Thursday of the 21st week after Pentecost

(de Con. Ev. l. 2. c. 45.) Now Luke, though he keeps the same order in his narrative with Mark, docs not oblige us to believe that the course of events was the same. In these words too, Mark testifies only to the fact that others (not Herod) said that John had risen from the dead, but since Luke has mentioned Herod's perplexity, we must suppose either that after that perplexity, he confirmed in his own mind what was said by others, since he says to his servants, (as Matthew relates,) This is John the Baptist, he is risen from the dead, or these words of Matthew must have been uttered so as to signify that he was still doubting.

Now, Herod the tetrarch heard all that was done by Him, and he was perplexed, because it was said by some that John had risen from the dead. How great was the envy of the Jews, who, with fury of malice against the Lord, we are taught in almost every place of the Gospel. Behold John, of whom it was said that he performed no sign, yet they believed he could have risen from the dead without any witness; but Jesus, proven by God with powers and signs, at whose death the elements trembled, and whose resurrection and ascension were declared by angels, apostles, and men and women alike, they preferred to believe was not risen, but was stolen away secretly. Nor should it be thought to contradict that Luke recounts that Herod was perplexed because it was said by some that John had risen from the dead: when Matthew and Mark report that Herod himself, having heard of Jesus' fame, said to his servants, This is John the Baptist; he has risen from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him (Matt. 14); but it must be understood that after this perplexity, he confirmed in his mind what was being said by others.

The second end or special utility is the arousing of hearers to conferring; as regards which it is said: Now Herod the tetrarch heard of all that was done by him, so that the fame of Christ's name was carried by the Apostles not only to the common people but even to kings, as is said of Paul in Acts 9: "He is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel." Whence the hearers could already say what the Gibeonites said in Joshua 9: "We have heard the fame of the power of your God, all that he did." And from this hearing he was aroused to inquiring and doubting on account of the variety of those holding opinions.

Whence there follows: And he was perplexed, because it was said by some that John had risen from the dead. And Herod adhered more to this opinion; whence in the fourteenth chapter of Matthew: "Herod heard the fame of Jesus and said to his servants: This is John the Baptist; he himself has risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works operate in him." Now he held this opinion on account of the eminence of the sanctity of life, because, as is said in the sixth chapter of Mark, "Herod feared John, knowing him to be a just and holy man." Nevertheless, he did not firmly adhere to this opinion; therefore it is said that he was perplexed, that is, he wavered, according to that passage in the first chapter of James: "He who hesitates is like a wave of the sea, which is moved and carried about by the wind." — And this was on account of other opinions; whence he adds: But by some, that Elijah had appeared, namely, it was said. And this opinion seemed probable on account of the eminence of power. Whence in the forty-eighth chapter of Sirach: "Elijah was magnified in his wondrous deeds." And this opinion seemed more credible, because, as is said in the tenth chapter of John, "John indeed performed no sign." Whence Christ, performing miracles, seemed more like Elijah.

But nevertheless not all assented to this; on account of which he adds: But by others, that one of the ancient Prophets had risen. And they held this opinion on account of the knowledge of truth: because, according to that passage in the third chapter of Amos, "the Lord will not do a thing unless he has revealed his secret to his servants the Prophets." And thus it is clear that there was a threefold opinion on account of a threefold excellence which they heard concerning Christ, namely, of sanctity, of power, and of knowledge of truth. And therefore they conferred with one another, and some believed this and some believed that.

(Hom. 48. in Matt.) It was not till a long time had passed that Herod took notice of the things that were done by Jesus, (to show you the pride of a tyrant,) for he did not acknowledge them at first, as it is said, Now Herod heard, &c.

For sinners fear both when they know, and when they are ignorant; they are afraid of shadows, are suspicious about every thing, and are alarmed at the slightest noise. Such in truth is sin; when no one blames or finds fault, it betrays a man, when no one accuses it condemns, and makes the offender timid and backward. But the cause of fear is stated afterwards, in the words, Because that it was said of some.

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.

Again, that it was no new god which recommended by Christ, was dearly attested by the opinion of all men, because some maintained to Herod that Jesus was the Christ; others, that He was John; some, that He was Elias; and others, that He was one of the old prophetess. Now, whosoever of all these He might have been, He certainly was not raised up for the purpose of announcing another god after His resurrection.

Herod was the son of Herod the Great who slew the children, who was king, but this Herod was tetrarch. He inquired about Christ, who He was. Hence it follows, And he was perplexed.

