am I, your brother, look at me!" and then, refusing to enter, returned to his wilderness. "According to the scriptural declaration, He that hath said to his father and mother, I know ye not, and to his brethren, I know ye not, and hath not known his children, they have kept thy word. The monks were to forget filial affections, and this not of any stiffness or hardness of heart; for if a mere stranger with them be in misery, they mourn as easily for him as for another; but the sword is it that we spake of that is in their heart, and hath cut them away from their wonted acquaintance and affinity, not for that they have to love them still, that love also their very enemies, but because they have cast away all carnal love which groweth to mere dotage, and have converted the same wholly to spiritual charity." The monks of La Trappe never write to their friends in the world after their profession, nor hear anything respecting them; they only know that there is a world in order that they may pray for it. When the parent of any monk dies, the news is sent to the superior only, who tells the community that the father of one of them is dead, and enjoins them to pray for his soul. It is at present a rule in Italy, that when a monk meets any of his relatives in the street, he is not to raise his eyes to their countenances, but to give them a slight token of recognition, by raising the hat from the head. There were, however, some exceptions to this general disregard of filial duty. There was a regulation of St. Augustine's Abbey, at Canterbury, that "if it should so happen that the father, the mother, the sister, or brother of any monk in the monastery should come to such great want and indigency as that (to the reproach of any of the brethren) he or she be forced to ask at the gates the alms of the fraternity, then, such of them so asking should be provided for in the hospital attached to the monastery of sufficient sustentation, according to the ability of the house." There is a sentence written by the stern Jerome (Epist. ad Eustoch.) relative to the monks of Egypt, that speaks volumes, wherein he tells us that the sick monk was well attended to, "ut nec delitias urbium, nec matris quaerat affectum." We shall perhaps be reminded, in defence of the monastic usages, of the command of Christ, Luke xiv. 26; but we think that these * Taylor's Ancient Christianity. + Fosbroke's British Monachism, quoted from the Harleian MS. Somner's Antiquities of Canterbury. words refer to the situation of the individual who must either displease his relatives or commit sin; and that they have no reference whatever to the vows of the monk. Hence we admire rather than condemn the resolution of Phileos, an Egyptian nobleman, whose martyrdom is recorded in the same work as many of the preceding narratives.* As he refused to offer sacrifice, the governor, Culcion, endeavoured to overcome him by appealing to the grief of his wife, children, brother, and other relations, who were present at the trial; but he, like the rock unshaken by the impetuous waves that dash around it, stood unmoved, and raising his heart to God, protested aloud that he owned no other kindred but the apostles and martyrs; and that he would die for Christ rather than deny him. The eastern ascetic presents a similar insensibility to the important duties that are disregarded by the western monk. It is said by Manu (Inst. ii. 205), "Let not the Brahman student, unless ordered by his spiritual father, prostrate himself, in his presence, before his natural father." The writings of the Budhists abound with maxims and legends illustrative of the same type of character. Kula, the family or relationship, is called a hindrance to the exercise of sámadhi, which consists in the collecting of the thoughts, and the fixing of them upon one object, so as to be free from all wandering or perturbation of mind. The sramana recluse who enters into an intimacy with any other person, though it should even be a priest, will be prevented from acquiring the tranquillity at which he ought constantly to aim. He will be indisposed, by other calls upon his attention, to enter upon the exercises it is necesary for him to perform. But there are some priests who are superior to the attractions that would ensnare them, and are even indifferent respecting their parents, so that, when communicating with them, the relationship is entirely disregarded. We have seen that Rathapála called his father merely "Householder," and that he paid no regard to his wife or mother when in their presence. A priest who resided at Koranakara had a nephew who was a priest in the same wihára; but in the course of time the nephew went to reside at Ruhuna (the southern province of Ceylon, whilst the uncle's village must have been somewhere in the north). After this his parents were continually asking the older priest if he had heard any news of their son. At last, as they were so importunate, he set out for Ruhuna, that he might enquire after the welfare of his *Alban Butler, Feb. 4. nephew, and be able to satisfy the wishes of his parents. By this time the nephew thought it would be well to go and see his uncle, as he had been absent from him a considerable period. The two priests met on the borders of the river Mahaweli; and, after mutual explanations, the uncle remained near the same place to perform a certain ceremony, and the nephew proceeded onward to his native village. The day after his arrival his father went to invite him to perform wass at his house, as he had heard that a stranger had come to the monastery. The priest accordingly went every day, for the space of three months, to his father's house to say bana; but he was not recognized by any of his relatives. When the ceremony was concluded, he informed his parents that he was about to depart; but they entreated him to come the next day, and they then gave him a cruse of oil, a lump of sugar, and a piece of cloth nine cubits long. After