Arbitration-Visiting-Excommunication
PARTICULAR DUTIES AND PROBLEMS
[m.17 is it simple to interfere with her movements abroad. Her poverty and her independence do not permit him to be a close scrutineer of the decorum she ought to display. For since she is compelled to attend to all her own needs, she has many excuses for going out, if she wants to misbehave. So if someone orders her always to remain at home, he must take away these pretexts, make sufficient provision for her daily needs, and give her a woman to attend to them. She must also be forbidden funerals and vigils. For that subtle serpent knows very well how to spread his poison even by means of good deeds. The virgin must be completely immured, and must leave her house only a few times each year, when urgent necessity compels her.
Should anyone say that it is not the bishop's job to attend to any of this, he must bear in mind that all particular anxieties and accusations are referred to him. It is much better for him to manage everything himself, and so be rid of the criticism which he must otherwise incur through the faults of others than to shed some particular ministry and go in fear of being called to account for what others do.
Besides, if he does everything himself, he gets through all his business very easily. But if he has to do this and to persuade everyone else to agree as well, the relief he gets through freedom from personal labour is not equal to the trouble and bother he is caused by those who oppose him and resist his decisions.
But I cannot enumerate all the anxieties caused by virgins. The fact is that when they are enrolled they cause extraordinary trouble to the man who is entrusted with this administration.
4. Arbitration-Visiting-Excommunication The judicial function involves innumerable burdens and
III. IS]
PARTICULAR DUTIES AND PROBLEMS
much expenditure of time, and greater difficulties even than those that face the judges in secular cases. It is a problem to find where justice lies, and it is hard not to pervert it when found. But expenditure of time and difficulty are not the only things involved; there is also no little danger. Before now some of the weaker brethren have got involved in disputes and, finding no favouritism, have "made shipwreck concerning the faith".3 For many of those who have suffered wrong hate those who cannot help them just as much as those who did the wrong. They will not take into account the complicated nature of the business or the difficulty of appointing a suitable time or the limitation of ecclesiastical authority or anything else of the kind. They are merciless critics, who recognize only one thing in the judge's favourdeliverance from the troubles which oppress them. If he cannot offer them this, however many good reasons he gives, he will never avoid their condemnation.
And since I have already mentioned favouritism, let me disclose to you another occasion for blame. If the bishop does not pay a more extensive round of daily visits than ordinary loungers, indescribable offence will be taken. Not only the sick, but the healthy want to be visited by the bishop, not so much because their piety prompts them, as because most of them lay claim to honour and distinction.
And if he happens to visit one of the richer and more influential men more frequently, prompted by some special need and for the common good of the Church, he wins at once the reputation of a flatterer and a toady.
But why mention favouritism and visiting? The mere way in which they address people is enough to incur such a load of criticism that they are often burdened and prostrated by despondency. Why, they have to render account for the 51 Tim. 1.19.
PARTICULAR DUTIES AND PROBLEMS
[m.IS merest glance! People subject their casual doings to a minute examination, assessing the strength of their voice, the expression of their face, and the frequency of their laugh.
"He smiled affably at so-and-so," says one, "and spoke to him with a bright face and hearty voice; but he was less pleasant with me, and indeed quite casual." When a crowd is seated together, if he does not turn his eyes in every direction while conversing, the rest say his action is an insult.
Who, then, but a man of outstanding strength could cope with so many accusers and either not be indicted by them at all, or escape after indictment? He ought to have no accusers; or if this is impossible, he should elude their accusations; and if this is not easy either, but there are some people who take pleasure in off-hand and random accusations, then he must firmly refuse to be dismayed by these complaints. A man who is justly accused can easily bear with his accuser.
For since there is no accuser more bitter than our own conscience, we have no difficulty in bearing the milder accusations of others, when we have first been convicted by that most severe accuser. But when someone whose conscience acquits him of evil is accused without a cause, he is quickly roused to anger and easily falls into desperation, unless he has trained himself already to bear the mischief of the mob.
For it is quite impossible for anyone who is idly slandered and accused not to be troubled and hurt by such stupid conduct. And how can one describe the grief bishops feel when anyone has to be excommunicated from the body of the Church? If only the trouble went no further than grief !
But in fact it may lead to terrible loss. For it is to be feared that if a man is punished too severely, he may do what St Paul speaks of, and "be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow".6 Here, too, great care is needed to ensure that what
6 2 Cor. 2.7.
I02
III.IS]
PARTICULAR DUTIES AND PROBLEMS
was meant to help does not become the occasion of greater loss. For the vengeance for sins which he commits after such treatment is shared by the surgeon who lances the wound unskilfully.
