Chromatius On Opponents Of Mary's Perpetual Virginity

Chromatius of Aquileia, who lived in the fourth and fifth centuries, wrote:

"But concerning what the evangelist said, 'And he did not know her till she brought forth a son' [Matt 1:25], several foolish people are accustomed to stir up a question, thinking that after the Lord's birth saint Mary was united with Joseph." (Thomas Scheck, trans., Chromatius Of Aquileia: Sermons And Tractates On Matthew [Mahwah, New Jersey: The Newman Press, 2018], approximate Kindle location 3051)

Though Chromatius could be discussing opponents of Mary's perpetual virginity in general, he seems to be limiting his comments to the interpretation of Matthew 1:25 instead. Either way, his use of the term "several" is significant. There surely were some people who held the view in question with whom Chromatius wasn't familiar. So, the total number has to be higher than the several Chromatius refers to. And if he's only commenting on a particular interpretation of Matthew 1:25, then the total number who rejected the perpetual virginity of Mary, whether on the basis of Matthew 1:25 or on other grounds, must have been higher still. Advocates of the perpetual virginity of Mary often say or suggest that only one or two individuals or some other extremely small number denied her perpetual virginity before the Reformation (only Helvidius, only Tertullian and Helvidius, etc.). Chromatius' comment suggests the number was higher.

And we have far more than Chromatius' comment to go by. See here and here, for example for discussions of the evidence that many individuals rejected Mary's perpetual virginity for hundreds of years before the Reformation, beginning in the first century and continuing into the medieval era. Rejection of her perpetual virginity seems to have been the more popular view during the earliest generations of church history.

Was Tertullian the only early opponent of infant baptism?

I often see advocates of infant baptism referring to the history of credobaptism as if Tertullian is the only credobaptist source or the only source we know of who was somewhat close to credobaptism in the earliest centuries, the only prominent source early on, or some such thing. Sometimes they won't even mention Tertullian, as if nobody opposed infant baptism before the Reformation. But the evidence suggests that credobaptism was the only or dominant view during the earliest generations of church history. Many church fathers and other individuals other than Tertullian seem to have been closer to credopaptism than paedobaptism. For an overview, including patristic and medieval sources before and after Tertullian, see here. And here's one on Aristides, a pre-Tertullian source. They give a variety of reasons for waiting until after infancy for baptism, such as waiting until the person baptized has an understanding of and has professed the faith and the importance of having the person baptized choose to participate in baptism. The notion that everybody who delayed baptism did so only or primarily to have his baptism cover more sins later in life is demonstrably false.

The Debate Between Joe Heschmeyer And Ryan Hemelaar On Baptism And Salvation

The large majority of what I would argue regarding both the Biblical evidence and the extrabiblical evidence didn't come up in the debate. See here for a collection of resources outlining my views on many of the relevant issues. I'll say a small amount about some Biblical topics that are relevant to other points I want to make, but my focus here will be on the extrabiblical sources.

Gospel titles in only a small number of early manuscripts?

Some recent skeptical treatments of the authorship of the gospels that I've come across have raised the objection that only a small number of our gospel manuscripts from the earliest centuries include a gospel title (e.g., "The Gospel According To John"). I want to address some problems with that objection.

The Apostolic Documents In The Apostolic Churches

My last post cited some comments from Tertullian in the process of discussing the evidence for Paul's authorship of Ephesians. I want to expand that quote, to include more of what surrounds it, since what Tertullian says has significant implications for the authorship attributions of other Biblical documents as well:

