Scotus Academicus, Tomus septimus: De Incarnatione Verbi Divini

NOTE 1. That although the most blessed Mother of God shone more brightly with a prerogative of singular purity, so that so great was the purity of her Virginity that by usage of all she was called by the appellation of Virgin, and unspotted, whereby it is permitted to infer that she was sufficiently most pure and most remote from every corruption; For who ever, says S. Epiphanius, Haeresi 78, dared to name in what generation Mary's name was written, who would not forthwith have adored the Virgin of heaven questioning him? For in those epithets straightway shine the arguments of virtue: nevertheless various were the heretics who assailed her unspotted Virginity. For chiefly Carpocrates, Cerinthus, and the Ebionites, and others like them were versed in that error that they denied Christ to have been born of a woman wholly and completely a virgin, but they asserted His Mother begat Him by the work of a man for this reason, because she is called woman in the sacred Scriptures, as Tertullian reports in the book De Virginibus velandis, cap. 3: They usurp the name of woman, he says, that they may think it befit not her alone who has suffered a man. Whence there were also some who denied that the Virgin stood after she brought forth the Lord. So above all taught Apollinaris and others, whom Epiphanius calls Antidicomarianitas Haeresi 78. And this also among various errors Eunomius, Helvidius, Jovinianus, Bonosus asserted, who all, casting about with notable error, proclaimed that Joseph, after the divine parturition published by his wife, had had intercourse with the same, and thence sons were begotten, who are often called the brethren of the Lord in the Gospel. Tertullian also is accused of this error, as may be read lib. De Monogamia, cap. 5, and lib. De Carne Christi, cap. 7, where he seems to affirm that those whom the Gospel calls brethren of the Lord were truly uterine brothers and begotten of Joseph and blessed Mary: whence Helvidius would bring forward Tertullian as vindicator of his opinion; thus answers S. Jerome: Concerning Tertullian indeed I will say nothing more, who was not a man of the Church. But this opinion, which detracts from the perpetual Virginity of the most holy Parent of God, has always been repudiated by all the faithful of Christ as execrable and sacrilegious, as will appear below.

NOTE 2. Virginity is defined in the usual way thus, that it be integrity of mind, soul, and body free from all conjugal union of libido: which that it may be perceived, Petavius observes most learnedly, lib. 1 c. 5, from S. Thomas, 2. 2. q. 152, that three things are to be distinguished in violation of Virginity: The first is, he says, that which happens in the body, the violation of the virginal seal. For there is in Virgins a certain integrity of members, which slips away and is plucked by the nuptial work. Of which thing I shall discourse a little later. The second is that in which the motion of soul and body concur together: namely the resolution of seed causing sensible delectation, to use the words of S. Thomas. The third is that which consists in the action of the soul alone: the purpose of arriving at such delectation. Of these the first pertains to moral action accidentally: for it can happen without voluntary corruption of the Virgin. The second is the matter of that action which is called moral, such as are passions which affect the sense. Lastly it is as it were the form completing the moral action. From these S. Thomas gathers thus: that to the nature and essence of Virginity does not pertain any bodily integrity whatsoever: which unless the third accede, suffers no loss of itself, and perseveres intact. Hence S. Augustine, lib. 1. De Civit. Dei, c. 18, proves that the virtue of Virginity and chastity can be preserved unspotted even if the body be polluted unwillingly through another's libido. Whence he concludes: Wherefore with one purpose abiding, whereby even the body merited to be sanctified, nor does violence of another's libido take away sanctity from the body itself, which the perseverance of its continency sows. Nay William of Paris adds, libr. De Virtutibus, cap. 13, that Virginity can not be lost inasmuch as it is virtue, since the Virgin loses naught of fleshly integrity if only she always preserves the purpose and desire of keeping virginity. These things however I should judge said somewhat too freely.

