twelfth, sixteenth, and intermediate centuries. It would be unnatural not to expect it. The declarations of prophecy exactly reverse the probabilities in the case. Even antecedently to prophecy, since God permitted such deep and lasting corruptions to invade the Jewish church, we might be led by the historical analogy to expect corruptions in the church of the new Dispensation. But the Christian prophets have definitely settled that question. Both Protestants and Catholics are obliged to look somewhere along the line of historical Christianity, for a great apostacy having these features: departing from the faith; holding doctrines of devils; (demonolatrycultus of dead "saints"); forbidding to marry; commanding to abstain from meats; a mystery of iniquity with power, signs, and lying wonders; and a Man of Sin, intruding himself into the place of God, and arrogating Divine prerogatives and honors.

The Rhemish annotators grapple with this difficulty manfully; handing all the specifications over to the early heretics, or modern Protestants, or to some adversary of the "Catholic church" yet to arise somewhere near the end of the world. 1 Tim. iv. "He prophesieth that certain should depart from the Catholic faith.' "It is the proper description of heretics to forsake their former faith, to be apostates, as the Greek word importeth; to give ear to the particular spirits of error and deception, rather than to the Spirit of Christ in His church; to follow in hypocrisy and show of virtue, the pernicious doctrines of devils, who are the suggesters and prompters of all sects, &c." "Is it not now an intolerable impudency of the Protestants, who, for a small similitude of words in the ears of the simple, apply these texts to the facts of the church, and the chastity of Priests and Religious?"

If these prophetic traits of the apostacy, however, are phrased a little differently, both Catholics and Protestants, both Mr. Newman and Mr. Taylor, will agree in finding them in the church of Rome. Thus, instead of "departing from the faith, let us say "Development of Christian Doctrine;" and for the other features, "cultus of saints and angels;" "veneration of images;" "bodily mortifications" in the form of celibacy and asceticism; claim to "miracles;" and an "Ecclesiastical monarchy."

These are among the characteristic features of the Romish religion. Protestantism views them as a corruption; and claims, that after having been reduced by these means to a

condition of substantial anti-Christianism, the Church of Christ, guided by light from the open Scripture, has at length been led back to Gospel truth and worship; to the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and breaking of bread and prayers. Newman, Moehler, and others, accept and justify these variations from Scriptural Christianity as a "development." What these writers mean by a development, is stated cautiously by Moehler; at much length, and with great ingenuity of argument and illustration by Newman, substantially as follows: That the increase and expansion of the Christian creed and ritual, and the variations which have attended the process in the case of individual writers and churches, are the necessary attendants on any philosophy or piety which takes possession of the intellect and heart, and has any wide or extended dominion: that from the nature of the human mind, time is necessary for the full comprehension and expression of great ideas; and that the highest and most wonderful truths though communicated to the world, once for all, by inspired teachers, could not be comprehended all at once by the recipients; but as received and transmitted by minds not inspired, and through media which were human, have required only the longer time and deeper thought for their full elucidation. This may be called the doctrine of development.*

He exemplifies it in another place, substantially thus: A certain system of doctrine and worship comes to us claiming to be Apostolical. It is admitted, on all hands, to date back to the early ages of Christianity. You can show, to be sure, when particular doctrines and usages were established by formal authority, as in the eighth, seventh, or fifth centuries. But they were so established on the ground of being already, and

So also Moehler, § 40, on the Formal distinction between Scriptural and Ecclesiastical doctrine. "The application of the energies of the human mind to the subject matter received from the Lord, necessarily caused the Divine word on the one hand to be analyzed, and on the other to be reduced to certain leading points; for everything that the human mind hath received from an external source, and which is destined to become its property wherein it must find itself perfectly at home, must first be reproduced by the human mind itself. The original doctrine, as the mind had variously elaborated it, exhibited itself in a much altered form; it remained the original, and yet did not; it was the same in substance, and yet differed as to form. When, in this manner, the Church explains and secures the original doctrine of faith against misrepresentations, the Apostolic expression is necessarily changed for another, which is the most fitted, alike clearly to set forth and reject, the particular error of the time. As little as the Apostles themselves, in the course of their polemics, could retain the form wherein the Saviour expounded his Divine doctrine, so little was the Church enabled to adhere to the same. Thus, in the doctrine of the Church, the doctrine of Scripture is ever progressively unfolded to our view."

having been long before, the faith and worship of the Church. We find intimations, or foreshadowings of them, among the earliest Christian Fathers; and there are Scripture texts which, by a mystical interpretation, at least, convey the same idea. This system is one, complete and indivisible. It meets all the wants of our nature; supplying that control of opinion and life, which man's infirmity and dependence craves. It presents the closest resemblance to the religion of the early Church. "No one doubts that the Roman Catholic communion of this day is the successor and representative of the medieval church; or that the medieval church is the legitimate heir of the Nicene. On the whole, all parties will agree that, of all existing systems, the present communion of Rome is the nearest approximation, in fact, to the Church of the Fathers. Did St. Athanasius, or St. Ambrose, come suddenly to life, it cannot be doubted what communion they would mistake for their own. All surely will agree that these Fathers, with whatever difference of opinion, whatever protests, if we will, would find themselves more at home with such men as St. Bernard, or St. Ignatius Loyola,* or with the lonely priest in his lodgings, or the holy sisterhood of mercy, or the unlettered erowd before the altar, than with the rulers, or the members, of any other religious community."

