Johann Adam Möhler's Influence on John Henry Newman's Theory of Doctrinal Development: The Case for...

Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 89/1 (2013) 73-95. doi: 10.2143/ETL.89.1.2985323© 2013 by Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses. All rights reserved.

Johann Adam Möhler’s Influence onJohn Henry Newman’s Theory of

Doctrinal DevelopmentThe Case for a Reappraisal*

Kenneth PARKER and C. Michael SHEA

Saint Louis University, Missouri

John Henry Newman’s Essay on The Development of Christian Doc-trine (1845)1 has long been associated with the emergence of the theory of doctrinal development, and has come to dominate the way Christians understand their past. In 1986 Joseph Ratzinger, then Prefect of the Con-gregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, described Newman’s theory as one of the “decisive and fundamental concepts of Catholicism”2. As a Lutheran in 1971, Jaroslav Pelikan claimed that “[t]he very vigor of replies to the Essay on Development is testimony to its power [… The work] anticipated later generations of scholars by being the first to ask some of the questions about tradition, development, and continuity with which the history of doctrine must deal today”3. Since the 1930s scholars have agreed that Newman’s theory enjoyed an originality not dependent upon other intellectual influences. Owen Chadwick’s magisterial study, From Bossuet to Newman (1957), concluded:

Newman himself was aware of no external impulse. He was aware, instead, of a continuity, a train of thought, unfolding itself in his mind. Just how he had clambered across the chasm from the Tractarian theory to the theory of development he could not later determine with logical precision4.

* This article has benefitted from the generous support of the National Institute for New-man Studies, in Pittsburgh, PA. The authors also wish to thank Dr. Benjamin King of Sewanee University, Geertjan Zuijdwegt of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, and the Saint Louis Society for Catholic Theologians for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this study.

1. J.H. NEWMAN, An Essay on The Development of Christian Doctrine, London, James Toovey, 1845.

2. J. RATZINGER, The Ecclesiology of The Second Vatican Council, in Communio 13 (1986) 239-252, pp. 241-242.

3. J. PELIKAN, Historical Theology: Continuity and Change in The Christian Tradition, New York, Corpus Press, 1971, p. 58.

4. O. CHADWICK, From Bossuet to Newman, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1957, pp. 111-119; second ed., ibid., 1987, pp. 111-119 (all citations in this article will come from the second edition). Chadwick’s work built upon H. TRISTRAM, J.A. Moehler et J.H. Newman: La pensée allemande et la renaissance catholique en Angleterre, in Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 27 (1938) 184-204. Other research that has drawn

96409_ETL_2013/1_05_Parker-Shea.indd 7396409_ETL_2013/1_05_Parker-Shea.indd 73 28/06/13 10:2928/06/13 10:29

74 K. PARKER – C.M. SHEA

The gap between Newman’s theory of doctrinal development and his earlier Tractarian idealization of the Vincentian Canon (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus) – which he understood to mean continuity of doctrinal truth unaltered by time or circumstance – does present a chal-lenge. A sophisticated analysis, with a daunting pedigree, has traced out a persuasive argument. Jan Walgrave and Nicholas Lash have argued that Newman’s theory, expressed in his 1845 Essay on Development and 1843 Fifteenth Oxford University Sermon, resonated with ideas, themes, and allusions articulated from as early as Newman’s Arians of The Fourth Cen-tury (1832)5, and continued in reflections later in that decade6. This evi-dence suggests a strong material continuity between Newman’s earlier work and the full flowering of his theory of development in the early 1840s.

from Chadwick and Tristram – either accepting their thesis of Möhler’s non-influence upon Newman as an explicit premise or following the Apologia Pro Vita Sua for early hints of development within Newman’s corpus – includes A. MINON, L’attitude de Jean-Adam Moe-hler (1796–1838) dans la question du développement du dogme, in ETL 16 (1939) 328-384, pp. 376-377; J. WALGRAVE, Newman the Theologian: The Nature of Belief and Doctrine as Exemplified in His Life and Works, trans. A. Littledale, New York, Sheed & Ward, 1960, pp. 44-52; ID., L’originalité de l’idée Newmanienne du développement, in Newman Studien 6, ed. H. FRIES – W. BECKER, Nuremberg, Glock und Lutz, 1964, pp. 83-96; G. BIEMER, New-man on Tradition, trans. K. Smyth, Freiburg, Herder, 1967, pp. 48-49; J. STERN, Bible et tradition chez Newman: Aux origines de la théorie du développement, Paris, Aubier, 1967, p. 188, n. 50; J. ARTZ, Entstehung und Auswirkung von Newmans Theorie der Dogmenent-wicklung, in TQ 148 (1968) 63-104, p. 78; ID. (ed.), Ausgewählten Werke von John Henry Kardinal Newman. Band VIII: Über die Entwicklung der Glaubenslehre, Mainz, Matthias-Grünewald, 1969, p. 484, n. 150; J. PELIKAN, Development of Christian Doctrine: Some Historical Prolegomena, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1969, p. 54; ID., Historical Theology (n. 3), pp. 56-57; N. LASH, Newman on Development: The Search for An Explana-tion in History, Shepherdstown, WV, Patmos Press, 1975, pp. 7-19; S. GILLEY, Newman and His Age, London, Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1990, pp. 229-231; A. NICHOLS, From New-man to Congar: The Ideal of Development from The Victorians to The Second Vatican Council, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1990, p. 5; S. JAKI, Introductory Essay, in J.H. NEWMAN, An Essay on The Development of Christian Doctrine 1845, Pinckney, MI, Real View Books, 2002, p. xxxii; J. PEREIRO, Ethos and The Oxford Movement: At The Heart of Tractarianism, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 163, 168-169, has engaged more critically with Chadwick’s scholarship, but has accepted the thesis that Newman had not been influenced by Möhler. J. HENRY, Newman and Development: The Genesis of John Henry Newman’s Theory of Development and the Reception of His Essay on The Development of Christian Doctrine (unpubl. PhD diss., University of Texas at Austin), 1973, pp. 92-93, is to our knowledge the only writer after H. Tristram’s 1938 article to state that Newman’s possible use of Möhler remained an open question. Henry nonetheless followed Newman’s Apologia in exploring the prehistory of the theory of development in Newman’s writings (pp. 1-117).

5. The work only made it to print the following year. J.H. NEWMAN, Arians of The Fourth Century, Their Doctrine Temper and Conduct, Chiefly as Exhibited in The Councils of The Church Between A.D. 325 & A.D. 381, London, F. & J. Rivington, 1833.

6. Presenting Newman’s theory of development in this fashion has become commonplace in Newman research, not only due to Tristram’s 1938 article and Chadwick’s book, but also more generally because of an overreliance upon the Apologia Pro Vita Sua as a source. WAL-GRAVE, Newman The Theologian (n. 4), perhaps best exemplifies how this approach can support an understanding of Newman’s corpus that is misleadingly self-referential.


MÖHLER’S INFLUENCE ON NEWMAN’S THEORY 75

However, there are problems with the argument for Newman’s unqual-ified originality. In the Essay Newman acknowledged an awareness of this concept in the work of others: “The view on which it [development] is written has at all times, perhaps, been implicitly adopted by theologi-ans, and, I believe, has recently been illustrated by several distinguished writers on the continent such as De Maistre and Möhler […]”7. Henry Tristram dismissed Newman’s singular reference to these European authors as second hand knowledge and not the fruit of direct study. Indeed Newman’s ignorance of German has been treated as added proof that his thought was untouched by the wissenschaftliche theology of German scholars, who had struggled for decades over the Hegelian inspired use of aufheben8 to describe the dialectical process through which a more com-plex understanding emerges from a simpler form of thought, while at the same time preserving the authenticity of its earlier conceptualization9.

Yet there has been speculation that Newman’s theory had been influ-enced by earlier theologians – above all Johann Adam Möhler (1796-1838). Möhler explored his understanding of development (Entwicklung)

7. J.H. NEWMAN, Essay on Development of Christian Doctrine, London, Longmans, Green and Co, 1845, p. 27.

8. Although commonly rendered in English as “sublation” (or its verbal equivalent “sublate”), the German term Aufhebung (or its verbal form aufheben) admits no direct translation into English. Aufheben can signify “lifting up”, “merging”, “reversing”, “abolishing”, “abrogating” and “preserving”. In Hegel’s rich and complex dialectic, all of these senses were implied. As any particular determination of Geist advanced to its coun-terpoint and subsequent synthesis, it was sublated (aufgehoben), at once abrogated in its absoluteness but also preserved and fulfilled in its integration within a more encompassing order.

