become suspicious through their very rancour, and adhere only to the facts which are mentioned as characteristic of that monastic The Sarabaites. sect, it appears, that they were seceders, or at least independent, from the Cœnobitical establishments. They claimed the name of Monks; but without any emulation of their pursuits, or observance of their discipline. They were not subject to the direction of elders, nor did they strive, under traditional institutions, to subject their inclinations to any fixed or legitimate rule. If they publicly renounced the world, it was either to persevere, in their own houses, in their former occupations under the false assumption of the monastic name, or building cells, and calling them monasteries, to dwell there without any abandonment of their secular interests. They laboured indeed with industry at least as sedulous, as their more regular brethren-but they laboured for their own individual profit, not for that of an instituted community *. From this hostile account, it would appear that the Sarabaites, if they were spurious monks, were at least useful members of society; and the union which they established of the religious profession with worldly occupations, seems to have revived, or rather perpetuated, the leading principle of ascetism. From Egypt, the popular institution was immediately introduced into Syria by a monk named Hilarion; but the Syrians appear soon to have deviated from the simplicity and moderation of their masters into a sterner practice of mortification, and even torture. From Syria, it was transmitted to Pontus and the shores of the Black Sea, and there it found a respectable patron, the most eminent among its primitive protectors, Basilius, Archbishop of Cæsarea.

St. Basil.

That celebrated ecclesiastic-who was a native of Cappadocia, the brother of Gregory of Nyssa, and the fellow-disciple (as is asserted) of the then future apostate Julian-has given his name to the single order, which has subsisted in the Greek Church †, with scarcely any variation or addition, from that period to the present moment; and it is this circumstance, as well as his superior antiquity, which has established him as the most venerable of the patriarchs of Monachism. His claim to that reputation is said to consist in this-he united the Hermits and Cœnobites already established in his diocese; and to his monasteries, so formed, he prescribed a rule, which was rigidly observed by them, and imitated by others by this bond, he gave them a consistency and uniformity, which had hitherto been peculiar to the institutions of Egypt ‡. Besides which,

* Cassian. Collat, xviii. c. 7. Cassian's dislike for the Sarabaites was probably contracted in the cells of the Cœnobites, who viewed with a sort of sectarian jealousy the industry and the profits of rebels or of rivals.

+ It is true that certain heretical orders, Maronites, Jacobites, Nestorians, &c. professed to follow the rule of St. Anthony; but St. Anthony delivered, in fact, no rule. When solicited to impose some code upon his disciples, he is recorded to have presented to them the Bible-an eternal and universal rule. Hospin. lib. ii. c. 4.

It does not, however, appear, that his rule was in the first instance very generally observed. At least we find, that as much as thirty years later, Cassian (Institut. lib. ii. c. 2.) contrasted the diversity, particularly respecting the times and nature of the holy offices, which prevailed elsewhere, with the uniformity of the more ancient institutions of Egypt. In hunc modum diversis in locis diversum canonem agnovimus institutum, totque propemodum typos et regulas vidimus usurpatas, quot etiam monasteria cellasque conspeximus. Sunt quibus. Quapropter necessarium reor antiquissimam patrum proferre constitutionem quæ nunc usque per totam Egyptum a Dei famulis custoditur,' &c. It is, indeed, the opinion of Hospinian (though it does not seem sufficiently founded), that St. Basil's Cœnobia were little more than theological schools, and that his

he strongly recommended* the obligation of a vow, on admission to the monastic state-an obligation which, whether it were actually established by St. Basil or not, had certainly no existence before his time. These advancements in the system were effected from the years 360 to 370; and thus the plant, which had first been nourished by Anthony and Pachomius with imperfect, but not improvident culture, grew up, within the space of twenty years, into vigorous and lasting maturity.

It is a fact demanding observation, that the Fathers of the ancient Church, who flourished about this period, among whom were many eloquent and learned and pious men, were Conduct of the favourable, without one exception, to the establishment ancient Fathers. of monasticism: for though it might be beneath the

office of reason to investigate the motives of the illiterate enthusiasts who began the work, it would be improper to pass over without comment the considerate labours of the ecclesiastics who completed it. Moreover, as they were apt enough to differ on some other points, in which the interests of religion were concerned, and as they delivered, on all occasions, their particular opinions with great boldness and independence, their unanimity in the introduction of one grand innovation is, by that circumstance, still further recommended to our attention. Yet must we hesitate to ascribe to them motives altogether unworthy. We should be wholly mistaken if we were to attribute their conspiracy to any deep design for the establishment of priestly rule, or the increase of the wealth and authority of the Church beyond their just limits. These evil consequences did, indeed, result from the work, and spread, with fatal influence, over the western world; but they could not be contemplated by the Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries, because they rose and grew with the growth of papal usurpation, of which, in those days, there was no fear nor thought. It was the alliance between papacy and monasticism which tended more, perhaps, than any other cause, to elevate and magnify, and at the same time to vitiate, both. But the eye of Athanasius, or Chrysostom, or Augustin, could not possibly foresee that union, nor penetrate the various circumstances which afterwards concurred to aggrandize the Bishop of Rome. So far may we safely acquit even the most sagacious among the Fathers of monasticism; and as far as the spirit of the age can be held to excuse those whom, in appearance, it carries along with it, but who, in fact, encourage and influence it, so far may the conduct of those mistaken men be excused. And perhaps we might add, in further palliation, that the general demoralization of society, over which Christian principles were still contending for predominance with the pernicious remnants of paganism, seemed to permit so little hope of righteous conduct to persons busied in the world, as almost to justify retreat and seclusion. should, moreover, in attempting to account for this agreement, always bear in mind, that the early patrons of monasticism were, with very few exceptions, Orientals or Africans; men of ardent temperament, and impetuous imagination; among whom the theory of religion too frequently tended

