library colonial ^cwvmmj, PRINCETON , N. J D , , - - - -*■ --- ! BT 19 .P34 1846 ftg5 Palmer, William, 1803 1885. The doctrine of development and conscience ✓ M f •• ■ • •» ■' • ■■■ ' : £ - 4 c • ' • \ •... , ‘:'v : ■ . % V ' •'V : THE DOCTRINE OF DEVELOPMENT AND CONSCIENCE CONSIDERED IN RELATION TO THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY AND OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM. BY THE REV. WILLIAM PALMER, M.A. OF WORCESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD, AND AUTHOR OF “ ORIGTNES LITURGICAE.” LONDON: FRANCIS & JOHN RIVINGTON, st. Paul’s church yard, and Waterloo place. ] 846 *. LONDON Oil,BERT AND RIVINGTON, PRINTERS, ST. JOHN S SQUAR R TO THE REV. RICHARD GRESWELL, B.D. F.R.S. &c. C i) t £ W o I tt m t , IS INSCRIBED, IN AFFECTIONATE AND GRATEFUL REMEMBRANCE OF HIS LONG CONTINUED FRIENDSHIP Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/doctrineofdeveloOOpalm PREFACE. The doctrine of Development, which forms the principal subject of the following pages, has already, in several instances, been so ably and judiciously treated by other writers, that the appearance of the present work seems to require some explanation. The Theory of Development, as expounded in the remarkable Essay which has recently, from various causes, attracted such general attention, is one which presents so many different aspects and tendencies, that it would afford ample scope to various writers, even if no differences existed amongst them on religious questions. In the present state of things, however, the modes of treating such a subject must necessarily be multiplied by the prevalent diversities of opinion. Writers of a speculative and philosophical turn, will not be likely to adopt the same views of it as other writers whose tendencies are of a more practical description. The mere Protestant, again, or the Evangelical, or the Latitudinarian, will necessarily VI PREFACE. contemplate the subject from different points of view. And it need scarcely be added, that those who recognize the authority of the Church, hold principles, which, as far as they operate, must give a character to the inquiry peculiar to themselves. In addition to this, the space which is afforded to the discussion of so wide a question, forms no unim¬ portant consideration, and must exercise a material influence on the character of the inquiry. These circumstances will convey some notion of the grounds on which it is hoped, that the present work may not be regarded as superfluous by, at least, some portion of the Church. But there are other considerations, of a more general nature, which have influenced the Author in his undertaking, and which he will proceed to explain. The circumstances under which the Theory of Development has been, for some few years past, gradually insinuating itself in private society, and under which it has, at length, taken a definite shape and consistency in the eyes of the world, have a force and meaning, which are of far greater depth and importance than it is possible to ascribe to the mere publication of Mr. Newman’s work, however learned and ingenious that production may be. These circumstances are, first, the uneasy and restless spirit of speculation, which has for several years produced theory after theory on religious subjects, each pro¬ pounded with consummate boldness and confidence, and each as speedily forgotten, or rejected by its authors. Instability of doctrine on the most impor- PREFACE. Vll tant subjects, combined with contempt for those who have not been “ tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine,” was the natural prelude to the lapse which we have witnessed, and which brings to our minds the language of the Apostle : “ They went out from us, for they were not of us.” The Communion to which the party have, for the present at least, united themselves, would have had more reason to felicitate itself on their accession, if they had not, for the most part, avowed, that they had not been led to take such a step by any examina¬ tion of the evidences or claims of the Communion to which they have attached themselves, but simply by the impulses of their moral nature, or their conscience, or some other inward feeling which is entirely dis¬ tinct from rational inquiry; and which, as it has led them to one Communion, might, with just as much reason, have led them to any other. But these circumstances acquire greater impor¬ tance when considered in connexion with the spirit of the Age. Progress is the watch-word of phi¬ losophy,—of general science,—of the speculative and the practical spirit, alike, in the present day. Pro¬ gress—Development, —is the idol of all who go along with the spirit of the Age. And hence arise rash ventures; experiments in religion and in politics; a fever of speculation; and a corresponding indiffer¬ ence, and even hostility to established Doctrines and Institutions. Hence the mere antiquity of Insti¬ tutions or Laws is urged as a reason for their abolition; while sudden and startling changes of opinion, and Vlll PREFACE. I revolutionary innovations, are held to be the surest proofs of enlargement of mind, and conformity to the spirit of the Age. Such are the characteristics of the times in which Providence has placed us. But to the Christian, these tendencies have a still deeper import, in their relation to the interests of religion itself. Is the spirit of the Age to find an entrance even into the bosom of Christianity ? Are we to have here also, the same restless speculation; the same temerity; the same innovation; the same sudden changes on the most vital points ? We have seen the result of religious speculation in Germany: are we to arrive at the same conclusion? The Theory of Development, in this point of view, assumes an importance which it is not easy to estimate; and for the same reason, the doctrine of Mysticism, which has recently emanated from the same School, and which, with the apparent or real object of promoting moral culture, assigns Conscience as the sole judge of religious truth, to the exclusion of all the external evidences of religion, is highly deserving of the attention of the Christian inquirer ; not merely from the unhappy consequences to which it has led; but as indicative of the increasing tendency to a merely subjective religion—to the rejection of all external Revelation as binding on our belief. One leading object of the following pages is, to examine and refute the unsafe theories of Develop¬ ment and Conscience put forth in the writings of Mr. Newman and Mr. Ward. To answer the entire PREFACE. IX of these works from point to point, would demand a space which would exceed all due limits; but when the whole design which the author has proposed to himself shall have been completed, he trusts that little in the way of argument will remain in the “ Essay on Development,” or 44 the Ideal of a Chris¬ tian Church,” which will not have been noticed. The design proposed consists of two Parts, the First including an examination of the theories of Development and Conscience recently propounded, together with an argument founded on them, against Romanism; the Second, comprising an argument in behalf of the Catholic system, as it stands distin¬ guished from Romanism on the one hand, and from Rationalism and Anarchy on the other; together with a vindication of this system, as held by our greatest Divines, against the principal objections which have been recently advanced by Latitudinarians, Sec¬ tarians, Eclectics, Mystics, and Romanists. The unexpected length, however, to which the work has extended, and the impossibility of com¬ pleting the whole design in a single volume, has led to the separate publication of the First Part, which is now submitted to the reader; and which will, it is hoped, be followed, before long, by the remaining Part. ■ CONTENTS OF THE FIRST PART. CHAPTER I. EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY PROPOSED BY SCRIPTURE AND BY THE EARLY APOLOGISTS. PAGE 1. Introductory .......... 1 2. Evidences of Christianity proposed in Scripture ... 2 3. Christianity addressed to the reasoning faculties ... 5 4. Christianity necessarily possesses evidences .... 6 5. Evidences of Christianity in Justin Martyr .... 7 6. Contrast between Heathenism and Christianity . . . .10 7. Evidence for the Existence and Unity of God . . . .12 8. Proofs of the truth of Christianity from Origen . . . .14 9. Arguments of Eusebius and Arnobius . . . . .15 10. Argument of Lactantius . . . . . . . .16 11. Nature of the evidence for Christianity . . , . .19 CHAPTER II. THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY AS RELATED TO ROMANISM. 1. Summary of the Evidences of Christianity . . . . .21 2. Foundations of the Homan Catholic system ..... 23 3. Operation of this system on the Scriptures ..... 23 4. Romish argument for the truth of Christianity .... 28 5. This argument inconsistently employed by Romanists . . 31 6. The Romish system different from that of the Gospel . . 34 « • CONTENTS. Xll CHAPTER III. THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY AS RELATED TO RATIONALISM. PAGE 1. Rationalism inconsistent with the notion of Religion ... 36 2. Evidences of Religion subverted by Rationalism .... 40 3. Uncertainty of Rationalism . . . . • • .41 4. Unitarianism a branch of Rationalism ..... 42 5. The doctrine of “ Progress” in Religion.44 CHAPTER IV. THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY AS RELATED TO MYSTICISM. 1. Various forms of Mysticism ....... 46 2. Mysticism in Germany—Sender. . 47 3. Religion of Sentiment—Schleiermacher, Ue Wette ... 48 4. Deistical tendencies of these Theories ..50 5. Connexion of Mysticism and Rationalism.50 CHAPTER V. THE EVIDENCES OF RELIGION SUBVERTED BY RECENT THEORIES OF CONSCIENCE. 1. Mystical Theory of Conscience recently propounded ... 53 2. Mr. Ward’s Theory described . . . . . . .54 3. Continuation of the same subject ....... 57 4. Operation of this theory on the Evidences of Christianity . . 60 5. Its bearing on Holy Scripture ....... 61 6. Mr. Newman’s Theory described ....... 64 7- Difference between this Theory and that of Mr. Ward . . 66 8. Inconsistent positions of Mr. Ward ...... 66 9. Inconsistent positions of Mr. Newman ...... 68 10. The new Theory of Conscience further detailed .... 70 11. Its general adoption by Mr. Newman’s adherents . . -72 12. Mx-. Newman’s principles on this subject stated . . . -71 13. Fallacy of the whole argument ....... 76 14. Its tendency to Fanaticism ........ 77 15. Its justification of Error and Heresy ...... 78 16. Mr. Newman’s Defence of his argument examined . . .81 17. Connexion of these views with Private Judgment ... 82 18. Consequences of the whole Theory examined .... 84 CHAPTER VI. MR. NEWMAN’S THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT COMPARED WITH PREVIOUS THEORIES. 1. Theory of Development founded in Rationalism .... 88 2. Contradictory principle of Sectarians ...... 89 CONTEXTS. Xlll PAGE 3. Argumentative basis of the Rationalistic Theory .... 90 4. Its prevalence in Germany—Doctrines of Krug, Ammon, Bret- schneider, Daub. 92 5. Blanco White’s Doctrine ..94 0. Doctrines of Channing and Professor Bush .... 95 7. Doctrines of Bishop Law ........ 97 8. Objects of Mr. Newman’s Theory of Development . . .100 9. His Theory stated ......... 102 10. Its bearing on Tradition . . . . . . . .103 11. Its speculative character, and hostility to fixed creeds . . .105 12. Its bearing on Catholic unity . . . . . . .107 13. Its treatment of Christian Antiquity ...... 107 14. Its inconsistent views of Revelation ...... 108 15. Comparison of this Theory with Rationalistic doctrines . 109 CHAPTER VII. THE THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT IDENTICAL WITH RATIONALISM. 1. Mr. Ward’s Defence against the charge of Rationalism . . 114 2. Mr. Newman’s Defence against the same charge . . . .115 3. His Tests of a true Development no Safeguard against Rationalism 118 4. The First Test examined . . . . . . . .118 5. The Second Test examined.. .121 8. The Third Test examined . . . . . . . .123 7- The Fourth Test examined ........ 124 8. The Fifth Test examined . . . . . . . .125 9. The Sixth Test examined . . . . . . . . 12G 10. The Seventh Test examined . . . . . . .127 11. The doctrine of a Developing Authority no Safeguard against Rationalism . . . . . . . . .128 12. Its argumentative basis stated . . . . . . .128 13. Rationalism consistent with this basis . . . . . .130 14. Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . .133 CHAPTER VIII. THE ARGUMENTATIVE FOUNDATION OF THE THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT EXAMINED. 1. Developments variously defined and divided . . . .134 2. Expressive Developments . . . . . . ■ .135 3. Inferential Developments . . . . . . . .136 4. True and False Developments . . . . * • .137 5. Probable and Improbable Developments . . . . .137 6. Affirmative and Negative Developments ..... 138 7- The faith of the early Church questioned by Mr. Newman . . 139 8. His Objections answered by his Admissions . . . . .141 XIV CONTENTS. PAGE I). Tendency of his argument to Rationalism and Deism . .142 10. Similar argument of Bretschneider answered by the Jesuit Perrone 145 11. Inconsistency of Mr. Newman’s theory ..... 145 12. His systematic arguments examined—The necessity of Developments 140 13. Argument from the universal character of Christianity, considered 140 14. Argument from the necessity of Scripture interpretations . .150 15. Argument from the defects of Scripture . . . . .150 16. Argument from the progressive character of Revelation . . 153 17- Argument from the obscurity of Scripture . . . . .150 18. Direct Scriptural argument—Its character . . . . .158 19. Argument from the parable of the mustard-seed . . . .150 20. Argument from the parable of the seed growing secretly . . 100 21. Argument from the parable of the leaven.101 22. Argument from Analogy considered . . . . . .102 23. Argument from Divine permission considered . . . .103 24. Argument from Christian Antiquity considered . . . .104 25. Mr. Ward’s argument on the same subject . . . . .100 20. Nature of the proofs for the Theory of Development . . .108 27. Refutation of the Theory commenced—Its prima facie impro¬ bability . . . . . . . . . .160 28. Scriptural Argument against the Theory . . . . .170 29. Argument from Christian Antiquity—Vincentius Lirinensis . . 177 30. Testimonies of the Fathers, Councils, and ancient Heresies . . 179 31. Testimonies of Roman Catholic writers . . . . .197 32. The Theory of Development refuted by the Jesuit Perrone . . 199 33. Refuted also by Liebermann ....... 202 34. Refuted by Mr. Newman himself ....... 203 35. The principle of Christian Antiquity received by the English Church.200 36. Approved also by the Foreign Reformation.210 37. Remarks on some expressions of a contrary tendency . . .212 38. Concluding observations . . . . . . . .213 CHAPTER IX. EVIDENCES AGAINST ROMANISM AFFORDED BY THE THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT. 1. Inconsistency a note of error . . . . . . .215 2. Romanism fundamentally inconsistent.217 3. This inconsistency further carried out . . . . . .218 4. Romish Theory of unwritten Tradition.219 5. Asserted by the Council of Trent ...... 22ft C. Asserted by Bellarmine and Bossuet . . . . . .221 7. Asserted by Milner.226 8. Asserted by Berrington and Kirk.228 9. Asserted by Wiseman.229 10. Confident appeals of Romanists to Apostolical Tradition . . 229 11. The Theory of the Disciplina A ream a sign of weakness . . 232 12. The Theory of Perrone, another sign of weakness . . . 233 13. Total Subversion of the whole system of Traditionary proof by the Theory of Development.234 CONTENTS. XV PAGE 14. Operation of this theory on the Papal Supremacy—Mohler . . 23G 15. Newman’s doctrines on this subject ...... 238 1G. Reflections on these admissions ....... 240 17. Operation of the Theory of Development on the other doctrines and practices of Romanism * . . . . . .241 18. Inconsistency of the Romish system ...... 245 19. Romanism derived from Heresy and Paganism .... 248 20. Romanism only founded on mystical interpretations of Scripture . 252 21. Proofs of this nature pronounced insufficient by Wiseman and Bellarmine .......... 253 22. They include the Rationalistic principle ..... 255 23. Bossuet’s “ Variations” refuted by the Theory of Development . 25G 24. Romish arguments from the Fathers answered by it . . 258 25. The Infallibility of the Church subverted by this theory . . 258 26. The Reformation justified by this theory ..... 259 CHAPTER X. DEVELOPMENT OF THE “ CULTUS ” OF THE SAINTS EXAMINED. 1. Nature of the argument.2G5 2. Subtlety and difficulty of the argument with Polytheists . . 26G 3. The declarations of Revelation decisive ..... 269 4. Evils of Gnosticism—Care of the Church to maintain the Unity of God.270 5. The Divinity of our Lord argued from by Polytheists . . .271 6. Arianism revives the Polytheistic principle ..... 272 7. Its Subterfuges justify Paganism ....... 277 8. The “ Cultus ” of the Saints identified with the Arian principle . 278 9. Their identity acknowledged by Romanists ..... 283 10. Difficult position of Romanism.284 11. The “ Cultus ” of Saints, a false Development of Christianity . 285 CHAPTER XI. DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY EXAMINED. 1. The doctrine of Purgatory derived from Paganism . . . 288 2. Mr. Newman’s first theory—Development of Purgatory from the doctrine of Post-baptismal sin ...... 290 3. Consequences of this theory ....... 292 4. Its foundation subverted by Romanism ..... 294 5. Second theory—the mixed character of the mass of Christians . 298 G. Results of this Theory ........ 299 7. Its inconsistency with the doctrine of the Council of Trent . . 300 8. Its contradictions ......... 303 9. Its bearing on Morality ........ 304 10. The doctrine of Purgatory, a false Development of Christianity . 305 XVI CONTENTS. CHAPTER XII. DEVELOPMENT OF THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES AND RELICS.-CONCLUSION. PAGE 1. Connexion of Romish doctrines ....... 307 2. Mr. Newman’s Theory of the Development of Image-worship . 308 3. The doctrine of Image-worship in its bearing on Paganism . 311 4. The worship of Relics—Its pi’inciple ...... 316 5. Connexion of this principle with Idolatry, Feticism, and Pantheism 318 6. Concluding remarks ......... 320 APPENDIX. Moiiler’s and De Maistre’s Theories of Development . . 323 ERRATUM. THE DOCTRINE OF DEVELOPMENT, $c. PART I. CHAPTER I. THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY PROPOSED BY SCRIPTURE AND BY THE ANCIENT APOLOGISTS. 1. It may be safely assumed, as a point of general agreement amongst men, of whatever religious profession they may be, that true religion possesses certain evidences of its truth which do not belong to false religion. This is independent of the opinions which may be held on the question whether religion has been the subject of supernatural revelation. Even those who deny the , existence of such a revelation, recognize a sufficient proof of their reli¬ gious tenets in the innate ideas of the human mind; or in the postulates of practical reason; or in the moral nature of man; or in his feelings, conscience, or some other principle of our nature; and this subjective evidence induces them to reject all other forms of religion as false or absurd. On whatever external proofs religion may be accepted by those B 2 Evidences of Christianity [part [. who admit them,—whether they arise from tradition, or authority, or the weight of facts, or testimony, or philosophical reasoning, or internal harmony and beauty,—still in all cases it is held, that truth, whatever it may be, has a firmer argumentative basis, a clearer and more demonstrative proof and evidence, than error can possess. We are Christians, if we be deserving of the name, ( i . e. if our belief rests on any conviction of the profound importance and necessity of true religion,) because we are satisfied, for some reason or other, that Christianity is the only true religion,—that no other religion has the same amount of evidence in its favour. We may not be able, from circumstances, to draw out scientifically the proofs of our faith; we may not be prepared to answer all the objections which its opponents may advance; but we are, at least, con¬ vinced that there are such proofs, and that they are sufficient for the subversion of whatever may be advanced by its enemies in support of different systems. Now, in considering the evidences of Christianity, our attention is naturally drawn, in the first instance, to those on which its Founders themselves rested its claims. 2. Admitting, then, that the Gospel appeals to an internal or su mind enlightened by the Spirit of God a , which con¬ stitutes to each individual an essential foundation of his faith; it is still undeniable that, in addition to ! this subjective evidence, Christianity possesses proofs 1 John ii. 20,27; Ephe- 2 Timothy i. 12; Revelation sians i. 13, 14, iii. 17—19; ii. 17. bjective evidence in the human CHAP. I.] Proposed in Scripture. o O and tokens of its truth, which are addressed more immediately, to the reasoning 1 faculties. Our Lord himself declares that a religion without such evi¬ dences has no claims on our acceptance. “ If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin.” And again: “ If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. There is another that beareth witness of me . . . But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me . . . Search the Scriptures . . they are they which testify ! of meV Nicodemus was thus satisfied of our Lord’s Divine mission: “We know that thou art a teacher come from God; for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him b .” The woman of Samaria reasoned in the same way: “ Come, see a man which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ 0 ?” Of the apostles we read: “ They went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following" 1 .” St. Paul’s preaching was, “ not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power , that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God e .” Our Lord himself opened the Scriptures for his disciples, saying, “Thus it is writ¬ ten, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance b John xv. 24; v. 31 —39; iii. 2. rt Mark xvi. 20. c John iv. 29. * 1 Cor. ii. 4, 5. B 2 4 Evidence* of Christianity [vart T. and remission of sins should be preached among all nations?’ And this proof of his Divine mission was always afterwards employed by Christians. Thus Peter appeals to the prophecies of Joel and David? He afterwards refers to Moses, Samuel, and the other prophets in proof of Christianity 11 . St. Paul proves from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ 1 . His “ custom” was to reason out of the Scriptures? Apollos “ mightily convinced the Jews and that publicly, showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ?” Christianity, amidst all its rejection of the “science falsely so called” of the Grecian philo¬ sophy, did not shrink from inquiry and proof. The Bereans are commended “ as more noble than those of Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily , whether those things were so: therefore many of them believed 1 .” St. Peter directs us to “ be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh us a reason of the hope that is in us m ;” and reminds us, that “ we have not followed cun¬ ningly devised fables n .” Throughout the whole of the New Testament, in fact, it is manifest that Christianity professed to be supported by clear and striking evidences of a supernatural character. If the Scripture be credible,—if it be an authentic record of the ministry of our Lord and his disciples, it sufficiently proves, that Christianity claims such external evidences of its truth as belong to no other religion in the world. f Luke xxiv. 46, 47. g Acts ii. h Acts iii. 1 Acts ix. and xiii. j Acts xvii. 2. k Acts xviii. 28. 1 Acts xvii. 11, 12. ra 1 Peter iii. 15. 2 Peter i. 15. n C HAP. I.] Proposed in Scripture. 5 3. Christianity then was placed by its Founders on an argumentative basis, i. c. it was to rest its claims ■ ■ ■ . • ■ on proofs or evidences addressed to the reason. It is not meant, of course, that all individuals alike could comprehend the force of these proofs, or were bound to examine them in detail, before they received the Gospel. All that is meant is, that the Gospel was pro¬ vided with rational evidences of its truth. A learned IW-rnr-'-wrt-r-iim—-r— ^ jp»44» theologian of the Roman communion has justly ob¬ served, that 64 those who are without , are first led, and, as it were, prepared for faith, by reason. For God employs natural motives, in order to introduce faith to the minds of men. For, hence it was, that lie set forth eye-witnesses of his resurrection, and united miracles to teaching, in order, that is, that the apostles might persuade their hearers to believe, not only by words, but also by works; as Epiphanius teaches, and Ambrose, who saith, 4 Power is the wit¬ ness of doctrine, that the preaching which was in¬ credible to the world might become credible bv actions.’ And Beda, 4 The power of miracles being- first given, he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, that the power manifested, might give credit to their words.’ Therefore by signs and miracles the way is prepared to faith, through the senses and reason 0 .” That human reason cannot without absurdity pre¬ tend to reject an acknowledged Revelation is most certain; but the exercise of reason in investigating the claims of any religious system to be a Revelation, ° Melchior Canus, Loci . . . signis ergo et miraculis via Theol. lib. ix. c. vi: “ Addu- fidei per sensus et rationem curttur primum ratione exteri sternitur.” ad fidem, et quasi prseparantur. 6 Evidences of Christianity [part I. is indispensable. Even Augustine, while founding the faith and reason of the Christian on authority , maintains the necessity of reason to determine what authority we are to submit to p ; and while he puts before unbelievers the claims of Christianity, he bases them so entirely on reason, that he leaves inquirers at liberty to seek elsewhere for truth, if the proofs afforded by Christianity are insufficient q . 4. No true believer, then, can doubt that Chris¬ tianity had really sufficient evidences of its truth, at the beginning at least. Thus much must be conceded by every Christian. And if this be the case, true Christianity must at all times be able to appeal to rational and external evidences, or proofs of its truth. This must be admitted by all who consider Chris¬ tianity to be a system intended for 'permanency , and for general adoption. If Christianity was at the be¬ ginning placed on a rational and argumentative basis, it cannot now dispense with this basis, and permit other religions or doctrines to lay claim to a su¬ perior evidence of their truth. It must, on the P “Auctoritas fklem flagitat, et rationi praeparat liominem. Ratio ad intellectum cognitio- nemque perducit. Quanquam neque auctoritatem ratio peni- tus deserit, cum consideratur cui sit credendum.” De Vera Relig. c. xxiv. See also his treatise, De Utilitate Credendi, where the authority of the Ca¬ tholic Church is proved from its external evidences. q “ Nostrum est considerare quibus, vel hominibus, vel libris, credendum sit ad colendum recte Deum, quae una salus est. Hujus rei prima disceptatio est, utrum iis potius credamus qui ad multos deos, an iis qui ad unum Deum colendum nos vo~ cant. Quis dubitet eos po- tissimum sequendos qui ad unum vocant, praesertim cum illi multorum cultores, de hoc uno Domino cunctorum et rec- tore consentiant, et certe ab uno incipit numerus ? Prius ergo isti sequendi sunt, qui unum Deum sum mum solum verum Deum, et solum colen¬ dum esse dicunt. Si apud hos veritas non eluxerit,tumdemum migrandum est.” De Vera Relig. c. xxv. chap, i.] Proposed by the. Ancient Apologists. 7 contrary, be capable of proving its truth by some sufficient evidences, and of refuting the claims of false religions. Let us now see how far this was realized in the first ages of the Church, and in later times. The systems opposed to Christianity have always been referrible to one or other of three classes: first, Philosophy, which bases religion on speculation, or abstract reasoning; secondly, Heathenism, which de¬ duces from tradition the worship of false gods; and thirdly, Judaism. How then did Christianity main¬ tain its cause against these various systems ? Did it refuse to permit inquiry into its evidences; or con¬ fess that those evidences were not addressed to rea¬ son ? A brief survey of some of the principal argu¬ ments of the ancient apologists, will furnish the best reply to these questions. 5. The earliest treatise which we possess, and which argumentatively establishes the truth of Christianity, is the Apology of Justin Martyr, which begins by urging the claims of truth , in preference to mere esta¬ blished opinions: “ Reason,” he says, “teaches us, that those who are truly pious and philosophical, honour and love the truth alone, and refuse to follow the opinions of the ancients, if they are evil 1 .” On this principle, Justin proceeds to show the falsehood of the existing idolatrous systems, arguing that the gods of the heathen were not really gods, and that this had been proved by the philosophers 3 : and he re¬ marks on the unworthy and degraded notions which r Justin Martyr, Apolog. i. Tertullian, Apologet. c. x.—xv. p. 4, ed. Thirlby. Euseb. Prsepar. Evangel, lib. s Justin Martyr, Apolog. i. i.—vi. Lactantius, Inst. Div. p. 10, &c. ed. Thirlby. See 8 Evidences of Christianity [part t. the heathens entertained of their deities. The Christian apologists in this line of argument, and generally in their demonstration of the falsehood and absurdity of the heathen mythology, had little more to do than to avail themselves of the arguments and the materials supplied to them by Cicero in his treatise “ De Natura Deorum,” in which the heathen deities are proved to have been human beings, and the contradictions and uncertainty of the popular mythology are exhibited in a very striking manner Justin Martyr, in replying to the objections of the Heathens against Christianity, quotes largely from the Gospels, with a view to show the purity of the morality taught by Jesus Christ; and he appeals to the prophecies of the old Testament in which the miracu¬ lous events of our Saviour’s life on earth are predicted, in order to prove that those miracles were not per¬ formed by magic, as the opponents of Christianity pretended 11 . It may be remarked, that Irenseus and Lactantius also appeal to the Prophecies in proof of the Divine origin of the Christian miracles"'. Justin anticipates the objection, that these Prophecies were delivered after the events they predict, by reference to the fact of the Septuagint version (from which his citations are taken) having been made nearly three centuries before the birth of our Lord. To show that our Lord actually did work miracles, as the 1 These arguments of the Christian apologists are exactly applicable to the heathen sys¬ tems of the present day. See instances in Ritter, Anc. Phil, i. 93 ; Elphinstone’s India, i. 187 ; Wilson, Vishnu Purana, xliii. 25, 27, 72, &c. in which the deities of the Hindus are represented as liable to human passions, and of limited exist¬ ence. u Just. Mart. Apolog. i. p. 48. v Irenaeus, lib.ii.c. 32. Lac- tant. v. 3. chap, i.] Proposed by the Ancient Apologists. 9 Christians believed, an appeal is made to the public Acts written in the time of Pontius Pilate, governor of Judaea w . It will have been seen from this, that Justin Martyr establishes the truth of Christianity, not on merely subjective evidence, but on the rational foun¬ dation of history and matter-of-fact, and not by any system of abstract reasoning. Plis appeal is throughout to common sense and reason, against a merely tradi¬ tionary system of mythology unsustained by any rational proofs or evidences. “ We might,” he says, “ add many other prophecies, but we refrain from so doing, being of opinion that these are sufficient to persuade those persons who have ears to hear and understand, and to enable them to perceive that we [Christians] do not speak merely like those who re¬ late fables of the pretended children of Jupiter, and who cannot prove them*.” The evidences of Chris¬ tianity are, he adds, “ sufficient to cause a reasonable belief and persuasion in those who love the truth , and who are not vain-glorious or passionate; but those who teach the fables of the poets [i. e. the mythology of heathenism] bring no proof to the young persons whom they instruct y .” In dealing with philosophy, which professed by the force of mere reasoning to attain to a full knowledge of God and of religion, Justin demonstrates its inefficacy for these purposes 2 ; and in meeting the objection of unbelievers, that Christians had been deceived by vain and unfounded rumours about Christ, he says, that “ if there be a willingness to hear the reason of this thing,” it will vv Justin Martyr, p. 71. z Justin Mart. Dialog, cum x lb. p. 77. Tryph. p. 143, &c. Y lb. p. 79. 10 Evidences of Christianity [part I. be shown “ that we have not been in error.” For, “ if you will attend, I will demonstrate that we have not relied on empty fables, or unproved assertions' 1 .” G. It was indeed the continual declaration of the early Christian writers, that the heathen religions were wholly destitute of rational proofs; that they were mere fables of the poets, or fictions of the imagina¬ tion. And these statements were perfectly borne out by facts. If we examine the foundations of the extinct polytheism, we find no other proofs of its mytholo¬ gical systems, except the writings of the poets, which evidently furnish no certain historical evidence. His¬ tory commenced long after the origin of polytheism b , and merely attested its existence; and no sacred books of any of its extinct systems were in the hands of the world, supported by any evidences of their anti¬ quity and their authenticity. We may say nearly the same of the existing systems of paganism. Either they are without historical records, as in the case of the Feticism of the more barbarous tribes; or when they possess sacred books, as the Brahmins, Buddhists, and Dualists certainly do, those books are wholly destitute of historical proofs of their authenticity 0 . Ancient as some of these books unquestionably are, there is no evidence of their truth: they are as un¬ supported by proof as the genealogies of the gods in Hesiod, or their quarrels, marriages, and feasts, in Homer or Virgil. Athenagoras remarks on this contrast between a Dial, cum Tryph. p. 153,4. b Euseb. Demonstr. Evan- gelica; Stillingfleet, Origines Sacrse. c See Wilson, Vishnu Pu- rana, Lectures before the Univ. of Oxford; Elphinstone’s In¬ dia, vol. i. ; Grant, Bampton Lectures; Ritter,Hist. Philos.; Bergier, Traite de la Vraie Re- lig. t. i. chap. t.J Proposed by the Ancient Apologists. 11 Christianity and false religion. “ How is it,” lie says, speaking of the philosophers, “ that they may law¬ fully write and speak with freedom of God, while the law is against us, who can prove , by most real signs and reasons, that we are right in our opinion and belief that there is only one God d ?” But while he thus places Christianity on the argumentative and strictly rational foundation of fact , he admits that many Christians were unable to produce the logical grounds of their faith. “ Private persons amongst us, artificers, old women, who perhaps could not by reasoning demonstrate the utility of their [Christian] profession, show it practically and by their works: they do not recite prepared ora¬ tions, or reckon words, but they are examples of good deeds and virtues 6 .” This must, of course, be the case in any religion which is not destined merely for the cultivated and the intellectual, but for the indigent and unlearned ; and this alone is suf¬ ficient to prove that philosophy was never intended to become the foundation of religion to mankind. Any religious system founded on mere reasonings must necessarily be adapted to the comprehension of a very few persons; and accordingly philosophy has in every age restricted itself to a peculiar class of minds, leaving the world at large to follow what it holds to be false in religion. Whereas Christianity has always been of a universal character, extending itself to all classes and degrees of society equally. “ We do not desire vain-glory,” says Tatian, in allu¬ sion to the philosophy of Greece, “ we follow the 11 Athenag. Apolog. Bibl. Max. Patr. tom. iii. p. 149. e Ibid. p. 150. 12 Evidences of Christianity [part I. law of the father of incorruption, and reject all that is connected with human glory: our philosophy is not merely for the rich.We receive all who desire to listen to us, even if they be old women or children?’ 7. The Christian writers generally assumed the ex¬ istence of God as a principle which all nations agreed in admitting, as Cicero attests: 44 Nam nulla gens est, neque tarn immansueta, neque tam fera, quse non, etiamsi ignoret qualem Deum habere deceat, tamen habendum sciatV’ Yet, when philosophy, or a gross and material polytheism, denied the exist¬ ence of the true God, Christianity did not fear to appeal to the structure and order of the material world, as an evidence of the being of an Eternal Author and Governor of the universe? This argu¬ ment, which modern transcendentalism rejects, and 1 Tatian, Orat. ad Graec. p. 110, ed. Worth. & Cicero de Legibus, ii. 8. See also de Nat. Deor. i. 43, 44; Lactantius, i. 2. This subject is considered by Stil- iingfleet, Orig. Sacrse, bk. iii. c.i. § x.—xii. bk. i. c. i. Bayle denies the fact, but has been refuted by Bergier, Traite de la Vraie Relig. ii. 454, &c. h This argument had been employed by heathen philo¬ sophy. Cicero (De Natura Deorum, ii.) says, “ Quid po¬ test esse tam apertum tamque perspicuum, cum ccelum sus- peximus, quam esse aliquod numen praestantissimae mentis, quo haec reguntur?” And his reasoning is thus employed by Lactantius: “Nemo est enim tam rudis, tam feris moribus, quin oculos suos in coelum tollens, tametsi nesciat cujus Dei pro- videntia regatur hoc omne quod cernitur, non aliquam tamen esse intelligat ex ipsa rerum magnitudine, motu, dispositione, constantia, utilitate, pulchritu- dine, temperatione : nec posse fieri, quin id, quod mirabili ratione constat, consilio majori aliquo sit instructum.” Divin. Inst. lib. i. c. 2. This argu¬ ment is, in fact, urged in holy Scripture itself: “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handy work,” Ps. xix. ; and St. Paul refers to it, Rom. i. 20. See also Ps. viii. Isaiah xl. 21. Jerem. xiv. 22. Matt. vi. 25. Acts xiv. 15, 17. xvii. 24, 25. chap, i.] Proposed by the Ancient, Apologists. 13 which modern theology is sometimes reluctant to avail itself of 1 , was employed without scruple by Minucius Felix, Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Gregory Nyssen, and the Fathers in general J . Tlieopliilus of Antioch, in reply to those heathens who denied the existence of the true God, and re¬ quired of the Christians to show Him to them, remarks, that we cannot see God with our eyes; but that we may know His existence by His providence and His works: “ It is believed that there is an emperor on earth, though he is not seen by all; but he is known by his laws, his ordinances, his authorities, powers, and images. And wherefore will not you know God by His works and the effects of His power k ?” The Fathers employed this argument from the order and harmony of the material universe, not only to esta¬ blish the existence of God against Atheists, but also in proof of the unity of God against the Gentiles 1 . The ignorance and contradictions of the heathen philosophers and poets on the subject of the Deity were demonstrated by Theophilus of Antioch, and Clement of Alexandria, Athenagoras, Lactantius, &c. m , as they had been by Justin Martyr, and were in after-ages by Augustine 11 . 1 A recent writer rejects this argument, as tending to engen¬ der pride, and bases the proof of the existence of God on con¬ sciousness. See Ward’s Ideal, p. 509 ; see also p. 499. Mo¬ dern philosophy, since the time of Des Cartes, has in general adopted nearly the same pro¬ cedure. j Athanasius, Cont. Gent. p. 27, 28. Gregor. Naz. Orat. 28 ; Greg. Nyss. lib. de Horn. Opif.; Basil, Horn. vii. viii. in Hex- aem. See also Petav. lib. i. c. i. k Theophil. Antioch, ad Au- tolyc. lib. i. 1 Athanasius, Contra Gentes, tom. i. p. 28, &c. Lactantius, Epitome, c. ii. Origen, Cont. Cels. c. i. m Theophil. ad Autolycum, lib. ii. Clemens, Liber Cohort, ad Gentes. Athanasius, adv. Gentes. Lactant. Divin. Inst. n De Civitate Dei. 14 Evidences of Christianity [part t. 8. Origen, in his treatise against Celsus, establishes tlie truth of Christianity, not on mere abstract reason¬ ing, but on the evidence of facts , i. e. his miracles as recorded in the New Testament, the prophecies which predicted his coming, the morality of his disciples, and the propagation of the Christian religion 0 . In reply to those who contended that religion should always be grounded on philosophical reasonings, he remarks, that if it were possible for men to relinquish the affairs of this life, and apply themselves to profound inquiries, it would be very desirable; but that belief without strict examination is necessary for men in general, who have no leisure or capacity for length¬ ened inquiry p . For, as he remarks, in reference to 1 Cor. i. 21, “We do not speak of 4 foolishness,’ simply, as good, but of foolishness in regard to this world_According to our teaching, it is much more desirable to be persuaded of doctrines by reason and wisdom than by simple faith;” but the latter was allowed by the Word, in order “ that men in general might receive ad vantage q and though Christians apply themselves to the instruction of those with whom reasoning is of little use, they are equally desirous of receiving those who are learned, and qualified to examine". “It must be added,” he says, “ that the Word has a demonstration peculiar to itself, and more divine than that which is founded on the dialectic of the Greeks: this is called by the Apostle the 4 demonstration of the Spirit and of power;’ 4 of the Spirit,’ i.e. by the prophecies, which are sufficient to cause belief in any one, especially in what con- 0 Origen atlv. Cels. lib. i. ii. vii. Oper. t. i. p Lib. i. p. 327, 328. q Lib. i. p. 331. 1 Lib. iii. p. 479. chap, i.] Proposed by the Ancient Apologists. 15 cerns Christ; and 4 of power,’ i. e. by miracles , which are proved to have taken place, as in many other ways, so by the traces (lyyrj) which are still preserved amongst those who live according to the precepts of the Word 3 .” Having argued that in matters of his-, tory it is sometimes difficult to afford evident and undeniable proofs of undoubted matters of fact, he applies this to the Gospel history, 44 not, however, as inviting intelligent persons to a mere unreasoning faith, but as showing that there is need of candour and applicationV’ 44 Some Christians,” he says, 44 are unable to give a reason for their religion,” but others can do so 44 in a solid, profound” manner 11 . Origen establishes the credibility of the Scripture history in precisely the same way which the advocates of Christianity adopt at the present day, in argument with Rationalists or Deists. 9. Eusebius, in the 44 Prseparatio Evangelica,” adopted the same arguments which preceding writers had employed so successfully. The object of this work, as stated at the commencement, is, that 44 whereas some are of opinion that Christianity is defended by no reason ,” but that its adherents have received it 44 with an unreasoning faith, and an uninquiring spirit; and assert, that no clear proof demonstrates the truth of the things which are premised, but that converts give heed to faith only;” it is desirable to demonstrate the truth of the Gospel'. Athanasius wrote his treatise against the Gentiles, in order that 44 no one should suspect belief in Christ to be unrea¬ sonable , as the Greeks unjustly think it to be' v .” s Lib. i. p. 320, 321. v Euseb. Praep. Evan, l.i.c.i. 1 Lib. i. p. 358. w Athanasius, Orat. Contra u Lib. iii. p. 471. Gentes, init. 16 Evidences of Christianity [part t. The Divine origin of Christianity is argued by Arno- bius from the miracles of our Lord and of his disci¬ ples recorded in Holy Scripture x . In reply to those who denied the truth of the facts, he says: “ You do not believe that these things were done. But those who actually saw them done, and were eye-witnesses, most excellent witnesses, most certain narrators, be¬ lieved them themselves, and have transmitted them to posterity as credible, with no insignificant assu¬ rances. And what are these? Tribes, people, na¬ tions, yea the unbelieving part of mankind; for un¬ less they had been manifest and clearer than the day, men would never have yielded their believing assent to these things 3 ?’ “If,” he continues, “the history of these things be false, why was the whole world in so short a time filled with that religion ?... Were they enticed by mere assertions, and led into empty hopes, and induced rashly to place their lives in peril, when they had seen no miracle which by its novelty should incite them to that worship 2 ?” 10. The existence of one God only is proved against the Polytheists by Lactantius, not only from the order and harmony of the material world, and from other reasons a , but by the authority of the Prophets, whose Divine inspiration he demonstrates by the fulfilment of their predictions 1 ’. Having shown the absurdity of the heathen superstitions and idolatries 0 , he thus addresses himself to those who adhered to paganism from a feeling of reverence for its anti¬ quity : “ It is especially necessary, then, in what con- x Arnobius, Adv. Gentes, a Lactantius, Divin. Instit. lib. i. c. 45, 46, 50. lib. i. c. 2. y Ibid. c. 54. b Lib. i. c. 4. x Lib. i. c. 55. c Lib. ii. chap, i.] Proposed by the Ancient Apologists. 17 cerns the regulation of life, to have confidence in ourselves, and to depend on our own judgments and senses, to investigate and weigh the truth, and not to be deceived through belief in the errors of others, as if we were devoid of reason. God has given sense to all in equal portion, that they may investigate what has not been heard, and weigh what has been. Nor did they, because they preceded us in time, excel us in sense, which, if it be given equally to all, cannot have been monopolized by our predecessors. . .. .Wherefore as wisdom, that is, searching after truth, is natural to all men, those persons deprive themselves of wisdom, who without any judgment approve the inventions of their forefathers, and are led by others like a flock of sheep d .” Christianity then, in those ages never shrank from reason and inquiry: it was, on the contrary, earnest in its endeavours to promote a full and fair exami¬ nation of existing systems of religion, and a com¬ parison of their evidences with its own. It is true that Christianity appealed to tradition, but this tradition was of a wholly different nature from that of the heathen: it was historically proved; it rested on a historical basis; it was corroborated by docu¬ mentary evidence; while the heathen tradition was merely fabulous. Lactantius argues against philosophy as a guide to religion, from its contradictions and divisions; and from the confessions of the most eminent of the phi¬ losophers of their ignorance in regard to the chief reticles of religion e . And he afterwards remarks that 1 d Lib. ii. c. 7. are of general application, not e Lib. iii. The following only to the ancient but to the searching remarks of this writer modern philosophy : “ In mill- 18 Evidences of Christianity [part I. it is entirely devoid of authority or proof; that it rests on conjectures, and is liable to endless doubts and questions f . His direct proofs of the truth of Christianity are deduced from the fulfilment of the prophecies of the Old Testament, and from the historical facts narrated in the New Testament 8 . Paganism is thus contrasted with Christianity. “ If you were to ask of them the reason for their persuasion, they could not render any, but must take refuge in the judgment of their ancestors—that they were wise, they approved, and knew what was best—and must deprive themselves of sense, and reason, while they believe the errors of others.” .. . “ Let them,” he continues, “ invite us to a conference, exhort us to receive the worship of tas sectas philosophia divisa est: et omnes varia sentiunt. In qua ponimus veritatem ? In omnibus certe non potest. De- signemus quamlibet: nempe in caeteris omnibus sapientia non erit. Transeamus ad singulas : eodem modo, quicquid uni da- bimus, caeteris auferemus, Una- quaeque enim secta omnes alias evertit, ut se suaque con- firmet: nec ulli alteri sapere concedit, ne se desipere fate- atur: sed sicut alias tollit, sic ipsa quoque ab aliis tollitur omnibus . . . Cum omnia igitur incerta sint, aut omnibus cre- dendum est, aut nemini ... Si ergo singulas sectae multarum sectarum judicio stultitiae con- vincuntur, omnes igitur vanae atque inanes reperiuntur: ita seipsam philosophia consumit et conficit. Quod cum intelli¬ gent Arcesilas Academiae con- ditor, reprehensiones omnium inter se collegit, confessionem- que ignorantiae clarorum phi- losopborum ; armavitque se adversus omnes.” Cap. 4. Are not the divisions of modern philosophy preparing the way for a new Academic and Pyr- rhonic philosophy ? f “ Ad verum frequenter ac- cedunt; sed nihil ponderis ha- bent ilia praecepta, quia sunt humana, et auctoritate majori, id est divina ilia, carent. Nemo igitur credit, quia tarn se homi- nem putat esse, qui credit, quam est ille qui praecipit, Praeterea nihil apud eos certi est, nihil quod a scientia veniat. Sed cum omnia conjecturis agantur, multa etiam diversa, et varia proferantur, stultissimi est hominis, praeceptis eorum velle parere ; quae utrum vera sint an falsa, dubitatur.” Lib. iii. c. 27. s Lib. iv. chap, i.] Proposed by the Ancient Apologists. 19 their gods, persuade us that there are many gods by whose deity and providence the world is governed: let them show the origin and commencement of their rites, and how delivered to men: let them explain their source and reason—show what is the reward of obedience, what the penalty of contempt, why they desire to be worshipped by men... . All of which let them confirm, not hy their own assertions , (for the authority of man is of no avail,) but by some Divine testimonies , as we do... . If their reason be true, let it be produced: we are prepared to hear, if they in¬ struct us: we do not believe those who are silent, or yield to those who are violent. Let them imitate us, or declare the reason of the whole matter. For we do not entice , as they object; but we teach , prove , demonstrate. Wherefore no one is retained by us against his will 1 ’.” 11. I shall not now proceed further, though Augus¬ tine’s Treatise “ De Civitate Dei,” and Cyril of Alex¬ andria’s work against Julian, afford many tempting illustrations of the method uniformly pursued by the Christians in their defence of true religion. I would only remark, in conclusion, that from what has been said, it is clear that Christianity is, both by the Scriptures and by the early Christian writers, based on strictly rational grounds of faith. It is not placed on mere tradition, as the heathen systems were; still less is it made dependent on philosophical specula¬ tion : but it is made to rest on the evidence of facts. «/ This is a species of proof which lies open to the most ordinary comprehension; and its force may be estimated from the unexampled circumstance of the h Lib. v. c. 19. c 2 20 Evidences of Christianity [part t. conversion of all nations to the Gospel, without ex¬ ternal compulsion. None of the heathen religions ever acquired by its mere inherent force, a triumph over former established systems of idolatry. Ma¬ li ommedanism owes its success to the sword: Chris¬ tianity alone has prevailed over idolatrous and false religions, by the external evidences of its truth, as well as by the purity and perfection of its doc¬ trine. There could not well be a greater mistake than to imagine, that Christianity shrinks from the fullest inquiry, or refuses to enter on a demonstration of its authority. It is, and always has been, its office, to excite inquiry, and to satisfy it. What Bossuet has observed of the Church may be applied to Christianity in general. “ Voila l’ordre: Xexamen .. a ceux qui n’estant point dans l’eglise, n’ont point encore d’au- torite qui les regie; soumission sans examiner a ceux qui estant deja dans l’eglise, n’ont qua ecouter ses decrets 1 .” True religion has evidences and proofs: false religion has none. The advocates of Chris¬ tianity need have no fear for their cause, even when assailed by philosophy, or the pride of infidel learn¬ ing. The proofs which God Himself has supplied of its truth, and which our Lord and his Apostles, and the Christian Fathers and Apologists, employed, will be always found effectual, if rightly used, to secure the triumph of Revelation. 1 Bossuet, Conf. avec M. Claude, p. 139. CHAP. II.] Subverted by Romanism. 21 CHAPTER II. THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY AS RELATED TO ROMANISM. 1. We have seen in the preceding Chapter, that Christianity was by its Divine Founder and his apostles, and their successors, placed on a strictly ra¬ tional foundation; that it was supported by external proofs and evidences founded on matters of fact, and such as commended themselves at once to the appre¬ hension and the reasoning faculties. The proof of the truth of Christianity was derived, first, from the pre¬ dictions of the Prophets, who had announced by the Spirit of God the advent of the Saviour, and had minutely described the particulars of his birth, mi¬ nistry, and death. It was derived, secondly, from the history of our Lord’s life—the miraculous events which announced his Divine Nature, his Heavenly commission, his Almighty power and wisdom—the prophecies which he delivered, and which were after¬ wards fulfilled—the similar powers of miracles and prophecy which He conferred on his disciples. It was derived, thirdly, from the purity and excellence of the Christian doctrines, when compared with those of other religions. The reality of these things was shown, by varied and numerous historical evidences 99 Evidences of Christianity [part I. establishing the authenticity of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. Such, in a few words, was the argument for the truth of Christianity 3 ; and such is the argument which still continues to be adduced, in a somewhat more complex form, by de¬ fenders of Christianity, and, amongst others, by writers of the Roman Communion. Infidelity has, doubtless, not remained content with the objections which heathen philosophy and superstition originally ad¬ vanced against the Gospel; and it has in modern times busied itself in attempting to demonstrate that the Revelation of any religion was superfluous; that Revelation is absolutely impossible; that human testimony to facts is not to be relied on; that we cannot depend on the evidence of our senses, and that all existence is ideal: or it has been occupied in endeavouring, by a perverted and worthless criticism, to find internal evidences of forgery, interpolation, or contradiction, in the historical documents of the Gospel. These attempts, of course, have introduced some additional matter into the defence of Chris¬ tianity; but its positive proofs always remain the same; and it is with these positive proofs that I am now concerned. 2. If we were to place reliance on the assertions of Romanists, we should at once conclude, that the de¬ fence of Christianity could only be conducted on their peculiar principles. It is, in fact, generally taught in the Roman Communion, that there is no alternative between the implicit reception of all Romish tenets, a I omit here all considera- sion of Christianity, the deaths tion of the accessory and merely of confessors and martyrs, the probable evidences, arising from virtues of its adherents, &c. the rapid and extensive diffu- CHAP. II.] Subverted by Romanism. 23 and absolute infidelity. And the reason assigned for this is, that Scripture is capable of so many different interpretations, that its real meaning cannot be de¬ termined, except by the infallible authority of the Church; and that its authenticity and genuineness are also subject to so many difficulties, that they can only be demonstrated by the same authority. Hence it is taught, that if the infallibility of the Church be doubted, faith has no foundation whatever. The necessity of implicit faith in the decisions of the Church is argued, from the total incapacity of human reason to arrive at truth by means of the Scriptures. Much ingenious and plausible argument has been employed by Romanists, for three centuries, in esta¬ blishing these conclusions, which have undoubtedly led to the conversion of many individuals to their communion. No one can for a moment dispute the subtilty of their reasoning on this point. It is, in fact, the foundation of their system: the whole of that system depends upon it. 3. I must adduce a few examples of the arguments by which the majority of Romish theologians have laboured to show that the Scripture is an unsafe guide to men in their search after religious truth; and that recourse must be had to the infallible authority of the living Church. Dr. Milner, whose writings have met with universal approbation in the Romish Communion, contends for the necessity of an infallible living judge of controversy on the following grounds. The rule of faith or “ method appointed by Christ for finding out the true reli¬ gion,” must, he argues, be “ certain and unerring,” i. e. it must not be “ liable to lead any rational and sincere inquirer into inconsistency or error;” and 24 Evidences of Christianity [part I. it must be “ universal,” i. e. “ proportioned to the abilities and circumstances of the great bulk of man¬ kind.” Now, it is plain that the private inspiration of individuals, which so many sectarians have pre¬ tended to, cannot be such a rule of faith, because it has led to innumerable errors 5 . Scripture inter¬ preted by private judgment has also led to errors and contradictions 0 . Therefore the Roman Catholic rule of faith, which rests faith on the authority of the living Church, propounding and explaining the word of God both written and unwritten, must be received. I am not now concerned with this argument, further than as it bears on Scripture. Dr. Milner observes then, in reference to Scrip¬ ture, that “ if Christ had intended that all mankind should learn his religion from a book, namely, the New Testament , He himself would have written that book;” that “ it does not appear that He gave his apostles any command to write the Gospel;” that there is nothing “ in the Gospels themselves which indicates that any one of them, or all of them toge¬ ther, contain an entire, detailed, and clear exposition of the whole religion of Jesus Christ;” that the “ method of determining religious questions by Scripture only, according to each individual’s inter¬ pretation, has always produced, wherever and when¬ ever it has been adopted, endless and incurable dis¬ sensions, and, of course, errors;” that “it has also caused mutual persecution and bloodshed; it has produced tumults, rebellions, and anarchy beyond recounting 11 .” As regards the inspiration, genuineness, and au~ b Milner, End of Contro¬ versy, lett. ii. iii. c Lett. iv. v. (1 Lett. iv. CHAP. II.] Subverted by Romanism. 25 thenticity of Scripture, we have the following argu¬ ments. A person who is not a member of the Roman Catholic Church cannot be certain that the Bible is the word of God. Because, first, 46 by what means have you learnt what is the Canon of Scrip¬ ture, that is to say, which are the books that have been written by Divine inspiration ? or, indeed, how have you ascertained that any books at all have been so written? You cannot discover any of these things by your rule, because the Scripture, as your great authority Hooker shows, and Chillingworth allows, cannot bear testimony to itself.” I omit several ingenious arguments in reference to the inspiration of Scripture, and proceed to the next position. “Youhave no sufficient authority for asserting that the sacred volumes are the genuine compositions of the holy personages whose names they bear, except the tradition and living voice of the Catholic Church.” I pass over the reasons by which this assertion is sup¬ ported, and come to another position. 44 Supposing the divine authoritv of the sacred books themselves J to be established; how do you know that the copies of them translated and printed in your Bible are au¬ thentic ? It is agreed upon amongst the learned, that together with the Temple and city of Jerusalem, the original text of Moses and the ancient prophets were destroyed by the Assyrians under Nebuchadnezzar; and though they were replaced by authentic copies ... through the care of the prophet Esdras, yet that these also perished in the subsequent persecution of Antiochus; from which time we have no evidence of the authenticity of the Old Testament, till this was supplied by Christ and his apostles, who trans¬ mitted it to the Church. In like manner granting, 26 Evidences of Christianity [part I. for example, that St. Paul wrote an inspired epistle to the Romans, and another to the Ephesians; yet as the former was entrusted to an individual.... and the latter to his disciple Tychicus... it is impossible for you to entertain a rational conviction that these epistles, as they stand in your Testament, are exactly in the state in which they issued from the apostle’s pen, or that they are his genuine Epistles at all , without recurring* to the tradition and authority of the Catholic Church concerning them.” This writer then refers to various readings of the sacred text as rendering it doubtful in itself; and to the uncertain¬ ties of translations from the original Hebrew and Greek. In fine, he argues, that even supposing the Bible to be canonical, authentic, and genuine, still it is not a sufficient rule or method of conducting to true doctrine, unless we can be “ equally certain of under¬ standing the whole of it rightly.” He observes, that the Gospel “ consists not in the words, but in the sense that the devil himself could quote Scripture texts; that there are “ numberless obscurities and difficulties in Scripture; ” that it is full of sublime doctrines, mysterious prophecies, peculiar idioms, numerous and bold figures of speech; that it is difficult to recon¬ cile certain sayings of the patriarchs “ with the in¬ commutable precept of truth;” that it is a mere “ begging the question ” to assume that Scripture is clear in all that is necessary to be known; that there are “ hundreds of difficulties regarding our moral duties” in the Scriptures; that, in fine, if the au¬ thority of the Roman Catholic Church be not re¬ ceived, there can be no “ certain assurance,” no “ absolute security,” that particular interpretations CHAP. 11.] Subverted by Romanism. 27 of Scripture are true, since “ learned, intelligent, and sincere Christians have understood those pas¬ sages in a different sense e .” Such are the grounds on which Romanists inva¬ riably contend, that the Bible alone is not, and can¬ not be, the rule of faith. The same arguments, with scarcely a difference, are to be found in all their controversial writings against Protestants, and in all their works in defence of the authority of the Church. The inspiration , the authenticity , the genuineness , the interpretation of Scripture are, according to them, beset by so many objections, difficulties, and doubts, that certainty on these points can only be attained by accepting the Bible on the authority of the Ca¬ tholic Church, i. e. of the existing Roman Church. It is uniformlymaintained, that faith in the Scriptures when founded on human testimony cannot be firm or certain, because human testimony is liable to error. This is the argument of Bossuet in his Con¬ ference with the Protestant Claude f : it is the argu¬ ment of Dr. Milner, who says, “ Protestants, in building Scripture as they do upon tradition, as a mere human testimony, not as a rule of faith , can only form an act of human faith, that is to say, an opinion of its being inspired s .” Of course this objection ap¬ plies equally to the authenticity and genuineness of Scripture as to its inspiration: all would be equally uncertain. The conclusion drawn from this is, that the existing Church being the only certain expositor of Scripture, and the only foundation on which its au¬ thority and obligation can be maintained, all refer- e Milner, End of Contro- Claude, Minist, de Charenton, versy, lett. v. p. 147, &c. f Bossuet, Confer, avee M. ? Milner, End of Cont. lett.xi. 28 Evidences of Christianity [part i. ence to Scripture in opposition to that Church’s doctrines or practices must be absurd. It is impossible to deny that this conclusion fol¬ lows legitimately from the premises. If the living Church be authorized to infuse her own interpreta¬ tion on Scripture, it is, of course, our duty to submit at once to her doctrines. It is, in fact, the peculiar and distinguishing principle of Romish theology, that faith, on the whole, depends entirely on the authority of the living Roman Church. This cannot be more clearly stated than it has been by Dr. Wiseman: “ I will explain,” he says, “in the simplest manner possible, the ground whereupon we found the very principle oj faith , on what we build the doctrines which we pro¬ fess ; I will examine, in other words, whether we are justified in admitting, as the groundwork of all we believe , an authority, a living authority , established by Christ in his Church, with his security against error h .” In the same way Bossuet, in his Conference with Claude, maintained continually that a belief in the infallibility of the Church was the sole founda¬ tion of a firm and certain belief in Scripture as the word of God, and in all the articles of the faith 1 . 4. Now it has been already observed, that many able writers of the Church of Rome have devoted them¬ selves to establish the truth of Christianity against Paganism, Philosophy, and Judaism. Without en¬ tering on any very extended survey of the proofs on which these writers have rested the defence of reve¬ lation, it may be sufficient to refer to the works of a Jesuit of the present day, of the highest reputation, for an outline of the system which Roman Catholics h Wiseman, Lectures on the 1 Bossuet, Confer, avec M. Catholic Church, vol. i. p. 3. Claude, pp. 139, 143, 145, &c. 29 chap, ii.] Subverted by Romanism . in general adopt in their controversies with unbe¬ lievers. Perrone, in his treatise “ De Vera Religione,” commences by a refutation of the objections which infidelity has raised to the possibility of a Revelation comprising mysterious doctrines. From the absurdi¬ ties and errors into which man had fallen before the birth of Christ, even when guided by philosophy; and from the absence of authority in all merely spe¬ culative systems of ethics, the necessity of a Divine Revelation is argued. We have next a series of elaborate replies to objections against the possibility of miracles and prophecy. And here, at length, we arrive at the actual proofs of Christianity. The first is, “ that Christ by his miracles and prophecies , and especially by his resurrection from the dead , proved his Divine mission j .” The author makes the follow¬ ing position a preliminary to his argument. “ It is, to us, firm and certain , that Moses, the Prophets, and Christ existed, and that the books of the two Testa¬ ments are genuine and authentic k .” From this postu¬ late, he proceeds to refer to the Gospels in proof of the miracles of Jesus Christ; after which he shows, in the same manner, that Christ prophesied the diffu¬ sion of the Gospel in all nations, the perpetuity of the Church subject to the successors of Peter, the fall of Jerusalem, and other events. The resurrection of our Lord is established, in the same way, from the New Testament at large. To these proofs are added the confessions of the Jews and Gentiles, who did not deny the fact that miracles had been performed, but attributed them to magic 1 . > Perrone, Prselect. Theolo- k lb. p. 100. gicae, tom. i. p. 101. 1 P. 100—107. Evidences of Christianity [part 1. SO Another proof of the truth of Christianity is de¬ rived from the excellence and sanctity of the doctrine of the Gospel m . And the author proceeds, at some length, to expatiate on the doctrinal and ethical pre¬ cepts of our Lord in the Gospel, referring through¬ out to holy Scripture 11 . To these proofs are added presumptions in favour of the truth of the Gospel, from its propagation and preservation, and from the martyrdoms of Christians. In maintaining, against Jews, rationalists, and unbelievers generally, that Jesus is the Messiah, Perrone deduces his arguments from the law and the prophets 0 , referring to the prophecies of Jacob, Daniel, Haggai, Malachi, &c.; and clearing their interpretation, by the ordinary methods of criticism, against the objections of unbelievers. It will be perceived, from what has been now said, that Roman Catholic apologists for Christianity have recourse to the same great proofs of its divine origin as we have seen employed by the ancient apologists. They very rightly appeal to the books of the Old and New Testament, as authentic records of the facts and doctrines of the Jewish and Christian dispen¬ sations. The arguments from prophecies and mi¬ racles, and from the excellence of the Christian doctrine, presuppose, of course, the genuineness and authenticity of the sacred books, and the uncorrupted preservation of their text p . sn P. 129. lica ; Fraysinnous, Defense du n P. 129—137. Christianisme ; Bergier, Traite ° Praelect. Theol. tom. iv. de la Vraie Religion; Bossuet, p. 4. Hist. Univers. part ii.; Hooke, For similar arguments of Relig. Nat. et Revel. Principia ; Roman Catholic writers, see Bouvier, Tract, de Vera Re- H net, Demonstratio Evange- ligione. CHAP. IT.] Subverted by Romanism. 31 5. This is all very satisfactory so far : but we have now to examine the validity of this wliole system of argument in the hands of a Romanist. Let him attempt to prove the truth of Christianity in this way to any rationalist or infidel; and the latter must he ignorant and unintelligent indeed, if he is not able to reply as follows:—“You would fain persuade me that Christianity is a Divine revela¬ tion, because its founders wrought miracles, and predicted future events, and taught a doctrine which far exceeded in purity and excellence that of any other religion that ever existed: and you esta¬ blish these allegations on the statements of Scrip¬ ture. But your ablest theologians have proved that the authenticity and genuineness of Scripture, and the preservation of its text, and its true meaning, are uncertain in themselves ! To establish the truth of these miracles and prophecies, you must first establish the authenticity, the text, and the true meaning of Scripture, which you have yourselves proved to be ques¬ tionable. To establish the excellence of Christianity as a revelation, you must prove that it actually comes from Christ; that the Scriptures are a record which may be entirely depended on; that they are intelli¬ gible, and that they have not been interpolated.” The Romanist is perfectly willing to furnish this proof—this satisfactory and infallible proof—which is to exclude all doubt, and which enables him only to rest his faith on an immoveable basis! The authority of the living Church is the proof which he triun^iphantly adduces; and, to establish that autho¬ rity, he refers to the Scriptures as the authentic record of Christ’s promises, commands, and institu¬ tions. He produces a number of texts , which, he 32 Evidences of Christianity [part r. says, clearly prove the perpetuity, universality, infal¬ libility, unity of the Church, and the primacy of the bishops of Rome. Such is the mode of proof invariably resorted to by Romish controversialists. It is needless to produce instances from Milner, and Wiseman, and Perrone q , and other well-known writers. But here again the infidel will make the same answer which he has already offered to the argu¬ ments from miracles and prophecy: “You have yourselves proved,” he will say. “ that Scripture cannot be rightly interpreted, or at least, that there can be no certainty of any Scripture interpretations, except by the living authority of the Church. You therefore cannot prove this authority from Scrip¬ ture, since, according to your own doctrine, Scrip¬ ture itself, as regards its interpretation at least, depends for proof on that authority. To say that the texts which establish the authority of the Church are the only texts in holy Scripture which do not need interpretation, is to 4 beg the question.’ IIow can you prove the truth of such an assertion ? Is it not certain that those texts are as much dis¬ puted, and as much the subject of different inter¬ pretations, as those which refer to the Trinity, the Incarnation, or the Eucharist? If the texts refer¬ ring to the Church are plain and clear, those relating to all other important doctrines may be so likewise ; and thus there is no necessity for any infallible living judge in the Church; if those texts are Q See Milner, End of Con- p. 63, &c. lect. iv. Perrone, troversy, letter x. 2. xi. 4. Praelect. Theolog. De Vera Wiseman, Lectures on the Ca- Religione, pars ii. tliolic Church, lect. iii. vol. i. CHAP. II.] Subverted by Romanism. 33 obscure, and need an authoritative interpreter, they are insufficient to establish the authority of the Church, which you have yourselves proved to be the only certain proof of the right interpretation, genuineness, authenticity, and uncorrupted preser¬ vation of Scripture. There is, therefore, on your system, no valid proof either for the authority of the Church, or for any Christian doctrine, to be derived from Scripture.” Some Romanists, as Perrone, Wiseman, Cardinal De la Luzerne, and others, have endeavoured to avoid this difficulty by relying for proof of the authority of the Church on Scripture, considered as a merely hu¬ man document sustained by human testimony"; and then employing the authority of the Church to deter¬ mine its true interpretation, and to establish its in¬ spiration. But this leaves the difficulty in undimi¬ nished force. The infidel may rejoin: “You have yourselves proved that human testimony can be no foundation of firm and certain faith. You have also shown that the meaning of Scripture is uncertain. Consequently you cannot establish the authority of the Church, which is, according to you, the only foundation of the Christian faith, either on human testimony, or on any passages of Scripture. To do so, would be at once to place your faith on the very basis, which, in the case of the Protestants, you have shown to be untenable.” This is, in truth, a difficulty from which Romanists never can escape, until they relinquish the whole r Perrone, de Vera Relig. Hogue, Tract.de Eccl. p. 107- pars ii. prop. ii. Wiseman, Montblanc, Archbp. of Tours, lect. iii. i. 62. De la Luzerne, (Tracts of the Cath. Institute, Dissert, sur les Eglises Cath. et Tract xxx. p. 15, 16.) Protest, ii. 263, 264. De la I) 34 Evidences of Christianity [part I. basis of their theological argument, and adopt that of their opponents. The issue of the controversy between us may be safely made dependent on this single point. It is undeniable that Romanists, in order to establish the truth of Christianity, are obliged to relinquish the fundamental principles and positions of their argument with the adherents of the Reform¬ ation. To speak of “ consistency” as an attribute of Roman Catholic theology after this, is simply absurd. 