Is ‘Based’ an Aristotelian Virtue?

Like all words frequently used on the internet, the term ‘based’ is frequently misused. But as for the proper use of the term ‘based’ - that is, when used by men of refinement and nuance - the term really does seem to be a mere recollection of the Aristotelian virtue of μεγαλοψυχία ie. greatness of soul or magnanimity.

Observe Aristotle on the Magnanimous Man:

“he therefore to whom even honour is a small thing will be indifferent to other things as well...

haughty towards men of position and fortune, but courteous towards those of moderate station...

He will not compete for the common objects of ambition...will be idle and slow to act, except when pursuing some high honour or achievement...will not engage in many undertakings, but only in such as are important and distinguished. 

He must be open both in love and in hate...care more for the truth than for what people will think...does not bear a grudge...is no gossip...is not given to speaking evil, even of his enemies, except when he deliberately intends to give offence...

Other traits generally attributed to the great-souled man are a slow gait, a deep voice, and a deliberate utterance; to speak in shrill tones and walk fast denotes an excitable and nervous temperament, which does not belong to one who cares for few things and thinks nothing great.”

Nic. Eth. IV.III

Ēala Ēarendel

This is a translated section from the Old English poem that inspired Tolkien’s poem ‘The Voyage of Earendel’, which together with his constructed language, was the beginning of his legendarium. The poem is an Anglo-Saxon Christian poem called ‘Crist I’ or ‘Crist A.’ 

Hail Earendel, brightest of angels,

Sent to men over middle-earth,

And true radiance of the sun,

Fine beyond stars, you always illuminate,

From your self, every season!

As you, God born wholly of God,

Son of the true Father, were ever

In the glory of heaven without beginning,

So now your own creation awaits you

Through eternity in need, that you send

To us that bright sun, and you yourself come

So that you illuminate those who for the longest time,

Covered by smoke, and in darkness here,

Dwelled in continual night; enfolded in sins,

They had to endure the dark shadow of death.

Now we believe in joyful salvation,

Brought to people through the word of God,

Which in the beginning was from the Father almighty,

Jointly eternal with God, and now again became

The flesh without sin that the virgin bore

Through suffering to safety. God was with us,

Seen among sins; the mighty child of fate

And the son of man dwelt together,

United amidst the people. We may express

Our thanks to the Lord of victory always through our deeds,

Because he wanted to send himself to us.

(‘Crist I’, Lyric 5)

‘Earendel’ is the equivalent of Oriens, Dawn-bringer, Bringer of light or Rising light - in Anglo-Saxon, used for the sunrise and for the morning star. Here it refers to Christ - brightest of Angels, not because he is of Angelic nature but because, by way of analogy, he supereminently fulfills the role of ‘Aggelos’ and is often called ‘King of the Angels’, as St John the Baptist can also be referred to as an ‘Angel.’

Tolkien particularly liked this name ‘Earendel’ which he found in the Old English poem, ‘Crist I.’ He was struck by its great beauty and thought it was euphonic to a peculiar degree for an Anglo-Saxon word. It is a pleasant sounding word. It is clearly fitting that a name used or co-opted to be used for Christ should be beautiful and euphonic. 

It was the inspiration for a poem Tolkien wrote in 1914: ‘The Voyage of Earendel the Evening Star.’ This was apparently the beginning of Tolkien’s mythology, together with his constructed Elvish language, which became later known as Quenya. Earendel became in Tolkien’s legandarium, the half-Elvish mariner Eärendil. In the Two Towers, Frodo explains in Quenya: ‘Hail Eärendil, brightest of stars!’ The first bit of the section from ‘Crist I’ given above was an obvious inspiration for Tolkien:

Ēala ēarendel, engla beorhtast,

ofer middangeard monnum sended.

"Hail Earendel, brightest of angels,

Sent to men over middle-earth.”

‘Middle Earth’ or ‘Middangeard’ or ‘Midgard’ was in Norse and Anglo-Saxon used to refer to the mortal realm; it was compatible with Christianised use for reference to Earth where mortals dwell, which is neither Heaven nor Hell.

Whether Incontinence is a Sin

Incontinence / lack of self restraint is different from intemperance / licentiousness. The intemperate or licentious man is habitually disposed to seeking after excessive pleasures (to do with taste and touch). He decides that he should seek after pleasures that are in fact shameful and does so without regret. The incontinent man, however, realises that he shouldn’t seek such pleasures but he is overcome by his passions in the moment and does so anyway. 