For the Jews expected a resurrection of the dead to a fleshly life, eating and drinking, but those that rise again will not be concerned with the deeds of the flesh.

And Herod said: I beheaded John. But who is this about whom I hear such things? And he sought to see him. These are the words of the hesitant Herod, mentioned above. Because he desires to see one whom he discovered to be great by reputation, perhaps to recognize if he might be John himself. The sequence and cause of his beheading, since the Evangelists describe it most fully, Luke in his manner prefers to mention to indicate the state of the times, rather than to repeat what he sees is abundantly said. However, because there is mention of John's beheading, it should be noted, that both John and the Lord declare their own state and order both at the time of birth and by the order of their passion. For John was diminished by the head, the Lord was elevated on the cross. John was born when the days began to decrease, the Lord when they began to increase. As this appears too, it is that "He must increase, but I must decrease" (John 3), that is, it must be recognized that He, who was considered a prophet, is Christ: and I, who was thought to be Christ, must be understood as His forerunner.

Now the third end was the arousing of those conferring to wonder; with respect to which there follows: And Herod said: John I have beheaded, as a mortal and passible man. Herod had beheaded him on account of John's truthfulness and Herod's malice, according to what is said in the fourteenth chapter of Matthew: "John said to Herod: It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife"; and it follows after that for this cause he beheaded him. And thus from his very death he judges weakness in John, however great he was proclaimed to be.

And therefore from this comparison he marveled at the power of Christ; whence he adds: But who is this, about whom I hear such things? that is, such great wonders; whence he could say: "What God is great like our God? You are the God who works wonders," such as namely had not been heard before, according to that passage in the ninth chapter of John: "Since the world began it has not been heard that anyone opened the eyes of one born blind," etc.

The fourth purpose was the arousal of those who marveled to behold him; on account of which it is added: And he sought to see him. For we gladly see what we admire. This, however, he did not then attain, according to what is said in Luke 10: "Amen I say to you, that many kings and prophets wished to see the things that you see and did not see them." But he did not attain this because he did not seek diligently; whence Proverbs 14: "The scoffer seeks wisdom and does not find it." Whence it must be considered with great care how God ought to be sought, so that he may be seen and found by those who seek.

(ubi sup.) When Herod then heard of the miracles which Jesus was performing, he says, John have I beheaded, which was not an expression of boasting, but by way of allaying his fears, and bringing his distracted soul to recollect that he had killed. And because he had beheaded John, he adds, but who is this.

If John is alive and has risen from the dead, I shall know him when I see him; as it follows, And he sought to see him.

After that she who received the type of the Church was cured of the issue of blood, and that the Apostles were appointed to preach the Gospel of the kingdom of God, the nourishment of heavenly grace is imparted. But mark to whom it is imparted. Not to the indolent, not to those in a city, of rank in the synagogue, or in high secular office, but to those who seek Christ in the desert.

But they who are not proud are themselves received by Christ, and the Word of God speaks with them, not about worldly things, but of the kingdom of God. And if any have ulcers of bodily passions, to these He willingly affords His cure. But every where the order of the mystery is preserved, that first through the remission of sins the wounds should be healed, but afterwards the nourishment of the heavenly table should plentifully abound.

(de Con. Ev. 1. 2. c. 45.) Matthew and Mark, taking occasion from what had occurred above, relate here how John was slain by Herod. But Luke, who had long before given an account of John's sufferings, after mentioning that perplexity of Herod's, as to who our Lord was, immediately adds, And the apostles when they were returned told him all that they had done.

And the apostles, having returned, reported to him whatever they had done. Not only do the apostles report to the Lord what they themselves had done and taught but also what John, occupied in teaching, had suffered, or Christ, or the disciples of the same John relay to him, as Matthew indicates. Thus follows:

