|
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's Mother did not remain a
virgin after His Birth. For it is written (Mt. 1:18):
"Before Joseph and Mary came together, she was found with child of
the Holy Ghost." Now the Evangelist would not have said
this---"before they came together"---unless he were certain of
their subsequent coming together; for no one says of one who does not
eventually dine "before he dines" (cf. Jerome, Contra
Helvid.). It seems, therefore, that the Blessed Virgin
subsequently had intercourse with Joseph; and consequently that she
did not remain a virgin after (Christ's) Birth.
Objection 2: Further, in the same passage (Mt. 1:20) are
related the words of the angel to Joseph: "Fear not to take unto
thee Mary thy wife." But marriage is consummated by carnal
intercourse. Therefore it seems that this must have at some time taken
place between Mary and Joseph: and that, consequently she did not
remain a virgin after (Christ's) Birth.
Objection 3: Further, again in the same passage a little further on
(Mt. 1:24,25) we read: "And" (Joseph) "took unto him
his wife; and he knew her not till she brought forth her first-born
Son." Now this conjunction "till" is wont to designate a fixed
time, on the completion of which that takes place which previously had
not taken place. And the verb "knew" refers here to knowledge by
intercourse (cf. Jerome, Contra Helvid.); just as (Gn.
4:1) it is said that "Adam knew his wife." Therefore it seems
that after (Christ's) Birth, the Blessed Virgin was known by
Joseph; and, consequently, that she did not remain a virgin after
the Birth (of Christ).
Objection 4: Further, "first-born" can only be said of one who
has brothers afterwards: wherefore (Rm. 8:29): "Whom He
foreknew, He also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of
His Son; that He might be the first-born among many brethren."
But the evangelist calls Christ the first-born by His Mother.
Therefore she had other children after Christ. And therefore it
seems that Christ's Mother did not remain a virgin after His
Birth.
Objection 5: Further, it is written (Jn. 2:12): "After
this He went down to Capharnaum, He"---that is,
Christ---"and His Mother and His brethren." But brethren are
those who are begotten of the same parent. Therefore it seems that the
Blessed Virgin had other sons after Christ.
Objection 6: Further, it is written (Mt. 27:55,56):
"There were there"---that is, by the cross of Christ---"many
women afar off, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering
unto Him; among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of
James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee." Now
this Mary who is called "the mother of James and Joseph" seems to
have been also the Mother of Christ; for it is written (Jn.
19:25) that "there stood by the cross of Jesus, Mary His
Mother." Therefore it seems that Christ's Mother did not remain a
virgin after His Birth.
On the contrary, It is written (Ezech. 44:2): "This gate
shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through
it; because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it."
Expounding these words, Augustine says in a sermon (De Annunt.
Dom. iii): "What means this closed gate in the House of the
Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean
that 'no man shall pass through it,' save that Joseph shall not know
her? And what is this---'The Lord alone enters in and goeth out
by it'---except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and
that the Lord of angels shall be born of her? And what means
this---'it shall be shut for evermore'---but that Mary is a
virgin before His Birth, a virgin in His Birth, and a virgin after
His Birth?"
I answer that, Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of
Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ's Mother, after His
Birth, was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children.
For, in the first place, this is derogatory to Christ's
perfection: for as He is in His Godhead the Only-Begotten of the
Father, being thus His Son in every respect perfect, so it was
becoming that He should be the Only-begotten son of His Mother, as
being her perfect offspring.
Secondly, this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose
"shrine" was the virginal womb ["Sacrarium Spiritus Sancti"
(Office of B. M. V., Ant. ad Benedictus, T. P.)],
wherein He had formed the flesh of Christ: wherefore it was
unbecoming that it should be desecrated by intercourse with man.
Thirdly, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God's
Mother: for thus she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not
content with such a Son; and were she, of her own accord, by carnal
intercourse to forfeit that virginity which had been miraculously
preserved in her.
Fourthly, it would be tantamount to an imputation of extreme
presumption in Joseph, to assume that he attempted to violate her whom
by the angel's revelation he knew to have conceived by the Holy
Ghost.
