It will, of course, be said that this doctrine is but the relatively late and newly formulated doctrine of the Latin Church and is of no obligation elsewhere; that we are in no wise bound to receive it.  In regard to which there are one or two things to be said.  That we are not formally bound to believe a doctrine is not at all the same thing as to say that we are formally bound not to believe it.  I am afraid that the latter is a not uncommon attitude.  There is no obligation upon us to disbelieve the Immaculate Conception of blessed Mary; there is an obligation upon us to understand it and to appreciate its meaning and value.  We must remember that a doctrine that is not embodied in our Creed may nevertheless have the authority of the Church back of it.  The doctrine of the Real Presence is not stated in the Creed; yet it is and always has been the teaching of the Church everywhere in all its liturgies.  Though any particular statement of the Real Presence is not binding, the fact itself is binding on all Christians, and may not be doubted.

In much the same way it will be found that theological doctrines of relatively late creedal formulation yet have behind the formulation a long history of actual acceptance in the teaching of the Church.  They are theologically certain long before they are embodied in authoritative formulae.  What the individual Christian has to do is to try to assimilate the meaning of theological teaching and to find a place for it in his devotional practice and experience.  His best attitude is not one of doubt and scepticism, but of meditation and experiment.  It is through this latter attitude that each one is helping to form the mind of the Church, and aiding its progressive appreciation of revealed truth.

I do not see how any one who has entered into the meaning of the Incarnation can feel otherwise than that the uniqueness of the event carries with it the uniqueness of the instrument.  It can of course be said that truth is not a matter of feeling but of revelation.  But is it not true that God reveals Himself in many ways, and that our feelings as well as our intellects are involved in our perception of the truth revealed?  Do we not often feel that something must be true far in advance of our ability to prove it so?  And in truths of a certain order is there not an intuitive perception, a perception growing out of a sense of fitness, of congruity, which outruns the slow advance of the intellect?  Love and sympathy often far outrun intellectual process.  This is not to say that feeling is all; that a sense of fitness and conformity is a sufficient basis of doctrine.  There is always need of the verification of the conclusions of the affections by the intellect; and the intellect in the last resort will have to be the determining factor.

And I think it can be said without hesitation that the intellectual work of theological students has quite justified the course that the affections of Christendom have taken in their spontaneous appreciation of Mary, the Ever-Virgin Mother of Our Lord.  What the heart of Christendom has discovered, the mind of Christendom has justified.  But here more than in any other doctrinal development it is love that has led the way, often with an eagerness, an elan, with which theology has found it difficult to keep up.