The question arises whether the incontinent man sins. Although, intemperance is a worse sin, St Thomas affirms that he does (IIa IIae Q.156 a.2).

One objection has to do with power over one’s actions.

Objection 1. It would seem that incontinence is not a sin. For as Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. iii, 18): "No man sins in what he cannot avoid." Now no man can by himself avoid incontinence, according to Wisdom 8:21, "I know [Vulgate: 'knew'] that I could not . . . be continent, except God gave it." Therefore incontinence is not a sin.

Another has to do with the involvement of reason in sin.

Objection 2. Further, apparently every sin originates in the reason. But the judgment of reason is overcome in the incontinent man. Therefore incontinence is not a sin.

Reading Aristotle’s account of continence and incontinence (Nic. Eth. VII), where he explains what I described above, one might come away thinking these objections have merit. However, St Thomas replies decisively to these important objections.

Reply to Objection 1. Man can avoid sin and do good, yet not without God's help, according to John 15:5: "Without Me you can do nothing." Wherefore the fact that man needs God's help in order to be continent, does not show incontinence to be no sin, for, as stated in Ethic. iii, 3, "what we can do by means of a friend we do, in a way, ourselves."

Reply to Objection 2. The judgment of reason is overcome in the incontinent man not necessarily, for then he would commit no sin, but through a certain negligence on account of his not standing firm in resisting the passion by holding to the judgment formed by his reason.

Further to the the reply to the second objection, we can add a saying of St Augustine, quoted by the Council of Trent: “God never commands the impossible, but, in commanding, He warns us to do what we are able and to ask Him for help to do that which we cannot” (Council of Trent, Sess. VI, chap. 11 (Denzinger, no. 804), from St. Augustine, De natura et gratia, chap. 41, no. 50.) This also reminds us what Jesus Christ said to St Paul: sufficit tibi gratia mea. “My grace is sufficient for you” (2 Corinthians 12:9). And again St Paul (1 Corinthians 10:13) says “God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able: but will make also with temptation issue, that you may be able to bear it.”

Furthermore, while the sin of the incontinent man is not as bad as the sin of the licentious man, that does not mean that it is venial, while that of the licentious man is mortal. In fact, the sin of the incontinent man or a sin of frailty can be mortal. While antecedent passion diminishes culpability, it does not destroy it (and on the contrary, consequent passion proper to the licentious man augments culpability). One can fully consent to the passion where one was free to utilise means that would have impeded it before giving into the passion. Garrigou-Lagrange explains in the Three Ages of the Interior Life:

“... But we must distinguish here the so-called antecedent passion, which precedes the consent of the will, and that called consequent, which follows it. Antecedent passion diminishes culpability, for it diminishes the liberty of judgment and of voluntary choice; it is particularly apparent in very impressionable people. On the contrary, consequent or voluntary passion does not lessen the gravity of sin, but augments it; or rather it is a sign that the sin is more voluntary, since the will itself arouses this inordinate movement of passion, as happens in a man who wishes to become angry the better to manifest his ill will. Just as a good consequent passion, such as Christ’s holy anger when He was driving the merchants from the Temple, increases the merit, so an evil consequent passion augments the demerit.

The sin of frailty, of which we are speaking here, is that in which the will yields to the impulse of an antecedent passion; and thereby the gravity of the sin is lessened. This does not mean, however, that it is never a mortal sin. It is truly mortal when the matter is grievous, and the sinner yields to passion with advertence and full consent. This is the case of homicide committed under the impulse of anger.

A person can resist, especially at the beginning, the inordinate movement of passion. If he does not resist it at the beginning as he ought, if he does not pray as he ought to obtain the help of God, passion is no longer simply antecedent, it becomes voluntary.

The sin of frailty, even when serious and mortal, is more pardonable than another, but here “pardonable” is by no means a synonym for “venial” in the current meaning of this word.

Even pious people ought to be attentive to this point for they may have unrepressed movements of jealousy which may lead them to grave faults: for example, to serious rash judgments and to words and exterior acts which are the cause of profound breaches, contrary both to justice and to charity.