We must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a
virgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him birth, did she
remain a virgin ever afterwards.
Reply to Objection 1: As Jerome says (Contra Helvid. i):
"Although this particle 'before' often indicates a subsequent
event, yet we must observe that it not infrequently points merely to
some thing previously in the mind: nor is there need that what was in
the mind take place eventually, since something may occur to prevent
its happening. Thus if a man say: 'Before I dined in the port, I
set sail,' we do not understand him to have dined in port after he set
sail: but that his mind was set on dining in port." In like manner
the evangelist says: "Before they came together" Mary "was found
with child, of the Holy Ghost," not that they came together
afterwards: but that, when it seemed that they would come together,
this was forestalled through her conceiving by the Holy Ghost, the
result being that afterwards they did not come together.
Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup.
i): "The Mother of God is called (Joseph's) wife from the
first promise of her espousals, whom he had not known nor ever was to
know by carnal intercourse." For, as Ambrose says on Lk.
1:27: "The fact of her marriage is declared, not to insinuate
the loss of virginity, but to witness to the reality of the union."
Reply to Objection 3: Some have said that this is not to be
understood of carnal knowledge, but of acquaintance. Thus Chrysostom
says [Opus Imperf. in Matth., Hom. 1] that "Joseph did not
know her, until she gave birth, being unaware of her dignity: but
after she had given birth, then did he know her. Because by reason of
her child she surpassed the whole world in beauty and dignity: since
she alone in the narrow abode of her womb received Him Whom the world
cannot contain."
Others again refer this to knowledge by sight. For as, while Moses
was speaking with God, his face was so bright "that the children of
Israel could not steadfastly behold it"; so Mary, while being
"overshadowed" by the brightness of the "power of the Most High,"
could not be gazed on by Joseph, until she gave birth. But
afterwards she is acknowledged by Joseph, by looking on her face, not
by lustful contact.
Jerome, however, grants that this is to be understood of knowledge by
intercourse; but he observes that "before" or "until" has a twofold
sense in Scripture. For sometimes it indicates a fixed time, as
Gal. 3:19: The law "was set because of transgressions, until
the seed should come, to whom He made the promise." On the other
hand, it sometimes indicates an indefinite time, as in Ps.
122:2: "Our eyes are unto the Lord our God, until He have
mercy on us"; from which it is not to be gathered that our eyes are
turned from God as soon as His mercy has been obtained. In this
sense those things are indicated "of which we might doubt if they had
not been written down: while others are left out to be supplied by our
understanding. Thus the evangelist says that the Mother of God was
not known by her husband until she gave birth, that we may be given to
understand that still less did he know her afterwards" (Adversus
Helvid. v).
Reply to Objection 4: The Scriptures are wont to designate as the
first-born, not only a child who is followed by others, but also the
one that is born first. "Otherwise, if a child were not first-born
unless followed by others, the first-fruits would not be due as long
as there was no further produce" [Jerome, Adversus Helvid. x]:
which is clearly false, since according to the law the first-fruits
had to be redeemed within a month (Num. 18:16).
Reply to Objection 5: Some, as Jerome says on Mt.
12:49,50, "suppose that the brethren of the Lord were
Joseph's sons by another wife. But we understand the brethren of the
Lord to be not sons of Joseph, but cousins of the Saviour, the sons
of Mary, His Mother's sister." For "Scripture speaks of
brethren in four senses; namely, those who are united by being of the
same parents, of the same nation, of the same family, by common
affection." Wherefore the brethren of the Lord are so called, not
by birth, as being born of the same mother; but by relationship, as
being blood-relations of His. But Joseph, as Jerome says
(Contra Helvid. ix), is rather to be believed to have remained a
virgin, "since he is not said to have had another wife," and "a
holy man does not live otherwise than chastely."
Reply to Objection 6: Mary who is called "the mother of James and
Joseph" is not to be taken for the Mother of our Lord, who is not
wont to be named in the Gospels save under this designation of her
dignity---"the Mother of Jesus." This Mary is to be taken for
the wife of Alphaeus, whose son was James the less, known as the
"brother of the Lord" (Gal. 1:19).
|
|