1
John Henry Newman’s Theory of Doctrinal Development
Part One
The Historical Background
Introduction:
The main objective of this seminar paper is to examine the theory of doctrinal development formulated
by John Henry Newman in the nineteenth century. Newman‟s theory on doctrinal development is crucial
for the evolution of the Catholic theories on dogmatic development. Newman‟s hypothesis on doctrinal
development became more prevalent among Catholic theologians especially during the modernist crisis
and some theologians like Alfred Loisy, and George Tyrrell were highly influenced by his theory for their
extensive research on Catholic dogma. Prior to the examination of the topic as proper, we shall briefly see
how Newman began his search for the Catholic antiquity in the English religious tradition with the aim of
reforming the Church of England.
Newman and the Oxford Movement:
Newman who identified himself more as a thinker than a theologian, made a significant contribution for
the Christian doctrinal development throughout the century. Newman, as one of the pioneers of the
Oxford movement, argued that the Anglican Church was by history and identity a truly „Catholic‟ church.
An immediate cause of this Movement was the change that took place in the relationship between the
State and the Church of England from 1828 to 1832.The ideas of this movement were published in 90
Tracts for the Times (1833-1841).Newman wrote 24 Tracts and edited the entire series. Those who
supported the Tracts were known as Tractarians. They asserted the doctrinal authority of the Catholic
Church be absolute. Consequently, many loyal Anglicans also wished to assert that the Church of
England was not dependent on the State and that it gained its authority from Catholic Church. The fact
that it taught Christian doctrinal truths and its bishops were in the line of apostolic succession enables
them to trace their authority and office in this unbroken tradition. (I. KER, Lives: John Henry Newman:
A Biography, pp.54-100)
Though the roots of Christian Doctrinal Development are seen from the early history of the Church and in
the Middle Ages, this theme as such fully emerged in its specific intellectual form in the middle of
nineteenth century with Newman‟s writing, The Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.
Newman‟s Essay introduced the theme of doctrinal development in Christianity by awakening the interest
of the theologians in Germany, Rome and England. The Catholic revival after renaissance and the
nineteenth century advancement in historical studies created an appeal in the idea of Christian Doctrinal
Development. (A. NICHOLS, From Newman to Congar, p.5).
The theme of Christian doctrinal development has an ecumenical importance as both the Catholic Church
as well as other Protestant Churches and also the Eastern Church hold the opinion that their religious
structure continues from the original Gospel message of Jesus Christ and his apostles and it emerged in
the patristic period. For John Courtney Murray the issue of development of doctrine has taken place in
Catholicism as well as Protestantism is a fact that cannot be denied. But he raises the question as to what
the legitimate development would be. (A.NICHOLS p.04). Considering the ecumenical aspect, what is
important is to use this issue of doctrinal development to promote unity within these Christian Churches
as they all claim for the original deposit of faith of the Primitive Church.
There had been an obscure period between the preaching of the original Gospel message and the Church
which is mentioned as „sub-apostolic tunnel‟ and hence there is, fundamentally, a continuity and not
discontinuity. But with the emergence of the historical-critical method of the biblical studies the idea of
the basic continuity between Jesus and the later Church was challenged, especially by the exegetical and
historical research mainly engaged in the „History of Religions‟ school in Germany. Their
methodological ideal in studying the origins of Christianity which is purely scientific, value-free
approach questioned the idea of continuity of the Christian Churches to the original message of Jesus. As
a result of this encounter between this radical exegesis and the historiography on one side, and the
2
traditional orthodoxy on the other side paved the way for Modernism. In this study modernism becomes
an important factor because one of its characteristic tendencies was to use the idea of doctrinal
development (A.NICHOLS, p.06).
Four Principles on Alternative Accounts of the Christian Origins
1. For Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930), one of the eminent patristic scholars, “Dogma is a creation
of the Greek spirit added to the apostolic faith. What primitive church preached was a message of
salvation as a response of an act of faith, witnessing a new way of life but, in superfluous, indeed,
damaging, addition, the Church soon acquired a formulated doctrine, assent to which was
deemed a necessary condition of her membership.” Referring to the dogmas of the Incarnation
and the Trinity, he stresses that with these an entirely new element entered to the conception of
religion and as a result religion has become a doctrine which takes its certainty from the Gospel
but only part of its content (A.NICHOLS, p.08).
2. Martin Werner (1887-1964), explains that the original Gospel which is the preaching of Jesus
was eschatological as the earliest disciples lived the expectation of the Parousia or the second
coming of Jesus. When this hope faded, with the process called „de-eschatologising,‟Christianity
turned into a totally different kind of religion. In this context, Werner explains that there is little
or no continuity between the faith of the New Testament and with later orthodoxy. Like Harnack
he too explains how original Christianity was influenced by Greek philosophy as for examples;
the Father of the original preaching became the absolute and the Son of Man worded as the
divine Logos. Also how the New Testament idea of salvation was replaced with the theory of
redemption while the formless charismatic community of the apostolic Church became a
hierarchically ordered society.
