MARY (Heb. o ι >ηn, Gr. Mαg∕αμ vel Mag∕a). Of persons bearing this name, no less than seven are mentioned in different parts of the sacred volume. They are the following:

Mary or Miriam, the sister of Aaron and Moses. She was the daughter of Amram and Jochebed, who were both of the tribe of Levi (Exod. ii. 1), and were related to each other before marriage as aunt and nephew (Exod. vi. 20), and seems to have been their eldest child (Numb, xxvi. 59). When the infant Moses was exposed by his mother in the ark; upon the Nile, Miriam, then probably about eight years of age, was sent to observe the fate of her brother; and when she beheld him picked up by the attendants of the daughter of Pharaoh, and saw the interest taken in him by that princess, she availed herself of the opportunity to have him again restored to his mother, by offering to procure for him a Hebrew nurse, and, when that offer was accepted, bringing his mother as the person she had selected (Exod. ii. 4—10). On the occasion of the destruction of the Egyptians in the Red Sea, after the Israelites had passed safely over, Miriam, who, in the passage giving an account of the circumstance (Exod. xv. 20), is styled “the prophetess,” either on account of her skill in extempore poetry and music,^[1. See Rosenmüller, SchοL in loc.; and Wells’s Paraphrase. ] or because she really enjoyed divine revelations,^[2. Numb. xii. 2; and Micah vi. 4. ] led forth a chorus of women, and guided them in celebrating with music and dancing the triumphant deliverance which their nation had obtained. Shortly after this an event occurred which presents the character of Miriam in a less favourable light. Her brother Moses had been rejoined by his wife Zipporah, who had for a considerable time before been resident with her father Jethro (Exod. xviii. 1-3); and as she was not of Israelitish but of Cushite extraction, Miriam and her brother Aaron took occasion from this to indulge what seems to have been a long-cherished feeling of jealousy and envy towards Moses, by exciting a prejudice against him in the minds of the people. For this she was punished by God, by being, in the sight of all the people, afflicted with leprosy, so that “she became white as snow.” On the intercession, however, of Aaron with Moses, and of Moses with God, this terrible infliction was removed; but not until she had been “shut out from the camp seven days,” during which time the people of Israel suspended their journey (Numb, xii.). From this a period of nearly forty years elapses during which no mention is made of Miriam; and when at length, towards the close of the history, her name is again introduced, it is only for the purpose of informing us that, on the arrival of the Israelites at Kadesh, in the desert of Zin, she died and was buried in that place. At the time of her death it is calculated she must have been nearly 130 years of age. Her decease preceded that of Aaron by about four, and that of Moses by about eleven months, so that these three distinguished members of the same family died within the same year.^[3. Numb. XX. 1, xxxiii. 38; and Deut, xxxiv. 5. See also Dr Ad. Clarke’s Comment, on Numb. xx. 1. ] Eusebius says her tomb was to be seen at Kadesh, near the city of Petra, even in his time.
[7:14:268]

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 is 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: l sí, In the genealogy of Christ’s descent furnished by St Matthew, we are informed that the father of Joseph was Jacob, and not Heli; 2dly, The entire discrepancy of the genealogy as given by St Matthew from that given by St Luke necessitates the conclusion, that as both relate to Christ’s descent, the former gives his descent by his reputed father’s side, and the latter by his mother’s side; and, 2>dly, 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. 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.^[4. TJ le sυ PP osition that Mary was an heiress and was, according to the Mosaic law in reference to such cases, married by one of her own tribe, who from that circumstance came to be called the son of her father, a supposition which was maintained at a very early age in the church, as we learn from Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. i. 7), is entirely arbitrary and unnecessary. See Crusii Hypomnemata ad Τheol. Ρτoph. p. 355; and Olshausen’s Commentar, Bd. i. s. 43; the latter of whom favours the hypothesis. ]

