An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine

Crisol #19

by John Henry Newman, James Tolhurst (Editor)

An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, reprinted from the 1888 imprint, "is rightly regarded as one of the most seminal theological works ever to be written," states Ian Ker in his foreword. "It remains," Ker continues, "the classic text for the theology of the development of doctrine, a branch of theology which has become especially important in the ecumenical era."

John Henry Cardinal Newman begins the Essay by defining how true developments in doctrine occur. He then delivers a sweeping consideration of the growth and development of doctrine in the Catholic Church, from the time of the Apostles to Newman's own era. He demonstrates that the basic "rule" under which Christianity proceeded through the centuries is to be found in the principle of development, and emphasizes that thoughout the entire life of the Church this law of development has been in effect and safeguards the faith from any real corruption.

Ker concludes that, "we may say that the Essay is not only the starting point for the study of doctrinal development, but so far as Catholic theology is concerned, it is still the last word on the subject, to the extent that no other theologian has yet attempted anything on the same scale or of similar scope. . . . But even if the Essay was not one of the great theological classics, it would still be of enduring interest for two reasons. First it is one of the key intellectual documents of the nineteenth century, comparable to Darwin's Origin of Species, which it predates by over a decade. Second, if this were the only book of Newman to survive, its rhetorical art and style would surely place him among the masters of English prose."

Genres: Theology, Religion, Catholic, Christianity, Philosophy, Nonfiction, History

634 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1845

About the author

Saint John Henry Cardinal Newman was an important figure in the religious history of England in the 19th century. He was known nationally by the mid-1830s.
Originally an evangelical Oxford University academic and priest in the Church of England, Newman then became drawn to the high-church tradition of Anglicanism. He became known as a leader of, and an able polemicist for, the Oxford Movement, an influential and controversial grouping of Anglicans who wished to return to the Church of England many Catholic beliefs and liturgical rituals from before the English Reformation. In this the movement had some success. However, in 1845 Newman, joined by some but not all of his followers, left the Church of England and his teaching post at Oxford University and was received into the Catholic Church. He was quickly ordained as a priest and continued as an influential religious leader, based in Birmingham. In 1879, he was created a cardinal by Pope Leo XIII in recognition of his services to the cause of the Catholic Church in England. He was instrumental in the founding of the Catholic University of Ireland, which evolved into University College Dublin, today the largest university in Ireland.

Newman was beatified by Pope Benedict XVI on 19 September 2010 during his visit to the United Kingdom. He was then canonised by Pope Francis on 13 October 2019.

Newman was also a literary figure of note: his major writings including the Tracts for the Times (1833–1841), his autobiography Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1865–66), the Grammar of Assent (1870), and the poem The Dream of Gerontius (1865),[6] which was set to music in 1900 by Edward Elgar. He wrote the popular hymns "Lead, Kindly Light" and "Praise to the Holiest in the Height" (taken from Gerontius).

Reviews

[Bill Kerwin · Rating 5 out of 5]

This classic work argues that Christian belief, far from being a static list of propositions, develops gradually from the original seed of faith over time, until the fullness of the mystery opens into history like the blooming of a rose. When this book was written in the mid-19th century, evolution was in the air, and this work certainly shows its influence--although the result is more Larmarckian than Darwinian.

Newman wrote this while he was moving away from Anglicanism and toward Roman Catholicism; indeed, he announced his conversion around the time the book was published. One of his ancillary purposes is to draw strong parallels between the fourth and the nineteenth century: each feature a church called "Roman" surrounded by doctrinally divergent forms of Christianity appealing to biblical literalism. And in each case, for Newman, the pope--united to tradition--is the arbiter.

[فؤاد · Rating 4 out of 5]

جان هنری نیومن، روحانی‌ای پروتستان، در ۱۸۴۵ کتاب «تحول آموزه‌ی مسیحی» را نوشت، کتابی که منجر به کاتولیک شدن خودش شد و با این که اسقف نبود، به درجه‌ی کاردینالی رسید.

نیومن در این کتاب در مقابل انتقادات پروتستان‌ها به کاتولیک‌ها، که شما بدعت‌هایی وارد دین کرده‌اید و ما باید با زدودن این بدعت‌ها به مسیحیت ناب اولیه بازگردیم، میان بدعت و تحول فرق می‌گذارد و تحول آموزه‌های دینی را امری مثبت تلقی می‌کند.
نیومن می‌گوید اندیشه‌های بزرگ غنی، سرشار از قابلیت، و چند وجهی هستند و نمی‌توان آن‌ها را در یک تعریف محدود کرد. در ابتدا درک و کاربستی ساده و اجمالی از این اندیشه‌ها شکل می‌گیرد، اما با گذشت زمان، در شرایط تاریخی و اجتماعی مختلف و در اثر تضارب آرا، قابلیت‌های مختلف آن‌ها بروز می‌کند و وجوه مختلف خود را می‌نمایانند. این وجوه جدید گرچه متفاوت از درک و کاربست ساده‌ی اولیه هستند، اما الزاماً بدعت‌آمیز و بیگانه از اندیشه‌ی اولیه نیستند، بلکه از دل همان اندیشه‌ی اولیه بیرون آمده‌اند. هر چه اندیشه‌ی اولیه غنی‌تر باشد، فرآیند تحول و ظهور قابلیت‌های جدید به مدت بیشتری می‌تواند ادامه بیابد. این همان مفهوم «سنت» است که در باور کاتولیکی، مرجع تفسیر کتاب مقدس است.

