ESS A \ 'HltlDATES; OB, n. NEWMAN'S : DEVELOPMENT CONFUTATION : Bij "¦' CDujtdmm Dtsciplr. •2s. C'd. MITHRIDATES. Quod feeerat ipsa, Vulneris auxilitim Pelias hasta tulit. MITHRIDATES: MR. NEWMAN'S ESSAY ON DEVELOPMENT CONFUTATION. a (©uontiam Mi&tipU. *NO MAN ALSO HAVING DRUNK OLD WINE STRAIGHTWAY DESIRETH NEW : FOR HE SAITH, THE OLD IS BETTER." — S. Luke V. 39. LONDON : W. J. CLEAVER, BAKER STREET, POBTMAN SQUARE. LONDON : RICHARDS, PRINTER, )00, ST. MARTIN'S LANE. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION. On the Present Aspect of the Controversy with Rome, and the Real Cause ofthe Late Secession. page: 1. On the Unity of the Kingdom of Christ ; and, the Anglican Theory, as compared with Scripture and Tradition ........ 1 .2. Mr. Newman's Defence of the Anglican Theory . 3 3. Anglican Defences of the same .... 4 4. On Dr. Pusey's supposed Defence of the Anglican Church against the Charge of Schism ... 7 5. On Mr. Newman's Real Bias .... 8 CHAPTER I. On Development, and Contradictory Definitions of it. 1. Mr. Newman's Just Distinction between Kinds of Development, and his non-Observance of that Distinction . . . . 11 PAGE 2. On Argument and Development . . 12 3. On Development and Rationalism .... 14 4. On the Jewish Law and the Gospel . . .15 5. On Divine Developments, and the Oral Tradition of the Jews . . 16 6. On the Arguments from Scripture, viz: : the Parable ofthe Seed, and the Body of Christ . . . 17 7. Developments and Tradition ..... 22 8. True Developments Traditional, not Additional . 23 Appendix on Sixth Section .... 25 CHAPTER II. On Ideas, and the Application ofthe Term to Christianity. 1 . On Ideas as Human Opinions ; and the " Leading Idea " of Christianity 28 2, Is Christianity an Idea ? ..... 29 3. If it is, may it be treated as other Ideas ? 30 4. On the Objectivity of Christianity .... 30 5. On Principles, Doctrines, and Ideas, and the Inappli cability of Analogy to the former . 31 CHAPTER III. On the recognition of the Principle of Development by the Anglican Church, and on Vincentius' Rule. 1. On Objective and Subjective Developments ... 36 PAGE 2. On the English School of Theology _ . . 40 3. On 'the Athanasian and Tridentine Creeds . 41 4. On Apostolical Succession and the Papal Supremacy. 43 5. On the Real Presence and Papal Supremacy . 43 6. On the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and the Papal Supremacy ........ 45 7. On the Council of Antioch, and the withdrawal of the Term 'Homousion' ...... 50 8. On the Apparent Ignorance of the Ante-Nicene Fathers 50 9. On the Unpopularity of Anglo-Catholicism . . 51 CHAPTER IV. On Romish Developments. 1. On the Preservation of Type; and on the Pagan's External view of Christianity being compared with the Anglican's Internal view of Romanism 2. On the Papacy as a Result of Consolidation 3. On St. Ignatius's Development of Episcopacy 4. On Conscience and Church Authority 5. On Mr. Newman and Ex-President Adams 6. On Infallibility and the Uniform Probation of the Church 7. On the Worship of the B. V. Mary . 8. On the Worship of Angels 53 545456 57 57 58 59 9. On Purgatory, and on the Necessity of a Different Application of Doctrine in the Early and Later Church 60 CONCLUSION. On the Possibility of Proving the Historical Truth of Lutheranism, by the Theory of Developments . 62 INTRODUCTION ON THE PRESENT ASPECT OF THE CONTROVERSY WITH ROME, AND THE REAL CAUSE OF THE LATE SE-. CESSION. The Church, like the Sea, is ever old and new at once. It is ever presenting new aspects of old phe nomena, it is ever fighting the same battle under various leaders, and agamst different forms of the same evil. Woe is it unto her that she has now to arm herself for "for fightings within," while the foe is gathering strength without. It would seem as if the siege of Jerusalem were being figuratively reproduced, that the infidel were lying outside the wall, and undermining silently her battlements, while the besieged were devouring one another within. Woe is it unto her, that he who was raised up in our Zion to be a standard-bearer and to rally her fainting troops, should have doubted his own mother's fidelity; mocked, and well nigh cast out as he has been by his brethren, that he B 2 INTRODUCTION. should have failed to discern in her, the lineaments of a true parentage, or the seal of a lawful espousal ; that he should have withdrawn himself from the contest, and gone over (God forbid that we should say "to the foe"), but to a stepmother's cruel despotism. But if we will not, cannot, call the present a conflict with a foe, yet it is a stern, heart-piercing remonstrance and protest with an unjust and mer ciless parent, and were it not that " the Truth as it is in Jesus," is stronger than love, and than death, and that all ties of natural affection must be set at nought for the truth's sake, we would for unity's sake rush into our mother's arms, and offer the kiss of peace, or if that were rejected, would bear meekly the rod of her displeasure. I. What then is the present phasis of our con troversy with Rome ? Why it is well-known that the one overwhelming difficulty with all the late converts to Rome, and more particularly With that great and good man, (to whom we all owe so much, and have repaid so little else but ingratitude,) whose whole career is a mys tery and a problem that we cannot solve or unravel; the one overwhelming difficulty, I say, was the in ability to reconcile the Anglican view of the Unity of the Church with the Scriptures, and pa tristic Theology. Undoubtedly the language of prophecy as uttered by Isaiah and Daniel, the whole letter and spirit of INTRODUCTION. 3 the New Testament ; and the universal teaching of the Catholic fathers, agree in setting forth the Church as one kingdom or empire, one visibly, one outwardly and inwardly. There is no denying that the latter do not seem ever to contemplate the possibility of there being three independent non*- communicating branches of the one Church ; and we must confess that, a priori, the study of the Bible would have led us to expect a visible, as well as an invisible unity; though perhaps we would not go so far as to say that its language is as abso lute and conclusive, as the patristic deductions on the subject seem to be. That this was Mr. New man's strong feeling and conviction, we need not the indirect testimony of general report, for we have it so expressed in the sixteenth and seven teenth sermons on the Subjects of the Day, and more distinctly in the Essay under review, pp. 246, 259, 260. n. Now, the first inconsistency and self-eontra- diction that I conceive I have observed throughout •this Essay, shews itself even on this subject, when introduced and touched upon by the author inci dentally. He is beginning to unfold his (or rather Guizot's) views about "Christianity coming into the world rather as an idea than an institution" upon which the main argument hinges, and he in sensibly perceived that his own strongest convic tions respecting the visible unity of the kingdom of Christ, presented prima facie rather an objection b2 4 INTRODUCTION. to that view; so in page 116, he writes as follows*. *' Christianity, though represented in prophecy as a kingdom, came into the world rather as an idea." Again, in page 168, after quoting a description in the Bible, of the building of Solomon's temple, he says, " This is a type of the Church above : it was otherwise with the Church below." If then in some cases, and at some times, he will set aside the language of scripture and the fathers, when the re sult has not apparently tallied with the prophecy, or when it suits his' purpose and his theory; if he will refer the language in the one case to the Church above, how can he object to the Anglican view of the Church's unity being invisibly complete in Christ, like the perfect righteousness imputed to the saints, yet visibly at present broken, like the imperfect righteousness imparted to them? m. I do not mean to say that the Anglican Church has any distinctly-expressed theory on the subject, but it implies one by acknowledgment of the Greek and Latin Churches, with whom she is not in outward communion ; though perhaps the inter ruption of that communion is not her fault or wish, At all events she never formally broke with Rome, but Rome cut off her, and her case may be like that in Acts xvi. 37. Yet the language of the Homilies, it must be confessed, was likely to try all but true Christian patience. However there is no doubt of her wishing theoretically to commu nicate with the Greek Church, though in practice INTRODUCTION. 5 the late Bishop of Jerusalem did all he could to alienate us further than ever: and the Greek Church holds all the doctrines of the Latin, except the supremacy of the pope, and a few words of the Nicene symbolum ; so that it cannot be on the score of any other Christian doctrine that we keep aloof from Rome, at least if we are consistent in our treatment of her and the Greek Church. Besides the theories touched upon in the pre ceding paragraph, writers in the Anglican Church reconcile themselves to the apparent violation of scriptural and patristic language, by the moral ne cessities of the case, the absolute certainty of the true Church existing on earth, the moral objections to the Roman and Greek systems in other matters, and the general correspondence of the Anglican Church to the apostolical and primitive in all other essentials ; or again, some . explain the language of Scripture by the principle laid down in the Epistle to the Hebrews ii. v. 8 : — " For in that He put all things under Him, He left nothing that is not put under Him. But now we see not yet all things put under Him." Others think they see antecedent hints and intimations, in Scripture and the fathers, of the external violation of unity. For instance, Mr. Alexander Knox suggested the idea of the parables in the thirteenth chapter of St, Matthew being consecutively prophetic of the Church's history. Following up this view, the concluding parable, in the thirty-third verse, has b INTRODUCTION. been supposed to contain a dark intimation of the present phasis of the later Church, when "the woman has hid the leaven in three measures of meal." So with regard to the fathers, the occa sional disputes of several branches and their breach of communion, as was the case with pope Victor and St, Cyprian, without either being considered as out of the Church, afford some handle for men who are otherwise satisfied with England, and dis satisfied more or less with Rome, on moral if not on doctrinal and intellectual grounds. Again, Mr. Newman's Sermons on the Subjects of the Day, would incidentally furnish another view. He has said in p. 256 of that volume, that the Church is rather an empire than a kingdom^ like the four worldly empires that preceded her. " It is the pe culiarity of an imperial state to bear rule over Other states." He instances Great Britain. " The kingdom of which we are subject is small, consist ing of two islands : but the empire vested in that kingdom extends all over the earth, consisting of colonies, dependencies, &c." Taking therefore this admission, we may easily conceive of Satraps, in the Persian empire of old, being at variance with one another, and yet the unity of the kingdom pre served. Barons in the feudal ages might have warred one with another, and yet all have yielded homage to one sovereign. Catholic kings in me diaeval days, did oftentimes invade one another's realms ; yet all alike acknowledge the pope's supre- INTRODUCTION. 