It would be a gross error to think that only the sin of malice can be mortal because it alone implies the sufficient advertence, the full consent, together with the serious matter, necessary for the sin which gives death to the soul and renders it worthy of eternal death. Such an error would result from a badly formed conscience, and would contribute to increase this deformity. Let us remember that we can easily resist the beginning of the inordinate movement of passion, and that it is a duty for us to do so and also to pray for help, according to the words of St. Augustine, quoted by the Council of Trent:“God never commands the impossible, but, in commanding, He warns us to do what we are able and to ask Him for help to do that which we cannot.”

Let us add to this description of Garrigou-Lagrange what Our Lord Jesus Christ says about the efficacy of prayer in Luke Chapter 11: 

And I say to you, Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you. For every one that asketh, receiveth; and he that seeketh, findeth; and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened. And which of you, if he ask his father bread, will he give him a stone? or a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he reach him a scorpion? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father from heaven give the good Spirit to them that ask him?

Cicero's Liar Paradox

As a follow up to my previous post and a quick exercise, I will briefly consider a more classic formulation of the Liar's Paradox. This one come from Cicero's Academica (2.30), though he attributes it to Chrysippus. Cicero (an Academic Sceptic) is responding to Lucullus (follower of Antiochus who practically became a Stoic). Here he casts doubt on the validity of logical inference.

Cicero puts its thus: Si dicis te mentiri verumque dicis, mentiris; dicis autem te mentiri verumque dicis; mentiris igitur. Translation: "If you say that you are lying and are speaking truly, you lie; but you do say that you are lying and are speaking truly; therefore you lie."

The following is valid, though not really a syllogism as such because it doesn't give us new knowledge (since the minor premise is the same as the conclusion): Si mentiris, mentiris; mentiris autem; mentiris igitur. If you are lying, you are lying; you are lying; therefore you are lying. Cicero states this later as if it was equivalent to the paradox stated above. It is not however.

Lets take the first premise of the paradox:  "If you say that you are lying and are speaking truly, you lie." What are you saying that you are lying about? If about another proposition and you were in fact lying, then you would indeed be speaking truly. But of course there is no paradox here. You would not be claiming that you were lying about this proposition. The idea is that the liar is lying about his own statement about his lying. 

But if you say you are lying about the very statement you are making (sc. that you are lying), your statement is actually meaningless. In order to be lying about something, you have to be lying about something. If you say that your are lying, what are you lying about? If the answer is that you are lying, then again it can be asked what that lying is about. If that is about lying and that is about lying and so on, we have an infinite regress. The statement "I am lying" only makes apparent sense. But if it just about itself, it doesn't make sense.

Secondly, since every proposition implies its own truth, if I say "I am lying" then I am affirming the truth of my lying. But at the same time I am affirming the falsity of my lying because I am lying. Therefore, the statement is incoherent and absurd. This doesn't mean that it is both true and false. But rather that it is neither. It is absurd. If you both affirm and deny the same thing, you aren't making sense. Likewise a pseudo-proposition that affirms and denies the same thing doesn't actually make any claim. Therefore, it is not a proposition. A proposition affirms an identity between two beings or denies such an identity. If I try to both of these things, then I end up doing neither. I have cancelled myself out. Therefore, I have made my statement absurd. I have deprived it of intelligible value. 

Self-Evident Truth and the Liar's Paradox

Sophists and sophistry have always been around. It's a hallmark of sophistical fallacies to challenge some obvious truth with a supposedly convincing but fallacious argument. One might think how such truths can be doubted. For example, how can someone doubt the principle of non-contradiction? Isn't it self-evident? Yes, the principle of non-contradiction is self-evident but that doesn't entail that nobody can signify or want to doubt it. The wilful rejection of reality is as old as the Devil's non serviam.

Anyway, what does self-evident mean? It refers to some truth which is known through itself (per se nota). In particular, we are focusing here on that which is per se nota to us (quoad nos), rather than the other kind, per se nota in itself. God's existence is self evident in itself (secundum se) because the predicate in "God exists" is included in what it means to be the subject (in ratione subiecti). But we do not behold the essence of God in this life immediately, so we cannot see immediately that God exists. God must exist by His very nature and, in fact, it is not just that we would know the fact of his being (existentia) if we saw him (like we can know the fact of chair existing if we perceive the chair), but we would see immediately his act of being (esse / actus essendi) when we saw immediately what he is (his essentia) because in Him esse and essentia are identical. But what is self-evident to us is what can be immediately known when the terms are known. If I know what wholes are and I know what parts are, I know immediately the truth of the statement that a whole is greater than its parts. If I know what 2 is and what 1 is, I know that 1 + 1 = 2. 2 literally just is 2 1's. Boethius points out that some things can be self-evident only to the learned. So, for example, if I know what an incorporeal substance is and what space is, I know that an incorporeal substance is not extended in space. 