What punishment, then, must a man expect, when he not only has to render account for his own offences but also stands in the utmost peril for the sins of others? If we shudder when our own offences are examined, for fear that we shall not be able to escape the threatened fire, what must that man expect to suffer who will have to answer for so many? To prove that this is true, hear what St Paul says, or rather, not Paul but Christ who speaks in him: "Obey them that have the rule over you and submit to them; for they watch in behalf of your souls, as they that shall give account."? Is the fear of this threat trivial? We dare not say it is.
Surely all this is enough to persuade the most stubborn and obstinate that my reason for hiding was not arrogance or vainglory, but fear for my own safety and a clear view of the responsibilities involved.
7 Heb. 13. 17.
10~
[IV.I
THE PENALTY FOR FAILURE
BASIL listened to this, and after a short pause he said:
Well, if you had been personally ambitious to obtain this office. your anxiety would have been reasonable. Anyone who, by his ambition to obtain it, professes that he is suitable to exercise this ministry cannot make inexperience the excuse for his failure after he has been entrusted with it. He deprived himself of that excuse in advance, by coming forward and grabbing the ministry eagerly. And once he has voluntarily taken up the work of his own free will, he can no longer say, "I committed such and such an error against my will," or, "I did such and such a mischief against my will." For he who will judge him on that day will say:
"Since you were conscious of your great inexperience and had not the ability to undertake this vocation without failure, why were you so ambitious and so presumptuous as to accept work beyond your own powers? Who compelled you to do it? Who dragged you into it forcibly, though you shied off and tried to escape?" But you, at any rate, will never hear this said to you. Nor will you have to condemn yourself for that kind of thing. It is quite clear to everyone that you never showed the least ambition for this honour, but the success of the scheme would have been due to others.
What deprives the ambitious of pardon for their mistakes, provides you with good grounds for excusing yourself.
In answer to this I shook my head and smiled gently, marvelling at his simplicity, and replied:
I only wish it were as you say, my best of friends, but
IV.I]
THE PENALTY FOR FAILURE
not in order to enable me to accept the office which I have just evaded. For even if there were no punishment stored up for me for taking charge of the flock of Christ casually and without experience, it would be worse than any punishment to be entrusted with matters of such importance and then publicly to let down the man who had entrusted them tome.
Why, then, do I wish that your opinion were not mistaken? I do so for the sake of those wretched, miserable men (for that is what I must call those who cannot discover how to acquit themselves well in the administration of this work, however often you tell me that they were forced into it and made their mistakes in ignorance); I wish they could escape the unquenchable fire and the outer darkness and the worm that never dies and being cut asunder and perishing with the hypocrites! But what can I do? It cannot be so. lf you like, I will give you the proof of what I say, beginning with an argument from kingship, which is not so highly esteemed by God as the priesthood. When Saul, the son of Kish, was made king, he was not eager for the work.
No, he set out to look for the asses and visited the prophet to inquire about them; but Samuel spoke to him about the kingship. Even then Saul did not seize it, although he had heard a prophet's words. Instead, he hesitated and excused himself, saying, "Who am I, and what is my father's house?" 1 And what happened? When he had made an evil use of the honour bestowed on him by God, did this plea suffice to save him from the anger of the one who made him king? And yet he might have answered Samuel's accusation by saying, "Did I run after the kingship? Did I rush to get thir. power? I wanted to live a private life in quietness and peace, but you forced me into this dignity. If I had remained
J Cf. I Sam. 9.21; 2 Sam. 7.18.
THE PENALTY FOR FAILURE
[IV. I in my previous humble position, I should easily have avoided these offences; for surely if I had been one of the crowd, without special distinction, I should never have been commissioned for this work, nor would God have put me in charge of the war against the Amalekites. And if I had not been put in charge of it, I should never have committed this sin."
But all these excuses are feeble, and not only feeble but dangerous; and they rouse God's anger even more. For a man who has received an honour beyond his deserving should not use its greatness as a cloak for his faults. He ought rather to use God's abundant favour towards him as a stronger incentive to improvement. But because he has been so highly honoured, he thinks he is allowed to make mistakes, and is determined to prove that the cause of his own sins is the kindness of God. This is always the a~'gument of irreverent men who manage their lives carelessly. We must not be like that; we must not fall into the same confusion as they do.
Rather we should be at all times determined to play our part to the best of our ability, and be reverent in word and thought.
Again, to leave the kingship and come now to the priesthood, which is our real subject, Eli was not eager to obtain the office. But how did that help him when he sinned? And why do I say "obtain"? He could not have avoided it, if he had wanted to, because of the Law's demands. For he belonged to the tribe of Levi, and had to accept the hereditary office which fell to his lot in due course by reason of his birth.
But even so he paid dearly for the drunken behaviour of his sons.
