{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_35110/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_35110","id":"gutenberg_35110","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35110","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Catholic Church -- Doctrines","Dogma, Development of"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nProduced by Curtis Weyant, Lisa Reigel, and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Notes: Greek words in this text have been transliterated\nand placed between +plus signs+. Words in italics in the original are\nsurrounded by _underscores_. A row of asterisks represents a thought\nbreak.\n\nVariations in spelling and hyphenation have been left as in the\noriginal. Words with and without accents appear as in the original. In\nthis text, semi-colons and colons are used indiscriminately. They appear\nas in the original. Ellipses match the original.\n\nA few typographical errors have been corrected. A complete list follows\nthe text.\n\n\n\n\n                               AN ESSAY\n\n                                ON THE\n\n                       DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN\n                              DOCTRINE.\n\n\n                                  BY\n\n                     JOHN HENRY CARDINAL NEWMAN.\n\n\n                           _SIXTH EDITION_\n\n\n                    UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME PRESS\n                         NOTRE DAME, INDIANA\n\n\n\n\nTO THE\n\nREV. SAMUEL WILLIAM WAYTE, B.D.\n\nPRESIDENT OF TRINITY COLLEGE, OXFORD.\n\n\nMY DEAR PRESIDENT,\n\nNot from any special interest which I anticipate you will take in this\nVolume, or any sympathy you will feel in its argument, or intrinsic\nfitness of any kind in my associating you and your Fellows with it,--\n\nBut, because I have nothing besides it to offer you, in token of my\nsense of the gracious compliment which you and they have paid me in\nmaking me once more a Member of a College dear to me from Undergraduate\nmemories;--\n\nAlso, because of the happy coincidence, that whereas its first\npublication was contemporaneous with my leaving Oxford, its second\nbecomes, by virtue of your act, contemporaneous with a recovery of my\nposition there:--\n\nTherefore it is that, without your leave or your responsibility, I take\nthe bold step of placing your name in the first pages of what, at my\nage, I must consider the last print or reprint on which I shall ever be\nengaged.\n\n                            I am, my dear President,\n                                   Most sincerely yours,\n                                             JOHN H. NEWMAN.\n\n_February 23, 1878._\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO THE EDITION OF 1878.\n\n\nThe following pages were not in the first instance written to prove the\ndivinity of the Catholic Religion, though ultimately they furnish a\npositive argument in its behalf, but to explain certain difficulties in\nits history, felt before now by the author himself, and commonly\ninsisted on by Protestants in controversy, as serving to blunt the force\nof its _prim\u00e2 facie_ and general claims on our recognition.\n\nHowever beautiful and promising that Religion is in theory, its history,\nwe are told, is its best refutation; the inconsistencies, found age\nafter age in its teaching, being as patent as the simultaneous\ncontrarieties of religious opinion manifest in the High, Low, and Broad\nbranches of the Church of England.\n\nIn reply to this specious objection, it is maintained in this Essay\nthat, granting that some large variations of teaching in its long course\nof 1800 years exist, nevertheless, these, on examination, will be found\nto arise from the nature of the case, and to proceed on a law, and with\na harmony and a definite drift, and with an analogy to Scripture\nrevelations, which, instead of telling to their disadvantage, actually\nconstitute an argument in their favour, as witnessing to a\nsuperintending Providence and a great Design in the mode and in the\ncircumstances of their occurrence.\n\nPerhaps his confidence in the truth and availableness of this view has\nsometimes led the author to be careless and over-liberal in his\nconcessions to Protestants of historical fact.\n\nIf this be so anywhere, he begs the reader in such cases to understand\nhim as speaking hypothetically, and in the sense of an _argumentum ad\nhominem_ and _\u00e0 fortiori_. Nor is such hypothetical reasoning out of\nplace in a publication which is addressed, not to theologians, but to\nthose who as yet are not even Catholics, and who, as they read history,\nwould scoff at any defence of Catholic doctrine which did not go the\nlength of covering admissions in matters of fact as broad as those which\nare here ventured on.\n\nIn this new Edition of the Essay various important alterations have been\nmade in the arrangement of its separate parts, and some, not indeed in\nits matter, but in its text.\n\n_February 2, 1878._\n\n\n\n\nADVERTISEMENT TO THE FIRST EDITION.\n\nOCULI MEI DEFECERUNT IN SALUTARE TUUM.\n\n\nIt is now above eleven years since the writer of the following pages, in\none of the early Numbers of the Tracts for the Times, expressed himself\nthus:--\n\n     \"Considering the high gifts, and the strong claims of the\n     Church of Rome and her dependencies on our admiration,\n     reverence, love, and gratitude, how could we withstand her, as\n     we do; how could we refrain from being melted into tenderness,\n     and rushing into communion with her, but for the words of\n     Truth, which bid us prefer Itself to the whole world? 'He that\n     loveth father or mother more than Me, is not worthy of Me.'\n     How could we learn to be severe, and execute judgment, but for\n     the warning of Moses against even a divinely-gifted teacher\n     who should preach new gods, and the anathema of St. Paul even\n     against Angels and Apostles who should bring in a new\n     doctrine?\"[ix-1]\n\nHe little thought, when he so wrote, that the time would ever come when\nhe should feel the obstacle, which he spoke of as lying in the way of\ncommunion with the Church of Rome, to be destitute of solid foundation.\n\nThe following work is directed towards its removal.\n\nHaving, in former publications, called attention to the supposed\ndifficulty, he considers himself bound to avow his present belief that\nit is imaginary.\n\nHe has neither the ability to put out of hand a finished composition,\nnor the wish to make a powerful and moving representation, on the great\nsubject of which he treats. His aim will be answered, if he succeeds in\nsuggesting thoughts, which in God's good time may quietly bear fruit, in\nthe minds of those to whom that subject is new; and which may carry\nforward inquirers, who have already put themselves on the course.\n\nIf at times his tone appears positive or peremptory, he hopes this will\nbe imputed to the scientific character of the Work, which requires a\ndistinct statement of principles, and of the arguments which recommend\nthem.\n\nHe hopes too he shall be excused for his frequent quotations from\nhimself; which are necessary in order to show how he stands at present\nin relation to various of his former Publications. * * *\n\n  LITTLEMORE,\n      _October 6, 1845_.\n\n\nPOSTSCRIPT.\n\nSince the above was written, the Author has joined the Catholic Church.\nIt was his intention and wish to have carried his Volume through the\nPress before deciding finally on this step. But when he had got some\nway in the printing, he recognized in himself a conviction of the truth\nof the conclusion to which the discussion leads, so clear as to\nsupersede further deliberation. Shortly afterwards circumstances gave\nhim the opportunity of acting upon it, and he felt that he had no\nwarrant for refusing to do so.\n\nHis first act on his conversion was to offer his Work for revision to\nthe proper authorities; but the offer was declined on the ground that it\nwas written and partly printed before he was a Catholic, and that it\nwould come before the reader in a more persuasive form, if he read it as\nthe author wrote it.\n\nIt is scarcely necessary to add that he now submits every part of the\nbook to the judgment of the Church, with whose doctrine, on the subjects\nof which he treats, he wishes all his thoughts to be coincident.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[ix-1] Records of the Church, xxiv. p. 7.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n  PART I.\n\n  DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENTS VIEWED IN THEMSELVES.\n                                                                    PAGE\n  INTRODUCTION                                                         3\n\n  CHAPTER I.\n\n  The Development of Ideas                                            33\n      Section 1. The Process of Development in Ideas                  33\n      Section 2. The Kinds of Development in Ideas                    41\n\n  CHAPTER II.\n\n  The Antecedent Argument in behalf of Developments in Christian\n        Doctrine                                                      55\n      Section 1. Developments to be expected                          55\n      Section 2. An infallible Developing Authority to be expected    75\n      Section 3. The existing Developments of Doctrine the probable\n        Fulfilment of that Expectation                                92\n\n  CHAPTER III.\n\n  The Historical Argument in behalf of the existing Developments      99\n      Section 1. Method of Proof                                      99\n      Section 2. State of the Evidence                               110\n\n  CHAPTER IV.\n\n  Instances in Illustration                                          122\n      Section 1. Instances cursorily noticed                         123\n            \u00a7 1. Canon of the New Testament                          123\n            \u00a7 2. Original Sin                                        126\n            \u00a7 3. Infant Baptism                                      127\n            \u00a7 4. Communion in one kind                               129\n            \u00a7 5. The Homo\u00fcsion                                       133\n      Section 2. Our Lord's Incarnation, and the dignity of His\n        Mother and of all Saints                                     135\n      Section 3. Papal Supremacy                                     148\n\n\n  PART II.\n\n  DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENTS VIEWED RELATIVELY TO DOCTRINAL CORRUPTIONS.\n\n  CHAPTER V.\n\n  Genuine Developments contrasted with Corruptions                   169\n      Section 1. First Note of a genuine Development of an Idea:\n        Preservation of its Type                                     171\n      Section 2. Second Note: Continuity of its Principles           178\n      Section 3. Third Note: Its Power of Assimilation               185\n      Section 4. Fourth Note: Its Logical Sequence                   189\n      Section 5. Fifth Note: Anticipation of its Future              195\n      Section 6. Sixth Note: Conservative Action upon its Past       199\n      Section 7. Seventh Note: Its Chronic Vigour                    203\n\n  CHAPTER VI.\n\n  Application of the First Note of a true Development to the\n        Existing Developments of Christian Doctrine: Preservation\n        of its Type                                                  207\n      Section 1. The Church of the First Centuries                   208\n      Section 2. The Church of the Fourth Century                    248\n      Section 3. The Church of the Fifth and Sixth Centuries         273\n\n  CHAPTER VII.\n\n  Application of the Second: Continuity of its Principles            323\n            \u00a7 1. Principles of Christianity                          323\n            \u00a7 2. Supremacy of Faith                                  326\n            \u00a7 3. Theology                                            336\n            \u00a7 4. Scripture and its Mystical Interpretation           338\n            \u00a7 5. Dogma                                               346\n            \u00a7 6. Additional Remarks                                  353\n\n  CHAPTER VIII.\n\n  Application of the Third: its Assimilative Power                   355\n            \u00a7 1. The Assimilating Power of Dogmatic Truth            357\n            \u00a7 2. The Assimilating Power of Sacramental Grace         368\n\n  CHAPTER IX.\n\n  Application of the Fourth: its Logical Sequence                    383\n            \u00a7 1. Pardons                                             384\n            \u00a7 2. Penances                                            385\n            \u00a7 3. Satisfactions                                       386\n            \u00a7 4. Purgatory                                           388\n            \u00a7 5. Meritorious Works                                   393\n            \u00a7 6. The Monastic Rule                                   395\n\n  CHAPTER X.\n\n  Application of the Fifth: Anticipation of its Future               400\n            \u00a7 1. Resurrection and Relics                             401\n            \u00a7 2. The Virgin Life                                     407\n            \u00a7 3. Cultus of Saints and Angels                         410\n            \u00a7 4. Office of the Blessed Virgin                        415\n\n  CHAPTER XI.\n\n  Application of the Sixth: Conservative Action on its Past          419\n      Section 1. Instances cursorily noticed                         420\n      Section 2. Devotion to the Blessed Virgin                      425\n\n  CHAPTER XII.\n\n  Application of the Seventh: its Chronic Vigour                     437\n\n  CONCLUSION                                                         445\n\n\n\n\nPART I.\n\nDOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENTS VIEWED IN THEMSELVES.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nChristianity has been long enough in the world to justify us in dealing\nwith it as a fact in the world's history. Its genius and character, its\ndoctrines, precepts, and objects cannot be treated as matters of private\nopinion or deduction, unless we may reasonably so regard the Spartan\ninstitutions or the religion of Mahomet. It may indeed legitimately be\nmade the subject-matter of theories; what is its moral and political\nexcellence, what its due location in the range of ideas or of facts\nwhich we possess, whether it be divine or human, whether original or\neclectic, or both at once, how far favourable to civilization or to\nliterature, whether a religion for all ages or for a particular state of\nsociety, these are questions upon the fact, or professed solutions of\nthe fact, and belong to the province of opinion; but to a fact do they\nrelate, on an admitted fact do they turn, which must be ascertained as\nother facts, and surely has on the whole been so ascertained, unless the\ntestimony of so many centuries is to go for nothing. Christianity is no\ntheory of the study or the cloister. It has long since passed beyond the\nletter of documents and the reasonings of individual minds, and has\nbecome public property. Its \"sound has gone out into all lands,\" and its\n\"words unto the ends of the world.\" It has from the first had an\nobjective existence, and has thrown itself upon the great concourse of\nmen. Its home is in the world; and to know what it is, we must seek it\nin the world, and hear the world's witness of it.\n\n\n2.\n\nThe hypothesis, indeed, has met with wide reception in these latter\ntimes, that Christianity does not fall within the province of\nhistory,--that it is to each man what each man thinks it to be, and\nnothing else; and thus in fact is a mere name for a cluster or family of\nrival religions all together, religions at variance one with another,\nand claiming the same appellation, not because there can be assigned any\none and the same doctrine as the common foundation of all, but because\ncertain points of agreement may be found here and there of some sort or\nother, by which each in its turn is connected with one or other of the\nrest. Or again, it has been maintained, or implied, that all existing\ndenominations of Christianity are wrong, none representing it as taught\nby Christ and His Apostles; that the original religion has gradually\ndecayed or become hopelessly corrupt; nay that it died out of the world\nat its birth, and was forthwith succeeded by a counterfeit or\ncounterfeits which assumed its name, though they inherited at best but\nsome fragments of its teaching; or rather that it cannot even be said\neither to have decayed or to have died, because historically it has no\nsubstance of its own, but from the first and onwards it has, on the\nstage of the world, been nothing more than a mere assemblage of\ndoctrines and practices derived from without, from Oriental, Platonic,\nPolytheistic sources, from Buddhism, Essenism, Manicheeism; or that,\nallowing true Christianity still to exist, it has but a hidden and\nisolated life, in the hearts of the elect, or again as a literature or\nphilosophy, not certified in any way, much less guaranteed, to come from\nabove, but one out of the various separate informations about the\nSupreme Being and human duty, with which an unknown Providence had\nfurnished us, whether in nature or in the world.\n\n\n3.\n\nAll such views of Christianity imply that there is no sufficient body of\nhistorical proof to interfere with, or at least to prevail against, any\nnumber whatever of free and independent hypotheses concerning it. But\nthis surely is not self-evident, and has itself to be proved. Till\npositive reasons grounded on facts are adduced to the contrary, the most\nnatural hypotheses, the most agreeable to our mode of proceeding in\nparallel cases, and that which takes precedence of all others, is to\nconsider that the society of Christians, which the Apostles left on\nearth, were of that religion to which the Apostles had converted them;\nthat the external continuity of name, profession, and communion, argues\na real continuity of doctrine; that, as Christianity began by\nmanifesting itself as of a certain shape and bearing to all mankind,\ntherefore it went on so to manifest itself; and that the more,\nconsidering that prophecy had already determined that it was to be a\npower visible in the world and sovereign over it, characters which are\naccurately fulfilled in that historical Christianity to which we\ncommonly give the name. It is not a violent assumption, then, but rather\nmere abstinence from the wanton admission of a principle which would\nnecessarily lead to the most vexatious and preposterous scepticism, to\ntake it for granted, before proof to the contrary, that the Christianity\nof the second, fourth, seventh, twelfth, sixteenth, and intermediate\ncenturies is in its substance the very religion which Christ and His\nApostles taught in the first, whatever may be the modifications for good\nor for evil which lapse of years, or the vicissitudes of human affairs,\nhave impressed upon it.\n\nOf course I do not deny the abstract possibility of extreme changes.\nThe substitution is certainly, in idea, supposable of a counterfeit\nChristianity,--superseding the original, by means of the adroit\ninnovations of seasons, places, and persons, till, according to the\nfamiliar illustration, the \"blade\" and the \"handle\" are alternately\nrenewed, and identity is lost without the loss of continuity. It is\npossible; but it must not be assumed. The _onus probandi_ is with those\nwho assert what it is unnatural to expect; to be just able to doubt is\nno warrant for disbelieving.\n\n\n4.\n\nAccordingly, some writers have gone on to give reasons from history for\ntheir refusing to appeal to history. They aver that, when they come to\nlook into the documents and literature of Christianity in times past,\nthey find its doctrines so variously represented, and so inconsistently\nmaintained by its professors, that, however natural it be _\u00e0 priori_, it\nis useless, in fact, to seek in history the matter of that Revelation\nwhich has been vouchsafed to mankind; that they cannot be historical\nChristians if they would. They say, in the words of Chillingworth,\n\"There are popes against popes, councils against councils, some fathers\nagainst others, the same fathers against themselves, a consent of\nfathers of one age against a consent of fathers of another age, the\nChurch of one age against the Church of another age:\"--Hence they are\nforced, whether they will or not, to fall back upon the Bible as the\nsole source of Revelation, and upon their own personal private judgment\nas the sole expounder of its doctrine. This is a fair argument, if it\ncan be maintained, and it brings me at once to the subject of this\nEssay. Not that it enters into my purpose to convict of misstatement, as\nmight be done, each separate clause of this sweeping accusation of a\nsmart but superficial writer; but neither on the other hand do I mean\nto deny everything that he says to the disadvantage of historical\nChristianity. On the contrary, I shall admit that there are in fact\ncertain apparent variations in its teaching, which have to be explained;\nthus I shall begin, but then I shall attempt to explain them to the\nexculpation of that teaching in point of unity, directness, and\nconsistency.\n\n\n5.\n\nMeanwhile, before setting about this work, I will address one remark to\nChillingworth and his friends:--Let them consider, that if they can\ncriticize history, the facts of history certainly can retort upon them.\nIt might, I grant, be clearer on this great subject than it is. This is\nno great concession. History is not a creed or a catechism, it gives\nlessons rather than rules; still no one can mistake its general teaching\nin this matter, whether he accept it or stumble at it. Bold outlines and\nbroad masses of colour rise out of the records of the past. They may be\ndim, they may be incomplete; but they are definite. And this one thing\nat least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits,\nwhatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at\nleast the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there\nwere a safe truth, it is this.\n\nAnd Protestantism has ever felt it so. I do not mean that every writer\non the Protestant side has felt it; for it was the fashion at first, at\nleast as a rhetorical argument against Rome, to appeal to past ages, or\nto some of them; but Protestantism, as a whole, feels it, and has felt\nit. This is shown in the determination already referred to of dispensing\nwith historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity\nfrom the Bible alone: men never would have put it aside, unless they had\ndespaired of it. It is shown by the long neglect of ecclesiastical\nhistory in England, which prevails even in the English Church. Our\npopular religion scarcely recognizes the fact of the twelve long ages\nwhich lie between the Councils of Nic\u00e6a and Trent, except as affording\none or two passages to illustrate its wild interpretations of certain\nprophesies of St. Paul and St. John. It is melancholy to say it, but the\nchief, perhaps the only English writer who has any claim to be\nconsidered an ecclesiastical historian, is the unbeliever Gibbon. To be\ndeep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.\n\n\n6.\n\nAnd this utter incongruity between Protestantism and historical\nChristianity is a plain fact, whether the latter be regarded in its\nearlier or in its later centuries. Protestants can as little bear its\nAnte-nicene as its Post-tridentine period. I have elsewhere observed on\nthis circumstance: \"So much must the Protestant grant that, if such a\nsystem of doctrine as he would now introduce ever existed in early\ntimes, it has been clean swept away as if by a deluge, suddenly,\nsilently, and without memorial; by a deluge coming in a night, and\nutterly soaking, rotting, heaving up, and hurrying off every vestige of\nwhat it found in the Church, before cock-crowing: so that 'when they\nrose in the morning' her true seed 'were all dead corpses'--Nay dead and\nburied--and without gravestone. 'The waters went over them; there was\nnot one of them left; they sunk like lead in the mighty waters.' Strange\nantitype, indeed, to the early fortunes of Israel!--then the enemy was\ndrowned, and 'Israel saw them dead upon the sea-shore.' But now, it\nwould seem, water proceeded as a flood 'out of the serpent's mouth,' and\ncovered all the witnesses, so that not even their dead bodies lay in the\nstreets of the great city.' Let him take which of his doctrines he will,\nhis peculiar view of self-righteousness, of formality, of superstition;\nhis notion of faith, or of spirituality in religious worship; his denial\nof the virtue of the sacraments, or of the ministerial commission, or\nof the visible Church; or his doctrine of the divine efficacy of the\nScriptures as the one appointed instrument of religious teaching; and\nlet him consider how far Antiquity, as it has come down to us, will\ncountenance him in it. No; he must allow that the alleged deluge has\ndone its work; yes, and has in turn disappeared itself; it has been\nswallowed up by the earth, mercilessly as itself was merciless.\"[9:1]\n\nThat Protestantism, then, is not the Christianity of history, it is easy\nto determine, but to retort is a poor reply in controversy to a question\nof fact, and whatever be the violence or the exaggeration of writers\nlike Chillingworth, if they have raised a real difficulty, it may claim\na real answer, and we must determine whether on the one hand\nChristianity is still to represent to us a definite teaching from above,\nor whether on the other its utterances have been from time to time so\nstrangely at variance, that we are necessarily thrown back on our own\njudgment individually to determine, what the revelation of God is, or\nrather if in fact there is, or has been, any revelation at all.\n\n\n7.\n\nHere then I concede to the opponents of historical Christianity, that\nthere are to be found, during the 1800 years through which it has\nlasted, certain apparent inconsistencies and alterations in its doctrine\nand its worship, such as irresistibly attract the attention of all who\ninquire into it. They are not sufficient to interfere with the general\ncharacter and course of the religion, but they raise the question how\nthey came about, and what they mean, and have in consequence supplied\nmatter for several hypotheses.\n\nOf these one is to the effect that Christianity has even changed from\nthe first and ever accommodates itself to the circumstances of times and\nseasons; but it is difficult to understand how such a view is compatible\nwith the special idea of revealed truth, and in fact its advocates more\nor less abandon, or tend to abandon the supernatural claims of\nChristianity; so it need not detain us here.\n\nA second and more plausible hypothesis is that of the Anglican divines,\nwho reconcile and bring into shape the exuberant phenomena under\nconsideration, by cutting off and casting away as corruptions all\nusages, ways, opinions, and tenets, which have not the sanction of\nprimitive times. They maintain that history first presents to us a pure\nChristianity in East and West, and then a corrupt; and then of course\ntheir duty is to draw the line between what is corrupt and what is pure,\nand to determine the dates at which the various changes from good to bad\nwere introduced. Such a principle of demarcation, available for the\npurpose, they consider they have found in the _dictum_ of Vincent of\nLerins, that revealed and Apostolic doctrine is \"quod semper, quod\nubique, quod ab omnibus,\" a principle infallibly separating, on the\nwhole field of history, authoritative doctrine from opinion, rejecting\nwhat is faulty, and combining and forming a theology. That \"Christianity\nis what has been held always, everywhere, and by all,\" certainly\npromises a solution of the perplexities, an interpretation of the\nmeaning, of history. What can be more natural than that divines and\nbodies of men should speak, sometimes from themselves, sometimes from\ntradition? what more natural than that individually they should say many\nthings on impulse, or under excitement, or as conjectures, or in\nignorance? what more certain than that they must all have been\ninstructed and catechized in the Creed of the Apostles? what more\nevident than that what was their own would in its degree be peculiar,\nand differ from what was similarly private and personal in their\nbrethren? what more conclusive than that the doctrine that was common to\nall at once was not really their own, but public property in which they\nhad a joint interest, and was proved by the concurrence of so many\nwitnesses to have come from an Apostolical source? Here, then, we have a\nshort and easy method for bringing the various informations of\necclesiastical history under that antecedent probability in its favour,\nwhich nothing but its actual variations would lead us to neglect. Here\nwe have a precise and satisfactory reason why we should make much of the\nearlier centuries, yet pay no regard to the later, why we should admit\nsome doctrines and not others, why we refuse the Creed of Pius IV. and\naccept the Thirty-nine Articles.\n\n\n8.\n\nSuch is the rule of historical interpretation which has been professed\nin the English school of divines; and it contains a majestic truth, and\noffers an intelligible principle, and wears a reasonable air. It is\ncongenial, or, as it may be said, native to the Anglican mind, which\ntakes up a middle position, neither discarding the Fathers nor\nacknowledging the Pope. It lays down a simple rule by which to measure\nthe value of every historical fact, as it comes, and thereby it provides\na bulwark against Rome, while it opens an assault upon Protestantism.\nSuch is its promise; but its difficulty lies in applying it in\nparticular cases. The rule is more serviceable in determining what is\nnot, than what is Christianity; it is irresistible against\nProtestantism, and in one sense indeed it is irresistible against Rome\nalso, but in the same sense it is irresistible against England. It\nstrikes at Rome through England. It admits of being interpreted in one\nof two ways: if it be narrowed for the purpose of disproving the\ncatholicity of the Creed of Pope Pius, it becomes also an objection to\nthe Athanasian; and if it be relaxed to admit the doctrines retained by\nthe English Church, it no longer excludes certain doctrines of Rome\nwhich that Church denies. It cannot at once condemn St. Thomas and St.\nBernard, and defend St. Athanasius and St. Gregory Nazianzen.\n\nThis general defect in its serviceableness has been heretofore felt by\nthose who appealed to it. It was said by one writer; \"The Rule of\nVincent is not of a mathematical or demonstrative character, but moral,\nand requires practical judgment and good sense to apply it. For\ninstance, what is meant by being 'taught _always_'? does it mean in\nevery century, or every year, or every month? Does '_everywhere_' mean\nin every country, or in every diocese? and does 'the _Consent of\nFathers_' require us to produce the direct testimony of every one of\nthem? How many Fathers, how many places, how many instances, constitute\na fulfilment of the test proposed? It is, then, from the nature of the\ncase, a condition which never can be satisfied as fully as it might have\nbeen. It admits of various and unequal application in various instances;\nand what degree of application is enough, must be decided by the same\nprinciples which guide us in the conduct of life, which determine us in\npolitics, or trade, or war, which lead us to accept Revelation at all,\n(for which we have but probability to show at most,) nay, to believe in\nthe existence of an intelligent Creator.\"[12:1]\n\n\n9.\n\nSo much was allowed by this writer; but then he added:--\n\n\"This character, indeed, of Vincent's Canon, will but recommend it to\nthe disciples of the school of Butler, from its agreement with the\nanalogy of nature; but it affords a ready loophole for such as do not\nwish to be persuaded, of which both Protestants and Romanists are not\nslow to avail themselves.\"\n\nThis surely is the language of disputants who are more intent on\nassailing others than on defending themselves; as if similar loopholes\nwere not necessary for Anglican theology.\n\nHe elsewhere says: \"What there is not the shadow of a reason for saying\nthat the Fathers held, what has not the faintest pretensions of being a\nCatholic truth, is this, that St. Peter or his successors were and are\nuniversal Bishops, that they have the whole of Christendom for their one\ndiocese in a way in which other Apostles and Bishops had and have\nnot.\"[13:1] Most true, if, in order that a doctrine be considered\nCatholic, it must be formally stated by the Fathers generally from the\nvery first; but, on the same understanding, the doctrine also of the\napostolical succession in the episcopal order \"has not the faintest\npretensions of being a Catholic truth.\"\n\nNor was this writer without a feeling of the special difficulty of his\nschool; and he attempted to meet it by denying it. He wished to maintain\nthat the sacred doctrines admitted by the Church of England into her\nArticles were taught in primitive times with a distinctness which no one\ncould fancy to attach to the characteristic tenets of Rome.\n\n\"We confidently affirm,\" he said in another publication, \"that there is\nnot an article in the Athanasian Creed concerning the Incarnation which\nis not anticipated in the controversy with the Gnostics. There is no\nquestion which the Apollinarian or the Nestorian heresy raised, which\nmay not be decided in the words of Ignatius, Iren\u00e6us and\nTertullian.\"[13:2]\n\n\n10.\n\nThis may be considered as true. It may be true also, or at least shall\nhere be granted as true, that there is also a _consensus_ in the\nAnte-nicene Church for the doctrines of our Lord's Consubstantiality and\nCoeternity with the Almighty Father. Let us allow that the whole circle\nof doctrines, of which our Lord is the subject, was consistently and\nuniformly confessed by the Primitive Church, though not ratified\nformally in Council. But it surely is otherwise with the Catholic\ndoctrine of the Trinity. I do not see in what sense it can be said that\nthere is a _consensus_ of primitive divines in its favour, which will\nnot avail also for certain doctrines of the Roman Church which will\npresently come into mention. And this is a point which the writer of the\nabove passages ought to have more distinctly brought before his mind and\nmore carefully weighed; but he seems to have fancied that Bishop Bull\nproved the primitiveness of the Catholic doctrine concerning the Holy\nTrinity as well as that concerning our Lord.\n\nNow it should be clearly understood what it is which must be shown by\nthose who would prove it. Of course the doctrine of our Lord's divinity\nitself partly implies and partly recommends the doctrine of the Trinity;\nbut implication and suggestion belong to another class of arguments\nwhich has not yet come into consideration. Moreover the statements of a\nparticular father or doctor may certainly be of a most important\ncharacter; but one divine is not equal to a Catena. We must have a whole\ndoctrine stated by a whole Church. The Catholic Truth in question is\nmade up of a number of separate propositions, each of which, if\nmaintained to the exclusion of the rest, is a heresy. In order then to\nprove that all the Ante-nicene writers taught the dogma of the Holy\nTrinity, it is not enough to prove that each still has gone far enough\nto be only a heretic--not enough to prove that one has held that the\nSon is God, (for so did the Sabellian, so did the Macedonian), and\nanother that the Father is not the Son, (for so did the Arian), and\nanother that the Son is equal to the Father, (for so did the Tritheist),\nand another that there is but One God, (for so did the Unitarian),--not\nenough that many attached in some sense a Threefold Power to the idea of\nthe Almighty, (for so did almost all the heresies that ever existed, and\ncould not but do so, if they accepted the New Testament at all); but we\nmust show that all these statements at once, and others too, are laid\ndown by as many separate testimonies as may fairly be taken to\nconstitute a \"_consensus_ of doctors.\" It is true indeed that the\nsubsequent profession of the doctrine in the Universal Church creates a\npresumption that it was held even before it was professed; and it is\nfair to interpret the early Fathers by the later. This is true, and\nadmits of application to certain other doctrines besides that of the\nBlessed Trinity in Unity; but there is as little room for such\nantecedent probabilities as for the argument from suggestions and\nintimations in the precise and imperative _Quod semper, quod ubique,\nquod ab omnibus_, as it is commonly understood by English divines, and\nis by them used against the later Church and the see of Rome. What we\nhave a right to ask, if we are bound to act upon Vincent's rule in\nregard to the Trinitarian dogma, is a sufficient number of Ante-nicene\nstatements, each distinctly anticipating the Athanasian Creed.\n\n\n11.\n\nNow let us look at the leading facts of the case, in appealing to which\nI must not be supposed to be ascribing any heresy to the holy men whose\nwords have not always been sufficiently full or exact to preclude the\nimputation. First, the Creeds of that early day make no mention in\ntheir letter of the Catholic doctrine at all. They make mention indeed\nof a Three; but that there is any mystery in the doctrine, that the\nThree are One, that They are coequal, coeternal, all increate, all\nomnipotent, all incomprehensible, is not stated, and never could be\ngathered from them. Of course we believe that they imply it, or rather\nintend it. God forbid we should do otherwise! But nothing in the mere\nletter of those documents leads to that belief. To give a deeper meaning\nto their letter, we must interpret them by the times which came after.\n\nAgain, there is one and one only great doctrinal Council in Ante-nicene\ntimes. It was held at Antioch, in the middle of the third century, on\noccasion of the incipient innovations of the Syrian heretical school.\nNow the Fathers there assembled, for whatever reason, condemned, or at\nleast withdrew, when it came into the dispute, the word \"Homo\u00fcsion,\"\nwhich was afterwards received at Nic\u00e6a as the special symbol of\nCatholicism against Arius.[16:1]\n\nAgain, the six great Bishops and Saints of the Ante-nicene Church were\nSt. Iren\u00e6us, St. Hippolytus, St. Cyprian, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, St.\nDionysius of Alexandria, and St. Methodius. Of these, St. Dionysius is\naccused by St. Basil of having sown the first seeds of Arianism;[16:2]\nand St. Gregory is allowed by the same learned Father to have used\nlanguage concerning our Lord, which he only defends on the plea of an\neconomical object in the writer.[16:3] St. Hippolytus speaks as if he\nwere ignorant of our Lord's Eternal Sonship;[17:1] St. Methodius speaks\nincorrectly at least upon the Incarnation;[17:2] and St. Cyprian does\nnot treat of theology at all. Such is the incompleteness of the extant\nteaching of these true saints, and, in their day, faithful witnesses of\nthe Eternal Son.\n\nAgain, Athenagoras, St. Clement, Tertullian, and the two SS. Dionysii\nwould appear to be the only writers whose language is at any time exact\nand systematic enough to remind us of the Athanasian Creed. If we limit\nour view of the teaching of the Fathers by what they expressly state,\nSt. Ignatius may be considered as a Patripassian, St. Justin arianizes,\nand St. Hippolytus is a Photinian.\n\nAgain, there are three great theological authors of the Ante-nicene\ncenturies, Tertullian, Origen, and, we may add, Eusebius, though he\nlived some way into the fourth. Tertullian is heterodox on the doctrine\nof our Lord's divinity,[17:3] and, indeed, ultimately fell altogether\ninto heresy or schism; Origen is, at the very least, suspected, and must\nbe defended and explained rather than cited as a witness of orthodoxy;\nand Eusebius was a Semi-Arian.\n\n\n12.\n\nMoreover, it may be questioned whether any Ante-nicene father\ndistinctly affirms either the numerical Unity or the Coequality of the\nThree Persons; except perhaps the heterodox Tertullian, and that chiefly\nin a work written after he had become a Montanist:[18:1] yet to satisfy\nthe Anti-roman use of _Quod semper, &c._, surely we ought not to be left\nfor these great articles of doctrine to the testimony of a later age.\n\nFurther, Bishop Bull allows that \"nearly all the ancient Catholics who\npreceded Arius have the appearance of being ignorant of the invisible\nand incomprehensible (_immensam_) nature of the Son of God;\"[18:2] an\narticle expressly taught in the Athanasian Creed under the sanction of\nits anathema.\n\nIt must be asked, moreover, how much direct and literal testimony the\nAnte-nicene Fathers give, one by one, to the divinity of the Holy\nSpirit? This alone shall be observed, that St. Basil, in the fourth\ncentury, finding that, if he distinctly called the Third Person in the\nBlessed Trinity by the Name of God, he should be put out of the Church\nby the Arians, pointedly refrained from doing so on an occasion on which\nhis enemies were on the watch; and that, when some Catholics found fault\nwith him, St. Athanasius took his part.[18:3] Could this possibly have\nbeen the conduct of any true Christian, not to say Saint, of a later\nage? that is, whatever be the true account of it, does it not suggest to\nus that the testimony of those early times lies very unfavourably for\nthe application of the rule of Vincentius?\n\n\n13.\n\nLet it not be for a moment supposed that I impugn the orthodoxy of the\nearly divines, or the cogency of their testimony among _fair_ inquirers;\nbut I am trying them by that _unfair_ interpretation of Vincentius,\nwhich is necessary in order to make him available against the Church of\nRome. And now, as to the positive evidence which those Fathers offer in\nbehalf of the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, it has been drawn out by\nDr. Burton and seems to fall under two heads. One is the general\n_ascription of glory_ to the Three Persons together, both by fathers and\nchurches, and that on continuous tradition and from the earliest times.\nUnder the second fall certain _distinct statements_ of _particular_\nfathers; thus we find the word \"Trinity\" used by St. Theophilus, St.\nClement, St. Hippolytus, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Origen, St. Methodius;\nand the Divine _Circumincessio_, the most distinctive portion of the\nCatholic doctrine, and the unity of power, or again, of substance, are\ndeclared with more or less distinctness by Athenagoras, St. Iren\u00e6us, St.\nClement, Tertullian, St. Hippolytus, Origen, and the two SS. Dionysii.\nThis is pretty much the whole of the evidence.\n\n\n14.\n\nPerhaps it will be said we ought to take the Ante-nicene Fathers as a\nwhole, and interpret one of them by another. This is to assume that they\nare all of one school, which of course they are, but which in\ncontroversy is a point to be proved; but it is even doubtful whether, on\nthe whole, such a procedure would strengthen the argument. For instance,\nas to the second head of the positive evidence noted by Dr. Burton,\nTertullian is the most formal and elaborate of these Fathers in his\nstatements of the Catholic doctrine. \"It would hardly be possible,\" says\nDr. Burton, after quoting a passage, \"for Athanasius himself, or the\ncompiler of the Athanasian Creed, to have delivered the doctrine of the\nTrinity in stronger terms than these.\"[19:1] Yet Tertullian must be\nconsidered heterodox on the doctrine of our Lord's eternal\ngeneration.[20:1] If then we are to argue from his instance to that of\nthe other Fathers, we shall be driven to the conclusion that even the\nmost exact statements are worth nothing more than their letter, are a\nwarrant for nothing beyond themselves, and are consistent with\nheterodoxy where they do not expressly protest against it.\n\nAnd again, as to the argument derivable from the Doxologies, it must not\nbe forgotten that one of the passages in St. Justin Martyr includes the\nworship of the Angels. \"We worship and adore,\" he says, \"Him, and the\nSon who came from Him and taught us these things, and the host of those\nother good Angels, who follow and are like Him, and the Prophetic\nSpirit.\"[20:2] A Unitarian might argue from this passage that the glory\nand worship which the early Church ascribed to our Lord was not more\ndefinite than that which St. Justin was ready to concede to creatures.\n\n\n15.\n\nThus much on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Let us proceed to another\nexample. There are two doctrines which are generally associated with the\nname of a Father of the fourth and fifth centuries, and which can show\nlittle definite, or at least but partial, testimony in their behalf\nbefore his time,--Purgatory and Original Sin. The dictum of Vincent\nadmits both or excludes both, according as it is or is not rigidly\ntaken; but, if used by Aristotle's \"Lesbian Rule,\" then, as Anglicans\nwould wish, it can be made to admit Original Sin and exclude Purgatory.\n\nOn the one hand, some notion of suffering, or disadvantage, or\npunishment after this life, in the case of the faithful departed, or\nother vague forms of the doctrine of Purgatory, has in its favour almost\na _consensus_ of the four first ages of the Church, though some Fathers\nstate it with far greater openness and decision than others. It is, as\nfar as words go, the confession of St. Clement of Alexandria,\nTertullian, St. Perpetua, St. Cyprian, Origen, Lactantius, St. Hilary,\nSt. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Ambrose, St. Basil, St. Gregory of\nNazianzus, and of Nyssa, St. Chrysostom, St. Jerome, St. Paulinus, and\nSt. Augustine. And so, on the other hand, there is a certain agreement\nof Fathers from the first that mankind has derived some disadvantage\nfrom the sin of Adam.\n\n\n16.\n\nNext, when we consider the two doctrines more distinctly,--the doctrine\nthat between death and judgment there is a time or state of punishment;\nand the doctrine that all men, naturally propagated from fallen Adam,\nare in consequence born destitute of original righteousness,--we find,\non the one hand, several, such as Tertullian, St. Perpetua, St. Cyril,\nSt. Hilary, St. Jerome, St. Gregory Nyssen, as far as their words go,\ndefinitely declaring a doctrine of Purgatory: whereas no one will say\nthat there is a testimony of the Fathers, equally strong, for the\ndoctrine of Original Sin, though it is difficult here to make any\ndefinite statement about their teaching without going into a discussion\nof the subject.\n\nOn the subject of Purgatory there were, to speak generally, two schools\nof opinion; the Greek, which contemplated a trial of fire at the last\nday through which all were to pass; and the African, resembling more\nnearly the present doctrine of the Roman Church. And so there were two\nprincipal views of Original Sin, the Greek and the African or Latin. Of\nthe Greek, the judgment of Hooker is well known, though it must not be\ntaken in the letter: \"The heresy of freewill was a millstone about those\nPelagians' neck; shall we therefore give sentence of death inevitable\nagainst all those Fathers in the Greek Church which, being mispersuaded,\ndied in the error of freewill?\"[22:1] Bishop Taylor, arguing for an\nopposite doctrine, bears a like testimony: \"Original Sin,\" he says, \"as\nit is at this day commonly explicated, was not the doctrine of the\nprimitive Church; but when Pelagius had puddled the stream, St. Austin\nwas so angry that he stamped and disturbed it more. And truly . . I do\nnot think that the gentlemen that urged against me St. Austin's opinion\ndo well consider that I profess myself to follow those Fathers who were\nbefore him; and whom St. Austin did forsake, as I do him, in the\nquestion.\"[22:2] The same is asserted or allowed by Jansenius, Petavius,\nand Walch,[22:3] men of such different schools that we may surely take\ntheir agreement as a proof of the fact. A late writer, after going\nthrough the testimonies of the Fathers one by one, comes to the\nconclusion, first, that \"the Greek Church in no point favoured\nAugustine, except in teaching that from Adam's sin came death, and,\n(after the time of Methodius,) an extraordinary and unnatural sensuality\nalso;\" next, that \"the Latin Church affirmed, in addition, that a\ncorrupt and contaminated soul, and that, by generation, was carried on\nto his posterity;\"[22:4] and, lastly, that neither Greeks nor Latins\nheld the doctrine of imputation. It may be observed, in addition, that,\nin spite of the forcible teaching of St. Paul on the subject, the\ndoctrine of Original Sin appears neither in the Apostles' nor the Nicene\nCreed.\n\n\n17.\n\nOne additional specimen shall be given as a sample of many others:--I\nbetake myself to one of our altars to receive the Blessed Eucharist; I\nhave no doubt whatever on my mind about the Gift which that Sacrament\ncontains; I confess to myself my belief, and I go through the steps on\nwhich it is assured to me. \"The Presence of Christ is here, for It\nfollows upon Consecration; and Consecration is the prerogative of\nPriests; and Priests are made by Ordination; and Ordination comes in\ndirect line from the Apostles. Whatever be our other misfortunes, every\nlink in our chain is safe; we have the Apostolic Succession, we have a\nright form of consecration: therefore we are blessed with the great\nGift.\" Here the question rises in me, \"Who told you about that Gift?\" I\nanswer, \"I have learned it from the Fathers: I believe the Real Presence\nbecause they bear witness to it. St. Ignatius calls it 'the medicine of\nimmortality:' St. Iren\u00e6us says that 'our flesh becomes incorrupt, and\npartakes of life, and has the hope of the resurrection,' as 'being\nnourished from the Lord's Body and Blood;' that the Eucharist 'is made\nup of two things, an earthly and an heavenly:'[23:1] perhaps Origen, and\nperhaps Magnes, after him, say that It is not a type of our Lord's Body,\nbut His Body: and St. Cyprian uses language as fearful as can be spoken,\nof those who profane it. I cast my lot with them, I believe as they.\"\nThus I reply, and then the thought comes upon me a second time, \"And do\nnot the same ancient Fathers bear witness to another doctrine, which\nyou disown? Are you not as a hypocrite, listening to them when you will,\nand deaf when you will not? How are you casting your lot with the\nSaints, when you go but half-way with them? For of whether of the two do\nthey speak the more frequently, of the Real Presence in the Eucharist,\nor of the Pope's supremacy? You accept the lesser evidence, you reject\nthe greater.\"\n\n\n18.\n\nIn truth, scanty as the Ante-nicene notices may be of the Papal\nSupremacy, they are both more numerous and more definite than the\nadducible testimonies in favour of the Real Presence. The testimonies to\nthe latter are confined to a few passages such as those just quoted. On\nthe other hand, of a passage in St. Justin, Bishop Kaye remarks, \"Le\nNourry infers that Justin maintained the doctrine of Transubstantiation;\nit might in my opinion be more plausibly urged in favour of\nConsubstantiation, since Justin calls the consecrated elements Bread and\nWine, though not common bread and wine.[24:1] . . . We may therefore\nconclude that, when he calls them the Body and Blood of Christ, he\nspeaks figuratively.\" \"Clement,\" observes the same author, \"says that\nthe Scripture calls wine a mystic _symbol_ of the holy blood. . . .\nClement gives various interpretations of Christ's expressions in John\nvi. respecting His flesh and blood; but in no instance does he interpret\nthem literally. . . . His notion seems to have been that, by partaking\nof the bread and wine in the Eucharist, the soul of the believer is\nunited to the Spirit, and that by this union the principle of\nimmortality is imparted to the flesh.\"[24:2] \"It has been suggested by\nsome,\" says Waterland, \"that Tertullian understood John vi. merely of\nfaith, or doctrine, or spiritual actions; and it is strenuously denied\nby others.\" After quoting the passage, he adds, \"All that one can\njustly gather from this confused passage is that Tertullian interpreted\nthe bread of life in John vi. of the Word, which he sometimes makes to\nbe vocal, and sometimes substantial, blending the ideas in a very\nperplexed manner; so that he is no clear authority for construing John\nvi. of doctrines, &c. All that is certain is that he supposes the Word\nmade flesh, the Word incarnate to be the heavenly bread spoken of\nin that chapter.\"[25:1] \"Origen's general observation relating to\nthat chapter is, that it must not be literally, but figuratively\nunderstood.\"[25:2] Again, \"It is plain enough that Eusebius followed\nOrigen in this matter, and that both of them favoured the same mystical\nor allegorical construction; whether constantly and uniformly I need not\nsay.\"[25:3] I will but add the incidental testimony afforded on a late\noccasion:--how far the Anglican doctrine of the Eucharist depends on the\ntimes before the Nicene Council, how far on the times after it, may be\ngathered from the circumstance that, when a memorable Sermon[25:4] was\npublished on the subject, out of about one hundred and forty passages\nfrom the Fathers appended in the notes, not in formal proof, but in\ngeneral illustration, only fifteen were taken from Ante-nicene writers.\n\nWith such evidence, the Ante-nicene testimonies which may be cited in\nbehalf of the authority of the Holy See, need not fear a comparison.\nFaint they may be one by one, but at least we may count seventeen of\nthem, and they are various, and are drawn from many times and countries,\nand thereby serve to illustrate each other, and form a body of proof.\nWhatever objections may be made to this or that particular fact, and I\ndo not think any valid ones can be raised, still, on the whole, I\nconsider that a cumulative argument rises from them in favour of the\necumenical and the doctrinal authority of Rome, stronger than any\nargument which can be drawn from the same period for the doctrine of the\nReal Presence. I shall have occasion to enumerate them in the fourth\nchapter of this Essay.\n\n\n19.\n\nIf it be said that the Real Presence appears, by the Liturgies of the\nfourth or fifth century, to have been the doctrine of the earlier, since\nthose very forms probably existed from the first in Divine worship, this\nis doubtless an important truth; but then it is true also that the\nwriters of the fourth and fifth centuries fearlessly assert, or frankly\nallow that the prerogatives of Rome were derived from apostolic times,\nand that because it was the See of St. Peter.\n\nMoreover, if the resistance of St. Cyprian and Firmilian to the Church\nof Rome, in the question of baptism by heretics, be urged as an argument\nagainst her primitive authority, or the earlier resistance of Polycrates\nof Ephesus, let it be considered, first, whether all authority does not\nnecessarily lead to resistance; next, whether St. Cyprian's own\ndoctrine, which is in favour of Rome, is not more weighty than his act,\nwhich is against her; thirdly, whether he was not already in error in\nthe main question under discussion, and Firmilian also; and lastly,\nwhich is the chief point here, whether, in like manner, we may\nnot object on the other hand against the Real Presence the words\nof Tertullian, who explains, \"This is my Body,\" by \"a figure of\nmy Body,\" and of Origen, who speaks of \"our drinking Christ's\nBlood not only in the rite of the Sacraments, but also when we\nreceive His discourses,\"[26:1] and says that \"that Bread which\nGod the Word acknowledges as His Body is the Word which nourishes\nsouls,\"[26:2]--passages which admit of a Catholic interpretation when\nthe Catholic doctrine is once proved, but which _prim\u00e2 facie_ run\ncounter to that doctrine.\n\nIt does not seem possible, then, to avoid the conclusion that, whatever\nbe the proper key for harmonizing the records and documents of the early\nand later Church, and true as the dictum of Vincentius must be\nconsidered in the abstract, and possible as its application might be in\nhis own age, when he might almost ask the primitive centuries for their\ntestimony, it is hardly available now, or effective of any satisfactory\nresult. The solution it offers is as difficult as the original problem.\n\n\n20.\n\nAnother hypothesis for accounting for a want of accord between the early\nand the late aspects of Christianity is that of the _Disciplina Arcani_,\nput forward on the assumption that there has been no variation in the\nteaching of the Church from first to last. It is maintained that\ndoctrines which are associated with the later ages of the Church were\nreally in the Church from the first, but not publicly taught, and that\nfor various reasons: as, for the sake of reverence, that sacred subjects\nmight not be profaned by the heathen; and for the sake of catechumens,\nthat they might not be oppressed or carried away by a sudden\ncommunication of the whole circle of revealed truth. And indeed the fact\nof this concealment can hardly be denied, in whatever degree it took the\nshape of a definite rule, which might vary with persons and places. That\nit existed even as a rule, as regards the Sacraments, seems to be\nconfessed on all hands. That it existed in other respects, as a\npractice, is plain from the nature of the case, and from the writings of\nthe Apologists. Minucius Felix and Arnobius, in controversy with Pagans,\nimply a denial that then the Christians used altars; yet Tertullian\nspeaks expressly of the _Ara Dei_ in the Church. What can we say, but\nthat the Apologists deny altars _in the sense_ in which they ridicule\nthem; or, that they deny that altars _such as_ the Pagan altars were\ntolerated by Christians? And, in like manner, Minucius allows that there\nwere no temples among Christians; yet they are distinctly recognized in\nthe edicts of the Dioclesian era, and are known to have existed at a\nstill earlier date. It is the tendency of every dominant system, such as\nthe Paganism of the Ante-nicene centuries, to force its opponents into\nthe most hostile and jealous attitude, from the apprehension which they\nnaturally feel, lest if they acted otherwise, in those points in which\nthey approximate towards it, they should be misinterpreted and overborne\nby its authority. The very fault now found with clergymen of the\nAnglican Church, who wish to conform their practices to her rubrics, and\ntheir doctrines to her divines of the seventeenth century, is, that,\nwhether they mean it or no, whether legitimately or no, still, in matter\nof fact, they will be sanctioning and encouraging the religion of Rome,\nin which there are similar doctrines and practices, more definite and\nmore influential; so that, at any rate, it is inexpedient at the moment\nto attempt what is sure to be mistaken. That is, they are required to\nexercise a _disciplina arcani_; and a similar reserve was inevitable on\nthe part of the Catholic Church, at a time when priests and altars\nand rites all around it were devoted to malignant and incurable\nsuperstitions. It would be wrong indeed to deny, but it was a duty to\nwithhold, the ceremonial of Christianity; and Apologists might be\nsometimes tempted to deny absolutely what at furthest could only be\ndenied under conditions. An idolatrous Paganism tended to repress\nthe externals of Christianity, as, at this day, the presence of\nProtestantism is said to repress, though for another reason, the\nexhibition of the Roman Catholic religion.\n\nOn various grounds, then, it is certain that portions of the Church\nsystem were held back in primitive times, and of course this fact goes\nsome way to account for that apparent variation and growth of doctrine,\nwhich embarrasses us when we would consult history for the true idea of\nChristianity; yet it is no key to the whole difficulty, as we find it,\nfor obvious reasons:--because the variations continue beyond the time\nwhen it is conceivable that the discipline was in force, and because\nthey manifest themselves on a law, not abruptly, but by a visible growth\nwhich has persevered up to this time without any sign of its coming to\nan end.[29:1]\n\n\n21.\n\nThe following Essay is directed towards a solution of the difficulty\nwhich has been stated,--the difficulty, as far as it exists, which lies\nin the way of our using in controversy the testimony of our most natural\ninformant concerning the doctrine and worship of Christianity, viz. the\nhistory of eighteen hundred years. The view on which it is written has\nat all times, perhaps, been implicitly adopted by theologians, and, I\nbelieve, has recently been illustrated by several distinguished writers\nof the continent, such as De Maistre and M\u00f6hler: viz. that the increase\nand expansion of the Christian Creed and Ritual, and the variations\nwhich have attended the process in the case of individual writers and\nChurches, are the necessary attendants on any philosophy or polity which\ntakes possession of the intellect and heart, and has had any wide or\nextended dominion; that, from the nature of the human mind, time is\nnecessary for the full comprehension and perfection of great ideas; and\nthat the highest and most wonderful truths, though communicated to the\nworld once for all by inspired teachers, could not be comprehended all\nat once by the recipients, but, as being received and transmitted by\nminds not inspired and through media which were human, have required\nonly the longer time and deeper thought for their full elucidation. This\nmay be called the _Theory of Development of Doctrine_; and, before\nproceeding to treat of it, one remark may be in place.\n\nIt is undoubtedly an hypothesis to account for a difficulty; but such\ntoo are the various explanations given by astronomers from Ptolemy to\nNewton of the apparent motions of the heavenly bodies, and it is as\nunphilosophical on that account to object to the one as to object to the\nother. Nor is it more reasonable to express surprise, that at this time\nof day a theory is necessary, granting for argument's sake that the\ntheory is novel, than to have directed a similar wonder in disparagement\nof the theory of gravitation, or the Plutonian theory in geology.\nDoubtless, the theory of the Secret and the theory of doctrinal\nDevelopments are expedients, and so is the dictum of Vincentius; so is\nthe art of grammar or the use of the quadrant; it is an expedient to\nenable us to solve what has now become a necessary and an anxious\nproblem. For three hundred years the documents and the facts of\nChristianity have been exposed to a jealous scrutiny; works have been\njudged spurious which once were received without a question; facts have\nbeen discarded or modified which were once first principles in argument;\nnew facts and new principles have been brought to light; philosophical\nviews and polemical discussions of various tendencies have been\nmaintained with more or less success. Not only has the relative\nsituation of controversies and theologies altered, but infidelity itself\nis in a different,--I am obliged to say in a more hopeful position,--as\nregards Christianity. The facts of Revealed Religion, though in their\nsubstance unaltered, present a less compact and orderly front to the\nattacks of its enemies now than formerly, and allow of the introduction\nof new inquiries and theories concerning its sources and its rise. The\nstate of things is not as it was, when an appeal lay to the supposed\nworks of the Areopagite, or to the primitive Decretals, or to St.\nDionysius's answers to Paul, or to the Coena Domini of St. Cyprian.\nThe assailants of dogmatic truth have got the start of its adherents of\nwhatever Creed; philosophy is completing what criticism has begun; and\napprehensions are not unreasonably excited lest we should have a new\nworld to conquer before we have weapons for the warfare. Already\ninfidelity has its views and conjectures, on which it arranges the facts\nof ecclesiastical history; and it is sure to consider the absence of any\nantagonist theory as an evidence of the reality of its own. That the\nhypothesis, here to be adopted, accounts not only for the Athanasian\nCreed, but for the Creed of Pope Pius, is no fault of those who adopt\nit. No one has power over the issues of his principles; we cannot manage\nour argument, and have as much of it as we please and no more. An\nargument is needed, unless Christianity is to abandon the province of\nargument; and those who find fault with the explanation here offered of\nits historical phenomena will find it their duty to provide one for\nthemselves.\n\nAnd as no special aim at Roman Catholic doctrine need be supposed to\nhave given a direction to the inquiry, so neither can a reception of\nthat doctrine be immediately based on its results. It would be the work\nof a life to apply the Theory of Developments so carefully to the\nwritings of the Fathers, and to the history of controversies and\ncouncils, as thereby to vindicate the reasonableness of every decision\nof Rome; much less can such an undertaking be imagined by one who, in\nthe middle of his days, is beginning life again. Thus much, however,\nmight be gained even from an Essay like the present, an explanation of\nso many of the reputed corruptions, doctrinal and practical, of Rome, as\nmight serve as a fair ground for trusting her in parallel cases where\nthe investigation had not been pursued.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[9:1] Church of the Fathers [Hist. Sketches, vol. i. p. 418].\n\n[12:1] Proph. Office [Via Media, vol. i. pp. 55, 56].\n\n[13:1] [Ibid. p. 181.]\n\n[13:2] [British Critic, July, 1836, p. 193. Vid. supr. vol. i. p. 130.]\n\n[16:1] This of course has been disputed, as is the case with almost all\nfacts which bear upon the decision of controversies. I shall not think\nit necessary to notice the possibility or the fact of objections on\nquestions upon which the world may now be said to be agreed; _e. g._ the\narianizing tone of Eusebius.\n\n[16:2] +schedon taut\u00easi t\u00eas nyn perithylloumen\u00eas asebeias, t\u00eas kata to\nAnomoion leg\u00f4, outos hestin, hosa ge h\u00eameis hismen, ho pr\u00f4tos anthr\u00f4pois\nta spermata parasch\u00f4n.+ Ep. ix. 2.\n\n[16:3] Bull, Defens. F. N. ii. 12, \u00a7 6.\n\n[17:1] \"The authors who make the generation temporary, and speak not\nexpressly of any other, are these following: Justin, Athenagoras,\nTheophilus, Tatian, Tertullian, and Hippolytus.\"--_Waterland_, vol. i.\npart 2, p. 104.\n\n[17:2] \"Levia sunt,\" says Maran in his defence, \"qu\u00e6 in Sanctissimam\nTrinitatem hic liber peccare dicitur, paulo graviora qu\u00e6 in mysterium\nIncarnationis.\"--_Div. Jes. Christ._ p. 527. Shortly after, p. 530, \"In\nterti\u00e2 oratione nonnulla legimus Incarnationem Domini spectantia, qu\u00e6\nsubabsurd\u00e8 dicta fateor, nego impi\u00e8 cogitata.\"\n\n[17:3] Bishop Bull, who is tender towards him, allows, \"Ut quod res est\ndicam, cum Valentinianis hic et reliquo gnosticorum grege aliquatenus\nlocutus est Tertullianus; in re ips\u00e2 tamen cum Catholicis omnin\u00f2\nsensit.\"--_Defens. F. N._ iii. 10, \u00a7 15.\n\n[18:1] Adv. Praxeam.\n\n[18:2] Defens. F. N. iv. 3, \u00a7 1.\n\n[18:3] Basil, ed. Ben. vol. 3, p. xcvi.\n\n[19:1] Ante-nicene Test, to the Trinity, p. 69.\n\n[20:1] \"Quia et Pater Deus est, et judex Deus est, non tamen ideo Pater\net judex semper, quia Deus semper. Nam nec Pater potuit esse ante\nFilium, nec judex ante delictum. Fuit autem tempus, cum et delictum et\nFilius non fuit, quod judicem, et qui Patrem Dominum faceret.\"--_Contr.\nHerm._ 3.\n\n[20:2] Vid. infra, towards the end of the Essay, ch. x., where more will\nbe said on the passage.\n\n[22:1] Of Justification, 26.\n\n[22:2] Works, vol. ix. p. 396.\n\n[22:3] \"Quamvis igitur quam maxim\u00e8 fallantur Pelagiani, quum asserant,\npeccatum originale ex Augustini profluxisse ingenio, antiquam vero\necclesiam illud plane nescivisse; diffiteri tamen nemo potest, apud\nGr\u00e6cos patres imprimis inveniri loca, qu\u00e6 Pelagianismo favere videntur.\nHinc et C. Jansenius, 'Gr\u00e6ci,' inquit, 'nisi caute legantur et\nintelligantur, pr\u00e6bere possunt occasionem errori Pelagiano;' et D.\nPetavius dicit, 'Gr\u00e6ci originalis fere criminis raram, nec disertam,\nmentionem scriptis suis attigerunt.'\"--_Walch_, _Miscell. Sacr._ p. 607.\n\n[22:4] Horn, Comment. de Pecc. Orig. 1801, p. 98.\n\n[23:1] H\u00e6r. iv. 18, \u00a7 5.\n\n[24:1] Justin Martyr, ch. 4.\n\n[24:2] Clem. Alex. ch. 11.\n\n[25:1] Works, vol. vii. p. 118-120.\n\n[25:2] Ibid. p. 121.\n\n[25:3] Ibid. p. 127.\n\n[25:4] [Dr. Pusey's University Sermon of 1843.]\n\n[26:1] Numer. Hom. xvi. 9.\n\n[26:2] Interp. Com. in Matt. 85.\n\n[29:1] [_Vid._ Apolog., p. 198, and Difficulties of Angl. vol. i. xii.\n7.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nON THE DEVELOPMENT OF IDEAS.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nON THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT IN IDEAS.\n\nIt is the characteristic of our minds to be ever engaged in passing\njudgment on the things which come before us. No sooner do we apprehend\nthan we judge: we allow nothing to stand by itself: we compare,\ncontrast, abstract, generalize, connect, adjust, classify: and we view\nall our knowledge in the associations with which these processes have\ninvested it.\n\nOf the judgments thus made, which become aspects in our minds of the\nthings which meet us, some are mere opinions which come and go, or which\nremain with us only till an accident displaces them, whatever be the\ninfluence which they exercise meanwhile. Others are firmly fixed in our\nminds, with or without good reason, and have a hold upon us, whether\nthey relate to matters of fact, or to principles of conduct, or are\nviews of life and the world, or are prejudices, imaginations, or\nconvictions. Many of them attach to one and the same object, which is\nthus variously viewed, not only by various minds, but by the same. They\nsometimes lie in such near relation, that each implies the others; some\nare only not inconsistent with each other, in that they have a common\norigin: some, as being actually incompatible with each other, are, one\nor other, falsely associated in our minds with their object, and in any\ncase they may be nothing more than ideas, which we mistake for things.\n\nThus Judaism is an idea which once was objective, and Gnosticism is an\nidea which was never so. Both of them have various aspects: those of\nJudaism were such as monotheism, a certain ethical discipline, a\nministration of divine vengeance, a preparation for Christianity: those\nof the Gnostic idea are such as the doctrine of two principles, that of\nemanation, the intrinsic malignity of matter, the inculpability of\nsensual indulgence, or the guilt of every pleasure of sense, of which\nlast two one or other must be in the Gnostic a false aspect and\nsubjective only.\n\n\n2.\n\nThe idea which represents an object or supposed object is commensurate\nwith the sum total of its possible aspects, however they may vary in the\nseparate consciousness of individuals; and in proportion to the variety\nof aspects under which it presents itself to various minds is its force\nand depth, and the argument for its reality. Ordinarily an idea is not\nbrought home to the intellect as objective except through this variety;\nlike bodily substances, which are not apprehended except under the\nclothing of their properties and results, and which admit of being\nwalked round, and surveyed on opposite sides, and in different\nperspectives, and in contrary lights, in evidence of their reality. And,\nas views of a material object may be taken from points so remote or so\nopposed, that they seem at first sight incompatible, and especially as\ntheir shadows will be disproportionate, or even monstrous, and yet all\nthese anomalies will disappear and all these contrarieties be adjusted,\non ascertaining the point of vision or the surface of projection in each\ncase; so also all the aspects of an idea are capable of coalition, and\nof a resolution into the object to which it belongs; and the _prim\u00e2\nfacie_ dissimilitude of its aspects becomes, when explained, an argument\nfor its substantiveness and integrity, and their multiplicity for its\noriginality and power.\n\n\n3.\n\nThere is no one aspect deep enough to exhaust the contents of a real\nidea, no one term or proposition which will serve to define it; though\nof course one representation of it is more just and exact than another,\nand though when an idea is very complex, it is allowable, for the sake\nof convenience, to consider its distinct aspects as if separate ideas.\nThus, with all our intimate knowledge of animal life and of the\nstructure of particular animals, we have not arrived at a true\ndefinition of any one of them, but are forced to enumerate properties\nand accidents by way of description. Nor can we inclose in a formula\nthat intellectual fact, or system of thought, which we call the Platonic\nphilosophy, or that historical phenomenon of doctrine and conduct, which\nwe call the heresy of Montanus or of Manes. Again, if Protestantism were\nsaid to lie in its theory of private judgment, and Lutheranism in its\ndoctrine of justification, this indeed would be an approximation to the\ntruth; but it is plain that to argue or to act as if the one or the\nother aspect were a sufficient account of those forms of religion\nseverally, would be a serious mistake. Sometimes an attempt is made to\ndetermine the \"leading idea,\" as it has been called, of Christianity, an\nambitious essay as employed on a supernatural work, when, even as\nregards the visible creation and the inventions of man, such a task is\nbeyond us. Thus its one idea has been said by some to be the restoration\nof our fallen race, by others philanthropy, by others the tidings of\nimmortality, or the spirituality of true religious service, or the\nsalvation of the elect, or mental liberty, or the union of the soul with\nGod. If, indeed, it is only thereby meant to use one or other of these\nas a central idea for convenience, in order to group others around it,\nno fault can be found with such a proceeding: and in this sense I should\nmyself call the Incarnation the central aspect of Christianity, out of\nwhich the three main aspects of its teaching take their rise, the\nsacramental, the hierarchical, and the ascetic. But one aspect of\nRevelation must not be allowed to exclude or to obscure another; and\nChristianity is dogmatical, devotional, practical all at once; it is\nesoteric and exoteric; it is indulgent and strict; it is light and dark;\nit is love, and it is fear.\n\n\n4.\n\nWhen an idea, whether real or not, is of a nature to arrest and possess\nthe mind, it may be said to have life, that is, to live in the mind\nwhich is its recipient. Thus mathematical ideas, real as they are, can\nhardly properly be called living, at least ordinarily. But, when some\ngreat enunciation, whether true or false, about human nature, or present\ngood, or government, or duty, or religion, is carried forward into the\npublic throng of men and draws attention, then it is not merely received\npassively in this or that form into many minds, but it becomes an active\nprinciple within them, leading them to an ever-new contemplation of\nitself, to an application of it in various directions, and a propagation\nof it on every side. Such is the doctrine of the divine right of kings,\nor of the rights of man, or of the anti-social bearings of a priesthood,\nor utilitarianism, or free trade, or the duty of benevolent enterprises,\nor the philosophy of Zeno or Epicurus, doctrines which are of a nature\nto attract and influence, and have so far a _prim\u00e2 facie_ reality, that\nthey may be looked at on many sides and strike various minds very\nvariously. Let one such idea get possession of the popular mind, or the\nmind of any portion of the community, and it is not difficult to\nunderstand what will be the result. At first men will not fully realize\nwhat it is that moves them, and will express and explain themselves\ninadequately. There will be a general agitation of thought, and an\naction of mind upon mind. There will be a time of confusion, when\nconceptions and misconceptions are in conflict, and it is uncertain\nwhether anything is to come of the idea at all, or which view of it is\nto get the start of the others. New lights will be brought to bear upon\nthe original statements of the doctrine put forward; judgments and\naspects will accumulate. After a while some definite teaching emerges;\nand, as time proceeds, one view will be modified or expanded by another,\nand then combined with a third; till the idea to which these various\naspects belong, will be to each mind separately what at first it was\nonly to all together. It will be surveyed too in its relation to other\ndoctrines or facts, to other natural laws or established customs, to the\nvarying circumstances of times and places, to other religions, polities,\nphilosophies, as the case may be. How it stands affected towards other\nsystems, how it affects them, how far it may be made to combine with\nthem, how far it tolerates them, when it interferes with them, will be\ngradually wrought out. It will be interrogated and criticized by\nenemies, and defended by well-wishers. The multitude of opinions formed\nconcerning it in these respects and many others will be collected,\ncompared, sorted, sifted, selected, rejected, gradually attached to it,\nseparated from it, in the minds of individuals and of the community. It\nwill, in proportion to its native vigour and subtlety, introduce itself\ninto the framework and details of social life, changing public opinion,\nand strengthening or undermining the foundations of established order.\nThus in time it will have grown into an ethical code, or into a system\nof government, or into a theology, or into a ritual, according to its\ncapabilities: and this body of thought, thus laboriously gained, will\nafter all be little more than the proper representative of one idea,\nbeing in substance what that idea meant from the first, its complete\nimage as seen in a combination of diversified aspects, with the\nsuggestions and corrections of many minds, and the illustration of many\nexperiences.\n\n\n5.\n\nThis process, whether it be longer or shorter in point of time, by which\nthe aspects of an idea are brought into consistency and form, I call its\ndevelopment, being the germination and maturation of some truth or\napparent truth on a large mental field. On the other hand this process\nwill not be a development, unless the assemblage of aspects, which\nconstitute its ultimate shape, really belongs to the idea from which\nthey start. A republic, for instance, is not a development from a pure\nmonarchy, though it may follow upon it; whereas the Greek \"tyrant\" may\nbe considered as included in the idea of a democracy. Moreover a\ndevelopment will have this characteristic, that, its action being in the\nbusy scene of human life, it cannot progress at all without cutting\nacross, and thereby destroying or modifying and incorporating with\nitself existing modes of thinking and operating. The development then of\nan idea is not like an investigation worked out on paper, in which each\nsuccessive advance is a pure evolution from a foregoing, but it is\ncarried on through and by means of communities of men and their leaders\nand guides; and it employs their minds as its instruments, and depends\nupon them, while it uses them. And so, as regards existing opinions,\nprinciples, measures, and institutions of the community which it has\ninvaded; it developes by establishing relations between itself and\nthem; it employs itself, in giving them a new meaning and direction, in\ncreating what may be called a jurisdiction over them, in throwing off\nwhatever in them it cannot assimilate. It grows when it incorporates,\nand its identity is found, not in isolation, but in continuity and\nsovereignty. This it is that imparts to the history both of states and\nof religions, its specially turbulent and polemical character. Such is\nthe explanation of the wranglings, whether of schools or of parliaments.\nIt is the warfare of ideas under their various aspects striving for the\nmastery, each of them enterprising, engrossing, imperious, more or less\nincompatible with the rest, and rallying followers or rousing foes,\naccording as it acts upon the faith, the prejudices, or the interest of\nparties or classes.\n\n\n6.\n\nMoreover, an idea not only modifies, but is modified, or at least\ninfluenced, by the state of things in which it is carried out, and is\ndependent in various ways on the circumstances which surround it. Its\ndevelopment proceeds quickly or slowly, as it may be; the order of\nsuccession in its separate stages is variable; it shows differently in a\nsmall sphere of action and in an extended; it may be interrupted,\nretarded, mutilated, distorted, by external violence; it may be\nenfeebled by the effort of ridding itself of domestic foes; it may be\nimpeded and swayed or even absorbed by counter energetic ideas; it may\nbe coloured by the received tone of thought into which it comes, or\ndepraved by the intrusion of foreign principles, or at length shattered\nby the development of some original fault within it.\n\n\n7.\n\nBut whatever be the risk of corruption from intercourse with the world\naround, such a risk must be encountered if a great idea is duly to be\nunderstood, and much more if it is to be fully exhibited. It is elicited\nand expanded by trial, and battles into perfection and supremacy. Nor\ndoes it escape the collision of opinion even in its earlier years, nor\ndoes it remain truer to itself, and with a better claim to be considered\none and the same, though externally protected from vicissitude and\nchange. It is indeed sometimes said that the stream is clearest near the\nspring. Whatever use may fairly be made of this image, it does not apply\nto the history of a philosophy or belief, which on the contrary is more\nequable, and purer, and stronger, when its bed has become deep, and\nbroad, and full. It necessarily rises out of an existing state of\nthings, and for a time savours of the soil. Its vital element needs\ndisengaging from what is foreign and temporary, and is employed in\nefforts after freedom which become more vigorous and hopeful as its\nyears increase. Its beginnings are no measure of its capabilities, nor\nof its scope. At first no one knows what it is, or what it is worth. It\nremains perhaps for a time quiescent; it tries, as it were, its limbs,\nand proves the ground under it, and feels its way. From time to time it\nmakes essays which fail, and are in consequence abandoned. It seems in\nsuspense which way to go; it wavers, and at length strikes out in one\ndefinite direction. In time it enters upon strange territory; points of\ncontroversy alter their bearing; parties rise and fall around it;\ndangers and hopes appear in new relations; and old principles reappear\nunder new forms. It changes with them in order to remain the same. In a\nhigher world it is otherwise, but here below to live is to change, and\nto be perfect is to have changed often.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nON THE KINDS OF DEVELOPMENT IN IDEAS.\n\nTo attempt an accurate analysis or complete enumeration of the processes\nof thought, whether speculative or practical, which come under the\nnotion of development, exceeds the pretensions of an Essay like the\npresent; but, without some general view of the various mental exercises\nwhich go by the name we shall have no security against confusion in our\nreasoning and necessary exposure to criticism.\n\n1. First, then, it must be borne in mind that the word is commonly used,\nand is used here, in three senses indiscriminately, from defect of our\nlanguage; on the one hand for the process of development, on the other\nfor the result; and again either generally for a development, true or\nnot true, (that is, faithful or unfaithful to the idea from which it\nstarted,) or exclusively for a development deserving the name. A false\nor unfaithful development is more properly to be called a corruption.\n\n2. Next, it is plain that _mathematical_ developments, that is, the\nsystem of truths drawn out from mathematical definitions or equations,\ndo not fall under our present subject, though altogether analogous to\nit. There can be no corruption in such developments, because they are\nconducted on strict demonstration; and the conclusions in which they\nterminate, being necessary, cannot be declensions from the original\nidea.\n\n3. Nor, of course, do _physical_ developments, as the growth of animal\nor vegetable nature, come into consideration here; excepting that,\ntogether with mathematical, they may be taken as illustrations of the\ngeneral subject to which we have to direct our attention.\n\n4. Nor have we to consider _material_ developments, which, though\neffected by human contrivance, are still physical; as the development,\nas it is called, of the national resources. We speak, for instance, of\nIreland, the United States, or the valley of the Indus, as admitting of\na great development; by which we mean, that those countries have fertile\ntracts, or abundant products, or broad and deep rivers, or central\npositions for commerce, or capacious and commodious harbours, the\nmaterials and instruments of wealth, and these at present turned to\ninsufficient account. Development in this case will proceed by\nestablishing marts, cutting canals, laying down railroads, erecting\nfactories, forming docks, and similar works, by which the natural riches\nof the country may be made to yield the largest return and to exert the\ngreatest influence. In this sense, art is the development of nature,\nthat is, its adaptation to the purposes of utility and beauty, the human\nintellect being the developing power.\n\n\n2.\n\n5. When society and its various classes and interests are the\nsubject-matter of the ideas which are in operation, the development may\nbe called _political_; as we see it in the growth of States or the\nchanges of a Constitution. Barbarians descend into southern regions from\ncupidity, and their warrant is the sword: this is no intellectual\nprocess, nor is it the mode of development exhibited in civilized\ncommunities. Where civilization exists, reason, in some shape or other,\nis the incentive or the pretence of development. When an empire\nenlarges, it is on the call of its allies, or for the balance of power,\nor from the necessity of a demonstration of strength, or from a fear for\nits frontiers. It lies uneasily in its territory, it is ill-shaped, it\nhas unreal boundary-lines, deficient communication between its principal\npoints, or defenceless or turbulent neighbours. Thus, of old time,\nEuboea was necessary for Athens, and Cythera for Sparta; and Augustus\nleft his advice, as a legacy, to confine the Empire between the\nAtlantic, the Rhine and Danube, the Euphrates, and the Arabian and\nAfrican deserts. In this day, we hear of the Rhine being the natural\nboundary of France, and the Indus of our Eastern empire; and we predict\nthat, in the event of a war, Prussia will change her outlines in the map\nof Europe. The development is material; but an idea gives unity and\nforce to its movement.\n\nAnd so to take a case of national politics, a late writer remarks of the\nParliament of 1628-29, in its contest with Charles, that, so far from\nencroaching on the just powers of a limited monarch, it never hinted at\nthe securities which were necessary for its measures. However, \"twelve\nyears more of repeated aggressions,\" he adds, \"taught the Long\nParliament what a few sagacious men might perhaps have already\nsuspected; that they must recover more of their ancient constitution,\nfrom oblivion; that they must sustain its partial weakness by new\nsecurities; that, in order to render the existence of monarchy\ncompatible with that of freedom, they must not only strip it of all it\nhad usurped, but of something that was its own.\"[43:1] Whatever be the\nworth of this author's theory, his facts or representations are an\nillustration of a political development.\n\nAgain, at the present day, that Ireland should have a population of one\ncreed, and a Church of another, is felt to be a political arrangement so\nunsatisfactory, that all parties seem to agree that either the\npopulation will develope in power or the Establishment in influence.\n\nPolitical developments, though really the growth of ideas, are often\ncapricious and irregular from the nature of their subject-matter. They\nare influenced by the character of sovereigns, the rise and fall of\nstatesmen, the fate of battles, and the numberless vicissitudes of the\nworld. \"Perhaps the Greeks would be still involved in the heresy of the\nMonophysites,\" says Gibbon, \"if the Emperor's horse had not fortunately\nstumbled. Theodosius expired, his orthodox sister succeeded to the\nthrone.\"[44:1]\n\n\n3.\n\nAgain, it often happens, or generally, that various distinct and\nincompatible elements are found in the origin or infancy of politics, or\nindeed of philosophies, some of which must be ejected before any\nsatisfactory developments, if any, can take place. And they are commonly\nejected by the gradual growth of the stronger. The reign of Charles the\nFirst, just referred to, supplies an instance in point.\n\nSometimes discordant ideas are for a time connected and concealed by a\ncommon profession or name. Such is the case of coalitions in politics\nand comprehensions in religion, of which commonly no good is to be\nexpected. Such is an ordinary function of committees and boards, and the\nsole aim of conciliations and concessions, to make contraries look the\nsame, and to secure an outward agreement where there is no other unity.\n\nAgain, developments, reactions, reforms, revolutions, and changes of\nvarious kinds are mixed together in the actual history of states, as of\nphilosophical sects, so as to make it very difficult to exhibit them in\nany scientific analysis.\n\nOften the intellectual process is detached from the practical, and\nposterior to it. Thus it was after Elizabeth had established the\nReformation that Hooker laid down his theory of Church and State as one\nand the same, differing only in idea; and, after the Revolution and its\npolitical consequences, that Warburton wrote his \"Alliance.\" And now\nagain a new theory is needed for the constitutional lawyer, in order to\nreconcile the existing political state of things with the just claims\nof religion. And so, again, in Parliamentary conflicts, men first come\nto their conclusions by the external pressure of events or the force of\nprinciples, they do not know how; then they have to speak, and they look\nabout for arguments: and a pamphlet is published on the subject in\ndebate, or an article appears in a Review, to furnish common-places for\nthe many.\n\nOther developments, though political, are strictly subjected and\nconsequent to the ideas of which they are the exhibitions. Thus Locke's\nphilosophy was a real guide, not a mere defence of the Revolution era,\noperating forcibly upon Church and Government in and after his day. Such\ntoo were the theories which preceded the overthrow of the old regime in\nFrance and other countries at the end of the last century.\n\nAgain, perhaps there are polities founded on no ideas at all, but on\nmere custom, as among the Asiatics.\n\n\n4.\n\n6. In other developments the intellectual character is so prominent that\nthey may even be called _logical_, as in the Anglican doctrine of the\nRoyal Supremacy, which has been created in the courts of law, not in the\ncabinet or on the field. Hence it is carried out with a consistency and\nminute application which the history of constitutions cannot exhibit. It\ndoes not only exist in statutes, or in articles, or in oaths, it is\nrealized in details: as in the _cong\u00e9 d'\u00e9lire_ and letter-missive on\nappointment of a Bishop;--in the forms observed in Privy Council on the\nissuing of State Prayers;--in certain arrangements observed in the\nPrayer-book, where the universal or abstract Church precedes the King,\nbut the national or really existing body follows him; in printing his\nname in large capitals, while the Holiest Names are in ordinary type,\nand in fixing his arms in churches instead of the Crucifix; moreover,\nperhaps, in placing \"sedition, privy conspiracy, and rebellion,\" before\n\"false doctrine, heresy, and schism\" in the Litany.\n\nAgain, when some new philosophy or its instalments are introduced into\nthe measures of the Legislature, or into the concessions made to a\npolitical party, or into commercial or agricultural policy, it is often\nsaid, \"We have not seen the end of this;\" \"It is an earnest of future\nconcessions;\" \"Our children will see.\" We feel that it has unknown\nbearings and issues.\n\nThe admission of Jews to municipal offices has lately been\ndefended[46:1] on the ground that it is the introduction of no new\nprinciple, but a development of one already received; that its great\npremisses have been decided long since; and that the present age has but\nto draw the conclusion; that it is not open to us to inquire what ought\nto be done in the abstract, since there is no ideal model for the\ninfallible guidance of nations; that change is only a question of time,\nand that there is a time for all things; that the application of\nprinciples ought not to go beyond the actual case, neither preceding nor\ncoming after an imperative demand; that in point of fact Jews have\nlately been chosen for offices, and that in point of principle the law\ncannot refuse to legitimate such elections.\n\n\n5.\n\n7. Another class of developments may be called _historical_; being the\ngradual formation of opinion concerning persons, facts, and events.\nJudgments, which were at one time confined to a few, at length spread\nthrough a community, and attain general reception by the accumulation\nand concurrence of testimony. Thus some authoritative accounts die away;\nothers gain a footing, and are ultimately received as truths. Courts of\nlaw, Parliamentary proceedings, newspapers, letters and other\nposthumous documents, the industry of historians and biographers, and\nthe lapse of years which dissipates parties and prejudices, are in this\nday the instruments of such development. Accordingly the Poet makes\nTruth the daughter of Time.[47:1] Thus at length approximations are made\nto a right appreciation of transactions and characters. History cannot\nbe written except in an after-age. Thus by development the Canon of the\nNew Testament has been formed. Thus public men are content to leave\ntheir reputation to posterity; great reactions take place in opinion;\nnay, sometimes men outlive opposition and obloquy. Thus Saints are\ncanonized in the Church, long after they have entered into their rest.\n\n\n6.\n\n8. _Ethical_ developments are not properly matter for argument and\ncontroversy, but are natural and personal, substituting what is\ncongruous, desirable, pious, appropriate, generous, for strictly logical\ninference. Bishop Butler supplies us with a remarkable instance in the\nbeginning of the Second Part of his \"Analogy.\" As principles imply\napplications, and general propositions include particulars, so, he tells\nus, do certain relations imply correlative duties, and certain objects\ndemand certain acts and feelings. He observes that, even though we were\nnot enjoined to pay divine honours to the Second and Third Persons of\nthe Holy Trinity, what is predicated of Them in Scripture would be an\nabundant warrant, an indirect command, nay, a ground in reason, for\ndoing so. \"Does not,\" he asks, \"the duty of religious regards to both\nthese Divine Persons as immediately arise, to the view of reason, out of\nthe very nature of these offices and relations, as the inward good-will\nand kind intention which we owe to our fellow-creatures arises out of\nthe common relations between us and them?\" He proceeds to say that he is\nspeaking of the inward religious regards of reverence, honour, love,\ntrust, gratitude, fear, hope. \"In what external manner this inward\nworship is to be expressed, is a matter of pure revealed command; . .\nbut the worship, the internal worship itself, to the Son and Holy Ghost,\nis no further matter of pure revealed command than as the relations they\nstand in to us are matter of pure revelation; for, the relations being\nknown, the obligations to such internal worship are obligations of\nreason, arising out of those relations themselves.\" Here is a\ndevelopment of doctrine into worship, of which parallel instances are\nobviously to be found in the Church of Rome.\n\n\n7.\n\nA development, converse to that which Butler speaks of, must next be\nmentioned. As certain objects excite certain emotions and sentiments, so\ndo sentiments imply objects and duties. Thus conscience, the existence\nof which we cannot deny, is a proof of the doctrine of a Moral Governor,\nwhich alone gives it a meaning and a scope; that is, the doctrine of a\nJudge and Judgment to come is a development of the phenomenon of\nconscience. Again, it is plain that passions and affections are in\naction in our minds before the presence of their proper objects; and\ntheir activity would of course be an antecedent argument of extreme\ncogency in behalf of the real existence of those legitimate objects,\nsupposing them unknown. And so again, the social principle, which is\ninnate in us, gives a divine sanction to society and to civil\ngovernment. And the usage of prayers for the dead implies certain\ncircumstances of their state upon which such devotions bear. And rites\nand ceremonies are natural means through which the mind relieves itself\nof devotional and penitential emotions. And sometimes the cultivation\nof awe and love towards what is great, high, and unseen, has led a man\nto the abandonment of his sect for some more Catholic form of doctrine.\n\nAristotle furnishes us with an instance of this kind of development in\nhis account of the happy man. After showing that his definition of\nhappiness includes in itself the pleasurable, which is the most obvious\nand popular idea of happiness, he goes on to say that still external\ngoods are necessary to it, about which, however, the definition said\nnothing; that is, a certain prosperity is by moral fitness, not by\nlogical necessity, attached to the happy man. \"For it is impossible,\" he\nobserves, \"or not easy, to practise high virtue without abundant means.\nMany deeds are done by the instrumentality of friends, wealth and\npolitical power; and of some things the absence is a cloud upon\nhappiness, as of noble birth, of hopeful children, and of personal\nappearance: for a person utterly deformed, or low-born, or bereaved and\nchildless, cannot quite be happy: and still less if he have very\nworthless children or friends, or they were good and died.\"[49:1]\n\n\n8.\n\nThis process of development has been well delineated by a living French\nwriter, in his Lectures on European civilization, who shall be quoted at\nsome length. \"If we reduce religion,\" he says, \"to a purely religious\nsentiment . . . it appears evident that it must and ought to remain a\npurely personal concern. But I am either strangely mistaken, or this\nreligious sentiment is not the complete expression of the religious\nnature of man. Religion is, I believe, very different from this,\nand much more extended. There are problems in human nature, in human\ndestinies, which cannot be solved in this life, which depend on\nan order of things unconnected with the visible world, but which\nunceasingly agitate the human mind with a desire to comprehend them. The\nsolution of these problems is the origin of all religion; her primary\nobject is to discover the creeds and doctrines which contain, or are\nsupposed to contain it.\n\n\"Another cause also impels mankind to embrace religion . . . From whence\ndo morals originate? whither do they lead? is this self-existing\nobligation to do good, an isolated fact, without an author, without an\nend? does it not conceal, or rather does it not reveal to man, an\norigin, a destiny, beyond this world? The science of morals, by these\nspontaneous and inevitable questions, conducts man to the threshold of\nreligion, and displays to him a sphere from whence he has not derived\nit. Thus the certain and never-failing sources of religion are, on the\none hand, the problems of our nature; on the other, the necessity of\nseeking for morals a sanction, an origin, and an aim. It therefore\nassumes many other forms beside that of a pure sentiment; it appears a\nunion of doctrines, of precepts, of promises. This is what truly\nconstitutes religion; this is its fundamental character; it is not\nmerely a form of sensibility, an impulse of the imagination, a variety\nof poetry.\n\n\"When thus brought back to its true elements, to its essential nature,\nreligion appears no longer a purely personal concern, but a powerful and\nfruitful principle of association. Is it considered in the light of a\nsystem of belief, a system of dogmas? Truth is not the heritage of any\nindividual, it is absolute and universal; mankind ought to seek and\nprofess it in common. Is it considered with reference to the precepts\nthat are associated with its doctrines? A law which is obligatory on a\nsingle individual, is so on all; it ought to be promulgated, and it is\nour duty to endeavour to bring all mankind under its dominion. It is\nthe same with respect to the promises that religion makes, in the name\nof its creeds and precepts; they ought to be diffused; all men should be\nincited to partake of their benefits. A religious society, therefore,\nnaturally results from the essential elements of religion, and is such a\nnecessary consequence of it that the term which expresses the most\nenergetic social sentiment, the most intense desire to propagate ideas\nand extend society, is the word _proselytism_, a term which is\nespecially applied to religious belief, and in fact consecrated to it.\n\n\"When a religious society has ever been formed, when a certain number of\nmen are united by a common religious creed, are governed by the same\nreligious precepts, and enjoy the same religious hopes, some form of\ngovernment is necessary. No society can endure a week, nay more, no\nsociety can endure a single hour, without a government. The moment,\nindeed, a society is formed, by the very fact of its formation, it calls\nforth a government,--a government which shall proclaim the common truth\nwhich is the bond of the society, and promulgate and maintain the\nprecepts that this truth ought to produce. The necessity of a superior\npower, of a form of government, is involved in the fact of the existence\nof a religious, as it is in that of any other society.