in Joh. n. 1. 416 THIRD PERIOD. A.D. 311-590. to her on one or two occasions (John ii. 3 ; Matt. xiii. 47) ma- ternal vanitj, also doubt and anxiety, and make this the sword (Luke ii. 35) which, under the cross, passed through her soul.' In addition to this typological antithesis of Mary and Eve, the rise of monasticism supplied the development of Mariology a further motive in the enhanced estimate of virginity, without which no true holiness could be conceived. Hence the vir- ginity 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. The passage. Matt. i. 25, which, according to its obvious literal meaning (the ew? and vr /> w t 6 ro/co? °), seems to favor the op- posite view, was overlooked or otherwise explained ; and the brothers of Jesus,^ who appear fom-teen or fifteen times in the gospel history and always in close connection with His mother, were regarded not as sons of Mary subsequently born, but either as sons of Joseph by a former marriage (the view of Epiphanius), or, agreeably to the wider Hebrew use of the term nx , as cousins of Jesus (Jerome).* It was felt — and this feeling is shared by many devout Protestants — to be irrecon- cilable with her dignity and the dignity of Christ, that ordinary children should afterward proceed from the same w^omb out of v.hich the Saviour of the world was born. The n2ime perjpetua virgo, ael irap^^evo^, was thenceforth a peculiar and inalienable ' Tertullian, De came Christi, c. V; Origen, in Luc. Horn. 17; Basil, Ep. 260; Chrysostom, Horn. 44 in Matt, and Horn. 21 in Job. ; Cyril Alex. In Joann. 1. xii. ' The reading irpwr^TOKos in Matt. i. 25 is somewhat doubtful, but it is certainly genuine in Luke ii. 7. ^ They are always called aSe\(poi (four in number, James, Joseph or Joses, Simon, and Jude) and a5e\<pal (at least two), Matt. xii. 46, 47 ; xiii. 55, 56 ; Mark iii. 31, 32 ; vi. 3 ; John vii. 3, 5, 10 ; Acts i. 14, etc., but nowhere oceil'io/, cousins, a term well known to the N. T. vocabulary (Col. iv. 10), or irvyyevits, kinsmen (Mark vi. 4; Luke i. 36, 58; ii. 44 ; John xviii. 26; Acts x. 24), or moi r^r a5e\<ff)s, sister\<t sons (Acts xxiii. 26). This speaks strongly against the cousin-theory. * Comp. on this whole comphcated question of the brothers of Christ and the connected question of James, the author's treatise on Jakobus und die Briider des Herm, Berlin, 1842, lus Hist, of the Apostolic Church, 2d ed. § 95 (p. 383 of the Leipzig ed. ; p. 378 of the English), and his article on the Brethren of Christ in the Bibliotheca Sacra