Christmas was originally a heathen festival celebrated on the 25th December in honour of the birth of Tammuz (Ezekiel VIII:14), also called Baal the Sun-god, the son of Semiramis, the Babylonian queen of heaven. The celebrations included hymn-singing in the streets, riotous merry-making, feasting, drunkenness and the giving of gifts. Among the Romans these pagan ceremonies, known as the Saturnalia, were held in honour of the victory of Sol Invictus (the unconquerable Sun-god), over the darkness at the winter solstice. The Sun-god in the Saturnalia ceremonies was likened to a small child.
The Christmas Crib
This pagan festival was taken over by the Church of Rome in the fourth century to be kept in honour of the birth of Christ. Christmas is a combination of the “Mass” and the name of Christ. The festivities associated with Christmas are of pagan origin. They belong to the worship of Baal. Instead of the child Sol Invictus, we have the popular Christmas Crib with a doll as the Child Jesus. What a flagrant flouting of the Second Commandment! How awful the blasphemy to represent the eternal God in human nature as a doll! How idolatrous and worthless the religion that has a doll for its god! “We ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver or stone, graven by art and man’s device.” (Acts XVII:29).
The Christmas Tree
The decorating of an evergreen tree was part of the worship of Tammuz or Baal, the Sun-god of ancient Babylon. Through the Church of Rome—the Babylon of the Apocalypse—this act of Baal-worship has been handed down through the centuries, and deluded Protestants by setting up Christmas Trees in their homes, in their schools and churches are guilty before God of upholding and perpetuating a practice peculiar to the worship of Baal. How can anything connected with the worship of Baal be pleasing to the Lord? Was it not for countenancing such worship that the judgments of the Lord repeatedly fell upon the people of Israel of old? (See I Samuel XII:9, 19).
The Madonna and Child
The Madonna and Child on Christmas cards, and Christmas stamps is just Semiramis, the Babylonian queen of heaven with her son Tammuz, adopted by the Church of Rome to represent the Virgin Mary and her Son Jesus. “The Babylonians in their popular religion,” wrote Rev. Alex. Hislop, “supremely worshipped a Goddess Mother and a Son, who was represented in pictures and images as an infant or child in his mother’s arms. From Babylon this worship of the Mother and Child spread to the ends of the earth. In Egypt the Mother and Child were worshipped under the names of Isis and Osiris. In India, even to this day, as Isi and Iswara; in Asia as Cybele and Devius; in Pagan Rome as the Great Mother, with the babe on her breast, or as Irene, the goddess of Peace with the boy Plutus in her arms; and even in Tibet, in China, and Japan, the Jesuit missionaries were astonished to find the counterpart of Madonna and her child as devoutly worshipped as in Papal Rome itself; Shing Moo, the Holy Mother in China, being represented with a child in her arms, and a glory around her, exactly as if a Roman Catholic artist had been employed to set her up.” (The Two Babylons, by Rev. Alex. Hislop, p. 20).
“Fellowship with Devils”
How dishonouring to the Saviour to have the purpose of His birth into this world darkened by rites and ceremonies belonging to the idolatrous worship of Baal! “But I say unto you, that the things which the Gentiles worship, they sacrifice to devils and not to God, and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.” (1 Cor. X:20). We have no warrant whatsoever from the Word of God for observing Christmas. The only warrant that can be advanced is the warrant of the Pope. At the Reformation our godly Reformers cast out Christmas, Lent and Easter along with the rest of the abominations of Rome. They acted on the Scriptural principle: “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it.” (Deut. XII:32). “All worshipping or honouring or other service invented by the brain of men in the religion of God,” wrote John Knox, “without His own express command is idolatry.” “In vain they do worship Me teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Mark XV:9).
Christmas Cards, etc.
How sad in this degenerate age of widespread apostacy to see professing Christians bowing at the pagan and popish shrine of Christmas! How guilty parents are who under solemn obligations to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, to be leading them into these heathenish customs! “For thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen . . . for the customs of the people are vain.” (Jer. X:1-3). Seek to honour Christ according to His Word as our godly forefathers did. Have nothing to do with Christmas parties, Christmas trees, Christmas gifts, the selling or sending of Christmas cards or Christmas stamps. Avoid as you would the plague the Christmas Eve Midnight Service and the Christmas Crib. They all point to Rome. The observance of Christmas is largely responsible for the subtle infiltration and advancement of Popery with its blasphemous worship and veneration of the Virgin Mary. Anew we are confronted with the question, “How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God, follow Him: but if Baal, then follow him? (1 Kings XVIII:21). May it be ours to say in truth, “I have refrained my feet from every evil way that I might keep Thy Word.” (Psalm CXIX:101).
