Letters & Polemics (CSEL) 30 part 7/14

'He himself built our nation and our synagogue for us.' They reach him closely. If, then, that actual arrival is customarily said to be made through others, how much more can the approach be made through others, which for the most part falls short of arrival, when someone may indeed have drawn very near, yet was not able to arrive! Not absurdly, then, did Matthew wish, by a shorthand which can be commonly understood, when the approach of the centurion to the Lord was made through others, to say, 'A centurion came to him.' Yet nevertheless the depth of the holy evangelist's mystical manner of speaking must not be carelessly regarded, according to which it is written in the psalm: 'Draw near to him and be enlightened.' Accordingly, because the centurion's faith,

by which one truly draws near to Jesus, he himself so praised as to say, 'I have not found such great faith in Israel,' the prudent evangelist chose to say that the centurion himself rather drew near to Christ than those through whom he had sent his words. Luke, moreover, therefore laid open the whole of how it was done, so that from this we might be compelled to understand in what manner the other, who could not lie, said that he drew near. For thus also that woman who suffered a flux of blood, although she touched the fringe of his garment, nevertheless touched the Lord more than those crowds by which he was pressed. For as she, the more she believed, the more she touched the Lord, so too the centurion, the more he believed, the more he drew near to the Lord.

Now the rest of the things in this chapter which one says and another passes over are superfluous to discuss, since by that rule first commended they will be found to have nothing contradictory. XXI. Matthew follows and says: but as it is granted — it is quite probable that each of the evangelists believed he ought to narrate in the order in which God had willed to suggest to his recollection the very things which he was narrating, at least in those matters in which the order, whether it be one or the other, in no way diminishes the authority and truth of the Gospel.

But why the Holy Spirit, dividing to each his own as he wills, and therefore governing and ruling without doubt the minds also of the saints — for the sake of books that were to be placed on so lofty a pinnacle of authority — in their recollecting of what they should write, permitted one to arrange his narrative in this way and another in that: whoever with pious diligence shall seek this, being divinely aided, will be able to find it. Yet this is not the office of the work which we have now undertaken; only that we may demonstrate that the evangelists are at variance neither with themselves nor with one another, in whatever order each of them was able or willed to narrate either the same matters or others of the deeds and sayings of Christ.

Wherefore, where the order of times does not appear, it ought to be of no concern to us in what order of narrating any of them held; but where it does appear, if anything should give trouble, that seems to contradict itself or another, it must certainly be considered and unravelled. XXII. Matthew, then, follows, saying: 'done'; yet what would mean the same he added, saying: not indeed with the order of times expressly stated, but in the manner of one recalling, it is uncertain whether he anticipated something which he had earlier omitted, or something which happened even later than the things which follow. For he says thus: 'Now it came to pass, as they were walking on the way, a certain man said to him, I will follow you wherever you go.' And he answered him exactly the same things which Matthew records.

But that Matthew says this took place when he commanded them to go across the strait, whereas Luke says it was as they were walking on the way, is not contradictory, since they were indeed walking on the way in order to come to the strait. And concerning that man who asked first to bury his father, Matthew and Luke agree entirely. For that Matthew first set down the words of the man asking on account of his father, and then those of the Lord saying, 'Follow me,' while Luke first set down those of the Lord saying, 'Follow me,' and then those of the man asking this — as to the sense it makes no difference. Luke also recorded that another said, 'I will follow you, Lord, but first permit me to bid farewell to those who are at home,' of which Matthew is silent.

From there Luke then went on to another matter, not to that which followed in the order of time. There is an interval before what Matthew next subjoins. For the same Matthew still holds the order of times, narrating thus: and it could have happened that, as several were urging him at the same time, all these things were said, one thing by one and another by another. Likewise what they said when the storm was calmed: according to Matthew, 'What manner of man is this, that the winds and the sea obey him?'; according to Mark, 'Who do you think this is, that the wind and the sea obey him?'; according to Luke, 'Who do you think this is, that he commands even the winds and the sea, and they obey him?' Who does not see that it is one and the same sentiment? For 'Who do you think he is?' and 'What manner of man is this?' amount to exactly the same.

