(NOTE: The electronic text obtained from The Electronic Bible Society was
not completely corrected. EWTN has corrected all discovered errors.)

Transliteration of Greek words: All phonetical except: w = omega; h serves
three puposes: 1. = Eta; 2. = rough breathing, when appearing initially
before a vowel; 3. = in the aspirated letters theta = th, phi = ph, chi =
ch. Accents are given immediately after their corresponding vowels: acute =
' , grave = `, circumflex = ^. The character ' doubles as an apostrophe,
when necessary.

In this file, footnote numbers sometimes refer to following text instead
of to the preceeding.


ST. JEROME

THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF BLESSED MARY, Against Helvidius.

[Translated by The Hon. W. H. Fremantle, M.A., Canon of Canterbury
Cathedral and Fellow and Tutor of Balliol College, Oxford, with the
assistance of the Rev. G. Lewis, M.A., of Balliol College, Oxford, Vicar of
Dodderhill near Droitwick, and the Rev. W. G. Martley, M.A., of Balliol
College, Oxford.]


   1. I was requested by certain of the brethren not long ago to reply to
a pamphlet  written by one Helvidius. I have deferred doing so, not because
it is a difficult matter to maintain the truth and refute an ignorant boor
who has scarce known the first glimmer of learning, but because I was
afraid my reply might make him appear worth defeating. There was the
further consideration that a turbulent fellow, the only individual in the
world who thinks himself both priest and layman, one who,[1] as has been
said, thinks that eloquence consists in loquacity and considers speaking
ill of anyone to be the witness of a good conscience, would begin to
blaspheme worse than ever if opportunity of discussion were afforded him.
He would stand as it were on a pedestal, and would publish his views far
and wide. There was reason also to fear that when truth failed him he would
assail his opponents with the weapon of abuse. But all these motives for
silence, though just, have more justly ceased to influence me, because of
the scandal caused to the brethren who were disguised at his ravings. The
axe of the Gospel must therefore be now laid to the root of the barren
tree, and both it and its fruitless foliage cast into the fire, so that
Helvidius who has never learnt to speak, may at length learn to hold his
tongue.

   2. I must call upon the Holy Spirit to express His meaning by my mouth
and defend the virginity of the Blessed Mary. I must call upon the Lord
Jesus to guard the sacred lodging of the womb in which He abode for ten
months from all suspicion of sexual intercourse. And I must also entreat
God the Father to show that the mother of His Son, who was a mother before
she was a bride, continued a Virgin after her son was born. We have no
desire to career over the fields of eloquence, we do not resort to the
snares of the logicians or the thickets of Aristotle. We shall adduce the
actual words of Scripture. Let him be refuted by the same proofs which he
employed against us, so that he may see that it was possible for him to
read what is written, and yet to be unable to discern the established
conclusion of a sound faith.

   3. His first statement was: "Matthew says,[2] Now the birth of Jesus
Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph,
before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. And
Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a
public example, was minded to put her away privately. But when he thought
on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream,
saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy
wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." Notice, he
says, that the word used is betrothed, not intrusted as you say, and of
course the only reason why she was betrothed was that she might one day be
married. And the Evangelist would not have said before they came together
if they were not to come together, for no one would use the phrase before
he dried of a man who was not going to dine. Then, again, the angel calls
her wife and speaks of her as united to Joseph. We are next invited to
listen to the declaration of Scripture:[1] "And Joseph arose from his
sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him
his wife; and knew her not till she had brought forth her son."

