Chapter 2
In the following excerpt, St. Augustine considers the reasonable objec tions against admitting those who are not good men into the cloister. He ad verts to the difficulties attendant upon discerning the true character of men.
"How will you discern the character of one who is actually unknown even to himself?" We cannot keep all evil even out of our own hearts. "Where, then, is there security? There is none anywhere here below, nowhere in this life, unless it be solely in the hope of God's promises. Only when we have arrived at our ultimate goal, will there be perfect security. Then will the gates be closed and the bars drawn and made fast inside the (new) Jerusalem. There in truth reign endless jubilee and great joy. Ah, if you would only not look upon any way of life as absolutely secure and praise no man until he is safe in death! . . . Every station of life in the Church has its hypocrites. I have not said that every man is a hypocrite, but that every station in life has its hypocrites. There are indeed bad Christians, but there are also good ones.
Of course, you think of the bad ones as if they were in the majority. They are, however, like the chaff that hides and prevents you from seeing the ker nels of wheat. There is really good grain there also" (On Ps. xcix, 10-13).
But despite all his dark musings, Augustine clings fast to his monastic ideals.
"Far be it from me," he said, "to lose faith in the good threshing of so excel lent a husbandman. Naturally, when one looks at the work in progress only from a distance, he sees but the chaff. One who knows how to look closer, however, will find the wheat. Where the refuse is a source of scandal to thee, there often lies the fullness of the grain" (Sermon cccxi, 10).
SECOND CHAPTER
What Kind of Man the Abbot ought to be The abbot who is worthy to preside over a monastery must ever bear in mind what he is called (Abba, Father) and must by his deeds implement the name of superior. For it is believed that he takes the place of Christ in the cloister, since he is called after His surname, as when the Apostle says: "You have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry:
Abba (Father)" (cf. Rom. viii, 15).1
Wherefore the abbot may not teach, ordain, or command what is contrary to the law of God. Much rather should his
1 According to the literal meaning of the phrase, "Abba Father," St. Paul is refer ring to the first person of the Most Blessed Trinity. But in the sense in which the old monachism accepted it and in which St. Benedict also thought of it, it was also applied in its full meaning to the paternity of Christ, which, of course, is no longer the understanding today.
7S commands or his teachings be spread through the hearts of his disciples as a leavening agent of divine justice.2
The abbot should ever be mindful that at the dread judgment of God there will be an investigation into both his own teachings and the obedience of his disciples. Let him also realize that it is the shepherd's burden to answer for whatever the father of the house finds less profitable in the conduct of his sheep. On the other hand, it is likewise true that if all (pos sible) care has been expended upon his unruly and disobedient flock and that their vicious conduct has been borne with all
(loving) patience, their shepherd will be acquitted at the Lord's tribunal, and he can say to the Lord with the prophet: "I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart: I have declared thy salvation: but they have despised and spurned me" (cf. Ps. xxxix,
11; & Isa. i, 2). Then at the endthe penalty of overwhelming death itself shall be the portion of those sheep, so disobedient and unmindful of his (loving) care.
If one, therefore, takes upon himself the name of "abbot," he must appear before his disciples with a twofold teaching, which means that he must exemplify all goodness and holiness in the sight of his monks rather by his deeds than by his words; then let him lay before the tractable ones the precepts of the Lord in words and before the stubborn and the simpler ones let him make clear the divine commandments by his actions.
But whatever he has taught his disciples to be against the law, he must also demonstrate by his example that it may not be done, lest, after he has preached to others, he may not himself be found a cast-away (cf. 1 Cor. ix, 27); and that when he has sinned, God may not one day have to say to him: "Why dost thou declare my justifications and take my covenant in thy mouth? But thou indeed hatest discipline and hast cast my words behind thee (cf. Ps. xlix, 16-17); and "Thou who didst see the splinter in thy brother's eye hast not seen the beam in 2 Just as a fermenting agent (barm — yeast) works irresistibly in the mass with which it is mixed, permeates it wholly, and prepares it for its designed task, so should the abbot's instructions transform the monk inwardly and lead him towards perfection in line with the monastic ideal.
thine own" (cf. Matt, vii, 3).1
Let him make no distinction of persons in the monastery.
One should not be loved more than another, except it be that he finds such a one more faithful in observance or in obedience.
