MARY

MARY, the mother of Jesus Christ. Closely as this memorable female was connected with Him with whose person, character, and work the Scriptures are chiefly occupied, it is remarkable how slender is the information which they communicate to us respecting her; indeed it is only as her history serves to illustrate that of her son, that her name seems to be mentioned at all. From the genealogy furnished by St Luke, in the third chapter of his gospel, of our Lord's descent from Adam, we learn that her father's name was Heli, a descendant of David through his son Nathan. In that passage, indeed, it is her husband Joseph who was said to be the son of Heli; but that he was so only from his connection with her, and that it is her descent and not his that is given by St Luke, seems plain, for the following reasons: 1st, In the genealogy of Christ's descent furnished by St Matthew, we are informed that the father of Joseph was Jacob, and not Heli; 2d, The entire discrepancy of the genealogy as given by St Matthew from that given by St Luke suggests the conclusion, that, as both relate to Christ's descent, the one gives his descent by his reputed father's side, and the other by his mother's side; and, 3d, As the great object of furnishing these genealogies is to show that Christ was lineally descended from David, and as it was only through his mother that he was connected naturally with any of the human race, it is absolutely necessary that we should regard the genealogy of St Luke as that of his maternal descent, else we shall be left with two genealogies, neither of which serves the purpose for which one of them at least must have been intended. We conclude, therefore, that whilst the genealogy of St Matthew was designed to meet the prejudices of the Jews, for whom chiefly he wrote, by showing that even Joseph, whom they supposed to be the father of Jesus, was of royal descent, that of St Luke presents to us the real descent of Christ from his royal type and ancestor through his mother, and is accordingly to be regarded as giving us her descent as well as his.⁴ This is confirmed by the passages adduced by Lightfoot (Hor. Talm. in loc.) from the Jewish writings, where Mary is expressly spoken of as the daughter of Heli.⁵

At the time the gospel history opens, Mary was the betrothed bride of Joseph, who, though like herself of royal descent, followed the humble occupation of a craftsman or artificer (tekton), probably, as our translators suppose, in wood. Among the Jews it was no uncommon thing for females to be thus betrothed for a very long time before they were married; and whenever this was the case, the parties were regarded as bound to each other by as solemn ties as if they had been really married.¹ Hence Joseph is called the husband of Mary, and she his wife, though as yet their contract of marriage had not been fulfilled (Matt. L. 19, 20). The wild opinion that these two terms are to be understood in their ordinary meaning, and that Joseph, when a very old man, had espoused Mary merely to protect her in the observance of a vow of perpetual virginity, rests only on the testimony of the apocryphal Proterangelium Jacobi, and is so plainly contradicted by the entire tenor of the sacred narrative, as to be unworthy of serious notice. Whilst thus in her virgin state, and as yet probably very young (for females were betrothed at a very early age amongst the Jews), Mary became the mother of our Lord. The circumstances attending this event are related with much simplicity and minuteness by the evangelist Luke. From his account we learn that an angel appeared to Mary at Nazareth, and saluted her as "highly favoured of Jehovah, blessed among women;" and when, startled by the suddenness of the apparition, and perplexed with the strangeness of his salutation, she began to be afraid, he calmed her anxiety by explicitly announcing to her the honour which was intended for her, in that she should be the mother of the promised seed, to whom should be given "the throne of his father David." Amazed at such an announcement, she asked, in all the simplicity of conscious innocence, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man;" upon which the angel informed her that she was to become a mother by the miraculous power of God, and that therefore her child should be called the "Son of God." For the confirmation of this message, he further informed her that her cousin Elizabeth, then far advanced in life, had conceived a son, and that the event was nigh at hand, which should cause her reproach to cease amongst women; and having thus assured her that in her the long-cherished hopes of every mother and every maiden in Israel were to be realized, he left her meekly acquiescing in the will of God.

Her first impulse after this occurrence was to visit her cousin Elizabeth, of whose state the angel had informed her. The meeting of these pious and honoured females was one of mutual joy and congratulation; nor did they fail to mingle with their rejoicings grateful thanksgivings to the author of their privileges and blessings. After spending three months with her cousin, Mary returned to her former residence. Here a severe trial awaited her; for Joseph, perceiving her pregnancy, and of course ignorant

of its true cause, regarded her as having broken her vows of betrothal to him. Unwilling, however, to expose her to the ignominy and danger² of a public disclosure of her crime, he had formed the resolution of putting her away privately, when information was communicated to him in a dream of the real nature of the case, and the command of God laid upon him to relinquish his intention of putting her away, and to take her to his home as his wife. This he accordingly did, and thus came to be regarded by his neighbours as the father of Jesus.

