The Conferences 17.4–17.19

Then the venerable Joseph, seeing that we were rather downcast in mind and guessing that this had not happened to us without cause, addressed us in the words of the patriarch Joseph: “Why are your faces sad today?” We answered him: “We have not, like those imprisoned servants of Pharaoh, seen a dream with no one to interpret it; but we have spent a sleepless night, and there is no one to lift the weight of our agitation unless the Lord removes it by your discernment.” Then he, who recalled the patriarch both in virtue and in name, said: “Does not the healing of human thoughts come through the Lord? Let them be brought into the open; for the divine mercy is able, according to your faith, to give them a remedy through our counsel.”

To this Germanus said: “We believed that, abundantly filled not only with spiritual joy but also with progress by the sight of your blessedness, we would hurry back to our coenobium, and that after our return we would follow, even with slight imitation, what we had gained from your teaching. For our love for our elders also compelled us to promise them this, since we believed that we could imitate in some measure the sublimity of your life and teaching in that coenobium. Hence, although we thought that all joy would come to us from this, we are on the contrary consumed with unbearable grief, considering that in that way we cannot obtain what we know to be for our salvation. So now we are hemmed in on both sides. For if we wish to fulfil the promise that we made before all the brothers in the cave in which our Lord shone forth from the royal chamber of the virgin’s womb, with him as witness, we incur the greatest loss to the spiritual life; but if, forgetful of our promise and remaining in these regions, we choose to put those oaths below the benefit of our perfection, we dread the steep dangers of lying and perjury. And we cannot relieve our agitation even by this plan, that after the terms of our oath have been fulfilled by a very quick return, we come back here again by a quick journey. For although even a small delay is dangerous and harmful to those who are striving for progress in spiritual things and for virtue, we would nevertheless keep the promise of our faith, even by a tardy return, if we did not know that we would be bound inextricably not only by the authority but also by the love of our elders, so that the possibility of returning to these places would in no way be given us thereafter.”

To this blessed Joseph, after a short silence, said: “Are you sure that greater progress in spiritual things can be given you in this region?”

Germanus: “Although we ought to give the highest thanks to the teaching of those who taught us from childhood to attempt great things and, giving us a taste of their own good, implanted in our hearts a remarkable thirst for perfection, yet, if our judgment is to be trusted at all, we see no comparison between these institutions and those we received there, to say nothing of the inimitable purity of your way of life, which we believe is conferred on you not only by the strictness of your mind and purpose but also by the help of the places themselves. Hence we do not doubt that, for imitating the magnificence of your perfection, this teaching given in passing cannot suffice, unless we also have the help of living here, and long training by daily instruction somehow shakes off the torpor of our heart.”

Joseph: “It is indeed sound and perfect, and wholly befitting our profession, that we should carry out effectively what we decide under some promise. For this reason a monk ought to decide nothing hastily, lest he be either compelled to fulfil what he has promised incautiously, or, called back by the consideration of a better view, become a transgressor of his promise. But since our purpose now is to treat not so much of the state of health as of the cure of sickness, we must seek in wholesome counsel, not what you should have done in the first place, but how you can escape from the rock of this dangerous shipwreck. When, then, no bond constrains us and no condition binds us, and a choice is offered between advantages, let what is of greater benefit be chosen; but when some adverse loss stands in the way, then in the comparison of losses we must seek that which is subject to lighter damage. Accordingly, as far as your statement has shown, since an ill-considered promise has brought you to the point where you must suffer the loss of a serious disadvantage either way, the choice must incline to that side which either brings more tolerable losses or is more easily expiated by the remedy of satisfaction. If, then, you believe that greater gains will come to your spirit from staying here than those that came to you from the way of life of that coenobium, and the terms of your promise cannot be fulfilled without the loss of great advantages, it is better for you to undergo this loss of a lie, or of an unfulfilled promise, which, once past, can neither be repeated nor produce other sins of itself, than to fall into that by which the state of a more lukewarm life, as you say, would afflict you with a daily and endless loss. For an incautious decision will be changed pardonably, or rather even laudably, if it passes over to the more wholesome side; and whenever a faulty promise is corrected, it must be believed to be not a breach of constancy but the correction of rashness. All these things can also be proved most plainly by testimonies of the Scriptures: how many it has been deadly for to carry out what they had decided, and on the other hand how many it has been advantageous and wholesome to have drawn back from the same.

