Chapter XXIII.—Simeon’s “Sign that Should Be Contradicted,” Applied to the Heretical Gainsaying of the True Birth of Christ. One of the Heretics’ Paradoxes Turned in Support of Catholic Truth.

We acknowledge, however, that the prophetic declaration of Simeon is fulfilled, which he spoke over the recently-born Saviour:312    Literally, “Lord.” “Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel, and for a sign that shall be spoken against.”313    Luke ii. 34. The sign (here meant) is that of the birth of Christ, according to Isaiah: “Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son.”314    Isa. vii. 14. We discover, then, what the sign is which is to be spoken against—the conception and the parturition of the Virgin Mary, concerning which these sophists315    Academici isti: “this school of theirs.” say: “She a virgin and yet not a virgin bare, and yet did not bear;” just as if such language, if indeed it must be uttered, would not be more suitable even for ourselves to use! For “she bare,” because she produced offspring of her own flesh and “yet she did not bear,” since she produced Him not from a husband’s seed; she was “a virgin,” so far as (abstinence) from a husband went, and “yet not a virgin,” as regards her bearing a child. There is not, however, that parity of reasoning which the heretics affect: in other words it does not follow that for the reason “she did not bear,”316    i.e. “Because she produced not her son from her husband’s seed.” she who was “not a virgin” was “yet a virgin,” even because she became a mother without any fruit of her own womb. But with us there is no equivocation, nothing twisted into a double sense.317    Defensionem. Light is light; and darkness, darkness; yea is yea; and nay, nay; “whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.”318    Matt. v. 37. She who bare (really) bare; and although she was a virgin when she conceived, she was a wife319    Nupsit. when she brought forth her son. Now, as a wife, she was under the very law of “opening the womb,”320    Nupsit ipsa patefacti corporis lege. wherein it was quite immaterial whether the birth of the male was by virtue of a husband’s co-operation or not;321    De vi masculi admissi an emissi. it was the same sex322    i.e. “The male.” that opened her womb. Indeed, hers is the womb on account of which it is written of others also: “Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord.”323    Ex. xiii. 2; Luke ii. 23. For who is really holy but the Son of God? Who properly opened the womb but He who opened a closed one?324    Clausam: i.e. a virgin’s. But it is marriage which opens the womb in all cases. The virgin’s womb, therefore, was especially325    Magis. opened, because it was especially closed.  Indeed326    Utique. she ought rather to be called not a virgin than a virgin, becoming a mother at a leap, as it were, before she was a wife.  And what must be said more on this point? Since it was in this sense that the apostle declared that the Son of God was born not of a virgin, but “of a woman,” he in that statement recognised the condition of the “opened womb” which ensues in marriage.327    Nuptialem passionem. We read in Ezekiel of “a heifer328    Epiphanius (Hær. xxx. 30) quotes from the apocryphal Ezekiel this passage: Τέξεται ἡ δάμαλις, καὶ ἐροῦσιν—οὐ τέτοκεν. So Clem. Alex. Stromata, vii. Oehler. which brought forth, and still did not bring forth.” Now, see whether it was not in view of your own future contentions about the womb of Mary, that even then the Holy Ghost set His mark upon you in this passage; otherwise329    Ceterum. He would not, contrary to His usual simplicity of style (in this prophet), have uttered a sentence of such doubtful import, especially when Isaiah says, “She shall conceive and bear a son.”330    Isa. vii. 14.

CAPUT XXIII.

Sed agnoscimus adimpleri propheticam vocem Simeonis, 0790A super adhuc recentem infantem Dominum pronuntiatam (Luc. II): Ecce hic positus est in ruinam et suscitationem multorum in Israel, et in signum quod contradicetur. Signum enim nativitatis Christi, secundum Esaiam: Propterea dabit vobis Dominus ipse signum: ecce virgo concipiet in utero, et pariet filium. Agnoscimus ergo signum contradicibile, conceptum et partum virginis Mariae; de quo Academici isti, Peperit, et non peperit; Virgo, et non virgo: quasi non, etsi ita dicendum esset, a nobis magis dici conveniret. Peperit enim, quae ex sua carne; et non peperit, quae non ex viri semine. Et virgo, quantum a viro; non virgo, quantum a partu. Non tamen ut ideo, peperit, et non peperit; et ideo, Virgo, quae non virgo, quia non de visceribus suis 0790B mater. Sed apud nos nihil dubium, nec retortum in ancipitem defensionem. Lux, lux; et tenebrae, tenebrae, et Est, est; et, Non, non. Quod amplius, hoc a malo est . Peperit, quae peperit. Et si virgo concepit, in partu suo nupsit , ipsa patefacti corporis lege , in quo nihil interfuit, de vi masculi admissi, an emissi, idem illud sexus resignaverit . Haec denique vulva est propter quam et de aliis scriptum est: Omne masculinum adaperiens vulvam, sanctum vocabitur Domino. Quis vere sanctus, quam Dei Filius? Quis proprie vulvam adaperuit, quam qui clausam patefecit? Caeterum, omnibus nuptiae patefaciunt. Itaque magis patefacta est, quia magis erat clausa. Utique magis non virgo dicenda est, quam virgo, saltu quodam mater ante, quam 0790C nupta. Et quid ultra de hoc retractandum est, cum hac ratione Apostolus, non ex virgine, sed ex muliere editum Filium Dei pronuntiavit, agnovit adapertae vulvae nuptialem passionem? Legimus quidem apud Ezechielem de vacca illa quae peperit, et non peperit. Sed videte, ne vos jam tunc providens Spiritus Sanctus notarit hac voce, disceptaturos super uterum Mariae. Caeterum, non contra illam suam simplicitatem, pronuntiasset dubitative, Esaia dicente (Is., VI): Concipiet, et pariet.