Neither should the freeborn be preferred to one who entered as a slave, unless there is some other reason for it. Should that be the case in the judgment of the abbot, he may as far as the order of precedence goes do so in every instance, since justice seems to demand it;1 otherwise let each one stay in his proper place, for, whether slave or free, we are all one in Christ and have the same duty of serving in the army of the Lord, because
"with God there is no respect of persons" (cf. Rom. ii, 11). For one reason only will God distinguish between us as individuals, namely, if we are found humble and better than others in good works. Therefore, let his love (that is, the abbot's) be the same towards all, and the same discipline be imposed upon everyone according to his deserts.
In his instructions let the abbot ever adhere to the charge of the Apostle when he says: "Reprove, entreat, rebuke" (Tim. iv. 2), which means: let him mingle times with seasons (temporibus tempera) mixing severity with mildness; let him exemplify
1 The holy Rule takes it for granted that, in accordance with old-monastic custom, the abbot himself will instruct and train each monk individually and all of them collectively. —Accordingly, in chapter iv, instrument 64, the monk is reminded that he owes the abbot obedience even when he does not practice what he preaches.
First of all, his paternal authority is basically independent of his personal sanctity or lack of it. However, the Rule here directs the abbot's attention to one of the undeniable facts of experience, namely, that, however supremely excellent and deeply spiritual may be his instructions, their effectiveness will be seriously weak ened and even become a source of scandal unless implemented by his living ex ample. Only an abbot living a truly ascetic life will be able to train his monks efficiently in monastic self-denial. Only he can show them the happiness attendant upon stability in the monastery if he lives it conscientiously in their company. The example of an abbot who has a high regard for the authority that is given him over others will not be without a lasting impression upon his monks.
1 The day on which a novice binds himself to a following of Christ and on which he is incorporated into the monastic family, basically determines for the time being his rank and place in the cloister (cf. HR. chap, lxiii; and Rule of Pachomius, #3). On that basis, the dignity of the priesthood would not per se change it.
Of course, mere worldly aspects, such as natural origin, wealth, nobility of family, learning, culture, and age had to be taken into consideration by the abbot, but they could not establish any fixed order of precedence. St. Benedict leaves the working out of monastic protocol to the discretion of the superior (cf. chap, lxiv,
the stern attitude of a master as well as the benevolent mien of a father: in other words, he must reprove the unruly ones more severely, but the obedient and gentle (monks) he should plead with, so that the latter may advance in virtue. The careless and indifferent monks, however, we admonish him to censure and to punish.
Let him not overlook the sins of the delinquent, but as soon as they appear, cut them out as well as he can by the roots, mindful of the fate of Heli, the priest of Silo.1 The more sincere and the more intelligent temperaments he should reprove a first and a second time with words; but the bold and the un ruly as well as proud and disobedient characters let him curb at the very first commission of a fault with blows and corporal discipline, since he knows that it is written: "The fool is not corExcursus II). The history of monasticism long before his time offers some nice examples of such "discretion." Thus Pachomius (f 346) allocated the Greek monks in his cloisters, peopled mainly by unlettered or simple Copts, all together in separate cloisters of the confederation because of their superior education and culture. St. Augustine, too, foresaw that monks who, on account of their antece dents, were accustomed to better cuisine, etc., might have to be accommodated but not "preferred" to others. Nor should any consideration of this kind give occasion to monks who had come from humbler stations to demand similar priv ileges (Rule 5). St. Caesarius of Arles (f 542) admonished his nuns of the nobil ity to reflect more on the humbleness of their current state than upon the eminence of their former rank. One who had at one time been poor, he said, should, on the other hand, thank God that she had been spared the drawbacks of wealth
(Second Letter v). The legislation of Justinian (c. 535) codified the traditional monastic interpretation of the general rule but did not originate it. The abbeys of the nobility during the Middle Ages had definitely departed from the spirit as well as from the letter of the Holy Rule.
2 The literal translation of the phrase (lemporibus lempora) would, of course, be "times with times." But the meaning of it, so difficult to translate, is clear; the abbot in his conduct and procedure towards his monks must also take into consideration the circumstances of time and place and persons. "For all things have their season, and in their times all things pass under heaven . . . There is a time to plant and a time to pluck up that which is planted" (Eccles iii, 1--2).
