This particular phase of the general theory bears less directly on the subject of our present inquiry than either of the _three_ which have already pa.s.sed under review, and yet it has recently been applied in such a way as may ent.i.tle it to a pa.s.sing notice.

For while the theory of Ecclesiastical Development has a _direct_ relation only to the question in regard to the Rule of Faith, it has also an _indirect_ or _collateral_ relation to the truths of Natural as well as of Revealed Religion; and this relation demands for it, especially in the existing state of theological speculation, the earnest attention of all who are concerned for the maintenance even of the simplest and most elementary articles of Divine truth.

The most elaborate and systematic exposition of this theory is exhibited in the "Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, by JOHN HENRY NEWMAN;" an Essay primarily directed to the discussion of the points of difference between the Popish and the Protestant Churches, but which will be found to have an important bearing, also, on some doctrines which are common to both, and especially on the fundamental articles of Natural Religion itself.

It is thus stated by Mr. Newman:[91] "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 polity which takes possession of the intellect and heart, and has had any wide or extended dominion; that, from the nature of the human mind, time is necessary for the full comprehension and perfection 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 Theory of Developments_."

It is further ill.u.s.trated as follows: "It is sometimes said that the stream is clearest near the spring. Whatever use may fairly be made of this image, it does not apply to the history of a philosophy or sect, which, on the contrary, is more equable, and purer, and stronger, when its bed has become deep, and broad, and full. It necessarily rises out of an existing state of things, and, for a time, savors of the soil. Its vital element needs disengaging from what is foreign and temporary, and is employed in efforts after freedom, more vigorous and hopeful as its years increase. Its beginnings are no measures of its capabilities, nor of its scope. At first, no one knows what it is, or what it is worth. It remains, perhaps, for a time, quiescent; it tries, as it were, its limbs, and proves the ground under it, and feels its way. From time to time it makes essays which fail, and are, in consequence, abandoned. It seems in suspense which way to go; it wavers, and, at length, strikes out in one definite direction. In time it enters upon strange territory; points of controversy alter their bearing; parties rise and fall about it; dangers and hopes appear in new relations, and old principles reappear under new forms; it changes with them, in order to remain the same. In a higher world it is otherwise; but here below _to live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often_."[92]

In answer to the objection, "that inspired doc.u.ments, such as the Holy Scriptures, at once determine the doctrines which we should believe," it is replied, "that they were intended to create an idea, and that idea is not in the sacred text, but in the mind of the reader; and the question is, whether that idea is communicated to him, in its completeness and minute accuracy, on its first apprehension, or expands in his heart and intellect, and comes to perfection in the course of time. Nor could it be maintained without extravagance that the letter of the New Testament, or of any a.s.signable number of books, comprises a delineation of all possible forms which a Divine message will a.s.sume when submitted to a mult.i.tude of minds."[93]

What relation, it may be asked, can this theory respecting the development of revealed or Christian truth bear to the question of the being and perfections of G.o.d? We answer, that it is founded on a general philosophical principle which may affect the truths of natural as well as those of revealed Religion; and that it is applied in such a way as to show that, as it has already led to the worship of angels and saints, so it may hereafter issue in the deification of Nature, which is Pantheism, or in the separate worship of its component parts, which is Polytheism; and, in either case, the personality and supremacy of the one only, the living and the true G.o.d, would be effectually superseded, if not explicitly denied.

But, is there any real danger of such a disastrous consummation? We answer, that the mere coexistence of the theory of Ecclesiastical Development with the infidel speculations on the doctrine of Human Progress is of itself an ominous symptom; and, further, that the mutual interchange of complimentary acknowledgments between the Infidel and Popish parties is another, especially when both are found to coincide in some of the main grounds of their opposition to Scripture as the supreme rule of faith, and when the homage which the advocates of Development render to the theory of progress is responded to by glowing eulogiums from the infidel camp on the genius of Catholicism as the masterpiece of human policy. But there are other grounds of apprehension, arising more directly out of the very nature of the theory of Development itself.

