VI.

STEPHEN AS PRIOR.

 

Robert left nothing behind him at Citeaux, but the vestments and sacred vessels, which he had brought with him; these were expressly, according to the legate's command, to belong to the New Monastery. The large Breviary also was to remain there till St. John Baptist's day, by which time the brethren were to have it copied out and then to send it to Molesme. This, and the remem­brance which they kept of his virtues, was all the vestige which remained of his jurisdiction of Citeaux: he left them as free as if he had never been their abbot, or received their vows. They had therefore now to elect a successor, and their choice fell upon Alberic; under him Stephen was naturally made prior. These two had worked hand in hand from the first commencement of Molesme, and remained together even when Robert seceded from them; and now that he had finally left them, the eyes of the whole community were fixed upon them. Stephen had been in a manner the pupil of both, and it seemed as if the virtues of each were necessary to make up the defects of his original character.

He had left Sherborne, as we have seen, from a violent thirst for knowledge, and had for some time roamed about the world almost without an object, certainly without a clear knowledge of his vocation. He had first learned obe­dience under Robert, and the stability of his character had been tried by the troubles which he had encountered at Molesme; and now he had a further lesson to learn from Alberic, that of patient prudence.

"Alberic," says the Exordium, "when he had received, though much against his will, the pastoral charge, began to bethink himself, as being a man of wondrous prudence, what stormy troubles, coming to shake the house committed to him, might annoy it." And troubles enough there were about him. The post of abbot was at all times one which involved great anxiety, from the absolute powers which were vested in him. It was to him that the strict obedience which formed so large a part of the monastic rule was due, the deepest respect was paid to him, even to bowing the knee, and profound inclinations. The officers of the monastery, from the prior downwards, were removable at his will.

At the same time he was to be in an especial way the chief spiritual guide of all the brethren, and to temper the rigor of the rule for the weak, without introducing irregularity into the convent. To him the monks revealed all their sorrows, and recurred for advice; for which there was a place called the au­ditorium especially set apart. Even here, however, they could not speak without his leave; on their appearance he gave them the benediction; but if after this he kept a stern silence, the brother who applied for license left the auditorium without speaking.

At the same time, the regulation of the habits and of the food of the monks was in his hands, so that the temporal and spiritual pros­perity of the convent depended in a great measure upon him alone. No stronger proof of the great power of the abbot need be sought, than the fact that most of the later monastic reformations attack at once the power of his office, some even making it triennial. They may have done away with some evils, but at the same time they changed the spirit of monasticism, for there can be no perfect obedience where all may be lords in turn. At least so the Cistercians thought, and in their reform (for so it was) the abbot had all the powers which St. Benedict vested in the office.

Alberic therefore had full need of the "wondrous prudence" which the old Cistercian history celebrates. The abbot of Citeaux was not then the magnificent personage who celebrated mass pontifically with the episcopal mitre, ring, and sandals, the lord of five military orders, sitting in a lofty chair, on a level with the bishop, in the parliament of Burgundy. Alberic was but the head of a few monks in a marshy desert, where they had to struggle to win a hard subsistence from the barren soil: they were exposed to the oppressions of any baron who might take a fancy to molest them; and, above all, they were treated as enthusiasts and fanatics by the monasteries around them. Their calumnies might at any time alienate the favour of the duke of Burgundy, who as yet had protected them; for the saintly boldness with which they determined to keep the whole rule of St. Benedict, had irritated not only their neighbours of Molesme, but even the German convents had had news of the fanaticism and disobedience of this New Monas­tery.

It was well for Stephen that he was brought close to Alberic in these trying times of the Cistercian struggles for existence: his office of prior linked him to the abbot, and gave him an opportunity of watching the calm wisdom with which Alberic warded off these difficulties.