\n\n\"And not only is a government necessary, but it naturally forms\nitself. . . . When events are suffered to follow their natural laws,\nwhen force does not interfere, power falls into the hands of the most\nable, the most worthy, those who are most capable of carrying out the\nprinciples on which the society was founded. Is a warlike expedition\nin agitation? The bravest take the command. Is the object of the\nassociation learned research, or a scientific undertaking? The best\ninformed will be the leader. . . . The inequality of faculties and\ninfluence, which is the foundation of power in civil life, has the same\neffect in a religious society. . . Religion has no sooner arisen in the\nhuman mind than a religious society appears; and immediately a religious\nsociety is formed, it produces its government.\"[52:1]\n\n\n9.\n\n9. It remains to allude to what, unless the word were often so vaguely\nand variously used, I should be led to call _metaphysical_ developments;\nI mean such as are a mere analysis of the idea contemplated, and\nterminate in its exact and complete delineation. Thus Aristotle draws\nthe character of a magnanimous or of a munificent man; thus Shakspeare\nmight conceive and bring out his Hamlet or Ariel; thus Walter Scott\ngradually enucleates his James, or Dalgetty, as the action of his story\nproceeds; and thus, in the sacred province of theology, the mind may be\nemployed in developing the solemn ideas, which it has hitherto held\nimplicitly and without subjecting them to its reflecting and reasoning\npowers.\n\nI have already treated of this subject at length, with a reference to\nthe highest theological subject, in a former work, from which it will be\nsufficient here to quote some sentences in explanation:--\n\n\"The mind which is habituated to the thought of God, of Christ, of\nthe Holy Spirit, naturally turns with a devout curiosity to the\ncontemplation of the object of its adoration, and begins to form\nstatements concerning it, before it knows whither, or how far, it will\nbe carried. One proposition necessarily leads to another, and a second\nto a third; then some limitation is required; and the combination of\nthese opposites occasions some fresh evolutions from the original idea,\nwhich indeed can never be said to be entirely exhausted. This process is\nits development, and results in a series, or rather body, of dogmatic\nstatements, till what was an impression on the Imagination has become a\nsystem or creed in the Reason.\n\n\"Now such impressions are obviously individual and complete above other\ntheological ideas, because they are the impressions of Objects. Ideas\nand their developments are commonly not identical, the development being\nbut the carrying out of the idea into its consequences. Thus the\ndoctrine of Penance may be called a development of the doctrine of\nBaptism, yet still is a distinct doctrine; whereas the developments in\nthe doctrines of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation are mere portions\nof the original impression, and modes of representing it. As God is one,\nso the impression which He gives us of Himself is one; it is not a thing\nof parts; it is not a system; nor is it anything imperfect and needing a\ncounterpart. It is the vision of an object. When we pray, we pray, not\nto an assemblage of notions or to a creed, but to One Individual Being;\nand when we speak of Him, we speak of a Person, not of a Law or\nManifestation . . . Religious men, according to their measure, have an\nidea or vision of the Blessed Trinity in Unity, of the Son Incarnate,\nand of His Presence, not as a number of qualities, attributes, and\nactions, not as the subject of a number of propositions, but as one and\nindividual, and independent of words, like an impression conveyed\nthrough the senses. . . . Creeds and dogmas live in the one idea which\nthey are designed to express, and which alone is substantive; and are\nnecessary, because the human mind cannot reflect upon that idea except\npiecemeal, cannot use it in its oneness and entireness, or without\nresolving it into a series of aspects and relations.\"[53:1]\n\n\n10.\n\nSo much on the development of ideas in various subject matters: it may\nbe necessary to add that, in many cases, _development_ simply stands\nfor _exhibition_, as in some of the instances adduced above. Thus both\nCalvinism and Unitarianism may be called developments, that is,\nexhibitions, of the principle of Private Judgment, though they have\nnothing in common, viewed as doctrines.\n\nAs to Christianity, supposing the truths of which it consists to admit\nof development, that development will be one or other of the last five\nkinds. Taking the Incarnation as its central doctrine, the Episcopate,\nas taught by St. Ignatius, will be an instance of political development,\nthe _Theotokos_ of logical, the determination of the date of our Lord's\nbirth of historical, the Holy Eucharist of moral, and the Athanasian\nCreed of metaphysical.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[43:1] Hallam's Constit. Hist. ch. vii. p. 572.\n\n[44:1] ch. xlvii.\n\n[46:1] _Times_ newspaper of March, 1845.\n\n[47:1] Crabbe's Tales.\n\n[49:1] Eth. Nic. i. 8.\n\n[52:1] Guizot, Europ. Civil., Lect. v., Beckwith's Translation.\n\n[53:1] [Univ. Serm. xv. 20-23, pp. 329-332, ed. 3.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nON THE ANTECEDENT ARGUMENT IN BEHALF OF DEVELOPMENTS IN CHRISTIAN\nDOCTRINE.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nDEVELOPMENTS OF DOCTRINE TO BE EXPECTED.\n\n1. If Christianity is a fact, and impresses an idea of itself on our\nminds and is a subject-matter of exercises of the reason, that idea will\nin course of time expand into a multitude of ideas, and aspects of\nideas, connected and harmonious with one another, and in themselves\ndeterminate and immutable, as is the objective fact itself which is thus\nrepresented. It is a characteristic of our minds, that they cannot take\nan object in, which is submitted to them simply and integrally. We\nconceive by means of definition or description; whole objects do not\ncreate in the intellect whole ideas, but are, to use a mathematical\nphrase, thrown into series, into a number of statements, strengthening,\ninterpreting, correcting each other, and with more or less exactness\napproximating, as they accumulate, to a perfect image. There is no other\nway of learning or of teaching. We cannot teach except by aspects or\nviews, which are not identical with the thing itself which we are\nteaching. Two persons may each convey the same truth to a third, yet by\nmethods and through representations altogether different. The same\nperson will treat the same argument differently in an essay or speech,\naccording to the accident of the day of writing, or of the audience, yet\nit will be substantially the same.\n\nAnd the more claim an idea has to be considered living, the more various\nwill be its aspects; and the more social and political is its nature,\nthe more complicated and subtle will be its issues, and the longer and\nmore eventful will be its course. And in the number of these special\nideas, which from their very depth and richness cannot be fully\nunderstood at once, but are more and more clearly expressed and taught\nthe longer they last,--having aspects many and bearings many, mutually\nconnected and growing one out of another, and all parts of a whole, with\na sympathy and correspondence keeping pace with the ever-changing\nnecessities of the world, multiform, prolific, and ever\nresourceful,--among these great doctrines surely we Christians shall not\nrefuse a foremost place to Christianity. Such previously to the\ndetermination of the fact, must be our anticipation concerning it from a\ncontemplation of its initial achievements.\n\n\n2.\n\nIt may be objected that its inspired documents at once determine the\nlimits of its mission without further trouble; but ideas are in the\nwriter and reader of the revelation, not the inspired text itself: and\nthe question is whether those ideas which the letter conveys from writer\nto reader, reach the reader at once in their completeness and accuracy\non his first perception of them, or whether they open out in his\nintellect and grow to perfection in the course of time. Nor could it\nsurely be maintained without extravagance that the letter of the New\nTestament, or of any assignable number of books, comprises a delineation\nof all possible forms which a divine message will assume when submitted\nto a multitude of minds.\n\nNor is the case altered by supposing that inspiration provided in behalf\nof the first recipients of the Revelation, what the Divine Fiat effected\nfor herbs and plants in the beginning, which were created in maturity.\nStill, the time at length came, when its recipients ceased to be\ninspired; and on these recipients the revealed truths would fall, as in\nother cases, at first vaguely and generally, though in spirit and in\ntruth, and would afterwards be completed by developments.\n\nNor can it fairly be made a difficulty that thus to treat of Christianity\nis to level it in some sort to sects and doctrines of the world, and to\nimpute to it the imperfections which characterize the productions of\nman. Certainly it is a sort of degradation of a divine work to consider\nit under an earthly form; but it is no irreverence, since our Lord\nHimself, its Author and Guardian, bore one also. Christianity differs\nfrom other religions and philosophies, in what is superadded to earth\nfrom heaven; not in kind, but in origin; not in its nature, but in its\npersonal characteristics; being informed and quickened by what is more\nthan intellect, by a divine spirit. It is externally what the Apostle\ncalls an \"earthen vessel,\" being the religion of men. And, considered as\nsuch, it grows \"in wisdom and stature;\" but the powers which it wields,\nand the words which proceed out of its mouth, attest its miraculous\nnativity.\n\nUnless then some special ground of exception can be assigned, it is as\nevident that Christianity, as a doctrine and worship, will develope in\nthe minds of recipients, as that it conforms in other respects, in its\nexternal propagation or its political framework, to the general methods\nby which the course of things is carried forward.\n\n\n3.\n\n2. Again, if Christianity be an universal religion, suited not simply to\none locality or period, but to all times and places, it cannot but vary\nin its relations and dealings towards the world around it, that is, it\nwill develope. Principles require a very various application according\nas persons and circumstances vary, and must be thrown into new shapes\naccording to the form of society which they are to influence. Hence all\nbodies of Christians, orthodox or not, develope the doctrines of\nScripture. Few but will grant that Luther's view of justification had\nnever been stated in words before his time: that his phraseology and his\npositions were novel, whether called for by circumstances or not. It is\nequally certain that the doctrine of justification defined at Trent was,\nin some sense, new also. The refutation and remedy of errors cannot\nprecede their rise; and thus the fact of false developments or\ncorruptions involves the correspondent manifestation of true ones.\nMoreover, all parties appeal to Scripture, that is, argue from\nScripture; but argument implies deduction, that is, development. Here\nthere is no difference between early times and late, between a Pope _ex\ncathedr\u00e2_ and an individual Protestant, except that their authority is\nnot on a par. On either side the claim of authority is the same, and the\nprocess of development.\n\nAccordingly, the common complaint of Protestants against the Church of\nRome is, not simply that she has added to the primitive or the\nScriptural doctrine, (for this they do themselves,) but that she\ncontradicts it, and moreover imposes her additions as fundamental truths\nunder sanction of an anathema. For themselves they deduce by quite as\nsubtle a method, and act upon doctrines as implicit and on reasons as\nlittle analyzed in time past, as Catholic schoolmen. What prominence has\nthe Royal Supremacy in the New Testament, or the lawfulness of bearing\narms, or the duty of public worship, or the substitution of the first\nday of the week for the seventh, or infant baptism, to say nothing of\nthe fundamental principle that the Bible and the Bible only is the\nreligion of Protestants? These doctrines and usages, true or not, which\nis not the question here, are surely not gained by the direct use and\nimmediate application of Scripture, nor by a mere exercise of argument\nupon words and sentences placed before the eyes, but by the unconscious\ngrowth of ideas suggested by the letter and habitual to the mind.\n\n\n4.\n\n3. And, indeed, when we turn to the consideration of particular\ndoctrines on which Scripture lays the greatest stress, we shall see that\nit is absolutely impossible for them to remain in the mere letter of\nScripture, if they are to be more than mere words, and to convey a\ndefinite idea to the recipient. When it is declared that \"the Word\nbecame flesh,\" three wide questions open upon us on the very\nannouncement. What is meant by \"the Word,\" what by \"flesh,\" what by\n\"became\"? The answers to these involve a process of investigation, and\nare developments. Moreover, when they have been made, they will suggest\na series of secondary questions; and thus at length a multitude of\npropositions is the result, which gather round the inspired sentence of\nwhich they come, giving it externally the form of a doctrine, and\ncreating or deepening the idea of it in the mind.\n\nIt is true that, so far as such statements of Scripture are mysteries,\nthey are relatively to us but words, and cannot be developed. But as a\nmystery implies in part what is incomprehensible or at least unknown, so\ndoes it in part imply what is not so; it implies a partial manifestation,\nor a representation by economy. Because then it is in a measure\nunderstood, it can so far be developed, though each result in the\nprocess will partake of the dimness and confusion of the original\nimpression.\n\n\n5.\n\n4. This moreover should be considered,--that great questions exist in\nthe subject-matter of which Scripture treats, which Scripture does not\nsolve; questions too so real, so practical, that they must be answered,\nand, unless we suppose a new revelation, answered by means of the\nrevelation which we have, that is, by development. Such is the question\nof the Canon of Scripture and its inspiration: that is, whether\nChristianity depends upon a written document as Judaism;--if so, on what\nwritings and how many;--whether that document is self-interpreting, or\nrequires a comment, and whether any authoritative comment or commentator\nis provided;--whether the revelation and the document are commensurate,\nor the one outruns the other;--all these questions surely find no\nsolution on the surface of Scripture, nor indeed under the surface in\nthe case of most men, however long and diligent might be their study of\nit. Nor were these difficulties settled by authority, as far as we know,\nat the commencement of the religion; yet surely it is quite conceivable\nthat an Apostle might have dissipated them all in a few words, had\nDivine Wisdom thought fit. But in matter of fact the decision has been\nleft to time, to the slow process of thought, to the influence of mind\nupon mind, the issues of controversy, and the growth of opinion.\n\n\n6.\n\nTo take another instance just now referred to:--if there was a point on\nwhich a rule was desirable from the first, it was concerning the\nreligious duties under which Christian parents lay as regards their\nchildren. It would be natural indeed in any Christian father, in the\nabsence of a rule, to bring his children for baptism; such in this\ninstance would be the practical development of his faith in Christ and\nlove for his offspring; still a development it is,--necessarily\nrequired, yet, as far as we know, not provided for his need by direct\nprecept in the Revelation as originally given.\n\nAnother very large field of thought, full of practical considerations,\nyet, as far as our knowledge goes, but only partially occupied by any\nApostolical judgment, is that which the question of the effects of\nBaptism opens upon us. That they who came in repentance and faith to\nthat Holy Sacrament received remission of sins, is undoubtedly the\ndoctrine of the Apostles; but is there any means of a second remission\nfor sins committed after it? St. Paul's Epistles, where we might expect\nan answer to our inquiry, contain no explicit statement on the subject;\nwhat they do plainly say does not diminish the difficulty:--viz., first,\nthat baptism is intended for the pardon of sins before it, not in\nprospect; next, that those who have received the gift of Baptism in fact\nlive in a state of holiness, not of sin. How do statements such as these\nmeet the actual state of the Church as we see it at this day?\n\nConsidering that it was expressly predicted that the Kingdom of Heaven,\nlike the fisher's net, should gather of every kind, and that the tares\nshould grow with the wheat until the harvest, a graver and more\npractical question cannot be imagined than that which it has pleased the\nDivine Author of the Revelation to leave undecided, unless indeed there\nbe means given in that Revelation of its own growth or development. As\nfar as the letter goes of the inspired message, every one who holds that\nScripture is the rule of faith, as all Protestants do, must allow that\n\"there is not one of us but has exceeded by transgression its revealed\nRitual, and finds himself in consequence thrown upon those infinite\nresources of Divine Love which are stored in Christ, but have not been\ndrawn out into form in the appointments of the Gospel.\"[62:1] Since then\nScripture needs completion, the question is brought to this issue,\nwhether defect or inchoateness in its doctrines be or be not an\nantecedent probability in favour of a development of them.\n\n\n7.\n\nThere is another subject, though not so immediately practical, on which\nScripture does not, strictly speaking, keep silence, but says so little\nas to require, and so much as to suggest, information beyond its\nletter,--the intermediate state between death and the Resurrection.\nConsidering the long interval which separates Christ's first and second\ncoming, the millions of faithful souls who are waiting it out, and the\nintimate concern which every Christian has in the determination of its\ncharacter, it might have been expected that Scripture would have spoken\nexplicitly concerning it, whereas in fact its notices are but brief and\nobscure. We might indeed have argued that this silence of Scripture\nwas intentional, with a view of discouraging speculations upon the\nsubject, except for the circumstance that, as in the question of our\npost-baptismal state, its teaching seems to proceed upon an hypothesis\ninapplicable to the state of the Church after the time when it was\ndelivered. As Scripture contemplates Christians, not as backsliders, but\nas saints, so does it apparently represent the Day of Judgment as\nimmediate, and the interval of expectation as evanescent. It leaves on\nour minds the general impression that Christ was returning on earth at\nonce, \"the time short,\" worldly engagements superseded by \"the present\ndistress,\" persecutors urgent, Christians, as a body, sinless and\nexpectant, without home, without plan for the future, looking up to\nheaven. But outward circumstances have changed, and with the change, a\ndifferent application of the revealed word has of necessity been\ndemanded, that is, a development. When the nations were converted and\noffences abounded, then the Church came out to view, on the one hand as\na temporal establishment, on the other as a remedial system, and\npassages of Scripture aided and directed the development which before\nwere of inferior account. Hence the doctrine of Penance as the\ncomplement of Baptism, and of Purgatory as the explanation of the\nIntermediate State. So reasonable is this expansion of the original\ncreed, that, when some ten years since the true doctrine of Baptism was\nexpounded among us without any mention of Penance, our teacher was\naccused by many of us of Novatianism; while, on the other hand,\nheterodox divines have before now advocated the doctrine of the sleep of\nthe soul because they said it was the only successful preventive of\nbelief in Purgatory.\n\n\n8.\n\nThus developments of Christianity are proved to have been in the\ncontemplation of its Divine Author, by an argument parallel to that by\nwhich we infer intelligence in the system of the physical world. In\nwhatever sense the need and its supply are a proof of design in the\nvisible creation, in the same do the gaps, if the word may be used,\nwhich occur in the structure of the original creed of the Church, make\nit probable that those developments, which grow out of the truths which\nlie around it, were intended to fill them up.\n\nNor can it be fairly objected that in thus arguing we are contradicting\nthe great philosopher, who tells us, that \"upon supposition of God\naffording us light and instruction by revelation, additional to what He\nhas afforded us by reason and experience, we are in no sort judges by\nwhat methods, and in what proportion, it were to be expected that this\nsupernatural light and instruction would be afforded us,\"[64:1] because\nhe is speaking of our judging before a revelation is given. He observes\nthat \"we have no principles of reason upon which to judge _beforehand_,\nhow it were to be expected Revelation should have been left, or what was\nmost suitable to the divine plan of government,\" in various respects;\nbut the case is altogether altered when a Revelation is vouchsafed, for\nthen a new precedent, or what he calls \"principle of reason,\" is\nintroduced, and from what is actually put into our hands we can form a\njudgment whether more is to be expected. Butler, indeed, as a well-known\npassage of his work shows, is far from denying the principle of\nprogressive development.\n\n\n9.\n\n5. The method of revelation observed in Scripture abundantly confirms\nthis anticipation. For instance, Prophecy, if it had so happened, need\nnot have afforded a specimen of development; separate predictions might\nhave been made to accumulate as time went on, prospects might have\nopened, definite knowledge might have been given, by communications\nindependent of each other, as St. John's Gospel or the Epistles of St.\nPaul are unconnected with the first three Gospels, though the doctrine\nof each Apostle is a development of their matter. But the prophetic\nRevelation is, in matter of fact, not of this nature, but a process of\ndevelopment: the earlier prophecies are pregnant texts out of which the\nsucceeding announcements grow; they are types. It is not that first one\ntruth is told, then another; but the whole truth or large portions of it\nare told at once, yet only in their rudiments, or in miniature, and they\nare expanded and finished in their parts, as the course of revelation\nproceeds.\n\nThe Seed of the woman was to bruise the serpent's head; the sceptre was\nnot to depart from Judah till Shiloh came, to whom was to be the\ngathering of the people. He was to be Wonderful, Counsellor, the Prince\nof Peace. The question of the Ethiopian rises in the reader's mind, \"Of\nwhom speaketh the Prophet this?\" Every word requires a comment.\nAccordingly, it is no uncommon theory with unbelievers, that the\nMessianic idea, as they call it, was gradually developed in the minds of\nthe Jews by a continuous and traditional habit of contemplating it, and\ngrew into its full proportions by a mere human process; and so far seems\ncertain, without trenching on the doctrine of inspiration, that the\nbooks of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus are developments of the writings of\nthe Prophets, expressed or elicited by means of current ideas in the\nGreek philosophy, and ultimately adopted and ratified by the Apostle in\nhis Epistle to the Hebrews.\n\n\n10.\n\nBut the whole Bible, not its prophetical portions only, is written on\nthe principle of development. As the Revelation proceeds, it is ever\nnew, yet ever old. St. John, who completes it, declares that he writes\nno \"new commandment unto his brethren,\" but an old commandment which\nthey \"had from the beginning.\" And then he adds, \"A new commandment I\nwrite unto you.\" The same test of development is suggested in our Lord's\nwords on the Mount, as has already been noticed, \"Think not that I am\ncome to destroy the Law and the Prophets; I am not come to destroy, but\nto fulfil.\" He does not reverse, but perfect, what has gone before. Thus\nwith respect to the evangelical view of the rite of sacrifice, first the\nrite is enjoined by Moses; next Samuel says, \"to obey is better than\nsacrifice;\" then Hosea, \"I will have mercy and not sacrifice;\" Isaiah,\n\"Incense is an abomination onto me;\" then Malachi, describing the times\nof the Gospel, speaks of the \"pure offering\" of wheatflour; and our Lord\ncompletes the development, when He speaks of worshipping \"in spirit and\nin truth.\" If there is anything here left to explain, it will be found\nin the usage of the Christian Church immediately afterwards, which shows\nthat sacrifice was not removed, but truth and spirit added.\n\nNay, the _effata_ of our Lord and His Apostles are of a typical\nstructure, parallel to the prophetic announcements above mentioned, and\npredictions as well as injunctions of doctrine. If then the prophetic\nsentences have had that development which has really been given them,\nfirst by succeeding revelations, and then by the event, it is probable\nantecedently that those doctrinal, political, ritual, and ethical\nsentences, which have the same structure, should admit the same\nexpansion. Such are, \"This is My Body,\" or \"Thou art Peter, and upon\nthis Rock I will build My Church,\" or \"The meek shall inherit the\nearth,\" or \"Suffer little children to come unto Me,\" or \"The pure in\nheart shall see God.\"\n\n\n11.\n\nOn this character of our Lord's teaching, the following passage\nmay suitably be quoted from a writer already used. \"His recorded words\nand works when on earth . . . come to us as the declarations of a\nLawgiver. In the Old Covenant, Almighty God first of all spoke the Ten\nCommandments from Mount Sinai, and afterwards wrote them. So our Lord\nfirst spoke His own Gospel, both of promise and of precept, on the\nMount, and His Evangelists have recorded it. Further, when He delivered\nit, He spoke by way of parallel to the Ten Commandments. And His style,\nmoreover, corresponds to the authority which He assumes. It is of that\nsolemn, measured, and severe character, which bears on the face of it\ntokens of its belonging to One who spake as none other man could speak.\nThe Beatitudes, with which His Sermon opens, are an instance of this\nincommunicable style, which befitted, as far as human words could befit,\nGod Incarnate.\n\n\"Nor is this style peculiar to the Sermon on the Mount. All through the\nGospels it is discernible, distinct from any other part of Scripture,\nshowing itself in solemn declarations, canons, sentences, or sayings,\nsuch as legislators propound, and scribes and lawyers comment on. Surely\neverything our Saviour did and said is characterized by mingled\nsimplicity and mystery. His emblematical actions, His typical miracles,\nHis parables, His replies, His censures, all are evidences of a\nlegislature in germ, afterwards to be developed, a code of divine\ntruth which was ever to be before men's eyes, to be the subject of\ninvestigation and interpretation, and the guide in controversy. 'Verily,\nverily, I say unto you,'--'But, I say unto you,'--are the tokens of a\nsupreme Teacher and Prophet.\n\n\"And thus the Fathers speak of His teaching. 'His sayings,' observes St.\nJustin, 'were short and concise; for He was no rhetorician, but His word\nwas the power of God.' And St. Basil, in like manner, 'Every deed and\nevery word of our Saviour Jesus Christ is a canon of piety and virtue.\nWhen then thou hearest word or deed of His, do not hear it as by the\nway, or after a simple and carnal manner, but enter into the depth of\nHis contemplations, become a communicant in truths mystically delivered\nto thee.'\"[67:1]\n\n\n12.\n\nMoreover, while it is certain that developments of Revelation proceeded\nall through the Old Dispensation down to the very end of our Lord's\nministry, on the other hand, if we turn our attention to the beginnings\nof Apostolical teaching after His ascension, we shall find ourselves\nunable to fix an historical point at which the growth of doctrine\nceased, and the rule of faith was once for all settled. Not on the day\nof Pentecost, for St. Peter had still to learn at Joppa that he was to\nbaptize Cornelius; not at Joppa and C\u00e6sarea, for St. Paul had to write\nhis Epistles; not on the death of the last Apostle, for St. Ignatius had\nto establish the doctrine of Episcopacy; not then, nor for centuries\nafter, for the Canon of the New Testament was still undetermined. Not in\nthe Creed, which is no collection of definitions, but a summary of\ncertain _credenda_, an incomplete summary, and, like the Lord's Prayer\nor the Decalogue, a mere sample of divine truths, especially of the more\nelementary. No one doctrine can be named which starts complete at first,\nand gains nothing afterwards from the investigations of faith and the\nattacks of heresy. The Church went forth from the old world in haste, as\nthe Israelites from Egypt \"with their dough before it was leavened,\ntheir kneading troughs being bound up in their clothes upon their\nshoulders.\"\n\n\n13.\n\nFurther, the political developments contained in the historical parts of\nScripture are as striking as the prophetical and the doctrinal. Can any\nhistory wear a more human appearance than that of the rise and growth of\nthe chosen people to whom I have just referred? What had been determined\nin the counsels of the Lord of heaven and earth from the beginning, what\nwas immutable, what was announced to Moses in the burning bush, is\nafterwards represented as the growth of an idea under successive\nemergencies. The Divine Voice in the bush had announced the Exodus of\nthe children of Israel from Egypt and their entrance into Canaan; and\nadded, as a token of the certainty of His purpose, \"When thou hast\nbrought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this\nmountain.\" Now this sacrifice or festival, which was but incidental and\nsecondary in the great deliverance, is for a while the ultimate scope of\nthe demands which Moses makes upon Pharaoh. \"Thou shalt come, thou and\nthe elders of Israel unto the King of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him,\nThe Lord God of the Hebrews hath met with us, and now let us go, we\nbeseech thee, three days' journey into the wilderness, that we may\nsacrifice to the Lord our God.\" It had been added that Pharaoh would\nfirst refuse their request, but that after miracles he would let them go\naltogether, nay with \"jewels of silver and gold, and raiment.\"\n\nAccordingly the first request of Moses was, \"Let us go, we pray thee,\nthree days' journey into the desert, and sacrifice unto the Lord our\nGod.\" Before the plague of frogs the warning is repeated, \"Let My people\ngo that they may serve Me;\" and after it Pharaoh says, \"I will let the\npeople go, that they may do sacrifice unto the Lord.\" It occurs again\nbefore the plague of flies; and after it Pharaoh offers to let the\nIsraelites sacrifice in Egypt, which Moses refuses on the ground that\nthey will have to \"sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before\ntheir eyes.\" \"We will go three days' journey into the wilderness,\" he\nproceeds, \"and sacrifice to the Lord our God;\" and Pharaoh then concedes\ntheir sacrificing in the wilderness, \"only,\" he says, \"you shall not go\nvery far away.\" The demand is repeated separately before the plagues of\nmurrain, hail, and locusts, no mention being yet made of anything beyond\na service or sacrifice in the wilderness. On the last of these\ninterviews, Pharaoh asks an explanation, and Moses extends his claim:\n\"We will go with our young and with our old, with our sons and with our\ndaughters, with our flocks and with our herds will we go, for we must\nhold a feast unto the Lord.\" That it was an extension seems plain from\nPharaoh's reply: \"Go now ye that are men, and serve the Lord, for that\nye did desire.\" Upon the plague of darkness Pharaoh concedes the\nextended demand, excepting the flocks and herds; but Moses reminds him\nthat they were implied, though not expressed in the original wording:\n\"Thou must give us also sacrifices and burnt offerings, that we may\nsacrifice unto the Lord our God.\" Even to the last, there was no\nintimation of their leaving Egypt for good; the issue was left to be\nwrought out by the Egyptians. \"All these thy servants,\" says Moses,\n\"shall come down unto me, and bow down themselves unto me, saying, Get\nthee out and all the people that follow thee, and after that I will go\nout;\" and, accordingly, after the judgment on the first-born, they were\nthrust out at midnight, with their flocks and herds, their kneading\ntroughs and their dough, laden, too, with the spoils of Egypt, as had\nbeen fore-ordained, yet apparently by a combination of circumstances, or\nthe complication of a crisis. Yet Moses knew that their departure from\nEgypt was final, for he took the bones of Joseph with him; and that\nconviction broke on Pharaoh soon, when he and his asked themselves, \"Why\nhave we done this, that we have let Israel go from serving us?\" But\nthis progress of events, vague and uncertain as it seemed to be,\nnotwithstanding the miracles which attended it, had been directed by Him\nwho works out gradually what He has determined absolutely; and it ended\nin the parting of the Red Sea, and the destruction of Pharaoh's host, on\nhis pursuing them.\n\nMoreover, from what occurred forty years afterwards, when they were\nadvancing upon the promised land, it would seem that the original grant\nof territory did not include the country east of Jordan, held in the\nevent by Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh; at least they\nundertook at first to leave Sihon in undisturbed possession of his\ncountry, if he would let them pass through it, and only on his refusing\nhis permission did they invade and appropriate it.\n\n\n14.\n\n6. It is in point to notice also the structure and style of Scripture, a\nstructure so unsystematic and various, and a style so figurative and\nindirect, that no one would presume at first sight to say what is in it\nand what is not. It cannot, as it were, be mapped, or its contents\ncatalogued; but after all our diligence, to the end of our lives and to\nthe end of the Church, it must be an unexplored and unsubdued land, with\nheights and valleys, forests and streams, on the right and left of our\npath and close about us, full of concealed wonders and choice treasures.\nOf no doctrine whatever, which does not actually contradict what has\nbeen delivered, can it be peremptorily asserted that it is not in\nScripture; of no reader, whatever be his study of it, can it be said\nthat he has mastered every doctrine which it contains. Butler's remarks\non this subject were just now referred to. \"The more distinct and\nparticular knowledge,\" he says, \"of those things, the study of which the\nApostle calls 'going on unto perfection,'\" that is, of the more\nrecondite doctrines of the Gospel, \"and of the prophetic parts of\nrevelation, like many parts of natural and even civil knowledge, may\nrequire very exact thought and careful consideration. The hindrances too\nof natural and of supernatural light and knowledge have been of the\nsame kind. And as it is owned the whole scheme of Scripture is not\nyet understood, so, if it ever comes to be understood, before the\n'restitution of all things,' and without miraculous interpositions, it\nmust be in the same way as natural knowledge is come at, by the\ncontinuance and progress of learning and of liberty, and by particular\npersons attending to, comparing, and pursuing intimations scattered up\nand down it, which are overlooked and disregarded by the generality of\nthe world. For this is the way in which all improvements are made, by\nthoughtful men tracing on obscure hints, as it were, dropped us by\nnature accidentally, or which seem to come into our minds by chance. Nor\nis it at all incredible that a book, which has been so long in the\npossession of mankind, should contain many truths as yet undiscovered.\nFor all the same phenomena, and the same faculties of investigation,\nfrom which such great discoveries in natural knowledge have been made in\nthe present and last age, were equally in the possession of mankind\nseveral thousand years before. And possibly it might be intended that\nevents, as they come to pass, should open and ascertain the meaning of\nseveral parts of Scripture.\"[72:1] Butler of course was not contemplating\nthe case of new articles of faith, or developments imperative on\nour acceptance, but he surely bears witness to the probability of\ndevelopments taking place in Christian doctrine considered in themselves,\nwhich is the point at present in question.\n\n\n15.\n\nIt may be added that, in matter of fact, all the definitions or received\njudgments of the early and medieval Church rest upon definite, even\nthough sometimes obscure sentences of Scripture. Thus Purgatory may\nappeal to the \"saving by fire,\" and \"entering through much tribulation\ninto the kingdom of God;\" the communication of the merits of the Saints\nto our \"receiving a prophet's reward\" for \"receiving a prophet in the\nname of a prophet,\" and \"a righteous man's reward\" for \"receiving a\nrighteous man in the name of a righteous man;\" the Real Presence to\n\"This is My Body;\" Absolution to \"Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are\nremitted;\" Extreme Unction to \"Anointing him with oil in the Name of the\nLord;\" Voluntary poverty to \"Sell all that thou hast;\" obedience to \"He\nwas in subjection to His parents;\" the honour paid to creatures, animate\nor inanimate, to _Laudate Dominum in sanctis Ejus_, and _Adorate\nscabellum pedum Ejus_; and so of the rest.\n\n\n16.\n\n7. Lastly, while Scripture nowhere recognizes itself or asserts the\ninspiration of those passages which are most essential, it distinctly\nanticipates the development of Christianity, both as a polity and as a\ndoctrine. In one of our Lord's parables \"the Kingdom of Heaven\" is even\ncompared to \"a grain of mustard-seed, which a man took and hid in his\nfield; which indeed is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown it\nis the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree,\" and, as St. Mark\nwords it, \"shooteth out great branches, so that the birds of the air\ncome and lodge in the branches thereof.\" And again, in the same chapter\nof St. Mark, \"So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed\ninto the ground, and should sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed\nshould spring and grow up, he knoweth not how; for the earth bringeth\nforth fruit of herself.\" Here an internal element of life, whether\nprinciple or doctrine, is spoken of rather than any mere external\nmanifestation; and it is observable that the spontaneous, as well as the\ngradual, character of the growth is intimated. This description of the\nprocess corresponds to what has been above observed respecting\ndevelopment, viz. that it is not an effect of wishing and resolving, or\nof forced enthusiasm, or of any mechanism of reasoning, or of any mere\nsubtlety of intellect; but comes of its own innate power of expansion\nwithin the mind in its season, though with the use of reflection and\nargument and original thought, more or less as it may happen, with a\ndependence on the ethical growth of the mind itself, and with a reflex\ninfluence upon it. Again, the Parable of the Leaven describes the\ndevelopment of doctrine in another respect, in its active, engrossing,\nand interpenetrating power.\n\n\n17.\n\nFrom the necessity, then, of the case, from the history of all sects and\nparties in religion, and from the analogy and example of Scripture,\nwe may fairly conclude that Christian doctrine admits of formal,\nlegitimate, and true developments, that is, of developments contemplated\nby its Divine Author.\n\nThe general analogy of the world, physical and moral, confirms this\nconclusion, as we are reminded by the great authority who has already\nbeen quoted in the course of this Section. \"The whole natural world and\ngovernment of it,\" says Butler, \"is a scheme or system; not a fixed, but\na progressive one; a scheme in which the operation of various means\ntakes up a great length of time before the ends they tend to can be\nattained. The change of seasons, the ripening of the fruits of the\nearth, the very history of a flower is an instance of this; and so is\nhuman life. Thus vegetable bodies, and those of animals, though possibly\nformed at once, yet grow up by degrees to a mature state. And thus\nrational agents, who animate these latter bodies, are naturally directed\nto form each his own manners and character by the gradual gaining of\nknowledge and experience, and by a long course of action. Our existence\nis not only successive, as it must be of necessity, but one state of our\nlife and being is appointed by God to be a preparation for another; and\nthat to be the means of attaining to another succeeding one: infancy to\nchildhood, childhood to youth, youth to mature age. Men are impatient,\nand for precipitating things; but the Author of Nature appears\ndeliberate throughout His operations, accomplishing His natural ends by\nslow successive steps. And there is a plan of things beforehand laid\nout, which, from the nature of it, requires various systems of means, as\nwell as length of time, in order to the carrying on its several parts\ninto execution. Thus, in the daily course of natural providence, God\noperates in the very same manner as in the dispensation of Christianity,\nmaking one thing subservient to another; this, to somewhat farther; and\nso on, through a progressive series of means, which extend, both\nbackward and forward, beyond our utmost view. Of this manner of\noperation, everything we see in the course of nature is as much an\ninstance as any part of the Christian dispensation.\"[75:1]\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nAN INFALLIBLE DEVELOPING AUTHORITY TO BE EXPECTED.\n\nIt has now been made probable that developments of Christianity were but\nnatural, as time went on, and were to be expected; and that these\nnatural and true developments, as being natural and true, were of course\ncontemplated and taken into account by its Author, who in designing the\nwork designed its legitimate results. These, whatever they turn out to\nbe, may be called absolutely \"the developments\" of Christianity. That,\nbeyond reasonable doubt, there are such is surely a great step gained in\nthe inquiry; it is a momentous fact. The next question is, _What_ are\nthey? and to a theologian, who could take a general view, and also\npossessed an intimate and minute knowledge, of its history, they\nwould doubtless on the whole be easily distinguishable by their own\ncharacters, and require no foreign aid to point them out, no external\nauthority to ratify them. But it is difficult to say who is exactly in\nthis position. Considering that Christians, from the nature of the case,\nlive under the bias of the doctrines, and in the very midst of the\nfacts, and during the process of the controversies, which are to be the\nsubject of criticism, since they are exposed to the prejudices of birth,\neducation, place, personal attachment, engagements, and party, it can\nhardly be maintained that in matter of fact a true development carries\nwith it always its own certainty even to the learned, or that history,\npast or present, is secure from the possibility of a variety of\ninterpretations.\n\n\n2.\n\nI have already spoken on this subject, and from a very different point\nof view from that which I am taking at present:--\n\n\"Prophets or Doctors are the interpreters of the revelation; they unfold\nand define its mysteries, they illuminate its documents, they harmonize\nits contents, they apply its promises. Their teaching is a vast system,\nnot to be comprised in a few sentences, not to be embodied in one code\nor treatise, but consisting of a certain body of Truth, pervading the\nChurch like an atmosphere, irregular in its shape from its very\nprofusion and exuberance; at times separable only in idea from Episcopal\nTradition, yet at times melting away into legend and fable; partly\nwritten, partly unwritten, partly the interpretation, partly the\nsupplement of Scripture, partly preserved in intellectual expressions,\npartly latent in the spirit and temper of Christians; poured to and fro\nin closets and upon the housetops, in liturgies, in controversial works,\nin obscure fragments, in sermons, in popular prejudices, in local\ncustoms. This I call Prophetical Tradition, existing primarily in the\nbosom of the Church itself, and recorded in such measure as Providence\nhas determined in the writings of eminent men. Keep that which is\ncommitted to thy charge, is St. Paul's injunction to Timothy; and for\nthis reason, because from its vastness and indefiniteness it is\nespecially exposed to corruption, if the Church fails in vigilance. This\nis that body of teaching which is offered to all Christians even at the\npresent day, though in various forms and measures of truth, in different\nparts of Christendom, partly being a comment, partly an addition upon\nthe articles of the Creed.\"[77:1]\n\nIf this be true, certainly some rule is necessary for arranging and\nauthenticating these various expressions and results of Christian\ndoctrine. No one will maintain that all points of belief are of equal\nimportance. \"There are what may be called minor points, which we may\nhold to be true without imposing them as necessary;\" \"there are greater\ntruths and lesser truths, points which it is necessary, and points which\nit is pious to believe.\"[77:2] The simple question is, How are we to\ndiscriminate the greater from the less, the true from the false.\n\n\n3.\n\nThis need of an authoritative sanction is increased by considering,\nafter M. Guizot's suggestion, that Christianity, though represented in\nprophecy as a kingdom, came into the world as an idea rather than an\ninstitution, and has had to wrap itself in clothing and fit itself with\narmour of its own providing, and to form the instruments and methods of\nits prosperity and warfare. If the developments, which have above been\ncalled _moral_, are to take place to any great extent, and without them\nit is difficult to see how Christianity can exist at all, if only its\nrelations towards civil government have to be ascertained, or the\nqualifications for the profession of it have to be defined, surely an\nauthority is necessary to impart decision to what is vague, and\nconfidence to what is empirical, to ratify the successive steps of so\nelaborate a process, and to secure the validity of inferences which are\nto be made the premisses of more remote investigations.\n\nTests, it is true, for ascertaining the correctness of developments in\ngeneral may be drawn out, as I shall show in the sequel; but they are\ninsufficient for the guidance of individuals in the case of so large and\ncomplicated a problem as Christianity, though they may aid our inquiries\nand support our conclusions in particular points. They are of a\nscientific and controversial, not of a practical character, and are\ninstruments rather than warrants of right decisions. Moreover, they\nrather serve as answers to objections brought against the actual\ndecisions of authority, than are proofs of the correctness of those\ndecisions. While, then, on the one hand, it is probable that some means\nwill be granted for ascertaining the legitimate and true developments of\nRevelation, it appears, on the other, that these means must of necessity\nbe external to the developments themselves.\n\n\n4.\n\nReasons shall be given in this Section for concluding that, in\nproportion to the probability of true developments of doctrine and\npractice in the Divine Scheme, so is the probability also of the\nappointment in that scheme of an external authority to decide upon them,\nthereby separating them from the mass of mere human speculation,\nextravagance, corruption, and error, in and out of which they grow. This\nis the doctrine of the infallibility of the Church; for by infallibility\nI suppose is meant the power of deciding whether this, that, and a\nthird, and any number of theological or ethical statements are true.\n\n\n5.\n\n1. Let the state of the case be carefully considered. If the Christian\ndoctrine, as originally taught, admits of true and important\ndevelopments, as was argued in the foregoing Section, this is a strong\nantecedent argument in favour of a provision in the Dispensation for\nputting a seal of authority upon those developments. The probability of\ntheir being known to be true varies with that of their truth. The two\nideas indeed are quite distinct, I grant, of revealing and of\nguaranteeing a truth, and they are often distinct in fact. There are\nvarious revelations all over the earth which do not carry with them the\nevidence of their divinity. Such are the inward suggestions and secret\nilluminations granted to so many individuals; such are the traditionary\ndoctrines which are found among the heathen, that \"vague and unconnected\nfamily of religious truths, originally from God, but sojourning, without\nthe sanction of miracle or a definite home, as pilgrims up and down the\nworld, and discernible and separable from the corrupt legends with which\nthey are mixed, by the spiritual mind alone.\"[79:1] There is nothing\nimpossible in the notion of a revelation occurring without evidences\nthat it is a revelation; just as human sciences are a divine gift, yet\nare reached by our ordinary powers and have no claim on our faith. But\nChristianity is not of this nature: it is a revelation which comes to us\nas a revelation, as a whole, objectively, and with a profession of\ninfallibility; and the only question to be determined relates to the\nmatter of the revelation. If then there are certain great truths, or\nduties, or observances, naturally and legitimately resulting from the\ndoctrines originally professed, it is but reasonable to include these\ntrue results in the idea of the revelation itself, to consider them\nparts of it, and if the revelation be not only true, but guaranteed as\ntrue, to anticipate that they too will come under the privilege of that\nguarantee. Christianity, unlike other revelations of God's will, except\nthe Jewish, of which it is a continuation, is an objective religion, or\na revelation with credentials; it is natural, I say, to view it wholly\nas such, and not partly _sui generis_, partly like others. Such as it\nbegins, such let it be considered to continue; granting that certain\nlarge developments of it are true, they must surely be accredited as\ntrue.\n\n\n6.\n\n2. An objection, however, is often made to the doctrine of infallibility\n_in limine_, which is too important not to be taken into consideration.\nIt is urged that, as all religious knowledge rests on moral evidence,\nnot on demonstration, our belief in the Church's infallibility must be\nof this character; but what can be more absurd than a probable\ninfallibility, or a certainty resting on doubt?--I believe, because I am\nsure; and I am sure, because I suppose. Granting then that the gift of\ninfallibility be adapted, when believed, to unite all intellects in one\ncommon confession, the fact that it is given is as difficult of proof as\nthe developments which it is to prove, and nugatory therefore, and in\nconsequence improbable in a Divine Scheme. The advocates of Rome, it has\nbeen urged, \"insist on the necessity of an infallible guide in religious\nmatters, as an argument that such a guide has really been accorded. Now\nit is obvious to inquire how individuals are to know with certainty that\nRome _is_ infallible . . . how any ground can be such as to bring home\nto the mind infallibly that she is infallible; what conceivable proof\namounts to more than a probability of the fact; and what advantage is an\ninfallible guide, if those who are to be guided have, after all, no\nmore than an opinion, as the Romanists call it, that she is\ninfallible?\"[81:1]\n\n\n7.\n\nThis argument, however, except when used, as is intended in this\npassage, against such persons as would remove all imperfection in\nthe proof of Religion, is certainly a fallacious one. For since,\nas all allow, the Apostles were infallible, it tells against their\ninfallibility, or the infallibility of Scripture, as truly as against\nthe infallibility of the Church; for no one will say that the Apostles\nwere made infallible for nothing, yet we are only morally certain that\nthey were infallible. Further, if we have but probable grounds for the\nChurch's infallibility, we have but the like for the impossibility of\ncertain things, the necessity of others, the truth, the certainty of\nothers; and therefore the words _infallibility_, _necessity_, _truth_,\nand _certainty_ ought all of them to be banished from the language. But\nwhy is it more inconsistent to speak of an uncertain infallibility than\nof a doubtful truth or a contingent necessity, phrases which present\nideas clear and undeniable? In sooth we are playing with words when we\nuse arguments of this sort. When we say that a person is infallible, we\nmean no more than that what he says is always true, always to be\nbelieved, always to be done. The term is resolvable into these phrases\nas its equivalents; either then the phrases are inadmissible, or the\nidea of infallibility must be allowed. A probable infallibility is a\nprobable gift of never erring; a reception of the doctrine of a probable\ninfallibility is faith and obedience towards a person founded on the\nprobability of his never erring in his declarations or commands. What is\ninconsistent in this idea? Whatever then be the particular means of\ndetermining infallibility, the abstract objection may be put\naside.[81:2]\n\n\n8.\n\n3. Again, it is sometimes argued that such a dispensation would destroy\nour probation, as dissipating doubt, precluding the exercise of faith,\nand obliging us to obey whether we wish it or no; and it is urged that a\nDivine Voice spoke in the first age, and difficulty and darkness rest\nupon all subsequent ones; as if infallibility and personal judgment were\nincompatible; but this is to confuse the subject. We must distinguish\nbetween a revelation and a reception of it, not between its earlier and\nlater stages. A revelation, in itself divine, and guaranteed as such,\nmay from first to last be received, doubted, argued against, perverted,\nrejected, by individuals according to the state of mind of each.\nIgnorance, misapprehension, unbelief, and other causes, do not at once\ncease to operate because the revelation is in itself true and in its\nproofs irrefragable. We have then no warrant at all for saying that an\naccredited revelation will exclude the existence of doubts and\ndifficulties on the part of those whom it addresses, or dispense with\nanxious diligence on their part, though it may in its own nature tend\nto do so. Infallibility does not interfere with moral probation; the two\nnotions are absolutely distinct. It is no objection then to the idea of\na peremptory authority, such as I am supposing, that it lessens the task\nof personal inquiry, unless it be an objection to the authority of\nRevelation altogether. A Church, or a Council, or a Pope, or a Consent\nof Doctors, or a Consent of Christendom, limits the inquiries of the\nindividual in no other way than Scripture limits them: it does limit\nthem; but, while it limits their range, it preserves intact their\nprobationary character; we are tried as really, though not on so large a\nfield. To suppose that the doctrine of a permanent authority in matters\nof faith interferes with our free-will and responsibility is, as before,\nto forget that there were infallible teachers in the first age, and\nheretics and schismatics in the ages subsequent. There may have been at\nonce a supreme authority from first to last, and a moral judgment from\nfirst to last. Moreover, those who maintain that Christian truth must be\ngained solely by personal efforts are bound to show that methods,\nethical and intellectual, are granted to individuals sufficient for\ngaining it; else the mode of probation they advocate is less, not more,\nperfect than that which proceeds upon external authority. On the whole,\nthen, no argument against continuing the principle of objectiveness into\nthe developments of Revelation arises out of the conditions of our moral\nresponsibility.\n\n\n9.\n\n4. Perhaps it will be urged that the Analogy of Nature is against our\nanticipating the continuance of an external authority which has once\nbeen given; because in the words of the profound thinker who has already\nbeen cited, \"We are wholly ignorant what degree of new knowledge it were\nto be expected God would give mankind by revelation, upon supposition\nof His affording one; or how far, and in what way, He would interpose\nmiraculously to qualify them to whom He should originally make the\nrevelation for communicating the knowledge given by it, and to secure\ntheir doing it to the age in which they should live, and to secure its\nbeing transmitted to posterity;\" and because \"we are not in any sort\nable to judge whether it were to be expected that the revelation should\nhave been committed to writing, or left to be handed down, and\nconsequently corrupted, by verbal tradition, and at length sunk under\nit.\"[84:1] But this reasoning does not apply here, as has already been\nobserved; it contemplates only the abstract hypothesis of a revelation,\nnot the fact of an existing revelation of a particular kind, which may\nof course in various ways modify our state of knowledge, by settling\nsome of those very points which, before it was given, we had no means of\ndeciding. Nor can it, as I think, be fairly denied that the argument\nfrom analogy in one point of view tells against anticipating a\nrevelation at all, for an innovation upon the physical order of the\nworld is by the very force of the terms inconsistent with its ordinary\ncourse. We cannot then regulate our antecedent view of the character of\na revelation by a test which, applied simply, overthrows the very notion\nof a revelation altogether. Any how, Analogy is in some sort violated by\nthe fact of a revelation, and the question before us only relates to the\nextent of that violation.\n\n\n10.\n\nI will hazard a distinction here between the facts of revelation and its\nprinciples:--the argument from Analogy is more concerned with its\nprinciples than with its facts. The revealed facts are special and\nsingular, not analogous, from the nature of the case: but it is\notherwise with the revealed principles; these are common to all the\nworks of God: and if the Author of Nature be the Author of Grace, it may\nbe expected that, while the two systems of facts are distinct and\nindependent, the principles displayed in them will be the same, and form\na connecting link between them. In this identity of principle lies the\nAnalogy of Natural and Revealed Religion, in Butler's sense of the word.\nThe doctrine of the Incarnation is a fact, and cannot be paralleled by\nanything in nature; the doctrine of Mediation is a principle, and is\nabundantly exemplified in its provisions. Miracles are facts;\ninspiration is a fact; divine teaching once for all, and a continual\nteaching, are each a fact; probation by means of intellectual\ndifficulties is a principle both in nature and in grace, and may be\ncarried on in the system of grace either by a standing ordinance of\nteaching or by one definite act of teaching, and that with an analogy\nequally perfect in either case to the order of nature; nor can we\nsucceed in arguing from the analogy of that order against a standing\nguardianship of revelation without arguing also against its original\nbestowal. Supposing the order of nature once broken by the introduction\nof a revelation, the continuance of that revelation is but a question of\ndegree; and the circumstance that a work has begun makes it more\nprobable than not that it will proceed. We have no reason to suppose\nthat there is so great a distinction of dispensation between ourselves\nand the first generation of Christians, as that they had a living\ninfallible guidance, and we have not.\n\nThe case then stands thus:--Revelation has introduced a new law of\ndivine governance over and above those laws which appear in the natural\ncourse of the world; and in consequence we are able to argue for the\nexistence of a standing authority in matters of faith on the analogy of\nNature, and from the fact of Christianity. Preservation is involved in\nthe idea of creation. As the Creator rested on the seventh day from the\nwork which He had made, yet He \"worketh hitherto;\" so He gave the Creed\nonce for all in the beginning, yet blesses its growth still, and\nprovides for its increase. His word \"shall not return unto Him void, but\naccomplish\" His pleasure. As creation argues continual governance, so\nare Apostles harbingers of Popes.\n\n\n11.\n\n5. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that, as the essence of all\nreligion is authority and obedience, so the distinction between natural\nreligion and revealed lies in this, that the one has a subjective\nauthority, and the other an objective. Revelation consists in the\nmanifestation of the Invisible Divine Power, or in the substitution of\nthe voice of a Lawgiver for the voice of conscience. The supremacy of\nconscience is the essence of natural religion; the supremacy of Apostle,\nor Pope, or Church, or Bishop, is the essence of revealed; and when such\nexternal authority is taken away, the mind falls back again of necessity\nupon that inward guide which it possessed even before Revelation was\nvouchsafed. Thus, what conscience is in the system of nature, such is\nthe voice of Scripture, or of the Church, or of the Holy See, as we may\ndetermine it, in the system of Revelation. It may be objected, indeed,\nthat conscience is not infallible; it is true, but still it is ever to\nbe obeyed. And this is just the prerogative which controversialists\nassign to the See of St. Peter; it is not in all cases infallible, it\nmay err beyond its special province, but it has in all cases a claim on\nour obedience. \"All Catholics and heretics,\" says Bellarmine, \"agree in\ntwo things: first, that it is possible for the Pope, even as pope, and\nwith his own assembly of councillors, or with General Council, to err in\nparticular controversies of fact, which chiefly depend on human\ninformation and testimony; secondly, that it is possible for him to err\nas a private Doctor, even in universal questions of right, whether of\nfaith or of morals, and that from ignorance, as sometimes happens to\nother doctors. Next, all Catholics agree in other two points, not,\nhowever, with heretics, but solely with each other: first, that the Pope\nwith General Council cannot err, either in framing decrees of faith or\ngeneral precepts of morality; secondly, that the Pope when determining\nanything in a doubtful matter, whether by himself or with his own\nparticular Council, _whether it is possible for him to err or not, is to\nbe obeyed_ by all the faithful.\"[87:1] And as obedience to conscience,\neven supposing conscience ill-informed, tends to the improvement of our\nmoral nature, and ultimately of our knowledge, so obedience to our\necclesiastical superior may subserve our growth in illumination and\nsanctity, even though he should command what is extreme or inexpedient,\nor teach what is external to his legitimate province.\n\n\n12.\n\n6. The common sense of mankind does but support a conclusion thus forced\nupon us by analogical considerations. It feels that the very idea of\nrevelation implies a present informant and guide, and that an infallible\none; not a mere abstract declaration of Truths unknown before to man, or\na record of history, or the result of an antiquarian research, but a\nmessage and a lesson speaking to this man and that. This is shown by the\npopular notion which has prevailed among us since the Reformation, that\nthe Bible itself is such a guide; and which succeeded in overthrowing\nthe supremacy of Church and Pope, for the very reason that it was a\nrival authority, not resisting merely, but supplanting it. In\nproportion, then, as we find, in matter of fact, that the inspired\nVolume is not adapted or intended to subserve that purpose, are we\nforced to revert to that living and present Guide, who, at the era of\nour rejection of her, had been so long recognized as the dispenser of\nScripture, according to times and circumstances, and the arbiter of all\ntrue doctrine and holy practice to her children. We feel a need, and she\nalone of all things under heaven supplies it. We are told that God has\nspoken. Where? In a book? We have tried it and it disappoints; it\ndisappoints us, that most holy and blessed gift, not from fault of its\nown, but because it is used for a purpose for which it was not given.\nThe Ethiopian's reply, when St. Philip asked him if he understood what\nhe was reading, is the voice of nature: \"How can I, unless some man\nshall guide me?\" The Church undertakes that office; she does what none\nelse can do, and this is the secret of her power. \"The human mind,\" it\nhas been said, \"wishes to be rid of doubt in religion; and a teacher who\nclaims infallibility is readily believed on his simple word. We see this\nconstantly exemplified in the case of individual pretenders among\nourselves. In Romanism the Church pretends to it; she rids herself of\ncompetitors by forestalling them. And probably, in the eyes of her\nchildren, this is not the least persuasive argument for her\ninfallibility, that she alone of all Churches dares claim it, as if a\nsecret instinct and involuntary misgivings restrained those rival\ncommunions which go so far towards affecting it.\"[88:1] These sentences,\nwhatever be the errors of their wording, surely express a great truth.\nThe most obvious answer, then, to the question, why we yield to the\nauthority of the Church in the questions and developments of faith, is,\nthat some authority there must be if there is a revelation given, and\nother authority there is none but she. A revelation is not given, if\nthere be no authority to decide what it is that is given. In the words\nof St. Peter to her Divine Master and Lord, \"To whom shall we go?\" Nor\nmust it be forgotten in confirmation, that Scripture expressly calls the\nChurch \"the pillar and ground of the Truth,\" and promises her as by\ncovenant that \"the Spirit of the Lord that is upon her, and His words\nwhich He has put in her mouth shall not depart out of her mouth, nor out\nof the mouth of her seed, nor out of the mouth of her seed's seed, from\nhenceforth and for ever.\"[89:1]\n\n\n13.\n\n7. And if the very claim to infallible arbitration in religious disputes\nis of so weighty importance and interest in all ages of the world, much\nmore is it welcome at a time like the present, when the human intellect\nis so busy, and thought so fertile, and opinion so manifold. The\nabsolute need of a spiritual supremacy is at present the strongest of\narguments in favour of the fact of its supply. Surely, either an\nobjective revelation has not been given, or it has been provided with\nmeans for impressing its objectiveness on the world. If Christianity be\na social religion, as it certainly is, and if it be based on certain\nideas acknowledged as divine, or a creed, (which shall here be assumed,)\nand if these ideas have various aspects, and make distinct impressions\non different minds, and issue in consequence in a multiplicity of\ndevelopments, true, or false, or mixed, as has been shown, what power\nwill suffice to meet and to do justice to these conflicting conditions,\nbut a supreme authority ruling and reconciling individual judgments by a\ndivine right and a recognized wisdom? In barbarous times the will is\nreached through the senses; but in an age in which reason, as it is\ncalled, is the standard of truth and right, it is abundantly evident to\nany one, who mixes ever so little with the world, that, if things are\nleft to themselves, every individual will have his own view of them, and\ntake his own course; that two or three will agree to-day to part company\nto-morrow; that Scripture will be read in contrary ways, and history,\naccording to the apologue, will have to different comers its silver\nshield and its golden; that philosophy, taste, prejudice, passion,\nparty, caprice, will find no common measure, unless there be some\nsupreme power to control the mind and to compel agreement.\n\nThere can be no combination on the basis of truth without an organ of\ntruth. As cultivation brings out the colours of flowers, and\ndomestication changes the character of animals, so does education of\nnecessity develope differences of opinion; and while it is impossible to\nlay down first principles in which all will unite, it is utterly\nunreasonable to expect that this man should yield to that, or all to\none. I do not say there are no eternal truths, such as the poet\nproclaims,[90:1] which all acknowledge in private, but that there are\nnone sufficiently commanding to be the basis of public union and action.\nThe only general persuasive in matters of conduct is authority; that is,\n(when truth is in question,) a judgment which we feel to be superior to\nour own. If Christianity is both social and dogmatic, and intended for\nall ages, it must humanly speaking have an infallible expounder. Else\nyou will secure unity of form at the loss of unity of doctrine, or unity\nof doctrine at the loss of unity of form; you will have to choose\nbetween a comprehension of opinions and a resolution into parties,\nbetween latitudinarian and sectarian error. You may be tolerant or\nintolerant of contrarieties of thought, but contrarieties you will have.\nBy the Church of England a hollow uniformity is preferred to an\ninfallible chair; and by the sects of England, an interminable\ndivision. Germany and Geneva began with persecution, and have ended in\nscepticism. The doctrine of infallibility is a less violent hypothesis\nthan this sacrifice either of faith or of charity. It secures the\nobject, while it gives definiteness and force to the matter, of the\nRevelation.\n\n\n14.\n\n8. I have called the doctrine of Infallibility an hypothesis: let it be\nso considered for the sake of argument, that is, let it be considered to\nbe a mere position, supported by no direct evidence, but required by the\nfacts of the case, and reconciling them with each other. That hypothesis\nis indeed, in matter of fact, maintained and acted on in the largest\nportion of Christendom, and from time immemorial; but let this\ncoincidence be accounted for by the need. Moreover, it is not a naked or\nisolated fact, but the animating principle of a large scheme of doctrine\nwhich the need itself could not simply create; but again, let this\nsystem be merely called its development. Yet even as an hypothesis,\nwhich has been held by one out of various communions, it may not be\nlightly put aside. Some hypothesis, this or that, all parties, all\ncontroversialists, all historians must adopt, if they would treat of\nChristianity at all. Gieseler's \"Text Book\" bears the profession of\nbeing a dry analysis of Christian history; yet on inspection it will be\nfound to be written on a positive and definite theory, and to bend facts\nto meet it. An unbeliever, as Gibbon, assumes one hypothesis, and an\nUltra-montane, as Baronius, adopts another. The School of Hurd and\nNewton hold, as the only true view of history, that Christianity slept\nfor centuries upon centuries, except among those whom historians call\nheretics. Others speak as if the oath of supremacy or the _cong\u00e9\nd'\u00e9lire_ could be made the measure of St. Ambrose, and they fit the\nThirty-nine Articles on the fervid Tertullian. The question is, which\nof all these theories is the simplest, the most natural, the most\npersuasive. Certainly the notion of development under infallible\nauthority is not a less grave, a less winning hypothesis, than the\nchance and coincidence of events, or the Oriental Philosophy, or the\nworking of Antichrist, to account for the rise of Christianity and the\nformation of its theology.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\nTHE EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS OF DOCTRINE THE PROBABLE FULFILMENT OF THAT\nEXPECTATION.\n\nI have been arguing, in respect to the revealed doctrine, given to us\nfrom above in Christianity, first, that, in consequence of its\nintellectual character, and as passing through the minds of so many\ngenerations of men, and as applied by them to so many purposes, and as\ninvestigated so curiously as to its capabilities, implications, and\nbearings, it could not but grow or develope, as time went on, into a\nlarge theological system;--next, that, if development must be, then,\nwhereas Revelation is a heavenly gift, He who gave it virtually has not\ngiven it, unless He has also secured it from perversion and corruption,\nin all such development as comes upon it by the necessity of its nature,\nor, in other words, that that intellectual action through successive\ngenerations, which is the organ of development, must, so far forth as it\ncan claim to have been put in charge of the Revelation, be in its\ndeterminations infallible.\n\nPassing from these two points, I come next to the question whether in\nthe history of Christianity there is any fulfilment of such anticipation\nas I have insisted on, whether in matter-of-fact doctrines, rites, and\nusages have grown up round the Apostolic Creed and have interpenetrated\nits Articles, claiming to be part of Christianity and looking like those\nadditions which we are in search of. The answer is, that such additions\nthere are, and that they are found just where they might be expected, in\nthe authoritative seats and homes of old tradition, the Latin and Greek\nChurches. Let me enlarge on this point.\n\n\n2.\n\nI observe, then, that, if the idea of Christianity, as originally given\nto us from heaven, cannot but contain much which will be only partially\nrecognized by us as included in it and only held by us unconsciously;\nand if again, Christianity being from heaven, all that is necessarily\ninvolved in it, and is evolved from it, is from heaven, and if, on the\nother hand, large accretions actually do exist, professing to be its\ntrue and legitimate results, our first impression naturally is, that\nthese must be the very developments which they profess to be. Moreover,\nthe very scale on which they have been made, their high antiquity yet\npresent promise, their gradual formation yet precision, their harmonious\norder, dispose the imagination most forcibly towards the belief that a\nteaching so consistent with itself, so well balanced, so young and so\nold, not obsolete after so many centuries, but vigorous and progressive\nstill, is the very development contemplated in the Divine Scheme. These\ndoctrines are members of one family, and suggestive, or correlative, or\nconfirmatory, or illustrative of each other. One furnishes evidence to\nanother, and all to each of them; if this is proved, that becomes\nprobable; if this and that are both probable, but for different reasons,\neach adds to the other its own probability. The Incarnation is the\nantecedent of the doctrine of Mediation, and the archetype both of the\nSacramental principle and of the merits of Saints. From the doctrine of\nMediation follow the Atonement, the Mass, the merits of Martyrs and\nSaints, their invocation and _cultus_. From the Sacramental principle\ncome the Sacraments properly so called; the unity of the Church, and the\nHoly See as its type and centre; the authority of Councils; the sanctity\nof rites; the veneration of holy places, shrines, images, vessels,\nfurniture, and vestments. Of the Sacraments, Baptism is developed into\nConfirmation on the one hand; into Penance, Purgatory, and Indulgences\non the other; and the Eucharist into the Real Presence, adoration of the\nHost, Resurrection of the body, and the virtue of relics. Again, the\ndoctrine of the Sacraments leads to the doctrine of Justification;\nJustification to that of Original Sin; Original Sin to the merit of\nCelibacy. Nor do these separate developments stand independent of each\nother, but by cross relations they are connected, and grow together\nwhile they grow from one. The Mass and Real Presence are parts of one;\nthe veneration of Saints and their relics are parts of one; their\nintercessory power and the Purgatorial State, and again the Mass and\nthat State are correlative; Celibacy is the characteristic mark of\nMonachism and of the Priesthood. You must accept the whole or reject the\nwhole; attenuation does but enfeeble, and amputation mutilate. It is\ntrifling to receive all but something which is as integral as any other\nportion; and, on the other hand, it is a solemn thing to accept any\npart, for, before you know where you are, you may be carried on by a\nstern logical necessity to accept the whole.\n\n\n3.\n\nNext, we have to consider that from first to last other developments\nthere are none, except those which have possession of Christendom; none,\nthat is, of prominence and permanence sufficient to deserve the name. In\nearly times the heretical doctrines were confessedly barren and\nshort-lived, and could not stand their ground against Catholicism. As to\nthe medieval period I am not aware that the Greeks present more than a\nnegative opposition to the Latins. And now in like manner the Tridentine\nCreed is met by no rival developments; there is no antagonist system.\nCriticisms, objections, protests, there are in plenty, but little of\npositive teaching anywhere; seldom an attempt on the part of any\nopposing school to master its own doctrines, to investigate their sense\nand bearing, to determine their relation to the decrees of Trent and\ntheir distance from them. And when at any time this attempt is by chance\nin any measure made, then an incurable contrariety does but come to view\nbetween portions of the theology thus developed, and a war of\nprinciples; an impossibility moreover of reconciling that theology with\nthe general drift of the formularies in which its elements occur, and a\nconsequent appearance of unfairness and sophistry in adventurous persons\nwho aim at forcing them into consistency;[95:1] and, further, a\nprevalent understanding of the truth of this representation, authorities\nkeeping silence, eschewing a hopeless enterprise and discouraging it in\nothers, and the people plainly intimating that they think both doctrine\nand usage, antiquity and development, of very little matter at all; and,\nlastly, the evident despair of even the better sort of men, who, in\nconsequence, when they set great schemes on foot, as for the conversion\nof the heathen world, are afraid to agitate the question of the\ndoctrines to which it is to be converted, lest through the opened door\nthey should lose what they have, instead of gaining what they have not.\nTo the weight of recommendation which this contrast throws upon the\ndevelopments commonly called Catholic, must be added the argument which\narises from the coincidence of their consistency and permanence, with\ntheir claim of an infallible sanction,--a claim, the existence of which,\nin some quarter or other of the Divine Dispensation, is, as we have\nalready seen, antecedently probable. All these things being considered,\nI think few persons will deny the very strong presumption which exists,\nthat, if there must be and are in fact developments in Christianity, the\ndoctrines propounded by successive Popes and Councils, through so many\nages, are they.\n\n\n4.\n\nA further presumption in behalf of these doctrines arises from the\ngeneral opinion of the world about them. Christianity being one, all its\ndoctrines are necessarily developments of one, and, if so, are of\nnecessity consistent with each other, or form a whole. Now the world\nfully enters into this view of those well-known developments which claim\nthe name of Catholic. It allows them that title, it considers them to\nbelong to one family, and refers them to one theological system. It is\nscarcely necessary to set about proving what is urged by their opponents\neven more strenuously than by their champions. Their opponents avow that\nthey protest, not against this doctrine or that, but against one and\nall; and they seem struck with wonder and perplexity, not to say with\nawe, at a consistency which they feel to be superhuman, though they\nwould not allow it to be divine. The system is confessed on all hands to\nbear a character of integrity and indivisibility upon it, both at first\nview and on inspection. Hence such sayings as the \"Tota jacet Babylon\"\nof the distich. Luther did but a part of the work, Calvin another\nportion, Socinus finished it. To take up with Luther, and to reject\nCalvin and Socinus, would be, according to that epigram, like living in\na house without a roof to it. This, I say, is no private judgment of\nthis man or that, but the common opinion and experience of all\ncountries. The two great divisions of religion feel it, Roman Catholic\nand Protestant, between whom the controversy lies; sceptics and\nliberals, who are spectators of the conflict, feel it; philosophers feel\nit. A school of divines there is, I grant, dear to memory, who have not\nfelt it; and their exception will have its weight,--till we reflect that\nthe particular theology which they advocate has not the prescription of\nsuccess, never has been realized in fact, or, if realized for a moment,\nhad no stay; moreover, that, when it has been enacted by human\nauthority, it has scarcely travelled beyond the paper on which it was\nprinted, or out of the legal forms in which it was embodied. But,\nputting the weight of these revered names at the highest, they do not\nconstitute more than an exception to the general rule, such as is found\nin every subject that comes into discussion.\n\n\n5.\n\nAnd this general testimony to the oneness of Catholicism extends to its\npast teaching relatively to its present, as well as to the portions of\nits present teaching one with another. No one doubts, with such\nexception as has just been allowed, that the Roman Catholic communion of\nthis day is the successor and representative of the Medieval Church, or\nthat the Medieval Church is the legitimate heir of the Nicene; even\nallowing that it is a question whether a line cannot be drawn between\nthe Nicene Church and the Church which preceded it. On the whole, all\nparties will agree that, of all existing systems, the present communion\nof Rome is the nearest approximation in fact to the Church of the\nFathers, possible though some may think it, to be nearer still to that\nChurch on paper. Did St. Athanasius or St. Ambrose come suddenly to\nlife, it cannot be doubted what communion he would take to be his own.\nAll surely will agree that these Fathers, with whatever opinions of\ntheir own, whatever protests, if we will, would find themselves more at\nhome with such men as St. Bernard or St. Ignatius Loyola, or with the\nlonely priest in his lodging, or the holy sisterhood of mercy, or the\nunlettered crowd before the altar, than with the teachers or with the\nmembers of any other creed. And may we not add, that were those same\nSaints, who once sojourned, one in exile, one on embassy, at Treves, to\ncome more northward still, and to travel until they reached another fair\ncity, seated among groves, green meadows, and calm streams, the holy\nbrothers would turn from many a high aisle and solemn cloister which\nthey found there, and ask the way to some small chapel where mass was\nsaid in the populous alley or forlorn suburb? And, on the other hand,\ncan any one who has but heard his name, and cursorily read his history,\ndoubt for one instant how, in turn, the people of England, \"we, our\nprinces, our priests, and our prophets,\" Lords and Commons,\nUniversities, Ecclesiastical Courts, marts of commerce, great towns,\ncountry parishes, would deal with Athanasius,--Athanasius, who spent his\nlong years in fighting against sovereigns for a theological term?\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[62:1] Doctrine of Justification, Lect. xiii.\n\n[64:1] Butler's Anal. ii. 3.\n\n[67:1] Proph. Office, Lect. xii. [Via Med. vol. i. pp. 292-3].\n\n[72:1] ii. 3; vide also ii. 4, fin.\n\n[75:1] Analogy, ii. 4, _ad fin._\n\n[77:1] Proph. Office, x. [Via Med. p. 250].\n\n[77:2] [Ibid. pp. 247, 254.]\n\n[79:1] Arians, ch. i. sect. 3 [p. 82, ed. 3].\n\n[81:1] Proph. Office [Via Med. vol. i. p. 122].\n\n[81:2] [\"It is very common to confuse infallibility with certitude, but\nthe two words stand for things quite distinct from each other. I\nremember for certain what I did yesterday, but still my memory is not\ninfallible. I am quite clear that two and two makes four, but I often\nmake mistakes in long addition sums. I have no doubt whatever that John\nor Richard is my true friend; but I have before now trusted those who\nfailed me, and I may do so again before I die. I am quite certain that\nVictoria is our sovereign, and not her father, the Duke of Kent, without\nany claim myself to the gift of infallibility, as I may do a virtuous\naction, without being impeccable. I may be certain that the Church is\ninfallible, while I am myself a fallible mortal; otherwise I cannot be\ncertain that the Supreme Being is infallible, unless I am infallible\nmyself. Certitude is directed to one or other definite concrete\nproposition. I am certain of propositions one, two, three, four, or\nfive, one by one, each by itself. I can be certain of one of them,\nwithout being certain of the rest: that I am certain of the first makes\nit neither likely nor unlikely that I am certain of the second: but,\nwere I infallible, then I should be certain, not only of one of them,\nbut of all.\"--_Essay on Assent_, ch. vii. sect. 2.]\n\n[84:1] Anal. ii. 3.\n\n[87:1] De Rom. Pont. iv. 2. [Seven years ago, it is scarcely necessary\nto say, the Vatican Council determined that the Pope, _ex cathedr\u00e2_, has\nthe same infallibility as the Church. This does not affect the argument\nin the text.]\n\n[88:1] Proph. Office [Via Med. vol. i. p. 117].\n\n[89:1] 1 Tim. iii. 16; Isa. lix. 21.\n\n[90:1] +Ou gar ti nyn ge kachthes, k.t.l.+\n\n[95:1] [_Vid._ Via Media, vol. ii. pp. 231-341.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nON THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT IN BEHALF OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nMETHOD OF PROOF.\n\nIt seems, then, that we have to deal with a case something like the\nfollowing: Certain doctrines come to us, professing to be Apostolic, and\npossessed of such high antiquity that, though we are only able to assign\nthe date of their formal establishment to the fourth, or the fifth, or\nthe eighth, or the thirteenth century, as it may happen, yet their\nsubstance may, for what appears, be coeval with the Apostles, and be\nexpressed or implied in texts of Scripture. Further, these existing\ndoctrines are universally considered, without any question, in each age\nto be the echo of the doctrines of the times immediately preceding them,\nand thus are continually thrown back to a date indefinitely early, even\nthough their ultimate junction with the Apostolic Creed be out of sight\nand unascertainable. Moreover, they are confessed to form one body one\nwith another, so that to reject one is to disparage the rest; and they\ninclude within the range of their system even those primary articles of\nfaith, as the Incarnation, which many an impugner of the said doctrinal\nsystem, as a system, professes to accept, and which, do what he will,\nhe cannot intelligibly separate, whether in point of evidence or of\ninternal character, from others which he disavows. Further, these\ndoctrines occupy the whole field of theology, and leave nothing to be\nsupplied, except in detail, by any other system; while, in matter of\nfact, no rival system is forthcoming, so that we have to choose between\nthis theology and none at all. Moreover, this theology alone makes\nprovision for that guidance of opinion and conduct, which seems\nexternally to be the special aim of Revelation; and fulfils the promises\nof Scripture, by adapting itself to the various problems of thought and\npractice which meet us in life. And, further, it is the nearest\napproach, to say the least, to the religious sentiment, and what is\ncalled _ethos_, of the early Church, nay, to that of the Apostles and\nProphets; for all will agree so far as this, that Elijah, Jeremiah, the\nBaptist, and St. Paul are in their history and mode of life (I do not\nspeak of measures of grace, no, nor of doctrine and conduct, for these\nare the points in dispute, but) in what is external and meets the eye\n(and this is no slight resemblance when things are viewed as a whole and\nfrom a distance),--these saintly and heroic men, I say, are more like a\nDominican preacher, or a Jesuit missionary, or a Carmelite friar, more\nlike St. Toribio, or St. Vincent Ferrer, or St. Francis Xavier, or St.\nAlphonso Liguori, than to any individuals, or to any classes of men,\nthat can be found in other communions. And then, in addition, there is\nthe high antecedent probability that Providence would watch over His own\nwork, and would direct and ratify those developments of doctrine which\nwere inevitable.\n\n\n2.\n\nIf this is, on the whole, a true view of the general shape under which\nthe existing body of developments, commonly called Catholic, present\nthemselves before us, antecedently to our looking into the particular\nevidence on which they stand, I think we shall be at no loss to\ndetermine what both logical truth and duty prescribe to us as to our\nreception of them. It is very little to say that we should treat them as\nwe are accustomed to treat other alleged facts and truths and the\nevidence for them, such as come to us with a fair presumption in their\nfavour. Such are of every day's occurrence; and what is our behaviour\ntowards them? We meet them, not with suspicion and criticism, but with a\nfrank confidence. We do not in the first instance exercise our reason\nupon opinions which are received, but our faith. We do not begin with\ndoubting; we take them on trust, and we put them on trial, and that, not\nof set purpose, but spontaneously. We prove them by using them, by\napplying them to the subject-matter, or the evidence, or the body of\ncircumstances, to which they belong, as if they gave it its\ninterpretation or its colour as a matter of course; and only when they\nfail, in the event, in illustrating phenomena or harmonizing facts, do\nwe discover that we must reject the doctrines or the statements which we\nhad in the first instance taken for granted. Again, we take the evidence\nfor them, whatever it be, as a whole, as forming a combined proof; and\nwe interpret what is obscure in separate portions by such portions as\nare clear. Moreover, we bear with these in proportion to the strength of\nthe antecedent probability in their favour, we are patient with\ndifficulties in their application, with apparent objections to them\ndrawn from other matters of fact, deficiency in their comprehensiveness,\nor want of neatness in their working, provided their claims on our\nattention are considerable.\n\n\n3.\n\nThus most men take Newton's theory of gravitation for granted, because\nit is generally received, and use it without rigidly testing it first,\neach for himself, (as it can be tested,) by phenomena; and if phenomena\nare found which it does not satisfactorily solve, this does not trouble\nus, for a way there must be of explaining them, consistently with that\ntheory, though it does not occur to ourselves. Again, if we found a\nconcise or obscure passage in one of Cicero's letters to Atticus, we\nshould not scruple to admit as its true explanation a more explicit\nstatement in his _Ad Familiares_. \u00c6schylus is illustrated by Sophocles\nin point of language, and Thucydides by Aristophanes, in point of\nhistory. Horace, Persius, Suetonius, Tacitus, and Juvenal may be made to\nthrow light upon each other. Even Plato may gain a commentator in\nPlotinus, and St. Anselm is interpreted by St. Thomas. Two writers,\nindeed, may be already known to differ, and then we do not join them\ntogether as fellow-witnesses to common truths; Luther has taken on\nhimself to explain St. Augustine, and Voltaire, Pascal, without\npersuading the world that they have a claim to do so; but in no case do\nwe begin with asking whether a comment does not disagree with its text,\nwhen there is a _prim\u00e2 facie_ congruity between them. We elucidate the\ntext by the comment, though, or rather because, the comment is fuller\nand more explicit than the text.\n\n\n4.\n\nThus too we deal with Scripture, when we have to interpret the\nprophetical text and the types of the Old Testament. The event which is\nthe development is also the interpretation of the prediction; it\nprovides a fulfilment by imposing a meaning. And we accept certain\nevents as the fulfilment of prophecy from the broad correspondence of\nthe one with the other, in spite of many incidental difficulties. The\ndifficulty, for instance, in accounting for the fact that the dispersion\nof the Jews followed upon their keeping, not their departing from their\nLaw, does not hinder us from insisting on their present state as an\nargument against the infidel. Again, we readily submit our reason on\ncompetent authority, and accept certain events as an accomplishment of\npredictions, which seem very far removed from them; as in the passage,\n\"Out of Egypt have I called My Son.\" Nor do we find a difficulty, when\nSt. Paul appeals to a text of the Old Testament, which stands otherwise\nin our Hebrew copies; as the words, \"A body hast Thou prepared Me.\" We\nreceive such difficulties on faith, and leave them to take care of\nthemselves. Much less do we consider mere fulness in the interpretation,\nor definiteness, or again strangeness, as a sufficient reason for\ndepriving the text, or the action to which it is applied, of the\nadvantage of such interpretation. We make it no objection that the words\nthemselves come short of it, or that the sacred writer did not\ncontemplate it, or that a previous fulfilment satisfies it. A reader who\ncame to the inspired text by himself, beyond the influence of that\ntraditional acceptation which happily encompasses it, would be surprised\nto be told that the Prophet's words, \"A virgin shall conceive,\" &c., or\n\"Let all the Angels of God worship Him,\" refer to our Lord; but assuming\nthe intimate connexion between Judaism and Christianity, and the\ninspiration of the New Testament, we do not scruple to believe it. We\nrightly feel that it is no prejudice to our receiving the prophecy of\nBalaam in its Christian meaning, that it is adequately fulfilled in\nDavid; or the history of Jonah, that it is poetical in character and has\na moral in itself like an apologue; or the meeting of Abraham and\nMelchizedek, that it is too brief and simple to mean any great thing, as\nSt. Paul interprets it.\n\n\n5.\n\nButler corroborates these remarks, when speaking of the particular\nevidence for Christianity. \"The obscurity or unintelligibleness,\" he\nsays, \"of one part of a prophecy does not in any degree invalidate the\nproof of foresight, arising from the appearing completion of those other\nparts which are understood. For the case is evidently the same as if\nthose parts, which are not understood, were lost, or not written at all,\nor written in an unknown tongue. Whether this observation be commonly\nattended to or not, it is so evident that one can scarce bring one's\nself to set down an instance in common matters to exemplify it.\"[104:1]\nHe continues, \"Though a man should be incapable, for want of learning,\nor opportunities of inquiry, or from not having turned his studies this\nway, even so much as to judge whether particular prophecies have been\nthroughout completely fulfilled; yet he may see, in general, that they\nhave been fulfilled to such a degree, as, upon very good ground, to be\nconvinced of foresight more than human in such prophecies, and of such\nevents being intended by them. For the same reason also, though, by\nmeans of the deficiencies in civil history, and the different accounts\nof historians, the most learned should not be able to make out to\nsatisfaction that such parts of the prophetic history have been minutely\nand throughout fulfilled; yet a very strong proof of foresight may arise\nfrom that general completion of them which is made out; as much proof of\nforesight, perhaps, as the Giver of prophecy intended should ever be\nafforded by such parts of prophecy.\"\n\n\n6.\n\nHe illustrates this by the parallel instance of fable and concealed\nsatire. \"A man might be assured that he understood what an author\nintended by a fable or parable, related without any application or\nmoral, merely from seeing it to be easily capable of such application,\nand that such a moral might naturally be deduced from it. And he might\nbe fully assured that such persons and events were intended in a\nsatirical writing, merely from its being applicable to them. And,\nagreeably to the last observation, he might be in a good measure\nsatisfied of it, though he were not enough informed in affairs, or in\nthe story of such persons, to understand half the satire. For his\nsatisfaction, that he understood the meaning, the intended meaning, of\nthese writings, would be greater or less, in proportion as he saw the\ngeneral turn of them to be capable of such application, and in\nproportion to the number of particular things capable of it.\" And he\ninfers hence, that if a known course of events, or the history of a\nperson as our Lord, is found to answer on the whole to the prophetical\ntext, it becomes fairly the right interpretation of that text, in spite\nof difficulties in detail. And this rule of interpretation admits of an\nobvious application to the parallel case of doctrinal passages, when a\ncertain creed, which professes to have been derived from Revelation,\ncomes recommended to us on strong antecedent grounds, and presents no\nstrong opposition to the sacred text.\n\nThe same author observes that the first fulfilment of a prophecy is no\nvalid objection to a second, when what seems like a second has once\ntaken place; and, in like manner, an interpretation of doctrinal texts\nmay be literal, exact, and sufficient, yet in spite of all this may not\nembrace what is really the full scope of their meaning; and that fuller\nscope, if it so happen, may be less satisfactory and precise, as an\ninterpretation, than their primary and narrow sense. Thus, if the\nProtestant interpretation of the sixth chapter of St. John were true and\nsufficient for its letter, (which of course I do not grant,) that would\nnot hinder the Roman, which at least is quite compatible with the text,\nbeing the higher sense and the only rightful. In such cases the\njustification of the larger and higher interpretation lies in some\nantecedent probability, such as Catholic consent; and the ground of the\nnarrow is the context, and the rules of grammar; and, whereas the\nargument of the critical commentator is that the sacred text _need not_\nmean more than the letter, those who adopt a deeper view of it maintain,\nas Butler in the case of prophecy, that we have no warrant for putting a\nlimit to the sense of words which are not human but divine.\n\n\n7.\n\nNow it is but a parallel exercise of reasoning to interpret the previous\nhistory of a doctrine by its later development, and to consider that it\ncontains the later _in posse_ and in the divine intention; and the\ngrudging and jealous temper, which refuses to enlarge the sacred text\nfor the fulfilment of prophecy, is the very same that will occupy itself\nin carping at the Ante-nicene testimonies for Nicene or Medieval\ndoctrines and usages. When \"I and My Father are One\" is urged in proof\nof our Lord's unity with the Father, heretical disputants do not see why\nthe words must be taken to denote more than a unity of will. When \"This\nis My Body\" is alleged as a warrant for the change of the Bread into the\nBody of Christ, they explain away the words into a figure, because such\nis their most obvious interpretation. And, in like manner, when Roman\nCatholics urge St. Gregory's invocations, they are told that these are\nbut rhetorical; or St. Clement's allusion to Purgatory, that perhaps it\nwas Platonism; or Origen's language about praying to Angels and the\nmerits of Martyrs, that it is but an instance of his heterodoxy; or St.\nCyprian's exaltation of the _Cathedra Petri_, that he need not be\ncontemplating more than a figurative or abstract see; or the general\ntestimony to the spiritual authority of Rome in primitive times, that it\narose from her temporal greatness; or Tertullian's language about\nTradition and the Church, that he took a lawyer's view of those\nsubjects; whereas the early condition, and the evidence, of each\ndoctrine respectively, ought consistently to be interpreted by means of\nthat development which was ultimately attained.\n\n\n8.\n\nMoreover, since, as above shown, the doctrines all together make up one\nintegral religion, it follows that the several evidences which\nrespectively support those doctrines belong to a whole, and must be\nthrown into a common stock, and all are available in the defence of any.\nA collection of weak evidences makes up a strong evidence; again, one\nstrong argument imparts cogency to collateral arguments which are in\nthemselves weak. For instance, as to the miracles, whether of Scripture\nor the Church, \"the number of those which carry with them their own\nproof now, and are believed for their own sake, is small, and they\nfurnish the grounds on which we receive the rest.