9. The concept of the historicity of truth and its unfolding was current among Protestant philosophers such as Hegel and Schelling, but it was Schleiermacher who first popularized the notion of doctrinal development among theologians in his 1804-1805 university lec-tures at Halle and then in the author’s Kurze Darstellung des theologischen Studiums, zum Beruf einleitender Vorlesungen, Berlin, Realschulbuchhandlung, 1811, especially pp. 65-70. See J.E. THIEL, Imagination and Authority: Theological Authorship in the Modern Tradition, Minneapolis, MD, Fortress, 1991, pp. 44-50. Johann Sebastian Drey and other members of the “Catholic Tübingen School” were indebted to Schleiermacher, but Schel-ling and representatives of the Catholic Erweckungsbewegung (e.g., Sailer, Gügler) were also significant with respect to the concept of revelation and its development in history. For Drey’s use of Schelling see W. FEHR, The Birth of The Catholic Tübingen School: The Dogmatics of Johann Sebastian Drey (AAR Academy Series, 37), Chico, CA, Scholars Press, 1981, pp. 73-115; also J. O’MEARA, Romantic Idealism and Roman Catholicism: Schelling and the Theologians, Notre Dame, IN, University of Notre Dame Press, 1982, pp. 94-108. The classic accounts of the Catholic Tübingen School remain J. GEISELMANN, Die katholische Tübinger Schule: Ihre theologische Eigenart, Freiburg, Herder, 1964; and ID., Lebendiger Glaube als geheiliger Überlieferung: Der Grundgedanke der Theologie Johann Adam Möhlers und der katholischen Tübinger Schule, 2nd ed., Freiburg, Herder [1942], 1966. See also M. HIMES, Ongoing Incarnation: Johann Adam Möhler and The Beginnings of Modern Ecclesiology, New York, Crossroad, 1997; and B. HINZE, Roman Catholic Theology: Tübingen, in D. FERGUSSON (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Nine-teenth-Century Theology, West Sussex, Blackwell, 2010, pp. 187-213.



as early as 1825 and achieved fame throughout Europe by the end of his

life in 1838. Despite the logic of this supposition, identifying and piecing together evidence to support it has been fragmentary at best. In recent decades the hypothesis has been all but abandoned.

Yet anomalies persist. James Pereiro confirmed that Newman had been cognizant of the idea of doctrinal development as early as 183510. By 1838, with the publication of the second edition of the Lectures on The Prophetical Office of The Church, he was pejoratively applying a theory of development to the corruptions he associated with the Church of Rome11. In the fall of 1840, Newman jumped across the “chasm” Owen Chadwick described in a brief outline on doctrinal development found in a letter to his brother Francis12. Unlike his earlier Tractarian thought, which treated the deposit of Christian doctrine as one of succession in essentials – despite the corruptions of Rome and the innovations of Prot-estants – in his emerging theory, Christian truth manifested itself in its expansion, development, or “life” in history.

This evidence, and other anomalous fragments, call for a reappraisal of Newman’s originality, and assertions that his theory was not influenced by knowledge of Möhler’s work. While Henri Tristram, Owen Chadwick, Jan Walgrave, Nicholas Lash, and lately James Pereiro are correct in highlighting Newman’s creative and persuasive presentation of the theory of development, compelling evidence that Newman had been aware of, and was influenced by, Johann Adam Möhler’s thought must be grafted into the narrative. Möhler’s work was at Newman’s disposal in French translation by 1839, and was most likely a factor in his first articulation of the theory in the autumn of 1840. Evidence further suggests that he was aware of this influence during the period when he composed his first exposition of the theory in his Fifteenth Oxford University Sermon, preached in February 1843. Möhler’s formative role in the conception of Newman’s theory of development provides the best explanation for the anomalous evidence that until recently has been ignored or explained away, and new data that has become available.

In arguing for a reappraisal, we first examine how previous critics assessed Möhler’s influence upon Newman and those in his circle, and

10. See J. PEREIRO, S.F. Wood and An Early Theory of Development in The Oxford Movement, in Recusant History 20 (1991) 524-553.

11. Newman associated development in this text only to Roman corruption. J.H. NEW-MAN, Lectures on The Prophetical Office of The Church, Viewed Relatively to Romanism and Popular Protestantism, 2nd ed., London, F. & J. Rivington, and J.H. Parker, 1838, pp. 61, 134-135; compare with his view of the Church of England, which explicitly contrasts with the notion (p. 22).

12. J.H. Newman to Francis Newman, 10 November 1840, in The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman. Volumes 1-10, ed. T. GORNALL – I. KER – G. TRACEY – F. MCGRATH, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1978-2006; volumes 11-31, ed. C. DESSAIN – E. KELLY – T. GORNALL, London, Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1961-1977, vol. 7: 440-441. (Hereafter cited, LD).



propose a revised reading of the evidence, by introducing crucial over-looked correspondence, and reconsidering significant chronological shifts in Newman’s thought. Second, we consider Newman’s use of sources in the 1830s, and through a study of his use of books checked out under his name from the Oriel College Library, demonstrate a tendency – espe-cially with family members – not to identify the authors on whom he was dependent. We argue that his use of Möhler, particularly in his crucial letter to Francis Newman, follows that pattern. Finally, we consider how Möhler’s thought – especially his work Unity in The Church – may have shaped Newman’s conception of doctrinal development as he first articu-lated it in 1840 and 1843.

I. THE TRISTRAM / CHADWICK CONSENSUS

Although writers since the latter 1840s have speculated about the possibil-ity of Möhler’s influence upon Newman’s thought13, and a few have treated Newman’s theory of development as in some ways an outgrowth of Möhler’s work14, it was only in the twentieth century that scholars went beyond con-jecture and mere comparison of the texts. Henry Tristram was the first to take up the issue at length in a 1938 article15. Tristram pointed out that Nicholas Wiseman recommended Möhler’s work on Athanasius to Newman

13. For example, G. FABER, Letters on Tractarian Succession to Popery: With Remarks on Mr. Newman’s Principle of Development, Dr. Moehler’s Symbolism, and The Adduced Evidence in Favor of The Romish Practice of Mariolatry, London, Dalton, 1846; H.H. MILMAN, Article IV. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine by John Henry Newman, in The Quarterly Review 77 March (1846) 404-465, p. 404; W. PALMER, The Doctrine of Development and Conscience Considered in Relation to the Evidences of Christianity and the Catholic System, London, F. & J. Rivington, 1846, pp. 323-340; C. THIRLWALL, Remains, Literary and Theological, vol. 1, ed. J. PEROWNE, London, Daldly, Isbister & Co., 1877, p. 59 n.; [W. CUNNINGHAM], Article VI. Möhler, Döllinger, and Oxford Anglicanism, in The London Quarterly and Holbron Review 149 New Series, 29, Oct. (1890) 96-113, pp. 101-105; CHADWICK, From Bossuet to Newman (n. 4), pp. 112-114, also cited John Acton as being convinced of Möhler’s influence upon Newman. How-ever, Acton’s hypotheses regarding how this influence may have occurred were too far-fetched and speculative to merit fresh review.

14. For example, ANON., Newman’s Theory of Development, in The Oxford and Cam-bridge Review 2 Jan-June (1846) 135-167, at p. 167; ANON., Art. V. An Essay on The Development of Christian Doctrine, by John Henry Newman, Author of Lectures on the Prophetical Office of the Church, in The North British Review 5 Aug. (1846) 418-453, p. 436; C. WORDSWORTH, Letters to M. Gondon, Author of “Le mouvement religieux en Angleterre”, “Conversion de cent cinquante ministres Anglicans” &c., &c., &c. on the Destructive Character of the Church of Rome Both in Religion and Polity, 2nd ed., London, F. & J. Rivington, 1847, p. 33. E. VERMEIL, Jean Adam Möhler et l’école catholique de Tubingue 1815-1840. Étude sur la théologie romantique en Wurtemburg et les origines du modernisme, Paris, Armand Colin, 1913, pp. 455-457. For a bibliography of English reac-tions to Newman’s Essay, see HENRY, Newman and Development (n. 4), pp. 185-199.

