posit; sometimes as ascribing to the Mother the inalienable prerogative of her Son.' Waiving the last point, which is founded on a misconception of what is meant, let us see how the case really stands.2 The doctrine of original sin was first distinctly laid down by St. Augustine in controversy with the Pelagians in the fourth century, whence it is obvious that Mary's exemption from the general doom could not be explicitly taught earlier than that.3 But we may go further. St. Basil, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and Origen do not scruple to affirm that she sinned by want of faith at the Crucifixion; St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition; Tertullian of unbelief. To our ears such language sounds shocking, and it would be shocking to use it now, but we must remember that it did not appear so at the time. On the other hand, Tertullian and St. Irenæus contrast Mary's faith with Eve's incredulity, St. Justin and Irenæus her obedience with Eve's disobedience, and St. Ambrose commends her courage at the Cross. Epiphanius says

1 Even so calm and thoughtful a writer as the Bishop of London goes out of his way, in his Preface to a work on The Final Court of Appeal, to speak of the idolatrous doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.' Yet, supposing (for argument's sake) the invocation of the Blessed Virgin is idolatrous, that practice is quite independent of the belief in her Immaculate Conception, and existed for centuries before any question on the latter subject was stirred in the Church. Neither does the belief necessarily imply the practice. Adam and Eve were certainly created 'immaculate,' yet we do not invoke them in the ritual, while we do invoke Abel and Abraham, who were not.

2 The patristic references in this and the following section are taken from Petavius De Incarn. and De Trin.

3 Yet the current sneers at the doctrine as "astounding," "impossible," "imcomprehensible," and the like, come mainly from those who deny or ignore original sin altogether. On a different class of objections, based on a misappre hension of the true meaning of the doctrine, see Note at end of Introduction.

that she is figuratively called, what Eve was by nature, the mother of the living; and St. Augustine that, out of reverence, he will make no mention of her when speaking of sin, but he is referring to actual, not original sin.1 Then came the Nestorian controversy, and the Council of Ephesus. And here it is worth while to remark, that much the same kind of arguments which are urged now against what its opponents are fond of stigmatising as the 'new dogma' were urged by Nestorians and their allies then against the new definition of OEOTOKOS. It was novel, it did not occur in Scripture or the writings of the Fathers,2 it savoured of Eutychian heresy, and had therefore been denounced from the pulpit of his metropolitan cathedral by the second Patriarch in Christendom. It was certainly needless, and it might be dangerous. Every one knew that Christ was God, and that Mary was His Mother; but the adoption of this new-fangled formula might be taken to imply that she was the mother of His Divinity, which was blasphemous, or that the two natures were fused into one, which was heretical. The term XplσTOTOKOS, which Nestorius was willing to accept, expressed all that was required, and was free from these grave objections. So men argued then; but experience has abundantly proved the necessity of the definition of Ephesus for guarding the honour of our Lord's Divinity. And so the later definition

On the contrast drawn by the Fathers between the first and second Eve, cf. Newman's Letter on Eirenicon, pp. 36, sqq.

2 This was urged, but was not strictly true.-See Petav. De Inc., v. 15. Alexander, Patriarch of Alexandria, uses the term in a letter to his namesake of Constantinople.-Theodoret, E. H., I. 3.

which our own days have witnessed is designed to exhibit on the one hand the reality of original sin, and on the other the spotless sanctity of that human flesh, hypostatically united to the Godhead, which He took from His Mother's womb. It has been objected1 that the doctrine has "no necessary bearing on her office in the economy of the Incarnation;" but it is, at least, premature to say that it has not, and the fact of its definition, after the mind of the Church has been exercised on the question for some eight centuries, is a strong prima facie ground for supposing that it has. And anyhow, natural reason and natural reverence would combine to tell us that such a belief was most congruous to the dignity of the Incarnation; but it shows the caution with which the public ratification of developments is suffered to proceed, that so many centuries should have intervened between its first suggestion and its formal definition.2 "The number of those (so-called) new doctrines will not oppress us, if it takes eight centuries to promulgate even one of them."3 The disputes between Franciscans and Do

minicans on the motive of the Incarnation had no doubt much to do with the ventilation of the question; for it is obvious how much more readily the Scotist theory adapts itself to the Immaculate Conception than

1 Liddon's Bampton Lectures, 2nd edit., p. 433.

2 It must be remembered that the belief in the Immaculate Nativity of the Blessed Virgin has prevailed universally for centuries, and was expressly acknowledged by St. Bonaventure, and St. Bernard, though spoken of doubtfully by St. Anselm. A similar belief obtains, though not of faith, as to St. John Baptist, and is indicated by the Feast of his Nativity being observed in the Church. Cf. Luke i. 15.

3 Newman's Apologia pro Vita Sua, p. 395. Longman, 1864.

the Thomist, though I am of course far from denying that the latter, which is still widely held in the Church, can be reconciled with it. St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure, and St. Thomas, in questioning the new development, simply represented the conservative element which exists and always must exist in the Church. It is natural and right that every fresh phase of opinion, as it appears, should be challenged and put on the defensive. "Quis novus hic nostris successit sedibus hospes?" is the inquiry it must expect to be greeted with. And it is bound to justify itself at the bar of ecclesiastical public opinion and theological science, before it can make any claim to direct authoritative sanction. There is, perhaps, no subject on which the growth of doctrine has been so gradual as in all that concerns the dignity of the Blessed Virgin in the Gospel dispensation. And this accords with such passages of the Old Testament as are often considered to have a secondary reference to her. We read, on the one hand, "And so I was established in Sion, and in the holy city also I rested, and my power was in Jerusalem. And I took root in an honourable people, and my abiding place was in the fulness of the Saints." And again, on the other hand, "I was exalted as the cedar on Lebanon, and as the cypress tree on Mount Sion; I was exalted as a palm tree in Cades, and as a rose plant in Jericho. and I stretched forth my branches as the terebinth, and my branches are of honour and of grace." And, lastly, in the Apocalyptic vision, our Lady is revealed to the gaze of the beloved disciple, "clothed with the sun, and the moon

under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars."1 Yet it still remains true, that Gabriel's salutation is the measure and the record of her greatness. The importance of the question lies of course in its connection with the doctrine of the Incarnation, whereof she has been the guardian in the history and worship of the Church. It has no proper bearing on particular views, moral or theological (such as those so strongly reprobated in Dr. Newman's Letter on the Eirenicon), about her office or prerogatives in the Church. The glories of the Mother are a reflection from the divinity of her Son, and every crown that is wreathed for Mary's brow is laid at Jesus' feet.

(4.) But we must not imagine, that the principle of development applies only to the less fundamental doctrines of Christianity. It is most conspicuously illustrated in the case of those two supreme verities on which all the rest depend—the Trinity and the Incarnation. We are reminded of this, as regards the former doctrine, by two of the greatest names respectively in Anglican and in Catholic theology-Petavius the Jesuit, and Bishop Bull. The Defensio Fidei Nicæna has won for its author a deservedly high reputation, and is quoted respectfully by eminent Catholic divines. Bnt in his controversy with Petavius, though he may have the better of the argument in some detailed instances, he has certainly failed to make out his case as a whole. All impartial judges, on either side, are now agreed that Petavius is right

1 Ecclus. xxiv. 15, 16, 17, 18, 22. Apoc. xii. 1.