Was Mary A Perpetual Virgin? Rome’s Marian Dogma Examined

Roman Catholic theology includes four Marian dogmas, each proposed as divinely revealed, conscience-binding truths necessary for belief and religious devotion. In this series, we examine each dogma by submitting it to the supreme authority of holy Scripture, which alone is the rule of faith and worship. In the first article, we contrasted the authority of holy Scripture with Rome’s claim to magisterial authority as competing foundations for ruling the Christian conscience. With that foundation in place, we now turn to the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (PVM), asking whether it is taught by the Word of God.

Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

Dogma defined by Rome:

“The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’s birth ‘did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it’ (LG 57). And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the ‘Ever-virgin’” (CCC 499).

“If anyone does not properly and truly confess… [Mary’s] virginity remaining indestructible even after His birth, let him be condemned.” (Canon 3, Lateran Council of 649).1

Protestant Affirmation:

All Christians agree, as a doctrinal necessity, that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary. Scripture is clear that Mary was a virgin before Christ’s birth (Isaiah 7:14; Mat 1:25; Luke 1:27, 31, 35), and this was an important miracle to show that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God (Luke 1:35; Isaiah 7:14), and did not inherit original sin from Adam like everyone else does (Ps 51:5; Rom 5:12-19; Heb 2:14, 16-17; 4:15).2 But Rome goes further and claims that Mary was a virgin, not just before, but also during and after, the birth of Jesus—and not just as a matter of history, but a matter of divine faith necessary for salvation.

Perhaps surprisingly, in their polemics against Rome, the Protestant Reformers were generally not dogmatic about disproving the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and occasionally sought to refute arguments against it. Many accepted it as historically credible, yet denied that it was a matter of faith revealed in Scripture and necessary to be believed. In this respect, it is analogous to believing that Peter was crucified upside down: an event that occurred after the close of the canon and is historically credible, yet is not an article of faith to be received as the Word of God. With perhaps a few early exceptions,3 generally they seem to have held that: 1. The Scriptures do not definitively teach anything about Mary’s virginity after Christ’s birth. Only tenuous arguments may be inferred one way or the other.4 2. The defeater passages against PVM, when properly exegeted, are not inconsistent with it.5 The doctrine of Sola Scriptura needed to be protected from the abuse of a hermeneutic that would constrain biblical language solely to a narrow and rigid literalistic meaning.6 3. The testimony of the early church seems to hand it down as a credible historical fact. 4. There is therefore no need to be contentious over indifferent circumstances of history which have no doctrinal or practical impact on religion.7 It is wrong to make this into a conscience binding dogma for or against PVM either way.

In his commentary on Matthew 1:25, Matthew Henry briefly shows how the arguments against PVM are not exegetically sound and yet observes that “it is certain that it cannot be proved from scripture.” William Tyndale affirms PVM but states that it “is yet none article of our faith to be saved by. But we believe it with a story-faith,8 because we see no cause reasonable to think the contrary.”9 Theodore Beza writes that PVM may be affirmed, but that “there is nothing expressly found concerning this point in the holy Scriptures, neither doth it belong anywise unto the mystery of our salvation.”10 William Whitaker wrote, “Now, as to the Jesuit’s assertion, that it is an article of faith to believe the perpetual virginity of the blessed Mary, I say that Basil thought otherwise: for, in his homily on Christ’s nativity,11 he says that we should not curiously dispute upon this subject, but that it is enough to know that she had no children before Christ.”12 Observe how Samuel Rutherford characterizes perpetual virginity, among other unwritten traditions: “Because these vain doctrines are not in Scripture, they are the vain and sapless doctrines of men, and will-worship.”13 Samuel Willard was more skeptical, yet, while not thinking it important enough to spill much ink over, briefly remarked:

“Whether she remained a virgin afterwards is not material. The papists, who idolize virginity, maintain it, and some Protestants, in reverence, though I think over-superstitious, stand for it too. But all the ends of her virginity were attained when Christ was born of her, nor did any law enjoin her so to remain, nor had she any special precept for it, so far as is revealed. Besides, it could not be more dishonor to Christ to have brethren of the same mother, than kindred of the same family; but might be a farther testimony of his love to mankind… That his mother remained a virgin, in that respect that she had no carnal knowledge of a man before he was born is plain (Mat. 1:25). For anything else the Scripture is silent.”14