“The examples of the holy apostle Peter and of Herod testify to both most clearly. For the former, because he departed from the decision he had confirmed as with an oath, saying: “You shall never wash my feet,” gained the immortal fellowship of Christ, from the grace of which blessedness he would without doubt have been cut off had he persisted in the obstinacy of his word. But the latter, keeping faith with an ill-considered oath, became the most bloody murderer of the Lord’s forerunner, and through a vain fear of perjury plunged himself into damnation and the punishments of eternal death. In all things, then, the end must be considered, and the course of our purpose directed according to it; and if, when a more wholesome counsel comes, we see it turning toward the worse side, it is better to set aside the unsuitable decision and pass to a better judgment than, by clinging obstinately to what we decided, to be bound by graver sins.

Germanus: “As far as our desire is concerned, which we have taken up for the sake of spiritual benefit, we would wish to be edified by continual fellowship with you. For if we return to our coenobium, it is certain that we will not only fall away from so sublime a purpose, but will also be shaken by many losses because of the mediocrity of the way of life there. But that gospel command frightens us greatly: “Let your word be yes, yes; no, no; for whatever is more than these is from evil.” For we believe that the transgression of so great a precept cannot be compensated by any righteousness, and that what has once been begun with an evil beginning cannot turn out well in the end.”

Joseph: “In all cases, as we have said, it is not the outcome of the deed but the will of the doer that must be considered, and we must ask not at once what anyone has done but with what intention he has done it. So we find that some were condemned for deeds from which good afterward arose, and on the contrary that some reached the highest righteousness through blameworthy acts. The useful outcome of events did not profit the one who, undertaking the thing with the worst purpose, wished to accomplish not the benefit that followed but something contrary to it; nor did it harm the other to have begun blameworthily, who endured the necessity of a censurable beginning not out of contempt for God or a purpose of sinning, but in view of a necessary and holy end.

“And to illustrate these same things by examples from the Holy Scriptures: what more wholesome, what more useful could have been obtained for the whole world than the saving remedy of the Lord’s passion? And yet it not only did not profit the traitor by whose agency it is shown to have been accomplished, but even harmed him so much that it is declared of him absolutely: “It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.” For the fruit of his work is to be repaid to him not according to what came about, but according to what he wished to do or believed he would bring about. And again, what is more criminal than deceit and lying committed even against a stranger, not to say against a brother and father? And yet the patriarch Jacob not only incurred no condemnation or blame for these things, but was even enriched with the everlasting inheritance of the blessing. And rightly, since he desired the blessing destined for the firstborn not out of greed for present gain but out of faith in everlasting sanctification, while the other betrayed the redeemer of all to death not for the sake of human salvation but through the crime of avarice. And therefore to each of them the fruit of his action was ascribed according to the aim of his mind and the purpose of his will, by which neither did the one intend to commit fraud nor the other to work salvation. For what is justly repaid to each in reward is what he principally conceived in his mind, not what came of it afterward, whether well or ill, contrary to the wish of the doer. And therefore the most just judge considered the one who presumed to such a lie excusable, or rather praiseworthy, because without it he could not reach the blessing of the firstborn, and what arose from desire for the blessing ought not to be called a crime. Otherwise the said patriarch would have been not only unjust to his brother but also a deceiver of his father and sacrilegious, if, having another way by which he could reach the grace of that blessing, he had preferred to seek this one, which was damaging and harmful to his brother. You see, then, that with God it is not the outcome of the act but the aim of the mind that is examined. With these foundations laid, to return to the question put, for the sake of which all this has been said beforehand, I would like you first to answer me: for what reason did you bind yourselves with the bonds of that promise?”

Germanus: “The first cause, as we said, was that we were afraid to sadden our elders and to resist their commands; the second, that we believed, with a most ill-considered conviction, that if we had received anything perfect and magnificent from you by sight or hearing, we could practise it when we had returned to the coenobium.”

Joseph: “As we said before, the aim of the mind either rewards a man or condemns him, according to the saying: “their thoughts among themselves accusing or else defending them, on the day when God will judge the secrets of men,” and also this: “But I come to gather their works and thoughts, with all nations and tongues.” Therefore, as I see, you bound yourselves with the bond of this oath out of desire for perfection, believing that it could be grasped in that way; now, a fuller judgment having come, you perceive that its height cannot be reached in that way. Whatever, then, seems to have happened in disagreement with that arrangement is no prejudice, provided that no change in that principal purpose follows. For a change of tools is not desertion of the work, nor does the choice of a shorter and more direct road argue sloth in the traveler. So in this matter too the correction of an improvident arrangement must not be judged a transgression of the spiritual vow. For whatever is done for the love of God and devotion to godliness, which “has the promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come,” even if it seems to begin with hard and adverse beginnings, is worthy not only of no blame but even of the highest praise. And therefore the breaking of an incautious promise does no harm, if in whatever way the scopos, that is, the proposed goal of godliness, is kept. For we do everything for this, that we may be able to show God a clean heart; if its perfecting is judged easier in these places, the change of the agreement wrung from you will do you no harm, provided only that the perfection of that principal purity for which your promise was made is acquired more quickly, according to the Lord’s will.