Pachomius was severe when necessary, but also kind-hearted again when the occasion demanded, that is, accordingly as he warned the delinquents or spurred them on to be virtuous (Second life liii & xxiv). Cf. also the Holy Rule, chap, lxiv,
Excursus I, "Discretio."
' In the First Book of Samuel (1 Kings ii, 11—24 & iv, 11—18), we read of Heli, a judge in Israel, who was aware that his two sons were trafficking shamelessly in the offerings made to the Lord of Hosts in Silo yet did not chastise them. In punishment for his neglect, the Lord doomed all the house of Heli to extinction.
rected with words" (Prov. xxix, 19); and again: "Beat thy son with a rod, and thou shalt deliver his soul from death" (Prov. xxiii, 14).
The abbot must remember always what he is and re flect upon what he is called, and know that more will be re quired of him to whom more has been entrusted. He should also recognize what a heavy and wearisome task he has taken upon himself, (namely), that of guiding souls and adapting him self to the characters of many persons: one group with friend liness, a second with rebukes, and a third with earnest per suasions. And in accordance with the nature and temperament of each and every person, he must so adapt and accommodate his actions that he may suffer no loss in the fold entrusted to him, but be able to rejoice in the growth of a good flock.
But above all else, let him not overlook or undervalue the salvation of the souls placed under his care. For that reason he must not have a greater concern for the transitory, earthly, and corruptible things of the world, but shall remember always that he has undertaken the task of guiding souls, for which he will also have to render an account. And lest perchance he plead in his defense a possible meagerness of income, let him reflect on what has been written: "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you" (Matt, vi, 33); and again: "Nothing is wanting to them that fear him" (cf. Ps. xxxiii, 10).
He should know also that he who assumes the task of guiding souls must keep himself ready to give an account of them. And however large he thinks is the number of disciples under his (loving) care, let him be convinced that he must give a reckoning to the Lord of all their souls on the day of judgment
—and at the same time, to be sure, of his own soul also. And so, ever in fear of the investigation that awaits the shepherd regarding the flock over which he presides, he is made solici tous as to his own reckoning while being concerned about the one he must make for others. Thus, while he helps others to improve themselves by his admonitions, he is being cleansed of his own faults.
Excursus I.
Abba Father.—The Triune God manifests himself in the monastic community particularly through Christ. In the explicit wording of the Holy Rule, he is the real Abbot and Father of the Cloister (cf. chaps, ii & lxii). Christ is thus made the central figure in the coenobium, around whom all the activities of the house revolve. His visible representative is the abbot. After Jesus he may call himself and permit himself to be called "Abbot, Father, and 'Lord.'
There is hardly another important word in the Rule more frequently used than the term "Abbas." It is a word of venerable age, high dedication, and unique significance. Upon a right grasp of the term depends also a deeper under standing of the Holy Rule.
The word "abbas" comes from the Aramaic tongue, the language spo ken by Christ during his earthly career. Abbas was the Aramaic form of the ancient Hebrew ha-ab, that is, the father, no longer used by the Jews at the time of Christ. "My father" in Aramaic was ab-i (literally, father mine). In our Lord's time the form ab-i had been supplanted by the word abba. So the Jews said: "abba father has come," instead of "ab-i (my father) has come."
The word abba was the familiar use of if, in much the same way as we say "papa" (or der Abba, as in the Swabian dialect). Some of the Church Fathers related that the little children of Syria addressed their fathers with abba.
Here we must make note of a remarkable fact. In Jesus' time, the Jew no longer dared to pronounce the word abba when praying or addressing
God, implying as it did natural fatherhood. In its place, he used the uncom mon term ab-i. The word abba he reserved for use in the bosom of his family, as in the Hebrew usage of the time it meant "my father." To use it in his in tercourse with God or in speaking of the Diety would have been regarded by his contemporaries as highly irreverent, if not blasphemous. Jesus, on the contrary, now consistently used that word, shunned so deliberately by the Jews of his time, as a form of address to his heavenly Father. The Evangelist St.
Mark has still placed the Aramaic Abba Father on the lips and tongue of Jesus during his prayer in the Garden of Olives (xiv, 36).