That theory has been described by Dr. Brownson--himself a convert to Catholicism--as the product of "a _school_ formed, at first, outside of the Church, but now brought within her communion," and compared, in regard to its dangerousness, with the speculations of Hermes and Lamennais.[94] And a still more competent judge--Professor Sedgwick, of Cambridge[95]--has characterized it as "a monstrous compound of Popery and Pantheism," according to which "the Catholic faith is not a religion revealed to us in the Sacred Books we call canonical, and in the works of the Fathers which are supposed to contain the oral traditions of the Apostles and their followers; but a new Pantheistic element is to be fastened on the faith of men,--a principle of Development which may overshadow both the _verb.u.m Dei scriptum_ and the _verb.u.m Dei non scriptum_ of the Romish Church, and change both the form and substance of primitive Christianity."

It is only justice to Mr. Newman to say that he appears to have been aware of this possible objection to his theory, and that he makes an attempt to obviate it. Speaking of the difficulty which the Church experienced in keeping "Paganism out of her pale," he adverts to "the _hazard which attended on the development_ of the Catholic ritual,--such as the honors publicly a.s.signed to saints and martyrs, the formal veneration of their relics, and the usages and observances which followed." And he asks: "What was to hinder the rise of a sort of refined Pantheism, and the overthrow of Dogmatism _pari pa.s.su_ with the multiplication of heavenly intercessors and patrons? If what is called in reproach 'Saint-worship' resembled the Polytheism which it supplanted, or was a corruption, how did Dogmatism survive? Dogmatism is a religious profession of its own reality as contrasted with other systems; but Polytheists are liberals, and hold that one religion is as good as another. Yet the theological system was developing and strengthening, as well as the monastic rule, all the while the ritual was a.s.similating itself, as Protestants say, to the Paganism of former ages."[96]

It seems to be admitted in these words, that, in the _past_ history of the Church, the development of the Catholic ritual _was_ attended with some danger of infection from Paganism or Pantheism; and there may be equal reason to fear that, in the _future_ history of the Church, still working on the principle of development, that danger may be very considerably aggravated by the general prevalence of theories utterly inconsistent with the faith of primitive times. What the Church has already done in the exercise of her developing power may be only a specimen of what she may hereafter accomplish. She has already developed Christianity into a system which bears a striking resemblance to Polytheism; she may yet develop it more fully, so as to bring it into accordance with philosophical Pantheism; or, retaining both forms,--for they are not necessarily exclusive of each other,--she may use the first in dealing with the ignorant, and reserve the second as a sort of esoteric doctrine for minds of higher culture. Nor let it be said that we are either unjust or uncharitable towards the Romish Church, in suggesting the possibility of some such development; for what she has already done, and what she still claims the power of doing, afford very sufficient ground for our remarks. When Dr. Conyers Middleton published his celebrated "Letter from Rome," showing an exact conformity between Popery and Paganism, and that "the religion of the present Romans is derived from that of their Heathen ancestors," many liberal Catholics resented the imputation as an insult to their faith; but now Mr. Newman not only admits the fact that the Church did _a.s.similate_ its ritual to the Paganism of former ages, but vindicates her right to do so, and ascribes to her _a power of a.s.similation_ to which it seems impossible to a.s.sign any limits. "There is, in truth," says this writer, "a certain virtue or grace in the Gospel, which changes the quality of doctrines, opinions, usages, actions, and personal characters, which become incorporated with it, and makes them right and acceptable to its Divine Author, when before they were either contrary to truth, or, at best, but shadows of it."--"Confiding, then, in the power of Christianity to resist the infection of evil, and to _trans.m.u.te the very instruments and appendages of demon worship to an Evangelical use_, ... the rulers of the Church from early times were prepared, should the occasion arise, to adopt, or imitate, or sanction _the existing rites and customs of the populace_, as well as _the philosophy of the educated cla.s.s_."--"The Church can extract good from evil, or, at least, gets no harm from it.

