which he took into his eternal person, and thereunto had taken it from a virgin womb, which he had filled with the abundance of his Spirit. Moreover, it taught that during his earthly sojourn, he had been subject to all the natural infirmities of man, and had suffered all those ills to which flesh is heir. It taught that the highest had in that flesh died on the cross, and that his blood had an expiatory power; moreover, that he had risen again in that flesh, and had carried that flesh with him into heaven, and that from that flesh, glorified and deified in him, he never would be divided. As a first consequence of these awful doctrines, comes that of the resurrection of the bodies of his saints, and their future glorification with him; next, that of the sanctity of relics; further, that of the real presence in the Eucharist; further, that of the merit of virginity; and lastly, that of the prerogatives of Mary, mother of God. All these doctrines are more or less developed in the Ante-nicene period, though in very various degrees from the nature of the case."--p. 370.

This is the best specimen, of reasonable length, that we have been able to discover. The doctrine of our Lord's incarnation is developed into-1, the resurrection; 2, sanctity of relics; 3, the real presence; 4, the merit of virginity; and lastly, the doctrine of the prerogatives of Mary, mother of God. All these, Mr. Newman would have us believe were enveloped in the doctrine of our Lord's incarnation: until they showed themselves, the development of that doctrine was not complete. Does he offer any proof of this assertion? No. Does he endeavour, even, to show how such doctrines were contained in, or were deducible by necessary reference from, that which was scriptural? No; but he tells us that heathen writers accounted matter evil, and that some Christians are said to have entertained views or to have engaged in practices, in early times, such as countenance the notion that doctrines like those he has enumerated may have been held amongst them. And this is evidence of "development." Why, may it not rather be evidence of incrustation? Of the doctrines enumerated by Mr. Newman, two are distinctly and authoritatively taught in Scripture—the incarnation and the resurrectionwhich latter is revealed, not as an

inference merely, but as in itself a great and substantial truth. Does Mr. Newman wish to have it understood, that these great verities were revealed as being those which the mind of man was capable of most readily understanding? Does he mean to intimate that the "sanctity of relics' was a doctrine which the human heart and mind was less ready to receive than that of the resurrection that the mind must attain a sublimer growth in order to comprehend the "developed" doctrine, than was requisite for entertaining the scriptural? Surely this would be pure folly. The instincts of the unchanged heart would be all sufficient for the reliquary system. The feeling which prompts many an ardent admirer to solicit and preserve clippings from the grey locks of the great duke -which caused, as we well remember, relics from Thurtell the murderer to be retained and preserved-is quite strong enough to make us know, that had the doctrine of which Mr. Newman writes been revealed in Scripture, it would have been embraced far more readily than that profound and awful truth which is even yet a mystery. This is the highest and purest form of the doctrine. In God's Word, we find it in its living perfection; in writings and practices such as those to which our author refers, we find the truth, if we find it at all, enveloped in earthly elements, with which human frailty has encumbered it, and the true development of doctrine is the change which releases the truth from these its beggarly appendages. To term such doctrines the development of the high principle they disfigure and obscure, is about as rational an employment of language, as it would be to call the shell a development of the winged creature it had imprisoned for a season.

Do we, while thus we protest against Mr. Newman's views, dispute the general principle that there may be developments in religion? Far be it from us to do so. We believe that, under religious influences and in the light of faith, human intellect has become gloriously developed, and human affections have expanded into the charity which never faileth. We believe, too, that there is laid up in the treasuries of Christian knowledge

wealth never to be exhausted, and which, as new necessities are developed in every new generation of man, reveals itself or becomes disclosed to meet them. But we believe that, whatever variance may be admitted in the religion of the Saviour, there is one principle which grows not—except in hearts which it changes-wanes not, alters not-a principle which God gave to his church perfect—which is at this day what it was when at the first communicated-which human authority has no right to change, and which, whosoever attempts to alter, sins against a primeval command. This principle is "the faith."

It is observed by Mr. Newman as a doctrine peculiar to the Christian dispensation, "that opinions in religion are not matters of indifference, but have a definite bearing on the position of their holders, in the divine sight.' "Such a principle, however," he affirms, "would but have broken up the church the sooner, resolving it into the individuals of which it was composed, unless the truth to which they were to hear witness had been a something definite and formed, and independent of themselves. Christians were bound to defend and transmit the faith which they had received, and they received it from the rulers of the church; and on the other hand it was the duty of those rulers to watch over and define the traditionary faith." This is the principle which we affirm the church was to guard, to transmit, and to preserve inviolate. It was committed to the church by her divine Master, to be imparted to all who entered into her communion, and by the grace of the Gospel all should have a right to the benefits of communion with her, who were willing to embrace its saving truths. It was, therefore, a principle to which she should not add-from which she should not take away. Addition to it would narrow the terms of admission into her society more strictly. than God had appointed. To take away from it, might widen the portals of entrance more largely than had been permitted. She should preserve it, therefore, whole and incorrupt.

