But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus. The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas. Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified. And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified. When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. Matthew 27:20-25.
When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. John 19:26-27.
You might say that the first Scripture applies only to the people then living and to their children (whether living or yet unbegotten); you might also say, in keeping with the first hermeneutic, that the second Scripture applied only to St Mary the Mother of God and to St John the Beloved. So why do men deduce from the second Scripture a mariology of spiritual motherhood of mankind in a general way, the singular cases notwithstanding, and not apply this same hermeneutic to the former Scripture in relation to the Jews?