1

loudest in demanding the recognition of the Law of
Development in Theology, are among the least ac-
quainted with the Scientific principles underlying
this very theory. Continuity with the past is as
essential in the development of theology as it is in
the development of law, and in each case such con-
tinuity must be rational. The individuality of any
institution consists in the character of its principles
and ideals. Churches, like Governments depend for
their historic continuity not upon an unbroken phy-
sical line of persons, but upon an unbroken spiritual
development of essential principles and ideals. We say
essential principles and ideals. We admit that many
features of a rational system more or less important
may be omitted from time to time without destroy-
ing its essential continuity. Such doctrines, tenets,
or principles are necessary only to the well-being or
perfection of such a system, its full, expression or
complete development, rather than to its actual
being or continuity as a system. To the extent to
which any system fails to preserve or to develop
such important features, which are in logical con-
formity with its essential Idea or "logos" to that extent
it fails of being a true, normal, or healthy development.
It is still a development, however. Its essential idea
has been still preserved. As a consequence, its
actual being or continued, unbroken existence has
been maintained, but it is nevertheless a dwarfed or
arrested development. It has not fully expressed or
manifested all its potentials. Nay, we may even
go further.
It is possible for a given system while

preserving all that is really essential to its mere being or existence so to develop one or more of its potentials, and simultaneously suppress the development of others, as to produce a caricature rather than a normal expression of the essential Idea. Such developments are abnormal products, monstrosities. Now it is of the utmost importance for us to remember these things whenever we are asked to accept such systems as Romanism, Tractarianism, or even certain conclusions of Modernism, bearing no resemblance whatever to the doctrines of the New Testament or of the Apostolic Age on the plea that they are "developments" from this primitive deposit of Christian Faith. What we have to remember is that development is not simply a continuous adjustment to environing conditions with consequent growth along some one or more particular lines, but true development is continuous adjustment to environment with simultaneous adherence to type, and consequent proportional growth in all directions rendered possible by the potentials of the germ. That is to say, the single drop of protoplasm from which all organisms arise, does not develop merely by meeting the demands of its environment continuously in just any one or more directions, regardless of the type to which it belongs. If it does so develop, the resulting product is a monstrosity, and not a normally developed organism. No matter what the demands of the environment may be, no matter how continuously it may meet these demands, and grow accordingly, such growth is not a healthy or normal development, unless it be simul

taneously true to the pattern, type, or "logos" of the original germ. Mere growth, therefore, by constant incorporation of new material from without, even though it can boast (as all growth can) of continuity with the past, is neither normal nor healthy growth, unless the new materials so incorporated from without be distributed or arranged in accordance with the "logos" of the type, and unless the boasted continuity with the past can be shown to be logical continuity. Now this somewhat prolix, but necessary statement of the true, scientific Law of Development, applies most significantly in the present matter. The present system of Roman theology, which despite its widely different aspect from the theology of the Apostolic Age, Newman attempted to justify as a necessary growth or "development" therefrom, is by no means a normal growth or development. We do not question the fact that it is a development from this primitive germ. So is every monstrosity, however hideous its deformity, a development from a primitive germ. So also like every other abnormal product, it unquestionably possesses continuity with the past, and can undoubtedly lay claim to growth. Like the physical abnormality that has increased in bulk from a single cell to a multicellular body, by the constant absorption of new material from without, it too has grown through incorporation of new material from the changing environment of ages. It is not that it has not grown, and grown continuously from the primitive germ of Christian Revelation. The only trouble is that its growth, like the growth

of the physical abnormality, has not been a rational one. It has not been in conformity to type. It has, indeed, enormously developed along certain lines, but it has equally failed to develop along others, while certain organs or members have developed extraordinarily, they have done so at the expense of others, while some have hypertrophied, others have correspondently atrophied. While, therefore, the potentials of the original germ may each be represented by some organ or member, yet each such member or organ is (by hypertrophy or atrophy) a caricature of the original idea to be embodied, and the resulting relations of these parts inter se, so far from being a faithful expression of the original "logos," is but a deformed misrepresentation. The whole product is a malformation—not a typical development. To be a true development each potential of the original germ must be represented, and represented in its true relation to all the rest-i. e., in the relation prescribed by the "logos" of the type. Moreover, while it is true that in a biological development the "logos" of the germ is never directly revealed, but only becomes manifest in the course of time, and as a consequence of development itself, it is noteworthy that this is not the case, or only partially the case, in regard to a system of thought in which the germ of the development is a written constitution or a formal revelation of foundation principles, such as the Canon of Holy Scripture is assumed to be for the system of thought known as Christianity. It is quite true, again, that all the consequences logically to be devel

oped out of a given Constitution, are not to be anticipated, and reveal themselves only in the process of time, under different environing conditions. In this sense, what are called new developments arise: doctrines and practices not to be found actually prescribed in the original charter, but deducible therefrom either as logical possibilities or necessities—i. e., corollaries. But the fundamental principles are always revealed in the Constitution, and any alleged development therefrom, whether actual or hypothetical, can be immediately compared with these fundamental principles (the "logos" of the germ) and its character as a normal or abnormal product immediately determined. Now it is a remarkable fact that while Newman himself was by no means ignorant of this difference between normal and "corrupt" development, and even emphasized the necessity of every development remaining true to its fundamental or typical "Idea," yet he has no sooner enunciated his principle than he proceeds to ignore it, and in the actual application of his theory mistakes an historic association of ideas, leading, in unbroken continuity from some statement of Scripture, or practice of Apostolic times, to some corresponding doctrine or practice of the mediaval Church, for a normal or togical development, when in truth its historic continuity with the primitive deposit of Christian Faith and practice argues nothing more than the like continuity of every monstrosity with its primitive ovum, and its so-called growth but the hypertrophy of an abnormal development. That