There were matters in which the church had more power and liberty.

In discipline, in ritual, in exhortation, and admonition, her freedom was larger. As human society became more complicated, as human faculties developed and improved, the externals of religion might be ordered into accommodation with the changed condition of its members, or of those to whom it was to be exhibited; but it could make no change in the faith; in this men were to be the same--up to this they were to be educated-higher than to the embracing its great truths the mind of man could never rise; but no power or permission was given to adulterate or abase it, so as to render its alloyed truth apprehensible to grosser or weaker understandings.

It is impossible to reflect on the manner in which this faith-faith in God, as revealed in his holy word--has been preserved in the ancient creed, without discerning a special providence in its protection. Dr. O'Sullivan has brought together a variety of testimonies to its faithful keeping and authoritative promulgation through each successive age of the Christian Church, and we select from the ample array an instance of testimony, not certainly the least remarkable, namely, that which has been borne by the Council of Trent.

"The influence exerted by the Council of Trent upon religion and the Church, has recently been a subject of much controversy. By one class of writers it has been affirmed, that the offensive peculiarities of modern Ro. manism, if they have not been introduced, have been rendered inveterate by the decisions of that council. On the other hand, it has been strenuously maintained by a very popular writer, to whose judgment much deference is paid, (more especially in matters on which his readers think it of little moment to inform themselves,) that the Council of Trent should be altogether exonerated from the guilt of innovation.

"It may be affirmed, not without good reason, that neither of the contending parties has assigned to this memorable assembly, its proper characteristic, or declared its real office.

The

Council of Trent was the form which a large portion of the Church assumed in the transition from its ancient estate into Romanism; under which processes

Page 339.

† Page 340.

VOL. XXVII.-No. 157.

I

of change were developed and matured, and preparation made for converting a representative government into an absolute monarchy, and substituting for the Catholic religion of fifteen. centuries, that creed in which the modern Church of Rome has departed from the faith.'

"The Council of Trent must be contemplated under two aspects: that which it turns towards the Catholic, and that with which it regards the Roman, Church. In its relation to the former, it is a witness; in relation to the latter, it was an instrument of essential change; and by a signal appointment of Divine Providence, it was constrained to bear its strong testimony to the faith' professed in Christ's Church from the first age, to that in which it testified, before it was permitted, in its legislative capacity, to hurt religion by any innovation.

"The testimony borne by the Council of Trent to the faith,' as professed in the Catholic Church, is found in the one decree which it passed in its third session, in which,

"IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY, the Council of Trent decreed-that before all things (ante omnia) a profession of faith should be made, following in this the examples of the fathers, who in the more solemn assemblies (sanctioribus conciliis) were accustomed, at the commencement of their proceedings, to present this shield against all heresies, by which alone, they have oft-times drawn over unbelievers to the faith, have overthrown heresies, and have confirmed the faithful. Wherefore, the

symbol of faith which the Holy Roman Church uses, as that principle (principium illud) in which all who profess the faith of Christ necessarily agree, the secure, and the only foundation against which the gates of hell shall never prevail, in the words (totidem verbis) in which it is read in all churches, the council has determined shall be recited, which is to this effect, &c., and THE NICENE OR CONSTANTINOPOLITAN CREED FOLLOWS.

"This decree was passed by the Council of Trent in the year of our Lord 1546. It testifies that the Catholic faith in that day was the same which had once been delivered to the saints;' the same which had been solemnly professed in the first four councils of the Christian Church. It is scarcely possible to exaggerate the importance of a testimony like this, or to reflect upon it, (bearing in mind that the decrees and canons of the Council of Trent contain the most authoritative exposition which modern Romanism approves,) without a feeling of wonder. Father

Paul has offered an explanation of it, not perhaps the most acceptable to the Church of Rome. It was, he says, a contrivance to gain time, while the Pope's agents at the council waited to receive instructions. Advocates of the Church of Rome must hold, that in passing it, the council was directed by God's Holy Spirit. Whatever the explanation may be, it must be regarded as a very memorable fact, that the Council of Trent should have solemnly recorded a declaration respecting the faith of the Catholic Church, so plainly at variance with the profession now exacted of every Roman ecclesiastic,