The Jews, therefore, out of ritual reverence, shied away from pronoun cing the word abba when praying or addressing God. Jesus, on the contrary, spoke the word with a matter-of-fact sincerity, tenderness, and childlike love, so that the Jews could not help observing that he actually laid claim to a real, physical relationship (cf. John v, 17ff) with the Father and not some kind of moral relationship as was already known in the Old Testament (cf. Isa. i. 2). They were certainly in the clear as to what the word Abba meant in the mouth of our Lord. It was on this pretext, namely, on account of the alleged blasphemy, that they sought to put him to death. "Then said they all: 'Art thou then the Son of God?' Who said: 'You say that I am.' And they said:
'What need have we of further testimony? For we ourselves have heard it from his own mouth' " (Luke xxii, 70-71). "He hath blasphemed ... He is guilty of death" (Matt, xxvi, 65-66).
The word Abba in the mouth of Jesus reveals his wonderfully innerdivine relationship with his heavenly Father. He spoke the word Abba in the Holy Ghost, who is the personal love between the Father and the Son. Jesus, the incarnate Son of God, clothes the term "Father," spoken from all eternity, in the historic and Aramaic form Abba. The unique dignity of that word thus stands out before our eyes in all its clarity. Whenever, likewise, in the Greek version of the Gospels Jesus spoke of his Father, he is represented as having used the Aramaic word Abba.
The Apostles, in particular the disciples, heard the word as the Lord spoke it and used it after him. Jeus, in fact, expressly invited them to do so:
"When you pray, say: 'Our Father, etc' " (Luke xl, 1). Since he spoke to them in the only language they understood, they now had the right, unheard of before that time, of addressing God with the familiar Abba. The Greek
Fathers, foremost among them Origen (f 254), in their explanation of our Lord's introduction to the "Our Father," were unanimous in speaking of the parrhesia, that is, "the right to dare say anything whatsoever" (to God), as was wholly unknown in the Old Testament. Christians, consequently, rejoic ed in a most confidential familiarity in their relationship with God, an un heard of friendship with him. Even today the Church speaks of this wonderful fact in the canon of the Mass: "Admonished by salutary precepts, we presume to say: 'Our Father.' " Of course, Christians can say "Abba Father" and speak it aloud only in the Holy Spirit. St. Paul presents himself as a witness to this in two memorable passages: "You have not received the spirit of bond age again in fear (as in Jewry), but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry, Abba (Father). For the Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit, that we are the sons of God" (Rom. viii, 15-16). "And because you are sons, God hath sent the (Holy) Spirit of his Son into your hearts, cry ing: Abba (Father). Therefore now he is not a servant, but a son" (Gal. iv,
6-7). In both passages, he reminds the hearers of his letter that they had re ceived the Holy Spirit at their baptism. And after that reception they could as Christians presume to say for the first time, Abba Father," that is, they could with full right begin to pray the Our Father. And with that phrase,
Abba Father," the first Christian generations gave expression to the bliss and immensity of their election.
"Abba Father" brings out the full meaning of the phrase. "the Father," that is, the first divine Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, whom Jesus so addressed, For Christ said to him: "I praise thee, Abba, Lord of Heaven and earth . . . Yea, Abba ..." (cf. Luke x, 21). The first divine Person of the Blessed Trinity, in his person as the Father, is the source of all life both in side and outside the Deity, namely, the "Almighty Father" (Credo).
In Christian tradition, Christ himself was also soon spoken of as Abba, the Father. Christ is Father as Creator of the world (cf. John i, 3 & 10), as the second Adam, father of the race, as the primal ancestor of those reborn in his Holy Spirit (cf. John iii, 5ff; & Rom. v, I7ff), as the bridegroom of the
Church, his Bride, who is our Mother (cf. Ephes. v, 23ff), and as our Divine Master (Teacher) (Matt, xxiii, 8ff). When the Holy Rule states that the abbot may after Christ call himself "Father Abbot" (chaps, ii & lxiii) because he takes the place of Christ in the monastery and that the monks on the basis of their sonship in the Spirit may call him "Father Abbot," it demonstrates most explicitly and effectually that the representation of Christ as their Father was a sacred trust wholly familiar to the early monks. The other titles which the Holy Rule adds to the Person of Christ, such as Lord, King, Master, Shepherd, and Physician, were but outgrowths of. the powerful content implied in the name, "Father" (Abba). The Abba Christas fills and permeates the whole cloister even into its innermost recesses.
