It will be observed that this claim of development entirely destroys the claims at other times grounded on antiquity. · The primitive fathers are appealed to as containing the best and safest expositions of Christian truth, because they lived nearest to the source, the apostolical period itself. But what advantage. did this give them, if the truth did not come perfect from the source? If any part of it came from the apostles only as an

farthest limits. Every principle, which (as Mr. Carlyle would say) is a reality, not a sham, has indefinite results contained within it, of which those who first receive it have not even the faintest suspicion. They may hold it for some length of time in company with other modes of thought which are virtually inconsistent with it; they may so hold it through a life, through many lives, until gradually and unconsciously it is matured within, and springs forth into full development. Now the reverse of this is commonly assumed by controversialists; they find the fathers of some later century far more explicit and unanimous than in earlier times, on some great truth, and immediately conclude that it is the matured fruit of some false principle which has crept into the Church. Most illogically indeed! unless it be false principles only which are carried forward but slowly and by degrees to their full bearing. Whether in this or that case it be false is matter of evidence in the particular instance; but to say that à priori it probably is so is really to rule that the apostles taught no principle whatever. Real or living principles differ for mere formulæ as the works of nature from the works of art; a table or a chair is made once for all, and remains stationary in size and proportions as it came from the maker's hands; but a small seed, small and imperceptible, grows and expands without human cognisance, and ends, not begins, by banishing all rival claimants from the space it is destined to occupy. It may well be, then, as Mr. Goode has pointed out (vol. ii., p. 202-214), that the fifth century was far more decided and interested than the second in the defence of St. Mary's perpetual virginity, and yet may have been altogether right in such increased love of the doctrine. Such love may well have been the natural and legitimate development of principles taught by the apostles (e.g., the blessedness of celibacy, the sacramental efficacy of proximity to our Lord, the unspeakable dignity to which human nature is raised by the incarnation, etc., etc.), and St. Augustine may have been most pious and wisely zealous in denouncing those as heretics (vol. ii., pp. 211, 213) who did not receive a statement which the orthodox, by that time, had discovered to have been ever morally involved in the principles they held from the first.

"Again-the apostles may not only have taught principles without their development, but doctrines without their analysis.

"Again-still though the foundations of the faith were fully realized from the first, other principles there were, no doubt, and very far from unimportant ones, which were deposited, as it were, in germ, within the bosom of the Church; that her internal action might gradually nurture them, or external circumstances hasten their appearance on the surface."- Ward's Ideal, etc., pp. 547-550.

unripe germ, which was to develop its rich stores afterwards, then the primitive fathers may have died during the period of the germ, and previous to the development. The same may be said of the Nicene fathers; of the medieval fathers; perhaps the true development was the reformation; or possibly there may remain a development still. At all events, if development be appealed to, antiquity must be relinquished, and the celebrated saying of Tertullian, id extraneum et falsum, quod sit posterius immissum, must be reversed.

66

If it be retorted that development being relinquished, antiquity may and ought to be appealed to, we answer, certainly. We entirely agree with the saying of Pope Stephen, Nihil novandum-nil nisi quod traditum est;" and with Vincentius of Lerins, "Retenta est antiquitas, explosa novitas." Provided always that the appeal to antiquity be fairly made and fully carried out; and that what is really oldest be received as best. Which is older, God or Satan? Truth or falsehood? The

'No man holding this doctrine of development, can at any time have any certainty that he is in possession of the revealed will of God. This leaves him practically without revelation altogether; because he may not form any decided opinion, or engage in any zealous practice, on the authority of Scripture or antiquity, or both, lest what remains to be developed should prove him to be in fatal error; neither may he reject anything which seems now to be false, from its opposition to Scripture and antiquity, lest what remains to be developed should prove that in so doing he has been rejecting a catholic truth. We have a notable instance of this in the present position (December 1845) of Dr. Pusey, who hesitates to condemn Roman doctrine lest it should eventually prove to be true, and who hesitates to leave the Church of England lest this should eventually prove to be wrong. In the secession, after so long a struggle, of his more talented and less scrupulous coadjutors, we hail a very gratifying practical proof that the Church of England cannot be Romanised.