And he withdrew, having taken them apart, to a deserted place called Bethsaida. He did not act out of fear of death, as some think, but sparing his enemies, lest they add murder to murder, and also waiting for the opportune time of his passion, for anyone who has carefully read the Gospels will find that the passions of John and the Lord were separated by more than a year. Indeed, the Lord performed the miracle of the loaves, according to three agreeing evangelists, after the beheading of John. John, about to describe this miracle, mentions that it was near the Passover, the feast day of the Jews; and after these events, Jesus is said to have gone up to the feast of their Tabernacles. There, while he was teaching in the temple, they sought to apprehend him, but no one laid hands on him because his hour had not yet come (John 7); and then during the time of the next Passover he completed the triumph of the cross. Thus, after John was killed, waiting for the time, he retreated apart to a deserted place called Bethsaida: mystically teaching that having left behind Judea, which, by not believing in prophecy, had lost its head, he would lavish the nourishment of the word in the desert of the Church, which had no husband. Hence, beautifully, Bethsaida is interpreted as the house of fruits. For it is the one about which Isaiah said: The desert and the parched land shall be glad; the wilderness shall rejoice and blossom like the lily (Isa. 35); and a little later: They will see the glory of the Lord, the splendor of our God (Isa. 35). Bethsaida is, however, in Galilee, the city of the apostles Andrew and Peter and Philip, near the lake of Gennesaret, as we find in the books of places.

But they not only tell Him what they had done and taught, but also, as Matthew implies, the things which John suffered while they were occupied in teaching, are now repeated to Him either by His own, or, according to Matthew, by John's disciples. (Matt. 14:12.)

Now Bethsaida is in Galilee, the city of the Apostles Andrew, Peter, and Philip, near the lake of Gennesaret. Our Lord did not this from fear of death, (as some think,) but to spare His enemies, lest they should commit two murders, waiting also for the proper time for His own sufferings.

And the Apostles returned and reported. After the instruction of the Apostles accomplished through word or precept, there follows here the instruction of the same through deed or example. This part, moreover, has two sections. In the first, he instructs through a familiar example, but in the second through a figurative one, at the place: Now the day had begun to decline. The first is observed in the spiritual instruction of the crowds; the second, in their bodily refreshment, which bears the form and figure of spiritual refreshment.

The instruction of the crowds by the Lord, in which a model is given to preachers for teaching the faithful people, is set forth with respect to four things that are required in preaching. The first is faithfulness of company; the second is suitability of place; the third, docility of the people; and the fourth, affability of the Master; so that nothing may be lacking to the word of God, neither on the part of those assisting, nor on the part of those opposing, nor on the part of those hearing, nor on the part of those teaching, that would prevent the word of the Lord from having its due effect.

First, therefore, with respect to the faithfulness of company, it is said: And the Apostles returned and reported to him whatever they had done; in which their faithfulness appears, because they returned swiftly to the divine company. Whence they were not like the raven, of which Genesis 8 says: "Which went forth and did not return"; but like the dove, of which it is said that "when it had not found where its foot might rest, it returned to Noah in the ark," as a faithful friend. So also the Apostles, endowed with dove-like simplicity, returned swiftly to Christ as faithful messengers. — Their faithfulness also appears because they concealed nothing from God, but reported to him whatever they had done; not to instruct the Lord, from whom nothing is hidden, but to show that they did not even wish to conceal anything, even if they could. Against which, Isaiah 29: "Woe to you who are deep of heart, so as to hide your counsel from the Lord," etc. Or they reported for this reason, that they might not seek glory for themselves from their good deeds, but might refer all things to God, according to that saying in 1 Corinthians 10: "Do all things for the glory of God"; against those who say that word of Deuteronomy 32: "Our hand is exalted, and not the Lord, has done all these things."

Second, with regard to the opportuneness of the place, he adds: And taking them with him, as faithful ones, into his company, he withdrew apart into a desert place, which belongs to Bethsaida, as to a quiet and tranquil place; whence Mark 6: "Come apart into a desert place and rest a little." And this place is suitable for instruction, according to Hosea 2: "I will lead her into the wilderness and speak to her heart." Now this desert place was near the lake of Genesareth, which is apparent from the fact that he says: Bethsaida. Now Bethsaida is "the city of Andrew and Peter," as is said in John 1. And note that he does not say Bethsaida, as if near that city or in the city, but of Bethsaida, because the place was remote, yet within the borders of the city of Bethsaida. Whence in Mark 6 it is said that after the multiplication of the loaves he commanded them to go before him "across the water to Bethsaida." Whence there is no contradiction, but one explained what the other passed over in silence.

(Orat. Catech. Mag. c. 23.) For whom neither the heaven rained manna, nor the earth brought forth corn according to its nature, but from the unspeakable garner of divine power the blessing was poured forth. The bread is supplied in the hands of those who serve, it is even increased through the fulness of those who eat. The sea supplied not their wants with the food of fishes, but He who placed in the sea the race of fishes.