Now, the most fundamental and basic of self-evident truths is the truth that 'being is.' A rock might not know that. But we rational creatures that have come into contact with being cognitionally know it. It follows from 'being is' that 'being is not non-being.' This is one formulation of the principle of non-contradiction. Indeed, 'follows' is said loosely here because unlike our knowledge that God exists, the PNC does not have to be derived from a series of prior premises. It is a principle in itself. It does follow from 'being is' but it also just follows from itself because 'being is' 1) is present in it and 2) is present in it in such a way that if PNC were not the case, it would not be the case. Now, 1) is actually true of every statement. Every statement affirms that 'being is.' 'Being is' is not just the first premise in every argument but is present in every statement. But wait, what if I say the King of France is bald?! Shock horror. Well yes, that statement too implies 'being is.' If I say that the King of France is bald, then I am affirming the being of the King of France's baldness. And if I affirm a way of being, then I am affirming being. If there is no existing King of France (unless one counts Louis XX), then all I've done is give a false statement. Such things...do in fact happen. I have affirmed a way of being that isn't actually there. No paradox here. 

So if I know what 'being' is and I know what 'non-being' is (the negation of being), then I know that they are opposed. I know that being is not non-being. By consequence I know that I cannot correctly both affirm and deny a particular way of being in the same respect at the same time. I cannot coherently claim both that the King of France is bald and that he is not bald. I would have contradicted myself. Ordinary people and sane philosophers call that an error.

Of course someone can fashion a sentence that denies the Principle of Non-Contradiction but the sentence would be incoherent and absurd. Maybe some people (weird people) might want to deny the Principle and so fashion such a sentence. We don't just have intellects. We have a will and emotions. But, if the intellect grasps what is meant by being and non-being, then the intellect will just have to assent. Likewise, if I grasp what is meant by truth and falsity, my intellect will have the recognise their incompatibility. There is a convertibility between truth and being. Truth is being known through an intellect.

But what if I subtly redefine truth and falsity? What if, inspired by the wanderings of analytic philosophy, I lose track of what truth and falsity really mean. What if I confound grammar and logic, while insisting on a firm divide between logic and metaphysics? What if I forget, deny, or fuzzy truth's identity with being, and think of truth and falsity superficially in terms of mere 'statements'? What if I have a retarded (literally - I'm not just thrusting forward an insult) understanding of language?

What is a statement? Is it a set of words? What is its meaning? If I'm talking about a grammatical statement, then it is a collection of conventional signs representing thoughts. These thoughts refer to and present to us reality ie. being. Grammatical signs can have different meanings and they have the meaning we assign to them. There is a contingent relationship here. But there is not such a contingent relationship between the mind knowing something and the something known by the mind. There is a cognitional identity here.

Let's take the Liars' Paradox. According to supposed philosopher Graham Priest, this paradox shows that statements can be both true and false. If we had a good idea of what truth and falsity mean and what statements are, we can see how this is ridiculous. If a statement is true, the mind is in conformity with reality, with being. I am affirming (mentally, not just grammatically) a way of being that is actually there (or denying one that isn't there). If it is false, my mind is at odds with reality. I am affirming a way of being that isn't actually there (or denying one that is there). Being is being. Being is not non-being. If I am affirming some way of being, that being is either there or not there. It cannot both be and not be. 

One formulation of the Liars's Paradox goes like this: "This statement is false." It is then pointed out that if I say the statement is true, then the statement is false, because the statement literally says that it is false. But if I say that it is false, then that would make the statement true. Or would it?

The truth is that the statement is incoherent. It is like saying "square triangles tend to quizzle quazzle." Arthur Prior got close to the truth when he said that the statement is in fact false. As he pointed out, every statement implies its truth. As I said before, if I say that the King of France is bald, then I am affirming the being of the King of France's baldness. I am affirming that it is true that the King of France is bald. I do not have to preface it with "it is true that...." Given that then, Prior pointed out that saying "this statement is false" is equivalent to saying "this statement is true and false." Prior then concluded that such a statement would be false. Therefore, the statement "this statement is false" is false and there is no contradiction here. I do not make it true if I affirm its falsity because the statement also claims its own truth. To emphasise: every statement of itself claims its own truth. 