"To sum up: if it is agreed that that has the greater claim to truth which has the earlier priority, and that has the priority which has been so since the beginning, and that has been since the beginning which was from the apostles, there will be no less agreement that that was handed down by the apostles which is held sacred and inviolate in the churches the apostles founded. Let us consider what milk it was that Paul gave the Corinthians to drink, by the line of what rule the Galatians were again made to walk straight, what the Philippians, the Thessalonians, and the Ephesians are given to read, what words are spoken also by our near neighbours the Romans, to whom Peter and Paul left as legacy the gospel, sealed moreover with their own blood. We have also churches which are nurselings of John's: for although Marcion disallows his Apocalypse, yet the succession of their bishops, when traced back to its origin, will be found to rest in John as originator. In the same way also the legitimacy of the other churches is to be tested. So I affirm that among them— and I am not now speaking only of apostolic churches, but of all those which are in alliance with them in the fellowship of the mystery—that gospel of Luke which we at this moment retain has stood firm since its earliest publication, whereas Marcion's is to most people not even known, and by those to whom it is known is also by the same reason condemned." (Against Marcion, 4:5)

Belief In Justification Apart From Baptism In Tertullian's Day

Gavin Ortlund recently said that he'll be having a discussion with Trent Horn about baptism during the last week of this month. I don't know which particular baptismal issues they'll be discussing, but I want to address a topic related to baptism and justification that probably will be relevant.

I've recommended Gavin's material on baptism in the past, such as here and here. He makes a lot of good points. For example, he's mentioned that in his work as a pastor, he's encountered many people who seem to have been regenerated prior to their baptism. However, as my two posts just linked explain, there are some significant arguments that I haven't yet seen Gavin bring up in these discussions. I want to expand on one of those here. This is just one line of evidence among many others for justification apart from baptism. But it's one that's been neglected. I've discussed other extrabiblical evidence against baptismal justification, such as in Josephus and Clement of Rome, but what I want to do here is address some material in Tertullian. I've brought it up before, briefly, but I want to address it in more depth than I have in the past.

How Much Did Papias Influence Gospel Authorship Attributions?

I just had an exchange on Facebook regarding the popular claim that a large percentage of ancient gospel authorship attributions, if not all of them, were based on the testimony of Papias. I'll indent the other person's comments and leave mine without indentation.

Jason, I hope you don't mind me asking, but I was wondering if in your studies on Origen of Alexandria you ever came across discussions of what sources were behind Origen's Gospel attributions. I checked Monte Shank's book on Papian fragments and it looks like Origen never mentioned Papias anywhere in his writings - so it seems like Origen was naming the Gospels independent of Papias. Thanks for any information you may be able to relay.

A Caution About Ben Shapiro's New PragerU Video And Book

You can view the video here. It centers around the Athens/Jerusalem distinction made by Tertullian. I haven't read Shapiro's book, though I did look up his citation of Tertullian there and read the surrounding context. I can't evaluate his book as a whole, but the video is misleading, as is the portion of the book I read. Shapiro does a lot of good work, and I suspect the book as a whole has a lot of good qualities. But the video is problematic, and what little I've seen of the book raises some concerns about it.

I wrote an article several years ago about misrepresentations of Tertullian's comments on Athens and Jerusalem and another passage in Tertullian that's often misrepresented. Go here to find an index of responses to many other misconceptions about the church fathers, including other ones about the supposed intellectual negligence of the early Christians. And here's an article I wrote about the intellectual nature of Christianity and the importance of apologetics.

It’s time to think about Ash Wednesday and Lent

Giving things up for the Kingdom?

Just a reminder: that time of year is upon us: the “liturgically-minded” all want to “give up things for Lent” and such. So you’ll be seeing articles about Ash Wednesday and Lent this week, including those from Christians. The linked article here is from Christianity Today, which ought to know better.

Such suggestions among Christians border on the ridiculous. We should remember Paul’s admonitions, such as:

Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith—just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”? Galatians 3:2-6)

And:

If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh (Colossians 2:20-23).

Instead, Ash Wednesday is a 10th century invention, and not one “Lenten” practice can be traced to the New Testament. The list here, compiled by Yves Congar in his “The Meaning of Tradition”, places many of these rituals well into the fourth century and later:

— The Lenten fast (Irenaeus, Jerome, Leo)

— Certain baptismal rites (Tertullian, Origen, Basil, Jerome, Augustine)

— Certain Eucharistic rites (Origen, Cyprian, Basil)

— Infant baptism (Origen, Augustine)

— Prayer facing the East (Origen, Basil)

— Validity of baptism by heretics (pope Stephen, Augustine)

— Certain rules for the election and consecration of bishops (Cyprian)

— The sign of the cross (Basil, who lived 329-379)

— Prayer for the dead (note, this is not “prayers to the dead) (John Chrysostom)

— Various liturgical fests and rites (Basil, Augustine)

From Yves Congar, in his “The Meaning of Tradition,” (and derived from his scholarly “Tradition and Traditions” and a textbook for Roman Catholic seminarians), (pg. 37).