   4. Let us take the points one by one, and follow the tracks of this
impiety that we may show that he has contradicted himself. He admits that
she was betrothed, and in the next breath will have her to be a man's wife
whom he has admitted to be his betrothed. Again, he calls her wife, and
then says the only reason why she was betrothed was that she might one day
be married. And, for fear we might not think that enough, "the word used,"
he says, "is betrothed and not intrusted, that is to say, not yet a wife,
not yet united by the bond of wedlock." But when he continues, "the
Evangelist would never have applied the words, before they came together to
persons who were not to come together, any more than one says, before he
dined, when the man is not going to dine," I know not whether to grieve or
laugh. Shall I convict him of ignorance, or accuse him of rashness? Just as
if, supposing a person to say, "Before dining in harbour I sailed to
Africa," his words could not hold good unless he were compelled some day to
dine in harbour. If I choose to say, "the apostle Paul before he went to
Spain was put in fetters at Rome," or (as I certainly might) "Helvidius,
before he repented, was cut off by death," must Paul on being released at
once go to Spain, or must Helvidius repent after death, although the
Scripture says[2] "In sheol who shall give thee thanks?" Must we not rather
understand that the preposition before, although it frequently denotes
order in time, yet sometimes refers only to order in thought? So that there
is no necessity, if sufficient cause intervened to prevent it, for our
thoughts to be realized. When, then, the Evangelist says before they came
together, he indicates the time immediately preceding marriage, and shows
that matters were so far advanced that she who had been betrothed was on
the point of becoming a wife. As though he said, before they kissed and
embraced, before the consummation of marriage, she was found to be with
child. And she was found to be so by none other than Joseph, who watched
the swelling womb of his betrothed with the anxious glances, and, at this
time, almost the privilege, of a husband. Yet it does not follow, as the
previous examples showed, that he had intercourse with Mary after her
delivery, when his desires had been quenched by the fact that she had
already conceived. And although we find it said to Joseph in a dream, "Fear
not to take Mary thy wife "; and again, "Joseph arose from his sleep, and
did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife," no
one ought to be disturbed by this, as though, inasmuch as she is called
wife, she ceases to be betrothed, for we know it is usual in Scripture to
give the title to those who are betrothed. The following evidence from
Deuteronomy establishes the point.[1] "If the man," says the writer, "find
the damsel that is betrothed in the field, and the man force her, and lie
with her, he shall surely die, because he hath humbled his neighbour's
wife." And in another place,[2] "If there be a damsel that is a virgin
betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with
her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye
shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried
not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his
neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee."
Elsewhere also,[3] "And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and
hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in
the battle, and another man take her." But if anyone feels a doubt as to
why the Virgin conceived after she was betrothed rather than when she had
no one betrothed to her, or, to use the Scripture phrase, no husband, let
me explain that there were three reasons. First, that by the genealogy of
Joseph, whose kinswoman Mary was, Mary's origin might also be shown.
Secondly, that she might not in accordance with the law of Moses be stoned
as an adulteress. Thirdly, that in her flight to Egypt she might have some
solace, though it was that of a guardian rather than a husband. For who at
that time would have believed the Virgin's word that she had conceived of
the Holy Ghost, and that the angel Gabriel had come and announced the
purpose of God? and would not all have given their opinion against her as
an adulteress, like Susanna? for at the present day, now that the whole
world has embraced the faith, the Jews argue that when Isaiah says,[1]
"Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son," the Hebrew word denotes a
young woman, not a virgin, that is to say, the word is ALMAH, not BETHULAH,
a position which, farther on, we shall dispute more in detail. Lastly,
excepting Joseph, and Elizabeth, and Mary herself, and some few others who,
we may suppose, heard the truth from them, all considered Jesus to be the
son of Joseph. And so far was this the case that even the Evangelists,
expressing the prevailing opinion, which is the correct rule for a
historian, call him the father of the Saviour, as, for instance,[2] "And he
(that is, Simeon) came in the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents
brought in the child Jesus, that they might do concerning him after the
custom of the law;" and elsewhere,[3] "And his parents went every year to
Jerusalem at the feast of the passover." And afterwards,[4] "And when they
had fulfilled the days, as they were returning, the boy Jesus tarried
behind in Jerusalem; and his parents knew not of it." Observe also what
Mary herself, who had replied to Gabriel with the words,[5] "How shall this
be, seeing I know not a man?" says concerning Joseph,[6] "Son, why hast
thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I sought thee sorrowing."
We have not here, as many maintain, the utterance of Jews or of mockers.
The Evangelists call Joseph father: Mary confesses he was father. Not (as I
said before) that Joseph was really the father of the Saviour: but that, to
preserve the reputation of Mary, he was regarded by all as his father,
although, before he heard the admonition of the angel,[7] "Joseph, thou son
of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is
conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost," he had thoughts of putting her away
privily; which shows that he well knew that the child conceived was not
his. But we have said enough, more with the aim of imparting instruction
than of answering an opponent, to show why Joseph is called the father of
our Lord, and why Mary is called Joseph's wife. This also at once answers
the question why certain persons are called his brethren.

   5. This, however, is a point which will find its proper place further
on. We must now hasten to other matters. The passage for discussion now is,
"And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord
commanded him, and took unto him his wife and knew her not till she had
brought forth a son, and he called his name Jesus." Here, first of all, it
is quite needless for our opponent to show so elaborately that the word
know has reference to coition, rather than to intellectual apprehension: as
though anyone denied it, or any person in his senses could ever imagine the
folly which Helvidius takes pains to refute. Then he would teach us that
the adverb till implies a fixed and definite time, and when that is
fulfilled, he says the event takes place which previously did not take
place, as in the case before us, "and knew her not till she had brought
forth a son." It is clear, says he, that she was known after she brought
forth, and that that knowledge was only delayed by her engendering a son.
To defend his position he piles up text upon text, waves his sword like a
blind-folded gladiator, rattles his noisy tongue, and ends with wounding no
one but himself.

   6. Our reply is briefly this,--the words knew and till in the language
of Holy Scripture are capable of a double meaning. As to the former, he
himself gave us a dissertation to show that it must be referred to sexual
intercourse, and no one doubts that it is often used of the knowledge of
the understanding, as, for instance, "the boy Jesus tarried behind in
Jerusalem, and his parents knew it not." Now we have to prove that just as
in the one case he has followed the usage of Scripture, so with regard to
the word till he is utterly refuted by the authority of the same Scripture,
which often denotes by its use a fixed time (he himself told us so),
frequently time without limitation, as when God by the mouth of the prophet
says to certain persons,[1] "Even to old age I am he." Will He cease to be
God when they have grown old ? And the Saviour in the Gospel tells the
Apostles,[2] "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world."
Will the Lord then after the end of the world has come forsake His
disciples, and at the very time when seated on twelve thrones they are to
judge the twelve tribes of Israel will they be bereft of the company of
their Lord ? Again Paul the Apostle writing to the Corinthians[3] says,
"Christ the first-fruits, afterward they that are Christ's, at his coming.
Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God,
even the Father, when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority
and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet."
Granted that the passage relates to our Lord's human nature, we do not deny
that the words are spoken of Him who endured the cross and is commanded to
sit afterwards on the right hand. What does he mean then by saying, "for he
must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet"? Is the Lord to
reign only until His enemies begin to be under His feet, and once they are
under His feet will He cease to reign ? Of course His reign will then
commence in its fulness when His enemies begin to be under His feet. David
also in the fourth Song of Ascents[1] speaks thus, "Behold, as the eyes of
servants look unto the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maiden unto
the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look unto the Lord our God, until he
have mercy upon us." Will the prophet, then, look unto the Lord until he
obtain mercy, and when mercy is obtained will he turn his eyes down to the
ground ? although elsewhere he says,[2] "Mine eyes fail for thy salvation,
and for the word of thy righteousness." I could accumulate countless
instances of this usage, and cover the verbosity of our assailant with a
cloud of proofs; I shall, however, add only a few, and leave the reader to
discover like ones for himself.

