CENT. and miserable life, amidst the hardships of want, IV. and various kinds of suffering, in order to arrive PART II. at a more close and rapturous communion with

The progress of

God and angels. The Christian church would never have been disgraced by this cruel and unsociable enthusiasm, nor would any have been subjected to those keen torments of mind and body to which it gave rise, had not many Christians been unwarily caught by the specious appearance, and the pompous sound of that maxim of the ancient philosophy, "That, in order to "the attainment of true felicity and communion "with God, it was necessary that the soul should "be separated from the body, even here below; " and that the body was to be macerated and mortified for this purpose."

XIV. From the east this gloomy institution monkery. passed into the west, and first into Italy, and its neighbouring islands, though it is utterly uncertain who transplanted it thither [g]. St. Martin, the celebrated bishop of Tours, erected the first monasteries in Gaul, and recommended this religious solitude with such power and efficacy, both by his instructions and his example, that his funeral is said to have been attended by no less than

two

[9] Most writers, following the opinion of Baronius, maintain that S. Athanasius brought the monastic institution from Egypt into Italy, in the year 340, and was the first who built a monastery at Rome. See Mabillonius, Præf. ad Acta Sanctorum Ord. Bened. tom. i. p. 9. But the learned Lewis Ant. Muratori combats this opinion, and pretends that the first monastery known in Europe, was erected at Milan. Antiq. Italicar. medii ævi, tom. i. p. 364.—Just. Fontaninus, in his Historia Litter. Aquileiens. p. 155. affirms that the first society of monks was formed at Aquileia. None of these writers produce unexceptionable evidence for their opinions. If we may give credit to the Ballerini (Dissert. ii. ad Zenonem Veronensem, p. 115.) the first convent of nuns was erected towards the end of this century, at Verona, by Zeno, bishop of that city.

IV. PART II.

two thousand monks [r]. From hence, the mo- CENT. nastic discipline extended, gradually, its progress through the other provinces and countries of Europe.

It is, however, proper to observe, that there was a great difference in point of austerity, between the western and oriental monks; the former of whom could never be brought to bear the severe rules to which the latter voluntarily submitted. And, indeed, the reason of this difference may be partly derived from the nature of the respecI tive climates in which they dwelt. The European countries abound not so much with delirious fanatics, and with persons of a morose and austere complexion, as those arid regions that lie towards the burning east; nor are our bodies capable of supporting that rigorous and abstemious method of living, which is familiar and easy to those who are placed under a glowing firmament, and breathe in a sultry and scorching atmosphere. It was, therefore, rather the name only than the thing itself, which was transported into the European countries [s], though this name was indeed,

་

[r] See Sulpit. Sever. De vita Martini, cap. x. p. 17. edit. Veron. where the method of living, used by the Martinian monks, is accurately described. See also Histoire Litteraire de la France, tom. i. part II. p. 42.

[s] This difference between the discipline of the eastern and western monks, and the cause of it, have been ingeniously remarked by Sulpitius Severus, Dial. i. De Vila Martini, p. 65. edit. Veron. where one of the interlocutors, in the dialogue, having mentioned the abstemious and wretched diet of the Egyptian monks, adds what follows: "Placetne tibi "prandium, fasiculus herbarum et panis dimidius viris quinque?" To this question the Gaul answers, "Facis "tuo more, qui nullam occasionem omittis, quin nos (i. e. "the Gallic monks) edacitatis fatiges. Sed facis inhumanè, qui nos Gallos homines cogis exemplo Angelorum vivere→→ "Sed contentus sit hoc prandio Cyrenensis ille, cui vel necessitas vel natura est esurire: nos, quod tibi sæpe testatus sum, Galli sumus." The same speaker, in the above-men

66

tioned

CENT. indeed, accompanied with a certain resemblance IV. or distant imitation of the monastic life instituted by Antony and others in the east.

PART II.

Different

monks.

and Ere

mites, or

XV. The monastic order, of which we have orders of been taking a general view, was distributed into several classes. It was first divided into two distinct orders, of which the one received the Coenobites denomination of Coenobites, the other that of Eremites. The former lived together in a fixed Hermits. habitation, and made up one large community under a chief, whom they called father or abbot, which signifies the same thing in the Egyptian language. The latter drew out a wretched life in perfect solitude, and were scattered here and there in caves, in desarts, in the hollow of rocks, sheltered from the wild beasts only by the cover of a miserable cottage, in which each one lived sequestered from the rest of his species.