Germanus: “As far as the force of your words, which have been set out reasonably and wisely, is concerned, the scruple of our promise could easily have been driven out of us, were it not that this frightens us most vehemently: that by such examples an occasion for lying seems to be opened to the weaker, if they learn that the faith of an agreement can in any way be lawfully dissolved, since this very thing is forbidden by such great and threatening words, as the prophet says: “You will destroy all who speak a lie,” and: “The mouth that lies kills the soul.”

Joseph: Occasions and causes of perdition cannot be lacking to those who are going to perish, or rather who wish to perish. For the testimonies of Scripture are not to be thrown away and scraped entirely off its body because by them the depravity of heretics is encouraged, or the unbelief of the Jews hardened, or the conceit of pagan wisdom offended; rather they are certainly to be believed with piety, held without wavering, and preached according to the rule of truth. And therefore we ought not, on the pretext of other people's unbelief, to disown the oikonomiai, that is, the dispensations of the prophets and saints which Scripture records, lest, while we think we ought to condescend to their weakness, we be defiled with the crime not only of lying but also of sacrilege. But, as we have said, we must both acknowledge them according to the history and explain how they were done piously. Besides, for those of perverse purpose the way to lying will not be blocked if we labour either to deny altogether or to weaken by allegorical interpretations the truth of the things we are going to bring forward or have brought forward. For what harm will the authority of these testimonies do to them, when the mere corruption of their will suffices for sinning?

So we must think of lying, and use it, as if it had the nature of hellebore: if it is taken when a deadly illness threatens, it becomes healthful, but if it is taken without the necessity of extreme danger, it brings instant death. For so we read that holy men, most approved by God, used lying to good effect, so that not only did they incur no guilt of sin from it, but even attained the highest righteousness. And if deceit could bring them glory, what would truth have brought them instead but condemnation? So Rahab: although Scripture records of her no memorials of virtue, but even of unchastity, yet for the lie alone by which she chose to hide the spies rather than betray them, she deserved to be joined to the people of God with an everlasting blessing. If she had chosen to speak the truth or to look to the safety of her fellow citizens, no doubt she would not have escaped, with her whole house, the destruction that threatened, nor, inserted among the ancestors of the Lord's birth and counted in the list of the patriarchs, would she have deserved to bring forth the Saviour of all through the succession of her offspring. Delilah, on the other hand, who looked to the advantage of her fellow citizens and betrayed the truth she had found out, obtained in return everlasting perdition and left to all only the memory of her crime. When, therefore, some grave danger threatens from confessing the truth, then we must take refuge in lies, yet in such a way that we are wholesomely pricked by the guilt of a humble conscience. But where no condition of extreme necessity presses, a lie must be avoided with all care as something deadly, as we said of drinking hellebore: it is healthful if it is taken only when an unavoidable and deadly sickness threatens, but if it is taken while the body is whole and undisturbed in health, its harmful force goes at once to seize the vital parts. This is plainly shown in Rahab of Jericho and in the patriarch Jacob: she could not have escaped death otherwise than by this remedy, nor could he have attained the blessing of the firstborn. For God is the examiner and judge not only of our words and acts but also the inspector of our purpose and intention. If he sees that something has been done or promised by anyone for the sake of eternal salvation and with a view to divine contemplation, even though it seems hard and unjust to men, he, looking at the inward piety of the heart, judges not the sound of the words but the wish of the will; for the end of the work and the disposition of the doer must be considered, by which, as was said above, one may be justified even through a lie, and another, by asserting the truth, incur the sin of eternal death. Looking to this end, the patriarch Jacob too did not fear to imitate the hairy appearance of his brother's body by wrapping himself in skins, and he laudably obeyed his mother, who urged him to this lie. For he saw that greater gains of blessing and righteousness would come to him by this than by keeping to simplicity. For he did not doubt that the stain of this lie would at once be washed away by the flood of his father's blessing, and quickly dispersed like a little cloud by the breath of the Holy Spirit, and that richer rewards of merit would be conferred on him through this assumed pretence than through that inborn truthfulness.

