[111] “Certe idololatræ, ut impietates exerceant et dæmonibus immolent, imperant sibi continentiam muliebrem, et ab escis quoque se purgari volunt, et me interrogas si sacerdos Dei vivi spiritualia oblaturus sacrificia purgatus perpetuo debeat esse, an totus in carne carnis curam debeat facere?”
If all the postulates be granted, the reasoning is unanswerable, and as the precedents of the Old Testament have been relied upon in all arguments since the time of Siricius, it may be worth while to refer to the caution of Ahimelech before giving the shew-bread to David (I. Sam. 21) as one of the texts most constantly quoted, and to the residence of Zacharias in the Temple during his term of ministration (Luke I. 23), which was frequently instanced. These are certainly more germane to the matter than the linen breeches provided for Aaron and his sons (Exod. XXVIII. 42-3), by which the Venerable Bede assures us (De Tabernac. Lib. III. c. 9) “significatum esse sacerdotes Novi Testamenti aut virgines esse, aut contracta cum uxoribus fœdera dissolvisse.”
[112] Siricii Epist. I. c. 7.—It would seem from this decretal (cap. 8, 9, 10, 11) that even the rule excluding digami was wholly neglected. Siricius further (cap. 13) urges the admission of monks to holy orders, for the purpose of providing a priesthood vowed to chastity.
[113] Præterea, quod dignum, pudicum et honestum est, suademus ut sacerdotes et levitæ cum uxoribus suis non coeant, quia in ministerio divino quotidianis necessitatibus occupantur.... Qua de re hortor, moneo, rogo, tollatur hoc opprobrium quod potest etiam jure gentilitas accusare.—Concil. Telensis. c. 9.
[114] Quod eo non præterii quia in plerisque abditioribus locis, cum ministerium gererent, vel etiam sacerdotium, filios susceperent, et id tanquam usu veteri defendunt, quando per intervallo dierum sacrificium deferebatur.—Ambros. de Officiis Lib. I. c. 50.
[115] Tertullian has no scruple in asserting—“Et Christum quidum virgo enixa est, semel nuptura post partum.” (De Monog. c. 8). This belief was founded on the words of Matthew (I. 25), “καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἔως ὁυ ἔτεκετον ὑιὸν ἀυτῆς τὸν πρωτοτόκον, καὶ ἐκάλεσε τὸ ὄνομα ἀυτοῦ ἰησοῦν.”—“And he knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son; and he called his name Jesus.” The restrictive “till” and the characterization of Jesus as the first-born of the Virgin (though the latter is omitted in the Sinaitic and Vatican MSS.) are certainly not easily explicable on any other supposition; nor is the difficulty lessened by the various explanations concerning the family of Joseph, by which such expressions as ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί αὐτοῦ—fratres et mater ejus (Marc. III. xxxi.), or the enumeration of his brothers and sisters in Matt. XIII. 55-6, Mark VI. 3, or the phrase ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου—Jacobum fratrem Domini (Galat. I. 19)—are taken by commentators in a spiritual sense, or are eluded by transferring to the Greek a Hebrew idiom which confounds brothers with cousins. In the Constitutiones Apostolicæ occurs a passage—“Et ego Jacobus frater quidem Christi secundum carnem, servus autem tanquam Dei”—which seems to place it in an unmistakable light, if it be an extract from some forgotten Gospel, although it may only reflect the opinions of the third century when the collection was written or compiled.
The Bonosiacs were also sometimes called Helvidians.—S. Augustin. de Hæresibus § 84.—Isidor. Hispalens. Etymolog. Lib. VIII. c. v. § 57.
In an age which was accustomed to such arguments as “per mulierem culpa successit, per virginem salus evenit” (Rescript. Episcopp. ad Siricium), it is easy to appreciate the pious horror evoked by such blasphemous heresies.
St. Clement of Alexandria alludes to a belief current in his day that after the Nativity the Virgin had to submit to an inspection ab obstetrice to prove her purity (Stromat. Lib. vii.)—a story which continued to trouble the orthodox until the seventeenth century.
The Buddhists eluded all these troublesome questions by making Queen Maya die seven days after the birth of Sakyamuni, and asserting that this was the case with the mothers of all the Buddhas.—Rgya Tch’er Rol P (Ed. Fou-a aux, p. 100).