She inherits the promise made to the disciples, that they should take up serpents, and, if they drank any deadly thing, it should not hurt them."--"It has borne, and can bear, principles or doctrines which, in other systems of religion, quickly degenerate into _fanaticism or infidelity_." This marvellous power of a.s.similation, which made "those observances pious in Christianity" that were "superst.i.tions in Paganism," advanced, rapidly in its work, and successively introduced the deification of man, the _cultus_ of angels and saints, and the beatification of Mary as Queen of heaven and earth. The sanctification, or rather _the deification of the nature of Man_, is one of these developments. Christ "is in them, because He is in human nature; and He communicates to them that nature, deified by becoming His, that it may _deify_ them." The worship of saints is another of these developments: "Those who are known to be G.o.d's adopted sons in Christ are fit objects of worship on account of Him who is in them.... Worship is the necessary correlative of glory; and, in the same sense in which created nature can share in the Creator's incommunicable glory, do they also share in that worship which is His property alone." But a "new sphere" was yet to be discovered in the realms of light, to which the Church had not yet a.s.signed its inhabitant. "There was 'a wonder in heaven;' a throne was seen, far above all created powers, mediatorial, intercessory; a t.i.tle archetypal; a crown bright as the morning star; a glory issuing from the Eternal Throne; robes pure as the heavens; and a sceptre over all. And who was the predestined heir of that Majesty? Who was that Wisdom, and what was her name?--'the Mother of fair love, and fear, and holy hope,'

exalted like a palm-tree in Engaddi and a rose-plant in Jericho, created from the beginning before the world in G.o.d's counsels, and 'in Jerusalem was her power.' The vision is found in the Apocalypse, a Woman clothed with the Sun, and the Moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars." The DEIFICATION of Mary is decreed. The doctrine of her Immaculate Conception is a further _development_ at the present moment, and who can tell what other developments may be in store for the future?

We advert to this form of the theory only in so far as it stands related to our great theme,--the existence, perfections, and prerogatives of the one only, the living and the true G.o.d; and it can scarcely be questioned, we think, that it has already introduced doctrines and practices into the Church which have a manifest tendency to obscure the l.u.s.tre and impair the evidence of some of the most fundamental articles of Natural Religion. Let it still advance in the same direction, and who shall a.s.sure us that it may not develop into still grosser idolatry, or even into Pantheism? Why should it not develop, for example, into Sun worship? "On the new system," says Professor Butler, "a modern growth of Christian Guebres might make out no feeble case; the public religious recognition of this great visible type of the True Light is but a fair development of 'the typical principle;' the justifiable imitation of the guilt of heathens in its adoration is but an instance of the transforming powers of 'the sacramental principle;' while it requires but the most moderate use of the great instrument of orthodoxy, 'mystical interpretation,' to find the duty hinted (clearly enough for watchful faith, though obscurely to the blinded or undevout) in those pa.s.sages that speak of a 'tabernacle for the Sun,' or Deity itself being 'a Sun,' or the rising of 'the Sun of righteousness.'... Indeed, the whole body of the righteous are promised to 'shine as the Sun' in the heavenly kingdom,--an expression which, though it appear superficially to refer to a period not yet arrived, the Church has correctively developed into an a.s.surance of their present beatification, and consequent right to worship; while it must be at once manifest that, if any representative emblem of the Deity may demand religious prostration in our Churches, the a.n.a.logous emblem of the 'deified,' in the great temple of the Material Universe, may fairly expect a partic.i.p.ation in that honor. It is true there is an express command, 'Take heed lest, when thou seest the Sun, ... thou shouldst be driven to worship them;'

but so there is a command, at least as distinct and imperative, against the worship of _Images_, which, Mr. Newman instructs us, has been repealed under the Gospel, and was never more than a mere Judaic prohibition, 'intended for mere temporary observance in the letter.'"[97]

If it be said that, in the case of the Church of Rome, there is not only a process of development, but an infallible developing power, and that this affords a guaranty, strong as the Divine promise itself, against that risk of error which is attendant on the ordinary methods of human teaching,--we answer, that this is a mere a.s.sumption, which requires to be proved, and that it cannot be proved in the face of the facts which attest the historical variations of the Romish Creed, as these are admitted and defended by Mr. Newman himself. For some of these variations are not consistent developments of the primitive articles of faith, but involve either a corruption or a contradiction of these very principles; and if her infallibility has not preserved her from the deification of saints, what security have we that it will preserve her from the deification of Nature? If it has already introduced a Christian Polytheism, why may it not issue in a Christian Pantheism?