7 macy. Upper and Lower Canada might be at variance with each other, and yet both obey the crown of Great Britain. So may we not conceive of three independent portions of the Catholic Church, all one in Christ, yet outwardly divided from each other?* rv. Here I may observe, that Mr. Newman's comment, in page 259, respecting the unity of the Church being supposed by Anglicans to lie in the ' episcopal succession, was perfectly gratuitous. It was evidently intended as an answer to Dr. Pusey 's remarks in the " English Churchman," just after the former's secession. But no one ever supposes that Dr. Pusey built upon the apostolic succession of our bishops by itself ; he merely referred to that as a necessary point amongst others which he be lieved to have been preserved to us. To shew that this idea was not one held by English Churchmen, I will quote the language of an Anglican writer on ia parallel case : " As much stress is laid upon the original succession being maintained by the Irish Protestants, and not by the Rqpianist bishops, it is as well to remark, that the apostolical succession of St. Patrick will not counterbalance a schismatic movement, any more than in the case of the Arian and Donatist heresies." v. Lastly, it is right and fair to observe, that though Mr. N. in page 29, says " that it need not * See also inf. cap. ii. sec, ii. fin. 8 INTRODUCTION. .be supposed that any aim at Roman Catholic doc trine gave a direction to the enquiry," yet, when we find (as we shall) the author contradicting, without any notice or remark, his own previous views of the same instances and arguments, and an swering himself in this same essay, we cannot help remembering that he was actually in search of a theory, — that his leading difficulty respecting the visible Unity of the Church, and his inability to ac cept the Anglican views of it, forced him to look about for another theory (for Church and locus standi so holy, and humble a man must have) — and when he found that Rome alone presented a satis factory theory on that point, he must needs further satisfy his moral and intellectual nature respecting her other tenets and variations. Unintentionally, his earnest desire to frame a good answer, may, and must, have biased his mind. At all events, his work shews evident marks of haste, and inconsis tency of expression and thought, amidst many great and unequalled flashes of a philosophy both high- and deep, combined with, a grasp of mind, and extensive research, the most surprising. To have attempted to meet him on that ground, would have been ab surd and ridiculous, in one every way unworthy to be named in connexion with such a man. There fore, I have not presumed to do much more than compare him with himself, nor dared even to put my name to this work,* as it would have prevented * My classical readers will understand my meaning by INTRODUCTION. 9 my gaining a fair hearing for the arguments pro duced. I have merely used great diligence in the frequent perusal of the work itself; and so, in spite of myself, could not help noticing its numerous con tradictions. I had no wish to find it weak or un satisfactory ; rather the contrary. I see and feel so many practical defects in the English communion, that, if my conscience and intellect allowed of it, I would gladly flee from the world and self into the fostering bosom of the Roman Church. But I can not. I am one of those who lack the aids of sym pathy and palpable communion in leading the life of a penitent. The English Church leaves me to my own misguided, erring will, to work out my own medicinal cures. That will is weak and distorted ; and I want guidance, and help, and encouraging, cheering companionship : but I cry in vain for it. I see around me penitents and saints; and each kind requiring its own special food and sustenance : and yet they are almost entirely left to themselves, as if they had the instinct of the brute creation, instead of the reason and judgment of man. Feeling these practical wants, I would, rather gladly than not, have embraced the means and opportunities offered by Rome : but, I repeat it, I cannot. With all my longings on the one hand, and sorrow on the other, at the lack of discipline and sympathetic aids, and at the prevalence of unrebuked heresy in our own the assumption of the name imply that " the poison is its " Mithridates," as it were to own antidote." 10 INTRODUCTION. Church, I could not help confessing that I saw in her (as exhibited in the lives and writings of such as Andrewes, and Ken, and in her own liturgy) tbe lineaments and features of the Church apostolic and primitive, which I could not see so plainly in Rome. I have set myself to strive and labour, with prayer and self-discipline, for the weal of our own Church, and would fain offer at ber feet this bumble tribute of a grateful yet sorrowing heart. CHAPTER I. ON THE CONTRADICTORY DEFINITIONS OF THE TERM " DEVELOPMENT." i. The subject has been unnecessarily mystified and confused, by the uncertain use of the term " de velopment." It may be very true that the name is applicable to all or any of the senses in which it has been used ; but in very different points of view. Just as in an unmetaphorical sense, one acorn might be said to be developed that had its outer coatings stripped off, and another that was planted in the earth, and grew into an oak tree ; yet the identity would be only in name, not in reality or idea. So in the essay under review, it would have mate rially assisted the simplifying of the question, if the author had adhered to his own just distinction in kinds of development, which he quotes from a former work of his ( University Sermons, p. 330, &c), and which he does not here retract. The strange thing iSj that, though he here . draws that distinction, yet 12 ON THE CONTRADICTORY DEFINITIONS [CHAP. the whole of the " Introduction" grounds its attack on the Anglican use of Vincentius' rule upon the identity ofthe very developments here distinguished. The passage maybe seen in page 55 : " Ideas and their developments are commonly not identical, the deve lopment being but the carrying out ofthe idea into its consequences. Thus the doctrine of Penance may be called a development ofthe doctrine of Baptism, yet still is a distinct' doctrine .* whereas the develop ments in the doctrines ofthe Holy Trinity and the Incarnatian, are mere portions of the original im pression; and modes of representing it." So ob vious a distinction in kind, requires in controversial writings corresponding distinction in terminology ; and we could have desired that, if the doctrine of Penance is to be called a development of Holy Bap tism, the statements of the creeds touching the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, should not be called by the same name, for clearness' sake, but " expo sitions," or the like ; which term would have con veyed a distinct and correct notion, at all events, to our minds: as, when we read or talk of Bishop Pearson's Exposition ofthe Creed, we do not "ima gine that he has in any way added to the Church's mind, but only more fully explained it. n. I think We may fairly object to another con fusion of terms that the author has made in page 97 : " Argument implies deduction, that is, develop ment." For surely all this is a mere play upon words : he does not really mean that Roman deve- I.] OF THE TERM " DEVELOPMENT." 13 lopments are logical or mathematical arguments. When I read in St. Cyprian and Tertullian a di rect allusion to that much-questioned eighth verse of 1 John v., and argue that they must have had it in their MSS., I do not develope anything new, or add to the truth. When I am told that the Church of Christ has ever believed that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and yet that there are not three Gods, but one God ; and when a man, who rejects Church authority, denies this, and asks me for my Scripture proof, and I refer him to St. Matthew xxviii. 19, and 2 Cor. xiii. 14, &c. I do not develope or add any thing " to the faith." I merely combine, or adduce arguments. I prove what I had already received ; I do not receive new truth ; whereas, the author says, p. 83, that " to develope is to receive conclusions from received truths " I was merely proving the truth I had already received, not receiving anything new. Again, in p. 98, he would make out that every sermon is a development, for he says that the text, " The Word became flesh," requires explanation in order to be intelligible. That sermons are not necessarily developments, in the Roman sense of addition, need hardly be said ; for English clergy men are distinctly sworn to deduce nothing from Holy Scripture but what is in accordance with the already received and approved teaching of the fathers. 14 ON THE CONTRADICTORY DEFINITIONS [CHAP. ni. I just now quoted a passage from page 83, where a distinction, is drawn between development and rationalism. As it has been commonly re marked of late, that the author's theory is very near akin to what he has well called "Germanism," it may be fair to bring forward his anticipatory de fence of himself against a charge, which I own I should be most unwilling to think true of so humble and self-distrusting a mind. " To develope, is to receive conclusions from re ceived truths : to rationalize, is to receive nothing but conclusions from received truths." I suppose this means that " development" does more than merely receive mathematical conclusions, it receives analogical hints, and probable deductions; e. g. it receives a doctrine of purgatory from the received truth ofthe heinousness of post-baptismal sin, which of course is anything but a logical conclusion. There fore I could not venture to say that Mr. N. ra tionalized in this sense. Yet I think (as stated ch. iv. sect. 4) that he has based his developing au thority, and consequently his theory of develop ments on the right of private judgment ; he starts vrith subjective reasons for expecting and inventing that authority. The authority comes to us cer tainly with a claim of infallibility, but it does not ¦prove that claim by any external signs : on the con trary, what he quotes, p. 4, from Chillingworth, dis proves its objective character. One cannot help feeling that there is much more of Aristotle's mind I.] OF THE TERM " DEVELOPMENT." 