3. Rudolf Bultmann (1888-1927), describes how the original message of Jesus was invaded by
alien elements with Easter events and the influence of Gnosticism is seen within the New
Testament itself. The primary religious declaration of Christianity was dominated by alien
factors. When the New Testament writings were applied to the life, teaching and organization of
the later Church, though this transition was smooth, the inner continuity with original Gospel was
at all times under threat. The Church, the bearer of the Gospel may damage the Gospel by the
inappropriate forms of expressions when communicating it but she did not completely destroy it.
4. Walter Bauer who presents the most erudite and detailed of the four theories, as a patristic
scholar based his explanation on orthodoxy and heresy. For him there is no clear cut distinction
between orthodoxy and heresy as both of them began at the same time in the Church. Hence the
traditional view that the heresy comes after orthodox is challenged (A. NICHOLS, pp.07-12).
All these four theories though differ about the point at which the rupture between the Gospel and the
beginning of the later Church, they claim for the argument regarding the discontinuity between the
original Gospel message and the golden age of the patristic church.
But the real problem to be investigated is the type of continuity which is said to be linking the original
Gospel to the Great Church of later centuries. This is where we have to explore the views on doctrinal
development. This will also deal with two important questions as such; the justification of the confession
of the Catholic Church in relation to other Christian churches and how to justify the creed of the early
primitive Church over and against the alternative readings of Christian origins. The first question was
dealt by Newman and contemporaries while the second became the issue for the Modernists and their
rivals, the Neo-Thomists.
3
Part Two
Newman’s Writings On The
Development of Christian Doctrine
Newman‟s writing on the development of Christian doctrine can be mainly analysed in three segments.
First, his writings before his conversion to Catholicism, secondly paying much emphasis on his
remarkable work on this subject, „ The Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine‟ and finally his
ecclesiological writings; his thoughts on the Dogma of Papal Infallibility.
(A) Newman’s Writings Before His Conversion to Catholicism
The Arians of the Fourth Century (1833)
This book describes the events which surrounded the resolution of the divisions caused by Arians in the
4th century AD. The Arian doctrine was condemned by the council of Nicaea in 325AD. This council then
formulated the Nicene Creed which is still recited at Mass as a profession of faith. Even after the council
of Nicaea the Arian heresy did not diminish and it divided the Christian world as most of the Bishops and
the Roman Emperor Constantine II were Arians. It was when St. Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria,
an outspoken opponent of Arius was exiled to Rome; the Roman church gathered all forces to defeat the
Arian heresy. Pope Julius I, St. Hilary of Poiters who in the West; St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory
Nazianzen and St. Gregory of Nyssa in the East continued to defend the Roman Catholic doctrine by
interpreting the Nicene creed. When the West had Vallentinian I (364) as a Catholic emperor and when
the Catholic Emperor Theodosius I became the emperor of the East (379), the Arian heresy began to
decline. Newman was highly influenced by the teaching of St. Athanasius, the great teacher who
defended the divinity of Christ against Arian heresy, when he went on a spiritual study tour in the Eastern
Mediterranean in 1833 and he prayed for the Anglican Church to seek the teaching of this great eastern
doctor with faith (A. NICHOLS, P.18).
This brief historical background helps us to understand Newman‟s „The Arians of the Fourth Century‟ as
much of it is devoted to a discussion of how the Catholics defended the theological challenge of
Arianism. Newman interprets the history of Arian heresy within his own context i.e., the Anglicanism of
the nineteenth century and tries to prove his hypothesis on the ground of its relation to the Catholic
Church whose continuity can be traced to the Patristic Church with regard to the Christian Doctrinal
Development. Newman discusses the patristic period against „Liberalism‟ in religion. Newman‟s appeal
to the patristic teaching; rejects the liberal idea that Christianity is a religiosity, or existential stance,
which can in principle be united with any set of philosophical or theological tenets. For him Christianity
is a revealed religion with a revealed content which is supernatural in origin. Hence it has the right and
duty to criticise the world views that it encounters (A. NICHOLS, p. 26; M. DAVIES, Newman Against
the Liberals, pp.14-40).
It is also important for us to examine how Newman approached the problem of doctrinal development
with his appeal to the Patristic Church. In his writing, Apologia pro Vita Sua (1864-65) he provides us an
important clue. Describing his own experience Newman explains why he was attracted to the Early
Christian Church and its sacramental economy as symbolic mediations of truth. But that truth cannot be
adequately expressed in human language. It is in this notion of intrinsic inadequacy of theological
language which became relevant for Newman to work on doctrinal development.
4
Novel Epistemological Expression:
In Arians, on the topic concerning theological epistemology, Newman introduces the conditions of a right
knowledge of God. Here, Newman‟s aim is to question how doctrinal errors like Arianism can happen.
Hence, he introduces the conditions for a right knowledge of God. For him holiness is a necessary
condition for right knowledge of God. Similarly, decline in holiness paves the way for doctrinal errors.
Newman also asserts that secular modes of human reasoning are inadequate in clarifying the content of
Christian revelation. It is the growth of holiness that helps for a sound understanding of Christian
revelation. We shall see how Newman develops this novel epistemological expression in his main writing
on Christian doctrinal development, the Essay.
