margin. 1697 but to assert the contrary as delivered in the Scriptures, but with no success. For though, as they object, St. Matthew testifieth that Joseph "knew not Mary, until she had brought forth her first-born son," (Matt. i. 25.) from whence they would infer, that afterwards he knew her; yet the manner of the Scripture language produceth no such inference. When God said to Jacob, "I will not leave thee until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of," (Gen. xxviii. 15.) it followeth not that when that was done, the God of Jacob left him. When the conclusion of Deuteronomy was written, it was said of Moses, "No man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day;" (Deut. xxxiv. 6.) but it were a weak argument to was Eunomianus. But the words are taken out of Procopius in Hist. Arcana, p. 2. from whence it appears that he who was baptized was by name Theodosius, and by sect an Eunomian. And whatsoever his name was who wrote that epigram on the History of Philostorgius, he was certainly by sect an Eunomian, and that was intended in the inscription, written without question by some Catholic, who thought no man could commend the History of Philostorgius but one of his own opinion. These contradictors of the perpetual virginity of the mother of our Lord afterwards increased to a greater number, whom Epiphanius calls by a general name Antidicomarianita. And from bim St. Augustin : · Antidicomarianite appellati sunt Hæretici, qui Mariæ Virgi nitati usque adeo contradicunt, ut affirment eam post Christum natum viro suo fuisse commixtam.' de Hæres. 56. condemned under that name by the sixth general Council, Act. 2. [xi.] The same were called by the Latins, Helvidiani, from Helvidius (a disciple of Auxentius the Arian), whose name is most made use of, because refuted by St. Jerome. He was followed by Jovinian, a monk of Milan, as St. Jerome testifieth; though St. Augustin delivereth his opinion otherwise : 'Virginitatem Mariæ destruebat, dicens eam pariendo fuisse corruptam.' Hæres. 82. And Bonosus, a bishop in Macedonia, referred by the Council of Capua to the judgment of Anysius bishop of Thessalonica, was condemned for the same, as appeareth by the 79th Ep. of St. Ambrose, written to Theophilus and Anysius: 'Sane non possumus negare de Mariæ filiis jure reprehensum, meritoque vestram Sanctitatem abhorruisse, quod ex eodem utero virginali, ex quo secundum carnem Christus natus est, alius partus effusus sit.' This is the catalogue of those by the ancients accounted heretics, for denying the perpetual virginity of the mother of our Lord. For in the word "Eas there is no such force. Τὸ ἕως οὗ πάντως ἀντιδιαιρείται το μέλλοντι, ἀλλὰ τὸ μέχρι μὲν τοῦδε τίθησι, τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο δὲ οὐκ ἀναίνεται, S. Greg. Νaz. Orat. 2. de Filio. To wg worλaxù xpórov μέν τινα δοκεῖ περιορισμὸν ὑποφαίνειν, κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἀλήθειαν τὸ ἀόριστον δείκνυσιν. S. Basil. Homil. in Sanct. Christ. Gen. §. 5. "E τῇ γραφῇ τὴν ῥῆσιν ταύτην μὴ ἐπὶ διωρισμένου Tidival xgóvou. S. Chrysost. in Matt. Homil. 5. Τὸ Εως πολλάκις καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ διηνε κῶς ἐν τῇ θείᾳ γραφῇ εὑρίσκομεν κείμενον. Isid. Pelus. lib. i. ep. 18. To Eas wohλayou οὐκ ἐπὶ χρόνου λέγει, ἀλλ ̓ ἐπὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ πράγ ματος Adria, Isag. in S. S. Τὸ 'Εως ἐνίοτε μὲν πρὸς ἀντιδιαστολὴν τοῦ ἐφεξῆς χρόνου παραλαμβάνεται, ἐνίοτε δ ̓ οὖν ἐπὶ δηλώσει μεγάλων μέν ἔργων καί θεοπρεπῶν· καθάπερ καὶ νῦν οὐ μὲν πρὸς ἀντιδιαστολὴν ἑτέρου χρόνου τινὸς, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐναντίον εἰς ὑποδήλωσιν ἀπεράντου διαστήματος. Phot. ep. 30. In the same manner it is observed by the Greek grammarians of giv, that if any one declared that he did it not giv before such a thing were done, it followeth not that he did it when or after that thing was done. As when Helena saw and knew Ulysses a spy in Troy, she promised upon oath that she would discover him to none till he was safe returned to the Grecian fleet; Καὶ ὤμοσα καρτερὸν ὅρκον, Μὴ μὲν πρὶν Ὀδυσῆα μετὰ Τρώεσσ' ἀναφῆται, Πρίν γε τὸν ἐς νεάς τε θοὰς κλισίας τ ̓ ἀφι κέσθαι. Od. A. v. 253. And yet it is not likely (says Eustathius), that Helena did ever discover Ulysses to the Trojans after he was returned: 'Evè τῷ. Μὴ πρὶν Οδυσσῆα Τρωσὶν ἀναφῆναι, πρὶν αὐτὸν εἰς νῆας ἱκέσθαι, εἴπερ μὴ δοκεῖ πιθανὸν ἢ εὐλόγιστον τὸ ἀναφῆναι ὅλως τὸν Ὀδυσσέα τοῖς Τρωσίν, ἐνθυμητέον τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ, μὲ πρὶν ποιῆσαι τόδε τι πρὶν ἂν τόδε γένηται, (ἥτις ἐν τῇ Α ῥαψῳδίᾳ τῆς Ἰλιάδος κεῖται) καὶ φανεῖται ἐκεῖθεν, ὡς οὐκ εἰκὸς τὴν Ἑλένην εἰπεῖν τοῖς Ἰλιεῦσι περὶ τοῦ Ὀδυσσέως οὐδὲ ὅτε εἰς νῆας καὶ κλισίας ἀφίκετο αὐτός. A negation anteceding pv or wc, is no affirmation following them. infer from thence, that the sepulchre of Moses hath been known ever since. When Samuel had delivered a severe prediction unto Saul, he "came no more to see him until the day of his death;" (1 Sam. xv. 35.) but it were a strange collection to infer, that he therefore gave him a visit after he was dead. "Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death;" (2 Sam. vi. 23.) and yet it were a ridiculous stupidity to dream of any midwifery in the grave. Christ promised his presence to the apostles "unto the end of the world:" (Matt. xxviii. 20.) who ever made so unhappy a construction as to infer from thence, that for ever after he would be absent from them? Again, it is true that Christ is termed the first-born son of Mary, from whence they infer she must needs have a second; but might as well conclude, that wheresoever there is one, there must be two. For in this particular the Scripture-notion of priority excludeth an antecedent, but inferreth not a consequent: it supposeth none to have gone before, but concludeth not any to follow after. "Sanctify unto me (saith God) all the first-born;" which was a firm and fixed law, immediately obliging upon the birth: whereas if the first-born had included a relation to a second, there could have been no present certainty, but a suspension of obedience; nor had the first-born been sanctified of itself, but the second birth had sanctified the first. And well might any sacrilegious Jew have kept back the price of redemption due unto the priest,† nor could it have been required of him, till a second offspring had appeared; and so no redemption at all had been required for an only son. Whereas all such pretences were unheard of in the Law, because the original Hebrew wordt is not capable of any such construction; and in the Law itself it carrieth with it a clear interpretation, "Sanctify unto me all the first-born : whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and beast, it is mine." (Exod. xiii. 2.) The apertion of the womb determineth the first-born;§ and the law of * For 1 shall not deny that Christ was called the first-born in respect of his mother, though Epiphanius thought that a sufficient answer : Οὐκ εἶπεν, ὅτι ἐγέννησε τὸν πρωτότοκον αὐτῆς· ἀλλ' οὐκ ἔγνω αὐτὴν, ἕως ἐγέννησε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς. καὶ οὐκ εἶπε, τὸν πρωτότοκον αὐτῆς, ἀλλὰ τὸν πρωτότοκον. Ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ τῷ υἱῷ αὐτῆς ἐσήμανεν, ἐξ αὐτῆς κατὰ σάρκα γεγεννῆσθαι· ἐπὶ δὲ τῇ τοῦ πρωτοτόκου ἐπωνυμίᾳ οὐκέτι τὸ αὐτῆς ἔθετο, ἀλλὰ πρωτόTEXOV óvov. Hæres. 78. §. 17. As if her son the first-born were not her first-born son. Οὐ πάντως ὁ πρωτότοκος πρὸς τοὺς ἐπιγινομένους ἔχει τὴν σύγκρισιν, ἀλλ ̓ ὁ πρῶτ τον διανοίγων μήτραν Πρωτότοκος ὀνομάζεται. S. Basil. Hom, in Sanct. Christ. Gen. §. 5. Primogenitus est non tantum post quem 263, ming margin of jr. redemption excludeth all such tergiversation: "Those that are redeemed, from a month old thou shalt redeem;" (Numb. xviii 16.) no staying to make up the relation, no expecting another birth to perfect the redemption. Being then they brought our Saviour to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord; as it is written in the Law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;" (Luke ii. 22, 23.) it is evident he was called the first-born of Mary according to the notion of the Law of Moses, and consequently that title inferreth no succession, nor proveth the mother to have any other offspring. Indeed, as they thirdly object, it cannot be