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 Exod. xiii. 2. 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 word is not capable of any such construction; and in the Law itself it Exod. xiii. 2. carrieth with it a clear interpretation, Sanctify unto me all the first-born: whatsoever openeth the womb among the children 175 of Israel both of man and beast, it is mine. The apertion of the womb determineth the first-born3; and the law of redempNumb. xvii. tion excludeth all such tergiversation: Those that are redeemed, from a month old thou shalt redeem; no staying to make up the relation, no expecting another birth to perfect the redempLuke ii. 22, tion. 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; 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. 16. 23. Indeed, as they thirdly object, it cannot be denied but that we read expressly in the Scriptures of the brethren of Exspecta donec nascatur secundus. בכור 2 3 Definivit sermo Dei, quid sit Primogenitum; Omne, inquit, quod aperit vulvam.' S. Hier. adv. Helv. [§ 10. p. 215 A.] our Lord: He went down to Capernaum, he, and his mo- John ii. 12. ther, and his brethren, and While he talked unto the people, Matt. xii. 43. his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 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 1 [Hi enim, filii qui Joseph dicebantur, non erant orti de Maria. Origen. in Lucam, Vol. III. p. 940 σ.] Origen first delivereth it on St Matt. [Origen. in Μatt. xiii. 55. Vol. III. p. 463 E.] and Eusebius sheweth his opinion, speaking of St James the brother of our Lord. Hist. Eccl. 1. ii. c. 1. Τότε δῆτα καὶ Ἰάκωβον τὸν τοῦ Κυρίου λεγόμενον ἀδελφόν, ὅτι δὴ καὶ οὗτος τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ ὠνόμαστο παῖς, τοῦ δὲ Χριστοῦ πατὴρ ὁ Ἰωσήφ. Το we read, as it is set forth by R. Stephanus. But in my book, collated with an ancient MS. "Οτι 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 υἱὸς ἦν. So Epiphanius: Ην γὰρ ὁ Ἰάκωβος οὗτος υἱὸς τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ ἐκ γυναικὸς τοῦ Ἰωσήφ, οὐκ ἀπὸ Mapías. Hæres. 29. § 4. [Vol. 1. p. 119 Α.] And Hares. 42. [Refut. 12. p. 326 B.] speaking of the rest, he calls them τοὺς υἱοὺς Ἰωσὴφ ἐκ τῆς ὄντως αὐτοῦ ἄλλης γυναικός. Thus St Hilary : 'Homines pravissimi hinc præsumunt opinionis suæ auctoritatem, quod plures Dominum nostrum fratres habuisse sit traditum. Qui si Mariæ illi fuissent, et non potius Joseph ex priore conjugio suscepti,' &c. Com. in Matt. c. 1. [§ 4. p. 612 D.] Thus also St Ambrose de Inst. Virg. [c. 6. Vol. II. p. 259. Comment. in Galat. i. 19. Vol. III. p. 14 4.] and gene rally all the fathers to that time, and the Greeks afterwards, St Chrysostom, St Cyril, Euthymius, Theophylact, Ecumenius, and Nicephorus. These all seem to have followed an old tradition, which is partly still continued, in Epiphanius: "Eoxe dè οὗτος ὁ Ἰωσὴφ τὴν μὲν πρώτην αὐτοῦ γυναῖκα ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Ἰούδα· καὶ κυΐσκει αὐτῷ αὕτη παῖδας τὸν ἀριθμὸν ἕξ, τέσσαρας μὲν ἄῤῥενας, θηλείας δὲ δύο. Hares. 78. § 7. [Vol. 1. p. 1039 B.] The first of these six children was James: μετ' αὐτὸν δὲ γίνεται παῖς Ἰωσὴ καλούμενος, εἶτα μετ ̓ αὐτὸν Συμεών, ἔπειτα Ἰούδας· καὶ δύο θυγατέρες, ἡ Μαρία, καὶ ἡ Σαλώμη καλουμένη. Ibid. § 8. [p. 1040 A.] 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, con. 1. ix. Ἔδει πατέρα καὶ ἀδελφοὺς ἐπὶ γῆς ὀνομάσαι τὸν ἀπάτορα, οὐκ ἐκ τῶν λῃστῶν καὶ πορνῶν τούτους ἐξελέξατο, ἀλλὰ τοὺς ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ διαλάμποντας· τοιοῦτος γὰρ Ἰωσήφ τε καὶ οἱ τούτου παῖδες. In Phot. Biblioth. 