ERGATEES.
The Portrait of Mary in Heaven
by Napoleon Roussel*
TOWARDS the close of the sixteenth century the following correspondence took place between a young Mother Abbess, and an illustrious Painter —
* Reproduced by kind permission of the Protestant Truth Society, 184 Fleet Street, London E.C.4. — Editor.
From the Abbess to the Painter.
ST. MARY’S ABBEY,
August 15th, 1564.
BROTHER,
Yes, brother, for such I ought now to call you; here I am, placed at the head of a convent. I have quitted the world without much regret; sometimes, I acknowledge, I still feel the need of some of those innocent pleasures which render life in a cloister more supportable. I have done my best to adorn my cell, but what I most want is a portrait of my sweet Patroness.
Nothing, next to a living creature, is a better companion than a picture, especially such as you can paint.
I therefore, give you an order for a portrait of the most holy Virgin, as faithful as possible, at whatever price you think fit to charge for it.
I wish you to understand that I want it to be a faithful likeness, — not drawn from imagination.
Take your time; fix your own conditions; nothing shall be spared to obtain the point so essential to me; for I seem as though I could pray so much more earnestly to Mary if I had an exact representation of her, as she is now in heaven.
Waiting your reply,
I remain,
Your humble and already grateful sister,
MARIA DE ST. ROMAN.
— The Painter to the Abbess.
THE CLOISTER OF ASSUMPTION,
September 30th, 1564.
SISTER,
You see by the date of my letter that I, like you, have left the world; but I have not given up painting.
Your order for a portrait of Mary has, therefore, given me great pleasure in my solitude. At least from this time my occupation will have an object, and, to make the painting durable, I will bestow upon it as much pains as possible. According to your request, I shall especially give attention to the likeness.
To secure it, I think the following will be the wisest course to take, but I shall wait for your opinion about it.
First. I do not wish to copy any known portraits, which, as you know, have depicted, not Mary herself, but the most beautiful women that painters could meet with, and often, alas! not in the least like the holy Virgin! I shall not, either, consult the various legends, nor the numerous lives of the Virgin, written a thousand years after the time in which she lived. No, I will go back to the source, and draw from Holy Scripture itself authentic details about Mary, which will faithfully direct my pencil.
I promise that I will do nothing rashly, nor give vent to my imagination, and that I will study the sacred text with the greatest care, even if I am obliged to spend several years upon it.
But there is one little obstacle: I have no Bible; I have sought in vain for one in the library of our monastery, and I write to you now in the persuasion that you will search more successfully in yours, and will forward it to me.
Yours humbly and respectfully,
JOSEPH DE ST. PIERRE:
The Abbess to the Painter.
ST. MARY’S ABBEY,
December 1st, 1564.
BROTHER,
Your plan delighted me, and I began at once to search for the book which you require. Our convent, like your cloister, does not possess it; but I wrote to Rome to obtain a copy from one of the libraries of St. Peter: that favour has been granted, and I send you the holy volume with this letter.
Now, work courageously. Meanwhile I shall pray to Mary to direct your hand, and I hope that in time you will be able to send me a work which I shall be as happy to possess as you will be proud to have accomplished.
I repeat, take your time, and do not send me the portrait until the likeness is perfect.
Your sister, &c.,
MARIA DE ST. ROMAN.
Two years passed away before the correspondence was resumed.
The Painter to the Abbess.
CLOISTER OF ASSUMPTION,
January 4th, 1566.
SISTER,
At length the work is finished!—a faithful and conscientious work, if ever there was one. But it is not enough to assert this, I must prove it: for the portrait which I send you is such as to lead you to doubt the resemblance, unless I explain to you at length the authority on which my pretension rests, for having made the most faithful portrait of the blessed Mary that has ever existed, representing her as we believe her to be in heaven. I will now enter upon my explanation.