(l. I. ep. 233.) Our Lord because He hates the men of blood, and those that dwell with them, as long as they depart not from their crimes, after the murder of the Baptist left the murderers and departed; as it follows, And he took them, and went aside privately into a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida.

Our Lord because He hates the men of blood, and those that dwell with them, aslong as they depart not from their crimes, after the murder of the Baptist left the murderers and departed; as it follows, And he took them, and went aside privately into a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida.

(Hom. 49. in Matt.) Now He did not depart before, but after it was told Him what had happened, manifesting in each particular the reality of His incarnation.

Now, whosoever of all these He might have been, He certainly was not raised up for the purpose of announcing another god after His resurrection. He feeds the multitude in the desert place; this, you must know was after the manner of the Old Testament.

But our Lord went into a desert place because He was about to perform the miracle of the loaves of bread, that no one should say that the bread was brought from the neighbouring cities.

After the law has passed away, the food of the gospel begins to feed the hungry hearts of the people.… It was fitting that those whom he had healed from the pain of wounds he freed from hunger with spiritual nourishment. Thus none receives the food of Christ unless he was first healed, and the calling first heals those who are called to the feast. If one was lame, he received the ability to walk, so that he came. If one lacked the sight of his eyes, he could indeed not enter the house of the Lord, unless his sight was restored.

When the crowds learned of it, they followed him. And he welcomed them, and spoke to them of the kingdom of God, and healed those who needed care. The Lord tests the faith of the crowds, and rewards the proven faith with a worthy reward. By seeking the solitude, he explores whether they care to follow. These, by following and not using beasts of burden or various vehicles, but as some Evangelists tell, initiating the journey into the desert by the labor of their own feet, show how much they care for their salvation. Again, the Lord himself, as a powerful and merciful savior and healer, by welcoming the fatigued, teaching the ignorant, healing the sick, and feeding the hungry, suggests how much he delights in the devotion of believers. According to the laws of allegory, Christ, seeking the deserts of the Gentiles, is followed by many troops of the faithful, leaving behind the walls of ancient life and neglecting the protection of various doctrines. And he who was first known as God in Judea, after the teeth of the Jews became weapons and arrows, and their tongue was made a sharp sword against him. "Be exalted above the heavens, O God, and let your glory be over all the earth" (Psalm LVI).

You see, our Lord provided encouragement for the multitude that was following him as the Passover, the Jews' festival day, was drawing near. He did this by his words of salvation, together with the help of his cures. As another Evangelist wrote, he spoke to them about the kingdom of God and healed those who were in need of being cured. When his acts of teaching and healing were completed, he refreshed them most abundantly from a small amount of food.

But He as the powerful and merciful Saviour by receiving the weary, by teaching the ignorant, curing the sick, filling the hungry, implies how He was pleased with their devotion; as it follows, And he received them, and spake unto them of the kingdom of God, &c.

Who Himself having left Judæa, which by unbelief had bereft herself of the source of prophecy, in the desert of the Church which had no husband, dispenses the food of the word. But many companies of the faithful leaving the city of their former manner of life, and their various opinions, follow Christ into the deserts of the Gentiles.

Third, with regard to the docility of the people, he adds: When the crowds learned this, they followed him, namely so that they might receive the teaching of him whom they desired, according to Hosea 6: "We shall know and shall follow on, that we may know the Lord." Whence Bede in the Gloss: "They followed not on beasts of burden, not in vehicles, but by the labor of their own feet, so as to show the ardor of their minds." Whence in Mark 6 it is said that many "came there on foot from the cities." The reason for this is given in John 6, where it is said: "After these things Jesus went across the Sea of Tiberias, and a great multitude followed him, because they saw the signs which he was doing," etc.

Fourth, indeed, as regards the affability of the Master, he adds: And he received them: in which is shown the kindness of Christ in sign, to which the Apostle exhorts in Romans 15: "Receive one another, just as Christ also received you to the honor of God." And not only in sign, but also in word; whence he adds: And he spoke to them of the kingdom of God, as if in affable and familiar discourse, so that that saying of the Psalm might truly be shown to be fulfilled: "I will declare your name to my brethren." But although he spoke affably, yet not uselessly, not carnally, because about the kingdom of God, not about the world: whence 1 Peter 4: "If anyone speaks, as it were the words of God"; and John 3: "He who is of the earth speaks of the earth," but Christ from heaven; and John 6: "You have the words of eternal life." - Nor did he show himself affable only in word and sign, but also in deed. Whence he also adds: And those who had need of healing, he healed: in which is shown the perfection of love, concerning which 1 John 3: "Let us love not in word nor in tongue, but in deed and in truth"; because "he who sees his brother have need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?" Such charity Christ had: whence Acts 10: "He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil," not only speaking well. - Whence in this the preacher or prelate is instructed to show himself kind to his sheep, namely in sign, word, and deed. As a sign of which it was also said three times to Peter: Feed, in the last chapter of John.