Anachorites.

The Anachorites were yet more excessive in the austerity of their manner of living than the Eremites. They frequented the wildest desarts without either tents or cottages; nourished themselves with the roots and herbs which grew spontaneously out of the uncultivated ground; wandered about without having any fixed abode, and reposing wherever the approach of night happened to find them: and all this, that they might avoid the view and society of mortals [t].

The

tioned dialogue, ch. viii. p. 69, 70. reproaches Jerome with having accused the monks of gluttony; and proceeds thus: "Sentio de orientalibus illum potius Monachis, quam "de occidentalibus disputasse. Nam edacitas in Græcis et "Orientalibus gula est, IN GALLIS NATURA." It appears, therefore, that, immediately after the introduction of the monastic order into Europe, the western differed greatly from the eastern monks in their manners and discipline, and were, in consequence of this accused by the latter of voraciousness and gluttony.

[] See Sulpit. Sever. Dial. i. De vita Martini, cap. x. p. 80. edit. Veron.

IV.

The last order of monks that came now under CENT. consideration, were those wandering fanatics, or rather impostors, whom the Egyptians called PART II. Sarabaites, who, instead of procuring a subsistence Sarabaites. by honest industry, travelled through various cities and provinces, and gained a maintenance by fictitious miracles, by selling relics to the multitude, and other frauds of a like nature.

Many of the Coenobites were chargeable with vicious and scandalous practices. This order, however, was not so universally corrupt as that of the Sarabaites, who were, for the most part, profligates of the most abandoned kind. As to the Eremites, they seem to have deserved no other reproach than that of a delirious and extravagant fanaticism [u]. All these different orders were hitherto composed of the laity, and were subject to the jurisdiction and the inspection of the bishops. But many of them were now adopted among the Clergy, and that even by the command of the emperors. Nay, The fame of monastic piety and sanctity became so universal, that bishops were frequently chosen out of that fanatical order [w].

maxims a

XVI. If the enthusiastic frenzy of the monks Two most exaggerated, in a manner pernicious to the in-pernicious terests of morality, the discipline that is obliga-dopted in tory upon Christians, the interests of virtue and this centrue religion suffered yet more grievously by two monstrous errors which were almost universally adopted

[u] Whoever is desirous of a fuller account of the vices of the monks in this century, may consult the above mentioned dialogue of Sulp. Sever. cap. viii. p. 69, 70. cap. xxi. p. 88. where he particularly chastises the arrogance and ambition of those of them who aspired to clerical honours. See also Dial. ii. cap. viii. p. 112. Dial. ii. cap. xv. p. 144, 145. Consultat. Apollonii et Zachai, published by Dacherius Spicileg. tom. i. lib. ii. cap. iii. p. 35.

[w] See J. Godofred. ad codicem Theodosianum. tom. vi. part I. p. 76. 106. edit. Ritterianæ.

tury.

IV.

CENT. adopted in this century, and became a source of innumerable calamities and mischiefs in the suc PART II. ceeding ages. The first of these maxims was, "that "it was an act of virtue to deceive and lie, when

66

by that means the interests of the church might "be promoted;" and the second equally horrible, though in another point of view, was, that "errors "in religion, when maintained and adhered to "after proper admonition, were punishable with "civil penalties and corporeal tortures." The former of these erroneous maxims was now of a long standing; it had been adopted for some ages past, and had produced an incredible number of ridiculous fables, fictitious prodigies, and pious frauds, to the unspeakable detriment of that glorious cause in which they were employed And it must be frankly confessed, that the greatest men, and most eminent saints of this century, were more or less tainted with the infection of this corrupt principle, as will appear evidently to such as look with an attentive eye into their writings and their actions. We would willingly except from this charge, Ambrose and Hilary, Augustin, Gregory Nazianzen, and Jerome; but truth, which is more respectable than these venerable fathers, obliges us to involve them in the general accusation. We may add also, that it was, probably, the contagion of this pernicious maxim, that engaged Sulpitius Severus, who is far from being, in the general, a puerile or credulous historian, to attribute so many miracles to St. Martin. The other maxim, relating to the justice and expediency of punishing error, was introduced with those serene and peaceful times which the accession of Constantine to the imperial throne procured to the church. It was from that period approved by many, enforced by several examples during the contests that arose with the Priscillianists and Donatists, confirmed

and