222. [p. 202. col. 1.] And that of Amphilochius Junior. Ηπίστησαν δέ ποτε καὶ οἱ τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ υἱοί, καθὼς μαρτυρεῖ ὁ Εὐαγγελιστής, καὶ τῇ πείρᾳ διδαχθέντες τὸ ἀληθές, γεγραφήκασιν Ιάκωβος καὶ Ἰούδας παντὶ τῷ κοσμῷ, Θεοῦ καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δούλους ἑαυτοὺς εἶναι. Οrat. in Deip. * [p. 56 B.] [Theophylact supposes that Joseph * This oration is certainly not by Amphilochius. See Ceillier iii. 415. 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 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. Gen. xiii. 8. We be brethren, 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. 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: whereas those brethren were Nadab and Abihu, the sons, not of Uzziel, Gen. xxix. 12. but of Aaron. Jacob told Rachel that he was her father's brother, and that he was Rebekah's son; 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, answer1. Gen. xii. 5. married Mary the wife of his brother 1 The first, I conceive, who re- Origen himself, followed in this particular by the Greek Church, did confess no less: who tells the authors from whom that interpretation first arose: τοὺς δὲ ἀδελφοὺς Ἰησοῦ φασί τινες εἶναι (ἐκ παραδόσεως ὁρμώμενοι τοῦ ἐπιγεγραμμένου κατὰ Πέτρον εὐαγγελίου, ἢ τοῦ βίβλου Ἰακώβου) υἱοὺς Ἰωσὴφ ἐκ προτέρας γυναικός. In Matt. xiii. 55. [Vol. 1. p. 462 E.] This Jacobus mentioned by Origen, is the same with him whom Eustathius [Antiochenus] mentions in Hexaemero,* p. 772. *Αξιον δὲ τὴν ἱστορίαν, ἣν διέξεισι περὶ τῆς αγίας Μαρίας Ιάκωβός τις, ἐπελθεῖν. Where he reckons Joseph inter τοὺς χηρεύο οντας, and Epiphanius calls Ιάκωβος, 'Eẞpatos, Lib. de Vit. B. Mariæ Virg. St Hierome therefore observing that the former opinion of Joseph's sons was founded merely upon an apocryphal writing, and being ready to assert the virginity of Joseph as well as Mary, first invented the other solution in the kindred of Mary, as * This work is certainly not by Eustathius. See Ceillier iii. 166. 176 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 Matt. xiii. 55. brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? Therefore James and Joses were undoubtedly the brethren of Christ, and the same were also as unquestionably the sons of Mary'; for among the women at the cross we find Mary Matt. xxvii. Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses. 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 sepul- Mark xvi. 1. chre with Mary Magdalene and Salome; 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 founded not only in the language, Epistle to the Galatians, [i. 19. 1 From this place Helvidius ar- 2 Here Helvidius exclaiming triumphed Quam miserum erit et impium de Maria hoc sentire, ut cum aliæ feminæ curam sepulturæ Jesu habuerint, matrem ejus dicamus absentem!' Ibid. [p. 218 A.] 56. cross, was not probably absent from the sepulchre: wherefore 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 Jolin xix. 25. 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. In the rest of the evangelists we find at the same place Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses; and again at the sepulchre, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary: 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. Matt. xxvii. Mark xv. 40. 1. 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 177 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 unto her in this sacred nativity, beside the immediate work of 1 'Jacobus qui appellatur frater Domini, cognomento Justus, ut nonnulli existimant, Joseph ex alia uxore, ut autem mihi videtur, Mariæ sororis Matris Domini, cujus Joannes in libro suo meminit, filius.' S. Hieron. in Catalogo Script. Eccles. c. 2. [Vol. I. p. 829 A.] 'Sicut in se- This should rather be Clopas, a Hebrew name, and the same as Alphæus, whereas Cleophas or Cleopas is a Greek name contracted from Cleopatros. The Cleopas of Luke xxiv. 18 is doubtless a totally different person from the Clopas of John xix. 25. |