\"[107:1] Again, no one\nwould fancy it necessary, before receiving St. Matthew's Gospel, to find\nprimitive testimony in behalf of every chapter and verse: when only part\nis proved to have been in existence in ancient times, the whole is\nproved, because that part is but part of a whole; and when the whole is\nproved, it may shelter such parts as for some incidental reason have\nless evidence of their antiquity. Again, it would be enough to show that\nSt. Augustine knew the Italic version of the Scriptures, if he quoted it\nonce or twice. And, in like manner, it will be generally admitted that\nthe proof of a Second Person in the Godhead lightens greatly the burden\nof proof necessary for belief in a Third Person; and that, the Atonement\nbeing in some sort a correlative of eternal punishment, the evidence for\nthe former doctrine virtually increases the evidence for the latter.\nAnd so, a Protestant controversialist would feel that it told little,\nexcept as an omen of victory, to reduce an opponent to a denial of\nTransubstantiation, if he still adhered firmly to the Invocation of\nSaints, Purgatory, the Seven Sacraments, and the doctrine of merit; and\nlittle too for one of his own party to condemn the adoration of the\nHost, the supremacy of Rome, the acceptableness of celibacy, auricular\nconfession, communion under one kind, and tradition, if he was zealous\nfor the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.\n\n\n9.\n\nThe principle on which these remarks are made has the sanction of some\nof the deepest of English Divines. Bishop Butler, for instance, who has\nso often been quoted here, thus argues in behalf of Christianity itself,\nthough confessing at the same time the disadvantage which in consequence\nthe revealed system lies under. \"Probable proofs,\" he observes, \"by\nbeing added, not only increase the evidence, but multiply it. Nor should\nI dissuade any one from setting down what he thought made for the\ncontrary side. . . . The truth of our religion, like the truth of common\nmatters, is to be judged by all the evidence taken together. And unless\nthe whole series of things which may be alleged in this argument, and\nevery particular thing in it, can reasonably be supposed to have been by\naccident (for here the stress of the argument for Christianity lies),\nthen is the truth of it proved; in like manner, as if, in any common\ncase, numerous events acknowledged were to be alleged in proof of any\nother event disputed, the truth of the disputed event would be proved,\nnot only if any one of the acknowledged ones did of itself clearly imply\nit, but though no one of them singly did so, if the whole of the\nacknowledged events, taken together, could not in reason be supposed to\nhave happened, unless the disputed one were true.\n\n\"It is obvious how much advantage the nature of this evidence gives to\nthose persons who attack Christianity, especially in conversation. For\nit is easy to show, in a short and lively manner, that such and such\nthings are liable to objection, that this and another thing is of little\nweight in itself; but impossible to show, in like manner, the united\nforce of the whole argument in one view.\"[109:1]\n\nIn like manner, Mr. Davison condemns that \"vicious manner of reasoning,\"\nwhich represents \"any insufficiency of the proof, in its several\nbranches, as so much objection;\" which manages \"the inquiry so as to\nmake it appear that, if the divided arguments be inconclusive one by\none, we have a series of exceptions to the truths of religion instead of\na train of favourable presumptions, growing stronger at every step. The\ndisciple of Scepticism is taught that he cannot fully rely on this or\nthat motive of belief, that each of them is insecure, and the conclusion\nis put upon him that they ought to be discarded one after another,\ninstead of being connected and combined.\"[109:2] No work perhaps affords\nmore specimens in a short compass of the breach of the principle of\nreasoning inculcated in these passages, than Barrow's Treatise on the\nPope's Supremacy.\n\n\n10.\n\nThe remarks of these two writers relate to the duty of combining\ndoctrines which belong to one body, and evidences which relate to one\nsubject; and few persons would dispute it in the abstract. The\napplication which has been here made of the principle is this,--that\nwhere a doctrine comes recommended to us by strong presumptions of its\ntruth, we are bound to receive it unsuspiciously, and use it as a key to\nthe evidences to which it appeals, or the facts which it professes to\nsystematize, whatever may be our eventual judgment about it. Nor is it\nenough to answer, that the voice of our particular Church, denying this\nso-called Catholicism, is an antecedent probability which outweighs all\nothers and claims our prior obedience, loyally and without reasoning, to\nits own interpretation. This may excuse individuals certainly, in\nbeginning with doubt and distrust of the Catholic developments, but it\nonly shifts the blame to the particular Church, Anglican or other, which\nthinks itself qualified to enforce so peremptory a judgment against the\none and only successor, heir and representative of the Apostolic\ncollege.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nSTATE OF THE EVIDENCE.\n\nBacon is celebrated for destroying the credit of a method of reasoning\nmuch resembling that which it has been the object of this Chapter to\nrecommend. \"He who is not practised in doubting,\" he says, \"but forward\nin asserting and laying down such principles as he takes to be approved,\ngranted and manifest, and, according to the established truth thereof,\nreceives or rejects everything, as squaring with or proving contrary to\nthem, is only fitted to mix and confound things with words, reason with\nmadness, and the world with fable and fiction, but not to interpret the\nworks of nature.\"[110:1] But he was aiming at the application of these\nmodes of reasoning to what should be strict investigation, and that in\nthe province of physics; and this he might well censure, without\nattempting, (what is impossible,) to banish them from history, ethics,\nand religion.\n\nPhysical facts are present; they are submitted to the senses, and the\nsenses may be satisfactorily tested, corrected, and verified. To trust\nto anything but sense in a matter of sense is irrational; why are the\nsenses given us but to supersede less certain, less immediate\ninformants? We have recourse to reason or authority to determine facts,\nwhen the senses fail us; but with the senses we begin. We deduce, we\nform inductions, we abstract, we theorize from facts; we do not begin\nwith surmise and conjecture, much less do we look to the tradition of\npast ages, or the decree of foreign teachers, to determine matters which\nare in our hands and under our eyes.\n\nBut it is otherwise with history, the facts of which are not present; it\nis otherwise with ethics, in which phenomena are more subtle, closer,\nand more personal to individuals than other facts, and not referable to\nany common standard by which all men can decide upon them. In such\nsciences, we cannot rest upon mere facts, if we would, because we have\nnot got them. We must do our best with what is given us, and look about\nfor aid from any quarter; and in such circumstances the opinions of\nothers, the traditions of ages, the prescriptions of authority,\nantecedent auguries, analogies, parallel cases, these and the like, not\nindeed taken at random, but, like the evidence from the senses, sifted\nand scrutinized, obviously become of great importance.\n\n\n2.\n\nAnd, further, if we proceed on the hypothesis that a merciful Providence\nhas supplied us with means of gaining such truth as concerns us, in\ndifferent subject-matters, though with different instruments, then the\nsimple question is, what those instruments are which are proper to a\nparticular case. If they are of the appointment of a Divine Protector,\nwe may be sure that they will lead to the truth, whatever they are. The\nless exact methods of reasoning may do His work as well as the more\nperfect, if He blesses them. He may bless antecedent probabilities in\nethical inquiries, who blesses experience and induction in the art of\nmedicine.\n\nAnd if it is reasonable to consider medicine, or architecture, or\nengineering, in a certain sense, divine arts, as being divinely ordained\nmeans of our receiving divine benefits, much more may ethics be called\ndivine; while as to religion, it directly professes to be the method of\nrecommending ourselves to Him and learning His will. If then it be His\ngracious purpose that we should learn it, the means He gives for\nlearning it, be they promising or not to human eyes, are sufficient,\nbecause they are His. And what they are at this particular time, or to\nthis person, depends on His disposition. He may have imposed simple\nprayer and obedience on some men as the instrument of their attaining to\nthe mysteries and precepts of Christianity. He may lead others through\nthe written word, at least for some stages of their course; and if the\nformal basis on which He has rested His revelations be, as it is, of an\nhistorical and philosophical character, then antecedent probabilities,\nsubsequently corroborated by facts, will be sufficient, as in the\nparallel case of other history, to bring us safely to the matter, or at\nleast to the organ, of those revelations.\n\n\n3.\n\nMoreover, in subjects which belong to moral proof, such, I mean, as\nhistory, antiquities, political science, ethics, metaphysics, and\ntheology, which are pre-eminently such, and especially in theology and\nethics, antecedent probability may have a real weight and cogency which\nit cannot have in experimental science; and a mature politician or\ndivine may have a power of reaching matters of fact in consequence of\nhis peculiar habits of mind, which is seldom given in the same degree to\nphysical inquirers, who, for the purposes of this particular pursuit,\nare very much on a level. And this last remark at least is confirmed by\nLord Bacon, who confesses \"Our method of discovering the sciences does\nnot much depend upon subtlety and strength of genius, but lies level to\nalmost every capacity and understanding;\"[113:1] though surely sciences\nthere are, in which genius is everything, and rules all but nothing.\n\n\n4.\n\nIt will be a great mistake then to suppose that, because this eminent\nphilosopher condemned presumption and prescription in inquiries into\nfacts which are external to us, present with us, and common to us all,\ntherefore authority, tradition, verisimilitude, analogy, and the like,\nare mere \"idols of the den\" or \"of the theatre\" in history or ethics.\nHere we may oppose to him an author in his own line as great as he is:\n\"Experience,\" says Bacon, \"is by far the best demonstration, provided it\ndwell in the experiment; for the transferring of it to other things\njudged alike is very fallacious, unless done with great exactness and\nregularity.\"[113:2] Niebuhr explains or corrects him: \"Instances are not\narguments,\" he grants, when investigating an obscure question of Roman\nhistory,--\"instances are not arguments, but in history are scarcely of\nless force; above all, where the parallel they exhibit is in the\nprogressive development of institutions.\"[113:3] Here this sagacious\nwriter recognizes the true principle of historical logic, while he\nexemplifies it.\n\nThe same principle is involved in the well-known maxim of Aristotle,\nthat \"it is much the same to admit the probabilities of a mathematician,\nand to look for demonstration from an orator.\" In all matters of human\nlife, presumption verified by instances, is our ordinary instrument of\nproof, and, if the antecedent probability is great, it almost\nsupersedes instances. Of course, as is plain, we may err grievously in\nthe antecedent view which we start with, and in that case, our\nconclusions may be wide of the truth; but that only shows that we had no\nright to assume a premiss which was untrustworthy, not that our\nreasoning was faulty.\n\n\n5.\n\nI am speaking of the process itself, and its correctness is shown by its\ngeneral adoption. In religious questions a single text of Scripture is\nall-sufficient with most people, whether the well disposed or the\nprejudiced, to prove a doctrine or a duty in cases when a custom is\nestablished or a tradition is strong. \"Not forsaking the assembling of\nourselves together\" is sufficient for establishing social, public, nay,\nSunday worship. \"Where the tree falleth, there shall it lie,\" shows that\nour probation ends with life. \"Forbidding to marry\" determines the Pope\nto be the man of sin. Again, it is plain that a man's after course for\ngood or bad brings out the passing words or obscure actions of previous\nyears. Then, on a retrospect, we use the event as a presumptive\ninterpretation of the past, of those past indications of his character\nwhich, considered as evidence, were too few and doubtful to bear\ninsisting on at the time, and would have seemed ridiculous, had we\nattempted to do so. And the antecedent probability is even found to\ntriumph over contrary evidence, as well as to sustain what agrees with\nit. Every one may know of cases in which a plausible charge against an\nindividual was borne down at once by weight of character, though that\ncharacter was incommensurate of course with the circumstances which gave\nrise to suspicion, and had no direct neutralizing force to destroy it.\nOn the other hand, it is sometimes said, and even if not literally true\nwill serve in illustration, that not a few of those who are put on trial\nin our criminal courts are not legally guilty of the particular crime on\nwhich a verdict is found against them, being convicted not so much upon\nthe particular evidence, as on the presumption arising from their want\nof character and the memory of their former offences. Nor is it in\nslight matters only or unimportant that we thus act. Our dearest\ninterests, our personal welfare, our property, our health, our\nreputation, we freely hazard, not on proof, but on a simple probability,\nwhich is sufficient for our conviction, because prudence dictates to us\nso to take it. We must be content to follow the law of our being in\nreligious matters as well as in secular.\n\n\n6.\n\nBut there is more to say on the subordinate position which direct\nevidence holds among the _motiva_ of conviction in most matters. It is\nno paradox to say that there is a certain scantiness, nay an absence of\nevidence, which may even tell in favour of statements which require to\nbe made good. There are indeed cases in which we cannot discover the law\nof silence or deficiency, which are then simply unaccountable. Thus\nLucian, for whatever reason, hardly notices Roman authors or\naffairs.[115:1] Maximus Tyrius, who wrote several of his works at Rome,\nnevertheless makes no reference to Roman history. Paterculus, the\nhistorian, is mentioned by no ancient writer except Priscian. What is\nmore to our present purpose, Seneca, Pliny the elder, and Plutarch are\naltogether silent about Christianity; and perhaps Epictetus also, and\nthe Emperor Marcus. The Jewish Mishna, too, compiled about A.D. 180, is\nsilent about Christianity; and the Jerusalem and Babylonish Talmuds\nalmost so, though the one was compiled about A.D. 300, and the other\nA.D. 500.[115:2] Eusebius again, is very uncertain in his notice of\nfacts: he does not speak of St. Methodius, nor of St. Anthony, nor of\nthe martyrdom of St. Perpetua, nor of the miraculous powers of St.\nGregory Thaumaturgus; and he mentions Constantine's luminous cross, not\nin his Ecclesiastical History, where it would naturally find a place,\nbut in his Life of the Emperor. Moreover, those who receive that\nwonderful occurrence, which is, as one who rejects it allows,[116:1] \"so\ninexplicable to the historical inquirer,\" have to explain the difficulty\nof the universal silence on the subject of all the Fathers of the fourth\nand fifth centuries, excepting Eusebius.\n\nIn like manner, Scripture has its unexplained omissions. No religious\nschool finds its own tenets and usages on the surface of it. The remark\napplies also to the very context of Scripture, as in the obscurity which\nhangs over Nathanael or the Magdalen. It is a remarkable circumstance\nthat there is no direct intimation all through Scripture that the\nSerpent mentioned in the temptation of Eve was the evil spirit, till we\ncome to the vision of the Woman and Child, and their adversary, the\nDragon, in the twelfth chapter of the Apocalypse.\n\n\n7.\n\nOmissions, thus absolute and singular, when they occur in the evidence\nof facts or doctrines, are of course difficulties; on the other hand,\nnot unfrequently they admit of explanation. Silence may arise from the\nvery notoriety of the facts in question, as in the case of the seasons,\nthe weather, or other natural phenomena; or from their sacredness, as\nthe Athenians would not mention the mythological Furies; or from\nexternal constraint, as the omission of the statues of Brutus and\nCassius in the procession. Or it may proceed from fear or disgust, as on\nthe arrival of unwelcome news; or from indignation, or hatred, or\ncontempt, or perplexity, as Josephus is silent about Christianity, and\nEusebius passes over the death of Crispus in his life of Constantine; or\nfrom other strong feeling, as implied in the poet's sentiment, \"Give\nsorrow words;\" or from policy or other prudential motive, or propriety,\nas Queen's Speeches do not mention individuals, however influential in\nthe political world, and newspapers after a time were silent about the\ncholera. Or, again, from the natural and gradual course which the fact\ntook, as in the instance of inventions and discoveries, the history of\nwhich is on this account often obscure; or from loss of documents or\nother direct testimonies, as we should not look for theological\ninformation in a treatise on geology.\n\n\n8.\n\nAgain, it frequently happens that omissions proceed on some law, as the\nvarying influence of an external cause; and then, so far from being a\nperplexity, they may even confirm such evidence as occurs, by becoming,\nas it were, its correlative. For instance, an obstacle may be\nassignable, person, or principle, or accident, which ought, if it\nexists, to reduce or distort the indications of a fact to that very\npoint, or in that very direction, or with the variations, or in the\norder and succession, which do occur in its actual history. At first\nsight it might be a suspicious circumstance that but one or two\nmanuscripts of some celebrated document were forthcoming; but if it were\nknown that the sovereign power had exerted itself to suppress and\ndestroy it at the time of its publication, and that the extant\nmanuscripts were found just in those places where history witnessed to\nthe failure of the attempt, the coincidence would be highly\ncorroborative of that evidence which alone remained.\n\nThus it is possible to have too much evidence; that is, evidence so full\nor exact as to throw suspicion over the case for which it is adduced.\nThe genuine Epistles of St. Ignatius contain none of those\necclesiastical terms, such as \"Priest\" or \"See,\" which are so frequent\nafterwards; and they quote Scripture sparingly. The interpolated\nEpistles quote it largely; that is, they are too Scriptural to be\nApostolic. Few persons, again, who are acquainted with the primitive\ntheology, but will be sceptical at first reading of the authenticity of\nsuch works as the longer Creed of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, or St.\nHippolytus contra Beronem, from the precision of the theological\nlanguage, which is unsuitable to the Ante-nicene period.\n\n\n9.\n\nThe influence of circumstances upon the expression of opinion or\ntestimony supplies another form of the same law of omission. \"I am ready\nto admit,\" says Paley, \"that the ancient Christian advocates did not\ninsist upon the miracles in argument so frequently as I should have\ndone. It was their lot to contend with notions of magical agency,\nagainst which the mere production of the facts was not sufficient for\nthe convincing of their adversaries; I do not know whether they\nthemselves thought it quite decisive of the controversy. But since it is\nproved, I conceive with certainty, that the sparingness with which they\nappealed to miracles was owing neither to their ignorance nor their\ndoubt of the facts, it is at any rate an objection, not to the truth of\nthe history, but to the judgment of its defenders.\"[118:1] And, in like\nmanner, Christians were not likely to entertain the question of the\nabstract allowableness of images in the Catholic ritual, with the actual\nsuperstitions and immoralities of paganism before their eyes. Nor were\nthey likely to determine the place of the Blessed Mary in our reverence,\nbefore they had duly secured, in the affections of the faithful, the\nsupreme glory and worship of God Incarnate, her Eternal Lord and Son.\nNor would they recognize Purgatory as a part of the Dispensation, till\nthe world had flowed into the Church, and a habit of corruption had\nbeen largely superinduced. Nor could ecclesiastical liberty be asserted,\ntill it had been assailed. Nor would a Pope arise, but in proportion as\nthe Church was consolidated. Nor would monachism be needed, while\nmartyrdoms were in progress. Nor could St. Clement give judgment on the\ndoctrine of Berengarius, nor St. Dionysius refute the Ubiquists, nor St.\nIren\u00e6us denounce the Protestant view of Justification, nor St. Cyprian\ndraw up a theory of toleration. There is \"a time for every purpose under\nthe heaven;\" \"a time to keep silence and a time to speak.\"\n\n\n10.\n\nSometimes when the want of evidence for a series of facts or doctrines\nis unaccountable, an unexpected explanation or addition in the course of\ntime is found as regards a portion of them, which suggests a ground of\npatience as regards the historical obscurity of the rest. Two instances\nare obvious to mention, of an accidental silence of clear primitive\ntestimony as to important doctrines, and its removal. In the number of\nthe articles of Catholic belief which the Reformation especially\nresisted, were the Mass and the sacramental virtue of Ecclesiastical\nUnity. Since the date of that movement, the shorter Epistles of St.\nIgnatius have been discovered, and the early Liturgies verified; and\nthis with most men has put an end to the controversy about those\ndoctrines. The good fortune which has happened to them, may happen to\nothers; and though it does not, yet that it has happened to them, is to\nthose others a sort of compensation for the obscurity in which their\nearly history continues to be involved.\n\n\n11.\n\nI may seem in these remarks to be preparing the way for a broad\nadmission of the absence of any sanction in primitive Christianity in\nbehalf of its medieval form, but I do not make them with this intention.\nNot from misgivings of this kind, but from the claims of a sound logic,\nI think it right to insist, that, whatever early testimonies I may bring\nin support of later developments of doctrine, are in great measure\nbrought _ex abundante_, a matter of grace, not of compulsion. The _onus\nprobandi_ is with those who assail a teaching which is, and has long\nbeen, in possession. As for positive evidence in our behalf, they must\ntake what they can get, if they cannot get as much as they might wish,\ninasmuch as antecedent probabilities, as I have said, go so very far\ntowards dispensing with it. It is a first strong point that, in an idea\nsuch as Christianity, developments cannot but be, and those surely\ndivine, because it is divine; a second that, if so, they are those very\nones which exist, because there are no others; and a third point is the\nfact that they are found just there, where true developments ought to be\nfound,--namely, in the historic seats of Apostolical teaching and in the\nauthoritative homes of immemorial tradition.\n\n\n12.\n\nAnd, if it be said in reply that the difficulty of admitting these\ndevelopments of doctrine lies, not merely in the absence of early\ntestimony for them, but in the actual existence of distinct testimony\nagainst them,--or, as Chillingworth says, in \"Popes against Popes,\nCouncils against Councils,\"--I answer, of course this will be said; but\nlet the fact of this objection be carefully examined, and its value\nreduced to its true measure, before it is used in argument. I grant that\nthere are \"Bishops against Bishops in Church history, Fathers against\nFathers, Fathers against themselves,\" for such differences in individual\nwriters are consistent with, or rather are involved in the very idea of\ndoctrinal development, and consequently are no real objection to it;\nthe one essential question is whether the recognized organ of teaching,\nthe Church herself, acting through Pope or Council as the oracle of\nheaven, has ever contradicted her own enunciations. If so, the\nhypothesis which I am advocating is at once shattered; but, till I have\npositive and distinct evidence of the fact, I am slow to give credence\nto the existence of so great an improbability.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[104:1] Anal. ii. 7.\n\n[107:1] [On Miracles, Essay ii. 111.]\n\n[109:1] Anal. ii. 7.\n\n[109:2] On Prophecy, i. p. 28.\n\n[110:1] Aphor. 5, vol. iv. p. xi. ed. 1815.\n\n[113:1] Nov. Org. i. 2, \u00a7 26, vol. iv. p. 29.\n\n[113:2] Nov. Org. \u00a7 70, p. 44.\n\n[113:3] Hist. of Rome, vol. i. p. 345, ed. 1828.\n\n[115:1] Lardner's Heath. Test. p. 22.\n\n[115:2] Paley's Evid. p. i. prop. 1, 7.\n\n[116:1] Milman, Christ. vol. ii. p. 352.\n\n[118:1] Evidences, iii. 5.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nINSTANCES IN ILLUSTRATION.\n\n\nIt follows now to inquire how much evidence is actually producible for\nthose large portions of the present Creed of Christendom, which have not\na recognized place in the primordial idea and the historical outline of\nthe Religion, yet which come to us with certain antecedent\nconsiderations strong enough in reason to raise the effectiveness of\nthat evidence to a point disproportionate, as I have allowed, to its\nintrinsic value. In urging these considerations here, of course I\nexclude for the time the force of the Church's claim of infallibility in\nher acts, for which so much can be said, but I do not exclude the\nlogical cogency of those acts, considered as testimonies to the faith of\nthe times before them.\n\nMy argument then is this:--that, from the first age of Christianity, its\nteaching looked towards those ecclesiastical dogmas, afterwards\nrecognized and defined, with (as time went on) more or less determinate\nadvance in the direction of them; till at length that advance became so\npronounced, as to justify their definition and to bring it about, and to\nplace them in the position of rightful interpretations and keys of the\nremains and the records in history of the teaching which had so\nterminated.\n\n\n2.\n\nThis line of argument is not unlike that which is considered to\nconstitute a sufficient proof of truths in physical science. An\ninstance of this is furnished us in a work on Mechanics of the past\ngeneration, by a writer of name, and his explanation of it will serve as\nan introduction to our immediate subject. After treating of the laws of\nmotion, he goes on to observe, \"These laws are the simplest principles\nto which motion can be reduced, and upon them the whole theory depends.\nThey are not indeed self-evident, nor do they admit of accurate proof by\nexperiment, on account of the great nicety required in adjusting the\ninstruments and making the experiments; and on account of the effects of\nfriction, and the air's resistance, which cannot entirely be removed.\nThey are, however, constantly, and invariably, suggested to our senses,\nand they agree with experiment as far as experiment can go; and the more\naccurately the experiments are made, and the greater care we take to\nremove all those impediments which tend to render the conclusions\nerroneous, the more nearly do the experiments coincide with these\nlaws.\"[123:1] And thus a converging evidence in favour of certain\ndoctrines may, under circumstances, be as clear a proof of their\nApostolical origin as can be reached practically from the _Quod semper,\nquod ubique, quod ab omnibus_.\n\nIn such a method of proof there is, first, an imperfect, secondly, a\ngrowing evidence, thirdly, in consequence a delayed inference and\njudgment, fourthly, reasons producible to account for the delay.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nINSTANCES CURSORILY NOTICED.\n\n\n1.\n\n(1.) _Canon of the New Testament._\n\nAs regards the New Testament, Catholics and Protestants receive the\nsame books as canonical and inspired; yet among those books some are to\nbe found, which certainly have no right there if, following the rule of\nVincentius, we receive nothing as of divine authority but what has been\nreceived always and everywhere. The degrees of evidence are very various\nfor one book and another. \"It is confessed,\" says Less, \"that not all\nthe Scriptures of our New Testament have been received with universal\nconsent as genuine works of the Evangelists and Apostles. But that man\nmust have predetermined to oppose the most palpable truths, and must\nreject all history, who will not confess that the _greater_ part of the\nNew Testament has been universally received as authentic, and that the\nremaining books have been acknowledged as such by the _majority_ of the\nancients.\"[124:1]\n\n\n2.\n\nFor instance, as to the Epistle of St. James. It is true, it is\ncontained in the old Syriac version in the second century; but Origen,\nin the third century, is the first writer who distinctly mentions it\namong the Greeks; and it is not quoted by name by any Latin till the\nfourth. St. Jerome speaks of its gaining credit \"by degrees, in process\nof time.\" Eusebius says no more than that it had been, up to his time,\nacknowledged by the majority; and he classes it with the Shepherd of St.\nHermas and the Epistle of St. Barnabas.[124:2]\n\nAgain: \"The Epistle to the Hebrews, though received in the East, was not\nreceived in the Latin Churches till St. Jerome's time. St. Iren\u00e6us\neither does not affirm, or denies that it is St. Paul's. Tertullian\nascribes it to St. Barnabas. Caius excludes it from his list. St.\nHippolytus does not receive it. St. Cyprian is silent about it. It is\ndoubtful whether St. Optatus received it.\"[124:3]\n\nAgain, St. Jerome tells us, that in his day, towards A.D. 400, the\nGreek Church rejected the Apocalypse, but the Latin received it.\n\nAgain: \"The New Testament consists of twenty-seven books in all, though\nof varying importance. Of these, fourteen are not mentioned at all till\nfrom eighty to one hundred years after St. John's death, in which number\nare the Acts, the Second to the Corinthians, the Galatians, the\nColossians, the Two to the Thessalonians, and St. James. Of the other\nthirteen, five, viz. St. John's Gospel, the Philippians, the First to\nTimothy, the Hebrews, and the First of St. John are quoted but by one\nwriter during the same period.\"[125:1]\n\n\n3.\n\nOn what ground, then, do we receive the Canon as it comes to us, but on\nthe authority of the Church of the fourth and fifth centuries? The\nChurch at that era decided--not merely bore testimony, but passed a\njudgment on former testimony,--decided, that certain books were of\nauthority. And on what ground did she so decide? on the ground that\nhitherto a decision had been impossible, in an age of persecution, from\nwant of opportunities for research, discussion, and testimony, from the\nprivate or the local character of some of the books, and from\nmisapprehension of the doctrine contained in others. Now, however,\nfacilities were at length given for deciding once for all on what had\nbeen in suspense and doubt for three centuries. On this subject I will\nquote another passage from the same Tract: \"We depend upon the fourth\nand fifth centuries thus:--As to Scripture, former centuries do not\nspeak distinctly, frequently, or unanimously, except of some chief\nbooks, as the Gospels; but we see in them, as we believe, an\never-growing tendency and approximation to that full agreement which we\nfind in the fifth. The testimony given at the latter date is the limit\nto which all that has been before said converges. For instance, it is\ncommonly said, _Exceptio probat regulam_; when we have reason to think\nthat a writer or an age would have witnessed so and so, _but for_ this\nor that, and that this or that were mere accidents of his position, then\nhe or it may be said to _tend towards_ such testimony. In this way the\nfirst centuries tend towards the fifth. Viewing the matter as one of\nmoral evidence, we seem to see in the testimony of the fifth the very\ntestimony which every preceding century gave, accidents excepted, such\nas the present loss of documents once extant, or the then existing\nmisconceptions which want of intercourse between the Churches\noccasioned. The fifth century acts as a comment on the obscure text of\nthe centuries before it, and brings out a meaning, which with the help\nof the comment any candid person sees really to be theirs.\"[126:1]\n\n\n4.\n\n(2.) _Original Sin._\n\nI have already remarked upon the historical fact, that the recognition\nof Original Sin, considered as the consequence of Adam's fall, was, both\nas regards general acceptance and accurate understanding, a gradual\nprocess, not completed till the time of Augustine and Pelagius. St.\nChrysostom lived close up to that date, but there are passages in his\nworks, often quoted, which we should not expect to find worded as they\nstand, if they had been written fifty years later. It is commonly, and\nreasonably, said in explanation, that the fatalism, so prevalent in\nvarious shapes pagan and heretical, in the first centuries, was an\nobstacle to an accurate apprehension of the consequences of the fall, as\nthe presence of the existing idolatry was to the use of images. If this\nbe so, we have here an instance of a doctrine held back for a time by\ncircumstances, yet in the event forcing its way into its normal shape,\nand at length authoritatively fixed in it, that is, of a doctrine held\nimplicitly, then asserting itself, and at length fully developed.\n\n\n5.\n\n(3.) _Infant Baptism._\n\nOne of the passages of St. Chrysostom to which I might refer is this,\n\"We baptize infants, though they are not defiled with sin, that they may\nreceive sanctity, righteousness, adoption, heirship, brotherhood with\nChrist, and may become His members.\" (_Aug. contr. Jul._ i. 21.) This at\nleast shows that he had a clear view of the importance and duty of\ninfant baptism, but such was not the case even with saints in the\ngeneration immediately before him. As is well known, it was not unusual\nin that age of the Church for those, who might be considered\ncatechumens, to delay their baptism, as Protestants now delay reception\nof the Holy Eucharist. It is difficult for us at this day to enter into\nthe assemblage of motives which led to this postponement; to a keen\nsense and awe of the special privileges of baptism which could only once\nbe received, other reasons would be added,--reluctance to being\ncommitted to a strict rule of life, and to making a public profession of\nreligion, and to joining in a specially intimate fellowship or\nsolidarity with strangers. But so it was in matter of fact, for reasons\ngood or bad, that infant baptism, which is a fundamental rule of\nChristian duty with us, was less earnestly insisted on in early times.\n\n\n6.\n\nEven in the fourth century St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Basil, and St.\nAugustine, having Christian mothers, still were not baptized till they\nwere adults. St. Gregory's mother dedicated him to God immediately on\nhis birth; and again when he had come to years of discretion, with the\nrite of taking the gospels into his hands by way of consecration. He was\nreligiously-minded from his youth, and had devoted himself to a single\nlife. Yet his baptism did not take place till after he had attended the\nschools of C\u00e6sarea, Palestine, and Alexandria, and was on his voyage to\nAthens. He had embarked during the November gales, and for twenty days\nhis life was in danger. He presented himself for baptism as soon as he\ngot to land. St. Basil was the son of Christian confessors on both\nfather's and mother's side. His grandmother Macrina, who brought him up,\nhad for seven years lived with her husband in the woods of Pontus during\nthe Decian persecution. His father was said to have wrought miracles;\nhis mother, an orphan of great beauty of person, was forced from her\nunprotected state to abandon the hope of a single life, and was\nconspicuous in matrimony for her care of strangers and the poor, and for\nher offerings to the churches. How religiously she brought up her\nchildren is shown by the singular blessing, that four out of ten have\nsince been canonized as Saints. St. Basil was one of these; yet the\nchild of such parents was not baptized till he had come to man's\nestate,--till, according to the Benedictine Editor, his twenty-first,\nand perhaps his twenty-ninth, year. St. Augustine's mother, who is\nherself a Saint, was a Christian when he was born, though his father was\nnot. Immediately on his birth, he was made a catechumen; in his\nchildhood he fell ill, and asked for baptism. His mother was alarmed,\nand was taking measures for his reception into the Church, when he\nsuddenly got better, and it was deferred. He did not receive baptism\ntill the age of thirty-three, after he had been for nine years a victim\nof Manich\u00e6an error. In like manner, St. Ambrose, though brought up by\nhis mother and holy nuns, one of them his own sister St. Marcellina, was\nnot baptized till he was chosen bishop at the age of about thirty-four,\nnor his brother St. Satyrus till about the same age, after the serious\nwarning of a shipwreck. St. Jerome too, though educated at Rome, and so\nfar under religious influences, as, with other boys, to be in the\nobservance of Sunday, and of devotions in the catacombs, had no friend\nto bring him to baptism, till he had reached man's estate and had\ntravelled.\n\n\n7.\n\nNow how are the modern sects, which protest against infant baptism, to\nbe answered by Anglicans with this array of great names in their favour?\nBy the later rule of the Church surely; by the _dicta_ of some later\nSaints, as by St. Chrysostom; by one or two inferences from Scripture;\nby an argument founded on the absolute necessity of Baptism for\nsalvation,--sufficient reasons certainly, but impotent to reverse the\nfact that neither in Dalmatia nor in Cappadocia, neither in Rome, nor in\nAfrica, was it then imperative on Christian parents, as it is now, to\ngive baptism to their young children. It was on retrospect and after the\ntruths of the Creed had sunk into the Christian mind, that the authority\nof such men as St. Cyprian, St. Chrysostom, and St. Augustine brought\nround the _orbis terrarum_ to the conclusion, which the infallible\nChurch confirmed, that observance of the rite was the rule, and the\nnon-observance the exception.\n\n\n8.\n\n(4.) _Communion in one kind._\n\nIn the beginning of the fifteenth century, the Council of Constance\npronounced that, \"though in the primitive Church the Sacrament\" of the\nEucharist \"was received by the faithful under each kind, yet the custom\nhas been reasonably introduced, for the avoiding of certain dangers and\nscandals, that it should be received by the consecrators under each\nkind, and by the laity only under the kind of Bread; since it is most\nfirmly to be believed, and in no wise doubted, that the whole Body and\nBlood of Christ is truly contained as well under the kind of Bread as\nunder the kind of Wine.\"\n\nNow the question is, whether the doctrine here laid down, and carried\ninto effect in the usage here sanctioned, was entertained by the early\nChurch, and may be considered a just development of its principles and\npractices. I answer that, starting with the presumption that the Council\nhas ecclesiastical authority, which is the point here to be assumed, we\nshall find quite enough for its defence, and shall be satisfied to\ndecide in the affirmative; we shall readily come to the conclusion that\nCommunion under either kind is lawful, each kind conveying the full gift\nof the Sacrament.\n\nFor instance, Scripture affords us two instances of what may reasonably\nbe considered the administration of the form of Bread without that of\nWine; viz. our Lord's own example towards the two disciples at Emmaus,\nand St. Paul's action at sea during the tempest. Moreover, St. Luke\nspeaks of the first Christians as continuing in the \"_breaking of\nbread_, and in prayer,\" and of the first day of the week \"when they came\ntogether to _break bread_.\"\n\nAnd again, in the sixth chapter of St. John, our Lord says absolutely,\n\"He that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me.\" And, though He distinctly\npromises that we shall have it granted to us to drink His blood, as well\nas to eat His flesh; nevertheless, not a word does He say to signify\nthat, as He is the Bread from heaven and the living Bread, so He is the\nheavenly, living Wine also. Again, St. Paul says that \"whosoever shall\neat this Bread _or_ drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be\nguilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.\"\n\nMany of the types of the Holy Eucharist, as far as they go, tend to the\nsame conclusion; as the Manna, to which our Lord referred, the Paschal\nLamb, the Shewbread, the sacrifices from which the blood was poured out,\nand the miracle of the loaves, which are figures of the bread alone;\nwhile the water from the rock, and the Blood from our Lord's side\ncorrespond to the wine without the bread. Others are representations of\nboth kinds; as Melchizedek's feast, and Elijah's miracle of the meal and\noil.\n\n\n9.\n\nAnd, further, it certainly was the custom in the early Church, under\ncircumstances, to communicate in one kind, as we learn from St. Cyprian,\nSt. Dionysius, St. Basil, St. Jerome, and others. For instance, St.\nCyprian speaks of the communion of an infant under Wine, and of a woman\nunder Bread; and St. Ambrose speaks of his brother in shipwreck folding\nthe consecrated Bread in a handkerchief, and placing it round his neck;\nand the monks and hermits in the desert can hardly be supposed to have\nbeen ordinarily in possession of consecrated Wine as well as Bread. From\nthe following Letter of St. Basil, it appears that, not only the monks,\nbut the whole laity of Egypt ordinarily communicated in Bread only. He\nseems to have been asked by his correspondent, whether in time of\npersecution it was lawful, in the absence of priest or deacon, to take\nthe communion \"in one's own _hand_,\" that is, of course, the Bread; he\nanswers that it may be justified by the following parallel cases, in\nmentioning which he is altogether silent about the Cup. \"It is plainly\nno fault,\" he says, \"for long custom supplies instances enough to\nsanction it. For all the monks in the desert, where there is no priest,\nkeep the communion at home, and partake it from themselves. In\nAlexandria too, and in Egypt, each of the laity, for the most part, has\nthe Communion in his house, and, when he will, he partakes it by means\nof himself. For when once the priest has celebrated the Sacrifice and\ngiven it, he who takes it as a whole together, and then partakes of it\ndaily, reasonably ought to think that he partakes and receives from him\nwho has given it.\"[132:1] It should be added, that in the beginning of\nthe Letter he may be interpreted to speak of communion in both kinds,\nand to say that it is \"good and profitable.\"\n\nHere we have the usage of Pontus, Egypt, Africa, and Milan. Spain may be\nadded, if a late author is right in his view of the meaning of a Spanish\nCanon;[132:2] and Syria, as well as Egypt, at least at a later date,\nsince Nicephorus[132:3] tells us that the Acephali, having no Bishops,\nkept the Bread which their last priests had consecrated, and dispensed\ncrumbs of it every year at Easter for the purposes of Communion.\n\n\n10.\n\nBut it may be said, that after all it is so very hazardous and fearful a\nmeasure actually to withdraw from Christians one-half of the Sacrament,\nthat, in spite of these precedents, some direct warrant is needed to\nreconcile the mind to it. There might have been circumstances which led\nSt. Cyprian, or St. Basil, or the Apostolical Christians before them to\ncurtail it, about which we know nothing. It is not therefore safe in us,\nbecause it was safe in them. Certainly a warrant is necessary; and just\nsuch a warrant is the authority of the Church. If we can trust her\nimplicitly, there is nothing in the state of the evidence to form an\nobjection to her decision in this instance, and in proportion as we find\nwe can trust her does our difficulty lessen. Moreover, children, not to\nsay infants, were at one time admitted to the Eucharist, at least to the\nCup; on what authority are they now excluded from Cup and Bread also?\nSt. Augustine considered the usage to be of Apostolical origin; and it\ncontinued in the West down to the twelfth century; it continues in the\nEast among Greeks, Russo-Greeks, and the various Monophysite Churches to\nthis day, and that on the ground of its almost universality in the\nprimitive Church.[133:1] Is it a greater innovation to suspend the Cup,\nthan to cut off children from Communion altogether? Yet we acquiesce in\nthe latter deprivation without a scruple. It is safer to acquiesce with,\nthan without, an authority; safer with the belief that the Church is the\npillar and ground of the truth, than with the belief that in so great a\nmatter she is likely to err.\n\n\n11.\n\n(5.) _The Homo\u00fcsion._\n\nThe next instance I shall take is from the early teaching on the subject\nof our Lord's Consubstantiality and Co-eternity.\n\nIn the controversy carried on by various learned men in the seventeenth\nand following century, concerning the statements of the early Fathers on\nthis subject, the one party determined the patristic theology by the\nliteral force of the separate expressions or phrases used in it, or by\nthe philosophical opinions of the day; the other, by the doctrine of the\nCatholic Church, as afterwards authoritatively declared. The one party\nargued that those Fathers _need not_ have meant more than what was\nafterwards considered heresy; the other answered that there is _nothing\nto prevent_ their meaning more. Thus the position which Bull maintains\nseems to be nothing beyond this, that the Nicene Creed is a natural key\nfor interpreting the body of Ante-nicene theology. His very aim is to\nexplain difficulties; now the notion of difficulties and their\nexplanation implies a rule to which they are apparent exceptions, and in\naccordance with which they are to be explained. Nay, the title of his\nwork, which is a \"Defence of the Creed of Nic\u00e6a,\" shows that he is not\ninvestigating what is true and what false, but explaining and justifying\na foregone conclusion, as sanctioned by the testimony of the great\nCouncil. Unless the statements of the Fathers had suggested\ndifficulties, his work would have had no object. He allows that their\nlanguage is not such as they would have used after the Creed had been\nimposed; but he says in effect that, if we will but take it in our hands\nand apply it equitably to their writings, we shall bring out and\nharmonize their teaching, clear their ambiguities, and discover their\nanomalous statements to be few and insignificant. In other words, he\nbegins with a presumption, and shows how naturally facts close round it\nand fall in with it, if we will but let them. He does this triumphantly,\nyet he has an arduous work; out of about thirty writers whom he reviews,\nhe has, for one cause or other, to \"explain piously\" nearly twenty.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nOUR LORD'S INCARNATION AND THE DIGNITY OF HIS BLESSED MOTHER AND OF ALL\nSAINTS.\n\nBishop Bull's controversy had regard to Ante-nicene writers only, and to\nlittle more than to the doctrine of the Divine Son's consubstantiality\nand co-eternity; and, as being controversy, it necessarily narrows and\ndries up a large and fertile subject. Let us see whether, treated\nhistorically, it will not present itself to us in various aspects which\nmay rightly be called developments, as coming into view, one out of\nanother, and following one after another by a natural order of\nsuccession.\n\n\n2.\n\nFirst then, that the language of the Ante-nicene Fathers, on the subject\nof our Lord's Divinity, may be far more easily accommodated to the Arian\nhypothesis than can the language of the Post-nicene, is agreed on all\nhands. Thus St. Justin speaks of the Son as subservient to the Father in\nthe creation of the world, as seen by Abraham, as speaking to Moses from\nthe bush, as appearing to Joshua before the fall of Jericho,[135:1] as\nMinister and Angel, and as numerically distinct from the Father.\nClement, again, speaks of the Word[135:2] as the \"Instrument of God,\"\n\"close to the Sole Almighty;\" \"ministering to the Omnipotent Father's\nwill;\"[135:3] \"an energy, so to say, or operation of the Father,\" and\n\"constituted by His will as the cause of all good.\"[135:4] Again, the\nCouncil of Antioch, which condemned Paul of Samosata, says that He\n\"appears to the Patriarchs and converses with them, being testified\nsometimes to be an Angel, at other times Lord, at others God;\" that,\nwhile \"it is impious to think that the God of all is called an Angel,\nthe Son is the Angel of the Father.\"[136:1] Formal proof, however, is\nunnecessary; had not the fact been as I have stated it, neither Sandius\nwould have professed to differ from the Post-nicene Fathers, nor would\nBull have had to defend the Ante-nicene.\n\n\n3.\n\nOne principal change which took place, as time went on, was the\nfollowing: the Ante-nicene Fathers, as in some of the foregoing\nextracts, speak of the Angelic visions in the Old Testament as if they\nwere appearances of the Son; but St. Augustine introduced the explicit\ndoctrine, which has been received since his date, that they were simply\nAngels, through whom the Omnipresent Son manifested Himself. This indeed\nis the only interpretation which the Ante-nicene statements admitted, as\nsoon as reason began to examine what they did mean. They could not mean\nthat the Eternal God could really be seen by bodily eyes; if anything\nwas seen, that must have been some created glory or other symbol, by\nwhich it pleased the Almighty to signify His Presence. What was heard\nwas a sound, as external to His Essence, and as distinct from His\nNature, as the thunder or the voice of the trumpet, which pealed along\nMount Sinai; what it was had not come under discussion till St.\nAugustine; both question and answer were alike undeveloped. The earlier\nFathers spoke as if there were no medium interposed between the Creator\nand the creature, and so they seemed to make the Eternal Son the medium;\nwhat it really was, they had not determined. St. Augustine ruled, and\nhis ruling has been accepted in later times, that it was not a mere\natmospheric phenomenon, or an impression on the senses, but the material\nform proper to an Angelic presence, or the presence of an Angel in that\nmaterial garb in which blessed Spirits do ordinarily appear to men.\nHenceforth the Angel in the bush, the voice which spoke with Abraham,\nand the man who wrestled with Jacob, were not regarded as the Son of\nGod, but as Angelic ministers, whom He employed, and through whom He\nsignified His presence and His will. Thus the tendency of the\ncontroversy with the Arians was to raise our view of our Lord's\nMediatorial acts, to impress them on us in their divine rather than\ntheir human aspect, and to associate them more intimately with the\nineffable glories which surround the Throne of God. The Mediatorship was\nno longer regarded in itself, in that prominently subordinate place\nwhich it had once occupied in the thoughts of Christians, but as an\noffice assumed by One, who though having become man in order to bear it,\nwas still God.[137:1] Works and attributes, which had hitherto been\nassigned to the Economy or to the Sonship, were now simply assigned to\nthe Manhood. A tendency was also elicited, as the controversy proceeded,\nto contemplate our Lord more distinctly in His absolute perfections,\nthan in His relation to the First Person of the Blessed Trinity. Thus,\nwhereas the Nicene Creed speaks of the \"Father Almighty,\" and \"His\nOnly-begotten Son, our Lord, God from God, Light from Light, Very God\nfrom Very God,\" and of the Holy Ghost, \"the Lord and Giver of Life,\" we\nare told in the Athanasian of \"the Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and\nthe Holy Ghost Eternal,\" and that \"none is afore or after other, none is\ngreater or less than another.\"\n\n\n4.\n\nThe Apollinarian and Monophysite controversy, which followed in the\ncourse of the next century, tended towards a development in the same\ndirection. Since the heresies, which were in question, maintained, at\nleast virtually, that our Lord was not man, it was obvious to insist on\nthe passages of Scripture which describe His created and subservient\nnature, and this had the immediate effect of interpreting of His manhood\ntexts which had hitherto been understood more commonly of His Divine\nSonship. Thus, for instance, \"My Father is greater than I,\" which had\nbeen understood even by St. Athanasius of our Lord as God, is applied by\nlater writers more commonly to His humanity; and in this way the\ndoctrine of His subordination to the Eternal Father, which formed so\nprominent a feature in Ante-nicene theology, comparatively fell into the\nshade.\n\n\n5.\n\nAnd coincident with these changes, a most remarkable result is\ndiscovered. The Catholic polemic, in view of the Arian and Monophysite\nerrors, being of this character, became the natural introduction to the\n_cultus Sanctorum_; for in proportion as texts descriptive of created\nmediation ceased to belong to our Lord, so was a room opened for created\nmediators. Nay, as regards the instance of Angelic appearances itself,\nas St. Augustine explained them, if those appearances were creatures,\ncertainly creatures were worshipped by the Patriarchs, not indeed in\nthemselves,[138:1] but as the token of a Presence greater than\nthemselves. When \"Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon\nGod,\" he hid his face before a creature; when Jacob said, \"I have seen\nGod face to face and my life is preserved,\" the Son of God was there,\nbut what he saw, what he wrestled with, was an Angel. When \"Joshua fell\non his face to the earth and did worship before the captain of the\nLord's host, and said unto him, What saith my Lord unto his servant?\"\nwhat was seen and heard was a glorified creature, if St. Augustine is\nto be followed; and the Son of God was in him.\n\nAnd there were plain precedents in the Old Testament for the lawfulness\nof such adoration. When \"the people saw the cloudy pillar stand at the\ntabernacle-door,\" \"all the people rose up and worshipped, every man in\nhis tent-door.\"[139:1] When Daniel too saw \"a certain man clothed in\nlinen\" \"there remained no strength\" in him, for his \"comeliness was\nturned\" in him \"into corruption.\" He fell down on his face, and next\nremained on his knees and hands, and at length \"stood trembling,\" and\nsaid \"O my Lord, by the vision my sorrows are turned upon me, and I have\nretained no strength. For how can the servant of this my Lord talk with\nthis my Lord?\"[139:2] It might be objected perhaps to this argument,\nthat a worship which was allowable in an elementary system might be\nunlawful when \"grace and truth\" had come \"through Jesus Christ;\" but\nthen it might be retorted surely, that that elementary system had been\nemphatically opposed to all idolatry, and had been minutely jealous of\neverything which might approach to favouring it. Nay, the very\nprominence given in the Pentateuch to the doctrine of a Creator, and the\ncomparative silence concerning the Angelic creation, and the prominence\ngiven to the Angelic creation in the later Prophets, taken together,\nwere a token both of that jealousy, and of its cessation, as time went\non. Nor can anything be concluded from St. Paul's censure of Angel\nworship, since the sin which he is denouncing was that of \"not holding\nthe Head,\" and of worshipping creatures _instead_ of the Creator as the\nsource of good. The same explanation avails for passages like those in\nSt. Athanasius and Theodoret, in which the worship of Angels is\ndiscountenanced.\n\n\n6.\n\nThe Arian controversy had led to another development, which confirmed by\nanticipation the _cultus_ to which St. Augustine's doctrine pointed. In\nanswer to the objection urged against our Lord's supreme Divinity from\ntexts which speak of His exaltation, St. Athanasius is led to insist\nforcibly on the benefits which have accrued to man through it. He says\nthat, in truth, not Christ, but that human nature which He had assumed,\nwas raised and glorified in Him. The more plausible was the heretical\nargument against His Divinity from those texts, the more emphatic is St.\nAthanasius's exaltation of our regenerate nature by way of explaining\nthem. But intimate indeed must be the connexion between Christ and His\nbrethren, and high their glory, if the language which seemed to belong\nto the Incarnate Word really belonged to them. Thus the pressure of the\ncontroversy elicited and developed a truth, which till then was held\nindeed by Christians, but less perfectly realized and not publicly\nrecognized. The sanctification, or rather the deification of the nature\nof man, is one main subject of St. Athanasius's theology. Christ, in\nrising, raises His Saints with Him to the right hand of power. They\nbecome instinct with His life, of one body with His flesh, divine sons,\nimmortal kings, gods. He is in them, because He is in human nature; and\nHe communicates to them that nature, deified by becoming His, that them\nIt may deify. He is in them by the Presence of His Spirit, and in them\nHe is seen. They have those titles of honour by participation, which are\nproperly His. Without misgiving we may apply to them the most sacred\nlanguage of Psalmists and Prophets. \"Thou art a Priest for ever\" may be\nsaid of St. Polycarp or St. Martin as well as of their Lord. \"He hath\ndispersed abroad, he hath given to the poor,\" was fulfilled in St.\nLaurence. \"I have found David My servant,\" first said typically of the\nKing of Israel, and belonging really to Christ, is transferred back\nagain by grace to His Vicegerents upon earth. \"I have given thee the\nnations for thine inheritance\" is the prerogative of Popes; \"Thou hast\ngiven him his heart's desire,\" the record of a martyr; \"thou hast loved\nrighteousness and hated iniquity,\" the praise of Virgins.\n\n\n7.\n\n\"As Christ,\" says St. Athanasius, \"died, and was exalted as man, so, as\nman, is He said to take what, as God, He ever had, in order that even\nthis so high a grant of grace might reach to us. For the Word did not\nsuffer loss in receiving a body, that He should seek to receive a grace,\nbut rather He deified that which He put on, nay, gave it graciously to\nthe race of man. . . . For it is the Father's glory, that man, made and\nthen lost, should be found again; and, when done to death, that he\nshould be made alive, and should become God's temple. For whereas the\npowers in heaven, both Angels and Archangels, were ever worshipping the\nLord, as they are now too worshipping Him in the Name of Jesus, this is\nour grace and high exaltation, that, even when He became man, the Son of\nGod is worshipped, and the heavenly powers are not startled at seeing\nall of us, who are of one body with Him, introduced into their\nrealms.\"[141:1] In this passage it is almost said that the glorified\nSaints will partake in the homage paid by Angels to Christ, the True\nObject of all worship; and at least a reason is suggested to us by it\nfor the Angel's shrinking in the Apocalypse from the homage of St. John,\nthe Theologian and Prophet of the Church.[141:2] But St. Athanasius\nproceeds still more explicitly, \"In that the Lord, even when come in\nhuman body and called Jesus, was worshipped and believed to be God's\nSon, and that through Him the Father is known, it is plain, as has been\nsaid, that, _not the Word_, considered as the Word, received this so\ngreat grace, _but we_. For, because of our relationship to His Body, we\ntoo have become God's temple, and in consequence have been made God's\nsons, so that _even in us the Lord is now worshipped_, and beholders\nreport, as the Apostle says, that 'God is in them of a truth.'\"[142:1]\nIt appears to be distinctly stated in this passage, that those who are\nformally recognized as God's adopted sons in Christ, are fit objects of\nworship on account of Him who is in them; a doctrine which both\ninterprets and accounts for the invocation of Saints, the _cultus_ of\nrelics, and the religious veneration in which even the living have\nsometimes been held, who, being saintly, were distinguished by\nmiraculous gifts.[142:2] Worship then is the necessary correlative of\nglory; and in the same sense in which created natures can share in the\nCreator's incommunicable glory, are they also allowed a share of that\nworship which is His property alone.\n\n\n8.\n\nThere was one other subject on which the Arian controversy had a more\nintimate, though not an immediate influence. Its tendency to give a new\ninterpretation to the texts which speak of our Lord's subordination, has\nalready been noticed; such as admitted of it were henceforth explained\nmore prominently of His manhood than of His Mediatorship or His Sonship.\nBut there were other texts which did not admit of this interpretation,\nand which, without ceasing to belong to Him, might seem more directly\napplicable to a creature than to the Creator. He indeed was really the\n\"Wisdom in whom the Father eternally delighted,\" yet it would be but\nnatural, if, under the circumstances of Arian misbelief, theologians\nlooked out for other than the Eternal Son to be the immediate object of\nsuch descriptions. And thus the controversy opened a question which it\ndid not settle. It discovered a new sphere, if we may so speak, in the\nrealms of light, to which the Church had not yet assigned its\ninhabitant. Arianism had admitted that our Lord was both the God of the\nEvangelical Covenant, and the actual Creator of the Universe; but even\nthis was not enough, because it did not confess Him to be the One,\nEverlasting, Infinite, Supreme Being, but as one who was made by the\nSupreme. It was not enough in accordance with that heresy to proclaim\nHim as having an ineffable origin before all worlds; not enough to place\nhim high above all creatures as the type of all the works of God's\nHands; not enough to make Him the King of all Saints, the Intercessor\nfor man with God, the Object of worship, the Image of the Father; not\nenough, because it was not all, and between all and anything short of\nall, there was an infinite interval. The highest of creatures is\nlevelled with the lowest in comparison of the One Creator Himself. That\nis, the Nicene Council recognized the eventful principle, that, while we\nbelieve and profess any being to be made of a created nature, such a\nbeing is really no God to us, though honoured by us with whatever high\ntitles and with whatever homage. Arius or Asterius did all but confess\nthat Christ was the Almighty; they said much more than St. Bernard or\nSt. Alphonso have since said of the Blessed Mary; yet they left Him a\ncreature and were found wanting. Thus there was \"a wonder in heaven:\" a\nthrone was seen, far above all other created powers, mediatorial,\nintercessory; a title archetypal; a crown bright as the morning star; a\nglory issuing from the Eternal Throne; robes pure as the heavens; and a\nsceptre over all; and who was the predestined heir of that Majesty?\nSince it was not high enough for the Highest, who was that Wisdom, and\nwhat was her name, \"the Mother of fair love, and fear, and holy hope,\"\n\"exalted like a palm-tree in Engaddi, and a rose-plant in Jericho,\"\n\"created from the beginning before the world\" in God's everlasting\ncounsels, and \"in Jerusalem her power\"? The vision is found in the\nApocalypse, a Woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet,\nand upon her head a crown of twelve stars. The votaries of Mary do not\nexceed the true faith, unless the blasphemers of her Son came up to it.\nThe Church of Rome is not idolatrous, unless Arianism is orthodoxy.\n\n\n9.\n\nI am not stating conclusions which were drawn out in the controversy,\nbut of premisses which were laid, broad and deep. It was then shown, it\nwas then determined, that to exalt a creature was no recognition of its\ndivinity. Nor am I speaking of the Semi-Arians, who, holding our Lord's\nderivation from the Substance of the Father, yet denying His\nConsubstantiality, really did lie open to the charge of maintaining two\nGods, and present no parallel to the defenders of the prerogatives of\nSt. Mary. But I speak of the Arians who taught that the Son's Substance\nwas created; and concerning them it is true that St. Athanasius's\ncondemnation of their theology is a vindication of the Medieval. Yet it\nis not wonderful, considering how Socinians, Sabellians, Nestorians, and\nthe like, abound in these days, without their even knowing it\nthemselves, if those who never rise higher in their notions of our\nLord's Divinity, than to consider Him a man singularly inhabited by a\nDivine Presence, that is, a Catholic Saint,--if such men should mistake\nthe honour paid by the Church to the human Mother for that very honour\nwhich, and which alone, is worthy of her Eternal Son.\n\n\n10.\n\nI have said that there was in the first ages no public and\necclesiastical recognition of the place which St. Mary holds in the\nEconomy of grace; this was reserved for the fifth century, as the\ndefinition of our Lord's proper Divinity had been the work of the\nfourth. There was a controversy contemporary with those already\nmentioned, I mean the Nestorian, which brought out the complement of the\ndevelopment, to which they had been subservient; and which, if I may so\nspeak, supplied the subject of that august proposition of which Arianism\nhad provided the predicate. In order to do honour to Christ, in order to\ndefend the true doctrine of the Incarnation, in order to secure a right\nfaith in the manhood of the Eternal Son, the Council of Ephesus\ndetermined the Blessed Virgin to be the Mother of God. Thus all heresies\nof that day, though opposite to each other, tended in a most wonderful\nway to her exaltation; and the School of Antioch, the fountain of\nprimitive rationalism, led the Church to determine first the conceivable\ngreatness of a creature, and then the incommunicable dignity of the\nBlessed Virgin.\n\n\n11.\n\nBut the spontaneous or traditional feeling of Christians had in great\nmeasure anticipated the formal ecclesiastical decision. Thus the title\n_Theotocos_, or Mother of God, was familiar to Christians from primitive\ntimes, and had been used, among other writers, by Origen, Eusebius, St.\nAlexander, St. Athanasius, St. Ambrose, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St.\nGregory Nyssen, and St. Nilus. She had been called Ever-Virgin by\nothers, as by St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and Didymus. By others, \"the\nMother of all living,\" as being the antitype of Eve; for, as St.\nEpiphanius observes, \"in truth,\" not in shadow, \"from Mary was Life\nitself brought into the world, that Mary might bear things living, and\nmight become Mother of living things.\"[146:1] St. Augustine says that\nall have sinned \"except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, for the\nhonour of the Lord, I wish no question to be raised at all, when we are\ntreating of sins.\" \"She was alone and wrought the world's salvation,\"\nsays St. Ambrose, alluding to her conception of the Redeemer. She is\nsignified by the Pillar of the cloud which guided the Israelites,\naccording to the same Father; and she had \"so great grace, as not only\nto have virginity herself, but to impart it to those to whom she\ncame;\"--\"the Rod out of the stem of Jesse,\" says St. Jerome, and \"the\nEastern gate through which the High Priest alone goes in and out, yet is\never shut;\"--the wise woman, says St. Nilus, who \"hath clad all\nbelievers, from the fleece of the Lamb born of her, with the clothing of\nincorruption, and delivered them from their spiritual nakedness;\"--\"the\nMother of Life, of beauty, of majesty, the Morning Star,\" according to\nAntiochus;--\"the mystical new heavens,\" \"the heavens carrying the\nDivinity,\" \"the fruitful vine by whom we are translated from death unto\nlife,\" according to St. Ephraim;--\"the manna which is delicate, bright,\nsweet, and virgin, which, as though coming from heaven, has poured down\non all the people of the Churches a food pleasanter than honey,\"\naccording to St. Maximus.\n\nSt. Proclus calls her \"the unsullied shell which contains the pearl of\nprice,\" \"the sacred shrine of sinlessness,\" \"the golden altar of\nholocaust,\" \"the holy oil of anointing,\" \"the costly alabaster box of\nspikenard,\" \"the ark gilt within and without,\" \"the heifer whose ashes,\nthat is, the Lord's Body taken from her, cleanses those who are defiled\nby the pollution of sin,\" \"the fair bride of the Canticles,\" \"the stay\n(+st\u00earigma+) of believers,\" \"the Church's diadem,\" \"the expression of\northodoxy.\" These are oratorical expressions; but we use oratory on\ngreat subjects, not on small. Elsewhere he calls her \"God's only bridge\nto man;\" and elsewhere he breaks forth, \"Run through all creation in\nyour thoughts, and see if there be equal to, or greater than, the Holy\nVirgin Mother of God.\"\n\n\n12.\n\nTheodotus too, one of the Fathers of Ephesus, or whoever it is whose\nHomilies are given to St. Amphilochius:--\"As debtors and God's\nwell-affected servants, let us make confession to God the Word and to\nHis Mother, of the gift of words, as far as we are able. . . Hail,\nMother, clad in light, of the light which sets not; hail all-undefiled\nmother of holiness; hail most pellucid fountain of the life-giving\nstream!\" After speaking of the Incarnation, he continues, \"Such\nparadoxes doth the Divine Virgin Mother ever bring to us in her holy\nirradiations, for with her is the Fount of Life, and breasts of the\nspiritual and guileless milk; from which to suck the sweetness, we have\neven now earnestly run to her, not as in forgetfulness of what has gone\nbefore, but in desire of what is to come.\"\n\nTo St. Fulgentius is ascribed the following: \"Mary became the window of\nheaven, for God through her poured the True Light upon the world; the\nheavenly ladder, for through her did God descend upon earth. . . . .\nCome, ye virgins, to a Virgin, come ye who conceive to one who did\nconceive, ye who bear to one who bore, mothers to a Mother, ye who give\nsuck to one who suckled, young women to the Young.\" Lastly, \"Thou hast\nfound grace,\" says St. Peter Chrysologus, \"how much? he had said above,\nFull. And full indeed, which with full shower might pour upon and into\nthe whole creation.\"[148:1]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSuch was the state of sentiment on the subject of the Blessed Virgin,\nwhich the Arian, Nestorian, and Monophysite heresies found in the\nChurch; and on which the doctrinal decisions consequent upon them\nimpressed a form and a consistency which has been handed on in the East\nand West to this day.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\nTHE PAPAL SUPREMACY.\n\nI will take one instance more. Let us see how, on the principles which I\nhave been laying down and defending, the evidence lies for the Pope's\nSupremacy.\n\nAs to this doctrine the question is this, whether there was not from the\nfirst a certain element at work, or in existence, divinely sanctioned,\nwhich, for certain reasons, did not at once show itself upon the surface\nof ecclesiastical affairs, and of which events in the fourth century\nare the development; and whether the evidence of its existence and\noperation, which does occur in the earlier centuries, be it much or\nlittle, is not just such as ought to occur upon such an hypothesis.\n\n\n2.\n\nFor instance, it is true, St. Ignatius is silent in his Epistles on the\nsubject of the Pope's authority; but if in fact that authority could not\nbe in active operation then, such silence is not so difficult to account\nfor as the silence of Seneca or Plutarch about Christianity itself, or\nof Lucian about the Roman people. St. Ignatius directed his doctrine\naccording to the need. While Apostles were on earth, there was the\ndisplay neither of Bishop nor Pope; their power had no prominence, as\nbeing exercised by Apostles. In course of time, first the power of the\nBishop displayed itself, and then the power of the Pope. When the\nApostles were taken away, Christianity did not at once break into\nportions; yet separate localities might begin to be the scene of\ninternal dissensions, and a local arbiter in consequence would be\nwanted. Christians at home did not yet quarrel with Christians abroad;\nthey quarrelled at home among themselves. St. Ignatius applied the\nfitting remedy. The _Sacramentum Unitatis_ was acknowledged on all\nhands; the mode of fulfilling and the means of securing it would vary\nwith the occasion; and the determination of its essence, its seat, and\nits laws would be a gradual supply for a gradual necessity.\n\n\n3.\n\nThis is but natural, and is parallel to instances which happen daily,\nand may be so considered without prejudice to the divine right whether\nof the Episcopate or of the Papacy. It is a common occurrence for a\nquarrel and a lawsuit to bring out the state of the law, and then the\nmost unexpected results often follow. St. Peter's prerogative would\nremain a mere letter, till the complication of ecclesiastical matters\nbecame the cause of ascertaining it. While Christians were \"of one heart\nand one soul,\" it would be suspended; love dispenses with laws.\nChristians knew that they must live in unity, and they were in unity; in\nwhat that unity consisted, how far they could proceed, as it were, in\nbending it, and what at length was the point at which it broke, was an\nirrelevant as well as unwelcome inquiry. Relatives often live together\nin happy ignorance of their respective rights and properties, till a\nfather or a husband dies; and then they find themselves against their\nwill in separate interests, and on divergent courses, and dare not move\nwithout legal advisers. Again, the case is conceivable of a corporation\nor an Academical body, going on for centuries in the performance of the\nroutine-business which came in its way, and preserving a good\nunderstanding between its members, with statutes almost a dead letter\nand no precedents to explain them, and the rights of its various classes\nand functions undefined,--then of its being suddenly thrown back by the\nforce of circumstances upon the question of its formal character as a\nbody politic, and in consequence developing in the relation of governors\nand governed. The _regalia Petri_ might sleep, as the power of a\nChancellor has slept; not as an obsolete, for they never had been\ncarried into effect, but as a mysterious privilege, which was not\nunderstood; as an unfulfilled prophecy. For St. Ignatius to speak of\nPopes, when it was a matter of Bishops, would have been like sending an\narmy to arrest a housebreaker. The Bishop's power indeed was from God,\nand the Pope's could be no more; he, as well as the Pope, was our Lord's\nrepresentative, and had a sacramental office: but I am speaking, not of\nthe intrinsic sanctity or divinity of such an office, but of its duties.\n\n\n4.\n\nWhen the Church, then, was thrown upon her own resources, first local\ndisturbances gave exercise to Bishops, and next ecumenical disturbances\ngave exercise to Popes; and whether communion with the Pope was\nnecessary for Catholicity would not and could not be debated till a\nsuspension of that communion had actually occurred. It is not a greater\ndifficulty that St. Ignatius does not write to the Asian Greeks about\nPopes, than that St. Paul does not write to the Corinthians about\nBishops. And it is a less difficulty that the Papal supremacy was not\nformally acknowledged in the second century, than that there was no\nformal acknowledgment on the part of the Church of the doctrine of the\nHoly Trinity till the fourth. No doctrine is defined till it is\nviolated.\n\nAnd, in like manner, it was natural for Christians to direct their\ncourse in matters of doctrine by the guidance of mere floating, and, as\nit were, endemic tradition, while it was fresh and strong; but in\nproportion as it languished, or was broken in particular places, did it\nbecome necessary to fall back upon its special homes, first the\nApostolic Sees, and then the See of St. Peter.\n\n\n5.\n\nMoreover, an international bond and a common authority could not be\nconsolidated, were it ever so certainly provided, while persecutions\nlasted. If the Imperial Power checked the development of Councils, it\navailed also for keeping back the power of the Papacy. The Creed, the\nCanon, in like manner, both remained undefined. The Creed, the Canon,\nthe Papacy, Ecumenical Councils, all began to form, as soon as the\nEmpire relaxed its tyrannous oppression of the Church. And as it was\nnatural that her monarchical power should display itself when the Empire\nbecame Christian, so was it natural also that further developments of\nthat power should take place when that Empire fell. Moreover, when the\npower of the Holy See began to exert itself, disturbance and collision\nwould be the necessary consequence. Of the Temple of Solomon, it was\nsaid that \"neither hammer, nor axe, nor any tool of iron was heard in\nthe house, while it was in building.\" This is a type of the Church\nabove; it was otherwise with the Church below, whether in the instance\nof Popes or Apostles. In either case, a new power had to be defined; as\nSt. Paul had to plead, nay, to strive for his apostolic authority, and\nenjoined St. Timothy, as Bishop of Ephesus, to let no man despise him:\nso Popes too have not therefore been ambitious because they did not\nestablish their authority without a struggle. It was natural that\nPolycrates should oppose St. Victor; and natural too that St. Cyprian\nshould both extol the See of St. Peter, yet resist it when he thought it\nwent beyond its province. And at a later day it was natural that\nEmperors should rise in indignation against it; and natural, on the\nother hand, that it should take higher ground with a younger power than\nit had taken with an elder and time-honoured.\n\n\n6.\n\nWe may follow Barrow here without reluctance, except in his imputation\nof motives.\n\n\"In the first times,\" he says, \"while the Emperors were pagans, their\n[the Popes'] pretences were suited to their condition, and could not\nsoar high; they were not then so mad as to pretend to any temporal\npower, and a pittance of spiritual eminency did content them.\"\n\nAgain: \"The state of the most primitive Church did not well admit such\nan universal sovereignty. For that did consist of small bodies\nincoherently situated, and scattered about in very distant places, and\nconsequently unfit to be modelled into one political society, or to be\ngoverned by one head, especially considering their condition under\npersecution and poverty. What convenient resort for direction or justice\ncould a few distressed Christians in Egypt, Ethiopia, Parthia, India,\nMesopotamia, Syria, Armenia, Cappadocia, and other parts, have to Rome!\"\n\nAgain: \"Whereas no point avowed by Christians could be so apt to raise\noffence and jealousy in pagans against our religion as this, which\nsetteth up a power of so vast extent and huge influence; whereas no\nnovelty could be more surprising or startling than the creation of an\nuniversal empire over the consciences and religious practices of men;\nwhereas also this doctrine could not be but very conspicuous and glaring\nin ordinary practice, it is prodigious that all pagans should not loudly\nexclaim against it,\" that is, on the supposition that the Papal power\nreally was then in actual exercise.\n\nAnd again: \"It is most prodigious that, in the disputes managed by the\nFathers against heretics, the Gnostics, Valentinians, &c., they should\nnot, even in the first place, allege and urge the sentence of the\nuniversal pastor and judge, as a most evidently conclusive argument, as\nthe most efficacious and compendious method of convincing and silencing\nthem.\"\n\nOnce more: \"Even Popes themselves have shifted their pretences, and\nvaried in style, according to the different circumstances of time, and\ntheir variety of humours, designs, interests. In time of prosperity, and\nupon advantage, when they might safely do it, any Pope almost would talk\nhigh and assume much to himself; but when they were low, or stood in\nfear of powerful contradiction, even the boldest Popes would speak\nsubmissively or moderately.\"[153:1]\n\nOn the whole, supposing the power to be divinely bestowed, yet in the\nfirst instance more or less dormant, a history could not be traced out\nmore probable, more suitable to that hypothesis, than the actual course\nof the controversy which took place age after age upon the Papal\nsupremacy.\n\n\n7.\n\nIt will be said that all this is a theory. Certainly it is: it is a\ntheory to account for facts as they lie in the history, to account for\nso much being told us about the Papal authority in early times, and not\nmore; a theory to reconcile what is and what is not recorded about it;\nand, which is the principal point, a theory to connect the words and\nacts of the Ante-nicene Church with that antecedent probability of a\nmonarchical principle in the Divine Scheme, and that actual\nexemplification of it in the fourth century, which forms their\npresumptive interpretation. All depends on the strength of that\npresumption. Supposing there be otherwise good reason for saying that\nthe Papal Supremacy is part of Christianity, there is nothing in the\nearly history of the Church to contradict it.\n\n\n8.\n\nIt follows to inquire in what this presumption consists? It has, as I\nhave said, two parts, the antecedent probability of a Popedom, and the\nactual state of the Post-nicene Church. The former of these reasons has\nunavoidably been touched upon in what has preceded. It is the absolute\nneed of a monarchical power in the Church which is our ground for\nanticipating it. A political body cannot exist without government, and\nthe larger is the body the more concentrated must the government be. If\nthe whole of Christendom is to form one Kingdom, one head is essential;\nat least this is the experience of eighteen hundred years. As the Church\ngrew into form, so did the power of the Pope develope; and wherever the\nPope has been renounced, decay and division have been the consequence.\nWe know of no other way of preserving the _Sacramentum Unitatis_, but a\ncentre of unity. The Nestorians have had their \"Catholicus;\" the\nLutherans of Prussia have their general superintendent; even the\nIndependents, I believe, have had an overseer in their Missions. The\nAnglican Church affords an observable illustration of this doctrine. As\nher prospects have opened and her communion extended, the See of\nCanterbury has become the natural centre of her operations. It has at\nthe present time jurisdiction in the Mediterranean, at Jerusalem, in\nHindostan, in North America, at the Antipodes. It has been the organ of\ncommunication, when a Prime Minister would force the Church to a\nredistribution of her property, or a Protestant Sovereign abroad would\nbring her into friendly relations with his own communion. Eyes have been\nlifted up thither in times of perplexity; thither have addresses been\ndirected and deputations sent. Thence issue the legal decisions, or the\ndeclarations in Parliament, or the letters, or the private\ninterpositions, which shape the fortunes of the Church, and are the\nmoving influence within her separate dioceses. It must be so; no Church\ncan do without its Pope. We see before our eyes the centralizing process\nby which the See of St. Peter became the Sovereign Head of Christendom.\n\nIf such be the nature of the case, it is impossible, if we may so speak\nreverently, that an Infinite Wisdom, which sees the end from the\nbeginning, in decreeing the rise of an universal Empire, should not have\ndecreed the development of a sovereign ruler.\n\nMoreover, all this must be viewed in the light of the general\nprobability, so much insisted on above, that doctrine cannot but\ndevelope as time proceeds and need arises, and that its developments are\nparts of the Divine system, and that therefore it is lawful, or rather\nnecessary, to interpret the words and deeds of the earlier Church by the\ndeterminate teaching of the later.\n\n\n9.\n\nAnd, on the other hand, as the counterpart of these anticipations, we\nare met by certain announcements in Scripture, more or less obscure and\nneeding a comment, and claimed by the Papal See as having their\nfulfilment in itself. Such are the words, \"Thou art Peter, and upon this\nrock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail\nagainst it, and I will give unto Thee the Keys of the Kingdom of\nHeaven.\" Again: \"Feed My lambs, feed My sheep.\" And \"Satan hath desired\nto have you; I have prayed for thee, and when thou art converted,\nstrengthen thy brethren.\" Such, too, are various other indications of\nthe Divine purpose as regards St. Peter, too weak in themselves to be\ninsisted on separately, but not without a confirmatory power; such as\nhis new name, his walking on the sea, his miraculous draught of fishes\non two occasions, our Lord's preaching out of his boat, and His\nappearing first to him after His resurrection.\n\nIt should be observed, moreover, that a similar promise was made by the\npatriarch Jacob to Judah: \"Thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise:\nthe sceptre shall not depart from Judah till Shiloh come;\" yet this\npromise was not fulfilled for perhaps eight hundred years, during which\nlong period we hear little or nothing of the tribe descended from him.\nIn like manner, \"On this rock I will build My Church,\" \"I give unto thee\nthe Keys,\" \"Feed My sheep,\" are not precepts merely, but prophecies and\npromises, promises to be accomplished by Him who made them, prophecies\nto be fulfilled according to the need, and to be interpreted by the\nevent,--by the history, that is, of the fourth and fifth centuries,\nthough they had a partial fulfilment even in the preceding period, and a\nstill more noble development in the middle ages.\n\n\n10.\n\nA partial fulfilment, or at least indications of what was to be, there\ncertainly were in the first age. Faint one by one, at least they are\nvarious, and are found in writers of many times and countries, and\nthereby illustrative of each other, and forming a body of proof. Thus\nSt. Clement, in the name of the Church of Rome, writes to the\nCorinthians, when they were without a bishop; St. Ignatius of Antioch\naddresses the Roman Church, out of the Churches to which he writes, as\n\"the Church, which has in dignity the first seat, of the city of the\nRomans,\"[157:1] and implies that it was too high for his directing as\nbeing the Church of St. Peter and St. Paul. St. Polycarp of Smyrna has\nrecourse to the Bishop of Rome on the question of Easter; the heretic\nMarcion, excommunicated in Pontus, betakes himself to Rome; Soter,\nBishop of Rome, sends alms, according to the custom of his Church, to\nthe Churches throughout the empire, and, in the words of Eusebius,\n\"affectionately exhorted those who came to Rome, as a father his\nchildren;\" the Montanists from Phrygia come to Rome to gain the\ncountenance of its Bishop; Praxeas, from Asia, attempts the like, and\nfor a while is successful; St. Victor, Bishop of Rome, threatens to\nexcommunicate the Asian Churches; St. Iren\u00e6us speaks of Rome as \"the\ngreatest Church, the most ancient, the most conspicuous, and founded and\nestablished by Peter and Paul,\" appeals to its tradition, not in\ncontrast indeed, but in preference to that of other Churches, and\ndeclares that \"to this Church, every Church, that is, the faithful from\nevery side must resort\" or \"must agree with it, _propter potiorem\nprincipalitatem_.\" \"O Church, happy in its position,\" says Tertullian,\n\"into which the Apostles poured out, together with their blood, their\nwhole doctrine;\" and elsewhere, though in indignation and bitter\nmockery, he calls the Pope \"the Pontifex Maximus, the Bishop of\nBishops.\" The presbyters of St. Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria,\ncomplain of his doctrine to St. Dionysius of Rome; the latter\nexpostulates with him, and he explains. The Emperor Aurelian leaves \"to\nthe Bishops of Italy and of Rome\" the decision, whether or not Paul of\nSamosata shall be dispossessed of the see-house at Antioch; St. Cyprian\nspeaks of Rome as \"the See of Peter and the principal Church, whence\nthe unity of the priesthood took its rise, . . whose faith has been\ncommended by the Apostles, to whom faithlessness can have no access;\"\nSt. Stephen refuses to receive St. Cyprian's deputation, and separates\nhimself from various Churches of the East; Fortunatus and Felix, deposed\nby St. Cyprian, have recourse to Rome; Basilides, deposed in Spain,\nbetakes himself to Rome, and gains the ear of St. Stephen.\n\n\n11.\n\nSt. Cyprian had his quarrel with the Roman See, but it appears he allows\nto it the title of the \"Cathedra Petri,\" and even Firmilian is a witness\nthat Rome claimed it. In the fourth and fifth centuries this title and\nits logical results became prominent. Thus St. Julius (A.D. 342)\nremonstrated by letter with the Eusebian party for \"proceeding on their\nown authority as they pleased,\" and then, as he says, \"desiring to\nobtain our concurrence in their decisions, though we never condemned\n[Athanasius]. Not so have the constitutions of Paul, not so have the\ntraditions of the Fathers directed; this is another form of procedure, a\nnovel practice. . . . For what we have received from the blessed Apostle\nPeter, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as\ndeeming that these things are manifest unto all men, had not these\nproceedings so disturbed us.\"[158:1] St. Athanasius, by preserving this\nprotest, has given it his sanction. Moreover, it is referred to by\nSocrates; and his account of it has the more force, because he happens\nto be incorrect in the details, and therefore did not borrow it from\nSt. Athanasius: \"Julius wrote back,\" he says, \"that they acted against\nthe Canons, because they had not called him to the Council, the\nEcclesiastical Canon commanding that the Churches ought not to make\nCanons beside the will of the Bishop of Rome.\"[159:1] And Sozomen: \"It\nwas a sacerdotal law, to declare invalid whatever was transacted beside\nthe will of the Bishop of the Romans.\"[159:2] On the other hand, the\nheretics themselves, whom St. Julius withstands, are obliged to\nacknowledge that Rome was \"the School of the Apostles and the Metropolis\nof orthodoxy from the beginning;\" and two of their leaders (Western\nBishops indeed) some years afterwards recanted their heresy before the\nPope in terms of humble confession.\n\n\n12.\n\nAnother Pope, St. Damasus, in his letter addressed to the Eastern\nBishops against Apollinaris (A.D. 382), calls those Bishops his sons.\n\"In that your charity pays the due reverence to the Apostolical See, ye\nprofit yourselves the most, most honoured sons. For if, placed as we are\nin that Holy Church, in which the Holy Apostle sat and taught, how it\nbecometh us to direct the helm to which we have succeeded, we\nnevertheless confess ourselves unequal to that honour; yet do we\ntherefore study as we may, if so be we may be able to attain to the\nglory of his blessedness.\"[159:3] \"I speak,\" says St. Jerome to the same\nSt. Damasus, \"with the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of\nthe Cross. I, following no one as my chief but Christ, am associated in\ncommunion with thy blessedness, that is, with the See of Peter. I know\nthat on that rock the Church is built. Whosoever shall eat the Lamb\noutside this House is profane; if a man be not in the Ark of Noe, he\nshall perish when the flood comes in its power.\"[160:1] St. Basil\nentreats St. Damasus to send persons to arbitrate between the Churches\nof Asia Minor, or at least to make a report on the authors of their\ntroubles, and name the party with which the Pope should hold communion.\n\"We are in no wise asking anything new,\" he proceeds, \"but what was\ncustomary with blessed and religious men of former times, and especially\nwith yourself. For we know, by tradition of our fathers of whom we have\ninquired, and from the information of writings still preserved among us,\nthat Dionysius, that most blessed Bishop, while he was eminent among you\nfor orthodoxy and other virtues, sent letters of visitation to our\nChurch at C\u00e6sarea, and of consolation to our fathers, with ransomers of\nour brethren from captivity.\" In like manner, Ambrosiaster, a Pelagian\nin his doctrine, which here is not to the purpose, speaks of the \"Church\nbeing God's house, whose ruler at this time is Damasus.\"[160:2]\n\n\n13.\n\n\"We bear,\" says St. Siricius, another Pope (A.D. 385), \"the burden of\nall who are laden; yea, rather the blessed Apostle Peter beareth them in\nus, who, as we trust, in all things protects and defends us the heirs of\nhis government.\"[160:3] And he in turn is confirmed by St. Optatus. \"You\ncannot deny your knowledge,\" says the latter to Parmenian, the Donatist,\n\"that, in the city Rome, on Peter first hath an Episcopal See been\nconferred, in which Peter sat, the head of all the Apostles, . . . in\nwhich one See unity might be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles\nshould support their respective Sees; in order that he might be at once\na schismatic and a sinner, who against that one See (_singularem_)\nplaced a second. Therefore that one See (_unicam_), which is the first\nof the Church's prerogatives, Peter filled first; to whom succeeded\nLinus; to Linus, Clement; to Clement, &c., &c. . . . to Damasus,\nSiricius, who at this day is associated with us (_socius_), together\nwith whom the whole world is in accordance with us, in the one bond of\ncommunion, by the intercourse of letters of peace.\"[161:1]\n\nAnother Pope: \"Diligently and congruously do ye consult the _arcana_ of\nthe Apostolical dignity,\" says St. Innocent to the Council of Milevis\n(A.D. 417), \"the dignity of him on whom, beside those things which are\nwithout, falls the care of all the Churches; following the form of the\nancient rule, which you know, as well as I, has been preserved always by\nthe whole world.\"[161:2] Here the Pope appeals, as it were, to the Rule\nof Vincentius; while St. Augustine bears witness that he did not outstep\nhis Prerogative, for, giving an account of this and another letter, he\nsays, \"He [the Pope] answered us as to all these matters as it was\nreligious and becoming in the Bishop of the Apostolic See.\"[161:3]\n\nAnother Pope: \"We have especial anxiety about all persons,\" says St.\nCelestine (A.D. 425), to the Illyrian Bishops, \"on whom, in the holy\nApostle Peter, Christ conferred the necessity of making all men our\ncare, when He gave him the Keys of opening and shutting.\" And St.\nProsper, his contemporary, confirms him, when he calls Rome \"the seat of\nPeter, which, being made to the world the head of pastoral honour,\npossesses by religion what it does not possess by arms;\" and Vincent of\nLerins, when he calls the Pope \"the head of the world.\"[161:4]\n\n\n14.\n\nAnother Pope: \"Blessed Peter,\" says St. Leo (A.D. 440, &c.), \"hath not\ndeserted the helm of the Church which he had assumed. . . His power\nlives and his authority is pre-eminent in his See.\"[162:1] \"That\nimmoveableness, which, from the Rock Christ, he, when made a rock,\nreceived, has been communicated also to his heirs.\"[162:2] And as St.\nAthanasius and the Eusebians, by their contemporary testimonies, confirm\nSt. Julius; and St. Jerome, St. Basil; and Ambrosiaster, St. Damasus;\nand St. Optatus, St. Siricius; and St. Augustine, St. Innocent; and St.\nProsper and Vincent, St. Celestine; so do St. Peter Chrysologus, and the\nCouncil of Chalcedon confirm St. Leo. \"Blessed Peter,\" says Chrysologus,\n\"who lives and presides in his own See, supplies truth of faith to those\nwho seek it.\"[162:3] And the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, addressing\nSt. Leo respecting Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria: \"He extends his\nmadness even against him to whom the custody of the vineyard has been\ncommitted by the Saviour, that is, against thy Apostolical\nholiness.\"[162:4] But the instance of St. Leo will occur again in a\nlater Chapter.\n\n\n15.\n\nThe acts of the fourth century speak as strongly as its words. We may\ncontent ourselves here with Barrow's admissions:--\n\n\"The Pope's power,\" he says, \"was much amplified by the importunity of\npersons condemned or extruded from their places, whether upon just\naccounts, or wrongfully, and by faction; for they, finding no other more\nhopeful place of refuge and redress, did often apply to him: for what\nwill not men do, whither will not they go in straits? Thus did Marcion\ngo to Rome, and sue for admission to communion there. So Fortunatus and\nFelicissimus in St. Cyprian, being condemned in Afric, did fly to Rome\nfor shelter; of which absurdity St. Cyprian doth so complain. So\nlikewise Martianus and Basilides in St. Cyprian, being outed of their\nSees for having lapsed from the Christian profession, did fly to Stephen\nfor succour, to be restored. So Maximus, the Cynic, went to Rome, to get\na confirmation of his election at Constantinople. So Marcellus, being\nrejected for heterodoxy, went thither to get attestation to his\northodoxy, of which St. Basil complaineth. So Apiarus, being condemned\nin Afric for his crimes, did appeal to Rome. And, on the other side,\nAthanasius being with great partiality condemned by the Synod of Tyre;\nPaulus and other bishops being extruded from their sees for orthodoxy;\nSt. Chrysostom being condemned and expelled by Theophilus and his\ncomplices; Flavianus being deposed by Dioscorus and the Ephesine synod;\nTheodoret being condemned by the same; did cry out for help to Rome.\nChelidonius, Bishop of Besan\u00e7on, being deposed by Hilarius of Arles for\ncrime, did fly to Pope Leo.\"\n\nAgain: \"Our adversaries do oppose some instances of popes meddling in\nthe constitution of bishops; as, Pope Leo I. saith, that Anatolius did\n'by the favour of his assent obtain the bishopric of Constantinople.'\nThe same Pope is alleged as having confirmed Maximus of Antioch. The\nsame doth write to the Bishop of Thessalonica, his vicar, that he should\n'confirm the elections of bishops by his authority.' He also confirmed\nDonatus, an African bishop:--'We will that Donatus preside over the\nLord's flock, upon condition that he remember to send us an account of\nhis faith.' . . Pope Damasus did confirm the ordination of Peter\nAlexandrinus.\"\n\n\n16.\n\nAnd again: \"The Popes indeed in the fourth century began to practise a\nfine trick, very serviceable to the enlargement of their power; which\nwas to confer on certain bishops, as occasion served, or for\ncontinuance, the title of their vicar or lieutenant, thereby pretending\nto impart authority to them; whereby they were enabled for performance\nof divers things, which otherwise by their own episcopal or\nmetropolitical power they could not perform. By which device they did\nengage such bishops to such a dependence on them, whereby they did\npromote the papal authority in provinces, to the oppression of the\nancient rights and liberties of bishops and synods, doing what they\npleased under pretence of this vast power communicated to them; and for\nfear of being displaced, or out of affection to their favourer, doing\nwhat might serve to advance the papacy. Thus did Pope Celestine\nconstitute Cyril in his room. Pope Leo appointed Anatolius of\nConstantinople; Pope Felix, Acacius of Constantinople. . . . . Pope\nSimplicius to Zeno, Bishop of Seville: 'We thought it convenient that\nyou should be held up by the vicariat authority of our see.' So did\nSiricius and his successors constitute the bishops of Thessalonica to be\ntheir vicars in the diocese of Illyricum, wherein being then a member of\nthe western empire they had caught a special jurisdiction; to which Pope\nLeo did refer in those words, which sometimes are impertinently alleged\nwith reference to all bishops, but concern only Anastasius, Bishop of\nThessalonica: 'We have entrusted thy charity to be in our stead; so that\nthou art called into part of the solicitude, not into plenitude of the\nauthority.' So did Pope Zosimus bestow a like pretence of vicarious\npower upon the Bishop of Arles, which city was the seat of the temporal\nexarch in Gaul.\"[164:1]\n\n\n17.\n\nMore ample testimony for the Papal Supremacy, as now professed by Roman\nCatholics, is scarcely necessary than what is contained in these\npassages; the simple question is, whether the clear light of the fourth\nand fifth centuries may be fairly taken to interpret to us the dim,\nthough definite, outlines traced in the preceding.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[123:1] Wood's Mechanics, p. 31.\n\n[124:1] Authent. N. T. Tr. p. 237.\n\n[124:2] According to Less.\n\n[124:3] Tracts for the Times, No. 85, p. 78 [Discuss. iii. 6, p. 207].\n\n[125:1] [Ibid. p. 209. These results are taken from Less, and are\npractically accurate.]\n\n[126:1] No. 85 [Discuss. p. 236].\n\n[132:1] Ep. 93. I have thought it best to give an over-literal\ntranslation.\n\n[132:2] Vid. Concil. Bracar. ap. Aguirr. Conc. Hisp. t. ii. p. 676.\n\"That the cup was not administered at the same time is not so clear; but\nfrom the tenor of this first Canon in the Acts of the Third Council of\nBraga, which condemns the notion that the Host should be steeped in the\nchalice, we have no doubt that the wine was withheld from the laity.\nWhether certain points of doctrine are or are not found in the\nScriptures is no concern of the historian; all that he has to do is\nreligiously to follow his guides, to suppress or distrust nothing\nthrough partiality.\"--_Dunham_, _Hist. of Spain and Port._ vol. i. p.