Council of Florence, to be matter of opinion only, and has never obtained in the East.

A further contrast must be drawn between development of doctrine and development of practice, though there is, of course, a close analogy between them. Here again my meaning will be best explained by illustration. "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven," is the statement of a principle of which the Franciscan or Cistercian Orders were a natural and legitimate expression; yet more than a thousand years intervened between the utterance of those words from the sun-crowned brow of Tabor and the time when Francis of Assisi drew up his rule of 'holy poverty,' or Bernard, in the flower and prime of youth, turned his back on all the endearments of a happy home to bury himself in the solitude of Citeaux. Or take the famous passage (Matt. xix. 12), which contains in germ the idea of celibacy as a Christian grace, and consider how gradual was its institution as a rule of life. At the close of the fourth century, Pope Siricius censured the marriage of the clergy in the Western Church; but though forbidden it was not made invalid till the time of Gregory VII., and in many parts of Europe, especially in England and Wales, it continued to be very common. So, again, sacramental absolution was ordained by our Lord for the remission of post-baptismal sin; but the rule of annual confession was first laid down by the Lateran Council in 1214, and accordingly from that time forth we find frequent mention of 'confessors' in royal or noble households, whereas before 'chaplains' only had been spoken of. Kneel

ing at elevation in the Mass, and when the Blessed Sacrament is carried to the sick, was not ordered till the close of the thirteenth century, and the procession of Corpus Christi, first instituted by Urban IV. in 1264, only came into general use after the Council of Vienne in 1311, though the belief in the Real Presence had, of course, prevailed all along. In the early ages, again, it was customary for all the clergy to communicate at the bishop's mass; the practice of every priest saying his own mass afterwards became universal in the West, but the doctrine of the Holy Sacrifice remains unchanged. So far the analogy between doctrinal and practical developments seems complete; but there is an important distinction. A dogmatic development, once authoritatively sealed by the judgment of the Church, can never pass away, except as being merged in a higher and fuller realization of the same truth.† But practical developments are from their nature variable, though the principles they spring from are

*

* When daily celebration became general is a disputed point. The language of Acts ii. 46 seems to imply that it was the custom of the Apostolic Church, but Dr. Döllinger understands the passage differently (Christenthum, p. 351), from there being no later evidence of such a rule for some centuries. Wilberforce (Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist) argues the other way. Attendance at the Holy Sacrifice on Sundays and festivals was undoubtedly of universal obligation from the first.

It is quite possible, of course, for the same theological language to be at one time accepted, and at another rejected by the Church, according to the sense in which it is understood, as happened with the term oμoovσios. Thus again, St. Cyril's famous dictum, μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη, was received by the fifth General Council, and is explained and defended at length by Petavius in its orthodox acceptation, as used by the writer against Nestorius; but it was abused by the Eutychians in the service of their opposite heresy, and could not safely be adopted in public teaching now. So the formula, 'One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh,' was condemned by Pope Hormisdas, and accepted by his successors, but in different senses.-See Petav. De Incarn. v. 2, 3.

not. The religious consecration of virginity, as a state of life, is a principle implied in the words of our Lord and His inspired Apostle, but particular rules about vows of celibacy may vary with variations of time and circumstance. The adoration of Christ in the Eucharist follows immediately from the belief in His Presence, but the methods of external worship need not always be the same. Absolution and communion are divine ordinances, but special rules about the manner and frequency of their ministration are left to the discretion of the Church. The same practices may not be equally adapted to every age and condition of society; and what the Church has solemnly sanctioned at one time, she may, with equal wisdom, alter or abrogate at another. Thus, rules about fasting have varied according to time, climate, or other circumstances. Communion in both kinds was expressly enjoined by Pope Gelasius in the fifth century, in opposition to a current heresy; it began to be discontinued in the West in the thirteenth, and the later practice has lasted on, with certain exceptions, to our own day.* Daily Communion was the ordinary practice of the Early Church, but by 1215 the love of Christians had waxed so cold, that it was found neces sary to enjoin at least an annual reception under pain of sin. I need scarcely say, that in our own day it would be thought little short of scandalous for any one professing to lead a

*In the early ages, those who communicated at home, as was then very common, received under the form of Bread only; infants were communicated immediately after baptism with the chalice, as is still the custom of the Greek Church, where also the viaticum is given to the dying under the form of Bread, dipped in unconsecrated wine.

religious life to communicate so seldom. To take a different case; the whole legislation of the Church, as regards the intercourse of Catholics with those without, was pretty well revolutionized by the Council of Constance, acting under a just appreciation of the altered conditions of European society. These are but a few instances, selected almost at random, of the various or seemingly contrary applications of a common principle, according to the exigences of time and place, of which Church history is full. The mystical Bride was not only to be all' glorious from within,' but also 'clothed in raiment of many colours,' and it is no paradox to say that she is ever changing while still the same. To her we may apply the poet's words

"Mother of form and fear,

Dread arbitress of mutable respect."

A still closer analogy, in some respects, may be traced between the development of doctrine and the growth of what are called 'special devotions' in the Church, which are themselves the corollaries of doctrine.*

To revert to doctrinal developments; this may seem the place for saying something of the antecedent tests by which their value is ascertained, but the subject is too wide to be more than glanced at here. It is obvious, at first blush, that every true development must be in harmony with the original revelation, and the mind of God; and thus any theory, for

This has been done in the case of one such devotion in Dalgairns' book on the Heart of Jesus. Richardson, 1854.

e

instance, which should trench on the Incarnation, or Divinity, or mediatorial office of the Eternal Son, or, again, on the moral principles of Christianity, would be at once self-condemned. It is clear, on the other hand, that no development could be admitted, which should conflict with truths already known from other sources, as from natural reason, science, or history. God cannot contradict Himself. His word in revelation must be in perfect accord with His word written in the heart of man, or on the crust of the earth, or on the firmament of heaven. Hence no development which should exalt what are usually called the 'Evangelical virtues '—those first introduced by Christianity—to the exclusion or disparagement of the so-called natural virtues-those which Christianity did not introduce, but most certainly adopted and sanctioned-could be a true one. There may have been periods in the history of the Church when purity, humility, and other virtues of the Gospel had almost come to be regarded, in some quarters, as a substitute for truth, virtue, manliness, and other virtues of the natural order; or, again, when Manichean notions as to the impurity of matter were implicitly, though not consciously, entertained. But these could be no more than passing phases of opinion, and have never been absorbed into the texture of her inner life. Hence again, as we observed just now, the theory of literal inspiration, so dear to one large school of Protestants, is untenable, being disproved by facts. I will mention but one other test, which is implied in the very term development, and is expressly noticed by St. Vincent of Lerins, in the passage quoted