We

rule was no other than the ordinary form of school discipline. Such, as he thinks, were the monasteries of those days. Lib. iii. c. 2. The Rule commonly ascribed to that saint may be found, in Latin, in the same place.

* Bingham, Ch. Antiq. book vii. The author of the Histoire des Ordres Monastiques expressly asserts, that as monasteries were instituted by Anthony, and congregations by Pachomius, so the three vows (of chastity, poverty, and obedience) were the introduction of St. Basil. It is, at least, certain, that the duties of obedience and poverty were early and very rigidly practised by the Eastern monks.

to mysticism, and its practice to mere sensible ceremony, and bodily mortification. We have no reason to believe that any worldly premium to the new philosophy was held out by the princes or nobles of those days; nor even that the influx of oblations from the vulgar was the immediate fruit of the profession of poverty *, as was elsewhere the case in later times. The monasteries of the East were at no period so overgrown with opulence as those of the Roman Church; and in their origin they certainly offered no imaginable temptations to avarice or sensuality. On these and similar considerations, we may acquit the original founders of the monastic system of those odious motives, with which they have sometimes been charged; but we must censure their encouragement of popular superstition; we must condemn that rash enthusiasm, which exceeded what is written; and we must pronounce those to have been insufficient guides to religious knowledge, who, at a crisis of such infinite importance, inculcated any other rule of life, than such as tended directly, through the plain and practical precepts of the Gospel, to the general welfare of mankind.

Early form of
Monachism.

The earliest age of monachism differed in many particulars from those which matured and perfected the system. The vow of Celibacy was either not taken by the original monks, or not universally enforced; though the practice was usual, and held indicative of a higher condition of sanctity. Community of property was indeed established among them; but that property was chiefly acquired by the labour of their hands. The necessity of manual industry, which was coeval with the institution, was subsequently enforced by St. Augustin, as the best safeguard against the snares of the Tempter; and the spiritual motives to strict moral demeanour were encouraged by the absolute poverty of the individuals. Mendicity, which had an early existence in the system, was stigmatized with immediate censure. It does not appear that the primitive monks were positively prohibited by any vow from returning, if they thought fit, to the turbulence of the world; though such desertions were strongly discouraged, as early as the Council of Chalcedon, both by ecclesiastical denunciations, and perpetual exclusion from holy orders. Several restrictions were imposed with respect to admission into the monastic order. Of husbands and wives, the mutual agreement was necessary for the seclusion of either; servants were not admitted, unless with the approbation of their masters, nor children without the consent of their parents and themselves. These and other reasonable impediments to the abuse of monachism were first weakened by the superstitious improvidence of Justinian.

The original monks were, without exception, laymen; but in situations, where the only accessible place of worship was within the walls, one priest was added to the society, and he generally filled the office of Abbot or Hegoumenos. St. Jerome † has expressly distinguished the monastic

*Not that even the earliest monks have escaped the reproaches of the contemporary Fathers. St. Jerome especially (Epist. xxxv., ad Heliodorum Monachum) notices the birth of corruption :-'Alii nummum addant nummo, et marsupium suffocantes matronarum opes venentur obsequiis; sint ditiores Monachi, quam fuerant sæculares; possideant opes sub Christo paupere, quas sub locuplete Diabolo non habuerant; et suspiret eos Ecclesia divites, quos tenuit mundus ante mendicos.' But notwithstanding this and other particular passages, the general expressions used by those writers respecting the monastic condition, prove its general respectability.

Epist. V., ad Heliodorum Monachum. 'Alia Monachorum est causa; alia clericorum. Clerici pascunt oves; ego pascor. Illi de altario vivunt; mihi, quasi infructuosa arbori, securis ponitur ad radicem, si munus ad altare non defero.

Mihi ante

from the sacerdotal order; and Leo I., in a communication to Maximus, bishop of Antioch, forbade monks to usurp the office of religious instruction, which was properly confined to the priests of the Lord. It is true, indeed, that, very early in monastic history, those establishments were considered as schools and nurseries for the ministry, and that persons were selected for ordination from among their inhabitants; but those so ordained immediately quitted the cloister, and engaged in the duties of the secular clergy; and in Greece they were distinguished by the title of Hieromonachoi, or Holy Monks *.

Character of Oriental
Monachism.