6. It may be very easy, in defending the claims of the Church of Rome against Protestantism, to under¬ mine the evidences of Scripture; and, doubtless, the Sophists, who have thus argued, have left the defence of Christianity out of the question altogether; but when Infidelity and Rationalism compare the argu¬ ments of Romanists in defence of Christianity, with their arguments in defence of the infallibility of the Church, they will, in an instant, detect and expose the self-contradiction of the whole system. They will be able to demonstrate its falsehood from its incon¬ sistency. Romanism, holding the principles in which it opposes Protestantism, is, in the hands of Ration¬ alism or Infidelity, weaker and more destitute of proof than Heathenism itself, because it is more self¬ destructive. The argument for Christianity coming from a Romanist is only calculated to afford matter of amusement and sport to the infidel. If the prin¬ ciples of Romanism are true, Christianity has abso¬ lutely and positively no rational proof whatever. Romanism entirely subverts, or renders unavailing, the proofs on which the ancient Christian writers, and the Scriptures themselves, rested the truth of the Gospel. It leaves Revelation without any evidences. And hence it is compelled in self-defence to denounce CHAP. II.] Subverted by Romanism. 35 all examination of the basis of its authority, as heresy and infidelity. It has no evidences for that authority, which can bear the test of examination ; none which can for an instant stand against its own principles. Those principles have destroyed the only foundation on which its claims can be rationally proved. The natural and necessary result of this procedure shall be stated in the words of one who was himself a victim of this miserable system of argument. 44 Into the authority of that Church I very consistently resolved the certainty of my faith as a Christian, and of my scientific theology as a divine. Yet, as, in all fanciful theories, that is the weakest which should be the strongest point,—namely, the first assumption which forms the basis,—I did no sooner allow myself to examine the question of Church infallibility, with a determination not to be intimidated by consequences, than my whole Christianity vanished like a dream 5 .” 44 1 concluded that Christianity could not be true. This inference was not properly my own. The Church of Rome had most assiduously prepared me to draw itV’ It is to this cause that we are chiefly to attri¬ bute the fearful prevalence of infidelity in Roman Catholic countries. From what has been said it is clear, that Romanism is, by its own fundamental principles, unable to prove that Christianitv is a divine revelation. It has no argumentative basis whatever; that is to say, it is in the logical position of the ancient and modern systems of heathenism. May we not, therefore, reasonably infer, that Romanism, which has deprived itself of the evidences of Christianity, is not the Chris¬ tianity of the Gospel, or of the primitive Church ? s Life of J. Blanco White, i. 256. f Ibid. p. 111. 36 [PAKT I. nationalism subversive of Religion. > CHAPTER III. THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY AS RELATED TO RATIONALISM. # , 1. How the evidences of Christianity have fared under the influence of Rationalism is probably known, to a certain extent, by the reader; but there is, indeed, a species of inconsistency in the very notion of proofs of the truth of any religious system being adduced by rationalism. Religion, which implies an obliga¬ tion to submit to the will of a superior being , is incon¬ sistent with a merely philosophical system, which rejects, as its first principle, any authority but that of the reason of each individual, and which refuses to acknowledge any tenets as revealed by God, except those which commend themselves to this reason. Rationalism is defined by one of its most intelligent adherents, Dr. Bretschneider, as “that theological belief which does not admit any supernatural, imme¬ diate, and miraculous revelation from God to man, but asserts that there is only one universal revela¬ tion, which takes place through the contemplation of nature and man’s own reason; that the sacred au¬ thors did not write under the immediate inspiration of the Spirit of God; that Christianity was not de¬ signed to teach any incomprehensible truths and chap, iii.] Rationalism subversive of Religion. 37 doctrines, but only to confirm the religious teaching of reason; and that man neither can nor should accept any doctrine to be true which cannot be recognized and proved to him by reason a .” Now, it is evident that any system of opinion or practice founded solely on reason, is destitute of authority or obligation in itself. It cannot in any degree bind that reason on which it is founded. It must follow the dictates of reason, and must change as reason wills. Accordingly all rationalists “ recog¬ nize the necessity of inquiring, of correcting, and of ameliorating their belief as often as any new views require it h .” Consequently the positive system of rationalism, whatever it may be, is not a religion ; it is a philosophy. This has been very distinctly seen by a rationalistic writer of our own day. “ Is Christianity properly called the Christian religion ,” says Blanco White; “is the Gospel a religion f ... In my opinion, Christ came to liberate mankind from all religion, that great source of the worst human evils; Tan turn religio potuit suadere malorum ! All men devoted to a religion are slaves, servants, 6 pr }( tkoi c .” Shocking as such statements appear, they are put forward without intentional impiety by those who have been led to adopt the rationalistic prin¬ ciple. They are even perfectly sound, and true, and necessary, if reason be the sole judge of the truth of religious tenets. On the principles of rationalism, then, religion has no force or obligation; it becomes a philosophy, a Dewar, German Protest- Protestantism in Germany,p.24. antism, p. 17. c Life of J. Blanco White, b Schrockh, quoted by Rose, vol. ii. p. 38, 39. 38 Rationalism subversive of Religion. [part i. dependent on the human reason, which is its creator; and this essentially philosophical character is further evident from the confession, that religious doctrines in general are so far dependent on science, that they must necessarily alter as science advances and be¬ comes more perfect d ; that rationalism is unsuited to the great mass of mankind; and that if piety and morality are to be preserved in the world at large, it must be by retaining the popular notions of supernaturalism, or positive and authoritative reli¬ gion, to which rationalism is opposed 6 . Rationalism in Germany has been charged with great insincerity in assuming the exterior face of Christianity, and urging the apparent retention of forms, tenets, and language before the people f , which it deems supersti¬ tious and absurd, and against which it argues before the learned and intelligent. But the distinction which is thus made between exoteric and esoteric doctrine is strictly parallel to that of the ancient philosophers of Greece and Rome, who shared in the public prac¬ tice of superstitions, which they derided in private, d “ Omnino progressus in literis per tot saecula facti, iique non a singulorum hominum in- genio vel arbitrio profecti, seel sensim Divina Providentia, con- currentibus cultiorum gentium studiis effecti, plerosque Pro- testantium ecclesiarum socios ad altiora quasi scientise atque culturae fastigia adduxerunt, uncle aliam ficlei religiosae for- mam ac speciem intuentur, quam majoribus nostris pro illius aetatis rationibus licuit . . non possent, in tanta cognitionis naturae luce, et antiquitatis pa- riter atque omnis historiae noti- tia, tarn insigniter illustrata et amplificata caecutire.” Weg- scheider, Inst. Theol. Praef, p. xi. xii. See also Prolegomena, cap. i. § 11, not. a. e “ Haec revelationis opinio . . . . multis modis hominibus profuit . . . Longum enim ac difficile iter est per nostra ipso- rum inventa, breve et efficax per aliorum exempla et prae- cepta . . . Homines longepluri- mos religione quadam ciuctori- tatis, scil. positiva , ad bene vi- vendum egere, potest concedi.” Wegscheider, Inst. Theol. cap. i- § 8 - f Wegscheider, Inst. Theol. Praef. p. x. cap. iii. § 27. CHAP. III.] nationalism Inconsistent. 39 or in their literary productions. The Stoic and the Platonist argued against much of the heathen idolatry, and yet felt that some positive religion was necessary to the public welfare, and, as such, took part in it s . The rationalist in the same way contends against the Christian religion, i. e. rejects its mysterious doctrines as absurd, denies its supernatural origin, and argues even against its historical documents; yet he care¬ fully retains the forms and language of Christianity, which are in contradiction to his real tenets, lest the populace should become wholly irreligious. The rationalist may very possibly imagine that he is acting with good faith and sincerity in this pro¬ cedure ; but it proves very distinctly that rationalism is essentially a mere philosophy, which, like the later Platonism, borrows some ideas from Chris¬ tianity ; and that it is entirely unsuited to supply the place of religion. The very fact that it is built wholly on abstract reasoning, is in itself sufficient to show that it is unsuitable to the great body of man¬ kind, whose knowledge must always be empirical, and whose powers of reasoning are extremely limited. Rationalism, it is true, is so inconsistent as to ima- gine, that there is “ a universal [natural] revelation, which takes place through the contemplation of nature and man’s own reason 11 ;” while it holds the necessity of the idea of a supernatural revelation for the conviction of the multitude; so that a superna¬ tural revelation seems essential for the mass of man- g August, de Vera Religione, h Bretschneider, cited above, c. i. v. Leland, Advantage and p. 36. Wegscheider also ac- Necessity of the Christian Re- knowledges a universal natural velation, chap. xi. xiv.—xvi. revelation, which leads man to Warhurton, Div. Leg. of Moses, religion. Inst. Theol. cap. i. bk. iii. sect. 2. § 12. 40 Rationalism subversive of Christianity, [part i. kind, while no such revelation is requisite for man¬ kind in general! I shall not attempt to reconcile so singular a contradiction as this. 2. What has been said is sufficient to account for the circumstance, otherwise unintelligible, that while Rationalism professes to have arrived at the purest and most perfect conception of the idea of Chris¬ tianity, it proceeds systematically and elaborately to demolish all the evidences and proofs of the Chris¬ tian revelation. What Romanism renders doubtful, Rationalism openly and avowedly subverts. The miracles of our Lord and of the apostles are resolved into natural causes, or treated as fabulous. The pro¬ phecies are proved to have been unfulfilled, or are alleged to have been written after the events they mention. The authenticity, genuineness, and text of Scripture are rejected. The possibility of a super¬ natural or miraculous revelation is denied. Thus the whole external evidence of revelation is subverted; while reason, the sole test of truth, can discern in the doctrines of the Scriptures, the creeds, and Christian confessions, no signs of a Divine origin 1 . Rationalism has not in all cases been carried to such lengths as these: the differences of its adherents indeed afford a rather inconvenient illustration of the powers of unassisted reason as a guide to religious truth. The system is, in fact, compounded of discordant ele¬ ments; for the doctrine of 66 Accommodation” and “ Mythus” was devised by Semler with a view to reconcile a belief in the inspiration of Scripture with the most absolute freedom of the human intellect: it was entirely based on the doctrine of inspiration and 1 See Rose, Protestantism Protestantism; Amand Saintes, in Germany ; Dewar, German Histoire du Rationalisme. CHAP. III.] Rationalism Inconsistent . 41 of supernatural revelation 3 ; and yet rationalism now denies the fact of any supernatural revelation; and, in so doing, shows the absurdity of its whole system of “ Accommodation” and “ Mythus.” 3. The rationalist, then, places himself precisely on the same ground as the philosopher did before the advent of our Lord. He has no proof to offer of the truth and obligation of the Christian religion, or of any other. Religion is, indeed, according to him, a mere name; it is a statement of nothing which reason cannot ascertain without its aid. Conse¬ quently no man can, on his principles, be bound to profess any particular religion; and, with regard to the positive tenets which rationalism supposes to be included in what it styles Christianity, it may be sufficient to say, that the adherents of this philosophy have not yet arrived at any agreement on the very first article of religion on which all depends, namely, the existence of God: for while one section of these philosophers recognizes a personal Deity and pro¬ vidence; another adopts pantheism in its various forms, and relieves man from all further moral or intellectual responsibility by identifying him with the Supreme and Eternal Being k . It is obvious also, j Saintes, Hist, du Rationa- lisme, p. 132—134. Dewar, German Protestantism, p. 107. k See Dr. Mill, on the Pan¬ theistic Theory, p. 22, 156. Tennemann, Man.Philos. § 387, 391. Cud worth, Intellect. Syst. c. iv. § 25. The absurdity and impiety of pantheism have never been better exposed than by Augustine : “Si mundi ani¬ mus Deus est, eique animo mundus ut corpus est ... si ita est, quis non videat quanta impietas et irreligiositas conse- quatur, ut quod calcaverit quis- que, partem Dei calcet, et in omni animante occidendo, pars Dei trucidetur? Nolo omnia dicere quae possunt occurrere cogitantibus, dici autem sine verecundia non possunt. Si autem sola animalia rationalia, sicut sunt homines, partes Dei esse contendunt ; non video quidem, si totus mundus est 42 TJnitarianism a Branch of Rationalism . [part i. that a system of opinion which includes in its funda¬ mental principles the notion of indefinite change , according to the growth of human science, is not really a religious but a philosophical system: its tenets cannot have any force or authority; they are mere speculations. 4. Socinianism or Unitarianism is only a species of rationalism which has not acquired sufficient courage or consistency to arrive at the conclusions to which its principle necessarily conducts. Unitarians, from the time of Socinus, have always maintained the absolute supremacy of reason in religion; a doctrine in which they had been anticipated by the Mani- chseans 1 ; and on this principle they have rejected many of the received articles of faith, and have endeavoured to show by the aid of criticism, that the texts which support those articles have been mis¬ translated or interpolated" 1 . This mode of argument, however, evidently supposes that Scripture is, in itself Deus, quomodo bestias ab ejus partibus separent ? Sed obluc- tari quid opus est? De ipso rationali animante, id est ho- mine, quid infelicius credi po¬ test, quam Dei partem vapulare cum puervapulat? Jam vero partes Dei fieri lascivas, ini- quas, impias, atque omnino damnabiles, quis ferre possit, nisi qui prorsus insanit?” De Civitate Dei, lib. iv. c. 12, 13. Wisdom, “falsely so called,” has perhaps never laid itself more open to ridicule than when it has degenerated into pantheism. Even the gross anthropomorphism of the Pagan world presents more worthy notions of the Deity; though it must be observed, that pan¬ theism has frequently been combined with polytheistic no¬ tions, as in the Hindu systems. See Elphinstone’s India, vol. i. p. 170 ; H. H. Wilson, Vishnu Purana, Prsef. viii. lxx. 6. Mr. Newman is of opinion that Revelation alone is capable of refuting pantheism. Arians, p. 201 , 202 . 1 Augustin, de Utijitate Cre- dendi, Prsef. m Thus the Socinian Belsham observes, in reference to the texts of Scripture which prove our Lord’s divinity: “ The Unitarians pledge themselves to show that they are all either interpolated, corrupted, or mis¬ understood.” Magee on Atone¬ ment, ii. 437. chap, hi.] Unitarianism Inconsistent. 43 free from error; or, in other words, virtually concedes the inspiration of Scripture; and accordingly the Uni¬ tarians generally are distinguished from rationalists by what the latter term their “ Bibliolatry ,” i. e. by a certain degree of respect for the Scriptures. Pro¬ fessor Norton and Dr. Channing, who are leaders of the Unitarians, in their correspondence with Blanco White, maintained the necessity of believing in the historical accuracy of the Bible n ; and the latter complains that Unitarians are generally under strong prejudices of the same kind 0 . But if the leading principle of Unitarianism, the supremacy of reason ,, be true; that is, if we can determine whether any doctrine in any alleged revelation be true or false, by its conformity with the dictates of reason; it is evident that Rationalists argue more justly than Socinians, when they infer that revelation is needless, and that it has never been given; for if man is endowed by nature with so perfect a reason, he can¬ not require any other instruction^ And, besides this, the very claim advanced on behalf of reason, to determine the truth of doctrines, not by investiga¬ tion of their external evidence, but by inquiry into their internal reasonableness, is inconsistent with the n Life of Blanco White, ii. 251, 303. iii. 25, 118. ° Life of Blanco White, vol. ii. p. 228. The first article of the Racovian Catechism pro¬ fessed belief in the inspiration of Scripture. p The argument is thus stated by Wegscheider : “ Quemad- modum omnia alia animantia iis viribus praedita sunt quibus naturae suae fines obtinere pos- sint, ita sine dubio etiam homo non aliter comparatus est; et quum ratio sit suprema ejus vis, haec quoque satis idonea erit, qua summos naturae suae fines obtineat, ea igitur, quae ad officia tuenda et ad religionem colendam spectant, intelligat et observet, adeo ut summi numi- nis interventus quidem miracu- losus, quo ad summos ipsius fines consequendos ducatur, baud necessaries videatur.” Tnst. Theol. cap. i. § 11. 44 Rationalism subversive of Religion. [part i. notion of a revelation; because there can be no other use in a revelation than to furnish such evidence, and to obviate the necessity for such inquiry. The principle then of Socinianism cannot consistently stop short of the rejection of all revelation; and it is evident that its tendencies are now developing them¬ selves in that direction q . Rationalism and Unitarianism therefore are in their principle equally subversive of the notion of a revela¬ tion, or of any religion which is supposed to be bind¬ ing on men. Religion is, in both cases, left without obligation or authority; because it is made wholly dependent upon reason: it is changed into a mere philosophy. It is true that these systems borrow their positive doctrines from Christianity; but as those doctrines are, in this instance, established only by reasoning, they have no greater claim on reception than any other tenets which may be advanced by philosophers who disclaim Christianity and every other religion. The Pantheist, the Atheist, the Materialist, the Pyrrhonist, stand on precisely the same religious ground in reality, and have equal claims with the mere Rationalist or the Unitarian who professes to be a Christian. 5. It has been already observed, that the essentially philosophical character of Rationalism, or its incon¬ sistency with the notion of religion, is shown amongst other things, by its making religious belief dependent on human science, so that it is liable to continual change and variation with the progress of science. Hence arises the doctrine which is common to q The recent publication of translation of German rationa- Blanco White’s Life and Wri- listic works, are amongst these tings by a Unitarian, and the indications. chap, iit.] Rationalism subversive of Religion. 45 Rationalists and Unitarians, that the knowledge of religion is progressive, and that it is continually developing; which Wegscheider very justly regards as inconsistent with the idea of any revelation'. Strauss, Feuerbach, and other recent writers, have, in accordance with this theory, represented Christianity as only a stage in the development of the human mind, which is hastening to its close, and is about to be lost amidst the discoveries of modern philosophy 5 . On this theory it will be necessary to speak more at length hereafter, in connexion with Mr. Newman’s recent publication. r Wegscheider, Inst. Theol. s Dewar, German Protest- § 27. antism, p. 196 —198. 4(j Mysticism. [PART T. CHAPTER IV. THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY AS RELATED TO MYSTICISM. 1. As Rationalism acknowledges reason as the only test of religious truth, and therefore rejects all evi¬ dences or proofs derived from matters of fact, which it designates as “empirical;” so Mysticism, which con¬ stitutes an inner sense, or conscience, or inspiration, the sole test and proof of truth, to the exclusion of rational examination, equally supersedes and denies the external evidences of Christianity. It is needless here to trace the principle of mysti¬ cism from its origin in the later Platonic philosophy through its various developments to the present age. Its characteristic, from the days of Origen, who was amongst its earliest advocates in the Christian Church, was the rejection of reasoning and study as a mode of attaining to truth, and the assertion of an universal light emanating from the Deity; by which alone men were instructed in the knowledge of divine things a . This rule of faith was adopted, under various modifi¬ cations, by the Anabaptists, the followers of Scliwenck- a Mosheim, cent. iii. part ii. Theologia Polemica, tom. iv. ch. 3. Gieseler, i. 112. Stapfer, cap. xv. c h a p . i v . ] Developments of Mysticism . 47 feld, David George, and other enthusiasts in the six¬ teenth century; by the Quakers, Muggletonians, and Quietists in the seventeenth century; and by the Methodists and German Pietists in the eighteenth. I am not here concerned to show the enthusiasm and the extravagant acts of fanaticism to which the doctrines of mysticism have led in various ages, but merely to trace its general bearing on the evidences of Christianity. 2. In this point of view it is of importance to trace its prevalence and effects in Germany, where it has been more fully developed than in any other country, and where it is brought into immediate relations with the proofs of Christianity. The philosophical systems of modern Germany seem to be all, more or less, con¬ nected with mysticism. Thus one philosophy rejected all external evidences, derived from reason and testi¬ mony, of the existence of God, of moral liberty, and of a future life, while it recognized as the sole and sufficient proof and basis of religion, a practical faith, founded on our moral nature—a kind of intuitive i perception or knowledge. Another philosophy af¬ firmed that the existence of God was incapable of reasonable proof, and depended entirely on feeling and instinct. A third contended that providence, or a moral order of things, had no existence separate from our moral nature, so that the very existence of God is inconceivable to man apart from this moral nature; while a fourth held that our knowledge of God and of religion was founded only on intuition''. The operation of this principle, and its connexion b H. J. Rose, Prot. in Ger- 235, 236, 326. Tennemann, many, p. 209—213. Saintes, Man. of Philos. § 372—400. 48 Mysticism in Germany. [part t. with rationalism, are strikingly exemplified in the case of Sender, who may be considered as the founder of that philosophy. After wholly rejecting all external evidences of the canon of Scripture, he maintained that “ the real proof of the divine origin of a book, is an internal conviction of the truth of its con¬ tents, which is properly fides divina , and which we are accustomed, in the not very clear language of the Bible, to call 4 the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the soul of the reader.’ ” 44 In virtue of this principle he excluded, without mercy, from the Canon, Solo¬ mon’s Song, the books of Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Chronicles; while he regarded as dubious those of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Daniel.” As regards the Pentateuch he adopted the conjec¬ ture of Father Simon, and held that it had been compiled from various fragments of uncertain date, and had been recomposed by Ezra. 44 As this rejec¬ tion of a great proportion of the books which compose the Canon, did not arise from a scientific examination of historical testimonies , but merely from a personal repugnance which had its origin in ideas contrary to those of the Bible, it is not surprising that the same repugnance induced Semler to reject many things in the New Testament, which contradicted his precon¬ ceived opinions 0 .” 3. Schleiermacher, De Wette, Twesten, and others amongst the least exceptionable of the modern writers of Germany, concur in founding religion on sentiment or feeling, to the exclusion of reason. 44 Schleier¬ macher,” says M. Saintes, 44 assigned in too exclusive a manner, feeling, as the principal and ordinary seat c Saintes, Hist, du Rationalisme, p. 130, 131. chap, iv.] Mysticism connected with Deism. 49 of religion, and declared that it was the source of the spiritual life; ” or, in other words, he placed Chris¬ tianity “ on conscience as its foundation, and its real object.” With these views of Christianity as wholly clependent on the moral sense, Schleiermacher regards men of eminent sanctity, as the sources of religious knowledge; “ he teaches that it belongs to the essence of religion to spring from individuals pro¬ foundly religious and prophetical.” Hence De Wette affirms, that, in order to recognize in any religious manifestation a Divine revelation, we must be possessed and moved by the force and the attractive¬ ness which reside in truth and religious beauty; we must feel ourselves spiritually raised above ourselves ; and must recognize in this manifestation an infinitely superior power before which we involuntarily bend our knees in adoration. That Christianity is one of those religious manifestations, and consequently a Divine revelation, is, according to him, merely an article of the received faith, that is, an ideal judgment, which cannot rest on any argumentative foundation: for the Divine carries its own proof along with it d . There can be very little doubt, that these theories of mysticism were derived from the w T ritings of the English Deists. Lord Herbert of Cherbury, assigned man’s natural instinct as the source of his knowledge of religious truth. The deistical author of 44 Chris¬ tianity not founded on argument” contended that revelation is only imparted internally to each indivi¬ dual. “ This,” says Bishop Law, 44 he terms 4 inspira¬ tion; and 4 infused evidence,’ 4 feeling,’ and 4 internal sense,’ and 4 of a nature little differing from that of d Saintes, p. 384> 50 Mysticism connected with Deism. [part t. intuition.’ In short, it is what will despatch the whole business of religion at once, without either 4 time ’ or 4 teaching,’ reading or 4 reasoning,’ the use of our understandings, or the evidence of our senses 6 .” 4. Mysticism, whatever form it may assume, whether it resolve the proof of religion into 44 inspiration,” the 44 illumination of the Spirit,” 44 intuition,” 44 feeling,” 44 instinct,” 44 conscience,” or by whatever other appel¬ lation it designates an inward principle which is sup¬ posed to be the sole test of religious truth, is essen¬ tially subversive of Christianity, and in its results is identical with rationalism. For if man possesses some inward sense which is an infallible test of truth, it follows that religion needs no support from ex¬ ternal evidences; that such evidences have probably not been given; that the miraculous events recorded in the Scriptures were superfluous, and therefore improbable; that all notion of a supernatural revelation supported by external proofs may be safely rejected. An inward infallible guide must, of course, be supreme: hence Quakers hold that the Scriptures are subordinate to the internal Spirit; hence Mys¬ tic Rationalists deny the inspiration of Scripture, and do not hesitate to dispute its authenticity. So that, in fine, Mysticism, while it declaims against the absurdity and impiety of constituting reason the sole judge of religious truth, only instals in its place an¬ other principle which leads equally to the subversion of revelation. 5. It may indeed be questioned whether rationalism e Law, Considerations on the Theory of Religion, p. 18. chap, iv.] Mysticism connected with Rationalism. 51 is not in many cases only verbally distinguished, as regards its principles, from mysticism; for “reason” may be practically resolved into “ conscience” or “feeling;” or it may be even theoretically combined with them. This has been actually done by a ra¬ tionalist very recently. “ Christianity,” says Blanco White, “ must carry its own proof in its reasonable¬ ness, in its agreement with the light within us , as the original Quakers very properly asserted, though with this clear view of the Gospel they mixed up the most absurd enthusiasm: if not, Christianity must be a gradually decreasing sect. This light of the conscience is what Christ and the original apostles called the Spirit , which was to lead the disciples into all the truth. The necessity of believing in inspira¬ tion and miracles was the contrivance of those early Christians who wished to become priestsV’ “ What he [Barclay] and the primitive Quakers called the Spirit is nothing but conscience , or the practical rea¬ son By this supreme judge within us the Scrip¬ tures must be tried, whether what they contain is of God. I do not mean that we could have invented, or discovered, or explained, so as to lit it for the mass of mankind, every thing which Christ taught: but whether we are to receive it or not, as worthy of God, must be decided by our conscientious rea¬ son _As to historical facts, whether natural or supernatural, they are matters of mere human cri¬ ticism, and cannot have been made necessary to our eternal happiness. The authenticity of the books themselves is only a probability, and the difficulties attached to the proof are acknowledged by those f Life of Blanco White, vol. ii. p. 230. E 2 52 Mysticism connected with Rationalism. [part r. who have laboured most to prove it g .” “The New Testament contains the purest spirit of Christianity, but that pure spirit must be drawn from it by means of the spirit within us. That spirit (the conscientious reason , which is God himself) must make the selec¬ tion between what is human and what is divine in those books 11 .’' “ It is a vain attempt to seek for knowledge of the Deity anywhere but within ourselves. _Useless, or worse than useless, are all the argu¬ ments of natural theology , unless we have previously found the proof of the being of God in our own souls 1 . 5 ’ In these passages we find a combination of mys¬ ticism and rationalism, or a passing of one into the other; and, as a necessary result, the rejection of all the external evidences of Christianity, and even of natural religion. s Vol. ii. p. 235. h Vol. ii. p. 264. 1 Vol. iii. p. 147. CllAP. V.] Theory of Conscience. 53 CHAPTER V. THE EVIDENCES OF RELIGION SUBVERTED BY RECENT THEORIES OF CONSCIENCE. 1. The professed object of the recent publications on “ Development,” and on 44 The Ideal of a Christian Church,” appears to be, the acquisition of a clear and consistent mode of establishing the truth of Chris¬ tian doctrines. The author of the former work has in several places expressed an opinion of the insuf¬ ficiency of existing systems of argument on behalf of Christianity, and a feeling of the necessity of adopting a new theory which may harmonize ap¬ parent contradictions and solve difficulties. His disciple also evidently imagines a similar necessity. But in proceeding to apply their remedies, one, at least, of these writers has adopted rationalistic prin¬ ciples, and both have been led into mysticism. The theory of conscience which these writers have propounded as the sole test of religious truth is purely mystic, and leads to the subversion of Chris¬ tianity; it is also entirely contradictory to the opinions of those who have advanced it; and is in direct opposition to Scripture and to the common sense of Christians. I shall first proceed to show that these writers 54 Recent Mystical Theories. [tart i. deny to man the right of examining the evidences of any religious system which may be presented to him; and secondly, that they recognize an inward light, which they entitle conscience, as the sole test of religious truth, to the exclusion of all external evidences. While the believer repudiates the false theory of rationalism, which, in constituting reason the sole judge of religious truth, to the exclusion of all exa¬ mination of the evidences of revelation, supersedes at once the very notion of a revelation, he will not be seduced by the equally dangerous theory of those who, in endeavouring to elude the sophistries of rationalism, or to promote some favourite view of religion which cannot be argumentatively sus¬ tained, deny to reason any part in the pursuit of religious truth, and denounce all examination into the evidences of religious doctrines as infidel in its tendency. To call for proof of any disputed doctrine is, according to such persons, absurd, unless we are prepared to submit every doctrine which we hold to examination, which would obviously lead to universal scepticism. So that, if any doctrine be presented for acceptance, it is, according to such reasoners, a duty to believe it at once, however absurd and unfounded it may appear; and scrupulously to abstain from any inquiry into the evidence of its truth. 2. This is undoubtedly a very large and comprehen¬ sive principle, and provides, at all events, for the augmentation of notions and impressions on religious subjects. How far it is likely to lead to a know¬ ledge of the truth , or how far it is consistent with the notion of revelation at all, will presently appear. I am unwilling to misrepresent or exaggerate the chap, v.] Recent Mystical Theories. 55 views of those to whom reference is here especially made. It is needless to call attention to the use of these principles by Roman Catholic controversialists generally, who have invariably contended that the tenets of the Romish Church ought to be received with implicit faith, and that any examination of her dogmas is based on a principle which necessarily leads to infidelity. It will be sufficient to produce evidence from the work of an advocate of Romanism, who since its publication has given proof of the sin¬ cerity of his convictions by entering that commu¬ nion. “ The Ideal of a Christian Church” comprises one of the most striking amongst the recent deve¬ lopments of the theory to which allusion is here made. In the concluding chapter of this work, the principle of “free inquiry” (under which appellation the author means to include all examination what¬ ever) is treated at considerable length, and to that chapter reference will be principally made. The writer in question has, throughout his re¬ searches on this subject, failed to discriminate be¬ tween the case of those to whom religious doctrines are presented for the first time, and those who have been educated in their belief; and he argues from the evident unfitness of examination in a spirit of doubt in the one case, to its unfitness in the other. Hence commencing with objections to the process of 44 unbiassed and searching examination” into the truth of all our received opinions, which is urged by various parties 3 , and on the unfitness of which, in a certain sense, there need be no difference; he pro¬ ceeds to contend, that when any Roman Catholic doctrine is presented to us, it is most highly unrea- a Ward’s Ideal, p. 482, &c. 56 Mysticism of Ward's “ Ideal” [part i. sonable and inconsistent to demand any proof of its truth. “To those who call on the Roman Catholic to produce from Scripture or antiquity, definite and tangible grounds for his belief in the universality of St. Mary’s intercession, I would say, Have you ever thought of producing definite and tangible grounds, from Scripture and antiquity, for your own articles of belief? That you have read both Scripture and antiquity, and seen much which coincides with your views, I do not deny; but you know very well, that if all the evidence bearing on a subject were pro¬ duced in court ever so fully, yet if counsel were heard only on one side, there is not much doubt of the decision.... It is perfectly idle and absurd to imagine that you can really judge of the evidence, unless, by a sustained and prolonged effort of the imagination, you have supposed yourselves in the respective position of your opponents... .Will you answer that not one man in a million is capable of the task I suppose? I think you have understated the matter; and should doubt if a man ever lived who was competent to perform it b .” That is to say, if a Protestant, to whom some doctrine of Romanism is presented, requires proof of its truth before he accepts it, he is inconsistent in believing any thing whatever , unless he has previously submitted it to the most searching examination. This principle is, of course, capable of other applications. Accord¬ ingly Mr. Ward argues, that Protestants are incon¬ sistent in demanding proof for doctrines presented to them by Romanists, while they do not examine the proofs which Socinians advance against their b Ward’s Ideal, p. 494,495. chap, v.] Scepticism of Ward's “ Ideals 57 own received tenets 0 ; that Socinians are equally so, in not investigating Schleiermacker’s, Paulus’s, or Strauss’s view of Scripture d ; that these latter rationalists are themselves inconsistent in criticizing the doctrines of revelation, while they assume the doctrines of theism 6 ; that theism is itself unable to produce any rational proof f . The inference from the whole is, that “ if faith ” (i. e. an implicit reception of Roman Catholic doctrine without investigation or proof) “be admitted, the whole structure of Catholic doctrine rests on a basis which cannot be shaken; and if it be denied, we have no reason for believing so much, as that we were in existence one minute cr 55 ago\ 3. This is all, doubtless, highly ingenious, and evinces, at least, the author’s intimacy with the aca¬ demic philosophy 11 ; but so philosophical a writer cannot object to the general principle being elicited, c Ideal, p. 496. d P. 497. e Ibid. f P. 499. s P.508. Mr. Ward’s mode of argument here is precisely that which he condemns as sin¬ ful in Roman Catholics. He remarks (p. 289), that their con¬ duct in reference to Protestants is wholly indefensible in endea¬ vouring, “ whether in print or penned addresses, to shake their confidence in all the doctrines and principles which they most certainly hold,” and in endeavouring “ to make a ‘ tabula rasa’ ” of the minds of those whom they are anxious to convert, “ if by some pos¬ sible chance the image of Rome may be afterwards there inscribed.” Ideal, p. 578. The deistical character of the Ro¬ mish argument against Scrip¬ ture has been already described in chapter ii. h See Tertullian, de Anima, c. xvii.; August, de CivitateDei, xix. 18. The sceptical character of this philosophy is exhibited by Warburton, Div. Leg. bk.iii. sect. iii. Mr. Ward’s and Mr. Newman’s theories of con¬ science and development, like the Roman doctrine of infalli¬ bility, are based on a philoso¬ phy which denies the valid¬ ity of the ordinary proofs of Christian doctrine or of natu¬ ral religion. The remark of Warburton on this subject is worthy of attention : “ When once,” he says, “ we find an 58 Consequences of Mr. Ward's Theory. [part i. which is involved in the whole series of his reasoning. Let us endeavour to “develop” this “latent” principle, and determine the value of the whole argument, by some applications which do not seem to have occurred to the writer who has employed it. The principle, then, which results from the whole series of this writer’s argument, is, that when religions doctrine is presented for our acceptance , ive are to accept it without examination of the proofs or evidence bp which its truth may be sustained; that it is in the highest degree inconsistent to act otherwise; and that examination of the proofs of any doctrine presented for our acceptance leads, if consistently followed out, to utter scepticism. Now, this principle extends to conclusions which the writer evidently did not con¬ template. In the first place, he has no right whatever to apply this rule exclusively , to the acceptance of Roman Catholic doctrine: he has no right to deter¬ mine, arbitrarily, that Roman Catholic or even Chris¬ tian doctrines, when presented for acceptance, must be received without proof, or examination, while Protestant, or Heretical, or Polytheistic doctrines must not be so received. On what ground could such a distinction be legitimately made ? This writer will scarcely allege that the mere claims of the Church of Rome so carry their own evidence along with them, that any conscientious person, of whatever religion he may be, cannot fail to recognize author, who would be valued for his logic, begin with depre¬ ciating reason, we may be as¬ sured he has some very unrea¬ sonable paradox to advance. So when the learned Huetius would pass upon his readers a number of slight chimerical conjectures for demonstrations , he introduces his work by ca¬ villing at the certainty of the principles of geometry.” Div. Legat. bk. iii. sect. iv. chap, v.] Consequences of Mr. WarcCs Theory. 59 their validity at once, and to adopt the doctrinal consequences which follow from that admission. He would be the first to disclaim such an assumption, which would be as uncharitable as illogical. But if so—if the doctrine of the Church of Rome, and the claims of the Church of Rome, do not at once necessarily carry their own evidence to every con¬ scientious person; on what grounds can we be called on to receive them , in preference to the doctrines of any other religion, whether Christian or heathen, if examination of the evidence on which they re¬ spectively rest, be not allowable? If we were to receive without examination, or proof, whatever reli¬ gious tenets might be presented to us, we should receive a good deal more than the writer himself • would be anxious to see received, and religion would become a congeries of contradictions of Christianity and heathenism, of orthodoxy and heresy; or it would be in a perpetual process of change. The writer in question would not relish this conclu¬ sion; and yet it is strictly deducible from his argument. But, to show the unsoundness of the theory, we will take a case. Suppose the doctrines of the English Church presented to a Romanist, or the doctrines of polytheism to a Christian; is he bound to receive them without demanding any proof f “ No,” Mr. Ward will answer; “ he should either reject them without any examination at all, or subject them to the most rigid and searching scrutiny, before he even dreamt of receiving them.” If so then, we are not bound to receive without examination of its proofs, every doctrine which may be presented to us, either by Romanists or by any other body of religionists; and the whole argument falls to the ground. 60 Consequences of Mr. Ward's Theory. [part i. 4. It does not seem necessary to enter further J into the arguments in behalf of this theory; but the connexion of the theory with the evidences of religious truth is very remarkable: it is made to depend on the principle, that the articles of the Christian faith are destitute of any clear evidence derived from Scripture, or from the doctrine of the primitive Church; and that the proof of revelation itself will not stand the test of examination ! He instances,first, the doctrines of the real presence and of the Divinity of our Lord. In reference to the latter, he urges the “ Arianism attributed by so many writers to several of the early fathers,” and the force of the Socinian argument from Scripture 1 . As re¬ gards the proof of the truth of revelation in general, he cites Mr. Newman’s assertion, that the historical evidence, at last, is only such, that “ there are (so to say) three chances for revelation, and two against j .” We have already seen (p. 56) that the writer is of opinion, that the doctrine of theism itself, i. e. the existence of God, is incapable of proof. It may be desirable to notice more particularly his sentiments on this subject. “ What are the grounds on which we receive it [the doctrine of theism]? Now, I will allow for the moment far greater force than I believe justly due to the argument from final causes ... When we consider the fearful amount of suffering, mental and bodily, which exists in every direction .. we can¬ not profess that, from the visible Creation alone, we should obtain a belief in the Creator’s infinite love for man, and for his creatures... And in the last place, where in the natural world shall we see indi- i Ideal, p. 487, 488. - 1 lb. p. 487. chap. V.] Consequences of Mr. Ward's Theory. 6 1 cations of God’s personality f. Accordingly it is, I fancy, universally acknowledged by thinkers of the present day, that we must look to our moral nature for such a real and convincing proof as we are in search of.. . But then, a religious Catholic has the very same” proof of the doctrine of the Trinity, the Eucharistic presence, and the doctrines connected with the blessed Virgin k . Thus all external evidence of the existence of a personal God, and of religion in general, is rejected as insufficient. Religious truth, in any case, may, according to this writer, be absolutely destitute of proof. “ From the circumstance that some doctrine, wholly foreign to our own moral experience, appears to us to have literally no foundation in reason or in Scripture, not even the faintest probability arises that it may not be true 1 .”....“ And that for the simple reason, that religious truths are their oimi evidence™.” Hence it is argued, that “ religious persons will invariably pre¬ sent to the world the appearance of acting and of believing on absurdly insufficient grounds. To present this appearance is ever a characteristic note of the true Church 11 .’ So that Christianity is, according to this writer, a system which is unable to demonstrate its own reasonableness. 5. With reference to the authority of Scripture, lie laments that “ the Protestant world has agreed in taking as their first principle a book rather than a doc¬ trine 0 because, while Christian doctrines commend themselves at once to the conscience as true p , the “Scripture narratives” are not so proved: “No ordi- k Ideal, p. 499. 11 P. 532. 1 P. 521. 0 P. 534. m P. 523. p P. 536. 62 Consequences of Mr. Ward's Theory. [part i. nary Christian can say, (to make a purely imaginary hypothesis,) that if it became on other grounds pro¬ bable that some one or more of those were spurious , he could have any spiritual knowledge of his own, which he could oppose confidently to such a supposition; nor yet again, that of those which are genuine there may be some few which, at first hearing, do not altogether commend themselves, and which he re¬ ceives on the authority of the rest or of the pro¬ ponent" 1 .” This distinction is worthy of attention: it leads to the inference that Scripture is not the word of God; because the conscience, which is ac¬ knowledged as the sole test of truth, is supposed to find difficulties in Scripture which it does not find in Christian doctrine. And the writer, therefore, deli¬ cately hints at the expediency of not resting on Scripture for the proof of Christian doctrine. It is rather singular, that, after having denied that even the genuineness of Scripture can be determined by our conscience, or inner sense, he decides that Scrip¬ ture has no other evidence ! The only evidence which he is prepared to admit of the Holy Scriptures is this: “ The evidence to me of the Bible’s authority is— my need, and its supply. It could be no matter of wonder, if God gave no external evidence for it whatever r .” Undoubtedly this inference is quite legitimate: if the evidence of the Scripture be wholly subjective; if it need nothing more in the way of proof than its recognition by the conscience of each individual, it is not to be supposed that external evidences have been given by God ; and thus we may safely dispense P. 537. r P. 541. chap, v.] Consequences of Mr. Ward's Theory. 63 with any belief in miracles and prophecy; but if, as Mr. Ward has previously admitted, the subjective evidence of the Bible does not in all cases establish its genuineness , it would seem, after all, that external evidences are not without their value. Nor does this writer attempt to deny the fact of a supernatural revelation having been made, i. e. of a revelation evidenced by miracles and prophecy. He merely urges, that such external evidences ought not to be examined; that the internal evidence of Scripture, which arises from its adaptation to the wants of our individual natures, is the only evidence of its truth to us. But it is competent to the ra¬ tionalist to infer from this doctrine, that no super¬ natural evidences of religion have been in fact given; because there is no assignable reason why they should in this case have been given. Rationalism on these principles acts very reasonably in rejecting all the ex¬ ternal evidences of revelation. It meets the writer’s recommendation also in refraining from real exami¬ nation of any evidence alleged for revelation. It decides without any inquiry into facts, but simply on its inward sense of what is true or false, that supernatural evidences are not to be admitted; and on this inward sense it proceeds in various modes to deny or explain them away. The inspiration of Scripture, of course, and its authenticity too, vanish in this process. The Scripture records supernatural facts: the rationalist feels their impossibility, and therefore denies the inspiration and authenticity of Scripture. These results might have been anticipated from a rejection of the mode of proof which has been traced by the hand of God Himself in Holy Scripture. We have 04 Mr. Newman § Theory of Conscience. [parti. seen that Romanism, in its efforts to make the proof of religion wholly dependent on the infallibility of the living Church, has left Christianity without any rational proof, and reduced it to a level with hea¬ thenism and philosophy. We have seen that ra¬ tionalism and mysticism have been led to the re¬ jection of all positive religion, or the conversion of religion into a mere theory or a sentiment, by the assumption that reason or sentiment is the only test of truth. In rejecting all exercise of the reasoning powers—in denying the right of examination into the evidences of religion—the writer under consi¬ deration is necessarily led to undervalue all external evidences of truth, and to regard them as insufficient. Hence he has no scruple in assailing or undermining the proofs of Catholic doctrine founded on Scripture, tradition, and reason—the evidence of the authenticity of Scripture—and even of the first principles of natural religion. 6. This writer professes to have derived all his views from Mr. Newman, and undoubtedly the latter does, in some parts of his writings, afford some counte¬ nance to the assertion. The following passage is cited in evidence: “The apostles then proceeded thus....they did not rest their cause on argument; they did not appeal to eloquence, wisdom, or reputa¬ tion ; nay, nor did they make miracles necessary to the enforcement of their claims 5 ” This passage is rather obscure, and may bear different meanings; but the doctrine advanced elsewhere is less equivocal. I t is there taught, that the kingdom of God, i. e. (diristianity when first preached, did not subdue men s Newman on Justification, cited by Ward, Ideal, p. 556. chap, v.] Mr. Newmans Theory of Conscience. 65 by appeals to tlieir senses, i. e. by miracles, &c., but touched their secret hearts, from which an imme¬ diate response was elicited. And such, according to the writer, has ever since been the mode in which the truth has evidenced itself—more by its attesta¬ tion by our conscience, than by its external notes and tokens 1 . There is some degree of vagueness in the language employed, but, on the whole, it seems to point very distinctly to the same doctrine which Mr. Ward has maintained, viz. that the evi¬ dence of religious truth lies in its harmony with our inward feelings, not in any external proofs addressed to our reasoning faculties. In his “ Essay on Development ” the same writer contends that it is a principle of Christianity to be¬ lieve doctrines which may be proposed to us, without examination, and on slight grounds. This principle is applied specially indeed to the doctrines pro¬ pounded by the Roman Church; but it is evidently impossible to restrain it to such an application. The positions then, which are taken, are as follows: that in practical questions (such as the choice of religion) our course ought to be guided by presumptions at first, and that evidence may afterwards be inquired into 11 ; that, in consequence, we ought at once to receive the whole body of doctrine propounded, and then apply it to explain the contradictions and diffi¬ culties presented by the history of Christian doctrine in ancient times' ; that it is the character of true faith, to begin by believing on slight grounds or mere guesses w ; that the early Christians did not examine t Newman, Sermons on Sub- lopment, p. 147. jects of the Day, p. 359. v P. 148—150. u Newman, Essay on Deve- ' v P. 327. 66 Difference between these Theories. [part i . the evidences or proofs of the truth of revelation before believing it; that the Fathers approved of this mode of proceeding 5 "; that while they were not “ opposed to inquiries into the intellectual basis of Christianity, they held that men were not obliged to wait for proof before believing y .” The doctrine, then, of Mr. Newman, is substantially the same as that of his disciple. It is simply this: that when religions and doctrines are propounded for our acceptance, we must not enter on any ex¬ amination of their proofs, or of the evidences of their truth; but must believe them at once on some slight and insufficient grounds, which, to the world in general, must appear absurd and irrational, and which, in point of fact, are so. 7. There is, however, one very material difference between the theories of the two writers in question. The one does not admit that religious truth possesses any proofs which will stand the test of examination and inquiry 2 . The other admits that there are such proofs 3 : he only contends that we are bound to receive the religion which they support without examining them ; that although they have been given, they ought to be treated as superfluous in the first instance, and only resorted to, at pleasure, after we have, without evidence or proof, received the dogmas they support. 8. This difference between Mr. Newman and his disciple, however striking in itself, is less remarkable, than the contradiction which they have respectively given to their own principles. We have seen the x Essay, p. 329—332. a Newman, Univ. Sermon, y P. 331. 174, 191, 192. 2 See above, p. 60, 61. chap, v.] Theory of Conscience Refuted. 67 zeal and ingenuity with which these writers have laboured to show, that any examination of the proofs or evidences of doctrines propounded for our accept¬ ance, is sceptical in its tendency, opposed to the principles of Christianity, and in every way objec¬ tionable and absurd. In reply to these arguments we need only adduce the admissions of the writers who have advanced them. I shall first produce Mr. Ward’s statements. At the close of his argument against examination of the proofs of religious doctrines, he remarks, 44 It is very plain, then, that the principle of private judg¬ ment, , of proportioning belief as far as possible to evidence ,—cannot be accepted as a full account of the process which leads to moral and religious truth. That it has a place , and that an important one , I am far from denying; but it has not the chief placeV’ Examination, then, has an 44 important ” place, and 44 evidence ” may be examined before we receive doctrines proprosed to us, i. e. we are not bound to receive without proof, dogmas which may be put before us by Roman Catholics, or Mahomedans, or Buddhists. This is not the only instance in which the common sense of the author has triumphed over his theory. When he considers the case of the Gospel being preached to the heathen, he supposes (and very reasonably) that the mere preaching of the Gospel may of itself, by the intrinsic superiority of its doctrine, lead numbers of persons to believed But, he adds, 44 that in addition , and in subordination to such grounds of conviction . . . other appeals of every kind would be repeatedly urged ... is of course b Ward’s Ideal, p. 508. c P. 559. 68 Theory of Conscience Refuted by its Supporters, [patit t. undoubted . . . Thus the gift of miracles has been com¬ monly granted by Christ, as an attendant on his Church’s missions; and especially in dealing with an uncivilized people, will it be a most efficacious instru¬ ment of success. The external notes of the Church are often another and most constraining topic' 1 .” These “notes” are, according to the writer, a proper subject of examination 6 : they are to be such as to “ accredit her at once to all serious and humble per¬ sons as God’s appointed representative?’ 9. All this is very reasonable in itself, but it effectually subverts the theory of the author, that the rational examination of proofs and evidences is absurd and inconsistent; and that we are to believe, without proof, whatever may be proposed to us. Let us now consider Mr. Newman’s admissions. “ I observe, first,” he says, “ that undeniable though it be, that reason has a power of analysis and criticism in all opinion and conduct, and that nothing is true or right, but what may be justified, and, in a certain sense, proved by it, and undeniable in consequence, that unless the doctrines received by faith are ap- provable by reason, they have no claim to be regarded as true, it does not therefore follow that faith is actually grounded on reason in the believing mind itself 8 .” This is very satisfactory; and so likewise is the following: “religious persons sometimes get perplexed . .. Under these circumstances the varied proofs of Christianity will be a stay, a refuge, an encouragement, a rallying-point for faith, a gracious economy . . . Nothing need be detracted from the use d P. 559, 560. e P. 9. f P. 10. R Newra. Univ. Serin, p. 174. chap, v.] Theory of Conscience Refuted by its Supporters. 69 of the evidences on this score; much less can any sober mind run into the wild notion that actually no proof at all is implied in the maintenance, or may be exacted for the profession of Christianity 11 .” The theory which we have been considering is here unintentionally characterized in terms which I should be unwilling to employ: that theory, it will be remembered, is, that no proof is to be required, when doctrines are proposed for belief. Mr. Newman, in the sermons already referred to (p. 64), teaches, at the commencement, that Chris¬ tianity has at all times made its way, not by external evidences, but by the response which the human heart makes to its doctrines ; but he afterwards admits, that Christ has in all ages held forth certain 44 plain and general tokens ” which are for 44 begin¬ ners* ; ” certain external evidences which are 44 a sign to unbelie vers j ; ” that 44 we go by external reasons before we have, or so far as we have not, inward ones; and we rest upon our logical proofs only when we get perplexed with objections, or are in doubt, or otherwise troubled in mind k ”. It is clear then, from the admissions of both these writers, that religious truth rests on proofs and evi¬ dences which commend themselves to our reasoning- powers ; and that such proofs are especially intended for the conviction of persons before whom the truth h University Sermons, p. 191, 192. 1 Sermons on Subjects of the Day, p. 359, 360. It has been justly observed by Mohler. that “had Christ not wrought mi- racles ; had the labours of the Apostles not been accompanied with signs; had the Divine power to work such wonders not been transmitted to their disciples ; never would the Gospel have overcome the heathenism of the Greek and Roman world.” Symbolik, trans. by Robertson, vol. ii. p. 19. i Newm. Serm. p. 37 h k lb 391, 392. 70 Mysticism of this Theory. [part i. is placed for the first time; that, consequently, sucli persons may examine such evidences, and that they act rightly in so doing; and that, in fine, no one is required to become a believer in Christianity, or in any particular Church, or religious system, without inquiry into the evidences of its truth 1 . These are, as we have seen, the principles of Scripture, and of the ancient Fathers of the Church, which the authors under consideration have endeavoured to subvert, but which they are obliged in the end to admit. We must now examine more particularly the test of religious truth which these writers have substi¬ tuted in the place of rational inquiry. 10. The general character and tendencies of mys¬ ticism have been shown in Chapter IV. It is only ne¬ cessary here to repeat, that its essence consists in the exclusion of reason as a means of arriving at re¬ ligious truth, and in the assertion of some inward light, whether natural or supernatural, as the sole test and proof of true religion. This light, as we have seen, has been variously entitled, 64 intuition,” 44 feeling,” “instinct,” “practical reason,” our “moral nature,” “faith,” “the indwelling Spirit,” “sentiment,” 44 inter¬ nal sense,” 44 the light of conscience,” 44 conscientious 1 Molder goes even beyond this, and bolds that it is the positive duty of the theologian, and of “ every well-instructed Christian,” not merely to ex¬ amine doctrines presented for the first time, but even to in¬ quire into the grounds of his actual belief. “ For what,” he adds, “ is less consistent with our own self-respect, than to neglect instituting the most care¬ ful and accurate inquiry into the grounds and foundations of our own religious belief ? Every man, accordingly, owes it to himself, to acquire the clearest conception of the doctrinal pe¬ culiarities, the inward power and strength, or the inward weakness or untenableness, of the religious community where¬ of he acknowledges himself a member.” Molder, Symbolik, translated by Robertson, i. x. CHAP. V.] Mysticism of this Theory . 71 reason,” &c. We have seen that the supremacy of this inward principle, as the absolute judge of the truth of all religious doctrines, has been equally maintained by enthusiasts, sectarians, rationalists, and deists. It remains to trace this doctrine some¬ what further in the writings of the Romanizing school. “ We are now, then, able to see with some distinct¬ ness,” says one of these writers, “the fundamental maxims of the philosophy of faith. Conscience , viewed in the abstract, has no power of discovering more than the immutable principles of morality. Rut in propor¬ tion as it is pure and well-disciplined, it discriminates and appropriates moral and religious truth of whatever kind, and disposes the mind to listen to this external message rather than that; while each new truth thus brought before it from without, in proportion as it is deeply received and made the subject of religious action and contemplation, elicits a deep and hitherto unknown harmony from within , which is the full war¬ rant and sufficient evidence of that truth. Viewed, then, in the concrete, as found in the devout be¬ liever, we may regard conscience and faith to be the one and the same faculty. Considered as submis¬ sively bending before external authority, and ever deriving more of doctrinal truth, we call it faith ; considered as carefully obeying the precepts of which it has knowledge, and as laboriously realizing and assimilating the truths of which it has possession, we call it conscience. And thus we see in part the reasonableness of unquestioning belief; for, on the one hand, it is by this very act of firm belief, that we are able really to grasp a moral opinion, and derive from it the full treasure of truth with which 72 Mysticism of Ward's “ Ideald [part i. it is charged; while, on the other hand, our preser¬ vative against real error is, not the balancing of evi¬ dence , but the witness of a good conscience m .” The whole of Mr. Ward’s “ Ideal of a Christian Church” is built on this mystical theory. Thus he states that “ moral discipline is the only possible basis on which Christian faith can be reared 11 ;” that “holv and self-denying men are the real fountains from which moral truth flows to the worldthat the Lutheran doctrine of justification ought to be de¬ tested, because it “ formally denies the truth which is the key of all moral and religious knowledge .... namely, that moral discipline is the necessary founda¬ tion whereon alone Christian faith can be reared 0 that the English Church is in a fearful state of cor¬ ruption, because she does not provide an efficient moral discipline for her members; that in conse¬ quence her members are unsettled in their faith. The object steadily aimed at throughout, amidst much confusion of ideas and innumerable contradic¬ tions, is, to establish the position that the conscience , if it be exercised and cultivated by moral discipline, is the sole arbiter of religious truth; and that all external evidence is either worthless or absolutely subordinate to this inward voice. Hence this writer speaks with disapprobation of that doctrine of Roman theology which bases faith on “ the external evidences of the Church’s authority,” such as miracles , &c. p 11. This principle of mysticism is widely diffused amongst all the disciples of this school, and is found in complete operation amongst persons whose religious “ Ward’s Ideal, p. 512, 513. Ibid. p. vi. n <> P.vii. P P. 581, 582. chap, v.] Mysticism of the Romanizing School. 73 feelings and sincerity cannot be with any reason dis¬ puted. It is a generally received maxim amongst such persons, that conscience, or feeling, or instinct, to the exclusion of all rational examination of external evi¬ dences or proofs, is the sole mode of attaining to reli¬ gious truth. Hence they avow on all occasions, that in adopting new religious views, or in separating from one religious communion and uniting themselves to another, they act without any intellectual examina¬ tion of the system which they adopt, but on an inward feeling that it is calculated to meet their wants . Rational conviction is not even pretended: irrational impulse is the sole motive which is al¬ leged. Hence, one of the principal disciples of this school, in a letter published on the occasion of his recent separation from the English Church, says, “ So long as the Church of England impressed my own conscience , in spite of her many anomalies, as an adequate object of loyalty and affection, I not only clung to her, but gave myself up to her, without examining the question of her historical claims upon my acceptance. And so now, without knowing de¬ finitely how Rome makes out her pretensions from the history of past ages, (a most interesting question, nevertheless, and one which I am delighted to think is so soon to receive elucidation,) I bow my¬ self before her, because she plainly corresponds with that type of the Catholic Church, which is deeply and habitually impressed upon my whole moral and spiritual nature* .” Here we have a perfect exem¬ plification of the principle of mysticism above al¬ luded to. Q Mr. Oakeley's Letter, p. 18. 74 Mr. Newmans Theory Examined. [part i. 12. The leader of this school has distinctly taught the doctrine. His whole argument, in the series of sermons alluded to above (p. 65), implies that ex¬ ternal evidences are to be rejected when they do not coincide with internal convictions founded on moral discipline and piety of life. These sermons were ad¬ dressed to persons who had been tempted to unite themselves to the Romish community on the ground of its external evidences, or notes, or other proofs. Instead of fairly meeting this evidence, and rebut¬ ting it if untenable, Mr. Newman proceeded to main¬ tain, that if, from experience, we have found that piety and sanctity are attainable in the English Church,—if we have been conscious of deriving spiritual benefits from its ordinances, and in con¬ nexion with them ; then we have an inward evi¬ dence which fully authorizes us in rejecting any external evidences or reasons which may be brought on the other side. This argument, of course, may be generalized, so as to apply to all similar cases. It evidently applies equally to the case of persons of any religious views whatever, who may be called on to adopt different religious tenets on the ground of their external evidence. For instance, it may be applied to the case of dissenters called on to join the Church; or of Maliommedans and heathens invited to embrace Christianity. The writer ad¬ mitted the analogy of the cases, and endeavoured to show that, in all such cases, moral discipline and the guidance of conscience furnish the sole method for attaining religious truth, to the exclusion of any examination of evidences appealing to the reason. 1 must make some extracts, in order to establish the correctness of these statements. Be it remem- chap, v.] Mr. Newmans Theory Examined. 75 bered, then, that the question under consideration was this: “ Is it a duty to embrace the tenets and communion of the Church of Rome?” In other words, “ Are we ourselves, as members of the English Church, in possession of the truth ; or have we to receive it from the Church of Rome ?” Now, observe the mode in which this question was met. It was replied, that if we have an inward consciousness of spiritual life, we may safely reject all external evidence to the contrary; that is to say, we may assume that we possess the truth, notwithstanding any arguments which may be brought to prove us in error. “ How great a blessing is it, my brethren, at all times . . . that the tokens of Christ are not only without us, but more properly within us ! I say, in this age especially, because it is an age in which the outward signs of Christ’s presence have well-nigh deserted us. Christ, in mercy to all who seek him, has been accustomed in all ages, in anticipation of his true inward witness , to hold forth certain plain and general tokens of his presence, to show the world where He is to be found. These are for beginners; or for those who are not yet beginners, that they may begin, and may thus be led on, by such experience of his grace, to discern those higher and better notes of which He speaks in the text. Since, then, in this our age, He has in judgment obscured the visible and public notes of his king¬ dom among us, what a mercy is it to us, that He has not deprived us of such as are personal and private ? . . . Who among us may not, if he will, lead such a life as to have these secret and truer tokens to rest his faith on, so as to be sure, and certain, 76 Mr. Newmans Theory Examined. [part i. and convinced, that the Church which baptized us has still the presence of Christ' ?” If we have such inward signs, (i. e. if we live a holy life,) there can, according to this writer, be no need of examining external signs or proofs:— “ What are signs and tokens of any kind what¬ ever, but the way to Christ ? What need of them , should it so be, through his mercy, that we have found Him? Who asks his way when he has got to his destination ? Why seek the shadow, if we already have the substance 8 ?” The same principle is thus enunciated after¬ wards :— “ Surely, as the only true religion is that which is seated within us, a matter not of words but of things, so the only satisfactory test of religion is something within us. If religion is a personal matter, its reasons also should he personal. Wher¬ ever it is present, in the world or in the heart, it produces an effect, and that effect is its evidence . . . With some little limitation and explanation it might be said, that the very fact of a religion taking root within us is a proof so far , that it is true. If it were not true> it would not take root. Religious men have, in their own religiousness , an evidence of the truth of their religion. That religion is true which has power, and so far as it has power; nothing hut what is Divine can renew the heart V’ 13. There is an evident fallacy in the whole of the writer’s reasoning on this subject. He admits at the commencement of his argument, that ex¬ ternal evidences are necessary to heginners; that r Newman, Sermons on Sub- s Ibid. p. 361. jects of the Day, p. 359, 361. i P. 391. chap, v.] Objections to Mr. Newman s Theory. 77 they are necessary to induce men to believe the Gospel; but he adds, that after they have acquired faith, they are enabled to attain higher evidences; namely, internal evidences. But this supposes that the external evidences concur with the internal in establishing the truth of the same religious system. It may be very well in such a case to dis¬ regard the former in comparison of the latter; but when they differ , as in the case under consideration, in which internal evidences are supposed to incline us to one religious system, and external to another, it is impossible to infer the course which ought to be pursued from a case in which they agree. In fact, the real question was, whether those whom Mr. Newman addressed, were not themselves “beginners,” i.e. were not the proper subjects of external evidences: his argument assumes throughout that they were not beginners,—that they had advanced from external to internal evidences. 