Rome allegorizes Old Testament prophecies in an attempt to supply biblical warrant for the perpetual virginity of Mary. Yet allegorization is neither a valid method of interpretation nor a sound way to establish doctrine, as Francis Turretin rightly observed:

“The passage concerning ‘the shut gate’ (Ezk. 44:2), through which none could enter except the prince, is falsely adduced here. Besides being allegorical and on that account not argumentative15 (as our opponents confess), it is foreign to the subject discussed here. For the building shown to the prophet was not a type of the blessed virgin, but a type of the universal church. The gate of heaven (closed on account of sin) lies open to the church and is unbarred by Christ, its High Priest and Prince.”16

Protestant Denial:

Some will say “the Reformers affirmed Mary’s perpetual virginity.” But we have to be clear that they accepted it as a probable historical occurrence, but not as a dogma or article of faith taught by Scripture nor as necessary to believe for salvation. This is a very vital distinction because today Rome binds it on consciences as dogma and anyone who denies it is anathema. And Roman Catholic apologists dishonestly twist the Reformers’ statements to guilt trip Protestants into swallowing the camel of Rome’s Marian dogmas and devotional practices.17 On the contrary, we believe the Bible clearly teaches:

“God alone is Lord of the conscience (Rom 14:4; James 4:12), and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship (Mat 15:9; 23:8-10; Acts 4:19; 5:29; 1 Cor 7:23; 2 Cor 1:24). So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience (Psa 5:1; Gal 1:10; 2:4-5; 5:1; Col 2:20-23); and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also (Isa 8:20; Jer 8:9; Hosea 5:11; John 4:22; Acts 17:11; Rom 10:17; 14:23; Rev 13:12, 16-17).”18

There are additional concepts that Rome imports into Mary’s virginity which do not comport with the Word of God and are unacceptable even if one holds that her perpetual virginity is historically credible.

1. When Rome professes Mary’s perpetual virginity, it does not only include her bodily virginity, but also what they call “virginity of the senses,” that is, that she was completely free of concupiscence.19 Thus, for the Church of Rome today, the dogma of perpetual virginity is inherently tied to its dogma of her immaculate conception.20 For Protestants and much of the early church, this is repugnant to Scripture and reason. The Protestant Reformers who thought, as a matter of history (not dogma), that she remained a virgin, nevertheless did not view Mary as sinless and free from concupiscence. We will address this when we come to the dogma of Mary’s Immaculate Conception.

2. When Roman dogma states that she remained a virgin “even in the act of giving birth,” they allege that she, being sinless, and not under the curse of Eve (Gen 3:16), was immune to the pangs of childbearing and that her reproductive organs did not undergo the physical changes that ordinarily occur when a woman gives birth.21 Some theologians described the birthing process “as light passes through glass.” This strongly resembles a Docetic22 perspective and finds its earliest expression in chapter 19 of the “Infancy Gospel of James,” which describes a great flash of light that gradually fades, revealing the infant Jesus while Mary remains physically intact.23 On the contrary, Protestants affirm the clear truth of Scripture that Jesus “opened” Mary’s womb (Luke 2:22-23), and we protect the full humanity of Jesus and deny any sort of supernatural birthing process. Turretin argues, “the nativity of Christ was ordinary” and denies that it involved a “penetration and existence of two bodies in one place.”24 The early church likewise taught:

“The birth was a real one; He was born from her and not, as the Gnostic Valentinus alleged, simply through her, as if she were a mere channel through which he passed (De carn. Chr. 20). Tertullian does not shrink from claiming (Ib. 23) that in the process Mary, who had conceived as a virgin, lost her virginity.”25

It is true that Mary remained a virgin after Christ was born, but not because of some miraculous birthing process, but rather due to the nature and meaning of virginity in itself. Virginity is not lost by giving birth, but rather by intercourse with a man.26 Petrus Van Mastricht rightly summarizes the matter:

“The birth itself was… certainly a true birth (Luke 1:35) and of the same kind as ours (Luke 2:6ff.; Ps. 22:9), through the opening of the womb (Num. 8:16; Luke 2:23), with pains and other things ordinary to childbirth, not only because the blessed Virgin on account of sin was liable to the same condition as Eve and other women (Gen. 3:16; John 16:21), but so that the Savior himself, as in all natural things, so also in this, might be made like us (Heb. 2:14 with 4:15).”27

