An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, John Henry Cardinal Newman (foreword by Ian Ker). University of Notre Dame Press (ISBN: 9780268009212) 1994 (first published in 1845).

Summary: Shows that doctrine has undergone development and provides marks of genuine doctrines.

One of the questions raised by many who are not Catholics is why the church affirms many doctrines that have no explicit basis in scripture. These include beliefs about the Virgin Mary, papal supremacy, and purgatory. John Henry Cardinal Newman, in 1845, penned what may be the best explanation of how these doctrines are genuine developments of biblical truth.

“Development” is the key word in An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. He argues that while some of the doctrines of the Catholic Church don’t arise from explicit texts of scripture, they are nevertheless genuine developments from the scriptures. To make this argument, Newman devotes the first part of his “essay” to defending the idea that Christian doctrine has developed over time. Many things implicit in scripture were later brought out in the Councils and Papal teaching. And we need look no further than the doctrine of the Trinity or the doctrine of the Incarnation to see this is the case. But Newman holds this to be true of all the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

But how are we to distinguish the genuine from corruptions of doctrine? Newman offered seven “notes” or distinguishing marks:

1. Preservation of its Type. This refers to the persistence of a main idea even though its external expression may change. Newman contrasts the egg to a fully grown bird as an example. He supports this note through a study of the first six centuries of the church.
2. Continuity of Its Principles. As true doctrine develops, it never violates the basic principle of Christianity, of which Newman enumerates nine. Every heresy will violate at least one of these.
3. Its Assimilative Power. Growing things depend on assimilating nutrients for their life. Similarly true doctrine develops in part by assimilating external ideas such as Greek philosophy that help it define more clearly what the church believes.
4. Its Logical Sequence. In a genuine development of doctrine, a logical progression can be shown from biblical truth to the doctrine’s expression. For example, purgatory develops from the requirement of perfection to enter heaven. Yet many are friends of Christ who are not perfect and thus must undergo a purifying process before entering heaven.
5. Anticipation of its Future. Essentially, this note proposes that there are hints to future developments implied in the earliest statements. Newman shows this to be the case with the idea of relics, the Virgin Mary, and the cult of saints and angels.
6. Conservative Action on its Past. Genuine developments build on earlier ones, often bringing greater clarity. For example, the Nicene Creed clarifies and strengthens what is in the Apostles Creed. A corruption contradicts and weakens the earlier development.
7. Its Chronic Vigour. Genuine developments endure while heresies die off. One example Newman offers is Pelagianism, which denied original sin and argued for human pefectability apart from Christ’s redemptive grace.

One of the strength’s of Newman’s work is to show how doctrines develop over time and to legitimize that process. This is important because all of us believe things not explicitly stated in the Bible. Additionally, his extensive arguments from church history help substantiate his case. At the same time, it seems, as an outside observer, a good argument to legitimate what is. And I could see some from Eastern or Reformed traditions using some of the notes to argue against particular Catholic doctrines. It also essentially brands Eastern Orthodoxy and the churches of the Reformation as embracing corruptions at their points of difference. Although Newman doesn’t explicitly say this, it is a logical “development” from his argument.

Newman’s Victorian prose is never an easy read. In this case, his lengthy discussions of church history risk losing the forest for the trees. One must keep the main contours and particular “notes” of Newman’s argument before one.

To sum up, this is an important work, not merely for Catholics but for all Christians. We may know that Jesus loves us “because the Bible tells me so” but not all that any of us as Christians affirm comes directly from scripture without development. Newman also helps us, whether we agree or not, to understand the Catholic justification of doctrines with which others may disagree.

But it also shows why it will be difficult to reach a doctrinal rapprochement that encompasses Eastern, Protestant, and Catholic churches. That does not mean we cannot strive for mutual understanding and charitable relations. But to be of one mind in doctrine seems to me to be part of the beatific vision. “ For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known” (1 Corinthians 13:12, KJV).