"In the bull by which Pius IV. summoned the council to re-assemble, there were two words by which its character became essentially altered: they were 'legatis proponentibus.' By these words, the right to initiate measures or questions was withdrawn from the ecclesiastics in council assembled, and reserved for the legates of the Pope. They alone could propose matters for decision. Thus was freedom withdrawn from the council. Liberty, it may be said, was left the members to speak and vote on such measures and propositions as the papal agents suggested; but, inasmuch as they could not originate measures, they had, it is evident, no ampler freedom than that of choosing between an existing evil of which they desired the reform, and, it may be, another evil, which in the shape of a reform, the legates proposed for their adoption. The council surrendered its freedom, in consenting to deliberate under such restraint, and became rather 'a bed of justice' to the Pope, than a free synod of Catholic Christians.

"Such was the condition of the assembly which enacted the law, that all ecclesiastical persons, under certain specified circumstances, should make a profession of faith to the Pope, and, not declaring what the character of their profession should be, left it dependent upon the discretion or good pleasure of the papal court to frame it. The circumstances under which the resolution passed were these: much difference of opinion prevailed as to the authority naturally belonging to the papal see. One part was disposed to restrict it within limitations not less close than those assigned by the Council of Constance; another was resolved to take the decree of Florence as its law for enlarging, beyond all moderate bounds, the sphere of papal rule. Pius used the advantage secured to him in the withdrawal from the assembly of its right to initiate. He directed his assessors to avoid and evade all occasion of discussion, or bringing under discus

sion, points which would provoke the sharpest contest; and as a compromise, all finally agreed to leave the authority of the papal see, subject to the limitations set to it in former councils; and to provide against the spread of heresy, by requiring from ecclesiastics a solemn profession of faith, which they were to confirm by an oath. The pope profited by the decree, to the extent not only of exacting a profession of faith, but of devising the precise form in which it was to be made. The profession thus framed, is the well-known creed of Pius IV. The adoption of it was the predicted departure from the faith."

This is a remarkable testimony, the assembly to which Romanism looks up with especial deference and submission, proclaiming the fidelity with which the Church of Rome had,through all past ages, kept the faith, and proclaiming this while making preparation for that departure from the faith, by which the same church was soon to be sinfully distinguished; assigning it as the distinction of the ancient Church of Rome, that it kept the faith, and assigning the fabrication of a faith, as its sinful task, to modern Romanism.

he in

While Mr. Newman makes light of this daring impiety, by professing to regard it only as a "development," he claims for the Church of Rome the honour and authority she arrogates to herself, because she has, with a pertinacity unknown to other communions, insisted on the exclusive assumption of the term Catholic. This name, Mr. Newman, as well as the ordinary race of controversialists, brandishes, with apparent zest, against the appellation Protestant. "Protestantism,' sists, "is not the Christianity of history." "Protestantst can as little bear its ante-Nicene as its post-Tridentine period." Mr. Newman has apologised for "his tone," if it appear "positive and peremptory," on the ground that "the scientific character of his work requires a distinct statement of principles," and he condemns the "use of words without meaning,"§ as "the fault we find with youths under education;" yet notwithstanding his apology and his censure, he uses the two words which seem to perform the most prominent parts in his work, like one who never paused to reflect

what it was he meant when he employed them. Catholic-Protestantwhat do they mean-how is their meaning ascertained-how are they related to each other? No writer, however idle and uninformed, can show less respect for such questions as these, than our "peremptory" author. We may confidently affirm, and are reminded by Mr. Newman's extreme vagueness, that it may not be superfluous to affirm, of these words, Catholic and Protestant, that there is no opposition whatever between themthat the one is a person who protests against alien usurpation over the rights of his church and state-and the other is a name assigned, by early usage and by an Eastern emperor, to one who holds the great doctrine of the Athanasian Creed. It is a curious faet that both terms conduct the mind to a political recognition of their meaningthe one to a decree of Theodosiusthe other to a protest against the jurisdiction of Ferdinand. In the Church of England both titles meet and recommend each other. She is Catholic in that she retains the Catholic doctrine of the Creed. She is Protestant in protecting this Catholic truth against papal adulteration.