15. TRISTRAM, J.A. Moehler et J.H. Newman (n. 4), pp. 184-204.



in 183416, and generally extolled the German theologian’s work in lectures published in 1836, which Newman read and responded to in The British Critic17. Möhler was indeed a significant theologian for the future archbishop of Westminster. The Dublin Review, which Wiseman helped to found in 1836, referred to Möhler’s work and championed the theologian as a figure of importance in his efforts to evangelize members of the Anglican Church18.

Tristram also considered interest in Möhler’s work among figures within Newman’s circle, which included most prominently William Ward, but also Edward Pusey, R.W. Church, Mark Pattison, and Ambrose St. John19. Tristram demonstrated that interest in Möhler’s work increased among Tractarians during the years preceding Newman’s conversion, highlighting Ward’s embrace of the notion of doctrinal development in the British Critic after 184120. Tristram showed that Newman had access to a number of Möhler’s works at Littlemore in French, which unlike German, was a language that Newman read. These works enjoyed an in-house readership during Newman’s Littlemore years21. Tristram noted that he had ample opportunity and motive to read Möhler’s work. Indeed, to emphasize this point, Tristram listed the works of Möhler held in the Littlemore library, complete with references to inscriptions in Newman’s hand:

Symbolique, F. LACHAT, trans. [From the 4th German ed.], Brussels, Société Nationale pour la Propagation des Bons Livres, 1838. Signed: “Ambrose St. John, 1842”; + “Requiescat in pace, Anima Dulcissima, Maii die 24, 1875”.Symbolik, Main, F. Kupferberg, 1843. Signed: “Ambrose St. John, Litt-lemore, 1845”; + “Requiescat in pace” (Newman’s hand). Symbolism, J. ROBINSON, trans., London, Charles Dolman, 1843. Signed: “Ambrose St. John, Littlemore, 1844”.De l’unité de l’Église, ou du Principe du catholicisme d’après l’esprit des pères des trois premiers siècles de l’Église, P. BERNARD, trans., Brussels, H. Remy, 1839. Noted: “Doctrinal, J.H.N.”.Die Einheit in der Kirche, Tübingen, H. Laupp, 1843.Athanase le Grand et l’église de son temps en lutte avec l’arianisme, J. COHEN, trans., Paris, Debécourt, 1840. Noted: “History, J.H.N.”. Neue Untersuchungen, Mainz, F. Kupferberg, 183522.

16. Ibid., p. 187; see T. Acland to John Henry Newman, 11 May 1834. LD 4: 256-257, p. 257.

17. Ibid., p. 188; see N. WISEMAN, Lectures on The Principal Doctrines and Practices of The Catholic Church, Delivered at St. Mary’s Moorfields, during Lent of 1836, Vol 1, London, Joseph Booker, 1836; J.H. NEWMAN, Art. VII, in The British Critic vol. 22 n. 43 July (1837) 130-163.

18. Ibid., p. 189; Dublin Review 3 Oct. (1837) p. 551; Ibid., 4 Jan-Apr. (1838) pp. 269, 547; Ibid., 6 Jan (1839), p. 278.

19. Ibid., p. 192. 20. Ibid., pp. 191-192; for Ward’s articles in the British Critic, see note 37 below. 21. Ibid., p. 194. 22. Ibid., pp. 184-185. It merits noting that O. Chadwick in From Bossuet to Newman

(n. 4) also mentioned the fact that the Littlemore Library contained copies of certain Möhler’s works (p. 118). However, Chadwick failed to note their inscriptions (p. 229).



Clearly, Newman had opportunity to use these works and his inscrip-tions demonstrate that he handled some of them. Yet the question remained whether Newman actually used these works – and when. Despite the mass of circumstantial evidence, Tristram concluded – based on the single instance of Newman referring to Möhler in print – that Möhler had played no role in the emergence of Newman’s theory of development. The passage, quoted earlier in this article, noted that other theologians had implicitly invoked development, and Newman stated with apparent ambivalence, “I believe, [it] has recently been illustrated by several distinguished writers on the continent such as De Maistre and Möhler […]”23. Tristram argued that only two conclusions could be inferred from this statement: first, that Möhler’s name had been known to Newman; and second, that the Englishman’s qualifying words “I believe”, implied that his knowledge was second hand24.

Owen Chadwick’s 1957 book From Bossuet to Newman built upon the foundation of Henry Tristram’s 1938 article, but his argument was more nuanced and complex. Chadwick brought into greater relief the signifi-cance of William Ward for the crucial period of the inception of doctrinal development in Newman’s thought and also offered a more textured pic-ture of Möhler’s readership among those in Newman’s circle. Chadwick also examined Newman’s unedited “Papers on Development”, which no one had previously studied25.

Yet Chadwick’s analysis advanced Tristram’s scholarship and broad-ened the approach taken to marginalize Möhler’s influence. Chadwick’s point of departure and ultimate verdict were the same. Before examin-ing the various strands of circumstantial evidence, Chadwick claimed that “[Newman] had mentioned Möhler in the Essay of 1845, in a pass-ing phrase which proves that he had not read him”26. According to Chadwick, Möhler’s notion of development, was “in the air” when Newman worked out his theory, but it had come from no other source than himself27. This adjudication regarding Möhler’s influence on New-man was reiterated in the second edition of From Bossuet to Newman

23. NEWMAN, Essay on Development (n. 7), p. 27. 24. TRISTRAM, J.A. Moehler et J.H. Newman (n. 4), p. 195. 25. Birmingham Oratory Archive (hereafter BOA), B.2.8.1 in From Bossuet to New-

man (n. 4), pp. 118-119, 230-231. We have examined these papers in the microfilm collec-tion, “Contents of the cardinal’s cupboards”, completed by Dwight Culler in 1951, held in the History Philosophy and Newspaper Library of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Cham-paign (Copies of this microfilm are also located at the University of Notre Dame, Yale, and Fordham Universities). The MS reference number for the “Papers on Development,” in the film collection (B.2.1) differs from Chadwick’s reference and Gerard Tracy’s 1985 check-list, “The Writings and Papers of John Henry Newman, 1801-1890.” The discrepancy likely represents an elision on Culler’s part. Subsequent MS citations from this collection will be noted “Culler Microfilm”.

26. CHADWICK, From Bossuet to Newman (n. 4), p. 111. 27. Ibid., pp. 118-119.



in 1987, which repeated the arguments of the earlier edition without alteration.

During the thirty years that separated the two editions of Chadwick’s book, significant advances had been made in the availability of primary material for Newman studies. For example, in Letters and Diaries: The Oxford Movement, July 1833 to December 1834 (1980), a crucial connec-tion that Chadwick had not noted in his 1957 edition offered new insights. Chadwick pointed out in 1957 that Newman was aware of Möhler through Thomas Acland’s recommendation to Newman in an 1834 letter. “Wise-man has desired me to draw your attention to a German work by Möhler: on Athanasius and his times”, Acland wrote, “very Roman Catholic I believe”28. However, Chadwick did not go on to explain – or was not aware of – a revealing letter to John Bowden just two months later. New-man teasingly confessed, “I am quite vexed you should have taken the trouble to copy out the contents of the Life of Athanasius[.] [T]hank you”. In a later notation, Newman indicated that it was “Mölher’s [sic]” work to which he referred. Newman went on to state, “I have added on the other leaf the points I want examined (at your leisure)”29. These included a survey of public and private creeds, or evidence of a disciplina arcani; internal and external causes of the spread of Arianism; an inquiry into Schleiermacher’s treatise; themes regarding the independence of the Church; and the principles of union propounded by Athanasius and Hilary. Newman closed the letter by admitting that if Bowden found “it is a really clever book”, he would consider taking up German in earnest in order to have access to Möhler’s work30. In response, Bowden wrote that Newman’s time was too precious for such a thing, given his current undertakings31. Newman’s comments to Bowden illustrate the signifi-cance he placed upon Möhler’s work in 1834, even though he was pressed by obligations and concerns related to the Oxford Movement:

[…] pray give yourself no great trouble about the German Athanasius – when I shall have an opportunity of correcting my Arians is of course very uncer-tain and of distant date. I fancy I shall continue fidgety till I have learned a smattering of German – but that of course is of a date still further removed32.

