was brought oat more distinetiy in tfasfiovrfh that of justification by fkith in the liitiiift^B | prevalence of error acting in both infltaaees ae ii tive and spur to the clever desnarcatioo oi c tion of the truth. At the same time, dum^ aptness to overieap himself, and to eza«anle portanoe of whatever may be ettgtk^ta^ htm ati ment, an age which has been allowed to bdiiM4i truth may too easily depreciate and let slip ike which its aaoeeton have beqneathed to % proneness has ever been a main eooice ell Thus, on all sides, we are oontinnaDy reidbdedrfi inherent weakness, and how that -weaknees is m\ most mischievous when we are be^gniled iiit»ten ourselves strong; and while we are hereby- ciM to be diligent in studying the whole hxstoty dh Church, and the writings of her cduefteadftenkeiar age, lest we drop and lose any portioo of the riches which they have been allowed to wis fiaia kind, we are still more tstnmgty admoBiahe& Ii ta pare every proposition, and every eclwmff ef pn^a Uons — every proposition, both aa it stands hy ' and in its relation to the other parts of Omstaa frii — ^vrith the only canon of truth, the wr^tea Wadf God" (Hare, Mission o/ike Comforter, note Q.
In what has been called the extreme 9ubja.tkn 9^ of German theology, tfaoe is a false doctrine cf 4f^ opment, whidi is stated as follows in ChambeB^ h etfdopcBdia (s. v. DBTELOPMKifT) : " Aoecr^ag t» tin school. Christian doctrine is notiiing else tktm Iftc o- pression of the Christian oonscioasnees at any Scripture maintains no peimanent cvr aathisiltfm v> lationtoit. It is all progreas — a oonUuucd flax^wb- out any normal standard or e: may be its primary expresnon, bnt it raanf learv a fountain-head, and in tiie course of time Issae m4K^ opments not necessarily bound to Scripture. Beta- cording to the view above set forth, Sciipiaie the abeolnte and complete revelation of Christiia da trine, which b continually unfolded, hut never cxfa^ ed by inquiry— beyond which right reason smd tx^ never travel. The Christian revelation not osif li- mits of^ but demands constant criticism, as the b^ of unfolding nnore comprehenaivelj and perfecdr a contents, bnt it remains in itself the oonsnmisilf et- pression of all spiritual truth ; and it is this vciy ftoh liarity of the Christian revelation that makes iis e» tents capable of continual and ever trmk devehpwr' It b just because its substance is divine tint ia ^ trinal expressions never cease to interest andtsffi- swer to the necessities of snocesrive timee^ Otter n- ligions, while capable of development, reach s feis where they cease to have any further Uving umfiiir and pass on the one hand into mere popular luytiMitgr or into an esoteric prieetly tradition. They beast transmuted into poetry or some ordinary product d philosophical speculation. Civilization overtakcfa^ supplants them. But it b of the distingoMi^g dKia character of Christianity that its doctrines possca tr> tal ever-renewing power, capable d adaptatioa to ^ highest forms of human dvilixatioB, and full of ee^is- enment and guidance to the most advanced iatelfi^nKf. The development of Christian doctrine, tbeidbie, » not merely a subject of curious and importaat itair ii the past, but of great and signMcant inflaence ht iki present and the future." j
8. Certain Bomanist writers have recently made w | of the doctrine of development to vindicate the tM»> | gy of that Church. They hold that the Scriptiaa ^ not contain the entire revelation of God to nua,te that revelation b receiving additions, and graWIr becoming complete, by the successive dedskossftfa Church. Thb view has been set forth by VOk. and with special skill by J. H. Kewraan (&nf m (k Development of Christian Doctrine [K. T. 1858, »w> Its ground b that the revelation ^ven in tlw BINe was intentionally incomplete, and
DEVELOPMENT
lis
DEVELOPMENT
1 imperfbot system of tnitb, needing for its oomple- n a. c^radaal development under infallible guidance, 1 &1iAt the present system of doctrine in the Roman tbolie Church is the ripened result of this derelop- n^ ao far as made. See also Ddllinger, CArMton^ibcm J Kirck9, 1860, p. 162. The doctrine has not met with neral £ayor in the Roman Catholic Church, as it is in iflict with the established reliance of that Church on tradition, and upon what is called ^* Catholic con- it." One of the ablest of modem Romanist writers, o^wmaon, has written powerfully against the develop- mt theoiy (in his QeixrU Review). Extremes meet ; e RAtionallstic theory agrees with the Romanist Qn r. Ne-wman^s view of it) in representing the system Christianity delivered in the New Testament as de- ctiv-e and imperfect The Council of Trent declared »s. irv) as follows: *'The sacred and holy, oscnmen- b1 and general Council of Trent, keeping always in ,ew the removal of errors and the preservation in le Church of the purity of the Gospel, which Gospel, »foTe promised through the prophets in the Holy criptures, was first orally published by our Lord Je- IS Christ, the Son of God, and then commanded to be reached by his apostles to every creature, as the >antaiii both of every saving truth and discipline of lorals ; and perceiving that this truth and discipline re contained in the written books, and the unwritten raditions which, received by the apostles from the nouth of Christ himself, or from the apostles them- eives, the Holy Ghost dictating, have oome down tven unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to laaxd ; [the council] following the examples of the or- hodox fathers, receives and venerates with equal af- fection of piety and reverence all the books both of the [>ld and of the New Testament, seeing that one God is Lhe author of both, as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to fiiith as to morals, as having t>een dictated either by Christ's own word of mouth or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved by a continuous Buccesaion in the Catholic Church." Mr. Newman's book was ably answered by W. Archer Butler, Letters on Rumcniem (Cambridge, 1854, 8vo). The following remarks of Julius Charles Hare {Mienon of the Con^ forieTy note G) are in point: "Some of the German apologia for Romanism, having perceived, as could not but happen in a country where learning and criti- cism have found a home, Uiat the old plea of a posi- tive, unwritten tradition in the Church was utterly untenable as a ground for the doctrinal and practical innovations of later times, have fancied that they might render their Church a service by taking up the popular and modem theory of the development of mankind— a theory which has been carried into the most outrageous extravagances in the contemporary schools of philosophy, as it has also been in France by the St. Simonians. This theory has been used by others to show that Christianity itself is a transient religion, belonging to a by-gone period and almost ob- solete ; they have tried to employ it in defence of the Church of Rome. Herein, however, it was impossible for them to succeed^ That Chiurch, whose constant effort, smce the time when it out itself off from the living body of Christ, has been to check, to repress, to cramp, to fetter the mind, could not find support in a theory which implies the Areedom of the mind ; nor can any Church, unless it recognises, both doctrinally and practically, that the property of truth is to set the mind free."