But I would say that rather than concluding that the statement is false, we might instead conclude that the statement is incoherent and fundamentally meaningless. If I say that "square triangles tend to quizzle quazzle" I am not really saying anything either true or false because I am not really saying anything at all. The terms don't refer to intelligible content. I can say that "squares aren't triangles" because "square" and "triangle" do have intelligible content. I can even say that "square triangles don't exist" because what I'm doing there is denying the possibility of identity between squares and triangles, which both have intelligible content. But if I say "square triangles surf" where square-triangles is taken as a whole and is put in the position of something intelligible, then I have a meaningless proposition. If I say "this statement is false" then I am simultaneously affirming the truth and falsity of the statement. Hence, the statement is absurd. The lesson to take from this is that I can signify a simultaneous denial of the truth or falsity of a statement. But such a statement can't actually be both true and false. It cannot both correctly affirm or deny the same being or way of being.

Anyway, what being or way of being am I actually supposed to be referring to? Hopefully, you can see where logical puzzles can get ridiculous. This is the result of trying to separate logic too far from reality. Logic deals immediately with beings of reason. True. But beings of reason in turn deal with real being. 

"This statement is false" is meaningless. In fact even "this statement is true" is meaningless by itself. What statement? The one that goes "this statement is true"? So "this statement is true is true." But I still don't understand what "this statement" means because all I've been told is that is true! Telling it twice won't solve anything! When I predicate "is true" of something, I have to predicate it of something that it can actually be meaningfully predicated of. So for example: 'The sun is hot' is true. Or I can say "that statement is true" referring to another statement. In short, I must be predicating being of something. If I'm simply saying words, I'm not accomplishing anything.

The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Church Fathers

The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Church Fathers

The primary purpose of this article will be to show that the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is consistently and widely taught by the Church Fathers. It has always been taught that Mary was always a Virgin and it has always taught with zeal, as shall become evident. I shall begin first by laying out some testimony from Holy Scripture about the superiority of virginity itself, as this is often questioned by Protestants I myself have come across who cannot understand why it would matter for Mary to be a virgin. I shall follow this up with a citation from St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologiae, where he defends the idea that virginity is indeed a virtue. Then we shall come to the main body of the article, wherein I shall provide abundant quotations from the Fathers of the Church affirming the divinely revealed truth that the Virgin Mary is an Ever-Virgin.

The Superiority of Virginity

 

1 Corinthians 7

 

[25] Now concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord; but I give counsel, as having obtained mercy of the Lord, to be faithful. 

[26] I think therefore that this is good for the present necessity, that it is good for a man so to be. [27] Art thou bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. [28] But if thou take a wife, thou hast not sinned. And if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned: nevertheless, such shall have tribulation of the flesh. But I spare you. [29] This therefore I say, brethren; the time is short; it remaineth, that they also who have wives, be as if they had none; [30] And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as if they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; 

[31] And they that use this world, as if they used it not: for the fashion of this world passeth away. [32] But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. [33] But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. [34] And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband. [35] And this I speak for your profit: not to cast a snare upon you; but for that which is decent, and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord, without impediment. 

[36] But if any man think that he seemeth dishonoured, with regard to his virgin, for that she is above the age, and it must so be: let him do what he will; he sinneth not, if she marry. [37] For he that hath determined being steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but having power of his own will; and hath judged this in his heart, to keep his virgin, doth well. [38] Therefore, both he that giveth his virgin in marriage, doth well; and he that giveth her not, doth better. [39] A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband die, she is at liberty: let her marry to whom she will; only in the Lord. [40] But more blessed shall she be, if she so remain, according to my counsel; and I think that I also have the spirit of God.

Matthew 19

[10] His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.

[11] Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. [12] For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.

Note from Douay-Rheims Commentary on Matthew 19:19:

[12] "There are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs, for the kingdom of heaven": This text is not to be taken in the literal sense; but means, that there are such, who have taken a firm and commendable resolution of leading a single and chaste life, in order to serve God in a more perfect state than those who marry: as St. Paul clearly shews. 1 Cor. 7. 37, 38

Mathew 22

[23]That day there came to him the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection; and asked him, [24] Saying: Master, Moses said: If a man die having no son, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up issue to his brother. [25] Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first having married a wife, died; and not having issue, left his wife to his brother. 