Rome also contradicts itself when its theologians claim, and several Vatican approved Marian apparitions assert, that Mary is the Woman of Revelation 12. Contrary to the notion of a painless supernatural birth, verse 2 states “she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.” Assuming for the sake of argument Mary is the Woman described, this would undermine a key aspect of Rome’s dogma of perpetual virginity and Mary’s sinlessness.28

Further Corruptions Attached to this Dogma:

1. It is also problematic to suggest that the mere physical presence of Christ left an indelible mark of holiness on Mary’s womb such that Joseph could not be intimate with his wife without dishonoring her and God. As Aquinas argued, “this error” of believing Mary had marital relations with Joseph after Christ was born, “is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose ‘shrine’ was the virginal womb wherein He had formed the flesh of Christ: wherefore it was unbecoming that it should be desecrated by intercourse with man.”29 This reasoning clearly reflects the medieval view that sexual relations, even within marriage, is intrinsically sinful to some degree.30 Contrary to Scripture which clearly teaches that “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled” (Heb 13:4) and that spouses should enjoy each other’s bodies (Prov 5:15-19). And it is not very honorable to Mary and Joseph to suggest that they defrauded each other for at least 12 years against the Apostle’s admonition to abstain only “for a time” (1 Cor 7:5). Conjugal abstinence “must be for a season, therefore not perpetual. The proprieties of marriage are violated and one of its main purposes defeated by perpetual continence. It is apparent that a vow of continence in the married relation is an impiety of which Scripture knows nothing.”31 We are to flee sexual immorality because our “body is the temple of the Holy Ghost” (1 Cor 6:19), but marital relations are not sinful, unbecoming, or desecrating (Col 2:20-23; 1 Tim 4:3-5).

Lastly, this erroneous view consists of the same reasoning for holy places and relics, which is irrational and superstitious. How exactly would Jesus’ presence indelibly sanctify Mary’s womb? Holiness does not adhere to matter by contact, and is not a physical residue that can be shed and left behind, any more than evil can pollute something. Holiness is moral, covenantal, and personal, not materially and spatially bound. The Westminster Directory for Public Worship (1645) puts it succinctly, “No place is capable of any holiness, under pretence of whatsoever dedication or consecration; so neither is it subject to such pollution by any superstition formerly used, and now laid aside” (John 4:20-24; Acts 17:24-25; 1 Kings 8:27; 1 Cor 8:4; Rom 14:14). Matthew Poole clarifies the whole matter succinctly:

“The Holy Ghost had made use of the virgin for the production of the Messias; why after this her womb should be shut up, and Joseph take her home to be his wife, and not use her as such I cannot tell; nor yet what reproach it could be to Mary or to our Saviour, marriage being God’s ordinance, and the undefiled bed honourable. And those who think our Saviour would have been dishonoured in any others lying in the same bed after him, seem to forget how much he humbled himself in lying in that bed first, and then in a stable and a manger.”32

2. Rome commonly argues from Mary’s response to the angel’s announcement, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” (Luke 1:34), that she had taken a vow of virginity and was therefore morally incapable of consummating her marriage with Joseph.33 One biblical exegete responds that this “has no support in Luke or any other first-century or canonical scripture. Ginōskō is present tense; in Luke’s narrative, Mary does not say she is already or will be a dedicated virgin.”34 It is simply her polite way of saying that she isn’t having sexual relations with a man. Mastricht presses the rebuttal further: “not only does Scripture make entirely no mention of this [vow], but also it would be absurd to promise virginity to God and marriage to Joseph, because a married woman is not in possession of her own right (1 Cor 7:4).”35 Clerical vows of celibacy are also supported by this, against which Theodore Beza’s 1560 Confession strongly states:

“with St. Paul (1 Tim. 4:1-3), we call the forbidding of marriage and the consequent vow of perpetual virginity a devilish and diabolical doctrine, since it is invented flat against the Word of God (1 Cor. 7:2, 6; 1 Tim. 3:2-5; Titus 1:6; Cassiodorus, Historia ecclesiastica tripartite, Bk. 2, chap. 14; Apostolic Canons, canon 5; Council of Ancyra, Canon 10; Distinct. 26, citing the words of Innocent I and Augustine on Distinct. 27; Council of Constantinople [680-81], Canon 13).”36

In sum, the Word of God clearly teaches that Mary was a pure virgin when Christ was conceived and born. But whether she remained one for the rest of her life is inconclusive in holy Scripture, and is not relevant to the Christian life; therefore it is not a matter of dogma nor devotion.37 And Rome attempting to bind the conscience where the Word of God does not is an egregious affront to the majestic prerogative of God. Finally, we saw how Rome’s further embellishments attached to PVM are an affront to nature, reason, and the holy Word of God.