\n204. If _pro complemento communionis_ in the Canon merely means \"for the\nCup,\" at least the Cup is spoken of as a complement; the same view is\ncontained in the \"confirmation of the Eucharist,\" as spoken of in St.\nGerman's life. Vid. Lives of Saints, No. 9, p. 28.\n\n[132:3] Niceph. Hist. xviii. 45. Renaudot, however, tells us of two\nBishops at the time when the schism was at length healed. Patr. Al. Jac.\np. 248. However, these had been consecrated by priests, p. 145.\n\n[133:1] Vid. Bing. Ant. xv. 4, \u00a7 7; and Fleury, Hist. xxvi. 50, note\n_g_.\n\n[135:1] Kaye's Justin, p. 59, &c.\n\n[135:2] Kaye's Clement, p. 335.\n\n[135:3] p. 341.\n\n[135:4] Ib. 342.\n\n[136:1] Reliqu. Sacr. t. ii. p. 469, 470.\n\n[137:1] [This subject is more exactly and carefully treated in Tracts\nTheol. and Eccles. pp. 192-226.]\n\n[138:1] [They also had a _cultus_ in themselves, and specially when a\ngreater Presence did _not_ overshadow them. _Vid._ Via Media, vol. ii.\nart. iv. 8, note 1.]\n\n[139:1] Exod. xxxiii. 10.\n\n[139:2] Dan. x. 5-17.\n\n[141:1] Athan. Orat. i. 42, Oxf. tr.\n\n[141:2] [_Vid. supr._ p. 138, note 8.]\n\n[142:1] Athan. ibid.\n\n[142:2] And so Eusebius, in his Life of Constantine: \"The all-holy choir\nof God's perpetual virgins, he was used almost to worship (+seb\u00f4n+),\nbelieving that that God, to whom they had consecrated themselves, was an\ninhabitant in the souls of such.\" Vit. Const. iv. 28.\n\n[146:1] H\u00e6r. 78, 18.\n\n[148:1] Aug. de Nat. et Grat. 42. Ambros. Ep. 1, 49, \u00a7 2. In Psalm 118,\nv. 3, de Instit. Virg. 50. Hier. in Is. xi. 1, contr. Pelag. ii. 4. Nil.\nEp. i. p. 267. Antioch. ap. Cyr. de Rect. Fid. p. 49. Ephr. Opp. Syr. t.\n3, p. 607. Max. Hom. 45. Procl. Orat. vi. pp. 225-228, p. 60, p. 179,\n180, ed. 1630. Theodot. ap. Amphiloch. pp. 39, &c. Fulgent. Serm. 3, p.\n125. Chrysol. Serm. 142. A striking passage from another Sermon of the\nlast-mentioned author, on the words \"She cast in her mind what manner of\nsalutation,\" &c., may be added: \"Quantus sit Deus satis ignorat ille,\nqui hujus Virginis mentem non stupet, animum non miratur. Pavet coelum,\ntremunt Angeli, creatura non sustinet, natura non sufficit; et una\npuella sic Deum in sui pectoris capit, recipit, oblectat hospitio, ut\npacem terris, coelis gloriam, salutem perditis, vitam mortuis, terrenis\ncum coelestibus parentelam, ipsius Dei cum carne commercium, pro ips\u00e2\ndom\u00fbs exigat pensione, pro ipsius uteri mercede conquirat,\" &c. Serm.\n140. [St. Basil, St. Chrysostom, and St. Cyril of Alexandria sometimes\nspeak, it is true, in a different tone; on this subject vid. \"Letter to\nDr. Pusey,\" Note iii., Diff. of Angl. vol. 2.]\n\n[153:1] Pope's Suprem. ed. 1836, pp. 26, 27, 157, 171, 222.\n\n[157:1] +h\u00eatis kai prokath\u00eatai en top\u00f4 ch\u00f4riou Rh\u00f4mai\u00f4n.+\n\n[158:1] Athan. Hist. Tracts. Oxf. tr. p. 56.\n\n[159:1] Hist. ii. 17.\n\n[159:2] Hist. iii. 10.\n\n[159:3] Theod. Hist. v. 10.\n\n[160:1] Coustant, Epp. Pont. p. 546.\n\n[160:2] In 1 Tim. iii. 14, 15.\n\n[160:3] Coustant, p. 624.\n\n[161:1] ii. 3.\n\n[161:2] Coustant, pp. 896, 1064.\n\n[161:3] Ep. 186, 2.\n\n[161:4] De Ingrat. 2. Common. 41.\n\n[162:1] Serm. De Natal. iii. 3.\n\n[162:2] Ibid. v. 4.\n\n[162:3] Ep. ad Eutych. fin.\n\n[162:4] Concil. Hard. t. ii. p. 656.\n\n[164:1] Barrow on the Supremacy, ed. 1836, pp. 263, 331, 384.\n\n\n\n\nPART II.\n\nDOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENTS\n\nVIEWED RELATIVELY TO DOCTRINAL\n\nCORRUPTIONS.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nGENUINE DEVELOPMENTS CONTRASTED WITH CORRUPTIONS.\n\n\nI have been engaged in drawing out the positive and direct argument in\nproof of the intimate connexion, or rather oneness, with primitive\nApostolic teaching, of the body of doctrine known at this day by\nthe name of Catholic, and professed substantially both by Eastern\nand Western Christendom. That faith is undeniably the historical\ncontinuation of the religious system, which bore the name of Catholic in\nthe eighteenth century, in the seventeenth, in the sixteenth, and so\nback in every preceding century, till we arrive at the first;--undeniably\nthe successor, the representative, the heir of the religion of Cyprian,\nBasil, Ambrose and Augustine. The only question that can be raised is\nwhether the said Catholic faith, as now held, is logically, as well as\nhistorically, the representative of the ancient faith. This then is the\nsubject, to which I have as yet addressed myself, and I have maintained\nthat modern Catholicism is nothing else but simply the legitimate growth\nand complement, that is, the natural and necessary development, of the\ndoctrine of the early church, and that its divine authority is included\nin the divinity of Christianity.\n\n\n2.\n\nSo far I have gone, but an important objection presents itself for\ndistinct consideration. It may be said in answer to me that it is not\nenough that a certain large system of doctrine, such as that which goes\nby the name of Catholic, should admit of being referred to beliefs,\nopinions, and usages which prevailed among the first Christians, in\norder to my having a logical right to include a reception of the later\nteaching in the reception of the earlier; that an intellectual\ndevelopment may be in one sense natural, and yet untrue to its original,\nas diseases come of nature, yet are the destruction, or rather the\nnegation of health; that the causes which stimulate the growth of ideas\nmay also disturb and deform them; and that Christianity might indeed\nhave been intended by its Divine Author for a wide expansion of the\nideas proper to it, and yet this great benefit hindered by the evil\nbirth of cognate errors which acted as its counterfeit; in a word, that\nwhat I have called developments in the Roman Church are nothing more or\nless than what used to be called her corruptions; and that new names do\nnot destroy old grievances.\n\nThis is what may be said, and I acknowledge its force: it becomes\nnecessary in consequence to assign certain characteristics of faithful\ndevelopments, which none but faithful developments have, and the\npresence of which serves as a test to discriminate between them and\ncorruptions. This I at once proceed to do, and I shall begin by\ndetermining what a corruption is, and why it cannot rightly be called,\nand how it differs from, a development.\n\n\n3.\n\nTo find then what a corruption or perversion of the truth is, let us\ninquire what the word means, when used literally of material substances.\nNow it is plain, first of all, that a corruption is a word attaching to\norganized matters only; a stone may be crushed to powder, but it cannot\nbe corrupted. Corruption, on the contrary, is the breaking up of life,\npreparatory to its termination. This resolution of a body into its\ncomponent parts is the stage before its dissolution; it begins when life\nhas reached its perfection, and it is the sequel, or rather the\ncontinuation, of that process towards perfection, being at the same time\nthe reversal and undoing of what went before. Till this point of\nregression is reached, the body has a function of its own, and a\ndirection and aim in its action, and a nature with laws; these it is now\nlosing, and the traits and tokens of former years; and with them its\nvigour and powers of nutrition, of assimilation, and of self-reparation.\n\n\n4.\n\nTaking this analogy as a guide, I venture to set down seven Notes of\nvarying cogency, independence and applicability, to discriminate healthy\ndevelopments of an idea from its state of corruption and decay, as\nfollows:--There is no corruption if it retains one and the same type,\nthe same principles, the same organization; if its beginnings anticipate\nits subsequent phases, and its later phenomena protect and subserve its\nearlier; if it has a power of assimilation and revival, and a vigorous\naction from first to last. On these tests I shall now enlarge, nearly in\nthe order in which I have enumerated them.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nFIRST NOTE OF A GENUINE DEVELOPMENT.\n\nPRESERVATION OF TYPE.\n\nThis is readily suggested by the analogy of physical growth, which is\nsuch that the parts and proportions of the developed form, however\naltered, correspond to those which belong to its rudiments. The adult\nanimal has the same make, as it had on its birth; young birds do not\ngrow into fishes, nor does the child degenerate into the brute, wild or\ndomestic, of which he is by inheritance lord. Vincentius of Lerins\nadopts this illustration in distinct reference to Christian doctrine.\n\"Let the soul's religion,\" he says \"imitate the law of the body, which,\nas years go on developes indeed and opens out its due proportions, and\nyet remains identically what it was. Small are a baby's limbs, a youth's\nare larger, yet they are the same.\"[172:1]\n\n\n2.\n\nIn like manner every calling or office has its own type, which those who\nfill it are bound to maintain; and to deviate from the type in any\nmaterial point is to relinquish the calling. Thus both Chaucer and\nGoldsmith have drawn pictures of a true parish priest; these differ in\ndetails, but on the whole they agree together, and are one in such\nsense, that sensuality, or ambition, must be considered a forfeiture of\nthat high title. Those magistrates, again, are called \"corrupt,\" who are\nguided in their judgments by love of lucre or respect of persons, for\nthe administration of justice is their essential function. Thus\ncollegiate or monastic bodies lose their claim to their endowments or\ntheir buildings, as being relaxed and degenerate, if they neglect their\nstatutes or their Rule. Thus, too, in political history, a mayor of the\npalace, such as he became in the person of Pepin, was no faithful\ndevelopment of the office he filled, as originally intended and\nestablished.\n\n\n3.\n\nIn like manner, it has been argued by a late writer, whether fairly or\nnot does not interfere with the illustration, that the miraculous vision\nand dream of the Labarum could not have really taken place, as reported\nby Eusebius, because it is counter to the original type of Christianity.\n\"For the first time,\" he says, on occasion of Constantine's introduction\nof the standard into his armies, \"the meek and peaceful Jesus became a\nGod of battle, and the Cross, the holy sign of Christian Redemption, a\nbanner of bloody strife. . . . . This was the first advance to the\nmilitary Christianity of the middle ages, a modification of the pure\nreligion of the Gospel, if directly opposed to its genuine principles,\nstill apparently indispensable to the social progress of men.\"[173:1]\n\nOn the other hand, a popular leader may go through a variety of\nprofessions, he may court parties and break with them, he may contradict\nhimself in words, and undo his own measures, yet there may be a steady\nfulfilment of certain objects, or adherence to certain plain doctrines,\nwhich gives a unity to his career, and impresses on beholders an image\nof directness and large consistency which shows a fidelity to his type\nfrom first to last.\n\n\n4.\n\nHowever, as the last instances suggest to us, this unity of type,\ncharacteristic as it is of faithful developments, must not be pressed to\nthe extent of denying all variation, nay, considerable alteration of\nproportion and relation, as time goes on, in the parts or aspects of an\nidea. Great changes in outward appearance and internal harmony occur in\nthe instance of the animal creation itself. The fledged bird differs\nmuch from its rudimental form in the egg. The butterfly is the\ndevelopment, but not in any sense the image, of the grub. The whale\nclaims a place among mammalia, though we might fancy that, as in the\nchild's game of catscradle, some strange introsusception had been\npermitted, to make it so like, yet so contrary, to the animals with\nwhich it is itself classed. And, in like manner, if beasts of prey were\nonce in paradise, and fed upon grass, they must have presented bodily\nphenomena very different from the structure of muscles, claws, teeth,\nand viscera which now fit them for a carnivorous existence. Eutychius,\nPatriarch of Constantinople, on his death-bed, grasped his own hand and\nsaid, \"I confess that in this flesh we shall all rise again;\" yet flesh\nand blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and a glorified body has\nattributes incompatible with its present condition on earth.\n\n\n5.\n\nMore subtle still and mysterious are the variations which are consistent\nor not inconsistent with identity in political and religious\ndevelopments. The Catholic doctrine of the Holy Trinity has ever been\naccused by heretics of interfering with that of the Divine Unity out of\nwhich it grew, and even believers will at first sight consider that it\ntends to obscure it. Yet Petavius says, \"I will affirm, what perhaps\nwill surprise the reader, that that distinction of Persons which, in\nregard to _proprietates_ is in reality most great, is so far from\ndisparaging the Unity and Simplicity of God that this very real\ndistinction especially avails for the doctrine that God is One and most\nSimple.\"[174:1]\n\nAgain, Arius asserted that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity was\nnot able to comprehend the First, whereas Eunomius's characteristic\ntenet was in an opposite direction, viz., that not only the Son, but\nthat all men could comprehend God; yet no one can doubt that Eunomianism\nwas a true development, not a corruption of Arianism.\n\nThe same man may run through various philosophies or beliefs, which are\nin themselves irreconcilable, without inconsistency, since in him they\nmay be nothing more than accidental instruments or expressions of what\nhe is inwardly from first to last. The political doctrines of the modern\nTory resemble those of the primitive Whig; yet few will deny that the\nWhig and Tory characters have each a discriminating type. Calvinism has\nchanged into Unitarianism: yet this need not be called a corruption,\neven if it be not, strictly speaking, a development; for Harding, in\ncontroversy with Jewell, surmised the coming change three centuries\nsince, and it has occurred not in one country, but in many.\n\n\n6.\n\nThe history of national character supplies an analogy, rather than an\ninstance strictly in point; yet there is so close a connexion between\nthe development of minds and of ideas that it is allowable to refer to\nit here. Thus we find England of old the most loyal supporter, and\nEngland of late the most jealous enemy, of the Holy See. As great a\nchange is exhibited in France, once the eldest born of the Church and\nthe flower of her knighthood, now democratic and lately infidel. Yet, in\nneither nation, can these great changes be well called corruptions.\n\nOr again, let us reflect on the ethical vicissitudes of the chosen\npeople. How different is their grovelling and cowardly temper on leaving\nEgypt from the chivalrous spirit, as it may be called, of the age of\nDavid, or, again, from the bloody fanaticism which braved Titus and\nHadrian! In what contrast is that impotence of mind which gave way at\nonce, and bowed the knee, at the very sight of a pagan idol, with the\nstern iconoclasm and bigoted nationality of later Judaism! How startling\nthe apparent absence of what would be called talent in this people\nduring their supernatural Dispensation, compared with the gifts of mind\nwhich various witnesses assign to them now!\n\n\n7.\n\nAnd, in like manner, ideas may remain, when the expression of them is\nindefinitely varied; and we cannot determine whether a professed\ndevelopment is truly such or not, without further knowledge than an\nexperience of the mere fact of this variation. Nor will our instinctive\nfeelings serve as a criterion. It must have been an extreme shock to St.\nPeter to be told he must slay and eat beasts, unclean as well as clean,\nthough such a command was implied already in that faith which he held\nand taught; a shock, which a single effort, or a short period, or the\nforce of reason would not suffice to overcome. Nay, it may happen that a\nrepresentation which varies from its original may be felt as more true\nand faithful than one which has more pretensions to be exact. So it is\nwith many a portrait which is not striking: at first look, of course, it\ndisappoints us; but when we are familiar with it, we see in it what we\ncould not see at first, and prefer it, not to a perfect likeness, but to\nmany a sketch which is so precise as to be a caricature.\n\n\n8.\n\nOn the other hand, real perversions and corruptions are often not so\nunlike externally to the doctrine from which they come, as are changes\nwhich are consistent with it and true developments. When Rome changed\nfrom a Republic to an Empire, it was a real alteration of polity, or\nwhat may be called a corruption; yet in appearance the change was small.\nThe old offices or functions of government remained: it was only that\nthe Imperator, or Commander in Chief, concentrated them in his own\nperson. Augustus was Consul and Tribune, Supreme Pontiff and Censor,\nand the Imperial rule was, in the words of Gibbon, \"an absolute monarchy\ndisguised by the forms of a commonwealth.\" On the other hand, when the\ndissimulation of Augustus was exchanged for the ostentation of\nDioclesian, the real alteration of constitution was trivial, but the\nappearance of change was great. Instead of plain Consul, Censor, and\nTribune, Dioclesian became Dominus or King, assumed the diadem, and\nthrew around him the forms of a court.\n\nNay, one cause of corruption in religion is the refusal to follow the\ncourse of doctrine as it moves on, and an obstinacy in the notions of\nthe past. Certainly: as we see conspicuously in the history of the\nchosen race. The Samaritans who refused to add the Prophets to the Law,\nand the Sadducees who denied a truth which was covertly taught in the\nBook of Exodus, were in appearance only faithful adherents to the\nprimitive doctrine. Our Lord found His people precisians in their\nobedience to the letter; He condemned them for not being led on to its\nspirit, that is, to its developments. The Gospel is the development of\nthe Law; yet what difference seems wider than that which separates the\nunbending rule of Moses from the \"grace and truth\" which \"came by Jesus\nChrist?\" Samuel had of old time fancied that the tall Eliab was the\nLord's anointed; and Jesse had thought David only fit for the sheepcote;\nand when the Great King came, He was \"as a root out of a dry ground;\"\nbut strength came out of weakness, and out of the strong sweetness.\n\nSo it is in the case of our friends; the most obsequious are not always\nthe truest, and seeming cruelty is often genuine affection. We know the\nconduct of the three daughters in the drama towards the old king. She\nwho had found her love \"more richer than her tongue,\" and could not\n\"heave her heart into her mouth,\" was in the event alone true to her\nfather.\n\n\n9.\n\nAn idea then does not always bear about it the same external image; this\ncircumstance, however, has no force to weaken the argument for its\nsubstantial identity, as drawn from its external sameness, when such\nsameness remains. On the contrary, for that very reason, _unity of type_\nbecomes so much the surer guarantee of the healthiness and soundness of\ndevelopments, when it is persistently preserved in spite of their number\nor importance.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nSECOND NOTE. CONTINUITY OF PRINCIPLES.\n\nAs in mathematical creations figures are formed on distinct formul\u00e6,\nwhich are the laws under which they are developed, so it is in ethical\nand political subjects. Doctrines expand variously according to the\nmind, individual or social, into which they are received; and the\npeculiarities of the recipient are the regulating power, the law, the\norganization, or, as it may be called, the form of the development. The\nlife of doctrines may be said to consist in the law or principle which\nthey embody.\n\nPrinciples are abstract and general, doctrines relate to facts;\ndoctrines develope, and principles at first sight do not; doctrines grow\nand are enlarged, principles are permanent; doctrines are intellectual,\nand principles are more immediately ethical and practical. Systems live\nin principles and represent doctrines. Personal responsibility is a\nprinciple, the Being of a God is a doctrine; from that doctrine all\ntheology has come in due course, whereas that principle is not clearer\nunder the Gospel than in paradise, and depends, not on belief in an\nAlmighty Governor, but on conscience.\n\nYet the difference between the two sometimes merely exists in our mode\nof viewing them; and what is a doctrine in one philosophy is a principle\nin another. Personal responsibility may be made a doctrinal basis, and\ndevelope into Arminianism or Pelagianism. Again, it may be discussed\nwhether infallibility is a principle or a doctrine of the Church of\nRome, and dogmatism a principle or doctrine of Christianity. Again,\nconsideration for the poor is a doctrine of the Church considered as a\nreligious body, and a principle when she is viewed as a political power.\n\nDoctrines stand to principles, as the definitions to the axioms and\npostulates of mathematics. Thus the 15th and 17th propositions of\nEuclid's book I. are developments, not of the three first axioms, which\nare required in the proof, but of the definition of a right angle.\nPerhaps the perplexity, which arises in the mind of a beginner, on\nlearning the early propositions of the second book, arises from these\nbeing more prominently exemplifications of axioms than developments of\ndefinitions. He looks for developments from the definition of the\nrectangle, and finds but various particular cases of the general truth,\nthat \"the whole is equal to its parts.\"\n\n\n2.\n\nIt might be expected that the Catholic principles would be later in\ndevelopment than the Catholic doctrines, inasmuch as they lie deeper in\nthe mind, and are assumptions rather than objective professions. This\nhas been the case. The Protestant controversy has mainly turned, or is\nturning, on one or other of the principles of Catholicity; and to this\nday the rule of Scripture Interpretation, the doctrine of Inspiration,\nthe relation of Faith to Reason, moral responsibility, private\njudgment, inherent grace, the seat of infallibility, remain, I suppose,\nmore or less undeveloped, or, at least, undefined, by the Church.\n\nDoctrines stand to principles, if it may be said without fancifulness,\nas fecundity viewed relatively to generation, though this analogy must\nnot be strained. Doctrines are developed by the operation of principles,\nand develope variously according to those principles. Thus a belief in\nthe transitiveness of worldly goods leads the Epicurean to enjoyment,\nand the ascetic to mortification; and, from their common doctrine of the\nsinfulness of matter, the Alexandrian Gnostics became sensualists, and\nthe Syrian devotees. The same philosophical elements, received into a\ncertain sensibility or insensibility to sin and its consequences, leads\none mind to the Church of Rome; another to what, for want of a better\nword, may be called Germanism.\n\nAgain, religious investigation sometimes is conducted on the principle\nthat it is a duty \"to follow and speak the truth,\" which really means\nthat it is no duty to fear error, or to consider what is safest, or to\nshrink from scattering doubts, or to regard the responsibility of\nmisleading; and thus it terminates in heresy or infidelity, without any\nblame to religious investigation in itself.\n\nAgain, to take a different subject, what constitutes a chief interest of\ndramatic compositions and tales, is to use external circumstances, which\nmay be considered their law of development, as a means of bringing out\ninto different shapes, and showing under new aspects, the personal\npeculiarities of character, according as either those circumstances or\nthose peculiarities vary in the case of the personages introduced.\n\n\n3.\n\nPrinciples are popularly said to develope when they are but exemplified;\nthus the various sects of Protestantism, unconnected as they are with\neach other, are called developments of the principle of Private\nJudgment, of which really they are but applications and results.\n\nA development, to be faithful, must retain both the doctrine and the\nprinciple with which it started. Doctrine without its correspondent\nprinciple remains barren, if not lifeless, of which the Greek Church\nseems an instance; or it forms those hollow professions which are\nfamiliarly called \"shams,\" as a zeal for an established Church and its\ncreed on merely conservative or temporal motives. Such, too, was the\nRoman Constitution between the reigns of Augustus and Dioclesian.\n\nOn the other hand, principle without its corresponding doctrine may be\nconsidered as the state of religious minds in the heathen world, viewed\nrelatively to Revelation; that is, of the \"children of God who are\nscattered abroad.\"\n\nPagans may have, heretics cannot have, the same principles as Catholics;\nif the latter have the same, they are not real heretics, but in\nignorance. Principle is a better test of heresy than doctrine. Heretics\nare true to their principles, but change to and fro, backwards and\nforwards, in opinion; for very opposite doctrines may be\nexemplifications of the same principle. Thus the Antiochenes and other\nheretics sometimes were Arians, sometimes Sabellians, sometimes\nNestorians, sometimes Monophysites, as if at random, from fidelity to\ntheir common principle, that there is no mystery in theology. Thus\nCalvinists become Unitarians from the principle of private judgment. The\ndoctrines of heresy are accidents and soon run to an end; its principles\nare everlasting.\n\nThis, too, is often the solution of the paradox \"Extremes meet,\" and of\nthe startling reactions which take place in individuals; viz., the\npresence of some one principle or condition, which is dominant in their\nminds from first to last. If one of two contradictory alternatives be\nnecessarily true on a certain hypothesis, then the denial of the one\nleads, by mere logical consistency and without direct reasons, to a\nreception of the other. Thus the question between the Church of Rome and\nProtestantism falls in some minds into the proposition, \"Rome is either\nthe pillar and ground of the Truth, or she is Antichrist;\" in\nproportion, then, as they revolt from considering her the latter are\nthey compelled to receive her as the former. Hence, too, men may pass\nfrom infidelity to Rome, and from Rome to infidelity, from a conviction\nin both courses that there is no tangible intellectual position between\nthe two.\n\nProtestantism, viewed in its more Catholic aspect, is doctrine without\nactive principle; viewed in its heretical, it is active principle\nwithout doctrine. Many of its speakers, for instance, use eloquent and\nglowing language about the Church and its characteristics: some of them\ndo not realize what they say, but use high words and general statements\nabout \"the faith,\" and \"primitive truth,\" and \"schism,\" and \"heresy,\" to\nwhich they attach no definite meaning; while others speak of \"unity,\"\n\"universality,\" and \"Catholicity,\" and use the words in their own sense\nand for their own ideas.\n\n\n4.\n\nThe science of grammar affords another instance of the existence of\nspecial laws in the formation of systems. Some languages have more\nelasticity than others, and greater capabilities; and the difficulty of\nexplaining the fact cannot lead us to doubt it. There are languages, for\ninstance, which have a capacity for compound words, which, we cannot\ntell why, is in matter of fact denied to others. We feel the presence of\na certain character or genius in each, which determines its path and its\nrange; and to discover and enter into it is one part of refined\nscholarship. And when particular writers, in consequence perhaps of\nsome theory, tax a language beyond its powers, the failure is\nconspicuous. Very subtle, too, and difficult to draw out, are the\nprinciples on which depends the formation of proper names in a\nparticular people. In works of fiction, names or titles, significant or\nludicrous, must be invented for the characters introduced; and some\nauthors excel in their fabrication, while others are equally\nunfortunate. Foreign novels, perhaps, attempt to frame English surnames,\nand signally fail; yet what every one feels to be the case, no one can\nanalyze: that is, our surnames are constructed on a law which is only\nexhibited in particular instances, and which rules their formation on\ncertain, though subtle, determinations.\n\nAnd so in philosophy, the systems of physics or morals, which go by\ncelebrated names, proceed upon the assumption of certain conditions\nwhich are necessary for every stage of their development. The Newtonian\ntheory of gravitation is based on certain axioms; for instance, that the\nfewest causes assignable for phenomena are the true ones: and the\napplication of science to practical purposes depends upon the hypothesis\nthat what happens to-day will happen to-morrow.\n\nAnd so in military matters, the discovery of gunpowder developed the\nscience of attack and defence in a new instrumentality. Again, it is\nsaid that when Napoleon began his career of victories, the enemy's\ngenerals pronounced that his battles were fought against rule, and that\nhe ought not to be victorious.\n\n\n5.\n\nSo states have their respective policies, on which they move forward,\nand which are the conditions of their well-being. Thus it is sometimes\nsaid that the true policy of the American Union, or the law of its\nprosperity, is not the enlargement of its territory, but the\ncultivation of its internal resources. Thus Russia is said to be weak in\nattack, strong in defence, and to grow, not by the sword, but by\ndiplomacy. Thus Islamism is said to be the form or life of the Ottoman,\nand Protestantism of the British Empire, and the admission of European\nideas into the one, or of Catholic ideas into the other, to be the\ndestruction of the respective conditions of their power. Thus Augustus\nand Tiberius governed by dissimulation; thus Pericles in his \"Funeral\nOration\" draws out the principles of the Athenian commonwealth, viz.,\nthat it is carried on, not by formal and severe enactments, but by the\nethical character and spontaneous energy of the people.\n\nThe political principles of Christianity, if it be right to use such\nwords of a divine polity, are laid down for us in the Sermon on the\nMount. Contrariwise to other empires, Christians conquer by yielding;\nthey gain influence by shrinking from it; they possess the earth by\nrenouncing it. Gibbon speaks of \"the vices of the clergy\" as being \"to a\nphilosophic eye far less dangerous than their virtues.\"[184:1]\n\nAgain, as to Judaism, it may be asked on what law it developed; that is,\nwhether Mahometanism may not be considered as a sort of Judaism, as\nformed by the presence of a different class of influences. In this\ncontrast between them, perhaps it may be said that the expectation of a\nMessiah was the principle or law which expanded the elements, almost\ncommon to Judaism with Mahometanism, into their respective\ncharacteristic shapes.\n\nOne of the points of discipline to which Wesley attached most importance\nwas that of preaching early in the morning. This was his principle. In\nGeorgia, he began preaching at five o'clock every day, winter and\nsummer. \"Early preaching,\" he said, \"is the glory of the Methodists;\nwhenever this is dropt, they will dwindle away into nothing, they have\nlost their first love, they are a fallen people.\"\n\n\n6.\n\nNow, these instances show, as has been incidentally observed of some of\nthem, that the destruction of the special laws or principles of a\ndevelopment is its corruption. Thus, as to nations, when we talk of the\nspirit of a people being lost, we do not mean that this or that act has\nbeen committed, or measure carried, but that certain lines of thought or\nconduct by which it has grown great are abandoned. Thus the Roman Poets\nconsider their State in course of ruin because its _prisci mores_ and\n_pietas_ were failing. And so we speak of countries or persons as being\nin a false position, when they take up a course of policy, or assume a\nprofession, inconsistent with their natural interests or real character.\nJudaism, again, was rejected when it rejected the Messiah.\n\nThus the _continuity or the alteration of the principles_ on which an\nidea has developed is a second mark of discrimination between a true\ndevelopment and a corruption.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\nTHIRD NOTE. POWER OF ASSIMILATION.\n\nIn the physical world, whatever has life is characterized by growth, so\nthat in no respect to grow is to cease to live. It grows by taking into\nits own substance external materials; and this absorption or\nassimilation is completed when the materials appropriated come to belong\nto it or enter into its unity. Two things cannot become one, except\nthere be a power of assimilation in one or the other. Sometimes\nassimilation is effected only with an effort; it is possible to die of\nrepletion, and there are animals who lie torpid for a time under the\ncontest between the foreign substance and the assimilating power. And\ndifferent food is proper for different recipients.\n\nThis analogy may be taken to illustrate certain peculiarities in the\ngrowth or development in ideas, which were noticed in the first Chapter.\nIt is otherwise with mathematical and other abstract creations, which,\nlike the soul itself, are solitary and self-dependent; but doctrines and\nviews which relate to man are not placed in a void, but in the crowded\nworld, and make way for themselves by interpenetration, and develope by\nabsorption. Facts and opinions, which have hitherto been regarded in\nother relations and grouped round other centres, henceforth are\ngradually attracted to a new influence and subjected to a new sovereign.\nThey are modified, laid down afresh, thrust aside, as the case may be. A\nnew element of order and composition has come among them; and its life\nis proved by this capacity of expansion, without disarrangement or\ndissolution. An eclectic, conservative, assimilating, healing, moulding\nprocess, a unitive power, is of the essence, and a third test, of a\nfaithful development.\n\n\n2.\n\nThus, a power of development is a proof of life, not only in its essay,\nbut especially in its success; for a mere formula either does not expand\nor is shattered in expanding. A living idea becomes many, yet remains\none.\n\nThe attempt at development shows the presence of a principle, and its\nsuccess the presence of an idea. Principles stimulate thought, and an\nidea concentrates it.\n\nThe idea never was that throve and lasted, yet, like mathematical truth,\nincorporated nothing from external sources. So far from the fact of such\nincorporation implying corruption, as is sometimes supposed, development\nis a process of incorporation. Mahometanism may be in external\ndevelopments scarcely more than a compound of other theologies, yet no\none would deny that there has been a living idea somewhere in a\nreligion, which has been so strong, so wide, so lasting a bond of union\nin the history of the world. Why it has not continued to develope after\nits first preaching, if this be the case, as it seems to be, cannot be\ndetermined without a greater knowledge of that religion, and how far it\nis merely political, how far theological, than we commonly possess.\n\n\n3.\n\nIn Christianity, opinion, while a raw material, is called philosophy or\nscholasticism; when a rejected refuse, it is called heresy.\n\nIdeas are more open to an external bias in their commencement than\nafterwards; hence the great majority of writers who consider the\nMedieval Church corrupt, trace its corruption to the first four\ncenturies, not to what are called the dark ages.\n\nThat an idea more readily coalesces with these ideas than with those\ndoes not show that it has been unduly influenced, that is, corrupted by\nthem, but that it has an antecedent affinity to them. At least it shall\nbe assumed here that, when the Gospels speak of virtue going out of our\nLord, and of His healing with the clay which His lips had moistened,\nthey afford instances, not of a perversion of Christianity, but of\naffinity to notions which were external to it; and that St. Paul was not\nbiassed by Orientalism, though he said, after the manner of some Eastern\nsects, that it was \"excellent not to touch a woman.\"\n\n\n4.\n\nThus in politics, too, ideas are sometimes proposed, discussed,\nrejected, or adopted, as it may happen, and sometimes they are shown to\nbe unmeaning and impossible; sometimes they are true, but partially so,\nor in subordination to other ideas, with which, in consequence, they are\nas wholes or in part incorporated, as far as these have affinities to\nthem, the power to incorporate being thus recognized as a property of\nlife. Mr. Bentham's system was an attempt to make the circle of legal\nand moral truths developments of certain principles of his own;--those\nprinciples of his may, if it so happen, prove unequal to the weight of\ntruths which are eternal, and the system founded on them may break into\npieces; or again, a State may absorb certain of them, for which it has\naffinity, that is, it may develope in Benthamism, yet remain in\nsubstance what it was before. In the history of the French Revolution we\nread of many middle parties, who attempted to form theories of\nconstitutions short of those which they would call extreme, and\nsuccessively failed from the want of power or reality in their\ncharacteristic ideas. The Semi-arians attempted a middle way between\northodoxy and heresy, but could not stand their ground; at length part\nfell into Macedonianism, and part joined the Church.\n\n\n5.\n\nThe stronger and more living is an idea, that is, the more powerful hold\nit exercises on the minds of men, the more able is it to dispense with\nsafeguards, and trust to itself against the danger of corruption. As\nstrong frames exult in their agility, and healthy constitutions throw\noff ailments, so parties or schools that live can afford to be rash, and\nwill sometimes be betrayed into extravagances, yet are brought right by\ntheir inherent vigour. On the other hand, unreal systems are commonly\ndecent externally. Forms, subscriptions, or Articles of religion are\nindispensable when the principle of life is weakly. Thus Presbyterianism\nhas maintained its original theology in Scotland where legal\nsubscriptions are enforced, while it has run into Arianism or\nUnitarianism where that protection is away. We have yet to see whether\nthe Free Kirk can keep its present theological ground. The Church of\nRome can consult expedience more freely than other bodies, as trusting\nto her living tradition, and is sometimes thought to disregard principle\nand scruple, when she is but dispensing with forms. Thus Saints are\noften characterized by acts which are no pattern for others; and the\nmost gifted men are, by reason of their very gifts, sometimes led into\nfatal inadvertences. Hence vows are the wise defence of unstable virtue,\nand general rules the refuge of feeble authority.\n\nAnd so much may suffice on the _unitive power_ of faithful developments,\nwhich constitutes their third characteristic.\n\n\nSECTION IV.\n\nFOURTH NOTE. LOGICAL SEQUENCE.\n\nLogic is the organization of thought, and, as being such, is a security\nfor the faithfulness of intellectual developments; and the necessity of\nusing it is undeniable as far as this, that its rules must not be\ntransgressed. That it is not brought into exercise in every instance of\ndoctrinal development is owing to the varieties of mental constitution,\nwhether in communities or in individuals, with whom great truths or\nseeming truths are lodged. The question indeed may be asked whether a\ndevelopment can be other in any case than a logical operation; but, if\nby this is meant a conscious reasoning from premisses to conclusion, of\ncourse the answer must be in the negative. An idea under one or other\nof its aspects grows in the mind by remaining there; it becomes familiar\nand distinct, and is viewed in its relations; it leads to other aspects,\nand these again to others, subtle, recondite, original, according to the\ncharacter, intellectual and moral, of the recipient; and thus a body of\nthought is gradually formed without his recognizing what is going on\nwithin him. And all this while, or at least from time to time, external\ncircumstances elicit into formal statement the thoughts which are coming\ninto being in the depths of his mind; and soon he has to begin to defend\nthem; and then again a further process must take place, of analyzing his\nstatements and ascertaining their dependence one on another. And thus he\nis led to regard as consequences, and to trace to principles, what\nhitherto he has discerned by a moral perception, and adopted on\nsympathy; and logic is brought in to arrange and inculcate what no\nscience was employed in gaining.\n\nAnd so in the same way, such intellectual processes, as are carried on\nsilently and spontaneously in the mind of a party or school, of\nnecessity come to light at a later date, and are recognized, and their\nissues are scientifically arranged. And then logic has the further\nfunction of propagation; analogy, the nature of the case, antecedent\nprobability, application of principles, congruity, expedience, being\nsome of the methods of proof by which the development is continued from\nmind to mind and established in the faith of the community.\n\nYet even then the analysis is not made on a principle, or with any view\nto its whole course and finished results. Each argument is brought for\nan immediate purpose; minds develope step by step, without looking\nbehind them or anticipating their goal, and without either intention or\npromise of forming a system. Afterwards, however, this logical character\nwhich the whole wears becomes a test that the process has been a true\ndevelopment, not a perversion or corruption, from its evident\nnaturalness; and in some cases from the gravity, distinctness,\nprecision, and majesty of its advance, and the harmony of its\nproportions, like the tall growth, and graceful branching, and rich\nfoliage, of some vegetable production.\n\n\n2.\n\nThe process of development, thus capable of a logical expression, has\nsometimes been invidiously spoken of as rationalism and contrasted with\nfaith. But, though a particular doctrine or opinion which is subjected\nto development may happen to be rationalistic, and, as is the original,\nsuch are its results: and though we may develope erroneously, that is,\nreason incorrectly, yet the developing itself as little deserves that\nimputation in any case, as an inquiry into an historical fact, which we\ndo not thereby make but ascertain,--for instance, whether or not St.\nMark wrote his Gospel with St. Matthew before him, or whether Solomon\nbrought his merchandise from Tartessus or some Indian port. Rationalism\nis the exercise of reason instead of faith in matters of faith; but one\ndoes not see how it can be faith to adopt the premisses, and unbelief to\naccept the conclusion.\n\nAt the same time it may be granted that the spontaneous process which\ngoes on within the mind itself is higher and choicer than that which is\nlogical; for the latter, being scientific, is common property, and can\nbe taken and made use of by minds who are personally strangers, in any\ntrue sense, both to the ideas in question and to their development.\n\n\n3.\n\nThus, the holy Apostles would without words know all the truths\nconcerning the high doctrines of theology, which controversialists\nafter them have piously and charitably reduced to formul\u00e6, and developed\nthrough argument. Thus, St. Justin or St. Iren\u00e6us might be without any\ndigested ideas of Purgatory or Original Sin, yet have an intense\nfeeling, which they had not defined or located, both of the fault of our\nfirst nature and the responsibilities of our nature regenerate. Thus St.\nAntony said to the philosophers who came to mock him, \"He whose mind is\nin health does not need letters;\" and St. Ignatius Loyola, while yet an\nunlearned neophyte, was favoured with transcendent perceptions of the\nHoly Trinity during his penance at Manresa. Thus St. Athanasius himself\nis more powerful in statement and exposition than in proof; while in\nBellarmine we find the whole series of doctrines carefully drawn out,\nduly adjusted with one another, and exactly analyzed one by one.\n\nThe history of empires and of public men supplies so many instances of\nlogical development in the field of politics, that it is needless to do\nmore than to refer to one of them. It is illustrated by the words of\nJeroboam, \"Now shall this kingdom return to the house of David, if this\npeople go up to do sacrifice in the house of the Lord at Jerusalem. . .\nWherefore the king took counsel and made two calves of gold, and said\nunto them, Behold thy gods, O Israel.\" Idolatry was a duty of kingcraft\nwith the schismatical kingdom.\n\n\n4.\n\nA specimen of logical development is afforded us in the history of\nLutheranism as it has of late years been drawn out by various English\nwriters. Luther started on a double basis, his dogmatic principle being\ncontradicted by his right of private judgment, and his sacramental by\nhis theory of justification. The sacramental element never showed signs\nof life; but on his death, that which he represented in his own person\nas a teacher, the dogmatic, gained the ascendancy; and \"every expression\nof his upon controverted points became a norm for the party, which, at\nall times the largest, was at last coextensive with the Church itself.\nThis almost idolatrous veneration was perhaps increased by the selection\nof declarations of faith, of which the substance on the whole was his,\nfor the symbolical books of his Church.\"[193:1] Next a reaction took\nplace; private judgment was restored to the supremacy. Calixtus put\nreason, and Spener the so-called religion of the heart, in the place of\ndogmatic correctness. Pietism for the time died away; but rationalism\ndeveloped in Wolf, who professed to prove all the orthodox doctrines, by\na process of reasoning, from premisses level with the reason. It was\nsoon found that the instrument which Wolf had used for orthodoxy, could\nas plausibly be used against it;--in his hands it had proved the Creed;\nin the hands of Semler, Ernesti, and others, it disproved the authority\nof Scripture. What was religion to be made to consist in now? A sort of\nphilosophical Pietism followed; or rather Spener's pietism and the\noriginal theory of justification were analyzed more thoroughly, and\nissued in various theories of Pantheism, which from the first was at the\nbottom of Luther's doctrine and personal character. And this appears to\nbe the state of Lutheranism at present, whether we view it in the\nphilosophy of Kant, in the open infidelity of Strauss, or in the\nreligious professions of the new Evangelical Church of Prussia. Applying\nthis instance to the subject which it has been here brought to\nillustrate, I should say that the equable and orderly march and natural\nsuccession of views, by which the creed of Luther has been changed into\nthe infidel or heretical philosophy of his present representatives, is a\nproof that that change is no perversion or corruption, but a faithful\ndevelopment of the original idea.\n\n\n5.\n\nThis is but one out of many instances with which the history of the\nChurch supplies us. The fortunes of a theological school are made, in a\nlater generation, the measure of the teaching of its founder. The great\nOrigen after his many labours died in peace; his immediate pupils were\nsaints and rulers in the Church; he has the praise of St. Athanasius,\nSt. Basil, and St. Gregory Nazianzen, and furnishes materials to St.\nAmbrose and St. Hilary; yet, as time proceeded, a definite heterodoxy\nwas the growing result of his theology, and at length, three hundred\nyears after his death, he was condemned, and, as has generally been\nconsidered, in an Ecumenical Council.[194:1] \"Diodorus of Tarsus,\" says\nTillemont, \"died at an advanced age, in the peace of the Church,\nhonoured by the praises of the greatest saints, and crowned with a\nglory, which, having ever attended him through life, followed him after\nhis death;\"[194:2] yet St. Cyril of Alexandria considers him and\nTheodore of Mopsuestia the true authors of Nestorianism, and he was\nplaced in the event by the Nestorians among their saints. Theodore\nhimself was condemned after his death by the same Council which is said\nto have condemned Origen, and is justly considered the chief\nrationalizing doctor of Antiquity; yet he was in the highest repute in\nhis day, and the Eastern Synod complains, as quoted by Facundus, that\n\"Blessed Theodore, who died so happily, who was so eminent a teacher for\nfive and forty years, and overthrew every heresy, and in his lifetime\nexperienced no imputation from the orthodox, now after his death so\nlong ago, after his many conflicts, after his ten thousand books\ncomposed in refutation of errors, after his approval in the sight of\npriests, emperors, and people, runs the risk of receiving the reward of\nheretics, and of being called their chief.\"[195:1] There is a certain\ncontinuous advance and determinate path which belong to the history of a\ndoctrine, policy, or institution, and which impress upon the common\nsense of mankind, that what it ultimately becomes is the issue of what\nit was at first. This sentiment is expressed in the proverb, not limited\nto Latin, _Exitus acta probat_; and is sanctioned by Divine wisdom,\nwhen, warning us against false prophets, it says, \"Ye shall know them by\ntheir fruits.\"\n\nA doctrine, then, professed in its mature years by a philosophy or\nreligion, is likely to be a true development, not a corruption, in\nproportion as it seems to be the _logical issue_ of its original\nteaching.\n\n\nSECTION V.\n\nFIFTH NOTE. ANTICIPATION OF ITS FUTURE.\n\nSince, when an idea is living, that is, influential and effective, it is\nsure to develope according to its own nature, and the tendencies, which\nare carried out on the long run, may under favourable circumstances show\nthemselves early as well as late, and logic is the same in all ages,\ninstances of a development which is to come, though vague and isolated,\nmay occur from the very first, though a lapse of time be necessary to\nbring them to perfection. And since developments are in great measure\nonly aspects of the idea from which they proceed, and all of them are\nnatural consequences of it, it is often a matter of accident in what\norder they are carried out in individual minds; and it is in no wise\nstrange that here and there definite specimens of advanced teaching\nshould very early occur, which in the historical course are not found\ntill a late day. The fact, then, of such early or recurring intimations\nof tendencies which afterwards are fully realized, is a sort of evidence\nthat those later and more systematic fulfilments are only in accordance\nwith the original idea.\n\n\n2.\n\nNothing is more common, for instance, than accounts or legends of the\nanticipations, which great men have given in boyhood of the bent of\ntheir minds, as afterwards displayed in their history; so much so that\nthe popular expectation has sometimes led to the invention of them. The\nchild Cyrus mimics a despot's power, and St. Athanasius is elected\nBishop by his playfellows.\n\nIt is noticeable that in the eleventh century, when the Russians were\nbut pirates upon the Black Sea, Constantinople was their aim; and that a\nprophesy was in circulation in that city that they should one day gain\npossession of it.\n\nIn the reign of James the First, we have an observable anticipation of\nthe system of influence in the management of political parties, which\nwas developed by Sir R. Walpole a century afterwards. This attempt is\ntraced by a living writer to the ingenuity of Lord Bacon. \"He submitted\nto the King that there were expedients for more judiciously managing a\nHouse of Commons; . . that much might be done by forethought towards\nfilling the House with well-affected persons, winning or blinding the\nlawyers . . and drawing the chief constituent bodies of the assembly,\nthe country gentlemen, the merchants, the courtiers, to act for the\nKing's advantage; that it would be expedient to tender voluntarily\ncertain graces and modifications of the King's prerogative,\" &c.[197:1]\nThe writer adds, \"This circumstance, like several others in the present\nreign, is curious, as it shows the rise of a systematic parliamentary\ninfluence, which was one day to become the mainspring of government.\"\n\n\n3.\n\nArcesilas and Carneades, the founders of the later Academy, are known to\nhave innovated on the Platonic doctrine by inculcating a universal\nscepticism; and they did this, as if on the authority of Socrates, who\nhad adopted the method of _ironia_ against the Sophists, on their\nprofessing to know everything. This, of course, was an insufficient\nplea. However, could it be shown that Socrates did on one or two\noccasions evidence deliberate doubts on the great principles of theism\nor morals, would any one deny that the innovation in question had\ngrounds for being considered a true development, not a corruption?\n\nIt is certain that, in the idea of Monachism, prevalent in ancient\ntimes, manual labour had a more prominent place than study; so much so\nthat De Ranc\u00e9, the celebrated Abbot of La Trappe, in controversy with\nMabillon, maintained his ground with great plausibility against the\nlatter's apology for the literary occupations for which the Benedictines\nof France are so famous. Nor can it be denied that the labours of such\nas Mabillon and Montfaucon are at least a development upon the\nsimplicity of the primitive institution. And yet it is remarkable that\nSt. Pachomius, the first author of a monastic rule, enjoined a library\nin each of his houses, and appointed conferences and disputations three\ntimes a week on religious subjects, interpretation of Scripture, or\npoints of theology. St. Basil, the founder of Monachism in Pontus, one\nof the most learned of the Greek Fathers, wrote his theological\ntreatises in the intervals of agricultural labour. St. Jerome, the\nauthor of the Latin versions of Scripture, lived as a poor monk in a\ncell at Bethlehem. These, indeed, were but exceptions in the character\nof early Monachism; but they suggest its capabilities and anticipate its\nhistory. Literature is certainly not inconsistent with its idea.\n\n\n4.\n\nIn the controversies with the Gnostics, in the second century, striking\nanticipations occasionally occur, in the works of their Catholic\nopponents, of the formal dogmatic teaching developed in the Church in\nthe course of the Nestorian and Monophysite controversies in the fifth.\nOn the other hand, Paul of Samosata, one of the first disciples of the\nSyrian school of theology, taught a heresy sufficiently like\nNestorianism, in which that school terminated, to be mistaken for it in\nlater times; yet for a long while after him the characteristic of the\nschool was Arianism, an opposite heresy.\n\nLutheranism has by this time become in most places almost simple heresy\nor infidelity; it has terminated, if it has even yet reached its limit,\nin a denial both of the Canon and the Creed, nay, of many principles of\nmorals. Accordingly the question arises, whether these conclusions are\nin fairness to be connected with its original teaching or are a\ncorruption. And it is no little aid towards its resolution to find that\nLuther himself at one time rejected the Apocalypse, called the Epistle\nof St. James \"straminea,\" condemned the word \"Trinity,\" fell into a kind\nof Eutychianism in his view of the Holy Eucharist, and in a particular\ncase sanctioned bigamy. Calvinism, again, in various distinct countries,\nhas become Socinianism, and Calvin himself seems to have denied our\nLord's Eternal Sonship and ridiculed the Nicene Creed.\n\nAnother evidence, then, of the faithfulness of an ultimate development\nis its _definite anticipation_ at an early period in the history of the\nidea to which it belongs.\n\n\nSECTION VI.\n\nSIXTH NOTE. CONSERVATIVE ACTION UPON ITS PAST.\n\nAs developments which are preceded by definite indications have a fair\npresumption in their favour, so those which do but contradict and\nreverse the course of doctrine which has been developed before them, and\nout of which they spring, are certainly corrupt; for a corruption is a\ndevelopment in that very stage in which it ceases to illustrate, and\nbegins to disturb, the acquisitions gained in its previous history.\n\nIt is the rule of creation, or rather of the phenomena which it\npresents, that life passes on to its termination by a gradual,\nimperceptible course of change. There is ever a maximum in earthly\nexcellence, and the operation of the same causes which made things great\nmakes them small again. Weakness is but the resulting product of power.\nEvents move in cycles; all things come round, \"the sun ariseth and goeth\ndown, and hasteth to his place where he arose.\" Flowers first bloom, and\nthen fade; fruit ripens and decays. The fermenting process, unless\nstopped at the due point, corrupts the liquor which it has created. The\ngrace of spring, the richness of autumn are but for a moment, and\nworldly moralists bid us _Carpe diem_, for we shall have no second\nopportunity. Virtue seems to lie in a mean, between vice and vice; and\nas it grew out of imperfection, so to grow into enormity. There is a\nlimit to human knowledge, and both sacred and profane writers witness\nthat overwisdom is folly. And in the political world states rise and\nfall, the instruments of their aggrandizement becoming the weapons of\ntheir destruction. And hence the frequent ethical maxims, such as, \"_Ne\nquid nimis_,\" \"_Medio tutissimus_,\" \"Vaulting ambition,\" which seem to\nimply that too much of what is good is evil.\n\nSo great a paradox of course cannot be maintained as that truth\nliterally leads to falsehood, or that there can be an excess of virtue;\nbut the appearance of things and the popular language about them will at\nleast serve us in obtaining an additional test for the discrimination of\na _bon\u00e2 fide_ development of an idea from its corruption.\n\nA true development, then, may be described as one which is conservative\nof the course of antecedent developments being really those antecedents\nand something besides them: it is an addition which illustrates, not\nobscures, corroborates, not corrects, the body of thought from which it\nproceeds; and this is its characteristic as contrasted with a\ncorruption.\n\n\n2.\n\nFor instance, a gradual conversion from a false to a true religion,\nplainly, has much of the character of a continuous process, or a\ndevelopment, in the mind itself, even when the two religions, which are\nthe limits of its course, are antagonists. Now let it be observed, that\nsuch a change consists in addition and increase chiefly, not in\ndestruction. \"True religion is the summit and perfection of false\nreligions; it combines in one whatever there is of good and true\nseparately remaining in each. And in like manner the Catholic Creed is\nfor the most part the combination of separate truths, which heretics\nhave divided among themselves, and err in dividing. So that, in matter\nof fact, if a religious mind were educated in and sincerely attached to\nsome form of heathenism or heresy, and then were brought under the light\nof truth, it would be drawn off from error into the truth, not by losing\nwhat it had, but by gaining what it had not, not by being unclothed, but\nby being 'clothed upon,' 'that mortality may be swallowed up of life.'\nThat same principle of faith which attaches it at first to the wrong\ndoctrine would attach it to the truth; and that portion of its original\ndoctrine, which was to be cast off as absolutely false, would not be\ndirectly rejected, but indirectly, _in_ the reception of the truth which\nis its opposite. True conversion is ever of a positive, not a negative\ncharacter.\"[201:1]\n\nSuch too is the theory of the Fathers as regards the doctrines fixed by\nCouncils, as is instanced in the language of St. Leo. \"To be seeking for\nwhat has been disclosed, to reconsider what has been finished, to tear\nup what has been laid down, what is this but to be unthankful for what\nis gained?\"[201:2] Vincentius of Lerins, in like manner, speaks of the\ndevelopment of Christian doctrine, as _profectus fidei non\npermutatio_.[201:3] And so as regards the Jewish Law, our Lord said that\nHe came \"not to destroy, but to fulfil.\"\n\n\n3.\n\nMahomet is accused of contradicting his earlier revelations by his\nlater, \"which is a thing so well known to those of his sect that they\nall acknowledge it; and therefore when the contradictions are such as\nthey cannot solve them, then they will have one of the contradictory\nplaces to be revoked. And they reckon in the whole Alcoran about a\nhundred and fifty verses which are thus revoked.\"[201:4]\n\nSchelling, says Mr. Dewar, considers \"that the time has arrived when an\nesoteric speculative Christianity ought to take the place of the\nexoteric empiricism which has hitherto prevailed.\" This German\nphilosopher \"acknowledges that such a project is opposed to the evident\ndesign of the Church, and of her earliest teachers.\"[202:1]\n\n\n4.\n\nWhen Roman Catholics are accused of substituting another Gospel for the\nprimitive Creed, they answer that they hold, and can show that they\nhold, the doctrines of the Incarnation and Atonement, as firmly as any\nProtestant can state them. To this it is replied that they do certainly\nprofess them, but that they obscure and virtually annul them by their\nadditions; that the _cultus_ of St. Mary and the Saints is no\ndevelopment of the truth, but a corruption and a religious mischief to\nthose doctrines of which it is the corruption, because it draws away the\nmind and heart from Christ. But they answer that, so far from this, it\nsubserves, illustrates, protects the doctrine of our Lord's loving\nkindness and mediation. Thus the parties in controversy join issue on\nthe common ground, that a developed doctrine which reverses the course\nof development which has preceded it, is no true development but a\ncorruption; also, that what is corrupt acts as an element of\nunhealthiness towards what is sound. This subject, however, will come\nbefore us in its proper place by and by.\n\n\n5.\n\nBlackstone supplies us with an instance in another subject-matter, of a\ndevelopment which is justified by its utility, when he observes that\n\"when society is once formed, government results of course, as necessary\nto preserve and to keep that society in order.\"[202:2]\n\nOn the contrary, when the Long Parliament proceeded to usurp the\nexecutive, they impaired the popular liberties which they seemed to be\nadvancing; for the security of those liberties depends on the separation\nof the executive and legislative powers, or on the enactors being\nsubjects, not executors of the laws.\n\nAnd in the history of ancient Rome, from the time that the privileges\ngained by the tribunes in behalf of the people became an object of\nambition to themselves, the development had changed into a corruption.\n\nAnd thus a sixth test of a true development is that it is of a _tendency\nconservative_ of what has gone before it.\n\n\nSECTION VII.\n\nSEVENTH NOTE. CHRONIC VIGOUR.\n\nSince the corruption of an idea, as far as the appearance goes, is a\nsort of accident or affection of its development, being the end of a\ncourse, and a transition-state leading to a crisis, it is, as has been\nobserved above, a brief and rapid process. While ideas live in men's\nminds, they are ever enlarging into fuller development: they will not be\nstationary in their corruption any more than before it; and dissolution\nis that further state to which corruption tends. Corruption cannot,\ntherefore, be of long standing; and thus _duration_ is another test of a\nfaithful development.\n\n_Si gravis, brevis; si longus, levis_; is the Stoical topic of\nconsolation under pain; and of a number of disorders it can even be\nsaid, The worse, the shorter.\n\nSober men are indisposed to change in civil matters, and fear reforms\nand innovations, lest, if they go a little too far, they should at once\nrun on to some great calamities before a remedy can be applied. The\nchance of a slow corruption does not strike them. Revolutions are\ngenerally violent and swift; now, in fact, they are the course of a\ncorruption.\n\n\n2.\n\nThe course of heresies is always short; it is an intermediate state\nbetween life and death, or what is like death; or, if it does not result\nin death, it is resolved into some new, perhaps opposite, course of\nerror, which lays no claim to be connected with it. And in this way\nindeed, but in this way only, an heretical principle will continue in\nlife many years, first running one way, then another.\n\nThe abounding of iniquity is the token of the end approaching; the\nfaithful in consequence cry out, How long? as if delay opposed reason as\nwell as patience. Three years and a half are to complete the reign of\nAntichrist.\n\nNor is it any real objection that the world is ever corrupt, and yet, in\nspite of this, evil does not fill up its measure and overflow; for this\narises from the external counteractions of truth and virtue, which bear\nit back; let the Church be removed, and the world will soon come to its\nend.\n\nAnd so again, if the chosen people age after age became worse and worse,\ntill there was no recovery, still their course of evil was continually\nbroken by reformations, and was thrown back upon a less advanced stage\nof declension.\n\n\n3.\n\nIt is true that decay, which is one form of corruption, is slow; but\ndecay is a state in which there is no violent or vigorous action at all,\nwhether of a conservative or a destructive character, the hostile\ninfluence being powerful enough to enfeeble the functions of life, but\nnot to quicken its own process. And thus we see opinions, usages, and\nsystems, which are of venerable and imposing aspect, but which have no\nsoundness within them, and keep together from a habit of consistence, or\nfrom dependence on political institutions; or they become almost\npeculiarities of a country, or the habits of a race, or the fashions of\nsociety. And then, at length, perhaps, they go off suddenly and die out\nunder the first rough influence from without. Such are the superstitions\nwhich pervade a population, like some ingrained dye or inveterate odour,\nand which at length come to an end, because nothing lasts for ever, but\nwhich run no course, and have no history; such was the established\npaganism of classical times, which was the fit subject of persecution,\nfor its first breath made it crumble and disappear. Such apparently is\nthe state of the Nestorian and Monophysite communions; such might have\nbeen the condition of Christianity had it been absorbed by the feudalism\nof the middle ages; such too is that Protestantism, or (as it sometimes\ncalls itself) attachment to the Establishment, which is not unfrequently\nthe boast of the respectable and wealthy among ourselves.\n\nWhether Mahometanism external to Christendom, and the Greek Church\nwithin it, fall under this description is yet to be seen. Circumstances\ncan be imagined which would even now rouse the fanaticism of the Moslem;\nand the Russian despotism does not meddle with the usages, though it may\ndomineer over the priesthood, of the national religion.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThus, while a corruption is distinguished from decay by its energetic\naction, it is distinguished from a development by its _transitory\ncharacter_.\n\n\n4.\n\nSuch are seven out of various Notes, which may be assigned, of fidelity\nin the development of an idea. The point to be ascertained is the unity\nand identity of the idea with itself through all stages of its\ndevelopment from first to last, and these are seven tokens that it may\nrightly be accounted one and the same all along. To guarantee its own\nsubstantial unity, it must be seen to be one in type, one in its system\nof principles, one in its unitive power towards externals, one in its\nlogical consecutiveness, one in the witness of its early phases to its\nlater, one in the protection which its later extend to its earlier, and\none in its union of vigour with continuance, that is, in its tenacity.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[172:1] Commonit. 29.\n\n[173:1] Milman, Christ.\n\n[174:1] De Deo, ii. 4, \u00a7 8.\n\n[184:1] Ch. xlix.\n\n[193:1] Pusey on German Rationalism, p. 21, note.\n\n[194:1] Halloix, Valesius, Lequien, Gieseler, D\u00f6llinger, &c., say that\nhe was condemned, not in the fifth Council, but in the Council under\nMennas.\n\n[194:2] Mem. Eccl. tom. viii. p. 562.\n\n[195:1] Def. Tr. Cap. viii. init.\n\n[197:1] Hallam's Const. Hist. ch. vi. p. 461.\n\n[201:1] Tracts for the Times, No. 85, p. 73. [Discuss. p. 200; _vide_\nalso Essay on Assent, pp. 249-251.]\n\n[201:2] Ep. 162.\n\n[201:3] Ib. p. 309.\n\n[201:4] Prideaux, Life of Mahomet, p. 90.\n\n[202:1] German Protestantism, p. 176.\n\n[202:2] Vol. i. p. 118.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nAPPLICATION OF THE SEVEN NOTES TO THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS OF CHRISTIAN\nDOCTRINE.\n\n\nAPPLICATION OF THE FIRST NOTE OF A TRUE DEVELOPMENT. PRESERVATION OF\nTYPE.\n\nNow let me attempt to apply the foregoing seven Notes of fidelity in\nintellectual developments to the instance of Christian Doctrine. And\nfirst as to the Note of _identity of type_.\n\nI have said above, that, whereas all great ideas are found, as time goes\non, to involve much which was not seen at first to belong to them, and\nhave developments, that is enlargements, applications, uses and\nfortunes, very various, one security against error and perversion in the\nprocess is the maintenance of the original type, which the idea\npresented to the world at its origin, amid and through all its apparent\nchanges and vicissitudes from first to last.\n\nHow does this apply to Christianity? What is its original type? and has\nthat type been preserved in the developments commonly called Catholic,\nwhich have followed, and in the Church which embodies and teaches them?\nLet us take it as the world now views it in its age; and let us take it\nas the world once viewed it in its youth, and let us see whether there\nbe any great difference between the early and the later description of\nit. The following statement will show my meaning:--\n\nThere is a religious communion claiming a divine commission, and\nholding all other religious bodies around it heretical or infidel; it is\na well-organized, well-disciplined body; it is a sort of secret society,\nbinding together its members by influences and by engagements which it\nis difficult for strangers to ascertain. It is spread over the known\nworld; it may be weak or insignificant locally, but it is strong on the\nwhole from its continuity; it may be smaller than all other religious\nbodies together, but is larger than each separately. It is a natural\nenemy to governments external to itself; it is intolerant and\nengrossing, and tends to a new modelling of society; it breaks laws, it\ndivides families. It is a gross superstition; it is charged with the\nfoulest crimes; it is despised by the intellect of the day; it is\nfrightful to the imagination of the many. And there is but one communion\nsuch.\n\nPlace this description before Pliny or Julian; place it before Frederick\nthe Second or Guizot.[208:1] \"Apparent dir\u00e6 facies.\" Each knows at once,\nwithout asking a question, who is meant by it. One object, and only one,\nabsorbs each item of the detail of the delineation.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nTHE CHURCH OF THE FIRST CENTURIES.\n\nThe _prim\u00e2 facie_ view of early Christianity, in the eyes of witnesses\nexternal to it, is presented to us in the brief but vivid descriptions\ngiven by Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny, the only heathen writers who\ndistinctly mention it for the first hundred and fifty years.\n\nTacitus is led to speak of the Religion, on occasion of the\nconflagration of Rome, which was popularly imputed to Nero. \"To put an\nend to the report,\" he says, \"he laid the guilt on others, and visited\nthem with the most exquisite punishment, those, namely, who, held in\nabhorrence for their crimes (_per flagitia invisos_), were popularly\ncalled Christians. The author of that profession (_nominis_) was Christ,\nwho, in the reign of Tiberius, was capitally punished by the Procurator,\nPontius Pilate. The deadly superstition (_exitiabilis superstitio_),\nthough checked for a while, broke out afresh; and that, not only\nthroughout Jud\u00e6a, the original seat of the evil, but through the City\nalso, whither all things atrocious or shocking (_atrocia aut pudenda_)\nflow together from every quarter and thrive. At first, certain were\nseized who avowed it; then, on their report, a vast multitude were\nconvicted, not so much of firing the City, as of hatred of mankind\n(_odio humani generis_).\" After describing their tortures, he continues\n\"In consequence, though they were guilty, and deserved most signal\npunishment, they began to be pitied, as if destroyed not for any public\nobject, but from the barbarity of one man.\"\n\nSuetonius relates the same transactions thus: \"Capital punishments were\ninflicted on the Christians, a class of men of a new and magical\nsuperstition (_superstitionis nov\u00e6 et malefic\u00e6_).\" What gives additional\ncharacter to this statement is its context; for it occurs as one out of\nvarious police or sumptuary or domestic regulations, which Nero made;\nsuch as \"controlling private expenses, forbidding taverns to serve meat,\nrepressing the contests of theatrical parties, and securing the\nintegrity of wills.\" When Pliny was Governor of Pontus, he wrote his\ncelebrated letter to the Emperor Trajan, to ask advice how he was to\ndeal with the Christians, whom he found there in great numbers. One of\nhis points of hesitation was, whether the very profession of\nChristianity was not by itself sufficient to justify punishment;\n\"whether the name itself should be visited, though clear of flagitious\nacts (_flagitia_), or only when connected with them.\" He says, he had\nordered for execution such as persevered in their profession, after\nrepeated warnings, \"as not doubting, whatever it was they professed,\nthat at any rate contumacy and inflexible obstinacy ought to be\npunished.\" He required them to invoke the gods, to sacrifice wine and\nfrankincense to the images of the Emperor, and to blaspheme Christ; \"to\nwhich,\" he adds, \"it is said no real Christian can be compelled.\"\nRenegades informed him that \"the sum total of their offence or fault was\nmeeting before light on an appointed day, and saying with one another a\nform of words (_carmen_) to Christ, as if to a god, and binding\nthemselves by oath, (not to the commission of any wickedness, but)\nagainst the commission of theft, robbery, adultery, breach of trust,\ndenial of deposits; that, after this they were accustomed to separate,\nand then to meet again for a meal, but eaten all together and harmless;\nhowever, that they had even left this off after his edicts enforcing the\nImperial prohibition of _Het\u00e6ri\u00e6_ or Associations.\" He proceeded to put\ntwo women to the torture, but \"discovered nothing beyond a bad and\nexcessive superstition\" (_superstitionem pravam et immodicam_), \"the\ncontagion\" of which, he continues, \"had spread through villages and\ncountry, till the temples were emptied of worshippers.\"\n\n\n2.\n\nIn these testimonies, which will form a natural and convenient text for\nwhat is to follow, we have various characteristics brought before us of\nthe religion to which they relate. It was a superstition, as all three\nwriters agree; a bad and excessive superstition, according to Pliny; a\nmagical superstition, according to Suetonius; a deadly superstition,\naccording to Tacitus. Next, it was embodied in a society, and moreover a\nsecret and unlawful society or _het\u00e6ria_; and it was a proselytizing\nsociety; and its very name was connected with \"flagitious,\" \"atrocious,\"\nand \"shocking\" acts.\n\n\n3.\n\nNow these few points, which are not all which might be set down, contain\nin themselves a distinct and significant description of Christianity;\nbut they have far greater meaning when illustrated by the history of the\ntimes, the testimony of later writers, and the acts of the Roman\ngovernment towards its professors. It is impossible to mistake the\njudgment passed on the religion by these three writers, and still more\nclearly by other writers and Imperial functionaries. They evidently\nassociated Christianity with the oriental superstitions, whether\npropagated by individuals or embodied in a rite, which were in that day\ntraversing the Empire, and which in the event acted so remarkable a part\nin breaking up the national forms of worship, and so in preparing the\nway for Christianity. This, then, is the broad view which the educated\nheathen took of Christianity; and, if it had been very unlike those\nrites and curious arts in external appearance, they would not have\nconfused it with them.\n\nChanges in society are, by a providential appointment, commonly preceded\nand facilitated by the setting in of a certain current in men's thoughts\nand feelings in that direction towards which a change is to be made.\nAnd, as lighter substances whirl about before the tempest and presage\nit, so words and deeds, ominous but not effective of the coming\nrevolution, are circulated beforehand through the multitude, or pass\nacross the field of events. This was specially the case with\nChristianity, as became its high dignity; it came heralded and attended\nby a crowd of shadows, shadows of itself, impotent and monstrous as\nshadows are, but not at first sight distinguishable from it by common\nspectators. Before the mission of the Apostles, a movement, of which\nthere had been earlier parallels, had begun in Egypt, Syria, and the\nneighbouring countries, tending to the propagation of new and peculiar\nforms of worship throughout the Empire. Prophecies were afloat that some\nnew order of things was coming in from the East, which increased the\nexisting unsettlement of the popular mind; pretenders made attempts to\nsatisfy its wants, and old Traditions of the Truth, embodied for ages in\nlocal or in national religions, gave to these attempts a doctrinal and\nritual shape, which became an additional point of resemblance to that\nTruth which was soon visibly to appear.\n\n\n4.\n\nThe distinctive character of the rites in question lay in their\nappealing to the gloomy rather than to the cheerful and hopeful\nfeelings, and in their influencing the mind through fear. The notions of\nguilt and expiation, of evil and good to come, and of dealings with the\ninvisible world, were in some shape or other pre-eminent in them, and\nformed a striking contrast to the classical polytheism, which was gay\nand graceful, as was natural in a civilized age. The new rites, on the\nother hand, were secret; their doctrine was mysterious; their profession\nwas a discipline, beginning in a formal initiation, manifested in an\nassociation, and exercised in privation and pain. They were from the\nnature of the case proselytizing societies, for they were rising into\npower; nor were they local, but vagrant, restless, intrusive, and\nencroaching. Their pretensions to supernatural knowledge brought them\ninto easy connexion with magic and astrology, which are as attractive to\nthe wealthy and luxurious as the more vulgar superstitions to the\npopulace.\n\n\n5.\n\nSuch were the rites of Cybele, Isis, and Mithras; such the Chaldeans, as\nthey were commonly called, and the Magi; they came from one part of the\nworld, and during the first and second century spread with busy\nperseverance to the northern and western extremities of the\nempire.[213:1] Traces of the mysteries of Cybele, a Syrian deity, if the\nfamous temple at Hierapolis was hers, have been found in Spain, in Gaul,\nand in Britain, as high up as the wall of Severus. The worship of Isis\nwas the most widely spread of all the pagan deities; it was received in\nEthiopia and in Germany, and even the name of Paris has been fancifully\ntraced to it. Both worships, as well as the Science of Magic, had their\ncolleges of priests and devotees, which were governed by a president,\nand in some places were supported by farms. Their processions passed\nfrom town to town, begging as they went and attracting proselytes.\nApuleius describes one of them as seizing a whip, accusing himself of\nsome offence, and scourging himself in public. These strollers,\n_circulatores_ or _agyrt\u00e6_ in classical language, told fortunes, and\ndistributed prophetical tickets to the ignorant people who consulted\nthem. Also, they were learned in the doctrine of omens, of lucky and\nunlucky days, of the rites of expiation and of sacrifices. Such an\n_agyrtes_ or itinerant was the notorious Alexander of Abonotichus, till\nhe managed to establish himself in Pontus, where he carried on so\nsuccessful an imposition that his fame reached Rome, and men in office\nand station entrusted him with their dearest political secrets. Such a\nwanderer, with a far more religious bearing and a high reputation for\nvirtue, was Apollonius of Tyana, who professed the Pythagorean\nphilosophy, claimed the gift of miracles, and roamed about preaching,\nteaching, healing, and prophesying from India and Alexandria to Athens\nand Rome. Another solitary proselytizer, though of an earlier time and\nof an avowed profligacy, had been the Sacrificulus, viewed with such\nhorror by the Roman Senate, as introducing the infamous Bacchic rites\ninto Rome. Such, again, were those degenerate children of a divine\nreligion, who, in the words of their Creator and Judge, \"compassed sea\nand land to make one proselyte,\" and made him \"twofold more the child of\nhell than themselves.\"\n\n\n6.\n\nThese vagrant religionists for the most part professed a severe rule of\nlife, and sometimes one of fanatical mortification. In the mysteries of\nMithras, the initiation[214:1] was preceded by fasting and abstinence,\nand a variety of painful trials; it was made by means of a baptism as a\nspiritual washing; and it included an offering of bread, and some emblem\nof a resurrection. In the Samothracian rites it had been a custom to\ninitiate children; confession too of greater crimes seems to have been\nrequired, and would naturally be involved in others in the inquisition\nprosecuted into the past lives of the candidates for initiation. The\ngarments of the converts were white; their calling was considered as a\nwarfare (_militia_), and was undertaken with a _sacramentum_, or\nmilitary oath. The priests shaved their heads and wore linen, and when\nthey were dead were buried in a sacerdotal garment. It is scarcely\nnecessary to refer to the mutilation inflicted on the priests of Cybele;\none instance of their scourgings has been already mentioned; and\nTertullian speaks of their high priest cutting his arms for the life of\nthe Emperor Marcus.[215:1] The priests of Isis, in lamentation for\nOsiris, tore their breasts with pine cones. This lamentation was a\nritual observance, founded on some religious mystery: Isis lost Osiris,\nand the initiated wept in memory of her sorrow; the Syrian goddess had\nwept over dead Thammuz, and her mystics commemorated it by a ceremonial\nwoe; in the rites of Bacchus, an image was laid on a bier at\nmidnight,[215:2] which was bewailed in metrical hymns; the god was\nsupposed to die, and then to revive. Nor was this the only worship which\nwas continued through the night; while some of the rites were performed\nin caves.\n\n\n7.\n\nOnly a heavenly light can give purity to nocturnal and subterraneous\nworship. Caves were at that time appropriated to the worship of the\ninfernal gods. It was but natural that these wild religions should be\nconnected with magic and its kindred arts; magic has at all times led to\ncruelty, and licentiousness would be the inevitable reaction from a\ntemporary strictness. An extraordinary profession, when men are in a\nstate of mere nature, makes hypocrites or madmen, and will in no long\ntime be discarded except by the few. The world of that day associated\ntogether in one company, Isiac, Phrygian, Mithriac, Chaldean, wizard,\nastrologer, fortune-teller, itinerant, and, as was not unnatural, Jew.\nMagic was professed by the profligate Alexander, and was imputed to the\ngrave Apollonius. The rites of Mithras came from the Magi of Persia; and\nit is obviously difficult to distinguish in principle the ceremonies of\nthe Syrian Taurobolium from those of the Necyomantia in the Odyssey, or\nof Canidia in Horace.\n\nThe Theodosian Code calls magic generally a \"superstition;\" and magic,\norgies, mysteries, and \"sabbathizings,\" were referred to the same\n\"barbarous\" origin. \"Magical superstitions,\" the \"rites of the Magi,\"\nthe \"promises of the Chaldeans,\" and the \"Mathematici,\" are familiar to\nthe readers of Tacitus. The Emperor Otho, an avowed patron of oriental\nfashions, took part in the rites of Isis, and consulted the Mathematici.\nVespasian, who also consulted them, is heard of in Egypt as performing\nmiracles at the suggestion of Serapis. Tiberius, in an edict, classes\ntogether \"Egyptian and Jewish rites;\" and Tacitus and Suetonius, in\nrecording it, speak of the two religions together as \"_ea\nsuperstitio_.\"[216:1] Augustus had already associated them together as\nsuperstitions, and as unlawful, and that in contrast to others of a like\nforeign origin. \"As to foreign rites (_peregrin\u00e6 ceremoni\u00e6_),\" says\nSuetonius, \"as he paid more reverence to those which were old and\nenjoined, so did he hold the rest in contempt.\"[216:2] He goes on to say\nthat, even on the judgment-seat, he had recognized the Eleusinian\npriests, into whose mysteries he had been initiated at Athens; \"whereas,\nwhen travelling in Egypt, he had refused to see Apis, and had approved\nof his grandson Caligula's passing by Jud\u00e6a without sacrificing at\nJerusalem.\" Plutarch speaks of magic as connected with the mournful\nmysteries of Orpheus and Zoroaster, with the Egyptian and the Phrygian;\nand, in his Treatise on Superstition, he puts together in one clause, as\nspecimens of that disease of mind, \"covering oneself with mud, wallowing\nin the mire, sabbathizings, fallings on the face, unseemly postures,\nforeign adorations.\"[216:3] Ovid mentions in consecutive verses the\nrites of \"Adonis lamented by Venus,\" \"The Sabbath of the Syrian Jew,\"\nand the \"Memphitic Temple of Io in her linen dress.\"[216:4] Juvenal\nspeaks of the rites, as well as the language and the music, of the\nSyrian Orontes having flooded Rome; and, in his description of the\nsuperstition of the Roman women, he places the low Jewish fortune-teller\nbetween the pompous priests of Cybele and Isis, and the bloody\nwitchcraft of the Armenian haruspex and the astrology of the\nChaldeans.[217:1]\n\n\n8.\n\nThe Christian, being at first accounted a kind of Jew, was even on that\nscore included in whatever odium, and whatever bad associations,\nattended on the Jewish name. But in a little time his independence of\nthe rejected people was clearly understood, as even the persecutions\nshow; and he stood upon his own ground. Still his character did not\nchange in the eyes of the world; for favour or for reproach, he was\nstill associated with the votaries of secret and magical rites. The\nEmperor Hadrian, noted as he is for his inquisitive temper, and a\npartaker in so many mysteries,[217:2] still believed that the Christians\nof Egypt allowed themselves in the worship of Serapis. They are brought\ninto connexion with the magic of Egypt in the history of what is\ncommonly called the Thundering Legion, so far as this, that the rain\nwhich relieved the Emperor's army in the field, and which the Church\nascribed to the prayers of the Christian soldiers, is by Dio Cassius\nattributed to an Egyptian magician, who obtained it by invoking Mercury\nand other spirits. This war had been the occasion of one of the first\nrecognitions which the state had conceded to the Oriental rites, though\nstatesmen and emperors, as private men, had long taken part in them. The\nEmperor Marcus had been urged by his fears of the Marcomanni to resort\nto these foreign introductions, and is said to have employed Magi and\nChaldeans in averting an unsuccessful issue of the war. It is\nobservable that, in the growing countenance which was extended to these\nrites in the third century, Christianity came in for a share. The chapel\nof Alexander Severus contained statues of Abraham, Orpheus, Apollonius,\nPythagoras, and our Lord. Here indeed, as in the case of Zenobia's\nJudaism, an eclectic philosophy aided the comprehension of religions.\nBut, immediately before Alexander, Heliogabalus, who was no philosopher,\nwhile he formally seated his Syrian idol in the Palatine, while he\nobserved the mysteries of Cybele and Adonis, and celebrated his magic\nrites with human victims, intended also, according to Lampridius, to\nunite with his horrible superstition \"the Jewish and Samaritan religions\nand the Christian rite, that so the priesthood of Heliogabalus might\ncomprise the mystery of every worship.\"[218:1] Hence, more or less, the\nstories which occur in ecclesiastical history of the conversion or\ngood-will of the emperors to the Christian faith, of Hadrian, Mamm\u00e6a,\nand others, besides Heliogabalus and Alexander. Such stories might often\nmean little more than that they favoured it among other forms of\nOriental superstition.\n\n\n9.\n\nWhat has been said is sufficient to bring before the mind an historical\nfact, which indeed does not need evidence. Upon the established\nreligions of Europe the East had renewed her encroachments, and was\npouring forth a family of rites which in various ways attracted the\nattention of the luxurious, the political, the ignorant, the restless,\nand the remorseful. Armenian, Chaldee, Egyptian, Jew, Syrian, Phrygian,\nas the case might be, was the designation of the new hierophant; and\nmagic, superstition, barbarism, jugglery, were the names given to his\nrite by the world. In this company appeared Christianity. When then\nthree well-informed writers call Christianity a superstition and a\nmagical superstition, they were not using words at random, or the\nlanguage of abuse, but they were describing it in distinct and\nrecognized terms as cognate to those gloomy, secret, odious,\ndisreputable religions which were making so much disturbance up and down\nthe empire.\n\n\n10.\n\nThe impression made on the world by circumstances immediately before the\nrise of Christianity received a sort of confirmation upon its rise, in\nthe appearance of the Gnostic and kindred heresies, which issued from\nthe Church during the second and third centuries. Their resemblance in\nritual and constitution to the Oriental religions, sometimes their\nhistorical relationship, is undeniable; and certainly it is a singular\ncoincidence, that Christianity should be first called a magical\nsuperstition by Suetonius, and then should be found in the intimate\ncompany, and seemingly the parent, of a multitude of magical\nsuperstitions, if there was nothing in the Religion itself to give rise\nto such a charge.\n\n\n11.\n\nThe Gnostic family[219:1] suitably traces its origin to a mixed race,\nwhich had commenced its national history by associating Orientalism with\nRevelation. After the captivity of the ten tribes, Samaria was colonized\nby \"men from Babylon and Cushan, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from\nSepharvaim,\" who were instructed at their own instance in \"the manner of\nthe God of the land,\" by one of the priests of the Church of Jeroboam.\nThe consequence was, that \"they feared the Lord and served their own\ngods.\" Of this country was Simon, the reputed patriarch of the\nGnostics; and he is introduced in the Acts of the Apostles as professing\nthose magical powers which were so principal a characteristic of the\nOriental mysteries. His heresy, though broken into a multitude of sects,\nwas poured over the world with a Catholicity not inferior in its day to\nthat of Christianity. St. Peter, who fell in with him originally in\nSamaria, seems to have encountered him again at Rome. At Rome, St.\nPolycarp met Marcion of Pontus, whose followers spread through Italy,\nEgypt, Syria, Arabia, and Persia; Valentinus preached his doctrines in\nAlexandria, Rome, and Cyprus; and we read of his disciples in Crete,\nC\u00e6sarea, Antioch, and other parts of the East. Bardesanes and his\nfollowers were found in Mesopotamia. The Carpocratians are spoken of at\nAlexandria, at Rome, and in Cephallenia; the Basilidians spread through\nthe greater part of Egypt; the Ophites were apparently in Bithynia and\nGalatia; the Cainites or Caians in Africa, and the Marcosians in Gaul.\nTo these must be added several sects, which, though not strictly of the\nGnostic stock, are associated with them in date, character, and\norigin;--the Ebionites of Palestine, the Cerinthians, who rose in some\npart of Asia Minor, the Encratites and kindred sects, who spread from\nMesopotamia to Syria, to Cilicia and other provinces of Asia Minor, and\nthence to Rome, Gaul, Aquitaine, and Spain; and the Montanists, who,\nwith a town in Phrygia for their metropolis, reached at length from\nConstantinople to Carthage.\n\n\"When [the reader of Christian history] comes to the second century,\"\nsays Dr. Burton, \"he finds that Gnosticism, under some form or other,\nwas professed in every part of the then civilized world. He finds it\ndivided into schools, as numerously and as zealously attended as any\nwhich Greece or Asia could boast in their happiest days. He meets with\nnames totally unknown to him before, which excited as much sensation as\nthose of Aristotle or Plato. He hears of volumes having been written in\nsupport of this new philosophy, not one of which has survived to our own\nday.\"[221:1] Many of the founders of these sects had been Christians;\nothers were of Jewish parentage; others were more or less connected in\nfact with the Pagan rites to which their own bore so great a\nresemblance. Montanus seems even to have been a mutilated priest of\nCybele; the followers of Prodicus professed to possess the secret books\nof Zoroaster; and the doctrine of dualism, which so many of the sects\nheld, is to be traced to the same source. Basilides seems to have\nrecognized Mithras as the Supreme Being, or the Prince of Angels, or the\nSun, if Mithras is equivalent to Abraxas, which was inscribed upon his\namulets: on the other hand, he is said to have been taught by an\nimmediate disciple of St. Peter, and Valentinus by an immediate disciple\nof St. Paul. Marcion was the son of a Bishop of Pontus; Tatian, a\ndisciple of St. Justin Martyr.\n\n\n12.\n\nWhatever might be the history of these sects, and though it may be a\nquestion whether they can be properly called \"superstitions,\" and though\nmany of them numbered educated men among their teachers and followers,\nthey closely resembled, at least in ritual and profession, the vagrant\nPagan mysteries which have been above described. Their very name of\n\"Gnostic\" implied the possession of a secret, which was to be\ncommunicated to their disciples. Ceremonial observances were the\npreparation, and symbolical rites the instrument, of initiation. Tatian\nand Montanus, the representatives of very distinct schools, agreed in\nmaking asceticism a rule of life. The followers of each of these\nsectaries abstained from wine; the Tatianites and Marcionites, from\nflesh; the Montanists kept three Lents in the year. All the Gnostic\nsects seem to have condemned marriage on one or other reason.[222:1] The\nMarcionites had three baptisms or more; the Marcosians had two rites of\nwhat they called redemption; the latter of these was celebrated as a\nmarriage, and the room adorned as a marriage-chamber. A consecration to\na priesthood then followed with anointing. An extreme unction was\nanother of their rites, and prayers for the dead one of their\nobservances. Bardesanes and Harmonius were famous for the beauty of\ntheir chants. The prophecies of Montanus were delivered, like the\noracles of the heathen, in a state of enthusiasm or ecstasy. To\nEpiphanes, the son of Carpocrates, who died at the age of seventeen, a\ntemple was erected in the island of Cephallenia, his mother's\nbirthplace, where he was celebrated with hymns and sacrifices. A similar\nhonour was paid by the Carpocratians to Homer, Pythagoras, Plato,\nAristotle, as well as to the Apostles; crowns were placed upon their\nimages, and incense burned before them. In one of the inscriptions found\nat Cyrene, about twenty years since, Zoroaster, Pythagoras, Epicurus,\nand others, are put together with our Lord, as guides of conduct. These\ninscriptions also contain the Carpocratian tenet of a community of\nwomen. I am unwilling to allude to the Agap\u00e6 and Communions of certain\nof these sects, which were not surpassed in profligacy by the Pagan\nrites of which they were an imitation. The very name of Gnostic became\nan expression for the worst impurities, and no one dared eat bread with\nthem, or use their culinary instruments or plates.\n\n\n13.\n\nThese profligate excesses are found in connexion with the exercise of\nmagic and astrology.[223:1] The amulets of the Basilidians are still\nextant in great numbers, inscribed with symbols, some Christian, some\nwith figures of Isis, Serapis, and Anubis, represented according to the\ngross indecencies of the Egyptian mythology.[223:2] St. Iren\u00e6us had\nalready connected together the two crimes in speaking of the Simonians:\n\"Their mystical priests,\" he says, \"live in lewdness, and practise\nmagic, according to the ability of each. They use exorcisms and\nincantations; love-potions too, and seductive spells; the virtue of\nspirits, and dreams, and all other curious arts, they diligently\nobserve.\"[223:3] The Marcosians were especially devoted to these\n\"curious arts,\" which are also ascribed to Carpocrates and Apelles.\nMarcion and others are reported to have used astrology. Tertullian\nspeaks generally of the sects of his day: \"Infamous are the dealings of\nthe heretics with sorcerers very many, with mountebanks, with\nastrologers, with philosophers, to wit, such as are given to curious\nquestions. They everywhere remember, 'Seek, and ye shall find.'\"[223:4]\n\nSuch were the Gnostics; and to external and prejudiced spectators,\nwhether philosophers, as Celsus and Porphyry, or the multitude, they\nwore an appearance sufficiently like the Church to be mistaken for her\nin the latter part of the Ante-nicene period, as she was confused with\nthe Pagan mysteries in the earlier.\n\n\n14.\n\nOf course it may happen that the common estimate concerning a person or\na body is purely accidental and unfounded; but in such cases it is not\nlasting. Such were the calumnies of child-eating and impurity in the\nChristian meetings, which were almost extinct by the time of Origen, and\nwhich might arise from the world's confusing them with the pagan and\nheretical rites. But when it continues from age to age, it is certainly\nan index of a fact, and corresponds to definite qualities in the object\nto which it relates. In that case, even mistakes carry information; for\nthey are cognate to the truth, and we can allow for them. Often what\nseems like a mistake is merely the mode in which the informant conveys\nhis testimony, or the impression which a fact makes on him. Censure is\nthe natural tone of one man in a case where praise is the natural tone\nof another; the very same character or action inspires one mind with\nenthusiasm, and another with contempt. What to one man is magnanimity,\nto another is romance, and pride to a third, and pretence to a fourth,\nwhile to a fifth it is simply unintelligible; and yet there is a certain\nanalogy in their separate testimonies, which conveys to us what the\nthing is like and what it is not like. When a man's acknowledged note is\nsuperstition, we may be pretty sure we shall not find him an Academic or\nan Epicurean; and even words which are ambiguous, as \"atheist,\" or\n\"reformer,\" admit of a sure interpretation when we are informed of the\nspeaker. In like manner, there is a certain general correspondence\nbetween magic and miracle, obstinacy and faith, insubordination and zeal\nfor religion, sophistry and argumentative talent, craft and meekness, as\nis obvious. Let us proceed then in our contemplation of this reflection,\nas it may be called of primitive Christianity in the mirror of the\nworld.\n\n\n15.\n\nAll three writers, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny, call it a\n\"superstition;\" this is no accidental imputation, but is repeated by a\nvariety of subsequent writers and speakers. The charge of Thyestean\nbanquets scarcely lasts a hundred years; but, while pagan witnesses are\nto be found, the Church is accused of superstition. The heathen\ndisputant in Minucius calls Christianity, \"_Vana et demens\nsuperstitio_.\" The lawyer Modestinus speaks, with an apparent allusion\nto Christianity, of \"weak minds being terrified _superstitione\nnuminis_.\" The heathen magistrate asks St. Marcellus, whether he and\nothers have put away \"vain superstitions,\" and worship the gods whom the\nemperors worship. The Pagans in Arnobius speak of Christianity as \"an\nexecrable and unlucky religion, full of impiety and sacrilege,\ncontaminating the rites instituted from of old with the superstition of\nits novelty.\" The anonymous opponent of Lactantius calls it, \"_Impia et\nanilis superstitio_.\" Diocletian's inscription at Clunia was, as it\ndeclared, on occasion of \"the total extinction of the superstition of\nthe Christians, and the extension of the worship of the gods.\" Maximin,\nin his Letter upon Constantine's Edict, still calls it a\nsuperstition.[225:1]\n\n\n16.