John Henry Newman’s, Arians of the Fourth Century

It has been about thirty years since I last read Newman’s Arians of the Fourth Century [1833 first edition (link); 1871 edition with added appendix (link)]. Though Arians was Newman’s first full-length book, it was the fourth of his books that I had read—An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Apologia Pro Via Sua, and An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent being the prior three.

My current interest in Arians was precipitated whilst reading Rowan Williams’, Arius – Heresy and Tradition (1987, 2001 – Google preview). Williams wrote:

The modern critical study of the subject [i.e. Arius and Arianism] really begins with Newman’s justly celebrated essay of 1833, The Arians of the Fourth Century, a work many times reprinted, which exercised a formative influence on British scholarship in particular. Newman rightly claimed a degree of originality for his interpretation of the roots of Arianism… (p. 3)

Newman’s “originality” concerning “the roots of Arianism” was his belief that it was the theology of “the Church of Antioch” which was the primary source for Arius’ theology. He sharply contrasted this Antiochene church with the “Alexandrian church”. Newman’s contrast concerning these two churches is summed up by Williams in the following selection:

The Alexandrian church is held up, in contrast, as the very exemplar of traditional and revealed religion (ch. I, s. III, passim). So far from Arianism being the product of an unhealthy Alexandrian flirtation with philosophical mystagogy, and adulteration of the gospel by Platonism (pp. 7, 26), it is the result of a systematic refusal of true philosophy, a refusal of the wisdom that pierces the material veil of things, in favour of shallow materialism. In true Alexandrian (or at least Origenian) style, Newman regards certain exegetical options as moral and spiritual in character and effect. Antioch’s exegetical preference is no mere alternative within the spectrum of possible techniques: it is a spiritual deficiency. (p. 4)

Williams immediately follows the above summation of Newman’s assessment with a sharp critique; note the following:

One must charitably say that Newman is not at his best here: a brilliant argument, linking all sorts of diverse phenomena, is built up on a foundation of complacent bigotry and historical fantasy. However, setting aside for the moment the distasteful rhetoric of his exposition, it should be possible to see something of what his polemical agenda really is. The Arians of the Fourth Century is, in large part, a tract in defence of what the early Oxford Movement thought of as spiritual religion and spiritual authority. It works with a clear normative definition of Christian faith and practice, in which ascetical discipline goes hand-in-hand with the repudiation of Protestant biblicism (and Protestant rejection of post-scriptural development in teaching and devotion) and a commitment to the ‘principle of reserve’ a mystagogic approach to the faith in which deep mysteries could be concealed beneath simple forms and words and only gradually unveiled. (pp. 4, 5)

And in the next paragraph:

Newman’s version of the fourth-century crisis, then, rests upon a characterization of Arianism as radically ‘other’ in several respects. It is the forerunner of stolid Evangelicalism, Erastian worldliness (‘carnal, self-indulgent religion’), and—by 1874, anyway—the new style of university theology. (p. 5)

Williams' criticisms of Newman seemed quite harsh, and unfounded to me. I certainly did not discern the “complacent bigotry”, “historical fantasy” and “distasteful rhetoric” in my original reading of Arians. But then, given the fact that Dr. Williams is a highly respected patristic scholar, I wanted to see if I could find some basis for his assessments. Subsequent research revealed that Williams had written a lengthy introduction for the University of Notre Dame Press/Gracewing 2001 edition of Arians. On page XLVI, Williams wrote: “Newman regarded the book in later life with some real embarrassment” (Google preview). To support this assertion, he provided four references from the multi-volume project, Letter and Diaries of John Henry Newman. I have the first thirty volumes of this series, so I was able to look up all four references; and yes, it sure seems that Newman himself did in fact regard Arians “with some real embarrassment”. Note the following:

TO W. S. LILLY – June 27, 1882

My dear Lilly,

I return with this letter your proof.[3]

The article is most singularly interesting and arresting.[4]

I think you praise my Arians too highly; it was the first book I wrote, and the work of a year, and it is inexact in thought and incorrect in language. When at a comparatively late date I was led to re-publish it, I should have liked to mend it, but I found that if I attempted it would come to pieces, and I should have to write it over again.

In saying this, I have no intention of withdrawing from the substance of what you quote from me; on the contrary, I hold it as strongly as I did fifty years ago when it was written; but I feel the many imperfections of the wording.[5]

Very sincerely yours, John H. Card. Newman.

[3] Lilly, who printed this letter in the Fortnightly Review (Sept. 1890). Could not remember what this proof was. [See page 434.

[4] This was ‘Sacred Books of the East’, DR (July 1882), pp. 1-32, reprinted in Lilly Ancient Religion and Modern Thought, London 1884, Chapter III.

