ought not to be received. How much more those who come from holy abbots, whose only fault is that they possess cattle, and ride in chariots, either from the custom of the country or because of infirmity. For these things are less injurious, if they are possessed in humility and patience, than labouring at the plough, and driving stakes into the earth with presumption and pride.'[1]
From this we may learn not only that some had stricter rules than others, but that there was considerable jealousy between the two classes. Those of lax rule had no sympathy with the stricter ones; and on the other hand the extreme ascetics looked down upon those abbots as unworthy who rode in chariots and had wealth of cattle. It was unavoidable, from the very circumstances of the case, that there should be this diversity. The greatest advocates of monasticism had never dreamt of its becoming the one rule of the Church; but this was the case in Ireland, and therefore it necessarily followed that the system should be modified to meet the circumstances of the case. Extreme asceticism might suit a few enthusiastic souls; but for the ordinary members of the Church, or even of the clergy, it was a yoke which they were not able and could not be expected to bear.
It was not merely in different monasteries that there was this difference in strictness; even in the same establishment the inmates were not all bound by the same rule. A man might become an ascetic without separating himself from his abbot, even though the abbot were one that did not follow a very strict rule himself or impose it on his followers. This brings us to consider the institution of anchorites,
- ↑ Quoted from Todd, Life of St. Patrick, p. 144.