   7. The word of God says in Genesis,[3] "And they gave unto Jacob all
the strange gods which were in their hand, and the rings which were in
their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem, and lost
them until this day." Likewise at the end of Deuteronomy,[4] "So Moses the
servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word
of the Lord. And he buried him in the valley, in the land of Moab over
against Beth-peor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day." We
must certainly understand by this day the time of the composition of the
history, whether you prefer the view that Moses was the author of the
Pentateuch or that Ezra re-edited it. In either case I make no objection.
The question now is whether the words unto this day are to be referred to
the time of publishing or writing the books, and if so it is for him to
show, now that so many years have rolled away since that day, that either
the idols hidden beneath the oak have been found, or the grave of Moses
discovered; for he obstinately maintains that what does not happen so long
as the point of time indicated by until and unto has not been attained,
begins to be when that point has been reached. He would do well to pay heed
to the idiom of Holy Scripture, and understand with us, (it was here he
stuck in the mud) that some things which might seem ambiguous if not
expressed are plainly intimated, while others are left to the exercise of
our intellect. For if, while the event was still fresh in memory and men
were living who had seen Moses, it was possible for his grave to be
unknown, much more may this be the case after the lapse of so many ages.
And in the same way must we interpret what we are told concerning Joseph.
The Evangelist pointed out a circumstance which might have given rise to
some scandal, namely, that Mary was not known by her husband until she was
delivered, and he did so that we might be the more certain that she from
whom Joseph refrained while there was room to doubt the import of the
vision was not known after her delivery.

   8. In short, what I want to know is why Joseph refrained until the day
of her delivery ? Helvidius will of course reply, because he heard the
angel say,[1] "that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." And in
turn we rejoin that he had certainly heard him say,[2] "Joseph, thou son of
David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife." The reason why he was
forbidden to forsake his wife was that he might not think her an
adulteress. Is it true then, that he was ordered not to have intercourse
with his wife ? Is it not plain that the warning was given him that he
might not be separated from her ? And could the just man dare, he says, to
think of approaching her, when he heard that the Son of God was in her womb
? Excellent ! We are to believe then that the same man who gave so much
credit to a dream that he did not dare to touch his wife, yet afterwards,
when he had learnt from the shepherds that the angel of the Lord had come
from heaven and said to them,[3] "Be not afraid: for behold I bring you
good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people, for there is born
to you this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord;"
and when the heavenly host had joined with him in the chorus[4] "Glory to
God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of good will ;" and when
he had seen just Simeon embrace the infant and exclaim,[5] "Now lettest
thou thy servant depart, O Lord, according to thy word in peace: for mine
eyes have seen thy salvation;" and when he had seen Anna the prophetess,
the Magi, the Star, Herod, the angels; Helvidius, I say, would have us
believe that Joseph, though well acquainted with such surprising wonders,
dared to touch the temple of God, the abode of the Holy Ghost, the mother
of his Lord ? Mary at all events "kept all these sayings in her heart." You
cannot for shame say Joseph did not know of them, for Luke tells us,[1]
"His father and mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken
concerning Him." And yet you with marvellous effrontery contend that the
reading of the Greek manuscripts is corrupt, although it is that which
nearly all the Greek writers have left us in their books, and not only so,
but several of the Latin writers have taken the words the same way. Nor
need we now consider the variations in the copies, since the whole record
both of the Old and New Testament has since that time been[2] translated
into Latin, and we must believe that the water of the fountain flows purer
than that of the stream.

   9. Helvidius will answer, "What you say, is m my opinion mere trifling.
Your arguments are so much waste of time, and the discussion shows more
subtlety than truth. Why could not Scripture say, as it said of Thamar and
Judah,[3] ' And he took his wife, and knew her again no more'? Could not
Matthew find words to express his meaning ? ' He knew her not,' he says, '
until she brought forth a son.' He did then, after her delivery, know her,
whom he had refrained from knowing until she was delivered."

   10. If you are so contentious, your own thoughts shall now prove your
master. You must not allow any time to intervene between delivery and
intercourse. You must not say,[4] "If a woman conceive seed and bear a man
child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of the
separation of her sickness shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the
flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall continue in the
blood of her purifying three and thirty days. She shall touch no hallowed
thing," and so forth. On your showing, Joseph must at once approach, her,
and be subject to Jeremiah's[5] reproof, "They were as mad horses in
respect of women: every one neighed after his neighbour's wife." Otherwise,
how can the words stand good, "he knew her not, till she had brought forth
a son," if he waits after the time of another purifying has expired, if his
lust must brook another long delay of forty days ? The mother must go
unpurged from her child-bed taint, and the wailing infant be attended to by
the midwives, while the husband clasps his exhausted wife. Thus forsooth
must their married life begin so that the Evangelist may not be convicted
of falsehood. But God forbid that we should think thus of the Saviour's
mother and of a just man. No midwife assisted at His birth; no women's
officiousness intervened. With her own hands she wrapped Him in the
swaddling clothes, herself both mother and midwife,[1] " and laid Him," we
are told, "in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn "; a
statement which, on the one hand, refutes the ravings of the apocryphal
accounts, for Mary herself wrapped Him in the swaddling clothes, and on the
other makes the voluptuous notion of Helvidius impossible, since there was
no place suitable for married intercourse in the inn.

