Tuesday of the 15th week after Pentecost

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.