And where it is not said 'he commands,' it is nevertheless consequently understood, since one obeys him who commands. But as to Matthew saying that there were two who suffered that legion of demons which was permitted to go into the swine, while Mark and Luke record one — you may understand that one of them was of some more distinguished and more famous person, for whom that region especially grieved, and for whose deliverance it was most busily concerned. Wishing to signify this, the two evangelists judged that only he should be recorded, concerning whom the report of this deed had spread more widely and more notably. Nor does it present any difficulty that the words of the demons are reported differently by the evangelists, since they can either be reduced to one sentiment or be understood to have all been said.

Nor is there any contradiction that in Matthew he speaks in the plural, but in the others in the singular, since they too narrate that, when asked what his name was, he answered that he was Legion, because there were many demons; nor that Mark says the herd of swine was near the mountain, but Luke on the mountain. For the herd of swine was so large that some of it was on the mountain, some near the mountain. For there were two thousand swine, as Mark expressed. From here, then, Matthew follows, still keeping the order of times, and thus weaves his narrative: This indeed can give trouble, that concerning this paralytic Matthew narrates thus: 'And getting into a boat he crossed over and came into his own city.'

They let him down with his bed into the midst before Jesus. After Jesus came into his own city, until he should also come to Capernaum, and to have subjoined this about the paralytic being healed — as in many places they do this, passing over intervening matters, as though there followed immediately that which they subjoin without any indication of their omission. XXVI. From here, then, Matthew follows, saying: what he passes over, Matthew records by recollection, since certainly Matthew must be believed to have been called before that discourse held on the mountain. For on that mountain Luke then records that all twelve were chosen out of the many disciples, whom he also named apostles. And so Matthew follows and says:

in his house; and there was a great crowd of publicans and of others who were reclining at table with them. It is therefore manifest in whose house these things were done. Now let us look at the very words, both those said to the Lord and those answered by him, which all these three evangelists set down. Matthew: it was said — rather it was cast as a reproach against the Master, whom by following they imitated. There is, then, one sentiment, and so much the better intimated, the more it is varied in certain words while the truth remains. Likewise what Matthew reports that the Lord answered: 'Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.' As to this, it may be thought that this one added the Pharisees, since they said this together with the disciples of John, whereas Matthew reports that only the disciples of John said this.

But the very words which they are read to have said in Mark rather indicate that others said this about others — that is, that the guests who were present had come to Jesus, because the disciples of John and the Pharisees were fasting, and that they said this to him about those others; so that what he says, 'they come,' he did not say of those very ones concerning whom he had inserted, 'and the disciples of John and the Pharisees were fasting,' but that, while these were fasting, those others come whom this moved, and they say to him, 'Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but yours do not fast?' This Luke expressed more evidently, thus intimating this same thing, when he had said what the Lord answered them concerning the calling of sinners as of the sick:

Mark — except that Mark called 'sons of the wedding' those whom the other called 'sons of the bridegroom,' which as to the matter makes no difference. For by 'sons of the wedding' we understand not only sons of the bridegroom, but also of the bride. The plain sentiment, then, is the same, not another and opposed. Luke, however, does not say, 'Can the sons of the bridegroom fast?' but says, 'Can you make the sons of the bridegroom fast while the bridegroom is with them?' In which he too, to intimate something else, elegantly laid open the same sentiment. For it is thus understood that those very ones who were speaking were going to bring it about that the sons of the bridegroom would fast in mourning, since they themselves would slay the bridegroom.

But what Matthew called 'to mourn,' Mark and Luke call 'to fast,' since he too afterwards says, 'then they will fast,' not 'then they will mourn.' Yet by that word he signified that the Lord spoke of such a fast as pertains to the humility of tribulation; so that the other fast, which pertains to the joy of a mind suspended in things spiritual and on this account in some way estranged from bodily foods, the Lord is understood to have signified by the subsequent similitudes — showing this by the new cloth and the new wine: that to those who are animal and carnal, occupied about the body and on this account still drawing the old sense, this kind of fasting does not agree. Which similitudes the other two likewise expounded.