To illustrate further what is meant by a development, we may take a particular limb of the Romish system, the doctrine of purgatory for instance. A purgatory is affirmed in the Church of Rome, with the same positiveness as a Trinity.t But it has come to occupy this definite place in the system, only by a process of development. There are some hints of it in Scripture, we are assured, to start from; "Verily I say unto thee, thou shall by no means come out thence till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing;" "The fire shall try every man's work, &c." These germs well nursed by the Church grew, first into the doctrine of penance by contrition, public confession, &c., for post-baptismal sins, and then into the further idea that

* We have no doubt of this whatever : but would add, that Bernard and Ignatius Loyola, are much the most respectable Christians of the two; not more superstitious than Athanasius and Ambrose, and far more manly, earnest and devout. For an ample justification of Mr. Newman, in his statement above, vide “Ancient Christianity," passim.

† Council of Trent, 25th Session, 4th Dec. 1663. Catechism of the Council of Trent, on Article V of the Creed. The Catechism, however, lets the subject alone as much as possible. Under the head of Prayer" it merely mentions purgatory, obiter, and refers for a treatment of the subject at large, to the head of "Mass;" where you find nothing.

what was lacking of full satisfaction for such sins here, was to be made up by fire, not destructive, but discriminating, hereafter. The ante-Nicene fathers intimate this view-perhaps. St. Cyprian has a passage which may imply a belief in the cleansing of the soul by purgatorial fire; though, to be sure, it may mean something else. St. Perpetua had a sort of a vision of her deceased brother in a place of punishment, from which, on her intercession, she saw him released. St. Cyril clearly taught that such as died in their sins might be helped by the prayers of the Church. When we get down to Augustine, Jerome, &c., it is comparatively plain sailing.

Now let us see how far we have got from our starting point. The Romish doctrine of purgatory contains the explicit assertion of an intermediate place of suffering, where all good Catholics who die in venial sin, must abide the cleansing action of fire, until the day of Judgment; unless helped out first, by the prayers, alms, and sacrifices of the faithful. And this is a "development," of what? Of the fanciful interpretation of two or three passages of Scripture, against the overwhelming current of testimony, clear, strong and unimpeachable, which assures us on every page of Holy Writ, that man's condition. ever after this life, is fixed for endless joy, or endless sorrow.

Indeed, the Scripture testimony, even under the most mystical system of interpretation, is so far from satisfactory, that though Mr. Newman refers in passing, to the class of texts already instanced, he does not build the doctrine upon them. He regards it as "an instance of the mind of the Church working out dogmatic truths from implicit feelings, under sacred supernatural guidance." Implicit feelings under a (supposed) supernatural guidance, constitute a source of "dogmatic truth" that would be quite to the mind of any enthusiast, however mad. It would suit the Celestial Prophets and the Anabaptists as well, at least, as the contemporaneous Catholic Church. It was under just this rule that Joanna Southcote and Ann Lee developed their "dogmatic truths." "Every conceit (says Locke) that thoroughly warms our fancies, must pass for an inspiration, if there be nothing but the strength of our persuasions, whereby to judge of our persuasions. If reason must not examine their truth by something extrinsical to our 'implicit feelings' themselves, there will be nothing to distinguish between truth and falsehood, inspirations and delusions. Where Scripture is express for any opinion, we may receive it as of Divine authority; but it is not the strength of our own feelings that VOL. I.-8

can of itself give it that stamp." Such a rule in short would set us afloat, to land wherever a fancied supernatural guidance might steer us.

Some criteria are obviously wanted, by which to determine the character of those additions to the Scripture system, which may be of the nature of new revelations, or may be the mere offspring of enthusiasm or superstition. Neither Reason nor Scripture, however, are criteria to Mr. Newman's mind. He has a set of tests of his own, by which to distinguish between a development and a corruption. They are such as the following: That a true development will preserve the original and essential idea of the system. A plan of government, or system of administration will have some characteristic idea at basis. So long as this is grasped and adhered to, no matter what modifications the system may undergo, it is not radically changed. The modifications may be sacrifices of mere form and detail, to the integrity of the essential idea. Besides its characteristic idea, a system will proceed upon certain fundamental laws, which will define its working. These enter essentially into the life of the system. A departure from them is a corruption of the system itself. A true development, on the other hand, will be marked by continuity of principles. A system that is really undergoing development will exhibit a power of assimilation; taking up and absorbing facts and influences that may contribute to its nourishment. It gives early signs by anticipation of what it is to become. The several stages of its growth follow each other by a logical sequence. The additions to the system are preservative, not merely of the original idea, but of whatever has already accrued during the previous course of development; and lastly, while a corruption by its nature, runs a short course, ending in dissolution, a genuine development will be characterized by chronic continuance.

We cannot follow the writer in his application of all these tests, as designed to show the substantial identity of Christianity and Romanism; and it is quite unnecessary. A brick from Babylon may suffice. Let us go along with him through the application of two or three of the first tests.

Preservation of Idea. Romanism is very much abused, and treated to certain hard epithets. Christianity experienced precisely the same treatment during the first centuries. Its original idea was such as to lay a foundation for the calumnies, vented by the early persecutors. That original idea is shown to be preserved, notwithstanding all the changes superinduced