نیومن این را با تشبیهی نشان می‌دهد: جسمی چند وجهی در نظر بگیریم که یک وجه آن مربع و یک وجه آن مثلث است. وقتی از جنبه‌های مختلف به این جسم واحد نور بیندازیم، سایه‌های ناهمشکلی تولید می‌شود. اما ناهمشکل بودن سایه‌ها نباید باعث شود که یکی را برآمده از جسم ندانیم. با پیگیری این سایه‌های ناهمشکل به منبع اولیه می‌بینیم که خود جسم چند وجهی بوده که امکان تولید سایه‌هایی با اشکال مختلف را داشته است.

اما چگونه دریابیم که این آموزه‌ی جدید بدعت‌آمیز و بیگانه از اندیشه‌ی نخستین است، یا بروز و ظهور قابلیت‌های اندیشه‌ی نخستین؟

نیومن ملاک‌های مختلفی می‌دهد، از جمله این که تحولات بعدی باید به شکل ضمنی در اندیشه‌ی اولیه وجود داشته باشد و لازمه‌ی منطقی همان اندیشه باشد، گرچه در ابتدا این لوازم به طور کامل درک نشده بودند یا نیاز به کاربست آن‌ها نبوده باشد. برای مثال نیومن می‌گوید سازمان پاپی در صدر مسیحیت وجود نداشت، زیرا رسولان و اسقفان اولیه نیازی به چنین سازمانی نداشتند، زیرا کلیسا کوچک و درگیر بقای خود بود و هنوز نیازی به سازماندهی عظیم نداشت. اما پس از بزرگ شدن کلیسا، نیاز به سازماندهی هم پیدا شد و برتری پطرس بر دیگر رسولان، مبنای سازماندهی کلیسایی شد.

ملاک دیگر آن است که اشکال بعدی باید عناصر مشخصه‌ی اندیشه‌ی اولیه را حفظ کرده باشند و با تمام تحولاتی که روی داده، همچنان در هسته‌ی خود با اندیشه‌ی اولیه هم‌سنخ باشند.

در هر حال تشخیص تحول مثبت از بدعت، نیازمند نهادی است که از تحول مثبت سنت محافظت کند و نگذارد به سمت فساد برود. کتاب مقدس نمی‌تواند حافظ سنت باشد، زیرا چنان که در نهضت اصلاح دینی هم مشخص شد، خود کتاب مقدس قابلیت تفاسیر متعدد دارد و نمی‌تواند مرجع نهایی باشد. بر خلاف کلیسا که می‌تواند بسته به شرایط زمان، با صراحت تحولات مثبت و منفی معرفی کند.

با این توضیح، کلیسای کاتولیک اصولاً مظهر تحول بود، بر خلاف پروتستان‌ها که می‌خواستند تفسیر اولیه از مسیحیت را به عنوان ملاک نهایی بپذیرند و تمام تحولات بعد از آن را نفی کنند. اما کلیسای کاتولیک در برابر پروتستان‌ها رویکردی شبیه ایشان پیدا کرد، و برای دفاع از خود در برابر اتهام بدعت، به اشتباه هر گونه تحولی را انکار کرد و آموزه‌های کاتولیک که تا قرن ۱۶ شکل گرفته بود را ازلی-ابدی و بی‌تغییر دانست. این موجب تصلّب سنت و بن‌بست فکری کاتولیک شد. دیگر تنها آموزه‌هایی که تا قرن ۱۶ شکل گرفته بودند مرجع نهایی شدند و تحولات بعدی محکوم گشتند.

[booklady · Rating 5 out of 5]

Someday, when I come back to this marvelous work, I hope to construct a conversation with St. Newman, like I did with his, The Idea of a University. It seems the best way to further his ideas, in his own words. He has such a way with words, which no student, nor reporter, no reviewer can adequately reflect. But for now, I must be content with this brief survey as I am still completely overwhelmed by this Great Mind as he expresses himself here.

The gist of An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine—as this poor student understands it—is that Christian Doctrine is living and as such our understanding of revelation has become more detailed and explicit over the centuries, for a number of reasons, as successive generations take up questions unresolved by their forefathers. This is not to be confused with changes in basic dogmas, but, “the understanding of the things and words handed down grows, through the contemplation and study of believers, ... (which) tends continually towards the fullness of divine truth.” (If I have misunderstood/misstated this, O Wise Mind out there, feel free to correct me. I claim no expertise, other than the devotion of a disciple to a beloved teacher.)

As a mother, I offer the poor analogy of the fervent hope that my own children will be the wiser for having learned from their parents as indeed I learned from mine, i.e., that successive generations (can) build on, or develop the wisdom of their ancestors, through the love they have for them. Perhaps this is too simple of an illustration of a profound treatise, but it is the one closest/most familiar to me, so I offer it anyway, for now, until I can read this again.

This is GREAT book, but not an easy one. I listened to it off my kindle, stopping frequently to highlight things I like, and replay sections as well. Newman’s knowledge of Church History is phenomenal, especially when you consider he had no computer, not even a typewriter, but accomplished all his research and writing from books and paper and ink. He constantly inspires me to try harder and stop complaining! And all that he accomplished he did while facing stiff opposition, not only from Protestants, but also from Catholics.