In our next post we will examine the third Marian dogma: Mary’s so-called Immaculate Conception.

  1. “This council was not ecumenical, but since it was conducted under the authority of Pope Martin I, and the teaching was given under pain of anathema, so its authority came to be regarded as very weighty. Pope Martin’s successor Agatho conveyed the impression that the decisions of the Lateran Council were definitive, infallible and binding the faith.” (Paul Haffner, The Mystery of Mary (2004), p. 146). ↩︎
  2. “With respect to our Lord’s being born of a Virgin, this is an evidence of a holy and immaculate conception and birth: For these two consequences follow from his mother’s virginity. 1st, That our Surety was not represented in Adam’s covenant, since he was not born according to the law of nature, and consequently was not liable to the imputation of Adam’s sin. 2dly, That he could not be considered as existing in Adam, when Adam sinned; for he was not born by virtue of that blessing which God pronounced on marriage before the fell, and which was annexed to the old covenant, “Be fruitful and multiply;”—but by virtue of a new promise subsequent to the fall, in which he is denominated “the seed of the woman,” and appointed the second Adam, the root and head of the new creation.” (Herman Witsius, Sacred Dissertations on the Apostles Creed, Dissertation 14, Sect. 39, vol. 2, p. 28). ↩︎
  3. It took a little while into the Reformation before Christians became more comfortable departing from PVM or thinking of Mary and Joseph as an actual married couple being intimate. I counted 16 confessions that allude to Mary’s perpetual virginity, out of the total 127 in the 4 volume “Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries,” and the frequency goes down sharply over time (and some are later versions of the same confession, which could be seen as a double count). That’s only about 12.6%. The only citations that appear relatively later are in places where the Reformation itself arrived relatively later (e.g. eastern Europe) or where it was clearly intended to be irenic and compromising between conflicting groups. This of course does not give a comprehensive picture of how unanimous PVM was in the Reformed branch of Protestantism, but it seems to be a good benchmark to start with since these are confessions carrying more authority than a single theologian’s writings. ↩︎
  4. “It is sufficient for us that we are taught by the holy Scriptures (Mt. 1; Lk. 1) that Christ was conceived and born of a virgin. And above that, to affirm that the blessed Virgin was joined with man in fellowship of the flesh, it were rash and presumptuous; for seeing there is nothing spoken thereof in the holy Scriptures, nor yet is the same likely; why (in God’s name) should we either believe it or affirm it? And contrariwise, that she abode perpetually a virgin; forsomuch as the holy Scriptures do not by express words avouch the same, it is not to be admitted among those things which must of necessity be believed such as are the things expressly contained in the holy Scriptures.” (Peter Martyr Vermigli, Common Places III.iii.2-3, p. 58). ↩︎
  5. In response to the argument that Jesus being the “firstborn” implies more children see Matthew Henry’s commentary on Matthew 1:25. On texts referring to Jesus’ brothers and sisters, see William Perkins on Galatians 1:19 (Commentary on Galatians, Works 2.64). On Matthew 1:25, that Joseph “knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son,” see John Gill or Matthew Poole’s commentary. ↩︎
  6. Henry Bullinger, Decades V.ix.437-8. ↩︎
  7. Regarding the “great disturbances” and copious debates in church history about Mary’s perpetual virginity, John Calvin wrote: “Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist as to what took place after the birth of Christ… What took place afterwards the historian [i.e. Matthew] does not inform us… Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.” (Com. Mat. 1:25). ↩︎
  8. Turretin likewise states, “This is not expressly declared in Scripture, but yet is piously believed with human faith from the consent of the ancient church” (IET XIII.xi.21, vol. 2, p. 345). And William Perkins, “we make not this opinion any article of our belief” (A Golden Chain, ch. 18, Works VI, p. 54). And Richard Baxter, “the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary…is no article of divine faith, but of human-ecclesiastical.” (The Safe Religion: Three Disputations for the Reformed Catholic Religion against Popery, p. 132). ↩︎