   11. An ample reply has now been given to what he advanced respecting
the words before they came together, and he knew her not till she had
brought forth a son. I must now proceed, if my reply is to follow the order
of his argument, to the third point. He will have it that Mary bore other
sons, and he quotes the passage,[2] "And Joseph also went up to the city of
David to enroll himself with Mary, who was betrothed to him, being great
with child. And it came to pass, while they were there, the days were
fulfilled that she should be delivered, and she brought forth her first-
born son." From this he endeavours to show that the term first-born is
inapplicable except to a person who has brothers, just as he is called only
begotten who is the only son of his parents.

   12. Our position is this: Every only begotten son is a first-born son,
but not every first- born is an only begotten. By first-born we understand
not only one who is succeeded by others, but one who has had no
predecessor.[3] "Everything," says the Lord to Aaron, "that openeth the
womb of all flesh which they offer unto the Lord, both of man and beast,
shall be thine: nevertheless the first born of man shall thou surely
redeem, and the firstling of unclean beasts shalt thou redeem." The word of
God defines first- born as everything that openeth the womb. Otherwise, if
the title belongs to such only as have younger brothers, the priests cannot
claim the firstlings until their successors have been begotten, lest,
perchance, in case there were no subsequent delivery it should prove to be
the first-born but not merely the only begotten.[4] "And those that are to
be redeemed of them from a month old shalt thou redeem, according to thine
estimation for the money of five shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary
(the same is twenty gerahs). But the firstling of an ox, or the firstling
of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, thou shalt not redeem; they are
holy." The word of God compels me to dedicate to God everything that
openeth the womb if it be the firstling of clean beasts: if of unclean
beasts, I must redeem it, and give the value to the priest. I might reply
and say, Why do you tie me down to the short space of a month ? Why do you
speak of the first-born, when I cannot tell whether there are brothers to
follow ? Wait until the second is born. I owe nothing to the priest, unless
the birth of a second should make the one I previously had the first-born.
Will not the very points of the letters cry out against me and convict me
of my folly, and declare that first-born is a title of him who opens the
womb, and is not to be restricted to him who has brothers? And, then, to
take the case of John: we are  agreed that he was an only begotten son: I
want to know if he was not also a first-born son, and whether he was not
absolutely amenable to the law. There can be no doubt in the matter. At all
events Scripture thus speaks of the Saviour,[1] "And when the days of her
purification according to the law of Moses were fulfilled, they brought him
up 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) and to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law
of the Lord, a pair of turtle-doves, or two young pigeons." If this law
relates only to the first-born, and there can be no first-born unless there
are successors, no one ought to be bound by the law of the first-born who
cannot tell whether there will be successors. But inasmuch as he who i has
no younger brothers is bound by the law of the first-born, we gather that
he is called the first-born who opens the womb and who has been preceded by
none, not he whose birth is followed by that of a younger brother. Moses
writes in Exodus,[2] "And it came to pass at midnight, that the Lord smote
all the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first- born of Pharaoh
that sat on his throne unto the first-born of the captive that was in the
dungeon: And all the first-born of cattle." Tell me, were they who then
perished by the destroyer, only your first-born, or, something more, did
they include the only begotten ? If only they who have brothers are called
first-born, the only begotten were saved from death. And if it be the fact
that the only begotten were slain, it was contrary to the sentence
pronounced, for the only begotten to die as well as the first-born. You
must either release the only begotten from the penalty, and in that case
you become ridiculous: or, if you allow that they were slain, we gain our
point, though we have not to thank you for it, that only begotten sons also
are called first-born.

   13. The last proposition of Helvidius was this, and it is what he
wished to show when he treated of the first-born, that brethren of the Lord
are mentioned in the Gospels. For example,[1] "Behold, his mother and his
brethren stood without, seeking to speak to him." And elsewhere,[2] "After
this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren." And
again,[3] "His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into
Judaea, that thy disciples also may behold the works which thou doest. For
no man doeth anything in secret, and himself seeketh to be known openly. If
thou doest these things, manifest thyself to the world." And John adds,[4]
"For even his brethren did not believe on him." Mark also and Matthew,[5]
"And coming into his own country he taught them in their synagogues,
insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this
wisdom, and mighty works? Is not this the carpenter's son ? is not his
mother called Mary ? and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and
Judas ? And his sisters, are they not all with us ?" Luke also in the Acts
of the Apostles relates,[6] "These all with one accord continued stedfastly
in prayer, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his
brethren." Paul the Apostle also is at one with them, and witnesses to
their historical accuracy,[7] "And I went up by revelation, but other of
the apostles saw I none, save Peter and James the Lord's brother." And
again in another place,[8] "Have we no right to eat and drink ? Have we no
right to lead about wives even as the rest of the Apostles, and the
brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" And for fear any one should not allow
the evidence of the Jews, since it was they from whose mouth we hear the
name of His brothers, but should maintain that His countrymen were deceived
by the same error respect of the brothers into which they fell in their
belief about the father, Helvidius utters a sharp note of warning and
cries, "The same names are repeated by the Evangelists in another place,
and the same persons are there brethren of the Lord and sons of Mary."
Matthew says,[9] "And many women were there (doubtless at the Lord's cross)
beholding from afar, which had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering
unto him: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and
Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee." Mark also,[1] "And there
were also women beholding from afar, among whom were both Mary Magdalene,
and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome"; and in the
same place shortly after, "And many other women which came up with him unto
Jerusalem." Luke too,[2] "Now there were Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and
Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them."

