Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 9.djvu/816

 MARY

761

MART

legal holidays. Incorporation of Catholic churches is made accoraing to a special law by the body com- posed of the bishop of the diocese, his vicar-general, the pastor of the parish and two otnerpersons electea annually by the male pewhoiders. The form of the judicial or other oath not provided for in the State Constitution is: " In the presence of Almighty God I do solemnly promise * ', or " declare ", etc. It is not lawful to add to any oath the words " So help me God ", or any imprecatory words whatever. Affirmation is suf- ficient if the conscience of the person is against an oath. The manner is by holding up the right hand, unless this is not practical or some other way is con- sidered more bindmg.

No one who takes part in, or aids or abets a duel, or sends or accepts a challenge, can hold office. No minister of the Gospel is eligible for election to the Legis- lature. Murder in the first degree is punishable with death; arson, rape, and treason with death or imprison- ment at the aiscretion of the court. The chief groimds of divorce are adultery, abandonment for three years, impotency at time of marriage, and misconduct of wife before marriage unknown to husband. Separation from bed and board is granted for cruel treatment, ex- cessively vicious conduct, or desertion.

RUS8EIX, The Land of Sanctuary (Baltimore, 1907); Huohes, The History of the Society ofJeaua in North America (Cleveland,

1907-10); BosMAN, Hxstory of Maryland 1633-60 (Baltimore.

■" '" " ruland

(Baltimore. 1848}*!^ BnowtiE, Mary Uind, History of a Palatinate

1861); McShrrry, History of Maryland . . ,to the Year 1848

(Boston. 1884); McMahon, History of Maryland to 1776 (Bal- timore, 1831): ScHARFP, History of Maryland (BsUtimore, 1879); Davis, The Day-Star of American Freedom (New York, 1855); Mokris, The Lords Baltimore (Baltimore, lo74); Hall, The Ixtrds Baltimore and the Maryland Palatinate (Baltimore. 1902); Calvert Papers; Maryland Archives; Kiltt, Landholder 8 Assiatant (Baltimore, 1808); Bacon, Laws of Maryland (Annapolis, 1765); Bulletins of the Maryland Orioirud Research Society; Fiske, Old Viryinia and her Neighbors (Bos- ton, 1897); Adamb, Village Communities of Cape Anne and ScUem (Baltimore, 1883); Qambrall, History of Early Mary- land (New York, 1893); Johnson, Old Maryland Manors (Baltimore, 1883); White, Relatio Itineris in Marylandiam in Hist. Soc. Publ.; Zwierlein, Religion in New Netherland (Rochester, 1910). See also bibliography of Carroll, John.

A. Leo Knott.

Mary Magdalen, so called either from Magdala near Tiberias, on the west shore of Galilee, or possibly from a Talmudic expression K^^K'i \r\T^ XTliD, i. e. "curling women's hair", which the Talmud explains as of an adulteress. In the New Testament she is mentioned among the women who accompanied Christ and ministered to Him (Luke, viii, 2-3), where it is also said that seven devils had been cast out of her (Mark, xvi, 9). She is next named as standing at the foot of the cross (Mark,xv, 40; Matt., xxvii, 56; John, xix, 25; Luke, xxiii, 49). She saw Christ laid in the tomb, and she was the first recorded witness of the Resurrection. The Greek Fathers, as a whole, dis- tinguish the three persons: the "sinner'* of Luke, vii, 36-50; the sister of Martha and Lazarus, Luke, x, 38-42, and John, xi; and Mar^*^ Magdalen. On the other hand most of the Latins hold that these three were one and the same. Protestant critics, however, believe there were two, if not three, distinct persons. It is impossible to demonstrate the identity of the three; but those commentators undoubtedly go too far who assert, as does Westcott (on John, xi, 1), "that the identity of Mary with Mary Magdalene is a mere conjecture supported by no direct evidence, and opposed to the general tenour of the gosjpels ". It is the iaentification of Mary of Bethany with the "sinner" of Luke, vii, 37, which is most combatted by Prot- estants (see Plummer, " International Criticad Com- ment, on St. Luke", p. 209). It almost seems as if this reluctance to identify the "sinner" with the sister of Martha were due to a failure to grasp the full signif- icance of the forgiveness of sin. (See Mayor in Hastings, "Dictionary of the Bible", III, 28'1.) The harmonizing tendencies of so nmny modern critics, too, arc responsible for nuich of the existing confusion.