One of the most important points to be known for the representation of any one, is the age of the model. My first search on the arrival of the Bible was, therefore, to discover the age of Mary. I opened it at the Gospel of St. Luke, and on the first page I noticed that Elizabeth, who only conceived six months before Mary, was then advanced in age; that first made me suspect that her cousin Mary could not be very young at the time that the daughter of her uncle, or of her aunt, was very old. Nevertheless, I do not wish to attach much importance to that inference, for Elizabeth and Mary might have been the children of two brothers, or of two sisters of very different ages. I only noticed that the cousin of Mary was very old six months before the holy Virgin was visited by the angel Gabriel.
The second circumstance which helped me to fix upon the age of Mary, was her betrothal before she miraculously conceived. This fact made me suppose that she was old enough to be married. It is important to fix upon that point to start from, for we shall not run much risk of being misled if we presume that Mary was then twenty years of age, especially if we bear in mind that she was a cousin of Elizabeth. Let us calculate from that point.
Mary was betrothed at the age of twenty. After her betrothal, Joseph perceived that she was with child; then, when she had given birth to her son, Mary must have been about twenty and half years of age.
I passed on to the second chapter of St. Luke, and I saw that Mary was still living when the child Jesus was left behind in the temple at Jerusalem; I saw also in the forty-second verse, that Jesus was then twelve years old.
I concluded, therefore, that Mary was thirty-two-and-a-half at that period.
Passing on to the third chapter, I learned that Jesus was baptised by John, and began His ministry at the age of thirty.
Now Mary was living then, as you know, and, as we shall see further on, she survived Jesus on earth; I draw from this fact the simple and clear conclusion, that if Mary were twenty and half at the birth of her son, she must have entered her fifty-first year when He had attained the age of thirty.
Now, how long did the ministry of Jesus continue? I could easily calculate that by the number of times that Jesus went up to Jerusalem to commemorate the feast of the Passover.
Besides, in St. John’s Gospel I find that Jesus went to Capernaum, because the feast of the Passover was near.
At the fifth chapter, a feast, which must have been that of the Passover, came round again, for St. Luke, at the sixth chapter, places events there related at that period.
At the fourth verse of the sixth chapter a third Passover is mentioned.
The thirteenth chapter describes the fourth and last Passover, at which Jesus died.
These four Passovers, occurring during the ministry of Jesus Christ, do not admit of the supposition that it lasted less than three years, nor more than four. I reckon it, therefore, three years and a-half.
Now if Mary was fifty and a-half when Jesus began to preach, and His ministry lasted three years and a-half, Mary was just fifty-four years of age when she stood at the foot of the Cross.
Here the Gospel ends, but the Book of the Acts of the Apostles commences, and I find Mary mentioned there, in prayer with the disciples. In another part I noticed that in obedience to the intimation of Jesus, the apostle John received Mary into his own house. How much of her life yet remained, Holy Scripture does not say, for no further mention is made of her. Whether Mary lived one, two, three, ten, or twenty years, I do not know. If I wished to adopt the tradition of the Church, I must suppose that she lived a long time at Ephesus, where St. John was bishop; but as I do not desire to add to Mary’s age without necessary proof, I prefer, in the silence of Holy Scripture, to suppose that she did not live more than five or six years in this lower world, so that she would be just sixty years of age when she quitted earth for heaven. But before following her thither, let us study some circumstances which may give us a more correct idea of her countenance.
If it be well for a painter to know the age of a woman to form an idea of her countenance, there is also another circumstance which will aid him, viz., whether she had children, and if so, how many?
I might never have thought of making this inquiry about Mary, if certain passages had not met my eyes, while looking through the Gospel, which awakened my suspicions.
The first indication that I discovered on this subject was in the last verse of Matthew first.
I saw there, that Jesus was “the first-born son” of Mary; and that Joseph did not live with her, as her husband, until after the birth of Jesus. The two words that I underline appeared to me significant; but I did not come to a conclusion hastily, and I liked better to believe that Mary had no other child than Jesus, until I found evident proof to the contrary.
Such was my feeling after having read the first chapter of Matthew, and I sincerely hoped that I should meet with nothing that would oblige me to give it up.
At the twelfth chapter I met with these words, which I read almost with terror, — “While He talked to the people, behold, His mother and His brethren stood without, desiring to speak with Him.”
His brethren! I exclaimed; as if Jesus had brothers! Mary, then, had several children.
No, no, it cannot be so! Doubtless the word brother here signifies cousin; but let me pass on, and may God grant that no other difficulty may come in the way again!