NOTE 3. That there is no light controversy among Professors of medicine concerning the seal of virginity; for there are some who contend that a certain little membrane is superinduced in the mouth of the womb of a virginal body, which so long as it perseveres whole, virginity stands unspotted; but where it is broken by the act of libido, altogether the corporeal virginity of the woman perishes. Others indeed with Francisco Vallesio, lib. De Sacra Philosophia, c. 25 — whose opinion is approved chiefly by very many recent Medics — flatly deny there is any membrane that is the seal of virginity, which they confirm chiefly from Galen, who being most diligent in sections of the human body nowhere makes mention of such a little membrane. There are also some who teach a middle between both extremes fighting, namely that this seal is not in all virgins, but in some only, in others truly none is found. Truly far more Anatomists, especially most scientific, establish such a sign and character of virginity, as Andreas Vesalius, Fallopius, Picolominus, and many others whom Riolanus, Medicus of the Parisian Academy most learned, praises, who testifies he observed it in many virgins dissected after death. To which opinion S. Augustine also gives suffrage, lib. 1. De Civit. Dei, c. 18, where he proves that holiness and virginity of body consist not in sole integrity of members: For the midwife, he says, exploring as it were with hand the integrity of a certain virgin without malice, without ignorance, without accident, while she inspects, lost it.* Nay even that some sign exists whereby intact or violated virginity can be detected Sacred Scripture teaches Deuteronomii v. 15, where it is established that if anyone taking a wife entering to her say that he found her not a Virgin. Let her Father and Mother take her and carry with them signs of her virginity to the elders of the city, who are in the gate: and let the Father say: I gave my daughter to this man for wife, whom because he hates he imposes upon her a worst name, and he shall say: I did not find thy daughter a virgin: and behold these are the signs of my daughter's virginity. Spreading out the garment before the elders of the city; namely a cloth or linen dyed with blood emitted from the virginal body, from first male congress: which cloth, as Abulensis reports on that question 7, was wont to be handed thus dyed with virginal blood to the parents of the girl before witnesses and scribe, otherwise no faith was to be given her.

These things therefore perceived and noted, at present it is asked whether the Virgin before she bore Christ, or in the very birth, or even after birth preserved that seal of Virginity and that cloister unspotted; in one word, whether she constantly was not only Virgin but also perpetually Virgin.

First Conclusion. — THE MOTHER OF GOD MARY WAS MOST PURE VIRGIN BEFORE BIRTH. This is determined in the fifth Constantinopolitan Council consultation 8, Canon 6, where B. Mary is called ever Virgin: by which name also she is called by Tharasius Patriarch in the Epistle which is in the VI Synod, Action 3, in the Confession of faith which himself there relates. And also in the Lateran Council under Martin V, consultation 5, Can. 3, where generally it is defined that Mary the Mother of God was not only in conception of Christ and birth, but also after birth an unspotted Virgin, in these words:

If anyone according to the holy Fathers confesses not properly and according to truth the holy Mother of God, ever Virgin and Immaculate Mary, as having conceived specially and truly of the Holy Spirit the very God Word Himself, who was born of God the Father before all ages, in the last times without seed, and having incorruptibly brought Him forth, her virginity remaining indissoluble even after birth: let him be condemned.

Where not only is this truth defined by those words: ever Virgin, but also by those, indissoluble, etc.; for if in the very birth she had lost virginity, after birth it would not remain indissoluble, since virginity once lost cannot be restored and renewed.

It is proved also from Sacred Scripture, chiefly indeed from that prophecy of Isaiah c. 7: Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel. Which Oracle certainly not only the ancient Fathers of the Church but also Saint Matthew testifies to have been foretold of Mary ch. 1; for after the Angel persuaded Joseph not to dismiss his pregnant wife, affirming that what was born in her was of the Holy Spirit, and how that Son whom she contained in her womb should redeem his people from sins, he subjoins: Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the Prophet saying: Behold a Virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a Son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel.

THE JEWS ANSWER. First that it is not credible that a sign was given to King Achaz by Isaiah which he could not see: but Achaz could not see the Virgin conceiving and bearing, since not until long time after the death of Achaz did the Virgin Mary bear Christ: therefore that prophecy was not to be understood of the blessed Virgin Mary.— Truly I answer that the Jews hallucinate shamefully: since that sign was not given to Achaz but to the house of David; for when Achaz refused to ask a sign from the Lord according to the warning of the Prophet, and had said: I will not ask, and I will not tempt the Lord, he subjoins: Hear therefore O house of David... therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold a Virgin shall conceive, etc. Thence that prophecy was not directed to Achaz but to the house of David, which was to remain until Christ.

