MARY THE VIRGIN;
AS COMMEMORATED IN
THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.
BY THE REV. SAMUEL SEABURY, D. D.,
Rector of the Church of the Annunciation, New-York, and Professor of Biblical Learning, &c.,
in the General Theological Seminary.
TO WHICH IS ANNEXED AN ESSAY ON'H         Wa as balns, ti t br~'s   mtg' tr?"
BY THE REV. M. MAHAN, D. D.,
Rector of St. Paul's Church, Baltimore, Md.
Isaiah vii. 14.
Tov 7rapaoiK7rlv 0vXaov.
1 Tim. vi. 20.
"THE CHURCH-A KEEPER AND A WITNESS OF HOLY WRIT."
Article XX.
NeblSYort:
POTT & AMERY, PUBLISHERS,
Noi. 5 & 13 COOPER UNION.
1868.








ADVERTISEMENT.
THE following tract was begun with no other
purpose than to bring a few passages from our
old divines, with a brief introduction, to th6 attention of two or three private friends, in order
to guard them against a hasty and inconsiderate
adoption of an opinion prejudicial, it is believed,
to the Christian faith, as it is certainly adverse
to the teaching of the Universal Church. As it
proceeded, the plan was gradually changed, a
greater number of extracts were made, and a
larger amount of original matter introduced than
was at first intended; so that when the tract was
finished, the thought was naturally suggested of
giving it a wider circulation than was originally
contemplated:. hence its publication. This statement may serve to explain any want of congruity
which the reader may chance to observe in the
order of the work or the arrangement of its ma



4
terials. Perhaps the writer may be permitted to
add that, had publication been his original design, he would have preferred to limit himself
to a direct statement of the doctrine, without
express reference to the individuals who oppose it.
After his work was ready for the press, it
occurred to the author that the argument, on a
collateral but important point, would be fortified
by the addition of Dr. Mahan's exhaustive and
unanswerable essay on the identity of James,
"the brother of our Lord," with Jamles, the son
of Alpheus, which appeared in a number of the
Church Journal of 1859. Accordingly, he applied to the author of the essay for permission
to republish it in connection with the present
tract; and he is happy to have the opportunity
to express his thanks publicly to the Rector of
St. Paul's for the courtesy and promptitude with
which he acceded to the request.
FEAST OF ST. MIATTHIAS, 1868.




MARY THE VIRGIN;
AS COMMEMORATED IN
TH1E CH-URCH OF CHRIST.
A VOLUME has lately been published entitled
" The True Mary, being Mrs. Browning's poem,'The Virgin Mary to the Child Jesus;' with
comments and notes. Edited by W. A. MuiJLENBERG." The annotator on this work declares that Mary, the Mother of the SoN OF
GoD, was also the mother of those who, in the
Holy Gospel, are called His brethren, adding,
in sufficiently definite language, that these last
were " Our Lord's uterine brothers:" and the
editor informs his readers that this opinion is
sustained by "high authority," and that the
opposite opinion (or, to use his own words,
"The Mary of the Convent,") "disappears in
thie light of honest biblical interpretation."
The annotator says, "That the tradition of
the perpetual virginity of the mother of our
Lord  *  *  * is easily accounted for by the




6
general error on the inferiority of the wedded
to the virgin state;" and the editor affirms,
with amiable assurance, "Take away the dogma, Semper Virgo Mliaria, and the half of the
papal system falls to the ground."
I make these extracts with unfeigned regret,
and only because I feel obliged to make them,
in order to explain the occasion of my present
publication, and the motives which have
prompted it. The views of Dean Alford and
of Mr. Farrar, the author of the article Brother,
in Smith's Bible Dictionary, may be safely left
to the judgment of those who consult the works
of the learned; but when these views are commended, in a popular and attractive way, to
unsuspecting and unguarded readers, it seems
but reason to bring within the reach of those
readers a criterion which may enable them to
decide whether the views so confidently presented to them are indeed worthy of their acceptance, and sustained by high authority, or
whether they do not rather deserve to be rejected by them as crude and frivolous, and
wholly destitute of authority. To furnish such
a criterion to this class of readers is my present
design. That it involves even the semblance
of opposition to names deservedly respected
for works and labors of love, is matter of deep




regret. It will appear, however, in the sequel, that 1 really oppose, not the editor and
annotator of " The True Mary," but the, althor whomr they quote, and who is, in fact, the
assailant of the doctrine which I undertake to
defend.
The authorities on which I shall insist are
the creeds and formularies of the Church, and
the testimonies of her Divines to their legitimate meaning. I submit them to my readers,
in the hope that, in imitation of the holy contemplative, they will ponder the teachings of'
the Church, and treasure them up in their
hearts.
The Apostles' Creed declares that Jesus,
the only Son of the Almighty Father, was
" born of THE VIRGIN Mary;" the Nicene
Creed, that the same everlasting SoN of the
Father "was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of
THE VIRGIN MARY;" and the TE DEUMI, that
"'the King of Glory did not abhor THE VIRGIN'S womb."*  On Christmas Day we render
thanks unto the Almighty Father, because
JESUS CHRIST, IHis only Son, " by the operation of the HOLY GHOST, was made very man
of the substance of THE VIRGIN MARY, his
* See the Prayer-Book of the Church of England.




8
Mother;' we commemorate, also, the Purification of " St. Mary THE VIRGIN;" and in
measured and solemn words the Church professes her faith (Art. II.) that " The SON of
GoD, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father-the
very and eternal God, and of one substance
with the Father-took man's nature in the
womb of THE BLESSED VIRGIN."
Let us now bring, for a moment, the rushlights of human sense and fancy to illumine
the sun of Catholic verity.  The sublime
confession of the Church will then read thus:
The only Begotten Son of GOD was incarnate
by the Holy Ghost of one who was a Virgin,
and soon after ceased to be such! The very
and Eternal God took man's nature in the
womb of M ary, who was then a Virgin, and
afterwards bore children like other women.
A Virgin whose first-born was the King of
Glory, and whose next sons were James and
Joses and Judas and Simon!
True, the Creed does not declare in words
that Mary is ever Virgin.  But is not this
meaning fairly implied in it, and that which
is most agreeable to its structure and to the
intention of its compilers?
In formularies intended to mould and ex



9
press the faith of her children in all times and
places, the Church offers the -Ioly Mary to
our contemplation as " The Virgin,"' "The
Blessed Virgin." The name Mary has been
common to many, " but the title added to the
name malketh the distinction; for," continues
Bishop Pearson, in the words of St. Epiphanius, "as divers characters are given to several
persons by which they are distinguished from
all others of the same common nomination,
as Jacob is called Israel, and Abraham the
Friend of God, or Father of the faithful; so
is this Mary sufficiently characterized by that
inseparable companion of her name, THE
VIRGIN."'  We dare not pronounce her name
and rob her of her rightful and perpetual
distinction.  Now  and for ever we confess
her to be Mary, the Virgin.
The Blessed Virgin was chosen out of all
the daughters of Eve to be the subject of a
miracle, which moved and ever will move the
wonder of Saints and Angels. She was overshadowed by the HoLY GHOST, that she might
conceive, and bear and bring forth-without
violence to her Virgin state-the GoD-MAN.
Is it credible, that the Virgin herself had so
low and mean a sense of this her singular and
ineffable dignity as not to live for it ever




10
afterwards; but; that she'fell, speedily and
willingly, from her singular eminence, to the
common level of women? Is it probable, that
Mary and Joseph, her betrothed, really believed
the stupendous miracle, of which they had
both been supernaturally apprised, and yet
did not consecrate themselves solely to their
sacred trust, but lived together in the same
relation in which they would have lived
if they had not believed it?  I think not. I
do not say, nor do'I think that the. opinion is
heretical in such sense as to be contradictory
to the Christian Faith; but I may safely say,
that it is one which has ever been accounted
shockingto pious ears, and unapt to coalesce
with a firm and sound faith in the Incarnation
of the SON of GoD.
That the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is delivered, with remarkable unanimity, by the Catholic Fathers and
ancient Bishops of the Church, is generally
conceded. On this point, therefore, in addition to the historical note of Bishop Pearson,
which is given below, it suffices to refer to
Suicer's Thesaurus; who says, vol. ii., p. 306:
" The ancients teach, with great consent, that
the Blessed Virgin always remained a Virgin."
In support of his statement, Suicer quotes




from  St. Chrysostom, who delivers the doctrine in plainswords; and from St. Epiphanius,
who, in his XXVIII. Heresy, not only affirms
the samne doctrine, buit abundantly proves it
[fuse p2,obat]; and concludes his account of
the heresy (with a full knowledge, let me add,
of all that had been written on.the subject before his time) in these words: "It is nowhere
found that Joseph, after the'immaculate Virginl had brought forth, lived with her as his
wife."   He quotes, also,, from  the public
offices of the Greek Church, which declare
Mary to be Ever Virgin: "before, in and
after the birth."  St. Basil the Great, also,
affirms the same doctrine, and though he
does not deem the belief of it necessary to the
Christian life; yet, in expressing this opinion,
he shows the hold whichl the doctrine had on
the Christians of that early age. " The Virginity," he says, "was necessary until the
Incarnation was completely wrought: what
was necessary afterwards, as respects the mystery, we forbear to inquire, lest we offend
the ears of those who love Christ, and will
not listen to the doctrine that'The Mother
of God ever ceased to be Virgin."'
The belief of the Latin fathers, on this
subject, did not differ from that of the Greek




12
fathers; so that we have the testimony of the
Churches of the East and West, for the first
four' hundred years after Christ, to the fact
that our Lord was the onhly Son of tHis Mrother.
No man who regards the unity of the Christian Church, or-respects the foundation of the
Christian Faith, will reject such testimony,
unless he is clearly able to convict of error
those who have delivered it.
From  the Fathers of the Primitive Church
I pass to those who, since the Reformation,
have succeeded to their doctrine, and whose
great names, when the true sense of an article
of the Catholic Creed is in question, entitle
them to be heard.
Bishop Bull says (Sermon Fourth)
"The Blessed Virgin was consecrated to be a Temple
of the Divinity in a singular manner. For the eternal
Son of God, by an ineffable conjunction, united Himself
to that human nature, which was miraculously conceived
and formed in her, even whilst it was within her; and so
He that was born of her, at the very time that He was
born of her, was Oel3Spwtros —God and man. 0 astonishing
condescension of the Son of God! O -wonderful advancement of the Blessed Virgin! And therefore we daily sing
in our Te Deum: " Thou art the King of Glory, O Christ!
Thou art the everlasting Son of the Father. When Thou
tookest upon Thee to deliver man, Thou didst not abhor
the Virgin's womb." Upon which account the Fathers
of the Third General Council at Ephesus, convened against




