CORRECTIONS.

p. 2, last line. For "litberas" read "libertas."

p. 3, note 1.

For "Die christl. Dogmatik, I. 19, read "Kathol. Dogmatik, vol. i. p. 13.

p. 19, note 3. For "imcomprehensible" read "incomprehensible."

p. 76, note. For "p. 77" read "p. 475."

p. 83, line 15 from top. For "predistinction" read "predestination."

p. 91, note 2. Insert “àπoλúтpwois" before "in Eph. i. 7.”

p. 93, line 2 from bottom. For "alike" read "alive.”

p. 145, line 13 from top. For "wholeh uman" read "whole human." p. 204, note 2. For "he" read "the."

p. 214, line 4 from bottom. For "Reedemer's" read "Redeemer's."

p. 235, note. For "the word AUTрów" read "the verb AUTpów."

p. 238, line 15 from top. For "that" read "but that."

INTRODUCTION.

ON THE PRINCIPLE OF THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS.

It can hardly be doubted, that one of the most important theological questions of the day, on which many of our detailed controversies will be found to hinge, and into which they must ultimately be re solved, is that of developments in Christian belief. From failing to recognise this great law of revealed as of scientific truth, thousands are prejudiced against dogmatic Christianity altogether, while others hold it with but a feeble and uncertain grasp. Nor can we look with any confidence for the return to unity of separated religious bodies, while some rigidly adhere to the principle of a lifeless and unfruitful tradition, and others insist on an exclusive appeal to the bare letter of Scripture. This question will accordingly be found, if I mistake not, to lie at the root of half our religious disputes, and some understanding upon it is an indispensable preliminary for their appreciation or adjustment.

There is of course a broad line to be drawn between matters of faith, and of theological opinion, between what is put before us as a portion of the revealed deposit, and what may be reasonably, or probably, or piously believed as an inference from it. But there are also theological inferences, which come to be so clearly ascertained in the course of ages, that they are at length fixed by authoritative decisions, and accepted as part of the original revelation, which, though not explicitly contained in the words of Apostles and Evangelists, is felt to be involved in the general scope of their teaching, and to supply the right key for its harmonious interpretation.

It is natural, then, to prefix to a work occupied with tracing the history of a particular doctrine some observations on this principle of growth and development in Catholic theology, though all that can be attempted within our present limits is to sketch out roughly some main outlines of thought on the subject. And as the method of the Treatise is not controversial but historical, so will it be my aim in this Introductory Essay to speak as little controversially as the subject admits. A statement of principles cannot be made too clear, but it is never less persuasive than when thrown into a polemical shape. Most earnestly would I desire to take for my motto in all that I may say that noble maxim of Christian antiquity, which, if not verbally stated in the works of St. Augustine, has ever been held to express the mind of that great Saint and Teacher in the Church of God; In necessariis unitas, in dubiis litberas, in omnibus caritas.

The development of doctrine, it can hardly be needful to observe, does not mean that there is a constant succession of fresh revelations in the Church to supplement or to supersede the revelations of Christmas and Pentecost.' Still less does it mean, as others have objected, that Christian doctrine receives, as time goes on, a series of fresh accessions, from the admixture or fusion of heterogeneous elements. Let me illustrate my meaning by an example. Supposing, Supposing, as has sometimes been maintained, that the invocation of Saints had originally sprung from a gradual adoption of polytheistic practices, as the converted heathen began to multiply and dominate in the Church, instead of being the natural outgrowth of a deeper view of the Incarnation; or suppose, as others have urged, that the doctrine of the Trinity was imported from NeoPlatonism into the Gospel;-that would, in either case, be an accretion, but not a true development. What is meant is simply this that the Christian revelation once, and once for all, 'delivered to the Saints,' through the Incarnation of the Eternal Word, and from the lips of His inspired servants, though fully apprehended from the first for all necessary ends, has grown, and was intended to grow, by degrees on the consciousness of the Church, illumined by the abiding presence of the Divine Comforter.2

Kuhn therefore (Die christl. Dogmatik I. 19.) rightly rejects Studenmaier's statement, "dass der heilige Geist als Princip der Weisheit nicht nur das von Christus ausgegange götliche Wort erhalte, sondern auch durch fortegehende Inspirationen Wahrheiten aufs Neue immer erzeuge."

2 I subjoin all the more readily the following apposite passage from the