Mary and "Mary"
“Mary, the mother of Jesus.” — Acts 1: 14.
All we know about Mary is found in the Bible. ‘*The so-called manuals about the Blessed Virgin Mary,’’ says John A. Broadus, ‘‘are all pure fiction, and without the advantage of being well invented.’? The real historical Mary we find portrayed in the New Testament. If the Mary of Roman Catholic theology and tradition does not give us the same kind of Mary, it is because somebody has drawn upon the imagination, and made a fictitious character. Let us now in all fairness examine the Mary of the Bible and compare her with the Mary held in such high honor among our Roman Catholic friends.
I. THE MARY OF THE BIBLE WAS A WOMAN AND ONLY A WOMAN; THE MARY OF THE PAPACY, TO DO WHATIS CLAIMED FOR HER, MUST BE A GODDESS WITH DIVINE AT-TRIBUTES. The real Mary was and is neither omnipresent, omniscient, nor omnipotent. Millions of Roman Catholics, scattered all over the earth, pray toheratthesame time. How can she hear them, unless she can beeverywhere at once? But we know that Mary while on earth was not omnipresent. She could not be with Joseph on their way from Jerusalem, and at the same time with her twelve-year-old boy who tarried behind. (Luke 2:45.) She must wend her weary way back to look for him. And if Mary could not be with Joseph and Jesus at the same time, how can she be with the millions who call upon her at the same moment? If she is omnipresent, she must be divine, for omnipresence is an attribute only of deity. But our Roman Catholic friends deny that they claim she is divine. Then she is not
omnipresent, and praying to her is time lost. To say that God.
carries the prayers of his people and presents them to Mary is to make him her petitioner, and put him in a surbordinate position. The fact is, friend, you might as well kneel down in the streets of Baltimore and pray to Queen Victoria in Windsor Palace as to pray to Mary, Joseph, Paul, Peter, or any Saint in the Calendar. Going to heaven did not make them omnipresent. If you feel that you want a saint to pray for you, go to some saint yet alive whom you can approach, and who can hear you, and ask him to pray for you. Better still, go to the one omnipresent Mediator and ask his intercession. You need no other, if you will accept that.
Neither is Mary omniscient. While Jesus tarried in Jerusalem, Joseph and his mother, we are told, ‘‘ knew not of it” (Luke 2:43), ‘They supposing him to be in the company went a day’s journey (v. 44).’? A mistake made on account of ignorance. Now, if she could lose her son in a crowd, may she not also lose me, one among so many, and so far away? And she cannot know all the needs of earth’s millions unless she is omniscient.
And to do what is claimed for her, she must be omnipotent. The Mary of the Bible was neither omnipresent, omniscient nor omnipotent. The Apostles did not think of praying to her. In that upper room before Pentecost she continued with them ‘in prayer and supplication’? (Acts 1:14). She was simply a suppliant with the rest, each one of them having as easy access to Christ’s presence as she had. Now if that upper room had been a Roman Catholic church, Mary would have been put on a pedestal, while the disciples knelt at her feet and implored her to intercede for them. The real Mary would not have consented to such a distinction.
The process by which the true human Mary has been transformed unto the unreal, imaginary Mary of the Papacy was natural enough. John A. Broadus traces this process step by step, and I quote his words: ‘The interest connected with
a those who associated with Jesus would naturally have caused the early Christians to feel a peculiar interest in her, as they ought to have done. And then the feeling which rapidly grew up of a desire for human meditation between us and God — between us and the Saviour himself — and which led in the course of the centuries to praying to the saints for their mediation, would naturally cause the mother of Jesus to be regarded as the most influential of all of those interceding saints. Moreover, the Roman Church, with that talent for governing which has characterized the Roman people through all their history, rapidly adapted itself to the tastes of mankind, to the tendencies of human nature in general, and to the special usages of the old Pagan Romans, introducing, for example, a number of festivals, so that there would be something corresponding to the ancient festivals, to please the people. And as all Pagan nations had their female deities, there naturally arose a feeling which made the mother of Jesus a female divinity. Then, when art came into use in the churches, when they introduced image worship, there was nothing more natural than that the mother and the babe in her arms should be the chosen subject of artistic representation in places of worship; that the great artists of Italy should not only find this most popular and remunerative for their pencil, but most pleasing to themselves. So galleries were filled with charming delineations of the Virgin and the Child. I suppose also that the spirit of chivalry in the Middle Ages may have had something to do with this. There was then a high, romantic sentiment towards woman as such, and this may have caused Mary to be regarded as the representative woman, so that romance added itself to devotion. For these and other causes, it has come to pass that not only in the Roman church, but in the Greek and Armenian and Coptic churches, and all through the East they talk a great deal more about Mary than about her Son.’’ (Sermons and Addresses, p. 125.) -
The Latin hymns of the Middle Ages have three times as much about Mary as about Jesus and all the Apostles put together.