13
Nestorius, approved the title of eOobKos-athe Mother of God
-given to the Blessed Virgin.
"They approved Ft, I say; they did not first invent it,
as some have ignorantly affirmed.  And therefore. they,
themselves, in their synodical epistle, say, that the Holy
Fathers before them doubted not to call the Blessed
Virgin, Ocor6Kov —Deiparam- -'the Mother of God.'  Indeed, an whole age before that council, we find Eusebius
expressly.giving that title to the sacred Virgin, in his
third book of the Life of Constantine, chap. xliii. And
Socrates, a most credible witness in this matter, in the
seventh book of his Eccl. Hist., chap. xxxii., assures us
that Origen, long before Eusebius, largely explained
and asserted that title, as applied to the Blessed Virgin.
And to go yet higher, we have heard Irenaeus, who was a
scholar to a scholar of the Apostles, magnifying the Virgin
upon this account, that she did, portare JDeum, bear God
within her. If she did:portare Deum, she did parere
Deume; if she bore God, she brought him forth too, and
so was, Oeo1r6S.o, the Mother of God-that is, of Him that
was God. Nay, the blessed martyr and disciple of the
Apostles, Ignatius, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, edit.
Voss. p. 27, feared not to say,'Our Lord Jesus Christ was
conceived of Mary.'.But what need we search after
human authorities, when the inspired Elizabeth, in her
divine rapture, a little before my text, ver. 43, plainly
gives the Blessed Virgin the same title?'And zohene,
is this to me, that the Motnher of my Lord should come
utnto me?' Where prinP rop   Kvpiov, the Mother of our Lord,
is doubtless of the same import with OEOr6KOS, the mother
of God:: for the title of our Lord belongs to Christ
chiefly, as He is our God. And we:are to conceive
Elizabeth, being filled with the:Spirit, to have given
this title of her L ord to the babe in the Blessed Virgin's
womb, not -according to the.poor, narrow, vulgar sense of
2




14
the degenerate Jews, but according to the most august
and highest sense of the word, viz.: that He is so our
Lord, as to be our God also.
" Now, the necessary consequence of this dignity of the
Blessed Virgin is, that she remained for ever a Virgin, as
the Catholic Church hath always held and maintained.
For it cannot with decency be imagined, that the most
holy vessel, which was thus once consecrated to be a
receptacle of the Deity, should afterwards be desecrated
and profaned by human use."
On the latter part of the third article of the
Creed, "Born of the Virgin Mary," Bishop
Pearson proposes to show, first, that the Messias
was to be born of a Virgin, according to the
prediction of the Prophets; secondly, that this
Mary, of whom  Christ was born, was really a
Virgin when she bare Him, according to the
relations of the Evangelists; thirdly, that being
at once the Mother of the Son of God, and yet
a Virgin, she continued for ever in the same
virginity, according  to the  tradition of the
Fathers and  thle  constant  doctrine  of the
Church.
On the last point Bishop Pearson writes as
follows:
Thirdly, We believe the mother of our Lord to have
been not only before and after his nativity, but also for ever,
the most immaculate and blessed Virgin. For although it
may be thought sufficient as to the mystery of the incarnation, that when our Saviour was conceived and born, his




mother was a Virgin; though whatsoever should have
followed after, could have no reflective operation upon the
first-fruit of her womb; though there be no farther mention in the CREED, than that he was born of the Virgin
Mary:  yet the peculiar eminency and unparalleled privilege of that mother, the special honor and reverence due
unto that Son, and ever paid by her, the regard of that
Holy Ghost who came upon her, and the power of the
Highest who overshadowed her, the singular goodness and
piety of Joseph, to whom she was espoused, have persuaded the Church of God in all ages to believe that she
still continued in the same virginity, and therefore is to be
acknowledged the Ever- Virgin Mary. As if the gate of
the sanctuary in the prophet Ezekiel were to be understood of her: " This gate shall be shut, it shall not be
opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the Lord,
the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall
be shut." (Ezek. xliv. 2.)
In a learned note Bishop Pearson informs
his readers who and of what account they
were in the ancient Church, who denied this
doctrine. First, he says, we read in the
time of Origen that some did maintain the
virginity of Mary no longer than to Christ's
nativity.   Origen describes the error as nothing short of madness. The error has been
ascribed to Tertullian, on the ground of two
passages, neither of which, says Dr. Burton, is
conclusive. Apollinaris and Eunomius, confessed heretics, delivered the same opinion.
Bishop Pearson thus proceeds:




These contradictors of the perpetual virgin.ity of the Mother of our Lord afterwards increased to a greater number, whom Epiphanius
calls by a general name Antidiconariaenitae,
(Enemies of Mary.) And now from him St.
Augustine tells us, that under this name were
condemned by the Sixth General Council those
heretics who carried their contradiction of the
virginity to such a pitch, as to affirm that after
the birth of Christ Mary knew her husband.
The same were called by the Latins Helvidiani from Helvidius,      - *   whose name
is most made use of, because refuted by St.
Jerome.  iHe was followed by Jovinian, a
monk of Milan, as St. Jerome testifies, and by
Bonosus, a Bishop in Macedonia, the last
named of whom was condemned by the Council of Capua. "This is the catalogue," adds
Bishop Pearson, " of those by the ancients
accounted heretics for denying the perpetual
virginity of the Mother of our Lord."@
After what lhas been said by the annotator
on " The True MIary " and its editor, it may be
hoped that Bishop Pearson's exposition of the
scriptural argument will not be found tedious:
X Abridged from Bishop Pearson's note, pp. 308, 309, of
Dr. Burton's edition.




"Many, indeed, have taken the boldness to deny this
truth, because not recorded in the sacred writ; and not
only so, but to assert the contrary as delivered in the Scriptures, but with no success. For though, as they object, St,
Matthew testifieth that Joseph'knew not Mary, until she
had brought forth her first-born son,' (Matt. i. 25,) from
whence they would infer, that afterwards he knew her;
yet the manner of the Scripture language produceth no
such inference. When God said to Jacob,' I will not leave
thee until I have done that which I have spoken to thee
of,' (Gen. xxviii. 15,) it followeth not that when that was
done, the God of Jacob left him. When the conclusion of
Deuteronomy was written, it was said of Moses,'No man
knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day;' (Deut. xxxiv. 6;)
but it were a weak argument to infer from thence, that the
sepulchre of Moses hath been known ever since. When
Samuel had delivered a severe prediction upon Saul, he'came no more to see him until the day of his death;'
(1 Sam. xv. 35;) but it were a strange collection to infer,
that he therefore gave him a visit after he was dead.'Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child until the day
of her death;' (2 Sam. vi. 23;) and yet it were a ridiculous
stupidity to dream of any midwifery in the grave. Clhrist
promised his presence to the apostles'unto the end of the
wvorld;' (Matt. xxviii. 20;) who ever made so unhappy a
construction as to infer from thence, that for ever after
he would be absent from them?
" Again, it is true that Christ is termed the first-born son
of Mlary, from whence they infer she must needs have a
second; but might as well conclude, that wheresoever there
is one, there must be two. For in this particular the Scripture notion of priority excludeth an antecedent, but inferreth not a consequent: it supposeth none to have gone before, but concludeth not any to follow after.' Sanctify unto
me (saith God) all the first-born;' which was a firm and




18
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 carrieth'with
it a clear interpretation.' Sanctify unto me all the firstborn: whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of
Israel, both of man and beast, it is mine.' (Exod. xiii. 2.)
The apertion of the womb determineth the first born; and
the law of redemption excludeth all such tergiversation:'Those that are redeemed, from a month old thou shalt
redeem;' (Numb. xviii. 16;) no staying to make up the relation, no expecting another birth to perfect the redemption. Being then' they brought our Saviour to Jerusalemn
to present him to the Lord; as it is written in the Law of
the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be
called holy to the Lord;' (Luke ii. 22, 23;) it is evident he
was called the first-born of Mary, according to the notion of
the Law of Moses, and consequently that title inferreth no
succession, nor proveth the mother to have any other offSpring."
I break the quotation from Pearson to introduce a sentence from  Bishop Hacket, one of
his fellow-stfferers under the tyranny of the
usurping Parliament:
"The first-born son of Mary; nomn quod post eum alius,




19
#ed quod ante eum nemo, says St. Austin; not called the
first-born son as the eldest of sons that followed, but as being the first-fruits of a virgin womb that had none before
nor after."
In what follows the reader will note Bishop
Pearson's statement of the  question.  The
meaning of the word brothers in the New Testament Greek is a point on which the Greek
and even the Latin fathers were quite competent to judge; and while they confess what
none denies, that James and Joses, &c., were
brethren of our Lord, they deny with one. voice
that they were the sons of his mother. But to
proceed with Bishop Pearson:
" Indeed, as they thirdly object, it cannot be denied but
that we read expressly in the Scriptures of the brethren of
our Lord:'He went down t6 Capernaum, he, and his
mother, and his brethren,' (John ii. 12,) and,' While he
talked unto the people, his mother and his brethren stood
without, desiring to speak with him.' (Matt. xii. 46.) But
although his mother and his brethren be named together,
yet they are never called the sons of his mother; and the
question is not whether Christ had any brethren, but
whether his mother brought forth any other children? It
is possible Joseph might:have children before Mary was
espoused to him; and then as he was reputed and called
our Saviour's father, so might they well be accounted and
called his brethren, as the ancient fathers, especially of the
Greek Church, have taught. Nor need we thus assert that
Joseph had any offspring, because the language of the
Jews includeth in the name of brethren not only the strict




20
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.'We be brethren,' (Gen. xiii; 8,) said Abraham unto Lot;
when Abraham was the son of Terah, Lot of Haran, and
consequently not his brother, but his nephew, and, as elsewhere properly styled,' the son of his brother.' (Gen. xii.
5.)' Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan the sons of Uzziel,
the uncle of Aaron, and said unto them, Come near, carry
your brethren from before the sanctuary;' (Lev. x. 4;)
whereas those brethren were Nadab and Abihu, the sons,
not of Uzziel, but of Aaron.' Jacob told Rachel that he
was her father's brother, and that he was Rebekah's son;'
(Gen. xxix. 12;) whereas Rebekah was the sister of Rachel's father. It is sufficient, therefore, that the evangelists, according to the constant language of the Jews, call
the kindred of the blessed Virgin the brethren and sisters
of her only son; which indeed is something the later, but
the most generally approved answer.
"And yet this difficulty, though usually no farther considered, 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 showed them to be the sons
of Mary the mother of CU~rist. 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.




21.
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 at the sepulchlre: wherefore they conclude, she was
the mother of (Ihqist, 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 sepulclhre,'Mary Magdalene and the other Mary;' (Matt. xxviii. 1;)
wherefore that bther  cary, by the conjunction of these
testimonies, appeareth to be I~ary, the uivfe of Gleophas, and
the mother of James cand 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."