To do Mr. Newman justice, he made the experiment with consummate ability, and of course with success over some minds. Those who felt themselves agreeing with him, up to the point of his secession, and who now refuse or hesitate to follow his example, cannot have very comforting assurances of their own sincerity.

If there remain among us any of his disciples bent on accomplishing still what he has failed to accomplish, they will require a double measure of caution, because now they are justly suspected, and their movements watched.

The younger and less adroit pupils in their school, who occupy the lower forms through the country, and are not likely to be heard of beyond the precincts of their own villages, will, it is to be hoped, confine themselves to what they consider the true rubrical and canonical practice of the Church of England.

wheat which the Master sowed, or the tares which the enemy sowed among it? it? Which is the older, the Scripture or the fathers? The Nicene Creed, the distinguishing symbol of the reformed as it was of the early churches, or the creed of Pope Pius IV.?1

Revealed religion is not like a science of human discovery, at first imperfect, and gradually improved under successive developments, throwing more and more light upon the original facts and fundamental principles; neither is it left dependent for its complement, or necessary corollaries, on assemblies of fallible men. Just the reverse. It came perfect and entire from the

A brief reference to these two creeds is decisive of the matter of antiquity in this controversy. The creed of the ancient Christian Churches was defined by their assembled prelates at Nice in A.D. 325. This Nicene Creed was recited as the received creed of the Churches, by the Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381. And again it was so recited by the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431. This Council (of Ephesus) added a solemn sentence of excommunication against any one who should “dare to compose, or to profess, or to offer any other form of faith." The Nicene Creed was again recited as the catholic creed of the Churches, at the Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451.

EXTRACT FROM THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON.

"The catholic faith delivered by the holy three hundred and eighteen fathers (viz., at Nice), and by the holy one hundred and fifty fathers (viz., at Constantinople), also by the other most holy and glorious fathers (viz., at Ephesus), we guard, and according to that we believe. The most reverend bishops exclaimed,' No person makes any other exposition of faith. We neither attempt nor dare to do so. For the fathers have taught, and in writings are preserved, those things which have been set forth by them; and other than these we cannot speak.'

Those principles which have been set forth are sufficient: it is not lawful to make any other exposition."

The same Nicene Creed was recited as still the creed of the Churches by the Council of Trent, in her third session, Feb. 4th, A.D. 1546.

Up to that period no other creed had been heard of in the Churches. Various heretical opinions and schismatical practices, some borrowed from paganism, some from Judaism, some from perverted interpretations of detached passages of Scripture, especially from the application to the Christian dispensation, of prophecies which describe the millennium, had been introduced by individuals, and greatly corrupted and divided the Churches; but the Nicene Creed was still the generally, the almost universally, recognised symbol of the catholic Christian faith.

It was reserved for the Bishop of Rome, A.D. 1564, to introduce a new creed. All our controversy with Rome has reference to the articles of this new creed,

hand of its divine Author, and will admit of no mutilations or additions by the hand of man. When, under pretence of simplifying it, we attempt to hide any of its deep and mysterious announcements from the people; or when, under pretence of magnifying it, we attempt to add imposing ceremonies or gorgeous magnificence to its chaste and severe simplicity,-in either case, we mar the fair symmetry of the daughter of heaven, and present to view a monster of our own imagination.1 Had the

1 Mr. Newman, in his recently published treatise,' labours to establish his theory of developed Christianity by analogies. The species of development for which he contends will be understood by the following specimen. After citing a passage from Bishop Butler, in which the great philosopher argues our obliga tions to worship the Son and the Holy Ghost, from the revealed relations towards those divine persons in the Godhead in which we stand, Mr. Newman observes, "Here is a development of doctrine into worship; in like manner the doctrine of the beatification of the saints has been developed into their Cultus; of the coтbкos, or mother of God, into hyperdulia; and of the real presence into adorations of the host," p. 50.

