And yet this difficulty, though usually no farther considered, 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. 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 6 Hier. in Matt. xii. 49. col. 639. After St. Jerome, St. Augustin embraced this opinion: Consanguinei Virginis Mariæ fratres Domini dicebantur. Erat enim consuetudinis Scripturarum appellare fratres quoslibet consanguineos et cognationis propinquos.' In Ioan. Tract. 28. §. 3. item Tract. 10. §. 2. et contra Faustum, l. xxii. c. 35. Although therefore he seem to be indifferent in his exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians, i. 15. 'Jacobus Domini frater, vel ex filiis Joseph de alia uxore, vel ex cognatione Mariæ matris ejus, debet intelligi:' yet because this exposition was written while he was a presbyter, and those before-mentioned after he was made a bishop; therefore the former was taken for his undoubted opinion, and upon his and St. Jerome's authority, bath been generally since received in the Latin Church. * From this place Helvidius argued: Hæc eadem vocabula in alio loco nominari, et eosdem esse fratres Domini filios Mariæ.' S. Hier. advers. Helv. col. 444. And from the next he concluded: Ecce Jacobus et Joses, filii Mariæ, quos Judæi fratres appellarunt.' Ibid. col. 445. Here Helvidius exclaiming triumphed: Quam miserum erit et impium de Maria hoc sentire, ut cum aliæ foeminæ curam sepulturæ habuerint, matrem ejus dicamus absentem!' Ibid. col. 445. 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. Notwithstanding therefore all these pretensions, there can be nothing found to raise the least suspicion of any interruption of the ever-blessed Mary's perpetual virginity. For as she was a virgin when she conceived, and after she brought forth our Saviour; so did she continue in the same state and condition, and was commended by our Saviour to his beloved disciple, as a mother only now of an adopted son. The third consideration belonging to this part of the Article is, how this Virgin was a mother, what the foundation was of her maternal relation to the Son of God, what is to be attributed upto her in this sacred nativity, beside the immediate work of the power of the Highest, and the influence of the Holy Ghost. For we are here to remember again the most ancient form of this Article, briefly thus delivered, born of the Holy Ghost, and Virgin Mary; as also that the word born† was not taken precisely for the nativity of our Saviour, but as comprehending in it whatsoever belonged to his human generation; and when afterward the conception was attributed to the Spirit, the nativity to the Virgin; it was not so to be understood, as if the Spirit had conceived him, but the blessed Virgin, by the power and operation of the Spirit. First therefore we must acknowledge a true, real, and proper conception, by which the Virgin did conceive of her own substance the true and real substance of our Saviour, according to the prediction of the prophet, "Behold a virgin shall conceive," (Isa. vii. 14.) and the annunciation of the angel, Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb." (Luke i. 31.) From whence our Saviour is expressly termed by Elizabeth "the fruit of her womb." (Luke i. 42.) edendorum corporum susceptis originibus impendunt.' S. Hilar. I. x. de Trinit. c. 15. Jacobus qui appellatur frater Domini, cognomento Justus, ut nonnulli existimant, Joseph ex alia uxore, ut autem mihi videtur, Mariæ That is, by a proper conception, sororis Matris Domini, cujus Joan- ovλλaßriv ev yaorpí: the Syriac in one nes in libro suo meminit, filius.' S. word ac si diceres, ventrescere.' Hieron. in Catalogo Script. Eccles. So the LXX. translated the simple n. 4. col. 346. Sicut in sepulcro ubi iv yaoтpi λý¥eral. As therefore positum est corpus Domini, nec iv yaorpi xav expresseth a proper antea nec postea mortuus jacuit: sic gravidation, so doth έv yaorpi ovλλauterus Mariæ nec antea nec postea Bev a proper conception. According quicquam mortale suscepit.' S. Au- to that expression of Gregory Naziangust. in Ioan. Tract. 