That Elizabeth was Mary’s cousin is of faith, because we have the angel’s word for it, as recorded in the Gospel. How she was thus related we learn from tradition. Jacob, the son of Mathan and father of Joseph, had two sisters, Anne, the happy mother of Mary, and Sobe, the mother of Elizabeth, so that Mary and Joseph were Elizabeth’s cousins in the same degree. That Sobe should have married into the tribe of Levi need cause no surprise. The law which obliged maidens to marry in their own tribe was peculiarly stringent as regarded orphans or such as were otherwise possessed of property, in order to prevent the inheritance passing out of their tribe; but in other cases there was more license, especially after the return from the Babylonian captivity, when the tribes had been almost entirely dispersed, and particularly in the case of the tribe of Levi, which was scattered among the rest, and had no inheritance apart.
Immediately on arriving, Mary, as the Evangelist tells us, entered the house of Zachary, and saluted her cousin Elizabeth. This salutation, as we know, was followed by the first homage which the Divine Infant received after that of His Blessed Mother. The babe in Elizabeth’s womb heard and understood, and leaped for joy, when straightway, filled with the Holy Ghost, Elizabeth exclaimed: “Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”1 The Blessed Virgin then uttered that glorious canticle of humility which the Church continues to repeat in her honor. Mary, no doubt, entreated her cousin not to divulge the secret which had been revealed to her. But what are we to think of that blessed house of Zachary, which had now become a sanctuary of the Most High, the temple of God—and more than a temple, an earthly paradise? Its holy occupants, we may be sure, spent the greater portion of their time in prayer and in the praises of God, in conversing on the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Fathers, dwelling specially on what the prophets had foretold concerning the Messias, now so soon expected to appear, but whom Mary and Elizabeth and the unborn Precursor could adore as already present. The Paschal solemnities must have occurred during the early part of Mary and Joseph’s sojourn at Hebron, and those faithful observers of the Law will not have failed to fulfill their devout obligation by repairing to the Holy City for a few days, returning afterwards to resume their charitable offices in the house of Zachary. Mary, no doubt, would diligently assist Elizabeth in preparing all that would be needful for the expected infant; and what a boon for the Precursor to be enveloped on his birth in the swaddling-bands which her blessed hands had fashioned!
The as yet dumb father must have found a great solace and support in the company of holy Joseph. Some, indeed, of those writers who are ready to admit that Joseph accompanied Mary on her journey are disposed, on what would seem insufficient grounds, to question his having remained during the three months. The interests of his business as carpenter would, they maintain, have been alone reason enough for his not absenting himself from his workshop for so long a time. But this conclusion is based upon a supposition which has been shown to be purely gratuitous—viz., that Joseph’s means were so narrow as to necessitate on his part continual daily toil for procuring sustenance, when, as we have good reason to believe, it was more from humility and to avoid an idle life that he had embraced the humble trade which he practiced, than from absolute need. Besides, Zachary was a priest with ample means, well able to extend hospitality to a relative whose society far more than compensated him for any additional outlay which his presence could have caused. Would he, indeed, have suffered him to depart? We can hardly conceive it to be possible. Moreover, ever since God had committed to Joseph the charge of Mary as his most pure spouse, there can be no doubt that he reckoned his station to be wherever she was. How could he otherwise acquit himself of his office of her protector, guardian, and guide, an obligation so sacred in his eyes? But, leaving the region of conjecture, let us have recourse to authority. Cardinal Cajetan, the famous commentator of the Angelic Doctor, clearly states that Mary went to visit Elizabeth, accompanied by Joseph, and with him abode three months in the house of Zachary.2 Gerson had previously held the same view, after Gerson St. Bernardine of Siena, and before them both, St. Bonaventura in the 13th century.