denied but that we read expressly in the Scriptures of the brethren of our Lord: "He went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren," (John ii. 12.) and, "While he talked unto the people, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him." (Matt. xii. 46.) But although his mother and his brethren be named together, yet they are never called the sons of his mother; and the question is not whether Christ had any brethren, but whether his mother brought forth any other children? It is possible Joseph might have children before Mary was espoused to him; and then as he was reputed and called our Saviour's father, so might they well be accounted and called his brethren, as the ancient fathers, especially of the Greek Church, have taught. Nor need we thus assert that Joseph had any offspring, because the language of the Jews includeth in the name of brethren not only the strict relation of Origen first delivereth it on St. Matt. and Eusebius sheweth his opinion, speaking of St. James the brother of our Lord, Hist. Eccl. 1. ii. c. 1. Τότε δῆτα καὶ Ἰάκω βον τὸν τοῦ Κυρίου λεγόμενον ἀδελφὸν, ὅτι δὴ καὶ οὗτος Ἰωσὴφ ονόμαστο παῖς, τοῦ δὲ Χριστοῦ πατὴρ ὁ Ἰωσήφ. So we read, as it is set forth by R. Stephan. But in my book collated with an ancient MS. "OT δὲ καὶ οὗτος υἱὸς ἦν τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ νομιζομένου οἱονεὶ πατρὸς τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Which is much more plain ; for ὠνόμαστο παῖς is nothing so pertinent in this particular, as vid v. So Epiphanius : "Ην γὰρ ὁ Ἰάκωβος οὗτος υἱὸς τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ ἐκ γυναικὸς τοῦ Ἰωσήφ, οὐκ ἀπὸ Magias. Hæres. 29. §. 4. And Hares. 42. §. 12. speaking of the rest he calls them : τοὺς υἱοὺς Ἰωσὴφ ἐκ τῆς ὄντως αὐτοῦ ἄλλης yuvaixis. Thus St. Hilary Homines pravissimi hinc præsumunt opinionis suæ auctoritatem, quod plures Dominum nostrum fratres habuisse sit traditum, quasi Mariæ illi fuissent, et non potius Joseph ex priore conjugio suscepti." Com. in Matt. c. 1. Thus also St. Ambrose de Virg. And generally all the fathers to that time, and the Greeks afterwards. St. ChaySustom, St. Cyril, Euthymius, Theophy * lact, Ecumenius, and Nicephorus. These all seem to have followed an old tradition, which is partly still continued, in Epiphanius : "Εσχε δὲ οὗτος ὁ Ἰωσὴφ τὴν μὲν πρώτην αὐτοῦ γυναῖκα ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Ἰούδας καὶ κυίσκει αὐτῷ αὕτη παῖδας τὸν ἀριθμὸν ἕξι τέσσαρας μὲν ἄῤῥενας, θηλείας δὲ δύο. Hares. 78. §. 7. The first of these six children was James: μετ' αὐτὸν δὲ γίνεται παῖς Ἰωσὴ καλούμενος, εἶτα μετ' αὐτὸν Συμεὼν, ἔπειτα Ἰούδας· καὶ δύο θυγατέρες, ἡ Μαρία, καὶ ἡ Σαν λáun nahovμévn. Ibid. §. 8. Thus had the Greeks a distinct relation of the sons and daughters of Joseph, and of the order of their generation. Whose authority I shall conclude with that of Jobius Econ. 1. ix. *Εδει πατέρα καὶ ἀδελφοὺς ἐπὶ γῆς ὀνομάσαι τὸν ἀπάτορα, οὐκ ἐκ τῶν λῃστῶν καὶ πονηρῶν τούτους ἐξελέξατο, ἀλλὰ τοὺς ἐν δικαιοσύνη διαλάμποντας· τοιοῦτος γὰρ Ἰωσὴφ, καὶ οἱ τού TOU Taïdes. In Phot. Biblioth. 222. c. 38. col. 642. And that of Amphilochius Jun. Ηπίστησαν δέ ποτε καὶ οἱ τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ υἱο, καθώς μαρτυρεῖ ὁ Εὐαγγελιστές, καὶ τῇ πειρα διδαχθέντες τὸ ἀληθὲς, γεγρας κασία Ἰάκωβος καὶ Ἰούδας παντὶ τῷ κοσμα. 2 τ καὶ Κυρίου Ισοῦ Χριστοῦ δούλους ἑαυτοὺς εἶναι. Grat. in Deip. in fin. fraternity, but also the larger of consanguinity; and therefore it is sufficient satisfaction for that expression, that there were such persons allied unto the blessed Virgin. "We be brethren," (Gen. xiii. 8.) said Abraham unto Lot; when Abraham was the son of Terah, Lot of Haran, and consequently not his brother, but his nephew, and, as elsewhere properly styled, "the son of his brother." (Gen. xii. 5.) "Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said unto them, Come near, carry your brethren from before the sanctuary:" (Lev. x. 4.) whereas those brethren were Nadab and Abihu, the sons, not of Uzziel, but of Aaron. "Jacob told Rachel that he was her father's brother, and that he was Rebekah's son;" (Gen. xxix. 12.) whereas Rebekah was the sister of Rachel's father. It is sufficient therefore, that the evangelists, according to the constant language of the Jews, call the kindred of the blessed Virgin the brethren and sisters of her only son; which indeed is something the later, but the most generally approved, answer.