\n\nNow what is meant by the word thus attached by a _consensus_ of heathen\nauthorities to Christianity? At least, it cannot mean a religion in\nwhich a man might think what he pleased, and was set free from all\nyokes, whether of ignorance, fear, authority, or priestcraft. When\nheathen writers call the Oriental rites superstitions, they evidently\nuse the word in its modern sense; it cannot surely be doubted that they\napply it in the same sense to Christianity. But Plutarch explains for us\nthe word at length, in his Treatise which bears the name: \"Of all kinds\nof fear,\" he says, \"superstition is the most fatal to action and\nresource. He does not fear the sea who does not sail, nor war who does\nnot serve, nor robbers who keeps at home, nor the sycophant who is poor,\nnor the envious if he is a private man, nor an earthquake if he lives in\nGaul, nor thunder if he lives in Ethiopia; but he who fears the gods\nfears everything, earth, seas, air, sky, darkness, light, noises,\nsilence, sleep. Slaves sleep and forget their masters; of the fettered\ndoth sleep lighten the chain; inflamed wounds, ulcers cruel and\nagonizing, are not felt by the sleeping. Superstition alone has come to\nno terms with sleep; but in the very sleep of her victims, as though\nthey were in the realms of the impious, she raises horrible spectres,\nand monstrous phantoms, and various pains, and whirls the miserable soul\nabout, and persecutes it. They rise, and, instead of making light of\nwhat is unreal, they fall into the hands of quacks and conjurers, who\nsay, 'Call the crone to expiate, bathe in the sea, and sit all day on\nthe ground.'\" He goes on to speak of the introduction of \"uncouth names\nand barbarous terms\" into \"the divine and national authority of\nreligion;\" observes that, whereas slaves, when they despair of freedom,\nmay demand to be sold to another master, superstition admits of no\nchange of gods, since \"the god cannot be found whom he will not fear,\nwho fears the gods of his family and his birth, who shudders at the\nSaving and the Benignant, who has a trembling and dread at those from\nwhom we ask riches and wealth, concord, peace, success of all good words\nand deeds.\" He says, moreover, that, while death is to all men an end of\nlife, it is not so to the superstitious; for then \"there are deep gates\nof hell to yawn, and headlong streams of at once fire and gloom are\nopened, and darkness with its many phantoms encompasses, ghosts\npresenting horrid visages and wretched voices, and judges and\nexecutioners, and chasms and dens full of innumerable miseries.\"\n\nPresently, he says, that in misfortune or sickness the superstitious man\nrefuses to see physician or philosopher, and cries, \"Suffer me, O man,\nto undergo punishment, the impious, the cursed, the hated of gods and\nspirits. The Atheist,\" with whom all along he is contrasting the\nsuperstitious disadvantageously, \"wipes his tears, trims his hair, doffs\nhis mourning; but how can you address, how help the superstitious? He\nsits apart in sackcloth or filthy rags; and often he strips himself and\nrolls in the mud, and tells out his sins and offences, as having eaten\nand drunken something, or walked some way which the divinity did not\nallow. . . . And in his best mood, and under the influence of a\ngood-humoured superstition, he sits at home, with sacrifice and\nslaughter all round him, while the old crones hang on him as on a peg,\nas Bion says, any charm they fall in with.\" He continues, \"What men like\nbest are festivals, banquets at the temples, initiations, orgies, votive\nprayers, and adorations. But the superstitious wishes indeed, but is\nunable to rejoice. He is crowned and turns pale; he sacrifices and is in\nfear; he prays with a quivering voice, and burns incense with trembling\nhands, and altogether belies the saying of Pythagoras, that we are then\nin best case when we go to the gods; for superstitious men are in most\nwretched and evil case, approaching the houses or shrines of the gods as\nif they were the dens of bears, or the holes of snakes, or the caves of\nwhales.\"\n\n\n17.\n\nHere we have a vivid picture of Plutarch's idea of the essence of\nSuperstition; it was the imagination of the existence of an unseen\never-present Master; the bondage of a rule of life, of a continual\nresponsibility; obligation to attend to little things, the\nimpossibility of escaping from duty, the inability to choose or change\none's religion, an interference with the enjoyment of life, a melancholy\nview of the world, sense of sin, horror at guilt, apprehension of\npunishment, dread, self-abasement, depression, anxiety and endeavour to\nbe at peace with heaven, and error and absurdity in the methods chosen\nfor the purpose. Such too had been the idea of the Epicurean Velleius,\nwhen he shrunk with horror from the \"_sempiternus dominus_\" and\n\"_curiosus Deus_\" of the Stoics.[228:1] Such, surely, was the meaning of\nTacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny. And hence of course the frequent reproach\ncast on Christians as credulous, weak-minded, and poor-spirited. The\nheathen objectors in Minucius and Lactantius speak of their \"old-woman's\ntales.\"[228:2] Celsus accuses them of \"assenting at random and without\nreason,\" saying, \"Do not inquire, but believe.\" \"They lay it down,\" he\nsays elsewhere, \"Let no educated man approach, no man of wisdom, no man\nof sense; but if a man be unlearned, weak in intellect, an infant, let\nhim come with confidence. Confessing that these are worthy of their God,\nthey evidently desire, as they are able, to convert none but fools, and\nvulgar, and stupid, and slavish, women and boys.\" They \"take in the\nsimple, and lead him where they will.\" They address themselves to\n\"youths, house-servants, and the weak in intellect.\" They \"hurry away\nfrom the educated, as not fit subjects of their imposition, and inveigle\nthe rustic.\"[228:3] \"Thou,\" says the heathen magistrate to the Martyr\nFructuosus, \"who as a teacher dost disseminate a new fable, that fickle\ngirls may desert the groves and abandon Jupiter, condemn, if thou art\nwise, the anile creed.\"[229:1]\n\n\n18.\n\nHence the epithets of itinerant, mountebank, conjurer, cheat, sophist,\nsorcerer, heaped upon the teachers of Christianity; sometimes to account\nfor the report or apparent truth of their miracles, sometimes to explain\ntheir success. Our Lord was said to have learned His miraculous power in\nEgypt; \"wizard, mediciner, cheat, rogue, conjurer,\" were the epithets\napplied to Him by the opponents of Eusebius;[229:2] they \"worship that\ncrucified sophist,\" says Lucian;[229:3] \"Paul, who surpasses all the\nconjurers and impostors who ever lived,\" is Julian's account of the\nApostle. \"You have sent through the whole world,\" says St. Justin to\nTrypho, \"to preach that a certain atheistic and lawless sect has sprung\nfrom one Jesus, a Galilean cheat.\"[229:4] \"We know,\" says Lucian,\nspeaking of Chaldeans and Magicians, \"the Syrian from Palestine, who is\nthe sophist in these matters, how many lunatics, with eyes distorted and\nmouth in foam, he raises and sends away restored, ridding them from the\nevil at a great price.\"[229:5] \"If any conjurer came to them, a man of\nskill and knowing how to manage matters,\" says the same writer, \"he made\nmoney in no time, with a broad grin at the simple fellows.\"[229:6] The\nofficer who had custody of St. Perpetua feared her escape from prison\n\"by magical incantations.\"[229:7] When St. Tiburtius had walked barefoot\non hot coals, his judge cried out that Christ had taught him magic. St.\nAnastasia was thrown into prison as a mediciner; the populace called out\nagainst St. Agnes, \"Away with the witch,\" _Tolle magam, tolle\nmaleficam_.\n\nWhen St. Bonosus and St. Maximilian bore the burning pitch without\nshrinking, Jews and Gentiles cried out, _Isti magi et malefici_. \"What\nnew delusion,\" says the heathen magistrate concerning St. Romanus, \"has\nbrought in these sophists to deny the worship of the gods? How doth this\nchief sorcerer mock us, skilled by his Thessalian charm (_carmine_) to\nlaugh at punishment.\"[230:1]\n\nHence we gather the meaning of the word \"_carmen_\" as used by Pliny;\nwhen he speaks of the Christians \"saying with one another a _carmen_ to\nChrist as to a god,\" he meant pretty much what Suetonius expresses by\nthe \"_malefica superstitio_.\"[230:2] And the words of the last-mentioned\nwriter and Tacitus are still more exactly, and, I may say, singularly\nillustrated by clauses which occur in the Theodosian code; which seem to\nshow that these historians were using formal terms and phrases to\nexpress their notion of Christianity. For instance, Tacitus says, \"_Quos\nper flagitia invisos, vulgus Christianos appellabat_;\" and the Law\nagainst the Malefici and Mathematici in the Code speaks of those, \"_Quos\nob facinorum magnitudinem vulgus maleficos appellat_.\"[230:3] Again,\nTacitus charges Christians with the \"_odium humani generis_:\" this is\nthe very characteristic of a practiser in magic; the Laws call the\nMalefici, \"_humani generis hostes_,\" \"_humani generis inimici_,\"\n\"_natur\u00e6 peregrini_,\" \"_communis salutis hostes_.\"[230:4]\n\n\n19.\n\nThis also explains the phenomenon, which has created so much surprise to\ncertain moderns;--that a grave, well-informed historian like Tacitus\nshould apply to Christians what sounds like abuse. Yet what is the\ndifficulty, supposing that Christians were considered mathematici and\nmagi, and these were the secret intriguers against established\ngovernment, the allies of desperate politicians, the enemies of the\nestablished religion, the disseminators of lying rumours, the\nperpetrators of poisonings and other crimes? \"Read this,\" says Paley,\nafter quoting some of the most beautiful and subduing passages of St.\nPaul, \"read this, and then think of _exitiabilis superstitio_;\" and he\ngoes on to express a wish \"in contending with heathen authorities, to\nproduce our books against theirs,\"[231:1] as if it were a matter of\nbooks. Public men care very little for books; the finest sentiments, the\nmost luminous philosophy, the deepest theology, inspiration itself,\nmoves them but little; they look at facts, and care only for facts. The\nquestion was, What was the worth, what the tendency of the Christian\nbody in the state? what Christians said, what they thought, was little\nto the purpose. They might exhort to peaceableness and passive obedience\nas strongly as words could speak; but what did they do, what was their\npolitical position? This is what statesmen thought of then, as they do\nnow. What had men of the world to do with abstract proofs or first\nprinciples? a statesman measures parties, and sects, and writers by\ntheir bearing upon _him_; and he has a practised eye in this sort of\njudgment, and is not likely to be mistaken. \"'What is Truth?' said\njesting Pilate.\" Apologies, however eloquent or true, availed nothing\nwith the Roman magistrate against the sure instinct which taught him to\ndread Christianity. It was a dangerous enemy to any power not built\nupon itself; he felt it, and the event justified his apprehension.\n\n\n20.\n\nWe must not forget the well-known character of the Roman state in its\ndealings with its subjects. It had had from the first an extreme\njealousy of secret societies; it was prepared to grant a large\ntoleration and a broad comprehension, but, as is the case with modern\ngovernments, it wished to have jurisdiction and the ultimate authority\nin every movement of the body politic and social, and its civil\ninstitutions were based, or essentially depended, on its religion.\nAccordingly, every innovation upon the established paganism, except it\nwas allowed by the law, was rigidly repressed. Hence the professors of\nlow superstitions, of mysteries, of magic, of astrology, were the\noutlaws of society, and were in a condition analogous, if the comparison\nmay be allowed, to smugglers or poachers among ourselves, or perhaps to\nburglars and highwaymen. The modern robber is sometimes made to ask in\nnovels or essays, why the majority of a people should bind the minority,\nand why he is amenable to laws which he does not enact; but the\nmagistrate, relying on the power of the sword, wishes all men to gain a\nliving indeed, and to prosper, but only in his own legally sanctioned\nways, and he hangs or transports dissenters from his authority. The\nRomans applied this rule to religion. Lardner protests against Pliny's\napplication of the words \"contumacy and inflexible obstinacy\" to the\nChristians of Pontus. \"Indeed, these are hard words,\" he says, \"very\nimproperly applied to men who were open to conviction, and willing to\nsatisfy others, if they might have leave to speak.\"[232:1] And he says,\n\"It seems to me that Pliny acted very arbitrarily and unrighteously, in\nhis treatment of the Christians in his province. What right had Pliny to\nact in this manner? by what law or laws did he punish [them] with\ndeath?\"--but the Romans had ever burnt the sorcerer, and banished his\nconsulters for life.[233:1] It was an ancient custom. And at mysteries\nthey looked with especial suspicion, because, since the established\nreligion did not include them in its provisions, they really did supply\nwhat may be called a demand of the age. The Greeks of an earlier day had\nnaturalized among themselves the Eleusinian and other mysteries, which\nhad come from Egypt and Syria, and had little to fear from a fresh\ninvasion from the same quarter; yet even in Greece, as Plutarch tells us,\nthe \"_carmina_\" of the itinerants of Cybele and Serapis threw the\nPythian verses out of fashion, and henceforth the responses from the\ntemple were given in prose. Soon the oracles altogether ceased. What\nwould cause in the Roman mind still greater jealousy of Christianity was\nthe general infidelity which prevailed among all classes as regards the\nmythological fables of Charon, Cerberus, and the realms of\npunishment.[233:2]\n\n\n21.\n\nWe know what opposition had been made in Rome even to the philosophy of\nGreece; much greater would be the aversion of constitutional statesmen\nand lawyers to the ritual of barbarians. Religion was the Roman point of\nhonour. \"Spaniards might rival them in numbers,\" says Cicero, \"Gauls in\nbodily strength, Carthaginians in address, Greeks in the arts, Italians\nand Latins in native talent, but the Romans surpassed all nations in\npiety and devotion.\"[234:1] It was one of their laws, \"Let no one have\ngods by himself, nor worship in private new gods nor adventitious,\nunless added on public authority.\"[234:2] Lutatius,[234:3] at the end of\nthe first Punic war, was forbidden by the senate to consult the Sortes\nPr\u00e6nestin\u00e6 as being \"_auspicia alienigena_.\" Some years afterwards the\nConsul took axe in hand, and commenced the destruction of the temples of\nIsis and Serapis. In the second Punic war, the senate had commanded the\nsurrender of the _libri vaticini_ or _precationes_, and any written art\nof sacrificing. When a secret confraternity was discovered, at a later\ndate, the Consul spoke of the rule of their ancestors which forbade the\nforum, circus, and city to Sacrificuli and prophets, and burnt their\nbooks. In the next age banishment was inflicted on individuals who were\nintroducing the worship of the Syrian Sabazius; and in the next the\nIseion and Serapeion were destroyed a second time. M\u00e6cenas in Dio\nadvises Augustus to honour the gods according to the national custom,\nbecause the contempt of the country's deities leads to civil\ninsubordination, reception of foreign laws, conspiracies, and secret\nmeetings.[234:4] \"Suffer no one,\" he adds, \"to deny the gods or to\npractise sorcery.\" The civilian Julius Paulus lays it down as one of the\nleading principles of Roman Law, that those who introduce new or untried\nreligions should be degraded, and if in the lower orders put to\ndeath.[234:5] In like manner, it is enacted in one of Constantine's Laws\nthat the Haruspices should not exercise their art in private; and there\nis a law of Valentinian's against nocturnal sacrifices or magic. It is\nmore immediately to our purpose that Trajan had been so earnest in his\nresistance to _Het\u00e6ri\u00e6_ or secret societies, that, when a fire had laid\nwaste Nicomedia, and Pliny proposed to him to incorporate a body of a\nhundred and fifty firemen in consequence,[235:1] he was afraid of the\nprecedent and forbade it.\n\n\n22.\n\nWhat has been said will suggest another point of view in which the\nOriental rites were obnoxious to the government, viz., as being vagrant\nand proselytizing religions. If it tolerated foreign superstitions, this\nwould be on the ground that districts or countries within its\njurisdiction held them; to proselytize to a rite hitherto unknown, to\nform a new party, and to propagate it through the Empire,--a religion\nnot local but Catholic,--was an offence against both order and reason.\nThe state desired peace everywhere, and no change; \"considering,\"\naccording to Lactantius, \"that they were rightly and deservedly punished\nwho execrated the public religion handed down to them by their\nancestors.\"[235:2]\n\nIt is impossible surely to deny that, in assembling for religious\npurposes, the Christians were breaking a solemn law, a vital principle\nof the Roman constitution; and this is the light in which their conduct\nwas regarded by the historians and philosophers of the Empire. This was\na very strong act on the part of the disciples of the great Apostle, who\nhad enjoined obedience to the powers that be. Time after time they\nresisted the authority of the magistrate; and this is a phenomenon\ninexplicable on the theory of Private Judgment or of the Voluntary\nPrinciple. The justification of such disobedience lies simply in the\nnecessity of obeying the higher authority of some divine law; but if\nChristianity were in its essence only private and personal, as so many\nnow think, there was no necessity of their meeting together at all. If,\non the other hand, in assembling for worship and holy communion, they\nwere fulfilling an indispensable observance, Christianity has imposed a\nsocial law on the world, and formally enters the field of politics.\nGibbon says that, in consequence of Pliny's edict, \"the prudence of the\nChristians suspended their Agap\u00e6; but it was _impossible_ for them to\nomit the exercise of public worship.\"[236:1] We can draw no other\nconclusion.\n\n\n23.\n\nAt the end of three hundred years, a more remarkable violation of law\nseems to have been admitted by the Christian body. It shall be given in\nthe words of Dr. Burton; he has been speaking of Maximin's edict, which\nprovided for the restitution of any of their lands or buildings which\nhad been alienated from them. \"It is plain,\" he says, \"from the terms of\nthis edict, that the Christians had for some time been in possession of\nproperty. It speaks of houses and lands which did not belong to\nindividuals, but to the whole body. Their possession of such property\ncould hardly have escaped the notice of the government; but it seems to\nhave been held in direct violation of a law of Diocletian, which\nprohibited corporate bodies, or associations which were not legally\nrecognized, from acquiring property. The Christians were certainly not a\nbody recognized by law at the beginning of the reign of Diocletian, and\nit might almost be thought that this enactment was specially directed\nagainst them. But, like other laws which are founded upon tyranny, and\nare at variance with the first principles of justice, it is probable\nthat this law about corporate property was evaded. We must suppose that\nthe Christians had purchased lands and houses before the law was passed;\nand their disregard of the prohibition may be taken as another proof\nthat their religion had now taken so firm a footing that the executors\nof the laws were obliged to connive at their being broken by so numerous\na body.\"[237:1]\n\n\n24.\n\nNo wonder that the magistrate who presided at the martyrdom of St.\nRomanus calls them in Prudentius \"a rebel people;\"[237:2] that Galerius\nspeaks of them as \"a nefarious conspiracy;\" the heathen in Minucius, as\n\"men of a desperate faction;\" that others make them guilty of sacrilege\nand treason, and call them by those other titles which, more closely\nresembling the language of Tacitus, have been noticed above. Hence the\nviolent accusations against them as the destruction of the Empire, the\nauthors of physical evils, and the cause of the anger of the gods.\n\n\"Men cry out,\" says Tertullian, \"that the state is beset, that the\nChristians are in their fields, in their forts, in their islands. They\nmourn as for a loss that every sex, condition, and now even rank, is\ngoing over to this sect. And yet they do not by this very means advance\ntheir minds to the idea of some good therein hidden; they allow not\nthemselves to conjecture more rightly, they choose not to examine more\nclosely. The generality run upon a hatred of this name, with eyes so\nclosed that in bearing favourable testimony to any one they mingle with\nit the reproach of the name. 'A good man Caius Seius, only he is a\nChristian.' So another, 'I marvel that that wise man Lucius Titius hath\nsuddenly become a Christian.' No one reflecteth whether Caius be not\ntherefore good and Lucius wise because a Christian, or therefore a\nChristian because wise and good. They praise that which they know, they\nrevile that which they know not. Virtue is not in such account as hatred\nof the Christians. Now, then, if the hatred be of the name, what guilt\nis there in names? What charge against words? Unless it be that any word\nwhich is a name have either a barbarous or ill-omened, or a scurrilous\nor an immodest sound. If the Tiber cometh up to the walls, if the Nile\ncometh not up to the fields, if the heaven hath stood still, if the\nearth hath been moved, if there be any famine, if any pestilence, 'The\nChristians to the lions' is forthwith the word.\"[238:1]\n\n\n25.\n\n\"Men of a desperate, lawless, reckless faction,\" says the heathen\nC\u00e6cilius, in the passage above referred to, \"who collect together out of\nthe lowest rabble the thoughtless portion, and credulous women seduced\nby the weakness of their sex, and form a mob of impure conspirators, of\nwhom nocturnal assemblies, and solemn fastings, and unnatural food, no\nsacred rite but pollution, is the bond. A tribe lurking and\nlight-hating, dumb for the public, talkative in corners, they despise\nour temples as if graves, spit at our gods, deride our religious forms;\npitiable themselves, they pity, forsooth, our priests; half-naked\nthemselves, they despise our honours and purple; monstrous folly and\nincredible impudence! . . . Day after day, their abandoned morals wind\ntheir serpentine course; over the whole world are those most hideous\nrites of an impious association growing into shape: . . . they recognize\neach other by marks and signs, and love each other almost before they\nrecognize; promiscuous lust is their religion. Thus does their vain and\nmad superstition glory in crimes. . . The writer who tells the story of a\ncriminal capitally punished, and of the gibbet (_ligna feralia_) of the\ncross being their observance (_ceremonias_), assigns to them thereby an\naltar in keeping with the abandoned and wicked, that they may worship\n(_colant_) what they merit. . . . Why their mighty effort to hide and\nshroud whatever it is they worship (_colunt_), since things honest ever\nlike the open day, and crimes are secret? Why have they no altars, no\ntemples, no images known to us, never speak abroad, never assemble\nfreely, were it not that what they worship and suppress is subject\neither of punishment or of shame? . . What monstrous, what portentous\nnotions do they fabricate! that that God of theirs, whom they can\nneither show nor see, should be inquiring diligently into the\ncharacters, the acts, nay the words and secret thoughts of all men;\nrunning to and fro, forsooth, and present everywhere, troublesome,\nrestless, nay impudently curious they would have him; that is, if he is\nclose at every deed, interferes in all places, while he can neither\nattend to each as being distracted through the whole, nor suffice for\nthe whole as being engaged about each. Think too of their threatening\nfire, meditating destruction to the whole earth, nay the world itself\nwith its stars! . . . Nor content with this mad opinion, they add and\nappend their old wives' tales about a new birth after death, ashes and\ncinders, and by some strange confidence believe each other's lies. Poor\ncreatures! consider what hangs over you after death, while you are still\nalive. Lo, the greater part of you, the better, as you say, are in want,\ncold, toil, hunger, and your God suffers it; but I omit common trials.\nLo, threats are offered to you, punishments, torments; crosses to be\nundergone now, not worshipped (_adorand\u00e6_); fires too which ye predict\nand fear; where is that God who can recover, but cannot preserve your\nlife? The answer of Socrates, when he was asked about heavenly matters,\nis well known, 'What is above us does not concern us.' My opinion also\nis, that points which are doubtful, as are the points in question, must\nbe left; nor, when so many and such great men are in controversy on the\nsubject, must judgment be rashly and audaciously given on either side,\nlest the consequence be either anile superstition or the overthrow of\nall religion.\"\n\n\n26.\n\nSuch was Christianity in the eyes of those who witnessed its rise and\npropagation;--one of a number of wild and barbarous rites which were\npouring in upon the Empire from the ancient realms of superstition, and\nthe mother of a progeny of sects which were faithful to the original\nthey had derived from Egypt or Syria; a religion unworthy of an educated\nperson, as appealing, not to the intellect, but to the fears and\nweaknesses of human nature, and consisting, not in the rational and\ncheerful enjoyment, but in a morose rejection of the gifts of\nProvidence; a horrible religion, as inflicting or enjoining cruel\nsufferings, and monstrous and loathsome in its very indulgence of the\npassions; a religion leading by reaction to infidelity; a religion of\nmagic, and of the vulgar arts, real and pretended, with which magic was\naccompanied; a secret religion which dared not face the day; an\nitinerant, busy, proselytizing religion, forming an extended confederacy\nagainst the state, resisting its authority and breaking its laws. There\nmay be some exceptions to this general impression, such as Pliny's\ndiscovery of the innocent and virtuous rule of life adopted by the\nChristians of Pontus; but this only proves that Christianity was not in\nfact the infamous religion which the heathen thought it; it did not\nreverse their general belief to that effect.\n\n\n27.\n\nNow it must be granted that, in some respects, this view of Christianity\ndepended on the times, and would alter with their alteration. When there\nwas no persecution, Martyrs could not be obstinate; and when the Church\nwas raised aloft in high places, it was no longer in caves. Still, I\nbelieve, it continued substantially the same in the judgment of the\nworld external to it, while there was an external world to judge of it.\n\"They thought it enough,\" says Julian in the fourth century, of our Lord\nand His Apostles, \"to deceive women, servants, and slaves, and by their\nmeans wives and husbands.\" \"A human fabrication,\" says he elsewhere,\n\"put together by wickedness, having nothing divine in it, but making a\nperverted use of the fable-loving, childish, irrational part of the\nsoul, and offering a set of wonders to create belief.\" \"Miserable men,\"\nhe says elsewhere, \"you refuse to worship the ancile, yet you worship\nthe wood of the cross, and sign it on your foreheads, and fix it on your\ndoors. Shall one for this hate the intelligent among you, or pity the\nless understanding, who in following you have gone to such an excess of\nperdition as to leave the everlasting gods and go over to a dead Jew?\"\nHe speaks of their adding other dead men to Him who died so long ago.\n\"You have filled all places with sepulchres and monuments, though it is\nnowhere told you in your religion to haunt the tombs and to attend upon\nthem.\" Elsewhere he speaks of their \"leaving the gods for corpses and\nrelics.\" On the other hand, he attributes the growth of Christianity to\nits humanity towards strangers, care in burying the dead, and pretended\nreligiousness of life. In another place he speaks of their care of the\npoor.[241:1]\n\nLibanius, Julian's preceptor in rhetoric, delivers the same testimony,\nas far as it goes. He addressed his Oration for the Temples to a\nChristian Emperor, and would in consequence be guarded in his language;\nhowever it runs in one direction. He speaks of \"those black-habited\nmen,\" meaning the monks, \"who eat more than elephants, and by the\nnumber of their potations trouble those who send them drink in their\nchantings, and conceal this by paleness artificially acquired.\" They\n\"are in good condition out of the misfortunes of others, while they\npretend to serve God by hunger.\" Those whom they attack \"are like bees,\nthey like drones.\" I do not quote this passage to prove that there were\nmonks in Libanius's days, which no one doubts, but to show his\nimpression of Christianity, as far as his works betray it.\n\nNumantian, in the same century, describes in verse his voyage from Rome\nto Gaul: one book of the poem is extant; he falls in with Christianity\non two of the islands which lie in his course. He thus describes them as\nfound on one of these: \"The island is in a squalid state, being full of\nlight-haters. They call themselves monks, because they wish to live\nalone without witness. They dread the gifts, from fearing the reverses,\nof fortune. Thus Homer says that melancholy was the cause of\nBellerophon's anxiety; for it is said that after the wounds of grief\nmankind displeased the offended youth.\" He meets on the other island a\nChristian, whom he had known, of good family and fortune, and happy in\nhis marriage, who \"impelled by the Furies had left men and gods, and,\ncredulous exile, was living in base concealment. Is not this herd,\" he\ncontinues, \"worse than Circean poison? then bodies were changed, now\nminds.\"\n\n\n28.\n\nIn the Philopatris, which is the work of an Author of the fourth\ncentury,[242:1] Critias is introduced pale and wild. His friend asks him\nif he has seen Cerberus or Hecate; and he answers that he has heard a\nrigmarole from certain \"thrice-cursed sophists;\" which he thinks would\ndrive him mad, if he heard it again, and was nearly sending him\nheadlong over some cliff as it was. He retires for relief with his\ninquirer to a pleasant place, shadowed by planes, where swallows and\nnightingales are singing, and a quiet brook is purling. Triephon, his\nfriend, expresses a fear lest he has heard some incantation, and is led\nby the course of the dialogue, before his friend tells his tale, to give\nsome account of Christianity, being himself a Christian. After speaking\nof the creation, as described by Moses, he falls at once upon that\ndoctrine of a particular providence which is so distasteful to Plutarch,\nVelleius in Cicero, and C\u00e6cilius, and generally to unbelievers. \"He is\nin heaven,\" he says, \"looking at just and unjust, and causing actions to\nbe entered in books; and He will recompense all on a day which He has\nappointed.\" Critias objects that he cannot make this consistent with the\nreceived doctrine about the Fates, \"even though he has perhaps been\ncarried aloft with his master, and initiated in unspeakable mysteries.\"\nHe also asks if the deeds of the Scythians are written in heaven; for if\nso, there must be many scribes there. After some more words, in course\nof which, as in the earlier part of the dialogue, the doctrine of the\nHoly Trinity is introduced, Critias gives an account of what befell him.\nHe says, he fell in with a crowd in the streets; and, while asking a\nfriend the cause of it, others joined them (Christians or monks), and a\nconversation ensues, part of it corrupt or obscure, on the subject, as\nGesner supposes, of Julian's oppression of the Christians, especially of\nthe clergy. One of these interlocutors is a wretched old man, whose\n\"phlegm is paler than death;\" another has \"a rotten cloke on, and no\ncovering on head or feet,\" who says he has been told by some ill-clad\nperson from the mountains, with a shorn crown, that in the theatre was a\nname hieroglyphically written of one who would flood the highway with\ngold. On his laughing at the story, his friend Crato, whom he had\njoined, bids him be silent, using a Pythagorean word; for he has \"most\nexcellent matters to initiate him into, and that the prediction is no\ndream but true,\" and will be fulfilled in August, using the Egyptian\nname of the month. He attempts to leave them in disgust, but Crato pulls\nhim back \"at the instigation of that old demon.\" He is in consequence\npersuaded to go \"to those conjurers,\" who, says Crato, would \"initiate\nin all mysteries.\" He finds, in a building which is described in the\nlanguage used by Homer of the Palace of Menelaus, \"not Helen, no, but\nmen pale and downcast,\" who ask, whether there was any bad news; \"for\nthey seemed,\" he says, \"wishing the worst; and rejoicing in misfortune,\nas the Furies in the theatres.\" On their asking him how the city and the\nworld went on, and his answering that things went on smoothly and seemed\nlikely to do so still, they frown, and say that \"the city is in travail\nwith a bad birth.\" \"You, who dwell aloft,\" he answers, \"and see\neverything from on high, doubtless have a keen perception in this\nmatter; but tell me, how is the sky? will the Sun be eclipsed? will Mars\nbe in quadrature with Jupiter? &c.;\" and he goes on to jest upon their\ncelibacy. On their persisting in prophesying evil to the state, he says,\n\"This evil will fall on your own head, since you are so hard upon your\ncountry; for not as high-flyers have ye heard this, nor are ye adepts in\nthe restless astrological art, but if divinations and conjurings have\nseduced you, double is your stupidity; for they are the discoveries of\nold women and things to laugh at.\" The interview then draws to an end;\nbut more than enough has been quoted already to show the author's notion\nof Christianity.\n\n\n29.\n\nSuch was the language of paganism after Christianity had for fifty years\nbeen exposed to the public gaze; after it had been before the world for\nfifty more, St. Augustine had still to defend it against the charge of\nbeing the cause of the calamities of the Empire. And for the charge of\nmagic, when the Arian bishops were in formal disputations with the\nCatholic, before Gungebald, Burgundian King of France, at the end of the\nfifth century, we find still that they charged the Catholics with being\n\"_pr\u00e6stigiatores_,\" and worshipping a number of gods; and when the\nCatholics proposed that the king should repair to the shrine of St.\nJustus, where both parties might ask him concerning their respective\nfaiths, the Arians cried out that \"they would not seek enchantments like\nSaul, for Scripture was enough for them, which was more powerful than\nall bewitchments.\"[245:1] This was said, not against strangers of whom\nthey knew nothing, as Ethelbert might be suspicious of St. Augustine and\nhis brother missionaries, but against a body of men who lived among\nthem.\n\nI do not think it can be doubted then that, had Tacitus, Suetonius, and\nPliny, Celsus, Porphyry, and the other opponents of Christianity, lived\nin the fourth century, their evidence concerning Christianity would be\nvery much the same as it has come down to us from the centuries before\nit. In either case, a man of the world and a philosopher would have been\ndisgusted at the gloom and sadness of its profession, its\nmysteriousness, its claim of miracles, the want of good sense imputable\nto its rule of life, and the unsettlement and discord it was introducing\ninto the social and political world.\n\n\n30.\n\nOn the whole then I conclude as follows:--if there is a form of\nChristianity now in the world which is accused of gross superstition, of\nborrowing its rites and customs from the heathen, and of ascribing to\nforms and ceremonies an occult virtue;--a religion which is considered\nto burden and enslave the mind by its requisitions, to address itself to\nthe weak-minded and ignorant, to be supported by sophistry and\nimposture, and to contradict reason and exalt mere irrational faith;--a\nreligion which impresses on the serious mind very distressing views of\nthe guilt and consequences of sin, sets upon the minute acts of the day,\none by one, their definite value for praise or blame, and thus casts a\ngrave shadow over the future;--a religion which holds up to admiration\nthe surrender of wealth, and disables serious persons from enjoying it\nif they would;--a religion, the doctrines of which, be they good or bad,\nare to the generality of men unknown; which is considered to bear on its\nvery surface signs of folly and falsehood so distinct that a glance\nsuffices to judge of it, and that careful examination is preposterous;\nwhich is felt to be so simply bad, that it may be calumniated at hazard\nand at pleasure, it being nothing but absurdity to stand upon the\naccurate distribution of its guilt among its particular acts, or\npainfully to determine how far this or that story concerning it is\nliterally true, or what has to be allowed in candour, or what is\nimprobable, or what cuts two ways, or what is not proved, or what may be\nplausibly defended;--a religion such, that men look at a convert to it\nwith a feeling which no other denomination raises except Judaism,\nSocialism, or Mormonism, viz. with curiosity, suspicion, fear, disgust,\nas the case may be, as if something strange had befallen him, as if he\nhad had an initiation into a mystery, and had come into communion with\ndreadful influences, as if he were now one of a confederacy which\nclaimed him, absorbed him, stripped him of his personality, reduced him\nto a mere organ or instrument of a whole;--a religion which men hate as\nproselytizing, anti-social, revolutionary, as dividing families,\nseparating chief friends, corrupting the maxims of government, making a\nmock at law, dissolving the empire, the enemy of human nature, and a\n\"conspirator against its rights and privileges;\"[247:1]--a religion\nwhich they consider the champion and instrument of darkness, and a\npollution calling down upon the land the anger of heaven;--a religion\nwhich they associate with intrigue and conspiracy, which they speak\nabout in whispers, which they detect by anticipation in whatever goes\nwrong, and to which they impute whatever is unaccountable;--a religion,\nthe very name of which they cast out as evil, and use simply as a bad\nepithet, and which from the impulse of self-preservation they would\npersecute if they could;--if there be such a religion now in the world,\nit is not unlike Christianity as that same world viewed it, when first\nit came forth from its Divine Author.[247:2]\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nTHE CHURCH OF THE FOURTH CENTURY.\n\nTill the Imperial Government had become Christian, and heresies were put\ndown by the arm of power, the face of Christendom presented much the\nsame appearance all along as on the first propagation of the religion.\nWhat Gnosticism, Montanism, Judaism and, I may add, the Oriental\nmysteries were to the nascent Church, as described in the foregoing\nSection, such were the Manichean, Donatist, Apollinarian and\ncontemporary sects afterwards. The Church in each place looked at first\nsight as but one out of a number of religious communions, with little of\na very distinctive character except to the careful inquirer. Still there\nwere external indications of essential differences within; and, as we\nhave already compared it in the first centuries, we may now contrast it\nin the fourth, with the rival religious bodies with which it was\nencompassed.\n\n\n2.\n\nHow was the man to guide his course who wished to join himself to the\ndoctrine and fellowship of the Apostles in the times of St. Athanasius,\nSt. Basil, and St. Augustine? Few indeed were the districts in the\n_orbis terrarum_, which did not then, as in the Ante-nicene era, present\na number of creeds and communions for his choice. Gaul indeed is said at\nthat era to have been perfectly free from heresies; at least none are\nmentioned as belonging to that country in the Theodosian Code. But in\nEgypt, in the early part of the fourth century, the Meletian schism\nnumbered one-third as many bishops as were contained in the whole\nPatriarchate. In Africa, towards the end of it, while the Catholic\nBishops amounted in all to 466, the Donatists rivalled them with as many\nas 400. In Spain Priscillianism was spread from the Pyrenees to the\nOcean. It seems to have been the religion of the population in the\nprovince of Gallicia, while its author Priscillian, whose death had been\ncontrived by the Ithacians, was honoured as a Martyr. The Manichees,\nhiding themselves under a variety of names in different localities, were\nnot in the least flourishing condition at Rome. Rome and Italy were the\nseat of the Marcionites. The Origenists, too, are mentioned by St.\nJerome as \"bringing a cargo of blasphemies into the port of Rome.\" And\nRome was the seat of a Novatian, a Donatist, and a Luciferian bishop, in\naddition to the legitimate occupant of the See of St. Peter. The\nLuciferians, as was natural under the circumstances of their schism,\nwere sprinkled over Christendom from Spain to Palestine, and from Treves\nto Lybia; while in its parent country Sardinia, as a centre of that\nextended range, Lucifer seems to have received the honours of a Saint.\n\nWhen St. Gregory Nazianzen began to preach at Constantinople, the Arians\nwere in possession of its hundred churches; they had the populace in\ntheir favour, and, after their legal dislodgment, edict after edict was\nineffectually issued against them. The Novatians too abounded there; and\nthe Sabbatians, who had separated from them, had a church, where they\nprayed at the tomb of their founder. Moreover, Apollinarians, Eunomians,\nand Semi-arians, mustered in great numbers at Constantinople. The\nSemi-arian bishops were as popular in the neighbouring provinces, as the\nArian doctrine in the capital. They had possession of the coast of the\nHellespont and Bithynia; and were found in Phrygia, Isauria, and the\nneighbouring parts of Asia Minor. Phrygia was the headquarters of the\nMontanists, and was overrun by the Messalians, who had advanced thus far\nfrom Mesopotamia, spreading through Syria, Lycaonia, Pamphylia, and\nCappadocia in their way. In the lesser Armenia, the same heretics had\npenetrated into the monasteries. Phrygia, too, and Paphlagonia were the\nseat of the Novatians, who besides were in force at Nic\u00e6a and Nicomedia,\nwere found in Alexandria, Africa, and Spain, and had a bishop even in\nScythia. The whole tract of country from the Hellespont to Cilicia had\nnearly lapsed into Eunomianism, and the tract from Cilicia as far as\nPhoenicia into Apollinarianism. The disorders of the Church of Antioch\nare well known: an Arian succession, two orthodox claimants, and a\nbishop of the Apollinarians. Palestine abounded in Origenists, if at\nthat time they may properly be called a sect; Palestine, Egypt, and\nArabia were overrun with Marcionites; Osrhoene was occupied by the\nfollowers of Bardesanes and Harmonius, whose hymns so nearly took the\nplace of national tunes that St. Ephrem found no better way of resisting\nthe heresy than setting them to fresh words. Theodoret in Comagene\nspeaks in the next century of reclaiming eight villages of Marcionites,\none of Eunomians, and one of Arians.\n\n\n3.\n\nThese sects were of very various character. Learning, eloquence, and\ntalent were the characteristics of the Apollinarians, Manichees, and\nPelagians; Tichonius the Donatist was distinguished in Biblical\ninterpretation; the Semi-arian and Apollinarian leaders were men of\ngrave and correct behaviour; the Novatians had sided with the Orthodox\nduring the Arian persecution; the Montanists and Messalians addressed\nthemselves to an almost heathen population; the atrocious fanaticism of\nthe Priscillianists, the fury of the Arian women of Alexandria and\nConstantinople, and the savage cruelty of the Circumcellions can hardly\nbe exaggerated. These various sectaries had their orders of clergy,\nbishops, priests and deacons; their readers and ministers; their\ncelebrants and altars; their hymns and litanies. They preached to the\ncrowds in public, and their meeting-houses bore the semblance of\nchurches. They had their sacristies and cemeteries; their farms; their\nprofessors and doctors; their schools. Miracles were ascribed to the\nArian Theophilus, to the Luciferian Gregory of Elvira, to a Macedonian\nin Cyzicus, and to the Donatists in Africa.\n\n\n4.\n\nHow was an individual inquirer to find, or a private Christian to keep\nthe Truth, amid so many rival teachers? The misfortunes or perils of\nholy men and saints show us the difficulty; St. Augustine was nine years\na Manichee; St. Basil for a time was in admiration of the Semi-arians;\nSt. Sulpicius gave a momentary countenance to the Pelagians; St. Paula\nlistened, and Melania assented, to the Origenists. Yet the rule was\nsimple, which would direct every one right; and in that age, at least,\nno one could be wrong for any long time without his own fault. The\nChurch is everywhere, but it is one; sects are everywhere, but they are\nmany, independent and discordant. Catholicity is the attribute of the\nChurch, independency of sectaries. It is true that some sects might seem\nalmost Catholic in their diffusion; Novatians or Marcionites were in all\nquarters of the empire; yet it is hardly more than the name, or the\ngeneral doctrine or philosophy, that was universal: the different\nportions which professed it seem to have been bound together by no\nstrict or definite tie. The Church might be evanescent or lost for a\nwhile in particular countries, or it might be levelled and buried among\nsects, when the eye was confined to one spot, or it might be confronted\nby the one and same heresy in various places; but, on looking round the\n_orbis terrarum_, there was no mistaking that body which, and which\nalone, had possession of it. The Church is a kingdom; a heresy is a\nfamily rather than a kingdom; and as a family continually divides and\nsends out branches, founding new houses, and propagating itself in\ncolonies, each of them as independent as its original head, so was it\nwith heresy. Simon Magus, the first heretic, had been Patriarch of\nMenandrians, Basilidians, Valentinians, and the whole family of\nGnostics; Tatian of Encratites, Severians, Aquarians, Apotactites, and\nSaccophori. The Montanists had been propagated into Tascodrugites,\nPepuzians, Artotyrites, and Quartodecimans. Eutyches, in a later time,\ngave birth to the Dioscorians, Gaianites, Theodosians, Agnoet\u00e6,\nTheopaschites, Acephali, Semidalit\u00e6, Nagranit\u00e6, Jacobites, and others.\nThis is the uniform history of heresy. The patronage of the civil power\nmight for a time counteract the law of its nature, but it showed it as\nsoon as that obstacle was removed. Scarcely was Arianism deprived of the\nchurches of Constantinople, and left to itself, than it split in that\nvery city into the Dorotheans, the Psathyrians, and the Curtians; and\nthe Eunomians into the Theophronians and Eutychians. One fourth part of\nthe Donatists speedily became Maximinianists; and besides these were the\nRogatians, the Primianists, the Urbanists, and the Claudianists. If such\nwas the fecundity of the heretical principle in one place, it is not to\nbe supposed that Novatians or Marcionites in Africa or the East would\nfeel themselves bound to think or to act with their fellow-sectaries of\nRome or Constantinople; and the great varieties or inconsistencies of\nstatement, which have come down to us concerning the tenets of heresies,\nmay thus be explained. This had been the case with the pagan rites,\nwhether indigenous or itinerant, to which heresy succeeded. The\nestablished priesthoods were local properties, as independent\ntheologically as they were geographically of each other; the fanatical\ncompanies which spread over the Empire dissolved and formed again as the\ncircumstances of the moment occasioned. So was it with heresy: it was,\nby its very nature, its own master, free to change, self-sufficient;\nand, having thrown off the yoke of the Church, it was little likely to\nsubmit to any usurped and spurious authority. Montanism and Manicheeism\nmight perhaps in some sort furnish an exception to this remark.\n\n\n5.\n\nIn one point alone the heresies seem universally to have agreed,--in\nhatred to the Church. This might at that time be considered one of her\nsurest and most obvious Notes. She was that body of which all sects,\nhowever divided among themselves, spoke ill; according to the prophecy,\n\"If they have called the Master of the house Beelzebub, how much more\nthem of His household.\" They disliked and they feared her; they did\ntheir utmost to overcome their mutual differences, in order to unite\nagainst her. Their utmost indeed was little, for independency was the\nlaw of their being; they could not exert themselves without fresh\nquarrels, both in the bosom of each, and one with another. \"_Bellum\nh\u00e6reticorum pax est ecclesi\u00e6_\" had become a proverb; but they felt the\ngreat desirableness of union against the only body which was the natural\nantagonist of all, and various are the instances which occur in\necclesiastical history of attempted coalitions. The Meletians of Africa\nunited with the Arians against St. Athanasius; the Semi-Arians of the\nCouncil of Sardica corresponded with the Donatists of Africa; Nestorius\nreceived and protected the Pelagians; Aspar, the Arian minister of Leo\nthe Emperor, favoured the Monophysites of Egypt; the Jacobites of Egypt\nsided with the Moslem, who are charged with holding a Nestorian\ndoctrine. It had been so from the beginning: \"They huddle up a peace\nwith all everywhere,\" says Tertullian, \"for it maketh no matter to them,\nalthough they hold different doctrines, so long as they conspire\ntogether in their siege against the one thing, Truth.\"[254:1] And even\nthough active co-operation was impracticable, at least hard words cost\nnothing, and could express that common hatred at all seasons.\nAccordingly, by Montanists, Catholics were called \"the carnal;\" by\nNovatians, \"the apostates;\" by Valentinians, \"the worldly;\" by\nManichees, \"the simple;\" by A\u00ebrians, \"the ancient;\"[254:2] by\nApollinarians, \"the man-worshippers;\" by Origenists, \"the flesh-lovers,\"\nand \"the slimy;\" by the Nestorians, \"Egyptians;\" by Monophysites, the\n\"Chalcedonians:\" by Donatists, \"the traitors,\" and \"the sinners,\" and\n\"servants of Antichrist;\" and St. Peter's chair, \"the seat of\npestilence;\" and by the Luciferians, the Church was called \"a brothel,\"\n\"the devil's harlot,\" and \"synagogue of Satan:\" so that it might be\ncalled a Note of the Church, as I have said, for the use of the most\nbusy and the most ignorant, that she was on one side and all other\nbodies on the other.\n\n\n6.\n\nYet, strange as it may appear, there was one title of the Church of a\nvery different nature from those which have been enumerated,--a title of\nhonour, which all men agreed to give her,--and one which furnished a\nstill more simple direction than such epithets of abuse to aid the busy\nand the ignorant in finding her, and which was used by the Fathers for\nthat purpose. It was one which the sects could neither claim for\nthemselves, nor hinder being enjoyed by its rightful owner, though,\nsince it was the characteristic designation of the Church in the Creed,\nit seemed to surrender the whole controversy between the two parties\nengaged in it. Balaam could not keep from blessing the ancient people of\nGod; and the whole world, heresies inclusive, were irresistibly\nconstrained to call God's second election by its prophetical title of\nthe \"Catholic\" Church. St. Paul tells us that the heretic is \"condemned\nby himself;\" and no clearer witness against the sects of the earlier\ncenturies was needed by the Church, than their own testimony to this\ncontrast between her actual position and their own. Sects, say the\nFathers, are called after the name of their founders, or from their\nlocality, or from their doctrine. So was it from the beginning: \"I am of\nPaul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas;\" but it was promised to the\nChurch that she should have no master upon earth, and that she should\n\"gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.\"\nHer every-day name, which was understood in the marketplace and used in\nthe palace, which every chance comer knew, and which state-edicts\nrecognized, was the \"Catholic\" Church. This was that very description of\nChristianity in those times which we are all along engaged in\ndetermining. And it had been recognized as such from the first; the name\nor the fact is put forth by St. Ignatius, St. Justin, St. Clement; by\nthe Church of Smyrna, St. Iren\u00e6us, Rhodon or another, Tertullian,\nOrigen, St. Cyprian, St. Cornelius; by the Martyrs, Pionius, Sabina, and\nAsclepiades; by Lactantius, Eusebius, Adimantius, St. Athanasius, St.\nPacian, St. Optatus, St. Epiphanius, St. Cyril, St. Basil, St. Ambrose,\nSt. Chrysostom, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and Facundus. St. Clement\nuses it as an argument against the Gnostics, St. Augustine against the\nDonatists and Manichees, St. Jerome against the Luciferians, and St.\nPacian against the Novatians.\n\n\n7.\n\nIt was an argument for educated and simple. When St. Ambrose would\nconvert the cultivated reason of Augustine, he bade him study the book\nof Isaiah, who is the prophet, as of the Messiah, so of the calling of\nthe Gentiles and of the Imperial power of the Church. And when St. Cyril\nwould give a rule to his crowd of Catechumens, \"If ever thou art\nsojourning in any city,\" he says, \"inquire not simply where the Lord's\nhouse is, (for the sects of the profane also make an attempt to call\ntheir own dens houses of the Lord,) nor merely where the Church is, but\nwhere is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy\nBody, the Mother of us all, which is the Spouse of our Lord Jesus\nChrist.\"[256:1] \"In the Catholic Church,\" says St. Augustine to the\nManichees, \"not to speak of that most pure wisdom, to the knowledge of\nwhich few spiritual men attain in this life so as to know it even in its\nleast measure,--as men, indeed, yet, without any doubt,--(for the\nmultitude of Christians are safest, not in understanding with quickness,\nbut in believing with simplicity,) not to speak of this wisdom, which ye\ndo not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other\nconsiderations which most sufficiently hold me in her bosom. I am held\nby the consent of people and nations; by that authority which began in\nmiracles, was nourished in hope, was increased by charity, and made\nsteadfast by age; by that succession of priests from the chair of the\nApostle Peter, to whose feeding the Lord after His resurrection\ncommended His sheep, even to the present episcopate; lastly, by the very\ntitle of Catholic, which, not without cause, hath this Church alone,\namid so many heresies, obtained in such sort, that, whereas all\nheretics wish to be called Catholics, nevertheless to any stranger, who\nasked where to find the 'Catholic' Church, none of them would dare to\npoint to his own basilica or home. These dearest bonds, then, of the\nChristian Name, so many and such, rightly hold a man in belief in the\nCatholic Church, even though, by reason of the slowness of our\nunderstanding or our deserts, truth doth not yet show herself in her\nclearest tokens. But among you, who have none of these reasons to invite\nand detain me, I hear but the loud sound of a promise of the truth;\nwhich truth, verily, if it be so manifestly displayed among you that\nthere can be no mistake about it, is to be preferred to all those things\nby which I am held in the Catholic Church; but if it is promised alone,\nand not exhibited, no one shall move me from that faith which by so many\nand great ties binds my mind to the Christian religion.\"[257:1] When\nAdimantius asked his Marcionite opponent, how he was a Christian who did\nnot even bear that name, but was called from Marcion, he retorts, \"And\nyou are called from the Catholic Church, therefore ye are not Christians\neither;\" Adimantius answers, \"Did we profess man's name, you would have\nspoken to the point; but if we are called from being all over the world,\nwhat is there bad in this?\"[257:2]\n\n\n8.\n\n\"Whereas there is one God and one Lord,\" says St. Clement, \"therefore\nalso that which is the highest in esteem is praised on the score of\nbeing sole, as after the pattern of the One Principle. In the nature\nthen of the One, the Church, which is one, hath its portion, which they\nwould forcibly cut up into many heresies. In substance then, and in\nidea, and in first principle, and in pre-eminence, we call the ancient\nCatholic Church sole; in order to the unity of one faith, the faith\naccording to her own covenants, or rather that one covenant in different\ntimes, which, by the will of one God and through one Lord, is gathering\ntogether those who are already ordained, whom God hath predestined,\nhaving known that they would be just from the foundation of the\nworld. . . . . But of heresies, some are called from a man's name, as\nValentine's heresy, Marcion's, and that of Basilides (though they\nprofess to bring the opinion of Matthias, for all the Apostles had, as\none teaching, so one tradition); and others from place, as the Peratici;\nand others from nation, as that of the Phrygians; and others from their\nactions, as that of the Encratites; and others from their peculiar\ndoctrines, as the Docet\u00e6 and Hematites; and others from their\nhypotheses, and what they have honoured, as Cainites and the Ophites;\nand others from their wicked conduct and enormities, as those Simonians\nwho are called Eutychites.\"[258:1] \"There are, and there have been,\"\nsays St. Justin, \"many who have taught atheistic and blasphemous words\nand deeds, coming in the name of Jesus; and they are called by us from\nthe appellation of the men whence each doctrine and opinion began . . .\nSome are called Marcians, others Valentinians, others Basilidians,\nothers Saturnilians.\"[258:2] \"When men are called Phrygians, or\nNovatians, or Valentinians, or Marcionites, or Anthropians,\" says\nLactantius, \"or by any other name, they cease to be Christians; for they\nhave lost Christ's Name, and clothe themselves in human and foreign\ntitles. It is the Catholic Church alone which retains the true\nworship.\"[258:3] \"We never heard of Petrines, or Paulines, or\nBartholomeans, or Thaddeans,\" says St. Epiphanius; \"but from the first\nthere was one preaching of all the Apostles, not preaching themselves,\nbut Christ Jesus the Lord. Wherefore also all gave one name to the\nChurch, not their own, but that of their Lord Jesus Christ, since they\nbegan to be called Christians first at Antioch; which is the Sole\nCatholic Church, having nought else but Christ's, being a Church of\nChristians; not of Christs, but of Christians, He being One, they from\nthat One being called Christians. None, but this Church and her\npreachers, are of this character, as is shown by their own epithets,\nManicheans, and Simonians, and Valentinians, and Ebionites.\"[259:1] \"If\nyou ever hear those who are said to belong to Christ,\" says St. Jerome,\n\"named, not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some other, say\nMarcionites, Valentinians, Mountaineers, Campestrians, know that it is\nnot Christ's Church, but the synagogue of Antichrist.\"[259:2]\n\n\n9.\n\nSt. Pacian's letters to the Novatian Bishop Sympronian require a more\nextended notice. The latter had required the Catholic faith to be proved\nto him, without distinctly stating from what portion of it he dissented;\nand he boasted that he had never found any one to convince him of its\ntruth. St. Pacian observes that there is one point which Sympronian\ncannot dispute, and which settles the question, the very name Catholic.\nHe then supposes Sympronian to object that, \"under the Apostles no one\nwas called Catholic.\" He answers, \"Be it thus;[259:3] it shall have been\nso; allow even that. When, after the Apostles, heresies had burst forth,\nand were striving under various names to tear piecemeal and divide 'the\nDove' and 'the Queen' of God, did not the Apostolic people require a\nname of their own, whereby to mark the unity of the people that was\nuncorrupted, lest the error of some should rend limb by limb 'the\nundefiled virgin' of God? Was it not seemly that the chief head should\nbe distinguished by its own peculiar appellation? Suppose this very day\nI entered a populous city. When I had found Marcionites, Apollinarians,\nCataphrygians, Novatians, and others of the kind, who call themselves\nChristians, by what name should I recognize the congregation of my own\npeople, unless it were named Catholic? . . . . Whence was it delivered\nto me? Certainly that which has stood through so many ages was not\nborrowed from man. This name 'Catholic' sounds not of Marcion, nor of\nApelles, nor of Montanus, nor does it take heretics for its authors.\"\n\nIn his second letter, he continues, \"Certainly that was no accessory\nname which endured through so many ages. And, indeed, I am glad for\nthee, that, although thou mayest have preferred others, yet thou agreest\nthat the name attaches to us, which should you deny nature would cry\nout. But and if you still have doubts, let us hold our peace. We will\nboth be that which we shall be named.\" After alluding to Sympronian's\nremark that, though Cyprian was holy, \"his people bear the name of\nApostaticum, Capitolinum, or Synedrium,\" which were some of the Novatian\ntitles of the Church, St. Pacian replies, \"Ask a century, brother, and\nall its years in succession, whether this name has adhered to us;\nwhether the people of Cyprian have been called other than Catholic? No\none of these names have I ever heard.\" It followed that such\nappellations were \"taunts, not names,\" and therefore unmannerly. On the\nother hand it seems that Sympronian did not like to be called a\nNovatian, though he could not call himself a Catholic. \"Tell me\nyourselves,\" says St. Pacian, \"what ye are called. Do ye deny that the\nNovatians are called from Novatian? Impose on them whatever name you\nlike; that will ever adhere to them. Search, if you please, whole\nannals, and trust so many ages. You will answer, 'Christian.' But\nif I inquire the genus of the sect, you will not deny that it is\nNovatian. . . . Confess it without deceit; there is no wickedness in\nthe name. Why, when so often inquired for, do you hide yourself? Why\nashamed of the origin of your name? When you first wrote, I thought you\na Cataphrygian. . . . Dost thou grudge me my name, and yet shun thine\nown? Think what there is of shame in a cause which shrinks from its own\nname.\"\n\nIn a third letter: \"'The Church is the Body of Christ.' Truly, the body,\nnot a member; the body composed of many parts and members knit in one,\nas saith the Apostle, 'For the Body is not one member, but many.'\nTherefore, the Church is the full body, compacted and diffused now\nthroughout the whole world; like a city, I mean, all whose parts are\nunited, not as ye are, O Novatians, some small and insolent portion, and\na mere swelling that has gathered and separated from the rest of the\nbody. . . . Great is the progeny of the Virgin, and without number her\noffspring, wherewith the whole world is filled, wherewith the populous\nswarms ever throng the circumfluous hive.\" And he founds this\ncharacteristic of the Church upon the prophecies: \"At length, brother\nSympronian, be not ashamed to be with the many; at length consent to\ndespise these festering spots of the Novatians, and these parings of\nyours; and at length, to look upon the flocks of the Catholics, and the\npeople of the Church extending so far and wide. . . . Hear what David\nsaith, 'I will sing unto Thy name in the great congregation;' and again,\n'I will praise Thee among much people;' and 'the Lord, even the most\nmighty God, hath spoken, and called the world from the rising up of the\nsun unto the going down thereof.' What! shall the seed of Abraham, which\nis as the stars and the sand on the seashore for number, be contented\nwith your poverty? . . . Recognize now, brother, the Church of God\nextending her tabernacles and fixing the stakes of her curtains on the\nright and on the left; understand that 'the Lord's name is praised from\nthe rising up of the sun unto the going down thereof.'\"\n\n\n10.\n\nIn citing these passages, I am not proving what was the doctrine of the\nFathers concerning the Church in those early times, or what were the\npromises made to it in Scripture; but simply ascertaining what, in\nmatter of fact, was its then condition relatively to the various\nChristian bodies among which it was found. That the Fathers were able to\nput forward a certain doctrine, that they were able to appeal to the\nprophecies, proves that matter of fact; for unless the Church, and the\nChurch alone, had been one body everywhere, they could not have argued\non the supposition that it was so. And so as to the word \"Catholic;\" it\nis enough that the Church was so called; that title was a confirmatory\nproof and symbol of what is even otherwise so plain, that she, as St.\nPacian explains the word, was everywhere one, while the sects of the day\nwere nowhere one, but everywhere divided. Sects might, indeed, be\neverywhere, but they were in no two places the same; every spot had its\nown independent communion, or at least to this result they were\ninevitably and continually tending.\n\n\n11.\n\nSt. Pacian writes in Spain: the same contrast between the Church and\nsectarianism is presented to us in Africa in the instance of the\nDonatists; and St. Optatus is a witness both to the fact, and to its\nnotoriety, and to the deep impressions which it made on all parties.\nWhether or not the Donatists identified themselves with the true Church,\nand cut off the rest of Christendom from it, is not the question here,\nnor alters the fact which I wish distinctly brought out and recognized,\nthat in those ancient times the Church was that Body which was spread\nover the _orbis terrarum_, and sects were those bodies which were local\nor transitory.\n\n\"What is that one Church,\" says St. Optatus, \"which Christ calls 'Dove'\nand 'Spouse'? . . . It cannot be in the multitude of heretics and\nschismatics. If so, it follows that it is but in one place. Thou,\nbrother Parmenian, hast said that it is with you alone; unless, perhaps,\nyou aim at claiming for yourselves a special sanctity from your pride,\nso that where you will, there the Church may be, and may not be, where\nyou will not. Must it then be in a small portion of Africa, in the\ncorner of a small realm, among you, but not among us in another part of\nAfrica? And not in Spain, in Gaul, in Italy, where you are not? And if\nyou will have it only among you, not in the three Pannonian provinces,\nin Dacia, Moesia, Thrace, Achaia, Macedonia, and in all Greece, where\nyou are not? And that you may keep it among yourselves, not in Pontus,\nGalatia, Cappadocia, Pamphylia, Phrygia, Cilicia, in the three Syrias,\nin the two Armenias, in all Egypt, and in Mesopotamia, where you are\nnot? Not among such innumerable islands and the other provinces,\nscarcely numerable, where you are not? What will become then of the\nmeaning of the word Catholic, which is given to the Church, as being\naccording to reason[263:1] and diffused every where? For if thus at your\npleasure you narrow the Church, if you withdraw from her all the\nnations, where will be the earnings of the Son of God? where will be\nthat which the Father hath so amply accorded to Him, saying in the\nsecond Psalm 'I will give thee the heathen for Thine inheritance and the\nuttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession,' &c.? . . The whole\nearth is given Him with the nations; its whole circuit (_orbis_) is\nChrist's one possession.\"[263:2]\n\n\n12.\n\nAn African writer contemporary with St. Augustine, if not St. Augustine\nhimself, enumerates the small portions of the Donatist Sect, in and out\nof Africa, and asks if they can be imagined to be the fulfilment of the\nScripture promise to the Church. \"If the holy Scriptures have assigned\nthe Church to Africa alone, or to the scanty Cutzupitans or Mountaineers\nof Rome, or to the house or patrimony of one Spanish woman, however the\nargument may stand from other writings, then none but the Donatists have\npossession of the Church. If holy Scripture determines it to the few\nMoors of the C\u00e6sarean province, we must go over to the Rogatists: if to\nthe few Tripolitans or Byzacenes and Provincials, the Maximianists have\nattained to it; if in the Orientals only, it is to be sought for among\nArians, Eunomians, Macedonians, and others that may be there; for who\ncan enumerate every heresy of every nation? But if Christ's Church, by\nthe divine and most certain testimonies of Canonical Scriptures, is\nassigned to all nations, whatever may be adduced, and from whatever\nquarter cited, by those who say, 'Lo, here is Christ and lo there,' let\nus rather hear, if we be His sheep, the voice of our Shepherd saying\nunto us, 'Do not believe.' For they are not each found in the many\nnations where she is; but she, who is everywhere, is found where they\nare.\"[264:1]\n\nLastly, let us hear St. Augustine himself again in the same controversy:\n\"They do not communicate with us, as you say,\" he observes to\nCresconius, \"Novatians, Arians, Patripassians, Valentinians, Patricians,\nApellites, Marcionites, Ophites, and the rest of those sacrilegious\nnames, as you call them, of nefarious pests rather than sects. Yet,\nwheresoever they are, there is the Catholic Church; as in Africa it is\nwhere you are. On the other hand, neither you, nor any one of those\nheresies whatever, is to be found wherever is the Catholic Church.\nWhence it appears, which is that tree whose boughs extend over all the\nearth by the richness of its fruitfulness, and which be those broken\nbranches which have not the life of the root, but lie and wither, each\nin its own place.\"[265:1]\n\n\n13.\n\nIt may be possibly suggested that this universality which the Fathers\nascribe to the Catholic Church lay in its Apostolical descent, or again\nin its Episcopacy; and that it was one, not as being one kingdom or\ncivitas \"at unity with itself,\" with one and the same intelligence in\nevery part, one sympathy, one ruling principle, one organization, one\ncommunion, but because, though consisting of a number of independent\ncommunities, at variance (if so be) with each other even to a breach of\ncommunion, nevertheless all these were possessed of a legitimate\nsuccession of clergy, or all governed by Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.\nBut who will in seriousness maintain that relationship, or that sameness\nof structure, makes two bodies one? England and Prussia are both of them\nmonarchies; are they therefore one kingdom? England and the United\nStates are from one stock; can they therefore be called one state?\nEngland and Ireland are peopled by different races; yet are they not one\nkingdom still? If unity lies in the Apostolical succession, an act of\nschism is from the nature of the case impossible; for as no one can\nreverse his parentage, so no Church can undo the fact that its clergy\nhave come by lineal descent from the Apostles. Either there is no such\nsin as schism, or unity does not lie in the Episcopal form or in the\nEpiscopal ordination. And this is felt by the controversialists of this\nday; who in consequence are obliged to invent a sin, and to consider,\nnot division of Church from Church, but the interference of Church with\nChurch to be the sin of schism, as if local dioceses and bishops with\nrestraint were more than ecclesiastical arrangements and by-laws of the\nChurch, however sacred, while schism is a sin against her essence. Thus\nthey strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel. Division is the schism, if\nschism there be, not interference. If interference is a sin, division\nwhich is the cause of it is a greater; but where division is a duty,\nthere can be no sin in interference.\n\n\n14.\n\nFar different from such a theory is the picture which the ancient Church\npresents to us; true, it was governed by Bishops, and those Bishops came\nfrom the Apostles, but it was a kingdom besides; and as a kingdom admits\nof the possibility of rebels, so does such a Church involve sectaries\nand schismatics, but not independent portions. It was a vast organized\nassociation, co-extensive with the Roman Empire, or rather overflowing\nit. Its Bishops were not mere local officers, but possessed a\nquasi-ecumenical power, extending wherever a Christian was to be found.\n\"No Christian,\" says Bingham, \"would pretend to travel without taking\nletters of credence with him from his own bishop, if he meant to\ncommunicate with the Christian Church in a foreign country. Such was the\nadmirable unity of the Church Catholic in those days, and the blessed\nharmony and consent of her bishops among one another.\"[266:1] St.\nGregory Nazianzen calls St. Cyprian an universal Bishop, \"presiding,\" as\nthe same author presently quotes Gregory, \"not only over the Church of\nCarthage and Africa, but over all the regions of the West, and over the\nEast, and South, and Northern parts of the world also.\" This is\nevidence of a unity throughout Christendom, not of mere origin or of\nApostolical succession, but of government. Bingham continues \"[Gregory]\nsays the same of Athanasius; that, in being made Bishop of Alexandria,\nhe was made Bishop of the whole world. Chrysostom, in like manner,\nstyles Timothy, Bishop of the universe. . . . . The great Athanasius, as\nhe returned from his exile, made no scruple to ordain in several cities\nas he went along, though they were not in his own diocese. And the\nfamous Eusebius of Samosata did the like, in the times of the Arian\npersecution under Valens. . . Epiphanius made use of the same power and\nprivilege in a like case, ordaining Paulinianus, St. Jerome's brother,\nfirst deacon and then presbyter, in a monastery out of his own diocese\nin Palestine.\"[267:1] And so in respect of teaching, before Councils met\non any large scale, St. Ignatius of Antioch had addressed letters to the\nChurches along the coast of Asia Minor, when on his way to martyrdom at\nRome. St. Iren\u00e6us, when a subject of the Church of Smyrna, betakes\nhimself to Gaul, and answers in Lyons the heresies of Syria. The see of\nSt. Hippolytus, as if he belonged to all parts of the _orbis terrarum_,\ncannot be located, and is variously placed in the neighbourhood of Rome\nand in Arabia. Hosius, a Spanish Bishop, arbitrates in an Alexandrian\ncontroversy. St. Athanasius, driven from his Church, makes all\nChristendom his home, from Treves to Ethiopia, and introduces into the\nWest the discipline of the Egyptian Antony. St. Jerome is born in\nDalmatia, studies at Constantinople and Alexandria, is secretary to St.\nDamasus at Rome, and settles and dies in Palestine.\n\nAbove all the See of Rome itself is the centre of teaching as well as\nof action, is visited by Fathers and heretics as a tribunal in\ncontroversy, and by ancient custom sends her alms to the poor Christians\nof all Churches, to Achaia and Syria, Palestine, Arabia, Egypt, and\nCappadocia.\n\n\n15.\n\nMoreover, this universal Church was not only one; it was exclusive also.\nAs to the vehemence with which Christians of the Ante-nicene period\ndenounced the idolatries and sins of paganism, and proclaimed the\njudgments which would be their consequence, this is well known, and led\nto their being reputed in the heathen world as \"enemies of mankind.\"\n\"Worthily doth God exert the lash of His stripes and scourges,\" says St.\nCyprian to a heathen magistrate; \"and since they avail so little, and\nconvert not men to God by all this dreadfulness of havoc, there abides\nbeyond the prison eternal and the ceaseless flame and the everlasting\npenalty. . . . Why humble yourself and bend to false gods? Why bow your\ncaptive body before helpless images and moulded earth? Why grovel in the\nprostration of death, like the serpent whom ye worship? Why rush into\nthe downfall of the devil, his fall the cause of yours, and he your\ncompanion? . . . . Believe and live; you have been our persecutors in\ntime; in eternity, be companions of our joy.\"[268:1] \"These rigid\nsentiments,\" says Gibbon, \"which had been unknown to the ancient world,\nappear to have infused a spirit of bitterness into a system of love and\nharmony.\"[268:2] Such, however, was the judgment passed by the first\nChristians upon all who did not join their own society; and such still\nmore was the judgment of their successors on those who lived and died in\nthe sects and heresies which had issued from it. That very Father, whose\ndenunciation of the heathen has just been quoted, had already declared\nit even in the third century. \"He who leaves the Church of Christ,\" he\nsays, \"attains not to Christ's rewards. He is an alien, an outcast, an\nenemy. He can no longer have God for a Father, who has not the Church\nfor a Mother. If any man was able to escape who remained without the Ark\nof Noah, then will that man escape who is out of doors beyond the\nChurch. . . What sacrifice do they believe they celebrate, who are\nrivals of the Priests? If such men were even killed for confession of\nthe Christian name, not even by their blood is this stain washed out.\nInexplicable and heavy is the sin of discord, and is purged by no\nsuffering . . . They cannot dwell with God who have refused to be of one\nmind in God's Church; a man of such sort may indeed be killed, crowned\nhe cannot be.\"[269:1] And so again St. Chrysostom, in the following\ncentury, in harmony with St. Cyprian's sentiment: \"Though we have\nachieved ten thousand glorious acts, yet shall we, if we cut to pieces\nthe fulness of the Church, suffer punishment no less sore than they who\nmangled His body.\"[269:2] In like manner St Augustine seems to consider\nthat a conversion from idolatry to a schismatical communion is no gain.\n\"Those whom Donatists baptize, they heal of the wound of idolatry or\ninfidelity, but inflict a more grievous stroke in the wound of schism;\nfor idolaters among God's people the sword destroyed, but schismatics\nthe gaping earth devoured.\"[269:3] Elsewhere, he speaks of the\n\"sacrilege of schism, which surpasses all wickednesses.\"[269:4] St.\nOptatus, too, marvels at the Donatist Parmenian's inconsistency in\nmaintaining the true doctrine, that \"Schismatics are cut off as branches\nfrom the vine, are destined for punishments, and reserved, as dry wood,\nfor hell-fire.\"[269:5] \"Let us hate them who are worthy of hatred,\" says\nSt. Cyril, \"withdraw we from those whom God withdraws from; let us also\nsay unto God with all boldness concerning all heretics, 'Do not I hate\nthem, O Lord, that hate thee?'\"[270:1] \"Most firmly hold, and doubt in\nno wise,\" says St. Fulgentius, \"that every heretic and schismatic\nsoever, baptized in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, unless\naggregated to the Catholic Church, how great soever have been his alms,\nthough for Christ's Name he has even shed his blood, can in no wise be\nsaved.\"[270:2] The Fathers ground this doctrine on St. Paul's words\nthat, though we have knowledge, and give our goods to the poor, and our\nbody to be burned, we are nothing without love.[270:3]\n\n\n16.\n\nOne more remark shall be made: that the Catholic teachers, far from\nrecognizing any ecclesiastical relation as existing between the\nSectarian Bishops and Priests and their people, address the latter\nimmediately, as if those Bishops did not exist, and call on them to come\nover to the Church individually without respect to any one besides; and\nthat because it is a matter of life and death. To take the instance of\nthe Donatists: it was nothing to the purpose that their Churches in\nAfrica were nearly as numerous as those of the Catholics, or that they\nhad a case to produce in their controversy with the Catholic Church; the\nvery fact that they were separated from the _orbis terrarum_ was a\npublic, a manifest, a simple, a sufficient argument against them. \"The\nquestion is not about your gold and silver,\" says St. Augustine to\nGlorius and others, \"not your lands, or farms, nor even your bodily\nhealth is in peril, but we address your souls about obtaining eternal\nlife and fleeing eternal death. Rouse yourself therefore. . . . . You\nsee it all, and know it, and groan over it; yet God sees that there is\nnothing to detain you in so pestiferous and sacrilegious a separation,\nif you will but overcome your carnal affection, for the obtaining the\nspiritual kingdom, and rid yourselves of the fear of wounding\nfriendships, which will avail nothing in God's judgment for escaping\neternal punishment. Go, think over the matter, consider what can be said\nin answer. . . . No one blots out from heaven the Ordinance of God, no\none blots out from earth the Church of God: He hath promised her, she\nhath filled, the whole world.\" \"Some carnal intimacies,\" he says to his\nkinsman Severinus, \"hold you where you are. . . . What avails temporal\nhealth or relationship, if with it we neglect Christ's eternal heritage\nand our perpetual health?\" \"I ask,\" he says to Celer, a person of\ninfluence, \"that you would more earnestly urge upon your men Catholic\nUnity in the region of Hippo.\" \"Why,\" he says, in the person of the\nChurch, to the whole Donatist population, \"Why open your ears to the\nwords of men, who say what they never have been able to prove, and close\nthem to the word of God, saying, 'Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the\nheathen for Thine inheritance'?\" At another time he says to them, \"Some\nof the presbyters of your party have sent to us to say, 'Retire from our\nflocks, unless you would have us kill you.' How much more justly do we\nsay to them, 'Nay, do you, not retire from, but come in peace, not to\nour flocks, but to the flocks of Him whose we are all; or if you will\nnot, and are far from peace, then do you rather retire from flocks, for\nwhich Christ shed His Blood.'\" \"I call on you for Christ's sake,\" he\nsays to a late pro-consul, \"to write me an answer, and to urge gently\nand kindly all your people in the district of Sinis or Hippo into the\ncommunion of the Catholic Church.\" He publishes an address to the\nDonatists at another time to inform them of the defeat of their Bishops\nin a conference: \"Whoso,\" he says, \"is separated from the Catholic\nChurch, however laudably he thinks he is living, by this crime alone,\nthat he is separated from Christ's Unity, he shall not have life, but\nthe wrath of God abideth on him.\" \"Let them believe of the Catholic\nChurch,\" he writes to some converts about their friends who were still\nin schism, \"that is, to the Church diffused over the whole world, rather\nwhat the Scriptures say of it than what human tongues utter in calumny.\"\nThe idea of acting upon the Donatists only as a body and through their\nbishops, does not appear to have occurred to St. Augustine at\nall.[272:1]\n\n\n17.\n\nOn the whole, then, we have reason to say, that if there be a form of\nChristianity at this day distinguished for its careful organization, and\nits consequent power; if it is spread over the world; if it is\nconspicuous for zealous maintenance of its own creed; if it is\nintolerant towards what it considers error; if it is engaged in\nceaseless war with all other bodies called Christian; if it, and it\nalone, is called \"Catholic\" by the world, nay, by those very bodies, and\nif it makes much of the title; if it names them heretics, and warns them\nof coming woe, and calls on them one by one, to come over to itself,\noverlooking every other tie; and if they, on the other hand, call it\nseducer, harlot, apostate, Antichrist, devil; if, however much they\ndiffer one with another, they consider it their common enemy; if they\nstrive to unite together against it, and cannot; if they are but local;\nif they continually subdivide, and it remains one; if they fall one\nafter another, and make way for new sects, and it remains the same; such\na religious communion is not unlike historical Christianity, as it comes\nbefore us at the Nicene Era.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\nTHE CHURCH OF THE FIFTH AND SIXTH CENTURIES.\n\nThe patronage extended by the first Christian Emperors to Arianism, its\nadoption by the barbarians who succeeded to their power, the subsequent\nexpulsion of all heresy beyond the limits of the Empire, and then again\nthe Monophysite tendencies of Egypt and part of Syria, changed in some\nmeasure the aspect of the Church, and claim our further attention. It\nwas still a body in possession, or approximating to the possession, of\nthe _orbis terrarum_; but it was not simply intermixed with sectaries,\nas we have been surveying it in the earlier periods, rather it lay\nbetween or over against large schisms. That same vast Association,\nwhich, and which only, had existed from the first, which had been\nidentified by all parties with Christianity, which had been ever called\nCatholic by people and by laws, took a different shape; collected itself\nin far greater strength on some points of her extended territory than on\nothers; possessed whole kingdoms with scarcely a rival; lost others\npartially or wholly, temporarily or for good; was stemmed in its course\nhere or there by external obstacles; and was defied by heresy, in a\nsubstantive shape and in mass, from foreign lands, and with the support\nof the temporal power. Thus not to mention the Arianism of the Eastern\nEmpire in the fourth century, the whole of the West was possessed by the\nsame heresy in the fifth; and nearly the whole of Asia, east of the\nEuphrates, as far as it was Christian, by the Nestorians, in the\ncenturies which followed; while the Monophysites had almost the\npossession of Egypt, and at times of the whole Eastern Church. I think\nit no assumption to call Arianism, Nestorianism, and Eutychianism\nheresies, or to identify the contemporary Catholic Church with\nChristianity. Now, then, let us consider the mutual relation of\nChristianity and heresy under these circumstances.\n\n\n\u00a7 1. _The Arians of the Gothic Race._\n\nNo heresy has started with greater violence or more sudden success than\nthe Arian; and it presents a still more remarkable exhibition of these\ncharacteristics among the barbarians than in the civilized world. Even\namong the Greeks it had shown a missionary spirit. Theophilus in the\nreign of Constantius had introduced the dominant heresy, not without\nsome promising results, to the Sabeans of the Arabian peninsula; but\nunder Valens, Ulphilas became the apostle of a whole race. He taught the\nArian doctrine, which he had unhappily learned in the Imperial Court,\nfirst to the pastoral Moesogoths; who, unlike the other branches of\ntheir family, had multiplied under the Moesian mountains with neither\nmilitary nor religious triumphs. The Visigoths were next corrupted; by\nwhom does not appear. It is one of the singular traits in the history of\nthis vast family of heathens that they so instinctively caught, and so\nimpetuously communicated, and so fiercely maintained, a heresy, which\nhad excited in the Empire, except at Constantinople, little interest in\nthe body of the people. The Visigoths are said to have been converted by\nthe influence of Valens; but Valens reigned for only fourteen years, and\nthe barbarian population which had been admitted to the Empire amounted\nto nearly a million of persons. It is as difficult to trace how the\nheresy was conveyed from them to the other barbarian tribes. Gibbon\nseems to suppose that the Visigoths acted the part of missionaries in\ntheir career of predatory warfare from Thrace to the Pyrenees. But such\nis the fact, however it was brought about, that the success in arms and\nthe conversion to Arianism, of Ostrogoths, Alani, Suevi, Vandals, and\nBurgundians stand as concurrent events in the history of the times; and\nby the end of the fifth century the heresy had been established by the\nVisigoths in France and Spain, in Portugal by the Suevi, in Africa by\nthe Vandals, and by the Ostrogoths in Italy. For a while the title of\nCatholic as applied to the Church seemed a misnomer; for not only was\nshe buried beneath these populations of heresy, but that heresy was one,\nand maintained the same distinctive tenet, whether at Carthage, Seville,\nToulouse, or Ravenna.\n\n\n2.\n\nIt cannot be supposed that these northern warriors had attained to any\nhigh degree of mental cultivation; but they understood their own\nreligion enough to hate the Catholics, and their bishops were learned\nenough to hold disputations for its propagation. They professed to stand\nupon the faith of Ariminum, administering Baptism under an altered form\nof words, and re-baptizing Catholics whom they gained over to their\nsect. It must be added that, whatever was their cruelty or tyranny, both\nGoths and Vandals were a moral people, and put to shame the Catholics\nwhom they dispossessed. \"What can the prerogative of a religious name\nprofit us,\" says Salvian, \"that we call ourselves Catholic, boast of\nbeing the faithful, taunt Goths and Vandals with the reproach of an\nheretical appellation, while we live in heretical wickedness?\"[276:1]\nThe barbarians were chaste, temperate, just, and devout; the Visigoth\nTheodoric repaired every morning with his domestic officers to his\nchapel, where service was performed by the Arian priests; and one\nsingular instance is on record of the defeat of a Visigoth force by the\nImperial troops on a Sunday, when instead of preparing for battle they\nwere engaged in the religious services of the day.[276:2] Many of their\nprinces were men of great ability, as the two Theodorics, Euric and\nLeovigild.\n\n\n3.\n\nSuccessful warriors, animated by a fanatical spirit of religion, were\nnot likely to be content with a mere profession of their own creed; they\nproceeded to place their own priests in the religious establishments\nwhich they found, and to direct a bitter persecution against the\nvanquished Catholics. The savage cruelties of the Vandal Hunneric in\nAfrica have often been enlarged upon; Spain was the scene of repeated\npersecutions; Sicily, too, had its Martyrs. Compared with these\nenormities, it was but a little thing to rob the Catholics of their\nchurches, and the shrines of their treasures. Lands, immunities, and\njurisdictions, which had been given by the Emperors to the African\nChurch, were made over to the clergy of its conquerors; and by the time\nof Belisarius, the Catholic Bishops had been reduced to less than a\nthird of their original number. In Spain, as in Africa, bishops were\ndriven from their sees, churches were destroyed, cemeteries profaned,\nmartyries rifled. When it was possible, the Catholics concealed the\nrelics in caves, keeping up a perpetual memory of these provisional\nhiding-places.[277:1] Repeated spoliations were exercised upon the\nproperty of the Church. Leovigild applied[277:2] its treasures partly to\nincreasing the splendour of his throne, partly to national works. At\nother times, the Arian clergy themselves must have been the recipients\nof the plunder: for when Childebert the Frank had been brought into\nSpain by the cruelties exercised against the Catholic Queen of the\nGoths, who was his sister, he carried away with him from the Arian\nchurches, as St. Gregory of Tours informs us, sixty chalices, fifteen\npatens, twenty cases in which the gospels were kept, all of pure gold\nand ornamented with jewels.[277:3]\n\n\n4.\n\nIn France, and especially in Italy, the rule of the heretical power was\nmuch less oppressive; Theodoric, the Ostrogoth, reigned from the Alps to\nSicily, and till the close of a long reign he gave an ample toleration\nto his Catholic subjects. He respected their property, suffered their\nchurches and sacred places to remain in their hands, and had about his\ncourt some of their eminent Bishops, since known as Saints, St. C\u00e6sarius\nof Arles, and St. Epiphanius of Pavia. Still he brought into the country\na new population, devoted to Arianism, or, as we now speak, a new\nChurch. \"His march,\" says Gibbon,[277:4] \"must be considered as the\nemigration of an entire people; the wives and children of the Goths,\ntheir aged parents, and most precious effects, were carefully\ntransported; and some idea may be formed of the heavy luggage that now\nfollowed the camp by the loss of two thousand waggons, which had been\nsustained in a single action in the war of Epirus.\" To his soldiers he\nassigned a third of the soil of Italy, and the barbarian families\nsettled down with their slaves and cattle. The original number of the\nVandal conquerors of Africa had only been fifty thousand men, but the\nmilitary colonists of Italy soon amounted to the number of two hundred\nthousand; which, according to the calculation adopted by the same author\nelsewhere, involves a population of a million. The least that could be\nexpected was, that an Arian ascendency established through the extent of\nItaly would provide for the sufficient celebration of the Arian worship,\nand we hear of the Arians having a Church even in Rome.[278:1] The rule\nof the Lombards in the north of Italy succeeded to that of the\nGoths,--Arians, like their predecessors, without their toleration. The\nclergy whom they brought with them seem to have claimed their share in\nthe possession of the Catholic churches;[278:2] and though the Court was\nconverted at the end of thirty years, many cities in Italy were for some\ntime afterwards troubled by the presence of heretical bishops.[278:3]\nThe rule of Arianism in France lasted for eighty years; in Spain for a\nhundred and eighty; in Africa for a hundred; for about a hundred in\nItaly. These periods were not contemporaneous; but extend altogether\nfrom the beginning of the fifth to the end of the sixth century.\n\n\n5.\n\nIt will be anticipated that the duration of this ascendency of error\nhad not the faintest tendency to deprive the ancient Church of the West\nof the title of Catholic; and it is needless to produce evidence of a\nfact which is on the very face of the history. The Arians seem never to\nhave claimed the Catholic name. It is more remarkable that the Catholics\nduring this period were denoted by the additional title of \"Romans.\" Of\nthis there are many proofs in the histories of St. Gregory of Tours,\nVictor of Vite, and the Spanish Councils. Thus, St. Gregory speaks of\nTheodegisilus, a king of Portugal, expressing his incredulity at a\nmiracle, by saying, \"It is the temper of the Romans, (for,\" interposes\nthe author, \"they call men of our religion Romans,) and not the power of\nGod.\"[279:1] \"Heresy is everywhere an enemy to Catholics,\" says the same\nSt. Gregory in a subsequent place, and he proceeds to illustrate it by\nthe story of a \"Catholic woman,\" who had a heretic husband, to whom, he\nsays, came \"a presbyter of our religion very Catholic;\" and whom the\nhusband matched at table with his own Arian presbyter, \"that there might\nbe the priests of each religion\" in their house at once. When they were\neating, the husband said to the Arian, \"Let us have some sport with this\npresbyter of the Romans.\"[279:2] The Arian Count Gomachar, seized on the\nlands of the Church of Agde in France, and was attacked with a fever; on\nhis recovery, at the prayers of the Bishop, he repented of having asked\nfor them, observing, \"What will these Romans say now? that my fever came\nof taking their land.\"[279:3] When the Vandal Theodoric would have\nkilled the Catholic Armogastes, after failing to torture him into\nheresy, his presbyter dissuaded him, \"lest the Romans should begin to\ncall him a Martyr.\"[279:4]\n\n\n6.\n\nThis appellation had two meanings; one, which will readily suggest\nitself, is its use in contrast to the word \"barbarian,\" as denoting the\nfaith of the Empire, as \"Greek\" occurs in St. Paul's Epistles. In this\nsense it would more naturally be used by the Romans themselves than by\nothers. Thus Salvian says, that \"nearly all the Romans are greater\nsinners than the barbarians;\"[280:1] and he speaks of \"Roman heretics,\nof which there is an innumerable multitude,\"[280:2] meaning heretics\nwithin the Empire. And so St. Gregory the Great complains, that he \"had\nbecome Bishop of the Lombards rather than of the Romans.\"[280:3] And\nEvagrius, speaking even of the East, contrasts \"Romans and\nbarbarians\"[280:4] in his account of St. Simeon; and at a later date,\nand even to this day, Thrace and portions of Dacia and of Asia Minor\nderive their name from Rome. In like manner, we find Syrian writers\nsometimes speaking of the religion of the Romans, sometimes of the\nGreeks,[280:5] as synonymes.\n\n\n7.\n\nBut the word certainly contains also an allusion to the faith and\ncommunion of the Roman See. In this sense the Emperor Theodosius, in his\nletter to Acacius of Beroea, contrasts it with Nestorianism, which was\nwithin the Empire as well as Catholicism; during the controversy raised\nby that heresy, he exhorts him and others to show themselves \"approved\npriests of the Roman religion.\"[280:6] Again when the Ligurian nobles\nwere persuading the Arian Ricimer to come to terms with Anthemius, the\northodox representative of the Greek Emperor,[280:7] they propose to him\nto send St. Epiphanius as ambassador, a man \"whose life is venerable to\nevery Catholic and Roman, and at least amiable in the eyes of a Greek\n(_Gr\u00e6culus_) if he deserves the sight of him.\"[281:1] It must be\nrecollected, too, that the Spanish and African Churches actually were in\nthe closest union with the See of Rome at that time, and that that\nintercommunion was the visible ecclesiastical distinction between them\nand their Arian rivals. The chief ground of the Vandal Hunneric's\npersecution of the African Catholics seems to have been their connexion\nwith their brethren beyond the sea,[281:2] which he looked at with\njealousy, as introducing a foreign power into his territory. Prior to\nthis he had published an edict calling on the \"Homo\u00fcsian\" Bishops (for\non this occasion he did not call them Catholic), to meet his own bishops\nat Carthage and treat concerning the faith, that \"their meetings to the\nseduction of Christian souls might not be held in the provinces of the\nVandals.\"[281:3] Upon this invitation, Eugenius of Carthage replied,\nthat all the transmarine Bishops of the orthodox communion ought to be\nsummoned, \"in particular because it is a matter for the whole world, not\nspecial to the African provinces,\" that \"they could not undertake a\npoint of faith _sine universitatis assensu_.\" Hunneric answered that if\nEugenius would make him sovereign of the _orbis terrarum_, he would\ncomply with his request. This led Eugenius to say that the orthodox\nfaith was \"the only true faith;\" that the king ought to write to his\nallies abroad, if he wished to know it, and that he himself would write\nto his brethren for foreign bishops, \"who,\" he says, \"may assist us in\nsetting before you the true faith, common to them and to us, and\nespecially the Roman Church, which is the head of all Churches.\"\nMoreover, the African Bishops in their banishment in Sardinia, to the\nnumber of sixty, with St. Fulgentius at their head, quote with\napprobation the words of Pope Hormisdas, to the effect that they hold,\n\"on the point of free will and divine grace, what the Roman, that is,\nthe Catholic, Church follows and preserves.\"[282:1] Again, the Spanish\nChurch was under the superintendence of the Pope's Vicar[282:2] during\nthe persecutions, whose duty it was to hinder all encroachments upon\n\"the Apostolical decrees, or the limits of the Holy Fathers,\" through\nthe whole of the country.\n\n\n8.\n\nNor was the association of Catholicism with the See of Rome an\nintroduction of that age. The Emperor Gratian, in the fourth century,\nhad ordered that the Churches which the Arians had usurped should be\nrestored (not to those who held \"the Catholic faith,\" or \"the Nicene\nCreed,\" or were \"in communion with the _orbis terrarum_,\") but \"who\nchose the communion of Damasus,\"[282:3] the then Pope. It was St.\nJerome's rule, also, in some well-known passages:--Writing against\nRuffinus, who had spoken of \"our faith,\" he says, \"What does he mean by\n'his faith'? that which is the strength of the Roman Church? or that\nwhich is contained in the volumes of Origen? If he answer, 'The Roman,'\nthen we are Catholics who have borrowed nothing of Origen's error; but\nif Origen's blasphemy be his faith, then, while he is charging me with\ninconsistency, he proves himself to be an heretic.\"[282:4] The other\npassage, already quoted, is still more exactly to the point, because it\nwas written on occasion of a schism. The divisions at Antioch had thrown\nthe Catholic Church into a remarkable position; there were two Bishops\nin the See, one in connexion with the East, the other with Egypt and the\nWest,--with which then was \"Catholic Communion\"? St. Jerome has no doubt\non the subject:--Writing to St. Damasus, he says, \"Since the East tears\ninto pieces the Lord's coat, . . . therefore by me is the chair of Peter\nto be consulted, and that faith which is praised by the Apostle's\nmouth. . . . Though your greatness terrifies me, yet your kindness\ninvites me. From the Priest I ask the salvation of the victim, from the\nShepherd the protection of the sheep. Let us speak without offence; I\ncourt not the Roman height: I speak with the successor of the Fisherman\nand the disciple of the Cross. I, who follow none as my chief but\nChrist, am associated in communion with thy blessedness, that is, with\nthe See of Peter. On that rock the Church is built, I know. Whoso shall\neat the Lamb outside that House is profane . . . . I know not Vitalis\"\n(the Apollinarian), \"Meletius I reject, I am ignorant of Paulinus. Whoso\ngathereth not with thee, scattereth; that is, he who is not of Christ is\nof Antichrist.\"[283:1] Again, \"The ancient authority of the monks,\ndwelling round about, rises against me; I meanwhile cry out, If any be\njoined to Peter's chair he is mine.\"[283:2]\n\n\n9.\n\nHere was what may be considered a _dignus vindice nodus_, the Church\nbeing divided, and an arbiter wanted. Such a case had also occurred in\nAfrica in the controversy with the Donatists. Four hundred bishops,\nthough but in one region, were a fifth part of the whole Episcopate of\nChristendom, and might seem too many for a schism, and in themselves too\nlarge a body to be cut off from God's inheritance by a mere majority,\neven had it been overwhelming. St. Augustine, then, who so often appeals\nto the _orbis terrarum_, sometimes adopts a more prompt criterion. He\ntells certain Donatists to whom he writes, that the Catholic Bishop of\nCarthage \"was able to make light of the thronging multitude of his\nenemies, when he found himself by letters of credence joined both to the\nRoman Church, in which ever had flourished the principality of the\nApostolical See, and to the other lands whence the gospel came to Africa\nitself.