If the abbot, even in a unique and extraordinary way, exemplifies the Abba Christus, the believing eyes of the monks will everywhere see the Lord: in the guest (chap. Ixxii), in the sick (chap, xxxvi), and in each of the breth ren (chap. liii). And not only the glorified Christ, but also the suffering and dying Christ, in a word, the whole Christ is the Abba of the monastery. To this Abba Christus belongs the monk's unreserved and undivided love (cf. chap. Ixxii). Without the Abba Christus the cloister is without a soul, with out life, and without the Holy Spirit.
As the Rule indicates, even human beings may so call themselves in their Father, Christ. The custom is age-old, and surely reaches back into Apostolic times. Nor does the warning which the Lord directed towards his disciples militate against it: "Let yourselves not be called abba. One is your
Abba in heaven" (cf. Matt, xxiii, 9). For Jesus here inveighs against a seek ing after empty titles. But again and again in the first centuries of the Chris tian era, the seeming contradiction between the Lord's admonition and the prevailing Christian practice was felt and spoken of: "Since the phrase, Abba
Father, is a Syriac and Hebrew (i.e., Aramaic) expression, and our Lord bids us call only God "Father," 1 know not with what right we may call others in the monastery with that title and allow ourselves to be so called" (Jerome on Galatians iv, 6). When St. Jerome (f 420) gave voice to this thought, certain particularly saintly monks filled with the Holy Spirit, according to a practice then more than a century old, had been called abba. In this connection it only implied a monk so filled with the Holy Spirit. He alone was called a "Spiritual Father," just as a saintly nun was often called Amma, that is,
"Spiritual Mother" (cf. Palladius, Vitae Patrum 34). The abba, the spirit bearer, was the father and lord of the monks, their teacher and model, their legislator, their trainer, and their leader. He exercised over them an unlimited fatherly authority, and they responded to it with humble and loving obedience.
He, and he alone, spoke in the spirit and with the power-filied word, for which the disciple waited with eagerness. It was his norm. The abba took over some already existing and tried monastic code or he himself introduced cer tain traditional and tried customs and usages, in order to guide and lead his disciples in accordance with their precepts. The hermit, the "perfect monk,"
was above rules, while the cenobite, the "beginner," wished and had to live under a rule and an abba. The first abba to lay down a written code for his disciples was Pachomius (f 346).
We may assume that from the very earliest, even from Apostolic times, the title abba was applied to certian saintly spirit-inspired Christians, ir respective of their external dignity or office. An abba was one who exempli fied in his life the Lord's manner of living. In the Apostolic Church, the possession of the Spirit was combined in many instances with extraordinary gifts of grace and the power to work miracles. From the very beginning, the name abba was entrusted to monachism without reservation. The name alone is evidence of the fact of how closely and how essentially monachism was bound up with the early Church, indeed, with the Abba Christus himself, even in externals. Thus, for example, Abbot Silvanus gathered around him twelve disciples, doubtless in imitation of the twelve Apostles whom Jesus had chos en. Likewise, on account of his exemplary obedience, the abbot manifested an especial love for his disciples Markus, probably thinking of John, the be loved of the Master. Likely, too, after a lengthy apprenticeship under his abbot, the student and disciple himself became an abba, a father, a master, and a bearer of the spirit for his monks. Probably, also, after the monks of some monastery had chosen him for their abba, he was confirmed as such by the Ordinary of the district. Thus the title of abba, which at first was a term symbolizing possession of the Spirit and personal sanctity, became naturally a designation for the paternal office, entitling an abbot to head and guide a coenobium, a laura, or a colony of monks.
Doubtless relying upon ecclesiastico-monastic tradition, the Holy Rule paints a beautiful and appealing picture of the abbot (chaps, ii, xxvii, & lxiv).
Of course, it devolves upon the abbot, whose archetype is ever the Abba Christus, to exemplify this picture in the way he governs. And this means that he, like Christ, must be a well-spring of spiritual life for his coenobium, since he is its visible head. This he will accomplish by drawing promising novices into his monastic family, by the fatherly way he leads, guides, trains, and influences his monks, be it by earnest admonitions, by consoling and encouraging talks, by listening and questioning, or by mediate or immediate mandates. The abba, the bearer of the Spirit, a bearer of life, will never suffer the life of the cloister to harden into a soulless mechanism. A Spirit-inspired abba knows that restraint and order, the conscientious maintenance of monas tic discipline, despite their great importance, are only a means towards the preservation of much more valuable assets. It is a striking fact how often the Holy Rule warns the abbot not to be thoughtless or inconsiderate. He must from day to day endeavor to waken the by-and-of-itself dead letter of the Rule to renewed life.
