2 Apodosis of the Nativity of the Theotokos

And he went out from there and came into his own country, and his disciples followed him; and when the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue. And many hearing him were amazed at his teaching, saying: Where did this man get all these things? And what wisdom is this that is given to him, and such mighty works performed by his hands? He calls his country Nazareth, in which he was brought up. But how great is the blindness of the Nazarenes, who, if their minds were not obtuse, could have recognized him as the Christ through his words and deeds, yet they despise him solely because of knowing his family. They refer wisdom to teaching and power to healings and miracles that he performed. Which distinction the Apostle recalls aptly and beautifully, saying: Jews demand signs, and Greeks seek wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. But to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Corinthians 1). In this context, he refers power to signs because of the Jews and wisdom to teaching because of the Greeks, that is, the Gentiles.

(in Marc. 2, 23) He means by His country, Nazareth, in which He was brought up. But how great the blindness of the Nazarenes! they despise Him, Who by His words and deeds they might know to be the Christ, solely on account of His kindred. It goes on, And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands? By wisdom is meant His doctrine, by powers, the cures and miracles which He did. It goes on, Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary?

How can he be said to go out and to come in, whom no space can enclose? What country can be his, who made, and who possesses, the whole universe? In truth, Christ goes out and comes in not of himself, nor for himself, but in you, and on behalf of you, until he recovers you from your exile, and calls you home from your captivity.

If, however, there be any one who, like Plato, supposes that two souls cannot, more than two bodies could, co-exist in the same individual, I, on the contrary, could show him not merely the co-existence of two souls in one person, as also of two bodies in the same womb, but likewise the combination of many other things in natural connection with the soul-for instance, of demoniacal possession; and that not of one only, as in the case of Socrates' own demon; but of seven spirits as in the case of the Magdalene; and of a legion in number, as in the Gadarene. Now one soul is naturally more susceptible of conjunction with another soul, by reason of the identity of their substance, than an evil spirit is, owing to their diverse natures.

The Lord comes to His homeland not because He did not know that they would disregard Him, but so that afterward they could not say: if He had come, we would have believed.

After the miracles which have been related, the Lord returns into His own country, not that He was ignorant that they would despise Him, but that they might have no reason to say, If Thou hadst come, we had believed Thee; wherefore it is said, And he went out from thence, and came into his own country.

Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son.

Those heretics were called Antidicomarites who denied the virginity of Mary to the point that they claim that after the birth of Christ she had intercourse with her husband.

(de Con. Evan. ii. 42) Matthew indeed says that He was called the son of a carpenter; nor are we to wonder, since both might have been said, for they believed Him to be a carpenter, because He was the son of a carpenter.

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, Joseph, Jude, and Simon? Are not his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him. The scandal and error of the Jews are our salvation and the condemnation of the heretics. For they so clearly saw the man Jesus Christ, that they called him the carpenter, and according to another Evangelist, the carpenter's son; they also testified that his brothers and sisters were with them. Yet these are not to be considered as the actual children of Joseph or Mary, according to the heretics, but rather, according to the custom of sacred Scripture, they must be understood as their relatives, in the same way that Abraham and Lot are called brothers, although Lot was the son of Abraham's brother. And you have many such examples.

However, not without the provision of a certain sacrament did the Lord, appearing in the flesh, wish to be considered and called a craftsman and the son of a craftsman: but rather, even through this, He taught that He was the son of Him before the ages, who, as the maker of all things, in the beginning created heaven and earth (John I). For although human things are not comparable to divine things, yet the type is perfect, because the Father of Christ works by fire and spirit. Hence also His precursor said about Him as the son of a craftsman: He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire (Matthew III). He who in this great house of the world fabricates vessels of different kinds, or rather, by softening the vessels of wrath with the fire of His spirit, transforms them into vessels of mercy: but the Jews are ignorant of this sacrament: they look down upon the works of divine power out of contemplation of carnal lineage.

(ubi sup.) For although human things are not to be compared with divine, still the type is complete, because the Father of Christ works by fire and spirit. It goes on, The brother of James, and Joses, of Jude, and, of Simon. And are not his sisters here with us? They bear witness that His brothers and sisters were with Him, who nevertheless are not to be taken for the sons of Joseph or of Mary, as heretics say, but rather, as is usual in Scripture, we must understand them to be His relations, as Abraham and Lot are called brothers, though Lot was brother's son to Abraham. And they were offended at him. The stumbling and the error of the Jews is our salvation, and the condemnation of heretics. For so much did they despise the Lord Jesus Christ, as to call Him a carpenter, and son of a carpenter. It goes on, And Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country. Even Moses bears witness that the Lord is called a Prophet in the Scripture, for predicting His future Incarnation to the sons of Israel, he says, A Prophet shall the Lord raise up unto you of your brethren. (Acts 7:37) But not only He Himself, Who is Lord of prophets, but also Elias, Jeremiah, and the remaining lesser prophets, were worse received in their own country than in strange cities, for it is almost natural for men to envy their fellow-townsmen; for they do not consider the present works of the man, but they remember the weakness of His infancy.

Jude, who wrote the Catholic Epistle, the brother of the sons of Joseph, and very religious, while knowing the near relationship of the Lord, yet did not say that he himself was His brother. But what said he? "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ,"— of Him as Lord; but "the brother of James." [Jude 1] For this is true; he was His brother, (the son) of Joseph.

And verily the blessed Jeremiah says, as to our Lord Jesus Christ, "For both thy brethren and the house of thy father, they too despised Thee, and they cried out; of thy followers were they gathered together: believe them not, for they will speak fair words unto Thee." [Jeremiah 12:6] For His brethren who before the faith thought little of Him, and in the words just spoken, all but attempt to cry out against Him, were gathered together through faith, and have spoken fair words unto Him, both aiding others, and striving with words in behalf of the faith. Very watchfully did the Prophet, having named His brethren, profitably add, The house of Thy father, lest they too should be supposed to have been of the blessed Virgin, rather than of His father Joseph alone.

It helps us to understand the terms 'first-born' and 'only-begotten' when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin 'until she brought forth her first-born son' [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin

Because there are those who dare to say that Mary cohabited with Joseph after she bore the Redeemer, we reply, 'How would it have been possible for her who was the home of the indwelling of the Spirit, whom the divine power overshadowed, that she be joined by a mortal being, and gave birth filled with birthpangs, in the image of the primeval curse?' If Mary was blessed of women, she would have been exempt from the curse from the beginning, and from the bearing of children in birthpangs and curses. It would be impossible therefore to call one who gave birth with these birthpangs blessed.

The ordinary workmen will come to the son of Joseph singing:"Blessed be your coming, O master of workers everywhere. The imprint of your labor is seen in the ark, And in the fashioning of the tabernacle Of the congregation that was for a time only! Our whole craft praises you, who are our eternal glory. Make for us a yoke that is light, even easy, for us to bear. Establish that measure in us in which there can be no falseness."