Newman also answers to the objection that under the pressure from pagans or heretics, the Church
formalised her tradition in a creed or when something has gone wrong in the life of the Church she comes
up with doctrinal statements which becomes a threat to the tradition of the Church. His position in this
regard is as revelation exists as an inner tradition within the Church and it cannot be formulated as a
creed in some doctrinal emergency as a response to heretics or pagans. Proving his argument further
Newman says that this creed can be proved from Scripture though not produced out of Scripture.
Referring again to the condition for the right knowledge of God, he says that the condition of a sound
grasp of the inner tradition is holiness and purity of hearts. This concludes that secular reasoning alone is
insufficient for the articulation of Christian doctrine (A.NICHOLS, p.29).
The Doctrine of the Trinity:
Newman relates the development of the doctrine of Trinity to the Apostolic Tradition of the Church. “
The doctrine of Trinity was given to the Church by tradition contemporaneously with those apostolic
writings, which are addressed more directly to the heart; kept in the background in the infancy of
Christianity, when faith and obedience were vigorous, and brought forward at a time when, reason being
disproportionately developed, and aiming at sovereignty in the province of religion, its presence became
necessary to expel an usurping idol from the house of God”(J.H.NEWMAN, The Arians of the Fourth
century, p.145). Newman tries to prove the validity of the development of Christian doctrine in
explaining the necessity of the doctrine of Trinity as a response to heresies in order to preserve the true
doctrine of Christian faith.Newman‟s explanation on the doctrine of Trinity is also important as some
modern writers consider that this doctrine to be the supreme instance of the Hellenization of the New
Testament. In Arians on the section „The Scripture Doctrine of Trinity‟ he says that New Testament does
not yield that doctrine in any straight forward way. Then the question arises as to how then the doctrine
of the Trinity is to be justified? Newman asserts that although the doctrine of Trinity is not taught in
Scripture, in the sphere of practical devotion to the Blessed Trinity is taught and therefore exemplified by
the New Testament. He places this practical devotion under the heading of „moral feeling.‟ He describes
this feeling by giving an example of an infant whose affectionate reverence to its parents cannot be
described in words or concepts. But with this experience, the child‟s intellect contemplates the object of
those affections, which acted truly from the first, and are not purer or stronger merely for this accession
of knowledge.
The doctrine of Trinity in the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople, though formulated as a result of Arian
heresy had been a principle of faith of the religious lives of ante-Nicene believers. Here again Newman
asserts the validity of doctrinal development in Christianity by explaining the gradual growth in
understanding the doctrine of Trinity and its relation to the Apostolic Tradition. With strong Platonist
words he says that the systematic doctrine of Trinity may be considered as the shadow, projected for the
contemplation of the intellect, of the object of Scripturally-informed piety was given to the Church by the
Apostolic tradition(A.NICHOLS, p.32).
5
In answering to the objection whether the Church had rightly formulated the Doctrine of Trinity when the
dogma on Infallibility was not yet known Newman defends the obligation of the Church in protecting the
true faith which is unquestionable. “…when innovations arise, they must discharge it to the best of their
ability; and whether they succeed or fail, whether they have judged rightly or hastily of the necessity of
their interpositions … the obligation to protect the faith remaining unquestionable (A. NICHOLS, p. 33).
Though Newman nowhere mentions the phrase “the development of doctrine” in the book, Arians, one
can conclude that he had come within reach of this idea without extensively dealing with it. In concluding
this investigation on the development of Christian doctrine in Arians of the Fourth Centuryit is important
to mention the opinion of one of the Newman scholars, Gerald H. McCarren; “… Newman was not yet
occupied with the development of doctrine in its content. When researching the Arian controversy he
marvelled at “the gradual influence of truth over error” and especially at “the remarkable manner in
which Divine Providence makes use of error itself as a preparation for truth” but approached the idea of
development only tangentially. In his last University Sermon, he took up the topic directly, “The Theory
of Development in Religious Doctrine.” (I. KER, & T. MERRIGAN [edit.]The Cambridge Companion to
John Henry Newman, p. 120).
The Theory of Development in Religious Doctrine (Sermon 15):
The 15th Sermon of Oxford University deals with the relation of faith and reason in the developments of
religious doctrine. Newman begins this sermon quoting Luke, 2:19 “But Mary kept all these things, and
pondered them in her heart” (J.H. NEWMAN, Newman’s University Sermons, p. 312). In keeping with
line of thought of the previous five homilies on the relation of faith and reason, he explains how our
reason develops in formulating religious doctrine in the light of faith. “… St. Mary at least will be our
example, - the use of Reason in investigating the doctrines of Faith … at determining the relation of Faith
to Reason” (J.H. NEWMAN, Newman’s University Sermons, p. 314). He had already explained the
distinction between the two kinds of reasons which he named as „implicit‟ and „explicit‟ in the previous
five sermons. Implicit reason is the spontaneous interpretation of experience while explicit reason is the
analysis of this experience. For Newman, this implicit experience is more fundamental because it
considers the evidence for a conclusion in terms of an entire experiential field. In this total experiential
field our mind receives many experiences as ideas but most of them are lost while only the most striking
experiences remain to be analysed with explicit experience. What is unique to this sermon is the
application of these two ideas to revelation. So here, the implicit reason is a person‟s grasp of revelation,
his or her „impression‟ of the revealed idea. The explicit reason is the analysis done by the mind over this
impression in investigating and reflecting on it by drawing out the idea of divine revelation into
propositions. It is in this background that Newman explains, Mary pondering the mysteries of revelation
kept in her heart; “But Mary‟s faith did not end in a mere acquiescence in Divine providence and
revelations: as the text informs us, she pondered them” (J.H. NEWMAN, Newman’s University Sermons,
p. 312).