Again, while such practices as Lenten fasts and the sign of the cross are still practiced, many of these “apostolic traditions” – really those extending earlier than the 4th century – such as prayer facing east, and Cyprian’s rules for electing and consecrating bishops, actually find themselves in the dustbin of history.


Even those for which there is attestation became exaggerated over time. The “Lenten Fast” mentioned with respect to Irenaeus, above, for example, originally only was “40 hours”:

Closer examination of the ancient sources, however, reveals a more gradual historical development. While fasting before Easter seems to have been ancient and widespread, the length of that fast varied significantly from place to place and across generations. In the latter half of the second century, for instance, Irenaeus of Lyons (in Gaul) and Tertullian (in North Africa) tell us that the preparatory fast lasted one or two days, or forty hours—commemorating what was believed to be the exact duration of Christ’s time in the tomb. By the mid-third century, Dionysius of Alexandria speaks of a fast of up to six days practiced by the devout in his see; and the Byzantine historian Socrates relates that the Christians of Rome at some point kept a fast of three weeks. Only following the Council of Nicea in 325 a.d. did the length of Lent become fixed at forty days, and then only nominally. Accordingly, it was assumed that the forty-day Lent that we encounter almost everywhere by the mid-fourth century must have been the result of a gradual lengthening of the pre-Easter fast by adding days and weeks to the original one- or two-day observance. This lengthening, in turn, was thought necessary to make up for the waning zeal of the post-apostolic church and to provide a longer period of instruction for the increasing numbers of former pagans thronging to the font for Easter baptism. Such remained the standard theory for most of the twentieth century.

We simply should not adopt fourth century practices as if it enables us to repent better than or more sincerely than simply to bow our heads and “with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.”

God is not some kind of loon

In response to my comment here, Michael Liccione said:

What you’ve done is interpret some biblical texts and present that as evidence that the Bible supports your interpretive paradigm (IP) over against the Catholic. Now I could reply by offering my own, Catholic interpretation of the texts you select. But I can find no good reason to so. For when the very question at issue is which IP, the conservative-Protestant or the Catholic, supplies a principled way to distinguish divine revelation from human theological opinion, neither of us can answer the question just by offering our own favored interpretation of selected biblical texts. You have interpreted, and I would be interpreting, the texts already in terms of our own respective IPs, which begs the question and gets us nowhere. So it is incumbent on anyone debating said question to argue, on grounds independent of the particular biblical interpretations he adopts, that his IP has a principled distinction between divine revelation and human theological opinion, so that by deploying it, he at least has an argument that his particular interpretations are reliable expressions of divine revelation, not just opinions. But if you deny that you or anybody else enjoys the gift of infallibility, and thus admit that you could be wrong, you have no way of making that argument.

For several years now, I’ve been waiting for you to engage the essentially philosophical issue I’ve posed for you. If and when you do, our discussions might move forward.

I responded:

Your appeal to “philosophical issues” is an evasion, and your concept of “interpretive paradigm” is a subterfuge.

Here’s why.

Consider the world of math. Math has rules, and you can, if you make up your mind that you are going to be as honest as possible in your understanding of math, it won’t take you long to understand that 2+2=4. With a bit more work, you’ll find out that 9x9=81, and with not too much more difficulty, you can go to a smart guy and understand that a2xb2=c2 and someone may even be able to figure out the square root of a number like 5,237.

This is because we are talking about numbers, and numbers have properties that are constant, and they can be learned.

Keep in mind that God is a God who created math, with its properties unique to math.