For it is now sufficiently obvious that there is nothing contradictory if one says something, whether of word or of matter, which another passes over, so long as either the same sentiment is not departed from, or what perchance is otherwise set down is not opposed to the other. XXVIII. Then Matthew follows, still keeping the order of times: his own; for in the manner of the evangelists he narrated as of another what had been done concerning himself and in his own house, after which deed nothing else immediately follows except this concerning the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue. For he himself so weaves it that the transition itself plainly indicates that this is narrated consequently which was consequently done, since indeed, when he had above recorded what Jesus said about the new cloth and the new wine, he immediately subjoined:

While he was speaking these things to them, behold, a certain ruler came. And by this, if while he was speaking these things the ruler came, nothing else of his deeds or sayings was interposed. But in Mark's narrative there is an opening where other things could have been interposed, as we have already shown. Similarly also Luke, when after the miracle narrated among the Gerasenes he passes to narrating about the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue, does not so pass as to conflict with Matthew, who shows that this deed was done after those similitudes of the cloth and the wine, by saying, 'While he was speaking these things.' For this one, when he had finished narrating what was done among the Gerasenes, passes to another matter in this way: they received the Lord, since they were expecting him to return; but as to what he subjoined:

and behold, a man whose name was Jairus — this is not to be taken as a deed done immediately, but first that concerning the banquet of the publicans, as Matthew narrates, to which matter he so joins this that no other deed can consequently be understood. In this narrative, then, which we have now undertaken to consider, concerning her who suffered a flux of blood all these three evangelists agree without any question. For it makes no difference to the truth of the matter that something is left unsaid by one which is said by another, nor that Mark says, 'Who touched my garments?' and Luke, 'Who touched me?' For the one spoke in the customary way, the other properly, yet each the same sentiment.

For we more customarily say 'you are tearing me' than 'you are tearing my garments,' though it is nevertheless plain what we wish to be understood.

But truly, when Matthew narrates that the ruler of the synagogue announced to the Lord, not that his daughter was about to die, or dying, or placed at the last extremity of life, but altogether already dead, while those two say she was already close to death, yet not yet dead — so much so that they say some came afterwards to announce her dead, and that on this account the Master ought no longer to be troubled, as though he came in such a way as, by laying on his hand, to prevent her from dying, not as one who could raise the dead — it must be considered lest it seem to contradict, and it must be understood that for brevity's sake Matthew rather wished to say that the Lord was asked to do what it is manifest he did, namely, to raise the dead;

for he attends not to the words of the father about his daughter, but — what is chief — to his will, and set down such words as the will was. For he had so despaired that he would rather she should come back to life, not believing that she could be found alive whom he had left dying. The two, then, set down what Jairus said; but Matthew, what he willed and thought. Both, then, were asked of the Lord: either that he should make well one dying, or raise one dead; but since Matthew had resolved to say the whole briefly, he intimated that the father in asking said what it is certain both that he himself willed and that Christ did.

Indeed, if those two, or any one of them, had recorded that the father himself said what those coming from his house had said — that Jesus should no longer be troubled, because the girl had died — the words which Matthew set down would conflict with his thought. But as it is, when his own people announced this and forbade the Master to come any further, it is not read that he consented. And through this, that too which the Lord said to him, 'Fear not, only believe, and she shall be made whole,' did not reprove one distrusting, but more strongly confirmed one believing. For such faith was in him as in that man who said, 'I believe, Lord; help my unbelief.'

Since these things are so, through such empty — but not contradictory — modes of speech of the evangelists, we learn a thing altogether most useful and most necessary: that in anyone's words we ought to inspect nothing but the will, which the words ought to serve; and that no one lies if in other words he says what that man willed whose words he does not report — lest wretched fowlers of words suppose that the truth is somehow to be bound to the tips of the letters, when surely not in words only, but also in all other signs of minds, nothing but the mind itself is to be sought. But as to what certain codices have according to Matthew, 'For the woman is not dead, but sleeps,' whereas Mark and Luke testify that she was a girl of twelve years,

you may understand that Matthew spoke after the Hebrew manner. For in other passages of the Scriptures too this is found — that not only those who have known a man, but altogether even females untouched and intact are called 'women,' as it is written of Eve herself, 'he formed her into a woman,' and that passage in the book of Numbers where the women are commanded to be kept — 'who have not known the bed of a male,' that is, virgins — that they be not slain; by which manner of speech Paul too says that Christ himself was made 'of a woman.' For we understand this better than that we should believe her, at twelve years, already married or having known a man. XXVIIII. Matthew follows and says: he casts out demons by the prince of demons. This concerning the two blind men and the dumb demon Matthew alone sets down.