I would encourage all Christians to read this, regardless of your particular tradition. There is so much to learn here. I am inspired to return to my early Church History and return again, when I am much better educated.

Thank you, St. Newman!




January 3, 2020: Finished! And strong! 'Time is short, Eternity is long.' Newman repeats this near the end for effect. Although I struggled just past the beginning, not sure what he was getting at, I would get back on track with him again and again. The biggest problem is you need to know Church history, the heresies, popes, fathers of the Church, development of theological ideas over time, and so much more. I want to go do some studies on these things and come back to this when I am smarter. But what I understood was fantastic! Want to add some quotes and maybe a more complete review...


November 14, 2019: I tried to read this before and got nowhere. Now I am listening to it. Even when he loses me (often) the reader continues to read and I continue on... eventually I pick up the thread again. Maybe if I persevere long enough, or re-listen enough times, I will understand? I don't know, but for now, I am just pressing on...

[Jeffery · Rating 5 out of 5]

Newman answered for me a question with which I struggled for five years. Is the Bible alone enough to determine the content of our faith, without the comment of teachers and councils, past or present? This question is not Newman's main concern here, but the Essay nonetheless answered my question in a breathtaking and very satisfactory way. Stuck between Anglicanism and Catholicism in 1840s England, the brightest Christian mind of his generation immersed himself in the history of the early Church to examine how core doctrines of Christianity first received expression, and then to compare and contrast the development of those core doctrines with what were particularly "Catholic" doctrines. His finding, exhaustively documented: the core doctrines were not proclaimed more or less clearly or consistently than the Catholic doctrines. They were of a piece.
Anglicans, while not adhering strictly to sola scriptura, nonetheless distinguished themselves from Catholics by claiming that they simply believed what has been taught and believed at all times, in all places, by everyone. Newman's research in patristics, the study of the writings of the Church Fathers, showed that this rule of thumb did not help to distinguish non-Catholic doctrines from Catholic ones. The primacy of the Bishop of Rome was better documented than the Real Presence of Jesus in Communion (believed by Anglicans and Catholics). Prayers for the dead showed a development parallel to that of the communion of all believers, and devotion to the Blessed Mother grew parallel to a better understanding of Jesus' Incarnation; indeed, in both cases the one reinforced the other. Similarly, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome developed alongside an understanding of the unity and universality of the church. In each case, those who taught the truth about the Person of Jesus could not be found to deny Catholic distinctives: though sometimes they were silent, they did not deny. Those who wrote such denials were most often heretics who taught that Jesus was just a spirit, or that He was only a man, or that His divinity only came upon Him once He began His ministry. Thus Newman at one point in the book concluded, "To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant." Letting the early Church speak for itself, without bringing doctrinal assumptions to the study of history, Newman found no evidence of a point where the "simple" teachings of the apostles fell silent and monolithic, ritualistic religion took over. The development of Catholicism, though often messy, was yet seamless and continuous from the earliest church documents. Research by many scholars in the 160 years since Newman wrote his Essay have corroborated his claims by showing that the worship of the early Church was highly liturgical and sacramental. If early worship was Protestant in any sense, that sense was interior and invisible, and by all exteriors it had far more in common with the worship seen today in Orthodox and Catholic parishes.
Newman intended to carry out his investigation of the development of doctrine up to his own time, but he only got to the 500s. His study and writing had convinced him by that point that the Anglican church, to which he then belonged, was in the wrong, and that Catholics were the inheritors of the true teaching. Calling the Church of Rome "the one true Fold of the Redeemer", he put down his pen and asked to be received into the Church. From 1845 till his death in 1890, he faithfully served God in the Catholic Church as a priest and cardinal, and specially through his ministerial gifts of teaching and writing. Though his conversion stirred up much bad feeling and his English countrymen rejected him at the time, the holiness of his life and the power of his words eventually revived their admiration, and upon his death he was hailed as a national treasure by Protestants and Catholics alike.
The cause for Newman's sainthood is currently being investigated by the Catholic Church, with special interest and devotion from Pope Benedict XVI. He currently holds the title "Venerable", and in September Benedict will visit Britain to proclaim him "Blessed".

[Don Bryant · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a book I waited to read for a long time - not because I couldn't get to it. I was afraid of it. It is a great challenge of Evangelicalism's back-to-the-bible ethos. Newman asserts that doctrine develops through the agency of the Spirit-guided church, which, as he reminds us, is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Seeking to return to the early church is like a fully grown human being seeking to be an embryo. Who would want to? Newman is fun to read, not in that he is entertaining but that his writing is so well crafted. It is a delight to read a man who takes writing so seriously. One doesn't breeze through Newman, not because it is so complex but because the phrasing is so well done that one slows down to pay attention and goes back to read passages over again.

[Manuel Alfonseca · Rating 4 out of 5]

ENGLISH: Just before converting to Catholicism, John Henry Newman studied the Church Fathers to justify (he believed) that their true successor was the Church of England. As a consequence of that study, he came to the conclusion that the true successor is the Catholic Church. That's the reason why he was converted. This book summarizes his arguments.

ESPAÑOL: Justo antes de convertirse al catolicismo, John Henry Newman estudió a los Padres de la Iglesia para justificar (creía él) que su verdadera continuadora era la Iglesia de Inglaterra. Como consecuencia de ese estudio, llegó a la conclusión de que la verdadera continuadora es la Iglesia Católica. Por eso se convirtió. Este libro resume sus argumentos.

