Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 15.djvu/528

 VIRGIN

466

VIRGIN

[her child] among their kinsfolks and acquaintance, and not finding him,. . . returned into Jerusalem, seeking him" (Luke, ii, 44-45). The Child was not found among the pilgi-ims who had come to Beroth on their first day's jovirney; nor was He found on the second day, when Joseph and Mary returned to Jerusalem; it was only on the third day that they "found him [Jesus] in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, hearing them, and asking them ques- tions. . . And seeing him, they wondered. And his mother said to him: Son, why hast thou done so to us? behold thy father and I have sought thee sor- rowing" (Luke, ii, 46-48). Mary's faith did not allow her to fear a mere accident for her Divine Son; but she felt that His behaviour had changed entirely from His customary exhibition of docility and sub- jection. This feeling caused the question, why Jesus had treated His parents in such a way. Jesus simply answered: "How is it that you sought me? did you not know, that I must be about my father's business?" (Luke, ii, 49). Neither Joseph nor Mary understood these words as a rebuke; "they understood not the word that he spoke to them" (Luke, ii, 50). It has been suggested by a recent writer that the last clause may be understood as meaning, "they [i. e., the by- standers] understood not the word he spoke unto them [i. e., to Mary and Joseph]". After this, Jesus "went down with them, and came to Nazareth" where He began a Ufe of work and poverty, eighteen years of which are summed up by the Evangelist in the few words, and he "was subject to them, and. . . advanced in wisdom, and age, and grace with God and men" (Luke, ii, 51-52). The interior hfe of Mary is briefly indicated by the inspired WTiter in the expres- sion, "and his mother kept all these words in her heart" (Luke, ii, 51). A similar expression had been used in ii, 19, " Mary kept all these words, pondering them in her heart". Thus Mary observed the daily life of her Divine Son, and grew in His knowledge and love by meditating on what she saw and heard. It has been pointed out by certain writers that the Evan- gelist here indicates the last source from which he de- rived the material contained in his first two chapters. In connexion with the study of Mary during Our Lord's hidden hfe, we meet the questions of her per- petual virginity, of her Divine motherhood, and of her personal sanctity. Her spotless virginity has been sufficiently considered in the article on the Virgin Birth. The authorities there cited maintain that Mary remained a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to her Divine Son, as well as after the birth of Jesus. Mary's question (Luke, i, 34), the angel's answer (Luke, i, 35, 37), Joseph's wav of behaving in his doubt (Matt., i, 19-25), Christ's words addressed to the Jews (John, viii, 19) show that Mary retained her virginity during the conception of her Divine Son. As to Mary's virginity in her child- birth we mav consult St. Iren., hter. IV, 33, P. G., VII, lOSO; St. Ambr., ep. XLII, 5, P. L., XVI, 1125; St. Aug., ep.CXXXVII, 8, P. L., XXXIII, 519; serm. LI, 18, P. L., XXXVIII, 343; Enchir. 34, P. L.,XL, 249; St. Leo, serm., XXI, 2, P. L., LIV, 192; St. Ful- gent., de fide ad Petr., 17, P. L., XL, 758; Gennad., de eccl. dogm., .36, P. G., XLII. 1219; St. Cyril of Alex., horn. XI, P. G., LXXVII, 1021; St. JohnDamasc.,de fideorthod., IV, 14, P. G.,XCIV, 1161 ;Pasrh. Radb., departu Virg.,P. L.,CXX, 1367; etc. As to the pass- ing doubts concerning Mary's virginity during her childbirth, see Grig., in Lue., horn. XIV, P. G., XIII, 18.34; Tertul., adv. Marc, III, 11, P. L., IV, 21 ; do came Chri.sti, 23, P. L 11,336, 411, 412, 790. As to Mary's virginity after her childbirth, it is not denied by St. Matthew's expressions "before they came to- gether" (i, IS), "her fir.stborn son" (i, 25), nor by the fact that the New Testament books repeatedly refer to "the brothers of Jesus" (Matt., xii, 46-47; xiii, 55-56; Mark, iii. 31-32; iii, 3; Luke, viii, 19-20;