   14. My reason for repeating the same thing again and again is to
prevent him from raising a false issue and crying out that I have withheld
such passages as make for him, and that his view has been torn to shreds
not by evidence of Scripture, but by evasive arguments. Observe, he says,
James and Joses are sons of Mary, and the same persons who were called
brethren by the Jews. Observe, Mary is the mother of James the less and of
Joses. And James is called the less to distinguish him from James the
greater, who was the son of Zebedee, as Mark elsewhere states,[3] "And Mary
Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid. And when
the sabbath was past, they bought spices, that they might come and anoint
him." And, as might be expected, he says: "What a poor and impious view we
take of Mary, if we hold that when other women were concerned about the
burial of Jesus, she His mother was absent; or if we invent some kind of a
second Mary; and all the more because the Gospel of S. John testifies that
she was there present, when the Lord upon the cross commended her, as His
mother and now a widow, to the care of John. Or must we suppose that the
Evangelists were so far mistaken and so far mislead us as to call Mary the
mother of those who were known to the Jews as brethren of Jesus ?"

   15. What darkness, what raging madness rushing to its own destruction !
You say that the mother of the Lord was present at the cross, you say that
she was entrusted to the disciple John on account of her widowhood and
solitary condition: as if upon your own showing, she had not four sons, and
numerous daughters, with whose solace she might comfort herself ? You also
apply to her the name of widow which is not found in Scripture. And
although you quote all instances in the Gospels, the words of John alone
displease you. You say in passing that she was present at the cross, that
you may not appear to have omitted it on purpose, and yet not a word about
the women who were with her. I could pardon you if you were ignorant, but I
see you have a reason for your silence. Let me point out then what John
says,[1] "But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his
mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene." No one
doubts that there were two apostles called by the name James, James the son
of Zebedee, and James the son of Alphaeus. Do you intend the comparatively
unknown James the less, who is called in Scripture the son of Mary, not
however of Mary the mother of our Lord, to be an apostle, or not ? If he is
an apostle, he must be the son of Alphaeus and a believer in Jesus, "For
neither did his brethren believe in him." If he is not an apostle, but a
third James (who he can be I cannot tell), how can he be regarded as the
Lord's brother, and how, being a third, can he be called less to
distinguish him from greater, when greater and less are used to denote the
relations existing, not between three, but between two ? Notice, moreover,
that the Lord's brother is an apostle, since Paul says,[2] "Then after
three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him
fifteen days. But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's
brother." And in the same Epistle,[3] "And when they perceived the grace
that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be
pillars," etc. And that you may not suppose this James to be the son of
Zebedee, you have only to read the Acts of the Apostles, and you will find
that the latter had already been slain by Herod. The only conclusion is
that the Mary who is described as the mother of James the less was the wife
of Alphaeus and sister of Mary the Lord's mother, the one who is called by
John the Evangelist "Mary of Clopas," whether after her father, or kindred,
or for some other reason. But if you think they are two persons because
elsewhere we read, "Mary the mother of James the less," and here, "Mary of
Clopas," you have still to learn that it is customary in Scripture for the
same individual to bear different names. Raguel, Moses' father-in-law, is
also called Jethro. Gedeon,[4] without any apparent reason for the change,
all at once becomes Jerubbaal. Ozias, king of Judah, has an alternative,
Azarias. Mount Tabor is called Itabyrium. Again Hermon is called by the
Phenicians Sanior, and by the Amorites Sanir. The same tract of country is
known by three names,[5] Negebh, Teman, and Darom in Ezekiel. Peter is also
called Simon and Cephas. Judas the zealot in another Gospel is called
Thaddaeus. And there are numerous other examples which the reader will be
able to collect for himself from every part of Scripture.

