is not and cannot be a portion of the Catholic faith, unless we assume for the Church gratia inspirationis, which she has not, and does not claim. Her commission was not, to reveal truth, but to keep, believe, and teach the truth already revealed, “Going, teach all nations ..... to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Under the old law there was development, and Christianity itself is, in some sense, a development of Judaism, but not a development effected by human agency. In the one case it was a development effected by the immediate agency of our Lord and inspired Apostles, and in the other by inspired prophets, inspired to reveal truth, not merely to keep, teach, or believe it. Here is an important fact which Mr. Newman has undeniably overlooked, and which vitiates all his arguments drawn from the fact of developments under the old law, in favor of the antecedent probability of developments under the new law. There is no parity in the case ; for under the old law there was gratia inspirationis, but under the new law there is only gratia assistentiæ. St. Thomas expressly denies developments under the new law similar to those which took place under the old law. He objects to the necessity of a new edition of the Symbol: “ Nova enim editio symboli necessaria est propter explicationem articulorum fidei. Sed in veteri testamento articuli fidei magis ac magis explicabantur secundum temporum successionem, propter hoc quod veritas fidei magis manifestatur secundum majorem propinquitatem ad Christum. tali causa in nova lege, non debet fieri major ac major explicatio articuloruin fidei.” To which the holy doctor replies, in the body of the article : — “Respondeo dicendum, , quod nova editio symboli necessaria est ad vitandum insurgentes errores ”; and specially to the objection, what we have already quoted : -"Dicendum, quod in doctrina Christi et A postolorum veritas fidei sufficienter explicata. Sed quia perversi homines Apostolicam doctrinam, et cæteras doctrinas, et Scripturas pervertunt ad sui ipsorum perditionem, ideo necessaria suit temporibus procedentibus explicatio fidei contra insurgentes errores. Here, the principle of the objection is conceded, and the reason assigned for the new explication is not that the faith may be more and more explicit, but that errors which arise may be avoided. Mr. Newman has evidently fallen into the error into which we ourselves fell, when, in the first number of this Journal, we wrote as follows:

"The true theory of the Church is, I believe, that, through all the successive stages of its existence, it is Apostolic, retaining always and everywhere the same authority over faith and discipline which the Apostles themselves had; and that its mission is not merely to preserve the memory of a work done, completed, but to continue and carry on to perfection a work commenced. It has indeed received the law from which it can in no wise depart, but a law which it is to develope and apply, by virtue of its own continuous inspiration, -received from the indwelling Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Truth,to all new questions that come up, and to all old questions coming up under new forms or under new relations. ITS MISSION IS THE

CONTINUED EVOLUTION AND REALIZATION IN LIFE OF THE TRUTH

of

CONTAINED IN THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CHRISTIAN DISPENSATION, which evolution and realization constitute the continued progress mankind. Now I am far from pretending that the Church, in point of fact, has altogether overlooked this theory; . . . . . but she seems to me to have asserted it with too much feebleness and timidity, and with numerous and almost suicidal concessions to the spirit which finally broke out in the Protestant schism. Instead of boldly asserting her high prerogatives as the Body of our Lord, and maintaining her right and her duty to develope and apply the truth, according to the exigencies of time and place, she has left it to be believed, that the Gospel, instead of being given her merely in germ, to be subsequently developed and applied, was given her as a perfect code, drawn out in all the minuteness of detail, and that her sole mission is to preserve the original deposit unaltered, unenlarged, undiminished." *

We confess we are unable to discover any essential difference between the theory here stated and the one developed in Mr. Newman's Essay. Even the problems are virtually the same, with this difference only :- Mr. Newman wished to be able to accept past developments, and we wished to secure the right to future developments. But we, at least, knew that our doctrine was repugnant to the formal teaching of the Church. Therefore we wrote, very consistently, "I am free to confess that I accept the general theory of that Church [the Roman Catholic] as the true theory of the Church of Christ; but that theory itself prevents me, in the present state of the religious world, from seeking to unite myself with the Roman Catholic communion." The theory, as well as some of the developments we subsequently gave of it, were sufficiently refuted in the United States Catholic Magazine for March, 1845, after we had ourselves renounced it.

No Catholic can defend the theory we put forth; for all our theologians unanimously agree that the Church does not and cannot propose as Catholic faith any thing not either explicitly revealed, or at least formally contained in what is explicitly revealed; as, Christ died for me, is formally contained in the revealed proposition, Christ died for all men. What is revealed only as the effect in the cause, or as the property in the essence, though true theologically, and its denial would be erronea, is yet no part of that which the Church teaches as revealed truth, to be believed fide divina et catholica. When the contradictory is condemned by the Church, its assertion is indeed heresy, not because it is itself matter of faith, but because its assertion involves the denial of the infallibility of the Church, which is of faith, because formally revealed. Assuming this, the Church may apply the truth, according to the exigencies of time and place, to the condemnation of all new errors which come up, and to all old errors appearing under new forms or under new relations ; but it must be the truth deposited with her, not deductions discursively drawn from it, if she condemns them as opposed to the faith.