14. But there is another serious objection which may be raised to this system; and which the writer thus endeavours to obviate. “ It may be urged that it is very dangerous to guide ourselves by our feelings in religious inquiries, and very unwarrantable to judge of creeds by their effects ... I reply, that I have said nothing to sanc¬ tion such a proceeding. I have said nothing to lead men to consult the fluctuations of their minds in the passing hour , for information concerning God’s will.. We cannot be sure of the Divine origin of any sug¬ gestion which occurs to us for the first time . . . [God] generally grants the knowledge by careful waiting on him and examination, not at once a T u Newman, Sermons on Subjects of the Day, p. 404, 405. 78 Objections to Mr. Newman's Theory. [part i. So that, in fact, this system does not lead ns to depend on our feelings in religious questions, (which is admitted to be objectionable,) because it does not advise us to act as the impulse of the “ passing hour,” but to act only on feelings and imaginations which have been of some duration: in other words, we should be culpable in yielding to such suggestions of our nature, when they first occur to us, but we are safe in yielding to them, when they have been re¬ peated several times! Such an answer as this establishes the validity of the objection which it meets. It admits the truth of the principle on which that objection is founded, and leaves it in full and even augmented force. 15. There is another obvious objection to the system, which the writer undertakes to meet. It is referred to in the following passage:— “ It may perhaps be asked, whether there never was an instance when it was a person’s duty to leave the communion in which he finds himself; and if so, whether what I have been saying about private tokens of grace, would not apply to his case as well as ours. If it serve to keep religious persons in the Church, it will equally well serve to keep religious persons in dissent. . The merciful hand of God has before now dealt with man in those far-spreading communions, though heretical, which have so long existed in the East; yet it is a duty to leave them for the one true Church. And as little can we doubt that the secret influence of Christ operates at this day in the large dissenting bodies which exist here, and in another continent; and yet we think it right to invite their members to Catholic communion'.” The same v Newman, Sermons on Subjects of the Day, p. 407, 408. chap, v.] Objections to Mr. Newmans Theory. 79 writer elsewhere admits, that conscience has some¬ times prevented persons from entering the communion of the Church of RomeAgain : 44 If there be per¬ sons born in dissent, and filially attached to their own communion, and 4 fearing God, and working righteous¬ ness in it ,’ in them, we may humbly trust, is fulfilled St. Peter’s saying, that 4 in every nation’ such men are 4 accepted with HimV” The author of the 44 Ideal ” is full and explicit in his statements on this point. He admits that saints may be raised up by God in any religious com¬ munion y . He allows that 44 very great piety and seriousness of character have frequently been seen in evangelicals 2 ” whose doctrines he considers to be 44 antichristian.” He speaks of 44 the high and ad¬ mirable religious attainments of great numbers of the Protestants a ,” whom, however, he thinks to be involved in schism and heresy. He holds 44 in hearty admira¬ tion and reverence” the 44 noble and most evangelical virtues of Andrews, or Ken, or Wilson, or Butler 5 .” He believes Liguori to be a saint, and yet considers him in error on so important a subject as the analysis of faith 0 . In fine, he admits the doctrine of 44 in¬ vincible ignorance,” which recognizes the combina¬ tion of piety and conscientiousness with error in doctrine d . So that it is clear, on the whole, that those who follow the guidance of conscience alone are not necessarily led into religious truth. This writer cannot pretend that in such cases conscience has, in fact, led to religious truth. w Newman, Sermons on Sub¬ jects of the Day, p. 383, 384. x P. 413. y Ward’s Ideal, p. 89. z P. 205. a P. 275. b P. 428. c P. 581. d P. 57—60. 80 Objections to Mr. Newman's Theory. [part i. In short, it is not denied, that piety of life, and reli¬ gion, and conscientiousness, have been found amongst dissenters, heretics, Jews, heathens, and Mahomedans. How is this formidable difficulty to be got over? Mr. Newman meets it thus. The only grounds for leaving a religious communion are, (1) the “ clear in¬ disputable command of God to leave it” manifested by miracles, or (2) “ some plain experience that God does not acknowledge it.” This experience is, I presume, the internal evidence of conscience above-mentioned. Thus then we arrive at the conclusion, that if a religious person, in any sect or heresy whatever, feels continuance in his actual opinions, or in the com¬ munion of which he is a member, to be consistent with his own religious life, he is entitled to reject all evidences which may be brought to prove him in error, short of absolute miracles! The writer in vain attempts to show that this rule does not apply to heathenism as well as to heresy and dissent. “ The plain contrariety” of heathen religions “ to the first laws of all true faith and morality, which is in¬ volved in many of their first principles,” and their sins “ against sincerity, purity, and mercy,” are abundant indications, he says, that God does not go along with heathenism. But how are such things to be ascer¬ tained ? By the external evidence of facts, which he himself rejects as a ground for leaving a religious profession. Suppose a religious heathen then to have no internal evidence that he ought to forsake his errors, and worship one God, he is, by the principles of this school, bound to remain a heathen , until God works miracles for his conversion! The same reason¬ ing will, of course, apply equally to Mahomedanism and to Deism. chap, v.] Objections to Mr. Newman's Theory. 81 16. But the writer has another answer to the al¬ leged inconsistency of teaching the duty of remaining in the tenets of any assignable religious communion, and yet urging the duty of separating from religious tenets and communions and joining the Church. It is this: the dissenters are not called on “to quit any thing, for in truth they have nothing to quit; they profess they have nothing to quit.... It is seldom indeed that a member of a seceding body is zealous for that body; he is zealous for what he considers the Gospel, that is, at the utmost, for what he would call a doctrine—though that means, if we may so speak, his own particular doctrine, which is, properly speaking, no doctrine at all, in any accurate sense of the word, but an opinion, his own private opinion 6 .” Now, this answer may be very satisfactory when applied to the case of those sects whose religion is a mere negation of truth; but is this the case with sects and false religions generally ? Certainly not. For instance, that there is one and only one nature in Christ; that there are two Persons in Christ; that there are more gods than one; that it is lawful to worship idols; that Mahomet was a prophet; that dominion is founded in grace; that justification in¬ volves the doctrine of assurance and final perseve¬ rance ; that regeneration takes place after baptism; that the Gospel prescribes a parity of ministers, and the institution of lay-elders: such doctrines as these show sufficiently that false religions are not always merely negative in their principles; that positive errors may be held, and vigorously held, by unbe¬ lievers or sectaries. In asking them to forsake f e Newman, Sermons on Subjects of the Day, p. 411. G 82 Objections to Mr. Newman's Theory. [part t. their tenets, therefore, we do ask them to quit something. But the concluding argument in the above passage is still more singular. It is there contended, that it is lawful to invite an adherent of false religion to em¬ brace the truth, since, if he is zealous for his errors, it is only because he considers them to he in accordance with the Gospel; so that they are merely “ his oivn particular doctrines ,” which, in point of fact, are no doctrines at all, but mere “ opinions.” Now, this is inconsistent with the supremacy of conscience , as the sole arbiter of religious truth: it is here supposed to be liable to lead us into error; so that either this defence is invalid, or else it subverts the principle it is meant to guard. The objection then remains, that the principle of the supremacy of conscience, as the sole arbiter of religious truth, leads to the conclusion, that men ought to remain in false religions f , and that it is an act of inconsistency to attempt to convert them to the truth. 17. But let us look a little closer at the theory of f Mr. Ward, more consistent than his instructor, does not hesitate to apply what he calls the “ high sacredness of here¬ ditary religion ’ (Ideal, p. 44, 74) even to the case of heathen¬ ism ; and he accordingly argues, that the heathen ought not to be led to distrust their own religion. “ How different,” he says, “ was the course pursued by the Church towards the heathen! How easy a task would it not have been to show the absence of all evidence or argumentative consistency in the various forms which reli¬ gion had assumed ... Yet, so far from adopting such a course, Catholics of those days drew the heathen towards the Church . . not by first overthrowing their existing creed, but by seeking parts of it whereon the super¬ structure might be raised.” p. 579. The inference which forces itself upon the mind in perusing this strange passage, is, that the writer cannot have read a single Apology of the early Christians, or any of their works against the Gentiles ! chap, v.] Private Judgment recognized by this Theory . 83 conscience as the sole arbiter of religious truth, and see whether we cannot recognize in it some old and familiar features veiled under a different garb. Do the advocates of this doctrine quite understand their own meaning when they speak of the supremacy of conscience as the rule of faith? Are they aware what ground they are treading on, and what principle they are really contending for ? It is evident that they are not. What is really meant by the assertion that the conscience is the sole and sufficient judge of religious truth ? The meaning is, that some inward faculty of our nature exercises a judgment on dogmas presented to it, and accepts or rejects them, according to their agreement, or disagreement, with its own promptings. Now, this is introducing the right of private judg¬ ment! the very process and principle against which Mr. Ward, and those who agree with him, so loudly de¬ claim. That it is so, is clear from this; that Dissenters use indifferently the plea of “ conscience,” and of 44 private judgment,” in rejecting the doctrines and ordinances of the Church. In fact, these doctrines are identical in their consequences. The principle of private judgment may lead men to embrace Ro¬ manism exactly as that of conscience may. On the other hand, they may both lead to the rejection of Romanism, or of Christianity itself. They concur in rejecting authority , in resisting external evidences, and in asserting the right and power of man to make choice of his religious views, according to the dictates of his own nature. They are, in short, identical in all their practical consequences; and, when taken as the sole rule of faith, they are equally subversive of all objective religion whatever. G 2 84 Puritanism connected with this Theory . [part r. In fine, it is a very curious and instructive fact, that writers aiming at the inculcation of Roman Ca- tholic principles, have been so unsuccessful in their attempt, as to have made common cause (though most unconsciously) with the Dissenters! It was not ex¬ actly amongst the Anabaptists, the Family of Love, and the Puritans, that we should have expected to find the essential principles of Mr. Newman and his dis¬ ciples ; and yet there they are with scarcely a differ- ence s . In both alike, “conscience” is the sole judge in religious questions. Almost to the present day, Dissenters have invariably excused themselves from submitting to the Church on this plea: it was the chief ground on which the ceremonies of the Church were rejected by the Puritans. 18. It may be well briefly to recapitulate what has been now established. It has been shown, then, that Mr. Newman and his disciples have inculcated the principles of mysticism, including the rejection of all external evidences and proofs as means of arriving at the knowledge of true religion. It has been shown that the whole theory is founded on a fallacy; that it leads to absurd consequences, which its author in¬ effectually endeavours to elude ; that it is refuted by the admissions of its supporters; that it involves the very principle which is, of all others, most abhorred s See “ Cases written to re¬ cover Dissenters,” for several treatises by our divines against the plea of “ conscience” ad¬ vanced by Dissenters. The latter obviously made this “ inner light” the sole test of religious truth : they only dif¬ fered nominally from the qua- kers and other mystics. The treatise in this collection, by Dr. Sharp, archbishop of York, entitled a “ Discourse concern¬ ing Conscience,” may be advan¬ tageously read along with the Rev. W. Sewell’s recent ad¬ mirable sermon, “ The Plea of Conscience for seceding from the Catholic Church to the Ro¬ man Schism.” CHAP. V.] Results of the whole Theory. 85 by them. Let us now revert to the tendencies and results of this theory. Its principle involves the denial of all appeal to external or miraculous evidences of religion , and the substitution of an inward guidance of the Spirit or of the conscience. If this doctrine be correct, the Scrip¬ ture at once ceases to be the medium of proof 11 : it is an external evidence: consequently, it is no element in the process of conviction. Accordingly the Qua¬ kers, with perfect consistency, deny the supreme au¬ thority of Scripture, which they hold to be subordinate to the dictates of the Spirit in their hearts. Tradition, again, or the testimony of the Universal Church, must be equally rejected as a medium of proof; for this also is an external evidence 1 . The authority of the Catholic Church, being an external proof J , must be also set aside. Thus then we reach the conclusions which ra¬ tionalism arrives at in a different way: the inspiration of Scripture becomes doubtful, the moment that Scrip¬ ture ceases to be a foundation of faith. On the same principle of the worthlessness of external evidences, and the unlawfulness of intellectual examination, it may be inferred, that miracles have not been wrought; that no revelation surrounded by such external evi¬ dences has been made; that the apostles and our Lord were mere teachers who developed a higher and purer system of doctrine than had been previously received; h It is remarkable, that tings of the fathers. See espe- throughout Mr. Ward’s “Ideal” cially p. 130. and Mr. Newman’s “ Essay on j The authority of the Ro- Development,” Scripture is al- man Catholic Church, or the most wholly neglected as a resolution of faith into its au- medium of proof. tliority, is summarily set aside 1 Mr. Ward in many places by Mr. Ward, “ Ideal,” p. 575, speaks contemptuously of ap- 580, 581. peals to tradition or the wri- 86 Analogous Theories considered. [part I. that philosophers in later times have been able to correct and improve and develope the system of thought promulgated by the founders of Christianity. In short, we are landed fairly in all the conclusions of rationalism. Such is this new theory of conscience in its na¬ tural tendencies and results k . But there are various analogous theories, whether consciously or uncon¬ sciously held, which resolve the evidence of religious truth into something inward and peculiar to each individual. Instances are not unfrequent of persons who have been induced to adopt religious tenets, not from any examination of the evidence for their truth , but simply because those tenets were exhibited in some shape, or were connected with some adjuncts, which called forth a response from their feelings, their imagination, or their taste. Men have, before now, been led to adopt Romanism by its fancied con¬ nexion with poetry, or painting, or Gothic architec¬ ture; and if such men had lived while the mythologies of Greece or of Rome were living systems, they would, with equal reason, have forsaken Christianity for heathen religions, in which art had arrived at its highest conceivable excellence. The adoption of religious views merely because they are in some way k The Dublin Review con¬ tains the following remarks on the theory of conscience as advocated above by Mr. Newman : “We have foregone controversy in this article, and therefore enter not upon his arguments, if they can bear that name; for they are in clear contradiction with his own principles,—putting individual ‘ experience’ above the teaching of ‘ faith,’ and making a certain inward sense (the seat of pri¬ vate judgment and of every religious delusion) a surer test of truth than the great evidences and notes of the Church. In his own words, ‘ may they ut¬ terly fail and come to nought, and be as though they had never been ! ’ ” Dublin Review , December, 1813, p. 557. chap, v.] Analogous Theories considered. 87 connected with what is gratifying to our senses, or our feelings, and without primary reference to the evidence for their truth, is a proceeding which seems indicative of a practical disbelief in the existence of any revealed truth, or of any religious truth what¬ ever. 88 Theory of Development. [part i. CHAPTER VI. MR. NEWMAN’S THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT COMPARED WITH PREVIOUS THEORIES. 1. We have seen, in the preceding pages, that Rationalism and Mysticism concur in rejecting the external evidences for the truth of Christianity, and that, in recognizing a merely subjective evidence arising from the conformity of the idea of Christianity to the reason, feelings, or conscience, these systems have placed Christianity on the level of philosophy, divesting it of all authority , and rendering it a merely human invention. Sometimes these theories take the language of religion, and even of Scrip¬ ture ; at others they dispense with it; but under all circumstances they are subversive of revelation. It is an essential result of such views that Chris¬ tianity or religious truth is variable—that it is dependent on the movements of the human mind. Hence Rationalism, which recognizes the intellect as the sole arbiter of religion, teaches us that religion progresses or developes with the progress of the human mind; that, in proportion to the advances of science and civilization, corresponding improvements are to be expected in Christianity. On the question whether, and how far, objective chap, vi.] Errors opposed to Development. 89 religion is capable of development or progress, various and contradictory opinions have been held. 2. Some sectarians have denied the validity of deductions or inferences from Scripture, or the certainty of any interpretations of it. This prin¬ ciple lay at the root of the demands so often put forth by the Arians, Socinians, Anabaptists, Puritans, and others, to produce the express words of Scrip¬ ture for Christian doctrines or Church discipline. Of course, this principle puts an end to all notion of development or progress; but it is also fatal to revelation itself, for it implies that Scripture has no certain meaning affixed to it by God; from whence it might be inferred that no revelation has been made. But, while the latitudinarianism and even infidelity of such a principle are manifest, together with its extreme inconsistency with the practice of all who have adopted it, still, like most other errors, it is the exaggeration and perversion of a truth: and this truth is one of the highest importance—that Divine revelation is one and immutable. The great difference between human science and revelation is, that the former is capable of addition and correction, while the latter, as coming from God, is unalterable. It is not a theory or a science, but a “deposit:” it is to be received, not in¬ vented : it is the subject of faith, not of reasoning, although faith itself be founded on rational grounds. If the fact of a revelation be conceded, novelty be¬ comes impiety, change is prohibited, stability and uniformity become of the essence of religion; which being removed, religion itself is gone. It is on this principle—the unity and immutability of revealed 90 Rationalistic Theory of Development. [part i. truth—that all appeals to holy Scripture and to the tradition of the Christian community are grounded. 3. But there is another principle opposed to this, which has occasionally manifested itself from a very early period. Even in the second century, some of the Gnostic teachers pretended to be wiser than the apostles a ; and the Montanists maintained that a revelation had been made, subsequently to the Christian revelation, which carried on the latter to greater perfection 13 . It remained, however, for later ages, under the guidance of philosophy, to set wholly aside the Divine character of the Christian revelation, by recognizing in it a progressive nature exactly resembling that of human science. This is the doctrine of Rationalism and of modern Unitarianism, which, being alike essentially philo¬ sophical rather than religious systems, make reli¬ gious truth variable and progressive. The principles on which the doctrine of develop¬ ment is based by these reasoners are as follows 0 . They hold that the progress made in intellectual attainment, science, literature, and general know¬ ledge, which has taken place under Divine Provi¬ dence, leads by analogy to the inference, that it was the will of God to conduct men by the same gradual progress to the full knowledge of Divine truth. And they judge this view to be confirmed by a consideration of the circumstances under which Christianity was first taught, i. e. by persons imbued a Tertullian, de Praescript. tullian, p. 24. Haeret. c. xxii. Irenaeus, Adv. c See Wegscheider, Institn- H aeres. lib. iii. c. 2. tiones Theologicae, § 11, 27. b See Bishop Kaye on Ter- chap, vi.] Rationalistic Theory of Development. 91 with various prejudices and peculiarities of opinion; by its intended applicability to more cultivated na¬ tions than the Jews; by its own recognition of the rights of reason and examination; by its want of logical coherence and accuracy; and by its actual improvement as shown by ecclesiastical history" 1 . From such arguments it is inferred, that the doc¬ trines of Christianity are in a continual process of improvement and correction; the imperfections of former ages being removed by subsequent investi¬ gations, and the substance of Christianity being thus gradually freed from the accidental errors with which it was accompanied in its promulgation by Christ and his apostles, and which exhibit themselves in the Scriptures. Of course this theory issues in the com¬ plete denial of the fact of any miraculous revelation tl “In qua ejus indole com- monstranda respici debent pri- mum homines, quibus ab initio doctrina ilia tradita est, rudi- ores multisque opinionum com¬ mends imbuti, et consilium Jesu ipsius religionem suam omnibus omnium temporum hominibus . . . et iis, qui populo Judaico multo cultiores futuri essent, destinantis ; delude Jesu ratio- nis usum commendantis dicta . . . et ejusdem actiones, qui¬ bus ipse significavit, superesse qusedam in religionis doctrina ab se instituta, quae tempore procedente ab aliis vel sup- plenda vel emendanda essent. Sic accurate observavit reli¬ gionis Jud. cultum externum, ab apostolis demum sensim abrogatum . . . 'Turn respicien- dum est religionis ab Jesu et ab apostolis traditse ipsum ar- gumentum, non omni numero absolutum; prceterea historia doctrinae ecclesiasticse, tempo- ris successu, id quod Judaicae quoque religioni contigit, emen- datae ; denique omnium artium et disciplinarum quae ad hu- manitatem pertinent, commune vinculum atque cognatio, qua efficitur, ut lux quaedam uni alterive allata etiam reliquas collustret. Quae si cogita- veris, baud miraberis, jam inde a rei Christianae primordiis apud Gnosticos, Montanistas, et Clementem Alex, notionem quandam doctrinae religionis emendandae reperiri, cum per- suasione de revelatione super- naturali ac miraculosa quidem minime conciliandum.” Weg- scheider, § 27. See also Praef. p. ix.—xii. 92 Rationalistic Theory of Development. [part i. whatever. Revelation becomes merely the process of the discovery of truth by human reason. It is an essential consequence of such principles as these, that the most recent deductions of reason in reference to religious truth, as representing the most advanced state of intellectual progress, are of the highest authority; that all appeal to the an¬ cient Christian writers, the customs of the early Church, nay, to Scripture itself, (except for the pur¬ pose of confirming and illustrating existing religious views,) is absurd, and unphilosopliical in the highest degree. 4. An eminent writer, in describing the course taken by rationalism in Germany, speaks thus: “ When re¬ ligion is thus placed at the mercy of reason, it is mani¬ fest that the first step will be to treat religious matter like any other science within the province of reason. Questions will arise, not only as to the value or truth of particular dQctrines, but as to the meaning and scope of the system itself. It may have come down to us clogged with many human additions, and distorted by many human views. It may, perhaps, never have been rightly understood from the beginning, and may be still an unknown country, to reward the labours and the penetration of future discoverers . The same method, which the natural philosopher pursues in arriving at the knowledge which he pre¬ sumes he possesses of chemistry or geology, must be employed by the religious philosopher in arriving at Christian truth.... The theologian must mine for the long-hidden treasures of truth, and, like the natura¬ list, must make new discoveries , and modify his belief accordingly e f Hence Schrbckh declares that the e Rose, Protest, in Germany, p. xxvii. xxviii. 2d ed. chap, vt.] Rationalistic Theory of Development. 93 theologians of Germany recognize “the necessity of inquiring, of correcting, and of ameliorating their belief as often as any new views require it;” and the spirit of this declaration, says Mr. Rose, “runs through every work of the rationalizing German divines?’ In Germany this theory, which has been known under the various names of Progress, Perfectibility, and Development, appears to have been first ad¬ vanced by Krug, professor in the university of Koe- nigsberg, whose principal theological work, “ Letters on the perfectibility of religious ideas,” became the basis of all the more recent systems of perfectibility in religion g . These views were advanced about the end of the last century. Ammon, a leading theologian amongst those rationalists who are, pro¬ perly speaking, Socinians rather than absolute Deists, has on various occasions advocated similar views. Plis work on the development of Christianity sup¬ poses a continual progress towards perfection in Christian doctrine 11 . Bretschneider taught that the true character of revelation consists in the con¬ tinual development of intelligence, according to rea¬ sonable laws which God himself has fixed; that there is a law of progress in Christianity; that there is a development and a purification in proportion to the progress of the human mind 1 . The theory of Daub on development is, that religion has come to us by a process of perfection, operated in the course of ages in the assemblies of the Church. The nature of this theory may be estimated in some degree from the f Ibid. p. 24, 59. h P. 253. 5 Saintes, Hist, du Ration- 1 P. 264, 265, 271. alisme, p. 241. 94 Rationalistic Theory of Development. [part i. fact, that its author assails the proofs which demon¬ strate the existence of God; and that he considers the terms Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to express merely different operations of the Deity k . 5. Rationalism in this country has adopted the same course. Blanco White, speaking of the “ Church notions which exclusively regulated European society for many ages,” and which involved the principle of “ perpetuity ” in all respects, says: “The great step which society has to take at present is that of changing this all-pervading error; to learn to act upon the irrefragable principle, that every thing in man and his concerns is progressive; that nothing can be confined to the same forms for ever, unless we destroy at once the life within it 1 .” “I lament .... that all sects proceed on the ground that their respective characteristics are a complete and per¬ fect whole; thus banishing from the minds of their followers all ideas of future progress' 11 .” In re¬ ference to what he calls “ the notion of that per¬ sonal revelation which is supposed to be made to some privileged person, in order that it may remain as an infallible , and consequently unchangeable, rule for ever,” he says: “This view is in direct contradic¬ tion with the fact, that mankind was by God intended for progress.. .. But here is the melancholy effect of all sacerdotal religions. At some one stage of their infancy a (supposed) perfect revelation of the infinite model is published. . . . Priests and enthusiasts stand in the way of gradual improvement. . .and persecute all those who encourage the development of the human mind 11 .” k P. 341, 403, 405. m Vol. ii. p. 311. 1 Blanco White, Life, ii. 155. n Vol. iii. p. 77—79. chap, vi.] Unitarian Theory of Development. 95 6. With these theories Unitarianism professes en¬ tire agreement. “ I look confidently,” says Dr. Clian- ning, “to the ineradicable, ever-unfolding principles of human nature for the victory over all superstitions. Reason and conscience, the powers by which we discern the true and the right, are immortal as their Author. Oppressed for ages they yet live.... It makes me smile to hear immortality claimed for Catholicism, or Protestantism, or for any past inter¬ pretation of Christianity; as if the human soul had exhausted itself in its infant efforts, or as if the men of one or a few generations could bind the energy of human thought and affection for ever 0 .” In another place he speaks in the following manner: “From the infinity of Christian truth, of which I have spoken, it follows that our view of it must be very imperfect , and ought to be continually enlarged. The wisest theologians are children, who have caught but faint glimpses of the religion; who have taken but their first lessons, and whose business it is 4 to grow in the knowledge of Jesus Christ.’ Need I say how hostile to this growth is a fixed creed beyond which we must never wander p ?” Another American writer of distinction has re¬ cently advocated the same views. Professor Bush, in his 44 Anastasis,” argues at some length in support of the theory of development. 44 The human race itself,” he observes, 44 is progressive, not merely in physical continuity, but in mental development q .” The same 0 Letter on Catholicism; q “ Anastasis, or the Doc- Works, p. 219, ed. Glasgow, trine of the Resurrection ot the 1840. Body, &c.” By George Bush, p Letter on Creeds; Works, Prof, of Hebrew in the Univ. p. 226. of New York, p. 13. 96 Unitarian Theory of Development. [parti. law, viz. of “ gradual development,” holds good in nature and in revelation; and there may be dis¬ coveries in revelation just as there are in physical science". The fundamental facts in revelation, which lie upon its very face, may be admitted to have been always known 5 ; but other points may be discovered progressively, and especially in the present age, in which the science of Hermeneutics has made such ad¬ vances. “ No narrow-minded taboo , in any part of the wide field of inquiry, will be brooked in this age of unshackled research; and it is utterly in vain to expect any exemption of the sacred volume from this searching and most inquisitorial scrutiny 1 .” On the principle of development thus advocated, the author asserts that the doctrine of “the resur¬ rection of the body” is “ not a doctrine of revela¬ tion ;” and professes “ to arraign and convict of errors the current creed of the Church for the space of eighteen centuries 11 .” The view of the resurrec¬ tion adopted is “ substantially the same” with that taught in the writings of Swedenborg". It denies (with Wegscheider and other rationalists) the fact of the resurrection of our Lord’s body on the third day, and equally rejects the notion of the general resurrection and the judgment at the last day, re¬ solving all the language of Scripture on these sub¬ jects into “ accommodations” and figures. Our future condition is to depend, not on the will of God, but on the necessary results of our present moral condi¬ tion ; and it is suggested, that in this point of view “ outward positive inflictions ” (i. e. the existence of u P. V. P. 76. r P. 14. s P. 16. 1 P. 21, 22. v chap, vr.] Law's Theory of Development. 97 hell) is a question of no consequence, inasmuch as sin will bear along with it its own punishment. The views of this writer on development appear to have been derived from the German theology, of which he is evidently a diligent student, and to which he refers on all occasions. 7. It may be here worth while to introduce some notice of the theory of progress or development, put forward by Bishop Law, in the former part of the eighteenth century. He observes, that though Divine institutions apparently differ from human arts and sciences in possessing “ all that purity and perfection at their delivery, which they are designed to have, and rather lose in some respects than get, by length of time,” still there is no material difference on the whole w . And he explains it thus: “We ought to distin¬ guish . . . between the delivery of a doctrine and its general reception in the world, which we know is always according to the measure of the recipients only; and which must chiefly depend upon the state and qualifications of the age they live in; as also between the supernatural assistance and extraordinary impressions at its first publication, and the ordinary state in which it appears, and the usual progress it makes, so soon as ever these shall come to cease, and it is left to be continued by mere human means".” Dr. Law then describes at length the progressive nature of God’s dispensations from the beginning of the world, and the gradual revelation of truth; after which, he proceeds to show that the same law was w Law, Theory of Religion, x P. 43. This is precisely p. 42. Mr. Newman’s view. H 98 Law's Theory of Development. [part t. continued under Christianity itself; the full know¬ ledge of the Gospel being only gradually communi¬ cated to the apostles themselves. “ The Christian institution,” he continues, “ may be said to have been but in its childhood , even under the apostles. We find it for some time mixed with Judaism and subject to carnal ordinances: the apostles of the circumcision seem not yet to have any distinct knowledge of the general freedom from the ceremonial law: St. Paul is forced to conceal his preaching to the Gentiles for several years ... No sooner had Christianity got well rid of the yoke of the Jewish law, than it was corrupted with Jewish fables and traditions. The Gentile converts were some time in laying aside their old errors and super¬ stitions, and afterwards introduced an impure mixture of their philosophy ; this soon produced innumerable sects and monstrous heresies, which take up the greater part of the history of these times. Instead of attending to the plain popular sense of Scripture, they fly to fanciful allegories, raise multitudes of mysteries, and maintain continual oppositions of science, falsely so called y .” “ And though the whole scheme of our redemption was completely delivered, and all its essential parts recorded, during the extraordinary assistance and in¬ spection of the Holy Ghost; and, in some respects, the primitive Christians seem to have the advantage of others, as being better acquainted with the style in which it was wrote, and some apostolical traditions which gave light to it; yet it by no means follows, that the true genius, import, and extent of this reve- y Law, Theory of Religion, p. 145 —148. chap, vi.] Law's Theory of Development. 99 lation must be as well understood by the generality of them, as it could be by any that came after them.. Many of less merit, and lower abilities, but living in a more enlightened age, might easily prove equal, if not superior to them, in what may be called the theory or speculative part of their religion 2 .” This writer accordingly considers the testimony of the early Christians, as “ of very little weight” in questions of Christian doctrine, and refers to such writers as Le Clerc, Whitby, Daille, Barbeyrac, Calamy, Bohmer a , &c., with a view to show that the fathers are very unsound interpreters of the Bible. He also contends against “ an established rule of in¬ terpreting Scripture, which is laid down by an approved writer [Bishop Lowth] in the following words: viz. e That we should have an especial regard to the practice and usage of the first and purest ages of the Church, and those that were nearest the times of the apostles 5 .’” “One would have hoped,” says Law, that “ this Catholic doctrine of Church authority in fixing the sense of Scripture should have vanished by this time, as it has been so thoroughly exposed in all its shapes, by a variety of truly Protestant writers, both of our own and other communions, about the beginning of the present century 0 .” The same author afterwards says, that we are bound to review our reli¬ gious “ establishments,” and, amidst the present light and liberty of thought, to attempt their further re¬ formation d . Amongst reforms suggested are the rejection of the usual notions of the inspiration of holy Scripture 6 , and of their traditional interpreta- c P. 151. d P. 230. e P. 248. H 2 z P. 148, 149. a P. 148—153. b P. 149. 100 Newman's Theory of Development. [part i. tion f ; and the author exemplifies his own views of improvement by asserting the unconsciousness of the soul in the intermediate stated 8. We may now proceed to examine the theory of development, as put forth by Mr. Newman in his “ Essay on the Development of Christian doctrine.” I speak of this doctrine as a 44 Theory,” because its author frequently, and in the most pointed terms, describes it as a 44 theory,” or a 44 hypothesis.” Christianity, he says, 44 may legitimately be made the subject-matter of theories .” 44 Whether it be divine or human . . . whether a religion for all ages or for a particular state of society,” are questions, which, ac¬ cording to him, 44 belong to the province of opinion'* .” The theory proposed is designed to solve the diffi¬ culties presented by the phenomena of Christianity 1 , and to furnish a basis for argument with infidelity on behalf of the Gospel J . Mr. Newman rejects as insufficient, what he calls the various theories, hypotheses, or systems by which Christian writers of ancient and modem times have endeavoured to account for whatever variations we may find in the historical testimonies concerning Christianity, to separate authoritative doctrine from opinion, to reject what is faulty, and combine and form a theology k . The appeal to Scripture as the arbiter of religious truth is summarily set aside 1 . The appeal to tradition or the testimony of the ancient fathers, on the principle of Vincentius Liri- nensis, is equally rejected, as an inadequate solution f P. 252. k P. 8. g P. 823, &c. 1 “We are told that God h Essay on Develop, p. 1. has spoken. Where? In a 1 P. 4. book? We have tried it, and j P. 28, 30. it disappoints.” p. 126. chap, vi.] Newmans Theory of Development. 101 of the phenomena of Christianity' 11 . Mr. Newman has no difficulty in acknowledging- the truth, to a considerable extent, of Chillingworth’s famous dictum: “ There are popes against popes, councils against councils, some fathers against others, the same fathers against themselves, a consent of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers of another age, the Church of one age against the Church of another age 11 .” He is of opinion, and he takes considerable pains to prove, that the fathers before the Council of Nice did not apparently hold the doctrine of the Trinity, or agree in their statements on the subject of the Divinity of our Lord and of the Holy Ghost; that, in fact, it is doubtful whether any sufficient proof of the Trinity can be elicited from their writings 0 , that the doctrines of original sin and th§ real presence have as little support from primitive antiquity, as purgatory or the papal supremacy p . He rejects that view of tradition which has been advocated by Ro¬ man Catholic divines, under the appellation of the disciplina arcani , which supposes certain doctrines of Christianity to have been reserved , or not generally taught to Christians, and which thus explains the imperfect notices of Christian doctrines in the early writers' 3 . He remarks, that the hypothesis, that Christianity was corrupted from its very commencement by Ori¬ entalism, Polvtlieism, and Platonism, “ has no claims on our attention till it is drawn out scientifically 1 .” m P. 7—9. n P. 4. 0 P. 11—17. P P. 17—24. ^ P. 25. r P. 25. This hypothesis is, however, substantially ad¬ vocated by the writer, at p. 38, as will be seen presently. 102 Newsmans Theory of Development. [part i. 9. Under these circumstances the Essayist proposes the doctrine of development, as a solution of the difficulty which he finds in Christianity:—“ the diffi¬ culty which lies in the way of using the testimony of our most natural informant concerning the doc¬ trine and worship of Christianity, viz. the history of eighteen hundred years.” This doctrine, he says, “ has at all times, perhaps , been implicitly adopted by theologians 5 .” No proofs, however, are deduced of this position; and De Maistre and Mbliler, writers of the present day, are alone referred to as having taught it. Mr. Newman meets the objection which may be raised against the novelty of this theory, or “expedient” as he entitles it, by observing that it would be as unreasonable to object to it on this account, as it would have been to object to the theory of gravitation, when first proposed*. The theory itself is this: “ that the increase and expansion of the Christian creed and ritual, and the variations which have attended the process, in the case of individual writers and churches, are the ne¬ cessary attendants on any philosophy or polity which takes possession of the intellect and heart, and has had any wide or extended dominion; that, from the nature of the human mind , time is necessary for the full comprehension and perfection of great ideas; and that the highest and most wonderful truths, though communicated to the world once for all by inspired teachers, could not be comprehended all at once by s P. 27. 1 P. 28. From what has been said above, it is clear that the theory of development can¬ not be considered “ novel,” as it was virtually held by the Gnostics and Montanists, and has certainly been very gene¬ rally received by the Unitarians and Rationalists. chap, vi.] Newman's Theory of Development, 103 the recipients; but, as received and transmitted by minds 7iot inspired and through media which were human, , have required only the longer time and deeper thought for their full elucidation. This may be called the Theory of developments' It will be ob¬ served that this theory is capable of a wider applica¬ tion than to Christianity. It is applicable to religion in general; and it is so applied by Rationalism. 10. It is a characteristic of this doctrine of deve¬ lopment to set aside the testimony of the Fathers and of the primitive Church on doctrinal points. “It is sometimes said that the stream is clearest near the spring. Whatever use may be finally made of this image, it does not apply to the history of a philosophy or sect, which, on the contrary, is more equable, and purer, and stronger, when its bed has become deep, and broad, and full. It necessarily rises out of an existing state of things, and, for a time, savours of the soil. Its vital element needs disengaging from what is foreign and temporary v , and is employed in efforts after freedom , more vigo¬ rous and hopeful as its years increase w . Its begin¬ nings are no measure of its capabilities, nor of its scope. At first no one knows what it is, or what it is worth. It remains perhaps for a time quiescent: it tries its limbs, and proves the ground under it, and feels its way. From time to time it makes essays which fail, and are in consequence abandoned. It seems in suspense which way to go; it wavers, u Essay on Development, p. tion of apostolic Christianity. 27. See the extracts above made w The rationalistic element from Bishop Law, p. 97, 98. here is obvious. Christianity v This, when applied to is supposed to be developed Christianity, precisely meets the by the struggles of the human rationalistic view of the corrup- mind after freedom. J 04 Newman? s Theory of Development. [pakt i. and at length strikes out in one definite direction. In time it enters upon strange territory; points of controversy alter their bearing; parties rise and fall about it; designs and hopes appear in new relations, and old principles re-appear under new forms; it changes with them in order to remain the same. In a higher world it is otherwise ; but here below to live is to change , and to he perfect is to have changed often Christianity, according to this view, was less per¬ fect in the earlier than in the later ages, and the Catholic Fathers are to be regarded as beginners, —in a certain sense, “ sciolists.” They did not com¬ prehend Christianity except very imperfectly, and they were, of course, inconsistent, full of contradic¬ tions, inaccurate statements, &c. To appeal to them in controversy, then, is evidently absurd. Mr. Ward, on the same principle, wholly sets aside the principle of appeal to the early Church y . x P. 38, 39. This assertion of continual change is strictly rationalistic. See also p. 58, 61, 96, for other passages of the same kind. y How striking and how sig¬ nificant is the contrast between such doctrines and the views of one who perfectly under¬ stood rationalism, and was amongst its ablest opponents. “ It would be absurd to sup¬ pose that the first and Divinely assisted teachers of Divine re¬ velation would not have at least as full a view of it as the unas¬ sisted mind of man could enjoy ; that is to say, at least as full a view as any future disciples could hope to attain. If, then, the doctrines of Christianity were clearly laid down at its commencement, and if we have any reason to suppose that they were afterwards sullied and polluted by human inven¬ tions, there would seem to be only one method of ascertaining the justice of our suspicions, and of attempting the restora¬ tion of the doctrines to their native and genuine form. If the stream has contracted im¬ purities in its course, we must recur to the fountain-head for pure and unsullied water. We must recur, for truth and light, first to Scripture, and then, if difficulties and doubts occur as to its interpretation, to those Christian writers who lived at the outset of the Christian system.” Hugh James Rose, Protest, in Germany, p. 33. chap, vi.] Newman s Theory of Development. 105 11. Another branch of this theory is, that where there is religious life, i. e. where the idea of Chris¬ tianity exercises a powerful hold on the minds of men, parties or schools may be rash and extravagant in their speculations, as they possess an inherent vigour which is certain to bring them right in the end. Creeds and articles and other safeguards may in such a case he dis¬ pensed with ; they are, in fact, only necessary where the principle of life is weakly. “The stronger and more living is an idea, that is, the more powerful hold it exercises on the minds of men, the more able is it to dispense with safeguards, and trust to itself against the danger of corruption. As strong frames exult in their agility, and healthy constitutions throw off ail¬ ments, so parties and schools that live can afford to he rash , and will sometimes he betrayed into extravagances , yet are brought right by their inherent vigour. On the other hand, unreal systems are commonly decent externally. Forms , subscriptions , or articles of re¬ ligion are indispensable when the principle of life is weakly. Thus Presbyterianism has maintained its ori¬ ginal theology in Scotland, where legal subscriptions are enforced, while it has run into Arianism or Unita- rianism where that protection is awayV’ This, of course, follows from the principle that Christianity was imperfectly understood at first, and is only per¬ fectly attained by the striving of the intellect for “freedom” in successive ages. It is in this case perfectly right to make ventures and experiments; and the existence of fixed creeds and formularies is an evil, as tending to check development. It is needless to observe, that these views on creeds z Essay on Development, p. 76. 106 Newman's Theory of Development. [part i. are decidedly Unitarian and Rationalistic. The theo¬ logical temerity recommended is also characteristic of the same systems. It strongly reminds us of Mr. Rose’s description of the founder of rationalism in Germany: “ Gifted by nature with a most powerful mind, with gigantic industry, and the most un¬ quenchable appetite for literary research, those happy predispositions were unfortunately in great measure counteracted by the faults of his early education.... Nothing can be more striking than the way in which he occasionally combined the fruits of his various researches, except the carelessness with which these researches were made, and the sort of fated blind¬ ness with which he neglected or rejected the most material element of the whole he was attempting to form. He never hesitated, in short, to desert sober and substantial truth for striking but partial views , subtle error , and ingenious theory. To these qualities he added others, which are very frequent ingredients in such a character,— an undoubting estimation for all his own specidations , and a rash boldness in bringing them into public view a .” We are also reminded of a description formerly given by the Essayist, apparently from experience, of the progress of the human mind in its discovery of truth. “ Reason,” he says, “ according to the simplest view of it, is the faculty of gaining knowledge with¬ out direct perception, or of ascertaining one thing by means of another.... One fact may suffice for a whole theory; one principle may create and sustain a system ; one minute token is a clue to a discovery. The mind ranges to and fro, and spreads out, and a Rose, Prot. p. 73. chap, vi.] Newmans Theory of Development. 107 advances forward with a quickness which has become a proverb, and a subtlety and versatility which baffles investigation.... Thus it makes progress not unlike a clamberer on a steep cliff, who, by quick eye, prompt hand, and firm foot, ascends how he knows not himself by personal endowments and practice , rather than by rule , leaving no track behind him , and unable to teach another. ... It is a way which they (geniuses) alone can take; and its justification lies in their success b .” Such a mode of arriving at the knowledge of religious truth, is certainly quite con¬ sistent with the “rashness” and “extravagance” which, as we have seen, the author considers as signs of religious vitality and strength. 12. Another branch of this theory is, that the unity of the Church as regards faith is a unity of principle , rather than of doctrines. There has been a continual change in doctrine, according to Mr. Newman; there¬ fore the continuity of Christianity can only be pre¬ served by its continuity of principle. “ If it be true, that the principles of the later Church are the same as those of the earlier, then, whatever are the variations of belief between the two periods , the earlier in reality agrees more than it differs with the later, for prin¬ ciples are responsible for doctrines 0 .” 13. Another feature is, that we are not to endeavour to discover the truth by appealing to the Scriptures and the Fathers, as a test of the correctness of ex¬ isting or novel tenets ; but to take the present view as a key to unlock the mysteries of antiquity, to assume that the existing form of Christianity is the truth, and to form our judgments of the ancient b Newman, Sermons before c Essay on Development, p. the University, p. 252, 253. 366. 108 Newmans Theory of Development. [part i. records of Christianity, and explain them under this conviction, regardless of any difficulties which may present themselves in the process. The writer argues for the propriety of 44 interpreting the previous steps of a development by the later,’' and of 44 viewing the beginning in the light of the result d .” This is, ac¬ cording to him, the mode in which the prophecies are made use of by Christians 6 . Hence he observes, that 44 where a doctrine comes recommended to us by strong presumptions of its truth, we are bound to receive it unsuspiciously, and use it as a key to the evidences to which it appeals, or the facts which it professes to systematize, whatever may be our ulti¬ mate judgment about it r .” He illustrates this by observing, that the orthodox estimate the theology of the Ante-Nicene Fathers by the doctrine of the Nicene Synod; that they regard it as a key to their meaning 8 . He contends, that it is not an assump¬ tion 44 to interpret every passage of a primitive author which bears upon doctrine or ritual by the theology of a later age h f 14. The theory of development, as hitherto de¬ scribed, seems to assume the perfection of revelation in itself: it supposes that the truths of revelation were 44 communicated to the world once for all by inspired teachers 1 ;” and that progress and imperfec¬ tion arise only from the nature of the human mind. But, in the course of his work, the Essayist intro- d P.153. Christianity, even in the Church e P. 149—153. The argu- of Rome, have always mainly ment in this place, if correct, relied, would go far to subvert the proof f P.157, of the truth of Christianity s P. 158. derived from the prophecies, h P. 183. on which the advocates of 1 Essay, p. 27. chap, vi.] Newmans Theory Rationalistic. 109 # duces a widely different view of the question. He contends, that revelation itself was imperfect ;—“that great questions exist in the subject-matter of which Scripture treats, which Scripture does not solve j ,”— that there are “ necessary ” developments, “ not pro¬ vided by the revelation as originally given k “gaps, if the word may be used, in the structure of the ori¬ ginal creed of the Church 1 .” Now, from this im¬ portant principle it would seem to follow, that the progress and developments which have arisen, have not been caused by the depth and comprehensive¬ ness of the original idea of Christianity, but by its defectiveness; so that the whole theory appears to be based on principles which it is not very easy to recon¬ cile with each other. For it must certainly appear very strange,—if human reason be so imperfect as to have been unable even to comprehend the idea of Chris¬ tianity for many ages,—if this “ philosophy or polity ” required a very long time and deep thought for its elucidation,—that human reason, thus tasked beyond its strength by the mere comprehension of what was actually revealed by God, should be able at the same time to supply the defects of revelation,—to fill up the “ gaps ” which God permitted to remain in the original creed. This does seem to present views of the capacity of the human mind, which are as con¬ tradictory as it is possible to imagine. If human reason can supply the defects of revelation, is it credible that it cannot comprehend revelation? 15. Let us now briefly compare this doctrine and its results with the rationalistic theory of develop¬ ment. j Essay, p. 28. k P. 99. 1 P. 102. 110 Newman's Theory Rationalistic. [part i. The theories of development held by the rationa¬ lists and by Mr. Newman respectively, concur in as¬ suming Christianity to be a fit subject for “ theories: 1 ’ they also agree in arguing from the case of human philosophies, sciences, and sects, to that of Chris¬ tianity, inferring from such analogy, the proba¬ bility, nay, the necessity of imperfect comprehension at first, and subsequent variation, change, progress, development, and enlightenment. They, accordingly, concur in holding that the most recent development of Christianity is the purest; that Christianity is in a continued state of change; that the future will be more enlightened than the present; that the past is to be considered as imperfectly enlightened; that the further back we pursue our researches, the less do we find of perfect Christian knowledge, and the more admixture of foreign ingredients and of errors; that if there be any identity in Christianity preserved throughout, it consists in identity of principle, not of doctrine; that we ought to interpret the Scriptures and the records of the Church in accordance with existing opinions, assuming the truth of the latter , on the principle that the latest views are the most sound; and in fine, that creeds and professions of faith are not fitted for a pure state of the Church. The rationalists infer from these principles, that we are entitled to disregard the authoritative decisions of the Church in past ages, and the doctrines and traditions of the Fathers; nay, that the Apostles themselves and our blessed Lord were not exempt from errors and contradictions; and they, of course, consistently with these views, reject altogether the notion of a supernatural revelation. Mr. Newman assumes that such a revelation has been made; and chap, vi.] Newman's Theory Rationalistic. Ill perceiving the dangerous consequences of the doctrine of development, as inferring continual change, which may issue in the total alteration of the deposit of religion conveyed by revelation, he proposes the theory of an infallible authority in the Church, to preside over this development, and guard against its abuse and corruption. But then this is grounded on his assumption of the fact of a supernatural reve¬ lation, which rationalists will argue against on his own principles. They will argue, that if Christianity admits, like other philosophical and religious systems, of indefinite progress, change, correction, and im¬ provement, it is, like them, the result of the natural powers of the human intellect; that if the existing state of opinion is to be made the interpreter of the past, and if, without such a key, Scripture and tradi¬ tion are involved in mystery and inconsistency, the supremacy of human reason, in its present most im¬ proved state, is virtually recognized ; that this reason being the supreme judge, it is impossible that any revelation can have been given. If Christianity was imperfectly comprehended by those who had been instructed by the Apostles, and if the force of the human intellect has only gradually brought the truth to light, it does not seem unreasonable to infer, as the rationalists have done, that the Apostles were themselves uninformed on many points of Christian doctrine. And when we read in Mr. Newmans pages of the “gaps” which exist in the holy Scriptures" 1 ; of their deficiency as a rule in many important points of doctrine and practice", and of their apparent contradiction to m Essay on Development, p. 102. 11 P. 98. 112 Newman's Theory Rationalistic. [part i. orthodox doctrine 0 ; we cannot but feel that Ra¬ tionalism, which willingly accepts such assertions, and acknowledges them as its own, is only consistent in denying the inspiration of Scripture, and the fact of a revelation. On what grounds Mr. Newman has proceeded in assuming the fact of a supernatural revelation, as he evidently does, it is not very easy to see. He holds, indeed, as well as Mr. Ward, that the very existence of God, i. e. of a real personal God, is not to be proved either from a consideration of natural phenomena, or from abstract reasoning; that it is only made known by revelation p ; and consequently he is dependent on revelation for the very first principles of natural religion; but if the holy Scripture and the records of history are in themselves so contradictory, so in¬ capable of furnishing a satisfactory reply, as he con¬ ceives them to be q ; if, as he assumes, very few of the Scripture miracles can be maintained against the infidel r ; then it really seems somewhat strange to 0 Mr. Newman holds, that it is necessary to reject the literal interpretation of Scripture, and to adopt some mystical or re¬ condite sense, in order to arrive at the truth. The literal inter¬ pretation is, according to him, invariably adopted by heretics. The inference is, of course, that Scripture, in its plain and ob¬ vious meaning , is favourable to heresy and falsehood—that truth can only be obtained by far-fetched interpretations! Rationalism can demand no stronger argument against the inspiration of Scripture. See Essay, p. 319, &c. p Sermons before University, p. 23, 24, 186. Ward’s Ideal, p. 499. ^ Essay, p. 126. 12, &c. 1 “ One strong argument imparts cogency to collateral arguments which are in them¬ selves weak. For instance, as to the miracles, whether of Scripture or the Church, the number of those which carry with them their own proof now, and are believed for their own sake, is small, and they furnish the grounds on which we receive the rest.” Essay, p. 155. chap, vi.] Newman's Theory Rationalistic. 113 prove from sucli unsatisfactory data, the facts which establish the supernatural character of Christianity. Starting from the theory of development as laid down by Mr. Newman and Mr. Ward, any one so in¬ clined would, without difficulty, develope this theory to the denial of revelation. More especially w ill they do so under the guidance of a writer who is contented to admit of any kind of reasoning in developing the doctrines of Christianity. The logical sequence, which characterizes developments, will, according to him, “ include any progress of the mind from one judgment to another; as, for instance, by way of moral fitness, which may not admit of analysis into premiss and conclusion 3 it is, in short, a 44 logical sequence ” unrestricted by the rules of logic. instead of resting on “ logi¬ cal proofs.” Thus, “ logical sequence” means, in fact, “ eth¬ ical sequence,” or some se¬ quence which is not founded in reason. s P. 397. See also p. 337, where developments are de¬ scribed as “ the spontaneous gradual and ethical growth, not as intentional and arbitrary de¬ ductions, of existing opinions,” I 114 Theory of Development. [part t. ' CHAPTER VIT. the theory of development identical with RATIONALISM. 1. Mr. Ward and Mr. Newman endeavour to establish a strong contrast between the theory of de¬ velopment as put forward by them, and the rationalistic theory. Here, however, it may be remarked, that such alleged contrasts are very far from evidencing any real contrariety in principle. The rationalistic theory may be a development of that which is now before us, though it differs apparently from it in some points. “ Ideas,” says the Essayist, “ may remain, when the expression of them is indefinitely varied; and we cannot determine whether a professed development is truly such or not, without some further knowledge than the mere fact of this variation a .” This remark should be borne in mind, while we read the passages in which these writers endeavour to clear their doctrine from the imputation of rationalism. “ Mr. Palmer indeed,” says Mr. Ward, “ compares this doctrine to rationalism b ; nevertheless, it has been the principal object of this chapter to place these two philosophies in marked and pointed con- a Essay on Develop, p.60. is to the “Narrative of Events, h The allusion in this place &c.” p. 57—03. chap, vii.] Ward's Defence of Development. 115 trast. And in truth, the question, whether we should begin by believing and at once act; or whether we should begin by inquiring and abstain from moral action, does seem sufficiently vital and fundamental. In one point they agree, and only in one; in clashing with the principles of conservatism 0 .” How far it is true that these philosophies agree only in one point, the reader has already seen. But the writer has, it seems, endeavoured to place them “ in marked and pointed contrast.” I confess that after a vigilant perusal of the chapter alluded to, I am unable to find that any such contrast is attempted. It is true, that the object throughout the chapter is to show that we ought to believe without examina¬ tion or proof, whatever may be proposed to us; and that if we examine the proofs of any such tenets, we ought in consistency to carry scepticism to such an extent, as to doubt our own past existence. But this has nothing whatever to do with the doctrine of deve¬ lopment; it merely relates to the mode by which indi¬ viduals attain to the truth. That truth when attained may or may not be capable of development; so that Mr. Ward has been engaged on an entirely different ques¬ tion, and has not even attempted to place his theory of development in contrast with the rationalistic theory of development. This writer therefore seems to be unable to produce any tangible objections to the position which I had advanced, that they are substantially the same. 2. Let us now come to Mr. Newman’s observations on this subject. “ The process of development,” he says, “ has sometimes been invidiously spoken of as c Ward’s Ideal, p. 553. I 2 .6 116 Newman's Defence of Development. [part rationalism, and contrasted with faith. But though a particular doctrine or opinion which is subjected to development may happen to be rationalistic, and as is the original, such are its results; and though we may develope erroneously, that is, reason incorrectly, yet the developing itself as little deserves that impu¬ tation in any case, as an inquiry into an historical fact, which we do not thereby make, but ascertain . .. Rationalism is the preference of reason to faith ; but one does not see how it can be faith to adopt the premisses, and unbelief to accept the conclusion.” 44 For instance, let us take a definition which some years since was given of rationalism. To rationalize is 4 to ask improperly how we are to account for cer¬ tain things, to be unwilling to believe them, unless they can be accounted for, that is, referred to some¬ thing else as a cause, to some existing system, as harmonizing with them, or taking them up into itself.. . Rationalism is characterized by two pecu¬ liarities, its love of systematizing, and its basing its system upon personal experience , or the evidence of sense: If this be rationalism, it is totally distinct from development; to develope, is to receive con¬ clusions from received truth; to rationalize, is to receive nothing but conclusions from received truths; to develope, is positive , to rationalize, is negative; the essence of development is to extend belief, of ra¬ tionalism, to contract it d . ” How far, even on this very imperfect view of ra¬ tionalism, the theory of development may be included under 44 the love of systematizingand the theory of conscience, as the sole test of religious truth, may be d Essay on Development, p. 82, 83. chap, vii.] Newmans Defence of Development, 117 regarded as a system, “based on personal experience, ” and therefore be respectively regarded as rationalistic, the reader must judge for himself; but it is clear that in the above passage the Essayist has not taken notice of the true grounds of the imputation of rationalism to the doctrine of development. It is not, then, merely because reason is employed in de¬ veloping doctrines, whether correctly or incorrectly. No one could object to the use of reason in making inferences from revealed truths. The real ground of the objection to the theory of development, and which attributes to it a purely rationalistic character is, that Christianity is supposed by this theory to grow, ex¬ pand, correct, change, and develope itself, like human sciences and philosophies. It is represented as a science, imperfectly understood at the beginning; becoming purified in the lapse of ages; attaining its perfection only slowly and by degrees. This is exactly what Rationalism affirms of Christianity, and it is on this basis that it argues, and unanswerably too, that there has been no supernatural revelation; because the idea of progress, change, and development by the human intellect, is irreconcileable with the idea of such a revelation. It was on this ground that the theory of develop¬ ment was said to be rationalistic 6 , and no answer has been offered by Mr. Newman to that statement. How far the advocates of the theory of develop¬ ment have been able to reply to the charge of ra¬ tionalism, which has been made against that theory, and which is here distinctly repeated, we have now sufficiently seen. e “Narrative of Events, &c.” p. 57 —63. 118 Tests of Development [part I. 3. But there is another plea which may be offered in its defence. It may be alleged first, that certain tests of true development have been propounded in the . 77, 369, &c. chap, vii.] no Safeguard against Rationalism . 125 cipations” are not to be looked for merely in the Church, but in heresies and heathenism. With so liberal a scope, Socinianism and Rationalism can be at no loss for ample evidence of the anticipation of their tenets even in the earliest times. We know, in fact, that they invariably and unhesitatingly pro¬ duce evidence of this kind, at least as strong as that which the Essayist has produced in favour of cer¬ tain tenets of Romanism. The fourth test is there¬ fore insufficient to prevent the advocates of the theory of development from becoming rationalists. 8. The fifth test, “ logical sequence" 1 ,” is doubtless one which, if accepted and acted on bond fide, is well calculated to discriminate between a true develop¬ ment and a corruption. “ Logical sequence,” how¬ ever, at once brings the question before the tribunal of reason, and it is therefore a principle which will be readily allowed as a test by pure Rationalism. The rejection of revelation by rationalists is by them grounded on “logical sequence;” their rejection of all the doctrines peculiar to Christianity, and many even of those of natural religion, is grounded on the same principle of development by “ logical sequence;” and if their logic be not very conclusive , they have at least the doctrine of the Essayist in their favour, whose “ logical sequence,” is exempt from the strict rules of logic 1 . With such facilities, Rationalism can easily make good its claim to be regarded as a true development of Christianity. But how it is possible to accept such a test as this consistently with the theory of development, it is not easy to see; for “ logical sequence ” implies at least a com- <1 Essay, p. 80. r Essay, p. 397. See above, p. 113. 126 Tests of Development [part t. prehension of the premisses from which conclusions are to be drawn. Now the theory of development is based on the principle, that the idea of Christianity was imperfectly comprehended at first, and that it has only been understood in the course of ages. How true developments of Christianity can have arisen, (even by “ logical sequence ” which does not admit of logical analysis,) from imperfect! deas of Christianity, is absolutely incomprehensible to ordinary under¬ standings. The development of a science is generally understood to require at least a clear comprehension of its first principles, i. e. as clear a comprehension as it is possible for the human mind to attain. 9. The sixth test by which a true development is distinguished by Mr. Newman from a corruption is, “ its being an addition which is conservative of what has gone before it 8 .” This is doubtless in itself a good test to a certain extent; but then we must again remember that the theory of development is, that the idea of Christianity was at first imperfectly understood, and that development includes essentially the notion of correction of imperfect views;—that it is represented as a process analogous to that by which a stream, issuing from a muddy source, becomes more pure in time. It is impossible to maintain, con¬ sistently with this view, that development implies in all cases the preservation of what has gone before. To assert this, would be to assert that the essential idea or ideas of Christianity had been always pre¬ served perfectly , even from the beginning, which the theory of development denies. All that it is possible to maintain consistently with this theory is, that s Essay, p. 86—90. chap, vii.] no Safeguard against Rationalism. 127 developments must be conservative of the essential ideas which have gone before them; and this is equiva¬ lent merely to the first test proposed, and equally with it opens the way to rationalism, or to other views entirely opposed to the theory of development. 10. We now come to the seventh and last test of a true development, “ chronic continuance,” or length¬ ened duration2 It is argued, that corruption being “ a transition state leading to a crisis,” it is “a brief and rapid process.” I confess that S am somewhat at a loss to see the connexion between the antecedent and the consequent here. Why must “ a transition state” be “a brief and rapid process?” Again, it is argued, that ideas “ will not be sta¬ tionary in their corruption any more than before it, and dissolution is that further state to which corrup¬ tion tends. Corruption cannot, therefore , be of long standing 0 !” Here again, there is an apparent defect in the argument, for surely it does not necessarily fol¬ low that corruption must be rapid, because it cannot be “stationary.” I do not wish to offer any captious objection; but the fallacy of such reasoning as this is obvious. And plain facts decisively refute it. W ere not the various forms of idolatrv in the ancient heathen J world corruptions of the original idea of religion? And yet was their continuance “brief and rapid?” The forms of Greek, and Egyptian, and Syrian, and Roman polytheism existed for much longer periods than the corruptions of Romanism have done. Look again, to the duration of the Dualistic, the Brah- minical, the Buddhist corruptions of religion, each t u Ibid. 128 Developing A uihority [part t. of which is of far greater antiquity than Christianity; and then say, that duration cannot be an attribute of corruption. Again, the existence of the Eutycliian and Nestorian heresies, after the lapse of fourteen centuries, is another pretty clear proof that “ corrup¬ tions” are not necessarily short-lived; and the Eastern Church, which Romanists regard as in error on vari¬ ous points, especially on the papal supremacy, is an additional proof to them of the same truth. It is plain that this test will not bear the slightest investi¬ gation : it is altogether fallacious: it cannot for a moment protect the theory of development from its rationalistic tendencies. 