   16. Now here we have the explanation of what I am endeavouring to show,
how it is that the sons of Mary, the sister of our Lord's mother, who
though not formerly believers afterwards did believe, can be called
brethren of the Lord. Possibly the case might be that one of the brethren
believed immediately while the others did not believe until long after, and
that one Mary was the mother of tames and Joses, namely, "Mary of Clopas,"
who is the same as the wife of Alphaeus, the other, the mother of James the
less. In any case, if she (the latter) had been the Lord's mother S. John
would have allowed her the title, as everywhere else, and would not by
calling her the mother of other sons have given a wrong impression. But at
this stage I do not wish to argue for or against the supposition that Mary
the wife of Clopas and Mary the mother of James and Joses were different
women, provided it is clearly understood that Mary the mother of James and
Joses was not the same person as the Lord's mother. How then, says
Helvidius, do yon make out that they were called the Lord's brethren who
were not his brethren ? I will show how that is. In Holy Scripture there
are four kinds of brethren--by nature, race, kindred, love. Instances of
brethren by nature are Esau and Jacob, the twelve patriarchs, Andrew and
Peter, James and John. As to race, all Jews are called brethren of one
another, as in Deuteronomy,[1] "If thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew
woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh
year thou shalt let him go free from thee." Anti in the same book,[2] "Thou
shalt in anywise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall
choose: one from among thy brethren shall thou set king over thee; thou
mayest not put a foreigner over thee, which is not thy brother." And
again,[3] "Thou shalt not see thy brother's ox or his sheep go astray, and
hide thyself from them: thou shalt surely bring them again unto thy
brother. And if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, or if thou know him not,
then thou shall bring it home to thine house, and it shall be with thee
until thy brother seek after it, and thou shalt restore it to him again."
And the Apostle Paul says,[4] " I could wish that I myself were anathema
from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who
are Israelites." Moreover they are called brethren by kindred who are of
one family, that is patri'a, which corresponds to the Latin paternitas,
because from a single root a numerous progeny proceeds. In Genesis[1] we
read, "And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee,
between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we are
brethren." And again, "So Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan, and Lot
journeyed east: and they separated each from his brother." Certainly Lot
was not Abraham's brother, but the son of Abraham's brother Aram. For Terah
begat Abraham and Nahor and Aram: and Aram begat Lot. Again we read,[2]
"And Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.
And Abram took Sarai his wife. and Lot his brother's son." But if you still
doubt whether a nephew can be called a son, let me give you an instance.[3]
"And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he led forth his
trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen." And after
describing the night attack and the slaughter, he adds, "And he brought
back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot." Let this
suffice by way of proof of my assertion. But for fear you may make some
cavilling objection, and wriggle out of your difficulty like a snake, I
must bind you fast with the bonds of proof to stop your hissing and
complaining, for I know you would like to say you have been overcome not so
much by Scripture truth as by intricate arguments. Jacob, the son of Isaac
and Rebecca, when in fear of his brother's treachery he had gone to
Mesopotamia, drew nigh and rolled away the stone from the mouth of the
well, and watered the flocks of Laban, his mother's brother.[4] "And Jacob
kissed Rachel, and lifted up his voice, and wept. And Jacob told Rachel
that he was her father's brother, and that he was Rebekah's son." Here is
an example of the rule already referred to, by which a nephew is called a
brother. And again,[5] "Laban said unto Jacob. Because thou art my brother,
shouldest thou therefore serve me for nought ? Tell me what shall thy wages
be." And so, when, at the end of twenty years, without the knowledge of his
father-in-law and accompanied by his wives and sons he was returning to his
country, on Laban overtaking him in the mountain of Gilead and failing to
find the idols which Rachel hid among the baggage, Jacob answered and said
to Laban,[6] "What is my trespass ? What is my sin, that thou hast so hotly
pursued after me ? Whereas thou hast felt all about my stuff, what hast
thou found of all thy household stuff? Set it here before my brethren and
thy brethren, that they may judge betwixt us two." Tell me who are those
brothers of Jacob and Laban who were present there ? Esau, Jacob's brother,
was certainly not there, and Laban, the son of Bethuel, had no brothers
although he had a sister Rebecca.

   17. Innumerable instances of the same kind are to be found in the
sacred books. But, to be brief, I will return to the last of the four
classes of brethren, those, namely, who are brethren by affection, and
these again fall into two divisions, those of the spiritual and those of
the general relationship. I say spiritual because all of us Christians are
called brethren, as in the verse,[1] "Behold, how good and how pleasant it
is for brethren to dwell together in unity." And in another psalm the
Saviour says,[2] "I will declare thy name unto my brethren." And
elsewhere,[3] "Go unto my brethren and say to them." I say also general,
because we are all children of one Father, there is a like bond of
brotherhood between us all.[4] "Tell these who hate you," says the prophet,
"ye are our brethren." And the Apostle writing to the Corinthians:[5] "If
any man that is named brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater,
or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one no, not to
eat." I now ask to which class you consider the Lord's brethren in the
Gospel must be assigned. They are brethren by nature, you say. But
Scripture does not say so; it calls them neither sons of Mary, nor of
Joseph. Shall we say they are brethren by race ? But it is absurd to
suppose that a few Jews were called His brethren when all Jews of the time
might upon this principle have borne the title. Were they brethren by
virtue of close intimacy and the union of heart and mind ? If that were so,
who were more truly His brethren than the apostles who received His private
instruction and were called by Him His mother and His brethren ? Again, if
all men, as such, were His brethren, it would have been foolish to deliver
a special message, "Behold, thy brethren seek thee," for all men alike were
entitled to the name. The only alternative is to adopt the previous
explanation and understand them to be called brethren in virtue of the bond
of kindred, not of love and sympathy, nor by prerogative of race, nor yet
by nature. Just as Lot was called Abraham's brother, and Jacob Laban's,
just as the daughters of Zelophehad received a lot among their brethren,
just as Abraham himself had to wife Sarah his sister, for he says,[6] "She
is indeed my sister, on the father's side, not on the mother's," that is to
say, she was the daughter of his brother, not of his sister. Otherwise,
what are we to say of Abraham, a just man, taking to wife the daughter of
his own father ? Scripture, in relating the history of the men of early
times, does not outrage our ears by speaking of the enormity in express
terms, but prefers to leave it to be inferred by the reader: and God
afterwards gives to the prohibition the sanction of the law, and
threatens,[1] "He who takes his sister, born of his father, or of his
mother, and beholds her nakedness, hath commited abomination, he shall be
utterly destroyed. He hath uncovered his sister's nakedness, he shall bear
his sin."