We cannot understand why it should be more correct to assert a growth in Christian doctrine than in the science of morals. If there are developments in Christian doctrine, there is a growth of doctrine, and it could be better learned from the moderns than from the ancients. But that morals can be better learned from the moderns than from the ancients is a condemned proposition. Morals are simply practical theology, and theology finds its principles or data in faith, or Christian doctrine. A progress in either Christian doctrine or theology would imply the possibility of progress in the science of morals. Why, then, should not a denial of the possibility of the latter be equally the denial of the possibility of the former ?

But the point is sufficiently clear. Christians always believed that our Lord was not only true God, but a real man, and had a real body ; but before the rise of the error of the Docetæ, which asserted that his body was a body only in appearance, they may not have considered what they believed, distinctly, in the light of the contradictory of that error. They believed, as explicitly before as afterwards, all that the faith asserted, but did not consider so attentively, nor perceive so distinctly, all it denied. The same may be said of all other points of faith, and their contradictory errors. The faith was

known, but all that could or could not oppose it was not clearly and distinctly known and considered. But whenever the error appeared, it was seen to be repugnant to the faith, and there was a universal outcry against it ; the whole Church looked with horror on the impious wretch who dared broach it, and compelled him instantly to retract it, or to go out from her communion, under the ban of her anathema. This is evident from the whole history of the Church, and from the fact that it is always the error that is new and startling, and never the contradictory truth the Church opposes to it. The cities are illuminated, triumphal processions await the Fathers, and all the world rejoices, from Ephesus to Alexandria, when it is known that the Council has condemned the Nestorian heresy, and declared the Holy Virgin to be the Mother of God, as all were conscious of having always believed.

In the sense of this distinction between positive and negative developments, we understand the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon; the uniform declaration of the Church in every age, that she does but oppose the faith already believed to the errors which arise ; St. Augustine, Vincent of Lerins, St. Thomas, Bossuet, and all our theologians, whenever they speak of the faith as gaining clearness, evidence, distinctness by the condemnation of new errors and heresies. In this sense we understand the learned author of Symbolism, when he speaks of Catholic theology as having gained in clearness and precision by the controversies with the early Reformers. Catholic theology, in so far as it is the explicit negative of those errors of Protestants which were new or which appeared under new forms or in new combinations, has gained in clearness and precision by those controversies ; but

: in other respects we are sure it has not. So of the language of the early Fathers, which Mr. Newman regards as often careless and inexact. That it is often inexact, regarded solely as excluding what is not of faith, may be conceded ; regarded as including what is of faith, it is not.

What we have said is sufficient to establish the fact that Catholic theology is a stranger to positive developments ; but some, presuming Mr. Newman must have been substantially orthodox, and judging from what he ought to have said rather than from what he actually has said, may be disposed to think, that, after all, he may really mean by developments in Christian doctrine only those negative developments which all Catholic theologians admit. There are, we own, portions of his NEW series. VOL. I. NO. I.

11

book which may be understood in this sense ; but, as far as language can go, we have proved, that, though he may mean these, he also means positive developments. If he intended only the ordinary Catholic doctrine on the subject, why did he not say so in plain words? If this was all he meant, what was the need or bearing on his conclusion of his theory of Christian doctrine ? Why did he lay down, and with great care and labor establish, a theory of development, which authorizes positive developments on the largest scale, as well as negative developments? Why did he allege the positive developments under the old law as rendering similar developments under the new law antecedently probable, if he did not contend for similar developments under the new law? How could he have supposed the positive developments in philosophy, in human polity, in sects, in ideas generally, could be illustrations of those he was contending for in Christianity, if he was contending only for negative developments ? How, if this was all he meant, could he have felt it necessary to degrade Christianity to the level of sects and doctrines of the world, to impute to it the imperfections which characterize the productions of man, and to go into an elaborate, ingenious, and profound defence of error and heresy ? Could he have ever dreamed that an all but successful defence of error and heresy is the only defence of the Church in condemning them? The supposition is absurd. Mr. Newman may err, and in our judgment has erred gravely, but his errors are those of a fullgrown man, of a ripe scholar, and a disciplined mind, not those of the schoolboy who has hardly completed his humanities. But whatever the view he may take of the actual developments he contends for, his view of Christian doctrine is sufficient to condemn his Essay as essentially repugnant to Catholic faith and theology. This last we recommend to the consideration of those who are disposed to regard the theory as extra fidem and indifferent, a theory which a Catholic may or may not hold, according to his own individual convictions.

As for the problem the author set out to solve, it was a problem only in his Protestant prejudice. If it were a real problem, there could be no solution of it but in the rejection of the Church ; and just so far as the author assumes it to be real, he yields the whole question to the Protestant. The Church of God never varies, and the only variation a Catholic can concede in Christian doctrine is the greater clearness and