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 (τζκrω∣∕), 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 vγere 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.^[5. Deut, xxii∙ 23. “p emina ex quo desponsata est, licet nondum a viro cognita, est uxor viri; et si sponsus eam velit repudiare, oportet ut id faciat libello repudii.” (Maimonides ap. Buxtorf. de Divortio, p. 76.) ] Hence Joseph is called the husband of Mary, and she his wife, though as yet their contract of marriage had not been fulfilled (Matt. i. 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 Protevangelium 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 hecome a mother fly the miraculous power of God, and that therefore her child should be called “the Son of God.” For the confirmation of his 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 realised, 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, toexposeher to the ignominy and danger^[6. By the law of Moses such crimes were to be punished with death by stoning. Deut, xxii. 23, 24. ] of a public disclosure of her crime, he bad 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 prophecy^[7. Micah, V. 2. ] 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 Judaea, 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 taxedJ seems to [7:14:269]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 atfoγgapn, which is the classical word for a census or enrolment, whereas the proper word for taxation is wχοτιμτβις. 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.^[8. The statement of Dio Cassius, which is supported by the testimony of Tacitus, Annal, i. 11, and of Suetonius, Oetav. c. 101, that Augustus left behind him at his death a breviarium or rationarium of the Roman empire, in four volumes, of which the third complectebatur (piae ad milites, quoeque ad reditus sumptusque publicos, pertinebant, renders it extremely probable that that monarch had taken much pains to have accurate returns made from all parts of his dominions. That this was the case, is indeed expressly stated by Cassiodorus, iii. 52. See also Suidas in voc. a∙*eγζaφn. ] 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 author’s having fallen into it. According to a usage not uncommon in the New Testament, πgωτη seems to be used for ¶goríga ;^[9. Winer’s Grammatik des Ncutest. Sprachid. p. 201. Stuart’s Syntax of the New Testament Dialect, in the Biblical Cabinet, vol. x. p. 12 ] 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.^[10. See Lardner, Credibility, part ii. ch. i.; Macknight, Harmony, Chronol. Diss. i. ch. 13; and a very able series of articles in Tholuck’s Litierarisćher Anzeiger for 1830, from the pen of the learned editor. ]

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 childbirth,^[11. Exod. xiii. 2. ] Mary went up to Jerusalem to present her son to the Lord, and to offer the appointed sacrifice in such cases.^[12. Levit, xii. 6-8. ] 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 adorations 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.^[13. Macknight’s Harmony, § 11; and Doddridge in loc. ] It was on the occasion of another of these visits that the scene between Christ and the Jewish Rabbin 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 Xegvrir∕ς, and Tertullian Quaestuaria. Her residence seems to have been principally at Capernaum, on which account probably this place was called Christ’s “own city” (Matt. 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 Catholic church the Virgin [7:14:270]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.^[14. For illustrations of the length to which this was carried during the middle ages, see the extracts from the writings of the Minnesingers, in Gieseler’s Kirchen Gedachte, Bd. ii. Abt. ii. p. 463. See also Abt. iv. p. 335. ] For this the way was gradually paved 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 t ⅛iorlMΛς, ⅛ioμr ∣ τr^, òtō¶oiva άγια xaι asirtaξθivoς, 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;^[15. In Actis Ephes. p. 33, ap. Suicer. Thes. Eccl. ii. 304. ] from writing treatises to prove that she bore her son clauso utero, et sine dolore, and many other puerile extravagances; the transition was not difficult to the dogmas of the immaculate conception and the assumption, nor to the offering of divine homage to the object of such unwarranted eulogium. 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. 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.” The probability is that she had none, and that these titles are to be taken, according to Hebrew usage, as merely signifying near relations. ^[16. Bishop Pearson on the Creed, p. 174, folio ed.; Edwards’s Exercitatione on Scripture, p. 143; and Pott, Prokg. in Epist. Jacobi, Nov. Test. Koppianum, vol. ix. p. 90, &c. &c. ] 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.”^[17. Homil. de Christi generatione, ap. Suicer. Thes. Eccl. ii. 306. ] Mary Magdalene, so called apparently from Magdala, a castle, and probably also a village, near Gamala and the baths of Tiberius, on the eastern shore of the sea of Galilee (Matt. XV. 39).^[18. Lightfoot, Hor. Talm. in loc.; Winer, Realw'òrterbuch, art. Magdala. ] This was in all probability her birthplace, and from it she was named, to distinguish her from the other Marys who followed Christ. She has been often confounded with Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus, and also with the “woman who was a sinner,” mentioned in Luke, vii. 36, &c. but in both cases without any sufficient reason. Equally unfounded is the notion, that before her conversion she was a person of abandoned character; a notion which, though resting on no better authority than that of some monkish legends, has nevertheless become so generally received, that few even in Protestant countries ever think of questioning its accuracy. The only passage of Scripture, however, that can be quoted as favouring this opinion, is that in which it is said that “out of her went seven devils.” (Luke, viii.) But this cannot be admitted as evidence in support of the point in question; for, whatever may be the conclusion to which we come as to the nature of that diabolical possession which prevailed in the days of our Lord, one thing is certain in regard to it, which is, that to be afflicted with it did not imply in the individual so visited any peculiar moral depravity; so that, though the case of Mary Magdalene was one of unusual severity (the number seven being the number of completeness), it by no means follows from this that she was not a virtuous, nay, pious female. On the contrary, the evidence from Scripture seems rather to favour the supposition that she was a person at once of blameless character and respectable station. She is introduced to us for the first time in the society of Joanna, the wife of Chuza, steward of Herod’s household (iitiτξwroς, proefectus domus), with whom she was associated in ministering to the wants of our Saviour “out of their substance” (wmξχρwa, opes, facultates) ; and from the language used by Mark (ch. xv. 41), it would seem as if this had been the usual practice of these pious females whenever he paid a visit to Galilee. Had she been, as is commonly supposed, a mere common prostitute before her conversion, it is difficult to understand how she should either associate with persons of such rank as Joanna, or be possessed of the means of such liberality towards Christ.^[19. For a complete investigation of this point, see Lardner’s Letter to Jonas Hanway, Esq. Works, vol. v. 4to ed. See also,Mac-knight’s Harmony, § 43. ]