Excursus II.
The Abbot as the Representative of Christ The Idea of Representation.-ln two passages, and not unintentionally, the
Holy Rule advances the idea that the abbot takes the place of Christ in the cloister; and each time it adds that only the eye of faith will see and accept this as a fact. Reason alone cannot see beyond the human element in the abbot (chaps, ii & lxiii). But the intellect enlightened by faith recognizes in him the vicegerent, or vicarius Christi. The actual Master and Father of the monastery is the Lord. However, armed with a special commission from the Lord and given his plenipotential authority, the abbot can exercise there his office as father, teacher, master of the house, shepherd, (spiritual) physician, educator, king, general, and judge. He it is who carries out the divine will in the cloister. Wherefore the Holy Rule says quite logically that the obe dience which is rendered to the abbot, and to the superiors appointed by him, is rendered to the Lord himself—that the commands of the superior should be accepted as if they came directly from God (chap. v).
The circumstance that St. Benedict so plainly puts into words his idea of this vicegerency of the abbot, is impressive evidence that the Patriarch of Montecassino would have his monastery represent the ideal Church of Christ and would see that Church more and more exemplified in it. In this inter pretation he is again wholly in accord with/old-monastic tradition. The holy abbot Horsiesi (f c. 380), second successor of the great Pachomius and zeal ous guardian of that abbot's monastic legacy, said in his splendid "Testament" as he gave it on his death-bed to the brethren and to the superiors of his mon asteries,citing the Lord's command, "Feed my sheep" (John xxi, 15ff): "In the person of the Apostle Peter, the Lord has transmitted to us all this office
(of shepherd) and placed upon us as a duty that we conscientiously pasture the sheep of the Lord and on the day of visitation (judgment) receive for our la bors and care the reward promised us in the Gospel: 'Father, I will that where
I am, they also whom thou hast given me may be with me' " (John xii, 26).
Like St. Benedict, Horsiesi never tires of admonishing the guardians of his monasteries of their serious responsibilities: "You are the 'First' in your cloisters. If you see someone in need and distress, do not neglect him: know that you will have to render an account of the whole flock, whose pasturage the Holy Ghost has committed to your charge, in order that you may feed the Church of Christ, which he has redeemed with his blood" (chaps, xi & passim; cf Acts xx, 28).
Since the Greek and Semitic East had no actual equivalents for the words, vicegerent and vicegerency, they had to use circumlocutions for them.
The Latin West had the expressions, vices Christi and vices agere. The Holy Rule manifests its Western origin in the use of the expression, vices Christi agere. The excellent idea of the abbot's vicegerency is currently being threat ened by two wrong interpretations, namely, "Naturalism" and "Supranaturalism."
Naturalism.— Naturalism estimates the worthiness of the representative of Christ more or less exclusively according to material standards, that is, ac cording to his ability and competence to rule and to lead, to understand and
to further the progress of his subordinates materially or mentally, to animate the community, to bring it within and without to full growth, and to lead it on to visible achievements and results.
Supranaturalism.—Supranaturalism, an offshoot to some extent, of naturalism, also has reference to a man's capacity and competence to rule. However, it places exclusive value upon his personal pursuit of virtue, indeed, only second to it a proper authorization and appointment to the office of vicegerent.
Everything that the abbot does, it holds, is in discharge of the positive will of God. Consequently, the vicegerent of Christ in the cloister stands above the pale of human judgment.
Monastic tradition.—Supranaturalism as well as Naturalism are contrary to monastic tradition. The old monachism demanded of its leaders, the represen tatives of Christ in the monastic Church, a personal pursuit of virtue, personal sanctity, and inseparably combined with them the talents and the competence to guide the "community of saints" (Pachomius). The juridical appointment to the office was understood to be a matter of course. The Old Testament
Church had already laid down requirements for its priests, might these have been—in keeping with the character of that Church—merely external ones (cf.