28. zen: θεϊκῶς μὲν, ὅτι χωρὶς ἀνδρός· ἀνθρωπικῶς δὲ, ὅτι νόμῳ κυήσεως. Ep. i. ad Cledon. † Γεννηθέντα. Tantum ad nativitatem carnis ex se dedit, quantum ex se foeminæ פרי בטן .Heb || Secondly, As she did at first really and properly conceive, so did she also nourish and increase the same body of our Saviour, once, conceived, by the true substance of her own: by which "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost," (Matt. i. 18.) and is described going with Joseph "to be taxed, being great with child,”* (Luke ii. 5.) and pronounced happy by that loud cry of the woman in the Gospel, “Blessed is the womb that bare thee." (Luke xi. 27.)† Thirdly, When Christ was thus conceived, and grew in the womb of the blessed Virgin, she truly and really did bring forth a son, by a true and proper parturition; and Christ thereby was properly born, by a true nativity. For as we read, "Elizabeth's full time came that she should be delivered, and she brought forth a son;" (Luke i. 57.) so in the like simplicity of expression, and propriety of speech, the same evangelist speaks of Mary, "The days were accomplished that she should be delivered, and she brought forth her first-born son." (Luke ii. 6, 7.) Wherefore from these three, a true conception, nutrition, and parturition, we must acknowledge that the blessed Virgin was truly and properly the mother of our Saviour.§ And so is she frequently styled the mother of Jesus, in the language of the evangelists, and by Elizabeth particularly, the mother of her Lord, as also by the general consent of the Church (because he which was born of her was God) the Deipara;¶ * Οὔσῃ ἐγκύψ. † Ἡ κοιλία ἡ βαστάσασά σε. 1 Πεπληροφορημένους εἰς τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν ἀληθῶς ὄντα, ἐκ γένους Δαβὶδ κατὰ σάρκα, υἱὸν θεοῦ κατὰ θέλημα καὶ δύναμιν θεοῦ, γεγεννημένον ἀληθῶς ἐκ παρOivov. S. Ignat. Epist. ad Smyr. c. 1. § Veri et proprii filii quis nisi absurdissimus neget vere et proprie esse matrem?' Facundus I. i. c. 4. 'Hoc et ad credendum difficile, et dignum controversia videbatur, utrum Deum illa Virgo genuerit, cæterum quod vere et proprie genuerit, quicquid est ille quem genuit, nulli dignum disceptationis apparet.' Ibid. Η Πῶς γὰρ οὐ Θεοτόκος ἡ θεὸν υἱὸν Exovoa; Theod. Abucara, disp. 12. This name was first in use in the Greek Church, which delighting in the happy compositions of that language, called the blessed Virgin Θεοτόκον. From whence the Latins in imitation styled her 'Virginem Deiparam et Deigenitricem. Meursius in his Glossary, sets the original of this title in the time of Justinian: Inditum hoc nomen est matri Domini ac Servatoris nostri Jesu Christi a Synodo V. Constantinopolitana tempore Ju 6 6 stiniani.' Whereas this was not the original, but the confirmation of that title. In hac Synodo Catholice est institutum, ut Beata Maria semper virgo Θεοτόκος diceretur; quia sicut catholica fides habet, non hominem solum, sed vere Deum et hominem, genuit.' Paul. Warnef. de Gest. Longobard. 1. vi. c. 14. So speaketh he of the same Synod; and it is true, for the seventh Canon of the same runneth thus: Εἴ τις κατὰ ἀναφορὰν ἢ καταχρηστικῶς Θεοτόκον λέγει τὴν ἁγίαν, ἔνδοξον, ἀειπαρθένον Μαρίαν—ἀλλὰ μὴ κυρίως καὶ κατ' ἀλήθειαν Θεοτόκον αὐτὴν ὁμολογεῖ ὁ τοιοῦτος ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. Otherwise in this Council was but confirmed what had been determined and settled long before; and therefore Photius says thereof, epist. 