In ancient prophecy³ it had been predicted that the Messiah should be born at Bethlehem, and the fulfilment of this prediction was brought about by an occurrence of a nature apparently purely accidental, and wholly independent of the purposes of his parents. This was the issuing of an edict by the Roman emperor, commanding a census to be taken of all the inhabitants of his dominions, and ordaining that the name of each should be enrolled in the chief city of the tribe or family to which he belonged. As Joseph and Mary were both of the lineage of David, this necessitated their going to Bethlehem, the city of David; and it was whilst they were there that the prophecy was fulfilled. Much disorder has been introduced into the gospel chronology from the confounding of the edict mentioned by St. Luke with a subsequent decree imposing a tax upon the inhabitants of Judæa, and which led to serious strife and bloodshed whilst Quirinus was proconsul of Syria. The two, however, were perfectly distinct. The edict which brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, though in our version it is said to have decreed "that all the world should be taxed," seems to have had reference merely to the taking of a census of the people, and of the amount of their property. The word used by Luke is ἀπογραφή, which is the classical word for a census or enrolment, whereas the proper word for taxation is ἀποδοσις. That such edicts were frequently issued is well known to every classical reader; and though there is no express mention in any of the profane historians of any such being sent forth at the time referred to by St. Luke, yet as it is not to be supposed that they have recorded all the events of this nature which occurred, their silence can hardly be regarded as a sufficient reason for rejecting the testimony of the evangelist.⁴ To this confounding of these two distinct edicts, many have been led by the language of St. Luke himself in the second verse, where it is stated (according to our version) that "this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria." Here the evangelist seems at first sight to have fallen into the mistake alluded to, and of this an eager use has been made by some of the enemies of Christianity to discredit his claims as an inspired historian. His words, however, when translated so as to give them a meaning (which can hardly be said to be the case in our version), seem rather designed to guard against such a mistake, than to indicate the

Mary. author's having fallen into it. According to a usage not uncommon in the New Testament, πρὸς seems to be used for πρὸς; and in this case the proper rendering would be, "this census took place before Cyrenius (or Quirinus) was governor of Syria;" a statement which seems thrown in parenthetically by the historian, for the purpose of informing his readers that the event to which he refers was not the famous and well-known taxing under Quirinus (commonly called, as he himself records in Acts v. 37, "the taxing," by way of eminence), but was antecedent to it.²

Owing to the multitudes of people whom this edict had brought together to Bethlehem, Joseph and his wife, on their arrival, found themselves unable to procure any better accommodation than what was afforded them by the stable of a public lodging-house. Here Mary was delivered of her first-born son, whom she herself swathed and laid in the manger. Amongst the busy crowd then assembled at Bethlehem this event excited no attention; but it was too important to be allowed to pass unregarded by Heaven, and accordingly an angel was commissioned to announce it to some pious shepherds that same night, as they were watching their flocks in the adjoining fields. Gladdened with the joyful news that the long-expected Messiah had at length appeared, these pious men lost no time in going to Bethlehem, that they might see the thing which had come to pass, and might offer their adoration to their infant Saviour. The intelligence they brought was received by Mary and Joseph with astonishment, and by the former carefully stored up in her remembrance. (Luke ii. 8-19.)

On the termination of the time appointed by the Mosaic law for the continuance of a woman's uncleanness after child-birth,³ Mary went up to Jerusalem to present her son to the Lord, and to offer the sacrifice appointed in such cases.⁴ These rites observed, she returned with her husband to their usual residence at Nazareth (Luke ii. 39). From this place they were in the habit of going up to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover (ver. 41); and it seems to have been on the occasion of one of these visits that the Magi from the East came with their offerings and adoration to Christ. The occurrence of this event is commonly regarded as having taken place immediately after the visit of the shepherds; but a comparison of the facts stated by St Matthew with those stated by St Luke forbids the entertaining of such a supposition. From the former we learn, that immediately on the visit of the Magi, Joseph and his wife fled into Egypt, where they abode till the death of Herod. But the latter informs us, that six weeks after the birth of Christ, he was taken up to the temple, and from thence carried down to Nazareth. From this it is plain that the visit of the Magi, and the consequent flight into Egypt, could not have taken place before the dedication in the temple, and must therefore be referred to a subsequent period.⁵ It was on the occasion of another of these visits that the scene between Christ and the Jewish rabbis took place, when, after an absence from his parents of three days, he was found by his anxious mother sitting with the doctors in the temple, both hearing them and asking them questions (Luke ii. 42-52).