It is proved moreover from the common opinion of the holy Fathers and Doctors, judging that the B. Virgin as a maiden issued a vow of virginity; which indeed may be seen from the answer of that Virgin to the Angel: for when the Angel Luke 1 had announced to her that she was about to conceive a son, she answered: How shall this be done, because I know not man? where the word "know" signifies not act but custom and purpose of not knowing; for it was manifest then when she said this that she knew not man: therefore it denotes custom; just as if an abstainer should say I drink no wine, and a Carthusian I eat no meats, they would designate not only act but also custom of drinking wine and eating meat; and in this manner interprets those words S. Gregory Nyssenus in oration on Christ's Nativity after the middle: She forbade me (he says) the custom of man; how shall this be to me, since I know not man? Then he calls the flesh of the Virgin consecrated to God, and finally subjoins concerning her that it is impious to know man. To Nyssenus accord Augustine lib. De sancta Virginitate, cap. 1, Beda upon him, Sedulius, and Bonaventura in 1 d. 30 q. 2 art. 2. Tertullian proves the same in book De carne Christi from the oracle of Ezechiel the prophet, which however is not found in the book of his prophecies which remains. We read, he says, in Ezechiel of that cow which brought forth and did not bring forth: but beware lest the Holy Spirit foreseeing even then marked you, that with this voice you would dispute concerning the womb of Mary. The same passage exists in Epiphanius haeresi 78 num. 33. For who easily understands not Joseph to have been by no means its parent but held in place of parent? Behold, he says, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son. He said not woman. And again in another place, and shall bear a son, and they shall say, she brought not forth. For since certain ones of Manichaeans and Marcionists deny him brought forth into light by birth, for this reason, he says, she shall bear, and they shall say she brought not forth. But those madmen prate falsely that she brought forth from seed of man. Therefore the heifer — that same one who is man and God truly she brought forth. Two centuries before Epiphanius Clement of Alexandria had observed the same Stromat. 7 p. 756 edit. Heins.: But as it seems to many unto this day Mary is a childbearer on account of the rising of the Son, although she be not a childbearer; for some say that after she had brought forth she was inspected by a midwife, and found to be a Virgin; thus such are the Scriptures of the Lord, bearing truth and remaining virgins, with concealment of mysteries. She brought forth and did not bring forth, says Scripture, as she who of herself not of union brought forth. Wherefore those who are endowed with knowledge conceived Scripture; which because heretics understood not, as if they had not conceived it, they remove and cast off.— Whence the aforesaid Fathers drew this saying attributed to the prophet Ezechiel is difficult to disclose, seeing it exists not among the oracles of the same prophet which survive. Some judge these words to have been transcribed from the second book of the visions of Ezechiel; for Josephus lib. 10 antiquitatum cap. 5 mentions two books of Ezechiel in express words: Jeremias, he says, prophesying captivity of Babylonians to the city, and foretold calamities of our age also, committed them to letters. Nor did he alone prophecy this to the multitude, but also the prophet Ezechiel, who first left two books of this argument in writings. To these accords ⟦Theodoretus?⟧ who does not fear to attribute two books also to Ezechiel. Which some reconcile thus, saying Ezechiel truly wrote two books, whereof one has perished, while the other is handled by all hands in Sacred Scripture: and certainly certain things cited by the Fathers seem from prophet Ezechiel, which since they are now not found in that book which survives, one might judge those things taken from a second book of Ezechiel, which perished at some time through negligence of men and iniquity of times.— S. Athanasius is cited also for this matter near the end of the synopsis, where recounting several sacred books which he says perished through madness and carelessness of impious Jews, he commemorates among them the second book of Ezechiel.— Truly I should judge more probable that these words were drawn from the book which Jews call pirche aboth, that is chapters of fathers or sayings and proverbs uttered by living voice by prophets at time of Babylonian captivity, among which was read also this passage of the cow which brought forth and brought not forth.

You will say. She could not vow that she would keep what was forbidden by Mosaic law: but Virginity was forbidden by Mosaic law. It is proved both from Genes. 1 where God commands offspring to be begotten in these words: Increase ye and multiply: then Deuteronomii 25, where there is prescribed taking to wife the brother of the dead, and raising up seed by the surviving brother, which if she would not, she herself before elders took off his shoe and spat in his face and said: so shall it be done to the man who buildeth not up his brother's house. Which passage Faustus Manichee objected to Augustine lib. 14 cap. 3 contra Faustum under these words: Cursed is everyone who raiseth not up seed in Israel. Then Exodi 28: There shall not be with thee barren of either sex: but Virginity implied a kind of mark of sterility. Therefore it is forbidden. But wrongly, because nowhere such words are found in Scripture.

I deny the minor. Nay Virginity was in great price among the Jews, as holy Jerome proves lib. 1 Contra Iovinianum num. 30, after examples of Elias, Eliseus, and John Baptist; nay also Daniel and the three boys, who are certain to have been virgins. Ambrose affirms the same lib. 1 De Virginibus, Damascenus lib. 1 De Fide cap. 21. It stands likewise from the Essenes, who as Josephus testifies lib. 2 De bello Iudaico cap. 7, and lib. 18 Antiquitatum Iudaicarum cap. 2, without women, all Venus renounced, lived in highest society with praise and veneration. The oracles prove the same 1 Sapientiae ch. 3: For blessed is the barren that is undefiled, who hath not known a sinful bed: and she shall have fruit in the visitation of holy souls: and the eunuch, who hath not wrought wickedness with his hand. Second is Isaiae 56: Because thus saith the Lord to the eunuchs, that keep my sabbaths, and choose things pleasing to me, and hold fast my covenant: I will give them place in my house, within my walls, and a name better than sons and daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, etc. Both which places holy Jerome interprets of eunuchs who voluntarily castrated themselves, that is, renounced every Venus for the kingdom of heaven. For confirmation of the minor I say nothing can be wrung out of the aforesaid texts. Not from the first, because those words indicate not precept but blessing; for the sacred text premised: And God blessed them, and said: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over it. For in that manner are the preceding words to be understood, how the following: but these are to be understood only of blessing, not of precept. Moreover He speaks in the same manner to fishes ibidem: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea, etc. But He imposed no precept upon them: therefore neither upon men. Finally, although there were precept, yet not absolutely was it to be observed by all: for the end of law ceasing, its obligation ceases: but it concerned very many...

