From the NINS "Newman Review": An Article comparing Newman's Anglican Sermons about Mary

Since on Friday, March 21, I'll be posting on another of Newman's Meditations and Devotions for our Son Rise Morning Show Lenten series, one particularly focused on the sympathy between Jesus and His Mother and how He "refused" that sympathy as He entered public ministry and His Passion, this article from the Newman Review is timely:

Robert M. Andrews is Senior Lecturer in Church History at the Catholic Institute of Sydney, Australia, a member institute of the University of Notre Dame Australia. He is the author of Apologia Pro Beata Maria Virgine: John Henry Newman’s Defence of the Virgin Mary in Catholic Doctrine and Piety (London & Washington, DC: Academica Press, 2017; revised, 2025), writes about "Hidden Development: Mary’s Evolution in John Henry Newman’s Anglican Sermons":

Andrews examines how the text of “The Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary: The Reverence Due to Her” changed as Newman's study of Marian doctrine developed, looking at the same passage in the 1835 text and in the 1840:

Whatever the edition, there is a reason why Newman’s Anglican sermons continue to be amongst the most enduring of his writings. For though they are Anglican sermons, they contain a theology that is not only insightful, but, with a handful of notable exceptions, mostly Catholic in terms of doctrine (indeed, Catholics probably comprise the largest group of readers of these sermons). Part of a broader pulpit ministry that arguably ranks as one of the most religiously affective of the nineteenth century, Newman’s Anglican Marian sermons—though few in number—are nonetheless striking. Take, for example, Newman’s remarkable statement regarding the holiness of Mary in the sermon under discussion. From the 1835 edition:

Who can estimate the holiness and perfection of her, who was chosen to be the Mother of Christ? If to him that hath, more is given, and holiness and divine favour go together, (and this we are expressly told,) what must have been the angelic purity of her, whom the Creator Spirit condescended to overshadow with His miraculous presence? What must have been her gifts, who was chosen to be the only near earthly relative of the Son of God, the only one whom He was bound by nature to revere and look up to; the one appointed to train and educate Him, to instruct Him day by day, as He grew in wisdom and in stature? This contemplation runs to a higher subject, did we dare follow it; for what, think you, was the sanctity and grace of that human nature, of which God formed His sinless Son; knowing, as we do, “that what is born of the flesh, is flesh;” and that “none can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?”12

Then Andrews provides the same paragraph in the 1840 version:

Who can estimate the holiness and perfection of her, who was chosen to be the Mother of Christ? If to him that hath, more is given, and holiness and divine favour go together, (and this we are expressly told,) what must have been the transcendent purity of her, whom the Creator Spirit condescended to overshadow with His miraculous presence? What must have been her gifts, who was chosen to be the only near earthly relative of the Son of God, the only one whom He was bound by nature to revere and look up to; the one appointed to train and educate Him, to instruct Him day by day, as He grew in wisdom and in stature? This contemplation runs to a higher subject, did we dare follow it; for what, think you, was the sanctified state of that human nature, of which God formed his sinless Son; knowing, as we do, “that what is born of the flesh, is flesh;” and that “none can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?”13

Not only are both editions expressive of a high view of Mary’s holiness, the differences, though subtle, seem to signify development on Newman’s part in an increasingly Catholic direction—which we know was happening to Newman and the Oxford Movement during the period from around 1835 onward.14 They are as follows: (1) Newman changed “the angelic purity” of Mary (1835) to “the transcendent purity” (1840), and (2) he changed “the sanctity and grace of that human nature” (1835) to “the sanctified state of that human nature” (1840).

Please read the rest there.

To me this is interesting because the passage that I'll cite on Friday concerns how the Marriage Feast of Cana was the crucial event of the beginning of Jesus's public ministry on the way to His Passion, according to the Gospel of Saint John, and its effect on Mary after their separation--and if one compares Newman's Anglican commentary on this event in "The Lord's Last Supper and His First" from the Sermons on Subjects of the Day to his Catholic meditation one sees even greater development. Newman is freer in his contemplation of the mysteries of Mary's relationship to her Son, the Incarnate Son of God. Before, there was "an increasingly Catholic direction" in Newman's thought; then Newman may more sympathetically explore Mary's sorrows and her sacrifice in relationship to Our Lord's Life and Passion, the proper hierarchy of course.

More on our next Lenten meditation on Friday and next Monday, March 24, the day before the great Solemnity of the Annunciation.

And here's a link to Andrew's book, Apologia Pro Beata Maria Virgine: John Henry Newman’s Defence of the Virgin Mary in Catholic Doctrine and Piety.

Image Source (Public Domain): Leonardo's Annunciation, thought to be his earliest completed work (c. 1472–1475)!