Part 19 (1/2)
But when we are required either to address our supplications to her, or else to sever ourselves from the communion of a large portion of our fellow-Christians, we have no room for hesitation; the case offers us no alternative. Our love of unity must yield to our love {271} of truth; we cannot join in that wors.h.i.+p which in our conscience we believe to be a sin against G.o.d. Whether we are right or wrong in this matter, G.o.d will himself judge: and, compared with his acquittal and approval, the severity of man's judgment cannot turn us aside from our purpose. But before any one p.r.o.nounces a sentence of condemnation against us, or of approval on himself, it well becomes him patiently and dispa.s.sionately to weigh the evidence; lest his decision may not be consistent with justice and truth.
In addition to what has been already said on the general subject of addressing our invocation to any created being--to any one among the princ.i.p.alities and thrones, dominions, powers, angels, archangels, and all the hosts of heaven, to any one among the saints, martyrs, confessors, and holy men departed hence in the Lord--I would submit to my brethren of the Roman Catholic Church some considerations specifically applicable to the case of the blessed Virgin, and to the practice of the Church of Rome in the religious wors.h.i.+p paid to her.
First, it will be well for us to possess ourselves afresh of whatever light is thrown on this subject by the Scriptures themselves.
SECTION II.--EVIDENCE OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.
The first intimation given to us that a woman was in the providence of G.o.d appointed to be the instrument, or channel by which the Saviour of mankind should be brought into the world, was made immediately after the Fall, and at the very first dawn of the day of salvation. {272} I am fully aware how the various criticisms on the words in which that first promise of a Saviour is couched, have been the well-spring of angry controversy. I will not enter upon that field. The authorized English version thus renders the pa.s.sage: ”I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” [Gen. iii. 15.] The Roman Vulgate, instead of the word ”it,” reads ”she.” Surely such a point as this should be made a subject of calm and enlightened criticism, without warmth or heart-burnings on either side. But for our present purpose, it matters little what turn that controversy may take. I believe our own to be the true rendering: but whether the word dictated here by the Holy Spirit to Moses should be so translated as to refer to the seed of the woman generally, as in our authorized version, or to the male child, the descendant of the woman, as the Septuagint renders it, or to the word ”woman” itself; and if the latter, whether it refer to Eve, the mother of every child of a mortal parent, or to Mary, the immediate mother of our Saviour: whatever view of that Hebrew word be taken, no Christian can doubt, that before the foundations of the world were laid, it was foreordained in the counsels of the Eternal G.o.dhead, that the future Messiah, the Redeemer of Mankind, should be of the seed of Eve, and in the fulness of time be born of a Virgin of the name of Mary, and that in the mystery of that incarnation should the serpent's head be bruised. I wish not to dwell on this, because it bears but remotely and incidentally on the question at issue. I will, therefore, pa.s.s on, quoting {273} only the words of one of the most laborious among Roman Catholic commentators, De Sacy. ”The sense is the same in the one and in the other, though the expression varies. The sense of the Hebrew is, The Son of the Woman, Jesus Christ, Son of G.o.d, and Son of a Virgin, shall bruise thy head, and by establis.h.i.+ng the kingdom of G.o.d on earth, destroy thine. The sense of the Vulgate is, The woman, by whom thou hast conquered man, shall bruise thy head, not by herself, but by Jesus Christ.” [Vol. i. p. 132.]
The only other pa.s.sage in which reference appears to be made in the Old Testament to the Mother of our Lord, contains that celebrated prophecy in the seventh chapter of Isaiah, about which I am not aware that any difference exists between the Anglican and the Roman Churches. ”A Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”
[Isaiah vii. 4.]
I find no pa.s.sage in the Old Testament which can by any inferential application be brought to bear on the question of Mary's being a proper object of invocation.
In the New Testament, mention by name is made of the Virgin Mary by St.
Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, and by St. John in his Gospel, as the Mother of our Lord, but not by name; and by no other writer. Neither St.
Paul in any one of his many Epistles, though he mentions the names of many of our Lord's disciples, nor St. James, nor St. Peter, who must often have seen her during our Lord's ministry, nor St. Jude, nor St.
John in any of his three Epistles, or in the {274} Revelation (though, as we learn from his own Gospel, she had of especial trust been committed to his care)--no one of these either mentions her as living, or alludes to her memory as dead.
The first occasion on which any reference is made in the New Testament to the Virgin Mary is the salutation of the Angel, as recorded by St.
Luke in the opening chapter of his Gospel. The last occasion is when she is mentioned by the same Evangelist, as ”Mary the Mother of Jesus,” in conjunction with his brethren and with the Apostles and the women all continuing in prayer and supplication, immediately after the ascension of our blessed Lord. Between these two occasions the name of Mary occurs under a variety of circ.u.mstances, on every one of which we shall do well to reflect.