11. It now remains to examine the further check and safeguard which Mr. Newman has raised, in the alleged existence of a “ developing authority in Chris¬ tianity v and to see how far this principle will aid the theory of development from arriving at ra¬ tionalistic conclusions. Undoubtedly it is at first sight a very effectual barrier against such inferences, and while it is held , it will, to a great extent, prevent their adoption. If the infallibility of the Roman Church be admitted, its doctrines of course must be believed, just as the doctrines of the Bible must be (at least implicitly) received when its inspiration is admitted. But then, Mr. Newman himself only puts forward the doctrine of “ the existence of a develop¬ ing authority” as “an hypothesis w ,” and it is thus at once submitted to the examination of reason. Will it be able to make good its position, consistently with the theory of development? Let us see. 12. The positive arguments on which this hypo- v Essay, p. 114. W P. 129. chap, vii.] no Safeguard against Rationalism. 129 thesis is founded, (omitting adventitious matter and answers to objections,) are as follows:— First. 44 If the Christian doctrine, as originally taught, admits of true and important developments ... this is a strong antecedent argument in favour of a provision in the dispensation for putting a seal of authority upon those developments x ,” i. e. for the existence of an infallible tribunal in the Church. Secondly. 44 We have no reason to suppose that there is so great a distinction of dispensation between ourselves and the first generation of Christians, as that they had a living, infallible guidance, and we have not y . . . Preservation is involved in the idea of creation; . . . as creation argues continual governance, so are apostles harbingers of popes 2 ." Thirdly. 44 The supremacy of conscience is the essence of natural religion; the supremacy of apostle, or pope, or Church, or bishop, is the essence of re¬ vealed ; and when such external authority is taken away, the mind falls back again upon that inward guide which it possessed, even before revelation was vouchsafed a i.e. if there be no infallible tribunal in the Church, we have only the guidance of our own conscience, without revelation. Fourthly. 44 The common sense of mankind ” sup¬ ports the notion of such an 44 infallible” tribunal'", for professing Christians in general look either to the Bible or the Church as such an authority. Fifthly. 44 The absolute need of a spiritual supre¬ macy is at present the strongest of arguments in fa¬ vour of its supply 0 ,” i.e. it is particularly necessary x Essay, p. 117, 118. a P. 124. y P. 123. b P. 125, 126. 2 P. 124. c P. 127. K 130 Developing Authority [parti. “ wlien tlie human intellect is so busy, and opinion so indefinitely divided,” as is now the case. We are now to see how far these arguments are consistent with the theory of development, and how far they will prevent its advocates from arriving at rationalistic conclusions. 13. The first argument, then, appears wholly to set aside the essential idea of the theory of develop¬ ment, and the arguments on which it has been based. The notion of an infallible authority is absolutely and at once disproved by the principle, that the idea of Christianity has been only slowly and gradually com¬ prehended . If popes and councils only gradually arrived at the full comprehension of Christianity, they could not have been infallible in former ages; and as the idea of Christianity is probably still (on the theory of devel opment) imperfectly comprehended, popes and councils are probably still liable to error, and therefore their authority cannot be binding. Besides this, the writer himself contends, that as all other philosophical and religious systems necessarily develope in the course of time, Christianity must follow their example, unless specific reasons be assigned against such a notion' 1 ; and this argument from analogy at once leads to the inference, that no developing authority is requisite in the case of Christianity, because, in general, no such authority is to be found in the development of human systems. Philosophies, and polities, and religious systems, are rarely developed by authority, but more commonly in opposition to authority. On this prin¬ ciple, the progress of ideas in the human mind, to d Essay, p. 94—96. chap, vii.] no Safeguard against Rationalism. 131 which the development of Christianity is compared, is not necessarily under the guidance of any authority 6 . The Essayist objects to this application of the argument from analogy, because, in his opinion, the argument from analogy, “applied simply, overthrows the very notion of a revelation altogether f .” Un¬ doubtedly, there is too much reason to say that, as applied to establish this writers theory of develop¬ ment, it does so. It represents Christianity as a progressive science, corresponding to merely human inventions. It embodies principles fatal to revela¬ tion; but having established those principles, it can¬ not recede from them afterwards. It cannot main¬ tain that Christianity is to be progressive like ideas of human invention, and then pronounce that it is only to be developed in a mode which is without analogy; it cannot assert, at one moment, the most absolute freedom of idea, and, in the next, subjugate that idea to an infallible authority. It is needless to say, that such striking incon¬ sistencies as these cannot escape the notice of any inquiring mind, and that the whole argument will be at once seen to be untenable. Rationalism will most effectively turn the theory of development against any notion of a “ developing authority .” e Mr. Newman says else¬ where, that the decision of great questions, affecting the essentials of religion, was not effected by authority. “ Nor were these difficulties settled by authority, as far as we know, at the commencement of the religion ; yet surely it is quite conceivable that an apostle might have dissipated them all in a few words, had the Divine K 2 wisdom thought fit. But, in matter of fact, the decision has been left to time, to the slow process of thought, the in¬ fluence of mind upon mind, the issues of controversy, and the growth of opinion .” Essay, p. 99. This furnishes a very strong presumptive argument against the necessity of an in¬ fallible tribunal. f P. 122. Developing A uthority 132 [ PART I. The two ideas are wholly irreconcileable and mu¬ tually destructive. The remaining arguments will be found, on ex¬ amination, to lead to conclusions which Infidelity will instantly accept. For instance, in reference to the second argument: from the identity of position which is supposed to exist between ourselves and the first generation of Christians, and the admission that we have now no inspired teachers, Rationalism will argue that inspi¬ ration did not exist in the apostolic age. As regards the third argument, Rationalism will accept it at once; for it always maintains the con¬ clusion, that there is no reasonable alternative be¬ tween belief in the Papal infallibility and the rejec¬ tion of revelation ; and it will be confirmed in its adoption of the latter course, by the weak and inconsistent arguments on which the former alter¬ native is now maintained. As regards the fourth argument, Rationalism pro¬ pounds the human reason as 44 an infallible tribunal,” and that on a systematic and coherent theory; and, on the principle of development, it infers that its view, being the latest exposition of Christianity and the most in accordance with the progress of the human mind, is to be preferred to all antiquated notions of authority . To the fifth argument Rationalism will answer, that the activity of intellect and the difference of opinion in the present day, are parts or signs of a great development, and that it may be anticipated that all the systems of dogmatism, and super¬ naturalism, and orthodoxy, are about to give way before the onward impulses of the human mind. chap, vii.] no Safeguard against nationalism. 133 14. The advocates of the theory of development may rest assured that rationalistic principles cannot be introduced into Christianity, without leading, sooner or later, to rationalistic conclusions. It is very possible that those who introduce an idea may be themselves unconscious of the results to which it will lead: they may recoil from those results in their own case; they may endeavour to arrest them in others; yet those results will not the less cer¬ tainly follow. Sender, who laid down the leading principles of Rationalism, refused to accompany their development to the denial of the inspiration of Scripture, the rejection of all the peculiar dogmas of Christianity, and the disbelief of revelation. No¬ thing can be more dissimilar, certainly, than the results to which the theory of development has led Mr. Newman’s adherents and the German ration¬ alists; yet the same principle is at the root of both, the only difference being, that the former are anxious to evade the conclusions which the latter, by a bolder and more consistent course of argument, have arrived at. The whole system of tests, and of a developing authority, devised by Mr. Newman, is utterly and miserably powerless to arrest the march of reason to an infidel theory of development. 134 Developments variously Defined. [part i. CHAPTER VIII. THE ARGUMENTATIVE FOUNDATION OF THE THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT EXAMINED. 1. It might seem unnecessary to proceed further in the task of examining the dangerous theory of deve¬ lopment which has been recently propounded; for, strictly speaking, nothing more need be added, when that theory lias been proved to lead to conclusions which are essentially rationalistic and subversive of the Christian revelation. But the importance of the subject seems to require some notice of the argu¬ ments on which this theory has been made to rest, in order that no doubt mav remain of its utter false- %r hood and baselessness. Now, be it distinctly understood at the com¬ mencement of this discussion, that “ the theory of development” is something very different from the admission of 44 developments.” In denying the former, it is far from my intention to dispute the existence of the latter. The term “ development” is indeed a novelty; and, like the term 44 fundamental,” it is made to stand for a great number of different ideas: the Essayist has employed it in perhaps a dozen different senses in his work. But since it has become an admitted term in theology, there can chap, viii.] Developments variously Defined . 135 be no difficulty in recognizing under this new appel¬ lation such old and familiar ideas as “ inference,” “ in¬ terpretation,” 46 consequence,” 44 application,” 44 state¬ ment,” &c. It is evident, then, that the great mass of dog¬ matical statements included in the creeds, the articles, and in all existing theological systems, are, in some sense, developments, i. e. they are not expressly written in Holy Scripture. It is nowhere written , that there is a Trinity of persons in the Godhead, of one substance, power, and eternity; or that Christ was a sacrilice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men; or, that the Old Testament is not contrary to the New; or, that the Romish doctrine of purgatory is untrue; or, that the Bishop of Rome is head of the Universal Church. These, and similar developments, are all inferences from God’s word. Developments of Christianity are of various kinds. Some are expressions of revelation; others are de¬ ductions from revelation. Some are legitimate in¬ ferences from God’s word; others are illegitimate. Some are certain; others are only probable, or pos¬ sible, or doubtful. Some are positive; others are negative. Some are doctrinal; others practical. These distinctions, some of which seem to have escaped the notice of the advocates of 44 the theory of development,” it is necessary to attend to. 2. There are developments, or inferences, which are mere expressions of the ideas conveyed in Scripture. Thus, when we say that the Son and the Holy Ghost are distinct 44 Persons,” we merely express that dis¬ tinction by which the Son is not the Father, or the Holy Ghost the Son, and which is the doctrine 136 Developments variously Defined. [part i. of holy Scripture. Thus Scripture teaches that Christ is both God and Man ; and it is only a dif¬ ferent expression of this doctrine to say, that He is of two natures in one person; that the pro¬ priety of each nature is not lost by this union; and that there are accordingly two wills, the Divine and the Human, in Jesus Christ. All these are but ex¬ pressions of the original ideas communicated by reve¬ lation. The dogmatical language of the Athanasian Creed is of this character. Many of its definitions are not taken from the actual language of Scripture, but are expressions of the idea of the Trinity which Scripture, as a whole, conveys; and many other definitions and expressions of the same doctrine might be developed. This results from the unde¬ niable truth, that revelation was intended to convey to us certain ideas under the clothing of language; and that a variety of language is employed in Scrip¬ ture itself to communicate these ideas; from which it is clear that Scripture ideas are capable of many various expressions or developments. In fact, all preaching and teaching of the Gospel supposes ne¬ cessarily, that ideas are communicated by revelation, which are capable of development by uninspired individuals; for in such cases there is much of the expression of doctrine, which arises from those indi¬ viduals themselves. Mr. Newman seems originally to have contemplated the existence only of develop¬ ments of this kind in Christianity; at least his Ser¬ mons before the University apparently advocate no other kind of developments. 3. There are also developments which are deduc¬ tions from revelation; which follow, or are conceived to follow, from its principles. Of these there are in- chap, viii.] Developments variously Defined. 137 numerable instances. The primacy of the Bishop of Rome is a development of this kind; the doctrine of purgatory another; the worship of the Virgin and saints another; the lawfulness of liturgies, the au¬ thority of synods, the doctrine of passive obedience and the Divine right of kings, the temporary cha¬ racter of the sacraments and the Christian ministry, the validity of Presbyterian ordinations, are all de¬ velopments of certain principles which are really, or are conceived to be, taught by Scripture. From the principle that the Scripture is the word of God, some persons arrive at the further development that it is exclusively the teacher of Christians, and that the Church and its institutions are superfluous. From the lawfulness of asking the prayers of our brethren on earth, it is inferred that we may invoke the departed saints and the angels. 4. It is clear that some of these expressions of the ideas of revelation, and deductions from them, are legitimate , and others are illegitimate . That is to say, there are unlawful developments as well as lawful. Mr. Newman makes this distinction. He considers that the former are corrupt developments, or “ corruptions.” “ A false or unfaithful develop¬ ment ,” says Mr. Newman, “ is called a corruption a .” 5. There are different degrees of evidence in de¬ velopments. Some are capable of clear proof from Scripture, and others are not so. Developments are thus sometimes articles of faith, sometimes pious or probable opinions, sometimes possibly true; some¬ times mere human inferences or opinions, sometimes errors, and sometimes heresies". a Essay, p. 44. b This is admitted by Mr. Newman, p. 116. 138 Negative Developments. [part I. G. There are negative developments as well as posi¬ tive. Mr. Newman and Mr. Ward have altogether left this out of view: they have assumed that all true developments are necessarily positive. The former, amongst his tests of a true development, reckons “ preservative additions.” Developments, he says, “ which do but contradict and reverse the course of doctrine which has been developed before them , and out of which they spring, are certainly corrupt 0 .” A true development is “ one which is conservative of the course of development which went before it; which is that development and something besides: it is an addition which illustrates, not obscures, corrobo¬ rates, not corrects, the body of thought from which it proceeds; and this is its characteristic as con¬ trasted with a corruption 11 .” And this is illustrated by the case of conversion from a false to a true religion, which, it is said, “ is ever of a positive , not a negative character 6 .” Mr. Ward’s notion of deve¬ lopment throughout his work is precisely the same. Now it is evident that this test of true develop¬ ment is incorrect. Revelation includes quite as many negative articles as it does positive; because in every truth which it teaches it condemns the contrary error. If it be the doctrine of revelation that “ Christ is truly God,” it is equally its doctrine that He is “ not a mere man.” If it be asserted that there are “ three c Essay, p. 86. crimes of polytheism. See a d P. 87, 88. most strange assertion of Mr. e P.88. The love of theory Ward’s on this subject, (Ideal, was surely never carried fur- p. 579,) which is refuted by a ther than in maintaining that perusal of the ancient Apo- the early converts to Christian- logies for Christianity, ity did not reject the follies and CHAP. VITI.] Negative Developments. 139 persons in tlie Godhead,” it is equally asserted that Unitarianism is false. If God be a pure Spirit, it follows that He is not a body. If Christ be eternal, Arianism is to be rejected. If the doctrine of develop¬ ment be true, the doctrine of tradition must be false, and vice versa. The Mosaic dispensation comprised negative articles: the commandments are generally negative. It was a negative development which led Hezekiah to break the brazen serpent. The New Testament included prohibitions as well as positive laws. It forbad the worship of false gods. It de¬ nounced the inculcation of new doctrines con¬ trary to what had been taught by our Lord and the apostles. All the councils of the Church afford in¬ stances, in their condemnations of heresies, of the principle of negative developments. It was on this principle that the Council of Nice pronounced anathema against those who asserted that there was a time when Christ did not exist; that the council of Ephesus, with Cyril of Alexandria, condemned the doctrines of Nestorius; the council of Chalcedon those of Eutyches; the fifth council those of Origen: in these, and other cases without number, the de¬ velopment of orthodox doctrine has been of a negative character, and not merely of a positive. Heresies have, in fact, been just as frequently positive as ne¬ gative : they have been perversions or exaggerations of existing doctrines as frequently as denials or rejections of them. 7. But it is now time to notice more specifically the arguments on which Mr. Newman bases his theory of development, i. e. of a progress in the comprehen¬ sion of Christianity. I shall here pass over extrane¬ ous matter, and only notice the arguments in proof 140 Dangerous Foundations oj [part i. of this theory, as they present themselves successively in the Essay on Development. And here first occurs this question. What ne¬ cessity exists for the theory of development ? Why have its authors felt themselves bound to devise in the nineteenth century a doctrine altogether un¬ known to theology for eighteen centuries? Mr. Newman finds the necessity for such a theory in certain phenomena of Christianity, which he thinks otherwise inexplicable. He is of opinion that several articles of faith are not supported by a consensus in the ante-Nicene Church f ; that while we fully believe that the ancient creeds “imply, or rather intend” the doctrine of the Trinity, “ nothing in the mere letter of those documents leads to that belief 5 ;” that several of the Fathers speak ignorantly or incorrectly on some leading articles of belief 11 ; that although “ the orthodoxy of the early Divines, or the cogency of their testimony among fair inquirers,” is not im¬ pugned, still the positive evidence which their writings supply is very small 1 ; that we are not “to assume that they are all of one school, which is a point to be proved ;” or, in other words, we are not to assume that they held any uniform belief on the doctrine of the Trinity, Incarnation, &c. J ; that the argument for the Trinity from the use of the doxolo- gies in the Church is inconclusive, because the worship of angels was equally practised 1 "; that there is no sufficient evidence from the early Church in favour of the doctrine of original sin, or of the real presence 1 , and that there are statements which primd 1 Essay, p. 11, 12. 1 P. 15, 16. * P. 13. J P. 16. h P. 13, 14. 1 P. 17—24. k P. 17. chap, viii.] the Theory of Development. 141 facie are opposed to them. The result of the whole argument is, that there is no convincing evidence, that the principal articles of the faith were understood or believed in the primitive Church. This line of argument is derived not only from Du Perron, Peta- vius, and Huetius, but from Sandius, Whitby, and other opponents of the Nicene faith; from Jurieu and Daille, the assailants of the primitive Church; and from Wegsclieider and the rationalists 111 . 8. Now in reply to these arguments we have to inquire what is meant in reference to the belief of the early Church. Is it meant, that the primitive Chris¬ tians were really ignorant of the doctrine of the Trinity, Incarnation, &c.; or that they held heterodox opinions on these subjects? Mr. Newman does not venture to affirm this: he even disclaims such a notion. It was, he says, the intention of the Church to include the notion of the Trinity in the doxologies. The Fathers were in no degree heterodox really , and their evidence is, to fair inquirers, quite sufficient. If this be the case, it is clear, that whatever may be the apparent diversities of doctrinal expressions in the primitive Church; whatever be the apparent diversities between those expressions and others adopted in later times, the same ideas were included under all; the same doctrine was held from the beginning; and there is no necessity for any theory to explain these diversities; they will be solved by a simple application of the rule of faith to all of them. This lias been, in fact, done by such writers m Petavius, lib. i. de Trinit. sitiones Modestse in Bulli c. 5, 8; Huetius, Origenian. Defens. ; Wegscheider, Inst, lib. ii. c. 2 ; Sandius, Nucleus Theol. pars ii. c. iii. § 88. H ist. Ecclesiast. ; Jurieu, Past. See Waterland, on the Trinity, Epist. vi. ; Whitby, Disqui- chap. vii. 142 Dangerous Foundations of [part I. as Bishop Bull; and the Essayist himself admits, that 44 he does this triumphantly 11 .” There can indeed be no doubt in the mind of any Catholic believer on this point, when he remembers the words of St. Athanasius to the Arians: 44 How many fathers can ye assign to your phrases? Not one of the under¬ standing and wise ... For the faith which the council (of Nice) has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church 0 .” And the objections raised by Mr. Newman and his disciples are at once put an end to by an authority which they will not fail to recognize, that of the Jesuit Perrone, who, in reply to such objections, says, 44 In the doctrine of the Divinity of the Son, the ante-Nicene Fathers are agreed and unanimous, nor can one of them be quoted who openly teaches the contrary, nor has any such ever been produced by Unitarians. But when a certain mode of expressing it, or (to employ modern language) a 4 terminology ’ had not yet been uni¬ versally adopted, some of them did not speak of it with accuracy, according to Petavius p .” 9. If, as Mr. Newman admits, the evidence from primitive antiquity be sufficient for fair inquirers, it n Essay, p. 159. Petavius, who had made assertions equally rash and unfounded in regard to the doctrine of the ante- Nicene Fathers, was afterwards obliged to explain and reform them in the following manner: “ Prseter manifeste haereticos, alios docui, qui communem rec- tamque fidem, et ut saepius dico, substantiam ipsam dog¬ ma tis tenentes, in consectariis quibusdam nonnihil ab regula deflectunt: alios, qui in omni¬ bus re consentientes, loquendi dumtaxat modo dissident ab usitata praescriptione, quae non solum recte sentire, sed rectis etiam verbis explicare quid sentias jubet.” Petav. Theol. Dogm. tom. ii. praef. 0 Athanasius, Defence of Nicene Definition, ch. vi. p. 49 (Oxford translation). p Perrone, Praelect. Theolog. tom. ii. p. 380. Contention with heresies, according to Theodoret, (Dial. iii. t. iv. p. 170,) sometimes accounts for inaccuracy of expression. chap, viii.] the Theory of Development . 143 would seem to be all that could be desired. It is clear that Scripture itself, or the teaching of our Lord and his apostles, only furnishes such evidence as is calculated to convince inquirers of this kind. The great doctrines of Christianity are not taught in such a manner as to put an end to cavil and doubt, where men are unwilling to receive those doctrines. The great mass of heretics in all ages have, we know, defended their doctrines from holy Scripture. One of Mr. Newman’s disciples has stated very strongly the apparent difficulties of Scripture in reference to certain leading articles of the faith q . In fact, it is a favourite and well-known argument with Romanists, that Scripture contains passages which are not easily reconcileable with the leading doctrines of faith and morality. Dr. Milner, in his 64 End of Controversy,” says: 44 It is obvious that if any articles are particularly necessary to be known and believed, they are those which point to the God whom we are to adore, and the moral precepts which we are to observe. Now, is it demonstratively evi¬ dent, from mere Scripture, that Christ is God , and to he adored as such f Most modern Protestants of eminence answer no ; and, in defence of their asser¬ tion, quote the following among other texts.” And then, after dwelling on some difficult texts in refer¬ ence to moral duties, he adds, 44 These are a few among hundreds of other difficulties regarding our moral duties, which, though confronted by other texts seemingly of a contrary meaning, nevertheless show that the Scripture is not, of itself, demonstra¬ tively clear in points of first-rate importance 1 .” q See Ward’s Ideal, p. 487, r Milner, End of Contro- 488. versy, p. 75. 144 Dangerous Foundations of [parti. From these passages it is obvious, that the very same observations which the Essavist has made on the nature of the testimony of the primitive Church to the great doctrines of revelation, have been ap¬ plied by his own adherents, and by Romanists, to the Holy Scripture itself. In fact, it has been their in¬ variable language. And hence we arrive at the following conclusion. If the variations of statement which he has pointed out in the records of the early Church imply that the idea of Christianity was not comprehended ; it equally follows that the apostles and evangelists, and our Lord himself, did not comprehend the idea of Chris¬ tianity; for the same kind of difficulties may be found in the Scripture as in the writings of the early Christians. In short, if he maintains, on this ground, that there must necessarily have been a progress or development of Christian doctrine, the commence¬ ment of that progress cannot be fixed subsequently to the apostolic teaching; it must include the apostolic teaching and the teaching of our blessed Lord. Or, in other words, we, in the present day, must be far more enlightened, and must comprehend the truths of religion far more perfectly, than the Founders of Christianity! I do not know what Rationalism, or Deism, or even Atheism can demand more than this, as a principle. When Mr. Newman objects to our “ assuming” that the writers of the primitive Church held the same belief, notwithstanding some super¬ ficial differences, he prevents himself from “ as¬ suming” that the writers of the New Testament held the same belief. He therefore cannot draw any line between the one case and the other, or maintain that apparent variations in Scripture must chap, viii.] the Theory of Development . 145 necessarily be reconcileable without the aid of his theory of development, when that theory is held necessary to explain similar variations in the early Church. 10. The notion that the faith of the Church was not settled at first on the great doctrines of Christianity, is one which is familiar to Rationalism. Bretschnei- der argues, that the continual variations which history shows in the conception of religious doctrines, prove that all uniformity of belief is impossible. The Jesuit Perrone replies, that such variations have in¬ deed existed “ amongst those who dissent from the authority of the Church, but not amongst the docile children of the Church, in articles of faith defined by her;” for “the Catholic Church has always be¬ lieved, held , and taught the same thing in what relates to faith 8 .” On the other hand, the German ra¬ tionalists, as he observes, “ vary their professions of faith according to the diversities of times or the progress of science 1 .” 11. The Essayist next asserts, that “from the nature of the human mind, time is necessary for the full com¬ prehension and perfection of great ideas, such as those of Christianity 0 .” Without entering at any length on a reply to this assertion, as an argument for the theory of development, it is easy to show that if it be legitimately applied by the author, it proves something more than he intends or would admit. Suppose that the errors of the fourth, or the sixth, or the sixteenth century had occurred in the time of * Perrone, Prselect. Theol. tom. i. p. 239. t Ibid. p. 240. u Essay, p. 27. 146 Theory of Development. [part t. the apostles, or in the age immediately following, would the doctrine of the Church at once have been found in contrariety to them or would it not ? Would there have been definitions or expressions of faith substantially agreeing with those of later times, or substantially different? If the Church would at once have been able, in virtue of the idea of Chris¬ tianity communicated by the apostles, to have repelled any assignable heresy, her comprehension of the idea of Christianity was perfect even from the beginning. But if she could not have condemned such heresies as Arianism, or Socinianism, or Tritheism, or Pela- gianism, there must have been a change in her belief. It w’as not merely a development or expansion of an idea, but an alteration in its essential character. If Arianism would have been permitted and adopted by the apostles and the first believers, while it was repelled from the belief of the fourth century as an ingredient foreign to the idea of Christianity, the idea of Christianity must have been essentially dif¬ ferent in one age and the other. Now, this would be destructive even of Mr. Newman’s fundamental principle: it would totally destroy the notion of a development in which the essential idea is preserved 12. I now come to this writer’s more systematic arguments for the existence of such a development as he contends for; i . e. a development in which the idea of Christianity is supposed to be only gradually comprehended in the course of ages, and the real knowledge of the doctrines of revelation is continually on the increase. It is this which constitutes the essence of his theory of development, according to which the most essential doctrines of the faith were either chap, vttt.] Newmans Proofs Examined . 147 unknown or contradicted, through want of informa¬ tion, in the primitive Church. Bearing this in mind, let us proceed to examine the arguments advanced for such developments. “ If Christianity is a fact, and can be made subject- matter of exercises of the reason, and impresses an idea of itself on our minds, that idea will, in course of time , develope in a series of ideas connected and harmonious with one another. . . . The more claim an idea has to be considered living, the more various will be its aspects; and the more social and political is its nature, the more complicated and subtle will be its developments, and the longer and more event¬ ful will be its course. Such is Christianity. ... It may be objected, that inspired documents, such as the holy Scriptures, at once determine its doctrine, without further trouble. But they are intended to create an idea , and that idea is not in the sacred text, but in the mind of the reader; and the ques¬ tion is, whether that idea is communicated to him, in its completeness and minute accuracy, in its first apprehension, or expands in his heart and intellect, and comes to perfection in the course of time f Nor could it be maintained, without extravagance, that the letter of the New Testament . . comprises a delineation of all possible forms which a Divine message will assume when submitted to a multitude of minds. . . . Nor can it fairly be made a difficulty, that thus to treat of Christianity is to level it, in some sort, to sects and doctrines of the world, and to impute to it the imperfections which characterize the productions of man. It is, externally, what the Apostle calls an 4 earthly vessel,’ being the religion of men. And, considered as such, it grows ‘ in 148 Theory of Development . [part i. wisdom and stature*/ but the powers which it wields, and the words which proceed out of its mouth, attest its miraculous nativity. Unless, then, some special ground of exception can be assigned, it is as evident that Christianity, as a doctrine and worship, will develope in the minds of recipients, as that it conforms, in other respects, in its external propagation or its political framework, to the general methods by which the course of things is carried forward v .” Now, on this argument it may be observed, that it goes only to prove that there will probably be “ developments” in Christianity; that is, that it will, like other ideas, present “ various aspects” and “ different forms” in different ages. This is at once conceded. The different external circumstances in which Christianity is placed in different ages will, of course, lead to corresponding developments; but it remains to be proved, that those developments imply any increased comprehension of the idea or ideas of Christianity. Different “ aspects” and dif¬ ferent “ forms” of revealed truth do not imply any increased knowledge of truth—any progress or advance in the faith of the Church. The ideas of Christianity may remain identically the same amidst innumerable developments; those developments may either refer to mere external, ritual, and disciplinary matters, which revelation has left to the Church to regulate; or else to the mere form in which ancient truths are presented. The progress of an individual mind in the study of holy Scripture, and its gradual comprehension of the v Essay, p. 94 — 96. chap, viii.] Newmans Proofs Examined. 149 truth, does not afford any parallel to the supposed case of the Church’s gradual comprehension of Chris¬ tianity. An individual cannot in the nature of things acquire knowledge except progressively; but we cannot thence argue that the general mind of the Church has been progressive in all ages. It is at least possible that the very first generation of Chris¬ tians may, by apostolical teaching, have attained to all the comprehension of the ideas of revelation which it was intended that man should possess; and that this comprehension may have been preserved in the general mind of the Church, in after-times, without any change. On the whole, then, it is evident that this argu¬ ment in support of the Essayist’s theory, is wholly insufficient. It furnishes grounds certainly for ex¬ pecting “ developments ” in Christianity, but none whatever for anticipating a progress or growth in the comprehension of the ideas of revelation. 13. “If Christianity,” he continues, “be an universal religion, suited not to one locality or period, but to all times and places, it cannot but vary in its relations and dealings towards the world around it, that is, it will develope w .” Principles require to be thrown into new shapes occasionally. All Christians develope or make new deductions from Scripture as circumstances call for them; for the remedy of errors cannot pre¬ cede their rise*. All this is very true, but it does not establish the theory for which Mr. Newman is contending: it does not infer any growth in the comprehension of Christianity: it merely describes the developments w Essay, p. 96. * P. 96, 97. 150 Theory of Development. [part i. in “ form ” and “ aspect,” and expression, and other externals, which have been already fully ad¬ mitted. 14. “ When we turn to the consideration of parti¬ cular doctrines on which Scripture lays the greatest stress, we shall see that it is absolutely impossible for them to remain in the mere letter of Scripture, if they are to be more than mere words, or to convey a definite idea to the recipient. When it is declared that ‘ the Word became flesh,’ three wide questions open upon us, in the very announcement. What is meant by ‘the Word,’ what by ‘flesh,’ what by ‘became?’ The answers to these involve a process of investiga¬ tion, and are developments. Moreover, when they have been made, they will suggest a series of secon¬ dary questions*.’ ” All this may be admitted as true, but it is insufficient to prove that there has been any growth of knowledge, any greater comprehen¬ sion of the idea of Christianity in later times than in earlier. Of course there are developments or inter¬ pretations of Scripture, which are articles of faith: our creeds consist generally of such developments; and many doctrines also may be deduced from such developments, which are more or less probable; but which do not add to the deposit of the faith originally received, or imply any advance in its com¬ prehension. 15. It is alleged that “great questions exist in the subject-matter of which Scripture treats, which Scripture does not solve; questions too, so real, so practical, that they must be answered, and answered, unless we suppose a new revelation, from the revela- y Essay, p. 97, 98. chap, viii.] Newmans Proofs Examined . 151 tion which we have, that is, by development Amongst such questions are included the canon of Scripture and its inspiration, its interpretation, its sufficiency, the baptism of infants, the remission of sins committed after baptism, the state of the soul in the intermediate state. 44 The gapsf if the word may be used, 44 which occur in the structure of the original creed of the Church, make it probable that those developments which grow out of the truths which lie around them, were intended to complete it a .” It is remarkable that the argument thus em¬ ployed to prove the necessity for developments, is by Roman Catholic writers generally urged to prove the necessity for unwritten apostolical tradition; and it is undoubtedly at least as effective, for such a purpose, as for proving developments of Scripture. Bellarmine argues for the existence of apostolical unwritten tradition, on this ground amongst others: 44 Because there are many things which could not have been unknown, and yet which are not contained in Scripture;” and amongst these, he mentions the inspiration, the canon, and the interpretation of Scripture; the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin; infant baptism; purgatory b . The same argument is to be found in Milners End of Con¬ troversy 0 , and generally in all the controversial writings of Romanists. Here, then, Mr. Newman is at variance with the current of Roman Catholic theology. If his principle be right, Bellarmine and Milner were in error. He z Essay on Development, p. b Bellarm. Controv. Fid. t. i. 98. p. 105. a P. 102. c Letters x. xi. 152 Theory of Development. [part i. supposes that there are “ gaps ” in the original creed of the Church ; points which were left unsettled by the Apostles; which were at first not filled up by the Church, and on which her early belief varied. The creed of the Church was thus more limited than it afterwards became. New articles of faith were added to the original belief in after-ages. Novelty and change of doctrine become the test of religious life. The decision in these cases “ has been left to time, to the slow process of thought, the influence of mind upon mind, the issues of controversy, and the growth of opinion' 1 .” If such has been the case, the inference might be fairly drawn, that these questions themselves are in a great measure open questions —that opinion may safely vary on such points; and that whatever deci¬ sions may be arrived at, are never invested with the authority which attaches to articles of faith. This in¬ ference from the facts stated by the writer seems to be quite as legitimate as that which he actually connects with them, viz. the notion of a growth in the com¬ prehension of revelation. But we must altogether demur to his statement of the case. We deny that such questions as the inspiration, and interpretation, and sufficiency of Scripture, the validity of infant baptism, the true mode of remitting sins after baptism, or the state of the soul in the intermediate state, were in point of fact left undetermined in the Scripture or the early Church; and if later ages have added developments or further particulars to the ancient doctrines, or have perverted them, it does not follow that there has been any greater compre¬ hension of revelation at one period than the other. d Essay, p. 99. chap, viii.] Newman's Proofs Examined. 153 From the fact that developments have taken place, which fill up the “ gaps ” of revelation, an inference is drawn, that they were probably intended to com¬ plete them, on the same principle by which we infer design in the visible creation from the existence of need and its supply 6 . Now, of course, if we could say that a particular doctrine developed from revela¬ tion is as certainly the true answer to some necessary question connected with revelation, as we can say that certain physical supplies meet certain physical necessities, we might reasonably infer design in the one case as in the other; but then we must first be assured, that the doctrine developed from revelation supplies the real answer to questions connected with it; that it actually fills up its “ gaps.” On what reasonable grounds we can attain such a conviction, it is difficult to see. There is, however, one inference from the whole of this argument which its author has apparently not observed. It is this: if uninspired reason be capable of filling up the “gaps” of revela¬ tion; of supplying articles of faith on which revela¬ tion has been silent; there seems to be no necessity for supposing that it was incapable of discover¬ ing the whole of revelation, or that it needed the help of inspired teaching. Once grant to human reason the power of supplying the deficiencies of revelation, and revelation itself becomes the opera¬ tion of man’s intellect. 16. “The method of revelation in Scripture,” is urged as another reason for inferring such develop¬ ments as this writer speaks of. It is remarked that the prophecies of Scripture, and the whole Bible, are e Essay on Development, p. 101, 102. 154 Theory of Development. [part i written on the principle of development. The earlier prophecies are expanded in the later. “ As the revelation proceeds, it is ever new, yet ever old. St. John, who completes it, declares that he writes 4 no new commandment unto his brethren,’ but an old commandment which they 4 had from the beginning.’ And then he adds, 4 a new commandment I write unto you.’ The same test of development is sug¬ gested by our Lord’s words on the Mount, as has already been noticed, 4 Think not that I am come to destroy the law and the Prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.’ He does not reverse, but perfect what has gone before V’ The doctrine of sacri¬ fice is instanced as having been developed gradually by the Prophets, and by our Lord 8 . It is also remarked, that the same gradual development of doctrine is to be inferred from the style of our Lord’s teaching, which is given in germ, consisting of concise and pregnant enunciations, which were evidently capable of development 11 ; and that, in fact, a continual de¬ velopment of doctrine took place in the New Testa¬ ment, even to the completion of the Canon 1 . And it is contended, that it is impossible to fix an historical point, at which the growth of doctrine ceased in the Church; that St. Ignatius in the first century had to establish the doctrine of Episcopacy; that the creed itself was an incomplete summary, and the Church went forth from the world in haste, 4 with their dough before it was leavened j ; ’ that the rise and growth of the chosen people, though determined in the Lord’s counsels from the begin- * Essay on Development, p. 103. « P. 104. h P. 104—107. 1 P. 107. j Ibid. chap, viii.] Newmans Proofs Examined. 155 ning, wear a merely human appearance, and seem to have arisen in the progress of events k . The whole of this argument infers a forgetfulness of the essential difference between the case of reve¬ lation, as existing subsequently to the apostolic age, and as existing in preceding times. Since the time of the Apostles, it is admitted by every one, that there have been no inspired teachers: previously, there had been a succession of inspired teachers, or of actual revelations from God, even from the foun¬ dation of the world. Now it is perfectly undeniable that God Himself did gradually develope the scheme of Redemption as time advanced, by means of Pro¬ phets and Apostles, and other inspired teachers; but it does not follow that man—uninspired man can do the same, or that any such development is to be expected under Christianity. The absence of inspired teachers since the apostolic age is in itself a sufficient sign that revelation was at once and perfectly de¬ livered then; and this is only what might have been anticipated from the infinite superiority of a dispen¬ sation predicted from the foundation of the world, to which preceding dispensations were introductory, and which God Himself descended from Heaven to establish. Mr. Newman’s remark, that the Gospel is distinguished from the law (and we might add, from the patriarchal dispensation) by its assertion of opinions or doctrines 1 , is to a certain extent true. The patriarchal and the Mosaic creed was very limited: previously to the Gospel, revelation consisted chiefly in precepts of obedience, and comparatively little in the disclosure of mysteries as objects of faith. k Essay, p. 108—110. 1 P. 339. J 56 Theory of Development. [part r. The ancient ceremonies and ordinances all pointed to the truth which was afterwards to be revealed. The Apostle reminds us, that “ God who at sundry times, and in divers manners, spoke unto the Fathers by the Prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son;” and by the Son all mysteries were revealed which were requisite for salvation. 17. Another argument in behalf of the theory of de¬ velopment is derived from the structure of Scripture, which is “so unsystematic and various,” and in “a style so figurative and indirect,” that “of no reader, whatever may be his study of it, can it be said that he has mastered every doctrine which it contains" 1 .” Bishop Butler’s remarks are quoted, who was of opi¬ nion that the prophetic parts of revelation are not yet fully understood, and that truths may be here¬ after elicited from the Scripture which are at present undiscovered". We may readily admit the correct¬ ness of this conjecture; but I do not see how it will materially aid the object for which it is here brought forward. That the doctrines of the faith always received may be in time elicited from passages not previously known to contain them,—that truths which are not articles of faith may be probably collected from passages which had not been con¬ ceived to include them,—that prophecies may be understood better at or near the time of their ful¬ filment than when they were delivered,—all this is very credible; but then it does not show that the knowledge of revelation, i. e. of the idea of revela¬ tion, is in any degree increased as time advances. Bishop Butler was certainly not contemplating the development of “new articles of faith or develop- m Essay, p. 110. n Analogy, ii. 3. chap, viir.] Newmans Proofs Examined. 157 merits imperative on onr acceptance,” as the Essayist himself admits 0 , he merely contemplated the possibi¬ lity of developments in Christianity; and this, the writer adds, “is the point at present in question.” This is not so: the writer’s argument throughout is to establish his primary position, which is, not merely that “ there are developments ” in Chris¬ tianity, but that those developments infer a clearer comprehension of the idea of Christianity in process of tune; that the apostolic age comprehended only the rudiments or elements of Christianity, and that we in the present day are indefinitely raised above the Fathers in the comprehension of the truth. The writer adds, that such doctrines as purgatory, the communication of the merits of the saints, abso¬ lution, extreme unction, voluntary poverty, the wor¬ ship of saints and relics, “ rest upon definite, even though sometimes obscure, sentences of Scripture 13 ;” from whence, I suppose, we are to infer, that these doctrines are instances of such discoveries as he has been just speaking of, i. e . of truths developed in pro¬ cess of time from obscure passages of Scripture. Of course it is not meant to assume, that all doctrines or practices deduced, whether in ancient or modern times, from texts, whether obscure or otherwise, are articles of faith, or even probably right. We may, then, safely say, that when it shall have been proved that the doctrines in question have been rightly and suffi¬ ciently elicited from such obscure texts, and that they are not inconsistent with other texts and the tradition of the Church, we shall be quite ready to tolerate them in others, even though we may deny that such doc¬ trines, having been unknown for many ages to the 0 Essay, p. 111. p P. 112. 158 Theory of Development. [part r. Church of Christ, can he articles of faith, or binding on our acceptance. 18. Another argument remains to be considered, which, if it were valid, would, doubtless, wholly su¬ persede the necessity for any further examination. “ Scripture,” it is said, “ distinctly anticipates the de¬ velopment of Christianity, both as a polity and as a doctrine ^The proofs of this position are derived, not from any express declarations of our Lord or His Apostles, but from certain parables , to which the writer affixes a mystical interpretation in accordance with his own views. Now, at the outset of this discussion, a protest must be made against such a mode of establishing important doctrines. We know that parables are from their very nature not intended to furnish clear proofs of doctrine, independently of other instruction, but rather to reward the pains and labour of those who have learned the truth from other sources. The attempt to prove doctrines from obscure parables only, to the exclusion of the plainer parts of Scrip¬ ture, has been a characteristic of heresy from the earliest times. Irenseus remarks in several places on the way in which the Valentinians attempted to prove their doctrines from parables, omitting the more plain and clear parts of Scripture—a procedure which he compares to the conduct of those who built their house upon the sand r . Let us now come to the proofs themselves. “ In q Essay, p. 112. verum est, valde praecipitan- r “ Quia autem parabolae tium se in periculum, et ir- possunt multas recipere abso- rationabilium esse, quis non lutiones; ex ipsis de inquisi- amantium veritatem confitebi- tione Dei affirmare,relinquentes tur ? Et numquid hoc est non quod certum, et indubitatum, et in petra firma, et valida, et in chap, viti.] Newman? s Proofs Examined. 159 one of our Lord’s parables,” says Mr. Newman, “the kingdom of heaven is even compared to 4 a grain of mustard-seed, which a man took and hid in his field; which indeed is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree,’ and, as St. Mark words it, 4 shooteth out great branches, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.’ And again, in the same chapter of St. Mark, 4 So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground, and should sleep and rise night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how; for the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself.’ Here an internal element of life, whether principle or doctrine , is spoken of, rather than any mere external manifestation. . . . Again, the parable of the leaven describes the development of doctrine in another re¬ spect, in its active, engrossing, and assimilating power 8 .” 19. That the parable of the mustard-seed 44 dis¬ tinctly anticipates the development of Christianity as a polity,” in the sense of its rapid growth and spread in the world, is at once evident; but that it refers to the growth of doctrine in the Church, or the formation of its polity , strictly speaking, is an asser¬ tion which has not been proved. The Fathers inter¬ pret it differently. Thus Chrysostom speaks of it as 44 signifying that in any case the Gospel should be spread abroad . Therefore He brought forward the similitude of this herb, which lias a very strong simi¬ litude to the subject in hand. .. . Thus He means to aperto posita, aedificare suam c. 27. See the whole context, domum; sedin incertuni effusae and also chapter x. of the same arenae ? Unde et facilis est book, eversio hujusmodi aedificatio- * Essay, p. 112,113. nis.” Iren. adv. Haeres. lib. ii. 160 Theory of Development. [part i. set forth the most decisive sign of its greatness: ‘ Even so, then, shall it be with respect to the Gospel too,’ saitli he. Yea, for His disciples were weakest of all, and least of all; but, nevertheless, because of the great power that was in them, it hath been unfolded in every part of the world V’ A conjectural inter¬ pretation of this parable, supported by no authority, and opposed to the general tenor of Scripture, can have no weight. 20. The parable of the Seed cast into the ground and growing secretly, is one which has been very vari¬ ously interpreted, and Mr. Newman himself does not seem to feel confident that it refers to any develop¬ ment of doctrine in the Church. Pie says that it refers to some “ internal element of life, whether principle or doctrine .” Without pretending to affirm that any particular exposition of this parable has been conclusively established as the true one, it may at least be affirmed, that the position for which the Essayist contends, cannot subsist on such a doubtful foundation as this. If, for instance, we admit that the parable refers to a “ principle,” which is an internal element of life in the kingdom of God, why may we not interpret it of the preaching of “ the word,” of which our Lord had been speaking just before under this very figure of sowing “seed u ?” * Chrysost. in Matth. Horn, xlvi. al. xlvii. Oper. t. vii. p. 483. So also Theophylact (in Marc, iv.) a\\a (mapiv &rl rrjg yrjg to KrjpvyfJ-a, in\aTvvdr) Kal rjvfy'iOr}’ wore t a niTiiva rov ov- pavov, rovrian, 7 ravrag rovg fitTtiopovg Kal lr*pr)\ovg to) (ppo- vqyaTL Kal rrj yvwffei, in avrui KaraaKtji ovv. It is observable, that this was assumed to be the meaning of the parable by the writer himself, in No. 85 of the “Tracts for the Times,” p. 63, where it is said that such texts as “the mustard-seed,” “ imply the calling and conver¬ sion of the Gentiles.” u Thus it is understood by Theophylact (in loc.) : crnopov chap, vn t.] Newman's Proofs Examined. 161 And again, the growth which is here spoken of, may be referred to the perpetual process by which souls are prepared in 44 the kingdom of God” on earth for His kingdom above. I do not think it necessary to contend for the correctness of any par¬ ticular interpretation of the parable; but what we should have expected from the writer is, some proof that the growth here spoken of refers to such a de¬ velopment of doctrine in successive ages as he con¬ tends for. 21. The parable of the leaven is the last scriptural evidence which is adduced in proof of this theory. That the 44 leaven” means Christianity, may be ad¬ mitted ; but the process of leavening may be referred, not to any development of doctrine in successive ages, but to the gradual spread of Christianity amongst the 44 massthat is, amongst the inhabitants of this earth; which has been, and is, continually proceed¬ ing. Such is the interpretation of Chrysostom:— 44 The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, &c. For as this converts the large quantity of meal into its own quality, even so shall ye convert the whole world v .” Augustine also understands the meal to signify 44 the human race w .” Mr. Newman does not attempt any proof that his interpretation of the parable is correct; and as this, as well as his inter¬ pretation of the two parables already noticed, evi- 9 dently requires such proofs, it may be safely inferred ce 'ifiaXev eir'i rrjg y rjg, too Evayy eXlov to Krjnvyfia. The growth of the seed, according to this Father, signifies the in¬ crease of holiness in the Chris¬ tian soul. v Chrysost. in Matt. Horn. xlvi. al. xlvii. Oper. t. vii. p. 483. KciOd 7rfp yap avrr] to 7 roXv aXevpov /.lediaTrjcnv fig t>) r tav- Trjg i(T^vv‘ ovtco Kctl bf.if~ig tov TravTCt tcofTf.iov ^eTciaTTfafTa. w Sermon lxi. p. 456, Oxf. T ransl. M Theory of Development. [part I. 162 that he has been unable to produce them. The mere unsupported assumption, that they refer to the development of doctrine in the author’s sense, can¬ not have any weight. When a positive doctrine, so important as that of Development, is to be esta¬ blished, it ought not to be made dependent on merely conjectural interpretations of parables; as Jerome observes, in his commentary on one of the parables adduced above'; and especially when, as we shall presently see, this conjectural interpretation is in¬ consistent with the doctrine taught in the plainer parts of holy Scripture. That it is so, is in itself sufficient to dispose of the argument founded on these parables. 22. There is one remaining argument, which must here be noticed. “ The general analogy of the world, physical and moral, confirms this conclusion y ;” for, as Bishop Butler says, “ the whole natural world, and government of it, is a scheme or system; not a fixed, but a progressive one. . . . There is a plan of things beforehand laid out, which, from the nature of it, requires various systems of means, as well as length of time, in order to the carrying on its several parts into execution. Thus, in the daily course of natural providence, God operates in the very same manner as in the dispensation of Christi¬ anity, making one thing subservient to another, this to somewhat farther ; and so on z .” Mr. Newman, whose familiarity with Bishop Butler’s writings x After giving three inter- auctoritatem dogmatum pro- pretations of the parable of the ficere.” Lib. ii. in S. Matth. leaven, he says of the last: Oper. t. iv, p. 57. ed. Benedict. “ Pius quidem sensus, sed nun- y Essay, p. 113. quam parabolae, et dubia aenig- z P. 113, 114. matum intelligentia, potest ad chap, vt ii.] Newman's Proofs Examined. 163 cannot be questioned, ought surely to have recol¬ lected that, the argument in this place refers to the progress of God’s dispensations in general; and not to any development of the Christian dispensation, strictly so called. It is in reply to the objection founded on the gradual and progressive character of Revelation on the whole; which is an admitted fact. But this eminent writer would never have inferred, from the admitted fact of the progress of things in the natural world, that there must be a corresponding progress in Revelation. He seems expressly to guard against any inference of this nature, in observing, that with regard to Revelation, “We are equally ignorant whether .. the scheme would be revealed at once , or unfolded gradually A .” This, I think, sufficiently disposes of the argument from analogy. 23. There is another argument which is put for¬ ward in several places of the Essay on Development, and which has been extensively current amongst the adherents of the author. It is this: that whatever developments have actually taken place in Christi¬ anity, were doubtless contemplated by its Divine Author, and, having been so contemplated, are to be regarded as sanctioned by His authority b . We read of “ the general probability” “ that all true develop¬ ments of doctrine and usage which have been per¬ mitted . . have been Divinely approved 0 .” In this passage, such sanction is limited to those develop¬ ments which are “ truebut the distinction is generally overlooked; and it is assumed that the Romish developments, having been permitted to exist a Analogy, ii. 3. b P. 114. M 2 c P. 171. 164 Theory of Development. [parti. in the Church, must necessarily be approved by God, and must form parts of revelation. The answer which occurs at once to this doctrine is, that it leads to absolute blasphemy. If God sanctions and approves all that He permits, He has sanctioned idolatry and every species of abomination under the Mosaic covenant, and He has sanctioned sin under the Christian covenant! They have ex¬ isted ; and therefore, according to this doctrine, they have been sanctioned! Nothing further need be said on this point. But taking the doctrine in its more plausible shape,—admitting that “ true” developments are sanctioned by God,—does it follow that such deve¬ lopments infer any growth in the comprehension of Christianity? Certainly not: “ true” developments, i. e. developments which are probably collected from Scripture, and which do not contradict the articles of the faith, may yet be only pious opinions. Mr. Ward has referred to the doctrine of the immacu¬ late conception of the Virgin, and the Augustinian doctrines of grace, as such opinions. In these cases there is no real growth of revelation: the idea of Christianity is not less perfectly understood at the beginning than at the end of its course. 24. We are now to consider the amount of testi¬ mony which has been brought by Mr. Newman from the records of Christian antiquity in support of his theory. I have only observed one quotation from any ancient writer in support of the theory under consideration. This single fact speaks volumes. The solitary quotation is from Tertullian; but there are some rather serious drawbacks even on this single testimony. “Tertullian,” says Mr. Newman, “dis- chap, viii.] Newman s Proofs Examined . 165 tinctly recognizes even the process of development in one of his Montanistic works' 1 ;” and undoubtedly the passage produced does speak of a development, (though not a development of doctrine ;) when in reference to an innovation upon usage, which the newly-revealed truth required, it ascribes to the Paraclete, or Holy Ghost, the office of effecting im¬ provements : “ Nothing can take place without age, and all things wait their time;. .. behold the creature itself gradually advancing to fruit.” And then, after comparing this to the growth of a plant, and its pro¬ duction of fruit, it is added, “ So too righteousness; for there is the same God both of righteousness and of the creature, and at first, in its rudiments, a nature fearing God; thence, by means of law and prophets, it advanced into infancy; thence, by the Gospel, it burst forth into its youth; and now, by the Paraclete, it is fashioned into maturity 6 .” Now, omitting here the very important consideration that this theory was advanced by a heretic , and also that, as Mr. Newman himself admits, it has no reference to any develop¬ ment of 44 doctrine,” but only of 44 discipline and conduct f ,” it is evident that Tertullian argued with perfect correctness from false premises. Supposing that Montanus had been the Paraclete, no one could for a moment dispute his right to develope and add to the doctrines of revelation. But then the advocates of the theory of development cannot infer with Tertullian that the process of revelation has been carried on beyond the apostolic age, because they are not prepared to maintain with him that inspiration has been carried on beyond that age. d Essay, p. 350. p Ibid. f P. 349. 166 Theory of Development. [part t* 25. Mr. Newman has not attempted to adduce any other authorities from primitive times in support of his theory of development, nor indeed do we learn from him that any writers except De Maistre and Mohler, have expressly maintained it. One more passage, however, has been produced by Mr. Ward, which it may be well to examine. This passage is from the Commonitorium of Vincentius Lirinensis, and in it, according to Mr. Ward, the doctrine of development is distinctly put forth 8 . Mr. Newman refrains from producing this passage' 1 , and with some reason; for having rejected the whole theory of the writer, as insufficient to account for the phenomena of Christianity, he could not very consistently refer to him as an authority. Vincentius, having devoted the greater part of his treatise to prove that no change or innovation could be permitted in Christian doctrine, and having urged the necessity of adhering only to that doctrine which had been always received in the Church, proceeds to meet an objection which may be raised to this doctrine. “ Peradventure some will say, shall we have no advance in the Church of Christ ? Let there be the greatest that may be. For who is he, so envious of men or hateful of God, as to labour to hinder that? But yet let it be so, that it may be really an advance of faith, not a change. . .. Fitting it is, therefore, that the understanding, knowledge, and wisdom of every g Ward, Ideal, p. 128—130. antiquity, in support of the h There is an allusion to it theory of development, seems in the Essay on Development, to indicate a difference of p. 89; but so slight, that it is opinion between Mr. Newman evident that no weight is at- and his disciple, as to the real tached to it. This, considering doctrine inculcated by Vincen- the dearth of evidence from tins. ciiap. viii.] Ward's Proofs Examined. J 67 man in particular, as well of all in common as of one alone, should, by the advance of ages, abundantly increase and go forward, but yet only in its own kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine , the same sense , the same judgment .” He then compares it to the growth of the body, and continues, 44 In like manner Christian doctrine must follow these laws of increasing; to wit, that with years it be consolidated, become more ample with time, be more exalted with continuance. . . . Lawful indeed it is, that these an¬ cient articles of heavenly philosophy be, in process of time, trimmed, smoothed, polished ... and albeit they receive evidence, light, distinction, they must retain their fulness, integrity , propriety 1 .” This passage for its fuller comprehension requires the addition of another, which Mr. Ward has only partially given: 44 But the Church of Christ, a dili¬ gent and careful keeper of the doctrines committed to her charge, never changeth any thing in them, diminishetli nothing, addeth nothing . . . What, in fine, was ever the object of the decrees of councils, but that what had been previously believed simply should be believed more carefully ? ... This alone did the Catholic Church accomplish by the decrees of her councils, namely, to consign to posterity in writing what she had received from antiquity by tradition alone j .” On the whole, then, the doctrine of Vincentius seems to be this, that ancient doctrines, received at all times from the beginning by all members of the Church, may be, in process of time, more accurately defined as far as expressions, and proofs, and other 1 Vincentius Linn. Commonitor. c. xxviii.—xxx. j Cap. xxxii. 168 Theory of Development , [part j. accidents and forms are concerned, but that the essential ideas of Christianity always remain un¬ altered and without any addition. Change is to him an abomination; to the advocates of the theory of development it is an essential: “ Ecclesia nihil in his unquam permutat k ,” says Vincentius; “To live is to change ,” is the doctrine of Mr. Newman, “and to be perfect is to have changed often It is plain that these doctrines are opposed. Whatever support the advocates of development may gather from insulated expressions in the above passages, is at once sub¬ verted by a consideration of the principle and argu¬ ment of the whole treatise, which is accordingly rejected by the Essayist as inconsistent with the theory of development 111 . 26. Having thus examined the various arguments on which the theory of development is founded, we find it impossible to avoid remarking on the very narrow basis of proof on which it has been placed. A few philosophical arguments—three parables —one quotation from the writings of a Montanist—consti¬ tute the whole amount of Mr. Newman’s proofs ! He has not produced a single clear text of Scripture, and has abandoned to his opponents the whole body of Catholic tradition in all ages. The familiarity of this learned writer with the entire range of Christian antiquity, has not enabled him to produce a scintilla of evidence in favour of his theory from any one of the Catholic Fathers or councils! We may say, as St. Athanasius said to the Arians, “ Let them tell us from what teacher, or by what tradition, they have derived their notions 11 ?” k Cap. xxxii. m P. 7, &c. 1 Essay, p. 39. n Defens. Nicen. Syn. cap. 3. chap, viii.] Prinid Facie Evidence against it. 169 27. Let us now see wliat may be adduced from Scripture and Tradition in opposition to this ration¬ alistic theory. •/ It may be observed, then, that the primd facie view of the case is so far from leading us to the inference that Christianity must necessarily be more perfectly understood in the course of time, that it would rather conduct us to the opposite conclusion; that it has been less perfectly understood, and has been corrupted. The author of the Essay on deve¬ lopment himself is obliged to admit this. “ When we consider,” he says, “ the deep interest of the controversies which Christianity raises, the various minds it has swayed, the range of subjects which it embraces, the many countries it has entered, the deep philosophies it has encountered, the vicissi¬ tudes it has undergone, and the length of time through which it has lasted, it requires some assign¬ able explanation, why we should not consider it modified and changed, that is, corrupted, from the first, by the numberless influences to which it has been exposed 0 .” Such considerations certainly have no inconsiderable weight, though it seems unreason¬ able to maintain that there is any probability that Christianity would, “from the first” have been thus corrupted; to any considerable extent at least, and in material points. The facts which this writer has brought out with reference to the actual adoption in Christianity, during the fifth and following centuries, of notions, and rites, and institutions derived from heathenism and heresy p , adds much to the force of this consideration. Essay, p. 338. 0 P P. 351, 352. 359, 360. 170 Theory of Development [part t. The comparisons, too, which the advocates of the theory of development institute between Christianity and other systems, whether philosophical or reli¬ gious, and the argument for progress in the one case from progress in the other, should lead them , at least, to the conclusion, that with development the seeds of decay have been gradually introduced, and that Christianity is, on the whole, less pure and perfect than it was at the beginning. The mere fact of the existence of a revelation capable of being developed, does not infer any pure system of developments. The history of the Is¬ raelites sufficiently proves this. Their selection by God, and the revelation made to them by Moses and the prophets, could not even preserve the original ideas of revelation in their minds. Their whole course, till their return from the Babylonish cap¬ tivity, shows that they did not always even retain the truth. In later times the Pharisees and Sad- ducees again corrupted it in various ways. And it may hence be argued from analogy, that the idea of Christianity would be corrupted in the course of ages, and restored by reformations analogous to those which the Jewish history presents. So that, on the whole, the primci facie view of the case is, that Christianity has probably been de¬ veloped, but that the development has been in some respects a corruption; and therefore that the idea of Christianity is less clearly and perfectly compre¬ hended than it was at the beginning,, 28. We cannot, perhaps, in fairness be required to prove a negative,—to show that the notion of de¬ velopment, put forward by the writer in question, is without foundation in the word of God. The onus chap, viii.] Inconsistent with Scripture. 171 probandi rests, of course with him; and we have seen that the evidence which has been adduced from Scripture in support of the theory is altogether in¬ adequate. But there is assuredly sufficient evidence in Scrip¬ ture, to prove that the idea of Christianity was made fully known to the early believers—that they were put in possession of a belief which was sufficient to enable them to reject whatever heresies might arise—that the idea of Christianity was not imperfectly under¬ stood at the beginning by the Church at large. In the first place it should be observed, that 64 the Spirit of truth” was promised by our Lord to His disciples, and through them to His Church, to 44 lead them into all trutli^” to 44 teach them all things r ,” and this promise undoubtedly refers, at least, to the first ages of the Gospel. If it be claimed for later ages, it cannot be denied to the first. Hence we find the Apostle Paul professing to those whom he had in¬ structed, that he had taught them 44 all the counsel of God s ,” and on another occasion speaking to them as enriched by Him 44 in all mysteries and all know¬ ledge.” So again, he contemplates the possibility of Christians understanding 44 all mysteries and all knowledge,” and yet being without charity 1 . It is from the fulness of this instruction that he calls on the Ephesian elders to 44 take heed to themselves and to the flock 11 ,” because heresies should arise; evidently implying that they were qualified to judge false doctrine, and, therefore, that they compre¬ hended the idea of Christianity. Hence the more John xvi. 13. 1 1 Cor. xiii. 2, 3. r John xiv. 26. 11 Acts xx. 28. 8 Acts xx. 27. 