For I have heard from someone that certain persons are venturing to say that she had marital relations after the Savior's birth. And I am not surprised. The ignorance of persons who do not know the sacred scriptures well and have not consulted histories, always turns them to one thing after another, and distracts anyone who wants to track down something about the truth out of his own head. To begin with, when the Virgin was entrusted to Joseph - lots having compelled her to take this step - she was not entrusted to him for marriage, since he was a widower. He was called her husband because of the Law, but it plainly follows from the Jewish tradition that the Virgin was not entrusted to him for matrimony. It was for the preservation of her virginity in witness to the things to come - [a witness] that Christ's incarnation was nothing spurious but was truly attested, as without a man's seed but truly brought about by the Holy Spirit.

And yet some very depraved men take from this the basis of their view that there were many brothers of our Lord as a point of tradition. If there had been sons of Mary who were not rather produced from a previous marriage of Joseph's, Mary never would have been transferred to the apostle John as his mother at the time of the Passion, nor would the Lord have said to them both, "Woman, behold your son," and to John, "Behold your mother," [John 19:26-27] unless perhaps he was leaving his disciple's filial love in order to comfort her who was left behind.

How then, says Helvidius, do you make out that they were called the Lord's brethren who were not his brethren? I will show how that is. In Holy Scripture there are four kinds of brethren — by nature, race, kindred, love. Instances of brethren by nature are Esau and Jacob, the twelve patriarchs, Andrew and Peter, James and John. As to race, all Jews are called brethren of one another, as in Deuteronomy, [Deuteronomy 15:12] "If your brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto you, and serve you six years; then in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you." And in the same book, [Deuteronomy 17:15] "You shall in anywise set him king over you, whom the Lord your God shall choose: one from among your brethren shall you set king over you; you may not put a foreigner over you, which is not your brother." And again, [Deuteronomy 22:1] "You shall not see your brother's ox or his sheep go astray, and hide yourself from them: you shall surely bring them again unto your brother. And if your brother be not near unto you, or if you know him not, then you shall bring it home to your house, and it shall be with you until your brother seek after it, and you shall restore it to him again." And the Apostle Paul says, [Romans 9:3-4] "I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites." Moreover they are called brethren by kindred who are of one family, that is πατρία, which corresponds to the Latin paternitas, because from a single root a numerous progeny proceeds. In Genesis [Genesis 13:8, 11] we read, "And Abram said to Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray you, between me and you, and between my herdmen and your herdmen; for we are brethren." And again, "So Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan, and Lot journeyed east: and they separated each from his brother." Certainly Lot was not Abraham's brother, but the son of Abraham's brother Aram. For Terah begot Abraham and Nahor and Aram: and Aram begot Lot. Again we read, [Genesis 12:4] "And Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran. And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son." But if you still doubt whether a nephew can be called a son, let me give you an instance. [Genesis 14:14] "And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen." And after describing the night attack and the slaughter, he adds, "And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot." Let this suffice by way of proof of my assertion. But for fear you may make some cavilling objection, and wriggle out of your difficulty like a snake, I must bind you fast with the bonds of proof to stop your hissing and complaining, for I know you would like to say you have been overcome not so much by Scripture truth as by intricate arguments. Jacob, the son of Isaac and Rebecca, when in fear of his brother's treachery he had gone to Mesopotamia, drew near and rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, and watered the flocks of Laban, his mother's brother. [Genesis 29:11] "And Jacob kissed Rachel, and lifted up his voice, and wept. And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father's brother, and that he was Rebekah's son." Here is an example of the rule already referred to, by which a nephew is called a brother. And again, [Genesis 29:15] "Laban said to Jacob. Because you are my brother, should you therefore serve me for nought? Tell me what shall your wages be." And so, when, at the end of twenty years, without the knowledge of his father-in-law and accompanied by his wives and sons he was returning to his country, on Laban overtaking him in the mountain of Gilead and failing to find the idols which Rachel hid among the baggage, Jacob answered and said to Laban, [Genesis 31:36-37] "What is my trespass? What is my sin, that you have so hotly pursued after me? Whereas you have felt all about my stuff, what have you found of all your household stuff? Set it here before my brethren and your brethren, that they may judge between us two." Tell me who are those brothers of Jacob and Laban who were present there? Esau, Jacob's brother, was certainly not there, and Laban, the son of Bethuel, had no brothers although he had a sister Rebecca.

Innumerable instances of the same kind are to be found in the sacred books. But, to be brief, I will return to the last of the four classes of brethren, those, namely, who are brethren by affection, and these again fall into two divisions, those of the spiritual and those of the general relationship. I say spiritual because all of us Christians are called brethren, as in the verse, "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity." And in another psalm the Saviour says, "I will declare your name unto my brethren." And elsewhere, [John 20:17] "Go unto my brethren and say to them." I say also general, because we are all children of one Father, there is a like bond of brotherhood between us all. [Isaiah 66:5] "Tell these who hate you," says the prophet, "you are our brethren." And the Apostle writing to the Corinthians: [1 Corinthians 5:11] "If any man that is named brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one no, not to eat." I now ask to which class you consider the Lord's brethren in the Gospel must be assigned. They are brethren by nature, you say. But Scripture does not say so; it calls them neither sons of Mary, nor of Joseph. Shall we say they are brethren by race? But it is absurd to suppose that a few Jews were called His brethren when all Jews of the time might upon this principle have borne the title. Were they brethren by virtue of close intimacy and the union of heart and mind? If that were so, who were more truly His brethren than the apostles who received His private instruction and were called by Him His mother and His brethren? Again, if all men, as such, were His brethren, it would have been foolish to deliver a special message, "Behold, your brethren seek you," for all men alike were entitled to the name. The only alternative is to adopt the previous explanation and understand them to be called brethren in virtue of the bond of kindred, not of love and sympathy, nor by prerogative of race, nor yet by nature. Just as Lot was called Abraham's brother, and Jacob Laban's, just as the daughters of Zelophehad received a lot among their brethren, just as Abraham himself had to wife Sarah his sister, for he says, [Genesis 20:11] "She is indeed my sister, on the father's side, not on the mother's," that is to say, she was the daughter of his brother, not of his sister...

It is clear that our Lord's brethren bore the name in the same way that Joseph was called his father: [Luke 1:18] "I and your father sought you sorrowing." It was His mother who said this, not the Jews. The Evangelist himself relates that His father and His mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning Him, and there are similar passages which we have already quoted in which Joseph and Mary are called his parents. Seeing that you have been foolish enough to persuade yourself that the Greek manuscripts are corrupt, you will perhaps plead the diversity of readings. I therefore come to the Gospel of John, and there it is plainly written, [John 1:45] "Philip finds Nathanael, and says unto him, We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." You will certainly find this in your manuscript. Now tell me, how is Jesus the son of Joseph when it is clear that He was begotten of the Holy Ghost? Was Joseph His true father? Dull as you are, you will not venture to say that. Was he His reputed father? If so, let the same rule be applied to them when they are called brethren, that you apply to Joseph when he is called father.

Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned.

How then, one may say, are James and the others called His brethren? In the same kind of way as Joseph himself was supposed to be husband of Mary. For many were the veils provided, that the birth, being such as it was, might be for a time screened. Wherefore even John so called them, saying, "For neither did His brethren believe in Him."

I believe that He [Jesus] was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.

And when Jesus came to the Jordan, He was considered to be the son of Joseph the carpenter; and He appeared without comeliness, as the Scriptures declared; and He was deemed a carpenter (for He was in the habit of working as a carpenter when among men, making ploughs and yokes; by which He taught the symbols of righteousness and an active life).