The first occasion, we have already said, is the salutation of Mary by the angel, announcing to her that she should be the Mother of the Son of G.o.d. Surely no daughter of Eve was ever so distinguished among women; and well does it become us to cherish her memory with affectionate reverence. The words addressed to her when on earth by the angel in that announcement, with a little variation of expression, are daily addressed to her by the Roman Catholic Church, now that she is no longer seen, but is removed to the invisible world. ”Hail, thou that art highly favoured!” (or as the Vulgate reads it, ”full of grace”) ”the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women.” [Luke i. 28.] On the subst.i.tution of the expression, ”full of grace,” for ”highly favoured,”
or, as our margin suggests, ”graciously accepted, or much graced,” I am not desirous {275} of troubling you with any lengthened remark. I could have wished that since the Greek is different in this pa.s.sage, and in the first chapter of St. John, where the words ”full of grace” are applied to our Saviour, a similar distinction had been observed in the Roman translation. But the variation is unessential. The other expression, ”Blessed art thou among women,” is precisely and identically the same with the ascription of blessedness made by an inspired tongue, under the elder covenant, to another daughter of Eve. ”Blessed above women,” or (as both the Septuagint and the Vulgate render the word) ”Blessed among women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be.”
[Judges v. 24.] We can see no ground in such ascription of blessedness for any posthumous adoration of the Virgin Mary.
The same observation applies with at least equal strictness to that affecting interview between Mary and Elizabeth, when, enlightened doubtless by an especial revelation, Elizabeth returned the salutation of her cousin by addressing her as the Mother of her Lord, and hailing her visit as an instance of most welcome and condescending kindness, ”Whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come unto me?”
[Luke i. 43.] Members of the Anglican Church are taught to refer to this event in Mary's life with feelings of delight and grat.i.tude. On this occasion she uttered that beautiful hymn, ”The Song of the blessed Virgin Mary,” which our Church has selected for daily use at Evening Prayer. These incidents bring before our minds the image of a spotless Virgin, humble, pious, obedient, holy: a chosen servant of G.o.d--an exalted pattern for her fellow-creatures; but still a fellow-creature, and a fellow-servant: {276} a virgin p.r.o.nounced by an angel blessed on earth. But further than this we cannot go. We read of no power, no authority, neither the power and influence of intercession, nor the authority or right of command being ever, even by implication, committed to her; and we dare not of our own minds venture to take for granted a statement of so vast magnitude, involving a.s.sociations so awful. We reverence her memory as a blessed woman, the virgin mother of our Lord.
We cannot supplicate any blessing at her hand; we cannot pray to her for her intercession.
The angel's announcement to Joseph, whether before or after the birth of Christ, the visit of the Magi, the flight into Egypt, and the return thence, in the record of all of which events by St. Matthew the name of Mary occurs, however interesting and important in themselves, seem to require no especial attention with reference to the immediate subject of our inquiry. To Joseph the angel speaks of the blessed Virgin as ”Mary thy wife.” [Matt. i. 20.] In every other instance she is called ”The young child's mother,” or ”His mother.”
In relating the circ.u.mstances of Christ's birth the Evangelist employs no words which seem to invite any particular examination. Joseph went up into the city of David to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife; and there she brought forth her first-born son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger. And the shepherds found Mary and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. And Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart. [Luke ii. 19.]
Between the birth of Christ, and the flight into Egypt, St. Luke records an event to have happened by no means unimportant--the presentation of Christ in {277} the temple. ”And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord. And he (Simeon) came by the Spirit into the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him after the custom of the law, then took he him up in his arms, and blessed G.o.d, and said, Lord, &c. And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign that shall be spoken against, (yea, a sword shall pierce through thine own soul also) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” [Luke ii. 28.] In this incident it is worthy of remark, that Joseph and Mary are both mentioned by name, that they are both called the parents of the young child; that both are equally blessed by Simeon; and that the good old Israelite, illumined by the spirit of prophecy, when he addresses himself immediately to Mary, speaks only of her future sorrow, and does not even most remotely or faintly allude to any exaltation of her above the other daughters of Abraham. ”A sword shall pa.s.s through thine own soul also,”
a prophecy, as St. Augustine interprets it, accomplished when she witnessed the sufferings and death of her Son. (See De Sacy, vol. x.x.xii.
p. 138.)
The next occasion on which the name of the Virgin Mary is found in Scripture, is the memorable visit of herself, her husband, and her Son, to Jerusalem, when he was twelve years old. And the manner in which this incident is related by the inspired Evangelist, so far from intimating that Mary was destined to be an object of wors.h.i.+p to the believers in her Son, affords {278} evidence which exhibits strongly a bearing the direct contrary. Here again Joseph and Mary are both called his parents: Joseph is once mentioned by name, and so is Mary. If the language had been so framed as on purpose to take away all distinction of preference or superiority, it could not more successfully have effected its purpose. But not only so, of the three addresses recorded as having been made by our blessed Lord to his beloved mother (and only three are recorded in the New Testament), the first occurs during this visit to Jerusalem. It was in answer to the remonstrance made by Mary, ”Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? Behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.” [Luke ii. 48.] ”How is it that ye sought me? Knew ye not that I must be about my Father's business?”--[or in my Father's house, as some render it.] He lifts up their minds from earth to heaven, from his human to his eternal origin. He makes no distinction here,--”Wist YE not.” Again, I would appeal to any dispa.s.sionate person to p.r.o.nounce, whether this reproof, couched in these words, countenances the idea that our blessed Lord intended his human mother to receive such divine honour from his followers to the end of time as the Church of Rome now pays?
and whether St. Luke, whose pen wrote this account, could have been made cognizant of any such right invested in the Virgin?
The next pa.s.sage calling for our consideration is that which records the first miracle: ”And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there, and both Jesus was called and his disciples to the marriage. And when they wanted wine (when the wine failed), the mother of {279} Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.” [John ii. 1.]