Then again, did not the first High Priest of the Jews, about whom God said so much to Moses, all but perish himself, except that the intercession of his brother softened God's
IV. I]
THE PENALTY FOR FAILURE
anger, when he failed to stand alone against the madness of such a huge crowd? And since r have men tioned Moses, I might as well prove the truth of my argument from what happened to him, too. For Moses himself, of ble sed memory, so far from snatching the leadership of the Jews excused himself when it was offered to him; and although God commanded him, he continued to decline it until he roused the anger of God who appointed him. Not only then but afterwards, when he held the office, he would gladly have died to be released from it. "Kill me," he said, "if thou wilt thus deal with me." 2 What followed? When he sinned at the waters of Meribah, were his repeated refusals enough to excuse him and to persuade God to pardon him? For what else, then, was he deprived of the promised land? For nothing else, as we all know, except this sin, which was the reason why that wonderful man could not obtain the same reward as those whom he commanded. After many trials and troubles, after those incredible wanderings and wars and triumphs, he died outside the land he had struggled so hard to reach. Though he endured the hardships of the sea, he did not enjoy the blessings of the haven.
Do you see, then, that it is not only those who snatch at the office, but those who are led to it through the insistence of others, who have no excuse left when they stumble? And if those who often tried to refuse the work, but were ordained by God, were punished so severely; if nothing could save from this danger either Aaron or Eli or that blessed man, the saint, the prophet, the wonderful, who was meeker than all men on earth, who spoke as a friend with God: surely we who fall so far short of his goodness shall not be able to plead as our excuse the consciousness that we were never eager for this office-least of all in the 2 Num. 11.15.
THE PENALTY FOil FAILURE
[IV. I many cases in which these ordinations proceed, not from divine grace, but from human ambition.
God chose Judas and set him in that holy company, and granted him the rank of apostle along with the rest, and gave him something more than the rest, in the management of their money. And what happened? When he abused both of these trusts, betraying him whom he was commissioned to preach and mis-spending what he was appointed to take good care of, did he escape punishment? No, this was the very reason why he brought on himself a heavier penalty.
And rightly so; for we must not misuse the honours bestowed on us by God to offend God, but to please him the more.
But a man who claims to be exempt from the punishment he deserves because he has been more highly honoured is doing much what one of the unbelieving Jews would have done if he had heard Christ say, "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin," and, "If I had not done among them the works which none other did, they had not had sin," 3 and then had accused his Saviour and Benefactor, and said, "Why, then, did you come and speak? Why did you work miracles, so that you might punish us more severely?" Such words would be signs of madness and utter insanity. The Physician did not come to condemn you but to heal you and to rid you completely of your disease. But you wilfully refused the touch of those hands. Receive, then, heavier punishment. You would have been rid of your former diseases, if you had yielded to the treatment. But now that you have seen him coming and avoided him, you cannot any longer wash off these stains. And since you cannot, you will be punished both for them and for having frustrated his care, as much as you could.
3 John '5.22, 24.
IV.I]
THE PENALTY FOR FAILURE
SO we are not subjected to the same test before being honoured by God and afterwards. We have a much severer test afterwards; for if kindly treatment has not made a man good, he deserves to suffer more acutely. Since, then, I have proved that this excuse has no validity, and, so far from saving those who take refuge in it, actually betrays them to greater guilt, we must provide another safe-conduct.
Basil: What is that? For now I cannot control myself, so frightened and nervous have you made me by what you have said.
John: Do not make yourself so dejected, I beg and beseech you. There is, I assure you, a safe-conduct. For weaklings like me it is to keep clear of responsibility. For those who are strong, like you, it is to hang their hopes of salvation on nothing-after God's grace-except the avoidance of all that is unworthy of that gift and of God the giver.
The greatest punishment is deserved by men who, after getting this office by their own ambition, abuse their trust either through idleness or through wickedness or through inexperience. But I do not imply that there is any pardon, either, for those who are not ambitious for office. On the contrary, they too are stripped of all excuse. For I think that even if vast numbers of men invite and constrain you, you must not pay attention to them. First you must test your own soul, and when you have thoroughly investigated every part of it, then and then only should you give way to their constraint.
For, after all, no one who is not a builder would dare to undertake the building of a house, and no one who has not studied medicine would try to tend the bodies of the sick.
On the contrary, even if a lot of people try to push them into it by force, they will excuse themselves, and not blush to confess their ignorance. And will not that man, who is to be
THE PENALTY FOR FAILURE
[IV.I entrusted with the care of so many souls, first examine himself? Will he, despite his utter lack of experience, accept the ministry because this man commands him and that man constrains him, or for fear of offending yet another? How can he fail to involve himself, along with them, in obvious disaster? Left alone, he might save his own soul; but this way he ruins others along with himself. How can he hope for salvation? How can he find pardon? And who will intercede for us in that day? Will those perhaps who now constrain and compel us by force? But who will save them at that hour? Truly they themselves need the help of others, if they are to escape the fire.