Some indeed asking to be delivered from evil spirits, but others desiring of Him the removal of their diseases; those also who were delighted with His teaching attended Him diligently.

(ubi sup.) Or He went into a desert place that no one might follow Him. But the people did not retire, but accompanied Him, as it follows, And the people when they knew it, followed him.

That you may learn that the wisdom which is in us is distributed into word and work, and that it becomes us to speak of what has been done, and to do what we speak of.

(Verse 53, 54.) And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these parables, that he departed from there. And coming into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, so that they marveled and said. After the parables that he spoke to the people, and that only the apostles understood, he went to his own country to teach more openly there.

Where does this wisdom and these virtues come from? The Nazarenes marvel at where he gets his wisdom and virtue; but the error is obvious, for they suspect that he is the son of a carpenter.

After the parables which the Lord spake to the people, and which the Apostles only understand, He goes over into His own country that He may teach there also.

Wonderful folly of the Nazarenes! They wonder whence Wisdom itself has wisdom, whence Power has mighty works! But the source of their error is at hand, because they regard Him as the Son of a carpenter; as they say, Is not this the carpenter's son?

Matthew says "these parables" because in a short time He would tell them other ones. He departed so that He could benefit others by His presence. "His own country" means Nazareth, for He was raised there. He was teaching in the synagogue, speaking openly in public, that they might not later have grounds to claim that He was teaching things contrary to the law.

The Nazarenes were foolish to think that low birth and plain ancestry hinder anyone from pleasing God. Let us suppose that Jesus was simply man and not God. What would have prevented Him from being a great wonderworker? So they are proven to be foolish and spiteful. They ought rather to have taken pride that their native city had produced such a good man.

The Lord is dishonored by his own. Although his wisdom in teaching and his mighty works excited admiration, their faithlessness held them back from true discernment. For they did not believe that God was doing these things in a man. Moreover, they referred to his father, his mother, brothers and sisters and took offense at him.

Thus the Lord is held in no honour by His own; and though the wisdom of His teaching, and the power of His working raised their admiration, yet do they not believe that He did these things in the name of the Lord, and they cast His father's trade in His teeth. Amid all the wonderful works which He did, they were moved with the contemplation of His Body, and hence they ask, Whence hath this man these things? And thus they were offended in him.

And what doth he now call His country? As it seems to me, Nazareth. "For He did not many mighty works there," it is said, but in Capernaum He did miracles: wherefore He said also, "And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto Heaven, shalt be brought down to hell; for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day."

But having come there, while He slackens somewhat in His miracles; so as not to inflame them unto more envy, nor to condemn them more grievously, by the aggravation of their unbelief: He yet puts forth a doctrine, having no less of wonder in it than the miracles. For these utterly senseless men, when they ought to have marvelled, and to have been amazed at the power of His words, they on the contrary hold Him cheap, because of him who seemed to be His father; yet we know they had many examples of these things in the former times, and from fathers of no note had seen illustrious children. For so David was the son of a certain mean husbandman, Jesse; and Amos, the child of a goatherd, and himself a goatherd; and Moses too, the lawgiver, had a father very inferior to himself. When they therefore, for this especially, ought to adore and be amazed, that being of such parents He spake such things, it being quite manifest, that so it was not of man's care, but of God's grace: yet they, what things they should admire Him for, for those they despise Him.

He is moreover continually frequenting the synagogues, lest if He were always abiding in the wilderness, they should the more accuse Him as making a schism, and fighting against their polity. Being amazed therefore, and in perplexity, they said, "Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these powers?" either calling the miracles powers, or even the wisdom itself.

The synagogues could not be his. A malicious and disbelieving crowd gathered there. A people full of hate rather than love came together. A group of ill-disposed and ill-mannered people assembled. "He began to teach in their synagogues, so that they were astonished." They were astonished because of indignation and not because of grace. They were amazed because of envy and not because of praise. They raged because what the proud seated on the floor were unable to discern, humility on its feet was thoroughly teaching.

