Synodita; which does not signify the attendants of monks, as some civilians1 by mistake explain the word, deriving it from Evv and 'Odirns, Viator; but it denotes the monks themselves, who were so called from their living-iv avvódos-in communities or convents. And in this they differed from anchorets, as has been noted before. Gennadius applies these two names indifferently to this second sort of monks, when he says, "Evagrius wrote a book concerning Coenobites and Synodites, containing rules and directions for leading a life in common." St. Jerom 3 says, the Egyptians called this sort of monks, Sauches, in their proper tongue, which signifies the same as Coenobites in the Greek and Latin Church; and that the anchorets were of a different order from them, and had their name from living in solitude, or singly by themselves in the wilderness.

SECT. 4.-The third, Sarabaitæ,

There was another sort, he says, whom the Egyptians called Remboth, who were a sort of monks that would live as they listed themselves, only two or three together, under no rule or government. They did not resort to the wilderness as the others, but lived chiefly in cities and castles, where every thing they did might be seen and valued by men, which was the only end they aimed at. For they turned religion into an art, and made a real gain of pretended godliness. Whatever they sold of the work of their own hands, was at a higher price than any others. And this made

'Lexicon Juridic. voc. Synoditæ. Genev. 1615. 2 Gennad. de Scriptor, in Evagrio. Composuit de Cœnobitis ac Synoditis doctrinam aptam vitæ communis. Hieron. Ep. 22. ad Eustoch. c. 15. Tria sunt in Ægypto genera monachorum: primum Coenobitæ, quod illi Sauches gentili linguâ vocant; nos, in commune viventes, possumus appellare. Secundum Anachoritæ, quod soli habitant per deserta, et ab eo quod procul ab hominibus recesserint, nuncupantur. Tertium genus est quod Remboth dicunt, deterrimum atque neglectum. 4 lbid. Hi bini vel trini nec multò plures simul habitant, suo arbitratu ac ditione viventes. - Habitant autem quamplurimi in urbibus et castellis: et quasi ars sit sancta, non vita, quicquid vendiderint majoris est pretii. Inter hos sæpe sunt jurgia, quia suo viventes cibo, non patiuntur se alicui esse subjectos. Reverà solent certare jejuniis, et rem secreti victoriæ faciunt. Apud hos affectata sunt omnia, laxæ manicæ, caligæ follicantes, vestis crassior, crebra suspiria, visitatio virginum, detrac io clericorum.

--

Et si quando dies festus venerit, saturantur ad vomitum, &c.

them very turbulent and contentious; for living upon their own labour, they would be subject to no superiors. They fasted to an extraordinary degree; but then they made that, which should have been a private exercise, matter of strife, and public victory, and triumph. Every thing about them was affected, loose sleeves, wide stockings, coarse clothes, often sighing, making frequent visits to the virgins, and always bitterly inveighing against. the clergy. But, if ever there came a feast-day, they would indulge themselves even to riot and excess. These, therefore, St. Jerom justly brands as the pests and banes of the Church. He, that would see more of their character, may consult Cassian,1 among the ancient writers, who exposes them under the name of Sarabaite; and Spalatensis, among the moderns, who draws the parallel between them and the Minorites, Dominicans, Carmelites, Servites, and Minims of the Romish Church.

SECT. 5.-Of the Stylite or Pillarists.

Another sort of monks in the ancient Church, of which there were but a very few, were the Stylite or Pillarists, so called from their taking up a singular way of living perpetually upon a pillar. Simeon, sirnamed Stylites, who lived about the time of the council of Chalcedon, was the first, Evagrius says,3 that introduced this sort of life among the monastic orders. And Theodorus Lector observes, "that the novelty of it at first was so offensive to the Egyptian monks, that they sent anathematizing letters against him; but, upon better information, coming to understand the worth and conversation of the man, they afterward communicated with him." The severity of this way of living was not very inviting, and therefore it made but few proselytes. Theodorus Lector' mentions one Daniel, a disciple of Simeon's, and Evagrius speaks of another Simeon in the time of Mauricius, who lived sixty-eight years upon a pillar, and is commonly called Simeon, Stylites, Junior, to

6

2 Spalat. de Rep. Eccl. lib. ii. c. 12. 4 Theodor, Lect. lib. ii. p. 565.

Evagr. lib. vi. c. 23.

distinguish him from the former. Johannes Moschus' gives an account of two or three more of this way in the same age. Surius, also among his catalogue of saints, has the life of one Alipius, bishop of Adrianople, who renounced his see to live upon a pillar; where, if the story say true, he continued seventy years; having two choirs of virgins, and one of monks, attending him, with whom he sang psalms and hymns alternately night and day. Beside these, we scarce meet with any other of this way in ancient history. An argument, that it was not of any great esteem, when it was first invented in the primitive Church.

SECT. 6.-Of Secular Monks.