   18. There are things which, in your extreme ignorance, you had never
read, and therefore you neglected the whole range of Scripture and employed
your madness in outraging the Virgin, like the man in the story who being
unknown to everybody and finding that he could devise no good deed by which
to gain renown, burned the temple of Diana: and when no one revealed the
sacrilegious act, it is said that he himself went up and down proclaiming
that he was the man who had applied the fire. The rulers of Ephesus were
curious to know what made him do this thing, whereupon he replied that if
he could not have fame for good deeds, all men should give him credit for
bad ones. Grecian history relates the incident. But you do worse. You have
set on fire the temple of the Lord's body, you have defiled the sanctuary
of the Holy Spirit from which you are determined to make a team of four
brethren and a heap of sisters come forth. In a word, joining in the chorus
of the Jews, you say,[2] "Is not this the carpenter's son ? is not his
mother called Mary ? and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and
Judas? and his sisters, are they not all with us ? The word all would not
be used if there were not a crowd of them." Pray tell me, who, before you
appeared, was acquainted with this blasphemy ? who thought the theory worth
two-pence ? You have gained your desire, and are become notorious by crime.
For myself who am your opponent, although we live in the[3] same city, I
don't know, as the saying is, whether you are white or black. I pass over
faults of diction which abound in every book you write. I say not a word
about your absurd introduction. Good heavens! I do not ask for eloquence,
since, having none yourself, you applied for a supply of it to your brother
Craterius. I do not ask for grace of style, I look for purity of soul: for
with Christians it is the greatest of solecisms and of vices of style to
introduce anything base either in word or action. I am come to the
conclusion of my argument. I will deal with you as though I had as yet
prevailed nothing; and you will find yourself on the horns of a dilemma. It
is clear that our Lord's brethren bore the name in the same way that Joseph
was called his father:[1] "I and thy father sought thee sorrowing." It was
His mother who said this, not the Jews. The Evangelist himself relates that
His father and His mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken
concerning Him, and there are similar passages which we have already quoted
in which Joseph and Mary are called his parents. Seeing that you have been
foolish enough to persuade yourself that the Greek manuscripts are corrupt,
you will perhaps plead the diversity of readings. I therefore come to the
Gospel of John, and there it is plainly written,[2] "Philip findeth
Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him of whom Moses in the law,
and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." You will
certainly find this in your manuscript. Now tell me, how is Jesus the son
of Joseph when it is clear that He was begotten of the Holy Ghost ? Was
Joseph His true father ? Dull as you are, you will not venture to say that.
Was he His reputed father ? If so, let the same rule be applied to them
when they are called brethren, that you apply to Joseph when he is called
father.

   19. Now that I have cleared the rocks and shoals I must spread sail and
make all speed to reach his epilogue. Feeling himself to be a smatterer, he
there produces Tertullian as a witness and quotes the words of Victorinus
bishop of[3] Petavium. Of Tertullian I say no more than that he did not
belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already
been proved from the Gospel--that he spoke of the brethren of the Lord not
as being sons of Mary, but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is
to say, brethren in point of kinship not by nature. We are, however,
spending our strength on trifles, and, leaving the fountain of truth, are
following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the
whole series of ancient writers ? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin
Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against Ebion,
Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views, and wrote
volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you
would be a wiser man. But I think it better to reply briefly to each point
than to linger any longer and extend my book to an undue length.

   20. I now direct the attack against the passage in which, wishing to
show your cleverness, you institute a comparison between virginity and
marriage. I could not forbear smiling, and I thought of the proverb, did
you ever see a camel dance? "Are virgins better," you ask, "than Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, who were married men ? Are not infants daily fashioned by
the hands of God in the wombs of their mothers ? And if so, are we bound to
blush at the thought of Mary having a husband after she was delivered ? If
they find any disgrace in this, they ought not consistently even to believe
that God was born of the Virgin by natural delivery. For according to them
there is more dishonour in a virgin giving birth to God by the organs of
generation, than in a virgin being joined to her own husband after she has
been delivered." Add, if you like, Helvidius, the other humiliations of
nature, the womb for nine months growing larger, the sickness, the
delivery, the blood, the swaddling-clothes. Picture to yourself the infant
in the enveloping membranes. Introduce into your picture the hard manger,
the wailing of the infant, the circumcision on the eighth day, the time of
purification, so that he may be proved to be unclean. We do not blush, we
are not put to silence. The greater the humiliations He endured for me, the
more I owe Him. And when you have given every detail, you will be able to
produce nothing more shameful than the cross, which we confess, in which we
believe, and by which we triumph over our enemies.

   21. But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not
written. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it.
That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because
we do not read it. Nor do we say this to condemn marriage, for virginity
itself is the fruit of marriage; but because when we are dealing with
saints we must not judge rashly. If we adopt possibility as the standard of
judgment, we might maintain that Joseph had several wives because Abraham
had, and so had Jacob, and that the Lord's brethren were the issue of those
wives, an invention which some hold with a rashness which springs from
audacity not from piety. You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I
claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so
that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he
does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere
written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was
supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he
who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin.

   22. And now that I am about to institute a comparison between virginity
and marriage, I beseech my readers not to suppose that in praising
virginity I have in the least disparaged marriage, and separated the saints
of the Old Testament from those of the New, that is to say, those who had
wives and those who altogether refrained from the embraces of women: I
rather think that in accordance with the difference in time and
circumstance one rule applied to the former, another to us upon whom the
ends of the world have come. So long as that law remained,[1] "Be fruitful,
and multiply and replenish the earth"; and[2] "Cursed is the barren woman
that beareth not seed in Israel," they all married and were given in
marriage, left father and mother, and became one flesh. But once in tones
of thunder the words were heard,[3] "The time is shortened, that henceforth
those that have wives may be as though they had none ": cleaving to the
Lord, we are made one spirit with Him. And why?[4] Because "He that is
unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, how he may please the
Lord: but he that is married is careful for the things of the world, how he
may please his wife. And there is a difference also between the wife and
the virgin. She that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord,
that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married is
careful for the things of the world, how she may please her husband." Why
do you cavil? Why do you resist? The vessel of election says this; he tells
us that there is a difference between the wife and the virgin. Observe what
the happiness of that state must be in which even the distinction of sex is
lost. The virgin is no longer called a woman.[5] "She that is unmarried is
careful for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and
in spirit." A virgin is defined as she that is holy in body and in spirit,
for it is no good to have virgin flesh if a woman be married in mind.