By quoting examples from the New Testament Newman explains that Christian doctrine developed in the
light of living faith. “And this world of thought is the expansion of a few words, uttered, as if casually, by
the fishermen of Galilee…Reason has not only submitted, it had ministered to Faith; it had illustrated its
documents; it had raised illiterate peasants into philosophers and divines; it has elicited a meaning from
their words which their immediate hearers little suspected” (J.H. NEWMAN, Newman’s University
Sermons, p.317).
In this sermon Newman answers to the objections on Christian Dogmas by elaborately explaining his
theory on Christian doctrinal development. “There is a suspicion widely abroad, felt, too, perhaps, by
many who are unwilling to confess it, that the development of ideas and the formation of dogmas are a
mere abuse of Reason, which, when it attempted to such sacred subjects, went beyond its powers, and
could do nothing more than multiply words without meaning, and deductions which come to
nothing.”(J.H. NEWMAN, Newman’s University Sermons, p.318-319).Newman answers these objections
by investigating the connexion between faith and Dogmatic Confession. He questions as to who the
legitimate framer and judge of these dogmatic inferences under the Gospel is, and answers, it is not the
infallible Church or the individual, or the first ages but the theory of development itself. It is important to
6
mention that Newman came up with another answer to this question later in his writing, The Essay on
Development of Christian Doctrinewhich we will consider next. In the Sermon he did not try to identify
the final authority to judge the Theological Dogmas.
One of the remarkable features in this Sermon with regard to the doctrinal development of Christianity is
the shift from the Vincentian canon as a sufficient guide to sound doctrine. St. Vincent of Lerins, a priest
monk is an important person in the history of doctrine whose theological notebooks entitled
Commonitoria were completed in 434 AD. Vincent developed the notion that faith is based on the
authority of Divine Law that has to be understood and interpreted in the light of the tradition of the
church. As there were many interpretations on Scriptures, the source of all true doctrines, he proposed for
a necessary guide, in the light of the Church‟s teaching to identify the true interpretations. But the
doctrinal principal of Vincent did not exclude progress and development; however, it did exclude change.
In his opinion, that which produces something new may not be condoned, but what is clearly derivative
from the early faith of the Church may be developed. It is clearly evident that Newman relied on the
criterion of St. Vincent of Lerins while moving away from the Vincentian Canon in favour of his own
method on the development of Christian doctrine. In conclusion we can say that by applying the
Vincentian canon in his own method, Newman effectively abandoned the traditionally accepted principle
on doctrinal development as a sufficient guide to sound doctrine. By applying the distinction between
implicit and explicit reason to revelation in the Sermon on the Theory of Developments in Religious
Doctrine Newman concluded that Christian revelation as an inexhaustible, living and a concrete idea
coming from the mind of the apostolic Church (A.NICHOLS, p. 42).
Newman‟s Anglican period on Christian Doctrinal Development has been divided into three stages. The
first of it is his writing, The Arians of the Fourth Century, in which he argues that the classical Christian
doctrine of the patristic period cannot simply be inferred from the New Testament but the New Testament
does express „moral feelings‟ or „practical devotion‟ which are capable of being further analysed. The
second is; The Prophetical Office of the Church (1837) of which we are not examining here. In this
writing, Newman refused to apply the ideas on doctrinal development beyond the patristic period. He
was also convinced that the Roman Church had distorted the Gospel by ascribing to it ideas which had
simply recommended themselves in the course of history to the Roman pontiffs and their fellow
hierarchs. He saw that the patristic period as the definitive emergence of Christian dogma and any
addition to the body of doctrine after that time can only be corruption. Hence the ideas on development
introduced in the first stage were limited in comparison to the second stage. In the final stage, Newman
used the words of the British empiricists John Locke, and introduced the distinction between implicit
reason and explicit reason and applied that to the idea of Revelation (NICHOLS, pp.43-45). Next we
shall investigate the most important writing of Newman concerning Christian doctrinal development:(B) The Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine
In the Essay Newman elaborated his pioneering understanding of doctrinal development in a complete
manner discussing the subject extensively. At the beginning of this work Newman says that the idea of
the development of Christian doctrine is not a new theory as it has been implicitly assumed more or less
by theologians throughout the course of history (J.H.NEWMAN, The Essay on the Development of
Christian Doctrine, Foreword by Ian Ker, p. xx).
There had been two editions of this work, the first in 1845, just before his conversion to Catholicism and
the other in 1878 which is more methodical and a systematic edition. The Essay contains twelve chapters.
