from the Fathers. He lays great stress on Justin
Martyr, Tertullian, and Irenaeus, as three independent
witnesses from different parts of the world; whereas
it is obvious that Tertullian at any rate copies almost
literally from Justin Martyr, and it is impossible
to compare a mere incidental point of rhetorical, or,
if it be so, argumentative illustration, occurring
once or twice in a long treatise, with a doctrine,
such as that of the Incarnation itself, on which the
whole treatise is built, and of which it is full.
The wonder is, indeed, that the Fathers, considering
how much they wrote, said so little of her; scarcely
less is it a wonder, then, that the New Testament
says so little, but from this little the only reason
which would prevent a Protestant reader of the New
Testament from accepting the highest statement of
her historical dignity is the reaction from the development
of them into the consequences which have been notorious
for centuries in the unreformed Churches. Protestants,
left to themselves, are certainly not prone to undervalue
the saints of Scripture; it has been the presence
of the great system of popular worship confronting
them which has tied their tongues in this matter.
Yet Anglican theologians like Mr. Keble, popular poets
like Wordsworth, broad Churchmen like Mr. Robertson,
have said things which even Roman Catholics might
quote as expressions of their feeling. But Dr.
Newman must know that many things may be put, and
put most truly, into the form of poetical expression
which will not bear hardening into a dogma. A
Protestant may accept and even amplify the ideas suggested
by Scripture about the Blessed Virgin; but he may
feel that he cannot tell how the Redeemer was preserved
from sinful taint; what was the grace bestowed on
His mother; or what was the reward and prerogative
which ensued to her. But it is just these questions
which the Roman doctrine undertakes to answer without
a shadow of doubt, and which Dr. Newman implies that
the theology of the Fathers answered as unambiguously.
But from what has happened in the history of religion,
we do not think that Protestants in general who do
not shrink from high language about Abraham, Moses,
or David, would find anything unnatural or objectionable
in the language of the early Christian writers about
the Mother of our Lord, though possibly it might not
be their own; but the interval from this language
to that certain knowledge of her present office in
the economy of grace which is implied in what Dr. Newman
considers the “doctrine” about her is a
very long one. The step to the modern “devotion”
in its most chastened form is longer still. We
cannot follow the subtle train of argument which says
that because the “doctrine” of the second
century called her the “second Eve,” therefore
the devotion which sets her upon the altars of Christendom
in the nineteenth is a right development of the doctrine.
What is wanted is not the internal thread of the process,