Lev. xxi; & Ezech. xliv). So it is hardly astonishing that the Church of the New Law, practically from the very beginning, demanded indispensable pre requisites for her priests (cf. 1 Tim. iii, 1-3; Titus i, 6-9; Hebr. v, 1-4; & vii,
26-28).
Consequently, it is wholly self-evident that the koinobion, the ideal and perfect Church of Christ, should set the highest possible standards for those who were to lead and direct it. St. Pachomius devoted practically an extensive section of his "rule" to the qualities that should distinguish a mo nastic superior (chap. clix). But the most profound and impressive words that the old monachism had to say about the qualities of a religious superior were spoken by his disciple and second successor, Horsiesi, in that wonderful "Test ament." St. Basil, too, dealt in detail with the question: "What kind of man the head of the brotherhood ought to be and how he should direct it" (Longer
Rules xliii; cf. xxx & If). That great monastic founder, St. Augustine, in his rule and in his other writings, drew a picture of the monastic superior which in its essential features is similar to that of St. Benedict (cf. HR. chap, xi). St. Caesarius of Arles demanded of the abbess that she be "holy and spiritual and be able to watch efficiently over the rule of the convent." But those wonderful chapters on the abbot in the Holy Rule should stand as the last word and crowning thought of the old monastic tradition concerning the vicegerent of Christ in the cloister (chaps, ii, xxviii, and lxiiif). For in the mind of St. Benedict the ideal vicarius Christi must inseparably combine per sonal sanctity with his competence to rule. As the changing history of monasticism has shown, the abbatial vicegerency is not something that cannot be lost or forfeited by the one who bears it, but it is a new trust and a new task from day to day: the safeguarding of his own salvation and the salvation of
the monastic Church under his care.
Excursus III.
The Will of God.—"'We are forbidden to do our own will, for the Scriptures admonish us: 'Turn thyself away from the promptings of thy own will' (cf.
Ecclus xviii, 30). And so we ask the Lord in our prayers that his will be done in us" (chap, vii, First Degree of Humility). But the abbot and the monks must at all times and everywhere be intent upon carrying out the "Will of God." Theoretically, it may not be very hard to discern what is the will of God. But practically and in the concrete, what is the will of God in a specific situation is on occasion rather a dark and difficult matter. The expression, the "Will of God," belongs to the class of beautiful and deep-sounding words which, though we use them often, are in constant danger of being undervalued and misunderstood. In fact, this powerful phrase, especially when uttered rashly or thoughtlessly even by superiors, can also be rendered meaningless and ineffectual.
It is undoubtedly much easier for the monk to discern what is the will of God than it is for the abbot. The monk will in most instances be able to carry out that "Will" if his attitude towards the provisions of the Rule and the commands of his abbot is one of faith and humility. This is an orienta tion which the Holy Rule takes for granted. The Rule knows nothing of "cases of conscience." At least, it is completely silent about them. It cannot conceive of a case in which the abbot, the vicegerent of the Lord, could order anything immoral, that is, contrary to the law of God. The 68th chapter di rects how the monk should conduct himself should he be ordered to do any thing "impossible," that is, exceeding what he thinks are his powers. From the circumstance that the monk is told he should endeavor to carry out the superior's orders should the latter insist, it becomes apparent that we do not have here a "case of conscience" in the modern sense.
For the abbot, on the other hand, the discernment and execution of the will of God is the burden of his heavy office. That is the profoundest sig nificance of his vicegerency of Jesus. The weal and woe of the cloister as a whole and of every monk in particular depends largely upon whether the abbot, as his representative there, not only in theory clearly discerns what is the will of Christ, real Father and Master of the House, but likewise upon whether he carries it out also in practice. For here the decisions of the abbot have to do, either directly or indirectly, with the welfare of the souls entrusted to his care. Of course, he knows that, as a matter of fact, it does not follow from his office of vicegerent that everything he does, says, or commands is bound to be, from the very first and without further question, the will of God in the actual sense of the words. The Rule points out again and again that the abbot can also act front motives of human frailty, say: out of partiality, thoughtlessness, inconsiderateness, jealousy, or other unworthy motives (chaps, ii, xxvii, & lxiv). Such decisions are surely not in line with the postive will of God. They should be regarded simply as defects, which cannot, however,