Beside these sorts of monks, who renounced the world, and lived in perpetual celibacy, Spalatensis thinks there was another order, which did neither of those things, but lived in a married state and enjoyed their own property and possessions, only they exercised themselves in acts of austerity and religion, as the primitive ascetics were used to do, of whom we have given an account in the former chapter. Thus much is certain from the express words of Atha-` nasius and St. Austin, that in their time some went by the name of monks, who were married men, and possessed of estates. For Athanasius, writing to Dracontius, a monk, to persuade him to accept of a bishopric, to which he was averse, because he thought it would not consist with his ascetic way of living, uses this argument to him: "You may still," says he," after you are made a bishop, hunger and thirst with Paul, and abstain from wine with Timothy, and fast frequently, as St. Paul was wont to do. Let not therefore your counsellors throw such objections in your way. For we know many bishops that fast, and monks that eat and drink; we know bishops that drink no wine, and monks that do; we know bishops that work miracles, and monks that work none. Many bishops are not married; and on the other hand many monks are fathers of children. You may also find bishops that are fathers of children, and monks that are not so; clergy that eat and drink, and

Mosch. Prat. Spir. c. 36, 57, 129.

de Monach. lib. ii. c. 5. p. 22.

* Athan. Ep. ad Dracont. tom. i. p. 958.

2 Surius, tom. 6. Vid. Hospin. 3 Spalat. de Rep. lib. ii. c. 11. n. 22.

monks that fast. For these things are at liberty, and no prohibition laid upon them. Every one exercises himself as he pleases; for it is not men's stations, but their actions, for which they shall be crowned." From these words of Athanasius it seems plain, that as yet the rules of the monastic life obliged no man to renounce either his possessions or a married state, but he might use both, if he pleased, without any ecclesiastical censure. And though the case was a little altered with some monks before St. Austin's time, yet others reserved to themselves their ancient privilege; for St. Austin writing against the heretics, who called themselves Apostolics, says, "They arrogantly assumed to themselves that name, because they rejected all from their communion, who had either wives or estates, of which sort the Catholic Church had many, both monks and clergy." So that at least some monks were still at liberty to enjoy both a conjugal state and possessions of their own, without any impeachment of apostacy or breach of vow in the Catholic Church. For which reason I have given this sort of monks the distinguishing name of seculars.

SECT. 7.—All Monks originally no more than Laymen.

Though to avoid ambiguity in terms, it must be observed, that all monks at first might properly be called seculars, as that name is opposed to ecclesiastics. For monks in their first original were generally laymen, nor could they well be otherwise by their proper constitution, and the general laws of the Catholic Church. For the first monks were generally hermits, that is, persons confined by their own rules to some desert or wilderness, where solitude was thought to help forward the exercises of contemplation and repentance, and they had none to take care of but their own souls. But the clerical life required men to live in towns and cities, where crowds of people afforded them proper occasions to exercise the offices of the clerical function; and it was against the rules of the Catholic Church, as I

1 Aug. de Hæres. c. 40. Apostolici se isto nomine arrogantissimè vocaverunt, eò quòd in suam communionem non reciperent utentes conjugibus, et res proprias possidentes; quales habet Catholica Eeclesia et monachos et clericos plurimos.

have showed in another place,' for any clerk to be ordained without a proper cure or title in some church, where he might do the duties of his function. For this reason it was a thing impracticable in itself, as well as against the rules of the two different states of the clerical and monastic life, that the generality of monks should be clergymen; which, to the confusion of ancient rules and discipline, has been the unwarrantable practice of later ages, especially since the time of Clement V. Anno 1311, who obliged all monks to take holy orders, that they might say private mass for the honour of God, as he esteemed it; which was in truth a manifest trampling on the laws of the ancient Church, and an affront to her practice. For anciently monks were put into the same class with laymen, as they generally were, and considered only as such. St. Jerom gives us at once both the rule and the practice, when he says, "the office of a monk is not to teach, but to mourn;" and "that the cause of the monks and clergy is very different from each other; the clergy are those that feed the sheep, but the monks, among whom he reckons himself, are those that are fed." It is true, St. Jerom was not only a monk, but a presbyter likewise; but being ordained against his will, and resolving to continue a monk, he refused to officiate as a presbyter. Which shows, that he had no great opinion of joining the monk and the clerk together, much less of making all monks in general become clerks according to the modern practice. The council of Chalcedon once or twice very expressly distinguishes the monks from the clergy, and reckons them with the laymen. In one canon it says, "Whoever are instrumental in getting others ordained or promoted to any office in the Church for money or filthy lucre; such transactors, if they be clergymen, shall be deposed; if laymen or monks, excommunicated." And another canon5 forbids monks to meddle with ecclesiastical affairs. Both which canons plainly imply, that the monks

1 Book iv. chap. vi. n. 2.

2 Vid. Clementin. lib. iii. tit. 10. c. 1.

3 Hieron. Ep. 55. ad Ripar. Monachus non docentis, sed plangentis habet officium. Id. Ep. 1. ad Heliodor. Alia monachorum est causa, alia clericorum; clerici pascunt oves, ego pascor. 4 Con. Chalced, c. 2. 5 Ibid. c. 4.