15 than Plato's in our author. But after all the real difference between the Roman theory of develop ments and rationalism, is that the former are wholly dependent upon an external authority for their validity, or at least for their acceptance. The latter appeals to the individual reason and conscience. The former are addressed (according to our author, pp. 124, 348,) to a believer in re vealed religion. The latter to a heathen worshipper after the dictates of natural religion. See infra, chap. iv. 4. rv. We proceed then to another distinction in kinds of development, that the author ought to have noted, instead of assuming their identity. I allude to a passage in p. 103, where he would seem to imply that because " the whole Bible, and not only its prophetical parts, is written on the prin ciple of development", therefore, we might expect the same to occur in the Christian dispensation. But surely this were, first, to assume that the Jewish were additional developments; or if they are, to put human development on a par with •divine, or else to beg the question altogether, and to assume that the Roman development also proceeded from an inspired authority. Indeed, at pages 88, 89, he distinctly does assume that developments of the later creeds are to the earlier, what the Gospel was to the Law. " As a mind sincerely attached to some form of heathenism, and then brought under the light of the truth, would be drawn off from error, 16 ON THE CONTRADICTORY DEFINITIONS [CHAP. by gaining what it had not, by being clothed upon that mortality may be swallowed up of life ; such is the theory of the fathers, as regards the doctrines fixed by councils — Profectus fidei, non permutatio — and so, as regards the Jewish law, our Lord said, that He "came not to destroy, but to fulfil." These passages, when compared with the one quoted in sect. 1 of this chapter, from the University- Ser mons, do seem to me to bear out what I said in the Introduction, that there were marks of haste and inconsistency. v. Mr. N. lays great stress upon the Jewish developments, as if they were always additional, not traditional ; but may we not assume, or rather can we help seeing, that the Jews had their un written, but authorised, irap&Boaie respecting the Messiah (embodied in ritual forms, may be), over and above the written documents that have come down to us, just as is the case with the Ghristian Church. Is not this implied by St. Jude's re ference to Enoch's prophecy? and St. Paul's reference to Jannes and Jambres (2. Tim. 3), or again by our Lord's words (John viii. 56), " Abra ham rejoiced to see my day."* So also St. Paul * On this subject, Mr. Blunt's x. 26. And it is important to ingenious and instructive lee- remember that the Samaritans, tures on the Pentateuch, may who rejected all the Scriptures be usefully consulted, especially but the Pentateuch, yet ac- Lecture I, on the intimations knowledged and expected " the of a Patriarchal Church. And Prophet" of whom Moses wrote, further, see Heb. xi. passim, to be Messiah -or Christ, of especially vv. 13, 26; 1 Cor, which name (on the surface at I.] OF THE TERM " DEVELOPMENT." 17 (Heb. x. 26) declares 'Moses to have seen deeper into the mystery of the gospel than would appear on the surface of his writings. And this is evi dently the doctrine of our Church's seventh article, which declares that the fathers under the old cove nant rested upon evangelical promises, and would seem to be directly opposed to Bishop Warburton's theory in The Divine Legation of Moses* and to Archbishop Whateley's first Essay on the Peculiari ties of the Christian Religion. Talk ofthe "non- natural" senses indeed, (as the latter does again and again, in his lately published letter to one of his clergy on Tlie Evangelical Alliance,) I do think the man lives in a glass-house, who holds this Warbur- tonian theory, and subscribes the seventh article. vt. After considering the analogies of Jewish developments, and the law and gospel, I now pass to Mr. Newman's argument or deduction from Scripture passages, which he considers as propheti cally descriptive of the gradual development of the Christian faith. — p. 112. The parable on which he lays his great stress, is that in St. Mark iv. 26, 29 : " 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 least) he wrote nothing. There to the Scriptures. — John iv. must have been aypaa -tradi- 25. tions from the Patriarchal * See p. 78 of Mr. New- Qhurch, which were the key man's Essay. 18 ON THE CONTRADICTORY DEFINITIONS [CHAP. knoweth not how; for the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself." Here (he proceeds to say) an in ternal element of life, whether principle or doctrine (but see below, chap. 2, sect. 4) is spoken of rather than any mere external manifestation; and it is observable that the spontaneous as well as the gradual character of the growth is intimated. This description of the process corresponds to what has been observed respecting development; viz., that it is not an effect of wishing and resolving, or of false enthusiasm, or of any mechanism of rea soning, or of any mere subtlety of intellect : but comes of its own innate power of expansion within the mind in its season, though with the use of re flection and argument, and original thought, more or less, as it may happen, with a dependence on the ethical growth of the mind itself, and with a reflex influence upon it. Such is our author's comment upon this parable, but let us work out the aMiogy fairly, and see its bearings, whether it can be more aptly referred to the development of doctrine in the Church, or to that of its external aspect; or again, of Christian grace in the individual heart. The seed is the word of God, but till it comes to perfection, it brings forth no fruit, (only blade or leaves, Matt. xiii. 3-8). — Can that be said ofthe Church's creed, that hitherto the results have been merely blade and ear, without grain, leaves, and buds, without blossom or fruit? Is the fruit to come at the end I.] OF THE TERM "DEVELOPMENT." 19 of the world? Why, our Lord said, "When the Son of Man cometh, will He find faith upon earth?" Mr. N. himself says, pp. 101, 423, (not that all he says can be allowed, but of that in its place), that the early Christians were comparatively sinless, and he speaks of iniquity abounding in the end of the world (p. 91). But it is the truth that sets us free, that sanctifies us. Therefore we do battle for the Catholic faith, and in a Catholic sense hold the article of justification thereby, as stoutly as we hold the converse, that that faith can only be truly held and maintamed, in righteousness and holiness ; " If any man will do the will of God, he shall know of the doctrine." — (John vii. 17.) So then, if develop ments of additional truth were vouchsafed as the Church grew older, it would be at once a proof of her increased hohness and purity (as with Cor nelius), and also a means of still greater and higher growth ; and men that have lived since the times of the Tridentine Council might, nay must, be holier than the saints from Augustine to Bernard, and they again holier than their predecessors; which we saw that our author denied in another place.* Whereas upon the other interpretation and application of the parable to individual minds and hearts, the convert hears and receives the word ; step by step he gives up his idols, his prejudices, * This would be the result of below ("Appendix") to indi- additional truth, whereas Ira- cate a deterioration. efe'ftoMflZdeveiopments are shewn C 2 20 ON THE CONTRADICTORY DEFINITIONS [CHAP. and objections, and bears fruit in baptism. The penitent is touched, he knoweth not how, by the sword of the Spirit ; he says, he will arise and go to his Father, (the blade), he arises and goeth, (the ear), and when he is a great way off, his Father seeth him, and goeth to meet him, and bringeth him into his home with joy and feasting (the full grain in the ear). The saint counteth not that he hath apprehended, but stretcheth forth still for the prize of the high calling. Mr. Newman, indeed, says, but does not show (p. 60) " There is so close a connexion between the development of mind and ideas," that he would predicate of one, whatever was true of the other. But it is only in its ex ternal phasis, as a power secretly growing up in the very heart of the Roman empire, that this parable 'can be applied to the whole body, and that is pro bably its main scope here ; as also may be said of the parable of the leaven. It differs from all the other empires of the world in being imper ceptible in its growth (Daniel ii. 44).* But how could one say of creed-developments, that they grew up unconsciously and imperceptibly in the Church? Heresies and dire facts drew them out more pointedly, but they were recognised before, and lived upon, and exhibited as light before men. So much may be observed respecting the parable of the seed — the parable of the leaven does not * See Newman's Sermons and xvii. passim ; Wilberforce's on Subjects of the Day, xvi. Fifth Empire. I.J OF THE TERM " DEVELOPMENT." 21 bear upon our subject particularly — for Mr. New man does not profess that leaven grows, but merely assimilates. The other intimation of Scripture proof that he quotes, is in p. 96 : " Christianity * * is externally what the apostle calls an earthen ves sel, being the religion of men, (by the way the apostle called himself, not Christianity, an earthen vessel, does he not?) and considered as such, it grows in wisdom and stature." He considers, therefore, that the analogy of the Church, as the body of Christ, requires us to expect developments of her. inner mind. Surely, "in Him was ihe fulness ofthe Godhead bodily," from the first, while only his human frame and mind developed. Surely " the Church was the fulness of Him that filleth all in all," from her be ginning. She too, like her divine Lord TrpoEWrc, advanced^ in mere human wisdom and experiences with her outward growth ; as she expands, she knows, or might know, better how to deal with men and nations. She hath learnt the wisdom ofthe serpent, and guilelessness of the dove. But her diviner part, her deposit, her irvtvp-a, "the faith," does not increase or grow, any more than it were possible for the God head to be aught else but wholly and perfectly in Christ. It is in this sense, that Butler's famous passage on developments (p. 102) may be well ap phed, and understood, for Mr. N. himself allows, (p. Ill), that the great philosopher did not intend to apply it to the divine revelation of doctrine. 22 ON THE CONTRADICTORY DEFINITIONS [CHAP. But when I speak of the Church having from the first the fulness of Him, I conceive the Church to have commenced on the day of Pentecost ; it was only " at hand" before, being built upon the deeds that her Lord endured and performed, rather than upon His teaching, as is well shewn by Dr. Burton, in the first chapter of his Ecclesiastical History. So that this in nowise interferes with an acknowledg ment, that during His hfe and ministry there was a continual development, as men were able to bear it, ahd all that Mr. N. quotes from another of his writings (pp. 104-107) may be admitted, as also what Dr. Arnold, in his Sermons on the Interpre tation of Scripture (on St. Paul's Speeches), Mr. Hind, in his Catechises Lectures on St. Mark, and • Mr. I. Williams on the Study of the Gospels^ all so well show and prove, as to the use of reserve, or caution in respect to pouring new wine into old bottles. vn. Another instance of confusedness in kinds of development occurs p. 99 : — " It would be natural in any Christian father, in the absence of express direction, to bring his children for baptism: such ih this instance would be the practical development of his faith in Christ, and love for his offspring: Still a development it is — necessarily required, yet as far as we know, not provided for his need by the revelation as originally given." In pages 410-11, he speaks of " infant baptism being less clearly appreciated (but that implies it I.J OF THE TERM "DEVELOPMENT." 23 was always known) in the early Church." Men deferred their baptism to a late period in their fives, or even to their death-bed, from an awful sense of the greatness of the gift. But I own it does astonish me to hear of its not being provided by revelation as far as we know. Why it was not till the twelfth century that any one ever questioned the fact of its being an apostohcal practice. About that time the Petrobrussians anticipated the Ana baptists of the .reformation. But if the Bible were put into the hands of an intelligent Brahmin, or any educated heathen, who had never heard of the subject before, and the passages from St. Matth, xxviii. 