Germanus: It is not surprising that these dispensations were fittingly employed in the Old Testament, and that holy men sometimes lied laudably, or at least pardonably, since we see that much greater things were allowed them because of the rudimentary state of those times. For why should it be surprising that blessed David, fleeing from Saul, when the priest Abimelech asked him, “Why are you alone, and no one with you?”, answered thus: “The king,” he said, “has given me a command and said: Let no one know the matter for which you have been sent; for I have appointed the young men to such and such a place”; and again: “Have you here at hand a spear or a sword? For I have not brought my sword and my weapons with me, for the king's business was urgent”; or that, when he was brought to Achish king of Gath, he feigned madness and frenzy and changed his countenance before them, and fell down between their hands, and struck against the door of the gate, and his spittle ran down upon his beard? For they even lawfully enjoyed flocks of wives and concubines, and no sin was imputed to them on this account; moreover they often shed the blood of their enemies with their own hand, and this was believed to be not only not blameworthy but even praiseworthy. Now that the gospel shines, we see these things so wholly forbidden that none of them can be done without great crime and sacrilege. In the same way we believe that no lie, however covered with a pious colour, can be used by anyone, I will not say fittingly, but not even pardonably, since the Lord says: “Let your speech be yes, yes; no, no; whatever is more than these is from evil”, and the apostle agrees with this: “And do not lie to one another.”

Joseph: That ancient freedom of many wives and concubines, now that the end of the times was approaching and the multiplication of the human race was complete, was rightly to be cut off by gospel perfection as no longer so necessary. For until the coming of Christ the blessing of that primordial sentence had to remain in force, in which it was said: “Increase and multiply and fill the earth.” And therefore it was most just that from that root of human fruitfulness, which flourished usefully in the synagogue according to the dispensation of the time, the little flowers of angelic virginity should spring, and the sweet-smelling fruits of continence should be produced in the church. But that lies were condemned even then the whole text of the Old Testament plainly shows, saying: “You will destroy all who speak a lie”; and again: “The bread of lying is sweet to a man, but afterwards his mouth will be filled with gravel”; and the lawgiver himself says: “You shall flee a lie.” But we said that it was fittingly used only when some necessity or saving dispensation was joined to it, on account of which it ought not to be condemned. Such is what you mentioned about King David, when, fleeing Saul's unjust persecution, he used lying words to the priest Abimelech, not with the aim of any gain or with the wish to harm anyone, but only to save himself from his most wicked persecution; for he would not defile his hands with the blood of the hostile king, though God had so often delivered him to him, saying: “God be merciful to me, that I should not do this thing to my lord, the Lord's anointed, to lay my hand upon him, for he is the Lord's anointed.” And therefore these dispensations, which we read that holy men carried out in the Old Testament either because of God's will, or to prefigure spiritual mysteries, or for the salvation of certain persons, we too cannot disown when necessity presses, so much so that we see that not even the apostles themselves avoided them where the consideration of some benefit required it. We shall postpone these for a little while, and first set out what we still intend to bring forward from the Old Testament; afterwards we shall add them more fittingly, so that it may be more easily proved that just and holy men, both in the New Testament and in the Old, agreed with one another in all respects in these economies. For what shall we say of that pious pretence of Hushai toward Absalom for the safety of King David? Although it was put forward wholly with the intention of deceiving and circumventing, and fought against the benefit of the one seeking counsel, it is approved by the testimony of divine Scripture, which says: “By the will of the Lord the good counsel of Ahithophel was defeated, that the Lord might bring evil upon Absalom.” For what was done with right purpose and pious judgment for the just side, and devised by a religious pretence for the safety and victory of him whose piety pleased God, could not be blamed. What shall we pronounce also about the deed of that woman who received those who had been sent to King David by the aforesaid Hushai, hid them in a well, spread a covering over its mouth, and pretended that she was roasting barley, and said: “They have passed on, after tasting a little water”; and by this fiction freed them from the hands of their pursuers? Answer me, therefore, I beg you: what would you have done if a similar situation had arisen for us, now set under the gospel? Would you rather have hidden them by a like lie, saying in the same way, “They have passed on, after tasting a little water,” and so fulfilled the command, “Rescue those who are led to death, and do not spare to redeem those who are being killed”; or would you have betrayed those in hiding to those who would kill them by confessing the truth? And where is that saying of the apostle: “Let no one seek his own, but what is another's”; and: “Love does not seek its own things, but those of others”; and of himself: “I do not seek what is profitable to me, but what is profitable to many, that they may be saved”? For if we seek our own things and wish obstinately to keep what is profitable to us, we must speak the truth even in necessities of this kind and become guilty of another's death; but if, putting what is salutary for others before our own advantage, we satisfy the apostle's command, then without doubt we must accept the necessity of lying. And therefore we shall be able neither to possess the heart of love entire nor to seek what is others', according to the apostolic discipline, unless we relax a little what befits our own strictness and perfection and prefer to condescend with a ready affection to the advantage of others, and so with the apostle become weak to the weak, that we may be able to gain the weak.