To show that I do not say this to frighten you, but as the truth of the matter is, listen to what 8t Paul says to his disciple Timothy, his true and beloved child: "Lay hands hastily on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins."4
Do you see how great is the blame and the punishment from which I have rescued, as far as I could, those who would have brought me to this? It is not sufficient excuse for those who have been chosen to say, "I did not come forward of my own accord; I accepted the office with my eyes shut."
Equally, it will not help those who appoint a man to say that they did not know the man they appointed. The fault is all the greater because they promoted someone they did not know. What seems to be an excuse actually increases their guilt. Is it not peculiar that, when people want to buy a slave, they show him to doctors and demand guarantors for the purchase, and make inquiries of neighbours, and after all this still lack confidence, and demand a long trial period; yet when they are going to admit a man to this great ministry, they make a careless and random choice without further
4 I Tim. 5.1111.
IlO
IV.2]
THE PENALTY FOR FAILURE
examination, if someone or other sees fit to vouch for him, to please or spite other people?
Who then will intercede for us at the hour when those who should stand up for us themselves need others to stand up for them? Certainly anyone who is going to confer an appointment should make a careful inquiry; but the one who is to be appointed should be more careful still. Although the people who chose him share the punishment for his sins, still he is not himself exempt from vengeance, but will pay even more dearly-unless those who chose him did so for some personal cause, against their better judgement. For if they should be detected doing so, and if they knowingly promoted the unworthy man for some unworthy reason, their punishment for presenting an unsuitable candidate will be as great as his, perhaps even greater. For if anyone gives to a man who wants to ruin the Church the power to do so, he will himself be to blame for the outrages of his nominee.
But if he is innocent of all this and pleads that he has been misled by popular opinion, even then he will not escape punishment-though he will pay a rather lighter penalty than the man appointed. And why? Because it is reasonable that those who made the choice may have been deceived by a false estimate; but the man who has been chosen cannot say he did not know himself, as they can say they did not know him. Since, then, he is liable to a severer punishment than those who promoted him, he ought to make a minuter examination of his own character than they. If they bring him forward in ignorance, he should go to them and explain carefully the reasons why he must stop their being deceived.
When he has shown himself unfit to survive scrutiny, he will escape the responsibility of such important work.
1 .
Why is it that when a decision has to do with war or commerce or farming or other worldly business, a farmer
III
THE PENALTY FOR FAILURE
[IV.2 would never agree to sail, nor a soldier to plough, nor a skipper to lead an army, even if he were threatened with all kinds of death? Obviously because each one of them foresees the danger of inexperience. And shall we exercise such foresight and refuse to yield to compulsion, when the penalty is trifling, but lightly and casually incur a great danger and make the compulsion of others our excuse, when the penalty is eternal-as it is for those who do not know how to handle the work of the priesthood? The Judge of these matters will not tolerate this in us on the last day. For we ought to have shown far greater caution over spiritual than over worldly matters. In fact, however, we are discovered exercising even less.
Tell me, if we supposed that a man was a good craftsman when he was no such thing, and asked him to do a job, and he accepted; and if, when he had laid his hands on the material provided for the building, he were to ruin the wood and ruin the masonry and build the house in such a way that it immediately collapsed: would it be enough excuse for him that he was compelled to do it by others and did not come self-invited? Certainly not. It would not be fair or just. He ought to have kept clear of the work, even though asked to do it by others. Shall, then, a man who ruins wood and masonry have no refuge from justice; and shall another who destroys souls, or builds them up carelessly, think it enough exculpation that others compelled him? Is not that too ingenuous? I will not add the argument that no one can compel another against his will. Let it be granted that he has been subjected to irresistible force and every kind of stratagem, and so fell into the snare. Will that save him from punishment? For goodness' sake do not let us deceive ourselves so completely! Do not let us reply that we are ignorant of facts which are obvious to mere children. For 1I2
IV.2]
THE PENALTY FOR FAILURE
surely this affectation of ignorance will not be able to help us at the Day of Judgement.
Were you reluctant to undertake this office, conscious as you were of your weakness? Very well. You should, then, on this assumption, have kept clear of it, even though others were inviting you. Were you weak and unsuitable as long as no one invited you, and did you suddenly become strong when people turned up, who would bestow the honour on yOU? The idea is absurd and ridiculous and deserves most severe punishment. Here is the very reason why the Lord bids the man who wants to build a tower not to lay the foundation until he has calculated his own ability, in order that he may not give those who pass by endless opportunities to poke fun at him. His penalty is no more than ridicule.
But ours is fire unquenchable and the worm that never dies and gnashing of teeth and outer darkness and cutting asunder and being numbered with the hypocrites. But those who denounce us refuse to see any of this; otherwise they would have stopped blaming a man who does not want to perish all for nothing.