Second Conclusion. — TRULY THE DEIPARA MARY BROUGHT FORTH CHRIST OUR LORD WITH HER VIRGINITY UNSHAMED. This follows from the preceding, and

The same is proved by authority of Councils; chiefly indeed of the Calcedonian Council in allocution to Emperor Martian, where in name of Council these words are uttered: God raised Fathers as lights for those dwelling in error, who set forth to all intelligence of faith and accurately preached benefit of Incarnation: how from beginning of it perfect Mystery might be from womb, how genetrix of God, on account of Him who preserved virginity to her even after conception, and sealed her womb as worthy of God. But that they say the womb of the Virgin sealed and guarded with seal after conception openly signifies that obligation persevered in the very birth. It is confirmed likewise from the aforesaid prophecy of Isaiah: For not (says S. Ambrose Epist.) a Virgin only conceiving but also bearing did he say. Whence unanimous is the sentence of the holy PP. that Christ came forth with womb of Mother unharmed and unspotted. So S. Gregory Nyss. in Oration De natali Domini: A boy, he says, wrapped in swaddling clothes and resting in manger: and she after birth incorrupt Mother Virgin bore the Son. And in Oration De Occursu: He alone, he says, conceived in inexplicable mode and ineffably born, opened not before the virginal womb laid open by nuptials, keeping seals of virginity inviolate even after admirable process. Amphilochius p. 26 teaches the same. S. Ephrem in Oration De

Pearl most precious, Sophronius in Epistola Synodica: Damascenus lib. 1 cap. 15 and more other Greek Fathers.— All Latins equally subscribe to these, chiefly S. Ambrosius Epist. 7 Ad Siricium Papam, which he proves by mystery of gate of which Ezechiel makes mention ch. 44 in vision. Behold this gate. Mary, he says, of whom it is written, because the Lord will pass through it: and it shall be shut after birth: because Virgin she conceived and begat. But what incredible, if against natural mode of origin Maria brought forth and remains Virgin, when against use of nature sea saw Him and fled, etc. The same he teaches and uses same prophetic similitude of gate in lib. De institutione Virginis cap. 7; concludes: What is this gate except Mary? Therefore shut, because Virgin. Gate therefore Mary, through which Christ entered into this world when He was poured forth in virginal birth, nor loosed cloisters of Virgin's genitals. She came bringing forth through unspotted barrier, and seals of integrity remained inviolate when she went forth from Virgin whose height world could not sustain.— Jerome expounding that mystery of prophetic gate in ch. 1 Ezechielis through which God Israël is said to enter notes these: Beautifully indeed closed gate, through which alone Lord God of Israel enters, and of whom gate closed, understand Mary Virgin, who both before birth and after birth remained Virgin.— Augustine affirms this too in several places: as in Sermone 21: Virgin she begat, because Virgin she conceived, inviolate she brought forth, because in concept there was no libido. Everywhere miracle: and without corruption pregnant, and in birth Virgin mother. Likewise in Sermone 28: Behold miracle of the Lord's Mother. Virgin conceived, Virgin brought forth, Virgin remained after birth, etc. For it was worthy that merit of chastity grow with God being born: nor be violated whole by His advent, who had come to heal corrupted, nor bodily pudicity be injured by Him by whom spiritual chastity is given. Gaudencius Bishop of Brixia of the same age subscribes to him, who permits her after his passing to remain Virgin. For He who could restore broken members of bodies in others by touching, how much more in His own Mother what He found whole could He not violate by being born? By His birth rather grows integrity of body than decreased: and Virginity amplified rather than put to flight*.— I should make a number if I wished to commemorate all other holy Fathers assertors of this truth. Chrysologus teaches it expressly Serm. 142. Eucherius Homil. De Virginis Conceptione. Ildephonsus published five treatises and sermons on unspotted B. Virginity, whose most strenuous assertor and defender he was, Bernard Serm. 33 In Cantica. Petrus Damianus Opusc. 86 c. 10 etc. From which it plainly stands universal is doctrine of Church, that most blessed Mary Deipara Virgin not only before birth but even in birth was.