Some time before our Lord's entrance upon his public ministry, Mary seems to have lost her husband. This is rendered probable, not only from the circumstance that no

mention is made after this period of Joseph in the gospel history, but also from the freedom with which Mary appears to have moved from place to place; a freedom hardly consistent with her duties as a wife whose husband was still alive. As confirmatory of this it may be mentioned, that it was admitted as an acknowledged fact in the early ages of the church, that she supported herself by weaving; and hence Celsus calls her Χερνίς, and Tertullian Quæstuaria. Her residence seems to have been principally at Capernaum, on which account probably this place was called Christ's "own city" (Mat. ix. 1), as her house would be the place to which he would naturally retire during the intervals of his public labours. She is mentioned as having been present at the marriage at Cana in Galilee, where he commenced his miraculous works by turning water into wine (John ii. 1). Shortly after this, whilst he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum, she endeavoured to induce him to desist, fearing probably lest he should offend the people by his pointed rebukes; but he resisted her entreaties, declaring that no earthly connections could be so dear to him as those spiritual unions which he sought to form by the truths he was teaching. On the occasion of his going up to Jerusalem for the last time before his death, she was one of those who accompanied him; she followed him to Calvary, beheld him elevated on the cross, and retired not until she saw him expire. As she stood gazing on him, along with some of his followers, he commended her to the care of his beloved disciple John, who from that time took her to reside in his own house. We learn from Acts i. 14, that she was amongst the disciples at Jerusalem when they were waiting for the gift of the Holy Spirit. An uncertain tradition informs us that she removed with John to Ephesus when he went to reside there, and died and was buried in that place. Other accounts state that she died and was buried at Jerusalem, which is perhaps the more probable statement of the two. By the Roman Catholic church the Virgin Mary has been deemed worthy of divine honours, and has even been made to occupy a more prominent place in the devotions of the people than the Saviour himself.⁶ Such reverence for the Virgin was unknown in the early ages of the church, but the way was gradually paved for it by the importance which was attached to discussions respecting her in the writings of the Fathers, and by the extravagant terms of eulogy in which they spoke and wrote regarding her. From styling her θεοτοκος, θεομήτη, δεσπονα ἀγία καὶ ἀσπερβενος, as even Chrysostom writes of her; from speaking of her as "the sacred treasure of the universe, the quenchless lamp, the crown of virginity, the sceptre of orthodoxy, the temple indestructible, the tenement of the infinite, both a virgin and a mother," as Cyril of Alexandria describes her;⁷ the transition was not difficult to the offering of divine homage to the object of such unwarranted eulogium. Mr Newman, in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, p. 50, alludes the growth of "the doctrine of the θεοτοκος, or Mother of God, into hyperdulia," as one of the instances of what he calls "moral developments;" that is, developments that "are not proper matter for controversy, but are natural and personal, substituting what is congruous, desirable, pious, decorous, generous, for strictly logical inference." Of the utter absence of all logical strictness from