"So that they were astonished, and said, 'Where did he get this wisdom?' " The one who speaks this way does not know God, from whom is wisdom and from whom are mighty works. Solomon points to that source of wisdom. While still young, he accepted the highest honor of the kingdom so he might rule the people entrusted to him with virtue and not with arrogance, with wisdom and not with pride, with his heart and not with his head. He wanted wisdom from God, earnestly asked for it and received it. "Where did he get this wisdom and these mighty works?" The mighty power that gives eyesight denied by nature, that restores hearing to those drowned in silence, that unscrambles the words of those who are mute, that enables the lame to walk again and that orders souls headed for the realm of the dead to return to their bodies is from God, unless someone envious of salvation should deny it.

He taught in their synagogues where great numbers were met, because it was for the salvation of the multitude that He came from heaven upon earth. It follows; So that they marvelled, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these many mighty works? His wisdom is referred to His doctrine, His mighty works to His miracles.

As the case stood, however, it was actually the ordinary condition of His terrene flesh which made all things else about Him wonderful, as when they said, "Whence hath this man this wisdom and these mighty works? " Thus spake even they who despised His outward form.

And coming into his own country. His country is sometimes called Nazareth, where he was brought up, and there he worked few miracles; sometimes Bethlehem, where he was born; sometimes Capharnaum, because he worked miracles there. And he taught them in their synagogues, etc. There follows the wonder. And first the wonder is set forth; secondly, its effect is identified. He says: so that they wondered. It was not surprising if they wondered; Ps 118:129: your testimonies are wonderful. They wondered whence those powers came: for wonder is caused when the effect is seen but the cause is unknown. They saw the manifest effect, but did not know the cause; hence they said: whence has this man this wisdom and these mighty works? But this was a foolish wonder, because 1 Cor 1:24 states that he is the power and the wisdom of God. But they did not know this, and therefore they wondered.

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.

(Quæst. in Matt. q. 17.) No wonder then that any kinsmen by the mother's side should be called the Lord's brethren, when even by their kindred to Joseph some are here called His brethren by those who thought Him the son of Joseph.

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.

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.

But clearly this was the son of the carpenter who was subduing iron with fire, melting away all the might of the world with good judgment and forming the mass into every work that was humanly useful. He was molding the formless material of our bodies into members for different ministries and for every work of eternal life. They all became irritated at these things. Among the many astonishing things he did, they were most deeply moved by his contemplativeness and his bodily self-control.

And this was the carpenter's son who subdues iron by means of fire, who tries the virtue of this world in the judgment, and forms the rude mass to every work of human need; the figure of our bodies, for example, to the divers ministrations of the limbs, and all the actions of life eternal.

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.

(Verse 55, 56.) Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did he get all these things? And they took offense at him. The error of the Jews is our salvation, and the condemnation of the heretics. For they saw Jesus Christ merely as a man, so that the carpenters thought him to be the son: Isn't this the carpenter's son? Are you surprised if they err about his brothers, when they err about his father? This place has been explained more fully in the aforementioned book against Helvedius.

(in Helvid. 14.) Those who are here called the Lord's brethren, are the sons of a Mary, His Mother's sister; she is the mother of this James and Joseph, that is to say, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and this is the Mary who is called the mother of James the Less.

And when they are mistaken in His Father, no wonder if they are also mistaken in His brethren. Whence it is added, Is not his mother Mary, and his brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?

This error of the Jews is our salvation, and the condemnation of the heretics, for they perceived Jesus Christ to be man so far as to think Him the son of a carpenter.

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."

"Is not this the carpenter's son?" The greater then the marvel, and the more abundant the ground of amaze. "Is not His mother called Mary, and His brethren James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? and His sisters, are they not all with us? Whence hath this man these things? And they were offended in Him."

Seest thou that Nazareth was where He was discoursing? "Are not his brethren," it is said, "such a one, and such a one?" And what of this? Why, by this especially you ought to have been led on to faith. But envy you see is a poor base thing, and often falls foul of itself. For what things were strange and marvellous, and enough to have gained them over, these offended them.

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.

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.

And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, "Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?" [Matthew 13:55-56] They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. 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 honour 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. And James is he whom Paul says in the Epistle to the Galatians that he saw, "But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." [Galatians 1:19] And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James. And Jude, who wrote a letter of few lines, it is true, but filled with the healthful words of heavenly grace, said in the preface, "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ and the brother of James." [Jude 1]

(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.