172 Theory of Development [part I. perfect Christians, to whom the fulness of knowledge had been imparted, that is, the “wisdom” of which the Apostle Paul speaks, were qualified to judge: “ He that is spiritual judgeth all things , yet he him¬ self is judged of no man v .” It may, of course, be possible to devise exceptions and distinctions, by which the plain meaning of passages like these may be evaded; but I think there can be no doubt that they lead to the inference, that as the Christian doctrine was unreservedly taught by the Apostles, so it was well understood by believers, through the inward guidance of the Holy Ghost. The doctrine thus communicated and received, was sufficient to enable Christians to reject all heresies which might arise: the apostolic exhorta¬ tions always enforce the necessity of simply adhering to the faith once received, as a means of resisting false doctrines. Thus St. Paul writes to the Colos- sians: “As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him ... stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught. . . Beware, lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ w ;” a passage which seems almost expressly designed to guard us against philo¬ sophical theories of development. Thus again, the Galatians are warned, “ If any man preach any other Gospel unto you, than that ye have received , let him be accursed 55 and they are blamed for being led away by Judaizing brethren; evidently implying that the doctrine which they had received, ought to have prevented them from falling into the errors they had adopted. v 1 Cor. ii. 6. vv Col. ii. 7, 8. x Gal. i. 8, 9. chap, viii.] Inconsistent with Scripture. J 73 So again, the Apostle John, warning believers against heresies, writes thus:—“ Let that therefore abide in you which ye have heard from the beginning... These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of Him, abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you : but as the same anoint¬ ing teacheth you of all things , and is truth and no lie, and even as it hath taught you , ye shall abide in Him y .” We find the same principle in most of the Epistles. To Timothy it is said; “ that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine ,” than they had received 2 . Again, “ The Spirit speaketh ex¬ pressly, that in the latter days some shall depart from the faith , giving heed to seducing spirits, and doc¬ trines of devilsHe is exhorted to “ put the brethren in remembrance of these things V’ implying, that they ought to be prepared to resist the tempta¬ tions of unbelievers; which could only be, by ad¬ hering to the doctrine they had learnt; and this infers their comprehension of that doctrine. To Timothy himself it is said,—“ Take heed unto thy¬ self, and to the doctrine; continue in them c .” “ O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science, falsely so called, which some professing, have erred concerning the faith d .” Amongst the qualifications of a bishop is this:— “ Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine, both y 1 John ii. 24—27. z 1 Tim. i. 3. 1 Tim. iv. 1. a b 2 Tim. ii. 14. c 1 Tim. iv. 16. d 1 Tim. vi. 20. Theory of Development [part i. 1 74 to exhort, and to convince the gainsayers e .” Surely this implies no imperfect comprehension of the idea of Christianity. It is indeed almost incredible, that the holy martyrs and confessors who conversed with the Apostles, or with those who had seen the Apostles, should be now regarded by persons pro¬ fessing Catholic principles as men who imperfectly comprehended Christianity. Such was not the doc- drine of St. Paul, who says to the Hebrews, 44 Re¬ member them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God; whose faith follow V’ St. Jude looked for no new discoveries in religion ; no development of doctrine ; no change or variation. His exhortation is, 44 that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the Saints g ,” St. John admonishes the elect lady: 44 This is the commandment, that as ye have heard from the be¬ ginning, ye should walk in it. . . whosoever trans- gresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God h .” St. Peter addresses all Christians: 44 I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance, that ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the Holy Prophets, and of the commandments of us, the Apostles of our Lord and Saviour 1 .” Now the general tendency of all these passages, (and many others of the same character will readily occur to any one versed in the sacred Scriptures,) seems very plainly to teach us that the doctrine of the Gospel was not only comprehended by the e Titus i. 9. h 2 John, 9. 1 Heb. xiii. 7. 1 2 Pet. iii. 1, 2. g Jude, 3. 175 chap, v 11 t .] Inconsistent with Scripture. Apostles and inspired teachers, but by those whom they instructed also. It may indeed be objected, that the language of Scripture is not, in all the texts which have been referred to, decisive of the question whether Christian doctrine was perfectly and fully comprehended by the early believers; that in some instances it simply attests their comprehension of Christian doctrine. But we have a right to infer, that this comprehension was full and perfect, unless it is expressly said in Scripture not to have been so: the limitation or exception must be proved by those who make it. When I say that the doctrine was “ comprehended,” I mean of course, only so far as it is possible for human comprehension to reach in this present life; nor is it intended to deny that amongst believers there have been at all times various degrees of knowledge, as the Apostle intimates in his first Epistle to the Corinthians. “ And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye ablek” So also in the Epistle to the Hebrews: “ When for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again, which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat 1 .” But in this last case, he proceeds to instruct them in higher things: “ Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on to perfection 1 ;” as he had taught the Corinthians also: “ Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect” 1 .” •> 1 Cor. iii. 1, 2. k Heb. v. 12. 1 Heb. vi. 1. m 1 Cor. ii. 6. 1 76 Theory of Development [part t. It was the custom of the Apostles not to communi¬ cate at once the whole doctrine of the Gospel. Thus St. Paul writes to the Tliessalonians: “ What thanks can we render to God again for you, for all the joy wherewith we joy for your sakes before our God; night and day praying exceedingly, that we might see your face, and might perfect that which is lacking in your faith n f ” This last passage seems to furnish a decisive proof of the fulness and perfection of the faith of the primitive Church. Taken simply and literally, it seems to establish all that we contend for. On the whole, then, we seem to be fully borne out by the language of Scripture in maintaining against the advocates of the theory of development, that in the Church at large from the beginning, i. e. from the time when the Apostles themselves were fully en¬ lightened by the Holy Spirit, the creed of believers in general was uniform and complete, and without any “gaps;” that as there was “one Lord” so was there “one faith 0 ” which prevailed in the Catholic Church amongst all nations of the earth; that the Catholic Church of Christ was ignorant of no article of revealed truth; that its belief was not unsettled, wavering, imperfect, or mingled with impure ingre¬ dients even from the beginning; but that as the Christian dispensation was introduced by the Son of God, and confirmed by the power of the Holy Ghost, in order that men might know “ the truth,” and that “ the truth might make them free p ,” so it is certain that it did not fail in its effect, but that “ the truth ” was received and comprehended in its “ length, and n 1 Thess. iii. 9, 10. ° Eplies, iv. 5. p John viii. 32. chap, vi it.] Inconsistent with Catholic Belief\ 177 breadth, and depth, and height,” according to the measure of human capacity, and men were “ filled with all the fulness of God q .” 29. And such has been invariably the belief of the Catholic Church, even from the beginning. It may seem useless indeed to produce testimonies from the Fathers, because those with whom we have to do, appear to be prejudiced against any such testimonies by their theory, that Christianity was imperfectly comprehended, even in its principles, in the early ages r . But still the unanimous voice of the whole Christian Church cannot easily be set aside: it will evince, at least, the harmony of all ages in this one testimony. We need not seek for an “anticipation” or two of this doctrine here and there, amongst heretics, as our opponents are compelled to do, in order to show that their “ theory of development ” is not the offspring of the rationalism of the nineteenth century. We appeal to the whole body of Chris¬ tian writers, of Fathers, of councils, of schoolmen, of modem theologians, in all sects and communions, except those which are decidedly rationalistic. We appeal finally to the prevalent doctrine of the Roman Church itself. We affirm, that throughout the whole of Christianity in all ages, there is one unanimous voice in opposition to “ the theory of develop¬ ment.” Let us begin with the testimony of Vincentius Lirinensis, which, although it is acknowledged by Mr. Newman to be opposed to the theory of deve- q Ephes. iii. 19. understood and so carefully r “ So far, however, may be handled at first, as they were granted to M. Guizot, that even afterwards.” Essay on Deve- principles were not so well lopment, p. 349. N 178 Theory of Development [part i. lopment, is, nevertheless, the clear and definite testi¬ mony of a writer of the fifth century. “ To announce any thing to Catholic Christians, except that which they have received,” says Vincen- tius of Lerins, 44 never was, never is, never will be lawful; to anathematize those who announce some¬ what beside what has been once received, never was, never is, never will be unnecessary 3 .” 44 4 O Timothy,’ saith he, 4 keep the deposit, avoiding profane bab¬ blings.’ . . . What is the ‘deposit?’ what is entrusted to thee, not what is invented by thee: what thou hast received, not what thou hast excogitated: a matter, not of wit, but of learning; not of private choice, but of public tradition: a thing brought to thee , not proceeding from thee , in which thou art not to be an author, but a keeper; not a teacher, but a disciple; not a leader, but a follower. 4 Keep the deposit, he saith, preserve the talent of the Catholic faith, inviolate and unclefiledV” And the office of the Church, as regards the development of Christian doctrine, is simply this: 44 The Church of Christ, a diligent and careful keeper of the doctrines deposited with her, never changes aught in them, diminishes nothing, adds nothing , doth not retrench what is necessary, or annex what is superfluous, neither loses her own, nor taketh what pertains to others, but sedulously applies herself only to this, in the faithful and wise handling of ancient doctrines, to give care and polish to what may have been anciently without order, and unfinished; to consolidate and strengthen what has been brought out and declared; and to guard what has been confirmed and defined. What, s Vincentius Lirin. Commonitor. cap. xiv. f Cap. xxvii. chap, vi it.] Inconsistent with Catholic Belief. 179 in fine, was ever the object of the decrees of councils, but that what had been previously believed simply, should he more carefully believed... This alone did the Catholic Church accomplish by the decree of her councils, namely, to consign to posterity in writing what she had received from antiquity by tradition alone u .” Mr. Newman admits that the principle (or “theory” as he calls it) of this writer is opposed to the doctrine of development. “ Such,” he says, “ is the rule of historical interpretation which has been professed in the English school of divines v and which he rejects. Vincentius Lirinensis then is abandoned to us. This is not an unimportant concession; for if any thing be certain, it is this, that Vincentius taught substantially the same doctrine which all the Fathers and Councils maintained. 30. We learn from Eusebius that the martyr Igna¬ tius, who had been constituted Bishop of Antioch by the Apostles, “encouraged the faithful to adhere firmly to the tradition of the Apostles w .” Poly carp, Bishop of Smyrna, who conversed with St. John the Evan¬ gelist, according to the testimony of Irenaeus, “ ever taught that which he had learned from the Apostles, which the Church has delivered, and which alone is trueY’ Irenaeus testifies the continuance of the apostolic doctrine in its unity and perfection in the Church universal: “ the world’s languages are vari¬ ous,” he says, “ but the power of tradition is one and the same. There is no difference of faith or tradi- H Cap. xxxii. Essay on Development, р. 8. w Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. с. 36. N x Irenaeus, adv. Haeres. lib. iii. c. 3. ravra (Uodi;ag da, d kcu irapa rutv airoaroXiov tpct- Oev , a kcu >/ £kkXr/cr/a irapaii- CoHTiv, ci kcll fiova early ci 9. 180 Theory of Development [part \. tion, whether in the Churches of Germany or of Spain, &c.;. .. but as the sun, God’s creature, is one and the same in all the world, so also the preaching of the truth shines every where, and lighteneth every one, who will come to the knowledge of the truth. Among the rulers of the Church, neither He, who is all-powerful in word, speaketli other doctrine (for no one can be above his master), nor does the weak in word diminish the tradition y .” And in another place: “ the truth is not to be sought elsewhere than in the Church, since the Apostles most fully bestowed on it, as a rich depository, all the things which are of the truth, in order that every one who desires it, may thence receive the draught of life. For this is the way to life 2 .” Tertullian teaches the same doctrine when he declares that 44 the rule of faith is altogether one, sole, unalterable, unchangeable a .” 44 We have the Apostles of our Lord for founders, who were not themselves the inventors nor authors of what they have left us, but they have faithfully taught the world the doctrine which they received from Christ 1 ’.” y Adv. Hseres. lib. i. c. 10. teal yap at tearci rov Koapov btd- XtKrot dvbpotot, aW ’ ?/ bvva ulq ri]Q TrapadoneioQ fjtta teat f) avrr) . . ]. v. c. 20 : “ Ecclesiae quidem praedicatio vera et firma, apud quam una et eadem salutis via in universo mundo ostenditur. Hinc enim creditum est lumen Dei, et propter hoc sapientia Dei, per quam salvat omnes ho¬ mines, in exitu canitur.” 2 Adv. H seres. lib. iii. c. 4. “ Non oportet adhuc quserere apud alios veritatem, quam facile est ab ecclesia sumere; cum Apostoli, quasi in deposi- torium dives, plenissime in earn contulerint omnia quae sint ve- ritatis; uti omnis quicumqye velit, sumat ex ea potum vitae.” a Tertull. de Veland. Virg. c. i. “ Regula quidem fidei una omnino est, sola, immobilis, et irreformabilis . . . hac lege fidei manente, caetera jam disciplinae et conversationis admittunt no- vitatem correctionis.” b De Praescript. adv. Haer. c. vi. “ Apostolos Domini ha- bemus autores, qui nec ipsi quicquam ex suo arbitrio, quod chap, viii.] Inconsistent with Catholic Belief. 18 J . .. “ What the Apostles preached, that is, what Christ revealed to them, I will here rule, must be proved in no other way than by those same Churches which the Apostles themselves founded; themselves, I say, by preaching to them as well viva voce (as men say), as afterwards by Epistles 0 ... If, therefore, it is not to be believed either that the Apostles were ignorant of the fulness of the doctrine, or that they did not make known to all the whole order of the rule of faith, let us see whether perchance the -Apostles taught it simply and fully , but the Churches, through their own fault, received it otherwise than the Apostles set it forth. All these incentives to curious doubt, thou mayest find put forward by the heretics. They remember that the Churches were rebuked by the Apostles [referring to Gal. iii. 1, v. 7, i. 6; 1 Cor. iii. 1, 2, viii. 2]. When they object to us that the Churches were reproved, let them believe that they were amended; and let them also remember those concerning whose 4 faith,’ and 4 knowledge,’ and con¬ versation the Apostle 4 rejoiceth,’ and 4 giveth God thanks,’ [referring to Horn. i. 8, xv. 14, xvi. 19; Eph. i. 15; Phil. i. 3—6; Col. i. 4—8; 1 Thess. i. 3. 5—10; 2 Thess. i. 3, 4,] which nevertheless at this day join with those which are reproved, in the privileges of one instituted body.” “Well then, be it that all have erred; that the Apostle also was deceived in the testimony he gave in favour of some ; that the Holy Spirit had regard inducerent, elegerunt: sed ac- illis Christus revelaverit: et hie ceptam a Christo disciplinam prsescribam, non aliter probari fideliter nationibus adsignave- debere, nisi per easdem eccle- runt.” sias, quas ipsi Apostoli condi- c De Prescript.c. xxi. “ Quid derunt.” autem praedicaverint, id est quid 182 Theory of Development [part I. to no one of them so as to 4 guide ’ it 4 into truth,' although for this sent by Christ, asked of the Father, that He might be the teacher of truth; that He, the steward of God, the deputy of Christ, neglected His office, suffering the Churches the while to understand differently, to believe differently, that which He Himself preached by the Apostles; is it probable, that so many Churches, and so great, should have gone astray into the same faith? Never is there one result among many chances: the error in the doctrine of the Churches must needs have varied. But where one and the same thing is found amongst many, this is not error, but tradition d .” The doctrine of this writer evidently is, that the Church received one faith from the Apostles—that it was fully instructed in the Christian doctrine— that this doctrine was irreformable and unchange¬ able. The Essayist himself admits that Tertullian is not favourable to the theory of 44 development 6 .” 44 Nor was this the doctrine and practice of one school only, which might be ignorant of philosophy: the cultivated minds of the Alexandrian Fathers, who are said to owe so much to pagan science, cer¬ tainly showed no gratitude or reverence towards their alleged instructress, but maintained the supre¬ macy of Catholic tradition. Clement 1 speaks of heretical teachers as perverting Scripture, and essay¬ ing the gate of heaven with a false key; not raising the veil, as he and his, by means of tradition from Christ, but digging through the Church’s wall, and d Tertull. de Prescript, c. of die Creed.” Essay on De- xxvii. xxviii. velopment, p. 349. e “ Tertullian asserted with 1 Stromat. lib. vii. ed. Pot- exaggeration the immutability ter, p. 897. chap, viii.] Inconsistent with Catholic Belief. I So becoming mystagogues of unbelief; 4 for,’ lie con¬ tinues, ‘few words are enough to prove that they have formed their human assemblies later than the Catholic Churchand ‘ from that previously existing and most true Church, it is very clear, that these later heresies and others which have been since, are counterfeit and novel inventions § .’ ” In another place Clement describes true doctrine as that which is derived by tradition from the Apostles. Speaking of certain teachers, he says, “They who preserved the true tradition of blessed doc¬ trine directly from the holy Apostles Peter, and James, and John, and Paul, as a son receives it from a father.... have come to us, by God’s will, to deposit their ancient and apostolic seeds And again, speak¬ ing of the presumption of heretics who taught doctrines differing from those of the Apostles and ancient teachers, he says: “ For what, among men so mighty in ecclesiastical knowledge, was left for Marcion, Prodicus, or such like, who entered not the right way? In wisdom they did not surpass their predecessors , so as to discover any thing in addi¬ tion to what they had truly spoken . It would indeed have been well for them could they have acquired what had been before delivered 1 .” Such doctrines as these are wholly inconsistent with the notion of the development of new articles g P. 899. See Newman, Essay, p. 342. h Stromat. lib. i. p. 322. ed. Potter. aXX ol fiev rr]v dXrjdrj rrjg fiaKapiag (rw^ovreg (jdaaica- Xiag Trapacocriv, evOvg cnro m- rpov re /cat ’Ia/cw/3oi/, ’hodvrov re /cat ITavXov, rwv clyiorv cnro- aroXwv, 7r aig 7mpd rrarpog ek<$e- % 6 /ievog . . t/fcot' dr] ow Qea> /cat elg r/juac, ra 7rpoyo?a/ca Utlva /cat , Air outoXlk a Karcidrjaofxevoi aTvepfiara. 1 Stromat. lib. vii. p. 896. ed. Potter, ov yap civ vTrtpipa- Xov cotyiq. roiig e/xirpoadev dv- Spag, tog 7rporre^evpe~iv n ro~ig vtt ' 1 ekeiviov ciXtiOCjq pt]Oe~icriv• 184 Theory of Development [part I. of faith in Christianity beyond those which had been received from the beginning. We thus find, even in the philosophic Clement, the very same principle of immutability of creed which is taught by Tertul- lian and by Vincentius Lirinensis. We may refer to the martyr Hippolytus for fur¬ ther proof; “ Let us believe, therefore, brethren, according to the tradition of the Apostles j :” to the martyr Cyprian; 44 If in any thing the truth shall seem to fail and waver, let us return to the original of the Lord, and to the traditions of the Gospel and of the Apostles, and thence let our practice have its rise, whence our rule, and order, and beginning came k44 It is easy to minds that are religious and simple to lay aside error, and to discover truth; for if we turn to the source and head of Divine tradi¬ tions, error ceases 1 :” to the martyr Stephen, Bishop of Rome; 44 Let no innovation be introduced, but let that be observed which is handed down to us by tradition™.” 44 When the Marcionites, Valentinians, and the like,” says Origen, 44 appeal to apocryphal works, they are saying, 4 Christ is in the desert;’ when to canonical Scripture, 4 Lo, He is in the chambers;’ but we must not depart from that first and ecclesi¬ astical tradition, nor believe otherwise than as the Churches of God hy succession have transmitted to us'\ ” In another place he says, 44 As there are many who think they believe what Christ taught, and some of these differ from others . . . that truth alone j Hippolytus, Contra Noe- m Vincent. Lirin. Commo¬ tion, p. 243, ed. Fabricii. nitor. c. vi. k Cyprian, Epist. 71. ad Pom- n Origen, Tract, xxix. in peium. Matth. See Newman, Essay, 1 P. 141, ibid. p. 343. chap, viii.] Inconsistent with Catholic Belief\ 185 is to be believed, which differs in no respect from the Ecclesiastical and Apostolical tradition °.” “ The Fathers of Asia Minor, who excommuni¬ cated Noetus, rehearse the Creed, and add, 4 We de¬ clare as we have learned the Fathers of Antioch, who deposed Paul of Samosata, set down in writing the Creed from Scripture, 4 which,’ they say, 4 we received from the beginning , and have by,tradition and in custody, in the Catholic and Holy Church, until this day, by succession, as preached by the blessed Apostles, who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word p .’ ” It was on this principle, also, that Irenseus, Ter- tullian, Clement of Alexandria, Firmilian, Cyprian, Eusebius, Athanasius, Pacian, Epiphanius, argued, when they contended that heretical doctrines, as being of later date than the orthodox belief, cannot be true. The original belief of the Church was sup¬ posed to be free from error, doubtfulness, or imper¬ fection. Athanasius supplies abundant evidence of the belief of the Church in the fulness and perfection of the faith which had been received from the begin¬ ning. In answer to the Arians, who pretended that the expressions of the Nicene Creed had been in¬ vented by the Council of Nice, he says : 44 That they did not invent them for themselves . . . but spoke what they had received from their predecessors, pro- ° Origen, de Principiis, lib. i. praef. Oper. t. i. p. 4 1 . “ Cum multi sint qui se putant sentire quse Christi sunt, et nonnulli eorum diversa a prioribus sen- tiant, servetur vero ecclesias- tica praedicatio per successions ordinem ab Apostolis tradita, et usque ad praesens in eccle- siis permanens: ilia sola cre- denda est veritas, quae in nullo ab ecclesiastica et apostolica discordat traditione.” r Newman, Essay, p. 343. 186 Theory of Development | tart i. ceed we to prove this also, to cut off even this excuse from them.” Then, after quoting several of the more ancient Christian writers, he continues : “ See, we are proving that this view has been transmitted from father to father; but ye, O modern Jews and disci¬ ples of Caiaphas, how many Fathers can ye assign to your phrases ? Not one of the understanding and wise; for all abhor you, but the devil alone . .. who now persuades you to slander the oecumenical Coun¬ cil, for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which from the beginning those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word have handed down to us q .” Mr. Newman has very justly remarked on the above passage, that “ the profession under which the decrees of councils come to us is, that of setting forth in writing what has ever been held orally or implicitly in the Church. Hence the frequent use of such phrases as iyypafyiot; e&TeOri with reference to them. Thus Damasus (Theod. Hist. v. 10) speaks of that ‘apostolical faith, which was set forth in writing by the Fathers in NicaeaV” But to return to Athanasius. His language is always uniform on this subject. “ If,” he says, “the Arians allow that these things are now heard for the first time, let them not deny that this heresy is something foreign, and not received from the Fathers . But what is not received from the Fathers, but has been now discovered , what can it be but that of which the blessed Paul said, e In the last times some shall depart from the sound faith, giving heed to q Athanas. de Decretis Ni- r Library of the Fathers, caense Synod. Oper. t. i. p. vol. viii. p. 49. 233, ed. Benedict. chap, viii.] Inconsistent with Catholic Belief. 187 spirits of error and doctrines of devils 5 ?” Elsewhere he says, in reference to the doctrine of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, that we should “ look to the same doctrine, and teaching, and faith, which was from the beginning of the Catholic Church, which the Lord taught, the Apostles preached, and the Fa¬ thers 'preserved . On this the Church is founded, and whoever departs from it, cannot be or be called a Christian 4 .” Elsewhere he says: “ Our faith is cor¬ rect, coming to us from the teaching of the Apostles and the tradition of the Fathers 11 .” Athanasius also assures us that this principle was that of the 318 Fathers of the first oecumenical synod at Nicsea. “Concerning Easter, because it was ordained that all should obey, they said, ‘The following has been ordained.’ But, concerning faith, they did not say 4 it has been ordained,’ but 4 so the Catholic Church believes;’ to which was imme¬ diately added the confession of faith, that they might show that their doctrine was not new, but apostolic; and that what they committed to writing had not been discovered by themselves, but was the very doctrine which the Apostles had taught v .” Nor was this the principle of the orthodox only in those ages; even those who were of less settled faith than Athanasius, and who did not at first re¬ ceive the o/uoovcnov, professed that Christian doctrine was derived from the Apostles by tradition in the Universal Church. Thus Eusebius says, in speaking s Orat. i. contra Arianos, t. i. Oper. tom. i. pars ii. p. 676. p. 412. to t) e ek TrarepisJi', u Ad Adelpli. Oper. tom. ii. ciWet vvv ecpevpedey, ri av eLrj p. 914. erepoy rj 7rtpi ov 7rpo£tpr)K£y o v Athanas. Epist. de Synod. ficucapiog llauXoc ; c.r.A. Oper. t. i. pars ii. p. 719. 1 Epist. i. ad Serapionem. 188 Theory of Development [part I. on the doctrine of the Trinity, “ To what he has mentioned, I will add a discourse on the Divinity of our Saviour, having nothing new, or of myself, to say. ... I shall deliver the uncorrupted doctrine of the Church of God , which she received at the beginning from eye and ear witnesses, and still pre¬ serves w .” Cyril of Jerusalem, who was for a time connected with the semi-Arian party, says, “ The Church is called Catholic . .. because she teaches universally and without defect , all the doctrines which ought to be known of man, concerning visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly things V’ Nay, the Arians themselves in their synods of Jerusalem and Antioch professed to adhere to “ the apostolical tradition and teaching,” and not to “ receive any other faith beside that which has been handed down from the beginning.” And, to take a writer of wholly opposite opinions, who even separated from the Church on account of its lenity towards those who had yielded in the Arian controversy, Lucifer, Bishop of Calaris, condemns the heretics of his day, because “ they forsook the faith which the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs had maintained,” and speaks to them thus: “ Plow could we Christians acquiesce with you, a disciple of Arius, and desert the apostolical tradition * ? ” vv Euseb. de Eccl. Theol. contra Marcellum, p. 60, ed. Colon. 1688. crvvaxhoj de rarcl to avTO . . rrjv too 2iv 7 rapadoaeig, teal ypatyal dyiai , Kai Siaio^ai Si- hacncaXiac, Kal etc irarrayoQev »/ dXrjOeLa rod Qeov i/acpdXicrTai. ical pritjug dirardadio kuivoI q pvOoie. b Epiphan. Haeres. lv. al. lxxv. Oper. t. i. p. 910. 190 Theory of Development [part t. The doctrine of Basil is equally decisive: “It befits him who has before his eyes the judgment of Christ, and knows how dangerous it is to take from, or to add to those things, which have been delivered by the Spirit, not to be ambitious of new exposi¬ tions of his own, but quietly to rest in the things which have been before declared by the Saints. Wherefore, to venture upon any thing which neither common custom nor the use of the Scriptures admits, is it not the height of madness c ?” To the heretic, Eunomius, he writes thus: “ What say you ? shall we not attribute more authority to antiquity ? Are not the multitude of Christians who now are, as well as those who went before us . . . to be respected? Must we disregard the worthiness of those who were resplendent in all kinds of spiritual gifts ? . . . Shall we wholly shut the eyes of our souls, and, suppressing the recollection of every holy man, submit our un¬ derstandings to your deceits and idle sophistries? Truly your authority would be great, if we should concede to your dictation, what the devil could not effect by his various wiles; if, persuaded by you, we should prefer your impious inventions to that tra¬ dition which, in all former times , was held by so many holy men d .” Again, in reference to another heresy, he says, “Separate not the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son: let tradition deter you. For so the Lord taught, the Apostles preached, the Fathers main¬ tained, the Martyrs confirmed. Be satisfied to speak as you were instructed 6 .” “It is,” he says, “the c Basil, adv. Eunom. lib. ii. e Horn. xxiv. cont. Sabell. c. 8. Oper. t. i. p. 243, ed. t. ii. p. 194. Ivauirttru) as rj Benedict. 7rapciSoaip' 6 KvpLOQ ourcog sSi- ll Adv. Eunom. lib. i. Oper. dcii^c, cnroaroXoi sicrjpv^av, 7ra- tom. i. p. 210, 211. rspsc Sisrr/prjaciv, ydpTvpsQ sj3s- chap, v t11 .] Inconsistent with Catholic Belief. 191 common aim of all the opponents and enemies of sound doctrine, to shake the solidity of our faith in Christ, by annulling apostolical tradition?’ Thus, again, Gregory Nazianzen, another champion of orthodoxy, wishes that “ to the last breath of life, the good deposit of the holy Fathers who were nearest to Christ, should be confessed with boldness, and the confession of the original faith, in which we were nurtured, be maintained g .” And else¬ where he speaks of the doctrine which he had heard from the sacred oracles, and been taught by the holy Fathers. “ Which I have taught at all times in the same way, not conforming myself to the times, and will not cease to teach; with which I was born and with which I shall depart?” Gregory Nyssen, the brother of Basil, holds that “ it is suffi¬ cient for a demonstration of our words, to have a tradition coming down by succession from the Apos¬ tles, as an inheritance, through the Saints who have followed them 1 .” Antiquity was ever the note of truth in the Catho¬ lic Church. Thus the Fathers of the Second oecume¬ nical Synod, in their synodical epistle to the bishops of the West, speak thus of the Nicene faith: “ which ought to be approved as most ancient , and accordant with baptism j and the Emperor Theodosius, who convened this synod, called together the heads of / Dctitoaav ■ dpniaOpri Xkyeiv we 1 De Spiritu Sancto, c. x. t. iii. p. 21. s Gregor. Nazianzen. Orat. vi. Oper. t. i. ed. Morell. p. 141. kc u oiioXoyoLr]fi£v fJ-expt rfjg ka~ X^rrig clvanvorjQ kv 7voXXrj tv a p- prjata, rrjv KaXrjv TvapaKCiTCi- OrjKrjv Twv ayiojv t rarkpMv rkov kyyvrkpoj Xpiarou, nal rfjg t rpu>- tt)q TvioTEiog . . . dfioXoytav. h Gregor. Naz. Orat. xxv. p. 440. Oper. tom. i. 1 Greg. Nyss. Orat. iii. cont. Eunom. p. 554. Oper. tom. i. j Concil. Labbe, t. ii. p. 964. 192 Theory of Development [ PART i. the Arians, Eunomians, and Macedonians, by the advice of Nectarius, Bishop of Constantinople, and inquired of them whether they were of opinion that the Fathers who governed the Church before the divisions, agreed in sound doctrine; and on their ad¬ mitting it, he proposed that the doctrines of these sects should be judged by the writings of those Fathers'". This was also the principle of the Third oecume¬ nical Synod, in which the controversy was decided by reference to the testimony of antiquity as to the faith of the Church. Vincentius of Lerins adduces the proceedings of this synod in confirmation of the principle of his treatise. “ In order,” he says, “that we may not seem to draw rather from our own opi¬ nions than from ecclesiastical authority, we have adduced the example of the holy council, which almost three years since was celebrated at Ephesus in Asia, where, when the question was concerning the determination of the rules of faith .... it seemed most Catholic,most consistent with faith and with propriety, to all the bishops assembled there, to the number of 200, that the sentiments of the holy Fathers should be produced, of whom some had been martyrs, others confessors, and all had continued to be Catholic bishops, in order that by their consent and decree the ancient doctrine of religion might be duly and solemnly confirmed. Which being done, that impious Nestorius was adjudged to be contrary to Catholic antiquity, and the blessed Cyril conformable to anti¬ quity.” After mentioning the names of the Fathers whose writings had been quoted in the Council of k Socrates, Hist. Eccl. lib. vi. c. 10; Soz. lib. vii. c. 12. chap, viit.] Inconsistent with Catholic Belief \ 193 Ephesus, Vincentius proceeds thus: “ These all, therefore, were produced at Ephesus, as masters, counsellors, witnesses, and judges, whose doctrine that blessed synod holding, following their counsel, believing their testimony, obedient to their judg¬ ment, without delay, presumption, and favour, de¬ cided concerning the rules of faith. . . . After all which, we have added the doctrine of the blessed Cyril which is contained in the ecclesiastical acts. For when the epistle of the holy Capreolus, Bishop of Carthage, was read, which urged and requested nothing else except that novelty might be repressed and antiquity defended, the Bishop Cyril thus spoke and decreed that which it seems not unadvisable to insert in this place. For he saith at the conclusion of the acts: 4 And be this epistle of the venerable and very religious Capreolus, Bishop of Carthage, inserted in the acts, the purpose of which is manifest. For he desires the doctrines of the ancient faith to be confirmed, and novel and superfluous inventions, impiously made public, to be rejected and condemned.’ And all the bishops exclaimed: 4 These are the words of us all: We all say this: This is the desire of us all.’ What were 4 the words of all,’ or what 4 the wishes of all,’ but that what had been anciently de¬ livered might be retained, and what had been lately invented might be rejected 1 ?” Pope Celestine, in writing to the synod of Ephesus on the subject of their deliberations, declared that it was the duty of the successors of the Apostles to execute the command which they had received, 44 by concurrent exertion, to uphold what had been en- 1 Vincent. Lirin. Commonitor. n. 0 194 Theory of Development [part i. trusted and maintained to the present time by aposto¬ lical succession" 1 .” So again, Cyril of Alexandria says, in reference to those who fall into erroneous doctrine, “ Though the human mind sometimes from self-love depart from the right way and from true doctrines .... yet it will easily reform itself, if it will but examine the labours of the holy fathers whom all esteem for the rectitude and accuracy of their opinions".” Pope Sixtus teaches the same doctrine: “ Since faith, as the Apostle says, is one, . . . there is no further room for novelty, because nothing should be added to anti¬ quity. The pure and plain belief of our ancestors must be troubled by no base admixture 0 .” And this brings us to the Fourth oecumenical Synod of Chalcedon, in which the same belief pre¬ vailed as we have seen in the preceding councils and Fathers, that the Catholic faith in its integrity had been communicated to the Universal Church by the apostles, and always taught by their successors. When the Epistle of Pope Leo to Flavianus on the doctrine of the Incarnation, and several extracts from the writings of the ancient Fathers in con¬ firmation of the same doctrine, had been read, all m Concilia, Labbe, t. iii. p. 614. “ Ad omnes in commune Domini sacerdotes mandatge praedicationis cura pervenit: hsereditario in hanc solicitu- dinem jure constringimur . . . agendum igitur est labore com- muni, ut credita, et per apos- tolicam successionem hucusque detenta, servemus.” n Cyril. Alex. Apol. adv. Oriental. Anathem. Opera, t. vi. p. 177. 0 Epist. ad Joan. Antioch. Concilia, Labbe, t. iii. p. 1262. “ Ergo quia una (sicut dicit Apostolus) fides est, et vin- centes obtinuit, dicenda cre- damus, et tenenda dicamus; nihil ultra liceat novitati, quia nihil adjici convenit vetustati; dilucida et perspicua majorum credulitas nulla coeni permix- tione turbetur.” Labbe re¬ marks that the Commonitorium of Vincentius is actually cited in this passage. (’hap. viii.] Inconsistent with Catholic Belief. 195 the bishops exclaimed, “This is the faith of the Fathers. This is the faith of the apostles. We all believe so. The orthodox believe so. Anathema to those who do not believe so p .” In their address to the Emperor Marcian, the Council declared that they had followed their predecessors, in refuting errors without any innovation in doctrine; and they forti¬ fied their decision by a list of extracts from the writings of the ancient Fathers 9 . Pope Leo, on many occasions, upheld the same prin¬ ciple. Thus he writes to Proterius, Bishop of Alex¬ andria : “The clergy, and people, and all the brethren should be so exhorted by your diligence to increase in faith, that you should show them that you teach nothing new, but instil into their minds what our venerable fathers unanimously taught; with whom our epistle agrees in all respects. Moreover, this should be pointed out, not merely in their own words, but by reciting the expositions of those who went before, in order that the people of God may understand that they now hear, what had been received by those Fathers from their predecessors, and delivered by them to their successors'.” And his notion of the Catholic faith excludes variation or change: “ Entire faith, true faith, is a great defence, in which nothing can be added by any one, nor taken away; for unless it be one, it is not faith, for the Apostle saith, fi One Lord, one faith, one baptism.’ To this unity, beloved, adhere with unshaken minds 5 .” p Concilia, Labbe, t. iv. p. t. i. p. 1254, 1255, ed. Venet. 368. 1753. q Ibid, t, iv. p. 820 — 832. s Serm. iv. in Nativ. Dom. r Leo, Epist. cxxix. Oper. Oper. t. i. p. 82. 0 2 196 Theory of Development [part i. In the fifth and sixth oecumenical synods the same principle prevailed. In the former, the bishops declared in their synodical decree, that they adhered to the doctrine of the holy Fathers 1 ; in the latter, the Monothelites were refuted by the testimony of Christian antiquity 11 . The second Nicene Synod under Irene, professed to base its decree in favour of the worship of images on the doctrine of the holy Fathers'. The Council of Constantinople in 869, under Ignatius, decreed that the doctrine of the Fathers and tradition should be observed'". Such was the universal doctrine of the succeeding councils and Fathers. Even the scholastic theology was wholly based on tradition. The “Book of Sentences,”of Peter Lombard, on which the schoolmen commented, decided all questions by testimonies from the ancient Christian writers. In the East the conference between the Greeks and Armenians, held in 1170 with a view to the ter¬ mination of religious differences, turned entirely on the interpretation of the language of the ancient Fathers x . The conferences between the Greeks and Latins in the Synod of Florence (a. d. 1438), con¬ sisted chiefly in discussions as to the doctrines of Christian antiquity 7 . Thus the essential principle of Vincentius, which supposes the early tradition of the Catholic Church to have been founded on a full comprehension of the apostolical doctrine, was always received in the Universal Church, and even amongst schismatics and 1 Concilia, Harduin, t. iii. p. 188—202; Fleury, Hist. Eccl. liv. xxxiii. sect. 50. u Fleury, Hist. Eccl. 1. xl. § 13, &c. v Ibid. 1. xliv. § 34. w Harduin. tom. v. x Fleury, 1. Ixii. § 19. y Ibid. 1. cviii. chap, viii.] Inconsistent with Catholic Belief. 197 heretics, up to the period of the Reformation. And the same principle has ever since prevailed in the Oriental Churches; in the Roman communion; in the Anglo-Catholic Churches; and in the societies of the Foreign Reformation. 31. A modern writer of the Roman obedience, has produced evidence of the general approbation with which the doctrine of Vincentius has been received in all ages. 44 Gennadius,” he says, 44 entitles it 4 a most powerful argument against heretics.’ It is commended by Trithemius as 4 an admirable work, greatly commended by the ancient doctors.’ Baronius and Possevinus entitle it libellum plane auream. Bellarmine (de Script. Eccl.) calls it volumen parvum mole , virtute maximum .” He also cites the testimo¬ nies of other writers of the Roman communion, as Saussseus, Antelmius, Coster, Falsac, Pi thou, Baluze, Salinas, Andre, who have spoken in the highest commendation of the principle and doctrine of Vincentius 2 . Melchior Canus, one of the most renowned theolo¬ gians of the Church of Rome, has observed 3 , that 44 Tradition is recommended by its age; and if any novelty is heard in the Church, it may be known to be contrary to antiquity and to the apostolical faith;”—that 44 nothing is so contrary to the ancient doctrines delivered by the apostles as new or profane opinions in the Church;” which, he says, 44 shall be confirmed by the authority of Vincentius Lirinensis, who is of great weight.” This writer accordingly cites from Vincentius the same passage which has z Kliipfel, Commonitor. Vin- a Melchior Canus, de locis centii Lirin. Prolegomena, p. Theologicis, lib. iii. cap. 7. 34, 35, Viennse, 1809. 198 Theory of Development [part i. been quoted above; and thus testifies his agreement with the doctrine, that the true Catholic faith has been handed down by succession from the apostles in the Universal Church, and that no part of it has been invented by man. Tournely, another theo¬ logian of the highest eminence and authority, also adopts the rule of Vincentius. “How,” he says, “ does the Church defend and confirm the truth of her doctrine against heretics ? By the Word of God, of which she is the faithful keeper; by the firm and constant consent of the apostolic churches, which she consults and follows, in retaining one and the same faith. In ipsa etenim Catholicd ecclesia magnopere curandum est, ut id teneamus , quod ubique , quod semper , quod ab omnibus creditum est b I En the next chapter it will be shown, that the Roman Church generally has always recognized the transmission of the whole sum of Christian doctrine from the time of the apostles. The Council of Trent declares that the Christian faith and discipline are comprised in Scripture and tradition, both of which have been “ preserved in the Catholic Church by perpetual succession.” Bellarmine establishes the controverted doctrines of the Roman Church by unwritten apostolical tradition. Bossuet declares that the Church “ receives no dogma whatever that is not conformable to the tradition of all past ages .” Milner says, that the cry has ever been in the Roman Church, “ So we have received: so the Universal Church believes: let there be no new doctrine; none but what has been delivered doivn to us by tradition .” Wiseman affirms: “We believe b Tournely, Praelect. Theologicae de Ecclesia, praef. p. xxii. chap, viii.] Inconsistent with Catholic Belief. 199 that no new doctrine can be introduced into the Church, but that every doctrine which we hold, has existed and been taught in it, ever since the time of the Apostles.” All this is wholly irreconcilable with the theory of development—of a progress in the knowledge and comprehension of the idea of Christianity—-of the introduction of doctrines of the faith in later ages, of which the early Church was ignorant, or which it doubted—of a consequent variation and change in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in different ages. 32. But it may be well to produce the direct ar¬ guments of eminent Roman Catholic divines, against the theory of development. It may be well to show- that this theory is not only inconsistent with the general doctrine of the Church of Rome, but that it is directly impugned and refuted by the authorized expositors of that doctrine. I will first appeal to the Jesuit Perrone, who fills with distinction the chair of theology at Rome. This writer, in maintaining the system of authority as the basis of faith, remarks that “ Faith in general is nothing else but an assent given to some one on ac¬ count of his authority. But the Apostles, having been instructed by Christ in the truths of the faith, de¬ livered these same truths to successors chosen by them, that they in like manner might transmit them entire , even to the latest posterity , such as they had received them, without any discussion. The Apostles and their successors, again, propounded the very same doctrines to unbelievers to be believed by them; and since that whole supernatural system exceeded human comprehension, they wrought miracles, or expounded 200 Theory of Development [part I. motives of credibility, that their obedience to the faith might be reasonable c .” Here we find that the Catholic faith is supposed to have existed always , without variation, in the Church; and that so full and perfect was the knowledge of the Church at all times from the beginning, that faith itself always rested on her authority; which could not have been the case, if she were supposed to be less instructed in one age than in another. And this is a point which deserves especial notice. The Infallibility of the Church is, as we know, denied by those who assert, that after a time, she fell into errors contrary to the faith—that she began with pure and perfect knowledge, and after¬ wards lapsed into heresies and idolatries; but the very same inference follows, if we suppose that the Church was at first uncertain or ignorant of the Avhole extent of the Catholic faith, and that she only gradually attained to it in the same way in which the human mind makes advances in science, or in other inventions of uninspired reason. But I must proceed to adduce the more direct arguments of this learned Jesuit, against doctrines in almost all respects identical with those of Messrs. Newman and Ward, propounded by the rationalists Henke and Sartorius. Henke remarks, that “ the definitions of faith which the Catholic Church has successively put forth, are so many proofs of progress and perfectibility of system , which Protestantism has adopted d .” What is Perrone’s answer ? It is this : “ I admit [progress], i. e. greater elucidation of the doctrine r Perrone, Praelect. Theo- d Ibid. tom. i. p. 310, ed. logieae, tom. i. p. 277, 278. Lovan. chap, viii.] Inconsistent with Catholic Belief. 201 already received , by reason of those who have im¬ pugned some article; I deny [progress], by the intro¬ duction of new dogmas. That is to say, the Church, on occasion of some wicked attempt to violate the doc¬ trine received in the Church , has submitted the con¬ troverted article to a more careful examination, and has maintained it as her own by an express definition of that article, and a condemnation of the opposite novelty . Thus the Church has constantly acted; and in order to attain this, she always has appealed to an¬ cient monuments and the received faith , as any one may see from the history of the Councils 6 .” In reply to the assertion of Henke, that 44 the doctrines of faith of which the Catholic Church boasts, are the inventions of one or another Father of that Church,” (are we not here reminded of the anticipations of Catholic doctrine by individuals, of which Mr. Newman speaks ?) he says, “ The doctrines of the faith \_e.g. the Trinity, Incarnation, &c.] are so many truths divinely revealed, which the Church received from Christ to be transmitted to posterity, and inviolably preserved from the gnawing tooth of innovation. As regards the supposed inventions of the Fathers, it is a mere gratuitous assertion of the adversary, without any foundation, indeed evidently contrary to all historical documents. This is what St. Augustine wrote of the Fathers of the Church in his time : 4 Quod invenerunt in Ecclesia , tenuerunt; quod didicer unt, docuerunt; quodaPatrihusacceperunt , hoc filiis tradiderunt and long before St. Augustine, Tertullian said, 4 Quicunque hac rcgula incedimus , quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis , Apostoli a Christo , e Perrone, Praelect. Theol. t. i. p. 311, ed. Lovan. 202 Theory of Development | FART i. Christas a Deo tradidit , constat ratio propositi nostrif and they thus distinguished the Catholics from heretics, who dared to pollute with their novelties the ancient doctrine of the Catholic Church f .” The same writer replies thus to the assertion of Sartorius, that the popes apd councils of the Roman Church act on the principle of Rationalism, by con¬ firming their own opinions, not by the Scripture, but by a pretended inward inspiration of the Holy Ghost. “ The pontiffs and councils never publish definitions of faith, unless they be founded on the word of God or Divine revelation, which has come to us by Scripture and by tradition: they never ob¬ trude any thing of their own , but are ivitnesses of the doctrine which Christ taught , and the Apostles de¬ livered" T 33. The remarks of another Roman Catholic divine on the rationalistic doctrine of development or per¬ fectibility, are also worthy of notice. In reply to the assertion, that many things pertaining to religion are in a process of continual change, even amongst Ro¬ man Catholics, with a view to attain greater purity and perfection, he says:—“ It is the constant rule of Catholics, that no change can take place in what concerns the doctrine of revealed religion . The whole anxiety of the Church is to correct the evil habits of those who are opposed to the commandments of God, to restrain those who corrupt the Christian revelation, and to remove whatever abuses have crept in.” In reply to those who argue, that the appearance of modern theology even amongst Roman Catholics, is altogether different from the ancient, he says, “ If we £ Perrone, Prselect. Theol. t. i. p. 311, 312. * P. 315. chap, viii.] Inconsistent with Catholic Belief. 203 contend that the Christian religion cannot be made more perfect in time, it is not so to be understood, as if it were not lawful to make any change in the manner of teaching religion. Religion itself, which has been brought to us from Heaven, cannot he treated like a human science; but the method employed to unfold and place its doctrines in a clearer light, may become more perfect, as human ingenuity is requi¬ site; provided that, as Vincentius Lirinensis says, 4 dum nove dicitur , non dicantur nova [ 'i ” Thus we have seen the uniform testimony of Scripture, of the Councils, of the Fathers, of the Roman Church, nay, of the Jesuits themselves, in opposition to the theory of development. 34. But there is one other witness whom we must call, to make this chain of testimony complete. That witness is the author of the 44 Essay on Develop¬ ment.” Earnestly as this writer has laboured to render the principle of appeal to Catholic antiquity of no avail; to demonstrate the ignorance, or uncertainty, or heresy, which overshadowed the mind of the primitive Church; and to maintain the necessity of perpetual novelty, variation, and change in the articles of the Christian faith; still the weight of the dogmatic principle in the Catholic Church has brought him, in opposition to his own theory, to confess substantially all that we contend for. He remarks, that the dogmatic principle, or the assertion of doctrines, is a peculiar characteristic of the Gospel; that our Lord was the first to bear h Institut. Theolog. auctore Argentorat. Vic. Gen. Mogunt. F. L. B. Liebermann, Dioec. 1836, loin. i. p. 29. 204 Theory of Development [part I. witness to “ tlie truth,” and to die for it; that St. John and St. Paul pronounce anathema on those who “denied the truth,” or brought in “another gospel 1 ;” that it was “the duty of every individual Christian, from the first, to witness in his place against all opinions which were contrary to what he had received in his baptismal catechizing j ;” [How was this possible, if the idea of Christianity was imperfectly comprehended?] that “the truth to which they were to bear witness,” was a “ something definite, and formal, and independent of themselves,” which they were bound “ to defend and to transmit k that the Fathers attest the duty of adhering to the faith received by tradition [Observe, not by develop¬ ment] from the beginning 1 ; that it is essential to defend and maintain this Catholic faith: all this is fully and unreservedly admitted by Mr. Newman. He also speaks of “the horror of heresy" 1 ” and of novelty n which always existed in the Church; and even remarks, that “novelty and originality of mani¬ festation” is the very characteristic of heresy. Now what is the meaning of all this? Why are we thus continually referred back to the past—to the beginning of the Church—to traditional teaching? And why this dread of novelty, as such ? Is it not evidently based on the principle, that Christianity, as a dogma, an objective religion, a definite body of articles of faith,—existed from the beginning, in the Church, in its fulness and perfection; that it was always clearly understood; that no new discoveries 1 Essay on Development, p. 1 P. 341—344. 339. m P. 367. J P. 340. n P. 344. k P. 341. chap, vi tI.] Inconsistent with Catholic Belief. 205 of dogma were to be looked for; that it was the office of faith, not to invent novelties, but to hand down unimpaired, in its full integrity, “ the faith once delivered to the saints” by the inspired founders of Christianity? In fact, this writer him¬ self, though unable to produce any authorities from the Fathers, or Councils, or from the Theology of the Church of Rome, or of the Oriental Church, in support of his theory, is still reluctant to confess the abso¬ lute novelty of the doctrine; and accordingly, in the absence of all tangible evidence on the subject, he leaves his readers under the impression that anti¬ quity is not wholly unfavourable to the theory. “ The view on w r hich” this essay “ is written, has at all times, perhaps, been implicitly adopted by theo¬ logians !” Thus, in the very act of enunciating a principle which goes to subvert the authority of all past tradition, the author is unable to avoid bearing his involuntary testimony to the force of the argu¬ ment founded on it. His conjecture , at least, is, that the truth has always been taught—that it has not been gradually comprehended or disclosed in the course of ages. And this conclusion follows also from the prin¬ ciple which so frequently occurs in the Essay—that we ought to assume the faith of the existing Church as an exponent of that of the Church from the beginning. This, of course, supposes that the same belief has been held throughout, and that there has been no real change. It follows again, from the notion, that true developments are derived by logical sequence from the original ideas of Chris¬ tianity ; for this rests on the assumption, that those ideas were accurately and fully comprehended at Theory of Development I PART 1. 206 first; because developments based on an imperfect or mistaken knowledge would be, almost certainly, corruptions. We might be well contented at this point to leave the subject to the Reader’s impartial judgment: we might with confidence appeal to the fact, that not¬ withstanding the perfect command which the author of “ the Essay on Development ” possesses of all the resources of Christian antiquity, he has not been able to adduce a single testimony in support of his theory, from any one of the Catholic Fathers, or of the coun¬ cils of the Church; and we might contrast with this deficiency of proof, the mass of evidence which has been produced on the other side, and which is nothing more than a mere specimen of the unanimous teach¬ ing of the Church from the earliest ages. We might remind the reader, that the Apostles themselves, the martyrs, the confessors, and the doctors of the Church, concurred in their appeal to the deposit of the faith “ once delivered,”—a faith which was from the beginning received and taught without imper¬ fection, or corruption, or error. We might point to the fact, that while “ the theory of development ” rejects the principle of Vincentius Lirinensis, that principle has been adopted by all the Fathers, and by the Church of Rome herself. And we might confi¬ dently ask, whether a Theory thus novel—a theory which its author is obliged to guard from immediate rejection, by referring to the discovery of “ the theory of gravitation ” in physical science as a parallel instance—whether such a novelty, so openly at vari¬ ance with the doctrine of the Church in all acres, is not to be at once rejected as heterodox ? But our task is not yet brought to a close. It re- chap, vi it. | Inconsistent with Catholic Belief. 207 mains to be shown, that the doctrine which we have seen taught in Scripture and received by all Antiquity, has been upheld also by the English Church, and by the Reformation generally. I adduce this additional evidence, not merely for the purpose of refuting the false notions of development which we have been considering, but to show the general agreement of Christians in the essential idea of revelation. It is of importance at the present time to remark, that Christians in all ages, even though differing from each other on certain points of doctrine, have on the whole agreed, that revelation was a code of faith and morals which was “ once delivered to the saints,”— was delivered in its full integrity by the Apostles to the universal Church—was handed down in the Church by succession—was not misunderstood and corrupted even from the beginning—and was not to receive additions, or developments, or novelties in after-times by the exercise of uninspired reason. This alone corresponds with the idea of a revelation made by God for the salvation of a perishing world. Such an idea at once excludes the notion of corruption and imperfection in the revelation at its first an¬ nouncement by inspired teachers, or of subsequent purity and increase of light by the agency of unin¬ spired reason. It is on this principle that all appeals to Apostolical tradition are founded. It is very credible, that a revelation may have been corrupted or forsaken in time. It was so, we know, before the mission of Noah, and Abraham, and Moses. It was so before the mission of the Son of God. But, at the begin¬ ning, the doctrines of revelation cannot have been misunderstood. The Christian faith, universally re- 208 Theory of Development [l'ART I. ceived, cannot have been from the beginning, imper¬ fect or erroneous: it cannot have been left with deficiencies or “gaps,” which human reason was afterwards to fill up. Now let us look to the doctrines of the English Church and of the Reformation on this subject. Archbishop Cranmer evidently acknowledged the authority of universal tradition. In his speech on general councils, a. d. 1534, he said, “that when all the Fathers agreed in the exposition of any place of Scripture, he acknowledged he looked on that as flowing from the Spirit of God; and it was a most dangerous thing to be wise in our own conceits 0 .” In reference to certain writings of Zuinglius and CEco- lampadius, he said, “ so far as they have endeavoured to point out and correct papistical and sophistical errors, I praise and approve them. And would that they had contained themselves within these bounds, and had not trampled on the fruit as well as the tares, that is, violated at the same time the authority of the ancient doctors, and earlier writers in the Church of Christ p .” Bishop Ridley protested that he did not dispute a doctrine “ founded in the word of God, and illustrated by the commentaries of the orthodox Fathers' 1 .” Bishop Jewell, in the Apology for the Church of England, which was approved by Authority, said : “We are come as near as we possibly could to the Church of the Apostles and of the old Catholic bishops and Fathers; and have directed, according to their custom and ordinances, not only our doctrine, but also the sacraments, and the form 0 Cranmer’s Works, vol. ii. q Ridlaei Protestatio, Enchi- p. 14. rid. Theologic. p. 53. Vol. i. p. 195. chap, viri.] Inconsistent with Catholic Belief\ 209 of common prayer'.” The Homilies composed in 1547 and 1562 continually refer to the authority of the Fathers in confirmation of the true doctrine 5 ; and the convocation of the clergy of England in 1571, again solemnly recognized the principle for which we contend, in their canon concerning preachers: “ Let preachers above all things be care¬ ful that they never teach aught in a sermon to be re¬ ligiously held and believed by the people, except that which is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old and New Testament, and which the Catholic Fathers and bishops have collected from that very doc¬ trine V’ I might appeal in further illustration of the prin¬ ciples of the English Church on this subject to the con¬ current testimonies of such writers as Poynet, Philpot, Bradford, Taylor, Nowell, Hooker, Bancroft, Andre wes, Bilson, Overall, Morton, Field, White, Hall, Laud, Montague, Jackson, Mede, Ussher, Bramliall, Sander¬ son, Cosin, Hammond, Thorndike, Jeremy Taylor, ITeylin, Pearson, Barrow, Bull, Stillingfleet, Ken, Beveridge, Patrick, Sharpe, Leslie, Potter, Grabe, Brett, Hicks, Leslie, Waterland, Bingham, Jebb, Van Mildert 11 . If anything is clear and unquestion¬ able, it is this, that English theology has invariably r Jewell, Apologia, p. 156, ed. 1606. s See Sermon concerning Prayer, part 2, Place and Time of Prayer, ad fin.; Homily on Common Prayer and Sacra¬ ments ; Sermon on Alms-deeds, &c. 1 Wilkins, Concilia, t. iv. p. 267. u See Waterland on the Tri¬ nity, Works, voL v. p. 265— 316. Bishop Jebb’s Sermons (Appendix). Dr. Hook’s “ Call to Union on the Principles of the English Reformation.” Archdeacon E. Churton’s Ser¬ mon, “ The Church of England a Witness and Keeper of the Catholic Tradition.” Arch¬ deacon Manning on the Rule of Faith. Mr. Russell’s “ Judg¬ ment of the Anglican Church.” P 210 Theory of Development [part t. appealed without hesitation, in defence of its doc¬ trines, to the tradition of the primitive Church. 36. There lias been less unanimity amongst the adherents of the foreign Reformation on this subject. I do not, of course, take into account the modern philosophical systems which have replaced the doc¬ trines and principles of the Reformation; because they reject authority of every kind, and found religion solely on instinct or reason, or on some other principle which actually or virtually excludes the very notion of Revelation. But amongst the real adherents of the foreign Reformation, there was certainly less agree¬ ment in an appeal to Christian antiquity, than has been the case in the English Church. Bishop Jebb v and other writers have, however, I think, drawn too marked a distinction between the cases. There are many examples in the foreign Reformation of prin¬ ciples substantially in accordance with those of our divines. The Commonitorium of Vincentius Lirinensis has been highly commended by the Centuriators of Magdeburg, by Caspar Barnt, byCasaubon, Hottinger, Hugo Grotius, Osiander, Calixtus. Roesler, a theo¬ logian of Tubingen, states that all the ancient Lu¬ therans had a high value for this work of Vincentius w . It has been justly remarked by an eminent divine, that the Rationalists “ have professed most falsely to walk in the same steps as the early Reformers, and to complete what they began. These Reformers, in- v The rule of interpreting in the Appendix to his Ser- Scripture by Scripture, which mons. It is, in fact, recom- was the basis of the Lutheran mended by Irenaeus, adv. exegesis, does not seem liable Haeres. lib. ii. c. 27. in itself to the objections pro- w Klupfel, Commonitor. Vin- posed by this excellent prelate, cent. Prolegomena, p. 35, 36. chap, viti.] Inconsistent with Catholic Belief. 2 LI defensible as they might be in minor points, indulged in no such criminal dreams or intentions. They en¬ tertained, for example, the most reasonable belief as to the value and authority of the early Christian writers, as proofs and witnesses of the doctrines pro¬ mulgated in early times. As the Romish Church alleged in justification of her opinions, the words of Scripture, and the authority of the ancient writers, the Reformers, so far from denying the value of those writers, constantly (even in their symbolical writings) appeal to them in proof of the correctness of their own view T s. It is indeed their boast that they main¬ tain no article of faith which had not been equally maintained by the primitive Church; and that they rejected none which she recognized. The concluding assertion of the confession of Augsburg is, that in the sense of the doctrines there exhibited, there is not a single article at variance with Scripture, with the Catholic Church, or with the Romish Church itself, as far as it was known from its writers. The Apology for the confession abounds in similar assertions, and in appeals to the early Fathers; and even states that the preachers of the new profession appealed to the same testimony, as well as to Scripture, in their public discourses. It is this very circumstance which has been made a subject of reproach against the early reformers by the modern school of theology*.” They assert that “ down to the eighteenth century, appeals were made only to the writings of the Fathers, whose ignorance, prejudices, and want of philosophical illu¬ mination, deprived their evidence and opinions of all value y .” Rose, Protest, in Germany, p. 35- 37, 2nd ed. X y P. 39. 212 Theory of Development [part i. 37. Though Luther and the other Reformers some¬ times expressed themselves in a way which argues little respect for the early writers, it must be re¬ membered that they did so, only when individual writers were appealed to as authorities , and not as mere witnesses of Catholic tradition. And in this point of view, they were not to be blamed for reject¬ ing the authority of individual writers, when their sentiments appeared to be inconsistent with the doc¬ trine of holy Scripture. Augustine himself distinctly rejected the notion of attributing authority, properly so called, to the sentiments of individual Fathers. Thus, in speaking of the Donatists, he says: “Whether they be of the Church, can be known in no other way but by the canonical books of the Divine Scrip¬ tures. Neither do we claim to be of the Church because we have the testimony of Optatus of Mile vis or Ambrose of Milan, or any other bishops of our communion, be they ever so numerous; or because we have on our side decrees of the councils of our colleagues 2 .” Again, in reference to an Epistle of Cyprian, he says: “ I am not bound by the authority of that epistle, because the writings of Cyprian are not canonical; but I examine them by canonical Scripture; and whatever in them is agreeable to the authority of the Divine Scripture, I receive with ap¬ plause; and what is not agreeable to it, with his good leave I reject 3 .” “ Other authors,” besides the canonical Scriptures, “ I so read, that, however dis¬ tinguished they may be for learning and piety, I do not believe any thing to be true, because it was their z Augustin, de Unitate Ec- a Contra Crescon. Donatist. clesiae, cap. xix. 1. ii. c. 32. chap, viii.] Inconsistent with Catholic Belief. 213 opinion, but because they have been able to persuade me, either by the authority of the canonical writers above mentioned, or by probable reason, that it is agreeable to truth V’ This language of Augustine seems fully to excuse those, who have at any time refused to accept the doctrines of particular Fathers, when urged as if they were in themselves authoritative and binding- on our faith. In any such case it is very reasonable to appeal to Scripture as of prior authority. 38. On the whole, then, it has, I trust, been suffi¬ ciently proved, that the theory of development is rationalistic in its tendency; that it is unsupported by theological reasoning, by Scripture, or by Christian antiquity; that it is prime! facie improbable; that it is inconsistent with the language of the New Testa¬ ment; that the contradictory principle of appeal to An¬ tiquity has ever been received in the Catholic Church, and even by sects and heresies; that this principle was, from the period of the Reformation, acknowledged, by the Church of Rome, by the Church of England, by the Protestant Reformation, generally; as it still is by the Oriental Church. In every part of the Chris¬ tian world, the appeal, in all matters of controversy, has invariably been, not merely to Scripture (which, according to the advocates of development, was not comprehended in the earlier ages); but to the doctrine of the Church from the beginning . And this appeal is based on the principle, that the Church, even from the beginning, comprehended the idea of Christianity at least as perfectly as she did at any subsequent time. For if the comprehension of the first ages had b Ad Hieron. Epist. 82, c. i. Theory of Development [part i. 214 been considered to be imperfect, it would have been absurd to appeal to their doctrines; or to any authority except that of the Scripture and the existing Church. There is, however, one remaining argument in re¬ ference to the theory of development, which will perhaps weigh more with those who are inclined to favour it, than what has been already adduced—I allude to its bearing on Romanism . CHAP. IX.] an Evidence against Romanism. 215 CHAPTER IX. EVIDENCES AGAINST ROMANISM AFFORDED BY THE THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT. 1. It has been argued by the author of the Essay on Development and by other writers, that in deter¬ mining the questions at issue between different Christian communities, with a view to a choice of one of them as a religious profession, the generality of men must be guided by presumptive reasoning and probabilities, involving no great learning or research. This is obviously true: men for the most part must be guided by the authority or credibility of others in forming their religious belief. They are unable to consult the Scriptures, the writings of ancient and modern theologians, the doctrinal judgments of the Church, the decrees of popes and councils, the monu¬ ments of tradition: their doctrine must be chiefly founded on the credible testimony of those teachers and believers, with whom they are brought into immediate relations. This is the case with the great mass of the com¬ munity at all times; and yet such persons, though incapable of instituting an accurate or profound re¬ search into religious questions, are not left without sufficient ways and methods of attaining to some 21G Theory of Development [part i. reasonable conviction, when they are called upon to make choice of a religious profession. Now there is one argument which does not involve the necessity of any profound research, and which is open to general comprehension: it is this. If any religious system is based on principles which are mutually destructive;—if one of its fundamental doctrines cannot be admitted without contradicting another; then such a system must include falsehood in its essence, and consequently it cannot be a safe guide to religious truth. On the other hand, if a system be substantially consistent in its principles, such consistency affords a presumptive, though not a conclusive argument in favour of its truth. This argument has been applied by the author of the Essay on Development, to the controversies be¬ tween Romanism and the Reformation. “ M. Guizot,” he says, “ lias contrasted the consistency of the Church of Rome with the inconsistency of its hereti¬ cal opponents, in the points which came into contro¬ versy between them. ‘ The Reformers are told,’ he says, ‘You provoke licentiousness, you produce it; but yet when you discover it, you wish to constrain and repress it. And how do you repress it ? By the most hard and violent means: you persecute heresy too, by virtue of an illegitimate authority.’ These reproaches much embarrassed the Reformers. When the multitude of different sects was charged against them, instead of acknowledging the legitimacy of their free development, they sought to anathematize dissenters, were annoyed by their existence, and sought some apology for it.’ ” “ With this incon¬ sistency he contrasts the harmonious completeness and the decision of the Roman Catholic theology. ‘ The CHAP. IX.] an Evidence against Romanism . 217 adversaries of the Reformation,’ he says, 4 knew very well what they were about, and what they required; they could point to their first principles, and boldly admit all the consequences that might result from them. No government was ever more consistent and systematic than that of the Romish Church . . . There is an immense power in this full confidence of what is done; this perfect knowledge of what is re¬ quired ; this complete and rational adaptation of a system and a creed.’ . . . This representation of the consistency of the [Roman] Catholic system will be found to be true, even in respect of those peculiarities of it, which have been considered by Protestants most open to the charge of corruption and innova¬ tion a .” The coherence and consistency of Romanism have indeed been repeatedly urged in recent publications as a very convincing evidence of its truth. The authors of the 44 Essay on Development,” and the 44 Ideal of a Christian Church,” seem to rest the force of their argument in favour of Romanism very much on this consideration; and it is also a favourite topic with such writers as Dr. Milner, Wiseman, and others, who have written expressly in defence of that system. Let us then endeavour to ascertain the bearing of this argument on the main questions at issue between Romanism and the Reformation in general, and de¬ termine whether the former is, or is not, consistent in its fundamental principles. 2. We have already seen b , that Romanism adopts a Newman, Essay on Deve- b See above, chapter ii. lopment, p. 432, 433. 218 Theory of Development [part I. contradictory principles with reference to holy Scrip¬ ture and testimony in general, in its argument with Protestantism and Infidelity respectively. In the former case it asserts, what in the latter it denies, that the genuineness, authenticity, inspiration, and true meaning of Scripture, are wholly dependent for proof on the authority of the existing Church; and consequently it subverts on the one hand the very foundation of the Christian revelation, as on the other it destroys the basis of its argument against Protestantism. This is an inconsistency which Ro¬ manists have often vainly endeavoured to escape from; but they have never been able to do so with¬ out relinquishing either the defence of Christianity, or the vital principles of their peculiar theology. Either the Scripture, and the historical and internal evidences of Christianity furnish in themselves suffi¬ cient motives to a true and reasonable faith, or they do not. If they do not, belief in Christianity and in the Church cannot be founded on them: if they do, faith is not necessarily founded on the authority of the existing Church. Thus Romanism is self-destructive in its first prin¬ ciples ; and therefore it cannot possibly be a true system of religion. Whatever may be said of other systems, this at least may be at once set aside. No apparent amount of authority or plausibility would suffice to establish the truth of a religion, which is based on irreconcileable contradictions. 3. But it is not merely in these fundamental prin¬ ciples that Romanism is a self-destructive system : it carries the same fatal flaw throughout the whole of its argument with the Reformation. There is the same species of contradiction every where to be found in CHAP. IX.] an Evidence against Romanism. 219 its argument on behalf of the peculiar tenets which it maintains. To descend to particulars, it will be found, that Romanism, after having unanimously asserted for ages, that its peculiarities are derived by unwritten tradition from the Apostles, is now obliged to profess, that those peculiarities did not exist at all, and could not possibly have existed, for several centuries after the Apostles. For this concession we are indebted to those Romanists who are advocates of the theory of development in some shape; and Mr. Newman’s work especially will be found highly valuable in establishing so important a truth. The discussion will carry us on, after the establishment of this vital contradiction in the Roman theology, to the sources from which that theology has been drawn, according to the statements of its present advocates; and to the advantages which the new system of argument on behalf of Romanism furnishes to its opponents, as well Christians as Heathens. 4. The objection which was made to the peculiar doctrines and practices of Romanism by the adherents of the Reformation was, invariably, that they had no support from Scripture, and that they were in fact inconsistent with it. Now it is perfectly obvious at first sight, that such tenets and practices as purgatory, indulgences, prayers to saints and angels, auricular confession, the sacrifice of the mass, the papal supre¬ macy, have either no kind of support from Scriptural texts, or at best a very weak c and equivocal one; c This is admitted by intelli¬ gent Romanists. Thus, “ The Faith of Catholics,” a publica¬ tion of considerable authority, remarks, that “ the Catholic reader will be sensible, should any point of his belief receive little or no support from Scrip¬ ture, that its truth and aposto¬ lical origin is not affected,” and 220 Theory of Development [part I. and that much may be adduced in opposition to them, from Scripture. These are the simple and admitted facts of the case. 5. Now it would be of course unreasonable for an inquirer to assume at once the validity of this argument; but thus much is very evident, that it is confirmed by the course pursued by the advocates of Romanism in reply to these objections. The position which they invariably adopted was this:—that the tenets of their Church, in all the controverted points, had been transmitted without change from the Apostles themselves, by unwritten tradition. The Council of Trent, according to the received interpre¬ tation, acknowledges this tradition: “ The sacred, holy, oecumenical, and general Council of Trent . . . having constantly in view the removal of error and the preservation of the purity of the Gospel in the Church; which Gospel, promised before by the Prophets in the holy Scriptures, was first orally published by our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who after¬ wards commanded it to be preached by his Apostles to every creature, as the source of saving faith and discipline; and perceiving that this truth and disci¬ pline are contained both in written books, and in un¬ written traditions which have come down to us, either received by the Apostles from the lips of Christ Himself, or transmitted by the hands of the same Apostles under the dictation of the Holy Spirit; following the example of the orthodox Fathers, doth receive and reverence with equal piety and venera- therefore “ that the doctrines of thority of the Church, though, Purgatory and the Invocation in support of the former, the of Saints stand on the same evidence of Scripture be corn- foundation as that of the au- paratively weak.” P. xxvii. chap, ix.] an Evidence against Romanism . 221 tion, all the books as well of the Old as of the New Testament; the same God being the Author of both ; and also the aforesaid traditions, pertaining both to faith and manners, whether received from Christ Himself, or dictated by the Holy Spirit, and preserved in the Catholic Church by continual succession' 1 .” It will here be observed, that “ unwritten traditions,” so far as they exist at all, are supposed to have been preserved from the beginning by “ continual succes¬ sion.” 6. Of coarse such a principle, if well founded, was a very satisfactory answer to objections founded on the deficiency of Scriptural evidence for Romish tenets. It was quite sufficient to prove that a tenet had been actually taught by the inspired authors of the Scriptures. If such a principle was applicable to the tenets of Romanism, their defence was com¬ plete. Accordingly this became the chief common place in the writings of their controversialists. Bel- larmine, for instance, after remarking that “ unwritten tradition ” means what was not “ written by its first authors,” i. e. by the Apostles, yet is written in many of the works of the Fathers 6 , proceeds to argue that religion was preserved from the Creation to the time of Moses, by unwritten tradition; that it was also prior to the Scriptures in the Christian dispensation; that Scripture is insufficient to decide all questions which may arise; that “ unwritten tradition ” is ne¬ cessary to establish the genuineness and inspiration of Scripture f . He confirms his position by arguments d Concil. Trident. Sessio iv. Scripto et non Scripto, lib. iv. Decretum de Canonicis Scrip- c. i. turis. f De Verbo Dei Scripto et e Bellarmin. de Verbo Dei non Scripto, 1. iv. c.iv. “Triade- Theory of Development [part I. 999 derived from Scripture, and from the records of the Church ; and by various other reasons; and then pro¬ ceeds to lay down five rules for determining what are apostolical traditions 8 . The first rule is: “ When the universal Church monstrare eonabimur. Primum Scripturas sine traditionibus nec fuisse simpliciter necessarias nec sufficientes . . . Primum probo ex variis aetatibus Ecclesiae. Nam ab Adam usque ad Mosem fuit Ecclesia Dei aliqua in mundo ... at nulla fuit Scrip- tura divina ante Mosem, ut patet . . Deinde a Mose usque ad Christum per alia duo an- norum millia, extiterunt qui- dem Scripturae, tamen eae solae erant Judaeorum; reliquae autem gentes, in quibus etiam erat apud aliquos vera religio et fkles, sola traditione non scripta utebantur. . . . Porro a Christi adventu per annos multos fuit Ecclesia sine Scripturis, ita ut adhuc suo tempore scribat Irenaeus, lib. iii. c. 4, fuisse gentes aliquas Christianas, quae solis tradi¬ tionibus sine Scriptura optime viverent . . . Quod autem Scripturae, non omnia ita contineant, ut suffi- eiant ipsae sine alia traditione, probo. Primo . . . Probatur tertio, ex multis quae ignorari non possunt, et tamen in Scrip¬ turis non continentur. Ac pri¬ mum, tempore Testamenti Vete- ris sine dubio non minus foeminae quam viri remedium aliquod habebant, quo a peccato ori¬ ginal i purgarentur; et tamen pro masculis instituta erat cir- cumcisio, secundum multorum opinionem ; quid autem esset pro foeminis, nusquam habet Scriptura. Deinde eorum tem¬ pore non est ullo modo credi- bile, non fuisse remedium ullum pro masculis morientibus ante octavum diem, quo solo pote- runt circumcidi; et tamen nihil extat de hac re in Scriptura. Tertio , Gentiles multi salvari poterant, et salvabantur tem¬ pore Testamenti Veteris . . . et tamen nihil prorsus de eorum justificatione a peccato origi- nali, aliisque peccatis in Scrip¬ tura habetur. Quarto , necesse est nosse, extare libros aliquos vere di- vinos, quod certe nullo modo ex Scripturis haberi potest. Nam etiamsi Scriptura dicat, libros Prophetarum et Aposto- lorum esse divinos, tamen non certo id credam, nisi prius cre- didero, Scripturam quag hoc dicit, esse divinam . . . Itaque hoc dogma necessarium, quod scilicet aliqua sit Scriptura di¬ vina, non potest sufficienter haberi ex sola Scriptura . . . Quinto, non satis est scire, esse Scripturam divinam, sed opor- tet scire, quce sit ilia , id quod nullo modo potest haberi ex Scripturis. Quomodo enim col- ligemus ex Scriptura, Evange- lia Marci et Lucae esse vera Evangelia : Thomse et Bartho- lomaei esse falsa ?” % Ibid. cap. ix. ('hap. ix.] an Evidence against Romanism . 990 MJ jLttJ embraces any thing as a dogma of the faith which is not found in holy Scripture, it is necessary to say that it is derived from apostolical tradition.” The reason assigned is, that “ whatever the Church believes to be a matter of faith, doubtless is so; but nothing is a matter of faith, unless what God has revealed through the Apostles or prophets, or which is evidently de¬ duced from it. For the Church is not now directed by new revelations , but continues in those things which those who were ministers of the word delivered to her.” Amongst apostolical traditions thus esta¬ blished, are reckoned “ the perpetual virginity of St. Mary,” and “ the number of the canonical books h .” Another rule is: “ When the universal Church observes somewhat, which no one else but God could have established; which is however no where found in Scripture; it must be said that it was a tradition from Jesus Christ and his Apostles.” He considers “ infant baptism ” to be sucli a tradition, and also the doctrine of the “ validity of heretical baptism 1 .” A third rule is: “ That which has been preserved in the universal Church in all former ages is rightly believed to have been instituted by the Apostles/’ The “ Lent Fast ” is instanced as a tradition thus established^ A fourth rule is this: “When all the doctors of the Church, whether assembled in council, or in h Cap. ix. “ Igitur ilia om¬ nia quae Ecclesia fide tenet, tradita sunt ab Apostolis aut Prophetis, aut scripto, aut verbo. Tabs est perpetua Virginitas B. Mariae, numerus librorum Canonicorum, et si- mil ia.” 1 Ibid. “Tale est baptisma parvulorum. Erraret enim gravissime Ecclesia, si sine Dei mandato parvulos, qui actu non credunt, baptizaret. . . . Tale est etiam, baptismum haereti- corum esse ratum.” j Ibid. “ Exemplum sit je- junium Quadragesimse.” 224 Theory of Development [part t. tlieir separate writings, unanimously teach that something has descended from apostolical tradition, that is to be received as an apostolical tradition The “ worship of images” is adduced as an example of an apostolical tradition thus supported k . The fifth rule is: “ That is without doubt to be considered apostolical, which is held for such in those Churches, in which there is a complete and continued succession from the Apostles.” So that, “if in any Church, ascending through bishops suc¬ ceeding each other, we arrive at one of the Apostles, and it cannot be shown that any of these bishops introduced a novel doctrine, we may be sure that the apostolical traditions are preserved there.” Bellar- mine adds, that since the apostolical succession of bishops has failed or been interrupted in all Churches except the Roman, the latter is now the only Church to which we can appeal for the purpose of ascertain¬ ing apostolical traditions, and its testimony may be regarded as “ a certain proof” in any question of the kind. These rules, it is evident, are calculated to be of infinite advantage to the defenders of Roman tenets. They supply a perfectly intelligible, clear, and con¬ sistent account of the origin of those tenets. And accordingly, Roman Catholic controversialists have ever since availed themselves of this whole system ; they have regularly contended, that their tenets have k De Verbo Dei Scripto, et tenetur et sequitur. Exemplum non Scripto. “ Ratio est hujus primi est, imaginum veneratio : regulae—quia si omnes doc- quara esse ex Apostolica tra- tores Ecclesiae, cum in aliqua ditione asseruerunt doctores sententia conveniunt, errare Ecclesiae congregati in Concil. possent, tota Ecclesia erraret, Nicen. IE generali.” quippe quae doctores suos sequi chap, ix.] Subversive of Romanism. 225 been always held in the Church ; that there lias been no variation in its doctrines; that those doctrines were taught by the Apostles. The Papal Supremacy, Purgatory, the Worship of Images and Relics, the Sacrifice of the Mass, Worship of Saints and Angels, Monachism, Auricular Confession, Indulgences, the Prerogatives of the Virgin Mary, and all the other points of their system, are always supposed to have been either written in Scripture, or else handed down bv unwritten tradition. %> 6. Bossuet, in writing on “Scripture and Tradi¬ tion,” says, “Jesus Christ having laid the foundation of his Church in preaching, the unwritten word was consequently the first rule of Christianity ; and when the writings of the New Testament were added to it, its authority was not forfeited on that account: which makes us receive with equal veneration all that hath been taught by the Apostles, whether in writing or by word of mouth; which St. Paul ex¬ pressly recommends to the Tliessalonians. And a most certain mark that a doctrine comes from the Apostles is, when all Christian Churches embrace it, without its being in the power of any one to show when it had a beginning ... it being impossible to believe that a doctrine received from the very com¬ mencement of the Church, could ever have come from any other source than from the Apostles . For which reason, our adversaries should not be sur¬ prised if we, who are so earnest in collecting all that our fathers have left us, do preserve the deposit of tradition as carefully as that of the Scripture V’ The Church, he remarks, “ openly professes that she 1 Bossuet, Exposition (on Scripture and Tradition), p. 91. Q 226 Theory of Development [part t. says nothing from herself; that she invents no new doctrine.” She has bound herself to interpret the Scripture, “ in what regards faith and morality, according to the sense of the holy Fathers, from which she professes never to depart; declaring, by all her councils, and by all her professions of faith, that she receives no dogma whatever, that is not conformable to the tradition of all preceding ages m .” 7. Milner, in his “ End of Controversy,” is equally decided in his view of tradition, as a rule which does not admit of variation in doctrine, and which trans¬ mits the dogmas of Christianity without any change from the Apostles themselves. It is unreasonable, he argues, “ to compare the essential traditions of religion with ordinary stories: in the truth of these, no one has an interest, and no means have been pro¬ vided to preserve them from corruption; whereas, with respect to the faith once delivered to the saints, the Church has ever guarded it, as the apple of her eye . . . When any fresh controversy arises in the Church, the fundamental maxim of the bishops and popes, to whom it belongs to decide upon it, is, not to consult their own private opinion or interpreta¬ tion of Scripture, but to inquire what is and has ever been the doctrine of the Church concerning it. Hence their cry is, and ever has been, on such occa¬ sions, as well in her councils as out of them: So we have received: so the universal Church believes: let there be no new doctrine: none but what has been delivered down to us by tradition . . . The tra¬ dition of which we now treat, is not a local but an universal tradition, as widely spread as the Catholic m Rossnet, Exposition (on $mptuiwand Tradition), p. 96. CHAP. IX.] Subversive of Romanism . Church itself is, and every where found the same. Here then the maxim of the sententious Tertullian must be admitted: error of course varies, but that doctrine which is one and the same among many, is not an error but a tradition 11 .” On this tradition Milner founds “ prayers for the dead, addresses to the saints 0 , the mass,” &c. He argues, that it would have been impossible to introduce these things at any time subsequent to the apostolic age. “ The doctrines and practices of the Church were in the hands of the people of all civilized nations, and therefore could not be altered without their knowledge and consent. Hence wherever religious novelties had been introduced, a violent opposition to them, and of course, schisms and tumults would have ensued . . . They could not assist at the religious services per¬ formed at the funerals of their relatives or on the festivals of the saints, without recollecting whether they had previously been instructed to pray for the former, and to invoke the prayers of the latter . . . In a word, there is but one way of accounting for the alleged alterations of the Church . . . which is to sup¬ pose that on some one night, all the Christians of the world went to sleep sound Protestants, and awoke the next morning rank Papists’ 3 .” Whatever may be thought of the argument in the above passage (with which I am not at present con¬ cerned), it is clear that Milner considered the pecu¬ liar doctrines of Romanism to have been handed down by unwritten tradition from the Apostles them- n Milner, End of Contro- saints” a Divine tradition. See versy, letter xi. p. 98, 99. p. 109. ° He considers the “lawful- p Letter xi. p. 100, 101. ness of invoking the prayers of Q 2 228 Theory of Development [part t. selves, and to have existed always in the Church. “ The Church of Christ,” he says, “ must be strictly one; one in doctrine* 1 .” With this unity he con¬ trasts the variations of Protestants—“ the material changes ” which the English Church “ has undergone at different times".” 8. The same view is taken in the well known and approved work of the Rev. Messrs. Berington and Kirk, entitled the “ Faith of Catholics.” “ Our ministers in their public instructions to the people fail not to inculcate, that their Church never framed, nor frames, any new article of belief, but simply stated and states the doctrine which she received; which doctrine, they add, coming down to them through an uninterrupted series of tradition, is the same that Christ taught , and the Apostles , instructed by him , delivered s .” Afterwards the following passage occurs:—“ Many excellent tracts in this country and others have been compiled ... to prove that all the points of Catholic belief were at all times taught as they now are 1 .” “ Antiquity is the badge of our faith .. . the Catholic creed in all its articles is clearly defined, and is as unchangeable as it has been un¬ changed 11 .” This work professes to show, that “ the doctrine now professed by Catholics ” was, in the first five centuries, “ taught and believed, not in one, but in all; not by one Father, but by a succession of them—as the faith of all the Churches;” and it is hence inferred to be “ Apostolical v .” “We believe,” it is added, “ that all the points of our faith, contained ^ Letter xiv. p. 121. * P. xii. r Letter xv. p. 124, 125. u P. xiii. 5 Faith of Catholics, Intro- v P. xvi. duction, p. xi. CHAP. IX.] Subversive of Romanism. 229 in the series of the succeeding propositions,” [this series amongst other subjects includes the Papal Su¬ premacy, the Seven Sacraments, Sacrifice of the Mass, AuricularConfession, Purgatory, Indulgences,Celibacy of the Clergy, Monasticism, worship of Relics, Images, Saints, and Angels,] “ as likewise such other points as are common to us and other Christian Societies, were originally taught by Christ , and by him commu¬ nicated to his Apostles w .” 9. Dr. Wiseman is equally positive in his assertion of the unchangeable nature of the doctrine of his Church in all ages. The doctrines which are held by Roman Catholics have, according to this writer, been held alike at all times. “ By the unwritten word of God,” he says, “ we mean a body of doctrines, which, in consequence of express declarations in the written word, we believe not to have been committed to writing, but delivered by Christ to his Apostles , and by the Apostles to their successors. We believe, that no new doctrine can be introduced into the Church, but that every doctrine which we hold, has existed, and been taught in it, ever since the time of the Apostles , and was handed down by them to their successors, under the only guarantee on which we receive doc¬ trines from the Church, that is, Christ’s promises to abide with it for ever, to assist, direct, and instruct it, and always teach in and through it. So that while giving our implicit credit and trusting our judgment to it, we are believing and trusting to the express teaching and sanction of Christ himself 10. The principle then of Roman Catholics in w Faith of Catholics, Intro- Doctrines and Practices of the duction, p. li. lii. Catholic Church, vol. i. p. 60. x Wiseman, Lectures on the 230 Theory of .Development [part i. general has been, that the peculiar tenets of their communion, which are either not recorded at all in Scripture, or very indistinctly referred to there, have been nevertheless derived from apostolic teaching, and accordingly preserved by unwritten tradition in the universal Church from the very beginning. If this be the case, it may reasonably be anticipated, that the records of primitive Christianity, when examined, will attest the existence of Roman Catholic tenets in the universal Church from the earliest period: if those doctrines were really delivered to the Universal Church by the Apostles, there would be the same sort of evidence for their reception in the early ages, as there is for the reception of the other doctrines of the Gospel; and, accordingly, if we are to believe the majority of Roman Catholic writers, the testimony which Christian antiquity bears to their views is in the highest degree demonstrative and ex¬ plicit. I shall avail myself here again of the work of Dr. Wiseman already referred to. With reference to the doctrine of Satisfaction then, on which the doctrine of Purgatory and Indulgences is dependent, it is said, “ If what I have stated be the doctrine of the Gospel, we must naturally expect to find some institution in the Church, from its earliest times, for the faithful practice of so essential a part of God’s dispensations. And accordingly from the beginning , we find nothing so 'prominently inculcated , either in the writings of the early Fathers, or in the discipline of the Universal Church, as this necessity of doing penance and making satisfaction to God y .” As to Purgatory, we have the following statement: y Wiseman, Lectures, vol. ii. p. 49. CHAP. IX.] Subversive of Romanism. 231 “ Nothing can be more simple than to establish the belief of the Universal Church on this point. The only difficulty is to select such passages as may ap¬ pear the clearest 2 .” After various citations, we are informed, that 44 these passages contain precisely the same doctrine as the Catholic Church teaches a .” So again, Milner observes, that the ancient Fathers and writers 44 demonstrate that the doctrine of the Church was the same as it is now, not only within a thousand but within four hundred years from the time of Christ, with respect both to prayers for the dead, and an intermediate state which we call Purgatory 5 .” With reference to Indulgences, Dr. Wiseman un¬ dertakes to show that 44 the Church in the earliest times” claimed and exercised this power; and he accordingly refers to Tertullian, Cyprian, and other of the Fathers and Councils in proof 0 . As to Invocation of Saints, it is asserted to have existed from the beginning to the same extent, at least, as it now does: 44 1 can have,” he says, 44 only one fear, one motive of hesitation, in laying before you passages on this subject. It is not that I may weary you by the number of my quotations . . . This is not my reason of apprehension, but it is that, in the authorities from the Fathers, their expressions are so much stronger than those used by the Catholics at the present day, that there is a danger, if I may so say, of proving too much; they go beyond us . . . Let us begin with the very first ages of the Church, and let us take not ambiguous words, but the sim¬ plest and most natural expressions of the feelings of 1 Wiseman, Lectures, vol. ii. b End of Controversy, letter p. 59. xliii. p. 312. a P. 63. c Lectures, vol. ii. p. 76. Theory of Development [part i. the earliest Christians' 1 .” And we have then refer¬ ences to various real or pretended monuments of the earliest ages. The evidence is so demonstrative, in the writer’s opinion, that he triumphantly asks, “ What are we to say to these testimonies? Nothing can be more manifest, than that the doctrine of these Fathers is precisely the same as I have laid down, and just what is declared in the Council of Trent, or the catechism taught to our children'.” Again as to Relics:—“Nothing remains but, ac¬ cording to my practice, to read a few out of many passages, to show you that the ancient Christians believed all regarding relics as we do f .” “There is literally no end to these testimonies 5 .” On the sub¬ ject of the Papal Supremacy we have the following: “ The authority of Peter must have been intended to be perpetual in Christianity, because we find that from the earliest ages all acknowledge it to exist in his successors as their inherent right h ;” so that “all antiquity supports us in the belief” of the Papal Supremacy 1 . 11. Let this suffice as a specimen of the confidence with which Roman Catholic writers have appealed to the monuments of Christian antiquity, to confirm their assertion, that those of their tenets which may not be distinctly comprised in Scripture, have been nevertheless handed down by continual tradition from the Apostles. The theory of the Disciplina arcani which has been of late brought forward by Trevern and other writers, is merely a modification of '* Lectures, vol. ii. p. 103, 104. e P. 114. 1 P. 122. « P. 126. h P. 281. 1 P. 286. chap, ix.] Subversive of Romanism. 233 this received system of argument. It brings promi¬ nently into view the reserve practised in the Primi¬ tive Church, with reference to certain rites which were not to be described before unbelievers; and employs it as an argument in behalf of certain Romish doctrines supposed to have been thus pri¬ vately taught. The production of this theory, however, seems to have arisen in some degree from a secret conscious¬ ness, that the proof from Christian antiquity, for the doctrines in question, was not quite so clear and convincing as Roman Catholic writers in general re¬ present it to be. The theory is calculated to explain the silence of the Fathers on various points, on which a Romanist would naturally have expected them to speak clearly and decisively. 12. Nor is this the only symptom of the same kind of consciousness. Perrone, in his series of Theological Lectures at Rome, notices an objection to his position, that the Church is the sole and in¬ fallible interpreter of Scripture and of unwritten tra¬ dition. This objection is grounded on “ the contro¬ versies [concerning traditions] which existed informer ages, nay, in the very first ages of the Church,” “ be¬ tween different Churches, and amongst the Fathers themselves.” Perrone thus explains the fact of con¬ troversy on various articles of tradition:—“The Apos¬ tles consigned the Revelation received from Christ to particular individuals, i. e. the bishops, or to the particular Churches which they founded, and to which they wrote from time to time; nor, moreover, did they deliver it whole and entire to each, as one body of doctrine, but presented it as occasion offered; except those articles which are to be believed expli- 234 Theory of Development [part i. citly by all . . . Thus the particular bishops and Churches composing the Universal Church, could not immediately possess certainty as to those things which the Apostles had committed to bishops or Churches, viva voce or in writing. Hence arose . . . controversies on the number of the canonical books, and on the truth of some traditions, or the legitimate sense of certain passages of Scripture; until the Church decided or passed judgment on them, after comparing opinions 1 .” Hence he admits, that parti¬ cular Churches and individuals were not alwavs uni- j form in their faith—that before questions were decided, there was occasionally “ a difference of opinion,” arising “ from want of knowledge k .” 13. Thus then it appears, that the testimony of primitive antiquity does not always so “ precisely ” coincide with the present tenets of Romanism as Dr. Wiseman, and other writers of the same stamp, would lead us to expect; and yet the assertions on this point have been so very positive, and the amount of evidence adduced is at first sight so imposing, to per¬ sons, at least, who are disposed to take such matters on trust 1 , that it may be regarded as really providential, that Romanists themselves have at length been led, from one cause or another, to expose the extreme weak¬ ness and inconsistency of the system which has so long been prevalent amongst them. It was a laborious task for those who were capable of undertaking it, to ex- •i Perrone, Praelect. Theo- tenets from spurious and modern log. t. i. p. 229. writings, falsely ascribed to the k Ibid. Fathers. The writer had oc- 1 Especial reference is here casion to enter on this subject, intended to the too prevalent in his “ Letters to Dr. Wise- practice of Romish writers in man,” 1841, 1842. producing evidence for their CHAP. IX.] Subversive of Romanism. 235 amine and refute the multitudinous proofs adduced by Romanists for tlieir tenets, from the writings of the Fathers. Some persons have even relinquished it in despair. It would perhaps have been impossible to disabuse the minds of a large part of the community of the impression, that the strength of the Romish argument lies in antiquity, if Romanism had remained true to itself. Had its adherents only consistently maintained their old position, it might have been difficult to produce any material effects, even by occasional demonstrations of the very slight grounds on which their appeal to apostolical antiquity rests. But it will in future be a much easier task to de¬ monstrate the futility of that appeal. It needs no longer any laborious collation of passages from the Fathers. The case is now open to the plainest com¬ prehension. Their writers have confessed it. Perrone and Trevern have felt that Christian antiquity is not, as a whole, perfectly favourable to Romish tenets— that it had more than one aspect. But it remained for Mohler, De Maistre, Newman, and the other advo¬ cates of the 44 Theory of Development,” to deal a mortal blow at the theory of Tradition which we have been hitherto considering. What is the general character of the doctrine of Development ? It is this : Sedulously bent on vin¬ dicating the Romish tenets, and most fully sensible that those tenets were unknown to the primitive Church, it commences its task by maintaining, that from the very nature of the case, it was impossible that those tenets could have been taught and believed in the Church during the earliest ages; that it is of the essence of great ideas to be only slowly and gradually comprehended; that in point of fact it is 236 Theory of Development [part i. quite evident, that the peculiar doctrines of Ro¬ manism were not generally held in the first ages. Such is, in general, the theory of development, which will in future relieve us from much trouble in de¬ monstrating the novelty of Romanism. 14. Let us now observe how this theory applies to various doctrines in controversy between Romanism and the Reformation; and first, let us see its opera¬ tion on the Papal Supremacy, which is the key of the whole. We have already seen, that Roman Catholic authors are generally most positive in their assurances, that the Papal Supremacy was believed and acted on from the very beginning. According to them, nothing can be more clear than the exercise of this power in all ages: it is an apostolical tradition; which is tes¬ tified by Ignatius, Clement, Irenseus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and by all the other writers of the first three centuries. Now then let us hear on the other side the writers on Development. First, Mohler :— This ingenious and learned writer, who is generally regarded as the ablest amongst the modern Roman Catholic divines, says, in reference to the Roman Supremacy, “I was for a long time in doubt whether the Primacy [of Rome] was of the essence of the Catholic Church; I was even disposed to deny it; for the organic union of all the parts in one whole, which the idea of the Catholic Church requires, and which she is, appeared to be completely attained by the unity of the Episcopate, such as we have ex¬ pounded it hitherto : on the other side, it is evident that the history of the first three centuries is not suffi¬ ciently rich in materials to remove all our doubts on chap, ix.] Subversive of Romanism. 237 this point m .” This is much less strong than what follows in a page or two, where this learned author makes some remarks on the celebrated texts, Matt, xvi. 18, and John xxi. 15—17, of which, together with the other texts adduced by Romanists in proof of the Papal Supremacy, he says, that “ there is no need to give to them an interpretation different from that of the holy Fathers 11 ” (evidently referring to the ordinary interpretations of Roman Catholic writers); the real meaning of these passages, ac¬ cording to Mohler, affording “ no direct proof” of the primacy of St. Peter. This primacy, however, was proved, it seems, by St. Peter’s actions. But now comes the passage to which I wish to draw particular attention. “ Whilst the Apostles were dispersed, St. Peter could not exercise his primacy, and we can never believe that it was necessary for him to do so, even if he had been authorized. Whilst Christianity was engaged in strengthening itself in various commu¬ nities, and whilst the union of the different Churches was only at the earlier stages of its organization, the primacy of one Church and of its bishop absolutely could not manifest itself For if we would consider the Primate in a right point of view, we should, as we have said, represent him to ourselves as the per¬ sonified reflection of the unity of the whole Church ; but it was not possible that the unity of the whole Church, in contemplating itself, should become ob¬ jective, and, as a product of that Church, present itself as a personal image, before it had penetrated all its members: those, then, who desire to have m Mohler, L’Unitede 1’Eglise, p, 221. n P. 223. 238 Theory of Development [pa rt t. undeniable historical proofs in favour of the Primacy, before that epoch which we have above noticed, as that in which the unity of the Church displayed itself in all its vigour (the time of St. Cyprian), ought to know, that they require what is unfitting; since it is not possible , according to the laws of a true develop¬ ment. It may be said of those who imagine that they have found it established before this epoch, that the trouble they have given themselves has been fruitless, and that their pretensions cannot be sus¬ tained °. The Primacy, like every property of Chris¬ tianity, ought not to be considered as a dead idea, but as living and proceeding from life. . . . Neces¬ sities must make themselves felt; these necessities show themselves in history as facts; and it is from these facts that the idea immediately educes itself p .” 15. Let us now come to the statements of the au¬ thor of the “ Essay on Development,” on the question of the Papal Supremacy. In the first place, he rejects the rule of Vincentius Lirinensis, which teaches us to receive what has been taught at all times, in all places, and by all the Fathers ; this rule, as well as the principle of the Disciplina arcani , being inade¬ quate, in his opinion, in consequence of the variations or contradictions of the early writers. This, of course, subverts at once the whole argument and principle of such writers as Wiseman, Milner, Trevern, Bos- suet, &c. After this, he comes to the “ evidence which is adducible, in the first five centuries, on behalf of the Supremacy of the Holy See q ,” which (as he intimates, without any dissent from the notion) ° Mohler, Unite de l’Eglise, q Essay on Development, p. p. 224. 165. p P. 225. CHAP. IX.] Subversive of Romanism. 239 is considered by Protestants to be characterized by “dimness and indistinctness,” as regards its Ante- Nicene portion. The question which he suggests in reference to the Papal Supremacy is, “ whether there was not from the first a certain element at work, or in existence, which, for some reason or other, did not at once show itself upon the surface of ecclesiastical affairs , and of which the events of the fourth century are the development r .” Pie then remarks, that, “ for instance, it is true St. Ignatius is silent, in his Epistles, on the subject of the Pope’s authority”—and why? “While Apostles were on earth, there was need neither of Bishops nor Pope; their power was dormant, or exercised by Apostles. In course of time , first the power of the Bishop awoke, and then the power of the Pope. ... St. Peter’s prerogative would remain a mere letter, till the complication of ecclesiastical matters became the cause of ascertaining it. While Christians were of one heart and one soul, it would be suspended : love dispenses with laws. . . The regalia Petri might- sleep, as the power of a Chancellor [in a University] has slept; not as an obsolete,—for it never had been operative,— but as a mysterious privilege, which was not understood; as an unfulfilled prophecy. . . “ When the Church, then, was thrown upon her own resources, first local disturbances gave rise to Bishops, and next oecumenical disturbances gave rise to Popes; and whether communion with the Pope was necessary for catholicity, would not, and could not be debated, till a suspension of that communion had actually occurred . . . Tt is a less difficulty that r Essay on Development, p. 1G5. 240 Theory of Development [part t. the Papal Supremacy was not formally acknowledged in the second century , than that there was no formal acknowledgment of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, till the fourth 5 .” This writer adds, that during the persecutions, the imperial power “ availed for keeping back the power of the Papacy.” The “ Papacy ” “ began to form ” as soon as persecution ceased. This “ monarchical power” of the Church “ rose when the Empire be¬ came Christian,” and it was “ natural also that further developments of that power should take place when that Empire fell.” He, in short, admits without re¬ luctance the force of Barrow’s reasoning, which is directed to show, that in primitive times, the Papal Supremacy did not and could not exist 1 ! The con¬ clusion at which he arrives, on a survey of primitive times, is, that “ 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 u .” To such a conclu¬ sion we may readilyaccede : it is perfectly satisfactory to find the advocates of the Papacy obliged at length to admit the force of Barrow’s reasoning, and to re¬ linquish the argument from Christian antiquity. 16. The whole case is now sufficiently clear and intelligible: the Papal Supremacy could not have developed itself before the fourth century , and conse¬ quently, we are not to look for any clear and distinct evidences of its exercise and reception in the first ages of Christianity: so that all those who have con¬ fidently asserted that the Papal Supremacy was an s Essay on Development, p. 166 , 167 .' 1 P. 168, 169, u P. 170. CHAP. IX.] Subversive of Romanism . 241 apostolical tradition, believed and acted on at all times in the Church, have been in error. In other words, it is admitted, that there is no clear and con¬ vincing evidence from tradition for the Papal Supre¬ macy. We have this established, not merely by our own divines, but by the ablest modern advocates of Romanism. It is not possible to calculate exactly how far such a view as this may be generally acceptable to those Roman Catholics, whose received opinions and theories it entirely demolishes; but one point at least is sufficiently clear: the “ Theory of Development ” has secured for those who do not receive the doctrine of the Papal Supremacy, whether they be Greeks or adherents of the Reformation, the most invaluable concessions. The theory of development may or may not be well founded; but it has led to the ad¬ mission of the all-important fact , that the Papal Supremacy did not exist in the earliest ages, and has no effective support from their records. We accept the admission of this fact with gratitude, while we need not feel anxious about the “ theory ” which has elicited it, since it is avowedly a mere “ theory.” We shall see more of the results of this “ theory ” pre¬ sently, and it will be found to have arguments in store, which are calculated to give a very new com¬ plexion to controversy between Romanists and Pro¬ testants. But at present we accept the important admission thus elicited. 17. Let us, under the guidance of “ the Theory of Development,” proceed to examine some other points controverted between Romanists and the Reforma¬ tion. One of the tests which the Essayist applies to de- R 242 Theory of Development [part i. velopments of Christianity, with a view to discrimi¬ nate real developments from corruptions of doctrine, is that of “ early anticipation.” When an idea is developing, he remarks, “ instances of such a process, though vague and isolated, may occur from the very first, though a lapse of time be necessary to bring it to perfection; ... it is in no wise strange that here and there definite specimens should very early occur, which in the historical course are not found till a late day v .” If, then, “ the so-called Catholic doctrines and practices are true and legitimate developments, we may expect to find traces of them in the first centuries. And this I conceive to be the case: the records indeed of those times are scanty . . . yet it appears from what remains, that the atmosphere of the Church was, as it were, charged with them from the first, and delivered itself of them from time to time, in this way or that, in various places and per¬ sons'".” The writer in this place speaks of Roman Catholic tenets in general; and as a specimen of what he would say, he directs particular attention to relics, the worship of saints and angels, the merit of virginity, the “ prerogatives of St. Mary.” To how many other points of Roman doctrine this principle is to be ap¬ plied, seems uncertain. However, the general nature of the statement leads to the inference that it is intended to apply to the majority, at least, of those points. Now the results at which we arrive by the aid of this discriminative test, are as follows: The Roman Catholic tenets in question were not generally taught or held in the primitive ages: whatever casual notices v Newman, Essay on Development, p. 77- W P. 369. chap, tx.] Subversive of Romanism. 24,’] of them may be found in the records of those ages, are mere anticipations , on the part of certain indivi¬ duals, of the doctrine which was in after-ages de¬ veloped in the Church at large. These Roman Catholic tenets were not communicated to the Church by the Apostles, but were discovered in later times. Thus, for instance, the worship of relics was not enjoined by the Apostles, but was, according to the Essayist, a consequence of the doctrine of the Resurrection taught by them; and there are various instances 5 " of such worship in the primitive ages; i. e. anticipations , on the part of individuals, of the gene¬ rally received doctrine of later times. From the worship of relics, it seems, the Christians proceeded to the doctrine of the intercession of saints y , i. e. the former was prior , in order of time, to the latter. The intercession of saints, it appears, developed afterwards into the worship of saints z , though Justin Martyr had by anticipation taught the worship of angels a . The “ special prerogatives of St. Mary ” come next. “ As is well known, they were not fully recognized in the Catholic ritual till a late date, but they were not a new thing in the Church, or strange to her earlier teachers 5 .” It is alleged, that Justin Martyr, Irenseus, and others of the early writers, have noticed some of these prerogatives, i. e. by way of anticipation c ; the doctrine itself being not generally received by the Church till a later period. Now all this is very clear and intelligible: it en¬ tirely subverts the notion that the Roman Catholic doctrines and practices have been those of the x Essay, p. 370—374. a P. 377. y P. 374, 375. b P.384. 2 P. 376. c P. 385—387- R 2 244 Theory of Development [part t. Universal Church from the beginning; or that they were communicated to her by our Lord or His Apostles. This is really bringing out our case very satisfactorily. The Essayist cannot of course allege that the evidence adduced by him in any of these cases, is sufficient to prove that there was in the early Church a general agreement on the doctrines in question. This would show that they had been de¬ veloped—that they were received into the general doctrine of the Church. His position and argument is, that they had been occasionally anticipated in early times, before they were actually developed. But we must trace out some more of the bearings of the theory of development on Romanism. We learn, then, that “ in the course of the fourth century, two movements or developments spread over the face of Christendom, with a rapidity characteristic of the Church; the one ascetic, the other ritual or ceremonial' 1 .” The reference here is to Monasticism, and to certain peculiar rites of the Roman Church, the latter of which Mr. Newman acknowledges to be 44 all of Pagan origin'V’ That is to say, none of them are derived from apostolical teaching. 44 The introduction of images was still later” than the 44 fifth century r ;” it was, in fact, 44 a development of the eighth ” century 8 .” 44 The Arian and Monophysite errors . . . became the natural introduction of the cultus sanctorum’ 1 ,” i.e. of the worship of saints and angels. These errors arose in the fourth and fifth centuries; so that the worship of saints and angels founded on them can have no pretence to any very d Essay, p. 359. e P. 360. f P. 362. « Ibid. h P. 401. CHAP. IX.] Subversive of Romanism. 245 early origin. The writer referred to, derives them from principles laid down by Athanasius and Augus¬ tine, the latter of whom lived in the fifth century. “ There was in the first ages,” he says, “ no public and ecclesiastical recognition of the place which St. Mary holds in the economy of grace; this was reserved for the fifth century 1 ;” though he thinks that “the spontaneous or traditional feeling of Christians ” had anticipated the actual development by the Church at large. Again, the doctrine of the guilt of post-baptismal sin, according to this writer, led gradually to the doctrine of Purgatory. “ Thus we see how, as time went on, the doctrine of Purgatory was opened upon the apprehension of the Church, as a portion or form of penance due for sins committed after baptism. And thus the belief in this doctrine and the practice of infant baptism, would grow into general reception together j .” So that the doctrine of Purgatory was not taught by the Apostles, or generally received at first, but was gradually reasoned out. 18. Now having arrived at this point in our inquiry, we may pause for a moment, and contemplate the leading facts which have been brought before us. Romanism,— i. e. the theology of the Church of Rome, claims acceptance especially and principally on the ground of its consistency ; such consistency afford¬ ing a strong presumption in favour of its truth. But when the foundations of this system are actually examined, its insecurity becomes immediately per¬ ceptible, from the striking contradictions of its ad¬ herents. If Romanism were an essentially true system, it could not have deprived itself of the power of esta- 1 Essay, p. 407* j P. 417. 244J Theory of Development [part i. Wishing the truth of Christianity, by the fundamental principles which it has laid down in controversy with Protestants; nor could it assert, that all its peculiar doctrines have descended without any alteration or change in the Universal Church, even from the Apostles themselves; and afterwards demonstrate that those very doctrines did not exist in the earliest ages, but were the growth of times long subsequent. It could not, as it does, quote series of passages from the Fathers, and maintain triumphantly that those quotations express the sense of the Universal Church from the beginning; and then assure us, that they are mere individual anticipations of the doctrine which was subsequently developed. If the Invocation of saints, the worship of relics, purgatory, the Papal Supremacy, and such like doctrines and practices, are Christian and Catholic, and binding on all be¬ lievers, how is it that their advocates refute each other’s testimony? Which are we to believe? Can it be said that either party is inferior to the other in learning, in candour, or in zeal for the cause of Ro¬ manism? Bellarmine, and Bossuet, and Wiseman, are at least as credible as Mohler and Newman. To what conclusion then can we arrive but this—that the peculiar doctrines of Romanism are false, and incapable of any legitimate proof? We can readily admit that the truth of religious tenets may be established by different modes of argument; but when those modes become wholly destructive of each other, and yet are respectively sustained by persons of equal learning and credit, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion, that tlieir contradictions arise from the want of truth and reasonableness in the tenets which are defended. Is it not wonderful, that while CHAP. IX.] Sub versive of Romanism. 217 the acceptance of the peculiarities of Romanism is urged as an essential condition to salvation, their advocates are unable to agree on this simple question, whether those peculiarities were taught by the Apostles, or whether they were invented many ages after the time of the Apostles? Now contrast this with the position taken up at the Reformation by the opponents of Romanism,—by men, who while deeply penetrated with a sense of the growing corruption of the religious system then prevalent, were rooted in their belief of the perfect truth and the Divine character of the religion taught by our blessed Lord and His Apostles. It is true, then, that the adherents of the Reformation have differed amongst themselves, in some respects, as regards their argument against Romanism. The testimony of the Fathers has been by some regarded as more favourable to Rome than it has been by others. Some of them have, we know, adopted systems which are not in accordance with the general voice of Christian antiquity; and therefore we can at once see a reason for the un¬ favourable construction which they have sometimes given to its records. But, setting aside these differ¬ ences in matters of detail, there are at least two leading principles which they have always maintained. The first is, that Romanism has no foundation in Scripture. The second, that it was not taught orally by the Apostles, and handed down by unwritten tradition. This is the ground which has been sted- fastly and consistently maintained. And what has been the defence of Romanism? In the first place, unable to substantiate its claims from Scripture, it falls back on the theory of an un¬ written tradition derived from the Apostles; and the 248 Theory of Development [part i. writings of the Fathers become its refuge. In the hurry of the emergency, every thing is pressed into its service. Forgeries, spurious and apocryphal writings, the fraudulent compositions of heretics and impostors, are mingled with the genuine writings of the holy Fathers. But, after a time, it becomes evident that antiquity is insufficient to establish the Romish tenets; and we forthwith find their advocates asserting without scruple or hesitation, that those tenets could not have existed in the apostolic age, or till some centuries later—that such articles of doctrine were only intended to be developed in the course of ages. Judging from the simple facts of the case, there can be, I think, very little doubt, on which side the truth lies. 19. But to revert to the theory of development. There is one very striking statement made by the Essayist, which is calculated to throw considerable light on the questions in debate between Romanism and the Reformation. The developments of the Roman doctrine are, according to him, derived from the early heresies and from paganism; and not from apostolic tradition. I do not knowhow far such an admission is likely to meet general approbation in the communion to which he has attached himself, even with the qualifications which he annexes to it. It is doubtless impossible not to applaud the candour of this admission, even while we may wonder that it was made at the very moment when the writer was about to enter the Roman communion. According to his admission, the heresy of Montanus is, “in its whole system,” a “ remarkable anticipation CHAP. IX.] Subversive of Romanism. 249 or presage of developments which soon began to show themselves in the Church, though they were not perfected for centuries after. Its rigid maintenance of the original creed, yet its admission of a develop¬ ment, at least in the ritual, has just been instanced in the person of Tertullian. Equally Catholic in their principle, whether in fact or anticipation, were most of the other peculiarities of Montanism: its rigorous fasts, its visions, its commendation of celibacy and martyrdom, its contempt of temporal goods, its penitential discipline, and its centre of unity. The doctrinal determinations and ecclesiastical usages of the middle ages are the true fulfilment of its self-willed and abortive attempts at precipitating the growth of the Church . . . These are specimens of the raw ma¬ terial, as it may be called, which, whether as found in individual Fathers within the pale of the Church, or in heretics external to it, she had the power, by means of the continuity and firmness of her principles, to convert to her own uses. She alone has succeeded in thus rejecting evil without sacrificing the good, and in holding together in one, things which in all other schools are incompatible. Gnostic or Platonic words are found in the inspired theology of St. John. Uni¬ tarian writers trace the doctrine of our Lord’s Divinitv J to the Platonists; Gibbon, the idea of the Incarnation to the Gnostics. The Gnostics, too, seem first to have systematically directed the intellect upon matters of faith; and the very term 4 Gnostic,’ has been taken by Clement to express his perfect Christian. And, though Ascetics existed from the beginning, the notion of a religion higher than the Christianity of the many, was first prominently brought forward by the Gnostics, Montanists, Novatians, and Manichees. 250 Theory of Development, [part I. And while the prophets of the Montanists prefigure the Church’s doctors , and their inspiration her infalli¬ bility , and their revelations her developments , and the heresiarch himself is the unsightly anticipation of St. Francis, in Novatian again we discern the aspiration of nature after such creations of grace as St. Bene¬ dict or St. Bruno k .” He also traces many of the rites of the Church to Paganism. “ The use,” he says, “ of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasion with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions; blessings on the fields; sacer¬ dotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of Pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church 1 .” In these remarkable passages we have a full and formal admission, that the idea of the Roman system is, to a very great extent, derived from Paganism and Heresy! The natural inference from such an admission is indeed sought to be evaded by the as¬ sertion, that whatever of superstition and error existed in the original, has been lost in the copy; and that at all events, Protestants themselves continue to re¬ tain some rites of Pagan origin. I cannot think that such assertions avail materially to dispel the suspicion which must naturally arise, on our being informed, that the Romish system is not of apostolical antiquity; that it was not known to the Church or received by k Newman, Essay on Development, p. 351, 352. 1 P. 359. CHAP. IX.] Subversive of Romanism. 251 her during the primitive ages, but that it was in after-times gradually derived from Heresy and Pagan¬ ism ! Of course we have no right to conclude at once, from this mere fact, that Romanism is a cor¬ ruption of Christianity. It may be, that sufficient care has been taken to guard against heathen and heretical notions or practices; but certainly the case, as stated by Mr. Newman, is one which wears a most suspicious appearance, and which demands the very strongest and clearest evidences of innocence, before it can be allowed to be free from imputations most unfavourable to the character of Romanism as a form of Christianity. With reference to the asser¬ tion that some rites used by those who reject Ro¬ manism are equally derived from Paganism, we have merely to say, that there is obviously no compa¬ rison between such mere ceremonies as the use of branches of trees in churches, calendars, and the ring in marriage, which no one supposes to be any thing more than forms; and such things as the worship of saints, and angels, and images; and the innumerable superstitions connected with them. The great and essential difference between Ro¬ manism and the Reformation, as regards any forms or rites borrowed originally from heathenism, is this: the former has permitted her doctrines and worship to be modified by heathen ideas: the latter has nothing in common with heathenism, but a few ceremonial forms which no one considers to be essential to worship, or to be connected with doctrine. In the next chapter it will be shown, that the “Essay on Development” establishes, in the most decisive manner, the connexion of religious ideas be¬ tween Romanism and Polytheism. 252 Theory of Development [part i. 20. There is another, and a very important fact brought out by Mr. Newman, in the course of his work. It is this—that the development of Roman Catholic doctrine has not proceeded from Scripture understood in its plain and literal sense, but in a mystical sense. Heresy, according to him, has found support in the literal interpretation of Scripture; while orthodoxy has invariably rested its proof of doctrines on the mystical meaning of passages' 11 . “ This has,” he says, 44 been the doctrine of all ages of the Church, as is shown by the disinclination of her teachers to confine themselves to the mere literal interpretation of Scripture. Her most subtle and powerful method of proof whether in ancient or modern times, is the mystical sense . . . Thus Bellar- mine defends monastic celibacy by our Lord’s words in Matthew xix.; and refers to 4 we went through fire and water,’ &c. in the Psalm, as an argument for Purgatory; and these, as is plain, are but specimens of a rule. Now on turning to primitive controversy, we find this method of interpretation to be the very basis of the proof of the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity. Whether we betake ourselves to the Ante- Nicene writers or the Nicene, certain texts will meet us which do not obviously refer to that doctrine, yet are put forward as palmary proofs of it. Such are in respect of our Lord’s Divinity. 4 My heart is in¬ diting of a good matter,’ or 4 has burst with a good word.’ . . . On the other hand, the school of Antioch, which adopted the literal interpretation, was the very metropolis of heresy 11 .” It may be a very unreasonable and absurd infer- W1 Essay on Development, p. 282, &c., 290,319. n P.323,324. CHAP. IX.] Subversive of Romanism. 253 ence from all this; hut it is an inference which will, I think, be unavoidable in the case of almost every one who hears it; that Scripture, in its literal meaning, is unfavourable to the tenets of Romanism at least. Whether it be so to the cause of orthodoxy is another question: I presume that every one who knows any thing of the controversial writings of the Fathers, or of the holy Scriptures, will recollect that the great doctrines of Christianity possess proofs which do not depend on mere mystical interpretations of Scripture; and that the defenders of the truth have always pro¬ minently put forward such proofs. But it is clear, from Mr. Newman’s argument, that he considers the Roman developments to depend on mystical inter¬ pretations of Scripture. And this certainly throws considerable light on the whole question. It is an additional link in the chain of evidence. It furnishes a new evidence of the same consciousness which has driven the controversialists of the Roman Church for three centuries into the denial of the perfection of Scripture, as a rule of faith—which has obliged them to devise the doctrine of an unwritten tradition supplementary to Scripture. Repelled at length from this position, they take shelter in the mystic interpretation of Scripture, by means of which, of course, the Scripture can be made to speak any lan¬ guage that they please; and what is more, to pro¬ duce any tenets or principles which Heresy or Fana¬ ticism may wish to gather from it. 21. The principles of the Essayist may here be contrasted with those of another member of the Ro¬ man communion; and a comparison of the two will afford a striking illustration of the kind of unity in the most essential principles , which prevails in that 254 Theory of Development [part t. communion; while it will also prove, that if Ro¬ manism is founded only on the mystical interpreta¬ tion of Scripture, it is without any sufficient founda¬ tion. 44 The groundwork of all the science of interpreta¬ tion,” says Dr. Wiseman, 44 is exceedingly simple, if we consider the object to be attained. Every one will agree, that when we read any book or hear any discourse, our object is to understand what was pass¬ ing in the authors mind when he wrote or spoke those passages . . . The object of all human inter¬ course, pursuant to the established laws of social communication, is to transpose into other minds the same feelings and ideas that exist in one; . . . the object of any person who addresses others, either in writing or in speech, is to convey, as clearly as possible, his meaning to their minds . . . The true rule of in¬ terpretation, therefore, is to know what must have been the only meaning which the actual hearers who were alive and present at the time the words were addressed to them, would have put on any expres¬ sions; and if we find that to be a certain definite signification, and the only one which could have been given, it is clear that it must be the true one° . . . I contend that the obvious rule is to take words literally , unless a necessity be proved for taking them figuratively; and I wish to know how such a rule would stand before those who deny the divinity of Christ, that we are not allowed to take any passage literally, unless a necessity for it be first demon¬ strated p ... When the explicit, plain, and literal con- 0 Wiseman, Lectures on the Cath. Church, vol. i. p. 137,138. Doctrines and Practices of the p P. 175. CIIAP. IX.] Subversive of Romanism. 255 struction of the words is that which we adopt, it be¬ comes the task of those who maintain us to be wrong, and say that the words 4 this Is my body,’ did not mean that it was the body of Christ, but only its symbol—I contend, it becomes their duty to prove their figurative interpretation q .” 22. Thus we have the principle of literal interpre¬ tation supported by Dr. Wiseman, while Mr. New¬ man denounces it as heretical; and yet the former writer is evidently under the impression, that he is advocating a principle perfectly in accordance with the principles of his Church 1 . It has indeed been very usual with Romish controversialists to call on their opponents for clear proofs of their tenets from the language of Scripture. Mr. Newman’s principle, however, renders the task of opposing the doctrines of Romanism and even those of the Catholic faith a very easy one. There can be little difficulty in proving whatever we may wish from Scripture, if its plain and literal sense is to be set aside, and we are at liberty to 'prefer mystic and figurative interpreta¬ tions. In fact, this system is only fully developed by q Wiseman, Letters, &c., vol. i. p. 178. r It is also expressly assert¬ ed by Bellarmine, as follows: “ Convenit inter nos et adver¬ saries, ex solo literal! sensu peti debereargumentaefficacia; nam eum sensum, qui ex verbis im¬ mediate colligitur, certum est, sensum esse Spiritus Sancti. At sensus mystici et spirituales varii sunt, et licet aedificent, cum non sunt contra fidem aut bonos mores, tamen non semper constat, an sint a Spiritu Sancto intend. Quocirca B. Augus¬ tinus in Epist. 48 ad Vincentium merito ridet Donatistas, qui ex illis verbis mystice explicatis : ‘ Indica mihi ubi pascas, ubi cubes in meridie,’ colligebant Ecclesiam Christi in sola Africa remansisse. Hieronymus quo- que in Commentario, cap. 18 Matthasi, docet, fidei dogmata ex mysticis sensibus non posse efficaciter confirmari. ” De Verbo Dei Scripto et non Scripto, lib. iii. c. 8. 256 Theory of Development [part i. such writers as Strauss or Bruno Bauer, to whom the whole of Revelation, even the creation, and the ex¬ istence of Christ, becomes a mythus. And thus again we find the principle of Rationalism unex¬ pectedly involved in the theories of development. So far, the Reformation does not seem to have much reason to apprehend material injury to its cause, from the publication of theories of develop¬ ment. We would only ask of their authors to be as explicit as the Essayist has been, and to permit us to see as plainly as he has done, the results to which they would lead us. 23. But there is another point which must not be omitted. It has been a common argument of Ro¬ manists against the Reformation, that there were differences of opinion amongst its promoters—that different confessions of faith were put forth—and that as time went on, doctrines gradually changed. Bossuet has bestowed much ingenuity and research in tracing the “ Variations of the Protestant Church,” which he contrasts with the immoveable fixedness of the Roman Catholic faith. “ When,” he says, “ we see amongst Christians variations in the exposition of faith, we always regard them as a sign of falsehood, and want of consecutive¬ ness in the doctrine put forth. Faith speaks simply: the Holy Ghost diffuses pure light, and the truths which He teaches have ever a uniform language . . . This was one of the grounds on which the ancient doctors so much condemned the Arians, who con¬ tinually published new confessions of faith without ever being 1 able to settle themselves.” “ But while heresies, ever variable, are inconsist¬ ent with themselves, and continually introduce new chap, ix.] Subversive- of Romanism. 257 rules, that is to say, new creeds into the Church, Tertullian saitli, 4 The rule of faith is unchangeable and irreformable ’ (De Virg. Vel. i.); that is, the Church, which professes to say and to teach only what she has received, never varies; and on the contrary, heresy, which began by innovation, continually inno¬ vates, and never changes its nature. Hence St. Chrysostom, treating on this precept of the Apostles, 4 Avoid profane novelties in your discourse,’ has made this reflexion, 4 Avoid novelties in your dis¬ courses, for matters do not remain so; one novelty produces another, and we wander without end when we have once begun to wander.’ Two circumstances cause this disorder in heresies; one is taken from the nature of the human mind, which, when it has once tasted the attraction of novelty, never ceases to seek with an inordinate appetite this deceitful sweetness; the other is derived from the difference of God’s actions from those of men. The Catholic truth coming from God, has its perfection at first: heresy, a feeble production of the human mind, cannot build itself up except by ill assorted pieces 5 .”’ On these principles Bossuet undertakes to demonstrate to the Protestants the falsehood of their doctrine, from their continual variations, and from the different modes in which they have explained their doctrines. But 44 the Theory of Development,” now put forward by the advocates of Romanism, wholly removes the force of this argument; for it affirms that variation, and change, and contradiction to a certain extent, have been always the accompaniments of the progress of Catholic doctrine. The maxim of those who main¬ tain the theory of development is— 44 To live is to 5 Bossuet, Variations des Eglises Protestantes, Preface. S 258 Theory of Development [part t. change, and to be perfect is to have changed often 1 . 1 * Consequently the mere fact of variations amongst the adherents of the Reformation is, according to this theory, rather a sign of spiritual life; and affords not the slightest presumption against the truth of their doctrine. 24. The theory of development will furnish another very convenient argument ad hominem , when indi¬ viduals of no great learning find themselves pressed by Romanists, with arguments from the writings of the Fathers, on any point of doctrine or discipline. It is now easy to answer, that according to the laws of development as laid down by Mohler, Newman, &c., the early writers cannot be supposed to have any particular authority in such questions, because the truth was only gradually discovered; and therefore believers in the present day are more likely than those of the early ages to determine aright on such ques¬ tions. Doubtless this will save a great deal of time, and will obviate the necessity for any examination of arguments which may be alleged from Antiquity. 25. The same argument, of course, maybe employed with advantage against any Romanist, who urges that any article of the Christian faith, or the Canon of Scripture, must be received simply on the authorita¬ tive decisions of the Church of the first four or five centuries. If the Church did not comprehend the idea of Christianity, except imperfectly, her infalli¬ bility is at an end at once: not another word need be said on the subject. The objections, too, which have been made to some expressions of Luther, Calvin, and others, who sometimes spoke slightingly of the 1 Essay on Development, p. 39. CHAP. IX.] Subversive of Romanism. 259 Fathers, or of some of their opinions, are at once dissolved by the theory of development; because on this theory, it is to be supposed necessarily, that Luther, Calvin, and Zuinglius, comprehended the idea of Christianity more perfectly than Augustine or Chrysostom. We have now seen what kind of advantage the cause of Romanism is likely to gain from this theory. 26. But there is one curious- question connected with this subject which it may be well to consider here. Does the doctrine of development furnish any presumption in favour of the idea of a Reformation, as an essential element in God’s government of the Church ? Is there, from this doctrine, any reasonable probability, that the welfare of the Church was to be promoted by a Reformation, such as the Reformation actually was, L e. an opposition to rooted and preva¬ lent tenets and practices ? If we are to have “ theories ” of this kind obtruded on the Church, it may be just as well to examine them, and ascertain what they lead to. It is evident that those writers who have put forth the theory of development, are very imperfectly acquainted with its real character and tendencies. If they had been so, they could not have assumed, as they have uniformly done, that developments must always be 'positive. They appear to have absolutely no conception of any development, which is not an addition to the existing body of positive doctrine and practice. Their notion of development is merely that of a process which adds the positive doctrines of Purgatory, Transubstan- tiation, Worship of Images, of Saints, and of the Virgin, and the Papal Supremacy, to the original belief of the Church. s 2 260 Theory of Development [part i. Now this is obviously a very imperfect view. It is evident at once, that Revelation includes negative articles as well as positive, i. e. if it teaches certain truths, it equally condemns certain errors. Almost every condemnation of heresies in the Councils of the Church, has been based on such negative develop¬ ments. The Holy Scripture itself furnishes as many examples of condemnation of errors, as it does of statements of truth. Hence it is certain that the development of doctrine in the Church, supposing it to progress continually in all ages, must be not only positive but negative, i. e. it must reject some doc¬ trines and tenets, while it establishes others. Scripture itself teaches us, and the advocates of the theory of development admit, that Christians are not exempt from all liability to error in their deduc¬ tions from Scripture, or in their reasonings on reli¬ gious subjects; so that developments of negative articles of doctrine maybe frequently requisite, in order to oppose such false and corrupt developments of Christianity. This is Reformation , when it seeks to correct evils existing in the communion of the Church itself. Now the theory of development is, by its advocates, founded in part on analogies derived from the mate¬ rial and moral world. It is compared, amongst other things, to the progress of human society, which is continually developing new ideas, and gradually at¬ taining to greater perfection in various ways. But “ the march of intellect” and of civilization, is liable to great but necessary interruptions. Civilization has often for a time been overborne, with ultimate benefit to the world, by the invasion of stern and uncivilized but virtuous nations: philosophy was for a time CHAP. IX.] Subversive of Romanism. 