   "But she that is married is careful for the things of the world, how
she may please her husband." Do you think there is no difference between
one who spends her time in prayer and fasting, and one who must, at her
husband's approach, make up her countenance, walk with mincing gait, and
feign a shew of endearment ? The virgin's aim is to appear less comely; she
will wrong herself so as to hide her natural attractions. The married woman
has the paint laid on before her mirror, and, to the insult of her Maker,
strives to acquire something more than her natural beauty. Then come the
prattling of infants, the noisy household, children watching for her word
and waiting for her kiss, the reckoning up of expenses, the preparation to
meet the outlay. On one side you will see a company of cooks, girded for
the onslaught and attacking the meat: there you may hear the hum of a
multitude of weavers. Meanwhile a message is delivered that the husband and
his friends have arrived. The wife, like a swallow, flies all over the
house. "She has to see to everything. Is the sofa smooth ? Is the pavement
swept ? Are the flowers in the cups ? Is dinner ready ?" Tell me, pray,
where amid all this is there room for the thought of God ? Are these happy
homes? Where there is the beating of drums, the noise and clatter of pipe
and lute, the clanging of cymbals, can any fear of God be found ? The
parasite is snubbed and feels proud of the honour. Enter next the half-
naked victims of the passions, a mark for every lustful eye. The unhappy
wife must either take pleasure in them, and perish, or be displeased, and
provoke her husband. Hence arises discord, the seed-plot of divorce. Or
suppose you find me a house where these things are unknown, which is a rara
avis indeed! yet even there the very management of the household, the
education of the children, the wants of the husband, the correction of the
servants, cannot fail to call away the mind from the thought of God.[1] "It
had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women": so the Scripture
says, and afterwards Abraham received the command,[2] "In all that Sarah
saith unto thee, hearken unto her voice." She who is not subject to the
anxiety and pain of child-bearing and having passed the change of life has
ceased to perform the functions of a woman, is freed from the curse of God:
nor is her desire to her husband, but on the contrary her husband becomes
subject to her, and the voice of the Lord commands him, "In all that Sarah
saith unto thee, hearken unto her voice." Thus they begin to have time for
prayer. For so long as the debt of marriage is paid, earnest prayer is
neglected.

   23. I do not deny that holy women are found both among widows and those
who have husbands; but they are such as have ceased to be wives, or such
as, even in the close bond of marriage, imitate virgin chastity. The
Apostle, Christ speaking in him, briefly bore witness to this when he said,
[1] "She that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, how she
may please the Lord: but she that is married is careful for the things of
the world, how she may please her husband." He leaves us the free exercise
of our reason in the matter. He lays no necessity upon anyone nor leads
anyone into a snare: he only persuades to that which is proper when he
wishes all men to be as himself. He had not, it is true, a commandment from
the Lord respecting virginity, for that grace surpasses the unassisted
power of man, and it would have worn an air of immodesty to force men to
fly in the face of nature, and to say in other words, I want you to be what
the angels are. It is this angelic purity which secures to virginity its
highest reward, and the Apostle might have seemed to despise a course of
life which involves no guilt. Nevertheless in the immediate context he
adds,[2] "But I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the
Lord to be faithful. I think therefore that this is good by reason of the
present distress, namely, that it is good for a man to be as he is." What
is meant by present distress ?[3] "Woe unto them that are with child and to
them that give suck in those days !" The reason why the wood grows up is
that it may be cut down. The field is sown that it may be reaped. The world
is already full, and the population is too large for the soil. Every day we
are being cut down by war, snatched away by disease, swallowed up by
shipwreck, although we go to law with one another about the fences of our
property. It is only one addition to the general rule which is made by
those who follow the Lamb, and who have not defiled their garments, for
they have continued in their virgin state. Notice the meaning of defiling.
I shall not venture to explain it, for fear Helvidius may be abusive. I
agree with you, when you say, that some virgins are nothing but tavern
women; I say still more, that even adulteresses may be found among them,
and, you will no doubt be still more surprised to hear, that some of the
clergy are inn-keepers and some monks unchaste. Who does not at once
understand that a tavern woman cannot be a virgin, nor an adulterer a monk,
nor a clergyman a tavern-keeper ? Are we to blame virginity if its
counterfeit is at fault ? For my part, to pass over other persons and come
to the virgin, I maintain that she who is engaged in huckstering, though
for anything I know she may be a virgin in body, is no longer one in
spirit.

   24. I have become rhetorical, and have dispotted myself a little like a
platform orator. You compelled me, Helvidius; for, brightly as the Gospel
shines at the present day, you will have it that equal glory attaches to
virginity and to the marriage state. And because I think that, finding the
truth too strong for you, you will turn to disparaging my life and abusing
my character (it is the way of weak women to talk tittle-tattle in corners
when they have been put down by their masters), I shall anticipate you. I
assure you that I shall regard your railing as a high distinction, since
the same lips that assail me have disparaged Mary, and I, a servant of the
Lord, am favoured with the same barking eloquence as His mother.


Taken from "The Early Church Fathers and Other Works" originally published
by Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. in English in Edinburgh, Scotland, beginning in
1867. (LNPF II/VI, Schaff and Wace). The digital version is by The
Electronic Bible
Society, P.O. Box 701356, Dallas, TX 75370, 214-407-WORD.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
  The electronic form of this document is copyrighted.
  Copyright (c) Eternal Word Television Network 1996.
  Provided courtesy of:

       EWTN On-Line Services
       PO Box 3610
       Manassas, VA 22110
       Voice: 703-791-2576
       Fax: 703-791-4250
       Data: 703-791-4336
       FTP: ftp.ewtn.com
       Telnet: ewtn.com
       WWW: http://www.ewtn.com.
       Email address: [email protected]

-------------------------------------------------------------------

You are viewing proxied material from gopher.ratthing.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.