19, St. Mark x. 14, 1 John ii. 13, were read to him, and then the immediate testimonies of SS. Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, Irenasus, &c* as to the fact, can it be conceived that he would have any, the remotest, doubt as to its being " pro vided for a parent's need by the revelation as originally given." Considering that Mr. N. is in the main addressing English churchmen, it is un intelligible how he should make no account of the mutual acknowledgment of apostohcal tradition in practice and creeds. What we commonly cab1 tradition, he has here called development. viii. The remarkable point of all is, that he him self, with something like a note of admiration, refers to a council which recognized this distinction in kinds of development, and yet fails to see that it expressly forbids additional, while it as expressly 24 CONTRADICTORY DEFINITIONS, ETC. [CHAP. enforces traditional developments. In page 298, he writes — " It is remarkable that the council of Ephesus, which laid down this rule [that if any- one affirm or opine anything, or raise any question beyond the creed of Nicaea, he is to be condemnedj, had itself sanctioned the deoroKog, an addition greater perhaps than any before or since to the letter of the primitive faith." As if there can be any doubt therefore that it felt it was not contradicting its own canon, given above, when it admitted the term BeoroKoe ; in short, that it was not an additional but traditional article of faith See pp. 294, 304r 306, 341, where testimonies to this traditional development are quoted from councils. The conclusion we come to, therefore, under this head is, that there has necessarily arisen a confusion and contradiction in the author's language and views, from a neglect of terminology in the first place; and a consequent misapplication of reason ings, that were true of one kind of development, to another kind to which they in no way belonged. Whereas, if he had adhered throughout to the only simple definition of the term that he has given (p. 101, " a development is a different application of the revealed word"), we might have arrived at some shorter and easier conclusions. I.J APPENDIX. 25 APPENDIX TO THIS CHAPTER. Sect. vi. p. 19. Could not a serviceable parallel be drawn out, be tween our Lord's life, and the history of His body the Church? To which might be added, the typical history of the elder Church. And the result would be, I think, to shew that the fresh light and deve lopments in the Jewish Church, and our Lord's teaching till after His resurrection, were not addi tional truths, but declaratory expositions of old doctrines ; that, in short, these developments indi cated weakness and inferiority, that they were made because of the hardness of the people's hearts. Matt. xiii. 13-17; and xxi. 33-41. i. The Jewish Church, for three centuries, passed its infancy and early hfe in Egypt and in bondage, "Out of Egypt did He call His Son," who. went down into the land of heathens, Gahlee of the Gentiles, and was obedient there to earthly parents. This would correspond with the times of perse cution that the Christian Church suffered for the three first centuries. n. The Israelites were forty years, (during which time they received their code of laws), our Lord was forty days in the wilderness, being tried and tempted sore, by the world, the flesh, and the devil. 26 APPENDIX. [CHAP. The world poured into the Church, upon its es tablishment under Constantine, and worldhness and heresy tried it sore. Meanwhile the Oecume nical councils met and established the faith. in. The wars of the Jews with the heathenish Canaanites ; the scene in the Temple of our Lord, driving out the defilers of it, and His first preach ings and ill-treatment among the heathenish Naza- renes and Galileans, might find their parallel in the changed aspect of the Church, when it had to deal with external enemies, Mahomedans, and bar barian invaders. During these respective periods, the Jews were under a Theocracy, and Judges; — our Lord appointed His twelve Apostles — and so the Christian Church was governed by an invisible Head, with a visible constitution of an Apostolic College. iv. The wilful setting up of a king by the Is raelites, and the aggrandisement of the Papacy by the Roman see, led in each case to schism, the separa tion of the Ten from the two tribes, and the eastern from the western Church. Of course this as being sinful, and a not discerning of the Lord's body, cannot be paralleled in His life. v. The gradual apostacy of the Jewish peoplej their rejection of prophet after prophet, and hght upon light, their captivity and their restoration^ their national destruction, yet promised dehverance to come; and the sufferings of our blessed Lord, His trial, His cross and passion, and His glorious I.] APPENDIX. 27 resurrection, may denote this and the future ages of the Church, when she is sorely pressed and marred, so that " no man desires her," her fuller creeds and articles of faith, as signs of her weakness and her children's degeneracy, her approaching struggle with anti-christ; her almost complete apostacy, but eventual victory and triumph. If what was said in sect. 5 of this chapter, on the Jewish aypafa be true, as can hardly be otherwise, if the people became duller and more stiff-necked, as every fresh development of the old promise was made; again, if the Jewish people got worse and worse, more and more wilfully bhnd, as our Lord's ministry and declaration of His mission developed, which St. John Baptist had fully implied from the first (John i. 29-42); are we not witnessing to our own degeneracy, by our traditional develop ments, our articles and tests? How much worse are they who are betraying the truth itself, like the Pharisees of old, by additional and opposing deve lopments ; the mere tradition of men, not of God, which makes His truth of none effect ! 28 ON IDEAS, AND THE APPLICATION [CHAP. CHAPTER II. ON IDEAS, AND THE APPLICATION OF THE TERM TO CHRISTIANITY. i. " Ideas, says Mr. Newman, "as here described, are mere human opinions — not objects of faith, or revelation," p. 31. He goes on to say, in chap. 2, sect. 2, that they become objects of faith, when fixed by authority; which authority (p. 127) is in his mind the papal, being itself originally an idea, developed by councils and fathers, and confirmed by itself eventually, and therefore hable to the charge, " If I bear witness to myself, my witness is not true." This supremacy is called the essence of revealed religion — the ani mating principle of a large scheme (pp. 124-29). All therefore that he has said on the presumptuous absurdity and impossibility of fixing " the leading idea" of Christianity (pp. 34 and 66), recoils on this view. ii. When, therefore, our author speaks of an idea II.] OF THE TERM TO CHRISTIANITY. 29 generally, he seems to mean an abstract theory, not embodied in a polity, nor confirmed by practice or authority. And if, when he quoted (p. 116) from Guizot with approbation, the notion that " Chris tianity came into the world rather as an idea than a kingdom" if, I say, he had meant that the preaching of Christ was not the Church of Christ, and that the latter was not founded till our Lord had died, risen again, ascended, and sent down the Holy Spirit, I would thoroughly assent to his pro position — nay, I have assented (see p. 30 above). But evidently, neither Guizot nor Mr. Newman meant that, for (p. 347) he shews that he meant " the Christian Society," that is the Church, or kingdom of heaven; and thus Guizot would seem to say, " The kingdom was not a kingdom, though represented in prophecy as such " ; and he goes on to say that they had no magistrates, or any form of law. Mr. Newman is rather startled at this in p. 347, though in p. 116 he had allowed it was " an idea rather than an institution." Surely, the appointment of the apostolic college (John xx. 21-4) between His resurrection and ascension, and in readiness as it were for the foundation of the Church, to be " built upon them," surely this was an institution. And Archbishop Whateley inge niously proves (p. 84 of The Kingdom of Christ) that the Deacons of the Acts vi. were not the first ; that there were Hebrew ones before, and then Hel lenistic were added. Therefore, Christianity in the 30 ON IDEAS, AND THE APPLICATION [CHAP. sense of " Christian Society," did not come into the world as an abstract disembodied idea, but as an institution ; and as the whole essay goes upon this supposition (p. 95), it falls with the particular argument. Let us take another view, supposing it is an idea. If so, he says (p. 94-5), that it throws itself necessarily into series, impressing different aspects or views on different minds. How then could it have been visibly one from the beginning? unless there was a visible centre of unity; which would require that there should have been Popes from the , first (which he says there could not have been) to keep the series together. He says, p. 72, that it is the idea that keeps them together ; but the theory of an ever-visible unity requires more than abstract idea— it requires a visible centre. He must either then give up the visible sacramentum unitatis — or the theory of Christianity being an idea — and with that the theory of developments falls. If lastly, he gives up the ever-visible unity of the Church, he must show cause why it is needed now, if the language of Scriptures and the fathers were any time inapplicable and irreconcileable with facts. — See Introduction, Sect. 1, 2, 3. in. Further, even were it proved that Chris^ tianity came into the world as an idea, is it to be treated like all other ideas, or mere human opinions ? Mr. Newman's argument (pp. 94, 95) is to this II.] OF THE TERM TO CHRISTIANITY. 31 effect, " Christianity is a fact" ; " and impresses an idea of itself on the mind"; "and whatever has been said about the development of ideas in the last chapter, becomes of course an antecedent argu ment for its progressive development." Yet surely this does not follow, for part of the idea impressed on the mind by Christianity, is that it is a divine revelation, and therefore differs from all other ideas (as he says, p. 118), and must not be handled Uzzahlike. Part of its revelation warns us dis tinctly against confusing divine with human deduc tions. Surely a priori one would have said, that differing thus essentially from all other ideas, it would come forth at once complete in itself, and not have to grow and develope like human, and ne cessarily imperfect ones. The Gospel is unleavened bread, without human admixture. Nor because our Lord bore an earthly form, and took the man hood into the Godhead, may we combine human alloy with divine revelation, (as Mr. N. would im ply, p. 96), as additions necessary to be beheved. For His manhood was perfect, all our humanity is fallen and imperfect : and though according to Mr. Newman's theory, the developing authority is in fallible, yet the ingredients and process were all the workings of fallible minds. But on this developing authority, infallibility, and the self-confutations on that subject, see below, chapter iv. sect. 4 & 6. iv. I spoke just now, and once before, of the de- 32 ON IDEAS, AND THE APPLICATION [CHAP. veloping authority in Christianity. Mr. Newman, as we saw above, bases that authority on a subjec tive theory "that an idea required government, and Popes were the issues of developments." How then can he call it an essentially objective religion, (pp. 127 and 118,) if it came into the world as an idea, and on its authority depends its objectivity; but its authority is subjectively developed? I had written on the margin of my copy of the Essay, be fore I saw or heard of Mr. Irons' Reply, " that Mr. Newman seems the greatest advocate of objectivity in the second degree, but based upon a subjective theory in the first." I observe in the Christian Remem brancer's notice of his work, that it is his impres sion also. Speaking of Christianity as an objective religion, Mr. Newman says, ( what I suggested above as the right view of it, though he herein contradicts himself), "It is natural to view it wholly as an ob jective religion (unhke others) and not partly sui generis, partly like others. Such as it begins, such let it be considered to continue" (p. 119). It began wholly divine, why should we suppose its nature altered, and combined afterwards with hu man additions. — Amphora cospit institui; currente rota cur urceus exit ? v. We shall now pass from the consideration of ideas abstractedly to the question, What kind of ideas develope? and it is here most especially our author has contradicted and confused himself and his readers, Perhaps it might have been better to II.] OF THE TERM TO CHRISTIANITY. 