As for the methodological quality of this work we can also introduce it as a marriage of deductive (or
Scholastic) and inductive (or Empiricist) approaches.
A notable emphasis of this work is that the theory of doctrinal development is not meant to prove the
claims of Roman Catholicism but rather intended to dispel the objections to Roman Catholicism. This
emphasis itself shows the difficulty that Newman was facing. Then, as an Anglican he dismissed the
doctrines and practices of Roman Catholicism as corruptive. Now, as a Catholic, to believe the Apostolic
Tradition as the truth which never fails and to claim the continuity of the Roman Catholic Church with
that of the Primitive Church.
7
We shall base our study on the second edition of the Essay. In the introduction, Newman comes with a
summary of the argument against Catholicism which we can find in one of his writings, „On the
Prophetical Office of the Church‟, (1837). Newman explains his own increasing doubts on the validity of
his argument in the Prophetical Office. These doubts are basically twofold. First he asks the question as
to why the process of doctrinal articulation, be acceptable before the great Creeds were formulated, but
not after that date. Secondly, he questions the contradictory attitude towards the doctrines in the Anglican
formularies, while the doctrines like original sin are justified, but the doctrines like Purgatory which are
of the similar status rejected (A.NICHOLS, p.41). In the Essay he comes with a new theory which is seen
as one of the purposes of this work; to prove the validity of his argument that the Catholic Church as the
true Church which can claim for authentic doctrine from the inception of the Primitive Church. “I have
been engaged in drawing out the positive and direct argument in the proof of the intimate connexion, or
rather oneness, with primitive Apostles teaching, of the body of doctrine known at this day by the name
of Catholic, and professed substantially both by Eastern and Western Christendom” (J.H. NEWMAN,
The Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, p. 169).
Based on another novel epistemological concept of which Newman named as Antecedent Probability, he
argues that certain things are probable antecedently even before we come to look at the facts in a detailed
way. But as historically seen sometimes these facts can explode hypothesis and defeat even antecedent
probabilities. Newman in combining these two types of arguments (deductive and inductive) says that if
an antecedent probability is established intelligently, it will illuminate the empirical facts as well.
The main purpose of the Essay is to solve a problem of doctrinal development of the Christian doctrine.
For this he formulated the hypothesis of a doctrinal development to explain the apparent discontinuity
between the church of the Apostles or the primitive church and the contemporary Roman Catholic
Church. As we have explained before, patristic theologians like Adolf von Harnack distinctly showed
the difference between the primitive church and the contemporary Roman Catholic Church. Newman‟s
solution to this problem is basically based on his argument of antecedent probability, a combination of a
priori and posteriori arguments - a marriage of deductive and inductive approaches which can be said as
the methodological hallmark of the Essay (A. NICHOLS, pp.48-49).
In chapter one of the Essay, Newman begins with the process of development in ideas. He says that our
mind engages in passing judgement on things. In that process, we compare, contrast, generalize, connect,
adjust and classify the ideas that our mind comes across. Some ideas are considered as mere opinions
which come and go while others are firmly fixed in our mind. The ideas develop in the human mind in
interaction with their environment, from the communities in which these people live and even from
related ideas. So for Newman, idea means the self –expression of some rich and complex reality.
In the process of development of ideas Newman identifies the authentic development of ideas to
differentiate it with unauthentic ones. Generally ideas represent objects or realities of many aspects. For
Newman, Ideas “commensurate with the sum total of the possible aspects” (A. NICHOLS, p.49) of the
object it expresses. As we find many aspects in an idea it is difficult for us to explain the contents of an
idea and one proposition cannot define it. Hence there has to be a process of bringing the aspects of ideas
into a „consistency and form‟ for which Newman names as development. In the Sermon 15 too, Newman
says that it is impossible to master and express an idea in a short space of time. So in the process of
development, the many aspects of these ideas go through diverse mental operations within the human
culture for a long time, finally to decide its consistency and form and until then we are burdened with the
idea and at times we feel irritated (J.H. NEWMAN, Newman’s University Sermons, p.324).
What should be the criteria for an authentic development of an idea? As for Newman to be authentic
development, these ideas must belong to the original idea. Ideas can face the risk of corruption when they
deviate from the original idea. So then what is unauthentic? In the process of development what is
important is, to be faithful to the original idea from which it started. A false or unfaithful development is
more properly called a corruption. Finally what is this original idea? For Newman this original idea is the
antiquity or the Church of the Apostles. As a Catholic his whole life was devoted to be faithful to this
original idea not only intellectually but also spiritually.
8
Newman describes different modes of development such as Mathematical, Physical, Material, Political,
Logical, Historical, Ethical and Metaphysical. He identifies; logical, historical, moral and metaphysical
modes as relevant to Christian religion. “ By „logical‟ development; Newman means deduction from
known premises; by „historical a better knowledge of the facts; by „moral‟ the exploration of the
implications of the feelings of the heart; by „metaphysical‟ the analysis of the inner relations found within
the original „impression‟, the first grasping of some reality” (A.NICHOLS, p.50). He too explains as to
why the other modes of development do not come under the present subject, for instance Mathematical
Development is without corruption and they are concluded on strict demonstration and the conclusions in
which they terminate, they being necessary cannot be declensions from the original idea.
