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 μvorýpov 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 Christians were baptized, confirmed, absolved, communicated; then as now, there was marriage, and ordination, and the last unction. But, just as for many ages doubtful or spurious Gospels and Epistles were handed down alongside of the genuine, and it was not till the end of the fourth century that the Canon of either Old or New Testament began to be fixed by dogmatic decree;* so for centuries other rites were spoken of under the common name of sacraments, some of which we should now call 'Sacramentals' while others, like the agape, or the washing of the feet, have almost or altogether passed and it was left for a later age to mark out seven, as alone possessing by divine institution an inherent sacramental grace. All were divinely ordained, and administered from the beginning in the Church; but it was only by degrees that the full conception of their precise nature and number grew upon her consciousness. To define two or seven is equally to develope; Peter Lombard was the first to specify an exact number. There were many differences on the subject among the earlier Reformers. It would not be difficult to trace out similarly the history of the doctrine of the Eucharist, but it would occupy more space than can be spared here.† away; (2.) Let us turn to another illustration, afforded by the cultus of Saints and Angels. Of this no doubt abundant intimations—φωνᾶντα συνετοῖσι—may be found both in the Old *St. Paul, St. James, and St. Jude, quote apocryphal books, some of which, as the Revelation of Elias, are now lost; some, as the Book of Enoch, still survive. The stages of the process are exhibited with clearness and candour in the late Archdeacon Wilberforce's book on the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist. and New Testament, especially the latter, nor are there wanting clear testimonies in writers of the third and fourth centuries of honour paid to Saints, especially martyrs, and invocations addressed to them.* Still, and this is my point, it was only by degrees that their position was adequately recognized. In every one of the liturgies of which manuscripts remain to us, among the prayers for the departed in the Canon are found special petitions for the Blessed Virgin and the Saints. Controversialists have sometimes explained these as prayers for the increase of their 'accidental glory,' but the explanation is obviously an afterthought. The very term 'accidental glory,' and the idea it represents, came in centuries later with the scholastic theology. It is better to say at once—what is certainly the case-that the eye of the Christian worshipper was not yet adjusted to the right focus for appreciating clearly the position of the heavenly hierarchy in the economy of grace. The importance of the question, from its bearing on the central mystery of the Incarnation, was gradually brought out in subsequent controversies, especially in the Iconoclastic disputes of the eighth century.† It was not till the fourteenth century, that the enjoyment of the Beatific Vision by the Saints before the day of judgment was defined by authority. (3.) This leads me naturally to notice a somewhat kindred development, and I do so the more readily because it has been * Thomassin (De Incarn. xi. 6) thinks the early Church probably abstained from any cultus of Angels through an oikovoμía, lest it should give occasion for idolatry in converts from heathenism. But this reasoning from the disciplina arcani must not be pushed too far. †The first objectors to images were the Phantasiasts. selected as the reductio ad absurdum of the whole theory-I mean the Immaculate Conception. The reasons for defining it at this particular time, and the nature of the defining authority, are separate questions, which lie beyond the limits of my present inquiry. But the doctrine itself is often objected to as neither primitive, nor scriptural, nor reasonable, nor devout; sometimes as ascribing to the Mother the inalienable prerogative of her Son.* Waiving the last point, which is founded on a misconception of what is meant, let us see how the case really stands.† The doctrine of original sin was first distinctly laid down by St. Augustine in controversy with the Pelagians in the fourth century, whence it is obvious that Mary's exemption from the general doom could not be taught earlier than that. But we may go further. St. Basil, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and Origen do not scruple to affirm that she sinned by want of faith at the Crucifixion; St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition; Tertullian of unbelief. To our ears such language sounds shocking, and it would be shocking to use it now, but we must remember that it did not appear so at the time. On the other hand, St. Irenæus contrasts Mary's faith with Eve's incredulity, and St. Ambrose com * Even so calm and thoughtful a writer as the Bishop of London goes out of his way, in his Preface to a recent work on The Final Court of Appeal, to speak of the idolatrous doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.' Yet supposing (for argument's sake) that invocation of the Blessed Virgin is idolatrous, that practice is quite independent of the belief in her Immaculate Conception, and existed for centuries before any question on the latter subject was stirred in the Church. Neither does the belief necessarily imply the practice. Adam and Eve were certainly created 'immaculate,' yet we do not publicly invoke them. The patristic references in this and the following section are taken from Petavius De Incarn. and De Trin. |