Knowing what I do about math, it is very hard for me to imagine an “interpretive paradigm” (IP) in the universe that is going to make 2+2=5 a true statement. If there is one, it is going to be something very twisted and counterintuitive.

Even such concepts as “relativity”, as complicated as they are, are merely extensions of the “paradigm” that causes 2+2=4 to be true.

That’s the problem with the Roman Catholic “IP”.

If you consider, too, that God has properties, he tells us what these properties are, [we know them because he reveals them], and that he honest with us and is not some kind of loon, then understanding God’s revelation to us is not too different from understanding math.

Further, since we live in the universe that God created, and that he created us, it is no stretch at all to consider that he has made us with “receptors” to what he is “transmitting”. Turretin said it with a bit more precision:

…it is even most absurd that the rational creature as rational should not be subject to him [God] in the genus of morals and not be governed by him suitably to his nature (i.e., by moral means) by the establishment of a law. Hence it follows either that man ought to have been created independent by God (which is absurd) or that he has a natural law impressed upon him, in accordance with which he may be ruled by him

God is not going to make creatures that can’t hear and understand him. That’s the point of my comment 233 above.

Let’s look at this. God reveals something to Adam; Adam does something, and there is a consequence. God says more. Then he talks to different people – Noah, Abraham, Jacob. There is more history. We know the words, and we know the history.

If your “interpretive paradigm” is to be as honest with those statements, and with the history, as you can possibly be (and knowing that our understanding of both the languages of those statements, and the history, especially moving closer to our time), you are not going to have a difficult time understanding the basics.

The fact that many people aren’t good at math doesn’t make math untrue.

Now Mike, you want an “interpretive paradigm” that runs extremely counterintuitive to not only the “relativity” that has been calculated out, but counterintuitive to the 2+2=4 and the 9x9=81 statements.

Look at the other side of this: What kind of “interpretive paradigm” does the “infallible magisterium” use to come up with the things it comes up with.

The deliberations over the Trinity and Christology required no “infallibility”. It required [and Athanasius and others are clear about this] an honest look at Scripture. Athanasius Contra Arianus contains Athanasius’s “proof” of the Trinity.

We know too the sources of some of the uniquely “catholic” items and the uniquely “Roman” doctrines that you say are “materially present” “in the original deposit of faith” [and one might add, “somehow”, “implicitly”].

We know, for example, that there is no historical record for the Assumption of Mary. There are no numbers of any kind that add up to “Assumption of Mary”. Assumption of Mary is a 2+2=5 statement. Consider:

Tertullian can write a long treatise of sixty-three chapters On the Resurrection of the Dead, mentioning and discussing the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the raising of Lazarus, the translation without death of Enoch and of Elijah, the returning from the dead of Moses for the Transfiguration, and even the preservation from what was humanly speaking certain death of the three young men in the fiery furnace and of Jonah in the whale’s belly. He does not once even slightly mention, he does not once remotely and uncertainly hint at, the resurrection or corporeal assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary Tertullian quite clearly, like all his contemporaries and predecessors, had never heard of this story (R.P.C. Hanson, “Tradition in the Early Church”, SCM Press, ©1962, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers edition, pgs 258–259).

Tertullian was one of the most well-informed of the writers of the early (late 2nd, early 3rd century) church. If anyone had the slightest hint in his day that it had happened, he would have known about it.

And yet, the “infallible Magisterium” of the 20th century knows enough about this non-event to include it within the “formal proximate object of faith”. There is now [for Roman Catholics] no question, it was a true event. Even though, as Hanson says, “this idea first made its appearance in the fifth-century Coptic Christianity under marked Gnostic influence.”

What kind of magic dust gives the “infallible Magisterium” the “authority” to make a non-event into a dogma? What kind of magic dust makes “2+2=5” into a true statement?

This is one event, and one of the most egregious, but it is standard operating procedure for the Roman “teaching authority”.

Do we start with simple math and work our way up to calculus? Or do we commit our lives and eternal destinies to the “interpretive paradigm” that makes 2+2=5?