For those two blind men, of whom the others also narrate, are not these; yet a similar deed was done, so that, if Matthew himself had not also mentioned that deed, it might be thought that this which he now narrates had been told also by the others of two other men. This we ought diligently to commit to memory — that there are certain similar deeds — which is proved when the same evangelist himself records both; so that, if ever we should find such single deeds in single authors, and in them a seeming contradiction that cannot be resolved, it may occur to us that this is not the same deed, but another similar one or one similarly done. But henceforth the order of the deeds done does not appear. For after these two deeds concerning the blind men and the dumb demon, it thus follows: 'to you, shall not lose his reward.'

In this whole passage which we have now recorded, he admonished his disciples of many things, but whether Matthew subjoined them in order, or the order of narrating was his own recollection, as has been said, does not appear. This passage Mark seems to have touched on briefly, and thus entered upon it, saying: as indeed Mark, but not even he in such a way that this should appear to follow also in the order of the deeds done. In the names, then, of the disciples, Luke, who names them by another name — since they are first chosen on the mountain — does not differ from Matthew except in the name of Judas of James, whom Matthew calls Thaddaeus, while some codices have Lebbaeus. But who has ever forbidden that one man be called by two or three names?

It is likewise wont to be asked how Matthew and Luke record that the Lord said to the disciples that they should not even carry a staff, whereas Mark says, 'And he commanded them that they should take nothing on the way except a staff only,' and he too goes on, 'no wallet, no bread, no money in their belt,' so as to show that his narrative is engaged in the same passage in which is that of those who said not even a staff was to be carried. This is resolved by our understanding that the staff which according to Mark is to be carried was spoken under one signification, and that which according to Matthew and Luke is not to be carried under another — just as under one signification is understood the temptation of which it is said, 'God tempts no one,' and under another that of which it is said:

'The Lord your God tests you, that he may know whether you love him.' The former belongs to seduction, this latter to testing—just as 'judgment' is understood in one way in the passage where it is said, 'They who have done well, unto the resurrection of life; they who have done ill, unto the resurrection of judgment,' and in another way where it is said, 'Judge me, O God, and distinguish my cause from a nation that is not holy.' For the former judgment is one of condemnation, the latter one of discernment. And there are many other words which do not have a single meaning, but, being fittingly placed in different contexts, are understood in different ways, and are sometimes spoken together with an explanation, as in this: 'Do not become children in your understanding, but in malice be babes, that in understanding you may be perfect.'

For this could have been said briefly in a closed sentence: 'Do not be children, but be children.' And likewise this: 'If any man among you thinks himself to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.' For what else did he say than 'let him not be wise, that he may be wise'? But sometimes things are stated so closely that they exercise the inquirer, as in what he says to the Galatians: 'Bear one another's burdens, and so you shall fulfil the law of Christ. For if a man thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. But let every man prove his own work, and then he shall have glory in himself alone, and not in another. For every man shall bear his own burden.'

Unless you take the word 'burden' under different meanings, you will undoubtedly suppose that the same man contradicts himself in his speaking—and this within one sentence, in words placed so close together—since he who a little before said, 'Bear one another's burdens,' afterward said, 'Every man shall bear his own burden.' But the burdens of sharing another's weakness are one thing, and the burden of rendering an account to God for our own deeds is another; the former are shared to be borne up along with our brethren, the latter are borne by each one as his own. So too a 'rod' is understood spiritually, of which the Apostle said, 'Shall I come to you with a rod?', and bodily, such as we use whether for a horse or for whatever else there may be need—to pass over for the present the other figurative meanings of this word.

Both statements, therefore, are to be received as spoken by the Lord to the apostles: both that they should not carry a rod, and that they should carry nothing but a rod. For when, according to Matthew, he said to them... 'Who feeds the flock and does not partake of the milk of the flock?'—for here he was speaking of those things that are necessary for the preachers of the Gospel; whence a little later he says, 'They who work at the temple things eat of the temple; they who serve at the altar have their share with the altar.' To this the one who said that a rod signifying something else was not to be taken up is not contrary; but once the reason has been rendered, let it not be so supposed. So too, when Matthew says that sandals are not to be carried on the way, he forbids that anxiety by which they are thought to need carrying, lest they be lacking.

This is also to be understood of the two tunics: that none of them, being anxious lest there be need, should think another was to be carried besides the one he was wearing, since out of that authority he could receive it. Accordingly Mark, by saying that they were to be shod with sandals or soles, gives warning that this footwear has something of mystical meaning: that the foot should be neither covered nor bare against the earth—that is, that the Gospel should neither be concealed nor rest upon earthly advantages. And in that he forbids not that two tunics be carried or possessed, but more expressly that they be put on, saying, 'And that they should not be clothed with two tunics,' what does he admonish them but to walk not doubly, but simply?