HERETICS OBJECT certain texts of holy Fathers and ancient Theologians by which they seem to signify that B. Virgin in her birth had naught peculiar from other human women bearing, and the same was not Virgin in birth. Thus Origen Hom. 11 in Lucam: Whomsoever you say poured forth from womb of mothers, none but opens the womb of his mother. Lord Jesus, because not birth of infant but conjugal act of man opens womb of all women: but of Mother of Lord womb was opened at that time when also birth was brought forth: because holy womb, and most worthily (of veneration) to be revered, before Nativity male altogether touched not. Very many Fathers as well Greek as Latin seem to subscribe to these, who say womb of Virgin was opened in birth. Thus Athanasius Epist. ad Epictetum, Ambrose in chapter 2 Lucae: This, he says, who opened womb of His Mother, that immaculate He might go forth. And Basil, who in oration on Nativity of Lord says Christ is called first-begotten, who first opens womb, not who has other brothers after himself, etc. But of all most plainly Tertullian lib. De carne Christi c. 23 clearly asserts B. Virgin lost virginity in birth and passed into woman: for among other things he says: who properly opened womb, than he who opened what was closed? Otherwise to all nuptials they open: therefore more opened because it was more closed: certainly more to be called not-Virgin than Virgin, at least mother before nuptial. And what further need recall? since by this reason Apostle pronounced son brought forth not from Virgin but from woman, and openly acknowledged nuptial passion of womb. Similar things he has in several, to which fits that of Lucae 2 by which is signified to fit Christ that assumed from ch. 13 Exodi: Every male opening womb shall be called holy to the Lord.— I answer that all those holy Fathers or ancient Theologians by opening of womb signify not drawn forth, interrupted in Deipara Virgin seal of integrity, but only that truly from womb of Virgin He went forth. Nor surely other was their mind, if you except Tertullian and Origen who laboring with heretical spirit in very many, ought seem not marvelous to have deviated even in this head from Catholic truth. As to S. Luke I say by circumlocution of first-begotten opening womb he wished only to signify Christ took origin from Virgin, whether meanwhile He exited from her in usual mode with re-opening of cloister, or not. Wherefore to open womb properly signifies naught else than to be born and come forth from maternal womb; in which mode of speaking certainly the aforesaid holy Fathers used it for this reason, that so it bears common and natural mode of pouring forth foetus, that with womb opened it go forth into light.

THEY OBJECT 2. That of Lucae 2 by which is signified B. Mary stood in need of purification, and accordingly was subjected to law of nature with other women in bearing, and perhaps emitted through opening of womb with effusion of blood and pain.— Truly answers S. Ildephonsus lib. against those who dispute of perpetual virginity of Mary, for this reason Evangelist says, After days of her purification were fulfilled, of Mary; not because she needed any fault or stain of that purification, but because she wished to observe custom toward Son, who from the very fact that He was made of woman willed to fulfill law of Presentation. And law, he says, is completion of days according to custom of law and not according to necessity of Purification: because blessed and unspotted and incorrupt she remained, stained by no filths, vexed by no of their torments; whence appears diverse was purification of Mary and other women; for other women observed rites and ceremonies of purification for this reason that they might wash filths of body and soul; but most blessed Virgin from no necessity but only from humility and her special observance toward God subjected herself to law of purification.