A question has been further raised as to whether Mary remained with her cousin until the birth of the Baptist. The Evangelist says that she “abode with her about three months, and then returned to her own house”.3 After stating this, he narrates what occurred at the birth of John. Those doctors who adhere strictly to the letter maintain that, from the Evangelist’s words, it would appear that Mary returned to Nazareth before Elizabeth brought forth her son; and they, moreover, think that this was more suitable to the most pure Virgin than being present on such an occasion and assisting at the gathering of kinsfolk and friends which followed. But those who attend to the spirit, as well as to the letter, hold that Mary waited for her cousin’s delivery. She had come for the express purpose of assisting and consoling her in her condition, and is it credible that she should have abandoned her at the last moment, to the deep disappointment of the holy couple? Who would impute to Mary virtue of so stiff an order? Must not Elizabeth have reckoned on her taking the infant into her arms and blessing him? Mary, surely, must have desired to press this child of promise to her bosom; and the babe himself, who already, in the obscurity of his mother’s womb, had recognized the Son of God, and received the use of reason, was he to be denied the happiness of adoring Him when he came forth to the light of day, and of being folded so close to Him in Mary’s embrace?4
Benedict XIII. considered her presence as the general and the most secure opinion, and it is supported by the authority of both ancient and modern doctors. Origen, Bede, Comestore, St. Bonaventura, St. Antoninus of Florence, Gerson, St. Bernardine of Siena, are all at one on this point, and the opinion is also strenuously defended by the learned P. Calmet. St. Bernardine of Siena assures us that Mary did, indeed, visit Elizabeth in order to serve and assist her, but more still to sanctify the Precursor of her Son, to behold him, take him in her arms, and lovingly tend him. St. Ambrose had long before expressed a like opinion, and given us to understand that the object for which Mary tarried so long at Hebron was, not merely to be of service to Elizabeth, but mainly for the spiritual advantage of so great a prophet as her infant was to be.5 It is inconceivable that, with such an object in view, she should have departed without caring to see him, embrace and bless him, and without remaining for his circumcision, thus not so much as becoming acquainted with the name he was to bear. Gerson says expressly that Mary, along with the rest of her kindred, congratulated Elizabeth when she had brought forth her son, and that from this union of congratulation Joseph is not to be excluded.6 The order observed in St. Luke’s narration need form no difficulty. He finishes one subject and returns to take up another. Such inversions in point of sequence of time are common with him. We have two examples of the kind; one in his second chapter, where, after relating (v. 18) how the shepherds went away and recounted the wonders they had witnessed, he goes back (v. 20) to speak of their returning and glorifying God for all the things they had heard and seen; the other, in his third chapter, where, after saying (vv. 19, 20) that John was cast into prison by Herod the Tetrarch, he goes back (v. 21) to speak of his baptizing our Lord in the Jordan.
As for the objection to Mary’s presence on account of her virginity, we must remember that in the eyes of the world there could be no impropriety, since she occupied the position of a married woman, while in the eyes of the angels, and, indeed, of all who knew her, she was a pattern of modesty. As regards herself, therefore, suffice it to say, “All things are clean to the clean”.7 Maria d’Agreda says that Mary was not actually present at the infant’s birth,—his mother, out of reverence to her and the Incarnate Word, not having requested her to be so,—but was engaged in prayer while the delivery took place. Then, bidden interiorly by our Lord, she at once repaired to Elizabeth’s bedside, and received the new-born child into her arms, at his mother’s desire, offering him to the Eternal Father. Maria d’Agreda adds that, unperceived by others, Mary, while thus engaged, was in an ecstasy, and, so long as it lasted, the happy babe lay upon her bosom, on which so soon the Son of God was to repose. The child understood all, and, so far as he was able, testified his joy and solicited the caresses of God’s holy Mother, and Mary caressed and blessed him, but never once kissed him—the “kisses of her mouth”8 she reserved for her Divine Son.
Again, as for Mary’s association with the congratulatory meeting of kindred and friends, her withdrawal, we must recollect, would have been an ungracious act, according to Jewish notions; and, indeed, had she not already been at Hebron, it would, probably, have been incumbent on her, if possible, to repair thither for the purpose. There is, moreover, nothing in our Lady’s whole life to make us view her retirement and solitude as of that austere order which would exclude the courtesies of life. Do we not find her afterwards at the marriage-feast of Cana, and interesting herself so much in what would be felt important by the givers and partakers of the festivity, as even to obtain a miracle in their favor from her Divine Son, and that His first public miracle?
But enough of this. Mary and Joseph must have remained until after the infant’s circumcision, and been present at the wonders which accompanied it: the unloosening of Zachary’s tongue, and the glorious canticle in which, filled with the Holy Ghost, he burst forth announcing the coming Messias, and the office which the child John was to fill. Mary and Elizabeth would have comprehended the full import of Zachary’s prophecy, and their hearts must have overflowed with joy. Joseph, too, must have rejoiced exceedingly that the Orient from on high, the Redeemer of Israel, was at hand, though as yet he knew not that He had become incarnate in Mary’s womb. But, as we are more than once told in the Gospel that Mary pondered in her heart the words she heard,9 so also must we fain believe that Joseph, who was so like to her, also dwelt interiorly upon what he had seen and heard in the house of Zachary, as together the two holy spouses made their homeward journey to Nazareth.