1. Aörn ǹ Σύνοδος Νεστορίου πάλιν τὰ μιαρὰ παραφυόμενα δόγματα εἰς τὸ παντελὲς ἐξεθέ pure that it utterly cut off the heresy of Nestorius, which then began to grow up again. Now part of the heresy of Nestorius, was the denial of this OEOTÓKOÇ, and the whole was nothing else but the ground of that denial. And therefore being he was condemned for denying of it, that title which being a compound title begun in the Greek Church, must be acknowledged authentic, which he denied from the time of the Council of Ephesus; in which those fathers, saith Photius, expressly: rv πανάχραντον καὶ ἀειπαρθένον (Χριστοῦ) μητέρα κυρίως καὶ ἀληθῶς καλεῖσθαι καὶ ἀνευφημεῖσθαι Θεοτόκον παραδεδώκασι. Epist. 1. And that it was so then is manifest, because by the denial of this the Nestorian heresy was first discovered, not in Nestorius himself, but in his presbyter Anastasius, who first in a sermon magisterially delivered: Θεοτόκον τὴν Μαρίαν καλεῖτο μηδείς. Socrat. Eccl. Hist. 1. vii. c. 32. and Liberat. Breviar. c. 4. as also Evagrius and Nicephorus. Upon which words arising a tumult, Nestorius took his presbyter's part, teaching the same doctrine constantly in the Church, καὶ πανταχοῦ τὴν λέξιν τοῦ Θεοτόκος ἐκβάλAwv. And thereupon the tumult grew so great, that a general Council for that reason was called by Theodosius junior, τοῦ Νεστορίου τὴν ἁγίαν Μαρίαν εἶναι Θεοτόκον ἀρνουμένου, as Justinian testifieth, Ep. ad V. Synodum. In which, when all things seemed clearly to be carried against Nestorius and his faction, he hoped to have reconciled all by this feigned acknowledgment: Aɛyέow kai Dɛorókos Mapia, Kai Tavoάodw тà λvæηрá. Socrat. 1. vii. c. 34. Liberat. Brev. c. 6. It is plain then, that the Council of Ephesus, which condemned Nestorius, confirmed this title Oɛoróкog, I say, confirmed it; for it is evident that it was before used in the Church, by the tumult which arose at the first denial of it by Anastasius; and so confirmed it as received before, because they approved the epistles of St. Cyril, who proved it by the usage of those fathers which preceded him. Where by the way it is observable, that while St. Cyril produceth nine several fathers for the use of this word, and both before and after he produceth them, affirmeth that they all did use it; there are but three of them who expressly mention it, Athanasius, Antiochus, and Ammon, Epist. ad Reginas de Rect. Fid. p. 47. seqq. And it is something to be admired, that he should so name the other six, and recite those places out of them which had it not, when there were before him so many beside them that used it. As Gregory Nazianzen: Εἴ τις οὐ Θεοτόκον τὴν Μαρίαν ὑπολαμβάνει, χωpic toti tñs Deórηros. Epist. 1. ad Cledon, and in his first oration de Filio speaking of the difference of his generation from that of others: Ποῦ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς σοῖς ἔγνως Θεοτόκον παρθένον ; And St. Basil asserteth: μὴ καταδέχεσθαι τῶν φιλοχρίστων τὴν ἀκοὴν, ὅτι ποτὲ ἐπαύσατο εἶναι παρθένος ἡ Θεοτόκος. Hom. in Sanct. Christ. Gen. §.5. And that in the time of St. Basil and St. Gregory, this term was usual, appeareth by the objection of Julian, who derided the Christians for thinking God could be born of a woman: Oɛoτόκον δὲ ὑμεῖς οὐ παύεσθε Μαρίαν και λouvres. S. Cyril. Alex. c. Jul. 1. vii. Before both these Eusebius speaketh of Helena, who built a church at Bethlehem: Η βασιλὶς ἡ θεοσεβεστάτη τῆς Θεοτόκου τὴν κύησιν μνήμασι θαυμαστοῖς KαTEкóoμe. De vita Const. 1. iii. c. 43. And before Eusebius, Alexander bishop of Alexandria: 'Aπapxǹ yέyovev ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς, σῶμα φορέσας ἀληθῶς, καὶ οὐ δοκήσει, ἐκ τῆς OEOTÓKOV Mapías. Ep. ad Alex. apud Theod. 