261 prostrated by the preaching of the Gospel. Like storms in the natural world, revolutions and the destruction of civilization and refinement are at times the necessary conditions of future progress. The moral atmosphere is at times purged by such severe and even terrible, but salutary processes. And therefore we might reason from analogy, that such processes are at times necessary to the preservation of Christianity—necessary to dispel growing corrup¬ tions, and to enable the process of development to proceed to its legitimate objects. That such corruptions will take place in the de¬ velopment of the idea of Christianity, we may infer from the analogy which the Essayist himself has traced between it, and the earlier dispensations of God. “The whole Bible,” according to Mr. Newman, “ is written on the principle of development. As the revelation proceeds it is ever new, yet ever old u .” “ The whole truth or large portions of it are told at once, yet only in their rudiments, or in miniature, and they are expanded and finished in the parts as the course of revelation proceeds.” In short, the whole history of God’s dispensations with man, is a continual process of development of certain great ideas originally revealed by God. Now then let us examine this process of development in its various parts, and see whether it does not confirm what has been already inferred from the analogy of the natural and moral world. ! Let me here quote from an emi¬ nent Romish divine v . “ A promise of redemption was the first good word spoken to man by God, after his original sentence of punishment . . . But how u Essay on Development, p. v Wiseman, Lectures, vol. i. 103. p. 92—97. 262 Theory of Development [part I. soon were all these divine promises disfigured mid cor¬ rupted ; liow soon was their true purport clean for¬ gotten ; how completely did they degenerate into the fond inventions of men, and fall into the wicked sub¬ serviency of all their worst desires!” “ Hence God, in order to prevent the human race from losing the benefits of His blessing, chose out of all the nations of the earth, one people whom He made the keeper of this great deposit . . . And we see that His action upon this body was not detailed upon each individual, but through a more select order of men, constituting a graduated hierarchy.” Dr. Wiseman proceeds to remark, that the New Testament completely links the Mosaic to the Chris¬ tian dispensation; and that in the prophecies “ the Church is never otherwise described, than as the revival, extension, and perfection of the former state.” The former or Mosaic Church was, in fact, a type of the Christian; and “it is evident then, that there must be counterparts in the two dispensations, analo¬ gies and resemblances, clearly showing ours to be the perfecting and filling up of the other’s out¬ line.” Undoubtedly, the whole argument establishes the writer’s belief, that the Christian dispensation was to present the counterpart of the Mosaic, in very many respects. What then was one great feature of the Mosaic dispensation ? The same learned writer shall answer. “ You will say, with all the precautions which His providence took to secure the safe trans¬ mission of His promises, see how fearfully they of old did fall from Him, and forget all that He had taught them . . . Now, far from there being any ob¬ jection in this to what I have hitherto said, it seems CHAP. IX.] Subversive of Romanism. 263 to me rather a confirmation thereof. Much falling off there often was—a total loss neverT If then the Jewish dispensation was to be the counterpart of the Christian, it may be inferred that the same characters of corruption, falling away, idolatry, will be found in both; and if the continuity and development of the idea of revelation was accom¬ plished in the one case, notwithstanding long-con¬ tinued apostasies, idolatry, polytheism, the same may be anticipated in the other. But there is one great difference between these dispensations: in the former, prophets or inspired teachers were sent by God to protest against and to reform prevalent corruptions: in the latter, there have been no such teachers; con¬ sequently it is to be expected that the Reformation of abuses and idolatries, which (as we have seen) are to be expected, will, in the Christian dispensation, be effected by ordinary teachers, or by the protest of pious and holy individuals who are not teachers. We know that in the elder dispensation, Reforma¬ tions were effected in many cases by Princes, such as Jehu, Hezekiah, Josiah; and the analogy pointed out by the writers referred to above, renders it probable that at some period, Christianity would be reformed by aid of temporal Sovereigns. There can therefore be no a priori argument against the interference of Princes in the work of the Reformation. Such are some of the conclusions to which the “ Theory of Development ” has brought us—con¬ clusions, not “ absolutely fatal” f either to “the preten¬ sions of 4 high Church ’ Anglican theology,” to the cause of the Reformation in general, or even to Pro¬ testantism in its most latitudinarian form x . It seems w Ward, Ideal, p. 553. x Mr. Ward observes, in re- 264 Theory of Development. [part i. to me, that on the contrary, this theory is calculated to be of eminent service to all opponents of the Church of Rome, in abbreviating controversy, by disposing of all that is calculated to be perplexing to unlearned persons. It furnishes simple and con¬ vincing proofs that Romanism is not derived from any pretended apostolical tradition—that it was not handed down by any disciplina arcani —that it did not pre¬ vail in the primitive Church—that it was gradually reasoned out, from principles supplied by Paganism and Heresy—that it is inconsistent with the plain and literal meaning of Scripture. These are facts which cannot fail to make their due impression on every rational and enquiring mind ; and they receive a new force and cogency from the analogies on which the theory is based, which imply that an extensive corruption may be expected to arise in Christianity, and that a Reformation, such as has taken place, was to be anticipated. But we have not yet traced out all the windings of this accommodating theory. We have seen that it is equally favourable to Rationalism, to Dissent, to the Reformation, and to Protestantism. There are some other facts which will bring out its character in a yet more striking way; and the exposition of these will furnish the subject of the next three chapters. ference to the alleged identity of the principle of development with that of Rationalism : “ In one point they agree, and only in one—in clashing with the principles of Conservatism.” Ideal, p. 553. Thus we find the principle of religious “ con¬ servatism” assailed by the very writer, who contends so ear¬ nestly for the “high sacredness of hereditary religion,” that he would not even permit the faith of the heathen in their false gods to be assailed ; and would, on no account, disturb the con¬ victions of heretics or secta¬ rians ! Is this Roman Catholic orthodoxy and consistency ? chap, x.] Worship of Saints Examined . 265 CHAPTER X. DEVELOPMENT OF THE “ CULTUS” OF THE SAINTS EXAMINED. 1. In proceeding to the more particular examina¬ tion of some of the doctrines and practices of the Roman Church, which the author of the “ Essay on Development” has undertaken to defend on novel principles, it should be observed at the outset, that, as these tenets are not proposed to us on the autho¬ rity of Scripture or of Apostolical tradition; as it is not pretended that they were generally known or received from the beginning; the proof of their truth resolves itself entirely into the possibility of deriving them, by some necessary or probable con¬ sequence, from some of the articles of the Catholic faith. The question is not to be settled by autho¬ rity, but by reasoning; so that it is in vain to quote the language of the Fathers or the Councils on one side or the other. Mr. Newman has abandoned the argument from Scripture and Tradition, and has taken his stand on 44 Logical Sequence;” and to this ground we must now follow him. The question which is henceforward to be examined is, whether the tenets of Romanism are true developments of Christianity. I shall commence with the Worship 266 Worship of Saints Examined. [part i. of the Saints, which may easily be proved to be a false development, by the aid of the first test laid down by Mr. Newman,—viz. “the preservation of type or idea.” 2. To those whose religious belief is based on the Word of God, it is difficult to conceive how the human mind can ever have fallen into the error of Polytheism; and yet, repugnant as that error may seem to our preconceived notions, it is plain, from the almost universal prevalence of Polytheism till the publication of the Gospel, and from its actual adoption by the majority of the human race at this moment, that it is as little repugnant to the human mind as the notion of Deity itself. To maintain that Paganism has never been the religion of pious and intelligent men, would argue a forgetfulness of the facts which history records. Nor can it be said that, in all cases, the principles of morality were unknown or denied. Some of the heathen have afforded, both in precepts and practice, examples of virtue and religion. It is perfectly true that scepticism and irreligious tenets prevailed in some of the ancient sects of heathen philosophy, and that many of the rites of the popular religion were of the most revolting im¬ morality; but the advocates of Polytheism might admit the existence of abuses like these in their actual system, without relinquishing their general principle. Thus it has been, in fact; for the philo¬ sophy of Greece and Rome was not the less poly¬ theistic because it ridiculed the popular superstitions; nor are the Brahmins in the present day worshippers of one God, because they disclaim all connexion with the abominations of Sakta worship. chap, x.] Worship of Saints Examined. 267 When we proceed to prove, from reason, that there is but one God, the argument advanced bj ali our writers is derived, in the first place, from the order and harmony of the material universe, which afford indications of one creative Intellect: and, secondly, from the idea which enlightened reason forms of the Deity, as a supreme, indivisible, abso¬ lutely perfect Being, the great First Cause of all things. Now these arguments are, doubtless, con¬ clusive against those who acknowledge a second Principle; or against the popular notions of the heathen mythology, which virtually excluded the notion of any Supreme Being, and subjected the world to a multitude of deities, soiled with crimes, and possessed of nearly equal powers. But this is not the notion which the more intelligent adherents of Polytheism have adopted; nor will the arguments directed against it be found efficacious in dealing with their theories. If, for instance, it were to have been urged on the disciples of Plato, Aristotle, or Zeno; or on the adherents of the Ionic and Pytha¬ gorean philosophy, that there are sufficient grounds for believing in a Great First Cause, who alone is to be regarded in the highest and most absolute sense, as God, they would have readily admitted the force of this reasoning a ; but they would have re- a Augustine (de Civit. Dei, sit et principium naturae, et lib. viii. c. ix.) thus speaks of veritas doctrinse, et felicitas that philosophy which approx- vitae ; sive Platonici accommo- imated most nearly to Christi- datius nuncupentur, sive quod- anity : “ Quicunque igitur phi- libet aliud sectae suae nomen losophi de Deo summo et vero imponant; sive tantummodo ista senserunt, quod et rerum Ionici generis, qui eis praecipui creatarum sit effector, et lu- fuerunt, ista senserint, sicut men cognoscendarum, et bonum idem Plato, et qui eum bene agendarum ; quod ab illo nobis intellexerunt; sive etiam Ita- 268 Worship of Saints Examined. [part i. marked also, that it afforded no ground for disbeliev¬ ing the existence of inferior deities , deriving their origin from this Great First Cause. They would have admitted that the Supreme and Eternal Deity was in¬ capable of passion or infirmity; but they would, with¬ out scruple, have ascribed both to the deities imme¬ diately presiding over the world; they would still have believed in a series of gods and demons, reaching, in countless gradations, from the stars above, to each fountain, and grove, and material object on earth; and inferior deities would still have been recognized by myriads, as in the Greek mythology, or by hun¬ dreds of millions, as in the Hindu. If we are to believe Augustine, numbers of thinking men amongst the heathen acknowledged one Supreme God b , while they also believed in and defended the existence of inferior gods and demons. Of this opinion were many of the opponents of Christianity, such as Celsus and Porphyry, who, together with Iamblichus, Plotinus, Apuleius, and other writers, endeavoured argumentatively to esta¬ blish the reasonableness of this belief 0 . lici, propter Pythagoram et Pythagoraeos, et si qui forte alii ejusdem sententiae identi- dem fuerunt; sive aliarum quo- que gentium, qui sapientes vel philosophi habiti sunt, Atlan- tici, Libyci, iEgyptii, Indi, Persae, Chaldaei, Scythae, Galli, Hispani, aliique reperiuntur, qui hoc viderint ac docuerint; eos omnes caeteris anteponimus, eosque nobis propinquioresfate- mur.” See also the succeeding chapter. b Augustine remarks on Varro : “ Dicit etiam idem auc- tor acutissimus atque doctissi- mus, quod hi soli ei videantur animadvertisse quid esset Deus, qui crediderunt, eum esse ani- mam, motu ac ratione mundum gubernantem.” De Civ. Dei, 1. iv. c. xxxi. c “ Non immerito me Plato- nicos philosophos elegisse cum qui bus agam, quod in ista quaestione, quam modo suscepi- mus, agitur de naturali theolo- gia, utrum propter felicitatem quae post mortem futura est, uni Deo an pluribus sacra fa- cere oporteat, satis, ut existimo, chap, x.] Worship of Saints Examined. 269 Now this conveys some notion of the subtlety and difficulty of the argument with Polytheists. In fact, if at this point Revelation did not come in to aid the cause of truth, it is difficult to say how it would be possible to continue the argument with hopes of success. Be it remembered, that Polytheism has prescription in its favour—old and immemorial pos¬ session—far exceeding in age the Christian, and even the Mosaic, dispensation. If the theory of Develop¬ ment be true, Polytheism may lay claim to be re¬ garded as a legitimate development of the original religion of man; and (setting aside all inquiries into external and historical evidences of a miraculous origin) it has more of external authority to plead for it than either Judaism or Christianity. The theory of Development, then, and the mystic theories which exclude external evidences, give to Poly¬ theism the advantage in point of authority. 3. At this point, the declarations of Revelation are essentially necessary, in order to demonstrate the falsehood of Polytheism in every shape, and to esta¬ blish the true unity of God. And, undoubtedly, nothing can be more clear and distinct than the repeated declarations of the Spirit of God, in Holy Scripture, with regard to this point. “ I am the Lord thy God : thou shalt have none other gods but me.’ 1 “ The Lord he is God, in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath; there is none else.” “ All the gods of the people are idols.” “They are vanity and the work of errors.” “There is one God, and one exposui. . Ex quibus sunt valde sistit Platonicus nobilis. Sed nobilitati Graeci, Plotinus, lam- hi omnes, et cseteri ejusmodi, blichus, Porphyrius ; in utraque et ipse Plato diis plurimis esse autem lingua, id est, et Graeca sacra facienda putaverunt.” De et Latina, Apuleius Afer ex- Civ. Dei, 1. viii. c. xii. 270 Worship of Saints Examined\ [part t. Mediator between God and men.” It is needless to multiply similar passages. It is a necessary conse¬ quence of this truth, that Divine worship should be offered only to the true God, and not to any other being, whether real or imaginary; and accordingly Revela¬ tion restricts such worship to God alone. “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only slialt thou serve.” “Ye shall not fear other gods, nor bow yourselves to them, nor serve them, nor sacrifice to them.” “Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you; lest the anger of the Lord thy God be kindled against thee.” 4. All these directions are very plain and intelli¬ gible ; and if the Mosaic and the Christian revelations be really Divine revelations, Polytheism, or the wor¬ ship of many gods, can have nothing further to allege. But the case would be different if Christians them¬ selves could be proved to be polytheistic in theory and practice: could this be shown, the argument from revelation would fall powerless on the mind of a heathen, because it would be evident that the ad¬ herents of this revelation either disregarded its pre¬ cepts, and thus virtually denied their obligation; or else that they understood them in a sense consistent with polytheism. And this was in some degree accomplished by the Gnostic teachers, such as Cerinthus, Basilides, Valen¬ tinus, Manes, and others, whose doctrine of two Principles, in connexion with their fanciful theories of cosmogony, and their endless genealogies of iEons, included all the essential characteristics of polytheism, which was thus brought into apparent connexion with Christianity. These heretical teachers even chap, x.] Worship of Saints Examined. 271 pretended to find tlieir doctrines in the Scriptures themselves; and Irenseus and Augustine were obliged to refute their false interpretations. But here was a fact, of which Heathenism would gladly avail itself, —that professing Christians were not agreed amongst themselves whether polytheism was wrong in prin¬ ciple. It was well for the cause of truth, that the sects of Gnostic origin generally arose and were propagated in entire independence of the Christian Church: this in itself furnished an evident token of their dissent from the real principles of Christianity, and there were other marked distinctions which need not here be enlarged on; but the rise of these heresies ren¬ dered it the most imperative duty of the Church to guard with jealousy the principle which it enshrined, and which constituted its essential distinction from Paganism; and this was accordingly done. Hence it was, that we find the creeds of the Church begin¬ ning with a profession of belief in “ One Godhence the unwearied zeal of the Fathers in maintaining the doctrine of the one Principle, or fiovap^ia : hence the error of Sabellianism, which saved the unity of God by denying personal distinctions in the Godhead: hence the care and precision of the orthodox in guarding the doctrine of the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost from affording any countenance to the notion of a second or a third Deity. In all these instances, Christianity was protecting itself from the admission of principles, which would have at once re¬ duced it in theory to the level of all other religions in the world, and would have constituted it merely one of the numerous forms of polytheism. 5. The Divinity of our blessed Lord was a doctrine 272 Worship of Saints Examined [part t. which Heathenism readily availed itself of, for the purpose of fastening on Christianity the admission of polytheistic principles. “ In proportion as it was known to the heathen, it would seem to them to in¬ volve this consequence—that much as the Christians spoke against polytheism, yet, after all, they did admit a polytheism of their own instead of the Pagan. Hence the anxiety of the apologists, while they assail the heathen creed on this account, to defend their own against a similar charge. Thus Athenagoras says, ‘ Let no one ridicule the notion that God has a Son. For we have not such thoughts either about God the Father or the Son as your poets, who, in their mythologies, make the gods no better than men. But the Son of God is the Word of the Father . . . the Father and Son being one. The Son being in the Father, and the Father in the Son, in the unity and power of the Spirit, the Son of God is the JfzWand Word of the Father 6 .’ ” We have distinct evidence of the use which the heathen made of this doctrine. The heathen Celsus urged on Christians their inconsistency in objecting to the practice of the heathen in adoring many gods, when they themselves adored Jesus Christ in addi¬ tion to the Supreme God. The reply of Origen was grounded on the words of our Lord, “ I and my Father are one* f —the perfect unity of the Godhead, which is the essential basis of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, thus preserving the grand distinction in principle between true religion and polytheism. 6. But this distinction was again destroyed by the d Newman, Arlans of the e Origen, adv. Cels. 1. viii. Fourth Century, p. 188. Oper. tom. i. p. 750. chap, x.] Worship of Saints Examined. doctrine of Arius, who acknowledged and worshipped in Jesus Christ a second Deity, created by, and in¬ ferior to the Father. This doctrine, which was revived by the Socinians of the sixteenth century in its most essential featuresbroke down the barriers between Christianity and heathen polytheism; the principle of worshipping more gods than one being sanctioned, Christianity would have taken its place amongst the systems of heathenism: it could no longer have ap¬ peared as their antagonist. Exalted as was the place which Arius assigned to Jesus Christ in the economy of grace, and in the government of the Universe; still as a created Being, essentially different from the Father, He was nothing else but an inferior God. “ If,” says Mr. Newman, 44 the professions of the Arians are to be believed, thev confessed our Lord to be God, TrXrjpvf; 0£oe, yet at the same time to be infinitely distant from the perfections of the One eternal Cause. Here at once a ditheism is acknow¬ ledged ; but Athanasius pushes on the admission to that of an unlimited polytheism. 4 If,’ he says, 4 the Son were an object of worship for His transcendent f The chief difference be¬ tween the Arian and the So- cinian notions of the Godhead of Christ was, that the former supposed It to have existed be¬ fore the creation of the world, the latter to have been conferred in reward of His obedience on earth. Both parties agreed that He was to be adored. The Racovian Catechism contains the followingpassages: “ Quaest. Quid prceterea Dominus Jesus huic prcecepto primo addidit ? Resp. Id quod etiam Dominum Jesum pro Deo agnoscere tene- mur, id est, pro eo, qui in nos potestatem habet divinam, et cui nos divinum exhibere ho- norem obstricti sumus.” . . . “ Quaest. Quid vero sentis de iis hominibus , qui Christum nor invocant, nec adorandum cen sent ? Resp. Prorsus non esse Cbristianos sentio, cum reipsa Christum non habeant. Et licet verbis id negare non au- deant, reipsa negant tamen.” Catechis. Eccl. Polon. p. Ill, 115, ed. Racov. 1651. T Worship of Saints Examined. 274 [part I. glory, then every subordinate being is bound to worship his superior V ” The opponents of Arianism saw the bearing of this doctrine on the controversy between Christianity and heathenism; they felt that it was conclusively in favour of the latter. The Arian “ perfidy ” consisted not merely in the denial and rejection of the Son of God; but in the betrayal of the principle of Mono¬ theism which lies at the root of all true religion. It was for this reason that the Fathers so uniformly imputed to Arianism an essential agreement with the heathen polytheism and idolatry. They justly regarded them as one and the same in principle 1 '. 8 Arians, p. 249. h Thus Ambrose (de Fide, lib. i. cap. i.): “ Assertio autem nostrae fidei haec est, ut unum Deum esse dicamus : neque ut Gentes Filium separemus . . . neque ut Arius plures credendo et dissimiles potestates, plures deos Gentili errore faciamus, quia scriptum est: Audi, Israel, Dominus Deus tuus Deus unus est.” Cap. v. “ Si Patre posterior est, recens est: et si unius non est Divinitatis, alienus est. Sed nec posterior, quia recens non est: nec alienus, quia ex Patre natus, quia super omnia est Deus benedictus in saecula, sicut scriptum est. Sed si alienum putant, cur adorant eum, cum scriptum sit: Neque adorabis Deum alienum ? Aut si non adorant, fateantur, et finis est, ne quern sub religiosi nominis professione decipiant.” Thus also Cyril Alexandrinus (De Sancta Trinitate, Dialog, v. Oper. t. v. p. 566): Ov/covr , el fir} (frvfTEi /cat aXrjdioQ Qeor elvat 7T£7rt(TT£UKa(Ti rov Y tor, KTiafia 7rov xdrTOjg, /cat erepo v 7TCtpd TOVTO OVC£V £11} CLV. £7U C£ ye to~iq M(5e (jipovelv rjprifxevoic;, olfiai ir/ 7rp£7V£Lv £K£~iro elnelv, K. T. X. . . EtTCl ri TCpOGKVVE'lV eyvojicctffir ov role rrjc Krlaeuig ey SaracenfioviTL fierpoiQ , /cat ri)Q /card 7 rdvTMV ovauoiovc vrrepo- ^rjc cvfTffefioin’TEc caraWdrTOvai ; /c.r.X. Vide Dial. iv. p. 512. The same argument is employed by Hilary (de Trinit. 1. viii. 28) : “ Scisne nunc hseretice, in quo Spiritu dicas Christum creaturam ? Cum enim in ana- themate sint, qui servierunt creaturse potius quam Creatori; Christum creaturam confitens, quid sis intellige, qui non ig¬ nores quia in maledicto sit religio creaturae.” The following passage from the Jesuit Petavius, supplies ample additional evidence to the same effect: “ Hinc per- multi veterum Patrum Arianos idololatras vocare consueverunt, quod eum quern creaturam fate- chat, x.] Worship of Saints Examined. 275 In this view the author of “ the Essay on Develop¬ ment,” has, on several occasions, stated his full con- bantur, adorare tamen sese di- cerent, ac nihil eos differre ab gentilibus asserunt: ut inter caeteros Athanasius (Orat. i. cont. Arian. et Orat. iv. p. 263), Basilius (Horn. 27, cont. Sabell. et Arian.), Gregorius Nyssenus (Lib. de Fide ad Simpl. t. ii. p. 470), cujus locus mibi quidem contra Arianam perfidiam luculentissimus vi- detur, ob idque describendus. Jubet, inquit, Deus per pro- phetam , nullum recentem Deum arbitrari Deum,, neque adorare Deum alienum. Atqui perspi- cuum est id recens appellari, quod non est ex ceterno : et e contrario rursus ceternum di- citur, quod non est recens. Qui igitur non ex ceterno unigenitum Deum ex Patre esse credit, re¬ centem, eum esse non negat. Quod enim ceternum non est, recens omnino est: quidquid autem recens est, Deus non est: quemadmodum Scriptura dicit; Non erit in te Deus alienus. Ita- que qui dicit aliquando ilium non fuisse, hie ejus divinitatem negat. “ Ac Cyrillus quidem in Dia- logo quarto de Trinitate tale esse dogma istud haereticorum ostendit, qui Filium neque verum esse Deum, et tamen adorandum venerandumque di- cebant, uti Gentiles, qui ad Christianam fidem conversi sunt, nihilo meliorem in statum, quam in quo dudum erant, translati fuerint. Nametcrea- turas adorare, iisque servire, et plures confitej-i deos nihilo- minus pergunt, si Arianos au- diunt. Ac Gentiles quidem ita creaturce potius, quam Creatori serviebant, et his, qui non sunt dii , ut primum deitatis locum attribuerent uni alicui, et sum- mo fabricatori hujus universi- tatis Deo, ait Irenaeus (lib. ii. c. 9) : Eodem ergo modo et Ariani Deum habebant, adora- bantque Filium: sed supra hunc alium supremum locabant. Quos quidem acri oratione me- rito sic Faustinus objurgat : Respice ad Apostolum Paulum , considera quee opprobria, quas obscenitates de Us referat, qui, ut ipse ait, commutaverunt veri- tatem Dei in mendacio, et colu- erunt et servierunt creaturce potius quam Creatori. Tu si sic credis, et si colis, et servis unigenito Filio Dei, ut dicas ilium esse creaturam, ilia te mala, miser, expectant, qnibus illi puniuntur, qui commutave¬ runt veritatem Dei in mendacio , §c. “ Postremo non minus gravis, quam vera est ilia Basilii (lib. ii. cont. Eunom. p. 61) ejus- dem haeresis notatio ; Cum multa sint qiiibus Christianis- mus ab Gentili err ore et Ju- daica inscitia discernitur ; nul¬ lum ad id potius esse dogma in salutari nostro Evangelio quam fidem in Patrem et Filium. Nam Creatorem, et opificem Deum etiam ii fatentur, qui quoeunque a nobis errore separantur. sit vero qui Patrem /also appella- tum, et Filium voce tenus pree- dicat, nee inter esse putat, Pa¬ trem an Creatorem, et Filium , an facturam dixerit , it hi ilium 9 276 Worship of Saints Examined. [pat?t i. currence. One passage has been just quoted ; another shall be here added. In explaining the imputation of ungodliness (aflconjg) to the Arians, he remarks, that one 44 reason for the title seems to have lain in the idolatrous character of Arian worship on its own showing, viz. as worshipping One whom they yet maintained to be a creature 1 .” Again, “The Arians were in the dilemma of holding two Gods or worship¬ ing the creature, unless they denied to our Lord both Divinity and worship V’ The works of St, Athanasius, too, on which he was commenting, furnish the most striking evidence of the same view of Arianism. “ If,” says Athanasius, “it be not so, but the Word is a creature and a work out of nothing, either He is not true God, because He is Himself one of the creatures, or if they name Him God from regard for the Scrip¬ tures, they must of necessity say that there are two Gods, one Creator and the other Creature, and must serve two Lords, one ingenerate, and the other generate and a creature . . . And with such senti¬ ments they will certainly be going on to more Gods, for this will be the essay of those who revolt from the One God. Wherefore, then, when the Arians have these speculations and views, do they not rank themselves with the Gentiles? For they, too, as these, worship the creature more than the Creator reponemus ? aut cui parti annu- merabimus , Judceorum , an Gen- tilium ? Non enim Christianis seipsum adscribet , qui vim pie - tatis, ac velut characterem cultus nostri et religionis ejurat. Vide Gregor. Nazian. Orat. 40." Petavius, de Trinitate, iib. ii. cap. xii. sect, vi. No doubt can remain in any reasonable mind, after the perusal of this passage, that the ,4rian worship of Christ involved the principle of polytheism, and was charge¬ able with idolatry. 1 Library of the Fathers, vol. viii. p. 3. j P. 423. chap, x.] Worship of Saints Examined. 277 of all; and though they shrink from the Gentile name, in order to deceive the unskilful, yet they secretlv hold a like sentiment with them k .” Such is the sentiment of Athanasius, repeated continually in his controversies with the Arians. 7. Arianism had its subterfuges and pleas by which it sought to evade the charge of idolatry. When it was objected by the orthodox that the worship of a creature as God was idolatrous, and that divine worship was by the word of God restricted to God alone, they could readily answer, that an inferior worship was, of course, offered to Christ, while supreme worship was reserved for God the Father. They might have pointed out the absurdity of imputing to them the same worship in the one case as in the other; when, according to their belief, the one Being was a creature, and the other the Creator. This was the distinction afterwards taken by the Socinians, who paid an infe¬ rior worship to Christ as to a created God'. But if this distinction was sufficient to clear Arians and Socinians from the charge of idolatry, it was evidently sufficient to protect the Gentiles from the same im¬ putation; for the distinction was perfectly recognized in their theology; nor did they always protest o offer to inferior Deities the same kind or degree of worship k Discourse iii. Lib. Fathers, p. 423. 1 The Arians, according to Petavius, pretended that they worshipped Christ (t^etucuiq, or with a relative and inferior worship (de Trinit. lib. ii. c. xii. sect. vii.). So also the So¬ cinians, in the Racovian Cate¬ chism : “ Quaest. Ergo is honor et cultus Christo ad eum modxim tribuitur, tit nullum sit inter Christum, et I) eum hoc in genere discrimen ? Resp. Imo per- magnum est. Nam adoramus et cob mus Deuni tanquam Causam primam salutis nos- trae ; Christum tanquam secun- dam ; aut, ut cum Paulo lo- quamur, Deum tanquam eum ex quo omnia, Christum ut eum, per quern omnia.” 278 Worship of Saints Examined. [part i. which they offered to those of superior power 111 . If, then, the Arian worship of the Son be lawful in prin¬ ciple and consistent with Christianity, the essential principle of polytheism is admitted, and the imputa¬ tion of idolatry is at an end; or rather, idolatry is allowed to be lawful, and the Catholic Church is condemned 11 . 8. Now to this point precisely “the Theory of Development ” conducts us. The worship of the blessed Virgin arid of the Saints and Angels, has been gradually developed in the Church; and has at length assumed a form which is considered by its opponents to include the essential characteristics of idolatry. The Essayist, admitting, as he does, the late introduction of this worship into the Christian Church, finds an anticipation and justification of its essential idea in the Arian theology, and the deal¬ ings of the Church with it. The Arian “ controversy,” he observes, “ opened m Augustine takes notice of this distinction : “ Qui autem putant, haec visibilia sacrificia diis aliis congruere, illi vero [Deo] tanquam invisibili invi- sibilia, et majori major a, meliori- qne meliora , qualia sunt purae mentis et bonse voluntatis offi- cia ; profecto nesciunt, haec ita esse signa illorum, sicut verba sonantia signa sunt rerum.” Civ. Dei, 1. x. c. xix. The dis¬ tinction indeed is so obvious, that it could not possibly have escaped notice. n Petavius very justly ob¬ serves, on the Arian defence against the imputation of idol¬ atry, that this plea would jus¬ tify polytheism. “ Non est difficile fried dee istius cavilla- o tionis inanitatem arguere, itidem ut Athanasius, Cyrillus, aliique faciunt. Nam si divino cultu ac veneratione Dei Filium ideo prosequimur, quod imago sit veri Dei, non per se ac vere Deus . . . licebit etiam creatis rebus caeteris, eundem honorem habere, imprimis homini, qui et imago ipse Dei est, et Deum in se (jytTiKGiQ continet.” De Trin. lib. ii. c. xii. sect. 7. The plea of relative worship, of course authorizes the offering of sacri¬ fices, and every other mode of external worship to inferior deities, and even idols. If this distinction justified the Arians, or if it now justifies Roman¬ ists, it must equally justify Pa¬ ganism. CHAP. X.] Worship of Saints Examined . 279 a question which it did not settle. It discovered a new sphere, if we may so speak, in the realms of light, to which the Church had not yet assigned its inhabitant. Arianism had admitted that our Lord was both the God of the evangelical covenant, and the actual Creator of the Universe; but even this was not enough, because it did not confess Him to be the One, Everlasting, Infinite, Supreme Being, but to be made by Him. It was not enough with that heresy to proclaim Him to be begotten ineffably before all worlds; not enough to place Him high above all creatures as the type of all the works of God’s hands; not enough to make Him the Lord of His Saints, the Mediator between God and man, the Object of worship, the Image of the Father; not enough, because it was not all; and between all, and any thing short of all, there was an infinite interval. The highest of creatures is levelled with the lowest in comparison of the One Creator Himself. That is, the Nicene Council recognized the eventful principle, that while we believe and profess any being to be a creature, such a being is really no God to us, though honoured by us with whatever high titles and with whatever homage. Arius and Asterius did all but confess that Christ was the Almighty; they said much more than St. Bernard or St. Alphonso have since said of St. Mary; yet they left Him a creature and were found wanting.” “ Thus there was 4 a wonder in Heaven : ’ a throne was seen, far above all created powers, mediatorial, intercessory; a title archetypal; a crown bright as the morning star; a glory issuing from the Eternal Throne; robes pure as the heavens; and a sceptre over all; and who was the predestined heir of that '280 Worship of Saints Examined . [part i. Majesty ? . . . The vision is found in the Apocalypse, a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars. The votaries of Mary do not exceed the true faith, unless the blasphemers of her Son came up to it. The Church of Rome is not idolatrous, unless Arianism is orthodoxy 0 .” The extraordinary nature of this extract will excuse its transcription at length. In order that no mistake may arise as to the author’s meaning, he describes the doctrine which is here inculcated as the “ Deifi¬ cation of St. Mary.” The first observation which naturally occurs on the perusal of the above passage is, that the learned author appears to have wholly forgotten, that poly¬ theism and idolatry are not necessarily connected with any belief in the equality of the objects of worship. Heathenism, after the promulgation of Christianity, for the most part recognized the exist¬ ence of a supreme Being, and yet it continued the worship of inferior and created gods. Such was the doctrine of the Neo-Platonists, and such at the pre¬ sent day is that of the Brahmins. Had the author borne this in mind, he could not have ventured to assert, as he has done, without the slightest attempt at proof, that the Nicene Council, in condemning the Arian heresy, considered that the titles and the worship attributed to our Lord by that heresy, were free from idolatry. The orthodox Fathers unani¬ mously declared them to be idolatrous and polythe¬ istic in principle, because they were attributed to One who was only acknowledged to be a creature. 0 Essay on Development, p. 405, 406. chap, x.] Worship of Saints Examined. 281 It is amazing, that in the face of the repeated asser¬ tions to this effect of St. Athanasius, Mr. Newman can attempt to attribute to the Council of Nice the justification of the principles involved in the Arian worship of our Lord. The position of the last named writer is, that while any being is acknowledged as a creature, we cannot fall into idolatry, “ whatever high titles,” and “ what¬ ever homage” we may pay to it p . If this be the case, the Platonists and the Brahmins are completely p This bold and sweeping as¬ sertion at once supersedes the necessity for the distinction which Romanists are fond of pointing out, between their worship of the Supreme God, and of the inferior “ deities,” whether saints, angels, or the “ Mother of God.” Sacrifice , they allege, is offered only to the Supreme Deity; prayers, invocations, lights, incense, and prostrations, to the others. But, on the principle of the Essay¬ ist, there could not be any idol¬ atry in offering sacrifice to the saints and angels, as long as they were regarded as crea¬ tures. Does it not seem that it would be a legitimate deve¬ lopment of the cultus of the saints, that the Mass should be offered to them, and not merely to their honour , as it now is ? On the principles of the Essay¬ ist, such a development would be truly pious. The Jesuit Perrone is of the same opinion as the Essayist: “ Ex statuto principio et illud infertur, nun- quam Catholicos superstitionis in cultu quern Sanctis tribuunt , argui posse. Si enim cultus pendet ab intentione colentis, et hcec a fide , quam colens profi- tetur , nisi Catholicus contra fidem quam profitetur agere velit , impossibile ipsi est, ut idolola- tria se commaculet , cum juxta professionem suam unus Deus sit latria colendus, creaturae autem, quaecunque sint, non nisi cultu inferioris ordinis, atque ut servi Dei, colendae, seu cultu dulise adorandse sint.” Praelect. Theol. t. iv. p. 340. This is certainly a very comfortable view of the case ; but how does it happen, if intention is every thing, that certain rites, such as these, are reserved to God ? “ Alia Deo soli reservata sunt, nec nisi Ipsi soli deferri possuilt; qualia sunt sacrificia , vota,jura- juranda, templorum inauguratio, ac ccetera hujusmodi ” (p. 339). It is absurd to restrict sacri¬ fices, vows, &c. to God, if there can be no idolatry while the objects of worship are acknow¬ ledged to be creatures. No reason can be assigned for any such restriction. And yet, if this restriction were at an end, Paganism would be, at once, openly established. 282 Worship of Saints Examined. [part i. justified: there can be no impropriety in admitting any assignable number of “ Gods q ,” if they are only acknowledged to be creatures; there can be no idolatry in worshipping them—in “ all but confess¬ ing them to be Almighty;” in recognizing in them the creators and governors of the world—in acknow¬ ledging with the Neo-Platonists their mediatorial powers'. On the principles, then, of this writer, Christianity includes the whole theory of polytheism, and is to be regarded merely as a branch of that ancient religion. In this view it is evident that the Catholic Church must have erred in the fourth cen¬ tury, in condemning those who worshipped angels; and in treating the Collyridians who worshipped the Virgin, as heretics and idolaters. No one has ever pretended, that the object of worship was, in either of these cases, regarded as more than a creature. The Collyridians and the Phrygians merely worshipped the angels and the Virgin as “Deities;” they believed with the Essayist in their “Deification;” but they could not possibly have supposed them equal with God, or uncreated. Such an absurdity has never yet been imputed to them. Consequently, according to the principles of the Essayist, these sects must have q As the Essay distinctly speaks of the “ Deification of the Saints” (p. 403) as well as of the Virgin, the number of inferior deities in Christianity, according to this view, fully rivals that of the deities of Paganism. r Apuleius, according to Au¬ gustine (Civit. Dei, viii. 18), urged the worship of demons, because they are appointed, lit quoniam nullus deus mis- cetur homini, quod Platonem dixisse perhibent, isti ad deos perferant preces hominum, et hide ad homines impetrata quse poscunt.” Again, c. 21 : “ Sed nimirum tantae hujus absurdi- tatis et indignitatis est magna necessitas, quod scilicet deos aetherios humana curantes quid agerent homines utique lateret, nisi daemones aerii nuncia- rent?” c hap. x.J Worship of Saints Examined. 283 been unjustly condemned by the Church, as they were not guilty of any idolatry. I believe it is scarcely necessary to make any ad¬ ditional remarks on this ingenious theory of the Essayist. If it affords a full and complete justifica¬ tion of polytheism, I suppose that it is needless to proceed any further. 9. But there is still one point which deserves notice. The author distinctly states, that the position and the worship attributed to the Virgin Mary in the Church of Rome, stand on the same ground as the Arian worship of our Lord, and are only defended by the same reasoning as that which exempts Arianism from the imputation of polytheism and idolatry. His notion of the position assigned by Romanists to the Virgin, has been acknowledged as perfectly correct, by the chief literary organ of Romanism in this country. “Mr. Newman,” says the Dublin Review, “ has here expressed more happily than probably it has ever been done before, the position assigned to the ever blessed Mother of our Lord in the devo¬ tional feelings of Catholics; immeasurably lower than that of her Son, but quite as high as heretics in an¬ cient and modern days have wished to allot to Him. But the passage itself, independent of the noble view which it presents, will not be less interesting on the ground of its evidence, how completely the writer had imbued his heart with Catholic feeling, while he was studying Catholic truth 5 .” Thus then Romanism, according to the state¬ ments of its advocates, attributes to the Virgin as a creature, precisely the same position and s Dublin Rev. No. xxxviii. Dec. 1845, p. 5o7. 281 Worship of Saints Examined. [part j. worship which, when ascribed to Christ as a creature, were denounced by the Fathers as Pagan and idola¬ trous; or, in other words, the worship of the Virgin as practised by Romanists, is such a worship as the primitive Church adjudged to be idolatrous. This is what we have been long urging in vain on the Church of Rome; and it is now established more conclusively than ever by her own advocates. There can be no doubt, I think, that if Athanasius, Ambrose, Cyril of Alexandria, Hilary, Basil, Gregory Nyssen, and the other Fathers who so earnestly contended for the faith against Arianism, were to revisit the earth, they would not admit to their communion those, who avowedly apply to the Virgin Mary the Arian worship of Jesus Christ. They would most assuredly regard those who may advocate such a doctrine, as polytheists and idolaters. They would detect the evasions by which its adherents endeavour to escape these imputations. They would tell them, that polytheism is perfectly consistent with the recogni¬ tion of One uncreated and Eternal Being; that idolatry is easily reconcilable with the ascription of supreme worship to this One Being. They would remind them, that these distinctions were employed by the Platonists and the other advocates of heathen¬ ism, to justify the worship of their false Deities. 10. The “ doctrine of development,” must here become the sole refuge of Romanism. The progress of ideas, the superior enlightenment of the middle ages, the imperfect comprehension of the idea of Christianity by the Fathers, must be its sole protec¬ tion against the adverse authority of the early Church: but in taking this course, a double fate awaits it; for in one direction Polytheism stands ready to CHAP. X.] Worship of Saints Examined. 285 congratulate it on the admission of all its own prin¬ ciples, and to extend accordingly the right hand of fraternity and fellowship to it; while in another, Rationalism offers its felicitations on the concession, that the early Church was unenlightened on the essential principles of Christianity; and, with the aid of this concession proceeds to demolish the doc¬ trine of the Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement, and finally to break down the authority of Holy Scrip¬ ture,—of revealed religion,—and of the Church of Christ. Let Romanism endeavour to retire from this em¬ barrassing position, and return to its old foundation of Tradition, Infallibility, and Church authority. Here again it is met by Rationalism and Infidelity, who claim its arguments and principles as conclusive against the authenticity, genuineness, and inspiration of Scripture, and therefore against Christianity itself. Let it deny the inferences of Rationalism from its arguments, and let it admit the authenticity and in¬ telligibility of Scripture; and the whole basis on which it rests its claims to infallibility is at an end: the principles of the Reformation become trium¬ phant. 11. There can be no reasonable doubt, I think, that the doctrine and practice of Romanism in regard to the position and the worship of creatures, are sub¬ versive of the essential idea of Christianity. The unity of God is included in that essential idea: it is the first article of the Christian creed. But this article is subverted, and polytheism is justified, by the principles and practice of Romanism. I have directed attention to the worship of the Virgin, or what the Essayist entitles the “ prerogatives of St. 286 Worship of Habits Examined. [part i. Mary,” because it furnishes the clearest evidence of the real state of the case ; nor does it seem necessary to pursue the subject further into detail, and to show how the same principle is involved in other branches of the “ cultus” of Saints and Angels. The author of the “ Essay on Development ” quotes the Council of Eliberis, and the language of Justin Martyr, to prove, that the Saints and Angels were worshipped and adored in the very first ages of Christianity f . The language of Justin Martyr, in particular, accord¬ ing to Mr. Newman’s interpretation, comprises the open avowal, in the face of the heathen world, that the angels were worshipped by Christians. This writer has justly observed, that “ it is possible to have too much evidence ; that is, evidence so full or exact, as to throw suspicion over the case for which it is adducedand if, as he admits, Christians were not likely, in the first ages, to entertain the question of the abstract allowableness of images in the Catholic ritual, with the actual superstitions and immoralities of Paganism before their eyes; if they were not likely to establish the worship of the Virgin, until the worship of God Incarnate had been “ duly se¬ cured 11 ;” it seems pretty evident that they would not have practised the worship of creatures, in any way, while Polytheism was ready to seize on every such practice as a justification of its own rites. It maybe added, that if the introduction of such worship was, on this account, unlawful in the primitive Church, it is equally so at the present day, because Christianity has still to maintain her cause against Polytheism. The Romanist is, in consequence of the principle and 1 Essay on Development, p. 376, 377. u P. 144, 145. chap, x.] Worship of Saints Examined '. 287 practice of his own communion, obliged to admit in argument with a Pagan, the principle of worshipping a plurality of gods, and of offering sacrifice and other rites before their idols. All that he can consistently attempt is, to substitute the worship of the Virgin, the Saints and Angels, for that of the inferior Deities of heathenism; to install their images in the place of the idols ; to confirm the distinction already exist¬ ing in the heathen mind between the supreme Deity, and the secondary Gods; and to substitute the Mass for animal sacrifices, restricting it (most arbitrarily and inconsistently on his own principles) to the su¬ preme Being. But in all this, polytheism and idolatry remain unchanged in principle: the only difference is, that Christianity has been converted into a species of polytheism. 288 Development of Purgatory Examined, [part t. CHAPTER XL DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY EXAMINED. There is an omission in the “ Essay on Development” which is not very easily accounted for. Amongst those doctrines and practices of the Church which were originally derived from notions supplied by Heresy or Heathenism, the author has forgotten to include one, which presents a striking and acknow¬ ledged resemblance to the prevalent belief of the ancient and modern heathen world : I allude to the doctrine of Purgatory. If the advocates of the Romish system have not been able to trace any very distinct proofs of this tenet in Scripture, or to esta¬ blish the fact of its derivation from the apostolical teaching; they have, at least, found no difficulty in convincing every reasonable mind, that not only the Mahommedans and Jews, but the Hindus, Chinese, Persians, and the oriental nations generally, have, in some shape or other, upheld the opinion, that sin is expiated , and the soul is purified by temporal penalties after this life. This doctrine was received by the adherents of the Platonic, Stoic, and Pythagorean philosophies; and was inculcated by Homer, Virgil, and other writers who represented the popular belief chap, xi.] Development of Purgatory Examined . 289 of Greece and Rome”. The universality of belief, even amongst heathens, in the existence of purga¬ torial inflictions after death, is urged by Romish theologians as a conclusive argument in support of the doctrine. a Be’llarmine, de Purgatorio, lib. i. c. xi., refers to the heathen doctrines on this subject; and Perrone observes, that it is not surprising that some Protest¬ ants have admitted a state of expiation after this life ; “ cum pro hoc statu pugnet quodam- modo universum genus huma- num, sive quodam ipsius naturae instinctu, sive, quod longe pro- babilius existimo, ex antiqua traditione.” After remarking that it is believed by Jews and Mahommedans, he proceeds thus: “ConveniuntEthnici,turn Graeci, turn Romani. Etenim Clem. Alexan. refert, Stoicos credidisse statum expiationis post mortem, quern vocabant Efjnrvpiocnt'. Doctrina Pythago- raeorum circa metempsychosin eidem fundamento innititur. Graeci passim vocant mortuos KEK/jLrjKoreg et Kctporrac, id est, gatientes, laborantes , &c. Hinc Homerus, Iliad, iii. et ex eo Virgilius, iEneid. lib. vi. v.441, memorat lugentes campos , ac v. 740 et seq. pluribus describit eos qui . . . exercentur poems, vete- rumque malorum Supplicia expendunt. Claudianus similiter, in Ruffi- num, lib. ii. v. 491. Quos ubi per varios annos , per mille figuras Egit Lethceo purgatos fiu- mine, &c. Plato ipse, turn alibi, turn in Dialog, de Animo , docet animas inluto ettenebrisdetineri,quam- diu penitus purgatae sint. Sic etiam Persae. Zoroaster enim apud Eusebium, Prcep. Evang. loquitur de transmigratione ani- marum per duodecim zodiaci signa, priusquam emaculatae perveniant ad eoelestem beati- tudinem. Sic Indi, &c.” Per¬ rone, Praelect. Theolog. Tract, de Deo Creatore, vol. iii. p. 316—319. The doctrine of Purgatory, i. e. of the expiation of unre¬ pented sin by temporal penalties after this life, was also taught by the Anabaptists, according to Gerhard (Loci Theol.l. xxxi. c. vi. sect. 62), who says : “ Anabaptistae superiori saeculo docere cceperunt, omnes dam- natos atque ipsos Diabolos tan¬ dem salvandos esse , et pcenis sen cruciatibus ipsorum, quos pec- catis suis promeriti sunt , finem aliquando impositum iri. Au¬ gust. Confess, art. xvii. Bullin- ger, lib. ii. contra Anabaptist, cap. 15.” The Socinians, Men- nonites, Dlinkers, Shakers, and Uni versalists, have also general¬ ly maintained this doctrine. See Archbishop Magee, Discourses on Atonement and Sacrifice , vol. ii. p. 389, 396—398, 3rd ed. Adams’ Religious World Displayed , vol. iii. p. 382— 384. Jews, Turks, Infidels, and Heretics ! A goodly array of authorities truly! U 290 Development of Purgatory Examined . [part t. 2. We have already seen, that, according to Mr. Newman, the doctrine of purgatory is not, as Wise¬ man and the generality of the Romish controver¬ sialists have contended, an apostolical tradition; but a development gradually wrought out by the Church. It now remains to trace the particular process of thought by which, in the opinion of the Essayist, it was developed. The origin of the doctrine of purgatory, then, is traced to the question, How was the guilt of sin, committed after baptism, to be removed 15 ? This ques¬ tion “ was felt to be so intimately and acutely per¬ sonal by the early Christians, that they delayed the rite, as Christians now delay attendance on the Holy Eucharist;” and accordingly, various instances maybe pointed out in ecclesiastical history, of children of Christian parents who were not baptized during their childhood 0 . 44 The primitive Fathers,” however, 44 appear to have conceived that the Church was em¬ powered to grant one, and one only, reconciliation after grievous offences ; at least, this was the practice of the times.” A more indulgent rule, however, gradually gained ground; but in no case was recon¬ ciliation granted until severe penances had been undergone 11 . 44 Here a serious question presented itself to the minds of Christians, which was now to be wrought out:—Were these punishments merely signs of con¬ trition, or, in any sense, satisfactions for sin ? If the former, they might be absolutely remitted at the discretion of the Church, as soon as true repentance was discovered; the end had then been attained, and b Essay on Development, p. 410. c P. 411. d P. 413, 414. chap, xi.] Development of Purgatory Examined. 291 nothing more was necessary. . . . Yet, though there might be a reason of the moment for shortening the penance imposed by the Church, this does not at all decide the question, whether that ecclesiastical pe¬ nance be not part of an expiation made to the Almighty Judge for the sin; and supposing this really to be the case, the question follows, How is the comple¬ ment of that satisfaction to be wrought out, which on just grounds of present expedience has been sus¬ pended by the Church now?” “As to this question, it cannot be doubted that the Fathers considered penance as not a mere ex¬ pression of contrition, but as an act done directly towards God and a means of averting his anger e .” In proof of this, Ambrose, Jerome, Cyprian, and e It may be observed here, that the doctrine of Satisfaction, as stated by Mr. Newman in this place, is simply this: that works of penance or satisfac¬ tions are necessary to acquire remission of sin. The doctrine that satisfaction obtains the re¬ mission only of the temporal penalties of sin, is not put for¬ ward. Morinus, de Discipl . Sacramenti Poenitentice, lib. iii. c. xi., observes, that Christian antiquity did not hold the latter doctrine, which, however, is now universally received in the Roman Church. “ Alterum discipline poenitentialis funda- mentum, quod nobis hujus libri initio explicandum proposui- mus, hoc est axioma Christia- norum omnium animis a Patribus insinuatum , satisfactiones ab Ecclesia impositas, diligenter et strenue peractas, non tantum pcence temporaries sed etiam, ceternee satisfactorias esse, et expunctrices, animam purgare et emaculare , Dei misericordiam inpeccatores allicere, etscelerum veniam ab eo impetrare ... Non dubito, inquit Joannes Maldo- natus, quin omnes veteres Au- thores satisfactionem agnoverint pro culpa. Nam non putabant Deum culpam remittere pec- catorum, priusquam extends poenitentiis Deum placassent : neque sacerdotes putabant dare posse poenitenti Absolutionem, priusquam, quasi interpretes Divine voluntatis, viderent earn poenitentiam egisse peccatorem, ut credibile esset Deum jam illi esse placatum.” The doc¬ trine of all modern Romish di¬ vines, e.g. Tournely, Perrone, Wiseman, limits the efficacy of satisfaction to removing the temporal penalties of sin, as distinguished from its eternal penalties and its guilt. u 2 292 Development of Purgatory Examined. [part i. Basil, are quoted; after which the writer continues: “ If so, the question follows which was above con¬ templated,—if, in consequence of death, or the exer¬ cise of the Church’s discretion, the plena pcenitentia is not accomplished in its ecclesiastical shape, how and when will the residue be exacted f ?” According to the Essayist, Clemens Alexandrinus taught, that it will be accomplished after this life; and Cyprian, the Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas, Cyril of Jerusalem, and others, are quoted to the same effect 8 . The sum of the argument is this :—In the opinion of the early Church, sins committed after baptism were only pardoned by God, when works of satis¬ faction or penance had been duly performed. If, then, (they further reasoned,) satisfaction be not per¬ formed in this life, there must be equivalent penal¬ ties in the next. This is, doubtless, a simple and intelligible argument; and Mr. Newman, who con¬ tends for the legitimacy of the development, adduces this process of reasoning as an example of “ logical sequence.” 3. I am not now concerned to examine whether Mr. Newman is justified in attributing any such process of reasoning as he here describes, to the primitive church. He himself, as we shall see, proposes else¬ where a different theory on this subject. Setting aside, therefore, the question whether the argument is, or is not, that of the primitive Church; let us con¬ sider its validity in itself. According to this doctrine, then, the pardon of sin cannot be acquired unless certain temporal satisfac- 1 Essay, p. 414, 415. 8 P. 415—417. chap, xi.] Development of Purgatory Examined . 293 tions are made by the sinner to an offended God, or in their default, certain penalties are exacted from him. Pardon is to be gained only on these indis¬ pensable conditions. If, then, Penance be thus essen¬ tial to pardon, and yet may be wrought out by suf¬ fering penalties after this life, there is no reason why Contrition and Confession, or the remainder of the expiation due to God for sin, should not be equally effective after this life; or why their absence in this life should not be compensated for by purgatorial inflictions in the next. If it be admitted, that the actual performance of works of satisfaction or penance is not an essential part of repentance, the difficulty is, of course, at an end; but so is the doctrine of purgatory also. If, on the other hand, it be essen¬ tial, as Mr. Newman and the Romanists generally contend, it follows that sins will be pardoned here¬ after which have not been repented of in this life; or, in other words, the punishment of sin in the next life will not be eternal, but temporal; and thus the doctrine of the Origenists, Platonists, Socinians, Ra¬ tionalists, Buddhists, and Brahmins, who believe that the future punishments of sin will not be eternal, is established; in opposition to the language of Holy Scripture, the Athanasian Creed, and the definitions of the Fifth (Ecumenical Synod. The Metempsy¬ chosis taught by Origen, after the Pythagorean and oriental philosophy, becomes, at this point, perfectly credible as a means of purification; while the sinner has before him the prospect of ultimate salvation, although he may have never repented of his sins in this life. This is not merely the result of Mr. Newman’s argument; it is that to which the reasoning of all 294 Development of Purgatory Examined. [part i. the most eminent Roman Catholic theologians leads. Thus they refer to the book of Maccabees, and to the New Testament, to prove that sins will be forgiven hereafter which are not forgiven in this life h . Their interpretations of the passages cited, and their argu¬ ments from the ancient liturgies, in which prayer is made for the dead, alike concur to show, that those who have departed without having acquired the pardon of their sins, or who are not in a state of justification at the close of life, will, in a future state, obtain remission of sins. This conclusion is, indeed, directly contrary to the faith of the Roman Church, which consigns those who die in unrepented mortal sin to eternal punishment; nevertheless it follows legitimately from the arguments on which the doctrine of purgatory is supported. 4. This result is startling enough; but Romanism has prevented itself from actually coming to such a conclusion: it has contrived to loosen one of the foundation-stones of the dangerous fabric. The whole theory, as we have seen, depends on the necessity of penance. But what are we to say, or rather what is Mr. Newman to say, to the fact, that Romanists do not hold the actual performance of satisfaction or penance to be an essential condition to the pardon 11 Thus Perrone: “ Vere igi- tur Ecclesiam doctrinam suam de purgatorio ex sacris litteris in primis hausisse, quoad Vetus Testamentum, monumentum in¬ eluctable habetur 2 Machab. xii. 43 ... ‘ Sancta ergo et sa- lubris est cogitatio pro defunctis exorare, ut apeccatis solvantur.’ Quae peremptorii testimonii verba perspicua sunt adeo, ut nulla indigeant explanatione . . Idem patet quoad Novum Tes¬ tamentum ex iis, quae Matth. xii. 32, Christus protulit ; ‘ Quicunque dixerit, &c.’ Qui- bus verbis non obscure Christus alludit ad receptam apud Ju- daeos persuasionem, nonnulla peccata etiam in futuro sceculo remitti.” Tract, de Deo Crea- tore, Praelect. Theolog. vol. iii. p. 311. See Bellarmine, de Purgatorio, lib. i. c. iii. iv. chap, xi.] Development of Purgatory Examined. 295 of sins? The force of the argument advanced by Mr. Newman in support of the doctrine of purgatory, rests on the supposition that it is essential. It is from this absolute necessity that the doctrine of future suffering, in default of penance, is inferred. And undoubtedly, the Council of Trent speaks in the most decisive manner on this point. Penance or satisfaction is, according to its acts and decrees, essential to the remission of sins 1 . Nevertheless, it has been for centuries the universal practice in the Roman Church to pronounce Absolution, or to recon¬ cile penitents and declare them fully absolved from sin, before penances or satisfactions are performed ; and it is the received doctrine of her writers, that satisfaction or penance is not an essential , but only an integral part of the sacrament of penance; and that absolution given to a penitent who is contrite and has confessed his sins, is valid without any satis¬ faction j . 1 “ The acts of the penitent himself, that is, contrition, con¬ fession, and satisfaction, are, as it were, the matter of this Sa¬ crament ; which, inasmuch as they are required by the Divine institution to the completeness of the sacrament, and the full and perfect remission of sins, are for this reason called parts of repentance.” Sessio xiv. cap. iii. “ It is agreeable to the Divine goodness, that our sins should not be forgiven without satisfaction , lest, taking occasion therefrom, we should think lightly of them, &c.” Ib. cap. viii. “ If any one deny that, in order to the full and perfect remission of sins, three acts are requisite in the penitent (con¬ stituting, as it were, the matter of the sacrament of penitence), that is to say, contrition, con¬ fession, and satisfaction, which are called the three parts of repentance ... let him be anathema.” Sess. xiv. can. iv. There cannot be any question, after this, that satisfaction or penance is regarded by the Synod of Trent as essential to the pardon of sin. j Satisfaction, says Ligo- rio (Theologia Moralis, t. vi. p. 122), or penance imposed by a confessor, “ est necessaria non necessitate sacramenti, sed prcecepti . . . est pars sacra¬ menti non essentialis , sed inte¬ grals tantum .” Tournely says : “ Communis theologorum sen- 296 Development of Purgatory Examined. [part i. Now, if this be the case,—if the actual perform¬ ance of satisfaction or penance be not essential to absolution or remission of sins, it is evident that we have no right to conclude, that if such satisfaction be omitted in this life, sin can only be remitted when the defect of satisfaction has been expiated by tem¬ porary or purgatorial penalties in the next life. But besides this, there is another point which is well deserving of attention. We have seen that the Council of Trent is distinct and positive in its decla¬ rations, that satisfaction, or penance, is requisite to the remission of sin; while the universal practice of the Church of Rome, and the sentiments of her divines show, that sin may be forgiven without the actual performance of penance. How can they reconcile this apparent contradiction in the Church of Rome? There is but one mode of solving the difficulty : it is by supposing that virtual satisfaction, i. e. the will or intention of performing works of re¬ pentance, is accepted instead of actual satisfaction; when the latter cannot be performed. This would be merely carrying out the analogy of the received principle, that where sacraments cannot be obtained, the wish or intention of receiving them is sufficient for salvation. Now, on this principle, it is easy to answer the question propounded by Mr. Newman as the basis of the argument for purgatory. How, he asks, are satisfactions, which have not been made in tentia post Concil. Trident, assignat tres actus poenitentis, nempe contritionem, confessio- nem, et satisfactionem pro ma¬ teria proxima sacramenti Poe- nitentise ; duos quidem priores pro materia essentiali, tertium vero, nempe satisfactionem, pro materia integrante.” De Poeni- tentia, tom. i. p. 108. And afterwards : “ Sine ilia (satis- factione) valet absolutio data poenitenti contrito ^t confesso.” Ibid. p. 118. chap, xi.] Development of Purgatory Examined. 297 this life, to be expiated? I answer,—on his own principles,—If satisfaction has not, either actually or virtually, been performed, then, according to the doctrines of the Fathers and of the Council of Trent, sin cannot be remitted , and future punishment must be eternal: if, on the other hand, satisfaction has been virtually performed, that is to say, performed in will or intention, and God then calls away the penitent from this life, there is no more reason to suppose that He will inflict future temporal penalties on him for the want of actual satisfaction, than there is to imagine that He would consign to eternal punishment a believer who had just been baptized and had performed no actual good works, or who had departed with the wish to receive baptism and the Eucharist. If “ logical sequence ” be, in reality, a test of a true development, it seems clear, that the doctrine of Purgatory is not a true development of the doc¬ trines of post-baptismal sin and satisfaction. I am not now concerned to examine these doctrines as represented by Mr. Newman. Such an examination would involve a discussion more lengthened than I wish to enter on. It may be enough to record a protest against the notion that the primitive Church did not generally baptize infants; or that works of penance were considered to have any efficacy in pro¬ curing the remission of sin, independent of the prin¬ ciple of faith and repentance from which they flowed. * 5. But it must not be forgotten, that the author of the Essay has provided another theory of Purgatory, which may possibly be more satisfactory than that which we have been considering. The former theory 298 Development of Purgatory Examined . [part i. derived the necessity of Purgatory from the accidental failure of some of the means of averting God’s anger at sin k : it related to the case of those who are sinners, and as such deserving of eternal punishment. But the theory which we are now to consider, applies to a very different class. “ Plow Almighty God will deal with the mass of Christians , who are neither very bad nor very good , is a problem, which . . . when it has once forced itself upon the mind,” obliges us in self-defence “ to ima¬ gine modes, not by which God does , (for that would be presumptuous to conjecture) but by which He may solve the difficulty. Most men , to our appre¬ hensions, are too unformed in religious habits either for heaven or for hell, yet there is no middle state when Christ comes in judgment. In consequence it is obvious to have recourse to the interval before His coming, as a time during which this incomplete¬ ness might be remedied . . . When the mind once allows itself to speculate, it will discern in such a provision a means whereby those, who, not without true faith at bottom, yet have committed great crimes , or those who have been carried off in youth while yet undecided , or who die after a barren though not an immoral or scandalous life, may receive such chastisement as may prepare them for heaven, and render it consistent with God’s justice to admit them thither . . . The mind will inevitably dwell upon such thoughts, unless it has been taught to subdue them by education or by experience of their danger¬ ousness 1 .” Such theories as these, it seems, led men to examine Scripture on the subject; and “ from k Essay on Development, p. 414, 415. 1 P. 417, 418. chap, xi.] Development of Purgatory Examined. 299 what was there found, and from the speculations of reason upon it, various notions have been hazarded;” for instance, 44 that there is a certain momentary ordeal to be undergone by all men after this life, more or less severe according to their spiritual state; or that certain gross sins in good men will be thus visited, or their lighter failings and habitual imperfections;” and certain texts in holy Scripture, such as, 44 The fire shall try every man’s work,” &c. and 44 He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire,” led the 44 early Christians ” to believe in a purgatorial fire after death, by which such cases were provided for m . 6. This theory, then, is based on the notion, that the great mass of men are neither very bad nor very good, and are, accordingly, unfitted either for heaven or hell. And the inference drawn is, that they must be purified by sufferings in the intermediate state. This certainly is, altogether, a very consolatory doc¬ trine : it exempts from all fear of hell the majority of mankind, who live a merely 44 barren though not an immoral or scandalous life.” It reverses our Lord’s declaration, that 44 wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat.” Nor does it leave without hope, those who have combined belief in Christ with 44 great crimes.” The doctrine of Purga¬ tory was, according to the Essayist, derived from speculations on the probability of salvation in such cases as these; and although it is admitted that these speculations were 44 dangerous,” there is no evidence that the doctrine of Purgatory does not meet their m Essay, p. 419, 420. 300 Development of Purgatory Examined. [part i. requirements, and enable men to believe that salva¬ tion is attainable in such cases. If, indeed, the great mass of mankind, who according to human judgment are of no decided character, will be finally saved by means of purgatorial inflictions, there seems no reason whatever to close the door of hope on those who may have died in unrepented sin, after having per¬ formed some good works; or on those who have neither performed any good works, nor committed any grievous crimes. 7. How far these speculations;—how far the notion, that Purgatory is for the justification of those who are neither good nor bad, “ neither hot nor cold;” who are of that new species of creatures unknown to the Gospel, who are servants at once of “ two masters,” of God and of Satan, of Righteousness and Sin; or still more strange, who are servants neither of the one nor the other;—how far the justi¬ fication of such persons, without any process of re¬ pentance; without any satisfaction or penance; with¬ out the performance of good works; without any faith productive of good works; without charity, or any of the fruits of the Spirit; or at least, without some of these; is consistent with the doctrine of justification, as taught by the Council of Trent; it is indeed most difficult to comprehend. Let us consider for a moment the doctrine of justi¬ fication, according to the Tridentine definitions, in the language of Mohler. “ The Council of Trent describes justification to be an exaltation from the state of sinfulness to that of grace, and of adoption of the children of God ; that is to say, an annihilation of the union of the will with the sinful Adam, a removal of original sin, chap, xi.] Development of Purgatory Examined. 