tion in spite of the change, and is contented to praise them.

It has been argued by a late writer, whether fairly or not does not interfere with the illustration, that the miraculous vision and dream of the Labarum could not have really taken place, as reported by Eusebius, because it is counter to the original type of Christianity. "For the first time," he says, on occasion of Constantine's introduction of the standard into his armies, "the meek and peaceful Jesus became a God of battle, and the Cross, the holy sign of Christian Redemption, a banner of bloody strife. This was the first advance to the military Christianity of the middle ages, a modification of the pure religion of the Gospel, if directly opposed to its genuine principles, still apparently indispensable to the social progress of men."

Again, a popular leader may go through a variety of professions, he may court parties and break with them, he may contradict himself in words, and undo his own measures, yet there may be a steady fulfilment of certain objects, or adherence to certain plain doctrines, which impress upon beholders, not his scrupulousness, but his sincerity and consistency. On the other hand, a statesman loses his position, and hurts his influence, in proportion as he is neglectful of the special charges or duties which he began by undertaking.

One of the obvious arts in debate and diplomacy is so to anticipate the possible developments of a measure as to be able to hit upon amendments, or modifications, which are contrary to them, and which in consequence, if carried, necessarily nullify the measure itself, without professing to do so; all developments being parts of an original idea, and what is inconsistent with it being no development. This test, however, is too obvious and too close upon demonstration to be of easy application in 1 Milman, Hist. of Christ. iii. 1.

F

particular cases. It implies an insight into the essential idea in which a system of thought is set up, which often cannot be possessed, and, if attempted, will lead to mere theorizing. As to Christianity, considering the unsystematic character of its inspired documents and the all but silence of contemporary history, if we attempt to determine its one original profession, undertaking, or announcement, we shall be reduced to those eclectic and arbitrary decisions which have in all ages been so common, 、and have been censured in a former place. Thus, of old time, the Author of the Clementines gives this rule for separating what he considers the spurious from the genuine portion of Scripture: "Every thing is false which contradicts the divine perfections."1 On the other hand, in a work just published, we are told, "Seize the general tendency of the pure Gospel into one concentrated thought, and you will be persuaded that Jesus's words, "The body profiteth nothing,' are a master-key to the whole of His revelation. But how totally inconsistent with this leading principle is the account of Jesus's conception!" Nothing can be easier, and nothing more trifling, than private determinations about "the essentials, the peculiar doctrines, the vital doctrines, the great truths, simple views, or leading idea of the Gospel."3

The first test, then, of a faithful or legitimate development is its preservation of the essential idea of the doctrine or polity which it represents.

§ 3.

Second Test; Continuity of Principles.

As in mathematical creations figures are formed on distinct formula, which are the laws under which they are developed, so it is in ethical and political 1 Hom. ii. 38. 2 Bl. White's Autobiography, vol. ii. p. 110. 3 Tracts for the Times, No. 85, p. 15.

subjects. Doctrines expand variously according to the mind, individual or social, into which they are received; and the peculiarities of the recipient are the regulating power, the law, the organization, or, as it may be called, the form of the development. The life of doctrines may be said to consist in the 1 law or principle which they embody.

The science of grammar affords another instance of the existence of special laws in the formation of systems. Some languages have more elasticity than others, and greater capabilities; and the difficulty of explaining the fact does not lead us to doubt it. There are languages, for instance, which have a capacity for compound words, which, we cannot tell why, is in matter of fact denied to others. We feel the presence of a certain character or genius in each, which determines its path and its range; and to discover and enter into it is one part of refined scholarship. And when particular writers, in consequence perhaps of some theory, tax a language beyond its powers, the failure is conspicuous. Very subtle, too, and difficult to draw out, are the principles on which depends the formation of proper names in a particular people. In works of fiction, names or titles, significant or ludicrous, must be invented for the characters introduced; and some authors excel in their fabrication, while others are equally unfortunate. Foreign novels, perhaps, attempt to frame English surnames, and signally fail; yet what every one feels to be the case, no one can analyse: that is, our surnames are constructed on a law which is only exhibited in particular instances, and which rules their formation on certain, though subtle, determinations.

And so in philosophy, the systems of physics or morals, which go by celebrated names, proceed upon the assumption of certain conditions which are necessary for every stage of their development. The Newtonian theory of gravitation is based on certain

axioms; for instance, that the fewest causes assignable for phenomena are the true ones: and the application of science to practical purposes depends upon the hypothesis that what happens to-day will happen to-morrow.

And so in military matters, the discovery of gunpowder developed the science of attack and defence in a new instrumentality. Again, it is said that when Napoleon began his career of victories, the enemy's generals pronounced that his battles were fought against rule, and that he ought not to

conquer.

So states have their respective policies, on which they move forward, and which are the conditions of their well-being. Thus it is sometimes said that the true policy of the American Union, or the law of its prosperity, is not the enlargement of its territory, but the cultivation of its internal resources. Thus Russia is said to be weak in attack, strong in defence, and to grow, not by the sword, but by diplomacy. Thus Islamism is said to be the form or life of the Ottoman, and Protestantism of the British Empire; and the admission of European ideas into the one, or of Catholic ideas into the other, to be the destruction of the respective conditions of their power. Thus Augustus and Tiberius governed by dissimulation; thus Pericles in his "Funeral Oration" draws out the principles of the Athenian commonwealth, viz., that it is carried on, not by formal and severe enactments, but by the ethical character and spontaneous energy of the people.

The political principles of Christianity, if it be right to use such words of a divine polity, are laid down for us in the Sermon on the Mount. Contrariwise to other empires, Christians conquer by yielding; they gain influence by hating it; they possess the earth by renouncing it. Gibbon speaks of "the vices of the clergy" as being "to a philosophic eye far less dangerous than their virtues."1

1 Ch. xlix.

Again, as to Judaism, it may be asked on what law it developed; that is, whether Mahometanism may not be considered as a sort of Judaism, as formed by the presence of a different class of influences. In this contrast between them, perhaps it may be said that the expectation of a Messiah was the principle or law which expanded the elements, almost common to Judaism with Mahometanism, into their characteristic shape.

One of the points of discipline to which Wesley attached most importance was that of preaching early in the morning. This was his principle. In Georgia, he began preaching at five o'clock every day, winter and summer. "Early preaching," he said, "is the glory of the Methodists; whenever this is dropt, they will dwindle away into nothing, they have lost their first love, they are a fallen people."

Now, these instances show, as has been incidentally observed of some of them, that the destruction of the special laws or principles of a development is its corruption. Thus, as to nations, when we talk of the spirit of a people being lost, we do not mean that this or that act has been committed, or measure carried, but that certain lines of thought or conduct by which it has grown great are abandoned. Thus the Roman Poets consider their State in course of ruin because its prisci mores and pietas were failing. And so we speak of countries or persons as being in a false position, when they take up a course of policy, or assume a profession, inconsistent with their natural interests or real character. Judaism, again, was rejected when it rejected the Messiah.

Thus the continuity or alteration of the principles on which an idea has developed is a second mark of discrimination between a true development and a corruption.