  9. The Whole Works of W. Tyndall, John Frith, and Doct. Barnes, Three Worthy Martyrs… (London, 1573), Tracts, ‘An Answer Made unto Sir Thomas More’s Dialogue, Made by William Tyndale, 1530’, ‘The Solutions and Answers Made unto Mr. More’s First Book’, ch. 25, p. 286. ↩︎
  10. Theodore Beza, Propositions and Principles of Divinity… (Edinburgh, 1591), Ch. 42, ‘Principles Concerning the Nativity, Circumcision and Baptism of Christ’, p. 109. ↩︎
  11. Basil of Caesarea, Patrologia Graeca 31, 1458-1476. ↩︎
  12. William Whitaker, Disputations on Holy Scripture, p. 539. ↩︎
  13. Samuel Rutherford, The Divine Right of Church Government (1646), Introduction, sect. 2, pp. 22-23. ↩︎
  14. Samuel Willard, Complete Body of Divinity (1726), Sermon 82, p. 299. ↩︎
  15. This principle was traditionally expressed as, “theologia symbolica non est argumentativa.” Symbolic theology is not the basis of argument. “Theology that is the result of symbolical or allegorical reasoning cannot provide the foundation or presupposition of a new argument. Proper argumentation begins from simple, literal foundations. (Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin & Greek Theological Terms (2nd Ed.), p. 365). As Aquinas wrote, “Only the literal sense is used for the destruction of error, since the other senses are through similitudes and there cannot be argumentation by means of terms expressive of similitudes. That is why Dionysius says in the Letter to Titus that symbolic theology is not argumentative.” (Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Sentences, Q. 1, Article 5). ↩︎
  16. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology XIII.xi.17, vol. 2, p. 344. ↩︎
  17. E.g. The Coming Home Network International, The Protestant Reformers on Mary (YouTube). Matt Fradd, Protestant “Reformers” PRAISE The Virgin Mary (YouTube). Notice also how they use statements from very early in the Reformation when the Reformers themselves were still evaluating Roman accretions in light of Scripture. ↩︎
  18. Westminster Confession of Faith 20.2. ↩︎
  19. Concupiscence: “Lust; unlawful or irregular desire of sexual pleasure. In a more general sense, the coveting of carnal things, or an irregular appetite for worldly good; inclination for unlawful enjoyments.” (Webster, 1828). ↩︎
  20. Paul Haffner, The Mystery of Mary (2004), p. 134. Cf. CCC 493-4. “The unique privilege of the Immaculate Conception influenced the whole development of the spiritual life of the young woman of Nazareth. Filled with the Lord’s exceptional gifts from the beginning of her life, Mary was oriented to a total gift of self, body and soul, to God, in the offering of herself as a virgin.” (Haffner, ibid., p. 138). Moreover, some attempt “to prove the incorruptibility of Our Lady’s body from her perpetual virginity. Mgr. Pohle says: ‘The incorruptibility of Our Lady’s raised body may also be inferred from her perpetual virginity. There is an inseparable causal connection between incorruptio virginalis and incorruptio corporalis; one is the fruitage of the other.’ And he advances in support the testimony of St. Andrew of Crete: ‘As the womb (of Mary) was in no wise corrupted by parturition, so her flesh did not perish after death.’” (Raymond Winch & Victor Bennett, The Assumption of Our Lady and Catholic Theology (1950), pp. 73-4). ↩︎
  21. “it follows that Mary’s birth of Jesus would be a painless experience, since pain in childbirth is a punitive effect of original sin (cf. Gen 3:15). Mary, being free from the penalty of original sin due to her Immaculate Conception, would likewise be free from the penalty of a painful process of childbirth.” (Dr. Mark Miravalle, The Miraculous and Painless Birth of Jesus Christ, FN 3, 29 Jan 2019; excerpt from Introduction to Mary: The Heart of Marian Doctrine and Devotion, Queenship, 2006). ↩︎
  22. Docetism is the heresy that Jesus was not fully human, but superhuman or spiritual and not physical; it often included the idea that Jesus was born through Mary rather than from her. “Tertullian, in his attempt to counter the doctrine of Docetists, Marcionites and Gnostics, who all undermined the humanity of Christ, presented the birth of Christ as simply normal, often with brutal realism: ‘She was a virgin, so far as her husband was concerned; she was not a virgin, so far as her childbearing was concerned.’” (Paul Haffner, The Mystery of Mary, p. 151). Haffner admits (p. 158) that “a delicate balance is required” between “a real yet miraculous birth… in order to dispel any suspicion of Docetism.” Once again, despite Rome’s fanciful and scrupulous nuance, they’re not beating the charges. ↩︎