On the occasion of our Lord’s going up to Jerusalem from Galilee, immediately before his death, Mary Magdalene was one of those by whom he was followed; nor does she seem to have left him as long as he continued upon earth. She was one of those who beheld him from a distance when he was hanging upon the cross (Mark, xv. 40); and when he was taken down and buried, it was she and Mary Salome who sat over against the sepulchre and beheld where he was laid (Matt, xxvii. 61; Mark, xv. 47). From the sepulchre she returned with her companion into the city to procure materials for embalming his body; and having rested on the Sabbath, they came at the dawn of the third day to perform this office of respect to their departed Lord. Contrary to their expectations and fears, they found the stone which they had seen placed upon the mouth of the tomb rolled away, and free entrance afforded to its interior. Stooping down and looking in, they were startled to find the body of Jesus gone; but as they wondered, an angel appeared, who informed them of his resurrection, and at the same time commanded them to carry the tidings of this event to the rest of the disciples (Matt, xxviii. 7). Amazed and perplexed, they fled from the sepulchre, and announced to their company what they had seen; upon which Peter ŉnd John hastened to satisfy themselves of the correctness of their report, by returning with them to the place where Jesus had been interred. When the others returned home, Mary seems to have remained by the empty sepulchre to weep; and “as she wept,” we are told, “she stooped down and looked into the sepulchre,'and seeth two angels sitting, the one at the head and the other at the feet where the body of Jesus had lain.” By them she was asked the cause of her tears; to which she answered, that it was because they had taken away her Lord, and she knew not where they had laid him. During this conversation, Jesus himself drew near and addressed her; but, stιιpified with grief, she did not at first recognise his voice, and, intent upon gazing into the sepulchre, she answered his inquiries as to what she wept for, and what she sought, without turning herself, under the impression that he was the gardener. To recall her recollection, Jesus addressed her by name; upon which she immediately recognised the well-known voice, and, turning herself, exclaimed, “Rabboni, which is to say, Master.” After a brief conversation, he sent her to announce to the disciples that she had seen him, and that he was about to ascend to heaven. This command she obeyed; and from this time forward we find [7:14:271]no mention made of her in the New Testament. As to certain traditionary accounts of subsequent actions and journeyings in which she is said to have been engaged, they bear too obviously the marks of mere legendary fiction to be worthy of notice.

Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus. These three individuals composed the members of a family, than which none was more beloved and honoured by our Lord in the days of his flesh. Their residence was at Bethany, a village not far from Jerusalem, where Martha seems to have been a householder; and thither our Lord was in the habit, apparently, of frequently retiring during the intervals of his public labours. The name of Mary is first introduced, in connection with that of her sister, in the account given of a visit paid by Christ to their abode, during one of his journeys; on which occasion, whilst Martha busied herself in caring for the hospitable entertainment of her guest, Mary sat at his feet to receive his instruction (Luke, x. 38, &C.). The next mention that is made of her is in the touching and striking account given by John (ch. xi. 1-46), of the death and resurrection of Lazarus; and she appears for the last time shortly subsequent to this, on the occasion of an entertainment given to our Lord, a few days before his crucifixion, by Martha, when she anointed his feet with precious ointment, and wiped them with the hair of her head (John, xii. 1-9).

Mary Salome, the sister of the Virgin Mary, andmother of James and Joses, and Simon and Judas. She is the same who is elsewhere called the wife of Cleophas (John, xix. 25), or Alphaeus, these two being only different modes of Grecis-ing the Hebrew -sbrt, Chalpai. Mary, the mother of John Mark (Acts, xii. 12).

Mary, a pious member of the church at Pome (Rom. xvi. 6).

Mary, queen of England. See England. Mary, queen of Scotland. See Scotland.