* And yet this difficulty, though usually no farther considered, The first, I conceive, who returned this answer was St. Jerome, in a tractate written in his youth at Rome against Helvidius; wherein, after a long discourse of several acceptations of brethren in the Scriptures, he thus concludes: 'Restat igitur, ut fratres eos intelligas appellatos cognatione, non affectu, non gentis privilegio, non natura, quo modo Lot Abrahæ, quo modo Jacob Laban est appellatus frater.' Adv. Helvid. col. 448. And as for the other opinion of those which went before him, he says it was grounded merely upon an apocryphal history, Com. in Matt. c. xii. 49. col. 639. Quidam fratres Domini de alia uxore Joseph filios suspicantur, sequentes deliramenta Apocryphorum, et quandam Escham mulierculam confingentes.' Indeed Origen himself, followed in this particular by the Greek Church, did confess no less; who tells the authors from whom that interpretation first arose : 'Fratres autem Jesu putabant nonnulli esse, (ex traditione Hebræorum sumpta occasione, ex evangelio quod titulum habet juxta Petrum, aut ex libro Jacobi) filios Joseph ex priore uxore, quæ convixerat ipsi antequam duceret Mariam.' In Matt. xiii. 55. This Jacobus mentioned by Origen, is the same with him whom Eustathius mentions in Heraemero, p. 70. ed. Lugd. 1629. Αξιον δὲ τὴν ἱστορίαν, ἣν διέξεισι περὶ τῆς ἁγίας Μαρίας Ιακωβός τις, ἐπελθεῖν. Where he reckons Joseph inter τοὺς χηρεύοντας, and Epiphanius calls Ιάκωβος Εβραίος, Lib. de Vit. B. Mariæ. Virg. St. Jerome therefore observing that the former opinion of Joseph's sons was founded merely upon an apocryphal writing, and being ready to Ja 263, margin is not fully cleared; for they which impugned the perpetual virginity of the mother of our Lord, urged it farther, pretending that as the Scriptures called them the brethren of Christ, so they also shewed them to be the sons of Mary the mother of Christ. For first, the Jews express them particularly by their names, "Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas ?" (Matt. xiii. 55.) Therefore James and Joses were undoubtedly the brethren of Christ, and the same were also as unquestionably sons of Mary:* for among the women at the cross we find "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses." (Matt. xxvii. 56.) Again, this Mary they think can be no other than the mother of our Lord, because they find her early in the morning at the sepulchre with Mary Magdalene and Salome; (Mark xvi. 1.) and it is not probable that any should have more care of the body of the son than the mother.†t She then who was certainly present at the cross, was not probably absent from the sepulchre: wherefore they conclude, she was the mother of Christ, who was the mother of James and Joses, the brethren of Christ. And now the urging of this argument will produce a greater clearness in the solution of the question. For if it appear that Mary the mother of James and Joses was different and distinguished from Mary the Virgin; then will it also be apparent that the brethren of our Lord were the sons of another mother, for James and Joses were so called. But we read in St. John, that "there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." (John xix. 25.) ̊ In the rest of the evangelists we find at the same place" Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses;" (Matt. xxvii. 56. Mark xv. 40.) and again at the sepulchre, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary" (Matt. xxviii. 1) wherefore that other Mary, by the conjunction of these testimonies, appeareth to be Mary the wife of Cleophas, and the mother of James and Joses; and consequently James and Joses, the brethren of our Lord, were not the sons of Mary his mother, but of the other Mary, and therefore called his brethren according to the language of the Jews, because that the other Mary was the sister of his mother. |