33 have brought forward this point under the chap ter on developments, for, in p. 72, he has drawn some just distinctions between exemplifying and developing, which he has not observed in his own use of his arguments. But it seemed better to reserve it to the conclusion of the chapter on ideas, that we might frame some notion of the things developed, as well as the process of development. At page 70, he starts with some generalizations that may or may not be true. That is not my immediate business. What I first shall attempt to show is, that he does not stick to his text, as a man would to deep and long-cherished convictions. "Principles (he says) are abstract and general; doctrines relate to facts: doctrines develope and principles do not: doctrines grow and are en larged, principles are illustrated. Doctrines are inteUectual, principles are more immediately ethi cal and practical." First — how is this passage to be reconciled with that on the process of development, quoted with approbation from Guizot, (p. 52), on religious sentiments and principles developing into govern ments and societies ? Secondly — Consider this dilemma. In p. 123, he says, " The argument from analogy, is more concerned with the principles of revelation than its facts" (or doctrines i. e. which relate to facts, p. 70, as contrasted with principles). If then, Chris tianity is a, fact (p. 94), and not a mere principle, D 34 ON IDEAS, AND THE APPLICATION [CHAP. the argument from analogy (on which the whole theory rests, Chap, i, above) falls to the ground. If it is a principle, and not a fact, " principles," he says, " do not develope." But he draws a distinc tion between a principle and an idea. In p. 72, he says, "A principle stimulates thought, the latter keeps it together. The attempt at develop ment, shows the presence of a principle, and its success, the presence of an idea." Therefore an idea equals a system, but Christianity came into the world as an idea (he says), rather than an in stitution (or system). Or again, if the principle stimulates, and the idea holds the thought together, apply this to p. 90. "A society formed," is the principle. " A government resulting of course as necessary to preserve, "is the idea;" but by p. 116, Christianity was an idea, and not an institu tion, at first. Therefore an idea is and is not, at the same time, an institution. Thirdly — He seems to confuse both principles and doctrines in other places. In p. 88, he speaks of a principle of faith — and its development in a mind that was undergoing a gradual conversion from a false religion to a true. And in p. 347, he actuaUy speaks of " principles developing"; which in p. 70, he had said, was not of their nature. Probably all this confusion arose from too hasty a generalization. Perhaps it would be truer to say, that principles and doctrines developed one another, pari passu ; for instance^ in our Lord's life, ministry, II.] OF THE TERM TO CHRISTIANITY. 35 death, resurrection, and ascension, till the Kingdom of Heaven was established upon earth, by the send ing of the Holy Ghost. The Incarnation is the great doctrine that developed the principle oi fallen man's restoration. The Cross and Passion, implied forgiveness of sins. The Resurrection developed the justification of man in the sight of God. The Ascension, his restoration to God's presence. The coming of the Holy Ghost, his participation of the divine nature. Here, perhaps, all objective deve lopments ended. All later developments were subjective and explanatory of the bearing of these objective truths upon mankind. Certainly, this may be predicated of the Church, after the decease of the inspired apostles, if not before. 36 ON THE RECOGNITION OF THE [CHAP. CHAPTER III. ON THE RECOGNITION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF DEVE LOPMENTS BY THE ANGLICAN CHURCH, AND ON VINCENTIUS LERINENSIS' RULE. i. We now come to the apphcation of these meta physical principles, to the actual tenets and pro fession of the Anglican and Roman Churches respectively. Mr. Newman reversed this order, and, I think, unfairly. He first assumed the identity, in kind, of Anglican and Roman developments, and afterwards analysed the theory. I would first, therefore, insist again upon the distinction intimated at the close of the last chapter, between what may be caUed objective and sub jective developments, and I would altogether deny that the Enghsh Church ever recognized the prin ciple of development in objective truths, though I would admit it in regard to subjective. To give an instance of what I mean, I call the Birth and Death of Christ, objective truths; Justification by in] principle of developments, etc. 37 faith, a subjective one. This may not be a strictly philosophical use of the terms. It is sufficient if I am understood, when I draw a wide line of demar cation between a hteral fact or event, quite external to us in itself, quite independent of man, and an abstract idea, such as regeneration, or freewill and the hke ; which I have above caUed the bearing or relation of an objective truth to the human mind and condition. The being of God is, according to this terminology, an objective truth — my faith in that doctrine is a subjective one.* Now the point assumed by Mr. Newman, expli citly in his University Sermons, and tacitly in this Essay, is, that the Anglican Church acknow ledges the principle of the development of objec* tive truths, in the case of " the double procession of the Holy Ghost" ; and he would maintain that this was a new truth, — a new revelation, as it were, — an addition to the deposit, on the grounds that the Eastern Church, by denying it, shew that they had not received it, that it was not traditional. But it is important to observe, that Bishop Pearson (in his notes on that article) shows most distinctly, that the Eastern Church did not deny the doctrine ; but merely objected to its being introduced into the Nicene creed by Gallican and Spanish councils, without the authority of an wcumenical council. * This distinction is beau- out by Mr. Erskine on the tifully and eloquently drawn Freeness of the Gospel, 38 ON THE RECOGNITION OF THE [CHAP. He quotes Greek fathers, to show that they held the truth itself ; and the history of its insertion, in op position to the advice of former popes and other Latin fathers, shows that the Western Church were not justified in unauthoritatively introducing it, however undoubted and necessary a truth it is. The Eastern Church did not, I repeat, deny the truth, but objected to its insertion into the creed by comparatively private hands, — just as (to use an illustration), not long ago, the Reverend Henry Wilberforce was (falsely) charged with introducing into the Apostles' creed, the word " Blessed" before " Virgin Mary." Now, if he had done so, he would undoubtedly have been rebuked by the Archbishop of Canterbury for it ; not that the latter or the English Church objects to, or refuses that name to St. Mary (as the preface to the Magnificat and her festivals show) ; but very properly the unauthorized insertion of any word, however true, would havo been withstood and forbidden. But, while I deny that the Anglican Church recognises the principle of objective developments, I allow that she admits subjective ones into her Articles of subscription for the clergy ; not as necessary to salvation, like the creeds. For instance, she acknowledges the deve lopments of -the doctrines of free-will and grace, which St. Augustin, perhaps, may be said to have added to the knowledge, and first presented to the mind of the church. If an oecumenical council had been asked by St. Augustin, what they III.J PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENTS, ETC. 39 had received as the traditional view of the church on the subject of free-will and grace, I conceive they would have said, that " they had not received anytning definite" ; and they would have compared his inferences and teaching with Scripture, and ex pressed their conclusions. But when a question was raised by heretics or "others, upon the divinity of our Lord, — His two undivided, yet not-con founded natures, — the personality of the Holy Spirit, or any such objective truth, — the question put to the council was not — " What think ye of Christ? — but "What have you received as the de- positum fidei f"* If it be objected to this, that the Latrocinium Council is a proof that these objec tive doctrines were not better known to the Church than the subjective, it must be remembered that that Council was, as its name imports, a bad speci men even of a provincial synod (for it was not an oecumenical one); and the promises of indefecti bility are made to the whole Church, not to por tions ; and, by way of reducing it to our undemand ing, just let us picture to ourselves a national synod of the Church of England to be called together forthwith, and the question put to the assembled clergy: "Whether holy Baptism was the instru ment and pledge of spiritual regeneration or not?'' Would it prove that the Church had never received any depositum fidei on that most important subject, * See pp. 294, 304, 306, this, and compare supr. chap. i. 341, of the Essay as proofs of fin. 40 ON THE RECOGNITION OF THE [CHAP. because numbers of the clergy might (as is too pro bable) answer in the negative? Would it show anything more than ignorance of the Church's mind on the part of some, and heresy in others? Cannot we then conceive an English Athanasius, or a Leo, or an Augustin, so clearly demonstrating by a " Tract on Baptism" (such as Dr. Pusey's), or " on Regeneration," (such as Bishop BetheU's), the tradition of the Church, that in spite of their former selves, the earnest and true would be con vinced, and the false-hearted and hollow would be excommunicated? Such seems to have been the history of the Latrocinium and Ephesine Councils on the question of ©eortkoc. Before, therefore, we allow any parallel principle of recognition of de velopments in the English and Roman Churches, we must have further proof than has been hitherto adduced. As we proceed, we shall see but little reason for believing the proof is made out more satisfactorily in the case of the Apostolical succes sion, the real Presence, or the holy Trinity. 