1, p. 287: and this Syrian school appears to have been strangely blind to the Lateran dogma of “ Transubstantiation;” for “certainly some of the most cogent passages brought s [See Ussher’s Works, Yol. ii. p. 69 Ed. Elrington.] [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 laments, as the greatest misfortune, 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.] * [The Syrian School is meant by Mr. Newman to express not any localized institution (such as the school of Alexandria), but a “ me¬ thod characteristic of the Syrian churches,” which method was an application to the critical and literal sense of Scripture, as distin- c 2 20 ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF [LETT. I. by moderns against the Catholic doctrine of the Eu¬ charist, are taken from writers who are connected with that school;” in support of which Mr. Newman speci¬ fies St. Chrysostom’s memorable letter to Caesarius", (of great importance, as being a direct dogmatical statement, of perfect clearness and simplicity, and so forming a key to all that great preacher’s lofty meta- guished from the mystical and allegorical. Of this school Dorotheus was one of the earliest teachers ; its great exegetical doctor was Theodore of Mopsuestia. Mr. Newman refers further to this school S. Cyril of Jerusalem, and also S. Chrysostom and Theodoret, both Syrians.] 11 [“Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur panis, panem nominamus; divina autem ilium sanctificante gratia, mediante Sacerdote, libera- tus est quidem ab appellatione panis, dignus autem habitus Dominici Corporis appellatione, etiamsi natura panis in ipso permansit, et non duo Corpora, sed unum Corpus Filii praedicamus,” &c. (Opp. Tom. iii. p. 744. edit. Bened.) The Epistle of S. Chrysostom to the Monk Caesarius was adduced in controversy by Peter Martyr about the year 1548, 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 document was destroyed or lost, and Cardinal Du Perron availed himself of the opportunity thus presented of pro¬ nouncing it to be a forgery. ( De VEucliar. pp. 381-3.) However, after much discussion and recrimination between the contending parties, the letter was published at Paris, in 1680, by Emericus Bigotius, in company with Palladius’s Life of Chrysostom. This proceeding was not acceptable to some Doctors of the Sorbonne; and they actually caused the printed leaves to be exterminated, without providing anything to supply their place. An Expostulatio with reference to this disreputable conduct of the Parisian Divines was prefixed by Peter Allix to S. Anastasius In Hexaemeron , Lond. 1682 ; and a very minute description of the mutilation may be found in the Preface to Mr. Mendham’s Index of Pope Gregory XVI ’., pp. xxxii-iv. Lond. 1840. Le Moyne put forth this important Epistle at the end of the first volume of his Varia Sacra , in 1685; and the LETT. I.] CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 21 phors in other places,) Theodoret’sT similar and irre¬ sistible statement, and Facundusw. At other times, he admits that the earlier writers were “ left in igno¬ rance ,” and subsequent teachers “ completed their work;” and he proceeds to specify the following in¬ stances of a “ completion” of primitive views, which will give your readers a fair exemplification of the meaning of the “ theory of development,” and its ad¬ mirable uses in controversy: — “ Clement may hold a purgatory, yet tend to con¬ sider all punishment purgatorial, . St. Hilary may believe in a purgatory, yet confine it to the day of judgment . 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 Marquis MafFei from a MS. in the library of the Dominicans of S. Mark at Florence. See it in the Lectiones Antiquce of Canisius, according to Basnage’s impres¬ sion, Tom. i. pp. 233-237. Antverp. 1725. Cf. Routh, Scriptorum Eccles. Opusc. ii. 127. Oxon. 1840. — G.] y [jAt'TOS' t a opuopeva ovpfioXa 77] rod ’Suiparos teal 'A i/icno? irpoai]-