II. Tue MARy oF THE BIBLE WAS A WOMAN SAVED BY GRACE; THE MARY OF THE PAPACY IS DECLARED TO HAVE NEVER NEEDED. GRACE, BECAUSE SHE WAS CONCEIVED, BORN, AND LIVED WITHOUT ORIGINAL OR ACTUAL SIN. The claim at first was that she was sinless from the birth of Christ; then from her own birth, and finally that she had in her soul and body no taint of sin. The miracle is applied to Mary. She was miraculously preserved from sin, so that the birth of the sinless Jesus was a mere natural result. This dogma of the ‘¢‘ Immaculate Conception’’ was officially proclaimed by Pius IX, in 1854. The Council of Trent refused to pass upon it because. of the great division of sentiment on the subject. The fierce war of words waged for years between the Dominicians and Franciscans, the former against, and the latter in favor of, the dogma, shows the sad lack of unity which existed at that time in the ranks of those who put forward their perfect and continual unity as a proof of their being the only church.
Now the Bible nowhere claims absolute sinlessness for Mary, but clearly intimates the contrary. The angel said to her; ‘‘Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favor with God.’’? (Luke 1:30,) The Greek word for ‘‘favor’’ is usually translated ‘‘orace,’’ and grace, as it is most frequently used in the New Testament, implies sin. ‘*Where sin abounded,’’ says Paul, ‘¢orace did much more abound.’’ (Rom. 5:20.) ‘Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord,’’ (Gen. 6:8) and no one ever thought of placing him for that reason among the sinless ones. Admit, if you please, that the Douay Bible is right in translating the phrase ‘thighly favored”’ as ‘‘full of grace,’’ it does not prove at all that Mary was sinless.. The same Greek verb is used in Eph. 1:6 in reference to Christians: ‘To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted (filled us with grace) in the beloved.’? So that any one who believes in Christ and appropriates all his merit may be full of grace, though his former life, like Paul’s, had been full of sin. The angel said again to Mary: ‘Thou shalt call his name Jesus.” (Luke, 1:31.) And in her Magnificat Mary shows plainly that she knows what the word Jesus means, when she says, ‘* My
Spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.’’? (Luke 1:47.) This personal appropriation of God as her Saviour shows that she felt the need of such a Saviour, and trusted him for salvation. Saviour implies sin, as is seen in the angel’s word to Joseph: ‘*Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.’? (Matt. 1:21.) Mary exults in the mercy of God: ‘His mercy is on them that fear Him from generation to generation,’’ (Luke 1:50) and from the context it is evident that she intends to include herself among the recipients of this mercy. Mercy implies sin; when there is no sin there can be no mercy. Mary was a good Christian woman, but not sinless. ‘All have sinned,’’ says the Bible, and it makes only one exception to this sweeping charge, the spotless Son of God. The miracle of his birth was in keeping him, not his mother, from taint of sin. He was ‘‘made of a woman.’? Why did not Paul say of a sinless woman? For the reason that the sinlessness of Mary was never dreamed of until men began to exalt her above her true position.
When the angel said to Mary: ‘Blessed art thou among women,”’’ he said no more than had been said of many another. It is written of her who killed Sisera: ‘* Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be’’ (Judges 5:24.) Mary is declared to be blessed AMONG women, while Jael is made pre-eminent ABOVE women. There is, therefore, more reason for declaring the immaculate conception of Jael than of Mary. The same word is applied to others forty-one times in the New Testament,andofteninthe Old. ‘‘ Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.’’ (Ps. 32:1.) ‘* Blessed is he that considereth the poor.’? (Ps. 41:1.) ‘* Blessed are the poor in spirit.”’ (Matt. 5:3.) ‘Blessed are the pure in heart.’’ (Matt. 5:8.) and so on to the end. The word ‘blessed’’ simply means ‘‘happy.’? Mary washappyin beingchosenas the mother of her Saviour, and she naturally exulted in the thought that all generations would call her happy. Her cousin Elizabeth gives the true secret of Mary’s happiness in the words ‘‘ Blessed is she that believeth, for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.’’ (Luke 1:45.) A happiness, indeed, which all true believers may share. The sweet acquiescence of Mary in the will of God, expressed, by the words, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy will,’’ added to her happiness, and such joyful acquiescence in God’s will makes any one happy. )
There is not a vestige of proof in the Bible of the sinlessness of Mary, while these several things make against it. So Mary’s own testimony, like Peter’s, is against the claims of the Papacy.