Newman’s incentive to learn German to have access to Möhler’s thought illustrates the value he placed on Möhler’s scholarship, and suggests that he would have read Möhler’s work if it became available – as it did in the late 1830s – in French. Because Tristram and Chadwick apparently lacked

28. Thomas Acland to J.H. Newman, 25 May 1834. Printed in LD 4: 256-257, p. 257; see also CHADWICK, From Bossuet to Newman (n. 4), p. 114.

29. J.H. Newman to John Bowden, 13 July 1834. LD 4: 302-303, p. 302. 30. J.H. Newman to John Bowden, 13 July 1834. LD 4: 302-303, p. 303. 31. LD 4: 303. 32. LD 4: 320.



awareness of these letters, they leaned heavily upon the passing, singular reference to Möhler in the opening pages of his Essay on Development. Clearly, the most prominent English scholar of Nicene orthodoxy for his generation wished to consult his equal on the continent. Although New-man never learned German, by the end of the 1830s, this was no longer an impediment to Newman’s access to Möhler’s work. By the time he began articulating his theory of development, three of Möhler’s major works – Symbolism, Unity in the Church, and Athanasius – had been translated into French (1836, 1839, and 1840, respectively).

II. EMERGING EVIDENCE

Between 1995 and 2008, critical editions of Newman’s Letters and Diaries from 1839-1845 finally became available to scholars studying these crucial years33. As Newman’s correspondence with John Bowden illustrates, greater access to these sources permits a more comprehensive approach to the emergence of Newman’s theory of development. While one might conclude that the letter to Bowden reflected the arcane inter-ests of a patristics scholar, correspondence in the early 1840s complicates that explanation.

In an 8 March 1843 letter – less than five weeks after Newman preached his Fifteenth Oxford University Sermon on doctrinal development (2 Feb-ruary) – Newman recommended Johann Adam Möhler’s works to his friend and disciple, Mary Holmes. Newman stated, “Möhler’s works are, I believe, very interesting, – e.g. his Symbolique (of course it is theologi-cal) – Essay on Unity – Athanasius […]”34. The fact that Newman men-tioned the three works recently published in French translation – two of which were located in the Littlemore collection with his inscriptions – is significant, and has not yet been noted in scholarship on his theory of development. The passage suggests that Newman’s knowledge of Möhler may well have been more than second hand, given his earlier scholarly motives, the ready availability of copies – two of which bore his name – and the significant interest in the Möhler’s work among his circle. New-man’s qualifier, “I believe” – both in the Essay on Development and in the 1843 letter in question – should not be taken as evincing ignorance of their contents. A letter to Thomas Allies in September 1842 provides an example of a reading recommendation from Newman’s pen, which he

33. The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman, VII: Editing the British Critic (January 1939-December 1840), ed. G. TRACEY, Oxford, 1995; ID., VIII: Tract 90 and The Jerusalem Bishopric (January 1841-April 1842), ed. G. TRACEY, Oxford, 1999; ID., IX: Littlemore and The Parting of Friends (May 1842-October 1843), ed. F. MCGRATH – G. TRACEY, Oxford, 2006; ID., X: The Final Step (1 November 1843-6 October 1845), ed. F. MCGRATH, Oxford, 2006; ID., XXXII: Supplement, ed. F. MCGRATH, Oxford, 2008.

34. J.H. Newman to Maria Holmes, 8 March 1843, LD 9: 272-275, p. 275.



had ostensibly not read. The contrast is significant. He claimed: “I do not know S. Augustine’s letters to speak on my own authority, but, from what I am told, and what I do know, I should consider they would be most profitable reading”35.

Newman’s use of “I believe” in the Essay on Development merits consideration, due to its key position in the previous scholarly consen-sus. The immediate polemical context of the Essay on Development likely played a role in the way that Newman referenced Möhler. The juxtaposition of “De Maistre and Möhler” may have been an allusion to the controversy that had gone on between William Ward and William Palmer regarding the question of doctrinal development and the “ten-dency to Romanism”36. Palmer’s 1843 Narrative of Events was a salvo from a former Tractarian ally, written largely in response to Ward’s incendiary articles in the British Critic37. Palmer also mentioned New-man’s sermon on development and decried what he viewed as the Romanizing tendencies of Ward and the younger members of Newman’s circle38. As a tactic, he made much fuss of “De Maistre and Möhler” in Ward’s footnotes, coupling the two figures, as two branches from a sin-gle foreign root39. However, neither in Ward’s articles in the British Critic, nor in his 1844-1845 Ideal of a Christian Church, nor in the pub-lished writings of anyone else in Newman’s cohort does one find this coupling of de Maistre and Möhler together40. It is unlikely that the view

35. J.H. Newman to Thomas Allies, 30 September 1842, LD 9: 118-121, p. 121. 36. Palmer had a hand in drafting Tract 15 (13 December 1833), On The Apostolical

Succession in The English Church, in Tracts for the Times, by Members of the University of Oxford. vol 1, 1833-1834, New Ed. London, F. & J. Rivington, 1839, pp. 1-11.

37. W. PALMER, A Narrative of Events Connected with the Publication of The Tracts for The Times with Reflections on Existing Tendencies toward Romanism, and on The Present Duties and Prospects of Members of the Church, Oxford, John Henry Palmer, 1843. W. WARD wrote at least eight articles for the British Critic between 1841 and 1843 that can be identified. They included Arnold’s Sermons, 30, Oct. (1841) 298-364; Whately’s Essays, and Heurtley’s Four Sermons, 31, Apr. (1842) pp. 255-302 and 428-451 respectively; Goode’s Rule of Faith and Practice, 32, July (1842) 34-106; St. Athanasius Against the Arians, 32, Oct. (1842) 389-427; Church Authority, 33, Jan. (1843) 202-233; The Syna-gogue and the Church, 34, July (1843) 1-63; and Mill’s Logic, 34, Oct. (1843) 349-427. Three of these articles (Arnold’s Sermons, Whately’s Essays, and Goode’s Divine Rule of Faith and Practice) included references to de Maistre or Möhler. One could add to this list F. OAKLEY, Bishop Jewel, 30, Oct. (1841) 1-46, which referenced Unity in the Church (p. 25). References to Möhler and de Maistre drop out of the British Critic by the time of Newman’s Fifteenth Oxford University Sermon on doctrinal development, preached 2 Feb-ruary 1843. For an illuminating treatment of Palmer’s role in this controversy, see W. ADAMS, William Palmer of Worcester, 1803-1885: The Only Really Learned Man among Them (unpubl. PhD diss. Princeton, 1973), pp. 198-249.

38. PALMER, A Narrative of Events (n. 37), p. 59 n. 4. 39. Ibid., pp. 45, 57, 58, 63. 40. W. WARD, The Ideal of a Christian Church, Considered in Comparison with Exist-

ing Practice, Containing A Defence of Certain Articles in The British Critic in Reply to Remarks on Them in Mr. Palmer’s Narrative, London, J. Toovey, 1844.



behind such language would have been lost on Newman. He had been the editor of the British Critic from January 1838 until July 1841 and continued to have a vested interest in the publication after Thomas Mozley took over as editor41. That Palmer, a former Tractarian, singled out the journal as a conduit for Romanist inroads into England would have given Newman cause for great concern.

The controversy between Ward and Palmer was indeed ongoing when Newman composed the Essay on Development and his reference to “De Maistre and Möhler” suggests that he was distancing himself from an argument framed by an antagonist. The closing lines of the 1845 Essay add support to this interpretation, and demonstrate the sensitivity that Newman had for the prejudices of his readers:

Put not from you what you have here found; regard it not as a mere matter of present controversy; set not out resolved to refute it, and looking about for the best way of doing so […] Wrap not yourself in the associations of years past; nor determine that to be the truth which you wish to be so, nor make an idol of cherished anticipations42.