The reader of Mr. Newman's book will seek in vain for the arguments by which the author was led away from the faith. It seems sufficiently manifest that he first chose his new part, and then cast about for reasons to keep him in countenance. He first decided that Romanism was true, and then looked out for evidences that it was plausible. If the theory of development be sound, and a developing authority necessary—that authority will, or may be, found in the Papacy, and it may imply infallibility, or, at least, the duty of implicit obedience. His case being reasoned out in arguments of this kind, the plausibilities are elaborately brought forward in corroboration. We shall conclude

with a single specimen of this artifice, with which we are willing to believe the reader will be abundantly contented :

"The prima facie view of early Christianity, in the eye of witnesses external

* Page 7.

† P. 7.

+ P. 4.

SP. 7.

to it, is presented to us in the brief but vivid descriptions given by Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny, the only heathen writers who distinctly mention it for the first hundred and fifty years.

"Tacitus is led to speak of the religion, on account of the conflagration of Rome, which was properly imputed to Nero. To put an end to the report,' he says, he laid the guilt on others, and visited them with the most exquisite punishment, viz., those who, held in abhorence for their crimes, (per flagitios invisos,) were popularly called Christians. The author of that profession (nominis) was Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was capitally punished by the Procurator, Pontius Pilate. The deadly superstition (ex. itiabilis superstio), though checked for a while, broke out afresh; and that, not only throughout Judæa, the original seat of the evil, but through the city also, whither all things atrocious or shocking (atrocia aut pudenda) flow together from every quarter and thrive. At first, certain were seized who avowed it; then, on their report, a vast multitude were convicted, not so much of firing the city, as of hatred of mankind (odio humani generis).' After describing their tortures, he continues: 'In consequence, though they were guilty, and deserved most signal punishment, they began to be pitied, as if destroyed not for any public object, but from the barbarity of one man.'

"Suetonius relates the same transactions thus-Capital punishments were inflicted on the Christians, a class of men of a new and magical superstition (superstitionis nova et malefica).' What gives additional character to this statement is its context; for it occurs as one out of various police, or sumptuary, or domestic regulations, which Nero made; such as 'controlling private expenses, forbidding taverns to serve meat, repressing the contests of theatrical parties, and securing the integrity of wills.'

When Pliny was governor of Pontus, he wrote his celebrated letter to the Emperor Trajan, to ask advice how he was to deal with the Christians, whom he found there in great numbers. One of his points of hesitation was, whether the very profession of Christianity was not by itself sufficient to justify punishment; whether the name itself should be visited, though clear of flagitious acts, (flagitia,) or only when connected with them.' He says, he had ordered for execution such as persevered in their profession, after repeated warnings, as not doubting, whatever it was they professed, at any rate contumacy and inflexible obstinacy ought

to be punished.' He required them to invoke the gods, to sacrifice wine and frankincense to the images of the emperor, and to blaspheme Christ: 'to which,' he adds, it is said no real Christian can be compelled.' Renegades informed him that the sum total of their offence or fault was meeting before light on an appointed day, and saying with one another a form of words (carmen) to Christ, as if to a God, and binding themselves by oath, not to the commission of any wickedness, but against the commission of theft, robbery, adultery, breach of trust, denial of deposits; that, after this, they were accustomed to separate, and then to meet again for a meal, but eaten all together and harmless; however, that they had even left this off after his edicts enforcing the imperial prohibition of Hetaria or Associations.' He proceeded to put two women to the torture, but 'discovered nothing beyond a bad and excessive superstition, (superstitionem pravam et immodicam,) the contagion of which,' he continues, had spread through villages and country, till the temples were emptied of worshippers.'

"In these testimonies, which will form a natural and convenient text for what is to follow, we have various characteristics brought before us of the religion to which they relate. It was a superstition, as all three writers agree; a bad and excessive superstition, according to Pliny; a magical superstition, according to Suetonius; a deadly superstition, according to Tacitus. Next, it was embodied in a society. and moreover, a secret and unlawful society or hetaria; and it was a proselytising society; and its very name was connected with flagitious,' 'atrocious,' and 'shocking_acts.'

:

"On the whole, I conclude as follows if there is a form of Christianity now in the world, which is accused of gross superstition, of borrowing its rites and customs from the Heathen, and of ascribing to forms and ceremonies an occult virtue; a religion which is considered to burden and enslave the mind by its requisitions, to address itself to the weak-minded and ignorant, to be supported by sophistry and imposture, and to contradict reason, and exalt mere irrational faith; a religion which impresses on the serious mind, very distressing views of the guilt and consequences of sin, sets upon the minute acts of the day, one by one, their definite value for praise or blame, and thus casts a grave shadow over the future; a religion which holds up to admiration the surrender of wealth, and disables serious persons from enjoying it if they would; a religion, the doctrines of