Il. Tor MARY OF THE BIBLE WAS A REAL MOTHER; THE MARY OF THE PAPACY IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN ‘‘EVER A VIRGIN.’’ After the birth of Jesus Mary is never called a virgin. The term ‘ virgin mother ’’ is unscriptural and absurd, and if strong proof is to be accepted, it is used in seme quarters to excuse, even to justify and hallow the most heinous sins. The decencies of public speech cause me to refrain. * * * * * When Jesus was born, Mary became a real mother, having known only God the Spirit, and motherhood was sanctified as it had never been before. The conception of Jesus was miraculous, but his development and birth were natural. He was a real man, ‘‘made ofa woman.’”’ After his birth he grew in stature and wisdom. To claim that Mary was not a real mother is to rob Jesus of his humanity and motherhood of its glory.
But by the term ‘‘ever a virgin’? Roman Catholics really mean that Mary had no other children than Jesus; that Joseph was only her nominal husband; and a silly legend of comparatively late invention goes so far as to say that Mary lived in a convent near Jerusalem, and Joseph was an old man, not really her husband at all, but a sort of guardian. All of which the whole trend of the New Testament squarely contradicts.
The perpetual virginity of Mary grew out of the sickly
sentiment that the married relation is not so pure as the single. Peter strikes this error a blow, and his ardent admirers ought to
heed it, when he selected as the model woman ‘‘Sarah who
obeyed Abraham, whose daughters ye are, if ye do well.” (1 Pet. 3:6.)
J
7
;
4
.
:
’
The brothers of Jesus are mentioned nine times and his sisters twice. The people of Nazareth, where Jesus was raised, bear testimony to their existence and give us four of their names: ‘‘Ts not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? (Joseph had doubtless died in the meantime.) And his brethren James, and Joses, and Simeon and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?’’ (Matt. 13:55.) Nobody claims that they are referring to spiritual relationship. To say that the word brother means a mere relative is far-fetched. When the same word is used in describing the relation between Lazarus and Mary and Martha, no one questions its meaning. There is not a particle of proof that they were the children of Joseph by a former wife, or the children of Mary’s sister, and, therefore, his cousins. If they were the children of Joseph’s first wife, and older than Jesus, that gives them the precedence over Jesus, so that heisno longer, as claimed all through the Scriptures, the heir to David’s throne. Paul speaks of ‘‘ James the Lord’s brother’? (Gal. 1:19), and intimates to us in another place that some of his brethren were married (1 Cor. 9:5.) We are told in Matt. 1:25 that Joseph ‘¢*knew her not tiil she had brought forth her first-born son,’’ which implies that Mary had other children afterwards. The most natural, common-sense interpretation of the saying of the neighbors in Nazareth, Mary’s constant company with these brothers, and of this word ‘*first-born,’’ is to accept the fact that Jesus was the eldest of a family of children. So that the dogma of the perpetual virginity, which occurs so often in prayers, is a clever fiction, the child of mistaken views as to the sanctity of motherhood, and the idolatrous adoration of Mary.
IV. THE MARY OF THE BIBLE, AFTER CHRIST EN-TERED UPON HIS PUBLIC WORK, NEVER HAD ANY INFLUENCE WITH HER SON ON THE GROUND OF HER BEING HIS MOTHER; THE MARY OF THE PAPACY IS CLAIMED TO HAVE INFLU-ENCE WITH JESUS TO-DAY ALMOST SOLELY UPON THAT GROUND. While he was a child. he was subject to his parents, and thus teaches us the lesson of filial obedience; but as soon as he began his public ministry, and all through it to the lastscene on the cross, Jesus gave Mary to understand that she could no longer influence him as mother, but must take her place, like any other man or woman, in the spiritual kingdom.