I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or "The Book of James", that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you" [Luke 1:35], might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity.

(1) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord's. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord's. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphaeus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands.

[NOTE: This is often erroneously attributed to Papias of Hierapolis, AD 130]

And the priest said to Joseph, You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. I am afraid lest I become a laughing-stock to the sons of Israel.

Jesus is called the son of a workman, of that one, however, whose work was the morning and the sun, that is, the first and second Church, as a figure of which the woman and the damsel are healed.

Oftentimes also the origin of a man brings him contempt, as it is written, (1 Sam. 25:10. Ps. 138:6) Who is the son of Jesse? for the Lord hath respect unto the lowly; as to the proud, He beholdeth them afar off.

Come, now, if you have read in the utterance of the prophet in the Psalms, "God hath reigned from the tree," I wait to hear what you understand thereby; for fear you may perhaps think some carpenter-king is signified, and not Christ, who has reigned from that time onward when he overcame the death which ensued from His passion of "the tree.

John was related to Jesus, in the following manner. Joseph, the Betrothed of the most pure Theotokos, had seven children by his previous wife—four sons, and three daughters whose names were Martha, Esther, and Salome. John was the son of Salome; therefore, Jesus was John's uncle. Because Salome was the daughter of Joseph—the "father of the Lord"—she was considered to be the Lord's sister; and her son, John, the Lord's nephew. Salome means "peaceful"; John means "the grace of her." May every soul understand that Christ's peace, which is offered to all men, calms the passions of the soul, and gives birth to divine grace within us. But a soul in turmoil, always battling with others and with itself, cannot be counted worthy of divine grace. Consider another marvelous thing about John. Only he is said to have three mothers: first, Salome, his natural mother; second, thunder, for he is a "son of thunder" (Mk 3:17), on account of his powerful proclamation of the Gospel ; and third, Mary, the Theotokos, concerning whom the Lord said to John, "Behold thy mother" (Jn 19:27).

He comes also to expose the envious character of His countrymen; for whereas they ought to have marveled at the Lord, Who so adorned their homeland with both teaching and miracles, they instead despised the Lord on account of His humble origin. What an evil thing envy is! It always strives to obscure what is good and does not allow the envious to see it. So even now many, out of ill will and extreme baseness, dishonor certain people because of their lowly birth, even though they are worthy of every honor.

Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ's Mother, after His Birth, was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children. For, in the first place, this is derogatory to Christ's perfection: for as He is in His Godhead the Only-Begotten of the Father, being thus His Son in every respect perfect, so it was becoming that He should be the Only-begotten son of His Mother, as being her perfect offspring.

Secondly, this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose "shrine" was the virginal womb ["Sacrarium Spiritus Sancti" (Office of B. M. V., Ant. ad Benedictus, T. P.), wherein He had formed the flesh of Christ: wherefore it was unbecoming that it should be desecrated by intercourse with man.

Thirdly, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God's Mother: for thus she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not content with such a Son; and were she, of her own accord, by carnal intercourse to forfeit that virginity which had been miraculously preserved in her.

Fourthly, it would be tantamount to an imputation of extreme presumption in Joseph, to assume that he attempted to violate her whom by the angel's revelation he knew to have conceived by the Holy Ghost.

We must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a virgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him birth, did she remain a virgin ever afterwards...

Some, as Jerome says on Matthew 12:49-50, "suppose that the brethren of the Lord were Joseph's sons by another wife. But we understand the brethren of the Lord to be not sons of Joseph, but cousins of the Saviour, the sons of Mary, His Mother's sister." For "Scripture speaks of brethren in four senses; namely, those who are united by being of the same parents, of the same nation, of the same family, by common affection." Wherefore the brethren of the Lord are so called, not by birth, as being born of the same mother; but by relationship, as being blood-relations of His. But Joseph, as Jerome says (Contra Helvid. ix), is rather to be believed to have remained a virgin, "since he is not said to have had another wife," and "a holy man does not live otherwise than chastely."

I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonorable, impious, unworthy or evil... I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.

And He could do no mighty work there, except that He laid His hands on a few sick people and healed them. And He marveled because of their unbelief. Not that He could not perform many miracles even among the unbelievers, but that in doing many, He might condemn the unbelievers. However, it can also be understood otherwise, that Jesus is despised in His house and country, that is, among the Jewish people, and therefore He performed few signs there, lest they become utterly inexcusable. Greater signs, however, He performs daily among the nations through the apostles, not so much in the healing of bodies as in the salvation of souls. As for the Lord being said to marvel at their unbelief, it is not as if He marvels at something unexpected and unforeseen, He who knows all things before they happen, just as He did not begin to marvel at the faith of the centurion as something new and previously unknown when He heard the words of his pious confession and said: "I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel" (Luke VII). But He who knows the secrets of the heart shows that He marvels before men, indicating what is to be marveled at by men. Indeed, the faith of the centurion was marvelous, who, without a human teacher, without the eloquence of the Scriptures, without angelic oracles, recognized through miracles by divinely illuminated natural understanding that He who appeared as human in the frailty of humanity was truly God. Conversely, the unbelief of the Nazarenes was no less astonishing, who, despite having an abundance of teachers and divine words in which the coming of Christ was preached, and having Christ Himself present among them, pressing the knowledge of Himself on them through both words and signs, still persisted in their disbelief. But in one instance, the blindness of the Jews is noted as marvelous, who were unwilling to believe in their own prophets about Christ, nor in Christ Himself born among them. In the other instance, the faith of the Gentiles is crowned, who, even though Christ was born among the Jews and cast out by them, deserved to receive Him, the mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ, with the sacred oracles.

(ubi sup.) Not as if He Who knows all things before they are done, wonders at what He did not expect or look forward to, but knowing the hidden things of the heart, and wishing to intimate to men that it was wonderful, He openly shows that He wonders. And indeed the blindness of the Jews is wonderful, for they neither believed what their prophets said of Christ, nor would in their own persons believe on Christ, Who was born amongst them. Mystically again; Christ is despised in His own house and country, that is, amongst the people of the Jews, and therefore He worked few miracles there, lest they should become altogether inexcusable. But He performs greater miracles every day amongst the Gentiles, not so much in the healing of their bodies, as in the salvation of their souls.

One meaning of "could not" is simply the limits of some human will. Take, for example, the point that Christ "could not" fulfill any signs in Nazareth was due to disbelief on their part. Something essential for healing is required on both sides—faith on the part of the patients, power on that of the healer. So one side without its counterpart "could not," so to speak, perform them. As this can be seen in medical care, it can also be seen in moral transformation. Similarly involving the limits of the will are the texts: "The world cannot not hate you" and "How can you speak good, being evil?" The metaphor of "impossibility" here must mean free refusal by the will. The same idea applies to those passages which say that what is impossible for humanity is possible for God. Note also those passages that say that a person "cannot" (in one sense) be born a second time and a needle's eye "cannot" let a camel through. What would stop these events happening if God willed them directly? Besides all these there is, as in the case we are presently considering, a "cannot" in the sense of that which is totally inconceivable. We cannot conceive that God can be evil or fail to exist. It is inconceivable that reality cannot exist or two times two is fourteen. So here it cannot be the case that the Son would do anything which the Father would not do.