In chapter two Newman applies the argument of antecedent probability in favour of the development in
Christian doctrine. He deals with the idea of Christian Revelation which is a rich and complex reality and
to identify its various aspects takes a long time. The official position of the Catholic Church on
Revelation is that with the Apostles, God‟s salvific revelation came to an end. In the Essay Newman
proposes a theory of continuing revelation, which has to be understood in broader sense in terms of the
development of the Christian doctrine. In his reflection on universal revelation he explains God‟s
universal self-disclosure through „natural religion.‟ Newman sees God‟s self-revelation within the
concrete religious history of humanity as God uses the existing system for His revelation. “When
Providence would make a Revelation He does not begin a new, but uses the existing system … Thus the
great Characteristic of Revelation is addition, substitution”(A.NICHOLS, p. 53). Newman further
explains how the „idea‟ of Christianity develops in God‟s supreme revealing act of incarnation. “Christian
faith is not simply the recognition of the suitability of certain doctrines to the human condition; nor does
it emerge naturally out of the experience of conscience. It is instead a response to God‟s unprecedented
action in history in Jesus Christ.” (I. KER, & T. MERRIGAN [ed.] The Cambridge Companion to John
Henry Newman, 56).
Dogmas; are they new revelations? One can argue that the Apostolic Church was not aware of the
dogmas that were later defined. We can examine how Newman deals with these questions in the Essay.
Newman admitted that the early Church was not „conscious‟ of Dogmas that were later defined. Then one
can draw a conclusion that the development of doctrine in the Essay is really synonymous with
continuing revelation. If this is so, then Newman‟s theology is certainly not Catholic because the Church
believes that God‟s revelation was completed once and for all in Christ. We have to see how Newman
answers this question in the Essay. He uses his novel epistemological theory of the development of the
idea, his distinction between „explicit‟ and „implicit‟ knowledge. Writing on this in the foreword to the
Essay, the Newman scholar Ian Ker says “The fact that the Apostolic Church was not „conscious‟ of later
dogmas does not necessarily mean that she was not unconsciously cognizant of them, in the sense that
she had implicit thought and not explicit knowledge of them. Newman thought the Apostles had an
implicit rather than explicit understanding of the whole of revelation committed to them”
(J.H.NEWMAN, The Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, p. xxii). In Newman‟s own
words, “Thus, the holy Apostles would without words know all the truths concerning high doctrine of
theology, which controversialists after them have piously and charitably reduced to formulae, and
developed through argument”(The Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, pp.191-192). As the
mind of the Church develops in the course of history so do the „ideas‟. What was implicitly believed
becomes explicitly professed as a result of reflection and reasoning powers. Commenting on the opinion
of Newman‟s critiques on „closed revelation‟ and the „continuing revelation‟ to conclude that his
theology is not Catholic, he writes in a private letter, “The Church does not know more than the Apostles
knew, there are many questions which the Church cannot answer, but it can put before us clearly what the
Apostles (being in heaven) cannot, what their doctrine is what is to be believed and what is not such”
(DESSAIN& GORNALL, The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman p.418).
This novel epistemology on the development of an idea can be further enlightened by an unpublished
paper on doctrinal development which Newman wrote in 1868. This also can be taken as a supplement to
the Essay as it clearly shows the distinction between implicit or unconscious and explicit or conscious
knowledge. “The Apostles had the fullness of revealed knowledge, a fullness which they could as little
realize to themselves, as the human mind, as such, can have all thoughts present before at once … in an
9
apostles‟ mind great part of his knowledge is from the nature of the case latent or implicit” (J.H.
Newman, The Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Foreword by Ian Ker, p. xxiii).
By giving an analogy about a learned Aristotelian who he says has more knowledge than Aristotle and
can answer what Aristotle would have answered, Newman tries to explain about the development of
Christian doctrine from the times of the Apostles to the present day Church. For him what is important is
not the superiority of this learned Aristotelian but to identify the fact that there had been a growth of
Aristotelian philosophy as a result of scientific vocabulary between Aristotle and himself (the learned
Aristotelian). In the same manner, “St. Paul could hardly have understood what was meant by the
„Immaculate conception‟ but if he had been asked, whether or not our Lady had the grace of the Spirit
anticipating all sins whatever, including Adam‟s sin, I think he would have answered in the affirmative…
the living idea is the deposit of faith” (The Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Foreword by
Ian Ker, p. xxiv-xxv).
Does the Church need an infallible organ? Newman emphasises the importance of having an infallible
organ within the body of the church. The infallibility of the Church is an external authority expected to
protect the revealed and saving truths. This authority is also necessary to distinguish the authentic
development from the unauthentic. This authority helps to establish which developments are in awareness
of the original idea and if so, they become legitimate.