[Peter Blair · Rating 5 out of 5]

Everyone should read it

[Shep · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've been spending a lot of time going through this book over and over. I'm fascinated by Newman's writing style, by the tensions in his theory, and by the influence the theory has had on Roman Catholicism and other theories of doctrinal development. Newman's theory is of particular interest because he is not interested in ecumenism - this is before Vatican II, and he believes there is no salvation outside Roman Catholicism. This allows him to focus the question of development on issues of theological consistency and objective truth. I'm not sure he always finds the answers satisfactorily, but his thinking along the way is a fascinating journey. Debated giving the book 5 stars, but it is more like 4.5 I think. Probably not of interest to the layperson. To those interested in matters of Church tradition and Roman Catholic theology, this book will be found highly valuable.

[Jeff Miller · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of those books I have been meaning to get around to and all I can say is wow! I've read other works of his and so am not surprised by his towering intellect, but it is certainly shown here. There is good reason why various religions and branches of Christianity don't talk much about the development of doctrine - simply because they do not have a coherent one. Blessed Newman amply shows not only how doctrine is developed by why the system within the Church is the only practicable way for doctrine to develop and not branch into error. He goes through multiple cases and into related topics. Just a great read.

This is of course the essay he started to write as an Anglican an the research led him into the Catholic Church.

[Aaron Crofut · Rating 5 out of 5]

(Third Reading, 2025)

This was my third reading of the great saint’s book. If you had asked me as I cracked open the book again who should become the next Doctor of the Church, I probably would have answered either St. John Henry Newman or Dietrich von Hildebrand. In the actual event, Pope Leo XIV announced that it would be the former while I was rereading this, and the more I read it, the more I applaud his wise decision.

St. Newman’s focus is on ecclesiology. There is but one Head of the Church, our Lord; there is then but one body, lest we make a monster. There is also but one Truth; different groups claiming the title of Church but teaching different things are not members of the same body. And yet, no group exists today that exactly matches the practices and discussions of the earliest recorded Church Fathers. We can respond to this in one of two ways. The first is to say the Church is ever evolving, not just in its externals but even in its very nature or essence. Such a path leads quickly to agnosticism and atheism, making the church a handmaid of whatever fad society creates in its time. Such an institution will fly a Nazi banner one day, a rainbow flag the next. Given that such a path denies transcendentals of any sort (including what God is), it’s hardly worth bothering with, and Newman dispenses with the argument out of hand. I highly recommend St. Pius X’s Pascendi Dominici Gregis for anyone interested in that topic.

The search then becomes for the best representative of The Church in our own time. Newman spends the rest of the book discussing principles of development that we could reasonably expect from such an institution over eighteen centuries. The Church today will not exactly resemble the same institution right after Pentecost, but we shouldn’t expect that anymore than we would expect a full grown adult man to resemble himself exactly as a child. Nor would the only change in the adult be merely a matter of size; the proportions would look different. While a divine institution, the Church is still made up of human beings, hylomorphic creatures who learn through reason, not angelic beings who instantly comprehend essences in their totality.

In English: the development of doctrines and practices is going to be a process. As we come to learn more about a particular belief, more implications open up. The regenerative aspect of Baptism opens up questions about sins committed after baptism. How do we receive pardon? Can we receive pardon? If we do, what does penance look like? What if a penance is not or could not be completed? That in turn leads to Purgatory, which brings up indulgences.

While certainly useful for Protestants coming into an understanding of the historical nature of the Church, this book and our Pope’s current pronouncement on its author is perhaps more important for current Catholics. We have been in a crisis for the better part of a century now. There are hopeful signs that the fever is breaking and we can return to our senses. But we still remain disturbed: how could such nonsense seem to prevail, even for a spell? And how will we weed out the nonsense from the truth?

Our newest Doctor provides the way. His principles for development will help us winnow out the wheat from the chaff. And how could such a crisis develop in the first place? I’ll let the good Doctor explain himself:

“Nor was the development of dogmatic theology, which was then taking place, a silent and spontaneous process. It was wrought out and carried through under the fiercest controversies, and amid the most fearful risks. The Catholic faith was placed in a succession of perils, and rocked to and fro like a vessel at sea. Large portions of Christendom were, one after another, in heresy or in schism; the leading Churches and the most authoritative schools fell from time to time into serious error; three Popes, Liberius, Vigilius, Honorius, have left to posterity the burden of their defence: but these disorders were no interruption to the sustained and steady march of the sacred science from implicit belief to formal statement. The series of ecclesiastical decisions, in which its progress was ever and anon signified, alternate between the one and the other side of the theological dogma especially in question, as if fashioning it into shape by opposite strokes.”

I cannot help but believe that a Third Vatican Council will eventually be called. The 1st was but half done, the 2nd provided no definitions at all, but at some point the Church’s relationship with its own past will need to be settled. As the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas was placed on the altar at Trent, perhaps An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine will play a similar role in the next council.


****************************************************************

"To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant."

And the Blessed Cardinal would know. This is a deep work analyzing the development of doctrine over the centuries. Chapter V sets out the guidelines for recognizing true development of an institution rather than corruptions (this could also apply to our Constitution). I would recommend this book to anyone realizing that Christianity has a history and that history is vital in understanding the substance or essence of any institution.

2023: see above. Rereading this after his Apologia Pro Vita Sua was illuminating; Newman wasn’t quite Catholic yet but clearly couldn’t accept the premise of the via media anymore. Any non-Apostolic “church” is a contradiction in terms.