In some cases he so richly poured forth the mighty work of healing that the Evangelist was led to exclaim: "He healed all their sick." But among others the unfathomable depth of Christ's goodness was so thwarted that it was said: "And Jesus could do there no mighty works because of their unbelief." So the bounty of God is actually curtailed temporarily according to the receptivity of our faith. So it is said to one: "According to your faith may it be to you," and to another: "Go your way, and as you have believed so let it be to you," and to another "Let it be to you according as you will," and again to another: "Your faith has made you whole."

If the faith of those who bring them or of the sick is lacking, it may prevent those who possess the gift of healing from exercising it.

And perhaps, as in the case of metallic substances there exists in some a natural attraction toward some other thing, as in the magnet for iron, and in naphtha for fire, so there is an attraction in such faith toward the divine power according to what Jesus said: "If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say unto this mountain, 'Move to another place,' and it shall be moved." Matthew and Mark wished to present the all-surpassing value of that divine power as a power that works even in those who do not believe. But they did not deny that grace works even more powerfully among those who have faith. So it seems to me that they accurately said not that the Lord did not do any mighty works because of their unbelief, but that he did not do many there. Mark does not flatly say that he could do no mighty work there at all, and stop at that point, but added, "except that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk and healed them." Thus the power in him overcame even their unbelief.

The Lord could not perform miracles there not because He was powerless, but because those people were unbelieving. Sparing them, He does not perform miracles, lest they serve for the greater condemnation of those people as unbelievers even in the presence of miracles. On the other hand, miracle-working requires, first, the power of the one performing it, and second, the faith of those receiving the miracle. Since the second of these conditions was lacking here, that is, the faith of those in need of healing, it was not fitting for Jesus to perform miracles. And so we should understand that the evangelist's expression "and He could not" is used in place of — He did not see fit to. The Lord taught not only in the cities, but also in the villages, so that we might know that we too ought neither to neglect the small towns nor constantly visit the large cities, but that we must sow the word even in insignificant places.

There follows, And he could there do no mighty work, &c. What, however, is here expressed by He could not, we must take to mean, He did not choose, because it was not that He was weak, but that they were faithless; He does not therefore work any miracles there, for he spared them, lest they should be worthy of greater blame, if they believed not, even with miracles before their eyes. Or else, for the working of miracles, not only the power of the Worker is necessary, but the faith of the recipient, which was wanting in this case: therefore Jesus did not choose to work any signs there. There follows, And he marvelled at their unbelief.

The Lord not only preached in the cities, but also in villages, that we may learn not to despise little things, nor always to seek for great cities, but to sow the word of the Lord, in abandoned and lowly villages. Wherefore it is said, And he went round about the villages, teaching.

And he went around the villages in a circuit, teaching; and he called the twelve and began to send them two by two, and gave them power over unclean spirits. The kind and merciful Lord and master does not envy his servants and disciples his own virtues; and just as he had healed all sickness and all infirmity, he also gave his apostles power, to heal all infirmity and all sickness. But there is a great difference between having and giving, granting and receiving. He, whatever he does, acts by the power of the Lord; those, if they do anything, confess their own weakness and the power of the Lord, saying, like Peter: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk (Acts III).

(in Marc. 2, 24) Now our kind and merciful Lord and Master did not grudge His servants and their disciples His own virtues, and as He Him self had healed every sickness and every infirmity, so also He gave the same power to His disciples. Wherefore it goes on: And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits. Great is the difference between giving and receiving. Whatsoever He does, is done in His own power, as Lord; if they do any thing, they confess their own weakness and the power of the Lord, saying in the name of Jesus, Arise, and walk.

Hence also miracles were added to the holy preachers, so that the power displayed might give faith to their words, and that those who preached new things might do new things. When the world was flourishing, when the human race was increasing, when the flesh was subsisting long in this life, when the abundance of things was overflowing, who upon hearing would believe that there was another life? Who would prefer invisible things to visible things? But when the sick were returning to health, when the dead were rising to life, when lepers were receiving cleanliness of flesh, when demoniacs were snatched from the power of unclean spirits, with so many visible miracles performed, who would not believe what he heard about invisible things? For visible miracles shine forth for this purpose: that they may draw the hearts of those who see them to faith in invisible things, so that through what is done wondrously on the outside, what is within may be perceived to be far more wondrous.

(Hom. in Evan. 17) Further, the Lord sent the disciples to preach, two and two, because there are two precepts of charity, namely, the love of God, and of our neighbour; and charity cannot be between less than two; by this therefore He implies to us, that he who has not charity towards his neighbour, ought in no way to take upon himself the office of preaching.

Furthermore, not only did He Himself teach, but He also sends His disciples, and moreover in pairs of two, so that they might be bolder. For if He had sent them one by one, one alone could not have acted so boldly, and if He had sent more than two together, the number of apostles would not have sufficed for all the villages. So He sends them two by two: "Two are better than one," says Ecclesiastes (Eccl. 4:9).

Again He sends the Apostles two and two that they, might become more active; for, as says the Preacher, Two are better than one. (Eccl. 4:9) But if He had sent more than two, there would not have been a sufficient number to allow of their being sent to many villages.

The Lord had a body. And just as he deigned to assume a physical body for our sake, so also did he deign to be hungry and thirsty. As a result of the fact that he deigned to be hungry and thirsty, he condescended to be fed by those he himself enriched. He condescended to be received as a guest, not from need but from favor.Martha was busy satisfying the needs of those who were hungry and thirsty. With deep concern, she prepared what the Holy of Holies and his saints would eat and drink in her house. It was an important but transitory work. It will not always be necessary to eat and drink, will it? When we cling to the most pure and perfect Goodness, serving will not be a necessity.

(Ser. 103.) But the Lord, who came to his own, and his own received him not, (John 1:12.) was received as a guest, for it follows, And a certain woman named Martha received him into her house, &c. as strangers are accustomed to be received. But still a servant received her Lord, the sick her Saviour, the creature her Creator. But if any should say, "O blessed are they who have been thought worthy to receive Christ into their houses," grieve not thou, for He says, For inasmuch as ye have done it to the least of my brethren, ye have done it unto me. (Matt. 25:40.) But taking the form of a servant, He wished therein to be fed by servants, by reason of His condescension, not His condition. He had a body in which He was hungry and thirsty, but when He was hungry in the desert, Angels ministered to Him. (Matt. 4:11.) In wishing therefore to be fed, He came Himself to the feeder.

Now every work and word of our Savior is a rule of piety and virtue For to this enddid He put on our body, that as much as we can we might imitate His conversation. It is foolish also to take food for the support of the body, and thereby in return to hurt the body, and to hinder it in the performance of the divine command. If then a poor man come, let him receive a model and example of moderation in food, and let us not prepare our own tables for their sakes, who wish to live luxuriously. For the life of the Christian is uniform, ever tending to one object, namely, the glory of God. But the life of those who are without is manifold and vacillating, changed about at will. And how in truth can you, when you set your table before your brother with profusion of meats, and for the pleasure of feasting sake, accuse him of luxury, and revile him as a glutton, censuring his indulgence in that which you yourself afford him? Our Lord did not commend Martha when busied about much serving.