1. i. c. 4. Before him Diony-' sius Alexand. calls our Saviour: Tov σαρκωθέντα ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου καὶ OEOTóкov Mapias. Epist. ad Paulum Samosat. p. 276. t. i. Biblioth. Patr. Gr. Par. 1624. And speaking of the words of Isaiah," a virgin shall conceive:" Aɛíkvvoiv öri ý ОEOTÓKOS TIVà ovvéλaßev, ǹ raplévos dnλovóri. Resp. ad Quæst. 5. And in the answer to the same question: ПIvεúμarı àɣių ἥδρασται, καὶ σκέπεται τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ ὑψίστου ἡ ἀείμνηστος σκηνὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ, Mapía ǹ Oɛoтóкog, kai πaplέvos. And again: Ovtwoɛì Xéyeɩ kai tepi toũ yevvnoevroÇ ÈK TÕS DEOTÓKOV. In answer to the seventh question: Aià tò peúyeiv eis Aïуʊπtov tòv’Iwong äμa tỹ Oeotóκῳ Μαρίᾳ ἐν ἀγκάλαις φερούσῃ τὴν καταpvyv nuv. And so often. Nay, yet before him Origen did not only use, but expound at large the meaning of that title Oɛoróκoç, in his first tome on the Epistle to the Romans, as Socrates and Liberatus testify. Well therefore did Antiochus, bishop of Antioch, urge the ancient fathers against Nestorius, calling it: póσpopov ovoμa kai τετριμμένον πολλοῖς τῶν Πατέρων. And again: Iodλoïs rŵv Harɛpwv kai ovvτεθὲν, καὶ γραφὲν, καὶ ῥηθέν. Τοῦτο γὰρ τὸ ὄνομα, says he, οὐδεὶς τῶν Ἐκκλησιαστικῶν διδασκάλων παρύτηται· οἵ τε was resolved into its parts by the Latins, and so the Virgin was plainly named the mother of God.* The necessity of believing our Saviour thus to be born of the Virgin Mary, will appear both in respect of her who was the mother, and of him who was the son. In respect of her it was therefore necessary, that we might perpetually preserve an esteem of her person proportionable to so high a dignity. It was her own prediction," From henceforth all generations shall call me blessed;" (Luke i. 48.) but the obligation is ours, to call her, to esteem her so. * Although OEOTÓKOÇ may be extended to signify as much as the mother of God, because ríkrev doth sometimes denote as much as yɛvvãv, and therefore it hath been translated Dei genitrix, as well as Deipara ; yet those ancient Greeks which call the Virgin Θεοτόκος, did not call her μητέρα τοῦ Θεοῦ. But the Latins translating Θεοτόκος Dei genitrix, and the Greeks translating Dei genitrix Oɛov μhrnp, they both at last called her plainly the mother of God. The first which the Greeks observed to style her so, was Leo the Great, as was observed by Ephraim Patriarch of Theopolis, whose words have been very much mistaken by two learned men, Dionysius Petavius and Leo Allatus, who have produced them to prove that Leo Magnus was the first man which ever used the word Θεοτόκος. A strange error this must needs appear in so great a person as a patriarch, and that of the Greek Church; and indeed not imaginable, considering how well he was versed in those controversies, and how he compared the words of Leo with those of the ancient Greek fathers, and particularly of St. Cyril. His words are these in his epistle ad Zenobium: Пowтog iv àyios Aéwv idκῶς εἶπεν αὐταῖς λέξεσιν, ὡς μήτηρ θεοῦ ἐστὶν ἡ ἁγία Θεοτόκος, τῶν πρὸ αὐτοῦ πατέρων διαπρυσίοις ῥήμασι μὴ τοῦτο papevov, that is, 'Leo was the first who in plain terms called the OɛOTÓKOS, that is, Mary, the mother of God; whereas the fathers before him spake not the same in express words.' Petavius and Allatius have clearly mistaken the proposition, making the subject the predicate, and the predicate the subject, as if he had first called the mother of God Θεοτόκος, † 'Non æquanda est mulieribus cunctis quæ genuit majestatem.' Auctor lib. de singular. Clericorum. |