I went on, and found the following passage: “Then one said unto Him, Behold, Thy mother, and Thy brethren, stand without, desiring to speak with Thee. But He answered and said unto him that told Him, Who is My mother? and who are My brethren? And He stretched forth His hand towards His disciples and said, Behold My mother, and My brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of My Father which is in heaven, the same is My brother, and sister, and mother!”
This latter part only added to my embarrassment, for if the word brother means cousin in the first line it must mean cousin in the second, and then Jesus would seriously have addressed the multitude in this ludicrous way: Whosoever will do the will of My Father which is in heaven, the same is My cousin of either sex.
This supposition is ridiculous, absurd, impossible! It would give a grotesque form to that noble and touching expression of the Saviour, that we are brethren and sisters of Jesus Christ!
You see, we must choose between two interpretations and their consequences. If Mary was accompanied by her nephews, Jesus compared His disciples to cousins, and we thereby lose the beautiful name of brother; or else she was surrounded by her own children, and if so, Mary loses her glorious title to perpetual virginity.
As for me, I own that if I must decide, I would rather believe that Mary had several children than deprive the whole Church — Christians of all ages — of the high privilege of being brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ.
Impressions which are received during the earliest years of childhood, and fostered through life, are not easily removed; and, although my mind was convinced, my heart was not won. I still inwardly resisted, and almost hoped that a miracle might restore my first illusion.
I turned over the leaf, and read the next chapter. Would you believe it? To my great surprise I saw, not only brothers, but sisters of Jesus, mentioned at the fifty-fifth and fifty-sixth verses.
The word cousin could have been used there instead of brother, for a note in your Bible says that the same word in Greek stands for both; but alas! the word sister could not possibly be taken in the sense of cousin, for I have consulted a monk in our monastery, and he tells me that the two words are never used for each other in the original text of the New Testament.
You may, therefore, judge for yourself of the force of my argument, without a knowledge of either Greek, Latin or Hebrew.
I am told that in this passage the Greek words are adelphos and adelphē: now adelphē, in the Scriptures, always signifies sister — never cousin; is it not clear, then, that adelphos means brother, not cousin?
Reflection suggests that correct sense should solve any remaining difficulty; to make the word adelphos signify brother, we have only to give it the ordinary sense, but if we translate it cousin, we must take it in a very exceptional sense.
In short, if those who wrote the Bible had believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, they would certainly have avoided the use of a word which might be mistaken for another.
As soon as I admitted that interpretation, a thousand other particulars occurred in support of my new opinion.
For instance, in the passage which I am examining, the Nazarenes, astonished that Jesus, who had passed His childhood amongst them, should perform miracles, exclaimed, “Is not this the Carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James and Joses, and Simon and Judas? and his sisters, are they not all with us?”
Now when neighbours reckon the members of a family, is it not more natural to suppose that after having named the father and mother they would mention the names of the brothers and sisters, rather than the names of the cousins?
Again, if Jesus were the only child of Mary, why does not Holy Scripture say so?
It does say, many times, that Jesus was the only Son of God; why does it not say, at least once, that Jesus was the only son of Mary? If the words are different, the facts must also be different; we must suppose that the authors, taught by the Holy Spirit, knew how to express themselves, and that they were equally correct when they called Jesus “the only Son of God”, and the first-born son of Mary.
After all these considerations, we must acknowledge that Mary, after having conceived by the Holy Ghost, gave birth to the only-begotten Son of God — a child exempt from any stain of sin; and that after having fulfilled the purpose for which she was supernaturally endowed, Mary became the wife of Joseph.
Therefore, according to Matt. xiii., Jesus had at that period four brothers and some sisters — the word being in the plural number, proves that there were at least two. I then conclude, finally, that Mary had —
Jesus, her first-born son;
His four brothers;
And His two sisters.
In other words, Mary was the mother of seven children at least. You understand, my sister, that in painting I ought to keep in mind that important circumstance, in order to make her features — already rather old — appear thinner.
It appears that others besides myself have been perplexed by these four brothers, for I find, at the margin of the Bible that you sent me, a manuscript note, which alludes to several passages in the Scriptures, and proves — or, at least, attempts to prove — that James, Simon, Judas, and Joses were the four sons of Alphæus, or Cleophas, and Mary, sister of the mother of Jesus, and the three first of these four brothers were numbered with the twelve Apostles. Alas! that explanation only changes the difficulty, or, rather, it gives rise to another, in which the repeated maternity of Mary appears still more evident. Let us admit that the four brothers named in the passage which I am examining were the cousins of Jesus, of whom three were then His Apostles. You will find that, in Luke viii. 20. the twelve were with Jesus, and three of His cousins, forming part of that number, were also with Him; and at the same time the mother and the brothers of Jesus arrived. Now these brothers, who arrived with Mary, cannot be the same who were already with the Saviour.