John, ii, 12; vii, 3, 5, 10; Acts, i, 14; I Cor., ix, 5; Gal. i, 19; Jude, 1). The words "before they came together" mean probably, "before they lived in the same house", referring to the time when they were merely betrothed; but even if the words be understood of marital intercourse, they only state that the In- carnation took place before any such intercourse had intervened, without implying that if did occur after the Incarnation of the Son of God [cf. St. Jerome, in Matt., i, 2 (P. L., XXVI, 24-25)]. The same must be said of the expression, "and he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son" (Matt, i, 25); theEvangehstteUs us what did not happen before the birth of Jesus, without suggesting that it happened after his birth (cf. St. John Chrys., in Matt., v, 3, P. G., LVII, 58; St. Jerome, de perpetua virgin. B. M., 6, P. L., XXIII, 183-206; St. Ambrose, de instit. virgin., 38, 43, P. L., XVI, 315, 317; St. Thomas, Summa theol.. Ill, q. 28, a. 3; Petav., de incarn., XIV, iii, 11; etc.). The name "firstborn" applies to Jesus whether his mother remained a virgin or gave birth to other children after Jesus; among the Jews it was a legal name [cf. Exod., xxxiv, 19; Num., xviii, 15; St. Epiphan., ha-r. Ixxviii, 17, P. G., XLII, 728], so that its occurrence in the Gospel cannot astonish us. Finally, the "brothers of Jesus" are neither the sons of Mary, nor the brothers of Our Lord in the proper sense of the word, but they are His cous- ins or his more or less near relatives (cf. Revue bib- lique, 1895, pp. 17.3-183). The Church insists that in His birth the Son of God did not lessen but con- secrate the virginal integrity of His mother (Secret in Mass of Purific). The Fathers express themselves in similar language concerning this privilege of Mary (St. Peter Chrvsol., serm., CXLII, in Annunt. B. M. v., P.G.,LII, 581; Hesych., hom. V. de S. M. Deip., P. G., XCIII, 1461; St. Ildeph., de virgin, perpet.

5. M., P. L., XCVI, 95; St. Bernard, de XII pra?r. B. V. M., 9, P. L., CLXXXIII, 4.34, etc.).

Mary's Divine motherhood is based on the teach- ing of the Gos])els, on the WTitings of the Fathers, and on the express definition of the Church. St. Matthew (i, 25) testifies Hint Mary "brought forth her first- born son" and that He was called Jesus. According to St. John (i, 14) Jesus is the Word made flesh, the Word Who assumed human nature in the womb of Mary. As Mary was truly the mother of Jesus, and as Jesus was truly God from the first moment of His conception, Mary is truly the mother of God. Even the earliest Fathers did not hesitate to draw this con- clusion as may be seen in the writings of St. Ignatius (ad Ephes., 7, P. G., V, 6.52), St. Irena>us (adv. hser., Ill, 19, P. G., VIII, 940, 941), and TertuUian (adv. Prax. 27, P. L., II, 190). The contention of Nestorius denying to Mary the title "Mother of God" (Serm. I,

6, 7, P. G.,XLVIII, 760-761) was followed by the teaching of the Council of Ephesus proclaiming Mary to be 6eoT6(cos in the true sense of the word. (Cf. Ambr., in Luc. II, 25, P. L., XV, 1.521 ; St. Cyril of Alex., Apol. pro Xll cap.; e. Julian, VIII; ep. ad Acac, 14; P. G., LXXVI, 320, 901 ; LXXVll, 97; John of Antioch, ep. ad Nestor., 4, P. G., LXXVII, 14.56; Theodoret, ha-r. fab., IV, 2, P. G., LXXXIII, 4.36; St. Gregory Nazian- zen, ep. ad Cledon., I, P. G., XXXVII, 177; Proclus, hom. de Matre Dei, P. G., LXV, 680; etc. Among recent WTiters nuist be noticed Terrien, La mere de Dieu et la mere des honmics, Paris, 1902, I, 3-14; Turmel, Histoire de la thdologie positive, Paris, 1904, 210-211.)

Some few patristic writers expressed their doubts as to the presence of minor moral defects in our Blessed L.ady (cf. Petav., de incarnaf., XIV, i, 3-7). St. Basil, e. g., suggests that Mary yielded to doubt on hearing the words of holv Simeon and on witness- ing the crucifixion (ej). CCLX, P. G.. XXXII, 96,5- 9l)S); St. ,(ohn Clirys. is of opinion that Mary would have felt fear and trouble, unless the angel had ex-