(non occ. cf. Serm. 135. App.) For the Father of Christ is that Divine Workman who made all these works of nature, who set forth Noah's ark, who ordained the tabernacle of Moses, and instituted the Ark of the covenant; that Workman who polishes the stubborn mind, and cuts down the proud thoughts.

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).

The Lord had brothers and sisters, the children of Joseph which he begat by the wife of his brother Cleopas. For when Cleopas died childless, Joseph took his wife in accordance with the law and had six children by her, four boys and two girls, Mary, who was called the daughter of Cleopas, in accordance with the law, and Salome.

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."

And they set forth their wonder and their knowledge: hence they said, is not this the carpenter's son? For he was thought to be the son of Joseph, who was not an ironworker but a woodworker: although he could also be called the son of the craftsman who fashioned the dawn and the sun, Ps 73:16. Is not his mother called Mary? They knew all the things that pertained to his humanity. About Mary it is stated above at 1:18: when his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, etc. And his brethren James and Joseph, Simon and Jude. Helvidius understood these to be sons of Mary. But this is false; rather they were his cousins. Or they are called brethren because they were of the kindred of Joseph, who was thought to be the father of Jesus. Gen 13:8: let there be no strife between me and you, for we are brethren, Abraham said to Lot: although Lot was the son of his brother.

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.

The Lord had brothers and sisters, the children of Joseph which he begat by the wife of his brother Cleopas. For when Cleopas died childless, Joseph took his wife in accordance with the law and had six children by her, four boys and two girls, Mary, who was called the daughter of Cleopas, in accordance with the law, and Salome.

And in the same way is to be understood what follows: and his sisters, are they not all with us? Therefore from those things which pertained to the flesh, they went forth into wonder, saying: whence then has this man all these things?

(Verse 58) And he did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief. Not because he was unable to do many miracles for them, who were unbelieving; but rather because in doing many miracles he would condemn the unbelieving citizens. It can also be understood in another way, that Jesus is despised in his own home and country, that is, among the Jewish people. And therefore, he performed only a few signs there, so that they would not become completely without excuse. But he performs greater signs daily among the nations through his apostles, not so much in the healing of bodies, but in the salvation of souls.

Not that because they did not believe He could not do His mighty works; but that He might not by doing them be condemning His fellow-citizens in their unbelief.

Or we may understand it otherwise, that Jesus is despised in His own house and country, signifies in the Jewish people; and therefore He did among them few miracles, that they might not be altogether without excuse; but among the Gentiles He does daily greater miracles by His Apostles, not so much in healing their bodies, as in saving their souls.

But if His miracles raised their wonder, why did He not work many? Because He looked not to display of Himself, but to what would profit others; and when that did not result, He despised what pertained only to Himself that He might not increase their punishment. Why then did He even these few miracles? That they should not say, We should have believed had any miracles been done among us.

It seems to me that the production of miracles is similar in some ways to the case of physical things. Cultivation is not sufficient to produce a harvest of fruits unless the soil, or rather the atmosphere, cooperates to this end. And the atmosphere of itself is not sufficient to produce a harvest without cultivation. The one who providentially orders creation did not design things to spring up from the earth without cultivation. Only in the first instance did he do so when he said, "Let the earth bring forth vegetation, with the seed sowing according to its kind and according to its likeness."It is just this way in regard to the production of miracles. The complete work resulting in a healing is not displayed without those being healed exercising faith. Faith, of whatever quality it might be, does not produce a healing without divine power.

Christ indeed came to his own country, because it was written, "He came among his own, and his own did not receive him." In plain fact, when he says, "A prophet is not without honor except in his own country," he is teaching that it is a painful situation to have influence among his own. To stand out among the local denizens is similar to an inflammation. A near relation's glory burns the near relations. If neighbors have to pay homage to a neighbor, they consider it servitude. "And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief." Power has no effect where unbelief does not deserve it. And while Christ does not demand a reward when he heals, he becomes indignant when injustice is shown to him instead of honor.

Hence it follows: and he did not work many miracles there; not because he could not, since he was omnipotent, but he did not, because the purpose for which he worked miracles was that they might believe in him. But they held him in contempt, because they interpreted things in a bad sense, and therefore they were not disposed to faith: yet he worked some, so that they might be rendered inexcusable; and therefore he says not many, because he worked some. And this was on account of their unbelief.