Reckoning thus, Jesus had cousins, but He also had brothers: His cousins were Apostles, but His brothers were not Apostles; His cousins were with Him, but His brothers were with Mary; His cousins are there among the twelve, His brothers arrive with His mother. Thus brothers and cousins are found side by side at the same time, at the same place; it is, then, impossible to confound them.
The distinction between the brothers and cousins of the Saviour is, if possible, still more striking in the third chapter of St. Mark, for that Evangelist places the mother and brethren of the Saviour immediately after the enumeration of the twelve Apostles.*
*It may be asked, Why is it deemed necessary to prove that Mary had other children? We answer, because much of the affliction which Jesus endured for us was the result of the unbelief of His brethren according to the flesh, and He testified that “a Prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.”
Although they had never seen any deviation from perfection in Him, and had even witnessed the miracles which He did, they tauntingly exclaimed, “If thou do these things, show thyself to the world”; St. Mark adding, “For neither did His brethren believe in Him”; and when He went up to Jerusalem, to attend the last Passover before He suffered, not one of His brethren went with Him, although they knew that the Jews had recently sought to stone Him. “In all points He was tempted as we are,” even in His earthly home. It is a blessing to be set in a family, but alas! Satan often robs the blessing of its joy!—Trs.
But if the advanced age of sixty, and maternity seven times repeated, induced me to depict the features of a good and holy mother, as grown old in her experience of life, and, alas! in its deep sorrows also — for her suffering at the death of her first-born son pierced her soul as with a sword — nothing, however, gave me any hint of the expression of her countenance.
Were her features good and regular? or was there nothing remarkable about them? The answer appeared to me difficult to find.
I even went through the whole of the New Testament without discovering anything which could lead me to a direct solution of it.
I observed, nevertheless, at each page, a marked omission as regards anything relating to her personal appearance.
It was the will of God that his Divine Son should be born, and laid in a manger; that He should live amongst publicans, and die upon the cross. Everywhere in the Gospel the flesh is humbled and the spirit raised; everywhere the outward appearance is despised, and the mind valued; everywhere the body of a Christian is little valued in comparison with his soul.
I thought that there must be some allusion to the person of Jesus Christ, when a passage in the Old Testament confirmed my opinion. Isaiah, in the fifty-third chapter, thus describes the appearance of the Messiah: “He hath no form nor comeliness, and when we shall see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him; on the contrary, we turned away our faces from Him;
Such is the description by the prophet Isaiah.
Ah! doubtless, dear sister, Jesus is the Son of God for you as well as for me; and He Himself is God; He is the model of holiness, greatness of mind, and magnanimous devotedness. Without doubt Jesus is worthy of all our adoration; but observe, that I am only speaking here of the body in human form which Mary bore, to dwell amongst us for a time in humility; yet, in prostrating myself before God, I can acknowledge that His human form had neither beauty nor comeliness, nor, in short, anything attractive.
If such was Jesus, we can suppose, for the same reasons — and even for stronger motives — that such also was Mary.
I was about to place myself before the canvas, and to take up my brush, when a new idea struck me. It was of Mary — such as she is now, and not what she was in childhood, nor in youth, that you asked me to portray; and you were right, for it was not Mary at her marriage, but Mary after her entrance into heaven, who now intercedes for us; and here I found nothing in the Holy Scriptures to guide me. The Church says much of the Assumption of the Virgin, but the Word of God says nothing. What could I do? A good Catholic submits to the Church.
I admit, then, without further hesitation, what that good mother teaches — namely, that Mary, at the end of her life on earth (at the age of sixty according to our calculation), was taken up to heaven, both body and soul, and placed near her Son. That being accepted as a fact, how should I represent Mary on her entrance into Paradise? doubtless, with the features that she had when leaving this world, as she did not die, and has the same body now. But has not that body undergone a change? That was the question which I thought I could have decided with certainty from the Word of God.
I looked all through the New Testament again, and this is what I found on the subject: Jesus said to the Sadducees, “They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they are equal unto the angels.”