the process of this "development" there can be little doubt; but whether the result merits the laudatory epithets Mr Newman has heaped together must be questioned. To most people the process will appear rather as affording a striking illustration of the tendency of all religious error to become more and more gross, and to carry those who embrace it still farther and farther into delusion. The first step was to declare the perpetual virginity of Mary, which was done about the middle of the fourth century. Then came conjectures about her miraculous transit from earth to heaven, which gradually led to a belief in her assumption. Next, Radbert in the ninth century propounded the belief that Mary bore her son "Omnino clauso utere . . . sine dolore, et sine gemitu," a dogma which, however, was opposed at the time by Ratramn. About the same time festivals were appointed in celebration of her birth and of her ascension. In the tenth century men began to pray to her and to worship her; Saturday was dedicated to her, and an office of the "Holy Mary" appointed to be used. In 1140 the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary began to be taught, though not without strenuous opposition on the part of many, among whom St Bernard was the most conspicuous. This dogma became soon afterwards a bone of contention between the Dominicans and the Franciscans,—the former of whom, following Thomas Aquinas, opposed it; while the latter, following Duns Scotus, defended it. Two new festivals were instituted in honour of Mary,—the festival of the "Presentation," appointed by Pope Gregory IX. in 1372; and the festival of the "Visitation," appointed by Pope Urban VI. in 1389. In 1387 a great advantage was gained by the advocates of the immaculate conception, in consequence of a decision of the university of Paris, that all who graduated in it should assent to a condemnation pronounced by the university on all who should decidedly reject this doctrine,—a decision which speedily assumed the character of a positive declaration in favour of it. In 1439 a council held at Basle decreed that the doctrine of Mary's conception without sin, and her immunity from actual sin, was to be embraced by all Catholics,—"Tantum piam et consonam cultui ecclesiastico, fidei catholicae, rectae rationi et sacrae Scripturae." Other universities followed the example of that of Paris; the mendicant orders became zealous preachers of the doctrine; miraculous legends concerning her, such as that of the conveyance of her house from Nazareth to Loreto, where it was set up as a shrine dedicated to her, were plentifully circulated; and a great impulse was everywhere given to the worship of the Virgin, as the being "by whose dispensation alone any creature could obtain any grace or virtue from God." Art lent its aid to the strengthening of this cause, and pictures of the Blessed Virgin, from the highest style which painting has reached, down to the coarsest daubs, kept continually before the minds of the people the leading facts of her history as taught by the church, and the pretensions which the church had set up in her behalf. By these means her worship was successfully established; her name was invested with every attribute of glory and majesty; she was hailed as the Mother of Mercy, the Queen of Heaven, the Fulgid Gate of Heaven, and such like epithets; prayers were offered to her for the highest blessings; and she gradually ascended in the view of all good Catholics, until her glories obscured those of her Son, and the place due only to Him came to be assigned to her. Her image is now in every Roman Ca-

tholic church, and in every house where a Roman Catholic dwells. At corners of streets, and where roads cross, chapels are erected to her honour, adorned with flowers, and illuminated with tapers, and round which, at the hours of vespers, multitudes may be seen kneeling in prayer. Her image is worn as an amulet on the breast, or woven into chaplets for the head; and even on the uniform of the pope's scudieri the Madonna and Child figure as the appropriate badge of their office.¹ The present pope has put the colophon on this extended volume of blasphemy and folly, by authoritatively declaring (in 1855) the immaculate conception of the Virgin to be a doctrine of the Catholic church. It is to be regretted that, even by Protestant writers, a degree of importance has been attached to inquiries respecting her, which nothing in Scripture would seem to authorize. How many, for instance, have contended for her perpetual virginity, as if it were a matter on which the whole of our religion depended. Such matters, however, "do not affect," as the great Basil truly remarks, "the doctrine of godliness; for though until the birth of Christ her virginity was necessary, what happened afterwards is a matter not worthy of anxious inquiry."² A more interesting question is that respecting the fact of her having had any children by Joseph after the birth of Christ, because upon the answer given to this depends the meaning which we are to attach to those passages that speak of our Lord's "brethren and sisters." On this different opinions have been entertained:—1. That these appellations are to be taken according to Hebrew usage, as merely signifying near relations; 2. That they designate the children of Joseph by a previous marriage; 3. That the parties so designated were really the children of Mary and Joseph, and so the german brothers and sisters of our Lord according to the flesh. What renders this last opinion the most probable is, that Jesus is called Mary's παραγορος, or first-born; and that Matthew, in connection with this, is careful to state that Joseph knew her not until (two) she had brought forth her first-born son. This would seem to imply that she had other children afterwards by him. This view is also the most natural in such passages as Matt. xiii. 55; Mark iii. 31; Luke viii. 21; John ii. 12; vii. 3, where the brethren of Christ are mentioned in connection with Mary. "It would be very forced work," to use the words of Neander, "to suppose that in all these passages δωδεκα is placed for δευτε."³