301 and of every other sin committed before justification, and the contraction of fellowship with Christ, the Holy and the Just One,—a state which is, in a nega¬ tive sense, that of remission of sin, and in a positive sense, that of Sanctification. The Council further represents justification as a renewal of the inward man, by means whereof we become really just, as inherent in the believer, and as a restoration of the primeval state of humanity. On this account, the same synod observes, that by the act of justification, Faith, Hope, and Charity, are infused into the heart of man; and that it is only in this way he is truly united with Christ, and becometh a living member of his body. In other words, justification is con¬ sidered to be sanctification and forgiveness of sins, as the latter is involved in the former, and the former in the latter: it is considered an infusion of the love of God into our hearts, through the Holy Spirit; and the interior state of the justified man is regarded as holy feeling,—as a sanctified inclination of the will; as habitual pleasure and joy in the Divine Law,—as a decided and active disposition to fulfil the same in all the occurrences of life—in short, as a way of feel¬ ing, which is in itself acceptable and well pleasing to God. When God declares man to be just and well¬ pleasing to Him, he really is so". 1 ’ This principle, of the essential connexion between forgiveness of sin and sanctification, faith and good works, holiness and salvation; has been always urged by the advocates of the Roman Church; and by none more earnestly, elaborately, and continually, than by the author of “ the Essay on Development,” in his n Mohler, Symbolik , vol. ii. p. 147 (Engl, transl.). 302 Development of Purgatory Examined. [part i. former works, and his disciple, Mr. Ward. These writers have denounced the Reformation as heretical and anti-Christian, because, in their opinion, its doctrine of justification removed the necessity of good works to the remission of sins, acceptance with God, and salvation. Mr. Ward’s “Ideal of the Christian Church,” is based on this principle: the English Church—the Reformation in general—the Evangelical school—are all, in turn, the subject of denunciation, as teaching doctrines more wicked and blasphemous than those of Heathenism; and solely on this ground. But how can we reconcile this doctrine of the Council of Trent and of its supporters, with the theory by which we have seen the existence of purgatory defended? If justification be necessarily productive of good works, or is necessarily united with sanctifi¬ cation, what can be said of a theory which supposes salvation to be attained by those who, at their death, are not in a state of sanctification or justification,— by those who have committed sins without subse¬ quent contrition and works of satisfaction, or have not brought forth the fruits of good works? If persons dying without justification, and consequent sanctification, can be saved, it follows that per¬ sons may be saved without being united to Christ in this life, and consequently that belief in Chris¬ tianity is non-essential; and, further, that future punishments are temporal, or do not exist at all. If, on the other hand, no one can be saved without having repented of sin and attained justification and sanctification , there is no middle class of men, who are neither good nor bad, and are unfitted for either heaven orrhell: there are but two classes in this chap, xr.] Development of Purgatory Examined. SOS life, the just and the unjust; and we have no right to infer that any of those who depart will be purified by temporal punishments. 8. But let us examine this very notion of purgatorial “ punishments 0 .” Do not penalties imply guilt ? Do they not infer something which separates a soul from God ? It is supposed that these purifying pains are necessary to reconcile the “justice” of God with His mercy p ; that until they are endured, a soul is not fit for heaven, where nothing “ defiled” can enter. The doctrine then implies, that sin is remitted in consequence of suffering the penalties of purgatory. How is it possible to reconcile this with the notion, that the mass of mankind, who are of an undecided character for good or evil, are the subjects of purga¬ torial pains? If the “justice” of God requires to be appeased,—if the soul is “ defiled,” and therefore unfit to enter heaven,—it is evidently sinful: it is not in any undecided state. In addition to this it may be observed, that it seems difficult to reconcile such a theory with the justice of God. How can it be imagined that He would inflict any penalties on persons who are supposed to be neither just nor unjust f All that unaided human reason can infer in such a case is, that such persons would never attain either heaven or hell, but would be consigned for ever to a middle state, which should be neither a reward of goodness nor a punishment of sin. The theory there¬ fore goes to establish the eternity of a middle state, and is thus actually subversive of the notion of a purgatory, i. e. of temporary and purifying penalties. 9. We have now seen that the doctrine of Purgatory Essay, p. 422. o P P. 418. 304 Development of Purgatory Examined. [part t. was, according to the statements of Mr. Newman, de¬ veloped, first, from the doctrine of sin after baptism ; and, secondly, from the doctrine of a middle class of men unfitted either for heaven or hell. And we have further seen, that these two theories concur in esta¬ blishing the position, that sins which have not been remitted in this life, because unrepented of, are for¬ given hereafter, when the pains of purgatory have been endured; that those who have not been justi¬ fied or sanctified here, and have not brought forth good works, will, in a future life, after certain in¬ flictions, be pardoned. The Roman Church has not defined the nature or extent of the penalties exacted in purgatory. It is indeed the received doctrine, and no one ventures openly to deny it, that those penalties are intense and horrible, and that they are of the nature of the torments of hell. But as this is not actually an article of faith, it is allowable for individuals to entertain the milder opinion, which limits such penalties to deprivations of enjoyments, and rejects the notion of positive inflictions. It is not difficult to see the effect which is likely to be produced on those who are thus led to think, that notwithstanding the urgency of their Church in de¬ manding from them faith, good works, repentance, and sanctification in this life, they may in the end be saved without all or any of these conditions; when they shall, through God’s mercy, have been subjected to certain temporal penalties, which may be neither lengthened nor grievous. I am unable to perceive, with the author of the Essay on Develop¬ ment, that the doctrine is likely to lead to any bene¬ ficial moral results. “ Is a doctrine conceivable,” he enquires, “ which would so elevate the mind above chap, xt.] Development of Purgatory Examined . 305 this present state, and teach it so successfully to dare difficult things, and to be reckless of danger and pain q ?” The doctrine of the eternity of the penal¬ ties of sin,—the doctrine of the necessity of repent¬ ance, love, and good works in this life,— seem , cer¬ tainly, to be more likely to lead to holy, and con¬ sistent, and self-denying practice, than the accommo¬ dating theories which are involved in the doctrine of purgatory, and which give to barren faith and impe¬ nitence the prospect of final salvation. If Lutheranism or Calvinism be charged by the advocates of Rome with inculcating Antinomian doctrines, they can be at no loss for a reply, when the principles involved in the doctrine of purgatory are considered. If the Reformation had inculcated Antinomianism.it would have been merely following the example of Romanism; which, at the same time, is guilty of the excessive inconsistency of maintaining the absolute necessity of good works, and of insisting on the doctrine of the eternity of future punish¬ ments. 10. In fine, it is evident that the developments which have issued in the doctrine of purgatory are not true developments, but corruptions; because they are not characterized by “ logical sequence,” and because they have failed to preserve “ the essential idea ” of Christianity. That “ essential idea” includes the doc¬ trine of the eternal punishment of sin unrepented of in this life, and the necessity of repentance, faith, and sanctification before death. But the develop¬ ments on which the doctrine of purgatory rests, subvert these doctrines, so essential to Christianity, q Essay on Development, p. 422. X 306 Development of Purgatory Examined. [parti. and establish the contradictory tenets of paganism and heresy. It is in vain to produce, in reply to this, passages from certain of the earlier writers in support of some purgatorial fire after this life. The position of the Essayist is, that the doctrine of purgatory is not derived from Apostolical tradition; that it was only gradually wrought out by reasoning. If so, it must be tested by reasoning , and not by the doctrine of the Fathers. More especially is the author of the “ Essay on Development” bound to reject the au¬ thority of those writers who recognized a purgatorial fire at the last day; because this view was built on the “literal” interpretation of such texts as “the fire shall try every man’s work,” which he has himself rejected as “heretical” in its principle. chap. XT!.] Development of Image Worship. 307 CHAPTER XII. DEVELOPMENT OF THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES AND RELICS—CONCLUSION. 1. In examining the developments of some of the particular doctrines and practices of the Church of Rome, it has not been deemed necessary to follow the order in which they are presented to the reader in the “ Essay on Development.” The more im¬ portant of these tenets have been noticed in the first instance; and it now remains only to offer some remarks on the Worship of Images and Relics. If it can be shown that these practices, in addition to the Worship of Saints, and the doctrine of Purgatory, are false developments or corruptions, it will not be necessary to enter any further into the points in controversy between Romanism and its opponents. The author of the “ Essay on Development,” sup¬ plies the reason for this. In reference to the mutual connexion of the doctrines of Romanism, he observes, “You must accept the whole or reject the whole: reduction does but enfeeble, and amputation muti¬ late. It is trifling to receive all but something which is as integral as any other portion 3 .” And if, accord- a Essay on Development, p. 154. x 2 Image Worship Examined. [part i* nos ing to this writer, “ the doctrines altogether make up one integral religion,” and “ the several evidences which respectively support those doctrines belong to a whole b ,” so that those tenets which rest on weak arguments derive strength from those which are supported by strong; it may be also legitimately in¬ ferred, that if any of those tenets can be proved to be false or corrupt, the whole system which is iden¬ tified with them must be rejected. 2. The worship of Images is discussed in two parts of the Essay, in reference to different tests of the truth of a development: In the first instance it is included amongst those practices which the Church has adopted from Paganism ; and which, in virtue of that adoption, at once cease to be superstitious, or other¬ wise evil c . It is afterwards adduced as an instance of additions which are preservative of the course of development which had preceded them d . The argu¬ ment employed in reference to the introduction of rites and tenets from heathen and heretical sources, is, that the Church always maintained the dogmatic principle or the necessity of holding the Catholic faith e —that it acted on fixed principles, and conse¬ quently in its contest with Paganism and Heresy subdued them, and despoiled them of whatever por¬ tion of truth they comprised f . There is “a certain virtue or grace in the Gospel which changes the quality of doctrines, opinions, usages, actions, and personal characters which become incorporated with it, and makes them right and acceptable to its Divine Author 8 .” On this ground, the worship of b Essay, p. 155. c P. 360, 362. d P. 433, 434. e P. 339—345. f P. 345—354. s P. 354. chap, xii.] Image Worship Examined. 309 Images, which had been idolatrous under heathenism, is supposed to become lawful, notwithstanding the admitted rejection and condemnation of the worship of images by the early Church h , by its simple adoption in Christianity, in the “ eighth ” century 1 . The Essayist does not seem to anticipate any ob¬ jection to the principle on which this conclusion is founded—namely, the existence of some “ virtue or grace” in Christianity which changes at once the quality of doctrines and usages; so that their mere adoption from false systems of religion into Chris¬ tianity, at once makes them right and lawful. And yet, some sufficient proof might fairly have been ex¬ pected for such a position as this. None, however, is given, except the mere fact that the “ dogmatic principle ” has always existed in Christianity—a posi¬ tion, which may be admitted, without being any nearer the proof of such “ a virtue or grace,” as the writer supposes to exist in Christianity. Whether this virtue be a mere power of excluding doctrines or practices contrary to what had been received by reve¬ lation ; or whether it be a power of assimilating to the substance of Christianity what has been idola¬ trous or sinful when practised elsewhere; the dog¬ matic principle, i. e. the assertion of the necessity of holding the Catholic faith, does not seem to afford any security against the introduction of usages or tenets which are erroneous, and contradictory to the faith. The dogmatic principle may be fully held, where the most inconsistent doctrines are received. In the preceding chapter we have seen, that the principles of Polytheism have been admitted by those h Essay, p. 35(3. i P. 362. 310 Image Worship Examined. [PAllT 1. who stedfastly maintain the doctrine of Monotheism. Inconsistency may be quite as much an attribute of a theology founded on the dogmatic principle, as of any other. The advocates of such a theology may labour to explain away its contradictions, and yet may be wholly unsuccessful. So that there seems to be no kind of security, that doctrines or practices derived from Heathenism and Heresy, must neces¬ sarily cease to be heathen and heretical in principle, when they are adopted in a communion which holds the dogmatic principle. The worship and rites which the Jesuits permitted to their converts from heathenism in China afford an illustration of what has been just said J . It cannot be alleged in this case, that the mere preservation of a dogmatical system, and the assertion of the necessity of believing in the orthodox faith, afforded any actual security against the introduction of idolatrous prac¬ tices. In the case just mentioned, the Jesuits had, in the opinion of the Roman see, permitted the intro¬ duction of a new species of idolatry; yet there can be no doubt of their adherence to the dogmatical principle. On the other hand, the confession of a supreme Being is, as we have seen above, perfectly reconcileable with polytheism; and if so, it may be equally reconcileable with idolatry. It is evident that a species of worship may be adopted from heathenism which is idolatrous, though the dog¬ matical principle may be upheld. For instance, if the images of Saints were supposed to possess any divine virtue, or if trust and confidence were reposed in them; if they were worshipped with divine j See Mosheim, cent. xvii. sect. 1, § 12, &c, ; cent, xviii. § 3. chap, xii.] Image Worship Examined. 311 honours; if they received positive instead of relative worship; if the images of Christ or of the Father were honoured not relatively but directly with Latria; if they were sacrificed to, or prayers offered to them; in all such cases, it would be admitted by some Romanists that superstition or idolatry would be committed 15 ; and yet all these usages or tenets would have been borrowed from heathenism, and modified by Christian ideas; and the existence and influence of the dogmatic principle might remain unchanged. It is indeed admitted by the Essayist, that the dog¬ matic principle does not necessarily, in all cases, prevent the introduction of false and superstitious tenets. “ It is quite consistent with the tenor of these remarks,” he says, “ to observe, or allow, that real superstitions have sometimes obtained in parts of the Church from its intercourse with the heathen .. As philosophy has at times corrupted its divines, so has Paganism corrupted its worshippers 1 .” There is therefore no security in the existence of this dogmatic principle, that idolatry may not be in¬ troduced into the Church. 3. But, when we come to examine the doctrine of k Dr. Milner, in reply to the charge of idolatry against Ro¬ manism, quotes the decree of the Synod of Trent cited above, and continues thus : “ In con¬ formity with this doctrine of our Church, the following ques¬ tion and answer are seen in our first Catechism for the instruc¬ tion of children : ‘ Question. May we pray to relics or images? Answer. No; by no means; for they have no life or sense to hear or help us.’ Finally, that work of the able Catholic writers, Gother and Challoner, which I quoted above (the Papist Misrepre¬ sented and Represented ), con¬ tains the following anathema, in which I am confident that every Catholic existing will readily join: r ‘ Cursed is he that commits idolatry; that prays to images or relics, or wor¬ ships them for God. Amen.’ ” End of Controv. letter xxxiv. 1 Essay, p. 363. 312 Image Worship Examined. [part i. Image-worsliip in itself, it is evidently subversive of one of the essential ideas of Christianity. The worship of idols was denounced in all parts of the Old and New Testament, and by all the Fathers and Councils of the Church for many ages, as impious and abominable. But the advocates of Image-worship explain away all the texts on which alone it is possi¬ ble to prove against the heathen that the worship of idols is a crime. According to these interpretations, there is no absolute prohibition in Scripture of the worship of idols in general. “ It may be reasonably questioned,” says the author of the Essay on Development, “whether the command¬ ment which stands second in our Decalogue, on which the prohibition of imagesis principally grounded, was intended for more than temporary observance in the letter" 1 .” “ Departure from the letter may be no guilt to Christians 11 .” It is argued by the advocates of Romanism, that the prohibitions of Image-worship in the Scriptures refer merely to the forms of idolatry then prevalent in the world ; or to the absolute worship of images as distinguished from their relative worship; or to their worship as gods 0 . It is con- m Essay, p. 434. n P. 435. ° Thus Perrone observes on the second commandment: “Evi- dens igitur est, hie non agi nisi de imaginibus atque sculptili- bus, deos falsos, astra aut ani- malia referentibus, quae tunc temporis ubique gentium ac in iEgypto, et a Zabienis praeser- tim colebantur ; ad quas idolo- latriae species hie textus mani- feste alludit. Ab his autem deterrere Deus populum suum volebat. Agitur propterea de cultu latriae absoluto, qui ni¬ hil commune habet cum dog- mate Catholico de imaginibus Christi aut Sanctorum, quae coli non debent nisi cultu rela- tivo.” Tract, de Cultu Sanc¬ torum, cap. v. Praelect. Theol. tom. iv. p. 398. Bellarmine says: “ Sine dubio non prohi- betur in Decalogo omnis imago, sed solum ilia quae dici potest idolum , id est, imago, quae ha- betur pro Deo, vel quae reprae- sentat tanquam Deum earn rem, quae non est Deus.” Bellar- chap, xii.] Image Worship Examined. SI 3 tended with some truth, that the heathen wor¬ shipped the idols of their false gods with direct and positive Divine honours—that they considered those idols as deities, or as inhabited by a Divine presence or power—that they put their trust in idols, and offered prayers and sacrifice to them p . It is ac- min. de Reliquiis Sanctorum, lib. ii. c. vii. He remarks else¬ where, that Roman Catholics hold that, “ Scripturas repre- hendere cultum, qui tribuitur simulachris, tanquam diis Ib. cap. xi. Tournely (de Incar- nat. p. 830) gives two interpre¬ tations : (1.) “ Idololatria pro- hibetur, seu cultus imaginum aut simulacrorum, quae vel pro diis habentur; vel in quibus tanquam dii coluntur, qui re- ipsa dii non sunt; vel denique in quibus numinis aliquid aut divinae virtutis latere creditur.” (2.) “ Lex vero ilia positiva ad tempus fuit, non perpetua . . . ea igitur lege non magis jam obstricti sumus, quam lege ab- stinendi a sanguine et suffo- cato.” These interpretations, though not intended to have c> the effect of completely annul¬ ling the prohibition of the wor¬ ship of idols, have actually that result.—For the distinctions of Latvia and Dulia, absolute and relative worship, which the Romanists employ to evade the prohibitions of Scripture, see Bellarmin. de Imagin. Sanct. 1. ii. c. 21 — 25. Tournely, de Incarnatione, queest. xiii. Perrone, Prselect. Theol. vol. iv. Tract, de Cultu Sanctorum. Milner, End of Controversy, letter xxxiv. p This line of argument was adopted in reply to Calvin, who had asserted (Institut. lib. i. c. xi.), that the heathen worship of idols was a relative worship, corresponding to that which Romanists professed to offer to images. Rellarmine (Lib. de Reliquiis Sanct. lib. ii. c. 13) proves that many of the heathen certainly did offer more than relative worship to idols; and that they believed them to be gods. It need only be added here, that both sides of the question are founded in truth ; for it is indisputable that, while the more enlightened heathen offered a worship to idols which was intended to be referred to their prototypes, the great mass of the people looked on the idols themselves as gods. Thus Horace, in the well-known words, “ Olirn truncus eram ficulnus , inutile lignum; Cum faber incertus scamnum faceretne Priapum, Maluit esse Deum. Deus inde egoP The Holy Scriptures, and the an¬ cient Christian writers, invari¬ ably speak of idols as the gods of the heathen. See Exod. xx. 23; xxxiv. 17; Isa. ii. 8 ; xliv.; Dan. v. 4 ; Jerem. x. See also Justin Martyr, Apolog. i. cap. ix. ; Tertul. Apolog. c. xiii. ; Lactantius, Divin. Instit. lib. ii. c. 2. 4. The objections of Calvin had 314 Image Worship Examined. [part i. knowledged by Romanists that such rites and doc¬ trines are directly condemned by holy Scripture, and that they are, in fact, superstitious and idolatrous; but they hold, that if idols are not worshipped in this way, but with a relative worship, inferior to that which is due to the Supreme Being, it is not censur¬ able, provided that worship be not in any case offered to the idols of false gods. On the whole, then, it may be concluded with probability from all these inter¬ pretations and explanations, that the worship of images or idols is right in principle , and reconcileable with Divine Revelation; and consequently it is in vain to argue against the worship of idols by the heathen at the present day from any passages of Scripture ; for they will reply, that, on the principles of Christians themselves, such prohibitions were only intended to apply to certain forms of worship extant when the Scriptures were written; that they were merely designed for temporary observance; that they applied to those persons, and those only, who either looked on images as Deities, or worshipped them without any intention of honouring the gods whom they represented, or offered to them the very same degree of worship and adoration as is due to the Supreme God, or worshipped the images of false gods. probably some influence in in¬ ducing the Council of Trent to draw a distinction between the worship of images in the Roman Church, and that of Pagans, in its decree, which declared that “ Imagines Christi, Deiparae, et aliorum Sanctorum, in tem- plis praesertim habendas ac re- tinendas, eisque debitum ho- norem et reverentiam imper- tiendam : non quod credatur in- esse in iis divinitas, vel virtus propter quam sint colendae ; vel quod ab iis sit aliquid peten- dum, vel quod fiducia sit in Imaginibus Agenda, veluti olim fiebat a Gentibus, quae in idolis spem suam collocabant; sed quoniam honos qui eis exlii- betur, refertur ad prototypa, quae illae repraesentant.” Con¬ ed. Trident, sessio xxv. chap, xii.] Image Worship Examined . 315 These distinctions would at once relieve a heathen from all difficulty, if he were pressed with arguments against idolatry derived from holy Scripture. He would readily admit, that a relative worship is due to idols; that a higher worship is due to the principal Deity than to secondary gods and idols; and that it is unlawful to worship false gods q . Thus then it would be evidently impossible to argue successfully on the principles of Romanists and of the Essayist, against heathen idolatry. Those principles render the declarations of Scripture wholly unavailing. We have already seen that, on the principles of the Essayist, it would be equally impossible to convince a heathen of the error of the doctrine of polytheism. And we shall presently see, that the same writer has advocated a doctrine, which amply justifies, on Chris¬ tian grounds, the worship of inanimate objects, such as Idols, as well as that of animate objects. So that on the whole, Heathenism is very effectually justified by the doctrines of the “ Essay on Development,’’ and the practice of Image-worship and the principles on which it is founded, are thus plainly subversive of the 46 essential idea ” of Christianity, which, un¬ doubtedly, involves the condemnation of heathen religions as impious and idolatrous. “ Celsus demanded, ‘ Whe¬ ther any man, unless he were a very child, did think these things (idols) to be Gods, and not monuments and images of the Gods?’” See Ussher’s Answer to a Jesuit , chap. x. p. 436. “ Non ipsa, inquiunt, timemus, sed eos, ad quorum imaginem ficta, et quorum no¬ minibus consecrata sunt.” Lac- tant. (Div. Inst. lib. ii. c. 2), Eusebius (Praep. Evang. 1. iv.), Arnobius (lib. vi.), and Au¬ gustine (in Psal. cxiii.), have also noticed this distinction. See also Calvin, Institut. Christ. Relig. 1. i. c. xi. 8—11. Cha- mier, Panstrat. Catliolica , tom. ii. 1. 21. It is obvious that any intelligent heathen would make the same distinctions which Romanists have done, in justi¬ fying the worship of images. 316 Worship of Belies Examined . [part i. i 4. This subject opens still more upon us, as we pro¬ ceed in the investigation of the Romish develop¬ ments : it receives additional light from a considera¬ tion of the theory on which, according to the Essayist, the worship of Relics was introduced into the Christian Church. The worship of Relics is, according to this writer, a development of the doctrine of the Resurrection. The connexion, indeed, does not appear very obvious ; nor is the Essayist “ aware of any passage ” in the writings of the Fathers, “ in which the religious observance of Relics is clearly connected with the doctrine of the Resurrection, from which it un¬ doubtedly proceeds".” The process of development is, however, thus explained. Christianity, it seems, in contrast to the doctrines of Platonists, Gnostics, and Manichees 5 , “ began by considering matter as a creature of God, and in itself very good.” It regarded matter as being “ susceptible of grace, or as capable of a union with a Divine presence and influence and accordingly believed, that God “ had taken a por¬ tion ” of matter upon Himself in the Incarnation “ in order to its sanctification 4 .” From this follows, as a consequence , “ the sanctity of relics u .” The heathen looked on the relics of the dead as polluted v ; but Christians held them in reverence: “ Nay, Chris¬ tianity taught a reverence for the bodies even of heathen w .” But “it was far more, of course, than such general reverence which they showed to the bodies of the saints. They ascribed virtue to their martyred tabernacles, and treasured, as something su- r Essay on Develop, p. 388. " P. 371. s P. 371. v P. 372. 1 P. 370. vv P. 373. chap, xii.] Worship of Belies Examined. 317 pernatural, their blood, tlieir ashes, and their bones*.” Accordingly it seems, they were liable to the impu¬ tation of regarding the martyrs as “gods,” and of offering them “ Divine worship.” The heathen and heretical opponents of Christianity affirmed that the worship paid to martyrs was equally distinct and formal with that which was paid to our Lord; and that the martyrs had been merely substituted for the idols of the heathen y . We are left to infer that these imputations were perfectly just; and that the relics of martyrs were the objects of Divine worship. The connexion between the different members of this argument, if it can be called such, is somewhat obscure. The point to be shown was, that the worship of relics is an undoubted consequence of the doctrine of the Resurrection. In proof, we are referred to the union of matter with the Deity in the Incarnation ; and from this the sanctity of relics in general—even of heathen relics—is inferred. The principle on which the inference depends is, appa¬ rently, simply this—-that matter has been sanctified by the Incarnation and Resurrection. We next learn, that Christians, in consequence , paid Divine honours to the relics of the saints and martyrs. Why they offered greater honours to the relics of the martyrs than to those of the heathen, is indeed wholly inex¬ plicable on the supposition, that matter in general was sanctified by the Incarnation, and that this sanctification was the ground of the worship of relics : such an instance of partiality seems scarcely recon- cileable with the general principle of the sanctifica¬ tion of matter. However, admitting that Christians x Essay, p. 373. y P. 374. 318 Worship of Relic « Examined. [part i. were justified in making such a distinction, by certain reasons peculiar to themselves, the general doctrine of the author is certainly calculated to throw a new light on the question of Heathenism. 5. If, as he argues, the goodness or sanctification of matter , (whether arising from the Incarnation or the Resurrection, or from any other cause,) be a ground for worshipping with Divine honours the relics of the dead, it follows necessarily and a fortiori , that the bodies of the living may be wor¬ shipped also. And further, since matter is not restricted to rational beings, it follows, that irrational animals, and even insensible objects, may be also worshipped. On this principle, then, I know not how we are to blame those who offered sacrifices to human beings, or who worshipped oxen, rams, cro¬ codiles, beetles, and serpents. The Roman emperor who claimed Divine honours, only applied in his own case the doctrine of the Essayist; and if, instead of merely elevating his horse to the Consulate or the Priesthood, he had enjoined religious worship to be paid to him; or if the early Christians had really been worshippers of the patient and laborious animal who was considered by the heathen to be the object of their adoration 2 ; it would have been perfectly justifiable on the theory under consideration. Every such case is amply provided for, by the doctrine of the propriety of offering worship to relics, in conse¬ quence of the union of matter with the Godhead. z Vide Tertul. Apologet. c. probandum, quod inter cultores xvi. “ Nam ut quidam som- omnium pecudumbestiarumque, niastis caput asininum esse asinarii tantum sumus.” This Deum nostrum, hanc Cornelius imputation was repeated by Tacitus suspicionem ejusmodi Plutarch, inseruit . . . Hoc forsitan im- chap, xii.] Worship of Relics Examined. 319 Nor have we by any means arrived at the conclusion of this prolific principle; for, on the same grounds, the adoration of the Heavenly bodies, of the Earth, of rivers, wells, trees, stones, or any other objects of Fetiche-worship, becomes immediately justifiable. Even the Phallic worship (setting aside its gross immoralities) is at once exempted from all reasonable objections. Of course, the adoration of Images and Idols, without any needless distinctions of absolute or relative worship, is at once established; and the Essayist must have taken superfluous trouble in de¬ ducing the lawfulness of this practice as above, from that “ assimilative ” power of Christianity, which, by the mere adoption of Pagan rites, changes their nature, at once, from evil to good. If the doctrine here laid down to justify the worship of relics be valid, it is plain, that the Pagan worship of images was in itself right in principle; and therefore it is needless to suppose, that it requires any correction when adopted by Christians, except in detail. In truth it becomes a very nice question, whether pri¬ mitive Christianity, which certainly excluded all images from its public worship, can, on such a view, be excused from the imputation of serious error. The Essayist seems not to have been fully aware of the capabilities of his theory, or he would not have attempted to found the worship of Images on a different principle from that of the worship of Relics. The result, however, of the doctrine which he has inculcated, is this: that every Material Exist¬ ence in nature may be an object of religious worship, on account of the union of matter with the Deity in the Incarnation; and this is evidently nothing more than a modification of Pantheism, in combination with certain Christian doctrines. [part r. 320 Concluding Remarks, 6. We may now bring this brief examination of the Romish system to a close. It has not been possible to enter on all the topics which the Essay has sug¬ gested in reference to this subject; but enough perhaps has been said on the leading peculiarities of Romanism to show, that whatever of truth may still be retained in the Church of Rome, it is surrounded by much that is not true. The inconsistency of the grounds on which the Romish tenets have been maintained, affords very strong presumptive evidence against them. If those tenets had really been revealed; if they had formed a part of the truth taught by our Lord and His Apostles, we should not have found their advocates so totally at variance amongst them¬ selves on the important question—whether these tenets were derived from apostolic tradition and always held in the Universal Church; or whether •> they were unknown in the primitive ages, and reasoned out in later times. And when we combine with this, the plain and evident fact, that Romanism has, by the position which it has assumed in contro¬ versy with the Reformation, been obliged to adopt a course of argument, in reference to the Scriptures, and to testimony in general, which leaves it wholly powerless when confronted by Infidelity; when we further remember, that the principles on which the worship of Saints and Angels is justified, are identical with those of the Arian heresy, and open the door to the doctrines and practices of Polytheism, so that it is no longer possible on Romish principles to offer any valid objections to Paganism; when it is also borne in mind, that, by its doctrine of Purgatory, the future penalties of sin cease to be alarming, and the need of repentance and sanctification in this life be- CHAP. XIT. | Concluding Remarks. 32 r comes in the highest degree questionable; when we have further seen, that the worship of Images and Relics justifies, in the fullest way, all the grossest forms of heathen idolatry; when we thus perceive the incapacity of Romanism to maintain the cause of Christianity against Rationalism and Infidelity on the one hand, or Paganism on the other; there surelv can be no reasonable doubt, that a system which thus leaves revealed truth without defence against its various opponents, is not a true development of Christianity. Faith in Divine Revelation compels us to arrive at this conclusion; because it is incredible, that a true development of what has been revealed by God, can issue in depriving it of all evidences of having been so revealed, and render it indistinguish¬ able in point of authority from rival systems of false religion. Romanism holds its sway over the minds of most of its adherents in virtue of the persuasion which it has assiduously inculcated, that belief in Christianity is wholly dependent on belief in the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church. This persuasion ought not, at least, to be a blind and unreasoning one. If men assert, that there is no reasonable ground for believing the Gospel, unless the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church be admitted as a necessary preliminary, they should be prepared to prove the truth of this assertion. We should be perfectly willing to let all the questions between Romanism and the Reformation rest on the issue of such an inquiry. If Romanism alone could establish the truth of Christianity against Heathen, Jewish, and Philosophical infidelity—nay, if it even could sustain the cause of Christianity by arguments as consistent Y Concludinq Remarks. [ part I, 322 as those which have been employed by its opponents, we might safely undertake to admit its claims at once; but if, on the other hand, it can be shown, that Romanism is incapable of establishing the truth of Christianity; that it is so incapacitated, by its op¬ position to the leading principles and doctrines of the Reformation; while those who maintain such principles and doctrines are in a position, which enables them with perfect consistency to maintain the truth of the Christian Revelation, and to uphold its doctrines against all who may deny its authority or pervert its meaning; if this be indeed the real state of the case, there surely cannot be any reasonable doubt as to where Divine Revelation has been preserved and handed down in its simplicity and integrity; and where those developments may be found, which do not corrupt the original ideas of Christianity. It has been attempted in the first Part of this work, to show that Rationalism, and Mysticism, and Romanism, cannot be true developments of the Gospel: it will be the object of the succeeding Part to examine the position which is occupied by those who are opposed to Rationalism, and the various forms of religious Anarchy, on the one hand; and to Supersti¬ tion, whether Pagan or nominally Christian, on the other. APPENDIX. mohler's and de maistre's doctrine of development. I have reserved for separate consideration, the theories of Mohler and De Maistre, to which Mr Newman has referred in general terms in his “ Essay on Development/' as bear¬ ing some resemblance to his own. “ The view " on which his work has been written, has, “ he believes, recently been illustrated by several distinguished writers of the Conti¬ nent, such as De Maistre and Mahler." (p. 27.) I am not aware that any other reference is made to the works of these writers in the Essay on Development; but as it is generally supposed that the theory advocated in Mr. New¬ man's volume, is substantially the same with those of De Maistre and Mohler, it is certainly a question of some in¬ terest to determine how far these three writers have adopted the same view. I shall commence with some account of Mohler's Theory of Development. I have not observed in his “ Athanasius," any passages which deserve particular notice as bearing on this subject: but his “ Symbolik," and his treatise on “ the Unity of the Church," comprise various details which convey distinct notions of his doctrine of development. The Development of Christian doctrine, according to Mohler, refers only to its form and not to its substance , the latter, as he conceives, being immutable, and being at y 2 Appendix. 324 all times preserved by tradition, which is described as “ the general sense ” of the Church. The following extracts will sufficiently exemplify the views of this writer in reference to the immutability of the Church’s Creed, and to her pos¬ session of the idea of Christianity even from the begin¬ ning. “ The main question which we have now to answer, is this: how doth man attain to possession of the true doc¬ trine of Christ ? or, to express ourselves in a more general, and at once more accurate manner, how doth man obtain a clear knowledge of the institute of salvation proffered in Christ Jesus? The Protestant says, by searching Holy Writ, which is infallible: the Catholic, on the other hand, replies, by the Church, in which alone man arrives at the true understanding of Holy Writ. In a more minute ex¬ position of his vieAvs the Catholic continues :—doubtless the Sacred Scriptures contain divine communications, and con¬ sequently, the pure truth: whether they contain all the truths, which in a religious and ecclesiastical point of view are necessary, or at least very useful to be known, is a question which does not yet come under consideration. Thus, the Scripture is God’s unerring word ; but however the predicate of inerrability may belong to it, we ourselves are not exempt from error; nay, we only become so when we have unerringly received the word, which is in itself inerrable. In this reception of the word, human activity, which is fallible, has necessarily a part. But, in order that, in this transit of the divine contents of the Sacred Scrip¬ tures into possession of the human intellect, no gross illu¬ sion or general misrepresentation may occur, it is taught, that the Divine Spirit, to which are entrusted the guidance and vivification of the Church, becomes, in its union with the human spirit in the Church, a peculiarly Christian tact, a deep sure-guiding feeling, which , as it ahideth in truth, leads also into all truth . . . “ This is the ordinary and regular course. But errors and misunderstandings, more or less culpable, will never fail to occur ; and as in the time of the Apostles, the word of God was combated out of the word of God, so this Appendix . 325 combat bath been renewed at all times. What, under such circumstances, is the course to be pursued ? How is the Divine word to be secured against the erroneous concep¬ tions that have arisen ? The general sense decides against particular opinion —the judgment of the Church against that of the individual: the Church interprets the Sacred Scriptures. The Church is the body of the Lord : it is, in its universality, His visible form—His permanent, ever- renovated humanity—His eternal revelation. He dwells in the community; all His promises, all His gifts are be¬ queathed to the community—but to no individual, as such, since the time of the Apostles. This general sense , this ecclesiastical consciousness is tradition, in the subjective sense of the word. What then is tradition ? The peculiar Chris¬ tian sense existing in the Church, and transmitted by ecclesiastical education; yet this sense is not to be con¬ ceived as detached from its subject-matter—nay, it is formed in and by this matter, so it may be called a full sense. Tradition is the living word, perpetuated in the hearts of believers. To this sense, as the general sense, the interpretation of Holy Writ is entrusted. The declaration which it pronounces on any controverted subject, is the judgment of the Church; and therefore the Church is judge in matters of faith ( judex controversiarum). Tra¬ dition, in the objective sense, is the general faith of the Church through all ages , manifested by outward historical testimonies ; in this sense, tradition is usually termed the Norma; the standard of Scriptural interpretation—the rule of faith/' § xxxviii. vol. ii. p. 32—36. In reference to the controversies with the Gnostics who professed to find their doctrines in holy Scriptures, Mohler says, “ As the impossibility was now manifest of convincing the Gnostics of the truth out of Holy Writ, must the Catholic Church declare that the questions whether God created the world, whether Christ were a true man, should remain in abeyance, till these doctrines were made evident to them by the testimony of Scripture ? By no means. They were directed to tradition—to the living word ; they were told that, if even a doubt could arise as to the doctrine of 326 Appendix. Scripture, the announcement of the word perpetuated in the Church since her first establishment, and the common faith of believers, decided the question clearly enough.” § xxxix. voh ii, p. 41. The principles on which the Church opposed the doctrine of Artemon and the first Unitarians, is thus described: “ The faith existing in the Church, from the beginning, throughout all ages, is the infallible standard to determine the true sense of Scripture; and accordingly it is certain, beyond the shadow of doubt, that the Redeemer is Gfod, and hath filled us even with divine power . . . He who, if even he should not believe the truth, yet believes truly, believes at the same time that he holds just the doctrine of Christ, that he shares the faith with the Apostles, and with the Church founded by the Redeemer ; that there is but one faith in all ages, and, one only true one.” § xxxix. vol. ii. p. 44, 45. He afterwards remarks, that “ the certainty which " the Church “ has of the truth of her doctrines, is an immediate one, for she received her dogmas from the lips of Christ and the Apostles; and by the power of the Divine Spirit, they are indelibly stamped on her consciousness, or, as Irenseus expresses it, on her heart. If the Church were to endeavour, by learned investigation, to seek her doctrines, she would fall into the most absurd inconsistency, and annihilate her very self . . . The essential matter of Holy Writ is eternally present in the Church, because it is her heart's blood—her breath—her soul — her all. She exists only by Christ, and yet she must have to find Him out! Whoever seriously reflects on the signification of these words of Christ, ‘ I am with ye even to the consummation of the world,' will be able to conceive at least the view which the Catholic Church takes of herself." § xlii. vol. ii. p. 60. These extracts will have sufficiently shown the funda¬ mental doctrine of Holder, with reference to the transmis¬ sion of the Christian religion throughout the successive generations of the Church. He is of opinion, that there has at all times been “ a general sense/' or idea of Chris¬ tian doctrine in the Universal Church, which has never Appendix. 327 varied, and which has been, and is, the infallible in¬ terpreter of Holy Scripture. He has no notion of variations in faith, or of an imperfect comprehension of the idea of Christianity in the primitive ages. There is, according to him, “ a general faith of the Church throughout all ages,”—a “ common faith of be¬ lievers,”—an infallible faith existing “ from the begin¬ ning,” which is “ one in all ages,” and is the only “ true one.” This faith was not reasoned out, but was “ received from the lips of Christ and the Apostles.” It is “ eternally present in the Church.” It would be impossible to state with more precision and clearness, the principle, that as the Catholic faith is one and unalterable in substance, so it was revealed and held in its plenitude even from the beginning. We are now to see the Theory of Development which Mohler has founded on these principles. “ If we have hitherto shown that, conformably to the principles of Catholics, the doctrine of Scripture is one and the same with the doctrine of the Church , since the Church hath to interpret the Scripture, and in this interpretation cannot err; so this unity applies to the substance only , and not to the form. In respect to the latter , a diversity is found inherent in the very essence and object of the Church; so that, indeed, if the Divine truth must be preserved and propagated by human organs, the diversity we speak -of could not possibly be avoided, as will appear from the fol¬ lowing observations. The conduct of the Redeemer, in the commencement of His word, was corresponded to by that of the Apostles, and the word became immediately in them faith—a human possession—and after His ascension existed for the world in no other form than in this faith of the Lord's disciples, whose kernel in Peter he therefore called the rock whereon His Church was, in such a way, to be built, that the powers of hell should never prevail against it. But, after the Divine word had become human faith, it must be subject to all mere human destinies. It must be constantly received by all the energies of the human mind. 328 Appendix. and imbibed Tby the same. The preservation and commu¬ nication of the word were, in like manner, attached to a human method. Even with the Evangelist, who only wished to recount what Christ had spoken, wrought, and suffered, the Divine word appears subject to the law here described ; a law which manifests itself in the choice and arrangement of the matter, as well as in the special plan which each proposed to himself, and in the general con¬ ception and execution of his task. “ But the Divine word became still more subject to this law, when the Apostles were fulfilling their mission— executing the Divine charge which they had received; for, various questions of dispute arose, the settlement whereof could not be avoided, and on that account claimed human reflection, and required the formation of notions, judgments, and conclusions—things which were not pos¬ sible to be effected, without tasking the reason and the understanding. The application of the energies of the human mind to the subject-matter received from the Lord, necessarily caused the Divine word to be analyzed , and on the other hand, to be reduced to certain leading points; and the multiplicity of objects to be contemplated in their mutual bearings, and resolved into a higher unity, whereby the human mind obtained, on these matters, greater clearness and defi¬ niteness of conception. For, every thing that the human mind hath received from an external source, and which is destined to become its property, wherein it must find itself perfectly at home, must be first reproduced by the human mind itself. The original doctrine , as the human mind had variously elaborated it, exhibited itself in a much altered form: it remained the original, and yet did not; it was the same in substance, and yet differed as to form. In this process of the development of the Divine word during the Apostolic age, we may exalt as high, and extend as wide as we please, the Divine guidance given to the disciples of Christ; yet certainly, without human co-opera¬ tion, without the peculiar activity of man, it did not advance of itself. As in the good work of the Christian, free will Appendix . 329 and grace pervade each other, and one and the same undi¬ vided deed is at once Divine and human, so we find this to be the case here. “ The same could not fail to hold good, even after the death of the Apostles, even after the Gospels and the Epistles were written, and whatever else we include in the canon of the New Testament, were already in the hands of the faithful. When, in the manner described, the Church explains and secures the original doctrine of faith against misrepresentations , the apostolic expression is necessarily changed for another , which is the most fitted alike clearly to set forth and reject the particular error of the time. As little as the Apostles themselves, in the course of their polemics, could retain the form wherein the Saviour ex¬ pounded His Divine doctrine, so little was the Church enabled to adhere to the same. If the evangelical doctrine be assailed by a definite theological system, and a term¬ inology peculiar to itself, the false notions cannot by any means he repelled in a clear, distinct, evident, and intel¬ ligible manner, unless the Church have regard to the form of the error, and exhibit its thesis in a shape qualified by the garb wherein the adverse doctrine is invested, and thus render itself intelligible to all contemporaries. The origin of the Nicene formula furnishes the best solution to this question. This form is in itself the human, the tem¬ poral, the perishable element, and might he exchanged for a hundred others. Accordingly, tradition often hands down to later generations the original deposit in another form, because that deposit hath been entrusted to the care of men, whose conduct must be guided by the circumstances wherein they are placed. “ Lastly, in the same manner as in the apostolic writings, the truths of salvation are laid open with greater clearness, and in all their mutual organic connexion ; so, in the doc¬ trine of the Church, the doctrine of Scripture is ever pro¬ gressively unfolded to our view . . . Dull, therefore, as it is, to find any other than a mere formal distinction between the doctrine of Christ and that of his Apostles, no less senseless is it to discover any other difference between the 330 Appendix. primitive and the later tradition of the Church. The blame of this formal difference arises from overlooking the fact, that Christ was a God-Man, and wished to continue working in a manner conformable to His twofold nature. “ Moreover, the deeper insight of the human mind into the Divine revelations in Christ, seems determined by the struggles of error against Christian truth. It is to the unenlightened zeal of the Jewish Christians for the law, we owe the expositions of Paul touching faith and the power of the Gospel; and to the schisms in Corinth we are indebted for his explanation of principles in respect to the Church. The Gnostic and Manichsean errors led to a clearer insight into the character of evil, destitute of, and opposed to, all existence as it is, as well as to a maturer knowledge of the value of God’s original creation (nature and freedom), and its relation to the new creation in Christ Jesus. Out of the Pelagian contest arose a fuller and more conscious recognition of human infirmity in the sphere of true virtue ; and so have matters gone on down to our days .... “ The fact that the deeper consciousness of Christian truth (in itself eternally one and unchangeable) is the result of contest and struggle, and consequently matter of history, is of too much importance not to detain our attention for some moments. It explains the necessity of a living, visible authority, which in every dispute, can, with cer¬ tainty, discern the truth and separate it from error. Otherwise, we should have only the variable—the disputed —and, at last, Nichilism itself. Hence it happens (and this we may venture to premise), that where Holy Writ, without tradition and the authority of the Church, is de¬ clared to be the sole source and rule for the knowledge of Gospel truth, all more precise explanations and develop¬ ments of Christian dogmas are willingly left in utter igno¬ rance ; nay, are even absolutely rejected. Guided by this principle, men can find no rational object to connect with the history of believing intelligence in the Christian Church, and must necessarily evince hostility towards every thing of this tendency, which hath occurred in the Appendix. 331 Church. Or, when they lose all confidence and all hope of freeing themselves from the turmoil of opinions, and of seeing a bright steady light arise out of the dark chaos, they cast, in their despair, upon the Bible the whole mass of opinions that ages have thrown up; and of that which is, boldly assert it could not have been otherwise ; conse¬ quently exists of necessity, and is inherent in the very essence of Christianity. They do not see that, with that complaisance to acknowledge every variety of opinion which in course of time may have been gradually founded on Scripture, a destructive principle for the solution of all the enigmas of Christian history is laid down: to wit, the principle that its object is to show, that the Scripture, as it includes every sense, hath consequently none. But all charges against the Catholic Church are reduced to this, that she has been so absurd as to suppose the Scriptures to contain one sense, and consequently only one, and that definite, whereof the faithful, in the course of history, must ever obtain a clearer and more intuitive knowledge/" § xl. vol, ii. p. 49—54. In the foregoing passages there is a degree of indistinct¬ ness in the statement of the doctrine of development, which arises from the introduction of different ideas in the process. In the first instance, and during the greater part of his remarks, the writer takes one view of development, but he subsequently diverges into another. His first posi¬ tion is, that the substance of Christian dogma alone remains invariable in all ages, while its form or expression must ever vary with the different minds by which it is received, and the rise of errors opposed to it. On this principle, the developments of Christian doctrine in the apostolic Epistles, and afterwards in the Church generally, are ex¬ plained and accounted for—the definitions of the Church, such as the Nicene formula, being supposed to be merely various forms of the one dogma of the faith always received even from the beginning. This view was also adopted by Mr. Newman some years since. But throughout Mohleffs statements on this subject, there is a second theory continually introduced, which is 332 Appendix. essentially different from the former, and is not very easily reconcileable with it at first sight. This theory is, that, although Christian doctrine was revealed at once, and although it has always been the universal sense and belief of the Church, yet the rise of questions and controversies caused the human mind to reduce the articles of Christian doctrine to a system ; and that hence has arisen a progres¬ sively increasing clearness of insight into the relations of Christian truths, and generally into Divine Revelation. As, however, this writer maintains, that the “received dogmas” of the Church are “ eternally present” in her ; and as he holds it to he “ senseless” “ to discover any difference between the primitive and the later tradition of the Church,” except in mere form , it would seem that the “ deeper insight,” and “ greater clearness and definiteness of conception,” which he supposes to arise from contro¬ versies with error, has not any reference to the gradual discovers or deduction of articles of faith or doctrines un- t / known to the Church, or doubted or disputed, during the earliest stages of her existence. His notion seems to be, that, in the course of ages, a theological system may be wrought out of the dogmas always held in the Church, and that controversies lead to more distinct and definite views of the doctrine controverted, and of their relations to other doctrines. I do not see that Mohler’s theory extends beyond this point. Such, too, substantially, was the view which this writer adopted in his earlier work, “De l’Unite de l’Egiise.” In reference to the benefits which result to the Church even from the existence of heresies, he quotes the following language of Origen: “ Si la doctrine Chretienne etait entierement debarrassee des assertions des heretiques, notre foi ne paraitrait pas aussi eclatante, aussi bien affermie. Mais les contradic¬ tions assiegent la doctrine Catliolique, afin que notre foi ne s’engourdisse dans le repos, mais que, sans cesse agitee par Texercice, elle devienne pure ; c’est ce qui fait dire a kApdtre, qu’il faut des heresies, pour qu’on puisse recon- naitre les Chretiens eprouves.” P. 99. The following pas- Appendix . 3:33 sage occurs afterwards: “ St, Augustine parle des heresies comme d'un moyen de donner un plus grand developpe- ment a la doctrine Chretienne. Puisqu’il est ecrit en toute verite, dit*il (de Yera Pel. c. 15), qu'il doit y avoir des heresies, afin que les homines eprouves parmi vous se manifestent, &c., employons a notre profit ce bienfait de la Providence divine. Car de telles personnes deviennent heretiques qui seraient encore dans Terreur, lors meme qu'elles seraient encore dans TEglise. Mais quand ellcs n’y sont pas, elles sont tres-utiles, non parce qu'elles en- seignent la verite, car elles ne la connaissent pas; mais elles excitent ceux qui out une foi sensuelle a examiner d fond la verite ' et les Gatholiques spirituels d la faire paraitre au grand jour. Car il y a une infinite de personnes eprouvees par Dieu dans la Sainte-Eglise, mais elles ne se manifestent pas parmi nous aussi long-temps que nous nous rejouissons de tenebres de notre ignorance , et que nous aimons mieux d dormir qua contempler la lumiere de la verite. C’est pourquoi que plusieurs sont eveilles de leur sommeil par les heretiques , afin quits voient le jour de Dieu , et quits se rejouissent. Servons-nous done aussi des here¬ tiques, non pour justifier leurs erreurs, mais pour defendre la doctrine Catholique contre leurs embuches et pour de- venir plus vigilants et plus attentifs, quand meme nous ne serions pas en etat de les rappeler au salut. Yoyez Enarr. in Ps. 68, n. 39, vulg. 67, ou, par sa traduction qui ne rend pas exactement le texte Hebreu . . . il est amene a cette remarque pleine de justesse, que la connaissance du Chris- tianisme se manifeste, se determine, se developpe davantage par la lutte avec les heretiques. Chez les orfevres, dit-il, on nomme exclusores ceux qui savent donner une certaine forme a une masse informe, qui de confusione massae no- verunt formam vasis exprimere. Car plusieurs des choses que renferme TEcriture-Sainte sont cachees et ne sont connues que de quelques personnes d’une penetration ex¬ traordinaire, et Ton ne parvient mieux a les saisir et a les comprendre que lorsqu'on est oblige de repondre aux heretiques. Car ceux-la memes qui n'ont point de gout pour letude, sont eveilles par la de leur engourdissement Appendix. 334 et portent leur attention a refuter leurs adversaires. II revient souvent aux memes idees et parait vouloir blamer a dessein Finsouciance et la paresse, qui, par le defaut de penetration et du libre mouvement de Fesprit, degenere si souvent in erreur, fait naitre Ferreur dans d'autres, m^rite de justes reproches, n'est pas capable de les en convaincre, et dont la defense ne contient souvent que de nouveaux reproches/' “ Enarrat. in Ps. 54, n. 2, il emploie la meme image, ‘ Etenim ex haereticis asserta est Catholica, et ex his qui male sentiunt probati sunt qui bene sentiunt. Multa enim latebant in Scripturis, et cum praecisi essent haeretici, quaestionibus agitaverunt Ecclesiam Dei. Unde dicuntur et in arte argentaria Exc-lusores, i. e., ex quadam confusione massae formae expressores. Ergo multi qui optime possunt Scripturas dignoscere et pertractare, latebant in populo Dei, nec asserebant solutionem quaestionum difficilium, cum calumniator nullus instaret. Numquid enim perfecte de Trinitate tractatum est, antequam oblatrarent Ariani, numquid perfecte de poenitentia tractatum est, antequam obsisterent Novatiani ? Sic non perfecte de baptismate tractatum est, antequam contradicerent foris positi rebap- tizatores, nec de ipsa imitate Christi (Unite de FEglise) enucleate dicta erant, quae dicta sunt, nisi posteaquam separatio ilia urgere coepit fratres infirmos, ut jam illi qui noverant hsec tractare atque dissolvere, ne perirent infirmi, sollicitati quaestionibus impiorum, sermonibus et disputa- tionibus suis obscura legis in publicum deducerent/ Yoyez aussi Enarrat. in Ps. 7, n. 15. in Ps. 9, n. 20. et de Yera Eel. c. 25. ‘ Nunc agitur quibus credendum sit, antequam quis sit idoneus ineundse rationi de divinis et invisibilibus rebus: nam ipsi rationi purgations animae, quae ad perspi- cuam Yeritatem pervenit, nullo modo auctoritas humana praeponitur: sed ad lianc nulla superbia perducit. Quae si non esset, non essent haeretici, neque schismatici et carne circumcisi. Hi autem si non essent ante perfectionem po- puli , quae promittitur, multo pigrius veritas queereretur! ” p. 268, 269. I have extracted this passage without curtailment, be- Appendix. 335 cause it is valuable as exhibiting the sense of Christian Antiquity on the subject of Development. In the extracts which are here made from St. Augustine, it will be ob¬ served that these points are supposed: —that the Christian doctrine has always existed in the Church, in substance; that there have been always persons who perfectly under¬ stood this Christian doctrine ; and that there have been also many who, through sloth or indifference, did not com¬ prehend it. Heresy is, according to him, a means of bringing the latter to an improved knowledge of the Gospel, while it leads the more learned to give form and order to the doctrines always received in the Church, and to defend them against heresy by new arguments. Such is the development of Catholic doctrine contemplated by St. Augustine ; which seems to be substantially the same as that which Mohler describes in his “ Symbolik,” as cited above. With such views of the derivation of Christian doctrine from the Apostles, Mohler does not seem, in any of his writings, to put forward notions on Development which can be fairly regarded as corresponding to those of Mr. Newman. The whole body of faith and morality in the Church has, according to him, been preserved at all times. The only actual development, as implying the notion of expansion and augmentation of Christian ideas, of which he seems to speak, is the development of the Papal authority, on which we have already (p. 236) seen his statements. The same remark, to some extent, holds good in refe¬ rence to the Count de Maistre. This eloquent and plau¬ sible writer endeavours to obviate the difficulty presented by the early ecclesiastical history, in regard to the Papal Supremacy, by contending, that all institutions which are of long duration must develope themselves slowly and gra¬ dually. His theory, however, seems to be applied to the single point of the Papal Supremacy; and even in respect to this, he supposes the idea of the Papal primacy always to have formed part of the Church's faith ; so that his theory is not intended, apparently, to do more than ac- ,336 Appendix . count for the progressive development of the power of the' Roman see. The doctrine on which this power is based was not a development, according to De Maistre; and in this he appears to differ both from Mohler and Newman. I subjoin some extracts from De Maistre’s work, entitled “ Du Pape," which will sufficiently explain his theory. In reference to the doctrine of some Romanists, who place the supreme authority of the Church, not in the Pope, hut in general councils, he says: a Le monde est devenue trop grand pour les conciles generaux, qui ne semblent faits que pour la jeunesse du Christianisme. Mais ce mot de jeunesse nPavertit d'ob- server que cette expression et quelques autres du meme genre se rapportent a la duree totale dffin corps ou d’un individu. Si je me represents, par exemple, la repuhlique Romaine, qui dura cinq cent ans, je sais ce que veulent dire ces expressions : La jeunesse ou les premieres annees de la repuhlique Romaine; et s’il s’agit d’un homme qui doit vivre a peu pres quatre-vingts ans, je me reglerai encore sur cette duree totale ; et je sais que si Thomme vivait mille ans, il serait jeune a deux cents. Qu'est-ce done que la jeunesse dune religion qui doit durer autant que le monde ? On parle beaucoup des premiers siecles du Christianisme: en verite, je ne voudrais pas assurer qu’ils sont passes. “ Quoi quhl en soit, il n’y a pas de plus faux raisonne- ment que celui qui veut nous ramener a ce qu’on appelle les premiers siecles , sans savoir ce qu’on dit. “ Il serait mieux d'aj outer, peut-etre, que dans un sens TEglise n’a point d'age. La religion Chretienne est la seule institution qui n'admette point de decadence, parce que e’est la seule divine. Pour Texterieur, pour les pra¬ tiques, pour les ceremonies, elle laisse quelque chose aux variations humaines. Mais Tessence est toujours le meme, et anni ejus non deficient .... Sans pousser plus loin ces observations, ne parlons pas tant des premiers siecles , ni des conciles oecumeniques , depuis que le monde est devenu si grand; ne parlons pas surtout des premiers siecles, comme si le temps avait prise sur TEglise. Les plaies Appendix. 337 qu’elle re^oit ne viennent que de nos vices, les siecles, en glissant sur elle, ne peuvent que la perfectionner.” p. 27, 28. The only variations which are here supposed to occur in the Christian religion, relate to external practices and ceremonies. Let us now come to his statement of the theory of development. “Rien dans toute Fhistoire ecclesiastique n’est aussi invinciblement demontre, pour la conscience surtout qui ne dispute jamais, que la suprematie monarchique du Souverain Pontife. Elle n’a point ete, sans doute, dans son origine, ce qu’elle fut quelques siecles apres ; mais c’est en cela precisement qu’elle se montre divine: car tout ce qui existe legitemement et pour des siecles, existe d’abord en germe et se developpe successivement.” p. 31. This deve¬ lopment, however, is, according to this writer, only the necessary result of the doctrine of Revelation itself, which teaches the supremacy of the chair of Peter. “ Bossuet a tres-heureusement exprime ce germe d’unite, et tous les privileges de la chair de Saint Pierre, deja visibles dans la personne de son premier possesseur.” p. 31. A passage from Bossuet is then cited, in which the scrip¬ tural argument for the Papal Supremacy is stated; and reference is also made to the doctrine of the Fathers and Councils, in further proof. After which, De Maistre pro¬ ceeds thus: “ On ose a peine citer aujourd’hui les textes qui, d’age en age, etablissent la suprematie Romaine de la manure la plus incontestable, depuis le berceau du Chris- tianisme jusqud nos jours . Ces textes sont si connus, qu’ils appartiennent a tout le monde, et qu’on a hair, en les citant, de se parer d’une vaine erudition. Cependant, comment refuser, dans un ouvrage tel que celui-ci, un coup d’ceil rapide a ces monuments precieux de la plus pure tradition ?” p. 33. Reference is then made to Irenseus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and others of the early Fathers, and also to the general councils, and the doctrines of certain Gallican divines; and the following conclusion is arrived at as the result of the inquiry: “En un mot, depuis Faurore du Christianisme jusqu’a nos jours, on ne trouvera pas que Fusage ait varie. Toujours les Papes se sont re- z 338 Appendix. gardes comme les chefs suprernes de VEglise , et toujours Us en ont deploye les pouvoirs p. 45. These statements of this advocate of the theory of deve¬ lopment are directly contradictory to those of Mdhler and Newman, who deny that the Papal power existed at the beginning, and prove that it was impossible that it could have existed for some ages (see above, p. 236—240). While, however, De Maistre maintains that the doctrine of the Papal Supremacy was received and acted on from the very commencement of Christianity, he supposes that its prerogatives were only gradually discovered, and that St. Peter himself may not have comprehended them. In reply to the Gallicans who urged that the Pope could not be infallible, because Papal decisions were examined by Councils before they were received, he says : “La plupart des ecrivains Fran^ais, depuis le temps surtout on la manie des constitutions s'est empare des esprits, partent tous, meme sans s'en apercevoir, de la sup¬ position dhme loi imaginaire, anterieure a tous les faits, et qui les a diriges ; de la maniere que si le Pape, par ex- emple, est souverain dans FEglise, tous les actes de Vhistoire ecclesiastique doivent Vattester en se pliant uniformement et sans effort d cette supposition , et que dans la supposition contraire, tous les faits de meme doivent contredire la souve- rainete. “ Or, il n’y a rien de si faux que cette supposition, et ce n’est point ainsi que vont les choses: jamais aucune insti¬ tution importante lFa resulte dhme loi, et plus elle est grande, moins elle ecrit. Elle se forme elle-meme par la conspiration de mille agents, qui presque toujours ignorent ce qu’ils sont; en sorte que souvent ils ont Fair de ne pas s'apercevoir du droit quhls etablissent eux-memes. .L'in¬ stitution vegete ainsi insensiblement a travers les siecles ; crescii occulto velut arbor cevo : c’est la devise eternelle de toute grande creation politique ou religieuse. Sainte Pierre avait-il une connaissance distincte de Fetendue de sa pre¬ rogative ehdes questions qu elle ferait naitre dans Favenir ? Je Fignore; ^Lorsque aprhs une sage discussion, accordee a Fexamen dune question importante a cette epoque, il Appendix. 339 prenait le premier la parole an concile cle Jerusalem, et que toute la multitude se tut, Saint Jacques meme n’ayant parle a son tour du liaut de son siege patriarcal, que pour confirmer ce que le chef des Apotres venait de decider, Saint Pierre agissait-il avec ou en vertu d'une connaissance claire et distincte de sa prerogative ; ou bien, en creant a son caractere ce magnifique temoinage, n'agissait-il que par un mouvement interieur separe de toute contemplation rationelle? Je l’ignore encore/' p. 88, 89. It would seem that the view taken in this passage hears a considerable resemblance to that of Mr. Newman. It solves the difficulties of Ecclesiastical History in reference to the Papal Supremacy, by supposing that the Supremacy was not the result of any law or principle consciously held from the beginning, but of the involuntary agency of indi¬ viduals in successive ages, who were ignorant of the results and tendencies of their acts. This gradual progress arising from the course of events, which De Maistre applies to the doctrine of the Papal Supremacy, is by Mr. Newman applied to Christian doctrine in general. But it certainly seems a very strange degree of inconsistency in the former writer; who, as we have seen, asserts in the most positive way, elsewhere, that the Papal Supremacy was founded on holy Scripture ; that all the Fathers attested it; and that the Popes even from the first exercised it. All this goes directly to prove that the Papal Supremacy was a law or principle which was at all times consciously held in the Church—which, in fact, formed an article of her faith. A law, then, with reference to the see of Rome, there was, on his own showing ; and this being the case, the fact, alleged by the Grallicans, that the Papal decrees were not received by councils without examination, is a valid objection to the Papal infallibility, as showing that it was not recognized by the early Church as included in the idea of the authority of the Roman see. On the whole I think it is evident, that Mr. Newman has derived from Mohler and De Maistre, little more than the general idea of development; and that these writers present that idea in a very different form, without the im- 340 Appendix, portant details and consequences which Mr. Newman has connected with it; and certainly in much more harmony with the established principles of Roman Catholic theology. It seems, on the whole, that the “ Essay on Development ” may fairly lay claim to originality both in its general theory and in its details. THE END OF THE FIRST PART.. Date Due IN U. S. A. PRINTED Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 012 01037 3662