[5] At the end of his article Lilly quoted with high praise from Ari. Pp. 81-6. (Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman XXX, p. 105)

It was John Nelson Darby’s Analysis of Dr. Newman’s Apologia Pro Vita Sua (link) that prompted me to deeply ponder and reflect on my original reading of the book; Dr. Williams has now done the same for me concerning Arians of the Fourth Century.

Grace and peace,

David

Critical issues concerning infallibility and the development of doctrine – the historical roots

I think I have finally caught up with the considerable number of comments and threads that are related to my January 6th announcement (though I may have missed some threads that have not appeared via Google links). Before detailing MY current difficulties, I thought it best to give a brief history of the events that have led up to my 2010 decision.

As I noted in the previous thread (A solemn announcement), one of the most important forces behind my decision to enter the RCC back in 2002 was John Henry Newman’s theory of development—as outlined and formed in his An Essay On The Development of Christian Doctrine and Apologia Pro Vita Sua.

I can still vividly remember my thoughts during the second reading of Apologia Pro Vita Sua, as I reflected on the following:

I have described in a former work, how the history affected me. My stronghold was Antiquity; now here, in the middle of the fifth century, I found, as it seemed to me, Christendom of the sixteenth and the nineteenth centuries reflected. I saw my face in that mirror, and I was a Monophysite. The Church of the Via Media was in the position of the Oriental communion, Rome was where she now is; and the Protestants were the Eutychians. (Sheed and Ward, Maisie Ward 1945 edition, 1978 reprint, page 77.)

And two paragraphs later:

It was difficult to make out how the Eutychians or Monophysites were heretics, unless Protestants and Anglicans were heretics also; difficult to find arguments against the Tridentine Fathers, which did not tell against the Fathers of Chalcedon; difficult to condemn the Popes of the sixteenth century, without condemning the Popes of the fifth. The drama of religion, and the combat of truth and error, were ever one and the same. The principles and proceedings of the Church now, were those of the Church then; the principles and proceedings of heretics then, were those of Protestants now. (Ibid.)

One important distinction between the historical period of controversy that gave rise to Newman’s questioning of the Anglican position, and the historical period of controversy which loomed in my own struggles with the ‘classic’ Protestant position should be noted: Newman’s was the Christological controversies of the 5th century, whilst mine concerned the Trinitarian controversies of the 4th century. Interestingly enough though, Newman would just a few years later apply the principles which flowed from his assessment of the Christological controversies of the 5th century, to the Trinitarian controversies of the 4th century, and this in turn lead to a reassessment of the Ante-Nicene Fathers “Trinitarianism”, with Newman rejecting the overwhelming consensus theory that the ANFs conformed to St. Vincent of Lerins “Rule” (i.e. quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus). This gave rise to what has been termed Newman’s “organic” theory of development—i.e. the analogy of a seed/acorn developing into a full grown tree (to which Newman ‘added’ an important supplement: “No doctrine is defined till it is violated”).

Now, back to what I penned in the previous thread:

“…I have reached the point wherein I can no longer reconcile certain historic data with a couple of non-negotiable elements in the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. The first and foremost component which has led to my decision is that I can no longer affirm Papal infallibility, nor the inherit infallibility of the Ecumenical councils. Back in 2002 when I entered the RCC, I was able to acknowledge both via the assistance of Newman’s theory of doctrinal development…”

As long as Newman’s theory of DD remained intact, the difficulties, complexities and controversies concerning infallibility (as well as other doctrines that have little support in the early centuries of the Church) were tenable.

Once again, back to the earlier thread:

“…however, in the spring of 2008, certain cracks in Newman’s theory began to appear on my ‘radar’ while engaged in some historical research. This research brought to my attention numerous works that I had not been aware of, which I then began to acquire and read.”

Here is the list of the first group of books that led up to THIS POST:

John Henry Newman: The Challenge to Evangelical Religion;

Analysis of Dr. Newman’s Apologia Pro Vita Sua;

Infallibility by John Nelson Darby (this was Darby’s “Fourth Conversation on Romanism”, and is found in The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, Volume 22, pp. 79-167 – Believers Bookshelf 1972 reprint; an online edition can be accessed HERE and HERE;

Voting About God

A mere 4 days after the June 5, 2008 thread linked to above, I posted the following:

Searching for a consistent theory of the Church, development and apostasy, which discussed Darby’s essay, “Christianity Not Christendom”.

Then came my provocative thread, Looking for substantive alternatives to Newman’s ‘Theory of Development’; this thread elicited 158 combox posts, and sent me ‘back to the books’.

A bibliography of the books and essays I “imposed upon myself”, can be found in THIS NEXT THREAD ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE.