22
To the above extracts may be added the following eloquent passage from Bishop Taylor.
Of course, I quote the passage simply for its
bearing on the perpetual virginity. of St. Mary.
With the other collateral points introduced by
Bishop Taylor, on which, even in the ancient
Church, there was a diversity of opinion, we
have here no concern.
" As there was no sin in the conception, so neither had
she pains in the production, as the Church, from the days
of Gregory Nazianzen until now, hath piously believed;
though, before his days, there were some opinions to the
contrary, but certainly neither so pious nor so reasonable.
For to her alone the punishment of Eve did not extend,
that'in sorrow she should bring forth;' for where nothing
of sin was an ingredient, there misery cannot cohabit. For
though amongst the daughters of men, many conceptions
are innocent and holy, being sanctified by the word of God
and prayer, hallowed by marriage, designed by prudence,
seasoned by temperance, conducted by religion towards a
just, a hallowed, and a holy end, and yet their productions
are in sorrow; yet this of the blessed Virgin might be
otherwise, because here sin was no relative, and neither
was in the principle nor the derivative, in the act nor in
the habit, in the root nor in the branch; there was nothingin this but the sanctification of the Virgin's womb, and
that could not be the parent of sorrow, especially that gate
not having been opened, by which the curse always entered. And as to conceive by the Holy Ghost was glorious,
so to bring forth any of'the fruits of the Spirit' is joyful,
and full of felicities. And he that came from his grave
fast tied with a stone and signature, and'into the college of




23
Apostles,'the doors being shut,' and into the glories of his
Father through the solid orbs of all the firmament, came
also (as the Church piously believes) into the world, so
without doing violence to the virginal and pure body of
his mother; that he did also leave her virginity entire, to
be as a seal, that none might open the gate of that sanctuary, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the
Lord by the prophet,' This gate shall be shut, it shall not
be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the
Lord God of Israel hath entered by it, therefore it shall be
shut.' " *
The writer of the  article  " Brother,"  in
Smith's  Bible Dictionary, (quoted in "The
True Mary," p. 39,) speaks of the doctrine
under consideration as a tradition "'which any
one may hold if he will, as one of the'pia
credibilia;'" and for this refers us to "Jer.
Taylor,.Ductor Dubitantiunz, II., 3, 6."  All
this is quite odd; odd that the writer should
refer to a place in Bishop Taylor, which is as
foreign to the point in hand as the man in the
moon, and still more odd that, for what he has
advanced, he should refer to Bishop Taylor at
all.  The expression  "which  any  one may
hold if he will," implies a belief that the tradition is novel, and has nothing in reason to
support it; if the writer gives this as his own
* Bishop Taylor's Life of Christ,-Part I., Sec. 3.




belief, he doubtless does justice to himself; if
he gives it as Bishop Taylor's, I:must think,
until I have proof to the contrary, that he does
injustice to the Bishop. There is a levity, not
to say flippancy, in the expression, which is
very unlike Bishop Taylor. If, however, the
meaning of the writer be that the tradition or
doctrine in question is commended by the
Church as one which is to be, piously believed,
but not to be imposed as an article of the
Faith, and necessary to salvation, it is odd that
he should refer particularly to Bishop Taylor
in support of an opinion which no divine of
note in the Church has ever contravened. For
it may, I think, be safely said, that the most
learned and judicious of our divines agree in
these two points: 1. That the doctrine is one
which, in consideration of its antiquity, its intrinsic reasonableness, and the futility of all
the objections which are made to it, is to be
reverently held and piously believed; and 2.
That the doctrine is one which, distinctly and
separately taken, is not to be insisted on as a
term of Church Communion, and necessary to
salvation. Richard Field, in his profound and
masterly work on the Church, has explained
the distinction* in terms which none of the
* See Appendix A.




25
great doctors who have succeeded him, not
Bull, nor Pearson, nor Taylor, has rejected or
disapproved.  For having affirmed (Book IV.,
c. -20) that "there is no matter of faith delivered by bare and only tradition," Field, writing
against the Romnanists, proceeds as follows:
" The only clear instance they seem to give, is touching
the perpetual virginity of Mary, which, they say, cannot be
proved by Scripture, and yet it is necessary to be believed.
" But they should know that this is no point of Christian
faith. That she was a Virgin before, in, and after, the
birth of Christ, we are bound to believe as an article of our
faith, and so much is delivered in Scripture and-in the
Apostles' Creed; but that she continued so ever after, is a
seemly truth, delivered unto us by the Church of God, fitting the sanctity of the blessed Virgin, and the honor due
to so sanctified a vessel of Christ's incarnation, as her body
was; and so is de pietate, but not de necessitatefidei, as the
schoolmen used to speak.  Neither -was Helvidius condemned of heresy for the denial hereof, but because pertinaciously he urged the denial of it upon misconstruction
of Scripture, as if the denial of it had been a matter of faith.
Touching this allegation of our adversaries concerning
Mary's perpetual virginity, we must know that howsoever
they pretend to hold it only by tradition, yet the fathers
that defend it against Helvidius, endeavour to prove it by
the Scripture."
True it is, and sad as true, that there are
those among us who think little of this distinction'; who make a jumble of matters of
faith and opinion; -who interpret Scripture
3




26
without regard to the received expositions of
former interpreters or the Symbolical Faith
of the Catholic Church; who heed not the
Church's advice and counsel, so they can defy
her authority; who fling from them what she
commends as pious doctrine, that they may
believe what they list or what they must;
and who would be glad to reform  her standards, that they may set up each  his own
constrtuction of Scripture as the measure and
standard of the Catholic truth.  True it is,
and sad as true, that there are those who
abuse their liberty; but would I, therefore,
deprive them  of their liberty?  Would I,
with the Romanist or the Puritan, make every
thing to be a point of faith which either the
existing Church, building on tradition alone,
or the private spirit, building on its own
inferenee from  Scripture, declares to be a
point of faithS and so deprive Christians of
thle' liberty secured to themi  by the fundamental law which limits the authority of the
existing Church, ini her definitions of faith,
to those points which are either read di~n Holy
Scripture, or may be _proved thereby?'
X See the VIth of the XXXIX. Articles of the Church
of England. An adherence to the principle inculcated in




"Is there no mean between stupidity and madness?
Must either all things be lawful for private persons or
nothing? Because we would not have them like David's
horse and mule, without.understanding, do we therefore
put both swords in their hands, to reform and cut off, to
plant and to pluckz up, to alter and abolish, at their
pleasure?  We allow them Christian liberty, but would
not have them libertines. Admit some have abused this
just liberty, may we therefore take it away from others?
So shall we have neither a sun in heaven, nor any excellent creature upon earth, for all have been abused by
some persons, in some kinds, at some times."*
this article is that which distinguishes the Church of
England from the Church of Rome, on the one hand,
and, on the other, from  all Protestant denominations.
The Church of Rome sets forth many articles of faith
which are founded on mere and only tradition, and every
Protestant body sets forth articles of faith which that
body itself deduces from Scripture. The Church'of
England, on the other hand, sets forth no other articles
of faith than are contained in the Apostles' Creed, (as
explained by the Universal Councils;) and she holds them
to be the points of the Christian faith, not because they
are of Apostolical tradition, (though undoubtedly they
are so,) but because they can be proved by most certain
warrant of Holy Scripture. The XXXIX. Articles are not
articles of the faith, nor are they called so by the Church.
They are "Articles of lteligion," promulgated for the
better direction and instruction of her members-especially
of her Clergy-in Catholic doctrine, with reference chiefly
to the errors of Romanists, Anabaptists, Millenarians, and
other sectaries of that age and country. (See Appendix B.)
* Ans. to De la Milletiere, p. 53.




28
The words are Archbishop  Bramhall's;
who, while he discards "upstart and supposititious traditions and unwritten fundamentals," admits "genuine, universal, apostolical traditions;" among which he includes
"The perpetual Virginity of the Mother of
God."
Dr. Donne, in his second Serlnon on the
Nativity, informs us that the distinguished
Calvin, though he did not make the perpetual
Virginity a matter of faith, yet says of the
doctrine: "3Nemo unquactn  guestioneem novebit, )nisi ctriosus; nemo pertinaciter insistet,
nisi contentiosus rixato- -he is over-curious
that will make any doub, of it; but no man
will persist in the denial of it, but a contentious wrangler."  Of those who decline
the teachings of the Church, there are some,
perhaps, who may take from the Genevan
Reformer a lesson of common sense and prudent care for the surroundings of the Christian
Faith.
Bishop Pearson and Bishop Taylor, following St. Jerome and other ancient Fathers
of the Church, have referred, in support of
the Catholic doctrine, to Ezekiel xliv. 2:
"Then said the Lord unto me: This gate
shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no




29
man shall enter in by it; because the LORD,
the God of Israel, hath entered in by it,
therefore it shall be shut." In the " True
Mary," p. 38, (the words being credited to
Smith's Bible Dictionary,) we read: " To quote
Ez. xliv. 2, as any arygunent on the question,
is plainly absurd."  If I dwell for a moment
on these words; it is not to take advantage of
what may perhaps have been an unguarded
expression, but it is to point out a fallacy-as
it seems to me —which underlies a large part
of modern criticism.  To the Jews, in their
carnal state, it seemed absurd to seek an
argument in our Lord's words: "Destroy
this temple and in three days I will raise it
up;" but when the minds of these Jews were
enlightened by the Holy' Spirit, they saw in.
these same words an argument and a prediction that Jesus should die and after three
days rise from the dead. The great divines
of the Church were not ignorant that the
prophet Ezekiel referred to the literal temple;
but they knew, also, that the HoLY SPIRIT has
often a meaning beyond the letter, and they
deemed it but a sorry spiritual thrift, to reject
the mystical sense of a passage, for no better
reason than that they accepted its literal sense.
They, and the Fathers whom they followed,




30
w-ere men who sought to understand Holy
Scripture through that same Spirit by whom
it was written, and to open its meaning by
means of prayer, meditation and a sanctified
life;* and when they intimate tb us that the
temple in Ezekiel foreshadowed that Temple
of Divinity in which the Son of God for a
time vouchsafed to dwell, their comment deserves, at least, to be reverently pondered.
To question the correctness of their interpretation in this particular passage may be
safe, but to discard the principle on which
they proceed, and pronounce their interpretation void of argument'and absurd, is somewhat dangerous: for it is, indeed, nothing
less than to abandon the Christian, and to
accept the Jewish interpretation of the Law
and the Prophets; to turn back from Christ,
our Passover, to the- passover of sheep and
bullocks; to rest in the literal David, and to
give up the mystical David, the CHRIST Of
God; to catch at the shadows of Christianity,
and to let go its substance: it is, in effect, and
by necessary consequence, to renounce Christianity and to return to Judaism; for what is
* See Dr. Pusey's Introduction to the Minor Prophets.