Newman defends this argument on the necessity of an infallible organ in chapters three and four by an
historical method. It is by anticipating the objections for the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. In
Apostolic Tradition Newman extensively explains that the Papacy was a true development of
foundations present in the Primitive Church. In chapter four, section three, regarding the Papal
Supremacy, Newman says that there was nothing in the early history of the Church to contradict
the supremacy of the Pope. He explains this idea in favour of the Roman Catholic belief that
Papacy is divinely instituted. It is true that this idea of Papal Supremacy goes against the
ecumenical objective of the Church. But in the Essay Newman argues the emergence of the papal
office as an example of the theory of development. Newman uses the notion of antecedent probability
in relation to the workings of divine revelation in the Church. Newman‟s answer to Chillingworth‟s
objection that in the history of the Church there had been conflict situations of “Popes against popes and
Councils against Councils”, shows how he relates the emergence of the papal office to the idea of
doctrinal development. “Bishops against bishops, Fathers against Fathers in Church history… In the very
idea of development such differences are no real objection. The one essential question is whether the
recognized organ of teaching, the Church herself acting through Pope or Council as the oracle of heaven,
has ever contradicted her own enunciations. If so the hypothesis which I am advocating is at once
shattered”(The Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Foreword by Ian Ker, see Chapter four
on Papal Supremacy, pp. 148- 165) So it is antecedently probable that the Christian society, the Church,
will have one supreme pastor who can act as the centre of unity for all. In the Essay Newman does not
deal with the infallibility of the Church but he links the Papal Office with the unity of the Church
(A.NICHOLS, p.63). We shall further explain this idea on the Papal Infallibility later.
In chapter five Newman contrasts the authentic developments with corruption by suggesting seven notes.
According to McCarren, the seven notes help to distinguish genuine development from mere historical
succession of one doctrine following upon another where the later doctrine does not preserve the
substance of its antecedent. Newman uses these notes to confirm the identity of the Roman Catholic
Church with that of the Primitive Church to conclude that Roman Catholic faith as the true representative
pristine Christian faith. We will also briefly examine the critique of these notes on their reception.
Nicholas, commenting on these notes says that the true centre of gravity of the Essay lies in the three
great church-historical tableaux namely, The Church of the first three centuries, The Church of the fourth
century Arian crisis and The Church of the Patristic golden age in the 5th and 6th centuries. Newman does
not deal with the history of the Church for mere historical facts but his ultimate aim is to draw a parallel
with his own situation i.e., the nineteenth century Roman communion, showing that the changes brought
about by the Tridentine reformation of the Church are insubstantial compared with the overwhelming
sameness between the earlier Christians and the modern Roman Catholics. With regard to the function of
these seven notes; The Official International Theological Commission of the Roman Catholic Church
10
claims that they constitute „a criteriology for dogmatic development which is useful for the on-going
contemporary interpretation of dogmas‟ and some theologians also hold this same opinion. However
McCarren says that the close examination of the function of these notes indicates that they do not admit
of so easy an application as they appear. Newman‟s primary concern in introducing these notes was to
confirm that the Roman Catholic Church claims to embody an authentic development of doctrine is
critically evaluated with many objections. To mention some of them; It is because of lack of clarity that
one has to suggest guidelines for their application, only some of the notes can be applied to particular
doctrines, it is hard to assess the applicability of one or more of them to a doctrine or to the Church, these
notes rather serve as answers to the objections brought against the actual decisions of authority, than as
proofs of the correctness of their decisions, Newman‟s impending reception into the Roman Catholic
Church prompted him to rush the book to its conclusions, leaving it „unfinished.‟ Hence, notes may serve
in a limited way to recognize the genuine development of doctrine, his presentation of them was not
highly systematic, he acknowledges them seven out of various notes and finally, Newman employed the
„notes‟ with a presumption of the truth of doctrinal developments within the Church. If one uses the
„Notes‟ without reference to this intention, may face a problem. For example, if the „notes‟ are applied to
a doctrine that has not been embraced by the Church one cannot attach such a presumption of truth to it.
So with these inadequacies of these Notes they are incapable of meeting the high expectations attached to
them by the International Theological Commission and some contemporary theologians (I. KER, & T.
MERRIGAN [ed.] The Cambridge Companion to John Henry Newman, pp.117-118).
From chapters six to twelve what we see is the application of these seven Notes to test the validity of his
hypothesis by mainly using the historical-comparative method. In this historical analysis, he compares the
history of the first six centuries of the Church to modern Catholicism, and concludes that the Church of
Rome emerges unscathed from the comparison. We shall next briefly examine how these notes function
in doctrinal development. The first note, „Preservation of the original type‟ explains how the Catholic
bishops in union with the Pope preserve the true meaning of the Scriptural formulae added to the creed
against the objections of the heretical parties. The second note, „Continuity of known principles‟
examines how Catholic principles engender true development. The third, a dynamic note, „Power to
assimilate alien matter to the original idea‟ proves that Christianity has the power of assimilation to
interact in various environments without injuring its identity. The fourth, „Logical sequence or
connectedness‟ explains that doctrines do not originally advance by syllogism but one doctrine leading to
another. The fifth, „Anticipation of future developments‟ means an idea going through for a longer period
of maturation. The sixth, „A conserving attitude to the past: taking steps to preserve an old idea in a new
form‟ which helps identify true development from corruption. Finally, the seventh note which the true
development is marked by „Chronic vigour‟ of the Church, “which he sees as continually dying and rising
throughout history in imitation of her Master and Lord” (A.NICHOLS, pp.51-52).