[26] In like manner the second, and the third, and so on to the seventh. [27]And last of all the woman died also. [28] At the resurrection therefore whose wife of the seven shall she be? for they all had her. [29] And Jesus answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. [30] For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married; but shall be as the angels of God in heaven.

Virginity is a virtue – St Thomas

 

On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Virgin. i, 3): "Love of virginity moves us to say something about virginity, lest by passing it over we should seem to cast a slight on what is a virtue of high degree."

I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), the formal and completive element in virginity is the purpose of abstaining from venereal pleasure, which purpose is rendered praiseworthy by its end, in so far, to wit, as this is done in order to have leisure for Divine things: while the material element in virginity is integrity of the flesh free of all experience of venereal pleasure. Now it is manifest that where a good action has a special matter through having a special excellence, there is a special kind of virtue: for example, magnificence which is about great expenditure is for this reason a special virtue distinct from liberality, which is about all uses of money in general. Now to keep oneself free from the experience of venereal pleasure has an excellence of its own deserving of greater praise than keeping oneself free from inordinate venereal pleasure. Wherefore virginity is a special virtue being related to chastity as magnificence to liberality.

The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary

St Athanasius, Orations against the Arians, II:70 (A.D. 362):

 

"Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed."

 

St Epiphanius, Well Anchored Man, 120 (A.D. 374):

 

"[T]he Son of God...was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit..."

 

Ibid, Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 (A.D. 375):

“And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled” 

 

St John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, V:5 (A.D. 370):

 

"And when he had taken her, he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.' He hath here used the word till,' not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, till'? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.' And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, From age until age Thou art,' not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,' it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word "till," to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference. Thus, what it was necessary for thee to learn of Him, this He Himself hath said; that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth; but that which both was seen to be a consequence of the former statement, and was acknowledged, this in its turn he leaves for thee to perceive; namely, that not even after this, she having so become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail, and a child-bearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her. For if he had known her, and had kept her in the place of a wife, how is it that our Lord commits her, as unprotected, and having no one, to His disciple, and commands him to take her to his own home? How then, one may say, are James and the others called His brethren? In the same kind of way as Joseph himself was supposed to be husband of Mary. For many were the veils provided, that the birth, being such as it was, might be for a time screened. Wherefore even John so called them, saying, For neither did His brethren believe in Him!"

St Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of Mary Against Helvedius, 21 (A.D. 383):

 

"But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this to condemn marriage, for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage; but because when we are dealing with saints we must not judge rashly. If we adopt possibility as the standard of judgment, we might maintain that Joseph had several wives because Abraham had, and so had Jacob, and that the Lord's brethren were the issue of those wives, an invention which some hold with a rashness which springs from audacity not from piety. You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin."

St Basil, Hom. In Sanctum Christi generationem, 5 (ante A.D. 379):

 

"The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin"

St Ambrose, To the Christian at Vercellae, Letter 63:111 (A.D. 396):

"Imitate her, holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of maternal virtue; for neither have you sweeter children, nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son."

St Augustine, Of Holy Virginity, 4 (A.D. 401):

"Her virginity also itself was on this account more pleasing and accepted, in that it was not that Christ being conceived in her, rescued it beforehand from a husband who would violate it, Himself to preserve it; but, before He was conceived, chose it, already dedicated to God, as that from which to be born. This is shown by the words which Mary spake in answer to the Angel announcing to her her conception; How, 'saith she, shall this be, seeing I know not a man?' Which assuredly she would not say, unless she had before vowed herself unto God as a virgin. But, because the habits of the Israelites as yet refused this, she was espoused to a just man, who would not take from her by violence, but rather guard against violent persons, what she had already vowed. Although, even if she had said this only, How shall this take place?' and had not added, seeing I know not a man, 'certainly she would not have asked, how, being a female, she should give birth to her promised Son, if she had married with purpose of sexual intercourse. She might have been bidden also to continue a virgin, that in her by fitting miracle the Son of God should receive the form of a servant, but, being to be a pattern to holy virgins, lest it should be thought that she alone needed to be a virgin, who had obtained to conceive a child even without sexual intercourse, she dedicated her virginity to God, when as yet she knew not what she should conceive, in order that the imitation of a heavenly life in an earthly and mortal body should take place of vow, not of command; through love of choosing, not through necessity of doing service. 