31
Judaism  but' Christianity in the letter, and
what is Christianity but mystical Judaism?
The celebrated Erasmus, one of the chief
revivers of learning, and of whose " Colloquies" it has been said, that they made more
Protestants than the ten tomes of Calvin,*
has left us, among many other works, an
Exposition of the Creed. I quote Erasmus,
not as a legitimate guide of opinion to the
members of the Church, but simply to show,
on the text under consideration, the judgment
of an author whose logical acumen is unquestioned, and who was as far as possible
from being either a superstitious monk or a
bigot.
The extract is taken from "A Playne and
godly Exposition or Declaration of the Commune Crede  *  C*      newly made and put
forth by the famouse Clarke Mayster ERASMus
of Roterdam;" which was printed by Robert
Redman, the introduction being dated A. D.
1533.
"IDiscipke. Sholde he be accompted and taken for an
heretike: whiche wolde beleve, that Marie the Virgine
after the byrthe of Christe hadde brought forth other
chyldren by her husbande?
* See Jortin's Life of Erasmus, vol. ii., p. 717.




32
"Master. Ye verily not onelye for an hereticke: but
for a blasphemouse person also.
"Dis. And yet they say, that this thynge is not expressed in the Holy Scripture.
"M.as. This is very trouth, but thoughe it be not expressed: yet is it evydently gathered and concluded of
Holy Scripture, and that it sholde be otherwyse: is
manifestly repugnante to the dygnyte bothe of the
Sonne, and of the Mother.  Finally the Catholyke
Church hath with so great consente beleved, taught,
and fastly affyrmed it, from the begynnynge of the
Gospell, even vntyll this day; that it ought no whitte
less to be beleved, than yf it were expressed in the Holy
Scriptures.
" Dis. I longe to here the Scriptures.
" Mas. The prophete Ezechiel dyd signifie the perpetual
integrite of the Virgine by a darke prophecie, when he
beynge tourned towardes the way of the gate of the
vttermore sanctuary, which gate loked towarde the Easte,
herde the same Spirite, which dyd consecrat the chastite
of Mary, sayengthese words vnto hym, This gate shall
be shut, and shall not be opened, and no man shal passe
thrugh it, for the Lorde God of Israell hath entred in
by it and it shall be shut to the prince. Dyd not the
prophet in these wordes very proprely and aptely enough
descrybe and painte forth- the sacred wombe of the
Virgine: out of which wombe, that Sone of Rightuosnes
hathe risen to vs, which doth lighten every man that
cometh into the worlde: of whiche Sone Zacharie also
sayth in the Gospell of Luke, He hathe visited vs, spryngynge or risynge from on high to geve lyghte vnto them
whiche sitte in darknes and in the shadowe of death.
This gate was shut afore the tyme of her deliveraunce
of chyld, it waa shut in the time of deliveraunce, and
it contynued also stille shut after the tyme of her de



33
lyveraunce, it was open only to the Prince Christe: whiche
by His entrynge in,. dyd sanctifie it, and by His goynlge
out dyd consecrate it, for it dyd not loke but onely
towards the easte, from whence the moste pure Sonne
dothe vprise, that Sonne (I mean) which never setteth
or goeth downe, and which reneweth and chereth all
thynges. It loked to the way of the outward sanctuare:
for this nativite was without (not according to) the
commune manner of nativities of men; having no whit
of human concupiscence or luste mengled or joyned vnto
it. Finally whan she herselfe speketh thus to the Anngell, quia viruvm nom coynosco-i. e., for I know no manshe sheweth plainely her perpetual purpose of virginite.
"Dis. But seyng that wedlocke is an honourable thynge
of itselfe, and that company of man and wyfe together
is without blame or syni what indignite or vnworthiness
sholde it have ben, yf the Lorde hadde ben borne after
suche maner, as other prophetes were.borne, and as Johan
Baptist was borne, which was more excellent than al
proplietes?
"iafcts. Indede wedlocke is an honourable thynge, yf it
be chastely kepte, but perpetuall virginite is a farre more
honourabie thynge, yf it be so, that it be wylfully (purposely) taken, and for the love of godlynes and vertue.
Through concupiscence, without whiche man is not conceived, the contagion and infection of original synne goeth
from one to another. But more than anngelicall purite
dyd beseme (become) this hevenly chyldebyrthe. I pray
the tell me now, yf ony man did tourne a temple made of
stone, after it hadde ben ones hallowed and sacred to God
by a mortal Byshop, into a showemaker's shopq, wolde not
all men crye out, that it were shamefully and vnaccordyngly (unworthily) don?
"Dis. Yes veryly, and they wolde also overwhelme
hym with stones.




34
"Mas. And yet is not the' showemaker's crafte ony
filthy occupation. And yf ony man wolde put a vessell,
that hadde ben consecrated and dedycated to baptisme:
or holy oyle, or to other holy vses, vnto prophane vses
of the kechen: sholde it not seme an intolerable contumely
and despite?
"Dis. Yes doutles.
"Mas. And yet is there no faughte or synne in the
coke's crafte.
" Dis. It is trouth.
"Mas. What is then to be sayde of the most sacred
and holy temple of the Blessed Virgine's body? whiche
not every maner Bishop hath dedicated with bodily oyle:
but the Holy Ghost Hymselfe hath consecrated it with
hevenly anoynting. In which that Divine Childe rested
so manye monthes, as in a bryde chambre: in whiche
also, as in a workehouse, the hole Trinite dyd worke and
finishe that mistery, whiche is to be honoured and worshipped even of the' anngelycall myndes: sholde it not
seme a verye vnmete and vnseemlly thynge: yf it had
been open, I wyll not say to man: but even to an
anngell?
" Dis. Yes I perceyve it verye playnly.
"Mas. Nowe reken and considre this with thy selfe,
whether we sholde rather geve credence to the Church,
so consenting and agreing together: or els to the Jewes
beynge not onelye in this poynte madde, or els to vile and
vnlerned Helvidius, whose erroure taken of the Scriptures
mysunderstonded is so manifeste: that scasely (scarcely)
he hathe fownde ony disciples of his erroure, and also of
the olde doctoures of the Church hath ben scasely judged
worthy of confutation?
"Dis. I see and perceyve, how greatly perpetuall
virginite dyd beseme that byrthe. But why wolde the
Lord be borne of a maryed woman?




"ifa.s. It was provided by that meane, for the yonge
Virgine, that she sholde have a keper, an intender, a
nourysher, and a minister: without any sinister suspytion
of the wycked and mysdemynge commun people, and also
that she sholde have her spouse and husbande a,waighltie
and substancyall wytnesse of her virginite, it was semely
and convenient, that stLche a Virgine as. she was: sholde
be in moste highe and perfyghte tranquillyte and quyetnes,
and it was convenient and mete, that the Mother of God
shoulde be not onely pure from all synne: but it was also
accordynge that she shold be not so much as touched ony
whitte with the false tales of men. For she onely is
excellently chaste: of whome- the fame is aschiamed. to
speake evyll. And therfore, this mystery was hydde. and
kepte secret a longe season. For it is lykely, that Marie
and Josephe dyd kepe these-misteries in they herte: vntyll
suche tyme that'after the sending of the Holy Ghost from
Heven, the Gospellh dyd spreade abroade His lyghte;
thrugh out the hole worlde."
To  the  above extracts firom  our Church
Divines, I shall add  one  more,  and  then
leave the: subject to the consideration of the
reader.   The name  of Hickes, who  heads
the catalogue of the non-juring Bishops, may
not be entitled to the profound veneration
which Churchmen justly accord to the names
of Bull and Pearson and Taylor. But no one,
within my knowledge, has more effectually
exposed the Mariolatry* unhappily practised
* In speaking of idolatry as pmetised in, the Church of
Rome, I- do but refer to notorious facts, which the most




36
in the Roman Church than the author of the
Speculum  Beatme Virginis; and the words in
which he ends his discourse seem no unmeet
conclusion to this brief compilation:
"Wherefore, my brethren of this truly Catholic and
Apostolic Church of England,.let us take care to keep
zealous champion of that Church cannot, in candor, either
j ustify or deny. The charitable discrimination of Herbert
Thorndike. whereby, without extenuating the practice, he
would shield it from the charge of idolatry, (Just Weights
and Measures, c. xvi., ~ 6,) is worthy of note: " The Abuse
hath increased so far, (especially in addresses to the Blessed
Virgin,) that the same things are desired of them, (the
saints,) and in the same terms, in which they are desired
of God, even in the Holy Scriptures; and that the appearance of devotion to the Mother is visibly and outwardly no
less than to the Son; so that were there not a profession of
that Church extant, contradicting the proper sense of such
prayers, and forcing them that address them, unless they will
contradict themselves, to abate their own meaning, and to
expound them to signify no more than obtaining that of God
w, hich they are desired to grant of themselves, they could
net be excused of idolatry; but can by no means be excused,
for leading simple Christians upon a precipice of such horrible danger, by encouraging both them, and those that
-t.each them such devotions. For did not carnal superstition'hope for temporal'blessilgs from such voluntary applications, w-shout that promisae f God, which the condition of
our Clhristianity engageth, hlow should a Christian be induced to go about by a saint, that hath immediate access
to God, to the same effect?'




within the bounds and limits, -which our pure and holy
mother, after.the example:of the Primitive:Church, hath
set to the praise and honor of the blessed Virgin. Let us
cheerfully and respectfully give her the honorable titles of
holy and blessed, and perpetual Virgin; and call her without scruple the holy and blessed mother of God: nay, let
us for peace sake go as -far as we can with our -fellowCh-ristians of the Latin communion, so we go with caution
and circumspection, in honoring of this glorious Saint. Let
us acknowledge, with them, that she is to be honored above
all Saints; - but let us not honor her with religious honor,
nor pray unto her either as a donor, or as an intercessor in
tile presence of God. Let us acknowledge, with them, her
perpetual virginity, according to ancient tradition; and if
it will gain, or oblige any of them, let.us not oppose them
in the opinion they have,'that she promised and vowed
her virginity to God; for it is an innocent opinion, though
it is precarious, and hath no ground in S-cripture, or primitive antiquity. In a word, let us admire her singular
purity and holiness, though we cannot admit of her perfect
innocence. Let us give her all the honor that is due to so
great a Saint, but not one jot more than is allowed to a
creature; and:if by doing so much, and no more, you shall
happen to offend, whether it be on the left hand or on
the right, assure yourselves the offence will be taken and
not given; but if by refusing to do so much, you offend,
the offence will be given to both Churches, and that -will
be a great offence. To conclude, let us always -mention
her with respect; let her name still perfume the air like
precious ointment; let us celebrate her great virtues; let
us keep her festivals, as it becomes true sons of the primi.
tive Church of'England;:let us imitate her blessed example, and thank God for the benefit of it; let us endeavor, as
she did, to hear the Word of God, and keep it, and to do
the will of our'heavenly Father, and then -we shall all
4




38
become (KeXapirIorw0f) high favorites of heaven, even
the mother, and sister and brethren of Christ; to whom,
with the Father and the Holy Ghost, be ascribed by the
universal Church, all worship, adoration, majesty and
dominion, both now and ever more.-Amen."*
The above testimonies may suffice to show
that the Church of England, from which the
Church in the United States is derived, and
from the doctrine of which it has not departed,
sanctions and inculcates the belief that our
Blessed Lord is the only Son of His Virgin
Mother.  The doctrine, as we have seen, was
assailed in the Primitive Church, but the replies which were made to the assaults served
to establish the doctrine the more firmly in
the hearts of the faithful.  The Churches of
the East and of the West acquiesced in the
doctrine; nor am I aware that there is " high
authority," or indeed any'authority'in the
Church of England for the denial of it.'It is,
I believe, a.ruled point-ruled by -the same
authorities which have constantly maintained
and transmitted the Catholic creed-that the
perpetual virginity of the Mother of our LORD
is to be commended to' the faithful, not, indeed, as an article of the Faith, but as a
* Hickes' Sermons, vol. ii., p. 132.