Thus it is in no way to be doubted that the Lord said all these things, partly in the proper sense, partly figuratively; but that the evangelists inserted into their writings some things spoken to one, some to another, while certain of the same things were set down by two or three of them, whichever, or by all four; nor yet were all things thus recorded which were either said or done by him. But whoever thinks that the Lord could not, in one discourse, set forth some sayings figuratively and some in the proper sense, let him examine his other words; he will see how rashly and unlearnedly he judges this.

For this man could—to mention one instance that occurs to my mind for the moment—since he admonishes that the left hand should not know what the right does, suppose that even the almsgivings themselves and whatever else he there enjoins are to be received figuratively. Indeed I again admonish—what the reader ought to remember, lest he should so very often need such an admonition—that the Lord, in various different places of his discourses, has already repeated many things which he had said elsewhere, lest perchance, when the order of these very places does not agree with that of another evangelist, someone should on this account think one of them contrary; whereas he ought to understand that what had already been said in one place is said again in another. And this is to be observed not only concerning sayings, but also concerning deeds. For nothing forbids us to believe that this same thing was done again.

But to calumniate the Gospel, while one does not believe that a thing was done again which no one proves could not be done again, belongs to a sacrilegious vanity. Matthew follows and says: 'We wait...' and so on, up to that place where he says: 'it is found'—what wonder if some other thing that was said twice is related singly by each writer in the same order in which it was said, and therefore a different order appears in each, because it was spoken both then when the one records it and then when the other records it? Matthew follows: '...even of the Sabbath.' This too is recorded, without any question of contradiction, both by Mark and by Luke, but they do not say 'at that time.'

Whence perhaps Matthew rather held here to the order of the event, but they to that of their own recollection—unless what is said, 'at that time,' is to be taken more broadly, that is, the time in which these many and various things were being done. XXXV. Matthew therefore follows, narrating thus: the Lord, when they, wishing to find occasion for accusing, asked whether it is lawful to heal on the Sabbath, himself set before them the likeness of a sheep, saying: 'What man shall there be among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will he not lay hold of it and lift it out?' Knowing this, he withdrew from there, and many followed him, and he healed them all—all the crowds—and they said: 'Is not this the Son of David?' Here he says it makes no difference to the matter of the order whether it was in this way or in that.

And Luke further indicates this discourse of the Lord as more extended, and in it records certain things such as Matthew has in that discourse which was delivered on the mountain, which we understand to have been spoken twice—there, that is, and here. But when this discourse is ended, Luke passes on to another matter, in which it is uncertain whether he has kept the order of the events. For he links it thus: 'And while he was speaking, a certain Pharisee asked him to dine with him.' Yet he does not say 'while he was speaking these things,' but 'while he was speaking.' For if he had said 'while he was speaking these things,' he would necessarily compel us to understand that things were narrated by himself in this order, and moreover done by the Lord in this order. Matthew therefore follows and says: 'while he was speaking' the things he indicated above.

For Mark too, after reporting what the Lord said concerning the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, says: 'And there come his mother and his brethren,' passing over certain things which, in the same text of the Lord's discourse, both Matthew set down more at length than Mark, and Luke more at length than Matthew. But Luke did not keep the order of this event; rather he anticipated it and, recalling it, narrated it beforehand. Indeed he so interposed it that it appears loosed from the connection both of what precedes and of what follows. For after recording certain parables of the Lord, he thus interposed this recollection concerning his mother and brethren:

'But there came to him,' he says, 'both his mother and his brethren, and they could not come at him for the crowd'—he did not express when they came to him—; then again, when he passes on from here also, he speaks thus: 'And it came to pass,' he says, 'on one of the days, that he himself went up into a boat, and his disciples.' And here too, when he says, 'It came to pass on one of the days,' he sufficiently indicates that it is not necessary that this day be understood as the one on which this was done, or the one which immediately follows. Therefore what Matthew narrates concerning the mother and brethren of the Lord has nothing of contradiction with the other two, neither in the words of the Lord, nor in the very order of the events. XLI. Matthew follows: 'he sat in the house beside the sea.'