From this is taken one of Helvidius’ propositions [margin note: Hieron. cont. Helvid. 14, et seq.], on the ground that mention is made in the Gospel of the brethren of the Lord. How says he, are they called brethren of the Lord, if they were not his brethren? But now it should be known that in divine Scripture men are said to be brethren in four different ways, by nature, by nation, by kindred, and by affection.
By nature, as Esau and Jacob. By nation, as all Jews are called brethren, as in Deuteronomy, “Thou shalt not set over thee a foreigner who is not thy brother.” [Deut 17:15] They are called brethren by kindred who are of one family, as in Genesis, “Abraham said unto Lot, Let there not be strife between thee and we, for we are brethren.” [Gen 13:8] Also men are called brethren by affection; which is of two kinds, special and general. Special, as all Christians are called brethren, as the Saviour says, “Go tell my brethren.” [John 20:17] General, inasmuch as all men are born of one father, we are bound together by a tie of consanguinity, as in that, “Say unto them that hate you, Ye are our brethren.” [Isa 66:5]
I ask then, after which manner these are called the Lord’s brethren in the Gospel? According to nature? But Scripture saith not, neither calling them sons of Mary nor of Joseph. By nation? But it is absurd that some few out of all the Jews should be called brethren, seeing that all the Jews who were there might have thus been called brethren. By affection, either of a human sort, or of the Spirit? If that be true, yet how were they more His brethren than the Apostles, whom He instructed in the inmost mysteries. Or if because they were men, and all men are brethren, it was foolish to say of them in particular, Behold, thy brethren seek thee. It only remains then that they should be His brethren by kindred, not by affection, not by privilege of nation, not by nature.
Reproduced in full. Translation: Oxford 1841 (Newman), public domain (Public domain).