Son. I see clearly that one who is to watch over the rules of the sacred law and deal out justice in all cases is surely assigned a very difficult task. It is also evident that King Solomon could not be called to account for having Joab slain in God’s tabernacle, inasmuch as he slew him for a just punishment, not out of enmity or in hatred, as Cain slew his brother Abel. God’s tabernacle was not defiled by Joab’s blood, seeing that it was not shed in hatred; but the earth was defiled by Abel’s blood, because it was shed in hatred. And I understand fully that the sin and the desecration are caused by the hatred and not by the punishment. But now you have spoken of two halls which God has dedicated to His service upon earth, and there are certain things that concern these about which I wish to inquire. You have stated that in one of them God has placed His judgment seat; you have discussed that and also the office of him who is in charge of it. You have also said that in the other hall is God’s table, from which all God’s people shall take spiritual food; and you added that the bishop has been appointed keeper of this hall. Now I wish to ask you why King Solomon removed Abiathar the bishop from the office that had been assigned to him, namely that of keeper of the hall to which I have just referred, and removed him so completely that he was never afterwards allowed to put forth his hand to the episcopal office, but was to live from that time on as a churl or a plowboy. But I have thought that neither of these two keepers can have authority to remove the other from the office which has been committed to him. Therefore I should like to have you point out a few considerations which will make clear how King Solomon could remove the bishop Abiathar from his office without incurring reproof from God.
Father. I called your attention to these facts to remind you that both these halls are God’s houses and both king and bishop the servants of God and keepers of these houses; but they do not own them in the sense that they can take anything away from them that was assigned to them in the beginning. Therefore the king must not pluck anything away from the house which the bishop has in his keeping, for neither should rob the other. And there should be no plundering of one by the other, but each ought to support the other for the same One owns both houses, namely God. I have also told you that God has given the rod of punishment into the hands of both the king and the bishop. The rod of punishment that has been committed to the king is a two-edged sword: with this sword it is his duty to smite to the death everyone who tries to take anything away from the sacred hall of which he is the guardian. But the king’s sword is two-edged for the reason that it is also his duty to guard the house which is in the bishop’s keeping, if the bishop is unable to defend it with his own rod of punishment. The bishop shall have his rod of punishment in his mouth, and he shall smite with words but not with hands like the king. And the bishop shall strike his blow in the following manner: if any one attempt to dishonor the sacred hall that is in his care, he shall refuse him the table which is placed in this holy house and the holy sustenance which is taken from this table. But when King Solomon deprived Abiathar the bishop of the episcopal office and dignity, he said that Abiathar’s own guilt deprived him and not he. Since he had decreed that David should forfeit his throne before God had ordered it, and had chosen another king to replace David, while he was still living, it was right to deprive him of the episcopal office, seeing that he wanted to rob David of the royal office. Saul’s guilt, on the other hand, when he had slain the bishop Ahimelech and all the priests in the city of Nob, was a grievous burden, because he had done this without just cause. But even if King Solomon should have killed the bishop Abiathar, he would have been without guilt; for the bishop had deprived the house of God of the lord whom God Himself had appointed keeper of the holy judgment seat. The bishop Abiathar had no right either to appoint or to remove any one, as was later made evident; for David chose the one whom he wished to be king in his stead, and the choice which Abiathar had made was of no effect. Abiathar the bishop obtained the episcopal office through the will of David who appointed him to it. Now you are to understand that there is this difference between the business of a king and the duties of a bishop: the bishop is appointed to be the king’s teacher, counsellor, and guide, while the king is appointed to be a judge and a man of severity in matters of punishment, to the great terror of all who are subject to him. Nevertheless, the bishop wields a rod of punishment as well as the king. There is this difference, however, between the king’s sword and that of the bishop, that the king’s sword always bites when one strikes with it, and bites to great injury when it is used without right, while it serves him well whom it may strike when it is rightfully used. But the bishop’s sword bites only when it is used rightfully; when it is wrongfully used, it injures him who smites with it, not him who is stricken. When the bishop strikes rightfully, however, his sword wounds even more deeply than the king’s. But this subject we shall discuss more fully at some other time, if it is thought advisable.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adam of Bremen: Gesta Hammenburgensis Ecclesias Pontificum, ed. J. M. Lappenberg (Mon. Ger. Hist. Scriptures, VII), Hanover, 1846.
Adventures of Suibhne Geilt, translated by J. G. O’Keefe (Irish Text Society, XII), London, 1913.
Alexander Neckam: De Naturis Rerum Libri Duo, ed. Thomas Wright (Rolls Series, No. 34), London, 1863.
Asher, G. M.: Henry Hudson the Navigator (Hakluyt Society), London, 1860.