This brings us to THE POST that linked to Jason Engwer’s Triblogue thread, which has been robustly critiqued by Dave Armstrong in 4 installments over the last three days (FINAL INSTALLMENT HERE, also links to the first 3).

Whew…so much for a ‘brief’ history lesson (subsequent threads on DD are linked to under Development of Doctrine in the “LABELS” section on the right sidebar of AF).

Tomorrow afternoon, the Lord willing, I will outline my overall thoughts on the difficulties that I am unable to reconcile with official Catholic dogma.


Grace and peace,

David

Searching for a consistent theory of the Church, development and apostasy.

Newman’s theory of development when it first appeared in print was attacked from three different positions. First, was the attack from a few fellow Catholics who saw Newman’s theory as a threat to what I shall term the “traditionalist” position. Second, there was the attack from those who embraced the via media position of the High Anglicans, also called the Tractarians (which, as most know, was Newman’s position before entering the RCC). And finally, there was the Evangelical attack. This post is going to focus on this last position. I briefly touched on this position with the quote from Darby in THIS THREAD. I shall now delve a bit deeper into this viewpoint.

John Nelson Darby’s most detailed articulation of his theory of development (or lack there of) appears in his lengthy essay, “Christianity Not Christendom”. This essay is available online (HERE). [The following quotes will reflect the page numbers from my hard copy (volume #18 of “The Collected Writings of J.N. Darby”) which I believe are the same as the online version.]

“…is any church as now understood, coming down from ages past, however reformed and arranged, a thing of God? Is it to pass in some shape on this descendible principle? Is there that which, calling itself a church, exercises authority over the mind of man according to the mind of God? We are forced to look the whole question in the face: is the existing professing church, whatever shape it may assume, a thing which God owns? Is a successional body, in any shape, true or right according to God? I repeat, this question is forced upon us, the whole question; not, Is this or that church right?” (Page 250.)

“Now I look all this in the face, and take the question up, not on the disputed claims of churches, who mutually disprove their respective claims, but on the question of the church, as man looks at it now, as we see it in every time as the subject of ecclesiastical history; and I say it never was, as a system, the institution of God, or what God established; but at all times, from its first appearance in ecclesiastical history, the departure, as a system, from what God established, and nothing else; primitive church and all; and the more it was formally established, the more it was corrupt. Saints, beloved of God I do not doubt were and are in it; but it was a corruption offensive to God from the beginning of its history. Take a history, any history, of the church, it is a history, not of God's institution, but of man's corruption. History and scripture both testify of this, and no man can speak of the church of ecclesiastical history, if he be an honest man, without admitting that it was man's corruption, not God's institution, or denying history and scripture alike; I say, from its outset as the subject of ecclesiastical records, or scripture statements.” (Pages 251, 252.)

Darby’s theory of the “true” Church is summed up with:

“Two great principles lie at the base of Christianity, God's righteousness, Christ sitting at the right hand of God, and the presence of the Holy Ghost. Paul tells us (2 Cor. 3) that Christianity (or the gospel) was the ministration of righteousness and the ministration of the Spirit: these are the two great essential elements.” (Page 254.)

He then goes on to write:

“But such was Christianity as presented to us in scripture in its essential features. Has it preserved them? Is what is now called the church that Christianity, the system I find there?” (Page 260.)

“The church, as understood in modern times in all its compartments, is constituted, has its existence by, and is based on, the clergy and its sacraments, not on an accomplished redemption and the presence and power of the Holy Ghost-a clergy which is called the ministry, and even the church. I take, as a plain popular proof of the truth of this, the Evangelical Alliance. It abhors the corruption that has entered into the church, but it would not admit Quakers and Plymouth Brethren: the former reject clergy and sacraments, the latter clergy only, holding baptism and the Lord's supper, both insisting on ministry by the Spirit. I am not insisting now on their being right or wrong; I merely take it as a popular proof of the basis of the universal system, even where gross corruptions are resisted. It results in this, that the recognition of a clergy is the basis of the church, the sine qua non, the essential condition.” (Page 261.)

“My thesis is, not that the church as now held historically was corrupted, but that the church so held was itself the total departure in principle from scripture, from what Christ set up by the Holy Ghost. The doctrine of full justification by faith, founded on accomplished redemption, and the recognition of the Holy Ghost as present and a directing power, were lost, and the clergy and sacraments substituted for them. The Reformation removed many corruptions which had grown intolerable, and many false principles; but the notion of the church was still based on the clergy and the sacraments. It is hard to prove a negative; but it is quite certain that neither a full redemption, nor, though the words be used once or twice, a complete possessed justification by faith, as Paul teaches it, a perfecting for ever by its one offering, a known personal acceptance in Christ, is ever found in any ecclesiastical writings after the canonical scriptures for long centuries.” (Page 262 – bold emphasis mine.)