  23. “The perpetual virginity, like virginity in partu (birth without breaking the hymen) and other features of Marian piety (the dormition / bodily assumption narratives) are rooted in Gnostic Christianity and from as early as the second century. This is certainly indicated especially by the Protoevangelium of James, which was widely copied and circulated.” (David Lyle Jeffrey, Luke, Brazos Commentary (2012), p. 28). ↩︎
  24. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology XIII.xi.16, vol. 2, p. 344. ↩︎
  25. JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p. 150. ↩︎
  26. Mary “in giving birth did not lose her virginity, inasmuch as it cannot be lost or injured except by intercourse with a man.” (Petrus Van Mastricht, Theoretical-Practical Theology 1.5.10.9, vol. 4, p. 301). In the mid-twentieth century, several Roman theologians sought to revise Rome’s in partu doctrine by affirming an ordinary, physically normal birth, often including pain and bodily rupture. These revisions prompted a formal warning from the Vatican in 1960, admonishing that such treatments contradict the Church’s doctrinal tradition and instructing that further publications on the matter be prohibited (cf. Paul Haffner, The Mystery of Mary (2004), pp. 157-8). An example of Rome doubling down on false, irrational doctrine, and stifling any dissenting voices within its ranks. ↩︎
  27. Petrus Van Mastricht, Theoretical-Practical Theology 1.5.10.11, vol. 4, p. 302. ↩︎
  28. For a thorough treatment, see Timothy Kauffman, Quite Contrary: A Biblical Reconsideration of the Apparitions of Mary, pp. 41-53. ↩︎
  29. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III Q. 28, A. 3. Regrettably, even some Reformed theologians in an effort to be irenic, fell into similar views: “It is probable that the womb in which our Savior received the auspices of life (whence he entered into the world, as from a temple) was so consecrated and sanctified by so great a guest that she always remained untouched by man; nor did Joseph ever cohabit with her.” (Turretin, IET vol. 2, p. 345). ↩︎
  30. “Many of the most enthusiastic promoters of the cult of the Virgin have been celibate male clerics. Moreover, the Church has from the earliest times consistently and explicitly taught the superiority of the virginal state over that of marriage, and it has ever been held that no sexual acts, even those of married people, are entirely without sin. In endorsing all this the cult of the Virgin Mother has undoubtedly played a part.” (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 21). Origin castrating himself is an infamous example. Augustine’s speculative remarks in City of God 14.26 about how, before the Fall, Adam would have impregnated Eve without having any lust further exemplify this ascetic tendency. The passage is so strange and uncouth that it is often left untranslated. Phillip Schaff writes, “The rise of monasticism [in the Post-Nicene period] supplied the development of Mariology a further motive in the enhanced estimate of virginity, without which no true holiness could be conceived. Hence the virginity of Mary, which is unquestioned for the part of her life before the birth of Christ, came to be extended to her whole life, and her marriage with the aged Joseph to be regarded as a mere protectorate, and, therefore, only a nominal marriage.” (History of the Christian Church, vol. 3, sect. 81, p. 416). “Most men have the capacity for chivalrous sentiment and it is understandable that for a celibate clergy Mary, as Our Lady, should be an outlet and focal point for this. (Waldo Smith, Translator’s Preface to Giovanni Miegge, The Virgin Mary: The Roman Catholic Marian Doctrine, p. 11). ↩︎
  31. John Murray, Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics, p. 62. ↩︎
  32. Matthew Poole, Commentary on Matthew 1:25. ↩︎
  33. Paul Haffner, The Mystery of Mary (2004), pp. 136-7. ↩︎
  34. David Lyle Jeffrey, Luke, Brazos Commentary (2012), pp. 27-28. ↩︎
  35. Petrus Van Mastricht, Theoretical-Practical Theology 1.5.10.4, vol. 4, p. 297. ↩︎
  36. Theodore Beza’s Confession (1560), 5.39, cited in James T. Dennison, Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries, vol. 2, p. 327. ↩︎
  37. Although, the plain reading of Scripture, the obligations of marriage (1 Cor 7), and the baseless & superstitious reasons for perpetual virginity may most naturally lead one to surmise that her marriage after Jesus’ birth was no different than any other marriage. ↩︎

Leave a comment