Library › St Gildas › On the Ruin of Britain

On the Ruin of Britain

St Gildas, tr. Williams, 1899

2. Defects of those acknowledged to be blameless in their lives when compared (a) with…

2. Defects of those acknowledged to be blameless in their lives when compared (a) with Old Testament examples, cc. 69-72; (b) with examples found in the New, c. 73; (c) with those furnished by Church history, cc. 74-75

Perhaps, however, some one may say: All bishops or presbyters are not so wicked as they have been described in the former part; because they are not defiled by the infamy of schism² or of pride or of uncleanness. Neither do I also strongly deny this.

(a) Comparison with Old Testament examples

But while I know them to be chaste and good, I shall, nevertheless, make a brief answer. What did it avail Eli the priest, that he himself did not violate the precepts of the Lord by seizing with flesh-hooks, before the fat was offered to the Lord, flesh out of the pots, whilst he was punished by the same anger leading to death as his sons were? Who, I ask, of those men was killed, as Abel, owing to envy of a better sacrifice, and one carried by celestial fire into heaven? They are men who even reject the reproof of a lowly word—who hath hated the counsel of the malicious and hath not sat with the ungodly, so that of him it might be truly said as of Enoch: Enoch walked with God and was not found, that is to say, was not found to have abandoned God, and to limp readily after idols at that time, amid the vanity of the whole world in its unwisdom. Who of them has refused to admit into the ark of salvation, that is, now, the Church, any adversary of God, as Noah in the time of the deluge, so that it may be made clearly manifest that only the innocent, or those pre-eminently penitent, ought to be in the Lord’s house? Who, like Melchisedek, offered, sacrificed, and blessed the victors only when, three hundred in number (which implies the mystery of the Trinity³), after delivering the just man, they vanquish the dangerous armies of the five kings and of their victorious troops, and have no desire for the goods of others? Who, like Abraham, at the command of God, has voluntarily offered his own son to be slain on the altar, so that he should fulfil a command similar to that given by Christ when he says that the offending right eye must be plucked out, and should guard against the prophet’s warning, that cursed is he who keepeth back the sword and blood? Who, like Joseph, has rooted out of his heart the memory of an injury? Who, to speak in figure, like Moses, has spoken with the Lord on the mountain and then, without being terrified by the sounding trumpets, has brought to the people, as Moses did, the two tables and a covered face impossible (unbearable) to look at and awful to unbelievers? Which of them, praying for the sins of the people, has cried out from the depths of his heart, as he, saying: Lord this people hath sinned a great sin, which if thou forgive them forgive, otherwise blot me out of thy book?

Notes

In these sections we have a long array of names of men, with whom the good among the clergy are contrasted. While Gildas confesses that he has no desire to class these with the accursed clerics already described, they are, nevertheless, wanting in the strong, daring, active qualities of those who burn with the zeal of God’s house. His words are ablaze, as those of an uncompromising reformer, and the unspotted, chaste, and good ministers, as he calls them, must have felt sorely uncomfortable upon reading this part of the work.
The examples are taken from three sources: (a) the Old Testament, (b) the New Testament, (c) Ecclesiastical History, by which last is meant, no doubt, the work of Rufinus. Those from the first source begin with Abel and end with Jeremiah, with a partial resemblance in point of order, though not of facts, to the list in the epistle to the Hebrews, ch. xi. Each sentence also in this portion begins with “Who of them” (Quis eorum); but, in taking his heroes from the New Testament narrative, the writer waxes bolder, with more direct appeal, in a “Who of you” (Quis vestrum).
The first sentence depicts the imprisonment of the “holy apostle” at Philippi, introduced by the impetuous “Which of you?” The following refer in like eager questioning to James, the brother of Jesus, “first bishop of the New Testament,” killed with a fuller’s club; to James, the brother of John, beheaded by Herod; to Stephen, the “first deacon and martyr;” to Peter, unto whom were given the keys of the kingdom of heaven; to Paul, the “chosen vessel and teacher of the Gentiles.”
The third class, taken from ecclesiastical history, includes Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, and Basil of Caesarea.
Non scismatis. There are bishops and presbyters against whom no charge of schism, pride, or uncleanness can be advanced. Gildas is not strongly drawn to deny this; on his general attitude towards men of this class, see notes on p. 154. Schism is nowhere else alluded to, and it seems that the most self-seeking and immoral among the clergy were well able to keep themselves clear of this accusation. Gildas has probably been reminded of schism by his mention of Novatus (Novatian?), who certainly did foment an unworthy division, that spread over many parts of Italy and Gaul.
Hoc est trinitatis sacramento, that is, as a type of the Trinity. The leading meaning of the word sacramentum is mystery, and Gildas has in the next section mysterium trinitatis. With this signification it still holds its place in the Vulgate, e.g., I Tim. iii, 16, “great is the mystery of godliness” (pietatis sacramentum): Eph. i, 9, “having made known to us the mystery of his will” (sacramentum voluntatis suae): Rom. xvi, 25, “according to the revelation of the mystery” (secundum revelationem mysterii, Vg., but revel. sacramenti in Cod. Aug. f), etc. A meaning derived from this is common in Cyprian’s writings, i.e., type. In the De Dominica Oratione, 34, Cyprian says that along with Daniel, three young men, strong in faith, observed three hours of prayer: sacramento scilicet trinitatis. Cyprian’s three men out of four is not more apt than the number three hundred with Gildas, yet for both, the number itself furnishes a type or symbol.