\"[284:1]\n\nThere are good reasons then for explaining the Gothic and Arian use of\nthe word \"Roman,\" when applied to the Catholic Church and faith, of\nsomething beyond its mere connexion with the Empire, which the\nbarbarians were assaulting; nor would \"Roman\" surely be the most obvious\nword to denote the orthodox faith, in the mouths of a people who had\nlearned their heresy from a Roman Emperor and Court, and who professed\nto direct their belief by the great Latin Council of Ariminum.\n\n\n10.\n\nAs then the fourth century presented to us in its external aspect the\nCatholic Church lying in the midst of a multitude of sects, all enemies\nto it, so in the fifth and sixth we see the same Church lying in the\nWest under the oppression of a huge, farspreading, and schismatical\ncommunion. Heresy is no longer a domestic enemy intermingled with the\nChurch, but it occupies its own ground and is extended over against her,\neven though on the same territory, and is more or less organized, and\ncannot be so promptly refuted by the simple test of Catholicity.\n\n\n\u00a7 2. _The Nestorians._\n\nThe Churches of Syria and Asia Minor were the most intellectual portion\nof early Christendom. Alexandria was but one metropolis in a large\nregion, and contained the philosophy of the whole Patriarchate; but\nSyria abounded in wealthy and luxurious cities, the creation of the\nSeleucid\u00e6, where the arts and the schools of Greece had full\nopportunities of cultivation. For a time too, for the first two hundred\nyears, as some think, Alexandria was the only See as well as the only\nschool of Egypt; while Syria was divided into smaller dioceses, each of\nwhich had at first an authority of its own, and which, even after the\ngrowth of the Patriarchal power, received their respective bishops, not\nfrom the See of Antioch, but from their own metropolitan. In Syria too\nthe schools were private, a circumstance which would tend both to\ndiversity in religious opinion, and incaution in the expression of it;\nbut the sole catechetical school of Egypt was the organ of the Church,\nand its Bishop could banish Origen for speculations which developed and\nripened with impunity in Syria.\n\n\n2.\n\nBut the immediate source of that fertility in heresy, which is the\nunhappiness of the ancient Syrian Church, was its celebrated Exegetical\nSchool. The history of that School is summed up in the broad\ncharacteristic fact, on the one hand that it devoted itself to the\nliteral and critical interpretation of Scripture, and on the other that\nit gave rise first to the Arian and then to the Nestorian heresy. If\nadditional evidence be wanted of the connexion of heterodoxy and\nbiblical criticism in that age, it is found in the fact that, not long\nafter this coincidence in Syria, they are found combined in the person\nof Theodore of Heraclea, so called from the place both of his birth and\nhis bishoprick, an able commentator and an active enemy of St.\nAthanasius, though a Thracian unconnected except by sympathy with the\nPatriarchate of Antioch.\n\nThe Antiochene School appears to have risen in the middle of the third\ncentury; but there is no evidence to determine whether it was a local\ninstitution, or, as is more probable, a discipline or method\ncharacteristic generally of Syrian teaching. Dorotheus is one of its\nearliest luminaries; he is known as a Hebrew scholar, as well as a\ncommentator on the sacred text, and he was the master of Eusebius of\nC\u00e6sarea. Lucian, the friend of the notorious Paul of Samosata, and for\nthree successive Episcopates after him separated from the Church though\nafterwards a martyr in it, was the author of a new edition of the\nSeptuagint, and master of the chief original teachers of Arianism.\nEusebius of C\u00e6sarea, Asterius called the Sophist, and Eusebius of Emesa,\nArians of the Nicene period, and Diodorus, a zealous opponent of\nArianism, but the master of Theodore of Mopsuestia, have all a place in\nthe Exegetical School. St. Chrysostom and Theodoret, both Syrians, and\nthe former the pupil of Diodorus, adopted the literal interpretation,\nthough preserved from its abuse. But the principal doctor of the School\nwas that Theodore, the master of Nestorius, who has just above been\nmentioned, and who, with his writings, and with the writings of\nTheodoret against St. Cyril, and the letter written by Ibas of Edessa to\nMaris, was condemned by the fifth Ecumenical Council. Ibas was the\ntranslator into Syriac, and Maris into Persian, of the books of Theodore\nand Diodorus;[286:1] and thus they became immediate instruments in the\nformation of the great Nestorian school and Church in farther Asia.\n\nAs many as ten thousand tracts of Theodore are said in this way to have\nbeen introduced to the knowledge of the Christians of Mesopotamia,\nAdiabene, Babylonia, and the neighbouring countries. He was called by\nthose Churches absolutely \"the Interpreter,\" and it eventually became\nthe very profession of the Nestorian communion to follow him as such.\n\"The doctrine of all our Eastern Churches,\" says their Council under the\nPatriarch Marabas, \"is founded on the Creed of Nic\u00e6a; but in the\nexposition of the Scriptures we follow St. Theodore.\" \"We must by all\nmeans remain firm to the commentaries of the great Commentator,\" says\nthe Council under Sabarjesus; \"whoso shall in any manner oppose them, or\nthink otherwise, be he anathema.\"[287:1] No one since the beginning of\nChristianity, except Origen and St. Augustine, has had so great literary\ninfluence on his brethren as Theodore.[287:2]\n\n\n3.\n\nThe original Syrian School had possessed very marked characteristics,\nwhich it did not lose when it passed into a new country and into strange\ntongues. Its comments on Scripture seem to have been clear, natural,\nmethodical, apposite, and logically exact. \"In all Western Aram\u00e6a,\" says\nLengerke, that is, in Syria, \"there was but one mode of treating whether\nexegetics or doctrine, the practical.\"[287:3] Thus Eusebius of C\u00e6sarea,\nwhether as a disputant or a commentator, is commonly a writer of sense\nand judgment; and he is to be referred to the Syrian school, though he\ndoes not enter so far into its temper as to exclude the mystical\ninterpretation or to deny the verbal inspiration of Scripture. Again, we\nsee in St. Chrysostom a direct, straightforward treatment of the sacred\ntext, and a pointed application of it to things and persons; and\nTheodoret abounds in modes of thinking and reasoning which without any\ngreat impropriety may be called English. Again, St. Cyril of Jerusalem,\nthough he does not abstain from allegory, shows the character of his\nschool by the great stress he lays upon the study of Scripture, and, I\nmay add, by the peculiar characteristics of his style, which will be\nappreciated by a modern reader.\n\n\n4.\n\nIt would have been well, had the genius of the Syrian theology been\never in the safe keeping of men such as St. Cyril, St. Chrysostom, and\nTheodoret; but in Theodore of Mopsuestia, nay in Diodorus before him, it\ndeveloped into those errors, of which Paul of Samosata had been the omen\non its rise. As its attention was chiefly directed to the examination of\nthe Scriptures, in its interpretation of the Scriptures was its\nheretical temper discovered; and though allegory can be made an\ninstrument for evading Scripture doctrine, criticism may more readily be\nturned to the destruction of doctrine and Scripture together. Theodore\nwas bent on ascertaining the literal sense, an object with which no\nfault could be found: but, leading him of course to the Hebrew text\ninstead of the Septuagint, it also led him to Jewish commentators.\nJewish commentators naturally suggested events and objects short of\nevangelical as the fulfilment of the prophetical announcements, and,\nwhen it was possible, an ethical sense instead of a prophetical. The\neighth chapter of Proverbs ceased to bear a Christian meaning, because,\nas Theodore maintained, the writer of the book had received the gift,\nnot of prophecy, but of wisdom. The Canticles must be interpreted\nliterally; and then it was but an easy, or rather a necessary step, to\nexclude the book from the Canon. The book of Job too professed to be\nhistorical; yet what was it really but a Gentile drama? He also gave up\nthe books of Chronicles and Ezra, and, strange to say, the Epistle of\nSt. James, though it was contained in the Peschito Version of his\nChurch. He denied that Psalms 22 and 69 [21 and 68] applied to our Lord;\nrather he limited the Messianic passages of the whole book to four; of\nwhich the eighth Psalm was one, and the forty-fifth [44] another. The\nrest he explained of Hezekiah and Zerubbabel, without denying that they\nmight be accommodated to an evangelical sense.[288:1] He explained St.\nThomas's words, \"My Lord and my God,\" as an exclamation of joy, and our\nLord's \"Receive ye the Holy Ghost,\" as an anticipation of the day of\nPentecost. As may be expected he denied the verbal inspiration of\nScripture. Also, he held that the deluge did not cover the earth; and,\nas others before him, he was heterodox on the doctrine of original sin,\nand denied the eternity of punishment.\n\n\n5.\n\nMaintaining that the real sense of Scripture was, not the scope of a\nDivine Intelligence, but the intention of the mere human organ of\ninspiration, Theodore was led to hold, not only that that sense was one\nin each text, but that it was continuous and single in a context; that\nwhat was the subject of the composition in one verse must be the subject\nin the next, and that if a Psalm was historical or prophetical in its\ncommencement, it was the one or the other to its termination. Even that\nfulness, of meaning, refinement of thought, subtle versatility of\nfeeling, and delicate reserve or reverent suggestiveness, which poets\nexemplify, seems to have been excluded from his idea of a sacred\ncomposition. Accordingly, if a Psalm contained passages which could not\nbe applied to our Lord, it followed that that Psalm did not properly\napply to Him at all, except by accommodation. Such at least is the\ndoctrine of Cosmas, a writer of Theodore's school, who on this ground\npasses over the twenty-second, sixty-ninth, and other Psalms, and limits\nthe Messianic to the second, the eighth, the forty-fifth, and the\nhundred and tenth. \"David,\" he says, \"did not make common to the\nservants what belongs to the Lord[289:1] Christ, but what was proper to\nthe Lord he spoke of the Lord, and what was proper to the servants, of\nservants.\"[289:2] Accordingly the twenty-second could not properly\nbelong to Christ, because in the beginning it spoke of the \"_verba\ndelictorum meorum_.\" A remarkable consequence would follow from this\ndoctrine, that as Christ was to be separated from His Saints, so the\nSaints were to be separated from Christ; and an opening was made for a\ndenial of the doctrine of their _cultus_, though this denial in the\nevent has not been developed among the Nestorians. But a more serious\nconsequence is latently contained in it, and nothing else than the\nNestorian heresy, viz. that our Lord's manhood is not so intimately\nincluded in His Divine Personality that His brethren according to the\nflesh may be associated with the Image of the One Christ. Here St.\nChrysostom pointedly contradicts the doctrine of Theodore, though his\nfellow-pupil and friend;[290:1] as does St. Ephrem, though a Syrian\nalso;[290:2] and St. Basil.[290:3]\n\n\n6.\n\nOne other peculiarity of the Syrian school, viewed as independent of\nNestorius, should be added:--As it tended to the separation of the\nDivine Person of Christ from His manhood, so did it tend to explain away\nHis Divine Presence in the Sacramental elements. Ernesti seems to\nconsider the school, in modern language, Sacramentarian: and certainly\nsome of the most cogent testimonies brought by moderns against the\nCatholic doctrine of the Eucharist are taken from writers who are\nconnected with that school; as the author, said to be St. Chrysostom, of\nthe Epistle to C\u00e6sarius, Theodoret in his Eranistes, and Facundus. Some\ncountenance too is given to the same view of the Eucharist, at least in\nsome parts of his works, by Origen, whose language concerning the\nIncarnation also leans to what was afterwards Nestorianism. To these may\nbe added Eusebius,[291:1] who, far removed, as he was, from that\nheresy, was a disciple of the Syrian school. The language of the later\nNestorian writers seems to have been of the same character.[291:2] Such\nthen on the whole is the character of that theology of Theodore which\npassed from Cilicia and Antioch to Edessa first, and then to Nisibis.\n\n\n7.\n\nEdessa, the metropolis of Mesopotamia, had remained an Oriental city\ntill the third century, when it was made a Roman colony by\nCaracalla.[291:3] Its position on the confines of two empires gave it\ngreat ecclesiastical importance, as the channel by which the theology of\nRome and Greece was conveyed to a family of Christians, dwelling in\ncontempt and persecution amid a still heathen world. It was the seat of\nvarious schools; apparently of a Greek school, where the classics were\nstudied as well as theology, where Eusebius of Emesa[291:4] had\noriginally been trained, and where perhaps Protogenes taught.[291:5]\nThere were also Syrian schools attended by heathen and Christian youths\nin common. The cultivation of the native language had been an especial\nobject of its masters since the time of Vespasian, so that the pure and\nrefined dialect went by the name of the Edessene.[291:6] At Edessa too\nSt. Ephrem formed his own Syrian school, which lasted long after him;\nand there too was the celebrated Persian Christian school, over which\nMaris presided, who has been already mentioned as the translator of\nTheodore into Persian.[291:7] Even in the time of the predecessor of\nIbas in the See (before A.D. 435) the Nestorianism of this Persian\nSchool was so notorious that Rabbula the Bishop had expelled its\nmasters and scholars;[292:1] and they, taking refuge in a country which\nmight be called their own, had introduced the heresy to the Churches\nsubject to the Persian King.\n\n\n8.\n\nSomething ought to be said of these Churches; though little is known\nexcept what is revealed by the fact, in itself of no slight value, that\nthey had sustained two persecutions at the hands of the heathen\ngovernment in the fourth and fifth centuries. One testimony is extant as\nearly as the end of the second century, to the effect that in Parthia,\nMedia, Persia, and Bactria there were Christians who \"were not overcome\nby evil laws and customs.\"[292:2] In the early part of the fourth\ncentury, a bishop of Persia attended the Nicene Council, and about the\nsame time Christianity is said to have pervaded nearly the whole of\nAssyria.[292:3] Monachism had been introduced there before the middle of\nthe fourth century, and shortly after commenced that fearful persecution\nin which sixteen thousand Christians are said to have suffered. It\nlasted thirty years, and is said to have recommenced at the end of the\nCentury. The second persecution lasted for at least another thirty years\nof the next, at the very time when the Nestorian troubles were in\nprogress in the Empire. Trials such as these show the populousness as\nwell as the faith of the Churches in those parts,--and the number of the\nSees, for the names of twenty-seven Bishops are preserved who suffered\nin the former persecution. One of them was apprehended together with\nsixteen priests, nine deacons, besides monks and nuns of his diocese;\nanother with twenty-eight companions, ecclesiastics or regulars; another\nwith one hundred ecclesiastics of different orders; another with one\nhundred and twenty-eight; another with his chorepiscopus and two hundred\nand fifty of his clergy. Such was the Church, consecrated by the blood\nof so many martyrs, which immediately after its glorious confession fell\na prey to the theology of Theodore; and which through a succession of\nages manifested the energy, when it had lost the pure orthodoxy of\nSaints.\n\n\n9.\n\nThe members of the Persian school, who had been driven out of Edessa by\nRabbula, found a wide field open for their exertions under the pagan\ngovernment with which they had taken refuge. The Persian monarchs, who\nhad often prohibited by edict[293:1] the intercommunion of the Church\nunder their sway with the countries towards the west, readily extended\ntheir protection to exiles, whose very profession was the means of\ndestroying its Catholicity. Barsumas, the most energetic of them, was\nplaced in the metropolitan See of Nisibis, where also the fugitive\nschool was settled under the presidency of another of their party; while\nMaris was promoted to the See of Ardaschir. The primacy of the Church\nhad from an early period belonged to the See of Seleucia in Babylonia.\nCatholicus was the title appropriated to its occupant, as well as to the\nPersian Primate, as being deputies of the Patriarch of Antioch, and was\nderived apparently from the Imperial dignity so called, denoting their\nfunction as Procurators-general, or officers in chief for the regions in\nwhich they were placed. Acacius, another of the Edessene party, was put\ninto this principal See, and suffered, if he did not further, the\ninnovations of Barsumas. The mode by which the latter effected those\nmeasures has been left on record by an enemy. \"Barsumas accused Babu\u00e6us,\nthe Catholicus, before King Pherozes, whispering, 'These men hold the\nfaith of the Romans, and are their spies. Give me power against them to\narrest them.'\"[294:1] It is said that in this way he obtained the death\nof Babu\u00e6us, whom Acacius succeeded. When a minority resisted[294:2] the\nprocess of schism, a persecution followed. The death of seven thousand\nseven hundred Catholics is said by Monophysite authorities to have been\nthe price of the severance of the Chaldaic Churches from\nChristendom.[294:3] Their loss was compensated in the eyes of the\nGovernment by the multitude of Nestorian fugitives, who flocked into\nPersia from the Empire, numbers of them industrious artisans, who sought\na country where their own religion was in the ascendant.\n\n\n10.\n\nThat religion was founded, as we have already seen, in the literal\ninterpretation of Holy Scripture, of which Theodore was the principal\nteacher. The doctrine, in which it formally consisted, is known by the\nname of Nestorianism: it lay in the ascription of a human as well as a\nDivine Personality to our Lord; and it showed itself in denying the\ntitle of \"Mother of God,\" or +theotokos+, to the Blessed Mary. As to our\nLord's Personality, the question of language came into the controversy,\nwhich always serves to perplex a subject and make a dispute seem a\nmatter of words. The native Syrians made a distinction between the word\n\"Person,\" and \"Prosopon,\" which stands for it in Greek; they allowed\nthat there was one Prosopon or Parsopa, as they called it, and they\nheldthat there were two Persons. If it is asked what they meant by\n_parsopa_, the answer seems to be, that they took the word merely in\nthe sense of _character_ or _aspect_, a sense familiar to the Greek\n_prosopon_, and quite irrelevant as a guarantee of their orthodoxy. It\nfollows moreover that, since the _aspect_ of a thing is its impression\nupon the beholder, the personality to which they ascribed unity must\nhave laid in our Lord's manhood, and not in His Divine Nature. But it is\nhardly worth while pursuing the heresy to its limits. Next, as to\nthe phrase \"Mother of God,\" they rejected it as unscriptural; they\nmaintained that St. Mary was Mother of the humanity of Christ, not of\nthe Word, and they fortified themselves by the Nicene Creed, in which no\nsuch title is ascribed to her.\n\n\n11.\n\nWhatever might be the obscurity or the plausibility of their original\ndogma, there is nothing obscure or attractive in the developments,\nwhether of doctrine or of practice, in which it issued. The first act of\nthe exiles of Edessa, on their obtaining power in the Chaldean\ncommunion, was to abolish the celibacy of the clergy, or, in Gibbon's\nforcible words, to allow \"the public and reiterated nuptials of the\npriests, the bishops, and even the patriarch himself.\" Barsumas, the\ngreat instrument of the change of religion, was the first to set an\nexample of the new usage, and is even said by a Nestorian writer to have\nmarried a nun.[295:1] He passed a Canon at Councils, held at Seleucia\nand elsewhere, that bishops and priests might marry, and might renew\ntheir wives as often as they lost them. The Catholicus who followed\nAcacius went so far as to extend the benefit of the Canon to Monks, that\nis, to destroy the Monastic order; and his two successors availed\nthemselves of this liberty, and are recorded to have been fathers. A\nrestriction, however, was afterwards placed upon the Catholicus, and\nupon the Episcopal order.\n\n\n12.\n\nSuch were the circumstances, and such the principles, under which the\nSee of Seleucia became the Rome of the East. In the course of time the\nCatholicus took on himself the loftier and independent title of\nPatriarch of Babylon; and though Seleucia was changed for Ctesiphon and\nfor Bagdad,[296:1] still the name of Babylon was preserved from first to\nlast as a formal or ideal Metropolis. In the time of the Caliphs, it was\nat the head of as many as twenty-five Archbishops; its Communion\nextended from China to Jerusalem; and its numbers, with those of the\nMonophysites, are said to have surpassed those of the Greek and Latin\nChurches together. The Nestorians seem to have been unwilling, like the\nNovatians, to be called by the name of their founder,[296:2] though they\nconfessed it had adhered to them; one instance may be specified of their\nassuming the name of Catholic,[296:3] but there is nothing to show it\nwas given them by others.\n\n\"From the conquest of Persia,\" says Gibbon, \"they carried their\nspiritual arms to the North, the East, and the South; and the simplicity\nof the Gospel was fashioned and painted with the colours of the Syriac\ntheology. In the sixth century, according to the report of a Nestorian\ntraveller, Christianity was successfully preached to the Bactrians, the\nHuns, the Persians, the Indians, the Persarmenians, the Medes, and the\nElamites: the Barbaric Churches from the gulf of Persia to the Caspian\nSea were almost infinite; and their recent faith was conspicuous in the\nnumber and sanctity of their monks and martyrs. The pepper coast of\nMalabar and the isles of the ocean, Socotra and Ceylon, were peopled\nwith an increasing multitude of Christians, and the bishops and clergy\nof those sequestered regions derived their ordination from the\nCatholicus of Babylon. In a subsequent age, the zeal of the Nestorians\noverleaped the limits which had confined the ambition and curiosity both\nof the Greeks and Persians. The missionaries of Balch and Samarcand\npursued without fear the footsteps of the roving Tartar, and insinuated\nthemselves into the camps of the valleys of Imaus and the banks of the\nSelinga.\"[297:1]\n\n\n\u00a7 3. _The Monophysites._\n\nEutyches was Archimandrite, or Abbot, of a Monastery in the suburbs of\nConstantinople; he was a man of unexceptionable character, and was of\nthe age of seventy years, and had been Abbot for thirty, at the date of\nhis unhappy introduction into ecclesiastical history. He had been the\nfriend and assistant of St. Cyril of Alexandria, and had lately taken\npart against Ibas, Bishop of Edessa, whose name has occurred in the\nabove account of the Nestorians. For some time he had been engaged in\nteaching a doctrine concerning the Incarnation, which he maintained\nindeed to be none other than that of St. Cyril's in his controversy with\nNestorius, but which others denounced as a heresy in the opposite\nextreme, and substantially a reassertion of Apollinarianism. The subject\nwas brought before a Council of Constantinople, under the presidency of\nFlavian, the Patriarch, in the year 448; and Eutyches was condemned by\nthe assembled Bishops of holding the doctrine of One, instead of Two\nNatures in Christ.\n\n\n2.\n\nIt is scarcely necessary for our present purpose to ascertain accurately\nwhat he held, and there has been a great deal of controversy on the\nsubject; partly from confusion between him and his successors, partly\nfrom the indecision or the ambiguity which commonly attaches to the\nprofessions of heretics. If a statement must here be made of the\ndoctrine of Eutyches himself, in whom the controversy began, let it be\nsaid to consist in these two tenets:--in maintaining first, that \"before\nthe Incarnation there were two natures, after their union one,\" or that\nour Lord was of or from two natures, but not in two;--and, secondly,\nthat His flesh was not of one substance with ours, that is, not of the\nsubstance of the Blessed Virgin. Of these two points, he seemed willing\nto abandon the second, but was firm in his maintenance of the first. But\nlet us return to the Council of Constantinople.\n\nIn his examination Eutyches allowed that the Holy Virgin was\nconsubstantial with us, and that \"our God was incarnate of her;\" but he\nwould not allow that He was therefore, as man, consubstantial with us,\nhis notion apparently being that union with the Divinity had changed\nwhat otherwise would have been human nature. However, when pressed, he\nsaid, that, though up to that day he had not permitted himself to\ndiscuss the nature of Christ, or to affirm that \"God's body is man's\nbody though it was human,\" yet he would allow, if commanded, our Lord's\nconsubstantiality with us. Upon this Flavian observed that \"the Council\nwas introducing no innovation, but declaring the faith of the Fathers.\"\nTo his other position, however, that our Lord had but one nature after\nthe Incarnation, he adhered: when the Catholic doctrine was put before\nhim, he answered, \"Let St. Athanasius be read; you will find nothing of\nthe kind in him.\"\n\nHis condemnation followed: it was signed by twenty-two Bishops and\ntwenty-three Abbots;[298:1] among the former were Flavian of\nConstantinople, Basil metropolitan of Seleucia in Isauria, the\nmetropolitans of Amasea in Pontus, and Marcianopolis in Moesia, and\nthe Bishop of Cos, the Pope's minister at Constantinople.\n\n\n3.\n\nEutyches appealed to the Pope of the day, St. Leo, who at first hearing\ntook his part. He wrote to Flavian that, \"judging by the statement of\nEutyches, he did not see with what justice he had been separated from\nthe communion of the Church.\" \"Send therefore,\" he continued, \"some\nsuitable person to give us a full account of what has occurred, and let\nus know what the new error is.\" St. Flavian, who had behaved with great\nforbearance throughout the proceedings, had not much difficulty in\nsetting the controversy before the Pope in its true light.\n\nEutyches was supported by the Imperial Court, and by Dioscorus the\nPatriarch of Alexandria; the proceedings therefore at Constantinople\nwere not allowed to settle the question. A general Council was summoned\nfor the ensuing summer at Ephesus, where the third Ecumenical Council\nhad been held twenty years before against Nestorius. It was attended by\nsixty metropolitans, ten from each of the great divisions of the East;\nthe whole number of bishops assembled amounted to one hundred and\nthirty-five.[299:1] Dioscorus was appointed President by the Emperor,\nand the object of the assembly was said to be the settlement of a\nquestion of faith which had arisen between Flavian and Eutyches. St.\nLeo, dissatisfied with the measure altogether, nevertheless sent his\nlegates, but with the object, as their commission stated, and a letter\nhe addressed to the Council, of \"condemning the heresy, and reinstating\nEutyches if he retracted.\" His legates took precedence after Dioscorus\nand before the other Patriarchs. He also published at this time his\ncelebrated Tome on the Incarnation, in a letter addressed to Flavian.\n\nThe proceedings which followed were of so violent a character, that the\nCouncil has gone down to posterity under the name of the Latrocinium or\n\"Gang of Robbers.\" Eutyches was honourably acquitted, and his doctrine\nreceived; but the assembled Fathers showed some backwardness to depose\nSt. Flavian. Dioscorus had been attended by a multitude of monks,\nfurious zealots for the Monophysite doctrine from Syria and Egypt, and\nby an armed force. These broke into the Church at his call; Flavian was\nthrown down and trampled on, and received injuries of which he died the\nthird day after. The Pope's legates escaped as they could; and the\nBishops were compelled to sign a blank paper, which was afterwards\nfilled up with the condemnation of Flavian. These outrages, however,\nwere subsequent to the Synodical acceptance of the Creed of Eutyches,\nwhich seems to have been the spontaneous act of the assembled Fathers.\nThe proceedings ended by Dioscorus excommunicating the Pope, and the\nEmperor issuing an edict in approval of the decision of the Council.\n\n\n4.\n\nBefore continuing the narrative, let us pause awhile to consider what it\nhas already brought before us. An aged and blameless man, the friend of\na Saint, and him the great champion of the faith against the heresy of\nhis day, is found in the belief and maintenance of a doctrine, which he\ndeclares to be the very doctrine which that Saint taught in opposition\nto that heresy. To prove it, he and his friends refer to the very words\nof St. Cyril; Eustathius of Berytus quoting from him at Ephesus as\nfollows: \"We must not then conceive two natures, but one nature of the\nWord incarnate.\"[300:1] Moreover, it seems that St. Cyril had been\ncalled to account for this very phrase, and had appealed more than once\nto a passage, which is extant as he quoted it, in a work by St.\nAthanasius.[301:1] Whether the passage in question is genuine is very\ndoubtful, but that is not to the purpose; for the phrase which it\ncontains is also attributed by St. Cyril to other Fathers, and was\nadmitted by Catholics generally, as by St. Flavian, who deposed\nEutyches, nay was indirectly adopted by the Council of Chalcedon itself.\n\n\n5.\n\nBut Eutyches did not merely insist upon a phrase; he appealed for his\ndoctrine to the Fathers generally; \"I have read the blessed Cyril, and\nthe holy Fathers, and the holy Athanasius,\" he says at Constantinople,\n\"that they said, 'Of two natures before the union,' but that 'after the\nunion' they said 'but one.'\"[301:2] In his letter to St. Leo, he appeals\nin particular to Pope Julius, Pope Felix, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, St.\nGregory Nazianzen, St. Basil, Atticus, and St. Proclus. He did not\nappeal to them unreservedly certainly, as shall be presently noticed; he\nallowed that they might err, and perhaps had erred, in their\nexpressions: but it is plain, even from what has been said, that there\ncould be no _consensus_ against him, as the word is now commonly\nunderstood. It is also undeniable that, though the word \"nature\" is\napplied to our Lord's manhood by St. Ambrose, St. Gregory Nazianzen and\nothers, yet on the whole it is for whatever reason avoided by the\nprevious Fathers; certainly by St. Athanasius, who uses the words\n\"manhood,\" \"flesh,\" \"the man,\" \"economy,\" where a later writer would\nhave used \"nature:\" and the same is true of St. Hilary.[301:3] In like\nmanner, the Athanasian Creed, written, as it is supposed, some twenty\nyears before the date of Eutyches, does not contain the word \"nature.\"\nMuch might be said on the plausibility of the defence, which Eutyches\nmight have made for his doctrine from the history and documents of the\nChurch before his time.\n\n\n6.\n\nFurther, Eutyches professed to subscribe heartily the decrees of the\nCouncil of Nic\u00e6a and Ephesus, and his friends appealed to the latter of\nthese Councils and to previous Fathers, in proof that nothing could be\nadded to the Creed of the Church. \"I,\" he says to St. Leo, \"even from my\nelders have so understood, and from my childhood have so been\ninstructed, as the holy and Ecumenical Council at Nic\u00e6a of the three\nhundred and eighteen most blessed Bishops settled the faith, and which\nthe holy Council held at Ephesus maintained and defined anew as the only\nfaith; and I have never understood otherwise than as the right or only\ntrue orthodox faith hath enjoined.\" He says at the Latrocinium, \"When I\ndeclared that my faith was conformable to the decision of Nic\u00e6a,\nconfirmed at Ephesus, they demanded that I should add some words to it;\nand I, fearing to act contrary to the decrees of the First Council of\nEphesus and of the Council of Nic\u00e6a, desired that your holy Council\nmight be made acquainted with it, since I was ready to submit to\nwhatever you should approve.\"[302:1] Dioscorus states the matter more\nstrongly: \"We have heard,\" he says, \"what this Council\" of Ephesus\n\"decreed, that if any one affirm or opine anything, or raise any\nquestion, beyond the Creed aforesaid\" of Nic\u00e6a, \"he is to be\ncondemned.\"[302:2] It is remarkable that the Council of Ephesus, which\nlaid down this rule, had itself sanctioned the Theotocos, an addition,\ngreater perhaps than any before or since, to the letter of the primitive\nfaith.\n\n\n7.\n\nFurther, Eutyches appealed to Scripture, and denied that a human nature\nwas there given to our Lord; and this appeal obliged him in consequence\nto refuse an unconditional assent to the Councils and Fathers, though he\nso confidently spoke about them at other times. It was urged against him\nthat the Nicene Council itself had introduced into the Creed\nextra-scriptural terms. \"'I have never found in Scripture,' he said,\"\naccording to one of the Priests who were sent to him, \"'that there are\ntwo natures.' I replied, 'Neither is the Consubstantiality,'\" (the\nHomo\u00fcsion of Nic\u00e6a,) \"'to be found in the Scriptures, but in the Holy\nFathers who well understood them and faithfully expounded them.'\"[303:1]\nAccordingly, on another occasion, a report was made of him, that \"he\nprofessed himself ready to assent to the Exposition of Faith made by the\nHoly Fathers of the Nicene and Ephesine Councils and he engaged to\nsubscribe their interpretations. However, if there were any accidental\nfault or error in any expressions which they made, this he would neither\nblame nor accept; but only search the Scriptures, as being surer than\nthe expositions of the Fathers; that since the time of the Incarnation\nof God the Word . . he worshipped one Nature . . . that the doctrine\nthat our Lord Jesus Christ came of Two Natures personally united, this\nit was that he had learned from the expositions of the Holy Fathers; nor\ndid he accept, if ought was read to him from any author to [another]\neffect, because the Holy Scriptures, as he said, were better than the\nteaching of the Fathers.\"[304:1] This appeal to the Scriptures will\nremind us of what has lately been said of the school of Theodore\nin the history of Nestorianism, and of the challenge of the Arians\nto St. Avitus before the Gothic King.[304:2] It had also been the\ncharacteristic of heresy in the antecedent period. St. Hilary brings\ntogether a number of instances in point, from the history of Marcellus,\nPhotinus, Sabellius, Montanus, and Manes; then he adds, \"They all speak\nScripture without the sense of Scripture, and profess a faith without\nfaith.\"[304:3]\n\n\n8.\n\nOnce more; the Council of the Latrocinium, however, tyrannized over by\nDioscorus in the matter of St. Flavian, certainly did acquit Eutyches\nand accept his doctrine canonically, and, as it would appear, cordially;\nthough their change at Chalcedon, and the subsequent variations of the\nEast, make it a matter of little moment how they decided. The Acts of\nConstantinople were read to the Fathers of the Latrocinium; when they\ncame to the part where Eusebius of Doryl\u00e6um, the accuser of Eutyches,\nasked him, whether he confessed Two Natures after the Incarnation, and\nthe Consubstantiality according to the flesh, the Fathers broke in upon\nthe reading:--\"Away with Eusebius; burn him; burn him alive; cut him in\ntwo; as he divided, so let him be divided.\"[305:1] The Council seems to\nhave been unanimous, with the exception of the Pope's Legates, in the\nrestoration of Eutyches; a more complete decision can hardly be\nimagined.\n\nIt is true the whole number of signatures now extant, one hundred and\neight, may seem small out of a thousand, the number of Sees in the East;\nbut the attendance of Councils always bore a representative character.\nThe whole number of East and West was about eighteen hundred, yet the\nsecond Ecumenical Council was attended by only one hundred and fifty,\nwhich is but a twelfth part of the whole number; the Third Council by\nabout two hundred, or a ninth; the Council of Nic\u00e6a itself numbered only\nthree hundred and eighteen Bishops. Moreover, when we look through the\nnames subscribed to the Synodal decision, we find that the misbelief, or\nmisapprehension, or weakness, to which this great offence must be\nattributed, was no local phenomenon, but the unanimous sin of Bishops in\nevery patriarchate and of every school of the East. Three out of the\nfour patriarchs were in favour of the heresiarch, the fourth being on\nhis trial. Of these Domnus of Antioch and Juvenal of Jerusalem acquitted\nhim, on the ground of his confessing the faith of Nic\u00e6a and Ephesus: and\nDomnus was a man of the fairest and purest character, and originally a\ndisciple of St. Euthemius, however inconsistent on this occasion, and\nill-advised in former steps of his career. Dioscorus, violent and bad\nman as he showed himself, had been Archdeacon to St. Cyril, whom he\nattended at the Council of Ephesus; and was on this occasion supported\nby those Churches which had so nobly stood by their patriarch Athanasius\nin the great Arian conflict. These three Patriarchs were supported by\nthe Exarchs of Ephesus and C\u00e6sarea in Cappadocia; and both of these as\nwell as Domnus and Juvenal, were supported in turn by their subordinate\nMetropolitans. Even the Sees under the influence of Constantinople,\nwhich was the remaining sixth division of the East, took part with\nEutyches. We find among the signatures to his acquittal the Bishops of\nDyrrachium, of Heraclea in Macedonia, of Messene in the Peloponese, of\nSebaste in Armenia, of Tarsus, of Damascus, of Berytus, of Bostra in\nArabia, of Amida in Mesopotamia, of Himeria in Osrhoene, of Babylon, of\nArsinoe in Egypt, and of Cyrene. The Bishops of Palestine, of Macedonia,\nand of Achaia, where the keen eye of St. Athanasius had detected the\ndoctrine in its germ, while Apollinarianism was but growing into form,\nwere his actual partisans. Another Barsumas, a Syrian Abbot, ignorant of\nGreek, attended the Latrocinium, as the representative of the monks of\nhis nation, whom he formed into a force, material or moral, of a\nthousand strong, and whom at that infamous assembly he cheered on to the\nmurder of St. Flavian.\n\n\n9.\n\nSuch was the state of Eastern Christendom in the year 449; a heresy,\nappealing to the Fathers, to the Creed, and, above all, to Scripture,\nwas by a general Council, professing to be Ecumenical, received as true\nin the person of its promulgator. If the East could determine a matter\nof faith independently of the West, certainly the Monophysite heresy was\nestablished as Apostolic truth in all its provinces from Macedonia to\nEgypt.\n\nThere has been a time in the history of Christianity, when it had been\nAthanasius against the world, and the world against Athanasius. The need\nand straitness of the Church had been great, and one man was raised up\nfor her deliverance. In this second necessity, who was the destined\nchampion of her who cannot fail? Whence did he come, and what was his\nname? He came with an augury of victory upon him, which even Athanasius\ncould not show; it was Leo, Bishop of Rome.\n\n\n10.\n\nLeo's augury of success, which even Athanasius had not, was this, that\nhe was seated in the chair of St. Peter and the heir of his\nprerogatives. In the very beginning of the controversy, St. Peter\nChrysologus had urged this grave consideration upon Eutyches himself, in\nwords which have already been cited: \"I exhort you, my venerable\nbrother,\" he had said, \"to submit yourself in everything to what has\nbeen written by the blessed Pope of Rome; for St. Peter, who lives and\npresides in his own See, gives the true faith to those who seek\nit.\"[307:1] This voice had come from Ravenna, and now after the\nLatrocinium it was echoed back from the depths of Syria by the learned\nTheodoret. \"That all-holy See,\" he says in a letter to one of the Pope's\nLegates, \"has the office of heading (+h\u00eagemonian+) the whole world's\nChurches for many reasons; and above all others, because it has remained\nfree of the communion of heretical taint, and no one of heterodox\nsentiments hath sat in it, but it hath preserved the Apostolic grace\nunsullied.\"[307:2] And a third testimony in encouragement of the\nfaithful at the same dark moment issued from the Imperial court of the\nWest. \"We are bound,\" says Valentinian to the Emperor of the East, \"to\npreserve inviolate in our times the prerogative of particular reverence\nto the blessed Apostle Peter; that the most blessed Bishop of Rome, to\nwhom Antiquity assigned the priesthood over all (+kata pant\u00f4n+) may\nhave place and opportunity of judging concerning the faith and the\npriests.\"[307:3] Nor had Leo himself been wanting at the same time in\n\"the confidence\" he had \"obtained from the most blessed Peter and head\nof the Apostles, that he had authority to defend the truth for the peace\nof the Church.\"[308:1] Thus Leo introduces us to the Council of\nChalcedon, by which he rescued the East from a grave heresy.\n\n\n11.\n\nThe Council met on the 8th of October, 451, and was attended by the\nlargest number of Bishops of any Council before or since; some say by as\nmany as six hundred and thirty. Of these, only four came from the West,\ntwo Roman Legates and two Africans.[308:2]\n\nIts proceedings were opened by the Pope's Legates, who said that they\nhad it in charge from the Bishop of Rome, \"which is the head of all the\nChurches,\" to demand that Dioscorus should not sit, on the ground that\n\"he had presumed to hold a Council without the authority of the\nApostolic See, which had never been done nor was lawful to do.\"[308:3]\nThis was immediately allowed them.\n\nThe next act of the Council was to give admission to Theodoret, who had\nbeen deposed at the Latrocinium. The Imperial officers present urged his\nadmission, on the ground that \"the most holy Archbishop Leo hath\nrestored him to the Episcopal office, and the most pious Emperor hath\nordered that he should assist at the holy Council.\"[308:4]\n\nPresently, a charge was brought forward against Dioscorus, that, though\nthe Legates had presented a letter from the Pope to the Council, it had\nnot been read. Dioscorus admitted not only the fact, but its relevancy;\nbut alleged in excuse that he had twice ordered it to be read in vain.\n\nIn the course of the reading of the Acts of the Latrocinium and\nConstantinople, a number of Bishops moved from the side of Dioscorus\nand placed themselves with the opposite party. When Peter, Bishop of\nCorinth, crossed over, the Orientals whom he joined shouted, \"Peter\nthinks as does Peter; orthodox Bishop, welcome.\"\n\n\n12.\n\nIn the second Session it was the duty of the Fathers to draw up a\nconfession of faith condemnatory of the heresy. A committee was formed\nfor the purpose, and the Creed of Nic\u00e6a and Constantinople was read;\nthen some of the Epistles of St. Cyril; lastly, St. Leo's Tome, which\nhad been passed over in silence at the Latrocinium. Some discussion\nfollowed upon the last of these documents, but at length the Bishops\ncried out, \"This is the faith of the Fathers; this is the faith of the\nApostles: we all believe thus; the orthodox believe thus; anathema to\nhim who does not believe thus. Peter has thus spoken through Leo; the\nApostles taught thus.\" Readings from the other Fathers followed; and\nthen some days were allowed for private discussion, before drawing up\nthe confession of faith which was to set right the heterodoxy of the\nLatrocinium.\n\nDuring the interval, Dioscorus was tried and condemned; sentence was\npronounced against him by the Pope's Legates, and ran thus: \"The most\nholy Archbishop of Rome, Leo, through us and this present Council, with\nthe Apostle St. Peter, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic\nChurch and of the orthodox faith, deprives him of the Episcopal dignity\nand every sacerdotal ministry.\"\n\nIn the fourth Session the question of the definition of faith came on\nagain, but the Council got no further than this, that it received the\ndefinitions of the three previous Ecumenical Councils; it would not add\nto them what Leo required. One hundred and sixty Bishops however\nsubscribed his Tome.\n\n\n13.\n\nIn the fifth Session the question came on once more; some sort of\ndefinition of faith was the result of the labours of the committee, and\nwas accepted by the great majority of the Council. The Bishops cried\nout, \"We are all satisfied with the definition; it is the faith of the\nFathers: anathema to him who thinks otherwise: drive out the\nNestorians.\" When objectors appeared, Anatolius, the new Patriarch of\nConstantinople, asked \"Did not every one yesterday consent to the\ndefinition of faith?\" on which the Bishops answered, \"Every one\nconsented; we do not believe otherwise; it is the Faith of the Fathers;\nlet it be set down that Holy Mary is the Mother of God: let this be\nadded to the Creed; put out the Nestorians.\"[310:1] The objectors were\nthe Pope's Legates, supported by a certain number of Orientals: those\nclear-sighted, firm-minded Latins understood full well what and what\nalone was the true expression of orthodox doctrine under the emergency\nof the existing heresy. They had been instructed to induce the Council\nto pass a declaration to the effect, that Christ was not only \"of,\" but\n\"in\" two natures. However, they did not enter upon disputation on the\npoint, but they used a more intelligible argument: If the Fathers did\nnot consent to the letter of the blessed Bishop Leo, they would leave\nthe Council and go home. The Imperial officers took the part of the\nLegates. The Council however persisted: \"Every one approved the\ndefinition; let it be subscribed: he who refuses to subscribe it is a\nheretic.\" They even proceeded to refer it to Divine inspiration. The\nofficers asked if they received St. Leo's Tome; they answered that they\nhad subscribed it, but that they would not introduce its contents into\ntheir definition of faith. \"We are for no other definition,\" they said;\n\"nothing is wanting in this.\"\n\n\n14.\n\nNotwithstanding, the Pope's Legates gained their point through the\nsupport of the Emperor Marcian, who had succeeded Theodosius. A fresh\ncommittee was obtained under the threat that, if they resisted, the\nCouncil should be transferred to the West. Some voices were raised\nagainst this measure; the cries were repeated against the Roman party,\n\"They are Nestorians; let them go to Rome.\" The Imperial officers\nremonstrated, \"Dioscorus said, 'Of two natures;' Leo says, 'Two\nnatures:' which will you follow, Leo or Dioscorus?\" On their answering\n\"Leo,\" they continued, \"Well then, add to the definition, according to\nthe judgment of our most holy Leo.\" Nothing more was to be said. The\ncommittee immediately proceeded to their work, and in a short time\nreturned to the assembly with such a definition as the Pope required.\nAfter reciting the Creed of Nic\u00e6a and Constantinople, it observes, \"This\nCreed were sufficient for the perfect knowledge of religion, but the\nenemies of the truth have invented novel expressions;\" and therefore it\nproceeds to state the faith more explicitly. When this was read through,\nthe Bishops all exclaimed, \"This is the faith of the Fathers; we all\nfollow it.\" And thus ended the controversy once for all.\n\nThe Council, after its termination, addressed a letter to St. Leo; in it\nthe Fathers acknowledge him as \"constituted interpreter of the voice of\nBlessed Peter,\"[311:1] (with an allusion to St. Peter's Confession in\nMatthew xvi.,) and speak of him as \"the very one commissioned with the\nguardianship of the Vine by the Saviour.\"\n\n\n15.\n\nSuch is the external aspect of those proceedings by which the Catholic\nfaith has been established in Christendom against the Monophysites. That\nthe definition passed at Chalcedon is the Apostolic Truth once delivered\nto the Saints is most firmly to be received, from faith in that\noverruling Providence which is by special promise extended over the acts\nof the Church; moreover, that it is in simple accordance with the faith\nof St. Athanasius, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and all the other Fathers,\nwill be evident to the theological student in proportion as he becomes\nfamiliar with their works: but the historical account of the Council is\nthis, that a formula which the Creed did not contain, which the Fathers\ndid not unanimously witness, and which some eminent Saints had almost in\nset terms opposed, which the whole East refused as a symbol, not once,\nbut twice, patriarch by patriarch, metropolitan by metropolitan, first\nby the mouth of above a hundred, then by the mouth of above six hundred\nof its Bishops, and refused upon the grounds of its being an addition to\nthe Creed, was forced upon the Council, not indeed as being such an\naddition, yet, on the other hand, not for subscription merely, but for\nacceptance as a definition of faith under the sanction of an\nanathema,--forced on the Council by the resolution of the Pope of the\nday, acting through his Legates and supported by the civil power.[312:1]\n\n\n16.\n\nIt cannot be supposed that such a transaction would approve itself to\nthe Churches of Egypt, and the event showed it: they disowned the\nauthority of the Council, and called its adherents Chalcedonians,[313:1]\nand Synodites.[313:2] For here was the West tyrannizing over the East,\nforcing it into agreement with itself, resolved to have one and one only\nform of words, rejecting the definition of faith which the East had\ndrawn up in Council, bidding it and making it frame another, dealing\nperemptorily and sternly with the assembled Bishops, and casting\ncontempt on the most sacred traditions of Egypt! What was Eutyches to\nthem? He might be guilty or innocent; they gave him up: Dioscorus had\ngiven him up at Chalcedon;[313:3] they did not agree with him:[313:4] he\nwas an extreme man; they would not call themselves by human titles; they\nwere not Eutychians; Eutyches was not their master, but Athanasius and\nCyril were their doctors.[313:5] The two great lights of their Church,\nthe two greatest and most successful polemical Fathers that Christianity\nhad seen, had both pronounced \"One Nature Incarnate,\" though allowing\nTwo before the Incarnation; and though Leo and his Council had not gone\nso far as to deny this phrase, they had proceeded to say what was the\ncontrary to it, to explain away, to overlay the truth, by defining that\nthe Incarnate Saviour was \"in Two Natures.\" At Ephesus it had been\ndeclared that the Creed should not be touched; the Chalcedonian Fathers\nhad, not literally, but virtually added to it: by subscribing Leo's\nTome, and promulgating their definition of faith, they had added what\nmight be called, \"The Creed of Pope Leo.\"\n\n\n17.\n\nIt is remarkable, as has been just stated, that Dioscorus, wicked man\nas he was in act, was of the moderate or middle school in doctrine, as\nthe violent and able Severus after him; and from the first the great\nbody of the protesting party disowned Eutyches, whose form of the heresy\ntook refuge in Armenia, where it remains to this day. The Armenians\nalone were pure Eutychians, and so zealously such that they innovated on\nthe ancient and recognized custom of mixing water with the wine in the\nHoly Eucharist, and consecrated the wine by itself in token of the one\nnature, as they considered, of the Christ. Elsewhere both name and\ndoctrine of Eutyches were abjured; the heretical bodies in Egypt and\nSyria took a title from their special tenet, and formed the Monophysite\ncommunion. Their theology was at once simple and specious. They based it\nupon the illustration which is familiar to us in the Athanasian Creed,\nand which had been used by St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Cyril, St.\nAugustine, Vincent of Lerins, not to say St. Leo himself. They argued\nthat as body and soul made up one man, so God and man made up but one,\nthough one compound Nature, in Christ. It might have been charitably\nhoped that their difference from the Catholics had been a simple matter\nof words, as it is allowed by Vigilius of Thapsus really to have been in\nmany cases; but their refusal to obey the voice of the Church was a\ntoken of real error in their faith, and their implicit heterodoxy is\nproved by their connexion, in spite of themselves, with the extreme or\nultra party whom they so vehemently disowned.\n\nIt is very observable that, ingenious as is their theory and sometimes\nperplexing to a disputant, the Monophysites never could shake themselves\nfree of the Eutychians; and though they could draw intelligible lines on\npaper between the two doctrines, yet in fact by a hidden fatality their\npartisans were ever running into or forming alliance with the\nanathematized extreme. Thus Peter the Fuller the Theopaschite\n(Eutychian), is at one time in alliance with Peter the Stammerer, who\nadvocated the Henoticon (which was Monophysite). The Acephali, though\nseparating from the latter Peter for that advocacy, and accused by\nLeontius of being Gaianites[315:1] (Eutychians), are considered by\nFacundus as Monophysites.[315:2] Timothy the Cat, who is said to have\nagreed with Dioscorus and Peter the Stammerer, who signed the Henoticon,\nthat is, with two Monophysite Patriarchs, is said nevertheless,\naccording to Anastasius, to have maintained the extreme tenet, that \"the\nDivinity is the sole nature of Christ.\"[315:3] Severus, according to\nAnastasius,[315:3] symbolized with the Phantasiasts (Eutychians), yet he\nis more truly, according to Leontius, the chief doctor and leader of the\nMonophysites. And at one time there was an union, though temporary,\nbetween the Theodosians (Monophysites) and the Gaianites.\n\n\n18.\n\nSuch a division of an heretical party, into the maintainers, of an\nextreme and a moderate view, perspicuous and plausible on paper, yet in\nfact unreal, impracticable, and hopeless, was no new phenomenon in the\nhistory of the Church. As Eutyches put forward an extravagant tenet,\nwhich was first corrected into the Monophysite, and then relapsed\nhopelessly into the doctrine of the Phantasiasts and the Theopaschites,\nso had Arius been superseded by the Eusebians and had revived in\nEunomius; and as the moderate Eusebians had formed the great body of the\ndissentients from the Nicene Council, so did the Monophysites include\nthe mass of those who protested against Chalcedon; and as the Eusebians\nhad been moderate in creed, yet unscrupulous in act, so were the\nMonophysites. And as the Eusebians were ever running individually into\npure Arianism, so did the Monophysites run into pure Eutychianism. And\nas the Monophysites set themselves against Pope Leo, so had the\nEusebians, with even less provocation, withstood and complained of Pope\nJulius. In like manner, the Apollinarians had divided into two sects;\none, with Timotheus, going the whole length of the inferences which the\ntenet of their master involved, and the more cautious or timid party\nmaking an unintelligible stand with Valentinus. Again, in the history of\nNestorianism, though it admitted less opportunity for division of\nopinion, the See of Rome was with St. Cyril in one extreme, Nestorius in\nthe other, and between them the great Eastern party, headed by John of\nAntioch and Theodoret, not heretical, but for a time dissatisfied with\nthe Council of Ephesus.\n\n\n19.\n\nThe Nestorian heresy, I have said, gave less opportunity for doctrinal\nvarieties than the heresy of Eutyches. Its spirit was rationalizing, and\nhad the qualities which go with rationalism. When cast out of the Roman\nEmpire, it addressed itself, as we have seen, to a new and rich field of\nexertion, got possession of an Established Church, co-operated with the\ncivil government, adopted secular fashions, and, by whatever means,\npushed itself out into an Empire. Apparently, though it requires a very\nintimate knowledge of its history to speak except conjecturally, it was\na political power rather than a dogma, and despised the science of\ntheology. Eutychianism, on the other hand, was mystical, severe,\nenthusiastic; with the exception of Severus, and one or two more, it was\nsupported by little polemical skill; it had little hold upon the\nintellectual Greeks of Syria and Asia Minor, but flourished in Egypt,\nwhich was far behind the East in civilization, and among the native\nSyrians. Nestorianism, like Arianism[317:1] before it, was a cold\nreligion, and more fitted for the schools than for the many; but the\nMonophysites carried the people with them. Like modern Jansenism, and\nunlike Nestorianism, the Monophysites were famous for their austerities.\nThey have, or had, five Lents in the year, during which laity as well as\nclergy abstain not only from flesh and eggs, but from wine, oil, and\nfish.[317:2] Monachism was a characteristic part of their ecclesiastical\nsystem: their Bishops, and Maphrian or Patriarch, were always taken from\nthe Monks, who are even said to have worn an iron shirt or breastplate\nas a part of their monastic habit.[317:3]\n\n\n20.\n\nSeverus, Patriarch of Antioch at the end of the fifth century, has\nalready been mentioned as an exception to the general character of the\nMonophysites, and, by his learning and ability, may be accounted the\nfounder of its theology. Their cause, however, had been undertaken by\nthe Emperors themselves before him. For the first thirty years after the\nCouncil of Chalcedon, the protesting Church of Egypt had been the scene\nof continued tumult and bloodshed. Dioscorus had been popular with the\npeople for his munificence, in spite of the extreme laxity of his\nmorals, and for a while the Imperial Government failed in obtaining the\nelection of a Catholic successor. At length Proterius, a man of fair\ncharacter, and the Vicar-general of Dioscorus on his absence at\nChalcedon, was chosen, consecrated, and enthroned; but the people rose\nagainst the civil authorities, and the military, coming to their\ndefence, were attacked with stones, and pursued into a church, where\nthey were burned alive by the mob. Next, the popular leaders prepared to\nintercept the supplies of grain which were destined for Constantinople;\nand, a defensive retaliation taking place, Alexandria was starved. Then\na force of two thousand men was sent for the restoration of order, who\npermitted themselves in scandalous excesses towards the women of\nAlexandria. Proterius's life was attempted, and he was obliged to be\nattended by a guard. The Bishops of Egypt would not submit to him; two\nof his own clergy, who afterward succeeded him, Timothy and Peter,\nseceded, and were joined by four or five of the Bishops and by the mass\nof the population;[318:1] and the Catholic Patriarch was left without a\ncommunion in Alexandria. He held a council, and condemned the\nschismatics; and the Emperor, seconding his efforts, sent them out of\nthe country, and enforced the laws against the Eutychians. An external\nquiet succeeded; then Marcian died; and then forthwith Timothy (the Cat)\nmade his appearance again, first in Egypt, then in Alexandria. The\npeople rose in his favour, and carried in triumph their persecuted\nchampion to the great C\u00e6sarean Church, where he was consecrated\nPatriarch by two deprived Bishops, who had been put out of their sees,\nwhether by a Council of Egypt or of Palestine.[318:2] Timothy, now\nraised to the Episcopal rank, began to create a new succession; he\nordained Bishops for the Churches of Egypt, and drove into exile those\nwho were in possession. The Imperial troops, who had been stationed in\nUpper Egypt, returned to Alexandria; the mob rose again, broke into the\nChurch, where St. Proterius was in prayer, and murdered him. A general\nejectment of the Catholic clergy throughout Egypt followed. On their\nbetaking themselves to Constantinople to the new Emperor, Timothy and\nhis party addressed him also. They quoted the Fathers, and demanded the\nabrogation of the Council of Chalcedon. Next they demanded a conference;\nthe Catholics said that what was once done could not be undone; their\nopponents agreed to this and urged it, as their very argument against\nChalcedon, that it added to the faith, and reversed former\ndecisions.[319:1] After a rule of three years, Timothy was driven out\nand Catholicism restored; but then in turn the Monophysites rallied, and\nthis state of warfare and alternate success continued for thirty years.\n\n\n21.\n\nAt length the Imperial Government, wearied out with a dispute which was\ninterminable, came to the conclusion that the only way of restoring\npeace to the Church was to abandon the Council of Chalcedon. In the year\n482 was published the famous _Henoticon_ or Pacification of Zeno, in\nwhich the Emperor took upon himself to determine a matter of faith. The\nHenoticon declared that no symbol of faith but that of the Nicene Creed,\ncommonly so called, should be received in the Churches; it anathematized\nthe opposite heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches, and it was silent on\nthe question of the \"One\" or \"Two Natures\" after the Incarnation. This\nmiddle measure had the various effects which might be anticipated. It\nunited the great body of the Eastern Bishops, who readily relaxed into\nthe vague profession of doctrine from which they had been roused by the\nauthority of St. Leo. All the Eastern Bishops signed this Imperial\nformulary. But this unanimity of the East was purchased by a breach with\nthe West; for the Popes cut off the communication between Greeks and\nLatins for thirty-five years. On the other hand, the more zealous\nMonophysites, disgusted at their leaders for accepting what they\nconsidered an unjustifiable compromise, split off from the Eastern\nChurches, and formed a sect by themselves, which remained without\nBishops (_acephali_) for three hundred years, when at length they were\nreceived back into the communion of the Catholic Church.\n\n\n22.\n\nDreary and waste was the condition of the Church, and forlorn her\nprospects, at the period which we have been reviewing. After the brief\ntriumph which attended the conversion of Constantine, trouble and trial\nhad returned upon her. Her imperial protectors were failing in power or\nin faith. Strange forms of evil were rising in the distance and were\nthronging for the conflict. There was but one spot in the whole of\nChristendom, one voice in the whole Episcopate, to which the faithful\nturned in hope in that miserable day. In the year 493, in the\nPontificate of Gelasius, the whole of the East was in the hands of\ntraitors to Chalcedon, and the whole of the West under the tyranny of\nthe open enemies of Nic\u00e6a. Italy was the prey of robbers; mercenary\nbands had overrun its territory, and barbarians were seizing on its\nfarms and settling in its villas. The peasants were thinned by famine\nand pestilence; Tuscany might be even said, as Gelasius words it, to\ncontain scarcely a single inhabitant.[320:1] Odoacer was sinking before\nTheodoric, and the Pope was changing one Arian master for another. And\nas if one heresy were not enough, Pelagianism was spreading with the\nconnivance of the Bishops in the territory of Picenum. In the North of\nthe dismembered Empire, the Britons had first been infected by\nPelagianism, and now were dispossessed by the heathen Saxons. The\nArmoricans still preserved a witness of Catholicism in the West of Gaul;\nbut Picardy, Champagne, and the neighbouring provinces, where some\nremnant of its supremacy had been found, had lately submitted to the\nyet heathen Clovis. The Arian kingdoms of Burgundy in France, and of the\nVisigoths in Aquitaine and Spain, oppressed a zealous and Catholic\nclergy, Africa was in still more deplorable condition under the cruel\nsway of the Vandal Gundamond: the people indeed uncorrupted by the\nheresy,[321:1] but their clergy in exile and their worship suspended.\nWhile such was the state of the Latins, what had happened in the East?\nAcacius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, had secretly taken part\nagainst the Council of Chalcedon and was under Papal excommunication.\nNearly the whole East had sided with Acacius, and a schism had begun\nbetween East and West, which lasted, as I have above stated, for\nthirty-five years. The Henoticon was in force, and at the Imperial\ncommand had been signed by all the Patriarchs and Bishops throughout the\nEastern Empire.[321:2] In Armenia the Churches were ripening for the\npure Eutychianism which they adopted in the following century; and in\nEgypt the Acephali, already separated from the Monophysite Patriarch,\nwere extending in the east and west of the country, and preferred the\nloss of the Episcopal Succession to the reception of the Council of\nChalcedon. And while Monophysites or their favourers occupied the\nChurches of the Eastern Empire, Nestorianism was making progress in the\nterritories beyond it. Barsumas had held the See of Nisibis, Theodore\nwas read in the schools of Persia, and the successive Catholici of\nSeleucia had abolished Monachism and were secularizing the clergy.\n\n\n23.\n\nIf then there is now a form of Christianity such, that it extends\nthroughout the world, though with varying measures of prominence or\nprosperity in separate places;--that it lies under the power of\nsovereigns and magistrates, in various ways alien to its faith;--that\nflourishing nations and great empires, professing or tolerating the\nChristian name, lie over against it as antagonists;--that schools of\nphilosophy and learning are supporting theories, and following out\nconclusions, hostile to it, and establishing an exegetical system\nsubversive of its Scriptures;--that it has lost whole Churches by\nschism, and is now opposed by powerful communions once part of\nitself;--that it has been altogether or almost driven from some\ncountries;--that in others its line of teachers is overlaid, its flocks\noppressed, its Churches occupied, its property held by what may be\ncalled a duplicate succession;--that in others its members are\ndegenerate and corrupt, and are surpassed in conscientiousness and in\nvirtue, as in gifts of intellect, by the very heretics whom it\ncondemns;--that heresies are rife and bishops negligent within its own\npale;--and that amid its disorders and its fears there is but one Voice\nfor whose decisions the peoples wait with trust, one Name and one See to\nwhich they look with hope, and that name Peter, and that see Rome;--such\na religion is not unlike the Christianity of the fifth and sixth\nCenturies.[322:1]\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[208:1] [This juxtaposition of names has been strangely distorted by\ncritics. In the intention of the author, Guizot matched with Pliny, not\nwith Frederick.]\n\n[213:1] Vid. Muller de Hierarch. et Ascetic. Warburton, Div. Leg. ii. 4.\nSelden de Diis Syr. Acad. des Inscript. t. 3, hist. p. 296, t. 5, mem.\np. 63, t. 16, mem. p. 267. Lucian. Pseudomant. Cod. Theod. ix. 16.\n\n[214:1] Acad. t. 16. mem. p. 274.\n\n[215:1] Apol. 25. Vid. also Prudent. in hon. Romani, circ. fin. and\nLucian de Deo Syr. 50.\n\n[215:2] Vid. also the scene in Jul. Firm. p. 449.\n\n[216:1] Tac. Ann. ii. 85; Sueton. Tiber. 36.\n\n[216:2] August. 93.\n\n[216:3] De Superst. 3.\n\n[216:4] De Art. Am. i. init.\n\n[217:1] Sat. iii. vi.\n\n[217:2] Tertul. Ap. 5.\n\n[218:1] Vit. Hel. 3.\n\n[219:1] Vid. Tillemont, Mem. and Lardner's Hist. Heretics.\n\n[221:1] Bampton Lect. 2.\n\n[222:1] Burton, Bampton Lect. note 61.\n\n[223:1] Burton, Bampton Lect. note 44.\n\n[223:2] Montfaucon, Antiq. t. ii. part 2, p. 353.\n\n[223:3] H\u00e6r. i. 20.\n\n[223:4] De Pr\u00e6scr. 43.\n\n[225:1] Vid. Kortholt, in Plin. et Traj. Epp. p. 152. Comment. in Minuc.\nF. &c.\n\n[228:1] \"Itaque imposuistis in cervicibus nostris sempiternum dominum,\nquem dies et noctes timeremus; quis enim non timeat omnia providentem et\ncogitantem et animadvertentem, et omnia ad se pertinere putantem,\ncuriosum, et plenum negotii Deum?\"--_Cic. de Nat. Deor._ i. 20.\n\n[228:2] Min. c. 11. Lact. v. 1, 2, vid. Arnob. ii. 8, &c.\n\n[228:3] Origen, contr. Cels. i. 9, iii. 44, 50, vi. 44.\n\n[229:1] Prudent. in hon. Fruct. 37.\n\n[229:2] Evan. Dem. iii. 3, 4.\n\n[229:3] Mort. Peregr. 13.\n\n[229:4] c. 108.\n\n[229:5] i. e. Philop. 16.\n\n[229:6] De Mort. Pereg. ibid.\n\n[229:7] Ruin. Mart. pp. 100, 594, &c.\n\n[230:1] Prud. in hon. Rom. vv. 404, 868.\n\n[230:2] We have specimens of _carmina_ ascribed to Christians in the\nPhilopatris.\n\n[230:3] Goth. in Cod. Th. t. 5, p. 120, ed. 1665. Again, \"Qui malefici\nvulgi consuetudine nuncupantur.\" Leg. 6. So Lactantius, \"Magi et ii quos\nver\u00e8 maleficos vulgus appellat.\" Inst. ii. 17. \"Quos et maleficos vulgus\nappellat.\" August. Civ. Dei, x. 19. \"Quos vulgus mathematicos vocat.\"\nHieron. in Dan. c. ii. Vid. Gothof. in loc. Other laws speak of those\nwho were \"maleficiorum labe polluti,\" and of the \"maleficiorum scabies.\"\n\n[230:4] Tertullian too mentions the charge of \"hostes principum\nRomanorum, populi, generis humani, Deorum, Imperatorum, legum, morum,\nnatur\u00e6 totius inimici.\" Apol. 2, 35, 38, ad. Scap. 4, ad. Nat. i. 17.\n\n[231:1] Evid. part ii. ch. 4.\n\n[232:1] Heathen Test. 9.\n\n[233:1] Gothof. in Cod. Th. t. 5, p. 121.\n\n[233:2] Cic. pro Cluent. 61. Gieseler transl. vol. i. p. 21, note 5.\nAcad. Inscr. t. 34, hist. p. 110.\n\n[234:1] De Harusp. Resp. 9.\n\n[234:2] De Legg. ii. 8.\n\n[234:3] Acad. Inscr. ibid.\n\n[234:4] Neander, Eccl. Hist. tr. vol. i. p. 81.\n\n[234:5] Muller, p. 21, 22, 30. Tertull. Ox. tr. p. 12, note _p_.\n\n[235:1] Gibbon, Hist. ch. 16, note 14.\n\n[235:2] Epit. Instit. 55.\n\n[236:1] Gibbon, ibid. Origen admits and defends the violation of the\nlaws: +ouk alogon synth\u00eakas para ta nenomismena poiein, tas hyper\nhal\u00eatheias+. c. Cels. i. 1.\n\n[237:1] Hist. p. 418.\n\n[237:2] In hon. Rom. 62. In Act. S. Cypr. 4, Tert. Apol. 10, &c.\n\n[238:1] Apol. i. 3, 39, Oxf. tr.\n\n[241:1] Julian ap. Cyril, pp. 39, 194, 206, 335. Epp. pp. 305, 429, 438,\ned. Spanh.\n\n[242:1] Niebuhr ascribes it to the beginning of the tenth.\n\n[245:1] Sirm. Opp. ii. p. 225, ed. Ven.\n\n[247:1] Proph. Office, p. 132 [Via Media, vol. i. p. 109].\n\n[247:2] [Since the publication of this volume in 1845, a writer in a\nConservative periodical of great name has considered that no happier\ndesignation could be bestowed upon us than that which heathen statesmen\ngave to the first Christians, \"enemies of the human race.\" What a\nremarkable witness to our identity with the Church of St. Paul (\"a\npestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition throughout the world\"), of St.\nIgnatius, St. Polycarp, and the other Martyrs! In this matter,\nConservative politicians join with Liberals, and with the movement\nparties in Great Britain, France, Germany, and Italy, in their view of\nour religion.\n\n\"The Catholics,\" says the _Quarterly Review_ for January, 1873, pp.\n181-2, \"wherever they are numerous and powerful in a Protestant nation,\n_compel_ (sic) as it were by a law of their being, that nation to treat\nthem with stern repression and control. . . . Catholicism, if it be true\nto itself, and its mission, _cannot_ (sic) . . . wherever and whenever\nthe opportunity is afforded it, abstain from claiming, working for, and\ngrasping that supremacy and paramount influence and control, which it\nconscientiously believes to be its inalienable and universal due. . . .\nBy the force of circumstances, by the inexorable logic of its claims, it\nmust be the intestine foe or the disturbing element of every state in\nwhich it does not bear sway; and . . . it must now stand out in the\nestimate of all Protestants, Patriots and Thinkers\" (philosophers and\nhistorians, as Tacitus?) \"as the _hostis humani generis_ (sic), &c.\"]\n\n[254:1] De Pr\u00e6scr. H\u00e6r. 41, Oxf. tr.\n\n[254:2] +chronitai.+\n\n[256:1] Cat. xviii. 26.\n\n[257:1] Contr. Ep. Manich. 5.\n\n[257:2] Origen, Opp. t. i. p. 809.\n\n[258:1] Strom. vii. 17.\n\n[258:2] c. Tryph. 35.\n\n[258:3] Instit. 4. 30.\n\n[259:1] H\u00e6r. 42, p. 366.\n\n[259:2] In Lucif. fin.\n\n[259:3] The Oxford translation is used.\n\n[263:1] _Rationabilis_; apparently an allusion to the civil officer\ncalled _Catholicus_ or _Rationalis_, receiver-general.\n\n[263:2] Ad. Parm. ii. init.\n\n[264:1] De Unit. Eccles. 6.\n\n[265:1] Contr. Cresc. iv. 75; also iii. 77.\n\n[266:1] Antiq. ii. 4, \u00a7 5.\n\n[267:1] Antiq. 5, \u00a7 3. [Bingham apparently in this passage is indirectly\nreplying to the Catholic argument for the Pope's Supremacy drawn from\nthe titles and acts ascribed to him in antiquity; but that argument is\ncumulative in character, being part of a whole body of proof; and there\nis moreover a great difference between a rhetorical discourse and a\nsynodal enunciation as at Chalcedon.]\n\n[268:1] Ad Demetr. 4, &c. Oxf. Tr.\n\n[268:2] Hist. ch. xv.\n\n[269:1] De Unit. 5, 12.\n\n[269:2] Chrys. in Eph. iv.\n\n[269:3] De Baptism. i. 10.\n\n[269:4] c. Ep. Parm. i. 7.\n\n[269:5] De Schism. Donat. i. 10.\n\n[270:1] Cat. xvi. 10.\n\n[270:2] De Fid. ad Petr. 39. [82.]\n\n[270:3] [Of course this solemn truth must not be taken apart from the\nwords of the present Pope, Pius IX., concerning invincible ignorance:\n\"Notum nobis vobisque est, eos, qui invincibili circa sanctissimam\nnostram religionem ignoranti\u00e2 laborant, quique naturalem legem ejusque\npr\u00e6cepta in omnium cordibus a Deo insculpta sedulo servantes, ac Deo\nobedire parati, honestam rectamque vitam agunt, posse, divin\u00e6 lucis et\ngrati\u00e6 operante virtute, \u00e6ternam consequi vitam, c\u00f9m Deus, qui omnium\nmentes, animos, cogitationes, habitusque plan\u00e8 intuetur, scrutatur et\nnoscit, pro summ\u00e2 su\u00e2 bonitate et clementia, minim\u00e8 patiatur quempiam\n\u00e6ternis puniri suppliciis, qui voluntari\u00e6 culp\u00e6 reatum non habeat.\"]\n\n[272:1] Epp. 43, 52, 57, 76, 105, 112, 141, 144.\n\n[276:1] De Gubern. Dei, vii. p. 142. Elsewhere, \"Apud Aquitanicos qu\u00e6\ncivitas in locupletissim\u00e2 ac nobilissim\u00e2 sui parte non quasi lupanar\nfuit? Quis potentum ac divitum non in luto libidinis vixit? Haud multum\nmatrona abest \u00e0 vilitate servarum, ubi paterfamilias ancillarum maritus\nest? Quis autem Aquitanorum divitum non hoc fuit?\" (pp. 134, 135.)\n\"Offenduntur barbari ipsi impuritatibus nostris. Esse inter Gothos non\nlicet scortatorem Gothum; soli inter eos pr\u00e6judicio nationis ac nominis\npermittuntur impuri esse Romani\" (p. 137). \"Quid? Hispanias nonne vel\neadem vel majora forsitan vitia perdiderunt? . . . Accessit hoc ad\nmanifestandam illic impudiciti\u00e6 damnationem, ut Wandalis potissimum, id\nest, pudicis barbaris traderentur\" (p. 137). Of Africa and Carthage, \"In\nurbe Christian\u00e2, in urbe ecclesiastic\u00e2, . . . viri in semetipsis feminas\nprofitebantur,\" &c. (p. 152).\n\n[276:2] Dunham, Hist. Spain, vol. i. p. 112.\n\n[277:1] Aguirr. Concil. t. 2, p. 191.\n\n[277:2] Dunham, p. 125.\n\n[277:3] Hist. Franc. iii. 10.\n\n[277:4] Ch. 39.\n\n[278:1] Greg. Dial. iii. 30.\n\n[278:2] Ibid. 20.\n\n[278:3] Gibbon, Hist. ch. 37.\n\n[279:1] De Glor. Mart. i. 25.\n\n[279:2] Ibid. 80.\n\n[279:3] Ibid. 79.\n\n[279:4] Vict. Vit. i. 14.\n\n[280:1] De Gub. D. iv. p. 73.\n\n[280:2] Ibid. v. p. 88.\n\n[280:3] Epp. i. 31.\n\n[280:4] Hist. vi. 23.\n\n[280:5] Cf. Assem. t. i. p. 351, not. 4, t. 3, p. 393.\n\n[280:6] Baron. Ann. 432, 47.\n\n[280:7] Gibbon, Hist. ch. 36.\n\n[281:1] Baron. Ann. 471, 18.\n\n[281:2] Vict. Vit. iv. 4.\n\n[281:3] Vict. Vit. ii. 3-15.\n\n[282:1] Aguirr. Conc. t. 2, p. 262.\n\n[282:2] Aguirr. ibid. p. 232.\n\n[282:3] Theod. Hist. v. 2.\n\n[282:4] c. Ruff. i. 4.\n\n[283:1] Ep. 15.\n\n[283:2] Ep. 16.\n\n[284:1] Aug. Epp. 43. 7.\n\n[286:1] Assem. iii. p. 68.\n\n[287:1] Ibid. t. 3, p. 84, note 3.\n\n[287:2] Wegnern, Proleg. in Theod. Opp. p. ix.\n\n[287:3] De Ephrem Syr. p. 61.\n\n[288:1] Lengerke, de Ephrem Syr. pp. 73-75.\n\n[289:1] +despotou+, vid. La Croze, Thesaur. Ep. t. 3, \u00a7 145.\n\n[289:2] Montf. Coll. Nov. t. 2, p. 227.\n\n[290:1] Rosenmuller, Hist. Interpr. t. 3, p. 278.\n\n[290:2] Lengerke, de Ephr. Syr. pp. 165-167.\n\n[290:3] Ernest. de Proph. Mess. p. 462.\n\n[291:1] Eccl. Theol. iii. 12.\n\n[291:2] Professor Lee's Serm. Oct. 1838, pp. 144-152.\n\n[291:3] Noris. Opp. t. 2, p. 112.\n\n[291:4] Augusti. Euseb. Em. Opp.\n\n[291:5] Asseman. Bibl. Or. p. cmxxv.\n\n[291:6] Hoffman, Gram. Syr. Proleg. \u00a7 4.\n\n[291:7] The educated Persians were also acquainted with Syriac. Assem.\nt. i. p. 351, not.\n\n[292:1] Asseman., p. lxx.\n\n[292:2] Euseb. Pr\u00e6p. vi. 10.\n\n[292:3] Tillemont, Mem. t. 7, p. 77.\n\n[293:1] Gibbon, ch. 47.\n\n[294:1] Asseman. p. lxxviii.\n\n[294:2] Gibbon, ibid.\n\n[294:3] Asseman. t. 2, p. 403, t. 3, p. 393.\n\n[295:1] Asseman. t. 3, p. 67.\n\n[296:1] Gibbon, ibid.\n\n[296:2] Assem. p. lxxvi.\n\n[296:3] Ibid. t. 3, p. 441.\n\n[297:1] Ch. 47.\n\n[298:1] Fleur. Hist. xxvii. 29.\n\n[299:1] Gibbon, ch. 47.\n\n[300:1] Concil. Hard. t. 2, p. 127.\n\n[301:1] Petav. de Incarn. iv. 6, \u00a7 4.\n\n[301:2] Concil. Hard. t. 2, p. 168.\n\n[301:3] Vid. the Author's Athan. trans. [ed. 1881, vol. ii. pp. 331-333,\n426-429, and on the general subject his Theol. Tracts, art. v.]\n\n[302:1] Fleury, Oxf. tr. xxvii. 39.\n\n[302:2] Ibid. 41. In like manner, St. Athanasius in the foregoing age\nhad said, \"The faith confessed at Nic\u00e6a by the Fathers, according to the\nScriptures, is sufficient for the overthrow of all misbelief.\" ad Epict.\ninit. Elsewhere, however, he explains his statement, \"The decrees of\nNic\u00e6a are right and sufficient for the overthrow of all heresy,\n_especially_ the Arian,\" ad. Max. fin. St. Gregory Nazianzen, in like\nmanner, appeals to Nic\u00e6a; but he \"adds an explanation on the doctrine of\nthe Holy Spirit which was left deficient by the Fathers, because the\nquestion had not then been raised.\" Ep. 102, init. This exclusive\nmaintenance, and yet extension of the Creed, according to the exigences\nof the times, is instanced in other Fathers. Vid. Athan. tr. [ed. 1881,\nvol. ii. p. 82.]\n\n[303:1] Fleury, ibid. 27.\n\n[304:1] Concil. Hard. t. 2, p. 141. [A negative is omitted in the Greek,\nbut inserted in the Latin.]\n\n[304:2] Supr. p. 245.\n\n[304:3] Ad Const. ii. 9. Vid. Athan. tr. [ed. 1881, vol. ii. p. 261.]\n\n[305:1] Concil. Hard. t. 2, p. 162.\n\n[307:1] Fleury, Hist. Oxf. tr. xxvii. 37.\n\n[307:2] Ep. 116.\n\n[307:3] Conc. Hard. t. 2, p. 36.\n\n[308:1] Ep. 43.\n\n[308:2] Fleury, Hist. Oxf. tr. xxviii. 17, note _l_.\n\n[308:3] Concil. Hard. t. 2, p. 68.\n\n[308:4] Fleury, Oxf. tr. xxviii. 2, 3.\n\n[310:1] Ibid. 20.\n\n[311:1] Conc. Hard. t. 2, p. 656.\n\n[312:1] [Can any so grave an _ex parte_ charge as this be urged against\nthe recent Vatican Council?]\n\n[313:1] I cannot find my reference for this fact; the sketch is formed\nfrom notes made some years since, though I have now verified them.\n\n[313:2] Leont. de Sect. v. p. 512.\n\n[313:3] Concil. Hard. t. 2, p. 99, vid. also p. 418.\n\n[313:4] Renaud. Patr. Alex. p. 115.\n\n[313:5] Assem. t. 2, pp. 133-137.\n\n[315:1] Leont. de Sect. vii. pp. 521, 2.\n\n[315:2] Fac. i. 5, circ. init.\n\n[315:3] Hodeg. 20, p. 319.\n\n[317:1] _i. e._ Arianism in the East: \"Sanctiores aures plebis quam\ncorda sunt sacerdotum.\" S. Hil. contr. Auxent. 6. It requires some\nresearch to account for its hold on the barbarians. Vid. _supr._ pp.\n274, 5.\n\n[317:2] Gibbon, ch. 47.\n\n[317:3] Assem. t. 2, de Monoph. circ. fin.\n\n[318:1] Leont. Sect. v. init.\n\n[318:2] Tillemont, t. 15, p. 784.\n\n[319:1] Tillemont, Mem. t. 15, pp. 790-811.\n\n[320:1] Gibbon, Hist. ch. 36, fin.\n\n[321:1] Gibbon, Hist. ch. 36, fin.\n\n[321:2] Gibbon, Hist. ch. 47.\n\n[322:1] [The above sketch has run to great length, yet it is only part\nof what might be set down in evidence of the wonderful identity of type\nwhich characterizes the Catholic Church from first to last. I have\nconfined myself for the most part to her political aspect; but a\nparallel illustration might be drawn simply from her doctrinal, or from\nher devotional. As to her devotional aspect, Cardinal Wiseman has shown\nits identity in the fifth compared with the nineteenth century, in an\narticle of the _Dublin Review_, quoted in part in _Via Media_, vol. ii.\np. 378. Indeed it is confessed on all hands, as by Middleton, Gibbon,\n&c., that from the time of Constantine to their own, the system and the\nphenomena of worship in Christendom, from Moscow to Spain, and from\nIreland to Chili, is one and the same. I have myself paralleled Medieval\nEurope with modern Belgium or Italy, in point of ethical character in\n\"Difficulties of Anglicans,\" vol. i. Lecture ix., referring the identity\nto the operation of a principle, insisted on presently, the Supremacy of\nFaith. And so again, as to the system of Catholic doctrine, the type of\nthe Religion remains the same, because it has developed according to the\n\"analogy of faith,\" as is observed in _Apol._, p. 196, \"The idea of the\nBlessed Virgin was, as it were, _magnified_ in the Church of Rome, as\ntime went on, but so were _all_ the Christian ideas, as that of the\nBlessed Eucharist,\" &c.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nAPPLICATION OF THE SECOND NOTE OF A TRUE DEVELOPMENT.\n\n\nCONTINUITY OF PRINCIPLES.\n\nIt appears then that there has been a certain general type of\nChristianity in every age, by which it is known at first sight,\ndiffering from itself only as what is young differs from what is mature,\nor as found in Europe or in America, so that it is named at once and\nwithout hesitation, as forms of nature are recognized by experts in\nphysical science; or as some work of literature or art is assigned to\nits right author by the critic, difficult as may be the analysis of that\nspecific impression by which he is enabled to do so. And it appears that\nthis type has remained entire from first to last, in spite of that\nprocess of development which seems to be attributed by all parties, for\ngood or bad, to the doctrines, rites, and usages in which Christianity\nconsists; or, in other words, that the changes which have taken place in\nChristianity have not been such as to destroy that type,--that is, that\nthey are not corruptions, because they are consistent with that type.\nHere then, in the _preservation of type_, we have a first Note of the\nfidelity of the existing developments of Christianity. Let us now\nproceed to a second.\n\n\n\u00a7 1. _The Principles of Christianity._\n\nWhen developments in Christianity are spoken of, it is sometimes\nsupposed that they are deductions and diversions made at random,\naccording to accident or the caprice of individuals; whereas it is\nbecause they have been conducted all along on definite and continuous\nprinciples that the type of the Religion has remained from first to last\nunalterable. What then are the principles under which the developments\nhave been made? I will enumerate some obvious ones.\n\n\n2.\n\nThey must be many and positive, as well as obvious, if they are to be\neffective; thus the Society of Friends seems in the course of years to\nhave changed its type in consequence of its scarcity of principles, a\nfanatical spiritualism and an intense secularity, types simply contrary\nto each other, being alike consistent with its main principle, \"Forms of\nworship are Antichristian.\" Christianity, on the other hand, has\nprinciples so distinctive, numerous, various, and operative, as to be\nunlike any other religious, ethical, or political system that the world\nhas ever seen, unlike, not only in character, but in persistence in that\ncharacter. I cannot attempt here to enumerate more than a few by way of\nillustration.\n\n\n3.\n\nFor the convenience of arrangement, I will consider the Incarnation the\ncentral truth of the gospel, and the source whence we are to draw out\nits principles. This great doctrine is unequivocally announced in\nnumberless passages of the New Testament, especially by St. John and St.\nPaul; as is familiar to us all: \"The Word was made flesh and dwelt among\nus, full of grace and truth.\" \"That which was from the beginning, which\nwe have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked\nupon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life, that declare we\nto you.\" \"For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though\nHe was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that ye through His\npoverty might be rich.\" \"Not I, but Christ liveth in me, and the life\nwhich I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God,\nwho loved me and gave Himself for me.\"\n\n\n4.\n\nIn such passages as these we have\n\n1. The principle of _dogma_, that is, supernatural truths irrevocably\ncommitted to human language, imperfect because it is human, but\ndefinitive and necessary because given from above.\n\n2. The principle of _faith_, which is the correlative of dogma, being\nthe absolute acceptance of the divine Word with an internal assent, in\nopposition to the informations, if such, of sight and reason.\n\n3. Faith, being an act of the intellect, opens a way for inquiry,\ncomparison and inference, that is, for science in religion, in\nsubservience to itself; this is the principle of _theology_.\n\n4. The doctrine of the Incarnation is the announcement of a divine gift\nconveyed in a material and visible medium, it being thus that heaven and\nearth are in the Incarnation united. That is, it establishes in the very\nidea of Christianity the _sacramental_ principle as its characteristic.\n\n5. Another principle involved in the doctrine of the Incarnation, viewed\nas taught or as dogmatic, is the necessary use of language, e. g. of the\ntext of Scripture, in a second or _mystical sense_. Words must be made\nto express new ideas, and are invested with a sacramental office.\n\n6. It is our Lord's intention in His Incarnation to make us what He is\nHimself; this is the principle of _grace_, which is not only holy but\nsanctifying.\n\n7. It cannot elevate and change us without mortifying our lower\nnature:--here is the principle of _asceticism_.\n\n8. And, involved in this death of the natural man, is necessarily a\nrevelation of the _malignity of sin_, in corroboration of the\nforebodings of conscience.\n\n9. Also by the fact of an Incarnation we are taught that matter is an\nessential part of us, and, as well as mind, is _capable of\nsanctification_.\n\n\n5.\n\nHere are nine specimens of Christian principles out of the many[326:1]\nwhich might be enumerated, and will any one say that they have not been\nretained in vigorous action in the Church at all times amid whatever\ndevelopment of doctrine Christianity has experienced, so as even to be\nthe very instruments of that development, and as patent, and as\noperative, in the Latin and Greek Christianity of this day as they were\nin the beginning?\n\nThis continuous identity of principles in ecclesiastical action has been\nseen in part in treating of the Note of Unity of type, and will be seen\nalso in the Notes which follow; however, as some direct account of them,\nin illustration, may be desirable, I will single out four as\nspecimens,--Faith, Theology, Scripture, and Dogma.\n\n\n\u00a7 2. _Supremacy of Faith._\n\nThis principle which, as we have already seen, was so great a jest to\nCelsus and Julian, is of the following kind:--That belief in\nChristianity is in itself better than unbelief; that faith, though an\nintellectual action, is ethical in its origin; that it is safer to\nbelieve; that we must begin with believing; that as for the reasons of\nbelieving, they are for the most part implicit, and need be but slightly\nrecognized by the mind that is under their influence; that they consist\nmoreover rather of presumptions and ventures after the truth than of\naccurate and complete proofs; and that probable arguments, under the\nscrutiny and sanction of a prudent judgment, are sufficient for\nconclusions which we even embrace as most certain, and turn to the most\nimportant uses.\n\n\n2.\n\nAntagonistic to this is the principle that doctrines are only so far to\nbe considered true as they are logically demonstrated. This is the\nassertion of Locke, who says in defence of it,--\"Whatever God hath\nrevealed is certainly true; no doubt can be made of it. This is the\nproper object of Faith; but, whether it be a divine revelation or no,\nreason must judge.\" Now, if he merely means that proofs can be given for\nRevelation, and that Reason comes in logical order before Faith, such a\ndoctrine is in no sense uncatholic; but he certainly holds that for an\nindividual to act on Faith without proof, or to make Faith a personal\nprinciple of conduct for themselves, without waiting till they have got\ntheir reasons accurately drawn out and serviceable for controversy, is\nenthusiastic and absurd. \"How a man may know whether he be [a lover of\ntruth for truth's sake] is worth inquiry; and I think there is this one\nunerring mark of it, viz. the not entertaining any proposition with\ngreater assurance than the proofs it is built upon, will warrant.\nWhoever goes beyond this measure of assent, it is plain, receives not\ntruth in the love of it; loves not truth for truth's sake, but for some\nother by-end.\"\n\n\n3.\n\nIt does not seem to have struck him that our \"by-end\" may be the desire\nto please our Maker, and that the defect of scientific proof may be made\nup to our reason by our love of Him. It does not seem to have struck him\nthat such a philosophy as his cut off from the possibility and the\nprivilege of faith all but the educated few, all but the learned, the\nclear-headed, the men of practised intellects and balanced minds, men\nwho had leisure, who had opportunities of consulting others, and kind\nand wise friends to whom they deferred. How could a religion ever be\nCatholic, if it was to be called credulity or enthusiasm in the\nmultitude to use those ready instruments of belief, which alone\nProvidence had put into their power? On such philosophy as this, were it\ngenerally received, no great work ever would have been done for God's\nglory and the welfare of man. The \"enthusiasm\" against which Locke\nwrites may do much harm, and act at times absurdly; but calculation\nnever made a hero. However, it is not to our present purpose to examine\nthis theory, and I have done so elsewhere.[328:1] Here I have but to\nshow the unanimity of Catholics, ancient as well as modern, in their\nabsolute rejection of it.\n\n\n4.\n\nFor instance, it is the very objection urged by Celsus, that Christians\nwere but parallel to the credulous victims of jugglers or of devotees,\nwho itinerated through the pagan population. He says \"that some do not\neven wish to give or to receive a reason for their faith, but say, 'Do\nnot inquire but believe,' and 'Thy faith will save thee;' and 'A bad\nthing is the world's wisdom, and foolishness is a good.'\" How does\nOrigen answer the charge? by denying the fact, and speaking of the\nreason of each individual as demonstrating the divinity of the\nScriptures, and Faith as coming after that argumentative process, as it\nis now popular to maintain? Far from it; he grants the fact alleged\nagainst the Church and defends it. He observes that, considering the\nengagements and the necessary ignorance of the multitude of men, it is a\nvery happy circumstance that a substitute is provided for those\nphilosophical exercises, which Christianity allows and encourages, but\ndoes not impose on the individual. \"Which,\" he asks, \"is the better, for\nthem to believe without reason, and thus to reform any how and gain a\nbenefit, from their belief in the punishment of sinners and the reward\nof well-doers, or to refuse to be converted on mere belief, or except\nthey devote themselves to an intellectual inquiry?\"[329:1] Such a\nprovision then is a mark of divine wisdom and mercy. In like manner, St.\nIren\u00e6us, after observing that the Jews had the evidence of prophecy,\nwhich the Gentiles had not, and that to the latter it was a foreign\nteaching and a new doctrine to be told that the gods of the Gentiles\nwere not only not gods, but were idols of devils, and that in\nconsequence St. Paul laboured more upon them, as needing it more, adds,\n\"On the other hand, the faith of the Gentiles is thereby shown to be\nmore generous, who followed the word of God without the assistance of\nScriptures.\" To believe on less evidence was generous faith, not\nenthusiasm. And so again, Eusebius, while he contends of course that\nChristians are influenced by \"no irrational faith,\" that is, by a faith\nwhich is capable of a logical basis, fully allows that in the individual\nbelieving, it is not necessarily or ordinarily based upon argument, and\nmaintains that it is connected with that very \"hope,\" and inclusively\nwith that desire of the things beloved, which Locke in the above\nextract considers incompatible with the love of truth. \"What do we\nfind,\" he says, \"but that the whole life of man is suspended on these\ntwo, hope and faith?\"[330:1]\n\nI do not mean of course that the Fathers were opposed to inquiries into\nthe intellectual basis of Christianity, but that they held that men were\nnot obliged to wait for logical proof before believing: on the contrary,\nthat the majority were to believe first on presumptions and let the\nintellectual proof come as their reward.[330:2]\n\n\n5.\n\nSt. Augustine, who had tried both ways, strikingly contrasts them in his\n_De Utilitate credendi_, though his direct object in that work is to\ndecide, not between Reason and Faith, but between Reason and Authority.\nHe addresses in it a very dear friend, who, like himself, had become a\nManichee, but who, with less happiness than his own, was still retained\nin the heresy. \"The Manichees,\" he observes, \"inveigh against those who,\nfollowing the authority of the Catholic faith, fortify themselves in the\nfirst instance with believing, and before they are able to set eyes upon\nthat truth, which is discerned by the pure soul, prepare themselves for\na God who shall illuminate. You, Honoratus, know that nothing else was\nthe cause of my falling into their hands, than their professing to put\naway Authority which was so terrible, and by absolute and simple Reason\nto lead their hearers to God's presence, and to rid them of all error.\nFor what was there else that forced me, for nearly nine years, to slight\nthe religion which was sown in me when a child by my parents, and to\nfollow them and diligently attend their lectures, but their assertion\nthat I was terrified by superstition, and was bidden to have Faith\nbefore I had Reason, whereas they pressed no one to believe before the\ntruth had been discussed and unravelled? Who would not be seduced by\nthese promises, and especially a youth, such as they found me then,\ndesirous of truth, nay conceited and forward, by reason of the\ndisputations of certain men of school learning, with a contempt of\nold-wives' tales, and a desire of possessing and drinking that clear and\nunmixed truth which they promised me?\"[331:1]\n\nPresently he goes on to describe how he was reclaimed. He found the\nManichees more successful in pulling down than in building up; he was\ndisappointed in Faustus, whom he found eloquent and nothing besides.\nUpon this, he did not know what to hold, and was tempted to a general\nscepticism. At length he found he must be guided by Authority; then came\nthe question, Which authority among so many teachers? He cried earnestly\nto God for help, and at last was led to the Catholic Church. He then\nreturns to the question urged against that Church, that \"she bids those\nwho come to her believe,\" whereas heretics \"boast that they do not\nimpose a yoke of believing, but open a fountain of teaching.\" On which\nhe observes, \"True religion cannot in any manner be rightly embraced,\nwithout a belief in those things which each individual afterwards\nattains and perceives, if he behave himself well and shall deserve it,\nnor altogether without some weighty and imperative Authority.\"[331:2]\n\n\n6.\n\nThese are specimens of the teaching of the Ancient Church on the subject\nof Faith and Reason; if, on the other hand, we would know what has been\ntaught on the subject in those modern schools, in and through which the\nsubsequent developments of Catholic doctrines have proceeded, we may\nturn to the extracts made from their writings by Huet, in his \"Essay on\nthe Human Understanding;\" and, in so doing, we need not perplex\nourselves with the particular theory, true or not, for the sake of which\nhe has collected them. Speaking of the weakness of the Understanding,\nHuet says,--\n\n\"God, by His goodness, repairs this defect of human nature, by granting\nus the inestimable gift of Faith, which confirms our staggering Reason,\nand corrects that perplexity of doubts which we must bring to the\nknowledge of things. For example: my reason not being able to inform me\nwith absolute evidence, and perfect certainty, whether there are bodies,\nwhat was the origin of the world, and many other like things, after I\nhad received the Faith, all those doubts vanish, as darkness at the\nrising of the sun. This made St. Thomas Aquinas say: 'It is necessary\nfor man to receive as articles of Faith, not only the things which are\nabove Reason, but even those that for their certainty may be known by\nReason. For human Reason is very deficient in things divine; a sign of\nwhich we have from philosophers, who, in the search of human things by\nnatural methods, have been deceived, and opposed each other on many\nheads. To the end then that men may have a certain and undoubted\ncognizance of God, it was necessary things divine should be taught them\nby way of Faith, as being revealed of God Himself, who cannot\nlie.'[332:1] . . . . .\n\n\"Then St. Thomas adds afterwards: 'No search by natural Reason is\nsufficient to make man know things divine, nor even those which we can\nprove by Reason.' And in another place he speaks thus: 'Things which may\nbe proved demonstratively, as the Being of God, the Unity of the\nGodhead, and other points, are placed among articles we are to believe,\nbecause previous to other things that are of Faith; and these must be\npresupposed, at least by such as have no demonstration of them.'\n\n\n7.\n\n\"What St. Thomas says of the cognizance of divine things extends also to\nthe knowledge of human, according to the doctrine of Suarez. 'We often\ncorrect,' he says, 'the light of Nature by the light of Faith, even in\nthings which seem to be first principles, as appears in this: those\nthings that are the same to a third, are the same between themselves;\nwhich, if we have respect to the Trinity, ought to be restrained to\nfinite things. And in other mysteries, especially in those of the\nIncarnation and the Eucharist, we use many other limitations, that\nnothing may be repugnant to the Faith. This is then an indication that\nthe light of Faith is most certain, because founded on the first\ntruth, which is God, to whom it's more impossible to deceive or be\ndeceived than for the natural science of man to be mistaken and\nerroneous.'[333:1] . . . .\n\n\"If we hearken not to Reason, say you, you overthrow that great\nfoundation of Religion which Reason has established in our\nunderstanding, viz. God is. To answer this objection, you must be told\nthat men know God in two manners. By Reason, with entire human\ncertainty; and by Faith, with absolute and divine certainty. Although by\nReason we cannot acquire any knowledge more certain than that of the\nBeing of God; insomuch that all the arguments, which the impious oppose\nto this knowledge are of no validity and easily refuted; nevertheless\nthis certainty is not absolutely perfect[333:2] . . . . .\n\n\n8.\n\n\"Now although, to prove the existence of the Deity, we can bring\narguments which, accumulated and connected together, are not of less\npower to convince men than geometrical principles, and theorems deduced\nfrom them, and which are of entire human certainty, notwithstanding,\nbecause learned philosophers have openly opposed even these principles,\n'tis clear we cannot, neither in the natural knowledge we have of God,\nwhich is acquired by Reason, nor in science founded on geometrical\nprinciples and theorems, find absolute and consummate certainty, but\nonly that human certainty I have spoken of, to which nevertheless every\nwise man ought to submit his understanding. This being not repugnant to\nthe testimony of the Book of Wisdom and the Epistle to the Romans, which\ndeclares that men who do not from the make of the world acknowledge the\npower and divinity of the Maker are senseless and inexcusable.\n\n\"For to use the terms of Vasquez: 'By these words the Holy Scripture\nmeans only that there has ever been a sufficient testimony of the Being\nof a God in the fabrick of the world, and in His other works, to make\nHim known unto men: but the Scripture is not under any concern whether\nthis knowledge be evident or of greatest probability; for these terms\nare seen and understood, in their common and usual acceptation, to\nsignify all the knowledge of the mind with a determined assent.' He adds\nafter: 'For if any one should at this time deny Christ, that which would\nrender him inexcusable would not be because he might have had an evident\nknowledge and reason for believing Him, but because he might have\nbelieved it by Faith and a prudential knowledge.'