39
doctrine worthy of pious belief and devout
acceptance.  Of late years the old error has
been revived, and the attempt has been made
to defend it by opening up anew the Scriptural question. Unhappily, however, the recent
inquiry into Scripture has been conducted,
and that, too, by some of the divines of- the
Church of England, on a rationalistic principle of interpretation; the appeal being made
to "' the simple testimony of Scripture," after
having disenc'nmbered the mind of all a priori
considerationis and traditions;* that is, after a
cool rejection of all considerations drawn from
the Catholic creed, and in open disregard of
the ri'ls enjoined on the Clergy of the Church
of England at the same time and by the same
authority which confirmed and set forth the
XXXIX. Articles;t the rule, I mean, which
enjoins the Clergy " to take care that they never
teach any thing in a sermon which they would
have the people hold and believe, but what is
agreeable to the doctrine of the Old or New
Testamenet, and which the Catholic Fathers
* See Alford's Commentary on Mat. xiii. 55.
f See Bishop Sparrow's Collection, p. 237. The Articles
were agreed upon in 1562, and revised and confirmed in
1571.




40
and ancient Bishops have collected from. that
very doctrine."
Not that these gentlemen have any objection
to an a priori argument in the present case,
provided it be one of their own choice and not
of the Church's prescription. Thus the contributor to Smith's Bible Dictionary (quoted
in- the True Mary, p. 36) remarks, that "when
the word brother is used, in any but its proper
sense, the context prevents the possibility of
confusion; and that if the word brethren, as
repeatedly applied to James, &c., really meant'cousins' or'kinsmen,' it will be the only
instance' of Such an:application in which no
data are given to correct the laxity of the
meaning."  And having inferred from  this
alleged fact that there is " no adequate warrant in the language alone to take' brethren'
as meaning' elatives,'" the same writer concludes: "Therefore, the a priori presumption
is in favor of a literal acceptation of the term.>"
The argument on the word brother does
not touch the main question.  The perpetual
Virginity of Mary the Church has ever held
to be a most certain truth; but whether "' the
brothers of our Lord" were the sons of Joseph
by a former marriage, or whether they were
tile sons of Alphoeus and Mary, the sister, or




41
perhaps cousin of the Virgin, are questions
on which there has always been a difference
of opinion.  The latter hypothesis, therefore,
is of no vital importance, and yet it is only
against this hypothesis that the writer's arguinent is directed; with what success, we now
proceed to examine.
When the word brother is used, as it often is, in
a metaphorical sense, as, for example, when it
denotes a colleague in office, or an intimate
friend, or a member of the same religious society, this sense is readily inferred from the context.
When, however, James and Simon are called
our Lord's brothers, there being here no trope,
we take the word of course in its proper or
literal sense; which is, according to the Scripture use, br'other, half-brother,  cousin  or
kinsman.  In this ease, as we accept the
literal sense, it seems somewhat gratuitous
to produce an ca priori presumption in its
favor.
But the writer, probably, uses proper and
literal to express what may, perhaps, be better
expressed by the word strict or narrow, as opposed to wide or extendzed. By brothers, in the
strict sense, is meant, I suppose, children of the
same parents, the same father and mother.
But this meaning is often extended so as to




42
denote persons who are less nearly related; as,
for example, half-brothers, or those who have
the same father but not the same mother, and
vice versa; cousins and others near of kin;
members of the same tribe and even natives of
the  same country. If this be the writer's
meaning, then his argument is that there is an
a _p'iori presumption in favor of the strict
sense, unless the context shows that the word
is to be taken in a wider or more extended
sense.  How the writer himself overcomes the
actiori  presumption, (seeing he does not take
the word brethrenz in its strict sense, but makes
our Lord and His brethren the sons, not of the
same parents, but only of the same mother,)
I stop not to inquire. I would remark, however, that if this writer is correct, then, when
St. Paul (Gal. i.'19) calls James our Lord's
brother, without a word in the *context, perhaps I may add in the whole epistle, to show
that lie takes the word in a wide sense, there
is an "' a  priori presumption" that St. Paul
believed our Blessed Lord to be the son of
Joseph and Mtary, and the burthen of proof is
thrown upon us to show the contrary. Ilappily, however, there is iho ground for such A" a
priori presumption." For when the Scripture
writers use the word brother, without explain



43
ing whether they mean it in a strict or wider
sense, all we can fairly infer from such use is
that they who lived at the same time with
themselves, and for whom they more immediately wrote, understood or were able to discover their meaning without any qualifying
terms to explain it. Thus, (to give one instance among many,) from 2 Sam. xiii. 8, we
learn that Ammon was the brother of Tamar,
and it is only from 1 Chron. iii. 1, 2, 9, that we
can be quite sure that lie was only her halfbrother. In 2 Sam. xx. 9, we read: "And Joab
said to Amasa, art thou in health, my brother?"
Not a word in the context to show that Joab
and Amasa were not brothers in the strict
sense; and yet we learn from 1 Chron. ii. 16,
17, that Zeruiah and Abigail were sisters; that
Joab was the son of Zeruiah and Amasa the son
of Abigail; and consequently that Joab and
Anmasa were cousins.
This last example, (2 Sam. xx. 9, compared
with 1 Chron. ii. 16, 17,) we fancy, if nothing
else, effectually disposes of the "a _priori
presumption."  But, really, one is ashamed
to dwell on an argument of this sort. The
fact that our Blessed Lord is the only Son of
His Mother, is attested by universal tradition;
the same testimony on which we receive the




44
records of our faith, and not less unanimous
and unquestioned in this particular case than
that which we produce for some, at least, of
the books of the New Testament. This testimony shows the fact to be morally certain;
and, in this respect, it is one of a class which
embraces stated fasts, the Lord's Day, infant
baptism, liturgies, and Episcopacy, all of which
are attested by the ancient Church to be of
Apostolic origin. The denial of one or more
of these facts, and the attempt to disprove
themn  by arraying Scripture against the ancient Church, is the bottom of most, if not all
of our modern sects and schisms.  But, in
the whole field of theological controversy, we
doubt if an instance can be found of opposition
to the Church's testimony so void of all good
meaning, and so futile in its mode of operation,
as that which bestirs itself to prove that James
and Simon, &c., were our Lord's " uterine
brothers."  At what good end these assailants
aim, it is hard to see. It is not, surely, a
feeling of modesty, or humility, or reverence
for our Lord, or honor for His Mother, which
leads them to impugn, on this point, the testimony of the Church. And how do they go
to work? Do they name any one author who
invented the fable and palmed it on the cre



45
dnlity of the Church.? Do they point to any
one age since the time of the Apostles, and
prove that the Church did not then hold
the doctrine which they assail? This is what
our Church did when she rejected the invocation and religious worship of the. saints,
purgatory, transubstantiation, half communion,
&c.; she proved, historically, that these doctrines and usages were unknown to the ancient
Church, and, consequently, that the traditions
on which they rest are novel and surreptitious.
But these men attempt nothing of this sort.
They confess the antiquity and universality
of the doctrine which they attack.  They
confess, or, at least, they cannot, with decency, deny, that the ancient fathers, as living
nearer to the Apostles' times, had better
sources of information than themselves, and
quite as much of God's grace and man's
wit to use them  for the'ends of truth and
piety.  The most that they attempt is, to
show that the. ancient Church did not understand the plain language of Scripture! To
this end, they first nibble at the words until
and first-born, and then  muster all their
strength for. the word brother.  This, they
tell us, cannot mean-what the Western
Church has, in this connection, from time




46
immemorial, believed it to mean-cousitn.
Grant them  this, and still they have not
touched the question; for James, &c., may
have been the sons of Joseph by a former
marriage. But why cannot it mean cousin?
Because, say they, unless there is something
in the context-as if the whole context did
not treat of the Word made flesh!-to limit
its meaning, there is a presumption in favor
of the strict sense. Do they take it in the
strict sense? Not at all, or, at least, not
yet; for, so taken, the word brother would
prove that our Lord is, by nature, the Son
of Joseph, as well as of Mary. From men
who, on such flimsy pretexts, are fain to
convict of error the Origens and Chrysostoms,
the Jeromes and Augustines, of the ancient
Church, we can but turn away, with the
reflection that "owls now see what heretofore
eagles could not."
The result of the recent examination of the
New Testament on this subject has been just
what might have been expected, considering
the principle on which it proceeds, viz., a
reproduction of the old arguments in a new
and specious forin, with such adornments and
improvements as the acuteness of modern
criticism could furnish; without, however, the




47
production  of any text which, either expressly or by necessary consequence, contradiets the testimony of the Church. Sd that, for
aught that has yet appeared to the contrary,
the Church's testimony on this subject bids
fair to remain unshaken after its present opponents shall have passed into the same oblivion
or unenviable notoriety which has overtaken
their ancient forerunners.
To enter on a discussion of the particular
texts appealed to in this controversy, involving,
as some of them  do, several collateral questions, is foreign to the design of the present
tract, and would expand it to an inconvenient
length. Nor is it necessary; for Bishop Pearson, if carefully read, will be found to have
anticipated most of the modern objections;
and in reply to what is new, there is enough
in the admirable Com rnentary* of Archdeacon
Wordsworth-not to  mention other recent
works which: have treated the subject from a
Catholic- stand-point-to convince those who
are willing to accept the testimony of the
Church, unless it can be shown that her testi* See particularly the introduction to the Epistle of St.
James, Sect. IV. See, also, a very able article on the
same James, in Smith's Bible Dictionary.