The sense of the end of the above, to put in more eloquent English, is:

In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave.

Ibid, Sermons 186:1 (A.D. 411):

“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” 

Ibid, Heresies 56 (A.D. 428):

“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband.”

 

St Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 117, (A.D. 432):

 

"Where are they who think that the Virgin's conception and giving birth to her child are to be likened to those of other woman? For, this latter case is one of the earth, and the Virgin's is one from heaven. The one case is a case of divine power; the other of human weakness. The one case occurs in a body subject to passion; the other in the tranquility of the divine Spirit and peace of the human body. The blood was still, and the flesh astonished; her members were put at rest, and her entire womb was quiescent during the visit of the Holy One, until the Author of flesh could take on His garment of flesh, and until He, who was not merely to restore the earth to man but also to give him heaven, could become a heavenly Man. The virgin conceives, the Virgin brings forth her child, and she remains a virgin."

Pope St Leo the Great (regn. A.D. 440-461), On the Feast of the Nativity, Sermon 22:2 (ante A.D. 461):

"And by a new nativity He was begotten, conceived by a Virgin, born of a Virgin, without paternal desire, without injury to the mother's chastity: because such a birth as knew no taint of human flesh, became One who was to be the Saviour of men, while it possessed in itself the nature of human substance. For when God was born in the flesh, God Himself was the Father, as the archangel witnessed to the Blessed Virgin Mary: because the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee: and therefore, that which shall be born of thee shall be called holy, the Son of God.' The origin is different but the nature like: not by intercourse with man but by the power of God was it brought about: for a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bare, and a Virgin she remained."

St John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith, 4:14 (A.D. 743):

 

"The ever-virgin One thus remains even after the birth still virgin, having never at any time up till death consorted with a man. For although it is written, And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born Son, yet note that he who is first-begotten is first-born even if he is only-begotten. For the word first-born' means that he was born first but does not at all suggest the birth of others. And the word till' signifies the limit of the appointed time but does not exclude the time thereafter. For the Lord says, And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world, not meaning thereby that He will be separated from us after the completion of the age. The divine apostle, indeed, says, And so shall we ever be with the Lord, meaning after the general resurrection."

St Hippolytus, Against Beron and Helix: Fragment VIII (A.D. 210):

“But the pious confession of the believer is that . . . the Creator of all things incorporated with Himself a rational soul and a sensible body from the all-holy Mary, ever-virgin, by an undefiled conception, without conversion, and was made man in nature, but separate from wickedness. . . ” 

St Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Matthew 1:4 (A.D. 354):

“If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate.” 

St Didymus the Blind, The Trinity 3:4 (A.D. 386):

“It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin.”

Pope St Siricius I, Letter to Bishop Anysius (A.D. 392):

“You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king."

Leporius, Document of Amendment 3 (A.D. 426):

“We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary” 

St Cyril of Alexandria, Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 (A.D. 430):

“[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing."

 

A Closing Quotation from St Gregory of Nyssa on Virginity

St Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity, 13 (A.D. 371):

 

"But those who by virginity have desisted from this process have drawn within themselves the boundary line of death, and by their own deed have checked his advance; they have made themselves, in fact, a frontier between life and death, and a barrier too, which thwarts him. If, then, death cannot pass beyond virginity, but finds his power checked and shattered there, it is demonstrated that virginity is a stronger thing than death; and that body is rightly named undying which does not lend its service to a dying world, nor brook to become the instrument of a succession of dying creatures. In such a body the long unbroken career of decay and death, which has intervened between the first man and the lives of virginity which have been led, is interrupted. It could not be indeed that death should cease working as long as the human race by marriage was working too; he walked the path of life with all preceding generations; he started with every new-born child and accompanied it to the end: but he found in virginity a barrier, to pass which was an impossible feat. Just as, in the age of Mary the mother of God, he who had reigned from Adam to her time found, when he came to her and dashed his forces against the fruit of her virginity as against a rock, that he was shattered to pieces upon her, so in every soul which passes through this life in the flesh under the protection of virginity, the strength of death is in a manner broken and annulled, for he does not find the places upon which he may fix his sting."