[Katy Cruel]

This was pretty intense to work through for me. I'm going to keep my notes on it and keep referring to it. The idea that doctrine is not static is significant. Basically this text is primarily full of historical examples justifying his argument. So if you don't get his argument you can just keep reading to understand it more fully.

[Jed Park · Rating 4 out of 5]

The only reason I don't give it 5 stars is that I feel so blasted stupid when I read Newman. What a mind.

[Danny Collier · Rating 5 out of 5]

https://withmyowneyes.blog/2018/04/30...

As a Protestant, I objected that the Catholic Church taught doctrines contrary to, or absent from, Scripture. I was wrong. More than that, the objection backfires. Protestantism’s foundational doctrine, sola Scriptura, a bedrock of heresies since the sixteenth century, is not found in the Bible at all. The very doctrine I used to bash the Church was itself illusory.

I saw the movie

A few weeks ago, I saw Paul, Apostle of Christ, the big-screen film featuring Jim Caviezel (from The Passion of the Christ) as Luke and James Faulkner (from Downton Abbey) as Paul. The aged Apostle to the Gentiles is a prisoner in Rome. But for Luke, Paul is all alone (2 Tim. 4:11*). Saint Paul knows his time is short; “the time of my departure is at hand.” (1 Tim. 4:6). Second Timothy is the last-known letter from Paul to the young pastor. If sola Scriptura is true, the epistle is striking by what is not written.

Is authority found in the Church or the individual?

Most of Protestantism maintains that the Bible-alone is the sole, final rule of faith for all things concerning faith and morals. We recognized that in the days of the apostles there was no Canon of Scripture, so the apostles were the authority in the early church. The apostles interpreted Scripture. After the death of the apostles, the theory goes, the Bible-alone became the sole rule of faith. This idea stands in contrast to the Catholic Church: authority is found, not within the individual believer alone with his Bible, but in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium (bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, Bishop of Rome).

Back to what’s not in Scripture

Recall in his first epistle to young Timothy, the Apostle Paul warned, “Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the last times some will turn away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and demonic instructions through the hypocrisy of liars with branded consciences.” (1 Tim. 4:1-2). So, Paul wants to communicate warnings explicitly given by the Holy Spirit. But, where is the warning that the source of authority in the church was about to change from the apostolic to the individual with his Bible-alone? Where is the Spirit’s explicit warning that with the death of the last apostle, there would be a sea-change?

It’s not there. Nowhere, in 2 Timothy (or elsewhere), do we find any mention of Protestantism’s foundational doctrine – – sola Scriptura. How could something so foundational go unsaid in the very document that is to be the sole rule of faith? Indeed, if it were true, how could it go undiscovered until the sixteenth century when a German monk has his back against the wall? God knew Christ’s second coming would not happen during the lifetime of the apostles. God knew the second coming would not take place before today (now, 2,000+ years and counting). God knew the infant-but-growing church would need to know how to answer the authority question. A few short words from Saint Paul is all it would have taken. Instead, crickets.

What Scripture actually says

Far from giving a Bible-alone warning, if sola Scriptura be true, Saint Paul goes in the exact opposite direction: “So you, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.” (2 Tim. 2:1-2; emphasis added). Remember, this is Paul’s farewell address to Timothy. The apostle ran the race. He finished his course. Already Paul is being poured out like a drink offering (1 Tim. 4:6). Instead of bracing the infant church with a Bible-alone scheme, it is as if the early church actually believed Jesus’ words that the Holy Spirit would lead the church into all truth; that our Lord would never leave or forsake His Body on earth.

This is the community of believers God left on earth when the last of the apostles died. Reason and common sense must be suspended if we do not grant the natural hypothesis offered by John Henry Cardinal Newman: “the society of Christians, which the Apostles left on earth, were of that religion to which the Apostles had converted them”. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (Notre Dame Series in the Great Books), Newman, John Henry Cardinal (1994), Kindle iOS version, Retrieved from Amazon.com, at 5 / 361. If Protestantism be true, there is a glaring hole in the doctrines of the ancient church. Sola Scriptura is entirely missing. Instead, we see the deposit of faith, received and handed on.

Development from the beginning

Far from being a self-interpreting document, Cardinal Newman argues that the very nature of Scripture raises questions which cannot be answered on the surface of the pages. The nature of the case necessitates development of doctrine:

“[G]reat questions exist in the subject-matter of which Scripture treats, which Scripture does not solve; questions too so real, so practical, that they must be answered, and, unless we suppose a new revelation, answered by means of the revelation which we have, that is, by development. Such is the question of the Canon of Scripture and its inspiration: that is, whether Christianity depends upon a written document as Judaism;—if so, on what writings and how many;—whether that document is self-interpreting, or requires a comment, and whether any authoritative comment or commentator is provided;—whether the revelation and the document are commensurate, or the one outruns the other;—all these questions surely find no solution on the surface of Scripture, nor indeed under the surface in the case of most men, however long and diligent might be their study of it.” (60 / 1123).

Cardinal Newman takes the matter of baptism, a subject about which numerous questions arise from the surface of Scripture. However, these difficulties were not “settled by authority, as far as we know, at the commencement of the religion; yet surely it is quite conceivable that an Apostle might have dissipated them all in a few words, had Divine Wisdom thought fit. But in matter of fact the decision has been left to time, to the slow process of thought, to the influence of mind upon mind, the issues of controversy, and the growth of opinion.” (60 / 1130-33).

