It developed gradually and was not extensively taught until the early part of the Middle Ages, from the fifth to the eighth century after Christ, nor fully developed until the later part of the Middle Ages, from the eleventh to the fifteenth century.

First in 1854 was “the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary” made a dogma, and that in direct contradiction of the plain Scriptural teaching that all have sinned, that all are sinners, that none are righteous. (Rom. 3:10-12; 5:12) Nothing is said about Mary’s being an exception. Had she been sinless she could not have died a “natural” death.

And it was as late as 1950 that the pope called a secret consistory to vote on making the tradition that Mary had ascended into heaven in her human body a dogma of the church, the “Assumption”; also in direct contradiction of the Scriptures that plainly state: “Flesh and blood can obtain no part in the kingdom of God, neither shall corruption have any part in incorruption.” (1 Cor. 15:50, CB) The fact that some of the princes of the church voted “No” on this matter would seem to indicate that they are not thoroughly convinced that the pope is infallible in doctrine!

Indicating the trend to give Mary ever more importance are the words of John A. Flynn, president of Catholic St. John’s University in Brooklyn, New York. According to him it is not unlikely that Mary will be “proclaimed in a definition of doctrine as Co-Redemptrix of the human race, that next the dogma of Mediatrix of all graces may be promulgated, and that finally the definition of her queenship, as participation with her Son in the power of ruling the World, may be proclaimed. . . . It is likely that all three of these may come to realization before another century passes because the importance of Mary in the universe has come more and more to the fore.”—Time magazine, March 22, 1954.

CO-REDEMPTRIX, MEDEATRIX AND QUEEN?

Again we ask, what do the Scriptures say? Do they support Flynn’s position or do they indicate that such is a form of idolatry?

In introducing Jesus as “the Lamb of of God, who takes away the sin of the world,” John the Baptist said nothing about Jesus’ having a co-redemptrix. Nor did Jesus himself when he referred to his redemptive work: “The Son of Man has not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”—John 1:29; Matt. 20:28, CB.

Note also Peter’s unequivocal words in this matter. Referring to Christ Jesus he stated: “Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12, CB) Those words do not allow for a co-redemptrix. Nor do Paul’s words at Romans 5:17-19 (CB). “For if by reason of the one man’s offense death reigned through the one man, much more will they who receive the abundance of the grace and of the gift of justice reign in life through one Jesus Christ. Therefore as from the offense of the one man the result was unto condemnation to all men, so from the justice of the one the result is unto justification of life to all men. For just as by the disobedience of one man the many were constituted sinners, so also by the obedience of one the many will be constituted just.” In fact, Paul’s entire argument regarding the redemptive work of Christ Jesus falls flat if we include Mary as a co-redemptrix. And further note that the great crowd which John saw in the Apocalyptic vision were saying: “Salvation belongs to our God, who sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb.” Again, not a word about salvation as also being due to Mary.—Rev. 7:10, CB.

And what about Mary’s being the “Mediatrix of all graces”? We are told that “there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all.” (1 Tim. 2:5, 6, CB) Jesus himself stated that “no one comes to the Father but through me.” John tells of only Jesus’ being “an advocate with the Father.” The law covenant between God and the nation of Israel did not need a mediatrix, neither does the new covenant which replaced it. Time and again Jesus is termed the mediator of the new covenant but nowhere do we read of a mediatrix of that covenant.—John 14:6; 1 John 2:1.

And finally we ask, Do the Scriptures support the claim Mary will participate “with her Son in the power of ruling the World”? After his resurrection Jesus stated that “all power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matt. 28:18, CB) He said nothing about his mother’s ruling with him. David, Isaiah, Daniel and others foretold Christ’s glorious reign but nowhere did they indicate that he will have his mother as a co-queen. Paul states that Christ will reign until all things are made subject to his feet, and that this “all things” includes all except Jehovah God. Included therefore is his mother Mary; she will also be subject to him, not reigning as co-queen. Sharing Christ’s rule will be his bride, his church, not his mother.—Rev. 19:7, 8.

Nor can the Apocalyptic vision of a woman clothed with the sun be used to prove that Mary will be co-queen. (Rev. 12:1-6) That woman could not be Mary, for John’s vision applied to the future, and was given a hundred years after Mary had given birth to Jesus. (Rev. 1:1-3) That woman is God’s woman, his organization: “Jerusalem which is above” and “which is our mother.”—Gal. 4:26, CB.

Clearly in view of all the foregoing, the devotion and ever-increasing prominence accorded to Mary is in contradiction of the Scriptures and indicates that veneration of Mary is a form of idolatry.

“An Eminent Christian of a Rare Kind”?

Dr. W. R. Matthews, present dean of St. Paul’s cathedral in London, in commenting on the decease of his predecessor, Sir W. R. Inge, the “gloomy dean,” referred to Inge as “an eminent Christian of a rare kind. He shocked a good many people but he made them think.”

Among the statements by which Inge shocked a great many people was that he believed in neither heaven, hell nor the British socialists. Of course, one who claims to be a Christian cannot put his faith in the British socialists, nor, for that matter, in the liberals or the tories, but must put his faith in Christ’s kingdom. And (giving Inge the benefit of the doubt) in stating that he did not believe in hell he may have meant, not in a fiery hell. But how can a man pose before the people of the world as a Christian minister and state that he does not believe in heaven? Heaven was very real to Christ Jesus. He said he came down from heaven and that he was going to return to it, that his Father resided in heaven, that his kingdom was from heaven, that the reward of his footstep followers was in heaven and that they were to lay up treasures in heaven.

When Dr. Matthews states that Dr. Inge made people think, what does he mean? Made them wonder if there really was a God, if the Bible was worth the paper it was written on? His remarks certainly were not such as to encourage the right kind of thinking on God and the Bible. Can such a one be properly termed “an eminent Christian of a rare kind”? Obviously there is something radically wrong with Dr. Matthews’ concept of what constitutes a Christian. When leading clergymen subscribe to such a philosophy as that of Inge, is it any wonder that there is so much religious illiteracy, apathy and hypocrisy in the world, that there are so many who are “lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power”?—2 Tim. 3:4, 5, NW.