Admit the principle of development, and it may lead to the deification of man, as well as to the worship of Mary; to a sacred Calendar of Heroes, as well as of Saints.[98] It may terminate either in Infidelity or in Superst.i.tion, according to the mental temperament of the individual by whom it is adopted and applied. "An organ of investigation being introduced, which may be employed for any purpose indifferently, the tendency of such a theory of religious inquiry will just tell according to the spirit in which it acts. A skeptic will develop the principle into Infidelity, a believer into Superst.i.tion; but the principle itself remains accurately the same in both."[99] The connection between the theory of Ecclesiastical Development and the infidel theory of Progress has not escaped the notice of many acute and profound thinkers in recent times, nor the danger resulting from it to the most fundamental articles of faith. "Modern Spiritualists tell us that Christianity is a development, as the Papists also a.s.sert, and the New Testament is its first and rudimentary product; only, unhappily, as the development, it seems, may be things so different as Popery and Infidelity, we are as far as ever from any criterium as to which, out of the ten thousand possible developments, is the true; but it is a matter of the less consequence, since it will, on such reasoning, be _always something future_."[100] One of the most pernicious tenets of the Neologists beyond the Rhine is thus expressed by themselves: "Christianity renews itself in the human heart, and follows _the development_ of the human mind, and invests itself with new forms of thought and language, and adopts new systems of Church organization, to which it gives expression and life." ... "But are these teachers the _only_ destroyers of Faith and Morals? Are not _they_ also chargeable with precisely the same offence who command us to submit implicitly to the so-called divinely-inspired Spirit of '_one_ living Infallible Judge' or 'Developing Power'? Can we have _fixed_ articles of faith and morals in this system, any more than in the other? No. '_Unus utrisque error, sed variis ill[=u]det partibus._' There is the same evil in both, but it operates in different ways; in the former, every one develops for himself; in the latter, the Pope develops for every one. You look with fear on the progress of Rationalism; and what hope can any man derive from that of Romanism?"[101]

We have examined, each on its own peculiar merits, the various forms of the Theory of Development which have been propounded in modern times, and applied to account for the origin of planets and astral systems, of vegetable and animal races, and of the different successive systems of human opinion and belief. We have found that, imposing as it may seem to be, and high as its pretensions are, that theory has no claim to the character of a scientific doctrine; that it is a mere hypothesis, and nothing more; a speculative figment, which may be injurious to those who thoughtlessly dally with it, but which can have no power to hurt any one who will resolutely lay hold of it, and examine its claims.

"Gently, softly, touch a nettle, And it stings you for your pains; Grasp it, like a man of mettle, And it soft as silk remains."

It is only necessary to add, that _the same general principle_ seems to be involved in _all_ the forms of this theory,--the principle, namely, that we are bound to account for the past _only_ by causes known to be in actual operation at the present day. M. Comte lays it down in the following terms: "Our conjectures on the origin, or formation of our world should evidently be subjected to this indispensable condition,--not to allow of the interposition of any other natural agents than those whose influence we clearly discern in our ordinary phenomena, and whose operations, _then_, would only be on a greater scale. Without this rule, our work can have no truly scientific character, and we shall fall into the inconvenience, so justly made a ground of reproach to the greater number of geological hypotheses,--that of introducing, for the purpose of explaining the ancient revolutions of the globe, agencies which do not exist at the present day, and whose influence it is impossible, for that very reason, to verify or even to comprehend." The same principle is strongly stated, but with due limitation, by Sir Charles Lyell, who insists on the explanation of all terrestrial changes by _means of causes and according to laws known to be in operation at the present day_: "During the progress of Geology, there have been great fluctuations of opinion respecting the nature of the causes to which all former changes in the earth's surface are referable. The first observers conceived that the monuments which the Geologist endeavors to decipher relate to a period when the physical const.i.tution of the earth differed entirely from the present, and that, even after the creation of living beings, there have been causes in action distinct in kind or degree from these now forming part of the economy of nature. These views have been gradually modified, and some of them entirely abandoned."[102]