2. Here, however, I would observe, that Mr. Newman is noways warranted in assuming that Vincentius Lerinensis' Rule of " Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus," is " the rule of historical interpretation professed in The English School qf Divines," p. 8. The English Churoh, in her authoritative documents, nowhere appeals to this standard, or submits to be tried by it. She appeals to the four or six oecumenical councils, as III.] PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENTS, ETC. 41 her rule of the faith contained in the Scriptures. Not that I am prepared to admit, that he proves his case against that body of divines who do appeal to this test, being chiefly those of the seventeenth century and the nonjurors. But Mr. Newman should have said " an English school," not " the" We will examine his statements, however, bearing in mind that even if he does cut the ground from under them (which I think he does not), yet it leaves the English Church untouched : for she might maintain, that if her recognition of a prin ciple of developments were proved, yet she could allow of no developing authority but oecumenical councils; and she might join issue on the claim of the Latin Councils to be so called, after the Eastern and Western schism. But for the present, we go on to consider the author's attack upon what he calls the Anglican use of this rule. 3. For instance, in p. 9 we read, " If the rule be narrowed for the purpose of disproving the catholi city of the creed of Pope Pius, it becomes also an objection to the Athanasian." Now we must bear in mind throughout this chapter one great and im portant difference between the two creeds above named, that it is confessed on all hands by church men that no saint ofthe early church ever intended to (or really ever did) speak against any doctrine of the Athanasian creed, however much heretics or others may have perverted their language ; whereas * See the Appendix to Keble's Sermon on Tradition. 42 ON THE RECOGNITION OF THE [CHAP. we can show that not only individual fathers and saints, but councils have distinctly and intentionally spoken against doctrines insisted upon in the creed of Pope Pius. I say have spoken against them, not merely refused (as the Council of Antioch, p. 13) to admit some particular term, but actually have con demned the doctrine. For instance, the Council of Eliberis, Irenseus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Epipha nius and Ambrose distinctly condemned the doc trine of image worship,* which the creed of Pope Pius requires. It must be shown that any part of the Athanasian creed is in a similar position, before they be put on a par, in reference, that is, to Vin- centius's rule. It may be said that Mr. Newman has already anticipated this objection in page 388, and in the note of p. 410. But he himself there says that his argument has nothing to do with the point of view here adopted, but whereas he is trying to show that late developments had some early anticipations, or countenance in early times, the mere fact of there being counter-statements does not invalidate his proof. But here he is putting two sets of doctrines on a par, which differ in this material respect, that the one are never intentionally or really opposed by any preceding father, while the others are distinctly gainsayed. He says, indeed, p. 307, that on one occasion an article ofthe faith,f * See Mr. Perceval's work t Alas! while writing this, on the points of controversy that such strong grounds for between Rome and us. suspecting Mr. Gobat's (the HI.J PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENTS, ETC. 43 " The Two Natures," was so opposed by SS. Cyril and Athanasius, viewing the case historically, by which I presume he means " externally and igno- rantly"; for he says in the next page (308) that they did not really oppose the doctrine laid down by the council, but merely used language true in itself (pp. 296-7), and not denied by the council, but perverted by heretics and others. 4. Again, he would place the doctrine of the Apostohcal succession under the same category as the Papal supremacy, and asserts (p. 10), that if it can be said of the latter that it has not the faintest pretension of being a Catholic truth, on the same understanding the same must be said ofthe former. But has, or has not, the apostolical succession, in the episcopal order, been ever ques tioned by orthodox divines of the early Church? Never. But, on the other hand, the Councils of Nice (can. 1), of Constantinople (can. 1), of Ephe sus, Antioch, and Chalcedon, and much of the teaching of SS. Augustin, Cyprian, and others con fessedly (pp. 23-24), question the papal supremacy. How can it be said that these two doctrines rest upon the same basis or understanding ? So likewise nothing can be less parallel than the testimonies of the early Church to the doctrines of the real presence and the p"apal supremacy, which bishop-elect for Jerusalem) or- but will repeat Mr. Newman's thodoxy on this article should language in Sermons on Sub- be put into my hands. Who fects ofthe Day, p. 379? 44 ON THE RECOGNITION OF THE [CHAP. Mr. Newman dwells upon very earnestly at page 20. He would give greater weight to the latter than the former, on the ground that the testimonies that have come down in favour of it are the more numerous. But observe, the fathers of the early Church held exactly the same view of the real pre sence that the Anglican school of divines above mentioned do. They hold no development of the ancient view, nor any modification whatever of it ; whereas Rome wants us to hold not the exact pri mitive view of the papal supremacy, but additional developments of that view. And besides, we may repeat the argument used in the two preceding sec tions in this case also, though the author endeavours to show here (and, therefore, probably felt the want in the other), that early fathers did speak against the doctrine of the real presence as well as the papal supremacy. But who are the early fathers pro duced? and what do they say? Why, he quotes three writers, who were either, in their lifetime or afterwards, condemned as heretical* and never countenanced by the Church in their own times, as he says of one (p. 202), viz., Origen, Tertullian and Eusebius.f And what does their objection amount * Tet observe the way in what the Church held in their which our author writes at day, or as their language is Mosheim, p. 201, for citing an afterwards adopted by Catholic heretical author: and at Gies- fathers. See p. 353, which ler, p. 184, for quoting Ter- passage incidentally supplies an tullian. argument in defence of Dr. f Their views of doctrine Pusey's adaptation of Koman are never admitted of any value, Catholic works of devotion to except so far as they tell us the Anglican mind. HI.] PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENTS, ETC. 45 to? Why, so far from denying the doctrine, all that they do is to interpret the language of St. John vi. 53-55 in a figurative instead of a literal sense. They do not imply anything like a denial of the doctrjne generally; they simply give a different explanation from the usual one, of a single passage in a gospel. Now let a man compare this with the distinct and repeated denials and objections of councils and saints to the different Roman developments, and ask him self whether Vincentius's rule m may not be more justly apphed to the doctrines of the Athanasian creed, of the apostohcal succession in the episcopal order, and of the real presence, than to the Roman developments, such as image worship, purgatory, and the papal supremacy. 6. The great point on which our author builds is the supposed development of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity in Unity. " Let us allow that the whole circle of doctrines, of which our Lord is the subject, was consistently and uniformly confessed by the primitive Church, though not ratified formally in council. But it surely is otherwise with the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity." — p. 11. When he requires that this whole doctrine should be stated by a whole Church, and not merely by some parti cular father, it does seem rather exigeant and scep tical, when we consider how few antenicene writings have come down to us. It almost reduces the case to an impossibility. It is not probable or possible that we could show the whole doctrine distinctly 46 ON THE RECOGNITION OF THE [CHAP. stated by every single successive father, writing too before a doubt was ever raised, as far as we know. For a man to say that he will not be satis fied on less terms than that, would reduce him to many a difficulty about almost every article of the Christian faith. He cannot suppose that the school of Anglican divines alluded to ever took upon them selves any such a profession as to say that they would and did receive nothing but what was roundly and distinctly stated by a whole Church in each successive generation. I should conceive their principle was something of this sort : " We know that Cathohc councils drew up their decrees and articles of faith on this distinct profession, that " they were introducing no innovation, but declaring the faith of the fathers." (pp. 294-304-343.) We take it for granted, therefore, that whatever they declare as the Catholic faith, was believed to have been held semper and ubique ; indeed Vincentius tells us that that was their rule. Whatever is so declared by an oscumenical council is, ipso facto, ruled ab omnibus. Every particular Church de clares, by representatives, that such and such a doctrine had been handed down.