At the marriage feast in Cana, when Mary suggested to Jesus that the wine was out, he replied: ‘‘Woman, what have I to do with thee?’’ (John 2:4.) A better translation of which is: ‘* What have we to do with each other?’’ and though he made wine, as Mary seems to have suggested, he did not do it until he had informed her that it was no longer in obedience to her commands that he acted. Roman Catholics quote Origen and Chrysostom as giving high honor to Mary, and yet both of them are honest enough to admit that at this marriage feast Jesus gave her a gentle rebuke for her unseasonable haste and immoderate ambition. The word ‘‘woman’’ implies no disrespect, but on the other hand it implies no special deference to her as his mother.
On another occasion Mary, influenced doubtless by the brothers of Jesus, who did not believe in him at first, came with them for the purpose of laying hold on him and compelling him to desist from his unremitting toil. But Jesus is in the house, and the way to him iscrowded. The best they can do is to send word over the heads of the people. Someone standing near reports to him the message: ‘‘Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.’? Let every adorer of Mary hear his answer: ‘*Who is my mother or my brethren?”’’ Looking around on those who sat about him he said, ‘*Behold my mother and my brethren. For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother and my sister and mother.” - (Mark 3:31-35.) In these words Jesus disclaims all natural relationship, and teaches that all, even his own family with his mother, must now bear a spiritual relation to him, if they would approach or influence him by their petitions. Doing the will of God puts any one in a closer relation to Jesus than Mary bore by virtue of her being his mother in the flesh.
On still another occasion a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice and said unto him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bare thee and the paps which thou hast sucked.’’? (Luke 11:27.) These words were about equal to the ‘‘Hail Marys” of the later days, and then, if ever, was the time for Jesus to approve of the high honor given his mother, and encourage others to give it. Hear his reply to this ascription of praise to Mary, and speak it to every adorer she has in the world: ‘‘Yea, RATHER, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it.’’ (Luke 11:27-28.) When a pious Roman Catholic kneels and says ‘‘Blessed Mother of God,” these words are for him “Yea, RATHER, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it.’ Mary was happy because she heard the word of God and kept it; and by the same means you may be made happy. Ascriptions of praise.to Mary, because she was the natural mother of our Saviour, Jesus himself in these words pronounces out of place.
While Jesus was on the cross, he said to Mary, doubtless looking to John, ‘* Woman, behold thy son.’’ Now, again, if ever, he ought to claim his natural relationship and address her as mother, but he does not. Indeed, nowhere in the Bible does. Jesus address Mary as mother. ‘* Woman, behold thy son.”’ Then turning to John he says, ‘t Behold thy mother.’’? (John 19:26-27.) Now that he is dying and will soon depart from earth, he makes provision for Mary by committing her to John with the request that he treat her as if she were his own mother. He did not say to John ‘‘ Behold My mother,’ and thus cail him to honor her as the mother of his Lord. ‘* Behold Toy mother.’? From that hour John ‘ took her unto his own home.”’ If Mary were all that our Roman Catholic friends claim for her, she did not need the care or sympathy of John, and Jesus ought to have committed John to her rather than her to John. Ailof which continues to prove that the real Mary at the cross and the imaginary Mary of to-day are very different beings.
V. THE POSITION OF THE MARY OF THE BIBLE GREATLY
HONORS CHRIST; THE POSITION OF THE MARY OF THE
PAPACY DOES HIM GREAT DISHONOR BY CLAIMING FOR HER
WHAT BELONGS ALONE TO HIM.
‘‘ My soul doth magnify the Lord,’’ she exclaimed, and all through her inspired magnificat she calls attention from herself to Him.
In Roman Catholic theology and worship, Mary is made to a large extent to usurp the place of Christ. Liguori, a theologian high in authority among Roman Catholics, says that ‘‘all the tongues of men would not be sufficient to praise her as she deserves.’? St. Bonaventure says that ‘‘those who are devoted to publishing ‘ The Glories of Mary ’ are sure of Paradise.”’ This same saint, Bonaventure, in translating the Psalms, displaces the name of God with that of Mary, so that a verse in Ps. 110, reads: ‘+ The Lord said unto our Lady, sit thou on my right hand.’? Another verse in Ps. 26, reads: ‘* Unto thee, O blessed Virgin, do I lift up my soul.’’ And still another in Ps. 31, ‘¢ In thee, O Lady, do I put my trust.”’
Here are some more quotations from Liguori. ‘‘In Mary we shall find every hope. In a word, we shall find in Mary life and eternal salvation.’’? (pp. 173-174.)
‘¢St. Richard of St. Lawrence says our salvation is in the.
hands of Mary. Cassian absolutely affirms that the salvation of the whole world depends upon the favor and protection of Mary.”’ (pp. 109.)