The general principle which is involved in these and similar statements may be perfectly sound, when it is applied merely to _natural events_, occurring in the ordinary course, and according to the established const.i.tution of the material and moral world; but it is manifestly inapplicable to _supernatural events_, such as the creation of the world, or the revelation of Divine truth, since these events cannot be accounted for by any known natural cause, and must be ascribed to the immediate agency of a Higher Power. Without some such limitation, the general principle cannot be admitted, since it would involve an egregious fallacy. We must not limit Omnipotence by circ.u.mscribing the range of its possible exercise within the narrow bounds of the existing economy, or of our actual experience. We are not warranted to a.s.sume that the origin of the world, on the one hand, or the establishment of Christianity on the other, may be accounted for by _natural causes_ still known to be in actual operation. In regard to _natural events_ the principle is sound, and it is rigorously adhered to by the expounder of Natural Theology; in regard to _supernatural events_ it can have no legitimate application, except in so far as it is combined with the doctrine of efficient and final causes, which leads us up to the recognition of a Higher Power. It might be safe and legitimate enough, when we find a fossil organism imbedded in the earth, to ascribe its production to the ordinary law of generation, even although we had not witnessed the fact of its birth, provided the same species is known to have existed previously; but when we find _new races_ coming into being, for which the ordinary law of derivation cannot account, we are not at liberty to apply the same rule to a case so essentially different, and still less to postulate _a spontaneous generation_, or a _trans.m.u.tation of species_, for which we have no experience at all. In such a case, we can only reason on the principle that _like_ effects must have _like_ causes, that marks of _design_ imply a _designing_ cause, and that events which cannot be accounted for by _natural causes_ must be ascribed to a Power distinct from nature, and superior to it. It is manifestly unreasonable to a.s.sume that nothing can be brought to pa.s.s in the Universe otherwise than by the operation of the same natural laws which are now in action; or that, in the course of our limited and partial experience, we must necessarily know all the agencies that may have been at work during the long flow of time. And, in accordance with these views, Sir Charles Lyell expressly limits the general principle to _natural events_, and shows that "Geology differs as widely from Cosmogony as speculations concerning the _Creation of Man_ differ from his _History_."

FOOTNOTES:

[28] "Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation," p. 17.

[29] AUGUSTE COMTE, "Cours de Philosophic Positive," II. 363, 376. The merits of this attempt are very differently estimated by two competent authorities; by PROFESSOR SEDGWICK in the "Edinburgh Review," No. 82, p.

22; and by SIR DAVID BREWSTER in the "North British Review," No. 3, p.

476.

[30] "Vestiges," p. 11, 23.

[31] WHEWELL, "Indications of a Creator." SEDGWICK'S "Discourse," 5th edition. "Edinburgh Review," No. 82. SIR D. BREWSTER, "North British Review," No. 3. PROFESSOR DOD, "Princeton Theological Essays," second series. H. MILLER, "Footprints of the Creator." T. MONCK MASON, "Creation by the Immediate Agency of G.o.d."

[32] THOMAS MONCK MASON, "Creation by the Immediate Agency of G.o.d, as opposed to Creation by Natural Law; being a Refutation of 'The Vestiges,'" &c., p. 34.

[33] SIR JOHN HERSCh.e.l.l, "Memoir on Nebulae and Cl.u.s.ters of Stars,"

London Philosophical Transactions, 1833. "Edinburgh Review," No. 82, p.

19.

[34] "North British Review," No. 3, p. 477.

[35] PROFESSOR NICHOL, "The System of the World," Preface, VI., and 108.

[36] Ecclesiastes 12: 1.

[37] LORENZ OKEN, M. D., "Elements of Physio-philosophy,"--reprinted (unfortunately) under the auspices of the Ray Society, London, 1847.

[38] DR. JOHN BARCLAY, "Inquiry concerning Life and Organization," pp.

33, 36. See also pp. 177, 235, 413, 526.

[39] "Telliamed; ou, Entretiens d'un Philosophe Indien avec un Missionaire Francois, sur la Diminution de la Mer, la Formation de la Terre, l'Origine de l'Homme," 2 vols., 1748.

[40] "Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation," 6th edition, p. 90.

[41] MR. HUGH MILLER, "Footprints of the Creator," p. 226.

[42] "North British Review," 1845, p. 483.

[43] "Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation," p. 92.

[44] "The Vestiges," p. 104.

[45] Ibid.

[46] TODD, "Cyclopaedia of Anatomy and Physiology," article, Generation.

[47] MR. HUGH MILLER, "Footprints of the Creator," p. 233. T. MONCK MASON, "Creation by the Immediate Agency of G.o.d." "Princeton Theological Essays," Second Series, p. 422.

[48] CUVIER, "Oss.e.m.e.ns Fossiles," p. 61.

[49] MR. HUGH MILLER, "Footprints," p. 254.

[50] DR. WHEWELL'S "Indications," p. 54.

[51] "Footprints of the Creator," p. 19.

[52] "The Vestiges," p. 105.

[53] "The Vestiges," pp. 91, 96.