He then asks:

“Was this departure from Christ to be expected at once? or was the successional continuance of the outward body that which was secured by the Lord's promise? What does the word declare? Heresy fully contributed its part; but whatever was the cause, was the continuance of the body under God's approbation contemplated or not?” (Page 272.)

To these questions he gives a round of resounding yeses (with “proof” texts). And towards the end of the essay states:

“The historical church is man's system, from the beginning, in contrast with God's: that system has been corrupted, but what has been corrupted is man's system, not God's. No doubt God had gathered the first materials into unity, but the principles on the which He founded His assembly resisted, specially by Judaism, during the life of the apostles, were given up when they were gone; and the system they had resisted became that which stood before men's eyes as the church. The free power of the Spirit, and known acceptance in an exalted Christ, ceased to be the constituent principles of those gathered; the clerical principle denying the Spirit, making elders the ministry as a clergy, that is, ordained teachers, not the gift and power of the Holy Ghost. This was first developed in local episcopacy, then in diocesan episcopacy and the hierarchy, and then in popery.” (Page 274.)

And there you have Darby’s theory of the Church, development and apostasy.

Next thread, the reformed scholar, William Cunningham’s view.


Grace and peace,

David

The Development of Doctrine

A very interesting, and timely THREAD, was brought to my attention yesterday via a new participant (Kepha) here at AF.

Though Michael Liccione’s opening post primarily focuses on inconsistencies he perceives to exist among Orthodox theologians concerning the issue of the development of doctrine (hereafter DD)—with, of course, the Catholic concept of DD in focus—a good portion his reflections also to apply to the various concepts of DD that exist within the Protestant paradigm.

Dr. Liccione brings to our attention certain Orthodox theologians (e.g. Behr, Louth, and Reardon) who deny that DD actually exists. But the Orthodox communion is not only branch of Christendom with theologians who reject the notion of DD, for we find such denials within Protestantism and among pre-Vatican II Catholic theologians. Since Dr. Liccione does such a masterful job of refuting those Orthodox theologians who deny DD, I shall focus on Protestantism. Within the Protestant paradigm one will find various positions concerning DD that range from those who in essence deny that DD truly exists, to those who hold to a position that approaches Newman’s view. An example of the former is John Nelson Darby, who penned the following:

What finally led Dr. Newman to be satisfied with Romanism, which has confessedly a multitude of doctrines unknown to the primitive Church, was the principle of development. He was far down the hill, no doubt, long before, but that plunged him into its waters. Now in the person of Christ, and the value of His work before God, there can be no development. He is the same—and so is the efficacy of His work—yesterday, today, and for ever. I or Dr. Newman may grow in the knowledge of Christ. Faithful zeal may resist and dispel errors which arise, and by which Satan seeks to cloud the truth and overthrow faith; but there cannot be development of the infinitely perfect and completely revealed person of the Son of God, in whom dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Dr. Newman may find, in spite of Bishop Bull, and as Pettau has admitted, that the ante-Nicene fathers were worse than obscure as to the divinity of the blessed Lord; but Paul is not, who declares that the fullness of the Godhead (theotēs* not theiotēs* that is, proper Deity, not divine character simply) dwells in Him bodily; John is not, who declares, He is the true God, was with God, and was God; and the New Testament, so plainly and blessedly making Christ known to us, is not. There He is Immanuel, Jesus, —Jehovah the Saviour. He may rejoice that the Nicene council reaffirmed this truth. But to say that this was development, and that the Church of God for three centuries did not know the true divinity of Christ, is high treason against Christ and the truth. It is the folly of a mind who, to excuse itself, and make out a point, gives up all fundamental truth—does not possess it. It may lead to Romanism—I dare say it does; I am sure it does not lead to God. (John Nelson Darby, Analysis of Dr. Newman’s Apologia Pro Vita Sua, pp. 27, 28).

Now, my readings and interactions with so many of our Protestant brothers strongly suggests to me, that though willing to affirm some sense of DD, the foundation of their paradigm (formal sufficiency/perspicuity of scriptures, coupled with doctrinal corruption immediately following the death of the apostles), in essence, affirms Darby’s position.

Proceeding on with the above in mind, I cannot help but think that though Darby certainly raises some important questions concerning Newman’s view of development that need to be addressed, Darby’s own view of DD presents even greater difficulties—difficulties that are inherent to any Protestant concept of DD.

Have I missed something in the overall equation?


Grace and peace,

David

*Note: I have transliterated the Greek for my readers.