mony is contrad'cted by Holy Script-ure. For
after all, the root of the difference appears to be
-and the same remark is applicable to some
other controverted points —that the opponents
and advocates of the.doctrine conduct the
appeal to Scripture on principles of interpretation diametrically;opposite.  The former
(venina diaccm, I mean no disrespect) -seem to
approach and reconnoitre the Scriptures as a
modern savant some curious production newly
discovered,:and demanding to be described
and classified; or as the inquisitive student
grapples with a heathen classic, whose meaning
he can evolve by a skilful use of grammar and
lexicon, and the best appliances of philology.
The latter, on the other hand, regard the Holy
Scriptures' as' the charter of the Christian
Church, and the inestimable birthright of her
children; all of whom, whether clergymen or
laymen, are bound in their respective spheres,
and in their several generations, to guard and
preserve them in the integrity not only of their
letter, but of their meaning.  For this reason,..and because they believe that the Holy:Scriptures are given to be a spring of divine life,
not to a mere aggregation of individuals, but
to a continuous and divinely consti~tuted body,
they are unwilling, unless constrained by.-a




49'
cl-ear necessity, to accede to any interpretation
of Scripture which contradicts the concurrent
sense of the Catholic Church. Thankfully do
they accept and highly prize the treasures
which learning and science have contributed
towards the;: elucidation of the sacred text;
but they are yet to seek for the reasonableness
of subordinating the lights of human learning
and science to a principle of interpretation
which is the parent of distraction and division;
and not rather to a principle, which leads all
who embrace and follow it to hold the Faith
in the unity of the Spirit and in the bond of
peace. For the matter in hand they would
confess a clear necessity, if bnt one text could
be adduced from  the New  Testament distinctly affirming that James and Simon were
the sons of the Blessed Virgin; but to draw
so grave a conclusion from expressions which
(to say the least) may be otherwise satisfactorily explained, or from a word of ambiguous
meaning, and to obtrude it upon the Church
in opposition to the consentient testimony of
her fathers and bishops, only serves, as they
think, to whet the mind to novelty and
variety, and to dissipate the sense of the
sacred text rather than to retain and preserve it.
5




50
" May GOD grant, that avoiding  every extreme, we may all seek in love for pious truth,
which very often lies ill the VIA MIEDIA.'
Faxit Deus, ut extremis vitatis piam veritatem, que
smepiuscul in medio posita est, in charitate omnes sectemur."-Bishop FORBES' Consid. Modllbes. Lib. 1, De Eucha.
Sect. 12.




E S S AY.
[From the CHURCH JOURNAL of February 2d, 1859.]
WHO WAS JA3MES, THE LORD'S BROTHER?
It has been suggested that as the more learned
discussions of the above question are not accessible to all, a statement of the Scriptural argument
in favor of the identity of James, the son of
Alphieus, and James, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, might be interesting to some of the readers
of the Church Journal.
In undertaking to give such a statement, we
must say at the outset, that the controversial
importance of the question has been, in our
opinion, very much over-rated.  It has little
interest to us, except as connected with the harmony of the New Testament Scripture, or at
most as a matter of simple historical fact.
We feel quite cofifident, moreover, that of the
three several theories on this subject which have
been maintained by learned divines, namely,
James, the son of Joseph and  liary, James, the
son of' Joseph by a former wife, and James, the
son of Al2Ahcuzs, neither is capable of legal or
demonstrative proof; so that, while we claim a
decided balance of probability in favor of the
last opinion, we claim it rather as the sum total
of a great many smaller balances, than as a thing




52
that can be decided by the weight of any single
text. In other words, the proof has to rest on
inference only; we claim nothing more for the
inferences, on which we rest, than that they are
more numerous, more natural and better supported by ordinary principles of interpretation
than such as are alleged on the opposite side of
the question.
With this preliminary caution we proceed to
the inquiry, who was James, the Lord's brother?
What he was in ecclesiastical position every
body knows. That he was a near relation of our
Lord is equally certain. The gist of the question that remains is simply, who, that is, whose
son was he?  Who were his next of kin?
Now, when a name is prominent in any particulai book, (especially if it be a work of' a historical character,).and we wish to learn any
thing special about it, the natural course of
inquiry is first to ascertain what light is shed
upon it by the book in which it occurs; then to
see what is said in any other work of the same
author; and thenzfinally, to glean what further
information we can from other sources.
Applying the maxim to the present question,
we find the subject of our inquiry to be mentioned as simply JAMEs;   without patronymic or
other special designation, by St. Luke, in the
Acts, by St. Paul, in his Epistles, and once by
the Apostle St. Jude.  In other writers' there
are certain Jameses mentioned; but whether our
particular James is included among them, or if
included, whether he is to be identified with this
one, or that, is a matter of inference only; and,
in fact, is the very question in dispute. Before
we go, then, to such uncertain sources, we must




53
get as distinct a portrait as possible from the
writings in which his identity is unquestioned.
In the Acts of St. Luke we find one passage
(Acts i. 13) exactly paralleled by another in the
Gospel of the same writer, (Luke vi. 15, 16,) that
seems to bear on the question. One James is
mentioned as the son qf Alp hceus. This being the
only James mentioned by this writer, with whom
the James afterwards so often mentioned call
possibly be identified, a presumption is created
that the two names belong to one and the same
person. This presumption rests on an ordinary
practice of careful writers. When a historian,
for example, recurs again and again to some
particular name, he naturally expects to find
that name once at least mentioned in, full: and
this " once," moreover, we look for in the place
where it is first mentioned. Finding, then, a
James, son of Alphoeus, in the beginning of St.
Luke's Gospel and the Acts, and a James undesignated frequently recurring afterwards, the
presumption is, that the two refer to the same
person.
But in the same passages, a little fuirther on,
there is a Jude, designated (according to the
original) as "Jude of James," which, by examining a parallel passage, the first verse of
Jude's Epistle, we find to mean" Jude, the brother
of James."
Now, we know under what circumstances a
person comes to be known by the name of his
brother, rather than by any other title. It is
only when the brother has attained a peculiar
and eminent position. Thus, James, the son of
Zebedee, is designated (Acts xii. 2)'as "James,
the brother of John," though John was a younger




54
biother. Or,0 to take a more familiar instance,
nothing is more common than to speak of a
Bonaparte as Napoleon's brother, or Napoleon's
nephew; and for one person that could tell at
once who was the father of the present Emperor
of the French, thousands could say who his
uncle was. *When we find Jude, therefore, described as. simply James's brother, we conclude
that this James was some very eminent person.
HIe must have been one to whom the mere name
of James would be a sufficient designation. But
the only person of wmhom this could be said was
James of Jerusalem. We have reason to conelude, therefore, that, Jude, the Apostle, was
a brother of James of Jerusalem. From  the
position of his name in, the catalogues, there is
also reason to- suspect that he is likewise the
brother of James, the son of Alphaous.
This much being settled, the Acts- of St. Luke
are exhausted, furnishing us: with three points,
which may or may not be of use in our further
investigation. We have James before us, a person so eminent that he needed commonly no
patronymic or other title to designate him to his
cotemporaries.  We have Jude, a brother of
James, most probably one of the Twelve. We
have also a fair presumption that " James-," "the
sort of Alp/ ceus," is merely the full. name of the
aforementioned James.
Proceeding to the Gospel of St. Luke, to which
we naturally turn as next in order, we find among
the women who visited the sepulchre of our Lor-d,
(Luke xxiv. 10,). Mary Magdalene and'. Mary,
the mother of Jcames."  But, we naturally ask,
the mother ofwhich James? As there is nothing
in the context,- or elsewhere in the Gospel of St.;




Luke, to inform us, we a-re f'ored to answer th-e
question in:i accordance with St. Luke's habitual
mode of speaking. Wheni he'spe'ak:-of James
simply, he means tae James, who makes: o8 larmge
a figure in his Acts and in the Epistles of St.
Paul. In all his writings there is no other James
to whom it can refer. And a's With him;, so also
with St. Paul. No other James is mentioned by
either of these writers without a special designation. Having, then, a certain woman before as,
a-s simply the " mother of James,' we naturally
ask, in the second place, "who s'he was?"  To
that question St.. Mark will give ns a'n answer
entirely consistent with what we have so far
gathered from St. Luke. But we leave that for
the present. It will be enough to say here, as
we are examining St.. Luke only,- that she: was
not the mother of our Lord-. St. Luke mentions
her only as the Mary that accompanied Magdalene, and as " the mother of James," a phras-e,
that: with him, when not otherwise' qualified-,
means James of Jerusalem.
With four names, then, which (if we. find
nothing to the contrary on subsequent investigation) may be. rewgarded as. fixed- points in our
inquiry, namely, James,;. an eminent and well
known person at Jerusalem; Jude,-" the brother
of James," one of the Apostles; Mary,' "the
mother of James," who accompanied Mary M-at'gdialene to the sepulchre; and Alphaeus,- James's
father; we leave- St. Luke, and pro'ceed to: glean
such further information as we- can from the
next authority in order, the Apostle St. Paul.
Here there are four passages in all, bearing
upon the subjet,- but'shedding light upon only




56
two points, namely, upon the apostleship of
James, and upon his relationship to our Lord.
In 1 Cor. ix. 5, 6, St. Paul asks, "have we not
power?" namely, "I and Barnabas," to "lead
about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles,
and the brethren of our Lord and Cephas?"
where grammatical precision requires that the
first " and" should be rendered "both;" otherwise it would read as if Cephas were not numbered among the Apostles. With this easy and
obvious correction, (" and-and" being used both
in Latin and Greek for " both-and,") we have
" the brethren of the Lord" in the same category
as Cephas, namely, reckoned among the original
Apostles.
In 1 Cor. xv. 7, it is mentioned that our Lord,
after His resurrection, "was seen of James, then
of all the Apostles; and last of all, he was seen
of -me also, as of one born out of cue time."
Whether in this, James is reckoned or not,
among the Apostles, is a question much debated.
As the sentence occurs, however, just after the
parallel phrase, " He was seen of Cephas, then of
the Twelve," and as Cephas was undoubtedly
one of the Twelve, the natural inference is, that
James also is to be interpreted as one of the
Apostles; and, further, as St. Paul distinguished
himself by the phrase, " one born out of due
time," giving that as a reason why he was the
"last" to see Christ, we naturally infer that
James was not " born out of due time," but was
one of the original Twelve.
The other passage is Gal. i. 19, where St.
Paul says, "but other of the Apostles saw I
none, save James, the Lord's brother." Here there
are two presumptions, cited respectively on oppo



site sides of the question.  The passage seems ts o
say, that James was an Apostle, niamelyj-, ine of
those whom  St. Paul distinguishes in thee'o"n'text as Apostles before him. It also s'ee'ms to
say, that he was the Lord's brother, namely, (it iS
urged,) a son of the Lord's mother.
The first of these presumptions is carried by
all the context to a degree of probability that
falls little (if at all) short of moral certainty.
For St. Paul, in these opening chapters in: the
Galatians, is asserting his own equality (as an
Apostle of later appoizntment) with th ose whom
he entitles "Apostles before him."  To prove
the independence and directness of his own conmmission, he mentions the fact, that when first
made Apostle he did not "ago to Jerusalem  to
them that were Apostles before him,?' but after
three years went up "to see Peter;" on Which
occasion, we are told by St. Luke, Acts ix. 27,
"-Barnabas took him  and carried him  to the
Apostles," namely, Peter and Jaines, there being
no others in Jerusalem at that time. With Peter
he abode fifteen days; but other of the Apostles
saw he none, except James, the Lord's brother,
an assertion which, if he meant Apostles in the
larger sense of the word, would be simply u. —
trite, for (as we have seen) _Barnabas (an Apostle
in that larger sense) " took him?" and introduced
him. He plainly means, then,. that other of the
Apostles (which were "AApostles before.him,"
namely, the Twelve) saw he none, save James.
This is confirmed by the next chapter, where
he refers to " James, Cephas and' John," as
"' pillars," and declares that they-these pillars" —gave to him "anid Barnabas thle right hand of
fellowship;" acknowledged, i n other words,- their




