ganic life. The office and authority of the Holy See were recognized with growing distinctness, as the practical importance of a visible centre of unity became apparent in the clash of conflicting interests and diverse nationalities at work within the common fold; and so, too, successive theological controversies were the providential means of bringing out in detail the due 'proportion' and harmony of the faith. The fulness of truth was wrapped up in the apostolic tradition, the worldwide religion lay hid in the upper room at Jerusalem, as the results of mathematical science are involved in its axioms, or the oak is contained in the acorn.

And, next, we may trace a certain historical sequence in the evolution of doctrines running parallel to the order of the Creed. First, in the contest with Greek philosophy, the doctrine of the Trinity had to be evolved and fixed, and this mainly occupied the two first Ecumenical Councils; the four next were engaged in formulizing and guarding the faith of the Incarnation; the first definition on the Eucharist occurs in the seventh (787, A.D.) Later on, and in the West, the subjective questions of grace and free will, first mooted by St. Augustine, and their mutual relations in the justification of man (involving the doctrine of 'merit,' so strangely misunderstood afterwards) presented themselves to the mind of the Church; as also the theology of the sacraments, in their nature, number, and distinguishing characteristics. The results of her judgment on all these points found a luminous exposition in the Catechism and decrees of Trent, from which the later doctrinal symbols of the Greek Church do not materially differ. It was in the subjective side of their theology that the strength

of the Reformers chiefly lay. Luther desired to shift the verdict from the Synod, and the lecture-room, and the cloister, and to make his appeal direct to the hearts and experiences of mankind. He questioned them, not of the nature or mission of the Redeemer, but of how the sinner is made just before God. The controversies of our own day turn principally on the last division of the Creed, which deals with the Person and Offices of the Holy Ghost, and concern more especially His inspiration of Scripture, and His abiding Presence in the Church. What the Protestant movement was to the sixteenth century, that is the Rationalistic movement to our own.

▸ I observe further, that, if the principle of development be denied, only two theories remain on which any positive scheme of Christian doctrine can be maintained; first, that laid down by Chillingworth, and accepted in name, but rejected in practice, by nearly all Protestant communities, ‘The Bible, and the Bible alone, the religion of Protestants.' On the actual results of this theory, when fairly carried out, I shall have something to say, in another connection, hereafter. Suffice it to remark here, that, when attempted to be reduced to practice for corporate purposes, it is obliged to assume at starting so much of the Catholic principle as will cover the authenticity and inspiration of the Bible, and also some particular scheme of interpretation; if either of these postulates be denied, the theory falls to the ground as a basis for any definite form of belief.* In the abstract, however, it is intelligible and coherent. The other theory in fact, though

*This inconsistency of Protestant systems is dwelt upon in Mackay's Tubingen School and its Antecedents. London, 1863.

not in words, admits the principle of development, but seeks to limit its operation to the early ages. According to this latter, we ought to accept not only the Bible, but the Catholic creeds—i. e., the Apostolic, Nicene, and Athanasian-together with the dogmatic decrees of the earlier Councils, and the judgment of the early Church on the Canon of Scripture, rejecting all later developments, or as they would be called 'innovations,' such as Purgatory or the Double Procession. This principle is professed by the Church of England, and, with more rigid consistency, by the Greek Church, and is acted upon in various degrees, though disclaimed in theory, by the principal Protestant communities of Europe. It has an advantage over the former, or purely Bible theory, in providing, up to a certain point, a definite system of belief; but it is deficient in applicability to fresh circumstances, and in internal coherence. For the question at once occurs, Where are we to draw the line? Theological science cannot come to a standstill, and if we are bound to accept the definitions of Nice and Chalcedon, why are we to reject the decrees of later Councils? If the sensus fidelium is enough to guarantee the Athanasian dogmas, and (in the Anglican Church) the Filioque, why is it inadequate to guarantee the Invocation of Saints, or Purgatory? The Holy Ghost, who guided the Church during the earlier ages, cannot be supposed to have withdrawn His illuminating gifts; and, since the new forms and varied resources of error are confined to no one particular period, so neither should be the Church's capabilities for meeting them, if need be, by fresh definitions, and a fuller exhibition of that portion of revealed truth which happens to be assailed. We

с

can understand there being no development at all—that is the 'Bible only' theory; but it is not easy to understand (if I may be allowed to borrow a political formula) development with a principle of finality. We cannot, with the Danish monarch of old, say to the rising spring tide, "Thus far shalt thou come and no farther." If the stream once began to flow, we clearly have a right to ask where it was dammed up, and why. That this difficulty is something more than a mere intellectual puzzle is shown by the fact, that both the Greek and Anglican Churches have had to frame new formulas since the division, and will appear further when we come to speak of the modern rationalistic school. It may suffice to suggest it here.

There have no doubt been those in other days, when history was less studied and criticism almost unknown, who have supposed, that all now taught as Catholic doctrine could be discovered in the writings of the early Fathers. Such a view is no longer held by any well-informed man. It is becoming daily clearer, that the real question is, not whether such and such details of doctrine are or are not developments (for the Thirty-nine Articles, and the Confession of Augsburg are no less a development than the Creed of Pius IV.), but what are the right developments. This is quite understood by Protestant divines in Germany of the more orthodox, as well as of the rationalist school, no less than by Catholic writers.* And it involves more than may at first sight appear; for if the radical principle be denied, we shall

*See e.g. Thomasius' work on Origen. Ein Beitrag fur Dogmen Geschichte des dritten Jahrhunderts.

find ourselves, sooner or later, compelled to surrender, not only later definitions, but almost every belief which discriminates Christianity from the higher forms of natural religion. None who value any positive belief can afford to be mere spectators, still less aggressors in the fray. Tua res agitur cum proximus ardet was never more surely verified than here. It is Christianity itself that is at stake.

And now, as a principle is usually best understood by illustrations, I will proceed to exemplify in some crucial cases the gradual expression of doctrine in the Church.

(1.) Let us suppose a Christian of the first, or second, or third century to have been asked, "How many sacraments are there?" He certainly would not have understood the drift of the question. The word Sacrament was used by early writers, as the corresponding term μvorýρwv is used in the New Testament, in a sense which includes indeed our conception of a sacrament, but which includes a great deal more besides. "This is a great mystery," or sacrament, says St. Paul, speaking of Christian marriage; but he also says, "Without doubt, great is the mystery of godliness," speaking of the Incarnation, and here again the Vulgate reads sacramentum pietatis. There is perhaps nothing to which the early Fathers, especially St. Augustine, so frequently apply the term sacramentum as the Incarnation. But, if our early Christian had been made with great difficulty to comprehend the question addressed to him, he could only have replied, "I don't know." The same sacraments were of course administered from the first, and all are referred to in Scripture. Then as now