Speaking to Mary, Liguori says ‘‘ Do not say that thou canst not aid me, for I know that thou art omnipotent and dost obtain whatsoever thou desirest from God.’’ (p. 78.) Says St.
Peter Damian, ‘‘ The Virgin has all power in heaven and onearth.’? (p. 201.) ‘Yes, Mary is omnipotent,’’ adds Richard of St. Lawrence, ‘‘since the queen by every Jaw must enjoy the same privileges as the king. And St. Antoninus says: God has placed the whole church, not only under the patronage, but also under the dominion of Mary.’”’ (p. 203.)
And worse still, can I repeat the biasphemy? Liguori declares that God the Father is under obligation to Mary and cheerfully obeys her commands. ‘St. Bernardine of Sienna says he does not hesitate to say that all obey the commands of Mary, even God himself.’? (p. 202.) ‘*Rejoice, O mother and handmaid of God! rejoice; rejoice; we are all debtors to God, but God is debtor to thee.’’ (p. 327.) (Van Dyke’s Popery, pages 183-184.)
But may we not class Liguori with the radicals, and blame his age and education with his errors and follies? Do our Catholic fellow citizens of to-day ascribe to Mary what belongs to God? They, of course, pray to her in asking her to pray for them, and we are sorry that, being merely finite and human, she cannot hear their prayers. But do they put her on an equality with Christ and depend upon her at all for salvation?
I hold in my hand a little book, entitled ‘‘ Miniature Key to Heaven,’’ published in Baltimore, 1885, approved and recommended by James Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore.
On page 211 is this prayer: ‘*Sweetest heart of Mary be my salvation.’’ ‘Jesus, Mary, Joseph, I give you my heart, my soul and my life.’’ In the first prayer Mary takes the entire place of Jesus; in the second she shares the honor of saving us with Him and Joseph. On page 48 are the words, ‘‘ Blessed be God and Elis holy mother,’’ when the intention plainly is to put the ‘“‘ holy mother’’ on an equality with God and bless both alike. Page 226 gives us thisremarkable prayer: ‘‘ Hail, holy queen, mother of mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope. * * * Turn, thou most glorious advocate, thy eyes of mercy towards us, and after our exile is ended, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus.’ It is not desired that she show us Jesus now as the object of faith. It seems she is sufficient for all emergencies in this life, but after life is over, show us Jesus. In this little book is the couplet:
‘‘Mother of Jesus, Heaven’s open gate,
Star of the sea, support the falling state.’’
These words are but the echo of Liguori’s claim that Mary is equal, if not superior to God himself in the practical working of affairs in this world. And we should not be accused of blindness because we See in it idolatry, pure and simple. However the theologians may, by splitting hairs, explain it away, it remains true that to the mass of the people who pray to Mary she is a goddess with divine attributes and is reverently worshiped.
When Cornelius fell at the feet of Peter, he took hold of him and lifted him up, saying, ‘‘I myself am a man.’”? Could the real Mary’s voice be heard, she would say, ‘‘ I myself am but a woman.’’ And the angel before whose glorious presence John on Patmos fell, as he points from all creatures up to the throne, continues to say *‘ Worship God.’’ And louder than the voice of Peter or Angel, I hear the voice of God himself, as he thunders from Sinai, ‘‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me.’’ And the same voice, mellowed by its human tones, comes sounding down the centuries: ‘+ Thou shalt yee: 3 the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.’’
Luther tells us that when he was a boy, he had the most horrile thought of Christ. He looked upon Him as a furious avenging Deity, with the sword of justice uplifted every moment, and Mary coming in, with her sweet gentleness, persuasion and prayer, to keep Him from plunging the sword into his little heart, and the heart of everybody else on earth. Friends, I dislike controversy, but it seems to me that when so much dishonor is done to the Christ we worship and serve, no effort or sacrifice should be spared to vindicate his honor.
But as we look at the real Christ, weeping with those that wept; moved with compassion for the multitude; who had a word of gentleness and pity for the poor woman in the Pharisee’s house, when he would have repulsed her; He to whom the very children were drawn and won, in spite of the harshness of the disciples who would have driven them away: it is horrible to think that men should seek to put Mary in the place of such a Christ. T ask every man, woman and child to turn to the true Christ, who will give you human sympathy and divine help; to the Christ who in life and death and judgment to come is all you need.