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 _élan_, with which theology has