So Mary—now in heaven—can neither marry nor be given in marriage; she is, if I may so express it, neither man nor woman. Jesus says it—she is like unto the angels. Now, how are angels represented? or, rather, what chiefly distinguishes these celestial beings from mankind? We cannot but believe that their forms were like ours, for thus they often appeared to persons who are mentioned in the Old and New Testaments; but in Isaiah vi. we are told, that in the presence of God the angels cover their faces with their wings, whence I draw this conclusion: If it be not certain, it is at least probable, that our celestial bodies, like angels, will have the same admirable means of traversing space as the messengers of God, from one world to another.
This is why I have given wings to the Queen of heaven, who does not belong to either sex, and who entered into Paradise, according to the tradition of the Church, on quitting this earth, at the age of sixty.
As to the garments with which I have attired Mary, I have not been guided by the fanciful portraits which represent her gracefully clothed in a pale blue robe, falling in folds, and partly open; but I have followed St. John’s description in his vision of heaven, when he saw a great multitude arrayed in long white robes.
This is the explanation of the style of my portrait. I hope you will be satisfied with it, for I have done what I promised; it bears a closer resemblance to Mary than any portrait that has hitherto been painted.
Believe me,
Your devoted and respectful Brother,
JOSEPH DE ST. PIERRE.
P.S.—I return the Bible, that you may refer to the quotations which vindicate my performance.
A year passed away; the Abbess then sent the following letter, which closes this correspondence —
The Abbess to the Painter.
ST. MARY’S ABBEY,
February 16th, 1567.
DEAR BROTHER IN OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST,
I write to you with a heart filled with joy, and with the purest pleasure.
You have done me the greatest service, do not doubt it; it is only just that I should endeavour to perform a similar service toward you. You thought you sent me an inanimate portrait, whereas you have given me a living being!
You thought you should make me better acquainted with a mediatrix, near to Jesus; you have been the means of revealing to me God, my Saviour! But this needs explanation. I will go back to the beginning.
You will understand that on the arrival of your picture and your letter, I looked first at the portrait. It startled me!
I read your letter, and, although with difficulty, I received your reasons. At length I hung the blessed portrait in my cell — yes, the blessed portrait, as you shall see.
The more I looked at that thin, aged countenance, the less I was enchanted with it, and my veneration for Mary became weaker. I was dissatisfied with myself; but I reflected that after all Mary remains the same: if she be neither young nor beautiful, Mary has not less power as an intercessor.
Vainly I repeated this strong argument; I always felt that I was losing my affection for my patroness; and at length I was compelled to acknowledge that what I had chiefly loved in the Virgin was her youth and beauty, her pure and graceful form—not her moral character, nor her intercession with Jesus Christ.
That fact once admitted, I wished to know for myself that blessed Mary whom I still respected, but to whom I could no longer pray without hesitation. I opened the Bible that you sent back to me, and there, in sight of the portrait, I felt my old ideas removed one after another, and the young, the gentle and beautiful virgin, mediatrix between Jesus and men, in short, the Queen of heaven, changed into an humble servant of the Lord, happy because she had been received through grace; and who, far from being able to contribute anything to the salvation of others, needed a Saviour herself. This is the passage that struck me most. And Mary said, “My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God, my Saviour.” (Luke i, 46.)
If God be her Saviour, thought I, Mary might have been lost; she was not without sin!—but I go on quoting from the Gospel.
“For He hath regarded the low estate of His handmaiden.”
You see Mary speaks of her lowliness? She adds, “All generations shall call me blessed; for He that is mighty hath done to me great things.”
So if Mary has been lifted up, it has been done by the power of God, not through any power in herself. But listen to what the angel Gabriel said to her at the thirtieth verse of the same chapter, “Mary, thou hast found favour with God.”
Now you know that finding favour implies that she had sinned; you feel that it would be absurd to say that God had shewn favour to Jesus Christ, because Jesus was without sin.
You must not, however, think that my great joy arises from the discovery that Mary was only a blessed and very happy woman, like any other who is pardoned and saved. No, but from the moment that I took down that idol from the throne it occupied in my heart, room was ready for Him who ought always to have occupied it.
Yes, while seeking in the Bible to know Mary, I have learned better to appreciate Jesus Christ, my only, my beloved Saviour; and what I find in Him is not what I found of old in Mary: a body of flesh, moulded into such or such a form, but with a mind, and heart, and love, that nothing on earth can worthily express.