It happened, as they were going, that he entered a certain village, and a certain woman named Martha welcomed him into her house. And she had a sister named Mary. This reading is beautifully connected to the preceding one. For as that one designates love of God and neighbor through words and parables, this one designates it through deeds and truth. These two beloved sisters of the Lord demonstrate the two spiritual lives by which the present holy Church is exercised. Indeed, Martha represents the active life, by which we are united to our neighbor in charity; Mary represents the contemplative life, by which we long for the love of God. For the active life is to give bread to the hungry, to teach the ignorant the word of wisdom, to correct the erring, to bring back the proud to the way of humility, to take care of the sick, to dispense what is expedient to each one, and to foresee how those entrusted to us may be able to subsist. The contemplative life, however, is to retain the love of God and neighbor with the whole mind, but to rest from external action, adhering solely to the desire of the Creator, so that one no longer wishes to act but, having cast aside all cares, the soul burns with the desire to behold the face of its Creator, so that it regrets to bear the burden of the corruptible flesh and with all its desires aspires to join the hymnic choirs of angels, to be mixed with the heavenly citizens, to rejoice in the eternal incorruption in the sight of God.

The love of God and our neighbour, which was contained above in words and parables, is here set forth in very deed and reality; for it is said, Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village.

For the instruction of the disciples, a human example is subjoined, set forth in a twofold manner.

Now it came to pass, as they went, etc. After he handed down a form of living through the divine precept, here secondly he hands it down through a human example. Whence the Gloss of Bede: "Having given a discourse on the love of God and neighbor, he supplies an example of each." For here is introduced literally an example of perfection, an example of the active and contemplative life, and a comparison of the two. Whence this part has two parts: in the first of which there is set forth a rational comparison; and in the second there is added a judicial determination, at the place: And the Lord answering said to her. Concerning the rational comparison, however, four things are introduced: the first is the fellowship of the divine presence, the second is the leisure of the contemplative life, the third is the exercise of the active life, the fourth is the dispute between the two.

First, therefore, as regards the fellowship of the divine presence, it is said: Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain town, either for the sake of preaching the kingdom of God, according to what is said above in the eighth chapter: "He journeyed through cities and towns, preaching and evangelizing the kingdom of God"; or for the sake of seeking lodging, according to what is said above in the ninth chapter, that when the Samaritans were unwilling to receive him and his disciples as guests, they "departed to another town." Concerning this town it is stated more explicitly in John 11: "There was a certain man who was sick, Lazarus of Bethany, of the town of Mary and Martha, his sisters." In this town, I say, he found lodging.

On account of which it is added: And a certain woman, Martha by name, received him into her house, namely, as one who was poor and needy. Hence to such persons he will say that word at the judgment in Matthew 25: "I was a stranger, and you took me in," namely, to those like Martha, such as Job was, of whom it is said in the thirty-first chapter: "The stranger did not remain outside, and my door was open to the traveler." And in that lodging he was present bodily, just as he is present to those in the active and contemplative lives spiritually, according to that word of Revelation 3: "I stand at the door and knock: if anyone shall open to me, I will enter in to him and will sup with him"; because in Proverbs 8 it is said: "My delights are to be with the sons of men"; and conversely, whence Wisdom 8: "Entering into my house, I shall find rest with her: for her conversation has no bitterness, nor her company any weariness."

By His own example then He teaches His disciples how they ought to behave in the houses of those who receive them, namely, when they come to a house, they should not remain idle, but rather fill the minds of those who receive them with sacred and divine teaching. But let those who make ready the house, go to meet their guests gladly and earnestly, for two reasons. First, indeed, they will be edified by the teaching of those whom they receive; next also they will receive the reward of charity.

To cling always to God and to the things of God—this must be our major effort, this must be the road that the heart follows unswervingly. Any diversion, however impressive, must be regarded as secondary, low-grade and certainly dangerous. Martha and Mary provide a most beautiful scriptural paradigm of this outlook and of this mode of activity. In looking after the Lord and his disciples, Martha did a very holy service. Mary, however, was intent on the spiritual teaching of Jesus, and she stayed by his feet, which she kissed and anointed with the oil of her good faith.… In saying "Mary chose the good portion," he was saying nothing about Martha, and in no way was he giving the appearance of criticizing her. Still, by praising Mary he was saying that the other was a step below her. Again, by saying "it will not be taken away from her," he was showing that Martha's role could be taken away from her, since the service of the body can only last as long as the human being is there, whereas the zeal of Mary can never end.

The name of which village Luke indeed here omits, but John mentions, calling it Bethany. (John 11.)

Great is the good that comes from hospitality, as Martha showed, and it should not be neglected; but an even greater good is to attend to spiritual discourse. For by the former the body is nourished, but by the latter the soul is given life.

What was Mary enjoying while she was listening? What was she eating? What was she drinking? Do you know? Let's ask the Lord, who keeps such a splendid table for his own people, let's ask him. "Blessed," he says, "are those who are hungry and thirsty for justice, because they shall be satisfied." It was from this wellspring, from this storehouse of justice, that Mary, seated at the Lord's feet, was in her hunger receiving some crumbs. You see, the Lord was giving her then as much as she was able to take. But as for the whole amount, which he was going to give at his table of the future, not even the disciples, not even the apostles themselves, were able to take in at the time when he said to them, "I still have many things to say to you, but you are unable to hear them now." ...What was Mary enjoying? What was she eating? I'm persistent on this point, because I'm enjoying it too. I will venture to say that she was eating the one she was listening to. I mean, if she was eating truth, didn't he say himself, "I am the truth"? What more can I say? He was being eaten, because he was the Bread. "I," he said, "am the bread who came down from heaven." This is the bread which nourishes and never diminishes.

Martha then, setting about and preparing to feed our Lord, was occupied in serving; but Mary her sister chose rather to be fed by the Lord, for it follows, And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus' feet, and heard his word.

(ubi sup.) Now as was her humility in sitting at His feet, so much the more did she receive from Him. For the waters pour down to the lowest part of the valley, but flow away from the rising of the hill.

And she also, sitting beside the feet of the Lord, listened to His word, but Martha was distracted by frequent ministering. No one doubts that these things suit both lives. And the uniform perfection of the contemplative life is indeed to have a mind stripped of all earthly things, and, as much as human weakness allows, to unite with Christ. But the frequent ministry of active life is taught by the Master of the nations, who in the numerous statements of his Epistles, recounts his labors by land and sea for Christ, his dangers. In which, also commending the visions and revelations of the Lord, he signifies that he was also completed in the speculative virtue, which is imitable by very few. Hence he says: For whether we are beside ourselves, it is to God; or whether we are sober, it is for your cause (II Cor. V).