It would have been a rhetorical coup for Palmer to cast the narrative of doctrinal development’s emergence in Newman’s circle as one of foreign incursion. Palmer did exploit this association in his 1846 book, The Doc-trine of Development and Conscience, which was a direct response to Newman’s 1845 Essay. The book even contained an appendix that com-pared Newman’s theory with the two continental figures’ writings43. Palmer stressed that “it is generally supposed that the theory advocated in Mr. Newman’s volume, is substantially the same with those of De Mais-tre and Möhler.” Palmer compared the three figures fairly and concluded that, despite common intents, the Essay on Development was original in most of its central features44. But curiously, Tristram and Chadwick do not cite Palmer in support of their argument. The evidence examined here suggests that despite this contemporary assessment, Möhler may well have been a source of inspiration.

Thus rather than interpreting Newman’s reference to Möhler at the beginning of the Essay on Development as a confession of ignorance, it seems more likely that the passage represents an act of rhetorical posi-tioning. This alternative explanation of the key passage in the 1845 Essay

41. Newman sent over 200 letters to Mozley during this time, a great portion of which dealt directly with the latter’s editorial decisions. This is a remarkable intensity of corre-spondence even by Newman’s standards. For background, see E.R. HOUGHTEN – J. ALTHOLZ, The British Critic 1824-1843, in Victorian Periodicals Review 24.3 (1991) 111-118, pp. 114-116.

42. NEWMAN, Essay on Development (n. 4), p. 453. 43. PALMER, The Doctrine of Development and Conscience (n. 13), pp. 323-340. 44. Ibid., pp. 323, 340.



on Development renders the earlier inferences of Tristram and Chadwick open to question. When one further accounts for Newman’s earlier refer-ence to Möhler in the 1843 letter to Mary Holmes, their negative conclu-sion can no longer be sustained.

In addition to challenging the previous thesis, Newman’s 1843 letter sheds positive light upon the inception and elaboration of Newman’s the-ory of development. In this regard, the letter’s timing is significant. New-man’s recommendation of Möhler’s work on 8 March 1843, suggests that he was mindful of Möhler during the period when he had recently written a compelling sermon on his theory of doctrinal development and was pre-paring to write a more extended exposition on the subject. Yet hints of his positive engagement with this theory were already emerging in 1840.

Newman stated in his Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864) that he had enter-tained the question during the thirteen years prior to writing the Essay on Development. The analyses of Walgrave and Lash support Newman’s claim, even though evidence before the autumn of 1840 is largely frag-mentary. Indeed their analysis seems colored by Newman’s evolving interpretation of events in succeeding editions of his Apologia45. While James Pereiro has shown that S.F. Wood positively entertained the ques-tion of development as early 1835 and presented the idea to Newman and Manning46, Newman rejected the central elements of S.F. Wood’s outline of development in 1835 and associated the notion with Romanism47.

Wood held that “the Church has the inherent power of expanding or modifying her organization, of bringing her ideas of the Truth into more distinct consciousness, or of developing the Truth itself more fully”48. For Newman in the mid 1830s, this went too far. Building upon Louis Allen’s work, James Pereiro concisely summarized Newman in this period. Pereiro has provided a helpful correction to the Apologia’s strongly teleological interpretation of the emergence of doctrinal develop-ment in Newman’s thought. Pereiro has shown that at the stage of New-man’s Arians of The Fourth Century, his emphasis was not on the increase

45. J.H. NEWMAN, Apologia Pro Vita Sua: Being a Reply to a Pamphlet Entitled, “What Then Does Dr. Newman Mean?, London, Longman – Green and Co., 1864, pp. 320-321. Newman’s reflections in the Apologia must be taken with caution, since Newman used the concept of development for understanding the course of his own life. Newman’s interpreta-tion of events also changed significantly between editions, especially with respect to the present inquiry. In the first edition of the Apologia Newman noted that “I had spoken of it [development] in the passage […] in Home Thoughts Abroad, published in 1836” (pp. 320-321). In the second edition he added to the same sentence: “[…] and even at an earlier date I had introduced it into my History of the Arians in 1832; nor had I ever lost sight of it in my speculations” (J.H. NEWMAN. Apologia Pro Vita Sua: Being a History of His Religious Opinions, New Edition, London, Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer, 1873, p. 197). This later addition stands in tension with his attitude toward S.F. Wood’s outline of the idea in 1835.

46. See footnote 10 above. 47. PEREIRO, Early Theory of Development (n. 10), pp. 36-41. 48. Ibid., Appendix 1, 541-544, p. 543.



of doctrine, but upon its explication as an alternative expression of some-thing that remained constant in history. Newman at that time viewed the explicatory articulation of Christian teaching in the face of heresy – from doxology to dogma – as a necessary evil. He maintained this position into the late 1830s and it was present in the 1837 Lectures on The Prophetical Office of The Church and in its second edition in 183849.

Although in the 1830s Newman had articulated several of the elements that would form the building blocks of his theory of doctrinal develop-ment, these elements had yet to find their place in a more cohesive frame-work. That Newman had been aware of some possibility of development as early as the mid 1830s is clear, and they do not appear to be directly linked to knowledge of Möhler’s works. Yet by the end of the 1830s cir-cumstantial evidence points towards the influence of Möhler as an aid to crossing the “chasm” that Chadwick identified.

III. NEWMAN’S FAMILIAL TENSIONS, MÖHLER’S UNITY, AND DEVELOPMENT

The first clear evidence of Newman’s “conversion” to development of Christian truth in history is the autumn of 1840, in a letter written to his brother Francis. In that letter Newman elaborated on the authority of the Church and the danger of entrusting oneself to private judgment in inter-preting the deposit of faith. This longstanding argument between the brothers had been a source of pain for Newman.

Francis’s journey of faith sharply diverged from his brother’s experi-ence. Unlike John, whose reverence for dogma, tradition, and ecclesial authority acted as an impetus for his Tractarian activities and eventual conversion to Roman Catholicism, Francis stressed the priority and even primacy of individual conscience. From the early 1830s Francis associ-ated himself with a nonconformist variant of evangelical Christianity, traveling to the Middle East as a missionary (1830-1833). He became a Baptist in 1836. By the early 1840s Francis had begun to question the legitimacy of a dogmatically expressed revelation; he abandoned such notions completely by the end of the decade50.

49. Ibid., p. 541, citing L. ALLEN, John Henry Newman and The Abbé Jager, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1975, p. 13. See NEWMAN, Lectures on The Prophetical Office of The Church (2nd ed.) (n. 11), pp. 61, 134-135.

50. See F. NEWMAN, Phases of Faith: Or Passages from The History of My Creed, London, J. Chapman, 1850, pp. 106-187, for the process of thought that led Francis to reject the legitimacy of revelation altogether. For a balanced account of the two brothers’ divergent intellectual trajectories at the time, see W. ROBBINS, The Newman Brothers: An Essay in Comparative Biography, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1966, pp. 99-116. F. PETIARD-LIANOS offers a more recent overview of John’s relationship with Fran-cis in Les «frères ennemis»? Le Cardinal John Henry Newman et son frère Francis Wil-liam Newman, in Cahiers victoriens et édouardiens 57 (2003) 135-152.



John perceived a great danger in the trajectory of his younger brother’s individualistic pursuit of truth. The 1840 letter represents his critique of such an approach and the exposition of a dogmatic and ecclesially grounded alternative. In his struggle with Francis, arguments for the necessity of an ecclesial framework and normative tradition for faith proved a challenge when faced with a clever younger brother who could point to historical shifts and alterations in Christian teaching over the cen-turies. In the 1840 letter, Newman turned to the idea of development to resolve this difficulty.

Newman began with the contention that the Church was self-identical from apostolic times until the better documented periods when doctrines were formally defined. One’s inability to historically trace fourth and fifth century doctrines to the apostolic period did not constitute proof of their nature as novel and contrived. Such development, according to Newman, did not alter the character of Christian teaching and was no more at odds with the apostolic deposit than doctrine in scripture appeared at odds with itself. Rather, the development of teaching evinced life. Here Newman located development within the community and within the “living system” of Christianity, as in two poles51. He claimed, on the one hand that “Its [The Church’s] doctrines and course of con-duct have developed from external and internal causes; where by devel-opment I mean more accurate statement and the varied application of ideas from action of the reason upon them according to new circum-stances”. He also claimed that “[a]ll systems which have life have a development, yet do not cease to have an identity though they develop. E.g., Locke or Luther have done far more than they themselves saw”. Newman concluded by rejecting the arbitrariness that such a view could potentially imply and grounded it in historical fact. Invoking “anteced-ent probability”, he claimed that there existed sufficient evidence to produce “portions and indices of the whole system afterwards confess-edly existing”52.