\n\n\"'Tis with reason then that Suarez teaches that 'the natural evidence of\nthis principle, God is the first truth, who cannot be deceived, is not\nnecessary, nor sufficient enough to make us believe by infused Faith,\nwhat God reveals.' He proves, by the testimony of experience, that it is\nnot necessary; for ignorant and illiterate Christians, though they know\nnothing clearly and certainly of God, do believe nevertheless that God\nis. Even Christians of parts and learning, as St. Thomas has observed,\nbelieve that God is, before they know it by Reason. Suarez shows\nafterwards that the natural evidence of this principle is not\nsufficient, because divine Faith, which is infused into our\nunderstanding, cannot be bottomed upon human faith alone, how clear and\nfirm soever it is, as upon a formal object, because an assent most firm,\nand of an order most noble and exalted, cannot derive its certainty from\na more infirm assent.[335:1] . . . .\n\n\n9.\n\n\"As touching the motives of credibility, which, preparing the mind to\nreceive Faith, ought according to you to be not only certain by supreme\nand human certainty, but by supreme and absolute certainty, I will\noppose Gabriel Biel to you, who pronounces that to receive Faith 'tis\nsufficient that the motives of credibility be proposed as probable. Do\nyou believe that children, illiterate, gross, ignorant people, who have\nscarcely the use of Reason, and notwithstanding have received the gift\nof Faith, do most clearly and most steadfastly conceive those\nforementioned motives of credibility? No, without doubt; but the grace\nof God comes in to their assistance, and sustains the imbecility of\nNature and Reason.\n\n\"This is the common opinion of divines. Reason has need of divine grace,\nnot only in gross, illiterate persons, but even in those of parts and\nlearning; for how clear-sighted soever that may be, yet it cannot make\nus have Faith, if celestial light does not illuminate us within,\nbecause, as I have said already, divine Faith being of a superior order\ncannot derive its efficacy from human faith.\"[336:1] \"This is likewise\nthe doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas: 'The light of Faith makes things\nseen that are believed.' He says moreover, 'Believers have knowledge of\nthe things of Faith, not in a demonstrative way, but so as by the light\nof Faith it appears to them that they ought to be believed.'\"[336:2]\n\n\n10.\n\nIt is evident what a special influence such doctrine as this must exert\nupon the theological method of those who hold it. Arguments will come to\nbe considered as suggestions and guides rather than logical proofs; and\ndevelopments as the slow, spontaneous, ethical growth, not the\nscientific and compulsory results, of existing opinions.\n\n\n\u00a7 3. _Theology._\n\nI have spoken and have still to speak of the action of logic, implicit\nand explicit, as a safeguard, and thereby a note, of legitimate\ndevelopments of doctrine: but I am regarding it here as that continuous\ntradition and habit in the Church of a scientific analysis of all\nrevealed truth, which is an ecclesiastical principle rather than a note\nof any kind, as not merely bearing upon the process of development, but\napplying to all religious teaching equally, and which is almost unknown\nbeyond the pale of Christendom. Reason, thus considered, is subservient\nto faith, as handling, examining, explaining, recording, cataloguing,\ndefending, the truths which faith, not reason, has gained for us, as\nproviding an intellectual expression of supernatural facts, eliciting\nwhat is implicit, comparing, measuring, connecting each with each, and\nforming one and all into a theological system.\n\n\n2.\n\nThe first step in theology is investigation, an investigation arising\nout of the lively interest and devout welcome which the matters\ninvestigated claim of us; and, if Scripture teaches us the duty of\nfaith, it teaches quite as distinctly that loving inquisitiveness which\nis the life of the _Schola_. It attributes that temper both to the\nBlessed Virgin and to the Angels. The Angels are said to have \"desired\nto look into the mysteries of Revelation,\" and it is twice recorded of\nMary that she \"kept these things and pondered them in her heart.\"\nMoreover, her words to the Archangel, \"How shall this be?\" show that\nthere is a questioning in matters revealed to us compatible with the\nfullest and most absolute faith. It has sometimes been said in defence\nand commendation of heretics that \"their misbelief at least showed that\nthey had thought upon the subject of religion;\" this is an unseemly\nparadox,--at the same time there certainly is the opposite extreme of a\nreadiness to receive any number of dogmas at a minute's warning, which,\nwhen it is witnessed, fairly creates a suspicion that they are merely\nprofessed with the tongue, not intelligently held. Our Lord gives no\ncountenance to such lightness of mind; He calls on His disciples to use\ntheir reason, and to submit it. Nathanael's question \"Can there any good\nthing come out of Nazareth?\" did not prevent our Lord's praise of him as\n\"an Israelite without guile.\" Nor did He blame Nicodemus, except for\nwant of theological knowledge, on his asking \"How can these things be?\"\nEven towards St. Thomas He was gentle, as if towards one of those who\nhad \"eyes too tremblingly awake to bear with dimness for His sake.\" In\nlike manner He praised the centurion when he argued himself into a\nconfidence of divine help and relief from the analogy of his own\nprofession; and left his captious enemies to prove for themselves from\nthe mission of the Baptist His own mission; and asked them \"if David\ncalled Him Lord, how was He his Son?\" and, when His disciples wished to\nhave a particular matter taught them, chid them for their want of\n\"understanding.\" And these are but some out of the various instances\nwhich He gives us of the same lesson.\n\n\n3.\n\nReason has ever been awake and in exercise in the Church after Him from\nthe first. Scarcely were the Apostles withdrawn from the world, when the\nMartyr Ignatius, in his way to the Roman Amphitheatre, wrote his\nstrikingly theological Epistles; he was followed by Iren\u00e6us, Hippolytus,\nand Tertullian; thus we are brought to the age of Athanasius and his\ncontemporaries, and to Augustine. Then we pass on by Maximus and John\nDamascene to the Middle age, when theology was made still more\nscientific by the Schoolmen; nor has it become less so, by passing on\nfrom St. Thomas to the great Jesuit writers Suarez and Vasquez, and then\nto Lambertini.\n\n\n\u00a7 4. _Scripture and its Mystical Interpretation._\n\nSeveral passages have occurred in the foregoing Chapters, which serve to\nsuggest another principle on which some words are now to be said.\nTheodore's exclusive adoption of the literal, and repudiation of the\nmystical interpretation of Holy Scripture, leads to the consideration of\nthe latter, as one of the characteristic conditions or principles on\nwhich the teaching of the Church has ever proceeded. Thus Christianity\ndeveloped, as we have incidentally seen, into the form, first, of a\nCatholic, then of a Papal Church. Now it was Scripture that was made the\nrule on which this development proceeded in each case, and Scripture\nmoreover interpreted in a mystical sense; and, whereas at first certain\ntexts were inconsistently confined to the letter, and a Millennium was\nin consequence expected, the very course of events, as time went on,\ninterpreted the prophecies about the Church more truly, and that first\nin respect of her prerogative as occupying the _orbis terrarum_, next in\nsupport of the claims of the See of St. Peter. This is but one specimen\nof a certain law of Christian teaching, which is this,--a reference to\nScripture throughout, and especially in its mystical sense.[339:1]\n\n\n2.\n\n1. This is a characteristic which will become more and more evident to\nus, the more we look for it. The divines of the Church are in every age\nengaged in regulating themselves by Scripture, appealing to Scripture in\nproof of their conclusions, and exhorting and teaching in the thoughts\nand language of Scripture. Scripture may be said to be the medium in\nwhich the mind of the Church has energized and developed.[339:2] When\nSt. Methodius would enforce the doctrine of vows of celibacy, he refers\nto the book of Numbers; and if St. Iren\u00e6us proclaims the dignity of St.\nMary, it is from a comparison of St. Luke's Gospel with Genesis. And\nthus St. Cyprian, in his Testimonies, rests the prerogatives of\nmartyrdom, as indeed the whole circle of Christian doctrine, on the\ndeclaration of certain texts; and, when in his letter to Antonian he\nseems to allude to Purgatory, he refers to our Lord's words about \"the\nprison\" and \"paying the last farthing.\" And if St. Ignatius exhorts to\nunity, it is from St. Paul; and he quotes St. Luke against the\nPhantasiasts of his day. We have a first instance of this law in the\nEpistle of St. Polycarp, and a last in the practical works of St.\nAlphonso Liguori. St. Cyprian, or St. Ambrose, or St. Bede, or St.\nBernard, or St. Carlo, or such popular books as Horstius's _Paradisus\nAnim\u00e6_, are specimens of a rule which is too obvious to need formal\nproof. It is exemplified in the theological decisions of St. Athanasius\nin the fourth century, and of St. Thomas in the thirteenth; in the\nstructure of the Canon Law, and in the Bulls and Letters of Popes. It is\ninstanced in the notion so long prevalent in the Church, which\nphilosophers of this day do not allow us to forget, that all truth, all\nscience, must be derived from the inspired volume. And it is recognized\nas well as exemplified; recognized as distinctly by writers of the\nSociety of Jesus, as it is copiously exemplified by the Ante-nicene\nFathers.\n\n\n3.\n\n\"Scriptures are called canonical,\" says Salmeron, \"as having been\nreceived and set apart by the Church into the Canon of sacred books, and\nbecause they are to us a rule of right belief and good living; also\nbecause they ought to rule and moderate all other doctrines, laws,\nwritings, whether ecclesiastical, apocryphal, or human. For as these\nagree with them, or at least do not disagree, so far are they admitted;\nbut they are repudiated and reprobated so far as they differ from them\neven in the least matter.\"[340:1] Again: \"The main subject of Scripture\nis nothing else than to treat of the God-Man, or the Man-God, Christ\nJesus, not only in the New Testament, which is open, but in the\nOld. . . . . . . For whereas Scripture contains nothing but the precepts\nof belief and conduct, or faith and works, the end and the means towards\nit, the Creator and the creature, love of God and our neighbour,\ncreation and redemption, and whereas all these are found in Christ, it\nfollows that Christ is the proper subject of Canonical Scripture. For\nall matters of faith, whether concerning Creator or creatures, are\nrecapitulated in Jesus, whom every heresy denies, according to that\ntext, 'Every spirit that divides (_solvit_) Jesus is not of God;' for He\nas man is united to the Godhead, and as God to the manhood, to the\nFather from whom He is born, to the Holy Ghost who proceeds at once from\nChrist and the Father, to Mary his most Holy Mother, to the Church, to\nScriptures, Sacraments, Saints, Angels, the Blessed, to Divine Grace, to\nthe authority and ministers of the Church, so that it is rightly said\nthat every heresy divides Jesus.\"[341:1] And again: \"Holy Scripture is\nso fashioned and composed by the Holy Ghost as to be accommodated to all\nplans, times, persons, difficulties, dangers, diseases, the expulsion of\nevil, the obtaining of good, the stifling of errors, the establishment\nof doctrines, the ingrafting of virtues, the averting of vices. Hence it\nis deservedly compared by St. Basil to a dispensary which supplies\nvarious medicines against every complaint. From it did the Church in the\nage of Martyrs draw her firmness and fortitude; in the age of Doctors,\nher wisdom and light of knowledge; in the time of heretics, the\noverthrow of error; in time of prosperity, humility and moderation;\nfervour and diligence, in a lukewarm time; and in times of depravity and\ngrowing abuse, reformation from corrupt living and return to the first\nestate.\"[341:2]\n\n\n4.\n\n\"Holy Scripture,\" says Cornelius \u00e0 Lapide, \"contains the beginnings of\nall theology: for theology is nothing but the science of conclusions\nwhich are drawn from principles certain to faith, and therefore is of\nall sciences most august as well as certain; but the principles of faith\nand faith itself doth Scripture contain; whence it evidently follows\nthat Holy Scripture lays down those principles of theology by which the\ntheologian begets of the mind's reasoning his demonstrations. He, then,\nwho thinks he can tear away Scholastic Science from the work of\ncommenting on Holy Scripture is hoping for offspring without a\nmother.\"[342:1] Again: \"What is the subject-matter of Scripture? Must I\nsay it in a word? Its aim is _de omni scibili_; it embraces in its bosom\nall studies, all that can be known: and thus it is a certain university\nof sciences containing all sciences either 'formally' or\n'eminently.'\"[342:2]\n\nNor am I aware that later Post-tridentine writers deny that the whole\nCatholic faith may be proved from Scripture, though they would certainly\nmaintain that it is not to be found on the surface of it, nor in such\nsense that it may be gained from Scripture without the aid of Tradition.\n\n\n5.\n\n2. And this has been the doctrine of all ages of the Church, as is shown\nby the disinclination of her teachers to confine themselves to the mere\nliteral interpretation of Scripture. Her most subtle and powerful method\nof proof, whether in ancient or modern times, is the mystical sense,\nwhich is so frequently used in doctrinal controversy as on many\noccasions to supersede any other. Thus the Council of Trent appeals to\nthe peace-offering spoken of in Malachi in proof of the Eucharistic\nSacrifice; to the water and blood issuing from our Lord's side, and to\nthe mention of \"waters\" in the Apocalypse, in admonishing on the subject\nof the mixture of water with the wine in the Oblation. Thus Bellarmine\ndefends Monastic celibacy by our Lord's words in Matthew xix., and\nrefers to \"We went through fire and water,\" &c., in the Psalm, as an\nargument for Purgatory; and these, as is plain, are but specimens of a\nrule. Now, on turning to primitive controversy, we find this method of\ninterpretation to be the very basis of the proof of the Catholic\ndoctrine of the Holy Trinity. Whether we betake ourselves to the\nAnte-nicene writers or the Nicene, certain texts will meet us, which do\nnot obviously refer to that doctrine, yet are put forward as palmary\nproofs of it. Such are, in respect of our Lord's divinity, \"My heart is\ninditing of a good matter,\" or \"has burst forth with a good Word;\" \"The\nLord made\" or \"possessed Me in the beginning of His ways;\" \"I was with\nHim, in whom He delighted;\" \"In Thy Light shall we see Light;\" \"Who\nshall declare His generation?\" \"She is the Breath of the Power of God;\"\nand \"His Eternal Power and Godhead.\"\n\nOn the other hand, the School of Antioch, which adopted the literal\ninterpretation, was, as I have noticed above, the very metropolis of\nheresy. Not to speak of Lucian, whose history is but imperfectly known,\n(one of the first masters of this school, and also teacher of Arius and\nhis principal supporters), Diodorus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who were\nthe most eminent masters of literalism in the succeeding generation,\nwere, as we have seen, the forerunners of Nestorianism. The case had\nbeen the same in a still earlier age;--the Jews clung to the literal\nsense of the Scriptures and hence rejected the Gospel; the Christian\nApologists proved its divinity by means of the allegorical. The formal\nconnexion of this mode of interpretation with Christian theology is\nnoticed by Porphyry, who speaks of Origen and others as borrowing it\nfrom heathen philosophy, both in explanation of the Old Testament and in\ndefence of their own doctrine. It may be almost laid down as an\nhistorical fact, that the mystical interpretation and orthodoxy will\nstand or fall together.\n\n\n6.\n\nThis is clearly seen, as regards the primitive theology, by a recent\nwriter, in the course of a Dissertation upon St. Ephrem. After observing\nthat Theodore of Heraclea, Eusebius, and Diodorus gave a systematic\nopposition to the mystical interpretation, which had a sort of sanction\nfrom Antiquity and the orthodox Church, he proceeds; \"Ephrem is not as\nsober in his interpretations, _nor could it be, since_ he was a zealous\ndisciple of the orthodox faith. For all those who are most eminent in\nsuch sobriety were as far as possible removed from the faith of the\nCouncils. . . . . On the other hand, all who retained the faith of\nthe Church never entirely dispensed with the spiritual sense of the\nScriptures. For the Councils watched over the orthodox faith; nor was it\nsafe in those ages, as we learn especially from the instance of Theodore\nof Mopsuestia, to desert the spiritual for an exclusive cultivation of\nthe literal method. Moreover, the allegorical interpretation, even when\nthe literal sense was not injured, was also preserved; because in those\ntimes, when both heretics and Jews in controversy were stubborn in their\nobjections to Christian doctrine, maintaining that the Messiah was yet\nto come, or denying the abrogation of the Sabbath and ceremonial law, or\nridiculing the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, and especially that of\nChrist's Divine Nature, under such circumstances ecclesiastical\nwriters found it to their purpose, in answer to such exceptions,\nviolently to refer every part of Scripture by allegory to Christ and\nHis Church.\"[345:1]\n\n\n7.\n\nWith this passage from a learned German, illustrating the bearing of the\nallegorical method upon the Judaic and Athanasian controversies, it will\nbe well to compare the following passage from the latitudinarian Hale's\n\"Golden Remains,\" as directed against the theology of Rome. \"The\nliteral, plain, and uncontroversible meaning of Scripture,\" he says,\n\"without any addition or supply by way of interpretation, is that alone\nwhich for ground of faith we are necessarily bound to accept; except it\nbe there, where the Holy Ghost Himself treads us out another way. I take\nnot this to be any particular conceit of mine, but that unto which our\nChurch stands necessarily bound. When we receded from the Church of\nRome, one motive was, because she added unto Scripture her glosses as\nCanonical, to supply what the plain text of Scripture could not yield.\nIf, in place of hers, we set up our own glosses, thus to do were nothing\nelse but to pull down Baal, and set up an Ephod, to run round and meet\nthe Church of Rome again in the same point in which at first we left\nher. . . . This doctrine of the literal sense was never grievous or\nprejudicial to any, but only to those who were inwardly conscious that\ntheir positions were not sufficiently grounded. When Cardinal Cajetan,\nin the days of our grandfathers, had forsaken that vein of postilling\nand allegorizing on Scripture, which for a long time had prevailed in\nthe Church, and betaken himself unto the literal sense, it was a thing\nso distasteful unto the Church of Rome that he was forced to find out\nmany shifts and make many apologies for himself. The truth is (as it\nwill appear to him that reads his writings), this sticking close to the\nliteral sense was that alone which made him to shake off many of those\ntenets upon which the Church of Rome and the reformed Churches differ.\nBut when the importunity of the Reformers, and the great credit of\nCalvin's writings in that kind, had forced the divines of Rome to level\ntheir interpretations by the same line; when they saw that no pains, no\nsubtlety of wit was strong enough to defeat the literal evidence of\nScripture, it drove them on those desperate shoals, on which at this day\nthey stick, to call in question, as far as they durst, the credit of the\nHebrew text, and countenance against it a corrupt translation; to add\ntraditions unto Scripture, and to make the Church's interpretation, so\npretended, to be above exception.\"[346:1]\n\n\n8.\n\nHe presently adds concerning the allegorical sense: \"If we absolutely\ncondemn these interpretations, then must we condemn a great part of\nAntiquity, who are very much conversant in this kind of interpreting.\nFor the most partial for Antiquity cannot choose but see and confess\nthus much, that for the literal sense, the interpreters of our own\ntimes, because of their skill in the original languages, their care of\npressing the circumstances and coherence of the text, of comparing like\nplaces of Scripture with like, have generally surpassed the best of the\nancients.\"[346:2]\n\nThe use of Scripture then, especially its spiritual or second sense, as\na medium of thought and deduction, is a characteristic principle of\ndoctrinal teaching in the Church.\n\n\n\u00a7 5. _Dogma._\n\n1. That opinions in religion are not matters of indifference, but have a\ndefinite bearing on the position of their holders in the Divine Sight,\nis a principle on which the Evangelical Faith has from the first\ndeveloped, and on which that Faith has been the first to develope. I\nsuppose, it hardly had any exercise under the Law; the zeal and\nobedience of the ancient people being mainly employed in the maintenance\nof divine worship and the overthrow of idolatry, not in the action of\nthe intellect. Faith is in this, as in other respects, a characteristic\nof the Gospel, except so far as it was anticipated, as its time drew\nnear. Elijah and the prophets down to Ezra resisted Baal or restored the\nTemple Service; the Three Children refused to bow down before the golden\nimage; Daniel would turn his face towards Jerusalem; the Maccabees\nspurned the Grecian paganism. On the other hand, the Greek Philosophers\nwere authoritative indeed in their teaching, enforced the \"_Ipse\ndixit_,\" and demanded the faith of their disciples; but they did not\ncommonly attach sanctity or reality to opinions, or view them in a\nreligious light. Our Saviour was the first to \"bear witness to the\nTruth,\" and to die for it, when \"before Pontius Pilate he witnessed a\ngood confession.\" St. John and St. Paul, following his example, both\npronounce anathema on those who denied \"the Truth\" or \"brought in\nanother Gospel.\" Tradition tells us that the Apostle of love seconded\nhis word with his deed, and on one occasion hastily quitted a bath\nbecause an heresiarch of the day had entered it. St. Ignatius, his\ncontemporary, compares false teachers to raging dogs; and St. Polycarp,\nhis disciple, exercised the same seventy upon Marcion which St. John had\nshown towards Cerinthus.\n\n\n2.\n\nSt. Iren\u00e6us after St. Polycarp exemplifies the same doctrine: \"I saw\nthee,\" he says to the heretic Florinus, \"when I was yet a boy, in lower\nAsia, with Polycarp, when thou wast living splendidly in the Imperial\nCourt, and trying to recommend thyself to him. I remember indeed what\nthen happened better than more recent occurrences, for the lessons of\nboyhood grow with the mind and become one with it. Thus I can name the\nplace where blessed Polycarp sat and conversed, and his goings out and\ncomings in, and the fashion of his life, and the appearance of his\nperson, and his discourses to the people, and his familiarity with John,\nwhich he used to tell of, and with the rest who had seen the Lord, and\nhow he used to repeat their words, and what it was that he had learned\nabout the Lord from them. . . . And in the sight of God, I can protest,\nthat, if that blessed and apostolical Elder had heard aught of this\ndoctrine, he had cried out and stopped his ears, saying after his wont,\n'O Good God, for what times hast thou reserved me that I should endure\nthis?' and he had fled the place where he was sitting or standing when\nhe heard it.\" It seems to have been the duty of every individual\nChristian from the first to witness in his place against all opinions\nwhich were contrary to what he had received in his baptismal\ncatechizing, and to shun the society of those who maintained them. \"So\nreligious,\" says Iren\u00e6us after giving his account of St. Polycarp, \"were\nthe Apostles and their disciples, in not even conversing with those who\ncounterfeited the truth.\"[348:1]\n\n\n3.\n\nSuch a principle, however, would but have broken up the Church the\nsooner, resolving it into the individuals of which it was composed,\nunless the Truth, to which they were to bear witness, had been a\nsomething definite, and formal, and independent of themselves.\nChristians were bound to defend and to transmit the faith which they had\nreceived, and they received it from the rulers of the Church; and, on\nthe other hand, it was the duty of those rulers to watch over and define\nthis traditionary faith. It is unnecessary to go over ground which has\nbeen traversed so often of late years. St. Iren\u00e6us brings the subject\nbefore us in his description of St. Polycarp, part of which has already\nbeen quoted; and to it we may limit ourselves. \"Polycarp,\" he says when\nwriting against the Gnostics, \"whom we have seen in our first youth,\never taught those lessons which he learned from the Apostles, which the\nChurch also transmits, which alone are true. All the Churches of Asia\nbear witness to them; and the successors of Polycarp down to this day,\nwho is a much more trustworthy and sure witness of truth than\nValentinus, Marcion, or their perverse companions. The same was in Rome\nin the time of Anicetus, and converted many of the aforenamed heretics\nto the Church of God, preaching that he had received from the Apostles\nthis one and only truth, which had been transmitted by the\nChurch.\"[349:1]\n\n\n4.\n\nNor was this the doctrine and practice of one school only, which might\nbe ignorant of philosophy; the cultivated minds of the Alexandrian\nFathers, who are said to owe so much to Pagan science, certainly showed\nno gratitude or reverence towards their alleged instructors, but\nmaintained the supremacy of Catholic Tradition. Clement[349:2] speaks of\nheretical teachers as perverting Scripture, and essaying the gate of\nheaven with a false key, not raising the veil, as he and his, by means\nof tradition from Christ, but digging through the Church's wall, and\nbecoming mystagogues of misbelief; \"for,\" he continues, \"few words are\nenough to prove that they have formed their human assemblies later than\nthe Catholic Church,\" and \"from that previously existing and most true\nChurch it is very clear that these later heresies, and others which\nhave been since, are counterfeit and novel inventions.\"[350:1] \"When the\nMarcionites, Valentinians, and the like,\" says Origen, \"appeal to\napocryphal works, they are saying, 'Christ is in the desert;' when to\ncanonical Scripture, 'Lo, He is in the chambers;' but we must not depart\nfrom that first and ecclesiastical tradition, nor believe otherwise than\nas the Churches of God by succession have transmitted to us.\" And it is\nrecorded of him in his youth, that he never could be brought to attend\nthe prayers of a heretic who was in the house of his patroness, from\nabomination of his doctrine, \"observing,\" adds Eusebius, \"the rule of\nthe Church.\" Eusebius too himself, unsatisfactory as is his own\ntheology, cannot break from this fundamental rule; he ever speaks of the\nGnostic teachers, the chief heretics of his period (at least before the\nrise of Arianism), in terms most expressive of abhorrence and disgust.\n\n\n5.\n\nThe African, Syrian, and Asian schools are additional witnesses;\nTertullian at Carthage was strenuous for the dogmatic principle even\nafter he had given up the traditional. The Fathers of Asia Minor, who\nexcommunicated No\u00ebtus, rehearse the Creed, and add, \"We declare as we\nhave learned;\" the Fathers of Antioch, who depose Paul of Samosata, set\ndown in writing the Creed from Scripture, \"which,\" they say, \"we\nreceived from the beginning, and have, by tradition and in custody, in\nthe Catholic and Holy Church, until this day, by succession, as preached\nby the blessed Apostles, who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the\nWord.\"[350:2]\n\n\n6.\n\nMoreover, it is as plain, or even plainer, that what the Christians of\nthe first ages anathematized, included deductions from the Articles of\nFaith, that is, false developments, as well as contradictions of those\nArticles. And, since the reason they commonly gave for using the\nanathema was that the doctrine in question was strange and startling, it\nfollows that the truth, which was its contradictory, was also in some\nrespect unknown to them hitherto; which is also shown by their temporary\nperplexity, and their difficulty of meeting heresy, in particular cases.\n\"Who ever heard the like hitherto?\" says St. Athanasius, of\nApollinarianism; \"who was the teacher of it, who the hearer? 'From Sion\nshall go forth the Law of God, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem;'\nbut from whence hath this gone forth? What hell hath burst out with it?\"\nThe Fathers at Nic\u00e6a stopped their ears; and St. Iren\u00e6us, as above\nquoted, says that St. Polycarp, had he heard the Gnostic blasphemies,\nwould have stopped his ears, and deplored the times for which he was\nreserved. They anathematized the doctrine, not because it was old, but\nbecause it was new: the anathema would have altogether slept, if it\ncould not have been extended to propositions not anathematized in the\nbeginning; for the very characteristic of heresy is this novelty and\noriginality of manifestation.\n\nSuch was the exclusiveness of Christianity of old: I need not insist on\nthe steadiness with which that principle has been maintained ever since,\nfor bigotry and intolerance is one of the ordinary charges brought at\nthis day against both the medieval Church and the modern.\n\n\n7.\n\nThe Church's consistency and thoroughness in teaching is another aspect\nof the same principle, as is illustrated in the following passage from\nM. Guizot's History of Civilization. \"The adversaries,\" he says, \"of the\nReformation, knew very well what they were about, and what they\nrequired; they could point to their first principles, and boldly admit\nall the consequences that might result from them. No government was ever\nmore consistent and systematic than that of the Romish Church. In fact,\nthe Court of Rome was much more accommodating, yielded much more than\nthe Reformers; but in principle it much more completely adopted its own\nsystem, and maintained a much more consistent conduct. There is an\nimmense power in this full confidence of what is done; this perfect\nknowledge of what is required; this complete and rational adaptation of\na system and a creed.\" Then he goes on to the history of the Society of\nJesus in illustration. \"Everything,\" he says, \"was unfavourable to the\nJesuits, both fortune and appearances; neither practical sense which\nrequires success, nor the imagination which looks for splendour, were\ngratified by their destiny. Still it is certain that they possessed the\nelements of greatness; a grand idea is attached to their name, to their\ninfluence, and to their history. Why? because they worked from fixed\nprinciples, which they fully and clearly understood, and the tendency of\nwhich they entirely comprehended. In the Reformation, on the contrary,\nwhen the event surpassed its conception, something incomplete,\ninconsequent, and narrow has remained, which has placed the conquerors\nthemselves in a state of rational and philosophical inferiority, the\ninfluence of which has occasionally been felt in events. The conflict of\nthe new spiritual order of things against the old, is, I think, the weak\nside of the Reformation.\"[352:1]\n\n\n\u00a7 6. _Additional Remarks._\n\nSuch are some of the intellectual principles which are characteristic of\nChristianity. I observe,--\n\nThat their continuity down to this day, and the vigour of their\noperation, are two distinct guarantees that the theological conclusions\nto which they are subservient are, in accordance with the Divine\nPromise, true developments, and not corruptions of the Revelation.\n\nMoreover, if it be true that the principles of the later Church are the\nsame as those of the earlier, then, whatever are the variations of\nbelief between the two periods, the later in reality agrees more than it\ndiffers with the earlier, for principles are responsible for doctrines.\nHence they who assert that the modern Roman system is the corruption of\nprimitive theology are forced to discover some difference of principle\nbetween the one and the other; for instance, that the right of private\njudgment was secured to the early Church and has been lost to the later,\nor, again, that the later Church rationalizes and the earlier went by\nfaith.\n\n\n2.\n\nOn this point I will but remark as follows. It cannot be doubted that\nthe horror of heresy, the law of absolute obedience to ecclesiastical\nauthority, and the doctrine of the mystical virtue of unity, were as\nstrong and active in the Church of St. Ignatius and St. Cyprian as in\nthat of St. Carlo and St. Pius the Fifth, whatever be thought of the\ntheology respectively taught in the one and in the other. Now we have\nbefore our eyes the effect of these principles in the instance of the\nlater Church; they have entirely succeeded in preventing departure from\nthe doctrine of Trent for three hundred years. Have we any reason for\ndoubting, that from the same strictness the same fidelity would follow,\nin the first three, or any three, centuries of the Ante-tridentine\nperiod? Where then was the opportunity of corruption in the three\nhundred years between St. Ignatius and St. Augustine? or between St.\nAugustine and St. Bede? or between St. Bede and St. Peter Damiani? or\nagain, between St. Iren\u00e6us and St. Leo, St. Cyprian and St. Gregory the\nGreat, St. Athanasius and St. John Damascene? Thus the tradition of\neighteen centuries becomes a collection of indefinitely many _caten\u00e6_,\neach commencing from its own point, and each crossing the other; and\neach year, as it comes, is guaranteed with various degrees of cogency by\nevery year which has gone before it.\n\n\n3.\n\nMoreover, while the development of doctrine in the Church has been in\naccordance with, or in consequence of these immemorial principles, the\nvarious heresies, which have from time to time arisen, have in one\nrespect or other, as might be expected, violated those principles with\nwhich she rose into existence, and which she still retains. Thus Arian\nand Nestorian schools denied the allegorical rule of Scripture\ninterpretation; the Gnostics and Eunomians for Faith professed to\nsubstitute knowledge; and the Manichees also, as St. Augustine so\ntouchingly declares in the beginning of his work _De Utilitate\ncredendi_. The dogmatic Rule, at least so far as regards its traditional\ncharacter, was thrown aside by all those sects which, as Tertullian\ntells us, claimed to judge for themselves from Scripture; and the\nSacramental principle was violated, _ipso facto_, by all who separated\nfrom the Church,--was denied also by Faustus the Manichee when he argued\nagainst the Catholic ceremonial, by Vigilantius in his opposition to\nrelics, and by the Iconoclasts. In like manner the contempt of mystery,\nof reverence, of devoutness, of sanctity, are other notes of the\nheretical spirit. As to Protestantism it is plain in how many ways it\nhas reversed the principles of Catholic theology.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[326:1] [E. g. development itself is such a principle also. \"And thus I\nwas led on to a further consideration. I saw that the principle of\ndevelopment not only accounted for certain facts, but was in itself a\nremarkable philosophical phenomenon, giving a character to the whole\ncourse of Christian thought. It was discernible from the first years of\nCatholic teaching up to the present day, and gave to that teaching a\nunity and individuality. It served as a sort of test, which the Anglican\ncould not stand, that modern Rome was in truth ancient Antioch,\nAlexandria, and Constantinople, just as a mathematical curve has its own\nlaw and expression.\" _Apol._ p. 198, _vid._ also Angl. Diff. vol. i.\nLect. xii. 7.]\n\n[328:1] University Sermons [but, more carefully in the \"Essay on\nAssent\"].\n\n[329:1] c. Cels. i. 9.\n\n[330:1] H\u00e6r. iv. 24. Euseb. Pr\u00e6p. Ev. i. 5.\n\n[330:2] [This is too large a subject to admit of justice being done to\nit here: I have treated of it at length in the \"Essay on Assent.\"]\n\n[331:1] Init.\n\n[331:2] _Vid._ also _supr._ p. 256.\n\n[332:1] pp. 142, 143, Combe's tr.\n\n[333:1] pp. 144, 145.\n\n[333:2] p. 219.\n\n[335:1] pp. 221, 223.\n\n[336:1] pp. 229, 230.\n\n[336:2] pp. 230, 231.\n\n[339:1] Vid. Proph. Offic. Lect. xiii. [Via Media, vol. i. p. 309, &c.]\n\n[339:2] A late writer goes farther, and maintains that it is not\ndetermined by the Council of Trent, whether the whole of the Revelation\nis in Scripture or not. \"The Synod declares that the Christian 'truth\nand discipline are contained in written books and unwritten traditions.'\nThey were well aware that the controversy then was, whether the\nChristian doctrine was only _in part_ contained in Scripture. But they\ndid not dare to frame their decree openly in accordance with the modern\nRomish view; they did not venture to affirm, as they might easily have\ndone, that the Christian verity 'was contained _partly_ in written\nbooks, and _partly_ in unwritten traditions.'\"--_Palmer on the Church_,\nvol. 2, p. 15. Vid. Difficulties of Angl. vol. ii. pp. 11, 12.\n\n[340:1] Opp. t. 1, p. 4.\n\n[341:1] Opp. t. i. pp. 4, 5.\n\n[341:2] Ibid. p. 9.\n\n[342:1] Proem. 5.\n\n[342:2] p. 4.\n\n[345:1] Lengerke, de Ephr. S. pp. 78-80.\n\n[346:1] pp. 24-26.\n\n[346:2] p. 27.\n\n[348:1] Euseb. Hist. iv. 14, v. 20.\n\n[349:1] Contr. H\u00e6r. iii. 3, \u00a7 4.\n\n[349:2] Ed. Potter, p. 897.\n\n[350:1] Ed. Potter, p. 899.\n\n[350:2] Clem. Strom. vii. 17. Origen in Matth. Comm. Ser. 46. Euseb.\nHist. vi. 2, fin. Epiph. H\u00e6r. 57, p. 480. Routh, t. 2, p. 465.\n\n[352:1] Eur. Civil. pp. 394-398.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nAPPLICATION OF THE THIRD NOTE Of A TRUE DEVELOPMENT.\n\n\nASSIMILATIVE POWER.\n\nSince religious systems, true and false, have one and the same great and\ncomprehensive subject-matter, they necessarily interfere with one\nanother as rivals, both in those points in which they agree together,\nand in those in which they differ. That Christianity on its rise was in\nthese circumstances of competition and controversy, is sufficiently\nevident even from a foregoing Chapter: it was surrounded by rites,\nsects, and philosophies, which contemplated the same questions,\nsometimes advocated the same truths, and in no slight degree wore the\nsame external appearance. It could not stand still, it could not take\nits own way, and let them take theirs: they came across its path, and a\nconflict was inevitable. The very nature of a true philosophy relatively\nto other systems is to be polemical, eclectic, unitive: Christianity was\npolemical; it could not but be eclectic; but was it also unitive? Had it\nthe power, while keeping its own identity, of absorbing its antagonists,\nas Aaron's rod, according to St. Jerome's illustration, devoured the\nrods of the sorcerers of Egypt? Did it incorporate them into itself, or\nwas it dissolved into them? Did it assimilate them into its own\nsubstance, or, keeping its name, was it simply infected by them? In a\nword, were its developments faithful or corrupt? Nor is this a question\nmerely of the early centuries. When we consider the deep interest of the\ncontroversies which Christianity raises, the various characters of mind\nit has swayed, the range of subjects which it embraces, the many\ncountries it has entered, the deep philosophies it has encountered, the\nvicissitudes it has undergone, and the length of time through which it\nhas lasted, it requires some assignable explanation, why we should not\nconsider it substantially modified and changed, that is, corrupted, from\nthe first, by the numberless influences to which it has been exposed.\n\n\n2.\n\nNow there was this cardinal distinction between Christianity and the\nreligions and philosophies by which it was surrounded, nay even the\nJudaism of the day, that it referred all truth and revelation to one\nsource, and that the Supreme and Only God. Pagan rites which honoured\none or other out of ten thousand deities; philosophies which scarcely\ntaught any source of revelation at all; Gnostic heresies which were\nbased on Dualism, adored angels, or ascribed the two Testaments to\ndistinct authors, could not regard truth as one, unalterable,\nconsistent, imperative, and saving. But Christianity started with the\nprinciple that there was but \"one God and one Mediator,\" and that He,\n\"who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the\nfathers by the Prophets, had in these last days spoken unto us by His\nSon.\" He had never left Himself without witness, and now He had come,\nnot to undo the past, but to fulfil and perfect it. His Apostles, and\nthey alone, possessed, venerated, and protected a Divine Message, as\nboth sacred and sanctifying; and, in the collision and conflict of\nopinions, in ancient times or modern, it was that Message, and not any\nvague or antagonist teaching, that was to succeed in purifying,\nassimilating, transmuting, and taking into itself the many-coloured\nbeliefs, forms of worship, codes of duty, schools of thought, through\nwhich it was ever moving. It was Grace, and it was Truth.\n\n\n\u00a7 1. _The Assimilating Power of Dogmatic Truth._\n\nThat there is a truth then; that there is one truth; that religious\nerror is in itself of an immoral nature; that its maintainers, unless\ninvoluntarily such, are guilty in maintaining it; that it is to be\ndreaded; that the search for truth is not the gratification of\ncuriosity; that its attainment has nothing of the excitement of a\ndiscovery; that the mind is below truth, not above it, and is bound, not\nto descant upon it, but to venerate it; that truth and falsehood are set\nbefore us for the trial of our hearts; that our choice is an awful\ngiving forth of lots on which salvation or rejection is inscribed; that\n\"before all things it is necessary to hold the Catholic faith;\" that \"he\nthat would be saved must thus think,\" and not otherwise; that, \"if thou\ncriest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding, if\nthou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasure,\nthen shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge\nof God,\"--this is the dogmatical principle, which has strength.\n\nThat truth and falsehood in religion are but matter of opinion; that one\ndoctrine is as good as another; that the Governor of the world does not\nintend that we should gain the truth; that there is no truth; that we\nare not more acceptable to God by believing this than by believing that;\nthat no one is answerable for his opinions; that they are a matter of\nnecessity or accident; that it is enough if we sincerely hold what we\nprofess; that our merit lies in seeking, not in possessing; that it is\na duty to follow what seems to us true, without a fear lest it should\nnot be true; that it may be a gain to succeed, and can be no harm to\nfail; that we may take up and lay down opinions at pleasure; that belief\nbelongs to the mere intellect, not to the heart also; that we may safely\ntrust to ourselves in matters of Faith, and need no other guide,--this\nis the principle of philosophies and heresies, which is very weakness.\n\n\n2.\n\nTwo opinions encounter; each may be abstractedly true; or again, each\nmay be a subtle, comprehensive doctrine, vigorous, elastic, expansive,\nvarious; one is held as a matter of indifference, the other as a matter\nof life and death; one is held by the intellect only, the other also by\nthe heart: it is plain which of the two must succumb to the other. Such\nwas the conflict of Christianity with the old established Paganism,\nwhich was almost dead before Christianity appeared; with the Oriental\nMysteries, flitting wildly to and fro like spectres; with the Gnostics,\nwho made Knowledge all in all, despised the many, and called Catholics\nmere children in the Truth; with the Neo-platonists, men of literature,\npedants, visionaries, or courtiers; with the Manichees, who professed to\nseek Truth by Reason, not by Faith; with the fluctuating teachers of the\nschool of Antioch, the time-serving Eusebians, and the reckless\nversatile Arians; with the fanatic Montanists and harsh Novatians, who\nshrank from the Catholic doctrine, without power to propagate their own.\nThese sects had no stay or consistence, yet they contained elements of\ntruth amid their error, and had Christianity been as they, it might have\nresolved into them; but it had that hold of the truth which gave its\nteaching a gravity, a directness, a consistency, a sternness, and a\nforce, to which its rivals for the most part were strangers. It could\nnot call evil good, or good evil, because it discerned the difference\nbetween them; it could not make light of what was so solemn, or desert\nwhat was so solid. Hence, in the collision, it broke in pieces its\nantagonists, and divided the spoils.\n\n\n3.\n\nThis was but another form of the spirit that made martyrs. Dogmatism was\nin teaching, what confession was in act. Each was the same strong\nprinciple of life in a different aspect, distinguishing the faith which\nwas displayed in it from the world's philosophies on the one side, and\nthe world's religions on the other. The heathen sects and the heresies\nof Christian history were dissolved by the breath of opinion which made\nthem; paganism shuddered and died at the very sight of the sword of\npersecution, which it had itself unsheathed. Intellect and force were\napplied as tests both upon the divine and upon the human work; they\nprevailed with the human, they did but become instruments of the Divine.\n\"No one,\" says St. Justin, \"has so believed Socrates as to die for the\ndoctrine which he taught.\" \"No one was ever found undergoing death for\nfaith in the sun.\"[359:1] Thus Christianity grew in its proportions,\ngaining aliment and medicine from all that it came near, yet preserving\nits original type, from its perception and its love of what had been\nrevealed once for all and was no private imagination.\n\n\n4.\n\nThere are writers who refer to the first centuries of the Church as a\ntime when opinion was free, and the conscience exempt from the\nobligation or temptation to take on trust what it had not proved; and\nthat, apparently on the mere ground that the series of great\ntheological decisions did not commence till the fourth. This seems to be\nM. Guizot's meaning when he says that Christianity \"in the early ages\nwas a belief, a sentiment, an individual conviction;\"[360:1] that \"the\nChristian society appears as a pure association of men animated by the\nsame sentiments and professing the same creed. The first Christians,\" he\ncontinues, \"assembled to enjoy together the same emotions, the same\nreligious convictions. We do not find any doctrinal system established,\nany form of discipline or of laws, or any body of magistrates.\"[360:2]\nWhat can be meant by saying that Christianity had no magistrates in the\nearliest ages?--but, any how, in statements such as these the\ndistinction is not properly recognized between a principle and its\nexhibitions and instances, even if the fact were as is represented. The\nprinciple indeed of Dogmatism developes into Councils in the course of\ntime; but it was active, nay sovereign from the first, in every part of\nChristendom. A conviction that truth was one; that it was a gift from\nwithout, a sacred trust, an inestimable blessing; that it was to be\nreverenced, guarded, defended, transmitted; that its absence was a\ngrievous want, and its loss an unutterable calamity; and again, the\nstern words and acts of St. John, of Polycarp, Ignatius, Iren\u00e6us,\nClement, Tertullian, and Origen;--all this is quite consistent with\nperplexity or mistake as to what was truth in particular cases, in what\nway doubtful questions were to be decided, or what were the limits of\nthe Revelation. Councils and Popes are the guardians and instruments of\nthe dogmatic principle: they are not that principle themselves; they\npresuppose the principle; they are summoned into action at the call of\nthe principle, and the principle might act even before they had their\nlegitimate place, and exercised a recognized power, in the movements of\nthe Christian body.\n\n\n5.\n\nThe instance of Conscience, which has already served us in illustration,\nmay assist us here. What Conscience is in the history of an individual\nmind, such was the dogmatic principle in the history of Christianity.\nBoth in the one case and the other, there is the gradual formation of a\ndirecting power out of a principle. The natural voice of Conscience is\nfar more imperative in testifying and enforcing a rule of duty, than\nsuccessful in determining that duty in particular cases. It acts as a\nmessenger from above, and says that there is a right and a wrong, and\nthat the right must be followed; but it is variously, and therefore\nerroneously, trained in the instance of various persons. It mistakes\nerror for truth; and yet we believe that on the whole, and even in those\ncases where it is ill-instructed, if its voice be diligently obeyed, it\nwill gradually be cleared, simplified, and perfected, so that minds,\nstarting differently will, if honest, in course of time converge to one\nand the same truth. I do not hereby imply that there is indistinctness\nso great as this in the theology of the first centuries; but so far is\nplain, that the early Church and Fathers exercised far more a ruler's\nthan a doctor's office: it was the age of Martyrs, of acting not of\nthinking. Doctors succeeded Martyrs, as light and peace of conscience\nfollow upon obedience to it; yet, even before the Church had grown into\nthe full measure of its doctrines, it was rooted in its principles.\n\n\n6.\n\nSo far, however, may be granted to M. Guizot, that even principles were\nnot so well understood and so carefully handled at first, as they were\nafterwards. In the early period, we see traces of a conflict, as well as\nof a variety, in theological elements, which were in course of\ncombination, but which required adjustment and management before they\ncould be used with precision as one. In a thousand instances of a minor\ncharacter, the statements of the early Fathers are but tokens of the\nmultiplicity of openings which the mind of the Church was making into\nthe treasure-house of Truth; real openings, but incomplete or irregular.\nNay, the doctrines even of the heretical bodies are indices and\nanticipations of the mind of the Church. As the first step in settling a\nquestion of doctrine is to raise and debate it, so heresies in every age\nmay be taken as the measure of the existing state of thought in the\nChurch, and of the movement of her theology; they determine in what way\nthe current is setting, and the rate at which it flows.\n\n\n7.\n\nThus, St. Clement may be called the representative of the eclectic\nelement, and Tertullian of the dogmatic, neither element as yet being\nfully understood by Catholics; and Clement perhaps went too far in his\naccommodation to philosophy, and Tertullian asserted with exaggeration\nthe immutability of the Creed. Nay, the two antagonist principles of\ndogmatism and assimilation are found in Tertullian alone, though with\nsome deficiency of amalgamation, and with a greater leaning towards the\ndogmatic. Though the Montanists professed to pass over the subject of\ndoctrine, it is chiefly in Tertullian's Montanistic works that his\nstrong statements occur of the unalterableness of the Creed; and\nextravagance on the subject is not only in keeping with the stern and\nvehement temper of that Father, but with the general severity and\nharshness of his sect. On the other hand the very foundation of\nMontanism is development, though not of doctrine, yet of discipline and\nconduct. It is said that its founder professed himself the promised\nComforter, through whom the Church was to be perfected; he provided\nprophets as organs of the new revelation, and called Catholics Psychici\nor animal. Tertullian distinctly recognizes even the process of\ndevelopment in one of his Montanistic works. After speaking of an\ninnovation upon usage, which his newly revealed truth required, he\nproceeds, \"Therefore hath the Lord sent the Paraclete, that, since human\ninfirmity could not take all things in at once, discipline might be\ngradually directed, regulated and brought to perfection by the Lord's\nVicar, the Holy Ghost. 'I have yet many things to say to you,' He saith,\n&c. What is this dispensation of the Paraclete but this, that discipline\nis directed, Scriptures opened, intellect reformed, improvements\neffected? Nothing can take place without age, and all things wait their\ntime. In short, the Preacher says 'There is a time for all things.'\nBehold the creature itself gradually advancing to fruit. At first there\nis a seed, and a stalk springs out of the seed, and from the stalk\nbursts out a shrub, and then its branches and foliage grow vigorous, and\nall that we mean by a tree is unfolded; then there is the swelling of\nthe bud, and the bud is resolved into a blossom, and the blossom is\nopened into a fruit, and is for a while rudimental and unformed, till,\nby degrees following out its life, it is matured into mellowness of\nflavour. So too righteousness, (for there is the same God both of\nrighteousness and of the creation,) was at first in its rudiments, a\nnature fearing God; thence, by means of Law and Prophets, it advanced\ninto infancy; thence, by the gospel, it burst forth into its youth; and\nnow by the Paraclete, it is fashioned into maturity.\"[363:1]\n\n\n8.\n\nNot in one principle or doctrine only, but in its whole system,\nMontanism is a remarkable anticipation or presage of developments which\nsoon began to show themselves in the Church, though they were not\nperfected for centuries after. Its rigid maintenance of the original\nCreed, yet its admission of a development, at least in the ritual, has\njust been instanced in the person of Tertullian. Equally Catholic in\ntheir principle, whether in fact or anticipation, were most of the other\npeculiarities of Montanism: its rigorous fasts, its visions, its\ncommendation of celibacy and martyrdom, its contempt of temporal goods,\nits penitential discipline, and its maintenance of a centre of unity.\nThe doctrinal determinations and the ecclesiastical usages of the middle\nages are the true fulfilment of its self-willed and abortive attempts at\nprecipitating the growth of the Church. The favour shown to it for a\nwhile by Pope Victor is an evidence of its external resemblance to\northodoxy; and the celebrated Martyrs and Saints in Africa, in the\nbeginning of the third century, Perpetua and Felicitas, or at least\ntheir Acts, betoken that same peculiar temper of religion, which, when\ncut off from the Church a few years afterwards, quickly degenerated into\na heresy. A parallel instance occurs in the case of the Donatists. They\nheld a doctrine on the subject of Baptism similar to that of St.\nCyprian: \"Vincentius Lirinensis,\" says Gibbon, referring to Tillemont's\nremarks on that resemblance, \"has explained why the Donatists are\neternally burning with the devil, while St. Cyprian reigns in heaven\nwith Jesus Christ.\"[364:1] And his reason is intelligible: it is, says\nTillemont, \"as St. Augustine often says, because the Donatists had\nbroken the bond of peace and charity with the other Churches, which St.\nCyprian had preserved so carefully.\"[364:2]\n\n\n9.\n\nThese are specimens of the raw material, as it may be called, which,\nwhether as found in individual Fathers within the pale of the Church, or\nin heretics external to it, she had the power, by means of the\ncontinuity and firmness of her principles, to convert to her own uses.\nShe alone has succeeded in thus rejecting evil without sacrificing the\ngood, and in holding together in one things which in all other schools\nare incompatible. Gnostic or Platonic words are found in the inspired\ntheology of St. John; to the Platonists Unitarian writers trace the\ndoctrine of our Lord's divinity; Gibbon the idea of the Incarnation to\nthe Gnostics. The Gnostics too seem first to have systematically thrown\nthe intellect upon matters of faith; and the very term \"Gnostic\" has\nbeen taken by Clement to express his perfect Christian. And, though\nascetics existed from the beginning, the notion of a religion higher\nthan the Christianity of the many, was first prominently brought forward\nby the Gnostics, Montanists, Novatians, and Manichees. And while the\nprophets of the Montanists prefigure the Church's Doctors, and their\nprofessed inspiration her infallibility, and their revelations her\ndevelopments, and the heresiarch himself is the unsightly anticipation\nof St. Francis, in Novatian again we discern the aspiration of nature\nafter such creations of grace as St. Benedict or St. Bruno. And so the\neffort of Sabellius to complete the enunciation of the mystery of the\nEver-blessed Trinity failed: it became a heresy; grace would not be\nconstrained; the course of thought could not be forced;--at length it\nwas realized in the true Unitarianism of St. Augustine.\n\n\n10.\n\nDoctrine too is percolated, as it were, through different minds,\nbeginning with writers of inferior authority in the Church, and issuing\nat length in the enunciation of her Doctors. Origen, Tertullian, nay\nEusebius and the Antiochenes, supply the materials, from which the\nFathers have wrought out comments or treatises. St. Gregory Nazianzen\nand St. Basil digested into form the theological principles of Origen;\nSt. Hilary and St. Ambrose are both indebted to the same great writer in\ntheir interpretations of Scripture; St. Ambrose again has taken his\ncomment on St. Luke from Eusebius, and certain of his Tracts from Philo;\nSt. Cyprian called Tertullian his Master; and traces of Tertullian, in\nhis almost heretical treatises, may be detected in the most finished\nsentences of St. Leo. The school of Antioch, in spite of the heretical\ntaint of various of its Masters, formed the genius of St. Chrysostom.\nAnd the Apocryphal gospels have contributed many things for the devotion\nand edification of Catholic believers.[366:1]\n\nThe deep meditation which seems to have been exercised by the Fathers on\npoints of doctrine, the disputes and turbulence yet lucid determination\nwhich characterize the Councils, the indecision of Popes, are all in\ndifferent ways, at least when viewed together, portions and indications\nof the same process. The theology of the Church is no random combination\nof various opinions, but a diligent, patient working out of one doctrine\nfrom many materials. The conduct of Popes, Councils, Fathers, betokens\nthe slow, painful, anxious taking up of new truths into an existing body\nof belief. St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Leo are conspicuous for\nthe repetition _in terminis_ of their own theological statements; on the\ncontrary, it has been observed of the heterodox Tertullian, that his\nworks \"indicate no ordinary fertility of mind in that he so little\nrepeats himself or recurs to favourite thoughts, as is frequently the\ncase even with the great St. Augustine.\"[366:2]\n\n\n11.\n\nHere we see the difference between originality of mind and the gift and\ncalling of a Doctor in the Church; the holy Fathers just mentioned were\nintently fixing their minds on what they taught, grasping it more and\nmore closely, viewing it on various sides, trying its consistency,\nweighing their own separate expressions. And thus if in some cases they\nwere even left in ignorance, the next generation of teachers completed\ntheir work, for the same unwearied anxious process of thought went on.\nSt. Gregory Nyssen finishes the investigations of St. Athanasius; St.\nLeo guards the polemical statements of St. Cyril. Clement may hold a\npurgatory, yet tend to consider all punishment purgatorial; St. Cyprian\nmay hold the unsanctified state of heretics, but include in his doctrine\na denial of their baptism; St. Hippolytus may believe in the personal\nexistence of the Word from eternity, yet speak confusedly on the\neternity of His Sonship; the Council of Antioch might put aside the\nHomo\u00fcsion, and the Council of Nic\u00e6a impose it; St. Hilary may believe in\na purgatory, yet confine it to the day of judgment; St. Athanasius and\nother Fathers may treat with almost supernatural exactness the doctrine\nof our Lord's incarnation, yet imply, as far as words go, that He was\nignorant viewed in His human nature; the Athanasian Creed may admit the\nillustration of soul and body, and later Fathers may discountenance it;\nSt. Augustine might first be opposed to the employment of force in\nreligion, and then acquiesce in it. Prayers for the faithful departed\nmay be found in the early liturgies, yet with an indistinctness which\nincluded the Blessed Virgin and the Martyrs in the same rank with the\nimperfect Christian whose sins were as yet unexpiated; and succeeding\ntimes might keep what was exact, and supply what was deficient.\nAristotle might be reprobated by certain early Fathers, yet furnish the\nphraseology for theological definitions afterwards. And in a different\nsubject-matter, St. Isidore and others might be suspicious of the\ndecoration of Churches; St. Paulinus and St. Helena advance it. And thus\nwe are brought on to dwell upon the office of grace, as well as of\ntruth, in enabling the Church's creed to develope and to absorb without\nthe risk of corruption.\n\n\n\u00a7 2. _The Assimilating Power of Sacramental Grace._\n\nThere is in truth a certain virtue or grace in the Gospel which changes\nthe quality of doctrines, opinions, usages, actions, and personal\ncharacters when incorporated with it, and makes them right and\nacceptable to its Divine Author, whereas before they were either\ninfected with evil, or at best but shadows of the truth. This is the\nprinciple, above spoken of, which I have called the Sacramental. \"We\nknow that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness,\" is an\nenunciation of the principle;--or, the declaration of the Apostle of the\nGentiles, \"If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things are\npassed away, behold all things are become new.\" Thus it is that outward\nrites, which are but worthless in themselves, lose their earthly\ncharacter and become Sacraments under the Gospel; circumcision, as St.\nPaul says, is carnal and has come to an end, yet Baptism is a perpetual\nordinance, as being grafted upon a system which is grace and truth.\nElsewhere, he parallels, while he contrasts, \"the cup of the Lord\" and\n\"the cup of devils,\" in this respect, that to partake of either is to\nhold communion with the source from which it comes; and he adds\npresently, that \"we have been all made to drink into one spirit.\" So\nagain he says, no one is justified by the works of the old Law; while\nboth he implies, and St. James declares, that Christians are justified\nby works of the New Law. Again he contrasts the exercises of the\nintellect as exhibited by heathen and Christian. \"Howbeit,\" he says,\nafter condemning heathen wisdom, \"we speak wisdom among them that are\nperfect, yet not the wisdom of this world;\" and it is plain that nowhere\nneed we look for more glowing eloquence, more distinct profession of\nreasoning, more careful assertion of doctrine, than is to be found in\nthe Apostle's writings.\n\n\n2.\n\nIn like manner when the Jewish exorcists attempted to \"call over them\nwhich had evil spirits the Name of the Lord Jesus,\" the evil spirit\nprofessed not to know them, and inflicted on them a bodily injury; on\nthe other hand, the occasion of this attempt of theirs was a stupendous\ninstance or type, in the person of St. Paul, of the very principle I am\nillustrating. \"God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul, so\nthat from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs and aprons,\nand the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of\nthem.\" The grace given him was communicable, diffusive; an influence\npassing from him to others, and making what it touched spiritual, as\nenthusiasm may be or tastes or panics.\n\nParallel instances occur of the operation of this principle in the\nhistory of the Church, from the time that the Apostles were taken from\nit. St. Paul denounces distinctions in meat and drink, the observance of\nSabbaths and holydays, and of ordinances, and the worship of Angels; yet\nChristians, from the first, were rigid in their stated fastings,\nvenerated, as St. Justin tells us, the Angelic intelligences,[369:1] and\nestablished the observance of the Lord's day as soon as persecution\nceased.\n\n\n3.\n\nIn like manner Celsus objects that Christians did not \"endure the sight\nof temples, altars, and statues;\" Porphyry, that \"they blame the rites\nof worship, victims, and frankincense;\" the heathen disputant in\nMinucius asks, \"Why have Christians no altars, no temples, no\nconspicuous images?\" and \"no sacrifices;\" and yet it is plain from\nTertullian that Christians had altars of their own, and sacrifices and\npriests. And that they had churches is again and again proved by\nEusebius who had seen \"the houses of prayer levelled\" in the Dioclesian\npersecution; from the history too of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, nay from\nClement.[370:1] Again, St. Justin and Minucius speak of the form of the\nCross in terms of reverence, quite inconsistent with the doctrine that\nexternal emblems of religion may not be venerated. Tertullian speaks of\nChristians signing themselves with it whatever they set about, whether\nthey walk, eat, or lie down to sleep. In Eusebius's life of Constantine,\nthe figure of the Cross holds a most conspicuous place; the Emperor sees\nit in the sky and is converted; he places it upon his standards; he\ninserts it into his own hand when he puts up his statue; wherever the\nCross is displayed in his battles, he conquers; he appoints fifty men to\ncarry it; he engraves it on his soldiers' arms; and Licinius dreads its\npower. Shortly after, Julian plainly accuses Christians of worshipping\nthe wood of the Cross, though they refused to worship the _ancile_. In a\nlater age the worship of images was introduced.[370:2]\n\n\n4.\n\nThe principle of the distinction, by which these observances were pious\nin Christianity and superstitious in paganism, is implied in such\npassages of Tertullian, Lactantius, and others, as speak of evil spirits\nlurking under the pagan statues. It is intimated also by Origen, who,\nafter saying that Scripture so strongly \"forbids temples, altars, and\nimages,\" that Christians are \"ready to go to death, if necessary, rather\nthan pollute their notion of the God of all by any such transgression,\"\nassigns as a reason \"that, as far as possible, they might not fall into\nthe notion that images were gods.\" St. Augustine, in replying to\nPorphyry, is more express; \"Those,\" he says, \"who are acquainted with\nOld and New Testament do not blame in the pagan religion the erection of\ntemples or institution of priesthoods, but that these are done to idols\nand devils. . . True religion blames in their superstitions, not so much\ntheir sacrificing, for the ancient saints sacrificed to the True God, as\ntheir sacrificing to false gods.\"[371:1] To Faustus the Manichee he\nanswers, \"We have some things in common with the gentiles, but our\npurpose is different.\"[371:2] And St. Jerome asks Vigilantius, who made\nobjections to lights and oil, \"Because we once worshipped idols, is that\na reason why we should not worship God, for fear of seeming to address\nhim with an honour like that which was paid to idols and then was\ndetestable, whereas this is paid to Martyrs and therefore to be\nreceived?\"[371:3]\n\n\n5.\n\nConfiding then in the power of Christianity to resist the infection of\nevil, and to transmute the very instruments and appendages of\ndemon-worship to an evangelical use, and feeling also that these usages\nhad originally come from primitive revelations and from the instinct of\nnature, though they had been corrupted; and that they must invent what\nthey needed, if they did not use what they found; and that they were\nmoreover possessed of the very archetypes, of which paganism attempted\nthe shadows; the rulers of the Church from early times were prepared,\nshould the occasion arise, to adopt, or imitate, or sanction the\nexisting rites and customs of the populace, as well as the philosophy of\nthe educated class.\n\nSt. Gregory Thaumaturgus supplies the first instance on record of this\neconomy. He was the Apostle of Pontus, and one of his methods for\ngoverning an untoward population is thus related by St. Gregory of\nNyssa. \"On returning,\" he says, \"to the city, after revisiting the\ncountry round about, he increased the devotion of the people everywhere\nby instituting festive meetings in honour of those who had fought for\nthe faith. The bodies of the Martyrs were distributed in different\nplaces, and the people assembled and made merry, as the year came round,\nholding festival in their honour. This indeed was a proof of his great\nwisdom . . . for, perceiving that the childish and untrained populace\nwere retained in their idolatrous error by creature comforts, in order\nthat what was of first importance should at any rate be secured to them,\nviz. that they should look to God in place of their vain rites, he\nallowed them to be merry, jovial, and gay at the monuments of the holy\nMartyrs, as if their behaviour would in time undergo a spontaneous\nchange into greater seriousness and strictness, since faith would lead\nthem to it; which has actually been the happy issue in that population,\nall carnal gratification having turned into a spiritual form of\nrejoicing.\"[372:1] There is no reason to suppose that the licence here\nspoken of passed the limits of harmless though rude festivity; for\nit is observable that the same reason, the need of holydays for the\nmultitude, is assigned by Origen, St. Gregory's master, to explain\nthe establishment of the Lord's Day also, and the Paschal and the\nPentecostal festivals, which have never been viewed as unlawful\ncompliances; and, moreover, the people were in fact eventually reclaimed\nfrom their gross habits by his indulgent policy, a successful issue\nwhich could not have followed an accommodation to what was sinful.\n\n\n6.\n\nThe example set by St. Gregory in an age of persecution was impetuously\nfollowed when a time of peace succeeded. In the course of the fourth\ncentury two movements or developments spread over the face of\nChristendom, with a rapidity characteristic of the Church; the one\nascetic, the other ritual or ceremonial. We are told in various ways by\nEusebius,[373:1] that Constantine, in order to recommend the new\nreligion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to\nwhich they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go\ninto a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made\nfamiliar to most of us. The use of temples, and these dedicated to\nparticular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees;\nincense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness;\nholy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars,\nprocessions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure,\nthe ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date,\nperhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison,[373:2] are all\nof pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church.\n\n\n7.\n\nThe eighth book of Theodoret's work _Adversus Gentiles_, which is \"On\nthe Martyrs,\" treats so largely on the subject, that we must content\nourselves with only a specimen of the illustrations which it affords, of\nthe principle acted on by St. Gregory Thaumaturgus. \"Time, which makes\nall things decay,\" he says, speaking of the Martyrs, \"has preserved\ntheir glory incorruptible. For as the noble souls of those conquerors\ntraverse the heavens, and take part in the spiritual choirs, so their\nbodies are not consigned to separate tombs, but cities and towns divide\nthem among them; and call them saviours of souls and bodies, and\nphysicians, and honour them as the protectors and guardians of cities,\nand, using their intervention with the Lord of all, obtain through them\ndivine gifts. And though each body be divided, the grace remains\nindivisible; and that small, that tiny particle is equal in power with\nthe Martyr that hath never been dispersed about. For the grace which is\never blossoming distributes the gifts, measuring the bounty according to\nthe faith of those who come for it.\n\n\"Yet not even this persuades you to celebrate their God, but ye laugh\nand mock at the honour which is paid them by all, and consider it a\npollution to approach their tombs. But though all men made a jest of\nthem, yet at least the Greeks could not decently complain, to whom\nbelonged libations and expiations, and heroes and demi-gods and deified\nmen. To Hercules, though a man . . . and compelled to serve Eurystheus,\nthey built temples, and constructed altars, and offered sacrifices in\nhonour, and allotted feasts; and that, not Spartans only and Athenians,\nbut the whole of Greece and the greater part of Europe.\"\n\n\n8.\n\nThen, after going through the history of many heathen deities, and\nreferring to the doctrine of the philosophers about great men, and to\nthe monuments of kings and emperors, all of which at once are witnesses\nand are inferior, to the greatness of the Martyrs, he continues: \"To\ntheir shrines we come, not once or twice a year or five times, but often\ndo we hold celebrations; often, nay daily, do we present hymns to their\nLord. And the sound in health ask for its preservation, and those who\nstruggle with any disease for a release from their sufferings; the\nchildless for children, the barren to become mothers, and those who\nenjoy the blessing for its safe keeping. Those too who are setting out\nfor a foreign land beg that the Martyrs may be their fellow-travellers\nand guides of the journey; those who have come safe back acknowledge the\ngrace, not coming to them as to gods, but beseeching them as divine men,\nand asking their intercession. And that they obtain what they ask in\nfaith, their dedications openly witness, in token of their cure. For\nsome bring likenesses of eyes, others of feet, others of hands; some of\ngold, others of silver; and their Lord accepts even the small and cheap,\nmeasuring the gift by the offerer's ability. . . . . Philosophers and\nOrators are consigned to oblivion, and kings and captains are not known\neven by name to the many; but the names of the Martyrs are better known\nto all than the names of those dearest to them. And they make a point of\ngiving them to their children, with a view of gaining for them thereby\nsafety and protection. . . . Nay, of the so-called gods, so utterly have\nthe sacred places been destroyed, that not even their outline remains,\nnor the shape of their altars is known to men of this generation, while\ntheir materials have been dedicated to the shrines of the Martyrs. For\nthe Lord has introduced His own dead in place of your gods; of the one\nHe hath made a riddance, on the other He hath conferred their honours.\nFor the Pandian festival, the Diasia, and the Dionysia, and your other\nsuch, we have the feasts of Peter, of Paul, of Thomas, of Sergius, of\nMarcellus, of Leontius, of Pantele\u00ebmon, of Antony, of Maurice, and of\nthe other Martyrs; and for that old-world procession, and indecency of\nwork and word, are held modest festivities, without intemperance, or\nrevel, or laughter, but with divine hymns, and attendance on holy\ndiscourses and prayers, adorned with laudable tears.\" This was the view\nof the \"Evidences of Christianity\" which a Bishop of the fifth century\noffered for the conversion of unbelievers.\n\n\n9.\n\nThe introduction of Images was still later, and met with more opposition\nin the West than in the East. It is grounded on the same great principle\nwhich I am illustrating; and as I have given extracts from Theodoret for\nthe developments of the fourth and fifth centuries, so will I now cite\nSt. John Damascene in defence of the further developments of the eighth.\n\n\"As to the passages you adduce,\" he says to his opponents, \"they\nabominate not the worship paid to our Images, but that of the Greeks,\nwho made them gods. It needs not therefore, because of the absurd use of\nthe Greeks, to abolish our use which is so pious. Enchanters and wizards\nuse adjurations, so does the Church over its Catechumens; but they\ninvoke devils, and she invokes God against devils. Greeks dedicate\nimages to devils, and call them gods; but we to True God Incarnate, and\nto God's servants and friends, who drive away the troops of\ndevils.\"[376:1] Again, \"As the holy Fathers overthrew the temples and\nshrines of the devils, and raised in their places shrines in the names\nof Saints and we worship them, so also they overthrew the images of the\ndevils, and in their stead raised images of Christ, and God's Mother,\nand the Saints. And under the Old Covenant, Israel neither raised\ntemples in the name of men, nor was memory of man made a festival; for,\nas yet, man's nature was under a curse, and death was condemnation, and\ntherefore was lamented, and a corpse was reckoned unclean and he who\ntouched it; but now that the Godhead has been combined with our nature,\nas some life-giving and saving medicine, our nature has been glorified\nand is trans-elemented into incorruption. Wherefore the death of Saints\nis made a feast, and temples are raised to them, and Images are\npainted. . . For the Image is a triumph, and a manifestation, and a\nmonument in memory of the victory of those who have done nobly and\nexcelled, and of the shame of the devils defeated and overthrown.\" Once\nmore, \"If because of the Law thou dost forbid Images, you will soon have\nto sabbatize and be circumcised, for these ordinances the Law commands\nas indispensable; nay, to observe the whole law, and not to keep the\nfestival of the Lord's Pascha out of Jerusalem: but know that if you\nkeep the Law, Christ hath profited you nothing. . . . . But away with\nthis, for whoever of you are justified in the Law have fallen from\ngrace.\"[377:1]\n\n\n10.\n\nIt is quite consistent with the tenor of these remarks to observe, or to\nallow, that real superstitions have sometimes obtained in parts of\nChristendom from its intercourse with the heathen; or have even been\nadmitted, or all but admitted, though commonly resisted strenuously, by\nauthorities in the Church, in consequence of the resemblance which\nexists between the heathen rites and certain portions of her ritual. As\nphilosophy has at times corrupted her divines, so has paganism\ncorrupted her worshippers; and as the more intellectual have been\ninvolved in heresy, so have the ignorant been corrupted by superstition.\nThus St. Chrysostom is vehement against the superstitious usages which\nJews and Gentiles were introducing among Christians at Antioch and\nConstantinople. \"What shall we say,\" he asks in one place, \"about the\namulets and bells which are hung upon the hands, and the scarlet woof,\nand other things full of such extreme folly; when they ought to invest\nthe child with nothing else save the protection of the Cross? But now\nthat is despised which hath converted the whole world, and given the\nsore wound to the devil, and overthrown all his power; while the thread,\nand the woof, and the other amulets of that kind, are entrusted with the\nchild's safety.\" After mentioning further superstitions, he proceeds,\n\"Now that among Greeks such things should be done, is no wonder; but\namong the worshippers of the Cross, and partakers in unspeakable\nmysteries, and professors of such morality, that such unseemliness\nshould prevail, this is especially to be deplored again and\nagain.\"[378:1]\n\nAnd in like manner St. Augustine suppressed the feasts called Agap\u00e6,\nwhich had been allowed the African Christians on their first conversion.\n\"It is time,\" he says, \"for men who dare not deny that they are\nChristians, to begin to live according to the will of Christ, and, now\nbeing Christians, to reject what was only allowed that they might become\nChristians.\" The people objected the example of the Vatican Church at\nRome, where such feasts were observed every day; St. Augustine answered,\n\"I have heard that it has been often prohibited, but the place is far\noff from the Bishop's abode (the Lateran), and in so large a city there\nis a multitude of carnal persons, especially of strangers who resort\ndaily thither.\"[378:2] And in like manner it certainly is possible that\nthe consciousness of the sanctifying power in Christianity may have\nacted as a temptation to sins, whether of deceit or of violence; as if\nthe habit or state of grace destroyed the sinfulness of certain acts, or\nas if the end justified the means.\n\n\n11.\n\nIt is but enunciating in other words the principle we are tracing, to\nsay that the Church has been entrusted with the dispensation of grace.\nFor if she can convert heathen appointments into spiritual rites and\nusages, what is this but to be in possession of a treasure, and to\nexercise a discretionary power in its application? Hence there has been\nfrom the first much variety and change, in the Sacramental acts and\ninstruments which she has used. While the Eastern and African Churches\nbaptized heretics on their reconciliation, the Church of Rome, as the\nCatholic Church since, maintained that imposition of hands was\nsufficient, if their prior baptism had been formally correct. The\nceremony of imposition of hands was used on various occasions with a\ndistinct meaning; at the rite of Catechumens, on admitting heretics, in\nConfirmation, in Ordination, in Benediction. Baptism was sometimes\nadministered by immersion, sometimes by infusion. Infant Baptism was not\nat first enforced as afterwards. Children or even infants were admitted\nto the Eucharist in the African Church and the rest of the West, as now\nin the Greek. Oil had various uses, as for healing the sick, or as in\nthe rite of extreme unction. Indulgences in works or in periods of\npenance, had a different meaning, according to circumstances. In like\nmanner the Sign of the Cross was one of the earliest means of grace;\nthen holy seasons, and holy places, and pilgrimage to them; holy water;\nprescribed prayers, or other observances; garments, as the scapular,\nand sacred vestments; the rosary; the crucifix. And for some wise\npurpose doubtless, such as that of showing the power of the Church in\nthe dispensation of divine grace, as well as the perfection and\nspirituality of the Eucharistic Presence, the Chalice is in the West\nwithheld from all but the celebrant in the Holy Eucharist.\n\n\n12.\n\nSince it has been represented as if the power of assimilation, spoken of\nin this Chapter, is in my meaning nothing more than a mere accretion of\ndoctrines or rites from without, I am led to quote the following passage\nin further illustration of it from my \"Essays,\" vol. ii. p. 231:--\n\n     \"The phenomenon, admitted on all hands, is this:--That great\n     portion of what is generally received as Christian truth is,\n     in its rudiments or in its separate parts, to be found in\n     heathen philosophies and religions. For instance, the doctrine\n     of a Trinity is found both in the East and in the West; so is\n     the ceremony of washing; so is the rite of sacrifice. The\n     doctrine of the Divine Word is Platonic; the doctrine of the\n     Incarnation is Indian; of a divine kingdom is Judaic; of\n     Angels and demons is Magian; the connexion of sin with the\n     body is Gnostic; celibacy is known to Bonze and Talapoin; a\n     sacerdotal order is Egyptian; the idea of a new birth is\n     Chinese and Eleusinian; belief in sacramental virtue is\n     Pythagorean; and honours to the dead are a polytheism. Such is\n     the general nature of the fact before us; Mr. Milman argues\n     from it,--'These things are in heathenism, therefore they are\n     not Christian:' we, on the contrary, prefer to say, 'these\n     things are in Christianity, therefore they are not heathen.'\n     That is, we prefer to say, and we think that Scripture bears\n     us out in saying, that from the beginning the Moral Governor\n     of the world has scattered the seeds of truth far and wide\n     over its extent; that these have variously taken root, and\n     grown up as in the wilderness, wild plants indeed but living;\n     and hence that, as the inferior animals have tokens of an\n     immaterial principle in them, yet have not souls, so the\n     philosophies and religions of men have their life in certain\n     true ideas, though they are not directly divine. What man is\n     amid the brute creation, such is the Church among the schools\n     of the world; and as Adam gave names to the animals about him,\n     so has the Church from the first looked round upon the earth,\n     noting and visiting the doctrines she found there. She began\n     in Chaldea, and then sojourned among the Canaanites, and went\n     down into Egypt, and thence passed into Arabia, till she\n     rested in her own land. Next she encountered the merchants of\n     Tyre, and the wisdom of the East country, and the luxury of\n     Sheba. Then she was carried away to Babylon, and wandered to\n     the schools of Greece. And wherever she went, in trouble or in\n     triumph, still she was a living spirit, the mind and voice of\n     the Most High; 'sitting in the midst of the doctors, both\n     hearing them and asking them questions;' claiming to herself\n     what they said rightly, correcting their errors, supplying\n     their defects, completing their beginnings, expanding their\n     surmises, and thus gradually by means of them enlarging the\n     range and refining the sense of her own teaching. So far then\n     from her creed being of doubtful credit because it resembles\n     foreign theologies, we even hold that one special way in which\n     Providence has imparted divine knowledge to us has been by\n     enabling her to draw and collect it together out of the world,\n     and, in this sense, as in others, to 'suck the milk of the\n     Gentiles and to suck the breast of kings.'\n\n     \"How far in fact this process has gone, is a question of\n     history; and we believe it has before now been grossly\n     exaggerated and misrepresented by those who, like Mr. Milman,\n     have thought that its existence told against Catholic\n     doctrine; but so little antecedent difficulty have we in the\n     matter, that we could readily grant, unless it were a question\n     of fact not of theory, that Balaam was an Eastern sage, or a\n     Sibyl was inspired, or Solomon learnt of the sons of Mahol, or\n     Moses was a scholar of the Egyptian hierophants. We are not\n     distressed to be told that the doctrine of the angelic host\n     came from Babylon, while we know that they did sing at the\n     Nativity; nor that the vision of a Mediator is in Philo, if in\n     very deed He died for us on Calvary. Nor are we afraid to\n     allow, that, even after His coming, the Church has been a\n     treasure-house, giving forth things old and new, casting the\n     gold of fresh tributaries into her refiner's fire, or stamping\n     upon her own, as time required it, a deeper impress of her\n     Master's image.\n\n     \"The distinction between these two theories is broad and\n     obvious. The advocates of the one imply that Revelation was a\n     single, entire, solitary act, or nearly so, introducing a\n     certain message; whereas we, who maintain the other, consider\n     that Divine teaching has been in fact, what the analogy of\n     nature would lead us to expect, 'at sundry times and in divers\n     manners,' various, complex, progressive, and supplemental of\n     itself. We consider the Christian doctrine, when analyzed, to\n     appear, like the human frame, 'fearfully and wonderfully\n     made;' but they think it some one tenet or certain principles\n     given out at one time in their fulness, without gradual\n     enlargement before Christ's coming or elucidation afterwards.\n     They cast off all that they also find in Pharisee or heathen;\n     we conceive that the Church, like Aaron's rod, devours the\n     serpents of the magicians. They are ever hunting for a\n     fabulous primitive simplicity; we repose in Catholic fulness.\n     They seek what never has been found; we accept and use what\n     even they acknowledge to be a substance. They are driven to\n     maintain, on their part, that the Church's doctrine was never\n     pure; we say that it can never be corrupt. We consider that a\n     divine promise keeps the Church Catholic from doctrinal\n     corruption; but on what promise, or on what encouragement,\n     they are seeking for their visionary purity does not appear.\"\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[359:1] Justin, Apol. ii. 10, Tryph. 121.\n\n[360:1] Europ. Civ. p. 56, tr.\n\n[360:2] p. 58.\n\n[363:1] De Virg. Vol. 1.\n\n[364:1] Hist. t. 3, p. 312.\n\n[364:2] Mem. Eccl. t. 6, p. 83.\n\n[366:1] Galland. t. 3, p. 673, note 3.\n\n[366:2] Vid. Preface to Oxford Transl. of Tertullian, where the\ncharacter of his mind is admirably drawn out.\n\n[369:1] Infra, pp. 411-415, &c.\n\n[370:1] Orig. c. Cels. vii. 63, viii. 17 (vid. not. Bened. in loc.),\nAugust. Ep. 102, 16; Minuc. F. 10, and 32; Tertull. de Orat. fin. ad\nUxor. i. fin. Euseb. Hist. viii. 2; Clem. Strom. vii. 6, p. 846.\n\n[370:2] Tertull. de Cor. 3; Just. Apol. i. 65; Minuc. F. 20; Julian ap.\nCyr. vi. p. 194, Spanh.\n\n[371:1] Epp. 102, 18.\n\n[371:2] Contr. Faust. 20, 23.\n\n[371:3] Lact. ii. 15, 16; Tertull. Spect. 12; Origen, c. Cels. vii.\n64-66, August. Ep. 102, 18; Contr. Faust. xx. 23; Hieron. c. Vigil. 8.\n\n[372:1] Vit. Thaum. p. 1006.\n\n[373:1] V. Const. iii. 1, iv. 23, &c.\n\n[373:2] According to Dr. E. D. Clarke, Travels, vol. i. p. 352.\n\n[376:1] De Imag. i. 24.\n\n[377:1] Ibid. ii. 11. 14.\n\n[378:1] Hom. xii. in Cor. 1, Oxf. Tr.\n\n[378:2] Fleury, Hist. xx. 11, Oxf. Tr.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nAPPLICATION OF THE FOURTH NOTE OF A TRUE DEVELOPMENT.\n\n\nLOGICAL SEQUENCE.\n\nLogical Sequence has been set down above as a fourth test of fidelity in\ndevelopment, and shall now be briefly illustrated in the history of\nChristian doctrine. That is, I mean to give instances of one doctrine\nleading to another; so that, if the former be admitted, the latter can\nhardly be denied, and the latter can hardly be called a corruption\nwithout taking exception to the former. And I use \"logical sequence\" in\ncontrast both to that process of incorporation and assimilation which\nwas last under review, and also to that principle of science, which has\nput into order and defended the developments after they have been made.\nAccordingly it will include any progress of the mind from one judgment\nto another, as, for instance, by way of moral fitness, which may not\nadmit of analysis into premiss and conclusion. Thus St. Peter argued in\nthe case of Cornelius and his friends, \"Can any man forbid water that\nthese should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well\nas we?\"\n\nSuch is the series of doctrinal truths, which start from the dogma of\nour Lord's Divinity, and again from such texts of Scripture as \"Thou art\nPeter,\" and which I should have introduced here, had I not already used\nthem for a previous purpose in the Fourth Chapter. I shall confine\nmyself then for an example to the instance of the developments which\nfollow on the consideration of sin after Baptism, a subject which was\ntouched upon in the same Chapter.\n\n\n\u00a7 1. _Pardons._\n\nIt is not necessary here to enlarge on the benefits which the primitive\nChurch held to be conveyed to the soul by means of the Sacrament of\nBaptism. Its distinguishing gift, which is in point to mention, was the\nplenary forgiveness of sins past. It was also held that the Sacrament\ncould not be repeated. The question immediately followed, how, since\nthere was but \"one Baptism for the remission of sins,\" the guilt of such\nsin was to be removed as was incurred after its administration. There\nmust be some provision in the revealed system for so obvious a need.\nWhat could be done for those who had received the one remission of sins,\nand had sinned since? Some who thought upon the subject appear to have\nconceived that the Church was empowered to grant one, and one only,\nreconciliation after grievous offences. Three sins seemed to many, at\nleast in the West, to be irremissible, idolatry, murder, and adultery.\nBut such a system of Church discipline, however suited to a small\ncommunity, and even expedient in a time of persecution, could not exist\nin Christianity, as it spread into the _orbis terrarum_, and gathered\nlike a net of every kind. A more indulgent rule gradually gained ground;\nyet the Spanish Church adhered to the ancient even in the fourth\ncentury, and a portion of the African in the third, and in the remaining\nportion there was a relaxation only as regards the crime of\nincontinence.\n\n\n2.\n\nMeanwhile a protest was made against the growing innovation: at the\nbeginning of the third century Montanus, who was a zealot for the more\nprimitive rule, shrank from the laxity, as he considered it, of the\nAsian Churches;[385:1] as, in a different subject-matter, Jovinian and\nVigilantius were offended at the developments in divine worship in the\ncentury which followed. The Montanists had recourse to the See of Rome,\nand at first with some appearance of success. Again, in Africa, where\nthere had been in the first instance a schism headed by Felicissimus in\nfavour of a milder discipline than St. Cyprian approved, a far more\nformidable stand was soon made in favour of Antiquity, headed by\nNovatus, who originally had been of the party of Felicissimus. This was\ntaken up at Rome by Novatian, who professed to adhere to the original,\nor at least the primitive rule of the Church, viz. that those who had\nonce fallen from the faith could in no case be received again.[385:2]\nThe controversy seems to have found the following issue,--whether the\nChurch had the _means_ of pardoning sins committed after Baptism, which\nthe Novatians, at least practically, denied. \"It is fitting,\" says the\nNovatian Acesius, \"to exhort those who have sinned after Baptism to\nrepentance, but to expect hope of remission, not from the priests, but\nfrom God, who hath power to forgive sins.\"[385:3] The schism spread into\nthe East, and led to the appointment of a penitentiary priest in the\nCatholic Churches. By the end of the third century as many as four\ndegrees of penance were appointed, through which offenders had to pass\nin order to a reconciliation.\n\n\n\u00a7 2. _Penances._\n\nThe length and severity of the penance varied with times and places.\nSometimes, as we have seen, it lasted, in the case of grave offences,\nthrough life and on to death, without any reconciliation; at other times\nit ended only in the _viaticum_; and if, after reconciliation they did\nnot die, their ordinary penance was still binding on them either for\nlife or for a certain time. In other cases it lasted ten, fifteen, or\ntwenty years. But in all cases, from the first, the Bishop had the power\nof shortening it, and of altering the nature and quality of the\npunishment. Thus in the instance of the Emperor Theodosius, whom St.\nAmbrose shut out from communion for the massacre at Thessalonica,\n\"according to the mildest rules of ecclesiastical discipline, which were\nestablished in the fourth century,\" says Gibbon, \"the crime of homicide\nwas expiated by the penitence of twenty years; and as it was impossible,\nin the period of human life, to purge the accumulated guilt of the\nmassacre . . . the murderer should have been excluded from the holy\ncommunion till the hour of his death.\" He goes on to say that the public\nedification which resulted from the humiliation of so illustrious a\npenitent was a reason for abridging the punishment. \"It was sufficient\nthat the Emperor of the Romans, stripped of the ensigns of royalty,\nshould appear in a mournful and suppliant posture, and that, in the\nmidst of the Church of Milan, he should humbly solicit with sighs and\ntears the pardon of his sins.\" His penance was shortened to an interval\nof about eight months. Hence arose the phrase of a \"_poenitentia\nlegitima, plena, et justa_;\" which signifies a penance sufficient,\nperhaps in length of time, perhaps in intensity of punishment.\n\n\n\u00a7 3. _Satisfactions._\n\nHere a serious question presented itself to the minds of Christians,\nwhich was now to be wrought out:--Were these punishments merely signs\nof contrition, or in any sense satisfactions for sin? If the former,\nthey might be absolutely remitted at the discretion of the Church, as\nsoon as true repentance was discovered; the end had then been attained,\nand nothing more was necessary. Thus St. Chrysostom says in one of his\nHomilies,[387:1] \"I require not continuance of time, but the correction\nof the soul. Show your contrition, show your reformation, and all is\ndone.\" Yet, though there might be a reason of the moment for shortening\nthe penance imposed by the Church, this does not at all decide the\nquestion whether that ecclesiastical penance be not part of an expiation\nmade to the Almighty Judge for the sin; and supposing this really to be\nthe case, the question follows, How is the complement of that\nsatisfaction to be wrought out, which on just grounds of present\nexpedience has been suspended by the Church now?\n\nAs to this question, it cannot be doubted that the Fathers considered\npenance as not a mere expression of contrition, but as an act done\ndirectly towards God and a means of averting His anger. \"If the sinner\nspare not himself, he will be spared by God,\" says the writer who goes\nunder the name of St. Ambrose. \"Let him lie in sackcloth, and by the\nausterity of his life make amends for the offence of his past\npleasures,\" says St. Jerome. \"As we have sinned greatly,\" says St.\nCyprian, \"let us weep greatly; for a deep wound diligent and long\ntending must not be wanting, the repentance must not fall short of the\noffence.\" \"Take heed to thyself,\" says St. Basil, \"that, in proportion\nto the fault, thou admit also the restoration from the remedy.\"[387:2]\nIf so, the question follows which was above contemplated,--if in\nconsequence of death, or in the exercise of the Church's discretion,\nthe \"_plena poenitentia_\" is not accomplished in its ecclesiastical\nshape, how and when will the residue be exacted?\n\n\n\u00a7 4. _Purgatory._\n\nClement of Alexandria answers this particular question very distinctly,\naccording to Bishop Kaye, though not in some other points expressing\nhimself conformably to the doctrine afterwards received. \"Clement,\" says\nthat author, \"distinguishes between sins committed before and after\nbaptism: the former are remitted at baptism; the latter are purged by\ndiscipline. . . . The necessity of this purifying discipline is such,\nthat if it does not take place in this life, it must after death, and is\nthen to be effected by fire, not by a destructive, but a discriminating\nfire, pervading the soul which passes through it.\"[388:1]\n\nThere is a celebrated passage in St. Cyprian, on the subject of the\npunishment of lapsed Christians, which certainly seems to express the\nsame doctrine. \"St. Cyprian is arguing in favour of readmitting the\nlapsed, when penitent; and his argument seems to be that it does not\nfollow that we absolve them simply because we simply restore them to the\nChurch. He writes thus to Antonian: 'It is one thing to stand for\npardon, another to arrive at glory; one to be sent to prison (_missum in\ncarcerem_) and not to go out till the last farthing be paid, another to\nreceive at once the reward of faith and virtue; one thing to be\ntormented for sin in long pain, and so to be cleansed and purged a long\nwhile by fire (_purgari diu igne_), another to be washed from all sin in\nmartyrdom; one thing, in short, to wait for the Lord's sentence in the\nDay of Judgment, another at once to be crowned by Him.' Some understand\nthis passage to refer to the penitential discipline of the Church which\nwas imposed on the penitent; and, as far as the context goes, certainly\nno sense could be more apposite. Yet . . . the words in themselves seem\nto go beyond any mere ecclesiastical, though virtually divine censure;\nespecially '_missum in carcerem_' and '_purgari diu igne_.'\"[389:1]\n\n\n2.\n\nThe Acts of the Martyrs St. Perpetua and St. Felicitas, which are prior\nto St. Cyprian, confirm this interpretation. In the course of the\nnarrative, St. Perpetua prays for her brother Dinocrates, who had died\nat the age of seven; and has a vision of a dark place, and next of a\npool of water, which he was not tall enough to reach. She goes on\npraying; and in a second vision the water descended to him, and he was\nable to drink, and went to play as children use. \"Then I knew,\" she\nsays, \"that he was translated from his place of punishment.\"[389:2]\n\nThe prayers in the Eucharistic Service for the faithful departed,\ninculcate, at least according to the belief of the fourth century, the\nsame doctrine, that the sins of accepted and elect souls, which were not\nexpiated here, would receive punishment hereafter. Certainly such was\nSt. Cyril's belief: \"I know that many say,\" he observes, \"what is a soul\nprofited, which departs from this world either with sins or without\nsins, if it be commemorated in the [Eucharistic] Prayer? Now, surely, if\nwhen a king had banished certain who had given him offence, their\nconnexions should weave a crown and offer it to him on behalf of those\nunder his vengeance, would he not grant a respite to their punishments?\nIn the same way we, when we offer to Him our supplications for those who\nhave fallen asleep, though they be sinners, weave no crown, but offer up\nChrist, sacrificed for our sins, propitiating our merciful God, both\nfor them and for ourselves.\"[390:1]\n\n\n3.\n\nThus we see how, as time went on, the doctrine of Purgatory was brought\nhome to the minds of the faithful as a portion or form of Penance due\nfor post-baptismal sin. And thus the apprehension of this doctrine and\nthe practice of Infant Baptism would grow into general reception\ntogether. Cardinal Fisher gives another reason for Purgatory being then\ndeveloped out of earlier points of faith. He says, \"Faith, whether in\nPurgatory or in Indulgences, was not so necessary in the Primitive\nChurch as now. For then love so burned, that every one was ready to meet\ndeath for Christ. Crimes were rare, and such as occurred were avenged by\nthe great severity of the Canons.