Third Conclusion. — MARY THE MOTHER OF GOD REMAINED ALWAYS UNSPOTTED VIRGIN AFTER BIRTH. This likewise is of faith, as stands from Councils praised in prior Conclusion, which openly pronounce most blessed Mary always to have been Virgin. It is proved similarly and confirmed not only from praised authorities of holy Fathers, as also from vow of keeping perpetually Virginity issued by most blessed Virgin; but also from this, that very many judge indubitable from holy Fathers, that S. Joseph also issued vow of Virginity and was virgin when he married Mary. For indeed very many Greek authors were in that opinion that they asserted Joseph begat other sons by former wife, whom therefore they wish called in Gospel Brethren and Sisters of Lord, because they were begotten by Joseph, who was thought Father of Christ, before he led B. Virgin to wife; as asserted Origen on that Matth. 12 Is not his mother called Mary? Chrysostom Homil. De Annuntiatione in Lipomanum. Eusebius lib. 2 cap. 1. Epiphanius haeresi 5, 28, 78. Nicephorus lib. 1 cap. 21. Theophilactus in Matth. 13. Euthimius in Matth. 11. etc.; to whom some Latins seem to consent, Hilarius Can. 1 in Matth., Ambrose lib. De institutione Virg., cap. etc.; nevertheless Jerome proves most sharply Joseph was virgin, who in tractate against Helvidius says: Thou sayest Mary remained not virgin: I claim for myself more, that even Joseph himself was virgin through Mary, that from virginal marriage virgin Son might be born. For if into that holy one fell no fornication, and it is not written he had another wife: but Mary whom he was thought to have had, guardian rather than husband: there remains that he remained virgin with Mary, who merited to be called Father of Lord. Similar things he has on that Matth. 12 v. 19: Behold my mother and my brethren. Augustine Serm. 11 on Nativity of Lord: Have, Joseph, with Mary thy wife common virginity of members, because of virginal members virtue is born of Angels, etc. To this opinion all the rest of the Latin Fathers who lived consented, so that Petrus Damianus Epist. 11 ad Nicolaum summum Pontificem says with great confidence, faith of Church to be in this, that not only Deipara but also putative Father and nourisher be held Virgin. Certainly indeed as far as probability and conjectures permit: how would not God to virgin man have handed Virgin, from whom He was about to take flesh, if he himself man about to depart from this world to Father commended the same now aging to none but a Virgin? How would Christ true Lamb, who admits only virgines into His fellowship, admitted putative Father already tried by so many sons? How would Christ, who feeds among lilies, not been delighted between Mary and Joseph virgins?

But this opinion of the Latin Fathers can in general be confirmed by this single argument, upon which alone the Greeks rely. For if Joseph had taken another wife, then Mary, who is called of Jacob, and of Joses, because she was their Mother — for these among others are often called the brethren of the Lord — could not have been that other wife; for she would first have had to die before it would have been lawful for Joseph to contract marriage with another. But she was not dead when Joseph entered into matrimony with the Virgin: for at the time when Christ died, women were looking on from afar, among whom was Mary of Jacob, and of Joses, etc., Matthew 27, and Mark 15. This single alternative could be proposed by the Greeks: either that Joseph had two wives at once: or else, with Chrysostom, to assert that after putting away his former wife he married the Virgin.

Again, neither can be said. Not indeed the first; for how would the Evangelists have made no mention whatsoever of that wife? How would Christ never at any time have held conversation with her, as being of His household and intimate? Nor even the second; for who could believe that she whom Joseph had repudiated should wish to stand beside the cross? He would not without displeasure have endured the presence of her who had succeeded to his bed.

THE HERETICS OBJECT certain testimonies of Scripture, from which it seems to be inferred that Joseph begot other sons by Mary after Christ. First, this seems to be signified by these words of Matthew: When his mother, that is, of Christ, Mary the wife of Joseph, was espoused, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. From these words Helvidius argued, as St. Jerome testifies, that unless they were at some time to come together, the Evangelist would not have said, before they came together: for of those not going to come together such words could by no means be used, just as of one who will never dine it cannot be said, before he dined: the consequence therefore follows that he at some time knew her. Secondly, in the same place, concerning Joseph the spouse of Mary it is said: He knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn Son. Thirdly, Christ is there called the firstborn son of Mary: but firstborn is not said except by comparison with others begotten afterward; since, therefore, Mary is said to have brought forth her firstborn, it must be that she afterward brought forth others.— Truly I answer that the aforesaid texts of Scripture in no way favor the heretics. Not indeed the first: for, as Blessed Jerome excellently replies in his little work against Helvidius, and in his commentary on Matthew chapter 1, what is said, before they came together, does not imply that they came together afterward, but Scripture shows that it did not happen: for that particle, before, does not always import something to be done afterward; for from the fact that Helvidius is said to have been overtaken by death before he did penance, it does not follow that he did penance afterward: thus a ship is said to have perished before it reached port, although it never afterward arrived there. So likewise the adverb, till, in the second saying, serves only to express what might have been doubtful, leaving what is certain to be understood all the more firmly. The Evangelist therefore wished to signify that Joseph did not know Mary before the birth, about which doubt could especially have arisen, thereby hinting how much less afterward would a just man have wished to touch her, and as it were to defile the temple of God, the sanctuary of the Holy Spirit, the Mother of God and of his Lord. Moreover, similar locutions are frequent in Holy Scripture: thus Genesis 8 says of the raven in the ark of Noah: It did not return till the waters were dried up, whence it is by no means licit to infer that after the dryness had come he returned again to the ark. Thus Daniel 6, concerning the accusers of that Prophet cast into the den of lions: They did not reach the bottom before Daniel was taken out, where it is not signified that they afterward reached the bottom. Thus likewise Psalm 109 says: Sit thou at my right hand until I make thy enemies thy footstool, etc. And 1 Corinthians 15: He must reign until he hath put all his enemies under his feet, etc. But who would infer from this that Christ would no longer sit at the right hand of God and reign once all the assailants of His name and religion have been overcome! All the more strongly do I say that firstborn there signifies the same thing as first-born, or one before whom no other was born, even though He be only-begotten, as St. Jerome explains in his little work against Helvidius n. s.: so that every only-begotten is a firstborn; yet not every firstborn is an only-begotten. He proves this explanation from Numbers 18: Whatsoever shall first open the womb of flesh, which they offer to the Lord, whether of men or of beasts, shall be thine: but only so far that a price be accepted in place of the firstborn of man. And he argues beautifully in this manner: if the firstborn of man were only he whom other brothers follow, then the firstborn of man would not be owed to the Priests so long as no other brother had been begotten.