Ah! dear brother, when I saw the Son of God quitting heaven to dwell upon the earth; when I followed Him step by step instructing the people, curing the sick, visiting the poor, not expecting anything from them, reproving the great at the risk of their displeasure, and, above all, when I heard that Saviour say to me, “Come unto Me all ye that are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest”; “He who believes in Me shall never die”; “I lay down My life for My sheep”; and at length, when, after listening to Him, I saw Him hanging on the cross to atone for my sins, and crying “Father! forgive them, for they know not what they do!” oh! then my heart burned within me, emotion overcame me, my eyes filled with tears, and I cried, “My lord! and my God! I am saved.”
From that time everything has appeared new to me; the same Christian truths which, until then, I thought I possessed, were like beautiful images suddenly endowed with life and motion.
The Gospel, Christ, heaven, God, became realities to me. I felt in my heart as though a Divine guest explained to me the Word of God, making it easy to me to do right, while that which was so difficult and distasteful to me now became sweet.
In short, I am like a person transported to a new world, where ideas, feelings — indeed, everything, differs from the former world: and this world appeared new to me from the day that I truly felt that I was completely and freely saved by Jesus Christ.
And as for yourself, dear brother, will you not pursue the route you have traversed? after having put the Virgin in her place will you not put our Lord and Saviour in His place also? Oh! believe me, there is no true peace, no true joy besides.
Take the Bible again (not the same, for I am keeping it for myself); accept the one I now send you; read it daily, imploring the gift of the Holy Spirit; and be assured that you will soon find a better Mediator than Mary: you will meet with Jesus, our God and Saviour.
Posadh an Anama ri Criosd
Leis an Urr Eideard Pearce (A.D. 1672)
(Air a leantuinn bho t.d. 258)
VI. Am bitheadh tu da-ríreadh air do phòsadh ri Criosd? An sin gabh beachd agus thoir fa’n ear gu mòr cho neo-chriochnach ionmhiannaichte ‘s tha Criosd. Cha’n aithne do pheaicich, na, ma’s aithne dhoibh, cha’n eil iad a toirt fa’n ear, co, na ciod e Criosd; cha’n eil iad a tuigsinn cia a maith ion-mhiannaichte a tha E do dh’anamaibh; agus uime sin tha iad a deanamh dimeas Air. “Na’m B’aithne dhuit tiodhlac Dhé”; tha Criosd ag ràdh ri bean Shamaria, “agus co e a tha’g rath ruit, Thoir dhomh deoch, dh’farradh tù air-san, agus bheireadh e uisge beo dhuit.” Gu cinn teach, na’m b-aithne do dhaoinne Criosd, agus a luach neo-chriochnach, ruitheadh iad Dha ionnsuidh, agus dhuineadh iad Ris ann an cùmhnanta pòsaidh. Suidhich air a so, agus gabh beachd gu mòr uime sin, agus le sin lion t-anam le mothuchadh domhain air. Tha’n t-Abtol a labhairt air aon fhirinn a mhàinn a thaobh Chriosd, ag innse dhuinn gu’m bheil E airidh air gabhail Ris. I. Tim. i, 16. Agus ma tha sin mar sin, ciod e’n airidheachd air gabhail Ris a tha an Criosd Fein, seadh, Criosd, le fhirinn uile, agus ionmhasan mar an ceudna! Agus cia mar a bu chor do dh’anamaibh dlùth-leantuinn Ris, agus a ghabhail ‘n ar glacaibh! Tha Ann an a measg nithean eile, coig nithean a tha labhairt mu mhaith a bhi barraichte taitneach: luach agus oirdheirceas; feumalachd agus freagarachd air son seirbhis; fresnairachd agus goireasachd; millseachd agus tlachd; buanas agus neo-chaochluidheachd anns na h-uile; tha iad so uile air am faotainn ann an Criosd, a tha Dha thairgse Fein agus a ghràdh dhuinn.