58
apostolic equality.  Here, throughout, there is
the same contrast between the earlier'Apostles
and those of more recent date; and James, in
every circumstance, is placed among the former.
Indeed, if he were not one of the former, it is
strange that he showed so little sympathy with
St. Paul. It would have been more natural for
him, like Barnabas, being in the same predicament as Paul, to have sought him out, and introduced him. For the same reason it would have
been more natural for Paul to have sought the
acquaintance and sympathy of James.  The
same common cause that threw Paul and Barnabas together, ought to have had a similar effect
upon Paul, Barnabas and James.
To this the only objection is a verbal criticism,
first suggested (we believe) by the historian
Neander. From the structure of the sentence,
Gal. i. 19, there is reason to suspect that the
clause, "save James, the Lord's brother," is not
so much an exception as a sort of prudential
qualification, so that Neander would paraphrase
the passage, " other of the Apostles I did not see,
tniemss (indeed) James, the Lord's brother, (be
reckoned as an Apostle.") To this we have
already answered, that if such be the meaning,
Barnabas also ought to have been excepted in
the same way; for Barnabas was an Apostle in
the larger sense, and St. Paul not only saw him,
but was introduced by him to "the Apostles."
Another answer equally satisfactory may be
stated as follows: granting Neander's premises,
the "prudential qualification" implied in the
word " save," (literally "if not," or' unless,")
applies most naturally to the verb " did not see,"
which immediately precedes it; so that the




59
sentence might be paraphrased, " other of the
Apostles I did not see, Munless (indeed) James,
the Lord's brother, (whom I merely saw, but had
no intercourse with him.") As if one were to
say, I went to Washington, and stayed a fortnight with the Secretary of State; but other of
the Cabinet saw I none, save the Secretary of
War, to whom (I remember) I was introduced,
but saw nothing further of him; such a prudential qualification would not imply a doubt as to
the position of the Secretary of War as a member
of the Cabinet, but merely a momentary forgetfulness of the fact of having seen him. On the
whole, then, Neander's objection comes to nothing, and James stands before us ranking with
Cephas and John, as one of "the pillars" —one of
the original Twelve.
The second presumption drawn from Gal. i.
19, that James was the Lord's brother, in the
sense of his mother's son, is weakened by the
liberal way in which the word "brother" was
used by the Jews. It may mean " half-brother;"
it may mean " adopted" or " foster brother;" it
may simply mean " cousin" or " near relation."
If in any particular case there is no reason to
doubt the exact relationship, we of course interpret the word in the proper and strict sense.
But if there is reason for doubt, we are perfectly
free to look for another interpretation. Thus,
when we read in Gen. xxix. 12, "Jacob told
Rachel that he was her father's brother," the
fact that the Greek for " brother" means etymologically "mother's son," or other arguments
based upon the word brother, we readily set
aside as of no weight in the case whatever. To
ascertain Jacob's precise relationship to Rachel's




father, we go back to Gen. xxv. 20, and find
that he was only his nep.h.w.
On the whole, then, we get from St. Paul three
additional facts, that may be considered highly
probable, and that we are. obliged to qualify with
a. "perhaps" or "peradventure."' James was an
Apostle-most probably one ofthe Twelve. James
was a near kinsman of our Lord; perhcaps a son of
His mother. This last'" perhaps," however, having
no force in itself- for, in addition to other considerations, James might have been, ac brother on?
Joseph's side, by a former marriage-and, being
directly at variance with all the other facts and
probabilities, we can set it aside, as reduced to
absolute nothing.
Having secured thus *much light firom  those
who undoubtedly mention our James, let us see
how far it is affected by information derived from
other quarters.
Here, every point is a battle ground in itself.
We will not enter into the discussion further than
may be necessary to, show what are the principal
issues, anrd where, in the main, the strength of the
argument lies.
i'. There is the inference, that the mother of
our Lord had other children than Jesus, derived
firom the wo'rd "till" and the word "first-born,'"
in Matt. i. 25. This is shorn of all force by the
fact, that learne4 critics are unanimously of opinion-an o.pinion sustained by abundant citations
from writers, sacred ani profane-that the words
in questio.n are not conclusive on the subject.
The ineaning of a word is determined by its use:'' quem penes arbitri'm  est, et juts et,norma loquendi."  But the use of "till' and " first-born,"
according to the force of the Greek idiom, is. not




61
such as to imply, in the passage in question, a
second or third born child.
2. There is the passage (Mark vi. 3) in which
our Lord is' called " The Carpenter," the son of
Mary, the brother of James and Joses, and of
Jude and Simon."
Here our Lord unquestionably is called "the
brother" of James, Joses and the others. But,
before we can determine in what sense He is their
brother, we must endeavor to ascertain who was
the mvother and the father of these four.  The
same evangelist who records their names gives
us information on that head. The same Mary,
whom we have found St. Luke to designate as
simply " the mother of James," St. Mark (xv. 40)
more fully describes as " the mother of James and
Joses"-that is, of the tiwo, whose names are first
mentioned on the above list of brethren of our
Lord. Furthermore, Jude, as we have seen, was
a " brother of James."  If so, he was a son
(whether own son or not, is unimportant) of
that same Mary. Accordingly, we find his name
the third on that samne list. There remains only
Simon, or Simeon, (for the identity of which
names, see Acts xv. 14,) of whom nothing is told
us in the New Testament. We find, however, in
Eusebius, that one Simeon, " the son of Cleophas,"
(the husband of that same Mary, John xix. 25,)
and " the cousin of our Saviour," succeeded James
in the See of Jerusalem. Thus, the list is completed, and the focur brethren of our Lord are
identified in name with the four sons of Mary and
Cleophas.
But why is our Lord ~described as "the brother
of James" and of the others? We answer, by
the same familiar idiom by which (Gen. xxix. 12)
6




6.2
Jacob is called" Laban's brother." Or, we might
answer, that it was in the same way as when our
Lord was commonly reputed "The Carpenter's
Son;" the terms "son" or "brother," in fact,
being applied so liberally by the Jews, that a
reader of the Scriptures has to be constantly on
his guard. Timothy was not Paul's son, though
Paul so entitles himl. Neither was Mark Peter's
son, in the strict sense of the word. To determine
relation in Scripture, we have to follow facts,
rather than mere words.
Now, in the present instance, the fact is simply
this: There was a certain Mary, " the mother of
James," according to St. Luke; the "'mother of
James and Joses,' according to St. Mark; the
mother of James, Joses, Jude and Simon, according to inference fiom St. Luke and the testimony
of Eusebius; in short, the mother of those who
are called the brethren of our Lord. This Mary
(John xix. 25) was the wife of Cleophas or Alphous, and the sister of Mary, the Lord's mother.
It is probable, on the authority of Eusebius, that
her husband, Cleophas, was Joseph's brother.
Thus, the four sons of Mary were cousins, and
probably double cousins,' of our Lord.'This is
amply sufficient to establish their claim to be
called.His brethren: whether the object in so
calling them was to depreciate Him, as was the
case with the unbelieving Jews, or to exalt and
honor them, as was the case with Christians in
later times.
In addition to this, it is natural and reasonable
to suppose, that Joseph having died before the
commencement of our Lord's ministry, Mary,
thus left a widow. resided henceforward with
her sister; and'the two families, so closely united




63
before, were drawn together into bonds of still
nearer brotherhood and friendship. On this supposition,: we are not surprisedl to find the two
Mary's together, as in John xix. 25, or to find
Mary, the- mother of our Lord, accompanied by
her sister's sons, as in Mark iii. 21. Nor are we
surprised to find our Lord committing His mother,
as one widowed both of husband and child, to the
care of the beloved Disciple.. To have made such
a disposal of a mother, blest with four sons and
several daughters, would have been, indeed, surprising, and one may say unnatural. But supposing Mary to have been childless and a widow
— poor, moreover, and dependent upon her sister,
who had a large famlily of children of her ownthe transferring of her from  dependence upon
them, to the care of a man like John, was precisely such'an: arrangement as, under the peculiar
circumstances, one might'naturally expect.
3. The passage, (John vii. 5,) " Neither did His
brethren believe in Him," is of little force in this
question, either way. It may mean, that His
brethren, in general, (i. e., his near relations,) did
not believe: a proposition perfectly true, according to the ordinary use of language, though two
of His cousins did believe: just as in the parallel
statement, "He came unto His own, and His own
received I-im not," we readily admit, nevertheless,
that mncny of His own did receive Him. In fact,
nothing is more characteristic of Scripture, than
a generous, unsuspicious breadth in the use of
language. Again, the passage may mean, that
His brethren did not believe, in the full sense of
the word;' they had their doubts, as the saying: is.
With this understanding, the words could be usedl,




64
and similar expressions are used, of Apostles and
Disciples themselves.
~And these considerations are the more forcible,
inasmuch as the kind of unbelief here ascribed
to His brethren seems to have been shared in a
measure by that " blessed" one that believed, His
favored mother. Thus, St. Mark informs us (iii.
21, 31) that on one occasion "His friends "literally " those near Him," His kinsmen-" went
out to lay hold on Him; for they said He is beside Himself......  Thlere came them His brethren and uEis mnother, and standing without, sent
unto Him-l calling Him."....  Here, undoubtedly, was lack of faith; but Simon Peter himself,
just after his noble confession, (Matt. xvi. 16,)
showed a similar distrust of his Master.; for " ife
took Himg, and began to rebuke. iaim, (Matt. xvi.
22,) so that our Lord was obliged to administer
the sternest reproof, perhaps, that He ever gave
to any of the Disciples. Now what Simon Peter
did, "the brethren " of Jesus wished to do. They
desired to take Him and restrain Him, their faith
being more or less dimmed by doubts of His discretion.
As to the supposition, that all " His brethren"
addressed to Him the speech recorded in John
vii. 3, no one familiar with Scripture style can
entef'ta-in it for a moment. Thus, to take one
instance out of a hundred: " His Disciples say
unto I-Him, AMaster, the Jews of late sought to
stone Thee," etc.; or, "then said His Disciples,
Lord, if He sleep, He shall do well;" does any
one imagine that all the Disciples actually uttered
these words, or that all the Jews sought to stone
Him? Such phrases are idiomatic. They describe merely what one said, and others might