Further, we see the development of Revelation throughout the Old Covenant, up to the ministry of Christ, but we cannot find a point at which development of doctrine ceased:

“Not on the day of Pentecost, for St. Peter had still to learn at Joppa that he was to baptize Cornelius; not at Joppa and Cæsarea, for St. Paul had to write his Epistles; not on the death of the last Apostle, for St. Ignatius had to establish the doctrine of Episcopacy; not then, nor for centuries after, for the Canon of the New Testament was still undetermined. Not in the Creed, which is no collection of definitions, but a summary of certain credenda, an incomplete summary, and, like the Lord’s Prayer or the Decalogue, a mere sample of divine truths, especially of the more elementary. No one doctrine can be named which starts complete at first, and gains nothing afterwards from the investigations of faith and the attacks of heresy. The Church went forth from the old world in haste, as the Israelites from Egypt ‘with their dough before it was leavened, their kneading troughs being bound up in their clothes upon their shoulders.’” (67-8 / 1229-31).

The end from the beginning

Cardinal Newman argues as “probable that developments of Christianity were but natural, as time went on, and were to be expected; and that these natural and true developments, as being natural and true, were of course contemplated and taken into account by its Author, who in designing the work designed its legitimate results.” (75 / 1335).

If the Protestant objects to the Theory of the Development of Doctrine, expecting every doctrine of the Church to be in bold, black letters on the surface of Scripture, then the Protestant fails to appreciate the problem. His own tradition depends on the development of doctrines over hundreds of years. His own tradition, more importantly, depends on the doctrine of sola Scriptura. Therein lies the fatal problem. The Bible-alone doctrine is not found in the pages of Scripture. Nor does it develop as doctrine, as centuries unfold. Rather, Protestantism’s linchpin proves to be a sudden and foreign novelty. In the sixteenth century, it bursts upon the scene, popularized and dogmatized by Martin Luther and the revolutionaries who followed.

Beware friend. The one rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church, holding fast to a Bible-alone scheme, strains a gnat but swallows a camel. (Mat. 23:24).

ONE LORD. ONE FAITH. ONE BAPTISM.

AS FOR ME, I KNOW THAT MY VINDICATOR LIVES, AND THAT HE WILL AT LAST STAND FORTH UPON THE DUST. THIS WILL HAPPEN WHEN MY SKIN HAS BEEN STRIPPED OFF, AND FROM MY FLESH I WILL SEE GOD: I WILL SEE FOR MYSELF, MY OWN EYES, NOT ANOTHER’S, WILL BEHOLD HIM: MY INMOST BEING IS CONSUMED WITH LONGING. JOB 19:25-27

*New American Bible Revised Edition


Author: Danny Collier
Catholic. Husband. Father. Lawyer. View all posts by Danny Collier
Author Danny Collier
Posted on April 30, 2018
Tags 2 Timothy, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Apostle Paul, Authority, Bible Alone, Canon, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Catholic Church, Catholic Faith, Catholicism, Jesus Christ, John Henry Cardinal Newman, Magisterium of the Church, Protestantism, Roman Catholic, Sacred Scripture, Saint John Paul II, Saint Justin Martyr, Sola Scriptura, Straining gnats, Swallowing camels, Teaching Magisterium, Truth

[L. M. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Newman's 'Essay' is a marvellous history of Christian theology wrapped in a powerful defence of the Church. The prose is as vivid and vibrant as that of his other great works. Although this revised version dates to 1878, it is extraordinary that he originally composed the book in the lonely and painful years before 1845 when he was received into the Roman Catholic Church. The ideas are so clear, the vision consistent, and the tone confident throughout. A work of grace.

[Donald · Rating 5 out of 5]

These are the most striking passages in the book:

The dogmatic principle: ‘That there is truth then; that there is one truth; that religious error is in itself of an immoral nature; that its maintainers, unless involuntarily such, are guilty in maintaining it; that it is to be dreaded; that truth and falsehood are set before us for the trial of our hearts; that our choice is an awful giving forth of lots on which salvation or rejection is inscribed; that "before all things it is necessary to hold the Catholic faith," that "he that would be saved must thus think" and not otherwise.’

The principles that lead to heresy: `That truth and falsehood in religion are but a matter of opinion; that one doctrine is as good as another; . . . that there is no truth; that we are not more acceptable to God by believing this than by believing that; . . that it is enough if we sincerely hold what we profess; that our merit lies in seeking, not in possessing; . . . that we may safely trust to ourselves in matters of Faith; and need no other guide.'

I read this with a group of Christians. I think I was the only non-Christian in the group, but I remember the whole room feeling very indicted by these paragraphs. We all saw some (or much) of ourselves in the 'principles that lead to heresy'.

Newman has a general theory of intellectual history + a particular theory of Christian intellectual history (not a phrase he uses). I paraphrase of Newman’s 'Antecedent Argument' thus:

Any Idea that is a fact – i.e., an idea that is “a subject matter of exercises of the reason” – will necessarily over time expand into a multitude of harmonious ideas that reflect the original Idea. This is so because the human mind cannot conceive of a whole object qua whole object (“whole objects do not create in the intellect whole ideas”); rather, the mind divides the whole Idea into a series of ideas that strengthen and correct each other. Further, an Idea with more vitality produces a greater multiplicity of harmonious ideas.