The prior, according to St. Benedict's rule, was to be entirely the abbot's minister; and the Cistercians kept up this first notion of a prior. "Let the prior, within and without, concerning all things and in all things, act according to the will of the abbot." They even gave less authority to the prior than was usual in other rules, as may be seen by comparing Lanfranc's decrees, with the Usus Cisterciensis. The prior was thus the eye and the hand of the abbot; his office was to take the abbot's place in all the common routine of the convent when the abbot was engaged, and specially to keep up the regularity of the brethren, by giving the signal for labor and for the chapter. He also presided in the refectory, and gave the signal by a small bell, when they were to begin, and when to leave off eating; for the Cis­tercian abbot, as was prescribed in St. Benedict's rule, always ate with the guests who happened to come to the abbey. Stephen's principal duty, therefore, was to work conjointly with Alberic, and he profited by the office which thus threw him in contact with that holy man.

Alberic's first care was to provide for the safety of his abbey, that it might for ever remain in quiet, safe from the oppression of all persons, ecclesiastical or secular. It appears from the archbishop of Lyons' letter to Pope Pascal, that "the brethren of the Church of Molesme, and some other neighbouring monks, did not cease to harass and disquiet them, thinking that they themselves were looked upon as vile and despicable by the world, as long as these strange and novel monks were seen to dwell among them." They endeavoured to entice away strag­glers from the Cistercian brethren back to Molesme, and even used violence and guile in order to disturb the quiet of the New Monastery.

Alberic's only place of refuge was the Holy See; and at this moment two cardinals, John and Benedict, were in France, for the purpose of devising means to punish Philip, king of France, who had divorced his own wife Bertha, and was living in adultery with Bertrada, wife of Fulke, count of Anjou. The two cardinals held a council at Poietiers, and ex­communicated the king; but amidst the press of busi­ness which this involved, they found leisure to attend to the affairs of Citeaux. It appears that the fame of the saintly inhabitants of this poor monastery had spread all over France, and reached the ears of the legates. The words which the cardinals use in their letter to the Pope might almost seem to imply that they had been in person to Citeaux: at all events, they must have seen some of the brethren, whose appearance struck them with admira­tion, and they willingly wrote to the holy father, begging him to take the monastery under his special protection. Alberic assembled the chapter, and with the concurrence of Stephen and the rest of the brethren, two monks, John and Ilbodus, were despatched to Rome, with letters from the cardinal legates, from Hugh, archbishop of Lyons, and from the bishop of Chalons.

Pascal had been but a year elected to the papal throne, and was then in the height of his power; his gracious demeanour and piety had conciliated all about him, and his unanimous election had brought to Rome a peace which it had not known for a long time. The moment therefore which the Cister­cians chose was a fortunate one. They found that Pascal was absent from Rome, and they had to follow him as far as Troja in Apulia. The warm expressions of esteem which his letter to Alberic contains, prove that he re­ceived the brethren with open arms. Himself a monk of Cluny, and a disciple of St. Hugh, he could well enter into their troubles; and although he afterwards showed himself so very unable to comprehend the great cause for which his predecessors had fought, yet his character was such as to appreciate the motives which had driven the brethren of Citeaux into the wilderness. He immediate­ly granted the request of the two envoys, and gave them a letter by which he took the New Monastery under the special protection of the Holy See. He calls them "his most dear sons in Christ, whom he longed after very much," and he concludes with a sentence of excommuni­cation against any "archbishop or bishop, emperor or king, count or viscount, judge, or any other person ecclesiastical or civil," who, being aware of the protection granted by the Holy See, should molest the abbey.

The letter is dated April 18, 1100.

The old Cistercian his­torian, after giving an account of the protection thus ex­tended by the Holy See, adds with a sort of melancholy feeling, that it was granted and the messengers had re­turned "before Pope Pascal had been taken captive by the emperor and sinned". This privilege of protection thus obtained from the Holy See was of the utmost con­sequence to Citeaux. It is evidently not an exemption, that is, it is not meant to exempt the abbot from epis­copal jurisdiction, and to subject him immediately to the Holy See, for the canonical obedience to the see of Chalons is expressly mentioned. Its import must be understood from similar documents granted by former sovereign pontiffs.

The jurisdiction of monasteries was always a difficulty in the Church; it is generally believed that they were from the first subject to the bishop; so far is this from being the case, that during, the first 150 years of their existence, that is, till the council of Chalcedon, monks were no more under the bishop than other laymen. As monachism developed into a system, the bishops naturally became the ultimate authority to which convents were subject. Still it was necessary that the abbot should have an authority next to absolute in the internal management; and according to the rule of St. Benedict, he has the power to excommunicate the monks who transgressed the rule.

