2. The Purification ofMory, besides synchronizing with the Presentation of her Son. was an event belonging to the same moral and religious category. It also was an act of a humble-minded and becoming oljedience to the Law of Moses, under which she lived. St. Jerome alone among the Fathers was of opinion that in her ca.se too it was strictly oljligatorv", not, of course, on account of any sin on her part, her conception of the Child being spotless and holy (Lk l^^'^jand an act of obedience to Almighty God ; but ceremonioUn l:>ecau>e, the Birrh being a real one, she had touched things which involved ceremonial uncleanness. Wliether St. Jerome is right, or the other Fathers (for the discussion see Cornelius a Lapide), and whether or not she might have claimed exemption, she is to be prai>ed for not doing so, but quietly and humbly accepting the law binding on ordinary mothers, and being Avilling, as her Son A\a!l also be, to be reckoned with transgres-sors (Mk 15^, Lk 22^). It was enough for her, as it would be enough for Him, that Go<l knew.
The reading adopted in the RV (Lk 222) . ' the days of thtir (not ' her.' AV) purification,' has the highest MS authority, and is that expressly of Origren and Cjiil : it is explained when we remember that while the ceremonial uncleanne^ ■n-as directly that of the mother only, Joseph and the Child could hardly help —especially while li\Tng in such circumstances as were theirs at Beihleiiem — contracting a like defilement, in the legal sense, by contact with her. Our Lord, all holy from the firsi, -aus often to be so defiled (Lk 151 197). He regarded it as His glory, not His shame.
The legal ordinance (Lv 12) appointed that a woman who had fx)me a man child should be (cere- monially) unclean for seven days ; for three and thirty (lays more she might touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary. Then, on the fortieth day, she must bring 'a lamb of the first year for a bumt-ofTering (expressive of de- votion), and a young pigeon or a turtle-dove for a sin offering (a testimony, St. Jerome says, to the doctrine of original sin), unto the door of the tent of meeting, unto the priest, and he shall offer it before the Lord, and make atonement for her ; and she shall Ije cleansed from the fountain of her blood. . . . And if her means suffice not for a lamb, then she shall take two turtle-doves or two young pigeons ; the one for a bumt-offer- ing. the other for a sin-offering.' The Virgin's humility appears in her availing herself of this merciful provision ; she disdained not to admit her poverty ; we may be sure she did not (as some, thinking to exalt her, have imagined) assume a false a)jpearance of it : even if Joseph and she had not been extremely poor before, the expenses of the
journey to Bethlehem, and of living there six weeks, and the five shekels for the Child, c-ould not have failed to make deep inroads on their purse. The order of the combined rites would be as follows : — (1) The Holy Family would c-ome into the hall of the unclean, and >iand there. (2) Then would be ottered the dove for her sLn-offering, and |>erhaps they would 1« sprinkled with the lu:^tral water and the ashes of the heifer (Nu W^). (3) Then the Child would Ik; presented. And lastly, (4) the other dove would l>e offered in sign of Mary's thanksgiving and self-devotion to God. The Virgin would not go further — even when she had been cleansed — than the Court of the Women.
The Evangelist's use of tbe words 'parenU ' (v.^T) and ' father and moUier ' (v.^ have been nrged as evidence that ' the idea of the supematnral conception of Jesos has not penetrated to this part of tbe legendarv" materials here ctrileaed together' (Schmidt and Holzeodorff, Short Protegtant Commentarf); to which we may answer that he would have been a poor redactor who, ba\'ing transcribed eh. L, did not observe an inconsistenqr of this kind, and that in point of fact the Third Gospel is marked by its homogeneity (see Bamsay, Wai Christ bom at BetUeAeat!). Ihe explanation of the apparent inconsistency lies deep in tbe principle which led oar Lord, sinles Himself (i Co 3^), to accept the lot of sinners, and lay this lot also 00 His blessed Mother ; and further, that His glory was not to be n:.anifested till the time appointed of the Father. Till then, whatever brief epiph- anies there might be were only for the &voared few. Eren the Transfiguratiol^was to be told to no man till the Son of Man was risen from the dead. The facts were secure in the hearts of sufficient witneses (Lk 21S- si) ; they would come forth in due time- More especially. His birth of a Virgin Mother — told as it was to be by two Evangelists (Mt I'^-^s, 1^ r3»-3S). and always an article of faith in the Church-— wtis not a thing to be communicated to unbelieving ears and scoffii^ t<M]gnes ; even when His claim to have come down out of heaven was contrasted with what were supposed to be the known facts of His origin as Man (Jn 6^, Mt V^). The feding of the Eariy Church upon the subject is esp«esed in a fantous passage of St- Ignatius of Antioch (f. 110) : ' Hidden frmn the prince of this world were the virginitA' of Mary, and her child-bearing, and likewise also the death of the Lord — three mysteries to be cried aloud — the which were wxought in the silence of God ' (ad Ephe*. 19).