The first fact mentioned in the Gospel relating to the question under discussion is the anointing of Christ's feet by a woman, a "sinner" in the city ([Luke, vii, 37-50). This belongs to the Galilean min- istry, it precedes the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand and the third Passover. Immediately afterwards St. Luke describes a missionary circuit in Galilee and tells us of the women who nunistered to Christ, among them being " Mary who is called Magda- len, out of whom seven devils were gone forth" (Luke, viii, 2); but he does not tell us that she is to be identified with the * ' sinner ' ' of the previous chapter. In x, 3&-42, he tells us of Christ's visit to Martha and Mary " in a certain town"; it is impossible to identify this town, but it is clear from ix, 53, that Christ had definitivelv left Galilee, and it is quite possible that this "town'' was Bethany. This seems confirmed by the preceding parable of the good Samaritan, which must almost certainly have been spoken on the road between Jer- icho and Jerusalem. But here again we note that there is no suggjestion of an identification of the three persons, viz., the "sinner", Mary Magdalen, and Mary of Bethany; and if we had only St. Luke to guide us we should certainly have no grounds for so identifying them. St. John, however, clearly identifies Maiy of Bethany with the woman who anointed Christ's feet (xii* cf. Matt., xxvi, and Mark, xiv). It is remarkable that already m xi,. 2, St. John has spoken of Mary as "she that anointed the Lord's feet", ^ dXe/^cwa; it is com- monly said that he refers to the subsequent anointing which he himself describes in xii, 3-8; but it may be questioned whether he would have used ^ dXef^cwa if another woman, and she a "sinner" in the city, had done Uie same. It is conceivable that St. John, just because he is writing so long after the event and at a time when Mary was dead, wishes to point out to us that she was really the same as the " sinner". In the same way St. Lute may have veiled her identity precisely because he did not wish to defame one who was yet living; he certainly does something similar in the case of St. Matthew whose identity with Levi the publican (v, 7) he conceals.

If the foregoing argument holds good, Mary of Bethany and the "sinner" are one and the same. But an examination of St. John's Gospel makes it al- most impossible to deny the identity of Mary of Beth- any with Mary Magdalen. From St. John we learn the name of the "woman" who anointed Christ's feet previous to the last supper. We may remark here that it seems unnecessary to hold that because St. Matthew and St. Mark say " two days before the Pass- • over", while St. John says "six days" there were, therefore, two distinct anointings following one an- other. St. John does not necessarily mean that tJhe supper and the anointing took place six days before, but only that dirist came to Bethany six days before the Passover. At that supper, then, Mary received the glorious encomium, "she hath wrought a good work upon Me ... in pouring this ointment upon My body she hath done it for My burial . . . wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached . . . that also which she hath done shall be told for a memory of her. " Is it cred- ible, in view of all this, that this Mary should have no place at the foot of the cross, nor at the tomb of (Christ? Yet it is Mary Magdalen who, according to all the Evangelists, stood at the foot of the cross and assisted at the entombment and was the first recorded witness of the Resurrection. And while St. John calls her "Mary Magdalen "in xix, 25, xx, 1, 18, he calls her simply "Mary" in xx, 11 and 16.

In the view we have advocated the series of events forms a consistent whole; the "sinner" comes early in the ministry to seek for pardon; she is described im- mediately afterwards as Mary Magdalen "out of whom seven devils wore gone forth "; shortly after, we find her "sitting at the Lonl's feet an<l hearing His