- Tha luach agus oirdheirceas ann an Criosd, seadh, luach agus oirdheirceas nach gabh a bhi air a choimeas ris. Tha’n t-Abtol a labhairt mun an oirdheirceas ro-oidheirc a tha ann an eolas Chriosd, Phil. iii, 8. Nis tha eolas Chriosd cho oirdheirc, do bhrigh gu’m bheil Criosd oirdheirc: tha Criosd da-rìreadh uile gu leir luachmhor, uile gu leir oirdheirc: tha E ‘n a chuan neo-chriochnach de mhaise agus de ghloir; is E ‘n Ti “tha uile gu leir sòrraicht’ a’ measg dheich mile, agus a tha uile gu leir ionmhuinn.” Dan v. 10, 16. Tha na h-uile oirdheirceasan a gabhail còmhnuidh Ann, mar sreathan nan cròchaibh ceart. Gheibh thù cuid de mhaise, cuid de dh’ oirdheirceasan air an sgapadh sios agus suas a measg nan creutairean; na naoimh, agus na h-ainglean, a ghrian, agus a ghealach, agus na reultan, agus an leithid sin; ach mo thruaigh! tha e sgapta, agus cha’n eil e air sgapadh ach an siud ‘s an so mar bhoine; ach ann an Criosd, tha agaibh maise uile, luach uile, oirdheirceas uile ann an aonadh beannaichte agus co-aontachadh: tha na uile agaibh ann an co-aontachadh; tha na h-uile agaibh ann an Aon, agus sin gu neo-chochluidheach. O ciod a chuibhrionn a tha ann an Criosd! tha aon ag ràdh; O nach cladhaicheadh na naoimh ni bu doimhne a stigh ann an ionmhasan a ghliocais agus oirdheirceasan-san! Gu fireannach ‘s e cladach milis a tha’n sin; agus an sin, ann an doigh eiginn, an sin bhitheadh iad ait tre’n t-siorrudheachd: oir eadhon tre’n t-siorrudheachd eirigh iongnughean ùr de ghloir, thig am fradharc maise agus oirdheirceasan, agus dealraichidh, agus dhealraichidh ann an Criosd; Ciod a their mi? Tha Aige-san ann Fein uile oirdheirceasan an dà shaoghail; agus tha, agus da-rìreadh gu toillteanach airidh air ioghnadh an da shaoghail. Ann-san tha co-aontachadh de na h-uile buaidhean gràdhach, na buadhan tarruing, na buadhan a tha cur ioghnadh iomlanachd shoillseach agus ghloirmhor na Diadhachd a tha gu neo-chriochnach beannaichte. Uime sin tha E’g ràdh, “Na uile nithean a tha aig an Athair is leam-sa iad. Eoin xvi. 15, nì dh’fheudas a bhi air a thuigsinn a thaobh iomlanachd diadhachd; uime sin, mar an ceudna, tha e air a ràdh gu’m bheil E co-ionnan ri Dia. Phil. ii. 6, ‘s e sin, ge be iomlanachd dhiadhaidh a tha air am faotainn ann an Dia an t-Athair, tha iad uile air am faotainn ann an Criosd: Ann-san tha air am foillseacadh uile iomlanachd an Athar, uile shusbainn, bith, agus maise an Athar agus mar a thug duine ionnsaichte fa’n ear, tha Criosd a’ Mac anns na h-uile nì coltach ris an Athair, ach a mhàinn so, cha’n E Pearsa an Athair. Bh’uaith so, mar an ceudna, tha e air a ràdh gur E “dealradh a ghloire-san, agus na fhior iomhaigh a phearsa.” Eabh. i. 3. Tha uile ghloire agus oirdheirceas an Athar a dealrachadh a mach Ann-san, agus tha E ann an iomlanachd a foillseacadh an Athar dhuinn. Mar sin tha Criosd na Phearsa oirdheirc, agus air an aobhar sin ro-ionmhiannaichte. Agus O! co nach gabhadh ri leithid sin de Chriosd agus nach gabhadh ‘n a ghlaicaibh E! Agus cia mòr an aingidheachd a th’ann a dhiùltadh! Cha’n urrainn mi ach, ann an so, a bhi togail gearain duine naoimh: O nach truagh, nach truagh, gu bràth, tha e’g ràdh, gu-m bhitheadh a leithid de neach ann ri Iosa Criosd, cho neo-chriochnach, gu’n ghrùnnd, nach eil neach cosmhuil Ris, cho-neo-chriochnach ann an oirdheirceas agus a’ mhillseachd, agus cho beag a ghabhas Ris; tha iad gu truagh a call an gràidh, tha e’g ràdh, nach builichcar air a chuspair ghràdhach so.
(R’a leantuinn)