Second, with regard to the leisure of the contemplative life, he adds: And she had a sister, named Mary, who was perfect in the leisure of contemplation; whence it is added: Who also, sitting at the feet of the Lord, heard his word. This indeed was the leisure of this woman: to attend to the Lord, to be at rest, to sit, and to be silent. Whence it is said in John eleven that "Mary sat at home," and this at his feet: because, in Deuteronomy thirty-three, "those who approach his feet shall receive of his teaching." By sitting at his feet is understood humility, which ought to be in contemplative persons so that they may abound in the fruits of devotion, according to that verse of the Psalm: "Who sends forth springs in the valleys," etc. But he who so sits as a humble person is watered by the tears of compunction, according to that passage of Jeremiah fifteen: "I sat alone, because you have filled me with bitterness"; and that is the office of the contemplative soul, namely to devote oneself to the tears of compunction and devotion. Whence this Mary, the exemplar of contemplation, is always described as it were weeping: above, namely in chapter seven, where it is said that "standing behind at the feet of the Lord, she began to wash his feet with tears," etc.; and in John eleven, where it is said that "Mary, when she had come where Jesus was, seeing him, fell at his feet. Jesus therefore, when he had seen her weeping, groaned in spirit"; and in John twenty: "Mary stood at the tomb outside, weeping." And the first are tears of compunction; the second, of compulsion; the third, of devotion, which contemplatives ought to have, sitting at the feet of the Lord.

Mary came and sat at his feet. This was as though she were sitting on firm ground at the feet of him who had forgiven the sinful woman her sins. She had put on a crown in order to enter into the kingdom of the Firstborn. She had chosen the better portion, the Benefactor, the Messiah himself. This will never be taken away from her. Martha's love was more fervent than Mary's, for before he had arrived there, she was ready to serve him. "Do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone?" When he came to raise Lazarus to life, she ran and came out first.

Something of the same thing may be said about the incident of Martha and Mary; which has been interpreted in retrospect and from the inside by the mystics of the Christian contemplative life. But it was not at all an obvious view of it; and most moralists, ancient and modern, could be trusted to make a rush for the obvious. What torrents of effortless eloquence would have flowed from them to swell any slight superiority on the part of Martha; what splendid sermons about the Joy of Service and the Gospel of Work and the World Left Better Than We Found It, and generally all the ten thousand platitudes that can be uttered in favour of taking trouble--by people who need take no trouble to utter them. If in Mary the mystic and child of love Christ was guarding the seed of something more subtle, who was likely to understand it at the time? Nobody else could have seen Clare and Catherine and Teresa shining above the little roof at Bethany.

(6. Mor. c. 18.) Or by Mary who sat and heard our Lord's words, is signified the contemplative life; by Martha engaged in more outward services, the active life. Now Martha's care is not blamed, but Mary is praised, for great are the rewards of an active life, but those of a contemplative are far better. Hence Mary's part it is said will never be taken away from her, for the works of an active life pass away with the body, but the joys of the contemplative life the rather begin to increase from the end.

It is not said of Mary simply that she sat near Jesus, but at His feet, to show her diligence, stedfastness, and zeal, in hearing, and the great reverence which she had for our Lord.

"Sat at Jesus' feet and listened to His word." By the feet one can understand active virtue, for they signify movement and walking. And sitting is a sign of immobility. So whoever sits at the feet of Jesus, that is, whoever becomes firmly established in active virtue and through imitation of the walking and life of Jesus is strengthened in it, that person after this arrives at the hearing of divine utterances or at contemplation. Since Mary also first sat down, and then listened to the words.

(ubi sup.) Martha was well engaged in ministering to the bodily wants or wishes of our Lord, as of one who was mortal, but He who was clothed in mortal flesh; in the beginning was the Word. Behold then what Mary heard, The Word was made flesh. Behold then Him to whom Martha ministered. The one was labouring, the other at rest. But yet Martha, when much troubled in her occupation and business of serving, interrupted our Lord, and complained of her sister. For it follows, And said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? For Mary was absorbed in the sweetness of our Lord's words; Martha was preparing a feast for our Lord, in whose feast Mary was now rejoicing. While then she was listening with delight to those sweet words, and was feeding on them with the deepest affection, our Lord was interrupted by her sister. What must we suppose was her alarm, lest the Lord should say to her, "Rise, and help thy sister?" Our Lord therefore, who was not at a loss, for He had shewn He was the Lord, answered as follows, And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha. The repetition of the name is a mark of love, or perhaps of drawing the attention, that she should listen more earnestly. When twice called, she hears, Thou art troubled about many things, that is, thou art busied about many things. For man wishes to meet with something when he is serving, and can not; and thus between seeking what is wanting and preparing what is at hand, the mind is distracted. For if Martha had been sufficient of herself, she would not have required the aid of her sister. There are many, there are diverse things, which are carnal, temporal, but one is preferred to many. For one is not from many, but many from one. Hence it follows, But one thing is needful. Mary wished to be occupied about one, according to that, It is good for me to cling close unto the Lord. (Ps. 73:28.) The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, are one. To this one he does not bring us, unless we being many have one heart. (Acts 4:32.)

(Const. Mon. c. 1.) Now every work and word of our Saviour is a rule of piety and virtue. For to this end did He put on our body, that as much as we can we might imitate His conversation.

(in reg. fus. int. 19.) It is foolish also to take food for the support of the body, and thereby in return to hurt the body, and to hinder it in the performance of the divine command. If then a poor man come, let him receive a model and example of moderation in food, and let us not prepare our own tables for their sakes, who wish to live luxuriously. For the life of the Christian is uniform, ever tending to one object, namely, the glory of God. But the life of those who are without is manifold and vacillating, changed about at will. And how in truth canst thou, when thou settest thy table before thy brother with profusion of meats, and for the pleasure of feasting sake, accuse him of luxury, and revile him as a glutton, censuring his indulgence in that which thou thyself affordest him? Our Lord did not commend Martha when busied about much serving.

And she stood and said: Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her therefore to help me. He speaks from the perspective of those who, still ignorant of divine contemplation, consider that the work of brotherly love alone is pleasing to God, and therefore think that all who wish to be devoted to Christ should be bound to this. And it is well described that Martha stood while Mary sat beside the feet of the Lord, because the active life toils in laborious struggle, while the contemplative life, with the tumults of vices pacified, enjoys the desired repose of the mind in Christ.

Third, with regard to the exercise of the active life, it is added: But Martha was busy about much serving; and this as a good active person, avoiding idleness, according to the counsel of the Wise Man, in Ecclesiastes nine: "Whatever your hand is able to do, work diligently, because neither work nor reason nor wisdom nor knowledge shall be in the netherworld, to which you hasten." Martha always did this; whence it is said in John twelve that "Jesus came to Bethany; and they made a supper for him there, and Martha served." And note that it says she was busy, that is, she was doing enough, about much serving, to show that in her work there was at once perfection and due measure, according to the counsel of blessed Peter, in Second Peter one: "Brothers, be the more diligent, that by good works you may make your calling and election sure." For the work of ministry is that which most pleases the Lord, and in which one most imitates Christ, as is said below in chapter twenty-two: "But I am in your midst as one who serves"; and again in Matthew twenty: "The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve." Whence such ministry is pleasing and honorable before God and worthy of reward, according to that passage of John twelve: "If anyone serves me, my Father will honor him," etc.

Fourth, as to the dispute between the two, he adds: Who stood and said: Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Here the industrious Martha complains about the idle Mary, as though she could not alone bear the weight of labor, according to what Moses complained to the Lord in Numbers 11: "I cannot alone sustain all this people, because it is heavy for me." So also Martha, on account of the heaviness of the burden, sought Mary's help, knowing that what is said in Galatians 6 pertains to the law of Christ: "Bear one another's burdens." Therefore she confidently sought Christ's judgment, that she might obtain her sister's help.