The bishop only ap­pears as the abbot's assistant in punishing the brethren who were priests. Again, he blessed the abbot when he had been chosen by the convent, and it was from him that the abbot's authority was derived. As time went on, bishops encroached upon the convents; they required money for the benediction of the abbot, interfered with the freedom of election, and took upon them the ad­ministration of the temporalities. The poor of Christ had no refuge but the Holy See; and several letters of Pope Gregory the Great are extant, in which he com­mands bishops to respect the privileges of abbeys, and takes them under the special protection of the chair of St. Peter. In one case he even withdraws the sole jurisdiction over an abbey from the bishop of the dio­cese, and joins with him a council of six bishops. That great pontiff knew that a monastery should be perfect in itself; the very principle of obedience required it to be subject to one head, and the authority of the bishop was only necessary to constitute that head, that the obedience might be canonical, as also to superintend, not to interfere with, his authority. They were Christ's spiritual army, ready at any time to assert the faith against heresy, however powerful, and setting up the light of heavenly purity when the profligacy of the world had well-nigh cast away religion. In order to do this, they must be a whole within themselves, and cut off from worldly influence, and from interests without the cloister.

A bishop in most cases could not be a monk, and therefore could not govern a convent; he could only come in at certain times as a remedy in cases beyond the rule. Subsequent pontiffs followed St. Gregory in jealously guarding the independence of monasteries; for instance, John IV even granted a formal exemption to two convents, and subjected them immediately to the Holy See.

The primitive meaning of such extraordinary privileges was to guard against the encroachments of which bishops had been guilty, and to keep the internal government of the abbey in the hands of the abbot; they were not, however, intended to separate monks from the canonical obedience due to the bishop. It is true that after the time of which we are writing, they came to be much abused; and St. Bernard complains of the ambition of abbots, who endeavored to avoid the authority of their bishop, whilst he approves of the devotion of founders of monasteries, who placed their houses under the protection of Rome. Of this nature was the letter of Pascal to Alberic; it was not, as we have said, an exemption from epi­scopal authority, but it was a privilege, by which the de­fenceless house of Christ's poor ones was taken under the wings of the Apostolic See.

Two things were especially commanded by the pope; one, "that it should be lawful for no person whatever to change the state of their mode of life". This left them full power to live as they pleased according to the strict rule of St. Benedict; a bishop might do his best to oblige them to keep their rule, if they broke it; but he could not compel them to observe the same customs as most other convents around them; to profess the rule of St. Benedict, but in effect to relax it under pretence of dispensations.

Again, it left them free to establish what usages they pleased; every monastery had many traditionary practices and cere­monies peculiar to itself in matters which the rule had left open; and Pascal by this provision exempted the Cistercians from the usages of any other religious house, and left them free to form their own customs. Out of this permission arose the Usus Cisterciensis.

The other special provision made by the pope was, "that none should receive the monks of your monastery called the New Minster, without a commendation ac­cording to the rule". This was in fact a confirmation of the canonical authority committed by the bishop of Chalons to the abbot of Citeaux by the delivery of the pastoral staff; it was the act by which he had authority over the monks, so that they could not leave the cloister without his consent. Without vows, and those made to a person vested with authority, monks are a mere collec­tion of individuals, dissolvable at will; the absence of a canonical vow changes the whole idea of monastic life, and none can hope for God's blessing on the most solemn engagements which they form, unless the power in whose hands they place themselves is the representative of the Church. Otherwise they can never be sure that their obedience is not self-will. These words of Pascal, therefore, are like the recognition of a corporate body by the law; one Christian may any day that he pleases make a vow that he will live in obedience to another; but, unless that other is recognized by the Church, the ecclesiastical law cannot take cognizance of the transaction. Such is the explanation of this privilege given by the pope to Citeaux, which at once raised it above the calumnies of the monks, who felt their own lives to be reproved by the holiness of their neighbours.

CISTERCIAN USAGES.