\"[390:2]\n\n\n4.\n\nAn author, who quotes this passage, analyzes the circumstances and the\nreflections which prepared the Christian mind for the doctrine, when it\nwas first insisted on, and his remarks with a few corrections may be\naccepted here. \"Most men,\" he says, \"to our apprehensions, are too\nlittle formed in religious habits either for heaven or for hell, yet\nthere is no middle state when Christ comes in judgment. In consequence\nit is obvious to have recourse to the interval before His coming, as a\ntime during which this incompleteness may be remedied; as a season, not\nof changing the spiritual bent and character of the soul departed,\nwhatever that be, for probation ends with mortal life, but of developing\nit in a more determinate form, whether of good or of evil. Again, when\nthe mind once allows itself to speculate, it will discern in such a\nprovision a means, whereby those, who, not without true faith at bottom,\nyet have committed great crimes, or those who have been carried off in\nyouth while still undecided, or who die after a barren though not an\nimmoral or scandalous life, may receive such chastisement as may prepare\nthem for heaven, and render it consistent with God's justice to admit\nthem thither. Again, the inequality of the sufferings of Christians in\nthis life, compared one with another, leads the mind to the same\nspeculations; the intense suffering, for instance, which some men\nundergo on their death-bed, seeming as if but an anticipation in their\ncase of what comes after death upon others, who, without greater claim\non God's forbearance, live without chastisement, and die easily. The\nmind will inevitably dwell upon such thoughts, unless it has been taught\nto subdue them by education or by the fear or the experience of their\ndangerousness.\n\n\n5.\n\n\"Various suppositions have, accordingly, been made, as pure\nsuppositions, as mere specimens of the capabilities (if one may so\nspeak) of the Divine Dispensation, as efforts of the mind reaching\nforward and venturing beyond its depth into the abyss of the Divine\nCounsels. If one supposition could be hazarded, sufficient to solve the\nproblem, the existence of ten thousand others is conceivable, unless\nindeed the resources of God's Providence are exactly commensurate with\nman's discernment of them. Religious men, amid these searchings of\nheart, have naturally gone to Scripture for relief; to see if the\ninspired word anywhere gave them any clue for their inquiries. And from\nwhat was there found, and from the speculations of reason upon it,\nvarious notions have been hazarded at different times; for instance,\nthat there is a certain momentary ordeal to be undergone by all men\nafter this life, more or less severe according to their spiritual\nstate; or that certain gross sins in good men will be thus visited, or\ntheir lighter failings and habitual imperfections; or that the very\nsight of Divine Perfection in the invisible world will be in itself a\npain, while it constitutes the purification of the imperfect but\nbelieving soul; or that, happiness admitting of various degrees of\nintensity, penitents late in life may sink for ever into a state,\nblissful as far as it goes, but more or less approaching to\nunconsciousness; and infants dying after baptism may be as gems paving\nthe courts of heaven, or as the living wheels of the Prophet's vision;\nwhile matured Saints may excel in capacity of bliss, as well as in\ndignity, the highest Archangels.\n\n\n6.\n\n\"Now, as to the punishments and satisfactions for sin, the texts to\nwhich the minds of the early Christians seem to have been principally\ndrawn, and from which they ventured to argue in behalf of these vague\nnotions, were these two: 'The fire shall try every man's work,' &c., and\n'He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.' These\npassages, with which many more were found to accord, directed their\nthoughts one way, as making mention of 'fire,' whatever was meant by the\nword, as the instrument of trial and purification; and that, at some\ntime between the present time and the Judgment, or at the Judgment.\n\n\"As the doctrine, thus suggested by certain striking texts, grew in\npopularity and definiteness, and verged towards its present Roman form,\nit seemed a key to many others. Great portions of the books of Psalms,\nJob, and the Lamentations, which express the feelings of religious men\nunder suffering, would powerfully recommend it by the forcible and most\naffecting and awful meaning which they received from it. When this was\nonce suggested, all other meanings would seem tame and inadequate.\n\n\"To these may be added various passages from the Prophets, as that in\nthe beginning of the third chapter of Malachi, which speaks of fire as\nthe instrument of judgment and purification, when Christ comes to visit\nHis Church.\n\n\"Moreover, there were other texts of obscure and indeterminate bearing,\nwhich seemed on this hypothesis to receive a profitable meaning; such as\nour Lord's words in the Sermon on the Mount, 'Verily, I say unto thee,\nthou shalt by no means come out thence till thou hast paid the uttermost\nfarthing;' and St. John's expression in the Apocalypse, that 'no man in\nheaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the\nbook.'\"[393:1]\n\n\n7.\n\nWhen then an answer had to be made to the question, how is\npost-baptismal sin to be remitted, there was an abundance of passages in\nScripture to make easy to the faith of the inquirer the definitive\ndecision of the Church.\n\n\n\u00a7 5. _Meritorious Works._\n\nThe doctrine of post-baptismal sin, especially when realized in the\ndoctrine of Purgatory, leads the inquirer to fresh developments beyond\nitself. Its effect is to convert a Scripture statement, which might seem\nonly of temporary application, into a universal and perpetual truth.\nWhen St. Paul and St. Barnabas would \"confirm the souls of the\ndisciples,\" they taught them \"that we must through much tribulation\nenter into the kingdom of God.\" It is obvious what very practical\nresults would follow on such an announcement, in the instance of those\nwho simply accepted the Apostolic decision; and in like manner a\nconviction that sin must have its punishment, here or hereafter, and\nthat we all must suffer, how overpowering will be its effect, what a new\nlight does it cast on the history of the soul, what a change does it\nmake in our judgment of the external world, what a reversal of our\nnatural wishes and aims for the future! Is a doctrine conceivable which\nwould so elevate the mind above this present state, and teach it so\nsuccessfully to dare difficult things, and to be reckless of danger and\npain? He who believes that suffer he must, and that delayed punishment\nmay be the greater, will be above the world, will admire nothing, fear\nnothing, desire nothing. He has within his breast a source of greatness,\nself-denial, heroism. This is the secret spring of strenuous efforts and\npersevering toil, of the sacrifice of fortune, friends, ease,\nreputation, happiness. There is, it is true, a higher class of motives\nwhich will be felt by the Saint; who will do from love what all\nChristians, who act acceptably, do from faith. And, moreover, the\nordinary measures of charity which Christians possess, suffice for\nsecuring such respectable attention to religious duties as the routine\nnecessities of the Church require. But if we would raise an army of\ndevoted men to resist the world, to oppose sin and error, to relieve\nmisery, or to propagate the truth, we must be provided with motives\nwhich keenly affect the many. Christian love is too rare a gift,\nphilanthropy is too weak a material, for the occasion. Nor is there an\ninfluence to be found to suit our purpose, besides this solemn\nconviction, which arises out of the very rudiments of Christian\ntheology, and is taught by its most ancient masters,--this sense of the\nawfulness of post-baptismal sin. It is in vain to look out for\nmissionaries for China or Africa, or evangelists for our great towns, or\nChristian attendants on the sick, or teachers of the ignorant, on such a\nscale of numbers as the need requires, without the doctrine of\nPurgatory. For thus the sins of youth are turned to account by the\nprofitable penance of manhood; and terrors, which the philosopher scorns\nin the individual, become the benefactors and earn the gratitude of\nnations.\n\n\n\u00a7 6. _The Monastic Rule._\n\nBut there is one form of Penance which has been more prevalent and\nuniform than any other, out of which the forms just noticed have grown,\nor on which they have been engrafted,--the Monastic Rule. In the first\nages, the doctrine of the punishments of sin, whether in this world or\nin the next, was little called for. The rigid discipline of the infant\nChurch was the preventive of greater offences, and its persecutions the\npenance of their commission; but when the Canons were relaxed and\nconfessorship ceased, then some substitute was needed, and such was\nMonachism, being at once a sort of continuation of primeval innocence,\nand a school of self-chastisement. And, as it is a great principle in\neconomical and political science that everything should be turned to\naccount, and there should be no waste, so, in the instance of\nChristianity, the penitential observances of individuals, which were\nnecessarily on a large scale as its professors increased, took the form\nof works, whether for the defence of the Church, or the spiritual and\ntemporal good of mankind.\n\n\n2.\n\nIn no aspect of the Divine system do we see more striking developments\nthan in the successive fortunes of Monachism. Little did the youth\nAntony foresee, when he set off to fight the evil one in the wilderness,\nwhat a sublime and various history he was opening, a history which had\nits first developments even in his own lifetime. He was himself a\nhermit in the desert; but when others followed his example, he was\nobliged to give them guidance, and thus he found himself, by degrees, at\nthe head of a large family of solitaries, five thousand of whom were\nscattered in the district of Nitria alone. He lived to see a second\nstage in the development; the huts in which they lived were brought\ntogether, sometimes round a church, and a sort of subordinate community,\nor college, formed among certain individuals of their number. St.\nPachomius was the first who imposed a general rule of discipline upon\nthe brethren, gave them a common dress, and set before them the objects\nto which the religious life was dedicated. Manual labour, study,\ndevotion, bodily mortification, were now their peculiarities; and the\ninstitution, thus defined, spread and established itself through Eastern\nand Western Christendom.\n\nThe penitential character of Monachism is not prominent in St. Antony,\nthough it is distinctly noticed by Pliny in his description of the\nEssenes of the Dead Sea, who anticipated the monastic life at the rise\nof Christianity. In St. Basil, however, it becomes a distinguishing\nfeature;--so much so that the monastic profession was made a\ndisqualification for the pastoral office,[396:1] and in theory involved\nan absolute separation from mankind; though in St. Basil's, as well as\nSt. Antony's disciples, it performed the office of resisting heresy.\n\nNext, the monasteries, which in their ecclesiastical capacity had been\nat first separate churches under a Presbyter or Abbot, became schools\nfor the education of the clergy.[396:2]\n\n\n3.\n\nCenturies passed, and after many extravagant shapes of the institution,\nand much wildness and insubordination in its members, a new development\ntook place under St. Benedict. Revising and digesting the provisions of\nSt. Antony, St. Pachomius, and St. Basil, he bound together his monks by\na perpetual vow, brought them into the cloister, united the separate\nconvents into one Order,[397:1] and added objects of an ecclesiastical\nand civil nature to that of personal edification. Of these objects,\nagriculture seemed to St. Benedict himself of first importance; but in a\nvery short time it was superseded by study and education, and the\nmonasteries of the following centuries became the schools and libraries,\nand the monks the chroniclers and copyists, of a dark period. Centuries\nlater, the Benedictine Order was divided into separate Congregations,\nand propagated in separate monastic bodies. The Congregation of Cluni\nwas the most celebrated of the former; and of the latter, the hermit\norder of the Camaldoli and the agricultural Cistercians.\n\n\n4.\n\nBoth a unity and an originality are observable in the successive phases\nunder which Monachism has shown itself; and while its developments bring\nit more and more into the ecclesiastical system, and subordinate it to\nthe governing power, they are true to their first idea, and spring fresh\nand fresh from the parent stock, which from time immemorial had thriven\nin Syria and Egypt. The sheepskin and desert of St. Antony did but\nrevive \"the mantle\"[397:2] and the mountain of the first Carmelite, and\nSt. Basil's penitential exercises had already been practised by the\nTherapeut\u00e6. In like manner the Congregational principle, which is\nascribed to St. Benedict, had been anticipated by St. Antony and St.\nPachomius; and after centuries of disorder, another function of early\nMonachism, for which there had been little call for centuries, the\ndefence of Catholic truth, was exercised with singular success by the\nrival orders of Dominicans and Franciscans.\n\nSt. Benedict had come as if to preserve a principle of civilization, and\na refuge for learning, at a time when the old framework of society was\nfalling, and new political creations were taking their place. And when\nthe young intellect within them began to stir, and a change of another\nkind discovered itself, then appeared St. Francis and St. Dominic to\nteach and chastise it; and in proportion as Monachism assumed this\npublic office, so did the principle of penance, which had been the chief\ncharacteristic of its earlier forms, hold a less prominent place. The\nTertiaries indeed, or members of the third order of St. Francis and St.\nDominic, were penitents; but the friar himself, instead of a penitent,\nwas made a priest, and was allowed to quit cloister. Nay, they assumed\nthe character of what may be called an Ecumenical Order, as being\nsupported by begging, not by endowments, and being under the\njurisdiction, not of the local Bishop, but of the Holy See. The\nDominicans too came forward especially as a learned body, and as\nentrusted with the office of preaching, at a time when the mind of\nEurope seemed to be developing into infidelity. They filled the chairs\nat the Universities, while the strength of the Franciscans lay among the\nlower orders.\n\n\n5.\n\nAt length, in the last era of ecclesiastical revolution, another\nprinciple of early Monachism, which had been but partially developed,\nwas brought out into singular prominence in the history of the Jesuits.\n\"Obedience,\" said an ancient abbot, \"is a monk's service, with which he\nshall be heard in prayer, and shall stand with confidence by the\nCrucified, for so the Lord came to the cross, being made obedient even\nunto death;\"[399:1] but it was reserved for modern times to furnish the\nperfect illustration of this virtue, and to receive the full blessing\nwhich follows it. The great Society, which bears no earthly name, still\nmore secular in its organization, and still more simply dependent on the\nSee of St. Peter, has been still more distinguished than any Order\nbefore it for the rule of obedience, while it has compensated the danger\nof its free intercourse with the world by its scientific adherence to\ndevotional exercises. The hermitage, the cloister, the inquisitor, and\nthe friar were suited to other states of society; with the Jesuits, as\nwell as with the religious Communities, which are their juniors,\nusefulness, secular and religious, literature, education, the\nconfessional, preaching, the oversight of the poor, missions, the care\nof the sick, have been chief objects of attention; great cities have\nbeen the scene of operation: bodily austerities and the ceremonial of\ndevotion have been made of but secondary importance. Yet it may fairly\nbe questioned, whether, in an intellectual age, when freedom both of\nthought and of action is so dearly prized, a greater penance can be\ndevised for the soldier of Christ than the absolute surrender of\njudgment and will to the command of another.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[385:1] Gieseler, Text-book, vol. i. p. 108.\n\n[385:2] Gieseler, ibid. p. 164.\n\n[385:3] Socr. Hist. i. 10.\n\n[387:1] Hom. 14, in 2 Cor. fin.\n\n[387:2] Vid. Tertull. Oxf. tr. pp. 374, 5.\n\n[388:1] Clem. ch. 12. Vid. also Tertull. de Anim. fin.\n\n[389:1] Tracts for the Times, No. 79, p. 38.\n\n[389:2] Ruinart, Mart. p. 96.\n\n[390:1] Mystagog. 5.\n\n[390:2] [Vid. Via Media, vol. i. p 72.]\n\n[393:1] [Via Media, vol. i. pp. 174-177.]\n\n[396:1] Gieseler, vol. ii. p. 288.\n\n[396:2] Ibid. p. 279.\n\n[397:1] Or rather his successors, as St. Benedict of Anian, were the\nfounders of the Order; but minute accuracy on these points is\nunnecessary in a mere sketch of the history.\n\n[397:2] +m\u00eal\u00f4t\u00eas+, 2 Kings ii. Sept. Vid. also, \"They wandered about in\nsheepskins and goatskins\" (Heb. xi. 37).\n\n[399:1] Rosweyde, V. P. p. 618.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nAPPLICATION OF THE FIFTH NOTE OF A TRUE DEVELOPMENT.\n\n\nANTICIPATION OF ITS FUTURE.\n\nIt has been set down above as a fifth argument in favour of the fidelity\nof developments, ethical or political, if the doctrine from which they\nhave proceeded has, in any early stage of its history, given indications\nof those opinions and practices in which it has ended. Supposing then\nthe so-called Catholic doctrines and practices are true and legitimate\ndevelopments, and not corruptions, we may expect from the force of logic\nto find instances of them in the first centuries. And this I conceive to\nbe the case: the records indeed of those times are scanty, and we have\nlittle means of determining what daily Christian life then was: we know\nlittle of the thoughts, and the prayers, and the meditations, and the\ndiscourses of the early disciples of Christ, at a time when these\nprofessed developments were not recognized and duly located in the\ntheological system; yet it appears, even from what remains, that the\natmosphere of the Church was, as it were, charged with them from the\nfirst, and delivered itself of them from time to time, in this way or\nthat, in various places and persons, as occasion elicited them,\ntestifying the presence of a vast body of thought within it, which one\nday would take shape and position.\n\n\n\u00a7 1. _Resurrection and Relics._\n\nAs a chief specimen of what I am pointing out, I will direct attention\nto a characteristic principle of Christianity, whether in the East or in\nthe West, which is at present both a special stumbling-block and a\nsubject of scoffing with Protestants and free-thinkers of every shade\nand colour: I mean the devotions which both Greeks and Latins show\ntowards bones, blood, the heart, the hair, bits of clothes, scapulars,\ncords, medals, beads, and the like, and the miraculous powers which they\noften ascribe to them. Now, the principle from which these beliefs and\nusages proceed is the doctrine that Matter is susceptible of grace, or\ncapable of a union with a Divine Presence and influence. This principle,\nas we shall see, was in the first age both energetically manifested and\nvariously developed; and that chiefly in consequence of the\ndiametrically opposite doctrine of the schools and the religions of the\nday. And thus its exhibition in that primitive age becomes also an\ninstance of a statement often made in controversy, that the profession\nand the developments of a doctrine are according to the emergency of the\ntime, and that silence at a certain period implies, not that it was not\nthen held, but that it was not questioned.\n\n\n2.\n\nChristianity began by considering Matter as a creature of God, and in\nitself \"very good.\" It taught that Matter, as well as Spirit, had become\ncorrupt, in the instance of Adam; and it contemplated its recovery. It\ntaught that the Highest had taken a portion of that corrupt mass upon\nHimself, in order to the sanctification of the whole; that, as a\nfirstfruits of His purpose, He had purified from all sin that very\nportion of it which He took into His Eternal Person, and thereunto had\ntaken it from a Virgin Womb, which He had filled with the abundance of\nHis Spirit. Moreover, it taught that during His earthly sojourn He had\nbeen subject to the natural infirmities of man, and had suffered from\nthose ills to which flesh is heir. It taught that the Highest had in\nthat flesh died on the Cross, and that His blood had an expiatory power;\nmoreover, that He had risen again in that flesh, and had carried that\nflesh with Him into heaven, and that from that flesh, glorified and\ndeified in Him, He never would be divided. As a first consequence of\nthese awful doctrines comes that of the resurrection of the bodies of\nHis Saints, and of their future glorification with Him; next, that of\nthe sanctity of their relics; further, that of the merit of Virginity;\nand, lastly, that of the prerogatives of Mary, Mother of God. All these\ndoctrines are more or less developed in the Ante-nicene period, though\nin very various degrees, from the nature of the case.\n\n\n3.\n\nAnd they were all objects of offence or of scorn to philosophers,\npriests, or populace of the day. With varieties of opinions which need\nnot be mentioned, it was a fundamental doctrine in the schools, whether\nGreek or Oriental, that Matter was essentially evil. It had not been\ncreated by the Supreme God; it was in eternal enmity with Him; it was\nthe source of all pollution; and it was irreclaimable. Such was the\ndoctrine of Platonist, Gnostic, and Manichee:--whereas then St. John had\nlaid it down that \"every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is\ncome in the flesh is the spirit of Antichrist:\" the Gnostics obstinately\ndenied the Incarnation, and held that Christ was but a phantom, or had\ncome on the man Jesus at his baptism, and left him at his passion. The\none great topic of preaching with Apostles and Evangelists was the\nResurrection of Christ and of all mankind after Him; but when the\nphilosophers of Athens heard St. Paul, \"some mocked,\" and others\ncontemptuously put aside the doctrine. The birth from a Virgin implied,\nnot only that the body was not intrinsically evil, but that one state of\nit was holier than another, and St. Paul explained that, while marriage\nwas good, celibacy was better; but the Gnostics, holding the utter\nmalignity of Matter, one and all condemned marriage as sinful, and,\nwhether they observed continence or not, or abstained from eating flesh\nor not, maintained that all functions of our animal nature were evil and\nabominable.\n\n\n4.\n\n\"Perish the thought,\" says Manes, \"that our Lord Jesus Christ should\nhave descended through the womb of a woman.\" \"He descended,\" says\nMarcion, \"but without touching her or taking aught from her.\" \"Through\nher, not of her,\" said another. \"It is absurd to assert,\" says a\ndisciple of Bardesanes, \"that this flesh in which we are imprisoned\nshall rise again, for it is well called a burden, a tomb, and a chain.\"\n\"They execrate the funeral-pile,\" says C\u00e6cilius, speaking of Christians,\n\"as if bodies, though withdrawn from the flames, did not all resolve\ninto dust by years, whether beasts tear, or sea swallows, or earth\ncovers, or flame wastes.\" According to the old Paganism, both the\neducated and vulgar held corpses and sepulchres in aversion. They\nquickly rid themselves of the remains even of their friends, thinking\ntheir presence a pollution, and felt the same terror even of\nburying-places which assails the ignorant and superstitious now. It is\nrecorded of Hannibal that, on his return to the African coast from\nItaly, he changed his landing-place to avoid a ruined sepulchre. \"May\nthe god who passes between heaven and hell,\" says Apuleius in his\n_Apology_, \"present to thy eyes, O Emilian, all that haunts the night,\nall that alarms in burying-places, all that terrifies in tombs.\" George\nof Cappadocia could not direct a more bitter taunt against the\nAlexandrian Pagans than to call the temple of Serapis a sepulchre. The\ncase had been the same even among the Jews; the Rabbins taught, that\neven the corpses of holy men \"did but serve to diffuse infection and\ndefilement.\" \"When deaths were Judaical,\" says the writer who goes under\nthe name of St. Basil, \"corpses were an abomination; when death is for\nChrist, the relics of Saints are precious. It was anciently said to the\nPriests and the Nazarites, 'If any one shall touch a corpse, he shall be\nunclean till evening, and he shall wash his garment;' now, on the\ncontrary, if any one shall touch a Martyr's bones, by reason of the\ngrace dwelling in the body, he receives some participation of his\nsanctity.\"[404:1] Nay, Christianity taught a reverence for the bodies\neven of heathen. The care of the dead is one of the praises which, as we\nhave seen above, is extorted in their favour from the Emperor Julian;\nand it was exemplified during the mortality which spread through the\nRoman world in the time of St. Cyprian. \"They did good,\" says Pontius of\nthe Christians of Carthage, \"in the profusion of exuberant works to all,\nand not only to the household of faith. They did somewhat more than is\nrecorded of the incomparable benevolence of Tobias. The slain of the\nking and the outcasts, whom Tobias gathered together, were of his own\nkin only.\"[404:2]\n\n\n5.\n\nFar more of course than such general reverence was the honour that they\nshowed to the bodies of the Saints. They ascribed virtue to their\nmartyred tabernacles, and treasured, as something supernatural, their\nblood, their ashes, and their bones. When St. Cyprian was beheaded, his\nbrethren brought napkins to soak up his blood. \"Only the harder portion\nof the holy relics remained,\" say the Acts of St. Ignatius, who was\nexposed to the beasts in the amphitheatre, \"which were conveyed to\nAntioch, and deposited in linen, bequeathed, by the grace that was in\nthe Martyr, to that holy Church as a priceless treasure.\" The Jews\nattempted to deprive the brethren of St. Polycarp's body, \"lest, leaving\nthe Crucified, they begin to worship him,\" say his Acts; \"ignorant,\"\nthey continue, \"that we can never leave Christ;\" and they add, \"We,\nhaving taken up his bones which were more costly than precious stones,\nand refined more than gold, deposited them where was fitting; and there\nwhen we meet together, as we can, the Lord will grant us to celebrate\nwith joy and gladness the birthday of his martyrdom.\" On one occasion in\nPalestine, the Imperial authorities disinterred the bodies and cast them\ninto the sea, \"lest as their opinion went,\" says Eusebius, \"there should\nbe those who in their sepulchres and monuments might think them gods,\nand treat them with divine worship.\"\n\nJulian, who had been a Christian, and knew the Christian history more\nintimately than a mere infidel would know it, traces the superstition,\nas he considers it, to the very lifetime of St. John, that is, as early\nas there were Martyrs to honour; makes the honour paid them\ncontemporaneous with the worship paid to our Lord, and equally distinct\nand formal; and, moreover, declares that first it was secret, which for\nvarious reasons it was likely to have been. \"Neither Paul,\" he says,\n\"nor Matthew, nor Luke, nor Mark, dared to call Jesus God; but honest\nJohn, having perceived that a great multitude had been caught by this\ndisease in many of the Greek and Italian cities, and hearing, I suppose,\nthat the monuments of Peter and Paul were, secretly indeed, but still\nhearing that they were honoured, first dared to say it.\" \"Who can feel\nfitting abomination?\" he says elsewhere; \"you have filled all places\nwith tombs and monuments, though it has been nowhere told you to tumble\ndown at tombs or to honour them. . . . . If Jesus said that they were\nfull of uncleanness, why do ye invoke God at them?\" The tone of Faustus\nthe Manich\u00e6an is the same. \"Ye have turned,\" he says to St. Augustine,\n\"the idols\" of the heathen \"into your Martyrs, whom ye honour\n(_colitis_) with similar prayers (_votis_).\"[406:1]\n\n\n6.\n\nIt is remarkable that the attention of both Christians and their\nopponents turned from the relics of the Martyrs to their persons.\nBasilides at least, who was founder of one of the most impious Gnostic\nsects, spoke of them with disrespect; he considered that their\nsufferings were the penalty of secret sins or evil desires, or\ntransgressions committed in another body, and a sign of divine favour\nonly because they were allowed to connect them with the cause of\nChrist.[406:2] On the other hand, it was the doctrine of the Church that\nMartyrdom was meritorious, that it had a certain supernatural efficacy\nin it, and that the blood of the Saints received from the grace of the\nOne Redeemer a certain expiatory power. Martyrdom stood in the place of\nBaptism, where the Sacrament had not been administered. It exempted the\nsoul from all preparatory waiting, and gained its immediate admittance\ninto glory. \"All crimes are pardoned for the sake of this work,\" says\nTertullian.\n\nAnd in proportion to the near approach of the martyrs to their Almighty\nJudge, was their high dignity and power. St. Dionysius speaks of their\nreigning with Christ; Origen even conjectures that \"as we are redeemed\nby the precious blood of Jesus, so some are redeemed by the precious\nblood of the Martyrs.\" St. Cyprian seems to explain his meaning when he\nsays, \"We believe that the merits of Martyrs and the works of the just\navail much with the Judge,\" that is, for those who were lapsed, \"when,\nafter the end of this age and the world, Christ's people shall stand\nbefore His judgment-seat.\" Accordingly they were considered to intercede\nfor the Church militant in their state of glory, and for individuals\nwhom they had known. St. Potami\u00e6na of Alexandria, in the first years of\nthe third century, when taken out for execution, promised to obtain\nafter her departure the salvation of the officer who led her out; and\ndid appear to him, according to Eusebius, on the third day, and\nprophesied his own speedy martyrdom. And St. Theodosia in Palestine came\nto certain confessors who were in bonds, \"to request them,\" as Eusebius\ntells us, \"to remember her when they came to the Lord's Presence.\"\nTertullian, when a Montanist, betrays the existence of the doctrine in\nthe Catholic body by protesting against it.[407:1]\n\n\n\u00a7 2. _The Virgin Life._\n\nNext to the prerogatives of bodily suffering or Martyrdom came, in the\nestimation of the early Church, the prerogatives of bodily, as well as\nmoral, purity or Virginity; another form of the general principle which\nI am here illustrating. \"The first reward,\" says St. Cyprian to the\nVirgins, \"is for the Martyrs an hundredfold; the second, sixtyfold, is\nfor yourselves.\"[407:2] Their state and its merit is recognized by a\n_consensus_ of the Ante-nicene writers; of whom Athenagoras distinctly\nconnects Virginity with the privilege of divine communion: \"You will\nfind many of our people,\" he says to the Emperor Marcus, \"both men and\nwomen, grown old in their single state, in hope thereby of a closer\nunion with God.\"[408:1]\n\n\n2.\n\nAmong the numerous authorities which might be cited, I will confine\nmyself to a work, elaborate in itself, and important from its author.\nSt. Methodius was a Bishop and Martyr of the latter years of the\nAnte-nicene period, and is celebrated as the most variously endowed\ndivine of his day. His learning, elegance in composition, and eloquence,\nare all commemorated.[408:2] The work in question, the _Convivium\nVirginum_, is a conference in which ten Virgins successively take part,\nin praise of the state of life to which they have themselves been\nspecially called. I do not wish to deny that there are portions of it\nwhich strangely grate upon the feelings of an age, which is formed on\nprinciples of which marriage is the centre. But here we are concerned\nwith its doctrine. Of the speakers in this Colloquy, three at least are\nreal persons prior to St. Methodius's time; of these Thecla, whom\ntradition associates with St. Paul, is one, and Marcella, who in the\nRoman Breviary is considered to be St. Martha's servant, and who is said\nto have been the woman who exclaimed, \"Blessed is the womb that bare\nThee,\" &c., is described as a still older servant of Christ. The latter\nopens the discourse, and her subject is the gradual development of the\ndoctrine of Virginity in the Divine Dispensations; Theophila, who\nfollows, enlarges on the sanctity of Matrimony, with which the special\nglory of the higher state does not interfere; Thalia discourses on the\nmystical union which exists between Christ and His Church, and on the\nseventh chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians; Theopatra on\nthe merit of Virginity; Thallusa exhorts to a watchful guardianship of\nthe gift; Agatha shows the necessity of other virtues and good works, in\norder to the real praise of their peculiar profession; Procilla extols\nVirginity as the special instrument of becoming a spouse of Christ;\nThecla treats of it as the great combatant in the warfare between heaven\nand hell, good and evil; Tysiana with reference to the Resurrection; and\nDomnina allegorizes Jothan's parable in Judges ix. Virtue, who has been\nintroduced as the principal personage in the representation from the\nfirst, closes the discussion with an exhortation to inward purity, and\nthey answer her by an hymn to our Lord as the Spouse of His Saints.\n\n\n3.\n\nIt is observable that St. Methodius plainly speaks of the profession of\nVirginity as a vow. \"I will explain,\" says one of his speakers, \"how we\nare dedicated to the Lord. What is enacted in the Book of Numbers, 'to\nvow a vow mightily,' shows what I am insisting on at great length, that\nChastity is a mighty vow beyond all vows.\"[409:1] This language is not\npeculiar to St. Methodius among the Ante-nicene Fathers. \"Let such as\npromise Virginity and break their profession be ranked among digamists,\"\nsays the Council of Ancyra in the beginning of the fourth century.\nTertullian speaks of being \"married to Christ,\" and marriage implies a\nvow; he proceeds, \"to Him thou hast pledged (_sponsasti_) thy ripeness\nof age;\" and before he had expressly spoken of the _continenti\u00e6 votum_.\nOrigen speaks of \"devoting one's body to God\" in chastity; and St.\nCyprian \"of Christ's Virgin, dedicated to Him and destined for His\nsanctity,\" and elsewhere of \"members dedicated to Christ, and for ever\ndevoted by virtuous chastity to the praise of continence;\" and Eusebius\nof those \"who had consecrated themselves body and soul to a pure and\nall-holy life.\"[410:1]\n\n\n\u00a7 3. _Cultus of Saints and Angels._\n\nThe Spanish Church supplies us with an anticipation of the later\ndevotions to Saints and Angels. The Canons are extant of a Council of\nIlliberis, held shortly before the Council of Nic\u00e6a, and representative\nof course of the doctrine of the third century. Among these occurs the\nfollowing: \"It is decreed, that pictures ought not to be in church, lest\nwhat is worshipped or adored be painted on the walls.\"[410:2] Now these\nwords are commonly taken to be decisive against the use of pictures in\nthe Spanish Church at that era. Let us grant it; let us grant that the\nuse of all pictures is forbidden, pictures not only of our Lord, and\nsacred emblems, as of the Lamb and the Dove, but pictures of Angels and\nSaints also. It is not fair to restrict the words, nor are\ncontroversialists found desirous of doing so; they take them to include\nthe images of the Saints. \"For keeping of pictures out of the Church,\nthe Canon of the Eliberine or Illiberitine Council, held in Spain, about\nthe time of Constantine the Great, is most plain,\"[410:3] says Ussher:\nhe is speaking of \"the representations of God and of Christ, and of\nAngels and of Saints.\"[410:4] \"The Council of Eliberis is very ancient,\nand of great fame,\" says Taylor, \"in which it is expressly forbidden\nthat what is worshipped should be depicted on the walls, and that\ntherefore pictures ought not to be in churches.\"[411:1] He too is\nspeaking of the Saints. I repeat, let us grant this freely. This\ninference then seems to be undeniable, that the Spanish Church\nconsidered the Saints to be in the number of objects either of \"worship\nor adoration;\" for it is of such objects that the representations are\nforbidden. The very drift of the prohibition is this,--_lest_ what is in\nitself an object of worship (_quod colitur_) should be worshipped _in\npainting_; unless then Saints and Angels were objects of worship, their\npictures would have been allowed.\n\n\n2.\n\nThis mention of Angels leads me to a memorable passage about the honour\ndue to them in Justin Martyr.\n\nSt. Justin, after \"answering the charge of Atheism,\" as Dr. Burton says,\n\"which was brought against Christians of his day, and observing that\nthey were punished for not worshipping evil demons which were not really\ngods,\" continues, \"But Him, (God,) and the Son who came from Him, and\ntaught us these things, and the host of the other good Angels who follow\nand resemble Him, and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, paying\nthem a reasonable and true honour, and not grudging to deliver to any\none, who wishes to learn, as we ourselves have been taught.\"[411:2]\n\nA more express testimony to the _cultus Angelorum_ cannot be required;\nnor is it unnatural in the connexion in which it occurs, considering St.\nJustin has been speaking of the heathen worship of demons, and therefore\nwould be led without effort to mention, not only the incommunicable\nadoration paid to the One God, who \"will not give His glory to another,\"\nbut such inferior honour as may be paid to creatures, without sin on the\nside whether of giver or receiver. Nor is the construction of the\noriginal Greek harsher than is found in other authors; nor need it\nsurprise us in one whose style is not accurate, that two words should be\nused in combination to express worship, and that one should include\nAngels, and that the other should not.\n\n\n3.\n\nThe following is Dr. Burton's account of the passage:\n\n\"Scultetus, a Protestant divine of Heidelberg, in his _Medulla Theologi\u00e6\nPatrum_, which appeared in 1605, gave a totally different meaning to the\npassage; and instead of connecting '_the host_' with '_we worship_,'\nconnected it with '_taught us_.' The words would then be rendered thus:\n'But Him, and the Son who came from Him, who also gave us instructions\nconcerning these things, and concerning the host of the other good\nangels we worship,' &c. This interpretation is adopted and defended at\nsome length by Bishop Bull, and by Stephen Le Moyne; and even the\nBenedictine Le Nourry supposed Justin to mean that Christ had taught us\nnot to worship the bad angels, as well as the existence of good angels.\nGrabe, in his edition of 'Justin's Apology,' which was printed in 1703,\nadopted another interpretation, which had been before proposed by Le\nMoyne and by Cave. This also connects '_the host_' with '_taught_,' and\nwould require us to render the passage thus: '. . . and the Son who came\nfrom Him, who also taught these things to us, and to the host of the\nother Angels,' &c. It might be thought that Langus, who published a\nLatin translation of Justin in 1565, meant to adopt one of these\ninterpretations, or at least to connect '_host_' with '_taught these\nthings_.' Both of them certainly are ingenious, and are not perhaps\nopposed to the literal construction of the Greek words; but I cannot say\nthat they are satisfactory, or that I am surprised at Roman Catholic\nwriters describing them as forced and violent attempts to evade a\ndifficulty. If the words enclosed in brackets were removed, the whole\npassage would certainly contain a strong argument in favour of the\nTrinity; but as they now stand, Roman Catholic writers will naturally\nquote them as supporting the worship of Angels.\n\n\"There is, however, this difficulty in such a construction of the\npassage: it proves too much. By coupling the Angels with the three\npersons of the Trinity, as objects of religious adoration, it seems to\ngo beyond even what Roman Catholics themselves would maintain concerning\nthe worship of Angels. Their well-known distinction between _latria_ and\n_dulia_ would be entirely confounded; and the difficulty felt by the\nBenedictine editor appears to have been as great, as his attempt to\nexplain it is unsuccessful, when he wrote as follows: 'Our adversaries\nin vain object the twofold expression, _we worship and adore_. For the\nformer is applied to Angels themselves, regard being had to the\ndistinction between the creature and the Creator; the latter by no means\nnecessarily includes the Angels.' This sentence requires concessions,\nwhich no opponent could be expected to make; and if one of the two\nterms, _we worship_ and _adore_, may be applied to Angels, it is\nunreasonable to contend that the other must not also. Perhaps, however,\nthe passage may be explained so as to admit a distinction of this kind.\nThe interpretations of Scultetus and Grabe have not found many\nadvocates; and upon the whole I should be inclined to conclude, that the\nclause, which relates to the Angels, is connected particularly with the\nwords, '_paying them a reasonable and true honour_.'\"[414:1]\n\nTwo violent alterations of the text have also been proposed: one to\ntransfer the clause which creates the difficulty, after the words\n_paying them honour_; the other to substitute +strat\u00eagon+ (_commander_)\nfor +straton+ (_host_).\n\n\n4.\n\nPresently Dr. Burton continues:--\"Justin, as I observed, is defending\nthe Christians from the charge of Atheism; and after saying that the\ngods, whom they refused to worship, were no gods, but evil demons, he\npoints out what were the Beings who were worshipped by the Christians.\nHe names the true God, who is the source of all virtue; the Son, who\nproceeded from Him; the good and ministering spirits; and the Holy\nGhost. To these Beings, he says, we pay all the worship, adoration, and\nhonour, which is due to each of them; _i. e._ worship where worship is\ndue, honour where honour is due. The Christians were accused of\nworshipping no gods, that is, of acknowledging no superior beings at\nall. Justin shows that so far was this from being true, that they\nacknowledged more than one order of spiritual Beings; they offered\ndivine worship to the true God, and they also believed in the existence\nof good spirits, which were entitled to honour and respect. If the\nreader will view the passage as a whole, he will perhaps see that there\nis nothing violent in thus restricting the words _worship and adore_,\nand _honouring_, to certain parts of it respectively. It may seem\nstrange that Justin should mention the ministering spirits before the\nHoly Ghost: but this is a difficulty which presses upon the Roman\nCatholics as much as upon ourselves; and we may perhaps adopt the\nexplanation of the Bishop of Lincoln,[414:2] who says, 'I have sometimes\nthought that in this passage, \"_and the host_,\" is equivalent to \"_with\nthe host_,\" and that Justin had in his mind the glorified state of\nChrist, when He should come to judge the world, surrounded by the host\nof heaven.' The bishop then brings several passages from Justin, where\nthe Son of God is spoken of as attended by a company of Angels; and if\nthis idea was then in Justin's mind, it might account for his naming the\nministering spirits immediately after the Son of God, rather than after\nthe Holy Ghost, which would have been the natural and proper\norder.\"[415:1]\n\nThis passage of St. Justin is the more remarkable, because it cannot be\ndenied that there was a worship of the Angels at that day, of which St.\nPaul speaks, which was Jewish and Gnostic, and utterly reprobated by the\nChurch.\n\n\n\u00a7 4. _Office of the Blessed Virgin._\n\nThe special prerogatives of St. Mary, the _Virgo Virginum_, are\nintimately involved in the doctrine of the Incarnation itself, with\nwhich these remarks began, and have already been dwelt upon above. As is\nwell known, they were not fully recognized in the Catholic ritual till a\nlate date, but they were not a new thing in the Church, or strange to\nher earlier teachers. St. Justin, St. Iren\u00e6us, and others, had\ndistinctly laid it down, that she not only had an office, but bore a\npart, and was a voluntary agent, in the actual process of redemption, as\nEve had been instrumental and responsible in Adam's fall. They taught\nthat, as the first woman might have foiled the Tempter and did not, so,\nif Mary had been disobedient or unbelieving on Gabriel's message, the\nDivine Economy would have been frustrated. And certainly the parallel\nbetween \"the Mother of all living\" and the Mother of the Redeemer may be\ngathered from a comparison of the first chapters of Scripture with the\nlast. It was noticed in a former place, that the only passage where the\nserpent is directly identified with the evil spirit occurs in the\ntwelfth chapter of the Revelation; now it is observable that the\nrecognition, when made, is found in the course of a vision of a \"woman\nclothed with the sun and the moon under her feet:\" thus two women are\nbrought into contrast with each other. Moreover, as it is said in the\nApocalypse, \"The dragon was wroth with the woman, and went about to make\nwar with the remnant of her seed,\" so is it prophesied in Genesis, \"I\nwill put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her\nSeed. He shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel.\" Also\nthe enmity was to exist, not only between the Serpent and the Seed of\nthe woman, but between the serpent and the woman herself; and here too\nthere is a correspondence in the Apocalyptic vision. If then there is\nreason for thinking that this mystery at the close of the Scripture\nrecord answers to the mystery in the beginning of it, and that \"the\nWoman\" mentioned in both passages is one and the same, then she can be\nnone other than St. Mary, thus introduced prophetically to our notice\nimmediately on the transgression of Eve.\n\n\n2.\n\nHere, however, we are not so much concerned to interpret Scripture as to\nexamine the Fathers. Thus St. Justin says, \"Eve, being a virgin and\nincorrupt, having conceived the word from the Serpent, bore disobedience\nand death; but Mary the Virgin, receiving faith and joy, when Gabriel\nthe Angel evangelized her, answered, 'Be it unto me according to thy\nword.'\"[416:1] And Tertullian says that, whereas Eve believed the\nSerpent, and Mary believed Gabriel, \"the fault of Eve in believing, Mary\nby believing hath blotted out.\"[416:2] St. Iren\u00e6us speaks more\nexplicitly: \"As Eve,\" he says . . . \"becoming disobedient, became the\ncause of death to herself and to all mankind, so Mary too, having the\npredestined Man, and yet a Virgin, being obedient, became cause of\nsalvation both to herself and to all mankind.\"[417:1] This becomes the\nreceived doctrine in the Post-nicene Church.\n\nOne well-known instance occurs in the history of the third century of\nSt. Mary's interposition, and it is remarkable from the names of the two\npersons, who were, one the subject, the other the historian of it. St.\nGregory Nyssen, a native of Cappadocia in the fourth century, relates\nthat his name-sake Bishop of Neo-c\u00e6sarea, surnamed Thaumaturgus, in the\npreceding century, shortly before he was called to the priesthood,\nreceived in a vision a Creed, which is still extant, from the Blessed\nVirgin at the hands of St. John. The account runs thus: He was deeply\npondering theological doctrine, which the heretics of the day depraved.\n\"In such thoughts,\" says his name-sake of Nyssa, \"he was passing the\nnight, when one appeared, as if in human form, aged in appearance,\nsaintly in the fashion of his garments, and very venerable both in grace\nof countenance and general mien. . . . Following with his eyes his\nextended hand, he saw another appearance opposite to the former, in\nshape of a woman, but more than human. . . . When his eyes could not\nbear the apparition, he heard them conversing together on the subject\nof his doubts; and thereby not only gained a true knowledge of the\nfaith, but learned their names, as they addressed each other by their\nrespective appellations. And thus he is said to have heard the person in\nwoman's shape bid 'John the Evangelist' disclose to the young man the\nmystery of godliness; and he answered that he was ready to comply in\nthis matter with the wish of 'the Mother of the Lord,' and enunciated a\nformulary, well-turned and complete, and so vanished.\"\n\nGregory proceeds to rehearse the Creed thus given, \"There is One God,\nFather of a Living Word,\" &c.[418:1] Bull, after quoting it in his work\nupon the Nicene Faith, refers to this history of its origin, and adds,\n\"No one should think it incredible that such a providence should befall\na man whose whole life was conspicuous for revelations and miracles, as\nall ecclesiastical writers who have mentioned him (and who has not?)\nwitness with one voice.\"[418:2]\n\n\n3.\n\nIt is remarkable that St. Gregory Nazianzen relates an instance, even\nmore pointed, of St. Mary's intercession, contemporaneous with this\nappearance to Thaumaturgus; but it is attended with mistake in the\nnarrative, which weakens its cogency as an evidence of the belief, not\nindeed of the fourth century, in which St. Gregory lived, but of the\nthird. He speaks of a Christian woman having recourse to the protection\nof St. Mary, and obtaining the conversion of a heathen who had attempted\nto practise on her by magical arts. They were both martyred.\n\nIn both these instances the Blessed Virgin appears especially in that\ncharacter of Patroness or Paraclete, which St. Iren\u00e6us and other Fathers\ndescribe, and which the Medieval Church exhibits,--a loving Mother with\nclients.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[404:1] Act. Arch. p. 85. Athan. c. Apoll. ii. 3.--Adam. Dial. iii.\ninit. Minuc. Dial. 11. Apul. Apol. p. 535. Kortholt. Cal. p. 63. Calmet,\nDict. t. 2, p. 736. Basil in Ps. 115, 4.\n\n[404:2] Vit. S. Cypr. 10.\n\n[406:1] Act. Procons. 5. Ruinart, Act. Mart. pp. 22, 44. Euseb. Hist.\nviii. 6. Julian, ap. Cyr. pp. 327, 335. August. c. Faust. xx. 4.\n\n[406:2] Clem. Strom. iv. 12.\n\n[407:1] Tertull. Apol. fin. Euseb. Hist. vi. 42. Orig. ad Martyr. 50.\nRuinart, Act. Mart. pp. 122, 323.\n\n[407:2] De Hab. Virg. 12.\n\n[408:1] Athenag. Leg. 33.\n\n[408:2] Lumper, Hist. t. 13, p. 439.\n\n[409:1] Galland. t. 3, p. 670.\n\n[410:1] Routh, Reliqu. t. 3, p. 414. Tertull. de Virg. Vel. 16 and 11.\nOrig. in Num. Hom. 24, 2. Cyprian. Ep. 4, p. 8, ed. Fell. Ep. 62, p.\n147. Euseb. V. Const. iv. 26.\n\n[410:2] Placuit picturas in ecclesi\u00e2 esse non debere, ne quod colitur\naut adoratur, in parietibus depingatur. Can. 36.\n\n[410:3] Answ. to a Jes. 10, p. 437.\n\n[410:4] P. 430. The \"colitur _aut_ adoratur\" marks a difference of\nworship.\n\n[411:1] Dissuasive, i. 1, 8.\n\n[411:2] +Ekeinon te, kai ton par' autou hyion elthonta kai didaxanta\nh\u00eamas tauta, [kai ton t\u00f4n all\u00f4n hepomen\u00f4n kai exomoioumen\u00f4n agath\u00f4n\nangel\u00f4n straton,] pneuma te to proph\u00eatikon sebometha kai proskynoumen,\nlog\u00f4 kai al\u00eatheia tim\u00f4ntes kai panti boulomen\u00f4 mathein, h\u00f4s\nedidachth\u00eamen, aphthon\u00f4s paradidontes.+--_Apol._ i. 6. The passage is\nparallel to the Prayer in the Breviary: \"Sacrosanct\u00e6 et individu\u00e6\nTrinitati, Crucifixi Domini nostri Jesu Christi humanitati, beatissim\u00e6\net gloriosissim\u00e6 semperque Virginis Mari\u00e6 foecund\u00e6 integritati, et\nomnium Sanctorum universitati, sit sempiterna laus, honor, virtus, et\ngloria ab omni creatur\u00e2,\" &c.\n\n[414:1] Test. Trin. pp. 16, 17, 18.\n\n[414:2] Dr. Kaye.\n\n[415:1] Pp. 19-21.\n\n[416:1] Tryph. 100.\n\n[416:2] Carn. Christ. 17.\n\n[417:1] H\u00e6r. iii. 22, \u00a7 4.\n\n[418:1] Nyss. Opp. t. ii. p. 977.\n\n[418:2] Def. F. N. ii. 12.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nAPPLICATION OF THE SIXTH NOTE OF A TRUE DEVELOPMENT.\n\n\nCONSERVATIVE ACTION ON ITS PAST.\n\nIt is the general pretext of heretics that they are but serving and\nprotecting Christianity by their innovations; and it is their charge\nagainst what by this time we may surely call the Catholic Church, that\nher successive definitions of doctrine have but overlaid and obscured\nit. That is, they assume, what we have no wish to deny, that a true\ndevelopment is that which is conservative of its original, and a\ncorruption is that which tends to its destruction. This has already been\nset down as a Sixth Test, discriminative of a development from a\ncorruption, and must now be applied to the Catholic doctrines; though\nthis Essay has so far exceeded its proposed limits, that both reader and\nwriter may well be weary, and may content themselves with a brief\nconsideration of the portions of the subject which remain.\n\nIt has been observed already that a strict correspondence between the\nvarious members of a development, and those of the doctrine from which\nit is derived, is more than we have any right to expect. The bodily\nstructure of a grown man is not merely that of a magnified boy; he\ndiffers from what he was in his make and proportions; still manhood is\nthe perfection of boyhood, adding something of its own, yet keeping\nwhat it finds. \"Ut nihil novum,\" says Vincentius, \"proferatur in\nsenibus, quod non in pueris jam antea latitaverit.\" This character of\naddition,--that is, of a change which is in one sense real and\nperceptible, yet without loss or reversal of what was before, but, on\nthe contrary, protective and confirmative of it,--in many respects and\nin a special way belongs to Christianity.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nVARIOUS INSTANCES.\n\nIf we take the simplest and most general view of its history, as\nexisting in an individual mind, or in the Church at large, we shall see\nin it an instance of this peculiarity. It is the birth of something\nvirtually new, because latent in what was before. Thus we know that no\ntemper of mind is acceptable in the Divine Presence without love; it is\nlove which makes Christian fear differ from servile dread, and true\nfaith differ from the faith of devils; yet in the beginning of the\nreligious life, fear is the prominent evangelical grace, and love is but\nlatent in fear, and has in course of time to be developed out of what\nseems its contradictory. Then, when it is developed, it takes that\nprominent place which fear held before, yet protecting not superseding\nit. Love is added, not fear removed, and the mind is but perfected in\ngrace by what seems a revolution. \"They that sow in tears, reap in joy;\"\nyet afterwards still they are \"sorrowful,\" though \"alway rejoicing.\"\n\nAnd so was it with the Church at large. She started with suffering,\nwhich turned to victory; but when she was set free from the house of her\nprison, she did not quit it so much as turn it into a cell. Meekness\ninherited the earth; strength came forth from weakness; the poor made\nmany rich; yet meekness and poverty remained. The rulers of the world\nwere Monks, when they could not be Martyrs.\n\n\n2.\n\nImmediately on the overthrow of the heathen power, two movements\nsimultaneously ran through the world from East to West, as quickly as\nthe lightning in the prophecy, a development of worship and of\nasceticism. Hence, while the world's first reproach in heathen times had\nbeen that Christianity was a dark malevolent magic, its second has been\nthat it is a joyous carnal paganism;--according to that saying, \"We have\npiped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye\nhave not lamented. For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they\nsay, He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they\nsay, Behold a man gluttonous and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and\nsinners.\" Yet our Lord too was \"a man of sorrows\" all the while, but\nsoftened His austerity by His gracious gentleness.\n\n\n3.\n\nThe like characteristic attends also on the mystery of His Incarnation.\nHe was first God and He became man; but Eutyches and heretics of his\nschool refused to admit that He was man, lest they should deny that He\nwas God. In consequence the Catholic Fathers are frequent and unanimous\nin their asseverations, that \"the Word\" had become flesh, not to His\nloss, but by an addition. Each Nature is distinct, but the created\nNature lives in and by the Eternal. \"Non amittendo quod erat, sed\nsumendo quod non erat,\" is the Church's principle. And hence, though the\ncourse of development, as was observed in a former Chapter, has been to\nbring into prominence the divine aspect of our Lord's mediation, this\nhas been attended by even a more open manifestation of the doctrine of\nHis atoning sufferings. The passion of our Lord is one of the most\nimperative and engrossing subjects of Catholic teaching. It is the great\ntopic of meditations and prayers; it is brought into continual\nremembrance by the sign of the Cross; it is preached to the world in the\nCrucifix; it is variously honoured by the many houses of prayer, and\nassociations of religious men, and pious institutions and undertakings,\nwhich in some way or other are placed under the name and the shadow of\nJesus, or the Saviour, or the Redeemer, or His Cross, or His Passion, or\nHis sacred Heart.\n\n\n4.\n\nHere a singular development may be mentioned of the doctrine of the\nCross, which some have thought so contrary to its original\nmeaning,[422:1] as to be a manifest corruption; I mean the introduction\nof the Sign of the meek Jesus into the armies of men, and the use of an\nemblem of peace as a protection in battle. If light has no communion\nwith darkness, or Christ with Belial, what has He to do with Moloch, who\nwould not call down fire on His enemies, and came not to destroy but to\nsave? Yet this seeming anomaly is but one instance of a great law which\nis seen in developments generally, that changes which appear at first\nsight to contradict that out of which they grew, are really its\nprotection or illustration. Our Lord Himself is represented in the\nProphets as a combatant inflicting wounds while He received them, as\ncoming from Bozrah with dyed garments, sprinkled and red in His apparel\nwith the blood of His enemies; and, whereas no war is lawful but what is\njust, it surely beseems that they who are engaged in so dreadful a\ncommission as that of taking away life at the price of their own,\nshould at least have the support of His Presence, and fight under the\nmystical influence of His Name, who redeemed His elect as a combatant by\nthe Blood of Atonement, with the slaughter of His foes, the sudden\noverthrow of the Jews, and the slow and awful fall of the Pagan Empire.\nAnd if the wars of Christian nations have often been unjust, this is a\nreason against much more than the use of religious symbols by the\nparties who engage in them, though the pretence of religion may increase\nthe sin.\n\n\n5.\n\nThe same rule of development has been observed in respect of the\ndoctrine of the Blessed Trinity. It is the objection of the School of\nSocinus, that belief in the Trinity is destructive of any true\nmaintenance of the Divine Unity, however strongly the latter may be\nprofessed; but Petavius, as we have seen,[423:1] sets it down as one\nespecial recommendation of the Catholic doctrine, that it subserves that\noriginal truth which at first sight it does but obscure and compromise.\n\n\n6.\n\nThis representation of the consistency of the Catholic system will be\nfound to be true, even in respect of those peculiarities of it, which\nhave been considered by Protestants most open to the charge of\ncorruption and innovation. It is maintained, for instance, that the\nveneration paid to Images in the Catholic Church directly contradicts\nthe command of Scripture, and the usage of the primitive ages. As to\nprimitive usage, that part of the subject has been incidentally observed\nupon already; here I will make one remark on the argument from\nScripture.\n\nIt may be reasonably questioned, then, whether the Commandment which\nstands second in the Protestant Decalogue, on which the prohibition of\nImages is grounded, was intended in its letter for more than temporary\nobservance. So far is certain, that, though none could surpass the later\nJews in its literal observance, nevertheless this did not save them from\nthe punishments attached to the violation of it. If this be so, the\nliteral observance is not its true and evangelical import.\n\n\n7.\n\n\"When the generation to come of your children shall rise up after you,\"\nsays their inspired lawgiver, \"and the stranger that shall come from a\nfar land shall say, when they see the plagues of that land, and its\nsicknesses which the Lord hath laid upon it; and that the whole land\nthereof is brimstone, and salt, and burning, that it is not sown, nor\nbeareth, nor any grass groweth therein, . . . even all nations shall\nsay, Wherefore hath the Lord done thus unto this land? What meaneth the\nheat of this great anger? Then men shall say, Because they have forsaken\nthe covenants of the Lord God of their fathers, which He made with them\nwhen He brought them forth out of the land of Egypt; for they went and\nserved other gods, and worshipped them, gods whom they knew not, and\nwhom He had not given them.\" Now the Jews of our Lord's day did not keep\nthis covenant, for they incurred the penalty; yet they kept the letter\nof the Commandment rigidly, and were known among the heathen far and\nwide for their devotion to the \"Lord God of their fathers who brought\nthem out of the land of Egypt,\" and for their abhorrence of the \"gods\nwhom He had not given them.\" If then adherence to the letter was no\nprotection to the Jews, departure from the letter may be no guilt in\nChristians.\n\nIt should be observed, moreover, that there certainly is a difference\nbetween the two covenants in their respective view of symbols of the\nAlmighty. In the Old, it was blasphemy to represent Him under \"the\nsimilitude of a calf that eateth hay;\" in the New, the Third Person of\nthe Holy Trinity has signified His Presence by the appearance of a Dove,\nand the Second Person has presented His sacred Humanity for worship\nunder the name of the Lamb.\n\n\n8.\n\nIt follows that, if the letter of the Decalogue is but partially binding\non Christians, it is as justifiable, in setting it before persons under\ninstruction, to omit such parts as do not apply to them, as, when we\nquote passages from the Pentateuch in Sermons or Lectures generally, to\npass over verses which refer simply to the temporal promises or the\nceremonial law, a practice which we allow without any intention or\nappearance of dealing irreverently with the sacred text.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nDEVOTION TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN.\n\nIt has been anxiously asked, whether the honours paid to St. Mary, which\nhave grown out of devotion to her Almighty Lord and Son, do not, in\nfact, tend to weaken that devotion; and whether, from the nature of the\ncase, it is possible so to exalt a creature without withdrawing the\nheart from the Creator.\n\nIn addition to what has been said on this subject in foregoing Chapters,\nI would here observe that the question is one of fact, not of\npresumption or conjecture. The abstract lawfulness of the honours paid\nto St. Mary, and their distinction in theory from the incommunicable\nworship paid to God, are points which have already been dwelt upon; but\nhere the question turns upon their practicability or expedience, which\nmust be determined by the fact whether they are practicable, and whether\nthey have been found to be expedient.\n\n\n1.\n\nHere I observe, first, that, to those who admit the authority of the\nFathers of Ephesus, the question is in no slight degree answered by\ntheir sanction of the +theotokos+, or \"Mother of God,\" as a title of St.\nMary, and as given in order to protect the doctrine of the Incarnation,\nand to preserve the faith of Catholics from a specious Humanitarianism.\nAnd if we take a survey at least of Europe, we shall find that it is not\nthose religious communions which are characterized by devotion towards\nthe Blessed Virgin that have ceased to adore her Eternal Son, but those\nvery bodies, (when allowed by the law,) which have renounced devotion to\nher. The regard for His glory, which was professed in that keen jealousy\nof her exaltation, has not been supported by the event. They who were\naccused of worshipping a creature in His stead, still worship Him; their\naccusers, who hoped to worship Him so purely, they, wherever obstacles\nto the development of their principles have been removed, have ceased to\nworship Him altogether.\n\n\n2.\n\nNext, it must be observed, that the tone of the devotion paid to the\nBlessed Mary is altogether distinct from that which is paid to her\nEternal Son, and to the Holy Trinity, as we must certainly allow on\ninspection of the Catholic services. The supreme and true worship paid\nto the Almighty is severe, profound, awful, as well as tender,\nconfiding, and dutiful. Christ is addressed as true God, while He is\ntrue Man; as our Creator and Judge, while He is most loving, gentle, and\ngracious. On the other hand, towards St. Mary the language employed is\naffectionate and ardent, as towards a mere child of Adam; though\nsubdued, as coming from her sinful kindred. How different, for instance,\nis the tone of the _Dies Ir\u00e6_ from that of the _Stabat Mater_. In the\n\"Tristis et afflicta Mater Unigeniti,\" in the \"Virgo virginum pr\u00e6clara\nMihi jam non sis amara, Poenas mecum divide,\" in the \"Fac me vere\ntecum flere,\" we have an expression of the feelings with which we regard\none who is a creature and a mere human being; but in the \"Rex tremend\u00e6\nmajestatis qui salvandos salvas gratis, salva me Fons pietatis,\" the \"Ne\nme perdas ill\u00e2 die,\" the \"Juste judex ultionis, donum fac remissionis,\"\nthe \"Oro supplex et acclinis, cor contritum quasi cinis,\" the \"Pie Jesu\nDomine, dona eis requiem,\" we hear the voice of the creature raised in\nhope and love, yet in deep awe to his Creator, Infinite Benefactor, and\nJudge.\n\nOr again, how distinct is the language of the Breviary Services on the\nFestival of Pentecost, or of the Holy Trinity, from the language of the\nServices for the Assumption! How indescribably majestic, solemn, and\nsoothing is the \"Veni Creator Spiritus,\" the \"Altissimi donum Dei, Fons\nvivus, ignis, charitas,\" or the \"Vera et una Trinitas, una et summa\nDeitas, sancta et una Unitas,\" the \"Spes nostra, salus nostra, honor\nnoster, O beata Trinitas,\" the \"Charitas Pater, gratia Filius,\ncommunicatio Spiritus Sanctus, O beata Trinitas;\" \"Libera nos, salva\nnos, vivifica nos, O beata Trinitas!\" How fond, on the contrary, how\nfull of sympathy and affection, how stirring and animating, in the\nOffice for the Assumption, is the \"Virgo prudentissima, quo progrederis,\nquasi aurora valde rutilans? filia Sion, tota formosa et suavis es,\npulcra ut luna, electa ut sol;\" the \"Sicut dies verni circumdabant eam\nflores rosarum, et lilia convallium;\" the \"Maria Virgo assumpta est ad\n\u00e6thereum thalamum in quo Rex regum stellato sedet solio;\" and the\n\"Gaudent Angeli, laudantes benedicunt Dominum.\" And so again, the\nAntiphon, the \"Ad te clamamus exules filii Hev\u00e6, ad te suspiramus\ngementes et flentes in hac lacrymarum valle,\" and \"Eia ergo, advocata\nnostra, illos tuos misericordes oculos ad nos converte,\" and \"O clemens,\nO pia, O dulcis Virgo Maria.\" Or the Hymn, \"Ave Maris stella, Dei Mater\nalma,\" and \"Virgo singularis, inter omnes mitis, nos culpis solutos,\nmites fac et castos.\"\n\n\n3.\n\nNor does it avail to object that, in this contrast of devotional\nexercises, the human will supplant the Divine, from the infirmity of our\nnature; for, I repeat, the question is one of fact, whether it has done\nso. And next it must be asked, whether the character of much of the\nProtestant devotion towards our Lord has been that of adoration at all;\nand not rather such as we pay to an excellent human being, that is, no\nhigher devotion than that which Catholics pay to St. Mary, differing\nfrom it, however, in often being familiar, rude, and earthly. Carnal\nminds will ever create a carnal worship for themselves; and to forbid\nthem the service of the Saints will have no tendency to teach them the\nworship of God.\n\nMoreover, it must be observed, what is very important, that great and\nconstant as is the devotion which the Catholic pays to the Blessed Mary,\nit has a special province, and has far more connexion with the public\nservices and the festive aspect of Christianity, and with certain\nextraordinary offices which she holds, than with what is strictly\npersonal and primary in religion.\n\nTwo instances will serve in illustration of this, and they are but\nsamples of many others.[428:1]\n\n\n4.\n\n(1.) For example, St. Ignatius' Spiritual Exercises are among the most\napproved methods of devotion in the modern Catholic Church; they proceed\nfrom one of the most celebrated of her Saints, and have the praise of\nPopes, and of the most eminent masters of the spiritual life. A Bull of\nPaul the Third's \"approves, praises, and sanctions all and everything\ncontained in them;\" indulgences are granted to the performance of them\nby the same Pope, by Alexander the Seventh, and by Benedict the\nFourteenth. St. Carlo Borromeo declared that he learned more from them\nthan from all other books together; St. Francis de Sales calls them \"a\nholy method of reformation,\" and they are the model on which all the\nextraordinary devotions of religious men or bodies, and the course of\nmissions, are conducted. If there is a document which is the\nauthoritative exponent of the inward communion of the members of the\nmodern Catholic Church with their God and Saviour, it is this work.\n\nThe Exercises are directed to the removal of obstacles in the way of the\nsoul's receiving and profiting by the gifts of God. They undertake to\neffect this in three ways; by removing all objects of this world, and,\nas it were, bringing the soul \"into the solitude where God may speak to\nits heart;\" next, by setting before it the ultimate end of man, and its\nown deviations from it, the beauty of holiness, and the pattern of\nChrist; and, lastly, by giving rules for its correction. They consist of\na course of prayers, meditations, self-examinations, and the like, which\nin its complete extent lasts thirty days; and these are divided into\nthree stages,--the _Via Purgativa_, in which sin is the main subject of\nconsideration; the _Via Illuminativa_, which is devoted to the\ncontemplation of our Lord's passion, involving the process of the\ndetermination of our calling; and the _Via Unitiva_, in which we proceed\nto the contemplation of our Lord's resurrection and ascension.\n\n\n5.\n\nNo more need be added in order to introduce the remark for which I have\nreferred to these Exercises; viz. that in a work so highly sanctioned,\nso widely received, so intimately bearing upon the most sacred points of\npersonal religion, very slight mention occurs of devotion to the Blessed\nVirgin, Mother of God. There is one mention of her in the rule given for\nthe first Prelude or preparation, in which the person meditating is\ndirected to consider as before him a church, or other place with Christ\nin it, St. Mary, and whatever else is suitable to the subject of\nmeditation. Another is in the third Exercise, in which one of the three\naddresses is made to our Lady, Christ's Mother, requesting earnestly\n\"her intercession with her Son;\" to which is to be added the Ave Mary.\nIn the beginning of the Second Week there is a form of offering\nourselves to God in the presence of \"His infinite goodness,\" and with\nthe witness of His \"glorious Virgin Mother Mary, and the whole host of\nheaven.\" At the end of the Meditation upon the Angel Gabriel's mission\nto St. Mary, there is an address to each Divine Person, to \"the Word\nIncarnate and to His Mother.\" In the Meditation upon the Two Standards,\nthere is an address prescribed to St. Mary to implore grace from her Son\nthrough her, with an Ave Mary after it.\n\nIn the beginning of the Third Week one address is prescribed to Christ;\nor three, if devotion incites, to Mother, Son, and Father. In the\ndescription given of three different modes of prayer we are told, if we\nwould imitate the Blessed Mary, we must recommend ourselves to her, as\nhaving power with her Son, and presently the Ave Mary, _Salve Regina_,\nand other forms are prescribed, as is usual after all prayers. And this\nis pretty much the whole of the devotion, if it may so be called, which\nis recommended towards St. Mary in the course of so many apparently as a\nhundred and fifty Meditations, and those chiefly on the events in our\nLord's earthly history as recorded in Scripture. It would seem then that\nwhatever be the influence of the doctrines connected with the Blessed\nVirgin and the Saints in the Catholic Church, at least they do not\nimpede or obscure the freest exercise and the fullest manifestation of\nthe devotional feelings towards God and Christ.\n\n\n6.\n\n(2.) The other instance which I give in illustration is of a different\nkind, but is suitable to mention. About forty little books have come\ninto my possession which are in circulation among the laity at Rome, and\nanswer to the smaller publications of the Christian Knowledge Society\namong ourselves. They have been taken almost at hazard from a number of\nsuch works, and are of various lengths; some running to as many as two\nor three hundred pages, others consisting of scarce a dozen. They may be\ndivided into three classes:--a third part consists of books on practical\nsubjects; another third is upon the Incarnation and Passion; and of the\nrest, a portion is upon the Sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist,\nwith two or three for the use of Missions, but the greater part is about\nthe Blessed Virgin.\n\nAs to the class on practical subjects, they are on such as the\nfollowing: \"La Consolazione degl' Infermi;\" \"Pensieri di una donna sul\nvestire moderno;\" \"L'Inferno Aperto;\" \"Il Purgatorio Aperto;\" St.\nAlphonso Liguori's \"Massime eterne;\" other Maxims by St. Francis de\nSales for every day in the year; \"Pratica per ben confessarsi e\ncommunicarsi;\" and the like.\n\nThe titles of the second class on the Incarnation and Passion are such\nas \"Gesu dalla Croce al cuore del peccatore;\" \"Novena del Ss. Natale di\nG. C.;\" \"Associazione pel culto perpetuo del divin cuore;\" \"Compendio\ndella Passione.\"\n\nIn the third are \"Il Mese Eucaristico,\" \"Il divoto di Maria,\" Feasts of\nthe Blessed Virgin, &c.\n\n\n7.\n\nThese books in all three divisions are, as even the titles of some of\nthem show, in great measure made up of Meditations; such are the \"Breve\ne pie Meditazioni\" of P. Crasset; the \"Meditazioni per ciascun giorno\ndel mese sulla Passione;\" the \"Meditazioni per l'ora Eucaristica.\" Now\nof these it may be said generally, that in the body of the Meditation\nSt. Mary is hardly mentioned at all. For instance, in the Meditations on\nthe Passion, a book used for distribution, through two hundred and\nseventy-seven pages St. Mary is not once named. In the Prayers for Mass\nwhich are added, she is introduced, at the Confiteor, thus, \"I pray the\nVirgin, the Angels, the Apostles, and all the Saints of heaven to\nintercede,\" &c.; and in the Preparation for Penance, she is once\naddressed, after our Lord, as the Refuge of sinners, with the Saints and\nGuardian Angel; and at the end of the Exercise there is a similar prayer\nof four lines for the intercession of St. Mary, Angels and Saints of\nheaven. In the Exercise for Communion, in a prayer to our Lord, \"my only\nand infinite good, my treasure, my life, my paradise, my all,\" the\nmerits of the Saints are mentioned, \"especially of St. Mary.\" She is\nalso mentioned with Angels and Saints at the termination.\n\nIn a collection of \"Spiritual Lauds\" for Missions, of thirty-six Hymns,\nwe find as many as eleven addressed to St. Mary, or relating to her,\namong which are translations of the _Ave Maris Stella_, and the _Stabat\nMater_, and the _Salve Regina_; and one is on \"the sinner's reliance on\nMary.\" Five, however, which are upon Repentance, are entirely engaged\nupon the subjects of our Lord and sin, with the exception of an address\nto St. Mary at the end of two of them. Seven others, upon sin, the\nCrucifixion, and the Four Last Things, do not mention the Blessed\nVirgin's name.\n\nTo the Manual for the Perpetual Adoration of the Divine Heart of Jesus\nthere is appended one chapter on the Immaculate Conception.\n\n\n8.\n\nOne of the most important of these books is the French _Pensez-y bien_,\nwhich seems a favourite, since there are two translations of it, one of\nthem being the fifteenth edition; and it is used for distribution in\nMissions. In these reflections there is scarcely a word said of St.\nMary. At the end there is a Method of reciting the Crown of the Seven\nDolours of the Virgin Mary, which contains seven prayers to her, and the\n_Stabat Mater_.\n\nOne of the longest in the whole collection is a tract consisting\nprincipally of Meditations on the Holy Communion; under the title of the\n\"Eucharistic Month,\" as already mentioned. In these \"Preparations,\"\n\"Aspirations,\" &c., St. Mary is but once mentioned, and that in a prayer\naddressed to our Lord. \"O my sweetest Brother,\" it says with an allusion\nto the Canticles, \"who, being made Man for my salvation, hast sucked the\nmilk from the virginal breast of her, who is my Mother by grace,\" &c. In\na small \"Instruction\" given to children on their first Communion, there\nare the following questions and answers: \"Is our Lady in the Host? No.\nAre the Angels and the Saints? No. Why not? Because they have no place\nthere.\"\n\n\n9.\n\nNow coming to those in the third class, which directly relate to the\nBlessed Mary, such as \"Esercizio ad Onore dell' addolorato cuore di\nMaria,\" \"Novena di Preparazione alla festa dell' Assunzione,\" \"Li\nQuindici Misteri del Santo Rosario,\" the principal is Father Segneri's\n\"Il divoto di Maria,\" which requires a distinct notice. It is far from\nthe intention of these remarks to deny the high place which the Holy\nVirgin holds in the devotion of Catholics; I am but bringing evidence of\nits not interfering with that incommunicable and awful relation which\nexists between the creature and the Creator; and, if the foregoing\ninstances show, as far as they go, that that relation is preserved\ninviolate in such honours as are paid to St. Mary, so will this treatise\nthrow light upon the _rationale_ by which the distinction is preserved\nbetween the worship of God and the honour of an exalted creature, and\nthat in singular accordance with the remarks made in the foregoing\nSection.\n\n\n10.\n\nThis work of Segneri is written against persons who continue in sins\nunder pretence of their devotion to St. Mary, and in consequence he is\nled to draw out the idea which good Catholics have of her. The idea is\nthis, that she is absolutely the first of created beings. Thus the\ntreatise says, that \"God might have easily made a more beautiful\nfirmament, and a greener earth, but it was not possible to make a higher\nMother than the Virgin Mary; and in her formation there has been\nconferred on mere creatures all the glory of which they are capable,\nremaining mere creatures,\" p. 34. And as containing all created\nperfection, she has all those attributes, which, as was noticed above,\nthe Arians and other heretics applied to our Lord, and which the Church\ndenied of Him as infinitely below His Supreme Majesty. Thus she is \"the\ncreated Idea in the making of the world,\" p. 20; \"which, as being a more\nexact copy of the Incarnate Idea than was elsewhere to be found, was\nused as the original of the rest of the creation,\" p. 21. To her are\napplied the words, \"Ego primogenita prodivi ex ore Altissimi,\" because\nshe was predestinated in the Eternal Mind coevally with the Incarnation\nof her Divine Son. But to Him alone the title of Wisdom Incarnate is\nreserved, p. 25. Again, Christ is the First-born by nature; the Virgin\nin a less sublime order, viz. that of adoption. Again, if omnipotence is\nascribed to her, it is a participated omnipotence (as she and all Saints\nhave a participated sonship, divinity, glory, holiness, and worship),\nand is explained by the words, \"Quod Deus imperio, tu prece, Virgo,\npotes.\"\n\n\n11.\n\nAgain, a special office is assigned to the Blessed Virgin, that is,\nspecial as compared with all other Saints; but it is marked off with the\nutmost precision from that assigned to our Lord. Thus she is said to\nhave been made \"the arbitress of every _effect_ coming from God's\nmercy.\" Because she is the Mother of God, the salvation of mankind is\nsaid to be given to her prayers \"_de congruo_, but _de condigno_ it is\ndue only to the blood of the Redeemer,\" p. 113. Merit is ascribed to\nChrist, and prayer to St. Mary, p. 162. The whole may be expressed in\nthe words, \"_Unica_ spes mea Jesus, et post Jesum Virgo Maria. Amen.\"\n\nAgain, a distinct _cultus_ is assigned to Mary, but the reason of it is\nsaid to be the transcendent dignity of her Son. \"A particular _cultus_\nis due to the Virgin beyond comparison greater than that given to any\nother Saint, because her dignity belongs to another order, namely to one\nwhich in some sense belongs to the order of the Hypostatic Union itself,\nand is necessarily connected with it,\" p. 41. And \"Her being the Mother\nof God is the source of all the extraordinary honours due to Mary,\" p.\n35.\n\nIt is remarkable that the \"Monstra te esse Matrem\" is explained, p. 158,\nas \"Show thyself to be _our_ Mother;\" an interpretation which I think I\nhave found elsewhere in these Tracts, and also in a book commonly used\nin religious houses, called the \"Journal of Meditations,\" and\nelsewhere.[436:1]\n\nIt must be kept in mind that my object here is not to prove the dogmatic\naccuracy of what these popular publications teach concerning the\nprerogatives of the Blessed Virgin, but to show that that teaching is\nnot such as to obscure the divine glory of her Son. We must ask for\nclearer evidence before we are able to admit so grave a charge; and so\nmuch may suffice on the Sixth Test of fidelity in the development of an\nidea, as applied to the Catholic system.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[422:1] Supr. p. 173.\n\n[423:1] Supr. p. 174.\n\n[428:1] _E. g._ the \"De Imitatione,\" the \"Introduction \u00e0 la Vie D\u00e9vote,\"\nthe \"Spiritual Combat,\" the \"Anima Divota,\" the \"Paradisus Anim\u00e6,\" the\n\"Regula Cleri,\" the \"Garden of the Soul,\" &c. &c. [Also, the Roman\nCatechism, drawn up expressly for Parish instruction, a book in which,\nout of nearly 600 pages, scarcely half-a-dozen make mention of the\nBlessed Virgin, though without any disparagement thereby, or thought of\ndisparagement, of her special prerogatives.]\n\n[436:1] [Vid. Via Media, vol. ii. pp. 121-2.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nAPPLICATION OF THE SEVENTH NOTE OF A TRUE DEVELOPMENT.\n\n\nCHRONIC VIGOUR.\n\nWe have arrived at length at the seventh and last test, which was laid\ndown when we started, for distinguishing the true development of an idea\nfrom its corruptions and perversions: it is this. A corruption, if\nvigorous, is of brief duration, runs itself out quickly, and ends in\ndeath; on the other hand, if it lasts, it fails in vigour and passes\ninto a decay. This general law gives us additional assistance in\ndetermining the character of the developments of Christianity commonly\ncalled Catholic.\n\n\n2.\n\nWhen we consider the succession of ages during which the Catholic system\nhas endured, the severity of the trials it has undergone, the sudden and\nwonderful changes without and within which have befallen it, the\nincessant mental activity and the intellectual gifts of its maintainers,\nthe enthusiasm which it has kindled, the fury of the controversies which\nhave been carried on among its professors, the impetuosity of the\nassaults made upon it, the ever-increasing responsibilities to which it\nhas been committed by the continuous development of its dogmas, it is\nquite inconceivable that it should not have been broken up and lost,\nwere it a corruption of Christianity. Yet it is still living, if there\nbe a living religion or philosophy in the world; vigorous, energetic,\npersuasive, progressive; _vires acquirit eundo_; it grows and is not\novergrown; it spreads out, yet is not enfeebled; it is ever germinating,\nyet ever consistent with itself. Corruptions indeed are to be found\nwhich sleep and are suspended; and these, as I have said, are usually\ncalled \"decays:\" such is not the case with Catholicity; it does not\nsleep, it is not stationary even now; and that its long series of\ndevelopments should be corruptions would be an instance of sustained\nerror, so novel, so unaccountable, so preternatural, as to be little\nshort of a miracle, and to rival those manifestations of Divine Power\nwhich constitute the evidence of Christianity. We sometimes view with\nsurprise and awe the degree of pain and disarrangement which the human\nframe can undergo without succumbing; yet at length there comes an end.\nFevers have their crisis, fatal or favourable; but this corruption of a\nthousand years, if corruption it be, has ever been growing nearer death,\nyet never reaching it, and has been strengthened, not debilitated, by\nits excesses.\n\n\n3.\n\nFor instance: when the Empire was converted, multitudes, as is very\nplain, came into the Church on but partially religious motives, and with\nhabits and opinions infected with the false worships which they had\nprofessedly abandoned. History shows us what anxiety and effort it cost\nher rulers to keep Paganism out of her pale. To this tendency must be\nadded the hazard which attended on the development of the Catholic\nritual, such as the honours publicly assigned to Saints and Martyrs, the\nformal veneration of their relics, and the usages and observances which\nfollowed. What was to hinder the rise of a sort of refined Pantheism,\nand the overthrow of dogmatism _pari passu_ with the multiplication of\nheavenly intercessors and patrons? If what is called in reproach\n\"Saint-worship\" resembled the polytheism which it supplanted, or was a\ncorruption, how did Dogmatism survive? Dogmatism is a religion's\nprofession of its own reality as contrasted with other systems; but\npolytheists are liberals, and hold that one religion is as good as\nanother. Yet the theological system was developing and strengthening, as\nwell as the monastic rule, which is intensely anti-pantheistic, all the\nwhile the ritual was assimilating itself, as Protestants say, to the\nPaganism of former ages.\n\n\n4.\n\nNor was the development of dogmatic theology, which was then taking\nplace, a silent and spontaneous process. It was wrought out and carried\nthrough under the fiercest controversies, and amid the most fearful\nrisks. The Catholic faith was placed in a succession of perils, and\nrocked to and fro like a vessel at sea. Large portions of Christendom\nwere, one after another, in heresy or in schism; the leading Churches\nand the most authoritative schools fell from time to time into serious\nerror; three Popes, Liberius, Vigilius, Honorius, have left to posterity\nthe burden of their defence: but these disorders were no interruption to\nthe sustained and steady march of the sacred science from implicit\nbelief to formal statement. The series of ecclesiastical decisions, in\nwhich its progress was ever and anon signified, alternate between the\none and the other side of the theological dogma especially in question,\nas if fashioning it into shape by opposite strokes. The controversy\nbegan in Apollinaris, who confused or denied the Two Natures in Christ,\nand was condemned by Pope Damasus. A reaction followed, and Theodore of\nMopsuestia suggested by his teaching the doctrine of Two Persons. After\nNestorius had brought that heresy into public view, and had incurred in\nconsequence the anathema of the Third Ecumenical Council, the current of\ncontroversy again shifted its direction; for Eutyches appeared,\nmaintained the One Nature, and was condemned at Chalcedon. Something\nhowever was still wanting to the overthrow of the Nestorian doctrine of\nTwo Persons, and the Fifth Council was formally directed against the\nwritings of Theodore and his party. Then followed the Monothelite\nheresy, which was a revival of the Eutychian or Monophysite, and was\ncondemned in the Sixth. Lastly, Nestorianism once more showed itself in\nthe Adoptionists of Spain, and gave occasion to the great Council of\nFrankfort. Any one false step would have thrown the whole theory of the\ndoctrine into irretrievable confusion; but it was as if some one\nindividual and perspicacious intellect, to speak humanly, ruled the\ntheological discussion from first to last. That in the long course of\ncenturies, and in spite of the failure, in points of detail, of the most\ngifted Fathers and Saints, the Church thus wrought out the one and only\nconsistent theory which can be taken on the great doctrine in dispute,\nproves how clear, simple, and exact her vision of that doctrine was. But\nit proves more than this. Is it not utterly incredible, that with this\nthorough comprehension of so great a mystery, as far as the human mind\ncan know it, she should be at that very time in the commission of the\ngrossest errors in religious worship, and should be hiding the God and\nMediator, whose Incarnation she contemplated with so clear an intellect,\nbehind a crowd of idols?\n\n\n5.\n\nThe integrity of the Catholic developments is still more evident when\nthey are viewed in contrast with the history of other doctrinal systems.\nPhilosophies and religions of the world have each its day, and are parts\nof a succession. They supplant and are in turn supplanted. But the\nCatholic religion alone has had no limits; it alone has ever been\ngreater than the emergence, and can do what others cannot do. If it were\na falsehood, or a corruption, like the systems of men, it would be weak\nas they are; whereas it is able even to impart to them a strength which\nthey have not, and it uses them for its own purposes, and locates them\nin its own territory. The Church can extract good from evil, or at least\ngets no harm from it. She inherits the promise made to the disciples,\nthat they should take up serpents, and, if they drank any deadly thing,\nit should not hurt them. When evil has clung to her, and the barbarian\npeople have looked on with curiosity or in malice, till she should have\nswollen or fallen down suddenly, she has shaken the venomous beast into\nthe fire, and felt no harm.\n\n\n6.\n\nEusebius has set before us this attribute of Catholicism in a passage in\nhis history. \"These attempts,\" he says, speaking of the acts of the\nenemy, \"did not long avail him, Truth ever consolidating itself, and, as\ntime goes on, shining into broader day. For, while the devices of\nadversaries were extinguished at once, undone by their very\nimpetuosity,--one heresy after another presenting its own novelty, the\nformer specimens ever dissolving and wasting variously in manifold and\nmultiform shapes,--the brightness of the Catholic and only true Church\nwent forward increasing and enlarging, yet ever in the same things, and\nin the same way, beaming on the whole race of Greeks and barbarians with\nthe awfulness, and simplicity, and nobleness, and sobriety, and purity\nof its divine polity and philosophy. Thus the calumny against our whole\ncreed died with its day, and there continued alone our Discipline,\nsovereign among all, and acknowledged to be pre-eminent in awfulness,\nsobriety, and divine and philosophical doctrines; so that no one of this\nday dares to cast any base reproach upon our faith, nor any calumny,\nsuch as it was once usual for our enemies to use.\"[442:1]\n\n\n7.\n\nThe Psalmist says, \"We went through fire and water;\" nor is it possible\nto imagine trials fiercer or more various than those from which\nCatholicism has come forth uninjured, as out of the Egyptian sea or the\nBabylonian furnace. First of all were the bitter persecutions of the\nPagan Empire in the early centuries; then its sudden conversion, the\nliberty of Christian worship, the development of the _cultus sanctorum_,\nand the reception of Monachism into the ecclesiastical system. Then came\nthe irruption of the barbarians, and the occupation by them of the\n_orbis terrarum_ from the North, and by the Saracens from the South.\nMeanwhile the anxious and protracted controversy concerning the\nIncarnation hung like some terrible disease upon the faith of the\nChurch. Then came the time of thick darkness; and afterwards two great\nstruggles, one with the material power, the other with the intellect, of\nthe world, terminating in the ecclesiastical monarchy, and in the\ntheology of the schools. And lastly came the great changes consequent\nupon the controversies of the sixteenth century. Is it conceivable that\nany one of those heresies, with which ecclesiastical history abounds,\nshould have gone through a hundredth part of these trials, yet have come\nout of them so nearly what it was before, as Catholicism has done? Could\nsuch a theology as Arianism have lasted through the scholastic contest?\nor Montanism have endured to possess the world, without coming to a\ncrisis, and failing? or could the imbecility of the Manichean system, as\na religion, have escaped exposure, had it been brought into conflict\nwith the barbarians of the Empire, or the feudal system?\n\n\n8.\n\nA similar contrast discovers itself in the respective effects and\nfortunes of certain influential principles or usages, which have both\nbeen introduced into the Catholic system, and are seen in operation\nelsewhere. When a system really is corrupt, powerful agents, when\napplied to it, do but develope that corruption, and bring it the more\nspeedily to an end. They stimulate it preternaturally; it puts forth its\nstrength, and dies in some memorable act. Very different has been the\nhistory of Catholicism, when it has committed itself to such formidable\ninfluences. It has borne, and can bear, principles or doctrines, which\nin other systems of religion quickly degenerate into fanaticism or\ninfidelity. This might be shown at great length in the history of the\nAristotelic philosophy within and without the Church; or in the history\nof Monachism, or of Mysticism;--not that there has not been at first a\nconflict between these powerful and unruly elements and the Divine\nSystem into which they were entering, but that it ended in the victory\nof Catholicism. The theology of St. Thomas, nay of the Church of his\nperiod, is built on that very Aristotelism, which the early Fathers\ndenounce as the source of all misbelief, and in particular of the Arian\nand Monophysite heresies. The exercises of asceticism, which are so\ngraceful in St. Antony, so touching in St. Basil, and so awful in St.\nGermanus, do but become a melancholy and gloomy superstition even in the\nmost pious persons who are cut off from Catholic communion. And while\nthe highest devotion in the Church is the mystical, and contemplation\nhas been the token of the most singularly favoured Saints, we need not\nlook deeply into the history of modern sects, for evidence of the\nexcesses in conduct, or the errors in doctrine, to which mystics have\nbeen commonly led, who have boasted of their possession of reformed\ntruth, and have rejected what they called the corruptions of\nCatholicism.\n\n\n9.\n\nIt is true, there have been seasons when, from the operation of external\nor internal causes, the Church has been thrown into what was almost a\nstate of _deliquium_; but her wonderful revivals, while the world was\ntriumphing over her, is a further evidence of the absence of corruption\nin the system of doctrine and worship into which she has developed. If\ncorruption be an incipient disorganization, surely an abrupt and\nabsolute recurrence to the former state of vigour, after an interval, is\neven less conceivable than a corruption that is permanent. Now this is\nthe case with the revivals I speak of. After violent exertion men are\nexhausted and fall asleep; they awake the same as before, refreshed by\nthe temporary cessation of their activity; and such has been the slumber\nand such the restoration of the Church. She pauses in her course, and\nalmost suspends her functions; she rises again, and she is herself once\nmore; all things are in their place and ready for action. Doctrine is\nwhere it was, and usage, and precedence, and principle, and policy;\nthere may be changes, but they are consolidations or adaptations; all is\nunequivocal and determinate, with an identity which there is no\ndisputing. Indeed it is one of the most popular charges against the\nCatholic Church at this very time, that she is \"incorrigible;\"--change\nshe cannot, if we listen to St. Athanasius or St. Leo; change she never\nwill, if we believe the controversialist or alarmist of the present day.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSuch were the thoughts concerning the \"Blessed Vision of Peace,\" of one\nwhose long-continued petition had been that the Most Merciful would not\ndespise the work of His own Hands, nor leave him to himself;--while yet\nhis eyes were dim, and his breast laden, and he could but employ Reason\nin the things of Faith. And now, dear Reader, time is short, eternity is\nlong. Put not from you what you have here found; regard it not as mere\nmatter of present controversy; set not out resolved to refute it, and\nlooking about for the best way of doing so; seduce not yourself with the\nimagination that it comes of disappointment, or disgust, or\nrestlessness, or wounded feeling, or undue sensibility, or other\nweakness. Wrap not yourself round in the associations of years past; nor\ndetermine that to be truth which you wish to be so, nor make an idol of\ncherished anticipations. Time is short, eternity is long.\n\n       NUNC DIMITTIS SERVUM TUUM, DOMINE,\n         SECUNDUM VERBUM TUUM IN PACE:\n     QUIA VIDERUNT OCULI MEI SALUTARE TUUM.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[442:1] Euseb. Hist. iv. 7, _ap._ Church of the Fathers [Historical\nSketches, vol. i. p. 408].\n\n\nTHE END.\n\n\n\n\nTRANSCRIBER'S NOTES:\n\n\nThe abbreviations i. e. and e. g. have been spaced throughout the text\nfor consistency.\n\nThe following words use an oe ligature in the original:\n\n     Beroea          Moesia\n     coelis          Moesian\n     coelistibus     Moesogoths\n     coelum          Phoenicia\n     coena           Poenas\n     Euboea          poenitentia\n     foecund\u00e6\n\nThe following corrections have been made to the text:\n\n     Page 5: or the vicissitudes[original has vicissisudes] of\n     human affairs\n\n     Page 20: St. Justin was ready to concede to creatures.[period\n     missing in original]\n\n     Page 39: but is modified, or[original has or or] at least\n     influenced\n\n     Page 100: professes to accept,[original has period] and which,\n     do what he will\n\n     Page 102: and more explicit than the text.[period missing in\n     original]\n\n     Page 118: which is unsuitable to the Ante-nicene[original has\n     Antenicene] period\n\n     Page 133: almost universality in the primitive Church.[133:1]\n     [footnote anchor missing in original--position verified in an\n     earlier edition]\n\n     Page 172: whether fairly or not does not interfere[original\n     has interefere]\n\n     Page 227: a good-humoured superstition[original has\n     supersition]\n\n     Page 288: He explained St. Thomas's[original has extraneous\n     comma]\n\n     Page 306: of Himeria in Osrhoene[original has Orsho\u00ebne]\n\n     Page 309: During the interval, Dioscorus[original has\n     Discorus] was tried\n\n     Page 320: to contain scarcely[original has scarely] a single\n     inhabitant\n\n     Page 336: derive its efficacy from human faith.\"[quotation\n     mark missing in original]\n\n     Page 344: orthodoxy will stand or fall together.[period\n     missing in original]\n\n     Page 365: true Unitarianism of St.[period missing in original]\n     Augustine.\n\n     Page 416: as it is said in the Apocalypse,[original has\n     extraneous quotation mark] \"The dragon\n\n     [13:2] British Critic, July, 1836, p. 193.[period missing in\n     original]\n\n     [18:3] Basil,[original has period] ed. Ben.[period missing in\n     original] vol. 3,[comma missing in original] p. xcvi.\n\n     [81:2] _Essay on Assent_, ch. vii. sect. 2.[period missing in\n     original]\n\n     [148:1] In Psalm 118, v. 3,[original has period] de Instit.\n     Virg. 50.\n\n     [162:1] Serm.[period missing in original] De Natal. iii. 3.\n\n     [213:1] p. 296, t. 5, mem. p. 63, t. 16,[comma missing in\n     original] mem. p. 267\n\n     [216:1] Sueton. Tiber.[period missing in original] 36\n\n     [234:3] [footnote number missing in original] Acad. Inscr. ibid.\n\n     [235:1] Gibbon, Hist. ch.[period missing in original] 16, note\n     14.\n\n     [237:2] In hon. Rom. 62.[original has comma] In Act. S. Cypr.\n     4\n\n     [259:1] H\u00e6r. 42,[original has period] p. 366.\n\n     [280:1] De Gub.[period missing in original] D. iv. p. 73.\n\n     [288:1] Lengerke, de Ephrem[original has extraneous period]\n     Syr. pp. 73-75.\n\n     [302:2] overthrow of all heresy, _especially_ the\n     Arian,[original has period]\n\n     [331:2] _Vid._ also _supr._[period missing in original] p.\n     256.\n\n     [369:1] Infra,[original has period] pp. 411-415, &c.\n\n     [371:1] Epp.[period missing in original] 102, 18.\n\n     [371:2] Contr. Faust.[original has comma] 20, 23.\n\n     [371:3] August.[letter \"s\" not printed in original] Ep. 102,\n     18\n\n     [399:1] Rosweyde,[original has period] V. P. p. 618.\n\n     [442:1] Euseb.[period missing in original] Hist. iv. 7\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":137051}