For which reason she adds: Tell her therefore to help me, that she might act according to the counsel of the Apostle in Galatians 5: "Through the charity of the Spirit, serve one another"; and in Ephesians 4: "Bearing with one another in charity."

In this dispute Mary is silent; and Gregory gives the reason for this: "Mary does not respond, but as one at leisure commits her cause to the Judge. For if she were preparing a word of response, she would relax her attention to listening." For it is not for contemplatives to contend, but rather to be silent and to listen and to meditate, according to that passage in Lamentations 3: "He shall sit alone and be silent"; whence Job 4: "Moreover, a hidden word was spoken to me, and as if by stealth I received the veins of its whisper." But Mary loses nothing by being silent, because the Lord takes up her cause by defending it. Whence Bernard: "Everywhere the Lord answers for Mary, whether when she is reproached by the Pharisee, above in chapter seven, or when she is accused by her sister, as here, or when by the disciples, as is said in Matthew 26."

Now Martha sometimes complains by placing her own office above others, and then it is blameworthy. Whence the Gloss: "Martha speaks in the person of those who, still ignorant of divine contemplation, say that only the work of fraternal love, which they have learned, is pleasing to God, and therefore think that all who wish to be devoted to Christ should be bound to this work." — Sometimes she complains by preferring Mary's leisure. Whence Bernard: "Do you think that in the house in which Christ is received, the voice of murmuring is heard?" And he adds: "Happy the house and blessed the congregation in which Martha complains about Mary." And the reason for this is that the contemplative life is to be chosen for its own sake without complaint, but Martha, that is, the active life, is to be sustained out of necessity. Whence Jacob chose Rachel, but as was necessary, he first received Leah, as is said in Genesis 29.

It is therefore permissible for Martha to complain in order to be like Mary, because this is of humility; but if she complains about the fact that she is not helped, this is of weakness; but if she complains about the fact that Mary at some time wishes to help, and she herself does not wish it, this is of impiety, because such a complaint impedes the law of charity.

When certain brethren have received God, they will not be anxious about much service, nor ask for those things which are not in their hands, and are beyond their needs. For every where and in every thing that which is superfluous is burdensome. For it begets weariness in those who are wishing to bestow it, while the guests feel that they are the cause of trouble.

Note also the prudence of the Lord. He said nothing to Martha before He received from her an occasion for reproof. But when she attempted to draw her sister away from listening, then the Lord, taking the occasion, reproves her. For hospitality is praiseworthy only so long as it does not distract and draw us away from what is more needful; but when it begins to hinder us in the most important matters, then it is right to prefer the hearing of divine things to it.

Our Lord does not then forbid hospitality, but the troubling about many things, that is to say, hurry and anxiety. And mark the wisdom of our Lord, in that at first He said nothing to Martha, but when she sought to tear away her sister from hearing, then the Lord took occasion to reprove her. For hospitality is ever honoured as long as it keeps us to necessary things. But when it begins to hinder us from attending to what is of more importance, then it is plain that the hearing of the divine word is the more honourable.

Mary was more blessed in accepting the faith of Christ than in conceiving the flesh of Christ. To someone who said, "Blessed is the womb that bore you," he replied, "Rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep it."Finally, for his brothers, his relatives according to the flesh who did not believe in him, of what advantage was that relationship? Even her maternal relationship would have done Mary no good unless she had borne Christ more happily in her heart than in her flesh.

It happened that, as he was saying these things, a certain woman from the crowd lifted up her voice and said to him: "Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you." This woman is shown to be of great devotion and faith, who, while the scribes and Pharisees were testing and blaspheming the Lord, recognized his incarnation with such sincerity above all, confessed with such confidence, as to confound the calumny of the present nobles and the perfidy of future heretics. For just as the Jews then, by blaspheming the works of the Holy Spirit, denied the true and consubstantial Son of God to the Father, so later heretics, by denying that Mary, ever a virgin, ministered the material of flesh to the only-begotten God born from human members by the operation of the Holy Spirit's power, said that the Son of Man should not be confessed as truly consubstantial to his mother. But if the flesh of the Word of God, born according to the flesh, is proclaimed foreign to the flesh of the virgin mother, the womb that bore him and the breasts that nursed him are blessed in vain. For by what logic is he believed to have been nourished by her milk, whose seed is denied to be conceived? Since both liquids are proven, according to the natural philosophers, to emanate from the origin of one and the same source. Unless perhaps it is thought that the virgin could supply the material of her flesh to nourish the Son of God in the flesh through a lesser and familiar miracle, but could not do so for the incarnation through a greater and unusual miracle. But the Apostle counters this opinion, saying: "God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law" (Gal. IV). Nor should we listen to those who believe it should be read as "born of a woman, made under the law," but rather, "made of a woman." For conceived from the virgin's womb, he drew flesh not from nothing, not from elsewhere, but from maternal flesh. Otherwise, he could not truly be called the Son of Man, who would not have originated from a human. And so, in these words spoken against Eutyches, let us lift up our voice with the Catholic Church, of which this woman was a type, lifting up our minds from the midst of the crowds, and let us say to the Savior: "Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that nursed you" (Luke XI). For truly blessed is the mother, who, as someone said, gave birth to the childbearing King. Who holds heaven and earth through the ages, whose divinity and eternal embrace encompasses all things, his empire remaining without end; who, with a blessed womb, having the joys of a mother with the honor of virginity, has neither been seen to have a first like her nor having a second to follow her.

While the Scribes and Pharisees were tempting our Lord, and uttering blasphemies against Him, a certain woman with great boldness confessed His incarnation, as it follows, And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, &c. by which she refutes both the calumnies of the rulers present, and the unbelief of future heretics. For as then by blaspheming the works of the Holy Spirit, the Jews denied the true Son of God, so in after times the heretics, by denying that the Evervirgin Mary, by the cooperating power of the Holy Spirit, ministered of the substance of her flesh to the birth of the only-begotten Son, have said, that we ought not to confess Him who was the Son of man to be truly of the same substance with the Father. But if the flesh of the Word of God, who was born according to the flesh, is declared alien to the flesh of His Virgin Mother, what cause is there why the womb which bare Him and the paps which gave Him suck are pronounced blessed? By what reasoning do they suppose Him to be nourished by her milk, from whose seed they deny Him to be conceived? Whereas according to the physicians, from one and the same fountain both streams are proved to flow. But the woman pronounces blessed not only her who was thought worthy to give birth from her body to the Word of God, but those also who have desired by the hearing of faith spiritually to conceive the same Word, and by diligence in good works, either in their own or the hearts of their neighbours, to bring it forth and nourish it; for it follows, But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

But she was the mother of God, and therefore indeed blessed, in that she was made the temporal minister of the Word becoming incarnate; yet therefore much more blessed that she remained the eternal keeper of the same ever to be beloved Word. But this expression startles the wise men of the Jews, who sought not to hear and keep the word of God, but to deny and blaspheme it.

In Luke: "A certain woman from the crowd, raising her voice, said to him: Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that nursed you." And Jesus said: "Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it."