Ian Ker, the Newman scholar in his foreword to the „Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine‟
mentions these words in conclusion, “The Essay is still the last word on the subject of doctrinal
development so far as Catholic theology is concerned. No other Catholic theologian has yet attempted
anything on the same scale or of similar scope. Those Catholic theologians, who have rejected logical
scholastic theory as unhistorical and unreal, have looked to Newman as their main inspiration and source.
The Essay is one of the great theological classics for two reasons. But even if the Essay was not one of
the great theological classics, it would still be of enduring for two reasons. First, it is one of the
intellectual documents of the nineteenth century comparable to Darwin‟s Origin of Species, which it
predates by over a decade. Secondly, if this was the only book Newman to survive, its rhetorical art and
style would surely place him among the best of English prose”(J.H. NEWMAN, The Essay on the
Development of Christian Doctrine, p. xxv-xxvi).
11
(C) The Dogma of Papal Infallibility
Newman himself being a believer of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, he opposed its definition in 1870
mainly due the attitude of the neo-ultramontanists who wanted to interpret infallibility as widely as
possible. As a result of the opposition of Gladson, the former Prime Minister of England, Cardinal
Manning, an ultramontanist had to declare that the dogma of Papal infallibility in no way undermined the
civil obedience that each Catholic owned to the state authorities. Newman decided to answer Gladson as
he felt that he had distorted the scope of this dogma in his interpretation. „The Letter Addressed to His
Grace, The Duke of Norfolk on the Occasion of Mr Gladsone‟s Recent Expostulation‟ (1875) contains
Newman‟s opinion on this dogma. He shows the importance of conscience in relation to the dogma of the
Infallibility of the Pope. “Imagine a situation a person‟s conscience in conflict with a statement of the
Pope. In this event the person would have to follow his or her conscience since the rights of human
conscience were planted by God in the heart of his creation. But here the concept of conscience needs
precise description. The word conscience in the high sense, not as a fancy or an opinion, but as a dutiful
obedience to what claims to be a divine voice speaking with us. Unless a man is able to say to himself, as
in the presence of God, that he must not, and dare not, act upon the papal injunction, he is bound to obey
it, and would commit a great sin in disobeying it” (R. BOUDENS, Two Cardinals J.H. Newman / D.J.
Mercier, p.89).
Writing against the neo- ultramontanist‟s tendency he writes “A Pope is not infallible in his laws, or in
his commands, or in his acts of state, or in his administration, nor in his public policy. Let it be observed
that Vatican Council has left him just as it found him here” (R. BOUDENS, p.90). Defining the dogma of
Infallibility in clarity Newman explained that the infallibility of pope was limited to matters of faith, precondition, the pope must speak „ex-cathedra‟ in order to be fallible. He anticipates that the infallibility of
pope pronounced by the first Vatican Council be limited in future, “Future popes will explain and in one
sense limit their own power” (R.BOUDENS, p.90; I. KER, John Henry Newman: A Biography, pp.651693). These prophetic words of Newman became very true with the pronouncement of „The Collegiality
of bishops‟ in the second Vatican council.
Newman with his extensive research on the dogmatic evolution of the Catholic Church becomes the
pioneer of Christian doctrinal development in the modern era. Alfred Loisy (1875), the Catholic
Modernist who was excommunicated, began his interest in the question of doctrinal development when
he read the Essay. Newman, beginning his Christian faith encounter with Anglicanism, later searching for
the antiquity of Catholicism, being made a cardinal in 1879 by Pope Leo XIII, was beatified by Pope
Benedict XVI on 19th September, 2010.
12
Bibliography:
BOUDENS, R. . Two Cardinals J. H. Newman /D.J. Mercier. Leuven; University Press, 1995.
DAVIES, M. . Liberals: 25 Classical Sermons by John Henry Newman. Chawleigh; Augustine Publishing, 1978.
DESSADN, C. S. . & GORNALL, T. S. J. (ed.) The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman. Vol. xxv. Oxford;
Clarendon, 1973.
KER, I. . John Henry Newman: A Biography. Oxford; University Press, 1988.
KER, I. & MERRIGAN, T.. (ed.) The Companions to John Henry Newman. Cambridge; University Press, 1995.
NEWMAN, J. H... The Arians of the Fourth Century. London; Longmans, 1908.
NEWMAN, J. H.. Newman’s University Sermons: Introduction by D.M. Holmes. London; S.P.C.K., 1970.
NEWMAN, J. H.. An Essay in Aid of A Grammar of Assent; Introduction by Nicholas Lash. Indiana: Notre Dame,
1979.
NEWMAN, J. N.. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine John Henry Cardinal Newman Foreword by
Ian Ker. Indiana; Notre Dame, 1989.
NICHOLS, A.. From Newman to Congar, Edinburgh; T&T Clark, 1990.
Wijith Rohan Fernando