* This profession and declaration, by a council of the whole Church, relieves us from the necessity of deducing the fact from extant writers. The paucity of the works come down to us would perhaps render that impos- * I shewed above how it be varieties of opinion at first. might happen that there might Supra, chap. iii. sect. i. fin. m.j PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENTS, ETC. 47 sible ; they bear independent and corroborative witness to the declaration of the council. If none of the orthodox fathers gainsay their doctrine, we take it for granted that, though they may not explicitly state it, they held it, and whatever in their extant writings may appear to be opposed to it, is thus proved not to be really so, else the ktter Church would have condemned their writings as they did Origen's and Theodore's of Mopsuestia — (pp. 85-86.) What we join issue with Rome about, therefore, is — what are Cathohc or oecumenical councils ? We only acknowledge six. The decla rations of the others we do not consider declarations and testimonies ab omnibus. Now what are the doctrines which he says (p. 11) rest on no better foundation than that of the Trinity? Take for instance the papal supremacy, and see what he himself admits respecting the wide difference of their position. At page 143 he writes : " The doctrines of the Holy Trinity and of episco pacy being generally witnessed from the first" — compare that with the admission, in p. 169, that the papal supremacy was more or less dormant at first and must have been so ; so that if one had asked the fathers of the Cathohc councils whether they held and had received the doctrine of the pope's supremacy, they must have said, no ; but if they had been asked whether they believed the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, each to be God, and yet that there are not three Gods, but one God, they would undoubtedly have said, yes. 48 ON THE RECOGNITION OF THE [CHAP. It does seem, therefore, to be an exceedingly unfair account of the Anglican use of Vincentius's rule, to say that they professed to find " a sufficient number of antenicene statements, each distinctly anticipating the Athanasian creed." (p. 12.) Surely a doctrine may be held without being distinctly stated in every sermon a man writes. A few ser mons or apologies have come down to us from ante nicene times. I cannot conceive anything more unnatural than to have found whole statements of the whole creed in each writer. Mr. N. himself says: " It is an assumption to argue that if a man's statement is incomplete, he held no more than he ' happened to say." (p. 183.) The same argument that is used and admitted respecting the Holy Scriptures and the living Church, would apply to the writings of the fathers. You may no more assume (as the Rev. A. Gobat implies, in respect of the Nestorian heresy) that the Scriptures do. not teach the distinct doctrines of the Catholic Church, because they are not formally stated, than that the fathers must have held no more than they state. The writings in either case are supplementary to the oral teaching. Each recognize an oral vapaSoaig — (see Essay, p. 341, note on 6cot6koS. ) On the contrary, it is no assumption, but a necessary inference, that if a father explicitly denies a particular doctrine, and is not rebuked for so doing, it was not a Catholic truth; and now this is the case with the papal . supremacy, image wor- III.] PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENTS, ETC. 49 ship, and purgatory ; but is not the case respecting the Holy Trinity. Mr. N. may say that of the six great bishops of the anti-Nicene ages ; one (St. Dionysius) is accused by St. Basil of having sown the first seeds of Arianism, &c. (p. 13), and so on of the others ; but the wide difference is this, that no churchman really beheves these doctors were guilty of heresy, whatever interpretation others may put upon their words.* Whereas we assert, and he can hardly deny, that councils and fathers do speak, and did mean to speak, against, some Roman doc trines. To make out a parallel case, Mr. N. ought to have shown that the language of these councils, &c. had been misinterpreted, and that they did hold exactly the same views of doctrine that the later Roman Church does ; but he not only does not say that, but that they could not have done so, for " developments are a different application of the word" of God. (p. 145.') In ¦fige,,au Anglican" beheves that St. Irenajus thoroughly held the Ca thohc faith, " that the Father is God, the Son God, and Holy Ghost God, and yet not three Gods, but one God." A Romanist does not believe that St. Au gustin, or St. Cyprian, or St. Leo, or St. Gregory held the doctrine of the pope's supremacy, or image worship, or purgatory, in the same way (if at all) that Pope Pius' creed sets it forth. * E. g. Compare Mr. New- with his own account of the man's remark upon St. Ignatius saint's language, pages 393- being considered 'Patripassian,' 394. E 50 ON THE RECOGNITION OF THE [CHAP. 7. I alluded once before to the Council of An tioch, and the withdrawal of the term "Homousion" — I may add here, that the council was not an oecu menical one ; and, therefore, even supposing it had not only withdrawn, but had denied the tenet, it would not have compromised the whole Church, any more than the " Latrocinium" did; which was afterwards corrected by the Catholic Council of Ephesus. But it did not deny it. They only (to use his own language, p. 354) " put it aside," or withdrew it : and Mr. Newman's own work on " The Arians" gives a very different and a much more satisfactory account of the case, p. 42, — namely (in the spirit of his remark, p. 76 of this Essay), that " articles of religion become indis pensable, as the principle of life becomes weakly." 8. As for the " apparent ignorance" (p. 15) ofthe ante-Nicene Fathers, we have only, in conclusion, to repeat, that Mr. Newman states, and we all beheve, that it was not merely in appearance with them, but that it was a real and necessary ignorance (p. 145) respecting the developments ofthe creed of Pope Pius. And here we take our leave of this branch of the subject, merely recapitulating the line of argument — that, firstly, Vincentius's rule is not the basis or standard appealed to by the Enghsh Church, but by an English school of divines: secondly, that if it were, the doctrines of the Atha nasian Creed, as tried by it, stand in a very dif ferent position from the doctrines of Pope Pius — HI. J PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENTS, ETC. 51 that we must go back to a previous discussion of the meaning of the words ab omnibus, in the minds of that English school — and that while no ante- Nicene saint contradicts the doctrines of the Athanasian, several distinctly oppose those of Pope Pius. 9. The only other remark I would make under this chapter, is that he has more than once (p. 137) charged the Anghcan theology with its unpopu larity and want of success, and made that a ground of suspicion. Surely the preservation of type, would have led us to expect that "as the Master, so the disciples" would be. In Mr. Newman's letter to Dr. Faussett (in 1838), he argues the other way, and says " Truth is never, or at least never long, popular." And in this Essay (p. 302), he speaks of there having been a time in the history of Chris tianity when it had been, " Athanasius against the world, and the world against Athanasius." I should be inclined, however, to question the extent of the unpopularity of the Anglo-Catholic principles. Certainly if the middle-classes are to usurp the name of, and to represent the people, the principles are sadly at a discount just at present, mainly owing to our neglect of them, and their ex clusion from the ministry ; and so they were in the "Caroline period." But the poor of Christ's Church unconsciously bear good witness to them ; and the universal love and reverence entertained e 2 52 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENTS, ETC. [CHAP. for our Liturgy, would seem to show that there is a chord within the hearts of Englishmen, that would have responded to the touch, had they not been sorely neglected, and had not retributive justice re quired our late expiation. IV.] ON ROMISH DEVELOPMENTS. 53 CHAPTER IV. ON ROMISH DEVELOPMENTS. i. When Mr. Newman speaks, in p. 318, of the preservation of type, as a test of true development, and takes for granted that the original type is so preserved in Pope Pius' Creed, he does not attempt to explain how it is that 50,000,000 Protestants think the scriptural type is not retained, and half of that number (Episcopahans) further think that no more is the primitive type preserved. So far from attempting to show either the one or the other, the sole proof he adduces of the preservation of type, is to give the Pagan's external view of Christianity in the first centuries, and to compare it with the internal picture drawn of the Roman Church in one particular century (sixteenth), by converted priests, who had been bred and born in the system. The sketch would have better suited the vulgar notion of Judaism, in the times of the Crusades. 54 ON ROMISH DEVELOPMENTS. [CHAP. ii. There is a strange remark in p. 145, that seems to indicate haste, to say the least. "Nor would a pope arise, but in proportion as the Church was consolidated." Surely one would have thought that the Church was less consolidated under two emperors than under one ; less under a Greek empe ror with hundred-headed heresy in the east, a Greek exarch, a barbarian conqueror, and barbarian in vaders in the west, with Mahomedanism in the south, than under Constantine or Theodosius the Great. Why St. Ambrose had been longing for a Pope (and is supposed by some to be the real de signer ofthe Papacy), on account ofthe distractions; for the purpose of consolidation, rather than a result of it. in. The author of the Essay has a remarkable passage in page 165, with regard to the Papal de velopment. " While apostles were on earth, there was the display neither of bishop, nor pope. In course of time, first the power of the bishop dis played itself, and then the power of the pope. Christians at home did not at first quarrel with Christians abroad. They quarrelled at home amongst themselves. St. Ignatius, applied the fitting remedy," — i. e. according to Mr. Newman, he developed Episcopacy (p. 107). Now this statement does seem to be at variance with several passages in the Essay ; first, with one quoted before, from p. 143, which spoke of the Holy Trinity and Episcopacy being doctrines that IV.] ON ROMISH DEVELOPMENTS. 55 with the Four Gospels, were witnessed from the first; secondly, in p. 168, he distinctly calls St. Timothy, " Bishop of Ephesus" ; and there is much testimony in favour of the supposition that St. James, the Lord's brother, was Bishop of Jeru salem, and not an apostle. At all events, the language of Galatians i. 19, which seems in the Enghsh version to oppose the supposition, in the Greek most distinctly favours it, as may be under stood by any one that will consult Dr. Burton's Greek Testament, on the force of el ¦**), in Helle nistic Greek. But the existence of the Episcopal pohty in the Church, during the lives of the apostles, has been as clearly demonstrated as any thing can be, short of mathematical proof, by Mr. Marshall, in his " Notes" thereon. When Mr. Newman says that St. Ignatius had to establish the doctrine of Episcopacy, this does not prove that it was a development. Consider the case practically. The Gospel was preached in a eity — men beheved and the Church is founded (p. 347). Suppose, that shortly after, some members set themselves up against the ministers left there, — e.g. against St. Timothy, "Bishop of Ephesus"; or St. Titus, Bishop of Crete; it does not prove that the doctrine of Episcopacy was unknown, if St. Paul or the bishops themselves were to establish it and prove it. On the contrary, according to Mr. Newman's argument (p. 24), " authority led to re sistance." The primitive doctrine of Episcopacy 56 ON ROMISH DEVELOPMENTS. [CHAP. was witnessed to from the first. And though Mr. Newman says, in p. 144, that the word Priest does not occur in the genuine Epistle of St. Ig natius, yet he says (p. 394), that "We read in them of the Divine origin and data of the Epis copal regimen, and the doctrines of the Three orders" ; so that his previous remark is a mere play about names. I may observe that the English Review, for January 1846, says, " that these Epistles referred more to the Priesthood than the Episcopate." IV. " The supremacy of conscience is the essence of natural religion: the supremacy of apostle, Church, or pope, or bishop, is the essence of re vealed " (pp. 124, 348). I have already alluded to this as being contradictory to his own indignant rebuke of those who would attempt to define the essential or " leading idea " of Christianity (pp. 31, 66, 129). And I would merely add here that Mr. Ward must sit uneasily under this relegation of " the supremacy of conscience " to the state of heathenism. All subjective religion (i.e., all private judgment theories, or all Protestantism proper) he classes with heathenism. AU objective religion he rests upon an external authority. But we saw above (chap. ii. sect. 4) that he developed his " de veloping authority," or objective essence of Chris tianity, by a subjective process. Does he not therefore reduce his own development theory to heathenism ? IV.] ON ROMISH DEVELOPMENTS. 