In his book on Jerome, J.N.D. Kelly argued that Jerome, when he wrote Against Heldivius (written around 383), did not believe in the preservation of Mary’s physical virginity after the birth of Jesus:
A point which is
often overlooked is that, while fiercely defending the virginity of Mary in her
conception and after the birth of Jesus, Jerome was not yet ready to support
the view soon to be accepted in the west that she had retained her virginity in
the process of parturition, i.e. that the act was a miraculous one involving no
opening in her womb. (J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and
Controversies [London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd., 1975], 106)
In a footnote to the above, Kelly supports
this claim:
Cf. the realistic
description of the gestation and birth in Against Helvidius 18; also in Letter
22, 39. Many years, doubtless influenced by Augustine and Ambrose (cf. esp. Ep.
42 sent by the latter and in his suffragans to Pope Siricus in 390), Jerome
came to teach the virginity of Mary in partu: cf. Dialogue against
the Pelagians 2, 4. (Ibid., 106 n. 10, emphasis in bold added)
Here are the quotations from the relevant
texts:
There are things
which, in your extreme ignorance, you had never read, and therefore you
neglected the whole range of Scripture and employed your madness in outraging
the Virgin, like the man in the story who being unknown to everybody and
finding that he could devise no good deed by which to gain renown, burned the
temple of Diana: and when no one revealed the sacrilegious act, it is said that
he himself went up and down proclaiming that he was the man who had applied the
fire. The rulers of Ephesus were curious to know what made him do this thing,
whereupon he replied that if he could not have fame for good deeds, all men
should give him credit for bad ones. Grecian history relates the incident. But
you do worse. You have set on fire the temple of the Lord’s body, you have
defiled the sanctuary of the Holy Spirit from which you are determined to make
a team of four brethren and a heap of sisters come forth. In a word, joining in
the chorus of the Jews, you say, “Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his
mother called Mary? and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas?
and his sisters, are they not all with us? The word all would not be used if
there were not a crowd of them.” Pray tell me, who, before you appeared, was
acquainted with this blasphemy? who thought the theory worth two-pence? You have
gained your desire, and are become notorious by crime. For myself who am your
opponent, although we live in the same city, I don’t know, as the saying is,
whether you are white or black. I pass over faults of diction which abound in
every book you write. I say not a word about your absurd introduction. Good
heavens! I do not ask for eloquence, since, having none yourself, you applied
for a supply of it to your brother Craterius. I do not ask for grace of style,
I look for purity of soul: for with Christians it is the greatest of solecisms
and of vices of style to introduce anything base either in word or action. I am
come to the conclusion of my argument. I will deal with you as though I had as
yet prevailed nothing; and you will find yourself on the horns of a dilemma. It
is clear that our Lord’s brethren bore the name in the same way that Joseph was
called his father: “I and thy father sought thee sorrowing.” It was His mother
who said this, not the Jews. The Evangelist himself relates that His father and
His mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning Him, and
there are similar passages which we have already quoted in which Joseph and
Mary are called his parents. Seeing that you have been foolish enough to
persuade yourself that the Greek manuscripts are corrupt, you will perhaps
plead the diversity of readings. I therefore come to the Gospel of John, and
there it is plainly written, “Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We
have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of
Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” You will certainly find this in your manuscript.
Now tell me, how is Jesus the son of Joseph when it is clear that He was
begotten of the Holy Ghost? Was Joseph His true father? Dull as you are, you
will not venture to say that. Was he His reputed father? If so, let the same
rule be applied to them when they are called brethren, that you apply to Joseph
when he is called father. (Against Helvidius, 18 [NPNF2 6:343])
The things that I
have here set forth will seem hard to her who loves not Christ. But one who has
come to regard all the splendor of the world as off-scourings, and to hold all
things under the sun as vain, that he may win Christ; one who has died with his
Lord and risen again, and has crucified the flesh with its affections and
lusts; he will boldly cry out: “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?
Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or
peril, or sword?” and again: “I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor
angels, nor principalities nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from
the love of God which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord.”
For our salvation the
Son of God is made the Son of Man. Nine months He awaits His birth in the womb,
undergoes the most revolting conditions, and comes forth covered with blood, to
be swathed in rags and covered with caresses. He who shuts up the world in His
fist is contained in the narrow limits of a manger. I say nothing of the thirty
years during which he lives in obscurity, satisfied with the poverty of his
parents. When He is scourged He holds His peace; when He is crucified, He prays
for His crucifiers. “What shall I render unto the Lord for all His benefits
towards me? I will take the cup of salvation and call upon the name of the
Lord. Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints.” The only
fitting return that we can make to Him is to give blood for blood; and, as we
are redeemed by the blood of Christ, gladly to lay down our lives for our
Redeemer. What saint has ever won his crown without first contending for it?
Righteous Abel is murdered. Abraham is in danger of losing his wife. And, as I
must not enlarge my book unduly, seek for yourself: you will find that all holy
men have suffered adversity. Solomon alone lived in luxury and perhaps it was
for this reason that he fell. For “whom the Lord loveth, He chasteneth, and
scourgeth every son whom He receiveth.” Which is best—for a short time to do
battle, to carry stakes for the palisades, to bear arms, to faint under heavy
bucklers, that ever afterwards we may rejoice as victors? or to become slaves
forever, just because we cannot endure for a single hour? (Epistle 22,
39 [NPNF2 6:40])
