By REV. D. A. MACFARLANE, M.A., Dingwall.
MUCH was written of late on the Papal dogma of the bodily Assumption to heaven of the “Blessed Virgin Mary.” A dogma is a doctrine which is stamped with the official seal of the ecclesiastical body holding it. This dogma has become at last part of the creed of the Papacy throughout the world. Serious objection to this promulgation was taken by the Archbishops of Canterbury and of York. They dissociated themselves and their ecclesiastical body from having part or lot in its approval. Dr. Fisher, of Canterbury, gave the impression that he was genuinely alarmed at the prospect of the R.C. widely-accepted view of the bodily assumption of Mary to heaven being made a dogma. These Church of England prelates hold that the dogma is contrary to Scripture, and that it is not necessary. There is difficulty in assessing the value of the opposition of Drs. Fisher and Garbett, owing to the difficulty of ascertaining their own real position relative to the XXXIX Articles. There is reason to believe that Dr. Fisher belongs to the ritualistic school, and we fear that he would offer little objection to modern views of the formation of the Pentateuch and the other Old Testament portions. While this is probably the case, it stands out that there was resolute disapproval on the part of these Church of England leaders, of this dogma. Perhaps they felt that instead of bringing eventually the R.C. Communion and that of the Church of England nearer to one another, the promulgation of this dogma made rather a gash in the good relations existing between the two bodies of “Christians.” The attitude of Rome was evidently one of imperious contempt of the feelings and views of any ecclesiastical body external to her. While it is perhaps scarcely relevant to the subject to remark on Dr. Fisher’s travels to parts of the Commonwealth, one cannot help thinking that quite an important part of his mission may have to do with strengthening brethren in the faith lest there be any pandering to Rome in the matter, especially in Australia. By manifesting some kind of approval of the dogma, or expressing openly sympathy with it—which is now as a copestone on the former dogma of the Immaculate Conception—there might be results in the sphere of Erastian Episcopalianism, which cannot be foreseen nor suspected.
In referring to this quasi-historical dogma of the Assumption, we should give some brief account of the beginning and growth of this ecclesiastical gourd, which grew in the dark night of carnal emotionalism, and is destined to perish when and where the Lord is pleased to manifest His brightness and glory in the Gospel. There have been many accounts of late in Protestant publications and a detailed account need not be attempted here. We think it well, however, to record the following quotations:—
(1) “The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary is a modern dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, which declares the mother of Jesus absolutely free from all implication in the fall of Adam, and its consequences. Like most doctrines, it was the result of a long development, and embodies in its history the story of a struggle between the Thomist and Scotist parties in the Church which was not ended until 1854. In 1850, Pius named a commission to investigate the question. In 1853 it reported that no evidence from Scripture was needed for a dogmatic declaration, but that tradition alone sufficed, and that even this need not be shown in an unbroken line up to the time of the Apostles. The decree itself was made public by the bull, “Ineffabilis Deus,” on 10th December, 1854. As the Vatican Council of 1870 declared the Pope infallible, independent of a Council, the decree of 1854 must be received as an infallible utterance, and cannot be changed.” “The Christian Fathers, though many of them (even Augustine) exempted Mary from actual transgression, know nothing of her freedom from original sin, but always imply, and often expressly teach the contrary.” (New Schaff-Herzog Encycl.).
(2) From “New Schaff-Herzog Encycl.,” on the Feast of the Assumption: “At the Vatican Council, over two hundred bishops desired a decree making the Assumption an Article of Faith. The Assumption cannot be proved from Holy Scripture, and is based entirely upon tradition, though the scriptural prerogatives of Mary are invoked to prove the propriety of such an occurrence.” In addition to the above, we would make a quotation or two from an article in the Daily Telegraph of 18/8/50. In it, it is stated, “The Church of England renders honour and reverence to the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This honour and “reverence” should not of course mean worship of a nature due to God only. Further, “The Church of England refuses to regard as requisite for a saving faith any doctrines or opinions which are not plainly contained in the Scriptures.” This is pretty hard on both the 1854 dogma and the recent one on the bodily assumption. It is quite refreshing to hear from Lambeth Palace an utterance on “a saving faith.” One feels inclined to use the words of the patriarch, “Joseph is yet alive.”
Over against all this concerning the supposed bodily assumption of Mary (and what may possibly be the next dogma, namely, that Mary is “Mediatrix of all graces, and co-Redeemer,” as Rev. R. J. Coates, a vicar in Lancs., surmises), how are we to view the relation of Mary to the Saviour?
God the Father peculiarly honoured her above women in sovereignly calling her to become the Mother, miraculously, of the Saviour, according to His holy human nature. Christ assumed the body prepared, and this without sin. Mary was a humble, loving, lowly handmaid of the God of grace. Grace reigned in her by the Holy Spirit. She was by nature fallen as others, and as all the elect duly are, was called, justified, and at last brought to glory to join the spirits of the just made perfect. The Saviour, in the days of His flesh, kindly, lovingly and righteously led her to know and take the place pertaining to her, as can be seen from the references in the Gospel narratives. The final break from the point of view of natural ties came at the Cross. She was there and then consigned in love and tenderness to the good offices of the beloved John, who took her to his own home. John became the equivalent of a son to her, and she had the rank of a mother in his home circle. As the marriage relation ceases at death, and marriage affection does not pertain to the realm of glory, so also natural relations between parents and children come to an end in death. Mary appeared, and is named the Mother of Jesus in Acts i, and this name belongs historically to her. But apart from being so historically, she was now on a par, as a believer, with other believers, as regards estate and relationship toward God. All believers in Christ are “foreknown . . . called . . . glorified.” All believers are children given by the Father to the Son, who has in all things the pre-eminence.
We think that much emphasis should carefully but firmly be laid on this aspect of Mary’s relationship to the Saviour, in His complex Person. Mary was the Mother, in time, of “that holy thing, which shall be born of thee,” who was the Divine Son. But the death of Christ ended the natural relationship. In heaven, He is the God-Man glorified—the Lamb in the midst of the throne. In heaven, she—at the resurrection of the just—will stand related to the one God—to the Three Persons within the uncreated essence—as a blood-sprinkled member of the mystical body of Christ. “Former things” will have passed away. She, with all the brethren, will then and for ever, body and soul, enjoy the fruit of Christ’s prayer: “Father, I will that those whom thou hast given me may behold my glory . . .”
We are of the opinion that this aspect of the subject, if appreciated, would render null and void carnal emotionalism and erroneous doctrine regarding the conception of Mary and her bodily assumption.