THEY OBJECT, 2. All those texts of Scripture in which certain ones are called the brethren of the Lord: thus Matthew 12: Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking thee. And John 2: After this he went down to Capharnaum, he and his mother, and his brethren, etc.— I answer with St. Jerome in his book against Helvidius that certain ones are indeed called the brethren of the Lord, not because they were begotten of the same mother as He, but because they were kinsmen. For in four ways are some called brothers in Sacred Scripture: First indeed by nature, because they are from the same parent, as Jacob and Esau. Secondly by race and nation: thus all Israelites are called brethren, as Deuteronomy 15: But if thou buy thy brother, who is an Hebrew, etc. Romans 9: For I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ for my brethren. Thirdly by kinship, namely those who spring from the same family, by which reason Abraham and Lot are called brethren, Genesis 13, as also Jacob and Laban, Genesis 29. Fourthly finally by affection: thus Christ the Lord in John 20 called His Apostles His brethren. Now it is certain that those mentioned in the objection are not called brethren of the Lord by the first reason of brotherhood, nor even by merely the second and fourth: otherwise any disciple whatever, nay even anyone of the Jewish people, might be called a brother of the Lord. There remains, therefore, that they are called the Lord's brethren by reason of kinship.

You ask: who, and of what degree of consanguinity, those called the brethren of the Lord were?— To the first I answer that only four men in Sacred Scripture were so called, namely James, Joses, Simon, and Jude, as we read Matthew 13: Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joses, and Simon, and Jude? And his sisters, are not they all with us? Again, at Galatians 1, James is called the brother of the Lord. And in Acts 1, James, Simon, and Jude are mentioned again, though there they are not called the Lord's brethren, but are only said to have persevered in prayer with