giving them his blessing, he began his journey to Ruhuna. The two priests again met on the borders of the river, when the nephew informed his uncle that he had seen his parents, and at the same time washed his feet with the oil, gave him the sugar to eat, and presented him with the piece of cloth. He then proceeded on his journey, and his uncle set out to return to Koranakara. From the time that the son began to perform wass at his parent's house, his father went out every day in the direction of Ruhuna, to see if the priest was returning with his child; but when he saw him alone, as he concluded at once that his son was dead, he threw himself at the feet of the priest, wept, and lamented aloud. The priest saw the error into which the father had fallen, and made known to him what had taken place, convincing him of the reality of what he said by showing him the cloth he had received. The father then went in the direction his son had gone, fell on his face and worshipped, saying that his son was without an equal, as he had visited his parents' house every day during three months, and yet never discovered himself to any of his relatives. To such a priest even parents are no palibhóda or hindrance to the reception of tranquillity.* * Wisudhi Margga Sanné. VII. POVERTY. The vow of poverty is a natural result of asceticism, so that we expect to meet with it as a matter of course wherever men have been taught that to save their souls it is necessary for them to abandon the world. The monks of Christendom suppose that they have an additional motive for this rule in the example of Christ and his apostles. Thus, Chaucer's Wife of Bath, v. 6761, exclaims, "And ther as ye of poverte me repreve, The highe God, on whom that we beleve, The universal tendency there is among all ascetics to the breaking of this law, as well as the difficulty of framing regulations that may not be set aside by the ingenuity of those who wish to transgress them, may be seen in the fact, that nearly every order has been intended at its commencement to repress the style of luxury in which the preceding communities have lived; whilst it has only required the elapse of a reasonable time before the new order has been drawn into the vortex of the very extravagancies it was intended to put down, and for which purpose it was originated. By Jerome (Ep. 95) complaint is made that some who called themselves solitarii lived in the midst of a crowd, and had the attendance of servants; they had all the conveniences requisite for a carousal; and their food was eaten from vessels of glass or some other costly material. The same author relates (Ep. 18) that a certain anchoret left a hundred crowns at his death. When the monks resident in the same desert met together to enquire what was to be done with the money, some proposed that it should be given to the poor, but it was finally resolved that the whole sum should be thrown into his grave, with the malediction, "May thy money pass with thee to perdition." Until the rise of the mendicants, the individual members of the various orders were regarded as denying themselves the enjoyment of personal property, though the community to which they belonged might itself possess ample revenues. Even Dominic, though he prescribed the most severe poverty, did not forbid the houses of his order to enjoy in common small rents in money. But Francis pro hibited his monks from possessing a collective revenue, and the vow of poverty was absolute. The rule was as follows::-"Fratres sibi nihil approprient, nec domum, nec locum, nec aliquam rem; sed sicut perigrini et advenae in hoc seculo, in paupertate et humilitate famulantes Domino, vadant pro eleemosynâ confidenter." The bishop of Acco, 1220, writing of the Franciscans, says, "They have neither monasteries nor churches; neither fields, nor vineyards, nor cattle; nor houses, nor any possessions; nor where to lay the head." When a church was bestowed upon Francis by the Benedictines of Monte Sonbazo, he refused to accept the property or dominion, and would only have the use of the place; in token of which he sent the monks annually a basket of fish. He would not allow any property to be invested in his order, that he might say more perfectly that he had neither house, food, nor clothes. When asked which of all the virtues he thought was the most agreeable to God, he replied, "Poverty is the way to salvation, the nurse of humility, and the root of perfection. Its fruits are hidden, but they multiply themselves in ways that are infinite," Yet a division broke out among his followers as to the precise interpretation of his rule, in consequence of which a mitigation of the requirement as to the total abrogation of all worldly possessions was made by Gregory IX. in 1231; and in 1245 the bull of Innocent IV. allowed them to possess certain articles of furniture, with a few utensils, books, &c. About a century afterwards a dispute arose between the Franciscans and Dominicans respecting the poverty of Christ and his apostles; it being argued by the followers of Francis that they had no possessions of any kind whatever, either as private property or as a common treasure, whilst the followers of Dominic asserted most strenuously a contrary opinion. The pope decided in favour of the Dominicans; and it is recorded that many of the Franciscans perished in the flames of the inquisition for persisting in their opposition to this decree. It was enjoined by Ignatius Loyola that the professed Jesuits should not possess any real estates or revenues, either in particular or in common; but that colleges might enjoy revenues and rents for the maintenance of students of the order. It is said to be peculiar to this society, that the religious, after their first vows, retain some time the dominion or property of their patrimony, without the administration (the latter condition being essential to a religious vow of poverty) till they make their renun * Alban Butler, July 31. |