Christianity is such an Idea and thus develops according to those principles. One objection to this argument is that Christianity is a revealed Idea – should it not always reflect its original revealed source (i.e., the Bible)? But the revealed text does not communicate the whole revelation to the reader, and the reader (as above) is not capable of receiving the revealed Idea as a whole object. Any reading of a text is necessarily an interpretation of the text; it is impossible to read a text as a pure whole without any interpretation (“…all parties appeal to Scripture, that is argue from Scripture; but argument implies deduction, that is, development”).

Since Christianity is a universal religion, it is contemplated by people across a huge range of time, space, and culture. This results in a greater diversity of understandings. This diversity of understanding is directed towards understanding the whole Idea. Thus, it is inevitable that the Church will not understand or express the Idea of Christianity in the same way forever; the development of Christianity is natural and in keeping with the development of Ideas generally.

If that account of the development of Ideas is true and if it Christianity is a true Idea revealed by God, then God must also have established some authority to make sure that the development of Christianity does not go awry [note: this is very similar to the Rabbinic idea of ‘Oral Torah’ passed from Sinai alongside the written text]. It would be senseless for God to reveal the truth to man but not establish the means by which man could understand that truth. If that is true and God established an authority to guide the development of Christianity, the Catholic Church is the most probable authority of those that exist.

The consequences of the antecedent argument’s being true are the following: 1) the burden of proof re: the Catholic Church’s divine authority is shifted to the critics of the Church, not its defenders, 2) those rejecting the Church’s divine authority must either posit a plausible alternative authority that can be traced to the beginning of Christianity or reject Christianity as a true, divinely given Idea.

--

I don't think Newman gives a proper account of the development of doctrine regarding development, which seems like it should have been one of the main parts of his (very interesting) ecclesiastical history. I also remain unswayed by Christological readings of the Hebrew Bible and, you know, the divinity of Christ.

Still, Newman is fantastic.

[Zbigniew Zdziarski · Rating 5 out of 5]

The densest book on theology I've ever read. But it has to be when you're discussing what I like to call "the metaphysics of ideas". Newman here talks about what will happen to ideas and societies that incorporate them when these ideas are faithful to reality or when they're corruptions of it. He will tie this into doctrines of the Catholic Church (e.g. purgatory, veneration of saints, justification, etc.) and show that these doctrines have always been a part of the faith of the Early Church.

[William · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is my first time reading a full-length Newman book (as opposed to shorter essays). I'd long intended to read Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua, but this came as part of the Word on Fire Classics 4-pack, and then my Christian reading group picked some excerpts for the monthly reading. So I decided I might as well read this first.

For folks not familiar with the background, Newman began writing this "Essay" as a prominent 19th century Anglican priest. It addresses the authority of the Church in matters of Christian doctrine (as opposed to a Protestant sola scriptura approach). By the time he finished writing the book, Newman had made the decision to convert to Catholicism. He became one of the most prominent English writers in Catholic history, a Cardinal, and is midway down the path toward canonization.

As a very quick summary, Newman's Essay is a response to those who criticize the Church for allegedly changing doctrine over time. He tries to separate out good evolutions of doctrine (which he calls "developments") as compared to bad changes of doctrine (which he calls "corruptions"). He argues that the actual history of the Church's changes over time are consistent with a gradual and consistent positive development of doctrine.

He lays out that basic distinction in the first half of the book, and describes seven principles for evaluating doctrinal changes: (1) preservation of type, (2) continuity of principle, (3) assimilative power, (4) logical sequence, (5) anticipation of its future, (6) conservative action on its past, and (7) chronic vigor. He uses the second half of the book to apply those seven principles to actual issues in church history.

At a high level, and particularly in the first half of the book, it is all very interesting. I don't know that all seven of his principles are necessary or sufficient; sometimes they seem a bit like a bad Sandra Day O'Connor balancing test. But they provide an interesting framework for thinking about issues. The writing is a dense, pre-modern style that calls to mind Burke or Gibbon—slow going and hard to parse each time you pick up the book, but lovely once you get into the rhythm. The great parts of the book are really, really excellent.

But also like Burke (or Gibbon), between the highlights that give the book its classic status are long discursive sections of significantly less interest. Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France soars in its famous passages (like "the age of chivalry is dead," etc.), but then you have to trudge through 30 pages on French tax rates. Similarly, Newman has famous sections, such as the one that culminates in "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant," but he also spends 90 pages tracing in intimate detail various early-church heresies.

The sidetracks are not on inherently uninteresting subject. But the section on heresies, for example, is at once extremely long and detailed, yet at the same time Newman doesn't actually present enough information for someone not already intimately familiar to follow the discussion. He traces at length the back-and-forth Roman history of heresies the way someone might do scratch work on a complicated math problem, without explaining the thought process between steps. An expert would be able to follow it, but then, an expert likely wouldn't need to see it.

And that gets to the heart of the issue. Because I really get the impression that Newman was writing for neither the expert nor the layman. Instead, he was writing for himself—to work out his own thought process as he struggled with whether to convert to Catholicism.

Indeed, by the time Newman gets to the second-to-last principle, he admits that "this Essay has so far exceeded its proposed limits, that both reader and writer may well be weary." The weariness did track my feelings as a reader. But I also felt like Newman was "weary" with continuing the exercise of writing the essay, because he'd long since made up his mind on the core issue of whether to convert.