There is no doubt, that Orientals are naturally more prone to acts of fanaticism and ascetic austerities, than the more rational, and, at the same time, more sensual nations of Europe; and we might have expected to find the most extraordinary instances of selfinflicted torture among those who originated that practice, and whose habits and passions peculiarly prepared them for it. It is uncertain whether this be so; for though it be true that the madness of the Stylites gained no prevalence in the Western Church, and that the Boskoi, or Grazing monks (an Asiatic order of the fifth century, which proposed to unite the soul to the Deity, by degrading the body to a condition below humanity) found no imitators in a more inclement climate; yet their mortifications and absurdities were rivalled, if not in the cells of the Benedictines, at least by the Flagellants, and some other heretics of the fourteenth century; and the discipline of the more rigid Franciscans was probably, in the early ages of that order, as severe as human nature could endure. But even among the regular orders of the Western Church, monastic austerity was carried, under particular circumstances, and in later times, to a more perfect refinement than it ever attained in the East. It is not difficult to account for this singularity. A variety of motives, and a complication of passions, entered into the monkish system of the Roman Church. Many were unquestionably actuated by superstition, many, perhaps, by purer sentiments of piety; but many more were impelled by personal ambition, by professional zeal, by the jealousy of rival orders, and, above all, by the thirst for that wealth, which so certainly followed the reputation of sanctity. On the other hand, the unvarying constitution, and the more tranquil character of the Eastern Church, presented fewer and feebler inducements to excessive severity. The passion which originally founded its monasteries, warm and earnest enthusiasm, continued still to animate and people them; but its ardour gradually abated; and the defect was not supplied in the same abundance, nor by the same sources, which sprang from the rock of St. Peter. From the earliest period, the Head of the Eastern Church was subject to the civil power, and he has always continued so; and thus, as he has at no time asserted any arrogant claims of temporal authority, nor engaged in any contests with the state, he possessed no personal

Presbyterum sedere non licet,' &c. Hospinian, (lib. iii., c. 13), under the head 'Monachi ab initio non Clerici,' adduces strong reason (in spite of some contradictory decrees) to believe that they were permitted to take orders as early as the time of Pope Siricius, in 390; and that all the privileges of the secular priesthood were subsequently conferred on monastic priests, and confirmed by Gregory the Great. Still, as they continued to be bound by their vows, they acquired the clerical, without losing the monastic,

character.

*The foundation of an order of Canons, attributed to St. Augustin, (which will presently be mentioned,) was a distinct institution.

or official interest in the aggrandisement of the monastic order. Again, the two grand political revolutions of the Eastern and Western empires produced effects precisely opposite on the condition of monachism in either. The overthrow of the latter by the Pagans of the North, the early conversion of the conquerors, and the subsequent establishment of the feudal system, became the means of enriching the monasteries, from private as well as royal bounty, with vast territorial endowments. Whereas the possessions of the Oriental Church, which, through less favourable circumstances, had already been reduced to more moderate limits, were still further despoiled by the fatal triumph of the Turks.

The institution of nunneries was contemporary with that of monasteries, and is also attributed to St. Anthony; but the earliest accounts incline us to believe that it was not equally flourishing. In countries where sterility is common, and the population either scanty or fluctuating, the government would doubtless discourage the seclusion of females. We learn, too, that their houses were less carefully regulated, and their vows less strictly observed in Asia than in the West of Europe. Athens is mentioned as the nurse of several such establishments; but it was lamented that the ladies of rank and wealth were not easily prevailed upon to devote themselves to religious seclusion. Of a convent which was founded at Constantinople by the Empress Irene (in 1108), the constitutions still remain *. But the Nuns of St. Basil were more numerous and more prosperous in the West, than in the climate of their origin; and in Sicily especially, and the South of Italy, they arrived, in later ages, at considerable wealth and importance †.

The original monastic establishments of every description were subjected, without any exception, to the Bishop of the diocese. The exemptions from that authority, which were afterwards introduced, through the pernicious progress of papacy, into the Western Church, had little prevalence, as, indeed, they had no strong motive, in the East.

SECTION II.

Institution of Monachism in the West.

Ir is very generally asserted, that the monastic system was introduced into the West by Athanasius, during his compulsory sojourn at Rome, in 341. It is believed, that he carried in his train to the imperial city certain monks and anchorets, representatives of the Egyptian commonwealth, whose wild aspect and devout demeanour moved the reverence, and at the same time roused the emulation, of the Romans. Some monasteries were immediately founded; and many retired to lonely places for the exercise of solitary worship. From Rome, (if the above account be true,)

* Histoire des Ordres Monastiques, (Prem. Partie, Chap. xxviii.) By a regulation peculiarly oriental, it was herein ordained, that the steward, the confessor, and the two chaplains, the only males employed about the convent, should be eunuchs. We do not learn whether this precaution was usual in the nunneries of the East.

Another class of religious females, called Virgins of the Church, had an early existence in the East. They continued to unite the discharge of their social duties with a strict profession of religious chastity-thus advancing one step beyond the ascetism of their forefathers.

Baronius, (ann. 328), Mabillon, and Gibbon hold this opinion; but Muratori pretends that the first monasteries founded in Italy were erected at Milan. Mosheim more wisely pronounces the uncertainty of the fact.