Mary the Mother of Jesus, and with His brethren, namely the disciples, who were brethren by affection: whence immediately it is subjoined: In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren said: Men, brethren, etc. Nor does it matter that St. Chrysostom, homily ⟦?⟧ on Matthew, asserts that John the Evangelist was also called a brother of the Lord: for I do not see on what ground he could assert that, since nowhere in Scripture is he found so named, although he could have been so named.— To the second I answer that the common opinion of the sacred Interpreters, with St. Jerome, holds all those brethren and sisters named of Christ to have sprung from the same marriage and to have been born of the same parents; which I thus prove against Baronius in the Apparatus num. 6: if they were said to be born of a different father and a different mother — especially since, says Baronius, James surnamed the brother of the Lord is called the son of Alphaeus, Matthew 10, Mark 3, and Acts 1 — now it is established that Joses was the brother of James, for Mark 15 says Mary was the mother of James the Less and of Joses: hence both were sons of Alphaeus: for Scripture is accustomed to name the sons after the name of the father, thus e.g. the other James is usually called the son of Zebedee: whence it follows, says Baronius, that Simon and Jude were not brothers of James, because they are not recorded together with the two sons of Mary.— It is confirmed from Hegesippus, who in Eusebius book 3, chapters 10 and 16, affirms that Sts. Simon and Jude were the sons of Cleophas, not however of Alphai: moreover the wives of Cleophas and of Alphai were both named Mary, and one was called by her husband Mary of Cleophas, the other was named by her sons Mary of James, and Salome: but that Mary of James and Mary of Cleopas are entirely different persons seems to be inferred from this, that in John 19 Mary of Cleophas is said to have stood near the cross of Jesus; whereas Mary of James is said in Matthew 27 and Mark 15 to have stood afar off together with the other women; which two things cannot fall upon the same woman; hence, says Baronius, it is certain that those four who are called the Lord's brethren sprang from a different father and a different mother. James indeed, and Joses, from Alphaeus and Mary of James: but Jude and Simon from Cleophas and Mary of Cleophas. So Baronius. Truly this reasoning is nothing, and that foundation of Baronius is null: therefore, etc. The minor is proved: for it is established that Jude and Simon are the own brothers of James, for Jude at the beginning of his canonical epistle names himself the brother of James: Jude the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James — not indeed of James of Zebedee: therefore of Alphai. Nor does it avail to say that he names himself brother only in the general sense, on account of the kinship of the family: this, I say, does not avail: First, because it is said without foundation. Secondly, because no special reason appears why, passing over in silence his natural brother Simon, he should have usurped the title of brother of another on a merely general ground. Thirdly, by this reason he ought rather to have been called the brother of Peter, as being the Prince of the Apostles: therefore, since he names himself the brother of James, it must be held that he speaks of his own brother germane. And the reason, I judge, why he mentions James alone is that James the Greater was older in age, and therefore he expressed his name out of honor, no otherwise than when someone wishes to be recognized through one of his brothers, he names him who is the first and head in the family.— To the confirmation I say that no credit is due to Hegesippus: for if here Hegesippus were to be heard regarding one matter, why should he not equally be heard, when in the same place he says that Joseph begat sons by another wife? For just as Eusebius gave credence to him in both matters, so Baronius ought either to give credence to him in both alike, or in neither: but he denies him faith concerning the two marriages of Joseph: therefore he ought to deny it concerning Alphaeus and Cleophas as diverse men. For what hinders us if we set forth Cleophas and Alphaeus as one single man, but with two names?— Nor indeed ought it to disturb us that the wife of Alphai seems to be distinguished from Mary of James, for the reason that the one is read to have stood near the cross, the other afar off: for this reason is utterly null. Otherwise it would have to be said equally that there were two Mary Magdalenes: for Matthew and Mark say of her: Among whom was Mary Magdalene, etc., namely among those women who were looking from afar: but John says: There stood by the cross of Jesus his Mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. But how these things can be said of the same person, I judge it to be reconciled thus: that first those women stood with the Virgin near the cross, to hear the last words of Christ dying: but when He had commended His Mother to John, and breathed forth His soul, they withdrew somewhat from there, either urged by excessive grief, or driven back by the soldiers, and watched from there what befell. I should wish likewise that what Luke writes be understood in this way: And all his acquaintance, and the women that had followed him from Galilee stood afar off, beholding these things. Not that they saw everything from afar, but only those things which happened after their withdrawal. It must be said, therefore, that Mary of Cleophas was so named either because she was born of Cleopas her father, or because she was given in marriage to her husband Alphaeus, who bore the double name Cleopas, or because she was called Cleophas by her proper name while Alphaeus was her surname. Hence the opinion of St. Jerome, in his book Against Helvidius and on chapter 12 of Matthew, is proved to me rather than that of Baronius. Therefore it must be inferred that those men are called the Lord's brethren as cousins-german, namely begotten of Mary, daughter of Cleophas, sister — or rather cousin — of the Blessed Virgin, as Hippolytus the Martyr relates, who in Nicephorus book 2, chapter 3 sets forth these words: There were three sisters of Bethlehem, daughters of Mathan the priest, and of Mary his wife, under ⟦Cleopatra?⟧, and ⟦Asopis?⟧ in the kingdom of the Persians, and before the reign of Herod the son of Antipater. The first was called Mary: the second Soba: the third Anna. First Mary married in Bethlehem, and brought forth Salome the midwife: second Soba likewise married in Bethlehem, and begot Elizabeth: lastly third Anna married in the land of Galilee, and brought forth Mary the Mother of God. But that these may be unfolded in due order, I judge this genealogy must thus be woven. Mary married Cleophas, of whom she begat the other Mary, who in John chapter 19 is called Mary of Cleophas, and the sister, that is, the cousin of the Blessed Virgin; from her and Alphaeus her husband came forth James the Less, Joses, and Simon, and Jude, who are called the Lord's brethren: and his sisters, Mary, and Salome. For Mary is plainly declared to be the mother of James, Joses, and Salome, Matthew 27 v. 56, and Mark 15 v. 40, where we read that there stood by the cross of the Lord the women looking from afar, among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Less, and of Joses, and Salome. But Soba, joined in wedlock to one of the priests, begot Elizabeth, who therefore in Luke chapter 1 v. 5 is said to be of the daughters of Aaron: and she begot John the Baptist by Zachary. Anna, however, was of the tribe of David according to the maternal line, as I conjecture from St. Damascene, Orat. 2, On the Nativity of Blessed Mary, where addressing St. Anne he says: O blessed house of David, from which thou didst come forth! not according to the paternal line, as I said above: therefore according to the maternal: she, I say, begat the Blessed Virgin by St. Joachim

Mary. By these things is refuted the opinion of those who say that St. Anne was married to three husbands, and received three daughters from them; for which of them, wedded to a more certain husband, and therefore less chaste, would be judged to have brought forth the most pure Virgin?