I say all that not to be overly negative on the Essay. There are long sections that are excellent, and it is deservedly a landmark contribution in the history of Catholic thinking, which is why I give it 4 stars. But I think most people could get the full amount of enjoyment/education out of reading about half the book. I think the ideal audience for reading it cover-to-cover is one man: Blessed John Henry Newman.

[Pieter Lombaard · Rating 2 out of 5]

After reading this book I felt it necessary to give a proper reason for my 2 stars. It's not because I'm Protestant :)

Positives:
- I learned a lot about church history and the development of certain doctrines in the Catholic Church.

Negatives:
- I didn't like the author's writing style. It felt disorganized and chaotic. Everything and anything is discussed everywhere and anywhere. I didn't like the flow of his arguments. He doesn't properly explain something before he moves on. For this reason I really struggled to follow his reasoning.
- The language of the time also made the reading hard and difficult.
- The author quotes Greek and Latin passages but doesn't translate or explain it, wonderful. I'm not a Greek and Latin scholar. (for example p260 & p291)
- Certain large portions of the book felt totally unnecessary and boring as it was totally unrelated to the main point of the book, which is the development of Christian doctrine. (for example p124-164, I have no idea what the point is here)
- the Author makes general statements and quotes others who make general statements, and then does not go on to explain it or give an example. (for example on p291 he says "And next it must be asked, whether the character of Protestant devotion towards our Lord has been that of worship at all..." but never qualifies the statement. Why would he say something like that?)

Conclusion:
I understand now how certain doctrines developed, I also understand why Catholics view those developments as legitimate. It all comes with the peculiar view that the Church Fathers, the Pope and the seat of Rome itself really is infallible. It also comes with the peculiar view that anything which is a corruption, would eventually fade away. So that which stayed must be true.
This book actually made me think again what a colossal event the Reformation had been. In all honesty, if everything was fine with the church, there never would have been a Reformation :)

[Peter Asper · Rating 5 out of 5]

An Essay On the Development of Christian Doctrine is not a short easy read but it is well worth reading nonetheless. In it, John Henry Newman clearly sums up the teachings from a large number of early church thinkers (otherwise known as Church Fathers). He also explains how many modern issues relate back to the early Church. On the whole, I recommend this book to anyone who wants a serious read about Christian Doctrine.

As a side note, I was most moved by one of Newman's insightful but telling observations. If one reads the beginning of Prologue to the Gospel of John, "In the beginning was the Word" one must either rest in those words without fully understanding them or else one must investigate what is meant by "beginning", "was", and "Word". But once one determines what any of these three crucial words mean, the doctrine has already developed. So the development of doctrine is unavoidable for anyone seeking an understanding of those words passed down to us by faith. But if this is the case, one must take care that such a development is authentic and not a corruption. This is the crucial problem that Newman tackles in this book.

[Darrick Taylor · Rating 5 out of 5]

Newman's great masterpiece on the development of Christian doctrine was the last work he completed before coming into communion with Rome. It is a magisterial defense of the idea that the Church's comprehension of divine revelation enlarges and expands with time, and lays out in copious detail how and why such development should be expected with regards to Christian belief. He also, of course, undertakes to defend developments of Catholic doctrine that Protestants find objectionable, and whether or not one finds his arguments convincing, it is hard to deny the brilliance and tenacity with which he argues his position. I know some people tend to find it difficult to read, but I found it riveting as an intellectual defense of Catholicism, but also as an interesting work that partakes of the nineteenth century tendency to see development as a key idea in understanding the world, as the the work of Hegel, and later Darwin, indicates.

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

Again, one of the best writers in English during the 19th century. He was an Anglican who tried to remain one but could not when he studied how doctrine developed and yet remained the same. He saw that it was not the Anglicans who held the theological high ground of Christian truth but the Roman church. He gave up everything, was not received well by the English hierarchy but was vindicated when he was made a Cardinal.

The study shows how doctrine develops but must be founded on the original biblical and traditional insights of the early church.

[Jason Townsend · Rating 3 out of 5]

A difficult read made all the worse by a poor conversion to the Kindle format.

Newman's Essay was thought provoking at times and difficult to follow at others. While his conclusions seemed sensible for the most part (and seemingly the only way to resolve discrepancies in Christian teaching.) I can't help but wonder why a church that is supposedly infallible in it's teaching of faith and morals would need centuries to develop it's understanding of doctrine in such a way that only latter generations apparently get a full grasp of doctrinal truth?

[Erik]

Included in the "Catholicism Explained/Theology" section of Fr. John McCloskey's 100-book Catholic Lifetime Reading Plan.

Listed by Patrick Madrid in the Reading Plan of Search and Rescue in Phase 3 (Advanced).

[Erika]

bought at Oxford in preparation for a course at école cathédrale

[Todd · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this in 2002. Cleared up so many questions I had about Orthodox/Catholic historic Christianity.

[Joshua · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great book. Period.

[Doris Raines · Rating 4 out of 5]

I. Like. This. Book. A. Lot.

[Robert Barrett]

Format f a catechism of Christian doctrine,
with precedent/antecedents/premises, logical sequences & conclusions ;
draws heavily on works of Patristic period ;

Takes long to read ;

[Jeremy]

Ralph Wood says that Lash's Newman on Development is more accessible.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very dense at times, but it is a classic for a reason. I suggest reading it more than once.