Although the outline that Newman sent to his brother was a few pages in length, it was remarkably comprehensive. Apart from the integration Newman’s conception of faith and reason, which he articulated in his tenth through fourteenth Oxford University Sermons (1839-1841), the 1840 letter to Francis contained all of the main features of his Fifteenth Oxford University Sermon on development, preached in February 1843. Aside from a further argument for papal primacy, the 1840 letter also contained, in nuce, all of the main conceptual features of Newman’s 1845 Essay on Development.

51. Newman did not explicitly use the term “Christian” or “living idea” in his 1840 letter to Francis, but the notion was clearly implied.

52. Newman’s succinct argument consisted of twelve points, all of which can be found in LD 7: 436-442, at pp. 440-441.



Similar to the 1843 letter to Mary Holmes, the timing of Newman’s letter to Francis was significant. The year before, in 1839, the French translation of Möhler’s Unity in The Church appeared in print. Unity in The Church (1825), had been written to address many of the issues New-man outlined in his letter to Francis. While the date of purchase is unclear, Unity in The Church was one of the two books in the Littlemore Library among the seven Möhler volumes with the inscription “J.H.N.” (Athana-sius was the other). The influence of this text may have been decisive in drawing the various elements of Newman’s theory into the framework found in his 1840 letter. In particular, locating doctrinal development among Christians, both as an authoritative Church and as participating in the “living idea” of Christianity – the subjective and objective develop-ment of the Christian idea – appears to be newly integrated into New-man’s thought, but resonates with elements of Möhler’s argument in Unity in The Church.

There was a passing instance of this notion in a review for the British Critic, which Newman wrote in 183753. But there is no evidence that Newman incorporated this idea into a general vision of the Church at that time. The notion also stands in tension with Newman’s rejection of devel-opment in his Lectures on The Prophetical Office of The Church, written that same year.

Yet the idea came to play an important role in the way Newman came to understand doctrinal development. Möhler’s Unity in The Church pro-vided a model for how to integrate it in expostulating a conceptually rich and compelling narrative of the Church in history. However, it is poten-tially misleading to stress the importance of individual “concepts” in Newman’s thought, or for that matter, to seek a “theory” of development as an object of inquiry separate from Newman’s historical studies. New-man’s rhetorical discourse was nearly always oriented toward and embed-ded within concrete facts of history or immediate purpose. In this regard, Walter Jost highlighted an important truth in his study of the rhetorical dimension of Newman’s thought:

53. Intriguingly, the idea arose in Newman’s discussion of another Roman Catholic apologist, Félicité de Lamennais (1782-1854). In summarizing the position of de Lamen-nais on the exigencies of the French Church in adapting to a disestablished, post-revolu-tionary order, Newman stated: “It is a matter of history, then, that the Latin Church rose to power, not by the favor of princes but of people. Of course, when the barbarian leaders poured down upon the Roman empire, she made alliance with them, and so far made use of them … But if we look at the elementary foundations of her power, and the great steps by which she built it up, we seem to discern the acts, not of a parasite but of a rival imperial greatness … The Church, indeed, would have been a specimen of a singular sort of constitution, such as the world has never seen, had it been developed upon its original idea” [J.H. NEWMAN], Affairs of Rome, in The British Critic, Quarterly Theo-logical Review, and Ecclesiastical Record, 21, Oct. (1837) 261-283, p. 269. Newman was reviewing Félicité de Lamennais’s book Affaires de Rome, Brussels, J.-P. Meline, 1837.



Newman […] cuts under the abstractness and inutility of pure theory, yet holds himself above the level of discontinuous fact and circumstance, by means of open-ended ideas that enable him to organize experience without dictating to it. These ideas, or topics, are relatively abstract “notions” and thus partake in that pure theory that Newman tried to avoid; but because they are forms seeking specific content they are really much closer to the realm of “fact” he embraced54.

The significance that Möhler’s work had for Newman’s theory of development did not consist so much in introducing Newman to new con-ceptual models, but of expanding, integrating, and reorganizing the prin-ciples already at hand, enabling Newman to re-narrate his vision of the Church in history. Newman had not read Möhler’s work in 1837; nor would he have been open to such a shift in his understanding at the height of his Tractarian activities. The 1839 translation of Unity in The Church was fortuitous. By 1840 the time was ripe.

The elements of Newman’s letter to Francis indeed bore striking resem-blances to the narrative framework that Möhler used in expostulating his vision of the Church. Yet silence about Möhler in the letter to Francis poses a problem. Before comparing in detail Möhler’s argument in Unity in the Church with Newman’s early view of doctrinal development, some justification for the argument from silence must be offered.

A brief acquaintance with Newman’s life in the 1820s and 1830s reveals a deeply troubled relationship with his two younger brothers, Charles and Francis. Neither followed their older brother’s lead in matters of faith, and both became sources of theological struggles within the Newman family, as John sought to combat his younger brothers’ influ-ence on their sisters and widowed mother55. Charles became eccentric and dependent; Francis became a noted polymath, and well published author in his own right. While the tensions between the brothers have long been known from his Letters and Diaries and other sources, the theological resources John used to inform himself in the fraternal conflicts have not been known, because he did not cite them in family correspondence.

A tool to uncover this evidence have been developed by Kenneth Parker, through his research on John Henry Newman’s use of the Oriel College Library from 1823-184556. What has become clear from a study

54. W. JOST, Rhetorical Thought in John Henry Newman, Columbia, SC, University of South Carolina Press, 1989, p. 20.

55. See F.M. TURNER, John Henry Newman: The Challenge to Evangelical Religion, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 2011, pp. 110-112, 122-123, 134-135, 228-230, 347-352; GILLEY, Newman and His Age (n. 4), pp. 61-62, 77-79, 147, 158, 422; I. KER, John Henry Newman: A Biography, New York, Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 123, 199. See also ROBBINS, The Newman Brothers (n. 50), pp. 14-54.

56. The Oriel College Archives has retained a library register used by college fellows from 1823 to 1850. In the register fellows recorded the date a book was removed, name of the borrower, the “shelfmark” of the book, and the date returned. Matching the



of Parker’s unpublished database is that there are many instances in which Newman read books to inform himself on particular theological issues before he wrote to family members, but does not provide references to the sources that he depended on for his arguments. Two instances of conflicts with his brothers will illustrate this point.

The years 1825 and 1826 were filled with new university, parish, and publishing obligations for Newman. He not only became the vice-princi-pal of St. Alban Hall (for a year), in addition to his curacy at St. Clem-ents, but also accepted writing projects for the Encyclopaedia Metropoli-tana. Among these articles, his research on miracles was most strikingly evident in the library register. During the summer of 1825, Newman stocked himself with more than twenty volumes that dealt with or touched on the miraculous in the Christian tradition.

Despite his increasingly frenetic summer of study and writing, New-man took time to deal with a family crisis. His younger brother Charles announced that he had rejected Christianity, and John’s mother and sis-ters were distraught. On 22 July 1825 a few days before he wrote a sharply worded letter to Charles57, John went to the Oriel Library and removed William van Mildert’s two-volume series of sermons, An His-torical View of The Rise and Progress of Infidelity58. Though no direct reference to this work was made, Newman seems to have mined them for ideas to deal with his brother’s apostasy. Newman’s letter to Charles showed striking similarities to van Mildert’s sermons, especially sermon XIII, where van Mildert argued that an individual was not in an objective position to judge whether the contents of a revelation were valid or not, since revelation was intended for communicating that which is above cre-ated reason. As such, there was no way of discerning whether or not one’s reasoning with regard to a revealed truth was captious59. Newman took up precisely this line of argument in his dealings with Charles. We now have a much clearer basis for analyzing the hitherto unknown source he used before addressing his brother’s religious doubts.