6

In defence of the reasonableness and propriety of such developments, Mr. Newman refers to the progressive improvements in human sciences, natural and political. He says, "When some new philosophy, or its portions, are introduced into the measures of the Legislature, or into the concessions made to a political party, or into commercial or agricultural policy, it is often said, 'we have not seen the end of this:' it is an instalment of future concessions :' our children will see.' We feel that it has unknown bearings and issues," p. 48. "And so in philosophy the systems of physics or morals, which go by celebrated names, proceed upon the assumption of certain conditions which are necessary for every state of development. . . . . And so in military matters the discovery of gunpowder developed the science of attack and defence in a new instrumentality. So states have their respective policies, on which they move forward, and which are the conditions of their well-being."-Pp. 67, 68.

..

But it may be asked, What have these things to do with revealed religion? or where is the justice of the presumed analogy? In all these things fallen man is left to the exercise of his natural powers; and the advances or even the mistakes and failures of one man lead to improvements by another, each profiting by the experience of his predecessor in the field of inquiry. But in revealed religion man is not left to the exercise of his natural powers for the progressive attainment of, and improvement in, truth. On the contrary, he is supernaturally put in possession of truth, pure and perfect from its divine source. Is it so? This is the question between us who say so concerning the Scriptures, and those who disparage the perfectness, in this respect, of the sacred volume. All Mr. Newman's analogies are therefore, in the assumption of being fairly applicable, guilty of a petitio principii.

'An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. London: Toovey. 1845.

New Testament contained germs designed to ripen into such fruit-bearing as Romanist controversialists defend, it would not, in common consistency, have contained such language as this; well calculated to make its sincere disciples shudder at developOne instance adduced by Mr. Newman supplies remarkable elements for its own refutation. He says: "The admission of Jews to municipal offices has lately been defended' on the ground that it is the introduction of no new principle, but a development of one already received; that its great premises have been decided long since, and that the present age has but to draw the conclusion; that it is not open to us to inquire what ought to be done in the abstract, since there is no ideal model for the infallible guidance of nations; that change is only a question of time, and that there is a time for all things; that the application of principles ought not to go beyond the actual case, neither preceding nor coming after an imperative demand," etc., pp. 48, 49.

How utterly the implied analogy between this and revealed religion breaks down at the first touch! Doubtless, in the complicated details of political measures, concerning which no higher wisdom than man's can be consulted, and in the management of which it may be man's best wisdom to vary with varying circumstances, it is not open to us to inquire what ought to be done in the abstract, since there is no ideal model for the infallible guidance of nations. But with reference to Christian truth, the case is totally different. Here we have "the wisdom of God," which is perfect, and here, therefore, it is open to us to inquire what ought to be believed in the abstract, since there is an ideal model for the infallible guidance of Christians: "that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." Doubtless, in human policy, change is only a question of time, but in Christianity there is no change. The gospel, "the everlasting gospel," like its divine Author, is "the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever." Doubtless, principles of human wisdom, short-sighted as they are, and liable to reversal by unforeseen occurrences, ought not to be applied dogmatically beyond the actual case; but the principles of revealed religion are applicable to all cases; they have emanated from Him who "declareth the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done;" no occurrence, or combination of occurrences, unforeseen and unprovided for in principle, can by possibility arise-" the word of God liveth and abideth for ever." In a subsequent chapter of his book, Mr. Newman insists upon the fact, which no one, I believe, ever disputed, that Christianity cannot be learned all at once. He says, "It is the peculiarity of the human mind that it cannot take an object in which is submitted to it simply and integrally. It conceives by means of definition or description; whole subjects do not create in the intellect whole ideas, but are, to use a mathematical phrase, thrown into series, into a number of statements, strengthening, interpreting, connecting each other, and with more or less exactness approximating, as they accumulate, to a perfect image. There is no other way of learning or of teaching. ... The more claim an idea has to be considered

1 Times newspaper. March 1845.