65
have said.  So, in the parallel case of His " brethren," if one of His relations (of whom there were
probably many besides the children of Cleophas)
uttered the words attributed to them, and others
shared more or less the same feeling, all the requirements of the case are fully answered.
And this is confirmed, if confirmation is needed,
by the closest verbal scrutiny of those passages,
which put our Lord's " brethren" in a position
alien to that of His twelve Apostles.  For it is
to be observed', both in Mlatt. xiii. 55 and 56, and
in Mark vi. 3, that his countrymen do not say of
His " brethren," but only of 1iis sisters, that they
were "with" them  at that time.  "Is not this
the carpenter's son?  Is not His mother called
Mary? and His brethren, James, and Joses, and
Simon, and Judas? and  i-Ts sisters, are they
not all (the "all" feminine in Greek) woith us?"
Here there is a manifest difference between " the
brethren" and " the sisters."  Of the former, the
Jews (according to both Evangelists) affirm
merely that their names were so and so. Of the
latter they declare, that they were all still living
at home.
We conclude, therefore, that in all these passages there is absolutely nothing to oppose the
common belief, that twoo of our Lord's " brethren"
were numbered among the Apostles.
In addition to these passages of Scripture,
there are arguments on both sides, of a purely
subjective kind.
Thus, on one side, there is a deep and very
general,feelinfg, a certain instinct of propriety,
which has led good men in all ages to conceive
of the parents of our Lord as conscious of their
noble trust, and living, "for the kingdom  of




66
Heaven's sake," a life of'stricter attention to devotional duties, than is compatible (especially in
the case of poor people) with the care of a large
and increasing family. On the other side, this
feeling is regarded as fanciful and puerile, and
the instinct of propriety is appealed to in behalf
of an opposite conclusion. We can only say, in
reference to either side, Feelings, like facts, " are
stubborn chiels, and winna be disputit."
In the same way, prophecies are appealed to on
either side; an argument that would be more
conclusive, if either side would admit the other's
interpretation.
In the same way again, in reference to the committing of our Lord's mother to the filial care
of John, some revolt at the idea of a mother
leaving a large family of sons and claughters,
who had lived with her constantly from childhood, in order to be cared for by one -who was
only an adopted son. The feeling on this point
is so natlural, that we doubt whether any one can
swallow it without some qualms. This supposed
family of Malry must have consisted of at least
four sons, and at least three daughters, ranging
from under twenty to not more than thirty years
of age, constantly accustomed to the society of
their mother, and just at that time of life when
sons and daughters are, in the eyes of a motherespecially a widow ed mother — decidedly the
most interesting objects that life affords. How
such a mother could have left such a family, at
just such a time, to live with an adopted son; or
how, if she had done it, they could patiently
have borne it, is for those to explain who believe
her to have been their mother.
Thus every fact, every probability, and even




67
every presumption, that v e were able to glean
from St. Luke, St. Paul and St. Jude, the three
by whom alone our Jcames is certainly mentioned,
has been fully con-firmed by the other authlorities,
excepting only one doubtful interpretation, which
we qualified with a " perhaps," and which, indeed, was so involved in contradictions, that it
may be said to have died before it was born. If
James be the same as the son of Alphoeus, then,
as we have shown, he had a brother named Jude,
one of the original Twelve, and a mother named
Mlary, the same who accompanied MIagdalene to
the sepulchre; he was himself an Apostle, one of
the Twelve-" a pillar" in the same sense as
Cephas and John; he was, also, accordinlg to the
Scriptural sense, a "brother" of our Lord. To
attain this result, no text has been handled otherwise than is warranted by the ordinary common
sense rules of sound interpretation; no hypothesis
has been framed, that is not natural and easy;
nothing has been assumed that has not an equal,
and, so far as we can honestly judge, a superior,
reason in its favor.
It is to be observed, moreover, that we arrive
at this result through three distinct and mutually
independent lines of argument; any onze of which,
if established, would put the identity of the two
Jameses beyond all possible question.  Grant
that St. Luke, when he mentions James without
designation, refers to a James whom he has designatedl before; then our case is proved. Or
grant, that when he speaks of " the mother of
James," he means the person whom he elsewhere
calls James; then our case is proved. Or grant,
that when St. Paul mentions our James in connection with Cephas and John as " a pillar,'" he




68
means a pillar in the same sense as when the
same is said of Cephas and John; in other words,
grant that he includes James among those who
were " Apostles before him,"' then also our ease
is thoroughly made out and proved. Thus, the
James of St. Luke, St. Paul and St. Jude is connected with the James of apostolic catalogues,
by three independent links, each, if established,
amply sufficient in itself. On the other hypothesis there is only one link, namely, the phrase,
"'James, the Lord's brother;": and that, as we
have seen, can as easily be interpreted on our
side as on the opposite.
We will only observe, in conclusion, that
though we have alluded to the question of the
ever vircg/inity of St. 3Iary, we do not regard it
as necessarily bound up in the hypothesis we
have preferred. Another hypothesis, which we
mentioned at the beginning of this article, has
been favored by many able writers, both Protestant and Roman Catholic. The one we have
chosen, however, has the advantage of being
more in accordance with the common opinion of
the Church.




APPEIN DIX.
A. p. 24.-The wisdom of the distinction is
forcibly and beautifully illustlrated  by Lord
Bacon.-" AdvcnicCmbeent of Lecaring," s'ubinem.
"Here, again, I may rather give it in advice,
than note it as cldeficient, that the points fundamental, and the points of farther perfection only,
ought to be with piety and wisdom distinguished;
a subject tending to much like end as that I noted
before; for as that other were likely to abate the
number of controversies, so this is likely to abate
the heat of many of them. We see Moses, when
he saw the Israelite and the Egyptian fight, did
not say, Why strive you? but drew his sword
and slew the Egyptian. But when he saw the
two Israelites fight, he said: " You are brethren,
why strive you?" If the point of doctrine be
an Egyptian, it must be slain by the sword of
the Spirit, and not reconciled; but if it be an
Israelite, though in the wrong, then, "Why
strive you."  WTe see, of the fundamental points,
our Saviour penneth the league thus: "He that
is not with us, is against us." But, of points not
fundamental, thus: He that is not against us, is
with us. So we see the coat of our Saviour " was
entire, without seam," and so is the doctrine of
the Scriptures in itself; but the garment of the
Church was of divers colors, and yet not divided.
We see the chaff may and ought to be severed
from the corn in the ear, but the tares may not
be pulled up from the corn in the field. So, as it




70
is a thinog of great use well to define what, aiid
of what latitude, these points are which do make
men merely aliens, and disincorporate fiom the
Church of God."
B. p. 27.-As a fuller and riper statement of
the important point here incidentally touched
upon, the author begs leave to refer the reader
to a very admirable Sermon of the Rev. Dr. H. M.
Mason, recently published by Pott & Amery,
entitled " The City of God in the Anglo-Saxon
Church."  HIa.ving shown the original independence of the British Church, and adverted to her
previous ineffectual attempts to recover it, as a
subject too large to be treated in a single discourse, the learned author proceeds in the following eloquent strain:
" Enough that, at the opening of the sixteenth
era of the Gospel, the independence was regained.
It was regained, not by violating, but in obedience to the laws of the Catholic Church. It
was regained in that last era, by reiteration of
the same principle which, in the seventh, had
sustained the British Bishops, successors of St.
Paul, in maintaining, in presence of Aulgustin,
the missionary of the Bishop of Rome to the
Saxon conquerors of the isle, the equality of all
Bishops, by divine right and by ecclesiastical
rule; their claim to be governed, as the members
of Christ's body, by their own patriarch of Carleon, without subjection to any prelate, patriarch
or Bishop from abroad. It was regained by the
action of the British Church herself, recurring
to the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers of the
early Church, not as a creature of the State, in




slavery to the secular arm. It was regained by
another birth of baptism in blood, which in the
first ages had won the triumph of Gospel truth,
and placed the cross of the Crucified above the
eagles of the imperial crown; by the fires of
Smithfield lighted with the torch of a new Rome,
and only quenched in the martyr streams that
flowed fiom the veins of our own Crafimers, our
Latimers, our Ridleys, in imitation of the Ignatii,
the Polycarps, the Cyprians'of old. It was recgained, not by discarding usages venerable and
pious, or even graceful if harmless, but by wiping
off the tinsel which had hidden the wrought gold
of her holy adorning. In a word, it was regained
by returning to that holy fountain of divine truth
which the Catholic Church had declared closed
in- the canon of Scripture, land to the condensed
summary of the essentials of faith from those
Scriptures. It was regained, by adhering to the
decrees of' the first four General Councils, which
had forbid any other terms of communion among
churches than those essentials, and by retaining
the apostolic succession in her ministry pure
and uncontaminate, as it had been ordained by
lChrist, and of which no known Church holding
the Nicene faith was wanting for fifteen hundred
years. It was regained by refusing communion
with no part of the Christian world retaining
the fundamentals of truth and order. To all is
her communion open which possess the apostolic
creed, the Nicene, and have not voluntarily
abandoned the apostolic succession. She comes
not in the attitude of the Novatians and Donatists of old.  She comes not in the attitude of
a part of the Catholic Church, assuming to be
dictator to the whole.  As each portion of'




divine fundamental truth is susceptible of. perversion, or of being injuriously affected by some
contrarient errol, ishe declares her sense of such
emergent error, and warns her sister Churches,
in terms proportioned to the danger of the error,
but imposes not her sense of that error as a term
of communion. By supplemental articles of faith,
she protects the one creed, however it might in
a just application be its own protection against
every error, but she holds not her articles or her
homilies to have other than a municipal rank;
not one of necessity, but subordinately and conditionally obligatory. If,at any time the British
Church has unwittingly attested a.ny thiing contrary to the voice of the Church Catholic, she
has placed herself under correction by the paramount principle she has acknowledged, and all
her specific propositions are of course to be
limited by her primary concession. She exacts
them not as requirements for baptism, administered even within her own pale.
"From  this noble stock we spring; by this
noble stock we link ourselves, through the ages,
all along, to the golden cord whose last link is
held in the hand of the Almighty Founder of the
Church, who has promised to lead that Church
into all truth, and to be with its guardians, the
Apostles and their successors, to the end of the
world. In a village, in a nation, in the world,
there can be but one Catholic Church, and there
is the Catholic Church where is the one creed
and one apostolic succession, without imposing,
as terms of communion, other requirements.
Where these exist not, or where there is such
imposition, there is schism."