“shelfmark” with the book used has required extensive research and labor on site, because of several library reorganizations in the late nineteenth century and the Oriel Library’s “great fire” of 1949, in which over 300 books were destroyed and many more were dam-aged. Parker is grateful to the college librarians through the years and college officials for their assistance and permissions to access the records and the library collection. An anno-tated bibliography of Newman’s borrowings from the Oriel College Library is being developed, with a substantial introduction and scholarly apparatus, linking the books used to his letters and diaries, as well as his published works and unpublished manuscripts.

57. J.H. Newman to Charles Newman, 7 July 1825; J.H. Newman to Charles Newman, 26 [?] July 1825. LD 1: 240, pp. 246-248.

58. W. VAN MILDERT, An Historical View of The Rise and Progress of Infidelity, with A Refutation of Its Principles and Reasonings, in A Series of Sermons Preached before The Lecture Funded by The Hon. Robert Boyle, in The Parish Church of St. Mary Le Bow, London, from The Year 1802 to 1805, 2 vols., London, F. & J. Rivington, 1806.

59. Ibid., p. 2:7-11.



In 1827 it was Francis Newman who was unsettling the women of the family. He had distinguished himself in his Oxford exams in 1826 and received a fellowship at Balliol College the same year. By 1830, he resigned his fellowship because of his objections to the Church of England’s practice of infant baptism. But Francis had already begun expressing his theological objections to this practice within the family in 1827.

In 1874, Newman annotated a letter written to his mother on 13 Feb-ruary 1827, noting that he had used “Wall” during a “very busy time” to respond to the anxieties of his sisters and mother. Through the library register, it is possible to confirm that on Sunday, 11 February 1827, Newman removed from the Oriel College Library William Wall’s The History of Infant Baptism (1705)60. Two days after Newman removed the book, he sent a sixty-six quarto page manuscript on baptism to his mother61. It was intended for his sisters and prepared in order to refute Francis’s dissenting views62. The fact that he devoted a Sunday, Mon-day, and Tuesday during term time to address this familial challenge speaks to his sense of urgency and compulsion to address the religious challenge posed by Francis63. Yet what is significant for purposes here is the fact that John indicated his indebtedness to William Wall in a cover-sheet to the manuscript dated 1874, but nowhere in the 1827 document itself did Newman include the attribution.

As Newman’s personal library grew, the usefulness of monitoring his borrowings from the Oriel Library is reduced to moments of curiosity or bursts of inspiration. It must also be noted that the Oriel Library only possessed a French translation of Möhler’s Symbolism (published in 1836), which Newman did not borrow. However, the fact that he had copies of Möhler’s Unity and Athanasius available at Littlemore in the early 1840s, with his initials inscribed, resolves the mystery of access to the texts.

Yet more importantly, what can be gleaned from the Oriel College Library research is the fact that Newman used uncited works on which he based his theological arguments in family controversies. It is not unreasonable to speculate that this may have been the case with Möhler’s Unity in The Church in his letter to Francis in 1840.

60. W. WALL, The History of Infant-Baptism, in Two Parts, The First Being An Impar-tial Collection of All Such Passages in The Writers of The First Four Centuries As Do Make for or against It. The Second, Containing Several Things That Do Illustrate The Said History, London, R. Sympson and H. Bonwick, 1705.

61. BOA A.9.1.K; see LD, 2: 4-5, p. 5 n. 1.62. For a thematic overview of this MS, see T. SHERIDAN, Newman on Justification,

Staten Island, NY, Alba House, 1967, pp. 127-134. 63. LD, 2: 5-6.



IV. UNITY OF THE CHURCH AS A DECISIVE TEXT

Given the circumstantial case in favor of Möhler’s influence upon Newman, the possible features of that influence merit discussion. As mentioned earlier in this article, the most significant influence that Möhler might have had upon Newman would have been through his work Unity in The Church. Although Möhler’s 1832 magnum opus, Symbolism, was available in French and was the most discussed book during the time leading up to Newman’s drafting the sermon on doctrinal development, the similarities ran deeper with Unity in The Church. The more famous Symbolism situated doctrinal development within a Christological model of the Church as human and divine, with one dimension that changed by nature and one that did not64. Unity in The Church associated doctrinal development with the activity of the Holy Spirit65. In the latter work, Möhler understood the Spirit as the Church’s animating life and as love, which acted as a unitive force within the hearts of believers, expressing itself though Christianity as a living idea66. As such, doctrine was one and unchanging, in so far as it expressed the life of a single, self-identical subject: the Church. Yet doctrine also changed as any living thing devel-oped over the course of its life.

Möhler’s Unity in The Church appears to have been significant for resolving Newman’s lingering skepticism about a theory of development. The “living idea” of the Christian deposit of faith and its incorporation into a coherent narration of the past was an important element in New-man’s 1840 outline of development for his brother Francis. Later, the “living idea” acted as the conceptual axis around which he built his the-ory of development in 1843 and 1845. The notion would function as a prism through which Newman interpreted Christian life and history and to which he would apply his reflections regarding faith and reason, or implicit and explicit reason. Möhler provided a model for incorporating these elements into an integrated whole, since his work incorporated an understanding of the Christian deposit as a living idea and as life, which preceded explicit doctrine; he presented that understanding within a com-prehensive narrative of the Church in history. To Newman it was an alter-native narrative for catholicity and the ethos of antiquity, as the full title

64. J.A. MÖHLER, Symbolism: Exposition of The Doctrinal Differences between Catho-lics and Protestants as Evidenced by Their Symbolical Writings, trans. J. Robertson, introd. M. HIMES, New York, Crossroad, 1997, pp. 255-295.

65. See especially the last chapter of Möhler’s Unity in The Church, Or The Principle of Catholicism: Presented in The Spirit of The Church Fathers of The First Three Centu-ries, trans. P. Erb, Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 1996, pp. 77, 81-95. Quotations will be drawn from the French edition, De l’unité de l’Église, ou du Principe du catholicisme d’après l’esprit des Pères des trois premiers siècles de l’Église, trans. P. Bernard, Brussels, H. Remy, 1839.

66. Ibid., pp. 96-103.



of the work indicated, De l’unité de l’Église, ou du Principe du catholi-cisme d’après l’esprit des Pères des trois premiers siècles de l’Église.

Although Newman continued to tweak his vision of doctrinal develop-ment for decades, his understanding of the theory attained its essential contours in his Fifteenth Oxford University Sermon, preached on 8 Feb-ruary 1843, shortly before he recommended Möhler’s three works to Mary Holmes. There, as in the 1840 letter to Francis, striking parallels to Möhler’s Unity can be found.

The internal connections between Unity in The Church and Newman’s theory of development is corroborated by the French copy of the text inscribed with his initials in the Littlemore Library. There is also a second corroborating fact. In a letter dated, 27 December 1845, Nicholas Wise-man wrote to Newman concerning the potential controversy surrounding his recent Essay on Development, which reflected a conversation which was not otherwise recorded or summarized. In the letter, Wiseman responded to a request from Newman to translate the last chapter of Möhler’s Unity in The Church into English:

I fear I have delayed very long your former question. The last chapter of Möhler’s book on Unity is calculated to obscure the question on which it treats, rather than to illustrate it: and I do not think the language employed in it can’t [sic] satisfy Catholic divisions in general. If the work be pub-lished, there must certainly be notes to it, but do you think the character of the book is such as that it will seize English minds as easily as it might Germans67?

Wiseman’s reference to “Catholic divisions” likely had to do with the lively responses that Newman anticipated and indeed erupted in response to his Essay on Development, which had been published the previous month68. Newman probably requested permission from Wiseman to pub-lish a section from the renowned theologian’s opus in order to preempt accusations of heterodoxy from some in his new Roman Catholic com-munity. Newman at least believed this text to be similar to his own ideas, as would be the case if he had adopted aspects of its vision in expostulat-ing his own notion of development.