57 v. One cannot help being startled by a coinci dence (relative to the papal supremacy) which came before us the other day. Compare the use made in pp. 257, 403 of a text from the 2nd Psalm with the extraordinary argument lately drawn from that same source by an ex-President of the United States. But this en passant. vi. I now come to one of the most self-confuting: instances in the whole book, and on one of the most important points — a key-stone in the arch — on which the author has exhausted all his talent and ingenuity, and to it I would call particular attention. It is no less than the infallibility of the Pope, and the uniform probation of the Church. In page 123 he has been speaking of the apostles, and their undoubted infallibility, and he proceeds to say — " 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 guide, and we have not." I will consider this in two ways, first, I will shew how he contradicts himself on this matter, and how he assumes that some ages ofthe Church have been without an infalhble guide. Secondly, I will meet the argument itself. First, then, observe that in page 352 he speaks ofthe Montanists' "prefiguring (and constraining before its time) the Church's infallibility." In page 58 ON ROMISH DEVELOPMENTS. [CHAP. 167 he allows that, if it did exist, it was checked and, held in abeyance. " The imperial power checked the development of councils." If then, before development ofthe papacy, infallibility lay in general councils, and they could not meet, why should we suppose (to use his own expression) that we have an infallible guidance which they had not ? Again, in page 368 he says that the seat of infaUi bihty is more or less undefined even to this day ; and the uncertainty he speaks of in pp. 143, 159, respecting the canon of Scripture, would seem to shew that there was no infallible reference at all times available, as the apostles were in their lifetime. See also sect. 9, infra. But secondly, instead of comparing him with him self, let us meet the question with a paraUel : he says " 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 guide, and we have not." Yet the loss of miraculous gifts now (at aU events to a great extent, if not altogether) is a great distinction ; and why not suppose the loss of infallibility possible and probable also? Is there not a requisite on the part ofthe Church? Is there not such a thing as lack of faith, and love, which robs the Church of her privUegeg, and so makes distinctions of dispensation? viL With regard to the worship of the Blessed Virgin, I observe a difficulty and inconsistency, for IV.] ON ROMISH DEVELOPMENTS. 59 in page 50 he appropriates Butler's words — " Does not the duty of religious regards as immediately arise, to the view of reason, as the inward good-wiU and kind intention which we owe to our fellow crea tures arises out of the common relations between us and them?" Why then did not the hyperdulia ofthe B. V. M. immediately foUow upon the Council of Ephesus, or rather of Nice, when the new sphere and throne were first seen to be vacant (page 405) ? And why, as other heresies were condemned, were not " the vacant thrones " of their objects of worship also filled up by the Church? Tin. As to the difficulty raised about the worship of angels being introduced by Justin Martyr in close connection with the Holy Trinity (see pp. 17, 377) wiU not Revelations i. 4,* tend to shew that, in some mysterious manner, angels and spirits are put in holy writ for persons of the blessed Trinity — see also Acts x. 3, 19-20. But the whole passage, from page 397 to 401 of the Essay, affords a sufficient answer. " The earlier fathers spoke as if there was no medium interposed between the Creator and the creature, and so they seemed to make the Eternal Son the medium." " St. Justin spoke of the Son as Minister and Angel." St. Augustin afterwards ruled otherwige ; but the lan guage of SS. Clement and Justin Martyr, and the CouncU of Antioch, is enough to shew that one of * Gen. xviii. is a Proper Lesson for Trinity Sunday. 60 ON ROMISH DEVELOPMENTS. [CHAP. them might combine angels with the names of the Holy Trinity without in the least subjecting himself to a suspicion of not understanding or holding the true faith of the Trinity in Unity. ix. Lastly, it remains to speak of the doctrine of purgatory, and the necessity of a different apphcation of doctrines in the early and later Church. In pp. 101, 145, he speaks of "purgatory not being recog nized as a part of the dispensation, tiU the world had flowed into the Church, and a habit of corrupt tion had been superinduced;" "when a different application of the word became necessary, that is, a development." To begin with, this does not har monise very weU with the statement quoted sect. 6 supra, touching the improbability of any distinction of dispensation. Next, we may weU question the assertion that the early Christians were so sinless and saint-like that they did not require remedies for post-baptismal sin. He dweUs on this subject, however (page 423), again. Yet there are allusions in the Scriptures and early fathers to post-bap tismal sin: 1 Cor. v. 1 ; Rev. ii. 1-4; 1 Cor. vi. 9-10; Gal. vi. 7-8; 1 John ii. 1-2; Jude 22; James v. 19-20 ; Hebr. vi. 8. And who will undertake to say that the remedy for post-baptismal sin was not as needful for one or two souls, as for thousands? And so he himself allows, at page 410. Absolution and the Holy Eucharist were looked upon as reme dies from the first. See Dr. Moberly's Sermons IV.] ON ROMISH DEVELOPMENTS. 61 on ihe Great Forty Days after ihe Resurrection, and Dr. Pusey's Sermons on the Eucharist and Absolution. AU the concluding argument from Analogy, in pp. 101, 102, &c, in behalf of Romish develop ments, may be judged of by chap. ii. sect. 5, supra. CONCLUSION. ON THE POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE HISTORICAL TRUTH OF ULTRA-PROTESTANTISM BY THIS THEORY OF DEVELOPMENTS. Mr. Newman assumes (in page 5) that "what ever be historical Christianity, it is not Protes tantism. If ever there were a safe truth it is this." Again, he quotes ScheUing, in page 89, as a witness to his statement ; and it may be at once aUowed, nay an Anglican would stoutly maintain, that this is the case in reality. But ScheUing and ultra-Pro testants would not be perhaps so readily disposed to admit that they could not make out for them selves, by help of this Theory of Development, as good an historical case for Lutheranism as Mr. Newman has for Rome — as good, but no better in reality. For instance, Dr. Arnold was evidently commencing some such plan in his " Fragment on the Church." He had begun with St. Ignatius, and was trying to shew that he was a witness to ultra- Protestantism, rather than what he chose to caU CONCLUSION. 63 the priestcraft system. So we find, by page 149, that Luther claimed St. Augustin. And Mr. Scott (see page 189) could cite the Reformers to oppose baptismal regeneration. In short, what with Gies- ler's Text Book, (see page 184), and Jewell's Apology, to work from, I have very little doubt but that Dr. Arnold could have developed as good a claim to historical Christianity for Lutheranism, as Mr. N. has for Romanism. He seems to buUd- much upon the fact of there being no rival system, page 135. It would be no very difficult task to work out such an answer, and test it by aU his cri teria of true and false development. Leaving this suggestion to any that may have ability, time, and inchnation for the work, I take my leave of the subject with the feeling that I have been merely a hewer of wood and drawer of water, — that the Essayist is a master of fence that I can hardly ex pect to foil; yet, I trust I may have suggested to others, both parries and thrusts. " Fungor vice cotis, acutum reddere quceferrum valet, exsors ipsa secandif or, to use his own expression, page 352. " Doctrine is percolated, as it were, through diffe rent minds, beginning with writers of inferior au thority in the Church." FINIS. THE THEOLOGIAN iSefo Sbertot; A REVIEW OF ANCIENT AND MODERN DIVINITY, AND UNIVERSAL CHRISTIAN LITERATURE. Published on the First of every alternate Month, price 4s. Advertisements inserted on the following Terms, viz. Not exceeding 10 lines, comprising 10 words in a line, 7s. ; per line beyond, 6d., Quarter of a Column, 10s. 6d. ; Half a Column, 16s. ; an entire Column, or half a Page, £1. 10s. ; Two Columns. or an Open Page, £2. 1 Os. Bills, Prospectuses, fyc. (1,000 required.) Not exceeding Half a Sheet . . .200 A Whole Sheet 2 10 0 CONTENTS. No. 1.— The Church's Course in Her Present Trials.— Society for the Propagation of the Gospel and the Bishop of Calcutta. — A Christmas Meditation.— Via Cmcis— Via Lucis.— The Church and the Masses. — The Ronge Movement.— The Church of St. Patrick.— Mr. Newman.— Structure and Arrangement of the Mosaic Laws. — Reviews — Notices — Miscellanies. No. 2.— The Canon and the Apocrypha.— Society for the Propagation of the Gospel and the Bishop of Calcutta (conclusion). — The Church the Teacher of the Nation.— Dr. Pusey.— Mr. Newman. — Reviews.— Notices. — Miscellanies. No. 3.— The Church and the Parliament. — Church of England Friendly Societies. — Intercommunion of the Russian and English Churches.— Our Two Dangers. — Histortcal Claims of the Church of England. — Pastoral Instructions. — Reviews.— Notices. — Miscellanies. OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. " In these controversial times, this ably conducted periodica] maintains the cause of tbe Anglican Reformed Church with much learning and talent. But it earnestly enforoes the necessity of purification and renewed vigour in that Church, and of patience and long suffering with those misled or differing from its doctrines ....... It is at once zealous and temperate." — Literary Gazette. " Church Politics are discoursed upon at large, in an uncompromising, yet in no intolerant spirit, asserting the doctrines ofthe Anglican Church.1'— Atlas, 9th May, 1846. " If we cannot agree with all the sentiments contained in tbis publication, we can most cordially with a great deal of it. The articles display much ability aud contain much infor mation," — Church and State Gazette, 8th May, 1846. " We can only say of the work generally, that it is ably edited, on sound Church principles. It contains also several clever Notices of Books, and much useful information, connected with the Church at Home and Abroad.*' — Felix Farley's Bristol Journal. " Devoted exclusively to the advancement of the temporal and spiritual interests of tbe Established Church, we have glanced over its artioles with some care, and our only fault with them is, that they are too orthodox."— Hull Advertiser, May, 1846. "the independency of the church."— "The third number of this periodical con tains a striking article on the Church aud the Farlimeut, which is entitled to peculiar attention in the present aspect of affairs."— The Newcastle Journal, 16th May, 1846. LONDON: W. J. CLEAVER, BAKER-STEEET, POETMAN-SQUARE. illjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 3 9002 08867 5674