Not only is she blessed who conceived and nursed him, but also those who follow her. And who are they? Those who hear the word of God and fulfill it. Eve, having transgressed the commandment of God, destroyed the house which God had prepared for us unto salvation; but the wise woman built the house and restored our salvation.

And it came to pass, etc. After the expression of Jewish fraud and the reprobation of the expressed fraud, the Evangelist here adds the commendation of open truth. And this indeed was fitting, so that, with the truth made manifest, Truth itself manifesting itself might be praised openly before the whole multitude. In the description of this commendation, three things are introduced: the first is the condition of the praising person, the second is the expression of divine praise, the third is the approbation of the expressed praise.

First, therefore, as regards the condition of the praising person, he says: And it came to pass, as he spoke these things, namely for the confutation of falsehood: a certain woman from the crowd, lifting up her voice, said to him, for the commendation of truth and the confutation of the Pharisees: in which a twofold condition is noted in the praising person, namely courage and lowliness. Courage is noted in this, that she lifted up her voice, according to that passage of Isaiah 40: "Lift up your voice with strength, lift it up, fear not"; lowliness in this, that a certain woman, not named nor noble, but from the crowd, so that that word of the Psalm might be fulfilled: "The poor and needy shall praise your name." From which it is apparent that the praiser of the divine name ought not to be timid, so as not to dare to praise, nor puffed up, so as to blush at praising, but courageous and humble. Whence, while some were silent from fear, and some blasphemed from pride and swelling: this humble and courageous woman neither was silent with the timid nor reviled with the blasphemers: whence in the Gloss: "With great confidence among blasphemers she confesses the Son of God." Therefore that word of Matthew 15 could be said to her: "O woman, great is your faith," which namely has so greatly strengthened you, since it is said in the last chapter of Proverbs: "Who shall find a strong woman?" In you is verified that word of Ecclesiasticus 26: "Eternal foundations upon solid rock, and the commandments of God in the heart of a holy woman."

Second, as regards the expression of divine praise, it is added: Blessed is the womb that bore you; in which she praises Christ the Son of God, extolling the proclamation of his praise from the blessedness of the Mother: as if to say, blessed is the woman who bore so good a son. And rightly so, because it was fitting for the female sex to praise thus, and not only women, but indeed also men. For above in chapter one the Virgin said: "From henceforth all generations shall call me blessed."

And note that she declares blessed the womb of the Virgin, and this because she carried the Son of God for nine months and six days, which are reckoned as one month: Wisdom 7: "In the womb of my mother I was made flesh in a time of ten months." Whence in praise of the Virgin it is said in Song of Songs 7: "Your womb is like a heap of wheat", because Christ was a grain of wheat, according to what is said in John 12: and with this wheat her womb was filled, and therefore blessed on account of three privileges: because, as Bernard says, "she was made fruitful without corruption, pregnant without heaviness, and a mother without pain"; Isaiah, the last chapter: "Who has ever heard such a thing? And who has seen the like of this"? — Or on account of three miracles. The first is the conjunction of infinitely distant things. For there God was made man: the Creator, a creature: the immense, small: the Word, an infant: the Eternal, temporal, according to that saying in John 1: "And the Word was made flesh"; and Jeremiah 31: "The Lord will create a new thing upon the earth: a woman shall encompass a man". The second miracle is that he who made the womb was made in the womb: whence in the Psalm: "Glorious things are said of you, O city of God"; and afterwards: "A man is born in her, and the Most High himself founded her". Concerning this can be expounded that passage from Sirach 43: "A wondrous vessel, the work of the Most High". The third miracle, that he who contains all things is contained in this womb; he is held there, "whom the whole world cannot hold". Whence the Church sings: "Because him whom the heavens could not contain, you bore in your lap"; whence Isaiah 45: "Truly you are a hidden God".

Nor does she declare the Virgin blessed only on account of the carrying, but the breasts on account of the nursing, when she adds: And the breasts which you sucked, blessed, namely: from which it is given to understand that the most blessed one was nursed from the breasts of the Virgin alone. This was prefigured in Moses, who, as it is said, refused to be nursed by an Egyptian woman: and therefore a Hebrew woman was sought, namely his own mother, as is said in Exodus 2. Now this prefigures the Virgin Mary, at whose breasts Christ nursed, according to that passage in Song of Songs 8: "Who will give you to me as my brother, nursing at the breasts of my mother" etc. Now she joined these two together so that it might be shown that the Virgin Mary was the true and perfect mother of Christ, because she not only bore him but also nourished him: and just as she truly nourished him, so she truly bore him: and in this is refuted, as is said in the Gloss, the impiety of the Manicheans and others who say that he brought with him an ethereal body. Whence Bede: "From the same source flows both milk for nourishing and seed for begetting children. Therefore from the seed of the Virgin, according to the physicians, he who could be nourished by her milk could also be conceived".

"Blessed is the womb that bore you." He took blessedness from the one who bore him and gave it to those who were worshiping him. It was with Mary for a certain time, but it would be with those who worshiped him for eternity. "Blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it."

Knowing therefore these things, let us neither pride ourselves on children that are of good report, unless we have their virtue; nor upon noble fathers, unless we be like them in disposition. For it is possible, both that he who begat a man should not be his father, and that he who did not beget him should be. Therefore in another place also, when some woman had said, "Blessed is the womb that bare Thee, and the paps which Thou hast sucked;" He said not, "The womb bare me not, neither did I suck the paps," but this, "Yea rather, blessed are they that do the will of my Father." Seest thou how on every occasion He denies not the affinity by nature, but adds that by virtue?

Now, as Marcion was apprehensive that a belief of the fleshly body would also involve a belief of birth, undoubtedly He who seemed to be man was believed to be verily and indeed born. For a certain woman had exclaimed, "Blessed is the womb that bare Thee, and the paps which Thou hast sucked!" And how else could they have said that His mother and His brethren were standing without? But we shall see more of this in the proper place. Surely, when He also proclaimed Himself as the Son of man, He, without doubt, confessed that He had been born.

Besides, how could His kingdom be still standing, with its boundaries, and laws, and functions, whom, even if the whole world were left entire to Him, Marcion's god could possibly seem to have overcome as "the stronger than He," if it were not in consequence of His law that even Marcionites were constantly dying, by returning in their dissolution to the ground, and were so often admonished by even a scorpion, that the Creator had by no means been overcome? "A (certain) mother of the company exclaims, `Blessed is the womb that bare Thee, and the paps which Thou hast sucked; 'but the Lord said, `Yea, rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.'" Now He had in precisely similar terms rejected His mother or His brethren, whilst preferring those who heard and obeyed God.

But there is also another view of the case: in the abjured mother there is a figure of the synagogue, as well as of the Jews in the unbelieving brethren. In their person Israel remained outside, whilst the new disciples who kept close to Christ within, hearing and believing, represented the Church, which He called mother in a preferable sense and a worthier brotherhood, with the repudiation of the carnal relationship. It was in just the same sense, indeed, that He also replied to that exclamation (of a certain woman), not denying His mother's "womb and paps," but designating those as more "blessed who hear the word of God."

While the Pharisees and scribes disparage the miracles of the Lord, a woman, a guileless and simple person, glorifies Him. Where are those who say that the Lord appeared in mere semblance? For behold the testimony that He was even nursed at the breast!