67. Wiseman to J.H. Newman, 27 December 1845. BOA, Personal Collection, Wise-man (Culler Microfilm).

68. Newman noted that he took the proofs of the Essay to Blanchards printer on 18 November; he received them back three days later on the twenty-first (LD 11: 35,39). For background on the initial reception of Newman’s Essay on Development among Roman Catholics, see C.M. SHEA, Newman’s Theory of The Development of Christian Doctrine and The First Vatican Council, in M. PAHLS – K. PARKER (eds.), Authority, Dogma, and History: Oxford Movement Converts and The Infallibility Debates of The Nineteenth Cen-tury, New York, Academica Press, 2009, 77-93; J. MORALES, La recepción teológica ini-cial del Ensayo sobre el desarollo de la doctrina cristiana de John Newman, in Scripta Theologica 32.2 (2000) 625-630; TURNER, John Henry Newman (n. 55), pp. 577-586.



In reading the final chapter of Möhler’s Unity in The Church, espe-cially in the French edition available to Newman, one encounters striking parallels to the Fifteenth Oxford University Sermon and the Essay on Development. The theme of development was more salient in this last chapter than in any other part of Möhler’s book; one encounters ideas and themes that run back and forth through Newman’s theory. The first lines could have functioned aptly to trace Newman’s evolving understanding of the nature of development during the early 1840s:

For a very long time I was in doubt to know if the [papal] primacy was of the essence of the catholic Church; I was even disposed to deny it; for the organic union of all parts [of the Church], in a whole, which absolutely require the idea of the Catholic Church, and which is that itself, appeared completely attained by the unity of the episcopate […] on the other hand, it is evident that the history of the first three centuries is not sufficiently rich in materials in order to be able to dispense with all of our doubts in this regard. However […] I have ended necessarily by adopting this idea69.

The chapter described development as a living, ongoing process that cannot be assumed to be complete70. This truth applied to how one was to interpret history:

[T]hose therefore who desire to have indisputable historical proofs in favor of the primacy before [the time when] the unity of the primacy shows itself in all of its vigor (the time of St. Cyprian) ought to know that they demand something unseemly, for it is not possible according to the laws of a true development71.

Explicit mention of the Christian faith as an idée vivante does not appear in this chapter, but it is clearly implied. Specious arguments against Roman Catholic claims, according to the text, were premised on the assumption that the Church consisted of an “idée morte” rather than a living subject72. The chapter even included notions reminiscent of New-

69. Unité de l’Église (n. 65), p. 221: “J’ai été très longtemps en doute pour savoir si la primatie est de l’essence de l’Église catholique; j’étais même disposé à le nier; car l’union organique de toutes les parties en un tout qu’exige absolument l’idée de l’Église catholique et qu’elle est elle-même, paraissait complètement atteinte par l’unité de l’épiscopat, telle que nous l’avons exposée jusqu’ici; d’un autre côté, il est évident que l’histoire des trois premiers siècles de l’Église n’est pas assez riche en matériaux pour pouvoir dissiper tous nous doutes à cet égard. Cependant […] j’ai fini nécessairement par adopter cette idée”.

70. Ibid., p. 221. 71. Ibid., p. 224: “[C]eux donc qui désirent d’avoir des preuves historiques irrécusa-

bles en faveur de la primatie avant cette époque que nous avons signalée plus haut comme celle où l’unité de l’Église se montre dans toute sa vigueur (le temps de saint Cyprien) doivent savoir qu’ils demandent une chose inconvenante, parce qu’elle n’est pas possible d’après les lois d’un véritable développement”.

72. Ibid., pp. 224, 226; see also pp. 39, 58, 60, 278.



man’s test of continuity of principles, chronic continuance, and preserva-tive additions, in as much as historical facts, or developments, arise from the Church’s ongoing, underlying needs73.

These aspects of Möhler’s argument are the elements of Newman’s theory that Chadwick identified as the other side of the “chasm” that Newman “clambered across” in the early 1840s. While Chadwick asserted that “he could not later determine with logical precision” how he achieved that feat, the evidence points to calculated reasons, personal and otherwise, why Newman might have chosen to remain silent about an important source of his inspiration.

V. CONCLUSION

The similarities between aspects of Newman’s theory of development and Möhler’s work in general – and Unity in the Church in particular – are striking. The evidence that has also emerged in recent years shows that the previous consensus regarding Möhler’s influence upon Newman can no longer be maintained. A revised understanding of Newman’s theory of development – and the impact of Möhler’s thought on it – must be under-taken. We have argued that the weight Tristram and Chadwick gave to Newman’s passing reference to Möhler in the 1845 Essay on Development cannot sustain the pressure of so much emerging evidence that indicates a direct engagement with Möhler’s Unity. Newman’s 1834 correspondence with John Bowden demonstrated his strong desire to have access to Möhler’s work – so strong that he contemplated learning German. The timing of the Newman’s 1840 letter to Francis Newman, shortly after Unity in The Church became available in French, together with Newman’s unprecedented integration of the notion of the Christian deposit as a “liv-ing idea” into an alternative narrative of the Church, adds plausibility to the view that Möhler had a role to play in the early formation of New-man’s vision. Newman’s silence about Möhler in the 1840 letter to Francis Newman does not constitute an argument against our case for a reap-praisal. Kenneth Parker’s Oriel College Library research shows that the non-citation of important sources had a precedent in Newman’s familial correspondence. Since referencing Möhler would have undermined John’s argument with his non-conformist sibling, it is reasonable to suppose that he intentionally omitted any reference to the German Catholic scholar.

Newman’s reference to Möhler in his March 1843 letter to Mary Hol-mes further adds plausibility to the hypothesis of his influence, since it

73. Ibid., p. 225: “Il faut que des besoins se soient fait sentir; ces besoins se montrent dans l’histoire comme des faits, et c’est de ces faits que l’idée se déduit d’abord; ou l’histoire ecclésiastique, comme je l’ai dit plusieurs fois, n’est autre chose qu’un déve-loppement de la vie chrétienne”.



suggests that Newman was mindful of Möhler at the time. Newman’s notion of the Christian deposit as a living idea had grown from a seminal concept in 1840 to a central one in his 1843 Fifteenth Oxford University Sermon on development, preached only five weeks prior.

Finally, the evidence is strong that Newman’s passing reference to “De Maistre and Möhler” in the 1845 Essay is not a confession of ignorance, but may reflect the significance of Palmer’s polemics, and suggests that Newman’s turn of phrase had a rhetorical purpose. As Bishop Nicholas Wiseman’s 27 December 1845 letter indicates, Newman’s request for an English translation of the final chapter of Unity in The Church, signals that he not only knew the work, but understood that it was of particular importance in supporting his own theory and defending himself against attacks from other Catholics.

The case for a reappraisal is circumstantial, yet sufficiently strong to warrant a new and broader investigation of the origins of Newman’s the-ory. The previous consensus is no longer tenable in light of recently uncovered evidence. Möhler’s significant influence upon early stages of Newman’s theory of development provides the best explanation of evi-dence currently available. We can no longer approach Newman’s theory of doctrinal development with the assumption that, as Owen Chadwick claimed, “Newman himself was aware of no external impulse”. Johann Adam Möhler must be considered in any future narrative.

Adorjan Hall 124 Kenneth PARKER

3800 Lindell Bd. C. Michael SHEA

Saint Louis, MO63108USA

ABSTRACT. — The question of Johann Adam Möhler’s influence upon John Henry Newman’s theory of doctrinal development provoked much speculation after the release of the latter’s 1845 Essay on the Development of Christian Doc-trine. Yet scholarship of the past seventy-five years has abandoned this idea, insisting upon Newman’s independence from the German theologian. The present article offers a revision of this thesis. The authors examine published and unpub-lished correspondences, translations of Möhler’s works in Newman’s library, pat-terns involved in Newman’s citation of sources, and correlations between the two men’s work that have remained unexamined. As a result of this evidence, a new picture emerges of the early evolution of Newman’s theory of development and Möhler’s place in it, beginning with 1840 correspondence shortly after the trans-lation of Möhler’s Unity in the Church into French, and culminating in the 1845 Essay on Development. The authors argue that Möhler’s influence was not merely possible but probable, and potentially definitive in the formation of Newman’s theory of Christian doctrine in relation to history.


Johann Adam Möhler's Influence on John Henry Newman's Theory of Doctrinal Development: The Case for...

Documents

Transcript of Johann Adam Möhler's Influence on John Henry Newman's Theory of Doctrinal Development: The Case for...